LRSD 1999 Transition Report Areas Assigned to Associates School Construction - Melissa Alternative Education - Margie Equitable Allocation of Resources - Skip Extracurricular & Enrichment Activities - Horace Student Participation - Horace Incentive Schools - Melissa Learning Environment - Horace Magnet Schools - Gene Mathematics - Melissa Staffing - Horace Middle School Conversion - Margie Policy Compliance - Gene Program Assessment - Gene Reading and Language Arts - Horace Remediation - Gene Student Assignment - Gene/Melissa Student Discipline - Margieid, ' ti - a Guidelines for LRSD Transition Report March 3, 1999 Condense and paraphrase the language of the provisions, preserving the key words and eliminating extraneous language thats not pertinent to the findings that will follow (e.g., a plan reference to a certain ODM report). Provisions should not be quotations from the plan. Avoid the use of shall or and or
write 40%, not forty percent. Organize the provisions in any way that helps you present your findings most logically and clearly. For example, you can break the provisions into segments and immediately follow that segment with the relative findings. Or, consolidate certain provisions into a related cluster that forms the basis for broader findings. Place the provisions flush with the left margin, and double the space between them. Reference the plan provision at the end of each one. For example: Implement a policy of promotion within. (Pg. 342.2.5.) E, when paraphrasing, you combine two provisions, use a semicolon between the references. Write a short paragraph of introduction to the findings (or make the first paragraph introductory or background in nature) to help set the stage for what follows and thus help readers get their bearings. Findings should be written in narrative, not outline, form. Eliminate bullets except for short lists of items. Make sure that all aspects of any provision or part of a provision are covered in the findings, and, when appropriate, note the source of the information. If a person is the source, state the position of the person instead of the name. If the source of the information is your own experience as a member of a work group, say so. When applicable, you must reference the mid-year report in your findings. Differentiate the factual findings from your own opinions, hopes, or desires and put them in the appropriate sections. Findings are to consist only of information gleaned from interviews, document review, observations, etc. Relegate your opinions, exhortations, worries, etc. to the Conclusions or Recommendations as appropriate. Dont assume that readers know more than you tell them. While our intention is to hit the high points, be sure to include enough information to paint a clear, complete picture. Dont risk sacrificing understanding for brevity. When in doubt, fill it out. Avoid introducing new information into the summaries that doesnt appear in the findings. If you use examples in the summary, make sure the examples are used in the findings. Since many of the findings are brief, the corresponding summaries will be similarly short, containing just the main points. Since they are probably the only thing many of our audience will read, the summaries must contain a condensation of the most important findings in concise language.Include a budget component or reference everywhere it could possibly be relevant. For example, budget implications are inherent in training costs, new positions, new programs, etc. What corresponding budget provisions has the district made, plans to make, has yet to make, or failed to make? Diversify language to help retain reader interest and avoid overusing certain phrases and words, especially provide, regarding, and according to. Begin each recommendation with an action verb.Date: March 19, 1999 To: All Associates From
Re: Team edit Attached are some of the draft reports on the LRSD transition. They are ready to to through the team editing process. Polly would have distributed them yesterday, but we know why she didnt. Im aware of the schedule and deadlines on your remaining reports, and the team edit doesnt supplant that schedule. Do the editing at those times that youre not able to make headway on your remaining reports (waiting on futher interviews, information, etc.) With Polly out sick, bad bugs threatening the health of us all, and the D .C. trip imminent, please make good use of your time and fold the editing into your day as you can. i3 4 Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT RECEV-O August 24, 1999 AUG 2  'iSa OFRCtCr DESEGREGATION MONITORING Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation and Monitoring 201 E. Markham - Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mrs. Brown
The August 11** Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) report examining LRSD preparation to implement our Revised Desegregation and Education Plan provides a solid barometer of reference as we enter the 99-2000 school year. In keeping with LRSD plan commitment, careful consideration and review of this report document has been enacted in each division! department area, addressing preparation activities toward compliance and provisions of the revised plan. In an attempt to offer additional information that may not have been available at the time of report findings, the following is provided
 Overall Alternative Education Program seats for '99-2000 are being expanded. Greater student opportunity and success has been recorded for the 98-99 school year, resulting in increased student! school retention and reduced suspension ! dropout numbers. Periodic assessment of performance indicators will be monitored toward necessary program adjustment and/or revision.  Revised School Profile Report documentation is being compiled. Expanded information is to include Equitable Allocation of Resource equity indicators and participation data for all extracurricular and AR Activities Association (AAA) sanctioned activities.  The LRSD Talent Development Committee will explore potential funding sources for AVID and/or programs unique to LRSD. especially for the high schools. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 824-2000 4 August 24, 1999 Page 2  A training of trainers model to deliver cultural sensitivity training is being established. Dr. Terrence Roberts will help in reviewing training on prejudice reduction and cultural sensitivity.  Determination for future utilization of Garland and Mitchell Elementary Schools is one of the 99-2000 LRSD priorities.  Approved funding sources for new Stephens Elementary School Construction have been determined (03/11/99 board action).  Long term expenditure projections for Stephens Elementary have been developed.  Possible location, funding and construction of the new west LR school is one of the 99-2000 priorities. An immediate timeline has been established. At present, the school is not anticipated to be built prior to the 2000-2001 school year after LRSD issues a 3/15/01 report indicating the state of compliance with the revised plan.  Personnel Recruitment goals and procedures are being enacted where African- Americans are under represented. * ombudsman role clarification was provided in the 8/05/99 Principals Nuts and Bolts inservice session. Training activities are being scheduled. After more than a year of intense planning and training, numerous changes and program initiatives have been put in place as we now enter this 99-2000 school year. Recognizing that substantial efforts must be provided toward obligations set forth in the revised plan, it constitutes a work in progress. The Office of Desegregation Monitoring serves as an important resource whose expertise, insight and direction is appreciated and continually sought. Sincerely, .e^e V. amine Superintendent of SchoolsDate: August 26, 199 To: All Associates From: Re: .espouse from Gamine Attached is a copy of the letter I received from Les Gamine yesterday. As you will see, he purports to be adding information to our transition report that may not have been available at the time of report findings. Please find those points in the letter that were covered (or not) in the section of the report you wrote. Then write me a brief note telling me your comments on Dr. Gamines point. For example, he says that funding sources for Stephens were determined in the March 1999 board meeting
he asserts that the role of the ombudsman was clarified in early August. Do you agree' If so, is this what the report said? Who at the LRSD reviewed that finding? Did he or she agree or disagree with the way we handled that information? And so on. I may respond to Les to emphasize that his staff read our findings and had the chance to correct or update them. Your comments will help me decide how much to say to him. Thanks very much. Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 September 9, 1999 Dr. Les Carnine, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Les: Thank you for your recent letter in response to our August 1999 report on the districts preparations for this school year. Im glad to hear that you and your staff have read the document, and we hope you have found it helpful. I appreciate the additional information that you provided in your letter. As for your speculation that the information may not have been available at the time of our research, I want to emphasize what our reports introduction notes: LRSD staff members who had contributed to our research (either through direct interviews or by providing documentation) received the rough draft of our findings a few days before our report was finalized and published. On August 3 we hand delivered the drafts, invited your staff to offer corrections or updated information, and picked up their written comments on August 5. We reviewed those comments, made appropriate changes in the report, and then filed the completed document less than a week later on August 11. This advance review of our findings is designed to assure the accuracy and completeness of our reports. How successfully we reach that goal depends in great part on the accuracy and completeness of the information upon which we base our reports. I believe that we afforded your staff a fair opportunity to help us get this report right. Sincerely yours, ------- Ann S. Browni S rL To: From: Subj: Ann Brown and ODM Staff Bonnie Lesley Report on LRSD Transition Activities Date: August 4, 1999 RECEIVED AUG 5 1999 omcEOh DESEGREGATION MONITORIMa The following are my comments in response to the draft document that you sent to my office on the afternoon of August 3. Program Assessment I think the findings on this section are far too nanow to reflect the work that occurred during 1998-99. We understand, of course, that it is very difficult to gather enough information to have a complete picture of a years worth of work in only a few interviews. Our staff looked, for instance, at the performance of every elementary school and the district as a whole as a part of the process of making the necessary changes in Reading and Language Arts that were other obligations in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. We concluded, of course, that a big part of the problem (the problem being defined as only about 30 percent of the students are performing at the proficient level or above) was that LRSD really didnt have a reading/language arts program, that individual teachers and individual schools were making decisions based on their best information on curriculum and instruction. Part of our program evaluation was hearing from teacher after teacher and principal after principal that a big problem in the district was lack of consistency in the language arts program. This lack of focus and alignment with the state curriculum framework handicapped all students who were mobile, but especially African American children who are more likely to come from poverty in this community. Our assessment of current practice also revealed: * * * * * * * * lack of in-depth professional development for teachers too many pull-outs and other distractions from the language arts block insufficient time allotted to teach the language arts as many as twelve different phonics programs school practices such as silent cafeterias that discouraged the social use of language no written guidance for teachers on the curriculum standards and benchmarks a proliferation of programs without a clear focus of what they were supposed to achieve no congruence between Title I programs and the regular curriculum/ instruction program. Our program evaluation resulted in clear conclusions that what we were doing was not working, especially for African American children. The District plan that we constructed was totally research-based and is reflected in the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan that was provided to ODM staff. We tried to model in this process and in our written plan the process of using data for decision-making, of using research to shape program design, of aligning programs with state frameworks and assessments, of constructing systemic designs, not just tinkering at the edges, and planning ahead for assessment and program evaluation. We are very proud of the fact that our PreK-3 plan included strategies for restructuring Title I programs, for instance, not just the regular program.We have since your last interviews established the formal program evaluation agenda for 1999-2000, and it will go to the board in August: 1. PreK-3 Literacy Program 2. ESL 3. Middle School Transition 4. National Science Foundation Project To the extent possible, data will be collected and analyzed relating to other programs, but our plan is to create an evaluation cycle so that over five years we can at least provide data for decision-making on the core programs. We also intend to require that all future grant proposals include a set-aside budget to fund the evaluation activities so that our district staff do not get consumed doing grant-funded evaluations and never get to the core programs of the district.Reading and Language Arts I have several corrections to make in this report. 1st paragraph: Our staff development this year in reading and language arts focused on the following: * * * * * * * * * * * * Implementation of Smart Start, the states initiative. We attended the ADE conferences, used their materials and videotapes with faculties, trained central staff and principals, etc. We obtained a state waiver to provide three restructuring days at the end of the 1998-99 school year for training to prepare for implementation of new programs in fall 1999. Elementary teachers focused on ELLA and Effective Literacy topics
middle school teachers focused on transition issues
