{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1409","title":"\"2002-03 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District,\" Office of Desegregation and Monitoring","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dc_date":["2003-03-26"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","School integration","School management and organization","School enrollment","Magnet schools"],"dcterms_title":["\"2002-03 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District,\" Office of Desegregation and Monitoring"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1409"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":["106 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_562","title":"Program evaluations, Volume I","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2003-03-14"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Program evaluations, Volume I"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/562"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["129 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nBox 5 LRSD 1) Program Evaluations, March 14, 2003, Volumes I - IVCollection Number $ S O S' Box of Collection Name: OC^ (V\\ Q Coo PelsX ri X z a 2 VOLUME H  P3 \u0026gt; SC X X  RECEIVED MAR 1 4 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING J 2 X \u0026gt;, 2 r e o e k/ o e z \u0026gt;6 O O oSOUTHWEST SF.m. PWXiKXM CHARTER SCHOOL EARl.Y LITERACYri ri LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 TO: Board of Education ri FROM: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools PREPARED BY: J Linda Watson, Assistant Superintendent ^bBonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction DATE: October 24, 2002 SUBJECT: Approval of the Charter School Program Evaluation Background Information Dr. Linda Watson and Ms. Krishna Young, former director of the LRSD Charter School, presented to the Board of Education in June 2001 the program evaluation for the Charter School. That report was presented as information, but the Section 2.7.1 Compliance Plan requires that the Board formally approve each of the program evaluations listed on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. The Charter School Program Evaluation was prepared by Dr. Larry McNeal, Professor at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Serving on the team with him were Dr. Linda Watson, Ms. Krishna Young, and Dr. Ed Williams, members of the LRSD staff. All of the Charter School teachers, grades 3-5, participated in administering the assessments: the Achievement Level Tests at grades 3-5, the SAT9 at grade 5, and the State Literacy and Mathematics Benchmark examinations at grade 4. and the Success for All quarterly assessments in reading. z The program evaluation included not only student achievement data, but also demographic data, student attendance rates, records of suspensions, student grades, and financial costs for the program. S 0p 99 Performance data for the program evaluation were not disaggregated by race. The student body, however, was 87 percent African American. Due primarily to budget constraints, the District eliminated funding for the Charter School in summer 2002 after two years of operation, so this program has now been abandoned. Recommendation That the Board of Education accept and approve the LRSD Charter School Program Evaluation for 2000-2001. BAL/adg Attachment 1 I  kI k1 ku LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 2000 - 2001 ELEMENTARY CHARTER SCHOOL EVALUATION p 9 9 9 9 9 I 2 IJ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHARTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PI \u0026gt; -J \u0026gt; EVALUATION REPORT: 2000-2001 Prepared By Dr. Larry McNeal, Professor University of Arkansas at Little Rock Little Rock, Arkansas e 2 \u0026gt;2, t  ! 0 0 c p 9 9 3 Executive Summary The twentieth centurys influence on school choice is reflected in the introduction of charter schools, school vouchers, magnet schools, academy schools, alternative schools, and a host of other specialty schools that focus on specific and often time unique student groups. The recent interest in school choices can be traced to the Nation At Risk report, which was published by the National Commission on Excellence in Education in 1983. The findings about the poor quality of public education alarmed the American public. The report concluded that America was losing its competitive edge in the global marketplace because of its educational system. The result was the passage of educational reform laws and legislation that promoted standards for students, teachers, and administrators. The American educational system continues to search for programs and services that meet the developmental needs of its students. Charter schools are the latest spin-off to a discontented American public looking for vast improvements in educational practices that will better equip its children with marketable skills. Arkansas has also been influenced by this trend. Arkansas modified its existing charter school law in 1999 (Arkansas Charter School Act of 1999) and as a result the charter school movement in Arkansas took off. The Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School opened its doors in the fall of 2000. The charter school offers a nontraditional innovative learning environment for students in the 3,4, and 5 grades. \u0026gt;  Pl \u0026gt; \u0026lt; Mission The missions of the Little Rock School District and the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School are mutually supportive and facilitative of student success. The intent of the missions of both are to provide students with programs and services that fit their educational and developmental needs, as well as prepare them with the knowledge and skills needed to compete in the marketplace. Z P O 9 9 P 9 9 Goal The goal of the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School is to provide opportunities for students educational and behavioral needs while guiding them to adjust 1 4 their behavior and habits in such a manner that they will become successful, lifelong learners and productive citizens. The Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School accomplishes its goal through an alternative learning environment. Description of Need The description of need is an overview of the variables that influence student academic achievement and behavior at the elementary grade level. Collectively, these variables provide a richer understanding of what is happening at the elementary grade level to some students in the Little Rock School District and why it has become increasingly more difficult to educate all children in a regular classroom setting. Poverty and other factors present barriers for many children who reside in the city of ?5 \u0026gt; JC PI \u0026gt; \u0026lt; Little Rock from receiving the educational opportunities critical for their development. The inability to obtain preschool and other early-childhood education programs is evidenced in the Little Rock School Districts Early Childhood Program where an enrollment capacity of some 750 students leaves approximately 1,000 children on the programs waiting list each year. Once behind, children face a significant challenge of catching up in their school career and many of these children become potential school dropouts in later years. In the 1997-1998 school year, 921 students out of 10,628 students at the secondary level dropped out of school. This represents 8.7% of the Little Rock School District secondary student enrollment. Black students accounted for 69% of the dropout population, with black males representing 44% and black females representing 25.1% of the total. During the 1998-1999 school year the dropout rate increased to 9.7%. For many of these students, the barriers that they faced prior to elementary school were so overwhelming that it left them ill prepared for the challenges associated with schooling\ntherefore, less capable to take advantage of the educational opportunities at the secondary level. 9 2 2 \u0026gt; ii Iz* b 9 9 9 s 9 Student performance on standardized tests also served as an indicator of the extent of at-riskness for some students in the Little Rock School District. Scores on standardized tests showed percentile ranks across the District and the racial disparity in academics in all grades and subjects. Standardized test scores in reading for the 1997-1998 school year 2 5 I revealed that overall more than one-third of Little Rock School District students were in the lowest 25% nationally for reading skills, with elementary students at 38%, junior high students at 36% and high school students at 34%. Standardized test scores for the 1998- 1999 school year revealed that overall approximately two-thirds of the students (64% of the fifth grade students tested, 63% of the seventh grade students tested and 70% of the tenth grade students) tested were at or below the 50* percentile. The pattern of low performance on standardized tests can be contributed to several factors with the lack of availability of early childhood education programs and low social development being but two. Children who come to school ready and able to learn usually face fewer educational barriers than students who come to school not ready and able to learn. These students are less capable of performing at the levels necessary to acquire the knowledge and skills needed to take advantage of the opportunities of education. n \u0026gt; \u0026lt; Student success can also be influenced by the composition of the family unit. Family composition is related to income and poverty for youth, with two-parent families generally having greater income than families with only one parent. Students coming from families with higher incomes are usually better prepared at an earlier age for schooling. Nationally, in white families a single parent heads two out of every ten households, while single parents head five out of ten Afincan American households. In the city of Little Rock single parents head about six out of ten Afincan American householders. The majority of whom are single mothers. The relationship between income, poverty and academic success suggests that some students who are attending school in the Little Rock School District may need more support prior to the formal schooling experience and perhaps throughout their educational career in the public school system. Students who experience behavior problems often times are not benefiting as much from the academic aspects of schooling because usually they are removed from the educational setting. The number of students who were long-term suspended and/or expelled from the Little Rock School District increased during the 1992-93 to 1997-98 school years. The District revamped its alternative learning environments during the 1997-98 school year by enlarging the Alternative Learning Center and establishing an Accelerated Learning i ! X9 \u0026gt; z p 9 O o p 9 9 3 6 Center for secondary students. During the 1998-99 school year, the District experienced a decrease in the number of long-term suspensions and a significant decrease in the number of expulsions. At the beginning of the 1999-2000 school year, the District established four elementary alternative classrooms in four of its elementary schools. The fall 2000 opening of the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School was a logical progression in the Districts goal to provide for the educational and social needs of all students, especially, those with behavioral problems. The continued development of alternative learning environments is representative of the Districts commitment to providing the proper match between programs and services and students. The needs of some students cannot be met within the regular classroom setting and so alternative learning enviroiunents that focus on academics and behavior modification can ensure that all students receive an education that will prepare them to be lifelong learners and productive members of society. \u0026gt;P5 2 5P!I \u0026gt; Governance Two years of exploration and planning took place prior to the establishment of the charter school by the Little Rock School District Charter School Planning Team. The comprehensive effort included teachers, parents, and community members. The charter school model developed by the team was based on twelve years of research and evaluations by parents and teachers of the Alternative Classroom Experience (ACE) program at Pfeifer Kiwanis Camp. The team reviewed data to determine where the greatest needs exist. After careful review, subcommittees made up of classroom teachers, specialists, parents, and administrators discussed the implementation of various programs and services. For instance, a subcommittee examined the Success For All program while the Mental Health/Parental Involvement Team subcommittee investigated possible programs and services to include parents, families, and the community. Reports from the subcommittees were made to the Planning Team. After careful consideration, the Planning Team delineated issues, concerns, and discussed subsequent proposals. The Planning Team was later changed into an advisory group (Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School Advisory Committee). 4 IZ* P 9 9 9 P 9 9 7 The Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School Advisory Committee met periodically to monitor the progress of the school as well as provide assistance and feedback to the charter school principal and staff. Little Rock School District personnel facilitated the planning and advisory process and provided technical assistance and support. District personnel were instrumental in supporting the charter through inservices on proven educational practices, data evaluation, and a review of the Title I plan. They also offered parental involvement suggestions as well as conducted research activities. D Instructional Program The Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School is located at the Badgett Elementary School. The Little Rock School District Elementary Charter School was modeled on proven methods and strategies used in the Alternative Classroom Experience at Pfeifer Kiwanis Camp. Those strategies include effective early intervention/prevention for academic underachievement, effective early intervention/prevention for socio-behavioral and personal failure, and an aggressive approach to rebuilding community and parent identity and support for public education. In addition to these methods and strategies, other innovations include Success For All, an Extended Day/After School Program, Gifted and Talented Program, Exceptional Children Services Program, Accelerated Reading Program, Read Across America Program, Media Center Program, Awards Programs, Incentive Programs and programming using computer technology, mathematics and science modules, field trips, the residential component located at Pfeifer Camp, music, experiential education, and physical education. Students also wore school uniforms. PI \u0026gt; 2\u0026lt; Pl I z 5 5 \u0026gt;1 21 fl z p 9 O e p 9 9 The charter school has six classrooms staffed with teachers and program assistants to teach each student. A gifted and Ulented teacher, resource teacher, reading specialist, reading tutor, media specialist, music teacher, speech therapist, occupational and physical therapist, counselor, nurse, school examiner, director, secretary, cafeteria personnel, and custodians provide other services. 5 8 I Student Demographics The Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School offers a nontraditional innovative learning environment for students in the 3*, 4*, and 5* grades. Students attending the school come from a host of elementary schools in the Little Rock School District, North Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District\nhowever, priority admission was given to students cunently enrolled in Baggett Elementary School. Other students were eligible for admission if they were academically functioning one or more grades levels below grade placement\nhad a pattern of recurring absenteeism\nhad poor social and interactive skills (displaying unacceptable patterns of behavior and failure to fit the social environment of the school)\nwere retained one or more grades: and, were from an unstable family structure. 2\u0026gt; P5 % \u0026gt; Once students were selected multiple assessment measures were used to assess them. The assessments included Success For All Baseline Assessment (which is reported in terms of grade level). District Achievement Level Test (RIT Score), State Benchmark Test (4 grade 2000 only) and Teacher Recommendations. The data generated from the assessments facilitated a better understanding of the needs of individual students. i 5X \u0026gt;1 2 Initially, 116 students made application to enrolled in the school\nhowever, 17 students did not attend for various reasons including relocation out of the District, logistics (parents wanting their children to all attend the same school or schools closer to home). program fit (some parents concluded that the program and services offered were not appropriate for their child), and a few students withdraw prior to the start of the 2000- 2001 school year. Ninety-nine students attended the school at some period during the school year of which eighty-seven students completed the school year at the school. z p 0 p 9 9 The demographic data shows that overall the characteristics of the students enrolled were similar to other schools within the District\nhowever, there were significant differences in some aspects. For instance, the school was different than most other elementary schools because of its concentration of students who were academically underachieving and 6 9 I I behaviorally and socially challenged. No other elementary school in the District had an exact similar student population. I I The demographics of this student population are highlighted in Tables 1, 2, and 3. The demographic data examined include racial makeup, grade level, attendance, absenteeism, and discipline. In addition, social economic statue and mobility are discussed. I I Table 1 STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS Racial Make Up Black Female White Female Black Male White Male 3rd Grade 4 3 23 1 4th Grade 2 3 24 1 Sth Grade 10 1 23 4 Total 16 7 70 6 Percentage 16% 7% 71% 6% Total Student Count 31 30 38 99 100% \u0026gt; g Pl ? \u0026lt; 3 A review of the data shows that the majority of the students attending the school were black. The majority of the students were black males followed by black females. The number of white females and males attending was about the same. The overall gender and racial make up of the school does not reflect the gender and racial make up of the average elementary school in the Little Rock School District. The above data includes student suspension data. If the suspension data were subtracted from the data, the overall attendance rate would be 94.5%. 2 2 \u0026gt;, pj z p o p 9 9 In addition, an examination of student records shows that an overwhelming majonty of the students in attendance receive reduced or free lunch. Of the students attending the school, 91% receive reduced or free lunch. Again, this percentage is higher than the average elementary school in the District. The combination of gender, race, and reduced or free lunch provides a better understanding of the social-economic status of the student population at the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School. 7 10   L Part of the criteria for admission to the school was a pattern of recurring absenteeism. On average absenteeism is lower at the elementary school level than at any other grade level\nhowever, the absenteeism rate for students attending the charter school is higher than normal. The attendance history of the student body is presented in Table 2. Table 2 STUDENT ATTENDANCE BY QUARTER Grade Level 3rd Grade 4th Grade Sth Grade__ Qverall Average 1st Quarter 87% 84% 92% 88% 2nd Quarter 94% 83% 87% 88% 3rd 4th Quarter Quarter 84% 92% 89% 88% 83% 85% 82% 83% Average 87% 86% 88% 87% The overall average attendance rate for all grades was 87%, which means that the school had an absenteeism rate of 13%. The attendance percentage is lower than the District elementary school average of 95%. The attendance and absenteeism rates of students in attendance at the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School are more similar to the attendance and absenteeism rates of other schools with similar students. In addition, the mobility rate of the school was 14%\nhowever, the adjusted mobility rate was 4%. Mobility can be understood as the relationship between the number of students who started out the school year attending a particular school and the number of students who were still in attendance at that same school at the end of the school year. The number of student transfers and suspensions impacted the mobility rate at the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School. When the impact of the transfers and suspensions are factored out, the mobility rate declines from 14% to 4%. A major criterion for admission to the school was a history of academic, social and behavior problems. Students attending the school usually had poor social and interactive skills along with imaccepUble patterns of behavior. As a result students who attended the 8 n \u0026gt;2 P3 ft \u0026lt; j: V. i XX \u0026gt;, ! Z p 9 e p9 0 11 school usually had experienced more instances of inappropriate behavior, which resulted in more suspensions than other students. Students with poor social and interactive schools came from all three of the school Districts. Table 3 reflects the disciplinary records of students. Table 3 STUDENT DISCIPLINE Total Number of Suspensions Total Enrollment________________________ Total Number of students with Suspensions Total Number of students with No Suspensions Percentage of student with Suspensions______ Percentage of students with NO suspensions 66 99 37 62 37% 63% P5 \u0026gt; 2 P5 r\n\u0026lt;  When considering the grade level of students being suspended the 3\"* and 4* grades had 13 student receiving suspensions, and the 5* grade had 11 students receiving suspensions. Several of the students had multi-suspensions. In addition, some of the students who were suspended no longer attend the school. The majority of students attending the charter school had no suspensions. Furthermore, it is anticipated that suspensions will decrease in the 2001-2002 school year with the _. cih current 5 grade class leaving and with the 3\"* and 4* grade students returning to an environment that advocates behavior and social management. Student Academic Achievement The Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School complies with all mandated state and federal testing, and other assessments based on student needs, which the teacher deems most appropriate. Student performance is measured in part by the same critena as for the rest of the schools in the Little Rock School District. The performance indicators include the Primary Benchmark Exam at Grade 4, Achievement Level Tests at grades 3-5, Success For All. quarterly grades, WRAT (pre 9 12 V 5 \u0026gt;1 2 z p 9 9 9 9 9 Iand post), and SAT 9 at grade 5. These performance indicators are examined in the tables and charts contained in this section. The data presented in Table 4 represents the 1999-2000 school year student literacy achievement as measured by the Primary Benchmark Exam at Grade 4 for current 5* graders at the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School. Table 4 PRIMARY (GRADE 4) BENCHMARK EXAMINATION FOR LITERACY: SCHOOL YEAR 1999-2000 PREFORMANCE LEVEL _______ BELOW BASIC BASIC PROFICENT ADVANCED PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS 86% 7% 7% 0% As illustrated in the table, only 7% of the then 4* grade students were proficient in literacy. The majority of students fall within the below basic range. This can be interpreted, as the overwhelming majority of 4* grade students who entered the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School in the fall of 2000 could not read at grade level. An examination of the results of the 2000-2001 benchmark scores, as presented in Table 5, further illustrates the challenging task of improving student reading achievement. Table 5  PRIMARY (GRADE 4) BENCHMARK EXAMINATION FOR LITERACY: SCHOOL YEAR 2000-2001 PREFORMANCE LEVEL PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS BELOW BASIC 83% BASIC 17% PROFICENT ADVANCED 0% 0% 10 13 Pl P\u0026gt;l 2 Z P 0 c p 9 9 STAFF Staff Title I Staff Residential Component TOTAL Materials \u0026amp; Equipment Computers Classroom equipment/ Furniture Printers Computer Tables Computer Software_______ Cabling________ Server(s) Hubs__________ Classroom supplies Office materials and supplies Repairs of equipment Textbooks Periodicals Audiovisual materials TOTALS CHARTER SCHOOL BUDGET 2000-2001 Proposed 725,000 96,000 821,000 53,100 35,000 7,000 8,500 1,500 20,000 10,000 1,000 2000-2001 Acutal 345,000 71,000 20,000 400 2,000 158,000 89,000 505,000 61,596 34,147 7,000 8,500 1,500 31,176 3,811 26,681 Source of Funds LRSD Title I Provided Provided 174,411 2001-2002 345,000 71,000 ADE Grant ADE 43,000 USDE 62,335 ADE 35,000 LRSD LRSD LRSD ADE 36,000 USDE 43,700 USDE USDE ADE LRSD LRSD LRSD 33,500 449,500 7,000 3,000 5,000 5,700 1,000 5,000 Provided Provided 26,700 Source of Funds LRSD Title I LRSD LRSD USDE LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD 1 14 B \u0026gt; \u0026lt; d PI JB \u0026gt; J i 3 ?) z I* p 9 9 9 P 9 9fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl nn HH fl fl Contractual 2000-2001 Proposed 5,000 2000-2001 Actual 10,000 Staff Development Training \u0026amp; Curriculum/ Improvement Success for All - Staff Development \u0026amp; Materials Travel Dues and Fees Telephone Postage Printing Utilities Maintenance Supplies \u0026amp; Equipment Construction \u0026amp; Repairs Transportation Other Support Services TOTAL GRAND TOTAL 50,000 49,135 40,000 10,000 1,200 500 500 500 30,000 3,500 100,000 (at least) 150,000 346,200 1325,700 9,751 1,000 38 144 Provided Provided 175,000 224,263 S09331 1,188,742 Source of Funds USDE 35,000 USDE 50,000 ADE 40,000 USDE 10,000 USDE LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD 2001-2001 Proposed 50,000 4,700 10,000 2,500 1,200 500 300 500 Provided 3,500 250,000 5,000 328,200 804,400 Source of Funds USDE USDE LRSD USDE LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD NOTE: The above budget included grant funds from the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) and United States Department of Education (USDE). 1 15 P5 \u0026gt; r 5 Pl XX \u0026gt;1 2 z * p Q9 0 P 9 0 5     The number of students scoring below basic decreased from 86% to 83%. The largest increase occurred in the number of students rated basic. The number increased from 7% to 17%. Overall, the student of students who were rated as proficient readers decreased from 7% to 0%. The Little Rock School District Charter Elementary Schools emphasis on reading has not yet impacted student reading achievement.   The data presented in Table 6 represents the 1999-2000 school year student mathematics achievement as measured by the Primary Benchmark Exam at Grade 4 for current 5*'' graders at the school. As previously mentioned he current 5* graders were not in attendance at the school during the 1999-2000 school year.  ?5 \u0026gt; P5 \u0026lt; Table 6  PRIMARY (GRAPE 4) BENCHMARK EXAMINATION FOR MATHEMATICS^ SCHOOL YEAR 1999-2000 PREFORMANCE LEVEL _____ BELOW BASIC BASIC PROFICENT PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS 86% 7% 7% 0% i \u0026gt;1 Seven percent of the then 4* grade students were proficient in mathematics. The overwhelming majority of students fall within the below basic range which indicates that students were not proficient in mathematics at grade level prior to attending the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School in the fall of 2000. An examination of the results of the 2000-2001 benchmark scores, as presented in Table 7, further illustrates the challenging task of improving student mathematics achievement.  P 0 0 P 0 0 t 0 11 16  Table 7  PRIMARY (GRADE 4) BENCHMARK EXAMINATION FOR MATHEMATICS\nSCHOOL YEAR 2000-2001     PREFORMANCE LEVEL ______ BELOW BASIC BASIC PROFICENT ADVANCED PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS 96% 0% 4% 0% The number of students scoring below basic increased from 86% to 96%, while the number of students rated basic and proficient decreased 7% to 0% and from 7% to 4% respectfully. Again, the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary Schools emphasis on mathematics has not yet impacted student reading achievement. \u0026gt; g W I   In addition to the benchmark examinations, the Little Rock School District Elementary Charter School has an array of iimovative programs and services to offer students that focus on their academic development. A variety of means exist to measure the effectiveness of those programs, for instance, the grade level reading and mathematics tests. These tests are given in the fall and spring of the year. The grade level achievement tests highlight student progress. They measure students progress over the school year. The reason for measuring the rate of student growth is because it serves as an indicator of how much progress students are making compared to themselves over a defined period of time. I \u0026gt;,  The data are presented in Charts 1 and 2. The data presented compare the growth rate of students in the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School to similar students in the Little Rock School District and nation. In Chart 1 the grade level reading achievement growth rate is presented. Z P o c p 9 9 0 12 17E 14 12 Chart 1 READING ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL TEST FALL 2000 TO SPRING 2001 LU s *r P s  z \u0026lt; 5 UJ S 10 I6.J' i5 1^5 J5.4\n Charter\n District j I National \u0026gt; ft \u0026lt; OJ' 3rd Grade 31- 4 Grade Sth Grade 8 6 4 1 ' ^5 I At the 3* and 4* grade levels, the growth rate exceeds those for students in the Little Rock School District and in the nation. The increases range from 4.2% at 3\"* grade to 2.5% at 4* grade. The growth rate in both cases is significant. At the 5* grade level, the growth rate is equal to those of students in the Little Rock School District and only slightly below the national growth rate for similar students. 2 * 21 In Chart II the grade level mathematics achievement growth rate is presented. The data contained in the chart also indicate that the growth rate for students in the Little Rock * P 9 O Q P o 9 School District Charter Elementary School is either higher or slightly below that of the Little Rock School District and the nation depending on the grade level. 9 13 18E 16 14 12 10 Chart 2 MATH ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL TEST FALL 2000 TO SPRING 2001 111.9 U15| \u0026gt;n 2 P |9 8.7 s O Z. \u0026lt; uS 2 a'  Charter  District  National 0-* JI 10 2 Si 3rd Grade 4th Grade Sth Grade ?! 8 6 4 2 w ( i 1 i + ! I 8 1^11 yi Similar statements can be made about student performance on the mathematics achievement level test. At the 3\"* and 4* grade level the growth rates exceed those for students in the Little Rock School District and in the nation. The increases range from .1% at 3\"* grade to 6.3% at 4* grade. The growth rate at 4* grade is significant. At the 5' grade level, the growth rate is 1% lower than the Little Rock School District and 2% lower the national growth rate for similar students. th p e o e p o 9 The Charter School also used the Success For All program. The program has been used in more than 1000 schools. Benefits are particularly strong for students who are at risk. This is especially the case for those students in the lowest 25th percentile of their class. 1 i 14 19 IM The data contained in Chart 3 show the progress of students at the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School during the 2000-2001 school year. Charts SUCCESS FOR ALL READING BY GRADE LEVEL d ! fl u o \u0026lt; UJ u 100%/r 90% ** 80%'*' 70%-*' 60%** 50%-^ AS/? !56%r|  BASELINE ' PI \u0026gt; Pl 40% 30% 20% 10% 132% :24'}^n ir^39?i38% llnl iQ FIRST SECOND IBTHIRD io FINAL A 3 pi third grade FOURTH GRADE FIFTH GRADE The 3\"* grade reading scores have increased each quarter of the school year. The percentage of students reading at grade level in the 3\" grade went from 0% to 56% over the course of the school year. The 4*\" grade reading scores have remained fairly constant with 40% of the students reading at grade level at the beginning and end of the school year The 5* grade reading scores have also increased from 24% to 38% during the same time period. Student reading scores have increased as a result of the Success For All reading program and other such programming activities. Those other activities include a total of 1,776 hours of staff development in such areas as Success For All, active learning with technology, experiential education, Smart Step, and cooperative learning. Student grades are also indictors of achievement. Student report card grades are presented in Charts 4 and 5. In Chart 4 reading grades by grade level and quarter are presented 15 20 I IS \u0026gt; z r  o e p  d d d I _ I I I I X Chart 4 READING SCORES BY GRADE  A 60/ u g H CZ3 b O u o \u0026lt; u CU 50--^' 40 30^ 20 10 J21 14 1616 2( JS11 28 124 1 24' X-  1ST QUARTER READING  2ND QUARTER READING  3rd QUARTER READING '  4th QUARTER READING \u0026gt;n 2 P3 r\u0026lt;\nGRADE The number of students receiving an A and B grade increased at the same time that the number of students receiving a C grade decreased in the 4* quarter. The number of students receiving a D grade also increased. Overall, 2 more students received an A grade by the 4'*' quarter and 31 more students received a B grade by the 4* quarter. The number of students receiving a C grade decreased by 17, while the number receiving a D grade increased by 1 in the 4* quarter. Reading grades have continued to rise with significant improvement occurring in the number of students receiving a B grade along with the decrease in the number of students receiving a C grade. fl I\u0026gt; Si P V- r n e a e u o o 16 2X \u0026lt;3 I I I t 1 B 0 A B C D Math scores have also risen with a significant increase in the percentage of students receiving a B grade. Chart 5 MATHEMATICS SCORES BY GRADE LEVEL 60/   50-^ i43 UJ O  CZ5 o UJ o  UJ U 40-^ 30 i22!\n28 28 20-'\" 120B 10 1321 :23 H3B3 13  FIRST QUARTER MATH B SECOND QUARTER MATH J B THIRD QUARTER MATH i BFOURTH QUARTER MATH\nP5 \u0026gt; g Pl 5C \u0026gt; r: I\n37 I 1 I I 0 1 0  B A c GRADE s X X \u0026gt; F D The percentage of students receiving a B grade has increased over the course of the year, while the number of students receiving an A, C, D or F grade has decreased. Overall, the number of students receiving a B grade increased from 28 in the 1 quarter to 51 in the 4* quarter. The biggest decrease was in the number of students receiving a C grade. That number went from 43 to 23. There were also small decreases in the number of students receiving an A, D, or F grade. The numbers ranged from 2 to 3. The decrease in the number of students receiving an A, C, D, or F grade is offset by the increase in the number of students receiving a B grade. Z P o c p 9 9 \u0026lt; 17 22 Additional data about student performance at the Little Rock School District Charter School can be glanced from results of the Math WRAT assessment. Student performance on this examination is presented in Chart 6. The examination was administered both as a pretest and posttest to students in the 3\"*, 4*, and 5* grades in the fall and spring of the 2000-2001 school year. Chart 6  g \u0026lt;  ou u\u0026gt; \u0026lt; O s oo cU4J a 2 z 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 1 0 MATH WRAT ASSESSMENT 3RD GRADE 4TH GRADE STH GRADE  PRE i I a post\n9 i /i V 2 2 Student performance as measured by WRAT indicates an increase in the average number of correct responses at all three grade levels. In 3\"* grade the average number of correct responses increased by 2.5. In 4* grade the average number of correct responses increased by 1.3. In 5* grade the average number of correct responses increased by 2.6. B z * p e c p e 0 The final academic assessment examined is the Stanford 9 Basic Battery for the 5 grade from fall 2000. As shown in Table 7, the examination provides another view on student performance. The test was administered to 5* grade students shortly after the start of the 2000-2001 school year. B The performance of the 5* graders reflects their prior academic preparation rather than their preparation at the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School. The 18 23 a students had been attending the school for only several weeks before the test was administered. I 1 Chart 7 a STANFORD 9 NORM REFERENCE TEST NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK BASIC BATTERY STH GRADE FALL 2000 1 a a a a a CZ3 LU Q  H CZ2 LU O LU u u oi u Qb 100 90- 80 10 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 ,88 12 OE 0%-25% 26%-50% 51%-75% 76%-99% QUARTILES The test results show that 88% of the student population performed in the 0 - 25% quartile, while the remaining 12% of the students performed in the 26% - 50% quartile range. Student performance for this group represents past academic preparation efforts. This groups performance should be compared with that of the fall 2001 S* graders who were 4 .* graders during 2000-2001 school year. This kind of comparison would ascertain the affect of the charter school program on 4* grade students during the 2000-2001 school year. Academically, the students at the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School have made progress. The arrays of assessments highlight this improvement in 19 24 Pl 2 Pl ft 5/5 I % \u0026gt; 2 7- C C o o t Ia mathematics and reading. The schools success is a measure of the effectiveness of the programs and services provided in the innovative alternative learning environment. Financial The program and services provided during the 2000-2001 school year by the Little Rock School District Elementary Charter School cost $1,182,842 (see attached budget).  fl Even in an otherwise well-conceived and fairly funded charter school the need to purchase textbooks, instructional materials and supplies, computers and equipment as well as provide for the staff development training needs of staff can make it appear to be an expensive venture. Given the singular nature of several of the expenditures, the overall cost of operating the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School should decrease during the remaining years of the charter school contract (see attached budget). W \u0026gt; 2 P5 \u0026gt; ft \u0026lt; fl fl Also, in comparing the start up cost of the charter school to similar schools a more reasonable comparison would be with other elementary schools in the Little Rock School District, North Little Rock School District, or Pulaski County Special School District that have opened within the past three years. Just like in these schools the initial cost is high but tends to decrease over a period of time. Another comparison could be made between other schools in the Little Rock School District that are serving students with special needs such as the magnet or incentive schools. 1 ?! y z ?! 2 2 \u0026gt; 2 Conclusion Virtually all charter schools have had to overcome obstacles during development and implemenUtion. The barriers range from lack of start-up funds, lack of planning time, inadequate operating funds, inadequate facilities, state or local board opposition, internal conflicts, hiring staff, acquiring enough students, determining the right mix of programs and services, accountability requirements, and community opposition. While not all of the barriers apply to the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School, some did. They include barriers associated with sharing a building, acquiring enough students, and meeting accountability standards. In addition, to the biggest challenge of them all pi z p 9 0 P 9 9 / 20 25a which was meeting the needs of all of the students who were academically, socially, and behaviorally challenged through the right mix of programs and services. The ability of an organization to respond to these bamers can be somewhat quantified by examining student demographic data, student academic data, staff commitment to program goals, and stakeholders satisfaction. The demographic data indicates a student a a population that is highly challenged academically, socially, and behaviorally. The impact of this challenge is felt in the areas of student attendance, mobility, and discipline. The school can positively impact attendance and discipline, however, its ability to impact mobility is questionable. a a The academic data also illustrates a population that produces mixed results. Pre and post student achievement scores range from above average to below average. The school has the capacity to positively impact student achievement with its array of programs and services. The issue of matching students with the right program may still need to be refined. a P5 \u0026gt; P5 ft \u0026lt; I ifi Another way of quantifying the organizations ability to respond is by examining the diligent and commitment of staff to the goals of the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School. The closer the alignment of diligent and commitment to goals the better the chance that the needs of all students will be met. The numerous hours devoted to staff development and volunteerism is an indicator of the staffs diligent and commitment to students. JO 2 \u0026gt; a Still another way to quantify the affect of the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School is through the impact that it has on stakeholders. Those stakeholders are the parents, children, teachers, and staff of the school. Stakeholder satisfaction is crucial to the overall success of the program. The overall impact of the charter school to stakeholders can best be summarized by the responses attained from a survey given earlier in the school year to parents, students, and staff and from the comments of parents at the end of the school year. Stakeholders developed consensus on the importance of curriculum, instruction, sUff development, and parental involvement. These items were a z r c c e p 9 0 21 26a key elements in the program and related directly to successful student outcomes. The stakeholders felt these items would provide the foundation for long-term success.  a In closing, the overall impact of the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School is apparent not so much in the data presented but in the comment of one parent who perhaps speaks for all stakeholders. She comments, The benefits that my child received from being in the program can not be understated. He is better as a result of being at the charter school. a a \u0026gt; 2 r 5 P5 \u0026gt; \u0026lt; a a Vi 3 4 fl fl n 2 ?! 2 z r c p 9 9 a a 22 27EARLY LITERACY 1 Lisa 7 i J J '3 fl LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206  fl TO: Board of Education fl FROM: PREPARED BY: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools ^^onnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Pat Price, Director of Early Childhood and Elementary Literacy DATE: October 24, 2002 SUBJECT: Early Literacy Program Evaluations fl fl Background The Board of Education approved in its 1999-2000 program evaluation agenda the Early Literacy program, which began implementation in fall 1999. During July and August 2000 the Assistant Superintendent of PRE presented to the Board drafts of this evaluation, which the Board tabled in August 2000 pending completion. That early draft was never completed and was not again submitted to the Board of Education for review and approval. ys 23 I j: ri 2  During summer 2001 Dr. Bonnie Lesley, on behalf of the Early Literacy Program Evaluation team (Pat Price, Pat Busbea, Ann Freeman, Ed Williams, Ken Savage, Anita Gilliam, and Sharon Kiilsgaard) presented a completed 204-page program evaluation: Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District (1999-2000 and 2000-2001). This report was presented for information, but our Section 2.7.1 Compliance Plan now requires that all program evaluations be presented for Board acceptance and approval. z* p c p 9O Dr. Steve Ross of the University of Memphis had served as an external consultant to the team. He read both a near-complete draft and made several suggestions for its improvement, which were incorporated into the final draft. He also read the final draft and responded. 1, All grades K-2 teachers administered the assessments, both fall and spring, in all three years, 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002. All elementary principals supervised both the fall and spring administrations of the Developmental Reading Assessment and the Observation Surveys and the Achievement Level Tests at grade 2. Central office Elementary Literacy staff conducted the training for the assessments, collected the answer documents, and participated in the analysis of data: Patricia Price, Pat Busbea, Judy Milam, Judy Teeter, Kris Huffman, and Ann Freeman. Both Dr. Ed Williams and 28 f D Board of Education - Memo October 24, 2002 Page Two II II Ken Savage assisted in the production and analysis of score reports. Anita Gilliam and Sharon Kiilsgaard assisted in checking the data tables for accuracy and in preparing the final reports. Copies of this program evaluation were provided to Mr. John Walker, to Ms. Ann Marshall at ODM, and to all elementary principals and elementary literacy staff. Executive summaries, including the program evaluation recommendations, were sent to all K-2 teachers with a cover memorandum congratulating them on their successes. The program evaluation was comprehensive, including the following:  an introduction\n a chapter on the literacy program design and its relationship to the Districts Strategic Plan and the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan\n a description of all of the K-2 assessments used to measure student progress\n a chapter aligning the program with national research studies on effective early literacy programs\n numerous tables displaying the data in several different ways, disaggregated by grade level and race\n an analysis of the results (based on student performance data)\n an analysis of additional data relating to achievement gap among schools and the impact of professional development on student achievement:  a chapter on findingsanswers to the six research questions originally posed\n a bibliography: and  tables of school-level data on each assessment for the two-year period. An important chapter of the program evaluation relating to Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan was the one on findings. Research Question 2 was as follows: Is the new program effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students? The discussion filled pages 81-96. The following paragraph includes the criteria that were used to determine effectiveness.\" To determine the effectiveness of the new program in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students, the District used the performance results of the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment. The basic criterion established in determining program effectiveness for black students was that black student achievement would have to improve and then that growth over the two-year period of the programs implementation would need to be equal to, but preferably greater than, the growth of non-black students, (p. 81) II II n n H B n n n n H n 29I - 7 1 i Board of Education - Memo October 24, 2002 Page Three I The report included a detailed analysis of all available data: I I I - I The following findings based on Observation Survey, Developmental Reading Assessment, and Achievement Level Test results make it possible to conclude that the new early literacy program has so far been effective in improving and remediating the reading achievement of African American students, as well as all students. It is unusual in any District to find gains by both blacks and non-blacks over a two-year period on eight different measurements, as this study finds. Again, however, experts on program implementation advise that it takes approximately five years to determine program effectiveness, so this year 2 study at best establishes baseline and early trend data for comparisons in future years, (pp. 82-83) In this sections conclusions, the program evaluation included not only a summary of findings as they relate to the achievement gap, but also how they compare to the findings in recent national research on reading achievement among African American and white students: The results of two years of changes in the LRSD policies, programs, and procedures in grades PreK-2 indicate that both black and non-black children in the Little Rock School District are learning to read independently by grade 3 (see Section 5.2.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan). The findings and analyses in this report indicate trends in the opposite direction of the national research findings cited above and of scores of other similar studies. Instead of black students growing at slower rates than non-blacks, in most of the measurements the LRSD results indicate higher rates of growth of black students than non-blacks. Instead of the gap widening between grades 1 and 2 as it does in national studies, it narrows significantly in the LRSD by every one of the eight measures (fve sub-tests of the Observation Survey, the Developmental Reading Assessment, and two sub-tests of the Achievement Level Test), (p. 94) 3 fl fl i \u0026gt; {fl z p 9 e p 0 0  Pages 107-113 included recommendations for improvement in instruction, parent involvement, interventions, and professional development. Five schools were identified for improvement since they were the lowest performing schools in at least two of the three grades tested. Recommendations for the next program evaluation were also included. These recommendations were all considered by the program staff and by school-level staff and many were immediately implemented, as well as others identified in formative evaluations during year 3. The major recommendations made to principals for program improvement included (1) ensuring that all teachers are fully trained and are implementing the District program\nand (2) adding Reading Recovery and literacy coaches wherever possible, since both of these actions in some schools had resulted in higher achievement. / I 30B Board of Education - Memo October 24, 2002 Page Four B B At the end of 2001-02 the staff decided that another comprehensive study was not necessary so early in the programs implementation (year 3). They, therefore, presented to the Board of Education in June 2002 an update that included all the 2001- 02 scores on the Observation Surveys and Developmental Reading Assessment, along with a summary of analysis of performance, especially comparisons of African American student achievement with other students. Those findings not only confirmed the findings of the 1999-2001 study, but the results were even stronger in year 3. At the end of year 3. African American students scores were at least 90 percent of other student scores on all five measures of the Observation Survey by the end of grade 2. In other words, the achievement gap was either closed on these measurements or almost closed, given the standard of 90 percent as an acceptable ratio. On the Developmental Reading Assessment, the most difficult of the measurements, the black to non-black ratio grew from 35 percent at the beginning of kindergarten in fall 1999 to 82 percent at the end of grade 2 in 2002. Deeper analysis also revealed that although many African American children from poverty were not learning to read in grade 1, they did successfully learn to read in grade 2, so they will most likely reach the goal of independent reading by grade 3, even though they began far behind their peers. Interestingly, the growth of other students generally exceeded African American student growth on the DRA in grade 1, but African American growth exceeded other student growth in grade 2. Copies of the program evaluation and the update are attached for Board members review. Recommendation That the Board of Education accept and approve, as submitted, the following: Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District. 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Update on the Implementation of the PreK-2 Literacy Program, Little Rock School District, 1999-2000, 2000-01, and 2001-02 BAUadg Attachments B B B B B B B B n nnn H 31 i: k:t It-  Ir b-' b- Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Presented to the Board of Education Little Rock School District October 2001 I fl 9 2 \u0026gt;2 Ir b^ pj z r p G G G y G G I Prepared by Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley Dr. Ed Williams Patricia Price Pat Busbea Ann Freeman Ken Savage Anita Gilliam Sharon Kiilsgaard 1 I 32 p I i p Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 s Section I: Introduction I I 1 d i 1 Introduction During March 2000 the Little Rock School District provided to the Board of Education, the federal court, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, and administrators an Interim Compliance Report, which included a status report on the implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program (pp. 93-105) relating to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (RDEP). In August 2000 the Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) office provided to the Board and staff a draft copy of a program evaluation for the first year of implementation of the K-2 Literacy Program. At least two subsequent drafts were developed as more data became available, but these were not presented to the Board of Educationjust discussed among staff members.  An implementation update was provided to the Board in January 2001 by the curriculum staff, on the status of program implementation and including an analysis of available data, along with an outline of next steps. Then in March 2001 the staff provided a summary evaluation in the Compliance Report (pp. 72-93) relating to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan that was filed with the federal court and provided to members of the Board of Education. 3 d 5 5 fl fl I \u0026gt; The Board of Education approved on second reading in March 2001 a new policy on program evaluation. Policy IL: Evaluation oflnstructional Programs requires that the staff evaluate the instructional programs designated by the Board of Education in their annual approval of the program evaluation agenda. Each evaluation is to provide valuable insights into how programs arc operating, the extent to which they are serving the intended purpose of increasing student achievement, the strengths and weaknesses, the cost-effectiveness, and directions for the future. In August 1999, 2000, and 2001, the Board of Education included the PreK-2 literacy program on its approved research agenda for the following year. P c p 9 0 An interim program evaluation was provided to the Board of Education in June 2001, the first analysis of the scores on the Developmental Reading Assessment in grades K-2 for 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. At that time the scores were reported as the percent of students at each grade level, by race, who met the standard for readiness, the level that would predict success at the next grade level (level 2 at kindergarten\nlevel 16 at grade 1\nand level 24 at grade 2). Copies of that report, plus the summary and the slides were immediately sent via e-mail to principals to use in their own analysis and to provide to J 1 33 I' I' (' I. I' 1 E. Update on the Implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan, Highlights of Grades K-2 Results: Developmental Reading Assessment, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, and a copy of the slides for the June 2001 presentation to the Board of Education n I I B B B B B n n n 34 I ' Table of Contents Section I: Introduction Introduction Research Questions Methodology Outline of Program Evaluation Sections Outline of Appendices 1-6 1-2 3 3-5 5-6 6 I Section II: Background on Program Design Background on Program Requirements: Design of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Background on Program Requirements: LRSD Strategic Plan Background on Program Requirements: Revised Desegregation and Education Plan 7-13 7-8 8 8-13  Section III: The Assessments The Assessments: Observation Survey The Assessments: Developmental Reading Assessment Defimtion of Readiness vs. Proficiency Reliability and Validity: National Study Reliability and Validity: LRSD Study Developmental Appropriateness of Testing Instruments The Assessments: Achievement Level Tests in Reading and Language Usage 14-25 14-15 15-21 16-19 19-20 20-21 21-23 23-25 V: I JC I Section IV: Alignment with National Research on Early Literacy 26-29 Section V: Description of Tables Table 1: Kindergarten, 1999-2000, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance Table 2: Kindergarten, 2000-01, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance Table 3: Grade 1,1999-2000, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance Table 4: Grade 1,2000-01, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance Table 5: Grade 2,1999-2000, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance 30-42 31 31 32 33 33 35 [fl r G C\u0026gt; c p 9 9 I I I Table 6\nGrade 2,2000-01, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance Table 7\nCohort 1, Kindergarten Fall 1999 and Grade 1 Spring 2001 Table 8\nCohort 2, Grade 1 Fall 1999 and Grade 2 Spring 2001 Table 9: Grades K-2,1999-2000, Fall to Spring Performance, All Students Table 10: Grades K-2,2000-01, Fall to Spring Performance, All Students Table 11: Percent of Maximum Scores, Kindergarten Black Students Table 12: Percent of Maximum Scores, Kindergarten Non-Black Students Table 13: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 1 All Students Table 14: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 1 Black Students Table 15: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 1 Non-Black Students Table 16: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 1 All Students Table 17: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 2 Black Students Table 18: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 2 Non-Black Students Table 19: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 2 All Students Table 20: Cohort 1All Students, Kindergarten Fall 1999 and Grade 1 Spring 2001 Table 21: Cohort 2All Students, Grade 1 Fall 1999 and Grade 2 Spring 2001 Table 22: Percent Readiness, DRA, Black and Non-Black Students Table 23: Percent Readiness, DRA, All Students Table 24: Grade 2 Reading, ALT, Black and Non-Black Comparisons Table 25: Grade 2 Reading, ALT, All Students Table 26: Grade 2 Language Usage, ALT, Black and Non-Black Comparisons Table 27: Grade 2 Language Usage, ALT, All Students 34 35 35 36 37 37 38 38 38 38 39 39 39 39 40 40 41 41 41 42 42 42 36 i- I i 3 Section VI: Analysis of Results, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Letter Identification Word Test Concepts about Print Writing Vocabulary Hearing and Recording Sounds Developmental Reading Assessment 43-67 43-46 47-51 52-54 55-59 60-63 64-67 f Section VII: Additional Data Achievement Gap Among Schools Impact of Professional Development 68-71 68-70 70-71 I I Section VIII: Program Evaluation Findings and Recommendations for Improvement Research Question 1^Program Effectiveness Research Question 2Achievement Disparities Research Question 3Professional Development Research Question 4Four Literacy Models Research Question 5^Program Strengths and Weaknesses Research Question 6Cost Effectiveness Recommendations for Improvement Instruction Parent Involvement Interventions Professional Development Schools Identified for Improvement Year 3 Program Evaluation 72-113 72-80 81-96 96-100 100-103 103-105 105-106 106- 107-109 109-110 110-112 112 112 112-113 ( pl V! pl 9 IB2 \u0026gt; Section IX: Bibliography 114-116 Section X: School-Level Data Letter Identification, Kindergarten Word Test, Kindergarten Concepts about Print, Kindergarten Writing Vocabulary, Kindergarten 117-205 119-122 123-126 127-130 131-134 135-138 pj z r p 0 c Hearing and Recording Sounds, Kindergarten Developmental Reading Assessment, Kindergarten 139-142 Letter Identification, Grade 1 Word Test, Grade 1 Concepts about Print, Grade 1 Writing Vocabulary, Grade 1 Hearing and Recording Sounds, Grade 1 143-146 147-150 151-154 155-158 159-162 I 37 Developmental Reading Assessment, Grade 1 163-166 Word Test, Grade 2 Writing Vocabulary, Grade 2 Hearing and Recording Sounds, Grade 2 Developmental Reading Assessment, Grade 2 167-170 171-174 175-178 179-182 Cohort 1^Letter Identification, Black and Non-Black Cohort 1Word Test, Black and Non-Black Cohort 1Concepts about Print, Black and Non-Black Cohort 1Writing Vocabulary, Black and Non-Black Cohort 1Hearing and Recording Sounds, Black and Non-Black Cohort 1^Developmental Reading Assessment, Black and Non-Black 183 184 185 186 187 188 Cohort 2Word Test, Black and Non-Black Cohort 2Writing Vocabulary, Black and Non-Black Cohort 2^Hearing and Recording Sounds, Black and Non-Black Cohort 2^Developmental Reading Assessment, Black and Non-Black 189 190 191 192 Percent Readiness, Developmental Reading Assessment, K-2 Percent Readiness, DRA, Rank Order, K-2 Percent Readiness, DRA, Black and Non-Black 193-195 196-198 199-201 ! Grade 2 ALT, ReadingAll Students Grade 2 ALT, Reading, Black and Non-Black Grade 2, ALT, Language Usage, All Students Grade 2, ALT, Language Usage, Black and Non-Black 202 203 204 205 Appendices A. B. C. D. PrcK-3 Literacy Program Plan Section 5.2.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plans March 2000 Interim Compliance Report Section 5.2.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plans March 2001 Compliance Report Presentation to the Board of Education, January 2000 (update on program implementation and early results) 38 I teachers and parents. (See Appendix E.) Elementary principals used these materials in their August 2001 preschool inservice sessions. I I This Year 2 Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District builds on the information provided in all earlier reports. It is intended to meet the requirements specified in Policy IL for the 2000-01 school year, as well as to fulfill the requirements in Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan for the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan. The grade levels evaluated include only grades kindergarten through grade 2. Another report will include grades 3 through 5. I I The curriculum staff received from PRE on July 19,2001, the report on the mean scores for K-2 students on both the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment for 2000-01. Achievement Level Test data were available earlier, but they had not yet been disaggregated by race. This program evaluation, therefore, differs from, but builds upon, the evaluation report that was presented to the Board of Education in June. It includes a much more detailed analysis of data\nit includes the results of the five sub-tests of the Observation Survey\nand it includes the average performance scores for each school on each sub-test^not just the percent of students meeting the standard. It also includes the results of the grade 2 Achievement Level Tests in reading and language usage. The new data permit the staff to calculate and analyze the scores in a different way (mean performance vs. percent readiness), and they permit the calculation of a black to non-black student ratio so that the degree to which the achievement gap in narrowed can be measured, as well as how the gap has changed over the two years of program implementation. One caution in comparing the 1999-2000 and 2000-01 pre-test scores on the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment is that some schools did not complete their fall testing by the deadline in 1999 and so their pre-test scores were higher than they would have been had the testing been done in a timely manner. There were instances when there were several weeks difference in the test date, so this variance would affect the pre-test scores. The kindergarten pre-test scores in fall 2000, for instance, were generally lower than those for fall 1999, for both black and non-black students. These differences do not necessarily indicate that this past years kindergarten class was that much weaker than the one the year beforeespecially when this past years end-of-year scores were higher than the previous classs end-of-year scores. The third and fourth tests administered are the Achievement Level Tests in reading and language usage that are given in spring of grade 2. Those scores, combined with the results of the Observation Survey and the DevelopmenUl Reading Assessment, enable the District to assess the effectiveness of the early literacy program in LRSD, including its impact on the improvement of the academic achievement of Afiican American children. 2 39 3 1 fl dX V. fl *I pzl pr c 0 ep 0 8 r* 1 Research Questions Using the obligations set forth in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (RDEP), the Boards Strategic Plan, and the Boards Policy IL, the following research questions were estabhshed to guide this study: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Are the new curriculum standards/benchmarks, instructional strategies, and materials effective in teaching primary grade students how to read independently and understand words on a page? (See Section 5.2.1a of RDEP and Strategy 2 of the Strategic Plan.) Is the new program effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students? (See Section 2.7 of RDEP.) Is there a relationship between teacher participation in professional development and student achievement? (See Policy IL expectation to examine cost effectiveness and Strategy 7 of the Strategic Plan.) Is there evidence of success in each of the four Uteracy models in useEarly Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) only\nELLA and Reading Recovery\nSuccess for All\nand Direct Instruction? (See Section 2.7 of RDEP.) What are the programs strengths and weaknesses? (See Policy IL.) Is the program cost effective? (See Policy IL and Strategy 3 of the Strategic Plan.) Methodology An interdisciplinary team was assembled to prepare the program evaluation for the PreK- 2 literacy program for Year 2. Several staff members provided assistance and support in the construction of 27 separate tables of district-level data to display not only the mean scores for each sub-test, by race and for all students, on the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment, but also to display the percent who scored at or above the readiness level on the Developmental Reading Assessment and the median RIT score on the sub-tests of the Achievement Level Tests. Calculations were verified three times by separate staff members to ensure the highest possible degree of accuracy. Among the calculations that were made to assist in the analysis of data were numbers of points of growth from fall to spring for each of the two years, spring to spring, and fall of one grade to spring of the following grade (for a two-year growth). Black to non-black ratios were calculated to determine the degree to which black students were attaining essential knowledge and skill at the same level as non-black students. Growth ratios were also determined^the degree to which growth in a given year by black students was at the same level or higher than that of non-black students. The percent of growth for one year of instruction and then two years of instruction in the program was calculated for each level and each sub-test, although these calculations were not used in the section on findings or in the recommendations made for improvement. And, finally, the mean 3 40i I  score on the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment was divided by the maximum possible score to determine the average percent for each score. An additional table was constructed to display the achievement gap between/among schools for each sub-test at each grade level. i The Districts statistician conducted three statistical studies that informed the study: one of the average number of days of teacher participation in professional development on the implementation of ELLA, by program model, and another of descriptive statistics between teacher participation in professional development on ELLA implementation and student achievement. A third study was conducted to determine the validity of the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment in relationship to the Achievement Level Tests. fI 5 Finally, 87 tables of school-level data were constructed to add to the study and to provide the critical information for school-level staff members to conduct their own analyses at the school level.   