i Data prep: Teams. LI230-90 LeadershipCampus Leadership Team Certified/Non-Certified Input Districtwide Activity 1. Use strategies and operate team activities that improve effectiveness. Maintain Activity 718 58.7% Increase Activity 421 34.4% Change Decrease Eliminate Activity 45 3.7% Activity 17 1.4% Activity 22 1.8% 2. Reach decisions through consensus building rather than voting. 684 55.1% 361 29.1% 102 8.2% 39 3.1% 56 4.5% 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Advise the principal in the area of planning, budgeting, and school oroganization. Provide opportunites for faculty and staff to be involved in soliciting, collecting, analyzing, and distributing feedback on data-related goals to be included in the School Improvement Plan. Promote the active contribution of parent and community CLT members on goals to be included in the School Improvement Plan. Identify specific strategies for measuring progress toward achieving school improvement goals. Coordinate staff development with school improvement goals. Utilize District leadership and support of campus initiatives to improve student achievement. Inform staff about decisions and plans made at meeting using a written and verbal system of communication. 10, Improve customer satisfaction through increased parent involvement. 786 63.1% 395 31.7% 36 2.9% 17 1.4% 12 1.0% 744 59.7% 402 32.3% 40 3.2% 39 3.1% 21 1.7% 657 52.9% 524 42.2% 35 2.8% 14 1.1% 11 0.9% 657 55.6% 685 54.6% 657 52.8% 635 50.6% 557 45.0% 452 38.2% 489 39.0% 503 40.4% 572 45.6% 620 50.1% 48 4.1% 45 3.6% 51 4.1% 26 2.1% 39 3.2% 15 1.3% 25 2.0% 15 1.2% 13 1.0% 9 0.7% 10 0.8% 11 0.9% 19 1.5% 8 0.6% 12 1.0% Campus Leadership Team Team Member Self-Assessment DISTRICTWIDE 1. 2. 3. 4. Activity Maintain Activity Agendas and Minutes Use an agenda format that will promote efficient meeting flow and maintain the focus of members. Use an efficient process for including items on the agenda. Organize an efficeint process for keeping, copying, and distributing minutes. Focus on CLT's primary purpose/function: Improve performance of all student populations. 329 88.7% 296 80.4% 270 72.6% 255 68.9% Meeting Conduct Increase Activity 41 11.1% 69 18.8% 89 23.9% 108 29.2% Change Decrease Eliminate Activity Activity Activity 5. Convey overall motivation to participate and actively express positivism. 255 70.2% 101 27.8% 6. Focus on each agenda item and actively contribute to the dialogue to address the item throughly before moving on to the next. 255 79.4% 53 16.5% 7. Address complex problems with extra effort to produce creative team-generated solutions. 249 67.7% 106 28.8% 8. Appropriately reinforce other team members for their contributions. 260 70.7% 100 27.2% 9. Accept responsibility for quickly postponing or eliminating specific agenda items as needed. 285 79.2% 65 18.1% 10. Periodically summarize progress. 259 70.2% 93 25.2% Problem Solving 11. Honor the obligation to be adequately informed on issues and problems by asking questions or seeking outside information. 262 70.6% 99 26.7% 12. Help generate a list of alternatives and evaluate each thoroughly until members are fully prepared to select a solution or make a decision. 252 68.3% 108 29.3% 13. Specify precisely who, when, and how a decision will be carried out or a solution implemented and how outcomes will be monitored. 244 65.6% 119 32.0% 14. Periodically review monitoring of outcomes from previous decision making and evaluate the need to intervene. 238 64.2% 120 32.3% Friday. May 11. 2001 1 0.3% 3 0.8% 10 2.7% 4 1.1% 3 0.8% 3 0.9% 4 1.1% 5 1.4% 9 2.5% 5 1.4% 4 1.1% 4 1.1% 4 1.1% 9 2.4% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 0.5% 2 0.5% 1 0.3% 7 2.2% 4 1.1% 0 0.0% 1 0.3% 5 1.4% 3 0.8% 4 0.3% 1 0.3% 2 0.5% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.3% 1 0.3% 3 0.8% 3 0.9% 5 1.4% 3 0.8% 0 0.0% 7 1.9% 3 0.8% 4 1.1% 4 1.1% 2 0.5% Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 :hool c^trAt- .high.schqql. Signature of Princip! L L CTFoT" TEAM MEMBER CQRTTNFX BALDWIN KATHERINE Barbara Position . TF.AP.HFP________ SUPPORT STAFF EUEdTEDlAPPOlNTEEl rAc^ ibENDER (chei*) X (shsci) X 44. W XF EWIS--------- HALL BETSY GARQLU SUPPORT. .STAFF TEACHER HOLLADAY KATO HOWARD RUDOLPH TEACHER CO^CHAIR/PRTNGTHAl HUNT SAM TEA^IIgR X X X_ W . JiU -B-Xi F F Ji K '<1 V i LITTLE NASH CAROL. ANGEL RORERTR RHODES SAVIERS SEWARD joaa. DEDE VICKI DARRELL STAFFORD BARBARA STEADMAN ANNICE WATSON BILLY WILLIAMSON MARGARET COBB BEGGS BROWN TANDY MELINDA KARYN OLONEL ROBERTSON. MAYS GRACIfi COLBURN MELISSA teacher TEACHER SUPPORT. STAFF SUPPORT STAFF CQMMUMTTY TSACSER. TEACHER TEACHER TEACHER TEACHER TEACHER TEACHER JEACflER TFAGHFR JXACHG&. TEACHER X XX X X X X X X XX i X T 44- w-w JIL 44- W W . B X_ 44- W X AL-for example: 1l flraae iwcner. algebra leachor. 3Brin9 oommittee etialr, support staff, etc. - list all positions held r p J X JU. F F M X X X X-M X X Ui /LU Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School SignaUjre of Principal J. A- Fair High School rame ~ team MEMBER Anne Magee Judith Pickering Martha Nahlen Lucy Willis Jerry Cookus Robert Palmer Martha Rains_____ _ Evelyn Callaway Sharon Jackson Danny Brown Marsha Vault_______ _ Lee Willingham Trish Killingsworth Rev. Larry Ott_____ 'POSrflON Spanish Teacher English Teacher Business Teacher Art Teacher [English Teacher~ History Teacher Science Teacher Home Ec. Teacher Drama Teacher Partner In Educ. Parent__________ President, PTSA Broker Parent EUEdTED IAPPOInVed RACe seniS^r (check) X ii X Ji Ji -X. X X X (Qfi^ck) W . W w B , W B W , B B F F F F M M F F F I b X i. X X X. W B - B , W W 'tor enempte: 1I orade tescher. algebra (tscher, swthng committee ehatr, support staff. Wc. - 1st all poeWons held M F M F M 04/04/2000 15:13 5016716207 HALL HIGH PAGE 02 -If I <91 f ill' ii u Campus Lssdsrship Tsam Verification Perm Iddd'SCOO I School Hall High School SignatursofPilndpal. NAMEOF TEAM MEMBER Best, Joan Brant.PPennis Maddison, Sue ~~ Runshanq, Mary Sanders, Kitty Walker, EHa______ Walton, Georgia Watson, Pat_______ Watson, Gladystine Paulson, Terri Cyr, Betty Tnotnas, Sarah Burks, Karen_____ gostic, Kelvin Garner, Susan Graves, Ken ^ys, Sherrie Shells, Byron Zink, Judy________ Moore, Kgn Vibhakar, Diane Gamos. Ann_____ Burks, Roy________ Lease, Kathy______ Marilyn, Brewster FOSITION Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Parent Teacher Parent Parent Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher,, Teacher Asst. Prin-i' Teacher Parent Parent ,. Parent_______ Parent Asst. Prin. i sssrasr ___ 2___ XX X X X X __X____ X Afi^lNKt X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Race U w Ji__ w_ JL_ _L_ _B__ W JL- _iL_ W M-JB_ B w JL B _iL_ w iT" w OEWOER -E____ ja____ _h____ F____ F____ _E____ _E___ E------ _E____ F F _E____ _E____ _JI___ F .1!___ F____ M___ JJ____ F F___ N F____ F____ N ------ F I ' i ItftMInfitt-. 1* sad* toehir, !&( MMh',9Ur<A0oaaunMMeir, tuppad MR. ate. - M Id poMItm tMW A i 1 u.' i Campus Leadership Tam Verification Form 1999-2000 Signaiure Gf PrinfioJT^ii ' t SchoottlQellan /> ! NAMfeOF TEAMMEMBSR POSTTiON tet aUhrey Chriatie CcJjaiBn Steve &urln Barfcaca toy David Gum ,Stella Loya Ajeal Wtllians_____ Orolyn Carter_____ Vsra Broailee Ralph Kwe Steve Neely \ Whiter Rktiard ATpela Gaippll Gtendaterts Janey lawscn_______ Murrie ^ths-. Shudi^ Ftersjgcn Stepbanifi Stallwtfa Betty'Eujlde______ I^t HjTiicutt Sandra Aithmy_ Et. ^trice Read Timifeynie Carol Oooper JcdLe I. Carter Tteacher IfeadEc Ifeacfier Iteacher Iteacher Daadiec.. _____ Tteadier_________ Qaanmlty Camnte------- Cananily--------- SeogitY Offijgec MlfegXeaaeec. ^Baneot_______ Harem .flSES^._________ __________ Bacient nHinFm_______ BtBineaa Baaineaa_______ EUsanass R.Kdrefa JGlllflS--------- ErJnrijRl____. eCected U. X X X i i i APPOINTBtJ U_ Y Y___ JU. Ji____ JL- U_ X JU JU i- ji__ X- X X X RACE Ji-i- i___ JB___ JU- ja____ .fl JO------ .a__- .K_ B . .u_ x.-_ Ji. K u E_^_ JixZ B ' B OeiOER j:_ lU. JEJU. F M JU JU ..BLU- JU JU JU X-:* T F F -F_ F - JU F F ' JU F M I f i I { fcif wampte
1 ** e<lt tapoher, toocnet. (fina cown* <**i Upport Uff, ate. > IM all posJUona hldCAMPUS LEADERSHIP TEAM VERIFICATION FORft^i 1999-2000 I I Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School Name of Team Member Brown, Dr. Linda Biggs, LaGail Position(a) Elected Appointed Race Gendet 11c me Brown, Debbi Carr, David Fuller. Danny Hampton, Vannessa Henry, Sarah Hobbs, Pam Jackson. Christy Johnson, Nancy Lee, Chris Lusk, Jennifer McNeal, Marie Mitchell, Derrick Picard, Dick Randolph, Myra Thomas, Dr. Billy Thompson. Carol Principal,Chairperson Communications Teacher, Student Teacher Supv._________ PTSA President________ Community/Twin Lake Assoc. Rep. Science Depl. Chair Math Dept. Chair. Math Vertical Team Steering Committee Member______ E nglish Teacher__________ Journalism Teacher. ACT Coordinator Math Teacher. Student Teacher Supv., Math Vertical Team Steering Committee Member______ Guidance Secretary______ Science Teacher_____ German Teacher, SAP Coordinator, Pupil Services______________ Broker___________________ Junior Class President Science Teacher Community Rep., Parent Community Rcp./UAMS Senior Class Rep._______ X X X X X X ......X x" X X X X X X 'X X X X w B F F
227-j
i 834-1: I 56W 3247 Work Phone 226-3000 228-3000 W-' B w- B B V\1 . W . W W W B B B S W ' F tfessTssgs M M 'f' F F F F M F F M M F M F ! a i/J 0
!224- 5085 247-6391 224-5085 '27 >Q2- g25' 758 604- I 4690 ri9'54 4371 6141 7498 127 0995 7731 224^4713 ^435|2996 |6a6|6598 19324150 738)5737 221|3322 223|8919 I I I I I I I li 228-3000 228-3000 228-3000 228-3006 228-3000 '228-3000 228-3000 228-3000' 324-0511 228-3000 835-4399 296-1397I ix'on Cloverdale Academy Uto a HAGE 01 Campus Leadership Team William Andnsss Sarah Shutte Andrew Bennctt Kenneth Fishe- Michael Jeffers Sharon Harris David Patterson Carolyn Lamb Karen Greenlee Ann Firestone Mona Briggs Frank Adcock Pamela Adcock 6300 Hinkson Road Phhno Campus LeadershfpTeamVenfic^ 1999-2000 Signature of PrtncSpel. polltan Career & Technical Center ... NAfZS'Sp team member Laurie Prather Carl Grummer_____ Mitchell Perry Bill Nolem Janey Lawson Chris Ames Stacy Blacknall .. POSITION Teacher Teacher Teacher Bus. Partner Parent________ Appt. Coor. -gpTupt S.nec. ELEdtED (ohaok) X X X appointed (ablotO RACE A L X X V B V B W GENDER ________ M M F, M ________ for exatapl*
1" gad# leather, algebr* teacher, slasrlng oommlnee ehalf. support slaft, eto, - list all positions hsW11/03/1399 10:23 3242032 LRSD PAi3E 01/01 Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School Signature of Principal C^li. hKi. ^^0 ID.L^ .aj^2 i NAME OF team MEMBER*- hICUT. 4 H JIRaj- -U.u.<rn i_i POSITION l-.ou:i. iC -QtxH'ki e.3 Prinripryg Cinytc-Lr ... _ ELECTED (check) APPOINTED (check) / RACE GENDER LiC'iijvc Po LLi i I CfiYVMYMmitc LsnJi/- y / J 10 IkL l_ A J^4v'e/-lc.T3a r.Q^. V^On-^rrv Hr\> Kj I icmiA ADn-Ce.i4i-Fieri idi inm'i SiuebK-k ' L Jibf^n ^urq-g ^ rr-^ L Ca r r XtQ ncu j&n fnaoi KflAW-/k rntinTG^ -AHbirr nil
ilin TrygciCjifyB s^^-fuJieo-Chciir ^brl use k ^nc-ini,Al^ -L^vtin J'lVl IJ .1-- k^lii^K. AV-f- Cwt r'lf uOuivA cy J. <1 (I tl (I b () I) >1 II I -4- -ki- I-A-^ i: Lukin lo fe -^. r___ -E___ JE___ _E___ JL__ m__ J3Q__ JL__ ___ jn___ F___ -in__ -in__ JOi__ -E___ J___ -E___ rn__ I IjJ. - F Tor example: 1st grade teacher, algebra teacher, steering committee cnsir. support staff, etc, - list all positions heldCampus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School Signature of Principal J NAME OF TEAM MEMBE.R 'POSITION Id ELECTED (check) APPOINTED! RACE (check) GENDER 2 Id M. Id Ld Bixkt A/L^& f- \ /O -5 itkt fb iJd. -i id id ~/5 Id Id P P F p F F rd F F P P P far example: 1st grade teacher, algebra teacher, Steering committee chair, suppo,! staff, etc. - list all positions held Henderson Health Sciences Magnet Middle School CAMPUS LEADERSHIP TEAM VERIFICATION FORM School Hsnderson HSM Middle School 1999-2000 School Year Name of Team Member Larry Buck (WM) Sue Stowers (WF) Judith Murray (WF) Carolyn Slater (BF)~ Teretha Kelly (BF) Vicki ElUs (BF) Kathy Tatum ( BF) Melanie Smith (BF) Mary Whitlow (WF) Barbara Hannahs (WF) Louie Lewis (BM) Annita Paul (WF) Jackie Moore (BF) Mike Ciowers (WM) Leta Anthony (BF) Mike Thrasher (BM) Sherry Daughtery (BF) Position Chairman Teacher/Certified T eacher/Certlfied Teacher/Certified Teacher/Certified Teacher/ Certified Teacher/Certified Teacher/Certified Teacher/Certified Teacher/Certified Teacher/Certified Central Office Parent ~~ Parent______ Business Business Non-Certifled Elected Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Appointed Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Signature (Pri^tsfpal) rs___ Campus Leadership Team 1999-2000 Name of Team Member Green, Connie_______ Moseley, Fran________ Peoples, Linda_______ Boykin, Patricia_______ Picker, Diane________ Fullerton, Jim________ Cameron, Stella______ Longinotti, Joe_______ Swinney, Joyce______ Gullett, Randy________ Betton, Sherry_______ Milligan, Jennifer_____ Ellington, Jeff________- Dorris, Shannon_____ Wallace, Pam________ Hudson, Valerie______ Thompson, Lauren Lowe, Kenyon________ Campbell, Heidi_______ Cleveland, Ellean_____ Booth, Virginia Position Teacher Teacher Teacher Administrator Community Administrator P.I.E. Rep. Parent Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Broker Student Student Teacher Administrator Teacher Elected X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Appointed X X X X XCampus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School Horace Mann Arts/Sclence Middle School *1, Signature of Principal Dr. Brenda JameW, Principal NAME OF TEAM MEMBER * Baker, Frank Briggs, Demetria Bumpers, Bonnie Duerr, Donna Fleming, Linda Fletcher, Danny Gilbert-Wise, Barbara Harper, Drew Hayes, Stella Henry, Vai Holt, Dee Ann Jasper, Thelma Johnson, Lorraine Penn-Norman, Kathy Redmond, Wendell Weatherford, Tory James, Brenda 'POSITION ELECTED (check) Teacher Parent Teacher. Administrator Teacher Teacher Teacher Community Teacher ' Community Teacher Parent Teacher Coordinator - Teacher Student Administrator X X X X X X X X 504 X appointed race (check) X X X X X X X X 02 01 01 02 01 02 02 01 01 02 02 01 02 01 02 for example: 1st grade teacher, algebra teacher, steering committee chair, stipport staff, etc. - list all positions held GENDER M F F F7 M F M F M F F F F M F /I I Signature of Principal a J 0 NAME OF TEAM MEMBER POSITION ELECTED APPOINTED RACE GENDER (check) (check) Nancy Rousseau Ann Blaylock Elizabeth Lucker Kathy Jarrett Calvin Smith Peggy Hawthorne Bryan Hall Carolyn Williams Jean Givens Libby Thalheimer Margaret Lewis Laura Doramus Jim Metzger Renee Dickins Lee Thompson Betty Mitchell Beth Munson Sammy Grandy Lynn Cardin Janet Buford LB Easter Rick Woole Renee Bennett principal assistant principal broker non-certifiedZregistrar non-certified/custodian counselor student council president parent parent/PTA co-president parent/PTA co-president parent parent_____________ business' representative community representative science teacher - 6th fecial needs teacher English teacher - 7th math teacher - 7th English teacher - Sth social studies - Sth art teacher 6-8th math teacher - Sth business teacher 6-8th X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X W W W B \N W B B B W W W B W W B for example: 1st grade teacher, algebra teacher, steering committee chair, support staff, ^c. - list all positions held F F F F M F M F F F F F M F M F F M F F M M F Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 19992000 Signature of Principal School Southwest Middle,School NAME OF TEAM MEMBER'. Mark Clarlc Mahle Collins Cathy Dillon Regina Ezell Stephanie Jones Carolyn Jennings Sandra Pearson Walter Rowe Claudia Smith Cliristopher Kline Gloria Owens Betty Larry Versie Burgess________ Dr. Scotty Glaaco Elizabeth Willingham Pl 1T1ON ELECTED' (check) Math Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher J-S&SllgL Teacher ___ ____ ^Tgacher Teacher ' Teacher Parent Parent JUU Conimunitv X ___ 2. .X_____ .X. i 25. .X.___ A__ APPOliTrffl RACE . (check) X X ...-X I I P-GENDER I T----- W A i. i JI Ji. ....ja__ JI .K 44. .... M jE. _E. JE Jd. X___ p X X ------.... ( I ..J. m,nittee chair. support staff, e-,c, _ list jn positions held I I I .J 11/03/1333 11:18 3242032 LRSD PAGE 01/01 Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School Signature of Principal NAME OF - TEAM MSXBER J ~J POSITION Lt2l ELECTED lAPPOINTEi RACE GENDER (check) )(-cJ rk > enf' }\(^f V 'UL Yh I^QC kr (check) CO hk 7a eh r^o-' /ji-rrn TaliXirm' rka (>7 V- b.nc.ei-^. ICA E tr U2 Ccn a'i e l/on( jn (?5anc T^zn ^....jh 'i. Pen-h A ix
