VOLUME IV RECEIVED MAR 1 4 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORINGiWTBNnrn vf.ar >< , /i'tOtM inni.E sriKKJi. transition LYCCUM SCHOi^ARS PROGRAM 1 4 I. I 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 TO
Board of Education B 2 9 fl < S > > z FROM: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools I PREPARED BY: 'fjfeonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction ! DATE
February 27, 2003 i SUBJECT: Lyceum Scholars Program Evaluation ( Background Information on the Lyceum Scholars Program Evaluation One in the group of programs required by the federal court to be evaluated with the participation of an external evaluator was the Lyceum Scholars program. Steps Taken as a Result of the Program Evaluation The Lyceum Scholars program was discontinued at the end of the 2000-2001 school year. The decision to abandon the program was made based on the programs high cost and the necessity of cutting budgets. Students who would have been served in the program in 2001-2002 and subsequently were either assigned to their home schools, to the Alternative Learning Center, or to the Accelerated Learning Center at Metropolitan.. Designation of External Consultant and His Qualifications On December 2, 2002, the District awarded the contract for the Lyceum Scholars program evaluation to the firm. Quality Education and Management Associates, Inc., Dr. Larry McNeal, president, A copy of his resume is attached, establishing his qualifications. Administrator Participation in Conducting the Program Evaluation In addition to Dr. McNeal and his associates, the following LRSD administrators participated in the evaluation: Jo Evelyn Elston, Director of Pupil Services Dr. Ed Williams, Department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation Everett Hawks, Department of Pupil Services Dr. Walter Marshaleck, Lyceum Scholars Program Director Dr. Linda Watson, Assistant Superintendent (alternative programs) fl 12 1 n 5 2 CA cs SM IZs 1606 8il *H1'1 fl 2 f'-
Board Memo February 27, 2003 Page Two fl > s Teacher Participation in Conducting the Program Evaluation Lyceum Scholars teachers who participated in the surveys Lyceum Scholars teachers who administered in-class and District assessments Impact on African-American Student Achievement Approximately one-half of the students participating in this small program (8 to students total) were African American. Because the numbers were so small, neither performance data nor survey data were disaggregated by race. Neither the staff study nor that of the external evaluator could determine whether this program had any positive benefit on the academic performance of African American students. > c 2 5 -i 7>! 5 2 H Recommendation _ That the Board of Education approve the Lyceum Scholars program evaluation tor submission to the federal court. BAL/adg w n2 n z2 CZ)C 2 J 2M C/) n X 1607 s DR. LARRY MCNEAL ! z 9 fl 3 fl > fl > BUSINESS ADDRESS_______________ University of Arkansas at Little Rock 2801 S. University Avenue Department of Educational Leadership Little Rock, Arkansas 72204-1099 Office 501-569-3552 Fax 501-569-3547 lxmcneal@ualr.edu HOME ADDRESS 15806 Patriot Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72212-2606 501-221-1178 btmcneal@netscane.net lTncneal59@hotinail.com or PED. M.S. M. A. B.A. Licensure: PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION Ed-ucational Administration, University of Wisconsin, Madison. WI (1990) F.Tnphagi<!- Fiscal and Community Support for Public Education Concentrations
Educational Finance, School-Community Relations, and Public School! Administration Educational Administration, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (1989) Emphasis
Ad-ministration and Organization of Public Education Concentration: Educational Administration (Public School) Public Affairs. University of Iowa, Iowa City (1976) Emphasis: Public Administration Concentration: Urban Administration Business Administration and Political Science, Dakota Wesleyan University, Mitchell, SD (1975) En^ihasis
Political Economics Concentrations: Business Administration, Political Science and Economics Entrepreneurship: School Business Management (No longer active) Insurance Agent (No longer active) : Quality Education and Management Associates, President PROFESSIONAL WORK EXPERIENCE Professor, Department of Educational Leadership, Graduate School of Education, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, Arkansas, 1998 to the present Visiting Professor, Department of Educational Management & Development, Graduate School of Education, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, Summer 2000 Educational Administration and Supervision Program Coordinator, Department of Educational LeademMp. Graduate School of Education, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, .Arkansas, 1998 to 2001 Visiting Professor, Department of Educational Management & Development, Graduate School of Education, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, Summer 1998 Associate Professor, Department of Educational Administration and Foundations, Graduate School of Education, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, 1995 to 1998 nr 2n X 2 Vi C 2 2m Vi X 8 1S14 2 2 c X i 5 s2 3 Visiting Professor, Bellver International College, Trenton State College (now College of New Jersey), Graduate School of Education, Palma de Mallorca, Baleaies, Spain, Summer 1996 Associate Director, Office of Educational Finance, Center For Higher Education and Educational Finance, Graduate School of.Education, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, 1995-1997 > State Coordinator, Illinois Education Policy Fellow Program, Institute for Educational Leadership, Graduate School of Education, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois 1994-1996 2 3 Research Associate, Center for the Study of Educational Finance, Graduate School of Education, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, 1993-1995 Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Administration and Foundations, Graduate School of Education, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, 1993-1995 X Visiting Professor, Department of Educational Administration and Foundations, Graduate School of Education, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, Iowa, Summer 1993 Research Associate, Center for the Study of Small/Rural Schools, Graduate School of Education, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, 1992-1994 Adjunct Fellow, Center for Research on Multi-Ethnic Education, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, 1991-1992 52 2 Danforth Principal Preparation Program Co-Facilitator, Graduate School of Education, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, 1991-1993 Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Leadership andPohcy Studies, Graduate School of Education, University of Oklahoma, Normal, Oklahoma, 1991-1993 Coordinator of Multicultural Affairs, Wisconsin Alumni Association, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, 1990-1991 I Budget Analyst Intent, University of Wisconsin System Administration, Madison, Wisconsin, 1989-90 Equal Rights Officer, Division of Care and Treatment Facilities, Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services, Madison, Wisconsin, Fall/Spring, 1988/1989 fl Budget and Managf-mc-nt Analyst Intern, Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, Madison, Wisconsin, Summer, 1988 Marketing Manager, WarBuc Educultural Publications, Madison, Wisconsin, 1985-1987 Business Mathematics Instmctor, Business Department, Madison Area Techmeal College, Madison, Wisconsin, Fall 1985 and Spring 1987 Finance Marketing Representative, John Deere & Company, Moline, Illinois, based in Madison, Wisconsin, 1978-1984 Commercial Service Representative, Honeywell, Incorporated, Minneapolis, Minnesota, based in Des Moines, Iowa, 1977-1978 Public AriTninistratinn Tutem, Mayors Office, City of Davenport, Davenport, Iowa, 1976 wr 5n z 2 VI e 2 S M 1615 0 a: 31 JI 2 _________________________________________DISSERTATION_________________________________ McNeal, L. (1990). The role of education for employment councils in education for employment programs. University of Wisconsin-Madison. < S > > _____________________________________RESEARCH INTERESTS____________________ School Communitarianism (the fundamental relationship between schools and their commtmities) Organizational Change (change processes and organizational effectiveness) Educational Finance (adequacy and equity of funding for public education) Program Assessment and Evaluation 2 GRADUATE COURSES TAUGHT Administration and Organization of Schools Advanced Administrative Theory and Behavior Administrative Problem Solving Organizational Change Educational Politics and Policy Dissertation Proposal Development Educational Finance School Business A dmini strati nn Unman and Fiscal Resources Management Educational Public Relations Introduction to Doctoral Studies Organizational Development __________________________________ PUBLICATIONS: REFERRED____________________ McNeal, L. & Christy, W.K. (In Press, 2003). The locus of control issue in standard-based accountability. Educational Considerations. Christy, W.K. & McNeal, L. (2002). Influence of school board members on state legislation in Arkansas. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EA 031517. McNeal, L. (2002). The school-community relations profile model
Combining school district and community-based data. In J. Thomas Owens and Jan C. Simmons (Eds.), In creating quality reform: Program.^, communities, and governance (67-81). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Chesser, J.S., & McNeal, L. (2001). Educational community study circles: How superintendents can enhance school improvement through community dialogue. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 446 370. Christy, W.K., & McNeal, L. (2000). Ingilications of legislative policy development for public school districts. F. Kochan (Ed.). Southern Regional Council on Educational Admini.stration Yearbook Chesser, J.S., & McNeal, L. (1999). School improvement through community dialogue: The first community study circles on education in Arkansas and Oklahoma. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 436 694.. Mogilka, J, Ashby, D.E, & McNeal, L., (Eds.). (1996). Planning & Changing. 27(1&2). McNeal, L. (1995). Fulfilling promises in the land of Will Rogers: A look at performance indicators in selected school districts since the enactment of Oklahoma house bill 1017. School Finance Pohcv Issues in the States and Provinces: Annual Update I99S (135-138), C. Edlefson (Ed). The Ohio State University
Policy Research for Ohio-Based EducatioiL McNeal, L. &Reed, R. (1995). Building a school-community relations profile through sociological inventorying. People & Education: The Human Side of Schools. 3(3), 371-386. w P" M s Tt 2 c
S MS (A o 1616 McNeal L., et al. (1994). National Sallie Mae winners and their principals. National Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision Journal, 11(3), 3-10. z 3 s 3 > McNeal, L. (1994). Focusing on at-risk students
Case study of John Wilkinson Elementary School. TUinnis School Research and Development Journal, 31(1), 7-10. McNeal L., & Ashby, D. (1993). Site-based management and changing relationships. Illinois School Research and Development Journal. 31(1), 7-10. > e 2 McNeal L., & T eb-man, B. J. (1993). A vision of the future
The full-service school Planning and Changing. 24(3/4), 140-154. BOOK PROPOSAL IN PROGRESS Christy, W.K., & McNeal, L. (2001). Working Title
The Sunerintendencv
Theory to reflective practice. To be submitted to Wadsworth. Belmont, CA. __________________________________MANUSCRIPTS IN PROGRESS______________________________ McNeal, L. (2001). The contextual world of education for children and the school-community
James coleman and the effective schools movement. To be submitted to Humanistic Counseling, Education and Development McNeal, L., & Christy, WK. (2001). Rethinking the school district model of funding for individual schools
Comments about site-based management of resources. To be submitted to Planning and Change. Christy, WK., & McNeal, L. (2001). Implications of charter schools and home schooling for the funding of public schools. To be submitted to Journal of School Leadership. a.p ________________________________PUBLICATIONS: MONOGRAPHS_________________________ McNeal, L., et al. (1993). Common sense: Plain talk to legislators about school finance. Center For tile Study of Educational Finance. Illinois State University. ________________________________PUBLICATIONS: NON-REFERRED_________ McNeal, L. (December, 1990). The role of education for employment councils in education for employment prngram.<
Dissertation. McNeal L. (1993). The education of African-American children in Oklahoma. State of Oklahorna
Aannal Report. Urban League of Greater Oklahoma City, Inc., 36-45. McNeal. L., First, P. F., & Knudson, D. P. (1993). Evaluating the University of Oklahoma Danforth Principal Preparation Program. Connections, 1 (2), 3. McNeal, L. (1992). University of Oklahoma report. Danforth Programs for the Preparation of School Principals Newsletter. 1 (2), 3. McNeal, L. (1987). From the desk of. National Multicultural Barner. 5 (6), 2. McNeal, L. (1986). From the desk of
Literacy, who's problem is it anyway? National Multicultural Banner. 5 (3), 2. w r n 5 n z je CZ) C 2 2 M ri a 1617eX, 2 r McNeal, L. (1986). The Black collegians guide to graduate fellowships for minority students. National Multicultural Banner. 5 (2), 9. ( > 1 s e __________________________________CITED IN EDUCATION WEEK____________________ In the area of educational finance. Education Week has quoted me on several occasions. I have been quoted in the following articles
> 2 11/26/97 in News ILL. Lawmakers Get One More Try To Pass School Funding Reforms 6/11/97 in News ILL. Lawmakers Duck Vow To Revan^i Funding 3/26/97 in News ILL. Audit Questions Oversight of ELL. Education Agency 2/5/97 in New's ILL. Odds Seen Better for Funding Reform in ELL. _______________ ____________________________ REPORTS______________ ___________________ McNeal, L. Little Rock school district charter elementary school evaluation report for the 2001- 2002 school year. Prepared for the Little Rock School District November, 2002. McNeal, L., et al. The college of education assessment report
2000-2001: University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Prepared for the Provosts Advisory Group on Assessment, June, 2001. McNeal, L. Little Rock school district chatter elementary school evaluation report for the 2000- 2001 school year. Prepared for the Little Rock School District, June, 2001. McNeal, L. Projected student enrollment for the 2000-2001 school year: d* and 7* grade student racial make up report. Prepared for Pulaski County Charter School Inc., April, 2001. McNeal, L. Enrollment trends in the Little Rock, North Little, and Pulaski County Special school districts: 1995-1996 to 1999-2000. Prepared for Pulaski County Charter School Inc., November, 2000. I Coleen, B.C., Driskill, G., Leslie, S., McNeal, L., Mitchell, W., Taylor, C., & Webb, R. Provosts advisory group on assessment
