'Program Planning and Budgeting Process Workshops'' and ''Phonics Instruction Workshop''
B5O5O1O1 05/10/1100 PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING PROCESS WORKSHOPS WORKSHOPS EVALUATION SUMMARY NOTE: The following summary report is designed to assist the ODM staff, and the Court, in preparation for the June 8/9, 1995 LRSD budget hearing. 8/12/94. The final budget hearing on the LRSD FY94-95 budget was held on August 12,1994. During that hearing, the Court addressed some of the deficiencies in the LRSD planning and budgeting processes. At page 77-82 of the hearing transcript, the Judge directed the district to conduct some staff development on the budget process and to contact ODM concerning those workshops. Further, the Judge indicated that she would follow up with a written order to that effect. 8/26/94. Bill Mooney started preparing a design and material for an ODM training session on the Program Budget Document (PBD) and concepts for recommending LRSD workshops. 8/30/94. Ann Brown and Bill Mooney met to discuss initial ideas on the ODM training and what to recommend to LRSD for their workshops. 9/2/94. Bill Mooney conducted training on the PBD for the ODM staff. Lessons learned went into recommendations for LRSD workshops. 9/12/94. Russ Mayo, Robert Glowers, Ann Brown, and Bill Mooney met to discuss the LRSD plan for the workshops suggested by the Court. The meeting was a general discussion on what the district had already tentatively planned
the who, what, when, where, and why. Brown suggested the LRSD wait until the order comes out. Mayo and Glowers felt the district had to move quickly in order to meet their timelines. 9/13/94. Robert Glowers issued a memo outlining the workshop schedule. (Attachment A)9/19/94. Ann Brown sent a memo to Robert Glowers in response to his 9/13/94 memo. She informed him that his listing of workshop offerings, contrary to what he stated in his memo, was neither Court mandated nor Court approved. (Attachment A, notation) 9/19/94. Robert Glowers issued a memo reducing the time allotted for the Program Planning and Budget Process workshop and the Program Evaluation workshop in order to minimize the time principals were out of their buildings. 9/20/94. Robert Glowers asked Bill Mooney to attend the Program Planning and Budget Process workshop to help answer any questions. Bill Mooney agreed. 9/22/94. The LRSD conducted the Program Planning and Budget Process and the Program Evaluation workshops. 9/23/94. The LRSD conducted the Program Planning and Budget Process and the program Evaluation workshops (two sessions each). 10/5/94. The LRSD conducted the Program Budget Document workshop (two sessions). 10/6/94. The LRSD conducted the Program Budget Document workshop. 10/24/94. The Court issued the order relating to the staff development requirements. The Court required the LRSD to work with ODM to develop and conduct quality, continuous training on the program planning and budget process for all those who participate in that process. At a minimum, these training sessions were to address the operational responsibilities of the participants in each of the components of the process (needs assessment, program inventory, goals and objectives, program development, budgeting, monitoring and reporting, and evaluation). The LRSD was charged to work with ODM to ensure that the training was adequately defined and implemented. 11/21/94. Robert Glowers called Bill Mooney for a meeting on the Court order. 11/22/94. Russ Mayo, Robert Glowers, Ann Brown, and Bill Mooney met to discuss the training requirements of the Court order. There was a general discussion of what the LRSD had already planned. Brown and Mooney suggested using other staff members to help in the instruction, and mentioned a problem with time allotments. 11/23/94. Bill Mooney began preparing material and examples of good business cases to assist the LRSD in getting ready for the Business Case workshop. 11/28/94. Russ Mayo, Robert Glowers, Ann Brown, and Bill Mooney met on the Business Case workshop. The meeting mainly addressed the various options for the session format, the need for some policy guidelines on when to use a business case, and the time allocation problem. 11/29/94. Robert Glowers and Bill Mooney met to discuss the Business Case and Budget Process workshops. They reviewed the workshop outline, and discussed session format. Mooney reminded Clowers of the time problem. Mooney did not accept the invitation to be the instructor due to the time allotment problems. 11/29/94. Robert Clowers called Bill Mooney to inform him that Superintendent Williams had rejected the time allotment recommendations, and directed him to stay with the original allotments. 11/30/94. Bill Mooney discussed the time allotment problem with Superintendent Williams. Williams said he would stay with the schedule. 11/30/94. Robert Clowers informed Bill Mooney that Estelle Matthis would be the instructor for the Business Case workshop. There were only five work days before the first session. 12/1/94. Bill Mooney delivered a complete set of business case examples, organized into a training package, and supported by some overheads for the LRSD to use in the Business Case workshop. The cover memo discussed the enclosed material and the time allotment problem. 12/2/94. Robert Clowers sent a memo to Ann Brown with the agenda and timelines for the coming workshops. 