Ll2 U '7df\o(er ('Yom' I (J! 5(yr.5 akY nJ J aC h '?q1 ^,i..____' <J .f^Aina Yam ,g^ryimiOTi ^Tx lOcV'y'h /Kraih Tt hk ( iec{dx?f'. ~reac K(- K E 'ler example: Is) grade teacher, algebra tsachsr, stsehna coirmittse chair, support staff, etc. - list all poslSons held f- k 'h I "T F f=^- IpT.. little rock school DISTRICT Baseline Elementary School fosition Number Title Race Gender Eleanor Cox, Principal 1 Chairman B F Certified Teacher Primary Brenda Thomas Marilyn James. 2 Elected Elected Elected W B F P Certified Teacher Intermediate Brooklyn Grimm Rebekah Martin Elected Elected W W F F Certified Specialist Teacher Phontonia Belin Elected B F Central Office Eddie McCoy Appointed U F Parent Rev, Roosvclt Bowman Kelli MePhearson Appointed Appointed B B M F ! Business Wal-Mart Randy Ilarryman Appointed W M Comniiiiiity James Killion Appointed B M 3623 Bassllno Road Phone 570-4150 Little Rock. Arkansas 72209 04/83/2000 14:10 3242100 BOOKER PAGE 02 '4 Campus Uadarship T am Varificertion Form 1999-2000 School Booker Arts M<wn*t Signature of Principal NAME OF TEAM MEMBER Rita Bledsoe POSr ION Cheryl A. Carson Susan Coif ord Yolanda Pavia Ernie Dotson Janie Fletcher Moggie Hawkins Dorrell Hayden 6ail Hester Tanony Higdon Atoyrean Johnson Mary McMoiron Patsy Middleton Darryl Powell Tammy Sexton Tracy Tucker Joyce Willingham Mualc/Or .hestro Sped list Print ggl___ s* Srade regehar 1 nide reacher Business Aember, EMt BA_______ For nt______ Communih Member, 21** 5 reet Neighbarl xtd Alert Cei- 'er ___ _ A*** grade Teacher ______ Bn. r_______ 2"grad Teacher 5* 6rmt Teacher Resourca Teacher Technok jy Center Ass itant _______ Po gnt Klndergor en Teacher 3'* grod
Teacher Assistar r Principal ELECTED (check) X appointed (check) RACE GENOER is- X X X X )(. X X X X X X X X X B F W W B 8 W B B W B B W yfi/ 3 "forexomple
1** grade te -cher, algebra teacher, steering committee choir, s^jpart staff, etc. - Ils f all positions held F F F P F F M F F F F F M p F F lA
4 ?? "I Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School Brady Elementary Signature of Principal NAME OF 'POSITION ELECTED APPOINTED RACE GENDER TEAM MEMBER (check) (check) Collette Bell Christiann Daniel Teacher Counselor X W XF Linda Rose Teacher W F Cheri Washburn SFA Coordinator w F JoAnn White Parent F Mary Wood Beth Boyd Xaflchs.r______ Community PTE X X W F Lynda Elledge Parent X W F Becky Dugan X W F Morlin McCoy Ada Keown Teacher Broker Principal X X B XF for example: 1 st grade teacher, algebra teacher, steering committee chair, support staff, etc. - list all positions held 11/03/19'33 10:43 3242032 LRSD PAGE 01/01 Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School ')' i
Signature of Principal Ui NAMEOPy TEAM MEMBER Res OSITION Elected (check) APPOINTED RACE GENDER K, (check) Raak-C. pthhl-e- lab landra l^el lb i (n $i/m~i~H4 Re.^Q>^<r(jL-'t7Jar, KifTisfi^, TcM R7hK, /^'hb R, fl-' gj , -|o 'kC gf^palA-^^, iriah. \a/ saL ysL o J )) 11 F M. P for example: 1st grade teacher, algebra teacher, steering committsa chair, support staff, etc. - list ail positions heldCampus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School: Cloverdale Elementary School Signature of PrincipaL>^
^^^zxZ Name T. Dockett-Wilson C. Lacy K. Daneshmandi C. Langston D. White B. Banks K. Shuffield F. Fields L. Taylor J. Williams L. Young T. Brown C. Johnson Position Music Teacher Counselor Title I Inst. Aide ALC Teacher 5* Gr. Teacher Gr. Teacher Principal Asst. Principal Community Rep Parent Parent Community Rep Elected X X X X X X 'X X X Appointed X X X Race B B W B B B W B W B B B B Gender F F F M M F F M M F F F MDodd Elementary School TogBthsr building 3 bsttGr tomorrow, one child 3t 3 tims CAMPUS LEADERSHIP TEAM 1999-2000 VALERIE HARE SHERRY CHAMBERS ALICIA RANKIN CINDY PRICE MARTHA LOWE PAM MOORE JO CARSON SALLY MCGOWAN DIANE VIEBOCHER REGGIE MORRISON ELNA HASBERRY BARB KENNEDY BF WF WF WF WF BF BF WF WF BM BF WF KTEACHER 1ST GR 4 GR RESOURCE COUNSELOR 2 YRS NEW (1 YR) 2 YRS 2 YRS. 2 YRS. INSTRUCTIONAL AIDE APPOINTED MEMBER-AT-LARGE PARENT PARENT COMMUNITY BUSINESS BROKER MEDIA SPEC. APPOINTED APPOINTED APPOINTED APPOINTED LRSD APPOINTED FAITH DONOVAN WF PRINCIPAL DODD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION APPOINTED TO SERVE WITH ROTATING REPRESENTATION ON THE CLT. 6423 Stagecoach Road Phone 455-7430 I ittio Rnr'k 7oonzi PAGE 01/01 Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 Signature of Principal School Fair Park Elementary ' NAME OF-team member Samuel Branch______ Tina Poacher_____ Boyce Pearson Rosie Powell Opal Rice Fred Chilcote Lucille.Montgomery Nadine Fitzpa tri c,)t Loretta Alexander Ben Jones ^dSffldN ELECTED (appointed RACS IgENDST (chsck) Erincipal Teacher -Teacher Teac-her Teacher (check) X X XX X X Paraprofesgicnal Business Perf.nr r business Partner Patron X X X 02 01 112_ Q2 01 01 02 02___ 02__ 01 .. M . F M F F M F _E_ F M 'foe example: i t grade teacher, aigebni teacher, steering eommlnae cnalr, cvpport staff, etc. - Mt all positions (laid Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School FOREST PARK ELEMENTARY Signature of Principal JU. NAME OF team member THERESA KETCHER'. ELEANOR COLEMAN MARY BOYCE PAIGE WESTBROOK BARBARA MCBRIDE LAURA DORAMUS ALLEN BULLARD Betty ann buliard SUSAN BAUMAN JENNIFER BALLARD *i^osiTroN PRINCIPAL________ counselor_______ media SPECIALIST THIRD GRADE TEA, SPEECH THERAPIST PARENT COMMUNITY_________ COMMUNITY SECOND GRAPE TEA fifth grade' tea. ELECTED (check) X X X X S^POINT^DJ Ra6e (checic) X___ X X 'Sender w W R w w ____ V! . W- . for oxompla.' 1t grade [eacher, algeto taacfier, sieeiing commlttae chair. uppons(a, etc. - uat all positions held F F F 1. F M JE. F F I ZflLRSD PA' 02/02 Campua Leadership Team Verification Form ie9$-2000 School ___________(L/fyy'Ay Marcy Signaiurt of Principal ~"NXue'5F'~- ,.. TE^ MEMBER C^elL^unhfir POSITION jUfin IVlby. ,_,_.. ELECTED <!*e0 APPOINTED lwW 'I r 1^., I ^yyaii//er ___UA^ur.. ^fdry/u)' ----------------- V y- ... far eiampie: 1* gad* tachf, tigabra laiehar, aieerina cammiif** chair, *ut>prt ataff, *to - Hat iK peaitjona hid RACE -A- ML. MM A- JiL. M. L JiL QFNDER __ ..^A__ _ JL___ A....._. .E..... F_____ ML___ F M.___Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School FULBRIGHT ELEMENTARY Signature of Principal NAME OF TEAM MEMBER Almond, Greg Carter, Karen Chucoski, Sharon Gaddie Olivia POSITION ELECTED APPOINTED RACE GENDER (check) Community Administrator PTA (check) X W W , M F X W F Griffith, LeeAnn Hall, Carolyn Hilburn, Karla Kriz, John Kurrus, Virginia Mitchell, Deborah Pittman, Charlotte Robinson, Steve Sanders, Belinda Smith, Rhonda______ Williams, Irish Wilson, Brenda Sth Gr Teacher Speech Therapist Title I Community Parent Parent Administrator Instructional Aide 5th Gr Teacher Parent Counselor Sth Gr Teacher Parent X X X X i -X X X X X X W W W W ' W - B - B B B-B'^ for example: 1st grade teacher, algebra teacher, steering committee chair, support staff, etc. - list all positiens held F F F E M F F M F ZF F Campus Verification of Development of a Campus Leadership Plan Campus GARLAND ACajJSMY Date OCTOBER 15, 199S Enter below the dates the following action occurred: Announced public meeting(s) of proposed Campus Leadership Team and review of policy establishing same. District review and / or adoption of Campus Leadership Team Composition. Attach evidence or broad based communications to all campus staff and to the general campus community regarding the campus team composition and related procedures for a campus leadership team. Affix the following signatures to indicate support and involvement of the principal, and members of the campus collaborative committee who assisted the principal in the design of the campus team composition which is consistent with district guidelines. Principal ____Parent Rep. __ Teacher Community Rep. ' I The campus collaborative committee may be smaller or larger at the discretion of the campus principal. Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 a '3 Signature of Principal School Geyer Springs Elementary School ' 3 ' c, { NAME OF ________ TEAM MEMBER Hall, Donna Bohra, Becky Stubblefield, Evelyn Dumas, Jo Parker, Linda Graves, MicheUe Gilbert, Jean Frazier, Raymond Eaton, Doug Dickerson, Cameshia Humphreys, Joa (Geyer Springs Neighborhood Association) Crawford, Maria (Little Rock Water Works)_______________ *POSITION ELECTED (check) APPOINTED (check) RACE GENDER Principal 3"* Grade Teacher 5* Grade Teacher Reading Specialist Counselor Media Specialist Resource Specialist Paraprofessional Broker Parent Community Community X X X X X X X X X X X *for example: 1** grade teacher, algebra teacher, steering committee chair, support staff, etc. list all positions held B O B t B B -V B W B B ' F F F F F F F M M F F F .-1 Campus Leadership Team Verification } Form 1999-2000 f: 1 t Signature of Princi name of Team ___ Member Altheimer, Donald Branch, Susan Dickson, Dr, Betty Gray, Alvin Gulden, Carla Hedges, Jon Huffman, Kelty Johnson, Jill Luzzi, Pat Parkhurst, Liz Skarda, Toni Vena, Sera Rynders, Diane School Gibbs Magnet School Position Elected (check) Parent Teacher Community Parent Parent Parent Teacher Teacher Teacher Parent Teacher Parent Broker Appointed (check) X Race Gender X X. y X X ~~X ~X X X X 'x B b "b^ "B-w 'w~ 'w~ M V 'V M ~F~ 'y v y y y Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School Jefferson School ! i Signature of Principal NAME OF TEAM MEMBER Su.san Beard Lucy Rhodes______ Brenda Dorman Becky Ramsey Meg Lankford Kristin Compton -Cheryl Crntckpr Annie Roas Karin McAtee_____ Valerie Jones_ Claudia Courtway Linda Smith Xan-Tii ght_______ -V.aJies.sa -Jackson -Ji.nt Ingram______ Ronnie Stone Rene Kovach positionT ELECTED (check) APPOINTEi RACE GENDER (check) Pri nci p.a.1. Counselor X-inHerg teache'~ lst.gr. teacher 2nd gr. teache 3ra-Xr^- teacher ird ...jjx 4 th gr teache teache-
ETC teacher Parapro./Parent PTA Pres. PTA Pres._______ Cnmmiin-ity Rep Parent_________ Parent________ Sp.Ed. teacher Di St Rap X X X X X X X X X X X X F i X X X X X L_ w . W . - X VI w B - VI isL ja. K vr Jii- for example: is
grade teacher, algebra teacher, stoorihg commItTae chair, suppoh Stan. etc. - list ar pojiiiors held X F F z X X F F F X X K M -11/03/1999 11:13 3'242032 LRSD PAGE 01/01 Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School KING MAGNET i Signature of Principal' -A NAME OP - TEAM MEMBER Tyrone Harris___ Mary Lou Kahler Virginia Johnson Ann Gregory Mary Zies_______ Beverly Hines Monica Norwood Candi VanPatter Kiffany Pride Greg Harris Minnie Washington Cheryl Wilburn Chris Cerrato____ Scott Allen______ Dr. Rex Horne Evan Lee________ Ira Betton Joyclyn Davis 'POSITION ELECTED APPOINTED RACE GENDER (check) (check) Principal Asst. Prineinal Broker Counselor_____ Music Spec. PK Teacher 2nd - Teacher 4th Teacher 5th Teacher 3rd Teaciier Paraprofessiona Parent Parent PIE Community Student Title I Parent X i X X 11 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X B Jj. W W B w .B_ B B B - W w IL. SL. B "for example: 1st grads teacher, algebra teacher, aieering committee chair, support staff, etc. list all positions held u. _X F __ E _X __ E JL M Z F JI Jt -tL Jd. X X 11/03/1999 ,11:07 I I I 3242032 LRSD Campus Leadership Team Verification Foirm 1999*2000 School Mv(xhel\fal c, Signature Of Pnndipel nam?'5f TEAM MEMBER POSITION I: PAGE 01/01 ij r, F-G ELECTED (check) APP< lit:> INTO' tck) GENb^f \Dto _ dn C.li.7.-Li Tdnnrxfi GiiA^e-nS ______ /_'i r\Ar^ CAtAujf ll .dn. -} .ri nr. j...pod. dXrLcKejC ^Tjefi.Vh-g.ic_ A enc Vhe-r "TgOLcJiey 1 -r. (I 'SiiA/ika ( G/j picr\6 n Tdci/f ~Wh KiiAdi-s^ \/6hn5txn..- .' f*/! r V -g r P I g -cot I* w w w w _J2l 1 X X i i I F F F F F F F I 4 iI J. i i t 1 i at ximpls- lat smde teacher, algebra teacher, iiL Ing committee chair. support start, etc. - list all positions heW :1 FROM
MCDERMOTT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL id! PHONE NO. : 501 2283104 Nov. 04 1999 03:30PM P2 Ui/Wl Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 Signature of Principal nam of TEAM MEMBER Ashley. Virginia R Kemp,. LangJte . Mounger, Anita McCarther. Gerri Washington, Marv Ann Hbvt, Lori Rdyij , .'Vefa .Jaui'tlii, Eiffilifa James. Suzie O'Neal. Erica Dial, Darlene Swatv, Nancy Kitchen, Eton, School Mr.npT-mnt-t POSITION ELECTED (eh*cK) APPOINTEI (check) RACE GENDER n Admim* gtrahrn- Admin-i ^ttrAhor Teacher TearbAr______ Teacher_______ Jearher_______ Jle^cher P^T-Pnt ______ Brnkej:_______ _ Parent .Teacher_______ Teacher Teacher_______ Siirpert Staff X X I ) X X XX X X X-JU. :iL- R lU R.. X_ W ' _ for cxampia
tsi grade teacher, algeora teacher, siaeriHg commlitae chair, support Starr, etc. -nat an positions held XX X . x_ F _ _ _ _ M 11/03/1399 113:49 3242032 LRSD PAGE 01/01 Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School Signature of Principal uXWMntuan*! NAME OF POSITION TEAM MEMBER ELECTED (check) APPOINTED RACE (check) GENDER 7<sU:r/L _ 3^L^.. .Jj. J2:>ahhxl. .J&rrjLie^______ Par/. P^re'?t
p ____!(d_ nt _ < _ M. 0/ _______ M. M M. r for example: 1st grade teacher, algebra teacher, steering commIttaB chair, support staff, etc. - list all oo,sitions haW FROM : Panasonic FAX SYSTEM PHONE NO,