and high school teachers focused on strategies for teaching in the block. Began training a cadre of school-level literacy coaches in ELLA (Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas)~the professional development that provides teachers with training on research on teaching reading and specific strategies that are effective in teaching all children how to read. More than 100 primary-level teachers have received the first level of ELLA training (prior to starting school in August). Others will be trained at the basic level by November 1. We sent several staff members to the training of trainers for Effective Literacythe professional development for grades 3-5 teachers. This training will be provided to District teachers as quickly as possible in fall 1999. Approximately 40 grade 4 teachers attended a one-week workshop in July on reading/writing connections-specific strategies to help students perform well on the state grade 4 benchmark examination. Approximately 40 grades 6-8 teachers attended a one-week workshop in July to prepare them to teach the new Reading and Writing Workshop. On July 23 we provided a full-day of training for principals on the new curriculum/instruction/assessment programs to be implemented in fall 1999. One session for elementary principals gave them an overview of the new ELLA program and what to expect when observing teachers. We have provided several books to each elementary school on various aspects of developing high levels of literacy among primaryage children. School staffs are encouraged to establish study groups to read and discuss these materials and make decisions on ways that the ideas ctm be incorporated into their lessons. On August 9-10-11 the grades 6-8 teachers will meet with Linda Rief, author of a book called Seeking Diversity on how to implement the Reading and Writing Workshop. On August 16-17 the kindergarten teachers will receive training in the implementation of the new phonemic awareness program. Animated Literacy. On August 12, 13, and 16, high school English teachers will experience three days of training on the reading and writing connections appropriate for adolescent students. A special emphasis will be on preparing students for the end-of-level Literacy Examination in April of grade 11.* During August Preschool Inservice, elementary teachers will again focus on ELLA and Effective Literacy topics, middle school teachers on middle school transition and instructional strategies, and high school teachers on discipline-specific strategies aligned with the newly published secondary curriculum standards and benchmarks. Last paragraph on page 2 under Findings. We didnt really present to the Board a policy. We presented to the Board for their review the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan, which serves as administrative regulations on the structuring of the school day. We have a draft of formal administrative regulations for elementary, middle, and high schools, but these drafts are not yet quite ready for board review. A major accomplishment during 1998-99 was the development of a curriculum map for each of the four curriculum areas. These maps include the alignment of district grade-level and course benchmarks with the state curriculum frameworks, the SAT9, and with adopted textbook materials. Teachers have in one document for each grade level all this information. ACSIP (the new name for Arkansas accreditation) requires teacher-level curriculum maps, so all the Little Rock teachers will have to do is align their lesson plans with the district documents. Also, at the beginning of the 1998-99 school year all we had was K-5 standards. Now we have K-12 standards and grade-level and core course benchmarks. Elementary teachers received their documents during the June 2-3-4 inservice, and secondary teachers will receive theirs on August 16. The report does not mention all the work we have done this year to restructure the middle school language arts programs. Regular-level students will take a two-period block called the Reading and Writing Workshop. We will begin implementation in fall 1999 of the Nanci Atwell model. Teachers will need considerably more training than the one week we could provide before school started to be able fully to implement the model, so realistically we will be phasing in this new approach to teaching language arts. Students at the Pre-AP level will have the same course, but in a one-period block. There is an optional second-hour courses called Research and Writing, which some middle schools have encouraged all Pre-AP students to take. In addition, some new language arts electives have been added to the middle level: * * * Expressions! (a speech/drama course available at all three grade levels)
Write On! (a journalism course available at grades 7-8) TV Writing and Production (available at grade 8) On our plate for 1999-2000 will be the restructuring of the high school language arts programs, including a new curriculum for the required Communications I course.Another major effort to improve literacy has been in the restructuring of our PreK-12 ESL program for fall 1999. Some of our actions were also in process when we under-went a compliance review from OCR in March. In fall 1999 we will implement the following changes: * * * * *  * * Begin serving PreK children in the ESL program. Added ten teachers to the elementary Newcomer Centers so that class-size could be reduced in the classrooms serving ESL students. We used our allocation from the Class-size Reduction funds from the federal government to pay the teachers this year. Brady1 Chicot3 Romine2 Terry-2 Washington-2 Added Terry as a Newcomer Center since they expect approximately 40 ESL students in fall 1999. Added new ESL courses in the core curriculum at the middle and high school levels. A full-time ESL coordinator will be employed in August to oversee the program. We have budgeted funds for a big emphasis on professional development for all teachers teaching ESL children, including a tuition-reimbursement program so that teachers can secure their ESL endorsement. Program procedures will be developed where necessary, formalized, training provided on implementation, and processes to monitored to ensure compliance with OCR guidelines. Funds have been budgeted to provide translations of critical documents into the languages of parents. Note also that the District CRTs that were administered in 1998-99 also included reading. Our assessment plan for 1999-2000 includes these changes: * * * the addition of a kindergarten literacy test, especially to test phonemic awareness, since that knowledge is the best predictor of a students learning to read in grade 1 the addition of a grade 1 literacy test the administration of new District-adopted CRTs for grades 2-11 in reading/ writing literacy and mathematics. These tests will be administered each quarter so that teachers can quickly identify students who need remediation and so that teaching strategies can be adjusted to ensure more success. I did not find mentioned anywhere in your report the work we did to enhance graduation requirements. These new standards are important in understanding the overall plan for improvement. The new expectations are outlined in the curriculum catalog, which we provided you, but please call if you need more information. Successful School Restructuring by Fred Newmann and Gary Wehlage says that one of the most important things a high school can do to improve achievement is to expose all students to a rigorous common core. That was our intent in designing the new graduation requirements.Mathematics Page 2the paragraph on math specialists: We have funded additional mathematics specialists to support the implementation of the new mathematics curricula in the following ways: * * Two specialists were funded from the professional development portion of the Class-size Reduction funds provided by the federal government
One specialist was funded from Title VI
See Dennis Glasgows responses for other details. I was not able to spend time with him today to get the details that I needed, but I know that he is going to have more assistance in 1999-2000 to accelerate the implementation, to provide classroom coaching, and to provide follow-up training for teachers who need it. Again, our regulations on the school day are drafted, but have not yet been presented to the board. The District CRTs that we administered in mathematics in 1998-99 were also administered in reading.Middle Schcxjl Transition See Linda Young Austins report on the training provided to schools during June 2-3-4, during the June Middle School Academy, and during the August Preschool Inservice.Student Participation Second paragraph under Findings
Actually, we do NOT plan to implement AVID in 1999-2000unless the GEAR Up grant is funded for the four targeted middle schools. Third paragraph: We will in spring 2000 make another attempt at the Javits grant to fund high school programs. If the funds were made available this year by the Department of Education, never saw the announcement or the RFP. we We have done much on this obligation without any funding beyond the NSF money, and we^Imow already that enrollment in upper-level courses will improve considerably in fall * * * * * * * * * * * * * The Associate Superintendent met with teachers and counselors in each school to discuss the obligations in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and the NSF project, to hear from teachers what they need for support, and to plan strategies for enrolling more students for fall 1999. We re made accessible a great deal of training for teachers of Pre-AP and AP courses-in curriculum, instruction, vertical teaming, and strategies to ensure more student success. We have a new board policy on Pre-AP and AP courses and on the GT program. The High School Curriculum Catalog includes a section on the importance of these obligations and encourages the schools to ensure higher levels of enrollment. Each high school principal and each middle and high school counselor received training on this information. Some of the high schools have scheduled a tutoring period to support student success in 1999-2000. We have published this years enrollment data, and Vanessa Cleaver has met with staff at each school to make them aware of their cunent enrollment and to work with them on increasing enrollment in upper-level science and math courses. We added an AP English III courses to the curriculum for 1999-2000, so now students can take two AP English courses. We added a regular-level Calculus course to encourage a broader group of students to enroll in Calculus, not just AP Calculus. The addition of the University Studies program at Hall High has added new opportunities for enrollment in advanced courses and to earn college credit while in high school. Our new Quality Indicators in our accountability plan include a performance standard on Enrollment of Students in Pre-AP or AP Courses. This standard will apply to both middle and high schools. Another Quality Indicator measures the percent of students who complete Algebra I by grade 8. In order for students to have time in their schedule to take Calculus in high school, they need to take Algebra I in grade 8. Our new graduation requirements include Physics I, Biology I, Chemistry I, Algebra I-II, and Geometry for every student. These courses are essential to prepare students for upper-level mathematics and science courses. Our new elementary literacy and mathematics programs have also been designed with the importance in mind of preparing many more students well for the Pre-AP and AP courses.We, of course, would love to implement AVID because we think it would be ideal to address our students needs, but there is much we can do without AVID, and we are examining other program options, such as those promoted by the College Board, writing a local program design, and forming more partnerships with the universities in the area. One restructuring model that we have looked at is the Talent Development Schools promoted by Johns Hopkins University. Some of these schools are operational in Baltimore and other eastern cities, and we think there may be some interest in this model in Little Rock.Remediation Second paragraph under Findings: I remember our discussion on this, and I remember telling the team about my experience in Waco where students were ability grouped: basic, regular, advanced. Little Rock did not have those three levels-to my knowledge. The curriculum included regular-level courses. plus a variety of courses labeled gifted/talented, 99 honors, enriched, advanced, and AP. The staff was vague at all levels on how these different labels distinguished instruction, so we made the decision to have only two levels of courses at the secondary schools: regular and either Pre-AP or AP. 99 tf What I think I said was that it is apparent that the only students being exposed to the tested curriculum in many schools are those taking the Pre-AP or AP courses. Teachers tell me that in too many cases the regular level courses are rather consistently taught below-level, and the Pre-AP courses rarely go beyond what we would consider grade-level. That is why standards and grade-level benchmarks are so important, and that is why the frequent assessment of student performance through the District CRTs is so important. We have got to know whether we are teaching the tested curriculum, and we have got to know early if individual students need remediation. We do have a draft policy and regulation on the elimination of racial disparities with clear procedures laid out. Those documents will probably move forward to the Board in the next month or two. Title 1 There are big changes in Title 1 for fall 1999. All elementary schools, except the magnet schools, will be Title 1 schools in 1999-2000, including Terry. Elementary schools will receive approximately $450 per eligible student in 1999-2000, but since the schools are smaller with the movement of grade 6 to the middle schools, some schools will receive less funding in 1999-2000 than in previous years. Since a great majority of Title 1 schools failed to meet their improvement goals last year, they were identified for improvement. One of the mandates when a school is identified is that they can no longer do what they were doing. They have to construct a plan that has a better (research-based) chance of ensuring the academic success of increasing numbers of students. We have worked hard on that. Please dont forget that Success for All is the largest remedial program at the elementary level. We have that program in nine schools. Another school, Washington, uses Direct Instruction, as its intervention. Cloverdale Middle School and Southwest Middle School will receive extensive funding since they each are anticipated to have more than 75% poverty. The other five middle schools (excluding Mann since it is a magnet) will collaborate in using their funding to insure the successful implementation of the Reading and Writing Workshop and to provide teachers with strategies for ensuring more student success. All three middle school grades will be assessed: grades 6 and 8 with the state benchmark exams and grade 7 with the SAT9. Pulaski Heights will pilot in 1999-2000 a new remedial reading program based on the Shriner dyslexia strategies, and Mablevale will pilot Project Read. We will study these two approaches to determine whether we should advocate wider implementation of either or both. We are also looking at a new program for secondary students called Read Right, but we dont have much information on it as yet.The district hosted during the week of July 26 two different Institutes for the principals and Campus Leadership Teams from each school. A big part of the training emphasized the imperative to improve student achievement. Schools will now submit one School Improvement Plan that will satisfy the requirements of the district, of Title I, and of ACSIP (accreditation). Each participant received a training notebook and a copy of the Handbook for Campus Leadership Teams, which included a copy of ACTAAP (state accountability system) and the districts new system for Collective Responsibility. A new publication. Guidelines for School Improvement Planning, will be published the week of August 2 for the schools to use. An important remediation program in the district is summer school. We served more district students this year since the policy was changed to not admit out-of-district students until all district students were