University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Summer 2000 report, July, 2000. McNeal, L., et aL The college of education assessment report 1999-2000: University of Arkansas at Little Rock Prepared for the Provosts Advisory Group on Assessment June, 2000. McNeaL L. Student enrollment needs assessment study of the Illinois school for the visually irrqjaired, Illinois Center for Rehabilitation and Education and Illinois School for the Deaf. Prepared for the Illinois Department of Rehabilitation Services, October, 1995. McNeaL L, First P., Walker, V,, & Hobson, B. An inquiry into alleged cultural insensitivity at Capitol Hill High School Prepared for Oklahoma City Public School District March, 1993. McNeaL L, et aL School choice
Open enrollment and post secondary options. Prepared for the Association of Wisconsin School AdministratoTs, March, 1990. I I McNeal, L. County veterans service officer training manual. Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs, June, 1990. I McNeaL L. A Review of health care and medical services provided by the United States department of veterans affairs. Prepared for the Division of Veterans Programs, Wisconsin Department of Veterans 2^ffairs, August 1989. McNeal, L. A review of health care grants and lie Wisconsin Veterans Home in King, Wisconsin. Prepared for the Division of Veterans Programs, Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs, August, 1989. ii M as 2 < c S 2 1618 Vi ra) i ri ri H ri ri McNeal, L. Mendota mental health institute
An analysis of an organization in crisis. Prepared for the Division of Care and Treatment Facilities of the Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services, December 1988. PRESENTATIONS: REFERRED McNeal, L., Christy, &. Lewis, R. (2002). New leaders and new implications for educational aHmiTii.HTatinn Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Kansas City, MO. Christy, W.K., & McNeal, L. (November, 2001). Mid-South Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Little Rock, AR. McNeal, L. & Christy, W.K. (Noveniber, 2001). A discussion of change theory, systems theory, and state designed standards and accountability initiatives. Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Jacksonville, FL. McNeal, L. & Christy, W.K. (November, 2001). State designed standards and accountability initiatives in the southwestern regional educational development laboratory service area. Southern Regional Council on Educational Artrnmistratinn Annual Conference, Jacksonville, FL. McNeal, L. (2001, July). The institutionalization of the assessment process
One story in one college of education. The Consortium for Assessment & Planning Support San Juan, PR McNeal, L. (2001, July) . Faculty perceptions of their involvement in the assessment (evaluation) process. The Consortium for Assessment &. Planning Support San Juan, PR i Chesser, J., & McNeal, L. (November, 2000). The use of the study circle in school reform: Bringing all the voices to the table. Mid-South Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Bowling Green, KY. McNeal, L. & Christy, W.K. (November, 2000), Charter schools under construction: An analysis of a charter school evaluation plan. Southern Regional Council on Educational Admimstration Annual Conference, Nashville, TN. Christy, W.K., & McNeal, L. (Noveniber, 2000). Implications of charter schools and home schooling. Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Nashville, TN. Christy, W.K. & McNeal. L. (November, 2000). The process of making sausage in the factory of program reform Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference. Nashville, TN. Michaelis, K, & McNeal, L. (April, 2000). From indifference to injustice
The politics of teen violence. American Educational Research Association for the Spring 2000 Conference in New Orleans, LA. Caram, C. Christy, W. K, Altom, B, & McNeal, L. (April 2000). The sausage factory: The process nf planning for accountability. Arkansas Association of Colleges of Teacher Education, Little Rock, AR. Caram, C. A_, Christy, W. K., Altom, B., & McNeal, L. (April, 2000). Responding to the call for accountability of a school leader preparation program. Arkansas Association of Colleges of Teacher Education, Little Rock, AR Chesser, J. S., & McNeal, L. (March, 2000). Educational community study circles in Arkansas
How superintendents can enhance school improvement through community dialogue. American Association of School Administrators 11* Annual Conference Within A Conference, San Francisco, CA. 1619 s X 2 3 9 fl > > 2 tn n SM a: > CZ3 c S S M X rj s: 5 s Chesser, J
S., & McNeal, L. (November, 1999). School improvement through community dialogue
The first community study circles on education in Akansas and Oklahoma. Mid-South Educational Research Asociation Annual Conference, Clear Point, AL. J S' 9 s 9 <> JO c McNeal, L., & Christy, W. K. (November, 1999). From preparation to practice in Akansas: The relationship between program preparation standards and entry-level administrators success. Soufliem Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Charlotte, NC. >, e' 2 Christy, W. K., McNeal, L. (November, 1999). Implications of legislative policy development for public school districts. Southern Regional Council on Educational Ad-mjuistrafinn Annual Conference, Charlotte, NC. McNeal, L., Gonzalez, M. L., &Noley, Grayson. (October, 1999). The ethics of silencing in school accountability
Listening to the voices of Hispanic, Native American, and African-American Researchers. University Council for Educational Administration Convention, Minneapolis, MN. Christy, W. K, & McNeal, L. (March, 1999). Future policy impheations of an Akansas referendum initiative. American Education Finance Asociation, Seattle, WA. McNeal, L. (March, 1998). The link between quality and school communitarianism. Creating the Quality School
7th Annual National Conference, Alington, VA McNeal, L., Place, A. W., Tillman, L.C., Beaumont, J. J. & Sanders, E. T. W. (October, 1997). A cross-cultural discussion of the 1997 UCEA conference theme. University Council for Educational Administration Convention, Orlando, FL. McNeal, L. (October, 1997). The contextual world of education for children and the schoolcommunity
James Coleman and the effective schools movement. MidWestem Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL. McNeal, L. (March, 1997). Influencing instnictional strategics,to enhance learning by using the school-connnunity relations profile model. Creating the Quality School
6th Annual National Conference, Oklahoma City, OK_ McNeal, L. (1996, March). The implications of community based information for caring schools: SCKPING along. Creating the Quality School
Sth Annual National Conference, Oklahoma City, OK.. McNeal, L. & Chi, J. (1996, March). Performance indicators and curriculum offerings: Is there a cotmection in Oklahoma? American Education Finance Association Conference, Salt Lake City, UT. McNeal, L., Parks, J., Watson, L., Jackson, D., Midgette, T., & Glenn, E. (1996, March). Our pedagogy
Culture as a major variable. Pedagogy of the Oppressed Conference, Omaha, NE. McNeal, L. & Ashby, D. (1995, October). School-community relations profiling: Re eTamining leadership for community. University Council for Educational Admini.stration, Salt Lake City, UT. McNeal, L. (1995, April). Fulfilling promises in the land of Will Rogers
A look at performance indicators in selected school districts since the enactment of Oklahoma house bill 1017. Sponsored by the Special Interest Group on Fiscal Issues, Pohcy, and Educational Finance (FIPEF). American Educational Research Association Conference, San Francisco, CA McNeal, L. (1995, March). Promoting quality in education through the SCRPING of schools. Creating the Quality School: 4th Annual National Conference, Oklahoma City, OK. I MM s2 2 < Vi C 2 2M 1620 3: I Hl JI McNeal, L., Higham, R, & Boyd, M. A. (1994, October). Establishing community between higher education, public education, and self:. An effort of compromise in infusing multiculturalism. Midwestern Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. McNeal, L. (1994, April). The state of educational finance in Oklahoma. American Educational Research Association Conference, New Orleans, LA. < > n z McNeal, L. (1994, March). Governance structures in decentralized schools and school improvement Lessons from Chicago school reform. Creating the Quality School
3rd Annual National Conference, Oklahoma City, OK. McNeal, L. (1994, March). Governance structures in decentralized schools and decision-making
Another way to promote quality. Creating the Quality School Conference, Oklahoma City, OK. McNeal, L. & Lehman, B. I (1994, February). A vision of the future: The full-service school. American Association of School Administrators (Conference-Within-A-Conference), San Francisco, CA. t ! ( I McNeal, L. (1993, March). Quality schools and site-based management: An issue of fiscal management. Creating The Quality School
2nd Annual National Conference, Oklahoma City, OK McNeal, L. (1993, March). Site-based fiscal management and the preparation of building administrators. American Education Finance Association Conference, Albuquerque, NM. McNeal, L., Chance, E. W., Langenbach, M., Costa, E. W., & Carem, C. (1993, March). National Sallie mae ^nn^rg and their principals. American Association of School Administrators (Conference- Within-A-Conference), Orlando, 1^. McNeal, L. (1992, March). The university's role in the preparation of school site-based managers. Creating The Quality School
1st Annual National Conference, Norman, OK. INVITED PRESENTATIONS ! McNeal, L. (October 8, 2001). Standards for school leaders: The next generation. EDAS 7380
' Practicum and EDAS 83 80
Practicum, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, AR. I McNeal, L. (Spring, 2001). Concerned base adoption model (CBAM). EDAS 8314
Contemporary Educational Administration Issues, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, AR. McNeal, L, (July, 2000). A conversation about charter schools in Arkansas. Crossing Boundaries: Teaching, Learning, Results. Southeast Comprehensive Assistance Center, Peachtree City, GA. McNeal, L, Broadnax, W., & McLean, L. (July, 2000). The charter schools APIEM process. Crossing Boundaries: Teaching, Learning, Results. Southeast Conprehensive Assistance Center, Peachtree City, GA. McNeal, L. (March, 2000). An alternative governance model for pubhc education. International Academy of Educational Leaders, Nashville, TN. McNeal, L. (October, 1999). The change process, communications and interpersonal relations. Ray fTTaHaTn Training Center, Chicago Public Schools. Chicago, IL. {q w 5 M 3
2 < CZ) C s s M X 8 1621 -X z for McNeal L. (September, 1999). Collegiality leadership for school improvement. Arkansas Institate IVlVlNCal) Xrf. vij f o j /- T '**1 T5 1 AT) School Improvement, sponsored by the Southeast Comprehensive Assistance Center, Little Rock, .AR. s > 1 McNeal L. (January, 1999). National standards and their unpact on educational administraticon programs: Lessons IX. learned from reflection. International Academy of Educational Leaders, San Antonio, > McNeal, L. (February, 1998). The change process and its intact on high school principals. z Davenport Public School District, Davenport, lA. McNeal, L. (February, 1998). The change process audits impact on junior and middle school principals. Davenport Public School District, Davenport, lA. McNeal, L. (February, 1998). The change process and its impact on elementary school principals. Davenport Public School District, Davenport, lA. anyway? McNeal, L. (September, 1997). Focusing ' Quad-Cities Alhance of Black Educators, Rock Island, IL. on 1he needs of children of color: Whose job is it (February, 1997). Revisiting the Coleman report: Parents, families, communities and McNeal, L. (--------.. , _ schools. Illinois State University Administrators Club, Normal, IL. McNeal, L. & Parks, J. (October, 1996), Linking school-based data with community based data: The school-community relations profile model. Illinois School Board Association, nimois Associanon of School Administrators and Illinois Association of School Business Officials 64th Joint Annual Conference, Chicago, IL. McNeal, L. (1993, January). Site-based management Cooperative Council of Oklahoma School Administrators, New Principal Training Workshop, Norman, OK. McNeal, L, et al. (March, 1990). School choice
Open enrollment and post secondary options. Association of Wisconsin School Administrators, Madison, WI. McNeaL L Bread, J. and Willamson, M. (November, 1992). Financing the colorization of the canon. New Directions Norman, OK. for African American Scholarship and Research Conference
Colonzmg the Canon, funded GRANTS Preparing tomorrows teachers to use technology (PTS) grant. The University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, AR. July 1 throng August 15,2001. $4,375 Arkansas department of education grant award: Administrator licensure preparations. Reject Director
