Court filings regarding Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tools, Little Rock School District (LRSD) filing quarterly update, and Office of Desegregation Management (ODM) report.

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<items type="array"> <item>

<dcterms_description type="array">

<dcterms_description>Court filings: District Court, two notices of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tools; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) notice of filing quarterly update; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ""Update of Discipline Sanctions and Compensatory Programs Aimed at Dropout Prevention in the NLRSD""; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors. ,. Arkansas DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MAU. UTTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http://arkedu.state.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Director of Education Jan~ary 28, 2005 Mr.M. SamuelJones,ill Wright, Lindsey &amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers &amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon &amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 JAN 2005 OFFIC[ OF DESEGREGMlOil ;110NITORING Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of January 2005 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sie7~o. ~~-rk General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - JoNell Caldwell, Little Rock Vice Chair - Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro Shelby Hillman, Carlisle Calvin King, Marianna Randy Lawson, Bentonville MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff Naccaman Williams, Johnson An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for January 2005. Respectfully Submitted, tt Smith, Bar # 92251 General Counsel, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 1501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on January 28, 2005, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey &amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers &amp; Sneddon P. 0 . Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon &amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Arkansas DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MAU UTILE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http://arkedu.state.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Director of Education February 28, 2005 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey &amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers &amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon &amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 I/ ' ,') 1 - ~ 05 I . . l. RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of February 2005 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. ~3~~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier -ATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair -JoNell Caldwell, Little Rock Vice Chair -Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro Shelby Hillman, Carlisle Calvin King, Marianna Randy Lawson, Bentonville MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff Naccaman Williams, Johnson An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for February 2005. Scott Smith, Bar # 92251 General Counsel, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on February 28, 2005, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey &amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers &amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon &amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2005 Based on the information availabl~ at January 31, 2005, the .ADE .calculated the State Foundation Funding for F,Y 04/05, subject to periodic adjustments. B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. IN THE UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURi: (, '. ?ii7-j EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKA:t-f,~ ~-&lt; - __ ,..,, WESTERN DIVISION C .t,._ ' &lt;&gt; LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MAR ? 2005 MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS OFFI F KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DES GREGATIO!l [,,ONITORING LRSD'S NOTICE OF FILING OUARTERL Y UPDATE INTER VEN ORS Little Rock School District ("LRSD") for its Notice ofFiling Quarterly Update dated March 1, 2005 states: 1. The attached document is the second quarterly written update by the Little Rock School District and its Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department. It has been provided to the Joshua Intervenors and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring in accordance with the District Court's 2004 Compliance Remedy (Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004). 2. LRSD is filing this Quarterly Update so that the Court may be aware of the compliance work done by LRSD to comply with the Court's Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004. WHEREFORE, the LRSD submits its Quarterly Update as required by the Court. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE &amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY:~k CopherHcler CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on the 1st day of March, 2005 : Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey &amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON &amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 2 Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Tim Gauger Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 istopherHeller Little Rock School District (LRSD) QUARTERLY UPDATE to Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and Joshua March 1, 2005 MAR 2 2005 OFFICtOF DESEGREGAT/Oi'J ;,:ONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT, PLAINTIFF V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRJCT NO.1 ET AL., DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., INTERVENORS KATHERJNE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 Page I of 18 Introduction This is the second quarterly written update by the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and its Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Department, submitted in accordance with the District Court's 2004 Compliance Remedy (Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004, pp. 61-67). The organization of this report is that of the Compliance Remedy: A. "LRSD must promptly hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE." B. "The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process". which "must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program." C. "During each of the next two academic school years (2004-05 and 2005-06), LRSD must hire one or more outside consultants to prepare four ( 4) formal step 2 evaluations." D. "PRE must (1) oversee the preparation of all eight of these step 2 evaluations; (2) work closely with Dr. Ross and any other outside consultants ... and (3) provide the outside consultants with any and all requested assistance and support ... " E. Evaluations will contain numbers and grade levels of teachers and administrators who contributed data, recommended program changes necessary for improved academic achievement by African-American students, and brief explanations of how each change will increase a program's effectiveness. F. " . .. PRE must notify the ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of those eight programs. In addition, after PRE and Dr. Ross have formulated a comprehensive program assessment process and reduced it to a final draft, PRE must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua at least thirty days before it is presented to the Board for approval . . . by December 31, 2004." G. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of the . . . four step 2 program evaluations . .. during the 2004-05 school year and the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2005-06 school year . . . to ODM and Joshua on December 1, March 1, June 1, and September 1. .. " H. (ODM's responsibilities.] I. [Joshua's responsibilities.] J. Four step 2 program evaluations due to the Court October 1, 2005 and four more due October 1, 2006. K. Compliance Report due October 15, 2006. L. [This Compliance Remedy supersedes earlier one.] Page 2 of 18 Status as of March 1, 2005 A. Hire a highly trained team of professionals. LRSD hired a highly trained team of professionals in 2004 and reported its action in the first quarterly written update, December 1, 2004. This team has continued its duties as described below, in this second quarterly written update. B. Devise and embed a comprehensive program assessment process. At its December 16, 2004 session, LRSD Board of Directors approved the comprehensive program assessment process devised by PRE. The final draft was in Appendix B of the first quarterly written update. C. Hire outside consultant(s) to prepare four formal step 2 evaluations. Credentials of Drs. Catterall and Ross were in this section and Appendix C of the first quarterly written update. Both agreed to prepare step 2 evaluations of LRSD programs. Their progress is described below in Section D. D. PRE (1) oversees the preparation of the step 2 evaluations, (2) works closely with Drs. Ross and Catterall, and (3) assists them. PRE continued discussions with Dr. Steven Ross of step 2 evaluation designs for thethree LRSD programs which he will conduct, reported December 1, 2004-Compass Learning (CL), Reading Recovery (RR), and Smart/Thrive (S/f). By January 14, PRE and Dr. Ross agreed on evaluation designs, whose descriptions are in the appendix of this second quarterly written update. Negotiations also continued in Janua,ry with Dr. James Catterall regarding evaluation of YearRound Education (YRE), the fourth step 2 evaluation for 2004-2005. Its design, too, is in the appendix of this second quarterly written update. At the monthly Leadership Team (school principals) meeting, on January 19, PRE staff alerted LRSD principals about the four evaluations and answered their questions. At the February 16 Leadership Team session, Dr. Ross and his team described designs of his three evaluations and answered questions. After his presentation to the principals on February 16, Dr. Ross and his team met with PRE, each program director, and two other outside experts (Drs. Linda Dorn and Gail Weems, both of UALR's College of Education). During these discussions, ODM officials and counsel for Joshua Intervenors provided feedback and assisted with the final design of data collection instruments. Page 3 of 18 PRE has established four evaluation teams, led by PRE members and composed of people with skills and experiences appropriate to their respective evaluations. Parent and teacher representatives are also members of these teams, whose first formal meeting was arranged for February 24. Dr. DeJarnette will lead the evaluation of Compass Learning; Ms. Malcolm, Smart/Thrive; Dr. Williams, Year-Round Education; and Mr. Wohlleb, Reading Recovery. Members' names and results of that meeting will appear in the third written quarterly update, due June I. E. Evaluation will have (1) numbers and grade levels of teachers and administrators who submit data for evaluations, (2) recommended program changes necessary for improved achievement by African-American students, and (3) succinct explanations of how each change will increase its respective program's effectiveness. Designs of the evaluations, furnished in the appendix to this report, will include 1) records of the teachers and administrators who furnish data, opinions and guidance, and their grade levels and positions; 2) data in addition to race/ethnicity and test scores that will enable the evaluators to find reasons for differences in academic achievement and recommend changes; 3) bases for explanations of how these other factors impact on academic achievement and how program changes will bring about improved academic achievement. F. Delivery of names of programs to be evaluated and the comprehensive program assessment process to ODM and Joshua. Names of the four programs evaluated during 2004-2005 and the process were delivered before they were due last year and so reported in the first written quarterly update. G. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of step 2 evaluations. PRE submitted its first written quarterly update on December I, 2004. PRE submits this one on or before March 1, 2005 and will submit its third by June 1, 2005. Page 4 of 18 Appendix C. Designs of Step 2 Evaluations of2004-2005 Reading Recovery (RR) Compass Leaming (CL) Smart/Thrive (SIT) Year-Round Education (YRE) Evaluation Schedule 2004-2005 Page 5 of 18 Reading Recovery Program Description RR is one of the eight literacy programs, interventions, and/or models used by various LRSD schools. Restricted to the first grade, it provides systematically designed, individual tutoring to students identified as having the highest need for supplemental support. LRSD funds are used to support the RR Program. Currently, 17 elementary schools are implementing RR: Number of Reading Percent African- Percent Recovery Number of Number of American Free/Reduced School Teachers Teachers Students Students Lunch Students Booker 4 55 496 53 63 Carver 2 43 496 52 53 Chicot 3 44 536 73 86 Dodd I 27 261 54 69 Franklin 2 35 387 96 94 Geyer Springs I 23 299 88 81 Gibbs 2 30 310 53 44 Meadowcliff I 24 349 78 85 Mitchell I 22 156 96 92 Otter Creek 1 31 511 60 56 Rightsell 1 25 262 100 88 Wakefield 2 29 451 78 92 Watson 1 34 456 96 93 Williams 2 36 461 52 34 Wilson 1 27 285 89 92 RR Evaluation Questions and Design A mixed-methods design will address the research questions as follows: Primary Evaluation Question: 1. Has the RR program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American (AA) students? A. Whole School Sample: A treatment-control school, pretest-posttest design will be employed in Grades 1-3. The analysis will control for pretest, gender, ethnicity, and SES. The analysis will possibly examine (a) all 17 schools relative to the entire district elementary-school database or (b) a stratified random sample of RR schools relative to matched control schools. Pretests: DRA or DIBELS (whichever has the more usable database), adm inistered in Kindergarten. Page 6 of 18 Posttests: 2004-05 Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) Reading and Math Subtests. B. RR Subsample: Within each of the RR schools, first- to third-grade students who participated in RR as first graders will be identified and their achievement gains compared to predicted scores based on school status (RR vs. non-RR), and student pretest, gender, ethnicity, and SES. Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What are the quality and level of implementation of RR at the 17 schools implementing it in 2004-05? RR teachers will be interviewed by phone. First-grade teachers and other grade-level teachers will be surveyed. Observations of RR sessions will be at a sample of schools. A minimum of IO observations will be conducted. To the extent resources are available, an attempt will be made to observe at all 17 sites. 2. What is the level of participation in RR by AA students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? Student records/archival data for 2003-04 and 2004-05 will be analyzed. 3. What is the progress demonstrated by AA and other student participants in RR in improving achievement, as demonstrated on program-specific measures? What percent of students are "discontinued" or "not discontinued"? RR teachers will be asked to complete "Achievement Profiles" (to be developed) for each 2004-05 RR student. The Achievement Profiles will be one-page forms designed to require only a few minutes to complete. Procedures will be written through consultation with PRE and RR experts in LRSD. 4. What are the perceptions of RR teachers regarding RR program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? The RR teacher interview will directly address this question. 5. What are the perceptions of non-RR first-grade teachers and other teachers in the schools regarding RR program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? The RR School Teacher survey will address this question via closed-ended and open-ended items. Respondents will identify their status by grade and role. 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of RR students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A RR Parent survey will be conducted via a questionnaire including closed- and open-ended items. Page 7 of 18 Summary of RR Data Sources and Participants by Evaluation Question Evaluation Question I Participants Data Sources Primarv Question I . What are the effects of All grades 1-3 students DRA or DIBELS (pretest participation in RR on AA at 17 RR schools and in K) student achievement? other elementary 2004-05 !TBS Reading schools and Math subtests RR student participants (posttest in grades 1-3) within above samples Step 2 Questions 1. What is the quality and level All RR teachers RR Teacher Phone of implementation of RR at the All teachers at RR Interview 17 schools implementing it in schools RR School Teacher 2004-05? Survey (faculty meeting) RR Achievement Profiles One-hour RR Tutoring Observation (min. of 10 schools) 2. What is the level of All RR schools School records/archival participation in RR by AA data students relative to other ethnic groups by school? 3. What is the progress All RR teachers RR Achievement Profile demonstrated by RR students in improving achievement, as demonstrated on program-specific measures? What percentage of students are "discontinued" or "not discontinued"? 