guaranteed access. (Sadie Mitchell has the reports on this summers programs.) We also developed a model for an after-school Reading Clinic for elementary and middle school students (recommended in the PreK-3 Literacy Plan as an appropriate intervention). Another important remediation program is the new ACC program-Accelerated Learning Center-for high school students who are overage and credit-deficient. This program graduated many students in 1998-99 who probably would not have graduated otherwise, enabled many more to earn GED certificates, and served more than 200 in the summer school program. A third ongoing remediation program is the evening high school. I know that you are familiar with it. Each schools School Improvement Plan will include a series of interventions under 3-5 priority areas. The schools have been instructed to include among their priorities the improvement of achievement in reading/writing literacy and the improvement of achievement in mathematics. The interventions under each of these areas will be the strategies that the school will design to remediate student achievement so that the school achieves its mandated improvement goals. (FII attach to this a copy of our draft document on how they are to do this for your information.) These sets of interventions will be school-level remedial programs, for the most part. Youll find the step on designing interventions to be helpful to this report, I think. Arkansas needs to fund compensatory education. Otherwise, we dont see a consistent source of revenue to fund the kinds of remedial program, K-12, that are needed for the diversity of students that we serve. The new Poverty Index funds are a start in this direction, but not all schools have access to these dollars.In General There is much more to tell-all aligned and coherent with the Strategic Plan and the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. We had 51 priorities in our Divisions work plan last year, and we achieved 49 of them, plus several others that we didnt know would be on our plate. The nature of education is that there is always so much more to do than we have time and resources to accomplish, but we feel that we made giant steps forward in 1998- 99. Our major focus in 1999-2000 is to ensure as much success in implementation as possible. We are so confident in the quality of our designs and in our professional development programs that we know that we will see some improvement in our test scores this year. Thanks for giving us an opportunity to react. If I can answer further questions or provide copies of other documents, please dont hesitate to ask.To: From: Subj: Ann Brown and ODM Staff Bonnie Lesley Report on LRSD Transition Activities Date: August 4, 1999 RECEIVED AUG 5 1999 OFFICE 01- DESEGREGATION MONITORIKG The following are my comments in response to the dral't document that you sent to my office on the afternoon of August 3. Program Assessment 1 think the findings on this section are far too narrow to reflect the work that occurred during 1998-99. We understand, of course, that it is very difficult to gather enough information to have a complete picture of a years worth of work in only a few interviews. Our staff looked, for instance, at the performance of every elementary school and the district as a whole as a part of the process of making the necessary changes in Reading and Language Arts that were other obligations in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. We concluded, of course, that a big part of the problem (the problem being defined as only about 30 percent of the students are performing at the proficient level or above) was that LRSD really didnt have a reading/language arts program, that individual teachers and individual schools were making decisions based on their best information on curriculum and instruction. Part of our program evaluation was heanng from teacher after teacher and principal after principal that a big problem in the district was lack of consistency in the language arts program. This lack of focus and alignment with the state curriculum framework handicapped all students who were mobile, but especially African American children who are more likely to come from poverty in this community. Our assessment of current practice also revealed * * * * * * * * lack of in-depth professional development for teachers too many pull-outs and other distractions from the language arts block insufficient time allotted to teach the language arts as many as twelve different phonics programs school practices such as silent cafeterias that discouraged the social use of language no written guidance for teachers on the curriculum standards and benchmarks a proliferation of programs without a clear focus of what they were supposed to achieve no congruence between Title I programs and the regular curriculum/ instruction program. Our program evaluation resulted in clear conclusions that what we were doing was not working, especially for African American children. The District plan that we constructed was totally research-based and is reflected in the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan that was provided to ODM staff. We tried to model in this process and in our written plan the process of using data for decision-making, of using research to shape program design, of aligning programs with state frameworks and assessments, of constructing systemic designs, not just tinkering at the edges, and planning ahead for assessment and program evaluation. We are very proud of the fact that our PreK-3 plan included strategies for restructuring Title I programs, for instance, not just the regular program.We have since your last interviews established the formal program evaluation agenda for 1999-2000, and it will go to the board in August: 1. PreK-3 Li teracv Program 2. ESL 3. Middle School Transition 4. National Science Foundation Project To the extent possible, data will be collected and analyzed relating to other programs, but our plan is to create an evaluation cycle so that over five years we can at least provide data for decision-making on the core programs. We also intend to require that all future grant proposals include a set-aside budget to fund the evaluation activities so that our district staff do not get consumed doing grant-funded evaluations and never get to the core programs of the district.Reading and Language Arts I have several corrections to make in this report. 1st paragraph: Our staff development this year in reading and language arts focused on the following: * * * * * * * * * * * * Implementation of Smart Start, the states initiative. We attended the ADE conferences, used their materials and videotapes with faculties, trained central staff and principals, etc. We obtained a state waiver to provide three restructuring days at the end of the 1998-99 school year for training to prepare for implementation of new programs in fall 1999. Elemental^ teachers focused on ELLA and Effective Literacy topics
middle school teachers focused on transition issues
and high school teachers focused on strategies for teaching in the block. Began training a cadre of school-level literacy coaches in ELLA (Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas)-the professional development that provides teachers with training on research on teaching reading and specific strategies that are effecti\ e in teaching all children how to read. More than KX) primary-level teachers have received the first level of ELLA training (prior to starting school in August). Others will be trained at the basic level by November 1. We sent several staff members to the training of trainers for Effective Literacy-the professional development for grades 3-5 teachers. This training will be provided to District teachers as quickly as possible in fall 1999. Approximately 40 grade 4 teachers attended a one-week workshop in July on reading/writing connections-specific strategies to help students perform well on the state grade 4 benchmark examination. Approximately 40 grades 6-8 teachers attended a one-week workshop in July to prepare them to teach the new Reading and Writing Workshop. On July 23 we provided a full-day of training for principals on the new curriculum/instruction/assessment programs to be implemented in fall 1999. One session for elementary principals gave them an overview of the new ELLA program and what to expect when observing teachers. We have provided several books to each elementary school on various aspects of developing high levels of literacy among primaryage children. School staffs are encouraged to establish study groups to read and discuss these materials and make decisions on ways that the ideas can be incorporated into their lessons. On August 9-10-11 the grades 6-8 teachers will meet with Linda Rief, author of a book called Seeking Diversity on how to implement the Reading and Writing Workshop. On August 16-17 the londergarten teachers will receive training in the implementation of the new phonemic awareness program. Animated Literacy. On August 12, 13, and 16, high school English teachers will experience three days of training on the reading and writing connections appropriate for adolescent students. A special emphasis will be on preparing students for the end-of-level Literacy Examination in April of grade 11.* During August Preschool Inservice, elementary' teachers will again focus on ELLA and Effective Literacy topics, middle school teachers on middle school transition and instructional strategies, and high school teachers on discipline-specific strategies aligned with the newly published secondary' curriculum standards and benchmarks. Last paragraph on page 2 under Findings. We didnt really present to the Board a policy. We presented to the Board for their review the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan, which serves as administrative regulations on the structuring of the school day. We have a draft of formal administrative regulations for elementary, middle, and high schools, but these drafts are not yet quite ready for board review. A major accomplishment dunng 1998-99 was the development of a curriculum map for each of the four curriculum areas. These maps include the alignment of district grade-level and course benchmarks with the state curriculum frameworks, the SAT9, and with adopted te.xtbook materials. Teachers have in one document for each grade level all this information. ACSIP (the new name for Arkansas accreditation) requires teacher-level curriculum maps, so all the Little Rock teachers will have to do is align their lesson plans with the district documents. Also, at the beginning of the 1998-99 school year all we had was K-5 standards. Now we have K-12 standards and grade-level and core course benchmarks. Elementarv teachers received their documents during the June 2-3-4 inservice, and secondary teachers will receive theirs on August 16. The report does not mention all the work we have done this year to restructure the middle school language arts programs. Regular-level students will take a two-period block called the Reading and Writing Workshop. We will begin implementation in fall 1999 of the Nanci Atwell model. Teachers will need considerably more training than the one week we could provide before school started to be able fully to'implement the model, so realisticallv we will be phasing in this new approach to teaching language arts. Students at the Pre-AP level will have the same course, but in a one-period block. There is an optional second-hour courses called Research and Writing, which some middle schools have encouraged all Pre-AP students to take. In addition, some new language arts electives have been added to the middle level' *  * * Expressions! (a speech/drama course available at all three grade levels)
Write On! (a journalism course available at grades 7-8) TV Writing and Production (available at grade 8) On our plate for 1999-2(XX) will be the restructuring of the high school language arts programs, including a new curriculum for the required Communications I course.Another major effort to improve literacy has been in the restructuring of our PreK-12 ESL program for fall 1999. Some of our actions were also in process when we under-went a compliance review from OCR in March. In fall 1999 we will implement the following changes: * * * * * * * * Begin serving PreK children in the ESL program. Added ten teachers to the elementary' Newcomer Centers so that class-size could be reduced in the classrooms serving ESL students. We used our allocation from the Class-size Reduction funds from the federal government to pay the teachers this year. Brady-1 Chicot3 Romine-2 Terry-2 Washington-2 Added Terry as a Newcomer Center since they expect appro.ximately 40 ESL students in fall 1999. Added new ESL courses in the core curriculum at the middle and high school levels. A full-time ESL coordinator will be employed in August to o\ ersee the program. We have budgeted funds for a big emphasis on professional development for all teachers teaching ESL children, including a tuition-reimbursement program so that teachers can secure their ESL endorsement. Program procedures will be developed where necessary', formalized, training provided on implementation, and processes to monitored to ensure compliance with OCR guidelines. Funds have been budgeted to provide translations of critical documents into the languages of parents. Note also that the District CRTs that were administered in 1998-99 also included reading. Our assessment plan for 1999-2CXX) includes these changes: * . . .. . - the addition of a kindergarten literacy test, especially to test phonemic * * awareness, since that knowledge is the best predictor of a students learning to read in grade 1 the addition of a grade 1 literacy test the administration of new District-adopted CRTs for grades 2-11 in reading/ writing literacy and mathematics. These tests will be administered each quarter so that teachers can quickly identify students who need remediation and so that teaching strategies can be adjusted to ensure more success. I did not find mentioned anywhere in your report the work we did to enhance graduation requirements. These new standards are important in understanding the overall plan for improvement. The new expectations are outlined in the curriculum catalog, which we provided you, but please call if you need more information. Successful School Restructuring by Fred Newmann and Gary Wehlage says that one of the most important things a high school can do to improve achievement is to expose all students to a rigorous common core. That was our intent in designing the new graduation requirements.Mathematics Page 2-the paragraph on math specialists: We have funded additional mathematics specialists to support the implementation of the new mathematics curricula in the following ways: * * Two specialists were funded from the professional development portion of the Class-size Reduction funds provided by the federal government
One specialist was funded from Title VI
