New Futures Initiative Cohorts and Comparative Data Report: 1988-1989 (Year 1), 1989-1990 (Year 2), 1990-1991 (Year 3), and 1991-1992 (Year 4) Metis Associates, Incorporation, New York, New York, , June 1993

The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.
New Futures Initiative Cohorts and Comparative Data Report: 1988-1989 (Year 1), 1989-1990 (Year 2), 1990-1991 (Year 3), and 1991-1992 (Year 4) Little Rock Prepared by: Metis Associates, Inc. 80 Broad Street, Suite 1600 New York, New York 10004 (212) 425-8833 June 1993 This report was prepared in partial fulfillment of a contract between Metis Associates, Inc. and the Center for the Study of Social Policy, Washington, D.C. Foreword In this report we present a series of city-wide analyses covering a number of the core impact variables specified by the New Futures Initiative (e .g., achievement, dropout, suspension). While the analyses show some of the trends and outcomes that have taken place during the first four years of the initiative, they do not constitute an evaluation of the initiative, nor of the school system. Such evaluations would involve far richer and more comprehensive information. Instead, this report contains broad, over-years and longitudinal analyses which reflect the city-wide conditions (inside and outside of the school system) that New Futures is intended to address. We believe that thoughtful presentation of such analyses can engage broad constituencies in valuable discourse leading ultimately to the formulation of improved service-delivery policies and inter-agency collaboration. It is in this spirit that we offer these findings. Acknowledgements We are indebted to the Little Rock School District for providing us with the data for these analyses. In addition, we gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Anita M. Baker and her staff at the Academy for Educational Development toward the writing and production of this report. Little Rock: Cohorts and Comparative Data Report 1988-1989 (Year 1), 1989-1990 (Year 2), 1990-1991 (Year 3), and 1991-1992 (Year 4) Table of Contents Foreword ....... . Acknowledgements I. Introduction 1 A. Structure and Content of the Cohort Files . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . 3 II. B. Types of Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 C. Report Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Analyses ...................................... . A. Over-Years and Longitudinal Analyses of Cohort Variables .... 1. 2. Enrollment ..... .. ... ... . .. .. ....... . a. Grades 7 through 12 ..... . i. Over-years comparisons ii. Characteristics of the Year 4 Cohort iii. Longitudinal comparisons . . . . . . . . b. Grades Kindergarten through 6 . . . . . i. Over-years comparisons ..... ii. Origins of the Year 4 Students Attendance . . . . . . . . . . a. Over-years comparisons b. Longitudinal comparisons ii 10 10 10 10 10 13 17 19 19 21 25 25 25 3. Academic Achievement (Reading and Mathematics) 28 a. Grades 7 through 12 . . ... . 28 i. Over-years comparisons 28 11. Longitudinal comparisons 42 b. Grades Kindergarten through 6 . 47 i. Over-years comparisons 47 ii. Longitudinal comparisons 53 4. Graduation . ... . .... . 58 a. Over-years comparisons 58 b. Longitudinal comparisons 58 i. Two-year Graduation Rates 58 ii. Four-year Graduation Rates 58 5. Retention . ..... ... 61 a. Grades 7 through 12 61 1. Over-years comparisons 61 ii. Longitudinal comparisons 61 m. Over age students . ... 61 b. Grades Kindergarten through 6 . 65 i. Over-years comparisons 65 ii. Longitudinal comparisons 66 iii . Over age students .... 67 iii III. 6. Course Failure ......... . a. Over-years comparisons b. Longitudinal comparisons 7. Out-of-School Suspensions . 8. a. Grades 7 through 12 i. Over-years comparisons ii. Longitudinal comparisons b. Grades Kindergarten through 6 . i. Over-years comparisons . ii . Longitudinal comparisons Dropouts a. Over-years comparisons b. Longitudinal analyses - returning dropouts B. Special Survey Analyses .. . . ... .. .. . . 1. 2. Survey data for secondary students Relationships between survey factors and cohort variables Summary and Conclusion A. B. C. Cross-Grade Comparisons of Year 4 Data . Change in Status (Over-Years Comparisons) Longitudinal Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . IV 68 68 71 72 72 72 72 75 75 76 77 77 81 83 83 83 87 88 97 101 D. Cumulative Enrollment Statuses 1. The 4-Year Cohort . . . . . 2. Two Consecutive Three-Year Cohorts 3. Three Consecutive Two-Year Cohorts E. Cooc~~on .. .. . . . . . . ........ . Appendices Appendix A: Over Cities, Over-Years Comparisons Appendix B: Four Cities Change in Status Appendix C: Over Cities 4-YEAR COHORT FILE Analyses V 104 104 108 108 115 Cohorts and Comparative Data Report: 1988-1989 (Year 1), 1989-1990 (Year 2), 1990-1991 (Year 3), and 1991-1992 (Year 4) Little Rock I. Introduction The New Futures Initiative, sponsored by the Annie E. Casey Foundation, is a fourcity (Dayton, Ohio
Little Rock, Arkansas
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
and Savannah, Georgia), five-year project designed to respond to disadvantaged populations through comprehensive community partnerships. The project aims to increase academic achievement, reduce dropout and teen pregnancy rates, and increase the employability of at-risk middle and high school students. Collaboratives governing the New Futures initiatives agreed to have the impact of their efforts assessed through a common set of indicators. The requirement for consistently defined, standardized, reliable data necessitated the establishment or enhancement of local district capacity for maintaining individualized student information - i.e., a management information system (MIS). Annual unit-record cohort files emanating from each city's MIS have become the centerpiece for the New Futures data collection. Beginning with the 1988-1989 school year, each New Futures city was asked to prepare and transmit an annual cohort file containing, for each student enrolled in grades six (or seven) through twelve at any time during the school year, unique student identification numbers, basic demographic information (school, grade, gender, race/ethnicity, date of birth, free lunch eligibility [available in two cities beginning with the 1989-1990 school year]), and outcomes - standardized, norm-referenced reading and mathematics data, annual attendance rates, course failure information, suspensions and/or expulsions, grade retention, and dropout data. At this point there are four complete cohort files for each participating city - a file for the 1988-1989 school year, a file for the 1989-1990 school year, a file for the 1990-1991 school year, and a file for the 1991-1992 school year. 1 In addition, for the 1991-1992 school years there are complete data for all students in the school systems (kindergarten through twelfth grades)2. 1 Throughout this report we refer to the 1988-1989 school year as Year 1, the 1989-1990 school year as Year 2. the 1990-1991 school year as Year 3, and the 1991-1992 school year as Year 4 . These files are being used for w11hinyt! ar, over-years and matched longitudinal analyses. z Kindergarten through 6th grade data include all basic demographics and available outcome data: norm-referenced achievement test scores, suspension and retention data. In Linle Rock, kindergarten through 6th grade data are also available for the 1990-1991 school year. 1 After the end of the 1992-1993 school year, there will be five consecutive years of reliable data on student demographics and outcomes. Given the high quality, comprehensiveness and continuity of the data collections, the resultant data base offers enormous potential for assessing needs, evaluating outcomes and developing sound educational policy. While many school departments around the country maintain student information systems for a number of discrete applications (e .g., class scheduling, transportation routes , grade reporting, attendance/enrollments, academic achievement) , we know of no other environments in which comprehensive, complete, reliable and continuous files such as the New Futures cities ' files are being maintained, and where common definitions are being consistently applied across several disparate middle-sized cities. When we add to these files the systematic data derived from annually administered individual student surveys (assessing such non-school indicators as home structure, parents' education, academic aspirations, work experiences and sexual and parenting experiences), we have an information base whose potential as a research tool is unparalleled in the field. In addition, in each city, this rich data base is available to an interagency body. We strongly encourage the interagency groups to continue putting this powerful tool to use: to raise community awareness, to set priorities, and to inform and shape policy. For this report, we have analyzed information contained in Little Rock's four annual data files , in combined cohort files that we have created (e.g. , the 4-YEAR COHORT FILES which contain students who have been in the system for all four years) and in Little Rock's survey files from the past three years. In the next section of this report we describe the structure and content of the Little Rock cohort files . 2 A. Structure and Content of the Cohort Files Little Rock School District's unit-record cohort files each contain, among other variables, each of the core indicators required by the Annie E. Casey Foundation - enrollments (including the last grade level and school attended during the school year and such demographic information as gender, race/ethnicity, date of birth and free or reduced fee lunch eligibility), attendance, achievement (standardized, norm-referenced reading and mathematics scores), graduation, retention, course failures, suspensions (out-of-school suspensions for Years 2 through 4 only) and dropouts. Unless otherwise indicated, all variables can be assumed to match the New Futures definitions being consistently applied in all four cities. In the following paragraphs we describe each of these core indicators. The files for Years 1 and 2 contain data only for students enrolled in grades seven through twelve. As of Year 3, data are also available for children in grades kindergarten through six. l. Enrollments Students who have been physically present for at least one day, regardless of age or type of program, are counted as enrolled. The district includes in its enrollment count all students in special or ungraded programs, students beyond the compulsory school age who have not graduated, and students who are temporarily out of school because of extended illness or suspension. The district does not include in its enrollment count students enrolled in non-public schools and students in public institutions other than elementary and secondary schools. The cohort files contain identifying information for each student which includes the student's last school and grade, as well as his/her gender, race/ethnicity and free or reduced fee lunch eligibility. In this report enrollment is reported by grade, by race (black or white)3 , and by race within gender. 2. Attendance Schools transmit daily attendance reports to the central district office's mainframe computer on an exceptions basis
that is, students are assumed present unless otherwise indicated. Students who have been absent three or more periods during the day are counted as absent. Students who have received out-of-school suspensions are reported as "suspended" and therefore not counted as present. Religious holidays are counted as absences, unless they are system-wide. 3 Students from racial/ethnic backgrounds other than black or white are not reported independently . but their numbers can be determined by calculating the difference between the sum of black and white students and the total number of students. 3 To calculate average daily attendance (ADA), the district counts the number of days that each student is present in school, and divides that number by the total number of days of possible attendance for that student (i.e., the number of school days from each student's enrollment date). Annual ADA rates from the cohort files were calculated by dividing the sum of all students' days present by the sum of all students' days of possible attendance. The rates for Year 1, however, were under-reported and possibly slightly inflated due to a minor inconsistency in record-keeping which resulted in the duplicate counting of some students' attendance. Those students with obvious duplications (those whose total number of days exceeded the maximum number of days in the school year) were eliminated from attendance estimates, however, students with duplicate counts which did not exceed the maximum number of school days were unidentifiable and therefore contributed to and probably inflated the estimates by a small margin. The record-keeping inconsistency was corrected and no duplicate counts were included in subsequent cohort files4 . 3. Achievement During the spring of Years 1 through 3, the district administered the complete battery of the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6), a national, standardized norm-referenced achievement test, to students in grades one through eleven. The district scored their achievement tests in-house for all grades except four, seven and ten. The tests for those grades were scored by the State Education Department and data tapes were returned to the district for integration into the student data base and cohort files. Each year the school district merged the achievement results into the cohort files using the student identification numbers. During the spring of Year 4, the district administered the Stanford Achievement Test (SA T-8) . Test scores were merged into the student data base and cohort files. Year 4 test data are reported as converted Stanford Achievement Test scores so as to be comparable to the Metropolitan Achievement Test data reported in Years 1 through 3. For each tested student the cohort files contain percentile ranks and normal curve equivalents (NCEs) associated with raw scores (i.e., the number of correct answers) for Total Reading and/or for Total Math. Percentile ranks indicate the percentage of raw scores in a normative group that fall below a particular student's raw score. For example, if a student's raw score converts to a percentile rank of 43, then that student scored higher than approximately forty-three percent of the students in the normative group. Percentile ranks range from 1 to 99. Students scoring at or below the 25th percentile are said to be in the first (lowest) quartile. Similarly, students scoring between the 26th percentile and the median (i.e., 50th percentile) are in the second quartile, students scoring between the 51st and 75th percentiles are in the third quartile, and students scoring above the 75th percentile are in the fourth (highest) quartile. Therefore, in a statistically "normal" distribution, approximately twenty-five percent of the population would be included within each of the 4 The Year I errors also impact the differences reported on Tables 2.1. 