4. What are the perceptions of All RR teachers RR Teacher Interview RR teachers re: RR program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of All RR school teachers RR School Teacher regular first-grade teachers and Survey (disaggregated by other teachers re: RR program I st grade vs. other grades) implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 6. What are the perceptions of Parents of RR students RR Parent Survey parents/guardians of RR students re: program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Page 8 of 18 Compass Learning Program Description Compass Learning (CL) is a computer-based program designed to develop students' skills in reading, writing, and spelling. Additional purposes are to support teacher management of student performance, personalize instruction, and connect communities of learners. The themebased lessons and activities provided by CL take a cross-curricular approach and offer a "real world" context for learning. The Compass Management system assessment is either automatic or customizable. Technology Specialists assist classroom teachers with any technology question or need. In the 2004-05 school year, 21 LRSD elementary schools, two middle schools, and the Accelerated Learning Center (high school) utilize CL programs: Percent Percent Number Number African- Free/Reduced of of American Lunch Schools Teachers Students Students Students Bale Elementary 27 319 82 88 Booker Elementary 55 605 53 63 Brady Elementary 28 318 78 80 Carver Elementarv 43 496 52 53 Chicot Elementary 44 536 73 86 Fair Park Elementarv 19 187 75 73 Forrest Park Elementary 25 361 20 14 Franklin Elementary 35 387 96 94 Fulbright Elementary 38 554 26 17 Geyer Springs Elementary . 23 299 88 81 Gibbs Elementary 30 310 53 44 Mabelvale Elementary 25 257 80 88 McDermott Elementary 26 406 62 88 Mitchell Elementary 22 156 96 92 Otter Creek Elementary 31 511 60 56 Rightsell Elementary 25 262 100 88 Rockefeller Elementary 35 453 67 66 Stephens Elementary 39 499 95 91 Wakefield Elementary 29 451 78 92 Williams Elementary 36 461 52 34 Cloverdale Middle School 59 682 82 66 Henderson Middle School 60 630 82 70 Accelerated Leaming Center 14 178 92 15 Page 9 of 18 CL Evaluation Questions and Design A mixed-methods design will be employed to address the research questions as follows: Primary Evaluation Question: 1. What are the effects of participation in CL on the achievement of African-American (AA) students? A. Quasi-experimental design: Due to the insufficient sample size and unique nature of the high school (n = 1), the quasi-experimental analysis will be conducted with the elementary (n = 21 schools) and middle (n = 2) school samples only. A descriptive examination (see below) of test scores for the high school will also be conducted to determine trends and patterns at that site. Specifically, the quasi-experimental design will compare CL elementary and middle schools to other schools in the district, most likely by multiple-regression analyses in which the dependent variable is posttest (2004-05) scores (Arkansas Benchmarks in grades 3-8, and Iowa Test of Basic Skills in grades K-8) and covariates are pretest (pre-program) test scores, gender, ethnicity, and SES. Pretests: Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) (for grades K-8), Arkansas Benchmarks (for grades 4-8) Posttests: 2004-05 ITBS Reading and Math Subtests (for grades 1-8); Arkansas Benchmarks (for grades 3-8). B. Descriptive design: For the one high school using CL,. whole-grade pretest and posttest means on Arkansas Benchmarks, ITBS, Grade 11 Literacy Exam, and Algebra I and Geometry End-of-Course (EoC) exams will be compared to district norms. The purpose will be to assess absolute and relative performance as possible correlates of CL implementation. Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What are the quality, nature, and level of implementation of CL at the 24 schools implementing the program in 2004-05? Phone interviews will be conducted with (a) the LRSD CL Coordinator and (b) a sample of IO school Technology Specialists (the I high school, the 2 middle schools, and a random sample of 7/21 elementary schools). All teachers at the 24 schools will be surveyed so that site-specific data regarding implementation will be available. Observations of CL laboratory sessions will be conducted at a sample of JO schools (the I high school, the 2 middle schools, and 7 of 21 elementary schools). At half of the observed schools (n = 5), a brief (20-minute) student focus group (n = 5 to 7 students) will be conducted to ascertain students' perspectives on their experiences in using CL (nature of activities, usefulness, enjoyment, etc. ). 2. What is the level of participation in CL by AA students relative to other ethnic groups at the schools involved? Page 10 of 18 Student records/archival data for 2003-04 and 2004-05 will be analyzed. 3. What are the perceptions of teachers and Technology Specialists regarding CL program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? This question will be addressed via the Technology Specialist Interview and closed-ended and open-ended items on the CL Teacher Survey. 4. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of CL students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A CL Parent survey will be conducted to address this question via a questionnaire including closed- and open-ended items. Page 11 of 18 Summary of CL Instruments and Participants by Evaluation Question Evaluation Question Particioants Data Sources Primarv Question 1. What are the effects of Students at 23 CL ITBS as pretest for Grades K-9 participation in CL on the elementary and middle Arkansas Benchmarks as posttest achievement of AA students? schools and comparison for 3-8) schools 2004-05 ITBS Reading and Math Whole grade-level means subtests (grades 1-9 posttests) at the CL high school. 