Little Rock School District Planning, Research and Evaluation: Extended Program Evaluations

Exhibit 310A
The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.
LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION EXTENDED PROGRAM EVALUATIONS 1994-1995 1 of 2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION : EXTENDED PROGRAM EVALUATIONS 1994-1995 1 of 2 SEQ# 14 03 227 23 233 24 230 33 231 07 02 207 213 215 01 228 15 13 226 222 223 224 79 78 25/225 05 203 21 204 08 EXTENDED PROGRAM EVALUATIONS (Alphabetical Order) Program Name Academic Progress Incentive Grant Academic Support Program Communication Services Computerized Transportation Contingencies Data Processing(deseg) Data Processing Services (non-deseg) Facilities Family Life Education/New Futures Federal Programs Four-Year-Old Program Gifted and Talented Guidance Services Health Services/Nursing Services HIPPY Human Resources Services McClellan Community School New Futures Planning and Evaluation Plant Services Pupil Transportation Purchasing Services Rockefeller Early Childhood Romine Interdistrict Safety and Security School Closings Special Education/Learning Center (deseg) Special Education (non-deseg) Staff Development Student Assessment Substitute Teacher Vocational Education (non-deseg) Vocational Education (deseg) EXTENDED EVALUATION ACADEMIC PROGRESS INCENTIVE GRANT (APIG) Program Description 1990 - 1991 The Academic Progress Incentive Grant (APIG) was first made available to each area school principal in the 1990-91 school year in the sum of $25,000. The process to be followed was for each school principal to write a proposal attached to a budget sheet identifying items and cost as related to the proposal being submitted. The use of the money was to be directly connected to and support of the school's yearly annual school plan. The school plan was developed cooperatively by the principal and staff with parent committee input. All participants were in agreement that the annual school plan supported the goals of the Little Rock School District as well as the following goal objectives. LRSD Goals 1. To increase educational achievement of all students with specific emphasis on closing disparities in achievement. 2. To establish climates of educational excellence in all schools through: a) providing equitable educational opportunities for all students m a desegregated learning environment
b) enabling all students to develop a lifelong capacity and love for learning
c) leading all students to be productive contributors in the school, the community and the workplace d) providing a disciplined, structured learning environment for all students. 3. To enhance human relations skills for principals, teachers, and central office administrators. 1. APIG Objectives To increase the academic achievement for identified students in the core curricular areas by providing teachers with a broad base of resources and equipment. To provide varied enrichment activities that would broaden identified students' experience base. 1 3. To involve parents as full partners in planning at schools for identified students' growth and success. 4. To provide staff development activities which meet the specific needs of identified students. The grant proposals were then to be forwarded to the Academic Progress Grant Committee for review and approval. Upon approval, the budget sheet was forwarded to the Financial Services Department, and budget codes were set up for the individual schools to use in purchasing the items requested. The respective assistant superintendent over the area schools who monitored the school's annual plan would review incoming requisitions to see if the purchases requested related to the school's plan. The schools' grant proposals were slow in corning in that year in addition to many of the grants being returned to principals for revisions. Several schools were successful in receiving early approval in the first semester for the full amount. The majority of schools, however, did not receive grant approval until late January and early February of 1991 and not for the full amount. Even though the money was received on a late timeline, it did enable the schools to purchase needed equipment, materials, supplementary reading materials, enrichment trips, etc. for all students as well as providing funds for some tutoring assistance to their at-risk groups before the MPT (Minimum Performance Test) and MAT-6 (Metropolitan Achievement Test Edition 6) test dates. Considering the timeline with a week out for Spring Break and two to three weeks scheduled for MPT and MAT-6 testing, the principals were asked only to write a narrative for the grant evaluations that would be no longer than three typed pages describing the status of their grant. The report was to include: 1. Identification of local school grant goals. 2. A description of the results. 3. Identification of any proposed change for the 1991-92 school year, if possible. These narratives were attached to the school's annual report and forwarded to their assistant superintendents. 1991 - 1992 In the second year of the Academic Progress Incentive Grant, the funds were frozen the first semester of the school year. Once the funds were released, the procedures set forward for application were the same as outlined in the 1990-91 school year except for one change. 2 The school grant proposals were now to come to the assistant superintendent over the school and then forwarded to the associate's office for his signature. Principals, teachers, and parents worked together to develop tutoring schedules for their atrisk students. After-school programs and Saturday programs were implemented to assist their various targeted groups. All of this was possible because of the funds received. During this year a new standardized test, Stanford 8, was given in the place of the MAT-6 test. Principals were asked to use the same reporting format in describing the status of their grant. The narrative was to be attached to their annual school report and forwarded to their assistant superintendent. 1992-93 In the third year of the APIG, the funds were reduced to $10,000 for which the area schools could apply. Again, many of these grants were not funded until November due to the busy schedules at the beginning of the school year. The principals were to use the same format for applying and reporting as was used in the 1991-92 school year. Focused Activities - Each area school shall have a fundamentally sound and strong basic educational program. Each area school shall also have the option of developing focused activities (which may center around a theme) after appropriate community and parental involvement. All focused activities must promote the desegregation objectives ordered by the court. SUMMARY: Focused Activities - The purpose of the focused activities shall be threefold: (1) to promote the school as a "community of learning" among parents, staff and students
(2) to provide enrichment opportunities at the building level
(3) to ensure equitable opportunities for participation in the elementary area schools. The focused activities of each area school will be integrated into the core curriculum or reflected in the . school's environment and day-to-day activities. The academic performance of area school students will indicate achievement gained partially as a result of enrichment experiences provided by the core program and enrichment activities. Area school students will participate in ongoing, meaningful enrichment activities that complement and extended the core curricular activities. All are:i. schools will be viewed by the community as providing equitable and excellent educational programs. A steering committee was appointed to chair the inservice for the principals in order to implement Focus Activities in their schools. The principals were then to establish a school based committee who would develop an activities action plan for the school year. From this action plan a checklist would be developed by the school's 3 i. ,- I' activities coordinator. The principal and school committee were to use the checklist to monitor the program. The activities coordinator would prepare a report each semester to be submitted to the assistant superintendent for review. The grant was to be reviewed by a district committee and the proposal, if approved would be granted. Program Goals The program goals listed below will ensure that equity occurs in all phases of school activities and operations: 1) The grant opportunity would enrich each district's elementary curriculum to achieve greater racial balance through voluntary interdistrict and intradistrict transfers. 2) The Little Rock School District will establish an Academic Progress Incentive Grant Program, the goals of which will be to (a) improve the education of all students and (b) reduce the disparity in achievement among students of different racial, socio-economic, and gender groups. 3) Each non-magnet and non-incentive elementary school will provide focused activities for the total school population including attention to gender, race and socio-economic issues. 4) Each school will be recognized as a community of learning in which all students, staff members and parents are totally involved and supportive. 5) The focused activities of each non-magnet and non-incentive elementary school will be integrated into the core curriculum or reflected in the school's environment and day-to-day activities. 6) All elementary area school students will participate in ongoing, meaningful enrichment activities that complement and extend the core curricular activities. 7) All elementary area schools will be viewed by the Community as providing equitable and excellent educational programs. Evaluation Criteria Academic Incentive Grant Program - The number of low achievers will decrease as evidenced by upward quartile movement on the norm referenced test. 4 Focused Activities - At the end of each school year, the activities coordinator will include focused activities in a district-wide report. This report will focus on the following items: 1) the degree to which each focused activities have been interrelated with the core curriculum
2) the number of enrichment activities that broadened the students' experience based
3) the amount of parental involvement
4) academic achievement as reflected on standardized tests and yearly grade reports
5) the racial and socio-economic composition of the student population in each elementary area school
6) the number of voluntary majority to minority transfers
7) the type and amount of enrichment materials/supplies/purchased by each elementary area school through the focused activities budget
8) the type and number of staff-development activities at each elementary school. Evaluation Results Evidence from the principals' narrative reports and surveys indicate that funds received from the APIG proposal over the three-year period were used to support the school plan as "it related to the goals of the district." The programs and projects were numerous and were targeted to assist groups of students as well as the total school population. The selection of targeted groups are as follows: Principals and staff disaggregate test data by grade levels. Students that are 39 NCE and below go to the Reading Academic Support Program for assistance and those students below 30 NCE go to the Math Academic Support Program. The students whose NCE scores are between 40 and 49.9 NCE have not been eligible for the Academic Support Program. With the AIPG funds, plans can be made to assist these groups of students in the area of need in addition to any of the other who are in the Academic Support Program. At the conclusion of each school year, the principals would then submit in the narrative the names of the projects that were implemented, the list of students who were targeted, and if improvements were made. All of the reporting schools used their funds to provide activities interrelated to the core curriculum. It is also noted that school climate surveys 5 were used to target areas needing improvement. As a result of this data, principals, staff, and parents tried hard to provide a disciplined, structured learning environment for all students. An intense incentive progr:im was implemented to encourage good behavior. There were reports made by principals, staff, and parents, and program participants of the overall positive results that they could identify as happening for the benefit of the students. However, with all of the favorable behavior changes that were confirmed, achievement data did not reflect that the grants led to the disparity reduction that had been desired. Focus Activities - The Focus Activities of each non-magnet and non-incentive elementary school will be integra~ed into the core curriculum or reflected in the school's environment and day-to-day activities. All elementary area school students will participate in ongoing, meaningful enrichment activities that complement and extended the core curricular activities. Evidence - Academic Incentive Grant - The percentage of elementary principals reporting that their Academic Incentive Grant funds aided in the reduction of disparity on targeted groups are on file. Focused Activities - Steering committees have been identified in the area schools. To date, four proposals have been submitted for approval. Obstacles to Goal Attainment Obj. 1.0 To implement focused activities in elementary area schools. Not Achieved The Focused Activities grant was provided to the schools in the spring of 1994. No data has been collected. Obj. 1 To provide means of local area schools to (A) improve the education of fill students, and (B) reduce the disparitv in achievement among students of different racial, socio-economic, and gender. Not Achieved The quality of education was improved but not for ALL children. The lateness of funding did not provide for opportunities to organize and implement model programs. Eighteen weeks (second semester minus two weeks for testing and one for spring break) was not sufficient time to bring about the necessary academic improvement to offset the disparity in achievement levels. The $25,000 to Sl0,000 for the 1992-93 APIG. 6 Time prohibited the collection and analysis of data in order to provide uniform conclusions about the effectiveness of programming under the APIG. Parental support was limited in the planning and evaluation process. At the secondary level the majority of the impact of the Academic Progress Incentive Grant has been in directed assistance to the development of identified students in programs after the regular school day ends. Such an arrangement limits availability of students for program participation due w extra curricular activities, family responsibilities, and employment of students. Also, there is a need in some instances to show a more direct relationship between the strategies employed in a proposal and the attainment of the proposal goals under the Academic Progress Incentive Grant. Focused Activities - Proposals are presently being submitted and approved for the first time during the 1994-95 school year. Recommendation: Objective: Evaluation Criteria: Expected Benefits: Impact Analysis: Resource Analysis: Recommendations It is recommended that the Little Rock School District concentrate on the implementation of its new curriculum and standards. It is also recommended that any extra remediation be supported by the Chapter I funding and the Special Summer School for K-3. Discontinue the Academic Progress Incentive Grant and the Focused Activities Grant for the 1994-95 school year. The K-3 summer