The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.
~~W&JQJ wooru~u LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDIES AND REPORTS January 1994 REPORTS AND STUDIES RESPONSE SHEET RANK EACH ITEM RESPONSE USING THE FOLLOWING SCALE: Poor 2 Fair 3 Good 4 Excellent 5 Superior DESEGREGATION PLAN PROGRAM GOALS STUDY OR REPORT MISSION STATEMENT IMPLEMENTATION AND OBJECTIVES QUALITY OF FUNDING TOTAL AND GOALS SUPPORT SUPPORT ATTAINMENT RECOMMENDATIONS SOURCE RESPONSE --- Arkansas Minimum Performance Test Curriculum Audit - Recommendations Educational Equity Monitoring Recommendations --- School Climate/Human Relations Survey Stanford Achievement Test, - - Eighth Edition COMMENTS MAY BE RECORDED ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS PAGE. Date: To: From: Re: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 February 2, 1994 Superintendent's Cabinet Sterling lngraritsociate to the Deputy Superintendent Reports and Recommendations Enclosed are brief summary reports and recommendations for the following: Arkansas Minimum Performance Test Curriculum Audit of 1990 Educational Equity Monitoring School Climate/Human Relations Survey Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition Additional supporting information is on file in the Planning, Research and Evaluation office. These reports will be discussed at the cabinet meeting on Friday, February 4, 1994, at 8:00 a.m. bjg REPORTS AND STUDIES RESPONSE SHEET RANK EACH ITEM RESPONSE USING THE FOLLOWING SCALE: 1 = Poor 2 Fair 3 Good 4 = Excellent 5 Superior DESEGREGATION PLAN PROGRAM GOALS STUDY OR REPORT MISSION STATEMENT IMPLEMENTATION AND OBJECTIVES QUALITY OF FUNDING TOTAL AND GOALS SUPPORT SUPPORT ATTAINMENT RECOMMENDATIONS SOURCE RESPONSE Arkansas Minimum - Performance Test I - Curriculum Audit Recommendations -- Educational Equity Monitoring Recommendations - School Climate/Human Relations Survey - Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition COMMENTS MAY BE RECORDED ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS PAGE. SECTION NUMBER One Two Three Four Five TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME TWO STUDIES AND REPORTS Arkansas Minimum Performance Test Curriculum Audit Recommendations Educational Equity Monitoring Recommendations School Climate/Human Relations Survey Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition STUDIES AND REPORTS SECTION ONE ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST Spring 1993 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION Review of Arkansas Minimum Performance Test Data Findings and Recommendations Since its inception in 1988, the Arkansas Minimum Performance Test (MPT) has been administered each spring to all third, sixth, and eighth grade students. The MPT was initiated by an act of the Arkansas Legislature through the "Education Assessment Act of 1979," and later expanded by the "Competency Based Education Act of 1983. 11 Until 1993, the State of Arkansas required eighth grade students to pass the MPT before they could be promoted to the ninth grade. Eighth grade students were given three opportunities to pass the test. Beginning in 1993, failure of the MPT could no longer serve as the sole basis for retaining a student in the eighth grade. In 1994, the MPT will not be administered in Grade 3, and only one administration will occur for Grades 6 and 8, respectively. This report reviews the test data and other materials the Little Rock School District (LRSD) has on file relative to the MPT, provides a general outline of the information available, and discusses findings and recommendations concerning the test data and related materials vis-a-vis the needs of the district. The following reports are provided by the State of Arkansas via Data Recognition Corporation and are on file in the Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Department for the years 1988-93 and/or appropriate school buildings. MPT Data Review Page 2 1. Individual student Report. Individual student reports are available for each student tested. In Grade 3, these reports provide information about student performance in reading and mathematics. In Grades 6 and 8, these reports provide information about student performance in reading, mathematics, language arts, science, and social studies. The primary purpose of this report is to determine whether or not the student has mastered a subject area and to identify those specific objectives which the student did or did not master. Therefore, the report lists for each objective tested, the number of questions correctly answered and a notation indicating mastery or non-mastery of the objectives. These reports are on file in the appropriate school buildings. 2. Classroom Roster Report. The Classroom Roster Report is available for each class tested. Each roster lists mastery results by objective for each student. Students are listed in alphabetical order. The purpose of the roster is to aid educators in identifying problem objective areas for groups of students. At the eighth grade level, the roster is an alphabetical list of all eighth grade students who were tested. 