See Dennis Glasgows responses for other details. 1 was not able to spend time with him today to get the details that 1 needed, but 1 know that he is going to have more assistance in 1999-2000 to accelerate the implementation, to provide classroom coaching, and to provide follow-up training for teachers who need it. Again, our regulations on the school day are drafted, but have not yet been presented to the board. The District CRTs that we administered in mathematics in 1998-99 were also administered in reading.Middle School Transition See Linda Young Austins report on the training provided to schools during June 2-3-4, during the June Middle School Academy, and during the August Preschool Inservice.Student Participation Second paragraph under Findings: Actually, we do NOT plan to implement AVID in 1999-2000unless the GEAR Up grant is funded for the four targeted middle schools. Third paragraph: We will in spring 2000 make another attempt at the Javits grant to fund high school programs. If the funds were made available this year by the Department of Education, we never saw the announcement or the RFP. We have done much on this obligation without any funding beyond the NSF money, and we know already that enrollment in upper-level courses will improve considerablv in fall 1999. * * * * * * * * * * * * * The Associate Superintendent met with teachers and counselors in each school to discuss the obligations in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and the NSF project, to hear from teachers what they need for support, and to plan strategies for enrolling more students for fall 1999. We re made accessible a great deal of training for teachers of Pre-AP and AP courses-in curriculum, instruction, vertical teaming, and strategies to ensure more student success. We have a new board policy on Pre-AP and AP courses and on the GT program. The High School Curriculum Catalog includes a section on the importance of these obligations and encourages the schools to ensure higher levels of enrollment. Each high school principal and each middle and high school counselor received training on this information. Some of the high schools have scheduled a tutonng period to support student success in 1999-2(X)0. We have published this years enrollment data, and Vanessa Cleaver has met with staff at each school to make them aware of their current enrollment and to work with them on increasing enrollment in upper-le\'el science and math courses. We added an AP English III courses to the curriculum for 1999-2000, so now students can take two AP English courses. We added a regular-level Calculus course to encourage a broader group of students to enroll in Calculus, not just AP Calculus. The addition of the University Studies program at Hall High has added new opportunities for enrollment in advanced courses and to earn college credit while in high school. Our new Quality Indicators in our accountability plan include a performance standard on Enrollment of Students in Pre-AP' or AP Courses. This standard will apply to both middle and high schools. Another Quality Indicator measures the percent of students who complete Algebra I by grade 8. In order for students to have time in their schedule to take Calculus in high school, they need to take Algebra I in grade 8. Our new graduation requirements include Physics I, Biology I, Chemistry I, Algebra I-Il, and Geometry for every student. These courses are essential to prepare students for upper-level mathematics and science courses. Our new elementary literacy and mathematics programs have also been designed with the importance in mind of preparing many more students well for the Pre-AP and AP courses.We, of course, would love to implement AVID because we think it would be ideal to address our students needs, but there is much we can do without AVID, and we are examining other program options, such as those promoted by the College Board, writing a local program design, and forming more partnerships with the universities in the area. One restructuring model that we have looked at is the Talent Development Schools promoted by Johns Hopkins University. Some of these schools are operational in Baltimore and other eastern cities, and we think there may be some interest in this model in Little Rock.Remediation Second paragraph under Findings: I remember our discussion on this, and 1 remember telling the team about my experience in Waco where students were ability grouped: basic, regular, advanced. Little Rock did not have those three levels-to my knowledge. The curriculum included regular-level courses. plus a variety of courses labeled gifted/talented, honors, enriched, advanced, and AP. The staff was vague at all levels on how these different labels distinguished instruction, so we made the decision to have only two levels of courses at the secondary schools: regular and either Pre-AP or AP. 'C What I think I said was that it is apparent that the only students being exposed to the tested curriculum in many schools are those taking the Pre-AP or AP courses. Teachers tell me that in too many cases the regular level courses are rather consistently taught below-level, and the Pre-AP courses rarely go beyond what we would consider grade-level. That is why standards and grade-level benchmarks are so important, and that is why the frequent assessment of student performance through the District CRTs is so important. We have got to know whether we are teaching the tested curriculum, and we have got to know early if individual students need remediation. We do have a draft policy and regulation on the elimination of racial disparities with clear procedures laid out. Those documents will probably move forward to the Board in the next month or two. Title I There are big changes in Title I for fall 1999. All elementary schools, except the magnet schools, will be Title I schools in 1999-2(X)0, including Terry. Elementary schools will receive approximately $450 per eligible student in 1999-2000, but since the schools are smaller with the movement of grade 6 to the middle schools, some schools will receive less funding in 1999-2000 than in previous years. Since a great majority of Title I schools failed to meet their improvement goals last year, they were identified for impro\ ement. One of the mandates when a school is identified is that they can no longer do what they were doing. They have to construct a plan that has a better (research-based) chance of ensuring the academic success of increasing numbers of students. We have worked hard on that. Please dont forget that Success for All is the largest remedial program at the elementary level. We have that program in nine schools. Another school, Washington, uses Direct Instruction, as its intervention. Cloverdale Middle School and Southwest Middle School will receive extensive funding since they each are anticipated to have more than 75% poverty. The other five middle schools (excluding Mann since it is a magnet) will collaborate in using their funding to insure the successful implementation of the Reading and Writing Workshop and to provide teachers with strategies for ensuring more student success. All three middle school grades will be assessed: grades 6 and 8 with the state benchmark exams and grade 7 with the SAT9. Pulaski Heights will pilot in 1999-2000 a new remedial reading program based on the Shriner dyslexia strategies, and Mablevale will pilot Project Read. We will study these two approaches to determine whether we should advocate wider implementation of either or both. We are also looking at a new program for secondary' students called Read Right, but we dont have much information on it as yet.The district hosted during the week of July 26 two different Institutes for the principals and Campus Leadership Teams from each school. A big part of the training emphasized the imperative to improve student achievement. Schools will now submit one School Improvement Plan that will satisfy the requirements of the district, of Title I, and of ACSIP (accreditation). Each participant received a training notebook and a copy of the Handbook for Campus Leadership Teams, which included a copy of ACTAAP (state accountability system) and the districts new system for Collective Responsibility. A new publication. Guidelines for School Improvement Planning, will be published the week of August 2 for the schools to use. An important remediation program in the district is summer school. We served more district students this year since the policy was changed to not admit out-of-district students until all district students were guaranteed access. (Sadie Mitchell has the reports on this summers programs.) We also developed a model for an after-school Reading Clinic for elementary and middle school students (recommended in the PreK-3 Literacy Plan as an appropriate intervention). Another important remediation program is the new ACC program-Accelerated Learning Center-for high school students who are overage and credit-deficient. This program graduated many students in 1998-99 who probably would not have graduated otherwise, enabled many more to earn GED certificates, and served more than 200 in the summer school program. A third ongoing remediation program is the evening high school. I know that vou are familiar with it. Each schools School Improvement Plan will include a series of "interventions under 3-5 priority areas. The schools have been instructed to include among their priorities the improvement of achievement in reading/writing literacy and the improvement of achievement in mathematics. The interventions under each of these areas will be the strategies that the school will design to remediate student achievement so that the school achieves its mandated improvement goals. (T11 attach to this a copy of our draft document on how they are to do this for your information.) These sets of interventions will be school-level remedial programs, for the most part. You 11 find the step on designing interventions to be helpful to this report, I think. Arkansas needs to fund compensatory education. Otherwise, we dont see a consistent source of revenue to fund the kinds of remedial program, K-12, that are needed for the diversity of students that we serve. The new Poverty Index funds are a start in this direction, but not all schools have access to these dollars.In General There is much more to tell-all aligned and coherent with the Strategic Plan and the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. We had 51 pnorities in our Divisions work plan last year, and we achieved 49 of them, plus several others that we didnt know would be on our plate. The nature of education is that there is always so much more to do than we have time and resources to accomplish, but we feel that we made giant steps forward in 1998- 99. Our major focus in 1999-2000 is to ensure as much success in implementation as possible. We are so confident in the quality of our designs and in our professional development programs that we know that we will see some improvement in our test scores this year. Thanks for giving us an opportunity to react. If I can answer further questions or provide copies of other documents, please dont hesitate to ask.RECEIVED AUG 5 1999 Division of Instruction Work Teams 1999-2000 OFRCEOI- desegregation MONITORING The Division of Instruction will be organized in 1999-2000 into several multidisciplinary work teams to which the Work Plan Priorities will be assigned. The way we work will reflect Dr. Terrence Roberts fifth level of commitment, I will do whatever it takes to help schools help children learn. There will be essentially four kinds of teams: 1. 2. 3. 4. Existing departments. Current departments will continue to carry on some of their traditional assignments. For example, the Mathematics/Science Department will continue with their work of implementing the NSF project, as well as providing leadership in curriculum development, standards implementation, discipline-specific professional development, textbook adoptions, etc. The Department of Exceptional Children will continue with their current functions in running that program. Work Teams. Six new work teams will be established, three reporting directly to the Associate Superintendent and three reporting to the Assistant Superintendent of School Improvement. School-Level Teams. Three additional teams will be formed composed of elementary, middle, and high school experts to coordinate and articulate the curriculum and other programs and to provide more specific support to schools. Audit Teams. We are committed to conducting School Improvement Audits and Curriculum Audits for schools identified for improvement. (See Handbook for Campus Leadership Team, pp. 53-54, for definitions.) Everyone in the Division will be assigned from time to time to serve on these audit teams. Training will be provided in how to conduct an audit. In addition, everyone will continue to serve as brokers and as members of assigned Campus Leadership Teams. The Division will keep its former organizational structure for now, as will other District divisions. All staff will continue to occupy their current offices and reporting relationships. This team organization is transitional. In two to three years the Division will be reorganized, shifting more and more staff to roles more directly supportive of school improvement as the curriculum is better established and as instructional strategies are more institutionalized. The following teams shall be established directly under the Associate Superintendent for Instruction:PreK-12 Teaching and Learning Team (Team Leaders to be Assigned According to Tasks) Dennis Glasgow, Director of Mathematics and Science Vanessa Cleaver, Director of NSF Project Marie McNeal, Director of Social Studies TBN, Director of Secondary Language Arts Patricia Price, Director of Early Childhood and Elementary Literacy TBN, Coordinator of ESL and Foreign Language Carol Green, Director of Career and Technical Education Patty Kohler, Director of Exceptional Children Mable Donaldson, Supervisor of Gifted/Talented Education Leon Adams, Director of Federal Programs Ray Gillespie, Director of Athletics and Physical Education Lucy Neal, Director of Libraries/Media Centers and Instructional Technology Barbara Barnes, Special Education Supervisor Susan Chapman, Special Education Supervisor Planning and Development Team Linda Young Austin, Director of Planning and Development, Team Leader Randy Glenn, Special Education Supervisor Parent and Community Involvement Team Debbie Milam, Director of VIPS, Team Leader TBN, Coordinator of Title I Parent Involvement Parent Involvement Liaison, Title I Elna Hasberry, Special Education Supervisor Paulette Martin, Director of Adult Education Marion Baldwin, Director of Community Education Department of School Improvement The team leader for the three teams in School Improvement will be Dr. Kathy Lease, Assistant Superintendent. This new department pulls together a multi-disciplinary group of people, all of whom are responsible to support school improvement and collective responsibility. Depending on the work that needs to be done, all may be working on professional development, test administration, program evaluation, or other assigned tasks, yet each team includes the necessary levels of expertise and specialization to provide leadership in the assigned areas. The School Improvement Teams will work closely with those reporting directly to the Associate Superintendent, and, as appropriate, members will be recruited from other teams to accomplish a task.Testing and Program Evaluation Team Ed Williams, Supervisor, Team Leader TBN, Program Evaluator for Title l/ESL TBN, Program Evaluator for NSF Yvette Dillingham, Testing Specialist Kathy Penn-Norman, Special Education Supervisor Professional Development Team Marion Woods, Coordinator, Team Leader Selma Hobby, Specialist Sue Walls, Specialist Gary Smith, Special Education Supervisor Eunice Smith, Special Education Supervisor Technical Assistance Team Mona Briggs, ACSIP (formerly COE) and CDP Coordinator, Team Leader Eddie McCoy, Title I Specialist Cassandra Steele, Special Education Coordinator1998-99 Work Plan for LRSD Priorities Priority: III. B (1) Continuum of Knowledge and Skills Major Tasks/Activities 1. Review and recommend revisions of the Boards Instruction policies. 2. Complete the 7-12 curriculum standards in English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. Plan Reference Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Goals 2000 Timeline April 1999 January 1999 Responsibility Bonnie Lesley Linda Young Gene Parker Dennis Glasgow Marie McNeal Vanessa Cleaver Mable Donaldson Patty Kohler Lucy Lyon RECEIVED AUG 5 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONlTORINfi End-of-Year Report *Reviewed existing Board policies and Administrative Directives to determine needs for revision and new policy statements. *Obtained copies of NSBA model policies for curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Revised graduation policy for Board approval in December 1998. Reviewed 1991 Curriculum Audit for suggestions on necessary curriculum/instruction policies. Reviewed Arkansas Accreditation Standards. See also Priority I