Throughout the writing of this report individual staff members, both program staff and assessment specialists, were interviewed and queried in order to clarify issues of program implementation, testing administration, instructional procedures, and data interpretation. Their assistance was invaluable. The research studies which guided the initial design of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan were again reviewedespecially the research on the identification of prerequisite knowledge and skills that children must acquire on their pathway to learning to read. These findings were once again mapped with the implementation plan for LRSD, as well as the assessment instruments to ensure ongoing alignment. Serendipitously, the National Center for Education Statistics published a report in July 2001 entitled Educational Achievement and Black-White Ineoualitv. which proved to be very helpful in interpreting Little Rock results in a national context, and which is cited in this program evaluation, along with other external studies. Multiple strategies to analyze the data were employed so as to establish as thoroughly and comprehensively as possible a basis for determining the programs quality. The detailed analysis is found in Section VI. No attempt was made in this study to analyze the results for limited-English proficient children since that program is evaluated separately. It is important to note, however, that the scores of limited-English proficient students are included in each schools results. The District requires them to take the tests so their progress in learning English, as well as in learning to read, may be monitored. And, finally, credible research studies were consulted, as were informed staff, in the determination of recommendations for improvement or determining next steps in becoming even more effective. 4 41 J I fl 4 CZ! fl 2 s 2 ?5 Z e P 0 0 \u0026lt; Before the program evaluation was published, it was reviewed by many individuals, including Dr. Steve Ross of the University of Memphis, and groups, including the Early Literacy program staff, PRE staff representatives, and School Services staff. The District is grateful to all who offered feedback and suggestions for the improvement of this report. To the best of the writers ability, the suggestions for improvement were incorporated into the draft. Others were added to recommendations for the Year 3 study. Outline of Program Evaluation Sections This report is organized into ten sections: 1. Section I includes the Introduction, as well as a delineation of the Research Questions for the study and a description of the methodologies employed. 2. Section n provides background information on the program design and its relationship to the Strategic Plan and the Revised Desegregation Plan. 3. Section HI describes the selection of appropriate assessments for grades K-2 and the processes by which readiness standards were established for each grade level for the Developmental Reading Assessment. It also includes information on national and local validation studies of the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment, as compared to the Achievement Level Test. 4. The literacy plans design in relationship to the findings in national research studies on early literacy is described in Section IV. This section also includes an alignment of the research with the assessments selected by the District. 5. Three major sections on data analysis follow. Section V is a description of each of the tables that was constructed from the data reports to assist the writers of this report and its readers in analyzing the results on the eight measurements: the five sub-tests on the Observation Survey (OS)\nthe Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA)\nand the reading and language usage sub-tests of the Achievement Level Tests (ALTs). 6. Section VI is a detailed analysis of the data in each table and a comparison of 1999-2000 and 2000-01 data, by race. 7. Additional data are provided in Section VII on the achievement gap among schools and on some statistical studies that were conducted relating to program effectiveness and the relationship between teacher participation in professional development and the achievement of their students. 8. Following the data analysis is Section VIH that summarizes the program strengths and weaknesses and specifies the implications for instruction, with specific recommendations for improvements in 2001-2002. 5 414 1 9. Section IX is the Bibliography for the study. 10. Section X includes 87 tables of school-level data. Those interested in individual school performance or comparisons are encouraged to use the model in this report for data analysis at the District level to conduct similar analyses at the school level. Behind Section X are appendices A-E for more background and further reference: A. PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan e B. Section 5.2.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plans March 2000 Interim Compliance Report I C. Section 5.2.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plans March 2001 Compliance Report D. Presentation to the Board of Education, January 2000 (update on program implementation and early results) E. Update on the Implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan, Highlights of Grades K-2 Results: Developmental Reading Assessment, 1999-2000 and 2000-01, and a copy of the slides for June 2001 presentation to the Board of Education 6 z 0 5 ?! *5 43 4 I \u0026gt; J r C e p o e 4II. Background on Program Design Background on Program Requirements: Design of the PreK-3 Literacy Program During early fall 1998 a committee was formed in the Division of Instruction of the Little Rock School District to design a new elementary literacy program, with an emphasis on the primary grades of PreK-3. The processes and ultimate design of that plan are described in the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan in Appendix A. All elementary schools in the Little Rock School District are expected to teach the same curriculum standards and grade-level benchmarks, regardless of the instructional strategies and/or materials that are selected according to the various implementation models. Twenty-seven of the Districts 35 schools are implementing the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) instructional strategies that are the content of the professional development program for PreK-2 teachers. This model was developed through a collaborative effort that included the Reading Recovery Training Center at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, the Arkansas Reading Recovery teacher leaders, and the Arkansas Department of Education. Nine schools are implementing the Reading Recovery program, a first-grade intervention, developed by Marie Clay. Seven schools are implementing the Success for All model that was developed at Johns Hopkins University. Little Rock schools receive their training for this program from the University of Memphis. Both ELLA and Success for All training are designed fixjm the same research base on early literacy\nthey differ in implementation strategies and materials. One school is implementing Direct Instruction through an approved waiver from the District program. Both the Success for All schools and the Direct Instruction school are supplementing their programs, in some cases, with ELLA strategies for greater effectiveness. According to Busbea (2000), In ELLA the importance of helping students feel like readers and writers on the first day of school is stressed. In order to achieve such a goal, teachers must provide students with the needed materials and opportunities for literacy activities. A balanced literacy approach is used to give students these opportunities. The children are engaged in whole text, but they are given formal instruction based on their strengths and needs (30-31). The literacy components taught in the ELLA professional development program, again according to Busbea, are as follows:  Read aloud.  Shared reading.  Guided reading.  Familiar reading.  Modeled writing or shared writing.  Interactive writing. I 7 441 Writing aloud. Revising and editing. Independent writing and conferencing. Phonetic skills. Classroom management. r Each school is required to dedicate a two and one-half hour block of uninterrupted time daily for literacy instruction. :9 3 ' Background on Program Requirements: LRSD Strategic Plan The District adopted its Strategic Plan in 1996, and it was updated in fall 1998. Three of the eleven strategies were important in the development of the PreK-2 Literacy Program Plan:  Strategy 2: In partnership with our community, we will establish standards in the core curriculum (reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies) at each appropriate level, as well as develop the means of assessing whether students have met these standards. Strategy 3: We will develop and implement a broad range of alternatives and interventions for students scoring below the Sd'' percentile on standardized tests or who are at serious risk of not achieving District standards in the core curriculum. I z 0 .*) z3 Strategy 7: We will design a comprehensive staff development system to best achieve the mission and objectives in the Strategic Plan. Background on Program Requirements: Revised Desegregation and Education Plan The charge to the design committee of the PreK-3 Literacy Plan included three major sections of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan that was approved by the federal court in February 1998: Section 2.7, Section 2.7.1, and Section 5.2.1. The first of these sections (2.7) establishes the obligation to improve the achievement of students, especially those who are African American. I\u0026gt; 2 Section 2.7: LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African- American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan. zr ec 0P 9 0 On January 21,1998, Mr. John Walker, on behalf of the Joshua Intervenors, signed an agreement with the Little Rock School District that was filed with the federal court, which included the following statement: \u0026lt; With regard to the achievement disparity, the January 16 Revised Plan recognizes that the only legitimate means to eliminate the racial disparity in achievement is by improving African-American achievement (2). 9 8 45 To that end and to address the obligation in Section 2.7, the staff made a conscious decision to emphasize designed to improve... the academic achievement of African- American students, rather than to remediate that achievement, given the failure of most remediation efforts not only in Little Rock, but across the country. This is not to say that the District abandoned its remediation efforts. It did not. Re-teaching, tutoring, Title I programs, computer-assisted instruction, inter-sessions in the Extended Year schools, after-school programs, summer school, and Reading Recovery (first-grade intervention in some schools) continued as much as ever, but as supplemental to the efforts going on in every classroom to prevent as much failure as possible, rather than try to correct failure after it had occurred. These remediation efforts are documented in the schools School Improvement Plans and their Title I Plans. And, of course, the Success for All program implemented in seven LRSD elementary schools and Direct Instruction at Washington Magnet can be described as both preventative and remedial in nature. This decision to emphasize prevention of failure vs. remediation is supported in the published work of the National Research Council, Preventing Reading Difficulties Among Young Children (1998)\nthe research in scores of studies sponsored by the International Reading Association\nand from Marie Clay, who developed the Reading Recovery program. The National Research Council concluded in their massive study the following: The majority of reading problems faced by todays adolescents and adults are the results of problems that might have been avoided or resolved in their early childhood years. It is imperative that steps be taken to ensure that children overcome these obstacles during the primary grades (5). Marie Clay writes the following\nTeachers and parents of 11- to 16-year olds often believe that schools have done nothing for the reading difficulties of the young people they are concerned about. Yet the older child has probably been the focus of a whole sequence of well-intentioned efforts to help, each of which has done little for the child. This does not mean that children do not sometimes succeed with a brilliant teacher, a fantastic teacher-child relationship, a hard-working parent-child team. What it does mean is that the efforts often fail (15). Dorothy Strickland makes a similar finding: Historically, educators focused their attention on remediation, allowing children to fail before help was given. The importance of intervening early and effectively is well established among educators and social service providers (325). I t She explains that  the cycle of failure often starts early in a childs school career and that there is a near 90% chance that a child who is a poor reader at the end of grade 1 will remain a poor reader at the end of grade 4. Therefore, as the child continues to experience failure and defeat, he/she becomes likely to drop out of school (326). Also, 9 - 46 I' r she states that supplementary remedial programs such as Title I and replacement programs that substitute for regular, in-class instruction have had mixed results over the years (326). She concludes: sr* Those who have turned their attention to early intervention state that it is ultimately less costly than years of remediation, less costly than retention, and less costly to students self-esteem. This final point may be the most compelling of all because the savings in human suffering and humiliation is incalculable. Teachers in remedial programs often observe that students who feel they are failures firequently give up and stop trying to learn despite adequate instructional opportunities (326). Linda Dom (1998), Reading Recovery Teacher Leader Trainer and developer of the Arkansas Early Literacy and Literacy Coach model, and her colleagues French and Jones explain this shift in understanding about teaching as follows: i I7 Recently, Linda asked a group of teachers in a college course how they taught reading to their lowest achieving children. From their responses, it was clear that their theory was a deficit one guided by their concern about how much the children did not know. Traditionally, we have tested children to identify their weak areas and then designed instruction based on what they do not know. This theory of learning is in direct opposition to what research tells us about how the brain acquires information and then organizes related information into larger networks. 0 I ... instruction that is based on inadequate background is grounded in a deficit model, which may force young learners to rely on low-level processes (24-25). 9 I 3 In their summary of Chapter 1, they wrote: Prevention of reading problems must begin in the early grades. If children are not reading on grade level by the end of third grade, their chance of success in later years is minimal. One significant characteristic of problem readers is their lack of literacy experiences during their preschool years. Schools must compensate by providing the children with rich literacy classroom programs and supplemental literacy services that focus on early intervention (15). z p c c c p 0 0 In other words, those who persist in insisting on remediation of learning as the primary emphasis for the lowest-achieving children doom those children to lessons that never get beyond the rote memorization of basic information, and those children will never have an opportunity to understand anything well, much less apply higher-order thinking skills. Dom, si si (1998) urge teachers, therefore, to identify the strengths of young children and use this information as the basis for designing rich learning experiences that emphasize problem-solving (p. 25). In these ways, schools can prevent failure. I 10 47 It should be noted that the District sees its HIPPY and expansive pre-kindergarten program as a part of its overall prevention-of-failure efforts. (See Compliance Report of March 2001, pp. 72-73, for a break-down of the 1312 youngsters involved in early childhood education during 2000-01.) The second section fiom the Revised Plan (2.7.1) requires the District to conduct annual assessments of English language arts and mathematics in order to determine their effectiveness in improving the achievement of Afiican American studentsand then to take appropriate action if the program is not effective by either modifying the programs implementation or replacing it. Section 2.7A: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African- American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. ! Prior to fall 1999 there was not in place a reading assessment (except the eight-week assessments in the Success for All schools) that measured student progress in their acquisition of leaming-to-read skills in the early grades. For a time the SAT9 was administered in grades 2-3, but it was not used to drive instructional practice as much as it was used to identify students for the gifted/talented program. The Literacy Benchmark examination required by the State of Arkansas in grade 4 was the first formal assessment of whether students could read independently. The design committee believed strongly that to comply with the Revised Plan and also, importantly, to be able to diagnose potential reading difficulties, as well as to identify progress and growth of individual students, classrooms, schools, and the District, an annual assessment would be required. The District could not afford to wait until grade 4 to find out whether every student had learned to read independently, a goal established in the Revised Plan. After a review of the available literacy assessments for young children and after consulting with the experts involved in the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) professional development program and with specialists at the Arkansas Department of Education, District staff decided to adopt two sets of measurements-the Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement developed by Marie M. Clay and the Developmental Reading Assessment developed by Joetta Beaver. Subsequently, because of a need to have a measurement for the identification of students for the grade 3 gifted/talented program, the Achievement Level Test developed by the Northwest Evaluation Association in collaboration with LRSD teacher teams was added to the assessment plan for grade 2. The results of these data would be the primary basis for evaluating program effectiveness. 11 48 i The third section (5.2.1) of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan establishes several curriculum, instruction, professional development, assessment, and parental involvement obligations\n[ I 1 IIf Readim/Lansuaee Arts Section 5.2.1: Primary Grades. LRSD shall implement at least the following strategies to improve the academic achievement of students in kindergarten through third grade: a. b. c, d. e. g-h. i. j-k. I. Establish as a goal that by the completion of the third grade all students will be reading independently and show understanding of words on a page\nFocus teaching efforts on reading/language arts instruction by teaching science and social studies through reading/language arts and mathematics experiences\nPromote thematic instruction\nIdentify clear objectives for student mastery of all three reading cueing systems (phonics, semantics, and syntax) and of knowing-how-to-learn skills\nMonitor the appropriateness of teaching/leaming materials to achieving curricular objectives and the availability of such materials in all classrooms\nEstablish uninterrupted blocks of time for reading/language arts and mathematics instruction\nMonitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices\nProvideparents/guardians with better information about their childs academic achievement in order to help facilitate the academic development of the students\nProvide pre-kindergarten, kindergarten, andfirst grade learning readiness experiences for students who come to school without such experiences\nTrain teachers to manage successful learning for all students in diverse, mainstreamed classrooms\nUse the third and/or fourth grade as a transition year from focused reading/language arts and mathematics instruction to a more traditional school day\nand Provide opportunities for students to perform and display their academic training in a public setting. Rather than repeat in this program evaluation the information provided in a number of earlier reports, the relevant pages from those earlier reports are included in the appendices. The document in Appendix E entitled Update on the Implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan includes the following list of initiatives that have been implemented from the PreK-3 plan and which require emphasis (pp. 2-3): 12 49 7 0 3 fl 3 CZ! fl 2 2 z r p c a c p 9 9 9 Title I programming was restructured and aligned with the Districts program. A moratorium was placed on adding any new supplemental reading/ language arts programs. Some programs in previous use were abandoned. A waiver was granted to Washington Magnet to keep its Direct Instruction program. Cumculum standards, instructional strategies, instructional materials, assessments, and professional development were tightly aligned. Each school established a sacred, uninterrupted, two and one-half hour daily block for the teaching of reading/language arts. A new English-as-a-Second Language program was implemented that is also tightly aligned with the Districts general education program. New assessments that are developmentally appropriate and aligned with the curriculum and instructional program were implemented. Animated Literacy, a phonemic awareness program, was implemented in kindergarten. Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) was implemented in grades K-2, with Pre-ELLA added in fall 2000 for prekindergarten students. More than $35O,(XX) was expended in the purchase of reading and other cumculum support materials during the past two years. 9 A committee has almost completed work on a new elementary report card. Most primary teachers experienced a minimum of one week of ELLA training, with follow-ups as necessary and appropriate (See Compliance fiSgOU in Appendix C for lists of professional development sessions.) The Parent-School Compact was revised, and the Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP) was developed and implemented. The Parent Program was restructured in May 2000. An ESL Parent Coordinator was employed in spring 2001. 13 50 f 3 in. The Assessments 1 ' - -Jg h H I I i Marie Clay makes the point repeatedly in her book, An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement (1993), that no one observation task is satisfactory on its own when one needs to make important instructional decisions for children (p. 20). She would find strong support from Grant Wiggins, who is a national expert in assessment. In his book, Assessing Student Performance: Exploring the Purpose and Limits of Testing (1993), Wiggins wrote: One test signifies nothing, let us emphatically repeat, but five or six tests signify something. And that is so true that one might almost say, It matters very little what the tests are so long as they are numerous (13). In the Little Rock School District, the tests are numerous. The Assessments: Observation Survey Below is siunmary information about what the five sub-tests in the Observation Survey measure. Letter Identification This sub-test answers the following questions: What letters does the child know? Which letters can he/she identify? All letters, lower and upper case, are tested. The observation includes an analysis of the childs preferred mode of identifying letters\nthe letters a child confuses\nand the unknown letters. (Clay, p. 43) The maximum score is 54. This test is administered in grades K-1. 5 I ?! V. Word Test The student is tested over the most fi-equently occurring words in whatever basic reading texts are being used. Scores on this measure are useful in determining a childs readiness to read. (Clay, p. 53) The maximum score is 20. This test is administered in grades K-2. Concepts about Print This sub-test (5-10 minutes) includes testing whether the student knows the front of the book, that the print (not the picture) tells the story, that there are letters, that are clusters of letters called words, that there are first letters and last letters in words, that you can choose upper or lower case letters, that spaces are there for a reason, and that different punctuation marks have meanings. Scores on this measure have proven to be a sensitive indicator of behaviors that support reading acquisition. (Clay, p. 47) The maximum score is 24. This test is administered in grades K-1. Writing Vocabulary The student is asked to write down in ten minutes all the words he/she knows how to write, starting with his/her own name and making a personal list of words 14 51 9 I {fl z r p c p 0 9he/she has managed to learn. There is no maximum score. This test is administered in grades K-2. Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words The teacher asks the child to record a dictated sentence. The childs performance is scored by counting the childs representation of the sounds (phonemes) by letters (graphemes). The maximum score is 37 at grades K-1 and is 64 at grade 2. This test is administered in grades K-2. The Assessments: Developmental Reading Assessment The Developmental Reading Assessment is a one-on-one assessment of reading skills primarily accuracy of oral reading and comprehension through reading and re-telling of narrative stories. The assessment consists of stories that increase in difficulty. Factors which contribute to the gradient of difficulty of the stories include the number of words on a page, complexity of vocabulary, length of the stories, degree of support from the pictures, as well as complexity of sentence and story structure. The assessment formats are as follows: Levels A-2 (Kindergarten Grade Level), 7-8 minutes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Teacher selects book Teacher introduces text Teacher reads one or two pages Child points and reads rest of story\nteacher takes running record Teacher asks print questions Teacher asks preference questions Levels 3-16 (First Grade Level), 10-15 minutes 1. Teacher selects book 2. Teacher introduces text 3. Child looks at pictures\ntells what is happening 4. 5. 6. 7. Child reads story aloud\nteacher takes running record Child retells story Teacher asks response questions Teacher asks preference questions Levels 18-44 (Second Grade Level), 15-20 minutes 1. Teacher selects range of three texts 2. Child previews and chooses one 3. Teacher introduces text 4, 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Child reads first 2-4 paragraphs aloud Child predicts what will happen in story Child reads complete story silently in another location Child retells story Teacher asks response questions Child reads selected portion of text\nteacher takes ruruiing record 15 52r 10. Teacher asks preference questions 11. Teachers asks one or two inference questions (Levels 28-44). 3 3 Readiness levels for the Little Rock School District have been established as follows:  KindergartenLevel 2  Grade 1Level 16\nand  Grade 2Level 24. 4e 5 The explanation below (developed in summer 2000) on Definition of Readiness vs. Proficiency is a delineation of the Districts efforts to define appropriate cut scores for each grade level so that a determination could be made of the percent of students who are achieving a standard of readiness for success at the next grade level. I' I Definition of Readiness vs. Proficiency The Arkansas Department of Education has defined performance at four levels: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced for the Benchmark examinations that are administered at grades 4, 6, and 8 and the end-of-level examinations for designated high school courses. Proficient is the performance standard that all students should achieve. The ADE definition follows: Proficient students demonstrate solid academic performance for the grade tested and are well-prepared for the next level of schooling. They can use Arkansas established reading, writing, and mathematics skills and knowledge to solve problems and complete tasks on their own. Students can tie ideas together and explain the ways their ideas are coimected. The Developmental Reading Assessment allows teachers to assess reading levels of students through a one-on-one test reading conference between teacher and student. Teachers observe student performance during the test, make notes on reading behaviors, and score the performance as they go along. V! 2J 5 fl fl I\u0026gt; 2 r I The desire was to establish appropriate cut points that would define proficient performance. To gauge which level is equivalent to how Arkansas defines proficiency, the staff used national reading standards for each grade level as defined in Reading and Writing Grade bv Grade: Primary Literacy Standards from Kindergarten through Third Grade (New Standards Primary Literacy Committee, National Center on Education and the Economy and the University of Pittsburgh, 1999). The staff then identified the DRA level that corresponds to that specific performance. Standards and DRA equivalents by grade level follow: fl z r p c e p 9 0 f I 16 53 Grade Level Kindergarten Grade I I I Grade 2 Reading Standards Children at the end of kindergarten should understand that every word in a text says something specific. They can demonstrate this competence by reading Level B books that they have not seen before, but that have been previewed for them, attending to each word in sequence and gening most of them correct. By the end of the year, we expect first-grade students to be able to\nread Level 16 books that they have not seen before, but that have been previewed for them, with 90 percent or bener accuracy of word recognition (self-correction allowed). When they read aloud, we expect first graders to sound like they know what they are reading. Fluent readers may pause occasionally to wo^ out difficult passages. By the end of the year, we expect first-grade students to be able to independently read aloud from Level I books that have been previewed for them, using intonation, pauses and emphasis that signal the structure of the sentence and the meaning of the text. By the end of the year, we expect second-grade students to be able to independently read aloud unfamiliar Level 24 books with 90 percent or bener accuracy of word recognition (selfcorrection allowed). DRA Level_______________________________________ Assessment texts A through 2 consist of a repeated word or sentence panem with natural language structures. The simple illustrations include animals and objects familiar to primary children and highly support the text. One or two lines of text appear on the left page and are large and well spaced so that children can point as they read. The number of words in the texts ranges fiom ten to thirty-six._______________________ Assessment texts 16 through 28 are stories with beginnings, middles, and ends, throughout which problems are presented and resolved. The characters are either imaginary (giants and elves) or animals with human characteristics. The content begins to move beyond children's personal experiences and builds a basis with which to compare and contrast other stories. Literacy language structures are integrated with natural language. Some description of characters and setting is included. Illustrations provide moderate to minimum support. The text may be three to twelve lines above or beneath the illustrations, or a full page. The number of words in these texts starts at 266 and increases with each level of difficulty. Assessment texts 16 through 28 are stones with beginnings, middles, and ends, throughout which problems are presented and resolved. The characters are either imaginary (giants and elves) or animals with human characteristics. The content begins to move beyond children's personal experiences and builds a basis with which to compare and contrast other stories. Literacy language structures are integrated with natural language. Some description of characters and sening is included. Illustrations provide moderate to minimum support. The text may be three to twelve lines above or beneath the illustrations, or a full page. The number of words in these texts starts at 266 and increases with each level of difficulty.___________________________________________ The staff also considered the work of others who use the DRA in their determination of appropriate cut points to define proficiency at each grade level. Several sUtes and many school districts have adopted the DRA for early literacy assessment. One example is the chart establishing proficiency levels developed by the East Baton Rouge Parish School System in Louisiana. They have determined that On Grade Level is defined by a kindergarten students performance at levels 1,2 on the DRA\ngrade 1 is levels 16,18\nand grade 2 is levels 24,28. Above Grade Level is defined as levels 3-14 at kindergarten\nlevels 20-28 at grade 1\nand levels 30-38 at grade 2. In Lindsay, California, the Approaching Proficiency levels are defined similarly: level 2 at kindergarten\nlevels 10-12 at gr^e 1\nand level 24 at grade 2. 17 54 3 5^^ IS fl 1 I 4 A program evaluation conducted by the Austin, Texas, Independent School District indicates that the Grade Level performance on the DRA was defined level 2 at kindergarten\nlevel 16 at grade 1\nand levels 24-28 at grade 2. as The State of Ohio defined Success Indicators for reading for each grade level. These can be compared to the national standards developed by the National Center for Education and the Economy: At the end of kindergarten, children should be able to write in a left to right/top to bottom manner, have a firm grasp of letters and their sounds, and recognize a few simple words. By the end of first grade, students should be using and integrating phonics and reading strategies as they read, writing simple stories, reading independently, and demonstrating comprehension of stories through drawing, writing, discussion, and dramatization. By the end of second grade, students should be reading silently for extended periods and reading orally with appropriate use of punctuation. They should demonstrate that they can gather information by reading, predict how stories will end, compare and contrast story elements, sequence evens from a story, retell a story, and relate what they read to their lives. The State of Connecticut uses the Developmental Reading Assessment as a part of their state accountability system in grades 1-3. Grade 1 students who perform at or below level 10 and grade 2 students who perform at or below level 16 at the end of the year are identified as substantially deficient. Such students then receive a personal or individual reading plan that outlines additional instructional support and monitors student progresssimilar to the Districts Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP). Although Connecticut does not identify grade-level proficiency levels, they have established the literacy standard for LEP students to exist the bilingual program: at kindergarten the student must perform at level 2\nat grade 1 level 16\nand at grade 2 level 28. Vermont, likewise, uses the DRA in their state assessment program and has established similar levels of proficiency. 7- 9 5 I Vi 9 I \u0026gt; i Joetta Beaver, the developer of the Developmental Reading Assessment (published by Celebration Press in 1997), suggests that districts should define proficiency levels so that students performing below those levels receive necessary interventions and remediation. Her recommended proficiency levels are levels 1-2 for kindergarten\nlevels 16-18 at grade 1\nand levels 24-28 at grade 2. All these efforts to define proficiency are either exactly aligned with the decisions made by LRSD sUff or are very close. 18 55 pi y\nr 9 C P 9 9 \u0026lt;Given, however, the difficulty of establishing with confidence an equivalent defimtion of proficiency that would predict achievement on the grade 4 Benchmark examination. District staff members have made the decision to use what in their best judgment are the appropriate cut scores (based on all the research cited), but to use the term Readiness to define the desired perfonnance. VA/MAM T\\a\u0026gt;A_^A 1_____1x* Ma When the District has multiple years of data and when the 1999-2000 kindergarten students take the Grade 4 Benchmark examination in spring 2004 then the staff can do some stotistical calculations that will enable the District set cut scores that reliably predict Proficient performance on the grade 4 Benchmark. to I 1 I I Reliability and Validity: National Study The development of the Developmental Reading Assessment began in 1988 by a team of teacher-researchers. According to the national validation study, the purpose of the assessment was to guide teachers ongoing observations of student progress over time withm a hterature-based reading program (p. 2). Over the next six years ere were numerous revisions in response to teacher feedback. In spnng 1996 the first formal validation study was conducted. Seventy-eight teachers fi-om various parts of the United States and Canada participated, (p. 3) The results of the study were very positive, and where the correlations were not as strong as they possibly could be, revisions to the instrument were made to strengthen validity. In summary, the I Iz A W M TAI Am. t* M M  . _ 1 - J ..._________ * M - * DRA was found to be a valid assessment. Teachers found it very helpful in  deterluirung individual students instructional text reading level\n describing his/her performance as a reader\nselecting appropriate interventions and/or focus for instruction\nand identifying students who may be reading below proficiency (11). A reliability study of the Developmental Reading Assessment was conducted in spring 1999 by Dr. E. Jane Williams. In this study eighty-seven teachers from ten states participated. All had prior experience in administering the DRA. The findings were at both the inter-rater reliability and the internal consistency of the test were strong to very strong (6). The construct validity of the DRA was also established through an additional study. Construct vahdity ensures that the test measures what was intended that it measure. The statistics for this study were done using DRA individual student scores compared to individual scores on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. They correlated positively, and for the ITBS Total Readmg subscale, very positively. The conclusion, then, was that the DRA validly measures a childs ability to decode and understand/comprehend what he/she has read (6). Of importance to the LRSD was another conclusion to this study: It should be noted that a major purpose of the DRA is to help guide instruction. Ninety-eight percent of the teachers and raters agreed or strongly agreed to the 4 s a 19 56I-I I .\u0026lt; I statement that the information gained about the reader during the DRA conference helped them better identify things that the child needed to do or learn next ( 9). 5 3 \u0026lt; d It was the intent of the design committee and is the intent of the curriculum staff that the multiple assessments selected for grades K-2 be used to drive instructionfor the data gathered from those assessments to be used to assist teachers in deciding what to do next for each individual child. LRSD embraces the joint position statement of the International Reading Association and the National Association for the Education of Yoimg Children that was adopted in 1998: [ Throughout these critical years accurate assessment of childrens knowledge, skills, and dispositions in reading and writing will help teachers better match instruction with how and what children are learning. However, early reading and writing cannot be measured as a set of narrowly defined skills on standardized tests. These measures often are not rehable or valid indicators of what children can do in typical practice, nor are they sensitive to language variation, culture, or the experience of young children. Rather, a sound assessment should be anchored in real-life writing and reading tasks... and should support individualized diagnosis needed to help young children continue to progress in reading and writing (20). i Reliability and Validity: LRSD Study The following correlational matrix constructed by the Districts statistician in spring 2001 displays the relationships between the scores on the Achievement Level Tests (ALTs) and the Observation Survey and Developmental Reading Assessment scores. 9 3 I ?! ?! CorrelatioBal Matrix* Spring 2001 ALT Reading RTF, ALT Reading Goal RTTi, Olmrvation Survey, and DRA Scores e I\u0026gt; Goal 1: Word Meaniog Goal 2: Literal Comprebeu SMB Goal 3: Goal 4: Interpretive Evaluative Compreheo Coapreben Observation Survey: Word Test SIM sion Observation Survey: Writing Vocabulary Observation Survey: Dictation DRA Reading RTF Skore Goal 1: Word Meaning Goal 2: Literal Comprehension 0.937 0.940 0.839 0.922 0.805 0.823 0.917 0.815 0.822 0.280 0.255 0.223 0.467 0.438 0.418 0.638 0.602 0.577 0.788 0.733 0.12A Goal 3: Interpretive Comprehension Goal 4: Evaluative Comprehension Observation Survey: Word Test Observation Survey: Writing Vocabulary ObMrvatiM Survey: Dictation__________ 0.795 0.199 0.207 0.410 0.413 0.276 0.535 0.574 0.351 0.442 0.696 0.719 0.360 0.478 0.683 P c p 9 9 AU conclahons arc significant at the .05 level \u0026lt; N's range from 1577 to 1684 While all the relationships are significant at the .05 level, some relationships are stronger than others. All of the ALT scores relate strongly to the DRA, with values of .696 to 20 57 .788. Only Hearing and Recording Sounds (Dictation) on the Observation Survey has value above .50-.683. Also, within the Observation Survey correlational values are a lower. The staff anticipated this result since the Observation Survey measures leaming- how-to-read skills, and the Developmental Reading Assessment measures more difficult comprehension skills. The large sample size gives power to this matrix and contributes to significance at apparent low correlational values. 1 The statistician subsequently ran a statistical test called Cronbachs Alpha, which is a reliability test for internal consistency of an assessment. Reliability is a measure of a tests stability\nthat is, if one gives the same test more than once, a reliable test would produce a similar or same result. A test with an acceptable Alpha indicates that the variability in scores is a result of the test taker, while a low Alpha indicates that the variability in scores is a result of a poorly designed or inconsistent test. A test with an Alpha of .60 and greater is usually considered to be internally consistent. The Alpha coefficients for the Observation Survey and the DevelopmenUl Reading Assessment for both fall and spring administrations are as follows: 1 Fall K Grade 1 Grade 2 .63 .66 .74 Spring .85 .62 .65 Therefore, both the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment appear to have stability and are internally consistent. The Alpha for the spring grade 2 Achievement Level Test is .97. What these data are indicating is that the Developmental Reading Assessment is a valid and reliable test The lower correlation values of the Observation Survey are more likely a product of these tests measuring pre-reading knowledge and skills, as opposed to the reading comprehension skills measured on the grade 2 Achievement Level Test Developmental Appropriateness of Testing Instruments Both the sub-tests on the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment are admimstered one-on-one by the classroom teacher to the student. The teacher scores the students performance, based upon rubrics and scoring instructions provided to the teacher in a mandated training session and in writing. The teacher then bubbles in on each childs answer sheet his/her level of performance and sends those answer sheets to the Director of Early Literacy for processing and the compilation of scoring reports. One caution, therefore, in interpreting the data is that the teacher has scored his/her own students performance, and bias may be possible. The District has conducted a procedure to verify the accuracy of the spring scoresthose most likely to be influenced by bias. Students spring scores are matched with their fall scores the following year, and then if there is a wide discrepancy, that score can be flagged. When there is a pattern of significantly higher spring scores from one teacher than the next years fall scores, then an investigation must be conducted. One school with suspiciously high spring scores was flagged for review in fall 2000. However, when 21 58* 5 the match of scores was run, the staff found absolutely no evidence of cheating. The fall 2000 scores were closely in line with those of the previous spring, even though the children in the fall were in several different schools, and there were more than seven teachers administering the fall tests. The steff also has collected some anecdotal evidence that a few teachers may, in fact, be under-reporting student achievement rather than overreporting, due to their own low expectations. I a 3  To avoid even the appearance of bias, some would recommend that the District use a standardized examination with individual students writing their own answers and then the answer sheets scored by machine. The problem with this approach is that the results would likely be even more questionable than the ones produced through one-on-one testing. Experts in early literacy and in early education have developed strongly stated positions against the use of standardized tests for young children, ages 3 through 8. For example, a position statement, Learning to Read and Write: Developmentally Appropriate Practices for Young Children, was issued in 1998 by the International Reading Association (IRA) and the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). The section on assessment follows: 1  Group-administered, multiple-choice standardized achievement tests in reading and wnting skills should not be used before third grade or preferably even before fourth grade. The younger the child, the more difhcult it is to obtain valid and reliable indices of his or her development and learning using one-time test administrations. Standardized testing has a legitimate function, but on its own it tends to lead to standardized teachingone approach fits allthe opposite of the kind of individualized diagnosis and teaching that is needed to help young children continue to progress in reading and writing (11). A 1987 position paper by NAEYC, Standardized Testing of Young Children 3 Through 8 Years of Age, is even more explicit: Young children are not good test takers. The younger the child, the more inappropriate paper-and-pencil, large group test administrations become. Standards for administration of tests require that reasonable comfort be provided to the test taker (AERA, APA, \u0026amp; NCME, 1985). Such a standard must be broadly interpreted when applied to young children. Too often, standardized tests are administered to children in large groups, in unfamiliar environments, by strange people, perhaps during the first few days of school or under other stressful conditions. During such test administrations, children are asked to perform unfamiliar tasks, for no reason that they can understand. For test results to be valid, tests are best administered to children individually in familiar, comfortable circumstances by adults whom the child has come to know and trust and who are also qualified to administer the tests (5). In conclusion, therefore, the staff made the determination that the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment met all the criteria for selecting good assessment instruments for the children in K-2 classrooms. They were closely aligned 22 59 c 3 I fl 3 cz: fl flI\u0026gt; Z j* C c p e 0 4 }| with the curriculum and teaching strategies that were to be used by teachers\nthey measured the leaming-to-read skills that were essential for children becoming independent readers\nthey provided teachers with necessary diagnostic and sununative dau\nthey were developmentally appropriate\ntheir administration procedures met test administration standards for young children\nand their results were much likely to be valid and reliable than if a standardized test was used. The Assessments: Achievement Level Tests in Readmg and Language Usage The Achievement Level Test (ALT) at grade 2 in reading and language usage was first administered in spring 2000. The ALTs are a series of tests that are aligned with the Little Rock School District curriculum and the Arkansas state standards. Because the scores are along one continuum over the grade levels, they allow staff and others who are interested to calculate the amount of growth for individual students, classrooms, schools, and the District as a whole fi-om year to year. With the ALTs, students take tests at a level that matches their current achievement level. The test should be challenging, but neither too difficult nor too easy. Because the tests match the achievement level of the student, teachers receive accurate information that helps them to monitor each students academic growth. ALTs are not timed, and they take about one hour per subject for most students. The District scores the ALTs, and the results are returned to the schools as quickly as possible, sometimes within 48 hours. Any retesting that is necessary is completed, so school reports carmot be printed until all testing is finished, and district reports cannot be completed until all schools finish their testing. Reports are also produced for parents, teachers, and administrators. Once a student has been through two administrations of the ALTs, a trend report is produced for parents that allows them to monitor the growth of their child compared to the growth of the District and the growth of the national group that takes the test. Student progress is reported in a scale score called the Rasch Unit (RTT). It is an equal interval measure. It can be compared to measuring a childs physical growth in inches and then comparing it to an expected growth chart. The test measures achievement growth with a RIT scale and compares the growth to an expected national growth chart. By monitoring the growth of students, staff can pinpoint areas where individual students might need extra help or attention. District staff and Campus Leadership Teams use the information to make data-driven decisions about school improvement plans, curriculum and instructional changes, and professional development needs. The scores are also used in program evaluations. There are four goals/standards that are measured on the reading sub-test: 1. Word Meaning A. Phonetic skills B. Context clues C. Synonyms, antonyms, homonyms D. Component structure (prefix, suffix, origin, roots) E. Multiple meanings 23 604 I 2. 3. I I 4. Literal Comprehension A. Recall/identify significant details B. Identify main idea C. Locate information D. Follow directions E. Sequence details Interpretive Comprehension A. Inference B. Identify cause and effect C. Authors purpose D. Prediction E. Summarize F. Identify literacy elements (character, plot, setting, theme, etc.) Evaluative Comprehension I A. B. C. D. E. Evaluate conclusions, validity (supporting context) Identify fact and opinion Identify literary techniques (figurative language, mood, tone, etc.) Distinguish text forms Identify bias, stereotypes. 1 Three goals/standards are tested on the Language Usage sub-test: 1. Writing Process A. B. C. D. E. F. Prewriting skills Drafting and revising- Editing/proofreading Choosing appropnate format Sentence choice appropriate to purpose Paragraph skills (topic and concluding sentences, indenting, etc.) z 93 fl W! fl 9 I \u0026gt;s 2 2. 3. Grammar and Usage A. Sentence patterns B. Phrases and clauses C. Noun forms D. Verb usage: tenses, irregular verbs, subject-verb agreement E. Adjective forms F. Adverb forms G. Pronoun forms H. Pronoun-antecedent agreement I. Negative forms Mechanics A. End punctuation B. Commas C. Apostrophes D. Enclosing punctuation E. Titles F. Beginning capitalization G. Proper nouns and adjectives pi r p c p 90 24 61 H. Capital I The staff made a deliberate decision to delay the use of this formal, group-administered test until the end of second grade. Even then, many teachers, principals, central office staff, and parents question its usefulness in measuring leaming-to-read skills and knowledge. The data are included in this program evaluation because they exist and because they provide another measurement of student achievement that may be used to inform decision-making about the program. I 25 62I IV. Alignment with National Research on Early Literacy Background on the Context: National Research on Early Literacy A publication of the National Research Council (1998), Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children, is nationally recognized, and it was used to a high degree in the design of the LRSD PreK-2 literacy program. Below is a short summary of the reports recommendations for early learners: Prekindergarten: Preschool programs ... should be designed to provide optimal support for cognitive, language, and social development, within this broad focus. However, ample attention should be paid to skills that are known to predict future reading achievement, especially those for which a causal role has been demonstrated. 1 Kindergarten: Kindergarten instruction should be designed to stimulate verbal interaction\nto enrich childrens vocabularies\nto encourage talk about books\nto provide practice with the sound structure of words\nto develop knowledge about print, including the production and recognition of letters\nand to generate familiarity with the basic purposes and mechanisms of reading. Beginning readers need explicit instruction and practice that lead to an appreciation that spoken words are made up of smaller units of sounds, familiarity with spelling-sound correspondences and common spelling conventions and their use in identifying printed words, sight recognition of fi'equent words, and independent reading, including reading aloud. Fluency should be promoted through practice with a wide variety of well- written and engaging tests at the childs own comfortable reading level. ^5 2 I pl (/) pl \u0026gt; 2 Children who have started to read independently, typically second graders and above, should be encouraged to sound out and confirm the identities of visually unfamiliar words they encounter in the course of reading meaningful texts, recognizing words primarily through attention to their letter-sound relationships. Although context and pictures can be used as a tool to monitor word recognition, children should not be taught to use them to substitute for information provided by the letters in the word. z r p p e a  Because the ability to obtain meaning from print depends so strongly on the development of word recognition accuracy and reading fluency, both of the latter should be regularly assessed in the classroom, permitting timely and effective instructional response when difficulty or delay is apparent. Beginning in the earliest grades, instruction should promote comprehension by actively building linguistic and conceptual knowledge fl 26 63in a rich variety of domains, as well as through direct instruction about comprehension strategies such as summarizing the main idea, predicting events and outcomes of upcoming texts, drawing inferences, and monitoring for coherence and misunderstandings. This instruction can take place while adults read to students or when students read themselves. Once children learn some letters, they should be encouraged to write them, to use them to begin writing words or parts of words, and to use words to begin writing sentences. Instruction should be designed with the und\nThis 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.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_551","title":"Program evaluations, Volume II","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2003-03-14"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Program evaluations, Volume II"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/551"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["1 page"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nB s n 5C \u0026gt; \u0026gt; 5 z m I VOLUME 2 II 2 p5 z RECEIVED MAR 1 4 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORINGfl fl Appendix G Academic Comparison Data by Area, Magnet, and Incentive Schools \u0026gt; n 5 s z m 2 fl I I I i I I 67 471 2 Z 9 s z wI d d Number of Students by Grade Level d d d d d d d d nn d d n PK Area Magnet Incentive Kindergarten Area Magnet Incentive 1 Grade Area Magnet Incentive 2* Grade Area Magnet Incentive 3'' Grade LEP 26 0 3 51 3 2 42 14 43 4 1 NAEP 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 10 0 FEP FEPE 6 0 3 0 0 0 14 4 5 19 2 1 14 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 Area Magnet Incentive 4'* Grade Area Magnet Incentive 5*^ Grade Area Magnet Incentive 6'* Grade Area Magnet 7* Grade 8\"^ Grade Area Magnet Area Magnet 9 Grade Area Magnet 42 4 2 38 0 0 25 2 2 20 0 36 6 31 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 5 2 2 15 7 1 17 4 1 25 5 1 25 3 17 3 22 2 10 5 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 2 0 4 0 1 0 J 0 68 472 c \u0026gt; S S\u0026gt; Pl \u0026gt; 04o z nI 2 z UI \"I. n rr F d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d 10*^ Grade Area Magnet 11^ Grade [Tep Area Magnet 12^ Grade Area Magnet DRA Scores LEP - Kindergarten FEP- Kindergarten FEPE - Kindergarten NAEP- Kindergarten LEP - 1 Grade FEP -1 Grade FEPE -1TT Grade NAEP - 1 Grade LEP - 2\"^ Grade FEP - 2\" Grade FEPE - 2^ Grade I NAEP- 2'* Grade NAEP FEP FEPE 20 0 18 0 12 0 Area W 1 3 3.5 7.4 1 15.5 34.5 19.5 2 3 6 9 0 6 17 0 12 0 9 0 Spring Growth 4 9.3 3.1 56.3 13.2 19.3 6 24.2 37.5 34 0 0 1 0 0 I Magnet Fall 9 8 Spring 13.3 10.5 Growth 7 2.5 '.as\n-' 11.2 11.9 5 13 8 14.5 6 21 34 42 28 21 17.5 35.3 33 42.6 15.5 7.3 69 Incentive Fall 0 5.8 2.5 3 Spring 1 9.6 14 14 XL -O' Growth i 3.8 11 11 N 1 ff 2 \u0026gt;99 C\u0026gt; \u0026lt;m 3 5 zn \u0026gt; 2 Z C F z n cr ^13 d d SAT-9 Complete Battery: National Curve Equivalent Scores Area 1 Magnet d d d d d d II II II n n n n \u0026lt; LEP-5^ Grade FEP - 5*^ Grade FEPE-5^ Grade NAEP - 5^ Grade 1 LEP - 7^ Grade FEP-7*^ Grade FEPE - 7^ Grade\" NAEP -1'^' LEP -10*^ Grade FEP-10*^ Grade FEPE - lO^* Grade NAEP -10'^ Grade 4\" 15.7 39 \\1 l^.'i Incentive 85 d \u0026gt; CO O X \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Q 5 z n I 26.3 74.3 33 30 54.8 21 49 11.5 11.5 52 if 'fSi  2 5 -2. C cz: s z ri w Grade State Benchmark Exam for current 5* Grade Students Math LEP-4*'Grade NAEP- 4* Grade FEP- 4*^ Grade Area \"IT 184 Magnet 266 Incentive TIT or FEPE-4^Grade j 180 Literacy LEP - 4*^ Grade NAEP- 4*^ Grade FEP- 4^ Grade I FEPE- 4*^ Grade Area 126 i 199 171 Magnet IST 228 -j: 200 Incentive 202 70 474d d ALT RIT Scores: Elementary Math dLEP - 2\"** Gride T?T?n -\u0026gt;ntl riJo FEP - 2 Grade 1 Area I 166 Magnet | Incentive d d d d d d d II n n n n  FEPE - 2\"^ Grade NAEP- 2\"'^ Gradl LEP - 3\"* Grade FEP - 3'^* Grade \" FEPE - 3'^Grade~~ NAEP-S'** Grade LEP - 4* Grade FEP - 4*^ Grade FEPE-4*^ Grade\" NAEP - 4th Grade LEP - 5* Grade FEP-5^ Grade FEPE - 5*^ Grade NAEP - 5* Grade 198 193 188 198 170 d M \u0026gt; s 5 \u0026gt;  5 z P5 \u0026gt; 2 185 206 211 207 195 213 211 209 189 220 221 206 212 183 210 2 \u0026gt; 229 198 224 3 220 210 222 *  ALT RIT Scores: Reading Elementary Level LEP - 2\"'* Grade FEP - 2' Grade FEPE-2'^ Grade I NAEP- 2\"^* Grid? LEP - 3 j Grade FEP - 3\"^ Grade FEPE - 3\"^Grade i NAEP - 3\"^ Grade I i LEP - 4*^ Grade I FEP - 4*^ Grade FEPE - 4* Grade~ NAEP - 4th Grade LEP-5*^ Grade FEP - 5*Grade ~ FEPE - 5*^ Grade\" NAEP - 5* Grade \u0026gt; z o {5 z n Area ~iS7~ 179 189 .ti' 171 198 205 201 184 210 203 191 Magnet Incentive 183 198 188 a 187 205 178 202 - 223 3* tn 208~ tri* 187 213 212 193 223 188 214 71 475d alt RTT Scores: Language Elementary Level Area Magnet Incentive d d d d d d d n n II n n n  n LEP - 2\"*' Grade  FEP-2\" Grade FEPE-2' Grade NAEP- 2\"** Grad^ LEP - 3^^ Grade ~ FEP - 3^Grade FEPE - 3'^Grade~ NAEP - 3'*' Grade LEP - 4* Grade FEP - 4'^ Grade FEPE -4*\" Grade NAEP - 4th Grade LEP - 5*^ Grade FEP - 5* Grade FEPE - 5^ Grade NAEP - 5*^ Grade 171 186 194 192 208 189 2 \u0026gt; S X \u0026gt;  5 2 n I 182 204 212 207 192 214 211 200 191 218 215 193 212 184 213 227 218 z O CZ5 ?5 z rj w 197 226 192 210 ALT RIT Scores: Middle Level Math LEP - 6* Grade FEP - 6* Grade FEPE - 6* Grade NAEP- 6* Grade LEP - 7*^ Grade FEP - 7*^ Grade FEPE - 7'*' Grade NAEP - 7*^ Grade LEP - S'* Grade rrn FEP - 8 Grade FEPE - 8* Grade NAEP - 8* Grade 1 Area I 199 221 223 Magnet 218 234 203 243 210 222 237 230 202 233 233 253 260 72 476d Id ALT RIT Scores: Middle Level Reading Area Magnet d d Id Id Id Id Id Id Id Id II II II LEP - 6^^' Grade ~ FEP-6'^ Grade FEPE - 6\"^ Grade NAEP- 6*^ Grade LEP - 7*^ Grade FEP - 7**^ Grade FEPE - 7**' Grade NAEP - 7'*' Grade LEP-8*^ Grade FEP - 8*^ Grade FEPE - 8*^ Grade NAEP - 8*** Grade 192 215 216 217 228 204 223 205 202 226 221 210 221 227 225 236 ALT RIT Scores: Middle Level Language LEP - 6*^ Grade FEP - 6* Grade FEPE - 6* Grade NAEP- 6'* Grade LEP-7*^'Grade FEP - 7*^Grade I FEPE - 7** Grade I NAEP -Grade LEP - 8* Grade FEP - 8* Grade FEPE - 8'* Grade NAEP - 8^ Grade\" Area W 219 217 207 227 214 2Q1 230 226 Magnet 226 ^30~ 218 230 227 234 239 2 \u0026gt; s \u0026gt; P3 \u0026gt; 4 5 z m 2 2 \u0026gt; 2. O r S z Pl 13 ^11M [fl ALT RIT Scores: High School Level Reading [fl [fl n M [fl [fl n [fl II n II n n  n LEP - 9* Grade  FEP - 9*** Grade FEPE - 9* Grad? NAEP-9^ Grade' I Area Magnet LEP-10^ Grade \" FEP - 10*^ Grade FEPE -10^ Grade\" NAEP -10^^ Grad'e LEP- ll^' Grade ~ FEP - 11*'Grade ~ FEPE - 11'^ Grade NAEP -11*^ Grade 201 230 222 174 225 224 208 211 213 232 205 225 S w C z \u0026gt; d  s z \u0026gt; 2 1 229 218 ALT RIT Scores: High School Level Language LEP - 9* GradT\" FEP - 9* Grade FEPE - 9* Grade NAEP-9* Grade LEP -10*^ Grade FEP - lO\"^ Grade FEPE -10* Grade NAEP -10* Grade LEP - 11\"^ Grade FEP-11* Grade FEPE-ll*^ Grade NAEP -11'^ Grade 2 5 Z c t/i W 2. Area ~2i2' 236 231 210 208 214 214 220 233 213 Magnet 211 2T1 Ssi:\n' '240 K 217 74 478ri ri Appendix H ri Achievement Data by School ri  w s \u0026gt; 5 5 z n 2 ri 2 ri H 2. C uc F 2. P5 fl fl fl n n n n n  75 479i 2 M ri Badgett I I 1 ri ri ri ri ri ri H [fl n iri n n n Grades K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General ISt-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 'i DRA Fall i DRA Spring? i SAT-9 j Benchmark ! ALT Reading j ALT Math i ALT Language } (N/Missing)! (N/Missing) j DRA Growth i (N/Missing) | (N/Missing)} (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) (N/Missing) J:'_________ _ .u~ -i- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 I I i Benchmark i ALT Reading ALT Math i ALT Language \u0026gt; ee C ?: \u0026gt; \u0026lt; Pl \u0026gt; Q 5 z -J pj \u0026gt; 2 1 I I i 1st General 1 i I _i_7 1 I t I I 3!^ 2 1 I i Ei^ 5M? 1 1 J \"  .........ibas^ hi^B\u0026lt;M*r1rr* JJtM I i :2nd LEP I I I 480 Z P5 z P5 ! Bale ! o I Grades i DRA Fall i DRA Spring ) i I (N/Missing)\n(N/Missing) I DRA Growth j i Benchmark I ALT Reading i ALT Math\nALT Language I SAT-9 1 BencnmarK . ali Keaumy nti i-.aui  ou. L^uyuoy. i (N/Missing) | (N/Missing) (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) 1 ! I 1 I i \u0026gt; S 55 \u0026gt;  s z n I fl\nK-LEP K-NAEP [k-fep K-FEPE iK-General i .00 (2g) i 1.5 (2g) I I I I i I is^ vA-. H fl fl fl fl I Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE i 1st General ! 2nd LEP 12nd NAEP 12nd FEP , 2nd FEPE 2nd General , 3rd-LEP i3rd-NAEP prd-FEP |3rd-FEPE 3rd-General i4th-LEP |4th-NAEP |4th-FEP ~ |4th-FEPE 14th-General 5th-LEP jSth-NAEP 5th-FEP Sth-FEPE 6.0 (3/1)\n26.0(3/1) i 20.0(3/1) 1 ! I I I J. T ^WSO Z C CZ) 2 2. ri ff xv5i-,P=::i- ss^l!saaa*s^\u0026lt;. lAk. Ai  .*\u0026gt; -I. 1 I t I i I 1 utjR5asEfr,Bsy7?S535*\" I 2it5i, T I 176.0 (2/0) 33ST5S55g^' 165.5 (2/0)\n170.5 {2JQ} ' B !fSiSS^--'-^V 55iS! F I (0/1) y=*^V ui^Jwv.w  -i.- 1 fe 207.0(1/0) j 208.0(1/0)  214.0 (1/0) I I i ISO a2s I T I (0/1)\nS 3^-3: (0/1) (Og) ?^4 -l\u0026gt;-. I 1 (0/1) 71.0 {2J0) 1 5th-General g ____________ *N=Number of students tested S\n207.0 (1/0) 219.0(1/0)- 218.0(1/0) (1/0) I I (1/0) T (1/0) 221.0 (2A)) 231.0(2/0)\n229.0(2/0) I I 1 481Grades Baseline I DRA Fall I DRA Spring i ! SAT-9 j Benchmark ! ALT Reading\nALT Math ? ALT Language j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j DRA Growth j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) , (N/Missing) 7 7 i j ( i ! 2 \u0026gt; B3 o X \u0026gt; n \u0026gt; Oz -j Pl S ri ri K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General I T7I i IX i ri ri Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General i (0/1) ' (0/1) i (0/1) I 1T i7 1 r SSTJ^S I ^171.0(1/0) '179.0(1/0) 1180.0 (1/0) 8^' 1. 