V z i RECEIVED JAN 1 3 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING An Evaluation of Mathematics and Science Programs in the Little Rock School District from 1998 to 2003 December 2003 Donald C. Wold, Ph.D. Vanessa E. Cleaver Dennis Glasgow Division of Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Street Little Rock, AR 72206 501 447-3320 www.lrsd.orgAn Evaluation of Mathematics and Science Programs in the Little Rock School District from 1998 to 2003 December 2003 Donald C. Wold, Ph.D. Vanessa E. Cleaver Deimis Glasgow Division of Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Street Little Rock, AR 72206 501 447-3320 www.lrsd.orgii Executive Summary This report examines student assessments over a five-year period in the Little Rock School District (LRSD) from 1998 to 2003. The report also looks at course taking and completion trends over the five years in mathematics and science courses, along with policy issues and curriculum changes. The five year period was selected because LRSD had a grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF) over that period of time to create systemic change in mathematics and science programs that would lead to increased student achievement and preparation of more students to pursue undergraduate programs of study in mathematics, science, and engineering. The LRSD program, funded by NSF, was Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement (CPMSA). The effective date of the CPMSA program was September 1, 1998, and the expiration date for this program was August 31, 2003. The program evaluation was oriented around the following questions concerning all students and African American students in particular: Was the CPMSA program effective in improving the achievement of Afncan American students? Have levels of achievement changed for all students and for Afncan American students who perform at or above basic, at or above proficient, and at or above the advanced achievement level? Have enrollments and completion trends changed for all students and for Afncan American students in S* grade Algebra 1? Have the enrollments and completion trends changed for all students and Afncan American students in G 9-12 mathematics gate-keeping courses (Algebra I, Geometry, Trig/Pre-Calc., & Calculus)? Have enrollments and completion trends changed for all students and for Afncan American students in G 9-12 science gate-keeping courses (Biology 1, Chemistry 1, and Physics I)? Has the number of students with SEM proficiency changed? How has the number of Afncan American students with SEM proficiency changed? (SEM proficiency is defined as students who have completed a minimum of pre-calculus, biology, and chemistry and/or physics courses). What policy changes have promoted equal access by all students, including Afiican American students to high quality education? What policy changes were made to support student success in mathematics and science during CPMSA implementation? What curriculum and instruction changes were made to support student success in mathematics and science during CPMSA implementation? What professional development policy and program changes were made to support teachers during CPMSA implementation? What standards-based assessment system changes were made during CPMSA implementation? Method The evaluation design was based on quantitative student achievement data from over 100 examinations in twenty-four different assessment groups, which took place in LRSD from 1998 to 2003. The cooperative agreement with the NSF (Amendment No. 3) states that assessment data for the CPMSA Program for Years 3,4, and 5 will be used to determine annual increases in performance
consequently, the primary focus was on achievement data for SY 2000-2001,2001-2002, and 2002-2003. Literacy assessments were included along with mathematics and science assessments since literacy is a criticaliv achievement level or above the Proficient achievement level or both above Basic achievement level and above Proficient achievement level occurred for all students, for Caucasian students, and for African American students. The assessment groups are summarized below: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 English G8 EXPLORE English GIO PLAN Literacy G4 Benchmark Literacy G8 Benchmark Mathematics G4 Benchmark Mathematics G5 SAT-9 Mathematics G6 Benchmark Mathematics G7 SAT-9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Mathematics G8 Benchmark Mathematics G8 EXPLORE Mathematics GIO SAT-9 Mathematics GIO PLAN Algebra I G7-10 Benchmark Geometry G9-11 Benchmark Reading G5 SAT-9 Reading G7 SAT-9 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Reading G8 EXPLORE Reading GIO SAT-9 Reading GIO PLAN Science G5 SAT-9 Science G7 SAT-9 Science G8 EXPLORE Science GIO SAT-9 Science GIO PLAN 9 The Annual Change in Percentage Points of Students Who Performed at or Above the Basic Achievement Level Table 32 shows only the change in percentage points of students who performed at or above the Basic achievement level for all students in the District, for Caucasian students, and for African American students. Here we see that in 16 out of 24 assessments, the change in percentage points of African American students who performed at or above the Basic achievement level was greater than the change in percentage points of Caucasian students who performed at or above the Basic achievement level. These results may be seen in Figure IS below. The Annual Change in Percentage Points of Students Who Performed at or Above the Proficient Achievement Level Table 33 shows only the change in percentage points of students who performed at or above the Proficient achievement level for all students in the District, for Caucasian students, and for African American students. Here we see that in 18 out of 24 assessments, the change in percentage points of African American students who performed at or above the Proficient achievement level was less than the change in percentage points of Caucasian students who performed at or above the Proficient achievement level. These results may be seen in Figure 2S below. From the assessments in Tables 32 and 33, we conclude that, although there are increasing numbers of African American students at or above the Proficient achievement level, the greatest movement in African American student performance is upward from below the Basic achievement level into the region between the Basic achievement level and the Proficient achievement level. If the current momentum is maintained, student performance of African American students will continue to move upward to or above the Proficient achievement level. In the SMART/THRIVE 2002-2003 program, we found 52 percent of those students performing above the Basic achievement level but below the Proficient achievement level. With such a large number of students performing just below the Proficient achievement level, many more students could reach the Proficient achievement level with reasonable additional effort on the part of the students and teachers. From these data we conclude that the performance of African American students on district assessments improved substantially and consistently between 200land 2003.V Figure IS: Annual Change in Percentage Points Relative to the Basic Achievement Level Annual Change in Percentage Points of Students Who Performed at or Above the Basic Achievement Level on 24 Different Assessments from SY 2000-2001 to SY 2002-2003 25 20 15 10 Caucasian Students A African American 5 0 , 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 12 13 14 15 16 20 21 23 24 -5 Figure 2S: Annual Change in Percentage Points Relative to the Proficient Achievement Level Annual Change in Percentage Points of Students Who Performed at or Above the Proficient Achievement Level on 24 Different Assessments from SY 2000-2001 to SY 2002-2003 25 20 15 10 Caucasian Students African American 5 0 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 -5 12 13 14 15 16\17 19 20 21 '23 24 0vi Course Enrollment and Completion from SY 1997-1998 to SY 2002-2003 1. The enrollment of African American students in Algebra I in the eighth grade increased by 29% and the successful completion rate (grade of A, B, or C) increased by 8% (Figure 51). The corresponding percentages for all students were a 17% increase in enrollment and 15% increase in successful completion rate (Figure 50). 2. The enrollment of African American students in mathematics gate-keeping courses (Alg I and II, Geo, Trig/Pre-Calc, and Cal) increased by 33% and the successful completion rate increased by 22% (Figure 49). The corresponding percentages for all students were a 28% increase in enrollment and 31% increase in successful completion rate (Figure 48). 3. The enrollment of African American students in science gate-keeping courses (Biology, Chemistry, and Physics) increased by 92% and the successful completion rate increased by 73% (Figure 53). The corresponding percentages for all students were an 84% increase in enrollment and an 85% increase in successful completion rate (Figure 52). 4. The percentage of African American students who were SEM proficient (completed physics, biology, chemistry and pre-calculus) increased by 50% Figure 61). The corresponding percentage for all students was a 31% increase in enrollment (Figure 60). From these data we conclude that the percentage increase of African American students in gatekeeping and higher-level mathematics and science courses is greater than that for students as a whole but that the successful completion rate (grade A, B, or C) for African American students is lower than that for students as a whole. Policy, Curriculum, and Professional Development Systemic improvement of mathematics and science in LRSD resulted from several factors. First, LRSD has adopted a number of Board Policies that promote the development of a coherent, consistent set of policies that supports: provision of high quality mathematics and science education for each student
excellent preparation, continuing education, and support for each mathematics and science teacher
and administrative support for all persons who work to improve achievement among all students served by the system. Second, the alignment of written curriculum standards and benchmarks, nationally developed and validated curriculum materials, professional development, and assessment created a high quality mathematics and science curriculum. This alignment improved each year as data were used to check for strengths and weaknesses in the system. Another key factor was the coordination of resources, professional development, and technical assistance provided by Lead Teachers. Finally, the convergence of resources, both financial and human, fueled the change process that led to a higher- performing system. Student Support and Community Partners A variety of student support programs were implemented during the project period, including afterschool tutoring, the summer SMART program for rising eighth and ninth grade students preparing for Algebra I, the Saturday THRIVE program to provide follow-up support for SMART graduates, a preengineering program (SECME) that is in about half our schools, and after-school clubs sponsored by the Museum of Discovery. All of these programs focused on the needs of students who need support to improve their achievement. In addition community partners such as the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Philander Smith College, and the Museum of Discovery provided leadership and support to the LRSD mathematics and science programs. Parent Institutes, PTA meetings, and other avenues were used to involve parents and to try to keep them informed about changes in the LRSD math and science program. Curriculum packets designed to share the goals of each mathematics module, major classroom activities used to support those goals, and strategies for parents to utilize with their children at home were developed for each mathematics module for grades K-8. These packets were available for checkout through school libraries.vii Table of Contents Executive Summary........................................................................... Method................................................................................................................... Results.................................................................................................................... Achievement....................................................................................................... Course Emollment and Completion from SY 1997-1998 to SY 2002-2003 Policy, Curriculum, and Professional Development...................................... Student Support and Community Partners...................................................... 11 .ii iii hi vi vi vi 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Introduction...................................................................................................................................................1 Evaluation Goals:....................................................................................................................................................................3 Research Questions................................................................................................................................................................4 Current Status..........................................................................................................................................................................5 Major Milestones in the In^lementation of Educational System Reform through CPMSA by the Little Rock School District 6 2 Standards-Based Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.4.1 2.4.2 Mathematics and Science Curriculum Resources Evidence of Standards-based Instruction............. Professional Development..................................... Assessment System................................................ Benchmark Examinations Achievement Level Tests 2.5 2.5.1 2.5.2 2.5.3 2.5.4 Student Support SMART (Summer Mathematics Advanced Readiness Training) THRIVE........................................................................................... SECME............................................................................................. After School Discovery Clubs....................................................... .9 10 11 11 17 17 18 18 18 18 18 19 3 Policy Support for High Quality Learning and Teaching 19 4 Convergence of Educational Resources 4.1 Personnel 4.1.1 4.1.2 4.1.3 Professional Development Special Population............ ESL............................. 4.2 4.3 Student Academic Support Programs Curricula Materials/Supplies............. 4.4 Integration of Technology 20 .20 .20 .20 .21 .21 .21 .21 5 Partnerships of Leadership
