Little Rock School District (LRSD) QUARTERLY UPDATE to Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and Joshua RECEIVED FEB 2 8 2005 March 1, 2005 OFFICE OF desegregates MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PLAINTIFF V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I ET AL., DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ETAL., INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS 1 Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206Introduction This is the second quarterly written update by the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and its Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Department, submitted in accordance with the District Courts 2004 Compliance Remedy (Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004, pp. 61-67). The organization of this report is that of the Compliance Remedy
A. B. C. LRSD must promptly hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE. The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process, which must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSDs curriculum and instruction program. During each of the next two academic school years (2004-05 and 2005-06), LRSD must hire one or more outside consultants to prepare four (4) formal step 2 evaluations. 9 D. PRE must (1) oversee the preparation of all eight of these step 2 evaluations
(2) work E. closely with Dr. Ross and any other outside consultants . . . and (3) provide the outside consultants with any and all requested assistance and support... Evaluations will contain numbers and grade levels of teachers and administrators who contributed data, recommended program changes necessary for improved academic achievement by African-American students, and brief explanations of how each change will increase a programs effectiveness. F. . . . PRE must notify the ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of those eight programs. In addition, after PRE and Dr. Ross have formulated a comprehensive program assessment process and reduced it to a final draft, PRE must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua at least thirty days before it is presented to the Board for approval.. . by December 31,2004. G. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of the . . . four step 2 program evaluations . . . during the 2004-05 school year and the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2005-06 school year ... to ODM and Joshua on 9? December 1, March 1, June 1, and September 1...' H. [ODMs responsibilities.] 1. [Joshuas responsibilities.] J. Four step 2 program evaluations due to the Court October 1, 2005 and four more due October 1,2006. K. Compliance Report due October 15,2006. L. [This Compliance Remedy supersedes earlier one.] Page 2 of 19Status as of March 1, 2005 A. Hire a highly trained team of professionals. LRSD hired a highly trained team of professionals in 2004 and reported its action in the first quarterly written update, December 1, 2004. This team has continued its duties as described below, in this second quarterly written update. B. Devise and embed a comprehensive program assessment process. At its December 16, 2004 session, LRSD Board of Directors approved the comprehensive program assessment process devised by PRE. The final draft was in Appendix B of the first quarterly written update. C. Hire outside consultant(s) to prepare four formal step 2 evaluations. Credentials of Drs. Catterall and Ross were in this section and Appendix C of the first quarterly written update. Both agreed to prepare step 2 evaluations of LRSD programs. Their progress is described below in Section D. D. PRE (1) oversees the preparation of the step 2 evaluations, (2) works closely with Drs. Ross and Catterall, and (3) assists them. PRE continued discussions with Dr. Steven Ross of step 2 evaluation designs for the three LRSD programs which he will conduct, reported December 1, 2004Compass Learning (CL), Reading Recovery (RR), and Smart/Thrive (S/T). By January 14, PRE and Dr. Ross agreed on evaluation designs, whose descriptions are in the appendix of this second quarterly written update. Negotiations also continued in January with Dr. James Catterall regarding evaluation of Year- Round Education (YRE), the fourth step 2 evaluation for 2004-2005. Its design, too, is in the appendix of this second quarterly written update. At the monthly Leadership Team (school principals) meeting, on January 19, PRE staff alerted LRSD principals about the four evaluations and answered their questions. At the February 16 Leadership Team session. Dr. Ross and his team described designs of his three evaluations and answered questions. After his presentation to the principals on February 16, Dr. Ross and his team met with PRE. each program director, and two other outside experts (Drs. Linda Dom and Gail Weems, both of UALRs College of Education). During these discussions, ODM officials and counsel for Joshua Intervenors provided feedback and assisted with the final design of data collection instruments. Page 3 of 19PRE has established four evaluation teams, led by PRE members and composed of people with skills and experiences appropriate to their respective evaluations. Parent and teacher represent- tatives are also members of these teams, whose first formal meeting was arranged for February 24. Dr. DeJamette will lead the evaluation of Compass Learning
Ms. Malcolm, Smart/Thrive
)r. Williams, Year-Round Education
and Mr. Wohlleb, Reading Recovery. Members names and results of that meeting will appear in the third written quarterly update, due June 1. E. Evaluation will have (1) numbers and grade levels of teachers and administrators who submit data for evaluations, (2) recommended program changes necessary for improved achievement by African-American students, and (3) succinct explanations of how each change will increase its respective programs effectiveness. Designs of the evaluations, furnished in the appendix to this report, will include records of the teachers and administrators who furnish data, opinions and guidance, and 1) 2) 3) their grade levels and positions
data in addition to race/ethnicity and test scores that will enable the evaluators to find reasons for differences in academic achievement and recommend changes
bases for explanations of how these other factors impact on academic achievement and how program changes will bring about improved academic achievement. F. Delivery of names of programs to be evaluated and the comprehensive program assessment process to ODM and Joshua. Names of the four programs evaluated during 2004-2005 and the process were delivered before they were due last year and so reported in the first written quarterly update. G. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of step 2 evaluations. PRE submitted its first written quarterly update on December 1, 2004. PRE submits this one on or before March 1, 2005 and will submit its third by June 1,2005. Page 4 of 19Appendix C. Designs of Step 2 Evaluations of 20042005 Reading Recovery (RR) Compass Learning (CL) Smart/Thrive (S/T) Year-Round Education (YRE) Evaluation Schedule 2004-2005 Page 5 of 19 oReading Recovery Program Description RR is one of the eight literacy programs, interventions, and/or models used by various LRSD schools. Restricted to the first grade, it provides systematically designed, individual tutoring to students identified as having the highest need for supplemental support. LRSD funds are used to support the RR Program. Currently, 17 elementary schools are implementing RR: School Booker______ Carver_______ Chicot_______ Dodd________ Franklin Geyer Springs Gibbs_______ Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Rightsell Wakefield Watson______ Williams Wilson ___ Number of Reading Recovery Teachers 4 2 3 1 2 1 2 1 1 I I 2 1 2 1 Number of Teachers 55 43 44 27 35 23 30 24 22 31 25 29 34 36 27 Number of Students 496 496 536 261 387 299 310 349 156 511 262 451 456 461 285 Percent African- American Students 53 52 73 54 96 88 53 78 96 60 100 78 96 52 89 Percent Free/Reduced Lunch Students 63 53 86 69 94 81 44 85 92 56 88 92 93 34 92 RR Evaluation Questions and Design A mixed-methods design will address the research questions as follows: Primary Evaluation Question: 1. Has the RR program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American (AA) students? A. Whole School Sample: A treatment-control school, pretest-posttest design will be employed in Grades 1-3. The analysis will control for pretest, gender, ethnicity, and SES. The analysis will possibly examine (a) all 17 schools relative to the entire district elementary-school database or (b) a stratified random sample of RR schools relative to matched control schools. Pretests: DRA or DIBELS (whichever has the more usable database), administered in Kindergarten. Page 6 of 19Posttests
2004-05 Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) Reading and Math Subtests. B. RR Subsample: Within each of the RR schools, first- to third-grade students who participated in RR as first graders will be identified and their achievement gains compared to predicted scores based on school status (RR vs. non-RR), and student pretest, gender, ethnicity, and SES. ^^PPlemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What are the quality and level of implementation of RR at the 17 schools implementing it in 2004-05? RR teachers will be interviewed by phone. First-grade teachers and other grade-level teachers will be surveyed. Observations of RR sessions will be at a sample of schools. A minimum of 10 observations will be conducted. To the extent resources are available, an attempt will be made to observe at all 17 sites. What is the level of participation in RR by AA students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? Student records/archival data for 2003-04 and 2004-05 will be analyzed. What is the progress demonstrated by AA and other student participants in RR in improving achievement, as demonstrated on program-specific measures? What percent of students are discontinued or not discontinued? RR teachers will be asked to complete Achievement Profiles (to be developed) for each 2004-05 RR student. The Achievement Profiles will be one-page forms designed to require only a few minutes to complete. Procedures will be written through consultation with PRE and RR experts in LRSD. 4. What are the perceptions of RR teachers regarding RR program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? The RR teacher interview will directly address this question. 5. What are the perceptions of non-RR first-grade teachers and other teachers in the schools regarding RR program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? The RR School Teacher survey will address this question via closed-ended and open-ended items. Respondents will identify their status by grade and role. 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of RR students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A RR Parent survey will be conducted via a questionnaire including closed- and open-ended items. Page 7 of 19Summary of RR Data Sources and Participants by Evaluation Question _______Evaluation Question Primary Question______ I Participants Data Sources 1. What are the effects of participation in RR on AA student achievement? All grades 1-3 students at 17 RR schools and other elementary schools RR student participants within above samples DRA or DIBELS (pretest in K) 2004-05 ITBS Reading and Math subtests (posttest in grades 1-3) Step 2 Questions 1. What is the quality and level of implementation of RR at the 17 schools implementing it in 2004-05? All RR teachers All teachers at RR schools 2. What is the level of participation in RR by AA students relative to other ethnic groups by school?____________ 3. What is the progress demonstrated by RR students in improving achievement, as demonstrated on programspecific measures? What percentage of students are discontinued or not discontinued?_______________ 4. What are the perceptions of RR teachers re: RR program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?____ 5. What are the perceptions of regular first-grade teachers and other teachers re: RR program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of RR students re: program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? All RR schools All RR teachers All RR teachers All RR school teachers Parents of RR students Page 8 of 19 RR Teacher Phone Interview RR School Teacher Survey (faculty meeting) RR Achievement Profiles One-hour RR Tutoring Observation (min. of 10 schools) School records/archival data RR Achievement Profile RR Teacher Interview RR School Teacher Survey (disaggregated by r' grade V5. other grades) RR Parent SurveyCompass Learning Program Description Compass Learning (CL) is a computer-based program designed to develop students skills in reading, writing, and spelling. Additional purposes are to support teacher management of student performance, personalize instruction, and connect communities of learners. The themebased lessons and activities provided by CL take a cross-curricular approach and offer a real world context for learning. The Compass Management system assessment is either automatic or customizable. Technology Specialists assist classroom teachers with any technology question or need. In the 2004-05 school year, 21 LRSD elementary schools, two middle schools, and the Accelerated Learning Center (high school) utilize CL programs: Schools Bale Elementary Booker Elementary Brady Elementary Carver Elementary Chicot Elementary Fair Park Elementary Forrest Park Elementary Franklin Elementary Fulbright Elementary Geyer Springs Elementary Gibbs Elementary Mabelvale Elementary______ McDermott Elementary Mitchell Elementary________ Otter Creek Elementary Rightsell Elementary_______ Rockefeller Elementary Stephens Elementary_______ Wakefield Elementary______ Williams Elementary_______ Cloverdale Middle School Henderson Middle School Accelerated Learning Center Number of Teachers 27 55 28 43 44 19 25 35 38 23 30 25 26 22 31 25 35 39 29 36 59 60 14 Number of Students 319 605 318 496 536 187 361 387 554 299 310 257 406 156 511 262 453 499 451 461 682 630 178 Percent African- American Students 82 53 78 52 73 75 20 96 26 88 53 80 62 96 60 100 67 95 78 52 82 82 92 Percent Free/Reduced Lunch Students 88 63 80 53 86 73 14 94 17 81 44 88 88 92 56 88 66 91 92 34 66 70 15 Page 9 of 19CL Evaluation Questions and Design A mixed-methods design will be employed to address the research questions as follows: Primary Evaluation Question-. 1. What are the effects of participation in CL on the achievement of African-American (AA) students? A. Quasi-experimental design: Due to the insufficient sample size and unique nature of the high school {n = 1), the quasi-experimental analysis will be conducted with the elementary ( = 21 schools) and middle (n = 2) school samples only. A descriptive examination (see below) of test scores for the high school will also be conducted to determine trends and patterns at that site. Specifically, the quasi-experimental design will compare CL elementary and middle schools to other schools in the district, most likely by multiple-regression analyses in which the dependent variable is posttest (2004-05) scores (Arkansas Benchmarks in grades 3-8, and Iowa Test of Basic Skills in grades K-8) and covariates are pretest (pre-program) test scores, gender, ethnicity, and SES. Pretests: Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) (for grades K-8), Arkansas Benchmarks (for grades 4-8) Posttests: 2004-05 ITBS Reading and Math Subtests (for grades 1-8)
