Test data

State Benchmark Exams 1998-99 through 2000-01 Mathematics and Literacy Grades 4 and 8J. ^'i 'Aiiaf i r^iiiv.^ri~i&<tA'^*'ftito 4 /i Grade 4 Mathematics !. (-i- 4 r Pefcent fiwfident and Advanced In 1998-99 In 1999-00 In 2000-01 ' (. State 34% 41% * 48% i' * 'r< K> 4 . s S: LRSD PCSSD NLR 22% 30% 30% w ??% 43% 'W w ' '- tS 'if' J?' } s^i w* ? '-5 jtA ) 1 a as>ni 'U < 4 s Wj Ml V >* 5^'J' f* Grade 4 Mathematics > X 4-w Percent PfOficiefit and Advanced -i. .f in 1998-99
-In 1999-00: in 2000-01: State Black LRSD White Black White 9% 14% 1. 18% Ho 44% 49% 57% k. 8% 15% 16% rW s. JS^ V 53% 61% 3 A I * ' <"J. ij i i i ! 1 4. Grade 4 Mathematics Highest Perforttiihg 3^
Most Impfoved " ' iX / , t i I 1. ? Jefferson 64% Baseline +23 Forest Park 57% Bale +19 Fulbright 53% Williams 52% Terry Gibbs, Carver 48% 46% *** ' 44% 'i'. McDermott 44% Fair Park +18 Franklin +14 Fulbright +11 Tejry +10 Badgett +9 Booker ,4 :fr' 1 * ' ^1 T "1^! .1 't < 4 I Grade 4 Mathematics Below Basic f/- -'S.'.i .<.4UI^ 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 f I''*' > { 59% 55% 51% A*- Z''. v
4 y-^ '"A' .f 5 , ?5- 'tiLf e e r Grade 4 Mathematics Below Basic Xi* fi ,5 Lowest Percent .--'-'A. --. '''.''f :x A, I ' i Most Improved !r< :: < [ f' Jefferson Fulbright Gibbs Williams Terry 14% 26% 29% 30% 33% .1 Bale Fair Park Baseline Cloverdale Jefferson 36 28 22 21 17 6 3 i. .iiZ Ci if-X 'kJ } Grade 4 Literacy Percent Proficient aiid Advanced 't'y'.' -.t- - In 1998-99 - In 1999-00
- In 2000-01: State 44% 47% 43% LRSD PCSSD NLR 32% 42% 35% ??% 34% ??% ??% 41% I.. m^2.4,. rlix.
: * 79: ' i 4 ] 1 4 irt. jlb*..' Grade 4 Literacy r<r".rrr JPefcefit Prc^ci^ntiajid Adviced ?/' i. V 'fr< . <' .i -In 1998-99: -In 1999-00: In 2000-01 State Black White 21% 51% 26% 21% a. 53% 51% LRSD Black White 20% 30% V 23% 5- 62% 66% .'A ' 63% x- -ia * S .-4 -A- ? ^5 8 sA.' -I.. in. > f .t' A 1 Grade 4 Literacy Ai 'S> r^J Highest i s< fl ''!t
^iji' ^1 .4 Mfti r' <* .<- ? .+,i' ' i '> fij rA>
i***' V' Jefferson 95% Fulbright 74% Forest Park 71% Williams 52% Jefferson +24 Fair Park +14 Wakefield +11 e': V '-'.\ *n': Terry 49% McDermott 47% Booker Baseline Bale + 9 + 4 * ? < a' / r?'. y'> (jibhs Vv' .k 1^1. 45%^ T, /A *7 Rockefeller 45% 'W I [ Y
X
J 'A' sJi 'i?- vS/Vt
r- i k-'.yz'- nsgH1 . J Grade 4 Literacy BelbW Basic V.L. 4
.A?f V'.'' .V 1 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 t I r. I- . 41% 28% 32% 10 V 4, 'Ji s ' 3' -^4Grade 4 Literacy Below Basic .V'' .4 J'' 1 A Lowest Percent Jefferson Fulbright Forest Park McDermott Gibbs
S.\ Williaths Rockefeller L'"- 0% 7% 9% 12^ i' 13% 14% f Most Improved Wakefield Wilson Jefferson Cloverdale Mabel vale '* 'h iH' v7 Booker 3 17 15 14 13 9 'tr?' i 8 11 r >ry' 3^ Ma a J i t Grade 8 Mathematics A Percent Proficient and Advanced .t. ^z - In f^99-00: - In 2000-01: ,i State 21% LRSD PCSSD NLR 9% 17% ??% 14% ??% 15% f A- f, I 'n .f' 12 Jl*t 1 ) i I Grade 8 Mathematics >5^ Percent Proficient and Advanced State Black White i' LRSD Black White 1111999-00 In 2000-01
y/' V: H' "j c n, 3% 4% -4r* X h' k'l 19% 27% 2% 4% jiy 28% 45% ti 'J: {'"i h . '.4*I 1 Grade 8 Mathematics ft- V li! LV'' <* Highest Performing J: Most Improved / J !*<> Pulaski Heights 32% Pulaski Heights 4-22 . Mirt,'.
:.i " *.'*7 ' '1. ' 'AiPF' ' Mann Dunbhr 29% 23% Mann Dunbar +12 + 9 < .y A, -'i-u I' t ' 14 'i. ,', i-- 2:'AX
g'.1 i 1 J Grade 8 Mathematics BelbWBasic 1999-2000 2000-2001 58% 55% tl '* t r? J r 'i
r Lf- V'. u'-.-i. jf'W ?' i 15 : j-^ -j .j' Grade 8 Mathematics 1 Below Basic '1 'rr'-e 1- Lowest Percent Most Improved Mann 31% Pulaski Heights -11 V. Pulaski Heights 42% Cloverdale 6 A <w ^j3
i
f t-- VI .1 .t ^55'^ 4 f j.' ' 16 '5^
I 0 'i I Grade 8 Literacy Percent Proficient and Advanced State LRSD PCSSD NLR 5? 1999-2000 2000-2001 ??% 37% 15% 31% ??% 26% ??% 26% V- C'r f k T. J'. 7, itet
-V. i'T- I ft.' I, i'A r' i- V''^'5 t- A 7 > ' - 8^ 4 .. I j ! Grade 8 Literacy I- a Percent Proficient and Advanced > j. *7? -In 1999-00: -In 2000-01: State Black White 9% 16% 29% 44% LRSD Black White 4: 1. 8% 18% 32% 61% J:. 18 vlU.. r f. Grade 8 Literacy Highest Perfouning Most Improved Forest Heights 48% Pulaski Heights 45% Forest Heights +31 Pulaski Heights+26 M' Mann <Sr' 7 -A- 44% t,- Dunbar Mabelvale V -f- +23 +21 X # > 'at.Grade 8 Literacy B^ldWBasic / . 'J 5l( iS 'r. 1999-2000 2000-2001 5? 46% 33% I 'O* ViL f - ! 'Mr'' i.i- *f' I 1 20 0 i . - < :I J I Grade 8 Literacy Helbw Basic r Lowest Percent Most Improved Mann 17% Forest Heights 25% Pulaski Heights 27% Mabelvale Dunbar -26 -24 Mabelyale L)unbar r- V .'.hi 4 HdhdersPh 1 % 31% 32% ' J.'.'.*- ' Forest Heights -18 Hhhdersori -11 t-
'5' .r.-v -* .1. ><e >' '.x f 21. < l^,Jli^'U. J 4i i.- tp j W Grade 4 Mathematics 'A*
' 1* 'V' Highlights 'f**' ?}.? >> rc* 'r>- ii i-i '. J I- Percelit Proficient/Advanced did not 'm'- .*
- >J fl. - . '{: vJviA^
X'r decline
8 points above baseline year. Percent Below Basic went down 4 points in one year and 8 points in two years. 18 schools improved. 1 7 i' S' > 't' ' t.tf ^'. ' v-^
h A- 22 >1'4 1 1 j Grade 4 Literacy Hishlights if. ....-, iSj.
EVenjthoUgh'doy^^ Bistiict is still S^pdirits ahead of baseline year, compared to state s decline of one point since baseline year. percent performing Below Basic down 9 points since baseline year, compared to 6 5 for state !.-r-h .<V' XV .!>, 'f H-j. i.'-^l f. ,11 '<fc :*! 8 schools impfoyed
3, stayed the s^ihe 'st "i-.'r/ Jefferson scored 95%! ! i / iW' '3 M f r 323, v1 Grade 8 Mathematics 4 Xtju >' '-Is !^,i X
'm' B XsS-ii-''" Sdoresw^^eilt up 8 points^ cOii^ sWs the state 7 of the 8 middle schodls improved t ek rtf- District out-performed NLR and PCSSD. ' 7 * Percent Below Basic went down 3 points 9 compared to 0 ppiutS for the State r!'.vV 2 "I, u t * -'U, ? > V a> J 24 7 ^4^ A aJ Grade 8 Literacy Highlights <: I J A District improved 16 points^ comp^ed to ? 13 for the state. This area most improved of four tests All 8 middle schools improved. Percent at Below Basic declined 13 W-V- .f.' points, as compared to 9 for M ERSDdht pdrfoffled^ 4 V. PCSSD t' "I j .1:
1 '1 vi-25 t' .'fkir Grade 4 Mathematics .'/.^7CVr' ff Plans for Improvement Si Si :k V. ^4 Classfoom and homeWrk practice Sets S .k' '^i-Uk? aligned with Benchmark items have already been developed and distributed to schools it' .* for use in grades 3-5 rM *t .> WM tl V. Parent packets have Been developed arid I-'/v disseminated to each elementary school to ,f' x provide information and include activities forparehts to hefothieir children. t^, >* fp- * !# s,*' 26 W' 't r I L i iv^ K?3^ -^os r'^5 ) i Grade 4 Mathematics Continued V j- L*>4 A < e t 3' -Lead teachers will facilitate after-school study groups to deepen teacher understanding of curriculum and to plan -f'- collaboratively A Mathematics staff will work collaboratively with principals to deyeloj) pl^S fbf - 4 itnproved .achievement
, including plans for Content training for teachers. t SWiO'V ) -.4 Grade 4 Mathematics G ontinued iw fr-f 5" ' '1^'' ^4^ - End-of-^module ctiteHon-referenced tests win be given after each mathematics modotile to keep track of student achievement on on-going basis. >- :r'AV. yfi'' f^: < V- Students in grade 4 m 2001-Q2 will 'h^ RS'-y .4 '> .'4- experienced the new curriculum for two yearS"iirst timesb we should see gaitis 28. 25^:ni. Grade 4 Literacy J plans for ImproYement <*? 9.9^!^. Identify present 3^^ grade students who perforttied below grade level on the DRA(at the end of last 1 'v'ii' year) Identify present 4* grade students who are below grade level in reading (based upon combination of ALT score, classroom performance, and teacher V- i .1 '. .-.J -i input) l>j' f i... :^- >< rain all grade^eaehers on adriimistfhddn oftheDRA .e - .t" /> Ji ' :i s."t -b i
..Jt *> 5V.^<<Sfe V t ' ih ^
.W
-i .1 .** 1 ! i
i*. t Grade Four Literacy Plans for Lnrprover^ iAAM<Ua^adMUU*J<at2t r Administer the DRA40 all identified 3S1& 4*^
grade Students z--, ci- *y>' & Using those results, teachers write SAIPs on all students below grade level on the newly administered DRA. SAIPs would include providing instruction in guided reading, comprehension and writing - .y -y t Provide fiaining on guided reading, / bompreheh^idhahdCOtih^^^ grade teachers, beginning with teachers who have not ? k, had Effective Literacy 30 O I tV. J Grade F our Literacy Bitf irrthitii^ *1 \4'' i-^ rc<i< FlausTfbrdmprovement 'Wt 't Pfoviae^training Monitor for Implementation 1. Develop Literacy Checklist 2. Continue classroom visitations and teacher demonstrations 3 aiS '?>/< c A
.v ** .b t >*:'V mI dohtihhe dh-site ihdivii^uaii^ed grade level staff f development " ' XJi V *K Provide all 3*^**, 4*, and 5^ grade teachers with six
themes of reading and writing prompts with iruhrics tailored to our reading program and correlated to the State Benchmark Exam >- f i y -- K* ? i*- Ji .!H. i KiX ,r f^* i * j_A-----?y . > - --- - -<---I Grade Si^atliematics 5'' Plans for^mprovemenh:, ^4f "/S-vf. }> > # C> 'i-''i&V a! VT& 2. Developed and disMbuted for grades 6-8 '.V> classroom and homework practice sets aligned with Benchmark items. j- S Assigned two lead teachers to middle schools to provide support. OK K ?' v' i. aV- I K' a Developed pacing guides for grades 6-8 to ensure
?cp^er^ge- ofcriticalcontent r-tl < , Jt.' ..V' -All rH,' 32, i ,i.s' 1 1 Grade 8 Matnematics Gontinued - i J: \ End-Of-module diiterion-teferehced tests will be given after each module to keep ftack of student achievement on on-goihg y basis i > >- t-
' VK Students taking the Benchmark in 2002 mil have had three years of Connected Mathemeities orie year in J). 4 a 2001) I F * > 1 IJ t jbgj <d* . y 33 fti-. i .1' i :jiiw 3'^ i * i*lJ. r* '' '^l-- .aaJMh ' -" v'jyv*' *5^ iiirifaniitfcifatkr j^tos^foij^pro^ Af' -%>}. I-
:*"- >v. 'V ' Oi <*,'4!^: iOfeS Develop stratfegi<^lati&fbf < I each school. Develop strategic plans for improvement for >-. ,f=' vA 'V W' ' fc - - iy- identified teachers Conduct quarterly check-point sessions at , ' ' '"i each school. Provide teacherded workshops on /hi Practices 99 Vx Best 34 K* -tr t Iy b ( Grade 8 "Literacy J Gontinued A,: i^ < '1 il^ 'Sv v T'acilitate interschool and intraschool collaboration and fearii teacliihg. e ' ' M '*i*?*i. *
.A J: jk> ^
'W''K Implement comprehension strategies in Mosaic of Thought Continue training in Mosaic of Thought Strategies throughsummer2002 "nt'
f 'i" Jt' * A " 'i rA i' ^T* i:. II?' :iSt S' f ti" 51 I 14
% i-t 'ft iai: I* ^1 s ) ' / >*?5 u* if iSSiS' 4^ >'?f o* Wi '!*' sj*3 '' -xc 'HJ''RKOESVEI JtL 2 * innt (i (ifHCfcC ^54 Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge' June 27, 2001 Ms. Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring One National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Ste. 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Marshall: As per your telephone request of June 24, I am enclosing the following: five years of SATO data, by school and race, and . two years of DRA data by school and race. We have not yet received the results of the State Benchmarks. Yours truly. Bonnie A. Lesley, Ed.D Associate Superintendent of Instruction BAL/adg Enclosures cc: Dr. Kenneth James Junious Babbs Chris Heller 810 W Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000 fax: 501-324-2032Developmental Reading Assessment The LRSD began the administration of the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) in fall 1999 (pre-test). The school year's post-test was administered in late spring 2000. Both tests were administered again in 2000-01. ORA scores are reported below as the percent of students by grade who scored at or above the "readiness" level. "Readiness" is defined as the necessary knowledge and skills for success at the next grade level. One-Year Changes Table 1 displays the schools' kindergarten scores by grade level so that the one-year change can be visible. Tables 2 and 3 display the grade 1 and grade 2 scores, respectively. received JUL 2 - omcfof DESESnON mowing 1School LRSD Badgett______ Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Seyer Springs Sibbs Jefferson .King__________ Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell_____ Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Table 1 Percent Readiness, Kindergarten Spring 2000 and Spring 2001 Spring 2000 72.2 21.6 58.5 51.1 81.0 76.9 80.5 56.1 56.4 86.5 68.3 55.8 64.3 94.5 85.1 89.2 89.5 63.6 61.0 94.8 77.4 90.6 90.4 82.5 92.1 75.8 66.7 40.8 91.9 46.8 81.2 56.4 75.0 89.1 66.7 69.2 Spring 2001 80.7 50.0 59.0 94.0 89.6 93.4 90.4 70.9 82.5 80.0 75.6 82.9 58.6 94.0 87.7 93.4 83.9 80.5 73.3 94.3 77.1 92.3 90.6 84.9 80.5 76.2 86.4 66.1 86.7 61.1 84.1 73.7 73.0 89.7 80.0 46.2 Change 8.5 28.4 0.5 42.9 8.6 16.5 9.9 14.8 26.1 -6.5 7.3 27.1 -5.7 -0.5 2.6 4.2 -5.6 16.9 12.3 -0.5 -0.3 1.7 0.2 2.4 -11.6 0.4 19.7 25.3 -5.2 14.3 2.9 17.3 -2.0 0.6 13.3 -23.0 2School LRSD Badgett_______ Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Seyer Springs Sibbs Jefferson King AAabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell______ Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Table 2 Percent Readiness, Grade 1 Spring 2000 and Spring 2001 Spring 2000 53.6 5.9 66.7 29.6 69.3 34.9 76.1 26.8 28.4 58.3 62.5 69.8 57.6 61.0 46.8 65.9 69.1 56.6 50.8 80.4 70.0 25.0 67.7 50.0 35.7 76.3 59.6 23.5 47.1 22.0 35.5 24.7 81.4 84.1 82.9 84.2 Spring 2001 63.8 26.5 66.6 70.8 87.4 53.5 91.8 51.2 33.9 73.5 72.7 80.0 58.9 66.6 38.6 71.4 73.9 66.6 60.5 87.9 66.6 25.0 69.6 61.7 41.7 65.2 76.5 51.0 59.8 66.6 41.1 66.6 55.6 97.1 53.8 61.5 Change 10.2 20.6 -0.1 41.2 18.1 18.6 15.7 24.4 5.5 15.2 10.2 10.2 1.3 5.6 -8.2 5.5 4.8 10.0 9.7 7.5 -3.4 0 1.9 11.7 6.0 -11.1 16.9 27.5 12.7 44.6 5.6 41.9 25.8 13.0 -29.1 -22.7 3School LRSD Badgett_______ Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson __________ Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell______ Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Table 3 Percent Readiness, Grade 2 Spring 2000 and Spring 2001 Spring 2000 67.5 11.8 72.1 47.1 79.8 70.8 81.8 38.6 57.9 51.7 62.9 89.6 81.2 79.3 72.5 80.5 71.1 80.8 43.4 67.1 57.9 48.6 87.2 45.2 94.7 71.4 68.8 31.3 81.2 40.0 63.3 54.4 89.5 89.7 60.4 78.3 Spring 2001 75.4 42.9 81.4 60.5 81.4 79.6 93.1 52.1 45.1 82.8 67.7 85.7 83.6 88.7 66.0 82.9 85.0 85.6 63.0 89.6 75.0 50.0 90.5 74.5 70.5 84.2 81.6 61.4 67.1 54.4 81.4 51.2 91.7 92.6 61.4 86.5 Change 7.9 31.1 9.3 13.4 1.6 8.8 11.3 13.5 -12.8 31.1 4.8 -3.9 2.4 9.4 -6.5 2.4 13.9 4.8 19.6 22.5 17.1 1.4 3.3 29.3 -24.2 12.8 12.8 30.1 -14.1 14.4 18.1 -3.2 2.2 2.9 1.0 8.2 4Performance Levels Table 4 below displays a comparison for the District and by school of the spring 2000 and spring 2001 kindergarten scoresthe percent of students who scored at or above the readiness level. Tables 5 and 6 provide the results for first grade and second grades, respectively. The schools shaded black are those schools with 80 percent or more students scoring at or above the "readiness" level. Sray-shaded schools are those with 50-79 percent of the students scoring at the "readiness" level. The schools in white boxes are those schools with fewer than half (0-49 percent) of the students scoring at the "readiness" level. 