Major Enhancement Schools, First Year Report, 1988-89

The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.
IN THE UNITED STATES 01STqICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF AR~ANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VS. ~O. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL PLl>.I~TIFF DISTRICT, et al. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. INTERVENORS LRSD MAJOR ENHANCEMENT SCHOOLS FIRST YEAR REPORT, 1988-1989 In February 1988, pursuant to the instructions of this Court, the Special Master submitted his interim report and recommendations to this Court. After a careful study of those recommendations as submitted, this Court filed an Order on April 27, 1988 accepting and approving the Special Master's recommendations. As part of the court-approved recommendations, the LRSD was required to provide major enhancements to the schools in the District which were racially identifiable. The recommendations also included a program monitoring component which would provide an assessment of the major enhancement schools (formerly known as racially identifiable schools). The evaluation/monitoring design was to provide data for use in comparing various components of the major enhancement schools with those in other schools in the LRSD. For instance, data collected from the major enhancement schools regarding expenditures per student, pupil/teacher ratios, -1- library books per child, academic preparation of teachers and years of teaching experience would be compared with similar data from other schools in the LRSD. In accordance with that program monitoring component, the LRSD and the appropriate committees conducted the required monitoring visits, collected the relevant data and the LRSD now submi ts the major enhancement schools' first year report, 1988-89. That report is attached hereto as Exhibit 5 and incorporated herein by reference. The LRSD continues to monitor and evaluate the major enhancement schools and has already submitted Monitoring Progress Report No. 1 for the 1989-90 school year. That report was attached as Exhibit 3 to the LRSD Desegregation Plan Status Report for first semester 1989-90 school year. ~espectfully submitted, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Attorneys for the Little Rock School District ~ - ... /J . ,'1/4 . By: ~~fi-
/)
0 => ~ JERRY L. MALONE BAR ID. 85096 -2- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jerry L. Malone, do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing LRSD Major Enhancement Schools' First Year Report, 1988-1989, has been sent to the following list of counsel by United States Mail, postage prepaid, on this 5 711 day of March, 1990. 8/lrsd/ejl John W. Walker, Esquire Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Norman Chachkin, Esquire LEGAL DEFENSE FUND 99 Hudson St., 16th Floor New York, New York 10013 Richard W. Roachell, Esquire MITCHELL & ROACHELL 1014 West Third Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Stephen W. Jones, Esquire JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 425 West Capitol Avenue 3400 TCBY Tower Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Sharon Street, Esquire ARKANSAS DEPT. OF EDUCATION Education Building #4 Capitol Mall Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 -3- Paul L. Cherry, Esquire ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE Heritage West Building 201 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Steve Fedo, Esquire NEAL, GERBER & EISENBERG 208 South LaSalle Chicago, Illinois 60604 H. William Allen, Esquire Attorney at Law 200 West Capitol, Suite 1200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 M. Samuel Jones, Esquire WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 200 West Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 I I II d d HERSCHEL H. FRIOAY. P.A. B. S. CLARK ROBERT V. LIGHT, P.A. WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. GEORGE E. Pt KE, JR . P.A. JAMES W. MOORE WILLIAM L, PATTON, JR .. P.A. BYRON M. EISEMAN, JR., P.A. JOE O. SELL. P.A. MICHAEL G. THOMPSON, P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS, P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY. P.A. FREOER1CK S. URSERY, P.A. H. T. LARZELERE, ?.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS, JR, JAMES C. CLARK, JR., P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT, P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON, P.A. LEWIS MATHIS, P.A. PAUL B, BENHAM 111, P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLtFF NISBET, JR., P.A. JAM ES EDWARD HARRIS, P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM, P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON, P.A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT. P.A. JAM ES M. SAXTON J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL IH DONALD H. BACON, P.A. ROBERT K. WALSH WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. WALTER A. PAULSON 11, P.A. FRIDAY, ELDRED GE & CLAR K A PARTNERSHIP OF INOIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATT ORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, AR KANSAS 7220 1 TELEPHONE Marc h 5, 1 990 BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD D. TAYLOR, P.A.. JOSEPHS. HURST, JR P.A. ELIZABETH J. ROBBEN, P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA A. HENSLEY. P.A. ROBERTS. SHAFER WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN JI! THOMAS N. ROSE MICHAELS. MOORE DIANE S. MACKEY WALTER M. EBEL 111 KEVIN A. CRASS WILLIAM A. WADDELL, JR. CLYDE "TAB" TURNER CALVIN J. HALL SCOTTJ.LANCASTER JERRY L. MALONE M. GAYLE CORLEY ROBERT B. BEACH, JR. S. RANDOLPH LOONEY .J. LEE BROWN .JAMES C. BAKER, JR. H. CHARLES GSCHWEND, JR. HARRY A. LIGHT HANK .JACKSON SCOTT H. TUCKER JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH MARY L. WISEMAN GUY ALTON WADE PRICE C. GARDNER THOMAS F. MEEKS WILLIAM .J. SMITH 7 WILLIAM A. ELDREDGE. JR,. P.A . WILLIAM L. TERRY John W. Walker, Esquire Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Norman Chachkin, Esquire LEGAL DEFENSE FUND 99 Hudson St., 16th New York, New York Floor 10013 Richard W. Roachell, Esquire MITCHELL & ROACHELL 1014 West Third Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Stephen W. Jones, Esquire JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 425 West Capitol Avenue 3400 TCBY Tower Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Sharon Street, Esquire ARKANSAS DEPT. OF EDUCATION Education Building #4 Capitol Mall Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 TELE.COPIER (SOI) 376-2147 TELE.COPIER (SOil 376~6369 WFIITEA:'S 01F1C'f NO. Paul L. Cherry, Esquire ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE Heritage West Building 201 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Steve Fedo, Esquire NEAL, GERBER & EISENBERG 208 South LaSalle Chicago, Illinois 60604 H. William Allen, Esquire Attorney at Law 200 West Capitol, Suite 1200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 M. Samuel Jones, Esquire WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 200 West Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: LRSD v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. I March 5, 1990 Page 2 Ladies & Gentlemen: Enclosed please find a copy of the LRSD Major Enhancement Schools' First Year Report, 1988-1989 which is being filed in this matter. By copy of this letter a copy of this Report is going to the Metropolitan supervisor, Mr. Eugene Reveille. Thank you for your attention to this matter. JLM:ejl Enclosure cc: Mr. Eugene Reville Dr. Ruth Steele Mr. James Jennings - ~ ~
~::M:{one LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent Dr. Herbert Cleek, Deputy Superintendent MAJOR ENHANCEMENT SCHOOLS FIRST YEAR REPORT, 1988-89 PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT Sterling Ingram, Director Little Rock, Arkansas December 1989 335 I Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent Educational Programs and Staff Development James Jennings, Associate Superintendent Desegregation and Program Monitoring Compiled by Ethel B. Dunbar Sharon A. Brooks Betty J. Davis Dr. Selma Hobby Dr. Paul J. Smith Sue Tadlock Contributing Specialists PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 374-3361 33 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 A Comparison of Average Years of 9 Tea.ching Experience Major Enhancement Schools to Control Schools Table 2 A Comparison of Teacher Absences 9 at the Major Enhancement Schools and Control Schools to the District Average Table 3 Major Enhancement Schools Racial 10 Composition of Teaching Staff Table 4 Major Enhancement and Control 13 School Maintenance Expenditures Table 5 Major Enhancement School 14 Chapter I Reading Expenditures Table 6 Major Enhancement and Control 16 School Supply Expenditures Table 7 Major Enhancement and Control 22 School Gifted Program Report Table 8 Major Enhancement and Control 27 School Percentage of Pupil Attendance Table 9 Major Enhancement/Quality Control 33 Monitoring Checklist Summary Table 10 Major Enhancement Teacher Survey 40 Table 11 Major Enhancement Parent survey 41 Table 12 MAT-6 District Summary-Variance 42 from LRSD Mean of National Percentile Ranks (NPR) by School 337 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT MAJOR ENHANCEMENT SCHOOLS FIRST YEAR REPORT, 1988-89 1.0 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) approved and adopted a plan of reorganization for the elementary schools in 1982-83. The reorganization included primary schools (K-3), intermediate schools (K, 4-6), elementary schools (K-6), and the Williams Magnet School (1-6). After the reorganization, four racially identifiable schools were created (Carver, Ish, Mitchell, and Rightsell). Since the approval of the plan in 1982, three more schools became racially identifiable (Gibbs, King, and Rockefeller). The concern for equitable educational opportunities in the racially identifiable schools in comparison to other Little Rock schools was of great importance to the Board of Directors, administrative staff, teachers, the federal judiciary and to the various publics. To ensure that a quality education was received by all and that equity existed, a program evaluation design with monitoring procedures was established in the school year of 1982-83 and implemented each year through 1986-87. The primary purpose of the evaluation design was to develop a monitoring process which would guarantee that equity in instructional programs and staffs existed in all elementary schools of the LRSD. 338 Major Enhancement Schools First Year Report, 1988-89 Page 2 Monitoring visits were conducted by members of the District Biracial Committee and the evaluation and testing specialists. In order to increase the effectiveness of the program evaluation, four additional evaluation and testing specialists were employed during the 1988-89 school year. In April 1988, Federal Judge Henry Woods approved a desegregation plan and ordered that major enhancements be added to the racially identifiable schools. Thereafter, these schools were referred to as major enhancement schools, rather than racially identifiable schools. Two of the major enhancement schools (King and Washington) were closed at the end of the 1987-88 school year. At the beginning of the 1988-89 school year, there were five major enhancement schools (Garland, Ish, Mitchell, Rockefeller, and Stephens) to be monitored. 