3. Grade a Pass/Not Pass Roster. The Pass/Not Pass Roster lists all eighth-grade students within each school. It provides each student's scale score and pass/not pass status for each subject area and the total test. (Note: A Grade 8 Not Pass Roster is also available. It is similar to the Pass/Not Pass Roster except that it lists only students who did not pass.) 4. School Summary Report. For Grade 3, the School Summary Report lists the number and percent of all students who mastered each objective. For Grades 6 and 8, the School Summary Report lists the number and percent of students by each socioeconomic status (SES} group within the school who mastered each objective. For Grades 3, 6, 8 the School Summary Report lists the number and percent of students by sex, race, and race by sex within the school who passed the [subject area) test. The Grades 6 and 8 School Summary Report also lists the number and percent of students by each socioeconomic status (SES} group who passed the test. No report is available which lists the number and percent of Grade 8 students by sex, race, and race by sex within the school who passed the total test. 5. District Summary Report. The District Summary Reports are similar to the School Summary Reports except the results have been aggregated to the district level. No report is available which lists the number and percent of Grade 8 students by sex, race, and race by sex within the school who passed the total test. MPT Data Review Page 3 The above descriptions of the reports are taken from the Arkansas Minimum Performance Testing Program Test Results Interpretation Manual 1993 (Interpretation Manual) published by the Arkansas Department of Education. Additional reports prepared by the Planning, Research, and Evaluation staff include the following: 1. Five Year Summary Reports (1989-1993). These reports provide the number of students tested, the number who passed, and the percent passed by race by gender for each school. At Grade 3, the reports are available for reading and mathematics. At Grades 6 and 8, for reading, mathematics, language arts, science, and social studies. 2. Five Year summary Reports (1989-1993) by Categories of Schools. This report is the same as described in Number 1 above, except it is available for the following grades and categories of schools: Incentive Schools (Grades 3 and 6)
Magnet Schools (Grades 3, 6, and 8), and Area Schools (Grades 3 and 6). 3. Grade 8 Summary Reports after the Third Administration. These reports are available for individual years 1989 through 1993, respectively. No five year summaries are available. These summaries provide race and gender information for students who failed the test, but not for those who passed. 4. District summary of Objectives Not Mastered, 1989-1993 for Grades 3, 6, and a. This report provides a summary of the objectives not mastered over a five year period. It does not provide an analysis by race and gender of objectives not mastered. In addition to the above referred to reports, the Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department has on file MPT manuals, copies of various Arkansas statutes which concern the testing program mandated by the State, and other miscellaneous MPT related materials. In the "Foreword" of the Interpretation Manual, the purposes of the "Competency Based Education Act of 1983 11 are MPT Data Review Page 4 delineated
one of the purposes is to "give students, parents, and teachers a general idea of how well students are doing in basic skill areas." The following findings and suggested recommendations are the result of a review of the available MPT test data and related materials described previously in this report. FINDING ONE A review of the passing percentages for the 1992-93 MPT administration shows that at all three grade levels, in all subject areas tested, at least 85% of the white students who were tested displayed mastery. Eighty-five percent of the tested black students showed mastery in only sixth grade reading. The average disparity between the passing percentages of black students and white students is as follows: Grade 3: -14% Grade 6: -17% Grade 8: -21% Since one of the primary goals of the LRSD is to close the disparity between the academic achievement of black students and white students, this finding should be of particular interest to those who are involved in instruction or instructional planning. RECOMMENDATIONS for FINDING ONE 1. Provide remediation for those students in need of said. Do not require students who have mastered specific objectives to mark time while providing additional instruction to those in need. MPT Data Review Page 5 2. Structure a close working relationship among instructional supervisors, the Staff Development Department, classroom teachers and the PRE Department so that test data can be adequately reviewed and interpreted, effective strategies to alleviate the disparity can be pinpointed, and demonstrations of "what works" can be shared with teachers. FINDING TWO Thirty-nine percent of the MPT objectives on tests of the three grade levels have never been mastered by at least 85% of the students at the respective grade level in at least one year from 1989 through 1993. -~~~f~ERCENT OF NON-MASTERED KPT OBJECTIVES t_ ~o 1 ~~f{ ,
J'' COMBINED TOTALS for 1989-1993 ,~~~?~:/-".' tpp l~: 1 GRADES 3, 6, and 8 JI"' Number of Non-mastered Percent of Objectives/Number of Non-mastered =O=b. i..~ ~c~t=i~v~~s~---------O=b. i.~. ~c~t~i~v~~s '1j
J1 READING 15/70 21% MATHEMATICS ~ -J?it:LANGUAGB ARTS V~~/' SCIENCE ~p SOCIAL STUDIES ,)' 16/64 GRADES 6 and 8 16/30 ( 33/36) 30/45 RECOMMENDATIONS for FINDING TWO 22% 53% 92% 67% 1. The PRE report entitled District summary of Objectives Not Mastered, 1989-1993 for Grades 3, 6, and 8 should1be distributed to instructional supervisors and MPT Data Review Page 6 principals to guide decisions which will have an impact on instruction. 2. Each principal should also analyze the percentages of students in his/her particular school and identify areas of strengths and weaknesses. 3. Instructional supervisors should work closely with teachers and other appropriate personnel to develop instructional strategies for identified objectives. 4. Consideration should be given to systematically assessing students at the beginning of the school year to determine if they have mastered specific objectives. 5. Provide instruction to students who have not mastered objectives. 