12/5/94. Bill Mooney met with Estelle Matthis on the Business Case workshop. Matthis shared her plan for the session. Mooney discussed his ideas on subject matter and session format. Mooney shared his concerns with the time allotments. Mooney provided other assistance. 12/6/94. Bill Mooney met with Estelle Matthis prior to the Business Case workshop. Matthis shared her revisions for the session, and asked for final comments. Mooney reviewed the material and format, and provided suggestions. 12/6/94. The LRSD conducted the Business Case workshop and the Budget Process workshop (two sessions each). 12/8/94. The LRSD conducted the Business Case workshop and the Budget Process workshop. 12/19/94. Robert Clowers informed Bill Mooney that the LRSD would conduct follow-up training sessions on the Business Case and the Budget Process for those that missed the first sessions or wanted more information. Clowers said follow-up workshop would be on 12/20/94. 12/20/94. The LRSD conducted a follow-up workshop on the Business Case and the Budget Process.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research and Evaluation Evaluation of the Seminar on PROGRAM EVALUATION FORMAT Please help us evaluate this seminar by responding to the items below. Circle the number which best express your reaction to each of the items. Space for additional comments has been provided. 1. The objectives of the seminar were
Clearly evident 5 4 3 2 1 Vague 2. The organization of the seminar was: Excellent 5 4 3 2 1 Poor 3. How effective was the presenter(s)
Excellent 5 4 3 2 1 Poor 4. Did the presenter(s) communicate effectively: Excellent 5 4 3 2 1 Poor 5. Was the presentation effective: Adequate 5 4 3 2 1 Inadequate 6. The information gained should prove: Beneficial 5 4 3 2 1 Not Beneficial 7. Overall, I thought this seminar was: Excellent 5 4 3 2 1 Poor What additional information would have been advantageous to you: Comments:Workshop: Dates: The Program Planning and Budgeting Process 9/22/94, 9/23/94 (two sessions) Presenter: Russ Mayo Audience: All budget managers and principals Total evaluations returned: 19 Rating scale: excellent = 5, poor = 1 1. The objectives of the seminar were: (Clearly evident/vague) 4.32 2. The organization of the seminar was: (Excellent/poor) 3.84 3. How effective was the presenter(s): (Excellent/poor) 4.05 4. Did the presenter(s) communicate effectively: (Excellent/poor) 4.11 5. Was the presentation effective: (Adequate/inadequate) 4.16 6. The information gained should prove: (Beneficial/not beneficial) 4.42 7. Overall, I thought this seminar was: (Excellent/poor) 4.00 Overall rating: 4.13 Evaluations with comments: 3 Comments follow: * Very concrete / lots of specific examples - pleasant delivery! * If possible, future presentations of the planning process would take place earlier in the work year/annual cycle. * Overall redundant programs: 1. PBD, 2. Program Eval, 3. Annual Reports, 4. COE, 5. NCA, 6. State Department reports, 7. Periodic evaluation instruments.Workshop: The Program Evaluation Dates: 9/22/94, 9/23/94 (two sessions) Presenter: Robert Glowers, Selma Hobby Audience: All budget managers and principals Total evaluations returned: 45 Rating scale: excellent = 5, poor = 1 1. The objectives of the seminar were: (Clearly evident/vague) 4.02 2. The organization of the seminar was: (Excellent/poor) 3.98 3. How effective was the presenter(s): (Excellent/poor) 4.00 4. Did the presenter(s) communicate effectively: (Excellent/poor) 3.98 5. Was the presentation effective: (Adequate/inadequate) 3.96 6. The information gained should prove: (Beneficial/not beneficial) 4.07 7. Overall, I thought this seminar was: (Excellent/poor) 4.00 Overall rating: Evaluations with comments: 13 4.00 Comments follow: * Fantastic! Great job! * Like the concrete * Great! Im relieved and I welcome the challenge. * Thanks for your help. * Very good presentation. I was lost, but now Im found.* Dr. Hobby was very clear and to the point. I understand the expectations. * The well defined and written sample and the step-by-step explanation of the process was very helpful. * Additional information requested: why we have to do this, and what is in it for me
Q&A example walk-through using overhead so all can participate. 1. Policy questions must be handled, and not avoided. How does this fit in with the other plans they are having to do? 2. Presenter attitude sometimes projects this is something you just have to do. Up The Down Staircase example. 3. Why are you not using the established evaluation criteria? This could lead to wasted effort. * Dr. Hobby was great. * More clarity is needed - each area has its own unique problems that could not be addressed in the whole group. Need a complete sample. I dont think the process has been thought through completely. * Sample and commentary should not be together. Please provide a clean sample, so that participants may see exactly what the final product is to look like. Thanks. * I already was familiar with the process, but the presentation helped clarify a couple of issues for me. * Additional information requested
