Annual Report for 1990-91 Little Rock School District Board and District Work Toward Achieving Long-range Goals Long-range goals adopted for the District in 1989 by the Little Rock School Board continue to be our focal points for improvement
increasing educational achievement for all students, establishing climates of excellence in all schools and enhancing human relations skills for District employees. Academic Achievement Results of the Metropolitan Achievement Test over a four-year period reflect a pattern of progressively better achievement for students in grades one through 11. However, much work remains to be done to address academic achievement at the junior high level where student growth either remained virtually static or dropped slightly. (See report of MAT-6 scores included as an attachment to this report.) On the Arkansas Minimum Performance Test, scores received over a five-year period also are encouraging. (See report of Minimum Petformance Test results included as an attachment to this report.) Eighty-seven percent of Little Rock students tested in grades three and eight passed the Arkansas Minimum Performance Test in reading. Ninety-four percent of the sixth graders passed the reading portion. In the math area, 87 percent, 90 percent and 84 percent passed in grades three, six and eight, respectively. At the eighth grade level, the second administration of the test showed marked improvement in the percentage of students passing the test, with all but two junior high schools having at least an 85 percent passing rate. A third administration of the test given in August resulted in all schools passing the total test and achieving an overall 92 percent pass rate for the District. Strategies to increase performance in the Arkansas minimum performance test include tutoring, increased reading and mathematics assistance, computer assisted instruction, more homework, and cooperative learning. In terms of long-range achievement, the District expects to 1 implement most of the 13 recommendations of the Board-approved curriculum audit performed by the National Curriculum Audit Center of Arlington, Va. Results were reported in January 1991 and serve as the basis for the No More Excuses posture outlined by the superintendent in March. This document will serve as the guide for initiating steps to implement the recommendations from the audit and other steps which we agree will further student progress. The District will continue to emphasize and expand early childhood education, homework programs, extended day activities, restructuring efforts at the junior high level and secondary reading and mathematics assistance programs to address academic achievement issues. In addition, the District has launched a major curriculum review and revision process, under the direction of the associate superintendent for educational programs. Two new magnet schools opened
Washington Basic Skills/Math-Science and Dunbar International Studies/Gifted and Talented. Central High School added an international studies program. Six incentive schools offered extended day, Saturday school, full-time counselors, auxiliary teachers and small classes. McClellan initiated a comprehensive community education program, and Rockefeller opened with an early childhood education magnet program serving infants as young as six weeks of age. Also, as a result of the Districts successful millage election in 1990, major construction projects were started at Geyer Springs, Western Hills, Woodruff and Cloverdale elementary schools and Cloverdale Junior High School. Construction and/or improvement projects are on schedule at virtually every school in the District. Local 2 150 Expenditures 1990-91 Other Objects, 1.01% Magnets, 3.5% Debt Service, 6.48% Capital Outlay, 3.53% Supplies, Materials, 3.92% Q B Purchased Services, d 10.19% I Salaries/Benefits, $73,225,914 Purchased Services $10,457,142 Supplies, Materials, $4,020,746 Capital Outlay, $3,624,884 Debt Service, $6,646,769 Magnets, $3,592,755 Other Objects, $1,040,327 Total: $102,608,537 Salaries/Benefits, 71.37% - Climates of Excellence Declared by the District superintendent as The Year of the School, the 1990-91 school year was a year in which the needs of individual schools received major priority. Restructuring efforts continued at four junior high schools with assistance from e Annie E. Casey Foundation and the Center for Leadership in School Reform. Academic progress incentive grants of $25,000 each were awarded to area schools for school improvement projects. The focus on the school as the basic unit for the delivery of quality education to students will continue in the 1991-92 school year. A reorganization of central office staff will provide principals closer access to the office of the superintendent. Local school plans will continue to be used to improve instruction and learning in all our schools. Human Relations Through the use of trained employees, the Districts bus drivers and education support personnel received special training in human relations skills. For teachers and principals, minicourses were available through our Staff Development Office. An annual survey of attitudes toward human relations reflected the following: A comparative analysis of the results at each organizational level showed that items ranked as areas of greatest priority did not vary significantly from those identified in 1990, with 3a slight difference in relative standing. These focus on lack of demonstrated respect among teachers, students, parents and administrators
lack of fairness and consistency relative to school rules and student discipline