2.0 ASSUMPTIONS 2.1 The teaching staffs at the major enhancement schools will have statistical data that compares favorably to the average for the other LRSD elementary school staffs in regard to the following characteristics. 2.1.1 Average years (hours/degrees) of educational preparation 2.1.2 Average years of teaching experience 339 Major Enhancement Schools First Year Report, 1988-89 Page 3 2.1.3 Rate of teacher absenteeism 2.1.4 Racial composition of the faculties 2.1.5 Rate of teacher turnover 2.2 The upkeep and maintenance of the major enhancement schools will receive top priority from the LRSD Maintenance Department. 2.3 More funds per pupil for instructional materials will be spent at the major enhancement schools than at the regular LRSD elementary schools. 2.4 The purchase and distribution of equipment for the major enhancement schools will occur to a greater extent than at the regular elementary schools. 2.5 The students at the major enhancement schools will receive more support services per pupil than the students at the regular elementary schools. 2.6 The major enhancement schools will possess the following characteristics of an effective elementary school. 2.6.1 Strong administrative leadership 2.6.2 High expectation of student achievement 2.6.3 Orderly school climate 2.6.4 Emphasis on basic skills of reading, writing and arithmetic 2.6.5 Flexible staff in meeting individual student needs 340 Major Enhancement Schools First Year Report, 1988-89 Page 4 2.6.6 student progress will be monitored 2.6.6.1 By teachers 2.6.6.2 By parents 2.6.7 Student attendance will be monitored by the principal and staff 2.7 student academic achievement in all major enhancement schools will not vary more than ten (10) national percentile points below the mean national percentile scores for the LRSD in each subject area tested at each grade level. 2.8 Parents at Garland, Ish, Mitchell, Rightsell, Rockefeller, and Stephens will respond favorably concerning the programs at their schools. 3.0 MAJOR EVALUATION QUESTIONS 3.1 Did the statistical data of the teaching staffs at the major enhancement schools compare favorably to the average of all LRSD elementary school staffs in regard to the following characteristics? 3.1.1 Average years (hours/degrees) of educational preparation 3.1.2 Average years of teaching experience 3.1.3 Rate of teacher absenteeism 3.1.4 Racial composition of the faculties 3.1.5 Rate of teacher turnover 341 Major Enhancement Schools First Year Report, 1988-89 Page 5 3.2 Did the upkeep and maintenance of the major enhancement schools receive top priority from the LRSD Maintenance Department? 3.3 Were more funds expended per pupil for instructional materials at the major enhancement schools than the average per-pupil expenditure at the LRSD regular elementary schools? 3.4 Were the purchase and distribution of equipment for the major enhancement schools greater than at the regular elementary schools? 3.5 Did students at the major enhancement schools receive more support services per pupil than the students at the regular elementary schools? 3.6 Did the major enhancement schools possess the following characteristics of an effective elementary school? 3.6.1 Strong administrative leadership 3.6.2 High expectation of student achievement 3.6.3 Orderly school climate 3.6.4 Emphasis on basic skills of reading, writing, and arithmetic 3.6.5 Flexible staff in meeting individual student needs 3.6.6 Was student progress monitored by the following: 3.6.6.1 teachers 3.6.6.2 parents 342 Major Enhancement Schools First Year Report, 1988-89 Page 6 3.6.7 Was student attendance monitored by the principal and staff? 3.7 Did student academic achievement in all major enhancement schools vary more than ten (10) national percentile points below the mean national percentile scores of the LRSD in each subject area tested at each grade level? 3.8 Did the parents at Garland, Ish, Mitchell, Rightsell, Rockefeller, and Stephens, respond favorably concerning the programs at their schools? 4.0 INSTRUMENTATION 4.1 Summary of MAT-6 test data for the 1988-89 school year 4.2 Monitoring checklist 4.3 Summary data from personnel files 4.4 Monthly budget analysis of expenditures for maintenance by school plant services 4.5 Per pupil expenditure list for each elementary school 4.6 Teacher survey 4.7 Parent survey (random sample) 4.8 School by school elementary budget expenditure list 343 Major Enhancement Schools First Year Report, 1988-89 Page 7 5. 0 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Questions 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.1.4, 3.1.5 Question 3.2 Questions 3.3, 3.4, 3.5 Question 3.4 Questions 3.6.4, 3.6.5, 3.6.6, 3.6.6.1, 3.6.6.2, 3.8 Question 3.6.7 Question 3.7 Questions 3.6.4, 3.6.5, 3.6.6, 3.6.6.1, 3.6.6.2, 3.8 Questions 3.6.1, 3.6.2, 3.6.3 6.0 RESULTS OF THE STUDY Summary data from personnel files Monthly budget analysis of expenditures for maintenance by school plant services School by school elementary budget expenditure list Equipment Expenditure list for each elementary school Teacher survey (random sample) District attendance records Summary of MAT-6 data for the 1988-89 school year Parent survey Monitoring checklist Each evaluation question is answered in the discussion which follows. EVALUATION QUESTION: Did the statistical data of the teaching staffs at the major enhancement schools compare favorably to the average for the other LRSD elementary school staffs in regard to the following characteristics? 6.1 This question is answered by the following sub-questions (6.1.1, 6.1.2, 6.1.3, 6.1.4 and 6.1.5) 344 Major Enhancement Schools First Year Report, 1988-89 Page 8 EVALUATION QUESTION: What were the average years (hours/degrees) of educational preparation for the faculty at the major enhancement schools? 6.1.1 At the major enhancement schools, 47.8% of the faculty had obtained Bachelor of Arts/Science degrees plus twelve hours or Bachelor of Arts/Science degrees plus twenty-four hours. over fifty-two (52.2) percent had obtained degrees including Bachelor of Arts/Science plus thirty hours (BA+30), Master of Science/Arts, Master of Science/Arts plus fifteen (MSE/MA+l5), and Master of Science/Arts plus thirty hours (MSE/MA+30). EVALUATION QUESTION: What were the average years of teaching experience at the major enhancement schools? 6.1.2 The average years of teaching experience at the major enhancement schools was comparable to the LRSD elementary average teacher experience (seven years). All four of the control schools exceeded the LRSD average experience with a range from 7.7 years to 18.1 years. (Table 1) EVALUATION QUESTION: Did the rate of teacher absenteeism at the major enhancement schools exceed the district average? 6.1.3 The data in Table 2 disclosed that the absentee rate at the control schools exceeded the 345 Major Enhancement Schools First Year Report, 1988-89 Page 9 TABLE 1 A COMPARISON OF AVERAGE YEARS OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE MAJOR ENHANCEMENT SCHOOLS TO CONTROL SCHOOLS AVERAGE YEARS ADVANCED SCHOOL OF EXPERIENCE nF.GREES MAJOR ENHANCEMENT Garland 7 46.2% Ish 10 71.4% Mitchell 8 57 .1% Rockefeller 6 53.6% Steohens 7 60% CONTROL Geyer Springs 18.1 * Otter Creek 11.0 * Terry 7.7 * Bale 13.0 * LRSD 7 52 .2% * Data not available TAhLE 2 A COMPARISON OF TEACHER ABSENCES AT THE MAJOR ENHANCEMENT AND CONTROL SCHOOLS TO THE DISTRICT AVERAGE Difference Average Number from District SCHOOL Absences (Days) Average Garland 5.8 - 6.4 Ish 13.0 + 0.8 Mitchell 9.0 - 3.2 Rockefeller 12.8 + 0.6 Stenhens 12. 7 + 0.5 CONTROL Bale 14.7 + 2.5 Geyer Springs 13.5 + 1.3 otter Creek 18.0 + 5.8 Terrv 13.3 + 1.1 LRSD AVERAGE 12.2 346 Major Enhancement Schools First Year Report, 1988-89 Page 10 district average. The differences from district average ranged from 1.1 days to 5.8 days. The absentee rate at two of the major enhancement schools (Garland and Mitchell) was considerably lower than the district average. At three of the major enhancement schools, the absentee rate surpassed the LRSD average. EVALUATION QUESTION: Did the racial composition of the faculty at the five major enhancement schools compare favorably to the elementary average? 6,1,4 The data in Table 3 indicates that Rockefeller was the only major enhancement school that did not compare favorably to the LRSD elementary average. TABLE 3 MAJOR ENHANCEMENT SCHOOLS RACIAL COMPOSITION OF TEACHING STAFF 1988-89 DIFFERENCE NON- DH'FERENCE R.T.l!.f'lt FROM F.OA* BT .A.CK FROM EDA* *ELEMENTARY DISTRICT AVERAGE (EDA) 33.2% 66.8% Garland 46.0% +12. 