Access to the overall process.Workshop: The Program Budget Document Dates: 10/5/94 (two sessions) Presenter: Robert Glowers Audience: All budget managers and principals Total evaluations returned: 33 Rating scale: excellent = 5, poor = 1 1. The objectives of the seminar were: (Clearly evident/vague) 3.88 2. The organization of the seminar was: (Excellent/poor) 3.79 3. How effective was the presenter(s): (Excellent/poor) 3.55 4. Did the presenter(s) communicate effectively: (Excellent/poor) 3.67 5. Was the presentation effective: (Adequate/inadequate) 3.76 6. The information gained should prove: (Beneficial/not beneficial) 3.85 7. Overall, I thought this seminar was: (Excellent/poor) 3.58 Overall rating: Evaluations with comments: 11 3.72 Comments follow: * Additional information requested: To be able to use our own PBD plans at seminar. Have scheduled individual sessions about our PBD. Are talk to other program managers about their PBD. This seminar really helped in clearing up so of my misconfusion. * The evaluation criteria is not as clear as I would like it to be. How can we truly tell the evaluation is what the District want it to be. * Lets work in the lab for hands on activities. When you are opening and closing please consider the PET model to make your presentation better. * Wasted time talking about Plant Services problems. * Effective, but would have been more helpful if it had been done two weeks earlier to avoid 3 or 4 reports being due OCT 14 - But the effort is very much appreciated - Wish we had in service for each report for us new folks. * It would be nice if you could bring a PC to the next seminar. * Point out differences between normal schools and incentive schools and not directions are different (No PROGBUD1.DOC). Provide dates for all upcoming quarters. * Thanks. * The presentation was helpful. * This workshop was a bit elementary. It should have been voluntary. Most of the principals are done with the document of this quarter. * Not needed by principals who have been doing it right for one year.Workshop: The Business Cases Dates: 12/6/94 (two sessions), 12/8/94 Presenter: Vic Anderson, Estelle Matthis Audience: All budget managers and principals Total evaluations returned: 38 Rating scale: excellent = 5, poor = 1 1. The objectives of the seminar were: (Clearly evident/vague) 4.76 2. The organization of the seminar was: (Excellent/poor) 4.66 3. How effective was the presenter(s): (Excellent/poor) 4.68 4. Did the presenter(s) communicate effectively: (Excellent/poor) 4.74 5. Was the presentation effective: (Adequate/inadequate) 4.63 6. The information gained should prove: (Beneficial/not beneficial) 4.58 7. Overall, I thought this seminar was: (Excellent/poor) 4.58 Overall rating: 4.66 Evaluations with comments: 30 Comments follow: * Not enough time for the activities. * Lack of time was a major factor. Did not allow for enough work...A consultant will be needed to....the business case will be accepted. * work this year. For next year - more time to study samples - with January 13 deadline, no need for more * Page numbers on the handouts.* A sample of one, comprehensive approved business case. One of the best LRSD in services in which Ive participated. Quite informative and familiarizing about the budgeting process - inclusive of the business case. Thanks! * We should practice. * How will this business case effect area schools with limited budgets? Do we write cases for current programs for possible more funding to better service students? Please have these seminars on school time. It is inhumane to expect effective participation when most of us have been up since 5:00 am. * At the time inservice is to begin, close door ~ let late arrivers go to make-up session. * Mrs Matthis has a reputation for beginning meetings on time. I was disappointed that those of us who were on time had to wait almost 30 minutes for all participants to arrive. In the case of mandatory meetings, participants should not have been allowed to enter after a certain time - they should have to come back to another meeting. * More time to go through the actual process, but I know we were given the opportunity to get more. It was good. * Very good! * I needed more think time to reflect and digest info. * I would like to read one business case that was successful from start to finish. * More time to understand presentation. * Getting out after 6 PM was not acceptable. I have 3-4 hours of LRSD work to do this evening in preparation for a workshop tomorrow. The meeting should have stated on time. The time allotted did not allow for actually developing a business case, but analysis of the parts (examples) was helpful. Perhaps another workshop for those who desire it. * Presentation was interesting and well articulated. Wished we had more time. * Good job! More time for work sessions. * Not enough time to write business case or program evaluations. * The hands-on approach was very effective. The information given was very thorough 10and presented very well. Very helpful!! * Good presentation but needed more time to do sample cases in group. Too much noise for those of us that need quiet when reading. * More time to analyze business cases would help! * An example of a business case that is considered to be perfect. Not enough time. * Good job! * You did a super job. * Need more time on subject. * Need follow-up! Also someone to contact about questions about the business plan. Someone to review and give me feed back about my plan before turning it in on January 13, 1995. * Mrs. Matthis did an excellent job. * Good handouts, helpful visuals - very nice job. Clear and articulate presenters. * How about a complete business case which exemplifies the best in each of the 10 elements? A good model is the best teacher! 11Workshop: The Financial and Manpower Reports Dates: 12/6/94 (two sessions), 12/8/94 Presenter: Brady Gadberry, Mark Milhollen Audience: All budget managers and principals Total evaluations returned: 63 Rating scale: excellent = 5, poor = 1 1. The objectives of the seminar were