2 .2 and 2.3. Declines in attendance may be at least partly due 10 the slightly inflated rates reported in Year I. 4 four quartiles. It is important to note that the percentile scale is not composed of equal units. For example, a raw score difference between percentile ranks 5 and 10 is far greater than a raw score difference between percentile ranks 45 and 50. Because these measurement units are unequal, it is not appropriate to use them for statistical analyses, and percentile rank differences ought not be compared. By contrast, normal curve equivalents (NCEs) are based on equal intervals. NCEs are similar to percentiles in that their range is from 1 to 99, and their midpoint also is 50. However, because NCEs are composed of equal intervals, they may be used in statistical analyses, and NCE differences (within and between test instruments) may be directly compared. Since percentile ranks are more familiar (and intuitively more appealing), we have converted NCE statistics to percentile rank equivalents. 4. Graduation The district counts as graduates all students who receive a certificate of completion or other designation conferred by a district-affiliated public educational institution indicating that the student has completed a program of study. This includes special education students who successfully complete Individual Education Plans (IEPs), and students who complete their graduation requirements after summer school. There are no vocational education diplomas: in order to graduate, all Little Rock students who take courses at the Metropolitan Vocational-Tech Center must be enrolled in Little Rock high schools, and must complete their required Little Rock School District credits. Students who leave the Little Rock School District and complete a GED or other high school equivalency certificate are not counted as graduates. In Years 1 and 4 (after installation of a new computer system), the district was only able to estimate the number of graduates by counting all 12th grade students who had not transferred, dropped out or been retained. In Years 2 and 3, completion of graduation requirements was indicated in the cohort file by addition of a graduation code. Only those students whose records contained that code were counted as graduates during Years 2 and 3. Therefore, data for Years 1 and 4 represent estimates (over counts) of the number of graduates, while data for Years 2 an 3 represent actual counts of students who completed all graduation requirements. 5. Retention In Year l and Year 4, retention counts were determined by comparing student grade level status based on fall enrollment with projected grade level status based on the prior June's enrollment. Students whose actual fall enrollments differed from their projected enrollments were counted as retained. For Years 2 and 3 retention counts were derived by tallying the number of students who had not successfully completed their course requirements at the end of the school year. Students who attend summer school and achieve promotion are excluded from retention counts. Data for Years 1 and 4 also represent estimates of the number of students who were retained. (Retention status could only be determined for students who remained in the system across the two year periods, [Years l to 2, and Years 3 5 to 41 . Some students may have been retained and subsequently transferred out or dropped out of school and therefore not included in Year 1 or Year 4 estimates). Policies regarding grade retention differ according to school level. Grade retention policy for grades seven and eight is that students who fail two or more courses are retained unless they attend summer school and successfully complete the failed courses. For grades nine through twelve, the district's policy is that students ' grade levels are advanced each year unless there is a serious credit deficiency or credit deficiency in core academic subjects. Closely related to retention is the variable over age . (Retention at any time during students ' academic careers generally make them older than their non-retained classmates.) The cohort files contain each student's birth date. Each student's age can be calculated from the birth date contained in the cohort file. Students are considered over age if, by June 30th, they are at least one year and six months above the appropriate grade-level age for students who finished 1st grade at age seven. The over age thresholds for grades kindergarten through twelve are, respectively, 7.5, 8.5 , 9.5, 10.5, 11.5 , 12.5, 13.5 , 14.5 , 15.5 , 16.5, 17 .5, 18.5 and 19.5. 6 6. Course Failures District practices for collecting and reporting course failure data are consistent with the New Futures definition for course failure. Any student who receives one or more course grades of "F" for regular or summer school courses is included in cohort counts. In accordance with the New Futures definition, Little Rock keeps separate course failure information for summer school. Courses and, therefore, course failures are defined differently for junior high school and high school students. For junior high school grades seven and eight, courses are graded on an annual basis. For junior high school ninth grade and high school grades ten through twelve, all course grades are for semesters. A grade of "F" in either a semester or an annual course is counted as a course failure in the cohort files. Because of variations between high school and junior high school accounting of course failure, we also calculated the percentage of courses failed. Any comparison of junior high school and high school course failure is based on the percentage of courses failed. 7. Suspensions For Years 2 through 4, the numbers of short-term (3 to 10 days), out-of-school suspensions were recorded in a newly activated field in each student's record. (Until Year 2, the only available suspension data were counts of incidents of suspension.) Other types of suspensions (i.e., long-term, in-school) are counted in Little rock, however they are not included in the cohort file. 8. Dropouts Students who enter the military, leave to get married or work, leave school and enter non-state approved school programs, leave school between terms and do not re-enroll elsewhere ("summer-leavers"), or leave school between terms but are not identified as transfers ("no shows"), are counted as dropouts in the cohort file. Students who leave school to get their GEDs are also counted as dropouts. Students who are deceased, incarcerated. or enroll in another approved school (public or private) after attending Little Rock's schools for at least one day are counted as withdrawals and transfers. Two kinds of dropouts are reported from the cohort file: presumed dropouts, and students who are unaccounted for. "Presumed dropouts" are those students who are known to have dropped out of school or who have accumulated more than 15 days of consecutive unexcused absences. Students who are "unaccounted for" were enrolled in the previous school year but unexpectedly did not return to school by October of the following school year ("no shows" and summer-leavers). It is important to note that the cohort file may slightly overstate the dropout rate because the "unaccounted for" category could include some number of students who are actually attending schools outside of the Little Rock public school system but whose records were not updated to reflect such out-of-district transfers. 7 B. Types of Analyses This report contains a series of analyses for each of the main cohort file variables - enrollments, attendance, achievement, graduation, promotion/retention, course failure, suspension and dropout. For each variable we include over-years comparisons (i .e., crosssectional comparisons of the 7th-12th grade students reported in the Year 1 file [1988-89] with the 7th-12th grade students reported in subsequent files) and longitudinal comparisons (e.g., Year 1 to Year 2 comparisons for students appearing in both cohort files). For some variables, we have conducted special longitudinal analyses comparing consecutive cohorts (e.g. , Years 1 - 2 versus Years 2 - 3 and Years 3 - 4), and special analyses for students who appear in each of the four years (i.e., the 4-YEAR COHORT FILE). Over-years comparisons show side-by-side statistics for each of the four years for which we have files. Also noted in the over-years comparisons are changes from Year 1 to Year 4. These changes are computed in one of two ways - as percentage changes or as differences in percentage points. The following is an example of a percentage change. In Year 1, there were 13,203 students included in Little Rock's 7th-12th grade file. In Year 4, there were 12,294 students in the 7th-12th grade files. This constitutes a 6.9 percent decrease in enrollments at these grades (Year 4 minus Year 1, quantity divided by Year 1). The following is an example of a difference in percentage points. In Little Rock's junior high schools in Year 1, the average daily attendance (ADA) was 90.2 percent. In Year 4, the ADA was 89.5 percent. This constitutes a 0.7 percentage point decline in ADA (Year 4 minus Year 1). Over-years comparisons can be used to show trends from Year 1 through Year 4. However, since over-years comparisons always involve substantially different groups of children (e.g. , the seventh-graders in Year 1 are different students than the seventh graders in Year 4), we advise caution when interpreting these results. By contrast, longitudinal analyses enable us to follow the performance of specific students and groups of students over time. Longitudinal comparisons show data for those students who appear in files for more than one school year. For example, of the 13,203 7th-12th graders appearing in Little Rock's Year 1 file , 9,274 students, or 70.2 percent of the Year 1 group, also appear in Year 2, 6,512 students, or 49.3 percent appear in Year 3, and, 4,370 students, or 33 .1 percent were enrolled all four years. The students no longer appearing in Years 2, 3 and 4 have either graduated, transferred out of the school district, been expelled, or dropped out of school. Longitudinal analyses of enrollments, attendance, achievement, or any of the other variables, study the changing status or performance of those students who attended school 8 during two or more school years. Longitudinal analyses are made possible through the use of the unique student identification numbers. Inter-relationships are demonstrated by combining variables from the cohort files with variables from the survey files. For example, analyses have been conducted to show inter-relationships between dwelling in a single-parent household and low achievement (low achievement is more common among surveyed students from single-parent homes than it is among surveyed students who aren't from single-parent homes). C. Report Organization Sections II and III of this report present results of the cohort file analyses. In Section IIA we report over-years and longitudinal analyses for each of the cohort file variables. In Section IIB we report: survey data for secondary students and relationships between school outcome variables and selected survey variables. Section III summarizes the data presented in the report in graphic and tabular form. Additionally, the cumulative enrollment status for each cohort is examined, by grade level. This report contains a small sample of the analyses which have been conducted to date on the cohort files. Selected statistics focus on differences between grade levels and between . races. The Appendix to this report presents selected over-years and longitudinal analyses for all New Futures cities including combined cities totals. 9 II. Analyses A. Over-Years and Longitudinal Analyses of Cohort Variables The following section presents over-years and longitudinal analyses for students enrolled in grades 7 through 12 for Year 1 through 4, and for students enrolled in grades K through 12 for Years 3 through 4. Because outcomes and trends in the elementary school grades tend to be different from outcomes in the secondary school grades, and because the elementary school data are not available for the first two years of the initiative, elementary school data are presented in separate tables. Since elementary school data are only available for the 1990-91 and 1991-92 school years, over-years and longitudinal analyses can only be conducted for Year 3 and Year 4. 1. Enrollment a. Grades 7 Through 12 i. Over-years comparisons Table 1.1 shows, across grades, by race and by gender, the Little Rock cohort enrollments in each year and the percentage change in enrollments over the four-year period. It can be seen for example, that, overall, 7th to 12th grade enrollments decreased by 6. 9 percent, from 13,203 students in Year 1 to 12,294 students in Year 4. This decrease can be attributed almost entirely to the changes in the numbers of white students enrolled in the system (enrollments for white students decreased by 19.0%, from 5,392 in Year 1 to 4,365 in Year 4). Enrollments for black students, while fluctuating over the four years, increased slightly by 1.2 percent between Year 1 and Year 4 (from 7,616 to 7,714). Grade level data show enrollment decreases between Years 1 and 4 at each grade except 7 and 9. There were substantial decreases in all high school grades between Years and 4 (13.1 % at the 10th grade level, 14.9% at the 11th grade level, and 9.0% at the 12th grade level). At the junior high school level, there were slight increases overall at the 7th and 9th grade levels, and decreases in 8th grade. Between Years 3 and 4, however, the trends were somewhat different. Junior high enrollments increased slightly overall, and high school enrollments decreased by only 0.1 percent. Table 1.2 shows changes in enrollment distributions for each year. It can be seen in the table that the percentage of black students in 7th through 12th grades has been increasing , while the percentage of white students has declined (black students comprised 57. 