Nov. 05 1999 11:21AM P2 Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School Hi-j-cLell AcqJ signature of Principel NAME OF TEAM MEMBER POSITION ELECTED APPOINTED RACE ^SNibER uP (check) (check) DcciCio Smif-k Riclpey 3a citron Keicq Sml+K Soe VJatts Connie P r I ncj p a! P<Xr<:n+ /pTft Pres, B 6 fA M Fr-ed Sn I'+K ftlice B<'Q4ber! P^ir-en-V S'+udef^+ C<arnrmrtfi'Y Re, lie P- "Teacher TtA^-or 4 61a^y$ CoiemaA "TRAlma 4eQ<c-ln. F +AcJne>- J B 6 6 F F F F Susan Lofsbcn-t fAar^f'e+ Dcloris IverjHon 4-^o.g-lner Eiiuc +ea.cFe{- S>>ppor-+ S+i^pf B } B , VJ. 6 N\ F r F "ter example: 1st jrade teacher, algebra teacher, steering committee chair, support staff, etc. - list an positions helduampus Leaaersnip leam veritication horm Otter Creek Elementary Signature of Principal NAMS OF'^ TEAM MEMBER School POSITION ELECTED (check) APPO' "CE / GENDER Re.becca'TCesBinger Vickye Mitchell Beverly Kinneman Ettatricia Clark Shana Young Zeornee" Hert.s Greg Stutts Denise Nunnlev Tommy Hodges Truman Ball______ Sarah Cole Title I Teacher First Grade Teacher Gifted/Taiented / XX J JA Vi Kindergarten TeacIer X Counselor Broker Parent Parent_____________ ComrmmityZBusinea Communitv/Business Student (Grade 5) X X X X. X V, F M B W W W far example' 1st grads teacher, algsbre teacher, steering committee chair, support staff, etc. - list all positions held F M-M F CAMPUS LEADERSHIP TEAM VERIFICATION FORM SCHOOL: PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY 1999-2000 Signature of Principal Name of Team Member Lillie Carter Jamie Lou Neal Yvette Peterson Eva Maeweather Terrie Davis Position Principal K-Teacher 1 Grade Teacher 2"* Grade Teacher Grade Teacher Elected Appointed Race/Gender B/F W/F B/F B/F B/F V-- X X X X / t s i i Pat Yates d"*" Grade Teacher X W/F , Sandra Fountain Carol Blann Mary Gillespie Laura Beth Arnold Toni White Stacy Pittman Paul Fisher Robin Borne' Tony Woodell Marion Woods 5* Grade Teacher Resource Teacher Media Specialist E.T.C. Teacher Instructional Aide Parent Parent Business Community Broker X X X X X X X X X X W/F W/F W/F W/F B/F W/F B/M W/M, W/M B/F1/03/1999 11:00 3242032 LRSD PAGE 01/01 Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School Rightsell Academy Signature of Principal Sharon A. Brooks .^/\<5r- 1 . 2 , 3 . 4. 5 . NAME OF POSITION ELECTED APPOINTED RACE GENDER TEAM MEMBER Sharon A. Brooks Mac Huffman Principal Broker (check) (check) X B F W M Stephanie Neal Sharon Faiilkenhe Title I 5th Gr. Teacher X, X B W F F Frenzella Dodson K Teacher X B F 6 . Barbara Fincher 2nd Gr. Teacher X W F 1 . 8. 9. JLaafl-.ELittake.r------ Margaret Williams Pat Holder Curriculum Spec. Counselor X X B B F F Parent X B Z TO. Beverly Jones 11. Charles Ruth 12. Lucious Powell 13. Dladra Lindsey 14. Chasity Rosby Parent X B Z Community Rep. Business Rep. Non-Certified X X B B Student X z B K JI F F far example
1st grade teacher, algebra teacher, steering committee chair, support staff, etc. ~ list all positions held Campus Leadership Team Verification Form School: Rockefeller 1999 -2000 Name of Team Member _(Please Type) Position Elected | Appointed (Choose One) Race Gender Anne Mangan Eloise Booth Principal X W F Dana Keller Ann Larkowski Beth Foti Valencia Butts Barbi Freiermuth Debbie Gross Teri Frankum Melvia Mathis Assistant Principal Supt. CLT Representative COE Chairperson EC Teacher Representative EC Teacher Representative Primary Teacher Rep, Primary Teacher Rep. Intermediate Teacher Rep. Specialist Representative X X X X X X X X X B w . w W B w w w B F F F F F F F F F Coreen Frasier Specialist Representative X w F Martha Roberts EC Coordinator X w F Vivian Mangan Rick Taylor Parent/P.T.A. President X w F Business Partner X w M Mary Kay Roe Theme Specialist X w F Candy Blackwell Smart Start Rep. X w F Rose Mitchell Erma Jackson Fred Allen Non-Certified Staff Rep. Non-Certified Staff Rep. Business Partner X X X B B B F F M Father Kirtley Yearwood Community Leader X B M Fay and Donald McTyer . Parents X B/B M/F Pat Price Kathy Wells LRSD Broker X w F Downtown Neighborhood Association W F J Campus Leadership Team Verification Form School Romine Interdlst rlct 1999 - 2000 Name of Team Member - (Please Type) Position Elected/AppoinTed 'i (Check One) -LilJ.ic, Scii1]________ -Itidrmc.. Lane lev Jacque Rain^'aier _^loris Banks Er.lrif 1
vi! -laaiiisr. Teachc
r Teacher - Ch 1 V i n Ch r_l_cj_-_ onH)ii1f,r....Sr)eci?il i-0 Tout iL Phillip'^ JQrjna lliinrap ____ -Mr,.. Sandy Becker - Rev. Charles McAdtJo ^/XMaili_SjMidLaLlsi ------- tjlialC-Special isi- Parent Coniniunii y ssi(? Middlei_i.m Pa' ric ia Phill ius - .-Br/Acr___ G/T SperlHl ist____ fa=iggy Car.cnU....... Jlarcnt. Signature (Principal) ii/oj/ ioao Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School TERRY ELHyENTARY SCHOOL
Signature ot Principal name of TEAM MEMBER NANCY ACRE. ANNA TATUM JOYCE ALT.FY ANN MOORE TERESA COOK DOROTHY MALONE. BRENDA OSBORNE BEVERLY ROBINSON MARGO ROWE JANA TERRI ANDERSON ED WILLIAMS BARBARA SCHIRACK KELLY WHITEHORN iTiE mSLEY NICHOLE HENDERSON poSItioH PPTMPTPM ELECTED lA^PdlbiTE GENOfeb {chck) (chok) 1ST GR. TEACHER iHt. GR TEACHER MEDIA SPECIALIST 4th GR. TEACHER Sth GR. TEACHER 00UNSEU3R title I - PTA PRESIDENT PARENT DIBTRICT-RRQKER iwa:*.awi PTA VICE_PRES BI,1SINE.S.S,.BEP parent Z X Ji. X JL X Z X J z X Z WH BL BL WH ZL ZH. JSH. WH JlQL id jFjH WH BL 'for xamels: 1st grade laachor, BlgsOrs teacfiar, steering cornminee chelr, support eteff, etc, - net at) positions hew F E . F Z F JE. z F Z z z Z Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School WakpflplH__RI pmon t- ary Signature of Principal I . NAME OF TEAM MEMBER -T.i 11. i, a Ka.nk.s_____ :: -Barbara_ F tynar t_____ Sita Montgomery Sherry Trim1inc
rin Dorothy Davis______ Julie Wiedover Shirley Gordon Joy Davidson________ Raymond House_______ Greg Hughes_________ Heather Gage_____ Mary Jane Cheatham Gary Patterson POSITION ELECTED APPOINTED RACE GENDER (check) (check) E-rimary Teachcr^ .. Primary Toarhor Intermediate Tntprmprli at-p xSiinnnrt Tparhpr Central Offire Non-certified Community Person Parent_______ Parent______ P.artner -in Edur,, Principal______ Girls & Boys Cl uh X X X X X X X 112 Bl B2 Bl B2 Bi 02 B2 02 BZ Bi Bi Bi z X X . z F i X K X Z K for example: 1 st grade teacher, algebra teacher, steering committee chair, support staff, etc. -- list all positions held Booker T. Washington Magnet School Campus Leadership Team 1999-2000 + Gwen Strong-Zeigler + Johnny Neeley + Katherine Snyder Principal, Washington Magnet Assistant Principal, Washington Magnet Assistant Principal, Washington Magnet * Lucy Neal Broker, Information Services, LRSD * Ruben Johnson * Carolyn Williams PTA Co-President, Washington Magnet PTA Co-President, Washington Magnet * Stephanie Dhonau Community Representative, Division of International and Second Language Studies, UALR * Kelly Robbins
Community Representative Arkansas Forestry Association * Dr, Katherine Mitchell Community Representative LRSD Board of Directors W atershed Proj ect * Becky Ramsey Community Representative Aerospace Education Center < Barbara Brown < Rebecca Broussard < Tommie Walker > Darrick Williams > Katina Ray > Linda Umerah * Shantail Miller First Grade Teacher, Washington Magnet Kindergarten Teacher, Washington Magnet Fifth Grade Teacher, Washington Magnet Third Grade Teacher, Washington Magnet Fourth Grade Teacher, Washington Magnet Second Grade Teacher, Washington Magnet Technology Specialist, Washington Magnet Appointed Position * Ex-Officio Member + Elected Position Tenn Ends June 2000 < Elected Position - Term Ends June 2001 >Booker T, Washington Magnet School Campus Leadership Team Meeting Agenda November 4,1999 I. IL m. IV. V. VI. VII. Welcome - Gwen Strong-Zeigler Introduction of Members - Danick Williams School Improvement Plan A. Introductory Statements - Katina Ray B. Priority #1 - Reading and Language Arts Linda Umerah C. Priority #2 - Mathematics - Barbara Brown D. Priority #3 - Science - Rebecca Broussard E. Priority #4 English as Second Language (ESL) Newcomer Program Shantail Miller F. Plan Evaluation-Katherine Snyder Extended Year / Year Round-School Paulette Den son Campus Work Audit - Tommie Walker Assignments for Future Meetings - Katina Ray Other BusinessTo: Campus Leadership Team Members From
G. S. Zeigler Subject: CLT Meeting Dates The following dates have been established for Campus Leadership Team monthly meetings: November 4, 1999 December 2, 1999 January 6, 2000 February 3, 2000 March 2, 2000 April 6, 2000 May 4,2000 June 2,2000 The meetings will begin at 2:45 in the Washington Media Center. If you cannot attend please make certain that you contact Gwen Strong-Zeigler at 501/324-2470. I am looking forward to working with each of you this school year. Working on this team promises to be a challenging and worthwhile experience.04/04/2000 14:36 3242032 LRSD PAGE 02/02 Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School Signature of Principal NAME OF ________TEAM MEMBER Janice Anderson ^ara Brown Maraaret Dawson Karen Ditto Mary Ann Forrest Sandra Hinson Paulette Martin Michael Oliver Paula Kamsey Vera Robinson Marvin Henderson' POSITION Tcac.her-5 th Teacher-4Y0 TcachGr-2nd Teacher-3rd Teacher-4Y0 Broker Principal Counselor PTA Pres. ELECTED (eMO X X X X X X APPOIHTED {otweW X X X Z. RACE W W B W w VI B _IL^ GENDER F F F F __ F F .a.__ F F....... _a__ "fee amsli l" Bii t*ehr, algebra toaoher, steering committee chair. uppori staff, etc. - Sat ill poaltiorM heW Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1S99-2000 NAME OF Western Hills Elementary Signature of Principal School 'OSITION ELECTED APPOINTED RACE GENDER TEAM MEMBER (check) (check) Scott Morgan Jennifer Welborn Principal 1 st Grade VI "W MT Shirley Thomas Terese Klaus Ruth Anderson 2nd Grade 2nd Grade 3rd Grade B W W F F F Nancy Brandt Ruth Schwerin Librarian Title I W FT Lee Ann Matson Lona Taunton Versie Burgess Broker F Parent Neighborhood W B F F Pam Perry Parent W F for exampla: 1st grade teacfter, algebra teacher, steering eommlttee chair, support staff, etc. - list all positions held Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School Williams Traditional Magnet Signature of Principal NAME OF TEAM MEMBER Mary Menking Eunice Thrasher .Wi Hiam.q Behn___________ Barbara .Phr-i clri anri Maryipp- Rnbinann________ Flrirptta Babh.s__________ Ella Moble^r----------- Nancy Mnrtnn_____________ Deborah Tsreal_________ Stephanip Wa 1kpr-Pjmpp Eddy Pphpr.a__________ _ nffirpr Crpo Vint______ Chris- Ra^znolds-------------- Suellen Vann 'POSITION ELECTED (chsck) APPOINTED RACE GENDER Principal/Chairman Vice Principal Certified Member PF___X fdember (^F^fP^y^ber Ie (check) X X W F X X X X ?^ler Y w IL X X M. X X 11 X X X X X P Paronh___________ Parpnt-__________ CnThrmini ty_______ 'Rnoinpgg_______ Central Office X X XX X X wX w 'for example: 1st grade teacher, algebra teacher, steering ccnimittee chair, support staff, etc. - list all positions held M K F Recommended # 1 6 1 2 - 1 1 1 1 TEAM MEMBERS POSITION Principal Assistant Principal P.E. Specialist Music Specialist Gifted/Talented Specialist Kindergarten Specialist r Grade Specialist Curriculum Specialist_____ Paraprofessional Parent Parent Community Business Central Office CAMPUS TEAM MATRIX Of Positions Principal Certified Teachers Central Office _____Parent Business Community Non-certified Staff Assistant Principal NAME Mary Menking Eunice Thrasher William Bobo Barbara Strickland Marylee Robinson Floretta Babbs Ella Mobley Nancy Morton Deborah Isreal Stephanie Walker-Hynes Eddy Peters Officer Greg Vint Chris Reynolds Suellen Vann Position Title Chairman _____Elected_____ Invited/Appointed Appointed Appointed Appointed Elected/Appointed Appointed Membership Required Required Required Required Required Required Optional Optional ADDRESS________ 5 Heritage Court Little Rock, 72211 2000 Dennison Little Rock 72202 13617 Napeleon Rd. Little Rock, 72211 202 East Maddox Jacksonville, 72076 #7 Longfellow Ln Little Rock, 72207 12804 St. Charles Blvd. Little Rock, 72211 11283 Southrid^e Dr. Little Rock, 72212 4710 Westchester Dr. Little Rock, 72212 3812 Wimbledon Loop Little Rock, 72209 5414 Robin Rd. Little Rock, 72204 21 Countryside Cv. Little Rock, 72212 7206 Evergreen Dr. Little Rock, 72207 2516-F Cantrell Rd Little Rock, 72207 21 Winona Dr. Maumelle, 72113 PHONE " (H) 225-3822 (W)671-6363 (H) 374-0528 (W0671-6363 (H)223-4998 (W)671-6363 (H)982-2308 (W)671-6363 (11)664-2222 (W)671-6363 ' (H)227-5415 (V0671-6363 (H)227-6496 (W)671-6363 (H) 868-4322 (W)671-6363 (H) 455-5503 (W)671-6363 (H) 565-3449 (W)324-2250 (H) 868-6604 (W)664-1004 (H) 664-8660 (W)280-7688 (W)666-9500 (H) (W)324-2020Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School Wn.W Er.FMRNTAPV Signature of Principal NAME OF TEAM MEMBER POSITION ELECTED appointed RACE GENDER (check) (check) SUSAN WEST TEACHER MICHELLE DORSEY TEACHER WILLYE TALLEY EDNA SCHOEMAKER ROSEMARY ROLAND GREGORY JONES MARJORIE RIANT KIMBERLY REEVKS TEACHER JEACHER aide ..TEACHER TEACHER. teacher X. X X X X 'for example: 1st grade teacher, algebra teacher, steering commlttsa chair, support staff, etc, - list all positions held rjJ./ Ui Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School Signature of Principal NAME OF -- *Qr*5Cirs>>M POSITION TEAM MEMBER (fAono.. V-^o<jd 'uc\r\<s ELECTED (check) APPOINTED (oiieok) RACE GENDER GVYirx. '<f?nA- Laij.rox W
HFnm5 Norberci Ib/r.sn Vvny'Vw^ Prf V''"~VfC>.r'T' FF< \ Ca VA n cF<>' \ fW/i^ 14. f I iAjrrh^t'A KxvH ~Vtn\rp. Wi\So.'i 1 iSr^-n y.\.i rwxrv-'n L>F4jAWkY\L_ FV. V-Y N'lriF'Ver Mtcn.b An Aubfe-\- ' G r CvlOr (A\\ kiSW.vip An CVYAA\\p,icO VpG A S\ k\V'JQ PnuFcA'pgrVi.'^'f AnCr^-Vr-r.rF 5y<-] Qitzbo -Vt^/rbgi ZrT Af^.nrbr=>r Y 1 FoAgrarkrAen FFii fa~br TTAir\5()nr pGrteAfnA f.mrvA-O-Mff-inV- \ 1 A UAmb Cm urn > nt bl Ca(F( ParAn-f 'G>?Vv.r\ ey-s: 5Aa ).r.\eAnA A, X 1 V. W. :^... FZ r) b w k/ JF F F AX \aL for exampla: 1st grade teacher, algebra teacher, steering committee chair, support staff, etc. - lie! ell positions held r" T F F F F !-V>, ______ F O'A t-Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 7 Schooi Alternative Learning Center Signature of Principal ,7( 2=tf NAME OF \ TEAM MEMBER POSITION ELECTED (check) APPOINTEI (check) RACE GENDE Lloyd Sain, Jr, Sharon Cauley Lee Braden Carol Overton Kay Kimbrough Kelan Watson Otis Banks Michael Reynold Phyllis Hodge s Arlandris Norris *This member changes as a ------nijractoE________ Facilitator Z-gyaprof ess Tonal -Ean'l t' i-a.i-n.- Community/Busin Facilitator Facilitatoi parent Su<jeiiT. result X B X X X B ir. X X .B. B X X X of changin
/migrating populat W B -B- on K F M F M F M .___ -M---- to_a:id.. from ALC. Of example, tstprade teacher, alpebra teacher, steering cornmitteo chair, support staff, etc. - list all positions heldExhibit No. 66: LI230-90 Program Evaluation for English as a Second Language. I I i k I Program Evaluation For English-as-a Second Language (ESL) School Year: 1999-2000 October 30, 2000 IMIfllHllly S } AK Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Ish Instructional Resource Center 3001 S. Pulaski Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501-324-212 \\ I I 1 able of Contents Executive Summary - -----pg. 3 Purpose of this Evaluation I I -pg. 6 Evaluation Design------ ------pg. 6 Research Questions -pg. 7 Methodology -----pg. 8 ESL Curriculum Delivery and Instructional Model School Choices: Magnet, Incentive, & Area------- Participants------------------------------------------- Academic Variables------------------------------------ Behavioral Variables------------------------------- Pg. 8 pg. 9 -pg. pg. pg- 11 16 18 Results ----pg. 19 Conclusions pg. 31 Recommendations ------pg. 3 3 References pg. 34 Appendix A
Number of Students by Grade by PHLOTE Category____________ Appendix B: Comparison of Newcomer v. Non-Newcomer schools____________ Appendix C: Students Receiving G/T and Special Education Services___________ Appendix D: Students by the Top Four Languages---------------------------------------- Appendix E: LRSD Regulations on the Academic Assessment of PHLOTE Students Appendix F: LRSD Audit Policy--------------------------------------- pg- 35 pg. 37 pg. 44 pg. 47 pg. 62 ------pg. 64 Appendix G: Achievement Data by Area, Magnet, and Incentive Appendix H: Achievement Data by School_________________ Schools pg. 67 pg. 75 A 2Executive Summary Evalu ofPlanning, Research, and E aluation (PRE) has undertaken this evaluation to determine if the Districts English-a<- - nroSernTLEPlstud! succeeding in meeting the needs of limited-English p oticient (LEP) students in overcoming their laneuaae ham'pre tUo t ___ as-a- overcoming their language barriers. The LRSDs Commitment to Resolve (CTR, agreement with the Office for Civil Rights (NveX?0, 1999,ZZ LRSD to compare hrntted-Enghsh proficient students' academic achievement, retention dZut Vd attendance data to the general population and to make similar comparisons with limited English th to their fluent-English proficiency. aI per section L of the CTR the scope of this evaluation will consider