Angela Sewall & Project Assistant Director Larry McNeal). Arkansas Department ofEducation. July 1,2001 through June 31,2002. $10,000 Proposal for the professional development of those who prepare school administrators in fre use enhance teaching and learning. (Co-Principal Investigators: L. McNeal & D. Ashby). of technology to tuuojiv... ~------------ \-------- * - , ,nno n non University Council for Educational Administration. May 1 through September 30,1998. $1,000 Educational output in Illinois: Studying the disparity in academic test scores ^ong school districts. University Research Grant (Illinois State University). June 1.1996 through June 30,1997. $5,000 tn r n S w a: 2 ue cz> e S 2 M ri x 0 1622X z Student enrollment needs assessment study of the Illinois School for the Visually Impaired, Illinois center for rehabilitation and education and Illinois School for the Deaf. Illinois Department of Rehabilitation Services. May 15, 1995 through October, 1995. $7,500 < s > I I > ________________________________________FELLOWSHIPS____________ Advanced Opportunity Program Fellowship, University of Wisconsin, 1987-1990 Education Policy Fellow Program, Institute for Educational Leadership, 1993-94 z _________________________________EDITORIAL REVIEW BOARDS______________________ Editorial Review Board, Planning and Changing, 1993-1998 Editorial Review Board, Journal of School Leadership, 1997-1999 Editorial Review Board, Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Yearbook, 2000 to present < Bi REFERRED PROPOSALS AND MANUSCRIPTS FOR University Council for Educational Administration Amp-rican Educational Research Association, Division A MidWestem Educational Research Association, Division A Southern Regional Council of Educational Administration Planning and Changing Journal of School Leadership Midwestern Educational Researcher Center for the Study of Small and Rural Schools SRCEA Y eaibook I ________________________SELECTED SERVICE ACnyiTIES Citizenship Service (Program. Department College. University') Rrogram Level Program Coordinator, Educational AdTninistratinn and Supervision, Department of Educational Leadership [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1998-2001 Chair, Educational Administration and Supervision Faculty Search Committee, Department of Educational Leadership [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1998-99,1999-2000,2000-2001 I Academic Advisor, Educational AdTninistration and Supervision, Department of Educational Leadership [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1997 to present Academic Advisor, Department of Educational Admi-nistrarin-n & Foundations [Illinois State University] 1993-1998 Academic Advisor, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies [University of Oklahoma] 1991-1993 Dissertation Chair, Educational Administration and Supervision, Department of Educational Leadership [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1997 to present Dissertation Chair, Department of Educational Administration & Foundations [Illinois State University] 1993-1998 ii n S M 2 2 CA c 2 2 M CA O s 8 1623I I 31 -I pi Dissertation Advisor, Educational A riministratinn and Supervision, Department of Educational Leadership and PoUcy Studies [University of Oklahoma] 1991-1993 Department Level Faculty Recorder, Department of Educational Leadership [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1999- present Member, Peer Evaluation Committee, Department of Educational Leadership [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 2000-pTesent Member, Student Evaluation Committee, Department of Educational Leadership [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 2000 Member, Higher Education Program Faculty Search Committee, Department of Educational Leadership [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1998-99 Academic Advisor, Quad Cities K-12 Doctoral Cohort, Department of Educational Admipistratinn & Foundations [Illinois State University] 1997- 1998 Member, K-12 Doctoral Curriculum Review Committee, Department of Educational Administration <& Foundations [Illinois State University] 1997-1998 Member, Faculty Status Committee, Department of Educational Administtation & Foundations [Ilhnois State University] 1996-1998 Member, Faculty Search Committee, Department of Educational Administration & Foundations [Illinois State University] 1995-1996,1997-98 Member, Research Committee, Department of Educational Administration & Foundations [Hhnois State University] 1995-1998 Member, Student Recruitment Committee, Department of Educational Administration & Foundations [Illinois State University] 1995-1997 Coordinator, K-12 Program Professional Practice, Department of Educational Administration & Foundations [Illinois State University] 1993-1998 Chair, Faculty Development Committee, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies [University of Oklahoma] 1992-1993 Chair, Graduate Tuition Fee Waivers Committee, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies [University of Oklahoma] 1992-1993 Member, Danforth Evaluation Team, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies Education [University of Oklahoma] 1992-93 College Level Member, Graduate Faculty, College of Education [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1998 to present Member, College of Education Retreat Committee [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1999 & 2001 Member, Associate Dean Search Committee College of Education [Illinois State University] 1997-1998 11 1624 z 9 S 9 <> 2 rw M 5n 2 C 2 2 M so 8 I 2 Member, College Council, College of Education [Illinois State University] 1994-1998 >
? i President, College Council, College of Education [Illinois State University] 1996-1998 > I Member, Elections Committee, College of Education [Illinois State University] 1996-1998 2 Member, Technology Cn-mmittee, College of Education [Hhnois State University] 1996-1998 Member, Multicultural Task Force, College of Education [Illinois State University] 1994-95 Member, Graduate Faculty, College of Education [Illinois State University] 1993-1998 Member, Graduate Faculty, College of Education [University of Oklahoma] 1991-1993 Member, Education Faculty Development Committee, College of Education [University of Oklahoma] 1991-1993 Member, Equal Opportunity Committee, College of Education [University of Oklahoma] 1991-1993 Member, Graduate Faculty Member [University of Oklahoma] 1991-1993' Member, Faculty Search Committee, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, COE [Uitiversity of Oklahoma] 1991-1992] University Level Member, Commission to Cornbat Intolerance and Harassment [Illinois State University] 1995 1996 Member, Multicultural Task Force, Member, Commission to Combat Intolerance and Harassment [Illinois State Uitiversity] 1995 1996 Academic Calendar and Schedules Committee [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 2001-present Program Development and Accreditation Service Member, Provosts Advisory Group on Assessment [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1999-2001 Chair, College of Education Assessment Committee [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1999-2001 Co-Chair, College of Education Assessment Committee [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1998-1999 Member, College of Education Assessment Committee [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1998-2001 Member, Program Advisory Assessment Committee [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1998-2001 Chair, K-12 Program Curriculum Review Committee, Department of Educational Leadership [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1998-2001 Member, North Central Self Study Task Force (Governance and Administration Community) [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1998-1999 Chair, K-12 Program Curriculum Review Committee Department of Educational Administration & Foundations [Illinois State University] 1997- 98 tq M 2 w 2! Vi C 2 2 M CA ri s: 1625f Merhber, K-12 Doctoral Curriculum Review Committee^ Department of Educational Administration & Foundations [Illinois State University] 1997-1998 External Reviewer (Evaluation) of Department of Educational Administration Northern Illinois University [sponsored by University Council for Educational Administration] spring 1996 Member, K-12 Program Review Committee, Department of Educational Administration & Foundations [Illinois State University] 1993-1997 Member, Administration Certificate Program Committee, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies [University of Oklahoma] 1991-1993 Member, NCATE Category Evaluation Committee, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy- Studies [University of Oklahoma] 1991-1992 Professional and Community Service fPiogram, Department College, University') Professional Associations Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) 1999-to present American Educational Research Association (AERA) 1991 -to present American Education Finance Association (AEFA) 1991-1999 International Academy of Educational Leaders (lAEL) I998-to present University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA) 1991-98 National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) 1996-2000 Mid-South Educational Research Association (MSERA) 1998 to present Mid'Westem Educational Research Association (MWERA) 1993-1998 Southern Regional Council of Professors of Educational Administration (SRCPEA) 1998-to present Illinois Council of Professors of Educational Administration (ICPEA) 1993-98 Illinois Association of School Administrators (lASA) 1995-98 Kappa Delta PI School Level (Service to Schools') Davenport Public School District, Davenport, lA Little Rock School District, Little Rock, AR Pulaski County School District, Pulaski County, AR Peoria Pubhc School District, Peoria, IL Kankakee public School District, Kankakee, IL Galesburg Public School District, Galesburg, IL Pulaski Charter School, Inc., Maumelle, AR East St. Louis Public School District, East St. Louis, MO Bloomington Pubhc School District, Bloomington, IL Oklahoma City Pubhc School District, Oklahoma City, OK Rock Island Pubhc Schools, Rock Island, IL Nicoma ParkPubhc Schools, Nicoma Park, OK Moore Pubhc School District, Moore, OK Metcalf School (Hhnois State University), Normal, IL University High School (minois State University), Normal, IL Savannah, Pubhc School District, Savannah, GA Chatham County School District, Chatham County, GA School District (Service to School Districts') Little Rock School District Little Rock, AR 1626 S W' z 9 9 < [fl > J! 11 > z 11 r m S M a
2 JO Vi c 2 2 M Vi ri 2 8kit? 7 X H B 2 9 State Level > S Arkansas Association of Colleges of Teacher Education [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 2000 Executive Committee Member, Oklahoma Commission for Educational Leadership [University of Oklahoma] 1991-1993 > 2 Chair, Administrative Procedure Committee Superintendent's Advisory Council for Accounting and Financial Reporting (sponsored Oklahoma Department ofEducation) [University of Oklahoma] 1991-1992 Executive Committee Member, Oklahoma Association of School Administrators [University of Oklahoma] 1991-1993 Chair, Ad-ministrative Procedure Cn-mmittee, Superintendent's Advisory Council for Accounting and [University of Oklahoma] 1991-1992 Executive Committee Member, Cooperative Council for Oklahoma School Administration Administrators [University of Oklahoma] 1991 1992 Regional/Natiorial/Intemational Level Regional Executive Board Member, Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1999 to present Junior Chair, Division A (Administration) MidWestem Educational Research Association [Illinois State University] 1997-1998 Chair, Division A (Administration) MidWestem Educational Research Association [Illinois State University] 1995-1997 National School Leaders Licensure Assessment Test Examiner, School Leader Licensure Educational Testing Service {Princeton, NJ} [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] July 200 Executive Committee Member, Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1999 to present Advisory Board Member, Center for the Study of Small/Rural Schools [University of Oklahoma] 1998- 2000 Executive Committee, University Council for Educational Administration [Illinois State University] 1996- 1998 Plenary Representative, University Council for Educational Administration [Illinois State University] 1993- 1996 Faculty Speaker, National Graduate Student Research Seminar (sponsored by the University Council for Educational Administration for UCEA National Convention in Louisville, KY) [Illinois State Uinversity] 1996 1627 m n S x 2 < Vi c 22 M V) sO 8 n n Planning Committee Member, National Graduate Student Research Seminar in Educational Administration (sponsored by the University Council for Educational Education and the American Educational Research Association for AERA Conference in Francisco, CA) [Illinois State University] 1995-1996 >1 2 0 B 9 > n n Member, Ad Hoc Finance Committee University Council for Educational Administration [Illinois State University] 1994 1996 > J C 2 Member, Urban Education Consortium (based at Rutgers University in the Center for Government Services) [Illinois State University] 1994-1998 Planning Committee Member, Information Environment for School Leader Preparation Simulation Project [sponsored by UCEA sponsored] 1993-1997 Bl Steering Committee Member, National Research Conference on Afiican American Studies (sponsored by University of Oklahoma) [University of Oklahorna] 1992-1993 ! I I i ( I n Executive Committee MenibeT, Wisconsin Alumni Association National Alumni Council For Multicultural Diversity [University or Wisconsin-Madison] 1990-1992 n Internationa n International Academy of Educational Leaders (lAEL) [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1998-to present SELECTED CONSULTING ACHVITIES q Site Date School Leader Licensure Educational Testing Service Princeton, NJ July 2001 Charter School Evaluation q Student Enrollment Little Rock School District Little Rock, AR June 2001 q Pulaski Charter School, Inc. Maumelle, AR April 2001 Student Enrollment Trends Pulaski Charter School, Inc. MaumeUe, AR November 2000 q Flexible Block Scheduling Pulaski County School District Jacksonville, AR October 2000 q Change, Communications & Interpersonal Relations Chicago Pubhc School District Chicago, IL. October 1999 q Collegiality and Leadership Little Rock, AR Little Rock, AR September 1999 School Board and Superintendent Relations East St Louis Pubhc School District East St Louis, MO July 1998 School In^rovement/Change Process Daverrport Pubhc School District Davenport, LA February 1998 tn n 2 n z 2 Vi C 2 2 M Vi ri x 8 15 1628H Ed After School Programs Evaluation d Galesburg Public School District Galesburg, Illinois December 1997 April 1998 < Title 1
Summer School Evaluation Peoria Pubhc School District Peoria, IL November 1997 f>l 7i fl > Annexation Bloomington Public School District Bloomington, IL Summer 1997 2 Curriculum Development/Computer Simulations University Council for Educational Administration St. Louis, MO July 1997 a Administrative Tcsting/Principalship Educational Testing Services Princeton, NJ June 1997 a Block Scheduling Rock Island Public School District Rock Island, IL Spring 1997 a School hnprovement/Commuitity Relations Galesburg Public School District Galesburg, IL February 1997 a School Improvement/Diversity Kankakee Pubhc School District Kankakee, IL November 1996 Site-Based Fiscal Management Georgia Southern Uitiversity Savannah, GA May 1996 & April 1995 Site-Based Management/Personnel issues Nicoma Park Public School District Nicoma Park, OK March 1993' Student Diversity Moore Public School District Moore, OK Spring 1993 Staff Relations & Diversity Oklahoma City Public School District February-March Oklahoma City, OK 1993 Educational Finance/Montana Grant Writing/At-Risk Children Student/Date D. Bangs (2001) Broadnax, W. (2001) Center For The Study Of Small/ Rural Schools Norman, OK Oklahoma Public School District Oklahoma City, OK Summer 1992 Summer 1992 THESIS AND DISSERTATION COMMITTEE SERVICE Topic A study of student drug-testing effects in selected Arkansas secondary schools [Chair] A study of Arkansas public school superintendents knowledge of and attitudes toward charter schools [Chair] Pl 5PI > 9e < Wl C S s Pl CB n s 1629 M 1^ Sain, L. (2001) A comparison of pre-post student outcomes after an intervention of a secondary alternative program for disruptive students [Chair] Austin, R. (2001) Role of the special education supervisor as perceived by Arkansas superintendents, principals, and special education supervisors [Member] r s II > fl > V. Abernathy (2001) A Study of the Superintendency supply issue for public education [Chair] z W.Bitely(2001) English as a second language in the state of Arkansas [Chair] C. Claye (2001) An analysis of a case study of a secondary alternative education program in Brazil: Lessons for the United States [Chair] M. Dalia Rosa (2001) Principals and educational interpreters perceptions of the evaluation process of educational interpreters in ATkangas public schools [Member] A. Tucker (2001) An Investigation of student performance in Arkansas high schools using the traditional schedule, alternate day block schedule and intensive block schedule [Chair] J. Tackett (2000) Self-reported teacher job satisfaction and perception of administrative listening skills [Chair] M. Dickerson, (2000) Superintendent perceptions of effectiveness: A study of Arkansas school improvement [Chair] T. J. Chesser (2000) The first statewide study circles on education in America: Participant perceptions of study circles in two Arkansas communities [Chair] D. Williams (2000) A descriptive case study of a single innovations effect on multiple literacy initiatives in Arkansas [Member] Y. Meade-Williams (2000) A study of the effect of principal leadership style on teacher stress in six junior high schools in the Pulaski county special school district [Member] B. Wood (2000) A profile of female superintendents in Arkansas 1999-2000 [Member] L. J. Jackson (1999) Aftican-American and Caucasian American students satisfaction of perceived instructional strategies in third-and-sixth-gradc urban elementary classrooms [Member] Illinois State University E. Eddings (1999) Does the level of inqjlementation of total quality management affect student outcomes? [Co-Chair] University of Arkansas at Little Rock E. Goldstone (1998) Case study of the involvement of the business community in the Illinois partnership academy in eight Illinois school districts from 1993 to 1996 [Meniber] Hhnois State University tn Pl S Pl 2 2 V) c