7 % of the 7th-12th grade population in Year 1 and 62.7% in Year 4, while the percentage of white students declined from 40.8% to 35.5%) . The gender composition has remained fairly constant and racial trends within gender are consistent with racial trends overall (i.e., the percentages of black males and black females are changing relative to the percentages of white males and white females). LITTLE ROCK Table 1.1 ENROLLMENT COMPARISONS Distribution in Enrollment, Across Grades, by Race and Gender: 198889(Yr. 1) to 199192(Yr. 4). Grade Level =========================================zz=========m===============~--sa: 7 8 9 10 11 12 7-9 10-12 Total ===============================================================================2 Totals Year 1 2,226 2,317 2,047 2,432 2,210 1,971 6,590 6,613 13,203 Totals Year 2 2,193 2,173 1,978 2,213 2,055 1,888 6,344 6,156 12,500 Totals Year 3 2,161 2,242 2,018 2,047 1,899 1,844 6,421 5,790 12,211 Totals Year 4 2,234 2,189 2,084 2,113 1,881 1,793 6,507 5,787 12,294 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Change in Enrollment Change Yrs 1-2 -1.5X -6.2X -3.4X -9.0X -7.0X 4.2X -3.7X -6.9X -5.3X Change Yrs 2-3 -1.5X 3.2% 2.01 -7.5X -7.6X 2.3X 1.2X -5.9X 2.3X Change Yrs 3-4 3.4% -2.4X 3.3% 3.2% -0.9X -2.8" 1.31 0.1X 0.7% Change Yrs 1-4 0.4% 5.5X 1.8% -13.1% -14.9% -9.0X -1 .31 12.5X -6.9" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RACE Black Year 1 1,444 1,468 1,198 1,448 1, 131 927 4,110 3,506 7,616 Black Year 2 1,442 1,453 1,221 1,318 1,160 949 4,116 3,427 7,543 Black Year 3 1,458 1,499 1,289 1,221 1,074 1,046 4,246 3,341 7,587 Black Year 4 1,488 1,499 1,361 1,292 1,073 1,001 4,348 3,366 7,714 1./hi te Year 1 741 813 820 950 1,055 1,013 2,374 3,018 5,392 White Year 2 n2 680 n1 863 869 909 2,123 2,641 4,764 1./hite Year 3 683 717 689 787 794 771 2,089 2,352 4,441 1./hite Year 4 718 666 699 765 763 754 2,083 2,282 4,365 GENDER BY RACE Males Year 1 1,151 1,179 997 1,218 1,065 955 3,327 3,238 6,565 Males Year 2 1,121 1,115 990 1,078 1,006 867 3,226 2,951 6,177 Males Year 3 1,115 1,110 1,003 971 893 874 3,228 2,738 5,966 Males Year 4 1,137 1,100 1,034 1,007 882 831 3,271 2,no 5,991 Black Year 1 n2 737 603 730 547 467 2,062 1,744 3,806 Black Year 2 740 n6 605 669 573 419 2,071 1,661 3,732 Black Year 3 764 742 629 588 530 493 2,135 1,611 3,746 Black Year 4 761 769 669 625 506 471 2,199 1,602 3,801 White Year 1 411 425 379 473 507 477 1,215 1,457 2,6n White Year 2 361 370 368 389 422 432 1,099 1,243 2,342 White Year 3 343 353 355 367 342 369 1,051 1,078 2,129 White Year 4 361 324 350 361 363 335 1,035 1,059 2,094 Females Year 1 1,075 1,138 1,050 1,214 1,145 1,016 3,263 3,375 6,638 Females Year 2 1,on 1,058 988 1,135 1,049 1,021 3,118 3,205 6,323 Females Year 3 1,046 1,132 1,015 1,076 1,006 970 3,193 3,052 6,245 Females Year 4 1,097 1,089 1,050 1,106 999 962 3,236 3,067 6,303 Black Year 1 n2 731 595 718 584 460 2,048 1,762 3,810 Black Year 2 702 n1 616 649 587 530 2,045 1,766 3,811 Black Year 3 694 757 660 633 544 553 2,111 1,730 3,841 Black Year 4 n1 730 692 667 567 530 2,149 1,764 3,913 1,/h i te Year 1 330 388 441 477 548 536 1,159 1,561 2,no 1,/h i te Year 2 361 310 353 474 447 477 1,024 1,398 2,422 White Year 3 340 364 334 420 452 402 1,038 1,274 2,312 White Year 4 357 342 349 404 400 419 1,048 1,223 2,271 Note: Students from racial/ethnic backgrO\rlds other than 'Black' or '1./hite' were not included in the 'RACE' categories because their nurcers were minimal. Therefore, grade level totals are greater than the sun of racial categories. Source: Little Rock Cohort Files 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92. 11 LITTLE ROCK Table 1.2 ENROLLMENT CCl4PARISONS Percentage Distribution of Change in Enrollment, Across Grades, by Race and Gender: 198889(Yr. 1) to 199192(Yr. 4). Grade Level ==========zm=============m===rms=~=== ~rmmm::sz:-------=---= 7 8 9 10 11 12 7-9 10-12 Total ==============================================--============================== Totals Year 1 2,226 2,317 2,047 2,432 2,210 1,971 6,590 6,613 13,203 Totals Year 2 2,193 2,173 1,978 2,213 2,055 1,888 6,344 6,156 12,500 Totals Year 3 2,161 2,242 2,018 2,047 1,899 1,844 6,421 5,790 12,211 Totals Year 4 2,234 2,189 2,084 2,113 1,881 1,793 6,507 5,787 12,294 RACE Black Year 1 64.9" 63.4X 58.SX 59.5X 51.2X 47.0% 62.4X 53.0X 57.7" Black Year 2 65.8X 66.9" 61. 7X 59.6X 56.4X 50.3X 64.9" 55.7" 60.3X Black Year 3 67.5X 66.9" 63.9% 59.6X 56.6X 56. 7" 66.1X 57.7% 62.1X Black Year 4 66.6X 68.5X 65.3X 61.1X 57.0X 55.8% 66.8% 58.2X 62.7% White Year 1 33.3X 35.1X 40.1X 39.1X 47.7% 51.4X 36.0X 45.6X 40.8X White Year 2 32.9" 31.3X 36.51 39.0X 42.3X 48.1X 33.5X 42.9" 38.1X White Year 3 31.6X 32.0X 34.11 38.4X 41.8% 41.8% 32.5X 40.6X 36.4X White Year 4 32.1X 30.4X 33.SX 36.2X 40.6X 42.1X 32.0X 39.4X 35.SX GENDER BY RACE Hales Year 1 51.7% so. 9" 48.7" 50.1X 48.2" 48.5X 50.5X 49.0X 49. 7" Hales Year 2 51. 1X 51.3X 50.1X 48. 7" 49.0X 45.9" 50.9" 47.9" 49.4% Hales Year 3 51.6% 49.SX 49.7% 47.4% 47.0% 47.4X 50.3% 47.3% 48.9" Hales Year 4 50.9" 50.3% 49.61 47.7" 46.9" 46.3X 50.3X 47.01 48.7% Black Year 1 32.41 31.8" 29.51 30.01 24.8% 23. 7" 31.3X 26.41 28.8% Black Year 2 33. 7" 33.4% 30.61 30.2" 27.9" 22.2" 32.6% 27.01 29.9" Black Year 3 35.4X 33.1X 31.2" 28.7" 27 .9" 26. 7" 33.3X 27.8% 30. 7" Black Year 4 34.1X 35.1X 32.1X 29.6X 26.9" 26.3X 33.8% 27.7% 30.9" White Year 1 18.SX 18.3X 18.51 19.4X 22. 9" 24.2" 18.4X 22.0X 20.2% White Year 2 16.SX 17.0X 18.61 17.6% 20.5X 22.9" 17.3% 20.2% 18. 7" White Year 3 15.9" 15. 7" 17.61 17.9" 18.0% 20.0% 16.4% 18.6X 17.4X White Year 4 16.2X 14.8% 16.8" 17.1X 19.3X 18. 7" 15.9" 18.3X 17.0X Females Year 1 48.3X 49.1X 51.3X 49.9" 51.8% 51.5X 49.5% 51.0X 50.3X Females Year 2 48. 9" 48. 7" 49.9" 51.3% 51.0% 54.1X 49.1X 52.1% 50.6X Females Year 3 48.4X 50.SX 50.3X 52.6% 53.0X 52.6% 49.7% 52. 7" 51.1% Females Year 4 49.1% 49. 7" 50.41 52.3X 53.1% 53. 7" 49.7" 53.0X 51.3% Black Year 1 32.4X 31.5% 29.1X 29.5% 26.4% 23.3% 31.1X 26.6X 28. 9" Black Year 2 32.0X 33.5% 31.1X 29.3% 28.6% 28.1% 32.2" 28.7" 30.5% Black Year 3 32.1X 33.8" 32.7% 30.9" 28.6X 30.0% 32.9" 29.9" 31.5X Black Year 4 32.SX 33.3% 33.2" 31.6X 30.1% 29.6X 33.0X 30.5X 31.8% White Year 1 14.8% 16.7" 21.51 19.6% 24.8% 27.2" 17.6% 23.61 20.6X White Year 2 16.5% 14.3% 17.8" 21.41 21.8% 25.3X 16.1% 22. 7" 19.4X White Year 3 15. 7" 16.2% 16.61 20.5% 23.8% 21.8% 16.2X 22.0X 18.9" White Year 4 16.0X 15.6X 16.7% 19.1% 21.3% 23.4% 16.1X 21.1x 18.SX Note: Students from racial/ethnic backgrOl.llds other than 'Black' or 'White' were not included in the 'RACE' categories because their nuicers were minimal. Therefore, grade level totals are greater than the sun of racial categories. Source: Little Rock Cohort Files 198889, 198990, 199091, 199192. 12 ii. Characteristics of the Year 4 Cohort Table 1. 3 and the accompanying figure present, for high school students who appear in the Year 4 cohort, the years of enrollment, by grade in Year 4. It can be seen, for example, that 69.0 percent of Year 4's 10th grade students were enrolled in the Little Rock School District in each of the past four years, 4.4 percent were enrolled in each of the past three years, 7.9 percent were enrolled in Years 3 and 4, and 18.6 percent were enrolled in Year 4 only. Overall, in each succeeding grade, relatively more students were enrolled in all four years, and relatively fewer students were enrolled in Year 4 only. Thus, in Year 4, 7 5. 9 percent of the 12th graders and 69. 0 percent of the 10th graders were enrolled in all four years, and 7.8 percent of the 12th graders and 18.6 percent of the 10th graders were enrolled in Year 4 only. Tables 1.3a and 1.3b show the same data by race . By comparing the two tables it can be seen that greater proportions of black Year 4 students than white Year 4 students were enrolled in all four years. Overall, 80.9 percent of black Year 4 students were enrolled in all four years, compared to 59.6 percent of white Year 4 students. One group of particular interest in Table 1.3 is the 4,147 students were enrolled in all four years. Students in this longitudinal cohort are especially important to us because they are the ones who have been students in Little Rock School District throughout the New Futures Initiative, and for whom we have four years of complete data. We are able to compare their outcomes over time with the assurance that many of their basic experiences are the same (e.g ., the same suspension and retention policies governed their discipline and progress) . Overall, there have been 4,370 students who have been with us for each of the four years of the initiative. 5 5 This includes 223 students who, due to retentions, were still in 7th , 8th or 9th grade in Year 4. 13 Little Rock Table 1.3 Year 4 Students, Years of Enrollment Grade in Year 4 10th 11th 12th Total All 4 Years 1,459 1,3_27 1,361 4,147 69.0% 70.5% 75 .9% 71.8% Years 2 - 4 93 87 162 342 4.4% 4.6% 9.0% 5.9% Years 3 - 4 167 223 130 520 7.9% 11.9% 7.3% 9.0% Year 4 Only 394 244 140 778 18.6% 13.0% 7.8% 13 .3% I Total I 2,113 1,881 1,793 5,779 Figure 1.3: Years of Enrollment For Year 4 Students -- All Students 100% 'U Q) 75% 0 '- C UJ -en C (1) 'U 50% -:::::, Cl) -0 -C Q) () '- 25% Q) a.. 1 0th 11th 1 2th Total \ ~ All 4 Yrs CJ Yrs 2-4 CJ Yrs 3-4 ~ Yr 4 Only 14 'U Q) .0.. . C: w (/) +-' C: Q) 'U ::::J +-' Cl) -0 +-' C: Q) .C..J. Q) a.. Little Rock Table 1.3a Year 4 Students, Years of Enrollment Black Students D Grade in Year 4 10th 11th 12th Total All 4 Years 1,021 863 840 2,724 79.0% 80.4% 83 .9% 80.9% Years 2 - 4 54 33 47 134 4.2% 3.1 % 4.7% 4.0% Years 3 - 4 68 77 50 195 5.3% 7.2% 5.0% 5.8% Year 4 Only 149 100 64 313 11.5% 9.3% 6.4% 9.3% I Total I 1,292 1,073 1,001 3,366 Figure 1.3a: Years of Enrollment For Year 4 Students -- Black Students 100% 75% 50% 25% 1 0th 11th 1 2th Total I III All 4 Yrs [=:J Yrs 2-4 [=:J Yrs 3-4 L] Yr 4 Only 15 "C Q) .0.. . C w ..(./.). C Q) "C ..~... Cl) -0 ..... C Q) .u... Q) a.. Little Rock Table 1.3b Year 4 Students, Years of Enrollment White Students D Grade in Year 4 10th 11th 12th Total All 4 Years 416 439 505 1,360 54.4% 57 .5% 67 .0% 59.6% Years 2 - 4 36 52 109 197 4.7% 6.8% 14.5% 8.6% Years 3 - 4 93 139 78 310 12.2% 18.2% 10.3% 13 .5% Year 4 Only 220 133 62 415 28.8% 17.4% 8.2% 18.1 % I Total I 765 763 754 2,282 Figure 1.3b: Years of Enrollment For Year 4 Students -- White Students 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% 1 0th 11th 1 2th Total I 1111 All 4 Yrs CJ Yrs 2-4 CJ Yrs 3-4 ~ Yr 4 Only 16 iii. Longitudinal comparisons The 4-YEAR COHORT FILE. Table 1.4 shows the number and percentage of students by race and grade in the 4-YEAR COHORT FILE. It can be seen in the table that 4,370 students have been in the cohort files for all four years . Of these students, 2,920 (66 .8%) were black (compared with 57.7% of the Year 1 students) and 1,386 (31.7%) were white ( compared with 40. 8 % in Year 1). This suggests that more black students than white students are staying through the 4-year period. As anticipated, most of the students (94. 9%) in the 4-YEAR COHORT FILE were in grades 10 through 12 in Year 4. I Little Rock Table 1.4 Number and Percentage of Students in the 4-YEAR COHORT FILE By Race/Ethnicity, Grade and Gender Race [:] Grade in Year 4 White Black Other 7 N 0 0 0 0 % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8 N I 19 0 20 % 0.1% 0.7% 0.0% 0.5% 9 N 25 177 I 203 % 1.8% 6.1% 1.6% 4.6% 10 N 416 1,021 22 1,456 % 30.0% 35 .0% 34.4% 33 .4% II N 439 863 25 1,327 % 31.7% 29.6% 39 . l % 30.4% 12 N 505 840 16 1,361 % 36 .4% 28.8% 25 .0% 31.1 % Total I N I 1,386 2,920 64 4,370 % 31.7% 66.8% 1.5 100.0% 17 Three consecutive two-year cohorts. Table 1.5 shows the percent of 7th-11th grade students in each year who also appear in the successive year's cohort files (see footnote six below). Overall, 82.6 percent of the 11,232 Year 1 7th-11th grade students appeared in the Year 2 cohort file. From Year 2 to Year 3, 84.0 percent of the 10,612 7th-11th grade students remained in the cohort file. Similarly, 84.3 percent of Year 3's students remained in the cohort file. Between Years 1 and 2 and Years 2 and 3, a greater proportion of black students than white students remained in the cohort files. Between Years 3 and 4, the proportions of black and white students remaining in the cohort file were nearly equal. Most importantly, Table 1. 5 suggests that enrollment trends over the three two twoyear time segments were fairly constant. Total enrollment, subgroup enrollment and inf.out migration of students appear relatively stable. The two-year period between Years 3 and 4 shows an increase in the proportion of white students remaining in the cohort file, and a slight decline in the proportion of black students remaining. Table 1.5 Percent of 7th to 11th Grade Students in Subsequent Cohort Files, By Race6 I I Total I Black I White Enrollment Grades 7-11, Year l 11,232 6,689 4,379 Percent Enrolled in Year 2 82.6% 85.2% 78.6% Enrollment Grades 7-11, Year 2 10,612 6,594 3,855 Percent Enrolled in Year 3 84.0% 86.5% 79.9% Enrollment Grades 7-11, Year 3 10,367 6,541 3,670 Percent Enrolled in Year 4 84.3% 84.8% 84.l % I 6 Students in the 12th grade are expected to graduate and are not expected to appear in the succeeding year's cohort tile. 18 b. Grades Kindergarten through 6 i. Over-years comparisons Tables 1.6 and 1.6a show the frequency and percentage distribution of enrollment for students enrolled in grades kindergarten through six in Years 3 and 4. Year 4's total enrollment was slightly lower than Year 3's enrollment. Declines were experienced at all elementary grades except the second and sixth. The racial composition at the elementary level was fairly constant. About 65 percent of the students are black and about 35 percent are white. Table 1.6 ENROLLMENT Percent Change in Enrollment, Across Grades, by Race and Gender for 199091(Yr. 3) and 199192(Yr. 4). Grade Level K 2 3 4 5 6 Total Totals Year 3 2,178 2,451 2,167 2,183 2,352 2,255 2,090 15,676 Totals Year 4 2,144 2,389 2,207 2,061 2,213 2,236 2,178 15,428 Change Yrs 34 1.6X 2.5X 1.8X 5.6X 5.9X 0.8X 4.2X 1.6X RACE Black Year 3 1,381 1,573 1,387 1,380 1,521 1,459 1,387 10,088 Black Year 4 1,344 1,529 1,367 1,307 1,415 1,485 1,406 9,853 White Year 3 771 844 756 m 799 m 673 5,393 \Jhite Year 4 772 826 803 728 768 726 743 5,366 GENDER BY RACE Hales Year 3 1,130 1,257 1,113 1,106 1,206 1,140 1,059 8,011 Hales Year 4 1,105 1,253 1,130 1,045 1,120 1,138 1,097 7,888 Black Year 3 696 799 703 683 778 739 697 5,095 Black Year 4 689 788 690 646 706 749 716 4,984 \Jhite Year 3 424 441 401 408 411 390 345 2,820 \Jhite Year 4 405 451 420 385 399 376 365 2,801 Females Year 3 1,048 1,194 1,054 1,077 1,146 1, 115 1,031 7,665 Females Year 4 1,039 1,136 1,077 1,016 1,093 1,098 1,081 7,540 Black Year 3 685 774 684 697 743 720 690 4,993 Blaclc Year 4 655 741 677 661 709 736 690 4,869 \Jhite Year 3 347 403 355 369 388 383 328 2,573 \Jhite Year 4 367 375 383 343 369 350 378 2,565 Note: Students from racial/ethnic backgrounds other than 'Black or '\Jhite were not included in the 'RACE' categories because their nunbers were minimal. Therefore, grade level totals are greater than the sun of racial categories. Source: Li ttle Rocle Cohort Fi les 1990-91, 1991 92. 19 Totals Year 3 Totals Year 4 RACE Black Year 3 Black Year 4 White Year 3 White Year 4 GENOER BY RACE Males Year 3 Males Year 4 Black Year 3 Black Year 4 White Year 3 White Year 4 Females Year 3 Females Year 4 Black Year 3 Black Year 4 White Year 3 White Year 4 LITTLE ROCK Table 1.6a ENROLLMENT Percentage of Change in Enrollment, Across Grades, by Race, 1990-91 (Yr. 3) and 1991-92 (Yr. 4). I( 2,178 2,144 63.4X 62.?X 35.4X 36. 0X 51.9X 51 . SX 32.0X 32.1X 19.SX 18.9X 48.1X 48.SX 31.SX 30 . 6X 15.9X 17.1X 2,451 2,389 64.2X 64.0X 34.4X 34.6X 51.3X 52.4X 32.6X 33.0X 18.0X 18.9X 48.?X 47.6X 31.6X 31.0X 16.4X 15.?X 2 2, 167 2,207 64.0X 61.9X 34.9X 36.4X 51.4X 51.2X 32.4X 31.3X 18 .SX 19.0X 48.6X 48.8X 31 .6X 30.?X 16.4X 17.4X Grade Level 3 2,183 2,061 63.2X 63.4X 35.6X 35.3X 50.?X 50.?X 31.3X 31.3X 18.?X 18.?X 49.3X 49.3X 31.9X 32.1X 16.9X 16.6X 4 2,352 2,213 64.?X 63.9X 34.0X 34.?X 51.3X 50.6X 33.1X 31.9X 17.SX 18.0X 48.?X 49.4X 31.6X 32.0X 16.SX 16.?X 2,255 2,236 64.?X 66.4X 34.3X 32.SX 50.6X 50.9X 32.8X 33.SX 17.3X 16.8X 49.4X 49.1X 31.9X 32.9X 17.0X 15.?X 6 2,090 2,178 66.4X 64.6X 32.2X 34.1X 50.?X 50.4X 33.3X 32.9X 16.SX 16.8X 49.3X 49.6X 33.0X 31.?X 15. 7X 17.4X Total 15,676 15,428 64.4X 63.9X 34.4X 34.8X 51.1X 51.1X 32.SX 32.3% 18.0X 18.2% 48.9X 48.9X 31.9% 31.6% 16 .4% 16.6% Note: Students from racial/ethnic backgrounds other than 'Black' or 'White' were not included in the 'RACE' categories because their nurbers were minimal. Therefore, grade level totals are greater than the sum of racial categories. Source: Little Rock Cohort Files 1990-91, 1991-92. 20 ii. Origins of the Year 4 Students The origins of all Year 4 elementary school students, by race are described in Tables 1. 7 through 1. 7b. Specifically, the tables show, by grade, the number and percent of Year 4 students who were new to the system, and for those who were also enrolled in Year 3, the number and percent who had advanced one grade, remained in the same grade, or advanced more than one grade in Year 4. It can be seen in the tables that (excluding kindergarten students, all of whom were new), about 14 percent of all elementary school students were new to the system in Year 4 (including 9.4% of black students and 21.1 % of white students). Most of the students (82.4%) in the 1st through 6th grades had been in the system during Year 3 and had advanced one grade level (including 85.6% of black students, and 76.9.% of white students). The table also shows that first grade has the greatest proportion of new arrivals, (17.3 percent of the students are new to the system, compared to 14% or less for other grades), and the highest grade retention rate (11. 9 percent had been Little Rock 1st graders the previous year). 21 Table 1. 7: Origins of All Year 4 Elementary School Students7 I I Grade in Year 4 [
