B s n 5C > > 5 z m I VOLUME 2 II 2 p5 z RECEIVED MAR 1 4 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORINGfl fl Appendix G Academic Comparison Data by Area, Magnet, and Incentive Schools > n 5 s z m 2 fl I I I i I I 67 471 2 Z 9 s z wI d d Number of Students by Grade Level d d d d d d d d nn d d n PK Area Magnet Incentive Kindergarten Area Magnet Incentive 1 Grade Area Magnet Incentive 2* Grade Area Magnet Incentive 3'' Grade LEP 26 0 3 51 3 2 42 14 43 4 1 NAEP 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 10 0 FEP FEPE 6 0 3 0 0 0 14 4 5 19 2 1 14 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 Area Magnet Incentive 4'* Grade Area Magnet Incentive 5*^ Grade Area Magnet Incentive 6'* Grade Area Magnet 7* Grade 8"^ Grade Area Magnet Area Magnet 9 Grade Area Magnet 42 4 2 38 0 0 25 2 2 20 0 36 6 31 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 5 2 2 15 7 1 17 4 1 25 5 1 25 3 17 3 22 2 10 5 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 2 0 4 0 1 0 J 0 68 472 c > S S> Pl > 04o z nI 2 z UI "I. n rr F d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d 10*^ Grade Area Magnet 11^ Grade [Tep Area Magnet 12^ Grade Area Magnet DRA Scores LEP - Kindergarten FEP- Kindergarten FEPE - Kindergarten NAEP- Kindergarten LEP - 1 Grade FEP -1 Grade FEPE -1TT Grade NAEP - 1 Grade LEP - 2"^ Grade FEP - 2" Grade FEPE - 2^ Grade I NAEP- 2'* Grade NAEP FEP FEPE 20 0 18 0 12 0 Area W 1 3 3.5 7.4 1 15.5 34.5 19.5 2 3 6 9 0 6 17 0 12 0 9 0 Spring Growth 4 9.3 3.1 56.3 13.2 19.3 6 24.2 37.5 34 0 0 1 0 0 I Magnet Fall 9 8 Spring 13.3 10.5 Growth 7 2.5 '.as
-' 11.2 11.9 5 13 8 14.5 6 21 34 42 28 21 17.5 35.3 33 42.6 15.5 7.3 69 Incentive Fall 0 5.8 2.5 3 Spring 1 9.6 14 14 XL -O' Growth i 3.8 11 11 N 1 ff 2 >99 C> <m 3 5 zn > 2 Z C F z n cr ^13 d d SAT-9 Complete Battery: National Curve Equivalent Scores Area 1 Magnet d d d d d d II II II n n n n < LEP-5^ Grade FEP - 5*^ Grade FEPE-5^ Grade NAEP - 5^ Grade 1 LEP - 7^ Grade FEP-7*^ Grade FEPE - 7^ Grade" NAEP -1'^' LEP -10*^ Grade FEP-10*^ Grade FEPE - lO^* Grade NAEP -10'^ Grade 4" 15.7 39 \1 l^.'i Incentive 85 d > CO O X > > Q 5 z n I 26.3 74.3 33 30 54.8 21 49 11.5 11.5 52 if 'fSi 2 5 -2. C cz: s z ri w Grade State Benchmark Exam for current 5* Grade Students Math LEP-4*'Grade NAEP- 4* Grade FEP- 4*^ Grade Area "IT 184 Magnet 266 Incentive TIT or FEPE-4^Grade j 180 Literacy LEP - 4*^ Grade NAEP- 4*^ Grade FEP- 4^ Grade I FEPE- 4*^ Grade Area 126 i 199 171 Magnet IST 228 -j: 200 Incentive 202 70 474d d ALT RIT Scores: Elementary Math dLEP - 2"** Gride T?T?n ->ntl riJo FEP - 2 Grade 1 Area I 166 Magnet | Incentive d d d d d d d II n n n n FEPE - 2"^ Grade NAEP- 2"'^ Gradl LEP - 3"* Grade FEP - 3'^* Grade " FEPE - 3'^Grade~~ NAEP-S'** Grade LEP - 4* Grade FEP - 4*^ Grade FEPE-4*^ Grade" NAEP - 4th Grade LEP - 5* Grade FEP-5^ Grade FEPE - 5*^ Grade NAEP - 5* Grade 198 193 188 198 170 d M > s 5 > 5 z P5 > 2 185 206 211 207 195 213 211 209 189 220 221 206 212 183 210 2 > 229 198 224 3 220 210 222 * ALT RIT Scores: Reading Elementary Level LEP - 2"'* Grade FEP - 2' Grade FEPE-2'^ Grade I NAEP- 2"^* Grid? LEP - 3 j Grade FEP - 3"^ Grade FEPE - 3"^Grade i NAEP - 3"^ Grade I i LEP - 4*^ Grade I FEP - 4*^ Grade FEPE - 4* Grade~ NAEP - 4th Grade LEP-5*^ Grade FEP - 5*Grade ~ FEPE - 5*^ Grade" NAEP - 5* Grade > z o {5 z n Area ~iS7~ 179 189 .ti' 171 198 205 201 184 210 203 191 Magnet Incentive 183 198 188 a 187 205 178 202 - 223 3* tn 208~ tri* 187 213 212 193 223 188 214 71 475d alt RTT Scores: Language Elementary Level Area Magnet Incentive d d d d d d d n n II n n n n LEP - 2"*' Grade FEP-2" Grade FEPE-2' Grade NAEP- 2"** Grad^ LEP - 3^^ Grade ~ FEP - 3^Grade FEPE - 3'^Grade~ NAEP - 3'*' Grade LEP - 4* Grade FEP - 4'^ Grade FEPE -4*" Grade NAEP - 4th Grade LEP - 5*^ Grade FEP - 5* Grade FEPE - 5^ Grade NAEP - 5*^ Grade 171 186 194 192 208 189 2 > S X > 5 2 n I 182 204 212 207 192 214 211 200 191 218 215 193 212 184 213 227 218 z O CZ5 ?5 z rj w 197 226 192 210 ALT RIT Scores: Middle Level Math LEP - 6* Grade FEP - 6* Grade FEPE - 6* Grade NAEP- 6* Grade LEP - 7*^ Grade FEP - 7*^ Grade FEPE - 7'*' Grade NAEP - 7*^ Grade LEP - S'* Grade rrn FEP - 8 Grade FEPE - 8* Grade NAEP - 8* Grade 1 Area I 199 221 223 Magnet 218 234 203 243 210 222 237 230 202 233 233 253 260 72 476d Id ALT RIT Scores: Middle Level Reading Area Magnet d d Id Id Id Id Id Id Id Id II II II LEP - 6^^' Grade ~ FEP-6'^ Grade FEPE - 6"^ Grade NAEP- 6*^ Grade LEP - 7*^ Grade FEP - 7**^ Grade FEPE - 7**' Grade NAEP - 7'*' Grade LEP-8*^ Grade FEP - 8*^ Grade FEPE - 8*^ Grade NAEP - 8*** Grade 192 215 216 217 228 204 223 205 202 226 221 210 221 227 225 236 ALT RIT Scores: Middle Level Language LEP - 6*^ Grade FEP - 6* Grade FEPE - 6* Grade NAEP- 6'* Grade LEP-7*^'Grade FEP - 7*^Grade I FEPE - 7** Grade I NAEP -Grade LEP - 8* Grade FEP - 8* Grade FEPE - 8'* Grade NAEP - 8^ Grade" Area W 219 217 207 227 214 2Q1 230 226 Magnet 226 ^30~ 218 230 227 234 239 2 > s > P3 > 4 5 z m 2 2 > 2. O r S z Pl 13 ^11M [fl ALT RIT Scores: High School Level Reading [fl [fl n M [fl [fl n [fl II n II n n n LEP - 9* Grade FEP - 9*** Grade FEPE - 9* Grad? NAEP-9^ Grade' I Area Magnet LEP-10^ Grade " FEP - 10*^ Grade FEPE -10^ Grade" NAEP -10^^ Grad'e LEP- ll^' Grade ~ FEP - 11*'Grade ~ FEPE - 11'^ Grade NAEP -11*^ Grade 201 230 222 174 225 224 208 211 213 232 205 225 S w C z > d s z > 2 1 229 218 ALT RIT Scores: High School Level Language LEP - 9* GradT" FEP - 9* Grade FEPE - 9* Grade NAEP-9* Grade LEP -10*^ Grade FEP - lO"^ Grade FEPE -10* Grade NAEP -10* Grade LEP - 11"^ Grade FEP-11* Grade FEPE-ll*^ Grade NAEP -11'^ Grade 2 5 Z c t/i W 2. Area ~2i2' 236 231 210 208 214 214 220 233 213 Magnet 211 2T1 Ssi:
' '240 K 217 74 478ri ri Appendix H ri Achievement Data by School ri w s > 5 5 z n 2 ri 2 ri H 2. C uc F 2. P5 fl fl fl n n n n n 75 479i 2 M ri Badgett I I 1 ri ri ri ri ri ri H [fl n iri n n n Grades K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General ISt-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 'i DRA Fall i DRA Spring? i SAT-9 j Benchmark ! ALT Reading j ALT Math i ALT Language } (N/Missing)! (N/Missing) j DRA Growth i (N/Missing) | (N/Missing)} (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) (N/Missing) J:'_________ _ .u~ -i- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 I I i Benchmark i ALT Reading ALT Math i ALT Language > ee C ?: > < Pl > Q 5 z -J pj > 2 1 I I i 1st General 1 i I _i_7 1 I t I I 3!^ 2 1 I i Ei^ 5M? 1 1 J " .........ibas^ hi^B<M*r1rr* JJtM I i :2nd LEP I I I 480 Z P5 z P5 ! Bale ! o I Grades i DRA Fall i DRA Spring ) i I (N/Missing)
(N/Missing) I DRA Growth j i Benchmark I ALT Reading i ALT Math
ALT Language I SAT-9 1 BencnmarK . ali Keaumy nti i-.aui ou. L^uyuoy. i (N/Missing) | (N/Missing) (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) 1 ! I 1 I i > S 55 > s z n I fl
K-LEP K-NAEP [k-fep K-FEPE iK-General i .00 (2g) i 1.5 (2g) I I I I i I is^ vA-. H fl fl fl fl I Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE i 1st General ! 2nd LEP 12nd NAEP 12nd FEP , 2nd FEPE 2nd General , 3rd-LEP i3rd-NAEP prd-FEP |3rd-FEPE 3rd-General i4th-LEP |4th-NAEP |4th-FEP ~ |4th-FEPE 14th-General 5th-LEP jSth-NAEP 5th-FEP Sth-FEPE 6.0 (3/1)
26.0(3/1) i 20.0(3/1) 1 ! I I I J. T ^WSO Z C CZ) 2 2. ri ff xv5i-,P=::i- ss^l!saaa*s^<. lAk. Ai .*> -I. 1 I t I i I 1 utjR5asEfr,Bsy7?S535*" I 2it5i, T I 176.0 (2/0) 33ST5S55g^' 165.5 (2/0)
170.5 {2JQ} ' B !fSiSS^--'-^V 55iS! F I (0/1) y=*^V ui^Jwv.w -i.- 1 fe 207.0(1/0) j 208.0(1/0) 214.0 (1/0) I I i ISO a2s I T I (0/1)
S 3^-3: (0/1) (Og) ?^4 -l>-. I 1 (0/1) 71.0 {2J0) 1 5th-General g ____________ *N=Number of students tested S
207.0 (1/0) 219.0(1/0)- 218.0(1/0) (1/0) I I (1/0) T (1/0) 221.0 (2A)) 231.0(2/0)
229.0(2/0) I I 1 481Grades Baseline I DRA Fall I DRA Spring i ! SAT-9 j Benchmark ! ALT Reading
ALT Math ? ALT Language j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j DRA Growth j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) , (N/Missing) 7 7 i j ( i ! 2 > B3 o X > n > Oz -j Pl S ri ri K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General I T7I i IX i ri ri Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General i (0/1) ' (0/1) i (0/1) I 1T i7 1 r SSTJ^S I ^171.0(1/0) '179.0(1/0) 1180.0 (1/0) 8^' 1. 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General 5th-LEP i5th-NAEP 5th-FEP 5th-FEPE 5th-General 10.0(1/0) , 20.0(1/0) 10.0 (1/0) I V52: ! +I SSs^ T I ^5 (0/1) I I I7 T TIT (0/1) (0/1) (0/1) IT T I 1 T (0/1) !l7.0 (1/0) , 196.0 (1/0) ' 207.0 (1/0) i 208.0 (1/0) 4------------------------------------------- 1--------------------- J I N=Number of students tested 482 ri c ri ri ri Grades 1 1 j DRA Fall ! DRA Spring j Booker SAT-9 ' (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) i DRA Growth |(N/Missing) (N/Missing i ------------ i S J ____ _ I Benchmark I ALT Reading i ALT Math j ALT Language ............ i ! .(..N.../.M.. iss in g ) 1 j (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) ri ri ri ri fl fl fl fl fl K-1LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K:--FEPE !T K-General Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General Sth-LEP Sth-NAEP 5th-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General I I I .50(S/3) ! I I T T1 1.0 (1/4) i I 1 iI i7 1 I SS
T I > :b C> m z5 n I i 44.0(2/0) i 44.0(2/0) .00 (2/0) I 1 JI I i7 (0/1) ''-T'^T-T- ~
..eTA'.-':^2WBflx>.7.14<.5-^ fSSSEil sass 1 ^205.0 (2/0) 198.0(2/0) 211.5(2/0) I I i 191.0 (1/0) ! 186.0 (1/0) ! 196.0 (1/6) i i I T 1 25 > "I. O CZ) n 2. n [fl TT I {om 17.0 (1/0) wr~- =7r.-* J iriT'jr-itiiA'-ajiV.x-' I 1 Lai '3^535S^ 187.0 (1/0) ' 205.0 (1/0) ' ----------------------------1 T 189.0 (1/0) N=Number of students testeo *iM**i. T I I 483 Iri c Iri S Iri r- Brady I I 1 I Iri ! DRA Fall i DRA Spring ( i Benchmark i ALT Reading ! ALT Math j ALT Language Grades ' SAj.g i s ALi Keaaing { mui lau- , r^u. I MMisig) 1 WMi^i drag#. I Iri 1 i ri K-LEP Ic?iAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General I .50 (2/3) i 1.0 (V4) I. 1 I T ri i i T _L i T ri Ist-LEP ist-N^ Ist-FEP lstFEPE~~ 1st General i 4.0 (3/1) I 9.7 (3/1) i I i i A.OjMQ) I 8.0 (1/0) ! 1 I X i T I ri ri i2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2ndFEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General i 16.0(1/0) 28.0(1/0)
i t I _L I ri 01 3rd-LEP ^-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3i^^FEPr~ 3rd-Genera? ri ri 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP WvFEP 4t)vFEPr~ 4th-General H Sth-LEP Sth-NAEP Sfr^^FEP 5th-FEPl~ 5th-General I Q 5 z H n > i I I i
5.7 (3/1) 4.0 (1/0) r.--. -t:
^iaS^ Ss I- J I_______-----------__ ______J_______-------------. .. .Z: I z ni- z> in\ AQA O /A ICW -------------------''^-^rS7^SiS#?1sri?53LtT7^ i185.0(1/0) 184.0(1/0) 12.0 (I/O) !-------------------1------------------------ (0/4) I ! 167.3 (4/0) i 189.3(4/0)
179.3(4/0) T 2 5 > z (Zi n z n n wV r^=' (0/5) (0/1) I A"-* i i r ^^1951W) ' 205.8 (4/1) 2^0 (4/1) i 219.0 (1/0) 209.0 (1/0) I 212.0 (1/0) I^SWBO oA qpu i*/? (0/5) I i I 36.0 (1/4) .ll C'St (0/1) (0/2) '5.0 (1/0)
39.0 (210) Trt4^'iaR^ '*N=Number of students tested ^3.6 (5/0) 206.0(5/0)' 191.0(5/0) I V84.0 (1/0)~ 'l92-0 W 181.0 (1/0) 2^A.5 C^Q) 223.0 (2/0) 219.0 (210) 484iri ri > SX > -i ri Carver I I 1 I ri i DRA Fall i DRA Spring | 1 SAT-9 Grades I u/1'/' I o 11 I I I i i (N/Missing) j (N/Missing)
DRA Growth j (N/Missing) Benchmark j ALT Reading | ALT Math
ALT Language (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) ' (N/Missing) (N/Missing) ! I 1 I PI 5 52 n I ri ri M ri ri ri ri ri K- :-LEP K-NAEP K-lFEP (-FEPE (-General K-K-ist- LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 12nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General 5th-LEP Sth-NAEP 5th-FEP 5th-FEPE Sth-General I 2.0 (1/0) I 4.0 (1/0) i 2.0 (1/0) I I 10.7(3/0) i 14.0(3/0) 1 3.3 (3/0) !T I I I 6.0 (1/0) I 34.0(1/0) 1 28.0 (1/0) I i i 8.0 (1/0) ! 40.0(1/0) I 32.0 (1/0) a I i i 1 i 16.0(2/0) i 32.0(2/0) T T i 18.0(1/0) ' 40.0(1/0)
i g ! iSSl 1 193.5(2/0) '193.0(2/0) I ^"" 16-0 (2/0) jgagSffw 22.0 (1/0) E 184.0(1/0) !197.O(1/O) 1202.0(1/0) T i 1 2 > 1. ff {012) (0/2) I 1 I S'- I 1 (0/2) Ah. *- w I (0/1) 187.0(2/0) 205.5(2/0) i 193.5(2/0) 202.5 (2/0) i 213.0(2/0) I 213.5(2/0) 1 T I I 223.5 (2/0) 226.0(2/0) 228.5(2/0) T 1 79.0(1/0) - - - > i 227.0(1/0) 226.0(1/0) 225.0 (1/0) I 1 !N=Number of students tested 485 ri 2 ri ri Chicot 1 I I ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri I ri ri ri Grades iK-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General ! DRA Fall I DRA Spring j SAT-9 I Benchmark ALT Reading ' ALT Math ! UKA rail opuuy
: < /M/kj- \ i (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j DRA Growth ! (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) (N/Missing) j (N/Missing)
----------------------- -- ------------------------------ : " i ' T I ! ALT Language (N/Missing) I I I 1 9.1 (11/0) i .91(11/0) ! .82(11/0) 1 I 1 i .00(1/0) 2.0 (1/0) I 2.0 (1/0) I > co C > 5 sz P5 > 2: 1 1 1 I 1 i .33 (3/8) 4.33 (6/5)
.50 (2/9) I fS. I 2.5 {2JQ} I 13.0(2/0) i 10.5 (2/0) r*
I (K ---------------------- WP*^H '^?3!W i 18 0(1/13) 12.5(11/3) i 26.0(1/13) 1 i I T W-S 25 --af^ j*.j i o *4 * ! 1 113.1(10/4)' 141.2(10/4) i 136.2.(10/4) T .00(1/1) I 182.0(1/1) i .00 (1/1) z o zn n M Sth-LEP Sth-NAEP Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General (012) (012) I I I I :yy2 i I 1 - ..^^4eiiSSiia3^SSfis i 10.0(2/0) I (0/13) 172.5(10/3) '5^ (0/1) r>s" v.'-c' I 144.4 (8/2) _____________ _ 193.0(1^ 178.6 (8/2) ! 166.6 (8/2) 204.0 (1/0) ' 203.0 (1/0) 1t
185.3(10/3) , 184.0(10/3) I 210.0(1/0)
211.0 (1/6r~[^ 214.0 (1/0) T I I ^2?