Arkansas Benchmarks (for grades 3-8). B. Descriptive design: For the one high school using CL, whole-grade pretest and posttest means on Arkansas Benchmarks, ITBS, Grade 11 Literacy Exam, and Algebra I and Geometry End-of-Course (EoC) exams will be compared to district norms. The purpose will be to assess absolute and relative performance as possible conelates of CL implementation. Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What are the quality, nature, and level of implementation of CL at the 24 schools implementing the program in 2004-05? Phone interviews will be conducted with (a) the LRSD CL Coordinator and (b) a sample of 10 school Technology Specialists (the 1 high school, the 2 middle schools, and a random sample of 7/21 elementary schools). All teachers at the 24 schools will be surveyed so that site-specific data regarding implementation will be available. Observations of CL laboratory sessions will be conducted at a sample of 10 schools (the 1 high school, the 2 middle schools, and 7 of 21 elementary schools). At half of the observed schools (n = 5), a brief (20-minute) student focus group ( = 5 to 7 students) will be conducted to ascertain students perspectives on their experiences in using CL (nature of activities, usefulness, enjoyment, etc.). 2. What is the level of participation in CL by AA students relative to other ethnic groups at the schools involved? Page 10 of 19Student records/archival data for 2003-04 and 2004-05 will be analyzed. 3. What are the perceptions of teachers and Technology Specialists regarding CL program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? This question will be addressed via the Technology Specialist Interview and closed-ended and open-ended items on the CL Teacher Survey. 4. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of CL students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A CL Parent survey will be conducted to address this question via a questionnaire including closed- and open-ended items. Page 11 of 19Summary of CL Instruments and Participants by Evaluation Question ______Evaluation Question Primary Question I Participants Data Sources 1. What are the effects of participation in CL on the achievement of AA students? Students at 23 CL elementary and middle schools and comparison schools Whole grade-level means at the CL high school. ITBS as pretest for Grades K-9 Arkansas Benchmarks as posttest for 3-8) 2004-05 ITBS Reading and Math subtests (grades 1-9 posttests) 2004-05 Grade 11 Literacy Exam (as posttest) 2004-05 Algebra I and Geometry EoC Exams (as posttest) Step 2 Questions 1. What are the quality, nature, and level of implementation of CL at the 21 schools implementing the program in 2004-05? All CL school teachers 10 Technology Specialists (1 high school, 2 middle schools, and 7 randomly selected elementary schools) District CL Program Coordinator 5 student focus groups (1 high school, 1 middle school, 3 elementary schools) 2. What is the level of participation in CL by AA students relative to other ethnic groups at the schools concerned?________________ 3. What are the perceptions of teachers and Technology Specialists regarding CL program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?_______________ 4. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of CL students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? All CL schools All CL school teachers 10 Technology Specialists Parents of CL students Page 12 of 19 CL Teacher Survey (faculty meeting) Technology Specialist Phone Interview District CL Program Coordinator Phone Interview Two-hour CL Laboratory Observations (10 schools: 1 high school, 2 middle schools, 7 randomly selected elementary schools) 20-min. Student Focus Groups (n = 5-7 students), one each at 5 of the 10 observation schools School records/archival data CL Teacher Survey Technology Specialist Interview CL Parent SurveySmart/Thrive Programs Program Description The Smart/Thrive (S/T) program was designed as an intervention for 8*- and 9*-grade African- American students who are lacking the knowledge, skills, and/or confidence required for success in Algebra I. S/T currently (2004-2005) engages approximately 10 percent of the total African- American student population enrolled in Algebra I classes. During the 2003-2004 academic year, 264 students participated, studying pre-algebra for two weeks during the summer (Smart Program) and 10 Saturdays across the school year (Thrive Program). Various local grants have funded this program since 1999. Currently, S/T serves students from all eight LRSD middle schools: Middle Schools Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mablevale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest Number of Teachers 59 58 59 60 57 64 57 55 Number of Students 682 747 688 630 634 873 708 493 Percent African- American Students 82 61 77 82 81 52 57 94 Percent Free/Reduced Lunch Students 86 57 62 70 75 37 47 87 S/T Evaluation Questions and Design A mixed-methods design will be employed to address the research questions as follows: Primary Evaluation Question: 1. Have the S/T programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American (AA) students? A treatment (2 levels)-control student, pretest-posttest design will control for pretest, gender, ethnicity, and SES. Three types of Algebra 1 students will be compared depending on their program enrollment: i. No program ii. Smart program only iii. Both Smart and Thrive programs Pretests: 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 6* and 8* grade Benchmark tests. Page 13 of 19 Posttests: 2004-05 (ITBS) Math Subtests
Algebra I EoC Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What is the level of participation in Smart and Thrive by AA students? Student records/archival data of 2003-04 and 2004-05 will be analyzed. In addition to descriptive information, levels of participation will be gathered as a potential variable for the student achievement analyses. 2. What instructional strategies are used during the tutoring sessions? Approximately five random observation visits will be conducted during the Saturday Thrive Program sessions in 2005. 3. What are the perceptions of S/T Tutors regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A questionnaire will be administered to S/T Tutors. 4. What are the perceptions of Algebra I teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A questionnaire will be administered to Algebra 1 teachers. 5. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses of S/T? A questionnaire will be administered to student participants. A sample of them will also be selected to participate in approximately 3-5 student focus groups, each comprised of approximately 5 students. 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of S/T students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? An S/T parent survey will be conducted to address this question via a questionnaire including closed- and open-ended items. Page 14 of 19 oSummary of S/T Data Sources and Participants by Evaluation Question Evaluation Question Primary Question Participants I Data Sources 1. What are the effects of participation in the Smart and/or Thrive Programs on AA student achievement? Supplemental Questions 1. What is the level of participation in Smart and Thrive by AA students? 2. What instructional strategies are used during the tutoring sessions? 3. What are the perceptions of S/T Tutors regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 4. What are the perceptions of Algebra I teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of S/T students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? All 8'' and 9" grade Algebra I students 2003-2004 benchmark 2004-05 ITBS Math subtests
Algebra I EoC All program participants S/T teachers and students All S/T Tutors All Algebra 1 teachers Program participants Parents of S/T students Page 15 of 19 School records/archival data Qbservations of tutoring sessions S/T Tutor Questionnaire Algebra 1 Teacher Questionnaire S/T Student Questionnaire Focus Groups S/T Parent QuestionnaireYear-Round Education Programs Program Description Year-Round Education (YRE) rearranges instruction and vacations so that they occur throughout the year, for more continuous learning and frequent breaks. YRE has emerged nationally as a way to educate all students better, regardless of ethnic backgrounds, social strata, or academic performance. LRSDs design is a single-track, 45-10 calendar where all students and teachers in the school are in class or on vacation at the same time. (The 45-10 means 45 days in a quarter, then 10 days of intersession/vacation. Intersession is a five-day program and attendance is voluntary.) Currently, five elementary schools are implementing YRE: Elementary Schools Cloverdale Mablevale Mitchell Stephens Woodruff Number of Teachers 26 25 22 39 21 Number of Students 360 257 156 499 235 Percent of Students African- American 77 80 96 95 91 Percent Eligible for Free/Reduced Lunches 89 88 92 90 86 YRE Evaluation Questions and Design Primary Evaluation Question: 1. Has the Year-Round Education (YRE) Program effectively improved and remediated the academic achievement of African-American (AA) students? Whole-school sample: In a treatment vs. control school, pretest vs. posttest design, the analysis will control for pretest scores, gender, ethnicity, and family income (eligibility for free or reduced lunch program). Subsample: Within each YRE school, evaluators will compare achievement gains of students who participate in intersession to predicted gains (based on category of school, pretest scores, gender, ethnicity, and family income). Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What are the quality and level of implementation of intersession instructional strategies? 2. What are the quality and level of implementation of instructional strategies during regular session? Page 16 of 19 o'Evaluators will interview YRE teachers by phone and observe YRE classrooms (during both the regular session and intersession). 3. What is the level of participation in YRE Programs by AA students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? Student records/archival data for 2003-04 and 2004-05 will be analyzed. 4. What are the perceptions of YRE teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? The YRE teacher interview and the YRE teacher survey will address this question via both closed- and open-ended items. 5. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Evaluators will administer a survey to YRE program participants. 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of YRE students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A Parent survey will address this question via a questionnaire including both closed- and open-ended items. Page 17 of 19 'o'Summary of YRE Data Sources and Participants by Evaluation Question Evaluation Question Primary Question: I Participants Data Sources 1. What are the effects of YRE participation on achievement of AA students? Supplemental (Step 2) Questions: 1. What are the quality and level of implementation of intersession instructional strategies? 2. What are the quality and level of implementation of instructional strategies during regular session? 3. What is the level of participation in YRE Programs by AA students relative to other ethnic groups? 4. What are the perceptions of Year Round Education teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of YRE students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? All grades at YRE schools and other elementary schools. Year Round Education intersession student participants within above samples. All YRE teachers Selected teachers and students All YRE schools All YRE teachers YRE students grades 4 and 5 Parents of YRE students Page 18 of 19 Benchmark and ITBS Teacher phone interview Classroom observations School records/archival data YRE teacher interview and survey YRE student survey YRE parent surveyRR January Planning, refining, and consulting with PRE and RR experts
and developing instruments with PRE review. CL Planning, refining, and consulting with PRE and CL experts
and developing instruments with PRE review. S/T YRE Evaluation Schedule 2004-2005 February Begin observations and March-April Survey RR School Teachers, complete RR interview RR. teachers, teacher interviews. Begin observations, phone interview of program coordinator
select tech, specialist & school samples
phone interview of tech, specialist. Planning, refining, Observe Thrive and consulting with PRE and S/T experts
and developing instruments with PRE review. sessions. Planning, refining. Develop instruments and consulting with PRE and YRE specialists. with PRE review. May-June Profile RR achievement
analyze records/archival data analyses. Survey CL Teachers (at Analyze faculty meetings), complete technology specialist interviews and observations
complete student focus groups. Administer teacher, tutor, and student questionnaires
begin focus groups. Administer teacher, tutor, and student questionnaires
begin focus groups. Page 19 of 19 July-September October Analyze achievement data, survey, & interviews. Draft reports for review. PRE review draft reports. November PRE submit reports to LRSD for approval. records/archival data analyses. Complete focus groups and observations
analyze records/archival data. Complete focus groups and observations
analyze records/archival data. Analyze achievement data, survey, & interviews. Draft reports for review. Analyze achievement data, survey, & interviews. Draft reports for review. Analyze achievement data, survey, & interviews. Draft reports for review. PRE review draft reports. PRE review draft reports. PRE review draft reports. PRE submit reports to LRSD for approval. PRE submit reports to LRSD for approval. PRE submit reports to LRSD for approval.Little Rock School District (LRSD) QUARTERLY UPDATE to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and Joshua June 1, 2005 received may 2 7 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PLAINTIFF V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I ETAL., DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ETAL., INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ETAL., INTERVENORS /I Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Instructional Resource Center (IRC) Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 V Jil A. il fi An Individual Approach to a World opKnoivledge May 27, 2005 John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206-1220 Dear Mr. Walker: We received your letter of May 24 as a facsimile on the same day acknowledging your ( receipt of lists of programs from us. Primarily from them, we selected the four programs which Drs. Catterall and Ross are evaluating this year. Your recommendation, in your May 24 letter, to evaluate the 21 Century Community Learning CentersJ iiiniutveirie-osLtso uuos.. rAtXfLtecri udiissLcuussssiinngg IiTt wwiitmh uDrr.. RKoossss aanndd ootthheerrss., we propose to evaluate it rather than PLATO Learning during the coming school year. Because our quarterly update for June 1 has already been printed (which we are delivering to you with this letter), the next update can report this change for next years evaluations. We understand that 21 Century Community Learning Centers will end within I I iw J v/viiiiuujuiy i-zcdriung Centers will end within a year or so at several of the sites you named. Limiting our evaluation to a few sites where the program s support is secure for at least a couple more years makes sense to us. We will keep you informed of our progress and invite your further ideas. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any further comments or questions. Sincerely yours, 1 ? I ) KKaarreenn DeJame^, Ph.D. Director, PRE Ph.D. L. I ill ,1 xc: Mr. Gene Jones & Ms. Marjorie Powell, ODM Mr. Chris Heller, Friday Eldredge & Clark k 810 W Markham OU Little Rod: l-22e-2(iir Ancansar 7
