Job Description Abacus Project The purpose of this project is to determine the extent to which the ABACUS software is being used for its intended purpose as represented in the desegregation plan, as ordered in court orders or as represented in testimony and to report on our findings Activities: Provide your personal knowledge of information sources Help prepare the interview questionnaire that will supply the following information plus additional items to be determined: Knowledge of the purpose of ABACUS Level of training Skill level Extent of use i .e. test questions only Availability of terminal Availability of help Availability of encouragement or helpful hints Feedback from the system Mechanism to provide feedback on system problems or shortcomings Is ABACUS helping this teacher to manage the class to the curriculum? Observe use and conduct interviews based upon the instrument and personal knowledge Help compile and analyze the data and draft the report including recommendations Time Needed Schedule calls for instrument development by 11/15, data collection done by 12/16 and report in rough form by 1/27/95ABACUS INSTRUCTIONAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM The ABACUS Instructional Management System can provide: * Continuous monitoring of individual student progress. * Diagnostic placement for ability grouping. * Increased individual attention. * Detailed reports for conferences. * Immediate feedback of test results with diagnostic information. * Comprehensive library of learning resources. * Individualized education plans. ABACUS INSTRUCTIONAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM The Standard report formats: * Objectives and Correlated Objectives * Instructional Resources * Test Items * Student, Class, School, and District Objective Mastery Analysis and SummaryABACUS INSTRUCTIONAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM The system can create, store and print tests. Tests can be cataloged for future use
on recall, test can be altered, if desired. After scoring a test, the system provides analysis reports. Test types includes: * Multiple Choice * Teacher Observable * Matching * Primary K-3 (large print) * Class Mastery * Sub-Test ( Provides up to 8 different tests)ABACUS INSTRUCTIONAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STUDENT: * Provide individualized student learning plans. * Provide assessment of mastery according to learning objectives and instructional goals. * Provide a rich and stimulating instructional resource bank, including computerized courseware appropriate for various methods of learning: - Tutorial - Simulation - Enrichment - Exploration - Problem Solving - Practice - Drill /iBACUS INSTRUCTIONAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PARENT: The ABACUS Instructional Management System provides ways to help make the parent an integral part of their students learning process. It Will: * Provide reports showing the learning objectives and Instructional goals to be mastered. * Provide regular and timely update reports showing current progress toward those instructional goals. * Clearly show parents which learning objectives have not been mastered or not attempted. * Provide suggested instructional resource listings which the parent can use to supplement classroom instruction in areas where the student needs help. * Enhance parent/teacher cooperation.REPORTING REPORT MENUS INSTRUCTIONAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Report Menu 1 Little Rock School District Fl F2 F3 F4 F5 F7 F8 F9 F10 Fil F12 Objective Report Correlated Object! ve Report - Test Report Class objective Mastery Report Student Mastery Report Students by Objective Report Student Mastery Log Report Student Norm Referenced Testing Reports Composite Cless Mastery Sinmary Report - Composite Objective Mastery Report Composite Student Mastery Report F15 F16 Next Report Selection Menu Exit _ Help Instr Rsrc Test H t P Score Tests Stu Mastery Reporting I.E.P. Roster Curriculum Registration Print Queue Main Menu Quit INSTRUCTIONAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Report Menu 2 Little Rock School District Fl F2 F3 F F5 F7 F8 F9 Test Item Suimary Report Test Heading Report Media Resources by Sub-Curriculum Report Media Resources by Objective Report Media Reference Report Location Mastery Report District Mastery Report Location Mastery Period Report F15 F16 Hext Report Selection Menu Exit _ >Help Instr Rare Test M t, P Score Tests >Stu Mastery Reporting I.E.P. Roster >Currlculum Registration Print Queue Main Menu Quit INSTRUCTIONAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Report Menu 3 Little Rock School District Fl F2 F3 F4 F5 F7 F8 F9 Control Hester Report * Location Report - Curriculm Report Sub'Curriculua Report Instructor Report Course Report Student by Course/Section Report Student Report FU Exit _ >Help Instr Rare Test H t P Score Tests Stu Mastery Reporting I.E.P. Roster >Curricutini >Registration Print Queue Main Menu Quit I 6.2 CHAPTER 6: REPORT MENUREPORTS Fl F4 F5 F7 FIO Fil F12 F9 F3 * Not demonstrated in class OBJECTIVE REPORT - This report will give a listing of all objectives in a range or for an individual objective. It may be printed in long or short form and can be used for long range planning. CLASS OBJECTIVE MASTERY REPORT - This report will summarize student mastery performance by objective for a specified group of students. This report will give the teacher a quick synopsis of the class progress by student. Note: (With the current program, the system is unable to select a range
therefore, it prints the entire sub-curriculum.) STUDENT MASTERY REPORT - This report will list mastery performance by objective, one student per page. This report is effective in student/teacher/administrator conferences. STUDENTS BY OBJECTIVE REPORT - This report will list, by specified objective, those students who have not mastered the objective and those who have not attempted the objective. The teacher may use this report to survey MPT and S8 mastery. COMPOSITE CLASS MASTERY SUMMARY REPORT - This report will show objectives mastered, objectives not mastered, and objectives not attempted for either the current class (FLOW CHART #5) or for a specific student (FLOW CHART #4). This report is a useful tool to help monitor progress of a specific class or an individual on MPT and S8 objectives. COMPOSITE OBJECTIVE MASTERY REPORT - This report will summarize the NUMBER of students who have mastered selected objectives. These objectives may be within a single subcurriculum OR various curriculum areas. This report can be used to determine objectives which need to be retaught. COMPOSITE STUDENT MASTERY REPORT - This report wUl provide mastery performance for each student on the list of objectives chosen in a single sub-curriculum OR various curriculum areas. This report may be used when information is needed on description and mastery of several objectives for at-risk students. OBJECTIVE LIST - This list is a compiled list of objectives under a unique LIST NAME. This list is accessed from F8-Main Menu. * This storage of objectives saves time by not having to retype the list of objectives each time. INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCES - This list of instructional resources is shown by objective, sub-curriculum and media (book, AV, etc.) ----------------------- FLOW CHARTS #7,#8 02/25/93 16:10:22 CM320100 LRSD SAMPLE DATA SET OBJECTIVE REPORT FEBRUARY 25, 1993 PAGE LA-04OB Language Arts Grade 4 Objective Description M-% TI GL i LA~040B-001 Demonstrate Positive Attitude Toward Self LA-04OB-002 Read Silently For Increased Periods Of Time LA--04OB-003 Read For Variety Of Purposes LA-04OB-004 Develop Criteria For What Makes Reading Enjoyable/Useful LA-04OB-005 Demonstrate Use Of Functional Print LA-04OB-006 Demonstrate Appropriate Use Of Informational Sources LA-04OB-007 Read And/Or Write For Social Interaction LA-04OB-008 Exhibit Increasing Awareness Of Reading Choices LA-04OB-009 Develop Awareness Views Of Sexism/Racism In Literature LA-04OB-010 Develop Skills To Become Consumers Of Information LA-04OB-011 Work Cooperatively With Peers LA-04OB-012 Use The Library Regularly LA-04OB-013 View Reading As A Meaning-Getting Process LA-04OB-014 Self-Correct When Meaning Is Not Clear LA-04OB-015 Revise Thinking When Predicitons Are Unsatisfactory LA-04OB-016 Generate Clarifying Questions LA-04OB-017 Use A Variety Of Comprehension And Study Strategies LA-04OB-018 Set Own Purpose For Reading And Adjust Rate Accordingly LA-04OB-019 Evaluate Own Performance LA-04OB-020 Give Directions/Explanations 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 0410/14/92 16:14:50 CM320800 LRSD SAMPLE DATA SET CLASS OBJECTIVE MASTERY REPORT OCTOBER 14, 1992 PAGE Location : 003 Instructors 100 Sub-Curriculums Abacus Elementary DeFrogue
Kermit Course/Sectlont 3001 0 MA-04OB Mathematics Grade 4 -Objective Numbers Brandew
Jess Clayton
Esther Fernandes
Shiela Fish
Jamie Jackson
Kenneth Johnson
Chris Jones
Samuel Masterson
Julie McKenna
Jennifer OMalley
Katie Patton
William Rohr
Terris Taylor
Denise Yocum
Ceryl 001-040 +++--- 001-040 +++++++- 001-040 +++-+++++ -+++ 001-040 +-+++-+-+-+..,, 001-040 ++++++++-+++--1 001-040 +++-+++-, 001-040 +4-+++++++^.-+^ 001-040 ++++..----- 001-040 ++++++4-+++>4.+++ 001-040 +++-++++...... 001-040 +++4-+++++++4.+^._ 001-040 +-++++---. 001-040 ++++++++++++++1
001-040 +++++++ * Masi Objective Mastery Summary Objective Mastery Percentages 001-040 11111111 423030106666532 001-040 1 089797774444321 063131913333614 (+)-Objective Mastered {-)=Objectlve Not Mastered 15.( 55.( 40.( 35.( 55.( 35.( 65.( 20.( 75.{ 35.C 70.C 25.C 70.C 40.G (.)-Objective Not Attempted\ 10/14/92 16:29:20 CM320900 LRSD SAMPLE DATA SET STUDEWT MASTERY REPORT OCTOBER 14, 1992 PAGE 1 Student: 301 Johnson
Chris Grade: 04 Location: 003 Abacus Elementary Sub-Curriculum: MA-04OB Mathematics Grade 4 1+j-Objective Mastered (-)-Objective Wot Mastered +001 Solve Won-Routlne Problems + 002 Solve Real-Life Problems (.)-Objective Wot Attempted + 003 Use Problem Solving Strategies - 004 Discuss Thinking About Mathematical Ideas + 005 Participate Productively In Group Dlscusslons/Projects + 006 Present Oral Reports + 007 Read And Discuss Stories + 008 Write And Share Word Problems 009 Write About Mathematics . 010 Show The Meaning Of A Concept- 10/19/92 14:25:49 CM321200 LRSD SAMPLE DATA SET STUDENTS BY OBJECTIVE REPORT OCTOBER 19, 1992 PAGE 1 Location Instructor
IQQ Abacus Elementary DeFroque
Kermit MA-04OB-006 Present Oral Reports Course/Section
3001 __________Grade
04 01 reports on results of Individual activities or projects. LL
D OU
2 or group AMPT
S8:
003 Students Who Have Mastered the Objective 305 306 310 302 313 Clayton
Esther Jackson
Kenneth Jones
Samuel O'Malley
Katie Taylor
Denise 303 301 308 312 311 Fernandez
Shlela Johnson
Chris McKenna
Jennifer Patton
William Yocum
Ceryl Students Who Have Not Mastered the Objective 314 309 Brandew
Jess Rohr
Terrle 304 Fish
Jaftile 307 Students who Have Not Been Tested On the Objective Masterson
Julie Report Summary Students Mastering the Objective Students Not Mastering the Objective Students Not Yet Tested 10 3 1 Total Students Reported 1402/25/93 15:13:26 CM322100 LRSD SAMPLE DATA SET COMPOSITE STUDENT MASTERY REPORT FEBRUARY 25, 1993 PAGE 1 Location : 003 Abacus Elementary Grade: 04 Minimum: .0% Student : 301 Johnson