5Table 4 Percent Readiness, Kindergarten, 2000 and 2001 All Students School LRSD Average McDermott Fulbright Rightsell Terry Mitchell Otter Creek Jefferson Gibbs Williams Dodd Geyer Springs Pulaski Heights Washington Booker Carver Meadowcliff Brady______ Rockefeller Western Hills Woodruff Fair Park Wilson______ Romine Franklin King Mabelvale Bale Cloverdale Watson Chicot Forest Park Baseline Wakefield Garland Badgett 1999-2000 72.2 94.8 94.5 92.1 91.9 90.6 90.4 89.5 89.2 89.1 86.5 85.1 82.5 81.2 81.0 80.5 77.4 76.9 75.8 75.0 69.2 68.3 66.7 66.7 64.3 63.6 61.0 58.5 56.4 56.4 56.1 55.8 51.1 46.8 40.8 21.6 School LRSD Average McDermott Baseline Fulbright Gibbs Brady Mitchell Otter Creek Carver Williams Booker Geyer Springs Terry Romine Pulaski Heights Washington Jefferson Forest Park Cloverdale King Rightsell Dodd Wilson Meadowcliff Rockefeller Fair Park Watson Mabelvale Western Hills Chicot Stephens Wakefield Bale Franklin Badgett Woodruff 2000-01 80.7 94.3 94.0 94.0 93.4 93.4 92.3 90.6 90.4 89.7 89.6 87.7 86.7 86.4 84.9 84.1 83.9 82.9 82.5 80.5 80.5 80.0 80.0 77.1 76.2 75.6 73.7 73.3 73.0 70.9 66.1 61.1 59.0 58.6 50.0 46.2 6Table 5 Percent Readiness, Grade 1, 2000 and 2001 All Students School LRSD Average 1999-2000 School 53.6 LRSD Average 2000-01 64.0 Woodruff Williams Wilson Western Hills McDermott E 1 1 Rockefeller Carver Meadowcliff Forest Park Booker Jefferson Otter Creek Bale Gibbs Fair Park Fulbright Romine Dodd Franklin King Mabelvale Pulaski Heights Terry Geyer Springs Rightsell_____ Washington Brady Baseline Cloverdale Chicot Mitchell Watson Garland Wakefield Badgett 76.3 76.1 70.0 69.8 69.3 69.1 67.7 66.7 65.9 62.5 61.0 59.6 58.3 57.6 56.6 50.8 50.0 47.1 46.8 35.7 35.5 34.9 29.6 28.4 26.8 25.0 24.7 23.5 22.0 05.9 Williams Carver McDermott Booker Forest Park Romine Jefferson Dodd Fair Park Gibbs Baseline Otter Creek Watson Wakefield Fulbright Kins_________ Meadowcliff Bale Rockefeller Pulaski Heights Woodruff Mabelvale Terry Franklin Western Hills Wilson Brady Chicot Stephens Rightsell_____ Washington Geyer Springs Cloverdale Badgett______ Mitchell RTwl 76.5 73.9 73.5 72.7 71.4 70.8 69.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 65.2 61.7 61.5 60.5 59.8 58.9 55.6 53.8 53.5 51.0 51.0 41.7 41.1 38.6 33.9 26.5 25.0 7Table 6 Percent Readiness, Grade 2, 2000 and 2001 All Students School LRSD Average Rightsell Williams Forest Park Western Hills Otter Creek Carver Franklin Terry King Gibbs Booker_______ Fulbright_____ Woodruff Geyer Springs Bale_________ Rockefeller Jefferson Brady________ Romine McDermott Washington Fair Park Wilson Cloverdale Meadowcliff Watson Dodd Mitchell Baseline Pulaski Heights Mabelvale Wakefield Chicot Garland Badgett 1999-2000 67.5 94.7 89.7 89.6 89.5 87.2 81.8 81.2 81.2 80.8 80.5 79.8 79.3 78.3 72.5 72.1 71.4 71.1 70.8 68.8 67.1 63.3 62.9 60.4 57.9 57.9 54.4 51.7 48.6 47.1 45.2 43.4 40.0 38.6 31.3 11.8 School LRSD Average Carver Williams Western Hills Otter Creek McDermott Fulbright Woodruff Forest Park King Jefferson Rockefeller Franklin Gibbs Dodd Romine Washington Booker Bale Brady Meadowcliff Pulaski Heights Rightsell_____ Fair Park Terry Geyer Springs Mabelvale Wilson Stephens Baseline Wakefield Chicot Watson Mitchell Cloverdale Badgett 2000-01 75.4 93.1 92.6 91.7 90.5 89.6 88.7 86.5 85.7 85.6 85.0 84.2 83.6 82.9 82.8 81.6 81.4 81.4 81.4 79.6 75.0 74.5 70.5 67.7 67.1 66.0 63.0 61.4 61.4 60.5 54.4 52.1 51.2 50.0 45.1 42.9 8Achievement Gap The achievement gap between African American and other students is always an issue of concern in the Little Rock School District. A major emphasis in the PreK-3 Literacy Plan is the significant narrowing and eventual elimination of that gap. Tables 7, 8, and 9 provide DRA data, by school, reflecting the achievement of African American and other students for comparison purposes and a calculation of the gaps. The gap is being addressed at this level not only through the literacy and mathematics program initiatives in the primary grades, but also by the addition of as many pre-kindergarten sections as has been possible. As of spring 2001 there were 953 four-year-olds enrolled in pre-kindergarten classes and another 358 in HIPPY and infant/toddler programs for a total of 1312. 9School Table 7 Percent of Black and Non-Black Students at Readiness" Level, Kindergarten, 1999-2000 and 2000-01 LRSD Average Badgett______ Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson King Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell_____ Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Black 99-00 69.3 16.1 56.8 48.6 85.4 84.6 74.4 59.2 54.2 88.2 67.7 30.4 65.6 89.5 90.0 90.5 80.0 59.6 61.5 94.7 82.6 89.7 91.2 72.7 91.7 67.4 78.9 40.4 92.7 53.3 81.8 57.1 76.2 92.3 71.4 68.6 Black 00-01 77.0 52.6 61.3 92.5 92.3 92.3 83.8 70.6 82.2 76.5 72.7 53.8 59.3 81.3 87.5 66.7 75.5 78.1 86.4 77.8 92.3 87.1 79.3 80.0 73.7 85.4 65.5 87.5 77.1 64.4 75.0 73.2 73.1 86.7 79.4 48.6 Non-Black 99-00 84.7 100.0 80.0 100.0 79.4 72.7 91.7 60.0 83.3 85.0 77.8 91.3 60.0 97.2 80.0 87.5 97.2 70.0 75.0 97.3 62.5 100.0 94.6 94.4 100.0 90.9 73.3 0.0 96.2 33.3 83.3 0.0 77.8 88.5 33.3 75.0 Non-Black 00-01 88.8 0.0 50.0 100.0 85.7 100.0 97.2 71.4 83.3 88.2 85.7 100.0 100.0 98.0 100.0 96.9 86.5 66.7 100.0 72.7 0.0 95.5 91.7 100.0 80.0 87.5 100.0 100.0 94.7 44.4 95.7 33.3 72.7 92.9 80.0 25.0 Denotes schools where Blacks perform higher than Non-Blacks. Gap 99-00 15.4 83.9 23.2 51.4 6.0* 11.9* 17.3 0.8 29.1 3.2* 10.1 60.9 5.6* 7.7 10.0* 3.0* 17.2 10.4 13.5 2.6 20.1* 10.3 3.4 21.7 8.3 23.5 5.6* 40.4* 3.5 20.0* 1.5 57.1* 1.6 3.8* 38.1* 6.4 Gap 00-01 11.8 52.6* 11.3* 7.5 6.6* 7.7 13.4 0.8 1.1 11.7 13.0 46.2 40.7 16.7 12.5 30.2 11.0 11.4* 13.6 5.1* 92.3* 8.4 12.4 20.0 6.3 2.1 34.5 12.5 17.6 20.0* 20.7 39.9* 0.4* 6.2 0.6 23.6* 10School Table 8 Percent of Black and Non-Black Students at "Readiness" Level, Grade 1, 1999-2000 and 2000-01 LRSD Average Badgett______ Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson King Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell_____ Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff * Block 99-00 48.3 7.4 81.5 30.2 61.4 34.2 64.7 28.0 28.3 60.0 57.7 53.3 57.1 60.9 47.1 50.0 55.0 52.5 51.1 85.7 70.0 28.1 46.7 31.8 38.5 62.9 64.7 24.1 31.0 24.5 24.4 27.3 78.1 81.3 87.5 84.4 Block 00-01 57.4 22.6 65.2 68.3 88.5 48.4 83.3 59.3 30.9 72.2 64.7 65.0 59.4 58.3 51.7 54.5 56.8 65.5 87.5 65.5 25.7 87.8 45.5 42.9 62.5 80.0 53.2 36.6 36.1 59.5 36.8 27.7 46.4 97.1 55.1 65.7 Non-Block 99-00 71.2 0.0 58.8 20.0 84.6 52.9 90.3 26.9 33.3 62.5 100.0 82.9 100.0 68.8 46.2 85.0 84.4 64.4 66.7 76.9 77.8 0.0 88.2 68.0 0.0 95.8 50.0 25.0 73.5 14.3 55.2 0.0 90.9 89.7 75.0 83.3 Non-Black 00-01 77.3 100.0 69.2 85.7 85.7 66.7 100.0 36.0 57.1 73.3 100.0 92.0 66.7 74.4 92.6 91.7 76.1 50.0 87.9 69.2 0.0 89.3 75.0 90.0 71.4 73.3 33.3 66.7 75.9 38.5 50.0 0.0 87.5 97.0 33.3 25.0 Denotes schools where Blacks perform higher than Non-Blacks. Gap 99-00 22.9 7.4* 22.7* 10.2* 23.2 18.7 25.6 1.1* 5.0 2.5 42.3 29.6 42.9 7.9 0.9* 35.0 29.4 11.9 15.6 8.8* 7.8 28.1* 41.5 36.2 38.5* 32.9 11.7* 0.9 42.5 10.2* 30.8 27.3* 12.8 8.4 12.5* 1.1* Gop 00-01 19.9 77.4 4.0 17.4 2.8* 18.3 16.7 23.3* 26.2 1.1 35.3 27.0 7.3 16.1 40.9 37.2 19.3 15.5* 0.4 3.7 25.7* 1.5 29.5 47.1 8.9 6.7* 19.9* 30.1 39.8 21.0* 13.2 27.7* 41.1 0.1* 21.8* 40.7* 11School Table 9 Percent of Black and Non-Black Students at "Readiness" Level, Srade 2, 1999-2000 and 2000-01 LRSD Average Badgett______ Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Seyer Springs Sibbs Jefferson King Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell_____ Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Black 99-00 63.8 9.7 71.4 46.2 81.0 72.5 78.3 42.9 62.7 52.9 54.5 83.3 83.1 75.0 69.7 71.4 58.6 78.6 32.4 62.8 55.2 50.0 87.5 30.0 97.3 65.8 65.6 39.3 83.3 40.5 61.7 53.2 92.6 87.1 58.1 82.9 Black 00-01 69.8 44.4 84.4 60.5 70.9 76.3 91.1 55.3 46.7 73.7 62.5 62.5 83.3 83.3 63.9 75.0 78.3 78.4 60.0 89.5 80.0 42.9 91.7 65.0 69.8 72.7 83.3 58.5 59.4 46.9 74.3 59.2 91.4 91.4 60.0 84.8 Non-Black 99-00 81.6 50.0 83.3 57.1 79.5 100.0 94.7 31.6 25.0 71.4 90.0 96.3 0.0 93.0 85.7 90.0 78.7 93.9 68.8 86.4 57.1 66.7 90.0 65.0 0.0 93.8 80.0 80.0 77.5 50.0 73.1 80.0 100.0 94.3 80.0 77.8 Non-Black 00-01 86.8 0.0 72.7 60.0 95.2 90.9 95.2 46.2 20.0 100.0 100.0 97.0 100.0 93.1 72.7 94.1 89.2 95.6 83.3 89.7 50.0 0.0 89.7 81.5 0.0 100.0 75.0 100.0 72.2 100.0 88.6 0.0 92.3 93.9 75.0 100.0 Denotes schools where Blacks perform higher than Non-Blacks. Sap 99-00 17.8 40.3 11.9 10.9 1.5* 27.5 16.4 11.3* 37.7 18.5 35.5 13.0 83.1* 18.0 16.0 18.6 20.1 15.3 36.4 23.6 1.9 16.7 2.5 35.0 97.3* 28.0 25.6 40.7 5.8* 9.5 11.4 26.8 7.4 7.2 21.9 5.1* Sap 00-01 17.0 44.4* 11.7* 0.5* 24.3 14.6 4.1 9.1* 26.7* 26.3 37.5 34.5 16.7 9.8 8.8 19.1 10.9 17.2 23.3 0.2 30.0* 42.9* 2.0* 16.5 69.8* 27.3 8.3* 41.5 12.8 53.1 14.3 59.2* 0.9 2.5 15.0 15.2 12 fJOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS 7< 7^ j John w. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile - 371-0100 August 15, 2001 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425 Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd^wbell.net Ms. Ann S. Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 RECEIVED AUG 1 7 ZOOI Dear Ms. Marshall: OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Please find enclosed Stanford Nine results for reading and language. This is information that we have not been previously provided by the Little Rock School District. It is not within any of the volumes of documents submitted by the school district to either the court or the parties. Several witnesses indicated that these data have been available and are being used by the District at the same time the new superintendent. Dr. James and Dr. Bonnie are proposing to discontinue much of the testing. The Board has approved eliminating much of the testing. The enclosed testing information reveal the reasons for abandonment of tests by the District. While the school district may not have eliminated the Stanford 9, it appears headed in that direction. Mr. Heller is complaining that we have sought too much information from the District and are obstructing school opening. Please see my letter to him today. As the monitor approved by the court. I am writing to request that you obtain all of the test data on all of the subjects test for each school. I am also requesting that you provide a report to the parties assessing the LRSDs progress with respect to remediation of achievement disparities between African American and non African American children during the past four years. Thank you for your immediate attention to this request. incerely, John W. Walker JWW
js Enclosure 4. 0 fifed /i'6rary - f.rcj '^etl I 9 O n 9 ACHiEl^EMBHT TEST SEJUES, NINTH EDITION n G^BLADE: 07 Item Analysis Summary FOR LITTLE ROCK ? o TEST TYPE: MULTIPLE CHOICfi TEST DATE: 09/00 District Code: 036001 Page 14 T H L D SUBTEST CLUSTER OBJECTIVE Rems Item Number Aslan/ Padfie Is. t ! J t u c J I 3 0 H J T 0 PROCESS CLUSTER SUMMARY FOR Thinking Skills 42 Iteew Mean p^value Above Averege Avere^ Belew Aver^^a 71 43 52 5 49 8 39 55 SUBTEST SUMMARY FOR Reading Comprehension Ta-tal N-Count: ASIANZPACIFIC IS.= NATIVE AHERXCAN: DISTRICT* 21 BLACK= 1046 1 WHITES 401 1511 54 Items Hean p'velua HISPANICS OTHERS 21 15 74 52 STANFORD tEVEL/FORM: Irtetwediale i/T 1995 NORMS: Fall National response: analysis PERCENT CORRECT Hispanic 54 lo 43 46 56 Scores based on oomiative data copyrieht O 1996 by Harooust Brace A CcTi^any. AB rescrveiL Natfv* Anwvtcan 40 0 0 5 37 While 73 44 44 12 75 Otker 69 20 47 33 63 District 56 18 41 41 59 NKnal 63 66 Copy 01 PtocmjNo. HII2-J92IU-15-OJM3-1Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Marshall, Federal Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 August 20, 2001 Mr. John W. Walker 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear John: Thank you for your letter of August 15, 2001, to which you attached certain Little Rock School District standardized test results. The data you included were for the SAT-9 taken by 7'* graders in September 2000 and for the ACTAAP benchmark exams for 8" graders, administered in April 2000. We are in the process of gathering various test data from the districts. However, due to the ongoing hearings on the LRSDs bid for unitary status and Judge Wrights associated directives, at this time I dont anticipate that ODM will issue a report on LRSD achievement indicators. ! very much appreciate your keeping us informed. Sincerely yours, Ann S. MarshallT Date: August 21, 2001 To: From: Re: Melissa Inventory of LRSD Test Data Attached is an accumulation, from various sources, of LRSD test data. 1 need you to list out exactly what were got here by test, subject area, date administered, and grade level. Next, indicate any holes in the information, that is, what tests, dates, or grade levels are missing. It may be helpful to refer to Genes chart (distributed at staff meeting several weeks ago) of the various tests each district gives and the time of their administration. After youve finished the LRSD, do the same for the PCSSD and NLRSD. I dont think we have much recent test data on hand from either of the other districts. Once youve determined what we don t have, write a draft of a letter to each district that will enable us to update our files. The attached copies are mine, so please return them when youre through. See how fast you can get this done. Thanks much.Name of Report Standardized Testing Annual Rpt Standardized Testing Annual Rpt AMPT Results 5 year Comparison MAT-6 National Percentile Scores Comparative Data AMPT Results 5-Year Comparison Comparison of Passing Rates on the MPT AMPT Test Results SAT 8 Nat'l Percentile Rank/ Normal Cun e Equivalent Scores SAT 8 Nat'l Percentile Rank/ Normal Cune Equivalent Scores AMPT Third Administration SAT Percentile Rank/Normal Curve Equivalent Scores Comparative Data SAT 8 Nat'l Percentile Rank/ Normal Curve Equivalent Scores SAT 8 Nat'l Percentile Rank/ Normal Curve Equivalent Scores AMPT SAT 8 Annual Report Analyses SAT 8 Percentile Rank and Normal Curve Equivalent SAT Percentile Rank/Normal Curve Equivalent Scores/Comparative Data SAT 8 Percentile Rank and Normal Curve Equivalent LRSD Testing Reports on File at ODM March 5,1996 Year(s) 1986-87 1987-88 1987-91 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991 1988-92 1989-92 1989-93 1992 1992 1992 1992-93 1993 1993 1993-94 1994-95 Fall, 1995 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995 1995 Summarized By school Bv school District summary District summan' By school District summary District summary & by school By school District summary^ By school By school By school District summary By school & district summary By school & district summan By school & district summary By school & district summary By school & district summary Grades 1-6 1-6 3,6,8 1-11 3,6,8 3,6,8 3, 6,8 1-11 1-11 8 1-11 1-11 1-11 6,8 1-11 1-11 1-11 1-11 Race BAV B/W B/W B/W B/W B/W B/W B/W B/W B/W B/W B/W B/W B/W B/W B/W Gender F/M F/M F/M F/M F/M Areas Reported Subject areas Subject areas # pass. # fail, by subject area Subject areas Subject areas Subject areas Subject areas Subject areas Subject areas # pass
