LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 February 2, 1999 FfS 3 Ms. Margie Powell Office of Desegregation & Monitoring 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Powell: You should have already received a letter dated, January 29, 1999. However, a list of committees was omitted from this letter. Attached you will find a list of committees and chairpersons. I apologize for any inconveniences this may have caused you. If you would like to serve on a committee, please contact that chairperson. Again, I look forward to seeing you on February 11, 1998. Sincerely, Linda Watson AttachmentsResidential Elementary Charter School Preliminary Committees FINANCE COMMITTEE W. E. Buddy Coleman Sanford Tollette Dr. Tom Bruce L. Watson CURRICULUM COMMITTEE Patty Kohler - Co-Charirperson Katherine Synder - Co-Chairperson Tommy Roberson Chris Caram Frances Cawthon LEGAL ISSUES Chris Caram PROGRAM COMMITTEE Jo Evelyn Elston - Chairperson Joy C. Springer Don Crary Gary Smith Katherine Synder Binky Martin PERSONNEL COMMITTEE Eleanor Coleman - Chairperson W. C. Buddy Coleman Jo Evelyn Elston Chris Caram Joy C. Springer 1SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE Frances Cawthon - Chairperson Linda Watson Sanford Tollette Chris Caram Judy Magness 2DECEIVED JUL 1 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 MEMORANDUM June 30,1999 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: rter Sch Liraa Charter School Committee Members Dr. Lil Student Discipline Watson, Assistant Superintendent Scheduled Meeting A Charter School Committee Meeting will be held on Tuesday, July 13, 1999, in the Administration Board Room. Again, we will continue the planning for the Residential Charter School. If you are unable to attend this meeting, please contact the Student Hearing Office at 324-2170. I look forward to seeing you.07/14/1399 10:57 501-324-0536 STUDENT HEARING OFC PAGE 02 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT POSITION DESCRIPTION TITLE: Elementary Charter School Director Date of Announcement: TBA Effective Date of Employment
To be determined POSmON SUMMARY The Director of the Elementary Charter School will be the chief administrator of the toul academic ana rcsiaenusu (design and assessment), responsible for evaluation of staff, management of funds (soliciting, budgeting and expenditure of funds) and academic and residential program establishing community partnerships. QUALIFICATIONS 1. Applicant has a Masters degree or above and is eligible for Arkansas Teacher s/Principal s Certification. 2. Preferred elementary administrative experience. 3. Preferred experience in Experiential/Alternative Education. . 4. Demonstrated the ability to work effectively with a multiculturally diverse population in an urban setting. , 5. Demonstrated leadership ability and successful experience in working with youth ages /-lx.. 6. Knowledgeable of innovative curriculum design and effective instructional strategies. 7. Evidence of collaborative team building skills and quality management. 8. Evidence of ability to solicit and administer traditional and nontraditional financial resources, i.e., grant writing and partnerships 9, Effective public relationship skills, including conflict resolution. 10. Knowledgeable of positive behavioral intervention strategies. 11. Proven effective verbal and written communication skills. 12. Experience with staff supervision and evaluation. RESPONSIBILITIES (including, but not limited to) 1 Direct all components related to the development, implementation, and operation of the Charter School, including, but not limited to, staffing, program policy, student Elemcjitary --------t i * recruitment, scheduling, curriculum, discipline, safety, facilities, finances, legal issues, transportation, food services, residential, and parental/family/community involvement. 2, Collaborate with the School-Community Council on matters of concern. 3. Prepare regular assessments of the total program. 4. Secure funding as needed. 5. Participate instructional planning. 6. Resolve student and parental issues that have elevated to the director level.07/14/1999 10:57 501-324-0536 STUDENT HEARING OFC PAGE 01 DATE TO FROM little rock school district STUDENT HEARING OFFICE 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET little rock, ar 72201 FAX (501) 324-0536 July lA. 1999 MargiP Pny.Tpn linM. Dr. Linda Watson SENDER'S PHONE # 324-2170 SUBJECT Position Description ------- School Dxrector COMMENTS Mtaiiw <H (inetwM 3 371-QIQQ07/14/1399 10:57 501-324-0536 STUDENT HEARING OFC PAGE 03 little rock SCHOOL district ion board member Dr.TomBruce,Retircdfo-^^-^-^^ Frances Cawthon, Jiassroom Teachers AssoctaUon Eleanor Colem^ Rector, Pfeifer Kiwanis Camp Binky Martin, Program Joy C Springer. Joshua metvenor Kev. Richard Horton, Teacher - . Pfeifer Kiwanis Camp and Charter School Project Consultant lorn ioueue, Mutvivi.rieuCT J^ eTOcn Linda Watson, Assistant Superintendent, LKiU *Sanford Tollette, Director, *Dr. *Exofficio membersI \\ 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201____________ Phone: (501)324-2170 E-mail: lwatson@alc.lrsd.kl2.ar.us LINDA WATSON, Ed. D ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT _________STUDENT DISCIPLINE Fax: (501) 324-0536 October 28, 1999 RECEIVED OCT g iSS TO: Elementary Charter School Committee Members OtriC-c GF FROM: Linda Watsop,'Assistant Superintendent DESEGREGATION MO?!iTCa!MG SUBJECT: Charter School Update and Meeting Please plan to attend an Elementary Charter School Committee Meeting, Tuesday, November 9, 1999, at 8:30 a.m. The meeting will be held at the Instructional Resource Center (IRC) which is located at 30* and Pulaski Streets (off of Martin Luther King Blvd.). The tentative agenda items include: Introduction of Charter School Coordinator (hopefully) Charter School Update A. Second Year Planning Grant B. Wellness Clinic Charter School Letter of Intent Charter School Application Process LRSD Public Hearing - scheduled for: Tuesday, November 16, 1999 6:00 p.m. LRSD Board Room Enclosed is a copy of the Charter School Application for your review. I look forward to seeing you on November 9. EnclosureI Sec cerupjcft, RSC^a0 OCT 2 9 1SS3 CiriCE vT DESESRE5ME?G^!lD5ySG School Conversion 2000 of Education Rock, AR 72201 11/02/1999 13:59 581-324-2023 LRSD COMMUNICATIONS PAGE 02/02 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Elementary Alternative Education Proposed Charter School The Little Rock School District (LRSD) invites you to attend a public hearing to provide information and to accept comments on a proposed elementary charter school. The school will provide an alternative educational setting for students in grades 3-5. The public hearing will be held: Tuesday, November 16, 1999 6 p.m. Board Room LRSD Administration Building 810 West Markham Little RockLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS RECEIVED SEP 1 4 2000 SPECIAL MEETING September 14, 2000 OFICEOF DESEGRSaATJONMOiMiTOroiBa Budget Work Session I. II. III. IV. AGENDA Approval of 2000-01 Budget A+ Charter Maumelle (Linda Watson) Don Stewart Mark Milhollen Contract for Magnet School Proposals (Sadie Mitchell) Technology Consultant Contracts (Lucy Neal) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 September 11,2000 TO
Board of Education FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT
The Pulaski Linda Watson, Assistant Superintendent Student Discipline Les Gamine, Superintendent Fiscal Impact Statement for Academics Plus Charter Application Charter School, Inc., of Maumelle, Arkansas, has submitted a proposed application to the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) to implement a Charter School, Academics Plus (A-i-), during the 2001- 2002 school year. Although the school would be located in the Pulaski County Special School District, it could impact the Little Rock School District. The ADE has requested that a fiscal impact statement be submitted by the school district that may be affected by the schools operation. The proposed Charter School would be initially offered for 100 sixth and seventh grade students during the 2001-2002 school year and, depending on the availability of funds, one grade (50 students) per year would be added until the school has reached sixth through twelfth grades. As an open-enrollment Charter School, Academic Plus (A+) expects to draw students from throughout Pulaski and southern Faulkner Counties. The school ensures compliance with the Pulaski County Special School Districts desegregation order of 20-41% minority students for secondary schools. Upon review of the Districts magnet and desegregation transfer student population from the Maumelle area, 87 students are enrolled at the senior high school level and 40 students are enrolled at the middle school level during the 2000-2001 school year. During the 1999-2000 school year, 81 students were enrolled at the senior high level and 55 at the middle school level.- Since this would be an open-enrollment charter, the school could potentially draw students from the Districts magnet and desegregation transfer student population and from the District at-large The administration recommends that the Board votes to affirm that the operation of the Academics Plus Charter School would have a negative fiscal impact and would adversely affect the Districts desegregation efforts.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHARTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EVALUATION REPORT: 2000-2001 Prepared By Dr. Larry McNeal, Professor University of Arkansas at Little Rock Little Rock, Arkansas Submitted On June 25, 2001 IExecutive Summary The twentieth centurys influence on school choice is reflected in the introduction of charter schools, school vouchers, magnet schools, academy schools, alternative schools, and a host of other specialty schools that focus on specific and often time unique student groups. The recent interest in school choices can be traced to the Nation At Risk report, which was published by the National Commission on Excellence in Education in 1983. The findings about the poor quality of public education alarmed the American public. The report concluded that America was losing its competitive edge in the global marketplace because of its educational system. The result was the passage of educational reform laws and legislation that promoted standards for students, teachers, and administrators. The American educational system continues to search for programs and services that meet the developmental needs of its students. Charter schools are the latest spin-off to a discontented American public is looking for vast improvements in educational practices that will better equip its children with marketable skills. Arkansas has also been influenced by this trend. Arkansas recently modified its existing charter school law in 1999 (Arkansas Charter School Act of 1999) and as a result the charter school movement in Arkansas took off. The Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School opened its doors in the fall of 2000. The charter school offers a nontraditional innovative learning environment for students in the 3*, 4*, and 5* grades. Mission The mission of the Little Rock School District and the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School are mutually supportive and facilitative of student success. The intent of the mission of both are to provide students with programs and services that fit their educational and developmental needs as well as prepare them with the knowledge and skills needed to compete in the marketplace. Goal The goal of the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School is to provide opportunities for students educational and behavioral needs while guiding them to adjust 1their behavior and habits in such a manner that they will become successful, lifelong learners and productive citizens. The Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School accomplishes its goal through an alternative learning environment. Description of Need The description of need is an overview of the variables that influence student academic achievement and behavior at the elementary grade level. Collectively, these variables provide a richer understanding of what is happening at the elementary grade level to some students in the Little Rock School District and why it has become increasingly more difficult to educate all children in a regular classroom setting. Poverty and other factors present barriers for many children who reside in the city of Little Rock from receiving the educational opportunities critical for their development. The inability to obtain preschool and other early-childhood education programs is evidenced in the Little Rock School Districts Early Childhood Program where an enrollment capacity of some 750 students leaves approximately 1,000 children on the programs waiting list each year. Once behind, children face a sigmficant challenge of <6 catching up in their school career and many of these children become potential school dropouts in later years. In the 1997-1998 school year, 921 students out of 10,628 students at the secondary level dropped out of school. This represents 8.7% of the Little Rock School District secondary student enrollment. Black students accounted for 69% of the dropout population, with black males representing 44% and black females representing 25.1% of the total. During the 1998-1999 school year the dropout rate increased to 9.7%. For many of these students the barriers that they faced prior to elementary school were so overwhelming that it left them ill prepared for the challenges associated with schooling
therefore less capable to take advantage of the educational opportunities at the secondary level. Student performance on standardized tests also served as an indicator of the extent of at- riskness for some students in the Little Rock School District Scores on standardized tests showed percentile ranks across the district and the racial disparity in academics in all grades and subjects. Standardized test scores in reading for the 1997-1998 school year 2revealed that overall more than one-third of Little Rock School Distnct students were in the lowest 25 percent nationally for reading skills, with elementary students at 38%, junior high students at 36% and high school students at 34%. Standardized test scores for the 1998-1999 school year revealed that overall approximately two-thirds of the students (64% of the fifth grade students tested, 63% of the seventh grade students tested and 70% of the tenth grade students) tested were at or below the 50* percentile. The pattern of low performance on standardized tests can be contributed to several factors with the lack of availability of early childhood education programs and low social development being but two. Children who come to school ready and able to learn usually face fewer educational barriers than students who come to school not ready and able to learn. These students are less capable of performing at the levels necessary to acquire the knowledge and skills needed to take advantage of the opportunities of education. Student success can also be influenced by the composition of the family unit. Family composition is related to income and poverty for youth, with two-parent families generally having greater income than families with only one parent. Students coming from families with higher incomes are usually better prepared at an earlier age for schooling. Nationally, in white families a single parent heads two out of every ten households, while single parents head five out of ten African American households. In the city of Little Rock single parents head about six out of ten African American householders. The majority of whom are single mothers. The relationship between income, poverty and academic success suggests that some students who are attending school in the Little Rock School District may need more support prior to the formal schooling experience and perhaps throughout their educational career in the public school system. Students who experience behavior problems often times are not benefiting as much from the academic aspects of schooling because usually they are removed from the educational setting. The number of students who were long-term suspended and/or expelled from the Little Rock School District increased during the 1992-93 to 1997-98 school years. The district revamped its alternative learning environments during the 1997-98 school year by enlarging the Alternative Learning Center and establishing an Accelerated Learning 3Center for secondary students. During the 1998-99 school year, the