School and Chapter I evaluation will be utilized for documentation. The deletion of the APIG will provide the district in assisting with budget cuts and will enable schools to concentrate and implement a more uniform curriculum across the district. This is the fifth year for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants to be offered to area schools. Obligations implemented at this time will support the desegregation plan and address court orders favorally. Some principals, parents and board members may want to assure that extra funding is provided to the area schools :or equity reasons. The district will save a total of $445,000 by discontinuing both grants. (See graph below) 7 Elementary Junior High Senior High Total Schools Area Schools Area Schools Schools (3) (25) (4) APJG $10,000 $250,000 $40,000 $30,000 $320,000 Focused 5,000 125,000 125,000 - TOTAL $375,000 $40,000 $30,000 $445,000 Force Field Analysis: The primary supporters of this recommendation will be the parties involved in planning the budget for the 95-96 school year. Comments from previously principals in evaluations suggest that they will also support this recommendation. General Implementation Plans: The grant proposals will not be submitted in the 1995-96 school year budget. The Board will have to agree on this recommendation and the ultimate decision may be made by the federal courts. The programs will be evaluated at the end of this school year by the principals and the selection committee. Business Case is recommended: ___ Yes No Plan modification is recommended: Yes ___ No No budgetary impact. ___ _ Increased costs Decreased costs 8 Purpose ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM IN-DEPTH PROGRAM EVALUATION Program Description The purpose of the Academic Support Program is to provide support for participating students in grades one through twelve in the areas of reading, language arts, and mathematics. The program reinforces and enhances the academic achievem~nt of these targeted students. The support is provided by certified reading specialists and English and mathematics teachers in the regular classroom, in additional classes, and in labs. scope and content All of the District's remediation programs are part of the Academic Support Program. All such programs are located at the individual school sites, except the Metropolitan VocationalTechnical Education Center. The Academic support Program offers a variety of options to the individual schools for providing accelerated reading/language arts and mathematics learning experiences for students identified through a process using multiple criteria. The program is characterized by providing either direct or indirect services to identified students through additional classes, smaller class sizes, or in-class assistance at the secondary level and in-class assistance or limited pullout at the elementary level. Elementary Academic Suppor~ Program At the elementary level, the primary delivery method in the area of mathematics is in-class assistance for grade level 2, and limited pull-out as a possible second strategy for grade levels 3-6. Grade 1 teachers attend special inservice sessions to better prepare them to meet the needs of their students. In the area of reading/language arts, minimal pull-out is used to provide for the learning needs of students ~ith identified reading deficits for grade levels 1-6. Indirect Services Reading and math specialists are paired with classroom teachers to assist in implementing accelerated learning experiences for students with identified reading and mathematics skills deficits. An instructional program and duration of services are established for each student in order to address individualized needs. The Academic Support Program In Depth Program Evaluation Page 2 revised curriculum is used by the regular teacher and the reading/mathematics specialists to provide a uniform and integrated approach to learning . Schedules are developed in cooperation with the regular teacher to determine appropriate time for specialists to provide services in the regular classroom. Time is allocated for the specialists to plan and consult with the regular teacher in order to ensure consistency in student learning. This cooperative planning allows for a team effort to best meet needs of students and to prevent fragmentation in teaching and learning. In addition, this approach improves and enhances educational opportunities for these students to experience academic success in the regular classroom. Through the alternative methods for delivery of instruction, students increase their time on task, make greater gains, and maintain progress. Direct Services For students identified with severe reading problems, a reading class is available to assist them in mastering fundamental reading skills and to stimulate their interest in reading. Reading teachers focus on mastery learning and use of listening labs and computer labs to diagnose, remediate, and assess specific learning problems, using a variety of curricular approaches including computer technology. This arrangement promotes program continuity, connected learning, student/teacher bonding, and shared accountability. Data secured through individual assessment and other relevant records are used to develop the student's program and establish the duration of services. Secondary Academic Support Program Secondary schools implement the Academic Support Program according to one or a combination of the following possible approaches: APPROACH ONE Indirect Services The academic team approach pairs English, reading, learning foundations, and mathematics teachers. These paired teams of teachers jointly plan appropriate whole group instruction, small group instruction, and individual instruction for learning experiences. Academic Support Program In Depth Program Evaluation page 3 Direct Services For students identified with severe reading problems, a reading class is available to assist them in mastering fundamental reading skills and to stimulate their interest in reading. APPROACH TWO Direct Services Regular classroom teachers work to meet the needs of their own targeted students. Smaller class sizes are scheduled for regular language arts and/or mathematics teachers to allow them to provide more individual assistance for targeted students during each class period. APPROACH THREE Direct Services The Language Arts Plus and Math Plus Programs are intended to reinforce regular instruction exclusively and to focus on specific student deficits. The Plus Programs add an enrichment class to schedules of targeted students. This concept utilizes the services of regular English and mathematics teachers in whose classes the targeted students are enrolled. The Language Arts Plus and Math Plus teachers teach up to four regular periods and during the remaining periods provide tutorial and accelerated learning experiences for all academic support students enrolled in each of their regular classes. Average class size is not to exceed 15 students per period in the teachers' plus class periods. The Language Arts Plus Program approach reduces the number of separate reading classes and the number of language arts students per teacher. The Math Plus Program approach also provides a reduced number of math students per teacher. EXTENDED SERVICES - ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY To support and extend learning opportunities for targeted students, the academic team concept is supplemented by making available to these students before-school, at lunch, and afterschool instructional services. Additionally, some sites may schedule periodic extended weeks in order to provide a practice and review session on Saturdays. Principals may use flexible scheduling of staff to provide some of their extended day services. Academic Support Program In Depth Program Evaluation Page 4 The implementation of academic support programs may vary from school to school in design. However, the following common critical elements are evident in every program: instructional strategies including higher order thinking skills
close observance of time on task
use of the District's approved curriculum with appropriate materials and resources
a positive school climate that includes conveying high expectations for all students
parent involvement designed to assure a collaborative partnership between parents and school
problem analysis consisting of collecting, analyzing, and disaggregating student data
and monitoring, assessment, and evaluation. New staff members participate in development activities that assist them in use of curriculum guides as well as appropriate staff development activities for targeted students. Participants/Beneficiaries Target students are initially identified from the student population scoring in the lower quartile on the annual student assessment. Multiple criteria, including student grades, teacher recommendations, and student records are used to select students from the eligible population to participate in the Academic Support Program. Program Goal The goal of the Academic Support Program is to provide equitable language arts and mathematics learning experiences for all students in the mainstream setting by supporting them with the instructional and technical assistance needed to reduce the learning disparity. Specific objectives have been developed in order to designate what is to be accomplished to implement the adopted goals. The Academic Support Program includes the following objectives: 1. To identify and serve students who are at-risk in reading/language arts and mathematics. 2. To prescribe a personal education plan for targeted students. Academic Support Program In Depth Program Evaluation page 5 3. To reduce or eliminate pull-out academic support programs. 4. To provide parents with the knowledge and skills needed to promote the education of their children at home and at school. Evaluation Criteria The Academic Support Program has been evaluated by analyzing data from Spring 1992 through Fall 1994. Specifically the evaluation consists of: 1. Print-out of eligible students is provided to local school teams. Uniform District criteria are used (Stanford 8 cutoff score and multiple criteria) to identify targeted students. 2. Personal education plans of targeted students reflect implementation of the selected school option(s). 3. Individual student folders that include a systematic collection of student work, pre and post standardized test scores, grades, and recommendations to provide individual/group/school progress are maintained for continuous student and program progress. 4. Parental involvement reflects an increase in the numbers of parents attending parent conferences and parent training sessions and visiting schools. Evaluation Results Evaluation results reflect data gathered from several sources. These data have been compiled and analyzed and yield the following results, presented in correspondence with each previously stated objective. Objective 1 To identify and serve students who are at-risk in reading/language arts and mathematics. Each year the Academic Support Program options are explained to local school administrators and they are provided with an overview of how all of the individual Academic Support Programs are to be coordinated for continuity of services to children and efficient use of resources. Local school administrators select appropriate Academic Support Program components. I 11 I I II I I Academic Support Program In Depth Program Evaluation Page 6 Students eligible for participation in the Academic Support Program are identified from the District-wide printout of the Stanford 8 results. Identified students are those with total reading and/or mathematics scores falling within the lowest quartile on the Stanford 8 (total NCE of 35.8 or below). Multiple criteria, including student grades, teacher recommendations, and student records, are used to select targeted students from the identified population to participate in the Academic Support Program. Staff assignments are determined at the building-level and schedules are completed to ensure implementation of the selected school options. Discussion For the 1992-93 school year, thirteen secondary schools chose the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach, while one secondary school chose the Language Arts Plus Approach and three secondary schools chose the Direct Mathematics Approach. All elementary schools chose the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach. (Appendix A-1) For the 1993-94 school year, fourteen secondary schools chose the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach, while seven secondary schools chose the Language Arts Plus Approach and six secondary schools chose the Direct Mathematics Approach. All elementary schools chose the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach. (Appendix A-1) For the 1994-95 school year, fourteen secondary schools have chosen the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Direct/Indirect Approach. Seven secondary schools have chosen the Language Arts Plus Approach. All secondary schools have the Math Plus Approach with some degree of indirect services through pairing of regular math teachers with Math Plus teachers. (Appendix A-1) The District-wide printout of the Stanford 8 results for the 1992-93 school year revealed that 11,955 students were eligible for participation. For the 1993-94 school year, 11,044 students were eligible . For the 1994-95 school year, 12,033 students were eligible. (Appendix A-2) For the 1992-93 school year, uniform multiple criteria were used to identify 8,173 targeted students from the eligible population to be served by the Academic Support Program. For the 1993-94 school year, 7,466 students were selected. For the 1994-95 school year, 6,296 students have been selected, using the uniform multiple criteria. (Appendix A-2) Academic Support Program In Depth Program Evaluation page 7 During the 1992-93 school year, 2,525 students at the secondary 1evel were served by the Indirect/Direct Approach, 26 students were served by the Language Arts Plus Approach and 287 students were served by the Direct Mathematics Approach. At the elementary level, 5,385 students were served by the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach. (Appendix A-3) During the 1993-94 school year, 2,212 students at the secondary level were served by the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach. 466 students were served by the Language Arts Plus Approach and 622 students were served by the Direct Mathematics Approach. At the elementary level, 4,655 students were served by the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach. (Appendix A-3) During the 1994-95 school year, 3,230 students at the secondary level are being served by the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach. 420 students are being served by the Language Arts Plus Approach and 760 students are being served by the Math Plus Approach. At the elementary level, 4,787 students are being served by the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach. (Appendix A-3) For the 1992-93 school year, a total of 52 teachers staffed the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach, while .6 teachers staffed the Language Arts Plus Approach and 6.1 teachers staffed the Mathematics Direct Approach. At the elementary level, a total of 82.4 teachers staffed the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach. (Appendix A-4) For the 1993-94 school year, a total of 40.6 teachers staffed the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach, while 8.2 teachers staffed the Language Arts Plus Approach and 15.3 teachers staffed the Mathematics Direct Approach. At the elementary level, a total of 71.6 teachers staffed the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach. (Appendix A-4) For the 1994-95 school year, a total of 24.6 teachers staff the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach, while 46 teachers staff the Language Arts Plus Approach and 11.6 teachers staff the Mathematics Direct Approach and 14.2 teachers staff the Math Plus Approach. At the elementary level, a total of 73.05 teachers staff the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach. (Appendix A-4) --------------~- ----------- Academic Support Program In Depth Program Evaluation Page 8 Objective 2 To prescribe a personal education plan for targeted students. The Stanford 8 Individual Record Sheet serves as the basis for developing a personal education plan for each targeted student. The Little Rock School District Curriculum, which is correlated to the Stanford 8 objectives, is used as the curriculum in each program option at each school site. Schools are clustered for delivery of staff development and a schedule is developed to provide training to the staff responsible for delivering each Academic Support Program. Workshops are provided on the topics of specialized content area strategies, team planning, learning styles/cultural diversity, interactive teaching/learning, mastery learning, and cooperative team learning. Workshops are monitored to ensure that all topics have been addressed. Instruction and learning in the Academic Support Program settings are monitored regularly to determine student involvement, appropriateness of learning strategies and cultural diversity, creativity and resourcefulness, use of tutors, small group instruction, and extended day/week programs, teacher-student interaction, and increased student achievement and social skills. Technical assistance is provided on an as-needed basis in each of the areas monitored. TABLE B MONITORING CATEGORIES I SCHOOL TECHNICAL SCHOOL I YEAR & CLASSIFICATION I VISITS ASSISTANCE BASED I XEETINGS I ' i 1992-93 ELEMENTARY 413 40 24 I Totals SECONDARY 97 6 13 I i 1993-94 ELEMENTARY 241 175 4 SECONDARY 125 78 8 ! 