# fail Basic Battery/ Complete Battery Subject areas Subject areas Subject areas Subject areas Subject areas Basic Battery, Complete BatteryTest Subject Date Administered The following are the recent LRSD test results that are in our files. DRA Literacy Spring 2000, Spring 2001 SAT 9 Reading 1996-97-2000-01 SAT 9 Math 1996-97-2000-01 SAT 9 Language arts 1996-97-2000-01 SATO Science 1996-97-2000-01 SAT 9 Social studies 1996-97-2000-01 SAT 9 Basic battery 1996-97-2000-01 SAT 9 Complete battery 1996-97-2000-01 ACTAAP Math 1998-99-1999000 ACTAAP Literacy 1998-99-1999000 ACTAAP Math 1998-99-1999000 ACTAAP Literacy 1998-99-1999000 Grade Levels K 1st 2n 5\ 7\ IO' 5th, 1 Qth 5'\ 7\ IO* 5*, 7*, 10* 5*, 7*, 10* 5*, 7*, 10* 5*, 7*, 10* 4th 4* 8* 8* The following, which are duplicates of those in our files, were sent by John Walker. SAT-9 Reading September 2000 7* SAT-9 Language arts September 2000 7* ACTAAP Literacy April 2000 8*IMw Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge August 23, 2001 Ms. Melissa Guildin Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Melissa
I am attaching, as per your request, copies of the grade 4 Benchmark scores for 1998- 99 and 1999-2000. We do not have as yet the 2000-01 reports. I am also attaching a copy of the grade 8 scores for the pilot year in 1999-2000. Again, we do not have the 2000-01 results as yet. As I told you on the telephone, we have not had time as yet to put all the ALT scores on tables. I have the all-student reports done, but I still lack the disaggregations. That task is next on my list. As soon as I get them done, I will provide the full set to you. I sent you earlier our preliminary report on the Developmental Reading Assessment. I now have tables constructed of all the Observation Survey data, each of the five subtests, including disaggregations, plus the mean scores for each sub-test on the DRA, again disaggregated, so I am sending those pages along as well. Wonderful stuff! Let me know if you have questions. Yours truly, Lesley, Ed. D. Associate Superintendent for Instruction Attachment cc: Dr. Kenneth James Chris Heller 810 W. Markham Litde Rock, Arkansas 72201 www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000 fax: 501-324-2032 T 5AT - /^C'TA A? TO A 6At^ 1|. Srt /icrnpre (JiCf>i</ii<naiiK^ i< 1/ I ( I J(A'^ nii.\ h i:>i/ia- Ci^'^ ^2A^-~___ xuyra><g__ ^yDcl ^Ido______ loo______ __'~l )(oo 7^0 _bfdlin____^Qii ) _____200' 0 I___ h 5 n f! u II H H U :i. i IJ ~7 2. 1 1^ /a 2..,. 1 s.^1 /o ) ^.7lo GraudLf- It II 4^Individual Approach to a World of'Knowledge ?SII1 August 23, 2001 Ms, Melissa Guildin Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Melissa: I am attaching, as per your request, copies of the grade 4 Benchmark scores for 1998- 99 and 1999-2000. We do not have as yet the 2000-01 reports. I am also attaching a copy of the grade 8 scores for the pilot year in 1999-2000. Again, we do not have the 2000-01 results as yet. As I told you on the telephone, we have not had time as yet to put all the ALT scores on tables. I have the all-student reports done, but I still lack the disaggregations. That task is next on my list. As soon as I get them done, I will provide the full set to you. I sent you earlier our preliminary report on the Developmental Reading Assessment. I now have tables constructed of all the Observation Survey data, each of the five subtests, including disaggregations, plus the mean scores for each sub-test on the DRA, again disaggregated, so I am sending those pages along as well. Wonderful stuff! Let me know if you have questions. Yours truly, 4 Bonnie A. Lesley, Ed. D. Associate Superintendent for Instruction Attachment cc: Dr. Kenneth James Chris Heller 810 W Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000 fax: 501-324-2032 y / /-I AUG 2 V ZOGi Table 1 Letter IdentificationKindergarten-Black Students Maximum Score = 54 OfflCEOF DESEGREGATiOMrlO^lTDF School Fall 1999 Spring Growth 2000 Fail 2000 Spring Growth 2001 Codes LRSD Badgett_______ Bale Baseline_______ Booker________ Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd_________ Fair Park_____ Forest Park Franklin______ Fulbright_____ Geyer Springs Gibbs_________ Jefferson______ King__________ Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell______ Rockefeller Romine_______ Stephens (Grid) Terry_________ Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff 27.59 20.56 26.56 16.78 37.31 29.17 26.37 21.43 20.88 31.19 29.03 31.22 I 21.06 38.81 29.45 40.25 25.75 29.73 23.03 28.72 28.45 39.92 29.82 26.38 39.44 25.44 37.47 29.81 34.09 I 25.81 23.51 21.96 20.25 38.32 22.90 30.57 48,48 45,33 50.67 38.28 51.92 50.33 50.84 48.50 48.83 51.25 47.21 50.17 50.03 53.44 49.33 54.00 46.80 49.93 49.50 51.94 49.23 45.48 51.58 48.38 50.69 48.09 50.90 48.57 51.54 45.81 41.87 45.25 43.80 51.24 49.12 46.83 Only students with a fall and spnng score arc included in this report. 20.89 24.77 24.11 21.50 14.61 21.16 24.47 27.07 27.95 20.06 18.18 18.95 28.97 14.63 19.88 13.75 21.05 20.20 26.47 23.22 20.78 5.56 21.76 22.00 11.25 22.65 13.43 18.76 17.45 20.00 18.36 23.29 23.55 12.92 26.22 16.26 27.43 12.38 30.85 29.03 32.37 28.08 28.67 21.26 21.35 26.13 34.09 25.82 23.10 30.38 29.06 37.15 21.68 32.43 29.68 28.27 24.23 26.17 31.58 24.15 29.70 25.74 30.03 20.04 30.70 24.84 32.20 23.25 34.52 38.19 21.07 25.64 49.38 46.62 49.59 46.89 51.24 49.48 52.08 45.85 48.35 51.31 53.82 49.73 49.48 50.92 50.90 53.76 48.32 48.80 46.96 51.60 45.48 49.41 50.77 50.37 50.45 49.89 51.50 48.06 50.63 47.13 47.88 49.00 45.57 52.11 50.07 49.39 21.95 34.24 18.74 17.86 18.87 21.40 23.41 24,59 27.00 25.18 19.73 23.91 26.38 20.54 21.84 16.61 26.64 16.37 17.28 23.33 21.25 23.24 19.19 26.22 20.75 24.15 21.47 28.02 19.93 22.29 15.68 25.75 11.05 13.92 29.00 23.75 FR SP SP FR SFA, SP RR M YC, SFA, SP M YC,FRRR,SP FR SFA, SP.CSR RR, CSR SP FR, SFA, SP I, FR, RR, SP FR, RR. SP RR, .M RR SP FR EYE, SP TA FR. SFA, SP I, FR, SP RR, TA I, FR.SP I, SP YC, SFA, SP I, FR, EYRSP YC, TA FR, SP NC, DI, ,M, SP FR CSR SP SP RR M FR RRSP FRSFA.EYE,SP Codes: DI=Direct Instrucuon
EYE=Extended Year Education
FR=75% or higher eligible for free/reduced lunch
l=lncennve School
M=Magnet School
NC=Newconier Center
RR=Reading Recovery
SFA=Success for All
TA=Title I Targeted Assistance
SP=Title 1 Schoolwide Project 98/ / - ZX5(9 ffirrt h It, Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge August 28, 2001 V* 4 Ms. Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann
1 promised to send to you our ALT data as soon as I could get the disaggregated scores onto tables. I completed the grades 2-8 reading and language usage reports this past week-end, so they are attached. As soon as other reports are ready, I will also forward them. \Ne are told that the Benchmark results will arrive this week. If they do, well work to get those to you as quickly as possible. Yours truly, Bonnie A. Lesley, Ed.D Associate Superintendent of Instruction BAL/adg cc: Dr. Kenneth James Chris Heller 810 W Markham Litde Rock, Arkansas 72201 www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000 fax: 501-324-2032 J Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge September 10, 2001 Ms. Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Marshall: RECF''^D SEP I i' ?!l!)l urHbi
V- 1 0WGATi02^GJjjI0RiMB All of our test scores are finally in, and we have compiled our reports, attaching for your files the following
I am 1. ALT Reading and Language Usage 2. ALT Mathematics and Science 3. Grade 4 Literacy and Mathematics - Benchmarks 4. Grade 8 Literacy and Mathematics - Benchmarks 5. ACT, 1997-98 through 2000-01 6. Advanced Placement Please let me know if you have questions. Sincerely, Bonnie A. Lesley, Ed.D Associate Superintendent for Instruction BAL/adg Attachments cc: Dr. Kenneth James Chris Heller 810 W Markham Litde Rock, Arkansas 72201 www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000 fax: 501-324-2032 John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 CC JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone
(501) 372-3425 Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenrydl^wbell.net Via Facsimile - 371-0100 November 12, 2001 Ms. Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 RECEIVED NOV 14 2001 Re: LRSD Six Year SAT 9 Summary lafflCEOl- OeSTIONMONITORil Dear Ms. Marshall: Would you please provide the NCE scores for grades 5, 7 and 10 by year and race for the most recent LRSD Stanford 9 results. In other words, as measured by the NCE scores on the SAT 9, has the disparity decreased in academic achievement between the black students and white students in the Little Rock School District. Thank you for your attention to this request. incerely, John W. JWW:js Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Marshall, Federal Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 September 11, 2002 Dr. Boimie Lesley Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Bonnie: Thanks very much for forwarding a copy of your August presentation to the Board on recent algebra, geometry, and literacy test scores. The results indicate very encouraging improvements, upon which we congratulate you, your professional colleagues, and, of course, the students. some We appreciate your keeping us informed and look forward to hearing good news during the school year. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Marshall k st<ru> 144 vS jtu lift (x> July 22, 2005 RECEIVED JUL 2 9 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206-1220 Dear Mr. Walker: Thank you for your request for ACTAAP & ITBS disaggregated test results by school, race and gender from last school year. We have received such data related to the ITBS, however, ACTAAP data received by LRSD consists only of raw scores for individual students and is not yet normalized by the Department of Education. Our PRE Department will prepare a set of ITBS data for you in the format you requested and furnish it to you within two weeks. Please let us know whether this satisfies your request. Siricerely yours, L't/p :aren DeJamette, Ph. T H^ai fl . V // Director, PRE Department xc
Mr. Gene Jones, Associate Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring US District Court 1 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Chris Heller Friday Eldredge & Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Thursday, May 9,1991 Arkansas Gazette Bghth grade MFT test results Caposite pass rate School: Dfetncts RodR
N^<
LJ^G|RiLiisskf: ? No. tested , 1792 fe^paSs^ll^ggig Q/ /o passed 78 536 ssas
85.5 County 1483'1 B^253
< 84.5 : I r. t J J- r. J ::Pa^s-rafie| bysubji^ Reading Language.... Sqenc8hi:W-:-: 87% 82 Soc. Studies '"^ S- i < 89% SOT 86... 75 89%IGA ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT THURSDAY, MAY 9, 1991 Arkansas Minimum Performance Test (Sth grade) STUDENTS FAILING School Cloverdale * iDuhbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann ^ulaski Heights Southwest * Elizabeth Mitchell DISTRICT Students passing ~7i 70 83 76 81 88 80 69 29 78 Black Male Female White Male Female 38 50 38 43 40 48 44 40 44 44 39 57 44 51 43 50 48 20 47 3 7 3 2 5 14 ' 2 2 40 18 13 4 3 3 0 3 NA 5 NA 17 Total students tailing 29 soil 17 24 19 12 20 3t 71 Note: Figures are percentages, with fractions rounded off to the nearest whole number, and therefore may not total 100 percent. WA = not available * = other races not included^Thursday, May 23, 1991...Arkansas Democrat _______________ LRSD pass rates on Minimum Performance Test I { } I I s.