Chris Mastery: 50.0% - LA-04OB-004 Develop Criteria For What Makes Reading Enjoyable/Usefu . LA-04OB-006 Demonstrate Appropriate Use Of Informational Sources . LA-04OB-010 Develop Skills To Become Consumers Of Information + MA-04OB-001 Solve Non-Routlne Problems + MA-04OB-002 Solve Real-Life Problems + MA-04OB-007 Read And Discuss Stories {+)=Objective Mastered (-)=Objective Not Mastered (.)=Objective Not AttemptedIntroduction This report was prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM), an arm of the United States District Court. ODM is responsible for assisting the court in monitoring the three Pulaski County school districts compliance with the desegregation plans that form the basis of their settlement agreements. Report Purpose and Information Sources This report examines the use of Computer Managed Instructional Technology (CMIT) in The Little Rock School District. CMIT is another descriptor for some assessment tools. We gathered information for this report by interviewing principals and teachers, administration staff such as curriculum specialists and associate-superintendents, and the staff responsible for the operation and management of the system. The district also provided information on finance and hardware and the Abacus extended program evaluation written as a part of the current year budget cycle was a source of information. The president of the software firm supplying the district with CMIT also provided product information and demonstrated the product. Overview What is Abacus? The supplier of the Computer Managed Instructional Technology software the Little Rock School District chose is Abacus Instructional Management Systems(AIMS). It is to be used as a tool to improve the delivery of the curriculum and provide a way to assess the mastery of curriculum objectives by students. Instead of creating a unique district acronym for the system or using the letters A-I-M-S the brand name Abacus has been used to denote the system. Abacus is a computer software product that runs on the district IBM AS/400 computer with input through personal computers and data scanners. The Abacus system has three data banks: The Instructional Objectives - Contains the objectives established for each subject area The Test Items - Stores questions that relate to the instructional objectives The Instructional Resources - Contains references to materials that can supplement teaching a subject or objective. How the System Works The system accumulates information on each students mastery of assigned objectives. Test 1answers and teacher observed assessments of mastery are usually recorded in the system through scan sheets. The record of mastery information can be provided in a variety of report formats. Some reports are run on a nine-week basis that give a composite of the level of mastery for each of the objectives which is then distributed to the associate superintendents and principals. Teachers can request reports run by student or by class. Equipment Used with Abacus Each elementary school has an IBM PS/2 Model 25 computer, an IBM 4029 printer and a scanner. Washington and Carver Schools each have two such sets of equipment. When using the scanner, information from documents, i.e., tests to be scored or teacher observables, is stored on the PS/2. When all the information for a class has been accumulated, the computer makes a telephone line connection with the central office system and sends its collected data to it. For other operations such as selecting test questions the PS/2 acts as a direct terminal to the central computer. Printouts or test questions go directly from the central computer to the school IBM 4029 printer. Background The Need for Assessment To operate in a logical manner, an organization must have a process of assessing needs, developing goals, implementing programs, and evaluating results. The process helps organizations adapt to changing conditions and to improve effectiveness and efficiency. The use of assessment tools is an integral part of all the programs, techniques, and strategic planning guides used to implement real change in the education process. For example, test data is a forceful assessment tool for program improvement when it reflects the student performance goals described in the written curriculum. Recognizing the need for an outside evaluation of its process, the Little Rock School District board of directors commissioned The National Curriculum Audit Center to assess the services and programs of the district. The center team conducted an on-site audit and submitted their findings in a December 1990 Curriculum Audit Report. A curriculum audit reveals the degree to which the officials of the Little Rock School District and professional staff have developed and implemented a sound, valid and operational system of curriculum management. Such a system would enable the Little Rock School District to make maximum utilization of its human and financial resources in the education of its students. If such a system were implemented and fully operational, it would also ensure the Little Rock School District taxpayers and the State of Arkansas, that their financial support had been well used under the conditions in which the school district functioned. (Curriculum Audit Pages 2-3) The model for the audit indicated that the Little Rock School District curricular quality control 2should reveal the presence of a written curriculum which is in turn taught and measured through tests or other assessment. Audit Findings Among the five standards used in examining the Little Rock School District, one indicated that auditors expected to find that the school district had established clear and valid objectives for students. What the team found was a voluminous, incongruous collection of curriculum guides, most of which were inadequate for instructional use and the district had no systematic plan in place for development and revision of the curriculum. Another standard examined the adequacy of the assessment program in the district to cause change of ineffective practices or programs. Considering this standard, the audit team found that the testing program did not yield enough information for a demanding evaluation of programs or practices and that the assessment program lacked sufficient quality to provide adequate data for decision-making. Actions Taken The findings of the Curriculum Audit, while pointed in their criticism of the district, did not reveal new information. The district had already included some corrective steps in the desegregation plan which had gone to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals earlier in 1990. In the plan, which was approved by the Eighth Circuit Court in December of 1990, the district made 99 promises and representations about Computer Managed Instructional Technology. Subsequent to the curriculum audit, the superintendent of the Little Rock School District, presented to the board and community No More Excuses: A Plan to Increase Learning for All Students in the Little Rock School District. In No More Excuses, she addressed the identification of problems and issues affecting learning in the district and outlined a plan to allow all students to become successful learners. The problems and issues addressed are national in scope but also appropriate to the Little Rock district. The superintendent emphasized two things that she felt had to be done as the beginning to improve learning outcomes. First, to review, revise and improve board policies with accountability placed on all employees. Second, the curriculum should be reviewed, revised and developed with an appropriate scope and sequence and should have written educational objectives. An Associate Superintendent was reassigned with the task of designing the new curriculum. No More Excuses detailed 16 actions to be authorized by the board with a timetable for implementation. One of the actions was authorization by the board to develop a comprehensive 3grade level assessment program to determine the extent to which students are mastering the curriculum. Another was the implementation of an Instructional Management System by the 1992-93 school year that would enable the district to track individual progress and provide assistance to improve learning. The backing by the board to revise the curriculum which standardized the mastery objectives by grade, and the plan to assess the extent of curriculum mastery, is the genesis of the Abacus system in the Little Rock School District. Requirements The Desegregation Plan of the Little Rock School District addresses CMIT in the following manner. The eventual goal is to add a computerized management component to provide (1) annual pre and post criterion- referenced tests for most grades including grading and reporting, (2) computerized scoring of unit tests for mastery and (3) the automation of record keeping providing the teacher with more time to work with students and better data with which to approach that task. (LRSD Plan, Page 48-49) Parent Home Study Guides will be developed by the beginning of the 1993-94 school year in each core subject area for each grade (1-6). (LRSD Plan, Page 153) Computer Managed Instructional Technology will be used for continuous tracking of student progress by the beginning of the 1992-93 school year. (LRSD Plan, Page 153) Criterion-Referenced Testing - formative criterion-referenced tests will be computer generated for the ongoing assessment of students. (LRSD Plan, Page 153) Successful use of the Abacus Instructional Management software would satisfy these desegregation plan requirements. Findings Abacus in The Little Rock School District With board approval in March of 1991, the district began immediate curriculum revision and officials started to look for a product that would meet the promises of the newly approved desegregation plan and the goals that had been advanced in No More Excuses. The district gathered information on available products that would address a range of district requirements including an instructional management component. After soliciting vendor proposals for a complete data processing system with software for student accounting, financial management and instructional management, district officials entered into the necessary contracts. Installation of the hardware started almost immediately after the contract award, in order to get as 4much preparatory work done as possible, and to allow operation to start at the beginning of the fiscal year. Training for administrators and principals was held in February of 1992 and by May a training schedule for teachers had been established and training started. Work on the curriculum progressed. Before all plans were solidified and executed for the use of the hardware and software the superintendent announced her retirement from the Little Rock School District. The Manager of Support Services who functioned as the project leader on the computer and software installation also left the district. The board hired a new superintendent, but coordination was very difficult, and hopes for a smooth transition to a new way of doing things faded. When the new superintendent arrived in Little Rock in July, he was under pressure from teachers who felt beset upon having to start teaching a new curriculum and also become familiar with computer operation. Accordingly, he made a decision to delay the implementation of the Abacus project district wide. Instead he proposed use Abacus in fewer schools than initially planned, and schools in the pioneer group responded enthusiastically. Twenty-three schools were chosen to participate in the first year use of Abacus. To ease the effort of startup, the schools were divided into two groups for training and implementation. For the other schools inservice provided strategies and techniques that could be used as alternative assessment methods to determine mastery of curriculum objectives by students, until the time that they could start using Abacus. The Use of Abacus The LRSD was successful in getting the new curriculum completed and ready for the start of school. In order to save the time of creating all new questions and to have the Abacus system ready, the district