1994-95 ELEMENTARY 175 12 47 to 12/6/94) SECONDARY 53 2 3 'Academic Support Program In Depth Program Evaluation Page 9 Discussion A comparison of the total number of training sessions conducted during the 1992-93 school year to the total number of sessions conducted during the 1993-94 school year reveals that there was an increase in the amount of technical provided by the reading/language and Mathematics Departments. During the 1992-93 school year, staff members made 593 monitoring visits. For the 1993-94 school _year, staff members made 631 monitoring visits. for the 1994-95 school year, 287 monitoring visits have been made to date by staff members. (Appendix B-1) Objective 3 To reduce or eliminate pull-out Academic Support Programs. The collection of appropriate data, including pre and post standardized test scores, student grades and records, samples of student work, and parent/teacher/student recommendations, serves as the basis for targeting students to be served by the Academic support Program. These data are analyzed for each student targeted to evaluate program effectiveness in remediating student achievement and contributing to the reduction or elimination of pull-out Academic Support Program components. Discussion A three year comparison of the students served by the Academic support Program shows that the number of students decreased in four out of nine grade levels in reading and mathematics from 1992 to 1993. The number of students served decreased at all grade levels in reading and mathematics from 1993 to 1994. (Appendix C-1) For the 1993-94 school year, the Language Arts Plus Approach increased to seven schools from only one during the 1992-93 school year. Six secondary schools also chose the Mathematics Direct Approach, representing an increase of three schools over the 1992-93 school year. These changes represent a trend at the secondary level away from an exclusive Rea.ding/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach toward more Direct Approaches. The trend continues in 1994-95 as all thirteen secondary schools use the Direct Math Plus Approach and maintain the same level of Language Arts Plus that was established in 1993-94. (Appendix A-1) ' Academic Support Program In Depth Program Evaluation Page 10 Objective 4 To provide parents the knowledge and skills needed to promote the education of their children at home and at school. Parents were assisted in obtaining the knowledge and skills needed to promote the education of their children at home and at school through provision of information about students' achievement and behavior, conferences about their children, and the establishment of parent/school partnerships. Discussion A comparison of 1992-93 parent activity documentation to the 1993-94 parent activity documentation reveals there has been an increase in the number of participating parents. The number of parents involved during 1993-94 increased two and a third times the rate of parental participation during the 1992-93 school year. Twenty-eight of the twenty-nine schools where data were collected showed positive gains in parent participation. (Appendix D) Data have not yet been compiled showing participation during the 1994-95 school year. Obstacles to Goal Attainment Obstacles to goal attainment are indicated by specific objectives: 1. To identify and serve students who are at-risk in reading/language arts and mathematics. Although this objective is achieved, it has not been achieved in a timely manner. Students identified for Academic Support Program service need to be identified prior to the beginning of the school year during which they are to be served. The identification process should begin in the spring of the preceding year with teacher recommendations based on multiple criteria followed by a review of each recommended student's test score results in early summer. By matching teacher recommendations and test score results, the population in need of service can be determined in time to ensure that appropriate Academic Support Program components are in place at each school site when the new school year begins. Academic Support Program In Depth Program Evaluation Page 11 2. To prescribe a personal education plan for targeted students. This objective is largely achieved
however, some folders are not complete because teachers do not have sufficient information to develop the plans. Individual Test Records (Stanford 8) for all Academic Support students are needed in order for teachers to develop the personal education plans. 3. To reduce or eliminate pull-out Academic Support Programs. Although progress toward reducing pull-out components of the Academic Support Program has been made in mathematics, more work needs to be done in reading/language arts at the elementary and junior high levels. While the data reveal a three year decrease in the total number of students needing services, too many students continue to need service from year-to-year after they enter the Academic Support Program. This fact requires a re-examination of the kinds of services available to students in reading/language arts at grades K-3 and grades 7-9. Several components of the current Academic Support Program are proving successful, most notably the language arts/mathematics plus classes (Approach Three) at the secondary level. Unfortunately, only two of the eight junior high schools are currently using the language arts plus model, while the other six continue to rely exclusively on Approach One, where traditional reading classes dominate without the direct support of the English teachers. More language arts plus classes are needed. At the elementary level, too much emphasis continues to be placed on traditional reading classes as a remediation strategy at all grade levels. The data do not indicate any concentrated effort on intervention/prevention at grades K- 3, where reading skills are developed. The current Academic Support Program lacks sufficient options at these grade levels necessary for developing the skills of the immature reader. The options for the primary grade levels need to be overhauled and expanded to ensure adequate support for students who are at-risk of becoming permanently trapped by the remediation cycle. Expansion of services must include concentrated approaches such as Reading Recovery, complemented by a greater degree of cooperation and interaction between the classroom teacher and the reading teacher. Academic Support Program In Depth Program Evaluation Page 12 4. To provide parents the knowledge and skills needed to promote the education of their children at home and at school. Although this objective is largely achieved at the elementary level, there is a need for strengthening efforts at the secondary level. Recommendation 1 Teacher recommendations based on analysis of multiple criteria should be made in the spring of the school year prior to the school year during which Academic Support Program service is to be provided. These recommendations should be forwarded to Central Office to be matched with test results as soon as they are available in order to determine the population to be served. This population should be identified on a customized printout, designed to reconcile teacher recommendations with test cut-off scores. The customized printout would be used to determine service needs so that appropriate Academic support Program components are in place at each school site before the new school year begins. Additionally, multiple copies of the customized printouts need to be in each school. at the beginning of the school year to facilitate timely service to all targeted students. Objective The objective of this recommendation is to ensure timely identification and selection of students to participate in the Academic Support Program and to serve targeted students by developing personal education plans based on their Stanford 8 Individual Test Recordf. Evaluation Criteria Documentation will indicate that the selection and identification processes occur in a timely and efficient manner and that program teacher record keeping is complete. Expected Benefits The District will meet its commitment of reducing academic disparity and pull-out programs. Academic Support Program In Depth Program Evaluation Page 13 Impact Analysis This recommendation will assist the District in providing appropriate instructional opportunities for students with identified needs in reading/language arts and in mathematics. As the students are served, pull-out programs and learning disparity will be reduced. Resource Analysis The Language Arts Office, Planning, Research and Evaluation Department, and the Data Processing Department will generate the necessary forms. The Office of Federal Programs will gather and report data so that analysis can be made. Force Field Analysis The primary supporters of this recommendation will be central office supervisors, director of federal programs, building principals, IRC reading and mathematics specialists, program teachers, students, and parents. There are no known detractors. General Implementation Plan 4/1/95 5/1/95 6/1/95 7/1/95 Activity Teacher recommendation based on multiple criteria. Teacher recommendation forms forwarded to Central Office Teacher recommendations matched with test results Customized printout forwarded to schools Person(s) Responsible Elementary classroom teachers, Secondary Language Arts/Math teachers Building Principals Director of Data Processing Director of Data Processing Academic Support Program In Depth Program Evaluation Page 14 Recommendation 2 Language Arts Plus classes should be included as an Academic Support Program option in all junior high schools. Utilization of this component would restructure the junior high school English departments, enabling regular English teachers to serve targeted students in additional enrichment classes. These teachers would teach up to four regular English classes and during the remaining periods would provide tutorial and accelerated learning experiences for all academic support students enrolled in each of their regular classes. The Language Arts Plus Program would reduce the current number of reading classes taught by additional teachers. Objective The objective of this recommendation is to reduce or eliminate pull-out Academic Support Program approaches by providing additional instructional time to targeted students with their regular English teachers. Evaluation Criteria Evaluation criteria will include personal education plans for targeted students, annual district printouts of standardized test scores, and annual reports on numbers of students eligible for service through the Academic Support Program and numbers of students actually served. Review of these criteria will indicate increased student mastery of District learning objectives, increased standardized test scores, decreased numbers of students eligible for Academic Support Program services, and decreased numbers of students actually served. Expected Benefits The District will meet its commitment of reducing academic disparity and pull-out programs. Impact Analysis This recommendation will assist the District in providing appropriate instructional opportunities for students with identified needs in reading/language arts. As the students are served, pull-out programs and learning disparity will be reduced. Academic Support Program In Depth Evaluation page 15 Resource Analysis This recommendation will utilize existing junior high school English department staff, while reducing the total number of reading specialists needed at the junior high level. Teachers and students will use the existing curriculum and textbooks. No additional classroom materials will be needed. force Field Analysis The primary supporters of this recommendation will be central office personnel, including supervisors and directors, building principals, teachers, students, and parents. Anticipated detractors will include reading teachers whose positions will be eliminated. General Implementation Plan Activity Person(s) Responsible 4/1/95 5/1/95 6/1/95 7/ 1 / 95 7/1/95 Teacher recommendations based on multiple criteria Teacher recommendation forms forwarded to Central Office Teacher recommendations matched with test results customized printout forwarded to schools Students and teachers assigned to Language Arts Plus classes Sixth grade teachers and secondary English teachers Building Principals Director of Data Processing Director of Data Processing Building Principals Academic Support Program In Depth Evaluation Page 16 Recommendation 3 The current Academic Support Program needs to be restructured at the elementary school level to ensure adequate support for students who are at-risk of becoming permanently trapped by the remediation cycle. This restructuring should focus on providing appropriate program components at grades K-3, where reading skills are developed. An aggressive intervention/prevention program targeting these grade levels would reduce the overall size of the Academic Support Program by mainstreaming before the fourth grade students who would otherwise continue to need the support of the current program. Expansion of services must include concentrated approaches such as Reading Recovery, supplemented by a greater degree of cooperation and interaction between the classroom teacher and the reading teacher. Objective The objective of this recommendation is to reduce or eliminate pull-out Academic Support and academic disparity. Evaluation Criteria Evaluation criteria will include personal education plans for targeted students, annual district printouts of standardized test scores, and annual reports on numbers of students eligible for service through the Academic Support Program and numbers of students actually served. Review of these criteria will indicate increased student mastery of District learning objectives, increased standardized test scores, decreased numbers of students eligible for Academic Support Program services, and decreased numbers of students actually served. Expected Benefits The District will meet its commitment of reducing academic disparity and pull-out programs. Impact Analysis This recommendation will assist the District in providing appropriate instructional opportunities for students with identified needs in reading/language arts. As the students are served, pull-out programs and learning disparity will be reduced. Academic Support Program In Depth Evaluation Page 17 Resource Analysis This recommendation will require reallocating available Chapter One funds to provide for staffing needs, materials and supplies, and staff development. Force Field Analysis The primary supporters of this recommendation will be central office personnel, including supervisors and directors, building principals, teachers, students, and parents. Anticipated detractors will include reading teachers whose position will be eliminated. General Implementation Plan Activity Person{s) Responsible 4/1/95 5/1/95 6/1/95 7/1/95 8/1/95 Teacher recommendations based on multiple criteria Teacher recommendation forms forwarded to Central Office Teacher recommendations matched with test results Customized printout forwarded to schools Students and teachers assigned to Academic Support Program Classroom teachers Building principals Director of Data Processing Director of Data Processing Building principals I I .i :I