district experienced a decrease in the number of long-term suspensions and significant decrease in the number of expulsions. At the beginning of the 1999-2000 school year, the district established four elementary alternative classrooms, in four of its elementary schools. The fall 2000 opening of the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School was a logical progression in the districts goal to provide for the educational and social needs of all students, especially, those with behavioral problems. The continued development of alternative learning environments is representative of the districts commitment to providing the proper match between programs and services and students. The needs of some students cannot be met within the regular classroom setting and so alternative learning environments that focus on academics and behavior modification can ensure that all students receive an education that will prepare them to be lifelong learners and productive members of society. Governance Two years of exploration and planning took place prior to the establishment of the charter school by the Little Rock School District Charter School Planning Team. The comprehensive effort included teachers, parents, and community members. The charter school model developed by the team was based on twelve years of research and evaluations by parents and teachers of the Alternative Classroom Experience (ACE) program at Pfeifer Kiwanis Camp. The team reviewed data to determine where the greatest needs exist. After careful review, subcommittees made up of classroom teachers, specialists, parents, and administrators discussed the implementation of various programs and services. For instance, a subcommittee examined the Success For All program while the Mental Health/Parental Involvement Team subcommittee investigated possible programs and services to include parents, families, and the community. Reports from the subcommittees were made to the Planning Team. After careful consideration, the Planning Team delineated issues, concerns, and discussed subsequent proposals. The Plaiming Team was later changed into an advisory group (Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School Advisory Committee). 4The Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School Advisory Committee met monthly to monitor the progress of the school as well as provide assistance and feedback to the charter school principal and staff. To facilitate the planning and advisory process Little Rock School District personnel provided technical assistance and support. District personnel were instrumental in supporting the charter through in-services on proven educational practices, data evaluation, and a review of the Title I plan. They also offered parental involvement suggestions as well as conducted research activities. Instructional Program The Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School is located at the Badgett Elementary School. The Little Rock School District Elementary Charter School was modeled on proven methods and strategies used in the Alternative Classroom Experience at Pfeifer Kiwanis Camp. Those strategies include effective early intervention/prevention for academic underachievement, effective early intervention/prevention for socio- behavioral and personal failure, and an aggressive approach to rebuilding community and parent identity and support for public education. In addition to these methods and strategies, other innovations include Success For All, an Extended Day/Afiter School Program, Gifted & Talented Program, Exceptional Children Services Program, Accelerated Reading Program, Read Across America Program, Media Center Program, Awards Programs, Incentive Programs and programming using computer technology, mathematics and science modules, field trips, the Pfeifer Camp, music, experiential education, and physical education. Students also wore school uniforms. The charter school has six classrooms staffed with teachers and program assistants to teach each student. A gifted and talented teacher, resource teacher, reading specialist, reading tutor, media specialist, music teacher, speech therapist, occupational and physical therapist, counselor, nurse, school exruniner, director, secretary, cafeteria personnel, and custodians provide other services. 5Student Demographics The Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School offers a nontraditional innovative learning environment for students in the 3'^, 4*, and 5*^ grades. Students attending the school come from a host of elementary schools in the Little Rock School District, North Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District
however, priority admission was given to students currently enrolled in Baggett Elementary School. Other students were eligible for admission if they were academically functioning one or more grades levels below grade placement
had a pattern of recurring absenteeism
had poor social and interactive skills (displaying unacceptable patterns of behavior and failure to fit the social environment of the school)
were retained one or more grades, and
were from an unstable family structure. Once students were selected multiple assessment measures were used to assess them. The assessments included Success For All Baseline Assessment (which is reported in terms of grade level). District Achievement Level Test (RIT Score), State Benchmark Test (4*^ grade 2000 only) and Teacher Recommendations. The data generated from the assessments facilitated a better understanding of the needs of individual students. Initially, 116 students made application to enrolled in the school
however, 17 students did not attend for various reasons including relocation out of the district, logistics (parents wanting their children to all attend the same school or schools closer to home), program fit (some parents concluded that the program and services offered were not appropriate for their child), and a few students withdraw prior to the start of the 2000- 2001 school year. Ninety-nine students attended the school at some period during the school year of which eighty-seven students completed the school year at the school. The demographic data shows that overall the characteristics of the students enrolled were similar to other schools within the district
however, there were sigmficant differences in some aspects. For instance, the school was different than most other elementary schools because of its concentration of students who were academically underachieving and 6behaviorally and socially challenged. No other elementary school in the district had an exact similar student population. The demographics of this student population are highlighted in Tables 1,2, and 3. The demographic data examined include racial makeup, grade level, attendance, absenteeism, and discipline. Tn addition, social economic statue and mobility are discussed. Table 1 STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS Racial Make Up Black Female White Female Black Male White Male Total Student Count 3rd Grade 4 3 23 1 31 4th Grade 2 3 24 1 30 Sth Grade 10 1 23 4 38 Total Percentage 16 7 70 6 99 16% 7% 71% 6% 100% A review of the data shows that the majority of the students attending the school were black. The majority of the students were black males followed by black females. The number of white females and males attending was about the same. The overall gender and racial make up of the school does not reflect the gender and racial make up of the average elementary school in the Little Rock School District. In addition, an examination of student records shows that an overwhelming majority of the students in attendance receive reduced or free lunch. Of the students attending the school, 91% receive reduced or free lunch. Again, this percentage is higher than the average elementary school in the district. The combination of gender, race, and reduced or free lunch provides a better understanding of the social-economic status of the student population at the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School. 7Part of the criteria for admission to the school was a pattern of recurring absenteeism. On average absenteeism is lower at the elementary school level than at any other grade level