and lack of satisfaction by all groups, except junior high parents, relative to student progress. Areas that shifted to a lower grouping in 1991 from 1990, indicating an improvement in perception, were about teachers receiving equal treatment (junior high level)
extra learning time provided for students who need or want it (elementary parents)
parents promotion of the schools instructional program (elementary teachers)
and parents treating principals with respect (elementary teachers). The survey item regarding school safety ranked as a greatest priority area for junior high parents only and collective data from each organizational level (excluding junior high parents) showed that respondents from the majority of the subgroups did not regard safety within the school as a major concern. More work will continue in this area during the 1991-92 school year as the results of the annual surveys are used to improve interaction among our students. Appeals Court Rules in Favor of 1989 Plan On December 13, 1990, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals approved the Settlement Plan agreed on by the Little Rock School District, the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District in 1989 for operation of desegregated schools. Reaching a conclusion to this long-running court case allows the District to place its efforts in operation and action, rather than hearings and plan development. While there will continue to be adjustments among the parties, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and the court to assure compliance with our plan, we can now offer parents and patrons stability and predictability in terms of the school assignments and other aspects that affect school choice decisions. 4GRADE ____NUMpER TESTED____ 1589 1522 1220 1221 ___TOTAL READING___ 1988 1202 122Q ,1221 -TOT A Ii_ M at H E hlA' 1288 1222 1222 1 1 __l._ 1. .2. __8._ __2_ -12 ._!]__ 22Q8 2225 1221 1222 1811 1222 1215 2Q11 2213 10 2 4 -1818 1769 1227 1SJ8 .1281. 1682 1656 1822 19 30 LI'lTLE ROCK SCHOOL DI STR I CP METROPOLITAN ACHIEVEMENT TESTS (MAT-6) NATIONAL PERCENTILE SCORES COMPARATIVE DATA 1938, 1989, 1990 AND 1991 TOlnL TOT/d. 2591 2066 12. ..12_ _52_ _65_ 1212 .1222 1969 1992. 1255 1233 1806 50 .12 . .21._ _22_ 1853 1258 1906 122Q 1288 1252. 1129 .1610 1668 1610 11 _18_ .18. 51 -18 -.56_ li 1_ 11 _12_ .42. 50 Il54 48 _61 _51_ li ..51- _io_ 49 .54 _53._ _52_ .61 _53... _62_ -11.. -2Q.. .1222. 1612 16 00 1490 11. ._51 11 12 ICS 1991 IQ' 1288 'AL'_IjAN<iyAE 1909 1990 1221 1282 -SCI 1288 :hce_ 1220 1221 __BOCIMi. STUDIES 1222. 1222 1222 .1221 ___PASIC_B^TERY___ 1222 1582. 1222 _IS21 __COMptETE.BAT' im 1V89 ERI_. 1991 _61_. _81, _J1_ _12- _5O_ _.52_ _HA* -.4.2_ _42_ .12- _KA*. llAi ..51,. _62_ _io.. -16_ ._21_ 2 ..21_ 12, HAi. -.WA* 49 .Hiki ILA,? .52. lil_ 12. 56 Jj2_ .UAl 55 .-61_ -11-. _53._ 11 _55.. -AQ^ .81 60 .Al^ _.5Q_ _52- _15_ 12. 50 .JlS.. 54 11 52_ 18. 51 11 51 64 -84_ -ll. 12. 10. 56 1Q_ 12 -.59. ^L. .81. ._50_ _12_ 12- 66 lil. _42_ .62 -65_ 13. 1 10. 18 11 54 56 5'1 .52, .-.51. 12 _6fi_ -.50- 59 11 .-&2- 63 -12-. 52. 71 ._61.. ._65- 60 18 5'1 64 63 18. 12 -51- _52_ 58 ._5<)_ J12 57 53 57 52 12 -61- ..49., J 9 Students in grades one and two did not take science and social studies in 1988 or 1989. 11 .52 .11 12. 63 11 JI _58.. -51- 52 -52- 12- _19_ _51 12- -51- ._59 19 -52- _5Q_ _58_ 51 11- 19 _52_. ..5fi._ 12 S3 -51- 11 12_ 18. 5'1 ^1. 12 18_ -12- -19_ _6O____52- _52_ _56_ 11 ,.-42 11 __55.- 12 11 11 12 _51 _11_ 55 54 15. 12 li -13- 18 11 -61_ 50 _51_-11- 11 16. 13. 11 11 0 -65- ..51-. 12. 12 55 52 _61_ _16_. -51 . . 56 1-51 55 57 12 .1.5_ 18. 54 11 12 ._10_ 11 15_ _52._. _18jREADING 1987. 1988 l.?.89 .19.90. GRADE 6 No. Tested No. Passed 1202 1063 1765 1533 1799 1590 1709 1542 Percent Passed 0_0 07. .08 90. 1987 1988 READING 1989 1990 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS DISTRICT SUMMARY FIVE YEAR COMPARISON 1987 THROUGH 1991 1.987, 1988 READING 1989 1990 1991 . 19B.L 1988 MATHEMATICS 1989 1990 1991 GRADE 3 No. Tested No. Passed Percent Passe_d_ 1991 1722 1615 94 1991 1987 1988 1202 999 83 1987 1274 1103 1844 1541 1946 1683 1958 1709 1863 1616 1275 1081 1844 1566 1946 1735 1958 1694 1863 1620 07 84 86 07 87 85 85 89 87 87 MATHEMATICS 1^9. .1990. 19 91 1987 LANGUAGE ARTS .19J.8_ 1989 1990 1991 1987 1988 SCIENCE 1989 1990 1991 1987 SOCIAL STUDIES 1988 1989 1990 1991 1765 1518 1798 1602 1709 1544 1722 1558 1201 836 1765 1301 1798 1354 1709 1315 1722 1336 1200 799 1765 1135 1799 1196 1709 1223 1722 1255 1200 718 1765 1157 1799 1265 1709 1313 1722 1265 86 89 .90, 90 70 ___7_4 75 77 78 67 64 .66 12 IZ 60 66 70 11 1988 MATHEMATICS 1989 1990 _llil 1987 LANGUAGE ARTS 1988 1989 1990 I 1991 SCIENCE .19 .8 7-19 B_8_ 1989 1990 1991 1987 SOCIAL STUDIES 1988 1989 1990 1991 GRADE 8 No. No. Tested Passed 1326 1130 1811 1679 1799 1623 1756 1562 1792 1561 1326 1098 1811 1609 1799 1608 1756 1536 1792 1506 1326 945 1811 1560 1799 1537 1756 1478 1792 1467 1326 724 1811 1272 1799 1207 1756 1298 1792 1121 1326 866 1811 1275 1799 1337 1756 1324 1792 1134 Percent Passed 85 93 90 Al 87 83 -89 89 87 8.4 ___TA. Al 85 84 82 2.0 Ai 1^ 10 74 75 63JUN 8 1933 ARKANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY OFHCEOF DE^GREGATION MONITORING 6-1-98 COLLEGE OF EDUCATION POST OFFICE BOX 940 STATE UNIVERSITY, ARKANSAS 72467-0940 (TELEPHONE 501/972-3057 JONESBORO) (FAX 501/972-3828) a Mr. N.W. Skip Marshall Associate Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Mr. Marshall, As requested and on behalf of Dr. Dave Holman, Associate Professor of Education and Dr. Craig Jones, Professor of Psychology and Counseling, please accept this correspondence as our acknowledgment and support for your interpretation of the achievement disparity data we discussed and reviewed May 27th in Jonesboro. Your use, description, and interpretation of the percentage relationship appears to be valid with regard to the test score data evaluated. Your criteria of a change of 10 percent, however, appeared to be too arbitrary at this point in time, but such a criteria could be established by studying longitudinal data in this manner. If we can be of any further service or support, please dont hesitate to contact us. Sinj Kent Associate Dean Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas . Ann S. Brown. Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: October 7, 1999 To: Dr. Bonnie Lesley Dr. Kathy Lease Dr. Ed Williams From: N.W. Skip Marshall Subject: Draft Report on Achievement Disparity Between the Races in the LRSD Enclosed is a preliminary draft of the introduction, background, and findings sections of our report on the achievement disparity between the races in the LRSD for 1991-1992 through 1998-1999. The copy we are providing is a draft and will be edited further for format and syntax, but the factual infonnation is complete. Please read the report carefully, checking for accuracy. If you believe any item is inaccurate or if some areas need clarification, please summarize your comments in writing by no later than 4
00 p.m. on Friday, October 8, 1999. Feel free to make your comments in the margins of the report, or you may write them in a memo. An ODM staff member will come by your office by 4
00 p.m. on Friday to pick up the draft and your written comments. If you do not furnish ODM with your written comments, your input will not be considered for our final report. I will contact you early next week to discuss any comments youve made. You may, of course, call our office earher if you have any questions. Because this is a draft, we ask you not to make copies of it or distribute it to others. After the review process is completed, the full report, including a summary and conclusions, will be filed with the Court. We will send you a copy of that complete report. We appreciate the cooperation of the Planning/Research & Evaluation staff, especially that of Irma Truett, during the monitoring process. Thank you for taking the time to review the attached draft.October 11, 1999 Planning, Research, & Evaluation Instructional Resource Center 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 ^ECgiVBD pOrv-T I i iS9S GFRCSOF OESEBl^AnONMOMlWRIi^ i Mr. N. W. Marshall, Associate Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham Heritage West Building, Ste 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Marshall: After careful review of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring report on Achievement Disparity Between the Races, there is one major concern that needs to be addressed. The statistical measure used in the report is the Normal Curve Equivalent (NCE). It is our understanding that both Dr. Doug Reeves, Arkansas Department of Education consultant, and Dr. Steve Ross, one or our Revised Desegregation and Education Plan consultants, agreed that NCEs are not the best way to measure the progress that our district is making in closing the achievement gap. According to Dr. Ross, the consultants are meeting to discuss the use of multiple indicators to measure the progress of our district in decreasing the disparity between the races. In a recent conversation with Dr. Ross, he expressed grave concern about using NCEs for the purpose of measuring progress toward closing the achievement gap. He stated that the more urban a district is and the more disadvantaged students are, the more likely the district is to fall below the mean on norm-referenced tests. Since these tests are designed to insure that students are distributed through the bell curve, they do not and cannot accurately reflect the growth of individual students. One of the reasons that the Little Rock School District redesigned its testing program was to allow us to measure the growth of each individual student regardless of gender, ethnicity, or ability group. Because of this commitment, a criterion-referenced test was selected that will allow us to monitor the growth and progress of all of our children with respect to the required state curriculum. Growth scores allow us to celebrate the progress of students no matter where they started on the learning continuum. Growth scores also allow us to develop personal education plans for students who are not growing at the expected rate. For many of our students to truly be competitive, we must be certain that our curriculum and instruction foster their growth at a rate faster than the national average. The only way that we can truly monitor this rate of learning is by using scaled scores, which measure growth. 2 I am confident that once our assessment experts. Dr. Reeves and Dr. Ross, complete their work on multiple criteria for measuring achievement, we will be able to have a much clearer picture of the true achievement of students in our district. In the interim, I encourage you to not rely solely on NCEs as a measure of the districts ability to close the achievement gap between the races. The use of scaled scores more accurately reflects the growth of our students. The following information is contained in the Raw to Scaled Score Conversion Tables of the Middle Level Benchmark ExaminationGrade 8, February 1999 Administration (p. 1)