2 2 M X V) S n 1630(. 2 S hI >2 R.L. Kilpatrick (1998) N. J, Anderson (1998) C. W. Dawson (1998) V.D. Steele (1998) B. Hinrichs (1998) E. J. Brown (1998) G. L. Harrison (1998) C. A. Stack (1997) T. M. Eddy (1997) J. D. White (1997) J. J. Pokomey (1997) D.P. Henry (1996) L. A. Obi (1995) J.R. Davis (1995) M. J. Moore (1994) Determining the costs of school year extensions [Member] Illinois State University The four block scheduling model as a change mechanism A study of three selected high schools [Chair] lUinois State University A. case study of desegregation in the rockford school system, rockford, Hlhiois, from 1989-1997 [Member] Illinois State University The relationship between leadership styles of elementary principals and school cultures [Member] Hhnois State University Understanding situational leadership and its relationship to student project groups [Chair] THinnis State University The instructional leadership role of elementary school principals and its Influence on instructional practices as perceived by elementary school teachers [Chair] Illinois State University An analysis of the dismissal of tenured teachers under article 24A. of Illinois public acts 84-126 and 84-972: evaluation of certified employers [Chair] minois State University A study of the organizational structure of middle level blue ribbon schools and factors that promote efficiency [Chair] Hhnois State University Teacher and student perceptions of school environment and student discipline [Chair] Illinois State University Reduced class size and teacher perceptions of its impact in kindergarten through third grade [Member] Hhnois State University Education
relationships with job satisfaction and organization commitment [Member] Illinois State University African American parents involvement in the elementary education of their children [Member] Illinois State University The efficacy of oral English language proficiency policies for international teaching assistants in institutions of higher education [Member] Illinois State University An investigation of the value congruence held by Illinois school board members regarding alternative schooling and the allocation of financial resources to support alternative education [Member] Illinois State University African American voter participation
The role of religion in the 1992 presidential election (Thesis) [Member] University of Oklahoma w t-n S M V) C 2 2 M ri s 1631 ?! fl ' > fl 3 > e 1 e I E. W. Costa n (1993) The principal as leader
A study of the perceptions of entry-level teachers [Member] University of Oklahoma I. B. Seay (1993) P.T.B. Freeman (1993) Women in leadership roles
Perspectives from female elementary administrators [Member] University of Oklahoma Presidential profiles in higher education: Perspectives &om Afacan American women [Meiriber] University of Oklahoma > fl > 5 z G.W. Griffin (1992) Principals and superintendents perceptions of superintendent behaviors and activities which are linked to school effectiveness [Member] University of Oklahoma W, L, Anderson (1991) An analysis of the roles of.high school administrators as perceived by principals and assistant principals in selected Oklahoma public high schools [Member] Illinois State University REFERENCES Furnished Upon Request A tn r n 2 M Z > IZ G s s n :c CZ) ri s 1632i 21 5 Bl 9 > I 2 >51 I THIRD-PARTY EVALUATION OF THE LYCEUM SCHOLARS PROGRAM Prepared By Quality Education and Management Associates, Inc. Little Rock, Arkansas January 2003 0 1633 ) i ( i I w r* B s w z 2 vs C 2 S m X C 1. 1 Foreword The Little Rock School District contracted with the Quality Education and Management Associates, Inc. (QEMA) to serve as a third-party evaluator for the LRSD Lyceum Scholars Program conducted at Philander Smith College. The impetus for the third-party evaluation was the federal court ruling in September 2002 releasing the District from court supervision, with the exception of one area relating to the evaluation of certain programs. The LRSD Lyceum Scholars Program was one of several educational programs identified in the Districts final Compliance Report (March 2001) that the court required to be completed, approved by the Board of Trustees, and submitted to the court by March 15,2003. p J 2 0 PI' s fl 3 r > c 2 Evaluation Overview This third-party evaluation is a supplement to three evaluation reports prepared on the LRSD Lyceum Scholars High School (LSHS) program. Two of the reports focused on individual school years of operation of the LSHS program, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. The third report was a two-year comparison of the evaluation data from school years 1998-1999 and 1999-2000. I The evaluation is divided into four parts. Part A is a description of the LSHS program. Part B describes the methodology and summarizes and interprets the key findings of the three previous evaluations. Part C describes the limitations of the three previous evaluations. Finally, Part D offers suggestions for improving future evaluations of any similar programs that the Little Rock School District may initiate. A. Program Description Mission The mission of the LSHS program, as stated in the previous evaluations, is as follows: To provide an opportunity for underachieving secondary students, who have academic potential but require a nontraditional approach to learning, to achieve academic^ly and to develop social competencies that will allow them to obtain a high school diploma and successfully transition into a post-secondary educational environment. Program Objectives The objectives of the LSHS program, as stated in the previous evaluations, are as follows: 1. The academic performance of each student enrolled in the Lyceum Scholars High School will increase during the period of participation in the program, as 1 1634 tn M sz 2w V) 2e 2w V) ri s n 2. 3. 4. 5. measured by pre and post computerized student assessment data and grade point average. The attendance rate for each student enrolled in the Lyceum Scholars High School will be 95% or better. Each student will demonstrate maturity, self-control and appropriate social interaction skills as evidenced by teacher/staff assessment and then absence of disciphnary sanctions during the period of program participation. Each student will develop a plan for his/her own continuing education that will include high school graduation and enrollment in a post secondary educational institution. Each student will demonstrate an increased commitment to continued program participation, as evidenced by self-report on the annual program evaluation. The curriculum of the Lyceum Scholars High School will be delivered in a non- traditional way to include group work, project-based learning, interdisciplinary and applied units, and computer assisted instruction. 11 n V 6. H Program Design and Activities n The LSHS program was designed to provide the participants with the LRSD high school academic cumculum in a small class setting utilizing computer based PLATO software. The participants were also exposed to a social skills curriculum. The program began with 10 grade students and was supposed to add a grade level each year until grades 9-12 were in operation. At the end of their year of participation, students could reenroll or return to the regular classroom. n II n LSHS was staffed by two certified teachers, one instructional aide, a part-time security officer, and a program admimstrator. Case management services were provided through a grant-funded position from the Arkansas Department of Human Services. Unfortunately, there are no additional details in the three previous evaluations that desOTbe the precise treatment afforded students in the program. Missing is any indication of precisely how much of the curriculum was delivered by computer, how and when any of the methods described in Objective 6 above were implemented, the role of the certified teachers and aide, how and when the social skills curriculum was implemented (or even what the social skills curriculum actually consisted of), or any type of schedule of activities. m m 11 History The Lyceum High School Scholars program began as an alternative learning environment program for underachieving high school students in October of school year 1997-98. It was envisioned as a partnership venture with a Little Rock area college or university inn order to enhance the likelihood of successfully addressing the mission of the program as stated above. The initial partner was UALR, which housed the program for one year. Thereafter, the program was housed at Philander Smith College. The LSHS program was discontinued after the 2000-2001 school year. 2 m 1635B. Methodology t p 2 C5. < >5 11 The methodology and key findings of each of the three previous evaluations are addressed separately below. fl 3 > Z 1999-2000 Program Evaluation Although the evaluation report does not have a section that specifically describes the methodology in detail, there is enough narrative in the report to discern that the methodology consisted primarily of satisfaction surveys administered to students, parents, staff, and administrators. In addition, the report provides a statistical analysis of student achievement gains in mathematics, language arts, and reading as measured by a pre/post assessment utilizing the PLATO instructional program and a pre/post assessment of student attendance and suspensions. I Key results of the program evaluation included the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1. 8. 100% of the students were either satisfied or very satisfied with the application process, student services offered, stafTstudent interactions/communications, and the overall program. Students gave high ratings to their interactions with college personnel and the instructional program. 100% of the students were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with meals provided by the LRSD and 62.5% of the students were similarly dissatisfied with the meals in the student center. With the exception of the items on meals, parents were satisfied or very satisfied with all components of the program. The staff was completely satisfied with the program. The LRSD administrators were highly complimentary of the program. When compared to pre-LSHS levels, students exhibited an 85% reduction in school absences and a 30% reduction in suspensions at the end of the program. Average grade-level increases from the beginning to the end of the program for students were 3.71 for mathematics, 6.48 for language arts, and 5.00 for reading. 1 Based on the results of the program, it would appear that the LSHS program was successful. Program Objective #1 was achieved, results approached the level sought in Program Objective #2, and Program Objective #3 appeared to be met. However, because of the limitations of the evaluation outlined in the next section, the results and interpretation of the results should be viewed with caution. 2000-2001 Program Evaluation The same methodology that was described above also applies to this evaluation report with one exception. In this evaluation, LRSD administrators were not surveyed. 15 W 2M v> C2 2w ri a 8 3 1636 Key results of the program evaluation included the following
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. The percentages of students who were satisfied or very satisfied with program components were as follows: 100%-application form and social studies instruction. 94.5%English instruction 94,4%science and communications instruction 88.9%faculty 77.8%-mathematics instruction 66.7%-case management, computer-aided instruction, and grading procedures 83.4% of the students were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with meals provided by LRSD and 55.5% were similarly dissatisfied with the media center. 94.4 % of the students thought that their teachers respected them as individuals. 72.2% of the students would not recommend the LSHS to a friend 61.1% of the students expressed satisfaction with the overall program 61.7% of the students indicated that they preferred to return to their assigned schools the next year. 80% of the parents were satisfied with the overall program 75% of the parents were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the meals provided by LRSD 60% of the parents stated that they would like their child to return to the LSHS next year and would recommend the program to others. 10.100% of the LSHS staff were satisfied or very satisfied with the service that the service center provided LSHS students. 11. 67.7% of the staff were very dissatisfied with the student selection process and 50% were very dissatisfied with the career center. 12. 67.7% of the staff were dissatisfied with preparation and planning time, expectations of student behavior, management of student behavior, and support for disciplinary actions. 13.40% of the staff were dissatisfied with support from the LRSD administrator. 14. When compared to pre-LSHS levels, students exhibited a 60% reduction in school absences and a 33% reduction in suspensions at the end of the program. 15. Average grade level increases from the beginning to the end of the program for students were 4.51 for mathematics, 6.57 for language arts, and 6.23 for reading. Results of the program evaluation for 2000-2001 are mixed. Students are still satisfied with many aspects of the program, but at lower levels than the previous year. Yet, a clear majority of the students would not recommend the program to a friend nor did they want to return the next year. However, the students did exhibit reductions in absences and suspensions, and average increases in grade levels were higher than the year before. With respect to the staff, levels of dissatisfaction with program elements related to student behavior and discipline were high, as was dissatisfaction with administrative support. Although student absences and suspensions decreased, it appeared that discipline was problematic for the staff. That certainly raises the question of whether or not there that disparity might be related to students' reluctance to recommend the program to others and their desire to return to their regular schools. 4 B II II II B II n n II 11 m v in in VI 1637r a Again, because of limitations addressed in the next section, results and interpretations need to be viewed with caution. 1998-1999 & 1999-2000 Two-Year Comparison fl fl fl fl fl The LRSD provided QEMA with a program evaluation report that combined data on the LSHS program for 1998-1999 & 1999-2000. However, the report is clearly labeled a Draft on all pages of the report, and theres no indication that the report was ever taken beyond the draft stage to become an official program evaluation of the LSHS program. Nevertheless, the report does have a description of the methodology, although the description tends to outline the data to be presented as opposed to how it was collected or analyzed. The methodology addresses participation, performance, and perception. Participation in LSHS is presented by race and gender. Performance is addressed through suspension and absentee data