(Clearly evident/vague) 4.38 2. The organization of the seminar was: (Excellent/poor) 4.43 3. How effective was the presenter(s): (Excellent/poor) 4.38 4. Did the presenter(s) communicate effectively: (Excellent/poor) 4.44 5. Was the presentation effective
(Adequate/inadequate) 4.29 6. The information gained should prove: (Beneficial/not beneficial) 4.51 7. Overall, I thought this seminar was: (Excellent/poor) 4.32 Overall rating: Evaluations with comments: 34 4.39 Comments follow: * More time to understand presentation. * Work with individual principals that are new to the district or with district procedures. * More time for elaboration and questions would have helped me. I would have been more alert and able to digest all the info had it been presented earlier in the day. 12* I think that more time should be given to principal to help them understand the process. Its critical that all of us know how the process works. * This was totally inadequate for the new principals (no offense intended to Brady). We need a walk-through workshop by an expert to prepare these forms properly. * Small groups which include like schools. Mark should have been here
let this part be done later. Brady did his best. * Very helpful in that I knew nothing before or about these topics. * It was no fault of the presenter that the time was too short. He was also standing in for another which led to a bit of disorganization. * Too rushed! Need more time. * Needed a little more time to ask questions. * Time allocation was too short and intended presenter was absent. My manpower report has been conected in the same place at least 3 times. Could some please fix it this time - a big red note will be sent. * Need more time. * Short and sweet. * Need more time on subject. * I would like one a little more in depth for first year principals. * Good, short to the point. * Excellent, clear and helpfill. * Too tired at end of the day. * Mark, you are always thorough. Thanks! * Good job, Mark! I understand most of the information
however, I will probably need help with it. 13* Not clear at all. * More time! * Very effective presentation. * Well done. * We need a work session on the budget addition, deletion and allocation. * Very good. * Magnet schools at a disadvantage without materials to track. * Mark is always clear, to the point and very well prepared - appreciate packet again this year very much. * Thank you for the Budget Instruction booklet - Im very pleased with it! * Presenter was rushed due to time limitation. * Financial staff not present/available for presentation. Budget staff needs to be available with more time spent on this process. * Well organized and concise. 14PHONICS INSTRUCTION WORKSHOP Presenter: Denvi Williams, Consultant Open Court Publishing Company Rightsell Elementary Incentive School September 21, 1994 1:30 - 5:00 p.m. I. II. AGENDA Welcome and Introduction Program Philosophy Otlice o( Desegrega^'O'^ Monttonng SEP 2 ' W* in. Introduction to Wall Sound Cards IV. Phonics Techniques A. Introducing New Sounds and Words B. Word Lines V. C. D. Dictation Response Card Drill Wrap-up and Summary VI. Question and Answer Period VII. EvaluationRECEIVED Little Rock School District Program Planning & Budgeting Process SEP 2 3 1994 Office of Desegregation Momtonnfl The purpose of this session is to: Help you understand how you can get what you need to do your job
Clarify why the answer is NO to some of your requests at certain times of the year
Explain why program evaluations, a Program Budget Document, etc. are necessary
and. Justify why we have a planning process and how we are all involved. We will need from you: Any questions you have as the presentation is made
A careful understanding of the process when the presentation is complete
Accurate and complete Program Budget Document information
Accurate program evaluations
and, Properly formatted business cases. In its simplest form, the purpose of the Planning & Budgeting Process is to link what we should be doing as a school district with how we spend our money.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research and Evaluation Evaluation of the Seminar on PLANNING PROCESS Please help us evaluate this seminar by responding to the items below. Circle the number which best express your reaction to each of the items. Space for additional comments has been provided. 1. The objectives of the seminar were: Clearly evident 5 4 3 2 1 Vague 2. The organization of the seminar was: Excellent 5 4 3 2 1 Poor 3. How effective was the presenter(s): Excellent 5 4 3 2 1 Poor 4. Did the presenter(s) communicate effectively: Excellent 5 4 3 2 1 Poor 5. Was the presentation effective: Adequate 5 4 3 2 1 Inadequate 6. The information gained should prove: Beneficial 5 4 3 2 1 Not Beneficial 7. Overall, I thought this seminar was: Excellent 5 4 3 2 1 Poor What additional information would have been advantageous to you: Comments:Planning & Budgeting Time Line MAY JUN JLY AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JLY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Prog. Inventory Prog. Evaluation Needs Assessment Goals Prog. Devel. I Budgeting T T T I I I I I I I I I Monitoring & Reporting I 1 I T T I I I I Reassessment of Planning Process & Organization I I I I T Little Rock School District I T I AUG