Desegregation and Education Plan/ A. Policies, #9. Drafted a new policy on Credit-by-Examination to be submitted to the Board of Education in February 1999. Drafted new regulations on elementary to middle school and from middle school to high school promotion to be submitted to the Board of Education for information at January 1999 meeting. Completed revision of 35 policies for the Boards first reading in June 1999
remaining ones will be presented in July 1999, along with complete administrative regulations. Middle school program standards drafted, presented to the Board, and approved for use in developing core curriculum standards in October 1998. Teacher committees appointed to complete curriculum/program standards for reading/language arts and for ESL courses for grades 6- 12 (completed in June 1999). Social studies curriculum standards drafted for grades 7-12 (work completed March 1999). Standards in mathematics and science completed for grades 6-12 (work completed in March 1999). Dissemination of secondary curriculum standards/benchmarks is scheduled for August inservice.Major Tasks/Activities 3. Construct curriculum maps of LRSD standards/benchmarks with Arkansas standards, SAT9 testing objectives (plus other tests as appropriate), and instructional materials. Plan Reference Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Goals 2000 Timeline January 1999 Responsibility Gene Parker Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Marie McNeal Mable Donaldson Patty Kohler Lucy Lyon End-of-Year Report *K-6 language arts curriculum maps drafted, completed, and prepared for publication and dissemination in December 1998. *7-12 reading/language arts curriculum maps drafted, completed, and prepared for publication and dissemination in January 1999. *K-6 social studies curriculum maps drafted, completed, and prepared for publication and dissemination in December 1998. *7-12 social studies curriculum maps drafted, completed, and prepared for publication and dissemination in January 1999. *CuiTiculum maps for science and mathematics, grades K-4, have been completed and submitted to the Assoc. Supt. *Curriculum maps for science and mathematics, grades 5-8, have been completed.Major Tasks/Activities 4. Review and revise middle and high school Curriculum Catalog
conduct orientation sessions for central office staff, principals, and counselors. 5. Develop specific plan for implementation of K-6 curriculum standards in English language arts and social studies. Plan Reference Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Goals 2000 Strategic Plan. Strategy 2 Timeline December 1998 February 1999 Responsibility Bonnie Lesley Gene Parker Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Marie McNeal Mable Donaldson Patty Kohler Lucy Lyon Carol Green Jo Evelyn Elston Gene Parker Marie McNeal Pat Price Mable Donaldson Patty Kohler End-of-Ycar Report *Notified central and school-level staff of deadline of October 16, 1998, for submitting proposed new courses. *Worked with school-level staff (teachers, counselors, registrars, principals) and with central curriculum staff in October, November, and early December to ensure accuracy of documented curriculum. Middle school curriculum committee approved proposed new middle school curriculum in November 1998. Middle School Steering Committee approved proposed new middle school curriculum in November 1998. Board approval of new middle school curriculum in November 1998. Published middle school course selection sheets for each of the eight middle schools in December 1998. Decided to publish triple-fold brochure on middle school curriculum for students and parents instead of a curriculum catalog
available in January 1999. Board approval of new high school courses and new high school curriculum in November 1998. Published High School Course Selection, 1999-2000 (for students and parents) in December 1998
distributed to Board members at December meeting. Published high school course selection sheets in December 1998. Published High School Curriculum Catalog, 1999-2000 (for principals, counselors, registrars, and teachers) in December 1998. Submitted new course numbers for middle and high school courses to technology department. Staff orientation meetings scheduled for elementary counselors, middle school principals and counselors, and high school teams during early January 1999. K-3 reading/language arts curriculum implementation plan drafted and revised. First draft presented to Board in March 1999
final draft presented in June 1999. 4-5 reading/language arts curriculum implementation plan drafted in June 1999
will be submitted in late summer. First dissemination and inservice for implementation of curriculum standards/benchmarks conducted in June 2-3-4 inservice for grades K- 5. Dissemination and inservice for grade 6 will occur in August 1999. Conducted one week of training for trainers of ELLA during week of June 21, Scheduled one week of training on teaching reading/writing for grade 4 teachers during week of July 11.Major Tasks/Activities 6. Pilot new science curriculum in selected classes at grades K-8. 7. Pilot new mathematics curriculum in selected classes at grades K-8. 8. Complete plan for middle school curriculum for fall 1999. 9. Publish Middle and High School StudentZParent Curriculum Handbooks. 10. Define and establish Delivery Standards. 11. Align school schedules, PreK-12 reading curriculum, instructional strategies, materials, assessment, professional development, monitoring/ coaching, and parent information/ education with Strategic Plan, Desegregation Plan, and Smart Start. Plan Reference NSF Project Goals 2000 NSF Project Goals 2000 Strategic Plan: Strategics Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 5.4 Goals 2000 Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 and 3 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Goals 2000 Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Strategic Plan: Strategy 3. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, sections 521., 5.2.2, and 5.2.3 Timeline 1998-99 1998-99 October 1998 January 1999 January 1999 November 1998 Responsibility Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Mable Donaldson Patty Kohler Pat Price Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Mable Donaldson Patty Kohler Pat Price Linda Young Gene Parker Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Jo Evelyn Elston Marian Lacey Suellen Vann Bonnie Lesley Gene Parker Gene Parker Pat Price Patty Kohler Mable Donaldson Leon Adams Marion Woods End-of-Year Report Science and Technology for Children kits were piloted during the school year at Rockefeller, Franklin, Wakefield, and Chicot. Investigations in Data, Time, and Space were piloted during the school year at Romine, grades K-5. Connected Math Project has been piloted as a replacement module in all grade 6 and 7 classrooms in the District. See #4 above. Board approved middle school program standards in October 1998. Board approved new middle school curriculum in November 1999. See also Priority I. Desegregation and Education Plan/ B. Middle School #4, #5, and #10. Board approved funding for curriculum development in March 1999. New curriculum guides for middle school courses completed in June 1999.______________________________________________________ See #4 above. High School Course Selection, 1999-2000 (for students and parents) published in December 1998. Middle school curriculum brochure scheduled to be published in January 1999. Plans made to publish a Middle School booklet for students in parents in fall 1999 for 1999-2000 registration. Reviewed research syntheses on delivery standards for Far West Lab. Conducted preliminary conversations on what Delivery Standards for LRSD might look like, This project was delayed until late summer or fall 1999 and will be embedded in the Professional Development Plan.__________________ K-3 Literacy Committee met on Aug. 31, Sept. 16, Oct. 30, Dec. 17, and Jan. 8. Draft report of recommendations was completed on Dec. 18,1998. Report includes the following: Review of current District curriculum, assessment, and implementation. Review of Arkansas Smart Start Initiative to identify possible gaps between the Initiative components and the Districts curricular focus. Identification of all supplemental reading programs currently in use in primary level classrooms and noted compatibility with the goal, the District curriculum, and the Smart Start Initiative. (continued on next page)Major Tasks/Activities 12. Align school schedules, mathematics curriculum, and professional development with Strategic Plan and Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 13. Develop in collaboration with Linda Watson a list of behavior standards
adopt a discipline/ classroom management/ character education program and curriculum for teaching the behavior standards to all students. 14. Propose for Board adoption revised Graduation Standards and revision of the core curriculum requirements to align with new state requirements. Plan Reference Strategic Plan: Strategy! Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, sections 5.3, 5.3.1,5.3.2, 5.3.3, 5.3.4, 5.3.5 NSF Project Strategic Plan: Strategy 10 Goals 2000 State law Strategy Plan: Strategy 2 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, section 5.4 Goals 2000 Timeline November 1998 March 1999 November 1998 Responsibility Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Leon Adams Patty Kohler Mable Donaldson Pat Price Marion Woods Marie McNeal Jo Evelyn Elson Patty Kohler Linda Watson Bonnie Lesley Frances Cawthon Marian Lacey Kathy Lease Jo Evelyn Elston Marian Lacey Bonnie Lesley End-of-Year Report Comparison of District student performance to statewide student performance for the purpose of creating a context for District benchmarking. Summary of key components of best practice efforts in early reading education nationwide. Outline of recommendations. Proposed budget for 1999-2000. Drafted administrative regulations for Elementary Schools. The mathematics curriculum has been revised by a teacher committee to include a smaller number of concepts at each grade level. Training for teachers on the revised curriculum has begun and continued training will occur as the NSF standards-based math curricula are phased in over the next few years. CRTs are being developed for use each quarter in grades 2-6 to measure student mastery of the mathematics grade-level standards and benchmarks. 'NSF grant strategies are underway to improve student performance in * Algebra I and to increase enrollment and success rate in upper-level mathematics courses. The extended-year Algebra I program will take place during summer 1999 to help students achieve better in Algebra I. *Drafted adminstrative regulations to be presented in late summer. Conducted research on model classroom management programs. Exchanged information with Linda Watson. Scheduled a representative from each school to attend the ADE conference on Character-Center Teaching and Learning on January 26, 1999. Scheduled a meeting with Dr. Terry Roberts to consult with the District on this initiative on January 26,1999. Submitted grant proposal in May 1999 to fund training for nine elementary schools to pilot the Child Development Project. Submitted grant proposal in May 1999 to fund training for all secondary staff in Fred Jones Positive Discipline program. Scheduled to participate in training of trainers sessions in July sponsored by ADE. Board approval of new graduation policy in December 1999. Published new graduation policy in High School Course Selection, 1999-2000 (for students and parents) in December 1998. Published new graduation policy in High School Curriculum Catalog, 1999-2000 (for staff) in December 1998. Conducted orientation meetings on new graduation policy and high school curriculum for staff in early January 1999.,Major Tasks/Activities 15. Implement Year One of NSF grant project: Extended Year Algebra I
AP examinations
new teacher training
Vital Link
and Family Math/Science programs. Plan Reference NSF Project Timeline September 1999 Responsibility Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver End-of-Year Report *Extended Year Algebra ITimeline has been established and Algebra I teachers were invited in January to participate in planning the implementation of the Summer 1999 program. A possible collaboration with New Futures was discussed. Initial meeting was held in December 1998