Scaled scores are used as a common comparison across different forms of a test, providing a useful measurement tool for various assessment programs. Scaled scores are used in numerous national testing programs. Perhaps the most widely known use of scaled scores is with the ACT and SAT examinations, which are typically part of the admissions process for colleges and universities. Scaled scores are also routinely used within many other statewide testing programs, providing the basis for long-term, meaningful comparisons of students results. According to the Stanford Achievement Test Series Technical Data Report (p. 32), Scaled scores [are] especially suitable for comparing results when different forms or levels of the test have been administered and for studying change in performance overtime. In a letter written on March 30, 1998, to Mr. Frank Anthony, ADE, from Thomas E. Brooks, Manager of Applied Research at Harcourt Brace, Dr. Brooks stated: The advantage that Scaled Scores would have over NCEs is that they offer finer distinctions among students whose percentile ranks are at the extreme end of the score range, i.e. either 1 or 99. If we were reporting data for a group that included larger than usual numbers of students with very low achievement levels. Scaled Scores could make finer distinctions and allow us to measure gains for students who score in the 1** percentile. Scaled Scores then, are not only appropriate, but may also be a preferred measure for reporting disaggregated scores for African-American and White students. In my opinion, they also are consistent with the language of the desegregation decree under which you are operating. With the input from all of our experts, I would ask that ODM reconsider the statistical measure used to report our test results to the Court. Sincerely, Katherine R. Lease, Ed. D. Assistant Superintendent Cc: Dr. Les Carnine, Superintendent Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate SuperintendentGrade Race Black 02 White Percent* Black 03 White Percent* Black 04 White Percent* Black 05 White Percent* Black 06 White Percent* # Tested 1231 550 1143 507 24 > 1040 511 w 994 537 sit. 964 483 Little Rock School District 1997-98 Stanford Achievement Test Scaled Score, Percentile, Normal Courve Equivalent Comparisons for Total Reading, Total Math, Language Total Reading Scaled Score 531.9 571.3 93.1% 565.9 609.9 92.8% 593.7 637.6 93.1% 621.3 671.7 92.5% 636.6 676.2 94.1% Total Math OCT ] J h .9 OFFICLu, Percentile Rank 32 60 53.3% 27 63 42.9% 20 57 35.1% 24 70 34.3% 27 66 40.9% Normal Curve 40.1 55.2 72.6% 37.1 56.9 65.2% 32.5 53.8 60.4% 35.5 61.3 57.9% 37.2 58.9 63.2% Percent is defined as black student scores expressed as a percent of white student scores. # Tested 1263 560 1227 524 1068 514 If* 1022 544 980 485 * A. Scaled Score 518.3 545.9 94.9% 552.1 587.6 94.0% 595.1 634.5 93.8% 612.8 652.4 93.9% 630.3 665.1 94.8% Percentile Rank 25 53 47.2% 23 57 40.4% 30 66 45.5% 25 64 39.1% 32 67 47.8% Normal Curve 35.8 51.8 69.1% 34.2 53.5 63.9% 39.3 58.9 66.7% 35.6 57.6 61.8% 40.4 59.2 68.2% # Tested 1250 556 1220 521 low 1067 513 1018 543 980 485 Scaled Score 551.1 583.6 94.4% 574.8 609.3 94.3% 601.0 617.5 97.3% 620.4 652.3 95.1% 629.4 656.1 95.9% Percentile Rank 31 63 49.2% 26 62 41.9% 37 51 72.5% 34 65 52.3% 37 62 59.7% Normal Curve 39.8 56.8 70.1% 36.2 56.7 63.8% 42.8 50.7 84.4% 41.4 57.9 71.5% 42.9 56.7 75.7%Grade Race Black 07 White Percent* Black 08 White Percent* Black 09 White Percent* Black 10 White Percent* Black 11 White Percent* # Tested 1074 447 1071 445 ,c 1065 445 X- 1125 478 932 463 Little Rock School District 1997-98 Stanford Achievement Test Scaled Score, Percentile, Normal Courve Equivalent Comparisons for Total Reading, Total Math, Language Total Reading Scaled Score 647.3 690.2 93.8% 659.5 702.4 93.9% 675.1 713.5 94.6% 677.6 713.7 94.9% 692.2 727.8 95.1% Total Math Percentile Rank 25 68 36.8% 24 66 36.4% 31 70 44.3% 26 61 42.6% 33 71 46.5% Normal Curve 36.0 60.1 59.9% 35.4 58.5 60.5% 39.6 60.8 65.1% 36.3 56.2 64.6% 40.9 61.5 66.5% Percent is defined es black student scores expressed as a percent of while student scores. Tested 1089 450 t't X?* 1081 448 1072 444 1144 475 iS 934 468 Scaled Score 642.2 684.4 93.8% 646.2 686.4 94.1% 656.3 693.6 94.6% 656.8 690.9 95.1% 668.6 702.0 95.2% Percenlile Rank 29 71 40.8% 26 65 40.0% 28 66 42.4% 28 62 45.2% 35 69 50.7% Language/English Normal Curve 38.5 61.9 62.2% 36.7 58.2 63.1% 37.6 58.5 64.3% 37.6 56.3 66.8% 42.2 60.6 69.6% # Tested 1077 448 1077 447 1070 447 1143 475 940 472 Scaled Score 635.4 667.1 95.2% 646.1 676.3 95.5% 654.8 689.2 95.0% 681.9 710.3 96.0% 697.3 716.2 97.4% Percenlile Rank 31 63 49.2% 34 62 54.8% 37 67 55.2% 34 61 55.7% 42 61 68.9% Normal Curve 39.4 57.2 68.9% 41.2 56.7 72.7% 43.0 59.5 72.3% 41.1 55.8 73.7% 45.6 55.7 81.9%Grade Race Total Reading # Tested Scaled Score Percentile Rank Normal Curve 3 Black White Percent* 5 Black White Percent* 1 Black White Percent* 8 Black White Percent* 1158 468 1038 473 1050 413 1051 428 574.0 609.0 94.3% 625.0 670.0 93.3% 650.0 688.0 94.5% 662.0 706.0 93.8% 33 62 53.2% 27 69 39.1% 27 66 40.9% 26 69 37.7% 40.7 56.6 71.9% 37.3 60.6 61.6% 37.3 59.0 63.2% 36.7 60.6 60.6% 1^19I Total Math # Tested 1224 488 tt: -nr. s,..' 1067 479 1051 415 1042 426 Scaled Score 557.0 587.0 94.9% 614.0 646.0 95.0% 641.0 678.0 94.5% 650.0 692.0 93.9% iis Percentile Rank 27 56 48.2% 26 59 44.1% 23 59 39.0% 23 64 35.9% OCl 1 I lyJJ Normal Curve 37.1 53.1 69.9% 36.8 54.7 67.3% 34.4 55.0 62.5% 34.4 57.6 59.7% D Languag e/English # Tested 1222 486 Si g 1063 479 1037 414 1042 427 s Scaled Score 558.0 607.0 91.9% 619.0 650.0 95.2% 634.0 665.0 95.3% 649.0 682.0 95.2% Percentile Rank 31 61 50.8% 32 62 51.6% 28 62 45.2% 36 69 52.2% Normal Curve 39.8 55.7 71.5% 40.1 56.7 70.7% 38.0 56.3 67.5% 42.5 60.7 70.0% fimni: ni