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General 5th-LEP i5th-NAEP 5th-FEP 5th-FEPE 5th-General 10.0(1/0) , 20.0(1/0) 10.0 (1/0) I V52: ! +I SSs^ T I ^5 (0/1) I I I7 T TIT (0/1) (0/1) (0/1) IT T I 1 T (0/1) !l7.0 (1/0) ,  196.0 (1/0) ' 207.0 (1/0) i 208.0 (1/0) 4------------------------------------------- 1--------------------- J I N=Number of students tested 482 ri c ri ri ri Grades 1 1 j DRA Fall ! DRA Spring j Booker SAT-9 ' (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) i DRA Growth |(N/Missing) (N/Missing i ------------ i S J ____ _ I Benchmark I ALT Reading i ALT Math j ALT Language ............ i ! .(..N.../.M.. iss in g ) 1 j (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) ri ri ri ri fl fl fl fl fl K-1LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K:--FEPE !T K-General Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General Sth-LEP Sth-NAEP 5th-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General I I I .50(S/3) ! I I T T1 1.0 (1/4) i I 1 iI i7 1 I SS\nT I \u0026gt; :b C\u0026gt; m  z5 n I i 44.0(2/0) i 44.0(2/0) .00 (2/0) I 1 JI I i7 (0/1) ''-T'^T-T- ~\n..eTA'.-':^2WBflx\u0026gt;.7.14\u0026lt;.5-^ fSSSEil sass 1 ^205.0 (2/0) 198.0(2/0) 211.5(2/0) I I i 191.0 (1/0) ! 186.0 (1/0) ! 196.0 (1/6) i i I T 1 25 \u0026gt; \"I. O CZ) n 2. n [fl TT I {om 17.0 (1/0) wr~- =7r.-*  J iriT'jr-itiiA'-ajiV.x-' I 1 Lai  '3^535S^  187.0 (1/0) ' 205.0 (1/0) ' ----------------------------1 T 189.0 (1/0) N=Number of students testeo *iM**i. T I I 483 Iri c Iri S Iri r- Brady I I 1 I Iri ! DRA Fall i DRA Spring ( i Benchmark i ALT Reading ! ALT Math j ALT Language Grades ' SAj.g i s ALi Keaaing { mui  lau- , r^u. I MMisig) 1 WMi^i drag#. I Iri 1 i ri K-LEP Ic?iAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General I .50 (2/3) i 1.0 (V4) I. 1 I T ri i  i T _L i T ri Ist-LEP ist-N^ Ist-FEP lstFEPE~~ 1st General i 4.0 (3/1) I 9.7 (3/1) i I i i A.OjMQ) I 8.0 (1/0) ! 1 I X i T I ri ri i2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2ndFEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General i 16.0(1/0)  28.0(1/0)\ni t I _L I ri 01 3rd-LEP ^-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3i^^FEPr~ 3rd-Genera? ri ri 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP WvFEP 4t)vFEPr~ 4th-General H Sth-LEP Sth-NAEP Sfr^^FEP 5th-FEPl~ 5th-General I Q 5 z H n \u0026gt; i I I i\n5.7 (3/1) 4.0 (1/0) r.--. -t:\n ^iaS^ Ss I- J I_______-----------__ ______J_______-------------. .. .Z: I z ni- z\u0026gt; in\\ AQA O /A ICW -------------------''^-^rS7^SiS#?1sri?53LtT7^ i185.0(1/0) 184.0(1/0) 12.0 (I/O) !-------------------1------------------------ (0/4) I ! 167.3 (4/0) i 189.3(4/0)\n179.3(4/0) T 2 5 \u0026gt; z (Zi n z n n  wV r^=' (0/5) (0/1) I A\"-* i i r ^^1951W) ' 205.8 (4/1) 2^0 (4/1) i 219.0 (1/0) 209.0 (1/0) I 212.0 (1/0) I^SWBO oA qpu i*/? (0/5) I i I 36.0 (1/4) .ll C'St (0/1) (0/2) '5.0 (1/0)\n39.0 (210) Trt4^'iaR^ '*N=Number of students tested ^3.6 (5/0) 206.0(5/0)' 191.0(5/0) I V84.0 (1/0)~ 'l92-0 W 181.0 (1/0) 2^A.5 C^Q) 223.0 (2/0) 219.0 (210) 484iri ri \u0026gt; SX \u0026gt; -i ri Carver I I 1 I ri i DRA Fall i DRA Spring | 1 SAT-9 Grades I u/1'/' I o 11 I I     I i i (N/Missing) j (N/Missing)\nDRA Growth j (N/Missing) Benchmark j ALT Reading | ALT Math\nALT Language (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) ' (N/Missing) (N/Missing) ! I 1 I PI 5 52 n I ri ri M ri ri ri ri ri  K- :-LEP K-NAEP K-lFEP (-FEPE (-General K-K-ist- LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 12nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General 5th-LEP Sth-NAEP 5th-FEP 5th-FEPE Sth-General I 2.0 (1/0) I 4.0 (1/0) i 2.0 (1/0) I I 10.7(3/0) i 14.0(3/0) 1 3.3 (3/0) !T I I I 6.0 (1/0) I 34.0(1/0) 1 28.0 (1/0) I i i 8.0 (1/0) ! 40.0(1/0) I 32.0 (1/0) a I i i 1 i 16.0(2/0) i 32.0(2/0) T T i 18.0(1/0) ' 40.0(1/0)\ni g ! iSSl 1 193.5(2/0) '193.0(2/0) I ^\"\"  16-0 (2/0) jgagSffw 22.0 (1/0) E 184.0(1/0) !197.O(1/O) 1202.0(1/0) T i 1 2 \u0026gt; 1. ff {012) (0/2) I 1 I S'- I 1 (0/2) Ah. *- w I (0/1) 187.0(2/0) 205.5(2/0) i 193.5(2/0) 202.5 (2/0) i 213.0(2/0) I 213.5(2/0) 1 T I I 223.5 (2/0) 226.0(2/0) 228.5(2/0) T 1 79.0(1/0) - - - \u0026gt; i 227.0(1/0) 226.0(1/0) 225.0 (1/0) I 1 !N=Number of students tested 485 ri 2 ri ri Chicot 1 I I ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri I ri ri ri Grades iK-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General ! DRA Fall I DRA Spring j SAT-9 I Benchmark ALT Reading ' ALT Math ! UKA rail opuuy\n: \u0026lt; /M/kj-  \\ i (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j DRA Growth ! (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) (N/Missing) j (N/Missing)\n----------------------- -- ------------------------------ : \" i ' T I ! ALT Language (N/Missing) I I I 1 9.1 (11/0) i .91(11/0) ! .82(11/0) 1 I 1 i .00(1/0) 2.0 (1/0) I 2.0 (1/0) I \u0026gt; co C \u0026gt; 5 sz P5 \u0026gt; 2: 1 1 1 I 1 i .33 (3/8) 4.33 (6/5)\n.50 (2/9)  I fS. I 2.5 {2JQ} I 13.0(2/0) i 10.5 (2/0) r*\nI (K ----------------------  WP*^H '^?3!W i 18 0(1/13) 12.5(11/3) i 26.0(1/13) 1 i I T W-S 25 --af^ j*.j i o *4 * ! 1 113.1(10/4)' 141.2(10/4) i 136.2.(10/4) T .00(1/1) I 182.0(1/1) i .00 (1/1) z o zn n M Sth-LEP Sth-NAEP Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General (012) (012) I I I I :yy2 i I 1 - ..^^4eiiSSiia3^SSfis i 10.0(2/0) I (0/13) 172.5(10/3) '5^ (0/1) r\u0026gt;s\" v.'-c' I 144.4 (8/2) _____________ _ 193.0(1^ 178.6 (8/2) ! 166.6 (8/2) 204.0 (1/0) ' 203.0 (1/0) 1t\n185.3(10/3) , 184.0(10/3) I 210.0(1/0)\n211.0 (1/6r~[^ 214.0 (1/0) T I I ^2?\n^3^ (015) i (0/6) 176.2(5/1)  148.0(5/1)7 180.2 (5/1) (0/2) i 18.5(2/0) 1 Q9.5(2/0) i 207.0(2/0) ' 210.5(2/0) '*N=Number of students tested i I 486 c a5 \u0026gt; I Cloverdale 1 Grades ! DRA Fall ! DRA Spring ' 1 SAT-9 I Benchmark ALT Reading\nALT Math i ALT Language I (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) | DRA Growth j (N/Missing) { (NZk/i Missing) /M(N/M/Micisesininng\\ ) i i (N/Missing) fN(N/M/Miciscsininng^) Q5 z n 2 fl :-LEP (-NAEP K-K- 00(2/0) I 2.0 {210} ! 2.0 (2/0) K:--FEP K:--FEPE I I K-:-General I I 1 I I I I I I jtjj a?? T TS-pTt- SRlth,\n?\n,T 2S\n\u0026gt;3 - i-~ 2 \u0026gt; I I I 2. S Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP ist FEPE 1st General 2.0 (2/0) i 2.5 (.210} I j 2.5(210} i 23.0(2/0) j 1 I 1.5 (2/0) !7 19-5(2/0) i ft ______ ..... 0^- w-2. ri 2nd LEP |2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General 5th-LEP 5th-NAEP 5th-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General 44.0(1/0) i 44.0(1/0) i .00 (1/0) Jaisg^s?^ i 1 r (01^} Si: 185.0(1/0) : 183.0 (1/0) i 190.0(1/0) T I 182.8(4/0) 1 187.3(4/0) ' 192.3(4/0) - ----------- --------*------------------'I--------------------- *.9^' T 1 (0/1) ga^S^ ilW sis *llM'V^'yS\u0026lt;.3K^75.2,T n-r i 196.0(1/0) : 201.0 (1/0) : 198.0(1/0) I I T (0/1) 113.0(1/0) r^- '.*i (0/1) i71.0(1/0) i*N=Number of students tested T I ! t 197.0(1/0) i 205.0 (1/0) ! T I 206.0 (1/0) 215.0(1/0) i 215.0(1/0)\n213.0(1/0) T I I 487 fl c fl ec \u0026gt;S fl Dodd I 1 1 I I 1 fl Grades i Benchmark 1 ALT Reading i ALT Math j ALT Language i ---- \\ 1 Zkl/u\n,.-\n.,.,! ! rW/Miccinnl j (N/MISSing) ! DRA Fall i DRA Spring! I SAT-9 j | al i matn , ' (N/Missing) | (N/Missing) j DRA Growth j (N/Missing) ! (N/Missing)! (N/Missing)\n(N/Missing)\nf ___! ____ I ____ n 5 5 z -i Pl 2 1 fl fl fl fl fl fl fl n fl fl H K-:-LEP K-NAEP K-lFEP K-:-FEPE K-^-General Ist-LEP ISt-NAEP ISt-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-l-EP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General Sth-LEP Sth-NAEP Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General i I I IT I I i I 8S I T 1 1\n18.0(1/0)\n30.0(1/0) ! 12.0 (1/0) 1 I I !  I i 1 I I I (0/1) 1 T I I '*N=Number of students tested I ml. I ri-riK-Trt i I I 2 z 5/5 -z rr r i I I t I TI I _____________ ____________ 170.0(1/0) 1 172.0(1/0)! 172.0(1/0) ------------ ------------------------------ ---------------------- isfeTSF': 1 1 I I T I t i T ! T I 1 I I I 488 Il  rt s s IM - Fair Park I 1 I I ! i Grades i DRA Fall i DRA Spring j i (N/Misstng) 1 (N/Missing) j DRA Growth Benchmark j ALT Reading , ALT Math j ALT Language i fN/Missina^! (N/Missinq) m  z5 m I Ifl 1 Ifl K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General 1 i n II ist-LEP Ist-NAEP ilst-FEP [IFfe^ 1st Genera? ! i I Ifl Ifl 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE ^nd General Ifl Ifl |3rd-LEP ^-NAEP~ [^-FEP~ ,3rd-FEPE 3rd-General ------- n Ifl l4th-LEP |4th-NAEP |4th-FEP |4th-FEPE MtivGen^ H Sth-LEP IStMiAEP 5th-FEP \" Sth-FEPE Sth-General i (N/Missing) (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing)\n(N/Missing) I j 20.0 (1/0) i 40.0 (1/0) ! 20.0 (1/0) I I I 1 I i T i I i SAT-9 I 199.0 (1/0) T 1. T I 'N=Number of students tested T i I 1 25 z CZ5 z trri 183.0(1/0) 183.0(1/0) ! 489 o d \u0026gt; \u0026gt; d I Forest Park i I ! I n d Grades DRA Fall DRA Spring i DRA Growth  SAT-9 Benchmark\nALT Reading j AALLTT MMaathth , (N/Missing)  (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) (N/Missing) (N/Missing) | (N/Missing) 1 (N/Missing) j ALT Language (N/Missing) d d K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-reP^ _ K-General I I .1 i I I 1 I i ) I i t I T 1.,.___ X.. -,4 zO m 2 d d J.st-LEP Ist-NAEP Tst-FEP \" ]^f^pe2 1st General I 1 I i 1 I d d 2ndLP _ 2nd NAEP _ M F^P \" ZndFE^E _ 2nd General 20.0(1/0) i 40.0(1/0) 120.0(1/0) I I 20.0 (1/0) I 44.0 (1/0) 124.0 (1/0) I I I II II 3r^LEP ^d-NAEP 3rd-FEP ^rd-FE^ 3rd-General  i II Il 4th\u0026lt;EP 4th-NAEP ^-FEP 4th-FEE 4th-General 5, .K. 4 -9^ e II II Sm-LEP Sth-NAEP ^-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General II fr fejCL? - , J=- r^t-.rf - . - I -r^ - JT  Si* * e '* \u0026gt; H 1 L -J 1 5 \u0026gt;*3 aft \" 4 - I ' te-sX'- '\"7 ~ - 7\"- z  i 'CTAtT 4^A7i 1. CZ) zn n 1 \u0026gt; -'* tt.1^ 1 sT\n7 198.0(1/0) ' 199.0 (1/0)7 205.0 (1/0) i -fi, ler I I 214.0(1/0)\n203.0 (1/0) 223.0 (1/0) I i is\"- BOI I I I I (0/1) (0/1) (0/2) I 1 I S^5VT 1 89.5 (2/0) !*N=Number of students tested '*6. A-it I 177.0 Q/O) i 209 0 (1^0) 179.0 (1/0) 224.0 (1/0) 722Z0(1/0)  223.0 (VQ) 224.U(1 ' : 227.5(210} ' 238.5 (210} 227.5 (2/0) !T I I 490 d d \u0026gt; CB d Franklin m T 1 I d Grades HR A Fall j DDRRAA SSoprriinnqg j 1 bSAATi-y9 DBeennccnhimiidainrk. i ! nAuLiT Reading i ALT Math j ALT Language (N/Missing) | (N/Missing) i DRA Growth i (N/Missing) (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) ! (N/Missing)  (N/Missing) 5z w d d K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General I .00(1/0) .00 (1/0) i .00 (1/0) Ij 3.0 (1/0) 7.0 (1/0) i 4.0 (1/0) I i I 1 i I 1 d d Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP Ist FEPE 1st General f~3.0(1/0)\n26.0(1/0) j 23.0(1/0) T I 1. I I aWwSK, 5^- z d d 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General d d 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General d d 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General d d 5th-LEP i5th-NAEr~ StivFEP Sth-FEPE 5th-General i _t_ I i !7 I T 1 I i }T I i (0/1) i\u0026gt;r' I I I I I ! i I 1 .^ I ! I Bs 202.0 (1/0) I 210.0(1/0) I 213.0(1/0) 1 1T I I I 5? 1 1 i 'i-. N=Number of students tested 204.0 (1/0) 220.0(1/0) i 214.0(1/0) I t I t I I d 491 d c d B9 Cse \u0026gt; -i d d d d d d d d d d d d d t Fulbright I ____ I n Grades K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General ' DRA Fall i DRA Spring 1 i (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j DRA Growth I TI (0/1) ! (0/1) 1 I ! 3.0 (1/0) I 12.0(1/0) I ! I (0/1) 9.0 (1/0) I 1 i : 5.0 (1/0) 38.0(1/0) ! 33.0 (1/0) i !  IT i 1 Benchmark j ALT Reading i ALT Math I ALT Language (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) ' (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) SAT9 I I I I 44.0(2/0)\n44.0(2/0) I .00 [210) I i I T I (0/1) zO -i m\u0026gt; 2 Sth-LEP Sth-NAE^ 5th-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General (0/3) .  * i 190.0(2/0) : 194.5(2/0) 197.5(2/0) II (0/1) (0/1) I.-wsix': i 2 \u0026gt; 2. 9 (/: n n [012} ' 70.0(1/0) (0/1) N=Nuinber of students tested I I T g 223.0(1/0) 224.0(1/0) i I i i ! i 228.0 (1/0) 221.0 (1/0) ' 221.0(1/0)  223.0 (1/0) i I t it' I ,r_ 196.0(1/2) . 214.0(1/2) I 197.0(1/2) I I 222.0(1/0) ' 215.0(1/0) i 229.0(1/0) 207.0(1/0) : 218.0(1/0) : 208.0 (1/0) 1 492 d 2 ri 05 ri Geyer Springs 1 I ri Grades I DRA Fall i DRA Spring i i SAT-9 j Benchmark ALT Reading j ALT Math i ALT Language I (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j DRA Growth j (N/Missing)! (N/Missing) (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) (N/Missing) I 1 d d K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General I I 1 ! T i t ri 11 ri ri ri ri ri ri ri M I I Q 5 z m 2 Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General 5th-LEP i5th-NAEF^ Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General\n1.5(270) i 8.5(270) , 7.0 (270) I I i T I i T 1 I KS? 2 ii TltT- 20.0 (1/1) i 40.0 (1/1)\n20.0 (1/1) g ! ! fi .3\nX I T S-iSss I 184.0 (2/0) 185.5(270) ] 189.0 (2/0) ! i /\n175.0(1/0) i 183.0(1/0) ! 188.0 (1/0) HUr.iu\n*'\"-!-.-  ' -'w^T-v.- ' ' SiiTS3S\u0026amp;seK-^^-\u0026amp;Sss=iis5s\nEiffi\u0026amp;?Ss5K3rXj=?^2S^^ -------- i3. I I 3^ 'Sii\n3K Ki'.t \" ______ * \u0026lt; \u0026gt; r ..... . -. t... -\n5p~ i 4. i T I 4- J___ I I -A** M' ,rT.f P *N=Number of students tested I } I I 493 z c V3 zd c ri a C ? ri Gibbs P3 1 j I ri Grades\nDRA Fall I DRA Spring  SAT-9 Benchmark j ALT Reading j ALT Math\nALT Language DRA Fall I DRAbpnng i i Dcmjuuaiis  .xs,...3 ,    == =\u0026gt; i fN/Missing)i (N/Missing) i DRA Growth ! (N/Missing) (N/Missing)! (N/Missing) 1 (N/Missing) S (N/Missing) I I I ri K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General (0/1) j 8.0 (1/0) I (0/1) T ! J. I I Q 5 z -J pl 2 .. ri ri Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General i I ri n 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General\n19.0(2/0) M DI |3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General ri ri 4th-LEP ?th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General ri 5th-LEP 5th-NAEP 5th-FEP Sth-FEPE 5th-General I i i I I 1 I I I T I fia 5 T 1 z 9 If. I Pl Z Pl I 34.0(2/0) i 184.5(2/0) 183.0(2/0) i 191.0(2/0) 1-------------------i I i T I I K'. I T rX-  I I -r I (0/1) a. 203 0 (VO) ! 213.0(1/0) ! 217.0(1/0) ^ -.2Trt*,\ni\u0026lt;SSfe\u0026lt;5ii 1 1 i I T 'i'jS-i\u0026amp;i -3^. *T-5r^)55W7=^*T?.jrsr __________ aWTA iiv C.' .H?5*''!9'  ' (0/1) .-sr t T 3^ i 17.0(1/0) SSfe! I Z' 199.0(1/0) ' 190.0(1/0) i 205.0(1/0) '.y BV.' I 1 *N=Number of students tested I i I 494d d d  Jefferson ! 1 \u0026gt; S X H \u0026lt;w d d d d d d d d d d d ( Grades K-LEP [K-NAEP K-FEP |k-fepe K-General Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP ,lSt-FEP list FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP [2nd NAEP 12nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP [srd-NAEP [srd-FEP |3rd-FEPE 3rd-General [4th-LEP [ahi-naep [Ath-FEP ~ lAth-FEPE I4th-General Sth-LEP [ Sth-NAEP Sth-FEP I Sth-FEPE Sth-GeneraT J___________ i-----------------------i-------------------------------------------------------------- r i DRA Fall 1 DRA Spring i i SAT-9 Benchmark ALT Reading i ALT Math j ALT Language I (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) j DRA Growth | (N/Missing) (N/Missing) (N/Missing) i (N/Missing)\n(N/Missing) I i i I I IT i 1 nH Sz \u0026gt;m 2 III 1 T i t T t i7 I I 5.^ ? w\\* *5, Sf\" S'-? 2 \u0026gt; -} ITT I I i 1 I 1 1 -I. Sr ^5 S5W cSg^^'A * S' 75 ^^^1=2\n! i i T i*4'S S^ \"^1 TI 5^ irtK ffriiwlfyiri I + 1 !T nz w 'iij g^j\u0026amp;fis I ! i I I i^- i I I W* ! I U^J i*N=Number of students tested I I I I 1 495 d d \u0026gt; S  d M. L, King ! I i ri d Grades ! DRA Fall i DRA Spring j ! SAT-9 j Benchmark , ALT Reading i ALT Math\nALT Language I (N/Missing) 1 (N/Missing)! DRA Growth ! (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) 1 d d d d d nd d d d d K-K- :-LEP :-NAEP . 1 I 1 K- :-FEP K-FEPE K-General Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP ISt-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General Sth-LEP Sth-NAEP Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General I I 1 1.0 (2/0) ! 10.0(2/0) i 9.0 (2/0) I ! I ^5.5(2J0) \\ 28.0(2/0) i 12.5(2/0) I I I I I (0/1) I t I 55.0(1/0) IT I 1 (0/1) I'KWW! ^^5 i I I 5 zB \u0026gt; 2 \"r-., A xi'^  2 \u0026gt; H M 1 I 1 I .1 6iC^j'E*:2xt'r^  I g iSz^ ^s?5s .^AoiX-fct'n* \"A., e it:i WuT. 175.0(1/0) j 176.0(1/0) 182.0(1/0) T 1 *j\u0026gt; la I g \u0026lt;fraqtq^By4. I I (0/1 ^3t5fLruftSt I 205.0 (1/0)  212.0 (1/0) }N=Numbe^ of students tested -^2fS' SSfe T7 T I T 1 i I I t ! I 217.0 (1/0) 496 7!. C cz: 2 t*5 2 n CT A 2 4 d I I Mabelvale I I i i a Grades I DRA Fall i DRA Spring j i SAT-9 j Benchmark ' ALT Reading [ ALT Math [ ALT Language 1 (N/Missing) i (N/Missing)' DRA Growth ! (N/Missing)\n(N/Missing) [ (N/Missing) | (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) SAT9 a n K-LEP [K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General I 1T I I I 1 I I I i I ! I aa Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP I Ist-FEP 11st FEPE 1st General 1i i +I IT I i\" aaci*i*S8Sti nn 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP i2nd FEP 12nd FEPE 2nd General I n n 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP |3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General nn |4th-LEP [4th-NAEP |4th-FEP |4th-FEPE ~ 4tti-General Sth-LEP I Sth-NAEP } Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE I Sth-General I L 'N=Number of students tested I T T i 7 } 201.0(1/0)\n207.0(1/0)' 207.0 (1/0) X i i I I I I I TI 1 I 497 \u0026gt; S 5 \u0026lt;m 3 sz P-Ji \u0026gt; 2 \u0026gt;2 2. a cz: 2 pj 2 d d 2 w S d d d d d d d d d d d n K-Grades :-LEP K-:-NAEP :-FEP :-FEPE K-K-K-:- General Ist-LEP ISt-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General I McDermott I i 1 r^^^T^^DRASDringl 1 SAT-9 Benchmark i ALT Reading ALT Math i Language '\n(N/Missing)  (N/Missing) j DRA Growth j (N/Missing) (N/Missing) | (N/Missing) (N/Missing) , (N/Missing)\n: ' ________!_______ _ . ..I |,JI-.IIII I DRA Fall j 1.0 (4/0) ,4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General i DRA Spring j I 9.8 (4/0) 1 8.8 (4/0) I I .00(1/0) i 4.0 {MO) i 4.0 (1/0) I SAT-9 mu 1 1 I i I t 9.0 {210) 33.0 (2/0) i 24.0(2/0) I I I I I IT i 7 T I '*^SS'iS?S^fr'  i : 7.5 (2/0) j 24.0 (2/0) i 16.5 (2/0) | I 73 : 24.0(1/0) ! 44.0(1/0) 1 20.0(1/0) | I 10.0(2/0) 26.0(2/0) ! 16.0(2/0) | I 1 1 I 5555*?^^ I L '*1 g 175.5(2/0), 179.5(2/0)1 181.0(2/0) T ! 204.0 {MO) I 213.0 {VO) j 213.0 (1/0) g 185.5 (2A))i 187.0(2/0) ! 190.5(2/0) 5\n! i 1 t (0/2) ( 171.0 {210)  177.5 {2J0) i 172.5 (2/0) (0/3)  (0/2) (0/2) ^iF- 198.5 (2/1) i 204.0(2/1) 1 204.5(2/1) I i-7ah.TLi, 188.5(2/0)1 191.0(2/0) * 194.5(2/0? 1 205.0(2/0)'' 216.0(2/0) 216.0(2/0) Sth-LEP Sth-NAEP Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General I 1 1 (0/1) 1 '\n16.0 (1/0) '*N=Nuniber of students tested  ^4' i'-ir t t 202.0 (1/0) 1 203.0 (1/0) i 195.0 (1/0) I T I I T I I7 498 m \u0026gt; 3 5 z H Pl \u0026gt; 2 2 2 sz ri iri d Meadowcliff d Grades d d K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General d d Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General d d 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General d d 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General d d 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General d ce S\u0026gt; n 5z n ! i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ !- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i- - - - - - - - - - - - - -1----------------\n-------------------------------- ! DRA Fall\nDRA Spring i I SAT-9 i Benchmark ! ALT Reading J ALT Math i ALT Language ! (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) j DRA Growth j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) 1 (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) ii 1 1 I I 1 1 SAT-9 .J.. K.g.\u0026gt;yy?gi=tnEr*j^^gEgx?*gy\n-v-.f3\n^^-\u0026gt;.- te i .i' I i I IT te?s ! I 1 i i e^^.SX-''T -A\" a Jt****^^.^*^'*^^ . \u0026gt; -H I I i T T  V ?*\u0026gt;. - 2.0 (1/0)\n10.0(1/0)\n8.0 (1/0) Sg 4B^ss. eS3^::-vA^t-\niBiA.er*^ss I I I 170.0(1/0) i 174.0(1/0)1 162.0(1/0) I I I w (0/1) 3^ I 1 L (0/1) (0/1) a-' ' i I g 177.0(1/0) 173.0(1/0) T i T I 187.0 (1/0) I T T i 7^. C C2Z5 n 7 !P*I^ ,5th-LEP 5th-NAEP 5th-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General 1 .kvCsCV\n' 188.0 (1/0) 197.0(1/0) 198.0(1/0) I i*N=Number of students tested I I 499 d d \u0026gt; X \u0026gt; -i d d d d d d d d d d d d d I Grades K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General ! DRA Fall DRA Spring ! 1 (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) | DRA Growth I 7 i 1 I i I T i i T Mitchell B \u0026gt; I I SAT-9 i Benchmark ALT Reading J ALT Math ' ALT Language (N/Missing) ! (N/Missing) (N/Missing) ' (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) i M I I 7 TI J_ I I 7 i 4. T T I i ! I I I 1 I I ?gS T O z n \u0026gt; 2 Z 9 (Z5 B Z n B 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General Sth-LEP Sth-NAEP Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General I 1 '*N=Number of students tested i I T + i I I I I I T i! I + I T I IT I 500 II c n II Otter Creek i I Grades i DRA Fall i DRA Spring I .1 .......... . X SAT-9 Benchmark ALT Reading 1 ALT Math : ALT Language j (N/Missing) ! (N/Missing) DRA Growth (N/Missing) (N/Missing) (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) \"i i 1 !___ 1 n n II II n I I n n n n  K- :-LEP K-NAEP 1 I 1 ?2 - K- :-FEP K-FEPE K-General ISt-LEP Ist-NAEP , Ist-FEP 15t FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FP 4th-FEPE 4th-General |5th-LEP Sth-NAEP Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General I 1.5 (2/0) ! ^.5(2J0) I .00(2/0) I I T I T \u0026gt;5 I T ! I I I I I ! T i I i 1 I (0/1) (0/1) (0/2) I I g I I I I (0/1) I I t ^4^ (0/1)  32.0 {-ilO) I X I t N=Number of students test^ T a m \u0026gt; q 5 2 n I * \u0026gt; z 8 Vi (St z I 1 I t 195.0(1/0) M95^(1/0)\n203.0(1/0) I 207.0 (1/0) i 215.0 (1/0) i 205.0 (1/0) I I T 186.5(2/0) ! 191.0 (2^r 190.5 (2/0) i 214.0 (1/0) I 203.0 (1/0) i 207.0 (1/0) I ! T T t I T I 206.0(1/0) 212.0(1/0)\n208.0(1/0) I I 501o IM IM Pulaski Heights I I ( IM Grades DRA Fall i DRA Spring j I (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) j I SAT-9 Benchmark i ALT Reading j ALT Math  ALT Language DRA Growth 1 (N/Missing) (N/Missing) | (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) a c\u0026gt; \u0026gt; Q sz I I IM IM IM IM n I [M IM n I n Ml K-\n-LEP K-K- :-NAEP :-FEP :-FEPE :-General K-K- ! i i 1 I -W I P5 I i I 1 i Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General ,3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General Sth-LEP Sth-NAEP Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General i I 1 I 193.5(2/0) I 204.5(2/0) : 201.0(2/0) 19.0(2/0) j 30.0(1/1) 10.0(1/1) T I I 7 \u0026amp; i i i 1I , 1 fl . xr, I I (0/1) 2 \u0026gt; \u0026gt;2. J!. Pl 3 I 221.0(1/0) '220.0(1/0)' 215.0(1/0) 7^^_______________________:----------------------------------- --------------------- ---------------- ! I 1 (0/1)\n77.0(1/0) - 'N=Number of students tested T T I TT T I i + 224.0 (1/0) I 223.0 (1/0) 221.Q (VQ) I r 502 d 2 d d [ Rightsell I I t d Grades I DRA Fall ! DRA Spring i ' /MZMiccina'i (N/Missing)  DRA Growth I DRA rSil UKMOpnny ' (N/Missing)} (N/Missing) SAT-9 Benchmark i ALT Reading , ALT Math ALT language i (N/Missing) (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) 1 (N/Missing)\n(N/Missing) d d K-LEP I K-NAEP I K-FEP ~ K-FEPE K-Generai I 17 I I T I I 1 I i i SSt?ov)^n I I I I 9\u0026gt;3 S n n Sz n2 \u0026gt;*v zSSs^ !nSM\u0026gt;5u\u0026gt;5\u0026lt;-'?r--^*55! vT d Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FE^ 1st General iT 1 3\n* 2. O CZ5 I 1 t d fl  _l_ I I t KW ?!r^ P5 i't. z 1 t 1 I )) |4th-LEP [4th-NAEP 4ttvFEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General Sth-LEP 5th.-NAEP ~ SttvFEP 5tivFEPr~ Sth-General 3rd-LEP [^-NAEP ,3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE l3rd-General ,2nd LEP Iznd NAEP' jindFEP ,2nd FEPE 2nd General 'i 1 i 2^*\" 'Wi N=Number of students tested .L Is\n/\u0026gt;- 1 j i1 T i I 1 T I 1 I T i i T T ! 503  ri (J  ri \u0026gt; CD c 3S ri Rockefeller n \u0026gt; I i ri\nDRA Fall ! DRA Spring i I 7 SAT-9 4 Grades I UtSrt rail\nII ly j j -. .. -\nI (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) i. DRA Growth\n(N/Missing)\n! Benchmark ! ALT Reading i ALT Math ALT Language i (N/Missing) | (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) I 1 I I ri ri ri fl K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General I ,00(1/0) I 2.0 (1/0) I I 8.3 (3/0) ! 13.7(3/0) I I i 1 I 1 2.0 (1/0) 5.3 (3/0) I Oz n \u0026gt; 2 , 3.0 (1/0) i 14.0(1/0) ! 11.0(1/0) I i7 X i I i I (0/1) i T i I t I + I I I g 188.0(1/0) 1170.0(1/0)\n189.0(1/0) fS 2^4 fife (0/1) 1 (0/1) T I I T ________I i i T 2 \u0026gt; z CZ5 z i I I 1 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 504 Iri {J Iri 5 S\u0026gt; Iri Romine I Iri Iri Iri Iri iri Iri iri Iri 01 M Mn Grades i DRA Fall i DRA Spring j j SAT-9 ' (N/Missing) ' (N/Missing)' DRA Growth j (N/Missing) T-------------------1 K:--LEP K-NAEP K-:-FEP I .00(5/1) ! 1.80(5/1) 1 1.8 (5/1) I 1 K-FEPE K-General Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP ~ 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4tivFEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General Sth-LEP Sth-NAEP Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General I I t IT I , 23.0(210} I 15.0(2/0)  1.0 (1/0) : 6.0 (1/0) i 5.0 (1/0) I 22.3 (6/0) } T 1 I 1 DdlUHIIiail^ 1 nui 5 , (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) go Benchmark i ALT Reading i ALT Math\nALT Language I 179.5(6/0) i 179.5(6/0)\n187.7(6/0) 34.0 (6/0) i 11.7(6/0) T 44.0(1/0) 44.0(1/0) ! .00 (1/0) I I I 1 I T B 175.0(1/0) ! 190 0 (VO) i 183.0(1/0) i i ! I 181.0 (4/Oy ' 189.5 (AIO) ' ---------- i r 190.5(4/0) T I I I 1 50/^5 I I I I 190.0(4/0) i 203.8 (4/0) 193.8 (4/0) 13.0 (3/1) g75.0 (MQ} _______ ____ i*N=Number of students tested t T ! T X i 'tnj 197.0 (4/0) 198.0(4/0)^ 224.0 (1/0) 224.0(1/0) i I T i 199.5(4/0) 223.0 (1/0) 505 \u0026gt; sz m S \u0026gt; z 9 (/! tzn nw ri ri ri Stephens i 1 I i I I I 1 I 7 ri Grades Benchmark 1 ALT Reading i ALT Math ! Language /II \\ I { /Kl/Miccinn\\ ' rN/Miccinn i DRA Fall I DRA Spring i SAT-9 Benchmark ALT Reading 1 ALT Math i Language I (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) i DRA Growth (N/Missing) (N/Missing) (N/Missing) , (N/Missing) (N/Missing) ! ! _____1_____________1________ 9 s d n \u0026gt; q 5 z W 2 ri ri |K-LEP I K-NAEP |k-fep iK-FEPE I 1 I T ri ri ri ri ri fl fl fl fl ! 1.0 (1/0) I .00(1/0) [(-1.0) (VO) 1 ! K-General\nIst-LEP Ist-NAEP Ilst-FEP 1st FEPE I I i 2.33(3/0)\n10.0(3/0) ! I i:j (3/0) 1 1 1st General * I T i2nd LEP 1 -U I 2^^ 2 \u0026gt; z F5 z n ,2nd NAEP |2nd FEP I 2nd FEPE 2nd Generali i3rd-LEP Isrd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE i I I I I 1 I + i i 7 3rd-Gener3l 4th-LEP 1 1 (0/2) 177.5 (2/0) I 183.0 (2/0) j 183.5 (2/0) I i i i T i ^-NAEP ------------------------- |4th-FEP fe-FEPE + t T feh-General^^^ i stL + 1 -k 1 1 I + ,5th-LEP [sth-NAEP' 5th-FEP  I I kL {om I 8.5 (2/0) \u0026gt; ,5th-FEPE (0/1) I (0/1) ^E^^^n87.5 (2/0) i 209.5 (2/0) 192.0 (2/0) '^^SB'^4.0 (1/0)\n222.0 (1/0)1 210.0(1/0) 'few |N=Number of students tested I 506ri ri \u0026gt; CD o X ri Terry PJ I I 1 I ri ri ri ri ri  fl fl fl fl fl H Grades K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-Generai Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP ISt-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General\nDRA Fall '\nDRA Spring j (N/Missing)\n(N/Missing) 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th^P ~ 4th-FEPE 4th-General 1 i ! 3.2 (6/0) I 7-8 (6/0) I 1 SAT-9 ii BBeenncchhmmaarrkk iS AALLTT RReeaaddiinngg Ii AaLlTi nMaamth ,\nAaLlTi LLaanngguuaaggee DRA Growth (N/Missing) j (N/Missing)! (N/Missing) i (N/Missing)! (N/Missing) I I 4.5 (610) I fJ i 9.0(270)\n24.0(270) j 15.0(2/0) 85?^ I I i 2.0 (2/2) 14.0 (2Z2) i ^2.Q (212) I 1 i 20.0(170)\n40.0(1/0) I 20.0(1/0) g I I I  19.2(5/3) ' 33.0(8/0) i 18.8(5/3) 1 1 I I ..........\"  K! ir:^-'.a!X-^3QR2s\u0026lt; ss .au^.**'SW 1 I I K 148.1 (8/0) i 139.3(8/0) j 180.3 (8/0) I 207.0(1/0) 222.0(1/0)\n209.0 (1/0) o H 5 2 P5 2 2 z o pi z ri 5th-LEP 5th-NAEP ^FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General 38.0(1/0) ! 44.0(1/0) ! I I i i 6.0 (1/0) T fl I* ie' 54.3 (31^) 1^___________ ! i 167.5(2/1) i 177.0(2/1) j 175.0(2/1) T 204.5 (2/0) i 208.0 (2/0) ! 209.5 (2/0) ^^g^bi^(2/0) ' T 206.0(2/0) 210.5(2/0) 191.0(2/0) 209.0(2/0)\n200.0(2/0) 2i7?7(3/0) 221.0(3/0)- 223.0(3/0) 199.0(1/0) 202.0(1/0)1 201.0(1/0) 216.3 (410) ' 219.5(4/0) f 217.8 (4/0) ! I !*N=Number of students tested 507 ri  .c ri c ri Wakefield ! i ri Grades I i DRA Fall i DRA Spring i SAT-9 j (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) i DRA Growth (N/Missing) i Benchmark ALT Reading j ALT Math\nALT Language (N/Missing) (N/Missin_g)/ j M(N/Missin' g) ^1 N/M(Ni/cMciinsnsiing) 5 5 zn ri K-LEP K-NAEP I TI I .00(4/1) ! 1.0 (4/1) I 1.0 (4/1) 1 I I i  K-FEP K-FEPE K-:-General I i I I 1 I I 1 I I ri ri ISt-LEP I Ist-NAEP ~ Ist-FEP TstFEPT^\" 1st General I .00 (1/1) i 6.0 (2/0) ' i .50 (2/0) ' 3.5 (2/0) i 1 I I I 4.0 (1/1) 3.0 (2/0) T Bilifesill ri ri 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP IndVEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP ri 3rd-FEPE 3 rd-General ri 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP i4th-FEP I \u0026gt;2 -J M 4th-Fi i44tthh--FFEi PE 4th-General ri Sth-LEP Sth-NAEP Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-GeneraT z9 75 T T It 4.8 (4/0) ! 18.0(4/0) i 13.3(4/0)  182.2(5/0) 202.0 (1/0) 1 ? 71.0 (1/0) 1^ z ri PI 167.8 (4/0) I 179.5 (4/0) I }75.3(^IQ) T I I 1 I t I 188.4 (5/0) i 189.6(5/0) I + 176.7 (3/0) ! 185.3(3/0) + I T 182.3 (3/0) 206.0 (1/0)1 205.0(1/0) T I i T 222.0 (1/0) 234.0 (VO) j 226.0 (1/0) '*N=Number of students tested I I 508 ri ri (.  S 3\u0026gt;5 ri r I Washington 1 1 I 1 n ri I Benchmark i ALT Reading 1 ALT Math j ALT Language Grades I I I K-LEP i 2.8 (4/1) ' ^2.22 {212) \\ 10.7(3/2) ri K-NAEP _ K-FEP K-FEPE iGGen^ I I I 8.2 (s/oTT^s^o^ I I H ri ist-LEP Ist-NAEP ISt-FEP ,15t FEPE 1st General i .00(2/5) 1 6.9 (7/1) I 6.0 (2/5 i 6.0 (2/5) i 19.4(7/1) i 12.6(7/1) i 171.1 (8/0) I ^rw?(8rarnzii(?^ -------- ---------------- .w I I ri ri 2nd LEP 12nd NAEP ijnd?^ 2nd FEPE 12nd General I 19.4(8/0) j 8.4 (8/0) 1 195.0 (6/0) I 200.3(6/0) ! 201.0(6/0) ri ri ri ri ri 32.8(5/1) 40.8 (5/1) ! 8.0 (5/1) i3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 13rd-General |4th-LEP 4th-NAEP |4th-FEP i_4th-FEPE i4th-General Sth-LEP [Sth-NAEP SUvFEP Sth^FEPE^ Isth-Gen^ I 180.0 {21^) I 77RT(4^r? 190.5 ('^^0) T 186.5 (4/0) 190.0 (6/0) i 205.5(6/0) I 200.5 (6/0) 212.0 (2/0) ! 217.0(2/0) ' 220.0 (2/0) I 1\n192.3(3/0) 2Q7.Q{3IO)\n204.0(6/0) \"tiP --- I 197.7 (3/0) 208.8 (6/0) 1 207.5 (6/0) 1\ni98.o(2/1) 1183.5(2/1) 0(6/0)  2^7.2(610) 1 i 509 zo -Pi) \u0026gt; 2 2 \u0026gt; 2 S (/) z n Pl ri (\nC ri ri Watson I I ri Grades 1 Benchmark j ALT Reading j ALT Math 'i ALT Language , nRA Fall ! DRA Spring I SAT-9 Benchmark j ALT Reading | ALT Math\nALl Languag I fN/Missing) i (N/Missing) j DRA Growth (N/Missing) (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) ' (N/Missing)  (N/Missing^ 1 1 ri K-LEP 1 K-NAEP K-FEP |k-fepe K-General i I 1 1 I 4. ri ri ri ri  ri I ! i i T T 1 T I I siiWM'ws? \u0026gt; co O J5 \u0026gt; m Q 5 z Pl 2 Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ilst-FEP list FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP i2nd NAEP 2nd FEP |2ndFEPE 2nd General ,3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP [3rd-F~EP~ |3rd-FEPE 3rd-General (4th-LEP [4ttvN^ |4th-FEP [4th-FEPE |4th-General Sth-LEP ^h-NAEP ~ feth-FEP ' I Sth-FEPE^ Sth-GeneraT 1 I 1 I I I T I I 1 I i I I I i I I I feifc i:RS5RWiT!AaM. IS \u0026gt; e4\n^Ssssiis5S: z 9 z ri I I t t 1 ^^E\n2S3iBS\u0026gt;a\u0026amp;2^Sdise\u0026lt;M^J 1 I I T i i I -t- I 1 I I T T I ry3: I t\n197.0(1/0) 204.0 (1/0) i 200.0 (1/0) I I ! T I j 's___________________t. 181.0(1/0) 195.0(1/0) 195.0 (1/0) .asi, V I L s' A t- I T I + I N=Nuniber of students tested I i 510ri o ri a C ?3 \u0026gt; -j ri Western Hills I I ri ri ri ri ri fl fl fl fl fl n fl Grades , K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General Ist-LEP ilSt-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General i DRA Fall I DRA Spring SAT-9 (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) DRA Growth (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) 1 Benchmark ! AU Reading i ALT Math j ALT Language ....... . X i __ ' \u0026lt;KI/KXlee\nnn^ ' \u0026lt;M/Mieeirtn\\ I (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) m \u0026gt; 9 5z \u0026gt; I Sth-LEP Sth-NAEP Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General I 1 1 I I X i I I 1 ! r I f u 9KS-I t T L l*N=Number of students tested 1  25 .???* iI I I 1 T t T T I i T -r T I -z m z ri Pl 1 1. i T T! I i T 1 1 1 i I ! 511 [ o ri a C 3C \u0026gt; ri Williams I 4. I I I ri ri ri ri ri fl fl fl fl fl n fl Grades K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP I Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General |4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General 5th-LEP 5th-NAEP 5th-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General i nRA Fall 1 DRA Spring 1 i SAT-9 i Benchmark j ALT Reading j ALT Math i ALT Language  (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) i DRA Growth ! (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) | (N/Missing)\n(N/Missing) i (N/Missing) I I I I  I ___ I... ....... .Jin*........................ ................. 3 z5 \u0026gt; 2 1 16.0(1/0) ! 28.0(1/0) I i .00(1/0) I .00(1/0) I I i 1 I 34.0(1/0) i 44.0(1/0) I I i I I 1 I i 12.0 (1/0) .00 [VO} 10.0 (1/0) !W I WJ I T j I7 i $ 'N=Nuniber of students tested i 73.8(4/0) g T I I i \u0026gt;2 -I I z 75 2 S 2. ri I 4- I i 211.7 (3/0) ! 218.7(3/0) I 214.3(3/0) IT 221.5 (2/0) i 232.0 (2/0) I I IT ll 227.0 (2/0) t 222.0 (4/0) i 223.8 (4/0) I 225.8 (4/0) I I 512 ri (\ns ri ri r Wilson ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri n ri ri Grades K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEPE K- (-General ist-LEP I Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP Ind FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General i i3rd-LEP 3rd- NAEP i DRA Fall '1 DRA Spring I SAT-9 I Benchmark I ALT Reading j ALT Math i ALT Language 'i (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) DRA Growth I (N/Missing), j fN/Missing) j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing)\n(N/Missing) I ' ^.5(210) 1 .50(270) 1 I i i 7 i 1 1 u'a I T I 1 i T 1 I I T T i 24.0(1/1) ! 19.0(2/0) ! 10.0(1/1) y ! 40.0(1/0) i AA.QjMO) S 4.0 (1/0) 3 i 1 3rd-FEP 3?d^FEPr~ 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4fr^FEP 4th-FEPE~ 4th-General Sth-LEP SttvNAEP Sth'^FEP 5th-FEPE~ Sth-General rz- 2i 1 5 9 o \u0026gt; \u0026lt; PI q 5 z -i pn 2 Tir I t^fs\"..... 2 5 % \"V C ij\u0026gt;w.rr-: \"3 * i*- \u0026gt; z e (fi T. n fl Si\nii*** 1 1 2^5Scs^^, 157.0 (2/0) ! 177.0 (2/0) 167.0(2/0) I 1 R5.0 (1/0) i 189.0(1/0) 192.0 (1/0) I i 196.0(1/0) I 201.0 (1/0) 1 198.0(1/0) 1 I i sseS ' K- ^' i 39-0(1^0) *O. '. l*N=Number of students tested I X i T 219.0 (1/0) 202.0 (1/0)  223.0 {^10) ' Mk/} I I 513ri g ri 93 CX \u0026gt; ri Woodruff 1 I ri Grades 55 z P3 2 ri ri K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE iGGenei^ ri ri Ist-LEP ist-NAEP IsfFEP l^EPE ~ 1st General ri ri 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2ndFEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General ri fl 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3i5^FEPr~ 3rd-General 4th-LEP fl 4th-NAEP fl 4tti-FEP 4th^FEPE~~ 4th-General fl 5th-LEP '5th-N\"AEr~ Sttv^EP 5th^FEPE~~ ^-GeneraT ! I I t t i I Benchmark ' ALT Reading  ALT Math 'j ALT Language (N/Missing) | (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) i DRA Fall 1 DRA Spring ! j SAT-9 i (N/Missing) ! (N/Missing)  DRA Growth i (N/Missing) 1 I T I ! 'I 514 \u0026gt; z 9 5Z5 z fl ri 2 ri ri ec 5 \u0026gt; \u0026lt; ffi n ri O z H n 2 ri Central I I t[5RKTall i DRA Spring  Grades 1 DRAI-aii uiv^opHiia I (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) | Growth I Benchmark ! 1 ! i . _____ rSCTRiSaingALT Math i ALT Language 1 1 ri ri ri fl fl |9-LEP i9~-NAEP ~ 9-FEP 19-FEPE ~ Ig-General 25 (N/Missing) (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) \u0026gt; -2. 9 JZ52 w 2 r5 |g 32.9 {\u0026amp;I0) I JaSSiSSsii: iJBL* -1 ---------------- ^'WrjV\" I (0/1) (0/4) (0/1) I ! 10-LEP lO-NAEP ~ llO-FEP [lO^FEPE 110- General 11-LEP 11-NAEP ~ 111- FE~P fe-FEPE~ fll-Gen^ 12-LEP ^iTna^ T^FEP I ^j7:5~(i/o7T256.O (2/0) ' 229.5 (2/0) !2IQ) I 256^2/0) i 230.5 (2/0) 238.6 (5/0) 1 269.4 (5/0)\n246.4 (5/0) r I I I [414} i 258.3 (4/4)\n235.5 (4/4) ? i ' (0/1) t 1 (0/1) (0/4) 1 (0/4) 12-FEPE 112-G^ral N=Number of students tested I T 7 1 T-+ T I (0/1) (0/1) IT iT I 515 ri ri Grades I DRASpnng\n3. A. Fair ! Benchmark : ALT Reading ' ALT Math I i ' (N/Missing)! (N/Missing)! (N/Missing) , (N/Missing) ALT Language (N/Missing) 2 I I ri 9-LEP 9-NAEP 9-FEP 9-FEPE 9-General I i 1 1 CSljc-Xstft'\n150.0(1/0) , 182.0(1/0) 162.0 (1/0) 09 o X \u0026gt; ri ri ri ri ri I -'-*''7.'A'sw\n'r ''^ '5\u0026lt;t\nV\u0026lt;''''- 't\nw \u0026gt; r! 5 z n 2 4.C 228.5 (2/0) 222Q(2JO) 1 125.0(2/0) | ri C-\n''TS*T 'P-iX 20.0 (4/0) i-ir 1 I I I WWW\u0026lt; \".--T:'A s'?:  iT-rsfe* JST^ 31 -s, -\u0026gt;fc, owwe.\n?' s_3 10-LEP 10-NAEP 10-FEP 10-FEPE___  10-General ^^)^Z2^^Yt2Si5^i2.'a.iJif/2etBS 11-LEP 11-NAEP 11-FEP 11-FEPE Il-General .4\n. 12-LEP |12-NAEP 12-FEP 12-FEPE 12-General ? *\u0026gt;\u0026lt;u: JSa:* '.'Ml' 214.3(3/1) I 162.0(3/1) ' 143.3 {Zm 1 ''J.-.. ' .-r .'..\u0026lt; ys ? I rykttitsirf- I - rW vrxxYj 1 ,a3r\u0026lt;^ A..? (0/2) (0/2) 1 (0/2) 't i .oiSV- -w'5?_'\u0026lt;7li, .\"i rTS\n*r\u0026lt; '._ S?!***^* 2 5 \u0026gt; T. 9 2 n z ri P5 1 t -JT^ S ~-rrj (0/1) -.ti- ?4%a r '5,\u0026lt;5 (0/1) (0/1) _\u0026gt; 1 j~~~~' *N=Number of students tested I 516ri Hall DRA Spring , SST-S\" Benchmark ALT Reading  ALT Math ALT Language ri Grades  1 (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) 1 (N/Missingj  ri ^\u0026lt;45* 30.0 (2/17) I 226.3 (3/0) Il-General , 11-LEP 11-NAEP Ill-FEP 11-FEPE 19-LEP |9-NAEP I9-FEP 9-FEPE l9-General 10-LEP 10-NAEP 110-FEP 110-FEPE lO-General 12-LEP 1I2-NAEP 12-FEP 112-FEPE 12-General I I I (0/1) (0/12) ?. (0/6) lox I EC M ' 163.2(9/12) H85.9 (9/12) i 213 6 (9^^^^^^ \u0026gt; s OB\u0026gt;i\n?5Ea.-i.r-______ _ .,. *N=Number of students tested 22^1 ^^12) \\ 2.^2.7(212) 174.2(6/13)\n241.6(5/14)1 210.2(6/13) 252.0 (3/0) 1 227.2 {3IQ) \"f- I 9nR.4(5/11) i 198.6(5/11)1 216.4(5/11) (0/1) (0/1) 107.5 (212) I 253.5 (2/2) i 222.2 {2J2) 213.0 (1/0) ! 257.0 (1/0) j 233.3 (1/0) I I (0/12) I (01^2) i (0/6) (0/6) ri ri ! 517 P5 o z5 Pl \u0026gt; 2 'S. 2 O r P3 2. Grades\nDRA Fall i DRA Spring i i (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j DRA Growth I i McClellan i . ^,.. , 'i Benchmark i ALT Reading! ALT Math ALT Language I (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) (N/Missing) ! (N/Missing) : (N/Missing) SAT-9 ALT Math I t  \u0026gt; co C  19-LEP I9-NAEP 9-FEP 19-FEPE 9-General AXeTzV^' 0-1 A /o/n\\ SsS? I 21.0(2/0) 208.0(1/0) i 250.0(1/0) , P*: I I 33.0 (2/0) !WjgrSTOSSS^5^^T^ 207.0(1/0) 'jW-P3 o 5z I IQ-LEP 10-NAEP llQ-FEP ~ 10-FEPE~\" tws^ lO-General 11-LEP 11-NAEP jll-FEP 11-FEPE w**** w \u0026gt;2 O o7l) I 253.6(1/1) I 214.0(1/1) T I I S 217.5(2/0) I 246.0(2/0) i 222.5(2/0) S^-x Xj J____ g 206.0(1/0) 231.7(3/2) I i 246.0(1/0) i 250.3 (3/2) , 201.0 (1/0) 212.7 (3/2) 208.0 (Vi) 256:0(1/1) j 215.0(1/1) Il-General I J I 12-FEPE 12-General i 12-LEP 12-NAEP il2-FEP  raw L _ _ *N=Number of students tested ! giA (0/1) I (0/1) 4^,^.Ki i.JTT (0/1) i*44jvqr-. 518 \u0026gt;2 -1 s z 9 CZ5 2 w z r5 75 Grades i-LEP l-NAEP 9- 9- 9-l-FEP (-FEPE 9-(-General 10-LEP 10-NAEP 10-FEP 10- FEPE 10- General 11- LEP 11- NAEP 11- FEP 11-FEPE Il-General 12-_LE^^____ 12-NAEP 12-FEP 12-FEPE 12-General Parkview I DRA Fall  DRA Spnng , DRA  SAT-9 ] Benchmark . ALT Reading j  (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) i Growth 1 (N/Missing) (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) I ! I -f I -r^,--... ...._____ . --It T ft k-tXAM* 52^ (3/0) B?'.*- iv, I I 7ji  205.0(1/0) ^.*aS!-=\nSpW n o \u0026lt;3Sii4j 1 ALT Math (N/Missing) 239.0 (1/0) ALT Language (N/Missing) 211.0 (1/0) ? 225.0(2/0)  246.5 {210) . 225.5 {2/0) A M. ' *\u0026gt; * I ,L I i :\nX\u0026lt; \u0026lt; \u0026lt; 229.5 (2/1) i 257.0(2/1) 1 240.0(1/2) '^j.-1^\n.^\n^:^\"/'\" hL j- \u0026lt;?.\u0026gt;. I i X I c^ s'ii 'ii. iSI'' .Aj' i jTT *#W^5Tr, K\", 218.0(1/8) I .00 (1/8) I 217.0(1/8) I \u0026gt;03 o?e \u0026gt; q 5z fHf \u0026gt; 2 1 I i 2 \u0026gt; -1 \u0026gt; 1. O 73 n 2 n M (0/6) (0/6) 1 (0/6) ^Sag^i^ 8\nwLA*\nN=Number of students tested 1 1 I.M^. I 519 Grades rLEP i-NAEP \u0026amp; 0- ,6-FEP 6-FEPE 6-General  DRA'F^\nDRA Spring WAT ' (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) j Growth inj I 1 Cloverdale M.S. 5AT^ , ' Be-nc hm a r--k , A-LT Reading ALT Math\n(N/Missing) \u0026lt; (N/Missing) ' (N/Missing)  (N/Missing) ALT Language (N/Missing) ).\u0026lt;r I I 27 183.6 (5/8) i 195.2 (5/8) i S55  7-LEP 7-NAEP 7-FEP 7-FEPE 7- General 8-LEP 8-NAEP 8-FEP 8-FEPE 8-General 5-R=-r-T SkSiT J 190.4 (5/8) 201.0(1/0) ! 204.0(1/0) i 207.0 {^10} 2 \u0026gt; 03 c X H m I *.kd5zZi\nL :vsisB^.5BSSP3^x^y=fr i\"* *Sri''s,' arKSii^fsajS\n1 I 34.8(5/11) I **^ r.k2^Z2kx:\n.i )/11 202.9 (10/6) i 215.6 (10/6) i 205.9 (10/6) -X ^^1 ft 17.0 (1/1) -------- I'll 5r \"1= *N=Number of students tested 200.0(2/0) I 212.0(2/0) j 205.5(2/0) i 199.1 (14/4) I 208.1 (14/4) j 201.5 (14/4) Sifj 'Sctd 238.0 (1/0) -Tsj'ife*.\" 'V -i :n 22?-'* I i I 520 oz PHl 2 2 \u0026gt; -2 O pz5 p Ei DRA Fall I DRA Spring | DRA Grades Dunbar SAT-9 Benchmark . ALT Reading  ALT Math ! (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j Growth j (N/Missing) (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) : (N/Missing) . i-i. A,k a \u0026gt;\u0026gt; ri, ALT Language  (N/Missing) 0 Ifl d d d d d d d d (\u0026gt;rLEP 6-NAEP 6-FEP 6-FEPE 6-General '-13s. ---------i?ii!EaS3^ Hill3 190.8(4/1) I 195.0 (4/1) 200.3(4/1) t 220.5(6/0)\n232.2 {6IQ) 222.2 (\u0026amp;IQ} 216.0(1/0) I 223.0(1/0) I 1 1 217.0 (1/0) 7-LEP 7-NAEP 7-FEP 1- FEPE 7-General ?\nf* 5a * 12 3 (3/2) 8-LEP 8-NAEP 8-FEP 8-FEPE 8-General ... 27.0 (1/1 i ...1______I. , zi 32.7 (71Q) s^i* 201.7(3/2) I 207.3 (3/2) M 223.3 (JIQ] i 201.0 (3/2) ce X\u0026gt; m s 5z n S . X' -a. 0*-\u0026lt;T z. '2ss'.ie.uisi.Esr 27.0(1/0) \u0026gt;'.*1  Ml m o~i I  \"rc it/\"'. Jt T I 256.4(7/0)\n230.4(7/0) 209.3 (3IQ) tJ.-.T-\" 222266..66 ((1100//00))1 i 225522..22 ((1100//00\n) I 230.0 (10/0) 210 0(1/0) ! 211.0(1/0) I 210.0(1/0) 2 \"4 X \u0026gt; 2 9 75 2 S 2 D n MI- -raw. . , .. .. - - . *N=Number of students tested I i T 521 Dl Forest Heights M.S. Iri I 2 s Iri Iri Iri Iri Iri Iri Hi Iri Bl Grades rLEP i-NAEP 6- 6- 6-FEP 6-FEPE 6-General 7-LEP 7-NAEP 7-FEP 7-FEPE 7-General (J 2  DRA Fall ' DRA Spnng CRA\" . _S.A..T -9. -B--e--n--c-h--m---a--r-k- , ALT Re- ading, , ALT Math ALT Lang- uag- e ' (N/Missing)  (N/Missing) ! Growth 1 (N/Missing) | (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) , (N/Missing) - (N/Missing) DRA Spnng I 1 1 I ! t T--j,5b3 SJ' if S^S. T-T-y t /Af - .iJ'-! 'a\u0026amp;SLi'* t T' .-ai-. i1^kC~-.i'-'\u0026lt;^'-T-4t.:\nka/^,-^-jj(i~'ifn}ai ~ltT^ - niT*-r--^- I 216.0(2/0) i 215.5(2/0) i 212.0 (2/0) 212.8(5/0) , 218.2(5/0) ! 215.8(5/0) Ai.*\u0026gt;r! I \u0026gt; ' t4Ls:**c^ t'ii r^'Lil S\n(/( 75.5 (2!^) I 39.0(1/0) n O 5S \u0026gt; II g 209.3(3/0) i 216.7(3/0) | 212.0 (3/0) P3 \u0026gt; Q z5 n 2 rt 'gi 8-LEP 8-NAEP 8-FEP 8-FEPE 8-General :-KSAh- r V- 1 724.^ (21Q} i 226.0(2/0) i 231.5(2/0) 205.0(1/0) I 210.0(1/0) i 214.0 (1/0) iS \u0026gt;.1 i-.ai . \" 5SsS\u0026gt;rJSgT.^^\u0026amp;f^/^a5^4?fe\u0026lt;-2LKT-\u0026gt; 217-0(1/1) ! 214.0(1/1) 1 215.0(1/1)  ------\" yiJJ ^^ 228 3(3/0) i 225.0(3/0)  231.3(3/0) \u0026gt;z 2 Sz (-5 221.5(2/0) I 236.0(2/0) i 228.5(2/0) ff ____ .!.. MI.M eMBSS?:a*-?Yr.'WI^MWXnmJWW('JLJW *N=Number of students tested I I I 522 I ii Ifl Ifl Ifl I Itf iri Ifl Ifl Ifl Ifl Ifl Efl HI  DRA Pair DRA Spring j Grades i (N/Missing) . (N/Missing) j I ! 1 Henderson 6-LEP 6-NAEP rFEP i-FEPE 6- 6- (-General 6- '-LEP 7- 7-NAEP 7-FEP 7-FEPE 7-General I Ar 22^ '4= * DRA Growth s\n- .'Si'SSi ------- Benchmark , ALT Reaaing ALTMaUT j (N/Missing) ' (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) , (N/Missing) i 1 Benchmark  ALl Reading ALT Language (N/Missing) 2114(5/0) i 217.0(5/0) j 222.4 (5/0) :i ^Ts  ''is 1 I JSSaStSfr\"' -\n!^ I t c * * y:S:t^-ii7i*.?xi5uaxsc^ 199 0(6/0) 1 167.8(6/0)  205.5 ^6/02^ 7\"' e?. ..r^sa^ 65.0(410) t' ^T*fc\n,V V* iS: t .u*-^ 1.^ I ! 1 __ 22) 5(410) 1 229.5 4/0) 226.5 (410) X4e\u0026gt;*.i= ***r 8-LEP 8-NAEP 8-FEP 8-FEPE 8-General 2 \u0026gt; n O \u0026gt; \u0026lt; P5 5 5 z m \u0026gt; 2 2 \u0026gt; \u0026gt; 2 O 7) l 200.0(2/0) ! 204.0^(2/0) *N=Number of students tested T 219 8 (610) i 224.7 (6/0) I 226.7 (610) 230.0(1/0) i 250.0(1/0) 240.0 (1/0) '2. P5 I I I 523Bri d I u d iri m iri ni iri d d d d 6- Grades i rLEP i-NAEP 6- 6- i-FEP i-FEPE (\u0026gt; 6-General 7-LEP 7-NAEP 7-FEP 7-FEPE 7-General Mabelvale M.S. 2 DRA Fall j DRA Spring i DRA SAT-9 i Benchmark i ALT Reading j ALT Math , ALT Language i (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) j Growth (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing)  (N/Missing) j (N/Missing)  '-^'rS^* -.'^ir.-. -,r*^- \u0026lt; * i-'r- 3 J '4^ 8-LEP 8-NAEP 8-FEP 8-FEPE 8-General \u0026gt; 5 \u0026gt; i I I - *2*/^'^ Vs.v.^ * 1  T5 I i 19.0 (1/0) J I 212.3(3/0) j 206.3(3/0)  .ihBBiChi. r 4 *- I 1 213.0 (3/0) P5 \u0026gt; s z -j n \u0026gt; 2 211.0(1/0) I 212.0(1/0) I 210.0(1/0) iy'-i 221.0(1/0)1251.0(1/0)1 224.0(1/0) --r .r -s-t.fiP' ----------------------------------bm 85.0(1/0) i 4 wi * *N=Number of students tested ^S'j 1 1 I r sf - - i.2urM\u0026gt;?lu. w\nI 212-2(5/0) I 20S.6(5rt)) 1 219.0(5/0) S? feafe 1 524  \u0026gt; -J \u0026gt; 2. v\u0026gt; 2 n 2 O WMann Magnet II Grades PftA Fall------DRA S^ng , DRA 5AT^5 Benchmark ALT Reading ALT Matii ATT Language 1 (N/MissIng): (N/Missing)\nGrowth , (N/Missing) ! (N/Missing)' (N/Missing) (N/Missing) (N/Missing) ! I o id Id Id Id Id Id Id Id Id Id Id 6-LEP 6-NAEP 6-FEP 6-FEPE 6-General SS V I s? jB-1 \u0026gt; 09 c X \u0026gt; H n 229.5 {2/0} 225.7 {310} wirs.5i t (210) 234.0 {210} f irA5^c-\n,f'^x KK*t .t 11^.5 '^pO-S''- 5?. 217.3(3/0) ^218.0(3/0) n -j z5 PJ \u0026gt;2\n4.-i:v-?\u0026gt;a*'vv4y i 1 7-LEP 7-NAEP ___ , . _ _ 7-FEP J____J 7-FEPE____ 7-General ^asc:'?. \u0026lt;'..' I I I ./'** Vi \\^L- Vt. 49.0(1/0) j^a'^ 4 f^T*^-S74SSSLA \u0026gt;\u0026gt;_. n.o {2J0} f/-i y 77.3(3/0) iS ssassss ' ' e 1 \\ 210.0 (1/0) i 222.0 (1/0)  - 226.5 (2/0)\n230.0 {210} 218.0 (1/0) 227.0 (2J0} 221.3(3/0) i 236.7 (3/0)\n229.7 (3/0) ffi T- 8-LEP____ 8-NAEP__ 8-FEP 8-FEPE__ 8-General i I I 1 :b!^: I r? th' 235.8 (5/0) i 259.6 (5/0) : 239.4 (5/0) N=Number of students tested 225.0(2/0) ' 252.5 {2IQ) I 234.0 (2/0) \u0026gt;2 SH \u0026gt;z 793 Q pz5 n .'5.\ni\nI I 525 I Pulaski Heights M.S. \u0026lt;1\ni I HI M l ni nl ni M d d d d DRA Fall I I i DRA Spring i 1 DRA Grades 1 (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) ! Growth i i i ! SAT-9 1 Benchmark , ALT Reading i ALT Math , ALT Language ! (N/Missing) j (N/Missing)  (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) . (N/Missing) 1 I T 2 6-LEP 6-NAEP 6-FEP 6-FEPE 6-General 7-LEP 7-NAEP 7-FEP 7-FEPE 7-General 8-LEP 8-NAEP 8-FEP 8-FEPE 8-General\n\u0026gt;T**  ~ \"i\n' r?L^ T,5J.V^.^Sf^Tai '-is I t.- i\u0026gt; *  3.^ * . - 41 0 f2/oi jr O 98.0(1/0) i s\u0026lt; \u0026gt; SB \u0026gt; H ! Hi Wsi^' 2210(4/0) I 227.0(4/0) I 221.8(4/0) ! I_______ !_______\n220.5(270) 1 215.5(2/0) I 218.0(2/0) I n n\u0026gt; z5 PHJ \u0026gt; 2 SI I **V- 240.0(1/0) I 295.0(1/0) [ 249.0(1/0) 1 2\u0026gt;'. =i I I I iliBSS cz !/l hS5? L?fr -4X^ ^idPJh-ftj^ac:X^\u0026gt;4\u0026lt;\u0026amp;a^bi r^W.- 4 250.5 (2/0) j 230.0 (2/0) PJ z PJ i2^itA.d!SJ.aur-5^ j: *N=Number of students tested II 526 irii Southwest WSp^g iri Dri [ri iri Iri Iri Iri Iri Iri Iri Iri d 01 d grades ' (N/Missing) ! (N/Missing) i6-LEP 6-NAEP 6^fEP 6-FEPE 6-General '-LEP 1'--NAEP 7--FEP 7-FEPE 7-General 8-LEP S^NAE^ mp 8^FEPr~ 8-General 3K' h* t ik ------ DRASAT-9  Benchmark~ArrReading Growth , (N/Missing)\n(N/Missing) t ( --------  ALT MatFi ALT Language (N/Missing) , (N/Missing) (N/Missing) 2 i I ( TJ aX \u0026gt; I v I I 16 0(2/1) A (J  218'0(1/0) i 223.0(1/0) .. ___  kT: 221.0 (1/0) 7 1 \u0026gt;R7SfI-IeWeo  *O, *w\u0026gt; H I r 199.3 (3/0) : aoi 3 (3/01 1 210.7 (3/0) 1 I I________ !-------------------- - .w.wi5tT^\u0026lt;Fnre5saiS((i^!^ 218 0 n/O) i 220.0 (1/0)_i 222.0(1/0) - If \u0026lt; \u0026gt;f6(\u0026gt; i. 'N=Number of students tested *_ ^i_e!47 \\-^ 1! ! 1 I 1 527 n \u0026gt; Q 25 n \u0026gt; 2\nS \u0026gt;S \u0026gt;2 0 (/I 2 S 2. fnt COLLABORATIVE ACTION TEAM MATH AND SCIENCE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 TO: Board of Education FROM: PREPARED BY: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools ^^onnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction DATE: November 21,2002 SUBJECT: Approval of SEDLs Program Evaluation for the Collaborative Action Team Project \u0026gt; \u0026gt;Z c Vi 2 Sz fnt Background The Southwest Education Development Lab (SEDL) in Austin began their Collaborative Action Team Project in 1996 by selecting schools or districts for participation within their five-state region. The focus was on districts with concentrations of students as follows: rural, urban, the Delta, the Border, and the American Indian Nations. The Little Rock School District was selected for inclusion, representing urban children, as a part of Cohort 3 in fall 1999, the last year of the project. We participated only that one year (1999-2000) in the project, but the Collaborative Action Team that was established continues to meet and most recently fulfilled the charge we gave them to provide leadership in the development of the Districts Strategic Plan for Parent Involvement. Dr. Ed Williams, the PRE statistician, and Debbie Milam, Director of the ViPS program and the person assigned as liaison to SEDL for this project, both provided data to SEDL for their project evaluation. Members of the Collaborative Action Team responded to surveys as requested. Although the 249-page study produced by SEDL that evaluated the project included student achievement data, those data were not disaggregated by race, and LRSDs short-term (one year) participation in the project would not predict that the involvement of this relatively small group of parents and community volunteers would result in improved student performance. The purpose of the SEDL project is described on pp. 2- 3 of the report. On pp. 25-33 can be found a description of the \"Research Design and Methodology.\" 528 I*. I wL Board of Education - Memo November 21, 2002 Page Three Section 10 of the evaluation, Implications and Recommendations, discusses the research findings. Specific recommendations are given on page 147. Recommendation That the Board of Education accept and approve SEDLs Collaborative Action Team Process: Final Research Report as the program evaluation of the LRSD Collaborative Action Team project of 1999-2000. BAL/adg Attachment 529 ir il t t I 2 \u0026gt;z o c/) 2 S z D w g S1'1 - J? Collaborative Action Team Process: Bringing home, school, community, and students together to improve results for children and famihes I Final Research Report ] I I I a 11 Ti T  .U.'. J M iniaiaiiinil IIII Ml IIII Ml \u0026gt;2 \u0026gt; 1. o pz5 rwi Co-Authors: Zena H. Rudo Michelle Achacoso Delia Perez Contributors: Catherine Jordan Jerry Elder Amy Averett Evangelina Orozco Program for Refining Educational Partnerships Southwest Educational Development Laboratory 211 East Seventh Street Austin, TX 78701-3281 (512) 476-6861 November 2000 530 I I I i\"* r a List of Tables List of Figures Section 1: Section 2: Section 3: Section 4: Section 5: Section 6: Section 7: Section 8: Table of Contents Collaborative Action Team Project Background Participants in the Collaborative Action Team Project Characteristics of the Collaborative Action Team Process Implementation of the Collaborative Action Team Process Research Design and Methodology Site Characteristics Collaborative Action Team Sustainability Student Outcomes iii-iv v-vii 1 4 12 16 25 34 46 80 s. \u0026gt; 2 C V) 2 S z r) Section 9: Results in the Rural Collaborative Action Team Sites I I I 111 Section 10\nImplications and Conclusions 143 References 150-152 Appendices Appendix A. Collaborative Action Team Application Forms Memorandum of Understanding 153 154-172 173-175 i 531 IAppendix B. Start-Up Training Agenda Collaborative Action Team Training Institute Agenda Facilitator Training Agenda 176 177-178 179-182 183-185 Appendix C. CAT Meeting Checklist Collaborative Action Team Meeting Evaluation Form #1 Collaborative Action Team Meeting Evaluation Form #2 CAT Self-Assessment Instrument and Handbook Collaborative Action Team Research Exit Survey Resource Guide Feedback Form 186 187-188 189 190 191-223 224-225 226-227 Appendix D. Significance and Probability Values for CAT Sustainability CAT Self-Assessment Questions Across Time Significance and Probability Values for CAT Sustainability CAT Self-Assessment Questions Across Cohorts Significance and Probability Values for CAT Sustainability CAT Self-Assessment Questions Across Representative Groups Significance and Probability Values for RD-CAT Sustainability CAT Self-Assessment Questions Across Time 228 229-234 235-240 241-246 247-250 Appendix E. Percent Student Attendance for Individual CAT Sites Percent Student Dropout for Individual CAT Sites Percent Student Graduation for Individual CAT Sites 251 252-253 254-255 256-257 i ii 532LIST OF TABLES I Table 1. Table 2. aa I Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Table 7. Collaborative Action Team Site Demographics Timeline I: Assessing the Implementation and Sustainability of the CAT Process Timeline 11\nAssessing the Impact of the CAT Process on Student Outcomes Total Population and Poverty in CAT Surrounding Area CAT Members Completing the CAT Self-Assessment and the Collaborative Action Team Research Exit Survey Percent Student Attendance for Cohort 1 CAT Sites Percent Student Attendance for Cohort 2 CAT Sites 7- 9 31 32 35 47 - 50 81 I 82 Table 8. Percent Student Attendance for Cohort 3 CAT Sites 82 ,1 a aI I Table 9. Table 10. Table 11. Table 12. Table 13. Table 14. Table 15. Table 16. Table 17. Percent Student Attendance for CAT Sites Across Cohorts Percent Student Dropout for Cohort 1 CAT Sites Percent Student Dropout for Cohort 2 CAT Sites Percent Student Dropout for Cohort 3 CAT Sites Percent Student Dropout for CAT Sites Across Cohorts Percent Student Graduation for Cohort 1 CAT Sites Percent Student Graduation for Cohort 2 CAT Sites Percent Student Graduation for Cohort 3 CAT Sites Percent Student Graduation for CAT Sites Across Cohorts iii 83 88 89 89 90 95 96 96 97 533 2 \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Z 55 t/i 2 S z n P5 Table 18. SAT-9 Scores Below the 25\" Percentile for Arkansas CAT Sites 101 Table 19. Percentile Rankings on CAT/5 and ITBS for Louisiana CAT Sites 102 Table 20. Percent Passing CTBS5/Terra Nova Plus for New Mexico CAT Sites 103 Table 21. Percent Scoring Satisfactory on OCCT for Oklahoma CAT Sites 105 Table 22. Percent Passing the TAAS in Texas CAT Sites 108 Table 23. Free/Reduced Lunch for RD-CAT Sites 112 Table 24. RD-CAT Members Completing the CAT Self-Assessment and the Collaborative Action Team Research Exit Survey 117 Table 25. Comparison of RD-CAT Site and State Student Dropout 136 Table 26. Comparison of RD-CAT Site and State Student Graduation 137 Table 27. CTBS5/Terra Nova Test Scores for Mora ISD and State 138 Table 28. Percent Passing New Mexico High School Competency Exam for Mora ISD and State 139 Table 29. SAT-9 Percent Passing for Marshall School District and State 139 Table 30. SAT-9 Percentile Scores for Marshall School District and State 140 Table 31. Percent Passing OCCT for Clayton School District and State 140 iv 534 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. CAT Site Start-Up and CAT Self-Assessment Data Collection 29 Figure 2. Type of School(s) Collaborative Action Teams Serve 36 Bl Figure 3. Special School Programs in CAT Sites 37 Figure 4a \u0026amp; b Team Confidence Level for Activity Accomplishment 39 rl Figure 5. Type of School Community Challenges in CAT Sites 40 Figure 6a \u0026amp; b Existence of Community Factors in CAT Sites 42 2 \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Z 9 X 2 S z rt pj Figure 7a. PI Days Between Start-Up Training and First CAT Meeting for Cohort 1 Sites 43 Figure 7b. Days Between Start-Up Training and First CAT Meeting for Cohort 2 Sites 44 Figure 7c. Days Between Start-Up Training and First CAT Meeting for Cohort 3 Sites 44 Figure 8. Level of Support form School Administration for Future CAT Sustainability 58 El Figure 9. Level of Support from Campus Staff for Future CAT Sustainability 58 p 4! 1 Figure 10. Level of Support from Community-at-Large for Future CAT Sustainability 59 Figure 11. II Level of Support from Parents/Other Family Members for Future CAT Sustainability 59 Figure 12. Level of Support from Students for Future CAT Sustainability 60 . Figure 13. Future Goal Accomplishment Across Cohorts 66 V 535I tv Figure 14. Figure 15. Figure 16. Figure 17. Figure 18. Figure 19. Figure 20. Figure 21. Figure 22. Figure 23. Figure 24. Figure 25. Figure 26. Figure 27. Figure 28. Figure 29. Figure 30. Figure 31. Perceived Changes in CAT Recognition/Importance in the Community by Representative Groups Importance of Taking Action on Planned Goals for CAT Sustainability Annual Percent Student Attendance Across Cohorts Site, District, and State Student Attendance Comparisons Across Cohorts Arkansas CAT Site vs. State Student Attendance Louisiana CAT Site vs. State Student Attendance New Mexico CAT Site vs. State Student Attendance Oklahoma CAT Site vs. State Student Attendance Texas CAT Site vs. State Student Attendance Site, District, and State Student Dropout Comparisons Across Cohorts Arkansas CAT Site vs. State Student Dropout Louisiana CAT Site vs. State Student Dropout New Mexico CAT Site vs. State Student Dropout Oklahoma CAT Site vs. State Student Dropout Texas CAT Site vs. State Student Dropout Site, District, and State Student Graduation Comparisons Across Cohorts Arkansas CAT Site vs. State Student Graduation New Mexico CAT Site vs. State Student Graduation vi 70 72 83 84 85 85 86 86 87 90 91 92 92 93 94 97 98 98 3 i K B B B 536Section 1: Collaborative Action Team Project Background Recognizing that childrens problems are increasingly horizontal, but government is organized vertically (Kirst, 1991, p. 617), those concerned with the well-being of children and families have sought ways to overcome the compartmentalization and fragmentation characterizing traditional delivery systems. Efforts to integrate and coordinate services for children and families across multiple agencies have been promulgated since the mid-1970s, however often than not at the behest of local social service agencies (Kagan \u0026amp; I I more Pritchard, 1996). It has only been in the past decade that federal support has influenced and hastened the development of collaborative partnerships. The result has been a broad variety of approaches to collaborative work. Models, strategies, and pilot programs accompanied by an abundant literature of opinion, guidelines, theory, survey and case study research, and anecdotal experience have p' erated. The role of public education in these collaborative efforts has also varied and, in some circles, schools are deliberately avoided. For example. Heath and McLaughlin (1996) note that partnership with community organizations seldom extends to education (p. 70), because many individuals working in youth organizations find schools the most difficult partner among the many social agencies with which they have contact (p. 85). Schools, on the other hand, have attributed the lack of collaboration with community organizations to the inflexible schedules and frequent turnover of agency staff, as well as to what schools perceive as competitive attitudes (Kagel \u0026amp; Routh, 1993). ( \u0026gt;  t I ) 2 \u0026gt; S \u0026gt; z o p5 z PI In addition to the difficulties schools encounter developing successful collaborative partnerships with community agencies, their relationship with the families of students is also a source of conflict. The development and perpetuation of a stereotypical view that many families are uncaring of their children and their childrens success in school has been seen in educational practice (Corbett, Wilson, \u0026amp; Webb, 1996). As families experience this attitude, a self-fulfilling prophecy is set into motion in which families feel uncomfortable coming to the school and as a result, professionals continue to see parents as the problem. Additional reasons for why collaborative partnerships have not necessarily been successful, or even initiated, may include:  Family and school schedules are often difficult to mesh  Security issues sometimes take precedence over visitors on school grounds  Parents past experiences as students themselves may have been negative and they lack trust in the educational system. 1 537Figure 32. Oklahoma CAT Site vs. State Student Graduation 99 Figure 33. Texas CAT Site vs. State Student Graduation 99 Figure 34. Level of Support form School Administration for Future RD-CAT Sustainability 121 Figure 35. Level of Support from Campus Staff for Future RD-CAT Sustainability 121 Figure 36. Level of Support from Community at Large for Future RD-CAT Sustainability 122 Figure 37. Level of Support from Parents/Other Family Members for Future RD-CAT Sustainability 122 Figure 38. Level of Support from Students for Future RD-CAT Sustainability 123 Figure 39. RD-CAT Site Student Attendance Comparisons Across Time 134 Figure 40. RD-CAT Site Student Dropout Comparisons Across Time 135 Figure 41. RD-CAT Site Student Graduation Comparisons Across Time 137 vii 538. iW, ii!* Although these barriers exist, it is believed that strengthening the involvement of families and communities in education is critical for enablinq schools to function more effectively and respond to the complex needs of students and their families. Fulfilling the needs that affect a students development takes a system of interrelated, interdependent parts, of which the school is just one. The students home and family life, and the community and society in which the student lives, are other necessary parts of the system. Yet, it is understood that schools play a particularly crucial role for several  Students spend many hours of their day at school reasons: 1 a  School s explicit mission is to guide student development  Important relationships develop between students, their peers, their teachers, and other adults in the school environment. As a result of this systemic shift in thinking, connections between schools, families, and communities are more prevalent today than ever. Increasingly, schools have taken the lead in establishing collaborative links (Kritek, 1996\nPayzant, 1992). Often these efforts are part of an overall plan for systemic school reform in an attempt to improve educational outcomes for children (Fox \u0026amp; Williams, 1991\nLourie, 1994). For example, increased academic achievement, motivaUon and interest in school, and behavioral and adaptive functioning are only just beginning to be assessed in relation to the impact of these collaborative partnerships (Eber \u0026amp; Rolf, 1998). Although on the increase, the establishment of collaborative partnerships among the school, home, and community has been slow in achieving wide spread adoption in the field. This is due, in part, to the existing limited and largely non-empirical knowledge base on school-based collaboration and the absence of a clear specification of the needed skills that promote such an intervention model (Pryor \u0026amp; Church, 1995\nU.S. Department of Education, 1996). Purpose of Current Project to 2 S \u0026gt; 2. 3 (fi 2 S 2 rj P5 As part of a federal grant initiated in December 1995, the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL) developed and implemented a school-based Collaborative Action Team (CAT) process to address the need t enhance family and community involvement in education. The intervention was designed to be self-sustaining over time and improve results for students and their families. This research project, based in communities across a five state Southwestern region of the United States, tested the sustainability of the collaborative partnerships developed among families, community members, 2 539h I  I school personnel, and students and the efficacy of this intervention to improve student success. Training for Collaborative Action Team participants was developed and implemented. The training consisted of activities to improve their knowledge of, skills in, and attitudes toward collaboration and shared leadership. These activities were used to enhance the partners abilities to collaborate on plans and take action to address issues and concerns facing their school community. Quantitative and qualitative measures were used to evaluate and continually refine the Collaborative Action Team process and capture a holistic picture of student success. Data collected in each site provided information on site characteristics, the implementation and sustainability of the process, and student outcomes. The research also provided CAT sites with descriptive and empirical data on their successes and areas of continued need while increasing their general knowledge base on the use of collaborative efforts within school settings and their impact on student success. Purpose of this Report This report serves two functions: first, as a technical manual detailing the methods and procedures of the study\nsecond, as a final, summative report, describing the activities accomplished and the research results obtained from this project. The Collaborative Action Team project was first implemented in the Fall of 1996 in five sites (Cohort 1), then expanded to another ten sites in the Fall of 1998 (Cohort 2), and to another eight sites in the Fall of 1999 (Cohort 3). Of these 23 sites, four were designated as Rural Development Collaborative Action Team (RD-CAT) sites to connect school improvement with community development through the implementation of the collaborative process linked to service learning and school entrepreneurship activities. This report will discuss individual and across site results from the research conducted in all 23 CAT sites as well as results specific to the RD-CAT sites.  This report contains sections describing the characteristics of the Collaborative Action Team process and the CAT sites, the implementation of the partnership process at the sites, the project research methodology, the sustainability of team collaboration, and student outcomes over time. Implications from the research results and what lies ahead for collaboration among schools, families, communities, and students are also discussed in this report. I 3 540J I Section 2: Participants in the Collaborative Action I Team Project The Southwest Educational Development Laboratory's emphasis is on ensuring educational equality for children and youth in the states of Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas who live in poverty\nwho are Hispanic, African-American, or other minorities\nor who have mental or physical exceptionalities. Within these states, SEDL identified the following five critical concentrations on which to focus its research and development projects\nrural, urban, the Delta, the Border, and the American Indian Nations. Site Selection I I Recognizing the need for the research demonstration sites to be representative of the five state Southwestern region SEDL serves and the critical concentration areas established by the Board of Directors, SEDL project staff solicited applications in 1996 (Year 1), 1998 (Year 3), and 1999 (Year 4). Each Collaborative Action Team (CAT) site is independent and serves one or more schools or an entire school district. 