2004-05 Grade 11 Literacy Exam ( as posttest) 2004-05 Algebra I and Geometry EoC Exams (as posttest) Steo 2 Questions 1. What are the quality, All CL school teachers CL Teacher Survey (faculty nature, and level of 10 Technology Specialists meeting) implementation of CL at the (1 high school, 2 middle Technology Specialist Phone 21 schools implementing the schools, and 7 randomly Interview program in 2004-05? selected elementary District CL Program Coordinator schools) Phone Interview District CL Program Two-hour CL Laboratory Coordinator Observations (10 schools: 1 high 5 student focus groups ( 1 school, 2 middle schools, 7 high school, 1 middle randomly selected elementary school, 3 elementary schools) schools) 20-min. Student Focus Groups (n = 5-7 students), one each at 5 of the IO observation schools 2. Whatisthelevelof All CL schools School records/archival data participation in CL by AA students relative to other ethnic groups at the schools concerned? 3. What are the perceptions of All CL school teachers CL Teacher Survey teachers and Technology 10 Technology Specialists Technology Specialist Interview Specialists regarding CL program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 4. What are the perceptions of Parents of CL students CL Parent Survey parents/guardians of CL students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Page 12 of 18 Smart/Thrive Programs Program Description The Smart/Thrive (Sff) program was designed as an intervention for 8th - and 9th -grade AfricanAmerican students who are lacking the knowledge, skills, and/or confidence required for success in Algebra I. S/T currently (2004-2005) engages approximately 10 percent of the total AfricanAmerican student population enrolled in Algebra I classes. During the 2003-2004 academic year, 264 students participated, studying pre-algebra for two weeks during the summer (Smart Program) and 10 Saturdays across the school year (Thrive Program). Various local grants have funded this program since 1999. Currently, SIT serves students from all eight LRSD middle schools: Percent Percent African- Free/Reduced Number of Number of American Lunch Middle Schools Teachers Students Students Students Cloverdale 59 682 82 86 Dunbar 58 747 61 57 Forest Heights 59 688 77 62 Henderson 60 630 82 70 Mablevale 57 634 81 75 Mann 64 873 52 37 Pulaski Heights 57 708 57 47 Southwest 55 493 94 87 srr Evaluation Questions and Design A mixed-methods design will be employed to address the research questions as follows: Primary Evaluation Question: 1. Have the srr programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American (AA) students? A treatment (2 levels)-control student, pretest-posttest design will control for pretest, gender, ethnicity, and SES. Three types of Algebra I students will be compared depending on their program enrollment: 1. No program 11. Smart program only 111. Both Smart and Thrive programs Pretests: 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 6th and 8th grade Benchmark tests. Page 13 of 18 Posttests: 2004-05 (ITBS) Math Subtests; Algebra I EoC Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What is the level of participation in Smart and Thrive by AA students? Student records/archival data of 2003-04 and 2004-05 will be analyzed. In addition to descriptive information, levels of participation will be gathered as a potential variable for the student achievement analyses. 2. What instructional strategies are used during the tutoring sessions? Approximately five random observation visits will be conducted during the Saturday Thrive Program sessions in 2005. 3. What are the perceptions of SIT Tutors regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A questionnaire will be administered to SIT Tutors. 4. What are the perceptions of Algebra I teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A questionnaire will be administered to Algebra I teachers. 5. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses of SIT? A questionnaire will be administered to student participants. A sample of them will also be selected to participate in approximately 3 - 5 student focus groups, each comprised of approximately 5 students. 6. What are the perceptions of parents/ guardians of SIT students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? An SIT parent survey will be conducted to address this question via a questionnaire including closed- and open-ended items. Page 14 of 18 Summary of Sff Data Sources and Participants by Evaluation Question Evaluation Question Participants Data Sources Primary Question 1. What are the effects of All 8th and 9th grade 2003-2004 benchmark participation in the Smart Algebra I students 2004-05 ITBS Math and/or Thrive Programs on subtests; Algebra I EoC AA student achievement? Suoolemental Questions I. What is the level of All program participants School records/archival participation in Smart and data Thrive bv AA students? 2. What instructional SIT teachers and students Observations of tutoring strategies are used during the sessions tutoring sessions? 