frhe chart shows the percentage of black, white and tot^ studeriU.passlhg the MPT^ SCHOOL/GRADE READING MATH LANGUAGE ARTS SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES BADGETT 3 6 BALES 6 BASELINE 3 6 BOOKER 3 6 BRADY 3 6 CARVER 3 6 CHICOT 3 6 CLOVERDALE 3 6 DODD 3 6 FAJR PARK 3 6 FOREST PARK 3 8 FRANKLIN 3 6 FULBRiGKrS 6 QARLAN0 3 6 QEYER SPRINGS 3 6 GIBBS 3 6 ISH3 6 JEFFERSON 3 8 MABELVALE 3 8 MCDEFBAOnS 8 HEADOWCUFF 3 6 MICHELL 3 8 OUERCREEKS 6 PULASKI HEIGHTS 3 8 OHrSELL3 8 ROCKEFELLER 3 6 ROMINES 6 STEPHENS 3 6 TERRY 3 6 WAKEFIELD 3 8 WASHMQTON 3 8 WATSONS 6 WESTERN HILLS 3 6 W1LUAMS 3 8 WILSON 3 8 WOODRUFF 3 6 DUNBAR FOREST HBGHTS HENDERSON MABELVALE MANN PULASKI HEtOHTS SOUTHWEST ALL 73 88 67 86 85 88 93 99 P 98 99 96 .65 P 94 92 74 79 91 85 93 98 92 94 P 96 69 91 95 100 90 98 75 P 90 98 86 88 94 99 84 98 93 94 92 100 88 P 96 93 M 95 84 91 59 94 93 IM 87 96 90 93 P 95 93 92 94 1W P 87 P 98 B 69 86 65 84 83 85 90 98 77 98 98 92 54 88 97 89 78 78 91 81 87 97 90 95 72 93 67 90 93 100 83 100 75 83 89 97 74 85 91 96 78 96 92 94 83 too 80 87 96 93 85 95 87 90 60 92 89 too 82 94 80 84 77 92 94 89 97 100 84 90 80 97 w 88 100 71 100 100 92 97 100 94 100 100 100 94 92 85 too 71 -79 91 100 too 100 100 86 97 100 too 100 100 100 100 95 90 100 95 92 100 too 96 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 75 100 50 100 97 100 95 100 100 100 94 100 93 100 97 100 92 79 100 100 ALL 92 58 75 81 P 93 91 97 80 92 97 86 56 72 96 92 S3 80 88 88 99 100 87 83 83 92 58 76 100 too 88 90 75 83 90 98 77 76 89 96 81 100 100 88 96 too 90 89 92 93 97 95 94 84 65 94 93 97 88 85 98 100 77 95 98 too 94 97 72 91 76 98 B 90 62 73 78 78 96 88 96 74 91 96 75 49 68 97 91 80 78 88 85 97 100 87 81 72 88 58 n 100 100 78 95 75 83 83 97 70 74 86 96 75 100 100 88 92 100 84 90 92 93 96 95 97 83 60 92 89 98 83 81 96 100 72 94 97 too 91 97 68 94 67 97 W 100 40 86 100 100 85 97 100 94 100 98 100 75 85 92 100 88 84 91 100 100 100 75 86 100 97 100 67 100 100 100 85 100 100 p 81 95 95 91 100 100 100 100 100 88 100 100 83 too too 100 97 96 94 94 100 100 89 96 100 100 97 96 85 88 too too ALL 58 67 54 87 78 76 56 59 59 74 92 68 81 50 80 90 83 82 58 87 85 82 81 76 80 73 65 69 85 84 88 95 86 92 S3 80 B 80 63 52 78 74 63 51 49 49 P 90 65 68 52 86 90 83 72 61 82 79 82 63 77 80 71 65 75 76 81 77 94 81 n P 73 W 57 100 54 100 100 90 69 85 79 100 95 71 97 33 67 90 92 81 90 94 96 75 100 50 190 89 97 96 100 93 71 100 ALL 38 58 44 82 90 n 43 71 61 59 75 49 82 59 85 85 91 58 76 68 71 83 74 80 68 56 69 79 66 93 78 68 p 83 93 B it S3 44 71 88 61 29 60 51 48 69 43 73 55 93 81 P n 39 67 50 71 63 67 80 67 54 75 71 62 84 73 S3 75 94 90 W ao 87 46 97 100 95 85 100 79 100 82 71 94 100 67 90 100 100 85 92 94 96 100 100 75 92 72 100 68 100 89 79 100 ALL 38 58 54 92 73 78 44 P 55 68 80 55 86 53 95 83 75 80 58 82 78 76 85 74 80 68 75 68 85 78 81 74 78 88 65 75 B 38 58 59 P 70 61 34 48 46 59 72 49 76 48 100 81 75 P 50 74 71 76 63 70 80 17 73 n 76 72 65 67 75 81 65 70 W 40 48 100 100 91 77 92 74 100 90 71 100 100 83 85 10c 73 98 88 100 88 100 100 too 83 95 88 86 96 64 86 83 86 84 85 95 89 89 81 81 80 78 93 00 88 88 98 97 97 98 99 98 75 89 88 85 87 87 n 79 69 84 85 78 81 75 74 84 88 98 98 97 95 99 U 77 77 81 80 84 93 84 77 74 73 74 76 78 89 72 72 87 86 95 97 97 97 97 95 61 50 71 58 58 71 71 56 52 40 60 49 40 55 48 50 O 71 94 65 88 92 96 80 53 56 79 56 65 80 66 47 48 52 71 51 53 71 47 42 65 63 95 73 P P ' P i 61Thursday, August 8, 1991... Democrat LRSD Metropolitan Achievement Test comparison I Sr.high Central Fair Hall McClellan Parkview I i Jr. high loverOale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest - 1990 7 B W 40 62 28 47 42 81 41 79 34 73 51 85 42 88 41 64 1990 10 B W 42 84 38 71 45 78 38 63 56 81 1991 7 B W 32 53 46 80 36 70 33 74 34 61 53 83 34 84 34 48 1991 10 B W 42 86 37 63 40 74 40 65 57 84 1990 8 B W 35 55 24 44 43 78 38 76 41 65 50 85 38 80 33 73 1990 11 B W 38 81 32 64 38 73 28 58 41 68 1991 8 B W 34 56 30 61 40 77 37 78 36 70 49 84 33 84 35 61 1991 11 B W 40 85 36 70 42 76 37 59 54 79 1990 9 B W 52 73 42 68 50 85 54 83 52 78 63 91 52 89 53 73 Chart shows percentile ranking, by grade and race, of the test's complete battery, comparing 1990 scores to 1991 scores. A ranking in the 50th percentile is considered average. 1991 9 B W 45 64 44 77 49 83 46 84 45 72 61 90 50 85 42 67 I ! Elementary 1990 1 B W 1991 1 B W Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver < . Chicot Cloverdale Dodd , Fair Pai^' Forest Park 29 40 55 79 45 66 27 83 45 54 30 50 41 74 38 74 23 63 46 72 95 73 41 59 29
48: 66 40 27 50 21 78 97 42 1990 2 B W 30 46 30 53 60 63 60 80 42 84 63 93 26 48 63 50 60 52 32 79 40 <71 64 89 49 93 33 45 53 88 57 94 1991 2 B W 26 51 33 55 41 57 41 78 28 55 61 92 43 61 70 81 26 31 33 70 61 93 1990 3 B W 20 39 40 63 40 63 42 75 30 69 46 87 35 62 49 76 38 71 34 66 43 91 Frankiih. Fulbright _ 27 44 37-82 23 72 49 86 Garland 37 - 31 65 Geyer Springs 51 63 54 74 Gibbs :<<:4
:> Ish Jeffersonii Mabelvale ,<
: 40 84 39 88 43 25 28 60 . 38 78 25 <77 23 49 32 55 46 52 27 51 32 54 49 83 34 80 34 77 27 83 23 46 26 52 64 43 70 . 28 51 48 90 58 93 32 35 57 47 61 48 McDermott- 49 92 43 80 Meadowcliff MitcheiL- > Otter Creek 31 67 32 60 < 48 91 53 71 57 84 37 80 44 76 42 74 46 88 50 59 34 63 33 53 62 89 61 87 44 78 34 73 44 60 32 78 42 23 44 75 47 28 43 78 45 80 Pulaski-'Heights 26 72 21 64 Rightsell Rockefeller Romine ,, Stephens" Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff 51 73 47 - <39 43 33 70 ,38 48 55 , 44 25 61 33 - 40 85 64 - 34 37 40 81 48 79 46 52 39 68 20 63 45 94 40 54 50 58 1991 3 B W 29 56 26 37 37 47 39 73 34 61 55 90 23 49 54 53 34 36 38 83 46 89 38 77 40 81 25 57 37 66 49 86 37 40 80 31 ^7 44 75 36 76 45 56 51 81 1990 4 B W 35 35 27 45 53 59 1991 4 B 31 36 49 50 80 .44 44 70 72 93 38 70 39 63 62 54 58 80 57 1990 5 B 21 29 44 84 49 69 1991 5 B W 1990 6 B W 35 21 37 46 29 5 4 45 69 49 49 49 75 47 83 51 84 61 88 49 84 42 71 57 83 90 55 91 65 91 68 92 46 63 32 64 37 73 45 72 Q7 79 .17 85 39 63 49 55 41 26 44 72 29 75 53 87 36 62 44 68 40 37 53 49 47 90 32 47 29 , 45 49 85 51 87 \53 99 : 59 81 25 - 51 76 52 83 50 74 49 82 38 - 40 67 40 55 59 38 50 42 60 55 74 41 52 80 32 58 46 84 95 52 88 36 85 53 :43 81 41 76 79 44 82 43 80 40 37 v' -<45 1991 6 B W 33 37 37 83 53 57 49 87 ' 51 82 50 91 39 70 39 63 38 64 66 82 57 95 49 64: 52 73 48 38 37 75 41 65 61 92 59 93 60 58 47 10 36 61 38 23 61 80 59 71 63 91 58 92 60 93 66 85 37 63 50 75 55 54 52 88 41 86 41 92 89 58 82 47 92< 46 64 35 57 34 34 35 55 51 62 45 53 51 84 62 84 49 49 38 68 41 80 55 83 53 61 37 82 43 27 72 - 44 83 58 83 45 76. 36 53 28 73 32 - 31 41 40 40 47 82 19 66 43 42 45 47 53 41 48 45 49 56 47 67 47 75 47 .40 53 <44 52 53 - < 53 43 88 58 82 50 78 41 36 59 31 :79 33 69 48 40 39 90 58 J 28 38 33 - 60 35 58 33 58 27^ 42 35 27 82 58 28 75 28 33 43 46 40 70 54 62 58 67 35 44 44 46 66 64 89 50 87 44 44 48 55 53 23 61 54 54 42 95 36 - 43 49 54 58 27 44 78 53 79 53 53 43 70 53 79 65 83 54 40 64 32 70 48 48 45 ' 61 56 73 55 65 79 39 84 40 85 30 30 41 74 51 38 88 33 51 30 46 32 74 39 55 45 48 25 66 48 85 50 83 84 94 87 :95 82 70 77 82 33 25 20 33 46 78 58 85 59 82 43 97 91 82 93 70 91 63 50 65 61 56 50 53 27 35 56 67 19 60 38 27 75 85 47 69 59 77 60 61 55 55 51 72 48 68 53 72 54 75 42 75 52 52 46 74 51 83 55 80 83 89 46 59 36 48 75 92 72 72 75 87 75 92 72 90 47 44 50 50 43 60 53 74 59 62 28 30 42 42 43 66 51 59 48 75Au.qust 12, 1991 Monday Arkansas Ppmncrat MAT 6 anaylsis for elementary schools (Total possible score is 600. School average of 50% or higher is 300 or more total points) _ . ' Total points I B ^4 Total points Ranking 1 '??:.'2 3 Name Williams Magnet Car/er Magnet- Forest Park area Total points' i 4 Gibbs Magrwt 5 Otter Creek area 7 . 0 9 : 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 .27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 6 Terry area 502 455 402
393:::'.- ' Name Williams Jefferson area McDermott area Fulbright area Booker Magnet Western Hills area Cloverdale area Washington Magnet Wilson area M J- Mitchell incentive Geyer Springs aroa Meadowcliff area Remine area- V Watson area Fair Park area < Rightseil incentive Rockefeller incentive Wakefield area , Brady areaii' Pul. Heights area Stephens incentive Baseline area Ish incentive Woodruff area Mabelvale area Chicot area [jodd area Franklin area Badgett area
Bale area Garland incentive 392 , 372 366 363 349 338 335 320 308 308 306 291 283 - 283 ( 283 282 281 281 279 269 . 268: 267 264 262 260 255 226 .218 :213 Carver < Gibbs Cloverdale Wilson Forest Park Mitchell Terry (black) 454 'S<i367'' 329 .:.:S:329
>-.' Name Carver (per 600 whita pupils 551 Forest Park ' 548 McDermott Romine Western Hills Otter Creek Rightsell Stephens Geyer Springs Ish Booker Fulbright Baseline Watson Fair Park Rockefeller Meadowcliff Jefferson Wakefield Brady Franklin Dodd Chicot Mabelvale ' Badgett Pul. Heights 325 312 311 303 296 294 284 283 272 i 272 263: 262 259 259 258 246 245 245 242 240 240 226 218 217 212 209 : :::208 Washington 207 Garland Woodruff Bale 204 202 188 Williams Gibbs- : Jefferson Otter Creek? Washington Booker McDermott Fulbright\ : Western Hills Terry Pul. Heights Fair Park Rockefeller Meadowcliff Brady Franklin Cloverdale Watson. - Geyer. Springs Wakefield Bale Chicot Romine Wil sen Woodruff Mabelvale Dodd Bale . Baagett Stephens" Garland" Mitcheir* Ish" Rightseil" 542 537 498 490 483 481 477 475 . - 472 468 : 426 417 415 409 404 402 400 372: \ 369 368 366 358 354 351 345 330 325 318 306 283 261 255 206 *AI1 pupils based on total percentile rank for each grade "Total points possible are less than 6CC because there were not white students enrolled in all grades.Metropolitan Achievement Tests ,tK': The chart shows how Arkansas students ranked against national percentiles on the MAT~6 tests, 1986-91 I '86 '87 '88 '89 '90 '91 Composite / Basic Battery 64 66 66 67 67 65 Total reading 60 62 62 62 62 61 Total math 67 68 67 70 70 69 Total language 63 64 65 66 65 64 u Composite / Basic Battery 54 58 59 60 61 60 Total reading 51 53 55 Total math 53 57 58 Total language 55 59 61 55 59 62 55 54 60 59 63 61 ( Composite / Basic Battery 53 54 55 56 58 57 , fOtA, Total reading 49 49 50 Total math 50 51 52 Total language 58 59 60 51 51 52 I 53 61 55 54 62 61 SOURCE: Nat'l Education Assn. 7- M. STOREY / Democrat-Ga2etteI I, t * Arkansas Democrat MONDAY, AUGUST 12, 1991 B I I 4 J J 1 U Magnet schools rank highest in MAT6 scores 4 l! , BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat Staff Writer A ranking of Little Rock
School District schools based I on their Metropolitan Achieve- ! ment Test results from last I I spring puts Williams Magnet I Elementary, Mann Magnet Jun- i ior High and Parkview Magnet I High schools on top. : Garland Elementary, South- i west Junior High and McClellan High schools make up the bottom of the lists when only test scores are considered. The test assesses students in the areas of social studies, mathematics, reading, language arts and science. Williams, which offers a basic skills magnet program, had the highest number of points, followed by Carver Basic Skills/Math-Science Magnet School, Forest Park Elementary, Gibbs International Studies Magnet School and Otter Creek Elementary School. Four of the top 10 elementary schools were magnet schools, meaning they have special academic themes, strict rules on parent involvement and are open to pupils from all three Pulaski County school districts. The schools were created to enhance desegregation and are financed by all three districts and the state, which pays half the cost of educating each child. Parents voluntarily enroll their children in the magnet schools. No students are assigned to the schools. Little Rock Superintendent Ruth Steele in an interview last week cautioned that ranking schools could be like comparing apples and oranges. You have to remember that children or their parents want to be at the magnet schools and that they came from all three school districts, she said. They have waited on lists or participated in a lottery to be in those schools. That can be very different than staying at an assigned school. She also noted that poverty can affect student achievement and the incidence of poverty is likely to be greater among students in the districts area schools and predominantly black incentive ! 4 H I 3 ' J J i schools. Area schools are schools that have attendance I J zones and no special court-or- J dered desegregation program. The Arkansas Democrat t I t ranked the schools based on 5 ' the school-by-schooi, grade-by- t 1 grade data released by the dis- , trict last week. Three sets of 5 rankings were done using the ? test scores of all students, the a | scores of all black students J I and the scores of all white Stu- * dents. The rankings revealed: , Tremendous disparities j 4 exist between the average 4 achievement levels of black 4 and white students in the dis- 5 trict, and between schools in ,4 the district. Eight elementary schools 1 I that ranked in the top 12 had both high white scores and the ! high black scores, indicating * that schools that do a good job ! for one race do a good job for J the other. The elementary incentive J schools, which get double per- J See SCORES, Page 5B I I i J 1 Scores MAT 6 anaylsis for elementary schools Continued from Arkansas Page pupil funding and are designed to improve the achievement level of black children, had mixed test results. Mitchell Elementary ranked highest among the incentive schools. Some of the districts area schools, like Forest Park, Cloverdale, McDermott and Western Hills, reported high or fairly high test results. Those schools dont get the special funding and public attention that magnets and incentive schools get. The school rankings were determined by adding the percentile scores for all grades at a school. Fer example, Williams first-graders scored at the 92nd percentile. That was added to the second grade per- centile of 88, the third-grade percentile of 75, the fourthgrade score of 85, the fifthgrade score of 80 and the sixthgrade score of 82 for a total of 502 points. The highest number of points possible at any grade wa.s 100, thus the total perfect score would be 600. An average score was 300. Eighteen of the districts elementary schools scored above the 300 mark and 18 scored below. When the scores of black students were considered. only nine schools had 300 or more points. When white scores were considered in isolation, all schools scored above average. (The average for white students is less than 300 at some of the incentive schools because there were not white students in every grade.) I told the principals that whatever conclusions are drawn about the test scores, it is clear that what happens in a class to white students is very different than what happens to . black students, Steele said. Theres a lot of work for everybody to do. Im not pleased