purchased a test item bank (collection of questions) that were to be identified with the corresponding curriculum objectives and loaded into the Abacus system. The curriculum staffhad a great deal of work to do in correlating the objectives and curriculum. They found many of the test questions to be inappropriate for the curriculum but they made an effort to add and delete questions in order to have test items that accurately reflected what was being taught. During the first year of operation, teachers became frustrated as they were implementing the new curriculum, taking Abacus training, and trying to find how best to include it in their daily routines, while still doing their primary task of instructing their classes. Despite the proliferation of personal computers, many people, teachers among them, are not only computer illiterate but have a genuine fear of computers that no one recognized or acted upon early enough to get resolved. There was little help or opportunity for experimentation to explore the possibilities of Abacus and as response times lengthened patience with the system became increasingly shorter. The district conducted an evaluation to determine the success of Abacus during the first year and made some decisions based on that evaluation. One decision was to delay Abacus for the secondary schools until the elementary schools were fully operational and another was to place technical people in the schools to assist the teachers. The computer interaction in many of the buildings has been completely assumed by the technical assistants relieving many of the frustrations teachers had due to 5poor computer response time and lack of familiarity with computer procedures. Reports The Abacus system is capable of producing reports by district, school, class, or individual that show the level of mastery of all objectives, tested or observed objectives or specific objectives. In addition, the data can be used to create comparisons of the level of mastery by individuals with their class, school, or the within the district. Reports can help teachers plan their lessons by providing a sequence of objectives, questions associated with those objectives and instructional resources to assist in the lesson. The individual test reports show the student name, the test question and the students answer. Abacus has the capability to provide a diagnostic comment for wrong answers but to date this district has not used that feature. A sample report sent to principals in February showed every objective on grade level that is tested on the Stanford 8. The report indicated the mastery or non-mastery of those objectives by students in that class. Principals were encouraged to request the report for each teacher in their building. This kind of reporting could be a tremendous asset in preparation for the Stanford 8. In addition the report could be used to correlate Stanford 8 results to the curriculum and make adjustments to the curriculum as required, or identify additional instructional resources that might be used to reenforce teaching of a particular objective. How much the Abacus data is translated into individual student action plans is difficult to determine. As more information is obtained on the mastery of objectives it should result in revised teaching techniques and/or clarity of objectives. For example, if across all fourth grade classes an objective is only being mastered by 45% of the students, then the associate superintendents, principals and curriculum professionals should determine how critical that objective is overall, and perhaps devise a plan to increase the mastery of that objective, or accept that level of mastery. The same kind of approach is true of individual students, but in fact it is difficult to try to administer 20-25 individual plans. Some schools however, report success with Individual Education Plans (lEPs). At parent conferences teachers can use mastery information to illustrate just how well a student is doing. Instead of relating test scores, the parent can be told the specific skills the child has or has not acquired, and can be told the specific help they might give at home. Training All elementary school principals and teachers in the district have received Abacus training. In some schools, aides have been trained to scan or prepare tests for teachers. As new teachers for the district are hired, they are scheduled for training on Abacus at the Instructional Resource Center. Staff Development and Computer Central personnel alternate in providing the training. Principals have been cooperative in identifying teachers that need additional training and encouraging them to get it. All elementary schools have flyers that offer after school voluntary refresher training. Refresher sessions conducted by staff development last for two hours and are designed to build on specific skills such as scanning or test creation. 6Status of the Curriculum During the summer of 1993, staff revised the Math and Language Arts curriculum and entered it into Abacus. They aligned objectives and test items, added new questions and entered references to those items that are part of the state of Arkansas ffameworksas well as those that are included on the Sanford 8 standardized test During the summer of 1994, the district added revised mathematics and language arts objectives to the Abacus system along with additional test items correlated to the revised objectives. District personnel have not completed the task of aligning the instructional resources for math and language arts with the objectives. The revision of science objectives is scheduled for the summer of 1995 for use starting in the fall, to be followed by social studies in 1996. The Evaluation Process The associate superintendents have included Abacus in their school reviews, and principals have made using Abacus as an assessment tool a priority. The Abacus system was included in the extended evaluation process of February 1995 which was a comprehensive report with observations and recommendations and included teacher responses and suggestions on the use of Abacus during the 1993-94 school year. These responses were far ranging and included all that the monitor encountered in teacher interviews. The extended evaluation notes that district personnel did not act on teacher feedback from 1993-94 because of time and budgetary restraints. We found no indication that the extended evaluation itself has been recognized as information that is useful. If the administration does not intend to act on evaluative data how can it possibly adapt to change of any kind? All elementary schools use Abacus as the record keeping system to varying degrees of success Some schools are also using portfolios as an assessment tool and the state mandates multiple assessment. Abacus can be used as the repository of data for all types of assessment, and it can provide composite information from portfolios. Dedication to Assessment The Little Rock School District has recently embarked upon a Strategic Planning Process and has published its new objectives and twelve strategies to attain the objectives. Three of the strategies seem to reaffirm the decision to use Abacus. The very first of its strategies calls for standards in the curriculum and a means for assessing whether students have met these standards. The third strategy calls for alternatives and interventions for students with poor performance on the standardized tests or who are not meeting the district standards that demonstrate mastery of the core curriculum. Another strategy calls for the planning of individual student goals. All three of these strategies can be executed using Abacus as a tool. 7Financial The Little Rock School District has provided most of the information for the summary of the costs associated with Abacus. Many of the costs are estimates because of a lack of specificity in the district accounting system. Future year projections are only estimates and do not represent budgeted amounts or any obligation on the part of the district except for the hardware cost. The hardware expense represents the lease purchase payment that the district is contractually obligated to pay through 1996-97. In fiscal years 95-96 and 96-97 the district will have expenses for technicians, stipends, training and printing, and other ongoing expenses. Little Rock School District Abacus Financial Summary 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 Hardware $102,659.00 $102,659.00 $103,297.00 $102,659.00 $102,659.00 Technicians $32,826.20 $35,926.96 $37,000.00 $38,000.00 Data Processing $36,082.48 $36,572.80 $38,000.00 $39,000.00 School-based Stipends $19,377.00 $18,838.75 $19,000.00 $19,500.00 Forms $18,000.00 $5,201.63 $2,800.00 $2,900.00 $3,000.00 Training-Substitutes $13,471.00 $12,207.51 $1,900.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 Training-Stipends $8,073.75 $2,381.40 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 Staff Development $37,087.08 $25,428.18 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 Travel Printing $2,400.00 $2,176.00 $750.77 $901.55 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 Software & Maintenance $108,075.00 Test Item Bank $89,500.00 Custom Progranuning $9,295.15 Data Entry Services $10,235.00 Training by Consultants $18,000.00 Total $474,294.15 $256,441.42 $228,046.64 $235,559.00 $238,159.00 8Recommendations 1. Until such time as the district finds another district-wide approach that can be used, the administration should communicate to the district and community that it takes its commitment to assessment seriously, and that Abacus remains the vehicle for implementing that commitment. Through its strategic planning process, the district has promised to have in place a means to assess whether students have met the established standards. 2. Communicate to teachers that accountability is not blame, and that the reason for an assessment program is to provide feedback to them and to improve the quality of education. Speculation, rumors, frustration, lack of demonstrated support and a myriad of other ills have persistently been attached to the Abacus system. Certainly changes must be made to the use of this tool. Nevertheless the district has come so far and the district administration should quell any unwarranted speculation on the immediate future of Abacus. 3. Concentrate attention on making use of Abacus more user-friendly. Many teachers have volunteered useful ideas that should be incorporated into daily practice. A move to standardize tests and prepare them in advance would relieve much of the frustrations teachers experience 4. No formal feedback mechanism exists to resolve problems. Most problems could be resolved quickly if only they were ultimately referred to the right person. We found no formal and only basic informal feedback from teachers to Abacus administration. As a result, problems that teachers encounter with the system such as poorly stated or inappropriate questions, poor grammar in questions or lack of enough questions in an area' do not get fixed readily. Little helpful information from administration goes to teachers to help them use the system. No regular meetings are held, when assessment is the sole topic, of curriculum administrators, abacus administration, the two associate superintendents and the administrator in charge of the curriculum. ' One teacher reported only ten questions available on the entire human body when there should have been ten questions on each of the bodys systems. 9LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS January 25, 1993 MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Morgan FROM: Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent for THROUGH: Curriculum and Learning Improvement Mac Bernd, Superintendent of Schoolst^^^^V^^^^ SUBJECT: Status Report - Abacus Instructional Management System ABACUS TRAINING The Little Rock School District remains committed to providing teachers and principals with the training and technical support necessary to ensure that the Abacus system is used by teachers as a viable instructional management tool. In order to fulfill this commitment using District resources currently available, all principals were trained during the first semester (see attachment), but the original plan for training all K-12 core-area teachers during the 1992-93 school year has been modified and, thus, the initial schedule for training has been modified. During the 1992-93 school year, the Abacus system is being implemented in a limited number of schools. All K-9 core area teachers, specialists, and administrators in these schools will be trained and will use the system for management of instruction in core content areas of the revised curriculum. Because of the large number of schools applying for the limited spaces available in the pilot project, the District decided to conduct two (2) cycles of the pilot training in order to include more schools in the project. The schools chosen to participate in each cycle are as follows: Cycle I Mabelvale Jr. High Southwest Jr. High Baseline Carver Dodd Geyer Springs Gibbs Mitchell Rightsell Romine Terry Cycle II Badgett Booker Chicot Forest Park Ish Jefferson Meadowcliff Otter Creek Pulaski Heights El. Watson Williams WoodruffStatus Report - Abacus Page 2 Each cycle has been divided into two phases of training: the first phase consisted of K-9 core-area teachers in each pilot school attending two half-day training sessions