2 \u0026gt;X \u0026gt; z o s z n PI Five sites, one in each state in SEDLs region, were selected in 1996 to comprise Cohort 1. These sites are:  L. R. Jackson Elementary School (West Memphis, Arkansas)  P.G.T. Beauregard Middle School (St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana)  Rio Grande High School Cluster (Albuquerque, New Mexico)  Jackson Middle School (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma)  Fabens Independent School District (Fabens, Texas). I In 1998, ten sites throughout the region were selected for Cohort 2. These sites are:  Dollarway School District (Pine Bluff, Arkansas)  Barbara Jordan Elementary School (New Orleans, Louisiana)  Albuquerque High School Cluster (Albuquerque, New Mexico)  Highland High School Cluster (Albuquerque, New Mexico)  Ann Parish Elementary School (Los Lunas, New Mexico)  Mora Independent Schools (Mora, New Mexico)  Ponca City East Middle School (Ponca City, Oklahoma)  Balmorhea Independent School District (Balmorhea, Texas)  Del Valle High School (Del Valle, Texas)  Rio Hondo Independent School District (Rio Hondo, Texas). 4 \u0026gt; 541 I In 1999, eight sites were selected from four of the five states in SEDLs region for Cohort 3. These sites are:  Little Rock School District (Little Rock, Arkansas)  Lee County School District (Marianna, Arkansas)  Marshall School District (Marshall, Arkansas)  Polk Elementary School (Baton Rouge, Louisiana)  Clayton Independent School District (Clayton, Oklahoma)  Clinton Independent School District (Clinton, Oklahoma)  Geraldine Palmer Elementary (Pharr, Texas)  Terrell Independent School District (Terrell, Texas). Four of the 23 sites selected were designated Rural Development CAT (RD-CAT) sites. These sites were required to have a community population below 3,000 persons and be geographically isolated from larger cities or towns in the surrounding region. Additionally, these sites had to be committed to connecting school improvement with economic and community development. Although a number of Collaborative Action Team sites are geographically rural, they did not meet the qualifications to be designated as RD-CAT sites. All sites, including the Rural Development sites, were selected to be Collaborative Action Team sites based on the following criteria:  Fits within SEDLs critical concentration areas  Evidence of low academic performance in student population  High percentage of low-income students (i.e.. Title 1 programs: free/reduced lunch)  History of ongoing and under-served needs in school community  Willingness to engage home, school, and community partners in collaboration  Willingness to commit to long-term project efforts.  SEDL project staff developed and implemented a process to finalize Collaborative Action Team site selections. First, all potential sites were required to submit a Collaborative Action Team Application Form (see Appendix A for a copy of the CAT applications used). Once the application was received, project staff reviewed it for completeness and, if incomplete, provided one opportunity for the site to resubmit. Project staff then reviewed all of the applications to determine if the potential site met the criteria established to become a CAT. To further determine site appropriateness, project staff conducted discussions, onsite and/or by phone, with members of each school community applying. All information obtained about the potential sites was then discussed among the 5 I  542 project staff and, as a final step, all sites were notified as to whether they had or had not been selected as a CAT site. In Year 1, sites that received SEDL services from 1990-1995 through the Home, School, and Community Partnerships (HSCP) project were first contacted to see if they were interested in continuing with SEDL to implement the Collaborative Action Team process. Four of the HSCP sites (West Memphis, AR\nAlbuquerque, NM\nOklahoma City, OK\nand Fabens, TX) submitted applications to become CAT sites. The fifth Cohort 1 site in St. Bernard, LA learned about the project through a community member previously involved with another of SEDLs projects. The five Cohort 1 Collaborative Action Team sites represent three individual schools, one cluster of feeder schools, and one school district, i.e., serving a total of 20 schools (see Table 1). None of the Cohort 1 sites were designated as Rural Development CAT sites.  2 \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Z 0 75 2 55 z n PI In Year 3, SEDL project staff used several mechanisms to solicit Collaborative Action Team site applications. These included conference presentations, phone contacts, third-person referrals, and visits to SEDLs website. Cohort 1 CAT sites were also asked to recommend potential sites. Additionally, applicants who were not selected for Cohort 1, but met the eligibility requirements were also encouraged to reapply. The second cohort of 10 sites represents four individual schools, two clusters of feeder schools, and four school districts, i.e., serving a total of 42 schools (see Table 1). Two of these 10 sites were designated Rural Development CAT sites: Mora, NM, and Balmorhea, TX. r In Year 4, the Collaborative Action Team site solicitation methods used were similar to those used in the year prior\nhowever, one particular venue was the primary source for applications. This was a presentation by SEDL project staff at a federal Department of Education 21  Century Community Learning Center Bidders Conference held in the Southwestern region. For Cohort 3, project staff selected eight sites in four of the five SEDL region states (no new site was established in New Mexico). The Cohort 3 Collaborative Action Team sites represent two individual schools and six school districts, i.e., serving a total of 70 schools (see Table 1). Two of these eight sites were designated Rural Development CAT sites: Marshall, AR, and Clayton, OK. I 6 543I Table 1 Collaborative Action Team Site Demographics CAT site Cohort 1 West Memphis, AR St. Bernard Parish, LA Rio Grande Cluster, NM Oklahoma City, OK Fabens, TX Cohort 2 Pine Bluff, AR New Orleans, LA Albuquerque Cluster, NM Established Region 08/14/96 10/19/96 09/05/96 10/04/96 09/11/96 09/16/98 08/17/98 10/29/98 Schools served by CAT Free/reduced lunch Student ethnicity UI lU Delta/ Rural Rural Urban Urban Border/ Rural Rural Urban Urban 1 elementary school 1 middle school 1 high\n4 middle and 7 elementary schools 1 middle school 1 high\n1 junior high\n1 elementary\n1 primary school\nand 1 early childhood center 1 high\n1 junior high and 3 elementary schools 1 elementary school 1 high\n2 middle and 10 elementary schools 7 100% 88% 76% 100% 95% 66% 100% 69% 99% African-American\n1% other 63% White\n33% African-American\n4% other 83% Hispanic\n11% White\n6% other 65% Hispanic\n18% White\n10% African-American\n7% Native American 97% Hispanic\n3% other 80% African-American\n20% White 100% African-American 66% Hispanic\n22% White\n12% other_____ (continued on next page)fit li. KA Tabic 1 (continued) CAT site Established Region Schools served by CAT Free/reduced lunch Student ethnic ity Highland Cluster, NM 10/29/98 Urban 1 high\n2 middle and 8 elementary schools 62% 40% Hispanic\n36% White\n10% Native American\n14% other Los Lunas, NM 10/21/98 Rural 1 elementary school 100% 63% Hispanic\n31% White\n6% other I Mora, NM 11/14/98 Rural 1 high\n1 middle and 2 elementary schools 89% 78% Hispanic\n21% White\n1% other Ponca City, OK 09/12/98 Rural 1 mid-high school 44% 82% White\n12% Native American\n6% other Balmorhea, TX 06/30/98 Border/ Rural 1 school all grades (K - 12) 71% 80% Hispanic\n19% White\n1 % other Del Valle, TX 10/03/98 Urban I high school 48% 53% Hispanic\n32% White\n14% African-American\n1% other i Rio Hondo, TX 10/24/98 Border/ Rural I high\n1 middle and 2 elementary schools 81% 94% Hispanic\n6% White (continued on next page) 8 cn \u0026gt;i UI aoNaios ONV iiiviv I I I UI 4k 9) Table 1 (continued) CAT site Cohort 3 Little Rock, AR Marianna, AR Marshall, AR East Baton Rouge, LA Clayton, OK Clinton, OK Pharr, TX Terrell, TX Established Region 09/23/99 09/01/99 08/17/99 08/18/99 08/30/99 09/09/99 10/14/99 08/26/99 Urban Delta/ Rural Rural Urban Rural Rural Border/ Rural Rural Schools served by CAT 5 high\n8 junior high and 35 elementary schools 1 high\n1 middle and 2 elementary schools 1 junior/senior high and 1 elementary school 1 elementary school 1 high and 1 elementary school 1 high\n1 middle and 3 elementary schools 1 elementary school 1 high\n1 middle and 4 elementary schools\nand 1 pre- K to K center 9 Free/reduced lunch Student ethnicity 50% 89% 60% 98% 73% 73% 88% 51% 68% African-American\n28% White\n4% other 91% African-American\n8% White\n1% other 98% White\n2% other 99% African-American\n1% White 75% White\n25% Native American 55% White\n23% Hispanic\n11% Native American\n10% African-American\n1% other 2% White\n98% Hispanic 49% White\n34% African-American\n16% Hispanic\n1% other Team Composition The entire school community, consisting of all the people and organizations that either affect or are affected by the school, are the pool from which Collaborative Action Team members were initially identified in site applications. A school community goes beyond those who work and study inside the school. School communities include families, businesses, agencies, organizations, and individuals in the immediate neighborhood. A school community might include residents who have no children attending the school but whose property values are affected by the quality of education the school provides. A human service, health, or mental health agency that serves students families may be part of a school community even if it is not located in direct proximity to the school. The school board and district or state administrators that affect a schools work are also a part of the school community. 2 \u0026gt; X \u0026gt; 2. 9 V) 2 w z ri P3 I jA The initial composition of the Collaborative Action Teams in Cohort 1 included school, home, and community representatives. As the PGT Beauregard CAT in St. Bernard, LA developed, they were the first team to include students as equal members on their team. The SEDL project staff and the other Cohort 1 CAT sites recognized the benefit of including students. As a result, students were incorporated into the CAT process as a fourth representative group needed to comprise team membership and many sites include students on their teams. School representatives include superintendents, assistant superintendents, and other district/central office staff, principals, assistant principals, teachers, teacher aides, librarians, support staff, maintenance personnel, and other school campus staff. Family members such as parents, grandparents, foster parents, other caretakers, and siblings comprise the home representative group. Neighborhood associations, businesses, government offices, human service agencies, religious institutions, and volunteers represent the community. Students, generally from secondary schools, also serve on the CAT\nhowever, student representation is open to all age groups. Collaborative Action Teams range in size from smaller groups of 8-10 members to much larger groups of 40-50 members, with an average of approximately 15 active members per team. Additionally, although representative membership is a core principle of the Collaborative Action Team process, it should be noted that membership on the team is not static. The teams have an open door policy\", often resulting in variation in team 10 547 I i I membership at any given time. However, each team has established a group of core members that, at the least, represent the home, school, and community. Summary SEDL project staff used a variety of mechanisms to solicit potential Collaborative Action Team sites and a formal selection process was implemented. Twenty-three sites were selected to participate in the project, of which four were designated as Rural Development CAT sites. All of the sitesmet established selection criteria related to geographic location, student demographics, school and community needs, an ability and willingness to commit to implementing collaborative partnerships. Participants varied in the Collaborative Action Teams but generally consisted of home, school, community, and student representatives. t   11 548I Section 3: Characteristics of the Collaborative Action Team Process IS \u0026gt; ( I The Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL) designed the school-based Collaborative Action Team (CAT) process to be developed, tested, and refined over a five-year period ending in December 2000. After reviewing the literature on collaboration with an emphasis on its links to educational settings, SEDL project staff identified current collaborative practices, dimensions of successful team partnership development and maintenance, and barriers to effective collaboration upon which the CAT process was initially based. The process was continually developed over the five years to bring together local partners representing the communitys diverse points of view to increase the productive involvement of families and communities in the educational achievement and well-being of students. I 2 \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Z 9 75 2 5 z ft Defining Collaboration I I Collaboration brings separate individuals or organizations into a new relationship with a joint commitment to a common purpose. As described by Mattesich and Monsey (1992), the relationship includes a commitment to: a definition of mutual relationships and goals, mutual authority and accountability for success, and sharing of resources and rewards (p. 7). Such a relationship requires comprehensive planning and well-defined communication. Risk is greater because team members reputations are at stake. Participants pool their resources and share the products of their work. Collaboration is a more formal and long-term arrangement than networking, cooperation and coordination. It differs in the extent to which people share resources and use power and authority to achieve goals they cannot achieve independently (Kagan, 1991). fc- People in collaborative relationships view each other as partners, enhancing each others capacity to define excellence, set mutual goals, and use their own personal and institutional power to achieve them (Himmelman, 1992). Collaboration is a style of work and a sense of community in which members knowingly make decisions as a whole. They see themselves as complementary and mutually supportive contributors to the entire community. In other words, collaboration involves the following:  Developing win-win situations  Creating a total greater than the sum of its parts  Sharing responsibility  Sharing success. 12 549Core Principles The Collaborative Action Team process is a set of concepts, activities, and resources that individuals, school districts, and other organizations can use to develop a partnership between school, home, community, and students at the local level. It was initially based on a set of core principles and included four stages of team development. The core principles identified were representative membership, shared leadership, consensus decision-making, and networking. As the Collaborative Action Teams developed, it was seen that networking was a natural consequence of collaboration\nhowever, teams having an action focus was integral to team development. Action focus was incorporated into the CAT process as a core principle to embody the characteristics of collaboration. Based on these core principles, the Collaborative Action Team moves through a series of activities within the four stages of team development intended to support effective team partnerships that can be self-sustaining over time.  I Representative membership is when a team consists of participants from a cross-section of the school community that consistently attend meetings and are actively involved in making decisions. This includes family members, community representatives, school personnel, and students and should mirror the diversity of the community. Representative membership can help the team develop a more comprehensive response to school community needs and reinforce local control and self-reliance. Shared leadership exists when leadership roles and responsibilities are equally distributed among all team members. Team members see themselves as partners working to benefit students and their families and are equally included in representing the team, making decisions, carrying responsibilities, and sharing success. Shared leadership can enhance a teams commitment and willingness to work together and help to sustain individual energy, minimize burnouf, and expand the school communitys leadership pool. Consensus decision-making occurs when decisions are made that best reflect the viewpoints of all involved and that all members agree to support. This requires that team members develop the ability to discuss issues, listen to one another, address their differences, work to resolve them, and reach decisions based on general agreement. Consensus decisions can help to minimize conflict and maximize commitment and willingness in order for the team to take action as a whole. 13 55041 Action focus serves as the underlying purpose of a Collaborative Action Team, i.e., to improve results for students and the school community. Establishing a team vision and mission, and setting goals and forming strategies can help to prepare a team for action. As members take on roles and responsibilities and follow through on mutual decisions, they can generate momentum for further action. Stages of Team Development The four stages of team development are: Team Identification, Team Mobilization, Project Development, and Project Implementation. These stages are intended to lead the team to maturity and success in their overall goal to improve results for children and families. Team Identification includes determining who will be on the team and how members will work together to represent the whole community, including developing a vision and mission. Team Mobilization encompasses identifying and utilizing shared leadership, broadening communication and networking opportunities, and structuring the CAT meeting. Project Development is based on creating action plans and Project Implementation on carrying out those plans and maintaining the teams focus while accomplishing its goals. Each of the four stages of team development is comprised of team building and team planning elements created to generate momentum and develop team strength relative to the core Collaborative Action Team principles. 2 \u0026gt; z 0 7) 2 n -2. W Elements of the CAT Process JI Team building elements show team members how to work together as equal partners, respect individual diversity, and build trust to help the team solve problems and create new opportunities. Getting to know one another, talking constructively from differing vantage points, and undertaking projects together help build relationships among team members. The team building activities enable mutual respect and trust to grow as personal relationships and shared experiences evolve. I Team planning elements address tools and techniques for developing a vision, mission, goals and objectives, priorities, and action steps. Finding common ground, participating in dialogues about school community issues, and reaching consensus on what needs to be accomplished are all part of planning 14 551 for collaborative action. Team planning helps to keep everyone focused and provides the structure for moving the team forward. Generating momentum produces visible results quickly by taking easily accomplished steps toward change. Teams can generate momentum by working on manageable size projects often resulting in early success. This success generates the energy and enthusiasm needed for long-term development and increasingly more complicated efforts. Momentum is the product of the effort it takes to improve schools and communities. Summary SEDL developed and implemented a collaborative, school-based process partnering family members, school personnel, community representatives, and students to improve results for students and their families. The Collaborative Action Team process is based on a set a core principles and is organized into stages of team development. The core principles of the Collaborative Action Team process are: Representative Membership, Shared Leadership, Consensus Decision-Making, and Action Focus. Based on these core principles, the CAT process moves teams through four stages of development: Team identification. Team Mobiiization, Project Deveiopment, and Project Impiementation. Within each of these stages, teams go through a series of elements and activities that support a balance between team building and team planning, based on the core principles. Mechanisms are incorporated throughout the process to maintain the momentum of the team as it moves through the stages. 15 552Section 4: Implementation of the Collaborative Action Team Process I I The Collaborative Action Team (CAT) process implemented across the 23 sites included several essential components. First, it was important to have the support and participation of home, school, community, and student members at each site. Second, the team members were trained in the skills, concepts, and principles of the CAT process. Third, CAT meetings were held so that a plan of action could be developed. And last, the on-going needs of the Collaborative Action Team process were assessed and technical assistance was provided. The implementation of the CAT process was continually refined over the five years of the project, reflecting Collaborative Action Team member ideas and suggestions, SEDL project staff observations, and new data that emerged. I 2 \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Z 9 2 5 2. O P3 Initiating the Collaborative Action Team Process I I I 'iJ I I I SEDL project staff contacted school administrators from each site, at the local and/or district level, to discuss the mission, methodology, and goals of the project and to obtain administrative support. Although not standard practice with all Cohort 1 sites, as it was for the Cohort 2 and 3 sites, SEDL project staff met on-site with school administrators. The Cohort 1 CAT sites were not required to give SEDL written approval from their school administrators, but verbal support was attained. Over time, however, the administrative support wavered and resulted in a variety of barriers to the continuation of the Collaborative Action Team in at least one of the Cohort 1 sites. SEDL project staff recognized the need for a more formal system to obtain approval and support from school administrators in potential CAT sites. As a result, they developed a Memorandum of Understanding outlining the required commitments to become a CAT site and the joint responsibilities of the site and SEDL (see Appendix A for a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding). The Collaborative Action Team process was not initiated in the Cohort 2 and 3 sites until project staff received this Memorandum of Understanding with the signature of a school administrator, i.e., the school principal or assistant principal, the district superintendent, assistant superintendent, or director of curriculum, or another designated district administrator. Local school and district administration in each of the Cohort 2 and Cohort 3 CAT sites endorsed the project both verbally and by completing the Memorandum of Understanding. * In addition to school administrative support, other members of the school community spoke with SEDL project staff to discuss the implementation of the 16 I 553CAT process in their site. Many of these conversations took place at an initial on-site visit conducted by SEDL project staff during the application process. At this time, the participants representing the four core groups (home, school, community, and students) talked with project staff as a whole and separately, by representative group. This provided the participants an opportunity to experience initial collaborative dialogue and to discuss any past partnering difficulties among the groups. They were also provided brochures about the CAT project and other resource materials. Those in attendance indicated their support for the development of a CAT in their school community and their interest in participating: however, the number and diversity of representatives present at the initial visit was often greater than the core group that comprised the on-going Collaborative Action Team. General CAT Member Training Once support from the school administration and school community members in each site was evident and initial information was exchanged, the next step in implementing the Collaborative Action Team process was to train site members. A one and one-half day intensive Start-Up Training was scheduled with each site to occur shortly after they were selected. For the Cohort 1 and 2 sites, the training was conducted for home, school, and community representatives. Students from secondary schools were included as participants in the training for Cohort 3 sites. The Collaborative Action Team Start-Up Training was designed to foster shared leadership and collaboration skills to enable team members with diverse backgrounds and a wide range of skill levels and experience to participate as full partners with school leaders.  During the Start-Up Training, SEDL project staff introduced the team development activities comprising the CAT process. Project staff developed a structured agenda and provided a written copy to all participants (see Appendix B for an example of a Start-Up Training agenda). The training included an orientation session focused on a variety of factors that impact partnership development. Participants developed a site facilitation plan, designated local facilitators, and established a plan for the first full CAT meeting during the training. The experiential, interactive activities used in the training focused on increasing team members awareness and understanding of their differences and similarities while helping them become more comfortable with one another and learn the strengths and contributions each could bring to the team. For example, one activity asked each person to list things at which they are good and then posted the responses on flip charts for everyone to see. These skills 17  554 and strengths of team members were then matched with tasks needing to be completed during an action planning activity later in the training. The planning activity encouraged members to share their knowledge and skills to accomplish identified goals which demonstrated to them the value of shared responsibility and leadership. r s ) 3 I I SEDL project staff also provided training for team members through annual Collaborative Action Team Training Institutes held each fall of the five- year project (see Appendix B for an example of an Institute agenda). A representative group of team members from each CAT site were brought together for three days to share ideas, network with one another, and gain new knowledge and skills to assist them in their collaborative efforts. The specific agenda varied at each Institute\nhowever, a number of topics were pervasive throughout ali five. These included, but were not limited to:  Shared leadership  Action planning  Resource development  Assessment and evaluation  Use of technology in collaboration. The Training Institutes provided participants with information, skills, and materials for the team members at their sites who were not able to attend the training. This new knowledge was used to further the collaborative efforts of each team. 2 \u0026gt; S \u0026gt; 2 (/) 2 S 2. n P5 CAT Facilitator Training r j In relation to school change, Hord (1992) described the importance of facilitative leaders who are not necessarily positional leaders, such as superintendents or principals, but rather people who demonstrate functional leadership, help create an atmosphere and culture for change, and nurture both the vision and tangible supports necessary for effective follow through. This was the type of leadership sought to facilitate the Collaborative Action Teams. During the first few years of the project, SEDL project staff functioned in this role for the Cohort 1 sites, while informally encouraging team members to assume this role. As the CAT project developed, project staff spent less time with the Collaborative Action Teams and, as a result, team members recognized the need for local facilitation. Training local team members to act in the facilitator role and maintain their neutrality while serving in this role was seen as essential to the sustainability and expansion of the CAT process. 18 555In 1998, SEDL project staff developed a two-day curriculum to train members from each site to become facilitators and equip them to train others on their team to assume facilitation responsibilities (see Appendix B for an example of a Facilitator Training agenda). The first Facilitator Training was conducted in January 1999 at the SEDL offices at which at least two members from each Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 site attended. These trained facilitators also attended a refresher workshop in October 1999 to help them improve their skills and assess their progress. A second Facilitator Training was held in September 1999 for another 2-3 members in the Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 sites who had not been previously trained and an equal amount of members from the Cohort 3 sites. The trained CAT facilitators from all three of the cohorts participated in follow-up trainings in March 2000 and September 2000. SEDLs training for CAT facilitators had several goals. First, to thoroughly familiarize the participants taking on the facilitator role with the Collaborative Action Team process. For example, participants were asked to identify major elements of the process for a case study activity that required them to determine the most appropriate CAT process element to address typical issues and situations teams face. Second, to teach various group process techniques such as brainstorming, consensus building, force field analysis, use of affinity diagrams, and the use of T-charts. Each participant had an opportunity to facilitate either a group process technique or one of the training exercises under the observation and guidance of SEDL project staff. And last, to provide facilitators with the knowledge and skills necessary to train fellow team members in the use of the techniques taught in the training. Participants were provided a knowledge base and basic tools at the training to help them share the facilitation and team development responsibilities seen as necessary to effect change in their school community.  CAT Meetings An integral part of the project was the implementation of the Collaborative Action Team meetings at which home, school, community, and student representatives focused on issues important to their school community and action for improving results for students and their families. Collaborative Action Team members at the individual sites, especially the trained facilitators, were responsible for assuring meetings occurred. The steps needed to implement the team meetings included: 1) arranging the logistics for the meeting, 2) contacting team members and attending the meetings, 3) conducting the meeting, 4) following through on tasks and responsibilities, and 19 5565) evaluating the meetings. SEDL project staff provided CAT sites with assistance to help them implement team meetings, i.e., through on-site and telephone consultation, by providing written materials and other resources, and by encouraging networking among the CAT sites. Most of the Collaborative Action Teams met regularly, i.e., once a month. One or two of the 23 teams met more frequently, while a few met irregularly and less frequently. Some of the teams maintained a formal structure, i.e., met at the same time and place, provided an agenda, and kept within timeframes designated on the agenda. Other teams used their meetings as an open forum to discuss their needs and exchange information. Yet others focused directly on activities, events, and actions specific to a written plan they developed. A variety of techniques were used at the meetings to enhance team dialogue, some of which were modeled in the myriad of training SEDL project staff provided. The trained facilitators played a key role in ensuring diverse viewpoints were heard at the meeting and that all members participated. They also, along with other members of the team, were responsible for following through on assigned tasks and monitoring that others did as well. The team meetings were the primary setting in which collaboration took place. I I I I I I  2 \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Z o Vi 2 S z Pl The Collaborative Action Team meetings were primarily evaluated in four ways\n Feedback provided by team members during team meetings  Informal discussions with team members outside of the team meetings  Contacts between the SEDL project staff and CAT members  Responses on evaluation tools developed by the SEDL project staff to assess the process. Several tools developed specifically to evaluate individual meetings were the CAT Meeting Checklist and the Collaborative Action Team Meeting Evaluation Form ^1 and Collaborative Action Team Meeting Evaluation Form #2 (see Appendix C for copies of these instruments). These evaluation tools helped teams self-evaluate after each meeting regarding how the meeting progressed and how they did, or did not, use the Collaborative Action Team process. Other evaluation tools developed for the project included the CAT Self-Assessment and the Collaborative Action Team Research Exit Survey (see Appendix C for copies of these instruments). These tools, although created to collect data regarding overall CAT process implementation and sustainability, also provided information on meeting progress. A detailed description of the evaluation process for which these tools were used and the results are provided in a later section of this report. 20 557Collaborative Action Team Materials Crowson and Boyd (1996), noting the proliferation of guides to collaboration and service coordination conclude, what the handbooks and guidelines and experiential evidence to date do not adequately provide are insights into deep structure issues in cooperating institutions (p. 139). Such issues include institutional inertia, a lack of sufficient knowledge and skills, and perceived differences in power, perspective, and belief. These issues serve as barriers to collaborative work and can lead to tensions, miscommunication, and competing agendas among members of a collaborative group as well as between the group and the community it seeks to serve (Delpit, 1995\nSchorr, 1997). SEDL project staff recognized the need for team members to have written materials to guide them in their implementation of the CAT process. T In 1998, SEDL project staff developed A Guide to Building Collaborative Action Teams in Schools and Communities, detailing the CAT process to assist sites in the development of their teams. The guide included multiple small group activities mirroring the elements of the Collaborative Action Team process. Background information on each of the elements, timelines for accomplishing the activities, and audio-visual aides were also provided. This design was used to help members build their team, plan action, and generate momentum, as well as to deal with many of the barriers known to impact collaboration. Team members at the Facilitator Training in January 1999 and those at the September 1999 training were given a copy of the guide. SEDL project staff found the use of the guide was spurious\nhowever, team members acknowledged a need for guidance materials. Some of the difficulties team members described with the material included\n Terminology that was not fully understood  An academic textbook content  Too lengthy and not user friendly. Project staff sought feedback from teams to make the materials more practical and user friendly. As a result, many changes were made and a new set of resource materials was developed and provided to teams at the 2000 CAT Institute. The new materials include the Creating Collaborative Action Teams Guide (Guide), Toolkit, and Toolkit Masters. All of these materials are, or will soon be, available on CD-ROM and in Spanish. The Guide provides information specifically on how to start-up, facilitate, and coordinate the Collaborative 21 558r I hr I Action Team and explains the CAT process, core concepts, and terms used in the process. Much of the Guide is organized around the stages of the process and provides background information and a general overview of the different steps of the process. The Toolkit serves as a companion to the Guide and contains a variety of activities and additional resources that can be used at team meetings to help members progress through the stages and steps of the process as well as additional resources. The activities each include:  Preparation and room set-up instructions  Goals and key introductory points for the session  Step-by-step instructions and estimated time  Wrap-up points  Follow-up reminders. The Toolkit Masters contains forms, handouts, transparencies, worksheets, and ideas for presentations. 2 5 X \u0026gt;z c g S 2 P5 A companion to the Creating Collaborative Action Teams Guide was also developed for rural communities, and even more specifically for the Rural Development CAT sites. Entitled, Thriving Together: Connecting Rural School Improvement and Community Development, this guide provides practical information about how to connect school and community development through such strategies as service and work-based learning. The material describes characteristics and resources important to these and other joint efforts and incorporates activities of the Collaborative Action Team process that can be used to sustain them. 1 Consultation and Technical Assistance I In addition to the initial CAT training, SEDL project staff provided ongoing consultation and technical assistance to each site with an emphasis on basic and advanced skill development to enhance the teams use of the collaborative process. Project staff observed team meetings and provided feedback, particularly to team facilitators. They visited each site at least quarterly and had additional contact more frequently with team members (most often the trained CAT facilitators) via the telephone, postal mailings, electronic mail, and videoconferences. ) \u0026gt; Several sites specifically requested SEDL project staff assist them with additional training regarding shared leadership. A one to two hour booster training was provided individually to those sites. The training focused on the strengths, needs, and barriers of the particular team and included specific 12 559 activities they could accomplish to help them fulfill their needs. A few other sites received a recharge training after they lost much of their membership and momentum and feared they might cease to exist. This training included a four to eight hour saturation on the CAT process, use of CAT materials and resources, and discussions of strategies to sustain their team and move toward accomplishing goals. As initial research findings were obtained, SEDL project staff provided each team with verbal and written data reports on their progress and areas of need in relation to their implementation of the Collaborative Action Team process. These reports included an analysis of the data, specific suggestions for team building and action planning activities, and recommendations for areas upon which their team could focus in the future. Sites in Cohorts 1 and 2 received three of these reports while Cohort 3 sites received two. A detailed description of the findings is provided later in this report. r Project-Related Activities The implementation of the Collaborative Action Team process also involved additional activities to provide information to team participants, other members of school community in which the teams are located, professionals in education and other fields of practice, and to a broader audience of persons interested in school reform. The activities included:  Presentations - given by SEDL project staff as well as by CAT members about the Collaborative Action Team process to professionals, paraprofessionals, and family and community members  Videoconferences - three events sponsored by SEDL project staff on facilitator leadership skills, resources and training topics for 21 Century Community Learning Centers, and a resource guide for rural communities  Newsletters and articles - the CAT Connections Newsletter \\Nt\\\\ch was provided to CAT sites during the first several years of the project\nthe FaCilitATor News monthly update provided to CAT facilitators on upcoming CAT events and resources available: articles in newspapers, magazines, and professional journals written by and/or about the Collaborative Action Teams  Web-based networking and information - CAT project web pages on SEDLs website\na bulletin-board and listserves for CAT members and SEDL project staff to converse: regular e-mails to CAT members including the monthly FaCilitATor News updates\nand individual CAT site web pages available to the general public 23  560. liSi : -a**  Community involvement - attendance at school board meetings and local events and provision of training for educators in the communities in which a CAT site exists  Grant writing assistance - reading potential grants being submitted by CAT sites and providing guidance\nalerting CAT sites to grant opportunities. Summary I I I I 1 Members of the school community, including family, school personnel at the local and district level, community representatives, and students, showed broad support for the implementation of the Collaborative Action Team process, verbally, in documentation, and through their participation. As has been seen in the literature, part of the empowerment of collaborative group members takes place during training (Kagan, 1991). SEDL project staff provided intensive training to team members on the CAT process and team facilitation. CAT meetings were conducted in 23 sites across the Southwestern region in which home, school, community, and student partners collaborated on issues and actions to improve results for students and their families in their school communities. CAT sites were provided on-going technical assistance and other resource assistance. SEDL project staff furnished printed and electronic materials about the Collaborative Action Team project and team development process, as well as about community development and school improvement in rural areas. Additionally, other informational activities were provided to a broader audience of persons interested in bringing about school change through the involvement of the entire school community. r I 1 2 \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Z 0 oi 2 S z pi 24 561I I I I Section 5: Research Design and Methodology SEDL conducted an applied research project using descriptive and empirical approaches to assess the implementation of the Collaborative Action Team process to improve outcomes for students. Purpose I The purpose of the research was twofold: 1) to determine if collaborative partnerships between the home, school, community, and students can be sustained in the demonstration sites as a result of the implementation of the Collaborative Action Team process and 2) to assess the impact of the process on student success. Sustainability of the CAT process was defined as Collaborative Action Teams meeting and working as a team throughout the CAT project and reporting they will continue to operate in the future for at least one year. The study gathered data about each team's activities in developing and sustaining their team as well as measures of student success, including standardized assessment scores and attendance, graduation, and dropout rates. Comparisons across CAT sites were explored. I I I I I I I I  \u0026gt; I t t ) The research also assisted the Collaborative Action Team (CAT) sites in identifying effective practices, training, and resources useful in goal attainment as well as those in need of refinement. Further, the study served to build on the limited empirical knowledge base pertaining to the use of collaborative efforts within school settings and the impact of this partnering on student success. Research Questions The objective of the CAT process was to develop and sustain meaningful partnerships between diverse participants from a school community who would take action to improve results for students and families. In order to assess the achievement of this objective, the research answered the following questions\n1) Are collaborative partnerships between the school, home and community developed and sustained as a result of the implementation of the CAT process, i.e., as measured by team progress through elements of the four stages of the CAT process and use of shared leadership and facilitator skills taught in the CAT trainings? 25 I 1 562 t) 0 d 2} Did the Collaborative Action Team process have an impact on student success, i.e., goal accomplishment, changes in student outcomes including standardized assessment scores and attendance, graduation, and dropout rates? I'J C] Cl ft 11 Instruments SEDL project staff developed a Collaborative Action Team Application Form with questions on the demographics of the site (see Appendix A). The application sought information on the: 1) critical concentration area\n2) percentage of students in the school district according to ethnicity, socioeconomic status, head of household\n3) location within an Enterprise Zone or Empowerment Community\n4) school, district, and state standardized test score averages and designation as low performing by the State Education Agency: and 5) existence of special programs and school improvement and/or previous partnership/collaborative efforts in the school/district. Further, the application asked for a response to how confident the site was that a Collaborative Action Team in their community would accomplish eight team development activities and the extent to which nine cultural climate factors exist within their community. The responses to\nThis 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.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_647","title":"Program evaluations, Volume III","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2003-03-14"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School improvement programs","Educational statistics","School employees"],"dcterms_title":["Program evaluations, Volume III"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/647"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["87 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nB VOLUME III Bl received 1 4 2003 office of desegregation monitoringt. .i4 ii l.iii.i: 'U --IH' -H\n I ii i.'i ! J r 1 11 iiii Uli ii \"!: It! -:!!! ..\"Illi UI ...\"ii .....^i pii SI la 5 r fe'V  . \\ H .V ,rt' ?,?A : li* A' ,.K  1S=V * !? V 111 ill IJ-j iri ii H I'! I diii iii i lil I ' I ii I 'll' fl II I 'ilii DI ill Til II\" IN\n1 ix I I 71 J t J. * 1 i\u0026lt; PS 1 i o  I if .1  .!l i\u0026lt; P J II 'fL. E Li., P F_ - i'Ll iiiiilff E  ! o W X o w w 2 !LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 TO: Board of Education FROM: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools PREPARED BY: onnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction DATE: December 19, 2002 SUBJECT: Third Annual Evaluation of the Alternative Language Program (ALP), 2001-2002 Background The Board of Education reviewed in fall 2000 and in fall 2001 the evaluations of the Alternative Language Program (ALP) for limited-English proficient (LEP) students for 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. These were brought back to the Board for formal approval, in compliance with Judge Wilsons Compliance Remedy \" in November 2002. s Officials at the Office for Civil Rights in Dallas had high praise for the 2000-2001 program evaluation and requested our permission to share it with other districts in the five-state region. They also requested that the LRSD team be available to conduct workshops for other districts in how to develop a qualitv program evaluation. The 2001-2002 program evaluation was developed, for the most part, according to the procedural guidelines outlined in Administrative Regulations IL-R adopted by the Board of Education in October 2002. The background information required by Judge Wilson in his Compliance Remedy can be found as follows\n1. Steps that have been taken to implement the recommendations for improvement from prior program evaluationssee pp. 49-53. 2. Names of administrators involved in the program evaluationsee cover page for the names of team members\nalso see p. 19. I 1006 I J Third Annual Evaluation of the Alternative Language Program - Board Memo December 19, 2002 Page Two h IT 3. Name and qualifications of the external expert who served on the evaluation teamsee pp. 18-19. 4. Grade-level descriptions of teaphers who were involved in the assessment processsee p. 19. The ALP is not, of course, relevant to Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan since it does not address the academic achievement of African American students. It is required annually, nevertheless, as a part of the District's voluntary Commitment to Resolve with the Office for Civil Rights (signed in September 1999). An outline of the eight sections of the report follows: Section I: Introduction The first section includes the introduction, an outline of the Districts program goals and objectives, a delineation of the research questions for the study, a description of methodologies, the evaluation focus, a list of assessments used to gather academic data, and an outline of the sections in the study. It also includes demographic data for PHLOTEs, LEPs, and FEPEs, including languages spoken, enrollment by grade level, and enrollment by school. Section II\nPolicies, Procedures, and Programs to Ensure Compliance, Equity, and Effectiveness Section II includes evidence of the Districts implementation of numerous new policies, procedures, and programs to ensure compliance and quality, including cost data, all aligned with the twelve program objectives. Section III\nStudents English Language Acquisition Performance of LEP and FEPE This section includes an evaluation of the effectiveness of programs that develop students English language arts skills. Section IV: Content Area Knowledge and Skills of LEP and FEPE Students This section evaluates LEP and FEPE students progress in attaining content area knowledge and skills. 1007 1 z o z i 9 O X SThird Annual Evaluation of the Alternative Language Program - Board Memo December 19, 2002 Page Three ri Section V\nPerformance of LEP and FEPE Students in Advanced Courses This section evaluates LEP and FEPE student performance in high school Pre-Advanced Placement, Advanced Placement, and University Studies courses. Section VI: Monitoring the Progress of Fluent English Proficient Exited Students (FEPEs) This section is a cohort study of the academic achievement of students who exited the ALP in 1999-2000 with an analysis of all the available assessment data on those specific students through 2001-2002. Section VII: Behavioral Performance Indicators of LEP and PEPE Students This section evaluates LEP and FEPE students performance in relation to attendance, retention, discipline and suspension, dropout, and graduation rates. Section VIII: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations This section summarizes the key findings for each of the research questions, draws general conclusions on the academic and behavioral performance of LEP and FEPE students, and makes recommendations for program improvement in 2002-2003. s S 5- I This evaluation includes two important new sections. Section V provides data on those LEP students and students exited from the Alternative Language Program (FEPEs) enrolled in advanced high school courses (Pre-Advanced Placement, Advanced Placement, and University Studies). Section VI provides a three-year analysis of the academic progress of students who exited the Alternative Language Program in 1999-2000. In order to meet the requirements of federal, state, and local expectations, the evaluation addresses seven research questions, as follows: Program Implementation 1. Has the District implemented appropriate policies, procedures, and programs to comply with federal law, the Commitment to Resolve with OCR, the Arkansas Department of Education, and local LRSD policy? What has been the cost of implementing this program? (See Section 11.) o z oo WX I 1008 .w I Third Annual Evaluation of the Alternative Language Program - Board Memo December 19, 2002 Page Four 2. What is the evidence that LEP students have appropriate access to the range of special opportunity programs in the District, including special education, gifted/talented programs, and 504 programs? (See Section II.) 3. Has the District been successful in improving the quality of instruction through either ensuring an adequate number of ESL-endorsed teachers to serve the identified LEP students or in providing adequate training to ensure competent performance? (See Section II.) Academic Progress 4. 5. 6. 7. rs Are identified LEP students being served in the Alternative Language Program making progress in acquiring reading and English language arts skills? How does their performance compare with that of the general population and with fluent English-proficient students who have exited the program (FEPEs)? (See Section III.) Are identified LEP students being served in the Alternative Language Program making progress in learning content knowledge and skills? How does their performance compare with the general population and with fluent English-proficient students who have exited the program (FEPEs)? (See Section IV.) Are there LEP and FEPE students participating in the Pre-Advanced Placement, Advanced Placement, and University Studies courses at the secondary level? Are they being successful in those courses? (See Section V.) Are FEPE students successful in the mainstream curriculum? (See Section VI.) Behavioral Indicators 8. What are the attendance rates, retention rates, discipline/suspension rates, dropout rates, and graduation rates of identified LEP students being served in the Alternative Language Program? How does their performance compare with the general population and with fluent English-proficient students who have exited the program (FEPEs)? (See Section VII.) zO o -J o pn X z X 1009 {] Third Annual Evaluation of the Alternative Language Program - Board Memo December 19, 2002 Page Five Section I includes several sets of demographic data so that the reader can understand who the children are who are served in the ALP and which schools they attend. The final chapter. Section VIII, is a summary of all previous sections, including key findings, conclusions, and recommendations for program improvement. Intermediate chapters include descriptions of the available data that address the various research questions. Upon the Boards approval of this study, it will be forwarded to the Office for Civil Rights in Dallas for their review, and it will be submitted to Judge Wilson as a part of the District's compliance report for Section 2.7.1. Fiscal Impact None. Recommendation That the Board of Education review and formally approve the 2001-2002 evaluation of the Alternative Language Program. z BAL/adg .K oz o O X z 1010 ft r The Third Annual Program Evaluation Alternative Language Program (ALP) Little Rock School District 2001-2002 December 2002 rjL. i X Prepared by Dr. Eddie Williams-McCoy Dr. Ed Williams Karen Broadnax Ken Sa /age Anita Gilliam Dr. Bonnie Lesley Mark Vasquez, Consultant Division of Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501/447-3320 www.lrsd.orq oz 5e o Pl X If n z w I 1011 Table of Contents Section 1: Introduction and Background Background 1 Alternative Language Program (ALP) Goals and Objectives 1-2 Demographic Data 3 Background Information on the PHLOTE Students in the District 3 Top Ten Languages of PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE Students PHLOTE Students by Language Table 1\nTop Ten Languages, PHLOTE Comparison LEP Students by Language Table 2: Top Ten Languages, LEP Comparison FEPE Students by Language Table 3: Top Four Languages, FEPE Comparison 3 3-4 4 4-6 6 6-7 7 Grade Level Distribution of PHLOTE Students Table 4: Grade Level Distribution of PHLOTE Students Comparison 7-8 8 z Grade Level Distribution by LEP and FEPE Students Table 5: Grade Level Distribution by LEP and FEPE Students Comparison 8-9 9 Elementary School Enrollments by PHLOTE. LEP. and FEPE Changes in Former Newcomer Center Enrollments Magnet School Enrollments Highest PHLOTE Student Enrollments by Elementary School Lowest PHLOTE Student Enrollments by Elementary School Lowest LEP Student Enrollments by Elementary School Table 6: Elementary Schools Enrollment by PHLOTE. LEP, and FEPE Comparison 9-10 9-10 10 10 11 11 11-12 Secondary School Enrollments by PHLOTE, LEP. and FEPE Changes in Secondary Newcomer Center Enrollments Magnet School Enrollment Highest PHLOTE Student Enrollments by Secondary School Lowest PHLOTE Student Enrollments by Secondary School Lowest LEP Student Enrollments by Secondary School Table 7: Secondary Enrollment by PHLOTE, LEP. and FEPE Comparison 12 12 13 13 13 13 14 zO S8 o o Xm nz 1 1012 Highest Enrollment by LEP and FEPE Table 8: School Enrollment by LEP and FEPE Schools Identified for Improvement under No Child Left Behind\" Exiting the School Improvement Designation Table 9\nSchools Identified for Improvement Methodology Interpretation of Assessment Results Evaluation Design and Focus Assessments Research Questions Program Evaluation Outline 14-15 15 15-17 16-17 17 17-18 18 18-19 20 n 20-21 21-22 Section II: Policies, Procedures, and Programs to Ensure Compliance, Equity, and Effectiveness Policy, Procedural, and Program Changes ESL Program Administrative Handbook Program Objective 1: To implement and maintain consistent procedures for student identification processes. Program Objective 2: To assess all students who have a primary home language other than English (PHLOTE), regardless of whether they are enrolled in a Newcomer Center. Assessment Timelines Program Objective 3: To establish and administer consistently appropriate criteria for entry and placement into an ESL program. Student Assignment Program Objective 4: To diagnose student needs and provide appropriate ESL standards/benchmarks, instruction, and assessments to meet identified students individual needs for English-language instruction, for understandable instruction in other content areas, and for positive self-concept and identification with personal/family cultural heritages. Definition of the LRSD ALP Curriculum Standards and Benchmarks 23 24 n 24-25 25-26 26 26-29 27 29-35 29 30-31 ii nr K K 101Assessments ESL InstructionElementary Schools ESL InstructionMiddle Schools Middle School Newcomer Centers ESL InstructionHigh Schools High School Newcomer Center No Child Left Behind Requirements Program Objective 5: To hire, train, and continually develop highly motivated, sensitive, and caring ESL teachers and other staff to provide effective ESL instruction, interact one-to-one with the identified students and their families, and serve as liaisons between school and relevant community. Program Objective 6\nTo provide appropriately aligned instructional materials. Program Objective 7: To establish and administer consistently appropriate criteria for exit from an ESL program. Program Objective 8: To provide for parental/family involvement in the school setting to support improved student learning. Program Objective 9\nTo provide equitable access to other district programs and services, including special education and gifted/ talented education and all procedural safeguards. Special Education Special Education (LEP and FEPE) by Grade Levels Table 1: Special Education (LEP and FEPE) by Grade Level Comparison 504 LEP and FEPE Students Table 2\nLEP and FEPE Students Receiving 504 Services Gifted and Talented (LEP and FEPE) Students Gifted and Talented (LEP and FEPE) by Grade Levels Table 3: Gifted and Talented (LEP and FEPE) Comparison Program Objective 10: To monitor the progress of all identified students during program participation and after program exit and to reclassify students as needed. Students Who Exited the ALP Prior to the 2001-2002 School Year 31 31-32 32-33 33 33-34 34 34 35-37 38 38-39 39-40 40-46 40 40-41 41-42 42-43 42 43-44 44-45 45 46-48 47 III z 1014 t Table 4: All Students Exited Prior to the 2001-2002 School Year Comparison k 48 Program Objective 11: To evaluate the ESL program and make program modifications as needed. 49-53 Program Objective 12: To maintain accurate and useful student records, including procedural safeguards. 