however, the absenteeism rate for students attending the charter school is higher than normal. The attendance history of the student body is presented in Table 2. Table 2 STUDENT ATTENDANCE BY QUARTER T Grade Level 3rd Grade 4th Grade Sth Grade 1st Quarter 87% 84% 92% 2nd Quarter 94% 83% 87% 3rd Quarter 84% 92% 89% 4th Quarter 83% 85% 82% Average 87% 86% 88% Overall Average 88% 88% 88% 83% 87% The overall average attendance rate for all grades was 87%, which means that the school had an absenteeism rate of 13%. The attendance percentage is lower than the district elementary school average of 95%. The attendance and absenteeism rates of students in attendance at the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School are more similar to the attendance and absenteeism rates of other schools with similar students. In addition, the mobility rate of the school was 14%
however, the adjusted mobility rate was 4%. Mobility can be understood as the relationship between the number of students who started out the school year attending a particular school and the number of students who were still in attendance at that same school at the end of the school year. The number of student transfers and suspensions impacted the mobility rate at the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School. When the impact of the transfers and suspensions are factored out the mobility rate declines from 14% to 4%. A major criterion for admission to the school was a history of academic, social and behavior problems. Students attending the school usually had poor social and interactive skills along with unacceptable patterns of behavior. As a result students who attended the 8school usually had experienced more instances of inappropriate behavior, which resulted in more suspensions than other students. Students with poor social and interactive schools came from all three of the school districts. Table 3 reflects the disciplinary records of students. Table 3 STUDENT DISCIPLINE Total Number of students with Suspensions Total Enrollment__________________________ Total Number of students with NO Suspensions Percentage of student with Suspensions Percentage of students with NO suspensions 43 99 56 43% 57% When considering the grade level of students being suspended the 3"* grade had the lowest number of student suspensions with 13. Both 4* and 5* grade had 15 suspensions apiece. Several of the students had multi-suspensions. In addition, some of the students who were suspended no longer attend die school. The majority of students attending the charter school had no suspensions. Furthermore, it is anticipated that suspensions will decrease in the 2001-2002 school year with the current 5* grade class leaving and with the 3"^ and 4* grade students returning to an environment that advocates behavior and social management. Student Academic Achievement The Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School complies with all mandated state and federal testing, and other assessments based on student needs or which the teacher deems most appropriate. Student performance is measured in part by the same criteria as for the rest of the schools in the Little Rock School District. The performance indicators include the Primary Benchmark Exam at Grade 4, Achievement Level Tests at grades 3-5, Success For All, quarterly grades, WRAT (pre 9and post), and SAT 9 at grade 5. These performances indicators are examined in the tables and charts contained in this section. The data presented in Table 4 represent the 1999-2000 school year student literacy achievement as measured by the Primary Benchmark Exam at Grade 4 for current 5* graders at the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School. Table 4 PRIMARY (GRADE 4) BENCHMARK EXAMINATION FOR LITERACY: SCHOOL YEAR 1999-2000 PREFORMANCE LEVEL BELOW BASIC BASIC PROFICENT ADVANCED PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS 86% 7% 7% 0% As illustrated in the table only 7% of the then 4* grade students was proficient in literacy. The majority of students fall within the below basic range. This can be interpreted, as the overwhelming majority of 4* grade students who entered the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School in the fall of 2000 could not read at grade level. When the 2000-2001 test scores are available they should be compared to the test scores of the 1999-2000 4* graders. Higher test scores would be expected for the current 4th grade students at the school because of the emphasis on reading and writing. Higher test scores would indicate that the emphasis on reading and writing in the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School is effective. The data presented in Table 5 represent the 1999-2000 school year student mathematics achievement as measured by the Primary Benchmark Exam at Grade 4 for current 5* graders at the school. As previously mentioned he current 5* graders were not in attendance at the school during the 1999-2000 school year. 10The test scores presented represent student preparation in mathematics prior to attendance at the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School. Table 5 PRIMARY (GRADE 4) BENCHMARK EXAMINATION FOR MATHEMATICS: SCHOOL YEAR 1999-2000 PREFORMANCE LEVEL BELOW BASIC BASIC PROFICENT ADVANCED PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS 86% 7% 7% 0% Seven percent of the then 4* grade students were proficient in mathematics. The overwhelming majority of students fall within the below basic range. This indicates that students were not proficient in mathematics at grade level prior to attending the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School in the fall of 2000. Again, when the 2000-2001 test scores are available they should be compared to the test scores of the 1999-2000 4* graders. The test scores should be higher for the current 4th grade students at the school because of the emphasis on mathematics. Higher test scores would indicate that the emphasis on mathematics in the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School is effective. In addition to the benchmark examinations, the Little Rock School District Elementary Charter School has an array of innovative programs and services to offer students that focus on their academic development. A variety of means exist to measure the effectiveness of those programs, for instance, the grade level reading and mathematics tests. These tests are given in the fall and spring of the year. The grade level achievement tests highlight student progress. They measure students progress over the school year. The reason for measuring the rate of student growth is because it serves as an indicator of how much progress students are making compared to themselves over a defined period of time. 11The data are presented in Charts 1 and 2. The data presented compare the growth rate of students in the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School to similar students in the Little Rock School District and nation. In Chart 1 the grade level reading achievement growth rate is presented. Chart 1 READING ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL TEST FALL 2000 TO SPRING 2001 14 14 12 1 W X u 5I 10 i