the second phase will consist of individual technical assistance conducted by the Staff Development Specialists at the local pilot schools. Additional training for the teachers trained this past summer will also be provided. Attached are schedules for Cycle I and Cycle II pilot schools that are participating in this project. After teachers have completed the two training sessions, the Staff Development Specialists will spend four to six (4-6) days in each school providing Phase II training which will consist of individual technical assistance to the teachers as they use the Abacus system. This assistance will be provided according to a schedule developed cooperatively by each teacher and the Staff Development Specialists. Following completion of the in-school technical assistance, additional class sessions and/or further in-school training will be scheduled and conducted according to the needs of the participants. Several optional Abacus review/refresher workshops have been scheduled for those teachers who were originally trained this past summer at the IBM center. These workshops were conducted at Metropolitan, Room 213 (these days were during the AEA Convention): Session 1 - November 5, 1992 -- 8:30 - 11:30 a.m. Session 2 - November 5, 1992 -- 12:30 - 3:30 p.m. Session 3 - November 6, 1992 -- 8:30 - 11:30 a.m. Each session was limited to 20 participants per session. The remaining schools will be targeted for initial training next fall. The process to be used for further training and the schedule will be developed after the process used for training this year has been evaluated. STUDENT ASSESSMENT The new LRSD curriculum offers core content area teachers flexibility in making the best uses of an almost infinite number of assessment possibilities. Teachers realize that assessing student progress is an ongoing part of the instructional process, and most teachers incorporate a variety of assessment strategies into the daily teaching/learning routine. With the new core curriculum, teachers can ensure that students are mastering the grade level objectives by correlating their assessment methods, along with their instructional strategies, to the identified objectives. Since teachers have the freedom to arrange the objectives so that they fit the learner needs and the teacher style, they must also choose how to assess. Teachers will continue to use standardized chapter tests and other similar mass- produced assessments with caution. The new curriculum has been designed by LR teachers for LR teachers. The objectives in all core areas are linked to specific learner outcomes, and any assessment must reflect individual student progress consistent with the aims of those outcomes.Status Report - Abacus Page 3 To assist teachers in the assessment process, inservice during cluster meetings has provided strategies and techniques that can be used as alternative assessment methods to determine mastery of content. The enclosed suggestions and/or guidelines for alternative assessment methods were sent to building principals. Reading and math "trifolds" are no longer used in the District as the skills identified on the checklists are not aligned with the revised curriculum
therefore, such trifolds are no longer appropriate to track student progress and/or mastery. Alternative Assessment The mastery of many objectives can be measured directly through standard objective tests
however, a number of objectives may be best assessed through alternative means. Alternative assessment allows the teacher to judge student performance in two areas: completion of a product and observation of a process/demonstration of a skill. Products can be such things as: charts graphs models projects stories or poems journals written reports Some products directly related to curriculum objectives should be kept in folders or portfolios
others, however, because of size and/or instability, are not suitable for folders. The other area of alternative assessment is less tangible. Teachers will observe either a process or demonstration of a skill. Examples of this type of objective can be such things as: reading writing process speaking listening counting measuring classifying using a piece of equipment working in a group discussing a topic or issue investigating a problem using a calculator using manipulatives or modelsStatus Report - Abacus Page 4 Teacher observable computer forms for each of the four core subject areas will be available to students in the project pilot schools. Teachers will bubble in student mastery for each of the observable objectives. Student performance may be judged as pass-fail, mastery-nonmastery, successful participation-unsuccessful participation, etc. Each school will determine criteria on which this evaluation will be made. PARENT HOME STUDY GUIDES To further enhance the Districts instructional program, Parent Home Study Guides will be developed and ready for use by parents by the beginning of the 1993-94 school year. Guides will support the delivery of instruction in the revised curriculum (core areas) by empowering parents to become active school partners in their childs education.ABACUS TRAINING FOR PRINCIPALS Principals were scheduled to attend Abacus training at Metropolitan, Room 213, from 8:30 to 11:30 a.m. on the days identified below: October 14 & 22 Central Fair Hall McClellan Parkview Cloverdale Jr. Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Jr. October 15 & 23 Mann Pulaski Hgts. Jr. Southwest Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot October 16 & 27 Cloverdale El. Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Ish October 20 & 28 Jefferson Mabelvale El. McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Hgts. El. Rightsell Rockefeller Romine October 21 & 29 Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson WoodruffCYCLE I TRAINING SCHEDULE Cycle I of the Abacus training schedule involved the following: All K-6 and 7-9 core area teachers and assistant principals at the following schools: Mabelvale Jr. Southwest Jr. Baseline Carver Dodd Geyer Springs Gibbs Mitchell Rightsell Romine TerryTIME: CYCLE I DATES: 7:45 A.M. Sharra Akers Susan Scott ABACUS PILOT PROJECT SCHEDULES NOVEMBER 30, X992, AND JANUARY 11, 1993 10:45 A.M. Baseline Baseline 1st 1st TIME: 11:45 A.M. 2:45 P.M. Patty Hardesty - Baseline 2nd Mary Black - Carver Linda Glenn Carver Carolyn Biome - Gibbs Pamela Newsome - Gibbs 1st 1st - 1st - 1st Anita Lamb - Eunice Skubal Julie Curtis Baseline - Carver - Carver 2nd 1st 2nd Carol Shufelberger - Gibbs Beatriz Kimball - Gibbs - - 2nd 3rd Valerie Hare Julie Meeks Dodd Dodd 1st 1st Wanda Huie Dodd 2nd Joyce Alley - Terry - 1st Georgia Hoffman - Terry - 1st William Sheridan - Dodd - 3rd Ann Moore - Terry - 1st Thelma Chesser - Terry - 2nd DATES: TIME: 7:45 A.M. > 10:45 A.M. DECEMBER 1, 1992, AND JANUARY 12, 1993 TIME: 11:45 A.M. - 2:45 P.M. Stacey Young - Baseline - Marilyn James - Baseline - Claudia Hamilton - Carver Carolyn Jefferson - Carver Caryn Taulbee - Gibbs - 3rd Susie Robinson - Gibbs - 4th 1st K - 2nd - 2nd Donna Marshaleck - Baseline Maria Mitchell Lisa Mack - Carver Baseline 2nd K K Susan Childers Dodd Marie Sprinkle - Dodd 4 th 4 th Bryana Kelley - Carver Patricia Luzzi - Gibbs Nancy Foster - Gibbs - Elizabeth Conder - Dodd Yvette Denton Dodd - 3rd - Sth 6 th - Sth Sth Beth Samler - Terry - 2nd Sherry Smelko - Terry - 2nd Margaret Harris - Terry - 3rd Linda Mellberg - Terry - 3rd DATES: TIME: 7:45 A.M. DECEMBER 2, 1992, AND JANUARY 13, 1993 10:45 A.M. TIME: 11:45 A.M. - 2:45 P.M. Kristi Hartman - Geyer Sp. 1st Nita Hightower - Geyer Sp. - 1st Bobbie Govan - Mitchell - 1st Barbara Banks - Mitchell - 2nd Stephanie Bentiven-Rightsell-lst Rosalyn Zeigler - Rightsell - 1st Patsy Douglas - Geyer Sp. Dolores Hill - Geyer Sp. - Teresa Hamilton - Mitchell 2nd 2nd - 2nd Linda Fleming - Carver Andrew Bennett Carver 6th 6 th Jimmy Calhoun - Mitchell - 3rd Sharon Bryant - Rightsell - 2nd Barbara Fincher - Rightsell - 2nd Vannetta Thomas Carver 6th DATES: TIME: 7:45 A.M. Paula Bettis - Carver K DECEMBER 3, 1992, AND JANUARY 14, 1993 10:45 A.M. TIME: 11:45 A.M. 2:45 P.M. Barbara Hamrick - Baseline - Keith House - Baseline - 4th Glen Camper - Baseline - 6th 3rd Letitia Brooks - Baseline Betty Deaton - Baseline - Sth Sth Dianne Langleys - Carver Priscilla Penn - Carver Timothy Goetz - Gibbs - - 3rd - 3rd 6 th Lynda White - Gibbs Cynthia Wilson - Carver Rhonda Smith Carver Asst. Prin. Kayren Grayson - Gibbs - 6th Malinda Hamilton - Dodd Vickye Mitchell - Dodd 6th K Belinda Price - Gibbs Shirley Talley - Gibbs Susan Blue Dodd K Jennifer Strange - Terry - 3rd - 3rd 4th K K Theresa Courtney - Carver Dale Dennis - Terry - 4th Asst. Prin.DATES: TIME: 7:45 A.M. DECEMBER 8, 1992, AND JANUARY 15, 1993 10:45 A.M. TIME: 11:45 A.M. 2:45 P.M. Tamara Gingerich - Geyer Sp. Patty Miller - Geyer Sp. Charlotte Guin Mitchell Dazzle Mattison - Mitchell Melanie Hale - Mitchell - 3rd 3rd - 4th K 3rd Rebecca Bohra - Geyer Sp. 4 th Evelyn Stubblefield - Geyer Sp. Gertrude Stubblefield - Mitchell Brenda Hipp - Mitchell 6th 4 th 6th Ann Sanders - Rightsell - 3rd Sue Palmer-Walker -Rightsell-4th Nancy Daily - Rightsell - Sth Jacque Kesler - Rightsell - 4th DATES: TIME: 7:45 A.M. DECEMBER 9, 1992, AND JANUARY 19, 1993 10:45 A.M. TIME: 11:45 A.M. 2:45 P.M. Lisa Gwin - Geyer Sp. Sandra Lee - Geyer Sp. K K Carolyn Doxes - Geyer Sp. 6th Ladonna Falls - Rightsell - 6th Catherine Johnson-Rightsell - Sth Patricia King - Romine - 1st Mary Washington - Romine - 1st Brenda Croft - Rightsell - K Frenzella Dodson - Rightsell - K Janet Gall - Romine 2nd Angela Doyne - Carver K Kathleen Harrison - Carver K Helen Gestaut - Romine - 2nd Mary Martha Roberts - Carver K DATES: TIME: 7:45 A.M. - 10:45 A.M. DECEMBER 10, 1992, AND JANUARY 20, 1993 TIME: 11:45 A.M. 2:45 P.M. Julie Henry - Carver 4 th Estella Nesmith - Carver - Cindy Powell - Terry - 4th 4 th Virginia Rowland - Carver Betty Glenn - Carver Sth 4 th Jeanette Robinson - Terry - 4th Cindy Mason - Romine -3rd Ardelia Walker - Romine - 3rd Melonie Osborne - Romine - 3rd Rose Graham - Terry - Sth Yana Scott - Terry - Sth Gloria Owens - Romine - 4th Janet Powell - Romine - 4th Barbara Anderson - Romine - Asst. Prin. DATES: TIMEX 7:45 A.M. - 10:45 A.M. DECEMBER 15, 1992, AND JANUARY 21, 1993 TIME: 11:45 A.M. - 2:45 P.M. Christi Oliver - Carver Sth Teata Pace Carver Sth Mary Anne Williams - Carver Melody Hammer - Terry - 6th Linda Ford - Terry - K Ann Lineberry - Terry - K Deborah Byrd - Carver - Nona Grubbs - Terry - K Sth 6th Tahliba Ali - Romine 6 th Joyce Willingham - Romine - 6th Karen Lagrone-Abe - Terry - K Tyrone Harris - Terry - Asst. Prin. Gwendolyn Glasgow - Romine - K Noa Robinson - Romine - K DATE: TIME: 7:45 A.M. -> 10:45 A.M. DECEMBER 16, 1992 TIME: 11:45 A.M. - 2:45 P.M. Sharon Sims Baseline - 2nd Dianne Glason - Baseline 3rd Yoriko Perritt - Carver - Sc. Sp. Meredith Chase-Spann - Carver-G/T Carolyn Huffman - Baseline Delwin Smith - Baseline - - 4th 6th Annie Raines Dodd Anita Henriksen - Dodd. 2nd 3rd Dorothy Peterson - Geyer Sp. Karen Campbell - Carver - Curr. Sp. Patricia Killingsworth - Carver - Math Sp. Brenda Riddle Dodd 6th Sue Rogers - Dodd - Librarian 6th Mildred Jones - Geyer Sp. - 4 yr. old Josephine Dumas -Geyer Sp.-Reading Renee Kovach - Geyer Sp. Jeanne Whitesell - Gibbs - 2nd Mary Jones - Gibbs - Sth Wilhelmina Lewellen - Gibbs 4 th Math Vicki Gonterman - Gibbs - SpecialistDATE