grade level gains in language, mathematics, and reading, achievement test scores in language, mathematics, and reading
and correlations between achievement tests and computer generated tests. Perception is addressed through a set of satisfaction surveys administered to students, parents, teachers, and admimstrators. fl fl fl Key results of the program evaluation included 1. Student absences increased, while the days in suspension decreased. 2. Students were performing at grade level as measured by the PLATO software. 3. Students scored higher in mathematics than the LRSD average e scores on the Achievement Level Test (ALT). 4. Students scored below the LRSD average in reading and language usage on the ALT. 5. Students in the 1999-2000 group reported higher levels of satisfaction than those in the 1998-1999 group. a 6. 7. 8. 9. Students and parents wanted more classroom time and less time on the computers. Both students and parents were dissatisfied with morning bus amval times. Staff wanted more support in instructional delivery. Principals of feeder schools wanted more information about the LSHS program. I ffS Results of this evaluation report are mixed also. However, when the results are compared to the other two program evaluation reports, it is interesting to note that the measures used to report the results are different. For example, in the previous two reports, absenteeism and suspension data were reported by a pre/post recording of actual incidences of absence and suspension. Then, an average gain or loss was calculated. In this 1998 through 2000 comparative study, an average number of days absent and days suspended was calculated, and the first year was compared to the second. Hence, there occurs an entirely different interpretation of the data and the relative success of the program. It is also interesting to note that absence and suspension calculations in the two other evaluations were consistent with the expectations of program outcomes as stated in the program objectives. {15 M 2 n > CZ5 C 2 2 M 5 -1(38 p p 2 C Wi < J' n 5 > c 2 CZ) n a The same difficulty with interpretation occurs with the performance data. In the previous two reports, performance was measured by pre/post gains in grade levels, while in the instant case, that data were reported, but also included comparisons on a different test. The latter was not a test identified in the LSHS program objectives. II n An overall and general interpretation of the data from all three evaluation reports would indicate that the satisfaction levels of students, parents, staff, and administration increased from the first year of program operation to the second and diminished from the second year of operation to the third
that the LSHS program had a positive impact on reducing student absenteeism and suspensions
and that students made gains in mathematics, language arts, and reading grade levels as measured by PLATO, but fell below grade level in language arts and reading when compared on a different test. B II II C. Limitations General II 1. There is an inadequate description of the program that hinders stakeholders from determining the exact "treatment" of the program and whether or not the data provide any useful information. II 2. Although neither the 1999-2000 nor the 2000-2001 evaluations have a clearly identified purpose for the evaluation, the Two-Year Comparison evaluation, does. However, the "draft" status of the latter limits the utility of the report. VI VI 3. The stakeholders for the 1999-2000 and the 2000-2001 evaluations are not clearly identified. The audience for the Two-Year Comparison evaluation is not identified either and is complicated by the fact that the report is clearly labeled a Draft on all pages of the report. Thus, the utility of that report is limited. m 4. There are no clearly identified research questions that address LSHSs effectiveness, impact, success, etc. in any of the three evaluation reports. However, while the 1999-2000 and the 2000-2001 evaluations do not identify what the evaluation is supposed to achieve, the Two-Year Comparison evaluation's purpose statements do provide direction for the data presentation and analysis. The data presentation and analysis in all three reports do appear to be directly related to at least some of the stated objectives of the program. m w RI Methodology Hl 1. There is no methodology stated in either the 1999-2000 or the 2000- 2001 evaluations. The Two-Year Comparison evaluation, on the other hand, does have a description of the methodology, although the description tends to outline the data be presented as opposed to how it was collected or analyzed. 6 1639I 2. The methodology utilized for 1999-2000 and the 2000-2001 evaluations is grounded primarily in student, parent, staff, and administrator satisfaction oriented reactions to all of the components of the LSHS program. While that data may be of interest, there is no meaningful connection between that data and program objectives nor the primary intent of the program, which was to help underachieving students reach their academic potential. Since similar surveys were utilized in the Two-Year Comparison evaluation, the same limitations apply. 3. The number of students, parents, staff, and administrators participating in the siuveys limits the interpretation of the data. 4. 'Data generated on achievement levels of the students are limited by small numbers and absence of control groups or any other controls against research bias. Data to Inform Practice El Because of the limitations stated above, there is very little in the way of meaningful data that could inform current practice in providing alternative learning environments in the LRSD. Achievement Effects I Although there was some encouraging data in terms of absenteeism, suspensions, and grade level gains, none of the data was broken out by ethnicity. Therefore, there was no way that stakeholders could ascertain the impact of the LSHS program on the academic achievement of African American students. D. Suggestions for Improved Practice in Program Evaluation QEMA recognizes that the Little Rock School District has adopted the evaluation guidelines outlined in the publication "The Program Evaluation Standards: How To Assess Evaluations of Educational Programs (2"'' Edition) by The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation (1994). The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation is a coalition of major professional associations concerned with the quality of evaluation and is housed at The Evaluation Center, Western Michigan University. The guidelines are compatible with the Little Rock School District Revised Compliance Plan and standards for program evaluation. Continued implementation of the evaluation guidelines should address most issues related to program evaluation in the futme. r n 2 M 2 > < C S s w ri X 7 1640 p I p 2 6' W' 7 <1 > s 9 5 c 2PROGRAM EVALUATION PhUander Smith College/ LRSD Lyceum Scholars High School 1 .1 1999 - 2000 D II II n n p p p p p p p p p p p } 16411 I This evaluation report is divided into two sections. Section I presents the results of four surveys that were completed by the following individuals
A. Students in the Lyceum Program B. Parents of Lyceum students C. Lyceum staff members D. LRSD administrators with' students enrolled in the Lyceum program Section n is a statistical analysis of student academic progress for &e year and a r^rt conqiaring student attendance and suspensions before entrance to the program and this year. key MNUIMPS 1. The number of individuals completing each of the evaluation surveys were
Student Survey - 8 Parent Survey -10 Staff Survey-3 Administrative Survey - 3 2. 100% of the students were either satisfied or very satisfied with the Application Process. 3. Only 50% of the students were either satisfied or very satisfied with the Restroom Facilities. 4. 5. 6. 100% of the students were satisfied or very satisfied with the Student Services offered. Students regarded their Interactions with College Personnel as very fevorable. The Instructional Program received high marks from the students. 7. 100% of the students were either satisfied or very satisfied with StafiZStudent 8. 9. Interactions/Commnnications. 100% of the students were either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the Meals Provided by LRSD. 62.5% of the students were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied by the Meals in the Student Center. 10.100% of the students were satisfied or very satisfied with the Overall Program. tn n 2 '2. > Vi S S m n a: 8 1642 r Si S 5^ fl 0 > c 2 I 2 311. With the exception of the survey item dealing with Meals Provided by LRSD, all of were either satisfied or very satisfied. the parent responses 12 Thp St Aff Survey reflected complete satisfaction with the program. 13. LRSD school administrators were also highly complimentary of the program. 14 Lyceum students showed an 85% redaction in school absences, and a 30% reduction in the number of suspensions, when compared to their pre-Lyceum assignments. 15. Lyceum students recorded the following average grade level increases over the course of this school year: Language Arts - 6.48 Math-3.71 Reading-5 n A n n n II n n in wi 1643program EVALUAHON - LRSD LYCEUM STUDENT SURVEY 1999- 2000 > Frequeni Valid GRADE z fl > fl 5 I Valid Valid Missing Total 9.00 10.00 Total Male Female Total 6 2 8 Frequeni 5 3 8 Percent 75.0 25.0 100.0 Gender Valid Percent TOO 25.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent TSX" 100.0 z Percent 62.5 37.5 100.0 Valid Percent ezT 37.5 .100.0 Cumulative Percent 62.5 100.0 Race Frequeni African American Caucasian Other Total System Frequeni Valid 14.00 15.00 16.00 17.00 Total 1 3 2 2 8 Valid Missing Total 8.00 725.00 Total System 4 2 1 7 1 8 Percent 500 25.0 12.5 87.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent TtT 28.6 14.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent stT 85.7 100.0 Age Percent 12.5 37.5 25.0 25.0 100.0 Valid Percent "715 37.5 25.0 25.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent TTT 50.0 75.0 100.0 Schcxl attended prior to the Lyceum Frequeni 1 5 6 2 8 Percent 12.5 62.5 75.0 25.0 100.0 Valid Percent 167 83.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 w M 2 w > CZ) CS sM (Z s 1644 I I Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total Missing System Total Valid Vary Satisfied Satisfied Total Missing System Total___________ Valid Written Application Forms Frequency 3 3 1 7 1 ______ 8 Percent 37.6 37.5 12.5 87.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 42.9 42.9 14.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 42.9 85.7 100.0 Personal Interview Frequency 3 4 7 1 ____8 Percent 37.6 50.0 87.5 12.6 100.0 Valid Percent 42.9 57.1 100.0 Cumulative Percent 42.9 100.0 n Notification of Acceptance Very Satisfied Satisfied Total Missing System Total___________ Frequency 3 4 7 1 _____ 8 Percent 37.5 50.0 87.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 42.9 57.1 100.0 Cumulative Percent 42.9 100.0 II II n Classrooms Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total________ Frequency 3 5 ____ 8 Percent 37.5 62.5 100.0 Valid Percent 37.5 62.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 37.5 100.0 Restrooms Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Total _______ _ Frequency 2 2 3 1 ________ 8 Percent 25.0 25.0 37.5 12.5 100.0 I Valid Percent 25.0 25.0 37.5 12.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 25.0 50.0 87.5 100.0 1645 student Center Frequem Valid Missing Total Valid H SI ! Very Satisfied Satisfied Very Dissatisfied Total System Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total Missing System Total___________ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_______ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_ 3 . 3 1 7 1 8 Percent 37.5 37.5 12.5 87.5 12.5 100.0 Media Center Frequem 2 4 1 7 1 8 Percent 25.0 50.0 12.5 87.5 12.5 100.0 Computer Lab Access Frequency 1 7 ____ 8 Percent 12.5 87.5 100.0 Orientation Frequency 1 4 3 ____ 8 1 Valid Percent 42.S 42.0 14.3 100.0 Percent 12.5 50.0 37.5 100.0 Health Services Frequency 1 5 2 8 Valid Percent 28^ 57.1 14.3 100.0 Valid Percent 12.5 87.5 100.0 Percent 12.5 62.5 25.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 42.9 85.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 28.6 85.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 12.5 100.0 2 I) > n a r > 2 Valid Percent iTT 50.0 37.5 100.0 Valid Percent 12.5 62.5 25.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 12.5 62.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 12.5 75.0 100.0 w n 2 M a: < Vi i 2 m X CA ri x 1646 Career Center I ) Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Very Dissatisfied Total__________ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total________ I Valid Valid Valid Frequency 2 4 2 _____8 Very Satisfied Satisfied Total________ Mery Satisfied Satisfied Total________ Mery Satisfied Satisfied Total_________ Percent 25.0 50.0 25.0 100.0 Valid Percent 25.0 50.0 25.0 100.0 Mentoring/Counsellng Frequency 2 5 1 _____6 Percent 25.0 62.5 12.5 100.0 Case Management Frequency 3 4 1 ______8 Percent 37.5 50.0 12.5 100.0 Faculty Frequency 5 3 _____B Percent 62.5 37.5 100.0 Support Personnel Frequency 4 4 ___8 Percent 50.0 50.0 100.0 Security Frequency 3 5 ______8 Cumulative Percent 25.0 75.0 100.0 D II 11 Valid Percent 25.0 62.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 37.5 50.0 12.5 100.0 Percent 37.5 62.5 Cumulative Percent 25.0 87.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 37.5 87.5 100.0 II n RI RI RI RI Valid Percent 62.5 37.5 100.0 Valid Percent 50.0 50.0 100.0 100.0 I Valid Percent 37.5 62.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 62.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 50.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 37.5 100.0 RI \Administration ) ) I I } Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ _ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_ Valid Valid Valid Frequency 3 5 8 Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_______ Percent 37.5 62.5 100.0 Valid Percent 62.5 100.0 Classroom Management Frequency 3 5 8 Percent 37.5 62.5 100.0 Valid Percent "stT 62.5 100.0 Instructional Materials Frequency 3 5 ____8 Percent 37.5 62.5 100.0 Textboolcs Frequency 5 2 1 8 Percent 62.5 25.0 12.