53-54 Program Costs 55 Section III: English Acquisition by LEP and FEPE Students k Developmental Reading Assessment, Grades K-2 56-57 Performance of Kindergarten LEP Students Overall Performance of Kindergarten LEP Students Table 1: Overall Performance of Kindergarten LEP Students Kindergarten LEP Students, Spring 2001 and Spring 2002 Comparison Table 2: Kindergarten LEP Students 57-59 57-58 58 58-59 59 Performance of First Grade LEP Students Overall Performance of First Grade LEP Students Table 3: Overall Performance of First Grade LEP Students First Grade LEP Students, Spring 2001 and Spring 2002 Comparison Table 4: First Grade LEP Students 59-60 59-60 60 60 60 Performance of Second Grade LEP and FEPE Students Overall Performance of Second Grade LEP Students Performance of Second Grade LEP Students Performance of Second Grade FEPE Students Table 5: Overall Performance of Second Grade LEP and FEPE Students 61-62 61 61 61 62 Second Grade LEP and FEPE Students, Spring 2001 and Spring 2002 Comparison Performance of LEP Students Performance of FEPE Students Table 6: Second Grade LEP and FEPE Students 62 62 62 63 k iv 101Achievement Level Test 63 Achievement Level Test Data Interpretation for LEP and FEPE Students 63 Performance of Second Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Reading Performance of Second Grade LEP Students Performance of Second Grade FEPE Students Table 7: Performance of Second Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Reading 64 64 64 64 Performance of Third Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Reading Performance of Third Grade LEP Students Performance of Third Grade FEPE Students Table 8: Performance of Third Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Reading 65-66 65 65 66 Performance of Fourth Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Reading Performance of Fourth Grade LEP Students Performance of Fourth Grade FEPE Students Table 9: Performance of Fourth Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Reading 66-67 66 67 67 Performance of Fifth Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Reading Performance of Fifth Grade LEP Students Performance of Fifth Grade FEPE Students Table 10: Performance of Fifth Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Reading 67-69 68 68-69 69 Performance of Sixth Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Reading Performance of Sixth Grade LEP Students Performance of Sixth Grade FEPE Students Table 11: Performance of Sixth Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Reading 69-70 69 70 70 Performance of Seventh Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Reading Performance of Seventh Grade LEP Students Performance of Seventh Grade FEPE Students fable 12: Performance of Seventh Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Reading 70-72 71 71 72 V z 1016 Performance of Eighth Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Reading Performance of Eighth Grade LEP Students 72-73 72 k Performance of Eighth Grade FEPE Students Table 13: Performance of Eighth Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Reading 72-73 73 Performance of Ninth Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Reading Performance of Ninth Grade LEP Students Performance of Ninth Grade FEPE Students Table 14: Performance of Ninth Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Reading 73-74 73 74 74 Performance of Second Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Language Performance of Second Grade LEP Students Performance of Second Grade FEPE Students Table 15: Performance of Second Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Language 74-75 75 75 75 Performance of Third Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Language Performance of Third Grade LEP Students Performance of Third Grade FEPE Students Table 16\nPerformance of Third Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Language 75-76 75-76 76 76 Performance of Fourth Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Language Performance of Fourth Grade LEP Students Performance of Fourth Grade FEPE Students Table 17\nPerformance of Fourth Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Language 76-78 77 77-78 78 Performance of Fifth Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Language Performance of Fifth Grade LEP Students Performance of Fifth Grade FEPE Students Table 18\nPerformance of Fifth Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Language 78-79 78-79 79 79 k Performance of Sixth Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Language 79-81 R vi R 101Performance of Sixth Grade LEP Students Performance of Sixth Grade FEPE Students Table 19: Performance of Sixth Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Language 80 80 81 Performance of Seventh Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Language Performance of Seventh Grade LEP Students Performance of Seventh Grade FEPE Students Table 20: Performance of Seventh Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Language 81-82 81 81-82 82 Performance of Eighth Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Language Performance of Eighth Grade LEP Students Performance of Eighth Grade FEPE Students Table 21: Performance of Eighth Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Language 82-83 82-83 83 83 Performance of Ninth Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Language Performance of Ninth Grade LEP Students Performance of Ninth Grade FEPE Students Table 22: Performance of Ninth Grade LEP and FEPE Students. ALT Language 83-85 84 84 85 Stanford Achievement Test SeriesNinth Edition (SAT9) Report by Scaled and NCE Scores 85-86 SAT9Total ReadingGrade 5 Performance of Fifth Grade LEP Students Performance of Fifth Grade FEPE Students Table 23: SAT9 Total Reading, Grade 5 86-87 86-87 87 87 SATOTotal ReadingGrade 7 Performance of Seventh Grade LEP Students Performance of Seventh Grade FEPE Students Table 24\nSAT9 Total Reading, Grade 7 88-89 88 88-89 89 SAT9Total ReadingGrade 10 Performance of Tenth Grade LEP Students Performance of Tenth Grade FEPE Students Table 25: SAT9 Total Reading, Grade 10 89-90 89-90 90 90 SAT9Total LanguageGrade 5 Performance of Fifth Grade LEP Students 90-91 90-91 vii 1018 zo OO pr X 5 X Performance of Fifth Grade FEPE Students Table 26: SAT9 Total Language, Grade 5 91 91 k k SAT9Total LanguageGrade 7 Performance of Seventh Grade LEP Students Performance of Seventh Grade FEPE Students Table 27: SAT9 Total Language, Grade 7 92-93 92 92 93 k SAT9Total LanguageGrade 10 Performance of Tenth Grade LEP Students Performance of Tenth Grade FEPE Students Table 28: SAT9 Total Language, Grade 10 93-94 93 93 94 k Arkansas Benchmark Examinations 94-95 k Performance Level Definitions 95 Primary (Grade 4) Benchmark ExaminationLiteracy Performance of LEP and FEPE Students Table 29\nPrimary (Grade 4) Benchmark ExaminationLiteracy 96 96 96 k Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark ExaminationLiteracy Performance of LEP and FEPE Students Table 30\nIntermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark ExaminationLiteracy 97 97 97 Middle Level (Grade 8) Benchmark ExaminationLiteracy Performance of LEP and FEPE Students Table 31: Middle Level (Grade 8) Benchmark ExaminationLiteracy 97-98 98 98 End-of-Level ExaminationLiteracy (Grade 11) Performance of 11 Grade LEP and FEPE Students Table 32\nEnd-of-Level ExaminationLiteracy (Grade 11) 98-99 98 99 Section IV: Content Area Knowledge and Skills of LEP and FEPE Students  Achievement Level Tests\nElementary Mathematics (Grades 2-5) 100 R viii 103 i|'i i Performance of Second Grade LEP and FEPE Students Performance of Second Grade LEP Students Performance of Second Grade FEPE Students Table 1\nPerformance of Second Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Mathematics Performance of Third Grade LEP and FEPE Students Performance of Third Grade LEP Students Performance of Third Grade FEPE Students Table 2: Performance of Third Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Mathematics Performance of Fourth Grade LEP and FEPE Students Performance of Fourth Grade LEP Students Performance of Fourth Grade FEPE Students Table 3: Performance of Fourth Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Mathematics Performance of Fifth Grade LEP and FEPE Students Performance of Fifth Grade LEP Students Performance of Fifth Grade FEPE Students Table 4: Performance of Fifth Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Mathematics Achievement Level Test: Middle School Mathematics (Grades 6-8) Performance of Sixth Grade LEP and FEPE Students Performance of Sixth Grade LEP Students Performance of Sixth Grade FEPE Students Table 5: Performance of Sixth Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Mathematics Performance of Seventh Grade LEP and FEPE Students Performance of Seventh Grade LEP Students Performance of Seventh Grade FEPE Students Table 6\nPerformance of Seventh Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Mathematics Performance of Eighth Grade LEP and FEPE Students Performance of Eighth Grade LEP Students Performance of Eighth Grade FEPE Students Table 7: Performance of Eighth Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Mathematics 100-101 100 100-101 101 101-102 101 102 102 102-104 103 103 104 104-105 104 105 105 105 105-106 105-106 106 106 107-108 107 107-108 108 108-109 108 108-109 109 IX s 1020 Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition, Mathematics 109 SATOTotal MathematicsGrade 5 Performance of Fifth Grade LEP Students Performance of Fifth Grade FEPE Students Table 8: SATO Total Mathematics, Grade 5 109-110 109-110 110 110-111 SAT9Total MathematicsGrade 7 Performance of Seventh Grade LEP Students Performance of Seventh Grade FEPE Students Table 9\nSAT9 Total Mathematics, Grade 7 111-112 111 111-112 112 SAT9Total MathematicsGrade 10 Performance of Tenth Grade LEP Students Performance of Tenth Grade FEPE Students Table 10\nSAT9 Total Mathematics, Grade 10 112-113 112-113 113 113 Primary (Grade 4) Benchmark ExaminationMathematics Performance of LEP and FEPE Students Table 11\nPrimary (Grade 4) Benchmark ExaminationMathematics 113-114 113-114 114 Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark ExaminationMathematics Performance of LEP and FEPE Students Table 12: Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark ExaminationMathematics 114-115 114-115 115 Middle Level (Grade 8) Benchmark ExaminationMathematics Performance of LEP and FEPE Students Table 13\nMiddle Level (Grade 8) Benchmark ExaminationMathematics 115-116 115 116 Arkansas End-of-Course Examinations\nAlgebra I and Geometry Performance of LEP and FEPE StudentsAlgebra I Performance of LEP and FEPE StudentsGeometry Table 14: End-of-Course Examinations (Algebra I and Geometry) 116-117 116 116 117 X - 102(i Section V: Performance of LEP and FEPE Students in Advanced Courses Pre-Advanced Placement Courses, Grades 9-12 English I Pre-AP Performance of Ninth Grade LEP Students Performance of Ninth Grade FEPE Students Table 1: Grade Distribution for LEP and FEPE Students in English I Pre-AP English I Workshop Pre-AP Table 2: Grade Distribution for LEP and FEPE Students in English I Workshop Pre-AP English II Pre-AP Table 3: Grade Distribution for LEP and FEPE Students in English II Pre-AP English III Pre-AP Performance of Eleventh Grade FEPE Student Table 4\nGrade Distribution for LEP and FEPE Students in English III Pre-AP Algebra I Pre-AP Table 5: Grade Distribution for LEP and FEPE Students in Algebra I Pre-AP Algebra II Pre-AP Table 6\nGrade Distribution for LEP and FEPE Students in Algebra II Pre-AP Geometry Pre-AP Trigonometry/Advanced Algebra Pre-AP Physics I Pre-AP Table 7: Grade Distribution for LEP and FEPE Students in Physics I Pre-AP Biology I Pre-AP Table 8: Grade Distribution for LEP and FEPE Students in Biology I Pre-AP Chemistry I Pre-AP 118-127 118-119 119 119 119 119-120 120 121 121 121-122 122 122 122-123 123 123-124 124 124 124 124-125 125 125-126 126 126 XI 1022 X I zO 5 o o w X P5 z r e*5 Civics Pre-AP Table 9: Grade Distribution for LEP and FEPE Students in Civics Pre-AP 126-127 127 H Advanced Placement Courses English IV AP Performance of LEP Student Table 10: Grade Distribution for LEP and FEPE Students in English IV AP 128-134 128 128 128 Statistics AP 128-129 Calculus BC AP 129 Physics III AP 129  Biology II AP 129 Environmental Science AP 129-130 Economics AP 130 United States History AP 130-131 World History AP 131 Spanish IV AP Table 11: Spanish IV AP 131-132 132 Spanish V AP Table 12: Spanish V AP 132-133 133  Spanish VI AP Table 13: Spanish VI AP 133-134 134 University Studies Courses (Hall High School) English IV U Physics I Pre-AP U 134-135 134 134-135 Section VI: Monitoring the Academic Progress of FEPE Students f Longitudinal Study: Monitoring FEPE Students 136 XU 104 Students Exited from the Table T. Students ALP During 1999-2000 Exited from the ALr 136-137 137 137-138 Cohort 1 Table 2\nsecond Grade FEPE Students' 138 ?fW3  A^ Scores for Second Grade (Spring 2001) and Third Grade (Spring 2002) 138 '^*'\"Table 4\nALT\nThree-Year Analysis 138-139 139 Cohort 3 Table 5\nGrade 4 Benchmark Examination 139-140 140 Cohort 4 Table 6\nGrade 4 Benchmark Examination Table 7- SAT9 Scores Table 8\nALT\nThree-Year Analysis 140-141 140 141 141 ^\\^ble9\nALT: Three-Year Analysis 141-142 142 ^^\\^ble10\nSAT9 Scores jSSn: Z?T: Three-Year Anatysts 142 143 143 '^'''rable 12: ALT\nThree-Year Analysis 143-144 144 Cohort 8 a--Analysis 8 Benchmark Examination 144 144 145 '^Tabl.lS: AET: Three-Year Analysis 145-146 146 Cohort 10 Table 16\nALT\nThree-Year Analysis 146 147 147 Summary xiii z 1024 -I V Section VII: Behavioral Performance Indicators of LEP and FEPE Students Attendance for LEP and FEPE Students for the 2001-2002 School Year LEP Attendance FEPE Attendance Table 1: Attendance for LEP and FEPE Students 148-149 148-149 149 149 I I Discipline and Suspension for LEP and FEPE Students LEP Students FEPE Students Table 2: Discipline and Suspension for LEP and FEPE Students, 2000-2001 Table 3\nDiscipline and Suspension for LEP and FEPE Students, 2001-2002 Retention of LEP and FEPE Students Table 4: Retention for LEP and FEPE Students Dropout Data for LEP and FEPE Students Graduation Rates for LEP and FEPE Students Table 5: Graduation Rates for LEP and FEPE Section VIII: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations Section I Summary: Introduction and Background Enrollment Languages Spoken Grade-Level Distribution Former Newcomer Center School Enrollments Elementary Magnet School Enrollment Elementary School Enrollments Secondary Newcomer Center School Enrollments Secondary Magnet School Enrollments Secondary School Enrollments Schools Identified for School Improvement under No Child Left Behind 150-151 150 150 150 151 151-152 152 152 152-153 153 154-156 154 154 154-155 155 155 155 155 155 155 156 XIV 102 II Section II Summary: Policies, Procedures, and Programs to Ensure Compliance, Equity, and Effectiveness Policies, Procedures, and Programs Compliance Access to Special Opportunity Programs Qualified Teachers for LEP Students 156-158 156-157 157-158 158 o r Section III Summary: English Acquisition by LEP and FEPE Students 158-169 Key Findings and ConclusionsLEPs Grades K-2 LEPs Grades K-2 ConclusionsLEPs Grade 3 LEPs Grade 4 LEPs Grade 5 LEPs Grades 3-5 ConclusionsLEPs Grade 6 LEPs Grade 7 LEPs Grade 8 LEPs Grades 6-8 Conclusions-LEPs Grade 9 LEPs Grade 10 LEPs Grade 11 LEPs Grades 9-12 Conclusions-LEPs 158 158-159 159-160 160-161 161 161 162 162 162-163 163 163-164 164 164 164 164-165 s Key Findings and ConclusionsFEPEs Grades K-2 FEPEs Grade 3 FEPEs Grade 4 FEPEs Grade 5 FEPEs Grades K-5 ConclusionsFEPEs Grade 6 FEPEs Grade 7 FEPEs Grade 8 FEPEs Grades 6-8 ConclusionsFEPEs Grade 9 FEPEs Grade 10 FEPEs Grade 11 FEPEs Grades 9-12 ConclusionsFEPEs 165 165 165 165-166 166 166 167 167 167-168 168 168 168 169 169 Section IV Summary: Content Area Knowledge and Skills of LEP and FEPE Students 169-173 o z 90 O O X z XV 1026 JKey Findings and ConclusionsLEPs Grade 2 LEPs Grade 3 LEPs Grade 4 LEPs Grade 5 LEPs Grades 2-5 ConclusionsMathematicsLEPs Grade 6 LEPs Grade 7 LEPs Grade 8 LEPs Grade 6-8 ConclusionsMathematicsLEPs Grade 10 LEPs High School LEPs High School ConclusionsMathematicsLEPs 169 169 169 169-170 170 170 170 170-171 171 171 171 171 172 Key Findings and ConclusionsFEPEs Grade 2 FEPEs Grade 3 FEPEs Grade 4 FEPEs Grade 5 FEPEs Grades 2-5 ConclusionsMathematics-FEPEs Grade 6 FEPEs Grade 7 FEPEs Grade 8 FEPEs Grades 6-8 ConclusionsMathematicsFEPEs Grade 10 FEPEs High School FEPEs High School ConclusionsMathematicsFEPEs 172 172 172 172 172 172-173 173 173 173 173 173 174 174 Section V Summary: Performance of LEP and FEPE Students in Advanced Courses 174-175 Pre-Advanced Placement Courses Advanced Placement Courses University Studies Courses Conclusions 174 174-175 175 175 Section Vl Summary: Monitoring the Academic Progress of FEPE Students 175-177 Key Findings and Conclusions by Cohort 176  Cohort 1 Cohort 2 Cohort 3 176 176 176 XVI 102'Cohort 4 Cohort 5 Cohort 6 Cohort 7 Cohort 8 Cohort 9 Cohort 10 Conclusions Section VMSumma^ Behavioral Performance Indicators of LEP and FEPE Students Key Findings and Conclusions trp\u0026amp;n^ Suspension LEP Retentions LEP Dropouts LEP Graduation Rates ConclusionsLEi^s Key Findings and Conclusion FEPE Attendance jon FEPE Discipline and t\u0026gt;u p FEPE Retentions FEPE Dropouts FEPE Graduation Rates Conclusions-FEPEs Recommendations for Program Improvement 176 176 176 177 177 177 177 177 178-181 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 179 179 179 179 179 179-181 xvii 1028 n r o \"Z. o O n XS rr z. X Third Annual Evaluation of the Little Rock School Districts Alternative Language Program, 2001-2002 Section 1\nIntroduction and Background Backqround This third annual evaluation of the Little Rock School Districts (LRSD) Alternative Language Program (ALP) builds on the information provided in the two earlier reports that were submitted to the Board of Education in August of 2000 and November 2001 and then to the Dallas office of the Office for Civil Rights (OCR). This 2001-2002 study is a part of the LRSDs continuing efforts to meet the requirements outlined in the LRSDs Commitment to Resolve (CTR) agreement with OCR of September 1999, to comply with the requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and to meet both the expectations of the Arkansas Department of Education and the LRSD Board of Education. As a follow-up to the CTR, the LRSD Board of Education adopted in November 1999 Policy IHBEA: English as a Second Language. Among its requirements was an annual program evaluation. Specific procedures were delineated in the administrative regulations (IHBEA-R) also adopted in 1999 and amended in November 2001. r K This report is also in compliance with Board Policy IL: Evaluation of Instructional Programs, adopted in March 2001, that requires program evaluations to include \"valuable insights into how programs are operating, the extent to which they are serving the intended purpose of increasing student achievement, the strengths and weaknesses, the cost effectiveness, and directions for the future. Alternative Lanquaqe Program (ALP) Goals and Objectives ALP goals and objectives were established in administrative regulations IHBEA-R in 1999 and have not been revised. The two goals are as follows: 1. To enable identified students to master English language skills (reading, writing, speaking, and comprehension/understanding) and content area concepts and skills so that the students are able to participate effectively in the regular program as quickly as possible. 2. To provide identified students with the cultural literacy necessary for them to feel comfortable in participating in the school, community, and greater community. R To reach those goals, the District also established twelve program objectives in IHBEA-R in 1999-2000. Each one addressed a policy, procedure, or program requirement mandated by federal, state, and/or local governance bodies. They are as follows: R R I 1 102 1, 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. To implement and maintain consistent procedures for student identification processes. To assess all students who have a primary home language other than English (PHLOTE), regardless of whether they are enrolled in a Newcomer Center. To establish and administer consistently appropriate criteria for entry and placement into an ESL program. To diagnose student needs and provide appropriate ESL standards/ benchmarks, instruction, and assessments to meet identified students individual needs for English-language instruction, for understandable instruction in other content areas, and for positive self-concept and identification with personal/family cultural heritages. To hire, train, and continually develop highly motivated, sensitive, and caring ESL teachers and other staff to provide effective ESL instruction, interact one-to-one with the identified students and their families, and serve as liaisons between school and relevant community. To provide appropriately aligned instructional materials. To establish and administer consistently appropriate criteria for exit from an ESL program. To provide for parental/family involvement in the school setting to support improved learning. 9. To provide equitable access to other district programs and services, including special education and gifted/talented education and all procedural safeguards. 10. To monitor the progress of all identified students during program participation and after program exit and to reclassify students as needed. 11 .To evaluate the ESL program and make program modifications as needed. 12.To maintain accurate and useful student records, including procedural safeguards. 9 z 1030 o Demographic Data Important to an understanding of this program evaluation is an understanding of who the students are whose performance is being analyzedtheir language communities, their enrollment by grade level, and their enrollment by school. The following tables display the demographic data of the umbrella group of students examined in this program evaluation, as well as the two most critical sub-groups. k PHLOTE students are the umbrella group of all students, regardless of English- language fluency, whose primary home language is other than English. (In Arkansas those students are referred to as LMS or Language Minority Students.) Demographic data include the numbers of students classified as PHLOTE, in addition to those in each of two sub-groups, limited-English proficient (LEP) and fluent-English proficientexited (FEPE), as well as the language communities which they represent. Background Information on the PHLOTE Students in the District There were 985 PHLOTE students in the District during the 2001-2002 school year. In 1999-2000 there were 805 PHLOTE students in LRSD. The 2001-2002 enrollment represents a two-year increase of 180 students (or 22 percent).  Of that number, 632 (or 64 percent) were Limited English Proficient (LEP). In 1999-2000 there were 467 LEP students. The 2001-02 enrollment represents an increase of 165 LEP students (or 35 percent) in two years.  Of that number, 94 (or 9.5 percent) were Fluent English Proficient Exited (FEPE). The 1999-2000 FEPE enrollment was 25. The 2001-2002 enrollment represents an increase of 69 FEPE students (or 276 percent) over two years. (The 1999-2000 data are found on page 11 of the Program Evaluation for English as a Second Language, 1999-2000.) Top Ten Languages of PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE Students PHLOTE Students by Language The total number of PHLOTE students in the Little Rock School District remained approximately the same from 2000-2001 to 2001-2002from 989 to 985, a decrease of four students. The 985 PHLOTE students in the Little Rock School District during 2001-2002 represented 45 different languages. Table I displays a comparison of the top ten largest non-English languages in the District for the 2000 -2001 and 2001-2002 school years among PHLOTE students. The N for each school year is the total enrollment of PHLOTE students in each language group. The %\" column is the calculation of N divided by the total PHLOTE enrollment in the District for that school year. 3  103:The next-to-last row in the table shows the number of students represented in the most common language groups and the percent of the total PHLOTE population that they represent. The last row provides the total PHLOTE enrollment for each year. n According to the table, 631 (or 64 percent) of the PHLOTE students in 2001- 2002 spoke Spanish, the largest non-English speaking group in the District. Chinese-speaking students (6.5 percent) represented the next largest group. The top ten language groups represented 88 percent of the total PHLOTE population. The Spanish-speaking population increased by 37 students from 2000-2001 to 2001-2002. The number of Chinese-speaking students decreased by nine, and the number of Urdu-speaking students increased by six, moving from sixth place to third place in the Top Ten Languages. Table 1 Top Ten Languages, PHLOTE Comparison 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 1 ( PHLOTE Student 2000-2001 School Year 2001-2002 School Year I N N % % 1. Spanish 2. Chinese I 594 60.1 3. Korean 4. Vietnamese 5. Arabic 6. Urdu 7. Telugu 8. Russian 9. Assyrian 10. Hindi Persian ' Total of Top Ten ' t otal PHLOTE Enroll 73 I Ti r 7.4 3.1 29 25 22 20 15 13 12 12 I 846 989 2.9 2.5 2.2 2.0 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.2 86% 100% 1. Spanish 1. Chinese 2. Urdu 3. Vietnamese 4. Telugu 5. Korean 6. Hindi 7. Arabic Russian 8. Persian 9. Assyrian Tagalog Total of Top Ten j 631 64 28 27 18 17 16 14 14 12 11 11 863 64.1 6.5 1 2.8 I 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.1 88% Total PHLOTE Enroll | 985 100% I I r L I I z + I I I I I I I I I I + I I 1 J LEP Students by Language The total number of LEP students in the Little Rock School District increased by 12 in 2001-2002 over the 2000-2001 school year. There were 632 LEP 4 1032 o z J8 o o X w z n Jstudents in the Little Rock School District during 2001-2002, representing 34 different languages. k Table 2 displays the most commonly spoken languages by LEP students in the Little Rock School District. The N\" for each school year is the total enrollment of LEP students in each language group. The \"% column is the calculation of N divided by the total LEP enrollment in the District forthat school year. The next-to-last row in the table shows the number of students represented in the most common language groups and the percent of the total LEP population that they represent. The last row provides the total LEP enrollment for each year. In this case the percent column is the calculation of what percentage the LEP population is of the total PHLOTE population (see Table 1). k k According to Table 2, approximately 75 percent of the LEP students spoke Spanish, the largest non-English speaking group in the District. Chinesespeaking students (4 percent) represented the next largest LEP group. Twelve (or 1.9 percent) of the LEP population spoke Urdu. The top ten language groups of LEP students represented approximately 95 percent of the total LEP population.  The number of LEP students in the District increased by 12.  The number of Spanish-speaking LEP students increased by 30  The number of Chinese-speaking LEP students declined by eight.  The number of Urdu speaking LEP students increased by four. k  The LEP enrollment has constituted about 64 percent of the PHLOTE enrollment over the past two years.  Approximately 95 percent of all LEP students in the LRSD speak 16 languages. 5 R 1032000-2001 School Year LEP Students r I! Table 2 Top Ten Languages, LEP Comparison 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 N _______i 2001-2002 School Year j % I LEP Students N i % 1. Spanish 2. Chinese 3. Arabic Korean 4. Telugu 5. Assyrian Urdu 6. Vietnamese 7. Persian 8. Igbo 9. Russian 10. Greek Gujarati Hindi Laotian Swahili Total of Top Ten LEP Total LEP Enrollment i 441 I i - I 36 17 17 13 8 8 7 6 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 582 620 71.1 5.8 2.7 2.7 2.1 1.3 1.3 I i 0.8 j 0?6 0.6 0.6 0.6 I 0.6 i ! 0-6 1 1. Spanish 2. Chinese 3. Urdu 4. Korean Telugu 5. Vietnamese 6. Hindi Russian 7. Arabic Persian 8. Assyrian Igbo 9. Japanese 10. Gujarati Laotian Swahili 471  I 74.5 4.4 I iI 12 , 1.9 I 10 I 1.6 I 10 ! 1.6 I 9 1.4 8 j 1.3 i 8 i 1.3 i 1 I 1.1 ! ! 7 i 1.1 6 i 0.9 ! 6 i 5 I I 4 4 4 94% j Total of Top Ten LEP 599 I 63% Ii Total LEP Enrollment , 632 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.7 95% 64% FEPE Students by Language There were 94 FEPE students in the Little Rock School District during 2001-2002 school year, representing 17 different languages. Sixty-two (or 66 percent) of the FEPE student population spoke Spanish, the largest non-English speaking group in the District. Chinese-speaking students (11.7 percent) represented the next largest FEPE group.  The number of FEPE students increased by 47.  The number of Spanish-speaking FEPE students increased by 48. 6 rj z 1034  The number of Chinese-speaking FEPE students increased by eight.  FEPEs made up 10 percent of the PHLOTE population in 2001-2002.  Approximately 90 percent of the FEPE students came from seven language communities. Table 3 Top Four Languages, FEPE Comparison 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 2000-2001 School Year 2001-2002 School Year FEPE Students FEPE Students 1. Spanish 2. Chinese 3. Slovak Portuguese Pakistani Arabic Mandarin 14 29.7 6.4 2.1 2.1 2.1 i 2-1 ! 1 2.1 1. Spanish 2. Chinese 3. Arabic Indonesian 4. Assyrian Portuguese Telugu % j 66.0 i i 3.2 j 31 2.1 2.4 2.4 N 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 % N i j I  I 11-7 ! 3 I 3 2 2 2 I Laotian 2.1 FEPE Top Four Total FEPEs 23 49% FEPE Top Four 85 90% I 47 J__ 5% Total FEPEs 94 10% Grade Level Distribution of PHLOTE Students Table 4 provides the PHLOTE enrollment by grade level and the percentage of the total PHLOTE enrollment by grade level.  Second-grade and kindergarten had the highest enrollment of PHLOTE students during the 2001-2002 school year, with percentages of 11.1 and 10.2, respectively.  The most one-year growth was in grade 2 (+21) and grade 5 (+21).  The eleventh and twelfth grade had the lowest enrollment of PHLOTE students with percentages of 2.9 and 3.0, respectively.  Overall, the PHLOTE enrollment for the 2001-2002 school year was less than the PHLOTE enrollment for the 2000-2001 school year by four students. 7 103 Table 4 Grade Level Distribution of PHLOTE Students Comparison 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 j Grade Ppk j Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 j Grade 3 i Grade 4 ' Grade 5 i Grade 6 ! Grade 7 ! Grade 8 ' Grade 9 ! Grade 10 I Grade 11 I Grade 12 Total PHLOTE 2000-2001 2001-2002 DIF N 47 4.8 [ 38 3.9 -9 106 100 88 96 85 68 66 59 66 72 49 39 48 989 10.7 10.1 8.8 9.7 8.6 6.9 6.7 6.0 6.7 7.3 5.0 3.9 4.9 100% 100 10.2 -6 98 9.9 -2 j 109 j 11.1 I +21 ! 89 85 89 67 63 61 68 1 59 i 30 9.0 8.6 I 9.0 I 6.4 6.2 6.9 6.0 2.9 3.0 -7 i +21 +1 ! +4 -5 [ +10 j j -10 1 985 j 100% i -4 i 1 I I I L I I I I I N I tI I i I i T % N I I I I % I i I I I I I i I 0 I 1 I I I I I I ! I X I Grade Level Distribution by LEP and FEPE Students According to Table 5, the primary grade levels, kindergarten through the third grade, had the highest enrollment of LEP students, with kindergarten having the highest enrollment (15.5 percent) in 2001-2002. The eleventh and twelfth grades had the lowest enrollment of LEP students with percentages of 1.7 and 1.9, respectively. The fourth and fifth grades had the highest enrollment of FEPE students, both with percentages of 14.9. 8 1036 oz so s -i ow X zn nr Table 5 Grade Level Distribution by LEP and FEPE Students Comparison 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 School Years LEP 2000-2001 ! FEPE 2001-2002 2000-2001 I 2001-2002 N % N % N % N % Grades I' 3 Year-Old 0.02 0 0 1 0 0 i 0 I 0 i 1 PK 44 7.1 38 6.0 Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 I Total I______ 94 78 62 66 49 45 29 21 37 39 25 14 17 620 15.2 12.6 10.0 10.6 7.9 7.3 4.7 3.4 6.0 6.3 4.0 2.3 2.7 100% 98 92 86 59 53 46 33 24 20 36 23 11 12 632 15.5 14.6 13.6 9.3 8.4 7.3 5.2 3.8 3.2 5.7 3.6 1.7 1.9 100% 8.3 16.7 16.7 4.2 I 10.4 6.3 10.4 10.4 4.2 6.3 6.3 14 14 10 11 11 NA I NA NA 2.1 8.5 I 14.9 14.9 5.3 9.6 10.6 11.7 11.7 7.4 3.2 47 i 100% j 94 I 100% 0 0 0 4 8 8 2 5 3 5 5 0 0 0 j 0 i 0 2 8 I I J I 2 3 2 I 1 5 9 k I I 7 3 Elementary School Enrollments by PHLOTE. LEP, and FEPE Table 6 provides the enrollment (and percentages of the total) for PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE students, by school, at the elementary level. Changes in Former Newcomer Center Enrollments In fall 2000 the District began to phase out the formerly designated elementary Newcomer Centers. The impact on enrollment in those five schools is as follows:  Bradys PHLOTE enrollment was down 6 in 2001-2002, the LEPs were down 9, and the FEPEs increased by 2.  Chicots PHLOTE enrollment was down 32 in 2001-2002, the LEPs down by 33, and the FEPEs increased by 7. 9\n-103i(I  Romines PHLOTE enrollment was down by 10 and the LEPs down by 6. Romine had no FEPE students in 2000-2001 or 2001-2002.  Terrys PHLOTE enrollment was down by 13, the LEPs down by 8, and the FEPEs up by 2.  Washingtons PHLOTE enrollment was down by 12, the LEPs down by 2, and the FEPEs up by 3. All five of the former Newcomer Centers lost some PHLOTE and LEP enrollment, Chicot the most. In general, the FEPE enrollment was up. Magnet School Enrollment The District has encouraged LEP students to exercise their option to attend one of the four stipulation elementary magnet schools in LRSD. Three of the four schools increased their enrollment during 2001-2002\n Bookers PHLOTE enrollment was up 5 and the LEPs were up 5. There are no FEPEs at this school.  Carvers PHLOTE enrollment was down 5, and the LEP enrollment was down 1. There are no FEPEs at this school.  Gibbss PHLOTE enrollment was up 3, the LEPs up 1. and the FEPEs were up 2.  Williams PHLOTE enrollment was up 7, LEPs up 5, and FEPEs up 2. Highest PHLOTE Student Enrollments by Elementary School Elementary schools with the highest enrollment of PHLOTE students are follows\nas Elementary Schools  Chicot Elementary  Washington Elementary  Wakefield Elementary  Terry Elementary  Cloverdale Elementary  McDermott Elementary  Romine Elementary  Williams Elementary 83 63 55 54 43 42 36 25 10 1038 i z zo 5O8 O Xn r z Lowest PHLOTE Student Enrollments by Elementary School The following elementary schools had no PHLOTEs in 2001-2002: Badgett, Fair Park, Mitchell, Rightsell, and Woodruff. Badgett was closed at the end of the 2001-2002 school year. 3 Lowest LEP Student Enrollments by Elementary School Six elementary schools had no LEP students in 2001-2002: Badgett, Fair Park, Jefferson, Mitchell, Rightsell, and Woodruff. Table 6 Elementary Schools Enrollment by PHLOTE, LEP and FEPE Comparison for the 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 School Years Schools Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot I Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson King (M) Mabelvale McDermott j Meadowcliff ! Mitchell 2000-2001 School Year PHLOTE N I % I 0 I NA N 0 LEP % NA FEPE 2001-2002 School Year PHLOTE 12 5 4 I 14 1.2 0.5 10 4 I .0.4 j 0 1.4 14 1.6 0.6 NA 2.3 I 21 j 2.1 I I 13 2.1 115 11.6 19 1 1. 4 8 I 100 16.1 1.9 j 14 j 2.3 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.8 I I 1-1 5 4 2 21 1 41 7 i 0 0.5 0.2 2?T i 0-1 5 3 3 0.8 0.5 0.5 3 0.5 8 N 0 2 0 % NA 4.2 NA 0 i NA 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 I I NA NA 4.2 NA NA N 0 16 6 9 8 16 83 43 14 % NA 1.6 0.6 I 0.9 0.8 1.6 I 8.3 4.4 1.4 ) NA 0 i NA NA NA 1.3 I 1 i 2.1 I I ' 8 5 13 I I I 0.5 pry] 3 I 0.5 i 2\n4.2 I 13  1.3 | 3 1 10 T 4.1 i 27 ' I 0.5 t 0 : NA I 7 LEP N I % 0 15 6 NA 2.4 0.9 5 I 0.8 I 5 12 67 39 12 0 7 3 11 11 : 0.7 I 4 0.2 ! 0 i NA I 2 : 0.2 I 0 I 1.6 I 0 , NA 1 19 i 1.9 j 13 NA T 0.8 1.9 10.6 6.2 1.9 NA 1.1 0.5 1.7 I 1-7 j 0.6 i NA FEPE I N 0 1 I % NA 1.1 0 j NA 0 2 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 I 2.1 I 1 i 0 , NA I 7 j 0.7 I 5 i 0.8 4.4 I 0\nNA i 42 4.3 ! 31 i 4.9 0.7 I 7 j 1.1 ' 0 i NA i 6 I 0.6 I 5 j NA 0 ! NA I 0 I NA I 0 , NA . ! I J 1 I 4 NA 2.1 NA 9.6 NA NA NA NA NA NA 2.1 2.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 4?3 0.8 0 NA  0 ! NA 0 11 103?I i 2000-2001 School Year 2001-2002 School Year n ( I I Schools PHLOTE i LEP I FEPE PHLOTE LEP FEPE f otter Creek Pulaski H. Rightsell I 6 i % i 0.6 3 % I N 1^ 0.5 0 N I I NA I 10 I % 1,0 I N7 % , 1.1 N % 0 NA I 12 I 1.2 0 NA Rockefeller | 5 0.5 Romine 46 4.6 5 0 2 40 i 0.8 NA 0.3 2 4.2 0 0 NA NA 12 1.2 1 7 I 1-1 i 3 3.2 0 5 NA I I 0 3 j NA i 0 I 0.5 ! NA I 1 M.1 Stephens | Terry i Wakefield 1 7 jO.7 6 ! 6-5 I 1 1.0 ' 0 0 NA NA I j 67 I 6.8 I 46 I Washington j 75 j 7.6 | i Watson I I 7 51 I 8.2 j 4,6 ) 44 I 6.6 46 7.4 1 I 2.1 3 j 6.3 1 2.1 I 0.7 5 0.8 0 I NA 36 i Z.l I 34 , 5.4 I 0 , NA 11 1.1 I 8 i 1.3 0 i NA\nj Western H. i Williams ' Wilson : Woodruff Totals I 1 0 18 8 0 ! NA 0 i NA ! ^-8 ! 1 1 0.8 t NA 601 I1 61 1 0 4 0 0.3 0.6 I 3 54 I 5.5 j 55 1 5.6 63 10 6.4 43 i 6.8 I 3 i 3.2 i 51 44 i s-i I 3 i 3-2 i I 7.0 j 4 I 4.3 NA I 61' 0 NA I NA I 0 436 I 70 17 5 25 8 NA 35 I 0 611 1.0 0.5 i 10 4 2.5 i 1 0.8 NA 1.6 i 0 I NA i 0.6 i J 0 i NA i 1.1 i 5 ] 5.3 , 4 0 0.6 j 0 j NA z j NA j 0 I NA 62% i 474 ! 75 39 I 42 Enrollment: June 2001: PHLOTE Enrollment (990)\nLEP Enrollment (620)\nFEPE Enrollment (48)\nJune 2002: PHLOTE Enrollment (985)\nLEP Enrollment (632)\nFEPE Enrollment (94) Secondary School Enrollments by PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE Table 7 proyides the enrollment (and percentages of the total) for PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE students by school at the secondary leyel. Changes in Secondary Newcomer Center Enrollments  Cloverdale Middle Schools PHLOTE enrollment went down one student, the number of LEPs remained the same, and the FEPEs increased by four.  Dunbar Middle Schools PHLOTE enrollment increased by one, the LEPs were down by 12, and the FEPEs increased by eight.  Hall High Schools PHLOTE enrollment went down by 15, the LEP enrollment was down by 23, and the FEPEs increased by 11. zo oo X 12 z c\u0026gt; 1040 J Magnet School Enrollment The District has encouraged LEP students to exercise their option to attend one of the two stipulation magnet schools at the secondary level (Mann Middle and Parkview High) or one of the magnet programs in other schools. k  Manns PHLOTE enrollment is down by one, the LEPs are up by one, and the FEPE enrollment stayed the same.  Parkviews PHLOTE enrollment is up by five, the LEPs up by three, and the FEPEs up by two. Highest PHLOTE Student Enrollments by Secondary School Middle and high schools with the highest enrollment of PHLOTE students are as follows: Secondary Schools  Hall High  Cloverdale Middle  Dunbar Middle  Central High  Parkview High  Henderson Middle  Mann Middle 93 56 52 36 31 25 21 M Lowest PHLOTE Student Enrollments by Secondary School Every secondary school had PHLOTE enrollments in 2001-2002. The two lowest were Southwest Middle School (6) and Pulaski Heights Middle School (8).  Lowest LEP Student Enrollments by Secondary School Forest Heights Middle School and Southwest Middle School each had only one LEP student in 2001-2002.  13 104,! Table 7 Secondary (Middle and High School) Enrollment by PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE Comparison for the 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 School Years 2000-2001 School Year 2001-2002 School Year Schools______ Middle Schools Cloverdale PHLOTE LEP FEPE PHLOTE LEP FEPE Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest Totals Schools High Schools Central J.A Fair Hall McClellan Parkview Totals N 57 51 14 26 8 22 9 3 191 % 5.8 5.2 14 2.6 0.8 2.2 0.9 0.3 19.4 N 44 27 3 9 2 1 3 0 89 % 7.1 4.4 0.5 1.5 0.3 0.2 0.5 NA 14.4 N2 2 3 3 0 1 0 1 12 2000-2001 School Year PHLOTE N % N LEP % N 36 12 108 15 26 197 3.6 1.2 10.9 1.5 2.6 19.9 2 3 84 4 2 95 0.3 0.5 13.5 0.6 0.3 15.3 0 0 % 4.3 4.3 6.4 6.4 NA 2.1 NA 2.1 25.5 FEPE % NA NA 12 0 1 13 25.5 NA 2.1 27.7 N 56 52 12 25 10 21 8 6 190 % 5.7 5.3 1.2 2.5 1.0 2.1 0.8 0.6 19.3 N 44 15 1 10 2 2 2 1 77 % 7.0 2.4 0.2 1.6 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 12.2 N6 10 2 2 1 1 0 2 24 2001-2002 School Year PHLOTE N % N LEP % 36 12 93 12 31 184 3.7 1.2 9.4 1.2 3.1 18.7 7 2 61 5 5 81 1.1 0.3 9.7 0.8 0.8 12.8 Enrollment: June 2001: PHLOTE Enrollment (990): LEP Enrollment (620)\nFEPE Enrollment (48)\nJune 2002: PHLOTE Enrollment (985)\nLEP Enrollment (632)\nFEPE Enrollment (94) % 6.4 10.6 2.1 2.1 1.1 1.1 NA 2.1 25.5 FEPE N 0 3 23 2 3 31 Highest Enrollment by LEP and FEPE According to Table 8, of the 632 LEP-identified students in the District, Chicot Elementary School and Hall High School had the highest enrollment of LEP students, with percentages of 11 and 10, respectively. Hall is a Newcomer Center school and Chicot is a former Newcomer Center school. 14 % NA 3.2 24.5 2.1 3.2 33.0 z 1042 o Of the 94 FEPE students in the District, Hall High School and Dunbar Magnet School had the highest enrollment of FEPE students, with percentages of 24.5 and 10.6, respectively. Hall High and Dunbar Magnet are both Newcomer Center Schools. Chicot, a former Newcomer Center school, had the next highest enrollment of FEPE students (9.6 percent).  Four hundred forty-four (or 70 percent) of the LEP students were distributed among eleven schools, and 73 (or 78 percent) of the FEPE students were distributed among eleven schools. Table 8 School Enrollment by LEP and FEPE, 2001-2002 Schools Chicot ES Hall HS Wakefield ES Cloverdale MS Washington ES Terry ES Cloverdale ES Romine ES McDermott ES Dunbar MS Bale ES Total11 schs. Total LEP FEPE 67 61 51 44 44 43 39 34 31 15 15 444 632 10.6 10.0 8.1 7.0 7.0 6.8 6.2 5.4 4.9 2.4 2.4 70% 100% Hall HS Dunbar MS Chicot ES Cloverdale MS Williams ES McDermott ES Washington ES J.A. Fair HS Pulaski Heights ES Terry ES Parkview HS Total11 schs. Total 23 10 73 94 24.5 10.6 9.6 6.4 5.3 4.3 4.3 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 78% 100% N % N 9 6 5 4 4 3 3 3 3 % Schools Identified for Improvement under No Child Left Behind\" The Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) identified ten LRSD schools for School Improvement in 2002-2003. The list of schools and their PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE enrollment follow in Table 9. This information is important to the ALP evaluation since two of the ten schools (Chicot Elementary and Wakefield Elementary) have substantial numbers of PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE students in their school population.  15 104Identification of Arkansas schools in compliance with No Child Left Behind was based on SAT9 scores for 1998-1999,1999-2000, 2000-2001, and 2001-2002. Schools with fewer than 25 percent of their students performing at/above the 50' .th n r percentile were, first, designated as High Priority schools. Using 1998-1999 as the baseline year, then, the state made decisions for identification. In order to avoid being identified for School Improvement, the High Priority schools had to demonstrate growth on the Basic Battery in the percent at/above the 50*' percentile. The also had.to demonstrate improvement in moving students out of the bottom quartile. Ironically, the Arkansas Department of Education had told districts since 1999 in the accountability plan-Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Program (ACTAAP)that the SAT9 was no longer important. Rather, the only tests mentioned were the state Benchmark examinations at grades 4, 6, and 8 and the end-of-course/level examinations at high school. LRSD relied upon that document in providing guidance to its principals and teachers and had been emphasizing improved performance on the Benchmarks since 1999, not the SAT9. Identification based on the SAT9 scores surprised everyone. The impact of these decisions on PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE students in the ten identified schools is as follows: X  Of the 985 PHLOTE students in LRSD in 2001-2002, 198 students (or 20 percent) were enrolled the identified schools.  Of the 632 LEP students in 2001-2002,165 (or 26 percent) were enrolled in the identified schools.  Of the 94 FEPE students in 2001-2002,16 (or 17 percent) were enrolled in the identified schools.  Eight percent of the Districts PHLOTE students, 11 percent of the LEP students, and 10 percent of the FEPE students attend Chicot Elementary.  Six percent of the Districts PHLOTE students, eight percent of the LEP students, and three percent of the FEPE students attend Wakefield Elementary. Exiting the School Improvement Desiqnation ADE has determined that the identified schools can exit the designation based upon performance on the Benchmark examinations (not the SAT9), using 2000- 2001 as the baseline year. Five of the ten schools (Bale, Chicot, Dodd, Mitchell, and Stephens) made substantial improvements in both mathematics and literacy in 2001-2002 over their 2000-2001 performances, and if they continue to improve 16 1044 o z \u0026gt; o O 71 X z r Jin 2002-2003, they will exit the School Improvement designation when 2002- 2003 Benchmark scores arrive in the state. Another three schools made substantial improvements in mathematics in 2001- 2002 in comparison to their 2000-2001 performances. Those schools were Baseline, Fair Park, and Wakefield. These schools, then, may be able to exit the designation in 2003-2004. Table 9 Schools Identified for Improvement (NCLB) 2001-2002 Schools PHLOTEs LEPs FEPEs Bale ES 16 15 N % 2 N % 2 N 1 % 1 Baseline ES 0 0 1 6 1 6 Chicot ES Dodd ES 83 14 67 12 11 10 8 1 2 9 0 0 Fair Park ES 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mabelvale ES 1 1 1 5 1 7 Mitchell ES 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 Stephens ES Wakefield ES 11 55 51 6 1 0 0 8 3 3 Southwest MS \u0026lt;1 6 1 1 2 2 Total Total District 198 985 20% 100% 165 632 26% 100% 16 94 17% 100% Methodology A team composed of staff from the Division of Instruction, from the department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, and from the department of Computer Information Services was selected early in the year to work with a designated external consultant in the design, research, writing, and production of the evaluation of the Alternative Language Program for 2001-2002. Mr. Mark Vasquez, an expert on the requirements for compliance with OCR relating to LEP issues, including program evaluation, served as the team consultant and attended every team meeting. Other team members included Karen Broadnax, the ESL Supervisor, Dr. 17 I - 10Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction\nKen Savage, programmer and data retriever from Computer Information Systems\nDr. Ed Williams, statistician and research specialist\nand Dr. Eddie McCoy, lead writer for the study. This team met initially to review the 2000-2001 study, to discuss changes made or to be made in the 2001-2002 program, to establish the research questions, and to ensure the collection or availability of appropriate data upon which to base findings and conclusions. During all stages of the process, this team relied on findings from best practices in the development and effective implementation of ALPs and effective techniques for monitoring and assessing the performance of LEP students. The evaluation team met monthly to determine the status of the work, to review assignments, and to assign next steps. As the work progressed and drafts were available for review, those were discussed in detail, and all members of the team participated in checking data for accuracy and in proofreading the text. The original plan was to have the study completed for final review no later than September 1 so that final editing and proofing could be done and copies made in time for the October agenda of the Board of Education. The LRSD did not, however, receive the hard copies of the states Benchmark examinations until late September, and the states electronic database was not availabl until mid-October. The final draft was not submitted for review and editing, therefore, until late October 2002. Other participants in this evaluation include all the principals, LPAC members, testing coordinators, and other staff in schools with PHLOTE, LEP, and/or FEPE enrollment. All K-12 teachers of these students also participated, not only in providing instruction, but in assisting with the administration of assessments. This third-year study differs from the two previous ones in that data are compared, to the extent possible, over three years to measure the growth of specific students those exiting the ALP in 1999-2000, rather than just comparing the mean performance of LEP and FEPE students with that of the general population. These cohort studies are useful to staff in determining program effectiveness over time. Interpretation of Assessment Results LRSD now has sufficient numbers of PHLOTE and LEP students at any one grade level for the assessment results to be statistically valid. There are, however, small numbers of FEPEs at any one grade level, and these results, grade level by grade level, should not be generalizedexcept that the study will show that the FEPE students at almost every grade level out-perform the general population. This preponderance of evidence, therefore, may be generalized. Evaluation Design and Focus The general population for this report will consist of all students in the LRSD, including the PHLOTE (Primary Home Language Other Than English) students who took the various assessments. PHLOTE students include the following sub-o \u0026gt; 30 O O X 18 1046 populations: LEP, FEP, FEPE, NALMS, REFUSE, LEPREC, and LEPREF that are designated in the Districts database and in this report by the following acronyms.  LEP (Limited-English Proficient): Students administered the Language Assessment Scale (LAS) upon admission to the LRSD and determined not to be proficient in reading, writing, listening comprehension, and/or speaking English.  NALMS (Not Assessed Language Minority Students): PHLOTE students whose English language proficiency has not been assessed.  FEP (Fluent-English Proficient): PHLOTE students administered the LAS upon admission to the LRSD and determined to be proficient in reading, writing, listening comprehension, and speaking English.  FEPE (Fluent-English Proficient and Exited from the program): PHLOTE students initially identified as LEP\nreceived LRSD ESL program services\nand then exited the program after the LAS indicated a proficiency in reading, writing, listening comprehension, and speaking English.  REFUSE (Parent Refused Initial Assessment): PHLOTE students whose parents refused permission to assess the student's English proficiency.  LEPREC (Limited English Proficient Reclassified): FEPE students whose performance after exiting the ESL program required that the student again be identified as LEP.  LEPREF (Limited English Proficient Refused Services): PHLOTE students who were identified through language assessment to be LEP\nhowever, the parents refused permission to place the student in the ESL program. Although the evaluation includes data for PHLOTE students as a group, the primary focus of the evaluation is the performance (academic and behavioral) of LEP and FEPE students. LEP students are the students receiving Alternative Language Program (ALP) services, and FEPE students are former LEP students who have been exited from the ALP and are no longer receiving direct services. The academic performance of FEPE students must be monitored for two years after exiting the ALP in case reclassification is necessary. Reclassification is the process by which a FEPE student re-enters the ALP because he/she was not successful in the regular school program and is, thus, reclassified as LEP.  19 104Assessments The descriptions of academic performance in the English language arts are based upon student performance on the following national, state, and local assessments:  Developmental Reading Assessment (grades K-2)\n LRSD Achievement Level Tests: Reading and Language Usage (grades 2 through 9).  Stanford Achievement Test Series - Ninth Edition (grades 5, 7, and 10), Total Reading and Total Language  Arkansas Benchmark Literacy Examinations (grades 4, 6, and 8)  Arkansas End-of-Level Literacy Examination (grade 11) The descriptions of academic performance in specific content knowledge and skills are based upon student performance on the following assessments:  Achievement Level Tests: Elementary Mathematics (grades 2-5) and Middle School Mathematics (Grades 6-8)  Stanford Achievement Test SeriesNinth Edition (grades 5, 7, and 10) Total Mathematics  Arkansas Benchmark Mathematics Examinations (grades 4, 6, and 8) z  Arkansas End-of-Course Examinations in Algebra I and Geometry ^^g^2rch Questions To address the requirements of federal, state, and local governance, the following research questions were established to guide the evaluation of the effectiveness o the Districts Alternative Language Program. I Program Implementation 1. Has the District implemented appropriate policies, procedures, an programs to comply with federal law, the Commitment to Resolve with ^iv^iaiiio iw kzMiiipij wiui ivuviui \u0026gt;    r O OCR, the Arkansas Department of Education, and local What has been the cost of implementing this program? (See Sec ion and see Program Objectives 1-4, 6-8,11-12.) 2. What is the evidence that LEP students have appropriate access to the range of special opportunity programs in the District, including special oz \u0026gt; 9O0 o X wz o 20 1048 education, gifted/talented programs, and 504 programs? (See Section II and see Program Objective 9.) 3. Has the District been successful in improving the quality of instruction through either ensuring an adequate number of ESL-endorsed teachers to serve the identified LEP students or in providing adequate training to ensure competent performance? (See Section II and see Program Objective 5.) Academic Progress 4. 5. 6. Are identified LEP students being served in the Alternative Language Program making progress in acquiring reading and English language arts skills? How does their performance compare with that of the general population and with fluent English-proficient students who have exited the program (FEPEs)? (See Section III and see Goals 1-2.) Are identified LEP students being served in the Alternative Language Program making progress in learning content knowledge and skills? How does their performance compare with the general population and with fluent English-proficient students who have exited the program (FEPEs)? (See Section IV and see Goals 1-2.) R Are there LEP and FEPE students participating in the Pre-Advanced Placement, Advanced Placement, and University Studies courses at the secondary level? Are they being successful in those courses? (See Section V and see Program Objective 9.) 7. Are FEPE students successful in the mainstream curriculum? (See Section VI and see Program Objective 10.) Behavioral Indicators 8. What are the attendance rates, retention rates, discipline/suspension rates, dropout rates, and graduation rates of identified LEP students being served in the Alternative Language Program? How does their performance compare with the general population and with fluent English- proficient students who have exited the program (FEPEs)? (See Section VII and see Goal 1.)  Program Evaluation Outline This document is divided into eight sections. Each of sections ll-VII addresses specific research questions.   21 104SSection 1: Introduction The first section includes the introduction, an outline of the District's program goals and objectives, a delineation of the research questions for the study, a description of methodologies, the evaluation focus, a list of assessments used to gather academic data, and an outline of the sections in the study. It also includes demographic data for PHLOTEs, LEPs, and FEPEs, including languages spoken, enrollment by grade level, and enrollment by school. Section II: Policies, Procedures, and Programs to Ensure Compliance, Equity, and Effectiveness Section II includes evidence of the Districts implementation of numerous new policies, procedures, and programs to ensure compliance and quality, including cost data, all aligned with the twelve program objectives. Section III: English Language Acquisition Performance of LEP and FEPE Students This section includes an evaluation of the effectiveness of programs that develop students English language arts skills. Section IV: Content Area Knowledge and Skills of LEP and FEPE Students This section evaluates LEP and FEPE students progress in attaining content area knowledge and skills. Section V: Performance of LEP and FEPE Students in Advanced Courses This section evaluates LEP and FEPE student performance in high school Pre-Advanced Placement, Advanced Placement, and University Studies courses. Section VI: Monitoring the Progress of Fluent English Proficient Exited Students (FEPEs) This section is a cohort study of the academic achievement of students who exited the ALP in 1999-2000 with an analysis of all the available assessment data on those specific students through 2001-2002. Section VII: Behavioral Performance Indicators of LEP and FEPE Students This section evaluates LEP and FEPE students performance in relation to attendance, retention, discipline and suspension, dropout, and graduation rates. Section VIII: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations X This section summarizes the key findings for each of the research questions, draws general conclusions on the academic and behavioral performance of LEP and FEPE students, and makes recommendations for program improvement in 2002-2003. 22 1050 Section II: Policies, Procedures, and Programs to Ensure Compliance, Equity, and Effectiveness Section II describes the Districts educational program for limited-English proficient students, including the policies, procedures, and programs that have been implemented to ensure compliance, equity, and effectiveness. The research questions answered in this section are as follows: 1. Has the District implemented appropriate policies, procedures, and programs to comply with federal law, the Commitment to Resolve with the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), and local LRSD policy? What has been the cost of implementing this program? 2. What is the evidence that LEP students have appropriate access to the range of special opportunity programs in the District, including special education, gifted/talented programs, and 504 programs? 3. Has the District been successful in improving the quality of instruction through either ensuring an adequate number of ESL- endorsed teachers to serve the identified LEP students or in providing adequate training to ensure competent performance? k k k k Policy, Procedural, and Program Changes To illustrate the changes that have been implemented during the past three years under the Commitment to Resolve, the ESL Supervisor constructed and has maintained a matrix. The matrix (see relevant components under the discussion of each program objective in this section) includes a list of program features that correspond with the established program objectives and the status of each in 1998- 99, the year of the Compliance Review site visit by the Office of Civil Rights. Subsequent columns for 1999-2001, and 2001-2002 detail the changes in policies, procedures and programs that have been necessary to ensure compliance, equity, and effectiveness in the Little Rock School Districts Alternative Language Program. Matrix components have been broken out to illustrate the progress made toward achievement of each of the twelve program objectives. The first two rows pertain to the adoption of appropriate policies and administrative regulations (procedures), as well as the publication of a procedural handbook for principals and other school-level staff (developed in 2001-2002, but not disseminated until fall 2002). All staff have been provided the policy and regulations annually. The policy, administrative regulations, the administrative directive, and the administrative handbook have all been developed since fall 1999.  23 k 10ESL Program Administrative Handbook The Districts first Administrative Handbook for the ALP was drafted in 2001-2002 and then published and disseminated in fall 2002. Its contents include the following: I. II. Introduction (with copies of Policy IHBEA, Administrative Regulations IHBEA-R, and Administrative Directive IHBEA-AD) ESL Curriculum and Instruction tel III. ESL Procedures and Practices IV. Language Proficiency Assessment Committee V. Professional Development VI. Division of Exceptional Children (with sections on Special Education, 504, and Gifted/Talented Education) VII. Appendix (Glossary of Terms, ESL Parent Coordinator, and Translators and Telephone Numbers) VIII. Forms/Letters s IX. Language Minority Student Reports (Instructions for Generating Reports\nLanguage Codes\nand LAS Scoring, Administration and Interpretation) X. Office for Civil Rights (Commitment to Resolve) Program Feature Policies and Regulations Procedural Handbook 1998-99 None None\noccasional memoranda to explain procedures. 1999-01____________________ Policy and Regulations adopted by the LRSD Board of Directors November 1999 - IHBEA and IHBEA-R. Legal Reference - Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964______________________ This is a work in progress and will be ready for the 2001-2002 school year. Currently in draft form.______________________ 2001-2002_____________ _ Continuation of implementation of policy and regulations. Minor revisions to the regulations were adopted by the Board of Education in November 2001. Administrators' Handbook was written and reviewed and rescheduled for fall 2002 publication. Program Objective 1: To implement and maintain consistent procedures for student identification processes. A crucial step in meeting the needs of students from language backgrounds other than English is the identification of students who need language-assistance services. This process presumes an operational definition of English-language proficiency. o z\u0026gt; 3o0 o Xn 24 zn M 1052 Prior to the 1978 Education Amendments, the term Limited English Speaking Ability (LESA) vi/as used to define the population served through Title VI funding. This term was broadened in the 1978 Amendments to include not only those students who were limited in their speaking ability but also those who had sufficient difficulty in reading, writing, or understanding the English language\nhence the term limited-English proficient (Anstrom (1996), citing Stewner-Manzanaries (1988). Limited-English proficient students in the Little Rock School District are identified according to a specific process that is established in the Administrative Regulations IHBEA-R: English as a Second Language. The first step is the administration of the Home Language Survey form to every student enrolled in the school, regardless of whether they are enrolled in a Newcomer Center. If the student and/or his/her parent/guardian indicate in answers to one or more questions that there is a need for language proficiency assessment, then the student is referred. Other indicators, according to the regulations, that may lead to the administration of the Language Assessment Scale (LAS) include interviews with student/family/guardian, review of previous school records, lack of previous school records, and counselor/teacher concern regarding English language cognitive processes.\" k Program Feature LEP Identification Procedures 1998-99 1999-01 2001-2002 Students identified through Home Language Survey (HLS) and verified through testing\nno LPAC review or placements Students identified through the HLS administered upon initial registration at the school site or Student Registration Office. Level of English proficiency verified through the administration of the LAS by qualified ESL tester. District or school-based LPAC review and recommendations for ESL program services and/or school placement. Continuation of LEP identification procedures from 1999-2001. Also, continuation of the bi-annual training of school office staff in the registration procedures for language minority students (or PHLOTEs). IHBEA-ADwas developed to guide scheduling of LEP students. k Program Objective 2: To assess all students who have a primary home language other than English (PHLOTE), regardless of whether they are enrolled in a Newcomer Center. LRSD primarily utilizes the Language Assessment Scale (LAS) for placement of students into, exit from, and re-entry to the Alternative Language Program (ALP). Specific cut-off scores for placement of students in the ALP program have been established and provide procedures for the Language Proficiency Assessment Committees (LPACs). Students are classified as Level I (monolingual in home language). Level II (some level of English-language proficiency), or Level III (advanced level of English-language proficiency, but not yet at exit level):  Level I: N (Pre-LAS) LAS 1 (oral proficiency only) LEPa (oral and reading/writing) k 25 R - 105i\nLevel II Level III L (Pre-LAS) LEPb, c (oral and reading/writing) o LEPd, e (oral and reading/writing) Based on the results of the assessment, a program placement recommendation is made by the LPAC for each student to meet language needs and to provide him/her equal access to the curriculum. Assessment Timelines Students enrolled at or near the beginning of the school year must be tested no later than September 20 of each school year. Students enrolled after that date are tested upon referral. Within 20 school days of their initial enrollment in the district, students are identified, assessed, and classified for ESL programs according to the criteria and procedures established by state and local rules. According to the document. Alternative Language Programs for English Language Learners, Little Rock School District, LEP students are initially identified for assessment through the Home Language Survey (HLS), administered upon initial registration at the school site or Student Registration Office, and the level of English proficiency is verified through the administration of the Language Assessment Scale (LAS) by a qualified ESL tester. Program Objective 3: To establish and administer consistently appropriate criteria for entry and placement into an ESL program. z Orqanization and Role of LPACs The District has established Language Proficiency Assessment Committees (LPACs), according to need. Almost every school has established its own LPAC. Membership on each LPAC includes, as a minimum, the following: one or more appropriate ESL teachers, including one special education teacher as  a counselor, and  a campus administrator. The District LPAC or a school-based LPAC reviews and makes decisions for ALP services and/or program placement (Broadnax, 2000). This procedure was established during the 1999-2000 school year. The most recent revision of the regulations requires Newcomer Centers and other schools to establish their own LPAC if they have five or more identified LEP students. According to LRSD Administrative Regulation IHBEA-R (1999 and amended in 2001), 26 o z 5 o o pl X pl Pl z o pl 1054.. .all members of LPACs must receive at least one-half day of training in LPAC duties\nOCR, state, and LRSD laws, policies, and regulations governing LEP programs and services\ninterpretation of language proficiency assessments\nlaws and rules governing confidentiality of student records\nand identification, placement, and exit procedures for the Districts ESL program. As of February 2000, all counselors in the District were trained, along with identified building administrators and ESL teachers to serve as LPAC members. Two training sessions were held during the 2000-2001 school year. Training was provided for new LPAC members at identified school sites during the 2001-2002 school year (Broadnax, 2001). LPAC training is provided bi-annually. Student Assignment During the 2000-2001 school year, elementary LEP students were assigned to attendance zone schools except where they had been previously assigned to Newcomer Center elementary schools. Newcomer Center LEP students were grandfathered into those schools as long as they remained in the ESL program. This decision to phase out the elementary Newcomer Centers was data-based. First, the Districts enrollment data indicated that LEP students were enrolled in almost every elementary school in the District in 1999-2000, and some neighborhood schools had more LEP students than some of the Newcomer Centers. These data, plus anecdotal data, indicated that parents of LEP students much preferred their children to attend neighborhood schools than to be bused some distance to a Newcomer Center. Second, data from the Districts 1999-2000 ALP evaluation revealed that, in general, elementary LEP students in the neighborhood schools performed as well as or better than those clustered in the Newcomer Centers. Chicot Elementary School, a former Newcomer Center, still has large numbers of LEP students, but most live in that attendance zone. f I Middle and high school LEP students were still encouraged in 2001-2002 to attend Newcomer Center Schools - Cloverdale Middle, Dunbar Middle, and Hall High School. This policy is still in place\nhowever. District staff members are closely examining the demographic trends of where students' parents choose to live\nthe enrollment of LEP students in neighborhood middle and high schools, and the achievement and behavior data for LEP students. All possible information will be used to determine whether the middle and high school Newcomer Centers should also be phased out. Tables 1-8 in Section 1 provide demographic data for PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE students by language community, grade level, and school. R R 27 1 1051 a u - Program Feature Entry criteria and guidelines Organization and Role of LPACs Student Assignment Scheduling of students 1998-99 1999-01 2001-2002 None fonnally documented or articulated None LMS students strongly encouraged or required to enroll in Newcomer Centers Randomly assigned in all schools, except for LEPs assigned to designated ESL courses at Hall High Entry into ESL Programs Students who are identified as LEP, through the standardized assessment (LAS) are recommended for ESL program services either in the attendance zone elementary schools, which include the Newcomer Center Schools or recommended to attend the NC middle or high school, as is age/grade appropriate.___________ Training began in February 2000, all counselors in district trained along with identified building administrators and ESL teachers. Two training sessions held during the 2000-2001 school year, three held during the previous year. Elementary LEP students are assigned to attendance zone schools except where they were previously assigned outside of their attendance zones to Newcomer Center elementary schools. Those students are grand fathered into those schools as long as they remain in the ESL program. Middle and High School aged LEP students are recommended to attend Newcomer Center Schools - Cloverdale Middle, Dunbar Middle, and Hall High School. LEP students clustered at grade level or in courses/classrooms with endorsed or trained teachers in all schools Continuation of implementation of the Entry criteria and guidelines established during 1999-2001. Monitoring of these processes to ensure compliance with CTR requirements. Continuation of organization and role of LPAC and monitoring committees to ensure compliance with CTR specifications. Schools with at least five LEP students must have a site-based LPAC. New training is provided for new LPAC members at identified school sites bi-annually. Effective fall 2002, elementary LEP students were no longer referred to Newcomer Centers. Out-of-zone LEP students currently attending Newcomer Centers are allowed to remain in those schools until they complete grade 5 or until they exit the ESL program. Middle and high school LEP students are recommended to attend Newcomer Center schoolsCloverdale Middle, Dunbar Middle, and Hall High School. __________ Continuation of the scheduling of LEP students based on an identified need for ESL program services. Scheduling of students aligned with ESL endorsed or trained teachers. During March 2002 the administrative directive on the scheduling of LEP students was distributed to all principals, counselors, and registrars (IHBEA-AD)._________________________ 28 1056 z Program Feature Class-Sizes 1998-99 1999-01 The Class-Size Reduction Grant allowed use of this money to provide additional teachers to 5 elementary NC schools (previously indicated). Funding became available for one teacher at an elementary site with a sizeable LEP population - Wakefield Elementary. The additional teachers have been used between grades K-3 and have allowed those schools to configure their ESL classes in smaller groups, some split-grade groupings, or with a team-teaching model.