TIME: 7:45 A.M. DECEMBER 17, 1992 10:45 A.M. TIME: 11:45 A.M. 2:45 P.M. Joann Hestir Mitchell Najmah Cooksey - Mitchell Patricia Ross - Mitchell 1st - 5th K Mildred Walker Linda Hamlet - - Mitchell Mitchell - - 5th 6th Joe Hollins - Rightsell - 3rd Nell Page - Rightsell - Math Eva Fairchild - Rightsell - 6th Deborah Lawson Romine Patricia Henry - Romine 1st 2nd Debbie Jackson - Terry - 5th Rachel Grosserode - Terry - 6th Delores Banks - Romine Sabra Shelby - Romine 5th 5th Martha Shirrell - Terry - 6th Rita James - Terry - Math DATES: TIME: 8:30 A.M. JANUARY 5, 11:30 A.M. 1993, AND FEBRUARY 2,1993 TIME
12:30 P.M. 3:30 P.M. Pat Crommet Mvale Jr. Soc. St. Linda Kamara - Mvale Jr. Steve Quattlebaum-Mvle Jr.-Soc.St. Robert Ward - Mvale Jr. Sharron Cannon Leslie Jones - - Mvale Jr. - Eng. Mvale Jr. - Eng. Soc. St. Soc. St. Dawn Terry - Mvale Jr. - Eng. Roger Henson - SW Jr. Alice Bolden - SW Jr. Soc. St. Soc. St. Dorothy Jones - Mvale Jr. - Eng. Robert McDonald - Mvale Jr. - Eng. Clarke Nalley - Mvale Jr. -Sc. Bettie Williford-SW Jr.-Soc. St. Mary Coleman - SW Jr. Ovid Lamb - SW Jr. - Leon Carson SW Jr. - Eng. Robert Fleming - SW Jr. - Soc. St. Soc. St. Soc. St. Betty Crawford - SW Jr. - Eng. Colleen Ferguson - SW Jr. - Eng. Cedric Finley - SW Jr. - Eng. DATES: TIME: 8:30 A.M. JANUARY 6, 1993, AND FEBRUARY 3, 1993 11:30 A.M. TIME: 12:30 A.M. - 3:30 P.M. Joseph Briscoe - Mvale Jr. Sc. Lisa Bryant - Mvale Jr. Sc. Kathleen Dunbar - Mvale Jr. - Math Merry Zakrzewski - Mvale Jr.- Math Virginia Lindberg -Mvale Jr.- Math Cheryl Aboul-Enein - Mvale Jr. Melissa Duncan - Mvale Jr. - Sc. Rodney White - Mvale Jr. - Sc. Ladonna Atkins -Mvale Jr.-Soc. St. Rodney White - Mvale Jr. Math Terri Phillips - SW Jr. Sherry Keaton - SW Jr. Sc. Sc. Gloria Jones SW Jr. Sc. Cassandra Mason-SW Jr.-Asst. Pr. James Privitt - SW Jr. - Math Mavis Green - Mvale Jr. Asst. Prin. DATES: TIME: 8:30 A.M. JANUARY 7, 11:30 A.M. 1993, AND FEBRUARY 4, 1993 TIME: 12:30 P.M. 3:30 P.M. Sheila Hudson Mvale Jr. - Math Stella Cameron - Mvale Jr. - Eng. Gloria Billingsley - Mvale Jr. - Soc. St. Sherry Lack - SW Jr. - Eng. Kimberly Gilbert - SW Jr. - Connie Green - Mvale Jr. Sc. Jerome Tidmore Charles Moore Tara Weaver - - SW Jr. - SW Jr. SW Jr. - Math Math Math Annie Morgan - SW Jr. - Math Christopher Kline - SW Jr. - Math Sc. Jacqueline Falls - SW Jr. - Susan Middlebrooks - SW Jr. Sc. - Sc. John Robinson-Mvale Jr.-Asst. Pr. Elizabeth Willingham - SW Jr. - Eng. Jim Fullerton - SW Jr. Asst. Prin.CYCLE II TRAINING SCHEDULE Cycle II of the Abacus training schedule for the second semester will involve the following: All K-6 core-area teachers, math teachers, reading teachers, special education teachers, gifted/talented teachers, and assistant principals at the Cycle II schools: Badgett Booker Chicot Forest Park Ish Jefferson Meadowcliff Otter Creek Pulaski Heights El. Watson Williams Woodruff All reading, math, special education, and gifted/talented teachers at the Cycle I schools: Mabelvale Jr. Southwest Jr. Baseline Carver Dodd Geyer Springs Gibbs Mitchell Rightsell Romine TerryCYCLE II ABACUS PILOT PROJECT SCHEDULES TIME: DATES: 7:45 A.M. - MARCH 2. 1993, AND APRIL 29, 1993 10:45 A.M. TIME: 11:45 A.M. 2:45 P.M. Dori McGowan - Badgett, 1st Ann McLennan - Badgett, 2nd Berthena Walker - Booker, 1st Tammy Higdon - Booker, 1st Annita Bogard - Chicot, 1st Deborah Moix - Chicot, 1st Alvin Turner - For.Pk., 1st Carolyn Wenger - For. Pk., 1st Edna Wiley - Ish, 1st Cleveland Ellis - Ish, 2nd Patricia Singer - Badgett, 5th Sandra Childs - Badgett, 6th Cheryl Parks - Booker, 1st Alicia Solomon - Booker, 1st Linda Neal - Chicot, 1st Steve Toran - Chicot, 1st Patricia White - For.Pk., 1st Maple Kearney - For.Pk., 2nd Laura Smith - Ish, 2nd Cleta Harp - Ish, 3rd DATES: TIME: 7:45 A.M. - 10:45 A.M. MARCH 3, 1993, AND APRIL 30, 1993 TIME: 11:45 A.M. 2:45 P.M. Rejeana Albert - Badgett, 5th Janet Barge - Booker, 2nd Rose Marie Karp - Booker, 2nd Sylverene Eans - Chicot, 2nd Debra Johnson - Chicot, 2nd Janet Machen - For.Pk., 2nd MaryLee Robinson - For.Pk Yvonne Jackson - Ish, 3rd Hazel Hicks - Ish, 4th Elaine Self - Ish, K 2nd Crystal Wood - Badgett, K Lois Kelley - Booker, 2nd Merilyn Burruss - Booker, 3rd Shirley Morgan - Chicot, 2nd Jeannie Wells - Chicot, 2nd Rebecca Jenkins - For.Pk., 3rd Tajuana Russell - For. Pk., 3rd Boyce Pearson - Ish, 6th Yolanda Redwood - Ish, K Willie Morris - Chicot, Asst.Prin. DATES: TIME: 7:45 A.M. - 10:45 A.M. MARCH 4, 1993, AND MAY 3, 1993 TIME: 11:45 A.M. - 2:45 P.M. Loretta Ellington - Booker, 3rd Dishoungh White - Booker, 3rd Judy Hollingsworth - Chicot, 3rd Brenda Martin - Chicot, 3rd Carolyn Clements - For.Pk., 4th Debbie Capps - For.Pk., Sth Leigh Cooper - Jeff., 1st Meg Holmes - Jeff., 1st Edna Armstrong - Meadcl., 1st Joyce Mason - Meadcl., 1st Martha Armstrong - Booker, 4th Clara Austin - Booker, 4th Sara Rose - Chicot, 3rd Pamelon Isbell - Chicot, 4th Annie Holmes - For.Pk., Sth Yulonda Wallace - For.Pk., 6th Sunny Hawk - Jeff., 1st Mary Burrough - Jeff 2nd ! Kathryn Thomas - Meadcl., 1st Lois Bishop - Meadcl., 2nd DATES: TIME: 7:45 A.M. - 10:45 A.M. MARCH 5, 1993, AMD MAY 4, 1993 TIME: 11:45 A.M. - 2:45 P.M. Cassandra Harding - Booker, 4th Carolyn Taylor - Booker, 4th Elizabeth Kesterson - Chicot, 4th Erma Williams - Chicot, 4th Lisa Faulkner - For.Pk., K Marietta Hunt - For.Pk., K Betty Muench - Jeff., 2nd Ann Walker - Jeff., 2nd Karen Burgess - Meadcl., 2nd Myrna Williams - Meadcl., 2nd Denise Clark - Booker, Sth Clementine Kelley - Booker, Sth Jorge Johnson - Chicot, Sth Beth Shanks - Chicot, Sth Cynthia Moore - For.Pk K Vera Robinson - Jeff., Asst.Prin. Cheryl Crutcher - Jeff., 3rd Lana Dove - Jeff., 3rd Katherine Goodwin - Meadcl., 3rd Mary Wetzel - Meadcl., 3rdDATES: MARCH 8, 1993, AND APRIL 13, 1993 TIME: 11:45 A.M. 2:45 P.M. NO SUBSTITUTES NEEDED DATES: DATES: DATES: A A A A AA A A A A AA AA Sallie Snowden - Badgett, Math Dixie Fair - Chicot, Math Docia Jones Dodd, Math Sandra Thompson - Jefferson, Math Gloria White - Booker, Math Janice Lewis - Mitchell, Math Mary McDonald - Romine, Math MARCH 9, 1993, AND APRIL 14, 1993 TIME: A* 11:45 A.M. - 2:45 P.M. NO SUBSTITUTES NEEDED AA AA AA AA AA AA AA Peggy Williams - Baseline, Math Yvonne Davis - Chicot, Math Donna Stiles - For.Pk., Math Mary Torrence - Gibbs, Math Tina Brown - Booker, Math Barbara Hicks Pul.H. El., Math Janet Adans - Watson, Math MARCH 10, 1993, AND APRIL 15, 1993 TIME: ** 11:45 A.M. - 2:45 P.M. MO SUBSTITUTES NEEDED ** AA AA AA AA AA AA AA Margo Rowe - Badgett, Reading Kaye Dickerson - Booker, Reading Cindy Maddox - Chicot, Reading Janet Chant - For.Pk., Reading Juanita Washington - Ish, Reading Mary Balenko - Meadcl Reading Susan Hester - Mitchell, Reading Debbie Finkbeiner - P.H.El., Reading Karen Sebourn - Romine, Reading John Burgin - Watson, Reading MARCH 11, 1993, AND APRIL 16, 1993 TIME: 11:45 A.M. 2:45 P.M. NO SUBSTITUTES NEEDED AA AA AA AA AA AA AA Bill Smith - Baseline, Reading Judy Fletcher - Booker, Reading Carolyn Steelman - Dodd, Reading Ann Hurd - Gibbs, Reading Emma Miller - Jefferson, Reading Sherry Norrell - Meade., Reading Ann Averitt ~ Otter Cr., Reading Ada Keown - Rightsell, Reading Harriette Mazzanti - Terry, Reading Martha Couch - Watson, ReadingDATES: MARCH 16, 1993, AMD APRIL 20, 1993 TIME: 11:45 A.M. 2:45 P.M. NO SUBSTITUTES NEEDED DATES: DATES: TIME: DATES: 7:45 A.M. - ** ** A* ** ** Mary McMorran - Booker, Sp. Ed. Shirley Walker - Carver, Sp. Ed. Kay Hicks - Chicot, Sp. Ed. Carrie Moore - Chicot, Sp. Ed. Marcus Moore - Dodd, Sp. Ed. Janice Gordon For.Pk., Sp. Ed, Jean Gilbert - Geyer Springs, Sp. Millicent Fowler - Baseline, Sp.Ed. MARCH 17, 1993, AMD APRIL 21, 1993 TIME: ** 11:45 A.M. 2:45 P.M. NO SUBSTITUTES NEEDED AA AA AA AA AA AA AA AA AA Nancy Mitchell - Gibbs, Sp. Ed. Terri Finkbeiner - Jeff., Sp. Ed. Katie Pace - Mitchell, Sp. Ed. Gwen Stone Otter cr., Sp. Ed. Carol Blann - Pul.H.El., Sp. Ed. Kathy Joubert - Pul.H.El., Sp. Ed. Carolyn Robinson - Terry, Sp. Ed. Ruth Berry - Watson, Sp. Ed. Linda Curry - Williams, Sp. Ed. MARCH 18, 1993, AND APRIL 22, 1993 TIME: ** 11:45 A.M. -* 2:45 P.M. MO SUBSTITUTES NEEDED ** ** ** A* AA AA AA AA AA AA Carolyn Rand - Terry, G/T Beverly Kinneman - Otter Cr., G/T Sylvia Tyler - Watson, G/T Nancy Matlock - Chicot, G/T Phill Davis - Dodd, G/T Carolyn Huie - Booker, G/T Dorothy Phillips - Williams, G/T Michelle Kavanaugh - Williams, G/T Kaye Bateman ~ Gibbs, G/T Patricia Phillips - Romine, G/T MARCH 19, 1993, AND APRIL 23. 1993 10:45 A.M. Gayla Pruitt - Badgett, Sp. Ed. Brenda Johnson - Chicot, Sp. Ed. Laura Bedow - Chicot, Sp. Ed. Viki Love - Chicot, Sp. Ed. Richard Horton - Romine, Sp. Ed. Margaret Thomas - Romine, Sp. Ed.TIME: OATES: 7:45 A.M. - MARCH 22, 1993, AND MAY 5, 1993 10:45 A.M. TIME: 11:45 A.M. 2:45 P.M. Denna Lehnhoff - Booker, Sth Paula Hampton - Booker, 6th Sarah Fike - Chicot, 6th Paula Kerr - Chicot, K Debbie Sabo - Chicot, K Daisy Wheeler - Jefferson, 3rd Carolyn Itzkowitz - Jefferson, 4th Suzanne White - Meadcl., 3rd Verdia Hence - Meadcl., 4th Doris Broyles - Otter Cr., 1st Daryl Newcomb - Booker, Sth Nancy Weir - Booker, 6th Sandra Mims - Chicot, K Katie Murph - Chicot, K Edna Wilson - Jefferson, 4th Terri Hammond - Jefferson, Sth Thelma Shorter - Meadcl., 4th Bertha Washington - Meadcl., 4th Shirley Hall - Otter Cr., 1st TIME: DATES: 7:45 A.M - MARCH 23, 1993, AND MAY 6, 1993 10:45 A.M. TIME: 11:45 A.M. 2:45 P.M. Wilma Bonds - Booker, K Sonya Burnett - Booker, K Kristianna Pittenger - Jeff., Sth Rosie Williams - Jefferson, Sth Helen Burr - Meadcl., Sth Sharon Cox - Meadcl., Sth Dee Ann Morgan - Meadcl., K Tammi Dockett - Otter Cr., 2nd Laurine Hayes - Otter Cr., 2nd Tracy DeClue - Pul.H.El., 1st Vearlon Jeffries - Booker, K Bobbie Walls - Booker, K Joann Williams - Jefferson, 6th Kathleen Brotherton - Jeff., K Nancy Hudson - Meadcl., Sth Mary Butts - Meadcl., K J.J. Lacey - Booker, Asst.Prin. Rebecca Kessinger - Otter Cr., 2nd Debra Flores - Otter Cr., 3rd Lisa Roberts - Pul.H.El., 1st DATES: TIME: 7:45 A.M. - 10:45 A.M. MARCH 24, 1993, AND MAY 7, 1993 TIME: 11:45 A.M. - 2:45 P.M. Kim Pennington - Jefferson, K Marie Pringle - Otter Cr., Sth Patsy Reese - Otter Cr., Sth Joynelle Baker - Pul.H.El.,2nd Eva Maeweather - Pul.H.El., 2nd Alisa Gray - Watson, 1st Mary Lawson - Watson, 1st Patricia Breece - Williams, 1st Ella Mobley - Williams, 1st Sandra Register - Jefferson, K Margaret Cannon - Otter Cr., 6th Ettatricia Clark - Otter Cr., K Toni Skarda - Pul.H.El.,2nd Terrie Davis - Pul.H.El., 3rd Joyce Watson - Watson, 1st Doris Bratton - Watson, 2nd Kathleen Reddoch - Williams, 1st Carmelia Crawford - Williams, 2nd DATES: TIME: 7:45 A.M. - 10:45 A.M. MARCH 25, 1993, AND MAY 11, 1993 TIME: 11:45 A.M. - 2:45 P.M. Venita Hall - Otter Cr., K Rodney Wallace - Pul.H.El., 3rd Jodi Coffelt - Pul.H.El., 4th Karen Ditto - Watson, 2nd Jeanette Nail - Watson, 2nd Karen Latch - Williams, 2nd Barbara Martin - Williams, 2nd Irma Routen - Woodruff, 6th Alphia Finn - Woodruff, K Rebecca Palinski - Williams, K Anna Tatum - Watson, Asst.Prin. Vivian Gentry - Pul.H.El., 4th Nathalie Hufford - Pul.H.El., 6th Brenda Harper - Watson, 3rd Janice Anderson - Watson, Sth Ardeen Bryant - Williams, 3rd Carolyn Davis - Williams, 3rd Dorothy Howard - Woodruff, K Deborah Mitchell - Williams,Asst.Pr.DATES: TIME: ** 7:45 A.M. - 10:45 A.M. NO SUBSTITUTES NEEDED MARCH 26, 1993, AMO MAY 12, 1993 Eunice Smith Ish, Sp. Ed. Francella Calvin - Jefferson, Sp. Ed. Margaret Fava - Mitchell, Sp. Ed. Patsy Lewis - Dodd, Sp. Ed. Lorraine Mosby - Geyer Springs, Sp.Ed. ** Betty Nelson - Badget, Sp. Ed. TIME: DATES: 7:45 A.M. - MARCH 29, 1993, AMD MAY 13, 1993 10:45 A.M. TIME: 11:45 A.M. 2:45 P.M. Peggy Collins - Pul.H.El., K Jamie Neal - Pul.H.El., K Luverda Clay - Watson, Sth Phyllis Johnson - Watson, Sth Marcia Wood - Williams, 3rd Zora Frazier - Williams, 4th Henry Nesby - Williams, 6th Margaret Kinder - Pul.H.El., K Rebecca Chambers - Watson, 6th Margaret Dawson - Watson, 6th Lisa Thomason - Williams, 4th Sharon White - Williams, 4th Mary Bradberry - Williams, K DATES: TIME: 7:45 A.M. - 10:45 A.M. MARCH 30, 1993, AMD HAY 14, 1993 TIME: 11:45 A.M. 2:45 P.M. Karen Worsham - Watson, 6th Sara Brown - Watson, K Thresia Edwards - Williams, Sth Roberta Kemp - Williams, Sth Terri Swan - Woodruff, 1st Shirley Rolax - Woodruff, 2nd Karen Luker - Williams, 6th Ruby Jackson - Watson, K Pamela Jones - Watson, K Mary Weindorf - Williams, Sth Thelma Bloom - Williams, 6th Tom Ford - Woodruff, 4th Kay Smith - Woodruff, 3rd Floretta Babbs - Williams, K TIME: DATES: 8:30 A.M. * 11:30 A.M. MARCH 31, 1993, AMD MAY 10, 1993 TIME: 12:30 P.M. - 3:30 P.M. ** MO SUBSTITUTES MEEDED Beckie Jones - Mabelv.Jr., Reading Susanne Moor SW Jr., Reading Jeffery Ellington - Mabelv.Jr., Math Nelda Tarbet - SW Jr., Reading Betty Harris - SW Jr., Sp. Ed. Rosalie Patton - Mabelv. Jr., Sp.Ed. ** ** Diane Kunowski - SW Jr., Math Vera Weller - SE Jr., Sp. Ed. Pamela Wallace Mabelv. Jr., Sp.Ed. Donna Singh - Mabelv. Jr., Reading Susie Robinson - SW Jr., Reading Walter Rowe - SW Jr., Sp. Ed. Sue Smith - Mabelv. Jr., Sp. Ed. Gloria Jones - SW Jr., Sc. ** Janet Kay Holland - Mblv. Jr.Sp.Ed. ** Renita Wilborn - Mblv. Jr., Sp.Ed. ** Lorene Ellis - Mblv. Jr., Sp.Ed. ** Tamera Lott - SW Jr., Sp. Ed. ** Tony Castile - SW Jr., Sp. Ed. DATE: APRIL 26, 1993 TIME: 7:45 A.M. - 10:45 A.M. TIME: 11:45 A.M. 2:45 P.M. Carole Austin - Watson, 3rd Linda Corrigan - Watson, 4th Anna L. Maddox - Williams, Math Diane Goodfellow - Williams, 6th Lisa Cunningham - Woodruff, 1st Cathy Goss - Woodruff, Sth Nancy David - Watson, 3rd Jana Wells - Watson, 4th Nancy Morton - Williams, Curr.Sp. Lynn Haney - Williams, Reading Linda Berman - Woodruff, 6th Nona Whittaker - Baseline, G/TTIME: DATE: 7:45 A.M. APRIL 27, 1993 10:45 A.M. TIME: 11:45 A.M. 2:45 P.M. Ethel Campbell - Badgett, 3rd Vivian Dooley - Booker, 2nd Mayrean Johnson - Booker, Sth Suellen Dimassimo - Chicot, Ida Pettus - Chicot, 6th Sth Cynthia Collins - For.Pk., 4th Nettie Lemle - For.Pk., 6th Ronald Tarkington - Ish, Sth Cherry Norman - Ish, Librarian Kathleen Traylor - Badgett, 4th Jo Ann Abbott - Booker, 3rd Susan Colford - Booker, 6th Ora Mallett - Chicot, 6th Vicki Gershner - Chicot, Reading Gloria Wilson -For.Pk., Sth Buenah Combs - For.Pk., G/T Marva Pearson - Ish, 6th Madelyn Meaney - Ish, Aide TIME: DATE: 7:45 A.M. APRIL 28, 1993 10:45 A.M. TIME: 11:45 A.M. - 2:45 P.M. Betty Trimble - Badgett, 6th Annie Ross - Jefferson, 4th Becky Ramsey - Jefferson, 6th Marsha Hunter - Meadcl.,G/T Lisa Lewis - Meadcl., 6th Laura Beth Arnold - Pul.H.El., G/T Ann Freeman - Otter Cr., 3rd Lucille O'Keefe - Otter Cr., 4th Toni Honts - Pul.H.El., Sth Natalie Smith - Pul.H.El., 6th Kristin Compton - Jefferson, 6th Karin Kvaternik - Jefferson, G/T Elizabeth Pruss - Meadcl., 6th Deborah Craig - Meadcl., Math Melissa Bearden ~ Otter Cr., 4th Virginia Dolle - Otter Cr., 6th Barbara Patty - Pul.H.El., SthDate: February 3, 1993 To: Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent Little Rock School District From: Bob Morgan, Associate Monitor Subject: Status Report - Abacus Instructional Management System I appreciate receiving your report on the Abacus System, however, I expected to have more in the way of "status" information. For example, if Abacus is predicated on the new curriculum, is the new curriculum fully implemented? If not, at what grade levels and/or subject areas and at what schools is it implemented? What are the dates that you expect to have it implemented? What is the phase-in schedule by grade, subject, and school? If the curriculum is fully in place, what are preliminary results? What are the benefits that you are realizing? What unforeseen problems have been encountered? What is the plan to work around those problems? Your memo refers to two "cycles" for implementation of Abacus, but only mentions training schedules. When was cycle one started and what is being done with the system? How many students are affected? When will cycle two begin? When will the remaining schools be put on the system? What is being done to record student achievement in the non-pilot schools? As I stated in my original request, a lengthy report is not required
but I would like to know exactly where this project stands. cc: Mac BerndLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS February 4, 1993 MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Morgan, Associate Monitor, Office and Desegregation Monitoring FROM: Estelle Mattms, Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Learning Improvement THROUGH: Mac Bernd, Superintendent of Schools Cl SUBJECT: Status Report - Abacus Instructional Management System This communication is to provide additional information and clarification regarding the status of implementation of the revised curriculum in core areas: language arts, science, social studies, and mathematics. The physical education, business education, and gifted/talented curriculum were also revised. Provided is an update on the implementation of Abacus. REVISED CURRICULUM Is the new curriculum fully implemented? The revised curriculum is being fully implemented in all of the districts 49 schools, excluding Metropolitan Vocational-Technical Education Center. The following curriculum courses are now being implemented beginning with the 1992-93 school year: Course/Subject Area Grade Level Language Arts English Language Arts K-6 7-12 Science Regular Science Integration of Life, Earth, and Physical Science Physical Science Biology Chemistry Physics K-6 7-8 9 10 11 12Mathematics Regular Math Regular Math Pre-Algebra Algebra Geometry Algebra II Trigonometry and Advanced Algebra K-6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Social Studies Social Studies Arkansas History History and Geography of the World Part I History and Geography of the World Part II Arkansas and American History Civics American Government American History World History World Geography Arkansas Studies K-6 4-5 6 7 8 9 10-12 10-12 10-12 10-12 10-12 Gifted/Talented All subject areas are used to deliver the gifted/talented curriculum K-12 Physical Education K-6 7-12 Business Education Keyboarding Word Processing 1 and 2 Computer Tech 8-10 10-12 8-12 BTutf are preliminary results? What are the benefits that LRSD is realising from the revised curriculum? The revised curriculum is new, and it will take several years for the district to provide qualitative and evaluative data that will demonstrate its effectiveness. As the revised curriculum has been properly scoped and sequenced by K-12 teachers, students must matriculate upward grade wise in order for us to observe and assess substantial objective data that can show an increase in student achievement. 2There are qualitative indicators that are now evident as we implement the revised curriculum. The findings identified in the 1990 Curriculum Audit have been addressed in the following areas: Policies have been established and approved by the Board of Directors. Such policies dictated the process and procedures for revising the curriculum. The revised curriculum is predicated on Board policies. Preliminary Benefits and Results Science Quality inservice provided to science teachers has been very effective as evidenced by teacher evaluation of inservice. Teachers appear to be pleased with the revised science curriculum. Teachers are more competent and knowledgeable to deliver quality instruction. More student involvement in active learning is now taking place in classrooms. Heavier emphasis has been placed on providing students quality hands-on experiences in science. With 2-3 years of quality exposure to this curriculum that has been properly scoped and sequenced, we filled in the gaps that existed in the past for most of the difficult concepts. Students will be now be able to master content. Such concepts are now introduced earlier as developmental skills/objectives. Providing prior experiences with difficult concepts will minimize and reduce the failure rate for students who have not had rich and challenging experiences outside of their schools. Life. Earth, and Physical Science have been integrated at grades 7 and 8. Such integration focuses on assisting students in mastering of state (AMPT) and national expectations. Biology - Teacher involvement (K-12) in revising the curriculum eliminated the overlap of life science in grades 7-10. The content is now properly scoped and sequenced. Science curriculum is properly articulated, thereby correcting problems identified in the Curriculum Audit. Prerequisite concepts are acquired before 10th grade. Teachers adequately plan and address science at each grade level. 3Chemistry - Physical Science (9th grade) articulation scheme ensures that prerequisites are in place when students approach chemistry. Such instruction should narrow the gap. All students eventually will enter chemistry having acquired the necessary required skills needed to be successful learners in science. Mathematics More student involvement in active learning is evident. Teachers appear to be really excited about the curriculum and anxious to select and use the newly-adopted math textbooks. Teachers are anxious to purchase and use the resources that are needed to support the curriculum. (Newly-adopted textbooks and materials will not be available until the 1993-94 school year.) Students are writing more and using an integrated approach of infusing math into other content areas. Teachers are utilizing student teams in approaching active learning of their students. Social Studies Teachers now have a clearer knowledge and understanding of what is to be taught and the appropriate grade level to teach certain objectives and content. The social studies curriculum has been properly scoped and sequenced providing continuity and acquisition of skills from one grade level to another grade level. Greater infusion of multiculturalism and a de-emphasis on the teaching of isolated skills/content in multicultural and overall social studies content are evident. The social studies curriculum is more challenging and focused. Such focus is on acquiring higher-order thinking skills and less regurgitation of factual knowledge. American History, World History, and World Geography classes are now more challenging as the courses require a focus on application, synthesis, and evaluation of knowledge rather than comprehension of content. Information is not as repetitive. Students are applying their knowledge of geography and history to worldwide issues and the environment. 4Language Arts Reading, English, spelling, and writing have been combined and integrated into one core area called language arts. Teachers are now able to incorporate and integrate multiple skills in teaching and learning. This is a more effective and efficient use of their time. Students are more actively involved in the learning process. There is greater flexibility to incorporate more resources and materials from other content areas into the language arts curriculum. Heavier emphasis on writing begins with our kindergarten students, such as responding to use of literature in analyzing characters and writing stories, and continues through grade twelve. Language Arts Grades 7 and 8 More student engagement is noted in the junior high schools particularly, as well as in some of our high school language arts classrooms. Students are viewed as workers in the classroom. Teachers are exercising greater freedom to make choices about how and when to deliver instruction, such as clustering objectives. Teachers are making choices in selecting literature including authentic reading experiences, such as finding ways to use the newspaper, periodicals, etc. Development of thematic units is evident and extend English experiences into other content areas. Gifted and Talented K-12 The revised curriculum is not subject-area based