8% 54.0% - 12.8% Ish 40.9% + 7.7% 59.1% - 7.7% Mitchell 45.5% +12,3% 54.5% - 12.3% Rockefeller 27.5% - 5.7% 72.5% + 5.7% Stephens 32.0% - 1.2% 68.0% + 1.2% 347 Major Enhancement Schools First Year Report, 1988-89 Page 11 EVALUATION QUESTION: Did the rate of teacher turnover in the major enhancement schools exceed the district average? 6.1.5 It was reported by the Director of Human Resources that this data had not been tabulated at the time of this writing. EVALUATION QUESTION: Did the upkeep and maintenance of the major enhancement schools occur as the top priority in the LRSD maintenance department? 6.2 According to the Director of Plant Services, the upkeep and maintenance of the major enhancement schools did occur as the top priority in the LRSD during the school year 1988-89. It was reported that during the 1988-89 school year, the Plant Services Department spent a total of $696,654 in renovation contracts for the five major enhancement schools: Garland, Ish, Mitchell, Rockefeller and Stephens. The cost per school ranged from $31,872 at Rockefeller to $393,980 at Garland. Not included in those renovation costs is an additional $144,280 for roof replacement at Rockefeller, and $28,368 to air condition all classrooms at Stephens. In addition to the above, a total of 892 work orders were completed by Plant Services maintenance personnel at the five schools during the 1988-89 school year. Service requests from these schools were given high priority to insure that the level of upkeep remained high. An indication of that level of service 348 II II II Major Enhancement Schools First Year Report, 1988-89 Page 12 is found in comparing the number of work orders completed to the square footage of the buildings. Although these five schools comprise only 6.6% of the district's total square footage, they received 9.7% of the total work orders completed. The same special attention has been given to the cleanliness of these buildings by the two custodial managers, who have been assigned the personal responsibility of ensuring that these buildings are the "epitome of cleanliness" at all times. The average maintenance expenditure for the major enhancement schools was $15,275 which was $226 less than the LRSD elementary school average of $15,501. The average maintenance expenditure for the control schools was $15,622 which was slightly highe~ than the LRSD elementary school average expenditure. The average per pupil expenditure at the major enhancement schools was $59, and the average per pupil expenditure for the control schools was $40. The overall district elementary school average per pupil expenditure was $40 (Table 4). 348 Major Enhancement Schools First Year Report, 1988-89 Page 13 rABLE 4 MAJOR ENHANCEMENT AND CONTROL SCHOOL MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURES, 1988-89 NUMBER DIFFERENCE FROM OF TOTAL ELEMENTARY PER PUPIL SCHOOL STUDE s V RAG E NDITURES Garland 299 $ 16,576.73 +$1,074.99 $ 55.44 Ish 197 16,446.67 + 944.93 83.49 Mitchell 261 13,681.10 - 1,820.64 52.42 Rockefeller 300 14,353.36 - 1,148.38 47.84 Stephens 233 15,317.81 183.93 65.74 LRSD ELEMENTARY AV RAGE 7 MAJOR ENHANCEMENT TOTAL MAJOR ENHANCEMENT AVERAG 6.6 59.21 Bale 414 $ 19,057.90 +$3,556.16 $ 46.03 Geyer Springs 239 16,817.74 + 1,316.00 70.37 otter Creek 361 14,173.97 - 1,327.77 39.26 Terry 522 12,440.79 - 3,060.95 23.83 ----- CONTROL SCHOOL TOTAL 1 CONTROL SCHOOL AVERA + 0.86 40.68 DISTRICT ELEMENTARY TOTAL 14 179 DISTRICT ELEMENTARY AVERAG 383 7 40.47 These maintenance expenditures included expenses for repairs and maintenance of buildings, pest control, custodial supplies, upkeep of building supplies, plumbing, carpeting, electrical upkeep of building supplies, locksmiths, boilers, small engines, plaster, glass, painting, roofing, boiler license, repairs to building, upkeep of grounds, security services, equipment for upkeep of grounds, upkeep of equipment (repairs), security repairs, utilities and salaries. 350 Major Enhancement Schools First Year Report, 1988-89 Page 14 EVALUATION QUESTION: Were more funds expended per pupil for instructional materials at the major enhancement schools than the average per pupil expenditure at the LRSD regular elementary schools? 6.3 The average per pupil expenditures for instructional materials at the major enhancement schools in Chapter I reading are indicated in Table 5. TABLE 5 CHAPTER I READING EXPENDITURES 1988-89 PER PUPIL NUMBER OF EXPENDITURES SCHOOT TOT?.T PUPTT,C:: C::1.'l)VED CHA'P'T'ER I 1)1.'ADING Ish $ 982.58 53 $ 19 Garland 982.58 96 10 Mitchell 982.58 53 19 Rockefeller 982.58 118 8 Stephens 982.58 60 16 The Program for Accelerated Learning (PAL) mathematics budget provided $3,300 for instructional materials at each elementary school excluding Fair Park. Several schools (Baseline, Mabelvale, Watson and Chicot) were assigned two PAL teachers and received approximately $5,800. The major enhancement schools had one PAL teacher for reading and one for PAL mathematics. Chapter I funds were not expended based on the number of minority students in each school. For 351 I Major Enhancement Schools First Year Report, 1988-89 Page 15 Chapter I reading, the money was expended equally among all the schools in the LRSO. For Chapter I mathematics, the money was expended at each school based on the number of PAL mathematics teachers at each school. Table 6 indicates that the school supply expenditure for the major enhancement schools exceeded the supply expenditures for the control schools. At the major enhancement schools, the average expended dollar amount ranged from $76 at Mitchell to $234 at Stephens. The control schools' average supply expenditure had a range of $39 at Geyer Springs to $51 at Bale. The overall major enhancement average was $127
the control school average was $48
the LRSO elementary school average was $52. EVALUATION QUESTION: Were the purchase and distribution of equipment at the major enhancement schools greater than at the regular elementary schools? 6.4 Detailed data on this subject, as requested, was not provided at this writing. 352 Major Enhancement Schools First Year Report, 1988-89 Page 16 ~ TABLE 6 MAJOR ENHANCEMENT AND CONTROL SCHOOL SUPPLY EXPENDITURES 1988-89 NUMBER OF PER PUPIL SCHOOL PU ILS EXPENDITURE Garland $ 28,007.15 299 $ 93.67 Ish 21,195.47 197 107.59 Mitchell 19,870.16 261 76.13 Rockefeller 39,578.26 300 131.93 Stephens 54,528.57 233 234.03 MAJOR ENHANCEMENT TOTAL 1 9 6.50 MAJOR ENHANCEMENT AVERAGE 9 58 126.50 Bale $ 21,114.05 414 $ 51.00 Geyer Springs 9,273.25 239 38.80 Otter Creek 17,472.59 361 48.40 Terry 25,585.52 522 49.01 CONTROL SCHOOL TOTAL 4 5. 1 47.82 CONTROL SCHOOL AVERAGE 8 361.3 384 47.82 ELEMENTARY TOTAL 14 79 LRSD ELEMENTARY AVERAG 3 52.14 353 II II II II II Major Enhancement Schools First Year Report, 1988-89 Page 17 EVALUATION QUESTION: Did students at the major enhancement schools receive more support services per pupil than the students at the regular elementary schools? 6.5 CARE Program According to the CARE supervisor, all five major enhancement schools participated in the CARE Program. As of May 30, 1989, six hundred ninety-one (691) children were participants in CARE on a monthly basis, thirty-nine (39) on a part-time basis, and four hundred ninety-two (492) on a drop-in basis at a total of thirty (30) sites. Twenty-five (25) of the other elementary schools were also participants in the CARE Program. The number of CARE participants per grade and per fee rate for each major enhancement school is indicated below. CARB PROGRAM NUMBER OP PARTICIPAH'l'S BY RACE PER GRADE SITE I TOTAL I BLACK/ 14 YR I ~NROLLMENT WHITEOLDS K I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 I Garland 29 29/0 0/0 5/0 4/0 8/0 3/0 6/0 0/0 3/0 Ish 27 24/3 5/1 4/0 5/1 5/1 4/0 1/0 0/0 0/0 Mitchell 24 24/0 0/0 7/0 4/0 5/0 4/0 0/0 3/0 1/0 Rockefeller 43 38/5 0/0 9/0 10/3 12/1 3/0 2/0 1/1 1/0 Ste en 8 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 TOTAL 152 143/9 13/2 31/0 28/4 33/2 16/0 11/0 4/1 7/0 NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS BY RACE PER FEE RATE I TOTAL BLACK/ FREE STAFF SITE ENROLLMENT WHITE RATE AM PM Garland 29 29/0 26/0 0/0 0/0 3/0 2/1 1/2 Ish 27 24/3 19/3 1/0 0/0 3/0 3/0 1/2 Mitchell 24 24/0 21/0 3/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 1/2 Rockefeller 43 38/5 29/5 2/0 1/0 6/0 4/2 1/3 Ste s 29 8 0 0 0 0 1 3 TOTAL 152 143/9 121/9 7/0 1/0 13/0 9/4 5/12 354 I I I I Major Enhancement Schools First Year Report, 1988-89 Page 18 6.5.1 Library Holdings and Expenditures The data suggested that the mean per pupil library holdings for 1988-89, at the five major enhancement schools, was 28.3 which was significantly higher than the LRSD elementary mean of 19.8 and that of the control schools which was 18.5. The mean elementary library expenditures for the major enhancement schools was $17, and the mean elemen~ary library expenditure for the control schools was $10. The average elementary library expenditure for schools that were neither major enhancement nor control schools was $14. This data indicated that the expenditures for the major enhancement schools exceeded the average for the control schools and the other elementary schools. Arkansas State and North Central Association standards require ten (10) books per student. The supervisor of Instructional Technology reported that the numbers provided did not include Baseline Elementary School. He also indicated that book totals are slightly down because of a district-wide directive to discard outdated holdings. However, the average per pupil expenditure does include supplemental Chapter 2 funds, but does not generally include Major Enhancement Schools First Year Report, 1988-89 Page 19 desegregation funds expended on district schools. 