6. Provide appropriate instruction to those students who have mastered objectives, including enriching activities. FINDING THREE Finding Three concerns available data. No data are available by race and gender or by race by gender for those students who passed the total Grade 8 MPT in any given year. This report is not provided by the state, but is available from Data Recognition for a fee. RECOMMENDATION for FINDING THREE since there is a great deal of emphasis on the achievement of black students as compared to that of white students, it is recommended that this report be made available to the district, at state expense, if possible. MPT Data Review Page 7 However, if the state chooses not to order the report, then the district should consider bearing the expense. FINDING FOUR When a five year period of MPT results is analyzed, the "Classroom Rosters" for Grades 3 and 6 and the "Roster of Grade 8 Students" could possibly indicate problem areas for particular groups. RECOMMENDATION for FINDING FOUR 1. Principals, instructional supervisors, and other appropriate central office administrators should review the available data and develop effective strategies to address areas of concern. According to the Interpretation Manual, perhaps "modification of the instructional program may be warranted in a skill area in which a substantial number of students did not master the objective or the set of objectives matched to the Goal Area." It is important that MPT test results be disseminated to the school board of directors, to parents, students, school district personnel, and the general public in a ~mel manner. STUDIES AND REPORTS SECTION TWO CURRICULUM AUDIT RECOMMENDATIONS December 1990 v0rr
ii?~' ., * 1-,w
,r ?If ,r CURRICULUM AUDIT/REVIEW ,'lf'1b1" ~,\ A review of selected curriculum programs was conducted during the first semester of the ) 1993-94 school year. The Deputy Superintendent and appropriate curriculum directors,/ supervisors, and coordinators facilitated the review. The following plan of action was developed and implemented so that appropriate program changes, deletions, and/ or new programs could be recommended to the Superintendent. Plan of Action 1. Scheduled and held meetings with appropriate staff to develop a plan of?ctifoor n~ established goal
,fo
t, fi~ 2. Established goal for project
and f, .?.?~ ~ 3. Identified items needed for the project: .1,..Ji/' ~ i)), /-r~,, , "No More Excuses: A Plan to Increase Learning for All Students in the LRSD" Recommendations from the Curriculum Audit (December 21, 1990) conducted by the National Academy of School Executives (NASE). A status report related to the Audit recommendations is attached. Revised curriculum and curriculum-related policies Supervisors' assessment of implementation of the revised policies and curriculum
inservices held
school/office visitation Curriculum debriefing session
feedback end-of-year with selected supervisors Achievement test results Annual staff development report Feedback - implementation of Abacus Customer Satisfaction Survey results Results - on-site visits of Deputy Superintendent with building principals
implementation and utilization of revised curriculum Curriculum Audit/Review - Page 2 Areas impacted/budget reduction Monitoring reports Academic Support (Compensatory Education, Chapter 1) Student placement (G/T, AP, Special Education, Regular, race, gender) Promotion/retention policy 4. Developed Review and Assessment Process: Procedures were established to review and analyze data in order to make recommendations for Fast Track Evaluations. These evaluations would assist staff in determining programs that needed to be modified or deleted, as well as the development of new programs. / ,, . .v1 D ' ~ iJJr 7fP ~ a. Organize and label fmdings, reports, etc. ot:?:: r"' b. Review and analyze findings, reports, objectives of programs and achievement tests. c. Relate the data back to the findings in order to determine: Did we meet our objectives? How effective were we in meeting our objectives? What evidence is available to support our conclusions? Identify factors that facilitated attainment of goal(s). Identify obstacles that prevented goal(s) attainment. Make recommendations for 1994-95. Report recommendations, expected benefits, and outcomes to the Superintendent. Attachment A RECOMMENDATIONS IMPLEMENTED FROM NASE Recommendation No. 1 The Little Rock School District Board of Directors created and adopted the following policies: A policy which establishes the purpose for the curriculum and programs of the district
A policy which sets minimum goals and objectives for all student learning outcomes
A policy which requires congruence and harmony among the curriculum goals and objectives, teacher delivery techniques and strategies, and district-wide testing programs and assessment
A policy which requires textbooks ( content and activities) to be aligned with the adopted curriculum outcomes established by the LRSD Board of Directors
A policy which outlines a clear procedure for the development of curriculum and that includes Board adoption
A policy which requires equity and coordination across schools in curriculum outcomes, offerings, and activities, including policy guidelines for determining school-based modifications
A policy which requires test results information to be disaggregated to help improve individual and group instruction and achievement
A policy which requires at least one goal in each school's annual improvement plan to be directly related to assessment data and student achievement
A policy which requires the Board to use the achievement data in their goal-setting process