i ' ' ! INSTRUCTIONAL APPROACH SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Central J. A. Fair Hall McClellan Parkview Magnet JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Cloverdale Dunbar Magnet Forest Heights Henderson Magnet Mabel vale Mann Pulas}~i Heights Southwest l-.l t. Learning Ctr. ~I.,EMENTARY SCHOOLS l-.11 APPENDIX A-1 ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM READING/LANGUAGE ARTS/MATHEMATICS APPROACHES ONE, TWO, THREE 1992-93 READING/LANGUAGE ARTS ONE TWO THREE Indirect/ Language Direct Direct Arts Plus X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X .ppendix A-1 (page 1 of 3) MATHEMATICS ONE TWO Indirect/ Direct Direct X I X X X X I I X I X X X X X I X I X I X --- ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM READING/LANGUAGE ARTS/MATHEMATICS APPROACHES ONE, TWO, THREE I 1993-94 READING/LANGUAGE ARTS MATHEMATICS INSTRUCTIONAL APPROACH ONE TWO THREE ONE TWO 1, Indirect/ Language Indirect/ I Direct Direct Arts Plus Direct Direct ,,, SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Central X X X 1,11 J. A. Fair X X X I Hall X X 11 McClellan X X X Parkview Magnet X X X JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Cloverdale X X Dunbar Magnet X X Forest Heights X X Ii Henderson Magnet X X II Mabel vale X X X II Mann X X X X Pulaski Heights X X X Southwest X X Alt. Learning Ctr. X ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS All X X I ~ I I I I ~pendix A-1 (page 2 of 3) II II - ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM READING/LANGUAGE ARTS/MATHEMATICS APPROACHES ONE, TWO, THREE 1994-95 READING/LANGUAGE ARTS MATHEMATICS INSTRUCTIONAL ONE TWO THREE ONE TWO THREE APPROACH Indirect Language Indirect Math /Direct Direct Arts Plus /Direct Direct Plus SENIOR HIGHS Central X X X X I J. A. Fair X X X Hall X X X McClellan X X X X Parkview X X X X JUNIOR HIGHS Cloverdale X X X Dunbar X X X Forest Hts. X X X Henderson X X X Mabel vale X X X X Mann X X X X X I Pulaski Hts. X X X ii Southwest X X X I :1, Alt. Ln. Ctr. X I II 1: ELEMENTARY All X X f.ppendix A-1 (page 3 of 3) . l READING/LANGUAGE TOTAL TESTED # ELIGIBLE Spring 1992 1992-93 Gr. 1 2,094 Gr. 2 804 Gr. 2 1,881 Gr. 3 707 Gr. 3 1,783 Gr. 4 649 Gr. 4 1,904 Gr. 5 524 Gr. 5 1,922 Gr. 6 685 Gr. 6 1,843 Gr. 7 473 Gr. 7 1,795 Gr. 8 668 Gr. 8 1,573 Gr. 9 599 Gr. 9 1,554 Gr. 10 494 Gr. 10 1,602 Gr. 11 495 Gr. 11 1,472 Gr. 12 357 Appendix A-2 (page 1 of 3) APPENDIX A-2 READING/LANGUAGE ARTS/MATHEMATICS STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST 1992-93 ARTS # SERVED TOTAL TESTED 1992-93 Spring 1992 700 Gr. 1 2,094 599 Gr. 2 1,881 560 Gr. 3 1,783 505 Gr. 4 1,904 570 Gr. 5 1,922 428 Gr. 6 1,843 432 Gr. 7 1,795 282 Gr. 8 1,573 142 Gr. 9 1,554 137 Gr. 10 1,602 69 Gr. 11 1,472 MATHEMATICS # ELIGIBLE # SERVED 1992-93 1992-93 Gr. 2 625 531 Gr. 3 418 455 Gr. 4 358 491 Gr. 5 324 467 Gr. 6 406 507 Gr. 7 332 284 Gr. 8 544 276 Gr. 9 621 254 Gr. 10 728 360 Gr. 11 672 95 Gr. 12 472 29 --- -- --- ------------------------ READING/LANGUAGE TOTAL TESTED I ELIGIBLE Spring 1993 1993-94 Gr. 1 1,941 Gr. 2 686 Gr. 2 1,912 Gr. 3 714 Gr. 3 1,770 Gr. 4 575 Gr. 4 1,715 Gr. 5 486 Gr. 5 1,821 Gr. 6 623 Gr. 6 1,855 Gr. 7 466 Gr. 7 1,716 Gr. 8 603 Gr. 8 1,571 Gr. 9 548 Gr. 9 1,506 Gr. 10 471 Gr. 10 1,587 Gr. 11 403 Gr. 11 1,383 Gr. 12 392 Appendix A-2 (page 2 of 3) READING/LANGUAGE ARTS/MATHEMATICS STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST 1993-94 ARTS # SERVED TOTAL TESTED 1993-94 Spring 1993 514 Gr. 1 1,941 584 Gr. 2 1,912 499 Gr. 3 1,770 435 Gr. 4 1,715 475 Gr. 5 1,821 457 Gr. 6 1,855 503 Gr. 7 1,716 407 Gr. 8 1,571 195 Gr. 9 1,506 190 Gr. 10 1,587 110 Gr. 11 1,383 MATHEMATICS I ELIGIBLE 1993-94 Gr . 2 584 Gr. 3 405 Gr. 4 411 Gr. 5 197 Gr. 6 329 Gr. 7 303 Gr. 8 555 Gr. 9 539 Gr. 10 691 Gr. 11 547 Gr. 12 516 # SERVED 1993-94 366 334 360 218 324 305 354 422 335 72 7 READING/LANGUAGE TOTAL TESTED I ELIGIBLE Spring 1994 1994-95 Gr. 1 1,957 Gr. 2 625 Gr. 2 1,771 Gr. 3 663 Gr. 3 1,788 Gr. 4 666 Gr. 4 1,720 Gr. 5 493 Gr. 5 1,694 Gr. 6 584 Gr. 6 1,763 Gr. 7 561 Gr. 7 1,810 Gr. 8 627 Gr. 8 1,718 Gr. 9 608 Gr. 9 1,568 Gr. 10 569 Gr. 10 1,509 Gr. 11 414 Gr. 11 1,448 Gr. 12 416 Appendix A-2 {page 3 of 3) READING/LANGUAGE ARTS/MATHEMATICS STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST 1994-95 ARTS I SERVED TOTAL TESTED 1994-95 Spring 1994 580 Gr. 1 1,952 571 Gr. 2 1,775 487 Gr. 3 1,783 382 Gr. 4 1,717 439 Gr. 5 1,687 403 Gr. 6 1,760 445 Gr. 7 1,792 410 Gr. 8 1,688 182 Gr. 9 1,564 146 Gr. 10 1,503 110 Gr. 11 1,439 MATHEMATICS I ELIGIBLE I SERVED 1994-95 1994-95 Gr. 2 548 476 Gr. 3 455 388 Gr. 4 528 445 Gr. 5 306 244 Gr. 6 356 291 Gr. 7 462 274 Gr. 8 691 378 Gr. 9 644 501 Gr. 10 770 358 Gr. 11 514 22 Gr. 12 533 1 Extended Program Evaluation Communication Services Completed by: Dina Teague Communications Specialist December 14, 1994 Program Name Communication Services Program Description: Program Purpose: To keep all publics informed of the actions of the LRSD and its programs. Scope and Content: The Communication Services program is in place to facilitate the transferrance of information between district employees, board members and administrators. and the District itself with the public. All conventional means of communications are used from telephone and written correspondence. to television production and programming. In addition to being the primary source of infonnation for community members and the news media. the communications office also provides assistance to other district offices and school building personnel. The communication services program encompasses all functions of the communications office that are not specifically mentioned in the desegregation programmatic areas. Panicipants: Participants in the communication services program are primarily the employees of the communications department: Director of Communications, Communications Specialist, Secretary, part-time COE Student Worker, and District Receptionist. All functions of the department are under the direction of the Associate Superintendent of Desegregation. Beneficiaries: District students, patrons, board members, and employees benefit from good internal communication as well as external communication with tax payers. community members, opinion leaders. and media representatives. Program Goal To suppon the education mission and all of the goals and objectives of the Little Rock School District through improved community awareness. understanding and confidence. Evaluation Criteria 1.0 Documents available 2.0 Employee Directory 3.0 Media requests answered 4.0 Public requests answered 5.0 Internal requests completed 6.0 Clipping file 7 .0 Events completed 8.0 Bulk mailings completed 9.0 NIA I 0.0 Copy of Annual Report 11.0 Copy of videos 12.0 Board information prepared 13.0 LRSD representative on KLRE Board 14.0 Required reports available I 5.0 Documents available 16.0 Cable 4 operational, equipment up and running, Cable 4 updated, videos produced 17.0 Budget maintained 18.0 Correspondence completed 19.0 Projects in place, visits scheduled 20.0 Office maintained 2 Evaluation Results O~iective 1.0 Assist the Superintendent's office with technical writing and computer support, and other special projects, as requested. The communications staff produces various written documents such as scripts, resolutions. and letters for the Superintendent as needed. ( 1.1 J Various computer generated documents such as the district organizational chart, citations. etc. are produced on a regular basis. ( 1.2) From time to time assistance with special projects such as board photos. assembly of needed information, and meeting scheduling is provided. (1.3) Objective 2.0 Produce a district employee directory. The Communications Secretary annually gathers information with the assistance of Human Resources. She then organizes copy, secures advertising. and schedules printing of the employee directory. (2.1 ) Objective 3.0 Respond to all media requests. The Communications Director and Communications Specialist record all requests and obtain clearance from the Associate Superintendent of Desegregation to respond. (3.1, 3.lAJ When clearance is given, they gather infonnation or arrange interviews as appropriate and contact the media representative with a response. (3.3. 3.4) If necessary, requests are forwarded to the Superintendent. (3.1) All other request fonns are sent to the Superintendent upon completion. Objective 4.0 Respond to public requests for information The same procedure described above is followed unless a patron is requesting a district publication. Calendar and brochure requests are honored immediately upon receipt. Objective 5.0 Respond to all internal requests for information The same procedure described above is used to respond to internal requests. Objective 6.0 Maintain a clipping file of all education-related articles The communications office subscribes to all local newspapers and news magazines. The publications are reviewed each day and all articles related to education or to the Little Rock School District are clipped. copied and filed by date. (6.1, 6.3) A log is kept to facilitate research on a given subject. 16.2) Objective 7.0 Schedule. plan, and execute special events The communications staff plans and executes many special events at the request of the Superintendent or other administrators. Staff members often work closely with other departments such as Human Resources or the Superintendent's Office staff on these events. 3 Objective 7.0 (continued, Examples are the annual retirement pany <7.11 and the newly implemented winter holiday parties. Objective 8.0 Assist in district /schools bulk mailings The Communications Secretary coordinates bulk mailings of many district publications such as the calendars. recruitment surveys. and brochures. She also instructs school level employees and PTA members on bulk mailing procedures. (8.1 l Objective 9.0 Di-stribution of mail, faxes. and all internal communications The District Receptionist. with the help of the part-time COE Student Worker. operates the district switchboard and fax machine as well as distributes all district office external and internal mail. and fax transmissions. (9.1. 9.3. 9.4 & 9.5) They also stamp all mail and register district cenified mail. 19.2J Objective 10.0 Prepare district's Annual Repon Each fall, the Director of Communications gathers information for, generates graphics for and writes the District's Annual Report. (10.1, 10. 2 & 10.3) She then distri.butesthe report at board meetings and advertises the report in the newspaper. (10.4) Objective 11.0 Write scripts. edit and produce district videos The office of communications responds to all requests for video production and must rely on the teaching staff of Metropolitan Vo-Tech and the availability of their equipment to be able to create videos. Objective 12.0 Produce news releases and support documents for the Board of Directors The Communications Specialist prepares media advisories to notify the media of all board functions and advises them of agenda items or discussion topics as appropriate. ( 12. l ) Each member of the communications staff works to provide any information or materials requested by board members for their presentations. 02.2) Generally this refers to special citations presented by board members. Objective 13.0 Represent the district on the KLRE Board The director of communications attends all KLRE Board meetings, serves on the Personnel Committee. and attends special events. (13.1. 13.2 & 13.3 )* O~iective 14.0 Prepare required reports The communications department has prepared reports such as Coopers and Lybrand Outsourcing Report. Financial Reports. coun preparations. etc. as requested. ( 14.1 J* 4 Objective 15.U Provide technical writing support for other district departments The communications department has prepared documents. fliers. letters for other LRSD departments. such as ADA Campaign. and EPA notifications for Plant Services as requested.* Objecrive 16.0 Maintain. operate and produce Cable Channel 4 programming. The Communications Secretary coordinates all maintenance calls for equipment. (16. l l She also updates the district calendar and airs district videos.(16.2J O~iective 17.0 Preparation and maintenance of department budget and budget-related documents The Director of Communications maintains the budget and monitors department spending. 117. l l* Ol>jective 18.0 Correspondence to schools and community All members of the communications staff write thank you notes and letters as appropriate. (18.l l Objective 19.0 Develop and execute special projects with community group\ No evaluation results.* Objective 20.0 General Non-Desegregation related office administration The communications staff orders supplies. maintains equipment. etc. as needed. (20.l l ,:, Please see attached memo from Dina Teague regarding these items. 5 Recommendations: No recommendations are made at this time. I feel it would be inappropriate for me as the Communications Specialist to suggest changes. Although many staff members have expressed an understanding that I am the Acting Director of Communications. an official change in title has not been made and I do not want to overstep my authority. It is my understanding that a Director of Communications will be in place in approximately one month. I feel that it would be more appropriate for the new director to suggest changes under the advisement of the Associate Superintendent of Desegregation (primary leader). 