6.5.2 Volunteers in Public Schools 6.5.3 According to the VIPS coordinator the volunteer hours served at the major enhancement schools ranged from eighty two (82) to over nine hundred thirty (934.55). The volunteer hours at Garland were 469.7, Ish 819.50, Mitchell 82.0, Rockefeller 257.95, and Stephens 934.55. There was a total of 2,563.7 hours served within those schools during the 1988-89 school year, with a mean of 512.74 hours. In the other elementary schools, there was a total of 37,852.37 volunteer hours served for an average of 1,261.75 hours. Pupil Services Data provided by the Pupil Services Director indicated that all major enhancement schools were assigned a full-time counselor. In addition, Stephens Elementary School was assigned a full-time social worker. Two of tt.e control schools were assigned full-time counselors because of the student enrollment (Terry 522, Bale 414). The remaining control schools, Otter Creek and Geyer Springs, shared a counselor with another elementary school. In 356 Major Enhancement Schools First Year Report, 1988-89 Page 20 the major enhancement schools, there was a total of 1,290 students. The counselor/student ratio at the major enhancement schools was 1/258. The counselor/student ratio at the four control schools was 1/384. The overall LRSD elementary average counselor/student ratio was 1/396. 6.5.4 Special Education In the major enhancement schools, there were one hundred thirty-eight (138) students identified and assigned to the Special Education Program, including resource, self-contained, and speech therapy. Thirty-seven (37) of those students were assigned to self-contained classes, sixty-four {64) to resource and thirty-seven (37) to speech. The self-contained classes at Garland and Stephens provided Community Based Instruction (CBI) for students with moderate to severe disabilities. There was a total of 13.5 teachers providing special services within the major enhancement schools, with Garland having the highest number of students being served, and Ish and Stephens with the lowest number. The four control schools provided Special Education services for a total of one hundred 357 Major Enhancement Schools First Year Report, 1988-89 Page 21 four (104) students. Seventeen (17) of those students were in self-contained classes, twenty-seven (27) were in speech therapy, and sixty {60) were in resource classes. Eight (8) teachers served the students assigned to the program. 6.5.5 Gifted Programs Gifted programming during the 1988-89 school year for the major enhancement schools occurred through the subject areas of language arts, mathematics and science. Because of a lack of sufficient staff, all subject areas and grades were not operational at all schools. Gifted programming during the 1988-89 school year for the control schools occurred through the subject areas of mathematics, science, reading, and language arts. Programming for all subject areas in each school did not occur due to a lack of staff for each grade level. Two of the four schools had one gifted area at each grade level. The subject areas, grades and number of students served at each school are indicated in Table 7. 358 Major Enhancement Schools First Year Report, 1988-89 Page 22 TABLE 7 MAJOR ENHANCEMENT AND CONTROL SCHOOLS GIFTED PROGRAM REPORT 1988-89 GRADE BT CK WH r'T'E SCHOOL LEVELfS) SUBJECT(S) M F M F Garland 1-4 Math 12 19 4 2 Ish 1-3, 6 Lang. Arts Science 18 22 1 1 Mitchell 1-3, 6 Lang. Arts Science 21 25 4 0 Rockefeller 3 Lang. Arts 3 7 2 1 Stephens 3-4 Lang. Arts 9 5 1 3 -- -- -- -- MAJOR ENHANCEMENT TOTAL 63 78 12 7 -- -- -- -- Otter Math Creek 3-4 Lang. Arts Science 13 18 7 13 Geyer Reading Springs 2-3 Math 5-6 Science 11 21 9 15 Terry 2-6 Lang. Arts Science English 31 44 34 36 Bale 1-6 Lang. Arts 24 30 19 15 -- -- -- -- CONTROL SCHOOL TOTAL 79 113 69 79 358 OTHER M F TOTAL 0 0 37 ' i 0 0 42 0 0 50 0 0 13 0 1 19 -- -- I 0 1 161 I -- -- 3 0 54 0 0 56 0 2 147 1 0 89 -- -- 4 2 346 Major Enhancement Schools First Year Report, 1988-89 Page 23 EVALUATION QUESTION: Were the characteristics of an effective elementary school evident at the major enhancement schools in regard to the following? 6.6 This question is answered by the following seven sub-questions. Refer to Table 9 for the compilation of the monitoring checklist items, and Tables 10 and 11 for results of teacher and parent surveys. (6.6.1, 6.6.2, 6.6.3, 6.6.4, 6.6.5, 6.6.6, and 6.6.7) EVALUATION QUESTION: Was strong administrative leadership recognizable at Garland, Ish, Mitchell, Rockefeller, and Stephens? 6.6.1 Teacher survey results from the major enhancement schools (eighty-three percent) and control schools (eighty-eight percent) revealed that effective instructional leadership existed at their schools (Table 10, Item 3). An analysis of the monitoring checklist summary indicated that ninety-one (91) percent of the teacher responses were positive that effective leadership existed at all of the major enhancement schools. (Table 9, Item EC 27) EVALUATION QUESTION: Was there a climate of high expectations for student achievement at the major enhancement schools? 6.6.2 Conclusive data from the major enhancement monitoring visits disclosed ninety-eight (98) percent of the monitored staff felt that the total atmosphere reflected high expectations for 360 I I I Major Enhancement Schools First Year Report, 1988-89 Page 24 all students (Table 9, Item LE63}. The majority of the surveyed teacher respondents at the major enhancement schools {89%) and the four control schools {92%} expressed that there was an atmosphere of high expectation for student academic development {Table 10, Item 6). Parents {91%) from the major enhancement schools and parents {85%) from the control schools responded favorably to this item {Table 11, Item 12). EVALUATION QUESTION: Was there an orderly school climate manifested at the major enhancement schools? 6.6.3 At the major enhancement schools, ninety-six {96) percent of the monitored staff members indicated that the school climate was safe and orderly {Table 9, Item EC 30). Most of the surveyed teachers at the five major enhancement schools (86%) were in agreement with the monitoring results {Table 10, Items 1 and 2). Parents surveyed at the major enhancement schools {89%) and the control schools (88%) responded that a safe and orderly school climate was observable at those schools (Table 11, Items 1 and 2). 361 Major Enhancement Schools First Year Report, 1988-89 Page 25 EVALUATION QUESTION
Was there an emphasis on the basic skills of reading, writing, and mathematics at Garland, Ish, Mitchell, Rockefeller, and Stephens? 6.6.4 Ninety-six (96) percent of the teacher respondents at the major enhancement schools and one hundred (100) percent at the four control schools indicated that there was a strong emphasis placed on the basic skills of reading, writing, and mathematics (Table 10, Item 20). Most of the parent respondents at the major enhancement schools (83%) and parents from the four control schools (91%) agreed with the teachers' assessment of the emphasis on basic skills at their schools (Table 11, Item 14). A summary of the monitoring visits at the major enhancement schools revealed that ninety-seven (97) percent of the assessed teachers agreed that emphasis on the mastery of basic skills took precedence over all other school activities (Table 9, Item SM 57). EVALUATION QUESTION: Were the staffs flexible in meeting individual student needs? 6,6.5 The majority of the teachers at Garland, Ish, Mitchell, Rockefeller, and Stephens Schools (96%) and the four control schools (90%) responded that the school staffs were flexible 362 Major Enhancement Schools First Year Report, 1988-89 Page 26 in meeting individual student needs (Table 10, Item 21). EVALUATION QUESTION: Was student progress monitored? 6.6.6 This question is answered by the following sub-questions (6.6.6.1, and 6.6.6.2). EVALUATION QUESTION: Was student progress monitored by teachers? 6.6.6.1 Teacher survey results at the five major enhancement schools (99%) and control schools (98%) showed that student progress was monitored often and very carefully by certified staff members (Table 10, Item 23). EVALUATION QUESTION: Was student progress monitored by parents? 6.6.6.2 At the major enhancement schools, the majority of the parents (89%) and control school parents (90%) indicated that they did monitor their children's progress closely (Table 11, Item 16). EVALUATION QUESTION: Did the principal/staff monitor pupil attendance? 6.6.7 Analytical and comparative data from the major enhancement and control schools indicated that pupil attendance was monitored and records maintained. The data in Table a shows the percentages of pupil attendance for the major 363 II Major Enhancement Schools First Year Report, 1988-89 Page 27 enhancement schools and control schools for 1988-89. TABLE 8 MAJOR ENHANCEMENT AND CONTROL SCHOOLS PERCENTAGE OF PUPIL ATTENDANCE 1988-89 SCHOOL PERCENTAGE OF PUPIL ATTENDANCE MAJOR ENHANCEMENT: Garland Ish Mitchell Rockefeller Stephens CONTROL: Bale 95.7% 98.6% 95.0% 96.0% 96.0% Geyer Springs Otter Creek Terry 94.0% 93.0% 95.0% 96.0% LRSD TOTAL 93.9% EVAWATION QUESTION: Did student academic achievement in all major enhancement schools vary less than ten (10) national percentile points below the mean national percentile scores of the LRSD in each subject area tested at each grade level? 6.6.8 Mitchell students in grade 2, Rockefeller students in grades 5 and 6, and Ish students in grades 2, 3, and 6, exceeded the LRSD mean by several points. Student academic achievement at Garland and Stephens Elementary Schools was 364 Major Enhancement Schools First Year Report, 1988-89 Page 28 considerably below the LRSD mean achievement at most grade levels. EVALUATION QUESTION: Did the parents at Garland, Ish, Mitchell, Rockefeller, and Stephens respond favorably concerning the programs at their schools? 6.6.9 Survey data from the major enhancement schools (86%) and control schools (92%) indicated that parents supported and participated in school programs (Table 11, Item 4). The data also revealed that eighty-six (86) percent of the parents at the control schools and eighty-nine (89) percent of the parents at the major enhancement schools were satisfied with the programs at their schools (Table 11, Item 19). 