another in late January. Students have been identified and invited to participate in the institute during July 26August 6,1999. Teachers participated in a planning session on June 15. A parent meeting was conducted on June 15* for potential SMART participants. Proposed CERTL application includes a collaboration with Philander Smith College for the Summer Readiness Program scheduled for July 19Aug. 6. Eight follow-up sessions are planned for SMART students, in collaboration with PSC, during the regular school year. They are designed to reinforce and expand algebraic skills. *AP ExamsDrafted proposed new policy in November 1998 to require all students who take AP courses to take the corresponding AP exams. Item was withdrawn for more work. *New Teacher TrainingFirst-year secondary mathematics and science teachers received four days of training on Oct. 13 and Dec. 10, 1998, and March 10-11,1999, * Vital LinkPlanning began on January 15 for recruiting additional Vital Link sites that focus on careers in the field of mathematics and science. Businesses with a math/science focus were identified. Overview of NSF grant presented uring the Vital Link teacher inservice as well as the inservice for businesses. Family Math/Science~Planning occurred for teams of teachers from seven schools to participate in the February 8-9 training. Teams of teachers from 5 schools participated in the Family Math/Science inservice on Feb. 8-9. Each team of teachers held 3 family math/science nights at their respective schools. Advisory Committee MeetingsCommittee met on Sept. 22, Oct. 27, Dec. 8, Feb, 23m Narch 23, April 27, and May 25 to review and discuss student performance data and upcoming grant activities. Plans are in progress for an advisory committee retreat. Definition of roles, as well as strategic planning, will be the focus of the retreat. Management Team MeetingsCommittee met monthly with the exception of December. Management Team will plan and implement the retreat for the advisory committee. (continued next page)Major Tasks/Activities Plan Reference Timeline Responsibility End-of-Year Report *Math/Science Vertical TeamsRegistered teachers for College Board sponsored vertical teams conference on Feb. 5-6 (mathematics) and Feb. 19-20 (science). Two mathematics vertical teams have met monthly. Mathematics Vertical Teams Steering Committee was established to set long- and short-range goals for the district. The steering committee met twice and set a time to meet monthly during the 1999-2000 school year. High School VisitsMet with principals and counselors of high schools to review and discuss first quarter data and to set improvement targets. Parent/Community InvolvementPresented an overview of the NSF project to the Christian Ministerial Alliance, Little Rock PTA Council, and the VIPS board. Year 2 plans include Brown Bag lunches at local businesses to inform working parents and the general public about this initiative. A dissemination brochure will be produced and distributed to parents, community, and business people. SECME9 teachers representing 5 schools will participate in the SECME Summer Institute June 20July 2,1999, at the University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa. SECME programs will be implemented in the 5 additional schools beginning fall 1999. Strategic Plan/Professional Development PlanDeveloped a five- year strategic plan along with a comprehensive professional development plan to guide the work of the LRPMSA. Standards-Based CurriculaTraining was provided for mathematics and science teachers who will be using Investigations, Science and Technology for Children, Connected Mathematics Project, and Active Physics. Follow-up sessions are planned for pre-school conference as well as during the regular school year. * Lead TeachersSubmitted a proposal to NSF to add 4 lead teachers who would work with clusters of elementary schools providing technical support for math and science teachers. Proposal also submitted to add (or assign an existing position) a high school math coordinator, middle school math specialist, a middle school science specialist, and a high school science specialist. *CERTLProposal submnitted to NSF for Centers of Excellence for Research, Teaching, and Learning. CERTL involves subcontracts with PSC, UALR, and LRSD for Active Physics training. UALR activities include a Summer Science Institute for 4* and 5* grade students
UALR Student Research Camp will provide an opportunity for students to participate in real research projects
PSC will offer the Summer Algebra Readiness Training which is a three-week summer institute for rising 9'* graders who show academic promise to be successful in Algebra I. LRSD will offer, in collaboration with UALR, a four-hour graduate credit course on Active Physics.Priority ill. B. (2): Personalized Education Major Tasks/Activities 16. Develop Early Childhood Education Plan for fall 1999, to include plan to implement any grant-funded early childhood initiatives. Plan Reference Strategic Plan: Strategy 8 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, section 2.7 and 5.1 Goals 2000 Timeline February 1999 Responsibility Pat Price Marian Shead- Jackson Patty Kohler Carol Green Aleecia Starkey End-of-Year Report Attended meetings of the collaborative partners involved in Headstart. Discussed the feasibility for expansion. Applied for and was awarded funds for continuance money from Arkansas Belter Chance. Early Childhood Task Force met on Nov. 23, 1998. Agenda items included overview of the program, quality status, and the need for expansion. District sponsored reception for representatives and senators to discuss 1999 legislative issues, such as early childhood funding, on Jan. 7,1999. Early Childhood Task Force meeting held on Jan. 25,1999. Agenda included discussion of issues which may initiate policy discussion and action by the Arkansas General Assembly, such as (1) funding for child care/ eliminating the low-income working waiting list
(2) additional funding for the Arkansas Better Chance program.Major Tasks/Activities 17. Develop K-12 talent development plan to improve G/T, honors, and AP student enrollment and success (e.g.. Project AVID). Plan Reference Strategic Plan objectives Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, sections 2.6, 2.6.1, and 2.6,2 NSF Project Timeline November 1998 Responsibility Bonnie Lesley Kathy Lease Mable Donaldson Vanessa Cleaver Gene Parker Marie McNeal Dennis Glasgow Mona Gibbs Jo Evelyn Elson Marion Woods End-of-Year Report K-23 Talent Development Committee was established in August 1998 to develop a plan
research assignments were made
and the committee moved to endorse the implementation of Project AVID as the centerpiece of this plan. Eliminated the honors/enriched layer of courses between the regular level and the Pre-AP/AP level at grades 6-12 for the 1999-2000 school year (approved by Board in November 1998). Made all AP courses (except Music Theory AP) available to all high schools for 1999-2000. Changed admission standards so that students with a grade of at least C in a prior Pre-AP or AP courses can enroll in the next level without teacher approval. Working on new policy/regulations relating to AP examinations to be submitted to the Board in summer 1999. *1 'Surveyed all honors, enriched, Pre-AP, and AP teachers to determine what training they had had so that a professional development plan could be designed. *Conducted study of current percentages by school who are performing in the top quartile
percentages of students taking the ACT
percentages of students enrolled in AP courses
percentages of students passing AP courses by school
etc. Paid fee for Mable Donaldson to participate in the first year of training for Project AVID directors. Investigated two potential grants to fund the Project AVID initiative: Gear-Up and Javits federal grants. Applied for Gear-Up funds in collaboration with UALR to implement AVID in four middle schools, if funded, in fall 1999. Conducted one-half day of training on Project AVID for representatives of the curriculum staff, high school principals, high school counselors, parent representatives, and community advocates in October 1998. Conducted one evening of training for members of the Board of Education on Project AVID in October 1998. Distributed information on the Talent Development Middle School to all middle school principals for restructuring ideas. Continued research on effective strategies to close achievement gaps
read new book on the Black-White Test Score Gap by Jencks.  Met with representative teachers and counselors at three of the five high schools to hear what they believe they need to support the goal of increasing AP enrollment. Discussed with E>r. Angela Sewell, Dean of Education at UALR, the possibility of a university partnership relating to Project AVID.Major Tasks/Activities 18. Review Title I programs and services to align with COE, Smart Start, Campus Leadership Plan, NSF, Strategic Plan, and Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 19. Complete planning for middle schools and smooth transitions from elementary and to high schools. Plan Reference Strategic Plan. Strategy 3 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, section 2.7 NSF Project Strategic Plan: Strategy?. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, section 3.4 Goals 2000 Timeline January 1999 December 1998 Responsibility Bonnie Lesley Leon Adams Kathy Lease Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Gene Parker Pat Price Kathy Lease Linda Young M.S. Committees End-ofYear Report Met with ODM staff to discuss Project AVID and its potential benefits to LRSD students. Scheduled a meeting with Dr. Terry Roberts to discuss Project AVID on Jan. 26, 1999, Submitted Gear-Up grant proposal during March 1999 in collaboration with UALR to fund Project AVID in four middle schools
Southwest, Mablevale, Henderson, and Cloverdale. Conducted a meeting with Leon Adams on August 5,1998, to discuss several proposed changes and improvements in Title I. Conducted a meeting on the morning of September 4,1998, to review Title I regulations and laws
a team approach to approve Title I plans
ways to embed Title I accountability into the Quality Index
and ways to align Title I with Campus Leadership. Conducted a meeting on the afternoon of September 4,1998, to discuss needs for a menu of research-based and district-approved programs for Title I schools to choose from
procedures for District approval of Title I plans
alignment of Title I with Smart Start. Conducted meeting on Sept. 18 to discuss proposed changes in the Title I parent program. Conducted input all fall from parents, teachers, and principals on the Title I program and ways that it could be better aligned with other District initiatives and, thus, be more productive. Reviewed with and obtained input from the Cabinet on Jan. 11, 1999, general areas for change and improvement of the Title I program. Embedded Title I changes in the PreK-3 Literacy Plan. Conducted meetings with principals in April 1999 to discuss changes in 1999-2000 Title I program. Summarized changes in Title I program in principals meeting during May 1999. Met several times in May-June with Cabinet members to make decisions relating to changes in Title I. Met with representative Title I parents in May 1999 to discuss proposed changes in Title I. See Priority I: Desegregation and Education Plan/ B. Middle School, #3, #6.Major Tasks/Activities 20. Complete planning for ninth grade curriculum aligned with new graduation requirements and the districts standards. 21. Assess ESL program and services and develop program improvement plan with estimated budget. 22. Review special education programs, policies, and/or procedures to ensure no racial discrimination in referral and placement. Plan Reference Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 And Strategy 3 State laws Strategic Plan: Strategy 2. Goals 2000 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, section 2.4 Timeline November 1998 June 1999 December 1998 Responsibility Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley Gene Parker Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley Patty Kohler End-of-Year Report *See #4 above. *Board approval of new high school curriculum, including grade 9 courses, in November 1998. *See Priority I: Desegregation and Education Plan/ B. Middle School, #10._______________________________________________________ *Committee chair appointed to gather data for program/needs assessment. *ESL program representative attended statewide program planning conference. Committee appointed to develop ESL program standards and to identify budget needs. Committee appointed to develop ESL curriculum standards. Met with representative of ADE on needs of LRSDs ESL program. Hosted compliance review by OCR in March 1999 relating to ESL programs and services. Proposed that Class-Size Reducation Allocation be used to hire 10 elementary ESL teachers for 1999-2000. Proposed that the District employ an ESL Coordinator to oversee and provide leadership for the K-12 program. *Tridistrict assessment committee meets regularly to review testing procedures and to make sure that they are free of bias. *Department of Exceptional Childrens strategic plan updated in Dec. 1998
includes procedures and equity issues. *Completed an administrative procedures manual in Dec. 1998 for all special education staff to ensure equity in administration of procedures
contains checklists to evaluate staffing needs
supervisory goals, including equity issues
LRSD policies that address graduation, which are bias-free
and other procedures.Major Tasks/Activities 23. Begin needs assessment and initial planning for implementation of Smart Start program from ADE. Plan Reference Arkansas initiative Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, section 2.7 Timeline January 1999 Responsibility Bonnie Lesley Kathy Lease Leon Adams Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Gene Parker Pat Price Patty Kohler Ann Freeman End*of-Year Report Dr. Doug Reeves presented early concepts of Smart Start standards and assessments to a small group from the Division of Instruction in September 1998. Kevin Penix from ADE presented an overview of the Smart Start Initiative to the Division of Instruction on Oct. 14,1998. Bonnie Lesley and Les Gamine attended a session with Dr. Doug Reeves at a state conference in October 1998 on Smart Start. Ann Freeman was reassigned to assist Pat Price with coordination of Smart Start programs and services for LRSD during November 1998. Eisenhower Professional Development grant application aligned with Smart Start submitted to ADE in November 1998. All elementary principals and a facilitator from each school attended two days of Smart Start training sponsored by ADE during the week of Nov. 9-12, 1998, Bonnie Lesley presented session on how Smart Start aligns with Title I, COE, and Campus Leadership at the November principals meeting. Pat Price and Ann Freeman presented an overview of the Smart Start Summit to the Division of Instruction on Nov. 24,1998. Work sessions on standards and assessments conducted by the Division of Instruction on Dec. 14,1998. Presentation of a one-day Data-Driven Decision-Making session for all elementary principals is scheduled for Jan. 19-20-21, 1999. All principals were invited to attend a one-day conference on Character-Centered Teaching and Positive Classroom Discipline Conference, sponsored by ADE, on Jan. 26,1999. Ten satellite teleconferences relating to Smart Start were held at the IRC during year. District representatives attended the NSCI conference on reading and mathematics in New Orleans during January. Frequent information regarding Smart Start implementation was provided principals and other staff through Learning Links during spring 1999.Priority III. B (3): Professional Development Major Tasks/Activities 24. Complete planning and begin implementation of middle school professional development program. 25. Conduct in collaboration with Sadie Mitchell and her staff the Year One training for Campus Leadership Plan. 26. Restructure the districts professional development program and services so that they build professional learning communities at the district and school levels. 27. Implement Year One of ASCDs UPDI project with focus on school change and improving achievement in reading and mathematics. 28. Provide training in prejudice reduction and cultural sensitivity. Plan Reference Strategic Plan: Strategy 3 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, section 2.12 Campus Leadership Plan Goals 2000 Strategic Plan: Strategy 7 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, sections 2.61., 2.12, 5.2.1j, 5.2.2g, 5.2.3c. 5.3.1 Campus Leadership Plan NSF ASCDs UPDI ASCDs UPDI Revised Desegregation and Education, section 2.12 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, sections 2.12 and 2.12.1 Timeline January 1999 June 1999 October 1998 June 1999 June 1999 Responsibility Linda Young Marion Woods Mona Briggs Kathy Lease Prof. Dev. Committee Bonnie Lesley Marion Woods Gene Parker Kathy Lease Patty Kohler Bonnie Lesley Director, Prof. Dev. Marion Woods Bonnie Lesley Dir., Prof. Dev. Marion Woods Marion Woods City of Little Rock End-of-Year Report See Priority I: Desegregation and Education Plan/ B. Middle School, #4 and #12. The responsibility for this activity was transferred to Sadie Mitchell and her staff. Broker and principal training sessions were conducted in December 1998, January and February 1999. Principals Institute, to include representatives of Campus Leadership Teams, scheduled for week of July 26,1999. Invited by ASCD in August 1998 to apply to join the Urban Professional Development Initiative (UPDI). Presented idea to Cabinet for approval to join UPDI in August 1998. Submitted application to join UPDI to ASCD on August 20, 1998. Presented information item to Board of Education about UPDI in August 1998. Formed a special team to restructure LRSD professional development program and to oversee UPDI activities