A- * 10 Black White Percent* 1067 467 4 It 677.0 717.0 94.4% 25 65 38.5% 35.8 58.1 1066 468 677.0 704.0 33 65 40.9 57.9 1066 471 657.0 697.0 28 67 37.7 59.4 * Percent is defined as black student scores expressed as a percent of white student scores. 61.6% -5 r'f'' t 96.2% 50.8% 70.6% 94.3% 41.8% 63.5% 't Xi Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 October 22, 1999 Katherine R. Lease LRSD Instructional Resource Center 3001 So. Pulaski Street Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Dr. Lease: Thank you for the time you devoted to reviewing the draft findings of our monitoring report on the LRSD achievement disparity between the races. We especially appreciate your written comments. As we understand your response, your position is that using scaled scores, rather than NCEs, is a more appropriate method to measure the achievement growth of individual students. While scaled scores may be valid for the use you define, our report is not intended to measure the growlh in the achievement levels of individual students
rather, it is intended to measure the proportional differences between the achievement levels of groups of black students as compared to white students over time. Our current report conforms to the practice and precedent of basing our findings on Normal Curve Equivalents that we established in our first report on achievement disparity in the three county districts, which was published in June 1995, as well as in our second report on achievement disparity, which was on the Pulaski County Special School District, published in October 1998. For us to use other than NCEs in the upcoming report would be inconsistent with our established precedent. Elowever, based on your comments, we did include within our report a reference to the position you have taken. Again, we appreciate your assistance and thank you for your efforts. Sincerely yours. N.W. Marshall Associate Monitor cc: Dr. Les Camine Dr. Bonnie Lesley Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 Date: October 15, 1999 To: Bonnie Lesley brom: Ann Brown'^u^ Re: Review of ODM Drafts I couldnt miss your frustration in our giving you little time to go over the draft of our repon findings, most recently Skips report on achievement. I know that your schedule is alwavs full and can understand your consternation about another to do being dropped on vou. Let me explain the reasons behind our procedure and why it may not be as user-unfriendly as it seems. Since we first started producing reports, its been our practice to ask the individuals who gave us information for each report to review our findings for errors, misunderstandings, omissions, etc. We know we're not perfect and appreciate help in producing documents that are as accurate as possible. But we learned that if we didnt attach a very limited time to this review process, the findings didn't get a timely examination and return. Without a tight deadline, folks just didn't get a round tuit . Also, we learned not to set a date certain by which we promised delivery of the findings. First, we couldnt be precise about our own crowded schedules, which were constantly being modified by unexpected events. Secondly, we found that even if we tried to let the reviewers know in advance that the findings were on the way, that didnt seem to help, as their schedules were as crowded as ours and also subject to the same type of unforeseen events. In addition, we felt a shorter lead time would promote the focused individual review that we desire, while deflecting any inclination toward orchestrating a mass reaction to the findings. Now heres the part that may give you some consolation in the future: to compensate for the short lead time, we always allow more review time for anyone who asks for it. 'Which is what Kathy Lease did with our achievement report, and we were happy to comply with her request. We dont offer an extension of weeks, but were comfortable with a few days more. All one has to do is ask. And of course, well always provide adequate time for any discussion thats needed a,s part of the findings review process. 1 hope this explanation provides both some relief and reassurance. If youd like to talk it over, please give me a call.ACHIEVEMENT DISP.ARITY BETWEEN THE RACES IN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT F 9 3 9" EAST^t^N! ISTRI cta'^Wsas OCT 2 6 1999 October 26,1999 JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By:. UtP CLERK Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Little Rock, Arkansas Ann S. Brown Federal Monitor Norman W. Marshal] A.ssociate Monitor Polly Ramer Office Managerhf<L JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. RECEIVED JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 NOV 1 5 20115 nrcmnr OFRCEOF desegregation MONITORING November 14, 2005 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHenry, P.A. 8210 HENDERSON RO/VD LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72210 PHONE: (501) 374-3425 FAX (501) 372-3428 EMAIL
mchenrvd@swben.net Members of the Board of Education Little Rock District School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Board Members: The Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee is concerned about the remediation of achievement disparities. Dr. Roy Brooks response is that the students in the Little Rock School District of African American descent performed better than African American students statewide on standardized tests. The district has prepared an annual report which represents the same thing. I believe that the issue is misrepresented to the State and should be corrected. The question is not how well LRSD African American students compare with other African American students statewide