6.6.10 summary of Other Findings Each of the three survey instruments included items which provided additional information about the major enhancement schools. The following is a partial summary of the information obtained (Tables 9, 10, and 11). 6.6.10,1 Most of the teacher respondents at the five major enhancement schools (75%) and control schools (94%) indicated that standardized tests were used to diagnose and prescribe student needs (Table 10, Item 17). 365 I I I I I I I Major Enhancement Schools First Year Report, 1988-89 Page 29 6.6.10.2 Eighty-five (85) percent of the teachers at Garland, Ish, Mitchell, Rockefeller, and Stephens and eighty-four (84) percent of the teachers at the control schools expressed through the survey instrument that sufficient equipment and materials were provided to effectively implement the total instructional program (Table 10, Item 7). 6.6.10.3 At the major enhancement schools, seventy-eight (78) percent of the teachers and eighty (80) percent of the teachers at the control schools felt that the extracurricular program was designed to guarantee involvement of minority students (Table 10, Item 14). 6.11 summary A careful analysis of the survey results and monitoring reports disclosed that the five major enhancement schools had programs that were equal to programs within the other LRSD elementary schools. This data further revealed that extra human resources and energies were expended in those schools so that 366 ll II ll II II Major Enhancement Schools First Year Report, 1988-89 Page 30 each school designated as a major enhancement school would have "major enhancements" within those schools. The collective data indicated that continued extra effort will be needed at those schools during the 1989-90 school year to successfully meet the individual needs of the students. 6.12 Recommendations: As the data suggested, the major enhancement school concept was successful to a degree. However, it is felt that some modifications in the major enhancement schools should be made. The following recommendations are based on the findings of this study and research based on effective inner city schools and are presented for consideration. It is recommended that: * A higher percentage of staff members at the major enhancement schools utilize standardized test results as well as other criteria to diagnose, prescribe and address student needs. Appropriate staff development be provided at each major enhancement school to suggest methods and resources for meeting the needs of the inner city student. * Individual Educational Plans (IEP's) be written for students that are identified as being at-risk. 367 Major Enhancement Schools First Year Report, 1988-89 Page 31 * Each teacher, in cooperation with the principal, select a proven (research based) instructional model to deliver curriculum content. * The principal should develop an on-site teacher intervention team to assist with student academic and behavioral problems. The primary function of this committee would be to review student academic progress, and design strategies to meet individual student needs, thus eliminating or reducing the possibility of student academic failure. * A staff committee be organized to study the prescribed curriculum for continuity and teachability to ensure that it addresses the needs of each student. This curriculum should be broadbased to provide a variety of approaches and strategies for the learner. * Teachers at the major enhancement schools should be given the opportunity to plan and participate in appropriate staff development. * Consideration should be given to providing time at faculty meetings for effective teachers to share concepts that have been successful. * Training sessions be held for parents to suggest ways for them to help their children cope with difficulties at school. 368 Major Enhancement Schools First Year Report, 1988-89 Page 32 * The staff make every effort to create and maintain a positive climate . * The goals of the major enhancement schools should be articulated to the staff, students and community. * Funds that are allocated for Chapter I programs be distributed to schools according to students' needs. 369 TABLE 9 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EVALUATION AHO TESTING DEPARTMENT MAJOR ENHANCEMENT/QUALITY CONTROL MONITORING CHECKLIST SUMMARY 1911-19 HUMBER OF SCHOOL VISITS: ll KEY: HA - Not Applicable/No Response A Observed NUIIBER OF CLASSROOM VISITS: "-i B Not Observed C No Opinion Questions BG 1 through OS 10 were answered only once for each school visit. Questions G 11 through RB 91 were answered for each classroom visited. ACTIVITY ll.YILDJNG 1,ND GROUNDS CBC) BG l The tallowing areas are clean and free from trash: dumpster (trash pick-up) area: playground areas
parking lot
yard/courtyard. BG 2 A schedule is established and followed for custodial staff to maintain the school grounds including proper trimming ot grass and shrubs . REVIEW A II C )\ I 61\ J6\ - '-- 61 70\ e_G_ J _ P_l_a_y_g_r_o_u_n_d_ _q_u_i_p_m__n_t_i_s__. "_p_p_r_o_-______ 15\ 1_84\ l _ ll\ priate tor age groups
sutticient I_ __ (dnount)
well-maintained. - n~. ___"_ a_l_l_~_a_y_s_a_r_e_,_ _c __l e_a n_
_c_o_l_o_r_!_u_l
______ ,_l\1 _ 84\ 1_ 14\ well-lighted
free from I_ __ obstructions. ME/QC CHECKLIST SIDIMARY 1988-89 SCHOOL YEAR PAGE 2 BG 5 ACTIVITY Restrooms are: clean (floor , corner&, irrora, baaina, toilets, windows)
tree troa odor: functional (toilets, basins): properly supplled (tissue, paper towels, soap). NA A II 6J\ J4\ - BG--6--C-l_a_s_s_r_ooms_a_r_e_, __ '_u_nc_t _i_o_n_a_l_
_________ l _ _ l _\ _ I -88-\ I __ I I\ . cloan
attractive
comfortable temperature . BG 7 The building ia: in good repair
requests for repairs are c011pleted within a reasonable period ot time. BG 8 The cafeteria is: neati clean (table5, floor, serving ared)
attractively arranged. Q..E.tll'L~~- os 9 Office st~ff exhibits a positive attiturte and is courteous and efficient when dealing with : students
teacher
patrons: others. I~~ 1_: _ 1__ 2 :: )\ 9 5 \ os 10 Office area is: colorful
c lean I 1\ I 88\ I O\ I (not dusty)
attractive
of I ____ "_dequ~~c !
ize. ______________ !'.il
t!IBhk..lfil. G 11 Teacher is aware of monitoring activities and has seen a copy of the checklist. c . I\ I \ I l,J w NE/QC CHECKLIST SUKMARY 1988-89 SCHOOL YEAR PAGE 3 ACTIVITY G 12 Start members are taailiar with and have access to the LRSD desegregation plan. ----------------------- REVIEW A I! c 1_1_:_1_1~1- _ G_l_J_ _P _r_i n c_i_p_a_l_/_t_e_a_c_h_e_r_s_a_t_t_e_m_p_t_t__o ______ , ___ , _OO l\ , _--, __ address the needs ot educationally disadvantaged students. G 14 Racial composition of start complies with desegregation requirements. -------------------------- G 15 Teacher demonstrates a commitment to the major enhancement program. -------------------------- G 16 Major enhancement school receives high priority treatment as evidenced by special allocation ot resource to support program. G 17 A computer is available in the classroom for use by the students. -------------------------- G 18 Students uae a computer at least once each week. -------------------------- G 19 School participateG Jn Partners in Education program. ----------------------- !UJUA CENTERS IHCI MC 20 School start members have the opportunity to suggest materials to be pur~hased for the media center. (..J "'1 i,-. 1_:_1_:_1_3\ I_~ 1_: 1_: _ 1 _3\ 1_: 12\ 841 3\ 1_1_35 \ 1_6:_1_ 1_:_1 _6_ 21 1_]7\ I_ 1_: _I_:_ I_ _:_1 ~~ 97\ 2\ l\ HE/QC CHECKLIST SUMMARY 1980-89 SCHOOL YEAR PAGE 4 MC 21 HC 22 MC 23 MC 24 :-!C 25 HC 26 ACTIVITY Books, materials, resources, and media available in the media center reflect racial and ethnic diversity. Positive racial and ethnic images and concepts are reflected in materials in the media center. Staft memberu carefully preview, review, and update instructional media to guarantee the elimination ot cultural bias . The media center staff members provide broadening and enriching experiences for the students. The Pulaski County Special School District media center ~odcl is being uGed in grades four through six with planned instructional units taught by the librarian (at selected pilot site ). The media center instructional units taught by the librarian are an outgrowth ot reading instruction provided by the classroom teacher. EffECTIVENESS CHARACTERISTIC~ EC 27 The principal is a strong instructional leader and a viable resource to staff. ------------------------- ~ II TABLE 9 (continued) _____ JJ_f,.ru
iC~ -- - l!A_ _ . _ _J,__' - _n_ C. 95\ ]\ l\ --- --- I 98\ 1\ 1' __ _I __ I\ 80\ I\ ', I 95\ I I 1 5 \ l\ I a2, ---' -- - - 9\ I 7\ I I _ i _ , -- 1_:_1 I \ ) \ I w ~ I ii Ii Ii ii II /QC CHECKLIST SUMMARY J88-89 SCHOOL YEAR 'IGE 5 _____ .,cR,.._EV.,il
h'. _ ___ _ ____ _nA~CT.u.JzV~I~T~X----------------~N~A.._ ___ A..___--"B .___:______i