comparisons with limited English 1.) the curriculum service delivery, staffing and scope of teacher trainina- 2.) the extent to which limited English language students to other students in the District
and are performing in comparison 3.) the extent to which limited English proficient students who have English (i.e., have exited the ESL other students in the District. become proficient in program due to proficiency in English) compare to The CTR requires that a longitudinal evaluation be conducted annually. The data reported in this evaluation are baseline data and constitutes the initial collection of comparison annual evaluations. With baseline datA it ic Hiffi/'nit nrosram succe<
<i nr fniliirp Ft i **^^PPropnate to make picsumptions o program success or failure. Future evaluations will address the issue of program effectiveness. data for future presumptions of Concerning staffing and scope of teacher training, as of June 2000, 15 teachers have their ESL .dd H teachers earned theh ESL endorsemeTSn ddition 15 teachers have taken at least three credit hours towards earning an ESL endorsement Given the increase in the number of ESL endorsed teachers, ftiture evaluations will add tWs variable m comparing students across the LRSD. 805 students whose primary home language is other than English (PHLOTE) Wilhm this poptilatton of PHLOTE students are sub-populations identified by the LRSD to L in * and to provide a greater understanding of what the LRSD considers when approaching the education of PEILOTE students greater understanding of what the LRSD 3The sub-populations of PHLOTE students have been identified as: Limited-English proficient (LEP) - students administered the Language Assessment Scales (LAS) upon admission to the LRSD and determined not to be proficient in reading, writing. listening comprehension, and/or speaking English. Not assessed as to their English proficiency (NAEP) students who have not been administered the LAS. Fluent-English proficient (FEP) - students administered the LAS upon admission to the LRSD and determined to be proficient in reading, writing, listening comprehension, and speaking English. Fluent-English proficient and exited from the program (FEPE) - students initially identified as LEP, received LRSD ESL program services, and exited the program after the LAS indicated a proficiency in reading, writing, listening comprehension, and speaking English. The top four languages spoken are Spanish (56%), Chinese (8%), Arabic (3%) and Korean (3%) M /"It"*-! at- i'qm 1 ______ C T !-> _ '' Newcomer Center schools serve most of the LEP students (N= 309). However, there are LEP students in all but seven of the LRSDs schools. The highest enrollment for a Newcomer Center is Chicot Elementary with 74 LEP students, and the highest enrollment for a neighborhood school is Wakefield Elementary with 20 LEP students. Results from comparing students enrolled in a Newcomer v. a Non-newcomer indicate: Newcomer Centers had higher growth for LEP and FEP kindergarten students, as measured by the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA), than similar students attending newcomer school. a non- Newcomer Centers had lower growth for LEP and FEP students on the DRA for and 2^ grade students in comparison to similar students at non-Newcomer schools. Comparison data on other academic variables for 4^^ grade and above are mixed. The number of PHLOTE students receiving G/T and Special Education services is small making data comparison difficult. However, PHLOTE receiving G/T services generally perform above the LRSD and national averages. Across the four top languages of Spanish, Chinese, Arabic, and Korean, LEP students ...............* Ml upaiuMi, vmucsc, Mjaoic, ana Korean, I.hl' students compare favorably with other PHLOTE students on DRA growth scores, but they have lower scores on other academic variables. PHLOTE students who attend a magnet school, regardless of their sub-population category, scored higher than other PHLOTE students. Typically on a school by school comparison. Newcomer Center School PHLOTE students do not compare as well as PHLOTE students who attend a Non-Newcomer Center School. This phenomenon could be attributed to the dearth of ESL endorsed teachers across the LRSD. As of June 1, 2000, there were only 15 ESL endorsed teachers in the LRSD. 4Concerning the extent to which LEP and FEPE students are performing in comparison to other students in the District, the results indicate that a majority of kindergarten and 2"'' grade LEP students are reading at grade level, while only a third of the V* grade LEP students are at the readiness level. Reading growth for LEP students in grade 1 are not growing as fast as the general population. Across other achievement measures LEP students are performing below the general population. On these same academic measures, FEPE students typically perform above the general population. Also, LEP students have lower rates of attendance than the general population. Given that this is the baseline year for future yearly evaluations it would be premature to attribute any evaluation results to ESL program success or failure. However, recommendations include investigating the high retention numbers of not only LEP, but also FEP students
continue to expand the professional development opportunities and ESL endorsement
and continue to support early literacy strategies. w 5Introduction Purpose of this Evaluation The purpose of this evaluation to determine if the Little Rock School Districts (LRSDs) Enghsh-as-a-Second Language (ESL) Program is succeeding in meeting the needs of limitedEnglish proficient (LEP) students in overcoming their language barriers. The LRSDs Commitment to Resolve (CTR) agreement with the Office for Civil Rights, November 10, 1999, requires LRSD to compare limited-English proficient students academic achievement, retention, dropout, and attendance data to the general population and to make similar comparisons with limited English proficient students who have exited the program due to their fluent-English proficiency. As per section L of the CTR the scope of this evaluation will consider: 1.) the curriculum service delivery, staffing and scope of teacher training
2.) the extent to which limited English language students are performing in comparison to other students in the District
and 3.) the extent to which limited English proficient students who have become proficient in English (i.e., have exited the ESL program due to proficiency in English) compare other students in the District. to This evaluation will examine students who have participated in the Districts ESL program to determine mastery of English language skills (reading, writing, speaking, and listening/comprehension), content area concepts, and skills. To be assessed is the amount of progress identified students have made during program participation, after program exit, and upon reclassifying/reentry into the program. The evaluation will report data indicating student performance in mathematics, literacy, reading, and language usage. Curriculum service delivery by school and the progress of teacher training will be reported, as well as comparison data on Newcomer v. Non-newcomer centers (see Appendix B). Achievement data will also be reported on PHLOTE students receiving G/T and Special Education services (see Appendix C). There are 8 LEP and 28 FEP suidents receiving G/T services. There are 7 LEP and 3 NAEP students receiving special education services. Data will be reported by students attending -------------------g area, magnet, and incentive schools (see Appendix G) and also by individual school (see Appendix H). Evaluation Design The following are sub-populations of PHLOTE students: Limited-English proficient (LEP) - students administered the Language Assessment Survey (LAS) upon admission to the LRSD and determined not to be proficient in reading, writing, listening comprehension, and speaking English. Not assessed as to their English proficiency (NAEP) - students who have not been administered the LAS. 6 Fluent-English proficient (FEP) - students administered the LAS upon admission to the LRSD and determined to be proficient in reading and writing English. Fluent-English proficient and exited from the program (FEPE) students initially identified as LEP, received LRSD ESL program services, and exited the program after the LAS indicated a proficiency in reading, writing, listening comprehension, and speaking English. The aforementioned sub-populations will be compared to each other and to the general population on the following academic and behavioral variables
Arkansas State Benchmark Examination LRSDs Achievement Level Tests Stanford Achievement Test-9' edition (SAT-9) Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) Retention Dropout Attendance Graduation In addition, PHLOTE sub-population data will be reported by students receiving gifted and talented (GT) and special education (SPD) (see Appendix C)
students attending a Newcomer Center v. Non-Newcomer Center (see Appendix B)
top four languages (see Appendix D)
area, incentive, or Magnet school (see Appendix G)
and individual school (see Appendix H). The general population for this report, unless otherwise stated, will consist of all students in the Little Rock School District except those students classified as LEP, NAEP, FEP, and FEPE. Research Questions What types of curriculum service delivery are PHLOTE students receiving and how do schools receiving these service deliveries compare. Is the academic progress and behavior of LEP, NAEP, FEP and FEPE comparable to the general population? What level of training are teachers working with LEP students receiving? Examination of student academic performance as measured by the academic variables, retention, and attendance rates of LEP, NAEP, FEP, and FEPE students versus the general population of students will address these questions. Methodology w 7LRSD ESL Curriculum Delivery and Instructional Model Elementary Schools: LEP students are served in the alternative language services program in one of two ways: Students who are developing their proficiency in English are clustered in classes with native English speakers, and the teachers provide the essential modifications to accommodate their developing fluency. in classes which Students who are developing their proficiency in English are grouped are designated for LEP students. There are fewer students in these classes. The numbers were kept low because of a class size reduction grant. The schools who benefited from this during the 1999-2000 school year were Brady, Chicot, Romine, Terry and Washington. The teachers at these five former Newcomer Center Schools either have their ESL endorsement or are working on completing the course requirements for the endorsement. The Newcomer Center elementary schools maintain larger numbers of LEP students. LEP students have the option of attending a Newcomer Center or any of the other LRSD. Teachers at the non-Newcomer Center schools receive a comprehensive ESL training program which is research-based and from the Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL). Middle Schools: LEP students are primarily served in the alternative language services program at our Newcomer Center schools, Dunbar and Cloverdale Middle Schools. There are two configurations to provide the same type of service
At Cloverdale Middle Level Academy students are grouped into discrete ESL classes for Reading/Writing Workshop classes, ESL Science and ESL Social Studies. These students receive their instruction from an ESL endorsed teacher or one who is working on completing the endorsement courses. At Dunbar Magnet Middle School, LEP students receive their specialized, modified instruction in mainstream classes beside their peers. The difference for these students is in the teacher's training and qualifications. Teachers at Dunbar Middle School are also completing their ESL endorsement courses. There is a smaller group of LEP students at Dunbar, not enough to constitute discrete ESL classes for groups of students at each respective grade level (grades 6,7,& 8). LEP students who attend some of the other middle schools, not designated a Newcomer Center school receive their instruction from their classroom teachers. Those teachers in the 4 core disciplines either participated in the ESL training during the summer of SY2000 or will participate during the current school year. High School: LEP students are primarily served in the alternative language services program at our Newcomer Center school. Hall High School. There are a few exceptions where students attend some of our other high school for a specialized program, such as Parkview Arts/Science Magnet. Students at Hall High School receive their instruction in ESL classes, which provide a sheltered English model. This approach allows the teachers to build on prior knowledge in the content areas in which the student is developing his/her proficiency in English. 8J i 1 i * ESL-endorsed or completing the required courses for At Hall High School students are assigned to ESL classes, made up of LEP students. In the English classes the grouping reflects levels of proficiency rather than distinct grade levels. School Choices: Magnet, Incentive, and Area Magnet schools are themed schools in which enrollment requests are filled by a I irttpr\z T PQH ctmi_______ ___i random lottery, LRSD stipulation magnet schools are: Booker Arts Elementary Carver Basic Skills / Math Elementary Gibbs Foreign Languages! International Studies Elementary Williams Traditional Elementary Mann Arts & Science Middle School Parkview Arts & Science High School Incentive schools, identified in 1990, continue to receive extra financial resources in order to improve basic skills education and provide enrichment. These schools offer extended-day, extended-week and extended-year programs as well as before and after school care. Students who live near these schools make up the majority of the enrollment. The incentive schools are: Franklin Communications Technology Elementary Academy Elementary (This school will become Stephens Elementary ^\J\J\J 1 in Fall Mitchell Academy of Creative Dramatic Arts Elementary Rightsell Academy Elementary Rockefeller Academy Elementary There are no PHLOTE students at Rightsell or Mitchell. 9Area schools are: Badgett Elementary Bale Elementary Baseline Elementary Brady Elementary Chicot Elementary Cloverdale Elementary Dodd Elementary Fair Park Elementary Forest Park Elementary Fulbright Elementary Geyer Springs Elementary King Elementary Jefferson Elementary Mabelvale Elementary McDermott Elementary Meadowcliff Elementary Otter Creek Elementary Pulaski Heights Elementary Romine Elementary Terry Elementary Wakefield Elementary Washington Elementary Watson Elementary Western Hills Elementary Wilson Elementary Woodruff Elementary Cloverdale Middle School Dunbar Middle School Forest Heights Middle School Henderson Middle School Mabelvale Middle School Pulaski Heights Middle School Southwest Middle School Central High School J.A. Fair High School Hall High School McClellan High School There were no PHLOTE students at Badgett, Dodd, Jefferson, Western Hills, and Woodruff. 10Participants The LRSD student enrollment process includes a determination of the primary home language other than English (PHLOTE). Once the Home Language Survey is administered, an attempt to assess is made if the student is PHOTE. After a review of assessment results or an attempt to assess, students are tagged within the LRSDs database as