^3^ (015) i (0/6) 176.2(5/1) 148.0(5/1)7 180.2 (5/1) (0/2) i 18.5(2/0) 1 Q9.5(2/0) i 207.0(2/0) ' 210.5(2/0) '*N=Number of students tested i I 486 c a5 > I Cloverdale 1 Grades ! DRA Fall ! DRA Spring ' 1 SAT-9 I Benchmark ALT Reading
ALT Math i ALT Language I (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) | DRA Growth j (N/Missing) { (NZk/i Missing) /M(N/M/Micisesininng\ ) i i (N/Missing) fN(N/M/Miciscsininng^) Q5 z n 2 fl :-LEP (-NAEP K-K- 00(2/0) I 2.0 {210} ! 2.0 (2/0) K:--FEP K:--FEPE I I K-:-General I I 1 I I I I I I jtjj a?? T TS-pTt- SRlth,
?
,T 2S
>3 - i-~ 2 > I I I 2. S Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP ist FEPE 1st General 2.0 (2/0) i 2.5 (.210} I j 2.5(210} i 23.0(2/0) j 1 I 1.5 (2/0) !7 19-5(2/0) i ft ______ ..... 0^- w-2. ri 2nd LEP |2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General 5th-LEP 5th-NAEP 5th-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General 44.0(1/0) i 44.0(1/0) i .00 (1/0) Jaisg^s?^ i 1 r (01^} Si: 185.0(1/0) : 183.0 (1/0) i 190.0(1/0) T I 182.8(4/0) 1 187.3(4/0) ' 192.3(4/0) - ----------- --------*------------------'I--------------------- *.9^' T 1 (0/1) ga^S^ ilW sis *llM'V^'yS<.3K^75.2,T n-r i 196.0(1/0) : 201.0 (1/0) : 198.0(1/0) I I T (0/1) 113.0(1/0) r^- '.*i (0/1) i71.0(1/0) i*N=Number of students tested T I ! t 197.0(1/0) i 205.0 (1/0) ! T I 206.0 (1/0) 215.0(1/0) i 215.0(1/0)
213.0(1/0) T I I 487 fl c fl ec >S fl Dodd I 1 1 I I 1 fl Grades i Benchmark 1 ALT Reading i ALT Math j ALT Language i ---- \ 1 Zkl/u
,.-
.,.,! ! rW/Miccinnl j (N/MISSing) ! DRA Fall i DRA Spring! I SAT-9 j | al i matn , ' (N/Missing) | (N/Missing) j DRA Growth j (N/Missing) ! (N/Missing)! (N/Missing)
(N/Missing)
f ___! ____ I ____ n 5 5 z -i Pl 2 1 fl fl fl fl fl fl fl n fl fl H K-:-LEP K-NAEP K-lFEP K-:-FEPE K-^-General Ist-LEP ISt-NAEP ISt-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-l-EP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General Sth-LEP Sth-NAEP Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General i I I IT I I i I 8S I T 1 1
18.0(1/0)
30.0(1/0) ! 12.0 (1/0) 1 I I ! I i 1 I I I (0/1) 1 T I I '*N=Number of students tested I ml. I ri-riK-Trt i I I 2 z 5/5 -z rr r i I I t I TI I _____________ ____________ 170.0(1/0) 1 172.0(1/0)! 172.0(1/0) ------------ ------------------------------ ---------------------- isfeTSF': 1 1 I I T I t i T ! T I 1 I I I 488 Il rt s s IM - Fair Park I 1 I I ! i Grades i DRA Fall i DRA Spring j i (N/Misstng) 1 (N/Missing) j DRA Growth Benchmark j ALT Reading , ALT Math j ALT Language i fN/Missina^! (N/Missinq) m z5 m I Ifl 1 Ifl K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General 1 i n II ist-LEP Ist-NAEP ilst-FEP [IFfe^ 1st Genera? ! i I Ifl Ifl 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE ^nd General Ifl Ifl |3rd-LEP ^-NAEP~ [^-FEP~ ,3rd-FEPE 3rd-General ------- n Ifl l4th-LEP |4th-NAEP |4th-FEP |4th-FEPE MtivGen^ H Sth-LEP IStMiAEP 5th-FEP " Sth-FEPE Sth-General i (N/Missing) (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing)
(N/Missing) I j 20.0 (1/0) i 40.0 (1/0) ! 20.0 (1/0) I I I 1 I i T i I i SAT-9 I 199.0 (1/0) T 1. T I 'N=Number of students tested T i I 1 25 z CZ5 z trri 183.0(1/0) 183.0(1/0) ! 489 o d > > d I Forest Park i I ! I n d Grades DRA Fall DRA Spring i DRA Growth SAT-9 Benchmark
ALT Reading j AALLTT MMaathth , (N/Missing) (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) (N/Missing) (N/Missing) | (N/Missing) 1 (N/Missing) j ALT Language (N/Missing) d d K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-reP^ _ K-General I I .1 i I I 1 I i ) I i t I T 1.,.___ X.. -,4 zO m 2 d d J.st-LEP Ist-NAEP Tst-FEP " ]^f^pe2 1st General I 1 I i 1 I d d 2ndLP _ 2nd NAEP _ M F^P " ZndFE^E _ 2nd General 20.0(1/0) i 40.0(1/0) 120.0(1/0) I I 20.0 (1/0) I 44.0 (1/0) 124.0 (1/0) I I I II II 3r^LEP ^d-NAEP 3rd-FEP ^rd-FE^ 3rd-General i II Il 4th<EP 4th-NAEP ^-FEP 4th-FEE 4th-General 5, .K. 4 -9^ e II II Sm-LEP Sth-NAEP ^-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General II fr fejCL? - , J=- r^t-.rf - . - I -r^ - JT Si* * e '* > H 1 L -J 1 5 >*3 aft " 4 - I ' te-sX'- '"7 ~ - 7"- z i 'CTAtT 4^A7i 1. CZ) zn n 1 > -'* tt.1^ 1 sT
7 198.0(1/0) ' 199.0 (1/0)7 205.0 (1/0) i -fi, ler I I 214.0(1/0)
203.0 (1/0) 223.0 (1/0) I i is"- BOI I I I I (0/1) (0/1) (0/2) I 1 I S^5VT 1 89.5 (2/0) !*N=Number of students tested '*6. A-it I 177.0 Q/O) i 209 0 (1^0) 179.0 (1/0) 224.0 (1/0) 722Z0(1/0) 223.0 (VQ) 224.U(1 ' : 227.5(210} ' 238.5 (210} 227.5 (2/0) !T I I 490 d d > CB d Franklin m T 1 I d Grades HR A Fall j DDRRAA SSoprriinnqg j 1 bSAATi-y9 DBeennccnhimiidainrk. i ! nAuLiT Reading i ALT Math j ALT Language (N/Missing) | (N/Missing) i DRA Growth i (N/Missing) (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) ! (N/Missing) (N/Missing) 5z w d d K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General I .00(1/0) .00 (1/0) i .00 (1/0) Ij 3.0 (1/0) 7.0 (1/0) i 4.0 (1/0) I i I 1 i I 1 d d Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP Ist FEPE 1st General f~3.0(1/0)
26.0(1/0) j 23.0(1/0) T I 1. I I aWwSK, 5^- z d d 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General d d 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General d d 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General d d 5th-LEP i5th-NAEr~ StivFEP Sth-FEPE 5th-General i _t_ I i !7 I T 1 I i }T I i (0/1) i>r' I I I I I ! i I 1 .^ I ! I Bs 202.0 (1/0) I 210.0(1/0) I 213.0(1/0) 1 1T I I I 5? 1 1 i 'i-. N=Number of students tested 204.0 (1/0) 220.0(1/0) i 214.0(1/0) I t I t I I d 491 d c d B9 Cse > -i d d d d d d d d d d d d d t Fulbright I ____ I n Grades K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General ' DRA Fall i DRA Spring 1 i (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j DRA Growth I TI (0/1) ! (0/1) 1 I ! 3.0 (1/0) I 12.0(1/0) I ! I (0/1) 9.0 (1/0) I 1 i : 5.0 (1/0) 38.0(1/0) ! 33.0 (1/0) i ! IT i 1 Benchmark j ALT Reading i ALT Math I ALT Language (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) ' (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) SAT9 I I I I 44.0(2/0)
44.0(2/0) I .00 [210) I i I T I (0/1) zO -i m> 2 Sth-LEP Sth-NAE^ 5th-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General (0/3) . * i 190.0(2/0) : 194.5(2/0) 197.5(2/0) II (0/1) (0/1) I.-wsix': i 2 > 2. 9 (/: n n [012} ' 70.0(1/0) (0/1) N=Nuinber of students tested I I T g 223.0(1/0) 224.0(1/0) i I i i ! i 228.0 (1/0) 221.0 (1/0) ' 221.0(1/0) 223.0 (1/0) i I t it' I ,r_ 196.0(1/2) . 214.0(1/2) I 197.0(1/2) I I 222.0(1/0) ' 215.0(1/0) i 229.0(1/0) 207.0(1/0) : 218.0(1/0) : 208.0 (1/0) 1 492 d 2 ri 05 ri Geyer Springs 1 I ri Grades I DRA Fall i DRA Spring i i SAT-9 j Benchmark ALT Reading j ALT Math i ALT Language I (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j DRA Growth j (N/Missing)! (N/Missing) (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) (N/Missing) I 1 d d K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General I I 1 ! T i t ri 11 ri ri ri ri ri ri ri M I I Q 5 z m 2 Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General 5th-LEP i5th-NAEF^ Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General
1.5(270) i 8.5(270) , 7.0 (270) I I i T I i T 1 I KS? 2 ii TltT- 20.0 (1/1) i 40.0 (1/1)
20.0 (1/1) g ! ! fi .3
X I T S-iSss I 184.0 (2/0) 185.5(270) ] 189.0 (2/0) ! i /
175.0(1/0) i 183.0(1/0) ! 188.0 (1/0) HUr.iu
*'"-!-.- ' -'w^T-v.- ' ' SiiTS3S&seK-^^-&Sss=iis5s
Eiffi&?Ss5K3rXj=?^2S^^ -------- i3. I I 3^ 'Sii
3K Ki'.t " ______ * < > r ..... . -. t... -
5p~ i 4. i T I 4- J___ I I -A** M' ,rT.f P *N=Number of students tested I } I I 493 z c V3 zd c ri a C ? ri Gibbs P3 1 j I ri Grades
DRA Fall I DRA Spring SAT-9 Benchmark j ALT Reading j ALT Math
ALT Language DRA Fall I DRAbpnng i i Dcmjuuaiis .xs,...3 , == => i fN/Missing)i (N/Missing) i DRA Growth ! (N/Missing) (N/Missing)! (N/Missing) 1 (N/Missing) S (N/Missing) I I I ri K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General (0/1) j 8.0 (1/0) I (0/1) T ! J. I I Q 5 z -J pl 2 .. ri ri Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General i I ri n 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General
19.0(2/0) M DI |3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General ri ri 4th-LEP ?th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General ri 5th-LEP 5th-NAEP 5th-FEP Sth-FEPE 5th-General I i i I I 1 I I I T I fia 5 T 1 z 9 If. I Pl Z Pl I 34.0(2/0) i 184.5(2/0) 183.0(2/0) i 191.0(2/0) 1-------------------i I i T I I K'. I T rX- I I -r I (0/1) a. 203 0 (VO) ! 213.0(1/0) ! 217.0(1/0) ^ -.2Trt*,
i<SSfe<5ii 1 1 i I T 'i'jS-i&i -3^. *T-5r^)55W7=^*T?.jrsr __________ aWTA iiv C.' .H?5*''!9' ' (0/1) .-sr t T 3^ i 17.0(1/0) SSfe! I Z' 199.0(1/0) ' 190.0(1/0) i 205.0(1/0) '.y BV.' I 1 *N=Number of students tested I i I 494d d d Jefferson ! 1 > S X H <w d d d d d d d d d d d ( Grades K-LEP [K-NAEP K-FEP |k-fepe K-General Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP ,lSt-FEP list FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP [2nd NAEP 12nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP [srd-NAEP [srd-FEP |3rd-FEPE 3rd-General [4th-LEP [ahi-naep [Ath-FEP ~ lAth-FEPE I4th-General Sth-LEP [ Sth-NAEP Sth-FEP I Sth-FEPE Sth-GeneraT J___________ i-----------------------i-------------------------------------------------------------- r i DRA Fall 1 DRA Spring i i SAT-9 Benchmark ALT Reading i ALT Math j ALT Language I (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) j DRA Growth | (N/Missing) (N/Missing) (N/Missing) i (N/Missing)
(N/Missing) I i i I I IT i 1 nH Sz >m 2 III 1 T i t T t i7 I I 5.^ ? w\* *5, Sf" S'-? 2 > -} ITT I I i 1 I 1 1 -I. Sr ^5 S5W cSg^^'A * S' 75 ^^^1=2
! i i T i*4'S S^ "^1 TI 5^ irtK ffriiwlfyiri I + 1 !T nz w 'iij g^j&fis I ! i I I i^- i I I W* ! I U^J i*N=Number of students tested I I I I 1 495 d d > S d M. L, King ! I i ri d Grades ! DRA Fall i DRA Spring j ! SAT-9 j Benchmark , ALT Reading i ALT Math