and A policy which establishes a sequential linkage among data gathering, planning, goal development, curriculum development, and budgeting. Recommendation No. 2 Reorganize the administrative structure for effective instructional . management . . ~ ~ ~ Recommendation No. 3 -~ ~ r:iil Separate and consolidate key curriculum and instruction operations from School Operations The curriculum functions separated from School Operations are: curriculum design, program implementation, staff development training, and school curriculum delivery. The Board approved the reorganization of the central office administration to provide concentrated effort in curriculum development and appropriate supervision of schools. To that end, the Associate Superintendent devoted her time primarily to curriculum design and development and staff development. The job roles of the curriculum supervisors were redefined to include more programmatic responsibility for the delivery of the curriculum (1991). "No More Excuses" was approved by the Boa{ci"' of Directors in 1991. "No More Excuses" became the vehicle for implementing Board policies that were recommended by NASE . . - ~~ ,,. f}..,~r J ,I~ h M,, t~ ~ ~TV r1 Recommendation No. 4 ~- An acknowledgement was made by the Board that the proper way for the schools to address disparities in academic achievement is first to have a written curriculum that is comprehensive, relevant, challenging, and properly scoped and sequenced in grades K-12 and then to teach the curriculum effectively to all students, setting forth clear expectations and using strategies that have been proven successful for student learning. Recommendation No. 5 Authorization by the Board to design and develop a curriculum specifically for LRSD students which incorporates the characteristics in Recommendation No. 4. q _A f!Jt ~ fJ#'f Jfe Attachment B NASE RECOMMEND A TIO NS NOT IMPLEMENTED # / 1. The development of a policy which establishes a sequential linkage among data gathering, planning, goal development, curriculum development, and budgeting. 2. A policy which establishes criteria for decisions on school facility remodeling, replacement, and closure. / Further curriculum revision has been delayed, as the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) is in the process of writing curriculum frameworks based on adopted Arkansas Learner Outcomes. Each accredited school shall use these curriculum frameworks to plan instruction leading to the Learner Outcomes. The LRSD consulted with the ADE in order to revise our curriculum in harmony with state Learner Outcomes and the national goals. The revision process will now proceed in accordance with the curriculum development of the ADE. The ADE, with advice from public schools and institutions of higher education, will devise an assessment system that will measure progress toward meeting Learner Outcomes. We are in the process of revising our language arts and foreign language curriculum, using the newly-adopted curriculum frameworks. The Board adoption of the Program Planning and Budgeting process addresses the issues raised in these recommendations. STUDIES AND REPORTS SECTION THREE EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING RECOMMENDATIONS 1992-93 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING - 1992-93 RECOMMENDATIONS The task of monitoring is only the initial phase toward attaining the desegregation goals. A review of previous monitoring reports reveals several recurring areas of concern. The following recommendations are provided to help the district improve the recurring areas of concern. 1. Conduct inservice for all staff on the requirements of the court approved desegregation plan. Periodic follow-up 2. sessions should be conducted. All new staff members should lfl vr
receive inservice relative to plan requirements. ~? Special attention should be given to: op?f' *' * central office administration /f * Building principals * Counselors * Extracurricular activities sponsors Specific training activities should include: * Equitable placement of students by race and gender in school programs - roles and responsibilities of school personnel * Discipline management and alternatives to suspension procedures Link expectations for implementing the LRSD Desegregation-7 I Plan and for achieving desired Plan outcomes to the performance evaluation process. I J EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1992-93, RECOMMENDATIONS Page 2 All district personnel must receive clear directions relative to their responsibilities for implementing the desegregation plan and for achieving the desired plan outcomes. 3. Implement and maintain consistent expectations for the maintenance of school records across the district. 4. Implement at each building specific methods for communicating to students information relative to honors and awards requirements, extracurricular requirements and discipline expectations. 5. Develop and implement a plan for equitable staffing in schools that do not meet the staffing goal for black staff members. The plan should include inservice to assist personnel in developing strategies for improvement. 6. Develop and implement a plan for utilizing all groups of parents in the school program. Principals who have effective methods of achieving parental involvement with continued worthwhile committee productivity, should be encouraged to share these strategies with other principals. 7. Review facilities where special education and gifted and talented education classes are located to ensure that the locations are comparable to other programs. Special attention should be given to: * Condition of portable buildings * covered walkways to portable buildings EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1992-93, RECOMMENDATIONS Page 3 * Restroom facilities for students housed in portable buildings * Size of instructional space * Science facilities at Mabelvale, Southwest and Central * Air conditioning and roof at Parkview STUDIES AND REPORTS SECTION FOUR SCHOOL CLIMATE/ HUMAN RELATIONS SURVEY SUMMARY REPORT 1993 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT SCHOOL CLIMATE/HUMAN RELATIONS SURVEY SUMMARY REPORT The annual survey of attitudes toward school climate/human relations was conducted during the second semester of the 1993 school year. Students and teachers at each organizational level were surveyed concerning their perceptions of school climate/human relations in the Little Rock School District schools. The first