___________ 2001-2002 Continuation of the implementation of instructional support using the Class-Size Reduction grant. Program Objective 4: To diagnose student needs and provide appropriate ESL standards/benchmarks, instruction, and assessments to meet identified students individual needs for English-language instruction, for understandable Instruction in other content areas, and for positive selfconcept and identification with personal/family cultural heritages. To be credible, the Districts educational approach for the education of limited- English proficient students must be recognized as sound by experts in the field or recognized professionally as a legitimate educational strategy to ensure that LEP students acquire English-language proficiency and are provided meaningful access to the regular educational program. This approach must address each aspect of the Districts program for LEPs, at all grade levels, and at all schools in the district.  Definition of the LRSD ALP Although District staff commonly refer to the District s ALP as ESL, its delivery is not the same as a traditional ESL program. Rather, the LRSD ALP is characterized by the following:  LEPs scheduled with ESL-endorsed/trained teachers in core subject areas:  LEPs clustered in heterogeneous classes with a majority of English speakers (with some exceptions at Hall High School where there are sufficient numbers of LEP students to have separate classes in some subject areas)\n Instruction delivered through English immersionwith scaffolding, or differentiated strategies and appropriate materials informed by ESL and Total Physical Response training.  Full access to the Districts standards-based curriculum and assessments.  R 29 R 105:M Curriculuni ^XtSKds and grade-lev decision to estab^h^^-^^^ English-language learners *,udents. It is LRSD's same for all students. Ma)orinitiati learning) benchmarks curriculum for all other students and local expectations separate curriculum for for student learning shouU be the I i r BS~-rnem^ successful\nI I 1 The District has standards-based\n.3 consciously selected ^PP'^^Pgsrooms, including for the diversity of learners in a ------ SSSSSSS  504 students, and the new 2001. Standards Km for social languages development for the fine arts an is in progress. 2 The District has established-instmchonalsfo^^^^^^^^ 2 during 2001-2002 that 'also guide the profes.^onal Waisal System during, summer 2002 th j a de development program and s jhe models that were .2002 and the adoption of a new^^^^ Professional T eacher sssKasgsssasKS  Learning goes from whole to part. z  Lessons should be learner-centered of knowledge. because learning is the active construction  Lessons should have meaning and purpose for students now.  Learning occurs in in social interaction. . Reading, writing, speaking , and listening all develop together. o 2 90 O o n X 30 P5 2 PI 1058 Lessons should support students first languages and cultures.  Faith in the learner expands learning potential, (pp. 25-26) 3. The TESOL instructional standards have been adopted as the framework for teachers of English-language learners to use in designing not only their daily instructional plans, but also in designing small group work and other interventions that may be necessary for individual LEP students to learn English. Copies of these standards were purchased in 1999-2000 for all schools and for most individual teachers. Subsequently, the Arkansas Department of Education developed for fall 2002 publication a set of learning standards, the English Language Acquisition Framework, which the LRSD will also adopt. Assessments All LEP students took the Districts Achievement Level Tests in grades 2-9 in reading, language usage, mathematics, and science in school years 1999- 2000 through 2001-2002. (The Board of Education has eliminated those assessments, effective fall 2002, in anticipation of the new/ criteriori- referenced tests in grades 3-8 and high school that are mandated in No Child Left Behind.) Grades K-2 students all took the Developmental Reading Assessment and the sub-tests that compose the Observation Surveys. LEP students took the grade 9 Civics assessment, given for the first time in spring 2002. LEP students who have been in the United States for at least three years also take the Arkansas Benchmark Examination, including the End-of- Course Examinations (Literacy, Mathematics, Algebra, GeometryL Some LEP students are exempt from the Stanford Achievement Test (9 edition) and the State Benchmark tests, but those exempt from the Benchmarks must instead complete a portfolio assessment. These data enable District staff and parents to measure student growth not only in English-language learning, but also in the content areas. ESL InstructionElementary Schools The theoretical base for the Little Rock School Districts English-as-a Second Language (ESL) instructional strategies is the same as that for the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) and Effective Literacy instructional strategies (LRSD Administrative Regulations IHBEA-R, 1999 and revised in 2001). All teachers assigned to serve LEP students in core subject areas must be ESL-endorsed, be working on that endorsement, or have received at least 30 hours of ESL training. Elementary students may be served in classrooms in one of the following models:  R 31 105 Clustered in heterogeneous classrooms with provisions to group LEP students within class for special instruction. n  Multi-aged classrooms that are composed only of LEP students or that are heterogeneous. Care must be taken not to isolate LEP students from their English-speaking peers.  Assigned to a classroom composed solely of LEP students, but with provisions during the school day for integration with English-speaking students.  Clustered in a heterogeneous classroom in a co-teacher model (two teachers in the same classroom sharing the instructional duties.  A combination of any of the above. The instructional expectations are as follows:  The instructional strategies and the amount of time devoted to ESL instruction for Level I students must be differentiated from the strategies and time commitments that are appropriate for Levels Il-Ill students, even though all three levels may be in the same classroom.  Elementary level 1 students must be scheduled for at least two and one-half hours daily of English-language instruction. Level II and III students must have at least two hours daily of English-language instruction.  Prek-5 teachers are expected to modify instruction, pacing, materials, assessments, and grouping, as appropriate, for the proficiency levels of limited-English proficient students assigned to their classrooms.  Grading of student progress in English language arts will be based on students progress toward meeting the ESL standard for the grade level.  Grading in other subject areas allow LEP students to demonstrate their skill and knowledge in their primary language or in oral English rather than in writing, if appropriate. z ESL Instruction-Middle Schools The theoretical base that guides the ESL English instructional strategies in the Little Rock School District is the same as that behind the Reading/Writing Workshop provided for students in grades 6-8. The theoretical base for the instructional strategies in the grades 6-8 mathematics, science, and social studies programs are likewise compatible with the strategies that are effective Oz SO8 o Xn 32 1060 z n with ESL students as they learn the content areas. ESL students must be scheduled with ESL and content-area teachers who are ESL-endorsed, who are working on their endorsements, or have participated in at least 30 hours of training.  Teachers of middle school limited-English proficient students are expected to modify instruction, pacing, materials, assessment, and grading practices to reflect the developmental needs of the middle school LEP students.  When appropriate, teachers allow students to demonstrate the content knowledge and skill in their primary language or in oral, rather than written English. Pages 66-68 of the 2001-2002 Middle School Curriculum Catalog provide a list of approved ESL middle school courses and guidance in scheduling LEP students at each grade level. Middle School Newcomer Centers The following middle schools serve as Newcomer Centers\nCloverdale Middle and Dunbar Middle Schools.  The middle school Newcomer Centers provide core courses (Reading/Writing Workshop, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies) for LEP students at all three grade levels. k ESL Instruction-High Schools The theoretical base that guides the ESL English instructional strategies in the Little Rock School district is the same as that behind the English I Workshop, provided for students in grade 9 for two periods and for English ll-IV. Likewise, teachers of mathematics, science, and social studies teach standards-based curricula, using similar strategies to teach for meaning and understanding in highly engaged classrooms. High school teachers of limited-English proficient students are expected to modify instruction, pacing, materials, assessment, and grading practices to reflect the developmental needs of the LEP high school students. High schools must schedule LEP students with ESL content-area teachers who are ESL endorsed, who are working on their endorsements, or who have participated in at least 30 hours of training.  Teachers of ESL English courses are to grade student progress according to the ESL Standards for the course.   33 106\n1  Teachers of other subject areas shall allow LEP students to demonstrate their knowledge and skill in their primary language or in oral, rather than written English. n Pages 93-97 of the 2001-2002 High School Curriculum Catalog provide a list of all approved ESL courses, along with guidance in scheduling students at each level. High School Newcomer Center (Hall High School)  ESL-adapted courses are provided in all the following core subject areas: English language arts, communications, mathematics, science, and social studies.  Level I students must be scheduled into ESL English I Workshop daily. Level II and III students must be scheduled into ESL English daily.  LEP students are scheduled with ESL and content-area teachers who are ESL-endorsed, who are working on their endorsements, or who have participated in at least 30 hours of training. No Child Left Behind Reguirements LRSD staff members have followed the development, passage, and roll-out of the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, referred to as No Child Left Behind by the Bush administration. During 2001-2002 the staff examined the portions of the law that involve requirements for LEP students and concluded that the work done to fully implement the letter and spirit of the Commitment to Resolve had enabled the District to be ahead of the game, so to speak, regarding LEP student performance. z I Program Feature Curriculum Instruction 1998-99__________ Same as regular students: no adaptations_______ Students in Newcomer Centers received 30 minutes one-on-one tutoring each week 1999-01___________________ Same as regular students with adaptations and modifications 2001-2002 ____________ Same as regular students with adaptations and modifications Students at Newcomer Centers and Non-Newcomer Center Schools (elementary) benefit from in-class instruction from teachers who are either ESL endorsed or in the process of completing the endorsement requirement or teachers who are participating in the ESL training program_______ Review of the instructional model previously used with LEP students to assess the effectiveness of such approaches for success or failure. o z 38 o o x 34 n z tn 1062Program Feature Assessments 1998-99_________ LEP students generally exempted 1999-01______________________ LEP students included in the criterion referenced district-level assessments (ALTs) as much as possible, exempt from standardized assessments if deemed appropriate by LPAC (up to two years after initial enrollment), implementation of the Alternate Portfolio Assessments in place of the State Benchmarks assessments for LEP students' grades 4,6, and 8. End of level State assessments for grades 10 and 11 to be added during the 2001-2002 school year_________ 2001-2002 Continuation of inclusion of LEP students in district CRT's: alternative portfolio assessments extended to include LEP students in grades 4,6, 8, and 11. 1 Program Objective 5: To hire, train, and continually develop highly motivated, sensitive, and caring ESL teachers and other staff to provide effective ESL instruction, interact one-to-one with the identified students and their families, and serve as liaisons between school and relevant community.  Teachers learn through their endorsement courses and through the training provided by the Little Rock School District how to adapt, not the curriculum, for LEP students, but the instructional strategies, materials, pacing, and assessments. This area is perhaps the one in which the District has made its most dramatic improvements since fall 1999. LRSD has moved from having only a part-time Director for the Alternative Language Program at the central office level in 1998-99 to the employment of a full-time ESL Supervisor, a half-time secretary, a full-time program evaluator, a full-time ESL parent coordinator, and a half-time secretary for her. At the school level, the District had only seven ESL-endorsed teachers in 1998-99. When school started in fall 2002, there were 172 teachers fully endorsed, with another 18 near completion. Both the District and the Arkansas Department of Education have fully supported the tuition-reimbursement program that was necessary to make this kind of progress. Administrators are much more knowledgeable now as well, and, consequently, much more supportive of the Alternative Language Program. Program Feature District-Level staffing 1998-99_________ 1/10 of Curriculum Director 1/10 of department secretary 1999-2001 ESL Supervisor % secretary ESL Parent Coordinator reports to VIPs director, /a secretary for parent involvement ESL Program Evaluator 2001-2002___________________ Continuation of same level of staffing. II 35 106I Program Feature I School-Level Staffing 1998-99 7 uncertified, unendorsed part-time tutors assigned to elementary and middle school Newcomer Centers 1999-2001 Elementary staffing - The five (5) Newcomer Center Schools and another AZ school (recently added) have received instructional support in the area of class size reduction as follows: Brady Elementary 1 additional teacher Chicot Elementary 3 additional teachers Romine Interdistrict 2 additional teachers Terry Elementary 2 additional teachers Washington Magnet 2 additional teachers Wakefield 1 additional teacher (new position) 2001-2002___________________ Elementary staffing -Continuation of the use of instructional support (i.e. class size reduction) at the Elementary Newcomer Center Schools, with the exception of Brady, and the addition of two other elementary sites as participants in this grant - Cloverdale Elementary, King Elementary, and Wakefield Elementary. Brady Elementary was dropped due to low LEP enrollment. r Middle School staffing - Continuation of the assignment of ESL endorsed teachers to teach LEP students in ESL adapted courses or mainstreamed inclusion model ESL adapted courses. k Middle School Staffing - At Dunbar Middle School the LEP students were taught by ESL endorsed teachers or teachers in the process of completing the ESL endorsement in mainstreamed classes. At Cloverdale Middle Level Academy, LEP students were clustered in discrete ESL classes and taught by ESL endorsed teachers or teachers working on their ESL endorsement. High School Staffing - At Hall High School the Newcomer Center Program is staffed with a half-time ESL-endorsed teacher/Coordinator, who is responsible to oversee the sight-based operation of the ESL program. ESL endorsed teachers teach LEP students in ESL classes. High School staffing - Continuation of the position of ESL Coordinator/ teacher at Hall High School as well as ESL endorsed teachers to teach the ESL courses required by LEP students. z 36 1064 Id Program Feature Number of Endorsed Teachers Teacher Professional Development Administrator Professional Development 1998-99 There were 5 teachers who were either ESL- endorsed at the start of the 1998-99 school year or had competed the ESL endorsement during that school year (4 at Hall High School and 1 at Terry Elementary). Vi-time UALR instructor provided on-site coaching and professional development Infrequent meetings of Newcomer principals only I 1999-2001 Currently there are 50 ESL endorsed teachers and another 10 expected to complete the course requirement May 2001(9 teachers and 1 administrator). Specific details provided on ESL Teacher Endorsement Table. Summer 2001 projections for the ESL Graduate Academy include up to 50 participants to complete the ESL endorsement requirement. Another 8 candidates may continue to complete their ESL endorsement course requirements through UALR. Implementation of a Professional Development Program developed by the Center for Applied Linguistics. This program was launched during summer 2000 with continuing sessions into the fall of 2000 and spring 2001. Elementary, middle, and high school teachers were provided with an initial 2 to 2'/2 day comprehensive training sessions which addressed the following areas: Culture, Second Language Acquisition, Assessment, and ESL Instructional Methodology. The final sessions will be delivered during the spring and early summer 2001._____________ Professional development sessions delivered through Leadership Team Meetings during the 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 school years. Topics included- Compliance with the terms of the CTR\nEvaluation of teachers of LEP students. ESL instructional methodologies and strategies. 2001-2002 Approximately 172 teachers completed the ESL endorsement course requirements. Another 18 completed at least one course and are in the process of completing the others. Another ESL Graduate Academy is planned for summer 2003. Review the assignment of ESL endorsed teachers to LEP students or ESL courses to determine areas of future need. Reduction of the numbers of teachers who are approved to receive tuition support for completing the ESL endorsement courses. Monitoring the number of ESL endorsed teachers who actually remain in-district will also help to define the need. Continuation of the professional development program for elementary, middle, and high school teachers. Implementation of targeted assistance workshops for middle and high school teachers of LEP students on 'Sheltered Instruction' and TPR (Total Physical Response). These workshops will begin in 2002-03. Extension of ESL training to include all specialty area teachers, specialists, special education etc... 1 Continuation of professional development for administrators. As new administrators are hired, they will be scheduled to receive training in all applicable areas for compliance with the CTR. 37 II to  R 106!V Program Objective 6: To provide appropriately aligned instructional materials. The District has invested considerable sums of money in the past three years to equip teachers with appropriate standards-based materials to use in instruction with diverse studentsscience kits, mathematics manipulatives, classroom sets of trade books at all reading levels and with cultural sensitivity, and dictionaries, in addition to especially designed materials for LEP students who are learning not only content and skills, but the English language and American culture. Or Program Feature Teaching Materials 1998-99_________ Totally teacher selected: available only in Newcomer Centers 1999-01 Much of the teaching materials used in our programs have been selected wflth teacher input as well as guidance from the ESL Supervisor. This year the district adopted a new reading series for Grade K-5 and this was a collaborative process with the Early Childhood/Literacy Department and the ESL Department. The program selected had specific modifications, materials and references provided for LEP students and their teachers. Our Science and Mathematics materials are likewise inclusive of strategies and modifications for our LEP students. Currently the Social Studies curriculum is under revision.____________ 2001-2002____________________ Provision of supplementary funds to all elementary schools to provide for minimum expenditures on supplementary materials based on a per student allotment. Review materials currently used in all levels of programs to ensure appropriateness and effectiveness in a students language development i z Program Objective 7: To establish and administer consistently appropriate criteria for exit from an ESL program. In 1998-99 the District had no evidence that students had been formally exited from the Alternative Language Program. At the end of 2001-2002 the District had documentation of at least 94 exited students as a result of improved instruction, monitoring, assessment, and procedures. Tables 1-8 in Section 1 provide demographic data for PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE students by language community, grade level, and school. 38 1066 oz o o PJ X 2 k Program Feature Exit criteria and guidelines 1998-99 None formally documented or articulated 1999-01 Exit from ESL Programs LEP students currently receiving ESL Program services are reviewed annually to determine current English proficiency status, progress in attaining the goals of the program, and the need to either remain in the program or exit the ESL Program. Students who demonstrate fluency in the four areas of reading, writing, speaking, and listening comprehension, who have been acculturated to US schools, are 'exited' from the program. These recommendations are made by the LPAC at each school site. Parents are usually notified of these changes in the services provided to their students. 2001*2002 1 Continuation of implementation of the Entry/Exit criteria and guidelines established during 1999-2001. Monitoring of these processes to ensure compliance with CTR requirements. II k Program Objective 8: To provide for parental/family involvement in the school setting to support improved student learning. Major culture changes in the District have occurred relating to this area. In 1998-99 almost no one ever thought about the need for translated documents in communicating with parents or the need to provide oral translators for any level of parent meetings. This sensitivity is now evident in all departments of the District. For instance, the letter to send to parents relating to No Child Left Behind requirements for public school choice was immediately translated into Spanish once it was initially drafted. The addition of the ESL parent coordinator, who is a Spanish speaker, has also made a major difference in the Districts ability to work with Hispanic, as well as other LEP students parents. Her outreach efforts resulted in many LEP students parents participating in the Districts study circles for high school reform, in the Parent Institutes (Saturday workshops for parents twice each year), and in other activities. Page 39 of the ESL Administrator Handbook provides information about the ESL Parent Coordinator, and pages 40-41 include a list of available translators. Program Feature Parent Communication 1998-99 1999-01 Full-time ESL Parent Coordinator joined the Parent Team. This position is funded through Title I and local funds (approximately $35.000.00). 2001-2002 Continuation and review of duties of the full-time position of ESL Parent Coordinator. k R 39 106 RIn i. Program Feature Translated Documents 1998-99 Home Language Survey form 1999-01  Home Language Survey form Refrigerator Curriculum Course Selection Sheets SAIP LPAC documents for distribution to parents Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbooks will be available in Spanish for the 2001-2002 school year_______ 2001-2002 Increase in the awareness level of\navailable translated documents (ESL Handbook - Appendix). Increase the number of documents translated into Spanish. Allocation of resources to include translation of documents info one other minority language, if feasible. f I i Program Objective 9: To provide equitable access to other district programs and services, including special education and gifted/talented education and all procedural safeguards. This section examines equal access for PHLOTE students to the full range of district programs including special education, 504 services, and gifted/talented programs. Special Education According to LRSD Policy IHBA, the Board of Education believes in and is committed to the provision of educational programs through individualized instruction and related services for children who have special needs. s The District has established a process through the ESL Supervisor and the Director of the Department of Exceptional Children for monitoring and documentation of the services provided to LEP students who also require special education services. LEP students can receive services in both special education as well as the Alternative Language Program. This area was reviewed and reported to OCR twice annually. Special Education teachers are included in ESL training, as well as in the ESL endorsement process. This procedure was established during the 1999-2000 school year and continues. Special Education resource room teachers are receiving in fall 2002 updated and in-depth professional development in implementing the Districts standards-based curriculum. Section 9 of Administrative Regulations IHBEA-R establishes specific procedures for students who may require both LEP and Special Education services. (See pages 13-14 of the ESL Administrators Handbook.) Special Education (LEP and FEPE) by Grade Levels According to data from the LRSD Department of Exceptional Children, of the 48 Special Education PHLOTE students in the District, 42 (or 87.5 percent) were LEP 40 zo S\u0026gt;8 e o \u0026gt;n\u0026lt; w zn rw 1068 students, two (or 4.2 percent) were FEPE students, two (or 4.2 percent) were NALMS students, and three (or 6.3 percent) were FEP students. There were no REFUSE students identified as needing special education services. H Table 4 displays the LEP and FEPE students receiving special education services by grade level. According to the data, 42 (or 6.6 percent) of the LEP students and two (or 2.1 percent) of the FEPE students in the District received special education services during the 2001-2002 school year. The increase in the special education population from the 2000-2001 school year to the 2001-2002 school year raised a red flag among evaluation team members. Further investigation confirmed the accuracy of 2001-2002 numbers, but the count for 2000-2001 is below what it should have been due to a computer malfunction, and data could not be recovered. L I k Table 1 Special Education (LEP and FEPE) by Grade Levels Comparison 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 2000-2001 School Year 2001-2002 School Year Grade LEP Students FEPE Students LEP Students FEPE Students Enroll N 3-Yr. PreK W \"sT 1' 2 s 7 inB\" 79\" TF 0 y 78 y 49 45 0 Z y y 7 T 3 7 % NA yr yr Z6 ys Ts yr y2 Enroll 0 o o'  s' \"2 N 0 q q % NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Enroll 1 86 53 N 0 o' I I 4 4 5 T % na NA yr TT yz Enroll 0 o\" y y T y 14 14 N 0 o q q q T \"o % NA NA NA NA y y TJ y  41 R 102000-2001 School Year 2001-2002 School Year Grade 7^ To 11th 1^ Totals LEP Students Enroll 29 21 37 39 25 14 17 620 N 2 0 3 1 0 0 0 23 FEPE Students LEP Students FEPE Students % 6.9 NA 8.1 2.6 0 0 0 4% Enroll 5 3 5 2 5 3 2 47 N 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 % 0 33.3 0 0 0 0 0 2% Enroll 33 24 20 36 23 11 12 632 N 2 2 2 2 3 1 1 42 % 5.9 8.3 10.0 5.6 13.0 9.1 8.3 7% Enroll 5 9 10 11 11 7 3 94 N % 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 504 LEP and FEPE Students Table 5 shows the number (N) of LEP and FEPE students receiving 504 services, as compared to the total population (Enroll) of LEP and FEPE students enrolled in LRSD during 2001-2002. There were five (less than one percent) PHLOTE students identified as receiving 504 services in 2001-2002. According to Table 5, four of the students receiving 504 services were LEPs, and one student was FEPE. Table 2 LEP and FEPE Students Receiving 504 Services 2001-2002_________________ Grade Kdg. S'\" 8' 157 9^ 10th LEP LEP Students FEPE Students 0 0 0 9.1 0 0 0 2% Enroll 98 59 20 36 23 632 N 1 1 1 0 1 4 % 0.2 0.2 0.2 NA 0.2 \u0026gt;1% Enroll 0 0 0 11 0 94 N 0 0 0 1 0 1 % 0 0 0 9.1 0 1.1 42 1070 I X o2 S\u0026gt;8 e o m X m2 r* 1 Bl Program Feature SPED/LEP Procedures 1998-99 Undocumented participation in terms of students receiving both types of services. 1999-01 Monitoring and documentation of the services provided to LEP students. Students can receive both services in Special Education as well as the Alternative Language Services Program. This area is reviewed and reported on to OCR twice annually. Special Education teachers are included in our ESL Training as well as the ESL endorsement process. 2001-2002 Continuation of monitonng SPED/LEP procedures implemented 1999-2001 fe Gifted and Talented (LEP and FEPE) Students According to LRSD Policy IHBB, Gifted students are those who have outstanding abilities and who are capable of high performance, as identified by professionals using appropriate, multidimensional identification instruments and procedures. In order to make their contribution to self and society and develop their talent, ability, and potential, these students require differentiated programs and/or services beyond those normally provided by the regular school program. The term B B \"gifted includes the following characteristics: high intellectual ability, task commitment and/or motivation, and creative ability. Second graders are assessed during the spring of the school year\nhowever, the gifted and talented program does not start until third grade. Identification procedures are outlined in District policy\nmore specific guidelines are found in the gifted/talented administrative handbook. The District monitors and tracks the participation rates among LEP students according to procedures created and implemented during the 1999-2000 school year. The GT Coordinator and GT Supervisor conduct documentation of evidence of LEPGT students and services provided to them. Training was provided to all GT Facilitators and GT Specialists on the characteristics of LEPGT students during the 1999-2000 school year. Three professional development sessions were held during the 2000-2001 school year on the LEPGT student and how to provide equitable access and services in the special opportunity programs.  Currently, there are five GT Specialists who have obtained the ESL endorsement. Other specialists have participated in ESL training either offered through the District's professional development program or through their cluster meetings. As new G/T specialists are assigned, they will also receive specialized training in this area. II  43 107I IM The District will continue the monitoring and tracking of LEPGT students and the access/availability of special opportunity programs for LEP students (Broadnax, 2001). Plans fortraining initiatives were developed and conducted for the 2001- 2002 school year. Section 9 of Administrative Regulations IHBEA-R establishes specific procedures for identification of students who are both LEP and gifted/talented. (See page 14 of the ESL Administrators Handbook.) I o  % % ! Gifted and Talented (LEP and FEPE) by Grade Levels According to available data, of the 161 PHLOTE students receiving gifted and talented services in the District in 2001-2002, 23 (or 14 percent) were LEP students, 24 (or approximately 15 percent) were FEPE students, 106 (or 66 percent) were FEP students, and seven (or approximately 4 percent) were REFUSE students. There were no Not Assessed Language Minority Students (NALMS) identified as receiving gifted and talented services. The LEP students participating in the gifted/talented program in 2001-2002 increased by 11, almost doubling those served in 2000-2001. FEPE participation also improvedby 10. Almost all the improvement was at the elementary level, perhaps as a result of the professional development provided to elementary GT specialists, but also probably a result of the secondary curriculum being more complex for LEP and FEPE students to master. Important to understanding these data is that secondary students are not identified for the gifted/talented program unless there is evidence that the courses they are currently taking are not meeting their needs. Both gifted/talented and other advanced students (who may also be gifted/talented, although not formally identified) are served academically in the Pre-AP and AP courses in the middle and high schools. Table 6 displays, by grade level, the data for LEP and FEPE students. Enroll designates the total number of LEP or FEPE students enrolled in LRSD for that school year. The number of LEP or FEPE students receiving gifted/talented services is given in the N column for each year. The percent (%) column is calculated by dividing N by Enroll. X 44 1 zo \u0026gt; o o g 5 5 1072 Grades 3-Yr. PreK K 2nd 3^ 7^ 8\"^ 11th 1^ Total 3-12 Totals Table 3 Gifted and Talented (LEP and FEPE) Comparison 2001 and 2002 2000-2001 School Year LEP Students FEPE Students 2001-2002 School Year LEP Students FEPE Students Enroll 0 44 94 7Q 62 66 49 45 29 21 37 39 25 14 17 342 620 N 0 0 0 0 0 7 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 12 % N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 12 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4% 2% Enroll 0 0 0 0 4 8 8 2 5 3 5 5 2 3 2 43 47 N 0 0 0 0 0 7 5 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 14 14 % N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 88 63 0 0 0 3 50 0 0 0 33% 30% Enroll 1 38 98 92 86 59 53 46 33 24 20 36 23 11 12 318 632 N 0 0 0 0 0 8 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 23 % N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 13.6 13.2 15.2 2.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 7% 4% Enroll 0 0 0 0 2 8 14 14 5 9 10 11 11 7 3 92 94 N 0 0 0 0 0 5 7 8 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 24 24 Section V\nPerformance of LEP and FEPE Students in Advanced Courses analyzes the performance of high school LEP and FEPE students in Pre-Advanced Placement, Advanced Placement, and University Studies courses. These courses serve the needs of high school students identified as gifted/talented. 45 % N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 63.5 50.0 57.1 20.0 0 9.1 9.1 0 0 22% 26% 10   ! 107 Ie Program Feature Access to GT, Pre-AP, AP, and other special opportunities 1998-99 Undocumented participation 1999-01_________________________ Training was conducted on the characteristics of the LEPGT student during the 1999-2000 school year. Three PD sessions were also held this year on the LEPGT students and how to provide equitable access and services in the special opportunity programs. There were 2 GT Specialists who had obtained the ESL endorsement. One of them was actively involved in ESL training and support for GT specialists/teachers across the district.________________ I 2001-2002 Continuation of monitonng and tracking of LEPGT students and the access/availability of special opportunity programs to LEP students. Continuation of training initiatives as described previously. Program Objective 10: To monitor the progress of all identified students during program participation and after program exit and to reclassify students as needed. I O r The District has assigned to the Language Proficiency Assessment Committees (LPACs) the responsibility of monitoring at least quarterly the performance of all enrolled LEP students and to track as well the progress of all exited (FEPE) students. When the LPAC determines that an LEP student should be exited from the program or when an FEPE student should be reclassified as LEP, appropriate notice is given to the ESL Supervisor, who changes the student tag in the data base. z This section evaluates the procedures and criteria for determining when students no longer need Alternative Language Program services as well as the methods that the District uses to monitor the success of students after AL program services have been discontinued and the students have exited the program. The determination of English-la\nThis 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.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_545","title":"Program evaluations, Volume IV","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2003-03-14"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School improvement programs","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Program evaluations, Volume IV"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/545"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["516 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nVOLUME IV RECEIVED MAR 1 4 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORINGiWTBNnrn vf.ar  \u0026gt;\u0026lt; , /i'tOtM inni.E sriKKJi. transition LYCCUM SCHOi^ARS PROGRAM 1 4 I. I 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 TO\nBoard of Education B 2 9 fl \u0026lt; S \u0026gt; \u0026gt; z FROM: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools I PREPARED BY: 'fjfeonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction ! DATE\nFebruary 27, 2003 i SUBJECT: Lyceum Scholars Program Evaluation ( Background Information on the Lyceum Scholars Program Evaluation One in the group of programs required by the federal court to be evaluated with the participation of an external evaluator was the Lyceum Scholars program. Steps Taken as a Result of the Program Evaluation The Lyceum Scholars program was discontinued at the end of the 2000-2001 school year. The decision to abandon the program was made based on the programs high cost and the necessity of cutting budgets. Students who would have been served in the program in 2001-2002 and subsequently were either assigned to their home schools, to the Alternative Learning Center, or to the Accelerated Learning Center at Metropolitan.. Designation of External Consultant and His Qualifications On December 2, 2002, the District awarded the contract for the Lyceum Scholars program evaluation to the firm. Quality Education and Management Associates, Inc., Dr. Larry McNeal, president, A copy of his resume is attached, establishing his qualifications. Administrator Participation in Conducting the Program Evaluation In addition to Dr. McNeal and his associates, the following LRSD administrators participated in the evaluation: Jo Evelyn Elston, Director of Pupil Services Dr. Ed Williams, Department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation Everett Hawks, Department of Pupil Services Dr. Walter Marshaleck, Lyceum Scholars Program Director Dr. Linda Watson, Assistant Superintendent (alternative programs) fl 12 1 n  5 2 CA cs SM IZs 1606 8il *H1'1 fl 2 f'-\nBoard Memo February 27, 2003 Page Two fl \u0026gt; s Teacher Participation in Conducting the Program Evaluation Lyceum Scholars teachers who participated in the surveys Lyceum Scholars teachers who administered in-class and District assessments Impact on African-American Student Achievement Approximately one-half of the students participating in this small program (8 to students total) were African American. Because the numbers were so small, neither performance data nor survey data were disaggregated by race. Neither the staff study nor that of the external evaluator could determine whether this program had any positive benefit on the academic performance of African American students. \u0026gt; c 2 5 -i 7\u0026gt;! 5 2 H   Recommendation _ That the Board of Education approve the Lyceum Scholars program evaluation tor submission to the federal court. BAL/adg w n2 n z2  CZ)C  2 J 2M C/) n X  1607 s DR. LARRY MCNEAL ! z 9 fl 3 fl \u0026gt; fl \u0026gt; BUSINESS ADDRESS_______________ University of Arkansas at Little Rock 2801 S. University Avenue Department of Educational Leadership Little Rock, Arkansas 72204-1099 Office 501-569-3552 Fax 501-569-3547 lxmcneal@ualr.edu HOME ADDRESS 15806 Patriot Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72212-2606 501-221-1178 btmcneal@netscane.net lTncneal59@hotinail.com or PED. M.S. M. A. B.A. Licensure: PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION Ed-ucational Administration, University of Wisconsin, Madison. WI (1990) F.Tnphagi\u0026lt;!- Fiscal and Community Support for Public Education Concentrations\nEducational Finance, School-Community Relations, and Public School! Administration Educational Administration, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (1989) Emphasis\nAd-ministration and Organization of Public Education Concentration: Educational Administration (Public School) Public Affairs. University of Iowa, Iowa City (1976) Emphasis: Public Administration Concentration: Urban Administration Business Administration and Political Science, Dakota Wesleyan University, Mitchell, SD (1975) En^ihasis\nPolitical Economics Concentrations: Business Administration, Political Science and Economics Entrepreneurship: School Business Management (No longer active) Insurance Agent (No longer active) : Quality Education and Management Associates, President PROFESSIONAL WORK EXPERIENCE Professor, Department of Educational Leadership, Graduate School of Education, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, Arkansas, 1998 to the present Visiting Professor, Department of Educational Management \u0026amp; Development, Graduate School of Education, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, Summer 2000 Educational Administration and Supervision Program Coordinator, Department of Educational LeademMp. Graduate School of Education, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, .Arkansas, 1998 to 2001 Visiting Professor, Department of Educational Management \u0026amp; Development, Graduate School of Education, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, Summer 1998 Associate Professor, Department of Educational Administration and Foundations, Graduate School of Education, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, 1995 to 1998 nr 2n X 2 Vi C 2 2m Vi X 8 1S14 2 2 c X i 5 s2 3 Visiting Professor, Bellver International College, Trenton State College (now College of New Jersey), Graduate School of Education, Palma de Mallorca, Baleaies, Spain, Summer 1996 Associate Director, Office of Educational Finance, Center For Higher Education and Educational Finance, Graduate School of.Education, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, 1995-1997 \u0026gt; State Coordinator, Illinois Education Policy Fellow Program, Institute for Educational Leadership, Graduate School of Education, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois 1994-1996 2 3 Research Associate, Center for the Study of Educational Finance, Graduate School of Education, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, 1993-1995 Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Administration and Foundations, Graduate School of Education, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, 1993-1995 X Visiting Professor, Department of Educational Administration and Foundations, Graduate School of Education, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, Iowa, Summer 1993 Research Associate, Center for the Study of Small/Rural Schools, Graduate School of Education,  University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, 1992-1994 Adjunct Fellow, Center for Research on Multi-Ethnic Education, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, 1991-1992 52 2 Danforth Principal Preparation Program Co-Facilitator, Graduate School of Education, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, 1991-1993 Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Leadership andPohcy Studies, Graduate School of Education, University of Oklahoma, Normal, Oklahoma, 1991-1993 Coordinator of Multicultural Affairs, Wisconsin Alumni Association, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, 1990-1991 I Budget Analyst Intent, University of Wisconsin System Administration, Madison, Wisconsin, 1989-90 Equal Rights Officer, Division of Care and Treatment Facilities, Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services, Madison, Wisconsin, Fall/Spring, 1988/1989 fl Budget and Managf-mc-nt Analyst Intern, Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, Madison, Wisconsin, Summer, 1988 Marketing Manager, WarBuc Educultural Publications, Madison, Wisconsin, 1985-1987 Business Mathematics Instmctor, Business Department, Madison Area Techmeal College, Madison, Wisconsin, Fall 1985 and Spring 1987 Finance Marketing Representative, John Deere \u0026amp; Company, Moline, Illinois, based in Madison, Wisconsin, 1978-1984 Commercial Service Representative, Honeywell, Incorporated, Minneapolis, Minnesota, based in Des Moines, Iowa, 1977-1978 Public AriTninistratinn Tutem, Mayors Office, City of Davenport, Davenport, Iowa, 1976 wr 5n z 2 VI e 2 S M  1615 0 a: 31 JI 2 _________________________________________DISSERTATION_________________________________ McNeal, L. (1990). The role of education for employment councils in education for employment programs. University of Wisconsin-Madison. \u0026lt; S \u0026gt; \u0026gt; _____________________________________RESEARCH INTERESTS____________________ School Communitarianism (the fundamental relationship between schools and their commtmities) Organizational Change (change processes and organizational effectiveness) Educational Finance (adequacy and equity of funding for public education) Program Assessment and Evaluation 2 GRADUATE COURSES TAUGHT Administration and Organization of Schools Advanced Administrative Theory and Behavior Administrative Problem Solving Organizational Change Educational Politics and Policy Dissertation Proposal Development Educational Finance School Business A dmini strati nn Unman and Fiscal Resources Management Educational Public Relations Introduction to Doctoral Studies Organizational Development __________________________________ PUBLICATIONS: REFERRED____________________ McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Christy, W.K. (In Press, 2003). The locus of control issue in standard-based accountability. Educational Considerations. Christy, W.K. \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (2002). Influence of school board members on state legislation in Arkansas. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EA 031517. McNeal, L. (2002). The school-community relations profile model\nCombining school district and community-based data. In J. Thomas Owens and Jan C. Simmons (Eds.), In creating quality reform: Program.^, communities, and governance (67-81). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Chesser, J.S., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (2001). Educational community study circles: How superintendents can enhance school improvement through community dialogue. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 446 370. Christy, W.K., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (2000). Ingilications of legislative policy development for public school districts. F. Kochan (Ed.). Southern Regional Council on Educational Admini.stration Yearbook Chesser, J.S., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (1999). School improvement through community dialogue: The first community study circles on education in Arkansas and Oklahoma. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 436 694.. Mogilka, J, Ashby, D.E, \u0026amp; McNeal, L., (Eds.). (1996). Planning \u0026amp; Changing. 27(1\u0026amp;2). McNeal, L. (1995). Fulfilling promises in the land of Will Rogers: A look at performance indicators in selected school districts since the enactment of Oklahoma house bill 1017. School Finance Pohcv Issues in the States and Provinces: Annual Update I99S (135-138), C. Edlefson (Ed). The Ohio State University\nPolicy Research for Ohio-Based EducatioiL McNeal, L. \u0026amp;Reed, R. (1995). Building a school-community relations profile through sociological inventorying. People \u0026amp; Education: The Human Side of Schools. 3(3), 371-386. w P\" M s Tt 2 c\nS MS (A o  1616 McNeal L., et al. (1994). National Sallie Mae winners and their principals. National Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision Journal, 11(3), 3-10. z 3 s 3 \u0026gt;  McNeal, L. (1994). Focusing on at-risk students\nCase study of John Wilkinson Elementary School. TUinnis School Research and Development Journal, 31(1), 7-10. McNeal L., \u0026amp; Ashby, D. (1993). Site-based management and changing relationships. Illinois School Research and Development Journal. 31(1), 7-10. \u0026gt; e 2 McNeal L., \u0026amp; T eb-man, B. J. (1993). A vision of the future\nThe full-service school Planning and Changing. 24(3/4), 140-154. BOOK PROPOSAL IN PROGRESS Christy, W.K., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (2001). Working Title\nThe Sunerintendencv\nTheory to reflective practice. To be submitted to Wadsworth. Belmont, CA. __________________________________MANUSCRIPTS IN PROGRESS______________________________ McNeal, L. (2001). The contextual world of education for children and the school-community\nJames coleman and the effective schools movement. To be submitted to Humanistic Counseling, Education and Development McNeal, L., \u0026amp; Christy, WK. (2001). Rethinking the school district model of funding for individual schools\nComments about site-based management of resources. To be submitted to Planning and Change. Christy, WK., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (2001). Implications of charter schools and home schooling for the funding of public schools. To be submitted to Journal of School Leadership. a.p ________________________________PUBLICATIONS: MONOGRAPHS_________________________ McNeal, L., et al. (1993). Common sense: Plain talk to legislators about school finance. Center For tile Study of Educational Finance. Illinois State University. ________________________________PUBLICATIONS: NON-REFERRED_________ McNeal, L. (December, 1990). The role of education for employment councils in education for employment prngram.\u0026lt;\nDissertation. McNeal L. (1993). The education of African-American children in Oklahoma. State of Oklahorna\nAannal Report. Urban League of Greater Oklahoma City, Inc., 36-45. McNeal. L., First, P. F., \u0026amp; Knudson, D. P. (1993). Evaluating the University of Oklahoma Danforth Principal Preparation Program. Connections, 1 (2), 3. McNeal, L. (1992). University of Oklahoma report. Danforth Programs for the Preparation of School Principals Newsletter. 1 (2), 3. McNeal, L. (1987). From the desk of. National Multicultural Barner. 5 (6), 2. McNeal, L. (1986). From the desk of\nLiteracy, who's problem is it anyway? National Multicultural Banner. 5 (3), 2. w r n 5 n z je CZ) C 2 2 M ri a  1617eX, 2 r McNeal, L. (1986). The Black collegians guide to graduate fellowships for minority students. National Multicultural Banner. 5 (2), 9. ( \u0026gt; 1 s e __________________________________CITED IN EDUCATION WEEK____________________ In the area of educational finance. Education Week has quoted me on several occasions. I have been quoted in the following articles\n\u0026gt; 2 11/26/97 in News ILL. Lawmakers Get One More Try To Pass School Funding Reforms 6/11/97 in News ILL. Lawmakers Duck Vow To Revan^i Funding 3/26/97 in News ILL. Audit Questions Oversight of ELL. Education Agency 2/5/97 in New's ILL. Odds Seen Better for Funding Reform in ELL. _______________ ____________________________ REPORTS______________ ___________________ McNeal, L. Little Rock school district charter elementary school evaluation report for the 2001- 2002 school year. Prepared for the Little Rock School District November, 2002. McNeal, L., et al. The college of education assessment report\n2000-2001: University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Prepared for the Provosts Advisory Group on Assessment, June, 2001. McNeal, L. Little Rock school district chatter elementary school evaluation report for the 2000- 2001 school year. Prepared for the Little Rock School District, June, 2001. McNeal, L. Projected student enrollment for the 2000-2001 school year: d* and 7* grade student racial make up report. Prepared for Pulaski County Charter School Inc., April, 2001. McNeal, L. Enrollment trends in the Little Rock, North Little, and Pulaski County Special school districts: 1995-1996 to 1999-2000. Prepared for Pulaski County Charter School Inc., November, 2000. I Coleen, B.C., Driskill, G., Leslie, S., McNeal, L., Mitchell, W., Taylor, C., \u0026amp; Webb, R. Provosts advisory group on assessment\nUniversity of Arkansas at Little Rock. Summer 2000 report, July, 2000. McNeal, L., et aL The college of education assessment report 1999-2000: University of Arkansas at Little Rock Prepared for the Provosts Advisory Group on Assessment June, 2000. McNeaL L. Student enrollment needs assessment study of the Illinois school for the visually irrqjaired, Illinois Center for Rehabilitation and Education and Illinois School for the Deaf. Prepared for the Illinois Department of Rehabilitation Services, October, 1995. McNeaL L, First P., Walker, V,, \u0026amp; Hobson, B. An inquiry into alleged cultural insensitivity at Capitol Hill High School Prepared for Oklahoma City Public School District March, 1993. McNeaL L, et aL School choice\nOpen enrollment and post secondary options. Prepared for the Association of Wisconsin School AdministratoTs, March, 1990. I I McNeal, L. County veterans service officer training manual. Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs, June, 1990. I McNeaL L. A Review of health care and medical services provided by the United States department of veterans affairs. Prepared for the Division of Veterans Programs, Wisconsin Department of Veterans 2^ffairs, August 1989. McNeal, L. A review of health care grants and lie Wisconsin Veterans Home in King, Wisconsin. Prepared for the Division of Veterans Programs, Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs, August, 1989. ii M as 2 \u0026lt; c S 2 1618 Vi ra)  i ri ri H ri ri McNeal, L. Mendota mental health institute\nAn analysis of an organization in crisis. Prepared for the Division of Care and Treatment Facilities of the Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services, December 1988. PRESENTATIONS: REFERRED McNeal, L., Christy, \u0026amp;. Lewis, R. (2002). New leaders and new implications for educational aHmiTii.HTatinn Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Kansas City, MO. Christy, W.K., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (November, 2001). Mid-South Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Little Rock, AR. McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Christy, W.K. (Noveniber, 2001). A discussion of change theory, systems theory, and state designed standards and accountability initiatives. Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Jacksonville, FL. McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Christy, W.K. (November, 2001). State designed standards and accountability initiatives in the southwestern regional educational development laboratory service area. Southern Regional Council on Educational Artrnmistratinn Annual Conference, Jacksonville, FL. McNeal, L. (2001, July). The institutionalization of the assessment process\nOne story in one college of education. The Consortium for Assessment \u0026amp; Planning Support San Juan, PR McNeal, L. (2001, July) . Faculty perceptions of their involvement in the assessment (evaluation) process. The Consortium for Assessment \u0026amp;. Planning Support San Juan, PR i Chesser, J., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (November, 2000). The use of the study circle in school reform: Bringing all the voices to the table. Mid-South Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Bowling Green, KY. McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Christy, W.K. (November, 2000), Charter schools under construction: An analysis of a charter school evaluation plan. Southern Regional Council on Educational Admimstration Annual Conference, Nashville, TN. Christy, W.K., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (Noveniber, 2000). Implications of charter schools and home schooling. Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Nashville, TN. Christy, W.K. \u0026amp; McNeal. L. (November, 2000). The process of making sausage in the factory of program reform Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference. Nashville, TN. Michaelis, K, \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (April, 2000). From indifference to injustice\nThe politics of teen violence. American Educational Research Association for the Spring 2000 Conference in New Orleans, LA. Caram, C. Christy, W. K, Altom, B, \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (April 2000). The sausage factory: The process nf planning for accountability. Arkansas Association of Colleges of Teacher Education, Little Rock, AR. Caram, C. A_, Christy, W. K., Altom, B., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (April, 2000). Responding to the call for accountability of a school leader preparation program. Arkansas Association of Colleges of Teacher Education, Little Rock, AR Chesser, J. S., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (March, 2000). Educational community study circles in Arkansas\nHow superintendents can enhance school improvement through community dialogue. American Association of School Administrators 11* Annual Conference Within A Conference, San Francisco, CA. 1619 s X 2 3 9 fl \u0026gt; \u0026gt; 2 tn n SM a: \u0026gt; CZ3 c S S M X rj s: 5 s  Chesser, J\nS., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (November, 1999). School improvement through community dialogue\nThe first community study circles on education in Akansas and Oklahoma. Mid-South Educational Research Asociation Annual Conference, Clear Point, AL. J S' 9 s 9 \u0026lt;\u0026gt; JO c McNeal, L., \u0026amp; Christy, W. K. (November, 1999). From preparation to practice in Akansas: The relationship between program preparation standards and entry-level administrators success. Soufliem Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Charlotte, NC. \u0026gt;, e' 2 Christy, W. K., McNeal, L. (November, 1999). Implications of legislative policy development for public school districts. Southern Regional Council on Educational Ad-mjuistrafinn Annual Conference, Charlotte, NC. McNeal, L., Gonzalez, M. L., \u0026amp;Noley, Grayson. (October, 1999). The ethics of silencing in school accountability\nListening to the voices of Hispanic, Native American, and African-American Researchers. University Council for Educational Administration Convention, Minneapolis, MN. Christy, W. K, \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (March, 1999). Future policy impheations of an Akansas referendum initiative. American Education Finance Asociation, Seattle, WA. McNeal, L. (March, 1998). The link between quality and school communitarianism. Creating the Quality School\n7th Annual National Conference, Alington, VA McNeal, L., Place, A. W., Tillman, L.C., Beaumont, J. J. \u0026amp; Sanders, E. T. W. (October, 1997). A cross-cultural discussion of the 1997 UCEA conference theme. University Council for Educational Administration Convention, Orlando, FL. McNeal, L. (October, 1997). The contextual world of education for children and the schoolcommunity\nJames Coleman and the effective schools movement. MidWestem Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL. McNeal, L. (March, 1997). Influencing instnictional strategics,to enhance learning by using the school-connnunity relations profile model. Creating the Quality School\n6th Annual National Conference, Oklahoma City, OK_ McNeal, L. (1996, March). The implications of community based information for caring schools: SCKPING along. Creating the Quality School\nSth Annual National Conference, Oklahoma City, OK.. McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Chi, J. (1996, March). Performance indicators and curriculum offerings: Is there a cotmection in Oklahoma? American Education Finance Association Conference, Salt Lake City, UT. McNeal, L., Parks, J., Watson, L., Jackson, D., Midgette, T., \u0026amp; Glenn, E. (1996, March). Our pedagogy\nCulture as a major variable. Pedagogy of the Oppressed Conference, Omaha, NE. McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Ashby, D. (1995, October). School-community relations profiling: Re eTamining leadership for community. University Council for Educational Admini.stration, Salt Lake City, UT. McNeal, L. (1995, April). Fulfilling promises in the land of Will Rogers\nA look at performance indicators in selected school districts since the enactment of Oklahoma house bill 1017. Sponsored by the Special Interest Group on Fiscal Issues, Pohcy, and Educational Finance (FIPEF). American Educational Research Association Conference, San Francisco, CA McNeal, L. (1995, March). Promoting quality in education through the SCRPING of schools. Creating the Quality School: 4th Annual National Conference, Oklahoma City, OK. I MM s2 2 \u0026lt; Vi C 2 2M 1620 3:  I Hl JI McNeal, L., Higham, R, \u0026amp; Boyd, M. A. (1994, October). Establishing community between higher education, public education, and self:. An effort of compromise in infusing multiculturalism. Midwestern Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. McNeal, L. (1994, April). The state of educational finance in Oklahoma. American Educational Research Association Conference, New Orleans, LA. \u0026lt; \u0026gt; n z McNeal, L. (1994, March). Governance structures in decentralized schools and school improvement Lessons from Chicago school reform. Creating the Quality School\n3rd Annual National Conference, Oklahoma City, OK. McNeal, L. (1994, March). Governance structures in decentralized schools and decision-making\nAnother way to promote quality. Creating the Quality School Conference, Oklahoma City, OK. McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Lehman, B. I (1994, February). A vision of the future: The full-service school. American Association of School Administrators (Conference-Within-A-Conference), San Francisco, CA. t ! ( I McNeal, L. (1993, March). Quality schools and site-based management: An issue of fiscal management. Creating The Quality School\n2nd Annual National Conference, Oklahoma City, OK McNeal, L. (1993, March). Site-based fiscal management and the preparation of building administrators. American Education Finance Association Conference, Albuquerque, NM. McNeal, L., Chance, E. W., Langenbach, M., Costa, E. W., \u0026amp; Carem, C. (1993, March). National Sallie mae ^nn^rg and their principals. American Association of School Administrators (Conference- Within-A-Conference), Orlando, 1^. McNeal, L. (1992, March). The university's role in the preparation of school site-based managers. Creating The Quality School\n1st Annual National Conference, Norman, OK. INVITED PRESENTATIONS ! McNeal, L. (October 8, 2001). Standards for school leaders: The next generation. EDAS 7380\n' Practicum and EDAS 83 80\nPracticum, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, AR. I McNeal, L. (Spring, 2001). Concerned base adoption model (CBAM). EDAS 8314\nContemporary Educational Administration Issues, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, AR. McNeal, L, (July, 2000). A conversation about charter schools in Arkansas. Crossing Boundaries: Teaching, Learning, Results. Southeast Comprehensive Assistance Center, Peachtree City, GA. McNeal, L, Broadnax, W., \u0026amp; McLean, L. (July, 2000). The charter schools APIEM process. Crossing Boundaries: Teaching, Learning, Results. Southeast Conprehensive Assistance Center, Peachtree City, GA. McNeal, L. (March, 2000). An alternative governance model for pubhc education. International Academy of Educational Leaders, Nashville, TN. McNeal, L. (October, 1999). The change process, communications and interpersonal relations. Ray fTTaHaTn Training Center, Chicago Public Schools. Chicago, IL. {q w 5 M 3\n2 \u0026lt; CZ) C s s M  X 8 1621 -X z for McNeal L. (September, 1999). Collegiality leadership for school improvement. Arkansas Institate IVlVlNCal) Xrf. vij f o j /- T '**1 T5 1 AT) School Improvement, sponsored by the Southeast Comprehensive Assistance Center, Little Rock, .AR. s \u0026gt; 1 McNeal L. (January, 1999). National standards and their unpact on educational administraticon programs: Lessons IX. learned from reflection. International Academy of Educational Leaders, San Antonio, \u0026gt; McNeal, L. (February, 1998). The change process and its intact on high school principals. z Davenport Public School District, Davenport, lA. McNeal, L. (February, 1998). The change process audits impact on junior and middle school principals. Davenport Public School District, Davenport, lA. McNeal, L. (February, 1998). The change process and its impact on elementary school principals. Davenport Public School District, Davenport, lA. anyway? McNeal, L. (September, 1997). Focusing ' Quad-Cities Alhance of Black Educators, Rock Island, IL. on 1he needs of children of color: Whose job is it (February, 1997). Revisiting the Coleman report: Parents, families, communities and McNeal, L. (--------.. , _ schools. Illinois State University Administrators Club, Normal, IL. McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Parks, J. (October, 1996), Linking school-based data with community based data: The school-community relations profile model. Illinois School Board Association, nimois Associanon of School Administrators and Illinois Association of School Business Officials 64th Joint Annual Conference, Chicago, IL. McNeal, L. (1993, January). Site-based management Cooperative Council of Oklahoma School Administrators, New Principal Training Workshop, Norman, OK. McNeal, L, et al. (March, 1990). School choice\nOpen enrollment and post secondary options. Association of Wisconsin School Administrators, Madison, WI. McNeaL L Bread, J. and Willamson, M. (November, 1992). Financing the colorization of the canon. New Directions Norman, OK. for African American Scholarship and Research Conference\nColonzmg the Canon, funded GRANTS Preparing tomorrows teachers to use technology (PTS) grant. The University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, AR. July 1 throng August 15,2001. $4,375 Arkansas department of education grant award: Administrator licensure preparations. Reject Director\nAngela Sewall \u0026amp; Project Assistant Director Larry McNeal). Arkansas Department ofEducation. July 1,2001 through June 31,2002. $10,000 Proposal for the professional development of those who prepare school administrators in fre use enhance teaching and learning. (Co-Principal Investigators: L. McNeal \u0026amp; D. Ashby). of technology to tuuojiv... ~------------ \\-------- * - , ,nno n non University Council for Educational Administration. May 1 through September 30,1998. $1,000 Educational output in Illinois: Studying the disparity in