rather, it is how they compare with Caucasian students in Little Rock. lam taking the liberty herewith to share your graphic Teport with the committee members. I note that Little Rock included a copy of the report in the Sunday, November 13, 2005 copy of the Arkansas Democrat. One of the committee members asked what the gap was. Despite this report. Dr. Brooks was unable to provide an answer. The undated data reflected in the annual report shows by whatever standard is used, a black /white gap as follows: 3"* grade Reading 3'** grade Math Concepts 3"* grade Math Problems 37 39 37 4th grade Reading 4th 4th grade Math Concepts grade Math Problems 39 42 44 5.h 5'^ 5* grade Reading grade Math Concepts grade Math Problems 37 40 396"' grade Reading 6'* grade Math Concepts b* grade Math Problems 7 grade Reading 7 grade Math Concepts 7'* grade Math Problems 8* grade Reading 8* grade Math Concepts 8 grade Math Problems 40 40 39 44 41 36 41 37 34 These data rather uniformly reflect that the Caucasian achievement, as measured in the Little Rock School District by the Iowa Test of Basic skills data, African American students do approximately half as well on this test at all grade levels as Caucasian students. Please note for example the difference between 3"* grade African American students and 3* grade Caucasian students as they go up the ladder using Reading as a standard in the 3"* grade, the gap is 37 points. In the 8* grade, it is 41 points. In Math Concepts, in the 3"* the 8 grade it is 37 points. grade it is 39 points, while in If the Little Rock standard is for its African American students to out achieve the states African American students, the objective is misplaced. The LRSDs approach limits the challenge of the district in meeting the needs of African American students, in comparison to its - white students, and it allows resegregation within biracial schools on a test score basis. The armual reports goes on to show why Little Rock students should be better than statewide students. On page 9 of the report. Little Rock brags that its teachers earn $8554.00 more on the average than statewide teachers. This is 20%. Little Rock says that retaining a competent and professional teaching staff has a direct impact on student achievement. If that is true, and assuming a 20% greater pay average for Little Rock teachers, it would seem that if the inquiry were limited to African American students alone, then the Little Rock averages should be at least 20% higher than the statewide average for African American students. Little Rock further brags that most of its teachers hold Masters degrees or higher which is well above the state average. This fact also militates in favor of higher achievement scores for the African American students when the comparison is LRSD African American students versus African American students statewide. I ask that your inquiry of the Little Rock Administration be more detailed and ask further that you require information which is presented be logical, i.e., subject to rational considered explanation. To the members of the Desegregation Oversight Committee, I also request that you create a subcommittee to address the use by Little Rock of the desegregation money over the years of its receipt in order to determine whether Little Rock did with it what it represented it would and whether enhanced student achievement by African American students took place.Thank you for your attention to these concerns. Sincerely, /s/John W. Walker JWW:js cc: Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee Office of Desegregation Monitoring Honorable William R. Wilson Honorable J. Thomas Ray Mr. Christopher HellerTARGETS TO IMPROVE STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT TO IMPROVE DESEGREGATIONINCENTIVE SCHOOLS PROGRAM PAGE ACADEMIC PROGRAMS & CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT Four-year-old program Writing to Read Kindergarten, Early Prevention of School Failure Reading and oral expression Learning styles inventories School themes 152 152 152 153 153 153 Semi-departmentalization Instructional technology Science labs Computer labs Foreign language labs Computer loan program Parent Home Study Guides Computer Managed Instructional Technology Student Education Plans Specialized programs (Title 1/G & T) Incentive programs for recognizing behavior and academic improvement Homework - LRSD policy - parent signature Criterion referenced testing Heterogeneous grouping Effective Schools model African and African-American History Classics reading program Latin program Foreign language Social skills - Family folklore, Positive Imaging, Rites of Passage, Role Model Program, Mentor Program Academic reinforcement clubs Field trips 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 154 154 154 154 154 154 154 154 157 156 156 157 158SUPPORT PROGRAMS Homework Centers Homework Hotline Peer tutoring Retired teacher mentors Instructional aides INCENTIVE SCHOOLS PROGRAM PAGE 171 171 171 172 172 I i I Supervision aides Career skills development program Extended Year 172 172 172 Community involvement (Scouting) Extended Day Home/school communication (monthly) Extracurricular programs Subject related extracurricular activities Counseling/Social work Community services access - assist students with access College/post graduation awareness Study skills Home/neighborhood meetings Wellness program Camp Pfeifer 173 173/174 174 175 175 175 175 176 176 176 176INCENTIVE SCHOOLS PROGRAM PAGE SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION/SCHOOL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES Attendance and behavior guidelines Flexible programs (individualized instruction) - Uniforms for students 175 Encourage PTA attendance Playground for PE purposes Investigate