J9.8! 9^1 38 ,5 Sth Grade Charter District National 3rd Grade 4th Grade 8 6 4 2 0 1 I 6-5 T At the 3"^ and 4* grade levels, the growth rate exceeds those for students in the Little Rock School District and in the nation. The increases range from 4.2% at 3"^ grade to 2.5% at 4* grade. The growth rate in both cases is significant At the 5* grade level, the growth rate is equal to those of students in the Little Rock School District students and only slightly below the national growth rate for similar students. In Chart n the grade level mathematics achievement growth rate is presented. The data contained in the chart also indicate that the growth rate for students in the Little Rock 12 School District Charter Elementary School is either higher or slightly below that of the Little Rock School District and the nation depending on the grade level. Chart 2 MATH ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL TEST FALL 2000 TO SPRING 2001 16 15 14 I 12 12-- 11.9 11 H s s s o 5 5 10 8- 4- HKbUktti ?3*r i8-7 t:: ji-ssa 1 -U. !ltp^ 'r- Charter District National -ipwij-jiii I 6 2 0 1 9 7 ^11, 3rd Grade 4th Grade Sth Grade I I Similar statements can be made about student performance on the mathematics achievement level test. At the 3"* and 4*** grade level the growth rates exceed those for students in the Little Rock School District and in the nation. The increases range from . 1% at 3* grade to 6.3% at 4* grade. The growth rate at 4* grade is significant At the 5 grade level, the growth rate is 1% lower than the Little Rock School District and 2% lower the national growth rate for similar students. th 13The charter school also used the Success For All program. The program has been used in more than 1000 schools. Benefits are particularly strong for students who are at risk. This is especially the case for those students in the lowest 25th percentile of their class. The data contained in Chart 3 show the progress of students at the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School during the 2000-2001 school year. Charts SUCCESS FOR ALL READING BY GRADE LEVEL 100%-f^ 90%-^ 80%-< i 1 I i u u u Oh 70%-^ 60% 50%-< 40%-< 30% 20% 10% 0% lo% l56%i l48'>/SpB !32%l i249i24%j BASELINE FIRST SECOND THIRD FINAL THIRD GRADE FOURTH GRADE FIFTH GRADE I T t ! I 1 I '409]^ 'j^39J38%i I The 3"^ grade reading scores have increased each quarter of the school year. The percentage of students reading at grade level in the 3^ grade went from 0% to 56% over the course of the school year. The 4* grade reading scores have remained fairly constant with 40% of the students reading at grade level at the beginning and end of the school year. The 5* grade reading scores have also increased from 24% to 38% during the same time period. Student reading scores have increased as a result of the Success For All reading program and other such programming activities. Those other activities include a total of 1,776 hours of staff development in such areas as Success For All, active learning with technology, experiential education, Smart Step, and cooperative learning. 14Student grades are also indictors of achievement. Student report card grades are presented in Charts 4 and 5. In Chart 4 reading grades by grade level and quarter are presented Chart 4 READING SCORES BY GRADE 60 T i I I tw H Z u Q H b O u o t- "Z. u u b 50-4 40 30 20 10 oJ I a 41 24624) 1 ST QUARTER READING 2ND QUARTER READING IS 3rd QUARTER READING 4th QUARTER READING C I D GRADE The number of students receiving an A and B grade increased at the same time that the number of students receiving a C grade decreased in the 4* quarter. The number of students receiving a D grade also increased. Overall, 2 more students received an A grade by the 4* quarter and 31 more students received a B grade by the 4* quarter. The number of students receiving a C grade decreased by 17, while the number receiving a D grade increased by 1 in the 4* quarter. Reading grades have continued to rise with significant improvement occurring in the number of students receiving a B grade along with the decrease in the number of students receiving a C grade. 15 Math scores have also risen with a significant increase in the percentage of students receiving a B grade. Chart 5 MATHEMATICS SCORES BY GRADE LEVEL 60 < ! i 50 451 a co Z I 93 O u & 40 30 20-1 20 lO-l^ o4 i32l 23 6L^ -1303 UOHU i FIRST QUARTER MATH SECOND QUARTER MATH S THIRD QUARTER MATH FOURTH QUARTER MATH i r i ! p8 28 B A. C GRADE D F The percentage of students receiving a B grade has increased over the course of the year, while the number of students receiving an A, C, D or F grade has decreased. Overall, the number of students receiving a B grade increased from 28 in the 1 quarter to 51 in the 4**^ quarter. The biggest decrease was in the number of students receiving a C grade. That number went from 43 to 23. There were also small decreases in the number of students receiving an A, D, or F grade. The numbers ranged from 2 to 3. The decrease in the number of students receiving an A, C, D, or F grade is offset by the increase in the number of students receiving a B grade. 16Additional data about student performance at the Little Rock School District Charter School can be glanced from results of the Math WRAT assessment. Student performance on this examination is presented in Chart 6. The examination was administered both as a pretest and posttest to students in the 3"*, 4*, and 5* grades in the fall and spring of the 2000-2001 school year. Chart 6 MATH WRAT ASSESSMENT t i a o a > < H S o u ai a I 183 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 7.8 3RD GRADE 17.1 11.91 jl3.2 fg! 4TH GRADE 14.5 Ki STH GRADE PRE 0POST ilO-3| 1 I T I I i I 551 Student performance as measured by WRAT indicates an increase in the average number of correct responses at all three grade levels. In 3'^ grade the average number of correct responses increased by 2.5. In 4* grade the average number of correct responses increased by 1.3. In 5* grade the average number of correct responses increased by 2.6. The final academic assessment examined is the Stanford 9 Basic Battery for the 5* grade from fall 2000. As shown in Table 7, the examination provides another view on student performance. The test was administered to 5* grade students shortly after the start of the 2000-2001 school year. The performance of the 5* graders reflects their prior academic preparation rather than their preparation at the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School. The 17 students had been attending the school for only several weeks before the test was administered. Chart 7 STANFORD 9 NORM REFERENCE TEST NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK BASIC BATTERY STH GRADE FALL 2000 zn H Z U O o b O w O < t- u oi LaU. 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100 0%-25% 26%-50% 51%-75% 76%-99% QUARTILES The test results show that 88% of the student population performed in the 0 - 25% quartile, while the remaining 12% of the students performed in the 26% - 50% quartile range. Student performance for this group represents past academic preparation efforts. This groups performance should be compared with that of the fall 2001 5* graders who were 4* graders during 2000-2001 school year. This kind of comparison would ascertain the affect of the charter school program on 4* grade students during the 2000-2001 school year. Academically, the students at the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School have made progress. The arrays of assessments highlight this improvement in 18 mathematics and reading. The schools success is a measure of the effectiveness of the programs and services provided in the innovative alternative learning environment. Financial The program and services provided during the 2000-2001 school year by the Little Rock School District Elementary Charter School cost $1,413,842. The monies were spent in the following areas: $735,100 (52%) for staffing, $224,263 (15.9%) for Student Transportation, $175,000 (12.4%) for Construction & Repairs, $174,411 (12.3%) for Materials & Equipment, $99,886 (7.1%) for Staff Development Training & Curriculum Improvement, and $5,182 (.3%) for administration and operation of the charter school. Even in an otherwise well-conceived and fairly funded charter school the need to purchase textbooks, instructional materials and supplies, computers and equipment as well as provide for the staff development training needs of staff can make it appear to be an expensive venture. Given the singular nature of several of the expenditures, for instance construction & repairs, the overall cost of operating the Little Rock School Distnct Charter Elementary School should decrease during the remaining years of the charter school contract. Also, in comparing the start up cost of the charter school to similar schools a more reasonable comparison would be with other elementary schools in the Little Rock School District, North Little Rock School District, or Pulaski County Special School District that have opened within the past three years. Just like in these schools the initial cost is hi^ but tends to decrease over a period of time. Another comparison could be made between other schools in the Little Rock School District that are serving students with special needs such as the magnet or incentive schools. Conclusions Virtually all charter schools have had to overcome obstacles during development and implementation. The barriers range from lack of start-up funds, lack of planning time, inadequate operating funds, inadequate