Broad-Based Support 5.1 Parent/Family/Community Involvement.......................... 5.2 Primary Partners................................................................. 5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2.3 University of Arkansas at Little Rock Philander Smith College..................... Arkansas Museum of Discovery......... 21 .22 .22 .22 .22 .22viii 6 Measures of Effectiveness Focused on Student Outcomes 6.1 National Trends in Mathematics and Science Achievement 6.2 Determining Improvement from Changes in Percentages of Students Who Performed At or Above Different Achievement Levels............................................................................................................................................................. 23 .23 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 6.10 6.11 6.11.1 6.11.2 Mathematics Assessment in Grade 6 with the Arkansas Benchmark................................................................... Mathematics Assessment in Grade 4 and Grade 8 with the Arkansas Benchmark............................................ Literacy Assessments in Grade 4 and Grade 8 with the Arkansas Benchmark................................................... End-of-Course Assessments for Algebra I and Geometry.................................................................................... Mathematics Assessment in Grades 5,1, and 10 with the Stanford Achievement Test, 9" Edition (SAT-9).. Science Assessment in Grades 5, 7, and 10 with the Stanford Achievement Test, 9* Edition (SAT-9).......... Total Reading Assessment in Grades 5, 7, and 10 with the Stanford Achievement Test, O* Edition (SAT-9) Discussion of the Assessment Summarized in Tables 1-16.............................................................................. EXPLORE Academic Assessment from ACT, Inc........................................................................................... English, Mathematics, Reading, and Science Reasoning Assessments in Grade 8 with EXPLORE........... Discussion of the S*" Grade Assessments in English, Mathematics, Reading, and Science Reasoning with 25 26 30 34 38 43 48 52 57 58 59 EXPLORE Summarized in Tables 16-20 6.12 6.12.1 6.12.2 PLAN Academic Assessment from ACT, Inc............................................................................................................ English, Mathematics, Reading, and Science Reasoning Assessments in Grade 10 with PLAN.................... Discussion of the IO'*' Grade Assessments in English, Mathematics, Reading, and Science Reasoning with 61 63 63 6.13 PLAN Summarized in Tables 21-24. Advanced Placement Program. 66 67 7 Enrollment in Mathematics and Science Courses & Completion Trends 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.4.1 7.4.2 Enrollment and Completion in Mathematics Gate-Keeping Courses.... Enrollment and Completion in Science Gate-Keeping Courses............ Enrollment and Completion in All Mathematics and Science Courses Proficiency in Science, Engineering, and Mathematic (SEM).............. Enrollment and Completion in Pre-Calculus Enrollment and Completion in Biology........ 73 .73 .76 .78 .81 .81 .84 8 Summer Mathematics Advanced Readiness Training (SMART)/Project Thrive 8.1 Population Configuration 8.2 Participant Selection. 8.3 Student Performance 86 .86 .86 .86 9 Improvement in the Achievement of All Students, Including those Historically Underserved. 90 Was the CPMSA program effective in improving the achievement of Afi-ican American students in the Little Rock School District?...............................................................................................................................................................................90 9.2 Have levels of achievement changed for all students and for Afncan American students from 1997-1998 to 2002- 2003?102 Have S"" grade enrollments in Algebra I and completion of that mathematics course with a grade of A, B, or C changed for all students and for Afncan American students from 1997-1998 to 2002-2003?.......................................... 9.3 9.4 Have enrollments in mathematics gate-keeping courses (Algebra I, Geometry, Trig/Pre-Calc., & Calculus) and conqrletion of those mathematics courses with a grade of A, B, or C changed for all students and Afncan American students in G 9-12?................................... ........ 103 9.5 104 Have enrollments in science gate-keeping courses (Biology 1, Chemistry 1, and Physics 1) and completion of those science courses with a grade of A, B, or C changed for all students and for African American students in G 9-12? 104 9.6 Has the number of students with SEM proficiency changed? Has the number of Afncan American students with SEM proficiency changed? (SEM proficiency refers to students who have completed a minimum of pre-calculus, biology, and chemistry and /or physics courses with a grade of A, B, or C)....................................................................................... 9.7 What policy changes have promoted equal access by all students, including Afncan American students to high quality education?..................................................................................................................................................................... 9.8 What policy changes were made to support student success in mathematics and science during CPMSA implementation?....................................................................................................................................................................... 104 105 1059.9 What curriculum and instruction changes were made to support student success in mathematics and science during CPMSA implementation? 9.10 implementation? What professional development policy and program changes were made to support teachers during CPMSA 105 ix 9.11 What standards-based assessment system changes were made during CPMSA implementation? 105 105 10 Summary of Findings and Conclusion Conclusion............................................................. 106 .108 11 Index of Figures 109 12 Index of Tables 1111 An Evaluation of Mathematics and Science Programs in the Little Rock School District from 1998 to 2003 1 Introduction On September 13, 2002, Judge William Wilson, Sr., declared, after decades of litigation, the Little Rock School District to be Unitary (except in one area). The District Court issued its Memorandum Opinion (hereinafter Opinion) finding that the Little Rock School District (LRSD) had substantially complied with all areas of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (Revised Plan), with the exception of Revised Plan 2.7.1. Section 2.7.1 provided: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7' after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve Afiican-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. The LRSD has participated in Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement (CPMSA), a National Science Program (NSF) since September 1, 1998. CPMSA was designed to improve the mathematics and science education of urban students in medium sized cities. NSF organized its systemic initiative program around six drivers that were found to be central to successful school reform. NSFs six drivers^ of systemic reform are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Standards-based curriculum, instruction, and assessment Policy support for high quality learning and teaching Convergence of educational resources Partnerships of leadership: broad-based support Measures of effectiveness focused on student outcomes Achievement of ALL students, including those historically underserved Thus, the Little Rock School District must provide evidence^ that clearly demonstrates that, to a significant degree, changes in student achievement and performance can be attributable to the catalytic impact of the systemic initiatives. The overall mission of the CPMSA program'* is to develop systemic approaches that will substantially increase the number of students enrolling in and successfully completing pre-college science, engineering and math (SEM) courses. This increased enrollment should have resulted in a quantifiable and long-term increase in the number of participating students who complete the "college preparatory sequence of courses" in secondary school, and then graduate to pursue undergraduate majors in science, engineering or mathematics. The national agenda^ is to produce more well-prepared high school graduates, both men and women, and to increase the number of students receiving B.S. degrees^ in natural sciences, engineering and 1 Revised Plan 2.7 provided, LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan. 2 NSF, Directorate of Education and Human Resources, Division of Educational System Reform, Six Critical Drivers, ( http://www.ehr.nsf gov/esr/drivcrs ') 3 Raising Standards and Achievement in Urban Schools: Case Stories from CPMSAs in Hamilton County/Chattanooga and Newport News Public Schools, Systemic Research, Inc., ( http://www.svstemic.com/). 4 CPMSA Fact Book 2002, May 2003 ( http://www.svstemic.com/), Systemic Research, Inc. 5 Report of the Congressional Commission on the Advancement of Women and Minorities in Science, Engineering and Technology Development, Land of Plenty: Diversity as America's Competitive Edge in Science, Engineering and Technology, Washington, D.C., September 2000.2 academic disciplines. Significant science proficiency by the nation^ will not be achieved unless all under-represented minorities, including Atncan Americans, are brought into the science and technology loop. In order to contribute to this national goal, the Little Rock School District proposed in the cooperative agreement with NSF that the graduation rate of well-prepared SEM high school graduates be substantially increased. As illustrated in Figurel and Figure 2, African American enrollment increases in both mathematics and science gate-keeping courses were achieved between the baseline year (in SY 1997-98, the year before the project was implemented) and Year 5 (SY 2002-2003). By the fifth year, 4,300 African American students (72% of total African American grade 8-12 enrollment) were enrolled in gate-keeping mathematics courses. In Figure 2, enrollments in science courses increased from 1,804 to 3,468 Afncan American students (51% of the total Afncan American grade 9-12 enrollment). Gate-keeping mathematics courses include Algebra I in 8* and 9* grades and higher. Algebra II, Geometry, Trigonometry/Pre-Calculus, and Calculus. The gate-keeping courses for science are Biology, Chemistry, and Physics. Figure 1: Enrollment in Mathematics Gate-Keeping and Higher Level Courses and Number of African American Students Who Completed Those Courses with a Grade of A, B, or C in the Little Rock School District Mathematics Gate-Keeping and Successful Completion Trends for African American Students (relative to total grades 8-12 African American population) 4,500 4,000 - Enrollment: 33% Increase 4,300 (72%) 0 c o S Vi c 3 c I 3,500 3,000 - 2,500 - ^
52+ 1548 -3528 (55%) 8 I o o E 3 z 2,000 - 1,500- 1,000- 500 - (32%} r5 i,9gr Completion: 21% Increase 2,293 (38%) 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 c 0 T School Year Figure 1 and Figure 2 illustrate that course completion rates increased for African American students. Successful completion is defined as a student completing a course with a grade of C or better. Afncan 6 National Science Board, Science and Engineering lndicators-2002 and Data Brief, Division of Science Resource Statistics, National Science Foundation, April 2002. 7 Jackson, Shirley Ann,, The Quiet Crisis: Falling Short in Producing American Scientific and Technical Talent, BEST (Building Engineering & Science Talent), 40IB Street, Suite 2200, San Diego, CA 92101, 2003.3 American students completing mathematics courses increased 21% from 1,888 in SY 1997-98 to 2,293 in SY 2002-2003. As shown in Figure 2, science completion increased at a much higher 73% from 1,103 to 1,905. Figure 2: Enrollment in Science Gate-Keeping and Higher Level Courses and Number of African American Students Who Completed Those Courses with a Grade of A, B, or C in the Little Rock School District Science Gate-Keeping and Course Enrollment and Successful Completion Trends for African American Students (relative to total grades 9-12 African American population) 4,500 4,000 - Enrollment: 92% Increase 13 c o g c 8 c o E < c 3 < o .o 3 Z 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 - 1,500 (26%) e?m 3
464 ^40t - 3468 (51%) 1,989 1,252 1,000 - (16%) 500 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 Completion: 73% Increase 1,905 (28%) 02-03 0 School Year u Evaluation Goals: 1. To demonstrate that a program assessment procedure is in place that can accurately measure the effectiveness of mathematics and science programs implemented in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. 2, To present achievement levels for the following student assessment data and years: Grade 4 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 5 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 7 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 8 Grade 8 Arkansas Benchmark Mathematics (5 years) Arkansas Benchmark Literacy (5 years) SAT-9 Mathematics (6 years) SAT-9 Science (6 years) SAT-9 Total Reading (6 years) Arkansas Benchmark Mathematics (3 years) SAT-9 Mathematics (6 years) SAT-9 Science (6 years) SAT-9 Total Reading (6 years) Arkansas Benchmark Mathematics (5 years) Arkansas Benchmark Literacy (4 years) EXPLORE English (2 years)4 Grade 8 Grade 8 Grade 8 Grades 7-10 Grades 9-11 Grade 10 Grade 10 Grade 10 Grade 10 Grade 10 Grade 10 Grade 10 Grades 10-12 EXPLORE Mathematics (2 years) EXPLORE Reading (2 years) EXPLORE Science (2 years) End-of Course Algebra I (3 years) End-of Course Geometry (3 years) SAT-9 Mathematics (6 years) SAT-9 Science (6 years) SAT-9 Reading (6 years) PLAN English (2 years) PLAN Mathematics (2 years) PLAN Reading (2 years) PLAN Science (2 years) Advanced Placement (AP) examinations (6 years) In order to better understand these results, we will present enrollment and completion trends for all students and African American students from 1998 to 2003 using five (5) years of assessment data: G 9-12 All students in mathematics gate-keeping courses: Algebra I & II, Geometry, Trig/Pre- Calc., & Calculus (relative to total students in G 9-12) G 9-12 Afiican American students in mathematics gate-keeping courses: Algebra I & II, Geometry, Trig/Pre-Calc., & Calculus (relative to total Afncan American students in G 9-12) G8 All students enrollment and completion in 8** grade Algebra I (relative to total students in G8) G8 Afncan American students enrollment and completion in 8* grade Algebra I (relative to total Afncan American students in G8) G 9-12 All students enrollment and completion in Pre-Calculus G 9-12 Afncan American students enrollment and completion in Pre-Calculus G 9-12 Enrollment and completion trends for all students in gate-keeping science courses