ALT Language I (N/Missing) 1 (N/Missing)! DRA Growth ! (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) 1 d d d d d nd d d d d K-K- :-LEP :-NAEP . 1 I 1 K- :-FEP K-FEPE K-General Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP ISt-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General Sth-LEP Sth-NAEP Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General I I 1 1.0 (2/0) ! 10.0(2/0) i 9.0 (2/0) I ! I ^5.5(2J0) \ 28.0(2/0) i 12.5(2/0) I I I I I (0/1) I t I 55.0(1/0) IT I 1 (0/1) I'KWW! ^^5 i I I 5 zB > 2 "r-., A xi'^ 2 > H M 1 I 1 I .1 6iC^j'E*:2xt'r^ I g iSz^ ^s?5s .^AoiX-fct'n* "A., e it:i WuT. 175.0(1/0) j 176.0(1/0) 182.0(1/0) T 1 *j> la I g <fraqtq^By4. I I (0/1 ^3t5fLruftSt I 205.0 (1/0) 212.0 (1/0) }N=Numbe^ of students tested -^2fS' SSfe T7 T I T 1 i I I t ! I 217.0 (1/0) 496 7!. C cz: 2 t*5 2 n CT A 2 4 d I I Mabelvale I I i i a Grades I DRA Fall i DRA Spring j i SAT-9 j Benchmark ' ALT Reading [ ALT Math [ ALT Language 1 (N/Missing) i (N/Missing)' DRA Growth ! (N/Missing)
(N/Missing) [ (N/Missing) | (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) SAT9 a n K-LEP [K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General I 1T I I I 1 I I I i I ! I aa Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP I Ist-FEP 11st FEPE 1st General 1i i +I IT I i" aaci*i*S8Sti nn 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP i2nd FEP 12nd FEPE 2nd General I n n 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP |3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General nn |4th-LEP [4th-NAEP |4th-FEP |4th-FEPE ~ 4tti-General Sth-LEP I Sth-NAEP } Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE I Sth-General I L 'N=Number of students tested I T T i 7 } 201.0(1/0)
207.0(1/0)' 207.0 (1/0) X i i I I I I I TI 1 I 497 > S 5 <m 3 sz P-Ji > 2 >2 2. a cz: 2 pj 2 d d 2 w S d d d d d d d d d d d n K-Grades :-LEP K-:-NAEP :-FEP :-FEPE K-K-K-:- General Ist-LEP ISt-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General I McDermott I i 1 r^^^T^^DRASDringl 1 SAT-9 Benchmark i ALT Reading ALT Math i Language '
(N/Missing) (N/Missing) j DRA Growth j (N/Missing) (N/Missing) | (N/Missing) (N/Missing) , (N/Missing)
: ' ________!_______ _ . ..I |,JI-.IIII I DRA Fall j 1.0 (4/0) ,4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General i DRA Spring j I 9.8 (4/0) 1 8.8 (4/0) I I .00(1/0) i 4.0 {MO) i 4.0 (1/0) I SAT-9 mu 1 1 I i I t 9.0 {210) 33.0 (2/0) i 24.0(2/0) I I I I I IT i 7 T I '*^SS'iS?S^fr' i : 7.5 (2/0) j 24.0 (2/0) i 16.5 (2/0) | I 73 : 24.0(1/0) ! 44.0(1/0) 1 20.0(1/0) | I 10.0(2/0) 26.0(2/0) ! 16.0(2/0) | I 1 1 I 5555*?^^ I L '*1 g 175.5(2/0), 179.5(2/0)1 181.0(2/0) T ! 204.0 {MO) I 213.0 {VO) j 213.0 (1/0) g 185.5 (2A))i 187.0(2/0) ! 190.5(2/0) 5
! i 1 t (0/2) ( 171.0 {210) 177.5 {2J0) i 172.5 (2/0) (0/3) (0/2) (0/2) ^iF- 198.5 (2/1) i 204.0(2/1) 1 204.5(2/1) I i-7ah.TLi, 188.5(2/0)1 191.0(2/0) * 194.5(2/0? 1 205.0(2/0)'' 216.0(2/0) 216.0(2/0) Sth-LEP Sth-NAEP Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General I 1 1 (0/1) 1 '
16.0 (1/0) '*N=Nuniber of students tested ^4' i'-ir t t 202.0 (1/0) 1 203.0 (1/0) i 195.0 (1/0) I T I I T I I7 498 m > 3 5 z H Pl > 2 2 2 sz ri iri d Meadowcliff d Grades d d K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General d d Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General d d 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General d d 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General d d 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General d ce S> n 5z n ! i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ !- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i- - - - - - - - - - - - - -1----------------
-------------------------------- ! DRA Fall
DRA Spring i I SAT-9 i Benchmark ! ALT Reading J ALT Math i ALT Language ! (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) j DRA Growth j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) 1 (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) ii 1 1 I I 1 1 SAT-9 .J.. K.g.>yy?gi=tnEr*j^^gEgx?*gy
-v-.f3
^^->.- te i .i' I i I IT te?s ! I 1 i i e^^.SX-''T -A" a Jt****^^.^*^'*^^ . > -H I I i T T V ?*>. - 2.0 (1/0)
10.0(1/0)
8.0 (1/0) Sg 4B^ss. eS3^::-vA^t-
iBiA.er*^ss I I I 170.0(1/0) i 174.0(1/0)1 162.0(1/0) I I I w (0/1) 3^ I 1 L (0/1) (0/1) a-' ' i I g 177.0(1/0) 173.0(1/0) T i T I 187.0 (1/0) I T T i 7^. C C2Z5 n 7 !P*I^ ,5th-LEP 5th-NAEP 5th-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General 1 .kvCsCV
' 188.0 (1/0) 197.0(1/0) 198.0(1/0) I i*N=Number of students tested I I 499 d d > X > -i d d d d d d d d d d d d d I Grades K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General ! DRA Fall DRA Spring ! 1 (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) | DRA Growth I 7 i 1 I i I T i i T Mitchell B > I I SAT-9 i Benchmark ALT Reading J ALT Math ' ALT Language (N/Missing) ! (N/Missing) (N/Missing) ' (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) i M I I 7 TI J_ I I 7 i 4. T T I i ! I I I 1 I I ?gS T O z n > 2 Z 9 (Z5 B Z n B 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General Sth-LEP Sth-NAEP Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General I 1 '*N=Number of students tested i I T + i I I I I I T i! I + I T I IT I 500 II c n II Otter Creek i I Grades i DRA Fall i DRA Spring I .1 .......... . X SAT-9 Benchmark ALT Reading 1 ALT Math : ALT Language j (N/Missing) ! (N/Missing) DRA Growth (N/Missing) (N/Missing) (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) "i i 1 !___ 1 n n II II n I I n n n n K- :-LEP K-NAEP 1 I 1 ?2 - K- :-FEP K-FEPE K-General ISt-LEP Ist-NAEP , Ist-FEP 15t FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FP 4th-FEPE 4th-General |5th-LEP Sth-NAEP Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General I 1.5 (2/0) ! ^.5(2J0) I .00(2/0) I I T I T >5 I T ! I I I I I ! T i I i 1 I (0/1) (0/1) (0/2) I I g I I I I (0/1) I I t ^4^ (0/1) 32.0 {-ilO) I X I t N=Number of students test^ T a m > q 5 2 n I * > z 8 Vi (St z I 1 I t 195.0(1/0) M95^(1/0)
203.0(1/0) I 207.0 (1/0) i 215.0 (1/0) i 205.0 (1/0) I I T 186.5(2/0) ! 191.0 (2^r 190.5 (2/0) i 214.0 (1/0) I 203.0 (1/0) i 207.0 (1/0) I ! T T t I T I 206.0(1/0) 212.0(1/0)
208.0(1/0) I I 501o IM IM Pulaski Heights I I ( IM Grades DRA Fall i DRA Spring j I (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) j I SAT-9 Benchmark i ALT Reading j ALT Math ALT Language DRA Growth 1 (N/Missing) (N/Missing) | (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) a c> > Q sz I I IM IM IM IM n I [M IM n I n Ml K-
-LEP K-K- :-NAEP :-FEP :-FEPE :-General K-K- ! i i 1 I -W I P5 I i I 1 i Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General ,3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General Sth-LEP Sth-NAEP Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General i I 1 I 193.5(2/0) I 204.5(2/0) : 201.0(2/0) 19.0(2/0) j 30.0(1/1) 10.0(1/1) T I I 7 & i i i 1I , 1 fl . xr, I I (0/1) 2 > >2. J!. Pl 3 I 221.0(1/0) '220.0(1/0)' 215.0(1/0) 7^^_______________________:----------------------------------- --------------------- ---------------- ! I 1 (0/1)
77.0(1/0) - 'N=Number of students tested T T I TT T I i + 224.0 (1/0) I 223.0 (1/0) 221.Q (VQ) I r 502 d 2 d d [ Rightsell I I t d Grades I DRA Fall ! DRA Spring i ' /MZMiccina'i (N/Missing) DRA Growth I DRA rSil UKMOpnny ' (N/Missing)} (N/Missing) SAT-9 Benchmark i ALT Reading , ALT Math ALT language i (N/Missing) (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) 1 (N/Missing)
(N/Missing) d d K-LEP I K-NAEP I K-FEP ~ K-FEPE K-Generai I 17 I I T I I 1 I i i SSt?ov)^n I I I I 9>3 S n n Sz n2 >*v zSSs^ !nSM>5u>5<-'?r--^*55! vT d Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FE^ 1st General iT 1 3
* 2. O CZ5 I 1 t d fl _l_ I I t KW ?!r^ P5 i't. z 1 t 1 I )) |4th-LEP [4th-NAEP 4ttvFEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General Sth-LEP 5th.-NAEP ~ SttvFEP 5tivFEPr~ Sth-General 3rd-LEP [^-NAEP ,3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE l3rd-General ,2nd LEP Iznd NAEP' jindFEP ,2nd FEPE 2nd General 'i 1 i 2^*" 'Wi N=Number of students tested .L Is
/>- 1 j i1 T i I 1 T I 1 I T i i T T ! 503 ri (J ri > CD c 3S ri Rockefeller n > I i ri
DRA Fall ! DRA Spring i I 7 SAT-9 4 Grades I UtSrt rail
II ly j j -. .. -
I (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) i. DRA Growth
(N/Missing)
! Benchmark ! ALT Reading i ALT Math ALT Language i (N/Missing) | (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) I 1 I I ri ri ri fl K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General I ,00(1/0) I 2.0 (1/0) I I 8.3 (3/0) ! 13.7(3/0) I I i 1 I 1 2.0 (1/0) 5.3 (3/0) I Oz n > 2 , 3.0 (1/0) i 14.0(1/0) ! 11.0(1/0) I i7 X i I i I (0/1) i T i I t I + I I I g 188.0(1/0) 1170.0(1/0)
189.0(1/0) fS 2^4 fife (0/1) 1 (0/1) T I I T ________I i i T 2 > z CZ5 z i I I 1 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 504 Iri {J Iri 5 S> Iri Romine I Iri Iri Iri Iri iri Iri iri Iri 01 M Mn Grades i DRA Fall i DRA Spring j j SAT-9 ' (N/Missing) ' (N/Missing)' DRA Growth j (N/Missing) T-------------------1 K:--LEP K-NAEP K-:-FEP I .00(5/1) ! 1.80(5/1) 1 1.8 (5/1) I 1 K-FEPE K-General Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP ~ 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4tivFEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General Sth-LEP Sth-NAEP Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General I I t IT I , 23.0(210} I 15.0(2/0) 1.0 (1/0) : 6.0 (1/0) i 5.0 (1/0) I 22.3 (6/0) } T 1 I 1 DdlUHIIiail^ 1 nui 5 , (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) go Benchmark i ALT Reading i ALT Math
ALT Language I 179.5(6/0) i 179.5(6/0)
187.7(6/0) 34.0 (6/0) i 11.7(6/0) T 44.0(1/0) 44.0(1/0) ! .00 (1/0) I I I 1 I T B 175.0(1/0) ! 190 0 (VO) i 183.0(1/0) i i ! I 181.0 (4/Oy ' 189.5 (AIO) ' ---------- i r 190.5(4/0) T I I I 1 50/^5 I I I I 190.0(4/0) i 203.8 (4/0) 193.8 (4/0) 13.0 (3/1) g75.0 (MQ} _______ ____ i*N=Number of students tested t T ! T X i 'tnj 197.0 (4/0) 198.0(4/0)^ 224.0 (1/0) 224.0(1/0) i I T i 199.5(4/0) 223.0 (1/0) 505 > sz m S > z 9 (/! tzn nw ri ri ri Stephens i 1 I i I I I 1 I 7 ri Grades Benchmark 1 ALT Reading i ALT Math ! Language /II \ I { /Kl/Miccinn\ ' rN/Miccinn i DRA Fall I DRA Spring i SAT-9 Benchmark ALT Reading 1 ALT Math i Language I (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) i DRA Growth (N/Missing) (N/Missing) (N/Missing) , (N/Missing) (N/Missing) ! ! _____1_____________1________ 9 s d n > q 5 z W 2 ri ri |K-LEP I K-NAEP |k-fep iK-FEPE I 1 I T ri ri ri ri ri fl fl fl fl ! 1.0 (1/0) I .00(1/0) [(-1.0) (VO) 1 ! K-General
Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ilst-FEP 1st FEPE I I i 2.33(3/0)