R. Mayo TERM MANAGEMENT TOOL PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT (PBD) ALLOCATIONS FORMULAS MINIMUM FOUNDATION PERFORMANCE AID (MFPA) CARRY-OVER FISCAL-YEAR GOALS OBJECTIVE PROGRAM PROGRAM DESCRIPTION PROGRAM GOAL ACHIEVEMENTS PROGRAM NAME LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning Budget Process Glossary MEANING A listing of annual tasks to be done related to Planning and Budgeting. Tasks appear listed by task, completion percentage, start date, finish date, and person(s) responsible. A listing of all legal obligations of LRSD divided by program areas. Obligations appear listed by reference, obligation, activities, start and finish dates, person(s) responsible, and evidence criteria for the completion of activities. At one time this was known as the "Rainbow Document" because it was printed on paper of many colors. Mathematical formulas used to determine how resources are allocated. Technical term. Refers to part of the monies the district receives toward per- pupil expenditure. The amount of money not spent by LRSD when the budget is closed for a given fiscal year. The beginning month period during which spending on the new budget begins and ends our fiscal year is July 1-June 30. If only one year appears with the word "fiscal" or "FY" in a document, it is the last year of that budget. For example, fiscal year 1995-96 may be expressed as FY 96. A broad expression of one purpose of LRSD. A specific, measurable expression of something to be achieved within a stated time period. A program is an established plan of operation, composed of a group or series of related activities which are carried out to serve a specific area of identified need. (PBD) A program description includes a purpose, scope and content, and participantsZbeneficiaries related to the respective program. (PBD) A program goal is a broad guiding statement and should describe the overall aim(s), purpose{s), or ambition(s) of the specific program. (PBD) Achievements are efforts, tasks, evidence, performance, or actions undertaken in a program which contributes to the accomplishment of the strategy. Achievements are placed in alpha order underneath the relative strategy. (PBD) To eliminate confusion, an established name for each program has been assigned by the district planner. (PBD)OBJECTIVES STRATEGIES PRIMARY LEADER SECONDARY LEADER DISTRICT GOAL SUPPORT BEGINNING DATE COMPLETION DATE RESPONSIBILITY Program objectives present explicitly the desired impact the program should have on a problem. They should provide detail to the goals. (PBD) Strategies are the jobs, tasks, efforts, or actions undertaken in a program which contributes to the accomplishment of the objective. (PBD) The Primary Leader is the council\cabinet level associate responsible for the management and operation of the respective program. (PBD) The Secondary Leader is the associate who is back-up to the Primary and will function in that capacity in the absence of the Primary (i.e. the Program Manager or the Principal). (PBD) Each program directly supports at least one district goal. If more than one district goal is relative, then the appropriate district goals have been listed in descending priority order. (PBD) This is the actual date a particular strategy began. For consistency, all dates should be printed in the following manner: MM/DD/YY, (09/30/93). (PBD) This is the actual date a particular objective or strategy was completed. For consistency, all dates should be entered in the following format: MM/DD/YY, (09/30/93). If an activity toward a strategy has been started but not completed, a percent of completion (75 %) should be entered. (PBD) This is the name of the individual(s) tasked with ensuring an activity has been accomplished. (PBD)SAMPLE DESEGREGATION PROGRAM EVALUATION of (Fill in name.) SCHOOL Date: Program Name: School Operations Name of School Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader(s): (Margaret Gremillion) Principal's Name PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
School Operations includes the total integrated learning experiences which meet the academic, social, and developmental needs of all LRSD students in a desegregated educational setting. Central Office staff [and] principals of the schools collaborate to ensure quality educational program planning for all students with the support of staff, parents, and the larger community. EVALUATION CRITERIA: The intent of the School Operations goal is to provide equitable educational opportunities for all students in the LRSD
evaluation of the stated intent serves as the evaluation criteria. In the case of this particular desegregation program evaluation, the foregoing statement applies specifically to Fill in name of school. SUMMARY
(Using the objectives outlined in the Program Budget Document (PBD), write a summary of the overall effectiveness of goal results, as they relate to your school.) 1. Example of a summary beginning - Equitable educational opportunities were (or were not) provided for all students at (Name the school.) during the 1993-94 academic year. An organizational structure was in place which provided equal opportunity and access for parents, students, and staff. (Following these introductory sentences, either write how these opportunities were provided or explain why they were not. In the paragraphs that follow the summary of the overall effectiveness of the first objective, do the same for each objective listed.