Biology 1, Chemistry 1, and Physics 1 (relative to total students in G 9-12) G 9-12 Enrollment and completion trends for Afncan American students in science gate-keeping courses: Biology 1, Chemistry 1, and Physics 1 (relative to total Afncan American students in G 9-12) G 8-12 Enrollment and completion trends for Afncan American students in mathematics gatekeeping courses: Algebra I & II, Geometry, Trig/Pre-Calc., & Calculus (relative to total Afncan American students in G 8-12) G 9-12 Enrollment and completion trends for Caucasian students in Biology G 9-12 Enrollment and completion trends for Afncan American students in Biology G 9-12 All students enrollment in all mathematics courses G 9-12 All students completion in all mathematics courses G 9-12 All students enrollment in all science courses G 9-12 All students completion in all science courses 1.2 Research Questions In this study of mathematics and science programs, we will analyze assessment data from 1998 to 2003. We would like to answer the following questions for all students, and for Afncan American students in particular: Was the CPMSA program effective in improving the achievement of Afncan American students?5 Have levels of achievement changed for all students and for African American students who perform at or above basic, at or above proficient, and at or above the advanced achievement level? Have S* grade enrollments in Algebra 1 and completion trends changed for all students and for African American students? Have the enrollments and completion trends changed for all students and Afncan American students in G 9-12 mathematics gate-keeping courses (Algebra I, Geometry, Trig/Pre-Calc., & Calculus)? Have enrollments and completion trends changed for all students and for African American students in G 9-12 science gate-keeping courses (Biology 1, Chemistry 1, and Physics 1)? Has the number of students with SEM proficiency changed? How has the number of African American students with SEM proficiency changed? (SEM proficiency is defined as students who have completed a minimum of pre-calculus, biology, and chemistry and /or physics courses). What policy changes have promoted equal access by all students, including Afncan American students to high quality education? What policy changes were made to support student success in mathematics and science during CPMSA implementation? What curriculum and instruction changes were made to support student success in mathematics and science during CPMSA implementation? What professional development policy and program changes were made to support teachers during CPMSA implementation? What standards-based assessment system changes were made during CPMSA implementation? In this report, we looked at assessments which took place during the LRSD program
Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement (CPMSA). The effective date of the CPMSA program was September 1, 1998, and the expiration date for this program was August 31, 2003. Additional information for the LRSD and individual schools is available from the Arkansas Department of Education website: httr)://www.as-is/reportcard/. 1.3 Current Status^ In the last Core Data Elements collection for the 2001-2002 school year, the Little Rock School District reported approximately 25,000 students, 35 elementary schools, eight middle schools, five high schools, one career and technical center, and one accelerated learning center (high school). The last strategic plan for the Little Rock School District (LRSD) overlapped with the CPMSA program. The mission statement of the LRSD was as follows: The mission of the LRSD is to equip all students with the skills and knowledge to realize their aspirations, to think critically and independently, to learn continuously and to face the future as productive, contributing citizens. This mission is accomplished through open access to a diverse, innovative and challenging curriculum in a secure environment with a staff dedicated to excellence and empowered with the trust and support of our community. The Little Rock CPMSA continues to be a catalyst for large-scale systemic change directed toward improving the science and mathematics achievement of all students. Major progress has been made in the development of an infrastructure to sustain achievement gains. The most visible change can be seen 8 Division of Instruction, Little Rock School District, Little Rock, Arkansas, Program Evaluations for the Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement (CPMSA). 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-01. and 2001-02. Funded by the National Science Foundation, Presented to the Board of Education for Approval, December 19, 2002. 9 Little Rock School District, A Vision for the Future Strategic Plan. 1998-2003.6 n the implementation of high quality standards-based curricula in mathematics and science for all K-12 itudents. ^ead Teachers continue to serve as the critical link between professional development and the mplementation of high quality standards-based curricula. They work to ensure that content and jedagogy obtained through professional development is apparent in daily classroom practice. Lead eachers provide evidence that is needed to make decisions regarding professional development. rior to 1999, the Districts assessment program consisted of the administration of the SAT-9 to grades i, 5, 7, 8, and 10, and the state Benchmark exam for mathematics and literacy to grades 4 and 8. In iddition, the PLAN and Explore, ACT, SAT, and AP exams were also administered. This system was lot meeting the needs of the District. Therefore, a revised assessment system was designed to monitor individual student growth in a single year and longitudinally, was developed and enacted beginning with the 1999-2000 school year. Results from data obtained from these tests have guided decisions regarding professional development and curriculum adjustments. Further impact of the CPMSA is evident in increased enrollment and success of students in upper level mathematics and science courses. Prior to 1999, high school seniors largely occupied physics classes in the Little Rock School Districts five high schools. One reason for this was the level and amount of mathematics required for students to learn traditional high school physics. As a result of a 1999 policy enacted by the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District, all freshmen (ninth grade) students are required to enroll in a more conceptual physics course. Collaborations between the Little Rock School District and the University of Arkansas at Little Rock led to the development of graduate level courses for teachers desiring to receive physics endorsement required to teach the course. In the 1999- 2000 school year, enrollment in physics courses increased by more than ten times the previous year. In addition, the number of teachers qualified to teach physics increased from five (approximately one per high school) to an additional nineteen who completed the coursework required for a physics endorsement. The District experienced major increases in the enrollment and success of seventh and eighth grade students in Algebra I from 1999-2000 to 2001-2002 school year. One reason for this was the implementation of the Summer Mathematics Advanced Readiness Training (SMART) Program. Critical skills for Algebra I were reinforced and enhanced during the two-week session through a variety of instructional strategies. Rising eighth and ninth grade students were invited to participate to improve their readiness for Algebra I and increase the overall enrollment. Much progress has been made toward the achievement of a single, standards-based, inquiry-centered, K- 12 mathematics and science education system as driven by the Little Rock CPMSA. The following report briefly describes the standards-based implementation organized around the four critical drivers and their impact on improved student achievement (drivers five and six). All fifty schools in the Little Rock School District have participated in and received direct initiative- supported services of the Little Rock CPMSA since its inception. More specifically, all teachers in all schools at identified grade levels participated in professional development programs aimed at the implementation of high quality curriculum in mathematics and science. All teachers in all classrooms at all fifty schools implemented revisions in the mathematics and science curricula. Therefore, all students were impacted directly by the CPMSA-sponsored services. J.4 Major Milestones in the Implementation of Educational System Reform through CPMSA by the Little Rock School District^ Table 1: Milestones in Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement I Baseline Year | Little usage of standards-based instructional methods/materials
10 Vanessa E. Cleaver, Project Director for the Little Rock School Districts NSF program: Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement (CPMSA), November 3,2003.7 1997-1998 Year 1 1998-1999 Year 2 1999-2000 Low numbers of students in advanced mathematics and science courses
Graduation requirements allowed students to graduate without taking rigorous math and science courses
District policies/practices were not standards-based
District programs and resources were operated in isolation
Professional development unfocused and inadequate_____________ Provided professional development for teachers in preparation for implementation of standards-based curricula for all students in the o o o o o following grade and subject levels: - 4" and S' grade mathematics teachers 6' grade mathematics teachers 6*' grade science teachers 9' grade science teachers 1' - 5" grade science teachers (1 module) Small scale implementation of high-quality standards-based curricula Major revisions made to the Districts policies and practices including the following: o o o o o o Enacted policy that established academic content standards/benchmarks for high school graduates
Policy requiring all curricula to be standards-based
All special curricula /programs must be aligned with Districts Strategic Plan
Requirement to provide appropriate and equitable programs and services for ESL students to ensure achievement of standards and benchmarks
Provided Pre-AP and AP courses in grades 6-12 ensuring no barriers to participate in programs
Established graduation requirements that include 3 units of math to include algebra I. algebra II, and geometry and 3 units of science to include physics, biology and chemistry
Leveraged four major funding sources in support of improving mathematics and science education
Developed and disseminated a brochure describing the goals and objectives of the LR CPMSA
Collaborated with the existing Arkansas Statewide Systemic Initiative (ASSI) to implement Family Math and Science programs in additional elementary and middle schools
Established a partnership with University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) to provide training for pre-service and inservice teachers one week prior to a two-week institute for rising 5* and 6* grade students to improve their mathematics and science skills
Partnership with Philander Smith College (PSC) to provide a summer institute for rising 9*^ grade students for success in Algebra I
Partnership with UALR to provide college credit for 18 LRSD teachers to complete coursework required for them to receive an endorsement in Physics Fully implemented high-quality standards-based instruction in math for all students in grades 4, 5, and 6
Fully implemented high quality standards-based instruction in science for all students in grades 6 and 9
Partial implementation of high quality standards-based instruction/materials for all students in grades 1-5
Provided more than 31,890 teacher-hours of professional development for K-12 mathematics and science teachers focused primarily on the use of hands-on, inquiry-based approach to teaching math and/or science
Lead teachers made more than 2,551 technical assistance contacts with classroom teachers
District adopted an Assessment Plan that involved multiple norm- and 8 criterion-referenced measures across grade levels that provided corroborative evidence necessary to accurately document outcomes of CPMSA initiatives
Implemented SMART Program (Summer Mathematics Advanced Readiness Training), a two-week summer program, to rising S** and 9'*' grade students preparing for enrollment in Algebra I
Provided Project THRIVE, a Saturday academy, in collaboration with Philander Smith College as a follow-up component of SMART. Students participated in eight Saturday sessions on the campus of PSC
Provided additional student support programs in collaboration with the Arkansas Museum of Discovery, University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR), and University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS)
Enacted policies requiring the following
o o o Preparation of an individual student academic improvement plan for students not performing at the proficient level in English language arts and mathematics
Addition of two more credit requirements for graduation class of 2003 and beyond including Recommended Curriculum which includes four years of mathematics and science and two years of technology courses
Addition of dual-credit courses with UALR in Physics II and Pre-calculus to the University Studies program at Hall High School for the 2000-2001 school year
Year 3 2000-2001 Approximately 30% of the Districts Title I funds were allocated for mathematics and science in the areas of professional development, instructional materials, student academic support, and salary
SMART continued to provide support for students entering Algebra I
Project THRIVE, a Saturday academy, offered for students enrolled in Algebra I________________________________________________ Full implementation of high quality standards-based instruction/materials in math for all students in grades 2-8
Continued partial implementation of high quality standards-based instruction/materials in science for all students in grades 1-5
full implementation of standards-based instruction/materials in science for all students in grades 6, 7 and 9
High quality standards-based instruction/materials fully implemented in high school math for all students in Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II, and Pre-calculus
Continued full implementation of high quality standards-based instruction/materials for all students in high school Active Physics, and Chemistry in the Community (CHEMCOM)
Lead teachers continued to provide technical assistance to teachers in the classrooms
Professional development shifted towards a focus on specific needs such as content knowledge, a variety of instructional strategies, and alternative assessment practices
SMART /Project THRIVE served more than 200 students in Algebra I
Implementation of Riverdeep Interactive Software in all high schools for students in Algebra I
Enacted policy and guidelines for all certified employees to obtain the required 30 hours of professional development annually - including 6 in instructional technology
Voters in Little Rock approved an annual $4,000,000 dedicated maintenance fund for technology and infrastructure
District leveraged resources to purchase laptop computers for each math/science lead teacher to help them maintain accurate records of classroom visits and observations
Increased the availability and use of technology including graphing calculators
Collaborated with University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) to 9 develop and offer college courses based on the needs of the District
Year 4 2001-2002 Year 5 2002-2003 Full implementation of high quality standards-based instruction/materials in math and science for all students in grades K- 9
High school mathematics courses (Algebra I - Pre-calculus) were revised to reflect a closer alignment with the national and state standards and frameworks
Professional development continued to be paramount to successful implementation of standards-based instruction
District leveraged support of professional development for all math and science teachers by providing funds to pay substitute teachers and stipends for teachers receiving trainings
Lead teachers continued to provide technical assistance inside and outside the classroom by conducting professional development workshops and classroom observations
Revised and enacted procedures for ensuring that students who are Limited English Proficient (LEP) achieve the curriculum content standards and benchmarks established by the State of Arkansas and LRSD
St Leveraged support of three major funding sources, LRSD, 21 Century Community LEADERS2 grant, and the City of Little Rock Education Commission, to expand the SMART Program