__ : 28 School staff melDbers understand goals of the LRSD and the achool. I I 991 I 11 I ------------------------- --- ---- ---- : 29 Teachers clearly exhibit through their interactions with students the belief that all students can learn .. : 30 School climate is safe and orderly. ------------------------- = ll students with outstanding academic success are recognized. -------------------------- = 32 Students have homework assignments, parental involvement, teacher check-in, and immediate feedback . c 33 Each employee is evaluated at least once during the school year through the use of an approved evaluation instrument . C 34 The basis for the employee evaluation is the accomplishment of specific goals and individual s overall .performance. C 35 Specific goals used in the evaluation are mentioned as a requirement from a previous evaluation. 981 H I -- 1_:_1_3 ~'- H 1-- 1_:_~1__:_1 5\ 92\ 2\ 1\ 99\ 1\ 991 l\ H 97' 2\ ME/QC CHECKLIST SUMMARY 1988-89 SCHOOL YEAR PAGE 6 TABLE 9 (continued) ____ _ Jlli.\!.U:.iL..:=..:_=-- _ _ _ ___ _,:A.,,CT..,..,IuYuiuTuXL-----------------"NaA _ __a__: __ lL ..:__. . EC 36 Each certified employee will complete at least 27 hours ot staff development during the school year. PARENT PARTICIPATION CPPl PP 37 Parents are directly involved in their child's education
for example, parents help plan student schedules and academic pursuits. PP 38 The school has strategies to increase parental involvement in school and in home supported educational activities. PP 39 Te acher has partic ipa t ed In a s t a ff development program t o l e arn methods of e liciting support and involvement of parents . PP 40 A home based reinforcement program for students with chronic academic or behavioral problems has been e stablished. PP 41 Training s essions h ave been held for parents to teach them how to help their children c ope with difficulties at school . PP 42 A PTA parent birac lal committee is established and a c t i ve. 99\ 1 \ 78 \ 21\ I \ 92\ 6 \ 2 \ 2 ot. 44\ n --- ----'--- --- 35\ I 6 \ I __ _ 50\ 27\ I I ij 2\ I 8 \ I I 0\ --------- --- ----- --- ---- I w u, I IE/QC CHECKLIST SIJIIKARY .988-89 SCHOOL YEAR >AGE 7 ii REVIEW ____ __.AwCT.....,ILY~I~T~L----------------='-----LL----'"---~~ P 43 Parent viaitationa to 1:1le I I 981 I 1\ I U ____ "_c_h_o_o_l__r_e__c_h__d_u_l__d_.___________ ___ __ _ __ p 44 Principal auppliea into.,..tion I I 981 I I about the school and co.,.unity __to-p ar_ent_vo_lun_te_er__ ____ _ 2\ >p 45 A parent advisory group is established and active. 1~1_:_1 81 I __ :_ - >P_4_6 _A_ p__r_e_n_t_r_e_c_ru_i_t___n_t_c__o_ i_ t_t_e_e_ _____ I ___ I _641 I _7\l I __ 3 7\ is established to recruit new patrons and students. >_P _4_7 _P_ a_r_e_n_t_s__r__ _e_ d_u_c_a_t_e_d__b_o_u_t_t_h_e_ _____ I -- I _88 1, ___ 4 _'_ I _ LRSD desegregation plan. 8\ >p 48 Parents actively participate through school improvement teams in the development and delivery of quality desegregated educational progrll9S. 58\ 16\ 26\ -------------------------- --- --- --- --- pp 49 VIPS are ettective in ... 1ating the start eabera in each chool. I I 97\ I 1, I 1, -------------------------- --- --- ---- --- PP 50 Staff development programs arc utilized to provide parents with strategies and guidance tor working with their children at home. PP 51 Parents are provided training to help their children cope with difficulties at school and to reinforce behavioral expectations and academic learning at home. 441 5\ 19\ 36\ J\ 521 35\ 8\ ii ii ii HE/QC CHECRLIST SUMMARY 1988-89 SCHOOL YEAR PAGE 8 IICTIYITX DISTRICT GOALS IDGI TABLE 9 (continued) DG 5-2--S-c_h_o_o_l_a-t-a-t_t__eab_er_s_w_e_r.e _ _ _ ______ l __ I __ 99- \ - , 1 ____l_\ _ , ___ involved in the development or school goals and building plan. program is to involve all DG 53 The goal ot the co-curricular 12\ I 9H I -1\ , students_. ____________ _ _ _______ I_ __ I - __ ------ is generally refl.,cted in DG 54 Racial comi)osition of the school 14\ I 90\ t.,\ I ____c_ o_-_c_u_r_r_i_c_u_1_a_r__c_t_1_v_i_t_i_e_s_.____ _____ __I __ DG 55 An auditable program is established for awareness and recruitment of students to participate in co-curricular activities. H 77\ l6\ HI 11, 7\ DG 56 Goals have been formed to decrease the disparity in academic performances between the races. __ ! __ SKILLS MASTERY ISM) SH 57 There is a strong emphasis to ensure that ninety (90) percent of the students will master the basic skills. (Arkansas Minimum Pe rformance Test (HPT) and teacher-made tests.) SM se Remediation programs aro available for those students who do not meet the required level of mastery in all s ubjects. )4\ 97\ 1\ 1 t 45\ I w ' HE/QC CHECKLIST SUMMARY 1988-89 SCHOOL YEAR PAGE 9 ACTIVITY SH 59 Student who have attained only partial aa tery are enabled to pur ue other learning to increase aotivation to learn the ba ic ckill . ~PECIALIZEP PROGRAMS CSP) REVIEW NA A B c 991 lt SP 60 The gifted prograa has been I 2\ I 60\ I 31\ I 7\ structured to offset previous ____s_ e_g_r_eg_a_t_i_v_e_e_r_re_c_t_s_. ____________ --- SP 61 Black tudents are not as igned disproportionately to pecial education classes. ------------------------- SP 62 Special prograas (e.g. telephone hotlines, hoaework center, extended day, extended year, sucuaer programs, and special tutoring) are provided to identified students with 127\ I 6lt I 51 I 7\ St 70\ 24\ lt ____ a_c_a_d_e_11_i_c_d_i_f_f_i_c_u_1_t_ie_s_. _________ j _____________ i,Et,RtllNG ENVIRONMENT (LEI LE 63 The total school ataosphere reflects high expectation for intellectual developaent and responsible citizenship. LE 64 Positive reinforcement of desired student behavior is practiced (praise successful experiences.) LE 65 Positive interaction ls occurring ~ithin the building. ,J A u 1\ 99\ l \ It ----- HE/QC CHECKLIST SUMMARY 1988-89 SCHOOL YEAR PAGE 10 TABLE 9 (continued) REV!t'W ______A ..,,.c.:r. 1... ,yl.,II,..TuY.__ _______________~ NaA~--~A~--~B~_ __<
_ __ I 851 LE 66 Teachere have euCticient 151 11ate,lale and equip nt tor l plementation of the instructional program. ___ , _ _ - - --- LE 67 Teacher/pupil ratio does not exceed specified limits. (l/20) I )\ I 79\ I 18\ I - __ , ____ --- Q.lliQM!.~NSELING (GC) GC 68 A comprehensive progra of student diagnosis and prescription has been enacted. CC 69 At risk students have been ident i fled. cc 70 Test data have been used to I 90\ J\ 1 plan and prescribe programs I tor students. I I I -------------- -- I ___ - -- - 7\ GC 71 The counselor has helped decrease incidences ot student academic failure. --------------------------,~1__:~1-)\ !~:- GC 72 The counselor has helped lower pupil drop-out rates. GC 73 Extensive services in quidance, counseling, and social work are provided to identity and address the needs ot all students. -'~~~'--l~J_:_1 --3- \ i 92 \ I -------------------------- - ___ ! ___ _ I w -....J I HE/QC CHECKLIST SUMMAJlY 1988-89 SCHOOL YEAR PAGE 11 ACTIVITY ADVANCEMENT POLICIES (APl AP 74 There is a pertoraance-baaed promotion policy. ----- --------------------- AP 75 Expectations tor student learning are clear. -------- ------- ----------- AP 76 Parents, students, and teachers know what tho pro11<>tion policy is. -------------------------- AP 77 Social pro1110tions are discouraged. ------------------ -------- STUDENT DATA (SDI SD 78 The student record syste is capable of generating current and complete data by child, by class, by school, by race, SD 79 and by sex. current and coplete student records are aintained in the classroo and school to 110nitor the progress in achieveent of the individual learner including Academic Skills Development Plans for students who failed any s11bjei:t ~r~-:\ 0! tl'\e '1P'T . REVIEW NA A B c 1_1_:_1_11 l_l\ 1-- 1-=-1_ _ 1 1_:__ 1~ 1-l\I _ 1 _ 1 _:_ 1_ _: 1 33\ I 14\ 50\ )\ _I __ l\ 81\ 17' 1\ ----------- - ------------ - - - --- --- --- - - - - HE/QC CHECKLIST SUMXARY 1988-89 SCHOOL YEAR PAGE 12 ACTIVITY SD 80 The result (levels or aaetery) fro achievement teats, ini IDI perfonaance teats, and reading and athe atic inventoriaa are stored in the student record system and used by school tatf to monitor student achievement, and identify stude nt need and s kills D1a s tery . SD 81 Standardized test data are used to appraise the effectiveness of educational progra- and i nterpret school and di trict successes and needs to the comraunity. SD 82 The foll owi ng staff are provided immedi ate access to i nformation regarding the i nstruct i ona l program and student data : teac he r s
c oun~clors : p r i nc ipal LJ
central office adainistrators. '.llliE.....Qll TA st< C TT l TT 8J Sutficient time on task enables ninety percent or the students to master the basic curriculum. TABLE 9 (continued) i _ _ _ ___R.~EiVL!u~W,,_ _ _ _ _ NA A B c )6\ 15\ 48\ 1\ __ J_ -- ' H 96 \ ))\ I 12, I I i ___ _ I __ _! _:J _1_9~ - TT--0-4 __ "_e_dd i_n_g_ a_n_d_ '" "t _h_e_ma_~_i_c_s _______ ___ l ___ I _l_OO \ int e rvent i on programs hdvc bee n I e s t a blis hed at the s chool . 11' 8 5 Trdined paraprofessionals provid~ clas sroom assistance to students who are not reaching nine ty (90) perc ent ma ste ry . ))\ I I J \ --- - _I_ --- w' (..() I ME/QC CHECKLIST SUMMARY 1988-89 SCHOOL YEAR PAGE lJ ACTIVITY TT 86 student ar goal oriented and reaain on taak. REVIEW NA A B c I I 911 I 71 I -------------------------- --- ---- ---- ---- RACIAL BALANCE (RBI RB 87 Student are not re-segregated within a racially ixed school and/or classroom. -------------------------- RB 88 The curricular focus !or black students is not di!terent !rom the curricular tocua !or non-black students. I 121 I 84\ I 4\ I __ 5\ 95\ -------------------------- --- ---- ---- ---- _ R_8_8_9_ _H _e_t__r__og_ e_ n_e_o_u__g_r_o_u_p_i_n_g_i__t_h__ ______ l ___ l_98\ 1_ __2_ ,_ 1_--__ primary practice or organizing students !or learning. - R_D_9_0_ _E _x_t_r_a_e_n_c_o_u_r_a_g_e_m__n__t _i_ s_g_i_v__n_t_o _____ l_l0\ 1_65\ , 1 black students to participate _24\ l _,_ , _ in co-curricular activities. - R_B_9_l_ _S _c_h_o_o_l_p_r_og_r_a_m___r__e _d_ _s_i_g_n__d_t__o _____ l_7\ 1_93\ 1_--1_--_ ensure involveent ot minority students. TABLE 9 (continued) I w I.O 1 9 8 8 - R q ._.,, rn QUSS1'JON Al""' D/<:n INn/ND r .. na 7 0 1 19 1 . 8cbool ollaaU la aafe. 88% 0% 1n 95:t .. 3 2 3 18 Bcbool cu .. u 1 orderly. ,o., ?r:: 38:t an .. >. h"t.ncl ..1 1 an tt.at:iv tnat:nactloaal a-. 7 1 0 15 AA'!'. 11% o:r. .,~., .. O.t.ataU. . eca,4-.lo atud.nt.e are ~ - 8,n n., 0 0 20 01: M inn .. .. 8 0 0 20 o..atat.a.tla9 citia.nalt.ip et\adnU ar. IIVl" Ot M inn,- .. 5 2.,r
., 1 n ~ 1890'.t A~ refl~ bigh eapectatlona tor devalo~t . ~,., ,. T. .c har9 llaa aufflclnt: .. trll and e,czvJ....,.at . 5 3 0 17 631. 1A'I: m R'i'l .. Maeda at' ault:1-rc1l and ault.1-.t.hnlc ~ ar. ..t . 4 3 1 19 c
n.,, ,o .. p., a<: .. .-.reait,/cttlaen pa:-tlc1p,1t.1on rad upport. u av1dent. . 338'.t 5 63% 0 0l 1365'J. 8 0 0 [US lo. VIN U-. affective lh ..,.IA,t.i.ftv 0e ftatt. 100% o,: o 90:t 7 0 1 6 11. Pro9r ... aY llabl to t.-cb p ra.nt. to help cblldran AA.: 0% 13'. in, u . Stu:i nt.a r.c-i"' 9u1dnca/couna11~ ar,tce, . 7 1 0 17 """' l'l'l' fll 85'.I: 6 1,
y, ll . Stu-:t.ant racont. o int. ined and ued ror ..:,nit.ortn,g. 0 2 19 0% 25' ac
... 5 0 3 15 Ertcaeurricular proqr involw alnorit.y ft.lldent. . 63')
0% 38% 751 8 0 0 15 !':. . A.