3. What are the perceptions of All SIT Tutors SIT Tutor Questionnaire SIT Tutors regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 4. What are the perceptions of All Algebra I teachers Algebra I Teacher Algebra I teachers regarding Questionnaire program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of Program participants SIT Student Questionnaire participating students Focus Groups regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 6. What are the perceptions of Parents of SIT students SIT Parent Questionnaire parents/guardians of SIT students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Page 15 of 18 Year-Round Education Programs Program Description Year-Round Education (YRE) rearranges instruction and vacations so that they occur throughout the year, for more continuous learning and frequent breaks. YRE has emerged nationally as a way to educate all students better, regardless of ethnic backgrounds, social strata, or academic performance. LRSD's design is a single-track, 45-10 calendar where all students and teachers in the school are in class or on vacation at the same time. (The "45-1 O" means 45 days in a quarter, then IO days of intersession/vacation. Intersession is a five-day program and attendance 1s voluntary.) Currently, five elementary schools are implementing YRE: Percent of Percent Students Eligible for Elementary Number of Number of African- Free/Reduced Schools Teachers Students American Lunches Cloverdale 26 360 77 89 Mablevale 25 257 80 88 Mitchell 22 156 96 92 Stephens 39 499 95 90 Woodruff 21 235 91 86 YRE Evaluation Questions and Design Primary Evaluation Question: I. Has the Year-Round Education (YRE) Program effectively improved and remediated the academic achievement of African-American (AA) students? Whole-school sample: In a treatment vs. control school, pretest vs. posttest design, the analysis will control for pretest scores, gender, ethnicity, and family income (eligibility for free or reduced lunch program). Subsample: Within each YRE school, evaluators will compare achievement gains of students who participate in intersession to predicted gains (based on category of school, pretest scores, gender, ethnicity, and family income). Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What are the quality and level of implementation of intersession instructional strategies? 2. What are the quality and level of implementation of instructional strategies during regular session? Page 16 of 18 I Evaluators will interview YRE teachers by phone and observe YRE classrooms (during both the regular session and intersession). 3. What is the level of participation in YRE Programs by AA students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? Student records/archival data for 2003-04 and 2004-05 will be analyzed. 4. What are the perceptions of YRE teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? The YRE teacher interview and the YRE teacher survey will address this question via both closed- and open-ended items. 5. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Evaluators will administer a survey to YRE program participants. 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of YRE students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A Parent survey will address this question via a questionnaire including both closed- and open-ended items. Page 17 of 18 ... Summary of YRE Data Sources and Participants by Evaluation Question Evaluation Question Participants Data Sources Primary Question: 1. What are the effects of YRE All grades at YRE schools and other Benchmark and ITBS participation on achievement of AA elementary schools. Year Round students? Education intersession student participants within above samples. Suoo/emental (Step 2) Questions: 1. What are the quality and level All YRE teachers Teacher phone of implementation of intersession interview instructional strategies? 2. What are the quality and level of Selected teachers and students Classroom observations implementation of instructional strategies during regular session? 3. What is the level of All YRE schools School records/archival participation in YRE Programs by data AA students relative to other ethnic groups? 4. What are the perceptions of All YRE teachers YRE teacher interview Year Round Education teachers and survey regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of YRE students grades 4 and 5 YRE student survey participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 6. What are the perceptions of Parents of YRE students YRE parent survey parents/guardians of YRE students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Page 18 of 18 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I FILED U.S. O!ST'&lt;iCT COURT EASTERN DiSTi'&lt;1CT ARKANSAS MAR 1 8 2005 UPDATE OF DISCIPLINE SANCTIONS AND J~~ES W. McC8KMACK, CLERK COMPENSATORY PROGRAMS AIMED AT DROPO~ PREVENTION '.)::? c~::R.t&lt; IN THE NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT March 18, 2005 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Little Rock, Arkansas Margie L. Powell Monitor Arkansas DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL , unu: ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071 , (501) 682-4475 http://arkedu.state.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Director of Education March 31, 2005 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey &amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers &amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72?03-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon &amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. US. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of March 2005 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, _g~~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier ATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - JoNell Caldwell, Little Rock Vice Chair - Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro Shelby Hillman, Carlisle Calvin King, Marianna Randy Lawson, Bentonville MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff Naccaman Williams, Johnson An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for March 2005. Respectfully Submitted, ScottSmitir,13ar # 92251 General Counsel, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on March 31 , 2005, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey &amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner? Ivers &amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-15 l 0 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon &amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Scott Smith 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_description>

</dcterms_description>

</item>
</items>