ten ranked items (areas of greatest priority) for each responding group indicated that three of the items ranked were identical for students and teachers with a slight difference in relative standing. The items were: * Students treat other students with respect. * Students treat teachers with respect. * Students in our school are excited about learning. Students at all three organizational levels also identified these items among the ten items of greatest priority. * Teachers treat students with respect. * Slow learners receive as much praise as more advanced learners. * The school rules are fair. Teachers at all three organizational levels identified these items among the ten items of greatest priority. * Parents voluntarily visit the school. * Parents promote the school's instructional program. SCHOOL CLIMATE/HUMAN RELATIONS SURVEY SUMMARY REPORT - Page 2 * Students in our school are satisfied with their progress. The items can be grouped to focus on the following issues: * Lack of demonstrated respect between students and teachers. * Lack of fairness and consistency relative to school rules and discipline. * Lack of satisfaction by students and teachers relative to student progress . . * Lack of student interest in learning. * Lack of positive recognition and high expectations for slow learners by teachers. * Lack of parent participation in the schools. RECOMMENDATIONS: To improve the areas of greatest priority for students and teachers the following suggestions are offered. * Continue staff development for certified and support staff in the areas of: Educational Equity Multicultural curriculum Delivery Discipline and Classroom Management * Provide parent-teacher training in non-violence and socialization skills. * Provide conflict resolution training for students, certified staff, support staff, and parents, where appropriate. * Infuse social skills in the regular elementary curriculum. * Initiate more positive teacher and principal contact with parents (home visits and phone contacts). * Promote interactive learning, with the teacher serving as facilitator. STUDIES AND REPORTS SECTION FIVE STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST Eighth Edition Spring 1993 ~ ~~ .d ~i 1/~
~ 1 , ,1 ?! ~&?t1/ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION Spring 1993 The Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition was administered to approximately 18,781 students in grades one through eleven. Scores were reported for total reading, total mathematics, language/English, science, and social science. The following is a compilation of administrative summary test results analyzed by schools and organizational levels. ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS When achievement results were reported as individual school summary totals, students scored at or above the 50th percentile in the following grades and areas reporting: Badgett in grade 3 language
Bale in grade 4 mathematics, and in grade 6 social science
Baseline in grade 2 mathematics, and in grade 6 mathematics, language, science and social science
Booker in grade 2 mathematics and language, in grade 4 mathematics, language, science and social science
in grades 5 and 6 in all domains
Brady in grade 6 mathematics
Carver in all subject areas 1 through 6
Chicot in grade 4 mathematics, language and social science, and in grade 6 language, science, and social science
Cloverdale in grade 1 mathematics, in grade 2 all reporting subject areas, in grade 3 all subject areas except reading, in grade 4 all areas except language, in grade 5 mathematics and social science, and in grade 6 all reporting areas
Dodd in grade 5 mathematics, in grade 6 all reporting areas
Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition Spring 1993 Page 2 Fair Park in grades 2 and 3 mathematics, in grade 5 mathematics, in grade 6 all reporting subject areas except reading
Forest Park in all subject areas grades 1 through 6
Franklin in grades 1 and 2 mathematics and grade 1 science
Fulbright in grades 3 through 6 in all reporting subject areas, in grades 1 and 2 reading and language, and in grade 2 mathematics
Garland in grade 6 mathematics and social science
Geyer Springs in grade 3 mathematics and science, in grade 4 mathematics and language, in grade 6 all reporting subject areas
Gibbs in grades 2 through 6 in all reporting areas
Ish in grades 2 through 6 mathematics, in grades 2 and 5 science, in grades 4 and 5 social science
Jefferson in grades 2 through 6 in all subject areas, in grade 1 mathematics
Mabelvale Elementary in grade 1 science, in grade 4 mathematics, in grade 6 science and social science
McDermott in grades 1 through 6 all reporting areas except grade 5 reading
Meadowcliff in grades 2, 3, 5 and 6 mathematics, and grade 5 language
Mitchell in grades 4 and 6 mathematics
Otter Creek in grades 2 through 6 in all reporting subject areas
Pulaski Heights Elementary in grade 1 mathematics, language, and science, in grade 2 mathematics and science, in grades 3 and 4 all subject areas, in grade 5 mathematics and social science, in grade 6 language, science and social science
Rightsell in grade 1 reading and language, in grade 2 all subject areas, in grade 4 mathematics, and in grade 6 mathematics
Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition Spring 1993 Page 3 Rockefeller in grade 2 mathematics, in grade 3 mathematics and social science, in grades 5 and 6 science
Romine in grade 1 all reporting areas except reading, in grade 4 all areas except reading, in grade 5 mathematics and language, and in grade 6 all reporting subject areas
Stephens in grade 1 mathematics and language, and in grade 6 mathematics
Terry in grade 1 all reporting areas, in grade 2 mathematics and language, in grade 3 all areas except reading, in grade 4 all reporting subject areas, in grade 5 mathematics, in grade 6 all reporting subject areas