.,propriat.o ins rvic v conduct.ad. 100% 0% 01, 7i
w !6 . R~ived MAT-, aonlt.orlnq ch~tUt. prior !.o teat . 7 0 l 18 oo .. O'! 13'% 901. ll , Uee,d etanda..nUaed teat dU to ldent.Uy ~ ...... 5 0 3 17 63% 0% 38:t as, 8 0 0 19 11, Wa ev luat.acl by upervi or t 1 .. t ~- 100'.( 0% Ol 951 " . Coiapleted t lt. 27 hour of et tt devalop:aent. . 8 0 0 20 '""'( n:' o,: 1007 , . There 1 t.roniijl pb. l on ba ic: klll 1oor. om: o or. 19 nc JI. St.tt h fllbl and vllUng to t:ry ~ proqir .... 7 0 l 20 DO n '! 131. ,nn, 3 3 38% 2 25'.t " P rnt rpond favorably t.o proqT .... 13 38o/. ,
c
i .,. 8 u u 20 r aonitor t.h pcoqr or ay atudent. clo ly . 1001 0,,,. 0% 100: ... Appa renc or building nd ground 1 tl ractory . 7 0 I 19 QQ > n 1 13~. 95, " Ott lee atrt h poeltlv ett.ltud and ta courtaou . 7 0 1 20 RR o.-: 13'!, 100, ..,.._, TABLE 10 MAJOR ENHANCEMENT SURVEY TEACHERS, 1988-89 KEY: A/SA O/SD NO/NR = AGREE/STRONGLY AGREE DISAGREE/STRONGLY DISAGREE NO OPINION/NO RESPONSE M " J O R E N fl A N C M F. N .,. C: ,.. H n O T s H.E. SCHOOLS Tc,U M TCHELL ROCKEF'ELLER In,.,, NO/NR IA/SA D/SO NO/NR A/SA O/C:Ot"'n'NR 1 0 16 0 u II 0 0 5% 0% 100: 0'.t O:t 100:t O:t o,
2 0 lb u u 15 0 2 In'!'. M 100: 0:t 0% 88:t Ot 12% 3 ,.,., 2 16 0 0 12 3 2 10,: lOOl m 0:t 711, IR'I' l?'l'. 0 0 15 l 0 16 l 0 0'1'. O'I QU .....6.l n-. 94% 61, O't 0 0 16 0 0 16 I 0 O'l 0~ inn m 0'1: 94% 6% oi 0 2 16 OM 0 14 1 2 0:t l0't 11\ne n, Q?q, ~, 1?~ 2 1 13 3 0 17 0 0 10% 5:Z 811 191 O'l'. 1nnq, _oz... n v 0 1 14 0 z 11 3 3 n'l' .,.,, 881 02 131 f,<
'I'. lR'I: Hl 'l' 3isi 4 20% 11 2 3 !> 11 1 f,Q "! 11,: IQ% 29,
651, 6',
u '(. 16 0 0 9 4 4 0% 10% 1nf"l'! 0 '1:1 n 53% 24% 244 7 7 11 69% l 6tl 4 25% 3 9 5 35% 35:Z 18)
53,
29
: 2 1 lb u 0'.ll u 13 3 1 101. 5
: 100:t 0% 76!, lB'l 6% 0 1 16 0 : 0 16 0 l M <
'i. 100'!: OIi or. 94'!. O't 6i 0 5 16 0 I 0 11- -o-- -6 0% 25% 10() / Qo/: Ot 65X O'l 357. 1 4 15 0 l 14 0 3 5'! 20% Qd9 n'! f, '/. R7'!' OJ I8~ 0 2 12 75~ 0 4 15 0 2 0% lO'k 0% 25:t RA. '~ Ol I 2~ 1 2 13 0 3 12 3 2 5'.I: 10'.I: 811. 0% 19% 71,: lR'Y. l?t 1 0 16 0 0 17 0 0 5,
0'X 100~ 0% 0% ,_U!Q~ _ _j).l_ 0'', 0 0 16 0 0- 16 l T n 7 O" 100' O'l, O", ~ 94 .~ - _fj_,_ '---_Q_ 0 l 16 1--0- - () - 15 1 l nr ~" 1nn O'I' o,
88'/. 6 ., ,. 6,: 0 0 15 0 l 14 l 2 n / 07 94" oz. 6 ., " A?Y. .6~ 1?'' 2 5 15 0 1 10 3 4 10'.Y 251 94: 0% 6t 59
'
18 24 0 0 'T6 0 u I I 0-- 0 07 0 ' .!.QQ. - o 0'', 100'! 0'' 0 ' 1 0 16 0 0 17 0 0 5,, 0~ 100 O'l. O'I. lf)Q_:
0 0 . a . . 16- o- - . o -- 0 17 0 0 0 0 1()0 0,. o. 100 '. o o . STEPHENS A/<:>. ,n,c:n ,N IJNU 10 1 0 Ql'l( Q'l 0 '% 10 0 O'.t I 91't 9:r. 10 0 I 91'.l: 01. 9~ 11 0 0 100'.t O'!', ... .Pl. 11 0 0 100~ 0>: O't II 0 0 inn , ..Jl:.i.. __ 01... 9R2i 1 I . 91,_ 9% 9 0 2 82'l Ol 18'1: 3 5 3 27"'. 45')
27'1. 8 0 3 _ll-4 ,____Q!_ 27'1. 4 3 4 36 ( zn -36'~ 11 0 0 l00 t 0'I. o
11 0 0 ....100'.t _ 0% Ol 9 0 2 821 0% HI% 10 l 0 ---211 _9'.
0,, 11 0 0 100 1, O'I, 01 7 l 3 "'~ c
i '77 1. 11 0 0 . L0QI, _ ..Q.:'c. - _Q'.'.,_ 10 I 0 __ SL Q> O" 1 lnn,y 0 Oo/. 0 oz 10 l 0 .9.L. Q" Oo/. 7 0 4 -6..4:'.. 0~ 1fi,Y, 10 0 l 91: o-:: 9'l lJ l u 82 ,~ 18 . 0' ', 10 0 -7- - 91' 0 ', 9 . TOTAL A/SAID/ SD IJI ' NR 69 I 2 I 961 1, ]W 62 4 6 86'1 6:.: Si. bU I 5 83:t 10% 7-:, ,o 2 0 97'! ) I _..QL_ 7 1--,--I - 0 99't bq W9.' 61 85: 57 79~ J~ 49,: 59 82% 31 431, 64 89 .!. btJ g4 . 56 ,w, 62 - 8(. ' 63 RR 54 1s, 71 99~. ro 97 I 69 QI, :', 66 Q?o/ 48 671 71 99:z 68 94 ' ~0- 9/ J ( o~ 3 ~ 4 , __]_ 9 2 131. P . 6 9 St I)~ Lb 11 36 15'Y, 4 9 6't 11', 20 21 28 1 291, 6 2 St, 3N u 4 M _hl__ 0 16 n n, 2 8 3, 1 1 ,: 0 9 0 ' --1.lL 5 7' 1\B't, l 0 I 0
, I [) 3 0 l 7.-.- l ' 1 \ 2 r 4 6 . tJ 16 II ' 22 ', u r 0 I i 3 I :- 4~I-r~ - l , 0 I j I ~ 0 I QUESTI 0 " l. School cli .. t: la aafe . 2 . School cl iaat is orderly . ). !:vsdence at acho?l of strong parent/citizen aiupport. '- 1 ~upr,ort. and/or participate in school_ activities.