1. LEP - limited-English proficient, 2. NAEP - not assessed as to their English proficiency, 3. FEP - fluent-English proficient, and 4. FEPE - fluent-English proficient and exited from the program. As of June 2,2000, the District had identified 805 PHLOTE students (LEP = 467, NAEP = 45, and FEP = 268, FEPE = 25). Appendix A lists PHLOTE students by category and by grade level. Elementary LEP students have the option of attending a Newcomer Center school or any of the other LRSD schools. Middle and high school level LEP students are assigned to Newcomer Center schools. See Tables 1 and 2 for enrollment data on newcomer and nonNewcomer Center schools. Table 1 Table 2 Newcomer Center: LEP Enrollment Top 7 Non-newcomer: LEP Enrollment Brady Chicot Romine Terry_____ Washington Cloverdale MS Dunbar MS . I Hall HS I Total 11/30/99 26 68 33 22 38 42 16 3/24/00 25 71 30 18 33 I 80 I 44 16 74 6/2/00 26 74 28 23 30 47 13 I 325 I 311 I 309 "I 11 Wakefield Cloverdale McDermott Bale Garland Henderson MS Forest Heights MS pfotd 11/30/99 21 17 17 10 6 7 11 89 3/24/00 22 14 18 9 8 8 10 ] 89 6/2/00 20 14 13 12 8 8 7The District s primary database housed on the AS400 mainframe computer X VUU.V. O piuuary uaiaoase nousea on the AS400 mainframe computer uses CIMS as Its electronic student database software. Student data are collected at the school level. Current year data are filed in the students permanent record file (PRE'). Baseline data are stored in ESL Department files. The initial portion of this section will report demographic data (i.e., gender, language school location, grade level distribution, and any sub-groups) on LEP, NAEP FEP and FEPE students. The subsequent sections will report academic and behavioral bcciiuns win report academic and behavioral progress (e.g. attendance) of LEP students and how LEP students compare on academic and behavioral variables to NAEP, FEP, FEPE and the Districts general school population. Unless otherwise stated, general population is defined as all students in the District except LEP NAEP FEP and FEPE students. Description of Limited English Proficient (LEP) Students. As of June 2 2000 there were 467 LEP students in the Little Rock School District (LRSD). Supporting charts reflect three data gathering points, 11/30/99, 3/24/00, and 6/2/00, and correspond to the Districts reporting to the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), Districts Quarterly Report, and the program evaluation report, conducted annually, as required by Title VI. As previously reported, LEP students have the option to attend a Newcomer Center school or any of the other LRSD schools Demographics on this population are the following: There are 255 male (54.6%) and 212 female (45.4%) students. Newcomer Centers serve most of the LEP students, 309 students (66.2%) (see Table 1). LRSD has 48 schools and LEP students are being served in all of the high schools, middle schools, ^d all but seven of the elementary schools (i.e., Badgett, Dodd, Jefferson, Mitchell Western Hills, Rightsell, and Woodruff). Non-Newcomer Centers serve the remaining LEP students (N = 158), with the top schools serving between 7 and 20 students (see Table 2). seven Appendix A lists the following breakdown of students by grade level and sub-population: The pre-kindergarten program (i.e. LRSDs 4-year-old program) had 29 LEP students enrolled. * (grades kindergarten through 5*^ has the highest number of LEP students per grade level with an average grade-level enrollment of 46. Middle school (grades 6* through 8*') average grade-level enrollment is 29. High school (grades 9* through 12) per grade level enrollment average of 19. 12 Among LEP students Spanish is the most common language spoken (71.3%), followed by Chinese (4.5%), Arabic (3.6%), Assyrian (2.3%), Korean (2.3%), and Vietnamese (1.5%). An additional 29 languages account for the remaining 14.2% of LEP students. To provide insight in understanding what the LRSD considers when approaching the education of students receiving ESL program services, students within the sub-population of LEP are further identified as: LEPNC - In an ESL program at a Newcomer Center (N = 309) LEPSO - Being served at a school other than a Newcomer Center (N = 158) LEPNS - Not being served (N = 9). Parental denial of alternative language services. LEPSPD - Receiving special education and LEP services (N = 7) LEPGT- Receiving gifted and talented (GT) and LEP services (N = 8) LEPREC - Students who have left the program, have been reclassified, and have re-entered the program (N = 0) Additional demographic data on these sub-populations are as follows
Newcomer Centers serve all of the LEP students receiving gifted and talented services (N = 7). Five of the nine LEP students receiving special education services (LEPSPD) attend a Newcomer Center. Five of the nine LEP students not receiving services (LEPNS) attend Newcomer Centers. Academic and behavioral data for the above groups will be reported in the results section. Description of Not Assessed as to their English Proficiency (NAEP). There are 45 NAEP students identified in the Districts database. Demographics for this population are as follows: There are 23 male (51.1 %) and 22 female (48.9%) students. Spanish is the most common language (31.1%), followed by Korean (15.5%), Gujarati (8.9%), German (4.4%), Farsi (4.4%), and Chinese (4.4%). Appendix A lists the following breakdown of NAEP students by grade level and subpopulation: In grades kindergarten through 5" there is an average grade-level enrollment of 1. 13 In grades 6* through 8*' there is an average enrollment of 2. In grades 9**' through 12* there is an average enrollment of 8. Within the sub-population of NAEP students
Thirty-six NAEP students have refused to be assessed
Three are special education students and were unable to complete the Language Assessment Survey (LAS)
Three have not been at school when the LAS was administered
One student had been auditing (see Appendix F for LRSD policy on auditing), but is no longer a student for SY2000-2001
One has not returned the signed letter from a parent, and one has been assessed but the score report has not been received by the ESL office. The ESL program has been informed of these two irregularities for follow-up. Only 6.7% (N = 3) attend a Newcomer Center. Parkview High School has the most NAEP students, 44.4% (N = 20). Parkview High School is an arts and science magnet school. Description of Fluent English Proficient (FEP) Students. FEP students are PHLOTE students who at the time of admission to the LRSD are assessed by the LAS and have demonstrated a proficiency in reading, writing, listening comprehension, and speaking English. There are 293 FEP in the Little Rock School District. Demographics for this population are as follows: There are 147 male (50.2%) and 146 female (49.8%) students. Spanish is the most common language (35.2%), followed by Chinese (11.6%), Vietnamese (6.7%), Urdu (4.5%), Korean (3.4%), Arabic (3.4%), and Russian (3.0%). The 34 remaining languages constitute an additional 32.2%. One hundred eighteen (31.8%) of the students attend a Newcomer Center, with Chicot Elementary having 75 students, Cloverdale Middle 46 students, and Hall High 72 students. A 14 Appendix A lists the following breakdown of students by grade level and sub-population
In grades kindergarten through 5* the average grade level distribution is 26. In grades 6* through 8* the average grade level distribution is 27. In grades 9* through 12* the average grade level distribution is 13. There are nine FEP students in the Districts 4-year old program. Twenty-eight students receive gifted and talented (G/T) services. One student attends Cloverdale Middle, 22 attend Dunbar Middle, and 5 attend Hall High school. Description of Fluent English Proficient-Exited (FEPE) Students. FEPE students are LEP students that have exited from the ESL program due to their demonstration of proficiency in English, as measured by the LAS. Twenty-five students, since 11/30/99, have exited from LEP to FEPE. Demographics for this sub-population are as follows
There are 12 male (48%) and 13 female (52%) students. Ten students were exited with an LAS of 3/4 and 15 students with a LAS of 3/5. A score of 3/4 is indicative of high-level reading and writing skills. A score of 3/5 is indicative of high- level proficient listening and speaking skills. One student exited September 1999, 2 exited November 1999,2 exited February 2000 2 exited March 2000, 5 exited April 2000, and 13 exited May 2000. Spanish is the most common language (60%, N = 15), followed by Chinese (16%, N = 4), Vietnamese (4%, N = 1), Laotian (4%, N = 1), Mongolian (4%, N = 1), Pakistan (4%, N = 1), Portuguese (4%, N = 1), and Slovakia (4%, N = 1). None of the FEPE students received (G/T) services. Appendix A lists the breakdown of FEPE students by grade level and sub-population
Sixty-four percent of the exited students were from grades 2" through 5*. Twenty-eight percent were from grades 6* through 8*. Eight percent were from grades 9 and 11. 11 of the students (44%) were from Newcomer Centers. 15Academic Variables State Mandated ACTAAP Benchmark Examination, Grades 4 fe 8. The State is in the process of implementing its Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment & Accountability Program (ACTAAP) which includes a Benchmark Examination containing a measure of mathematics and literacy achievement. The intent and purpose of this component is to identify students in need of additional instruction in mathematics and literacy. The comprehensive mathematics and literacy exams are valid, reliable, and objective measures that contain multiple-choice and open-response questions based on The Arkansas Mathematics, Reading, and English/Language Arts Curriculum Frameworks. Items are developed with the assistance and approval of the Arkansas Content Advisory Committees composed of active Arkansas educators with expertise in mathematics and literacy. The committees developed and reviewed both multiple-choice and open-response items to ensure they reflect the Arkansas Citrriculum Frameworks and are grade-appropriate. The multiple-choice questions are scored by machine to determine if the student chose the correct answer from four options. Trained readers using a pre-established set of scoring criteria score answers to open-response mathematics and literacy questions. Students are given scores in math and literacy. Students can receive a test score of one through four with four representing Advanced followed by Proficient, Basic, and Below Basic. On both exams the Proficient cut-off score is 200 and the Advanced cut-off score is 250 and above. On the mathematics exam the Basic cut-off score is 149-199 and the Below-Basic cut-off score is 148 and below. On the literacy exam the Basic cut-off score is 164-199 and the Below-Basic cut-off score is 163 and below This examination process is being developed, piloted, and implemented in a sequential and cumulative process begirming with 4* grade in SY 1997-98, and including 8* grade in SY 1998-99. SY 2000-2001 will incorporate the math measure for b* grade currently being piloted in schools across Arkansas. Also end-of-course measures for Algebra I, Geometry, and Biology 1 are cunently in the item development phase. The test for the 1999-2000 school year was given in April 2000. Scores from the April 2000 test will not be available until the end of October 2000. This evaluation will examine students who took the test during the 1998-1999 school year as 4* graders. LEP students are required to take the test unless the language proficiency assessment committee at the students school determines that the test is inappropriate. In addition, parental permission is required to confirm the exemption. Achievement Level Test (ALTT Grades 2-11. The recently implemented Achievement Level Test (ALT) includes a series of mathematics, reading, language usage, and science achievement measures that increase in difficulty across eight levels. This test is important to the ESL program evaluation process, for the tests are designed to document growth by assessing students at the cutting edge of their individual achievement level. Fall and spring administration across grades 3-11 permit measurement of growth within and across school years expressed in two kinds of scores: percentile scores and scale or RIT (Rasch Interval Scale) scores. Percentile scores can be used to compare students to the large group of test takers using the ALT developed by the Northwest Evaluation Association. It is important to note that this is a comparative group currently involving 104 schools districts and 500,000 students and growing 164 to 13 points annually. This is not a norm group configured to represent public school populations. LRSD regulations (see Appendix E ) can exempt LEP students from District level tests for up to tw'o years on LRSD criterion referenced tests (CRTs). However, for program evaluation purposes all students, including LEP students, are to take the ALT. Demonstration of growth within and across an individuals matriculation. Fall to Spring, in grades 3 11 is documented using the RJT score designed to make direct comparisons to a criterion performance level along a scale from 160 to 250. Students typically start at a RIT__ of about 170-190 in the fall of the 3 grade and progress to the 230260 range by high school. Students at 235 have reached a readiness level for Algebra 1. It is very important to note that along the Rasch Interval Scale, scores have the same meaning regardless of the individual students grade level. This type of measurement allows some students to start at a higher RIT level and some low-achieving students to never reach the top level. The design provides an accurate measure of each students achievement where the typical standardized test, by its nature, provides inadequate measures for many students, especially those at the high and low ends of the scale. score Also important is the fact that tests are aligned with The Arkansas Mathematics, Reading, and English/Language Arts Curriculum Frameworks, thus enabling the District to determine impact and effectiveness of its instructional programs. The pool of test questions, developed by the Northwest Evaluation Association, has been extensively field tested to insure items of the highest quality and fairness. Teachers and curriculum specialists balanced by race, gender, and grade level matched the pool of questions to the standards and their attending benchmarks included in the aforementioned Frameworks. During test development activities, questions calibrated for difficulty and assigned to a level (e.g.. Math levels 1-8). For example: An appropriate expectation of a Level 1 student is to multiply whole numbers, while a Level 6 student should be able to multiply fractions. This calibration makes it possible to calculate the RIT score which is tied directly to the curriculum. ALTs are administered during the P* and 4* quarters annually. were Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA). The DRA is administered individually kindergarten through 2"^a . . . . .