academic test scores ^ong school districts. University Research Grant (Illinois State University). June 1.1996 through June 30,1997. $5,000 tn r n S w a: 2 ue cz\u0026gt; e S 2 M ri x  0 1622X z Student enrollment needs assessment study of the Illinois School for the Visually Impaired, Illinois center for rehabilitation and education and Illinois School for the Deaf. Illinois Department of Rehabilitation Services. May 15, 1995 through October, 1995. $7,500 \u0026lt; s \u0026gt; I I \u0026gt; ________________________________________FELLOWSHIPS____________ Advanced Opportunity Program Fellowship, University of Wisconsin, 1987-1990 Education Policy Fellow Program, Institute for Educational Leadership, 1993-94 z  _________________________________EDITORIAL REVIEW BOARDS______________________ Editorial Review Board, Planning and Changing, 1993-1998 Editorial Review Board, Journal of School Leadership, 1997-1999 Editorial Review Board, Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Yearbook, 2000 to present \u0026lt; Bi REFERRED PROPOSALS AND MANUSCRIPTS FOR University Council for Educational Administration Amp-rican Educational Research Association, Division A MidWestem Educational Research Association, Division A Southern Regional Council of Educational Administration Planning and Changing Journal of School Leadership Midwestern Educational Researcher Center for the Study of Small and Rural Schools SRCEA Y eaibook I ________________________SELECTED SERVICE ACnyiTIES Citizenship Service (Program. Department College. University') Rrogram Level Program Coordinator, Educational AdTninistratinn and Supervision, Department of Educational Leadership [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1998-2001 Chair, Educational Administration and Supervision Faculty Search Committee, Department of Educational Leadership [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1998-99,1999-2000,2000-2001 I Academic Advisor, Educational AdTninistration and Supervision, Department of Educational Leadership [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1997 to present Academic Advisor, Department of Educational Admi-nistrarin-n \u0026amp; Foundations [Illinois State University] 1993-1998 Academic Advisor, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies [University of Oklahoma] 1991-1993 Dissertation Chair, Educational Administration and Supervision, Department of Educational Leadership [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1997 to present Dissertation Chair, Department of Educational Administration \u0026amp; Foundations [Illinois State University] 1993-1998 ii n S M 2 2 CA c 2 2 M CA O s 8 1623I I 31 -I pi Dissertation Advisor, Educational A riministratinn and Supervision, Department of Educational Leadership and PoUcy Studies [University of Oklahoma] 1991-1993 Department Level Faculty Recorder, Department of Educational Leadership [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1999- present Member, Peer Evaluation Committee, Department of Educational Leadership [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 2000-pTesent Member, Student Evaluation Committee, Department of Educational Leadership [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 2000 Member, Higher Education Program Faculty Search Committee, Department of Educational Leadership [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1998-99 Academic Advisor, Quad Cities K-12 Doctoral Cohort, Department of Educational Admipistratinn \u0026amp; Foundations [Illinois State University] 1997- 1998 Member, K-12 Doctoral Curriculum Review Committee, Department of Educational Administration \u0026lt;\u0026amp; Foundations [Illinois State University] 1997-1998 Member, Faculty Status Committee, Department of Educational Administtation \u0026amp; Foundations [Ilhnois State University] 1996-1998 Member, Faculty Search Committee, Department of Educational Administration \u0026amp; Foundations [Illinois State University] 1995-1996,1997-98 Member, Research Committee, Department of Educational Administration \u0026amp; Foundations [Hhnois State University] 1995-1998 Member, Student Recruitment Committee, Department of Educational Administration \u0026amp; Foundations [Illinois State University] 1995-1997 Coordinator, K-12 Program Professional Practice, Department of Educational Administration \u0026amp; Foundations [Illinois State University] 1993-1998 Chair, Faculty Development Committee, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies [University of Oklahoma] 1992-1993 Chair, Graduate Tuition Fee Waivers Committee, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies [University of Oklahoma] 1992-1993 Member, Danforth Evaluation Team, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies Education [University of Oklahoma] 1992-93 College Level Member, Graduate Faculty, College of Education [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1998 to present Member, College of Education Retreat Committee [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1999 \u0026amp; 2001 Member, Associate Dean Search Committee College of Education [Illinois State University] 1997-1998 11 1624 z 9 S 9 \u0026lt;\u0026gt; 2 rw M 5n 2 C 2 2 M so 8 I 2 Member, College Council, College of Education [Illinois State University] 1994-1998 \u0026gt;\n? i President, College Council, College of Education [Illinois State University] 1996-1998 \u0026gt; I Member, Elections Committee, College of Education [Illinois State University] 1996-1998 2 Member, Technology Cn-mmittee, College of Education [Hhnois State University] 1996-1998 Member, Multicultural Task Force, College of Education [Illinois State University] 1994-95 Member, Graduate Faculty, College of Education [Illinois State University] 1993-1998 Member, Graduate Faculty, College of Education [University of Oklahoma] 1991-1993  Member, Education Faculty Development Committee, College of Education [University of Oklahoma] 1991-1993 Member, Equal Opportunity Committee, College of Education [University of Oklahoma] 1991-1993 Member, Graduate Faculty Member [University of Oklahoma] 1991-1993' Member, Faculty Search Committee, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, COE [Uitiversity of Oklahoma] 1991-1992] University Level Member, Commission to Cornbat Intolerance and Harassment [Illinois State University] 1995 1996 Member, Multicultural Task Force, Member, Commission to Combat Intolerance and Harassment [Illinois State Uitiversity] 1995 1996 Academic Calendar and Schedules Committee [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 2001-present Program Development and Accreditation Service Member, Provosts Advisory Group on Assessment [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1999-2001 Chair, College of Education Assessment Committee [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1999-2001 Co-Chair, College of Education Assessment Committee [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1998-1999 Member, College of Education Assessment Committee [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1998-2001 Member, Program Advisory Assessment Committee [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1998-2001 Chair, K-12 Program Curriculum Review Committee, Department of Educational Leadership [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1998-2001 Member, North Central Self Study Task Force (Governance and Administration Community) [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1998-1999 Chair, K-12 Program Curriculum Review Committee Department of Educational Administration \u0026amp; Foundations [Illinois State University] 1997- 98 tq M 2 w 2! Vi C 2 2 M CA ri s:  1625f Merhber, K-12 Doctoral Curriculum Review Committee^ Department of Educational Administration \u0026amp; Foundations [Illinois State University] 1997-1998 External Reviewer (Evaluation) of Department of Educational Administration Northern Illinois University [sponsored by University Council for Educational Administration] spring 1996 Member, K-12 Program Review Committee, Department of Educational Administration \u0026amp; Foundations [Illinois State University] 1993-1997 Member, Administration Certificate Program Committee, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies [University of Oklahoma] 1991-1993 Member, NCATE Category Evaluation Committee, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy- Studies [University of Oklahoma] 1991-1992 Professional and Community Service fPiogram, Department College, University') Professional Associations Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) 1999-to present American Educational Research Association (AERA) 1991 -to present American Education Finance Association (AEFA) 1991-1999 International Academy of Educational Leaders (lAEL) I998-to present University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA) 1991-98 National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) 1996-2000 Mid-South Educational Research Association (MSERA) 1998 to present Mid'Westem Educational Research Association (MWERA) 1993-1998 Southern Regional Council of Professors of Educational Administration (SRCPEA) 1998-to present Illinois Council of Professors of Educational Administration (ICPEA) 1993-98 Illinois Association of School Administrators (lASA) 1995-98 Kappa Delta PI School Level (Service to Schools') Davenport Public School District, Davenport, lA Little Rock School District, Little Rock, AR Pulaski County School District, Pulaski County, AR Peoria Pubhc School District, Peoria, IL Kankakee public School District, Kankakee, IL Galesburg Public School District, Galesburg, IL Pulaski Charter School, Inc., Maumelle, AR East St. Louis Public School District, East St. Louis, MO Bloomington Pubhc School District, Bloomington, IL Oklahoma City Pubhc School District, Oklahoma City, OK Rock Island Pubhc Schools, Rock Island, IL Nicoma ParkPubhc Schools, Nicoma Park, OK Moore Pubhc School District, Moore, OK Metcalf School (Hhnois State University), Normal, IL University High School (minois State University), Normal, IL Savannah, Pubhc School District, Savannah, GA Chatham County School District, Chatham County, GA School District (Service to School Districts') Little Rock School District Little Rock, AR 1626 S W' z 9 9 \u0026lt; [fl \u0026gt; J! 11 \u0026gt; z 11 r m S M a\n2 JO Vi c 2 2 M Vi ri 2 8kit? 7 X H B 2 9 State Level \u0026gt; S Arkansas Association of Colleges of Teacher Education [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 2000 Executive Committee Member, Oklahoma Commission for Educational Leadership [University of Oklahoma] 1991-1993 \u0026gt; 2 Chair, Administrative Procedure Committee Superintendent's Advisory Council for Accounting and Financial Reporting (sponsored Oklahoma Department ofEducation) [University of Oklahoma] 1991-1992 Executive Committee Member, Oklahoma Association of School Administrators [University of Oklahoma] 1991-1993 Chair, Ad-ministrative Procedure Cn-mmittee, Superintendent's Advisory Council for Accounting and [University of Oklahoma] 1991-1992 Executive Committee Member, Cooperative Council for Oklahoma School Administration Administrators [University of Oklahoma] 1991 1992 Regional/Natiorial/Intemational Level Regional Executive Board Member, Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1999 to present Junior Chair, Division A (Administration) MidWestem Educational Research Association [Illinois State University] 1997-1998 Chair, Division A (Administration) MidWestem Educational Research Association [Illinois State University] 1995-1997 National School Leaders Licensure Assessment Test Examiner, School Leader Licensure Educational Testing Service {Princeton, NJ} [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] July 200 Executive Committee Member, Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1999 to present Advisory Board Member, Center for the Study of Small/Rural Schools [University of Oklahoma] 1998- 2000 Executive Committee, University Council for Educational Administration [Illinois State University] 1996- 1998 Plenary Representative, University Council for Educational Administration [Illinois State University] 1993- 1996 Faculty Speaker, National Graduate Student Research Seminar (sponsored by the University Council for Educational Administration for UCEA National Convention in Louisville, KY) [Illinois State Uinversity] 1996 1627 m n S x 2 \u0026lt; Vi c 22 M V) sO 8 n n Planning Committee Member, National Graduate Student Research Seminar in Educational Administration (sponsored by the University Council for Educational Education and the American Educational Research Association for AERA Conference in Francisco, CA) [Illinois State University] 1995-1996 \u0026gt;1 2 0 B 9 \u0026gt; n n Member, Ad Hoc Finance Committee University Council for Educational Administration [Illinois State University] 1994 1996 \u0026gt; J C 2 Member, Urban Education Consortium (based at Rutgers University in the Center for Government Services) [Illinois State University] 1994-1998 Planning Committee Member, Information Environment for School Leader Preparation Simulation Project [sponsored by UCEA sponsored] 1993-1997 Bl Steering Committee Member, National Research Conference on Afiican American Studies (sponsored by University of Oklahoma) [University of Oklahorna] 1992-1993 ! I I i ( I n Executive Committee MenibeT, Wisconsin Alumni Association National Alumni Council For Multicultural Diversity [University or Wisconsin-Madison] 1990-1992 n Internationa n International Academy of Educational Leaders (lAEL) [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1998-to present SELECTED CONSULTING ACHVITIES q Site Date School Leader Licensure Educational Testing Service Princeton, NJ July 2001 Charter School Evaluation q Student Enrollment Little Rock School District Little Rock, AR June 2001 q Pulaski Charter School, Inc. Maumelle, AR April 2001 Student Enrollment Trends Pulaski Charter School, Inc. MaumeUe, AR November 2000 q Flexible Block Scheduling Pulaski County School District Jacksonville, AR October 2000 q Change, Communications \u0026amp; Interpersonal Relations Chicago Pubhc School District Chicago, IL. October 1999 q Collegiality and Leadership Little Rock, AR Little Rock, AR September 1999 School Board and Superintendent Relations East St Louis Pubhc School District East St Louis, MO July 1998 School In^rovement/Change Process Daverrport Pubhc School District Davenport, LA February 1998 tn n 2 n z 2 Vi C 2 2 M Vi ri x 8 15 1628H Ed After School Programs Evaluation d Galesburg Public School District Galesburg, Illinois December 1997 April 1998 \u0026lt; Title 1\nSummer School Evaluation Peoria Pubhc School District Peoria, IL November 1997 f\u0026gt;l 7i fl \u0026gt;  Annexation Bloomington Public School District Bloomington, IL Summer 1997 2 Curriculum Development/Computer Simulations University Council for Educational Administration St. Louis, MO July 1997 a Administrative Tcsting/Principalship Educational Testing Services Princeton, NJ June 1997 a Block Scheduling Rock Island Public School District Rock Island, IL Spring 1997 a School hnprovement/Commuitity Relations Galesburg Public School District Galesburg, IL February 1997 a School Improvement/Diversity Kankakee Pubhc School District Kankakee, IL November 1996  Site-Based Fiscal Management Georgia Southern Uitiversity Savannah, GA May 1996 \u0026amp; April 1995 Site-Based Management/Personnel issues Nicoma Park Public School District Nicoma Park, OK March 1993' Student Diversity Moore Public School District Moore, OK Spring 1993 Staff Relations \u0026amp; Diversity Oklahoma City Public School District February-March Oklahoma City, OK 1993 Educational Finance/Montana Grant Writing/At-Risk Children Student/Date D. Bangs (2001) Broadnax, W. (2001) Center For The Study Of Small/ Rural Schools Norman, OK Oklahoma Public School District Oklahoma City, OK Summer 1992 Summer 1992 THESIS AND DISSERTATION COMMITTEE SERVICE Topic A study of student drug-testing effects in selected Arkansas secondary schools [Chair] A study of Arkansas public school superintendents knowledge of and attitudes toward charter schools [Chair] Pl 5PI \u0026gt; 9e \u0026lt; Wl C S s Pl CB n s  1629 M 1^ Sain, L. (2001) A comparison of pre-post student outcomes after an intervention of a secondary alternative program for disruptive students [Chair] Austin, R. (2001) Role of the special education supervisor as perceived by Arkansas superintendents, principals, and special education supervisors [Member] r s II \u0026gt; fl   \u0026gt; V. Abernathy (2001) A Study of the Superintendency supply issue for public education [Chair] z W.Bitely(2001) English as a second language in the state of Arkansas [Chair] C. Claye (2001) An analysis of a case study of a secondary alternative education program in Brazil: Lessons for the United States [Chair] M. Dalia Rosa (2001) Principals and educational interpreters perceptions of the evaluation process of educational interpreters in ATkangas public schools [Member] A. Tucker (2001) An Investigation of student performance in Arkansas high schools using the traditional schedule, alternate day block schedule and intensive block schedule [Chair] J. Tackett (2000) Self-reported teacher job satisfaction and perception of administrative listening skills [Chair] M. Dickerson, (2000) Superintendent perceptions of effectiveness: A study of Arkansas school improvement [Chair] T. J. Chesser (2000) The first statewide study circles on education in America: Participant perceptions of study circles in two Arkansas communities [Chair] D. Williams (2000) A descriptive case study of a single innovations effect on multiple literacy initiatives in Arkansas [Member] Y. Meade-Williams (2000) A study of the effect of principal leadership style on teacher stress in six junior high schools in the Pulaski county special school district [Member] B. Wood (2000) A profile of female superintendents in Arkansas 1999-2000 [Member] L. J. Jackson (1999) Aftican-American and Caucasian American students satisfaction of perceived instructional strategies in third-and-sixth-gradc urban elementary classrooms [Member] Illinois State University E. Eddings (1999) Does the level of inqjlementation of total quality management affect student outcomes? [Co-Chair] University of Arkansas at Little Rock E. Goldstone (1998) Case study of the involvement of the business community in the Illinois partnership academy in eight Illinois school districts from 1993 to 1996 [Meniber] Hhnois State University tn Pl S Pl 2 2 V) c\n2 2 M X V) S  n 1630(. 2 S hI \u0026gt;2 R.L. Kilpatrick (1998) N. J, Anderson (1998) C. W. Dawson (1998) V.D. Steele (1998) B. Hinrichs (1998) E. J. Brown (1998) G. L. Harrison (1998) C. A. Stack (1997) T. M. Eddy (1997) J. D. White (1997) J. J. Pokomey (1997) D.P. Henry (1996) L. A. Obi (1995) J.R. Davis (1995) M. J. Moore (1994) Determining the costs of school year extensions [Member] Illinois State University The four block scheduling model as a change mechanism A study of three selected high schools [Chair] lUinois State University A. case study of desegregation in the rockford school system, rockford, Hlhiois, from 1989-1997 [Member] Illinois State University The relationship between leadership styles of elementary principals and school cultures [Member] Hhnois State University Understanding situational leadership and its relationship to student project groups [Chair] THinnis State University The instructional leadership role of elementary school principals and its Influence on instructional practices as perceived by elementary school teachers [Chair] Illinois State University An analysis of the dismissal of tenured teachers under article 24A. of Illinois public acts 84-126 and 84-972: evaluation of certified employers [Chair] minois State University A study of the organizational structure of middle level blue ribbon schools and factors that promote efficiency [Chair] Hhnois State University Teacher and student perceptions of school environment and student discipline [Chair] Illinois State University Reduced class size and teacher perceptions of its impact in kindergarten through third grade [Member] Hhnois State University Education\nrelationships with job satisfaction and organization commitment [Member] Illinois State University African American parents involvement in the elementary education of their children [Member] Illinois State University The efficacy of oral English language proficiency policies for international teaching assistants in institutions of higher education [Member] Illinois State University An investigation of the value congruence held by Illinois school board members regarding alternative schooling and the allocation of financial resources to support alternative education [Member] Illinois State University African American voter participation\nThe role of religion in the 1992 presidential election (Thesis) [Member] University of Oklahoma w t-n S M V) C 2 2 M ri s  1631 ?! fl ' \u0026gt; fl 3 \u0026gt; e 1 e I E. W. Costa n (1993) The principal as leader\nA study of the perceptions of entry-level teachers [Member] University of Oklahoma I. B. Seay (1993) P.T.B. Freeman (1993) Women in leadership roles\nPerspectives from female elementary administrators [Member] University of Oklahoma Presidential profiles in higher education: Perspectives \u0026amp;om Afacan American women [Meiriber] University of Oklahoma \u0026gt; fl  \u0026gt; 5 z G.W. Griffin (1992) Principals and superintendents perceptions of superintendent behaviors and activities which are linked to school effectiveness [Member] University of Oklahoma W, L, Anderson (1991) An analysis of the roles of.high school administrators as perceived by principals and assistant principals in selected Oklahoma public high schools [Member] Illinois State University REFERENCES Furnished Upon Request A tn r n 2 M Z \u0026gt; IZ G s s n :c CZ) ri s  1632i 21 5 Bl 9 \u0026gt; I 2 \u0026gt;51 I THIRD-PARTY EVALUATION OF THE LYCEUM SCHOLARS PROGRAM Prepared By Quality Education and Management Associates, Inc. Little Rock, Arkansas January 2003 0 1633 ) i ( i I w r* B s w z 2 vs C 2 S m X  C 1. 1 Foreword The Little Rock School District contracted with the Quality Education and Management Associates, Inc. (QEMA) to serve as a third-party evaluator for the LRSD Lyceum Scholars Program conducted at Philander Smith College. The impetus for the third-party evaluation was the federal court ruling in September 2002 releasing the District from court supervision, with the exception of one area relating to the evaluation of certain programs. The LRSD Lyceum Scholars Program was one of several educational programs identified in the Districts final Compliance Report (March 2001) that the court required to be completed, approved by the Board of Trustees, and submitted to the court by March 15,2003. p  J 2 0 PI' s fl 3 r \u0026gt; c 2 Evaluation Overview This third-party evaluation is a supplement to three evaluation reports prepared on the LRSD Lyceum Scholars High School (LSHS) program. Two of the reports focused on individual school years of operation of the LSHS program, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. The third report was a two-year comparison of the evaluation data from school years 1998-1999 and 1999-2000. I The evaluation is divided into four parts. Part A is a description of the LSHS program. Part B describes the methodology and summarizes and interprets the key findings of the three previous evaluations. Part C describes the limitations of the three previous evaluations. Finally, Part D offers suggestions for improving future evaluations of any similar programs that the Little Rock School District may initiate. A. Program Description Mission The mission of the LSHS program, as stated in the previous evaluations, is as follows: To provide an opportunity for underachieving secondary students, who have academic potential but require a nontraditional approach to learning, to achieve academic^ly and to develop social competencies that will allow them to obtain a high school diploma and successfully transition into a post-secondary educational environment. Program Objectives The objectives of the LSHS program, as stated in the previous evaluations, are as follows: 1. The academic performance of each student enrolled in the Lyceum Scholars High School will increase during the period of participation in the program, as 1 1634 tn M sz 2w V) 2e 2w V) ri s   n 2. 3. 4. 5. measured by pre and post computerized student assessment data and grade point average. The attendance rate for each student enrolled in the Lyceum Scholars High School will be 95% or better. Each student will demonstrate maturity, self-control and appropriate social interaction skills as evidenced by teacher/staff assessment and then absence of disciphnary sanctions during the period of program participation. Each student will develop a plan for his/her own continuing education that will include high school graduation and enrollment in a post secondary educational institution. Each student will demonstrate an increased commitment to continued program participation, as evidenced by self-report on the annual program evaluation. The curriculum of the Lyceum Scholars High School will be delivered in a non- traditional way to include group work, project-based learning, interdisciplinary and applied units, and computer assisted instruction. 11 n V 6. H Program Design and Activities n The LSHS program was designed to provide the participants with the LRSD high school academic cumculum in a small class setting utilizing computer based PLATO software. The participants were also exposed to a social skills curriculum. The program began with 10 grade students and was supposed to add a grade level each year until grades 9-12 were in operation. At the end of their year of participation, students could reenroll or return to the regular classroom. n II n LSHS was staffed by two certified teachers, one instructional aide, a part-time security officer, and a program admimstrator. Case management services were provided through a grant-funded position from the Arkansas Department of Human Services. Unfortunately, there are no additional details in the three previous evaluations that desOTbe the precise treatment afforded students in the program. Missing is any indication of precisely how much of the curriculum was delivered by computer, how and when any of the methods described in Objective 6 above were implemented, the role of the certified teachers and aide, how and when the social skills curriculum was implemented (or even what the social skills curriculum actually consisted of), or any type of schedule of activities. m m 11 History The Lyceum High School Scholars program began as an alternative learning environment program for underachieving high school students in October of school year 1997-98. It was envisioned as a partnership venture with a Little Rock area college or university inn order to enhance the likelihood of successfully addressing the mission of the program as stated above. The initial partner was UALR, which housed the program for one year. Thereafter, the program was housed at Philander Smith College. The LSHS program was discontinued after the 2000-2001 school year. 2 m 1635B. Methodology t p 2 C5. \u0026lt; \u0026gt;5 11 The methodology and key findings of each of the three previous evaluations are addressed separately below. fl 3 \u0026gt; Z 1999-2000 Program Evaluation Although the evaluation report does not have a section that specifically describes the methodology in detail, there is enough narrative in the report to discern that the methodology consisted primarily of satisfaction surveys administered to students, parents, staff, and administrators. In addition, the report provides a statistical analysis of student achievement gains in mathematics, language arts, and reading as measured by a pre/post assessment utilizing the PLATO instructional program and a pre/post assessment of student attendance and suspensions. I Key results of the program evaluation included the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1. 8. 100% of the students were either satisfied or very satisfied with the application process, student services offered, stafTstudent interactions/communications, and the overall program. Students gave high ratings to their interactions with college personnel and the instructional program. 100% of the students were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with meals provided by the LRSD and 62.5% of the students were similarly dissatisfied with the meals in the student center. With the exception of the items on meals, parents were satisfied or very satisfied with all components of the program. The staff was completely satisfied with the program. The LRSD administrators were highly complimentary of the program. When compared to pre-LSHS levels, students exhibited an 85% reduction in school absences and a 30% reduction in suspensions at the end of the program. Average grade-level increases from the beginning to the end of the program for students were 3.71 for mathematics, 6.48 for language arts, and 5.00 for reading. 1 Based on the results of the program, it would appear that the LSHS program was successful. Program Objective #1 was achieved, results approached the level sought in Program Objective #2, and Program Objective #3 appeared to be met. However, because of the limitations of the evaluation outlined in the next section, the results and interpretation of the results should be viewed with caution. 2000-2001 Program Evaluation The same methodology that was described above also applies to this evaluation report with one exception. In this evaluation, LRSD administrators were not surveyed. 15 W 2M v\u0026gt; C2 2w ri a 8 3 1636 Key results of the program evaluation included the following\n1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. The percentages of students who were satisfied or very satisfied with program components were as follows: 100%-application form and social studies instruction. 94.5%English instruction 94,4%science and communications instruction 88.9%faculty 77.8%-mathematics instruction 66.7%-case management, computer-aided instruction, and grading procedures 83.4% of the students were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with meals provided by LRSD and 55.5% were similarly dissatisfied with the media center. 94.4 % of the students thought that their teachers respected them as individuals. 72.2% of the students would not recommend the LSHS to a friend 61.1% of the students expressed satisfaction with the overall program 61.7% of the students indicated that they preferred to return to their assigned schools the next year. 80% of the parents were satisfied with the overall program 75% of the parents were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the meals provided by LRSD 60% of the parents stated that they would like their child to return to the LSHS next year and would recommend the program to others. 10.100% of the LSHS staff were satisfied or very satisfied with the service that the service center provided LSHS students. 11. 67.7% of the staff were very dissatisfied with the student selection process and 50% were very dissatisfied with the career center. 12. 67.7% of the staff were dissatisfied with preparation and planning time, expectations of student behavior, management of student behavior, and support for disciplinary actions. 13.40% of the staff were dissatisfied with support from the LRSD administrator. 14. When compared to pre-LSHS levels, students exhibited a 60% reduction in school absences and a 33% reduction in suspensions at the end of the program. 15. Average grade level increases from the beginning to the end of the program for students were 4.51 for mathematics, 6.57 for language arts, and 6.23 for reading. Results of the program evaluation for 2000-2001 are mixed. Students are still satisfied with many aspects of the program, but at lower levels than the previous year. Yet, a clear majority of the students would not recommend the program to a friend nor did they want to return the next year. However, the students did exhibit reductions in absences and suspensions, and average increases in grade levels were higher than the year before. With respect to the staff, levels of dissatisfaction with program elements related to student behavior and discipline were high, as was dissatisfaction with administrative support. Although student absences and suspensions decreased, it appeared that discipline was problematic for the staff. That certainly raises the question of whether or not there that disparity might be related to students' reluctance to recommend the program to others and their desire to return to their regular schools. 4 B II II II B II n n II 11 m v in in VI 1637r a Again, because of limitations addressed in the next section, results and interpretations need to be viewed with caution. 1998-1999 \u0026amp; 1999-2000 Two-Year Comparison fl fl fl fl fl The LRSD provided QEMA with a program evaluation report that combined data on the LSHS program for 1998-1999 \u0026amp; 1999-2000. However, the report is clearly labeled a Draft on all pages of the report, and theres no indication that the report was ever taken beyond the draft stage to become an official program evaluation of the LSHS program. Nevertheless, the report does have a description of the methodology, although the description tends to outline the data to be presented as opposed to how it was collected or analyzed. The methodology addresses participation, performance, and perception. Participation in LSHS is presented by race and gender. Performance is addressed through suspension and absentee data\ngrade level gains in language, mathematics, and reading, achievement test scores in language, mathematics, and reading\nand correlations between achievement tests and computer generated tests. Perception is addressed through a set of satisfaction surveys administered to students, parents, teachers, and admimstrators. fl fl fl Key results of the program evaluation included 1. Student absences increased, while the days in suspension decreased. 2. Students were performing at grade level as measured by the PLATO software. 3. Students scored higher in mathematics than the LRSD average e scores on the Achievement Level Test (ALT). 4. Students scored below the LRSD average in reading and language usage on the ALT. 5. Students in the 1999-2000 group reported higher levels of satisfaction than those in the 1998-1999 group. a 6. 7. 8. 9. Students and parents wanted more classroom time and less time on the computers. Both students and parents were dissatisfied with morning bus amval times. Staff wanted more support in instructional delivery. Principals of feeder schools wanted more information about the LSHS program. I ffS Results of this evaluation report are mixed also. However, when the results are compared to the other two program evaluation reports, it is interesting to note that the measures used to report the results are different. For example, in the previous two reports, absenteeism and suspension data were reported by a pre/post recording of actual incidences of absence and suspension. Then, an average gain or loss was calculated. In this 1998 through 2000 comparative study, an average number of days absent and days suspended was calculated, and the first year was compared to the second. Hence, there occurs an entirely different interpretation of the data and the relative success of the program. It is also interesting to note that absence and suspension calculations in the two other evaluations were consistent with the expectations of program outcomes as stated in the program objectives. {15 M 2 n \u0026gt; CZ5 C 2 2 M 5 -1(38 p p 2 C Wi \u0026lt; J' n 5 \u0026gt; c 2 CZ) n a   The same difficulty with interpretation occurs with the performance data. In the previous two reports, performance was measured by pre/post gains in grade levels, while in the instant case, that data were reported, but also included comparisons on a different test. The latter was not a test identified in the LSHS program objectives. II n An overall and general interpretation of the data from all three evaluation reports would indicate that the satisfaction levels of students, parents, staff, and administration increased from the first year of program operation to the second and diminished from the second year of operation to the third\nthat the LSHS program had a positive impact on reducing student absenteeism and suspensions\nand that students made gains in mathematics, language arts, and reading grade levels as measured by PLATO, but fell below grade level in language arts and reading when compared on a different test. B II II C. Limitations General II 1. There is an inadequate description of the program that hinders stakeholders from determining the exact \"treatment\" of the program and whether or not the data provide any useful information. II 2. Although neither the 1999-2000 nor the 2000-2001 evaluations have a clearly identified purpose for the evaluation, the Two-Year Comparison evaluation, does. However, the \"draft\" status of the latter limits the utility of the report. VI VI 3. The stakeholders for the 1999-2000 and the 2000-2001 evaluations are not clearly identified. The audience for the Two-Year Comparison evaluation is not identified either and is complicated by the fact that the report is clearly labeled a Draft on all pages of the report. Thus, the utility of that report is limited. m 4. There are no clearly identified research questions that address LSHSs effectiveness, impact, success, etc. in any of the three evaluation reports. However, while the 1999-2000 and the 2000-2001 evaluations do not identify what the evaluation is supposed to achieve, the Two-Year Comparison evaluation's purpose statements do provide direction for the data presentation and analysis. The data presentation and analysis in all three reports do appear to be directly related to at least some of the stated objectives of the program. m w RI Methodology Hl 1. There is no methodology stated in either the 1999-2000 or the 2000- 2001 evaluations. The Two-Year Comparison evaluation, on the other hand, does have a description of the methodology, although the description tends to outline the data be presented as opposed to how it was collected or analyzed. 6  1639I 2. The methodology utilized for 1999-2000 and the 2000-2001 evaluations is grounded primarily in student, parent, staff, and administrator satisfaction oriented reactions to all of the components of the LSHS program. While that data may be of interest, there is no meaningful connection between that data and program objectives nor the primary intent of the program, which was to help underachieving students reach their academic potential. Since similar surveys were utilized in the Two-Year Comparison evaluation, the same limitations apply. 3. The number of students, parents, staff, and administrators participating in the siuveys limits the interpretation of the data. 4. 'Data generated on achievement levels of the students are limited by small numbers and absence of control groups or any other controls against research bias. Data to Inform Practice El Because of the limitations stated above, there is very little in the way of meaningful data that could inform current practice in providing alternative learning environments in the LRSD. Achievement Effects I Although there was some encouraging data in terms of absenteeism, suspensions, and grade level gains, none of the data was broken out by ethnicity. Therefore, there was no way that stakeholders could ascertain the impact of the LSHS program on the academic achievement of African American students. D. Suggestions for Improved Practice in Program Evaluation QEMA recognizes that the Little Rock School District has adopted the evaluation guidelines outlined in the publication \"The Program Evaluation Standards: How To Assess Evaluations of Educational Programs (2\"'' Edition) by The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation (1994). The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation is a coalition of major professional associations concerned with the quality of evaluation and is housed at The Evaluation Center, Western Michigan University. The guidelines are compatible with the Little Rock School District Revised Compliance Plan and standards for program evaluation. Continued implementation of the evaluation guidelines should address most issues related to program evaluation in the futme. r n 2 M 2 \u0026gt; \u0026lt; C S s w ri X  7 1640 p I p 2 6' W' 7 \u0026lt;1 \u0026gt; s 9 5 c 2PROGRAM EVALUATION PhUander Smith College/ LRSD Lyceum Scholars High School 1 .1 1999 - 2000 D II II n n p p p p p p p p p p p } 16411 I This evaluation report is divided into two sections. Section I presents the results of four surveys that were completed by the following individuals\nA. Students in the Lyceum Program B. Parents of Lyceum students C. Lyceum staff members D. LRSD administrators with' students enrolled in the Lyceum program Section n is a statistical analysis of student academic progress for \u0026amp;e year and a r^rt conqiaring student attendance and suspensions before entrance to the program and this year. key MNUIMPS 1. The number of individuals completing each of the evaluation surveys were\nStudent Survey - 8 Parent Survey -10 Staff Survey-3 Administrative Survey - 3 2. 100% of the students were either satisfied or very satisfied with the Application Process. 3. Only 50% of the students were either satisfied or very satisfied with the Restroom Facilities. 4. 5. 6. 100% of the students were satisfied or very satisfied with the Student Services offered. Students regarded their Interactions with College Personnel as very fevorable. The Instructional Program received high marks from the students. 7. 100% of the students were either satisfied or very satisfied with StafiZStudent 8. 9. Interactions/Commnnications. 100% of the students were either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the Meals Provided by LRSD. 62.5% of the students were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied by the Meals in the Student Center. 10.100% of the students were satisfied or very satisfied with the Overall Program. tn n 2 '2. \u0026gt; Vi S S m n a: 8 1642 r Si S 5^ fl 0 \u0026gt; c 2 I 2 311. With the exception of the survey item dealing with Meals Provided by LRSD, all of  were either satisfied or very satisfied. the parent responses 12 Thp St Aff Survey reflected complete satisfaction with the program. 13. LRSD school administrators were also highly complimentary of the program. 14 Lyceum students showed an 85% redaction in school absences, and a 30% reduction in the number of suspensions, when compared to their pre-Lyceum assignments. 15. Lyceum students recorded the following average grade level increases over the course of this school year: Language Arts - 6.48 Math-3.71 Reading-5    n A n n n II n n in wi 1643program EVALUAHON - LRSD LYCEUM STUDENT SURVEY 1999- 2000 \u0026gt; Frequeni Valid GRADE z fl \u0026gt; fl 5 I Valid Valid Missing Total 9.00 10.00 Total Male Female Total 6 2 8 Frequeni 5 3 8 Percent 75.0 25.0 100.0 Gender Valid Percent TOO 25.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent TSX\" 100.0 z Percent 62.5 37.5 100.0 Valid Percent ezT 37.5 .100.0 Cumulative Percent 62.5 100.0 Race Frequeni African American Caucasian Other Total System Frequeni Valid 14.00 15.00 16.00 17.00 Total 1 3 2 2 8 Valid Missing Total 8.00 725.00 Total System 4 2 1 7 1 8 Percent 500 25.0 12.5 87.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent TtT 28.6 14.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent stT 85.7 100.0 Age Percent 12.5 37.5 25.0 25.0 100.0 Valid Percent \"715 37.5 25.0 25.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent TTT 50.0 75.0 100.0 Schcxl attended prior to the Lyceum Frequeni 1 5 6 2 8 Percent 12.5 62.5 75.0 25.0 100.0 Valid Percent 167 83.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent  100.0 w M 2 w \u0026gt; CZ) CS sM (Z s 1644  I I Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total Missing System Total Valid Vary Satisfied Satisfied Total Missing System Total___________ Valid Written Application Forms Frequency 3 3 1 7 1 ______ 8 Percent 37.6 37.5 12.5 87.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 42.9 42.9 14.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 42.9 85.7 100.0  Personal Interview Frequency 3 4 7 1 ____8 Percent 37.6 50.0 87.5 12.6 100.0 Valid Percent 42.9 57.1 100.0 Cumulative Percent 42.9 100.0 n Notification of Acceptance Very Satisfied Satisfied Total Missing System Total___________ Frequency 3 4 7 1 _____ 8 Percent 37.5 50.0 87.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 42.9 57.1 100.0 Cumulative Percent 42.9 100.0 II II n Classrooms Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total________ Frequency 3 5 ____ 8 Percent 37.5 62.5 100.0 Valid Percent 37.5 62.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 37.5 100.0 Restrooms Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Total _______ _ Frequency 2 2 3 1 ________ 8 Percent 25.0 25.0 37.5 12.5 100.0 I Valid Percent 25.0 25.0 37.5 12.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 25.0 50.0 87.5 100.0 1645 student Center Frequem Valid Missing Total Valid H SI ! Very Satisfied Satisfied Very Dissatisfied Total System Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total Missing System Total___________ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_______ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_ 3 . 3 1 7 1 8 Percent 37.5 37.5 12.5 87.5 12.5 100.0 Media Center Frequem 2 4 1 7 1 8 Percent 25.0 50.0 12.5 87.5 12.5 100.0 Computer Lab Access Frequency 1 7 ____ 8 Percent 12.5 87.5 100.0 Orientation Frequency 1 4 3 ____ 8 1 Valid Percent 42.S 42.0 14.3 100.0 Percent 12.5 50.0 37.5 100.0 Health Services Frequency 1 5 2 8 Valid Percent 28^ 57.1 14.3 100.0 Valid Percent 12.5 87.5 100.0 Percent 12.5 62.5 25.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 42.9 85.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 28.6 85.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 12.5 100.0 2 I) \u0026gt; n a r \u0026gt; 2 Valid Percent iTT 50.0 37.5 100.0 Valid Percent 12.5 62.5 25.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 12.5 62.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 12.5 75.0 100.0 w n 2 M a: \u0026lt; Vi i 2 m X CA ri x  1646 Career Center I ) Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Very Dissatisfied Total__________ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total________ I Valid Valid Valid Frequency 2 4 2 _____8 Very Satisfied Satisfied Total________ Mery Satisfied Satisfied Total________ Mery Satisfied Satisfied Total_________ Percent 25.0 50.0 25.0 100.0 Valid Percent 25.0 50.0 25.0 100.0 Mentoring/Counsellng Frequency 2 5 1 _____6 Percent 25.0 62.5 12.5 100.0 Case Management Frequency 3 4 1 ______8 Percent 37.5 50.0 12.5 100.0 Faculty Frequency 5 3 _____B Percent 62.5 37.5 100.0 Support Personnel Frequency 4 4 ___8 Percent 50.0 50.0 100.0 Security Frequency 3 5 ______8 Cumulative Percent 25.0 75.0 100.0 D II 11 Valid Percent 25.0 62.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 37.5 50.0 12.5 100.0 Percent 37.5 62.5 Cumulative Percent 25.0 87.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 37.5 87.5 100.0 II n RI RI RI RI Valid Percent 62.5 37.5 100.0 Valid Percent 50.0 50.0 100.0 100.0 I Valid Percent 37.5 62.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 62.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 50.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 37.5 100.0 RI \\Administration ) ) I I } Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ _ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_ Valid Valid Valid Frequency 3 5 8 Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_______ Percent 37.5 62.5 100.0 Valid Percent 62.5 100.0 Classroom Management Frequency 3 5 8 Percent 37.5 62.5 100.0 Valid Percent \"stT 62.5 100.0 Instructional Materials Frequency 3 5 ____8 Percent 37.5 62.5 100.0 Textboolcs Frequency 5 2 1 8 Percent 62.5 25.0 12.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 37.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 37.5 100.0 Valid Percent  62.5 100.0 Valid Percent 62ir 25.0 12.5 100.0 Computer-aided Instruction Cumulative Percent sTs 100.0 Cumulative Percent 62.5 87.5 100.0 Vary Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_______ Frequency 3 4 1 8 Percent 37.5 50.0 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 37iP 50.0 12.5 100.0- Cumulative Percent stT 87.5 100.0 English Instruction Missing Total Very Satisfied Satisfied Total System Frequency 4 3 7 1 ____ 8 Percent 50.0 37.5 87.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 57.1 42.9 100.0 Cumulative Percent 57.1 100.0 tn n S \"i \u0026gt; la \u0026lt; CA e 22 w CoA s  1648 p'. c. P9 O' X 9 \u0026gt; z I 2 Vi X z Math Instruction Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_ Frequency 6 2 ___ 8 Percent 75.0 25.0 100.0 Science Instruction Valid Valid Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_______ Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total Valid Valid Valid Percent 75.0 25.0 100.0 T Cumulative Percent 75.0 100.0 n nn Frequency 4 2 2 ____ 8 Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_______ Percent 50.0 25.0 25.0 100.0 Valid Percent 50.0 25.0 25.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 50.0 75.0 100.0 nn Social Studies Instruction Frequency 6 2 11 Percent 75.0 25.0 100.0 Valid Percent 75.0 25.0 100.0 I Cumulative Percent 75.0 100.0 Connnunications Instruction Frequency 5 2 1 _____ 8 Percent 62.5 25.0 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 62.5 25.0 12.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 62.5 87.5 100.0 Personal Academic Success Frequency 4 3 1 ______8 Percent 50.0 37.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 50.0 37.5 12.5 100.0 Individual Attention to Needs II H m m II m Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_______ Frequency 4 3 1 8 Percent 50.0 37.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 50.0 37.5 12.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 50.0 87.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent soio\" 87.5 100.0 ffl mn 1649 Number of Courses Available 1   .a 1 Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Very Dissatisfied Total_ _ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total____ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Total Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_______ Frequency 4 3 1 ____ 8 Percent 50.0 37.5 12.5 100.0 Group Wort( Frequency 3 4 1 ____ 8 Percent 37.5 50.0 12.5 100.0 Projects Frequency 3 3 1 1 ___ 8 Vaiid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied I Total_______ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied ' Total_______ Valid Percent \"soio' 37.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 37.5 50.0 1Z.S 100.0 Percent 37.5 37.5 12.5 12.5 100.0 Grading Procedures Frequency 1 4 3 1 _______Ll Percent 50.0 37.5 12.5 100.0 Field Trips Frequency 5 2 1 8 Percent 62.5 25.0 12.5 100.0 Homework Frequency 7 1 ___ 8 Cumulative Percent 50.0 87.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 375\" 87.5 100.0 Valid Percent 37.5 37.5 12.5 12.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent stT 75X 100.0 r,  '5 ci K0?a Valid Percent ' 50ir 37.5 12.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent soio\" 87.5 100.0 Percent 87.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 625\" 25.0 12.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 625\" 87.5 100.0 Valid Percent btT 12.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 87.5 100.0 m n S n \u0026gt; 'JO \u0026lt; 7) c S S M x  1650 I \u0026gt;  I s3 \u0026gt; He 7. i 5 X -I X \u0026gt;X H 2 t 1 I staff Responds in a Caring and Helpful Manner vSid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_______ Frequency 3 4 1 8 Percent 37.5 50.0 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent StT 50.0 12.5 100.0 Staff Provides Nurturance and Support to Students Vaiid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_______ Valid Valid Frequeni 3 4 1 8 Percent 37.6 50.0 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 37T 50.0 12.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 37y 87.5 100.0 Staff Has High Expectations for My Academic Success Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total Frequency 4 3 1 ___ 8 Percent 50.0 37.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent soy 37.5 12.5 100.0 Staff Has High Expectations for My Behavior Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_______ Frequency 6 1 1 8 Percent 75.0 12.5 12.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent stT 87.5 100.0 Valid Percent 75.0 12.5 12.5 100.0 My Teacher Respect Me as an Individual VaHd Very Satsfied Satisfied Dissatslfied Total_______ Valid Cumulative Percent \"soy 87.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent Tsy 87.5 100.0 Frequency 4 3 . 1 ___ 8 Percent 50.0 37.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 5oy 37.5 12.5 100.0 Support Staff Respect Me as an Individual Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied ' Total_______ Frequency 4 3 1 ___ 8 Percent 50.0 37.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 5oy 37.5 12.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent ' 5oy 87.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent soy 87.5 100.0 1651 Meals Provided by LRSD Frequem ) I ) Valid Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Total__________ vSiid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Total Valid Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Total__________ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_______ Valid 1 7 8 Percent 12.5 87.5 100.0 Meals in Student Center Frequeni 1 2 1 4 8 Percent 12.5 25.0 12.5 50.0 100.0 Bus Arrivals A.M. Frequeni 2 4 1 1 8 Valid Percent 115 87.5 100.0 Percent 25.0 50.0 12.5 12.5 100.0 Bus Arrivals P.M. Frequency 3 4 1 8 Valid Percent \"\"iis\" 25.0 12.5 50.0 100.0 Percent 37.5 50.0 12.5 100.0 Bus Safety Cumulative Percent 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 25F 50.0 12.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Pexent 37T 50.0 12.5 100.0 Ti Si. n 9 . Very Satisfied Satisfied Very Dissatisfied Total__________ Would you Valid Yes Missing System Tolaf___________ Frequency 3 4 1 8 Percent 37.5 50.0 12.5 100.0 1 Cumulative Percent il5 37.5 50.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 2sy 75.0 87.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 87.5 100.0 Valid Percent stT 50.0 12.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent stT 87.5 100.0 recommend the Lyceum Program to a friend? Frequency 7 1 8 I Percent 87.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent iooio Cumulative Percent  100.0 w Pl 2 Pl 2 \u0026gt; czi C2 S M Vi O x  1652 5 ' c2 Overall Program Satisfaction i ) J Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ .Frequency 3 5 _________ 8 Percent 37.5 62.5 100.0 Valid Percent 37.5 62.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 37.5 100.0 I 9 If the Lyceum Program is available to you for the 2000-01 school year, what are your plans? 9 Valid Missing Total Valid Continued Enrollment Undecided Total System Frequency 6 1 7 1 8 Percent 75.0 12.5 87.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 85.7 14.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 85.7 100.0 9 II n What are your plans after graduation from high school? n Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Enroll in Four Year College Enroll in Two Year College. Undecided Total 4 1 50.0 12.5 57.1 14.3 57.1 71.4 Missing System Total___________ 2 7 1 8 25.0 87.5 12.5 100.0 28.6 100.0 100.0 ri II nn n II n n 1653 M [ri program evaluation - LRSD LYCEUM parent survey 1999 - 2000 iri iri Gender II II II fl il n II n nn pi Frei lueni Valid Valid Male Female Total 1 9 10 Percent ioT 90.0 100.0 Valid Percent  ioo 90.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 Race Frequem African-America Caucasian Totel_________ Valid Missing Total 1.00 8.00 725.00 Total System Valid Parent 6 4 10 Percent 60.0 40.0 100.0 Valid Percent eoxr 40.0 100.0 School Last Attended Frequem 1 2 5 8 2 10 Percent iKo 20.0 50.0 80.0 20.0 100.0 Vaiid Percent 25.0 62.5 100.0 Relationship to Student Frequency 10 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent ioo.^ Cumulative Percent 600\" 100.0 Cumulative Percent 37.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent  [fl 2n z\u0026gt; \u0026lt; Cw S s n s 8 1654 { e 0 c, \u0026gt; fl 9 \u0026gt; -i ze ! (I C I I Valid Valid Valid Valid My Child's Grade 9.00 10.00 Total Frequency 6 4 ____10 Very Satisfied satisfied Dissatisfied 22.00 Total_______ Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Valid Percent 60.0  40.0 100.0 Valid Percent 60.0 40.0 100.0 student Referral Procedures Frequency 4 4 1 1 10 Percent 40.0 40.0 10.0, 10.0 100.0 Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Cumulative Percent 60.0 100.0 Vafid Percent 40.0 40.0 10.0 10.0 100.0 Written Application Forms Frequency 4 6 ________ 10 Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Vafid Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Personal Interview Frequency 4 6 _____ 10 Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Valid Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 NoUfication of Acceptance Frequency 4 6 ______ 10 Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Valid Percent 40.0 60.0 _______ 100.0 Orientation II n II Cumulative Percent 40.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 40.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 40.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 40.0 100.0 II II n II II Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Totel_______ Frequency  3 7 ___ 10 Percent 30.0 70.0 100.0 Valid Percent 30.0 70.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 30.0 100.0 1655 ri Health Services ri Freguenc\nValid ri I Missing 1 Total Very Satisfied Satisfied Total System 3 6 9 1 to Percent soT 60.0 90.0 10.0 100.0 Valid Percent 33T 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent . 100.0 ( e r: e \u0026lt; B'l \u0026gt; fl 0 ri Case Management \u0026gt; 5z ri ri Valid Freqtiem II El El El 1 / Missing Total Valid 11 II nn Very Satisfied Satisfied Total System Missing Total Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total System Missing Total Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total System Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ 4 5 9 1 10 Percent 40?0 50.0 90.0 10.0 100.0 Career Center Frequeni 2 7 9 1 10 Valid Percent 447 55.6 100.0 Cumulative Percent 447 100.0 C Percent I 20^ 70.0 90.0 10.0 100.0 Valid Percent -----------Si nA 100.0 Cumulative Percent 222 100.0 Mentoring/CounsellnB Frequent 5 4 9 1 10 Frequent Percent 50^ 40.0 90.0 10.0 100.0 Faculty 4 6 10 Percent 405\" 60.0 100.0 Valid Percent 1 ' 5^6 44.4 100.0 Valid Percent 40^ 60.0 100.0. Cumulative Percent 55.6 '' 100.0 Cumulative Percent 40^ 100.0 ww S n 2 \u0026lt; c S ffl X 8 1656 ) 1 Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total Missing System Total____________ Valid Missing Total Valid Support Personnel Frequency 5 4 9 1 _____ 10 i Percent 50.0 40.0 90.0 10.0 100.0 Securtty Valid Percent 55.6 44.4 100.0 Cumulative Percent 55.6 100.0 nn II Very Satisfied Satisfied Total System Very Satisfied Satisfied Total Missing System Total_______ ____ Valid L Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total Frequency 3 6 9 1 _____ 10 Percent 30.0 60.0 90.0 10.0 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100\n0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 Administration Frequency 2 7 9 1 __10 Percent 20.0 70.0 90.0 10.0 100.0 Valid Percent 222 77.8 100.0 Cumulative Percent 222 100.0 Classroom Nlanagement Frequency 4 6 _ 10 Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Valid Percent 40.0 60.0 Cumulative Percent 40.0 100.0 Instructional Materials 100.0 Missing System Total _________ Frequency 3 5 8 2 ______10 Percent 30.0 50.0 80.0 20.0 100.0 Valid Percent 37.5 62.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 37.5 100.0 K 1657 Textbooks Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total Frequency _ 3 6 1 10 Percent 30.0 60.0 10.0 100.0 Valid Percent soT 60.0 10.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 30^ 90.0 100.0 f c R\nC'. \u0026lt; \u0026gt; fl 9 Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total I Computer-aided Instruction Frequeni 4 6 10 Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 English Instruction Frequeni 4 6 10 Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Math Instruction Frequeni I 1 p 1 i Valid Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ 4 6 10 Valid Percent 40X 60.0 100.0 Valid Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 40X 100.0 Cumulative Percent 40^ 100.0 5 5 5 ! S I Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Valid Percent Zo^\" 60.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 40^ 100.0 Science Instruction Frequeni 4 6 10 Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Valid Percent ZoF 60.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent  ZoT 100.0 J Social Studies Instruction Frequeni 4 6 10 Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Valid Percent ZoT\" 60.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 40^ 100.0 r pj S n 2 \u0026gt; va C S CA a:  r 1658! Communications Instruction vSiid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Frequency 2 8 ___10 i Percent 20.0 80.0 100.0 Valid Percent 20.0 80.0 100.0 Your Child's Personal Academic Progress Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total Vaiid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total________ Cumulative Percent 20.0 100.0 n Bl n Frequency 4 5 1 10 Percent 40.0 50.0 10.0 100.0 Valid Percent 40.0 50.0 10.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 40.0 90.0 . 100.0 Individual Attention to Needs Frequency 3 7 10 Percent 30.0 70.0 100.0 Valid Percent ??? 70.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 30.0 100.0 Number of Courses Available Frequency 4 6 ___10 I Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Valid Percent 40?\" 60.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 40.0 100.0 Group Work Bl Bl Bl Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_ Frequency 2 8 10 Percent 20.0 80.0 100.0 Vafid Percent 2?? 80.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 20? 100.0 Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total Classroom Environment Frequency 6 4 10 Percent 60.0 40.0 100.0 I Valid Percent 6?? 40.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 60? 100.0 1659Valid Grading Procedures 4 Very Satisfied Satisfied Total Frequency 5 5 ___10 Percent 50.0 50.0 100.0 Reid Trips Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Frequency 4 6 10 Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Homeworic Valid Percent 50.0 50.0 100.0 Cumulative 1 Percent 50.0 100.0 ( e R 9 \u0026lt; \u0026gt; 9 B 9 VaHd Percent 40^ 60.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent  40^ 100.0 \u0026gt; c 2 Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total Frequency 3 6 1 10 Percent 30.0 60.0 10.0 100.0 Valid Percent 30^ 60.0 10.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 30^ 90.0 100.0 Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Valid Valid ParenVTeacher Conferences Frequency 3 7 10 Percent 30.0 70.0 100.0 Valid Percent sox' 70.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 30^ 100.0 Responsiveness of Teachore to Student Needs Very Satisfied Satisfied Tptel_______ Frequency 2 8 __ 10 T Percent 20.0 80.0 100.0 i Valid Percent 2oT 80.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent  20^ 100.0 Nurturance and Support Provided Students Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total Frequency 3 6 1 __ 10 Percent 30.0 60.0 10.0 100.0 Valid Percent 30^ 60.0 10.0 100.0 1 Cumulative Percent 30.0 90.0 100.0 P3 S n z \u0026gt; CA C S S M W  1660 1 Valid Valid Valid staff Respects Me as an Individual Very Satisfied Satisfied Total Frequeni 4 6 10 Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Valid Percent ^oT 60.0 100.0 staff Responds in a Caring and Helpful Manner Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Frequency 3 7 10 Percent 30.0 70.0 100.0 Valid Percent ' \"aoT 70.0 100.0 Meals Provided by LRSD Frequeni ! Valid 1 f ,! I i Cumulative Percent ZoT 100.0 Cumulative Percent 30^ 100.0 II Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Total Meri Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Total Valid Valid Vary Satisfied Satisfied Dissafisfied Total Very Satisfw Satisfied Dissatisfied ' Total_____ id 1 2 5 2 10 Percent 10.0 20.0 50.0 20.0 100.0 Valid Percent \"io^ 20.0 50.0 20.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent ioT 30.0 80.0 100.0 Ml Hl Meals in Student Center Frequeni 3 5 1 1 10 Percent 30.0 50.0 10.0 10.0 100.0 Valid Percent 30^ 50.0 10.0 10.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent ' 3oT 80.0 90.0 100.0 Bus Arrival A.M. Frequency 3 5 2 10 Percent 30.0 50.0 20.0 100.0 Valid Percent 30^ 50.0 20.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 30^ 80.0 100.0 Bus Arrival P.M. Frequency 4 6 1 10 Percent 40.0 50.0 10.0 100.0 Valid Percent ToT\" 50.0 10.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent  40^ 90.0 100.0 ' 16611 Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Valid Do you Valid I Bus Safety Frequem 4 6 10 Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Valid Percent 4oT 60.0 100.0 Have you volunteered at school this year? Yes No Total Frequency 4 6 10 Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Valid Percent * 40T 60.0 100.0 wish for your son/daughter to for the 2000-01 school year? Yes No Total Frequency 7 3 10 Would you Vaiid Yes No Total Valid Cumulative Percent 400 100.0 Cumulative Percent 4^ 100.0 return to the Lyceum ALE Program Percent 70.0 30.0 100.0 Valid Percent . 70.0 30.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent \"\" toT 100.0 recommend the Lyceum ALE Program to others? Frequency 9 1 10 Percent 90.0 10.0 100.0 Valid Percent 90^ 10.0 100.0 Overall Program Satisfaction Frequem p I? s'. \u0026gt; X n 0 \u0026gt; C z Very Satisfied Satisfied Totel________ 6 4 10 Percent 60.0 40.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 90^ 100.0 Valid Percent 60.0 40.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 60^ 100.0 1662 P5 2 M z \"J V) C 2 2 Q IPROGRAM EVALUATION - LRSD LYCEUM STAFF SURVEY 1999-2000 n ) student Selection Process Valid Valid Valid Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_____ Frequency 1 2 ____ 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 n n Satisfied Curriculum Offered Frequency ____ 3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Expected Outcomes Very Satisfied Missing System Tote!