10.0(3/0) ! I i:j (3/0) 1 1 1st General * I T i2nd LEP 1 -U I 2^^ 2 > z F5 z n ,2nd NAEP |2nd FEP I 2nd FEPE 2nd Generali i3rd-LEP Isrd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE i I I I I 1 I + i i 7 3rd-Gener3l 4th-LEP 1 1 (0/2) 177.5 (2/0) I 183.0 (2/0) j 183.5 (2/0) I i i i T i ^-NAEP ------------------------- |4th-FEP fe-FEPE + t T feh-General^^^ i stL + 1 -k 1 1 I + ,5th-LEP [sth-NAEP' 5th-FEP I I kL {om I 8.5 (2/0) > ,5th-FEPE (0/1) I (0/1) ^E^^^n87.5 (2/0) i 209.5 (2/0) 192.0 (2/0) '^^SB'^4.0 (1/0)
222.0 (1/0)1 210.0(1/0) 'few |N=Number of students tested I 506ri ri > CD o X ri Terry PJ I I 1 I ri ri ri ri ri fl fl fl fl fl H Grades K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-Generai Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP ISt-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General
DRA Fall '
DRA Spring j (N/Missing)
(N/Missing) 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th^P ~ 4th-FEPE 4th-General 1 i ! 3.2 (6/0) I 7-8 (6/0) I 1 SAT-9 ii BBeenncchhmmaarrkk iS AALLTT RReeaaddiinngg Ii AaLlTi nMaamth ,
AaLlTi LLaanngguuaaggee DRA Growth (N/Missing) j (N/Missing)! (N/Missing) i (N/Missing)! (N/Missing) I I 4.5 (610) I fJ i 9.0(270)
24.0(270) j 15.0(2/0) 85?^ I I i 2.0 (2/2) 14.0 (2Z2) i ^2.Q (212) I 1 i 20.0(170)
40.0(1/0) I 20.0(1/0) g I I I 19.2(5/3) ' 33.0(8/0) i 18.8(5/3) 1 1 I I .........." K! ir:^-'.a!X-^3QR2s< ss .au^.**'SW 1 I I K 148.1 (8/0) i 139.3(8/0) j 180.3 (8/0) I 207.0(1/0) 222.0(1/0)
209.0 (1/0) o H 5 2 P5 2 2 z o pi z ri 5th-LEP 5th-NAEP ^FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General 38.0(1/0) ! 44.0(1/0) ! I I i i 6.0 (1/0) T fl I* ie' 54.3 (31^) 1^___________ ! i 167.5(2/1) i 177.0(2/1) j 175.0(2/1) T 204.5 (2/0) i 208.0 (2/0) ! 209.5 (2/0) ^^g^bi^(2/0) ' T 206.0(2/0) 210.5(2/0) 191.0(2/0) 209.0(2/0)
200.0(2/0) 2i7?7(3/0) 221.0(3/0)- 223.0(3/0) 199.0(1/0) 202.0(1/0)1 201.0(1/0) 216.3 (410) ' 219.5(4/0) f 217.8 (4/0) ! I !*N=Number of students tested 507 ri .c ri c ri Wakefield ! i ri Grades I i DRA Fall i DRA Spring i SAT-9 j (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) i DRA Growth (N/Missing) i Benchmark ALT Reading j ALT Math
ALT Language (N/Missing) (N/Missin_g)/ j M(N/Missin' g) ^1 N/M(Ni/cMciinsnsiing) 5 5 zn ri K-LEP K-NAEP I TI I .00(4/1) ! 1.0 (4/1) I 1.0 (4/1) 1 I I i K-FEP K-FEPE K-:-General I i I I 1 I I 1 I I ri ri ISt-LEP I Ist-NAEP ~ Ist-FEP TstFEPT^" 1st General I .00 (1/1) i 6.0 (2/0) ' i .50 (2/0) ' 3.5 (2/0) i 1 I I I 4.0 (1/1) 3.0 (2/0) T Bilifesill ri ri 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP IndVEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP ri 3rd-FEPE 3 rd-General ri 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP i4th-FEP I >2 -J M 4th-Fi i44tthh--FFEi PE 4th-General ri Sth-LEP Sth-NAEP Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-GeneraT z9 75 T T It 4.8 (4/0) ! 18.0(4/0) i 13.3(4/0) 182.2(5/0) 202.0 (1/0) 1 ? 71.0 (1/0) 1^ z ri PI 167.8 (4/0) I 179.5 (4/0) I }75.3(^IQ) T I I 1 I t I 188.4 (5/0) i 189.6(5/0) I + 176.7 (3/0) ! 185.3(3/0) + I T 182.3 (3/0) 206.0 (1/0)1 205.0(1/0) T I i T 222.0 (1/0) 234.0 (VO) j 226.0 (1/0) '*N=Number of students tested I I 508 ri ri (. S 3>5 ri r I Washington 1 1 I 1 n ri I Benchmark i ALT Reading 1 ALT Math j ALT Language Grades I I I K-LEP i 2.8 (4/1) ' ^2.22 {212) \ 10.7(3/2) ri K-NAEP _ K-FEP K-FEPE iGGen^ I I I 8.2 (s/oTT^s^o^ I I H ri ist-LEP Ist-NAEP ISt-FEP ,15t FEPE 1st General i .00(2/5) 1 6.9 (7/1) I 6.0 (2/5 i 6.0 (2/5) i 19.4(7/1) i 12.6(7/1) i 171.1 (8/0) I ^rw?(8rarnzii(?^ -------- ---------------- .w I I ri ri 2nd LEP 12nd NAEP ijnd?^ 2nd FEPE 12nd General I 19.4(8/0) j 8.4 (8/0) 1 195.0 (6/0) I 200.3(6/0) ! 201.0(6/0) ri ri ri ri ri 32.8(5/1) 40.8 (5/1) ! 8.0 (5/1) i3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 13rd-General |4th-LEP 4th-NAEP |4th-FEP i_4th-FEPE i4th-General Sth-LEP [Sth-NAEP SUvFEP Sth^FEPE^ Isth-Gen^ I 180.0 {21^) I 77RT(4^r? 190.5 ('^^0) T 186.5 (4/0) 190.0 (6/0) i 205.5(6/0) I 200.5 (6/0) 212.0 (2/0) ! 217.0(2/0) ' 220.0 (2/0) I 1
192.3(3/0) 2Q7.Q{3IO)
204.0(6/0) "tiP --- I 197.7 (3/0) 208.8 (6/0) 1 207.5 (6/0) 1
i98.o(2/1) 1183.5(2/1) 0(6/0) 2^7.2(610) 1 i 509 zo -Pi) > 2 2 > 2 S (/) z n Pl ri (
C ri ri Watson I I ri Grades 1 Benchmark j ALT Reading j ALT Math 'i ALT Language , nRA Fall ! DRA Spring I SAT-9 Benchmark j ALT Reading | ALT Math
ALl Languag I fN/Missing) i (N/Missing) j DRA Growth (N/Missing) (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) ' (N/Missing) (N/Missing^ 1 1 ri K-LEP 1 K-NAEP K-FEP |k-fepe K-General i I 1 1 I 4. ri ri ri ri ri I ! i i T T 1 T I I siiWM'ws? > co O J5 > m Q 5 z Pl 2 Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ilst-FEP list FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP i2nd NAEP 2nd FEP |2ndFEPE 2nd General ,3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP [3rd-F~EP~ |3rd-FEPE 3rd-General (4th-LEP [4ttvN^ |4th-FEP [4th-FEPE |4th-General Sth-LEP ^h-NAEP ~ feth-FEP ' I Sth-FEPE^ Sth-GeneraT 1 I 1 I I I T I I 1 I i I I I i I I I feifc i:RS5RWiT!AaM. IS > e4
^Ssssiis5S: z 9 z ri I I t t 1 ^^E
2S3iBS>a&2^Sdise<M^J 1 I I T i i I -t- I 1 I I T T I ry3: I t
197.0(1/0) 204.0 (1/0) i 200.0 (1/0) I I ! T I j 's___________________t. 181.0(1/0) 195.0(1/0) 195.0 (1/0) .asi, V I L s' A t- I T I + I N=Nuniber of students tested I i 510ri o ri a C ?3 > -j ri Western Hills I I ri ri ri ri ri fl fl fl fl fl n fl Grades , K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General Ist-LEP ilSt-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General i DRA Fall I DRA Spring SAT-9 (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) DRA Growth (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) 1 Benchmark ! AU Reading i ALT Math j ALT Language ....... . X i __ ' <KI/KXlee
nn^ ' <M/Mieeirtn\ I (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) m > 9 5z > I Sth-LEP Sth-NAEP Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General I 1 1 I I X i I I 1 ! r I f u 9KS-I t T L l*N=Number of students tested 1 25 .???* iI I I 1 T t T T I i T -r T I -z m z ri Pl 1 1. i T T! I i T 1 1 1 i I ! 511 [ o ri a C 3C > ri Williams I 4. I I I ri ri ri ri ri fl fl fl fl fl n fl Grades K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP I Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General |4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General 5th-LEP 5th-NAEP 5th-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General i nRA Fall 1 DRA Spring 1 i SAT-9 i Benchmark j ALT Reading j ALT Math i ALT Language (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) i DRA Growth ! (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) | (N/Missing)
(N/Missing) i (N/Missing) I I I I I ___ I... ....... .Jin*........................ ................. 3 z5 > 2 1 16.0(1/0) ! 28.0(1/0) I i .00(1/0) I .00(1/0) I I i 1 I 34.0(1/0) i 44.0(1/0) I I i I I 1 I i 12.0 (1/0) .00 [VO} 10.0 (1/0) !W I WJ I T j I7 i $ 'N=Nuniber of students tested i 73.8(4/0) g T I I i >2 -I I z 75 2 S 2. ri I 4- I i 211.7 (3/0) ! 218.7(3/0) I 214.3(3/0) IT 221.5 (2/0) i 232.0 (2/0) I I IT ll 227.0 (2/0) t 222.0 (4/0) i 223.8 (4/0) I 225.8 (4/0) I I 512 ri (
s ri ri r Wilson ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri n ri ri Grades K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEPE K- (-General ist-LEP I Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP Ind FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General i i3rd-LEP 3rd- NAEP i DRA Fall '1 DRA Spring I SAT-9 I Benchmark I ALT Reading j ALT Math i ALT Language 'i (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) DRA Growth I (N/Missing), j fN/Missing) j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing)
(N/Missing) I ' ^.5(210) 1 .50(270) 1 I i i 7 i 1 1 u'a I T I 1 i T 1 I I T T i 24.0(1/1) ! 19.0(2/0) ! 10.0(1/1) y ! 40.0(1/0) i AA.QjMO) S 4.0 (1/0) 3 i 1 3rd-FEP 3?d^FEPr~ 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4fr^FEP 4th-FEPE~ 4th-General Sth-LEP SttvNAEP Sth'^FEP 5th-FEPE~ Sth-General rz- 2i 1 5 9 o > < PI q 5 z -i pn 2 Tir I t^fs"..... 2 5 % "V C ij>w.rr-: "3 * i*- > z e (fi T. n fl Si
ii*** 1 1 2^5Scs^^, 157.0 (2/0) ! 177.0 (2/0) 167.0(2/0) I 1 R5.0 (1/0) i 189.0(1/0) 192.0 (1/0) I i 196.0(1/0) I 201.0 (1/0) 1 198.0(1/0) 1 I i sseS ' K- ^' i 39-0(1^0) *O. '. l*N=Number of students tested I X i T 219.0 (1/0) 202.0 (1/0) 223.0 {^10) ' Mk/} I I 513ri g ri 93 CX > ri Woodruff 1 I ri Grades 55 z P3 2 ri ri K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE iGGenei^ ri ri Ist-LEP ist-NAEP IsfFEP l^EPE ~ 1st General ri ri 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2ndFEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General ri fl 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3i5^FEPr~ 3rd-General 4th-LEP fl 4th-NAEP fl 4tti-FEP 4th^FEPE~~ 4th-General fl 5th-LEP '5th-N"AEr~ Sttv^EP 5th^FEPE~~ ^-GeneraT ! I I t t i I Benchmark ' ALT Reading ALT Math 'j ALT Language (N/Missing) | (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) i DRA Fall 1 DRA Spring ! j SAT-9 i (N/Missing) ! (N/Missing) DRA Growth i (N/Missing) 1 I T I ! 'I 514 > z 9 5Z5 z fl ri 2 ri ri ec 5 > < ffi n ri O z H n 2 ri Central I I t[5RKTall i DRA Spring Grades 1 DRAI-aii uiv^opHiia I (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) | Growth I Benchmark ! 1 ! i . _____ rSCTRiSaingALT Math i ALT Language 1 1 ri ri ri fl fl |9-LEP i9~-NAEP ~ 9-FEP 19-FEPE ~ Ig-General 25 (N/Missing) (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) > -2. 9 JZ52 w 2 r5 |g 32.9 {&I0) I JaSSiSSsii: iJBL* -1 ---------------- ^'WrjV" I (0/1) (0/4) (0/1) I ! 10-LEP lO-NAEP ~ llO-FEP [lO^FEPE 110- General 11-LEP 11-NAEP ~ 111- FE~P fe-FEPE~ fll-Gen^ 12-LEP ^iTna^ T^FEP I ^j7:5~(i/o7T256.O (2/0) ' 229.5 (2/0) !2IQ) I 256^2/0) i 230.5 (2/0) 238.6 (5/0) 1 269.4 (5/0)
246.4 (5/0) r I I I [414} i 258.3 (4/4)
235.5 (4/4) ? i ' (0/1) t 1 (0/1) (0/4) 1 (0/4) 12-FEPE 112-G^ral N=Number of students tested I T 7 1 T-+ T I (0/1) (0/1) IT iT I 515 ri ri Grades I DRASpnng
3. A. Fair ! Benchmark : ALT Reading ' ALT Math I i ' (N/Missing)! (N/Missing)! (N/Missing) , (N/Missing) ALT Language (N/Missing) 2 I I ri 9-LEP 9-NAEP 9-FEP 9-FEPE 9-General I i 1 1 CSljc-Xstft'
150.0(1/0) , 182.0(1/0) 162.0 (1/0) 09 o X > ri ri ri ri ri I -'-*''7.'A'sw
'r ''^ '5<t
V<''''- 't
w > r! 5 z n 2 4.C 228.5 (2/0) 222Q(2JO) 1 125.0(2/0) | ri C-
''TS*T 'P-iX 20.0 (4/0) i-ir 1 I I I WWW< ".--T:'A s'?: iT-rsfe* JST^ 31 -s, ->fc, owwe.