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 37.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 37.5 100.0 Valid Percent 62.5 100.0 Valid Percent 62ir 25.0 12.5 100.0 Computer-aided Instruction Cumulative Percent sTs 100.0 Cumulative Percent 62.5 87.5 100.0 Vary Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_______ Frequency 3 4 1 8 Percent 37.5 50.0 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 37iP 50.0 12.5 100.0- Cumulative Percent stT 87.5 100.0 English Instruction Missing Total Very Satisfied Satisfied Total System Frequency 4 3 7 1 ____ 8 Percent 50.0 37.5 87.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 57.1 42.9 100.0 Cumulative Percent 57.1 100.0 tn n S "i > la < CA e 22 w CoA s 1648 p'. c. P9 O' X 9 > z I 2 Vi X z Math Instruction Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_ Frequency 6 2 ___ 8 Percent 75.0 25.0 100.0 Science Instruction Valid Valid Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_______ Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total Valid Valid Valid Percent 75.0 25.0 100.0 T Cumulative Percent 75.0 100.0 n nn Frequency 4 2 2 ____ 8 Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_______ Percent 50.0 25.0 25.0 100.0 Valid Percent 50.0 25.0 25.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 50.0 75.0 100.0 nn Social Studies Instruction Frequency 6 2 11 Percent 75.0 25.0 100.0 Valid Percent 75.0 25.0 100.0 I Cumulative Percent 75.0 100.0 Connnunications Instruction Frequency 5 2 1 _____ 8 Percent 62.5 25.0 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 62.5 25.0 12.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 62.5 87.5 100.0 Personal Academic Success Frequency 4 3 1 ______8 Percent 50.0 37.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 50.0 37.5 12.5 100.0 Individual Attention to Needs II H m m II m Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_______ Frequency 4 3 1 8 Percent 50.0 37.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 50.0 37.5 12.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 50.0 87.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent soio" 87.5 100.0 ffl mn 1649 Number of Courses Available 1 .a 1 Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Very Dissatisfied Total_ _ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total____ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Total Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_______ Frequency 4 3 1 ____ 8 Percent 50.0 37.5 12.5 100.0 Group Wort( Frequency 3 4 1 ____ 8 Percent 37.5 50.0 12.5 100.0 Projects Frequency 3 3 1 1 ___ 8 Vaiid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied I Total_______ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied ' Total_______ Valid Percent "soio' 37.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 37.5 50.0 1Z.S 100.0 Percent 37.5 37.5 12.5 12.5 100.0 Grading Procedures Frequency 1 4 3 1 _______Ll Percent 50.0 37.5 12.5 100.0 Field Trips Frequency 5 2 1 8 Percent 62.5 25.0 12.5 100.0 Homework Frequency 7 1 ___ 8 Cumulative Percent 50.0 87.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 375" 87.5 100.0 Valid Percent 37.5 37.5 12.5 12.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent stT 75X 100.0 r, '5 ci K0?a Valid Percent ' 50ir 37.5 12.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent soio" 87.5 100.0 Percent 87.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 625" 25.0 12.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 625" 87.5 100.0 Valid Percent btT 12.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 87.5 100.0 m n S n > 'JO < 7) c S S M x 1650 I > I s3 > He 7. i 5 X -I X >X H 2 t 1 I staff Responds in a Caring and Helpful Manner vSid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_______ Frequency 3 4 1 8 Percent 37.5 50.0 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent StT 50.0 12.5 100.0 Staff Provides Nurturance and Support to Students Vaiid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_______ Valid Valid Frequeni 3 4 1 8 Percent 37.6 50.0 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 37T 50.0 12.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 37y 87.5 100.0 Staff Has High Expectations for My Academic Success Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total Frequency 4 3 1 ___ 8 Percent 50.0 37.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent soy 37.5 12.5 100.0 Staff Has High Expectations for My Behavior Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_______ Frequency 6 1 1 8 Percent 75.0 12.5 12.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent stT 87.5 100.0 Valid Percent 75.0 12.5 12.5 100.0 My Teacher Respect Me as an Individual VaHd Very Satsfied Satisfied Dissatslfied Total_______ Valid Cumulative Percent "soy 87.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent Tsy 87.5 100.0 Frequency 4 3 . 1 ___ 8 Percent 50.0 37.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 5oy 37.5 12.5 100.0 Support Staff Respect Me as an Individual Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied ' Total_______ Frequency 4 3 1 ___ 8 Percent 50.0 37.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 5oy 37.5 12.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent ' 5oy 87.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent soy 87.5 100.0 1651 Meals Provided by LRSD Frequem ) I ) Valid Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Total__________ vSiid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Total Valid Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Total__________ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_______ Valid 1 7 8 Percent 12.5 87.5 100.0 Meals in Student Center Frequeni 1 2 1 4 8 Percent 12.5 25.0 12.5 50.0 100.0 Bus Arrivals A.M. Frequeni 2 4 1 1 8 Valid Percent 115 87.5 100.0 Percent 25.0 50.0 12.5 12.5 100.0 Bus Arrivals P.M. Frequency 3 4 1 8 Valid Percent ""iis" 25.0 12.5 50.0 100.0 Percent 37.5 50.0 12.5 100.0 Bus Safety Cumulative Percent 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 25F 50.0 12.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Pexent 37T 50.0 12.5 100.0 Ti Si. n 9 . Very Satisfied Satisfied Very Dissatisfied Total__________ Would you Valid Yes Missing System Tolaf___________ Frequency 3 4 1 8 Percent 37.5 50.0 12.5 100.0 1 Cumulative Percent il5 37.5 50.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 2sy 75.0 87.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 87.5 100.0 Valid Percent stT 50.0 12.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent stT 87.5 100.0 recommend the Lyceum Program to a friend? Frequency 7 1 8 I Percent 87.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent iooio Cumulative Percent 100.0 w Pl 2 Pl 2 > czi C2 S M Vi O x 1652 5 ' c2 Overall Program Satisfaction i ) J Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ .Frequency 3 5 _________ 8 Percent 37.5 62.5 100.0 Valid Percent 37.5 62.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 37.5 100.0 I 9 If the Lyceum Program is available to you for the 2000-01 school year, what are your plans? 9 Valid Missing Total Valid Continued Enrollment Undecided Total System Frequency 6 1 7 1 8 Percent 75.0 12.5 87.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 85.7 14.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 85.7 100.0 9 II n What are your plans after graduation from high school? n Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Enroll in Four Year College Enroll in Two Year College. Undecided Total 4 1 50.0 12.5 57.1 14.3 57.1 71.4 Missing System Total___________ 2 7 1 8 25.0 87.5 12.5 100.0 28.6 100.0 100.0 ri II nn n II n n 1653 M [ri program evaluation - LRSD LYCEUM parent survey 1999 - 2000 iri iri Gender II II II fl il n II n nn pi Frei lueni Valid Valid Male Female Total 1 9 10 Percent ioT 90.0 100.0 Valid Percent ioo 90.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 Race Frequem African-America Caucasian Totel_________ Valid Missing Total 1.00 8.00 725.00 Total System Valid Parent 6 4 10 Percent 60.0 40.0 100.0 Valid Percent eoxr 40.0 100.0 School Last Attended Frequem 1 2 5 8 2 10 Percent iKo 20.0 50.0 80.0 20.0 100.0 Vaiid Percent 25.0 62.5 100.0 Relationship to Student Frequency 10 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent ioo.^ Cumulative Percent 600" 100.0 Cumulative Percent 37.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent [fl 2n z> < Cw S s n s 8 1654 { e 0 c, > fl 9 > -i ze ! (I C I I Valid Valid Valid Valid My Child's Grade 9.00 10.00 Total Frequency 6 4 ____10 Very Satisfied satisfied Dissatisfied 22.00 Total_______ Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Valid Percent 60.0 40.0 100.0 Valid Percent 60.0 40.0 100.0 student Referral Procedures Frequency 4 4 1 1 10 Percent 40.0 40.0 10.0, 10.0 100.0 Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Cumulative Percent 60.0 100.0 Vafid Percent 40.0 40.0 10.0 10.0 100.0 Written Application Forms Frequency 4 6 ________ 10 Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Vafid Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Personal Interview Frequency 4 6 _____ 10 Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Valid Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 NoUfication of Acceptance Frequency 4 6 ______ 10 Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Valid Percent 40.0 60.0 _______ 100.0 Orientation II n II Cumulative Percent 40.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 40.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 40.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 40.0 100.0 II II n II II Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Totel_______ Frequency 3 7 ___ 10 Percent 30.0 70.0 100.0 Valid Percent 30.0 70.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 30.0 100.0 1655 ri Health Services ri Freguenc
Valid ri I Missing 1 Total Very Satisfied Satisfied Total System 3 6 9 1 to Percent soT 60.0 90.0 10.0 100.0 Valid Percent 33T 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent . 100.0 ( e r: e < B'l > fl 0 ri Case Management > 5z ri ri Valid Freqtiem II El El El 1 / Missing Total Valid 11 II nn Very Satisfied Satisfied Total System Missing Total Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total System Missing Total Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total System Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ 4 5 9 1 10 Percent 40?0 50.0 90.0 10.0 100.0 Career Center Frequeni 2 7 9 1 10 Valid Percent 447 55.6 100.0 Cumulative Percent 447 100.0 C Percent I 20^ 70.0 90.0 10.0 100.0 Valid Percent -----------Si nA 100.0 Cumulative Percent 222 100.0 Mentoring/CounsellnB Frequent 5 4 9 1 10 Frequent Percent 50^ 40.0 90.0 10.0 100.0 Faculty 4 6 10 Percent 405" 60.0 100.0 Valid Percent 1 ' 5^6 44.4 100.0 Valid Percent 40^ 60.0 100.0. Cumulative Percent 55.6 '' 100.0 Cumulative Percent 40^ 100.0 ww S n 2 < c S ffl X 8 1656 ) 1 Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total Missing System Total____________ Valid Missing Total Valid Support Personnel Frequency 5 4 9 1 _____ 10 i Percent 50.0 40.0 90.0 10.0 100.0 Securtty Valid Percent 55.6 44.4 100.0 Cumulative Percent 55.6 100.0 nn II Very Satisfied Satisfied Total System Very Satisfied Satisfied Total Missing System Total_______ ____ Valid L Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total Frequency 3 6 9 1 _____ 10 Percent 30.0 60.0 90.0 10.0 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100
0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 Administration Frequency 2 7 9 1 __10 Percent 20.0 70.0 90.0 10.0 100.0 Valid Percent 222 77.8 100.0 Cumulative Percent 222 100.0 Classroom Nlanagement Frequency 4 6 _ 10 Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Valid Percent 40.0 60.0 Cumulative Percent 40.0 100.0 Instructional Materials 100.0 Missing System Total _________ Frequency 3 5 8 2 ______10 Percent 30.0 50.0 80.0 20.0 100.0 Valid Percent 37.5 62.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 37.5 100.0 K 1657 Textbooks Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total Frequency _ 3 6 1 10 Percent 30.0 60.0 10.0 100.0 Valid Percent soT 60.0 10.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 30^ 90.0 100.0 f c R
C'. < > fl 9 Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total I Computer-aided Instruction Frequeni 4 6 10 Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 English Instruction Frequeni 4 6 10 Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Math Instruction Frequeni I 1 p 1 i Valid Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ 4 6 10 Valid Percent 40X 60.0 100.0 Valid Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 40X 100.0 Cumulative Percent 40^ 100.0 5 5 5 ! S I Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Valid Percent Zo^" 60.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 40^ 100.0 Science Instruction Frequeni 4 6 10 Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Valid Percent ZoF 60.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent ZoT 100.0 J Social Studies Instruction Frequeni 4 6 10 Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Valid Percent ZoT" 60.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 40^ 100.0 r pj S n 2 > va C S CA a: r 1658! Communications Instruction vSiid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Frequency 2 8 ___10 i Percent 20.0 80.0 100.0 Valid Percent 20.0 80.0 100.0 Your Child's Personal Academic Progress Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total Vaiid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total________ Cumulative Percent 20.0 100.0 n Bl n Frequency 4 5 1 10 Percent 40.0 50.0 10.0 100.0 Valid Percent 40.0 50.0 10.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 40.0 90.0 . 100.0 Individual Attention to Needs Frequency 3 7 10 Percent 30.0 70.0 100.0 Valid Percent ??? 70.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 30.0 100.0 Number of Courses Available Frequency 4 6 ___10 I Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Valid Percent 40?" 60.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 40.0 100.0 Group Work Bl Bl Bl Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_ Frequency 2 8 10 Percent 20.0 80.0 100.0 Vafid Percent 2?? 80.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 20? 100.0 Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total Classroom Environment Frequency 6 4 10 Percent 60.0 40.0 100.0 I Valid Percent 6?? 40.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 60? 100.0 1659Valid Grading Procedures 4 Very Satisfied Satisfied Total Frequency 5 5 ___10 Percent 50.0 50.0 100.0 Reid Trips Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Frequency 4 6 10 Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Homeworic Valid Percent 50.0 50.0 100.0 Cumulative 1 Percent 50.0 100.0 ( e R 9 < > 9 B 9 VaHd Percent 40^ 60.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 40^ 100.0 > c 2 Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total Frequency 3 6 1 10 Percent 30.0 60.0 10.0 100.0 Valid Percent 30^ 60.0 10.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 30^ 90.0 100.0 Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Valid Valid ParenVTeacher Conferences Frequency 3 7 10 Percent 30.0 70.0 100.0 Valid Percent sox' 70.