J Status I 2 3 4 5 6 New to System in Year N 413 315 276 323 271 226 1,824 4 % 17.3% 14.3% 13.4% 14.6% 12.l % 10.4% 13.7% Advanced One Grade N 1,692 1,783 1,742 1,850 1,942 1,931 10,940 From Year 3 % 70.8% 80.8% 84.5% 83.6% 86.9% 88.7% 82.4% Retained In Same N 284 103 34 37 18 8 484 Grade As Year 3 % 11.9% 4.7% 1.6% 1.7% 0.8% 0.4% 3.6% Multi-promoted From N NIA 6 9 3 5 13 36 Year 3 % NIA 0.3% 0.4% 0.1 % 0.2% 0.6% 0.3% I Total I N I 2,389 2,207 2,061 2,213 2,236 2,178 I 13,284 I % Multi-promoted (0.3%) Figure 1.7: Origins of Year 4 Students For All Year 4 Students in Grades 1 Through 6 Based on Year 3 Enrollment 7 Kindergarten students are not included in this analysis because most of the kindergarten students were new to the system in Year 4. 22 I I Table 1. 7a: Origins of Black Year 4 Elementary School Students Status New to System in Year 4 Advanced One Grade From Year 3 Retained In Same Grade As Year 3 Multi-promoted From Year 3 Total I I 1 2 3 4 5 N 182 134 113 143 136 % 11.9% 9.8% 8.6% 10.1 % 9.2% N 1,103 1,152 1,160 1,241 1,332 % 72.1 % 84.3% 88.8% 87.7% 89.7% N 244 79 28 29 13 % 16.0% 5.8% 2.1 % 2.0% 0.9% N NIA 2 6 2 4 % NIA 0.1 % 0.5% 0.1 % 0.3% N I 1,529 1,367 1,307 1,415 1,485 Figure 1.7a: Origins of Year 4 Students For Black Year 4 Students in Grades 1 Through 6 Based on Year 3 Enrollment % Retained (4.7%) % New to System (9.4%) % Multi-promoted (0.3%) 23 6 92 6.5% 1,296 92.2% 8 0.6% 10 0.7% 1,406 GJ 800 9.4% 7,284 85.6% 401 4.7% 24 0.3% 8,509 11 I I Table 1.7b: Origins of White Year 4 Elementary School Students Status New to System in Year 4 Advanced One Grade From Year 3 Retained In Same Grade As Year 3 Multi-promoted From Year 3 Total I .. I I 2. l IC 4 ,... S \ 6 N 217 172 153 172 131 % 26.3% 21.4% 21.0% 22.4% 18.0% N 569 606 566 588 589 % 68.9% 75.5% 77.7% 76.6% 81.1% N 40 22 6 7 5 % 4.8% 2.7% 0.8% 0.9% 0.7% N NIA 3 3 1 1 % NIA 0.4% 0.4% 0.1 % 0.1 % N I 826 803 728 768 726 Figure 1. 7b: Origins of Year 4 Students For White Year 4 Students in Grades 1 Through 6 Based on Year 3 Enrollment 124 16.7% 616 82.9% 0 0.0% 3 0.4% 743 % New to System (21 .1 %) 1\ '[otat/ ' 969 21.1% 3,534 77.0% 80 1.7% 11 0.2% I 4,594 I % Normal Progress (77.0%) 24 2. Attendance a. Over-years comparisons Table 2.1 shows, across grades, by race and by gender, each cohort's average daily attendance rate (ADA) in Years 1, 2, 3 and 4, and the percentage point difference in ADA over the four year period. It can be seen that attendance rates are generally quite high but have been declining over the four year period (by 1. 8 percentage points overall) . Attendance patterns are generally consistent over race/ethnicity and gender. b. Longitudinal comparisons Table 2.2 contains longitudinal attendance data for those students who appear in the 4- YEAR COHORT FILE. For each of the four study years, participants have been classified according to the quartile in which their ADA fell in the first year of New Futures. Year 1 students with an ADA less than 79.7 percent were in the lowest quartile (i.e ., their ADA was equal to or less than the ADA of twenty-five percent of the population), students with ADAs between 79 .7 and 91.7 percent fell in the second quartile, students with ADAs between 91.8 percent and 97 .1 percent fell in the third quartile, and students with AD As greater than 97 .1 percent fell in the fourth quartile. The table shows the Year 1 through Year 4 average daily attendance rates, by attendance quartile, for all students and by race. On average, attendance rates are declining for the 4-YEAR COHORT students. This is true across attendance quartiles and across races. For example, for Black 4-YEAR COHORT FILE students whose Year 1 attendance placed them. in the second attendance quartile we see a decline in ADA in each year (from 91.0% in Year 1, to 90.0% in Year 2, to 87.4% in Year 3 and 83 .4% in Year 4). 25 LITTLE ROCK Table 2.' ATTENDANCE COMPARISONS Percentage Point Change in Average Daily Attendance (ADA) Rates, Across Grades, by Race and Gender: 1988-89(Yr. 1) to 1991-92(Yr. 4). Grade Level ======================================================================== Total Total Total 7 8 9 10 11 12 7-9 10-12 7-12 ======================================================================== Totals Year 1 91.1X 88.?X 90.8X 90.3X 90.?X 91.4X 90.2X 90.8X 90.5X Totals Year 2 91.8X 89.3X 90.9X 87.0X 88.3X 88.5X 90.?X 87.9X 89.3X Totals Year 3 91.5X 90.0X 89.3X 89.2X 89.4X 89 . 2X 90.3X 89.3X 89.8X Totals Year 4 90.8X 89.1X 88.4X 86.?X 88.2X 89.1X 89.SX 87.9X 88.?X --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Change in ADA Change Yrs 1-2 0.7 0.6 0.1 -3.3 -2.4 -2.9 0.5 -2.9 -1.2 Change Yrs 2-3 -0.3 0.7 -1.6 2.2 1.1 0.7 -0.4 1.4 0.5 Change Yrs 3-4 -0.7 -0.9 -0.9 -2.5 -1.2 -0.1 -0.8 -1.4 -1.1 Change Yrs 1-4 -0.3 0.4 -2.4 -3.6 -2.5 -2.3 -0.7 -2.9 -1.8 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RACE Black Year 90.?X 88.0X 91.0X 90.0X 90.2X 91.?X 89.8X 90.SX 90.2X Black Year 2 91.SX 88.4X 90.6X 85 .6X 88.0X 88.5X 90.1X 87.3X 88.8X Black Year 3 91.1X 89.0X 88.6X 88.4X 88.8X 89.1X 89.6X 88.?X 89.2X Black Year 4 90.5X 88.6X 87.4X 85.?X 87.9X 88.9X 88.9X 87.4X 88.2X White Year 1 91.8X 89.8X 90.3X 90.?X 91.2X 91.1X 90.6X 91.0X 90.8X White Year 2 92.4X 91.2X 91.2X 88.9X 88.6X 88.3X 91.6X 88.5X 89.9X White Year 3 92.3X 91.8X 90.?X 90.2X 90.2X 89.2X 91.6X 89.9X 90.?X White Year 4 91.4X 90.1X 90.0X 88.1X 88.5X 89.1X 90.SX 88.6X 89.5X GENDER BY RACE Males Year 1 90.5X 88.2X 90.2X 89.6X 90.0X 91.3X 89.6X 90.3X 89.9X Males Year 2 90.SX 88.9X 90.2X 85.9X 87.?X 88.6X 89.8X 87.3X 88.?X Males Year 3 90.5X 88.9X 88.8X 88.5X 88.SX 89.2X 89.4X 88.?X 89.1X Males Year 4 89.8X 88.1X 87.6X 85.4X 87.5X 88.?X 88.6X 87.1X 87.9X Black Year 90.1X 87.SX 90.4X 89.3X 89.2X 91.6X 89.3X 89.9X 89.6X Black Year 2 90.0X 87.?X 89.?X 84.?X 87.3X 88.6X 89.1X 86.?X 88 .0X Black Year 3 89.9X 89.6X 88.0X 87.5X 87.?X 88.5X 88.6X 87.9X 88.3X Black Year 4 89.5X 87.4X 86.3X 84.3X 88.0X 88.3X 87.8X 86.?X 87.3X White Year 1 91.2X 89.SX 89.?X 89.9X 90.?X 91.0X 90.1X 90.5X 90.4X White Year 2 91.4X 90.9X 90.?X 87.6X 88.0X 88.4X 91.0X 88.0X 89.4X White Year 3 91.8X 91.4X 90.0X 89 .9X 89.SX 90.0X 91.1X 89.8X 90.4X White Year 4 90.2X 89.?X 89.8X 87.0X 86.8X 89.0X 89.9X 87.6X 88.?X Females Year 1 91.?X 89.2X 91.3X 91.0X 91.4X 91.6X 90.?X 91.3X 91.1X Females Year 2 93.2X 89.8X 91.6X 88.0X 88.9X 88.4X 91.5X 88.4X 90.0X Females Year 3 92.6X 91.0X 89.8X 89.8X 90.2X 89.2X 91.2X 89.?X 90.5X Females Year 4 91.9X 90.1X 89.1X 87.8X 88.8X 89.5X 90.4X 88.6X 89.5X Black Year 1 91.3X 88.5X 91.6X 90.?X 91.1X 91.8X 90.4X 91.1X 90.?X Black Year 2 93.0X 89.0X 91.4X 86.5X 88.6X 88.4X 91 . 1X 87.8X 89.6X Black Year 3 92.5X 90.4X 89.1X 89.1X 89.8X 89.6X 90.?X 89.5X 90.2X Black Year 4 91.5X 89.9X 88.5X 86.9X 87.8X 89.4X 89.9X 88.0X 89.1X White Year 1 92.6X 90.2X 90.8X 91.5X 91.6X 91.3X 91.1X 91.5X 91.3X White Year 2 93.5X 91.5X 91.6X 89.9X 89.2X 88.2X 92.2X 89.0X 90.4X White Year 3 92.?X 92.2X 91.5X 90 .5X 90.?X 88.5X 92.2X 89.9X 90.9" White Year 4 92.6X 90.5X 90.3X 89.0X 90.0X 89.3X 91.1X 89. 4X 90.2X Source: Little Rock Cohort Files 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92. 26 Little Rock Table 2.2 Longitudinal ADA Comparisons, By Quartile In Year 1 and Race/Ethnicity, For 4-YEAR COHORT FILE Students Year 1 (1988-89) Through Year 4 (1991 -92) Average Daily Attendance Rates Percentage Average Daily Attendance ADA N Point Difference: Year I Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Years l and 4 All Students 4,240 92 .9% 92.3% 90 .8% 87 .8% -5. l All Quartiles Black 2,831 92 .9% 92.2% in Year I 90.3% 87.1 % -5.8 White 1,347 92 .8% 92.6% 91.5% 89 .2% -3.6 All Students 651 79.0% 81.3% 79.0% 73.3 % -5.7 Lowest Quartile in Year 1 Black 448 78.4% 80 .5% 77.5% 70 .9% -7.5 ( < 79.7 %) White 198 80.4% 82 .8% 82. 1% 79 .0 % -1.4 All Students 1,026 91 .1 % 90.6% 88.4% 84.8% -6 .3 Second Quartile in Year 1 Black 621 91.0% 90 .0% 87 .4% 83.4% -7 .6 (79.7% 2_ 91.7 %) White 392 91.1 % 91.3% 89 .8% 86.9% -4 .2 All Students 1,2 10 95 .4% 94.4% 93 .0% 90 .7% -4.7 Third Quartile in Black 793 95.4% 94 .3% 92 .7% 90 .2% -5.2 Year 1 (91. 8 % 2_ 97 . 1 % ) White 399 95 .3% 94 .6% 93 .5% 91.5% -3.8 All Students 1,353 98 .5% 96 .9% 95 .8% 93 .8% -4 .7 Highest Quartile in Black 969 98 .5% 96.9% 95 .7% 93.7% -4.8 Year 1 (> 97 . l %) White 358 98 .4% 96.7% 96 .1% 94 .1 % -4.3 27 3. Academic Achievement (Reading and Mathematics) a. Grades 7 through 12 i. Over-years comparisons Tables 3.1 and 3.2 compare, across grades, by race and gender, average Year 1, Year 2, Year 3 and Year 4 achievement test scores for 7th through 11th grade students. (Since Year 4 data are converted from SAT-8 test scores, Table 3.la and 3.2a, which show unconverted SA T-8 scores, are also included as a reference.) Data are presented as percentile ranks8 associated with the mean normal curve equivalent (NCE) scores. 9 A verage reading performance among tested seventh graders (Table 3.1) in Year 1 was equivalent to the 48th percentile, the seventh grade average in Year 4 was equivalent to the 54th percentile. Thus, relative to national norms, the seventh grade reading average improved by six percentile ranks from Year 1 to Year 4. In contrast, seventh grade math achievement (Table 3.2) dropped two percentile ranks, from the 50th percentile in Year 1 to the 48th percentile in Year 4. Tables 3.1 and 3.2 also show: improvement in reading scores at the 7th and 10th grade levels, but declining at the 8th, 9th and 11th grade levels
10 declines in math scores at all junior high levels, and improvements in 10th and 11th grade scores
and rather large disparities between black students and white students. Tables 3.3 through 3.6 and the accompanying figures show, across grades, by race and gender, the achievement quartile distributions for junior high school students, Years 1, 2, 3 and 4. Students scoring at or below the 25th percentile are said to be in the first (lowest) quartile . Similarly, students scoring between the 26th and the 50th percentile (i.e., the median) are in the second quartile, students scoring between the 51st and 75th percentiles are in the third quartile, and students scoring above the 75th percentile are in the fourth (highest) quartile. In a statistically "normal" distribution, approximately 25 percent of the 8 Percentile ranks indicate the percentage of raw scores in a normative group that fall below a particular student's raw score. For example, if a student's raw score converts to a percentile rank of 43 then that student scored higher than approximately 43 percent of the students in the normative group. 9 See also the discussion of achievement measures in the Introduction. 10 Year 1. 2 and 3 test scores are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6). Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scores (SAT-8). Some of the decline in test scores may be attributable tu implementauon of a new testing package (from the MAT-6 to the SAT-8) and the score conversion process. (All Year 4 data were converted from SAT-8 scores to the MAT-6 equivalent.) 28 population would be included within each of the four quartiles. By comparing the scores of Little Rock's students to those norms, we can compute the percentages of Little Rock's students who score in each range. Information contained in Tables 3.3 through 3.6 may be used to observe differences in the percentages of students in the lowest or highest quartiles that may not be obvious when looking at overall averages . Reductions in the percentages of students in the first quartile, or increases in the percentages of students in the fourth quartile, constitute improvements. Conversely, increases in the percentages of students in the first quartile, or decreases in the percentages of students in the fourth quartile, constitute declines. For example, it can be seen in Table 3.3 that, in Year 1 and in Year 4, 21 percent of Little Rock's tested junior high school students scored in the first quartile in reading (4 percentage points better than what would be expected in a statistically "normal" distribution). Table 3.5 shows that in Year 1, 22 percent of Little Rock's testedhigh school students (10th and 11th graders only) scored in the first quartile in reading, while 17 percent of tested high school students were in the first quartile in Year 4. The figures show most clearly the disparities in achievement results. The comparisons shown in Tables 3.1 through 3.6, like all other over-years comparisons, are not of matched groups of students. For example, the seventh graders in Year 1 are different students than the seventh graders in Years 2, 3 or 4. In addition, some of the students tested in each year may have been retained in their grades while others may have been promoted. This does not mean that comparisons of over-years data cannot be made, or are not useful, but only that those undertaking the assessment be aware which groups of students make up the groups they are reviewing . 29 Table 3.1 ACHIEVEMENT C04PARISONS Distribution in Reading Achievement Scores (Percentile Ranks), Across Grades, by Race and Gender: 198889(Yr. 1) to 199192(Yr.4). asa:.aa.--a ~mrmma:arm 7 8 9 10 11 ms:.as.:s-.-&.a :.::.::aaa:asrmaaarm.a Totals Year 1 48 54 64 50 55 Totals Year 2 50 52 65 54 52 Totals Year 3 48 52 61 54 58 Totals Year 4 54 42 48 54 54 -C--h-a-n-ge- --in- -R--e-a-d-in-g- -A--c-h-ie-v-e-m--e-n-t ------------------------------------- Change Yrs 12 2 -2 1 4 -3 Change Yrs 2-3 -2 0 -4 0 6 Change Yrs 3-4 6 -10 -13 -o -4 Change Yrs 1-4 6 -12 -16 4 -1 ------------------------------------------------------------------- RACE Black Year 1 36 40 51 36 38 Black Year 2 37 39 50 39 39 Black Year 3 35 37 48 39 42 Black Year 4 44 35 37 41 41 White Year 1 n 76 80 68 71 White Year 2 73 76 83 n n "11ite Year 3 n 78 82 n 73 White Year 4 75 61 67 n 70 GENDER BY RACE MalH Year 1 48 53 64 48 56 Males Year 2 46 50 65 50 52 Males Year 3 44 50 59 54 56 Males Year 4 48 41 46 50 54 Black Year 1 34 38 51 35 38 Black Year 2 33 35 50 37 37 Black Year 3 33 35 46 39 41 Black Year 4 39 33 37 37 41 Whit Year 1 70 76 80 68 70 White Year 2 n 73 82 73 70 White Year 3 70 75 80 n 73 White Year 4 68 59 65 68 70 Feaaln Year 1 50 55 66 51 55 F-lH Year 2 52 54 65 56 54 F-lH Year 3 50 54 63 54 58 Feaales Year 4 59 46 50 56 54 Black Year 1 38 42 51 38 39 Black Year 2 39 42 52 41 39 Black Year 3 39 39 50 41 42 Black Year 4 48 37 39 42 41 11h I te Year 1 74 77 81 70 71 White Year 2 76 79 84 n n White Year 3 73 79 84 n 73 White Year 4 79 65 70 76 70 Note: Twelfth grade students ere not tested. Note: Years 1, 2 and 3 test scores are baaed on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT6). Year 4 scores are baaed on converted Stanford Achievement Test scores (SAT-8). Scores are reported as percentile rank associated with mean Normal Curve Equivalents (NCEs). Note: Students fr0111 racial/ethnic backgrOW1da other then 'Black' or 'WhiteM were not included in the 'RACE' categories because their rurbers were minimal. Source: Little Rock Cohort Files 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92. 