?' s_3 10-LEP 10-NAEP 10-FEP 10-FEPE___ 10-General ^^)^Z2^^Yt2Si5^i2.'a.iJif/2etBS 11-LEP 11-NAEP 11-FEP 11-FEPE Il-General .4
. 12-LEP |12-NAEP 12-FEP 12-FEPE 12-General ? *><u: JSa:* '.'Ml' 214.3(3/1) I 162.0(3/1) ' 143.3 {Zm 1 ''J.-.. ' .-r .'..< ys ? I rykttitsirf- I - rW vrxxYj 1 ,a3r<^ A..? (0/2) (0/2) 1 (0/2) 't i .oiSV- -w'5?_'<7li, ."i rTS
*r< '._ S?!***^* 2 5 > T. 9 2 n z ri P5 1 t -JT^ S ~-rrj (0/1) -.ti- ?4%a r '5,<5 (0/1) (0/1) _> 1 j~~~~' *N=Number of students tested I 516ri Hall DRA Spring , SST-S" Benchmark ALT Reading ALT Math ALT Language ri Grades 1 (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) 1 (N/Missingj ri ^<45* 30.0 (2/17) I 226.3 (3/0) Il-General , 11-LEP 11-NAEP Ill-FEP 11-FEPE 19-LEP |9-NAEP I9-FEP 9-FEPE l9-General 10-LEP 10-NAEP 110-FEP 110-FEPE lO-General 12-LEP 1I2-NAEP 12-FEP 112-FEPE 12-General I I I (0/1) (0/12) ?. (0/6) lox I EC M ' 163.2(9/12) H85.9 (9/12) i 213 6 (9^^^^^^ > s OB>i
?5Ea.-i.r-______ _ .,. *N=Number of students tested 22^1 ^^12) \ 2.^2.7(212) 174.2(6/13)
241.6(5/14)1 210.2(6/13) 252.0 (3/0) 1 227.2 {3IQ) "f- I 9nR.4(5/11) i 198.6(5/11)1 216.4(5/11) (0/1) (0/1) 107.5 (212) I 253.5 (2/2) i 222.2 {2J2) 213.0 (1/0) ! 257.0 (1/0) j 233.3 (1/0) I I (0/12) I (01^2) i (0/6) (0/6) ri ri ! 517 P5 o z5 Pl > 2 'S. 2 O r P3 2. Grades
DRA Fall i DRA Spring i i (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j DRA Growth I i McClellan i . ^,.. , 'i Benchmark i ALT Reading! ALT Math ALT Language I (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) (N/Missing) ! (N/Missing) : (N/Missing) SAT-9 ALT Math I t > co C 19-LEP I9-NAEP 9-FEP 19-FEPE 9-General AXeTzV^' 0-1 A /o/n\ SsS? I 21.0(2/0) 208.0(1/0) i 250.0(1/0) , P*: I I 33.0 (2/0) !WjgrSTOSSS^5^^T^ 207.0(1/0) 'jW-P3 o 5z I IQ-LEP 10-NAEP llQ-FEP ~ 10-FEPE~" tws^ lO-General 11-LEP 11-NAEP jll-FEP 11-FEPE w**** w >2 O o7l) I 253.6(1/1) I 214.0(1/1) T I I S 217.5(2/0) I 246.0(2/0) i 222.5(2/0) S^-x Xj J____ g 206.0(1/0) 231.7(3/2) I i 246.0(1/0) i 250.3 (3/2) , 201.0 (1/0) 212.7 (3/2) 208.0 (Vi) 256:0(1/1) j 215.0(1/1) Il-General I J I 12-FEPE 12-General i 12-LEP 12-NAEP il2-FEP raw L _ _ *N=Number of students tested ! giA (0/1) I (0/1) 4^,^.Ki i.JTT (0/1) i*44jvqr-. 518 >2 -1 s z 9 CZ5 2 w z r5 75 Grades i-LEP l-NAEP 9- 9- 9-l-FEP (-FEPE 9-(-General 10-LEP 10-NAEP 10-FEP 10- FEPE 10- General 11- LEP 11- NAEP 11- FEP 11-FEPE Il-General 12-_LE^^____ 12-NAEP 12-FEP 12-FEPE 12-General Parkview I DRA Fall DRA Spnng , DRA SAT-9 ] Benchmark . ALT Reading j (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) i Growth 1 (N/Missing) (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) I ! I -f I -r^,--... ...._____ . --It T ft k-tXAM* 52^ (3/0) B?'.*- iv, I I 7ji 205.0(1/0) ^.*aS!-=
SpW n o <3Sii4j 1 ALT Math (N/Missing) 239.0 (1/0) ALT Language (N/Missing) 211.0 (1/0) ? 225.0(2/0) 246.5 {210) . 225.5 {2/0) A M. ' *> * I ,L I i :
X< < < 229.5 (2/1) i 257.0(2/1) 1 240.0(1/2) '^j.-1^
.^
^:^"/'" hL j- <?.>. I i X I c^ s'ii 'ii. iSI'' .Aj' i jTT *#W^5Tr, K", 218.0(1/8) I .00 (1/8) I 217.0(1/8) I >03 o?e > q 5z fHf > 2 1 I i 2 > -1 > 1. O 73 n 2 n M (0/6) (0/6) 1 (0/6) ^Sag^i^ 8
wLA*
N=Number of students tested 1 1 I.M^. I 519 Grades rLEP i-NAEP & 0- ,6-FEP 6-FEPE 6-General DRA'F^
DRA Spring WAT ' (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) j Growth inj I 1 Cloverdale M.S. 5AT^ , ' Be-nc hm a r--k , A-LT Reading ALT Math
(N/Missing) < (N/Missing) ' (N/Missing) (N/Missing) ALT Language (N/Missing) ).<r I I 27 183.6 (5/8) i 195.2 (5/8) i S55 7-LEP 7-NAEP 7-FEP 7-FEPE 7- General 8-LEP 8-NAEP 8-FEP 8-FEPE 8-General 5-R=-r-T SkSiT J 190.4 (5/8) 201.0(1/0) ! 204.0(1/0) i 207.0 {^10} 2 > 03 c X H m I *.kd5zZi
L :vsisB^.5BSSP3^x^y=fr i"* *Sri''s,' arKSii^fsajS
1 I 34.8(5/11) I **^ r.k2^Z2kx:
.i )/11 202.9 (10/6) i 215.6 (10/6) i 205.9 (10/6) -X ^^1 ft 17.0 (1/1) -------- I'll 5r "1= *N=Number of students tested 200.0(2/0) I 212.0(2/0) j 205.5(2/0) i 199.1 (14/4) I 208.1 (14/4) j 201.5 (14/4) Sifj 'Sctd 238.0 (1/0) -Tsj'ife*." 'V -i :n 22?-'* I i I 520 oz PHl 2 2 > -2 O pz5 p Ei DRA Fall I DRA Spring | DRA Grades Dunbar SAT-9 Benchmark . ALT Reading ALT Math ! (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j Growth j (N/Missing) (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) : (N/Missing) . i-i. A,k a >> ri, ALT Language (N/Missing) 0 Ifl d d d d d d d d (>rLEP 6-NAEP 6-FEP 6-FEPE 6-General '-13s. ---------i?ii!EaS3^ Hill3 190.8(4/1) I 195.0 (4/1) 200.3(4/1) t 220.5(6/0)
232.2 {6IQ) 222.2 (&IQ} 216.0(1/0) I 223.0(1/0) I 1 1 217.0 (1/0) 7-LEP 7-NAEP 7-FEP 1- FEPE 7-General ?
f* 5a * 12 3 (3/2) 8-LEP 8-NAEP 8-FEP 8-FEPE 8-General ... 27.0 (1/1 i ...1______I. , zi 32.7 (71Q) s^i* 201.7(3/2) I 207.3 (3/2) M 223.3 (JIQ] i 201.0 (3/2) ce X> m s 5z n S . X' -a. 0*-<T z. '2ss'.ie.uisi.Esr 27.0(1/0) >'.*1 Ml m o~i I "rc it/"'. Jt T I 256.4(7/0)
230.4(7/0) 209.3 (3IQ) tJ.-.T-" 222266..66 ((1100//00))1 i 225522..22 ((1100//00
) I 230.0 (10/0) 210 0(1/0) ! 211.0(1/0) I 210.0(1/0) 2 "4 X > 2 9 75 2 S 2 D n MI- -raw. . , .. .. - - . *N=Number of students tested I i T 521 Dl Forest Heights M.S. Iri I 2 s Iri Iri Iri Iri Iri Iri Hi Iri Bl Grades rLEP i-NAEP 6- 6- 6-FEP 6-FEPE 6-General 7-LEP 7-NAEP 7-FEP 7-FEPE 7-General (J 2 DRA Fall ' DRA Spnng CRA" . _S.A..T -9. -B--e--n--c-h--m---a--r-k- , ALT Re- ading, , ALT Math ALT Lang- uag- e ' (N/Missing) (N/Missing) ! Growth 1 (N/Missing) | (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) , (N/Missing) - (N/Missing) DRA Spnng I 1 1 I ! t T--j,5b3 SJ' if S^S. T-T-y t /Af - .iJ'-! 'a&SLi'* t T' .-ai-. i1^kC~-.i'-'<^'-T-4t.:
ka/^,-^-jj(i~'ifn}ai ~ltT^ - niT*-r--^- I 216.0(2/0) i 215.5(2/0) i 212.0 (2/0) 212.8(5/0) , 218.2(5/0) ! 215.8(5/0) Ai.*>r! I > ' t4Ls:**c^ t'ii r^'Lil S
(/( 75.5 (2!^) I 39.0(1/0) n O 5S > II g 209.3(3/0) i 216.7(3/0) | 212.0 (3/0) P3 > Q z5 n 2 rt 'gi 8-LEP 8-NAEP 8-FEP 8-FEPE 8-General :-KSAh- r V- 1 724.^ (21Q} i 226.0(2/0) i 231.5(2/0) 205.0(1/0) I 210.0(1/0) i 214.0 (1/0) iS >.1 i-.ai . " 5SsS>rJSgT.^^&f^/^a5^4?fe<-2LKT-> 217-0(1/1) ! 214.0(1/1) 1 215.0(1/1) ------" yiJJ ^^ 228 3(3/0) i 225.0(3/0) 231.3(3/0) >z 2 Sz (-5 221.5(2/0) I 236.0(2/0) i 228.5(2/0) ff ____ .!.. MI.M eMBSS?:a*-?Yr.'WI^MWXnmJWW('JLJW *N=Number of students tested I I I 522 I ii Ifl Ifl Ifl I Itf iri Ifl Ifl Ifl Ifl Ifl Efl HI DRA Pair DRA Spring j Grades i (N/Missing) . (N/Missing) j I ! 1 Henderson 6-LEP 6-NAEP rFEP i-FEPE 6- 6- (-General 6- '-LEP 7- 7-NAEP 7-FEP 7-FEPE 7-General I Ar 22^ '4= * DRA Growth s
- .'Si'SSi ------- Benchmark , ALT Reaaing ALTMaUT j (N/Missing) ' (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) , (N/Missing) i 1 Benchmark ALl Reading ALT Language (N/Missing) 2114(5/0) i 217.0(5/0) j 222.4 (5/0) :i ^Ts ''is 1 I JSSaStSfr"' -
!^ I t c * * y:S:t^-ii7i*.?xi5uaxsc^ 199 0(6/0) 1 167.8(6/0) 205.5 ^6/02^ 7"' e?. ..r^sa^ 65.0(410) t' ^T*fc
,V V* iS: t .u*-^ 1.^ I ! 1 __ 22) 5(410) 1 229.5 4/0) 226.5 (410) X4e>*.i= ***r 8-LEP 8-NAEP 8-FEP 8-FEPE 8-General 2 > n O > < P5 5 5 z m > 2 2 > > 2 O 7) l 200.0(2/0) ! 204.0^(2/0) *N=Number of students tested T 219 8 (610) i 224.7 (6/0) I 226.7 (610) 230.0(1/0) i 250.0(1/0) 240.0 (1/0) '2. P5 I I I 523Bri d I u d iri m iri ni iri d d d d 6- Grades i rLEP i-NAEP 6- 6- i-FEP i-FEPE (> 6-General 7-LEP 7-NAEP 7-FEP 7-FEPE 7-General Mabelvale M.S. 2 DRA Fall j DRA Spring i DRA SAT-9 i Benchmark i ALT Reading j ALT Math , ALT Language i (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) j Growth (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) '-^'rS^* -.'^ir.-. -,r*^- < * i-'r- 3 J '4^ 8-LEP 8-NAEP 8-FEP 8-FEPE 8-General > 5 > i I I - *2*/^'^ Vs.v.^ * 1 T5 I i 19.0 (1/0) J I 212.3(3/0) j 206.3(3/0) .ihBBiChi. r 4 *- I 1 213.0 (3/0) P5 > s z -j n > 2 211.0(1/0) I 212.0(1/0) I 210.0(1/0) iy'-i 221.0(1/0)1251.0(1/0)1 224.0(1/0) --r .r -s-t.fiP' ----------------------------------bm 85.0(1/0) i 4 wi * *N=Number of students tested ^S'j 1 1 I r sf - - i.2urM>?lu. w
I 212-2(5/0) I 20S.6(5rt)) 1 219.0(5/0) S? feafe 1 524 > -J > 2. v> 2 n 2 O WMann Magnet II Grades PftA Fall------DRA S^ng , DRA 5AT^5 Benchmark ALT Reading ALT Matii ATT Language 1 (N/MissIng): (N/Missing)
Growth , (N/Missing) ! (N/Missing)' (N/Missing) (N/Missing) (N/Missing) ! I o id Id Id Id Id Id Id Id Id Id Id 6-LEP 6-NAEP 6-FEP 6-FEPE 6-General SS V I s? jB-1 > 09 c X > H n 229.5 {2/0} 225.7 {310} wirs.5i t (210) 234.0 {210} f irA5^c-
,f'^x KK*t .t 11^.5 '^pO-S''- 5?. 217.3(3/0) ^218.0(3/0) n -j z5 PJ >2
4.-i:v-?>a*'vv4y i 1 7-LEP 7-NAEP ___ , . _ _ 7-FEP J____J 7-FEPE____ 7-General ^asc:'?. <'..' I I I ./'** Vi \^L- Vt. 49.0(1/0) j^a'^ 4 f^T*^-S74SSSLA >>_. n.o {2J0} f/-i y 77.3(3/0) iS ssassss ' ' e 1 \ 210.0 (1/0) i 222.0 (1/0) - 226.5 (2/0)
230.0 {210} 218.0 (1/0) 227.0 (2J0} 221.3(3/0) i 236.7 (3/0)
229.7 (3/0) ffi T- 8-LEP____ 8-NAEP__ 8-FEP 8-FEPE__ 8-General i I I 1 :b!^: I r? th' 235.8 (5/0) i 259.6 (5/0) : 239.4 (5/0) N=Number of students tested 225.0(2/0) ' 252.5 {2IQ) I 234.0 (2/0) >2 SH >z 793 Q pz5 n .'5.