Watson in grades 4 and 6 mathematics, in grade 5 science and social science, in grade 6 mathematics and social science
Western Hills in grade 1 reading, in grades 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 mathematics, in grades 2, 3, and 4 language, in grade 5 science and social science
Williams Magnet in all grades reporting 1 through 6
Wilson in grade 1 all reporting areas, in grade 4 language and social science
Woodruff in grades 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 mathematics, in grade 3 language, in grades 3 and 4 science and grades 3, 4, 5, and 6 social science. When scores were examined by race, white students scored at or above the 50th percentile in all subject areas at the following schools: Badgett, grade 3 Bale, grade 3 Baseline, grade 2 Booker, Grades 1 through 6 Brady, Grades 1, 2 and 3 Carver, all grade levels Chicot, grade 4 Cloverdale, grades 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 Dodd, grade 6 Fair Park, grades 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 Forest Park, all grade levels Franklin, grade 5 Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition Spring 1993 Page 4 Fulbright, all grade levels Geyer Springs, grade 3 and 6 Gibbs, all grade levels Jefferson, all grade levels Mabelvale, grades 1, 3, and 4 McDermott, all grade levels Meadowcliff, grades 4, 5, and 6 Otter Creek, all grade levels Pulaski Heights, all grade levels Rockefeller, grades 1, 3, 4, and 6 Romine, grades 1, 2, 4, and 5 Stephens, grade 4 Terry, all grade levels Washington, all grade levels Watson, grades 4 and 5 Western Hills, all grade levels Williams, all grade levels Wilson, grades 1, 2, 3, and 5 Woodruff, grades 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 Black students scored at or above the 50th percentile in all subject areas at: Carver, grades 1 and 2 Cloverdale, grades 2 and 6 Dodd, grade 6 Rightsell, grade 2 Romine, grade 6 Williams, grades 1, 2, 4, and 6 Wilson, grade 1 JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS The individual school summary totals showed that students scored at or above the 50th percentile in the following grade levels and subject areas reported. Dunbar in all areas reported except grade 7 reading and grade 9 mathematics
Forest Heights in grade 8 language
Mann in all areas reported except grades 8 and 9 in mathematics
Pulaski Heights in all areas reporting with the exception of grade 9 in reading and mathematics. When scores were examined at the junior high level, white students scored at or above the 50th percentile in all Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition Spring 1993 Page 5 areas reported. The schools that indicated white students not scoring at the 50th percentile were: Cloverdale in grades 7, 8, and 9 reading and mathematics, grade 7 language, grade 9 science
Mabelvale in grade 9 mathematics
Southwest in grades 7 and 9 mathematics Black students scored below the 50th percentile in all reporting areas. The exception was: -- Mann grade 9 language SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS The individual school summary totals showed that students scored at or above the 50th percentile at the following grade levels and subject areas reported. Central in all areas except grade 10 and 11 mathematics
Parkview in all areas except grade 11 mathematics
When scores were analyzed by race at the senior high schools: White students scored at or above the 50th percentile in all subject areas and at all grade levels except at Central grades 10 and 11 mathematics
at Fair grade 11 mathematics, and at McClellan grades 10 and 11 mathematics. Black students scored below the 50th percentile in all areas except language, grade 10 at Parkview. The administrative summary reports that presented quartile groupings revealed that 3,550 students were grouped in quartile one in total reading grades one through six and 1,975 of those students were at the primary level. For total mathematics, 2,032 students were grouped in quartile one with 1,400 of those students representing grades one through three. At the secondary level, for total reading, 2,417 students were in quartile one, and for total mathematics 2,848 were grouped in quartile one. Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition Spring 1993 Page 6 A comparative analysis of 1991-92 and 1992-93 districtwide basic and complete battery data indicated that percentile ranks for white students at the elementary level were above the 50th percentile. Percentile ranks for black students were below the 50th percentile for both years. Total percentile scores were above the 50th percentile for grade 6 basic and complete battery, and in grade 4 for 1993. At the secondary level, the 1993 basic and complete battery percentile scores were fairly consistent with those of 1992. Percentile scores for white students remained above the 50th percentile. Scores for black students at this level were below the 50th percentile. The attached graphs (Exhibits A-U) were derived from the administrative summary data and will provide a visual display of the data. RECOMMENDATIONS: After reviewing administrative summary data, it is recommended that consideration be given to: * Placing greater emphasis on effective reading and mathematics instruction at the primary level and reading and mathematics instruction and assistance at the secondary level. * Establishing a systematic procedure for the teaching of listening skills at the primary level and grades 7 and 8. * Teaching organizational techniques and study skills. * Integrating the teaching of language (mechanics, usage, writing skills) in all subject areas and organizational levels. * Integrating scientific experiments and manipulatives as a part of daily science lessons to peak student interest . * Using a variety of enriching materials and resources to expand science and social science instruction. * Providing extra class activities in all subject areas to enable students to assume responsibilities through selfdirected learning. * Stimulating student interest with homework that is meaningfully directed through assignments that enhance school achievement. Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition Spring 1993 Page 7 Providing in-depth workshops and inservices related to mathematics and science during the summer to provide teachers with effective strategies for enriching the curriculums. Implementing a districtwide well-organized year-long inservice program with continuous supervisory assistance to beginning teachers in curriculum planning, classroom management and discipline management. Planning staff development and inservice programs to meet the developing needs of teachers and staff. Encouraging principals and teachers to share workable ideas and techniques at the building level and districtwide. Standardized test results being used for diagnostic purposes, not for determining student grades or segregating students in different classes. Constructing teacher-made tests to focus on student growth in higher order thinking through comprehension, analysis, application, and problem solving. Understanding that student achievement should not be solely assessed on Stanford test results. Specific to test data 1993 LITTLE ROCI< SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1992 L:.A.1\1LHl A. READING PERCENTILE RANK READING PERCENTILE RANK ~., 60 a: 140 C: ~" l 20 GR. 1 GR. 2 GR. 3 GR. 4 GR. 5 GR. 6 BLACK 0 34 29 29 33 27 39 WHITE Q 67 63 67 68 64 75 OTHER Q 61 64 61 60 51 74 160 Cl a: 140 .C,: 0 j 20 BLACK 0 WHITE~ OTHER 0 GR. 1 GR. 2 GR. 3 GR. 4 GR. 5 GR. 6 35 29 27 33 26 37 63 62 63 67 63 74 66 63 57 60 58 67 1993 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1992 READING PERCENTILE RANK READING PERCENTILE RANK ~., 60 a:: 140 C Cl 0 if 20 BLACK 0 WHITE Q OTHER Q GRADE 7 GRADE 8 GRADE 9 29 30 33 67 71 65 58 73 72 ~., 60 a:: '
: 40 .C. 0 if20 BLACK 0 WHITE CJ OTHER [J GRADE 7 GRADE 8 GRADE 9 31 29 30 70 67 68 72 73 63 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1993 1992 READING PERCENTILE RANK READING PERCENTILE RANK ~., 60 tC .. '
40 .C. ~ ~ 20 BLACK 0 WHITE CJ OTHER D GRADE 10 GRADE 11 35 32 75 68 74 66 ~.. 60 tC i4o C.. u ~ 20 BLACK D WHITE E) OTHER [J GRADE 10 GRADE 11 35 34 72 69 64 66 1993 LITTLE ROCI< SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1992 MATHEMATICS PERCENTILE RANK MATHEMATICS PERCENTILE RANK -"" 80 .C. a: 60 J
40 ~ l"l. 20 BLACK 0 WHITE [2l OTHER CJ GA. 1 GR. 2 GA. 3 GA.4 GR. 5 GA. 6 35 49 42 52 46 49 70 79 73 76 74 74 65 84 84 79 71 81 100 .,. 80 .C. a: 60 1 C Cl 40 ~ Cl ll. 20 0 GA. 1 GR. 2 GR. 3 GR.4 GA. 5 GA. 6 BLACK 0 40 46 46 49 43 48 WHITE (d 70 77 76 73 71 74 OTHER Cl 74 87 80 76 83 75 1993 LITTLE ROCI< SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1992 MATHEMATICS PERCENTILE RANK MATHEMATICS PERCENTILE RANK .,, 80 .C,: a.,: 60 ~ 40 .~, "- 20 BLACK 0 WHITE 12) OTHER CJ GRADE 7 GRADE 8 GRADE 9 35 32 25 63 65 54 63 72 89 .,, 80 .C,: a.,: 60 ~ 40 0 .~, "- 20 BLACK 0 WHITE Q OHIER Q GRADE 7 GRADE 8 GRADE 9 36 30 23 64 59 57 75 87 68 LITTLE , ROCI< SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1993 1992 MATHEMATICS PERCENTILE RANK MATHEMATICS PERCENTILE RANK ~., 60 a: 140 .C, u BLACK 0 WHITE CJ OTHER Q GRADE 10 GRADE 11 31 28 61 58 73 65 10~----------r---------, 60 -- .,, ~ 50 a: ., 40 - ~ 30 - u i 20 10 - GRADE 10 GRADE 11 BLACK 0 26 32 WHITE [) 56 . 59 OTHER 0 58 62 1993 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1992 EXH\B\T G LANGUAGE PERCENTILE RANK LANGUAGE PERCENTILE RANK ~ 60 a": ~" 40 C "0 ~ 20 - ,,,,- GR. 1 GR. 2 GR. 3 GR. 4 GR. 5 GR. 6 BLACK D 3? 38 35 41 39 44 WHITE Ld 68 70 68 73 68 71 OTHER CJ 61 67 63 68 60 67 80-.----,----.--.------.------,----, 70 ~ 60 a": 50 140 C ~ 30 i20 10 - 0 --L..J_-4"-_L..J.._jl-Lf'L-..-L..l--1-J<f--i--'-'---'-'--'4-'-'-J.....LJ.-'+'-.....LJ_--'--'--f__.__..__, GR. 1 GR. 2 GR. 3 GR. 4 GR. 5 GR. 6 BLACK D 32 39 38 35 38 41 WHITE E) 63 70 70 65 67 68 OTHER CJ 68 64 68 64 66 64 1993 LITTLE ROCI< SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1992 LANGUAGE PERCENTILE RANK LANGUAGE PERCENTILE RANK .,, 80 .C. a: 60 ~ 40 ~ 11. 20 - BLACK D WHITE l2J OTHER 0 GRADE 7 GRADE 8 GRADE 9 34 38 40 68 71 70 63 78 88 .,, 80 .C, a: 60 ~ ~ 40 .0. ll. 20 BLACK D WHITE (J OTHER 0 GRADE 7 33 64 70 GRADE 8 GRADE 9 38 42 69 73 81 69 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1993 1992 EXH\B\T \ LANGUAGE PERCENTILE RANK LANGUAGE PERCENTILE RANK so~-----~-----~ ~., 60 - - rr 140 C 0 ~ ~ 20 - BLACK 0 WHITE Q OTHER[] GRADE 10 GRADE 11 37 32 71 66 73 66 70--,---------.---------, 60 .,, ~ 50 rr ~40 - ~ 30 u i 20 10 BLACK 0 WHITE E'.) OTHER Cl GRADE 10 GRADE 11 34 35 68 66 59 61 1993 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1992 LA.l\ltH l J SCIENCE PERCENTILE RANK SCIENCE PERCENTILE RANK .,, 80 .C. a: 60 ~ ~ 40 ~ a".. 20 BLACK 0 WHITE 12) OTHER 0 GR. 1 GR. 2 GR. 3 GR.4 GR. 5 GR. 6 31 35 32 40 35 44 66 70 70 74 73 75 55 61 66 74 59 78 .. a: .. ~40 .C. 0 BLACK 0 WHITE E:) OTHER 0 GR. 1 GR. 2 GR. 3 GR. 4 GR. 5 GR. 6 27 32 30 34 33 43 59 65 67 68 70 74 49 67 63 66 74 75 1993 LITTLE ROCI< SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1992 SCIENCE PERCENTILE RANK SCiENCE PERCENTILE RANK .,,, 80 .C, a: 60 Cl ~ 40 u !. 20 BLACK D WHITE [21 OTHER [J GRADE 7 GRADE 8 GRADE 9 31 34 38 74 72 66 70 74 79 .,,, 80 C., a: 60 Cl ~ 40 .~. 0.. 20 BLACK 0 WHITE [J OTHER Q GRADE 7 GRADE 8 GRADE 9 31 34 38 65 68 72 75 77 69 LITTLE ROCI< SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1993 1992 LA.I IIL.H I L. SCIENCE PERCENTILE RANK SCIENCE PERCENTILE RANK ~,. 60 - re 140 C., ~ ~ 20 BLACK 0 WHITE Q OTHER 0 GRADE 10 GRADE 11 31 31 74 67 75 59 60 .,, ~ 50 re ~ 40 - ~ 30 u ~ 20 10 GRADE 10 GRADE 11 BLACK 0 32 32 WHITE E) 67 68 OTHER 0 64 58 1993 LITTLE ROCI< SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1992 LAI \IUl 1 1111 SOCIAL SCIENCE PERCENTILE RANK SOCIAL SCIENCE PERCENTILE RANK 100 .,. 80 C Cl a: 60 .!