Project THRIVE offered as a followup for students enrolled in Algebra 1
Continued partnership with University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) to develop and offer graduate courses based on the needs of the District
Developed and distributed pacing guides for secondary mathematics and science courses to address the issue of student mobility within the District
Full implementation of high quality standards-based curricula for all students, grades K-12, in mathematics and science
Common labs developed for physics, biology, and chemistry
Lead teachers continued to provide professional development and monitor implementation of standards-based curricula
Professional development more focused and data-driven for all K-12 math and science teachers
o o Horizontal and vertical teams continued to meet
Pilot lesson study group began with 16 teachers representing four elementary schools - Two cycles competed
SMART and Project THRIVE continue to provide support for students enrolled in Algebra I
Continued to leverage District, Title I and 21 Century Grant resources to support and improve mathematics and science
____ 2 Standards-Based Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment 11 The Little Rock School District implemented a high quality, standards-based curriculum in grades K-12 in both mathematics and science. The curriculum was described in the districts Curriculum Standards and Benchmarks and was aligned with the Arkansas Mathematics and Science Frameworks, which in turn based on the NCTM and NSES standards. The mathematics and science standards were were correlated to the major assessments used by the district and were supported by intensive and prolonged 11 Little Rock School District, Little Rock Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement, Annual Progress Report, 2001-2002.10 irofessional development. The curriculum support materials included many nationally recognized esources that were specifically developed to address national standards in mathematics and science. ^ead Teachers provided support in the form of classroom-based technical assistance, professional ievelopment, joint planning, demonstration teaching and team teaching for all schools. Lead Teachers ierved as the link between professional development and classroom practice to help ensure that the content and pedagogy included as professional development became actualized in the classroom. Classroom teachers developed a K-12 alignment that adhered to the philosophy that fewer topics addressed in greater depth should be targeted for each grade level. The teachers, working with Lead Teachers and the Mathematics and Science Department developed pacing guides to promote more uniformity in curriculum and instruction across schools. This same group developed criterion- referenced tests (CRTs) for administration at the end of each math and science module to provide a formative measure of how well students learned the content and skills in the curriculum. The CRTs had embedded items that were patterned after the high-stakes Arkansas Benchmark Exams, the Achievement Level Tests, and the Stanford-9 Achievement Test. Systemic improvement of mathematics and science in the district resulted from several factors. First, the alignment of the written standards and benchmarks, nationally developed and validated curriculum materials, professional development, and assessment created high quality math and science curricula. This alignment improved each year as data were used to check for strengths and weaknesses in the system. Another key factor was the coordination of resources, professional development, and technical assistance provided by the Lead Teachers. Finally, the convergence of resources, both financial and human, fueled the change process that led to a higher-performing system. 2.1 Mathematics and Science Curriculum Resources Nationally developed and validated curriculum resources were utilized at most grade levels/courses. Locally developed materials also supported the curriculum. Major revisions of the high school mathematics and science curriculum occurred in SY 2001-02. Curricula were developed for each high school course (Algebra I - Pre-Calculus) reflecting the alignment with national and state standards and frameworks. In addition, high-quality activities were integrated to encourage teachers to use more hands-on, minds-on strategies to bring real-world experiences to the classroom. The following table contains a list of resource materials which were used at each grade level in mathematics and science. Table 2: Curriculum Resources for Mathematics and Science GradeLeveVSubject Kindergarten First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Seventh Eighth Algebra 1, regular and Mathematics Resources______________ Investigations in Number, Data and Space Investigations in Number, Data and Space Investigations in Number, Data and Space Investigations in Number, Data and Space Investigations in Number, Data and Space Investigations in Number, Data and Space Connected Mathematics Connected Mathematics Connected Mathematics (The College Boards Pre-AP training) and Science Resources Integrated Thematic Units developed by each teacher Science and Technology for Children_________________ Science and Technology for Children_________________ Science and Technology for Children_________________ Science and Technology for Children_________________ Science and Technology for Children__________ Science and Technology for Children_________________ Science and Life Issues (S ALI) Science Interactions
* Issues, Evidence and You (lEY)_____11 Pre-AP Geometry, regular and Pre-AP Algebra 2, regular and Pre-AP Pre-Calculus, regular and Pre-AP Statistics, regular and AP Calculus, AP Physics, regular and Pre- AP Biology, regular and Pre- AP Chemistry, regular and Pre-AP AP Biology AP Environmental Science AP Chemistry AP Physics Pacesetter Mathematics with Meaning', Algebra 1 - An Integrated Approach (The College Boards Pre-AP training) and Pacesetter Mathematics with Meaning', Geometry - An Integrated Approach__________________ (The College Boards Pre-AP training) Algebra 2 - An Integrated Approach__________________ The College Boards Pacesetter Pre-Calculus', Pre-Calculus____________________________ The College Boards AP Materials
The Practice of Statistics_____________________________ The College Boards AP Materials
Calculus Active Physics', Conceptual Physics Holt Biology- Principles and Explorations
Holt Modem Biology____________________ Chemistry in the Community (ChemCom)
Merrill Chemistry The College Boards AP Materials
Campbells Biology The College Boards AP Materials
Living in the Environment_______________ The College Boards AP Materials
Chemistry - The Central Science_____________ The College Boards AP Materials
Physics: Principles with Applications ( 1' 2.2 Evidence of Standards-based Instruction Much of the professional development provided for teachers focused on those teaching strategies and techniques that support teaching the standards. The use of standards-based pedagogy in the mathematics and science classrooms is an important factor in improving student achievement in mathematics and science. Several data gathering tools are used to follow-up to determine if standards-based pedagogy included in professional development are taking root in the classroom. First, Lead Teachers assigned to all the districts schools visit classrooms and report their observations. These observations are recorded on a classroom observation checklist. Second, teachers were surveyed after the 2001-02 school year to self-report how well prepared they were to implement strategies consistent with standards-based instruction. Third, at selected middle schools and all high schools, students were asked to report on the strategies used by their teachers in mathematics and science classes. 2.3 Professional Development * rofessional development is a major strategy used by all NSF Urban Systemic Initiative (USI) Sites and supported by a variety of district policies. The primary aims of professional development activities are to improve teachers content knowledge, pedagogic skills for inquiry-based teaching, and methods of ^sessing student learning. For example, basic classroom management skills are an essential part of teaching and should be mastered. Courses to improve teachers content knowledge of both mathematics12 and science are important. Thus mathematics and science teachers benefit from calculus-based physics courses. According to the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District policy professional development means a coordinated set of planned learning activities for teachers and administrators which are standards-based and continuous. Professional development will result in individual, schoolwide, and system-wide improvement designed to insure that all students demonstrate proficiency on the state academic standards. Approved professional development will be linked to the schools improvement plan, demonstrate research-based best practice, and be subject-specific and site-specific as often as possible. As per Arkansas State Board of Education regulations, all certified employees of the Little Rock School District will complete a minimum of 30 required approved hours of professional development annually, six of which must be in instructional technology^. Additional statements concerning professional development are available from the Arkansas Department of Education and the Arkansas Professional Development Council'. Information about licensure for public school teachers and administrators is available from the Arkansas Department of Education' . Figure 3 illustrates the certification trends of grades 6 to 12 mathematics and science teachers. In this figure, the percentage of teachers certified for the subject, that she or he teaches, is shown. Figure 4 below illustrates the number of teachers that have been designated: Job Not Certified. They may be certified to teach some subject, but it is not in the subject which she or he teaches. These certification data were obtained from the Little Rock School District Annual Accreditation Reports, which are released by the Arkansas Department of Education. They confirm the need for more efforts to obtain qualified middle school mathematics teachers and qualified high school science teachers for the subjects which they are teaching. Figure 3: Certification Trends for Grade 6-12 Mathematics and Science Teachers ij' 'i V! tiiil I Ij i: I 1 ? iW ,1 I' fl 112 J r i' Rock School District, Professional Development, NEPN Code: lAA. . Arkansas Department of Education, Regulations Governing Professional Development. Arkansas Professional Development Council, Arkansas Professional Development Standards, May 2002. Arkansas Department of Education, Office of Professional Quality Enhancement and Office of Professional Licensure, fnifucrion for Public School Teachers and Administrators: A Reference Handbook, August 2003. Web address for Office of Professional Licensure: http:/7arkedu.state.ar.us/teachers/index.htmltf traditional. JI 100% T 93% 96% 93% 90% 90% - 96% ^1% 13 80% - 91% !6% i4% 82% .C S 70% - 60% - 50% - Math f 4
u yO 40% - 30% - 20% - 10% -- 0% 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 00-02 Science 00-03 I: 11 % I + + + + + Figure 4: Number of Grade 6-12 Mathematics and Science Teachers: Job Not Certified 99 Number of Mathematics and Science Teachers "Job Not Certified" 25
25 li 20 I I 16 15 10 6 I 4 4 nil lJijI III 11 .11 Middle School Math High School Math Middle School Science High School Science i] i i 1 6 ) r I 5 0 1997-98 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 I I I I Figures 5, 6, and 1, illustrate the degree to which professional development participation has grown since 1997-1998. In 2002-2003, 21 teachers had less than 60 hours, whereas in 2000-2001, 70 teachers had less than 60 hours. In 2000-2001, 39 teachers had between 60 and 120 hours, but in 2002-2003, 54 teachers had between 60 and 120 hours. In 2000-2001, 3 teachers had between 120 and 200 hours, but in 2002-2003,29 teachers had between 120 and 200 hours. In 2000-2001, one teacher had over 200 ours, but in 2002-2003, 9 teachers had over 200 hours. 1114 Figure 5: Professional Development Participation Trends for Grade 6-12 Mathematics Teachers PD Participation 120-r 100- .s o V .o S 3 z 80- 60- 40- 20- PO200 120<FD<200 0 60<PD<120 Ptxeo I 0 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 School Year Figure 6: Professional Development Participation Trends for Grade 6-12 Science Teachers P.D. Participation 120t 100- H e 80 FO200 S o u .s E 60- 40- 20- k,-
l 120<PD<200 0 60<FD<120 PD<60 3 z 0 11 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 School Year Figure 1'. Professional Development Participation Trends for Grade K-5 Mathematics and Science Teachers700 T 600-- P.D. Participation 15 A' i",- 12 V S * b E 3 Z 500 - 400-- 300 - PO200 120<PD<200 a 60<PD<120 pcxeo 200 - 100-- ol 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 I I I ba-Bl School Year In SY 2001-2002, professional development was a key component of the districts efforts to improve the mathematics and science programs^. Additional funds to support professional development were provided from three major sources: 1) Dwight D. Eisenhower Program, 2) Safe Schools/Healthy Students Grant, and 3) Little Rock School District Substitute Teacher Budget. Most notable among these was the districts willingness to transfer the funds included in the substitute teacher budget to the Mathematics and Science Department for use in paying stipends to teachers for training during the summer. Professional development for teachers in years one and two of the CPMSA Project was initially directed ^ward module-specific content and pedagogy (e.g., training on how to teach the CMP module Bits and leces). During years three and four, module-specific training was provided for new curriculum modules that were added