i
I I 525 I Pulaski Heights M.S. <1
i I HI M l ni nl ni M d d d d DRA Fall I I i DRA Spring i 1 DRA Grades 1 (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) ! Growth i i i ! SAT-9 1 Benchmark , ALT Reading i ALT Math , ALT Language ! (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) . (N/Missing) 1 I T 2 6-LEP 6-NAEP 6-FEP 6-FEPE 6-General 7-LEP 7-NAEP 7-FEP 7-FEPE 7-General 8-LEP 8-NAEP 8-FEP 8-FEPE 8-General
>T** ~ "i
' r?L^ T,5J.V^.^Sf^Tai '-is I t.- i> * 3.^ * . - 41 0 f2/oi jr O 98.0(1/0) i s< > SB > H ! Hi Wsi^' 2210(4/0) I 227.0(4/0) I 221.8(4/0) ! I_______ !_______
220.5(270) 1 215.5(2/0) I 218.0(2/0) I n n> z5 PHJ > 2 SI I **V- 240.0(1/0) I 295.0(1/0) [ 249.0(1/0) 1 2>'. =i I I I iliBSS cz !/l hS5? L?fr -4X^ ^idPJh-ftj^ac:X^>4<&a^bi r^W.- 4 250.5 (2/0) j 230.0 (2/0) PJ z PJ i2^itA.d!SJ.aur-5^ j: *N=Number of students tested II 526 irii Southwest WSp^g iri Dri [ri iri Iri Iri Iri Iri Iri Iri Iri d 01 d grades ' (N/Missing) ! (N/Missing) i6-LEP 6-NAEP 6^fEP 6-FEPE 6-General '-LEP 1'--NAEP 7--FEP 7-FEPE 7-General 8-LEP S^NAE^ mp 8^FEPr~ 8-General 3K' h* t ik ------ DRASAT-9 Benchmark~ArrReading Growth , (N/Missing)
(N/Missing) t ( -------- ALT MatFi ALT Language (N/Missing) , (N/Missing) (N/Missing) 2 i I ( TJ aX > I v I I 16 0(2/1) A (J 218'0(1/0) i 223.0(1/0) .. ___ kT: 221.0 (1/0) 7 1 >R7SfI-IeWeo *O, *w> H I r 199.3 (3/0) : aoi 3 (3/01 1 210.7 (3/0) 1 I I________ !-------------------- - .w.wi5tT^<Fnre5saiS((i^!^ 218 0 n/O) i 220.0 (1/0)_i 222.0(1/0) - If < >f6(> i. 'N=Number of students tested *_ ^i_e!47 \-^ 1! ! 1 I 1 527 n > Q 25 n > 2
S >S >2 0 (/I 2 S 2. fnt COLLABORATIVE ACTION TEAM MATH AND SCIENCE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 TO: Board of Education FROM: PREPARED BY: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools ^^onnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction DATE: November 21,2002 SUBJECT: Approval of SEDLs Program Evaluation for the Collaborative Action Team Project > >Z c Vi 2 Sz fnt Background The Southwest Education Development Lab (SEDL) in Austin began their Collaborative Action Team Project in 1996 by selecting schools or districts for participation within their five-state region. The focus was on districts with concentrations of students as follows: rural, urban, the Delta, the Border, and the American Indian Nations. The Little Rock School District was selected for inclusion, representing urban children, as a part of Cohort 3 in fall 1999, the last year of the project. We participated only that one year (1999-2000) in the project, but the Collaborative Action Team that was established continues to meet and most recently fulfilled the charge we gave them to provide leadership in the development of the Districts Strategic Plan for Parent Involvement. Dr. Ed Williams, the PRE statistician, and Debbie Milam, Director of the ViPS program and the person assigned as liaison to SEDL for this project, both provided data to SEDL for their project evaluation. Members of the Collaborative Action Team responded to surveys as requested. Although the 249-page study produced by SEDL that evaluated the project included student achievement data, those data were not disaggregated by race, and LRSDs short-term (one year) participation in the project would not predict that the involvement of this relatively small group of parents and community volunteers would result in improved student performance. The purpose of the SEDL project is described on pp. 2- 3 of the report. On pp. 25-33 can be found a description of the "Research Design and Methodology." 528 I*. I wL Board of Education - Memo November 21, 2002 Page Three Section 10 of the evaluation, Implications and Recommendations, discusses the research findings. Specific recommendations are given on page 147. Recommendation That the Board of Education accept and approve SEDLs Collaborative Action Team Process: Final Research Report as the program evaluation of the LRSD Collaborative Action Team project of 1999-2000. BAL/adg Attachment 529 ir il t t I 2 >z o c/) 2 S z D w g S1'1 - J? Collaborative Action Team Process: Bringing home, school, community, and students together to improve results for children and famihes I Final Research Report ] I I I a 11 Ti T .U.'. J M iniaiaiiinil IIII Ml IIII Ml >2 > 1. o pz5 rwi Co-Authors: Zena H. Rudo Michelle Achacoso Delia Perez Contributors: Catherine Jordan Jerry Elder Amy Averett Evangelina Orozco Program for Refining Educational Partnerships Southwest Educational Development Laboratory 211 East Seventh Street Austin, TX 78701-3281 (512) 476-6861 November 2000 530 I I I i"* r a List of Tables List of Figures Section 1: Section 2: Section 3: Section 4: Section 5: Section 6: Section 7: Section 8: Table of Contents Collaborative Action Team Project Background Participants in the Collaborative Action Team Project Characteristics of the Collaborative Action Team Process Implementation of the Collaborative Action Team Process Research Design and Methodology Site Characteristics Collaborative Action Team Sustainability Student Outcomes iii-iv v-vii 1 4 12 16 25 34 46 80 s. > 2 C V) 2 S z r) Section 9: Results in the Rural Collaborative Action Team Sites I I I 111 Section 10
Implications and Conclusions 143 References 150-152 Appendices Appendix A. Collaborative Action Team Application Forms Memorandum of Understanding 153 154-172 173-175 i 531 IAppendix B. Start-Up Training Agenda Collaborative Action Team Training Institute Agenda Facilitator Training Agenda 176 177-178 179-182 183-185 Appendix C. CAT Meeting Checklist Collaborative Action Team Meeting Evaluation Form #1 Collaborative Action Team Meeting Evaluation Form #2 CAT Self-Assessment Instrument and Handbook Collaborative Action Team Research Exit Survey Resource Guide Feedback Form 186 187-188 189 190 191-223 224-225 226-227 Appendix D. Significance and Probability Values for CAT Sustainability CAT Self-Assessment Questions Across Time Significance and Probability Values for CAT Sustainability CAT Self-Assessment Questions Across Cohorts Significance and Probability Values for CAT Sustainability CAT Self-Assessment Questions Across Representative Groups Significance and Probability Values for RD-CAT Sustainability CAT Self-Assessment Questions Across Time 228 229-234 235-240 241-246 247-250 Appendix E. Percent Student Attendance for Individual CAT Sites Percent Student Dropout for Individual CAT Sites Percent Student Graduation for Individual CAT Sites 251 252-253 254-255 256-257 i ii 532LIST OF TABLES I Table 1. Table 2. aa I Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Table 7. Collaborative Action Team Site Demographics Timeline I: Assessing the Implementation and Sustainability of the CAT Process Timeline 11
Assessing the Impact of the CAT Process on Student Outcomes Total Population and Poverty in CAT Surrounding Area CAT Members Completing the CAT Self-Assessment and the Collaborative Action Team Research Exit Survey Percent Student Attendance for Cohort 1 CAT Sites Percent Student Attendance for Cohort 2 CAT Sites 7- 9 31 32 35 47 - 50 81 I 82 Table 8. Percent Student Attendance for Cohort 3 CAT Sites 82 ,1 a aI I Table 9. Table 10. Table 11. Table 12. Table 13. Table 14. Table 15. Table 16. Table 17. Percent Student Attendance for CAT Sites Across Cohorts Percent Student Dropout for Cohort 1 CAT Sites Percent Student Dropout for Cohort 2 CAT Sites Percent Student Dropout for Cohort 3 CAT Sites Percent Student Dropout for CAT Sites Across Cohorts Percent Student Graduation for Cohort 1 CAT Sites Percent Student Graduation for Cohort 2 CAT Sites Percent Student Graduation for Cohort 3 CAT Sites Percent Student Graduation for CAT Sites Across Cohorts iii 83 88 89 89 90 95 96 96 97 533 2 > > Z 55 t/i 2 S z n P5 Table 18. SAT-9 Scores Below the 25" Percentile for Arkansas CAT Sites 101 Table 19. Percentile Rankings on CAT/5 and ITBS for Louisiana CAT Sites 102 Table 20. Percent Passing CTBS5/Terra Nova Plus for New Mexico CAT Sites 103 Table 21. Percent Scoring Satisfactory on OCCT for Oklahoma CAT Sites 105 Table 22. Percent Passing the TAAS in Texas CAT Sites 108 Table 23. Free/Reduced Lunch for RD-CAT Sites 112 Table 24. RD-CAT Members Completing the CAT Self-Assessment and the Collaborative Action Team Research Exit Survey 117 Table 25. Comparison of RD-CAT Site and State Student Dropout 136 Table 26. Comparison of RD-CAT Site and State Student Graduation 137 Table 27. CTBS5/Terra Nova Test Scores for Mora ISD and State 138 Table 28. Percent Passing New Mexico High School Competency Exam for Mora ISD and State 139 Table 29. SAT-9 Percent Passing for Marshall School District and State 139 Table 30. SAT-9 Percentile Scores for Marshall School District and State 140 Table 31. Percent Passing OCCT for Clayton School District and State 140 iv 534 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. CAT Site Start-Up and CAT Self-Assessment Data Collection 29 Figure 2. Type of School(s) Collaborative Action Teams Serve 36 Bl Figure 3. Special School Programs in CAT Sites 37 Figure 4a & b Team Confidence Level for Activity Accomplishment 39 rl Figure 5. Type of School Community Challenges in CAT Sites 40 Figure 6a & b Existence of Community Factors in CAT Sites 42 2 > > Z 9 X 2 S z rt pj Figure 7a. PI Days Between Start-Up Training and First CAT Meeting for Cohort 1 Sites 43 Figure 7b. Days Between Start-Up Training and First CAT Meeting for Cohort 2 Sites 44 Figure 7c. Days Between Start-Up Training and First CAT Meeting for Cohort 3 Sites 44 Figure 8. Level of Support form School Administration for Future CAT Sustainability 58 El Figure 9. Level of Support from Campus Staff for Future CAT Sustainability 58 p 4! 1 Figure 10. Level of Support from Community-at-Large for Future CAT Sustainability 59 Figure 11. II Level of Support from Parents/Other Family Members for Future CAT Sustainability 59 Figure 12. Level of Support from Students for Future CAT Sustainability 60 . Figure 13. Future Goal Accomplishment Across Cohorts 66 V 535I tv Figure 14. Figure 15. Figure 16. Figure 17. Figure 18. Figure 19. Figure 20. Figure 21. Figure 22. Figure 23. Figure 24. Figure 25. Figure 26. Figure 27. Figure 28. Figure 29. Figure 30. Figure 31. Perceived Changes in CAT Recognition/Importance in the Community by Representative Groups Importance of Taking Action on Planned Goals for CAT Sustainability Annual Percent Student Attendance Across Cohorts Site, District, and State Student Attendance Comparisons Across Cohorts Arkansas CAT Site vs. State Student Attendance Louisiana CAT Site vs. State Student Attendance New Mexico CAT Site vs. State Student Attendance Oklahoma CAT Site vs. State Student Attendance Texas CAT Site vs. State Student Attendance Site, District, and State Student Dropout Comparisons Across Cohorts Arkansas CAT Site vs. State Student Dropout Louisiana CAT Site vs. State Student Dropout New Mexico CAT Site vs. State Student Dropout Oklahoma CAT Site vs. State Student Dropout Texas CAT Site vs. State Student Dropout Site, District, and State Student Graduation Comparisons Across Cohorts Arkansas CAT Site vs. State Student Graduation New Mexico CAT Site vs. State Student Graduation vi 70 72 83 84 85 85 86 86 87 90 91 92 92 93 94 97 98 98 3 i K B B B 536Section 1: Collaborative Action Team Project Background Recognizing that childrens problems are increasingly horizontal, but government is organized vertically (Kirst, 1991, p. 617), those concerned with the well-being of children and families have sought ways to overcome the compartmentalization and fragmentation characterizing traditional delivery systems. Efforts to integrate and coordinate services for children and families across multiple agencies have been promulgated since the mid-1970s, however often than not at the behest of local social service agencies (Kagan & I I more Pritchard, 1996). It has only been in the past decade that federal support has influenced and hastened the development of collaborative partnerships. The result has been a broad variety of approaches to collaborative work. Models, strategies, and pilot programs accompanied by an abundant literature of opinion, guidelines, theory, survey and case study research, and anecdotal experience have p' erated. The role of public education in these collaborative efforts has also varied and, in some circles, schools are deliberately avoided. For example. Heath and McLaughlin (1996) note that partnership with community organizations seldom extends to education (p. 70), because many individuals working in youth organizations find schools the most difficult partner among the many social agencies with which they have contact (p. 85). Schools, on the other hand, have attributed the lack of collaboration with community organizations to the inflexible schedules and frequent turnover of agency staff, as well as to what schools perceive as competitive attitudes (Kagel & Routh, 1993). ( > t I ) 2 > S > z o p5 z PI In addition to the difficulties schools encounter developing successful collaborative partnerships with community agencies, their relationship with the families of students is also a source of conflict. The development and perpetuation of a stereotypical view that many families are uncaring of their children and their childrens success in school has been seen in educational practice (Corbett, Wilson, & Webb, 1996). As families experience this attitude, a self-fulfilling prophecy is set into motion in which families feel uncomfortable coming to the school and as a result, professionals continue to see parents as the problem. Additional reasons for why collaborative partnerships have not necessarily been successful, or even initiated, may include: Family and school schedules are often difficult to mesh Security issues sometimes take precedence over visitors on school grounds Parents past experiences as students themselves may have been negative and they lack trust in the educational system. 1 537Figure 32. Oklahoma CAT Site vs. State Student Graduation 99 Figure 33. Texas CAT Site vs. State Student Graduation 99 Figure 34. Level of Support form School Administration for Future RD-CAT Sustainability 121 Figure 35. Level of Support from Campus Staff for Future RD-CAT Sustainability 121 Figure 36. Level of Support from Community at Large for Future RD-CAT Sustainability 122 Figure 37. Level of Support from Parents/Other Family Members for Future RD-CAT Sustainability 122 Figure 38. Level of Support from Students for Future RD-CAT Sustainability 123 Figure 39. RD-CAT Site Student Attendance Comparisons Across Time 134 Figure 40. RD-CAT Site Student Dropout Comparisons Across Time 135 Figure 41. RD-CAT Site Student Graduation Comparisons Across Time 137 vii 538. iW, ii!* Although these barriers exist, it is believed that strengthening the involvement of families and communities in education is critical for enablinq schools to function more effectively and respond to the complex needs of students and their families. Fulfilling the needs that affect a students development takes a system of interrelated, interdependent parts, of which the school is just one. The students home and family life, and the community and society in which the student lives, are other necessary parts of the system. Yet, it is understood that schools play a particularly crucial role for several Students spend many hours of their day at school reasons: 1 a School s explicit mission is to guide student development Important relationships develop between students, their peers, their teachers, and other adults in the school environment. As a result of this systemic shift in thinking, connections between schools, families, and communities are more prevalent today than ever. Increasingly, schools have taken the lead in establishing collaborative links (Kritek, 1996
Payzant, 1992). Often these efforts are part of an overall plan for systemic school reform in an attempt to improve educational outcomes for children (Fox & Williams, 1991
Lourie, 1994). For example, increased academic achievement, motivaUon and interest in school, and behavioral and adaptive functioning are only just beginning to be assessed in relation to the impact of these collaborative partnerships (Eber & Rolf, 1998). Although on the increase, the establishment of collaborative partnerships among the school, home, and community has been slow in achieving wide spread adoption in the field. This is due, in part, to the existing limited and largely non-empirical knowledge base on school-based collaboration and the absence of a clear specification of the needed skills that promote such an intervention model (Pryor & Church, 1995
U.S. Department of Education, 1996). Purpose of Current Project to 2 S > 2. 3 (fi 2 S 2 rj P5 As part of a federal grant initiated in December 1995, the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL) developed and implemented a school-based Collaborative Action Team (CAT) process to address the need t enhance family and community involvement in education. The intervention was designed to be self-sustaining over time and improve results for students and their families. This research project, based in communities across a five state Southwestern region of the United States, tested the sustainability of the collaborative partnerships developed among families, community members, 2 539h I I school personnel, and students and the efficacy of this intervention to improve student success. Training for Collaborative Action Team participants was developed and implemented. The training consisted of activities to improve their knowledge of, skills in, and attitudes toward collaboration and shared leadership. These activities were used to enhance the partners abilities to collaborate on plans and take action to address issues and concerns facing their school community. Quantitative and qualitative measures were used to evaluate and continually refine the Collaborative Action Team process and capture a holistic picture of student success. Data collected in each site provided information on site characteristics, the implementation and sustainability of the process, and student outcomes. The research also provided CAT sites with descriptive and empirical data on their successes and areas of continued need while increasing their general knowledge base on the use of collaborative efforts within school settings and their impact on student success. Purpose of this Report This report serves two functions: first, as a technical manual detailing the methods and procedures of the study
second, as a final, summative report, describing the activities accomplished and the research results obtained from this project. The Collaborative Action Team project was first implemented in the Fall of 1996 in five sites (Cohort 1), then expanded to another ten sites in the Fall of 1998 (Cohort 2), and to another eight sites in the Fall of 1999 (Cohort 3). Of these 23 sites, four were designated as Rural Development Collaborative Action Team (RD-CAT) sites to connect school improvement with community development through the implementation of the collaborative process linked to service learning and school entrepreneurship activities. This report will discuss individual and across site results from the research conducted in all 23 CAT sites as well as results specific to the RD-CAT sites. This report contains sections describing the characteristics of the Collaborative Action Team process and the CAT sites, the implementation of the partnership process at the sites, the project research methodology, the sustainability of team collaboration, and student outcomes over time. Implications from the research results and what lies ahead for collaboration among schools, families, communities, and students are also discussed in this report. I 3 540J I Section 2: Participants in the Collaborative Action I Team Project The Southwest Educational Development Laboratory's emphasis is on ensuring educational equality for children and youth in the states of Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas who live in poverty
who are Hispanic, African-American, or other minorities
or who have mental or physical exceptionalities. Within these states, SEDL identified the following five critical concentrations on which to focus its research and development projects