facilities, state or local board opposition, internal conflicts, hiring staff, acquiring enough students, determining the right mix of programs 19and services, accountability requirements, and community opposition While not all of the barriers apply to the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School, some did. They include barriers associated with sharing a building, staff cohesion, acquiring enough students, accountability, and meeting the needs all the needs of students who are academically, socially, and behaviorally challenged. The ability of an organization to respond to these barriers can be somewhat quantified by examining student demographic and academic data. The data indicate some areas of success and challenges. Another way of quantifying the organizations ability to respond is by examining the diligent and commitment of staff to provide for the fully array of students needs. The many hours devoted to staff development and volunteerism is an indicator of the stafFs diligence and commitment to students. Still another way to quantify the affect of the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School is through the stakeholders most impacted. Those stakeholders are the parents and children. The overall impact of the charter school can best be summarized by the responses attained from a survey given earlier in the school year to parents, students, and staff at the school along with parent comments at the end of the year. Consensus about the importance of curriculum, instruction, staff development, and parental involvement is apparent in the results
however, it is the comment by one parent that clearly illustrates the impact of the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School to all stakeholders. To quote, The benefits that my child received from being in the program can not be understated. He is better as a result of being at the charter school. > 20zXrkansas Democrat (gazette FRIDAY. NOVEMBER 12, 1999 LRSD sets hearing on charter school The Little Rock School District will host a public hearing at 6 p.m. Tuesday in the board room of the district administration building at 810 W. Markham St. Information will be provided and comments will be accepted on a proposed elementarj- charter school to provide an alternative educational setting for grades 3-5. FRIDAY. JANUARY 14, 2000 Board studies proposals for 2 LR charter schools BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS III MIX RAI-liAZI.I 11 Lillie Rock could become home to two charter schools by next fall, one operated by a nonprofit agency and the other run b,v the cily'.s school district. Members of the Little Rock School Board discussed both charter proposals Thursday at a lengthy meeting where they also hired Don Stewart into the new position of chief financial officer and Gai'y Smitli was promoted from interim director to director of the district's division for exceptional children. Meanwhile, outside the meeting room in the districts administration building, George Ward, 39, a teacher, was sei-ved with a warrant and arrested by Little Rock police on a misdemeanor assault charge arising from allegations that he struck a pupil last November at Mann Magnet Middle School. Ward, who was suspended and recommended for firing after occurrence, had'appealed the firing and was at the administration building waiting for a board hearing. He was expected to argue that he did not strike the pupil. He was released from police custody later Thursday. School Board members, who were oblivious to tile aiTest until afterward, took no action on Wards appeal. The board voted to support the submission of its charter school preposal to the Arkansas Board of Etbucation, which has the final authority to approve charter schools foi
the coming year. State officials had notified the district that they needed the boards endorsement of the district plan to evaluate the merits of 13 charter school proposals from across the stale. .The Little Rock plan is for a residential alternative school for 120 third-, fourth- and fifth-graders. The proposal is modeled on a similar. program al Joseph Pfeifer Camp in west Pulaski County. The district has made short-tenn assignments of troubled pupils to llie cadip for the 12 yeais. The proposed charter school is a longer-term program for pupils who are achieving below their grade level, are often absent and have poor social skills. . The academic portion of the program would be at Badgett Elementary near Little Rock National Airport, Adams Field. The daily cun iculum would resemble that in other district schools, but at the end 'of the nonnal classroom day, pupils would participate in an experiential education cuiTiculum concentrating on trust-building activities, team building and service. ' For six weeks out of the school year. two in fall, two in winter and two in spring pupils would stay ovcniiglil at Ilcilcr Camp to participate in activities and ac- quire outdoor living skills. 'Pile projected cost of the prois $1.42 million, which gram amounts to about $1 l,tf4a per child. The district would use the regular slate funding it received for the stu- denhs, as well as federal 'fille 1 and special education funding for eligible pupils and funds now paying for students using day-lrcatmcnt facilities. Organizers of the proposed Wings of Eagle Charter School Academy seek School Board endorsement for their program for KX) children, ages 4 and 5, in preschool and kindergarten. The school organizers are Clarence and Charlesetla Harville and their Lighthouse Center Inc., which operates five In His Image Child Development centers in Little Rock and North Little Rock. Clarence Harville would serve as the chief education officer for the charter school, which would be housed in ti Lighthouse Center facility at 6402 Butler Road, near 65th Street in southwest Little Rock. The purpose of the academy would be to develop effective reading, social and behavioral skills in socioeconomically disadvantaged children while helping them enjoy learning through a wide range of experiences. Activities would include discoveiy projects, technology, art, music, movement, drama, dance and games. William Broadnax, a Little Rock ... district administrator who also * owns an educational reform con- , suiting firm, told the board the charter program will prepare children and their pareiiLs for success in public schools starting in the fiist grade. Broadnax said planners arc seeking shale charter school funding for both the prc-kindergarten and kindergarten children. If the preschool program is ineligible for state funding, since state funding for pre-school programs is limited, organizers will seek grants and donations to finance it. The school would operate year- round under the direction of a seven-member board of directors, the president of which i,s DeMarco Bell, an investment banker at Crews & Associates. Ollier members will include communil,v members, academ.v parenhs and an academy employee who is not an administrator. The district's new chief financial officer. Slewart. lias been the assistant superintciulcnl for business in the Pulaski Counl.v Special School District for almost H years.CM o CM Wednesday, January 9, 2002 Arkansas Democrat (gazette Copyright 2002, Arkansas Dsmocrat-Gazene. Inc. Huckabee unveils Next Step lEbr schools (0 c fij Educ nation reform strategy empl lasizes accountability BYSETH BLOMELEY ARKANSAS I )EM0CRAT-GA2ETTE Teacher pay should be tied to perform
ince and students who dont f
raduate from college shouh 1 be forced to re-fund their :