: C ., 40 .~, 0.. 20 0 GR. 1 GR. 2 GR. 3 GR.4 GR. 5 GR. 6 BLACK 0 33 46 42 48 WHITE 12] * * 68 78 72 77 OTHER CJ 68 73 60 77 80.----.-----.---.---,-----,-----, .,. 60 - .C. a: BLACK D WHITE EJ OTHER 0 GR. 1 GR. 2 GR. 3 GR. 4 GR. 5 GR. 6 35 38 37 48 * * 67 68 65 76 61 69 70 72 * At grades 1 and 2 Science and Social Science objectives are combined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT. 1993 LITTLE ROCI< SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1992 EXHIBIT N SOCIAL SCIENCE PERCENTILE RANK SOCIAL SCIENCE PERCENTILE RANK 100 100 80 80 -" -" .C, .C. a: 60 a: 60 .! .! C ., 40 0 C 0" 40 ., ~ 0.. 0.. 20 20 0 0 GRADE 7 GRADE 8 GRADE 9 GRADE 7 GRADE 8 GRADE 9 BLACK D 39 34 36 BLACK D 35 34 36 WHITE 0 70 74 68 WHITE Q 72 72 73 OTHER Q 64 85 87 OTHER [ill 80 83 71 LITTLE ROCI< SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1993 1992 L-1..a aaUl l V SOCIAL SCIENCE PERCENTILE RANK SOCIAL SCIENCE PERCENTILE RANK 80~-----~------~ 70 -" 60 - c ~ 50 140 C .~, 30 a. 20 - 10 I BLACK 1 WHITE CJ OTHER 0 GRADE 10 34 67 69 GRADE 11 34 68 67 -" 60 .C. IC .. 0 .~. a. 20 BLACK 0 WHITE E'J OTHER 0 GRADE 10 GRADE 11 30 36 66 69 57 72 1993 LITTLE ROCI< SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1992 BASIC BATTERY PERCENTILE RANK BASIC BATTERY PERCENTILE RANK -" 60 .C, a: .C. u &'. 20 - BLACK 0 WHITE CJ OTHER Q GR. 1 GR. 2 GR. 3 GR. 4 GR. 5 GR. 6 35 34 34 41 35 46 70 70 69 73 68 75 62 72 71 71 61 75 .,, 60 .C, a: .C. u if 20 - BLACK 0 WHITE El OTHER CJ GR. 1 GR. 2 GR. 3 GR. 4 GR. 5 GR. 6 36 34 36 38 34 43 67 69 70 68 65 73 74 73 69 67 71 72 1993 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1992 BASIC BATTERY PERCENTILE RANK BASIC BATTERY PERCENTILE RANK 100 100 80 80 -"' -"' .C, .C, a: 60 a: 60 ..! ~ C 40 u C 40 . u .~, 0.. ., a. 20 20 0 0 GRADE 7 GRADE 8 GRADE 9 GRADE 7 GRADE 8 GRADE 9 BLACK D 32 33 35 BLACK 0 35 32 34 WHITE l2J 67 72 66 WHITE Q 69 66 70 OTHER CJ 65 75 88 OTHER (J 75 84 71 LITTLE ROCI< SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1993 1992 L.1\.1111:51 I 1-1 BASIC BATTERY PERCENTILE RANK BASIC BATTERY PERCENTILE RANK 100 80 -"' .C, a: 60 - ..!!
C .. 40 u 0.. 20 0 GRADE 10 BLACK D 36 WHITE [2l 73 OTHER CJ 79 GRADE 11 33 68 71 00~------~-----~ 70 - -"' 60 C
. . 50 '
: 40 C ~ 30 - ., a.. 20 10 - 0 __,____.__""--1"--'-=~'---'---L----L--"+-=..=~___, GRADE 10 34 68 64 GRADE 11 36 70 69 1993 LITTLE ROCI( SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1992 COMPLETE BATTERY PERCENTILE RANK COMPLETE BATTERY PERCENTILE RANK 100 .,. 80 .C, a: 1 C u" 40 0".. 20 0 GR. 1 GR.2 GR. 3 GR.4 GR. 5 GR. 6 BLACK 0 28 33 32 40 34 45 WHITE 12) 67 72 69 75 70 76 OTHER [J 58 73 70 72 61 77 .,, 60- c a": '
"
40 C u" BLACK 0 WHITE tJ OTHER CJ GR. 1 GR. 2 GR. 3 GR. 4 GR. 5 GR. 6 31 33 34 36 32 43 64 70 70 68 67 75 67 74 68 67 72 73 1993 LITTLE ROCI< SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1992 COMPLETE BATTERY PERCENTILE RANK COMPLETE BATTERY PERCENTILE RANK 100 .,,_ 80 .C,: a: 60 .!
, C: ., 40 u ~., a.. 20 - 0 GRADE 7 GRADE 8 BLACK 0 31 32 WHITE l2J 69 74 OTHER [J 66 78 GRADE 9 35 68 89 .,,_ .C,: 80 a: 60 .! ~ 40 .. a.. 20 BLACK 0 WHITE Q OTHER 0 GRADE 7 GRADE B GRADE 9 33 30 34 71 68 73 78 86 73 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1993 1992 tXHIBIT U COMPLETE BATTERY PERCENTILE RANK COMPLETE BATTERY PERCENTILE RANK .,, .C, 80 a: 60 .! C ~ 40 0".. 20 BLACK D WHITE EJ OTHER D GRADE 10 GRADE 11 34 32 74 70 80 69 .,, 60 .C, a: C C) ~ ~ 20 BLACK D WHITE El OTHER 0 GRADE 10 GRADE 11 32 34 70 72 65 70
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.

<dcterms_creator>Little Rock School District</dcterms_creator>