I cant be pleased when there are disparities of 30 percentile points or more between black and white children. (Total possible score is 600. School average of 50% or higher is 300 or more total points) Ranking Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Williams Magnet Carver Ma^t Forest Park area Gibbs Magnet Otter Creek area Terry area Jefferson area McDermott area Fulbright area Booker Magnet Western Hilts area Cloverdale area Washington Magnet WSson area Mitchell incentive Geyer Springs aroa Meadowcliff area Romine area Watson area Fair Park area Rightsell incentive Rockefeller incentive Wakefield area Brady araa Pul. Heights area Stephens incentive Baseline area Ish tocentive Woodruff ares Mabelvale area Chicot area Dodd area Franklin area Badgett area Bale area Garland incentive Total points* Name 502 474 455 444 402 393 392 377 372 366 363 349 338 335 320 308 308 306 291 283 283 283 282 281 261 279 269 268 267 264 262 260 255 226 218 213 Williams Carver Gibbs Cloverdale Wilson Forest Park Mitchell Terry McDermott Romir>e Western Hilis Otter Creek Rightsell Stephens Total points (black) 454 367 329 329 325 322 312 311 303 296 294 284 283 272 Name Carver Forest Park Williams Gibbs Jefferson Otter Creek Washington Booker McDermott Fulbright Total points (per 600 white' pupils Geyer Springs 272 Ish Booker Fulbright Baseline Watson Fair Park Rockefeller Meadowcliff Jefferson Wakefield Brady Franklin Dodd Chico
Mabelvale Badgett Pui. Weights Washington Garland Woodruff Bate 263 262 259 259 258 246 245 245 242 240 240 226 218 21' 212 209 208 207 204 202 188 Western Hills Terry Pul. Heights Fair Park Rockefellei Meadowcliff Brady FrankJir^ Cloverdale Watson 551 548 542 537 498 490 483 481 477 475 472 468 426 417 415 409 404 402 400 372 I I I Geyer Springs 369 Wakefield Bale Chicot Romine Wil sen Woodruff Mabelvale Dodd Bale Badgett Stephens* Garland Miicbeil** Ish** Rightseil* 368 366 358 354 351 345 330 325 318 306 283 261 255 206 All pupils based on total percentile rank for each grade Total points possible are less than 600 because there were not white students enrollee in all grades. The results of the MAT6 will be used to determine whether the district must repay a $20 million loan to the state of Arkansas. The loan is a provision in the districts financial settlement of the 8-year-oid school desegregation lawsuit with the state. If the district raises the average score of black children to 90 percent of the average score of white students by the year 2000, the district will not have to repay the money. The incentive schools are intended to help the district meet that goal by offering after-school, weekend and summer programs, as well as smaller class sizes, parent centers and field trips. When the scores of black children are considered by themselves, Mitchell students ranked seventh in the district. Rightsell Elementary ranked : 13th, Stephens was i4th and Ish was 16th, Rockefeller was 22nd and Garland 34th. Black students at Mitchell outscored black students at Terry, McDermott, and Jefferson, which are area schools, and at | Booker Magnet and Washing- 5 ton Magnet elementaries. In the junior high rankings, ,, Mann was first, followed by Pulaski Heights, Forest Heights, Dunbar, Henderson, Mabelvale, Cloverdale and j Heights Southwest. Dunbar, the dis- s tricts newest magnet school, showed some large gains in scores when compared to last year. At the high school level, Parkview was first, followed by I Central, Hall, Fair and McClel- j Ian. When only the scores of white students were ranked, Central Parkview. was ahead ofuiasKi Black pupils in LRSD below national average on Stanford 8 scores BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer Black pupils in the Little Rock School District on average scored below the national average in all subjects and at all reported grade levels on the new Stanford Achievement Test. Eighth Edition. White pupils, on the average, scored above the national average in ail subjects and at -all grades reported. Dr. Ruth Steele, whose last day of work in the Little Bock School District is today, said Thursday the scores had changed little since last year. A disparity between black and white pupils continues to exist in the district, Steele said. As superintendent, I must say that one of my disappointments has been our inability to significantly raise the test scores and reduce the disparity, she said. score earned by black pupils was at the 48th percentile in sixth-grade math and fifth- grade social studies. The lowest average score was at the 28th percentile in fifth-grade reading. The 50th percentile is considered to be the national average. 7 must say that one of my disappointments has been our inability to significantly raise the test scores and reduce the disparity. ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE FRIDAY, JUNE 26, 1992 LRSD SAT results Stanford Achievement test. Eighth Edition national percentile {Districtwide summary, 1992) rank The achievement disparity between the races exceeded 30 points in some subjects and grades. . Steele is retiring from the district and will become a half-time associate professor in the College of Education at the University of Central Arkansas. Dr. Mac Bernd, formerly a superintendent in San Diego County, Calif., will replace her. According to the test results, the highest average The highest average score for white pupils was at the 77th percentile in second-grade math and the lowest was at the 57th percentile in grade-nine math. The achievement disparity between the races exceeded 30 points in some subjects and grades. In eighth-grade reading, white pupils scored at the 67th percentile, compared to black pupils 29th percentile score. A total of 19,287 pupils in grades one through 11 took the nationally standardized exam last spring. The Stanford 8 replaces the Metropolitan Achievement Test, Sixth Edition, which had been administered in past years. The Stanford 8 compares the achievement levels of Little Rock pupils with the achievement levels of a national sample of pupils who took the same tests. The test is especially signif- Grade/ race 1 TOTAL B W 2 TOTAL B W 3 TOTAL B W . -4 TOTAL 5 TOTAL B _______W. 6 TOTAL B _______W .2JQTAL 8 TOTAL B ______ML 9 TOTAL B ______ML *10 TOTAL 11 TOTAL B W Number tested 2,094 1,330 697 1,883 1,173 672' 1,783 1,131 632 1.867 1,922 1,288 612 1,843 1,209 609 1.694 1,573 1,060 493 1,554 995 ___53fi_ 1.602 1,472 825 612 Total Total Environment Soc. reading math Lang. Science science 42 35 63 39 29 62 39 27 63 44 38 26 63 50 37 24. AZ 41 29 44 30 ja. 49 50 34 69 48 40 70 57 46 n 58 46 76 58 53 43 2L 57 74 JS. 39 30 59 34 23 .52. 37 43 32 59 41 32 63 49 39 70 50 38 70 4^ 48 38 52 51 41 55 45 48 38 52. 54 42 25 48 48 35 66 37 27 59 43 32 65 43 30 67 46 45 33 20. 54 43 24. .42. 45 34 58. 50 38 22. 45 47 32 68 46 35 67 48 46 37 55. 59 48 25 42 46 34 22 49 36 73 43 51 36 69 Complete battery 39 31 64 45 33 70 47 34 70 47 44 32 ___S2_ 54 43 75 ___4S_ 43 30 ___sa_ 48 34 73 47 51 34 12. 'Data by race for grades 4,7 and 10 are unavailable at this time. " At grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT NOTE: Totals may not add up because other* category was omitted. leant to the Little Rock School District in light of the district's financial settlement agreement with the state of Arkansas. If the district raises the average scores of black children to at least 90 percent of the average score earned by white pupils by the year 2000, the district will not have to repay a $20 million loan. The state is loaning the district the money to aid in the districts desegregation efforts. The district Thursday had not yet broken the test scores down by school, said Sterling Ingram, director of the districts planning, research and evaluation office. The district also does not have the fourth-, seventh- and 10th-grade scores broken down by race yet Those grades are handled differently in scoring the tests because the test results must be reported to the state Department of Education./ ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE THURSDAY, MAY 14,1992 1 2Wof LR eighth-graders fail state performance test t I L BY CYNIHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Stall Writer The number of Little Rock eighth-graders who failed the Arkansas Minimum Performance Test in March climbed to LRSD 1992 MPT results (Eighth grade summary) a record 412 pupils, who arc now in jeopardy of not being promoted. Statistics released Wednesday by the Little Rock School District show that 23 percent of 1.781 eighth-graders failed the exam on the first attempt. Last year, 400 pupils, or 22 percent of the test-takers, failed the exam on the first try. 'The Minimum Performance Test, mandated by the slate, tests students in reading, math, language arts, science and social studies. It is given to pupils in third, sixth and eighth grades, though only eighth-graders must pas.s the exam to be eligible for promotion to the ninth grade. The Little Rock eighth- graders' failure rates are^ almost 7 percentage point.s higher than those recorded for the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school districts, which released their All students I No. tested No. passed Percent passed Black males Percent passed Black females - Percent passed White males Percent passed White Females Percent passed Other--------------- Percent passed Reading 1,781 1,505 85 Math 1,781 1,523 86 Lang. Arts 1,781 1.435 81 Science 1,781 1,110 62 Soc. Slud. 1,781 1,172 66 Total 1,781. 1,369 77 76 79 69 57 57 NA 81 84 81 47 57 NA 96 98 97 94 88 87 84 NA 95 95 83 85 NA 92 86 81 81 NA 3 testing results Tuesday. Eighth-graders in both those districLs had 16.2 percent fail- ure rates. Pupils have three chances to pass the eighth-grade test The test will be given again May 26-29 and once more July 24-2!l. Last year, 92 percent of the eighth-graders . districts passed the test after three tries. Of the Little Rock eighth- graders who failed, 90 percent are black, though black.s make up 64 percent of the district's enrollment. A total of 372 black eighth-graders failed the test, as did 40 white pupils. Seventy pupils, or 34 percent of the test-takers at Southwest Junior High School, failed the test thi.s year. South- west's failure rate was the highest among the eight junior high schools. Mann Magnet Junior High School had the highest pass rate 87 percent. Here are the failure rates fol' the other junior highs: Forest Heights Junior High - 73 failures, 32 percent. Mabelvale Junior High - 52 failures, 30 percent. Henderson Junior High - 54 failures, 25 percent. Dunbar Magnet Junior High - 50 failures, 21 percent. Cloverdale Junior High - 37 failures, 17 percent. Pulaski Heights Junior High - 30 failures, 16 percent. Among the district's third- graders, 68 percent passed the reading test, compared to 88 percent last year. Eighty-seven percent of the third-graders passed the math test last year, compared to 91 percent this year. At Carver Magnet Elementary School, all third-graders passed the reading test and 99 percent passed the math test. See TEST, Page 7B lebi j Continued horn Pulaski Page
All Gibbs Magnet School third- */[ (I __________ js^uisiig nin fit ittainHn I r graders the test All s ividf^iivb .J...--- passed both parts of 1 "Uie Uiird-graders at 1, Otter Creek, J
^I(i:i^'aTwe
^n-llills I passed the math test. Overall, pas.s rates lor sixth- Overall, pass uveiaii, , graders fell from 94 percent to m normiil Ulis year in reading. 92 percent this year 90 ^r-U to 89 1 in inatli.iind rroni TH perceiiUo
77 percent in language aits. ____ imnro I ates improved The pass rates improveu 73 percent to 75 percent from LRSD desegregation official resigns to take post at Hendrix ir science JI VVHV vv r- - and 73 percent to 74 IP hvivuv-'- I..- 1 l^uccnt in social studies. I Janies Jennings, associate .superintendent for desegregation in tile Little Rock School District, said Wednesday that lie i.s resigning to become an assistant professor of education at Hendrix College in Con- I way. Jennings, who has been an associate superintendent since March 1987 and a district I L i I einployce since 1977, said his resignation is effective Juno 30. lie is completing liis doctorate in educational administra- tion this spring at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. He will attend Memphis Slate University thi.s summer and next fall to obtain a master's degree in history. Jennings is one of five top administrators leaving the district this year. The others include Superintendent Ruth Steele, Deputy Superintendent Tony Wood, Manager for Support Services Janies Ivey and Transportation Director Richard Johnson.Arkansas Democrat W(Sazettc ABk-AMCAg- MCWCPAPFR LITTLE ROCK. AUGUST 14,1992 88 PAGES 9 SECTIONS 35e White students still outpace blacks, achievement tests show BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer White students in the Little Rock School District continued to outperform blacks in standardized tests in 1991-92, according to school-by-school results on the Stanford Achieve- mejit Test, eighth edition. - The scores were released .i74th percentile to the 82nd per- Thursday for exams taken in April by 19,287 students in grades kindergarten through 11. They show wide variations in achievement between schools. For example, Williams Basic Skills Magnet Elementary School averaged scores for the six grades that ranged from the i centile. Pupils in five of the six, ^ades at Garland and Franklin incentive elementaries averaged scores that were below the 30th percentile. The 50th percentile is considered the national average. We have some areas to cheer about, and some we could hold a wake over, Dr. Mac .1 Bernd, Little Rocks new school superintendent, said. The test shows us where we need to improve. The test results and the elimination of the racial disparity gap are especially important to the Little Rock district. Narrowing the gap would be a general sign that )^e district is ac- . - ) eomplishing its desegregation goals. Also, if the district narrows the gap to the degree that the average score of black students is at least 90 percent of the average score of white students by 2000, the district won't have to repay a $20 million desegrega- See TESTS, Page 14AH4A ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE FRIDAY, AUGUST 14,1992 LRSD Stanford 8 Test results Chart shows percentile ranking, by grade and race, of the tests complete battery. A ranking in the 50th percentile is considered average. Elementary Badgett Dale Baseline Booker(M) Brady Carver (M) Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin (1) Fulbright Garland (I) Geyer Springs Gibbs (M) Ish (1) Jefferson Mabelvale' McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchel! (I) Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Righlsell (I) Rockefeller (I) Romine Stephens (I) Terry Wakefield Washington (M) Watson Western Hills Williams (M) Wilson Woodruff 1 2 3 4 5 6 TOT BL WT TOT BL WT TOT BL WT TOT BL WT TOT BL WT TOT BL WT 19 20 27 23 27 25 35 21 47 36 76 68 35 26 56 54 21 22 33 26 61 29 21 19 40 18 26 26 32 26 49 36 25 25 54 21 31 24 59 35 31 26 26 25 54 38 42 18 39 40 42 37 49 47 24 24 61 43 21 18 55 38 24 22 43 29 80 72 68 67 28 14 17 65 34 54 66 85 50 71 20 70 84 48 66 38 68 75 40 84 44 49 70 73 51 63 25 71 33 82 32 61 89 71 56 39 31 67 29 26 54 28 22 47 52 35 74 44 39 58 73 54 89 36 26 56 49 39 77 36 27 44 31 22 71 64 30 74 23 21 59 60 41 75 26 23 58 47 40 64 71 53 84 43 43 49 58 28 77 37 27 52 61 40 82 34 28 47 26 26 12 57 30 69 55 27 76 58 58 - 30 24 53 25 26 16 22 22 - 54 33 67 36 26 48 52 29 81 39 34 64 52 40 72 79 68 89 58 54 63 26 18 40 33 30 45 31 30 35 38 31 63 44 29 60 30 20 64 72 49 90 39 36 46 54 50 61 31 28 35 36 27 72 66 32 66 20 18 42 63 35 78 17 17 - 33 33 32 72 57 88 31 31 - 63 46 76 38 28 52 69 54 81 31 29 27 30 27 71 60 39 76 62 39 78 34 34 25 18 39 40 40 42 31 31 - 68 50 82 37 30 49 44 22 72 31 20 58 53 40 71 77 67 86 45 41 56 35 28 60 32 25 44 60 38 74 37 57 42 41 56 23 56 26 / 33 lij 67 m 38 3 58 g 36 < 56 5 37 H 26 i 56 i 47 I 32 I 26 i 41 I 47 1 54 i 42 i 51 i 40 i 39 i 74 I 38 i 33 5 lU co < O z 21 20 24 31 28 47 35 36 32 51 41 65 33 29 41 63 42 82 40 32 54 49 43 63 48 42 44 30 27 71 57 31 87 20 19 18 46 29 61 28 28 - 32 25 49 67 40 88 31 32 20 68 37 85 38 30 49 53 40 68 33 19 56 42 40 67 52 37 69 44 28 62 29 29 - 35 32 52 39 38 42 26 26 - 46 31 67 28 22 56 46 28 70 45 46 44 40 31 60 74 59 86 30 29 39 45 38 54 41 38 46 30 27 46 37 36 46 59 44 76 44 32 66 79 69 90 47 36 59 51 50 56 56 48 65 47 41 75 64 43 82 36 34 67 66 40 78 38 38 - 44 43 48 72 48 87 44 44 - 79 56 90 41 35 52 50 43 67 51 46 67 36 36 - 66 39 84 36 28 54 40 40 - 45 40 61 44 41 76 35 30 76 71 57 82 43 36 59 56 38 78 53 40 71 60 51 72 82 76 88 44 41 56 38 30 50 Jr. high Cloverdale Dunbar(M) Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann (M) Pulaski Heights Southwest 7 8 9 35 59 50 37 33 55 55 34 LU m LU < 32 27 49 39 33 53 53- 36 72 39 26 65 37 29 66 38 25 69 50 38 74 42 34 70 Sr. high Central Fair Hall McClellan 10 11 37 27 56 ' 42 29 61 O z O z 56 43 79 45 26 76 33 28 50 61 64 82 57 30 82 40 33 66 55 36 43 34 LU CO 3 UJ (D 3 Parkview (M) 58 b z 57 33 82 39 28 58 50 34 69 42 33 56 57 43 75 Noles: Scores lor race by grades 4,7 and 10 are not yel available. Magnet schools are noted with an *M*, Incentive schools are noted with an 'I'. Tests Continued from Page 1A lion loan from the slate. Bernd said the districl.s new curriculiini, which begin.s this fall, could improve scores. Its a simple concept of teaching students what you are going to test them on, he said. If we know that long division ixS on the lest, then we should make sure the students know long division and are skilled in it. Asked if the scores would show improvement by next year, Bernd said he gets suspicious if he sees sudden,huge gains in a ^districts test scores. ' I think we can set this district on a course of steady improvement so that in five years people can look back and say, "We really improved. Il is difficult to compare the 1991-92 lest scores lo the scores earned in past years because the state changed the test from the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT6) to the Stanford 8. Racial disparities existed in test results on the MAT6 as well. While comparisons are hard to make from last year to this year on race disparities, a review of the scores this year showed at least one case where the white first-graders scored 54 points higher than their black */ think we can set this district on a course of steady improvement so that in five years people can look back and say ff f we really improved. classmates. A review of the scores showed that students at the dis tricts seven double-funded, pre- dominantly black incentive schools did not have high average scores. Black second-graders at Rightsell Incentive Elementary School scored at the 58th percentile. That was the only average score for black children in the incentive schools that was above the 50th percentile. Students at the districts magnet schools, which also get extra money, averaged scores higher than the incentive schools. Scores for black children at Williams ranged from the 59th percentile in the fifth grade to 76th percentile in the sixth grade. At Booker Arts Magnet Elementary, however, the scores for the black children ranged from the 21st percentile in the first grade to the 44lh percentile in the sixth grade. Bernd said the incentive schools are going to be the focus of some strong efforts in the coming year. He plans to meet with the principals of those schools soon to discuss ways to improve the schools by encouraging excellent teaching. Bernd is an advocate of the effective schools body research, which prescribes certain steps for improving learning conditions for children. He already has conducted one workshop for Little Rock principals on the program. The test scores showed some strengths at the districts area schools, which arc non-magnet, non-incentive neighborhood schools. Forest Park, Jefferson, and Terry elementary schools were among the schools with average scores over the 50th percentile...IB'- rs I" it (? tg 5. THUnSDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1992 LR seniors raise ACT average 0.2 point in 92 ) I ) BY CYNIHIA ROWELI OnnKR'ial G.i7rHP E(1ih
iIiwi WhIpi The composite score earned by Little Rock School Dislrict .senior.s on the American College Test improved in 1992 as compared to 1991. but it remained below the stale and national composite scores. The Little Rock district on Wednesday released its 1992 scores for both the ACT and the Scholastic Achievement Test, the two most common college enirance exams in (he country. More than three times a,s man.v Lillie Rock graduating studenl.s took the AI'T ill 1991- 92 than look the SAT. Thal is I commonly the case, as most , Arkansas colleges and universities retpiest the At/!' score on I enrol I incut applications. The results of the exams I
showed that students who took traditional academic courses and Advanced Placement courses are more likely tr? score higher on the college entrance tests. Superintendent Mac Bernd said he hoped to increase the nund)er of advanced courses as a way of improving student achievement levels of both black and white students. Ad vanced Placement courses are LRSD ACT scores ^1992 LRSD SAT scores i National State LRSD Central Fair Hall McClellan Parkview -Noniber 832.217 16,977 1,101 *264 *144 *224 *155 *166 Composite
___score 20.6 20.0 19.7 19.9 19.1 19.9 18.3 20.7 Black students While sludenls Number Composite Number Composite 1991 Number 75,356 2,373 465 141 65 92 82 85 17 16.7 17.2 16.2 16.4 17.7 17.0 18.9 604,469 11,577 488 123 79 132 73 81 21.3 20,6 21.7 23.0 21.6 21.1 20.0 22.5 tested Verbal 1991 scores* * Includes only black and wtiite tesi takers and nol students of other races _____________ National' State LRSD Central Fair Hall McClellan Parkview 1,032,685 1,660 293 151 15 97 4 26 422 482 467 480 485 434 NA 502 Math 474 523 495 502 527 477 NA 516 1992 Number tested 1,034,131 1,579 315 122 24 96 3 64 1992 scores* Verbal 423 474 453 457 451 441 NA 455 Math 476 516 489 489 521 486 NA 481 * Top score in each category Is 800. NA = not available those courses taken in high school that enable some stu dents to receive college credit for their work. "We must work to prepare all our students to (pialify for. enroll ill and complete the more advanced and challenging Advanced Placement courses," Bernd said. A total of 1.101 graduating students took the ACT in Little Rock. Slightly more students took the test in 1992 than in at least the last four years. The district's composite score of 19.7 reversed an annual decline in score.s since at least 19117. when the composite was 20.2. In 1991. the composite which i.s c.ilculated from Eiig- lish. mathcnmlics. rcadiiiE and science scores was 19..5. The Little Rock score was below the national composite of 20.6 and the state composite of 20.0. Parkview Magnet High School students, with a 20.7 composite score, exceeded both the state and national composite scores. The highest possible score is 36. The Little Rock student!! scored the highest in reading. Allowed by English, science, and then math. When the scores arc broken down by race, while student.s in all five Little Rock high school.s scored highest in reading. Black students, however, were likely to score a.s high or higher in subjects other than reading. Average scores for white students were higher than average score.s for black sludenls on both the ACT and the SAT. The largest disparity in ACT scores was the 6.8 poinis between black and white students at Central High. The composite score of Little Rock black students. 17.2. was higher than the Arkansas com posite for black students, 16.7, and the national composite for black students, 17.0. Similarly, the composite score for Little Rock white stu dents, 21.7, was higher than the Arkansas composite for whites, 20.6, and the national composite for wliites, 21.3. On the SAT. a total of315 slu dents took the lest, scoring 453 on the verbal exam and 4B9 on the math exam. Both scores represented a decline from the 19tH scores of 467 on the verbal exam and 495 on the math exam. The number of students taking the lest rose by 22 from 293 in 1991. The Little Rock scores exceeded the national scores of 423 on verbal and 476 on math tests, but they were less than the state averages of 474 on the ver bal test and 516 on the math exam. I 1Arkansas Democrat ^(i^azctte THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 1993 Copyright 1993. Little Rock Newspapers. Inc. B LR group hopes after-school tutors will raise black awareness, grades BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer An after-school and Saturday educational program that offers academic tutoring and cultural exposure to black students in the Little Rock School District is being planned for next fall by an off-campus group. Wayne E.X. Burt, chief elder of the Council for African-American Progress, said Wednesday that the after-school program will be housed in the education building of the Liberty Hill Baptist Church, 1215 S. Schiller St. The council is seeking at least 24 trained teachers, as well as volunteer tutors, to work in the program, Burt said. The program is designed to serve as many as 500 students in grades one through 12, Burt said. Hours will be 3:30 p.m. until 8 p.m. weekdays and 9 a.m. to noon Saturdays. The program, called the Institute of African-American Studies and Progress, will be financed by council members. No tuition will be charged. Burt announced the councils plans at a lecture at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. His talk was one of three lectures sponsored this semester by the UALR Black Forum. The program will save the Little Rock School District $20 million, Terrence Cain, education director for the council, said Wednesday. Cain was referring to a $20 million loan from the state of Arkansas that the school district will not have to repay if it can raise black childrens standardized test scores to within 10 percent of white students scores by the year 2000. Cain and Burt said they believe their program can reduce the academic achievement disparity that has traditionally existed. The Council for African- American Progress spent more than a year lobbying the Little Rock School Board to add more information about black history, culture and perspective to the district curricula. The school board did adopt a new curriculum that includes information about a variety of cultures, but council members have said they are not satisfied with those offerings. Burt said the council decided to turn its attention to an afterschool program. In his lecture Wednesday, Burt said blacks must learn to provide for themselves, to create industries and jobs for one another. One segment of the community is producing jobs and two segments need them, he said. He also s4id blacks must learn about themselves as a way to develop self-esteem. Black and white Americans know far more about European history and geography than they do about Africa,land both races must be educated, he said. I (Arkansas Democrat (gazette FRIDAY, MAY 21, 1993 Copynght 1993. Una Rock Newspapofs. Inc, I Flunking MPT no longer i forces rerun of Sth graded' New law brings other criteria to bear BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Wnter Arkansas Minimum Performance Test wont terrify eighthgraders anymore. It wont force them to repeat the grade or intimidate them into dropping out Instead, the MPT and new tests that will be developed can help students, many educators say. Arkansas pupils in grades three, six and eight have taken the MPT since 1982 to measure their competence in basic skills. In 1988, at the suggestion of the Education Standards Committee led by Hillary Rodham Clinton, schools began to use the test to determine whether eighth-graders could advance to the ninth grade. But a new state law has changed things. The requirement that eighth- graders pass the test before promotion brought considerable criticism. Teachers and parents have complained over the years about the eighth-grade MPT, saying too much instructional time is spent preparing students for a relatively e^asy, multiplechoice test. In a recent Winthrop Rock^ feller Foundation survey at. 2,100 teachers, the educators said the test was too easy, de-^ tracted from the teaching of cre^' ative and advanced thinking
skills, and was more likely.to cause students to drop out than to motivate them. ' "i. About one-fifth of the teach?