writing your summary, combine objectives, if you wish. As you continue 2. BODY OF SUMMARY Example of a concluding sentence - By implementing the strategies summari above ay summarized above, or (because of the factors explained above which prevented the successful implementation of planned strategies,) equitable educational opportunities were (were not) provided to all students at (Fill in na^ of school.) it is possible that you may have a combination of strategies which were successfully implemented and ones which were not. If so, this combination should be reflected in your summary.Sample PBD Eval. Report Page 2 GOAL ATTAINMENT: The following list provides examples of factors that facilitated (or prevented) goal attainment
included in this list is the identification of the factor, along with its description. Factors and Descriptions PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT A cross-section of parents were actively involved in a variety of projects and in attendance at all functions and meetings. STAFF DEVELOPMENT Courses and/or workshops were provided for teacher development, to improve student achievement, etc. (Continue listing the factors and descriptions which you choose to cite as examples.) EVIDENCE: Evidence substantiating the summary and explanation of goal attainment may be found in total in the Program Budget Document, the Following are several School Profile, and/or the Extended COE. examples of such evidence: Factors and Evidence PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT P.T.A., Dad's Club, Biracial Committee, tutors, VIPS Open House, mentors Science Fair (Continue listing the factors and evidence which you choose to cite as examples.)DESEGREGATION PROGRAMS Program Name: School Operations Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader(s): (Margaret Gremillion) Program Evaluation Format Fall 1994 Your program evaluation should include the elements listed below. Please be succinct. The length of your program evaluation document will be dependent to some degree based on the extensiveness of the program. In general, however, each program evaluation should not exceed two pages. Program Description: Please describe your program. This description comes from the program description in the Program Budget Document (PBD). Evaluation Criteria: The program goal(s) taken from the PBD should be used as the evaluation criteria. In other words, the program goal(s) should be used to evaluate the effectiveness of your program. Summary
Provide a summary of the overall effectiveness of implementation of your section of the desegregation plan as per the goals. A similar summary of overall effectiveness should be provided as per the goals for the nondesegregation programs. Goal Attainment: Please identify and describe the factors that facilitated goal attainment. Evidence: Please provide or describe evidence (i.e., data, documentation, etc.) for which goals were or were not achieved. ILITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research and Evaluation Evaluation of the Seminar on PROGRAM EVALUATION FORMAT Please help us evaluate this seminar by responding to the items below. Circle the number which best express your reaction to each of the items. Space for additional comments has been provided. 1. The objectives of the seminar were: Clearly evident 5 4 3 2 1 Vague 2. The organization of the seminar was: Excellent 5 4 3 2 1 Poor 3. How effective was the presenter(s): Excellent 5 4 3 2 1 Poor 4. Did the presenter(s) communicate effectively: Excellent 5 4 3 2 1 Poor 5. Was the presentation effective: Adequate 5 4 3 2 1 Inadequate 6. The information gained should prove: Beneficial 5 4 3 2 1 Not Beneficial 7. Overall, I thought this seminar was: Excellent 5 4 3 2 1 Poor What additional information would have been advantageous to you: Comments:MEMORAiNDUM To: From: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT All Program Managers r. Robert Glowers, Director of Planning, Research & Evaluation RECE8VE0 JUL 2 7 1995 Oflice of Desegragalion Monitorif^g Through: Dr. Russell Mayo, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Date: July 26, 1995 Subject: Planning Process Workshops During the 1993-94 School year, we implemented a new planning process. This year, as we did last year, we are refining that process for improvement while ensuring that all of us are clear about its intent. Judge Susan Webber Wright issued an order for us to present workshops to all program managers involved in the process. We are repeating that this year. Below is a listing of workshops with dates, times, and the intended audience. Please place the workshops on your schedules. All will be presented at the district office in the board room, except for August 4th workshops, which will be presented during the "Nuts & Bolts" Sessions. The importance of these workshops caimot be overemphasized. Thanks for your cooperation. Date 8/4/95 9/6/95 9-7-95 10/4/95 10/5/95 11/8/95 11/9/95 12/6/95 12-7-95 Time 8:00 am-12