6 Addendum Program description: The purpose of the communication services program is to keep all publics infonned of the actions of the LRSD and its programs. The Communication Services program is in place to facilitate the transferrance of information between district employees. board members and administrators. as well as the District itself and the public. The communication services program encompasses all functions of the communications office that are not specifically mentioned in the desegregation programmatic areas. Participants in the communication services program are primarily the employees of the communications depanment: Director of Communications, Communications Specialist, Secretary. part-time COE Student Worker, and District Receptionist. All functions of the department are under the direction of the Associate Superintendent of Desegregation. District students, patrons, board members, and employees benefit from good internal communication as well as external communication with tax payers, community members. opinion leaders, and media representatives. Recommendations: No recommendations are made. 7 I I I I 11 I 11 I ' Human Resources Services The Human Resources Department serves the District as the focal point for all staffing functions including recrui tin9, hiring, staffing, transfers, promotions, salary schedules, benefits coordination and compliance with state and federal regulations as they apply to public schools. The Human Resources Department also serves as the unit responsible for the coverage of classes as needed with substitutes. Recommendations are listed as follows: 1. A more complete and comprehensive salary study be conducted. Preferably, the study would be done by an outside consulting firm to assure impartial, unbiased results as well as a timely study. To do the study internally would require vast amounts of man-hours from the Human Resources staff. Communications Services The Communications Services program is in place to facilitate the transference of information between district employees, board members and administrators, and the District itself with the public. In addition to being the primary source of information for community members and the news media, the communications office also provides assistance to other district offices and school building personnel. The communication services program encompasses all functions of the communications office that are not specifically mentioned in the desegregation programmatic areas. Recommendations are listed as follows: * No recommendation are made at this time 1, I II Ii I Ii I' I' Ii Ii I I I II I I I I I Evaluation criteria Specific evaluation criteria include: 1.0 Adequate service provided in support of programs. Determined by dividing numbers of requests by number provided. 1.1 All buses assigned only two routes. 1.2 Students effectively and efficiently routed to facilitate a smooth school opening 1988-89. 1. 3 Significant reduction in street address errors introduced by poor/inadequate data entry. 1. 4 No student required to exceed four blocks/six blocks walk. 1. 5 Published policies on student behavior /safety on LRSD buses. Published policies for drivers/driver aides to assist in communicating the districts' position on transportation safety procedures. Frequent meetings to address safety issues and concerns. Attendance verified through sign-in sheets. Review of supervisor's monitoring report. 1. 6 Routes generated based upon current assignment information. 1.7 Two mile list published and distributed to school staff . Add transportation policies and procedures. 1.8 Written request for student data forwarded. incremental initiated by routing supervisor. Research error listing to within 5%. Completion of first day prior to registration. Evaluation Results Census system routes Evaluation results were gathered from data available within the historical records in the Transportation Department. Objective 1. o The Transportation Department will request additional resources to help provide transportation support for evening and extended day programs. All request for extended day and evening support were honored in 1993-94. 2 ' Discussion The district has consistently requested additional resources from the state to support the M to Mand magnet programs. Extended day activities are provided based on requests submitted to the Transportation Department and the assets available to support these requests. Miles are added to the fleet each time a bus is used to support evening and extended day programs. These programs are charged a fee to cover the basic cost of the driver plus $1.31 a mile which has been established as the cost to run the bus one mile. Currently, all requests for support are being honored. In the future, consideration must be given to the impact such programs have on the life of the fleet and its primary purpose of transporting students to and from school. Objective 1.1 In 1990-91 the District reduced its number of runs from three to two. The district returned to a two run system - one elementary and one secondary - in the 1990-91 school year. Discussion The limit of a two run system determines the maximum number of routes that can be scheduled based on the number of available buses. With the expansion of the majority to minority (M to M) transfer program, resources have been redirected to support these students. For M to M students a route may be as much as 90 minutes long and the bus may stop at two or m~re schools. Therefore, these buses have only one route. Regular LRSD Buses generally have two routes. One route for elementary school is 45 minutes and the second route for secondary school is 45 minutes. Each bus, generally goes to only one school per run. Special Education buses have two runs of 45 minutes and may go to two or more schools on each run. Elementary students are usually on the first run and secondary students are on the second run. Currently, the number of students on each run varies from one to eight students, with four students as an average. This is a very expensive way to transport students. 3 I, I I I II II ,' I Some buses serve as few as four students while other buses serve 65 students. If regular route buses were to go to more than one school, some buses could be combined to free up additional assets for the regular program. Objective 1.2 LRSD has made progress in the utilization of the ECOTRAN MAPNET System. 1988-89 school opening. This item completed 06/90, and is not recurring. Objective 1.3 There is extensive work to be done in updating the geographic files, tables with the LRSD database. The number of errors found in 1993-94 were 6000 when data base was initially loaded. Discussion All new streets are added to the ECOTRAN MAPNET System based on the information provided by the LR City Engineers. When an error list is run, the street names/numbers are compared to the post office street names/numbers upon which the district data base is built. The ECOTRAN Database is changed to match the district data base. At the beginning of 1994-95 only 500 errors were initially fo~nd. An update is currently under way using November data. Objective 1.4 School attendance areas and upda~ed walk zones need to be encoded into map files. Based on the information in the data base, no student was required to walk more than four blocks to the bus if an elementary student or more than six blocks as a secondary student. Students who are within the walk zone are required to walk if no courtesy stop is provided. Discussion The Transportation Department continuously receives requests for closer bus stops than the four/six blocks criteria due to safety and supervision issues. Many parents state that four/ 4 six blocks is too far for the student to walk. Accommodating these requests can increase the routing time and require buses to go into areas that are difficult to maneuver within on large buses. Objective 1.5 (Transportation Safety Policies need to be reviewed and updated properly. Changes will be incorporated from Applicable Board Policies and Administrative Directives). Discussion The policies of the Transportation Department were governed by a negotiated agreement with the Classroom Teachers Association for the 1993-94 school year. The association lost its recognition for the 1994-95 school year. The practices and procedures were reviewed and published in the fall of 1994. Safety meetings are scheduled and conducted on a regular basis by the safety supervisors. Objective 1.6 (Assignment promotion population region tables need to be created to ensure proper student assignment). Discussion The data processing department provides tapes that are used to generate routes based on current assignment information. Objective 1.7 All school attendance areas will be encoded into the geographic tables. Corresponding walk zones will be generated for schools, all transportation policies will be reviewed and updated. The two mile lists were established after the attendance zone boundaries were encoded. The policies and procedures for the Transportation Department are shared annually with principals and assistant principals. 5 1 I II I ' Objective 1.8 An entire new stop network will be generated to improve efficiency and most economically utilize District resources. Census information provided by data processing was used to establish first day routes prior to registration. Obstacles to Goal Attainment Objective 1.0 Objective achieved 1.1 " 1.2 " 1.3 " 1.4 " 1.5 " 1.6 " 1.7 " 1.8 " " Recommendations The failure of the Transportation Department to reach its stated program goal was not related to the program entitled Computerized Transportation Routing System. The factors involved manpower shortage, equipment failure, and the proposal to outsource. However, the district could profit from upgrading the system to the current edition of the software. Recommendation 1: Upgrade the ECOTRAN software and hardware to utilize the Mapnet Plus system similar to the Pulaski County School District system. Evaluation criteria: The routes prepared for the opening of school reflect the information available in the district's data base on August 1, 1995. 6 Expected Benefits: The amount of time required to route all buses for the district will be reduced. By training the staff, effective utilization of the special features in the system will enhance the routing procedures. To the degree the system is used in strategic planning, the system will allow the district to try several different attendance patterns and levels of organization based on the capacity of various schools. Impact Analysis: 1. Program. The computerized routing system will improve the efficiency of the routing process. Negatives a. The system will be down during the upgrade process and during training. Positives a. The routing process will be faster. b. The data base can be directly downloaded from the mainframe. c. The system will be compatible with the Pulaski County Special School District routing system. d. Reports can be generated concerning transported students to include race ~nd grade. e. The system can projecting attendance boundaries. 2. Desegregation Plan be used for strategic zone enrollments based planning by on varying The upgrade supports the Desegregation Plan to provide computerized routing system to optimize travel times. 3. court Orders There should be no impact on court orders. 7 I I I 4. Political factors The collaboration between the Pulaski County Special School District and the LRSD Transportation Department concerning student transportation and staff training would occur. 5. Risks There appears to be no risks to upgrading the system. The risk to not upgrading the system is not being able to use the system for strategic planning. 6. Timing Some cost savings could be realized by deciding to upgrade immediately. Also, training needs to be conducted for those individuals who will be operating the system before its full potential can be realized. Resource Analysis 1. Personnel Analysis No additional positions are needed to support this project. The number of individuals to be trained will depend upon how the system will be used. At least three individuals will receive training to support the routing of buses . 2. Financial Analysis a. The upgrade software will cost $16, 900. The cost of computer equipment to support upgrade is $5,104. If both stations are upgraded, an additional $200 will be required for the software and another $5,104 for the hardware. The total cost will be $27,308. The annual Maintenance/License fee will $1,635. b . The source of revenue would be from the current Transportation Department budget. Force Field Analysis 1. Forces For The supervisors directly responsible for routing will support the project because the time to route would be reduced. 8 Administrators involved in strategic planning should support the upgrade because it will allow them to experiment with several senecios and see the impact on student assignments when changing boundaries. The other parties who have an interest in assignment plans should support the upgrade because the software could be used to respond to their "what if" questions. 2. Forces Against The issue related to spending this money for the upgrade rather than saving for next year's budget would be a detractor. However, the value of being able to interface with Pulaski County School District and the increased accuracy of the routes because the information will come directly from the data base should overcome objections. I. General Implementation Plan Milestones Timeline Tasking 1. Proposal sent to Associate Superintendent 01/07/95 Cheatham 2. Approval of Proposal 02/01/95 Mayo 3. Order Upgrade of software/hardware 02/15/95 Neal 4. Installation of upgrade 03/15/95 Contractors 5. Staff Training 04/01/95 ECOTRAN 9 I I II I I
I I I I I I ADDENDUM Program Evaluation Computerized Transportation A brief description of program being evaluated: The primary component is the Transportation Planning and Management System which is the routing and scheduling software. In addition, there is the Map Build and Maintenance System which updates the map, Census Processing which allows for matching the student file to the map file, and the Geographic Enrollment Analysis System which is redistricting software that can be used to propose modifying boundaries and test alternatives. RECOMMENDATION 1 - does not have a matching number. The area classification is Desegregation. The data used for the evaluation was located in the historical records in the Transportation Department. 10 Program Description: Purpose: Scope and Content: Panicipants/Beneficiaries: Program Goals: Evaluation Criteria: Evaluation Results: Objective 1.0 IN-DEPTI-l PROGRAM EVALUATION Non-Desegregation Contingencies Those activities concerned with maintaining a funding reserve for future operations as well as unforeseen events. The contingency fund is a reserve of funds established to provide for emergencies and expenditures that cannot be foreseen at the time of budget preparation. The contingency fund process entails the solicitation and securement of financial and other resources that may be necessary during the fiscal year to provide complete and adequate support for the District's schools and administrative sites. The contingency fund is established during the budget process based upon input from the Board, staff, and community. The allocation to fund or not fund the contingency is approved by the Board of Directors. All students and employees in the District benefit, either directly or indirectly, should the reserve become necessary to fund emergency situations or unforeseen expenditures. To provide a pool of reserve funding. 1.1 Fund balance at any point in time. 1.2 Transfer of funds. 1.1 Monthly financial reports and corresponding historical revenue and expenditure data. 1.2 Internally generated forms supporting any transfers required. To maintain a source to fund future and/or unforecasted events. I I I I I I I I I I In-Depth Program Evaluation Non-Desegregation Contingencies Page 2 Discussion 1.0 The District's monthly internal reporting format is structured to predict, based on certain historical data, the projected ending fund balance. Even though the past is being used to predict the future, a certain degree of continuity does exist. Current political events, as well as day-to-day operational happenings, must also be factored into this future projection equation. Although it is impossible to obtain the actual fund balance until all year end activities have been completed, a projection system such as we use certainly goes a long way in helping to spot trends and make sound decisions. Obstacles to Goal Obtainment: Objective I. 0: Recommendation I: Objective 1: Evaluation Criteria: Expected Benefits: This objective was not achieved due to the elimination of a budget allocation by the Board of Directors. However, the strategies to obtain the goal are an on-going process in order to maintain historical data on which to base future budgeting decisions. Continue to expand the historical data base used to summarize the past so the future can better be predicted. To maintain a reliable reporting structure for the District's fund balance (reserve pool). The objective will be evaluated mathematically based on the accuracy of the monthly projections to the actual ending balance. The District will have a more complete and broader data base on which to make future projections and decisions regarding the budget and contingency planning. Program Description DATA PROCESSING SERVICES PROGRAM EVALUATION 1 ::