rural, urban, the Delta, the Border, and the American Indian Nations. Site Selection I I Recognizing the need for the research demonstration sites to be representative of the five state Southwestern region SEDL serves and the critical concentration areas established by the Board of Directors, SEDL project staff solicited applications in 1996 (Year 1), 1998 (Year 3), and 1999 (Year 4). Each Collaborative Action Team (CAT) site is independent and serves one or more schools or an entire school district. 2 >X > z o s z n PI Five sites, one in each state in SEDLs region, were selected in 1996 to comprise Cohort 1. These sites are: L. R. Jackson Elementary School (West Memphis, Arkansas) P.G.T. Beauregard Middle School (St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana) Rio Grande High School Cluster (Albuquerque, New Mexico) Jackson Middle School (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma) Fabens Independent School District (Fabens, Texas). I In 1998, ten sites throughout the region were selected for Cohort 2. These sites are: Dollarway School District (Pine Bluff, Arkansas) Barbara Jordan Elementary School (New Orleans, Louisiana) Albuquerque High School Cluster (Albuquerque, New Mexico) Highland High School Cluster (Albuquerque, New Mexico) Ann Parish Elementary School (Los Lunas, New Mexico) Mora Independent Schools (Mora, New Mexico) Ponca City East Middle School (Ponca City, Oklahoma) Balmorhea Independent School District (Balmorhea, Texas) Del Valle High School (Del Valle, Texas) Rio Hondo Independent School District (Rio Hondo, Texas). 4 > 541 I In 1999, eight sites were selected from four of the five states in SEDLs region for Cohort 3. These sites are: Little Rock School District (Little Rock, Arkansas) Lee County School District (Marianna, Arkansas) Marshall School District (Marshall, Arkansas) Polk Elementary School (Baton Rouge, Louisiana) Clayton Independent School District (Clayton, Oklahoma) Clinton Independent School District (Clinton, Oklahoma) Geraldine Palmer Elementary (Pharr, Texas) Terrell Independent School District (Terrell, Texas). Four of the 23 sites selected were designated Rural Development CAT (RD-CAT) sites. These sites were required to have a community population below 3,000 persons and be geographically isolated from larger cities or towns in the surrounding region. Additionally, these sites had to be committed to connecting school improvement with economic and community development. Although a number of Collaborative Action Team sites are geographically rural, they did not meet the qualifications to be designated as RD-CAT sites. All sites, including the Rural Development sites, were selected to be Collaborative Action Team sites based on the following criteria: Fits within SEDLs critical concentration areas Evidence of low academic performance in student population High percentage of low-income students (i.e.. Title 1 programs: free/reduced lunch) History of ongoing and under-served needs in school community Willingness to engage home, school, and community partners in collaboration Willingness to commit to long-term project efforts. SEDL project staff developed and implemented a process to finalize Collaborative Action Team site selections. First, all potential sites were required to submit a Collaborative Action Team Application Form (see Appendix A for a copy of the CAT applications used). Once the application was received, project staff reviewed it for completeness and, if incomplete, provided one opportunity for the site to resubmit. Project staff then reviewed all of the applications to determine if the potential site met the criteria established to become a CAT. To further determine site appropriateness, project staff conducted discussions, onsite and/or by phone, with members of each school community applying. All information obtained about the potential sites was then discussed among the 5 I 542 project staff and, as a final step, all sites were notified as to whether they had or had not been selected as a CAT site. In Year 1, sites that received SEDL services from 1990-1995 through the Home, School, and Community Partnerships (HSCP) project were first contacted to see if they were interested in continuing with SEDL to implement the Collaborative Action Team process. Four of the HSCP sites (West Memphis, AR
Albuquerque, NM
Oklahoma City, OK
and Fabens, TX) submitted applications to become CAT sites. The fifth Cohort 1 site in St. Bernard, LA learned about the project through a community member previously involved with another of SEDLs projects. The five Cohort 1 Collaborative Action Team sites represent three individual schools, one cluster of feeder schools, and one school district, i.e., serving a total of 20 schools (see Table 1). None of the Cohort 1 sites were designated as Rural Development CAT sites. 2 > > Z 0 75 2 55 z n PI In Year 3, SEDL project staff used several mechanisms to solicit Collaborative Action Team site applications. These included conference presentations, phone contacts, third-person referrals, and visits to SEDLs website. Cohort 1 CAT sites were also asked to recommend potential sites. Additionally, applicants who were not selected for Cohort 1, but met the eligibility requirements were also encouraged to reapply. The second cohort of 10 sites represents four individual schools, two clusters of feeder schools, and four school districts, i.e., serving a total of 42 schools (see Table 1). Two of these 10 sites were designated Rural Development CAT sites: Mora, NM, and Balmorhea, TX. r In Year 4, the Collaborative Action Team site solicitation methods used were similar to those used in the year prior
however, one particular venue was the primary source for applications. This was a presentation by SEDL project staff at a federal Department of Education 21 Century Community Learning Center Bidders Conference held in the Southwestern region. For Cohort 3, project staff selected eight sites in four of the five SEDL region states (no new site was established in New Mexico). The Cohort 3 Collaborative Action Team sites represent two individual schools and six school districts, i.e., serving a total of 70 schools (see Table 1). Two of these eight sites were designated Rural Development CAT sites: Marshall, AR, and Clayton, OK. I 6 543I Table 1 Collaborative Action Team Site Demographics CAT site Cohort 1 West Memphis, AR St. Bernard Parish, LA Rio Grande Cluster, NM Oklahoma City, OK Fabens, TX Cohort 2 Pine Bluff, AR New Orleans, LA Albuquerque Cluster, NM Established Region 08/14/96 10/19/96 09/05/96 10/04/96 09/11/96 09/16/98 08/17/98 10/29/98 Schools served by CAT Free/reduced lunch Student ethnicity UI lU Delta/ Rural Rural Urban Urban Border/ Rural Rural Urban Urban 1 elementary school 1 middle school 1 high
4 middle and 7 elementary schools 1 middle school 1 high
1 junior high
1 elementary
1 primary school
and 1 early childhood center 1 high
1 junior high and 3 elementary schools 1 elementary school 1 high
2 middle and 10 elementary schools 7 100% 88% 76% 100% 95% 66% 100% 69% 99% African-American
1% other 63% White
33% African-American
4% other 83% Hispanic
11% White
6% other 65% Hispanic
18% White
10% African-American
7% Native American 97% Hispanic
3% other 80% African-American
20% White 100% African-American 66% Hispanic
22% White
12% other_____ (continued on next page)fit li. KA Tabic 1 (continued) CAT site Established Region Schools served by CAT Free/reduced lunch Student ethnic ity Highland Cluster, NM 10/29/98 Urban 1 high
2 middle and 8 elementary schools 62% 40% Hispanic
36% White
10% Native American
14% other Los Lunas, NM 10/21/98 Rural 1 elementary school 100% 63% Hispanic
31% White
6% other I Mora, NM 11/14/98 Rural 1 high
1 middle and 2 elementary schools 89% 78% Hispanic
21% White
1% other Ponca City, OK 09/12/98 Rural 1 mid-high school 44% 82% White
12% Native American
6% other Balmorhea, TX 06/30/98 Border/ Rural 1 school all grades (K - 12) 71% 80% Hispanic
19% White
1 % other Del Valle, TX 10/03/98 Urban I high school 48% 53% Hispanic
32% White
14% African-American
1% other i Rio Hondo, TX 10/24/98 Border/ Rural I high
1 middle and 2 elementary schools 81% 94% Hispanic
6% White (continued on next page) 8 cn >i UI aoNaios ONV iiiviv I I I UI 4k 9) Table 1 (continued) CAT site Cohort 3 Little Rock, AR Marianna, AR Marshall, AR East Baton Rouge, LA Clayton, OK Clinton, OK Pharr, TX Terrell, TX Established Region 09/23/99 09/01/99 08/17/99 08/18/99 08/30/99 09/09/99 10/14/99 08/26/99 Urban Delta/ Rural Rural Urban Rural Rural Border/ Rural Rural Schools served by CAT 5 high
8 junior high and 35 elementary schools 1 high
1 middle and 2 elementary schools 1 junior/senior high and 1 elementary school 1 elementary school 1 high and 1 elementary school 1 high
1 middle and 3 elementary schools 1 elementary school 1 high
1 middle and 4 elementary schools
and 1 pre- K to K center 9 Free/reduced lunch Student ethnicity 50% 89% 60% 98% 73% 73% 88% 51% 68% African-American
28% White
4% other 91% African-American
8% White
1% other 98% White
2% other 99% African-American
1% White 75% White
25% Native American 55% White
23% Hispanic
11% Native American
10% African-American
1% other 2% White
98% Hispanic 49% White
34% African-American
16% Hispanic
1% other Team Composition The entire school community, consisting of all the people and organizations that either affect or are affected by the school, are the pool from which Collaborative Action Team members were initially identified in site applications. A school community goes beyond those who work and study inside the school. School communities include families, businesses, agencies, organizations, and individuals in the immediate neighborhood. A school community might include residents who have no children attending the school but whose property values are affected by the quality of education the school provides. A human service, health, or mental health agency that serves students families may be part of a school community even if it is not located in direct proximity to the school. The school board and district or state administrators that affect a schools work are also a part of the school community. 2 > X > 2. 9 V) 2 w z ri P3 I jA The initial composition of the Collaborative Action Teams in Cohort 1 included school, home, and community representatives. As the PGT Beauregard CAT in St. Bernard, LA developed, they were the first team to include students as equal members on their team. The SEDL project staff and the other Cohort 1 CAT sites recognized the benefit of including students. As a result, students were incorporated into the CAT process as a fourth representative group needed to comprise team membership and many sites include students on their teams. School representatives include superintendents, assistant superintendents, and other district/central office staff, principals, assistant principals, teachers, teacher aides, librarians, support staff, maintenance personnel, and other school campus staff. Family members such as parents, grandparents, foster parents, other caretakers, and siblings comprise the home representative group. Neighborhood associations, businesses, government offices, human service agencies, religious institutions, and volunteers represent the community. Students, generally from secondary schools, also serve on the CAT
however, student representation is open to all age groups. Collaborative Action Teams range in size from smaller groups of 8-10 members to much larger groups of 40-50 members, with an average of approximately 15 active members per team. Additionally, although representative membership is a core principle of the Collaborative Action Team process, it should be noted that membership on the team is not static. The teams have an open door policy", often resulting in variation in team 10 547 I i I membership at any given time. However, each team has established a group of core members that, at the least, represent the home, school, and community. Summary SEDL project staff used a variety of mechanisms to solicit potential Collaborative Action Team sites and a formal selection process was implemented. Twenty-three sites were selected to participate in the project, of which four were designated as Rural Development CAT sites. All of the sitesmet established selection criteria related to geographic location, student demographics, school and community needs, an ability and willingness to commit to implementing collaborative partnerships. Participants varied in the Collaborative Action Teams but generally consisted of home, school, community, and student representatives. t 11 548I Section 3: Characteristics of the Collaborative Action Team Process IS > ( I The Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL) designed the school-based Collaborative Action Team (CAT) process to be developed, tested, and refined over a five-year period ending in December 2000. After reviewing the literature on collaboration with an emphasis on its links to educational settings, SEDL project staff identified current collaborative practices, dimensions of successful team partnership development and maintenance, and barriers to effective collaboration upon which the CAT process was initially based. The process was continually developed over the five years to bring together local partners representing the communitys diverse points of view to increase the productive involvement of families and communities in the educational achievement and well-being of students. I 2 > > Z 9 75 2 5 z ft Defining Collaboration I I Collaboration brings separate individuals or organizations into a new relationship with a joint commitment to a common purpose. As described by Mattesich and Monsey (1992), the relationship includes a commitment to: a definition of mutual relationships and goals, mutual authority and accountability for success, and sharing of resources and rewards (p. 7). Such a relationship requires comprehensive planning and well-defined communication. Risk is greater because team members reputations are at stake. Participants pool their resources and share the products of their work. Collaboration is a more formal and long-term arrangement than networking, cooperation and coordination. It differs in the extent to which people share resources and use power and authority to achieve goals they cannot achieve independently (Kagan, 1991). fc- People in collaborative relationships view each other as partners, enhancing each others capacity to define excellence, set mutual goals, and use their own personal and institutional power to achieve them (Himmelman, 1992). Collaboration is a style of work and a sense of community in which members knowingly make decisions as a whole. They see themselves as complementary and mutually supportive contributors to the entire community. In other words, collaboration involves the following: Developing win-win situations Creating a total greater than the sum of its parts Sharing responsibility Sharing success. 12 549Core Principles The Collaborative Action Team process is a set of concepts, activities, and resources that individuals, school districts, and other organizations can use to develop a partnership between school, home, community, and students at the local level. It was initially based on a set of core principles and included four stages of team development. The core principles identified were representative membership, shared leadership, consensus decision-making, and networking. As the Collaborative Action Teams developed, it was seen that networking was a natural consequence of collaboration
however, teams having an action focus was integral to team development. Action focus was incorporated into the CAT process as a core principle to embody the characteristics of collaboration. Based on these core principles, the Collaborative Action Team moves through a series of activities within the four stages of team development intended to support effective team partnerships that can be self-sustaining over time. I Representative membership is when a team consists of participants from a cross-section of the school community that consistently attend meetings and are actively involved in making decisions. This includes family members, community representatives, school personnel, and students and should mirror the diversity of the community. Representative membership can help the team develop a more comprehensive response to school community needs and reinforce local control and self-reliance. Shared leadership exists when leadership roles and responsibilities are equally distributed among all team members. Team members see themselves as partners working to benefit students and their families and are equally included in representing the team, making decisions, carrying responsibilities, and sharing success. Shared leadership can enhance a teams commitment and willingness to work together and help to sustain individual energy, minimize burnouf, and expand the school communitys leadership pool. Consensus decision-making occurs when decisions are made that best reflect the viewpoints of all involved and that all members agree to support. This requires that team members develop the ability to discuss issues, listen to one another, address their differences, work to resolve them, and reach decisions based on general agreement. Consensus decisions can help to minimize conflict and maximize commitment and willingness in order for the team to take action as a whole. 13 55041 Action focus serves as the underlying purpose of a Collaborative Action Team, i.e., to improve results for students and the school community. Establishing a team vision and mission, and setting goals and forming strategies can help to prepare a team for action. As members take on roles and responsibilities and follow through on mutual decisions, they can generate momentum for further action. Stages of Team Development The four stages of team development are: Team Identification, Team Mobilization, Project Development, and Project Implementation. These stages are intended to lead the team to maturity and success in their overall goal to improve results for children and families. Team Identification includes determining who will be on the team and how members will work together to represent the whole community, including developing a vision and mission. Team Mobilization encompasses identifying and utilizing shared leadership, broadening communication and networking opportunities, and structuring the CAT meeting. Project Development is based on creating action plans and Project Implementation on carrying out those plans and maintaining the teams focus while accomplishing its goals. Each of the four stages of team development is comprised of team building and team planning elements created to generate momentum and develop team strength relative to the core Collaborative Action Team principles. 2 > z 0 7) 2 n -2. W Elements of the CAT Process JI Team building elements show team members how to work together as equal partners, respect individual diversity, and build trust to help the team solve problems and create new opportunities. Getting to know one another, talking constructively from differing vantage points, and undertaking projects together help build relationships among team members. The team building activities enable mutual respect and trust to grow as personal relationships and shared experiences evolve. I Team planning elements address tools and techniques for developing a vision, mission, goals and objectives, priorities, and action steps. Finding common ground, participating in dialogues about school community issues, and reaching consensus on what needs to be accomplished are all part of planning 14 551 for collaborative action. Team planning helps to keep everyone focused and provides the structure for moving the team forward. Generating momentum produces visible results quickly by taking easily accomplished steps toward change. Teams can generate momentum by working on manageable size projects often resulting in early success. This success generates the energy and enthusiasm needed for long-term development and increasingly more complicated efforts. Momentum is the product of the effort it takes to improve schools and communities. Summary SEDL developed and implemented a collaborative, school-based process partnering family members, school personnel, community representatives, and students to improve results for students and their families. The Collaborative Action Team process is based on a set a core principles and is organized into stages of team development. The core principles of the Collaborative Action Team process are: Representative Membership, Shared Leadership, Consensus Decision-Making, and Action Focus. Based on these core principles, the CAT process moves teams through four stages of development: Team identification. Team Mobiiization, Project Deveiopment, and Project Impiementation. Within each of these stages, teams go through a series of elements and activities that support a balance between team building and team planning, based on the core principles. Mechanisms are incorporated throughout the process to maintain the momentum of the team as it moves through the stages. 15 552Section 4: Implementation of the Collaborative Action Team Process I I The Collaborative Action Team (CAT) process implemented across the 23 sites included several essential components. First, it was important to have the support and participation of home, school, community, and student members at each site. Second, the team members were trained in the skills, concepts, and principles of the CAT process. Third, CAT meetings were held so that a plan of action could be developed. And last, the on-going needs of the Collaborative Action Team process were assessed and technical assistance was provided. The implementation of the CAT process was continually refined over the five years of the project, reflecting Collaborative Action Team member ideas and suggestions, SEDL project staff observations, and new data that emerged. I 2 > > Z 9 2 5 2. O P3 Initiating the Collaborative Action Team Process I I I 'iJ I I I SEDL project staff contacted school administrators from each site, at the local and/or district level, to discuss the mission, methodology, and goals of the project and to obtain administrative support. Although not standard practice with all Cohort 1 sites, as it was for the Cohort 2 and 3 sites, SEDL project staff met on-site with school administrators. The Cohort 1 CAT sites were not required to give SEDL written approval from their school administrators, but verbal support was attained. Over time, however, the administrative support wavered and resulted in a variety of barriers to the continuation of the Collaborative Action Team in at least one of the Cohort 1 sites. SEDL project staff recognized the need for a more formal system to obtain approval and support from school administrators in potential CAT sites. As a result, they developed a Memorandum of Understanding outlining the required commitments to become a CAT site and the joint responsibilities of the site and SEDL (see Appendix A for a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding). The Collaborative Action Team process was not initiated in the Cohort 2 and 3 sites until project staff received this Memorandum of Understanding with the signature of a school administrator, i.e., the school principal or assistant principal, the district superintendent, assistant superintendent, or director of curriculum, or another designated district administrator. Local school and district administration in each of the Cohort 2 and Cohort 3 CAT sites endorsed the project both verbally and by completing the Memorandum of Understanding. * In addition to school administrative support, other members of the school community spoke with SEDL project staff to discuss the implementation of the 16 I 553CAT process in their site. Many of these conversations took place at an initial on-site visit conducted by SEDL project staff during the application process. At this time, the participants representing the four core groups (home, school, community, and students) talked with project staff as a whole and separately, by representative group. This provided the participants an opportunity to experience initial collaborative dialogue and to discuss any past partnering difficulties among the groups. They were also provided brochures about the CAT project and other resource materials. Those in attendance indicated their support for the development of a CAT in their school community and their interest in participating: however, the number and diversity of representatives present at the initial visit was often greater than the core group that comprised the on-going Collaborative Action Team. General CAT Member Training Once support from the school administration and school community members in each site was evident and initial information was exchanged, the next step in implementing the Collaborative Action Team process was to train site members. A one and one-half day intensive Start-Up Training was scheduled with each site to occur shortly after they were selected. For the Cohort 1 and 2 sites, the training was conducted for home, school, and community representatives. Students from secondary schools were included as participants in the training for Cohort 3 sites. The Collaborative Action Team Start-Up Training was designed to foster shared leadership and collaboration skills to enable team members with diverse backgrounds and a wide range of skill levels and experience to participate as full partners with school leaders. During the Start-Up Training, SEDL project staff introduced the team development activities comprising the CAT process. Project staff developed a structured agenda and provided a written copy to all participants (see Appendix B for an example of a Start-Up Training agenda). The training included an orientation session focused on a variety of factors that impact partnership development. Participants developed a site facilitation plan, designated local facilitators, and established a plan for the first full CAT meeting during the training. The experiential, interactive activities used in the training focused on increasing team members awareness and understanding of their differences and similarities while helping them become more comfortable with one another and learn the strengths and contributions each could bring to the team. For example, one activity asked each person to list things at which they are good and then posted the responses on flip charts for everyone to see. These skills 17 554 and strengths of team members were then matched with tasks needing to be completed during an action planning activity later in the training. The planning activity encouraged members to share their knowledge and skills to accomplish identified goals which demonstrated to them the value of shared responsibility and leadership. r s ) 3 I I SEDL project staff also provided training for team members through annual Collaborative Action Team Training Institutes held each fall of the five- year project (see Appendix B for an example of an Institute agenda). A representative group of team members from each CAT site were brought together for three days to share ideas, network with one another, and gain new knowledge and skills to assist them in their collaborative efforts. The specific agenda varied at each Institute