30 Totals RACE Black llhite GENDER BY Males Black llhi te Females Black \lhi te Table 3.1a READING ACHIEVEMENT Stanford Achievement Test (SAT-8) Reading Scores (Perce~tile Ranks) Across Grade, by Race and Gender for 1991-92(Yr. 4). Grade Level ================================================ 7 8 9 10 11 ================================================ 39 39 41 48 48 25 27 28 32 33 67 65 67 71 68 RACE 30 33 39 42 48 20 24 27 27 33 58 59 63 67 68 46 42 42 52 48 32 30 30 35 33 75 68 70 76 68 Note: Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scores (SAT-8). Scores are reported as percentile ranks associated with mean Normal Curve Equivalents (NCEs). Source: Little Rock Cohort Files for 1991-92. 31 Table 3.2 ACHIEVEMENT C!Jl'ARISONS Distribution in Math Achievement Scores (Percentile Ranks), Across Grades, by Gender and Race: 198889(Yr. 1) to 199192(Yr.4). Grade Level =-==========---~=--===aa==s---===:z===a 7 8 9 10 11 ------------z-:s=rz=m--=---==-.srm--=-----===== Totals Year 1 50 51 64 50 55 Totals Year 2 52 48 65 54 54 Totals Year 3 48 48 59 52 59 Totals Year 4 48 37 42 54 56 -C--h-a-n-g-e --in-- M--a-th- -A--c-h-ie-v-t!-l-ll-el-'l-t ---------------------------------------- Change Yrs 1-2 2 -3 1 4 -1 Change Yrs 2-3 4 -o -6 -2 5 Change Yrs 3-4 0 -11 17 2 -3 Change Yrs 1-4 2 -14 -22 4 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------- RACE Black Year 1 38 39 51 38 40 Black Year 2 41 37 52 41 41 Black Year 3 39 35 48 41 46 Black Year 4 39 28 30 41 42 White Year 1 70 71 79 67 70 White Year 2 73 n 80 n 70 White Year 3 67 70 76 68 75 White Year 4 68 58 65 n 68 GENDER BY RACE Males Year 1 48 49 64 51 59 Males Year 2 48 48 63 54 58 Males Year 3 46 46 58 52 61 Males Year 4 44 35 42 52 56 Black Year 1 35 35 51 38 42 Black Year 2 37 33 50 41 42 Black Year 3 35 35 46 39 48 Black Year 4 33 27 30 39 44 White Year 1 69 71 80 71 73 White Year 2 70 70 79 73 73 White Year 3 65 68 73 68 78 White Year 4 65 54 63 70 70 Femalu Year 1 51 53 63 48 53 Femalu Year 2 54 48 65 54 52 Females Year 3 50 48 59 54 58 F .. lu Year 4 52 41 42 56 54 Black Year 1 42 44 51 36 39 Black Year 2 42 39 54 41 39 Black Year 3 41 35 50 41 44 Black Year 4 42 32 32 42 42 White Year 1 71 71 77 63 66 White Year 2 75 73 80 70 68 White Year 3 68 n 79 68 73 White Year 4 n 59 67 n 68 Note: Tlielfth grade students are not tested. Note: Years 1, 2 and 3 test scores are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT6). Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scores (SAT-8). Scores are reported s percentile ranks associated with 11111an Normal Curve Equivalents (NCEs). Note: Students from racial/ethnic backgrOUlds other than 'Black' or 'White" were not Included in the 'RACE' categories because their nua>era were 111inimel. Source: Little Rock Cohort Files 1988-89, 198990, 1990-91, 199192. 32 Totals RACE Black llhite GENDER BY Males Black Table 3.2a READING ACHIEVEMENT Stanford Achievement Test (SAT-8) Reading Scores (Percentile Ranks) Across Grade, by Race and Gender for 199192(Yr. 4). Grade Level ==-=====-======-=====--====-==================== 7 8 9 10 11 ==-==================-=====-==================== 39 39 41 48 48 25 27 28 32 33 67 65 67 71 68 RACE 30 33 39 42 48 20 24 27 27 33 llhite 58 59 63 67 68 Females 46 42 42 52 48 Black 32 30 30 35 33 llhite 75 68 70 76 68 Note: Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scores (SAT-8). Scores are reported as percentile ranks associated with mean Normal Curve Equivalents (NCEs). Source: Little Rock Cohort Files for 1991-92. 33 Table 3.3 ACHIEVEMENT COMPARISONS QUARTILE DISTRIBUTION Percentage of Ji.nior High School Students Scoring in Each Achievement Quartile, for Reading, Across Grades, by Race and Gender: 1988-89 (Yr. 1) to 1991-92 (Yr. 4). ======================================================================================================= Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Total JHS YR-1 YR-2 YR-3 YR-4 YR-1 YR-2 YR-3 YR-4 YR-1 YR-2 YR-3 YR-4 YR-1 YR-2 YR-3 YR-4 ------------=-=-===----=-----=----=--=---=--------=====--=z=======----=------=---------------------- Total Quartile I 28X 27X 29X 16X 23X 25X 25X 26X 13X 14X 17X 20X 21X 23% 24X 21% Quartile II 29X 28% 2ax 36% 2ax 29X 28X 39X 25X 23% 25X 37X 2ax 27X 27X 37X Quartile 111 20% 22X 21% 26% 21% 20% 20X 24X 29X 29X 25X 27X 23% 23% 22% 26% Quartile IV 23% 23% 22X 22X 28X 26% 27X 12X 33% 34X 33X 16% 2ax 27X 27X 16% Black Quartile I 37X 37X 38X 21X 31% 33% 35X 34% 18X 20% 24X 28X 30X 31% 33% 2ax Quartile II 35% 33X 34X 45X 35% 34% 34% 44X 32X 31X 32X 46% 34X 33% 33X 4SX Quartile Ill 18X 19X 19X 24% 19X 19X 19X 17X 31% 30X 26X 22% 22% 22% 21X 21% Quartile IV 11X ,ox 9X 10X 14% 14% 12% 4% 18X 20X 19X 4% 14% 14% 13% 6% Black Males Quartile I 40% 41X 41X 29X 34% 36% 39X 39X 20X 21X 26% 30% 32X 34% 36% 33% Quartile II 35X 32% 34X 45X 34% 37X 34% 41X 29X 30% 32% 45X 33X 33% 34% 44% Quartile Ill 16% 17X 17X 20X 1ax 16% 15% 16X 32X 29X 25% 21% 21X 20% 18% 19% Quartile IV 9X 10% BX 7X 14% 11% 12X 4X 19X 20% 17X 4% 14% 14X 12% sx Black Females Quartile I 34% 34X 35% 14% 28% 30% 31% 30X 17X 19X 22X 26% 27X 2ax 30X 23% Quartile II 35X 35X 33% 45% 38X 32X 34X 47X 34X 31% 31% 46% 36X 33% 33% 46X Quartile Ill 19X 21X 22X 28X 20% 22% 23% 19X 31X 31% 27X 23% 23X 24% 24% 24X Quartile IV 12X 10X ,ox 13% 14X 16% 12% 4% ,ax 19X 20% sx 14% 1SX 14% 7X 11h i te Quartile I 9X 8X 9X 7X 7X 8X 6% 9X sx 3X 6% sx 7X 7X 7X 7X Quartile II 18X 17X 18% 18% 19X 20% 17X 27X 14X 12% 12% 22X 17X 16X 16X 22% Quartile 111 25X 28X 23% 30% 23% 20% 22% 37X 26% 27X 23% 37X 2SX 25% 23% 34% Quartile IV 48% 47X SOX 46% S2X 52% S4X 27X ssx sax sax 36% S2X S3X S4X 37X llhite Males Quartile I ,ox ,ox 12% ,ox 8% 11% 8% 12X 6% 4% 7X 8X 8% 8X 9X 10% Quartile 11 18X 16% 16% 22% 19X 21X 19X 29X 16% 12% 13% 23X 18% 16X 16% 2SX Quartile Ill 2SX 29X 26% 29X 21X 19X 21X 3SX 22% 27X 24X 36% 23X 25% 24% 33% Quartile IV 47X 4SX 46% 38X 52% 49X 52X 24% 56X 57X 56X 33% S2X 51X S1X 32% llhite Females Quartile I 9X 6X 7X 4X 7X sx 4% 7X 4X 3% sx 3X 6X SX sx 4% Quartile II 18X 17X 19X 13% 17X 19% 16% 25X 12X 12X 12X 20X 1SX 16X 16% 19X Quartile Ill 24X 28X 21% 30% 2SX 20% 23% 39X 29X 26% 23% 3ax 26X 25% 22X 3SX Quartile IV 49X 49X S3X 53% 51% 56% S?X 30% ssx 59X 60X 39X 52% ssx 57X 4-1% Note: Year 1, 2 and 3 test scores are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test CMAt-6). Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test (SAT-a) scores which are coq,arable to the MAT-6. Source: Little Rock Cohort Files 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92. 34 "'C -(1) 75% (/) (1) ~ -(/) C (1) "'C -::J 50% e-n 0 -C (1) u '- (1) 25% a. Figure 3.3: Little Rock Students Scoring in Lowest and Highest Reading Achievement Quartiles For Junior High School Students Enrolled in Years 1 and 4, By Race Year 1 Year4 Year 1 Year 4 Year 1 Year 4 All Black White I Lowest Quartile ~ Highest Quartile 35 Table 3.4 ACHIEVEMENT COMPARISONS QUARTILE DISTRIBUTION Percentage of Students Scoring in Each Achievement Mathematics Quartile Across Grades and by Race and Gender: 1988-89 (Yr. 1) to 199192 (Yr. 4). ==-=-========================================================-=~======================================= Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Total JHS YR1 YR-2 YR-3 YR4 YR-1 YR2 YR-3 YR-4 YR1 YR-2 YR-3 YR4 YR1 YR2 YR3 YR4 ==========================================================rn~======================================== Total Quartile I 25X 22X 25X 29% 24X 27% 29% 39% 13% 12X 17% 33% 21% 21X 24% 34X Quartile II 29% 32X 33% 29% 30X 30% 31X 30% 27% 30% 29% 31X 30% 31X 31% 30% Quartile 111 26X 25X 24X 23X 21% 22X 20% 1BX 2BX 25X 2BX 19% 25X 24% 24X 20X Quartile IV 20X 21X 1BX 20X 25X 21% 20% 12X 32% 33X 26% 17% 25X 24X 21X 17% Blacl:: Quartile 32X 29% 32X 36X 32% 35X 38% 49% 1BX 16% 22X 44X 2BX 2BX 31X 43X Quartile II 35X 39% 39% 32% 36X 36% 36X 32% 36% 38X 35% 35% 36X 37% 37% 33X Quartile 111 25X 23X 21% 22X 20% 20% 17% 14X 2BX 27% 30% 14% 24% 22X 22% 17% Quartile IV 8X ,ox BX 10X 13X 9X 9X sx 1BX 20% 13X 7X 13X 12X 10X 7X Blacl:: Males Quartile I 37% 32X 35X 45X 37% 39% 41X 53% 1BX 19% 24% 46% 31X 31% 33X 48X Quartile II 34X 40X 39% 2BX 33% 33% 35% 30% 32% 37% 37% 33% 33% 37% 37% 30X Quartile 111 23X 19% 19% 20X 19% 20% 14X 12X 31X 26X 26% 14% 24X 21X 20X 15X Quartile IV 6X 9X 7X BX 11X BX 10X 5% 19% 1BX 13% 7X 12X 11% 10% 6X Blacl:: Females Quartile I 29% 26X 30X 27% 27% 31% 37% 46% 17% 13X 20X 42X 25X 24X 29X .38X Quartile II 35X 38X 39% 36X 38% 39% 36X 33X 40% 38X 34X 37% 3BX 38% 37% 36X Quartile Ill 27% 26X 22X 24X 21X 21X 19% 16% 26% 27% 33% 14% 25X 25X 24X 1BX Quartile IV 9X 10X 9X 13X 14% 9X BX sx 17% 22% 13X 6X 13X 13X ,ox BX White Quartile 9X 7X 10% 15% 10% 10% 11X 1BX 6% 6% 7X 14% BX 8% 9X 15% Quartile II 21X 19% 22X 22X 21X 19% 21% 28% 15X 16X 19X 23% 19X 20% 21X 24X Quartile Ill 2BX 31X 32X 24% 24% 27% 26% 2BX 2BX 23% 25X 27% 26% 26% 28X 26X Quartile IV 42% 43X 36X 39% 46X 44X 42% 26X 51X 55% 49% 36X 47% 45X 43X 34X White Males Quartile I 13X 10X 13X 20X ,ox 13X 11X 20X 6X 7X 10X 17% ,ox ,ox ,,x 19% Quartile II 18X 18% 21X 24X 19% 18X 22X 30X 18% 15X 21X 23X 18X 17% 21X 26X Quartile 111 26X 30X 31% 20X 27% 29% 28% 25% 23X 22X 24X 25X 26X 27% 28X 23X Quartile IV 43X 42% 35X 37% 44% 40% 39% 25% 53X 56% 45X 35X 47% 46% 40X 33X White Females Quartile I sx sx BX 11% 11% 7X 10% 16% 5% 6% 4X 10% 7X 6X BX 12X Quartile II 24X 20X 22% 19% 22% 21% 21% 25X 15X 16X 16X 23X 20X 19% 20X 22X Quartile 111 29% 31% 32% 28% 20% 23X 24X 31% 31% 24X 26% 30% 27% 26X 27% 29% Quartile IV 42X 44X 3BX 42% 47% 49% 45% 2BX 49% 54% 54% 37% 47% 49% 45X 36X Note: Year 1, 2 and 3 test scores are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT6). Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test (SAT-8) scores which are c~rable to MAT6 scores. Source: little Roel:: Cohort Files 198889, 1989-90, 199091, 1991-92. 36 "'C -Q) 75% (/J Q) r- -(/J C Q) "'C -::::, 50% e-n 0 -C Q) u '- Q) 25% a.. Figure 3.4: Little Rock Students Scoring in Lowest and Highest Mathematics Achievement Quartiles For Year 1 and 4 Junior High School Students By Race Year 1 Year 4 Year 1 Year 4 Year 1 Year 4 All Black White I Lowest Quartile ~ Highest Quartile 37 Table 3.5 ACHIEVEMENT COMPARISONS - QUARTILE DISTRIBUTION Percentage of High School Students Scoring in Each Reading Achievement Quartile Across Grades, by Race and Gender: 1988-89CYr. 1) to 1991-92(Yr. 4). ---------------------------------------------------------------------============================= Grade 10 Grade 11 Total HS YR-1 YR-2 YR-3 YR-4 YR-1 YR-2 YR-3 YR-4 YR-1 YR-2 YR-3 YR-4 =======================---=------------===========-===========-=================================== Total Quart le I rn: 21 19X 18 19% 23 18 16 22 22 19X 17 Quart le II 35 31 32 35 26 27 27 35 28 29X 30 35 Quart le Ill 22 23 23 25 28 25 27 30 26 24 25 28 Quart le IV 20 25 26 22 27 25 28 19 24 25 27 21 Black Quartile I 35 31 29X 26 32 36 27 24 34 33 28 25 Quartile II 37 39X 40 44 34 31 35 46 35 35 38 45 Quartile Ill 19X 20 21 21 25 21 26 24 22 21 23 23 Quartile IV 9X 10 10 8 10 12 12 6 10 11 11 7 Black Males Quartile I 37 35 31 32 35 37 29 23 36 36 30 28 Quartile II 36 36 38 43 30 32 32 45 33 34 35 44 Quartile Ill 19X 19X 20 17 24 20 25 26 21 20 22 21 Quartile IV 8 10 11 8 11 11 14 6 10 11 12 7 Black Females Quartile I 33 27 27 20 30 35 25 25 32 31 26 22 Quartile II 37 43 42 45 36 31 37 46 37 37 40 46 Quartile Ill 19% 21 21 25 25 22 27 23 22 22 24 24 Quartile IV 11 9X 10 9X 9 12 11 6 10 10 10 8 llhite Quartile I 9 8 6 6 7 7 6 5 8 7 6 6 Quartile II 23 20 21 20 17 19X 18 21 20 20 20 20 Quartile Ill 30 27 27 30 32 31 28 38 31 29X 27 34 Quartile IV 38 45 46 44 44 43 48 36 41 44 47 40 llhite Males Quartile I 9X 9X 5 10 8 9X 9X 7 9X 9X 7 8 Quartile II 23 19X 22 23 18 16 18 19X 20 18 20 21 Quartile Ill 30 26 29X 32 32 33 22 36 31 29X 26 34 Quartile IV 38 46 44 35 42 42 51 38 40 44 47 37 llhite Females Quartile I 8 7 7 4 5 5 4 4 7 6 5 4 Quartile II 23 20 21 17 18 22 18 22 20 21 19" 19 Quartile Ill 30 28 24 29X 32 29X 31 40 31 28 28 35 Quartile IV 39X 45 48 50 45 44 47 35 42 45 47 42 Note: Twelfth grade students were not tested. Note: Year 1, 2 and 3 test scores are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6). Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test (SAT-8) scores which are c~rable to MAT-6 scores. Source: Little Rocle Cohort Files 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92. 38 100% "C -Q) 75% Cl) Q) ~ -Cl) C Q) "C -::, 50% (/) -0 -C Q) u ~ aQ..) 25% Figure 3.5: Little Rock Students Scoring in Lowest and Highest Reading Achievement Quartiles For Year 1 and 4, High School Students By Race Year 1 Year 4 Year 1 Year 4 Year 1 Year4 All Black White I Lowest Quartile ~ Highest Quartile 39 Table 3.6 ACHIEVEMENT COMPARISONS - QUARTILE DISTRIBUTION Percentage of Students Scoring in Each Mathematics Achievement Quartile Across Grades and by Race and Gender: 1988-89 (Yr. 1) to 1991-92 (Yr. 4). ====================--============================================================================= Grade 1D Grade 11 Total HS YR-1 YR-2 YR-3 YR-4 YR-1 YR-2 YR-3 YR-4 YR-1 YR-2 YR-3 YR-4 ============================================================:=================================== Total Quartile I 25X 21X 21X 20X 21X 22X 16X 16X 24X 21X 19X ,ax Quartile II 32X 31X 34X 33X 30X 30X 31X 33X 31X 31X 33X 33X Quartile Ill 21X 24X 23X 25X 21X 22X 24X 29X 21X 23X 24X 27'X Quartile IV 22X 24X 22X 22X 28X 26X 29X 22X 25X 24X 25X 22X Black Quartile I 36X 29X 29X 28X 33X 32X 23X 24X 35X 31X 26X 26X Quartile II 36X 38X 41X 40X 36X 36X 40X 40X 36X 37'X 40X 40X Quartile 111 17'X 23X 21X 22X 17X 19X 23X 27X 17'X 21X 22X 24X Quartile IV 10X 10X 9X 9X 14X 13X 14X 9X 12X 11X ,,x 9X Black Malas Quartile I 35X 30X 30X 32X 32X 30X 19X 23X 34X 30X 25X 28X Quartile 11 36X 38X 40X 40X 36X 36X 40X 40X 36X 36X 40X 40X Quartile Ill 18X 22X 21X 19X 16X 21X 26X 28X 17'X 22X 23X 23X Quartile IV 11X 10X 9X 9X 16X 13X 15X 9X 13X 12X 12X 9X Black Females Quartile I 37X 29X 27X 25X 34X 33X 27X 24X 36X 31X 27X 25X Quartile II 36X 39X 42% 40X 37X 37'X 39X 41X 36X 38X 41X 40X Quartile 111 17X 23X 22X 25X 17X 18X 21X 26X 17X 21X 22X 25X Quartile IV 10X 9X 9X 9X 12X 12X 13X 9X 11X 10X 11X 9X llhite Quartile I ,ox 9X 10X 7X ,ox 9X 7X 7X 10X 9X 8X 7'X Quartile II 26X 23X 25X 22X 24X 23X 20X 23X 25X 23X 22X 23X Quartile Ill 26X 27'X 26X 29X 25X 25X 25X 31X 25X 26X 26X 30X Quartile IV 38X 42X 40X 42X 42X 43X 48X 39X 40X 42X 44X 41X llhite Males Quartile I 9X 7X 9X 7X 7X 8X 7X 6X 8X BX BX 7X Quartile II 23X 24X 26X 24X 23X 22X 16X 24X 23X 23X 22X 24X Quartile 111 25X 25X 24X 30X 24X 24X 27X 30X 24X 24X 25X 30X Quartile IV 43X 44X 41X 39X 46X 46X SOX 40X 4SX 45X 46X 39X White Females Quartile I 11X 10X 10X 8X 12X 10X 8X 7X 12X 10X 9X 7X Quartile 11 29X 22X 23X 20X 24X 24X 22X 22X 26X 23X 23X 21X Quartile 111 26X 28X 28X 27X 26X 25X 24X 32X 26X 27X 26X 30X Quartile IV 34X 40X 39X 45X 38X 41X 46X 38X 36X 40X 43X 42X Note: Twelfth grade students were not tested. Note: Year 1, 2 and 3 test score are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6). Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test (SAT-8) scores which are c~rable to MAT-6 scores. Source: Little Rock Cohort Files 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92. 40 100% "O -Cl) 75% (/) Cl) I- -(/) C Cl) "O -::::, 50% C/J -0 -C Cl) CJ ~ Cl) 25% a. Figure 3.6: Little Rock Students Scoring in Lowest and Highest Mathematics Achievement Quartiles For Year 1 and 4, High School Students By Race Y .. 1 Year4 Year 1 Year4 Year 1 Year4 All Black White I Lowest Quartile ~ Highest Quartile 41 ii. Longitudinal comparisons Longitudinal analyses of MAT reading and mathematics achievement were conducted for Year l's 7th graders and 8th graders who were enrolled in Years 1 through 4, and made normal grade level progresstt _ Analyses were prepared for all tested students and separately for those whose spring 1989 test score placed them in the lowest (first) achievement quartile. In the longitudinal design, the performance of student groups is monitored over sequential test administrations, and differences between mean scores are compared. In looking at these data. we expect. unless there is some systematic intervention. that groups of students whose average score is at a particular percentile in Year 1 will have an average score at approximately the same percentile in Year 4. An important exception to this principle is that students in the lowest quartile in Year 1 are likely to increase their scores by Year 4. Table 3.7 ~hows the number of seventh grade students tested in Years 1 through 4, and the percentile rank associated with the average NCE in each year for all students and by race. Table 3. 8 shows the same data for students whose Year 1 test scores placed them in the lowest reading quartile. The tables contain separate information for reading and mathematics tests . The accompanying figures serve to illustrate the change in test scores over time. For seventh grade students tested in Years 1 through 4, we see an overall reading achievement loss of two percentile ranks from Year 1 to Year 4, and a decline of four percentile ranks in mathematics achievement scores. t2 Both black and white students experienced these declines in test scores. For lowest quartile students we see increases in both reading and mathematics achievement scores. The changes are greater for white students. Tables 3.9 and 3.10 show similar data for Year l's 8th graders. It can be seen in the tables that there were losses in both reading and math for Year l's 8th graders (9 percentile ranks for reading and 3 percentile ranks for mathematics). For lowest quartile students there were increases in both reading and math. ll Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scores (SAT-8). t2 Once again. some of the decline in test scores may be attributable to implementation of a new testing package (from the MAT-6 to the SAT-8) and the score conversion process . (All Year 4 data were converted from SAT-8 scores to the MAT-6 t:4u1valent.) 42 ~ C: <tS a: Q) .. C: Q) .(.J.. Q) a.. Little Rock Table 3.7: Longitudinal Reading and Math Achievement Comparisons12 For 7th Grade Students Tested Years 1 through 4 Who Made Normal Grade Progression Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile Change Students N Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in Year 1 to Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 4 (7th) (8th) (9th) (10th) Reading : All Students 1,011 56th 59th 65th 54th -2 Black 677 44th 48th 54th 42nd -2 White 316 78th 80th 85th 75th -3 Math: All Students 1,014 58th 56th 63rd 54th -4 Black 679 48th 44th 52nd 44th -4 White 317 75th 75th 80th 72nd -3 99 90 - Reading Math 80 - .. 70 - 60 - .. L 50 - . l 40 - 30 - 20 - 10 - 1 I I I I I I I All Black White All Black White , .. Year 1 D Year2 ~ Year3 mffl9 Year4 11 Y car I. 2 and 3 test scores are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6). Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scores (SAT-8). Scores shown are percentile ranks associated with students' mean Normal Curve Equivalent (NCE) scores. 43 .:-:: C Little Rock Table 3. 8: Longitudinal Reading and Math Achievement Comparisons13 For 7th Grade Students Tested Years 1 through 4 Who Made Normal Grade Progression Lowest Quartile Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile Change Students N Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in Year l to Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 4 (7th) (8th) (9th) (10th) Reading :All Students 194 16th 24th 25th 25th +9 Black 172 15th 22nd 25th 24th +9 White 21 17th 28th 35th 32nd + 15 Math: All Students 141 17th 21st 25th 27th + 10 Black 124 17th 21st 25th 25th +8 White 17 17th 25th 28th 30th +13 50 - Reading Math 40 - (i 30 - Q) .. C ,,. ,. ,. ~ 20 ~ ,. - ,. "" Q) a. I 10 - f :: . :: 1 . I I I I I ' I All Black White All Black White I 1111 Year 2 c=J Year 3 ~ Year 4 13 Year 1, 2 and 3 test scores are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT~). Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scores (SAT-8). Scores shown are percentile ranks associated with students' mean Normal Curve Equivalent (NCE) scores. 44 Little Rock Table 3.9: Longitudinal Reading and Math Achievement Comparisons14 For 8th Grade Students Tested Years l through 4 Who Made Normal Grade Progression Students Reading :All Students Math: All 99 90 80 ,_ ,- ~ 70 ,- C ~ 60 ,- Q) .:: so - C B 40 ~ - Q) a. 30 20 10 1 - - - Black White Students Black White ,. I N 1,01 I 633 355 1,011 635 353 Reading - Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in Year l Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 (8th) (9th) (10th) (11th) 63rd 70th 58th 56th 50th 58th 44th 44th 83rd 86th 76th 73rd 61st 70th 56th 58th 50th 59th 44th 46th 78th 85th 75th 73rd ,. Math ,. ,. ~ ~ . I I I I I All Black White All Black White /Year 1 D Year2 - Year3 - Year4 Change Year 2 to Year 4 -9 -6 :10 -3 -4 -5 I 14 Year I, 2 and 3 test scores are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6). Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scores (SAT-8). Scores shown are percentile ranks associated with students' mean Normal Curve Equivalent (NCE) scores. 45 ~ C ca cc: Q) -~ C Q) (.J ~ Q) a.. Little Rock Table 3.10: Longitudinal Reading and Math Achievement Comparisons15 For 8th Grade Students Tested Years 1 through 4 Who Made Normal Grade Progression Lowest Quartile Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile Change Students N Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in Year l to Year l Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 4 (8th) (9th) (10th) (11th) Reading : All Students 132 16th 25th 22nd 25th +9 Black 120 16th 25th 21st 24th +8 White 12 NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA Math: All Students 134 17th 30th 22nd 22nd +5 Black 118 17th 30th 22nd 22nd +5 White 15 NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA so--------------r----------------. Reading Math 40 30 20 10 1 All Black All Black , .. Year 1 c=] Year 2 m Year 3 Imm! Year 4 15 Year I. 2 and 3 test scores are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6). Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scores (SAT-8). Scores shown are percentile ranks associated with students ' mean Normal Curve Equivalent (NCE) scores. 46 b. Grades Kindergarten through 6 i. Over-years comparisons Tables 3.11 and 3.12 show percentile ranks associated with the mean reading and math NCE scores for students in grades one through six (tables 3. lla and 3.12a show un-converted SAT-8 scores for the 1st through 6th grades). Table 3.11 shows that with the exception of fourth and fifth grades, little or no change was evident in mean achievement scores. At the fourth grade there was a six percentile rank decline, and at the 5th grade there was a six percentile rank improvement. Table 3.12 shows that there were declines in mathematics achievement scores at every grade except 2nd where scores remained the same. Large declines were reported for 6th grade students. For reading, the percentile ranks associated with the mean NCE score for each grade are close to the national average, while for mathematics they are higher than the national average. Large gaps are evident at all grades between the reading and mathematics scores of white and black students. Table 3.11 ACHIEVEMENT Percentage of Change in Reading Achievement Scores (Percentile Ranks), Across Grades, by Race and Gender for 1990-91(Yr. 3) and 1991-92(Yr. 4). Grade Level ==================z======================s============ 2 3 4 5 6 ====================================================== Totals Year 3 48 48 42 50 50 54 Totals Year 4 48 50 44 44 56 54 Change Yrs 3-4 0 2 2 -6 6 0 RACE Black Year 3 39 39 30 39 41 44 Black Year 4 37 37 32 35 44 42 llhite Year 3 68 68 63 72 72 73 llhite Year 4 68 70 67 65 75 72 GENDER BY RACE Males Year 3 44 46 37 46 48 50 Males Year 4 44 46 42 42 52 50 Black Year 3 33 33 25 35 39 39 Black Year 4 32 33 28 32 42 39 llhite Year 3 63 68 61 67 68 72 11h i te Year 4 68 67 65 61 72 70 Femaln Year 3 54 52 46 54 52 58 Females Year 4 52 52 46 48 58 56 Black Year 3 42 42 35 44 41 48 Black Year 4 42 41 35 39 48 46 llhite Year 3 76 70 68 75 73 75 llhite Year 4 70 72 68 67 78 75 Mote: Years 1, 2 and 3 test scores are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6). Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scores (SAT-8). Scores are reported as percentile ranks associated with mean Normal Curve Equivalents (MCEs). Mote: Students from racial/ethnic backgrol.nds other than 'Black' or 'llhi te" were not included in the 'RACE' categories because their nurt>ers were minimal. Source: Little Rock Cohort Files 1990-91, 1991-92. 47 Totals RACE Black llhi te GENDER BY RACE Males Black llhite Females Black llhite Table 3.11a READING ACHIEVEMENT Stanford Achievement Test (SAT8> Reading Scores (Percentile Ranks) Across Grade, by Race and Gender for 199192(Yr. 4). Grade Level =========================================================== 2 3 4 5 6 =========================================================== 42 37 37 42 35 46 32 25 25 30 24 33 61 61 61 65 59 72 39 33 33 39 32 42 27 22 21 25 21 30 61 58 61 61 56 67 44 42 41 46 39 so 35 30 30 35 27 37 63 63 63 67 65 75 Note: Years 1, 2 and 3 test scores are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test CMAT-6), Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scores (SAT-8). Scores are reported as percentile ranks associated with mean Normal Curve Equivalents (NCEs). Source: Little Rock Cohort Files for 1991-92. 48 Table 3.12 MATHEMATICS ACHIEVEMENT Change in Mathe11111tics Achievement Scores (Percentile Ranks), Across Grades, by Race and Gender for 199091(Yr. 3) and 199192(Yr. 4). Grade Level =======================================z============== 2 3 4 5 6 -===-===--============================================ Totals Year 3 63 67 61 65 61 67 Totals Year 4 59 67 59 59 58 54 Change Yrs 34 4 0 2 6 3 13 RACE Black Year 3 54 58 50 54 52 59 Black Year 4 48 54 46 48 48 42 White Year 3 80 82 78 82 76 82 llhi te Year 4 79 84 82 76 76 70 GENDER BY RACE Males Year 3 61 67 59 63 59 65 Males Year 4 61 67 58 56 56 50 Black Year 3 50 56 48 52 50 54 Black Year 4 46 50 42 44 44 39 White Year 3 79 82 78 80 76 82 White Year 4 80 86 80 73 73 67 Females Year 3 65 67 61 65 63 68 Females Year 4 59 67 63 61 61 58 Black Year 3 56 59 52 56 54 61 Black Year 4 48 56 50 52 50 48 llhite Year 3 82 80 76 82 78 llhite 80 Year 4 76 83 84 79 79 73 Note: Years 1, 2 and 3 test scores are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scores (SAT-8). Scores are reported as percentile ranks associated with mean Normal Curve Equivalents (NCEs). Note: Students from racial/ethnic backgrO\llds other than 'Black or 11/hite" were not included in the 'RACE' categories because their nuri>ers were minimal. Source: Little Rock Cohort Files 199091, 199192. 49 Table 3.12a MATH ACHIEVEMENT Stanford Achievement Test (SAT8) Math Scores (Percentile Ranks) Across Grade, by Race and Gender for 1991 92(Yr. 4). Grade Level ========================================================== 2 3 4 5 6 =============-============================================= Totals 48 56 56 56 50 54 RACE Blaclc 35 41 44 46 41 44 llhite 73 83 78 72 85 73 GENDER BY RACE Males 48 54 54 52 48 50 Blaclc 35 39 41 42 39 41 llhi te 72 78 75 68 67 67 Females 46 56 58 58 52 58 Blaclc 37 44 46 50 42 48 llhite 67 73 78 73 72 73 Note: Years 1, 2 and 3 test scores are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT6). Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scores (SAT8). Scores are reported as percentile ranlcs associated with mean Normal Curve Equivalents (NCEs). Source: Little Roclc Cohort Files for 199192. 50 Reading and mathematics quartile distributions for Little Rock students in grades one through six are presented in Tables 3.13 and 3.14. Reading quartile distributions in first, second and third grades are skewed, with many more students than expected in the first (lowest) quartile. In grades 4 through 6. the reading achievement distributions for the total population are better than the national nonn for the first (lowest) quartile (less than 25 % of the 4th-6th grade students are in Quartile I, except in grade 4 during Year 4) . Mathematics data at each grade level (except grade 6. Year 4) have distributions that are better than national nonns . Racial disparities are evident at all grade levels for both reading and mathematics. Table 3.13 ACHIEVEMENT QUARTILE DISTRIBUTION Percentage of Students Scoring in Each Achievement Quartile, for Reading, Across Grades, by Race and Gender for 199091(Yr. 3) and 199192(Yr. 4). -===============-============-==-==--================================================================= Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 YR-3 YR-4 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 YR-3 YR-4 YR-3 YR-4 YR-3 YR-4 YR-3 YR-4 YR-3 YR-4 ---=-==-==--=--=--==--=-==--=------------=-==-==--=--=-==================-=--=-----------=---=--==-=== Total Quartile I 36X 36X 27X 27X 36X 33X 24X 29X Quartile II 25X 23X 28X 30X 26X 28X 30X 31X Quartile Ill 14X 15X 22X 21X 19X 20X 26X 24X Quartile IV 25X 26X 22X 22X 18X 18X 20X 16X Black. Males Quartile I 49X 48X 42X 42X 54X SOX 38X 44X Quartile II 27X 25X 31X 34X 28X 31X 34X 36X Quartile III 11X 14X 17X 16X 13X 14X 19X 17X Quartile IV 13X 13X 10X 8X 6X SX 9X 3X llhite Males Quartile I 26X 23X 16X 16X 20X 13X 12X 16X Quartile II 23X 20X 18X 20X 24X 23X 20X 21X Quartile 11 I 15X 15X 23X 23X 24X 26X 32X 31X Quartile IV 36X 42X 43X 41X 33X 38X 35X 33X Black. Females Quartile I 40X 41X 26X 30X 41X 39X 26X 32X Quartile II 25X 25X 36X 38:X 30X 34X 37X 37X Quartile III 16X 15:X 25:X 22:X 19X 20X 26:X 23:X Quartile IV 19X 19X 13:X 10:X 11:X 7X 11X 8:X llhite Females Quartile I 15X 18X 12:X 9X 12:X 12:X 4:X 9X Quartile II 21:X 20% 20:X 19X 21:X 20:X 18X 21X Quartile III 15X 16X 26X 25:X 26:X 26:X 33X 32:X Quartile JV SOX 45:X 43:X 48:X 41X 43X 45X 37X Note: Years 1, 2 and 3 test scpres are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6). Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scpres CSAT-8). Scores are reported as percentile ranks associated with mean Normal Curve Equivalents CNCEs). Source: Little Rock. Cohort Files 1990-91, 1991-92. 