00 pm 9:00-11:00 am 2:30-4:30 pm 2:30-4:30 pm 9:00 -11:00 2:30-4:30 pm 2:30-4:30 pm 8:00 am-12:00 pm 1:00-5:00 pm 1:00-5:00 pm 9:00-12:00 am 1:00-4:00 pm 1:00-4:00 pm Audience Program Managers (not principals) Secondary Principals Elementary Principals Program Managers (not principals) Secondary Principals Elementary Prmcipals Program Managers (not pnncipals) Secondary Principals Elementary Prmcipals Program Managers (not principal) Secondary Principals Elementary Prmcipals Program iManagers (not principals) Topic(s} Planning/Budgeting Process
Program Evaluation Secondary Principals Elementary Principals Program Budget Document Program Budget Document Program Budget Document Extended Evaluations Extended Evaluations Extended Evaluations Business Cases______________ Business Cases Business Cases Budget Preparation
Financial & Manpower Reports Budget Preparation
Financial & Manpower Reports Budget Preparation
Financial & Manpower Reports cc: Superintendents Cabinet Chris Heller, LRSD Attorney Jerry Malone, LRSD Attorney Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring PlanPra5.doc MEMORANDUM To: From: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT AU Program Managers r. Robert Glowers, Director of Planning, Research & Evaluation RECE^VEO JUL 2 7 1995 Office of Desegragation Monitoring Through: Dr. Russell Mayo, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Date: July 26, 1995 y, s C Subject: Planning Process Workshops During the 1993-94 School year, we implemented a new planning process. This year, as we did last year, we are refining that process for improvement while ensuring that all of us are clear about its intent. Judge Susan Webber Wright issued an order for us to present workshops to all program managers involved in the process. We are repeating that this year. Below is a listing of workshops with dates, times, and the intended audience. Please place the workshops on your schedules. All will be presented at the district office in the board room, except for August 4th workshops, which will be presented during the "Nuts & Bolts" Sessions. The importance of these workshops cannot be overemphasized. Thanks for your cooperation. Date 8/4/95 9/6/95 9-7-95 10/4/95 10/5/95 11/8/95 11/9/95 12/6/95 12-7-95 Time 8:00 am-12:00 pm 9:00-11:00 am 2:30-1:30 pm 2:30-4:30 pm 9:00 -11:00 am^ 2:30-4:30 pm 2:30-4:30 pm 8:00 am-12:00 pm 1:00-5:00 pm 1:00-5:00 pm 9:00-12:00 am 1:00-4:00 pm 1:00-4:00 pm Audience Program Managers (not principals) Secondary Principals Elementary Principals Program Managers (not principals) Secondary Principals Elementary Principals Program Managers (not principals) Secondary Principals Elementary Principals Program Managers (not principal) Secondary Principals Elementary Principals Program Managers (not principals) Topic(s) Planning/Budgeting Process
Program Evaluation Secondary Principals Elementary Principals Program Budget Document Program Budget Document Program Budget Document Extended Evaluations_________ Extended Evaluations Extended Evaluations Business Cases ~ Business Cases Business Cases Budget Preparation
Financial & Manpower Reports Budget Preparation
Financial & Manpower Reports Budget Preparation
Financial & Manpower Reports cc: Superintendents Cabinet Chris Heller, LRSD Attorney Jerry Malone, LRSD Attorney Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring PlanPmS .doc J" PROGRAM PLANNING BUDGET PROCESS WORKSHOPS December 20, 1994 Little Rock School District Follow-Up Workshop AGENDA Welcome Dr. Robert Clowers / Session Schedules I. BUSINESS CASES Objectives Timeline on Business Cases Guidelines - When a Business Case is Required "Whats In It For Me" Mrs. Estelle Matthis Purpose of A Business Case History of the Business Case and Why Development of the Business Case The 10 Elements Questions and Answers Evaluations BREAK IL BUDGET PROCESS Objectives Mark Milhollen Financial Manpower Reports Questions and Answers Evaluations1 Little Rnek SehnnI District MEMORANDUM To
I'tom: Through
Dale: Subject: All Pri/)riitn Munaifers Robert Glowers, Direct^ of Planning, Research, & Evaluation D41>eijC^illiJfife^ tendent September 13, 1994 Planning Process Workshops During the 1993-94 school year, we implemented a new planning process. This vear we are refining that process while ensuring that all of us are clear about its intent. Recently, Judge Wright issued an order for us to present workshops to all program managers involved in the process. Below is a listing of workshops with dates, times, places, and the intended audience. Please place the workshops on your schedules. All will be presented at the district office in the board room. The importance of these worksliops cannot be overemphasized. Thanks for your cooperation. Dute Time Audience Topic y/22/94 Program Managers (not principals) The Planning & Budgeting Process Tlie Program Evaluation l:O(tpin - 4:()t)piii -J 9/23/94 9
()()ani - l2:()0pni Secondary principals The Planning & Budgeting Process Tlie Program Evaluation 1
Ol>pm - 4:()()pm Elemcnian- principals The Planning & Budgeting Process Tlie Program Evaluation 10/5/94 LOOprn - 2:30pni Program Managers (not principals) The Program Budget Document 10/6/94 12/6/94 3:00pm - 4