need for community education classes Saturday program (Extended Week) 178/179 178/179 178/179 178/179 190 190INCENTIVE SCHOOLS PROGRAM PAGE STAFFING/STAFF DEVELOPMENT Permanent assigiunent substitute A half-time assistant principal Incentive Schools Staffing Committee Staf&ug needs assessment Recommended full-time positions Staff recruitment 178/179 178/179 191/192 192 192 192 Staff selection 192 Staff commitment/effectiveness monitoring (special training for staff) Individual Incentive School Staff Development Plan Minimum staff development (required) Ex. TESA PET Master Teacher Program Teacher Assistance/Teacher Assistance Plan (TAP) 192/193 193 193 194 194INCENTIVE SCHOOLS PROGRAM PAGE INCENTIVE SCHOOL PARENT INVOLVEMENT - RECRUITMENT Adult community education Parent Internship Program Parent/teacher mentorships Parent Center Parent workshops Community resources use in the Instructional program Parent recognition Home and school communication Parent contractual commitments Strengthen home and school linkage Build school and community trust School policies and procedures Recruitment 206 206 206 206 174/206 207 209 210 211 212 213 214 215' SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2000 Teachers arent only factor in achievement What are the responsibilities that most "" ----------------------- parents want from their childs school teacher? Lets see, for starters, fill the room with love and smiles every waking moment
instill a sense of pride in their ethnicity
modify disruptive behavior
observe them for signs of abuse and T- shirt messages
fight the war on drugs and sexually transmitted diseases
check their backpacks for guns and knives
raise their self-esteem: teach patriotism, good citizenship
sportsmanship and fair play. They should occasionally check for hair lice
maintain a safe environment
recognize signs for potential anti-social behavior
offer advice: write letters of recommendation for student employment and scholarships: encourage respect for the cultural diversity of others
and make sure they give equal time to the girls as well as the boys, j Make sure the students can pass the state and federal mandated testing
keep attendance records: make sure handicapped children are given equal education regardless of their mental or physical handicap: communicate with the students parents by writing letters and making phone calls. After school, each teacher should make sure he takes his work home with him: grades 25-30 pieces of work
does report i cards: attends committee and faculty meetings: participates in staff development to maintain employment and be at all the school functions after school is over every day. How should parents and their children become more accountable for their educational success? Are teachers 100 percent responsible for the success of their students? 1 dont think so. BOB McATEE Little Rock February 1 , 2 0 0 1 Improving achievement topic at Parkview forum ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Kati Haycock, director of The Education Trust of Washington, L.C., will talk about improving student achievement and closing achievement gaps between groups of students at a public forum at 6 Rm. today in the Parkview Magnet High School auditorium, 2501 John Barrow Road, Little Rock. The trust is a nonprofit organi7a- tion that works with policy-makers, educators, parents and communities to help schools better serve all students in kindergarten through college, regardless of family incomes other family characteristics. Haycock is speaking in Little Rock at the invitation of the Little Rock School District and New Futures for Youth. or Officisls in the two agencies working on a plan for reform- schools. The Little Rock partnership was one of 10 in the countiy awarded a $250,000 planning grant last year from Carnegie Corp. Uttle Rock planners hope to win an $8 million grant from Carnegie to carry out the plan, which should be finished by the end of the summer. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2001 I Visitor cites ways to improve schools LR leaders learn of successes elsewhere BY CYNTHIA I lOWELL ARKANSAS ni
M(X RA|.0A7,F.Tre Achievement gaps between are partners in developing a comprehensive plan to improve achievement for all students at the citys five public high schools. groups of students from different ellinic and economic backgrounds have widened nationally in the past decade. But there are individual wniie we oring oiiiei mus up, schools and districts in which Haycock said. This is about im- students achieve at high levels . - -n Closing this gap cannot, be about holding some kids down while bring other kids up, despite poverty and other factors associated with low performance. Kati Haycock, the director of The Education Trust Inc., a Washington organization dedicated to research and helping communities erase achievement proving the performance of all of our young people, but accelerating the progress of those vyho disiiarities, told Little Rock leaders Thursday about schools have been behind. El Paso educators concluded about seven years ago that they had no clear standards for what they wanted their students to be able to do, Haycock said. So they set standards that were higher than the state le- quirements and set as their goal the graduation of students who were prepared for college with- H-va, .................... out any need for remediatloh. panic groups that typically They also improved teacher ' -=*----skills through the use of summer institutes, teacher coaches to help in classrooms, and routine u.i.i ...V ........... meetings in which teachers te- would see that each goes about viewed student data and acatle- ........... niic