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 30^ 100.0 Responsiveness of Teachore to Student Needs Very Satisfied Satisfied Tptel_______ Frequency 2 8 __ 10 T Percent 20.0 80.0 100.0 i Valid Percent 2oT 80.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 20^ 100.0 Nurturance and Support Provided Students Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total Frequency 3 6 1 __ 10 Percent 30.0 60.0 10.0 100.0 Valid Percent 30^ 60.0 10.0 100.0 1 Cumulative Percent 30.0 90.0 100.0 P3 S n z > CA C S S M W 1660 1 Valid Valid Valid staff Respects Me as an Individual Very Satisfied Satisfied Total Frequeni 4 6 10 Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Valid Percent ^oT 60.0 100.0 staff Responds in a Caring and Helpful Manner Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Frequency 3 7 10 Percent 30.0 70.0 100.0 Valid Percent ' "aoT 70.0 100.0 Meals Provided by LRSD Frequeni ! Valid 1 f ,! I i Cumulative Percent ZoT 100.0 Cumulative Percent 30^ 100.0 II Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Total Meri Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Total Valid Valid Vary Satisfied Satisfied Dissafisfied Total Very Satisfw Satisfied Dissatisfied ' Total_____ id 1 2 5 2 10 Percent 10.0 20.0 50.0 20.0 100.0 Valid Percent "io^ 20.0 50.0 20.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent ioT 30.0 80.0 100.0 Ml Hl Meals in Student Center Frequeni 3 5 1 1 10 Percent 30.0 50.0 10.0 10.0 100.0 Valid Percent 30^ 50.0 10.0 10.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent ' 3oT 80.0 90.0 100.0 Bus Arrival A.M. Frequency 3 5 2 10 Percent 30.0 50.0 20.0 100.0 Valid Percent 30^ 50.0 20.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 30^ 80.0 100.0 Bus Arrival P.M. Frequency 4 6 1 10 Percent 40.0 50.0 10.0 100.0 Valid Percent ToT" 50.0 10.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 40^ 90.0 100.0 ' 16611 Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Valid Do you Valid I Bus Safety Frequem 4 6 10 Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Valid Percent 4oT 60.0 100.0 Have you volunteered at school this year? Yes No Total Frequency 4 6 10 Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Valid Percent * 40T 60.0 100.0 wish for your son/daughter to for the 2000-01 school year? Yes No Total Frequency 7 3 10 Would you Vaiid Yes No Total Valid Cumulative Percent 400 100.0 Cumulative Percent 4^ 100.0 return to the Lyceum ALE Program Percent 70.0 30.0 100.0 Valid Percent . 70.0 30.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent "" toT 100.0 recommend the Lyceum ALE Program to others? Frequency 9 1 10 Percent 90.0 10.0 100.0 Valid Percent 90^ 10.0 100.0 Overall Program Satisfaction Frequem p I? s'. > X n 0 > C z Very Satisfied Satisfied Totel________ 6 4 10 Percent 60.0 40.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 90^ 100.0 Valid Percent 60.0 40.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 60^ 100.0 1662 P5 2 M z "J V) C 2 2 Q IPROGRAM EVALUATION - LRSD LYCEUM STAFF SURVEY 1999-2000 n ) student Selection Process Valid Valid Valid Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_____ Frequency 1 2 ____ 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 n n Satisfied Curriculum Offered Frequency ____ 3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Expected Outcomes Very Satisfied Missing System Tote!___________ Frequency 1 2 _____ 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Selection of Staff Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Frequency 1 2 ________3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Qualifications of Staff Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Frequency 1 2 _ 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100 J Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 II Cumulative Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 1 leaching Performance Valid Very Satisfied , Satisfied Total_______ Frequency 1 2 ______3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 1663 p I :S Valid Satisfied Ir% g 1r1 II ri II nnn Valid Relationships with College Personnel Very Satisfied Satisfied Total Frequeni 3 Percent 100.0 Orientation Frequency 1 2 3 Valid Percent 100.0 Percent 33.3 100.0 Health Services Cumulative Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 33T 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 335" 100.0 e?. <i
g fl 3 5z Valid Virf Satisfied Satisfied Total________ Frequency 1 2 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Career Center Frequency Percent Valid Valid Satisfied Satisfied Missing System Total___________ _ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total Valid Satisfied 3 100.0 Valid Percent 33T 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent NIentoring/Counseling Frequency 2 1 3 Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Valid Percent Too? Case Management Frequency 1 2 ___ 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 PreparationZPIanning Frequeni 3 Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 33T G&.7 100.0 Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 3^3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 t5 m 5 z "i > fl < Cfl C S M sn 8 1664 ! Valid Satisfied Dissatisfied Total____ _ Valid Valid Valid Support In Instnictlonal Delivery Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Very Satisfied Satisfied Total ______ Frequency 1 2 ____ 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Intructional Materials Frequency 1 2 ______3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Very Satisfied Satisfied Total______ Valid Satisfied Valid Satisfied Valid Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Program Evaluation Design Frequency 1 2 _____ 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Profeasioml Evaluation Process Frequency 1 2 _____ 3 Percent 33.3 66,7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Expectatiorrs for Student Behavior Frequency 3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Management of Student Behavior Frequency 3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Support for Disciplinary Actions Very Satisfied Missing System Total __________ Frequency 2 1 ___ 3 Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0- Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 1665 i Valid Administration of Food Sendee Program r 1 h Satisfied Dissatsified Total_____ Frequency 1 2 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 P'
Ri O >5 I fl 9 1 Delivery of LRSD Prepared Meals Valid Satisfied Very Dissatisfied Total__________ Frequency 1 2 ____ 3 Valid Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Vafid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 5c z Distribution of LRSD Prepared Meals Satisfied Dissatisfied Total Frequency 1 2 _3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0
-Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 Service of Lyceum Students in the Student Center Satisfied Frequency _____3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 Bus Arrival Times AM. Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_ Valid Very SattsBad Frequency 1 2 3_L Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Vafid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 Bus Arrival Times P.M. Frequency 1 2 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33? 100.0 From Ale Administrator Frequency 3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 100.0 w Pl S Pl > CZl c: 2 2 oX 8 1666 ) From LRSD Administrator Valid Very Satisfied Frequency ____3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 n n Valid I Very Satisfied Satisfied Total________ Valid Very Satisfied Valid Valid Lyceum Advisory Committee II Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Very Satisfied Valid Satisfied Missing System Total___________ Frequency 1 2 ___ 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 _______ 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 II n ParentZStaff Interactions Frequency ______ 3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 II n Parent Involvement Frequency 1 2 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 n Parental Support Frequency ____ J. Percent 100.0 Vafid Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 Summer Teacher Training Frequency 2 1 _3 Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 Behavior Management Training Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Frequency 1 2 _______ 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 1667 Valid Very Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_______ Valid Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Valid I Satisfied Dissatisfied Total OngolnQ Staff Davalopnwnt Frequem 1 2 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Plato Training Frequency 1 2 ___ 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Classrooins Frequency 2 1 3_l Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Library Valid Percent 33T 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent 3X3" 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 3X3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 3X3" 100.0 Cumulative Percent 66.7 100.0 r oS s 9 > -1 C z I Valid Valid Frequei Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Merf Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ 1 2 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent 33T 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 Computer Lab Frequency 1 2 3 I Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 I Valid Percent 3X3 66.7 100.0 JanKorial Services Frequency 1 2 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent 3X3 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 3X3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33T 100.0 w r n S n zg. s ws ya Vi n s 1668 Comfortability I t I Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total________ Frequency 1 2 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 1 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 I I Do you recommend that the Lyceum Program continue for the 2000-01 school year? I Frequeni Valid Yes Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent io^ 3 II recommend that theXyceum Program expand to another grade Do you level for the 2000-01 school year? [ Valid Yes Frequency 3 Percent Valid Percent 100.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 [ return to the Lyceum Program for the 2000-01 school yrar? Do you wish to I Valid Yes Frequency 3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 I I Overall Program Satisfaction I Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Frequency 1 2 ____3 i Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 I I III II I 1669 I< zi- Valid Valid 1 Valid 1 PROGRAM EVALUATION - LRSD LYCEUM ADMINISTRATIVE SURVEY 1999-2000 student Referral Process Frequeni Cl 51 fl 9 Very Satisfied Very Satisfied Satisfied Total Very Satisfied Valid 3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0~ Cumulative Percent 10Q.0 > 2 2 Opportunities for Acceleration Very Satisfied Satisfied Total Valid Very Satisfied Valid Frequency 2 1 ___13 Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Valid Percent 66T 33.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 66.7 100.0 5 J 2 7 2 Student Parent Contact Frequeni 3 Percent 100.0 Selection of Students Frequency 2 1 Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Curriculum Offered Frequeni 3 Percent 100.0 Expected Outcomes Frequeni Very Satisfied 3 \ Valid Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100^ Percent 100.0 Valid Percent eST 33.3 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Vafid Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent eeT 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 r PJ 2 PJ 2 X VJ C2 2 C/5 n s 1670 Selection of Staff Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_ Frequency 2 1 _________ 3 Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Valid Percent 66.7 33.3 ________100.0 Cumulative Percent 66.7 100.0 Qualifications of Staff I Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_ Frequency 2 1 _____ 3 Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Valid Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 66.7 100.0 I Valid Relationships with Program Personnel n Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Frequency 2 1 ___3 Percent 66,7 33.3 100.0 Valid Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 66.7 100.0 II n Expectations for Student Behavior Valid Very Satisfied Frequency _______ 3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 n n Management of Student Behavior Valid Very Satisfied Valid Very Satisfied Frequency ______3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 From ALE Administrator Frequency ________ 3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 From LRSD Administrator Cumulative Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 11 II II n Valid Very Satisfied Frequency _____ 3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent _______ 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 1671 Student/Parant Orientation Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_____ __ Frequency 2 1 ______ 3 Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Health Services Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Frequency 2 1 _____ 3 Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Valid Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Valid Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 66.7 100.0 Valid Very Satisfied Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ _ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Valid Case Management Frequency ________ 3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 Computer Assisted Instruction Frequency 1 2 _____3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 Instructional Methodology Frequency 2 1 _______ 3 Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Valid Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 66.7 100.0 Overall Program Satisfaction Very Satisfied Frequency _______ 3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 Would you recommend the Lyceum Program to other students? Valid Yes Frequency _____ 3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 m n S B Z "i > 50 < w e 2 2 CX) n a: 1672 l n 2| 0 s' < > 5 > c 1 3 9 'ZI -I X > 1u: 3 2 BBSSS. BBEEEEEEECSaiH: Philander Program Evaluation Smith College/LRSD Lyceum Academic Report 1999-2000 Plato Fastrack Assessment Pre/post bl vH, John Mt, Lytfone cy. Anah na, Qulanla xJthart, Ray eyllehl, Bfanlaha cCoy, Hicota Mtaf, April Unpton, Patridt unpiofl. Shelly tfjay. Jawaa /I ere. 3/10X)0 n/1(V8B Bn4/B8 U24/Q0 B/24/W 3J22M) sa4/eo tt24ia9 ta4ia9 90199 ea4/M eA4/oe 0 10 0 10 0 10 4.33 ^2 2.2 3 2.4 7.1 2.8 2.8 2.2 2.2 2.4 2 0.68 10.67 068 0.11 7.67 11 7 06 11 0.44 044 0.11 8.70 6.22 8.37 7.36 8.11 6.17 3.0 6.38 8.4 734 7.24 8.71 8.70 MB 6-6 6.8 2.56 62 2.68 8.67 6 6 6-7 6 6.7 9 2.78 7.87 06 0.76 8.03 3.83 025 8.21 10.22 0.26 0.17 0 1.37 3.0 7.10 3.73 1.28 2.88 2.71 4.62 4.26 3.47 6.37 486 273 2.73 2 38 2.00 4.6 37 7.4 767 38 37 200 0.2 10 0.2 803 200 10 7.8 10.77 1041 10.82 1023 8.07 436 7.27 6.47 0 6.6 4.1 337 2.74 7.22 863 608 0 0 0 Compiled -^B/00L B-. II: B.