however, a number of topics were pervasive throughout ali five. These included, but were not limited to: Shared leadership Action planning Resource development Assessment and evaluation Use of technology in collaboration. The Training Institutes provided participants with information, skills, and materials for the team members at their sites who were not able to attend the training. This new knowledge was used to further the collaborative efforts of each team. 2 > S > 2 (/) 2 S 2. n P5 CAT Facilitator Training r j In relation to school change, Hord (1992) described the importance of facilitative leaders who are not necessarily positional leaders, such as superintendents or principals, but rather people who demonstrate functional leadership, help create an atmosphere and culture for change, and nurture both the vision and tangible supports necessary for effective follow through. This was the type of leadership sought to facilitate the Collaborative Action Teams. During the first few years of the project, SEDL project staff functioned in this role for the Cohort 1 sites, while informally encouraging team members to assume this role. As the CAT project developed, project staff spent less time with the Collaborative Action Teams and, as a result, team members recognized the need for local facilitation. Training local team members to act in the facilitator role and maintain their neutrality while serving in this role was seen as essential to the sustainability and expansion of the CAT process. 18 555In 1998, SEDL project staff developed a two-day curriculum to train members from each site to become facilitators and equip them to train others on their team to assume facilitation responsibilities (see Appendix B for an example of a Facilitator Training agenda). The first Facilitator Training was conducted in January 1999 at the SEDL offices at which at least two members from each Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 site attended. These trained facilitators also attended a refresher workshop in October 1999 to help them improve their skills and assess their progress. A second Facilitator Training was held in September 1999 for another 2-3 members in the Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 sites who had not been previously trained and an equal amount of members from the Cohort 3 sites. The trained CAT facilitators from all three of the cohorts participated in follow-up trainings in March 2000 and September 2000. SEDLs training for CAT facilitators had several goals. First, to thoroughly familiarize the participants taking on the facilitator role with the Collaborative Action Team process. For example, participants were asked to identify major elements of the process for a case study activity that required them to determine the most appropriate CAT process element to address typical issues and situations teams face. Second, to teach various group process techniques such as brainstorming, consensus building, force field analysis, use of affinity diagrams, and the use of T-charts. Each participant had an opportunity to facilitate either a group process technique or one of the training exercises under the observation and guidance of SEDL project staff. And last, to provide facilitators with the knowledge and skills necessary to train fellow team members in the use of the techniques taught in the training. Participants were provided a knowledge base and basic tools at the training to help them share the facilitation and team development responsibilities seen as necessary to effect change in their school community. CAT Meetings An integral part of the project was the implementation of the Collaborative Action Team meetings at which home, school, community, and student representatives focused on issues important to their school community and action for improving results for students and their families. Collaborative Action Team members at the individual sites, especially the trained facilitators, were responsible for assuring meetings occurred. The steps needed to implement the team meetings included: 1) arranging the logistics for the meeting, 2) contacting team members and attending the meetings, 3) conducting the meeting, 4) following through on tasks and responsibilities, and 19 5565) evaluating the meetings. SEDL project staff provided CAT sites with assistance to help them implement team meetings, i.e., through on-site and telephone consultation, by providing written materials and other resources, and by encouraging networking among the CAT sites. Most of the Collaborative Action Teams met regularly, i.e., once a month. One or two of the 23 teams met more frequently, while a few met irregularly and less frequently. Some of the teams maintained a formal structure, i.e., met at the same time and place, provided an agenda, and kept within timeframes designated on the agenda. Other teams used their meetings as an open forum to discuss their needs and exchange information. Yet others focused directly on activities, events, and actions specific to a written plan they developed. A variety of techniques were used at the meetings to enhance team dialogue, some of which were modeled in the myriad of training SEDL project staff provided. The trained facilitators played a key role in ensuring diverse viewpoints were heard at the meeting and that all members participated. They also, along with other members of the team, were responsible for following through on assigned tasks and monitoring that others did as well. The team meetings were the primary setting in which collaboration took place. I I I I I I 2 > > Z o Vi 2 S z Pl The Collaborative Action Team meetings were primarily evaluated in four ways
Feedback provided by team members during team meetings Informal discussions with team members outside of the team meetings Contacts between the SEDL project staff and CAT members Responses on evaluation tools developed by the SEDL project staff to assess the process. Several tools developed specifically to evaluate individual meetings were the CAT Meeting Checklist and the Collaborative Action Team Meeting Evaluation Form ^1 and Collaborative Action Team Meeting Evaluation Form #2 (see Appendix C for copies of these instruments). These evaluation tools helped teams self-evaluate after each meeting regarding how the meeting progressed and how they did, or did not, use the Collaborative Action Team process. Other evaluation tools developed for the project included the CAT Self-Assessment and the Collaborative Action Team Research Exit Survey (see Appendix C for copies of these instruments). These tools, although created to collect data regarding overall CAT process implementation and sustainability, also provided information on meeting progress. A detailed description of the evaluation process for which these tools were used and the results are provided in a later section of this report. 20 557Collaborative Action Team Materials Crowson and Boyd (1996), noting the proliferation of guides to collaboration and service coordination conclude, what the handbooks and guidelines and experiential evidence to date do not adequately provide are insights into deep structure issues in cooperating institutions (p. 139). Such issues include institutional inertia, a lack of sufficient knowledge and skills, and perceived differences in power, perspective, and belief. These issues serve as barriers to collaborative work and can lead to tensions, miscommunication, and competing agendas among members of a collaborative group as well as between the group and the community it seeks to serve (Delpit, 1995
Schorr, 1997). SEDL project staff recognized the need for team members to have written materials to guide them in their implementation of the CAT process. T In 1998, SEDL project staff developed A Guide to Building Collaborative Action Teams in Schools and Communities, detailing the CAT process to assist sites in the development of their teams. The guide included multiple small group activities mirroring the elements of the Collaborative Action Team process. Background information on each of the elements, timelines for accomplishing the activities, and audio-visual aides were also provided. This design was used to help members build their team, plan action, and generate momentum, as well as to deal with many of the barriers known to impact collaboration. Team members at the Facilitator Training in January 1999 and those at the September 1999 training were given a copy of the guide. SEDL project staff found the use of the guide was spurious
however, team members acknowledged a need for guidance materials. Some of the difficulties team members described with the material included
Terminology that was not fully understood An academic textbook content Too lengthy and not user friendly. Project staff sought feedback from teams to make the materials more practical and user friendly. As a result, many changes were made and a new set of resource materials was developed and provided to teams at the 2000 CAT Institute. The new materials include the Creating Collaborative Action Teams Guide (Guide), Toolkit, and Toolkit Masters. All of these materials are, or will soon be, available on CD-ROM and in Spanish. The Guide provides information specifically on how to start-up, facilitate, and coordinate the Collaborative 21 558r I hr I Action Team and explains the CAT process, core concepts, and terms used in the process. Much of the Guide is organized around the stages of the process and provides background information and a general overview of the different steps of the process. The Toolkit serves as a companion to the Guide and contains a variety of activities and additional resources that can be used at team meetings to help members progress through the stages and steps of the process as well as additional resources. The activities each include: Preparation and room set-up instructions Goals and key introductory points for the session Step-by-step instructions and estimated time Wrap-up points Follow-up reminders. The Toolkit Masters contains forms, handouts, transparencies, worksheets, and ideas for presentations. 2 5 X >z c g S 2 P5 A companion to the Creating Collaborative Action Teams Guide was also developed for rural communities, and even more specifically for the Rural Development CAT sites. Entitled, Thriving Together: Connecting Rural School Improvement and Community Development, this guide provides practical information about how to connect school and community development through such strategies as service and work-based learning. The material describes characteristics and resources important to these and other joint efforts and incorporates activities of the Collaborative Action Team process that can be used to sustain them. 1 Consultation and Technical Assistance I In addition to the initial CAT training, SEDL project staff provided ongoing consultation and technical assistance to each site with an emphasis on basic and advanced skill development to enhance the teams use of the collaborative process. Project staff observed team meetings and provided feedback, particularly to team facilitators. They visited each site at least quarterly and had additional contact more frequently with team members (most often the trained CAT facilitators) via the telephone, postal mailings, electronic mail, and videoconferences. ) > Several sites specifically requested SEDL project staff assist them with additional training regarding shared leadership. A one to two hour booster training was provided individually to those sites. The training focused on the strengths, needs, and barriers of the particular team and included specific 12 559 activities they could accomplish to help them fulfill their needs. A few other sites received a recharge training after they lost much of their membership and momentum and feared they might cease to exist. This training included a four to eight hour saturation on the CAT process, use of CAT materials and resources, and discussions of strategies to sustain their team and move toward accomplishing goals. As initial research findings were obtained, SEDL project staff provided each team with verbal and written data reports on their progress and areas of need in relation to their implementation of the Collaborative Action Team process. These reports included an analysis of the data, specific suggestions for team building and action planning activities, and recommendations for areas upon which their team could focus in the future. Sites in Cohorts 1 and 2 received three of these reports while Cohort 3 sites received two. A detailed description of the findings is provided later in this report. r Project-Related Activities The implementation of the Collaborative Action Team process also involved additional activities to provide information to team participants, other members of school community in which the teams are located, professionals in education and other fields of practice, and to a broader audience of persons interested in school reform. The activities included: Presentations - given by SEDL project staff as well as by CAT members about the Collaborative Action Team process to professionals, paraprofessionals, and family and community members Videoconferences - three events sponsored by SEDL project staff on facilitator leadership skills, resources and training topics for 21 Century Community Learning Centers, and a resource guide for rural communities Newsletters and articles - the CAT Connections Newsletter \Nt\\ch was provided to CAT sites during the first several years of the project
the FaCilitATor News monthly update provided to CAT facilitators on upcoming CAT events and resources available: articles in newspapers, magazines, and professional journals written by and/or about the Collaborative Action Teams Web-based networking and information - CAT project web pages on SEDLs website
a bulletin-board and listserves for CAT members and SEDL project staff to converse: regular e-mails to CAT members including the monthly FaCilitATor News updates
and individual CAT site web pages available to the general public 23 560. liSi : -a** Community involvement - attendance at school board meetings and local events and provision of training for educators in the communities in which a CAT site exists Grant writing assistance - reading potential grants being submitted by CAT sites and providing guidance
alerting CAT sites to grant opportunities. Summary I I I I 1 Members of the school community, including family, school personnel at the local and district level, community representatives, and students, showed broad support for the implementation of the Collaborative Action Team process, verbally, in documentation, and through their participation. As has been seen in the literature, part of the empowerment of collaborative group members takes place during training (Kagan, 1991). SEDL project staff provided intensive training to team members on the CAT process and team facilitation. CAT meetings were conducted in 23 sites across the Southwestern region in which home, school, community, and student partners collaborated on issues and actions to improve results for students and their families in their school communities. CAT sites were provided on-going technical assistance and other resource assistance. SEDL project staff furnished printed and electronic materials about the Collaborative Action Team project and team development process, as well as about community development and school improvement in rural areas. Additionally, other informational activities were provided to a broader audience of persons interested in bringing about school change through the involvement of the entire school community. r I 1 2 > > Z 0 oi 2 S z pi 24 561I I I I Section 5: Research Design and Methodology SEDL conducted an applied research project using descriptive and empirical approaches to assess the implementation of the Collaborative Action Team process to improve outcomes for students. Purpose I The purpose of the research was twofold: 1) to determine if collaborative partnerships between the home, school, community, and students can be sustained in the demonstration sites as a result of the implementation of the Collaborative Action Team process and 2) to assess the impact of the process on student success. Sustainability of the CAT process was defined as Collaborative Action Teams meeting and working as a team throughout the CAT project and reporting they will continue to operate in the future for at least one year. The study gathered data about each team's activities in developing and sustaining their team as well as measures of student success, including standardized assessment scores and attendance, graduation, and dropout rates. Comparisons across CAT sites were explored. I I I I I I I I > I t t ) The research also assisted the Collaborative Action Team (CAT) sites in identifying effective practices, training, and resources useful in goal attainment as well as those in need of refinement. Further, the study served to build on the limited empirical knowledge base pertaining to the use of collaborative efforts within school settings and the impact of this partnering on student success. Research Questions The objective of the CAT process was to develop and sustain meaningful partnerships between diverse participants from a school community who would take action to improve results for students and families. In order to assess the achievement of this objective, the research answered the following questions
1) Are collaborative partnerships between the school, home and community developed and sustained as a result of the implementation of the CAT process, i.e., as measured by team progress through elements of the four stages of the CAT process and use of shared leadership and facilitator skills taught in the CAT trainings? 25 I 1 562 t) 0 d 2} Did the Collaborative Action Team process have an impact on student success, i.e., goal accomplishment, changes in student outcomes including standardized assessment scores and attendance, graduation, and dropout rates? I'J C] Cl ft 11 Instruments SEDL project staff developed a Collaborative Action Team Application Form with questions on the demographics of the site (see Appendix A). The application sought information on the: 1) critical concentration area
2) percentage of students in the school district according to ethnicity, socioeconomic status, head of household
3) location within an Enterprise Zone or Empowerment Community
4) school, district, and state standardized test score averages and designation as low performing by the State Education Agency: and 5) existence of special programs and school improvement and/or previous partnership/collaborative efforts in the school/district. Further, the application asked for a response to how confident the site was that a Collaborative Action Team in their community would accomplish eight team development activities and the extent to which nine cultural climate factors exist within their community. The responses to
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.