30pm 4:00pm - 5:30pm 1:00pm - 3:00pm Elementarv' principals Secondary- principals Program Managers (not principals) Tlic Program Budget Document Tlie Program Budget Document Business Cases Financial and Manpower Reports 4:00pm - 6:00pm Sccondarj- principals Business Cases Financial and Manpon er Reports 12/8/94 3:00pm - 5:00pm Elementan- principals Business Cases Financial tmd Manpower Reports C: ) Superintendents Council Chris Heller, LRSD Attorney Jerry Malone, LRSD Attorney Ann Brown, Monitor,\RK ANSAS TIMES MARCH 8. 1996 To subscribe call 375-2985 Tfie Arkatt^ reporter LR schools: An upbeat assessment Parents do the grading in new poll. VOTE OF CONFIDENCE: Little Rock School Superintendent Henry Williams got a better rating than the school board in a recent poll for KATV. BY MAX BRANTLEY Little Rock School District parents feel better about the school district than you might imagine, given the well-documented flight of whites to suburbs that has occuned in recent years. The sampling of parents sentiment came in a poll commissioned by KATV, Channel 7. Opinion Research Associates of Little Rock questioned 404 district parents Feb. 7-9. It was the first comprehensive scientific poll in memory of district parents. Parents generally were more satisfied than dissatisfied with the safety, curriculum and quality of education, though less satisfied with classroom discipline and the amount of busing. Parents also had positive assessments of Henry Williams, the embattled superintendent (he was rated far more favorably than the school board, a majority of whose members seem intent on ousting Williams), and John Walker, the often controversial civil rights lawyer. The combination of discipline, safety and student behavior (drug and alcohol use) led the list of parental concerns, far outstripping concerns about desegregation. (Parents overwhelmingly believed, however, that the desegregation case had harmed the economy of Little Rock.) It was remarkable how highly regarded the schools are," said Ernest Oakleaf, who, with his wife, Zoe, heads Opinion Research. Oakleaf said that attitudes had See SCHOOLS next page Schools Continued from previous page improved dramatically from a more limited sample of school district parents opinion in a citywide survey he conducted in 1989. In that survey, nearly half the parents were dissatisfied with Very dissatisfied.. .5 What impact do you think racial integration has had on the quality of education in Little Rock schools. Only about a quarter of respondents felt that negatively in the recent survey and 78 percent were at Little Rock public schools? Has made the quality of education better........... Has had little effect.......... Has made the quality of education worse............ How would you say the quality of education provided by the Little Rock public schools compares with other school districts around it such a.s Conway, Cabot and Benton? Would JO .38 .24 least somewhat satisfied. The attitudes of black and white parents tended to be about the same. Oakleaf said. How would you rate the way Superintendent Henry Williams has handled his job so far? say it is... Much better....... Somewhat better. About the same.. Somewhat worse Much worse....... .12 .21 .29 .16 ..3 with one exception: John Walker drew an overwhelmingly favorable response from black parents. White parents werent so en- thusiastic, though even then only about Excellent Good..... Only fair Poor....... a .13 .38 .31 .10 What kind of impact would you say John Walker has had on the overall quality of education in the Little Rock public schools? In general, have John Walkers efforts made the quality of education... third believed Walkers impact had been nega- live. Good feeUngs aside, about half the parents said they would take a free private school education if it were available over public schools. Some key questions and results (all in percentages and with the percentage answering dont know omitted): In general, how satisfied are you with the Little Rock public school system? How would you rate the way the Little Rock School Board is handling its job? Excellent. Good..... Only fair Poor...... ...2 .23 .44 .26 Much better...... Somewhat better Aboutthesame.... Somewhat worse. Much worse ...... .t ....5 ,.28 ..29 .11 ...8 Very satisfied.............. Somewhat satisfied.... Somewhat dissatisfied 26 .52 .17 How would you say the quality of education provided by the Little Rock public schools compares with private schools in the city? Is it generally.... Have any of your children been involved in a violent incident at a public school? Yes No.. .21 .78 Much better...... Somewhat better About the same... Somewhat worse. Much worse....... 10 .24 .26 .24 ..6 If your child or children could go to a private school on a fuU scholarship (that is, for free) would you send them to a private school, orwould you stay in the public school system? Send them to private school Send them to public school. .55 .38
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.