c . L IL. 4 i mHHMX school transition k k' p ELEMENTARY SUMMER SCHOOL i ! ' J I 1^ *' .1 J II
'3 j b < * - ^?W-' J* i>' - 3 vj': I I r- - -LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 TO: Board of Education >l 2nl 0 fl * t >-i C2 FROM: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools PREPARED BY: S^bBonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction < DATE: February 27, 2003 SUBJECT: Elementary Summer School Program Evaluation Background Information on the Elementary Summer School Program Evaluation One in the group of programs required by the federal court to be evaluated with the participation of an external evaluator was the Elementary Summer School program. In 1998 the State discontinued funding for the elementary summer school program, which had been mandatory for identified students in grades K-3 during 1993-1997. During those years the District also offered a tuition-funded program for students in grades 4-6, providing approximately 25 days of extended instruction with an emphasis on reading and mathematics. Effective 1998, the District continued the funding for grades K-3, and grades 4-5 students had the option of attending a tuition program. (Grade 6 moved to middle school in fall 1999.) The K-3 program changed the emphasis from reading and mathematics to a focus on reading and writing, and instruction was patterned after the Districts comprehensive early literacy program in Prek-3. Steps Taken as a Result of the Program Evaluation The E lementary S ummer S chool p rogram was a bandoned a fter summer 2 001. This decision was made based on the analysis of data by District staff from the summer 2000 and summer 2001 programs and on the desire of elementary principals to provide their own school-based remedial programs throughout the year, instead of during the summer. They saw the summer intervention as being too late to impact achievement scores and too late to impact the initial retention decisions. The funds, approximately $250,000 annually, previously allocated for K-3 summer school are now divided among the elementary schools according to a formula based on the schools enrollment, achievement data, and the number of free/reduced lunch students. Each school submits a plan annually for the use of the funds, including goals. I 1674 I Board Memo February 27, 2003 Page Two strategies, assessments, and budget. Individual students at each school are identified for the program. >1 4 P5I1 91 <pj > f9l eft f>l 5z Desiqnation of External Consultant and His Qualifications On December 2, 2002, the District awarded the contract for the Elementary Summer School program evaluation to the firm. Quality Education and Management Associates, Inc., Dr. Larry McNeal, president. A copy of his resume is attached, establishing his 1 J i qualifications. Administrator Participation in Conducting the Proqram Evaluation /' In addition to Dr. McNeal and his associates, the following LRSD administrators participated in the evaluation: Ms. Frances Cawthon Jones, Assistant Superintendent for Elementary School Services Dr. Ed Williams, Department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation Mr. Ken Savage, Department of Computer Information Systems Ms. Lillie Carter, Summer School Coordinator Summer 2000 Summer School administrators-Joyce Willingham, Eleanor Cox, Ada Keown, and Donna Hall Summer 2001 Summer School administratorsJoyce Willingham, Eleanor Cox, Ada Keown, and Les Taylor n Teacher Participation in Conductinq the Proqram Evaluation Elementary school-level test coordinators and teachers involved in administering the SAT-9 (grade 5), ALT (grades 2-5), DRA (grades K-2), Observation Surveys (grades K-2), and state Benchmark examinations (grade 4) a Impact on African-American Student Achievement The external evaluator was not able to determine definitively from existing data whether the elementary summer school program resulted in improved achievement among African American students. The conclusion was that the program had mixed results." There was some growth among second- and third-grade students, but kindergarten and grade one students performance maintained a similar level of achievement before and after the program." 1 These findings were virtually identical to those concluded by the staff participating in the original study. Recommendation That the Board of Education approve the Elementary Summer School program evaluation for submission to the federal court. BAL/adg 4 ' V 1675 DR. LARRY MCNEAL BUSINESS ADDRESS_______________ University of Arkansas at Little Rock 2801 S. University Avenue Department of Educational Leadership Little Rock, Arkansas 72204-1099 Office 501-569-3552 Fax 501-569-3547 buncnealtSualr.edu HOME ADDRESS 15806 Patriot Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72212-2606 501-221-1178 l-xmcneal (ainetscape.net lmcneal59@HntmaiI.com or PkD. __________________PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION____________________ Educational Administration, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (1990) Emphasis
Fiscal and Community Support for Public Education Concentrations: Educational Finance, School-Community Relations, and Public School! Administration M.S. Educational Administration, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (1989) EmpHasiR- Administration and Orga-nization of Public Education Concentration
Educational Administration (Public School) 21 5B1l 91 <M1I >1 n 1 cz M. A. B.A. Licensee: Public Affairs. University of Iowa, Iowa City (1976) Emphasis
Public Administration Concentration: Urban Admini-stration Business Administration and Political Science, Dakota Wesleyan University, Mitchell, SD (1975) Eirqihasis: Political Economics Concentrations
Business AdTninistration, Political Science and Economics School Business Management (No longer active) Insurance Agent (No longer active) Entrepreneurship: Quality Education and Management Associates, President _________ PROFESSIONAL WORK EXPERIENCE _______________ Professor, Pppartment of Educational Leadership, Graduate School ofEducation, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, Arkansas, 1998 to the present I Visiting Professor, Department of Educational Management & Development, Graduate School of Education, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, Summer 2000 Educational Administration and Supervision Program Coordinator, Department of Educational Leadership, Graduate School ofEducation, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, Arkansas, 1998 to 2001 Visiting Professor. Department of Educational Management & Development, Graduate School of Education, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, Summer 1998 Associate Professor, Department of Educational Administration and Foundations, Graduate School of Education, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, 1995 to 1998 1 1681 19 Visiting Professor, BeUver International College. Trenton State College (now College of New Jersey), Graduate School of Education. Palma de Mallorca. Baleares. Spain, Surmner 1996 Associate Director, Office of Educational Finance, Center For Higher Education and Educational Finance, Graduate School of.Education, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, 1995-1997 State Coordinator, Illinois Education Policy Fellow Program, Institute for Educational Leadership, Graduate School of Education, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois 1994-1996 2
Ci >s i1 fal > C "2. Research Associate, Center for the Study of Educational Finance, Graduate School of Education, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, 1993-1995 Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Administratinn and Foundations, Graduate School of Education, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, 1993-1995 n Visiting Professor, Department of Educational Administration and Foundations, Graduate School of Education, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, Iowa, Summer 1993 Research Associate, Center for the Study of SmaU/Rural Schools, Graduate School of Education, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, 1992-1994 Adjunct Fellow, Center for Research on Multi-Ethnic Education, University of Oklahoma Norman, Oklahoma, 1991-1992 Danforth Principal Preparation Program Co-FaciHtator, Graduate School of Education, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, 1991-1993 Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, Graduate School of Education, University of Oklahoma, Normal, Oklahoma, 1991-1993 iM I Coordinator of Multicultural Affairs, Wisconsin Alumni Association, University of Wisconsin, Madicon Wisconsin, 1990-1991 Budget Analyst Intern, University of Wisconsin System Administrating, Madison, Wisconsin, 1989-90 Equal Rights Officer, Division of Care and Treatment Facilities, Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services, Madison, Wisconsin, Fall/Spring, 1988/1989 Budget and Management Analyst Intern, Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, Madison, Wisconsin, Summer, 1988 Marketing Manager, Warfiuc Educultural Publications, Madison, Wisconsin, 1985-1987 Business Mathematics Instructor, Business Department, Madison Area Technical College, Madison, Wisconsin, Fall 1985 and Spring 1987 Finance Marketing Representative, John Deere & Company, Moline, Illinois, based in Madison, Wisconsin, 1978-1984 Commercial Service Representative, HoneyweU, Incorporated, Minneapolis, Minnesota, based in Des Moines, Iowa, 1977-1978 Public Administration Intern, Mayors Office. City of Davenport, Davenport, Iowa, 1976 1682 I _________________________________ DISSERTATION_________________________________ McNeal, L. (1990). The role of education for employment councils in education for employment programs. University of Wisconsin-Madison. Pl 0 rI 91 <R1< >1 g- RESEARCH INTERESTS > ' Cz School CnmrminitariaTii.'iTn (the fundamental relationship between schools and their communities) Organizational Change (change processes and organizational effectiveness) Educational Finance (adequacy and equity of funding for pubhc education) Program Assessment and Evaluation GRADUATE COURSES TAUGHT Administtation and Organization of Schools Advanced Administrative Theory and Behavior Administrative Problem Solving Organizational Change Educational Pohtics andPohcy Dissertation Proposal Development Educational Finance School Business AdTninistratinn Human and Fiscal Resources Management Educational Pubhc Relations Introduction to Doctoral Studies Organizational Development ____________________________ PUBLICATIONS: REFERRED____________________ McNeal, L. & Christy, W.K. (In Press, 2003). The locus of control issue in standard-based accountabihty. Educational Considerations. n la Christy, W.K. & McNeal, L. (2002). Influence of school board members on state legislation in Arkansas. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EA 031517. McNeal, L. (2002). The school-community relations profile model: Combining school district and community-based data. In J. Thomas Owens and Jan C. Simmons (Eds.), In creating guahtv reform: Programs. comTmTnities. and governance (67-81). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. can Chesser, J.S., & McNeal, L. (2001). Educational community study circles: How superintendents enhance school improvement through community dialogue. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 446 370. Christy, W.K., & McNeal, L. (2000). Impheations of legislative pohey development for public school districts. F. Kochan (Ed ). Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Yearbook Chesser, J.S., & McNeal, L. (1999). School improvement through community dialogue: The first community study circles on education in Arkansas and Oklahoma. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 436 694. Mogilka, J, Ashby, D.E, & McNeal, L., (Eds.). (1996). Plaaning & Changing, 27(1 &2). McNeal, L. (1995). Fulfilling promises in the land of Will Rogers: A look at performance indicators in selected school districts since the enactment of Oklahoma house bill 1017. School Finance Pohev Issues in the States and Provinces: Annual Update 1995 (135-1381. C. Edlefson (Ed). The Ohio State University: Pohey Research for Ohio-Based Education. McNeal, L. &Reed, R. (1995). Building a school-community'relations profile through sociological inventorying. People & Education: The Human Side of Schools. 3(3), 371-386. 3 1683 1 McNeal L., et al. (1994). National Sallie Mae winners and their principals. National Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision Journ^, 11(3), 3-10. McNeal, L. (1994). Focusing on at-risk students
Case study of John Wilkinson Elementary School. TUTHors School Research and Development Journal, 31(1), 7-10. McNeal L., & Ashby, D. (1993). Site-based management and changing relationships. Illinois School Research and Development Journal. 31(1), 7-10. McNeal L., & Lehman, B. J. (1993). k vision of the future: The fuU-service school Planning and Changing. 24(3/4), 140-154. BOOK PROPOSAL IN PROGRESS Chxiatj, V/.K., fc McNeal, T (?QO1) WnTlring Title
The Superintendencv. Theory to reflective practice. To be submitted to Wadsworth. Belmont, CA. manuscripts in progress --------------^2001). The contextual world of education for children and the school-commumiv: James coleman and the effective schools movement To be submitted to Humanistic Counseling, Educanon an Development. McNeal, L., & Christy, WX (2001). Rethinking the school district model of funding for individual schools: Comments about site-based management of resources. To be submitted to Planning and Change. Christy, WJC, McNeal, L. (2001). Inqilications of charter schools and home schooling for the funding of pubhc schools. To be submitted to Journal of School Leadership. PUBLICATIONS: MONOGRAPHS McNeal, L., et al. (1993). Common sense: Plain talk to legislators about school finance. Center For the Study of Educational Finance. Hhnois State University. PUBLICATIONS: NON-REFERRED McNeal, L. (December, 1990). The role of education for employment councils in education for employment programs. Dissertation, McNeal L. (1993). The education of African-American children in Oklahoma. State of Oklahoma: Annual Report. Urban League of Greater Oklahoma City, Inc., 36-45. First, P. F., & Knudson, D. P. (1993). Evaluating the University of Oklahoma McNeaL L.,----- Danforth Principal Preparation Program. Connections. 1 (2), 3. McNeal, L. (1992). University of Oklahoma report. Danforth Programs for the Preparation of School Principals Newsletter. 1 (2), 3. McNeal, L. (1987). From the desk of. National Multicultural Banner. 5 (6), 2. McNeal, L. (1986). From the desk of: Literacy, who's problem is it anyway? Nation^ Multicultural Banner, 5 (3), 2. 4 1684 r p R! 0 S'. > fl 3 > ZMcNeal, L. (1986). The Black collegians guide to graduate fellowships for minority students. National Multicultural Barmer. 5 (2), 9. 6 __________________________________CITED IN EDUCATION WEEK____________________ In the area of educational finance. Education Week has quoted me on several occasions. I have been quoted in the following articles: oRll s< 1I 1 9a ' 5 c 2 11/26/97 in News ILL. Lawmakers Get One More Try To Pass School Funding Reforms 6/11/97 in News ILL. Lawmakers Duck Vow To Revamp Funding 3/26/97 in News ILL. Audit Questions Oversight of ILL. Education Agency 2/5/97 in News ILL. Odds Seen Better for Funding Refonn in ILL. ____________________________ REPORTS______________ ___________________ McNeal, L. Little Rock school district charter elementary school evaluation report for the 2001- 2002 school year. Prepared for the Little Rock School District, November, 2002. McNeal, L., et. al. The college of education assessment report 2000-2001
University of Arkansas at Little Rock Prepared for the Provosts Advisory Group on Assessment, June, 2001. 'I McNeal, L. Little Rock school district charter elementary school evaluation report for the 2000- 2001 school year. Prepared for the Little Rock School District, June, 2001. McNeal, L. Projected student enrollment for the 2000-2001 school year
6 and 7^ grade student racial make up report. Prepared for Pulaski County Charter School Inc., April, 2001. McNeal, L. Enrollment trends in the Little Rock, North Little, and Pulaski County Special school districts
1995-1996 to 1999-2000. Prepared for Pulaski County Charter School Inc., November, 2000. 1g Coleen, B.C., Driskill, G., Leslie, S., McNeal, L., Mitchell, W., Taylor, C., & Webb, R. Provosts advisory group on assessment: University of Arkansas at Little Rock. SummeT 2000 report, July, 2000. McNeal, L., et. aL The college of education assessment report 1999-2000: University of Arkansas at Little Rock Prepared for the Provosts Advisory Group on Assessment, June, 2000. McNeal, L. Student enrollment needs assessment study of the Illinois school for the visually impaired, Illinois Center for Rehabilitation and Education and lUinois School for the Deaf. Prepared for the Illinois Department of Rehabilitation Services, October, 1995. bri McNeal, L, First, P., Walker, V,, & Hobson, B. An inquiry into alleged cultural insensitivity at Capitol Hill High SchooL Prepared for Oklahoma City Public School District, March, 1993. M McNeal, L, et aL School choice: Open enrollment and post secondary options. Prepared for the Association of Wisconsin School AdministtatoTS, March, 1990. McNeal, L. County veterans service nfHr.Rr training manual. Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs, June, 1990. McNeal, L. A Review of health care and medical services provided by the United States departmeni of veterans affairs. Prepared for die Division of Veterans Programs, Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs, August, 1989. McNeal, L. A review of health care grants and the Wisconsin Veterans Home in King, Wisconsin. Prepared for the Division of Veterans Programs, Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs, August, 1989. 5 1685 r E McNeal, L. Mendota mental health institute
An analysis of an organization in crisis. Prepared for the Division of Care and Treatment Facilities of the Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services, December 1988. PRESENTATIONS
REFERRED p e 0 <> 3 > Cz McNeal, L., Christy, W.K., & Lewis, R (2002). New leaders and new impheations for educational admini-gtratinn Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Kansas City, MO. Christy, W.K., & McNeal, L. (November, 2001). Mid-South Educational Research Association Annual Conference. Little Rock, AR. ri McNeal, L. & Christy, W.K. (November, 2001). A discussion of change theoTy, systems theory, and state designed standards and ac
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.