however, training began to shift toward a focus on specific needs that were ' entified in years one and two. Content-based university courses were offered, various teaching strategies were studied in greater depth, high-level implementers were utilized as leaders of professional evelopment, and alternative assessment practices were examined. Study groups, vertical teams, and onzontal teams met to focus on strategies for improving student learning. For example, the average number of hours of professional development during year four and the primary topics of professional evelopment are listed in the chart below. Table 3: Professional Development for Mathematics and Science Teachers Grade Level/ Course Number of Teachers Hours 2000-2001 Professional Development Topics 105 32 hrs Grade 1 Grade? 100 56 hrs 131 53 hrs Specific training on each Investigations module (content and pedagogy) Arkansas Pathwise Mentoring Program for new teachers. University of Arkansas at Little Rock graduate courses: Investigations in Geometry and Investigations in Rational Numbers K Little Rock School District, Little Rock Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement, Annual ---------- UVIIUUI rogress Report, 2001-2002.1 16 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Science Grade 7 Science Grade 8 Science Grade 6 Mathematics Grade 7 Mathematics Grade 8 Mathematics Physics Biology Chemistry Algebra 1 Algebra 2 Geometry Trigonometry & Pre- Calculus_____ Calculus and Statistics Total Training hours from 124 82 84 21 17 17 20 18 20 20 19 14 22 24 24 15 12 889 56 hrs 40 hrs 46 hrs 24 hrs 42 hrs 42 hrs 25 hrs 6 hrs 24 hrs 24 hrs 24 hrs 24 hrs 86 hrs 23 hrs 86 hrs 23 hrs 23 hrs August 2001 to June 2002. Specific training on each Science and Technology for Children module (content and pedagogy) Operation Primary Physical Science (OPPS) is a physical science content-based training through Louisiana State University Training on Science and Life Issues (SALI) (content and pedagogy) Training on Issues, Evidence and You (lEY) (content and pedagogy) Content and pedagogy training on Oceans and Weather from Its About Time Publishers Arkansas Pathwise Mentoring Program for new teachers Alternative Assessment Training Using Rubrics The College Board Pre-AP workshop training_______________ Specific training on each Connected Mathematics Project (CMP) module (content and pedagogy) Arkansas Pathwise Mentoring Program for new teachers CMP Users Conference in East Lansing, MI The College Board Pre-AP workshop training Graduate level physics courses offered through UALR Week-long training in ChemCom offered through the American Chemical Society and W. H. Freeman Collaborative Learning Student Research Seminar The College Board Pre-AP and AP workshop training Arkansas Pathwise Mentoring Program for new teachers______ The College Board Pacesetter Mathematics with Meaning training for Algebra 1 and geometry The College Board Pacesetter Pre-Calculus Through Modeling training TI Online training for Algebra 1 The College Board Pre-AP workshop training Arkansas Pathwise Mentoring Program for new teachers Specific training on the curriculum resources (standards, benchmarks, pacing guide, assessment, activities) for each course 'it 1 h'.' ji if- * I I 1* ' I'' 1 I '5 I 'tUi Special populations of people who received training during project year four included
principals and other administrators, new teachers, parents, and the lead teachers. Following is a brief description of the professional development provided for each of these groups. Ci
t, I -rincipals and other Administrators - Principals and other administrators received training in several Ways. First of all, a curriculum day sponsored by the Division of Curriculum and Instruction was an annual event that focused on curriculum issues. This event over the past several years had been used to talk about systemic change in math and science. Principals and administrators attended concurrent sessions related to the new math and science programs before the programs were implemented in the district. Second, principals participated in PIP (Priority Intervention Procedures) cluster meetings with curriculum staff. The staff and principals discussed how to foster school improvement in literacy, math, ^d science. These meetings preceded the submission of the annual school improvement plans from every school. Third, principals met regularly during the school year in cluster groups for professional II J17 development. Fourth, principals learned about the math and science modules by attending professional development sessions for teachers or through training-on-the-spot by the Lead Teacher assigned to their buildings. These efforts helped to provide extended professional development for principals in the systemic change that their schools were experiencing. _ ew Teachers New teachers participated in an intensive professional development program over the course of their first year of teaching. Module-specific training in mathematics and/or science was provided to quickly prepare new teachers to teach the curriculum. In addition, each new teacher was assigned a mentor teacher. The mentor teacher was equipped through the Arkansas Pathwise Mentoring Program training to assist the new teachers in a variety of ways. Parents - Parents had opportunities to attend training at school-based Parent Teacher Association meetings that would give them an overview of the math and science programs and answer their questions and concerns and to participate with their children in Family Math and Science nights where they would get a more in-depth look at the math and science programs by actually participating in standards-based math and science activities. For example, two Parent Institutes were held during the 200L2002 school year. Parents had an opportunity to participate in a variety of sessions including sessions about the math and science curriculum and District testing. The District cable channel also broadcast programs that pertained to the math and science programs. Lead Teachers - Lead teachers and other members of the CPMSA staff participated in an average of 68 ours of professional development during year four. The professional development of lead teachers can be grouped into several categories: Content training Program-specific training (Investigations, Science and Technology for Children, Connected Mathematics, SEPUP, ChemCom, etc.) Pedagogy Workshop Leader Mentoring Systemic Change in Math and Science Assessment Technology ESL (English as a second language) Classroom Management Each Lead Teacher completed the Arkansas Pathwise Mentoring Program training that trained them to OnCprVA llAW ____________ o o o observe new teachers, recognize performance on 19 criteria, provide written summaries of a teachers J . ~ waix/v/ > VlilVllA) Wllllvll oUIlUllc rmance an provide suggestions for the continued development of the teacher. 2.4 Assessment System LRSD School Board in August 1999 continued to guide r ion 0 outcomes. Corroborative evidence across multiple norm and criterion referenced measures included the familiar SAT-9 and EXPLORE TLAN cnchmark Exam and Achievement Level Tests (ALT), increased the accuracy and p siveness of documentation. Features of the Benchmark, SAT-9, EXPLORE, and PLAN assessments are summarized for better understanding in this report. and PLAN assessments. Less familiar 2.4.1 Benchmark Examinations f f grades 4, 6, and 8, they provide percentages of students in each of r per ormance eve s. advanced, proficient, basic, and below basic. Test items include multiple- c oice an open response questions on grade level standards and benchmarks from The Arkansas Test items include multiple- I18 Mathematics, Reading, and English/Language Arts Curriculum Frameworks. Grade appropriate items are developed with the assistance and approval of the Arkansas Department of Mathematics Content Advisory Committee composed of active Arkansas educators with expertise in mathematics. Percentile scores allow comparison by grade level to test takers statewide. 2.4.2 Achievement Level Tests These assessments are administered in May in grades 2-8, and they provide RIT (Rasch Unit) scale scores for both mathematics and science. Test items, also aligned with standards and benchmarks in the aforementioned Arkansas Curriculum Frameworks, are selected from a pool of items from the test development company by a balance (race, gender, grade level) of District math and science teachers and curriculum specialists. RIT scale scores show a students current achievement level along the curriculum scale and allow comparison by grade level to ALT test takers nationwide - currently a group of 104 school districts with 500,000 students that grows four to thirteen points annually. Locally developed Criterion-Referenced Tests (CRTs) were administered quarterly for Algebra I and II, Geometry and Trigonometry. End-of-module CRTs were administered across the elementary and middle school grade levels. Results were used locally to define additional professional development and instructional strategies. 2.5 Student Support Daily teaching and learning experiences in the classroom must be oriented toward high content standards, must convey high learning expectations for diverse groups of students, and must promote a connection among schools, homes, and communities. Learning must be reinforced and supplemented with appropriate out-of-school activities. The following is a list of services provided for the students in the Little Rock School District at various times throughout the school year. Students who participated in the following programs were closely monitored to measure impact. 2.5.1 SMART (Summer Mathematics Advanced Readiness Training) SMART is a two-week summer program for rising eighth and ninth grade students preparing for enrollment in Algebra I. In 2001-2002, a total of 278 students completed the program. SMART is designed to prepare students for success in Algebra I, and to motivate them to continue their education in the areas of mathematics and science. One hundred (100) Afiican American and Hispanic rising 8* grade students were identified based on their spring ALT score and grades in mathematics as having the potential to be successful in Algebra I as 8* graders. These students were invited to participate in SMART and the follow-up program. An added feature of SMART 2002 was the integration of the Riverdeep Interactive software. Students who participated in SMART 2002 were invited to participate in Project THRIVE during the 2002-2003 school year. Project THRIVE is a Saturday academy for students currently enrolled in Algebra I. (See additional information about SMART in Outputs and Outcomes Section) 2.5.2 THRIVE Project THRIVE is a Saturday academy provided in collaboration between Philander Smith College (PSC) and the Little Rock School District. Students who participated in SMART 2001 and enrolled in Algebra I participated in 12 Saturday sessions facilitated by LRSD teachers and PSC undergraduate mentors. In 2001-2002, the program served 141 students. 2.5.3 SECME SECME is a pre-engineering program that is currently active in nearly half of the schools in the Little Rock School District. Students compete locally in various events, such as mousetrap car design, essay, banner design, and bridge building, to win the opportunity to compete on the national level. The University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) College of Information Science and Systems Engineering19 served as the primary partner for SECME. They hosted local events as well as provided technical assistance to school coordinators. 2.5.4 After School Discovery Clubs After School Discovery Clubs, a partnership between the Little Rock School District and the Arkansas Museum of Discovery, was designed to increase students interest and knowledge in science. During the 2001-2002 school year. After School Discovery Clubs were established in each middle school as a part of the extended day program that provided structured activities for students. Students participated in hands-on activities facilitated by a Museum of Discovery educator. Each semester culminated with a visit to the Museum of Discovery. The program served 329 students during the 2001-2002 school year. The Districts Safe Schools/Healthy Students grant provided funding for the 2001-2002 After School Discovery Clubs. 3 Policy Support for High Quality Learning and Teaching This driver for educational system reform promotes the development of a coherent, consistent set of policies that supports: provision of high quality mathematics and science education for each student
excellent preparation, continuing education, and support for each mathematics and science teacher (including all elementary teachers)
and administrative support for all persons who work to dramatically improve achievement among all students served by the system. Since the LRSD conducted an intensive review and revision of its policies and regulations during 1998-99, few changes have been necessary. The following is a summary of policy revisions that have occurred since fall 2001: Table 4: Little Rock School District Policy Revisions Effective Fall 2001 NEPN Code lAA lAA-R IBA ID-R IHBEA, IHBEA- R IHCDA-R IKC-R IKEC-Rl IKEC-R3 Title__________________ Professional Development Professional Development Waivers Student Schedules English As A Second Language Concurrent Enrollment Class Rankings/Grade-Point Averages Credit for College Dual-Credit Courses and College Summer Enrichment Programs Credit By Examination Purpose___________________________________________ Established formal policy linking professional development to expectations for improved student achievement.________ Established procedures for various professional development programs.______________________________ Established a policy to consider waivers from certain waivers to improve student achievement.________________ Established minimum time required for instruction of each subject area grades PreK-8.___________________________ Revised procedures and guidelines for ensuring that students who are limited-English- proficient (LEP) achieve the curriculum content standards and benchmarks established by the State of Arkansas and the Little Rock District.___________________________________________ Revised procedures for students to enroll concurrently in high school and in an area college or university for college credit only.________________________________________ Revised procedures and guidelines for calculating gradepoint average and rank in class. Regulations for determining grade-point average and rank in class for students who transfer to the Little Rock District are defined in this policy.______________________________________ Revised procedures that allow students to receive high school credit for courses taken at the college level contingent upon obtaining prior approval from the Associate Superintendent for Instruction