however, subject areas are used to deliver the curriculum. Teachers are excited about a very challenging and creative curriculum. 5 All schools have the same gifted/talented curriculum, preventing duplication and repetition of content from grade level to grade level and school to school. Students are more involved in active learning and participation. Parents at the elementary level are excited and pleased to see an innovative curriculum in place that is readily understood by parents. Physical Education K-12 The physical education curriculum was revised by K-12 teachers. This curriculum has been properly scoped and sequenced to address issues raised in the Curriculum Audit. Teachers are pleased and excited as they now have a written, articulated curriculum. Teachers now understand what is expected of them as they plan and deliver the curriculum. Appropriate resources and materials have been identified for teachers use in physical education courses. Business Education Courses revised: Keyboarding, Grades 8-10
Word Processing 1 and 2, Grades 10-12
and Computer Tech, Grades 8-12. Curriculum is properly scoped and sequenced. Repetitive skills have been eliminated. More aligned with "high tech" equipment wise. Teachers are excited and pleased with the curriculum. Students have increased hands-on experiences. iVhat unforseen problems have been encountered? What is the plan to work around these problems? Problems associated with District-wide implementation of Abacus became apparent in the early stages. Such problems appear to be attributed to: user resistance to new technology, hardware problems associated with CIMS, unforseen delay in customization 6of the test item banks, and the need to provide additional staff development for a large number of reluctant users. Given these concerns, the District decided that it was better to pilot the program (Abacus) in 11 schools. Schools were asked to volunteer to participate in the pilot. The response for volunteers was very positive and 23 schools agreed to participate. All 23 schools will participate in the project-11 in Cycle I and 12 in Cycle II. Gary Jones has submitted a report regarding the problems associated with the hardware. The test item bank is now operative and available to teachers in Cycle I schools. Cycle II schools will have access to the test item bank upon completion of their training for utilizing Abacus. When was Cycle I started? All principals (49) trained - October 14 - 29, 1992. Cycle I - November 30, 1992 - February 4, 1993 Schools No. of Core Area Teachers No. of Asst, Principals Total Mabelvale Jr. Southwest Jr. Baseline Carver Dodd Geyer Springs Gibbs Mitchell Rightsell Romine Terry 23 25 17 22 15 15 15 14 14 17 22 25 27 17 23 15 15 15 14 14 18 23 Total trained Cycle I 206 2 2 1 1 1 7When will Cycle II begin? Cycle II - March 2 - May 14, 1993 Schools No. of Core-area Teachers No. of Asst. Principals Total Badgett Booker Chicot Forest Park Ish Jefferson Meadowcliff Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Elem. Watson Williams Woodruff 9 28 24 18 13 21 20 15 16 20 22 10 1 1 1 1 1 9 29 25 18 13 22 20 15 16 21 23 10 Some of the following are assigned to more than one school: Math Specialists for Cycle I and Cycle II Schools Reading Specialists for Cycle I and Cycle II Schools Special Education Teachers for Cycle I and Cycle II Schools Gifted/Talented Teachers for Cycle I and Cycle II Schools 22 28 40 16 Total Trained in Cycle II 327 Total Trained in Cycle I and Cycle II 533 Total for Principals Cycle I and Cycle II 582 What is being done with the system? Following the training, teachers use the Abacus system for making tests, grading tests, recording mastery, and managing instruction. 8How many students are affected? Cycle I School No. of Students Mabelvale Jr. Southwest Jr. Baseline Carver Dodd Geyer Springs Gibbs Mitchell Rightsell Romine Terry 667 695 339 598 304 264 336 240 234 344 541 Sub total 4562 Cycle II Badgett Booker Chicot Forest Park Ish Jefferson Meadowcliff Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Elem. Watson Williams Woodruff 185 621 535 444 175 483 440 353 379 434 502 218 Sub total 4769 Grand Total 9331 9a^ien will the remaining schools be put on the system? The remaining schools will be put on the system during the 1993-94 school year. Designated remaining school staff and Cycle I and II schools will be involved in determining the process to be used for training staff members not involved in the 1992-93 Abacus training. The schedule will be developed by the Districts Staff Development Department in conjunction with suggestions from the affected schools. What is being done to record student achievement in non-pilot schools? Provided are charts that indicate how all schools are recording student mastery of objectives. Secondary schools did not have trifolds during the 1991-92 school year and have not been affected in the same manner as elementary schools. 10HOW SCHOOLS ARE RECORDING MASTERY OF OBJECTIVES OF THE REVISED CURRICULUM SECONDARY SCHOOLS School Central Form(s) of Recording Mastery Mastery recorded in the same manner as last year J. A. Fair Hall Parkview Magnet Dunbar Forest Heights Pulaski Heights Maim Magnet Cloverdale Matrix Henderson Magnet Mabelvale Checklist Southwest McClellan Combination: Abacus and same manner as last year Combination: Abacus and same manner as last year Combination: Checklist and same manner as last year 11How Schools Are Recording Mastery of Objectives of the Revised Curriculum Margaret Gremillion February 1993 Dodd School Fair Park Form(s) of Recording Mastery Matrix and checklist off the objectives (highlighted) Grid Forest Park Grid Fulbright Mabelvale Elem. Matrix to check off, ABACUS objective report McDermott Grade books and matrix system Short form objective report using checks and minuses Meadowcliff Pul. Heights Elem. Romine Matrix with checks and minuses - only doing what each child needs to master right now Matrix, individual sheets, curriculum guide Matrix Terry- Wakefield Watson Western Hills Condensed form of the ABACUS objectives, charts, checklists Checklists and objectives crossed out when mastery achieved_____________________________ Matrix, charts, individual portfolio system, ABACUS objectives Math aids and checklists Wilson Woodruff Matrix using checks and minuses Matrix grid which shows the curriculum and child's name 12How Schools Are Recording Mastery of Objectives of the Revised Curriculum Incentive Schools February 1993 School Franklin Form(s) of Recording Mastery Grade books Garland Ish Mitchell Grade books (1st semester) Short form objective for each child with checks and minuses, grids, grade books Checklist Rightsell Rockefeller Setting up a matrix system Checklists Stephens Objectives copied on matrix, checked when mastered and skill mastered highlighted 13Little RockSchoolDistrict SchoolOperationsand Climate 810 West Markham Little Rock,AR 72201 February 4, 1993 MEMORANDUM TO: Mrs. Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent FROM: Larry S. RobertsonP^: ssistant Superintendent SUBJECT: How Mastery of Objectives of the Revised Curriculum is Recorded The information requested from my assigned schools are as follows: SCHOOL HOW MASTERY IS RECORDED Badgett Charts and Roll Book Bale Charts Baseline Matrix Booker Magnet Matrix Brady Charts and Grade Book Carver Magnet Matrix Chicot Charts Cloverdale Charts and Matrix Geyer Springs Gibbs Magnet Jefferson Otter Creek Matrix Matrix Charts Charts and Roll Book Washington Magnet Williams Magnet Charts Charts 14Office 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 Ms. Estelle Mathis Deputy Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 Markham St Little Rock, Arkansas November 7, 1994 Dear Estelle, The 1994-95 ODM Monitoring Priorities have been distributed and you probably noted that Computer Managed Instructional Technology is on the list. This is to inform you that I will be doing the monitoring review of the Abacus system. I intend to start this review immediately and ask for your cooperation and support. My understanding is that, at the onset. Abacus would be a tool to insure a consistent curriculum across the district and would help to improve achievement by identifying those areas that needed attention to realize a higher degree of mastery. The purpose of this review is to determine if the Abacus system is being used to its potential and, where appropriate, to make recommendations for improvement. My monitoring plan is to first interview Betsy Choate and Lucy Lyons at the IRC to get an overview of Abacus and then go out to schools to observe on-site use. Principals at the selected schools will be notified in advance, and I don't anticipate that there will be any interference with class activities. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the monitoring process, please do not hesitate to call our office. Thank you very much for your assistance. Sincerely, Bob Morgan Associate Monitor cc: Ann Brown Hank WilliamsOffice 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 Ms. Estelle Mathis Deputy Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 Markham St Little Rock, Arkansas November 7, 1994 Dear Estelle, The 1994-95 ODM Monitoring Priorities have been distributed and you probably noted that Computer Managed Instructional Technology is on the list. This is to inform you that I will be doing the monitoring review of the Abacus system. I intend to start this review immediately and ask for your cooperation and support. My understanding is that, at the onset. Abacus would be a tool to insure a consistent curriculum across the district and would help to improve achievement by identifying those areas that needed attention to realize a higher degree of mastery. The purpose of this review is to determine if the Abacus system is being used to its potential and, .where appropriate, to make recommendations for improvement. My monitoring plan is to first interview Betsy Choate and Lucy Lyons at the IRC to get an overview of Abacus and then go out to schools to observe on-site use. Principals at the selected schools will be notified in advance, and I don't anticipate that there will be any interference with class activities. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the monitoring process, please do not hesitate to call our office. Thank you very much for your assistance. Sincerely, Bob Morgan Associate Monitor cc: Ann Brown Hank WilliamsLAB TECHNICIANS STAFF DEVELOPMENT DATA PROCESSING SCHOOL BASED STIPENDS TRAINING- SUBSTITUTE COST TRAINING- STIPENDS TRAINING- CONSULTANTS HARDWARE SOFTWARE & MAINTENANCE TRAVEL PRINTING FORMS DATA ENTRY SERVICES CUSTOM PROGRAMMING TEST ITEM BANK TOTAL COST TO DATE YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 $371,995.15 $256,441.42 $228,046.64 $856,483.21 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ABACUS COST SUMMARY JANUARY 26, 1995 YEAR 1 1992-93 $13,741.00 $18,000.00 $102,659.00 $108,075.00 $2,400.00 $18,000.00 $10,325.00 $9,295.15 $89,500.00 $371,995.15 YEAR 2 1993-94 $32,826.20 $37,087.08 $36,082.48 $19,377.00 $12,207.51 $8,073.75 $102,659.00 $2,176.00 $750.77 $5,201.63 $256,441.42 YEAR 3 1994-95 $35,926.96 $25,428.18 $36,572.80 $18,838.75 $1,900.00 $2,381.40 $103,297.00 $901.55 $2,800.00 $228,046.64 YEAR 4 1995-96 $102,659.00 $102,659.00 YEAR 5 1996-97 $102,659.00 $102,659.00Enrollment in Magnet Schools by Zone School and Race Booker Carver Gibbs Zone School Garland Stephens Mitchell Franklin Otter Creek Rightsell Watson Baseline Dodd__________________________ Jefferson Chicot Rockefeller Western Hills Meadowcliff Cloverdale Elem Geyer Springs Bale Badgett Mablevale Elem Wilson Wakefield Forest Park Fullbright McDermott Brady Terry Woodruff Pulaski Heights Elem Fair Park M.L. King______________________ Romine Washington Legal Transfer Nozone North Little Rock Pulaski County Grand Total Capacity/Total Enrollment Racial Percentage Percent of Capacity/ Available Seats Black 1 1 4 6 2 9 8 16 _____7 ____15 5 7 3 7 11 5 7 6 5 6 8 4 8 4 1 4 1 1 4 17 4 26 1 2 41 48 305 660 54% 86% White 0 0 1 1 1 0 2 4 5 4 3 2 3 2 9 3 5 5 7 9 it 2 9 7 10 9 0 3 5 0 0 2 0 1 45 93 263 568 46% 92 Black 1 0 4 5 1 ____2 9 3 5 39 6 2 4 6 5 0 4 1 6 9 4 3 8 4 ____1^ 6 0 ____3 3 2 10 ___33 0 8 53 61 311 613 53% 96% White 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 3 4 0 4 1 0 10 3 d 9 8 6 20 1 3 6 0 0 0 1 7 65 122 280 591 47% 22 Black 2 2 10 5 2 23 ____ 2 0 4 4 3 4 2 5 3 4 1 0 2 3 4 2 0 3 1 1 1 1 13 3 4 0 0 22 20 157 351 55% 81% + Williams White ! Black 0 0 0 1 01 1 ' 1 ' o' 0 5 1 2 0 3 0l 2 3 o' 0 5 1 3' 4' 41 61 2 5 13 6 0 0 0 0 4 21 361 129 286 45% 1 3 2 11 6 1 8 4 11 0 5 1 3 6 3 1 11 1 2 17 4 1 5 8 15 10 1 1 7 0 22 4 0 2 25 44 246 515 53% 651 91% White 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 0 2 2 0 5 6 5 12 8 0 1 43 0 0 0 0 5 34 85 222 468 47% 47 Grand Total 5 6 21 29 12 39 29 29 29 75 26 17 19 31 37 14 41 15 22 60 34 22 51 40 54 ____OT 9 26 75 32 39 69 2 29 306 509 1913 226 Grand Total Black 5 6 20 27 11 35 26 25 23 58 20 13 14 21 24 9 26 9 13 34 19 12 23 16 20 21 3 6 15 32 39 67 1 12 141 173 1019 White 0 0 1 2 1 4 3 4 6 17 6 4 5 10 13 5 15 6 9 26 15 10 28 24 ____ 39 6 20 60 0 0 2 1 17 165 336 894 Black % of Total 100% 100% 95% 93% 92% 90% 90% 86% 79% 77% 77% 76% 74% 68% 65% 64% 63% 60% 59% 57% 56% 55% 45% 40% 37% 35% 33% 23% 20% 100% 100% 97% 50% 41% 46% 34% 53%School Capacity LRSD Enrollment Showing Available Seats and Excess Capacity Black White 93-94 93-94 Total 93-94 93-94 Black B/ack White Total 94-95 Black Percent 94-95 94-95 94-9S Percent Available Seats Percent of Capacity Acceptable Balance Otter Creek Jefferson Terry Forest Park Fulbright Pulaski Fits. McDermott 351 492 515 399 540 374 517 3188 141 213 243 200 233 190 262 1482 200 291 318 258 287 208 247 1809 341 504 561 458 520 398 509 3291 41.35% 42.26% 43.32% 43.67% 44.81% 47.74% 51.47% 45.03% 154 218 234 198 235 197 241 1477 205 284 325 234 307 225 253 1833 359 502 559 432 542 422 494 3310 42.90% 43.43% 41.86% 45.83% 43.36% 46.68% 48.79% 44.62% -8 -10 -44 -33 -2 -48 23 -122 102% 102% 109% 108% 100% 113% 96% 104% Out of Balance Woodruff Mablevale Dodd Western Hills Brady Meadowcliff Chicot Badgett Geyer Springs Wilson Wakefield Bale Fair Park Baseline Watson Cloverdale 324 515 328 328 467 465 558 257 328 394 492 401 351 390 492 492 6582 147 311 189 215 263 306 356 132 208 263 337 225 200 265 353 304 4074 89 177 103 117 134 128 153 57 80 91 110 78 63 78 89 82 1629 236 488 292 332 397 434 509 189 288 354 447 303 263 343 442 386 5703 62.29% 63.73% 64.73% 64.76% 66.25% 70.51% 69.94% 69.84% 72.22% 74.29% 75.39% 74.26% 76.05% 77.26% 79.86% 78.76% 71.44% 148 340 193 215 254 279 344 133 223 254 327 214 204 245 340 312 4025 95 134 105 102 152 132 151 44 77 91 86 95 78 81 87 80 1590 243 474 298 317 406 411 495 177 300 345 413 309 282 326 427 392 5615 60.91% 71.73% 64.77% 67.82% 62.56% 67.88% 69.49% 75.14% 74.33% 73.62% 79.18% 69.26% 72.34% 75.15% 79.63% 79.59% 71.68% 81 41 30 11 61 54 63 80 28 49 79 92 69 64 65 100 967 75% 92% 91% 97% 87% 88% 89% 69% 91% 88% 84% 77% 80% 84% 87% 80% 85% Incentive Franklin Garland Mitchell Stephens Rightsell Rockefeller 544 346 346 298 346 425 2305* 300 181 215 141 184 240 1261 45 24 15 4 5 100 193 345 205 230 145 189 340 1454 86.96% 88.29% 93.48% 97.24% 97.35% 70.59% 86.73% 393 246 260 50 36 12 225 264 1388 4 139 241 443 282 272 0 229 403 1629 88.71% 87.23% 95.59% 0.00% 98.25% 65.51% 85.21% 101 64 74 117 22 378 81% 82% 79% 0% 66% 95% 71% Interdistrict Washington King Romine 939 692 487 2118 451 357 247 1055 270 196 87 553 721 553 334 1608 62.55% 64.56% 73.95% 65.61% 443 309 234 986 244 242 89 575 687 551 323 1561 64.48% 56.08% 72.45% 63.16% 252 141 164 557 73% 80% 66% 74% Magnet Booker Williams Carver Gibbs 656 517 613 353 2139 321 257 325 170 1073 274 215 270 129 888 595 472 595 299 1961 53.95% 54.45% 54.62% 56.86% 54.72% 305 250 309 160 1024 268 224 279 133 904 573 474 588 293 1928 53.23% 52.74% 52.55% 54.61% 53.11% 83 43 25 60 211 87% 92% 96% 83% 90% Incentive school capacities reflected In the 1992 Desegregation Plan rotate for Elementary Scho Below Capacity Seats & 16332 2456 8945 5072 14017 86% 63.82% 8900 2289 5143 14043 86% Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring based upon information supplied by the Little Rock School DistrictElementary Schools Enrollment, Available Seats, Budget and Per Pupil Cost School Area Schools Terry_________ Forest Park Pulaski Hts. Otter Creek Meadowcliff Cloverdale Brady________ Dodd McDermott Wakefield Fulbright______ Jefferson Mablevale Western Hills Baseline Watson Geyer Springs Fair Park Wilson Chicot Woodruff Bale Badgett Principal Capacity Black White Total 4 Year Olds Incentive Schools Franklin Mitchell Garland_________ Rockefeller Rightsell La Dell Looper Virginia Ashley Lillie Carter Carolyn Teeter Jerry Worm______ Frederick Fields Betty Raper______ Pattie McNeil Mike Oliver Willie Morris Mac Huffman Francis Cawthon Dr. Ed Jackson Scott Morgan Lonnie S. Dean Teressa Courtney Eleanor Cox Dr. Samual Branch Franklin Davis Otis Presler Pat Higgenbotham Barbara Anderson Mary Golston Area Total 515 399 374 351 465' 492 467 328 517 492 540 492 515 328 390 492 328 351 394 558 324 401 257 9770 234 198 197 154 279 312 254 193 241 327 235 218 340 215 245 340 223 204 254 344 148 214 133 5502 325 234 225 205 132 80 152 105 253 86 307' 284 134 102 81 87 77 78 91 151 95 95 44 3423 559 432 422 359 411 392 406 298 494 413 542 502 474 317 326 427 300 282 345 495 243 309 177 8925 47 17 18 36 36 37 36 18 18 36 35 25 359 No 4 Year Olds in Total 559 432 422 359 411 345 389 298 494 413 542 502 456 317 290 391 263 246 327 477 207 274 152 8566 Available Seats -44 -33 -48 -8 54 100 61 30 23 79 -2 -10 41 11 64 65 28 69 49 63 81 92 80 990 School Budget Per Pupil Cost Julie Davenport Faith Donovan Karen Buchanan Anne Mangan Sharon Brooks Incentive Total Interdistrict Schools King______ Washington Romine Tyrone Harris Gwen Zeigler Sharon Davis Interdistrict Total Other than Magnet Schools Total Magnet Schools Carver_________ Williams_______ Booker Gibbs Diane Barksdale Mary Menking Dr. Cheryl Simmons Marjorie Bassa Magnet Total Grand Total 544 346 346 425 346 2007 728 836 487 2051 13828 613 517 656 353 2139 15967 393 260 246 248 225 1372 50 12 36 122 4 224 443 272 282 370 229 1596 72 19 18 53 18 180 371 253 264 317 211 1416 101 74 64 55 117 411 309 443 234 986 242 244 89 575 551 687 323 1561 66 52 36 154 485 635 287 1407 177 149 164 490 7860 4222 12082 693 11389 1891 309 250 305 160 1024 8884 279 224 268 133 904 588 474 573 293 1928 588 474 573 293 1928 25 43 83 60 211 5126 14010 693 13317 2102 Budget figures do not include the utilities or the cost of the four year old program Available seats includes the four year old program $1,311,672 $1,017,890 $996,492 $854,199 $994,712 $837,813 $983,813 $754,519 $1,261,427 $1,059,024 $1,423,114 $1,346,385 $1,225,280 $853,903 $797,276 $1,106,215 $748,270 $770,525 $1,046,853 $1,535,904 $681,446 $930,903 $580,861 $23,118,495 $1,318,607 $1,059,617 $1,106,629 $1,522,218 $1,062,670 $6,069,741 $1,535,015 $2,063,488 $1,145,379 $4,743,882 $33,932,118 $1,921,659 $1,700,584 $2,136,788 $1,263,200 $7,022,231 $40,954,349 $2,346 $2,356 $2,361 $2,379 $2,420 $2,428 $2,529 $2,532 $2,553 $2,564 $2,626 $2,682 $2,687 $2,694 $2,749 $2,829 $2,845 $3,132 $3,201 $3,220 $3,292 $3,397 $3,821 $2,699 $3,554 $4,188 $4,192 $4,802 $5,036 $4,287 $3,165 $3,250 $3,991 $3,372 $2,979 $3,268 $3,588 $3,729 $4,311 $3,642 $3,075 4/20/95 Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring based upon information supplied by the LRSDI de: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS February 23, 1995 To: Board of Directors From: Subject: Henry P. Williams, Superintendent of Schools Discussion of ABACUS Attached for discussion is a report on the cost of ABACUS for the past three years. I ( i { t i I I t 1LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ABACUS COST SUMMARY JANUARY 26, 1995 T YEAR 1 1992-93 YEAR 2 1993-94 YEARS 1994-95 YEAR 4 1995-96 YEAR 5 1996-97 LAB TECHNICIANS (5) $32,826.20 $35,926.96 STAFF DEVELOPMENT (3) $37,087.08 $25,428.18 DATA PROCESSING (1) $36,082.48 $36,572.80 SCHOOL BASED STIPENDS $19,377.00 $18,838.75 TRAINING- SUBSTITUTE COST $13,741.00 $12,207.51 $1,900.00 TRAINING- STIPENDS $8,073.75 $2,381.40 TRAINING- CONSULTANTS $18,000.00 HARDWARE $102,659.00 $102,659.00 $103,297.00 $102,659.00 $102,659.00 SOFTWARE & MAINTENANCE $108,075.00 TRAVEL $2,400.00 $2,176.00 PRINTING $750.77 $901.55 FORMS $18,000.00 $5,201.63 $2,800.00 DATA ENTRY SERVICES $10,325.00 CUSTOM PROGRAMMING $9,295.15 TEST ITEM BANK $89,500.00 1 TOTAL $371,995.15 $256,441.42 $228,046.64 $102,659.00 $102,659.00 COST TO DATE YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 $371,995.15 $256,441.42 $228,046.64 $856,483.21LRSD SORTS OFFICE I CL OUO-ZZM-MSi Z) noi 292 P02 MftR 08 95 11:55 A JiACUS INSTRUCTIONAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM REFERENCES Dr. Sandra Darling Principal Clearview Elementary 7310 Highway 24 Clear Lake, MN 55319 (612) 743-2241 Fran Sitton IMS Coordinator Gaston County Schools 366 W, Garrison Blvd, Gastonia, NC 28053 (704) 866-6273 Ms. Judy Heiney EMS Coordinator Lucia Mar School District 602A Orchard Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 (805) 473-4390 M. Sharon McEuen (Technical) Ms. Becky Shelton (Curriculum) LeanderISD 501 S. Hwy 183 Leander, TO 78641 (512) 259-6890 - Sharon (512) 259-6578 - Becky Dr. Marie Pickel Superintendent North Mason School District K, 50 N. Mason School Road Belfair, WA 98528 (206) 275-2881 Mr. Mike Lindley Superintendent New Buffalo Schools 222 S. Whittaker Street New Buffalo, MI 49117 (616) 469-2682 Mr. CliffHueoergard Director of Special Services Nonh Mason School District E. 50 N. Mason School Road Belfair. WA 98528 (206) 275-2881 Mr. Dennis Smith Washington County Board of Education Springfield Middle School 334 Sunset Ave, Williamsport, MD 21795 (301) 791-4200 Dr. John Leland Otsego Public Schools 310 W. Allegan St Otsego, WI 49078 (616)694-9904 NCS ABACUS, Inc. 921 SW Washington St, Suite 410 Portland, Ongon 97265
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.