i Little Rock School District (LRSD) QUARTERLY UPDATE to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and Joshua June 1, 2005 n^Fil'^OCKSCHOOLDIS^^ PLAINTIFF V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NOT ET AL., DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ETAL., INTERVENORS K athf.rine knight, ET al., INTERVENORS_ Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Instructional Resource Center (IRC) Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206Introduction the third quarterly written update by the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and its ~ ' ______ 1 -,.1 ________________fko nictnnt This is t - -1----- . . . Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Department, submitted m accordance with the District Courts'2004 Compliance Remedy (Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004, pp. 61-67). The organization of this report is that of the Compliance Remedy
A. LRSD must promptly hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE. B. The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive^pro^mn assessment process which must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSDs curriculum c. D. and instruction program. During each of the next two academic school years (2004-05 and 2005-06), LRSD must outside consultants to prepare four (4) formal step 2 evaluations. hire one or more outside consultants to prepare lour loniwi 4 PRE must (1) oversee the preparation of all eight of these step 2 evaluations, (2) wor closely with Dr. Ross and any other outside consultants . . . and (3) provide the outside consultants with any and all requested assistance and support. . . VUlloUlUvllltO Willi 4*1*^ UllU ----------------------- XX E. Evaluations will contain numbers and grade levels of teachers and administrators who recommended program changes necessary for improved academic contributed data, recommended program changes necessary lor uiipiuvcu atauviuv achievement by African-American students, and brief explanations of how each change F. will increase a programs effectiveness. . PRE must notify the ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of those eight programs In addition, after PRE and Dr. Ross have formulated a comprehensive program assessment process and reduced it to a final draft, PRE must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua at least thirty days before it is presented to the Board for approval ... by December 31, 2004. G PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of the . . . four step 2 program evaluations . . . during the 2004-05 school year and the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2005-06 school year ... to ODM and Joshua on December 1, March 1, June 1, and September 1... H. [ODMs responsibilities.] 1. [Joshuas responsibilities.] J. Four step 2 program evaluations due to October 1, 2006. the Court October 1, 2005 and four more due K. Compliance Report due October 15, 2006. L. [This Compliance Remedy supersedes earlier one.] Page 2Status as of June 1, 2005 A. Hire a highly trained team of professionals. LRSD hired a highly trained team of professionals in 2004 and reported this action in its first quarterly written update, December 1, 2004. This team has continued its duties as described below, in this third quarterly written update. B. Devise and embed a comprehensive program assessment process. At its December 16, 2004 session, LRSD Board of Directors approved the comprehensive program assessment process devised by PRE. The final draft was in Appendix B of the first quarterly written update. Through program evaluation teams, stakeholders (any people who are variously responsible for and/or vitally interested) participate in the LRSDs comprehensive program assessment process. These four teams (one for each step 2 evaluation) formed when the PRE Department and outside consultants commenced designing the step-2 evaluations. The teams met on February 24, March 4 and 18, and May 6 and 20 for dialog on evaluation designs, issues, and progress. A Joshua representative attended May 6, while ODM officials attended February 24, May 6, and May 20. A table of members of the four teams and their affiliations appear in Appendix B of this third quarterly written update. General composition of those attending is in the following table: Meetings of Program Evaluation Teams FebruaryMay 2005 Dates February 24 March 4 March 18 May 6 May 20 Places Stephens Elem. IRC Fulbright Elem. IRC Stephens Elem. Teachers 4 1 3 4 1 Admin 6 3 3 8 4 Parents 1 1 1 2 0 Others 2 2 0 4 1 C. Hire outside consultant(s) to prepare eight formal step 2 evaluations. Credentials of outside evaluators Drs. Catterall and Ross were in this section and Appendix C of the first quarterly written update. They agreed to undertake step 2 evaluations of four LRSD programs during 2004-2005, and D below describes their progress. For step 2 evaluations in 2005-2006, Dr. Ross has identified four 2.7 programs, named below. (Please see Appendix C for his letter stating this.) Page 3Arkansas A+ Schools Network, at Woodruff Elementary School, incorporates the arts in teaching language and mathematics. KnowledgePoints is a Supplemental Educational Service (SES) selected at Bale, Brady, Chicot, Wakefield, and Watson Elementary Schools and offered as an after-school program. PLATO Learning is a computer-based program at the Accelerated Learning Center. Pre-kindergarten (PreK) literacy development will be evaluated in the 31 schools with classes for 4-year-old children. These young students participate in developmentally appropriate and fun lessons and activities intended to nurture essential language skills. Dr. Catterall will evaluate A+, while Dr. Ross will evaluate KnowledgePoints, PLATO Learning, and PreK literacy. Their supporting letters are in Appendix C. Data for schools where these programs operated this year (2004-2005) are in the tables below. Additional schools may participate next year, particularly schools chosen per the school choice option of No Child Left Behind regulations. Schools in these tables which are on the Arkansas School Improvement List are so noted by an asterisk (*). I I Proposed Programs Evaluations 2005-2006 2004-2005 School Data. Schools Number of Teachers Number of Students Perctitr "i SiuJmis -IfricuH- 'inieiican PerreHt of Srudeiirs Lti)
iblefrr b'rtV.Neduced l.tinch Woodruff* I 21 A+ I 235 I Ml I Hh KnowledgePoil ints Bale* Brady* Chicot* Wakefield* * Watson^ 27 28 44 29 34 319 318 536 451 456 82 78 73 78 96 86 81) 86 92 93 ACC PLATO I 17 I 136~~T X I iS These schools are on the School Improvement list. Page 4II LRSD Schools Offering PreK Classes for Four-Year-Old Students School Bale* Baseline* Brady* Carver Chicot* Cloverdale* Dodd Fair Park* Forest Park Franklin* Fulbright Geyer Springs Jefferson M. L. King ,* Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rockefeller* Romine Stephens Terry * Wakefield* Washington* Watson* Western Hills Wilson* Woodruff* No. of Teachers 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 1 2 4 1 1 1 1 No. of Aides 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 Max. Students 40 40 40 20 80 40 40 40 40 60 40 40 40 60 40 40 40 40 20 40 40 40 80 40 40 80 40 20 20 40 Enroll- No. of . <111 ment 38 39 37 20 59 40 36 37 40 55 40 36 40 80 38 40 40 39 20 38 39 39 78 35 39 75 36 37 18 36 AAf 32 32 27 NAt 46 32 11 I'i, 1 52 8 35 5 46 31 27 35 22 6 38 24 31 72 18 29 67 34 20 16 32 84.2 82.1 7.3.0 N 7 78.0 80.0 61.1 5.0 94.5 20.0 97.2 12.5 8! ' hl.3 5<>.4 .30.0 IPi.U 61.5 -u 5 9 2..3 51, 74.4 X9..
94.' 54.1 88.9 88.9 No. of Hispanic 2 1 0 NA 11 6 3 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 3 1 1 2 0 0 1 5 0 1 11 1 1 0 0 0 ('er evDl lliSDHII.. '.3 0.(1 \ \ 18.6 15. 8.3 fi." 0.(1 0.0 > c 5.0 II. C 5.0 5.0
3.1 (1.0 0.0 5.1 .4.8 (1.0 2.9 28.2 2.7 2.8 0.0 0.(1 No. of Per will White 3 5 10 NA 1 2 12 7 36 4 30 1 3^ 13 1 9 3 16 12 0 13 0 6 16 0 9 1 0 1 4 Whii.- 12.8 > .P .4 5.0 33.3 tS,9 90.(1 ' .3 85.0 31..5 5..3 22.5 7.5 41.0 00,0 0.0 3.<.3 :.o 0.0 12.0 2.8 0.0 Pl I < 1 t AA is African American. NA is not available". * These schools are on the School Improvement List of Arkansas Public Schools. In the 2005-2006 school year, Fair Park Elementary converts to a preK center with eight or more classes
while the other elementary schools keep their current preK capacity. Page 5D. PRE (1) oversees the preparation of the step 2 evaluations, (2) works closely with Drs. Ross and Catterall, and (3) assists them. PRE continued working closely with Dr. Steven Ross and his team at the Center for Research in Educational Policy (CREP), University of Memphis, and with Dr. James Catterall of UCLA. Dr. Ross team is conducting three step 2 evaluations of LRSD programs, reported March 1, 2004 Compass Learning (CL), Reading Recovery (RR), and Smart/Thrive (S/T)
while Dr. Catterall completed data collection instruments and instructions for his step 2 evaluation of Year-Round Education (YRE). In this section of this third quarterly written update, PRE reports progress for all four step 2 evaluations. Appendix D exhibits data collection instruments and instructions. Progress on the three evaluations conducted by Dr Ross: CompassLeaming (CL) CL evaluation activities for this quarter included the following
CL Teacher Technology Questionnaire went to all 20 CL Elementary schools on March 9. As of April 27, 17 schools returned them. All seven CL school observations were completed by Drs. Gail Weems and Dan Strahl. All four Student Focus Group Interviews have been completed by Dr. Gail Weems after permission letters were distributed to parents and five to seven fifth-grade students were randomly chosen from the returned permissions. Parent surveys have been returned from all five (randomly selected) schools. Parent participation appears to have been very good. Drs. Deborah Lowther, Gail Weems, and Dan Strahl completed interviews of all lab attendants, technology specialists, district CL Coordinator, and designated principals. Data analysis began after data collection ended in May. Reading Recovery (RR) Dr. Anna Grehan led RR data collection: o o o o o 16 RR teachers were observed by Drs. Melissa Schulz of Ohio State University and Cliff Johnson of Georgia State University in March and April, respectively, in 10 schools. 22 RR teachers returned the Teacher Questionnaire (RRTQ) in 14 schools. 141 non-RR teachers returned the Classroom Teachers Questionnaire (RRCTQ) 86 Parent Survey (RRPS) in English language came from 15 elementary schools, and 9 Parent Survey (RRPS) in Spanish language from 4 elementary schools were collected. Page 6SMART/THRIVE (S/T) The S/T evaluators, coordinated by Dr. Lyle Davis, completed collection of qualitative and survey data in April: They observed six tutoring sessions (2 per day on February 19, March 5, and March 19). They distributed 190 student surveys on March 5 and received 144 completed ones. Two student focus groups met on March 5, and another met on March 19. Their results have been summarized but not yet analyzed. Of 24 S/T teacher surveys, distributed on March 5, 18 were completed and returned. 45 algebra I teacher surveys were distributed March 5 to both S/T and non-S/T algebra I teachers during the school week. Approximately 45 have been returned in roughly equal numbers from non-S/T and S/T teachers. 190 parent surveys went to their homes on March 5, and more were collected during the carnival on April 23. In total, 37 were completed. Dr. Davis group conducted a mentor focus group on April 25 and collected data from it. Progress on the evaluation conducted by Dr. Catterall: Year-Round Education (YRE) YRE evaluation included the following: Review of all existing LRSD reports on YRE. Detailed review of the longitudinal YRE student test-score database, provided by LRSD, and construction of trial models for analysis of longitudinal scores accommodating 2005 scores. Alternative data cells and alternative data formats have been specified for 2005 student longitudinal achievement assessment. Review of 2003 and 2004 student survey data and presentations from participating YRE schools. Planning for 2005 student surveys. Development of the 2005 parent interview protocol and discussion and exploration of work agreements with professional personnel who may conduct parent interviews. PRE sent Dr. Catterall a list of all 4***- and 5'^-grade teachers at YRE schools and a list of parents and students in both YRE and traditional year schools. E. Evaluation will have (1) numbers and grade levels of teachers and administrators who submit data for evaluations, (2) recommended program changes necessary for improved achievement by African-American students, and (3) succinct explanations of how each change will increase its respective programs effectiveness. j The evaluations will address these requirements when prepared for PREs review later this year. Page 7F. Delivery of names of programs to be evaluated and the comprehensive program assessment process to ODM and Joshua. Names of the four programs evaluated during 2004-2005 and the LRSD comprehensive program assessment process were delivered before they were due last year and reported in the first written quarterly update. This third written quarterly update names the four LRSD programs selected for step 2 evaluations during 2005-2006. (Please see C above.) PRE has now notified both ODM and Joshua of all eight LRSD programs selected for step 2 evaluations and furnished both parties with the comprehensive program assessment process per F of the June 30, 2004 remedy by the US District Court (page 65). G. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of step 2 evaluations. Per F of the June 30, 2004 remedy by the US District Court (page 65), PRE submitted its first written quarterly update on December 1, 2004 and its second on March 1, 2005. PRE submits this third written quarterly update before June 1, 2005, to date meeting due dates of this remedy. S' (J i r Page 8Quarterly Update Appendix June 1,2005 Appendices B. Program Evaluation Teams C. Letters of Outside Evaluators D. Data Collection Instruments for Step 2 Evaluations of 20042005 Evaluation Schedule 2004-2005Quarterly Update Appendix June 1,2005 B. Program Evaluation Teams Members Names and Affiliations CompassLeaming (CL) Reading Recovery (RR) SMART/THRIVE (S/T) Year-Round Education (YRE)Quarterly Update Appendix June 1, 2005 Program Evaluation Teams Team Role Team Leader Program Specialist Statistician Programmer______ Technical writer External consultant External consultant External consultant External reviewer PRE reviewer PRE reviewer PRE reviewer Parent & teacher Teacher Principal Program Evaluation Name Karen DeJamette, PhD Travis Taylor________ Jim Wohlleb Ken Savage__________ Deborah Lowther, PhD Dan Strahl, PhD Aaron McDonald Steve Ross, PhD James Catterall, PhD Yvette Dillingham Maurecia M Robinson Ed Williams, PhD Amy Thompson______ Thelma Watson Deborah Mitchell Team: CompassLeaming Position or Title Director of PRE Dept.