documentation of successful completion of the college program is presented to the school registrar._______________________________ Revised guidelines for high school students to recover credit lost due to failure by participating in the credit by20 KF IMH-AD General Education Graduation Requirements Class Interruptions examination program______________________________ Establishes revised graduation requirements including requirements for transfer students and procedures for earning specialty seals or diplomas.__________________ Established guidelines to limit interruptions to classroom instruction. 4 Convergence of Educational Resources Systemic reform demands realignment of resources to support the instructional goals as expressed by high-quality mathematics and science standards adopted by the Little Rock School District. Funding provided by the Little Rock CPMSA is intended to be a catalyst for the mathematics and science education reform effort. Using 2001-2002 as representative school year, local, state and federal funds and resources supporting mathematics and science efforts were leveraged and allocated to reinforce an articulated, coherent, and unitary program of high-quality mathematics and science for all students. Approximately 30% of the Districts Title I funds ($1,229,336) were used to enhance mathematics and science instruction in elementary and middle schools in the areas of professional development, purchase of instructional materials, and salaries for personnel. The following is an illustration of how leveraged resources were used to support the activities outlined in the LR CPMSA strategic plan: 4.1 Personnel Mathematics and science Lead Teachers for elementary, middle and high school help facilitate the implementation of high quality standards-based mathematics and science curricula in the classroom. Local and federal funds were leveraged to support this effort. Funding for the mathematics and science project support staff (not supported by NSF funds) along with one-half of the NSF evaluator totaled $467,828. This amount was obtained from the Class-Size Reduction Allocation, Title VI Funds, Local District funds, Dwight D. Eisenhower Fund, and Safe Schools/Healthy Students grant. In addition, the principal investigator and two co-principal investigators provided in-kind contributions to oversee the management and implementation of the plan. Services of three state math specialists were donated as in-kind contributions to provide technical support to teachers as well as to conduct professional development activities for LRSD teachers. 4.1.1 Professional Development District funds were leveraged to release a mathematics teacher for one-half day (2-3 days per week) to serve as district coordinator for the mathematics vertical team. As a result of this addition to the project staff, a newsletter is published quarterly and meetings are held monthly after school to facilitate coherence within the 6-12 mathematics curriculum. Local, state, and federal funds are necessary to provide ongoing professional development that is critical for systemic reform in mathematics and science. The Dwight D. Eisenhower funds were used to provide opportunities for mathematics and science teachers to participate in professional development activities and to offset expenses for training materials. A major portion of District funds were also leveraged to provide substitutes, stipends, or release time for mathematics and science teachers who participate in the ongoing training required for effective implementation of the mathematics and/or science curriculum. Graduate level content-based courses were offered through the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) for elementary, middle, and high school mathematics teachers. Tuition support was provided by LRSD, a UALR grant, and LR CPMSA. 4.1.2 Special Population The basic premise of the Little Rock CPMSA is that all students Pre-K - 12 should be afforded intellectually challenging and appropriate curricula, supported by adequate educational resources, and taught by appropriately trained teachers. The Division of Instruction, which encompasses the Division for Exceptional Children along with the mathematics and science department, has been the driving force for creating a unitary program to improve mathematics and science for all students. All mathematics21 and science training sessions, along with all other core content area training, have included modifications for students classified in the following areas: 504, Special Education, Gifted and Talented Education, Limited English Proficiency, and Title 1. Self-contained special education teachers participated in mathematics and science training sessions that provided an overview of the curriculum and implementation strategies for self-contained students. In addition, collaborative efforts between the Mathematics/Science Department and the Special Education Department resulted in the acquisition of instructional materials/equipment for self-contained classrooms. 4.1.3 ESL An ongoing comprehensive professional development program was offered for all teachers who work with Limited-English Proficient students. The program was composed of two distinct parts. The first part was the ESL endorsement program that was organized in conjunction with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. The second part of the professional development program maintained the same focus as the first part but was designed to accommodate larger numbers of teachers. For example, during the 2001-02 school year, 47 elementary and secondary teachers completed coursework required for an ESL endorsement. Of those, 68 percent (32) taught mathematics and/or science. Title I, class size reduction, state grant, and District resources were used to fund these activities. 4.2 Student Academic Support Programs In SY 2001-2002, more than $115,267 was leveraged by local, federal, and private funding agencies for Student Academic Support Programs. The following table describes the resources leveraged in support of each activity: Activity___________ After School Discovery Clubs SMART 2002 Cost $15,240 Funding Sonrce(s)_____________ Safe Schools/Healthy Students grant $100,027 21 Century Community LEADERS2 LR CPMSA Riverdeep Interactive Software (provided site license for use of mathematics software) 4.3 Curricula Materials/Supplies The Little Rock School District is committed to providing high quality standards based mathematics and science instruction for all students. More than $ 180,000 was allotted for the purchase of instructional and refurbishment materials for mathematics and science classrooms. 4.4 Integration of Technology All certified personnel in the Little Rock School District are required to complete thirty hours of professional development per year. Six of those hours must be in instructional technology. Technology was integrated throughout most of the professional development activities for mathematics and science teachers. Requirements for graduation include at least all students. one unit of credit in technological applications for 5 Partnerships of Leadership: Broad-Based Support An infrastructure of partnerships that strongly supports systemic change in mathematics and science education is a critical piece of the Little Rock CPMSA. For example, a comprehensive effort was made during the 2001-2002 school year to maximize the broad-based support of key stakeholders. The LR CPMSA Governing Board met to oversee the development of the goals, the implementation of the activities, and the assessment of outcomes. J22 Systemic change continues to be an ongoing cycle of collaborations between the learning communities of the Little Rock School District to improve student achievement in mathematics and science. Lead teachers, for example, help lead systemic reform by providing on-going technical assistance and support to teachers in their individual schools. Change, as directed by the LR CPMSA project staff, supports school improvement and district improvement efforts. The cycle is complete with the support of senior District persormel, principals, parents and community, institutions of higher learning, and of course, all K-12 mathematics and science teachers. 5.1 Parent/Family/Community Involvement For example, two Parent Institutes were held during the 2001-2002 school year. More than 150 people attended each institute that featured sessions on curriculum, assessment, graduation requirements, and how to help students at home. Local elementary school PTA meetings and special called parent/family meetings served as a means for keeping parents and family members apprised of the Districts mathematics and science program. Lead teachers, in collaborations with principals and teachers, provided a rationale for the mathematics and science programs and shared hands-on activities showing connections to the standards and higher-level thinking. Parents/families had an opportunity to ask questions and participate in activities with their children. Curriculum packets designed to share the goals of each mathematics module, major classroom activities used to support those goals, and strategies for parents to utilize with their children at home were developed for each mathematics module for grades K-8. These packets were available for checkout through school libraries. 5.2 Primary Partners The LR CPMSA is fortunate to have ongoing partnerships with three major institutions that are committed to improving mathematics and science education for all students in the Little Rock School District. The University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR), Philander Smith College (PSC), and the Arkansas Museum of Discovery (AMOD) have provided opportunities for students and teachers in mathematics and science. 5.2.1 University of Arkansas at Little Rock The University of Arkansas at Little Rock, through the College of Education, College of Information Science and Systems Engineering, and the College of Mathematics and Science, provided professional development opportunities for teachers and participated on the Little Rock CPMSA Governing Board. In 2001-2002, for example, two mathematics content-based courses on the topics of geometry and rational numbers were developed for K-5 teachers. Activities, aligned with the Investigations curriculum, emphasized the mathematics content aimed at deepening the content knowledge of teachers in mathematics. A new course was developed and offered to high school geometry teachers. Strategies for Teaching Geometry was developed based on the Arkansas geometry goals and results of the end-of- course geometry Benchmark. Over 27 teachers participated in the three-hour graduate level course. Each course was team-taught by a UALR instructor and an instructor(s) from the Little Rock School District. 5.2.2 Philander Smith College In 2001-2002, for example. Philander Smith College provided the site of the Project THRIVE session for students taking Algebra I. Undergraduate students serving as mentors contributed to the Little Rock CPMSA in an advisory capacity during SY 2001-2002 by serving on the governing board. Plans were developed to offer a Saturday academy. Project THRIVE, as a follow-up activity for students who participated in SMART 2001 {See Student Support). 5.2.3 Arkansas Museum of Discovery23 The Arkansas Museum of Discovery (AMOD) provided opportunities that engaged diverse audiences in an interdisciplinary and humanistic discovery of the sciences, social sciences, and technology. AMOD served the LR CPMSA in an advisory capacity and provided support for students in science. The activities of the After School Discovery Clubs (see Student Support) were aligned with the Little Rock School District content standards and benchmarks for science. 6 Measures of Effectiveness Focused on Student Outcomes Outcomes are presented in this section to provide evidence that the CPMSA is enhancing student achievement. Key indicators for successfill CPMSA implementation include enrollment in upper level mathematics and science courses, results of student performance on state-mandated norm-referenced and criterion-referenced tests, and participation and scores on college entrance examinations. 6.1 National Trends in Mathematics and Science Achievement The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is a project of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) in the U.S. Department of Education and is overseen by the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB). Since 1969, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) has been the sole ongoing national indicator of what American students know and can do in major academic subjects. Detailed reports on NAEP assessments, such as The Nations Report Card: Mathematics 2000 and The Nation's Report Card: Science 2000, are available on the Web at: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard. Over the years, NAEP has measured students achievement in many subjects, including reading, mathematics, science, writing, history, civics, geography, and the arts. In 2000 and 2002, NAEP conducted assessments in reading at grade 4 and in 2000 in mathematics and science at grades 4, 8, and 12. In addition, NAEP conducted state-by-state assessments in mathematics and science at grades 4 and 8. Results^for the 2000 NAEP mathematics assessment show overall gains in fourth-, eighth-, and twelfth graders average scores since 1990, the first year in which the current mathematics assessment was administered. Twelfth-graders performance, however, has declined since 1996. National scores in 2000 were higher than in 1996, 1992, or 1990 for fourth- and eighth-graders. This was not the case for twelfth-graders.. The average score for high school seniors was lower in 2000 than in 1996. However, twelfth-graders average score was higher in 2000 than in 1990. Results for the 2000 NAEP science assessment show no significant change in grades 4 and 8, and a ec me in performance at grade 12 since 1996. This science assessment was first administered to nationally representative samples of fourth-, eighth-, and twelfth-grade students in 1996. In 2000, the average scores of fourth- and eighth-graders were essentially unchanged from 1996. The only significant change in average score results occurred at grade 12, where there was a statistically significant decline in students average score. It should be noted that every test has a standard error of measurement. Achievement levels provide a context for interpreting students performance on NAEP. These performance standards, set by the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB), are based on recommendations from broadly representative panels and educators and members of the public and determine what students should know and be able to do for the Basic, Proficient, and Advanced levels of performance in each subject area and grade level assessed. As provided by law, the Acting Commissioner of Education Statistics, upon review of a congressionally- mandated evaluation of NAEP, has determined that the achievement levels are to be considered developmental and should be interpreted and used with caution. t I I J24 However, both the Acting Commissioner and NAGB believe that these performance standards are useful for understanding trends in student achievement. NAEP achievement levels have been widely used by national and state officials, including the National Education Goals Panel. The achievement level policy definitions are as follows: Basic. This level denotes partial mastery of prerequisite knowledge and skills that are fundamental for proficient work at each grade. Proficient'. This level represents solid academic performance for each grade assessed. Students reaching this level have demonstrated competency over challenging subject matter, including subject-matter knowledge, application of such knowledge to real-world situations, and analytical skills appropriate to the subject matter. Advanced'. This level signifies superior performance. In mathematics, according to the NAEP, the percentages of fourth-graders and eighth-graders at or above Basic and at or above Proficient have increased across the decade, reaching their highest levels in 2000. At grade 12, the results are mixed. From 1996 to 2000 there was decrease in the percentage at or above the Basic achievement level. However, the percentage of twelfth-graders at or above both the Basic and Proficient achievement levels was higher in 2000 than in 1990. In science, according to the NAEP, the 2000 science assessment results show few changes since 1996 in the percentages of students at or above any of the NAEP achievement levels. At grade 4, there was no change between 1996 and 2000 in the percentage of students attaining any of the achievement levels. At grade 8, however, between 1996 and 2000 there was an increase in the percentage of students reaching the Proficient achievement level or above. At grade 12, the percentage of students at or above the Basic achievement level declined between 1996 and 2000. In order to display assessment information about schools in the Little Rock School District, we use stacked bars in the graphs. The length of each bar is proportional to the number of student scores which fell within that range. Basic range. Proficient range, and Advanced range may be described as follows: All scores which lie below the Basic achievement level are characterized by the color aqua. All scores which lie above the Basic achievement level and below the Proficient achievement level fall in the Basic range and are characterized by the color lime. All scores which lie above the Proficient achievement level and below the Advanced achievement level fall in the Proficient range and are characterized by the color plum or dark red. All scores which lie above the Advanced achievement level fall in the Advanced range are characterized by the color blue or ocean blue. If a set of data is arranged in order of magnitude, the values, which divide the data into four equal parts, are called quartiles and denoted by gi, Q2, and 04. Thus the percentage of scores within each quartlie is 25 percent. The percentages shown in the graph are relative to those quartiles obtained from ^e national distribution of data (scores). In this report, the achievement level description was used instead. The actual percentage of LRSD student scores within a national quartile, 0i, data range was reported as percentage within Below Basic range, the actual percentage within a national quartile, Qz, as within Basic range, and the actual percentage within a national quartile as number of scores within Proficient range. The top quartile, Qu, was reported as Advanced range. The following chart illustrates performance on assessments relative to achievement levels.25 (100) Advanced Range (75-99) Advanced Achievement Level (75) Proficient Range (50-74) Proficient Achievement Level (50) Basic Range 25-49) Basic Achievement Level (25) Below Basic Range (0-24) Performance at or above Basic achievement level (25-99) Performance at or above Proficient achievement level (50-99) Performance at or above Advanced achievement level (75-99 The bars in the following figures represent the proportion of students in each of three achievement level ranges: Basic, Proficient, and Advanced as well as students below Basic. The horizontal line that intersects the vertical axis at 0% divides the proportion of student scores which were above the Proficient or Advanced achievement level from those student scores which fell in the Below Basic range or in the Basic range. 6.2 Determining Improvement from Changes in Percentages of Students Who Performed At or Above Different Achievement Levels The cooperative agreement with NSF (Amendment No. 3) states that assessment data from the CPMSA pro^am for Years 3,4, and 5 will be used to determine an annual increase in achievement levels. To minimize the inherent volatility associated with the natural variation in annual performance, the trend was determined by computing the change in percentage points per year for each achievement level: Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. For this purpose, the slope of a regression line was computed from the data for SY 2000-2001, SY 2001-2002, and SY 2002-2003. The first NSF driver focuses on sustainable success in changing the systems approach to the teaching and learning of mathematics and science in K-12. Implementation of a comprehensive, standards-based curriculum and/or instructional materials that are aliped with instruction and assessment really began in the first year (SY 1998-99) of the NSF award. With the convergence of resources that reasonably could be used to support science and mathematics education, this systemic program was more fully implemented in SY 2000-2001. By this date, the general education graduation requirements for the Little Rock School District were three (3) units of mathematics: Algebra I, Geometry, and Algebra II or Statistics
and three (3) units of science: Physics, Biology, and Chemistry. Also, the transition to middle schools had taken place by SY 2000-2001. Therefore, assessment data from previous years will be shown, but improvement will be determined from the last three years of data: 2000-2001,2001-2002, and 2002-2003. State-Mandated Assessments The results of state-mandated assessments are shown below. These criterion-referenced tests are administered to establish the level of student achievement relative to the Arkansas academic standards and to compare the level of student achievement with performance levels set by the State Board of Education.26 6.3 Mathematics Assessment in Grade 6 with the Arkansas Benchmark In Figure 8, the intermediate Benchmark assessment for mathematics assessment in grade 6 is shown as quartiles for SY 2000-2001, SY 2001-2002, and SY 2002-2003. SY 2001-2001 was a pilot year for that benchmark assessment. Thus no Benchmark data for grade 6 exists prior to SY 2000-2001. For the Arkansas Benchmark Assessment in grade 6 mathematics, the percentage of students below the basic achievement level decreased from 66 percent to 55 percent from SY 2000-2001 to SY 2002-2003. Figure 9 shows the achievement levels corresponding to these quartiles for each of the three years. Figure 8: Mathematics Quartiles for the Arkansas Benchmark Assessment in Grade 6 20% 4 4 9 12 16 0% 2(jBV2002e^! 6 2cB-2003eaai6 ! 1 -24 -25 -25 -20% -40% J Below Basic Level Basic Range Advanced Range Proficient Range -60% -66 -59 -55 -80% -100%27 Figure 9: Achievement Levels Corresponding to the Mathematics Quartiles for Grade 6 Number ef LRSD Students in Percent Who Performed at or above the Basic Achievement Levei in Grade 6 Math Number of LRSD Students in Percent Who Performed at or above the Proficient Achievement Levei in Grade 6 Math Number of LRSD Students in Percent Who Performed at or above the Advanced Achievement Levei in Grade 6 Math 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 45 41 30 34 20 10 10 1 2000-2001 Grade 6 2001-2002 Grade 6 2002-2003 Grade 6 0 The percentage of LRSD students who performed at or above the Basic achievement level was changed as follows In grade 6, this percentage increased approximately 5.3 points per year. The percentage of LRSD students who performed at or above the Proficient achievement level was changed as follows In grade 6, this percentage increased approximately 4.7 points per year. The percentage of students who performed at or above the Advanced achievement level was changed as follows In grade 6, this percentage increased approximately 1.2 points per year. 28 Figure 10
Achievement Levels Corresponding to the Mathematics Quartiles for Caucasian Students in Grade 6 Number of Caucasian Students in Percent Who Performed at or above the Basic Achievement Level in Grade 6 Math Number of Caucasian Students in Percent Who Performed at or above the Proficient Achievement Level in Grade 6 Math Number of Caucasian Students in Percent Who Performed at or above the Advanced Achievement Level in Grade 6 Math 100 90 I 80 79 82 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 71 31 2000-2001 Grade 6 2001-2002 Grade 6 2002-2003 Grade 6 0 5 1 T The percentage of LRSD students who performed at or above the Basic achievement level was changed as follows In grade 6, this percentage increased approximately 5.6 points per year. The percentage of LRSD students who performed at was changed as follows or above the Proficient achievement level In grade 6, this percentage increased approximately 11.8 points per year. The percentage of students who performed at or above the Advanced achievement level was changed as follows In grade 6, this percentage increased approximately 4.0 points per year. 29 Figure 11: Achievement Levels Corresponding to the Mathematics Quartiles for African American Students in Grade 6 Number of African American Students in Percent Who Performed at or above the Basic Achievement Level in Grade 6 Math Number of African American Students in Percent Who Performed at or above the Proficient Achievement Level in Grade 6 Math Number of African American Students in Percent Who Performed at or above the Advanced Achievement Level in Grade 6 Math 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 32 28 20 21 10 0 L 2 1 2000-2001 Grade 6 2001-2002 Grade 6 2002-2003 Grade 6 The percentage of LRSD students who performed at or above the Basic achievement level was changed as follows In grade 6, this percentage increased approximately 5.3 points per year. The percentage of LRSD students who performed at or above the Proficient achievement level was changed as follows In grade 6, this percentage increased approximately 2.8 points per year. The percentage of students who performed at or above the Advanced achievement level was changed as follows In grade 6, this percentage increased approximately 0.5 points per year. In order to better understand these annual rates of change in achievement level, two additional numbers were computed. On the Basic Level line in the table, an annual rate of reduction in the number of students below the Basic achievement level was determined by dividing the total percent of students below the Basic achievement level by 10. On the Proficient Level line in the table, an annual rate of reduction in the number of students below the Proficient achievement level was determined by dividing the total percent of students below the Proficient achievement level by 10. These rates answer the question: What rate of change would be necessary to reduce the number of students below Basic achievement level or Proficient achievement level by ten percent? For a reference, the changes in achievement levels in the table may be compared with these two numbers, which are shown in the following tables. The quartile data for computing these two numbers came from the most recent assessments in SY 2002-2003.30 Table 5: Grade 6 Improvement in Achievement Levels on Benchmark Assessment in Mathematics 77 Grade 6 Change in Achievement Levels in Percentage Points per Year Compared to Other Rates All Students in District Caucasian Students African American Students Basic Level Proficient Level Advanced Level Change 5.3 4.7 1.2 Rate 5.5 8.0 Change 5.6 11.8 4.0 Rate 1.8 4.6 Change 5.3 2.8 0.5 Rate 6.8 9.2 6.4 Mathematics Assessment in Grade 4 and Grade 8 with the Arkansas Benchmark In the following figure, the primary benchmark assessment for mathematics in grade 4 and the middle level benchmark assessment for mathematics in grade 8 mathematics are shown as quartiles from 1998 to 2003. The next figure shows the achievement levels corresponding to the quartile data. Figure 12: Mathematics Quartiles for the Arkansas Benchmark Assessment in Grade 4 and Grade 8 60% 40% 31 19 20% 16 17 0% -20% -40% -60% 13 -19 -59 21 14 a 13 19 19 J4 -55 2CI1IM 2CG4 2(004 fl 1(11158 4 13 21 158 *19 20 H9 -24 :-32 2tjBli 58 I -28 fi 2CW58 I 2Cni58 -51 -42 -31 LJ -65 -55 -58 -35 -41 Advanced Range Proficient Range Below Basic Level Basic Range for Math -51 -44 9 U -80% -100% For the Arkansas Benchmark Assessment in grade 4 mathematics, the percentage of students below the basic achievement level decreased from 59 percent to 31 percent from SY 1998-1999 to SY 2002-2003. In grade 8 mathematics, the percentage of students below the basic achievement level decreased from 65 percent to 44 percent from SY 1998-1999 to SY 2002-2003. 18 On the Basic Level line in the table, an annual rate of reduction in the number of students below the Basic achievement level was determined by dividing the total percent of students below the Basic achievement level by 10. On the Proficient Level line in the table, an annual rate of reduction in the number of students below the Proficient achievement level was determined by dividing the total percent of students below the Proficient achievement level by 10. These rates answer the question: What rate of change would be necessary to reduce the number of students below Basic achievement level or Proficient achievement level by ten percent? For a point of reference, the changes in achievement levels in the table may be compared with these two numbers. A31 Figure 13: Achievement Levels Corresponding to the Mathematics Quartiles for Grade 4 and Grade 8 Number of LRSD Students in Percent Who Performed at or above the Basic Achievement Levei in Mathematics Number of LRSD Students in Percent Who Performed at or above the Proficient Achievement Levei in Mathematics Number of LRSD Students in Percent Who Performed at or above the Advanced Achievement Level in Mathematics 100 90 80 70 69 60 58 56 50 40 30 20 10 45 41 49 UI 50 31 42 45 35 11 10 1 49 14 16 0 2 I I 3 I 3 I 1998-1999 Grade 4 1999-2000 Grade 4 2000-2001 Grade 4 2001-2002 Grade 4 2002-2003 Grade 4 1998-1999 Grade 8 1999-2000 Grade 8 2000-2001 Grade 8 2001-2002 Grade 8 2002-2003 Grade 8 The percentage of LRSD students who performed at or above the Basic achievement level was changed as follows In grade 4, this percentage increased approximately 10.0 points per year. In grade 8, this percentage increased approximately 5.9 points per year. The percentage of LRSD students who performed at or above the Proficient achievement level was changed as follows In grade 4, this percentage increased approximately 10.2 points per year. In grade 8, this percentage increased approximately -0.5 points per year. The percentage of students who performed at or above the Advanced achievement level was changed as follows In grade 4, this percentage increased approximately 7.1 points per year. In grade 8, this percentage increased approximately -0.2 points per year.32 Figure 14: Achievement Levels Corresponding to the Mathematics Quartiles for Caucasian Students in Grade 4 and Grade 8 Number of Caucasian Students in Percent Who Performed at or above the Basic Achievement Level in Mathematics Number of Caucasian Students in Percent Who Performed at or above the Proficient Achievement Level in Mathematics Number of Caucasian Students in Percent Who Performed at or above the Advanced Achievement Level in Mathematics 100 90 SO 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 81 91 93 82 89 76 53 25 JM- 1998-1999 Grade 4 76 60 40 1999-2000 Grade 4 62 40 2000-2001 Grade 4 75 48 2001-2002 Grade 4 74 78 80 82 63 2002-2003 Grade 4 lllll 1998-1999 Grade 8 1999-2000 Grade 8 2000-2001 Grade 8 2001-2002 Grade 8 2002-2003 Grade 8 0 The percentage of LRSD students who performed at or above the Basic achievement level was changed as follows In grade 4, this percentage increased approximately 6.2 points per year. In grade 8, this percentage increased approximately 4.2 points per year. The percentage of LRSD students who performed at or above the Proficient achievement level was changed as follows In grade 4, this percentage increased approximately 10.1 points per year. In grade 8, this percentage increased approximately 3.1 points per year. The percentage of students who performed at changed follows or above the Advanced achievement level was as In grade 4, this percentage increased approximately 11.6 points per year. In grade 8, this percentage increased approximately 0.5 points per year.33 Figure 15: Achievement Levels Corresponding to the Mathematics Quartiles for African American Students in Grade 4 and Grade 8 Number of African American Students in Percent Who Performed at or above the Basic Achievement Levei in Mathematics Number of African American Students in Percent Who Performed at or above the Proficient Achievement Levei in Mathematics Number of African American Students in Percent Who Performed at or above the Advanced Achievement Levei in Mathematics 100 90 80 70 60 58 50 40 30 35 31 45 36 45 20 10 26 I III 28 28 19 2, 3, 0 8 2 I 5 4 4 1998-1999 Grade 4 1999-2000 Grade 4 2000-2001 Grade 4 2001-2002 Grade 4 2002-2003 Grade 4 1998-1999 Grade 8 1999-2000 Grade 8 2000-2001 Grade 8 2001-2002 Grade 8 2002-2003 Grade 8 The percentage of LRSD students who performed at or above the Basic achievement level was changed as follows In grade 4, this percentage increased approximately 11.4 points per year. In grade 8, this percentage increased approximately 8.6 points per year. The percentage of LRSD students who performed at or above the Proficient achievement level was changed as follows In grade 4, this percentage increased approximately 9.6 points per year. In grade 8, this percentage increased approximately -0.3 points per year. The percentage of students who performed at changed as follows or above the Advanced achievement level was In grade 4, this percentage increased approximately 4.5 points per year. In grade 8, this percentage increased approximately -0.1 points per year. L34 6.5 Literacy Assessments in Grade 4 and Grade 8 with the Arkansas Benchmark Figure 16: Literacy Quartiles for the Arkansas Benchmark Assessments: in Grade 4 and Grade 8 80% 60% 8 5 40% 56 B 7 20% 45 31 35 15 24 -20% -40%. -60% 9G>e9G4 9G4 OC|I34 01G4 oA il34 9GB8 -26 -31 -33 -31 -27 -10 -41 -28 -32 -19 -39 )CW1I -36 O( H 138 -33 01 HI -29 -46 0241138 -38 -23 Advanced Range Proficient Range Below Basic Level Basic Range for Literacy 0% , __i l 38 -80% -100%, On the grade 4 literacy assessment, the percentage of students who performed at or below basic declined om 41 percent to 10 percent. The first assessment was in SY 1998-1999. On the grade 8 literacy assessment, the percentage of students who performed at percent. The first assessment was in SY 1999-2000. or below basic declined from 46 percent to 2335 Figure 17
Achievement Levels Corresponding to the Literacy Quartiles for All Students Who Took the Arkansas Benchmark Assessments in Grade 4 and Grade 8 Number of Students in Percent Who Performed at or above the Basic Achievement Levei in Literacy Number of Students in Percent Who Performed at or above the Proficient Achievement Levei in Literacy Number of Students in Percent Who Performed at or above the Advanced Achievement Levei in Literacy 100 90 90 80 70 60 59 81 77 50 40 30 20 10 72 68 63 54 67 71 1111 h 111 0 98-99 G4 99-00 G4 00-01 G4 01-02 G4 02-03 G4 99-00 G8 00-01 G8 01-02 G8 02-03 G8 The percentage of LRSD students who performed at or changed as follows above the Basic achievement level was Relative to SY 2000-2001, this percentage for grade 4 increased approximately 10.9 points per year. For grade 8, this percentage increased approximately 5.1 points per year. The percentage of LRSD students who performed at or was as follows above the Proficient achievement level For grade 4, this percentage increased approximately 14.2 points per year. For grade 8, this percentage increased approximately 3.8 points per year. The percentage of students who performed at follows or above the Advanced achievement level was as * For grade 4, this percentage increased approximately 2.9 points per year. * For grade 8, this percentage increased approximately -1.5 points per year.36 Figure 18: Achievement Levels Corresponding to the Literacy Quartiles for Caucasian Students in Grade 4 and Grade 8 Number of Caucasian Students in Percent Who Performed at or above the Basic Achievement Level in Literacy Number of Caucasian Students in Percent Who Performed at or above the Proficient Achievement Level in Literacy Number of Caucasian Students in Percent Who Performed at or above the Advanced Achievement Level in Literacy 100 99 90 96 90 90 90 89 91 92 80 70 83 78 79 60 62 66 63 61 69 50 40 30 20 10 IS 20 20 10 0 4 6 6 98-99 G4 99-00 G4 00-01 G4 01-02 G4 02-03 G4 99-00 G8 00-01 G8 01-02 G8 02-03 G8 The percentage of LRSD students who performed at or above the Basic achievement level was as follows For grade 4, this percentage increased approximately 4.6 points per year. For grade 8, this percentage increased approximately 1.7 points per year. The percentage of LRSD students who performed at or above the Proficient achievement level was as follows For grade 4, this percentage increased approximately 13.2 points per year. For grade 8, this percentage increased approximately 3.8 points per year. The percentage of students who performed at follows or above the Advanced achievement level was as For grade 4, this percentage increased approximately 7.0 points per year. For grade 8, this percentage increased approximately -5.0 points per year.37 T Figure 19: Achievement Levels Corresponding to the Literacy Quartiles for African American Students in Grade 4 and Grade 8 Number of African American Students in Percent Who Performed at or above the Basic Achievement Level in Literacy Number of African American Students in Percent Who Performed at or above the Proficient Achievement Level in Literacy Number of African American Students in Percent Who Performed at or above the Advanced Achievement Level in Literacy 100 90 80 86 70 60 64 59 75 64 57 72 50 48 40 30 20 20 23 10 44 18 21 28 0 0 0 9 0 1 1 1 98-99 G4 99-00 G4 00-01 G4 01-02 G4 02-03 G4 99-00 G8 00-01 G8 01-02 G8 02-03 G8 The percentage of African American students who performed at or above the Basic achievement level was changed as follows In grade 4, this percentage increased approximately 13.9 points per year. In grade 8, this percentage increased approximately 7.4 points per year. The percentage of African American students who performed at or above the Proficient achievement level was changed as follows In grade 4, this percentage increased approximately 15.2 points per year. In grade 8, this percentage increased approximately 5.0 points per year. The percentage of African American students who performed at or achievement level was changed as follows above the Advanced * In grade 4, this percentage increased approximately 1.4 points per year. In grade 8, this percentage increased approximately 0.1 points per year.38 Table 6: Grade 4 Improvement in Achievement Levels on Benchmark Assessment in Mathematics 7^ Grade 4 Change in Achievement Levels in Percentage Points per Year Compared to Other Rates All Students in District Caucasian Students African American Students Basic Level Proficient Level Advanced Level Change 10.0 10.2 7.1 Rate 3.1 5.0 Change 6.2 10.1 11.6 Rate 0.7 1.8 Change 11.4 9.6 4.5 Rate 4.2 6.5 Table 7: Grade 4 Improvement in Achievement Levels on Benchmark Assessment in Literacy ______Change in Achievement Levels in Percentage Points per Year Compared to Other Rates Grade 4 Basic Level Proficient Level Advanced Level All Students in District Caucasian Students African American Students Change 10.9 14.2 2.9 Rate 1.0 3.7 Change 4.6 13.2 7.0 Rate 0.1 1.0 Change 13.9 15.2 1.4 Rate 1.4 4.7 Table 8: Grade 8 Improvement in Achievement Levels on Benchmark Assessment in Mathematics Grade 8 Change in Achievement Levels in Percentage Points per Year Compared to Other Rates Ail Students in District Caucasian Students African American Students Basic Level Proficient Level Advanced Level Change 5.9 -0.5 -0.2 Rate 4.4 8.4 Change 4.2 3.1 0.5 Rate 1.1 4.9 Change 8.6 -0.3 -0.1 Rate 5.5 9.6 Table 9: Grade 8 Improvement in Achievement Levels on Benchmark Assessment in Literacy Grade 8 Change in Achievement Levels in Percentage Points per Year Compared to Other Rates All Students in District Caucasian Students African American Students Basic Level firoficient Level Advanced Level Change 5.1 3.8 -1.5 Rate 2.3 6.1 Change 1.7 3.8 -5.0 Rate 0.8 3.1 Change 7.4 5.0 0.1 Rate 2.8 7.2 6 End-of-Course Assessments for Algebra I and Geometry following figure, the end-of-course assessments for Algebra I and Geometry are shown quartiles from 2000 to 2003. The next figure shows the achievement levels corresponding to the quarttie Uta. Here SY 2000-2001 was the baseline year for computing increases in achievement level. level 1 I Basic Level line in the table, an annual rate of reduction in the number of students below tlw ac I determined by dividing the total percent of students below the Basic achievement level by 10. n e det* table, an annual rate of reduction in the number of students below the Proficient acWevemen auccf^^^ dividing the total percent of students below the Proficient achievement level by 10. These ra es p- fl**?"' ''^bat rate of change would be necessary to reduce the number of students below Basic ac eyemen level by ten percent? For a point of reference, the changes in achievement levels m the Y <=nipared with these two numbers.39 Figure 20: Algebra I and Geometry Quartiles at End-of-Course 80% 60% 40% 5 6 20% 34 11 17 24 11 13 0% 2901-SB 2 24.203 -20% -32 i -39 -32 2Ve2 - -31 , -44 Advanced Range Proficient Range Beiow Basic Level Basic Range -40% I____j -60% -55 -40 -29 -55 -52 -17 -41 : I I I J I -80% -100% For the Algebra I Arkansas Benchmark Assessment in grades 7-10 (middle and high school), the percentage of students below the basic achievement level decreased from 55 percent to 29 percent from SY 2000-2001 to SY 2002-2003. For the Geometry Arkansas Benchmark Assessment in grades 9-11 (high school only), the percentage of students below the basic achievement level decreased from 55 percent to 17 percent from SY 2000-2001 to SY 2002-2003.40 Figure 21: Achievement Levels Corresponding to the Quartiles for Algebra I and Geometry Number of LRSD Students In Percent Who Performed at or above the Basic Achievement Level Number of LRSD Students in Percent Who Performed at or above the Proficient Achievement Level Number of LRSD Students in Percent Who Performed at or above the Advanced Achievement Level 100 90 80 83 70 71 60 60 50 40 30 20 10 45 13 11 45 13 48 2000-2001 Algebra 2001-2002 Algebra 2002-2003 Algebra 2000-2001 Geometry 2001-2002 Geometry 2002-2003 Geometry 0 3 2 1 From 2000-2001, the percentage of LRSD students who performed at or above the Basic achievement level was changed as follows For middle and high school students combined in Algebra I, this percentage increased approximately 12.9 points per year. For high school students in Geometry, this percentage increased approximately 19.2 points per year. The percentage of LRSD students who performed at or was changed as follows above the Proficient achievement level For middle and high school students combined in Algebra I, this percentage increased approximately 8.4 points per year. For high school students in Geometry, this percentage increased approximately 13.1 points per year. The percentage of LRSD students who performed at or was as follows above the Advanced achievement level For middle and high school students combined in Algebra I, this percentage increased approximately 1.6 points per year. For high school students in Geometry, this percentage increased approximately 1.7 points per year.41 Figure 22
Achievement Levels for LRSD Caucasian Students Who Took the Algebra I and Geometry Tests Number of Caucasian Students in Percent Who Performed at or above the Basic Achievement Level Number of Caucasian Students in Percent Who Performed at or above the Proficient Achievement Level Number of Caucasian Students in Percent Who Performed at or above the Advanced Achievement Level 100 90 80 84 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 76 34 2001-2002 Algebra 92 60 15 82 80 43 I 10 I 96 2000-2001 Algebra 2002-2003 Algebra 2000-2001 Geometry 2001-2002 Geometry 2002-2003 Geometry 0 7 I From 2000-2001, the percentage of students who performed at or above the Basic achievement level was changed as follows For middle and high school students combined in Algebra I, this percentage increased approximately 8.0 per year. For high school students in Geometry, this percentage increased approximately 6.9 points per year. The percentage of Caucasian students who performed at or above the Proficient achievement level was changed as follows For middle and high school students combined in Algebra I, this percentage increased approximately 12.8 points per year. For high school students in Geometry, this percentage increased approximately 14.8 points per year. The percentage of Caucasian students who performed at level was changed as follows or above the Advanced achievement For middle and high school students combined in Algebra I, this percentage increased approximately 4.0 points per year. For high school students in Geometry, this percentage increased approximately 2.9 points per year. 41 Figure 22: Achievement Levels for LRSD Caucasian Students Who Took the Algebra I and Geometry Tests Number of Caucasian Students In Percent Who Performed at or above the Basic Achievement Level Number of Caucasian Students In Percent Who Performed at or above the Proficient Achievement Level Number of Caucasian Students in Percent Who Performed at or above the Advanced Achievement Level 100 96 90 80 84 92 82 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 76 34 2000-2001 Algebra 2001-2002 Algebra 43 I 10 2002-2003 Algebra 2000-2001 Geometry 2001-2002 Geometry 2002-2003 Geometry 7 0 I From 2000-2001, the percentage of students who performed at or above the Basic achievement level was changed as follows For middle and high school students combined in Algebra 1, this percentage increased approximately 8.0 per year. For high school students in Geometry, this percentage increased approximately 6.9 points per year. The percentage of Caucasian students who performed at or above the Proficient achievement level was changed as follows For middle and high school students combined in Algebra I, this percentage increased approximately 12.8 points per year. For high school students in Geometry, this percentage increased approximately 14.8 points per year. The percentage of Caucasian students who performed at or above the Advanced achievement level was changed as follows For middle and high school students combined in Algebra 1, this percentage increased approximately 4.0 points per year. For high school students in Geometry, this percentage increased approximately 2.9 points per year.42 Figure 23: Achievement Levels for LRSD African American Students Who Took the Algebra I and Geometry Tests Number of African American Students in Percent Who Performed at or above the Basic Achievement Level Number of African American Students in Percent Who Performed at or above the Proficient Achievement Level Number of African American Students in Percent Who Performed at or above the Advanced Achievement Level 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 28 51 72 61 34 28 20 16 17 11 10 2, 2000-2001 Algebra 2001-2002 Algebra 2002-2003 Algebra 2000-2001 Geometry 2001-2002 Geometry 2002-2003 Geometry 0 : 1 1 3 6 1 1 From 2000-2001, the percentage of students who performed at or above the Basic achievement level was changed as follows For middle and high school students combined in Algebra I, this percentage increased approximately 16.8 points per year. For high school students in Geometry, this percentage increased approximately 22.0 points per year. The percentage of students who performed at or above the Proficient achievement level was changed as follows For middle and high school students combined in Algebra 1, this percentage increased approximately 6.7 points per year. For high school students in Geometry, this percentage increased approximately 7.1 percentage points per year. The percentage of students who performed at or above the Advanced achievement level was changed as follows For middle and high school students combined in Algebra 1, this percentage increased approximately 0.3 points per year. For high school students in Geometry, this percentage increased approximately 0.3 points per year.43 Table 10: Grades 7-10 Improvement in Achievement Levels on Benchmark Assessment in Algebra Grades 7-10 Change in Achievement Levels in Percentage Points per Year Compared to Other Rates' All Students in D
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.

<dcterms_creator>Cleaver, Vanessa E.</dcterms_creator>
<dcterms_creator>Wold, Donald C.</dcterms_creator>
<dcterms_creator>Glasgow, Dennis</dcterms_creator>
<dcterms_creator>Little Rock School District</dcterms_creator>