progress. Even at the university level, teacher preparation courses were revamped. in El Paso, Texas, Baltimore and Kentucky that report above-average scores on standardized exams although most of their students may be poor, black or His- .score below their white and mid dIe-income peers. If you visited the communities tliat arc making gains, you it a little bit differently," Hay- cock said. But, all of them are lightly focused on the academic core of schooling. They have clear standards and expectations about what kids should know and be able to do. "With that kind of a focus, you can get results, Haycock said, adding that 58 schools in thfe El Paso area were recognized last year by the state of Texas for They have a rigorous and en- ______ _______ gaging curriculum that actually their academic improvement has kids struggle with difficult another 18 were cited as exstuff. They give extra help to gmplary schools. In 1992, only kids who need it and, most im- - ' and exportant, they make a real investment in helping teachers to master the skills and knowledge that they need. Haycock met with a group that included Little Rock and state leaders who are in the be- two schools were recognized and 15 were cited for their low perI ginning stages of revamping some education practices to improve student achievement in high schools and college. Participants at the lunch session informance. While all students can learn, some students may need extra help and time, Haycock said, which may require summer courses and longer school days. Haycock also said teachers matter hugely in improving student achievement but the ..t tuv ........ ................. least qualified instructors, in eluded the Little Rock School terms of their college degrees Board, Little Bock Mayor Jim not matching the subjects they Dailey and other city leaders teach, are most frequently found who serve on the board of direc- in poor or urban schools teaching students who are the most wiio directors for New Futures for Youth, and Winston Simpson, the direc- needy. Haycock also was the featured speaker Thursday nightat a public forum at Parkview Mag- tor of the states newly formed P- 16 Commission. The P-16 Commission is - -- ----a i^uuiiv iw Mill **' charged with developing a plan High School, for better coordination of educa- --------- tion services from preschool tlirough college. The Little Rock School District and New Futuresin o o <N o LR school chief aims to close achievement gap BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE An achievement disparity of as many as 40 points between Little Rocks black and white students on standardized tests has not changed , significantly in 20 years and has I resulted in more than half of the schools being classified by the state as academically troubled. Superintendent Roy Brooks said Monday night at Dunbar Community Center, Speaking at a forum to a crowd of about 100 that was evenly divided between district employees and community members. Brooks said that it is his intention to turn the Little Rock School District into the nations highest achieving school system but to do that will mean changes in the way it operates. People say that is a lofty vision, Brooks said. But if that is not our vision then what is it? If we dont take care of our children, who will? Sen. Irma Hunter Brown, D- Little Rock, an audience member, pressed Brooks on how he intends to erase the achievement gap. Brooks said that the individual schools must be empowered to make the decisions on how to raise achievement. Pm more than happy to be able to say that our teachers, our princi- worked on both a state and local pals, the wonderfill staff members level to improve public education, that we have, our parents and peo- applauded Brooks vision, saying pie from our community will be that not enough people realize the able to identify the processes that will take care of the how, Brooks responded. Pm about the whaL The what is very clear in my mind
Increase student achievement Twenty-seven of the districts nearly 50 schools have been identified by the state as needing improvement based on a history of low test scores. Brooks said he believes eight to 12 of those schools could be removed from the list alter the next round of testing, which takes place this month. Stacy Pittman, a parent who has size of the gap. In sixth-grade math, only 15 percent of Little Rocks black students score at a proficient level as compared to 58 percent of white students, she said. I care because I work in this Little Rock community, and I live in this Little Rock community, and its important to me that every child in Arkansas has the opportunity to achieve, Pittman said. Terence Bolden, another parent and a community activist who has frequently clashed with Brooks and the Little Rock School Board, told Brooks that there is a serious lack of trust between district leaders and the community and that must be bridged if gains are to be made. He pointed to two posters announcing coming meetings on Brooks vision for the district, one of which featured the picture of a white child and the odier a black child. Are we a unified district with one message that the whole district needs to be fixed, or are we a segregated district with more than one agenda? One purpose of the forum Monday was to introduce a short new video of Brooks and community leaders talking about the challenges and vision for the distrirt. The video will be shown again at a forum at 1 p.m. Thursday at Southwest Community Center, 6401 Base Line Road. r
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 Resoources.

<dcterms_creator>Little Rock School District</dcterms_creator>