r To provide the resources (Hardware, Software, Training, Programming, Computer Operations, Hardware and Software Support) necessary to collect, store and report information on LRSD students. Information Services will provide the computer resources necessary to collect, store, and report student information in a timely and accurate manner. School and central officebased staff, parents, and students will benefit from accurate up-to-date information on students. Information Services also supports all LRSD corporate business functions and classroom technology infrastructure needs. Purpose Provide effective, efficient information service support to LRSD. Scope and Content Plan, develop, implement and maintain the telecommunications, computing and miscellaneous information services for: 1. LRSD corporate business functions
2. LRSD student administrative functions
3. LRSD desegregation reporting functions
4. Classroom technology infrastructure needs. Participants/Beneficiaries 1. Each student, LRSD. 2. Each employee, LRSD. 3. Each school, LRSD. 4. Each staff agency, LRSD 5. Board of Directors, LRSD. 6. Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Program Goals To provide the programs and data bases necessary to collect and store all pertinent student information. To provide all necessary reports required to support school and central office based functions. To provide all necessary information required by outside interests. To provide timely response to all requests for information. Evaluation Criteria 1.0 Information is available in a timely manner for planning and decision making. 1.1 Appropriate hardware is available and functiona, as designed. 1.2 Appropriate software is available and functional to meet the needs of the district. 1.3 Appropriate telecommunications systems are functioning to meet the needs of the District. Evaluation Results 1.0 No, information is not available in a timely manner. 1.1 No, appropriate hardware is not available. 1.2 No, appropriate software is not available. 1.3 No evaluation results. I ,, I I I I I I I I I I I . I ' I I I I I ' I I I I I I Objective 1 To provide the necessary informational services that ensure appropriate planning and decisionmaking processes. Discussion Objectives have not been achieved. LRSD has no comprehensive Information Services strategy/plan. This lack of a comprehensive Information Services strategy/plan has significant negative input on LRSD's ability to meet goals/objectives. To use an analogous situation, suppose the decision was made to rebuild Chicot Elementary. No architect is hired
instead the librarian is given money to rebuild the library, food service is given money to rebuild the cafeteria, and each teacher is given money to rebuild his/her classroom. The probable result would be an excellent library, an excellent cafeteria and excellent individual classrooms. Unfortunately, Chicot would consist of multiple buildings, none connected to the other, no hallways, no lockers, no rest rooms etc., etc. In summary a new, expensive, Chicot Elementary would be nonfunctional. LRSD information infrastructure is currently comparable to this hypothetical new, expensive but nonfunctional Chicot Elementary. Currently, each school and staff agency spends considerable money to meet their specific automation needs. Personal computers, printers, fax machines, modems, etc., with a multitude of software applications have been purchased and installed. No comprehensive plan for connectivity, standardization, maintenance, etc. has been followed. Data/information now resides in multiple locations in multiple formats. There are no "hallways" connecting these diverse automation islands. LRSD will probably survive without one elementary school, however, an information infrastructure connects/encompasses all LRSD schools, staff agencies and activities. Obstacles to Goal Attainment 1. LRSD Information Services staff is not trained or staffed for current technology. 2. LRSD lacks an inadequate information services infrastructure. 3. LRSD lacks a comprehensive Information Services budgeting and procurement strategy/plan. 4. LRSD has not correctly implemented current technology. 5. LRSD has no global corporate data model. 6. LRSD has not acquired the correct tools for efficient ad-hoc reporting. 7. LRSD employees are not trained on current technical tools. 8. LRSD Instructional Resource Center is not staffed or trained for current technology. 9. LRSD has no comprehensive Information Services strategy/plan. Recommendations Develop a comprehensive Information Services plan for LRSD. -Business cases to address obstacles to goal attainment will be prepared as a part of LRSD budget-planning process. Program Description DATA PROCESSING PROGRAM EVALUATION To provide the resources (Hardware, Software, Training, Programming, Computer Operations, Hardware and Software Support) necessary to collect, store and report information on LRSD students. Information Services will provide the computer resources necessary to collect, store, and report student information in a timely and accurate manner. School and central officebased staff, parents, and students will benefit from accurate up-to-date information on students. Information SeNices also supports all LRSD corporate business functions and classroom technology infrastructure needs. Purpose Provide effective, efficient information service support to LRSD. Scope and Content Plan, develop, implement and maintain the telecommunications, computing and miscellaneous information services for: 1. LRSD corporate business functions
2. LRSD student administrative functions
3. LRSD desegregation reporting functions
4. Classroom technology infrastructure needs. Participants/Beneficiaries 1. Each student, LRSD. 2. Each employee, LRSD. 3. Each school, LRSD. 4. Each staff agency, LRSD 5. Board of Directors, LRSD. 6. Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Program Goals To provide the programs and data bases necessary to collect and store all pertinent student information. To provide all necessary reports required to support school and central office based functions. To provide all necessary information required by outside interests. To provide timely response to all requests for information. Evaluation Criteria 1.A ( Administration has received all required reports for the school year). 1.8 ( All data is accurately stored and is retrievable). 1.C (Quality reports are being delivered on time). 1.0 (Complaints are no longer being received about information not available). 1.1 (Reports are available which accurately report dropout). 1.2 (All test results are stored in the computer and are reflected in pertinent reports). 1.3 (All available student achievement data is stored and reported as requested). 1.4 (Attendance data is accurately stored and reported to the state with minimum manual compilation). 1.5 (Discipline data is accurately entered and reported as required). 1.6 (Student assignment data is stored and all reporting requirements are met). 2. (The District requirements for computer resources are being met). 2.1 (All employees requiring access to student records have access to terminals) . 2.1.A (The computer system has the capacity-disk, memory, print, speed, and processor speed meet peak demands). 2.1.B (At present time, the performance and monitoring tools that were implemented are being evaluated). 2.2 (All necessary software is installed and functioning properly to collect, store and report information in a timely and accurate manner). Evaluation Results 1.A No, report backlog frequently exists. 1.B No, data is not easily retrievable cannot ascertain if it is accurately stored. 1.C No, reports are of poor quality and not timely. 1.D No, complaints reference information availability are still received. 1.1 No evaluation results. 1.2 No evaluation results. 1.3 No evaluation results. 1.4 No, manual intervention is excessive. 1.5 No, reporting is cumbersome. 1.6 No, reporting is cumbersome. 2.0 No, LRSD computing resources are not adequately addressed. 2.1 No evaluation results. 2.1.A No, computing resources are not adequate. 2.1.B 2.2 No, software does not properly collect, store and report information in a timely and accurate manner. Objective 1 Data Processing (Information Services Department) will provide the necessary support for all school and central office based functions. Objective 2 Data Processing Department (Information Services Department Staff) will have the capacity to respond to District needs as required by District goals and state and federal laws such as grade distribution and the ability to identify students and cohorts of students. Discussion Objectives have not been achieved. LRSD has no comprehensive Information Services strategy/plan. This lack of a comprehensive Information Services strategy/plan has significant negative input on LRSD's ability to meet goals/objectives. To use an analogous situation, suppose the decision was made to rebuild Chicot Elementary. No architect is hired
instead the librarian is given money to rebuild the library, food service is given money to rebuild the cafeteria, and each teacher is given money to rebuild his/her classroom. The probable result would be an excellent library, an excellent cafeteria and excellent individual classrooms. Unfortunately, Chicot would consist of multiple buildings, none connected to the other, no hallways, no lockers, no rest rooms etc., etc. In summary a new, expensive, Chicot Elementary would be nonfunctional. LRSD information infrastructure is currently comparable to this hypothetical new, expensive but nonfunctional Chicot Elementary. Currently, each school and staff agency spends considerable money to meet their specific automation needs. Personal computers, printers, fax machines, modems, etc., with a multitude of software applications have been purchased and installed. No comprehensive plan for connectivity, standardization, maintenance, etc. has been followed. Data/information now resides in multiple locations in multiple formats. There are no "hallways" connecting these diverse automation islands. LRSD will probably survive without one elementary school, however, an information infrastructure connects/encompasses all LRSD schools, staff agencies and activities. Obstacles to Goal Attainment 1. LRSD Information Services staff is not trained or staffed for current technology. 2. LRSD lacks an inadequate information services infrastructure. 3. LRSD lacks a comprehensive Information Services budgeting and procurement strategy/plan. 4. LRSD has not correctly implemented current technology. 5. LRSD has no global corporate data model. 6. LRSD has not acquired the correct tools for efficient ad-hoc reporting. 7. LRSD employees are not trained on current technical tools. 8. LRSD Instructional Resource Center is not staffed or trained for current technology. 9. LRSD has no comprehensive Information Services strategy/plan. Recommendations Develop a comprehensive Information Services plan for LRSD. Business cases to address obstacles to goal attainment will be prepared as a part of LRSD budget planning process. IN-DEPTH PROGRAM EVALUATION Program Description: Facilities service includes resources to identify, plan and execute maintenance/repair programs equitably so that Little Rock School District students can receive efficient, functional and effective education. Specifically, facilities includes maintenance programs to maintain/repair all District facilities in an equitable condition commensurate with financial resources and District priorities. Purpose: The purpose operation's necessary to critical as management. Scope and Content: of the Facilities Program is part of the base costs to maintain the buildings and grounds support the educational mission. This program is it encompasses all aspects of real property The Facilities Program encompasses the repair of all existing facilities, grounds and other real property, the maintenance thereof, new construction to support academic initiatives, all real estate actions to include leases, purchasing of property, selling of property, easements, grants, rights-of-way and licenses. It is extended to include the base operation costs of utility payments covering electric, water, gas, refuse, entomology and any other miscellaneous services. It includes long-range planning, responsibilities with regard to new construction, maintenance, acquisition and closing of facilities. Participants/Beneficiaries: The Facilities Program is a base operations program that supports all persons that work for the Little Rock School District, are educated by its programs, or visit its facilities. Program Goals: To equitably maintain and repair facilities to support academic programs, student enrollment and administrative support, the Little Rock School District is comrni tted to insure for all students equitable educational facilities and schools which are located in lower socio-economic areas shall receive attention and resources at least equal to those in more affluent areas in the District. l Evaluation Criteria: The evaluation criteria for the objectives listed in the Facilities Program consists principally of historical records indicating requests and completions of maintenance and repair work. The evaluation criteria is geared.specifically to the objectives as outlined in the Desegregation Plan, Court Orders and ODM Reports. They do not require a relative measure of success, but merely to report numbers of requests made and completions and the percent thereof. Evaluation Results: There is no measurable scale of success against which the evaluation can be made. The objectives reported in the Facilities Program Budget Document, as stated previously, merely report the percent of completion of requests made of the Facilities Program. There is no set goal that can be equated to measure this quantity. The amount of work completed has too many variables to establish a set percent to be achieved in any given reporting period. This is due to the complexity of the requests, the nature of the requests, the total number and the resources allocated to complete that goal, coupled with the priority. Objective U: To maintain all school facilities such that they are in a safe, operational condition, and to repair, as necessary, commensurate with resources. Discussion #1: The overall level of success indicates that we have met our objective on all reporting periods. It is to be reasonably expected that the percent completed of the items listed under "Strategies" will vary commensurate with the amount of work and the resources allocated these initiatives. Since there is no measure of success or pre-determined percent which must be completed, one can only assume that all work that could reasonably be accomplished during the reporting period was done so, and all uncompleted work will carry forth to the next reporting period. Objective t2: The capacities of junior high schools will be reviewed in light of needed programs. Such capacities will then be revised as necessary. Discussion #2: This objective was met in 1993 and later evaluated in 1994. It will be recommended that this objective be deleted from the Program Budget Document. Objective #3: Concrete walks and macadam drives will be in good repair. Discussion #3: This is a subjective evaluation. The numbers of requests made, and the numbers completed, are what is reported. It is not possible to establish a desired level of completion because the work is received at various times during the reporting period such that the complexities of scheduling and allocated resources will vary the completion rate. Objective #4: New public address systems and bell systems will be placed in buildings where such items are not repairable. Discussion #4: Almost eighty percent (80%) of the requests made during the last reporting period have been completed. This is a program, like others, which is ongoing and which will be funded commensurate with approved funding levels. Objective #5: Any school which has portable buildings will have these buildings replaced with new units or repaired so that they will be in a condition suitable for use. Discussion #5: Sixty-two percent ( 62%) of the work requested of the Directorate was completed during the last reporting period. Objective #6: All school construction shall be subject to the Court's prior approval and shall promote desegregation. New construction must be approved by the Court. l Discussion #6: This is an ongoing strategy. There are no requirements pending at this time. There is no need for further evaluation of this objective. Objective #7: Modify building space to increase library capacities at Mitchell and Garland, purge the shelves of outdated, well-worn materials at Mitchell. Books most frequently used by the Four-Year Old Program, Kindergarten, and First Grades could be permanently placed in the individual classrooms since those grades are all housed in structures that are detached from the main building. Discussion #7: The portion of this objective allocated to the Facilities Program was completed in 1992. Objective #8: Franklin: Repair or replace the roof on each level of the building. Replace all ceiling tiles damaged by water leaks. Repaint interior walls as needed. Discussion #8: Most of these repairs have been completed. The ones that have been requested have been attended to. This building is scheduled for painting during School Year '94 - '95. Objective #9: Garland: Determine the feasibility of adding bathrooms on the second floor of the building. Increase the size of the Media Center and relocating the building's main entrance. Discussion #9: This assessment and report was completed and filed in 1992. No further evaluation is needed. Objective UO: Ish: Professionally evaluate the structural condition of the building and correct the many problems caused by the leaking roof. May be necessary to add a new slope roof. Unsightly classroom bathrooms would be repaired at once by those qualified to deal with asbestos. Exterior lighting should be repaired or replaced and the building's trim painted. Once the roof no longer leaks, the entire interior should be repainted. Discussion #10: This objective was completed and reported in October of 1992. Objective Ul: Mitchell: Correct the drainage problems and then replace the water-damaged carpeting in the GT room. Address the shortage of Media Center space, possibly by adding bookshelves to the second floor hallway near the Librarian's Office which is located in a kiosk area. Also consider adding more shelves to create storage space within existing Media Center. Discussion f 11: This requirement requires no further evaluation. It was completed in 1992. Objective #12: Rightsell: Eliminate the moisture problem at the school. Professionals with restoration experience involved to help solve problems of the final Playground should receive major improvements additional age appropriate equipment. Discussion -#12: should be building. including This objective does not require further evaluation since it has not been completed. Objective #13: Rockefeller: Install a new heating and cooling system if the effectiveness of the present system is not corrected by the recently-replaced room thermostats. Discussion #13: This assessment was made and the correction was completed in 1992. Objective -#14: Stephens: Stephens' objective is to be deleted since the school has been demolished. l Discussion #14: NIA Objective #15: All seven (7) incentive schools would benefit aesthetically from the addition of attractive landscaping. Once plantings are installed, the custodial staff should be trained in proper plant care. Many Little Rock School District schools have lost mature plantings to improper and over-zealous pruning by District workers, or from under-watering in times of summer heat and drought. Discussion #15: This is an ongoing problem. Guidance has been given the facilities. It will continue to be monitored. There is no level of success against which this objective can be measured. Objective #16: Give the incentive schools priority in the District sequencing of capital improvement projects since doublefunding does not cover capital improvements and maintenance. Buildings must be sound, attractive and well-maintained. Discussion #16: This objective was met when the capital improvements project was prioritized in 1990. Objective #17: The District has stated it would make adjustments to the Omaha Formula to meet the needs of buildings like McClellan that have special needs. Discussion #17: The custodial program is accountable by the Omaha Formula which is used by this District to proportion its custodial resources to its many facilities. This program is evaluated on a periodic basis. Every time there is an addition or change to a major facility structure the custodial structure is re-examined. It was last reexamined in December of 1993. It was submitted to the District and approved. Adjustments were made. The custodial program, at the present time, has sufficient manpower resources to meet its permanent needs. Temporary custodial needs, however, must be addressed by a separate correspondence. Obstacles to Goal Attainment: There is one principal obstacle to the desired goal attainment of an equitable Facilities Program, and that is resources. The Plant Services Directorate is far below the national and regional averages, and as such, falls further behind as its backlog of maintenance and repair increases on a yearly basis. The amount of work identified district-wide to keep our buildings in a good state of repair, and at an educational standard to support our programs, is mounting every year. With level or decreased funding each year, the backlog continues to increase. It is only through a higher funding level that we will be able to maintain our facilities to meet our operational needs. Recommendations: The Facilities Program, as reported under the Program Budget document, provides no guidance nor equitable measure to the Superintendent or Board of Directors on the success of the Facilities Program. This is something that is not measurable. The bulk of the Facilities Program is reacting to requests made by Facility Managers. As those requests are made, they are prioritized and they are funded. The addition of funds and resources would most assuredly allow more work to be accomplished by having it first identified, scheduled, and then completed. Without the resources to further identify additional work, it is not possible to identify how much work could be scheduled, and hence completed, thereby determining additional resources. Many of the items in the Facility Program Budget Document have been completed, and it has been recommended that they be deleted from this program. Recommendation #1: My recommendation would be to restructure the way the School District assesses its facilities. The bottom-line effort of the Little Rock School District is two-fold: 1) To maintain all of its facilities in a safe and orderly fashion to meet the goals of its educational program. 1 l DCE/rlh/pe 2) To insure that the resources allocated the Plant Services Director are equitably spent such that no schools are given favoritism for resources over others. The establishment of the priority system, which is in place at the Plant Services Directorate, insures that this happens. It is only through outside pressures and perception of conditions in the past that the Facilities Program of equitable spending is sometimes off-balance. I would recommend that additional resources be given the Plant Services Directorate, such that they approximate at least the regional or national average of the CWE per school district to allow it to maintain its facilities to meet the goals as stated above. A business case recommendation is budgetary impact. is recommended. The overall likely to have an increase in ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 1) The program being evaluated as outlined in the desegregation portion of the Program Budget Document specifically identifies i terns in the Desegregation Plan and Court Orders and ODM Reports that do not give an overall view of the Facilities Program. The Program Budget Document merely responds to specific areas of concern and does not adequately see nor measure the Facilities Program. The Facilities Program is general engineering support to the entire district. As stated on page one of this document, it encompasses all aspects of the engineering program to support the many facilities. It goes far beyond seventeen (17) specific items as outlined in the Budget Document. 2) The data that has been used to analyze this program is simply a tally of work order requests as made by the Facilities' Managers and as recorded by the Plant Services Directorate. All recommendations listed here are considered in the support area. 3) There are no desegregation funds allotted the program under the Little Rock School District budget. This is not a prudent area to be reported, nor commented on for the purposes of monetary programming. DCE/rlh/pe Program Name: Family Life Education (New Futures) EXTENDED EVALUATION DESEGREGATION PROGRAMS Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis 2 Secondary Leader(s): Linda Young Rene' Carson PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: The Family Life Education Program was implemented eight years ago to address the teen pregnancy problem in the Little Rock School District. An educational program was written and begun in the seventh grade eight years ago. Two specialists were hired to teach the junior high program. A module for grades 4-6 was written and begun in five schools. A K-3 program was later written and begun. The staff had increased to four elementary specialists and two junior high specialists at that time. currently, all of the Incentive Schools participate in the program along with the seven area schools and two magnet schools. The staff now consists of two elementary specialists, two junior high specialists, and a half-time coordinator. Purpose: The Family Life Education Program was designed to give the students of our District the correct information regarding their reproductive health, strategi~s to raise self-esteem, help formulate decision-making skills, and develop a feeling of individual importance. Scope and Content: The Family Life Education Program in the District (grades 4-7) has a spiraling curriculum. Each year the program has the following outline: I. Self-esteem II. Decision-making skills III. Communication skills IV. Reproductive Health V. Pregnancy and Birth (7th grade only) Participants/Beneficiaries: All seventh grade students in the District participate in the Family Life Education program through the seventh grade science class. The material is offered in a three week block of instructional time and is taught by two specialists who have received training. There are approximately 2500 seventh grade students served by this program. All incentive schools (five) are involved with the program, along with two magnet schools and eight area schools. Two thousand fourth and fifth grade students are served by the elementary program. PROGRAM GOALS: Family Life Education focuses on the developmental needs of children by addressing the areas of decision making skills, communication skills, self-esteem, and reproductive 3 heal th. The goal of the program is to help children make good decisions which will affect their future well-being. EVALUATION CRITERIA: The program's overall goal is long term. A reduction of or no increase in the number of pregnancies occurring in the district is an ideal goal. Overall good decision making skills shown by the students at school reflects on whether the program has had an impact on students. EVALUATION RESULTS: Evaluation results are based on results reported from Health Services. Objective l.: To provide Family Life Education for the Incentive Schools in grades l.-6 as a part of their Health and Physical Education Program. Discussion l.: Family Life Education is currently being taught in fifth and sixth grades in all of the Incentive Schools. Due to a reduction in staff only fifth and sixth grades could continue to receive instruction. Last year there were no elementary pregnancies in the Incentive Schools. Prior to 1991.-92 there were 15 elementary pregnancies reported by the school nurses. During the 92-93, 93-94 school years, only 2 elementary pregnancies have been reported. Objective 2: To provide Family Life Education for other targeted schools in the Little Rock School District. (7 area schools and two magnet schools) Discussion 2: Nine other schools are involved in the Family Life Program. Carver and King are the two magnet schools that are involved. King was added at semester last year. The area schools are Baseline, Watson, Geyer Springs, Cloverdale, Wilson, Terry, and Fulbright. Two specialists teach the program in all of these schools. Last year there was one elementary pregnancy in the nine school which this program serves. There were three pregnancies reported among students in these schools during the 90-93 school years. One of these students was raped and later reported this incident to the school nurse as a result of activities in Family Life class.The other students came to our District from other schools outside the District. Two of these students had not fully participated in our program. The nurses worked with these students and helped the each one receive necessary medical attention. 