51 23X 17X 19X 19X 31X 31X 32X 34X 26X 30X 28X 27X 21X 22X 21X 20X 33X 28X 31X 29X 35X 37X 40X 42X 22X 25X 23X 21X ,ox ,ox 7X 7X 12X 8X 8X 11X 19X 18X 24X 19X 29X 31X 27X 32X 39X 43X 42X 39X 28X 18X 19X 20X 39X 38:X 37X 43:X 23:X 33:X 31X 27X 10:X 11X 13X 11:X 4X 2X 7X SX 19X 15:X 14X 17X 32:X 31X 33X 35X 4SX 51X 46X 44X Table 3. 14 ACHIEVEMENT QUARTILE DISTRIBUTION Percentage of Students Scoring in Each Achievement Quartile, for Mathematics, Across Grades, by Race and Gender for 1990-91(Yr. 3) and 199192(Yr. 4). ---======================================================================--------==--------------------= Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 YR-3 YR-4 YR-3 YR-4 YR-3 YR-4 YR-3 YR-4 YR-3 YR-4 YR-3 YR-4 -----------------------------------======--------------------------===================================== Total Quartile 19% 23% 13,: 16% 18% 24 16% 21,: 14% 20,: 10,: 25X Quartile II 22,: 21X 23X 21X 25X 22X 21X 24X 27'X 25X 23X 27'X Quartile Ill 21X 21X 27'X 23 24X 20,: 27'X 24X 28% 26X 33,: 23% Quartile IV 38X 35,: 37'X 40% 33,: 35,: 37'X 31X 31% 29% _ 34,: 25% Black Males Quartile I 29% 32% 19% 26X 28X 38X 23% 30% 21,: 30X 15,: 37'X Quartile II 24% 23X 27'X 26% 28% 23X 25% 29% 31X 28X 33,: 30X Quartile Ill 22,: 23% 27'X 21,: 23% 20,: 27'X 23 30% 23X 32X 20,: Quartile IV 26X 22,: 28X 27'X 22X 20X 25% 18% 18% 19% 20,: 13,: llhite Males Quartile I 9X 10,: 3X S 9,: 12,: 10,: 16% 7'X 13 4X 16X Quartile II 19X 14X 16X 11X 15% 16X 1 o,: 14X 18X 19% 13,: 21X Quartile Ill 16X 16% 2SX 20,: 21X 16X 21X 23% 24% 24X 27'X 24X Quartile IV 57'X 60X 56X 64X 54,: 56% 59% 47'X 51X 4SX 57'X 39% Black Females Quartile I 20,: 28 17'X 18% 20X 25% 1 ?'X 22,: 1SX 21X 10X 27'X Quartile II 2SX 26% 27'X 29% 32X 30X 27'X 28% 33,: 30% 24X 31X Quartile Ill 24% 23% 26% 26X 26X 21X 29% 27'X 30X 29% 38X 23% Quartile IV 30% ' 23% 29% 27'X 22,: 23% 27'X 23% 22,: 20X 28X 19% llhite Females Quartile I 7'X 10,: 6 7'X a,: a,: s,: a,: 4X 6X sx 7'X Quartile II 1SX 17X 12X 11,: 14% 10X 11,: 17'X 18X 14X 11X 20,: Quartile Ill 19,: 20X 29% 22,: 2SX 22,: 26% 23% 27X 28X 32% 26% Quartile IV 59% 54X 53,: 59,: 53X 60% 58% 52 SOX 52% 52X 47'X Note: Years 1, 2 and 3 test scpres are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6). Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scpres (SAT-8). Scores are reported as percentile ranks associated with mean Normal Curve Equivalents (NCEs). Source: Little Rock Cohort Files 1990-91, 1991-92. 52 ii. Longitudinal comparisons Longitudinal achievement analyses are included in this assessment because such analyses focus on the perfonnance of specific groups (cohorts) of students over time. Longitudinal analyses of MA T-6 reading and mathematics achievement have been prepared for all Year 3 2nd through 5th grade students who were tested in Year 3 and Year 4. and who made nonnal grade progress. Since retained students are generally at an advantage over promoted students when their data are compared with grade level nonns, we have conducted longitudinal achievement analyses which include only students who have made nonnal grade level progress (i.e., advanced one grade between Years 3 and 4). In the longitudinal design, the perfonnance of student groups is monitored over sequential test administrations, and differences between mean scores are compared. Unless there is some systematic intervention, we expect that groups of students whose average scores are at a particular percentile in Year 3 will have an average score at approximately the same percentile in Year 4. Tables 3.15 through 3.18 show, for each grade group. the number of students who were tested in Year 3 and Year 4, and the percentile rank associated with the average NCE in each year for all students. The tables contain separate infonnation for reading and mathematics tests. The data in Tables 3 .15 through 3. 18 are illustrated in the accompanying figures. It can be seen in the tables that there were systematic improvements in reading for all grades except second. Year 3's 3rd, 4th and 5th graders improved their reading scores between 4 and 8 percentiles. For mathematics. there were declines at most grade levels (e.g .. 2nd graders declined by 7 percentiles [Table 3.15]). Third graders showed no change in their math scores (Table 3 .16 ). These patterns were similar among black students and white students although there were very disparate starting scores. For example, black and white Year 3 4th graders show average improvements in their reading scores of 7 and 6 percentile ranks, respectively, however, black students' average Year 3 scores were at the 41st percentile, while white students' Year 3 scores were at the 72nd percentile. 53 Table 3.15: Little Rock Longitudinal Reading and Mathematics Achievement Comparisons For 2nd Grade Students Tested Years 3 and 4 Who Made Nonnal Grade Progression Percentile Rank Percentile Rank Change Students N in Year 3 in Year 4 Year 3 to (2nd) (3rd) Year 4 Reading : All Students 1,526 52nd 44th -8 Black 1,024 41st 33rd -8 White 493 72nd 68th -4 Math: All Students 1,522 68th 61st -7 Black 1,019 61st 48th -13 White 494 83rd 84th +l 99 90 Reading Math 80 ~ 70 C: n, a: 60 Q) :
::::
50 C: Q) (J 40 ~ Q) a.. 30 20 10 1 All Black White All Black White I [=1 Year3 .. Year4 54 Table 3.16: Little Rock Longitudinal Reading and Mathematics Achievement Comparisons For 3rd Grade Students Tested Years 3 and 4 Who Made Normal Grade Progression Percentile Rank Percentile Rank Change Students N in Year 3 in Year 4 Year 3 to (3rd) (4th) Year 4 Reading : All Students 1,596 42nd 46th +4 Black 1,076 32nd 37th +5 White 504 65th 67th +2 Math: All Students 1,592 61st 61st 0 Black 1,074 52nd 52nd 0 White 502 79th 79th 0 99 90 Reading Math 80 ..x: 70 C: ca a: 60 Cl) :,.:
50 C: Cl) () 40 ~ Q,) c.. 30 20 10 1 All Black White All Black White I c=J Year 3 .. Year 4 55 Table 3.17: Little Rock Longitudinal Reading and Mathematics Achievement Comparisons For 4th Grade Students Tested Years 3 and 4 Who Made Normal Grade Progression Percentile Rank Percentile Rank Change Students N in Year 3 in Year 4 Year 3 to (4th) (5th) Year 4 Reading: All Students 1,671 50th 58th +8 Black 1,152 41st 48th +7 White 502 72nd 78th +6 Math: All Students 1,668 65th 61st -4 Black I, 148 56th 52nd -4 White 503 82nd 80th -2 99 90 Reading Math 80 ~ 70 C a<t:l 60 Q) += 50 C Q) ,(.._) 40 Q) a. 30 20 10 1 All Black White All Black White I~ Year 31111 Year 4 56 Table 3.18: Little Rock Longitudinal Reading and Mathematics Achievement Comparisons For 5th Grade Students Tested Years 3 and 4 Who Made Normal Grade Progression Percentile Rank Percentile Rank Change Students N in Year 3 in Year 4 Year 3 to (5th) (6th) Year 4 Reading : All Students 1,657 52nd 56th +4 Black l, 118 41st 46th +5 White 524 72nd 75th +3 Math: All Students 1,654 63rd 58th -5 Black 1,116 54th 48th -6 White 523 78th 75th -3 99 90 Reading Math 80 ::it:. 70 C: n, a: 60 Q) .:. 50 C: Q) .u... 40 Q) Q. 30 20 10 1 All Black White All Black White I CJ Year3 ~ Year4 57 4. Graduation a. Over-years comparisons Table 4.1 shows the percentage of 12th graders graduating each year, by school and by race. Graduation rates for 12th graders were at about 92 percent in Year 1 (91. 7 % ) , but declined in Year 2 to less than 83 percent (82 . 9 % ) . Twelfth grade graduation rates increased in Year 3 (88.8%) , and by Year 4 (91.4%) were back above 90 percent and near the Year 1 level (91.7%). 17 Graduation rates varied across schools (two high schools had rates at 94% while the other three were around 90%). In every year but Year 4, 12th grade graduation rates for black students were lower than the rates for white students. Across gender, a. higher percentage of females graduated than males in all four years. b. Longitudinal comparisons i. Two-year graduation rates Table 4.2 shows, by race, graduation rates for three consecutive two-year cohorts of 11th grade students. The table shows that 70.6 percent of the Year 1 11th graders graduated in Year 2, 79. 3 percent of the Year 2 11th graders graduated in Year 3, and 82. 8 percent of the Year 3 11th graders graduated in Year 4. 18 The two-year graduation rate for black 11th grade students has increased: from 66.9 percent (Years 1 to 2), to 76.9 percent (Years 2 to 3), to 81.8 percent (Years 3 to 4) . The two-year graduation rate for white 11th grade students has also increased in each successive year: from 74.4 percent (Years 1 to 2), to 82 .0 percent (Years 2 to 3), reaching 84.3 percent (Years 3 to 4) . ii. Four-year graduation rates Table 4.3 shows four-year graduation rates for Year 1 's 9th graders . Of the 2,047 9th grade students in Year 1, 58.7 percent graduated in four years. A total of 26.8 percent of Year l ninth graders did not graduate because they dropped out or were retained in grade, expelled, or demoted. The graduation status of 14.5 percent of Year l's ninth graders is not known because they transferred out of the Little Rock public school system. Table 4.3 also illustrates differences in the four-year graduation rates of black students and white students. 17 Only those students whose records contained a graduation code were counted as graduates during Years 2 and 3. Therefore, data for Years I and 4 represent estimates (over counts) of the number of graduates. while data for Years 2 and 3 represent actual counts of students who completed all graduation requirements. 18 The Year I. 2 and 3 11th graders who did not graduate either transferred out of school, dropped out of school or were retained in the I Ith grade (29 .4% of the Year I 11th graders did not graduate in Year 2. 20.7 % of the Year 2 11th graders did not graduate in Year 3, and 17 .2 % of the Year 3 11th graders did not graduate in Year 4). See also the foo rnoce above regarding differences in identifying graduates in the cohort file . 58 LITTLE ROCIC Table 4.1 GRADUATION Numer and Percentage of Twelfth Grade Graduates by Race and Gender: 198889 (Yr. 1) to 1991-92 (Yr. 4). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------=================---=======---===========- Central Fair Hall McClellan Parkview TOTAL -----------------------------------------------------------------------------=================---================----=== TOTALS Year 1 570 92.4X 246 89.5X 373 92.1X 362 91.0X 257 92.8X 1808 91.7X Year 2 471 79.3X 251 88.0X 360 86.7X 274 80.3X 212 82.8X 1568 82.9X Year 3 548 91.3X 255 97.0X 358 84.6X 252 82.1X 224 89.2X 1637 88.8X Year 4 440 90.7X 274 90.4X 363 90.1X 311 92.8X 251 94.0X 1639 91.4X RACE Black Year 1 278 91.4X 99 83.2X 153 88.9X 156 88.1X 143 91.7X 829 89.3X Black Year 2 244 75.5X 129 90.1X 143 81.7X 132 77.6X 117 84.2X 765 80.5X Black Year 3 292 87.2X 137 95.8X 205 81.0X 143 79.4X 122 90.4X 899 85.9X Black Year 4 267 89.9% 149 92.5X 175 89.3X 199 93.0X 128 96.2X 918 91.7X White Year 1 281 93.0X 142 94.0X 215 94.3X 203 93.5X 108 93.9X 949 93.7X White Year 2 215 83.3X 120 86.2X 209 90.1X 138 82.5X 93 80.9X 775 85.0X White Year 3 243 96.4X 115 98.3X 149 89.8X 107 85.6X 97 87.4X 711 92.2X White Year 4 162 92.0X 122 87.8X 180 90.5X 110 92.4X 111 91.7X 685 90.8X GENDER Females Year 1 317 94.6X 112 93.3X 203 95.7X 197 92.1X 128 94.1X 957 94.1X Females Year 2 262 78.9% 130 88.4X 203 90.2X 142 83.0X 125 85.0X 862 84.3X Females Year 3 309 95.1X 129 98.5X 183 87.6X 132 83.5X 136 92.5X 889 91.6X Females Year 4 236 93.7X 137 93.8X 208 93.7X 167 93.3X 157 96.3X 905 94.1X Hales Year 1 253 89.7X 134 86.5X 170 88.1X 165 89.7X 129 91.5X 851 89.1X Hales Year 2 209 79.8X 121 87.6X 157 82.6X 132 77.5X 87 79.8X 706 81.2X Hales Year 3 239 86.9X 126 95.5X 175 81.8X 120 80.5X 88 84.6X 748 85.6X Hales Year 4 204 87.6X 137 87.3X 155 85.6X 144 92.3X 94 90.4X 734 88.3X Note: These figures include surmer graduates. Source: Little Rock Cohort Files 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92. 59 I I I All Students Black Students White Students Little Rock Table 4.2 Comparison of 12th Grade Graduation Rates For Students in 11th Grade Year 1, Year 2 and Year 3 II Year 1 to 2 I Year 2 to 3 I Year 3 to 4 Total N 2,044 1,880 1,747 % Graduated 70.6% 79 .3% 82.8% N Graduated 1,443 1,490 1,447 Total~ 1,054 1,081 995 % Graduated 66.9% 76.9% 81.8% N Graduated 705 831 814 Total N 968 777 724 % Graduated 74.4% 82 .0% 84.3% N Graduated 720 637 610 Little Rock I Difference -297 12.2% 4 -59 14.9% 109 -244 9.9% -110 Table 4.3 4~Year Graduation Rates For Year 1 's Ninth Graders (N = 2,047) II Graduated I Transferred I Did Not Graduate19 All 58.7% 14.5% 26.8% Black 61.3% 10.9% 27 .8% White 55.4% 19.5% 25 . 1 % 19 These srudents dropped out of school or were retained , expelled or demoted. 60 I I 5. Retention a. Grades 7 Through 12 i. Over-years comparisons Table 5.1 shows, across grades, by race and by gender, the percentage of students who were designated to be retained in their grades at the end of each school year, and the percentage point difference between years. 20 As shown in the table, retention rates are relatively low in Little Rock at all grade levels. Between Years 3 and 4, retention rates decreased slightly at the junior high school grades and increased at the 10th and 11th grades. Overall, since Year 1, junior high school retention rates have increased by 0.5 percentage points (4.1 % to 4.6%). High school retention rates fluctuated throughout the period but have improved by 0.2 percentage points (4 .9% to 4.7%). Racial discrepancies in retention rates exist at each grade level and in each year. ii. Longitudinal comparisons Retention histories for students who appear in the 4-YEAR COHORT FILE are contained in Table 5.2. The table shows, by race, 4-YEAR COHORT students distributed by the number of years in which they were retained. Only 11. 7 percent of the 4-YEAR COHORT students were retained over the four year period. Of those ever retained 7.4 percent were retained more than once (0. 9 % of the total 4-YEAR COHORT). There are notable racial disparities (14.6% of the black 4-YEAR COHORT students were retained over the four-year period versus only 6.0% of the white 4-YEAR COHORT students