first meeting held on Sept. 3, 1998. Four people attended UPDI Network meeting in Alexandria, VA, on Nov. 12-14, 1998. Received official letter of invitation from ASCD to participate in UPDI, Nov. 20,1998. Staff meeting scheduled to begin discussion of professional development plan on Jan. 25,1999. Site visit from ASCD for UPDI conducted on Feb. 1-2,1999. End-of-Quarter Report submitted to ASCD on March 30,1999, Professional Development Plan to be completed during summer 1999.______________________________________________________ See #26 above. Five two-day workshops serving 94 teachers were presented on the following dates: Aug. 4-5
Sept. 14 and 21
Oct. 19 and 22
Nov. 16 and 19
and Jan. 6 and 13. Scheduled a meeting with Dr. Terry Roberts on Jan. 26,199^, to discuss professional development issues. Workshop conducted for high school teachers on June 4,1999. Tri-District staff development committee and state coops met ten times during year to compile information for districts catalogs, resource guides, and professional libraries.Major Tasks/Activities 29. Consolidate COE, Campus Leadership, Title I, and Instructional Technological planning requirements in collaboration with cluster assignment
design and plan training for Campus Leadership Teams. 30. Develop menus of research-based and approved schoolwide change models and instructional/ curriculum interventions to guide schools in improvement efforts. 31. Assemble a library of reference folders on a wide variety of topics related to school improvement to send to schools upon request. 32. Write and prepare for Fall 1999 distribution a Beginning Teachers Handbook. 33. Provide focused and appropriate training for certified staff in Division of Instruction to improve productivity and leadership. 34. Provide appropriate technology and general training for clerical staff of Division of Instruction to improve productivity and communication. Plan Reference COE Campus Leadership Plan Title I Instructional Technology Plan Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Title I Smart Start COE Campus Leadership Plan Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Title I Smart Start COE Campus Leadership Plan Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Strategic Plan: Strategy 6 Goals 2000 Goals 2000 Campus Leadership Plan Strategic Plan Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Smart Start Title I COE Strategic Plan Timeline January 1999 February 1999 January 1999 May 1999 June 1999 June 1999 Responsibility Bonnie Lesley Sadie Mitchell and her cluster teams Leon Adams Lucy Lyon Director, Prof. Dev. Marion Woods Bonnie Lesley Leon Adams Gene Parker Dennis Glasgow Marie McNeal Vanessa Cleaver Marion Woods Selma Hobby Marion Woods Bonnie Lesley Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley Marion Woods Lucy Lyon End-of-Year Report This work was assigned to one of the clusters to complete. Leadership for these tasks was assigned to Sadie Mitchell. Conducted two meetings in September 1998 to begin the discussion of criteria to identify research-based programs. Recommended best practice books which summarize research to schools through Learning Links. Approved literacy programs were included in the PreK-3 Literacy Plan, Books on research-based programs provided to principals by Division of Instruction. Approximately 75 information folders on a variety of topics related to school reform have been compiled and are available to principals and Campus Leadership Teams. Videotapes and books on middle schools were identified for middle school principals and teachers to check out. Outline for Beginning Teachers Handbook compiled in August 1998. Committee on Teacher Induction, chaired by Dr. Kathy Lease, appointed in spring 1999. Draft of Beginning Teachers Handbook completed in June 1999. 1 *ADE-sponorsed workshop on curriculum mapping by Heidi Jacobs attended by most curriculum staff members in September 1998. Presentation by Dr. Doug Reeves (the state consultant on Smart Start) to curriculum staff members in September 1998. Presentation on Smart Start by Dr. Kevin Pennick from ADE at a Division of Instruction meeting on October 14,1998. Data-Analysis Training (related to Smart Start implementation) presented at meeting of Division of Instruction in December 1998. Four people attended class on Microsoft Word on Oct. 20-22. Four people attended class on PowerPoint on Oct. 26-27. Eight people attended class on Excel on Oct. 19-26. *1 *A number of courses were scheduled for February 1999. *Summer technology classes are being offered.Major Tasks/Activities 35. Provide training for teachers and counselors to improve minority student access and success in Pre-AP and AP courses. Plan Reference Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, section 2.6.2 NSF Project Timeline November 1998 Responsibility Bonnie Lesley Kathy Lease Mable Donaldson Vanessa Cleaver Gene Parker Marie McNeal Dennis Glasgow Mona Gibbs Jo Evelyn Elston Marion Woods End-of-Year Report *Conducted one-half session on Project AVID for high school counselors and others in September 1998. *Conducted curriculum orientation meetings for principal and counselors at each high school, including discussion of this priority, in January 1999. *Conducted curriculum orientation session for elementary counselors, including discussion of this priority, on Jan. 20,1999. *Conducted curriculum orientation session for middle school counselors, including discussion of this priority, on Jan. 20,1999. *Developed a plan to ensure that teachers of Pre-AP and AP have equal access and opportunity to participate in College Board professional development workshops during the summer.Priority III. B (4): Building Community Support Major Tasks/Activities 36. Design plan to collaborate with the business community to deliver the Arkansas Scholars program in grade 8 during spring 1999. 37. Restructure the districts parent/ community programs and services to align with the Strategic Plan, the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, the Campus Leadership Plan, the NSF Project, Smart Start, and the requirements of Title I. Plan Reference Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (sections on enriched, honors, gifted, and advanced placement courses). Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 And Strategy 8 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, sections 2.8 and 5.7 Campus Leadership Plan Goals 2000 Timeline December 1998 December 1998 Responsibility Debbie Milam Linda Young Gene Parker End-of-Year Report 'Meeting held on Sept. 24, 1998, with Lee Gordon, ABEA, Bonnie 1 Bonnie Lesley Debbie Milam Leon Adams Catherine Gill Linda Young Patty Kohler Pat Price Paulette Martin Marian Shead- Jackson Marian Baldwin Vanessa Cleaver Lesley, Gene Parker, Linda Young, and Debbie Milam. *Meeting held on Oct. 15,1998, at Chambers Education Committee. Lee Gordon asked for support in recruiting business volunteers to make the Arkansas Scholars presentations to all 8* graders in the three Pulaski County school districts. Meeting held on Dec. 7, 1998, between Debbie Milam and Linda Young to discuss a timeline for LRSD implementation. Meeting scheduled for Jan. 15,1999, between Debbie Milam, LRSD, and Joe Swaty and Sandy Bradley of the Chamber to discuss feasibility of implementing Arkansas Scholars in spring 1999. Arkansas Scholars program implemented in spring 1999. Discussed with Catherine Jordan of SEDL the possibility of Little Rocks participation in their Collaborative Action Team (CAT) training. Conducted a meeting including staff, some community/parent representatives, and Catherine Jordan on November 2 for initial discussion of possible partnership to assist us in restructuring our parent/community programs. Conducted second meeting of committee on November 20,1998, to discuss whether to apply to SEDL for CAT participation
wrote mission statement for group. Sent application in December 1998 to SEDL to participate in CAT training. Conducted third meeting on January 14,1999, to discuss focus for our work
parent education/involvement. Fourth meeting and expanded committee membership will be decided upon after conversation with Catherine Jordan about training. Two representatives attended SEDL training in late January 1999. Two SEDL representatives conducted a site visit in Little Rock on April 27 with a cross-section of staff, parents, and community members. Notifed in May 1999 of selection to participate with SEDL in Collaborative Action Team planning. Began implementation of plan to restructure and re-align Title 1 parent program.Priority III. B. (5): Communication Major Tasks/Activities 38. Communicate curriculum standards so that all parents and students understand the expected knowledge and skills by grade level and course. 39. Communicate aspects of middle school planning to students, parents, and community for fall 1999. 40. Provide second-language translations of key documents for students and parents. 41. Implement Learning Links, a weekly publication for principals from the Division of Instruction. 42. Publish at lease six issues of a newsletter for teachers from the Division of Instruction. 43. Conduct twice-a-month meetings for staff in the Division of Instruction. 44. Conduct quarterly meetings of all clerical staff in the Division of Instruction. Plan Reference Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Strategic Plan: Strategy 3 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Goals 2000 Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Student Success Model Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Student Success Model Student Success Model Student Success Model Timeline May 1999 May 1999 May 1999 September 1998 June 1999 June 1999 August 1998June 1999 Responsibility Bonnie Lesley Suellen Vann Gene Parker Dennis Glasgow Marie McNeal Kathy Lease Linda Young Gene Parker Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley Anita Gilliam Regina Moore Marian Baldwin Suellen Vann Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley and designated staff End-of-Year Report Committee appointed to develop action plan for communicating curriculum standards to the community. Action plan presented to Strategic Plan Steering Committee and approved in November 1998. Committee appointed to complete identified action steps in approved action plan.  ' 'Designed an audio-visual presentation to communicate the new graduation standards
to be completed by early Feb. 1999. (This video not yet completed.) Planning established to publish curriculum standards for parents in summer 1999. Draft documents completed in June 1999. See Priority I: Desegregation and Education Plan/B. Middle School, #6, #14. See Priority I: Desegregation and Education Plan/C. Marketing and Communication, #1, #2. See Priority I: Desegregation and Education Plan/ D. Student Assignment, #8, #13. State-developed computer software discs acquired with translations of key documents for ESL students and parents. Budgeted for 1999-2000 the costs of translations of key documents. Learning Links has been published weekly since the first week in October 1998 for principals
it has also been distributed to Cabinet members, most department heads, and members of the Division of Instruction. Meetings conducted with Public Information Office to determine cost and deadlines for publishing a teacher newsletter
project delayed due to costs and time restraints. This project delayed until 1999-2000. Staff meetings are scheduled for the second and fourth Wednesdays each month at the IRC
they are attended by all the department heads in the Division of Instruction, as well as other staff as appropriate. Monthly meetings conducted in spring 1999. Two meetings were conducted with the clerical staff of the Division of Instruction.Priority III. B (6): Assessment Major Tasks/Activities 45. Design and administer CRTs for fall 1998 in reading and mathematics. 46. Design refined CRTs for reading, mathematics, science, and social studies for piloting in spring 1999 and for implementation in fall 1999. 47. Establish Performance Standards in reading, writing, mathematics, science, and social studies. 48. Reinvent PRE programs and services to support the Campus Leadership Plan. 49. Refine the Quality Index indicators and develop district and school profiles according to the proposed Quality Index. 50. Embed Title I and Smart Start accountability requirements into the Quality Index. 51. Begin transition plan for a way of reporting to parents on student progress toward meeting the standards and develop plan to redesign the student grading and reporting system to reflect the standards- based focus of the district. Plan Reference Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Strategic Plan: Strategy 2. Strategic Plan: Strategy 8 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, sections 5.2.1g, 5.2.2e,5.2.3r, and 5.3.2 Campus Leadership Plan NSF Title I and Smart Start COE Campus Leadership Plan Campus Leadership Plan Title I requirements Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Timeline September 1998 December 1998 February 1999 December 1998 February 1999 February 1999 June 1999 Responsibility Gene Parker Dennis Glasgow Kathy Lease Kathy Lease Gene Parker Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Marie McNeal Kathy Lease Dennis Glasgow Gene Parker Vanessa Cleaver Marie McNeal Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Cluster B Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley Cluster B Kathy Lease Leon Adams Kathy Lease Gene Parker Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Marie McNeal Pat Price Patty Kohler Mable Donaldson End-of-Year Report CRTs have been designed, produced, disseminated, given, scored, and reported. Tests were given in reading and mathematics at all elementary schools. Instructional division staff met in January to review first semester CRT experiences and begin planning for the third and fourth quarter tests in all core subject areas with the addition of the second graders. Planning still in progress for 1999-2000 CRTs. A meeting was scheduled in February to work on this goal. This project was delayed until decisions were made about 1999-2000 CRTs. New staff hired in order to begin to refocus the work of PRE. Staff assignments made to support Campus Leadership, the Strategic Plan, and the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Public relations campaign instituted to promote idea that PRE is a service department whose focus is to assist schools and central office staff to reach the goals of the Campus Leadership Plan, the Strategic Plan, and the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. *1999-2000 Reorganization Plan establishes new concept for department. See Priority II: Quality Index (2) Student Achievement and Value- Added Incentives. See Priority II: Quality Index (2) Student Achievement and Value- Added Incentives. This work on a new grading system has not begun as yet. Discussions conducted during the first semester on student data management systems capacities and deficiencies. 'Primary Grades Committee established in May 1999 to make recommendations, as per PreK-3 Literacy Plan.Major Tasks/Activities 52. Design waiver form and process for schools seeking waivers from policy relating to Campus Leadership. 53. Redesign end-of-year climate survey to include items relating to measuring progress of reform. 54. Design for Board approval an agenda for evaluation of the Districts academic programs. Plan Reference Campus Leadership Plan Campus Leadership Plan Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, section 2.7.1 Campus Leadership Plan Timeline October 1998 February 1999 March 1999 Responsibility Bonnie Lesley Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley Sadie Mitchell Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley End-of-Year Report________________________________ Waiver Application forms distributed via Learning Links in December 1998. *Work in progress with Cluster A and PRE staff. Drafts scheduled for completion in February. Two work sessions with Dr. Steven Ross (consultant) have been completed on initial planning. PRE staff researched program evaluation options. One-day planning meeting scheduled with numerous stakeholders in May 1999. Proposed Board policy developed and submitted to the Board for first reading in June 1999.Priority: Quality Index: (2) Student Achievement and Value-Added Incentives Major Tasks/Activities 1. Identify specific achievement indicators. 2. Identify specific standards/ benchmarks. 3. Identify value-added incentives. Plan Reference Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, sections 2.7,5.2.1,and 5.3 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, sections 2.7, 5.2, and 5.3. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, sections 5.8 Timeline June 1999 June 1999 June 1999 Responsibility Lesley/Cluster B Lesley/Cluster B Lesley/Cluster B End-of-Year Report *Conducted first meeting of Cluster B on Nov. 20,1998. Reviewed charge, draft of Campus Leadership Plan, and resource documents