rade students. Administration of the DRA is to occur during to gl September and April of each school year. The DRA is a measure of a readiness to read at grade level. Test results provide a method for comparing students within the LRSD. The Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) provides teachers with a method for assessing and documenting primary students development as readers over time within a literature-based instructional reading program. The DRA is designed to be used in K-3 classrooms with rich literate environments. The assessments are conducted during one- on-one reading conferences as children read specially selected assessment texts. Sets of 20 stories, which increase in difficulty, are used for the assessment. The DRA evaluates two major aspects of reading: accuracy of oral reading and comprehension through reading and retelling of narrative stores. Both aspects of reading are critical to independence as a reader. Factors which contribute to the gradient of difficulty of the stories include the number of words on a page, complexity of vocabulary, length of the stories, degree of support from the pictures, as well as complexity of sentence and story 17Structure. Questions pertaining to concepts about print are also included in the assessment of lower leveled texts (Southeastern Louisiana University, 1998, p. 1). The DRA is appropriate for assessing grade-level reading ability
it is also used for early detection of reading difficulties. This test is important to the ESL program evaluation process for the tests are designed to document growth by assessing students at the cutting edge of their individual achievement level. The instrument helps teachers by focusing on specific problems of each child and by serving as a guide to the classroom reading instruction, based on the individual needs of each child. Early diagnosis of specific reading difficulties, when matched with appropriate instruction, can help to ensure that the students progress in school. The structure of the PreK-3 Literacy Program ensures that these assessment instruments are aligned with the curriculum content standards for these grades and the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) teaching strategies that shape the professional development for teachers at these grade levels. The DRA is written for classroom teachers who must become careful observers of young children as they leam to read and write. The DRA is useful to teachers who work one-on-one with students who are having difficulty in learning to read and write. The DRA is administered to all students. Stanford Achievement Test- 9*** edition (SAT-9'). The SAT-9 is a overall measure of achievement in reading, mathematics, language arts, science, and social science. The SAT-9 is designed to measure student achievement in relation to the performance of a national sample selected to be representative of the nations students in each of the grades tested. The test provides a method for comparing the achievement of students with that of students in the same grade across the country. The SAT-9 is administered to students in grades 5, 7, and 10 during the month of September. The SAT-9 is a timed test. Results are reported as raw scores, mean scaled scores, normal curve equivalent (NCE), percentile, and stanine scores. For this report, complete battery NCE scores from SY1999-2000 are used. The general population does not include LEP, NAEP, FEP, FEPE or special education students. Future evaluations will include data on the SAT-9 math, reading, and language subtest scores. Behavioral and Professional Development Data LEP, NAEP, FEP, and FEPE students will be compared among themselves and the general population on attendance, retention, graduation, and dropout rates. In addition, PHLOTE students receiving G/T and Special Education services will be compared on the above behavioral variables. The number of ESL endorsed teachers and other professional development will be reported. \\ 18Results State Mandated ACTAAP Benchmark Examination, Grades 4 & 8 The State Benchmark exam for the 1999-2000 school year was given in April 2000 and the results will not be available to the District until the end of October 2000. The Benchmark exam was given to 4**' grade students in February 1999 for the 1998-1999 school year. Fifth- grade data from SY1998-1999 will be used for this report. Several LEP students (N = 11) did not take the test. The State of Arkansas allows LEP students, with permission from their parents, to be exempted from taking the test. The Arkansas Department of Education is currently field testing an alternate assessment for students who would be considered for exemption. Training on the administration of the alternate assessment will begin in fall 2000. Interpretation. The State of Arkansas expects all students to be proficient or advanced. A scaled score of 200 is considered proficient and a score of 250 is considered to be advanced. All of the LEP students that took the test scored in the Below-Basic category in both mathematics and literacy. The general population had 59% of those tested in the Below-Basic category in Math and 42% in literacy. FEP students performed above District results with 53% of students at Proficient and above in math and 58% in literacy. In math both students were in the Basic category and in literacy, one student was Basic and the other Below-Basic. The general population had 22% at Proficient and above in math and 30% in literacy (see Tables 3 and 4). Table 3 Math: 4'*' Grade Benchmark Exam, SY1998-1999 (See page 4 for a description of LEP, NAEP, FEP, and FEPE) General Population LEP % Below Basic 59% N= 1,038 100% N = 9 % Basic 19^ N = 332 % Proficient 13% N = 228 % Advanced 9% N = 162 NAEP > FEP 23% N = 6 FEPE 23% N = 6 100% N = 2 i \\ 19 31% N = 8 23% N = 6Table 4 Literacy: 4'*' Grade Benchmark Exam, SY1998-1999 (See page 4 for a description of LEP, NAEP, FEP, and FEPE) General Population LEP % Below Basic 42% N = 677 100% N = 9 % Basic 28^ N = 460 % Proficient 28% N = 453 % Advanced 2% N = 31 NAEP FEP FEPE 15% N = 4 50% N = 1 27% N = 7 50% N = 1 50% N= 13 8% N = 2 Conclusion. Neither the LEP, NAEP, FEP, FEPE, nor the general population of students attained the state goal of 100% proficient or advanced. LEP students did not perform as well as general population, FEP, or FEPE students. FEPE students did not perform as well as FEP students. However, FEP students performed better than the general population. These results could be attributed to fact that these FEPE students tested had not received the ESL services that are currently in place. ESL services in years prior to the 1999-2000 school year were not as structured as the current program. Plus, the used for this evaluation was collected two years ago, during SYl998-99. While all students in the District would benefit from additional intervention (e.g., learning the State standards), it appears that LEP and FEPE students should be provided additional practice on completing opened-ended questions, a cornerstone of the State Benchmark assessment. Achievement Level Test (ALT), Grades 2-11 The Districts ALT exams were given during March 2000. Grades 2-11 were assessed on Reading and Language Usage. The Elementary and Middle grades were assessed on general mathematics skills and students enrolled in Algebra 1, 2, and Geometry were assessed in these specific subject areas. The national comparison group for Tables 5-11 is comprised of 104 schools districts and 500,000 students that have taken the ALT. Interpretation. Across all subjects, LEP student performance was below the general, FEP, and NAEP population. Consistently across subjects, FEP and NAEP students performed above the general population. Specifically, in reading and language usage, FEPE students out-performed the general population in all grade levels 2"' through 9*, elementary math grades 2'" through 5*, and middle math grades 6'* and S*. 20 FEPE students performed better than FEP students in grades 2 and 3 in reading and language usage. In math FEPE students out-performed LEP students in the grades 3 and 6. Algebra 1 is taken primarily by students in the Q* grade, Geometry in lO'*, and Algebra 2 in 11*. Given these primary grade levels, there are no comparison data between FEPE students and their peers (see RIT Score Tables 5-11). All groups scored below the national comparison group. Newcomer data are mixed, but FEPE students generally did better that other PHLOTE students at the elementary level (e.g., grades 2 and 3 in reading). FEP students receiving G/T services did better that the national comparison group. Table 5 (See page 4 for a description of LEP, NAEP, FEP, and FEPE) ALT Reading Scores: Spring 2000 8 7 5 6 Grade Level National Comparison Group 2 1^ 3 4 9 10 11 1981 205| 21212171 2211225 228 230 j' General Population Number Tested 179 1761 1911 1991 20512091 2131216 221 223 227 1891 1879 1795 1574 1517 1511 1360 1411 1179 LEP Number Tested I 160| 172| 184| 187| 192| 204| 202| 178| 174| 20^ 54 43 33 24 11 29 26 14 6 6 NAEP Number Tested 1 2 2 2 5 4 3 4 FEP Number Tested FEPE Number Tested I 184{ 201| 211| 215| 216| 222| 225| 230| 225| 159] 16 23 23 31 28 20 24 10 12 3 Q89[22O5[2O3]2212[216[22^^ 3 1 4 5 3 1 4 21Table 6 (See page 4 for a description of LEP, NAEP, FEP, and FEPE) ALT Language Usage Scores: Spring 2000 Grade Level 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 National Comparison Group 193 199 207 213 2161 2201 223 225 General Population 186 195 203 208 212 216 218 223 224 228 Number Tested 1735 1890 1870 1758 1561 1503 1477 1357 1357 1156 LEP Number Tested I 173| 183| 192| 191| 198| 208| 207| 211| 210| 214| 54 43 33 24 11 29 26 14 6 6 NAEP Number Tested I,, 207| 200|ft^ 230| 227| 239| 229| 227| 214| 2 2 0 1 0 2 5 4 2 4 FEP Number Tested I 1911 207| 216| 218| 220| 227| 230| 236] 208| 224| 16 23 23 31 28 20 24 10 12 3 FEPE Number Tested I 194] 212| 211| 215| 217| 214] 227|'-7 [ 5 4 3 3 1 1 4 Table 7 (See page 4 for a description of LEP, NAEP, FEP, and FEPE) ALT Elementary Math Scores: Spring 2000 Table 8 (See page 4 for a description of LEP, NAEP, FEP, and FEPE) Grade Level 2 3 4 5 National Comparison Group 192 200 208 215 ALT Middle Math Scores: Spring 2000 Grade Level 6 7 8 National Comparison Group 220 227 235 General Population 182 193 202 208 Number Tested 1785 1911 1899 1804 General Population Number Tested 207 1633 213 213 1566 1235 LEP Number Tested I 167] 186] 195] 191] 54 43 33 24 LEP Number Tested I 199] 204] 208] 11 29 26 NAEP Number Tested [ rig] 207] 209] 0 1 2 0 NAEP Number Tested I 234] 230|~^ 2 2 0 FEP Number Tested 1 197] 208| 216|~2^ 16 23 23 31 FEP Number Tested I 2211 228]'^ 16 13 8 FEPE Number Tested I 193] 2111 2lT[2Zr| 5 4 3 3 FEPE Number Tested I 223] 210|2^ 1 1 3 22Table 9 (See page 4 for a description of LEP, NAEP, FEP, and FEPE) Table 10 (See page 4 for a description of LEP, NAEP, FEP, and FEPE) ALT Algebra 1 Scores
Spring 2000 ALT Algebra 2 Scores: Spring 2000 Grade Level General Population Number Tested 7 8 9 10 2601 252 241 239 23 281 1010 151 Grade Level General Population Number Tested 8 9 10 11 2591 2561 254 250 1 314 245 553 LEP Number Tested I ^,1P86|T1^ 0 0 9 2 LEP Number Tested 0 2511 3 0 2 NAEP Number Tested iBil 257| 24O|^ 0 4 1 NAEP Number Tested I 2711 253| 266| 126| 1 i 12 1 FEP Number Tested I 267| 238| 244|247| 7 14 3 1 FEP Number Tested I 169| 174| 254| 0 3 3 3 FEPE Number Tested WB 0 I 0 0 1 FEPE Number Tested 0 0 0 0 Table 11 ALT Geometry Scores: Spring 2000 (See page 4 for a description of LEP, NAEP, FEP, and FEPE) Grade Level General Population Number Tested 10 11 264 256 248 246 11 100 1067 278 8 9 LEP Number Tested I 266| 250| 246| 246| 114 3 \\ NAEP Number Tested FEP Number Tested FEPE Number Tested 273| 25Tp50l I 2711 273| 250(^ I "-a ,1 257] 23 0 2 0 1 2 2 4 8 0 0 0 1Conclusion. Since SYl 999-2000 was the first year for the administration of the ALT across grades 2 - 11 it would be difficult to make an assumption, based on the data, indicating ESL program success. However, LEP performance on the Districts ALT is consistent with performance on the State Benchmark assessment (i.e., 4* grade) and, as will be noted later, on the SAT-9 (i.e., 5*, 7*, and 10* grade) in that LEP students are performing below the general population. However, FEPE students (i.e., LEP students who have exited the program) are performing above the general population. Stanford Achievement Test. 9* edition (SAT-9) Students in the 5*, 7*, and 10* grades took the SAT-9 during September 1999. For this evaluation report, students will be compared on complete battery percentile scores. The complete battery scores reported are a compilation of reading, mathematics, language, spelling, study skills, science, social science, using information, and thinking skills subtest results. In addition to LEP, FEP, NAEP, and FEPE students, the general population does not include special education students. Future evaluations will include subtest results on reading, math, and language. Interpretation. LEP students in the 5*, 7*, and 10* grades performed below the general population and FEP and NAEP students. FEPE, FEP, and NAEP students who took the test performed above the general population (see Table 12). A number of LEP students (18-5 graders, 15-7* graders, and 18-10* graders) did not take the SAT-9. School staff determines whether it is appropriate for LEP students to take the SAT-9 and the State of Arkansas allows LEP students, with permission from their parents, to be exempted from taking the test. Table 12 SAT-9 Complete Battery Percentile Scores, SY1999-2000 (See page 4 for a description of LEP, NAEP, FEP, and FEPE) Grade 5* yth 10* General Population 36 N= 1481 42 N= 1363 40 N= 1448 LEP 15 N= 11 21 N = 22 30 N = 2 NAEP N = 0 78 N = 2 40 N = 6 FEP 55 N = 30 71 N = 21 55 N = 16 FEPE 39 N = 2 33 N = 2 N = 0 Conclusion. Several paper and pencil assessments (i.e., ALT, State Benchmark, & SAT- 9) have validated the below-average performance of LEP students vs. other populations (i.e., general, FEP, and NAEP). However, it appears that FEPE students are becoming proficient in English and maintaining their academic achievement. 24Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) The DRA is designed to measure growth over the school year by administering the DRA in the fall and spring. The DRA was administered to kindergarten through 2"'* grade students during the early fall and late spring SY 1999-2000. During the DRA observation the student reads materials that are typically used within the classroom, and the observer records the directional movements that are made, errors or miscues. The student is assessed on deriving meaning, structure and information from the material. The spring DRA score is used to determine grade-level readiness. Readiness is indicated by a score of 2 at kindergarten, 16 at grade, and 24 at 2"* grade. On most of the State and District assessments (i.e., SAT-9 and State Benchmark), LEP students are allowed to be exempted, with parental permission, from testing with the DRA. Teachers were asked to assess all students. Unless otherwise noted, the growth data in the DRA tables reflects only those students who were assessed both in the fall and spring. The fall and spring scores reflect all students who were assessed. Interpretation. LEP students in kindergarten out-performed the general population and were performing above the readiness level of 2. LEP students in the and 2"'* grade did not perform as well as the general population. grade LEP students as a group are below the readiness level, and 2"* grade students are performing at the readiness level. FEP students are outperforming the general population. While there are no FEPE students in kindergarten or 1 st grade, FEPE students in the 2"' grade performed the same as LEP students, but below the general population. FEPE students in the 2"** grade, with average reading readiness of 24.87, exceeded grade readiness level equivalency of 24 (see Tables 13-15). Table 13 Kindergarten DRA scores (See page 4 for a description of LEP, NAEP, FEP, and FEPE) General Population LEP NAEP FEP FEPE Fall 1.55 1.22 4.48 25 Spring 4.43 4.47 Growth +2.88 +3.18 9.57 +5.09Table 14 1 Grade DRA scores (See page 4 for a description of LEP, NAEP, FEP, and FEPE) General Population LEP NAEP FEP FEPE Fall 5.1 3.46 1 8.52 Spring 21.2 14.03 6 21.29 Growth +14.0 +11.9 +5 +12.77 Table 15 2"* Grade DRA scores (See page 4 for a description of LEP, NAEP, FEP, and FEPE) General Population LEP NAEP FEP FEPE Fall 19.9 15.74 34.7 19.5 Spring 30.8 24.87 38.5 34 Growth +10.3 +13.0 +7.8 +14.5 In kindergarten and grade, LEP and FEPE students had higher DRA growth scores than the general population. However, LEP students in 1 grade did not have DRA growth scores as high as the general population. Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA), supported by the Arkansas Department of Education and by LRSD, consists of teacher training in early literacy strategies and the administration of the DRA. District-wide results correlating DRA scores to ELLA training indicates a significant positive relationship between the amount of training that teachers participated in and the amount of growth achieved. Teachers can receive from 2 to 12 days of training. The first two days of training covers the administration of the DRA. Subsequent training days covers early literacy strategies. Conclusion. While and 2" grade LEP students are performing below the general population, kindergarten LEP students demonstrated exceptional performance and growth. It is possible that the expanded District pre-kindergarten programs and the Animated Literacy program at the kindergarten level may have had an effect on kindergarten scores. Also, FEPE 2' grade students are performing at the grade readiness level. Scores on the DRA are supported by the reading and language usage scores on the Districts ALT. It appears that the early literacy program may be having more effect on the early grades (i.e., kindergarten and grade) than on nd 262"'. This is probably due to the date and level of early literacy program intervention. Future evaluations will identify and report on the academic progress of PHLOTE students who attended the LRSDs pre-kindergarten program. Dropout, Retention, Attendance, and Graduation Interpretation. No PHLOTE students dropped out during SY1998-1999 or SY1999-200O. Table 16 Retention rates for SY1998-1999 and SY1999-2000 (See page 4 for a description of LEP, NAEP, FEP, and FEPE) Level and SY Elementary SY1998-1999 SY1999-2000 Middle School SY1998-1999 SY1999-2000 High School SY1998-1999 SYl 999-2000 General Population 1.33% N=169 available 12/15/00 .98% N=52 available 12/15/00 .42% N=28 available 12/15/00 LEP 4.29% N=13 1.32% N=4 2.94% N=2 1.31% N=1 2.62% N=2 NAEP 3.39% N=1 3.39% N=1 FEP .65% N=1 5.06% N=4 6% N=6 2% N=2 FEPE Retention data SY1998-1999: Twenty-five students (16 LEP, 1 NAEP, and 8 FEP) were retained after the 1998-1999 school year. Retention rates of these subpopulations were generally higher than the general school population. Among the LEP students retained, there were 10 male and 6 female students. Of these students, 14 students spoke Spanish, 1 spoke Chinese and 1 spoke Filipino. The one NAEP student was female and spoke Spanish. One Spanish speaking LEPSPD male in the 7* grade was retained. Among the FEP students retained, there were 6 males and 2 females, with 7 speaking Spanish and 1 speaking Portuguese. \\ 27 One Spanish speaking FEP male in the 6* grade, receiving G/T services, was retained. LEP students had high retention rates in the middle and high school levels (see Table 16). Retention data SY1999-2000: Thirteen students (10 LEP, 1 NAEP, and 2 FEP) were retained. Among LEP students, there were 9 males and 1 female student. All of these students spoke Spanish. The one 11* grade NAEP student is male and speaks Spanish. The two FEP students are 9* and 11* grade Spanish speaking males. One 9* grade LEP student at JA Fair High School was retained for both SYl998-1999 and SY 1999-2000. Table 17 Student Attendance Rates for SY1999-2000: Average Number of Days Missed (See page 4 for a description of LEP, NAEP, FEP, and FEPE) School Year SY1999-2000 General Population 4?88 LEP 9.8 NAEP 7.62 FEP 7.16 FEPE 7.52 The average number of days missed by a general population, during ST 1999-2000 was 4.88 days LEP students miss over twice as many days as the general population. NAEP, FEP, and FEPE students miss more days than the general population (see Table 17). FEP and LEP students receiving G/T services missed an average of 3.64 and 7.87 days respectively. LEP students receiving special education services missed an average of 12.43 days. NAEP students receiving special education services missed an average of 13.33 days. 28Graduation rate. All of the 12* grade PHLOTE students (N = 27) graduated with a diploma at the end of SY1999-2000. Nine FEP students. Twelve LEP students. Six NAEP students. Conclusion. It is commendable that there were no LEP student dropouts for the last two years. The District has made a concerted effort to decrease the dropout rate. The graduation rate was 100% of 12* grade students. While students receiving G/T services had lower absenteeism rates than the general population, students receiving Special Education services had higher absenteeism rates than the general population. The number of students retained fell by almost 50% from SY1998-1999 to SY1999-2000. Professional Development LRSD professional development activities have focused on teacher ESL endorsement and enhancing English language learning in the classroom. State ESL endorsement requires 12 credit hours consisting of four classes: 1. 2. Teaching second languages. Second language acquisition. 3. Teaching people of other cultures, and 4. Second language assessment. As of this date, 29 teachers have received their ESL endorsement: School Name As of June 2,2000 # of ESL Endorsed Teachers # of Teachers Endorsed during the summer of 2000 8 . Hall High* McClellan High Cloverdale Middle* Forest Heights Middle Mabelvale Middle Henderson Middle Chicot Elementary* Washington Elementary^ Geyer Springs Elementary Wakefield Elementary McDermott Elementary 3 1 2 2 Total * = Newcomer Center 15 14 \\ 29 1 1 2 1 1 1 4 2Also, approximately 75 teachers have taken at least three hours of credit toward ESL endorsement. In addition, 181 teachers have received training in enhancing English language learning in the classroom. As an increased number of teachers become endorsed, future evaluations should provide comparison data on PHLOTE students being served by non-endorsed vs. endorsed teachers. \\ 30Conclusions Evaluating the curriculum service delivery, staffing and scope of teacher training Concerning the curriculum service delivery, staffing and scope of teacher training it appears that Newcomer and non-Newcomer center schools are contributing equally to student achievement. There is not a critical mass of ESL endorsed teachers in the Newcomer Center schools. This situation is not changing. Only 5 of the 15 teachers endorsed during summer 2000 were from Newcomer Center schools. Future evaluations will need to examine closely the: 1.) diffusion of LEP students throughout the LRSD
2.) amount of staffing and teacher training as it relates to the above diffusion
and 3.) the relationship of ESL endorsement to student achievement. Evaluating the extent to which limited English language students are performing in comparison to other students in the District Regarding student achievement, LEP students do not perform as well as their FEP or general population peers on the DRA, SAT-9, State Benchmark Exam, and ALT. While academic achievement is of particular concern, so also the absenteeism rates of LEP and FEPE students. ESL program staff need to continue to consult and work closely with the Districts curriculum specialists to insure that ESL students are receiving the optimal services possible under the LRSDs ESL curriculum delivery plan. In addition to providing quality service to ESL students, the ESL program staff needs to focus on the absenteeism rates through increased parental involvement. The number of PHLOTE students receiving G/T and Special Education services is small, making data comparison difficult. However, PHLOTE students receiving G/T services generally perform above the LRSD and National averages. A concern is that there are few students in the elementary grades receiving G/T services. Across the four top languages of Spanish, Chinese, Arabic, and Korean, LEP students compare favorably with other PHLOTE students on DRA growth scores, but have lower scores on other academic variables. PHLOTE students, regardless of their sub-population category who attend a magnet school, score higher than other PHLOTE students in the LRSD. Typically on a school-by-school comparison. Newcomer Center school PHLOTE students do not compaie as well as PHLOTE students who attend a non-Newcomer Center school. Evaluating the extent to which limited English proficient students who have become proficient in English (i.e., have exited the ESL program due to proficiency in English) compare to other students in the District 1 I 31It appears that these FEPE students in the early elementary years, grades Z"** and 3^*, are out-performing their LEP and general population peers. It is apparent that FEPE students in 4 grade and above are not performing as well as the 2"'* and 3^'* grade FEPE students. English proficiency is no guarantee that these students will be able to perform academically and it is only through the analysis of a variety of academic variables that any assumptions can be made. Given the baseline data for this evaluation, it is not possible to draw conclusions as to the reasons for FEPE student achievement. Future evaluations will continue to monitor the progress of all FEPE students. Since the 11/30/99 report to the Arkansas State Department of Education, 25 of the 325 LEP students exited from the program. Since this is a baseline year, it is not possible to determine whether these numbers are low, average, or high. However, a 7.7% exit rate seems low. Most students exit the program during their elementary years (64%). An additional data point is time in the program. Due to the style of record keeping prior to SY 1999-2000, this data was not available. Future evaluations will have this data available for students who entered the program during SY1999-2000. Limitations of this Evaluation Date of entry into the ESL program is not available for most LEP students. Future evaluation reports will use date registered with the LRSD as a program entry date for those students missing data on this variable. This evaluation report reflects baseline data that will be used for future ESL evaluation reports. Given the type of data, it is difficult and inappropriate determine the success or failure of LRSDs ESL program. LRSD has made a concerted effort to staff and train teachers. While LEP students do perform below other students in the District, FEPE students who have been in the ESL program perform above other LRSD students on a number of variables. 32Recommendations Attendance is an important variable affecting student achievement. The LRSDs Division of Administrative Services needs to investigate and intervene on the low attendance rates of LEP students. Also recommended is that the ESL parent coordinator work on this need. Professional development is a building block to student achievement. The ESL program needs to continue to offer and promote the professional development opportunities for all teachers in the areas of ESL methodology, alternate assessments, cultural awareness, and second language acquisition. Future ESL program evaluations will consider this a key variable to student success. Early intervention is a proven model for improving student achievement. The ESL program needs to work closely with LRSDs Department of Early Childhood! Elementary Literacy. In particular, this department needs to insure that all elementary teachers in the LRSD have the opportunity to attend early literacy professional development activities. Future ESL evaluations will consider professional development, in early intervention, a key variable. Program entry and exit dates are important variables in helping to determine program success. Most LEP students are missing program entry data. Future evaluations will use the LRSD student registration date as a program entry date for those students missing data on this variable. ESL endorsed teachers have the foundation to improve PHLOTE student achievement. It is imperative that the ESL program support teachers in attaining the ESL Endorsement. Future ESL evaluations will compare students who are taught by endorsed v. non-endorsed teachers. Students receiving G/T services perform above the LRSD average. However, there are few of these students in the elementary grades. The ESL program needs to work closely with the LRSDs Department of Exceptional Children to promote early identification of PFILOTE students that qualify for G/T services. Students currently attending Newcomer Center schools do not necessarily perform better than students attending non-Newcomer Center schools. There is insufficient data to analyze the outcomes of this situation accurately. Future ESL evaluations will closely monitor and report data on Newcomer v. non-Newcomer Center schools. 33References Southeastern Louisiana University (2000). Administering the developmental reading assessment. \\ 34Appendix A Number of Students by Grade by PHLOTE Category A 35Limit-English Proficient (LEP) Not-Assessed as to their English Proficiency (NAEP) Grade Level PK K 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 Total Number of Students 29 56 47 58 46 38 29 20 37 31 26 20 18 12 467 Grade Level PK K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total Number of Students 0 0 1 1 2 2 0 2 2 5 3 5 15 6 45 Fluent-English Proficient (FEP) Fluent-English Proficient Exited (FEPE) Grade Level PK K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total Number of Students 9 23 22 17 23 23 31 28 20 24 10 17 12 9 268 Grade Level PK K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total Number of Students 0 0 0 5 5 3 J 1 2 4 1 0 1 0 25 36Appendix B Comparison of Newcomer and Non-Newcomer schools on Academic Variables W 37Number of Students by Grade Level at Newcomer and Non-Newcomer Center Schools LEP FEP FEPE PK Kindergarten EJ Grade 2" Grade 3^'* Grade 4^ Grade 5^ Grade 6**' Grade 7^ Grade 8^ Grade 9'*" Grade 10'Grade lE*^ Grade 12* Grade Newcomer 13 33 28 37 25 27 18 18 21 21 21 19 16 12 Non ST 23 19 21 21 11 11 2 16 10 5 1 2 Newcomer 1 8 12 9 9 11 14 7 9 11 3 3 4 6 Non T 15 10 8 14 12 17 21 11 13 7 14 8 3 Newcomer Non NAEP Newcomer 1 DRA Scores LEP - Kindergarten FEP- Kindergarten FEPE - Kindergarten NAEP- Kindergarten LEP - Grade FEP -1 Grade FEPE - Grade NAEP - Grade LEP - 2"^ GradT" FEP-2"Gradr~ FEPE - 2^* Grade NAEP- 2"** Grade Non Newcomer fKiI 1.1 4.3 2.8 1 -Sial 16.76 34.7 38 Spring 4.1 11.4 Growth +r +7.1 9.4 19.1 6 23.21 41.37 44 +6.6 +12.1 +5 +6.45 +6.67 +6 38 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 2 1 2 1 J 1 1 2 2 2 5 3 5 14 6 Non-Newcomer Fali 1.3 4.6 Spring 8.6 Growth +3.7 +4 -iTA 4 10.2 14.6 34.2 13.3 18.1 23.7 27.8 43.5 30.6 +14.1 +13.5 +13.2 +9.3 +17.3SAT-9 Complete Battery
National Curve Equivalent Scores LEP - 5* Grade FEP - 5* Grade FEPE - 5* Grade NAEP - 5* Grade LEP - Grade FEP - 7^^ Grade FEPE - 7*^ Gr"^ NAEP - 7'" Grade LEP - 10'*^ Grade FEP - 10^** GradT" FEPE - 10^^ Grade NAEP - 10* Grade Newcomer 167 42.3 39 T 26.4 74.5 21 K ^4 * 30 33.5 Non-New comer 1^3 61 27.9 75.1 39 77.5 Vs'- I^SSR,' 51 :i^ ALT RIT Scores: Elementary Math LEP-2'^2 Grade FEP - 2"** Grade FEPE-2"^Gr'^ NAEP- 2"' Grade LEP - 3^ Gradr~ FEP - 3 Grade FEPE - 3'^Grade NAEP - 3^'' Grade LEP - 4^'^ Grade FEP-4^ Grade FEPE - 4* Grade NAEP - 4th Grade LEP - 5* GradT" FEP - 5^** GradT" FEPE - 5^ Gr^ NAEP - 5* Grade Newcomer Is? 197 222 Non-Newcomer 184 198 186 A 185 206 217 197 213 202 209 185 217 223 187 209 204 207 193 220 216 204 224 218 & 39ALT RIT Scores: Reading Elementary Level LEP - 2"*' Grade FEP - 2"^* Grade FEPE-2" Grade NAEP- 2" Grade LEP - 3^^ Grade FEP - 3"* Grade FEPE - S^^Grade NAEP - 3"* Grade LEP - 4*^ Grade FEP - d*** Grade FEPE - 4* Grade NAEP - 4th Grade LEP - 5'*^ Grade FEP - 5* Grade FEPE - 5* Grade NAEP - 5*^ Grade Newcomer 184 211 215 "1 164 194 212 184 209 199 191 184 211 215 41 Non-Newcomer 193 218 '1Q1 ('"h 180 204 199 201 183 215 205 193 218 207 ALT RIT Scores: Language Elementary Level LEP - 2"^ Grade FEP - 2"^* GradT" FEPE-2"*G'r^ NAEP- 2"** Grade LEP - 3^ Grade FEP - 3^^* GradT" FEPE - d'^Grade NAEP - 3^ Grade LEP - 4*^ Grade FEP -4*^ Grade FEPE-d^^ Grade NAEP - 4th Grade LEP - 5^*^ GradT" FEP - 5* Grade FEPE - 5^^ Gr^ NAEP - 5^^ Grade Newcomer 166 174 Non-Newcomer [84 206 190 178 203 220 * 188 209 205 207 193 214 201 200 189 214 219 i*.
i/ 189 220 216 ' jVi. Ki Si .\k, 197 222 208 StsS! ?7"4?5:A 40ALT RIT Scores: Middle Level Math LEP - 6* Grade FEP - 6* Grade FEPE - 6* Grade NAEP- 6^*' Grade Newcomer 195 228 223 Non-Newcomer 216 218 234 LEP-7^ Grade FEP - 7*^ Grade FEPE -7^1^ Grade NAEP - 7'*' Grade 214 247 195 239 210 230 LEP - 8^* Grade FEP - 8* Grade FEPE - 8* Grade NAEP - 8* Grade 211 229 211 MB? 209 240 209 260 ALT RIT Scores: Middle Level Reading LEP - 6'** Grade FEP - 6^*^ Gradr~ FEPE - 6'* Grade NAEP- 6* Grade' Newcomer 187 218 216 i Non-Newcomer 216 215 LEP - 7^Grade FEP-7*^ Grade FEPE - 7^'^ Gr^ NAEP - T'^ Grade 203 222 205 224 205 227 LEP - 8* Grade FEP -8^ Grade ' FEPE - 8' Grade NAEP - 8* Grade 199 226 210 S 208 225 208 236 \\ 41ALT RIT Scores: Middle Level Language LEP - 6* Grade FEP - 6* Grade FEPE - 6* Grade NAEP- O'** Grade Newcomer 195 220 2\1 Non-Newcomer 212 219 230 LEP - 7^ Grade FEP - 7^*^ Grade FEPE - 7^ Grade NAEP - 7'* Grade 205 225 'k 210 230 214 227 LEP - 8* Grade FEP - 8* Grade FEPE - 8* Grade NAEP - 8* Grade 203 231 210 vr 216 229 215 239 ALT RIT Scores: High School Level Reading LEP - 9* Grad?" FEP - 9^** GradT" FEPE-9^Gi^ NAEP-9^ Grade LEP -10* Grade FEP - 10* Grade FEPE - 10* Gr^ NAEP-10* Grade LEP - 11^ Grade FEP - 1L** Grade" FEPE - 11^ Grade NAEP-ll'^ Grade Newcomer 163 222 174 226 208 208 213 -w w Non-Neyvcomer 205 234 223 224..... 228 206 208 228 42ALT RIT Scores
High School Level Language LEP - 9'* Grade FEP - 9* Grade FEPE - 9* Grade NAEP-9' Grade Newcomer 214 215 1 Non-Neyvcomer 208 241 229 LEP - 10* Grade FEP-10* Grade FEPE - 10* Grade NAEP -10* Grade LEP -11* Grade FEP - 11* Grade FEPE -11* Grade NAEP-11* Grade \\. 210 227 216 223 233 .'fe 202 in 201 215 - * * 214 43Appendix C Results of PHLOTE Students Receiving G/T and Special Education Services 44Gifted and Talented Students by Grade Level FEP 3^'* Grade 4* Grade 5* Grade ' 6* Grade ~ 7* Grade 8* Grade ~ 9* Grade 10* Grade 11* Grade 12* Grade Math RIT Score 3"^** Grade 6*' Grade 7^ Grade 8'*' Grade 9* Grade 10* Grade FEP LEP 186 LEP 3 6 7 10 1 T" 1 2 1 1 232 256 231 256 Reading RIT Score 3^' Grade 6* Grade 7* Grade 8* Grade 9* Grade 10* Grade 237 252 FEP w 228 228 LEP 123 233 Language Usage RIT Score 3^^ Grade 6* Grade 7* Grade 8* Grade 9*Grade 10* Grade \\ 210 218 FEP 222 230 233 235 LEP 180 217 226 45SAT-9 NCE Scores: Complete Battery 7'* Grade FEP 82.7 Special Education Students by Grade Level LEP 2"** Grade 3^* Grade 4* Grade 5^** Grade ~ 6'*' Grade 7* Grade 8* Grade 9^** Grade~ 1 O'** Grade 11^ Grade n'** Grade 1 2 3 1 LEP 6' Grade S'** Grade 9*^ Grade NAEP 4* Grade Math RIT Score 195 181 182 201 Reading RIT Score 166 172 150 172 NAEP 1 1 1 Language Usage RIT Score 173 183 162 189 46Appendix D Academic Results of PHLOTE Students by the Top Four Languages 47Top Four Languages by Grade Level LEP NAEP FEP FEPE PK Spanish Chinese Arabic Korean 22 1 01 0 00 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kindergarten Spanish Chinese Arabic Korean 35 542 0 0 00 72 2 0 1 Grade Spanish Chinese Arabic Korean 36 121 10 0 0 11 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 2" Grade Spanish Chinese Arabic Korean 38 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 6101 410 0 3"* Grade Spanish Chinese Arabic Korean 36 1 02 2 00 0 9214 2 00 0 4'* Grade Spanish Chinese Arabic Korean 29 2 2 0 010 0 6511 3 0 0 0 5* Grade Spanish Chinese Arabic Korean 20 0 01 0 00 0 12 211 110 0 6* Grade Spanish Chinese Arabic Korean I \ 14 2 0 2 0 0 01 10 511 48 010 0 LEP ..NAEP FEP FEPE 7* Grade 8* Grade P* Grade 10'*'Grade IP Grade 12 Grade L Spanish Chinese Arabic Korean Spanish Chinese Arabic Korean Spanish Chinese Arabic Korean Spanish Chinese Arabic Korean Spanish Chinese Arabic Korean Spanish Chinese Arabic Korean 'I 29 3 21 24 0 0 0 15 2 21 15 01 0 13 01 0 61 10 i 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 010 0 2 0 0 0 5 0 0 4 4 0 01 651 1 7 10 0 4 10 0 7 10 0 6 0 0 0 210 0 49 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spanish language DRA Scores K Fall .2 n=31 2.6 n=20 13.6 n=25 LEP Spring 1.7 11.6 25.4 Growth 1.5 9 11.8 Fall 1 n=l State Benchmark Exam Math 5'* Grade Language 5'* Grade NAEP Spring 6 Growth 5 Fall 1.3 n=7 5.5 n=ll 38 n=4 FEP Spring 3.7 16.1 42.5 Growth 2.4 10.6 4.5 Fall 12 n=2 FEPE Spring 28 Growth 17 LEP 67 n=7 LEP 140 n=7 NAEP FEP 148 n=10 FEPE 165 n=l NAEP FEP 191 n=10 FEPE 158 n=l SAT-9: Complete Battery NCE Scores 5'* Grade 7'* Grade' 10* Grade LEP 12 n=9 25.5 n=14 16 n=l NAEP 21 n=2 FEP 40 n=l 1 58.2 n=5 n=l FEPE 25 n=l A 50 ALT RIT Scores Reading 2" Grade 3^'* Grade 4* Grade 5* Grade 6* Grade 2^" Grade 8'*' Grade 9'*' Grade IO'** Grade 11'** Grade Language 2"** Grade 3^' Grade 4* Grade 5'* Grade O'*' Grade 7'" Grade 8* Grade 9* Grade 1 O'*" Grade 11'*'Grade LEP 149 n=34 171 n=33 n=25 W n=17 192 n=7 202 n=21 202 n=20 174 n=8 208 n=4 208 n=6 NAEP 201 n=l 224 n=l 232 n=3 FEP 157 n=5 191 n=9 205 n=6 ioT n=12 211 n=10 214 n=6 w n=2 221 n=4 W n=6 W n=l FEPE 181 n=3 203 n=3 203 n=l 203 n=l 220 n=2 213 n=l LEP 165 n=34 182 n=33 187 n=25 192 n=17 196 n=7 202 n=21 202 n=20 205 n=8 215 n=4 214 n=6 NAEP 207 n=l 214 n=l 213 n=3 FEP 161 n=5 199 n=9 nr n=6 213 n=12 yiT n=10 220 n=6 nr 'in n=4 W n=6 nr n=2 FEPE 186 n=3 212' n=3 "TTT n=l 202 n=l >M- - 225 n=2 233 n=l 51 Math 2" Grade 3^*^ Grade 4'*' Grade 5* Grade 6* Grade 7' Grade 8* Grade 9* Grade' 10*' Grade 11^ Grade LEP 162 n=34 183 n=33 191 n=25 199 n=17 198 n=l 199 n=21 210 n=20 itT n=8 "W n=4 207 NAEP 207 n=l 253 n=l 250 n=3 FEP 191 n=5 "W" n=9 213 n=6 ITT' n=12 211 n=10 226 n=6 W n=7 185 n=4 206 n=6 n=2 FEPE 185 n=3 211 n=3 ITT n=l 217 n=l 231 n=2 233 n=l 52 Chinese Language DRA Scores K 1^ Fall 5.7 n=4 0 n=l 19 n=3 LEP Spring 16.5 1 33 Growth 10.8 1 14 Fall State Benchmark Exam Math 5'* Grade Language 5^ Grade i NAEP Spring LEP LEP Growth NAEP NAEP i-f SAT-9: Complete Battery NCE Scores LEP NAEP 5* Grade 7'* Grade IO' Grade w 27 n=3 FEP 70 n=2 9l4 n=5 TT n=l FEP 195 n=l Fall 2.5 n=2 n=3 20 n=l FEP 208 n=l 53 FEP Spring 9 42.7 FEPE FEPE FEPE 53 n=l 44 Growth 6.5 14.7 24 Fall 38 n=l FEPE Spring 44 Growth 6 ALT RIT Scores Reading 2"* Grade 3'** Grade 4* Grade LEP 188 n=6 1^ n=l 193 n=2 NAEP 210 n=l 5* Grade 6^ Grade 7'*' Grade 202 n=2 2TO n=3 8'' Grade 9* Grade 231 n=2 10* Grade 225 n=l FEP 214 n=l 216 n=2 1^ n=5 "W n=2 22^ n=5 '133' n=5 240 n=l 240 n=l 142 n=l FEPE 207 n=l - 226 n=l 216 n=l 228 n=l 11* Grade Language 2" Grade 3^ Grade 4'^ Grade LEP 195 n=6 n=l 199 n=2 NAEP 211 n=l 5^ Grade 6* Grade 7'*' Grade 2<il n=2 W n=3 8'*' Grade 9*^ Grade 111 n=2 236 n=l 10* Grade 11'*'Grade FEP 223 n=l 214 n=2 n=5 n=2 a=5 239 n=5 249 n=l 251 n=l 14T n=l FEPE 209 n=l 231 n=l lAl n=l 236 n=l 54 Math 2"** Grade Grade 4'* Grade LEP 193 n=6 179 n=l 218 n=2 NAEP >.w' s'** Grade 6^' Grade 7^ Grade 207 n=2 213 n=3 8* Grade 9*' Grade 252 n=2 10'^ Grade 11^ Grade 217 n=l 273 n=l FEP 203 n=l 220 n=2 n=5 234 n=2 23? n=5 n=5 "W n=l W n=l FEPE 222 n=l * 229 n=l 223 n=l 254 n=l
264 n=l 55K Arabic Language DRA Scores Fall 4 n=l 20 n=l LEP Spring 10 38 Growth 6 18 ' * Fall State Benchmark Exam Math 5^ Grade Language 5'*' Grade NAEP Spring * LEP LEP Growth NAEP NAEP SAT-9: Complete Battery NCE Scores LEP NAEP 5* Grade 7'*' Grade 15.5 n=2 10'*' Grade FEP 19 n=l 83 n=l n=l \\ FEP 315 n=l FEP 255 n=l Fall 4 n=2 TT n=2 FEP Spring FEPE FEPE FEPE 56 16 Growth 5 9.5 Fall FEPE Spring Growth 5*-ALT RIT Scores Reading 2" Grade 3^* Grade 4" Grade 5* Grade 6'*' Grade 7' Grade 8' Grade 9' Grade 10' Grade 11*^ Grade Language 2" Grade Grade 4'* Grade 5* Grade 6' Grade 7' Grade 8* Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11' Grade LEP 189 n=2 197 n=l 204 n=2 212 n=l Sag LEP 191 n=2 203 n=2 NAEP 205 n=2 216 n=l 213 n=l \\ NAEP ji FEP 193 n=l 217 n=l 227 n=l 204 n=l 227 n=l FEP 208 n=l 216 n=l 225 n=l 209 n=l 232 n=l FEPE a FEPE t- 51 Math LEP NAEP FEP FEPE 2" Grade 182 n=l 3^* Grade 4'*' Grade 197 n=l 5'* Grade :Sa 6* Grade 7' Grade 212 n=2 204 n=l 217 n=l n=l 216 n=l n=l *?T 8'*' Grade 9'*' Grade 10'*' Grade 11'* Grade 237 n=l 252 n=l W 58 Korean Language DRA Scores K P" 2^ Fall 1.5 n=2 n=l LEP Spring 2.5 34 Growth i Fall Y'' 28 State Benchmark Exam Math 5' Grade LEP Language 5'' Grade LEP NAEP Spring Growth NAEP NAEP SAT-9: Complete Battery NCE Scores LEP NAEP Fall 28 n=l 5*^ Grade 7' Grade IO'** Grade \\ 52 n=l FEP 34 n=l 87 n=l FEP Spring 44 Growth 16 Fall FEPE Spring Growth FEP 195 n=l FEP 218 n=l FEPE FEPE 4 FEPE IB ALT RIT Scores 59 Reading LEP NAEP 2"' Grade 3"* Grade 166 n=2 4* Grade 5* Grade 6* Grade 7* Grade 163 n=l 185 n=2 214 n=l 21n=l FEP 193 n=l "204 n=4 221 n=l "W n=l 204 n=l 229 n=l FEPE 8* Grade 9* Grade 10* Grade 11* Grade Language LEP 2" Grade 3^ Grade 181 n=2 4* Grade 5* Grade 6* Grade 7* Grade 8* Grade 9^^ Grade 10* Grade 11* Grade 228 n=l NAEP 173 n=l 195 n=2 211 n=l .. '.i.E .-,- ITl n=l ' - t
-. 230 n=l -PS it-: FEP 206 n=l 210 n=4 "229 n=l W n=l 222 n=l IdO n=l FEPE 60Math LEP NAEP 2"** Grade 3'I Grade 202 n=2 4 Grade S'** Grade 6 Grade 7'* Grade 8* Grade Grade 10'*'Grade 11Grade 194 n=l 192 n=2 n=l 234 n= 1 247 n=l 1 FEP 214 n=l 207 n=4 218 n=l 213 n=l 211 n=l n=l FEPE '-f'' 61Appendix E LRSD Regulations on the Academic Assessment of PHLOTE St
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.