. !.t.itt i s trying to inc1c a:..o parcnt~l involveaent. 6. Vrogros av i lable to roach parents ~o help children. 7. I closely follow ay child' progr in school. 0 . Staff providos training to ncoura9c learning at ho ... ? . Child receive~ guidanco services at. uchool. .o . ::i no:-it:ies are involved in extracurricular proqraes. , .. :
tandarctize4 t.esc results r used to identify nod. 1' . ,tcospber reflect.a high expectation tor dvlopent . l .. Courses offrtJ .::a-.-,1t noel.I:. oJ all &tudont.=6. ... lt::ere is a stror.:r c~pha~i!: on bo::.ic skill :. . i. '..I. Starr 1 flexible and villinq to try new proqra1:1s. ! 6 . I oonitor the proqr of atudcnt closoly. 17. Appaar&J\Cle ot bulhllng and 9rounda is satisfactory .. : 8 . Ottu:e statr ha positive tttt.ud and 1 courteous. : '). 1 ae t.isticd "dt.h t.he pc-oqra1t1s or thlc c
chool. I TABLE 11 MAJOR ENHANCEMENT SURVEY PARENTS, 1988-89 1 9 B B - 8 q MA.TOR E N H A N C GARLAND ISH MITCHELL A/CA n/c,n un,N1> 111,jc, "n/cn un,uu IA/c,111, 'D, 2 0 0 8 l 0 12 0 0 1001 0\ 0% 891 11% 0\ 100\ 0\ 0\ 2 0 0 8 l 0 11 0 l 100\ 0\ 01 89\ 11\ 0\ 92\ oi 8\ ~ u u 6 I 2 8 0 4 100\ 0\ 01 67\ 11\ 22\ 67\ 0\ 33\ l 0 l 8 l 0 12 0 0 50\ 0% 50\ 89\ 11\ 0\ 100\ 0\ 0% 2 0 0 7 l l 11 1 0 100\ 01 01 78\ 11\ 111 92\ 81 0\ l 1 0 4 0 5 10 0 2 501 501 OI 441. no 561 831 01 171 7. 0 0 8 l 0 11 l 0 1001 OI 0\ 89\ 11\ 01 92\ B\ 0\ l 0 l a 0 1 10 0 2 501 n ,na 891 01 111 831 01 17\ 1 0 l 6 0 3 10 0 2 501 o, 501 671 0\ 331 83\ o, 171 0 0 2 4 0 5 8 0 4 0\ 01 1.00\ 44\ 0% 56% 671 0\ 33\ 2 0 0 6 0 3 11 0 l 100\ 0\ 0\ 671 Ot 33\ 921 01 81 2 0 0 7 l 1 12 0 0 1001 o, OI 781 111 11, 1001 OI o, l 0 l 4 l 4 11 0 l so, 0\ so, 44' 11\ 441 92\ o, 81 0 0 2 8 0 l 12 0 0 01 01 1001 RQI. ._QI L.J..l'L 100, ...._21 0\ --- 0 0 2 6 0 3 11 0 l 01 01 100\ 671 0\ 33\ 92\ 0\ 8\ l 0 l 7 l l 12 0 0 501 0\ 501 78\ lit 111 1001 0\ Ot l 0 l 6 2 l lZ 0 u 50\ o, 501 67\ 221 11\ 1001 01 o, l 0 l 8 0 l 12 0 0 so, 01 so, 89\ o, 11\ 1001 01 0\ l 0 2 B 0 I 12 0 0 ,:n~ n rnn OM n, 117. lrnn. n m. KEY: A/SA D/SD NO/NR AGREE/STRONGLY AGREE DISAGREE/STRONGLY DISAGREE NO OPINION/NO RESPONSE E H F N '1' S C' H O O I <: . ,.R,O. CKE FELT.ER !n/sn Un JUD 7 2 l 70% 20\ 10\ 9 l 0 90\ 10\ 01 8 2 0 80\ 20\ 0% 8 0 2 80i 0% 20\ 5 0 5 50\ 0\ 50\ 5 2 3 so, 20\ 30\ 9 0 1 90\ 0\ 10\ 9 1 0 901 10\ o, 6 2 2 601 20\ 20% 6 0 4 60\ 0% 40\ 6 0 4 601 0% 401 9 l 0 901 10\ 01 5 2 3 501 20\ 30\ 8 2 0 80\ 20\ 0\ 9 0 l 901 01 10\ 9 0 l 901 01 10\ 7 l 2 70\ 101 201 8 2 0 801 20, 0\ l 0 9 10% 0\ 90't H. E. SCHOOLS ,. ,.,S. TEPHENS D/'- NO/NR A/SA 2 0 0 31 100\ 0\ 0% 89\ 1 I 0 JI 50% 50\ 0\ 89% 2 0 0 Lb 100\ 0% 0% 74% l l 0 30 so,. 50\ O't 86% 2 0 0 2"/ 100\ 0% 0% 77\ l 0 l 21 50\ 0\ 501 60% 0 l l 30 0\ soi 50% 86% --1-- - 2 0 0 30 100\ 0\ 0% 86% 2 0 0 25 100% 0% 0% 71'1. l 0 l 19 50\ 0% 50% 54\ 2 0 0 27 1001 0\ 0\ 77\ - 2 0 0 32 1001 0\ Ot 91% 2 0 0 23 100\ 0% 0% 66% l 0 l ~., so, 01 50% 83% -- 2 0 0 24 1001 Ot -0-\ - 69% -- - 2 0 0 31 100, 0\ 01 89% l 0 l 30 so, o, 501 86\ - - 2 0 0 29 100\ o, 0% 83% -- --- 0 0 2 31 0% oi 100~ Rqi TOTAL in1sn NO / tJD 3 I 9\ ) \ J ~i- 9% 1i 3 6 - - 9\ - --17%- 2 3 6\ 9_L --2 - 6 6% 17% IJ - Ti - 9% 31\ 3 2 1--~ 6% '---- 1 3% 2 6% 0 o, 0 0\ --2 . 6\ 3 9\ . -- 6\ - q - 0% 1 3% 2 61 -i- --3% - 2 6 4 11% ~-8 23% 16 46\ --8- 23% l 3% - 9 26% - 4-- 11\ --- 11 311 3 9\ ) 91 - 5 14\ ---- I ...i.:.,.. 2 f.i SCHOOL ruwm GARLAND l 2 3 4 5 6 ISH l 2 3 4 5 6 MITCHELL 1 2 3 4 5 6 ROCKEFELLER 1 2 3 4 5 6 STEPHENS l 2 3 4 5 6 LRSD 1 2 3 4 5 6 TABLE 12 LITl'LE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT MAT-6 DISTRICT SUMMARY VARIANCE.FROM LRSD HEAN OF AVERAGE NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANKS (NPR) BY SCHOOL Number in parenthesis is variance from NPR READING MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE ARTS SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES NPR 87-88 NPR 88-89 NPR 87-88 NPR 88-89 NPR 87-88 NPR 88-89 NPB 87-88 NPR 88-89 NPR 87-88 NPR 88-89 44 { -2) 30 (-22) 56 { -3) 43 {-22) 40 {-10) 41 { -9) 66 { +2) 46 (-17) 50 (-11) 52 (-10) 29 {-14) 20 {-24) 30 (-20) 38 (-22) 42 {-18) 42 {-22) 38 {-10) 42 i-10! 49 l -1i 47 (-16) 52 ( -5) 43 (-17) 39 (-11) 42 (-15) 38 (-13) 46 (-13) 24 {-24) 32 -19 34 -21 52 { -9) 33 (-22) 38 (-HI) 23 (-26) 43 (-10) 20 (-29) 43 (-10} 43 (-11) 24 {-30) 49 {-12) 31 (-33) 59 { -3) 29 (-36) 43 (-11) 17 (-40) 42 (-13) 20 (-39) 37 ! -9) 49 ( -3) 36 (-23) 57 ( -8) 55 +5) 49 ( -1) 83 (+19) 57 ( -6) 60 ( -1) 56 ( -6} 27 (-16) 41 ! -3) 40 (-10) 70 (+10) 44 (-16) 70 ( +6) 48 {A) 39 -13) 55 ( -1) 50 (-13) 57 (A) 46 (-14) 49 { -1) 47 (-10) 41 (-10) 44 (-15) 29 (-19) 37 {-14) 29 {-26) 47 i-14) 30 {-25) 37 (-19) 26 (-23) 41 (-12) 24 {-25) 39 (-14) 44 (-10} 41 {-13) 64 ( +3) 63 -1) 51 {-11) 59 ( -6) 33 (-21} 45 (-12) 39 (-16) 44 (-15) - 36 {-10) 51 ( -1) 46 {-13) 56 ( -9) 44 ( -6) 50 (A) 78 {+14) 83 { +20) 60 ( -1) 70 ( +8) 43 {A) 34 i-10) 52 l +2) 50 (-10) 62 ( +2) 57 ( -7) 44 ( -4) 46 -6) 61 +5) 55 ( -8) 69 {+12) 55 ( -5) 46 ( -4) 51 ( -6) 51 ( A ) 43 (-16) 41 ( -7) 44 ( -7) 55 ( A ) 56 ( -5) 49 ( -6} 52 ( -4) 39 (-10} 42 (-11) 40 { -9} 42 (-11) 28 (-26) 30 (-24) 44 (-17) 53 (-11) 47 {-15) 53 (-12) 31 (-23) 35 (-22) 34 (-21) 38 (-21) - 25 (-21) 32 (-20) 38 {-21) 61 ( -4) 41 ( -9) 34 {-16) 51 (-13) 52 (-11) 62 ( +2) 56 ( -6) 36 ( -7) 34 (-10) 32 (-18) 39 (-21) 58 ( -2) 59 ( -5) 40 ( -8) 45 { -7) 59 ( +3) 46 (-17) 59 ( +2) 51 ( -9) 41 ( -9) 44 (-13) 45 ( -6} 44 ( -1 5) 35 (-13) 42 ( -9) 48 ( -7) 64 ( +3) 46 ( -9) 54 ( -2) 32 (-17) 46 ( -7) 35 (-14) 42 (-11) 49 ( -5) 38 (-16) 63 ( +2) 68 ( +4) 64 ( +2) 63 ( -2) 47 ( -7) 52 ( -5) 47 ( -8) 52 ( -7) 21 {-25) 39 i-13) 40 (-19) 41 (-24) 32 (-18) 29 -21) 36 (-28) 40 (-23) 32 (-29) 47 (-15) 33 (-10} 27 (-17) 33 {-17) 38 (-22) 52 ( -8) 40 (-24) 44 ( -4) 46 { -6) 47 ( -9) 47 (-16) 48 ( -9} 51 ( -9} 45 ( -5) 43 (-14) 42 ( -9) 46 ( -13) 26 (-22) 45 { -6) 34 (-21) 58 ( -3) I 30 (-25) 43 (-13) 31 (-18) 52 ( -1) 25 (-24) 42 ( - 11) 42 {-12) 35 (-19) 45 {-16) 44 (-20) 45 (-17) 43 (-22) 47 ( -7) !i2 ( -5) 47 ( -8) 52 ( -7) 46 52 59 65 50 50 64 63 61 62 43 44 50 60 60 64 48 52 56 63 57 60 50 57 51 59 48 51 55 61 55 56 49 53 49 53 54 54 61 64 62 65 54 57 55 59 I .i::,. N I
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>