____________ Instructional Technology Specialist Statistical Research Specialist Programmer Analyst Researcher Researcher Research Coordinator Evaluator & Professor Evaluator & Professor Evaluation Specialist Statistical Research Specialist Statistical Research Specialist Elementary teacher IV Elementary teacher IV___________ Principal Location PRE Info Technology PRE Info services CREP CREP CREP CREP UCLA PRE PRE PRE Fulbright Elem Fulbright Elem Fulbright Elem team Role Team leader Program specialist Program specialist Statistician Programmer______ Technical writer External consultant External consultant External consultant External reviewer PRE reviewer PRE reviewer Parent Teacher Program Evaluation Team: Reading Recovery Name Jim Wohlleb Pat Busbea Linda Dom, PhD Ed Williams, PhD Ken Savage__________ Deborah Lowther, PhD Anna Grehan, PhD Aaron McDonald Steve Ross, PhD James Catterall, PhD Yvette Dillingham Maurecia M Robinson Michelle Bonds-Hall Michelle Dorsey Position or Title Statistical Research Specialist Reading Coordinator Professor Statistical Research Specialist Programmer Analyst________ Researcher Researcher Research Coordinator Evaluator & Professor Evaluator & Professor Evaluation Specialist Statistical Research Specialist Reading Recovery teacher Location PRE Early Child. Ed. UALR PRE Info services CREP CREP CREP CREP UCLA PRE PRE Chicot ElemQuarterly Update Appendix June 1,2005 Program Evaluation Teams (continued) _____Team Role Team leader______ Program specialist Program specialist Statistician_______ Programmer______ Technical writer External consultant External consultant External consultant External consultant External reviewer PRE reviewer PRE reviewer Parent___________ Teacher ____ Program Evaluation Team
SMART / THRIVE Name Maurecia M Robinson Vanessa Cleaver______ Marcelline Carr_______ Ed Williams, PhD Ken Savage__________ Deborah Lowther, PhD Lyle Davis, PhD______ Aaron McDonald_____ Steve Ross, PhD Gail Weems, PhD James Catterall, PhD Yvette Dillingham Jim Wohlleb Rose Cook___________ Tonjuna Iverson Program _____Team Role______ Team leader_________ Program specialist Program specialist Statistician Programmer_________ Technical writer External consultant External consultant External consultant External consultant External reviewer PRE reviewer_______ PRE reviewer_______ Parent_____________ Teacher ______ Position or Title Statistical Research Specialist Math - API Math - API Statistical Research Specialist Programmer Analyst Researcher Researcher Research Coordinator Evaluator & Professor Professor Evaluator & Professor Evaluation Specialist Statistical Research Specialist Reading Recovery teacher Location PRE IRC Math. IRC Math PRE Info services CREP CREP CREP CREP UALR UCLA PRE PRE Parkview Evaluation Team: Year-Round Education Name Ed Williams, PhD Janice Wilson Sophia Parchman Ed Williams, PhD Ken Savage_________ Catterall & Associates Lyle Davis, PhD Aaron McDonald Steve Ross, PhD Gail Weems, PhD James Catterall, PhD Yvette Dillingham Jim Wohlleb________ Diana Layne-Jordan Judy Harbour_______ Position or Title Statistical Research Specialist Principal Assistant Principal__________ Statistical Research Specialist Programmer Analyst Evaluatorr Researcher Research Coordinator Evaluator & Professor Professor Evaluator & Professor Evaluation Specialist Statistical Research Specialist PTA President Grade 5 Location PRE Woodruff Mann Magnet PRE Info services UCLA CREP CREP CREP UALR UCLA PRE PRE Stephens StephensQuarterly Update Appendix June 1, 2005 C. Letters Dr. Steven M. Ross Approval of four 2005-2006 step 2 evaluations Commitment to perform three of them Dr. James Catterall Commitment to perform step 2 evaluation of Ad-THE UNIVERSITY OF Center for Research in Educational Policy MEMPHIS A Tennessee Center of Excellence 325 Browning Hall Memphis, Tennessee 38152-3340 Office: 901.678.2310 Toll-Free
866.670.6147 Fax
901.678.4257 www.memphls.edu/crep May 17, 2005 Dr. Karen DeJamette Director, PRE Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 77206 Dear Dr. DeJamette: I have reviewed the four programs selected for Step 2 evaluations in the 2005- 2006 school year: (a) Knowledge Points, (b) PLATO Learning, (c) Pre-K Literacy Program, and (d) A+. These programs presently or potentially serve large numbers of African American students, but have not yet been evaluated with regard to implementation or student achievement. I believe that these are appropriate choices for the Step 2 evaluations. 1 look forward to working with you and PRE personally on the first three studies (a-c). Please feel free to contact me if any additional information is needed. Sincerely, Steven M. Ross, Ph.D. Faudree Professor and Director Center for Research in Educational Policy A Tennessee Board of Regents Institution An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action UntversKyUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES BERKELEY DAVIS IRVINE LOSANCEl.ES RIVERSIDE SANDIECO * SAN FRANCISCO SANTA BARBARA SANTA CRUZ UCLA Graduate School of Education & Information Studies P.O. Box 951521 Los Angeles, CA 90095-1521 May 10, 2005 Karen DeJamette, Ph.D. Director, Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 Dear Dr. DeJarnette: The A+ Program, along with certain other arts-academics programs, has shown effects on motivation and learning of elementary students who read below grade level and are otherwise at-risk of school failure. The A+ program now operating in the Little Rock School District may be making contributions to the Districts interest in improving achievement of its African-American students. 1 have extensive experience with evaluating curricula that serves to integrate the arts and academic learning. 1 have some familiarity with the A+ program particularly - its history and previous efforts to assess effects of its large scale projects, 1 will be pleased to join you in designing and implementing an formal evaluation of this program during the 2005-2006 school year. Sincerely, dProff les S Catterall, Ph.D. 'rofessor, Graduate School of Education & Information Studies (310)825-5572/455-078.5 Fax:(310)455-0795 E-mail: jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu I-J Quarterly Update Appendix June 1, 2005 D. Data Collection Instruments for Step 2 Evaluations of 20042005 CompassLeaming (CL) District Coordinator Interview Protocol Middle and High School Principal Interview Protocol Technology Specialist Interview Protocol Lab Attendant Interview Protocol Parent/Guardian Consent Form Encuesta para los padres de fam ilia Parent Survey Survey of Computer Use Student Focus Group Protocol Teacher QuestionnaireLittle Rock School District (LRSD) CompassLearning-. District Coordinator Interview Protocol District Coordinator Responsibilities What are your primary responsibilities with regard to CompassLearning? How were you chosen as the district coordinator for the CompassLearning program? Level of Implementation How long has CompassLearning been implemented in LRSD? Why is the use of CompassLearning determined by each school rather than by the district? What guidance was given to schools as to which students should use CompassLearning, when they should use it, and how they should use it? In what document(s) would these guidelines be found? To what degree are teachers actively involved with using CompassLearning resources (e.g., student performance reports) to improve teaching and learning activities? How do you obtain this type of information? To what degree do school administrators use CompassLearning reports as the basis for school improvement efforts? How do you obtain this type of information? How do you obtain this type of information? To what degree do district administrators use CompassLearning reports as the basis for school improvement efforts? How do you obtain this type of information? Evaluation of the Software How would you evaluate the CompassLearning software and the support provided by the vendor? What are the strengths of the CompassLearning product? What are the weaknesses of the product? Nature and Quality of Implementation How would you evaluate the way in which CompassLearning has been implemented in the district? What are the best aspects of how the district and its schools have implemented the CompassLearning program? In what ways could the implementation process be improved? How and to what extent is CompassLearning integrated into the curriculum? What are the Districts goals with regard to the CompassLearning program? When and how are those goals evaluated? How does CompassLearning fit in with other LRSD initiatives being implemented? How is equitable student access to CompassLearning ensured? How is appropriate implementation of CompassLearning activities ensured? Support What types of CompassLearning training and support have been requested from and/or provided by the district? Overall Overall, what are the strongest aspects of the CompassLearning Program in the LRSD? Overall, what are the weakest aspects of the CompassLearning Program in the LRSD? To what degree do you think use of CompassLearning has increased (or decreased) student learning? Do you think your district should continue using CompassLearning? Why?Little Rock School District CompassLeaming: Middle and High School Principal Interview Protocol Past Use of CompassLeaming How many years did your school use the CompassLeaming program? What was your overall impression of the program? How was the program implemented? Where did students most frequently use the program? Which students used the program? How frequently did they use it? How were teachers involved? Why did your school quit using CompassLeaming? Current Program Is your school currently using an integrated learning system? If no, why not? If yes, o o o o Which one? What are your overall impressions of the new program? In what ways is the new program better than Compass? In what ways is the new program worse?Little Rock School District CompassLeaming: Technology Specialist Interview Protocol Technology Specialist Responsibilities What are your primary responsibilities with regard to CompassLeaming? How were you chosen for your position? Who, besides you, provides technical support for the schools? How do their responsibilities differ from yours? Evaluation of the Software How would you evaluate the CompassLeaming software and the support provided by the vendor? What are the strengths of the CompassLeaming product? What are the weaknesses of the product? Implementation How long has CompassLeaming been used at your school? How would you evaluate the way in which CompassLeaming has been implemented in your school? What are the best aspects of how your school has implemented the CompassLeaming program? In what ways could the implementation process be improved? How and to what extent is CompassLeaming integrated into the curriculum? At your school, which students use the CompassLeaming system? When do they use it? How do they use it? What aspects of the CompassLeaming program do teachers most frequently use? Customizing tests, generating reports? To what degree are teachers actively involved with using CompassLeaming resources (e.g., student performance reports) to improve teaching and learning activities? To what degree do school administrators use CompassLeaming reports as the basis for school improvement efforts? How is equitable student access to CompassLeaming ensured? How is appropriate implementation of CompassLeaming activities ensured? Technical Aspects and Support Where is CompassLeaming used in your school? Classrooms? Computer labs? Library or media center? How would you rate the capacity of your schools computers and networking to fully implement the CompassLeaming program? Specifically with regard to the server, student computers, and teacher computers. What process is used to solve technical problems related to CompassLeaming? About how long does it typically take for the problems to be resolved? What types of CompassLeaming training and support has been requested and/or provided to your school by the District? By the vendor? By others? Overall Overall, what are the strongest aspects of the CompassLeaming Program? Overall, what are the weakest aspects of the CompassLeaming Program? To what degree do you think that CompassLeaming has increased or decreased student learning? Do you think your school should continue using CompassLeaming? Why?Little Rock School District CompassLearning: Lab Attendant Interview Protocol Lab Attendant Responsibilities What are your primary responsibilities with regard to CompassLearning? How were you chosen for your position? Who, besides you. provides technical support for the schools? Evaluation of the Softvyare How would you evaluate the CompassLearning software and the support provided by the vendor? What are the strengths of the CompassLearning product? What are the weaknesses of the product? Implementation How long has CompassLearning been used at your school? How would you evaluate the way in which CompassLearning has been implemented in your school? What are the best aspects of how your school has implemented the CompassLearning program? In what ways could the implementation process be improved? How and to what extent is CompassLearning integrated into the curriculum? At your school, which students use the CompassLearning system? When do they use it? How do they use it? What aspects of the CompassLearning program do teachers most frequently use? Customizing tests, generating reports? To what degree are teachers actively involved with using CompassLearning resources (e.g., student performance reports) to improve teaching and learning activities? To what degree do your school administrators use CompassLearning reports as the basis for school improvement efforts? How is equitable student access to CompassLearning ensured? How is appropriate implementation of CompassLearning activities ensured? Technical Aspects and Support Where is CompassLearning used in your school? Classrooms? Computer labs? Library or media center? How would you rate the capacity of your schools computers and networking to fully implement the CompassLearning program? Specifically with regard to the server, student computers, and teacher computers. What process is used to solve technical problems related to CompassLearning? About how long does it typically take for the problems to be resolved? What types of CompassLearning training and support has been requested and/or provided to your school by the District? By the vendor? By others? Overall Overall, what are the strongest aspects of the CompassLearning Program? Overall, what are the weakest aspects of the CompassLearning Program? To what degree do you think that CompassLearning has