tate scholarships, ---------------------------------- ---------- Gov. Mike Huckabee said cost up to $1 billion a year to Tuesday in his education reform plan. In a 30- cninute speech, he lamented ti tat Arkansas public schools do n't adequately prepare stude Cits for college and that Alkans, as workers earn less than others because of their education lev- sis. Huckabee compared educ ating children with hunting de ?r. If a kid gets out of the 12th grade and d oesnt know how to spot a locati ion on the map, if he cant make simple change from a $5 bilL if J ae cannot put a sentence toge! her, its not like we can say doi It worry about that, well just r eload and send her back throu gh, Huckabee said. Weve onily got one shot. Im afraid man] / times we have mis-fired. The go\ 'emor didnt have a price tag f or his plan, nor did he offer a way to pay for it. He said he would worry about that later, that the first goal should be :{o figure out what the state ne :eds. He expects education to be the major issue when the Legislature meets in 2003. The spiech to the Rotary Club of Lil rtle Rock comes almost ei^t months after Pulaski County (ircuit Judge Collins Kilgore ruJed the states edu- SUMMARY of Huckabee's education proposals. Page 6B. cation system funding inadequate and inequitable. Witnesses in the case said it could reform the system. Huckabee disagreed with the ruling, and the state has appealed it to the state Supreme Court. Huckabees plan, called Next Step, includes: "Simply this: Align pay with performance. Better teaching means better pay. Productivity is rewarded everywhere except public education where everyone walks in and gets the same paychecks. If a state college has to remediate a child who has graduated from high school, then well send the bill to that high school and say we want our money back for the cost of remediation. We may have created a level of expectancy, and even dependency and entitlement with Academic Challenge and Governors Distinguished scholarships. Recipients would have to pay back their scholarships to the state if they didnt graduate in six years, barring acceptable extenuating circumstances. Expanding academic requirements, including mandating four years of math in high school. "The state will have to intervene if local districts dont See EDUCATION, Page 66 Gov. Mike Huckabee (left) and former Gov. Frank White laugh Tuesday Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/RICK McFARLAND in Little Rock. Huckabee announced an education reform plan that enduring the Rotary Club of Little Rock luncheon at the Doubletree Hotel phasizes accountability from schools and students. School reform plan gets mixed reactions BY SETH BLOMELEY ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Gov. Mike Huckabees education reform plan won limited approval in first responses from legislators and educators Tuesday. There were questions, too, including Little Rt^k School Superintendent Ken James concern about the plan to expand charter schools. Charter schools, in some cases, allow a private organization to start a school with state monFM- <4 ey. Potentially, it could take away students we cant afford to lose, James said. But he was glad to see Huckabee focus on strengthening academic requirements, particularly in high schools. Most high school students have finished their core courses at the end of their junior years, James said. We say we have four years of high school but we really dont, he said. James said he was glad to see the governor talking about pay for performance among teachers. He said Little Rock has applied to a private foundation for teachers to receive incentive pay. One thing absent from Huckabees eight-pronged plan was school district consolidation, something former Gov. Jim Guy Tucker tried but failed to accomplish. Somebody one of these days is going to have to stand up and say 310 school districts is too many said state Sen. Bill Gwatney, D-Jack-sonville. But the governor's not going to propose that hes run-ning for re-election. This state cannot afford 310 school districts. Stacy Pittman of Little Rock, chairman of the Arkansas Blue Ribbon Commission on Public Education, said if the governor wants equal opportunities for Arkansas students, some school districts may have to consolidate with other districts if they cant provide services that another dis- See REACTION, Page 68 Reaction Continued from Page 1B trict provides. Offering additional curriculum in districts, thats going to cost money, Pittman said. Weve got some decisions here. Pittman expects her task force, which is studying education issues in light of a court order declaring Arkansas public school funding inequitable and inadequate, will have a report ready by May. Huckabee has said the schools are adequate and equitable. The state has appealed the ruling to the state Supreme Court. Kellar Noggle, director of the Arkansas Association of Educational Administrators, said Huckabees plan and ideas from the I commission should be considered in depth. We all want good schools, he said. , But Noggle said he wonders what Huckabee means by seeking to tie the Teacher Fair Dismissal Act with student academ- ic performance. This could mean -- that teachers could be fired if plan was a surprise. their students fail, he said. Noggle said the Fair Dismissal Act was reworked during last years legislative session. He said school boards and the Arkansas Education Association reached a compromise that stripped some of the technical requirements that hindered teacher firings. I guess my first reaction is I dont see a lot of new material, House Education Chairman Olin Cook, D-Russellville, said of Huckabees plan. Senate Education Chairman David Malone, D-Fayetteville, said many of Huckabees ideas have already been tried, like giving more funds to charter schools and giving teachers raises. He said those ideas didnt work because there wasnt enough money. Malone said it was interesting that Huckabee was calling for better school report cards. He said the Legislature already approved such report cards. If the current report cards arent good enough, he said, that must be the Huckabee administrations fault becau^ the Department of Education is under the governors authority. Huckabees plan, Malone said, comes across as a top-down announcement that this is what were going to do. Top-down doesnt work very well. Luke Gordy of Van Buren, a member of the state Board of Education, said hes not aware of anybody on the board Huckabee contacted for input. James, of the Little Rock district, also said the Education Continued from Page 1B handle their money well or properly educate children. Starting a state high school in Hot Springs for children gifted in the arts. This would be in conjunction with the Arkansas School for Math and Sciences. We need a statewide strategy for students to become proficient hi the arts. Remove all remediation classes from four-year colleges because thats more expensive than remediation at two-year colleges. Senate Education Committee Chairman David Malone, D-Fay- etteville, who was not present for the speech, predicted legislative hearings this year on education reform. But its unclear who will drive legislative education policy in 2003. Malone and House Education Committee Chairman OUn Cook, D-Rus- sellville, are both term-limited from seeking re-election to their positions. Both Malone and Cook said Huckabees speech was a surprise to many legislators and educators. Im just puzzled by the process because in times past when Ive seen a consensus built to get some of this stuff done, its been done in a different way than the governor announcing a secret plan and then legislators finding out about it through the newspapers, Malone said. Cook wondered if the Huckabee plan was partly fueled by 1 the recent announcement by . businessman Jackson T. Steve Stephens of Little Rock that he i wouldnt challenge Huckabee in the Republican primary this year. What drives it is what the governor would hope drives Mr. Cook a desire to see Arkansas schools improve, Huckabee spokesman Jim Harris responded later. Stephens in the past has pushed for school accountability, which is heavily emphasized in the Huckabee plan. Huckabee hasnt said if his plan was influenced by Stephens. Some elements of the governors plan were similar to ideas recommended in 1998 by the Murphy Commission, a conservative think tank that Huckabee embraced early as governor and of which Stephens was a leading architect. Huckabee did not embrace some of its other ideas, such as having 134 administrative units to handle the states 310 school districts. Huckabee predicted lots of criticism of his plan. Weve had far too many people willing take no steps rather than the next step, the governor said. Let the cynics do their job and the critics be the critics. But let me tell you, no one has ever erected a statue to a critic or to a complainer. But he said after the speech that a final education reform plan will be crafted with the help of the Legislature and the Arkansas Blue Ribbon Commission on Public Education, which was created by the last legislative session and is holding hearings in response to Kilgores ruling. Several officials who will have a hand in shaping the states education plan were at the speech. They included Stacy Pittman of Little Rock, chairman of the commission
Rich Nagel, executive director of the Arkansas Education Association, a teachers union
and Ken James, superintendent of the Little Rock School District. Pittman said the commission is studying many of the same ideas. The true test will be devising a way to implement a plan which also satisfies the court order, which she expects to be upheld, she said. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 9, 2002 Summary of Gov. Huckabees proposals for education reform ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Gov. Mike Huckabee's summary of bis education proposal: PROFESSIONAL STAFF ACCOUNTABILITY AND COMPENSATION Develop and implement a system which bases continued employment and increases in compensation to student progress and market demand: Reward all certified staff (teachers, specialized staff and administrators) with annual salary inceases based on specified accountability measures appropriate for their duty areas. Employ appropriate arxJ timely measures for certifted staff who do not meet accountability criteria. Revise the Teacher Fair Dismissal Act to provide proper balance between protection of acaidemic freedom and academe performance of students. Offer stipends or additional pay to certified staff in shortage areas such as mathematics, special education, foreign language, science, English as a : second language, or for academically distressed schools. Continue and expand incentives for teachers such as National Board Certification and increased compensation for teachers whose students show significant measurable academic improvement. Establish professional development requirements for teacher educators based on state curriculum frameworks and statewide education initiatives. Increase accountability for retention and graduation of students at the postsecondary level. Reorganize state scholarships as loan/scholarship funds in which failure to graduate in six years would deem it a loan. Graduation within six years would result in the loan being classtfied as a scholarship with no repayment (Allow waivers for extenuating drcumstarices.) Expand the alternative compensation programs for teachers, such as the Teacher Advancement Program, across the state. Promote the awareness of the School Workers Defense Program. ACADEMIC STANDARDS, CURRICULUM AND TEACHING t ! METHODS ' . - Implement a system which better assures that all students have equal opportunity to achieve: Restructure the current Arkansas testing system to include annual spring testing, creating valid student academic achievement growth comparisons from year to year and reporting results to stakeholders and taxpayers. Monitor schools more closely to assure consistency in what is taught and what is mandated within the state standards. An even more intense level of assistance would be provided in staff development on student performance through the Smart Start and Smart Step initiatives. Continue and expand the RAfHWISE teacher preparation program by creating a network of educators who specialize in successful delivery of standards in Ihe dassroom, who would become mentors in their own schools to assist other teachers. Expedite and expand the process of the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing Assessment and Accountability Program, which allows the state to intervene more quickly when districts are not performing academically or fiscally. Require schools to set consequences for individual student accountability on testing. Increase the course requirements for all high school graduates to demonstrate a level of rigor throughout the entire high school experience. (Example: Four math units would be required for all students.) Expand opportunities for local collies to offer concurrent credit in the high schools with a goal of enabling high school graduates the ability to have earned an associate degree by the end of grade 12. Establish higher entry criteria for four-year colleges and universities. Offer remedial courses through the two-year colleges only. Align the curricula for high school courses, two-year colleges and four- year universities. COMMUNICATING RESULTS TO AU STAKEHOLDERS Expand the Arkansas School Report Card system, which assures parents, businesses patrons and educators receive current comparison infomiation across the state, as well as school-to- sctraoi and district-todistrict comparison. Provide useful, timely academic performance data specifically concerning students, class (grade level), classroom teacher, and school to parents and educators. Continue to expand the current annual report card to parents, businesses and constituents, including current comparison information across the state, as well as school-to-school and district-to-district comparison. Improve the communication and understanding of needed course requirements for high school students to graduate and enter postsecondary schools: Improve the communication and un- derst^ding of needed course requirements for high school students to graduate and enter postsecondary schools. Guidelines for this process would be established for all high school counselors. Develop relationships between college recruiters and high schools. BROADEN THE STATES CHARTER SCHOOL LAW Increase the methods which enhance school choice alternatives for parents and students: Increase the number of open enrollment charter schools allowed by law. Develop facilities funding for charter schools. Continue to give charter schools flexibility, but hold them to rigorous performance standards. Encourage more organizers to be authorizers such as colleges, universities and nonprofit organizations. FINANCIAL REPORTING Implement a user-friendly standardized accounting system for all school districts, which is easily understood by constituents: Spending categories would become part of the accountability program for school districts. Results would be published as part of the Arkansas School Report Card information provided to parents and patrons. Establish standards determining percentage at district funds which must be used for actual classroom instruction. IMPROVED PRESCHOOL AND HEALTH CARE ACCESS FOR CHILDREN Implement expanded educational opportunities for pre-school including emphasis for reading and access to heith and dental care: Assure access to Head Start, ABC or other education-based quality preschool programs. Increase phonics-based reading opportunities for pre-school-age children. Increase adult literacy to assist in creating an education Wendly environment for children in the home. Increase readiness to learn by improving access and utilization of basic health care, with attention given to visual, aural and dental health as well as basic health care. INCLUSION AND EXPANSION OF BROAD-BASED OPPORTUNITIES FOR STUDENTS IN THE ARTS Develop and implement a statewide strategy to assure students of opportunities to become proficient in music, the visual arts, theater or other fine arts: Expand standards far music instruction for children in K-12. Develop a residential high school for exceptional high school students in the performing and fine arts in conjunction with the Arkansas School for Math and Science. Establish standards for access for all students for visual arts and theater. DEVELOP PARTNERSHIPS BETWEEN BUSINESS, INDUSTRY, POSTSECONDARY SCHOOLS, WORK FORCE EDUCATION AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS Expand courses at the high school level that would enable students to develop work force skills needed in todays technological environment Make programs such as Environmental and Spatial Technology and CISCO [a computer company] available in all high schools. Provide more opportunities for postsecondary schools or Workforce Education's technical institutes to participate with high schools in special training progams. Expand partnership betw^n public schools and teacher education programs to create more classroom experiences for teachers-in-training and more opportunities for insfructors/pro- fessors to interact with students in public school classrooms.
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.