discussed and approved proposed work plan for completion of tasks. *Conducted Internet search and purchased other resources to determine practices in other states and districts, especially those with value-added approaches. *Drafted preliminary list of academic indicators for elementary, middle, and high schools for the Quality Index to use for discussion purposes, Jan. 1999. Met with Dr. Steve Ross of the University of Memphis on Jan. 15, 1999, to discuss Tennessees value-added accountability system and preliminary LRSD draft of academic indicators. Second meeting of Cluster B scheduled for Feb. 15,1999. Third meeting of Cluster B conducted on May 6-7,1999. Discussed with Dr. Steve Ross (see #1 above) ways to assign weights of importance and ways to assess progress toward standards at Jan. 15, 1999, meeting. Consulted research documents on practices in other states and districts. Met with Dr. Steve Ross in May 1999 to continue discussion of academic indicators for Quality Index. Submitted Dr. Ross recommendations to Dr. Camine for feedback. Final report submitted in June 1999. Conducted preliminary research on practices in other states and districts. Final report submitted in June 1999.i RECEP' A  } Collective Responsibility for Student Achieverhent AUG 5 1999 Office OF Definition of Collective Responsibility , OESEGREGATfON MONrrOfl.NP Collective Responsibility means that all the adults in the District arfd at each school hold themselves accountable for all the students meeting the challenging behavior and academic content standards and benchmarks and other outcomes established by the Board of Education, by the state for accreditation, by federally funded programs, and by external funders of reform initiatives approved by the Board of Education. District-level staff share with school-level staffs in the collective responsibility for school improvement. This critically important attitude is developed and nurtured through professional learning communities established by the District and each school. In addition, the Superintendent shall ensure that all job descriptions of appropriate District-level and building-level staff
annual work plans
District-level processes and school-level parameters for decision-making
personnel hiring, assignment, promotion, and evaluation systems
and the professional development programs are results-based and aligned with the improvement indicators established in the Quality Index. Reporting Responsibilities The Superintendent shall report to the Board of Education annually on progress related to the implementation of the Strategic Plan and the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. In addition, so that the community is also informed on the Districts progress in meeting expected improvement goals, the following reports must be submitted to the Board of Education in open sessions. District Annual Performance Report The Annual Performance Report is to be submitted to the Board of Education no later than August 30 annually. It shall include data relating to each of the Quality Indicators, including the baseline year data so that progress can be identified. The Annual Performance Report shall also include the accreditation status and accountability status for each school, as determined by the Arkansas Department of Education. School Performance Reports The state-mandated School Performance Reports shall be published and distributed to parents and other interested patrons annually. These report cards shall include the data mandated by the Arkansas Department of Education, but also school data relating to the Districts Quality Indicators. School principals shall disseminate these reports to all the staff members and parents in their school community and make them available to interested patrons. At least one parent meeting shall be conducted annually by the Campus Leadership Team and the principal to discuss the 1performance of the school and planned short- and long-range improvements. The District may disseminate school-level supplements to the School Performance Reports to include data relating to District-selected Quality Indicators. Accreditation and Accountability Status If a school has been identified for school improvement, as per Title I regulations and/or if the school is conditionally accredited or nonaccredited, then the designation and an explanation of its implications, as well as the accountability status of the school as defined by the State shall be included in the School Performance Report. Program Evaluations The results of any internal program evaluation studies or evaluations of grant-funded projects are to be provided to the Board of Education within a month of their submission to the Superintendent and/or to the funding organization. School Improvement Plans Although there are multiple state and local indicators, Campus Leadership Teams should select, based on their data analysis, three to five priority improvement goals as a focus for the School Improvement Plan. (See the Arkansas Comprehensive School Improvement Planning process.) 2State Quality IndicatorsTier I The Arkansas Comprehensive Testing. Assessment, and Accountability Program (ACTAAP) establishes the following indicators based on performance goals for Tier I: State Indicator______ Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Tests Goal (Definition)_______________ 100% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in reading and writing literacy. 100% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in mathematics. Grade Level(s) Grades 4, 6, 8 Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Tests 100% of a schools secondary students shall perform at or above the proficient level in Algebra I. 100% of a schools secondary students shall perform at or above the proficient level in Geometry. Secondary School Drop Out Average Daily Attendance Classes Taught by an Appropriately Licensed Teacher Professional Development School Safety 100% of a schools secondary students shall perform at or above the proficient level in Literacy. At least 99% of secondary students will remain in school to complete the 12^^ grade.__________________ Average daily attendance rate will be at least 95%.________________ 100% of a schools classes will be taught by an appropriately licensed teacher._______________________ 100% of a schools certified staff will complete at least 30 hours of approved professional development annually.___________ Schools will be free of drugs, weapons, and violent acts. Grades 7-12 Grades K-12 Grades K-12 Grades K-12 Grades K-12 3State Quality IndicatorsTier II The Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Program (ACTAAP) establishes the following indicators for Tier II. Tier II indicators are based on trend and improvement goals. Trend goals will be established for different cohorts of students, and improvement goals will be established for the same cohort of students over time. State Indicator Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Tests Goal (Definition)_______________ The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in reading and writing literacy on the criterion-referenced tests will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in mathematics on the criterion- referenced tests will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Tests The percent of secondary students performing at or above the proficient level in Algebra I will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. The percent of secondary students performing at or above the proficient level in Geometry will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. The percent of secondary students performing at or above the proficient level in Literacy will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. Grade Level(s) Grades 4, 6, and 8 Secondary 4Tier IISchool Selected Indicators (Schools Select Any 5) State Indicator Drop-outs Average Daily Attendance__________ Classes Taught by an Appropriately Licensed Teacher____________ Professional Development School Safety Other School Selected Indicators Goal (Definition)_______________ Secondary schools will improve the percentage of students who stay in school to complete the 12**^ grade. Schools will improve their average daily attendance rate.____________ Schools will improve the percent of classes taught by an appropriately licensed teacher.________________ Schools will increase the percent of certified staff who complete 60 or more hours of approved professional development annually. Schools will be free of drugs, weapons, and violent acts.________ Schools will select trend or improvement goals directed to student achievement in specific sub-populations or sub-test areas. These must have prior approval of ADE. Grade Level(s) Secondary All levels All levels All levels All levels All levels 5Additional District-Selected Indicators The following additional academic indicators (based also on both performance and trend/improvement) have been established by the Little Rock School District. Value-Added Goals or Improvement Goals The District-adopted criterion-referenced tests for grades K-11 will be administered to provide pre- and post-test scores so that gains of individual students may be measured each semester. Only those scores of students who were in the school the previous test administration will be used in calculating value-added gains (or improvement). The purpose of this measure is to be able to determine the extent to which a school adds value through individual students' gains. In other words, regardless of whether students attain the proficient level at any given grade, the District is interested in whether the students progressed toward proficiency during that year. Both trend and improvement data will be tracked as well. LRSD Indicator_______ Performance on District- Adopted Kindergarten Literacy Test Performance on District- Adopted Grade 1 Literacy Test Goal (Definition)______________ 90% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in literacy. The percent of students demonstrating gains from the pretest to the post-test will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. 90% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in literacy. Grade Level(s) Kindergarten Grade 1 The percent of grade 1 students demonstrating gains from the pretest to the post-test will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 6LRSD Indicator_______ Performance on SATO, a Norm-Referenced Test Goal (Definition)_______________ 65% of a schools students in every sub-group of race and gender shall perform at or above the 50 percentile in reading. ,th Grade Levelfs) Grades 5, 7, 10 The percent of students in every sub-group of race and gender performing at or above the 50*^ percentile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 65% of a schools students in every sub-group of race and gender shall perform at or above the 50^ percentile in mathematics. Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Test The percent of students in every sub-group of race and gender performing at or above the 50^ percentile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 30% of a schools students will perform at the highest quartile in reading. The percent of a schools students performing at the highest quartile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 30% of a schools students will perform at the highest quartile in mathematics. The percent of a schools students performing at the highest quartile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 7LRSD Indicator_______ Performance on SATO, a Norm-Referenced Test Goal (Definition)_______________ At least 90% of a schools students will perform above the lowest quartile in reading. The percent of a schools students performing above the lowest quartile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. At least 90% of a schools students will perform above the lowest quartile in mathematics. Grade Level(s) Performance on District-Adopted Criterion-Referenced Tests The percent of a schools students performing above the lowest quartile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year.________________ 90% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in reading each semester. The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each semester. The percent of students demonstrating gains from the pretest to the post-test will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year. Grades 2-11 8LRSD Indicator Goal (Definition)_______________ 90% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in mathematics each semester. The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each semester. Grade Level(s) Enrollment in Pre-AP and/or AP Courses The percent of students demonstrating gains from the pretest to the post-test will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year. 65% of middle and high school students will be enrolled in at least one Pre-AP or AP course each year. Grades 6-12 Enrollment in Algebra I by grade 8 The percent of students enrolled in at least one Pre-AP or AP course will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 90% of a middle schools students will be enrolled in Algebra I by grade 8. Grade 8 Honors Seal on High School Diploma The percent of students enrolled in Algebra I by grade 8 will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. 65% of a high schools students will complete the requirements to earn the Honors Seal on their diplomas. The percent of students completing the requirements for the Honors Seal will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. Grades 9-12 9LRSD Indicator Taking the ACT Goal (Definition)_______________ 65% of a high schools students will take the ACT. Grade Level(s) Grades 11-12 Performance on the ACT The percent of students taking the ACT will meet or exceed the trend goal each
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.