increased student learning? Do you think your school should continue using CompassLearning? Why?Parent/Guardian Consent Form Dear parent or guardian, As part of a study conducted by the Center for Research in Educational Policy, The University of Memphis, and endorsed by the Little Rock School District, we are requesting permission for your child to participate in a group interview of 5 to 7 students from your childs school. During the group interview (focus group), a trained researcher will ask your child questions regarding his/her participation in the CompassLeaming (computer lab) program. The questions are designed to help us find out how well the CompassLeaming program is helping to improve student learning. The focus group should take approximately 20 minutes and will only pertain to the computer lab or CompassLeaming program that your child participates in. The focus group will be conducted during a computer lab session. Individual responses to the questions will not be seen by anyone at the school, and the identity of individuals participating in the focus group will remain confidential. The responses to the focus group will be reported together in summary form to school personnel. Please note that your child is not required to participate in the focus group. Your permission is required to participate. If you give permission, please have your child return the completed form to his/her school. If you have questions you may contact Dan Strahl, Project Manager, The Center for Research in Educational Policy, The University of Memphis, toll free at 866-670-6147. I give my permission for my child, group as described above. (Childs Name) , to participate in a focus Signed Date (Parent or Guardian)Distrito escolar de Little Rock: Encuesta para los padres de familia sobre CompassLearning Estimado Padre de familia /Tutor: Quisieramos conocer que op ma acerca de que sufs) hijo(s) utilice(n) e! programa CompassLearning (e! programa que sufs) hijofs) utiHzafn) en e! laboratorio de computadoras). Strvase tomar unos minutos para completar la siguiente encuesta. Solo complete 1 funa) encuesta si tiene mas de un hijofa) en e! distnto escolar. Instrucciones: Encierre su respuesta en circulo o complete la informacion solicitada en el espacio en bianco. No coloque su nombre en la encuesta. Comparta con nosotros sus opiniones honestas para ayudar a mejorar este programa. Informacion acerca de su(s) hijo(s) Encierre en circulo los niveles de su(s) hijo(s): K 1 23456789 10 11 12 Encierre en circulo la etnia de su(s) hijo(s): Caucasico(s) Afroamericano(s) Hispano(s) Asiatico(s) Mestizo(s) Programa de laboratorio de computadoras (CompassLearning) iConoce usted acerca del programa de laboratorio de computadoras (CompassLearning) en la escuela de su(s) hijo(s)? I Si No S
la respuesta es si, sirvase responder las preguntas restantes. Si la respuesta es no, sirvase hacerque su hijo(a) entregue la encuesta a su profesor(a). tComo se entero de las actividades del laboratorio de computadoras? Escuela Profesor(a) Mis hijos Otros padres de familia / amigos iQue entusiasmo muestra(n) su(s) hijo(s) con el laboratorio de computadoras? Mucha___________Poca__________Ninguna_______No esta seguro__________________________________________ tCree usted que el tiempo en el laboratorio de computadoras es una parte importante de la educacion de su(s) hijo(s)? Si Ligeramente No No esta seguro cCree usted que el uso del laboratorio de computadoras ha mejorado en su hijo(a)
el interes en la escuela? aorovechamiento en la lecture y matematicas? Si Si Ligeramente Ligeramente No No No esta seguro No esta seguro Sus comentarios acerca del programa de laboratorio de computadoras (CompassLearning): j Responda en el espacio en bianco y utilice el reverso de la hoja si necesita mas espacio. ____ cQue es Io mejor acerca de que su(s) hijo(s) utilice(n) el programa de laboratorio de computadoras? cQue es io peor acerca de que su(s) hijo(s) utilice(n) el programa de laboratorio de computadoras? iQue cambios quisiera ver en el programa de laboratorio de computadoras? J Tennessee Bonn! of Regain hissilufion pn t I M IJ 4 a Etfua! Opporiunin Affirmiitivc Action UniversityLittle Rock School District: CompassLeaming Parent Survey DIRECTIONS use NO t pewa. ON.T DARk MARKS EX O =><= == ERASE COMPLETELY TO CHANGE 2005 f (\nier lor Hescan h in Educaiional Policy. All Righls lie-ien eil. Dear Parent/Guardian: We would like to know what you think about your child or children using the CompassLeaming program (the program your child or children work on in the computer lab). Please take a few minutes to complete the H ^11 IC piu^iaill JUUl VIIIIU VI VIIIIUIVII vvs^iix wn m iiiw wa-/11 j-/wvwi ........................................................................- - r Bl following survey. Only complete 1 (one) survey even if you have more than one child in the school district. Directions: - Indicate your response or fill-in the requested information in the space provided. - Do not put your name on the survey. - Share with us your honest opinions to help improve this program. Information about your Child/Children Indicate the grade levels of your child/children. K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Indicate the ethnicity of your child/children. Caucasian African-American Hispanic Asian Multi-Ethnic Computer Lab Program (CompassLeaming) Do you knotw about the computer lab (CompassLeaming) program at your child's/children's school? Yes No If Yes, please answer the remaining questions. If No. please have your child return the survey to his/her teacher. I = How did you learn about the computer lab activities? School Teacher My kids other parents/friends How excited do your child/children get about using the computer lab? A lot Some Not at all Not sure Do you think time in the computer lab is an important part of your child's/children's education? Yes Somewhat No Not sure Do you think use of the computer lab has improved your child's/children's: interest in school? achievement in reading and math? Yes Somewhat No Not sure Yes Somewhat No Not sure Your comments about the Computer Lab Program (CompassLeaming) Please respond in the space provide and use the back of this sheet if more space is needed. " What is the BESTthing about your child/children using the computer lab program?________ H__________________________________________________________________________________________ What is the WORST thing about your child/children using the computer lab program? r . I - I " What CHANGES would you like to see in the computer lab program? k ACL ArytllC '* Tennessee Board of Regents tnsrttnlion M t M r n ! An EqimI Oppormnin Affirinaiire Action Unnersin Page 1 of 2Survey of Computer Use for CompassLearning 2-HOUR DATA SUMMARY FORM DIRECTIONS use no JOeNtXONLV DARK MARKS IB School 2005c ('enterfar Research tn Educational Policy. ______________All Rights Resetved.______________ Observer Name ERASE COMPLETELY TO CHANGE Observer Date Indicate all grade(s) observed. K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2-Hour Begin Time End Total number of classes observed during the 2-hours: [ ] Total number of students using CompassLearning (by ethnicity): Total number of teachers present: African American Non-African American Classroom Teacher(s) Lab Attendant(s) Technology Specialist(s) I Computer Configuration and Use How many computers were available for CompassLearning? One 2-4 5-10 11 or more How frequently did malfunctions occur on computers used for CompassLearning? Never Rarely Occasionally Frequently Extensively Most of the computers used for CompassLearning were: Up-to-date Aging but adequate Outdated/limited capacity During the observation, what percentage of the African American students in the class used CompassLearning? Only a few (less than 10%) Some (about 10-50%) Most (about 51-90%) Nearly all or all (about 91-100%) During the observation, what percentage of the Caucasian students in the class used CompassLearning? Only a few (less than 10%) Some (about 10-50%) Most (about 51-90%) Nearly all or all (about 91-100%) CompassLearning Activities u u il VI s u Indicate the extent you agree with the following statements.____________________ Subject Areas of observed CompassLearning Activities Language Arts Mathematics Reading Science Social Studies Writing Cross-Cultural Types of Questions Students Asked Whiie Using CompassLearning Content area (e g. howto solve a problem, the meaning of a word). Software use (e g. how to log in
how to move to the next section
how to take a test) Computer use (e.g. how to get the mouse or keyboard to work properly) Non-CompassLearning questions (e g. Do I have to sit next to John? Can I go to the restroom?) o z I i S' s u 'R c X UJ Continue to the next page. MEMPHIS. A Tennessee Board of Regents Institution .-In Equal Opportunity - Affirmative Action University Page 1 of 2 bSurvey of Computer Use for CompassLeaming continued CompassLeaming Activities V u V! (3 C Indicate the extent you agree with the following statements.___________________ Types of Instruction Given to Students at the Start of the Lesson Content area review (e.g. reading, math) Software use (e g. how to log in, find correct lesson) Computers use (e.g. locate software, use mouse) Classroom Behavior Rules No instruction given Types of Teacher Activities Teachers continuously moved among students to actively monitor student work and answer questions. Teachers occasionally moved among students to monitor student work and answer questions. Teachers rarely moved among students to monitor student work and answer questions. Teachers remained at one location (e.g. desk) rather than moving among the students. HIGH Level of Student Attention and Academic Focus HIGH level of African American student attention, interest, and engagement while using CompassLeaming HIGH level of NON-African American student attention, interest, and engagement while using CompassLeaming HIGH level of academically focused class time V n ai c t c 3 u c w ui Tennessee Board of Regents Institution MCMl 111,4w Equal Opportunity - Affirmative Action University Page 2 of 2Little Rock School District CompassLearning: Student Focus Group Protocol Nature of the Activities 1. How long have you been using CompassLearning? a. What kinds of activities do you do when using CompassLearning? b. Have you been using it in your classroom or in a lab? 2. 3. 4. What do you think about the amount of time that you spend using CompassLearning? a. Is it enough - or too much? b. Why? What kinds of problems have you experienced when using it? What types of changes would you like to see in the CompassLearning program? Usefulness of CompassLearning 5. 6. 7. 8. Do you think CompassLearning helps you to do better in school? a. Why? Do you think CompassLearning ever makes you do worse in school? a. Why? What do you think are some of the disadvantages to using CompassLearning? What have your parents said about CompassLearning? 9. What have your friends said about using CompassLearning? 10. Which types of students do you think are benefiting the most from using CompassLearning? 11. Which types of students are benefiting the least? Enjoyment of CompassLearning 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Do you like or dislike using CompassLearning? How much? Whats your favorite thing about using Compass? What's your least favorite thing? Would you like to keep on using it or would you like to stop using it? Why? What else can you tell me about using CompassLearning that we havent discussed?Teacher CompassLeaming Questionnaire DIRECTIONS USE NO ZKNOL ONLY ] 2OI>3r Center for Reseanh m Kdiicaiional I'olicy. All Righix Reserved. MAKE DARK MARKS EX <=> cs-o <=> ERASE COMPLETELY TO CHANGE School Name: r 1 Your Ethnicity Caucasian African-American Hispanic Asian Other (Describe) Do you know about the CompassLeaming (computer lab) program at your school? Yes No If YES. please describe your understanding of the CompassLeaming Program in your school, then please answer the remaining survey questions. If NO, please stop here and return the survey when they are collected. Your Gender Male Female Il> s O) O) c o OT in 0) S O) 2 3 o z <*) o O) (0 OT b o> TO <2 b "ct c o th 1. Most of our school computers that are used for CompassLeaming are kept in good working condition. 2.1 can readily obtain answers to questions about CompassLeaming. 3. The use of CompassLeaming has increased the level of student attention, interest, and engagement in learning. 4. Parents and community members support our school's use of CompassLeaming. 5. The use of CompassLeaming has increased student learning and achievement. 6.1 routinely align CompassLeaming with my lessons and the district's standards-based curriculum. 7. Overall, this program seems valuable for improving the achievement of African American students. 8.1 have received enough training to address student learning needs through the use CompassLeaming resources. 9. My computer skills are adequate to access CompassLeaming resources. 10. The administration fully supports teacher use of CompassLeaming resources. 11.1 routinely customize CompassLeaming activities to meet the individual needs of students. 12. Our school has a well-developed plan that guides the CompassLeaming program. 13.1 routinely provide academic review of content covered during student use of CompassLeaming. 14. Teachers in this school are generally supportive of the CompassLeaming program. 15.1 routinely modify my instructional practices on the basis of student performance in CompassLeaming. 16. The use of CompassLeaming has improved the quality of student work. 1 Directions: Please use the space provided to write a brief response to the following questions. 1. How many years of experience do you have with CompassLeaming? 2. Circle the grade level(s) you currently teach that use CompassLeaming: Years 8 6 7 4 5 2 3 K 1 3. How are the subject areas and performance levels of CompassLeaming activities selected for each of your students? V J r- It DU IC Tennessee Board of Regents Institution M C MI II lO Jn Equal Opportunity - Affirmative Action University Page 1 of 2Teacher CompassLearning Questionnaire continued c 0) CT P E o 2 <D Vi fM <u o z 4. How frequently do you use the followingCompassLearning reports ? Whole Class Individual Student Class by Ethnicity Class by Gender Other _____________________________ 5. a. If you use CompassLearning reports, what is your primary reason? b. If you do NOT use CompassLearning reports, what is your primary reason? 6. What are the strongest aspects of the CompassLearning Program? 7. What are the weakest aspects of the CompassLearning Program? 8. Do you think your school should continue using CompassLearning? Why? Yes No 1 iPk jryiJIC Tennessee Board of Regents Instrniiion M t M r n 10 tn F.gal Opporltinin - Af/irmaltve Action L'ntrersity Page 2 of 2 n i L I I iQuarterly Update Appendix June 1,2005 D. Data Collection Instruments for Step 2 Evaluations of 20042005 Reading Recovery (RR) Implementation Assessment Instrument Teacher Questionnaire Teacher Questionnaire Demographic Information Classroom Teacher Questionnaire (K-3) Parent Survey Cuestionario de recuperacion de lectura para los padres de familialittle rock public schools program evaluation READING RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT School Observer Reading Recovery Teacher # Date Student Gender Student Ethnicity Time In Time Out I. Please check: Observed: O Not Observed: N II. Please rate each of the following items in terms of the quality of implementation by using the appropriate number according to the folloz/ing scales: Quality 1 = Poor or unacceptable