ers recommended eliminating the test Others suggested maior revisions in the format and the way it is used. -I- i In a significant change of dU rection, this years Act 846 of the' I legislative session declared th'a^' eighth-graders who flunk the test will not automaticallylbe forced to repeat the eighth grade. And in what proved someJ thing of a surprise to educators
: ! the provision affects this years: eighth-graders, who took the test in March. I Under newly adopted guid^ lines, local school districts must establish other criteria which can include MPT failure and bad grades to decide whether , r See MPT, Page 17AMPT Continued Irom Page 1A a pupil should be held back. :rm particularly pleased they dropped the compulsory retention, Gene Jones, assistant superintendent for instruction in the North Little Rock School District, said of the new law. 1 was a little surprised they did it this year. -. Jones said he didnt believe mandatory retention had produced better-educated students. Several North Little Rock eighth-graders who failed the exam this year were held back last year for failing the test, he said. Students may be more successful if they know they can be jlromoted if they go to summer school or take other steps to raise their grades or improve their attendance, Jones said. ! Vicki Gray, administrative a'dyiser for student assessment ih the state Department of Education, said this week that despite the law change, school districts must continue with plans to give eighth-graders three chances to pass the exam and offer remedial help to those who do not pass. It's obvious the students have not mastered the skills they will need in ninth grade, Gray said of those who failed the tpsjt on their first try. i It is especially important that eighth-graders learn the skills this year because they will be thd first in the state required to Ilas^ an exit exam to get a high srchool diploma, she said. The exit exam, which will go into effect for the 1996-97 school year, dlso is provided for in Act 846. Act 846 authorizes the state pepartment of Education to change the way student achieve- hient and thinking skills are assessed in the public schools. The law also spells out how the MPT should be used while Ihe new system is being developed. That transition period piust end by June 30,1996. Education Department officials are circulating a memo describing the law and the testing changes. It notes that: Beginning next year, Ihird- graders will no longer take the MPT, though the te.st will continue for the sixth and eighth grades. The Education Department will institute a comprehensive assessment program for grades one through three next year that will include testing and teacher evaluations. School districts experimenting with alternate forms of student assessments may ask the state Board of Education to waive the MPT requirements for the sixth and eighth grades. The current test was developed by Arkansas educators. It consists of five sections reading, mathematics, language arts, science and social studies. The exam is given once in March and again at the end of the school year. It is given again in midsummer for those who failed it earlier. In 1988, 98.6 percent of the eighth-graders passed the test. In 1992, 95.7 percent of the eighth-graders passed. Statewide test results are incomplete for this year, although individual school districts have received reports on their students' performances. Virginia Raum, director of counseling services in the Pulaski County Special School District, said the MPT has served a purpose in forcing school officials to look at what individual students were accomplishing. But she also said it is time to move to a different kind of assessment. The county school district is using the same methods it employed in past years to help eighth-graders who failed the test in March. The district hires substitute teachers so that regular classroom teachers can work in small groups with the pupils who failed. Packets of practice questions were sent to the parents so they also can help their children pass the test when they retake it later this month. Decisions on retentions will be made on a case-by-case basis aRer the third administra- I tion of the test, Raum said. Concerning development of a new testing system, Dr. Emma Bass, associate director for school improvement in the Education Department, said the new program may not consist of only a single test. Instead, she said, it will likely be a combination of different kinds of evaluations. The new system for grades one through three must be designed as soon as possible this summer to give school districts time to plan and budget for it, Bass said. Rules and regulations for any new system will be advertised and explained during public hearings, she said.Arkansas Democrat SATURDAY, MAY 22, 1993 Copyright O 1993, Little Rock Newspapers. Inc. I________________________________________________________ _______----------- ---------r - T III ...................................- - MPT failure rates increase in NLR, county BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Qazette Education Writer Failure rates increased for North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school district eighth-graders on the Minimum Performance Test this year but improved slightly for Little Rock pupils. The test measures mastery of basic skills in reading, mathematics, language arts, science, and social studies. Statistics released by the three Pulaski County districts showed: Eighteen percent, or 267, of the county district students failed the slate-mandated exam on the first try in March, compared to 16.2 percent, or 223 students, last year. Twenty-one percent, or 138, of North Little Rock pupils failed, compared to 16.2 percent, or 97 pupils, last year. Twenty-two percent, or 383, of the Little Rock eighth-graders failed this year, a 1 percent improvement over last year, when a record 23 percent, or 412 pupils failed. Minimum Performance Test resuits 1993 Minimum Performance Test pass/fail rates District____________ Little Rock North Little Rock Pulaski County Special Total tested Total passing 1,750 668 1,455 1,367 (78%) 530 (79% 1,188 (82%) Note: Results following the first administration of the test, which will be given two more times. Source: School districts ___________________ by 1996 as newer, more broad- tive of a first year of a new cur- based exams are developed. The test results are reflec- riculum, Little Rock Superintendent Dr. Mac Bernd said. The district this year began a revised curriculum in most key subject areas in an effort to correct problems found by a team of out-of-state educational auditors in 1991. Until this year, eighthgraders who failed the MPT could not enter the ninth grade. Students who fail the test this year also are in jeopardy of not passing the school year, but Act 846 of the 1993 legislative ses- High. The failure rate was 19 sion says criteria besides the test results must be considered before holding back a student. The MPT will be phased out Total failing 383 (22%) 138 (21%) 267(18%) The MPT will be given again this month and in July. School districts are directed by law to provide remedial help to the students who fail. Schools that have failure rates in excess of 15 percent must implement improvement programs. Following are the school-by-school results for the eighth-grade test: Little Rock The failure rate ranged from 16 percent at Mann Magnet Junior High to 29 percent at Cloverdale Junior percent at Dunbar Magnet Junior High, 23 percent at Forest Heights Junior High, 24 percent at Henderson Junior High, 23 percent at Mabelvale Jupior High, 18 percent at Pulaski Heights Junior High and 26 percent at Southwest Junior High. North Little Rock The failure rate ranged from 16 percent at Lakewood Middle School to 25 percent at Rose City Middle School. The rate was 19.per- cent at Ridgeroad Middle School. Only two of the'13'students at the alternative school who took the test passed it.'. Pulaski County Special The failure rate ranged from 9 percent at Robinson Jiihior High to 27 percent at Fuller Junior High. The failure rale was 18 percent at Jacksonville North Junior High, 26 percent at Jacksonville South Junior High
10 percent at Northwood Junior High, 14 percent at Oiik Grove Junior High and 18 percent at Sylvan Hills Junior High: Virginia Raum, district director for guidance services, said there were computational errors at Jacksonville North and.Qak Grove, which will be corrected and reflected in later reports.Arkansas AAansas Democrat '^(Fijizcttc MONDAY, JUNE 21, 1993 Copyright O 1993. Little Rock Newspapers, Inc. B Rising remedial student figures disturb educator BY SHAREESE HAROLD ............................. Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer More Arkansas college freshmen took remedial courses in state-supported schools this year than did those who entered Arkansas public colleges and universities last year, a recent report shows. One state education official said the figures are disturbing. According to the 1993 high school feedback report, 57.1 percent of 1991-92 high school grad- uates attending the states public colleges and universities were assigned to at least one remedial course. Last year, 56.6 percent of the 1990-91 graduates were assigned to remedial math, reading or English classes. Remedial courses are semester-long, noncredit skills enhancement classes. Students are placed in these classes based on their performance on the ACT college entrance test or college- sponsored assessment examinations. Each year, the state Department of Higher Education releases two remedial monitoring reports. The high school feedback study shows how Arkansas high school students rank, and the placement status report, prepared by the American College Testing Service each spring, rates remediation levels of all Arkansas college freshmen. Ed Crowe, associate director of planning and research at the state Department of Higher Education, called this years feedback report figures disturbing. Especially since we had 50 percent of Arkansas (high school) students complete the core curriculum in high school, which should have prepared them for college," Crowe said. Its a little disappointing because we felt we were making progress. Districts core curricula include college preparatory courses designed to strengthen students math, reading and English skills. The major factor in college placement is whether students take these courses, Crowe said. In Arkansas, 50.7 percent of the fall 1992 freshmen took these courses in high school,___ pared to 43.8 percent last year and 41 percent in 1990. com- STATEWIDE: graduates The feedback report reflects the number of students who took the ACT college entrance exam. Students who score below 19 on any ACT category are automati- cally placed in a remedial course for that particular category. By subject area, 48.2 percent of the 1992 Arkansas graduates needed math remediation, a small decrease from the 48.9 percent who needed such help in 1991. In reading, 29.2 percent See COLLEGE, Pago 5B Pct, needing remediation in: High schools Graduates* l^nglish Math Readino ( Northwest Fayetteville 107 Fort Smith (Southside) ioi Fort Smith (Northside) Springdale Van Buren Northeast Blytheville Jonesboro Newport Greene Co. Tech. Southwest Arkadelphia Ei Dorado Hope Hot Springs Southeast 69 103 52 46 156 52 .48 65 82 45 37 PULASKI COUNTY: High schools Pct needing remediation in
Graduates* I English Math Reading J Dermott Pine Bluff Stuttgart 21 53 150 41 15 17 28 21 12 43 22 23 27 26 28 29 35 48 49 51 14 30 41 16 21 57 36 31 38 40 51 49 46 81 74 58 10 17 23 14 13 28 20 29 23 31 27 22 32 College Continued from Page 1B took remedial courses, up from 27.8 percent the year before, and 33.1 percent needed English remediation, compared with 32.7 percent in 1991. Crowe estimated that 15 percent of the states college-bound seniors last year attended out- of-state and private colleges or universities. Those students are exempt from state-required college-entry testing in math, read- ing and English and are not included in the report. Act 1052 of 1987 requires all freshmen entering state-funded colleges and universities to complete math, reading and English placement tests. Future first-year college students from Arkansas may need fewer remedial programs, Crowe said, because of the states more rigid training for math and science teachers and early intervention. One long-term solution is coming from Governor (Jim Guy) Tuckers suggestion to the state Legislature urging them to look into strengthening the education process of kindergarten to third grades, Crowe said. Students are afraid of taking math and science classes because they were never encouraged to go that way in the early grades. Teachers are now being taught to emphasize those areas by stroking younger students curiosities about math and science. Crowe said once teachers are better trained to teach these courses, remedial placement scores should start to look better. Central Hall J.A. Fair McClellan Parkview Non-dlstrict Ark. School for the Blind Pulaski Co. Special Jacksonville Mills Oak Grove North Pulaski Robinson Sylvan Hills North Little Rock NLR High School Private schools 111 112 89 77 93 3 46 42 38 39 31 33 54 59 46 65 49 100 46 38 33 39 38 -ihM 33 26 27 25 17 13 21 26 ' , 108 44 53 92 39 119 146 55 42 16 13 31 27 25 25 18 29 22 51 48 49 38 38 34 37 29 55 13 46 57 60 43 '' 32 29 29 Flgum ar. la-tax gadoM, anading paOllc cgUagn and [sources: Stale Oept. o( Higher Education: Amencan Colleqe Testing Sarwce. Catholic High School Mount St. Mary Pulaski Academy I Arkansas Baptist 18 12 6 15 18 19 13 31 STOREY/SCALUON/Oemocrar-Ga^etre SUNDAY, AUGUST 22, 1993 5J SAT results put males ahead Attention countrymen, who may have believed, as I always have, that women are smarter than men. The next time one of your countrywomen starts putting on airs, ask her about the SAT scores. SAT stands for Scholastic Aptitude Test. It is one of the tests that most colleges require would-be college students to take. There is a rousing argument in academic circles as to whether the test accomplishes its purported objective, which is to predict the probability of success in college, but it's been around for a couple of decades and it shows no signs of going away. The 1992 SAT scores were reported and hidden away in Thursdays Democrat-Gazette. Among the phalanx of comparative figures was this one: Men outperformed women. Not by just a little bit. The men creamed the women. Maybe I should say the boys creamed the girls, given that were talking about teen-agers here, but whatever the terminology, the average score of males was 930 to 877 for females. Males beat females on both the math and the verbal portions of the exam. The edge was only eight points on the verbal (428 to 420) so most of the male margin of victory was in the math portion, which measures the skills that will be most valuable in the technological age that is rapidly engulfing us. As you might expect, the College Board, which watches test results more closely than most of us, had a ready excuse for women. Men scored better, board spokesmen said, because they /I ^ohn R. Starr tend to take more difficult science and math courses, such as physics and calculus, in high school. That (and not discrimination) might also be why men have more of the high-paying jobs that demand math and science skills. News in the test scores was not all good for men, whose average score was exactly the same as last year. The womens average score was up a point. When SAT scores are reported, the comparison of the accomplishments of men and women is usually forgotten as the social scientists rush to see how blacks did in comparison with whites. The Scripps Howard News Service, which provided the SAT story used by the Democrat-Gazette this year, neglected to report SAT scores by race. Instead, the story used figures that show that youngsters from families with incomes over $70,000 a year do a lot better than those from families that live on $20,000 to $30,000 a year
that those who attend private schools do better than those who attend public schools