4 Objective 3: To provide Family Life Education in all of the Junior High Schools in the District through the seventh grade science classes. Discussion 3: All seventh grade students in the District receive instruction in the Family Life Education program through a three week module taught during their life science class. The classes are taught by two trained specialists. Pre-tests and post-tests have been given to students by the specialists each year since the program has been in operation. With very few exceptions, the students have scored higher on the post-test than the pre-test . Students have also written a verbal assessment of the program. Representative colllll\ents from the students are as follows: "Thanks for helping me understand some things about myself." "I never knew about some of things we talked about, and I was embarrassed to talk to my parents about these things." "I appreciate being taught about how to think about making good decisions." "I am glad we had special teachers, I think it would have been hard to ask my regular teacher about sex and stuff. They might think I was bad or something." Comments from teachers: "I don't think I could have taught this material to my students. I am not up-to-date on the information needed for this class. The students ask so many questions that are really specific. I would hate to give them the wrong information. It was probably best that a specialist came and taught my classes. I was able to observe my students and help with the class. I also learned a great deal about the human body." "Thank goodness for special teachers. I am not comfortable teaching this topic. I probably would not have done a very good job because this topic is very difficult to teach." "Our students need this program. I am glad that the District has made a commitment to have special teachers, nurses, and counselors work with our students with issues such as l 5 decision-making, and emotional and physical changes." Obstacles to Goal Attainment Objective l: This objective was met for three years, however, due to a budget deficit the staff was reduced. Currently, only the fifth and sixth grades classes continue to be served by specialists. These specialists do not have the time to serve the remaining fifty (50) K- 4 cl~sses along with the classes in the other nine schools. The counselors and nurses have received some training in the area of Family Life Education and were supposed to help teach the curriculum in the lower grades. Many of the counselors and nurses have not set aside the amount of time to teach the program as the specialists did when they were assigned to teach in the lower grades. The continuity of the program is not as evident as it was in the past when the same specialist saw the students over a period of time. The specialists worked closely with counselors and nurses in identifying younger children in possible child abuse situations. The Heal th Advisory Committee of New Futures has proposed an after school program to address postponing sexual involvement or those students targeted as "at risk" students. "At risk" students have low grades/self-esteem or have mothers who became pregnant as teens or have teenage siblings with babies. The program has not been initiated, but members of the committee have attended a training session. The program will hinge on volunteer efforts and students choosing to participate in the after school program. Objective 2: This objective was reached for three years. Two magnet schools and seven area schools continue to be served by the Family Life Education program. However, due to budget cuts and staff reduction, the services in these schools have also been reduced to just the fifth and sixth grade students. King Magnet School was added to the program last year because many of the students who were attending Ish Elementary enrolled at King. The counselor and nurse participate on a limited basis with the Family Life teacher. Due to the limited availability of the nurse, the problems encountered by the counselors, a complete and thorough program is not always taught in the lower grades. The nurses and counselors have both been involved in staff development 6 regarding family life education, but they often become involved in other school programs which take priority. Objective 3: The program in the junior high schools continues to be taught by two trained specialists. The program continues to be part of the LRSD science curriculum. Every student is held responsible for the program's objectives and is tested on all of the material. Teachers have continually praised our teachers for the excellent program and the professional way the classes are taught. Many have expressed appreciation for the program. Recommendations Recommendation 1: Reinstating the program to grades K-4 would be the most desirable recommendation for the Incentive Schools, but under the current budget constraints this is not a feasible suggestion. Since many of the students in these schools could benefit from attending classes where decision making skills, problem-solving skills, and discussions regarding reproductive health are discussed, implementing the program being studied by the Adolescent Health Advisory Committee and continuing the staff development program offered for the nurses and counselors would be the best recommendation .. Objective 1: Adding personnel to the Family Life Education staff would allow all classes in the Incentive Schools to receive the entire Family Life Education program. Since increasing the staff would cause an increase in the budget for the total program, adding personnel is not an option. Implementing the after school program and expanding staff development opportunities for the nurses and counselors is the best solution for this objective. Evaluation Criteria 1: Continuing to see an extremely low pregnancy rate among the students in these schools would be one effective criteria to use to evaluate the students exposed to our program. Having the students and teachers evaluate our program at the end of the year would give us some input about what the students and teachers think about and want from the program~ Expected Benefits 1: Preventing any child from an early pregnancy would benefit the child, family, District, and State. The AFDC benefits per child per year in the State is $2,290. From birth to 18 years the state spends $41,423 per child. Long term savings would be much greater. ------------------------ 7 Impact Analysis: Desegregation (Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p.156) This recommendation will assist the district in continuing to meet its obligation under the Desegregation Plan. Resource Analysis: The combined salary of the two specialists who teach the program in the Incentive Schools (but also teach in area/magnet schools) totals $58,561 plus travel expenses. Approximately another $2000 is spent on office supplies and copy expenses. The salary of the half-time coordinator is $22, 982. The total salary of the elementary specialists represent approximately 42% of the total salary budget of $137,690 for the Family Life Program. Force Field Analysis: The primary supporters of this program are the parents, teachers, administrators, nurses, and counselors in the school. General Implementation Plan: Ideally, returning this program to the full level of implementation would be an asset for the students in the Incentive Schools. Realistically, budget constraints prohibits this option. Retaining the program at its present level in all of the Incentive Schools is better than elimination of the program. More training needs to done with the counselors and nurses in the area of Family Life Education. This will be done during the spring semester. Recommendation 2: The program in the two magnet schools and the nine area schools should be maintained at the current level of service. Continuing service at the current schools would keep some consistency for the students currently enrolled. Objective 2: Program at the two magnet schools and the nine area schools should at least be maintained at the current level of service. Counselors and nurses need further training in the Family Life Education program and should document the time spent teaching the objectives of the program. This training will be done during the spring semester. Evaluation Criteria 2: Maintaining an extremely low to zero pregnancy rate in the elementary schools would be the ideal criteria. Teachers 8 and students could evaluate the program using a very specific questionnaire. Expected Benefits: Preventing any child from an early pregnancy would benefit the child, family, District, and State. The AFDC benefits per child per year in the State is $2,290. From birth to 18 years the state spends $41,423 per child. Long term savings would be much greater. Impact Analysis: The program in the magnet and area schools is not part of the Desegregation Plan. However, many of the schools have listed the program as part of their school improvement plans. Resources Analysis: The two specialists who teach the program in the Incentive Schools also teach the program in the magnet and area schools. The combined salary of these two specialists total $58,561 plus travel. This is approximately 42% of the total Family Life budget of $137,690. The junior high specialists also teach in three of the area schools. One week each month, the junior high specialists teach in the elementary schools. One-fourth of the salaries of the junior high specialists is $14,036. The total salaries for the complete elementary program is $72,597 or 52% of the total Family Life salary budget of $137,690. Office supplies and copy cost still fall within the $2000 amount listed in objective 1. Force Field Analysis: The primary supporters of this program are the parents, teachers, administrators, nurses, and counselors in the school. Recommendation 3: The Family Life Education program has been a strong component of the seventh grade science program and should continue to be taught by specialists. The two specialists have been able to maintain a strong and upto- date program. Continuation of this program with the current delivery system is very important. The program/content would be eliminated or possible taught incorrectly/improperly if the program is turned over to the regular classroom teacher. Objective 3: This program should be maintained at the current level of support. Two specialists I 9 are employed to teach the classes in all the seventh grade science classes in the District. The two specialists teach approximately 2500 students. Evaluation Criteria 3: Keeping the teen pregnancy rate at a low level would help support the idea that Family Life Education has had an impact on the decision-making processes for the junior high teen. The program will continue using the survey form for both the students and teachers. Expected Benefits: Preventing any student from dropping out of school due to an unexpected pregnancy would be a cost effective benefit. Arkansas ranks very high among states in teen pregnancy statistics. The overall goal for this portion of the New Futures Program is to reduce the pregnancy rate among our students. The chart of statistics for pregnancies in our district shows that the number of pregnancies last year was the lowest in seven years. Our program is now seven years old. Impact Analysis: Postponing sexual activity or preventing an early pregnancy would have an impact on the district as well as the State. Reducing the number of cases of sexually transmitted diseases, teen pregnancies, or the number of low birth weight babies which later becomes a burden on State welfare roles could be an ~conomic factor which needs to be considered. The AFDC benefits per child per year in the State is $2,290. From birth to 18 years the state spends $41,423 per child. Long term savings would be much greater. Resources Analysis: The salary of the two specialists who teach the program in all of our junior high schools plus four other elementary schools totals $56,147 plus travel. Seventy-five (75%) percent of this salary or $42, 110 can be designated as salary expense for the time spent in the junior high schools. The salary for the half-time coordinator is \$22,982. Office expenses for media, copy cost, and printing of classroom materials is approximately $4,000. 10 Force Field Analysis: The parents, teachers, administrators, nurses, and counselors in the schools are very supportive of the program. To place this program in the hands of the regular classroom teacher could be disastrous. There would not be sufficient control over what is said by the instructor, what videos are shown, or what is allowed to be discussed in the class. This could cause the program to be destroyed. Many of our students would never receive the correct information about their reproductive health, and the myths about sexual behavior will continue to be perpetuated among our teens. I Grade/Race 5th grade African-American 5th grade/White 6th grade African-American 6th grade/White - 7th grade African-American 7th grade/White 8th grade African-American 8th grade/White 9th grade African-American 9th grade/White 10th grade African-American 10th grade/White 11th grade African-American 11th grade/White 12th grade African-American 12th/White Total LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PREGNANCY STATISTICS 87-88 88-89 89-90 90-91 3 2 3 2 * * 0 0 * * 7 8 * * 0 l 56 82 25 20 * * l l * * 31 40 * * 2 5 * * 60 56 * * 6 7 133 146 54 38 * * 7 4 * * 39 42 * * 13 8 186 230 248 232 91-92 92-93 93-94 l 0 0 0 5 0 l 0 0 0 3 8 5 0 0 l 18 20 17 0 0 l 32 35 29 3 3 2 38 51 27 4 5 5 38 48 30 5 7 6 27 44 38 8 8 12 181 230 174 * For the 87-88, 88-89 years - pregnancy statistics not recorded by grade and ethnic groups. 11 12 General Implementation Plan: Beginning in January, 1995, the following activities will occur: Date January, 1995 May, 1995 June, 1995 August, 1995 Sept., 1995 Activity Staff development for Nurses and Counselors Survey teachers, nurses, counselor, and students about issues in the FLE program staff development for specialists, UAMS (no cost) Begin program in schools Staff development for nurses and counselors Persons Responsible Family Life Ed. Staff Family Life Ed. Staff Coordinator of FLE Family Life Ed. Staff Family Life Ed. Staff I 13 Business Case is recommended __ yes no Plan modification is recommended _yes __ no overall recommendations are likely to have what type of budgetary impact: No budgetary impact Increased costs - Decreased costs Purpose FEDERAL PROGRAMS PROGRAM EVALUATION Program Description The Office of Federal Programs is a department of the Division of Curriculum and Learning Improvement. Compensatory and support services are provided to students by funds secured through federal, state and other agencies. Scope and Content Program operations are categorized in two broad areas. First, the department develops, implements, monitors and evaluates programs: Chapter 1, ESEA, 1965 - Amended 1994 Chapter 2, ESEA, 1965 - Amended 1994 State Compensatory Education Programs Act, 1990 Eisenhower Math/Science Education Act, 1982 - Amended 1994 Chapter 1, ESEA is the centerpiece of programs in the department. All program services are designed to provide a range of needs and contribute specifically to that effort in areas of early intervention, supplementary reading/language arts and mathematics, and parental involvement. For some students, funding programs contribute to opportun
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>