2 = Below average in comparison to other programs observed
3 = Above average in comparison to other programs
4 = Meets nearly all standards of program quality. O N DNA Quality o O "S z " o z (O a O < Q Reading Recovery Program Components o o Q. o 2 O 0) 5 O) o S 3 o < w "s 5 = S w (A Reading familiar stories___________________________________________________ Reading a story that was read for the first time the day before - incorporates running record ______________________________________________________ Working with letters and /or words using magnetic letters___________________ Writing a story__________________________________________________________ Assembling a cut-up story__________________________________________________ Introducing and reading a new book Overall rating: Follows the Reading Recovery lesson frameworksI. Pleasecheck: Observed: O Not Observed: N II. Please rate each of the following items in terms of the quality of teacher instructional strategies by using the appropriate number according to the following scales: Quality 1 = Poor or unacceptable
2 = Below average in comparison to other programs observed
3 = Above average in comparison to other programs
4 = Meets nearly all standards of program quality. o OBSERVED N NOT OBSERVED Reading Recovery Program Strategies POOR Quality BELOW AVERAGE ABOVE AVERAGE MEETS STANDARDS During tutoring lesson________________________________________________ Appropriate pacing of lesson components___________________________________ Appropriate text selected throughout the lesson___________________ Appropriate prompts are used for scaffolding the child to problem solve______ ChiId is engaged in constructive problem solving________ Echo of focus throughout the lesson ____________________________________ Procedures are adjusted according to childs needs _____________________ Balance of fluency phrasing practice and problem solving____________________ Opportunities to develop phonological awareness within the lesson__________ After tutoring lesson: observer questions and examination of student records Accurate up-to-date records______ Articulates childs strengths and needs______________________________________ Has high expectations for the child__________________________________________ Overall Rating
_________________________________________________Please provide any comments related to the extent or quality of implementation of any of the above components that would elucidate your overall rating. Observer perceptions of Reading Recovery program implementation. 1. Do they Reading Recovery materials (books, magnetic letters, writing, book, etc.) appear to be well organized for each child? _____________________________________________________________________________ 2. Do Reading Recovery teachers appear to be fully supportive of the program? 3. Do administrators appear to be fully supportive of the program? i Does the program receive an adequate allocation of time, material, and other resources? Summary of findings:School Reading Recovery Teacher Questionnaire 2005T- Cenierfor Research in Educational Policy. All Rights Reserved. DlRECTfONS 2PCNCL0M.* make DARK MARRS EX o ERASE COMPLETELY TO CHANGE Indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following items as they are currently reflected in your school. _________ u QO < qo B O s U) < es is B z u u (Q V) 2 P3 (O 5 qc B (Zi 1. 2, 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 1 have a thorough understanding of the school's Reading Recovery program. I have received adequate initial and ongoing professional development/training for implementation of the Reading Recovery program. Our Reading Recovery program has positively impacted student achievement. Because of Reading Recovery, Literacy Group interventions occur for students in grades K-3. Overall, this program seems valuable for improving the achievement of African-American students. Reading Recovery teachers are given sufficient planning time to implement the program. Our school has enough tutors to fully implement its Reading Recovery program. The administration protects the lime for daily uninterrupted Reading Recovery tutoring and O 0 o O H Literacy Small Group interventions. 9. Because of our Reading Recovery program, parents are more involved in the literacy program of B this school. H 10. This school has a plan for evaluating all elements of our Reading Recovery program. 11. Teachers in this school are generally supportive of the Reading Recovery program. H supponivc oi uic nwumg H 12. Ongoing communication exists between Reading Recovery tutors and classroom reading teachers. _ 13. Reading Recovery teachers are encouraged to communicate concerns, questions, and constructive ideas regarding the program. 14. Our Reading Recovery program adequately addresses the requirements of children with special needs. H 15. Reading Recovery teachers participate in the special education referral process to provide early literacy intervention. 16. Because of Reading Recovery, teachers in this school spend more time working together to plan H instruction and review student progress. 17. Reading Recovery monthly meetings (continuing contact) are effective and useful. H 18. Instructional materials (books, assessments, and other resources) needed to implement our Reading H Recovery program are readily available. 19. The faculty, staff, and administration believe that all children can read at grade level or above by the end of third grade. 20. The Reading Recovery program is aligned with state and district reading and language arts standards. Please provide one rating for each of the following items. B 1. To what degree did your school administration support your efforts as a Reading Recovery teacher? I 2. To what degree did your school Reading Coach support your efforts as a Reading Recovery teacher? 3. To what degree does the district support your efforts as a Reading Recovery teacher? 3. 10 wnai uegree uoes inc uibuivi suppun juui viivno iwuwu j I 4. To what degree did your schedule allow the time to routinely monitor first grade students' progress after they were discontinued from Reading Recovery tutoring? ntJ IC Tennessee Board of Begems Instiimion M t MI n I b /In gua
Oppominily - Affirmalree Action University Page 1 of 2 G G G G 0 G G Q G o o o o o O O O O G O O O o Q o G G o o o o o o G G O G O G G o o o o G G G G G G o o o o o O G o O G G o o o o O O o o o 4) K B u s G G G O O G o G G eS | E o (/} <s o o O o o o O O a o Z o o o OReading Recovery Teacher Questionnaire DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION How many years of experience do you have as an employee in this school? How many years of experience do you have working in any school? How many years experiences have you had as a Reading Recovery teacher? O Less than one year 01-5 years 0 6-10 years 011-15 years O More than 15 years O Less than one year 01-5 years 0 6-10 years 011-15 years O More than 15 years O Less than one year 01-5 years 06-10 years 011-15 years O More than 15 years What is the highest level of education you have completed? O Bachelor's O Master's O Master's plus 20 hrs O Education Specialist's O Doctoral What best describes your cuitural background? O Asian or Pacific Islander O American Indian or Alaskan Native O Black, not of Hispanic origin O Hispanic, regardless of race O White, not of Hispanic origin O Multi-racial / Other What are the strongest aspects of the Reading Recovery program? 1 What are the weakest aspects of the Reading Recovery program? 1 I Do you think your school should continue the Reading Recovery program? Why? O Yes ONo JNiVESSnViV LinkjniJlC Tennessee Board of Regents Institution M t MI fl I O' An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action University Page 2 of 2Reading Recovery Classroom Teacher Questionnaire (K-3) DIRECTIONS USCMO JPEJ*a.QM.Y Dark Marks' ] School 2005Z Center for Research in Educational Policy. All Rights Reserved. . ERASE COMPLETELY TO CHANGE Grade Level Please describe your understanding of the Reading Recovery program in your school. DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION How many years of experience do you have as an employee in this school? How many years of experience do you have working in any school? What is the grade level of the majority of children you work with? O Less than one year 01-5 years 06-10 years 011-15 years O More than 15 years O Less than one year 01-5 years 06-10 years 011-15 years O More than 15 years O O o o K 1 2 3 I i What is the highest level of education you have completed? What best describes your cultural background? O Bachelors O Master's O Masters plus 20 hrs O Education Specialists O Doctoral I I O Asian or Pacific Islander O American Indian or Alaskan Native O Black, not of Hispanic origin O Hispanic, regardless of race O White, not of Hispanic origin O Multi-racial! Other T4rOF L i C k 4 D LJ1C Tennessee Board of Regents Institution M U M r 11 li- Equal Opportunity - AJftrmative Action University Page 1 of 2Reading Recovery Classroom Teacher Questionnaire (K-3) (Continued) < 'Sb Indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following items as they are currently | reflected in your school. < s 3 z Of) S o K bO cn Q 5) c o 55 tn I 1.1 have a thorough understanding of this school's Reading Recovery program. H 2. Our Reading Recovery program has positively impacted student achievement. 3. Because of Reading Recovery, Literacy Group interventions occur for students in grades K-3. H 4- Overall, this program seems valuable for improving the achievement of African-American students. 5. Our school has sufficient faculty and staff to fully implement our Reading Recovery program. H . sunicieni lacuiiy ano siaii lo luiiy iinpicniciu uui jvcauiug rcwvwj pugiwu. B 6. The administration protects the time for daily uninterrupted Reading Recovery tutoring and Literacy Small Group interventions. O o o o o o o o O 7. Because of our Reading Recovery program, parents are more involved in the literacy program of this school^ 8. Teachers in this school are generally supportive of the Reading Recovery program. 9.1 routinely modify my classroom reading instructional practices on the basis of student performance in Reading Recovery tutoring and Literacy Small Groups. 10. Teachers are encouraged to communicate concerns, questions, and constructive ideas regarding the B Reading Recovery program. 11. Our Reading Recovery program adequately addresses the requirements of children with special needs. 12. Because of Reading Recovery, teachers in this school spend more time working together to plan instruction and review student progress. 13. The faculty, staff, and administration believe that all children can read at grade level or above by the I end of third grade. o o o o o o O o o o 0 o o o o o o o o o Your Comments: Please respond in the space provide and use the back of this sheet if more space is needed. What are the strongest aspects of the Reading Recovery program? Do you think your school should continue the Reading Recovery program? Why? O Yes No r-" kJCkiDLIIC Tennessee Board of Regents Institution M t M r n IJ Eifual Opportunity - Affirmative Action University Page 2 of 2 1Little Rock School District Reading Recovery Parent Survey 2005V Center for Research in Educational Policy. All Rights Reserved. Dear Parent/Guardian: We would like to know what you think about your child's Reading Recovery tutoring sessions. Please take a few minutes to complete the following survey. Directions: Circle your response or fill-in the requested information in the space provided. - Do not put your name on the survey. ~ Share with us your honest opinions to help improve this program. DIRECTIONS use NO SPENCLONLY : DARK MARKS------------- m' \ ERASE COMPLETELY TO CHANGE Ethnicity of your Child: Information about your child: Caucasian O African-American Hispanic Asian Other Grade OK 1 2 3 Age 5 6 7 8 (Describe Reading Recovery Program Do you know about your child's involvement in the Reading Recovery tutoring program at their school? Yes If YES, please answer the remaining questions. If NO, please have your child return this survey to his/her teacher. No Please describe your understanding of the Reading Recovery tutoring program at your child's school. ' A Tennessee Board of Regents institution I- An Equal Opportunity - Affirmative Action University MEMPHIS. Page 1 of 2Little Rock School District Reading Recovery Parent Survey (Continued) Indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following items as they are currently reflected in your school. If you cannot answer an item, please mark "Don't Know."________________________________________ o o & < 'oa c o CZ3 V s 00 2 1 Z co (A s (N (U OJO co (A 5 ob c o is c/o o 12 "c o O o 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Reading Recovery tutoring has improved my child's reading skills. Learning to read is the highest priority at my child's school. My child enjoys and looks forward to their daily tutoring sessions. I have many opportunities to talk with the Reading Recovery teacher about my child's progress. Because of Reading Recovery tutoring, I believe my child will be successful 03 03 03 CD CD 03 CD CD CD CD CD CD O 03 CD CD CD 03 03 03 CD CD 03 in school. 6. My child reads books at home daily. CD 03 Q CD CD CD CD Your Comments: Please respond in the space provide and use the back of this sheet if more space is What is the BEST thing about your child's involvement with Reading Recovery tutoring program? What CHANGES would you like to see in the Reading Recovery tutoring program? kJCkjtDLIIC Tennessee Board of Regents Institution M U M r n 10 An Equal Opportunity - Afftrmatne /(ction University Page 2 of 2 CD CD 03 03Distrito escolar de Little kock Cuestionario de recuperacion de lectura para los padres de familia Estimado Padre de familia /Tutor: Quisieramos saber cual es su opinion sobre las sesiones guiadas de recuperacion de lectura de su hijo(a). Sirvase tomar unos minutos para completar el siguiente cuestionario. Instrucciones: -- Enciene su respuesta en circulo o complete la informacion solicitada en el espacio en bianco. No coloque su nombre en la encuesta. -- Comparta con nosotros sus opiniones honestas para ayudar a mejorar este programa. Etnia de su hijo(a) Informacion acerca de su hijo(a) Caucasico(a) Afroamericano(a) Hispano(a)______ Asiatico(a)______ Otra___________ Grado Edad K 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 Programa de recuperacion de lectura ^Conoce usted sobre la participacion de su hijo(a) en el programa de clases guiadas de recuperacion de lectura en su escuela? Si No Si la respuesta es si, si'rvase responder las preguntas restantes y luego haga que su hijo(a) entregue el cuestionario a su profesor(a). Si la respuesta es no, sirvase hacer que su hijo(a) entregue la encuesta a su profesor(a). Si'rvase describir su comprension del programa de clases guiadas de recuperacion de lectura en la escuela de su hijo(a). THE UNIVERSITY OF . /rS'll IC Temtessee Bwil of Httgenis Insiiimiott. M t M r H IO- An Equal Oppornmiiy Affirmative At tion University. Pagina 1 de 2 feDistrito escolar de Little Rock Encuesta sobre recuperacion de lectura para los padres de familia (Continuacion) Indique su grado de acuerdo con las siguientes opciones tai como se reflejan actualmente en la escuela. Si no puede responder una opcion, si'rvase marcaria como No sabe.___________________________ <u o (U c E S o o 3 O K3 o 3 3 (U Q I 3 3 O I o V 3 u 3 (/) o c u I CM c c <u E o I o u 3 Vi o X) 3 CZ) O Z I o u. I 1. La clase guiada de recuperacion de lectura ha mejorado las destrezas de lectura de mi hijo(a).___________________ 2. Aprender a leer es la mayor prioridad en la escuela de mi hijo(a).________________________________________ 3. Mi hijo(a) goza y espera con ansias sus sesiones guiadas diarias._______ 4. Tengo muchas oportunidades de hablar con el(la) profesor(a) acerca del avance de mi hijo(a).____________________ 5. A causa de las clases guiadas de recuperacion de lectura, creo que mi hijo(a) tendra exito en la escuela__________ 6. Mi hijo(a) lee los libros en casa a diario. Sus comentarios: Si'rvase responder en el espacio en bianco. Use el reverse de la hoja si necesita mas espacio. iQue es lo MEJOR de la participacion de su hijo(a) en el programa de clases guiadas de recuperacion de lectura? ____________________________________________________________________ /,Que CAMBIOS quisiera ver en el programa de clases guiadas de recuperacion de lectura? TetUKssee Board Regenis Jnsiiiuiimi. M t MI II Io. All Equal Opportuniry Affirmalive Acliou University. Pagina 2 de 2 kQuarterly Update Appendix June 1,2005 D. Data Collection Instruments for Step 2 Evaluations of 20042005 SMART/THRIVE (S/T) Rubric for Observation of Select NCTM Standards in Teaching Mathematics School Observation Measure (SOM) Data Summary Teacher Questionnaire Algebra I Teacher Questionnaire Parent Questionnaire Student Questionnaire Mentor Focus Group ProtocolRUBRIC FOR OBSERVATION OF SELECT NCTM STANDARDS IN TEACHING MATHEMATICS* School Name___ Observation Date, Observer Name____ Extension of SOM # Directions