35 black and 3 white 4-YEAR COHORT students were retained more than once over the four year period). Double retention within a small grade range over a short period of time, inevitably increases the number of students who are over age for grade. In Little Rock, being over age for grade is associated with dropping out of school. iii. Over age students Table 5.3 shows, across grades, by race and gender the percentage of students who were at least one-and-one-half years over age for their grade during Years 1, 2, 3 and 4. The table shows that about 14 percent of all students were over age during each year. Rates for 8th and 10th grade students were somewhat higher (about 17%). The percentage of over age students increased between Year 1 and Year 4 at each grade level except for 10th and 11th, where there were decreases of 1. 2 and 1. 8 percentage points respectively. 20 Students who attend summer school and achieve promotion are excluded from retention counts. 61 Totals Year 1 Totals Year 2 Totals Year 3 Totals Year 4 Jchange in Student Change Yrs 12 Change Yrs 23 Change Yrs 3-4 Change Yrs 1-4 RACE Black Year Black Year 2 Black Year 3 Black Year 4 llhite Year 1 llhi te Year 2 llhite Year 3 llhite Year 4 GENDER BY RACE Males Year 1 Males Year 2 Males Year 3 Males Year 4 Black Year 1 Black Year 2 Black Year 3 Black Year 4 llhite Year 1 llhite Year 2 llhite Year 3 llhite Year 4 Fe111ales Year 1 F-les Year 2 F-ln Year 3 F-lH Year 4 Black Year 1 Black Year 2 Black Year 3 Black Year 4 llhite Year 1 llhite Year 2 llhite Year 3 llhite Year 4 LITTLE ROCK Table 5.1 RETENTION COMPARISONS Distribution in Student Retentions, Across Grades by Race and Gender: 1988-89 (Yr. 1) to 1991-92 (Yr. 4). Grade Level ----------------------------------------------====================================== 7 8 9 10 11 12 79 1012 Total --------------===-=-======----====-===========-======-=-------===--========--------- 4.3 3.4 4.6 3.8 Retention 0.9 1.2 0.8 0.5 5 .5 4.4 5.6 4.7 2.0X 1.4 2.8 2.2 6.4X 5.5X 6.8X 4.6X 8.6 7.0 8.0 5.4 2.7 2.7 4.4X 3.0X 2.0X 1.1X 2.3X 3.1X 2.4X 1.7 2.9 4.0 1.2X 0.0 1.2X 1.4 6.0X 7.5X 6.1X 6.5X 1.5 1.4 0.4 0.5 8.2X 9.BX 8.0X 8.2X 2.2X 2.6X 2.1X 2.7" 7.5X 8.6X 6.8X 7.4X 10.6X 11.5X 9.3X 9.2X 2.6X 3.7" 1.4X 3.1X 4.5X 6.2X 5.4X 5.6X 5.9" 8.3X 6.7" 7.1X 1.8X 1.6X 2.7" 2.3X 1.8X 3.4 3.8 3.4X 1.6 0.4 -0.4 1.6 1.9 4.0 5.3X 3.6X 1.6X 2.6 1.3X 2.7 2.2 4.3 4.9X 5 .1X 2.3 5.2 6.5X 5.7 2.1 2.9 2.3 4.0X 1.3X 2.5X 2.8X 1.6X 1.5X 2.7 4.1X 1.6X 1.1X 2.2X o.ox 1.4X 7.9X 7.3X 2.4X 6.5 0.6 4.9 4. 1 1.4 10.2X 9.5 2.9X a.ox 4.5X 4.3X 1.8X 4.1X 10.7 8.4X 3.3X 8.6X 13.0X 10.0X 3.9X 9.9" 7.2X 5.9" 2.5X 6.1X 5.1X 6.2X 1.6X 4.6X 7.2X 1.9" 1.9X 6.1X 1.9" 2.9X 1.2X 2.2X 4.2X 5.SX 1.9X 4.1X 1.3 3.6 2.2 0.1 5.2X 6.9X 2.4X 5.6X 3.2X 3.7" 1.4X 2.2X 6.5X 7.4X 2.5X 6.0X 8.0X 8.7 2.8X 7.5X 4.9" 5.4X 2.0X 3.9" 2.1X 3.7 1.5X 2.5X 2.6X 2.0X 2.0X 3.9" 1.6X 2.0X 0.9" 0.7 2.1X 6.3X 6.6X 3.1X 4.2 0.3 3.5 1.0 3.1 8.2X 8.3X 3.2X 1.2X 4.5X 4.4X 3.2X 3.0X 8.3X 7.8X 4.8X 4.3X 10.2X 9.SX 4.2X 1.9" 6.7 5.7 6.0X 1.2X 4.6X 5.5X 1.7 2.0X 7.2X 7.2X 2.3X 0.6X 2.5X 3.2X 1.0X 4.1X 4.8X 4.9" 4.6X 0.7 0.1 0.3 0.5 5.4X 6.2X 6.4X 5.6X 1.9" 2.2X 2.1X 2.5X 5.5X 6.2X 6.2X 5.7 7.5X 8.1X 8.0X 6.8X 2.5X 3.1X 2.7 3.4X 2.6X 3.3X 3.6X 3.5X 3.4X 4.3X 4.6X 4.3X 1.4X 1.2X 1.3X 1. 7X 4.9X 6.4X 3.6X 4. 7X 1 .5 -2.8 1. 1 0.2 6.7 8.3X 4.4X 5.8X 2.9" 4.2X 2.5X 3.2 7.0X a.ox 4.SX 6.6X 9.1 9.6X 5.3X 7.5 4.7 6.0X 3.4X 5.3X 2.9" 4.9" 2.8X 3.0X 4.3X 3.5 3.6X 4.3X 1.3 2.5X 1.7 1.3X 4.5 5.6 4.3 4.6 1. 1 1 .3 0.3 0.1 6.0X 7.1 5 .5X 5.7 2.5 3.3 2.3 2.9 6.3 7.1 5.4 6.1X 8.2X 8.7 6.8 7.1 3.7 4.6 3.1 4.3 2.8 4.1 3.2 3.2 3.8X 5.5 4.2 4.3X 1.4 2.0X 1.6 1.5 Source: Little Rock Cohort Files 198889, 1989-90, 199091, 199192. 62 Little Rock Table 5 .2 Retention Histories For 4-YEAR COHORT students21 Status Out-of-School Retentions at the end of Year 4 All Black White N = 4,370 N = 2,920 N = 1,386 Never Retained N 3,860 2,495 1,303 % 88 .3% 85.4% 94.0% Retained 1 out N 472 390 80 of 4 Years % 10.8% 13.4% 5.8% Retained 2 out N 38 35 3 of 4 Years % 0.9% 1.2% 0.2% Ever Retained N 510 425 83 in 4 Years % 11.7% 14.6% 6.0% 11 Because of low retention rate in little Rock. No students are recained in 3 out of 4 and 4 out of 4 years 63 Table 5.3 OVER AGE aJIPARISONS Distribution of over Age Studlnta, Across Grades, by Race and Gender: 198889CYr. 1) to 199192CYr. 4). Grade Level maa ....... aaaaaa:2z:mam----m~=sa.zaa2z- 7 8 9 10 11 12 79 1012 Total -=rmsa-aaa:azaaa2aaaaaa2aasarmaasaaaaa -=mc=== Totals Year 1 12.1X 16.5X 11.3X 17.9X 12.ax 8.6X 13.4X 13.4X 13.4X Totals Year 2 , , . 7X 16.ax 12.4X 17.4X 14.1X 9.3X 13.6X 13.6X 13.6X Totals Year 3 13.ZX 17.ax 16.7X 15.4X 12.7X ,, .5X 15.9X 13.3X 14.7X Totals Year 4 12.2X 17.4X 15.6X 16.7X 11.0X 11 .3X 15,0X 13.2X 14.1X --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Change in over Age Change Yrs 1 2 0.4 0.3 , .1 0.5 1.3 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.2 Change Yrs 23 1.5 1.0 4.3 2.0 1 .4 2.2 2.3 0.3 1.1 Chan
Yrs 34 1 .0 0.4 . , .1 1.3 1.7 0.2 0.9 O. 1 0.6 Chan
Yrs 14 o., 0.9 4.3 1 .2 1 .8 2.7 , .6 0.2 0.7 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RACE Black Year 1 14.7X 20.4X 13.3X 21.SX 18.1X 15.1X 16.4X 18.1X 17.2X Black Year 2 14.9X 21.0X 15.8X 22.2X 18.2X 13.1X 17.4X 18.1X 17.7X Black Year 3 16.5X 22.3X 20.3X 20.3X 17.1X 14.7X 19.7X 17.5X 18.7X Black Year 4 14.SX 21.9X 19.9X 21.7X 15.2X 15.2X 18.7X 17.7X 18.3X White Year 1 6.2X 9.2X 8.4X 11.8X 7. ,x 5.1X 8.0X 7.9X 8.0X White Year 2 S.2X 7.4X 6.4X 9.ax 8.7X s.sx 6.3X 7.8X 7.1X White Year 3 6.6X 8.2X 9.4X 8.0X 6.7X 7.1X 8.1X 7.3X 7.7X White Year 4 7.SX 7.7X 7.3X 8.SX S.2X 6.1X 7.5X 6.6X 7.0X GENDER BY RACE Males Year 1 15.3X 19.ax ,s.ox 23.0X 17.6X 11.3X 16.ax 17.9X 17.3X Males Year 2 13.7X 21.SX 15.4X 23.0X 18.6X 13.2X 16.9X 18.3X 17.6X Males Year 3 16.3X 20.SX 22.0X 19.9X 17.9X 15.1X 19.5X 17.7X 18.7X Males Year 4 16.1X 21.0X 17.9X 22.2X 14.7X 15.4X 18.3X 17.7X ,a.ox Black Year 1 19.5X 24.6X 16.3X 27.7X 24.9X 15.SX 20.4X 23.6X 21 .9X Black Year 2 17.SX 27.3X 18.SX 27.4X 24.0X 19.0X 21.3X 23.SX 22.4X Black Year 3 20.0X 25.SX 26.7X 24.8X 21.9X 19.31 23.9X 22.ZX 23.11 Black Year 4 18.9X 26.0X 22.7X 28.5X 19.2X 19.1X 22.6X 22.ax 22.7X White Year 1 8.3X 10.ax 12.7X 15.7X 9.9X 7.ax 10.SX 11. ,x 10.ax White Year 2 5.7X 10.2X 9.9X 15.31 11.2X . 8.0X 8.5X ,, .1X 9.9X White Year 3 8.2X ,o.sx 13.51 11 .7X ,, .7X 9.SX ,a.ax 10.9X 10.9X White Year 4 10.2X 9.3X 8.9X 12.2X 8.5X 10. ,x 9.SX 10.31 9.9X Females Year 1 8.6X 13.1X 7.9X 12.9X 8.3X 5.6X 9.9X 9.1X 9.6X Females Year 2 9.SX ,1 .ax 9.3X 12.1x 9.ax 6.0X 10.3X 9.3X 9.ax Females Year 3 9.9X 15.0X 11 .3X 11.4X 8.2X 8.2X 12.ZX 9.3X 10.8X Females Year 4 8.1X 13.7X 13.3X 11 .6X 7.7X 7.8X 11. 7X 9.1X 10.41 Black Year 1 10.SX 16.3X 10.3X 15.9X ,, .7X 8.SX 12.SX 12.SX 12.SX Black Year 2 ,,.ax 14.ax 13.ZX 16.8X 12.SX 8.SX 13.31 12.8X 13.1X Black Year 3 12.SX 19.2X 14.ZX 16.1X 12.SX 10.7X 15.4X 13.2X 14.4X Black Year 4 9.9X 17.SX 17.2% 15.4X 11.6X 11. 7X 14.8X 13.11 14.1X White Year 1 3.6X 7.5X 5.0X 8.0X 4.6X 2.ax 5.4X 5.0X 5.2X White Year 2 4.7X 4.1X 2.8X 5.4X 6.2X 3.1X 3.9X 4.8X 4.4X White Year 3 5.0X 6.0X 5.1X 4.8X 2.9X 5.0X 5.4X 4.2X 4.7X White Year 4 4.8X 6.1X 5.7X 5.2X 2.3X 2.9X 5.SX 3.4X 4.4X Note: Students froa racial/ethnic backgrounds other than 'Black' or 'White' were not included in the 'RACE' categories bee- their nuabers 11ere 111iniml. Therefore, grade l..,.l totals are greater than the SUI of racial categories. Source: Little Rock Cohort Files 198889, 198990, 199091, 199192. 64 b. Grades Kindergarten through 6 i. Over-years comparisons The percentage of elementary school students being retained in their grades is shown in Table 5. 4 by race and gender. The percentage of students being retained decreased slightly at all elementary grade levels except 6th grade. Racial disparities are evident at all primary grades (kindergarten through 2nd grade) but rates for 3rd through 6th grades are much less disparate. Overall, the percentage of black students being retained in each year is twice as large as the percentage of white students. LITTLE ROCK Table 5.4 RETENTION Change in Student Retentions, by Race and Gender for Across Grades, 199091(Yr. 3) and 1991 92 (Yr. 4). Grade Level ------------------------------=------=--=--================================ I( 2 3 4 5 6 Total ----------------------=---=---=--=--==-==-================================= Totals Year 3 5.6X 11.SX 4.8X 1.6X 1.9X 1.1X 0.4X 4.0X Totals Year 4 4.3X 7.4X 3.0X 1.0X 0.8X 0.6X 0.6X 2.6X Change Yrs 34 1.3 4.4 1.8 0.6 1. 1 0.5 0.2 1.4 RACE Black Year 3 7.0X 15.SX 5.7X 2.1X 2.4X 1.2X 0.7X 5 .1X Black Year 4 5.4X 9.2X 4.0X 1. 1X 1.1X 0.7X 0.6X 3.2X White Year 3 3.3X 4.8X 3.1X 0.7X 0.9X 0.8X o.ox ,2.0X White Year 4 2.6X 4.4X 1.4X 0.5X 0.4X 0.4X 0.5X 1.5X GENDER BY RACE Males Year 3 6.8X 14.4X 5.5X 1.6X 2.3X 1.1X o.sx 4.8X Males Year 4 5.4X 8.2X 2.6X 1.3X 0.9X 0.4X 1.1X 2.9X Black Year 3 8.SX 18.6X 6.8X 1.9X 3.1X 1.1X 0.7X 6.0X Black Year 4 6.SX 10.4X 3.2X 1. 7X 1. 1X 0.5X 1.1X 3.6X White Year 3 4.1X 7.2X 3.3X 1.0X 0.5X 1.0X o.ox 2.6X White Year 4 3.7X 4.?X 1.4X 0.5X 0.5X o.ox 0.8X 1. 7X Females Ye r 3 4.3X 9.1X 4.0X 1.6X 1.SX 1.1X 0.4X 3.2X Females Ye r 4 3.1X 6.5X 3.4X 0.6X 0.7X 0.9X 0.1X 2.2X Black Ye r 3 5.5X 12.9X 4.6X 2.3X 1.6X 1.4X 0.6X 4.2X Black Year 4 4.1X 8.0X 4.7X 0.5X 1.0X 1.0X o.ox 2.8X White Year 3 2.3X 2.3X 2.9X 0.3X 1.3X o.sx a.ox 1.4X White Year 4 1.4X 4.0X 1.3X 0.6X 0.3X 0.9X 0.3X 1.2X Source: Little Rock Cohort Files for 199091, 199192. 65 ii. Longitudinal comparisons Longitudinal retention data for kindergarten through 6th grade students who were retained in Year 3 are contained in Table 5.5. The table shows, by grade, the number and percentage of Year 3's retained students who were retained again in Year 4. Most of the kindergarten through 6th grade students who were retained in Year 3 were not retained twice over the two years. Overall, of the 585 elementary school students who were retained in grade in Year 3, only 6 (1.0%) were retained again in Year 4. I Little Rock Table 5.5 RETENTION Year 4 Retention Status of Elementary Students Who Were Retained in Year 3 (N=585) Status in Grade in Year 4 Total (K-Year 4 K 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 6th) Not 112 275 95 32 39 19 7 579 Retained 97.4% 99.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 95 .0% 87 .5% 99.0% Retained 3 1 0 0 0 1 1 6 2.6% 0.4% 0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% 12.5% 1.0% Total I 115 276 95 32 39 20 8 585 *Note: All srudents reported in this table were retained in Year 3. The table then shows the retention starus of these students in Year 4. 66 iii. Over age students Table 5.6 shows, across grades, by race and gender the percentage of elementary school students who were at least one-and-one-half years over age for their grades during Years 3 and 4. The percentage of elementary students over age for grade decreased from 6.8 percent in Year 3 to 5.5 percent in Year 4. Disparities are evident between black students and white students. Ten percent or more of Year 4's black male 2nd through 6th graders were over age for grade. Table 5.6 OVER AGE Percentage of Change in over Age Students, Across Grades, by Race and Gender for 199091(Yr. 3) and 199192 (Yr. 4). Grade Level ======================================================================== IC 2 3 4 5 6 Total ======================================================================== Totals Year 3 Totals Year 4 Change Yrs 34 RACE Blaclc Year 3 Black Year 4 llhite Year 3 llhite Year 4 GENDER BY RACE Males Year 3 Males Year 4 Black Year 3 Black Year 4 llhite Year 3 llhite Year 4 Females Year 3 Females Year 4 Black Year 3 Black Year 4 llhite Year 3 llhite Year 4 1.1% 0.2% 0.9 1.3% 0.3% 0.9X o.ox 1.2% 0.3% 1.6% 0.4% 0.7X o.ox 1.1% 0.1% 1.0X o.zx 1.ZX o.ox 4.8% 0.4% 4.4 5.7X 0.3% 3.2% 0.5% 5.4% 0.5% 6.6% 0.5% 3.2% 0.4% 4.8% 0.3% 4.8% 0.1% 3.2% 0.5% 6.0X 6.6% 0.6 7.6% 8.4% 3.4% 3.5% 8.0X 7.6% 10.0X 10.1% 4.7X 3.3% 6.0X 5.5% 5.1% 6.6% 2.0X 3.7X 7.7X 6.3% 1.4 9.8% 8.0X 4.2% 3.2% 9.0X 8.3% 11.6% 10.4% 4.7X 4.9% 7.7X 4.1% 8.0X 5.7X 3.8% 1.2% 8.9X 8.0X 0.9 10.9X 10.0X 5.4X 4.7X 10.9X 9.4X 12.SX 11.6X 8.3% 5.8% 8.9X 6.6% 9.3% 8.3% 2.3% 3.5% 9.4% 8.6% 0.8 11.1% 10.7X 6.1% 4.5% 11.2% 10.1% 12.4% 12.4% 9.2% 5.9% 9.4% 7.0X 9.7X 9.0X 2.9X 3.1% 9.4% 9.2% 0.2 10.7X 11.1% 6.8% 5.7X 11.SX 11.1% 13.2% 13.0X 8.1% 7.9X 9.4% 7.2% 8.1% 9.1% 5.5% 3.4% Note: Students from racial/ethnic backgrounds other than 'Black' or 1 llhite' were not included in the 'RACE' categories because their nurbers were minimal. Therefore, grade level totals are greater than the Slffl of racial categories. Source: Little Rocle Cohort Files 199091, 199192. 67 6.8% 5.5% 1 .3 8.2% 7.0X 4.2% 3.1% 8.1% 6.6% 9.7X 8.3% 5.4% 3.9X 6.8% 4.4% 6.6% 5.6% 3.0X 2.2% 6. Course Failure a. Over-years comparisons Table 6.1 shows the percent of courses failed out of all courses taken. It can be seen that students fail about one third of their courses. The percent of courses failed has stayed fairly constant at the junior high school level across the four years. At the high school level, it has fluctuated and declined slightly overall. There were substantial differences between grade levels. Table 6.2 shows, across grades, by school level and by race, the percent of students failing one or more courses. The table shows increases at the junior high school level (2.0 percentage points between Years 1 and 4 for the junior high school grades combined), and decreases at the high school level (a decline of 6.1 percentage points for the high school grades combined) . About one-quarter of all junior high school students and more than one third of all high school students fail courses. 68 Table 6. 1 COURSE FAILURE COMPARISONS Percent of Courses Failed Across Grades by Race and Gender: 198889(Yr. 1) to 199192(Yr. 4). Grade Level s:amm.aaaasz:zza:a--=--==----=-====-z--z-:-:-z:z:--=---z---z=-=--------=----= 7 8 9 10 11 12 79 1012 Total --===am~-================================================================== Totals Year 1 31.9% 38.41 26.7% 35.9% 31.21 24.21 31.31 31.81 31.7% Totals Year 2 34.51 37.11 25.21 36.0l 29.1% 26.8% 30.7% 31.41 31.21 Totals Year 3 33.0X 32.7% 29.21 33.21 31.61 23.3% 31.11 29.6% 30.21 Totals Year 4 31.31 32.21 31.0X 38.0X 27.9% 25.0l 31.4% 31.4% 31.4% ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- Change in Percent of Courses Failed Change Yrs 1 2 2.7 1 .3 1.5 0. 1 2. 1 2.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 Change Yrs 23 1.5 4.3 4.0 2.8 2.5 3.4 0.4 1 .7 1.0 Change Yrs 34 1 .7 0.5 1.8 4.7 3.7 1.7 0.3 1.8 1.2 Change Yrs 1 4 0.6 6.2 4.3 2.0 3.2 0.8 o. 1 0.4 0.3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RACE Black Year 1 31.8% 39.41 25.51 36.41 31.21 24.31 31.11 32.31 31.9% Black Year 2 34.7% 37.3% 25.61 37.11 29.0l 25.8% 31.2% 31.8% 31.61 Black Year 3 33.51 33.9% 30.0l 33.81 32.0l 23.11 32.0l 30.0l 30.81 Black Year 4 31.7% 33.11 32.1% 38.2% 27.9% 24.7% 32.3% 31.61 31.9% llhite Year 1 32.7% 34.41 30.0l 34.81 31.11 24.31 31.81 30.9% 31.11 llhite Year 2 33.41 36.11 24.21 33.31 29.31 28.51 28.7% 30.61 30.11 llhite Year 3 30.7% 26.7% 27.11 31.81 30.BX 24.0l 27.7% 28.9% 28.51 llhite Year 4 28.BX 28.2% 26.9% 38.11 27.61 26.31 27.61 31.31 30.0X GENDER BY RACE Males Year 1 33.2% 37.8% 27.7% 39.61 34.61 24.7% 32.0l 34.81 33.9% Malu Year 2 36.ZX 37.41 27.61 37.7% 30.51 28.11 32.51 33.0l 32.8% Males Year 3 35.ZX 33.61 29.7% 35.11 33.41 23.8% 32.2% 31.11 31.51 Males Year 4 31.51 33.41 31.0l 39.7% 30.51 26.8% 31.BX 33.61 32.8% Black Year 1 33.61 38.9% 26.7% 39.21 35.11 24.8% 32.0l 35.0l 33.9% Black Year 2 35.8% 38.11 27.8% 38.31 29.7% 28.0l 32.BX 33.21 33.0l Black Year 3 35.61 34.7% 31.0X 36.31 34.31 24.2% 33.31 31.9% 32.61 Black Year 4 32.41 34.61 32.51 40.3% 29.31 27.0X 33.0X 33.7% 33.4% White Year 1 32.0X 33.8% 30.31 40.7% 33.BX 24.8% 31.7% 34.51 33.BX White Year 2 37.2% 35.0X 26.BX 36.31 32.31 28.2% 31.0X 32.51 32.11 llhite Year 3 33.31 27.51 26.9% 31.9% 32.ZX 23.0X 28.41 29.11 28.BX White Year 4 27.61 28.9% 26.41 38.61 33.11 27.0X 27.31 33.61 31.31 Females Year 1 29.11 39.41 25.0X 30.81 26.61 23.51 30.11 27.8% 28.41 Females Year 2 30.61 36.51 21.41 33.71 27.11 25.2% 27.51 29.31 28.BX Females Year 3 27.SX 31.ZX 28.31 30.BX 29.11 22.7% 29.11 27.BX 28.21 F-lH Year 4 30.8% 30.2% 30.9% 35.41 24.51 22.71 30.7% 28.51 29.31 Black Year 1 28 .51 40.11 23.51 32.8% 26.31 23.61 29.7% 28.BX 29.1% Black Year 2 32.11 36.2% 22.11 35.41 28.0l 23.61 28.51 30.0X 29.51 Black Year 3 28.51 32.51 28.51 30.61 29.11 21. 7X 29.7% 27.51 28.31 Black Year 4 30.51 30.7% 31.61 35.3% 26.0l 22.0X 31.11 28.9% 29.81 White Year 1 35.0l 36.0l 29.61 24.BX 26.BX 23.71 32.01 25.2% 26.51 11h i te Year 2 24.1% 39.9% 19.41 29.2% 25.3% 29.11 23.61 27.7% 26.BX llhi te Year 3 23.9% 25.2% 27.51 31.61 28.9% 25.51 26.2% 28.7% 28.11 White Year 4 33.11 26.61 27.8% 37.41 19.41 25.0X 28.2% 27.51 27.8% Note: These dat
This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.