___________ Frequency 1 2 _____ 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Selection of Staff Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Frequency 1 2 ________3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Qualifications of Staff Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Frequency 1 2 _ 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100 J Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 II Cumulative Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 1 leaching Performance Valid Very Satisfied , Satisfied Total_______ Frequency 1 2 ______3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 1663 p I :S Valid Satisfied Ir% g 1r1 II ri II nnn Valid Relationships with College Personnel Very Satisfied Satisfied Total Frequeni 3 Percent 100.0 Orientation Frequency 1 2 3 Valid Percent 100.0 Percent 33.3 100.0 Health Services Cumulative Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 33T 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 335\" 100.0 e?. \u0026lt;i\ng fl 3 5z Valid Virf Satisfied Satisfied Total________ Frequency 1 2 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Career Center Frequency  Percent Valid Valid Satisfied Satisfied Missing System Total___________ _ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total Valid Satisfied 3 100.0 Valid Percent 33T 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent NIentoring/Counseling Frequency 2 1 3 Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Valid Percent Too? Case Management Frequency 1 2 ___ 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 PreparationZPIanning Frequeni 3 Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 33T G\u0026amp;.7 100.0 Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 3^3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 t5 m 5 z \"i \u0026gt; fl \u0026lt; Cfl C S M sn 8 1664 ! Valid Satisfied Dissatisfied Total____ _ Valid Valid Valid Support In Instnictlonal Delivery Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Very Satisfied Satisfied Total ______ Frequency 1 2 ____ 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Intructional Materials Frequency 1 2 ______3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Very Satisfied Satisfied Total______ Valid Satisfied Valid Satisfied Valid Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Program Evaluation Design Frequency 1 2 _____ 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Profeasioml Evaluation Process Frequency 1 2 _____ 3 Percent 33.3 66,7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Expectatiorrs for Student Behavior Frequency 3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Management of Student Behavior Frequency 3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Support for Disciplinary Actions Very Satisfied Missing System Total __________ Frequency 2 1 ___ 3 Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0- Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 1665 i Valid Administration of Food Sendee Program  r 1 h Satisfied Dissatsified Total_____ Frequency 1 2 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 P'\nRi O \u0026gt;5 I fl 9 1 Delivery of LRSD Prepared Meals Valid Satisfied Very Dissatisfied Total__________ Frequency 1 2 ____ 3 Valid Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Vafid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 5c z Distribution of LRSD Prepared Meals Satisfied Dissatisfied Total Frequency 1 2 _3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0\n-Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 Service of Lyceum Students in the Student Center Satisfied Frequency _____3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 Bus Arrival Times AM. Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_ Valid Very SattsBad Frequency 1 2 3_L Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Vafid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 Bus Arrival Times P.M. Frequency 1 2 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33? 100.0 From Ale Administrator Frequency 3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 100.0 w Pl S Pl \u0026gt; CZl c: 2 2 oX 8 1666 ) From LRSD Administrator Valid Very Satisfied Frequency ____3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 n n Valid I Very Satisfied Satisfied Total________ Valid Very Satisfied Valid Valid Lyceum Advisory Committee II Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Very Satisfied Valid Satisfied Missing System Total___________ Frequency 1 2 ___ 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 _______ 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 II n ParentZStaff Interactions Frequency ______ 3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 II n Parent Involvement Frequency 1 2 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 n Parental Support Frequency ____ J. Percent 100.0 Vafid Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 Summer Teacher Training Frequency 2 1 _3 Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 Behavior Management Training Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Frequency 1 2 _______ 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 1667 Valid Very Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_______ Valid Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Valid I Satisfied Dissatisfied Total OngolnQ Staff Davalopnwnt Frequem 1 2 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Plato Training Frequency 1 2 ___ 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Classrooins Frequency 2 1 3_l Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Library Valid Percent 33T 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent 3X3\" 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 3X3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 3X3\" 100.0 Cumulative Percent 66.7 100.0 r oS s 9 \u0026gt; -1 C z I Valid Valid Frequei Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Merf Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ 1 2 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent 33T 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 Computer Lab Frequency 1 2 3 I Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 I Valid Percent 3X3 66.7 100.0 JanKorial Services Frequency 1 2 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent 3X3 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 3X3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33T 100.0 w r n S n zg. s ws ya Vi n s  1668 Comfortability I t I Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total________ Frequency 1 2 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 1 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 I I Do you recommend that the Lyceum Program continue for the 2000-01 school year? I Frequeni Valid Yes Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent  io^ 3 II recommend that theXyceum Program expand to another grade Do you level for the 2000-01 school year? [ Valid Yes Frequency 3 Percent Valid Percent 100.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 [ return to the Lyceum Program for the 2000-01 school yrar? Do you wish to I Valid Yes Frequency 3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 I  I Overall Program Satisfaction I Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Frequency 1 2 ____3 i Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 I I III II I 1669 I\u0026lt; zi- Valid Valid 1 Valid 1 PROGRAM EVALUATION - LRSD LYCEUM ADMINISTRATIVE SURVEY 1999-2000 student Referral Process Frequeni Cl 51 fl 9 Very Satisfied Very Satisfied Satisfied Total Very Satisfied Valid 3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0~ Cumulative Percent 10Q.0 \u0026gt; 2 2 Opportunities for Acceleration Very Satisfied Satisfied Total Valid Very Satisfied Valid Frequency 2 1 ___13 Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Valid Percent 66T 33.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 66.7 100.0 5 J 2 7 2 Student Parent Contact Frequeni 3 Percent 100.0 Selection of Students Frequency 2 1 Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Curriculum Offered Frequeni 3 Percent 100.0 Expected Outcomes Frequeni Very Satisfied 3 \\ Valid Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100^ Percent 100.0 Valid Percent eST 33.3 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Vafid Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent eeT 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 r PJ 2 PJ 2 X VJ C2 2 C/5 n s  1670 Selection of Staff Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_ Frequency 2 1 _________ 3 Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Valid Percent 66.7 33.3 ________100.0 Cumulative Percent 66.7 100.0 Qualifications of Staff I Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_ Frequency 2 1 _____ 3 Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Valid Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 66.7 100.0 I Valid Relationships with Program Personnel n Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Frequency 2 1 ___3 Percent 66,7 33.3 100.0 Valid Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 66.7 100.0 II n Expectations for Student Behavior Valid Very Satisfied Frequency _______ 3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 n n Management of Student Behavior Valid Very Satisfied Valid Very Satisfied Frequency ______3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 From ALE Administrator Frequency ________ 3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 From LRSD Administrator Cumulative Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 11 II II n Valid Very Satisfied Frequency _____ 3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent _______ 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 1671 Student/Parant Orientation Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_____ __ Frequency 2 1 ______ 3 Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Health Services Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Frequency 2 1 _____ 3 Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Valid Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Valid Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 66.7 100.0 Valid Very Satisfied Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ _ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Valid Case Management Frequency ________ 3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 Computer Assisted Instruction Frequency 1 2 _____3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 Instructional Methodology Frequency 2 1 _______ 3 Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Valid Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 66.7 100.0 Overall Program Satisfaction Very Satisfied Frequency _______ 3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 Would you recommend the Lyceum Program to other students? Valid Yes Frequency _____ 3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 m n S B Z \"i \u0026gt; 50 \u0026lt; w e 2 2 CX) n a:  1672 l n 2| 0 s' \u0026lt; \u0026gt; 5 \u0026gt; c 1 3 9 'ZI -I X \u0026gt; 1u: 3 2 BBSSS. BBEEEEEEECSaiH: Philander Program Evaluation  Smith College/LRSD Lyceum Academic Report 1999-2000 Plato Fastrack Assessment Pre/post bl vH, John Mt, Lytfone cy. Anah na, Qulanla xJthart, Ray eyllehl, Bfanlaha cCoy, Hicota Mtaf, April Unpton, Patridt unpiofl. Shelly tfjay. Jawaa /I ere. 3/10X)0 n/1(V8B Bn4/B8 U24/Q0 B/24/W 3J22M) sa4/eo tt24ia9 ta4ia9 90199 ea4/M eA4/oe 0 10   0 10 0 10 4.33 ^2 2.2 3 2.4 7.1 2.8 2.8 2.2 2.2 2.4 2 0.68 10.67 068 0.11 7.67 11 7 06 11 0.44 044 0.11 8.70 6.22 8.37 7.36 8.11 6.17 3.0 6.38 8.4 734 7.24 8.71 8.70 MB 6-6 6.8 2.56 62 2.68 8.67 6 6 6-7 6 6.7 9 2.78 7.87 06 0.76 8.03 3.83 025 8.21 10.22 0.26 0.17 0 1.37 3.0 7.10 3.73 1.28 2.88 2.71 4.62 4.26 3.47 6.37 486 273 2.73 2 38 2.00 4.6 37 7.4 767 38 37 200 0.2 10 0.2 803 200 10 7.8 10.77 1041 10.82 1023 8.07 436 7.27 6.47 0 6.6 4.1 337 2.74 7.22 863 608 0 0 0 Compiled -^B/00L B-. II: B.\nc . L IL. 4 i mHHMX school transition k k' p ELEMENTARY SUMMER SCHOOL i ! ' J I 1^ *' .1 J II\n '3 j b \u0026lt;   * - ^?W-' J* i\u0026gt;'  - 3 vj': I I r- - -LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 TO: Board of Education \u0026gt;l 2nl 0 fl * t \u0026gt;-i C2 FROM: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools PREPARED BY: S^bBonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction \u0026lt; DATE: February 27, 2003 SUBJECT: Elementary Summer School Program Evaluation Background Information on the Elementary Summer School Program Evaluation One in the group of programs required by the federal court to be evaluated with the participation of an external evaluator was the Elementary Summer School program. In 1998 the State discontinued funding for the elementary summer school program, which had been mandatory for identified students in grades K-3 during 1993-1997. During those years the District also offered a tuition-funded program for students in grades 4-6, providing approximately 25 days of extended instruction with an emphasis on reading and mathematics. Effective 1998, the District continued the funding for grades K-3, and grades 4-5 students had the option of attending a tuition program. (Grade 6 moved to middle school in fall 1999.) The K-3 program changed the emphasis from reading and mathematics to a focus on reading and writing, and instruction was patterned after the Districts comprehensive early literacy program in Prek-3. Steps Taken as a Result of the Program Evaluation The E lementary S ummer S chool p rogram was a bandoned a fter summer 2 001. This decision was made based on the analysis of data by District staff from the summer 2000 and summer 2001 programs and on the desire of elementary principals to provide their own school-based remedial programs throughout the year, instead of during the summer. They saw the summer intervention as being too late to impact achievement scores and too late to impact the initial retention decisions. The funds, approximately $250,000 annually, previously allocated for K-3 summer school are now divided among the elementary schools according to a formula based on the schools enrollment, achievement data, and the number of free/reduced lunch students. Each school submits a plan annually for the use of the funds, including goals. I 1674 I Board Memo February 27, 2003 Page Two strategies, assessments, and budget. Individual students at each school are identified for the program. \u0026gt;1 4 P5I1 91 \u0026lt;pj \u0026gt; f9l eft f\u0026gt;l 5z Desiqnation of External Consultant and His Qualifications On December 2, 2002, the District awarded the contract for the Elementary Summer School program evaluation to the firm. Quality Education and Management Associates, Inc., Dr. Larry McNeal, president. A copy of his resume is attached, establishing his 1 J i qualifications. Administrator Participation in Conducting the Proqram Evaluation /' In addition to Dr. McNeal and his associates, the following LRSD administrators participated in the evaluation: Ms. Frances Cawthon Jones, Assistant Superintendent for Elementary School Services Dr. Ed Williams, Department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation Mr. Ken Savage, Department of Computer Information Systems Ms. Lillie Carter, Summer School Coordinator Summer 2000 Summer School administrators-Joyce Willingham, Eleanor Cox, Ada Keown, and Donna Hall Summer 2001 Summer School administratorsJoyce Willingham, Eleanor Cox, Ada Keown, and Les Taylor  n Teacher Participation in Conductinq the Proqram Evaluation Elementary school-level test coordinators and teachers involved in administering the SAT-9 (grade 5), ALT (grades 2-5), DRA (grades K-2), Observation Surveys (grades K-2), and state Benchmark examinations (grade 4) a Impact on African-American Student Achievement The external evaluator was not able to determine definitively from existing data whether the elementary summer school program resulted in improved achievement among African American students. The conclusion was that the program had mixed results.\" There was some growth among second- and third-grade students, but kindergarten and grade one students performance maintained a similar level of achievement before and after the program.\" 1 These findings were virtually identical to those concluded by the staff participating in the original study. Recommendation That the Board of Education approve the Elementary Summer School program evaluation for submission to the federal court. BAL/adg 4 ' V 1675 DR. LARRY MCNEAL BUSINESS ADDRESS_______________ University of Arkansas at Little Rock 2801 S. University Avenue Department of Educational Leadership Little Rock, Arkansas 72204-1099 Office 501-569-3552 Fax 501-569-3547 buncnealtSualr.edu HOME ADDRESS 15806 Patriot Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72212-2606 501-221-1178 l-xmcneal (ainetscape.net lmcneal59@HntmaiI.com or PkD. __________________PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION____________________ Educational Administration, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (1990) Emphasis\nFiscal and Community Support for Public Education Concentrations: Educational Finance, School-Community Relations, and Public School! Administration M.S. Educational Administration, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (1989) EmpHasiR- Administration and Orga-nization of Public Education Concentration\nEducational Administration (Public School) 21 5B1l 91 \u0026lt;M1I \u0026gt;1 n 1 cz M. A. B.A. Licensee: Public Affairs. University of Iowa, Iowa City (1976) Emphasis\nPublic Administration Concentration: Urban Admini-stration Business Administration and Political Science, Dakota Wesleyan University, Mitchell, SD (1975) Eirqihasis: Political Economics Concentrations\nBusiness AdTninistration, Political Science and Economics School Business Management (No longer active) Insurance Agent (No longer active) Entrepreneurship: Quality Education and Management Associates, President _________ PROFESSIONAL WORK EXPERIENCE _______________ Professor, Pppartment of Educational Leadership, Graduate School ofEducation, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, Arkansas, 1998 to the present I Visiting Professor, Department of Educational Management \u0026amp; Development, Graduate School of Education, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, Summer 2000 Educational Administration and Supervision Program Coordinator, Department of Educational Leadership, Graduate School ofEducation, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, Arkansas, 1998 to 2001 Visiting Professor. Department of Educational Management \u0026amp; Development, Graduate School of Education, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, Summer 1998 Associate Professor, Department of Educational Administration and Foundations, Graduate School of Education, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, 1995 to 1998 1 1681 19 Visiting Professor, BeUver International College. Trenton State College (now College of New Jersey), Graduate School of Education. Palma de Mallorca. Baleares. Spain, Surmner 1996 Associate Director, Office of Educational Finance, Center For Higher Education and Educational Finance, Graduate School of.Education, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, 1995-1997 State Coordinator, Illinois Education Policy Fellow Program, Institute for Educational Leadership, Graduate School of Education, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois 1994-1996 2\nCi \u0026gt;s i1 fal \u0026gt; C \"2. Research Associate, Center for the Study of Educational Finance, Graduate School of Education, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, 1993-1995 Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Administratinn and Foundations, Graduate School of Education, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, 1993-1995 n Visiting Professor, Department of Educational Administration and Foundations, Graduate School of Education, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, Iowa, Summer 1993 Research Associate, Center for the Study of SmaU/Rural Schools, Graduate School of Education,  University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, 1992-1994 Adjunct Fellow, Center for Research on Multi-Ethnic Education, University of Oklahoma Norman, Oklahoma, 1991-1992 Danforth Principal Preparation Program Co-FaciHtator, Graduate School of Education, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, 1991-1993 Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, Graduate School of Education, University of Oklahoma, Normal, Oklahoma, 1991-1993 iM I Coordinator of Multicultural Affairs, Wisconsin Alumni Association, University of Wisconsin, Madicon Wisconsin, 1990-1991 Budget Analyst Intern, University of Wisconsin System Administrating, Madison, Wisconsin, 1989-90 Equal Rights Officer, Division of Care and Treatment Facilities, Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services, Madison, Wisconsin, Fall/Spring, 1988/1989 Budget and Management Analyst Intern, Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, Madison, Wisconsin, Summer, 1988 Marketing Manager, Warfiuc Educultural Publications, Madison, Wisconsin, 1985-1987 Business Mathematics Instructor, Business Department, Madison Area Technical College, Madison, Wisconsin, Fall 1985 and Spring 1987 Finance Marketing Representative, John Deere \u0026amp; Company, Moline, Illinois, based in Madison, Wisconsin, 1978-1984 Commercial Service Representative, HoneyweU, Incorporated, Minneapolis, Minnesota, based in Des Moines, Iowa, 1977-1978 Public Administration Intern, Mayors Office. City of Davenport, Davenport, Iowa, 1976 1682 I _________________________________ DISSERTATION_________________________________ McNeal, L. (1990). The role of education for employment councils in education for employment programs. University of Wisconsin-Madison. Pl 0 rI 91 \u0026lt;R1\u0026lt; \u0026gt;1 g- RESEARCH INTERESTS \u0026gt; ' Cz School CnmrminitariaTii.'iTn (the fundamental relationship between schools and their communities) Organizational Change (change processes and organizational effectiveness) Educational Finance (adequacy and equity of funding for pubhc education) Program Assessment and Evaluation GRADUATE COURSES TAUGHT Administtation and Organization of Schools Advanced Administrative Theory and Behavior Administrative Problem Solving Organizational Change Educational Pohtics andPohcy Dissertation Proposal Development Educational Finance School Business AdTninistratinn Human and Fiscal Resources Management Educational Pubhc Relations Introduction to Doctoral Studies Organizational Development ____________________________ PUBLICATIONS: REFERRED____________________ McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Christy, W.K. (In Press, 2003). The locus of control issue in standard-based accountabihty. Educational Considerations. n la Christy, W.K. \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (2002). Influence of school board members on state legislation in Arkansas. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EA 031517. McNeal, L. (2002). The school-community relations profile model: Combining school district and community-based data. In J. Thomas Owens and Jan C. Simmons (Eds.), In creating guahtv reform: Programs. comTmTnities. and governance (67-81). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. can Chesser, J.S., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (2001). Educational community study circles: How superintendents enhance school improvement through community dialogue. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 446 370. Christy, W.K., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (2000). Impheations of legislative pohey development for public school districts. F. Kochan (Ed ). Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Yearbook Chesser, J.S., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (1999). School improvement through community dialogue: The first community study circles on education in Arkansas and Oklahoma. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 436 694. Mogilka, J, Ashby, D.E, \u0026amp; McNeal, L., (Eds.). (1996). Plaaning \u0026amp; Changing, 27(1 \u0026amp;2). McNeal, L. (1995). Fulfilling promises in the land of Will Rogers: A look at performance indicators in selected school districts since the enactment of Oklahoma house bill 1017. School Finance Pohev Issues in the States and Provinces: Annual Update 1995 (135-1381. C. Edlefson (Ed). The Ohio State University: Pohey Research for Ohio-Based Education. McNeal, L. \u0026amp;Reed, R. (1995). Building a school-community'relations profile through sociological inventorying. People \u0026amp; Education: The Human Side of Schools. 3(3), 371-386. 3 1683 1 McNeal L., et al. (1994). National Sallie Mae winners and their principals. National Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision Journ^, 11(3), 3-10. McNeal, L. (1994). Focusing on at-risk students\nCase study of John Wilkinson Elementary School. TUTHors School Research and Development Journal, 31(1), 7-10. McNeal L., \u0026amp; Ashby, D. (1993). Site-based management and changing relationships. Illinois School Research and Development Journal. 31(1), 7-10. McNeal L., \u0026amp; Lehman, B. J. (1993). k vision of the future: The fuU-service school Planning and Changing. 24(3/4), 140-154. BOOK PROPOSAL IN PROGRESS Chxiatj, V/.K., fc McNeal, T (?QO1) WnTlring Title\nThe Superintendencv. Theory to reflective practice. To be submitted to Wadsworth. Belmont, CA. manuscripts in progress --------------^2001). The contextual world of education for children and the school-commumiv: James coleman and the effective schools movement To be submitted to Humanistic Counseling, Educanon an Development. McNeal, L., \u0026amp; Christy, WX (2001). Rethinking the school district model of funding for individual schools: Comments about site-based management of resources. To be submitted to Planning and Change. Christy, WJC, McNeal, L. (2001). Inqilications of charter schools and home schooling for the funding of pubhc schools. To be submitted to Journal of School Leadership. PUBLICATIONS: MONOGRAPHS McNeal, L., et al. (1993). Common sense: Plain talk to legislators about school finance. Center For the Study of Educational Finance. Hhnois State University. PUBLICATIONS: NON-REFERRED McNeal, L. (December, 1990). The role of education for employment councils in education for employment programs. Dissertation, McNeal L. (1993). The education of African-American children in Oklahoma. State of Oklahoma: Annual Report. Urban League of Greater Oklahoma City, Inc., 36-45. First, P. F., \u0026amp; Knudson, D. P. (1993). Evaluating the University of Oklahoma McNeaL L.,----- Danforth Principal Preparation Program. Connections. 1 (2), 3. McNeal, L. (1992). University of Oklahoma report. Danforth Programs for the Preparation of School Principals Newsletter. 1 (2), 3. McNeal, L. (1987). From the desk of. National Multicultural Banner. 5 (6), 2. McNeal, L. (1986). From the desk of: Literacy, who's problem is it anyway? Nation^ Multicultural Banner, 5 (3), 2. 4 1684 r p R! 0 S'. \u0026gt; fl 3 \u0026gt; ZMcNeal, L. (1986). The Black collegians guide to graduate fellowships for minority students. National Multicultural Barmer. 5 (2), 9. 6 __________________________________CITED IN EDUCATION WEEK____________________ In the area of educational finance. Education Week has quoted me on several occasions. I have been quoted in the following articles: oRll s\u0026lt; 1I 1 9a ' 5 c 2 11/26/97 in News ILL. Lawmakers Get One More Try To Pass School Funding Reforms 6/11/97 in News ILL. Lawmakers Duck Vow To Revamp Funding 3/26/97 in News ILL. Audit Questions Oversight of ILL. Education Agency 2/5/97 in News ILL. Odds Seen Better for Funding Refonn in ILL. ____________________________ REPORTS______________ ___________________ McNeal, L. Little Rock school district charter elementary school evaluation report for the 2001- 2002 school year. Prepared for the Little Rock School District, November, 2002. McNeal, L., et. al. The college of education assessment report 2000-2001\nUniversity of Arkansas at Little Rock Prepared for the Provosts Advisory Group on Assessment, June, 2001. 'I McNeal, L. Little Rock school district charter elementary school evaluation report for the 2000- 2001 school year. Prepared for the Little Rock School District, June, 2001. McNeal, L. Projected student enrollment for the 2000-2001 school year\n6 and 7^ grade student racial make up report. Prepared for Pulaski County Charter School Inc., April, 2001. McNeal, L. Enrollment trends in the Little Rock, North Little, and Pulaski County Special school districts\n1995-1996 to 1999-2000. Prepared for Pulaski County Charter School Inc., November, 2000. 1g Coleen, B.C., Driskill, G., Leslie, S., McNeal, L., Mitchell, W., Taylor, C., \u0026amp; Webb, R. Provosts advisory group on assessment: University of Arkansas at Little Rock. SummeT 2000 report, July, 2000. McNeal, L., et. aL The college of education assessment report 1999-2000: University of Arkansas at Little Rock Prepared for the Provosts Advisory Group on Assessment, June, 2000. McNeal, L. Student enrollment needs assessment study of the Illinois school for the visually impaired, Illinois Center for Rehabilitation and Education and lUinois School for the Deaf. Prepared for the Illinois Department of Rehabilitation Services, October, 1995. bri McNeal, L, First, P., Walker, V,, \u0026amp; Hobson, B. An inquiry into alleged cultural insensitivity at Capitol Hill High SchooL Prepared for Oklahoma City Public School District, March, 1993. M McNeal, L, et aL School choice: Open enrollment and post secondary options. Prepared for the Association of Wisconsin School AdministtatoTS, March, 1990. McNeal, L. County veterans service nfHr.Rr training manual. Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs, June, 1990. McNeal, L. A Review of health care and medical services provided by the United States departmeni of veterans affairs. Prepared for die Division of Veterans Programs, Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs, August, 1989. McNeal, L. A review of health care grants and the Wisconsin Veterans Home in King, Wisconsin. Prepared for the Division of Veterans Programs, Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs, August, 1989. 5 1685 r E McNeal, L. Mendota mental health institute\nAn analysis of an organization in crisis. Prepared for the Division of Care and Treatment Facilities of the Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services, December 1988. PRESENTATIONS\nREFERRED p e 0 \u0026lt;\u0026gt; 3 \u0026gt; Cz McNeal, L., Christy, W.K., \u0026amp; Lewis, R (2002). New leaders and new impheations for educational admini-gtratinn Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Kansas City, MO. Christy, W.K., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (November, 2001). Mid-South Educational Research Association Annual Conference. Little Rock, AR. ri McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Christy, W.K. (November, 2001). A discussion of change theoTy, systems theory, and state designed standards and ac\nThis 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.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1039","title":"\"Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting\" agenda","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2003-03"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School board members","School boards","School improvement programs","School superintendents"],"dcterms_title":["\"Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting\" agenda"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1039"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["183 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nRECEIVED MAR 18 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Agenda Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting March 2003 (\").,, \u0026gt;. :ImD r- rr-,-\ns-:: g~ ~~ m.., :ID C: -z\n,.c, (.\"...). I=\n(\")UI ~ I. 11. 111. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS REGULAR MEETING March 20, 2003 5:30 p.m. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS A. Call to Order B. Roll Call PROCEDURAL MATTERS A. Welcome to Guests 8. Performance - Hall High Madrigals REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS: A. Superintendent's Citations B. Partners in Education - New Partnerships Baseline Elementary School - Lena Goad Young's Catfish, Baseline - Gerald Ware, Carey G. Young Fulbright Elementary School - Deborah Mitchell Brent \u0026amp; Sam's Cookies - Brent Bumpers Central High School - Nancy Rousseau Heifer Project International - Ann Jacobs Metropolitan Career \u0026amp; Technical Central - Mike Peterson, Victor Eack/es, Allie Freeman North Point Nissan - Adam Guise Landers Toyota - Dennis Harris North Point Ford - David Lynch Landers Ford - Rick Wadsworth C. Remarks from Citizens (persons who have signed up to speak) D. Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association E. Joshua lntervenors F. Update on the Implementation of TAP - - Rockefeller and Stephens Regular Board Meeting March 20, 2003 Page2 IV. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS: A. Remarks from Board Members 8 . Desegregation Update C. Budget Update D. Construction Report: Proposed Bond Projects E. Internal Auditors Report F. Technology Update V. APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MATTERS: A. Minutes - Regular Meeting, 02-27-03 - Special Meeting, 03-13-03 B. Personnel Changes C. Adoption of Standards for Arkansas School Boards VI. INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES DIVISION: A. Overview of State Test Items B. Approval of Revised Technology Plan Vil. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION: VIII. BUSINESS SERVICES DIVISION: IX. X. A. Donations of Property B. Financial Report SCHOOL SERVICES DIVISION: CLOSING REMARKS: A. Superintendent's Report: 1. Dates to Remember 2. Special Functions XI. EMPLOYEE HEARINGS XII. ADJOURNMENT :- =:- I. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS CA.LL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL UI. PROCEDURAL MATTERS STUDENT PERFORMANCE Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS PUBLIC COMMENTS A. CITATIONS B. PARTNERSHIPS C. CITIZENS/ D. CTA E. JOSHUA To: From: Through: Subject: Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 March 20, 2003 Board of Directors Debbie Milam, Director, VIPS/Partners in Education~ T. Kenneth James, Superintendent Partners in Education Program: New partnerships The Little Rock School District Partners in Education program is designed to develop strong relationships between the community and our schools. The partnership process encourages businesses, community agencies and private organizations to join with individual schools to enhance and support educational programs. Each partnership utilizes the resources of both the school and the business for their mutual benefit. The following schools and businesses have completed the requirements necessary to establish a partnership and are actively working together to accomplish their objectives. We recommend that the Board approve the following partnerships: Baseline Elementary School and Young's Catfish- Baseline Fulbright Elementary School and Brent and Sam's Cookies Central High School and Heifer Project International Metropolitan Career \u0026amp; Technical Center and North Point Nissan, Landers Toyota, North Point Ford, and Landers Ford .:.n. ?ii C: \"D ~ m Partners in Education Proposal Baseline Elementary and Young's Catfish-Baseline Baseline Elementary School and Young's Catfish-Baseline have formed a partnership designed to enhance the education of the students at Baseline. Baseline commits to the following activities: Provide holiday cards for employees Provide student art work for restaurant Provide students to sing during the holidays Acknowledge Young's Catfish-Baseline as a Partner in Education Encourage students to enter the coloring art contest Young's Catfish commits to the following activities: Sponsor a coloring art contest each year with the following awards: school winner will receive a fishing pole and tackle box\noverall winner will receive a $50 American Express Gift Cheque and a chicken tender/French fry classroom party Provide school staff discount cards Set up a school supply drive at the restaurant to collect school supplies for Baseline students Provide coupons for student recognition such as honor roll and perfect attendance Use student art work on company calendars Support other activities when possible CDn oo ~~ p n m=I ,::\n\u0026lt;-m Oz \":c'\"-' ~ !=' n\n! Partners in Education Proposal Fulbright Elementary School and Brent \u0026amp; Sam's Cookies Fulbright Elementary School and Brent \u0026amp; Sam's Cookies have formed a partnership designed to enhance the education of the students at Fulbright. Fulbright commits to the following partnership activities:  Provide art from 4th and 5th grade classes for display in Brent \u0026amp; Sam's offices  Submit student artwork for consideration for company holiday cards  Acknowledge Brent \u0026amp; Sam's Cookies as a Partner in Education on school publications Brent \u0026amp; Sam's Cookies commits to the following partnership activities: Donate product to be used in fundraising projects benefiting technology at Fulbright On-going support as needed LittCe 'Rock- Centra{ Jfi[Jli Sclioo{ 1500 Soutli 'Park Street Litt{e 'Rock, .Arkansas 72202 'Phone 501-447-1400 :fax 501-447-1401 Central High School and Heifer Project International propose forming a mutually beneficial partnership. Activities will be added as the partnership teams at Central and Heifer begin to meet. The following activities have been agreed upon to kick off the partnership:  Help Heifer with the development of high school curriculum  Encourage the EAST lab to adopt a Heifer project for class work  Encourage foreign language clubs to host fundraisers for Heifer  Encourage service clubs to consider Heifer volunteer opportunities such as WorldFest, Riverfest, Dunbar Gardens and Inner City FutureNet  Have Central students read Beatrice's Goat to elementary classes during the Little Rock School District's Reading Day in November  Form a group to participate in the Global Village overnight experience at the Ranch  Send student representative(s) to attend the Youth Forum Camp held at the Ranch during the month of August\nHeifer will make available/ offer a scholarship for one student  Have Central students make a bulletin board for Heifer promotion  Provide tours for Heifer's national and international visitors  Make Central's conference center available for Heifer meetings when practical  Recruit Heifer employees and visitors to serve as speakers for Career Day  Encourage environmental science classes and International Studies Magnet program to collaborate with Heifer on ways to enhance class work  Investigate the possibility of placing a student in a work-study position at Heifer r\u0026gt; !J:I CDC cm 81:l !!l C) C c~~c C\u0026gt; \u0026gt;--\u0026lt; m--\u0026lt; m r\u0026gt; n m =I\n_ ~ oz (J)U, ::ccc \u0026gt; n \u0026gt; Partnership Between North Point Nissan and Metropolitan Career and Technical Center Metropolitan Career and Technical Center will: 1. Recognize North Point Nissan as a Partner-in Education on the Schools website under the Metropolitan sub link and in the monthly newsletter distributed to parents and students throughout the district. 2. Recognize North Point Nissan as a Partner In Education at the next Little Rock School Board meeting. 3. Display the plaque received at the Little Rock School Board meeting recognizing the partnership with North Point Nissan in the Central office at Metropolitan Career and Technical Center. 4. Metropolitan Career and Technical Center will identify and schedule qualified students for employment possibilities as A YES student interns with North Point Nissan . 5. Metropolitan Career and Technical Center will establish a business and education council which will have strong education, dealership and manufacturer support and function to advise and assist the automotive department on A YES activities. 6. Arrange field trips for automotive service technician students and/or parents to tour the dealership as a part of a group learning experience. North Point Nissan will: 1. Provide a representative to serve on Council in order to provide guidance regarding the enhancement of the school's automotive curriculum, and provide support where possible. 2. Provide job shadowing opportunities for high school students recommended by the school . 3. Sponsor one or more of the A YES students for a paid summer internship in their junior year to be continued at a minimum of part- time internship during their senior year which will provide a variable work experience with an emphasis on skill development . 4. Assign a mentor to each student and agree to allow for each mentor to receive training prior to the summer internship period.  5. Assist each selected intern with the acquisition of a set of Tools under the Tool Scholarship Program linked with the A YES curriculum offered at Metropolitan Career and Technical Center !=' n 0 z ~ :ID m ~ ~ Partnership Between Landers Tovota and Metropolitan Career and Technical Center Metropolitan Career and Technical Center will: 1. Recognize Landers Toyota of Little Rock as a Partner-in Education on the Schools website under the Metropolitan sub link and in the monthly newsletter distributed to parents and students throughout the district. 2. Recognize Landers Toyota of Little Rock as a Partner In Education at the next Little Rock School Board meeting. 3. Display the plaque received at the Little Rock School Board meeting recognizing the partnership with Landers Toyota of Little Rock in the Central office at Metropolitan Career and Technical Center. 4. Metropolitan Career and Technical Center will identify and schedule qualified students for employment possibilities as A YES student interns with Landers Toyota of Little Rock . 5. Metropolitan Career and Technical Center will establish a business and education council which will have strong education, dealership and manufacturer support and function to advise and assist the automotive department on A YES activities. 6. Arrange field trips for automotive service technician students and/or parents to tour the dealership as a part of a group learning experience. Landers Toyota of Little Rock will: 1. Provide a representative to serve on Council in order to provide guidance regarding the enhancement of the school's automotive curriculum, and provide support where possible. 2. Provide job shadowing opportunities for high school students recommended by the school . 3. Sponsor one or more of the A YES students for a paid summer internship in their junior year to be continued at a minimum of part- time internship during their senior year which will provide a variable work experience with an emphasis on skill development . 4. Assign a mentor to each student and agree to allow for each mentor to receive training prior to the summer internship period. 5. Assist each selected intern with the acquisition of a set of Tools under the Tool Scholarship Program linked with the A YES curriculum offered at Metropolitan Career and Technical Center !=' n 0z ~\nJO m ~ fl n m=l\n_ 1\nj Oen ezn ::c- ~!=' n ~ Partnership Between North Point Ford and Metropolitan Career and Technical Center Metropolitan Career and Technical Center will: 1. Recognize North Point Ford as a Partner-in Education on the Schools website under the Metropolitan sub link and in the monthly newsletter distributed to parents and students throughout the district. 2. Recognize North Point Ford as a Partner In Education at the next Little Rock School Board meeting. 3. Display the plaque received at the Little Rock School Board meeting recognizing the partnership with North Point Ford in the Central office at Metropolitan Career and Technical Center. 4. Metropolitan Career and Technical Center will identify and schedule qualified students for employment possibilities as A YES student interns with North Point Ford  5. Metropolitan Career and Technical Center will establish a business and education council which will have strong education, dealership and manufacturer support and function to advise and assist the automotive department on A YES activities. 6. Arrange field trips for automotive service technician students and/or parents to tour the dealership as a part of a group learning experience. North Point Ford will: 1. Provide a representative to serve on Council in order to provide guidance regarding the enhancement of the school's automotive curriculum, and provide support where possible. 2. Provide job shadowing opportunities for high school students recommended by the school  3. Sponsor one or more of the A YES students for a paid summer internship in their junior year to be continued at a minimum of part- time internship during their senior year which will provide a variable work experience with an emphasis on skill development  4. Assign a mentor to each student and agree to allow for each mentor to receive training prior to the summer internship period. 5. Assist each selected intern with the acquisition of a set of Tools under the Tool Scholarship Program linked with the A YES curriculum offered at Metropolitan Career and Technical Center :..n. t .C.,: ~ m Partnership Between Landers Ford and Metropolitan Career and Technical Center Metropolitan Career and Technical Center will: 1. Recognize Landers Ford of Little Rock as a Partner-in Education on the Schools website under the Metropolitan sub link and in the monthly newsletter distributed to parents and students throughout the district. 2. Recognize Landers Ford of Little Rock as a Partner In Education at the next Little Rock School Board meeting. 3. Display the plaque received at the Little Rock School Board meeting recognizing the partnership with Landers Ford of Little Rock in the Central office at Metropolitan Career and Technical Center. 4. Metropolitan Career and Technical Center will identify and schedule qualified students for employment possibilities as A YES student interns with Landers Ford of Little Rock . 5. Metropolitan Career and Technical Center will establish a business and education council which will have strong education, dealership and manufacturer support and function to advise and assist the automotive department on A YES activities. 6. Arrange field trips for automotive service technician students and/or parents to tour the dealership as a part of a group learning experience. Landers Ford of Little Rock will: l. Provide a representative to serve on Council in order to provide guidance regarding the enhancement of the school's automotive curriculum, and provide support where possible. 2. Provide job shadowing opportunities for high school students recommended by the school . 3. Sponsor one or more of the A YES students for a paid summer internship in their junior year to be continued at a minimum of part- time internship during their senior year which will provide a variable work experience with an emphasis on skill development . 4. Assign a mentor to each student and agree to allow for each mentor to receive training prior to the summer internship period. 5. Assist each selected intern with the acquisition of a set of Tools under the Tool Scholarship Program linked with the A YES curriculum offered at Metropolitan Career and Technical Center r\u0026gt; (\") m =l - ~ ls z Ch Ch ::c- \n:!=' (\")\n: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS DATE: March 20, 2003 TO: Board of Education From: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools Re: Informational Update on the Implementation of the Teacher Advancement Program at Rockefeller and Stephens Background Information: As you know, this is our initial year of implementation of the Teacher Advancement Program at Rockefeller and Stephens. The program is currently being implemented in two school districts in the state. We are very fortunate that the Walton Family Foundation has funded this program for three years. The TAP program is a multi-tiered teacher-staffing model that provides quality teachers with new career growth paths, increased salary flexibility and ongoing applied professional development opportunities. TAP's framework for systemic change is built on five key principles:  Multiple Career Paths  Market-Driven Compensation  Performance-Based Accountability  Ongoing, Applied Professional Development  Expanding the Supply of Quality Educators Anne Mangan and Sharon Brooks, along with staff members from Rockefeller and Stephens, will provide the board with an overview of our initial year of implementation. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board receive the report as submitted and commend the staff members and administration from Rockefeller and Stephens for their willingness to be a part of Teacher Advancement Program. f\u0026gt;!Jl ID C cm 8~ !!j Cl C c~~c ~:!:\n-\u0026lt;m m '54.n Individual Approach to a World if Knowledge\" March 20, 2003 TO: Board of Directors THROUGH: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent FROM: Bill Goodman ~ SUBJECT: March Construction Report, Bond Projects Please note that my attached report shows the renovation of Franklin Elementary and the addition and renovation of Romine Elementary have recently been completed. This brings the total completed Bond projects to 125. All of the District's 60 school and administrative buildings have been affected. It has been almost three [3] years since the voters approved the mileage increase to support the capital improvements to our facilities. The District has spent approximately $57,000,000 since that time to make major improvements to our buildings. Those improvements will continue because several projects are either in the planning stage or construction phase. The Bond construction program should be completed in early 2006. The addition and renovation of Pulaski Heights Middle and Elementary will bid on March 20th . You will be given a report on that bid at the Board meeting. The architect has completed the drawings for the addition and renovation of Dunbar Middle. The drawings are going through the review process by both the District and governmental agencies. Bidding is scheduled for April. If you have questions, please feel free to call me at 44 7-1146. 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.k12.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD MARCH 20, 2003 BOND PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION FacilitvName Project Descriotion Cost Administration Asbestos abatement $380,495 Central Renovation - Interior $10,200,266 Hall Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $8,637,709 Mabelvale MS Renovation $6,851,621 Mann Partial Replacement $11,500,000 Wilson Renovation/expansion $1,263,876 BOND PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION SPRING 2002-2003 FacilitvName Project Descriotion Cost Administration 1Fire alarm $32,350 Administration Fresh air system $55,000 Baseline Renovation $953,520 Brady Addition/renovation $973,621 Carver Parking lot $111,742 Central Parking Student parking $50,000 Central/Quigley Stadium light repair \u0026amp; electrical repair $100,000 Dunbar Renovation/addition $6,161,950 Facility Services Fire alarm $12,000 6 classroom addition \u0026amp; cafeteria/music J. A. Fair room addition $3,155,640 Forest Park Replace window units w/central HVAC $485,258 McClellan Classroom Addition $2,155,622 Otter Creek Repair surface water drain $25,000 Parkview Addition $2,121,226 Procurement Fire alarm $25,000 Pulaski Hgts. Elem Renovation $1,193,259 Pulaski Hgts. MS Renovation $3,755,041 Southwest Drainage I street widening $250,000 Southwest New roof $690,000 Southwest Addition $2,000,000 Student Assignment Fire alarm $9,000 Tech Ctr / Metro Renovation Addition/Renovation - Phase II $2,725,000 Williams Renovation $2,106,492 Williams Parking expansions $183,717 Wilson Parkina Exoansion $110,000 Est. \\,\nOlllpletion Date Mar-03 Dec-05 May-03 Dec-03 Dec-03 Aua-03 est. completion Date Aor-03 Jun-03 Dec-03 Dec-04 Jul-03 Aug-03 Jul-03 Aug-04 Jun-03 Mar-04 Aug-03 Dec-03 Jun-03 Mar-04 Jun-03 Aug-04 Auo-04 Aua-03 Aug-03 May-04 Jun-03 Feb-04 Jun-04 Jun-04 Jun-03 BOND PROJECTS PLANNING STARTED CONST. DATE TO BE DETERMINED t:st. Gomp1et1on Facility Name Proiect Descriotion Cost Date J. A. Fair Roof repairs $391,871 Unknown Forest Park Diagonal parking $111,742 Unknown Pulaski Hgts. MS Energy monitoring system installation Unknown Wakefield Rebuild $5,300,000 Jun-04 Wilson Energy monitoring system installation Unknown Woodruff Parkino addition $193,777 Unknown CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD MARCH 20, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name Proiect Descriotion Cost Administration Annex Energy monitoring system installation I Alternative Learning Ctr. Energy monitoring system installation $15,160 Alternative Leaming Ctr. Energy efficient lighting $82,000 Badgett Partial asbestos abatement $237,237 Badgett Fire alarm $18,250 Bale Classroom addition/renovation $2,244,524 Bale Energy monitoring system Bale Partial roof replacement $269,587 Bale HVAC $664,587 Booker Energy efficient lighting $170,295 Booker Energy monitoring system installation $23,710 Booker Asbestos abatement $10,900 Booker Fire alarm $34,501 Brady Energy efficient lighting $80,593 Brady Asbestos abatement $345,072 Carver Energy monitoring system installation $14,480 Central Purchase land for school Unknown Central Roof \u0026amp; exterior renovations $2,000,000 Central Ceiling and wall repair $24,000 Central Fire Alarm System Design/Installation $80,876 Central Front landing tile repair $22,470 Cloverdale Elem. Energy efficient lighting $132,678 Cloverdale MS Energy efficient lighting $189,743 Cloverdale MS Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $1,393,822 Dodd Energy efficient lighting $90,665 Dodd Asbestos abatement-ceiling tile $156,299 Dodd Replace roof top HVAC $215,570 Facilities Service Interior renovation $84,672 Fair Park HVAC renovation/fire alarm $315,956 Fair Park Energy efficient lighting $90,162 Fair Park Asbestos abatement-ceiling $59,310 J. A. Fair Energy efficient lighting $277,594 J. A. Fair Press box $10,784 J. A. Fair Security cameras $12,500 Forest Park Energy efficient lighting $119,788 Fulbright Energy efficient lighting $134,463 Fulbright Energy monitoring system installation $11,950 Fulbright Replace roof top HVAC units $107,835 Fulbright Parking lot $140,000 Fulbright Roof repairs $200,000 Franklin Renovation $2,511,736 Gibbs Energy efficient lighting $76,447 Gibbs Energy monitoring system installation $11,770 Hall Asbestos abatement $168,222 Hall Energy efficient lighting $42,931 Hall Energv efficient lighting $296,707 Hall Infrastructure improvements $93,657 Hall Intercom Hall Security cameras $10,600 Est l,OOlpletion Date May-02 Oct-01 Dec-01 Jul-01 Aug-02 Dec-02 Mar-02 Dec-01 Aug-01 Apr-01 Oct-01 Feb-02 Mar-02 Sep-02 Aug-02 May-01 Dec-02 Dec-02 Oct-01 Aug-01 Aug-01 Jul-01 Jul-01 Nov-02 Aug-01 Jul-01 Aug-02 Mar-01 J\\or-02 Aug-01 Aug-01 Apr-01 Nov-00 Jun-01 May-01 Jun-01 Aua-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Mar-03 Apr-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Jul-01 Aor-01 Aug-01 Feb-01 Jun-01 2 !II \"O m\no !S z z '.! Facility Name Henderson Henderson Henderson Henderson IRC Jefferson Jefferson Laidlaw Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale MS Mann Mann Mann Mann Mann McClellan McClellan McClellan McClellan McDennott McDennott Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Metropolitan Metropolitan Metropolitan Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Oakhurst Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Parkview Parkview Parkview Parkview Parkview Parkview Procurement Pulaski Hgts. Elem Rightsell Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD MARCH 20, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Proiect Description Cost Energy efficient lighting $193,679 ' Roof replacement gym $107,835 Asbestos abatement Phase I $500,000 Asbestos abatement Phase 2 $250,000 Energy efficient lighting $109,136 Asbestos abatement $43,639 Renovation \u0026amp; fire alann $1,630,000 Parking lot $269,588 Energy monitoring system installation $12,150 Replace HVAC units $300,000 Asbestos Abatement $107,000 Energy efficient lighting $106,598 Renovate bleachers $134,793 Asphalt walks The total $1.8 Walkway canopies million is what has Boiler replacement been used so far Fencing on the projects Partial demolition/portable classrooms listed completed for Security cameras $36,300 Energy efficient lighting $303,614 Stadium stands repair $235,000 Intercom $46,000 Energy efficient lighting $79,411 Replace roof top HVAC units $476,000 Fire alann $16,175 Asbestos abatement $253,412 Engergy efficient lighting $88,297 Replace cooling tower $37,203 Replace shop vent system $20,000 Energy monitoring system installation $17,145 Energy efficient lighting $103,642 Energy monitoring system installation $16,695 Asbestos abatement $13,000 HVAC renovation $237,237 Energy monitoring system installation $10,695 Energy efficient lighting $81,828 Asbestos abatement $10,000 Parking lot $138,029 6 classroom addition $888,778 HVAC controls $210,000 Roof replacement $273,877 Exterior lights $10,784 HVAC renovation \u0026amp; 700 area controls $301,938 Locker replacement $120,000 Energy efficient lighting $315,000 Energy monitoring system installation $5,290 Move playground $17,000 Energy efficient lighting $84,898 Energy efficient lighting $137,004 Replace roof top HVAC $539,175 Parking addition $111,742 l:St. \\JOC1..,.......,.1 Date  Jul-01 May-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Jul-02 Oct-01 Nov-02 Jul-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Aug-02 Dec-02 Aug-01 Dec-01 Dec-01 Oct-01 Sep-01 Aug-01 Jun-01 May-01 Aug-01 Feb-02 Feb-01 Aug-02 Jul-01 Aug-02 Dec-02 Dec-00 May-01 Aug-01 Apr-01 Jul-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 May-01 Apr-01 Aug-02 Aug-02 Oct-02 Jun-02 Sep-01 Nov-00 Aug-01 Aug-01 Jun-01 Jun-02 Dec-02 Apr-01 Mar-01 Aug-01 Aua-02 3 !13 \"D i z z ,m- !'\" z.... m\na\na m~\ng\u0026gt; 1!:lc::: C a ~ CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD MARCH 20, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name Proiect Descriotion Cost Romine Asbestos abatement $10,000 Romine Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $3,534,675 SecurityfTransportation Bus cameras $22,500 Southwest Asbestos abatement $28,138 Southwest Energy efficient lighting $168,719 Student Assignment Energy monitoring system installation $4,830 Tech Center Phase 1 Renovation $275,000 Technology Upgrade Upgrade phone system \u0026amp; data Terry Energy efficient lighting $73,850 Terry Driveway \u0026amp; Parking $83,484 Terry Media Center addition $704,932 Wakefield Security cameras $8,000 Wakefield Energy efficient lighting $74,776 Wakefield Demolition/ Asbestos Abatement $200,000 Washington Security cameras $7,900 Washington Energy efficient lighting $165,281 Watson Energy monitoring system installation $8,530 Watson Asbestos abatement $182,241 Watson Energy efficient lighting $106,868 Watson Asbestos abatement $10,000 Watson Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $800,000 Western Hills Asbestos abatement $191,946 Western Hills Intercom $7,100 Western Hills Energy efficient lighting $106,000 Williams Energy efficient lighting $122,719 Woodruff Renovation $246,419 ESL\\.,01,.,......,..., Date , Apr--02 Mar--03 Jun--01 Aug--00 Jan--02 Aug--02 Dec--01 Nov--02 Feb--01 Aug--02 Sep--02 Jun--01 Feb--01 Nov--02 Jun--01 Apr--01 Jul--01 Aug--01 Aug--01 Aug--02 Aug--02 Aug--02 Dec--01 Jul--01 Jun--01 Aug--02 4 !D I z z .m.... LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Date: March 20, 2003 To: Board of Directors Fromsandy Becker, Internal Auditor Re: Audit Report - March This is the forty-first communication regarding status of the current year projects and reviews. Activity Funds a) Working with three high schools and two middle school to resolve financial issues in their activity funds. b) Reviewing monthly financial information for all schools and assisting in resolving balance issues. c) Training school staff at schools on financial processes by request. Activities Advisory Board (AAB) a) Working with the new Activities Advisory Board to develop plans for the new school year and beyond. b) Assist the Activities Advisory Board in its mission to strengthen the effectiveness and viability of activities in the District. c) Working with the Activities Advisory Board to provide ways to assist the different Booster groups in our schools. Board Policy and Regulation a) Coordinating development of payroll guidelines with Financial Services as part of Financial Services Section of the District Operations Manual. Technology a) Monitoring implementation of technology by participation in the technology committee( s). b) Monitoring technology plans to determine how use of technology will improve and streamline the workflow for staff persons. c) Participating with the Technology Committee. :..n.. c:: Pl o\"C z::c ?jO m -\u0026lt; !II \"C m\n,:, is zz m r- Audit Report - March 2003 Page 2 of2 Training a) Served as a trainer for financial portion of Nuts \u0026amp; Bolts, Bookkeeper \u0026amp; Secretaries Training, Security Guard Training, individual school in-service meetings, and others as needed. Working to facilitate best means to improve financial processes and increase accountability for resources. Training new bookkeepers on bookkeeping procedures as requested. b) Placed training material, smart worksheets, and other helpful items on the Teachers Lounge section of the Little Rock School District web page. c) Coordinated guidelines and aids to inform and assist new activity sponsors of specific tasks relating to each activity. Added new checklist for spirit sponsors and smart spreadsheet for fundraiser reconciliation. This information is now in the Teachers Lounge section of the District web page. Audit Area Sampling and Review of Financial Procedures Other a) Pulling samples of district expenditures to test for accuracy, accountability, and compliance with District policies. Reviewing district payroll processes for compliance, economy and efficiency, internal controls, and cost control. Working with Financial Services Payroll on internal control and processing issues. b) c) d) e) f) g) a) b) Working with Financial Services on internal controls and rules for payroll processes and implementation of a new interface system. Monitoring other selected risk areas for efficiency, cost effectiveness, and compliance with District policies. Reviewing grant programs. Working with Child Nutrition on implementation of streamlined information processing system with Information Services and Child Nutrition Staff. Working with Information Services on streamlining of data processes regarding SIS reporting. Monitoring cost reduction efforts in the District. Monitoring payroll for compliance with internal controls. Provided technical assistance to school staff on grant writing. Serving as co-chair of Strategic Team One - Financial Resources. Problem Resolution a) I have made myself available to help resolve financial issues, assist in improving processes, and help find solutions to questions that arise. Please let me know if you need further information. My telephone number is 501-44 7-1115. My e-mail is sandy.becker@lrsd.org. :..n.. c:~ -.i::c cz \u0026gt;.m....o.g.. -\u0026lt; Little Rock School District Board of Directors Technology Update March 20, 2003 Current Projects:  New Network o Conversion to the new district network continues to be implemented site by site. Two to three sites per week are scheduled. o As each site comes on the network the benefits include:  Being able to share files and folders across the district,  Managing routine maintenance and management from the Tech Center,  Managing desktop troubleshooting from the Tech Center.  Computer Purchases o Computer purchases to bring every school up to a 5: 1 ratio are complete except for one school. Computers are being installed at Terry and McDermott this week.  Training Plan o Work continues on developing on-line training for district staff.  Technology Plan Update o Technology Planning Committee has submitted the revised technology plan for approval. !.J,I, i zz ,m... TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR.KANSAS March 20, 2003 11 .\\ Board of Education p Beverly Williams, Director, Human Resources T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools Personnel Changes I recommend the approval of the following personnel changes at the indicated positions, salaries and classifications. In accordance with A.C.A. 6-17-1502, it is recommended that one additional year of probationary status is provided for all teachers who have been employed in a school district in this state for three (3) years. Teachers with an effective date of employment after August 19, 2002 are considered intern teachers. Personnel Changes Page 2 March 20, 2003 NAME Dixon, Elisha Reason: Health K.idda, Colleen Reason: Leaving City Holeman, Eleanor Reason: Leaving City Lesley, Bonnie Reason: Retired Vandiver, Jalisha Reason: Personal Jones, Elizabeth Morgan, Keisha POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE SALARY CLASS Resignationsff erminations Certified Em(!IOl'.ees Vocational Tch 10-10-96 1-02 METRO 3-4-03 VOC925 Counselor 8-20-90 6-16 SOUTHWEST 2-14-03 CNLl0 Voe. Business 1-22-85 6-21 CENTRAL 4-25-03 VOC105 Assoc. Supt. 7-1-98 81-20 CURR \u0026amp; INSTR. 3-14-03 ADC12 English 8-19-02 1-01 HALL 2-27-03 TCH925 New Certified Em(!lovees Biology 2-4-03 1-02 FAIR TCH925 Special Ed. 2-3-03 2-05 DODD SPE925 ANNUAL SALARY 27056.00 47629.00 53213.00 100764.00 26546.00 27056.00 annual 10850.58 prorated 30936.00 annual 12567.75 prorated ~  C :I: ?' ~ fl\u0026gt; s  F 8~ z~ .... mZ 5en Zen en~ fl\u0026gt; f\u0026gt; en,X~ ~8 z,- Cl:II  o el~ en C ?- ~ .... z men ~:il m~ cn::: :1: .... 00 ~~\no ,- sen i~ Personnel Changes Page 3 March 20, 2003 NAME Williams, Frank POSITION SCHOOL Algebra I CENTRAL START DATE END DATE 2-10-03 SALARY CLASS 1-01 TCH925 Resignationsff erminations on-Certified Employees Boyd, Marlo Child Nutrition 1-21-03 3-01 Reason: Abandonment GEYER SPRINGS 3-14-03 FSH4 Brown, Christine Child Nutrition 10-7-02 3-01 Reason: Returning to School WESTERN HILLS 2-15-03 FSH4 Hairston, Patricia Child Nutrition 9-6-02 1-01 Reason: Abandonment MCCLELLAN 3-13-03 FSH5 Hampton, Deidre Care Worker 1-24-03 4-01 Reason: Resigned Without CARE 3-14-03 CARE Notice Lewis, Jerry Instr. Aide 8-19-02 1-01 Reason: Abandonment WAKEFIELD 2-14-03 INA925 Moore, Edwin Custodian 8-9-02 1-01 Reason: Personal DUNBAR 2-28-03 CUS925 Scott, Tina Instr. Aide 8-7-02 1-06 Reason: Personal WOODRUFF 3-7-03 INA185 Townes, Stephanie Care Worker 12-5-03 3-01 Reason: None Given CARE 3-7-03 CARE ANNUAL SALARY 25546.00 annual 10093.01 prorated 5687.00 5687.00 7312.00 6.251hr 10577.00 10329.00 12798.00  6.861hr ~ \u0026gt; C ii: 1E ~ fl\u0026gt; s \u0026gt;\n:= 8~ ~~ .... m i5 Ch z\"' Ch Ch ~ fl\u0026gt; r\u0026gt; ~ u, ::c i!8 z,- ~~ jg~ Ch C\n,-\ns .... z m!!l ~::a =IC: m\u0026lt;\"\u0026gt; ii: .... 015 ~ ~ ::a,- s\"' ~~ Personnel Changes Page 4 March 20, 2003 NAME Woods, Robert Reason: Terminated Ridgel, Richard Wal ton, Coretta Bateman, Vadea Stephens, Ivan Tolbert, William Ghant, Natlyn POSITION SCHOOL Custodian CARVER START DATE END DATE 10-2-89 3-03-03 SALARY CLASS 1-11 CUS925 New Non-Certified Employees Custodian 2-24-03 1-01 WASHINGTON CUS925 Child Nutrition 2-14-03 1-01 FAIR FSH5 Child Nutrition 1-24-03 1-01 HALL FSH5 Instr. