PULASKI COUNTY INTERDISTRICT SCHOOLS EVALUATION 1997-98 Gerald B. DickinsonACKNOWLEDGMENTS I gratefully acknowledge the help of Ms Donna Grady Creer, her office staff, and the teachers and administrators of Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools. This evaluation project was made easier by their honest, forthright and candid responses. The building principals were especially helpful in accommodating the evaluation team members during site visits. A great debt is owed my respected colleagues for their professional work and dedication to the evaluation project. Finally, thanks to my graduate assistants whose help and assistance is greatly appreciated.TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction Section I: Student Achievement Standardized Tests...................................... Magnet Schools - All Students.................. Magnet Schools - Dissagregated Groups, Test Score Disparities................................. Summary Findings......................... 3 4 12 28 30 Section H: Desegregation Enrollment, Placement & Waiting Lists. Staffing.......................................................... Social Interaction - Sociograms.............. Student Interaction - Site Visits............. Student/Staff Interaction - Site Visits.... Summary Findings........................ 32 36 38 89 92 94 Section HI: Magnet Theme Magnet Themes.................... Program Availability........... Coherent Magnet Program. Summary Findings.. 96 97 99 101 Section IV: Sumraative Evaluation Conclusions................. Summary Conclusion, 102 103 Section V: Appendix Appendix. 104PULASKI COUNTY INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOL EVALUATION Evaluation Report December 1998 INTRODUCTION The 1997-98 evaluation report continues the format that has been provided for the past several years. Few changes are noted in order that continuity and consistency may enhance both the short-term and long-term evaluative processes. Any changes in reporting format have been mutually agreed upon by the Magnet Review Committee and the evaluator. Student achievement data continue to be reported in Percentile Ranks (PR) as initiated in the 1996-97 report. In previous reports, only sociogram data for the Fall administration are included, while data analysis for both the Fall and the Spring administrations are provided. Due to requests by the magnet school administrators, and subsequently, the Magnet Review Committee, both Fall and Spring sociogram data and analysis are included in this report. This report also brings together data and findings from previous reports in order to present an element of continuity to conclusions and inferences that assist educational planners in assessment of long term impact of project activities on magnet school goals and purposes. The purpose of this design is to provide a logical, sequential, and continuous accounting of the attainment of evaluation project objectives, assessment activities, and evaluation reports. Section titles are designed and written to correspond to expected outcomes as identified in the evaluation proposal. It should be noted that not all evaluation reports have the same evaluation objectives. Expected outcomes may vary from one project year to another based on the contribution of each component toward assurances that magnet school objectives are successfully met and based on changes in evaluation components agreed upon by the Magnet Review Committee and the evaluator. Some evaluation components may be eliminated or used only during alternative years. Also, data provided during previous or subsequent evaluations may be valuable in providing a degree of confidence about the attainment of specific outcomes. Principal evaluation objectives are retained in each of the project years to assure a continuous measure of magnet school attainment of goals and objectives. Where appropriate, comparisons and contrasts are provided. Comparisons and contrasts that require assumptions about enrollment and program continuity are noted so that any inferences and conclusions drawn might be weighed relative to such assumptions. Additional evaluation objectives may be added in future evaluations as the Magnet Review Committee seeks new and different data regarding the magnet school program. 1Evaluation Objectives 1. Student Achievement To obtain and analyze the 1997-98 standardized test scores for the following tests for appropriate groups. A. Stanford Achievement Tests - Magnet Schools (All grades) Little Rock School District B. Stanford Achievement Tests - Arkansas (state)
National (national) 2. 3. Desegregation To develop procedures and instrumentation for data collection regarding the contribution of magnet schools toward the desegregation goals of the project. A. What do enrollment data reveal about the attainment of objectives relative to student enrollment? B. What are the staffing patterns and do they reflect diversity relative to race and gender? C. What are the social interaction patterns between and within the disaggregate groups by race and sex? D. Is there evidence revealed by data during site visits of stereotyping, graffiti, and name calling? Is there evidence of student isolation and solidarity? E. What are the interaction patterns of administrators, staff, and students and between teachers and students? Magnet theme To provide evaluation activities to assess the existence of a sound educational core program and an existing magnet theme as provided by the magnet school program activities. A. What are the magnet school themes available to students in the Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School Program? B. Are magnet school programs available to students as prescribed by the magnet school policies and procedures? C. Is there a coherent magnet program in place at each of the magnet school sites? D. Are instructional and non-instructional personnel and resources necessary to support the magnet school program in place at each of the magnet school sites? 2PULASKI COUNTY INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOL EVALUATION Formative Evaluation: Student Achievement BACKGROUND The purpose of this formative evaluation is to gain insight into the assessment of objectives listed in the evaluation procedures relative to student achievement. Student Achievement - To obtain and analyze standardized test scores for the appropriate grade groups. METHODS/ FINDINGS Magnet school test data were received from the Office of Planning, Research and Development, Little Rock School District. Stanford Achievement Test (SAT 9) data were received for elementary grades 3 and 5, and for grades 7 and 10 at the secondary level. Test data summaries for the state were provided by the Office of Student Assessment, Arkansas Department of Education. The Department of Education requires that students in grades 5, 7, and 10 take the SAT 9. Previous reports have compared students on the basis of Percentile Rank (PR). Given the acceptability and familiarity of reporting percentile ranks, this report continues to utilize percentile ranks to compare and contrast magnet school students with other students in the LRSD, the state of Arkansas and the nation. National norm scores were based on normative data copyrighted by Harcourt Brace & Company. Test data were reported for disaggregate groups, however, percentile ranks for subgroups and for each magnet site were computed by averaging mean NCE scores and converting scores into percentile ranks. Percentile ranks reported may differ slightly due to rounding during computation. Tests results data analysis for Grade Three were accomplished by comparing magnet school student data with scores from the LRSD. Data analysis for grades 5, 7, and 10 were accomplished by comparing magnet school students with student in the LRSD, the state, and the nation. The mean percentile rank for all students nationwide was the 50* percentile. Magnet school students were contrasted on the basis of how they performed relative to the 50* percentile. Students are disaggregated by race. Disaggregate groups are compared with like-type comparison groups. The purpose of this comparison is to determine how magnet school student perform relative to students of the same race. Data analysis is presented in both narrative and graphic form. Test data results were obtained from the 1998 Fall administration of the SAT 9 3Magnet Schools - All Students The first comparison is for magnet schools all students. Percentile ranks are computed by weighting average mean NCE scores. Magnet schools students scores are compared to LRSD, state and national scores. Grade 3 A total of 275 third grade magnet school students took the SAT9 in the Fall of 1998. Test results are depicted in the table that follows. Percentile Ranks are presented for the nation, the LRSD and each of the magnet schools. The Arkansas Department of Education does not require third grade students to be tested. Stanford Achievement Test Third Grades/Percentile Ranks Magnet Schools/ LRSD/ Nation Magnet School N = 275 School total reading total math language arts environment basic battery complete battery Nation 50 50 50 50 50 50 LRSD 45 35 40 35 42 42 Booker 40 36 35 40 42 39 Carver 57 47 50 49 55 56 Gibbs 52 38 56 55 50 51 Williams 66 63 67 59 65 64 Third grade students at Carver, Gibbs, and Williams generally scored higher than students at the national average and students in the Little Rock School District. Booker students scored below the national average and about the same as students in the Little Rock School District. Test results on the complete battery were about the same as for the 1996-97 school year in the magnet schools. Tests scores for the Little School District were slightly higher in 1997-98 than the previous school year. Magnet school test scores were generally lowest in math, with students at Booker and Gibbs scoring well below the national average. Students at Carver, Gibbs, and Williams scored above the national average in reading and language arts. 4The graph below depicts Third Grade test scores for magnet school students. Stanford Achievement Test Third Grade ! Stanford Achievement Test J Percentile Ranks 100 so 1 1 I 60 r I 40 I 20 0 1 I Read Math Lang Boviroo B Battery C Battery National LRSD Legend Booker Carver Glbbi WUlUmi I 5Grade 5 A total of 287 fifth grade magnet school students took the SAT 9 in the Fall of 1998. Tests scores are reported for each of the magnet schools, the LRSD, the state, and the nation. Stanford Achievement Test Fifth Grade/Percentile Ranks Magnet Schools/LRSD/State/National N = 287 School total reading total math language arts science social science basic battery complete battery Nation 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 State 49 41 46 45 45 47 47 LRSD 40 36 42 34 38 41 40 Booker 40 25 45 40 41 38 39 Carver 54 50 50 49 51 52 52 Gibbs 38 34 34 36 37 37 37 Williams 74 67 70 61 73 71 70 Fifth grade students at Williams and Carver magnet schools scored above the national, state, and Little Rock School District average. Students at Booker scored at about the same level as students in the Little Rock School District but below the state average. Students at Gibbs scored well below the state, LRSD, and the nation. Scores for fifth grade students at Gibbs were considerably lower in 1997-98 than for the 1996-97 school year. Scores for students at Booker, Carver, and Williams were about the same as scores for the previous year. The graph on the following page depicts test scores for Fifth Grade students. 6Stanford Achievement Test Fifth Grade ! Stanford Achievement Test I i i Percentile Ranks 100 80 0 40 20 Read Math Lang Science Soc. Science B Battery C Battery Legend National Oibbt LRSD WilliamB Booker Arkaneat Carver 0 ( 1 3 1 J Grade 7 Two hundred seventy Seventh Grade students at Mann Junior High School took the SAT 9 in the Fall of 1999. The percentile ranks for students on all subtests, except math, were above the 50* percentile. The score for math was at the 49* percentile. The table below depicts the test scores for Seventh Grade students in the nation, Arkansas, the LRSD, and Mann Junior High School. Stanford Achievement Test Seventh Grade/Percentile Ranks Mann Junior High /LRSD/State/National N=270 School total reading total math language arts science social science basic battery complete battery Nation 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 State 46 45 45 55 49 48 49 LRSD 39 40 38 42 39 41 41 Mann 57 49 57 59 56 57 57 Mann Seventh Grade students scored considerably higher than students in the LRSD, the state of Arkansas, and across the nation. The graph on the following page depicts the test scores of Mann and other comparison groups. 8Stanford Achievement Test Seventh Grade Stanford Achievement Test Percentile Ranks 100 80 60 5 SiE 40 - 20 rs.'Cfisw Read Math Laag Arte Sienee Soc Smdlrt B BAttery C Banery Maiional Legend Arkaniaa LRSD Mann 1***^ I{ 0 i 5 I I f 9 Grade 10 In the Fall of 1999, 298 Tenth Grade students at Parkview High School took the SAT 9. The percentile ranks for students on all subtests were above the 50* percentile. The table below depicts the test scores for 10* grade students in the nation, Arkansas, the LRSD, and Parkview High School. Stanford Achievement Test Tenth Grade/Percentile Ranks Parkview High School /LRSD/State/National School total reading total math language arts science social science basic battery complete battery Nation 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 State 43 52 46 53 50 47 48 LRSD 36 43 40 45 42 42 42 Parkview 52 55 53 58 54 54 54 Parkview Tenth Grade students scored considerably higher than students in the LRSD, the state of Arkansas, and across the nation. The graph on the following page contrasts the scores of Parkview students against other comparison groups. 10Stanford Achievement Tests Tenth Grade Stanford Achievement Test ! i I 1 Percentile Ranks 100 so 60 aaaagftT7
.aBe. 40 20 Read Math Lane * Science Soe Stud B Battery C Battery National Legend Arkansas LRSD Parkview 11 i j 0 I t I Magnet Schools - Disaggregate Groups The following comparisons are designed to compared magnet school student with like-type students across the state, the LRSD, and other magnet schools. Because national student test data are not provided for disaggregate groups, the 50* percentile will serve for comparative purposes. Test data for Grade Three are not available for the state since testing of Third Grade students is not mandated by the ADE. Grade 3 Test scores for 3^ grade magnet school students are compared with other magnet school students as well as with test scores for 3"* grade students in the LRSD. Subgroups compared are black students and white students. Test scores for other students are not used in this portion of the report. Black Students. The table that follows compares Third Grade black students in each of the magnet schools with other magnet school black students and black students in the LRSD. Third Grade Black Students Booker/Carver/Gibbs/Williams/LRSD/National* School total reading total math language arts environment basic battery complete battery Nation* 50 50 50 50 50 50 LRSD 37 27 31 25 35 34 Booker 35 28 32 33 34 34 Carver 42 30 33 25 41 40 Gibbs 33 23 35 30 33 33 Williams 58 48 61 48 57 56 * National scores for all students only Third Grade black students at Williams scored well above Third Grade black student in other magnet schools, black students in the LRSD, and all students across the nation. Booker and Carver Third Grade black students scored higher than black students in the LRSD. Gibbs Third Grade black students scored about the same as Third Grade black students in the LRSD. The graph on the following page depicts black third grade students scores. 12Stanford Achievement Tests Third Grade - Black Students 1 t ! "7 Stanford Achievement Test Percentile Ranks i 100 80 60 40 20 Read Math Lang Enviros B Battery C Battery National LRSD Legend Booker Carver Gibbt Williatnt National scores are for all students only 13 0 * I f f t t it White Students. The table below compares Third Grade white students with in each of the magnet schools with other magnet school white students and white students in the LRSD. t Third Grade White Students Booker/Carver/Gibbs/Williams/LRSD/National* School total reading total math language arts environment basic battery complete battery Nation* 50 50 50 50 50 50 LRSD 62 56 61 62 61 61 Booker 43 44 36 50 49 43 Carver 69 60 64 72 67 67 Gibbs 76 61 81 84 72 74 Williams 76 70 74 71 73 73 i f 1 *National scores for all students only All magnet school Third Grade white students, except at Booker, scored above the national average for all students. Bookers Third Grade white students scored just below the national average. Gibbs and Williams Third Grade white students were above the 70" percentile on both the basic and the complete battery. The graph on the following page compares Third Grade magnet school white students scores with Third Grade white students in the LRSD and all students in the nation. I I 14Stanford Achievement Tests Third Grade - White Students Stanford Achievement Test Percentile Ranks 100 so 0 40 20 Read Math Lafig E&viron B Batleiy C Battery i I i f Nation al LRSD Legend Booker Carver Olbbi Williams National scores for all students only 15 s 5 i 0 * i 5 ! I Grade 5 Test scores for Fifth Grade magnet school students are compared with other magnet school students, as well as with test scores for Fifth Grade students in the LRSD, the state, and the nation.. Subgroups are black students and white students. Test scores for other students are not used in this portion of the evaluation report. Black Students. The table that follows compares Fifth Grade black students in each magnet school with other magnet school black students, as well as with black students in the LRSD, and across the state. National scores are not disaggregated by student race. Fifth Grade Black Students Booker/Carver/Gibbs/Williams/LRSD/Arkansas/N ation* School total reading total math language arts science social science basic battery complete battery Nation* 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 State 26 26 32 24 26 30 29 LRSD 27 27 32 23 26 31 30 Booker 27 19 36 28 30 28 28 Carver 33 30 34 26 34 33 33 Gibbs 17 17 15 16 22 19 19 Williams 57 52 60 45 64 59 58 * National scores for all students only Black students at Williams Magnet scored well above the national, state, and LRSD average. Students at Carver Magnet scored well above the state and LRSD average. Bookers Fifth Grade student scores were at or about the same as scores in the LRSD and the state. Gibbs scores were below the LRSD, the state, and other magnet school student scores. The graph on the following page provides a visual comparison of Fifth Grade black student scores by disaggregate groups. 1617 White Students. The table below compares Fifth Grade magnet school white students and students in the LRSD, the state, and the nation. Fifth Grade White Students Booker/Carver/Gibbs/Williams/LRSD/Arkansas/Nation* School total reading total math language arts science social science basic battery complete battery Nation* 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 State 57 47 51 52 51 53 53 LRSD 69 59 62 62 64 64 64 Booker 55 34 55 56 52 51 51 Carver 73 66 65 74 66 68 69 Gibbs 71 63 67 67 71 67 68 Williams 87 80 79 76 82 81 81 * National scores for all students only All Fifth Grade magnet school white students (except math-Booker) scored above the state and the national averages. Student at Carver, Gibbs, and Williams posted outstanding scores at or above the 70*** percentile for the basic and complete batteries. The graph on the following page provides a visual comparison of Fifth Grade white students test scores. 18Stanford Achievement Test Fifth Grade - White Students Stanford Achievement Test t i Percentile Ranks 100 80 60 40 20 Read Math Lang Science Soe. Seieace B Battery C Bflliery 0 Legend E ! 5 1 * National GIbbi LRSD WUliami Booker Arkanaai Carver National scores for all students only 19 i JGrade 7 Test scores for Seventh Grade magnet school students are compared with test scores for students in the LRSD, the state, and the nation. Subgroups are black and white students. Test scores for (C other students are not used in this portion of the evaluation report. Black Students. The table that follows compares Seventh Grade black students at Mann with black 7th grade students in the LRSD, and across the state. National scores are not disaggregated by race. Seventh Grade Black Students Mann/LRSD/Arkansas/Nation* School total reading total math language arts science social science basic battery complete battery Nation 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 State 26 26 31 30 29 32 31 LRSD 27 23 28 29 27 31 30 Mann 40 34 43 42 38 43 42 National scores for all students only Manns Seventh Grade black students scores were higher significantly higher than Seventh Grade black students in the LRSD and in the state Arkansas. National scores are not disaggregated by race. Scores for Seventh Grade black students at Mann for 1997-98 school years were considerably higher than scores Seventh Grade black students at Mann for the 1997-97 school year. The graph on the following page depicts test scores for Seventh Grade students at Mann Junior High School. 20Stanford Achievement Test 7 ! Stanford Achievement Test i Percentile Ranks } i ! i 100 80 60 40 20 Read Math Lang Am Science Soc Sndles B Batteiy C Battery National Legend Arkansas LRSD Mann 0 I i f J I i I ! ! Seventh Grade - Black Students National scores for all students only 21I i White Students. The table that follows compares Seventh Grade white students at Mann with white students in the LRSD and across the state. National scores are not disaggregated by race. Seventh Grade White Students Mann/LRSD/Arkansas/Nation* I I School total reading total math language arts science social science basic battery complete battery Nation 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 State 53 51 50 62 56 53 55 LRSD 66 59 62 73 67 64 65 Mann 72 64 70 73 72 69 70 National scores for all students only White students a Mann Junior High School scored considerably higher than white student in the LRSD, the state of Arkansas, and all students across the nation. Percentile ranks for Seventh Grade students for the 1997-98 school year were slightly higher than percentile ranks for Seventh Grade students for the 1996-97 school year. The graph on the following page depicts test scores for Seventh Grade students at Mann Junior High School. 22Stanford Achievement Test Seventh Grade - White Students ( i Stanford Achievement Test Percentile Ranks ( 100 so 60 J- 40 20 Read Math Lang Arte Science Soc Stndiec B Battery C Battery 0 Legend National Arkanaas LRSD Mann National scores for all students only 23 fGrade 10 Test scores for Tenth Grade magnet school students are compared with test scores for students in the LRSD, the state, and the nation. Subgroups are black and white students. Test scores for other students are not used in this portion of the evaluation report. Black Students. The table that follows compares black Tenth Grade students at Parkview with Tenth Grade black students in the LRSD and across the state. National scores are not disaggregated by race. Stanford Achievement Test Tenth Grade - Black Students Parkview High School /LRSD/State/National School total reading total math language arts science social science basic battery complete battery Nation 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 State LRSD Parkview 23 35 29 33 30 31 32 25 38 33 28 32 31 31 31 42 43 43 39 42 36 National scores for all students only Black students are Parkview scored well above Tenth Grade student in the LRSD and across the state of Arkansas. Scores for the 1997-98 school year were not significantly different from scores for the 1996-97 school year. The graph on the following page depicts test scores for Tenth Grade students at Parkview High School. 24Stanford Achievement Test Tenth Grade - Blacks I ! 5 Stanford Achievement Test ! I Percentile Ranks 100 80 60 f ! i I 40 20 Read Math Lang Science Soe Stud B BaRery National U. Legend A rkaneac LRSD Parkview t I 0 C Bfttlery s J I National scores for all students only 25White Students. The table that follows compares Tenth Grade white students at Parkview with Tenth Grade white students in the LRSD and across the state. National scores are not disaggregated by race. Stanford Achievement Test Tenth Grade - White Students Parkview High School /LRSD/State/National School Nation total reading 50 total math 50 State 50 57 LRSD 65 65 Parkview 67 66 language arts 50 52 67 64 science 50 59 70 73 social science 50 56 70 70 basic battery 50 52 66 66 complete battery 50 54 67 68 National scores for all students only White students at Parkview scored well above Tenth Grade student across the state of Arkansas and all students across the nation.. Scores for the 1997-98 school year were not significantly different from scores for the 1996-97 school year. The graph on the following page depicts test scores for Tenth Grade white students at Parkview High School. 26Stanford Achievement Test Tenth Grade - White Students 1 Stanford Achievement Test i Percentile Ranks I i { I i 100 80 60 aart3a<t5ns 40 20 Read Math Lang Scleoce Soc Stud B Battery C BaUery National Legend Arkantai LRSD Parkview 0 National scores for all students only 27 I I I t ITest Score Disparities An objective of the magnet schools is to reduce the disparities between test scores for black and white students. This section of the evaluation investigates the disparities between tests scores for students in grades 5, 7, and 10. Test score disparities for magnet school students are compared to disparities for students in the LRSD and across the state of Arkansas. Percentile ranks for the complete battery are used for the comparisons. Grade 5 The table that follows presents data for comparing differences between test scores for black and white Fifth Grade students. Test Score Disparities Grade 5 - Blacks/Whites Magnet Schools/LRSD/Arkansas School Black Students- Complete Battery White Students- Complete Battery Difference 97-98 (96-97) Booker 28 51 23 (27) Carver 33 69 36 (47) Gibbs 19 68 49 (23) Williams 58 81 23 (17) LRSD 30 64 34 (38) Arkansas 29 53 24 (24) Some changes in differences were test score variances for black and white Fifth Grade students which decreased at Booker and Carver. However, disparities increased at Gibbs and Williams. Deviations between black and white student scores in the LRSD decreased while the disparities across the state stayed the same. 28Grade 7 The table below depicts the comparison of test scores for black and white students at Mann Junior High School compared to black and white students in the LRSD and across Arkansas. Disparities between black and white student scores at Maim remained the same from the 1996-97 school year to the 1997-98 school year. Test score disparities between black and white students increased slightly in the LRSD and in Arkansas. Test Score Disparities Grade 7 Mann/LRSD/Arkansas School Black Students- Complete Battery White Students- Complete Battery Differences 97-98 (96-97) Mann 42 70 28 (28) LRSD 30 65 35 (32) Arkansas 31 55 24 (23) Grade 10 The table below depicts the comparison of test scores for black and white students at Parkview High School compared to black and white students in the LRSD and across Arkansas. Disparities between black and white student scores at Parkview increased from the 1996-97 school year to the 1997-98 school year. Test score disparities between black and white students increased in the LRSD and decreased slightly in Arkansas. Test Score Disparities Grade 10 Mann/LRSD/Arkansas School Black Students- Complete Battery White Students- Complete Battery Differences 97-98 (96-97) Parkview 36 68 32 (23) LRSD 31 67 36 (31) Arkansas 32 54 22 (23) 29Summary Findings All Students Grade 3 * Third grade students at Carver, Gibbs, and Williams scored higher than students across the nation and in the Little Rock School District. Booker students scored lower than the national average and about the same as students in Little Rock School District. Grade 5 * Magnet school students at Carver and Williams scored above the national, state and Little Rock School District average. Booker students scored at about the same level as students in the Little Rock School District but below the state average. Students at Gibbs scored well below the state, national, and LRSD average. Grade 7 * Magnet school students at Mann Junior High School scored considerably higher than Seventh Grade students in the Little Rock School District, the state of Arkansas, and across the nation. All subtest scores except math (49 percentile) were well above the 50* percentile. Grade 10 * Test scores for Parkview 10* grade students were above the national, state, and Little Rock School District averages on all subtests and on the basic and complete batteries. 30Disaggregate Groups / Disparities Grade 5 * Fifth grade black students scored 20-30 percentiles below white students. Disparities between black and white students at Booker and Carver magnet schools decreased from the 1996-97 school year to the 1997-98 school year while disparities at Gibbs and Williams increased. Disparities between black and white students in the state of Arkansas remained the same. Grade 7 * Test score disparities for black and white 7* grade students at Mann Junior High School remained the same from the 1996-97 to the 1997-98 school years. Test score disparities at Mann (28) were less than for the Little Rock School District (32) and more than for the state of Arkansas (23). Grade 10 * Test score disparities for black and white 10** grade students at Parkview High School increased from the 1996-97 (23) school year to the 1997-98 school year (32). Disparities between black and white students at Parkview are less than in the Little Rock School District (36) but more than in the state of Arkansas (22). Disparities between scores for black and white students * Test score disparities between black and white students continue to be about the same as in previous reports. Some changes occur each year due to the scoring patterns of different classes or grade levels. However, the overall pattern appear to be about the same from year to year. 31PULASKI COUNTY INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS EVALUATION Formative Evaluation: Desegregation BACKGROUND The purpose of this formative evaluation is to gain insight into the assessment of the following objectives relative to Expected Outcomes. Desegregation to develop procedures and instrumentation for data collection regarding the contribution of the magnet schools toward the desegregation goals of the project. A. What do enrollment data reveal about the attainment of objectives relative to student enrollment? B. What are the staffing patterns and do they reflect diversity relative to race and gender? C. What are the social interactions between and within the disaggregate groups of students by race and sex? (Sociograms) D. Is there evidence revealed by data collected during the site visits of stereotyping, graffiti, and name calling? Is there evidence of student isolation and solidarity? (Student Observation) E. What are the interaction patterns of administrators, staff, and students and between teachers and students? (Staff Observations) METHODS\FINDINGS After approval of the evaluation objectives by the MRC, the research team began to develop and review instruments and procedures to collect data for assessment of the objectives. A. Enrollment, Placement and Waiting Lists What is revealed by enrollment data about the attainment of objectives relative to the magnet school objectives? 32Enrollment Survey forms were constructed by the evaluator to provide information about the enrollment of students at each magnet school site during the visit of the evaluation team. Team members gathered enrollment data from the principals at each of the magnet school sites. School Profiles' provided the available data. Racial allocations for total student enrollments at all of the magnet schools have been maintained at approximately 50-50 for minority and non-minority students. Additionally, a shadow area is designated surrounding each magnet school from which twenty percent (20 %) of the seats (enrollment slots) are filled. The table that follows depicts the student enrollment on the day the evaluation team conducted site visits on May 12-13, 1998. Enrollment data are disaggregated by race and gender for black and white students and for males and females. Students classified as other are not disaggregated by gender. Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools Student Enrollment N = 3706 School BM % BE % TotB % WM % WE % TotW % Other % Booker Enr. 598 Carver Enr. 595 Gibbs Enr. 306 Williams Enr. 467 Mann Enr. 843 Prkvw Enr. 897 Total 3706 153 25.6 168 28.2 82 26.8 119 25.5 185 21.9 200 22.3 907 24.5 163 27.2 316 52.8 122 20.4 135 22.6 257 43.0 25 4.2 144 24.2 76 24.8 120 25.7 257 30.5 257 28.6 1017 27.4 312 52.4 158 51.6 239 51.2 442 52.4 457 50.9 1924 51.9 33 150 25.2 73 23.9 103 22.0 156 18.5 164 18.3 768 20.7 109 18.3 60 19.6 111 23.8 221 26.2 234 26.1 870 23.5 259 43.5 133 43.5 214 45.8 377 44.7 398 44.4 1662 44.2 24 4.0 15 4.9 14 3.0 24 2.9 42 4.7 144 3.9Magnet school enrollment for the 1997-98 school year was 3706, only 3 students fewer than the 1996-97 school year enrollment. Blacks students accounted for 51.9 percent of the total. Whites students accounted for 44.2 percent of the total, up from 43.6 percent of the total in 1996-97 and 43.5 percent in 1995-96. Other students accounted for 3.9 percent of the total. Placement Placement by District Total enrollment as a percent of capacity stayed about the same from the 1997-98 school year as for the 1996-97 school year. The table below depicts enrollment capacity for seats allocated for the 1998-99 school year. Data were provided by the Office of the Magnet Review Committee. Enrollment data were taken on October 13, 1998. The total seat allocation remained at 3982. The number of seats filled (actual enrollment) was 3763 or 95 percent. The table below depicts the number of seats available and the actual enrollment for each of the three districts. Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools Enrollment! Allocation Blacks - Non-blacks Settlement Capacities/ District 1998-99 seat allocation black 1998-99 actual enrollment allocation actual enrollment white black white B-W % B-W % LRSD 2343 /2313 (-30) 1364 979 1268 1045 58/42 55/45 PCSSD 1154/944 (-210) 458 696 391 553 40/60 41/59 NLSD 485 / 506 (+21) 241 244 261 245 50/50 52/48 Total 3982/3763 (-219) 2063 1919 1920 1843 52/48 51/49 The Pulaksi County Special School District had the highest number of allotted seat that remained unfilled (210) on October 13,1998. The Little Rock School District had 30 vacant seats while the North Little Rock School District had filled 21 seats above it allocation. A total of 219 seat had not been filled at the time this data were provided, however, seats continue to be filled during the school year as they are available. 34Placement by School The table below depicts data for each of the magnet schools. Data are provided for black, nonblack, and total enrollment by allotment and actual enrollment. Placement Data By District/School Blacks/TSlon-blacks School LRSD Black N-Black Allot/ Allot/ Enroll Enroll Total Allot/ Enroll PCSSD Black N-Black Total NLRSD Black N-Black Total Booker 248/203 134/133 382/336 Carver 242/194 115/130 357/324 Gibbs 124/117 67/96 191/213 Wilms 187/162 100/106 287/268 Marm 261/262 261/258 522/520 Prkvw 302/330 302/322 604/652 Allot/ Allot/ Enroll Enroll Allot/ Enroll Allot/ Allot/ Enroll Enroll Allot/ Enroll 57/55 53/59 29/20 43/51 131/111 145/95 133/113 124/106 66/38 99/88 130/106 144/102 190/168 177/165 95/58 142/139 26.1/217 299/197 42/45 42/55 84/100 39/51 21/19 31/35 58/59 50/52 40/52 21/23 32/33 59/40 50/42 79/103 42/42 63/68 117/99 100/94 For the Little Rock School District (LRSD) 2313 of 2343, or 99 percent, of the allotted seats were filled. For the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) 944 of 1154, only 82 percent of the allotted seats were filled. For the North Little Rock School District (NLSD) 3763 of 3982, or 95 percent of the allotted seats were filled. 35B. Staffing to What are the staffing patterns for both certified and classified staff and do they reflect diversity with regard to race and gender? Certified Instructional Staff Data regarding the certified staff were provided by the principals office at each of the magnet school sites. The table that follows depicts data relative to certified staff. Certified Staff Magnet Schools 1997-98 School Black M Black F White M White F Other M Other F total Booker 17 27 50 Carver 13 30 46 Gibbs 18 30 Williams 27 37 Mann 11 16 27 58 Parkvie w 17 13 28 69 total - % 24 - 8.4 79- 27.2 25 - 8.6 157 -54.1 1-0.3 4-1.4 290 1 5 0 0 0 2 8 2 0 1 1 0 1 2 8 0 0 0 8 4 0 0 1 2 As in 1996-97, white females accounted for the largest group of certified staff. However, the percentage of white females continues to decline from 57 percent in the 1995-96 report and 55.7 percent in the 1996-97 report to 54.1 percent in the 1997-98 evaluation report. The percentage of black females increased .2 percent from the previous report and represent the second largest group. The number of black and white males stayed about the same relative to numbers and percent of total certified staff. 36Classified Staff Support staff data were also provided by the principals office. Staffing patterns were also noted on the survey forms. The table that follows depicts the number, race, and gender of classified staff at each of the magnet school sites. The table includes instructional support, food service, and custodial staffs. Classified Staff Magnet Schools 1997-98 School Black M Black F White M White F Other M Other F total Booker 12 17 Carver 15 25 Gibbs 10 18 Williams 11 22 4 0 1 0 0 4 0 6 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 2 2 7 0 0 Mann 5 1 5 4 0 0 15 Parkview 6 9 2 1 0 0 24 total - % 25 - 20.7 58 - 47.9 9-7.4 29 - 24.0 0-0.0 0-0.0 121 Black females continue to comprise the largest group of classified staff accounting for about 60 percent of the total. The number of white males increased from less than 3 percent for 1996-97 to 7.4 percent for the 1997-98 school year. Additional Comments The use of classified personnel to supervise children during lunch periods and recess continues to appear to be positive. Observations of classified staff in their supervisory roles indicates that they have had in-service training and manifest appropriate behaviors in supervision activities. Students tended to respond favorably to approaches used by aides and other classified staff. 37C. Social Interaction What are the social interactions between and within the disaggregate groups of students by race and sex? Is there evidence of student isolation and solidarity? (Sociograms) Sociograms Sociometric techniques used for previous evaluation years were continued for the 1997-98 school year evaluation project. Previous evaluation have provided a research foundation relative to the appropriateness and usefulness of sociograms in quantifying students relationships. Social interaction patterns may be more useful if observed over a long period of time, thus, providing data from which appropriate interventions, if needed, can be constructed. The sociogram was developed to enable the evaluation staff to make assessments relative to student interactions in a school setting, both in and out of the classroom. Classroom relationships are assessed by the portion in which students choose other students with whom to sit and with whom to work. Other social relationships are assessed by the students choices of other students with whom they prefer to play. Sociograms were administered to all fourth, fifth, and sixth grade students during the Fall of 1997 and the Spring of 1998. This report include complete data analysis for both the Fall and the Spring administrations of the sociograms. Data analysis is provided for each disaggregate group and for subgroups of males/females and blacks/whites. The Chi-Square test for Independence was chosen to assess and evaluate the student choice patterns. The purpose of the analysis is to determine whether race/sex are significant variables in assessing student choice patterns. Chi-Square is the most appropriate statistical test for nominal data and is used to compare categorical data such as sociometric data. The evaluation null hypothesis is stated as: There is no difference in the choice patterns between student groups in choosing students of the opposite race when disaggregated by race/sex or students choice patterns are independent of race/sex. The .05 level of significance was chosen (to reject the null hypothesis). A statistical difierence is noted for inter-group probabilities of .05 or less. Contingency coefficients which are similar to other correlation coefficient are also provided as a measure of strength of the relationships. The PC utilizing the software package Statistics With Finesse was selected to analyze the data yielded by the sociograms. Sociogram data and conclusions drawn from previous reports were considered when comparing and contrasting student choice patterns when appropriate. 38Findings A total of 857 sociograms were administered in the Pulaski County Interdistrict Schools during the Fall of 1997. Black students accounted for 52.0 percent (446) of the total, while white students accounted for 48.0 percent (411). There were 759 sociograms administered in the Spring of 1998. Black students accounted for 51.6 percent (392) of the total and white students accounted for 48.4 percent (367) of the total. Students race was disaggregated for only two groupsblacks and whites. Students classified as other were counted as white students. Students were also disaggregated by gender (sex). Males accounted for 52.0 percent (445) and females accounted for 48.0 percent (411) during the Fall administration. For the Spring administration males accounted for 52.2 percent (396) and females accounted for 47.8 percent (363) of the total. Student groups were further disaggregated into four subgroups: black males, black females, white males, and white females. Disaggregated groups were contrasted and compared to assess significant differences, if any, in choice patterns for each of the subgroups. Sit Near Each student was asked to choose five students in his/her classroom that he/she would prefer to sit near. Statistical analysis of these data are presented in the tables that follow. Complete data and analysis are provided for both the Fall and the Spring administrations. Changes in statistical significance for each of the subgroups from one administration to the other as reflected by the data analysis are reported in the narrative. Disaggregated by Race Black Students Compared to White Students In the Fall of 1997 and in the Spring of 1998, no significant differences were noted in the choice patterns of students when choosing students of the opposite race to sit near when students were disaggregated by race. For the Fall administration, a Chi-Square of 3.3897 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.0628 and a probability of 0.6401. For the Spring administration, a Chi-square of 6.4800 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.0920 and a probability of 0.2623. In the Fall administration, black students, at 17.4 percent, were more likely than white students, at 9.7 percent, to choose no students of the opposite race to sit near. The same pattern was found in the Spring in choosing students of the opposite race to sit with. Black students, at 17.6 percent, and white students, at 13.1 percent, choose no students of the opposite race to sit with. The percentages for both black and white students choosing no students of the opposite race increased from the Fall to the Spring. Data and statistical analysis for both the Fall and Spring administrations of the sociograms are presented in the table that follows. 39Sociograms - Sit Near Opposite Race Black Students Compared to White Students (Fall 97) N = 857 Race/Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Black Students % 51 118 136 93 38 10 446 17.4 26.5 30.5 20.9 8.5 2.2 100.0 White Students % Total % 40 9.7 91 10.6 119 123 96 26 411 29.0 237 27.6 29.9 259 30.2 23.4 189 22.1 6.3 64 7.5 1.7 17 2.0 100.0 857 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 7 Chi-Square Test for Independence Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability 857 3.3897 0.0628 5 0.6401 Sociograms - Sit Near Opposite Race Black Students Compared to White Students (Spring 98) N = 759 Race/Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Black Students % White Students % Total % 69 101 114 76 29 392 17.6 48 13.1 117 15.4 25.8 93 25.3 194 25.6 29.1 113 30.8 227 29.9 19.4 82 22.3 158 20.8 7.4 23 6.3 52 6.9 0.8 2.2 11 1.4 100.0 367 100.0 759 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 3 8 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 759 6.4800 0.0920 5 0.2623 40 Disaggregated by Sex - Males Students Compared to Females Students In the Fall administration of the sociograms, sex was a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of male and female students in choosing students of the opposite race to sit near. Males at 10.3 percent were only slightly less likely than females at 10.9 percent to choose no students of the opposite race to sit near. A Chi-Square of 13.4937 was computed that yielded a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1245 and a Probability of 0.0192. For the Spring administration of the sociograms, sex was not a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of male and female students in choosing students of the opposite race to sit near. However, in the Spring, males (16.9 percent) were more likely than females (13.8 percent) to choose no students of the opposite race to play with. A Chi-Square of 7.7671 was computed that yielded a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1006 and a Probability of 0.1695. Tables on the following page depict sociogram data and analysis of student choice patterns for male students and female students with respect to choosing students of the opposite race to sit near for both the Fall and Spring administrations. 41Sociograms - Sit Near Opposite Race Male Students Compared to Female Students (Fall 97) N = 857 Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Male Students % Female Students % Total % 46 110 135 101 46 446 10.3 45 10.9 91 10.6 24.7 127 30.9 237 27.6 30.3 124 30.2 259 30.2 22.6 88 21.4 189 22.1 10.3 18 4.4 64 7.5 1.8 2.2 17 2.0 100.0 411 100.0 857 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 8 9 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 857 13.4937 0.1245 5 0.0192 Sociograms - Sit Near Opposite Race Male Students Compared to Female Students (Spring 98) N = 759 Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Male Students % Female Students % Total % 67 86 121 90 27 396 16.9 50 13.8 117 15.4 21.7 108 29.7 194 25.6 30.6 106 29.2 227 29.9 22.7 68 18.7 158 20.8 6.8 25 6.9 52 6.9 1.3 1.7 11 1.4 100.0 363 100.0 759 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 5 6 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 759 7.7671 0.1006 5 0.1695 42 Black Males Compared to Black Females In the Fall of 1997, sociograms were administered to 446 black students. Black males accounted for 55 percent of the total and black females accounted for 45 percent of the total. Sex was not a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of black students in choosing students of the opposite race to sit near. A Chi-Square of 0.3378 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1122 and a Probability of 0.3378. Black males at 12.3 percent were more likely than black females at 10.3 percent to choose no members of the opposite race to sit near. In the Spring of 1998, sociograms were administered to 392 black students. Respectively, males and females accounted for the same percent of total black students as in the Fall administration. As in the Fall administration, there was no significant difference between black males and females when comparing choice patterns of choosing students of the opposite race to sit near. A Chi- Square of 5.4236 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1168 and a Probability of 0.3664. Black males were again more likely (20.6 percent) than females (14.0 percent) to choose no students of the opposite race to sit near. Sociogram data and analysis are depicted in the tables that follow. 43Sociograms - Sit Near Opposite Race Black Males Compared to Black Females (Fall 97) N = 446 Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Male Students % Female Students % Total % 30 55 77 50 25 243 12.3 21 10.3 51 11.4 22.6 63 31.0 118 26.5 31.7 59 29.1 136 30.5 20.6 43 21.2 93 20.9 10.3 13 6.4 38 8.5 2.5 2.0 10 2.2 100.0 203 100.0 446 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 4 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 446 5.6876 0.1122 5 0.3378 Sociograms - Sit Near Opposite Race Black Males Compared to Black Females (Spring 98) N = 392 Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Male Students % Female Students % Total % 44 52 59 45 13 214 20.5 25 14.1 69 17.6 24.3 49 27.5 101 25.7 27.6 55 30.9 114 29.1 21.0 31 17.4 76 19.4 6.1 16 9.0 29 7.4 0.5 1.1 3 0.8 100.0 178 100.0 392 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 392 5.4236 0.1168 5 0.3664 44 Black Males Compared to White Males There were 446 males in the Fall administration of the sociograms. Black males accounted for 55 percent and white males accounted for 45 percent of the total. Race was not a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of black and white males in choosing members of the opposite race to sit near. However, black males were more likely at 12.3 percent than white mies at 7.9 percent to choose no students of the opposite race to sit near. A Chi-Square of 5.7515 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1128 and a Probability of 0.3312. No significant difference was noted between black and white males in choosing students of the opposite race to sit near in the Spring administration of the sociograms. The sociograms were administered to 396 male students, 214, or 54 percent, of whom were black males and 182, or 46 percent, of whom were white males. A Chi-Square of 9.7387 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1549 and a Probability of 0.0830. Data and complete analysis for both the Fall and Spring administrations of the sociograms are presented in the tables that follow. 45Sociograms - Sit Near Opposite Race Black Males Compared to White Males (Fall 98) N = 446 Race 0 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen 1 2 3 4 5 Total Black Students % White Students % Total % 30 55 77 50 25 243 12.3 16 7.9 46 10.3 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Race Black Students % White Students % Total % 44 20.5 23 12.6 67 16.9 22.6 55 27.1 110 24.7 31.7 58 28.6 135 30.3 20.6 51 25.1 101 22.6 Chi-Square Test for Independence 10.3 21 10.3 46 10.3 2.5 1.0 8 1.8 446 5.7515 0.1128 5 0.3312 Sociograms - Sit Near Opposite Race Black Males Compared to White Males (Spring 98) N = 396 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen 53 59 45 13 24.3 34 18.7 86 21.7 27.6 62 34.1 121 30.6 21.0 45 24.7 90 22.7 6.1 14 7.7 27 6.8 0.5 2.2 5 1.3 100.0 203 100.0 446 100.0 Total 214 100.0 182 100.0 396 100.0 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 396 9.7387 0.1549 5 0.0830 46 0 1 2 3 4 6 2 5 1 4Black Males Compared to White Females A total of 451 sociograms were administered during the Fall of 1997 to black males and white females. Black males (243) accounted for 54 percent of the total with white females (208) accounting for 46 percent of the total. Race/sex was a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of black males and white females in choosing members of the opposite race to sit near. A Chi-Square of 13.4134 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1699 and a Probability of 0.0198. Black males at 12.3 percent were more likely than white females at 11.5 percent to choose no students of the opposite race to sit near. Race/sex was not a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of black males and white females for the Spring administration of the sociograms. A total of 399 sociograms were administered with black males accounting for 214 of the total while white females accounted for 185 of the total. A Chi-Square of 7.4947 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1358 and a Probability of 0.1864. Black males at 20.6 percent were more likely than white females at 13.5 percent of choose no students of the opposite race to sit near. Data and complete analysis for both the Fall and Spring administrations of the sociograms are presented in the tables that follow. 47Sociograms - Sit Near Opposite Race Black Males Compared to White Females (Fall 97) N = 451 Race/Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Black Males % 30 55 77 50 25 243 12.3 22.6 31.7 20.6 10.3 2.5 100.0 White Females % 24 64 65 45 208 11.5 30.8 31.3 21.6 2.4 2.4 100.0 Total % 54 12.0 119 26.4 142 31.5 95 21.1 30 6.6 11 2.4 451 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 5 5 Chi-Square Test for Independence Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability 451 13.4134 0.1699 5 0.0189 Sociograms - Sit Near Opposite Race Black Males Compared to White Females (Spring 98) N = 399 Race/Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Black Males % White Females % Total % 44 52 59 45 13 214 20.6 25 13.5 69 17.3 24.3 59 31.9 111 27.8 27.6 51 27.6 110 27.6 21.0 37 20.0 82 20.6 6.1 4.9 22 5.5 0.4 2.1 5 1.2 100.0 185 100.0 399 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 1 9 4 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 399 7.4947 0.1358 5 0.1864 48 Black Females Compared to White Males A total of 406 black females and white males completed the sociograms in the Fall of 1997. Black females (203) and white males (203) each accounted for 50 percent of the total. No significant differences were noted in choosing students of the opposite race to sit near when comparing black females and white males. Black females at 10.3 percent were more likely than white males at 7.9 percent to choose no students of the opposite race to sit near. A Chi-Square of 4.4565 was computed that yielded a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1042 and a Probability of 0.4857. For the Spring administration, a total of 360 black females and white females completed the sociograms. As in the Fall administration, race/sex was not a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of black females and white males in choosing students of the opposite race to sit near. Black females accounted for 178, or 49 percent, with white males accounting for 182, or 51 percent, of the total. Black females were more likely at 14.1 percent than white males at 12.6 percent to choose no students of the opposite race to sit near. A Chi-Square of 6.5483 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1337 and a Probability of 0.2565. Complete data and analysis are provided in the tables that follow. 49Sociograms - Sit Near Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Males (Fall 98) N = 406 Race/Sex 0 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen I I 1 2 3 4 5 Total Black Females % White Males % Total % 21 63 59 43 13 203 10.3 31.0 29.1 21.2 6.4 2.0 100.0 16 55 58 51 21 203 7.9 37 9.1 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Race/Sex Black Females % White Males % Total % 25 14.1 23 12.6 48 13.3 27.1 118 29.1 28.6 117 28.8 25.1 94 23.1 Chi-Square Test for Independence 10.3 34 8.4 1.0 6 1.5 406 4.4565 0.1042 5 0.4857 Sociograms - Sit Near Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Males (Spring 98) N = 360 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen 49 55 31 16 27.5 34 18.7 83 23.1 30.9 62 34.1 117 32.5 17.4 45 24.7 76 21.1 9.0 14 7.7 30 8.3 1.1 2.2 6 1.7 100.0 406 100.0 Total 178 100.0 182 100.0 360 100.0 Number of Obsen ations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 360 6.5483 0.1337 5 0.2565 50 4 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 2 4 Black Females Compared to White Females Sociograms were administered to 411 female students in the Fall of 1997. Black females accounted for 203, or 49 percent, of the total with white females accounting for 208 (51 percent) of the total. Race was not a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of black and white females in choosing members of the opposite race to sit near. White females were more likely at 11.5 percent than black females at 10.3 percent to choose no members of the opposite race to sit near. A Chi-Square of 4.1501 was computed that yielded a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1000 and a Probability of 0.5280. Race was not a significant variable in the choice patterns of black and white females in choosing members of the opposite race to sit near in the Spring administration of the sociograms. A totd of 363 sociograms were completed with black females accounting for 178, or 49 percent, of the total and white females accounting for 185, or 51 percent, of the total. Black females at 14.1 percent were slightly more likely than white females at 13.5 percent to choose no students of the opposite race to sit near. Complete data and analysis are provided in the tables that follow. 51Sociograms - Sit Near Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Females (Fall 97) N = 411 Race Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Black Females % 21 63 59 43 13 203 10.3 31.0 29.1 21.2 6.4 2.0 100.0 White Females % 24 64 65 45 208 11.5 30.8 31.3 21.6 2.4 2.4 100.0 Total % 45 10.9 127 30.9 124 30.2 88 21.4 18 4.4 9 2.2 411 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 5 4 5 Chi-Square Test for Independence Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability 411 4.1501 0.1000 5 0.5280 Sociograms - Sit Near Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Females (Spring 98) N = 363 Race Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Black Females % 25 49 55 31 16 178 14.1 27.5 30.9 17.4 9.0 1.1 100.0 White Females % 25 59 51 37 185 13.5 31.9 27.6 20.0 4.9 2.2 100.0 Total % 50 13.8 108 29.7 106 29.2 68 18.7 25 6.9 6 1.7 363 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 2 9 4 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 363 4.0995 0.1057 5 0.5352 52White Males Compared to White Females Sociograms were administered to 411 white students during the Fall of 1997. White males at 203 accounted for 49 percent of the total while white females at 208 accounted for 51 percent of the total. Sex was a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of white males and white females in choosing students of the opposite race to sit near. White females at 11.5 percent were more likely than white males at 7.9 percent to choose no students of the opposite race to sit near. A Chi-Square of 14.1272 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1823 and a Probability of 0.0148. Sex was not a significant variable for white males and white females in choosing students of the opposite race to sit near in the Spring administration of the sociograms. Males and females each represented approximately one-half of the total 367 white students completing the sociograms. Females at 13.5 percent were only slightly more likely than males at 12.6 percent to choose no students of the opposite race to sit near. A Chi-Square of 9.7181 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1606 and a Probability of 0.0836. Complete data and a analysis are provided in the tables that follow. 53Sex Sociograms - Sit Near Opposite Race White Males Compared to White Females (Fall 97) N = 411 0 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen 1 2 3 4 5 Total White Males % 16 55 58 51 21 203 7.9 27.1 28.6 25.1 10.3 1.0 100.0 White Females % Total % 24 64 65 45 208 11.5 40 9.7 30.8 119 29.0 31.3 123 29.9 21.6 96 23.4 2.4 26 6.3 2.4 7 1.7 100.0 411 100.0 5 2 5 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 411 14.1272 0.1823 5 0.0148 Sociograms - Sit Near Opposite Race White Males Compared to White Females (Spring 98) N = 367 Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total White Males % White Females % Total % 23 34 62 45 14 182 12.6 25 13.5 48 13.1 18.7 59 31.9 93 25.3 34.1 51 27.5 113 30.8 24.7 37 20.0 82 22.3 7.7 4.9 23 6.3 2.2 2.2 8 2.2 100.0 185 100.0 367 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 4 9 4 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 367 9.7181 0.1606 5 0.0836 54 Work With Each student was asked to choose five students in his/her classroom that he/she would prefer to work with. Statistical analysis of these data are presented in the narrative and tables that follow. Complete data and analysis are provided for both the Fall and Spring administrations of the sociograms. Disaggregated by Race Black Students Compared to White Students Results of both the Fall and Spring administrations of the sociograms revealed that race was a significant variable in choosing students of the opposite race to work with when comparing black and white students. For the Fall administration, a Chi-Square of 31.7260 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1889 and a Probability of 0.0001. For the Spring administration, a Chi-Square of 29.1624 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of0.1924 and a Probability of 0.0001. White students were more likely than black students in both the Fall and Spring to choose no students of the opposite race. Complete data and analysis for both the Fall and Spring administrations of the sociograms are provided in the tables that follow. 55Race/Sex Sociograms - Work With Opposite Race Black Students Compared to White Students (Fall 97) N = 857 0 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen 1 2 3 4 5 Total Black Students % 40 88 125 117 58 18 446 9.0 19.8 28.0 26.2 13.0 4.0 100.0 White Students % 44 127 124 86 26 411 10.7 30.9 30.2 20.9 6.3 1.0 100.0 Total % 84 9.8 225 26.2 249 29.0 203 23.7 84 9.8 22 2.5 857 100.0 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 857 31.7260 0.1889 5 0.0001 Sociograms - Work With Opposite Race Black Students Compared to White Students (Spring 98) N = 759 Race/Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Black Students % White Students % Total % 38 84 116 105 38 11 392 9.7 48 13.1 117 15.4 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability 21.4 122 33.2 206 27.1 29.6 113 30.8 229 30.2 26.8 60 16.4 165 21.7 Chi-Square Test for Independence 56 9.7 21 5.7 59 7.8 2.8 0.8 14 1.8 759 29.1624 0.1924 5 0.0001 100.0 367 100.0 759 100.0 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 3 Disaggregated by Sex - Males Students Compared to Females Students In the Fall administration of the sociograms, sex was a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of male and female students in choosing students of the opposite race to work with. Males at 8.1 percent were less likely than females at 11.7 percent to choose no students of the opposite race to work with. A Chi-Square of 19.5028 was computed that yielded a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1492 and a Probability of 0.0015. For the Spring administration of the sociograms, sex was not a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of male and female students in choosing students of the opposite race to work with. As in the Fall, males at 10.9 percent were less likely than females at 12.1 percent to choose no students of the opposite race to play with. A Chi-Square of 10.1468 was computed that yielded a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1149 and a Probability of 0.0712. Tables on the following page depict sociogram data and analysis of student choice patterns for male students and female students in choosing students of the opposite race to work with for both the Fall and Spring administrations. 57Sociograms - Work With Opposite Race Male Students Compared to Female Students (Fall 97) N = 857 Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Male Students % Female Students % Total % 36 8.1 48 11.7 84 9.8 103 116 125 51 15 446 23.1 112 27.2 215 25.1 26.0 133 32.4 249 29.0 28.0 78 19.0 203 23.7 11.4 33 8.0 84 9.8 3.4 1.7 22 2.6 100.0 411 100.0 857 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 7 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 857 19.5028 0.1492 5 0.0015 Sociograms - Work With Opposite Race Male Students Compared to Female Students (Spring 98) N = 759 Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Male Students % 43 89 129 94 33 396 10.9 22.5 32.6 23.7 8.3 2.0 100.0 Female Students % Total % 44 116 100 71 26 363 12.1 87 11.5 31.9 205 27.0 27.5 229 30.2 19.6 165 21.7 7.2 59 7.8 1.7 14 1.8 100.0 759 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 8 6 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 759 10.1468 0.1149 5 0.0712 58 Black Males Compared to Black Females In the Fall of 1997, sociograms were administered to 446 black students. Black males accounted for 55 percent of the total with black females accounting for 45 percent of the total. Sex was a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of black students in choosing students of the opposite race to work with. A Chi-Square of 12.7577 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1668 and a Probability of 0.0258. Black females were more likely at 9.4 percent than black males at 8.6 percent to choose no members of the opposite race to work with. In the Spring of 1998, sociograms were administered to 392 black students. Males and females, respectively, accounted for the same percent of total black students as in the Fall administration. Unlike the Fall administration, there was no significant difference between black males and females when comparing choice patterns of choosing students of the opposite race to work with. A Chi-Square of 7.7672 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1392 and a Probability of 0.1695. Black males were more likely (10.3 percent) than females (9.6 percent) to choose no students of the opposite race to work with. Sociogram data and analysis are depicted in the tables that follow. 59Sociograms - Work With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to Black Females (Fall 97) N = 446 Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Male Students % Female Students % Total % 21 43 57 76 33 13 243 8.6 19 9.3 40 9.0 17.7 45 22.2 88 19.7 23.5 68 33.5 125 28.1 31.3 41 20.2 117 26.2 13.6 25 12.3 58 13.0 5.3 2.5 18 4.0 100.0 203 100.0 446 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 5 Chi-Square Test for Independence Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability 446 12.7577 0.1668 5 0.0258 Sociograms - Work With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to Black Females (Spring 98) N = 392 Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Male Students % Female Students % Total % 22 35 69 61 20 214 10.3 17 9.6 39 9.9 16.4 48 27.0 84 21.4 32.2 47 26.4 116 29.5 28.5 44 24.7 105 26.7 9.3 18 10.1 38 9.7 3.3 2.2 11 2.8 100.0 178 100.0 392 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 7 4 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 392 7.7672 0.1392 5 0.1695 60 Black Males Compared to White Males There were 446 males in the Fall administration of the sociograms. Black males accounted for 55 percent and white males accounted for 45 percent of the total. Race was a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of black and white males in choosing members of the opposite race to work with. However, white males were more likely at 8.6 percent than black males at 7.4 percent to choose no students of the opposite race to work with. A Chi-Square of 18.7138 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.2007 and a Probability of 0.0022. A significant difference was also noted between black and white males in choosing students of the opposite race to work with in the Spring administration of the sociograms. The sociograms were administered to 396 male students, 214 (54 percent) were black males and 182 (46 percent) were white males. A Chi-Square of 16.5549 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.2003 and a Probability of 0.0054. Data and complete analysis for both the Fall and Spring administrations of the sociograms are presented in the tables that follow. 61Sociograms - Work With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to White Males (Fall 98) N = 446 Race 0 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen 1 2 3 4 5 Total Black Students % 21 43 57 76 33 13 243 8.6 17.7 23.5 31.3 13.6 5.3 100.0 White Students % Total % 15 60 59 49 18 203 7.4 36 8.1 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Race Black Students % 22 10.3 29.5 103 23.1 29.1 116 26.0 24.1 125 28.0 Chi-Square Test for Independence 8.9 51 11.4 1.0 15 3.4 446 18.7138 0.2007 5 0.0022 Sociograms - Work With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to White Males (Fall 98) N = 396 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen 35 69 61 20 16.4 32.2 28.5 9.3 3.3 100.0 446 100.0 Total 214 100.0 White Students % Total % 21 54 60 33 13 182 11.5 43 10.9 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability 29.7 89 22.5 33.0 129 32.6 18.1 94 23.7 Chi-Square Test for Independence 62 7.1 33 8.3 0.6 8 2.0 396 16.5549 0.2003 5 0.0054 100.0 396 100.0 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 7 1Black Males Compared to White Females A total of 451 sociograms were administered during the Fall of 1997 to black males and white females. Black males (243) accounted for 54 percent of the total and white females (208) accounted for 46 percent of the total. Race/sex was a significant variable when the choice patterns of black males and white females in choosing members of the opposite race to work with were compared. A Chi-Square of 41.3445 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.2898 and a Probability of 0.0001. White females at 13.9 percent were more likely than black males at 8.6 percent to choose no students of the opposite race with whom to work. Race/sex was also a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of black males and white females for the Spring administration of the sociograms. A total of 399 sociograms were administered with black males accounting for 214 of the total while white females accounted for 185 of the total. A Chi-Square of 32.3012 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.2737 and a Probability of 0.0001. Black males at 10.3 percent were less likely than white females at 14.6 percent to choose no students of the opposite race with whom to work. Data and complete analysis for both the Fall and Spring administrations of the sociograms are presented in the tables that follow. 63Sociograms - Work With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to White Females (Fall 97) N = 451 Race/Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Black Males % White Females % Total % 21 43 57 76 33 13 243 8.6 29 13.9 50 11.1 17.7 67 32.2 110 24.4 23.5 65 31.3 122 27.0 31.3 37 17.8 113 25.1 13.6 3.8 41 9.1 5.3 1.0 15 3.3 100.0 208 100.0 451 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 8 2 Chi-Square Test for Independence Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability 451 41.3445 0.2898 5 0.0001 Sociograms - Work With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to White Females (Spring 98) N = 399 Race/Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Black Males % 22 35 69 61 20 214 10.3 16.4 32.2 28.5 9.3 3.3 100.0 White Females % 27 68 53 27 185 14.6 36.8 28.6 14.6 4.3 1.1 100.0 Total % 49 12.3 103 25.8 122 30.6 88 22.0 28 7.0 9 2.3 399 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 8 5 7 2 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 399 32.3012 0.2737 5 0.0001 64Black Females Compared to White Males No significant differences were noted when comparing black females and white males in choosing students of the opposite race with whom to work. Black females (9.3 percent) were more likely than white males (7.4 percent) to choose no students of the opposite race to work with. A Chi- Square of 6.3876 was computed of that yielded a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1245 and a Probability of 0.2703. As in the Fall administration, race/sex was not a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of black females and white males in choosing students of the opposite race with whome to work. Black females were less likely (9.6 percent) than white males (11.5 percent) to choose no students of the opposite race to sit near. A Chi-Square of 6.3966 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1319 and a Probability of 0.2695. Complete data and analysis are provided in the tables that follow. 65Sociograms - Work With Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Males (Fall 98) N = 406 Race/Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Black Females % White Males % Total % 19 45 68 41 25 203 9.3 15 7.4 34 8.4 22.2 60 29.5 105 25.8 33.5 59 29.1 127 31.3 20.2 49 24.1 90 22.2 12.3 18 8.9 43 10.6 2.5 1.0 7 1.7 100.0 203 100.0 406 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 5 2 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency CoefTicient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 406 6.3876 0.1245 5 0.2703 Sociograms - Work With Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Males (Spring 98) N = 360 Race/Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Black Females % White Males % Total % 17 48 47 44 18 178 9.6 21 11.5 38 10.6 27.0 54 29.7 102 28.3 26.4 60 33.0 107 29.7 24.7 33 18.1 77 21.4 10.1 13 7.1 31 8.6 2.2 0.6 5 1.4 100.0 182 100.0 360 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 4 1 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 360 6.3966 0.1319 5 0.2695 66 Black Females Compared to White Females Race was a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of black and white females in choosing members of the opposite race to work with. White females were more likely (11.5 percent) than black females (9.3 percent) to choose no members of the opposite race to work with. A Chi-Square of 16.6625 was computed that yielded a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1974 and a Probability of 0.0052 Race was a significant variable in the choice patterns of black and white females in choosing members of the opposite race to work with in the Spring administration of the sociograms. Black females at 9.6 percent were less likely than white females at 14.6 percent to choose no students of the opposite race to work with. A Chi-Square of 14.2064 was computed that yielded a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1938 and a Probability of 0.0144. Complete data and analysis are provided in the tables that follow. 67Sociograms - Work With Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Females (Fall 97) N = 411 Race 0 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen 1 2 3 4 5 Total Black Females % White Females % Total % 19 45 68 41 25 203 9.3 29 13.9 48 11.7 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Race Black Females % White Females % Total % 17 9.6 27 14.6 44 12.1 22.2 67 32.2 112 27.2 33.5 65 31.3 133 32.4 20.2 37 17.8 78 19.0 Chi-Square Test for Independence 12.3 3.8 33 8.0 2.5 1.0 7 1.7 411 16.6625 0.1974 5 0.0052 Sociograms - Work With Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Females (Spring 98) N = 363 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen 48 47 44 18 27.0 68 36.8 116 32.0 26.4 53 28.6 100 27.5 24.7 27 14.6 71 19.6 10.1 4.3 26 7.2 2.2 1.1 6 1.6 100.0 208 100.0 411 100.0 Total 178 100.0 185 100.0 363 100.0 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 363 14.2064 0.1938 5 0.0144 68 5 0 1 2 3 8 2 4 8 5 4 2White Males Compared to White Females Sex was not a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of white males and white females in choosing students of the opposite race to work with. White females, at 13.9 percent, were more likely than white males, at 7.4 percent, to choose no students of the opposite race to work with. A Chi-Square of 10.5920 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1585 and a Probability of 0.0601. Sex was not a significant variable for white males and white females in choosing students of the opposite race to work with in the Spring administration of the sociograms. Males and females each represented approximately one-half of the total 367 white students completing the sociograms. Females (14.6 percent) were only slightly more likely than males (11.5 percent) to choose no students of the opposite race to work with. A Chi-Square of 9.7178 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient ofO.1606 and a Probability of 0.0836. Complete data and a analysis are provided in the tables that follow. 69Sociograms - Work With Opposite Race White Males Compared to White Females (Fall 97) N = 411 Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total White Males % White Females % Total % 15 60 59 49 18 203 7.4 29 13.9 44 10.7 29.5 67 32.2 127 30.9 29.1 65 31.3 124 30.2 24.1 37 17.8 86 20.9 8.9 3.8 26 6.3 1.0 1.0 4 1.0 100.0 208 100.0 411 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 8 5 2 2 Chi-Square Test for Independence Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability 411 10.5920 0.1585 5 0.0601 Sociograms - Work With Opposite Race White Males Compared to White Females (Spring 98) N = 367 Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total White Males % White Females % Total % 21 54 60 33 13 182 11.5 27 14.6 48 13.2 29.7 68 36.8 122 33.2 33.0 53 28.6 113 30.8 18.1 27 14.6 60 16.3 7.1 4.3 21 5.7 0.6 1.1 3 0.8 100.0 185 100.0 367 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 8 5 1 2 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 367 9.7181 0.1606 5 0.0836 70 Play With Each student was asked to choose five students in his/her classroom with whom he/she would prefer to play. Statistical analysis of these data are presented in the narrative and tables that follow. Complete data and analysis are provided for both the Fall and Spring administrations of the sociograms. Disaggregated by Race Black Students Compared to White Students Race was not a significant variable in choosing students of the opposite race to play with when comparing black and white students in the Fall administration
however, race was a significant variable in the Spring administration of the sociograms. For the Fall administration, a Chi-Square of 10.8172 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1116 and a Probability of 0.0551. For the Spring administration, a Chi-Square of 28.4364 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1900 and a Probability of 0.0001. Black students were more likely than white students in both the Fall and Spring administrations to choose no students of the opposite race with whom to play. Complete data and analysis for both the Fall and Spring administrations of the sociograms are provided in the tables that follow. 71Sociograms - Play With Opposite Race Black Students Compared to White Students (Fall 97) N = 857 Race/Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Black Students % White Students % Total % 74 143 125 61 358 446 16.6 50 12.1 124 14.4 32.1 119 28.9 262 30.6 28.0 112 27.3 237 27.6 13.7 87 21.2 148 17.3 8.5 37 9.0 75 8.8 1.1 1.5 11 1.3 100.0 411 100.0 857 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 5 6 Chi-Square Test for Independence Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability 857 10.8172 0.1116 5 0.0551 Sociograms - Play With Opposite Race Black Students Compared to White Students (Spring 98) N = 759 Race/Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Black Students % White Students % Total % 91 124 103 50 24 392 23.2 48 13.1 139 18.3 31.6 96 26.2 220 29.0 26.3 119 32.4 222 29.2 12.8 69 18.8 119 15.7 6.1 27 7.3 51 6.7 0.0 2.2 8 1.1 100.0 367 100.0 759 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 8 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 759 28.4364 0.1900 5 0.0001 72 Disaggregated by Sex - Males Students Compared to Females Students In the Fall admimstration of the sociograms, sex was a not significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of male and female students in choosing students of the opposite race to play with. Males at 12.1 percent were less likely than females at 17.0 percent to choose no students of the opposite race with whom to play. A Chi-Square of 12.8711 was computed that yielded a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1216 and a Probability of 0.0246. The Spring administration of the sociograms revealed that sex was a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of male and female students in choosing students of the opposite race to play with. As in the Fall, males (14.7 percent) were less likely than females (22.3 percent) to choose no students of the opposite race with whom to play. A Chi-Square of 11.6914 was computed that yielded a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1232 and a Probability of 0.0393. Tables on the following page depict sociogram data and analysis of student choice patterns for male students and female students in choosing students of the opposite race to work with for both the Fall and Spring administrations. 73Sociograms - Play With Opposite Race Male Students Compared to Female Students (Fall 97) N = 857 Sex 0 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen 1 2 3 4 5 Total Male Students % 54 126 127 83 50 446 12.1 28.3 28.5 18.6 11.2 1.3 100.0 Female Students % 70 136 110 65 25 411 17.0 33.1 26.8 15.8 6.1 1.2 100.0 Total % 124 14.4 262 30.6 237 27.6 148 17.3 75 8.8 11 1.3 857 100.0 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 857 12.8711 0.1216 5 0.0246 Sociograms - Play With Opposite Race Male Students Compared to Female Students (Spring 98) N = 759 Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Male Students % Female Students % Total % 58 112 123 71 25 396 14.7 81 22.3 139 18.3 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability 28.4 108 29.7 220 29.0 31.1 99 27.2 222 29.2 18.0 48 13.2 119 15.7 Chi-Square Test for Independence 74 6.3 26 7.1 51 6.7 1.5 0.5 8 1.1 759 11.6914 0.1232 5 0.0393 100.0 363 100.0 759 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 6 5 5 6 2Black Males Compared to Black Females In the Fall administration of the sociograms, sex was not a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of black students in choosing students of the opposite race to play with. A Chi-Square of 3.3305 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.0861 and a Probability of 0.6492. Black females (18.2 percent) were more likely than black males (15.2 percent) to choose no members of the opposite race with whom to play. In the Spring of 1998 administration of the sociograms, there was no significant difference between black males and females when comparing choice patterns of choosing students of the opposite race to play with. A Chi-Square of 4.9649 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1118 and a Probability of 0.4202. Black females (25.8) were more likely than males (21.0 percent) to choose no students of the opposite race with whom to work. Sociogram data and analysis are depicted in the tables that follow. 75Sociograms - Play With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to Black Females (Fall 97) N = 446 Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Male Students % Female Students % Total % 37 78 66 35 25 243 15.2 37 18.2 74 16.6 32.1 65 32.0 143 32.1 27.2 59 29.1 125 28.0 14.4 26 12.8 61 13.7 10.3 13 6.4 38 8.5 0.8 1.5 5 1.1 100.0 203 100.0 446 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 2 3 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 446 3.3305 0.0861 5 0.6492 Sociograms - Play With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to Black Females (Spring 98) N = 392 Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Male Students % Female Students % Total % 45 69 61 29 10 214 21.0 46 25.8 91 23.2 32.2 55 30.9 124 31.6 28.5 42 23.6 103 26.3 13.6 21 11.8 50 12.8 4.7 14 7.9 24 6.1 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 100.0 178 100.0 392 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 0 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 392 4.9649 0.1118 5 0.4202 76Black Males Compared to White Males Race was a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of black and white males in choosing members of the opposite race to play with in the Fall administration of the sociograms. White males were less likely at 8.4 percent than black males at 15.2 percent to choose no students of the opposite race with whom to play. A Chi-Square of 13.9749 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1743 and a Probability of 0.0158. A significant difference was also noted between black and white males in choosing students of the opposite race with whom to play in the Spring administration of the sociograms. A Chi-Square of 31.8023 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.2730 and a Probability of 0.0001. Data and complete analysis for both the Fall and Spring administrations of the sociograms are presented in the tables that follow. 77Sociograms - Play With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to White Males (Fall 98) N = 446 Race Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Black Students % White Students % Total % 37 78 66 35 25 243 15.2 17 8.4 54 12.1 32.1 48 23.6 126 28.3 27.2 61 30.0 127 28.5 14.4 48 23.6 83 18.5 10.3 25 12.3 50 11.2 0.8 2.0 6 1.3 100.0 203 100.0 446 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 2 2 Chi-Square Test for Independence Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability 446 13.9749 0.1743 5 0.0158 Sociograms - Play With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to White Males (Spring 98) N = 396 Race Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Black Students % White Students % Total % 45 69 61 29 10 214 21.0 13 7.1 58 14.6 32.2 43 23.6 112 28.3 28.5 62 34.1 123 31.1 13.6 42 18.1 71 17.9 4.7 16 8.8 26 6.6 0.0 3.3 6 1.5 100.0 182 100.0 396 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 6 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency CoefTicient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 396 31.8023 0.2730 5 0.0001 78 - I Black Males Compared to White Females Race/sex was a not significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of black males and white females in choosing members of the opposite race to play with. A Chi-Square of 4.5757 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1002 and a Probability of 0.4698 White females at 15.9 percent were more likely than black males at 15.2 percent to choose no students of the opposite race with whom to play. I Race/sex was a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of black males and white females for the Spring administration of the sociograms. A Chi-Square of 32.3012 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.2737 and a Probability of 0.0001 Black males at 21.1 percent were more likely than white females at 18.9 percent of choose no students of the opposite race to play with. Data and complete analysis for both the Fall and Spring administrations of the sociograms are presented in the tables that follow. I I 79Race/Sex Sociograms - Play With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to White Females (Fall 97) N = 451 0 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen 1 2 3 4 5 Total Black Males % White Females % Total % 37 78 66 35 25 243 15.2 33 15.9 70 15.5 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Race/Sex Black Males % White Females % Total % 45 21.0 35 18.9 80 20.1 32.1 71 34.1 149 33.0 27.2 51 24.5 117 26.0 14.4 39 18.7 74 16.4 Chi-Square Test for Independence 10.3 12 5.8 37 8.2 0.8 1.0 4 0.9 451 4.5757 0.1002 5 0.4698 Sociograms - Play With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to White Females (Spring 98) N = 399 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen 69 61 29 10 32.2 53 28.7 122 30.7 28.5 57 30.8 118 29.6 13.6 27 14.6 56 14.1 4.7 11 5.9 20 5.0 0.0 1.1 2 0.5 100.0 208 100.0 451 100.0 Total 214 100.0 185 100.0 399 100.0 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 399 32.3012 0.2737 5 0.0001 80 2 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 2 Black Females Compared to White Males For both the Fall and Spring administrations of the sociograms, significant differences were noted in choosing students of the opposite race with whom to play when comparing black females and white males. Black females at 18.2 percent were more likely than white males at 8.4 percent to choose no students of the opposite race with whom to play in the Fall adininistration. A Chi- Square of 20.4711 was computed of that yielded a Contingency Coefficient of 0.2191 and a Probability of 0.0010. In the Spring administration, race/sex continued to be a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of black females and white males in choosing students of the opposite race to play with. Black females (25.8 percent) were more likely than white males (7.1 percent) to choose no students of the opposite race with whom to play. A Chi-Square of 36.7830 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.3041 and a Probability of 0.0001. Complete data and analysis are provided in the tables that follow. 81Sociograms - Play With Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Males (Fall 98) N = 406 ace/Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Black Females % White Males % Total % 37 65 59 26 13 203 18.2 17 8.4 54 1.3 32.0 48 23.7 113 27.8 29.1 61 30.0 120 29.6 12.8 48 23.6 74 18.2 6.4 25 12.3 38 9.4 1.5 2.0 7 1.7 100.0 203 100.0 406 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 3 4 Chi-Square Test for Independence Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability 406 20.4711 0.2191 5 0.0001 Sociograms - Play With Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Males (Spring 98) N = 360 Race/Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Black Females % White Males % Total % 46 55 42 21 14 178 25.8 13 7.1 59 16.4 30.9 43 23.6 98 27.2 23.6 62 34.1 104 28.9 11.8 42 23.1 63 17.5 7.9 16 8.8 30 8.3 0.0 3.3 6 1.7 100.0 182 100.0 360 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 6 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 360 36.7830 0.3041 5 0.0001 82 Black Females Compared to White Females Race was not a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of black and white females in choosing members of the opposite race to play with for either the Fall or Spring administrations of the sociograms. For the Fall, white females (15.8 percent) were less likely at than black females (18.2 percent) to choose no members of the opposite race with whom to work. A Chi-Square of 3.8548 was computed that yielded a Contingency Coefficient of 0.0964 and a Probability of 0.5705. In the Spring administration of the sociograms, a Chi-Square of 7.0720 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1381 and a Probability of 0.2153. Black females (25.8 percent) were less likely than white females (18.9 percent) to choose no students of the opposite race with whom to work. Complete data and analysis are provided in the tables that follow. 83Sociograms - Play With Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Females (Fall 97) N = 411 Race Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Black Females % White Females % Total % 37 65 59 26 13 203 18.2 33 15.8 70 17.0 32.0 71 34.1 136 33.1 29.1 51 24.5 110 26.8 12.8 39 18.8 65 15.8 6.4 12 5.8 25 6.1 1.5 1.0 5 1.2 100.0 208 100.0 411 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 3 2 Chi-Square Test for Independence Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability 411 3.8548 0.0964 5 0.5705 Sociograms - Play With Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Females (Spring 98) N = 363 Race Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Black Females % White Females % Total % 46 55 42 21 14 178 25.8 35 18.9 81 22.3 30.9 53 28.7 108 29.8 23.6 57 30.8 99 27.2 11.8 27 14.6 48 13.2 7.9 11 5.9 25 6.9 0.0 1.1 2 .6 100.0 185 100.0 363 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 2 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 363 7.0720 0.1381 5 0.2153 84 White Males Compared to White Females Sex was a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of white males and white females in choosing students of the opposite race to play with. White females (15.8 percent) were more likely than white males (8.4 percent) to choose no students of the opposite race to with whom to play. For the Fall administration, a Chi-Square of 16.5651 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1968 and a Probability of 0.0054. Sex continued to be a significant variable for white males and white females in choosing students of the opposite race to play with in the Spring administration of the sociograms. Females, at 18.9 percent, were more likely than males, at 7.1 percent, to choose no students of the opposite race to play with. A Chi-Square of 17.4985 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.2133 and a Probability of 0.0036. Complete data and a analysis are provided in the tables that follow. 85Sex Sociograms - Play With Opposite Race White Males Compared to White Females (Fall 97) N = 411 0 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen 1 2 3 4 5 Total White Males % White Females % Total % 17 48 61 48 25 203 8.4 33 15.8 50 12.1 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Sex White Males % White Females % Total % 13 7.1 35 18.9 48 13.1 23.7 71 34.1 119 28.9 30.0 51 24.5 112 27.3 23.6 39 18.8 87 21.2 Chi-Square Test for Independence 12.3 12 5.8 37 9.0 2.0 1.0 6 1.5 411 16.5651 0.1968 5 0.0054 Sociograms - Play With Opposite Race White Males Compared to White Females (Spring 98) N = 367 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen 43 62 42 16 23.6 53 28.7 96 26.1 34.1 57 30.8 119 32.4 23.1 27 14.6 69 18.8 8.8 11 5.9 27 7.4 3.3 1.1 8 2.2 100.0 208 100.0 411 100.0 Total 182 100.0 185 100.0 367 100.0 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 367 17.4985 0.2133 5 0.0036 86 4 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 2 Summary - Social Interactions (sociograms) The table below summarizes the data analysis for the sociograms administered in the Fall of 1997 and Spring of 1998. Summary- Sociograms Fall 1997 - Spring 1998 Probabilities / Categories I Sociogram Categories Fall/ Spring Black/ White Males/ Female BM/ BF BM/ WM BM/ WF BF/ WM BF/ WF WM/ WF .6401 .0192* .3378 .3312 .0189* .4857 .5280 .0148* F Sit Near .2623 .1695 .3664 .0830 .1864 .2565 .5352 .0836 S .0001** .0015* .0258* .0022** .0001** .2703 .0052* .0601 Work With .0001** .0712 .1695 .0054** .0001** .2695 .0144* .0836 .0551 .0246* .6492 .0158* .4698 .0010** .5705 .0054** Play With .0001** .0393* .4202 .0001* .0001** .0001** .2153 .0036 F S F S * Significant at the .05 level
** Significant at the .01 level Black Students Compared to White Students Race was not significant when comparing white students to black students for choosing students of the opposite race to sit near, race was significant in choosing students of the opposite race with whom to work
and race was inconclusive when choosing students of the opposite race with whom to play. Male Students Compared to Females Students Sex was inconclusive when comparing male and female students in choosing students of the opposite race to sit near and with whom to work
and significant when choosing members of the opposite race with whom to play. Black Males Compared to Black Females Sex was not significant when comparing black males and black females in choosing students of the opposite race to sit near and with whom to play and inconclusive when choosing students of the opposite race with whom to work. 87Black Males Compared to White Males Race was not a significant variable when comparing black males and white males in choosing students of the opposite race to sit near
and race was a significant variable when students of the opposite race chose with whom they wanted to work and play. Black Males and White Females Race/sex was inconclusive when comparing black males and white females in choosing students of the opposite race to sit near and with whom to play
and race/sex was significant when students of the opposite race choose with whom they wanted to work. Black Females and White Males Race/sex was not significant when comparing black females and white males choices of which students of the opposite race they want to sit near or with whom they want to work
yet, race/sex was significant when students chose peers with whom they wanted to play. Black Females and White Females Race was not significant when comparing black females and white females in choosing students of the opposite race to sit near or with whom to play
yet, race was significant when choosing students of the opposite race with whom to work. White Males and White Females Sex was inconclusive when comparing white males and white females in choosing students of the opposite race to sit near and with whom to play
and sex was not significant when choosing students of the opposite race with whom to work. 88D. Site Visits -Student Interactions Is there evidence revealed by data collected during site visits of stereotyping, graffiti and name calling? Is there evidence of student isolation and solidarity? Site visits by the research evaluation team were scheduled for May 12-13, 1998. Each magnet school site was visited by two evaluation team members. The visits were scheduled for approximately a half day, including observations of lunch periods at all sites and recess periods at elementary sites. The team consisted of five professionals fiom Arkansas State University and one from The University of Arkansas, Pine Bluff. Team members possessed competencies in speciality areas of elementary, middle level, and secondary education, as well as education administration and program evaluation. Team member also had experience in evaluating magnet school programs. The purpose of the site visits was to collect data relevant to the assessment of project activities. Each magnet school site visit lasted for a half-day, including both classroom and non-classroom activities. Forms developed for previous evaluation were used to record and codify data collected during the observation. Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected. Stereotyping and name calling Team members observed students during movement in halls between classes and other scheduled activities. Student were also observed during lunch periods and recess periods by at least one team member. The purpose of these observations was to determine whether students used any offensive or racial language or behaviors during general movement and\or student interaction activities. Observation responses relative to use of offensive language and name calling are provided on PCIMS, Form 1, page 2. 4. Students (were .0. were not_7_) observed using racial slurs and inappropriate language during play. lO.There (was_0_ was not_8_ ) any offensive or racial language or behavior observed during the lunch period. Graffiti Evaluation team members were asked to observe whether or not there were graffiti and\or offensive language written on walls in the restrooms, halls, and other places in the building. Responses were recorded on PCIMS, Form 1, page 2. 11. There (was_0. was not 8 ) any racial graffiti observed on the walls in the halls, bathrooms, and other places in the buildings. 89Student isolation and solidarity Student isolation and solidarity were not observed by the evaluation team. Students were observed associating in small groups which were disproportionate by race (many members of one race and few of another race) during lunch periods at the secondary schools. Seating behaviors tended to reflect segregation by peer-interest group rather than by race. Groups did not tend to segregate themselves from other groups. Playground Observations Team members were asked to observe playground activities in order to assess the activities of students relative to interaction patterns. Playground activities were observed only at the elementary magnet school sites. Responses from observation forms (PCIMS 1) were used to record the observations of team members. Team member observations are presented below. 1, Student play activities were: (directed_J_ not directed 7 ) 2. If student play activities are not directed, students tend to
choose playmates (without 4 with 3 ) regard to race
choose playmates (without 2 with 5 ) regard to gender. 3. There (was 0 was not ) evidence of student isolation or solidarity during playground activities. 4. Students (were 0 were not 8 ) observed using racial slurs and inappropriate language during play time. Cafeteria Observations Team members observed the cafeteria at each of the magnet school sites. Data were collected on the appropriate forms and are presented below. Lunchroom observations were made at all magnet school sites. 5. Seating arrangements appeared to be based on: (student choice 4 student assignment 7 ) Seating arrangements at the elementary schools appeared to be on some assignment basis. Students appeared to come to the lunchroom from the classroom in some predetermined manner (lined-up) and took seats in the same order as they took their lunch trays. Seating arrangements at the secondary schools appeared to be by choice. 901 ! 1 i 1 6. If seating arrangements appeared to be by student choice students tend to
choose seat mates (with 2 without 2 ) regard to race. choose seat mates (with 0 without 4 ) regard to gender. As mentioned previously, students tend to associate in peer groups which were disproportionate by race (a dominance of one race or the other, but inclusive of both races). These peer groups did not tend to segregate on the basis of the race. 7. 8. 9. Teachers (remained 0 did not remain 11 ) with students while the students were eating. There (was 0 was not 11 ) any visible distinction by race for students who ate free or reduced lunch or paid full price. The cafeteria staff was composed of: Black Males White Males Black Females White Females Other The data from this portion of PCIMS, form 1, are presented in the section B, Staffing Patterns. Cafeteria staff appeared to interact with each other and with students and professional staff without regard to race. 10. There (was 0 was not 11 ) any offensive or racial language or behaviors observed during the lunch period. Halls Team members observed students as they passed from classes and other activities at the secondary schools. Interactions patterns between students were noted and recorded (PCIMS, Form 1). classes. 12. Students (did 1 did not 3 ) appear to associate by race while passing between During regular class period changes, students tended to go from class to class without appearance of any bi-racial associations. However, during extended periods, such as lunch periods, students tended to associate in small single race, and\or mixed race groups. 91E. Site Visits (Student-Staff Interactions) What are the interactions of administrators, staff and students and between teachers, and students and between students and other students. Professional team members were asked to complete observation forms (PCIMS 1, 3) to assess the interactions of administrators, teachers, staff, and students. Observations were in both instructional and non-instructional settings. Playground, lunchroom, and hallway conduct was monitored to note the interaction patterns of staff and students. Interaction patterns of students and classified staff were noted in the previous section. Certified Instructional Staff - Students Data regarding the number, race, and gender of certified staff are presented in the Section B of this section and labeled Certified Staff. Classroom observations for at least one-half hour were also scheduled in order to record student-teacher interactions patterns (PCIMS 2). Student- certified staff interaction patterns appeared to be without regard to race and gender. Classroom Observation Professional team members visited 25 classrooms during the two-day site visit. One purpose of the classroom visit was to gather data regarding student seating arrangements relative to desegregation goals. Classrooms representing all grades were visited. Classes involving all disciplines, as well as the fine and performing arts were observed. Data were recorded (PCIMS 3) relative to the seating arrangements in classrooms and student interactions patterns with teachers. Page two of PCIMS 3 is designed to note the interaction of teachers and student by race and gender. 6. Seating arrangements: Assignment: Assigned 14 Unassigned 9 Could not determine _2_ By race: Segregated 0 Integrated 23 Could not determine _2_ By gender: Segregated 2 Integrated 22 Could not determine _]_ Assigned seating was typically observed at the elementary level, while in most classrooms at the secondary level, unassigned seating was noted. No classes were observed that had segregated seating by race. However, in two classes at the secondary level, evaluation as to whether or not there was segregated seating by race could not be determined due to limited enrollment present of both races. 92There were two classes appropriately segregated by gender in order to engage in class activities. Certified Staff - Administrators No formal evaluation instruments were designed to note the interaction patterns between staff and administrators. During site visits, administrators and staff appeared to interact without regard to race or gender. Both certified staff and administrators appeared to have a clear focus on the nature of the magnet school to which they were assigned and spoke of each other in very complimentary and supportive ways. Students - Administrators Administrator-student interactions were observed to be very typical. Students were polite and administrators appeared respectful of students. 93Summary Findings A. Enrollment Data * The Office of The Magnet Review Committee staff continues to provide enrollment opportunities for students in the Little Rock School District, North Little Rock School District, and the Pulaski County Special School District. Allotment rates continue to be above the 95 percent level. B. Staffing Patterns * White females continue to constitute the majority of certified staff, and black females make up the majority of the classified staff. C. Social Interactions -Students * Race/sex was significant when comparing: Work With: Play With
Black/Whites: Black MalesAVhite Males: Black Males/White Females: Black Females/White Males Males/Females: Black Males/White Males Black Females/White Males Sit Near
Data were inconslusive D. Site Visits * There was no evidence of stereotyping, graffiti, and name calling noted during the site visits. No evidence of student isolation or solidarity was observed. E. Interaction Patterns - Staff Interaction patterns between certified staff and students, as well as, classified staff and students appeared to be without regard to race or sex. Observations of classified staff revealed no interaction patterns based on race or sex. 94PULASKI COUNTY INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOL EVALUATION Formative Evaluation: Magnet Theme Background The purpose of this formative evaluation is to gain insight into the assessment of objectives in expected outcomes listed below: Magnet Theme to provide evaluation activities to assess the existence of a sound educational core program and an existing magnet theme as provided by the magnet school program. A. What are the magnet school themes available to students in the Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School Program? B. Are magnet school programs available to students as provided by magnet school policies and procedures? C. Is there a coherent magnet theme in place at each of the magnet school sites? D. Are instructional and non-instructional personnel resources necessary to support the magnet school program in place at each of the magnet school sites? METHODS\FINDINGS Procedures and methods were developed to provide information relative to the evaluation objectives. Data were furnished by the Magnet Review Office and the principals office at each of the magnet schools. Forms were developed to assist in data collection and presentations reflect the times at which data were collected and may differ according to the primary purposes for data collection activities. Magnet school publications and printed materials were provided to the evaluator by the Magnet Review Office, as well as the principals office at each site. 95A. Magnet Themes What are the magnet school themes available in the Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School Program? Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools continue to offer a variety of magnet school themes at the elementary and secondary level. Elementary themes are provided at four elementary sites and secondary themes at one junior high and one senior high site. The names of the students and school choices from all applications received are placed in the computer after the initial application period. The computer software internally matches students who have applied with the seats available for placement. Students are assigned to a magnet school as they have been selected. Those students who applied but were not assigned are ordered numerically and placed on a waiting list for assignment as seats become available. Sites Themes Booker Arts Magnet School offers student in grades K-6 an environment of spontaneity, freedom of expression, individuality, and creativity. Booker offers a strong emphasis on the arts, coupled with high academic standards in the basic courses. Reading, writing, grammar, spelling, math, social studies, and science are enhanced with a fine arts emphasis. Students learn by experiencing creative movement, by hearing and performing music, and by creating and seeing art. Students engage in performances for their classmates and parents and both during and after school hours.. >5 Carver Basic Skills/Math Science Magnet focuses on developing A Pathway to Excellence. The staff recognizes that Carver students are culturally diverse and a reflection of a pluralistic society. They strive to promote understanding and respect for individual and cultural differences. It is the staffs philosophy that all children develop self-directed responsible behaviors and an intrinsic life-long love of learning. Teachers believe that all can learn through active participation in a process-focused curriculum. Gibbs International Studies/Foreign Language Magnet School offers an International studies program based upon the belief that people are more alike than different. The curriculum is based in part on universals of culture or commonalities of all people. Each grade level has a different cultural focus. The foreign language program is based on the belief that young children can attain the noviceproficient level in foreign languages. The following languages are offered beginning at the kindergarten level: French, German, and Spanish. Foreign language specialists provide instruction 96on a daily basis. Williams Basic Skills Magnet School boasts high academic achievement with a structured discipline plan creating an environment conducive to learning, and strong parental involvement. Williams is a high-performance, high-expectations school that best serves responsible students who learn well in a highly structured environment and are motivated by competition in all program areas. Williams students subscribe and adhere to a strict dress code policy believing that students who demonstrate discipline in appearance tend to transfer that same discipline into behavior and learning. Uniforms are mandatory for all students. Mann Arts and Science Magnet Schools boasts of motivated and energetic students and staff and numerous course offering. This junior high school houses grades 7,8, and 9. The school consists of two different curricular programs: the School of Sciences and the School of Arts. In the School of Science, students participate in traditional and required curriculum of English, science, mathematics, and social studies, and, in addition, take a laboratory science class. Every student is required to complete a research project each year. In the School of Arts, students also take the traditional and required curriculum, and in addition, participate in courses focused on selected areas of concentration: visual arts, drama, dance, or music. Parkview Arts and Sciences Magnet School offers students that opportunity to choose expanded and specialized courses the arts and sciences. The total educational curriculum is enhanced by a variety of extracurricular and athletic opportunities. Students enrolled in the Fine Arts Magnet Program select an area of emphasis from the arts: dance, drama, instrumental music, orchestra, visual arts, or vocal music. Students follow an expanded curriculum in their specialized area. The Science Magnet Program combines the high-tech speciality science courses with a magnet curriculum that will prepare students for an undergraduate, pre-professional, or technical major in the area of medicine and health. B. Program Availability Are magnet school programs available to students as provided by magnet school policies and procedures? 97Enrollment for the total magnet school program for the 1997-98 school year was 3706, about the same as for the 1996-97 school year of 3709. Black students accounted for 51.9 percent of the total student population, up .1 percent from the previous year. White students accounted for 44.9 percent of the total number of students, up from 43.6 percent in the 1996-97 school year. The number of other students declined from 4.4 percent for the previous year to 3.9 percent in 1997- 98. Black females continue to constitute the largest subgroup of students. The charts below depicts the percentages of students for black, white, and other students for the past two years. The percentage enrollment of black and white students has remained approximately the same for the past two years Enrollment by Race - Comparison 1996-97/1997-98 Enrollment by Race 1996-97 Enrollment by Race 1997-98 [ B M 24.e% | I B F 27.1% [ I B M 24.5% ] M\F 4.4% I I W M 20 J%1 Vt f 221^ I [V M 20.7% I M I MV' W F 23.5* I I I Black Males I White Males r~l others 1^ Black Females I White Females Black Males While Males Others B Black Females I White Females [ 0 The largest group of students is black females (27.4 %), followed closely by black males (24.5%), and white females (23.5%). White males made up 20.7 percent, with students classified as others making up 3.9 percent. Females constituted 50.9 percent and males made up 45.2 percent of the total. Other students, males and females, accounted for 3.9 percent. 98C. Coherent Magnet Theme Is there a coherent magnet theme in place at each of the magnet school sites? Classroom Visits A total of thirty-eight (38) classrooms were visited by the evaluation team. Twenty-one (21) elementary classrooms and seventeen (17) secondary classroom were visited. The secondary classrooms by subject matter included: Science Art Math Dance (2) (2) (4) (1) English (4) Social Studies (3) Chorus (1) Evaluation forms (PCIMS 3) were designed to gather data on the assessment of magnet school activities relative to the goals and objectives. Response total for items may not be equal due to the responses recorded by evaluation team members and multiple responses provided for some items. Team members were asked to observe three or more classrooms at each site for at least a 20 minute uninterrupted time period. In some instances, class schedules and student activity may not have allowed for uninterrupted observation. The first three items on PCIMS, Form 3 relate to school name, sex and race of the teacher, grade level, type class, number of students, and classroom seating. The responses for these items have been included in other portions of this report. Items 7,8, and 9 relate to support of the magnet school theme through instruction and non- instructional supplies and materials. Item 10 relates to the instructional practices of teachers in the classrooms observed by the evaluation team. Item 7. Classroom space and equipment appear to be appropriate for the magnet theme, the particular class and class activities: Yes 35 No 4 Item 8. Bulletin boards, displays, posters student work and other items reflect the magnet theme: Yes 30 No 9 In general, secondary classrooms and the buildings tend to rely less on displays and other practices that appear more appropriate for elementary students. 99Item 9. Non-text materials and resources are available in the classroom that support the magnet theme. Yes 29 No 7 Secondary class assignments appeared to require students to utilize the media center/computer laboratory resources. Item 10. Evaluators were asked to record the type of instructional activities used in the classrooms they observed. Responses were as follows: Lecture: Guided Practice Other 7 18 2* Student Presentation Independent Work 11 7 In one elementary class (Carver), the students and teacher were discussing research procedures. Questions and answers flowed from, to, and among students and the teacher. The most predominant instructional methodology was guided practice, followed by student presentation. Instructional activities appeared to be appropriate for the level, discipline, and class activities in which students were engaged. Evaluation Team Comments Very strong discipline and classroom management. Outstanding musical performance. Staff appears to function as a unit. Subject matter integrated well into lesson content. Strong instructional program. 100Summary Findings * PCIMS offers a variety of magnet school programs for students who reside in the three Pulaski County school districts. * Magnet school placement and assignment procedures are in compliance with policies approved by the MRC. * Instructional and non-instructional resources appear to be adequate and in place to support the various programs offered by PCIMS. * There is very strong evidence of a coherent magnet theme at each of the PCIMS sites. 101PULASKI COUNTY INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOL EVALUATION Summative Evaluation: January 30,1999 The purpose of this summative evaluation is to make an overall assessment with regard to the total magnet program. The scope of this evaluation covers magnet school objectives relative to student achievement, desegregation, and magnet theme during the 1997-98 school year. Conclusions and summary findings are drawn from the insights gained from the review of the literature, previous magnet school evaluations, site visits, and analysis of data collected for the 1997-98 school year. Valuable data were provided by the Arkansas Department of Education, the Little Rock School District Office of Planning, Research and Development, and the office of the Executive Director of the Magnet Review Committee. CONCLUSIONS Student Achievement He * Magnet school students perform better on standardized tests than students across the nation, the state and in the LRSD. He * Both black and white students continue to perform better on standardized tests than like-type students across the state and in the LRSD. HtHt Test score disparities are about the same as in previous reports, although disparities at grade levels may change from one project year to the next. Desegregation *He The Office of the Magnet Review Committee staff provides maximum enrollment opportunities for students in the Little Rock, North Little Rock and Pulaksi County school districts. A* White females continue to constitute the majority of certified staff with black females accounting for a majority of classified staff. Race/sex was not significant in choice patterns of black and white students in choosing students of the opposite race to sit near. Race/sex was inconclusive as a variable in choice patterns of black and white students in choosing member of the opposite race to work with and play with. 102Magnet Theme ft ft A sound educational core program and a coherent magnet theme are provided at each of the magnet school sites. SUMMARY CONCLUSION ft * * Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools continue to manifest compelling evidence of fulfilling their purposes and expectations for providing maximum educational opportunities for students in the Little Rock School District, the North Little Rock School District, and the Pulaski County School District. 103APPENDIX 104 PCIMS-3 PULASKI COUNTY INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOL EVALUATION 1997-98 CLASSROOM OBSERVATION (complete 3 or more, 20 minutes uninterrupted) I. School 2. Teacher (no name) Sex: Race: M B F_ W 0 3. Grade 4. Type class (Eng. Math, ie.) 5. Number/Race of students: Black Males Black Females White Males White Females Others total blacks total females total others Total 6. Classroom seating arrangements: Assignment (check one): By race By gender Assigned ___ Segregated ___ Segregated___ Unassigned___ Integrated ___ Integrated ___ Other comments about seating: 7. Classroom space and equipment appear to be appropriate for the magnet theme, the particular class and class activities: Yes No 8. Bulletin boards, displays, posters, student work and other items reflect the magnet theme: Yes No 9. Non-text materials and resources are available in the classroom that support the magnet theme: Yes___ No 10. Presentation (check all that apply): Lecture: Student Presentation: Guided Practice: Independent Work: Test: OtherSTUDENT INTERACTION OBSERVATION (please note student-teacher-student communication) Teacher
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.