and that those who attend suburban public schools do better than those who attend inner city schools. Results from tests administered by the three Pulaski County school districts did compare white and black performance, and these figures, like those in previous years, demonstrate that, while all men are created equal, differences develop rather quickly and often are quite pronounced. In Little Rock, where the public schools have almost been destroyed in a 26-year effort to equalize educational opportunity between the races, white scores on the Stanford 8 battery of tests were almost double those of blacks. In the fourth grade, whites were in the 75th percentile, which means they did better than 74 percent of the students taking the test nationwide. Blacks were in the 40th percentile. In the seventh grade, whites were in the 69th percentile, blacks in the 31st, In the 11th grade the percentiles were 74 for whites, 34 for blacks. Blacks did best (45th percentile) in the sixth grade, worst (28th percentile) in the first grade, indicating that the schools reduce the environmental factors that contribute to poor performance for the first six years but then begin to lose ground. The good news for Little Rock was that, generally, its students white and black did better than those from the other two districts. In the second grade in North Little Rock, blacks scored in the 13th percentile, a performance that should be embarrassing both to their parents and to the school district. ----------------- John R. Starr is the former managing editor of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. His column appears every day.Arkansas Democrat "^(^azettc } THURSDAY, APRIL 7,1994 __Copyngh, 8 u. Ro I Insulting to black community I read with great dismay that Little Rock school Superintendent Henry Williams continues to pursue replacement of the SAT test as a good indicator of the educational level of the black student under his care. This continual quest of a lower common denominator for the black student is insulting to the black community, the Little Rock community at large and the classroom teachers of Little Rock. Williams continues to imply through this effort that a black student, while sitting in the same classroom and receiving the same information as a white, Korean, Hispanic or other student, is unable to take the same test in the same manner and produce positive results. If this is true, the SAT test is not the problem. Williams attempt to dumb down the test for black students or escape a test vehicle such as the SAT that is successfully used by tens of millions of students each year is a sickening statement of affairs in the Little Rock School District. Williams poor black us attitude is leading the black student to an educational grave. Is there not one member of the Little Rock School Board who has the courage to challenge Williams to factually prove and present specific examples of racial discrimination within the SAT? He should be publicly rebuked for such a reckless and racist attitude. Anyone who has taken the SAT knows that if you can read, write and do basic computations, then the SAT is easily understood. I believe that the black student is the equal of any other student, in spite of what Williams might imply. I reject his insinuation that the black student needs a set of tests and standards different from the rest of America and the world community. Will anyone speak this encouragement to them? I ISATURDAY, AUGUST 13. 1994 Coovncm O Crtda ftocx ^-nrwwrr. iw. Gap lingers between black, white scores BY DANNY SHAMEER AND CYNTHIA HOWELL Oemocrat-Gazatts Stall Wntan A large gap persists between standardized test scores of black students and white students in the Little Rock School District, a report released Friday shows. Among black students, only fifth-graders improved for 1993- 94, increasing the average score three points to 37 from 34 for 1992-93. But white fifth-graders increased by four points to 74 from 70 during the same period. A score of 50 is the national average. Scores Continued from Page 1A great deal of energy and im- Narrowing the gap between black and white students is a key provision of the court-enforced desegregation settlement under which Pulaski County's three school districts operate. The disparity is also a significant issue because of a financial settlement with the state. If the district can show it has raised the average scores of black students to at least 90 percent of the average scores of whites by the year 2000, the district will not have to repay up to $20 million in loans from the state. The state is lending the dis- 10th. In math, students in grades two, three, four, five and six were above the 50th percentile. In science, students in fourth. trict money to help with desegregation, and the financially struggling district counts on that money to meet e.xpenses. So far, the district has borrowed $12 million, and it plans to borrow another $1.6 million this fiscal year to buy buses. In two years, the district will have to start putting money into a trust fund to repay the state in case achievement goals arent met The settlement agreement states that the district must pay back the loan seven years after starting to get the money. Because the district borrowed $6 million in the 1989-90 school year, it would need to begin repayment in the 1996-97 school year. Dr. Henry Williams, district superintendent, said the 1994 test results reflected some gains by black students when compared to test results flrom previous years, and he was encouraged. He expects greater improvements ne.xt year at schools across the district. Im hoping the enthusiasm of building level administrators and teachers will generate a See SCORES, Page 16A Little Rock School District test scores 4 provements in instructional fifth and sixth were at or above strategies." Williams said. He the 50th percentile. noted that many schools will have new principals this year. Black students on average failed to reach the 50th per- One reason that he gave this centile on the complete battery summer for shifting principals in any grade level. Black first- was to improve instruction and graders did the worst, scoring at student achievement. the 30th percentile. Black sixthTest results varied widely graders fared the best, reaching from school to school. For example: Williams Magnet Elemen- the 44th percentile. White students averaged above the 50th percentile in tary School black students every grade with a high of 78 at scored well above the 50th per- the sixth grade and a low of 68 centile in every grade level. The at the first grade. lowest black score was the 63rd Williams said the district percentile at the sixth grade, will implement a Great Expec- The highest was 80 at the first tations program at Mitchell and grade. At Dodd Rightsell elementary schools Elementary that he hopes will help students School, the highest average per- knock the top ofF test scores centile by blac.k students was 48 next year. at the sixth grade. The lowest was the Sth percentile at the centive schools. Mitchell and Rightsell are in- first grade. Modeled after a program in In an example of disparity. Oklahoma City public schools. Forest Park Elementary School the Great Expectations program white second-graders scored at is an approach to teaching that the 85th percentile. But black promises student success. Stu- second-graders averaged the dents and teachers make a con- 21st percentile. Results showed: scious effort to speak in sentences and address each other by In seven of 11 grades, name, students recite from mem- scores regardless of race. showed some increase over 1992 in the complete battery. ory. and students write daily. The Stanford 8. which students took last spring, compares Students, overall, scored at the achievement levels of stu- or above the 50th percentile on dents with the achievement lev- the complete battery in four els of a national sample of stu- grades: fourth, fifth, sixth and dents who took the same test. 1994 test scores by grade Stanford Acfiievamant Test scores for the Uttfe Rock School District 88 7Z 7t 7^ 78 77 50 30 25 32
0 47 44 III 32 I aadc.-.. r Whitar 1 '34 II I 3' 1 30 IhLULIlLIIJ 1st 2rxJ 3rd 4m sth em 7m sm 9m iom urn Little Rock School District IST GRADE students took the. Start ford Achievement Test in April. Students who score in the 50th Reading percentile are at the naSortai axerage. Anything balovftheSOtnparcantila is considered bekw average. Math Language arts Science Social studies Total. 46 48 48 46 Blacfc 35 3S 2ND ORAOE 67 35 34t 69 3i6IUDE- Reading Math Language arts Sdenca- Social studies Reading Math Language arts Science- Sociai studies Reading Malhr , Language arts Science' Social studies Reading ' Language arts Sdene^ Social studies Total 41 58 51 48 Black 28 45 38 35 White 64 77 71 70 Total. 43 5T 51 4 52 Blaclc.\^ 29 68 12 38 72 4g 39 74 ' ATHGRABE smeitAoe Total 49 61 55 50 61 Black 35 Whits 71 50 - TT 43 38 49 74 7Z 78 Thtat 41 5G' 56
5^ 56 Biwdr'^ 28 67 j STH GRADE Total 52 59 53 57 58 Black White 39 49- 43 45 47 77 78 71 78 77 STH GRADE Total 42 41 ' 51 I"- 48 " 48 Black 29
30 ' 39 3S 34 lOTH GRADE 4at 44 *45 75 74 7TKGRADC
Total ' BiKfc 1 *45 52 '47 White 69 ^63." 74 "72" 73'" 32 . J? 331^ 39 36 ETHGiUDe
Tout Bli 43 "" i 47 31 40 35 71 77 69 69 72 Reading Math Language arts Science Social studies Total 49 43 49 49 53 Black 35 33 36 34 41 Whita 74 81 71 74 73 UTH Total 45 40 46 43 47 31 69 -i, 33 68 (.n OvSt ScfToot Ostnet 31 71Arkansas Democrat (gazette WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 1995 Whites score well in LRSD But districts blacks dont do as well on Stanford test as some in area BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazene Education Writer When it comes to student test scores, especially for white At a glance students. the Little Rock School District compares well to outlying districts. The state Department of Education released district-by- district Stanford Achievement Test results this week. A spot check of basic battery scores, broken down by race, showed that Little Rock white students overall netted higher scores than their peers in several Central .Arkansas districts, as well as in some of the states other large districts. The basic battery scores are a combination of mathematics, reading and language arts scores. Following is a listing of 10 school districts and their 1994 Stanford basic bat- tery scores for 1994: School district Little Rock North Little Rock 4th grade 7th grade Black White Black White 10th grade Black White 42 31 Pulaski County Special 37 Conway Cabot Bryant Pine Bluff Jonesboro Fort Smith Fayetteville 43 na na 32 40 32 38 76 59 61 71 62 58 56 63 65 61 33 30 29 41 na na 32 35 33 38 69 58 51 65 58 53 71 67 61 63 36 28 28 33 na na 37 34 38 43 72 66 55 67 60 54 74 67 69 66 Little Rocks black students outperformed white stu- didnt fare quite as well. Black *es in the nearby Pulaski students attending Little Rock County Special, North Little schools scored higher than Rock, Conway, Cabot and black students in the Pulaski Bryant districts, according to the 1994 test results. County Special and North Little Rock districts, but that wasnt always the case in comparisons with other districts in Central Arkansas, The Arkansas Department of Little Rock whites also outscored whites in the more distant Jonesboro, Fort Smith and Fayetteville districts. Little Rock whites scored at Education administers the the 76th percentile in the Stanford Achievement Test to fourth grade, the 69th per- students across the state in centile in the seventh grade fourth, seventh and 10th and the 72nd percentile in the gr^es. 10th grade. Of the 10 districts included The Arkansas students are compared to a national sample in the spot check, only the Pine of students, the percentile Bluff School District reported o , 1,. -- XU - higher average scores for tional average on the test, white students in two grades
White students in grades white seventh-graders scored at commonly referred to as the na- four, seven and 10 in Little the 71st percentile, and 10th- graders scored at the 74th percentile. White fourth-graders in Pine Bluff scored below their Little Rock peers, at the 56th percentile. Little Rock black fourthgraders scored at the 42nd percentile, seventh-graders scored at the 33rd percentile and 10th- graders scored at the 36th percentile. Black students in the nearby Conway district outscored the Little Rock blacks at both the fourth and seventh grades. Black lOth-graders at Pine Bluff, Fort Smith and Fayetteville had higher average scores than their peers in Little Rock. The Cabot and Bryant districts had very few or no black students in the targeted grades.iMUHbUAY, JUNE 22. 1995 All SAT scores rising, but white pupils gains outdistancing blacks BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer standardized test scores earned by both black and white students in the three Pulaski County school districts have improved since 1991-92, but achievement disparities between the races have widened, according to a new study by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. The study, submitted Wednesday to U.S. District Judge Susan Webber WrighL compares Pulaski County students scores in 1991-92 with those earned in 1993-94 on the Stanford Achievement Test eighth edition. In their desegregation plans, all three districts made commitments to reducing the achievement gaps that have traditionally existed between black and white students on standardized exams. The Little Rock School District, in particular, has staked repayment of a $20 million state loan on narrowing the racial disparity gap by the year 2000. The study looked at the 1991-92 test scores for first-, fourth-, seventh- and ninth-graders and the 1993-94 scores for third-, sixth-, ninth- and llth-graders. Among the three districts, black and white Little Rock students had the highest overall scores, followed by Pulaski County Special School District students. Although the North Little Rock district had the lowest overall scores, it also showed the greatest improvement between 1991-92 and 1993-94. North Little Rock students improved their scores on the exams five subject area tests by a total of 64.3 points, compared to 50.6 points in the Little Rock district and 59.2 points in the Pulaski County district The five subject area tests are in reading, mathematics, language arts, science and social studies. In Little Rock the disparity widened in most subjects at each grade by an average of 1.9 points. The disparity grew in each subject at each grade by an average of 1 point in the Pulaski County district LRSD board to meet on 2 budget issues The Little Rock School Board will hold a special meeting at 5 p.m. today to vote on budget proposals for next year, including hiring a private company to operate the school bus system and closing two elementaiy schools. After the special meeting, the board will hold its regular monthly meeting at 6 p.m. The board is to consider hiring Laidlaw Transit Inc. of Ontario and Cincinnati to run the bus system next year. The contract could save the district $700,000 next year. The board also will consider closing Badgett and Fair Park elementary schools, among the districts smallest schools, for a possible savings of about $1.1 million next year. and an average of 0.4 points in North Little RocL The actual 1993-94 test score disparities in Little Rock ranged from a low of 15.4 points between black and white sixth-graders in language ' arts to a 24-point gap between black and white third-graders in science. The disparity in Little Rock nar- , rowed only in sixth-grade language arts, ninth-grade reading and llUi- grade mathematics. In North Little Rock the 1993-94 disparities ranged from a low of 12.9 points between black and white sixth-graders in language arts to a 22.7-point gap in ninth-grade reading. The disparity gap narrowed in seven of the 19 categories analyzed, i In Pulaski County the disparities I between black and white students in 1993-94 ranged from a low of 9.1 points in llth-grade mathematics to a gap of 16.4 points in sixth-grade reading. The disparity narrowed in seven of the 19 categories analyzed.THURSDAY, JULY 6, 1995
LRSD test scores slip overall, fail to close racial gap Superintendent Henry 1 Williams could not be reached BY MARTHA DUNN AND CYNTHIA HOWELL Democral QuelW Stall Writ. seven of 11 grades fell below last years. Students scored belter than the nalional average in just scores. f. j
Two years of improving Stan- three grades. High school seniors ford Achievement Test scores in tlie Little Rock School District pare Little Rock students scores ended this
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.