NCTM Standard: Mathematical concepts, procedures, and connections The teacher
o o o o o Demonstrates a sound knowledge of mathematical concepts and procedures
Represents mathematics as a network of interconnected concepts and procedures
Emphasizes connections between mathematics and other disciplines and connections to daily living
. , Engages students in tasks that promote the understanding of mathematical concepts, procedures, and connections
Engages students in mathematical discourse that extends their understanding of mathematical concepts, procedures, and connections. Emphasizes conceptual understanding over rote learning Demonstrates connections between math and daily living, (or authenticates math in real life). NCTM Standard: Mathematics as problem solving, reasoning, and communication o The teacher
. , Models and emphasizes aspects of problem solving, including formulating and posing problems, solving problems using different strategies, verifying and interpreting results, and generalizing o o o o solutions
Demonstrates and emphasizes the role of mathematical reasoning
Models and emphasizes mathematical communication using written, oral, and visual forms
Engages students in tasks that involve problem solving, reasoning, and communication. Engages students in mathematical discourse that extends their understanding of problem solving and their capacity to reason and communicate mathematically. Engages students in problem solving activities. Demonstrates and emphasizes the role of mathematical reasoning (from yours) NCTM Standard: Promoting mathematical disposition The teacher
a o o o Models a disposition to do mathematics
Demonstrates the value of mathematics as a way of thinking and its application in other disciplines and in society
, Promotes students confidence, flexibility, perseverance, curiosity, and inventiveness in doing mathematics through the use of appropriate tasks and by engaging students in mathematical discourse. , , This one is toucih fora LB Specialist (me)....needs a real math person...in a sentence, how does one develop a math disposition? If I can learn this, years of frustration will melt away (insert smile here). I gathered that we could communicate it in a similar vein to thinking in a foreign language, but I am having a tough time adeguatelv putting it into words. a NCTM Standard: Learning Environments The teacher
. . Conveys the notion that mathematics is a subject to be explored and crated both individually o o o and in collaboration with others
Respects students and their ideas and encourages curiosity and spontaneity
Encourages students to draw and validate their own conclusions. 1o o o o Selects tasks that allow students to construct new meaning by building on and extending their prior knowledge
Makes appropriate use of available resources
Respects and responds to students diverse interests and linguistic, cultural, and socioeconomic backgrounds in designing mathematical tasks
Affirms and encourages full participation and continued study of mathematics by all students. Integrates themes of diversity into mathematical experiences. (????Yuck) Promotes appreciation for math within diverse learning environments (???Yuck yuck).RUBRIC FOR OBSERVATION OF SELECT NCTM STANDARDS IN TEACHING MATHEMATICS NOTES PAGE NCTM Standard: Mathematical concepts, procedures, and connections NCTM Standard: Mathematics as problem solving, reasoning, and communication NCTM Standard: Promoting mathematical disposition NCTM Standard: Learning Environments Source: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1991). Professional standards forteaching mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.DiRECnONS km M/ <. PLEASE 1)0 NOT FOLD OR Sl AlLK THIS FORM. MB .MAM: DARK MARKS fcX EHASF COMM STl l Y TO CHANCiF School Observation Measure (SOM) Data Summary S.M. Hosa, L.J. Smith i: M J. Aibcri
Center for fteivarrh n Educctinnal Piiltcy. The Vnitrrstiy nfMemphi.3 Ail Rights Re^rted. School Name Observer Name: n Date of Observation: SOM # Obser\'er Role/Afilliation
Number of classroom observations comprising this SOM. D\nectxon'. tioe your class-opecifie nofe# to reflect upon the extent to which each of the following its present in the ochttol: Instructional Orientation Direct instruction (lecture) Team teaching Cooperative/coUaborative learning -------------------------- - Individual tutoring (teacher, peer, aide, adult volunteer^^ \ Classroom Organization Ability groups Multi-age grouping Work centers ''t ((7? n uping t (toT individuals or groups) Instructional Strategies Higher level instructional feedback (v^ten or verbal) to enhance student learning Integration of .subject areas (interdisciplinarv/themalic units) Project-based learning ) Use of higher-level questioning strategies * Teacher acting as a coach/facilrtator Parenl/community involvement in learning activi^s < ! : Student Activities Independent seatwork (self-paced worksheets, individual assignments) Experiential, hands-on learning Systematic individual instructioti assignments geared to individual needs) Sustained wriling/composition (seH
elect^ or teacher-generated topics) Sustained reading \ - Independent inquiry/research on the part of students Student discussion Technology Use Computer for instructional delivery (e.g. CAI, drill & practice) Technology as a learning tool or resource (e.g. Internet research, spreadsheet or database creation, multi-media, CD Rom, Laser disk) Assf.ys/npn/ Performance assessment strategies Student self-assessment (portfolios, individual record books) Summary Items High academically focused class time High level of student attention/interest/engagement Rubric for SOM Scoring (0) Not Observed: (1) Rarely: (2) Occasionally: (3) FrxKiuently: (4) Extensively: I I Q Q 'Mil- 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oy O 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 C 0 ' 0 t 0 K S ,l I 2. 2 J'- 2 2~ 1 2 2 2- 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 i s J 3 _ 3 7 3 4 3 - 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 J Strategy was never observed. <)l).sen-ed in nnh- one or two dassc.s. Receives isolated use and/or little time in classes Clearly not a prevalent/cniphasized component of teaching and learning acros.s cla.s.ses. Observed in some classes. Receives minimal or modest time or emphasis in clas,se8 Not a prevalent/cmphaaized comiionent of teaching and learning across classes. Obsened in many but not all classes. Receives substantive time or emphasis in classes A prevalent component of teaching and learning across classes. Observed in must or all classes Receives substantive lime and/or emphasis in classes. A highly prevalent component of teaching and learning across cla.sses. I ,, I O'^ FORM NO F-17021-UM e JU**)** -xw*u*o* WAKI WF3 3102-532-54 3 2 1What are perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts Tell me about Thrive. How would you describe it to a student who asked how you were spending Saturday morning. Why do you think they have the Thrive program? How does Thrive work? Tell me about what you do during your Saturday mornings here. Do you like Thrive? Why or why not. Would you recommend Thrive to other students? Why? Why not? Has what you have learned in Thrive changed how you approach math problems? Have you learned any new ways to study math. Could you tell me about them? What are the effects of participation in the Thrive program? How is Thrive helping you in algebra? o o o PROBE: What makes using a calculator special? PROBE: How do the games help
do they help? PROBE: How do you use what you learn here in your weekly Algebra classes? How do you think you will do on your Benchmark tests (????does this raise anxiety?)...do you think your performance has anything to do with Thrive? Do you like algebra? Math in general? Have you always felt this way? What do you think algebra would be like without Thrive?SMART/THRIVE Teacher Questionnaire DiRFcnoisrs ~ jia n I EX <=> csc=> * o j SSL6SEC.OM?5Jm.TTDai<^>^' Dear SMART/THRIVE Teachers: Please take a moment to answer these questions about the SMART and THRIVE programs. Please do NOT put your name on the questionnaire. Your honest opinions will be important to help , us assess this program.__________________________________________________________________ SMART THRIVE Cj C C3 DIRECTIONS: Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the tollowing items. If you cid not serve as a SMART instructor last summer (summer 200^), then only respond using the Thrive column. If you have no basis to respond, indicate (Don't Know). I Irava received adequate protessxxial devetopmenl to imoiemant -.. thss program, 'r, G IJJ CD I have a thorough undefBtarxSng cf the objectives of sh.a prcgrarr _ Q tf J G2 j) CD The students enjoy the planned acdvttles. < O J CD G3 CD The (ad ity a! which the classes are held is adeq^le. f.h CJ I, L. 3 (Materials (books, copies, equipment) needed tor this program are read ly available. C Zi CD CD GC Tne da ly bnefmg and deCneftng ses&^rts are va. uable. CC c G Cj c:^ - The program has improved my ability to use graphing calculators
~r. L
_ dunng math Instruction. > f C-J The program has Imo roved my students' abflity to use groph ng ( ) (1) catoulatom In their math lessons. 1 (J t?0 3 CD I t') l.-'J -D t.D .1 The program is aligned with state arsd district madi standards. j 1 r 1 ( i CJ C3 The co-leacher (THRIVE) and Mentor (SMART) aporoachas are Pectve instrucbonal .methods (or teaching and reinlox-ng Algebra concapa. fl CJ DEMOGRAPHICS How many total years of teachlrig experience do you have? <1 -5 years C 6- lOyears < 11 -15 years 2 16-20 yea'S 20 or mo'S years Hovr many years have you worked in the THRIVE PfOflram? i 1 year G 2 years > I 3 yea'S ~i 4 years J 5 or more years If you have worked with the SMART program, for how many years? 1 year G 2 years T T 3 years I 4 years 5 or more years What is your eltnicfty? ' Caucas'an A'rican-American : I Hispanic . 2 Asan j Muti-E-Jnic C? Other J J Continue to page 2. MuMi nD A/Rn>wa:7r Araos Page 1 of 2 SMART/THRIVE Teacher Questionnaire Continued What SMART/THRIVE strategies do you use In your classroom? 1 ! What are the most/toast beneficial aspects ol the professional development component of SMART and/or THRIVE. i t L Ara there any additional comments that you would like to make about the THRIVE Program? 1 If you were a teacher for SMART during the past summer, ere there any additional comments that you would like to make about the SMART Program?__________________________________________________________________ Thank you (or your input! rhi.s'-'EJjITf MEMPHIS A TrrotcUcr hutOMliiM Page 2 of 2* DTBEC71O5 Algebra I Teacher Questionnaire _ A .A f"..) . _ TAB . J Ql. B *A tJC o e=-sa => Dear Algebra I Teacher Please take a few minutes to complete the following survey. We would like to know what you think about the SMART and THRIVE programs. Thank you for your time and attention. - Please do NOT pul your name on the questionnaire. - Your honest opinions will be important to help us assess this program. Please enclose your completed questionnaire in the attached pre-paid envelope and mail by March 18. 2005. Piease briefly descnbe your undefstanding of :hG SMART Program Please briefly describe your understanding of the THRIVE Program: SMART THRIVE l i73 G' Z~J DIRECTIONS
Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following flems related to the Smart and Thr.ve Programs. If you do na have a basis to respond, please bubble in 'Doni Krxjw.' The program has..._________________________ Positvely impacted student ach evemen: in math He oed dose tne achievement gap between African G3 American and Caucasian stuoerts ____________ He ped students become more confdem of meir ab' it-es G-i in Algebra________________ __________ ___________ _ Effectively enab ed studerTiS to use technology to solve Algebra problems__________________________ Fadliiated students' meaningful unoerstandirg of aisetei'c gpncepa------------------------ ----------------- GD Gj Ej "~i Gj CJ L-j GJ Ci Z O X'! ftiftUi ^faiwWMMXts^ hjiiry. r < I Q I t 1 j , Ohered me strateg es that I use in my own classroom O Continue to page 2. k jQk 4 r^ssn^aee bfjcrd MtMl nl^ I'lU^rna) Page 1 or 2 Algebra I Teacher Questionnaire Continued DEMOGRAPHICS What is your gender? What is your ethnicity? How many years of teaching I Have you worked for ths SMART
:T: Male CT Fema'e LJ Caucasian O African-American I ' Hispanic G Asian MuKl-Eihnic experience do you have? F" 1-5 years 3 6-10 years i 11 -15 years 2? 16-20 years (2i more than 20 years Of TTiRIVE programs at the past? | i Yes O No I What do you see as the most effective aspects of the SMART and/or THRIVE Programs? What do you see as the least effective aspects or areas in need of improvement? Thank you for your inputl "
LHV?FTfCr MEMPHIS A RfftKV [n2ri:^ien An Eqaai Opp>^Janin AcJtvn bMvtntt. Page 2 or 2SMART/THRIVE Parent Questionnaire tHRCT!C^5' .VI ' Dear ParenVGuardian
Your child has participated in either the SMART and/or THRIVE program and we would like your impressions of the programs. Please take a moment to answer these questions about the programs. Please DO NOT put your name on the questionnaire. Your honest opinions will be important to help us assess this program. Please give the completed form to your child to return lo the next THRIVE class. What is the gender of your child? f ,i Mate O Female P ease tel' us yt/ur i'lipression of .he THRIVE p'ojrain What do yo.. see as
ak ng olaoe dt.iirg ihc sess arc? What is the ethnicity of your child? G Caucas an i ' A'rican-Amercar G' Hispanic i._ Asian ~ Mjlti-Elnnic O Other Please indicate your agreement with the following items related lo tlie THRIVE Progiam. _______ H 1, The teachers in this program ma^e my Ofld tees that ha/sho can succeed. Because of this program, my cniid is more mofvated to compieie a-^ebra homework. 1 i 3. Thia program has hsfped improve my chiJds attrtude about math. a 4.1 am comlonab e having my crTd aitand classes on Saturdays. H 5. Because of tfiis orogram. I have seen an improvement In my child's Algebra I grades. I 6. Overall. I th-hk this is a good program._______________________________________ T. How dd you find out about THRIVE?_____________________ __________________ , ( i C, ( J < C .z~!. T3 . I 1 i. J 8. What oo you tike about the THRIVE program? I 9. What, if Miythkig. woukt you change about the THRIVE program? f------ ------ - 10. Was transportation a problem? Please explain. If your child attended SMART last summer, please respond to the following Hems. If your child has NOT attended SMART, please stop here and send this form with your child to the next THRIVE session. 1 I SMART/THRIVE Parent Questionnaire Continued P ease Id us your i''i[jcssio'i cl IIic SMART pro
jra-n. 'I d.3 yyj S2e as tak nc
olact- (lir ng (lie s
SIOIIS? 1 I i I J Please indicate youi agreement SMART Program. ilh tlie loitowing items relaleti to Ilie 1, Became c< tf^TXDgwn, my cniW fen WWshe oouid sucxeed In Math. 2. The summer classes *ere easy tor my child to atterd. 3. This program helped improve my chfitfa arttode abosA Main, 4. I am comforlab havng my cnild anerxJ c-asses during the summer. 5. TWs program <gd a pood job of fxaparihg jny child (or begmning Atgetxa Hn the faB. 8. Hoim dM you find out a&oot SMART?___________________________________ L 7. Wa did you like ifecwt 8MAHT? 8. What, if an
iTiiiu?. !, wotrfd you chffixy about SMART? 9. Was tranaponation a prooletn? Plaaae expialn. ! I, 0^.0 -. O ' X ! I t ( 3 o : g Thank you (or your input! Please send this form with your child to the next THRIVE session. p.T LH.flSrV MEMPHIS A rfKKfUrt bfiarit of As /.pr-* Artioii L'-Kj^mity Page 2 of 2SMART/THRIVE Student Questionnaire DiHKrnoxjT WAXC UAjtXt 2005^ Ceobtr^^ UtitNffvh rt CdasiXiiWii P-sitf)- aS Dear Student: Please take a few minutes to complete the following survey. We would like to know what you think about THRIVE. Thank you lor your time and attention. - Please DO NOT put your name on the questionnaire. -- Your honest opinions will be important to help us assess this program. What Is your age? j What is your gender? O Male O Fema'e What is your ethnicity? f ' Cairasian r.. Afca'^Araccin Hsqarw LJ Asiar? J J MuR>-Eirr: 1 O O(fiaf .9 Ploabc inuicaie tiie exicnl to Lvhicti you agiee will: the {ollov.'irig items related to tlic THRIVE Program. 1. 2. 3. 4. I 5. H 6. 7. 8. 9. to. Because of THRIVE, I have learned how to use a calculator to help solve algebra problems. THRIVE makes algebra more enjoyable. THRIVE has helped me get good grades in Algebra. I think I will Cto well on the Algebra Benchmark Exam because ol THRIVE. tn THRIVE, I have learned how algebra can be used in real life. THRIVE has made me more confident about math. My THRIVE teacher helps me with problems I am having in my algebra class. I feel comfortable asking quesbons In THRIVE class. Team competitions make THRIVE classes fun. What do you like about THRIVE?__________ ________________________ fU L*r (Z) 3 P' I J '3 CD pl O rj <_L> I I f::) co I - r- C
C' L- ' L-- I. ' L. 3 n r I 11. 'What woutd you change about theTTifflVE progratnT 12. 13. If THRIVE has helped you, describe HOW H helped you How is THRIVE different from your regular Algebra I class? ! If you DID NOT attend the SMART Program last summer, STOP HERE. rr you DID attend SMART last summer, go to the next page. SMART/THRIVE Student Questionnaire Continued Complete (his seclicn CJNLY il you weio enrolled in SMART ou'iiiy the summer of 2G04. 1. SMART helped me remember the math skills I learned last school year. C'i 1 2. SMART made algebra more fun. 3. In SMART, we learned how to use math to solve real-life problems. c'-5 L 4. I was motivated to go to my SMART class Airing ths summer. 5. Because of SMART, I was prepared to begin Algebra I in the fall. n GJ (?) 6. What do you like about SMART? 7. What would you change about the SMART program? 8. It SMART helped you, describe HOW. Thank you for your input! MEMPHIS Aa UntvffMr, ) 03 G CO KI G I
I V} t ' l I Page 2 of 2 SMART Mentor Focus Group Protocol Due to the small number of mentors, all mentors will be invited to attend the focus group. The focus group sessions will be tape-recorded only, no video-taping, and mentors will be asked not to give their names. What are perceptions and perceived impacts of participating mentors regarding SMART impacts? Tell me about SMART. How would you describe it to a student who asked you what it was? How does the mentoring work? Tell me about what you do for SMART. Do you think SMART is helping students? If so, how? o o Prompt: Do you think it is improving their math skills? Prompt Do you think it is improving their attitude toward math?: Would you recommend SMART to other students? Why? Why not? What have you learned through working with SMART?Quarterly Update Appendix June 1,2005 D. Data Collection Instruments for Step 2 Evaluations of 20042005 Year-Round Education (YRE) Teacher Survey Student Survey Parent SurveyLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Student Survey Extended-Year Schools Please bubble in your opinion of the statements listed as they relate to the extended-year school project, comparing your school situation before extended-year school began. -Use a No. 2 pencil only -Fill in a bubble completely -Erase completely to change -Do not fold or staple I No Opinion [ I Disagree Agree 1. I have been more interested in my education this year. a o 2. I like having a number of short vacation periods. o J 3. 1 think I have learned more on the extended year calendar than I did in the regular 9-month calendar. o 4. The extended-year-educational program should be offered to all Little Rock School District students. a 5. My teachers have been more patient and helpful. 6. I have had more time to learn and time to get extra help when I've needed it. 7. I look forward to coming to school. J 8. I have liked the intersessions. 9. My parents like the extended-year program. o 10. I want my school to continue with this program. 11. Intersession has helped me be a better student. o (Answer #11, only if you have attended at least one intersession) School Cloverdale Mabelvale _> Mitchell _ Stephens Woodruff Grade r 3rd 7 4th 3 Sth Gender Male Female Ethnicity Black White OtherLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PARENT SURVEY FOR EXTENDED-YEAR SCHOOL -Use a No. 2 pencil only -Fill in bubble completely -Erase completely to change -Do not fold or staple A. Number of Children in Extended-Year I r B. Grade School 1 2 3 4 or more K 1 2 3 4 5 Please indicate the grade level(s) of each of your children. C. Other Children Please indicate if you have other children attending school on a regular August to May school calendar. O Elementary O Middle School Senior High D. School Cloverdale Mabelvale Mitchell Stephens Woodruff O o o o o o a O O 1 r E. Race F. Gender O Black O White C, other O Male O Female I No Opinion I Disagree Agree 1. My children show a greater interest in their educational program. Please bubble in your opinion of the statements listed as they relate to the extended-year school project, comparing your school situation before extended-year school began. [ O 2. My children like having a number of short vacation periods. O 3. A wider variety of educational programs has been provided for my children. 4. My children have achieved at a higher level than in their previous 9- month school. O 5. Our personal family life activities such as church, ...__X AHorfon o I./UI uciownw ----- .er X J scouts, clubs, etc., have not been effected. 6. My children have attended one or more intersessions this year. O 7. This program should be expanded to other schools in this district on an optional basis. I 8. I want my children to continue in this program.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Teacher Survey Extended-Year Schools Please bubble in your opinion of the statements listed as they relate to the extended-year school project, comparing your school situation before extended-year school began. -Use a No. 2 pencil only -Fill in a bubble completely -Erase completely to change -Do not fold or staple I 1 1. 2. 3. I No Opinion [ I Disagree Agree My students show a greater interest in their educational program. My students like having a number of short vacation periods. A wider variety of educational programs has been provided for my students. 4. My students have achieved at a higher level than they would have in their previous 9-month school calendar. 5. Parents are more involved in their children's education on the extended-year schedule. 6. This program should be expanded to other schools in this district on an optional basis. 7. 8. 9. 7) O O a 3 I want my school to continue with this program. My students benefit from their intersession more than they have in their past regular summer school experiences. The extended-year-educational schedule provides continuity in academic instruction and more time on task. 10. The extended-year-educational schedule has been better for my attitude and stress reduction. 11. The absence of a long summer break reduces the need to reteach skills and rules. 12. Teachers benefit from the opportunity to earn stipends during optional intersession employment. School Cloverdale Mabelvale Mitchell Stephens Woodruff Gender Male Female o o I j Ethnicity Black White Other ilRR January Planning, refining, and consulting with PRE and RR experts
and developing instruments with PRE review. CL Planning, refining, and consulting with PRE and CL experts
and developing instruments with PRE review. S/T Planning, refining, and consulting with PRE and S/T experts
and developing instruments with PRE review. YRE Planning, refining, and consulting with PRE and YRE specialists. Evaluation Schedule 2004-2005 February Begin observations and interview RR teachers. Select technical specialist & school samples, observe classes, interview program coordinator & tech, specialist by phone. Observe Thrive sessions. Develop instruments with PRE review. March-April Survey RR School Teachers, complete RR teacher interviews. Survey CL Teachers (at faculty meetings), complete technology specialist interviews and observations
complete student focus groups. Administer teacher, tutor, and student questionnaires
begin focus groups. Develop instruments with PRE review & review archival data. May-June Profile RR achievement
analyze records/archival data analyses. Analyze records/archival data analyses. July-September Analyze achievement data, survey, & interviews. Draft reports for review. Analyze achievement data, survey, & interviews. Draft reports for review. Complete focus groups Analyze achievement and observations
analyze records/archival data. data, survey, & interviews. Draft reports for review. October Final report due to the Court Oct. 1. Final report due to the Court Oct. 1. Final report due to the Court Oct. 1. Administer teacher, tutor, student questionnaires, lead focus groups, & observe classes. Analyze achievement, survey, & interview data. Draft reports for review. Final report due to the Court Oct. 1.Little Rock School District (LRSD) QUARTERLY UPDATE to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and Joshua September 1, 2005 received AUG 2 9 2005 BESEQREGMWHSjMIflW# LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PLAINTIFF V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 ET AL., DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ETAL., INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ETAL., INTERVENORS Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Instructional Resource Center (IRC) Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206Introduction This is the fourth quarterly written update by the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and its Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Department, submitted in accordance with the District Courts 2004 Compliance Remedy (Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004, pp. 61-67). The organization of this report is that of the Compliance Remedy: A. B. LRSD must promptly hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE. 99 c. D. The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process which must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSDs curriculum and instruction program. During each of the next two academic school years (2004-05 and 2005-06), LRSD must hire one or more outside consultants to prepare four (4) formal step 2 evaluations. PRE must (1) oversee the preparation of all eight of these step 2 evaluations
(2) work closely with Dr. Ross and any other outside consultants . . . and (3) provide the outside E. consultants with any and all requested assistance and support. . 99 F. Evaluations will contain numbers and grade levels of teachers and administrators who contributed data, recommended program changes necessary for improved academic achievement by African-American students, and brief explanations of how each change will increase a programs effectiveness. . . . PRE must notify the ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of those eight programs. In addition, after PRE and Dr. Ross have formulated a comprehensive program assessment process and reduced it to a final draft, PRE must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua at least thirty days before it is presented to the Board for approval ... by December 31, 2004. 99 G. H. 1. J. K. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of the . . . four step 2 program evaluations . . . during the 2004-05 school year and the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2005-06 school year ... to ODM and Joshua on December 1, March 1, June 1, and September 1... [ODMs responsibilities.] [Joshuas responsibilities.] Four step 2 program evaluations due to the Court October 1, 2005 and four more due October 1,2006. Compliance Report due October 15, 2006. L. [This Compliance Remedy supersedes earlier one.] Page 2Status as of September 1, 2005 A. Hire a highly trained team of professionals. LRSD hired a highly trained team of professionals in 2004 and reported this action in its first quarterly written update of December 1, 2004. This team continues its activities, as stated in this fourth quarterly written update. B. Devise and embed a comprehensive program assessment process. The comprehensive program assessment process, devised by the PRE Department and approved by LRSD Board of Directors December 16, 2004, includes school portfolios among a spectr
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.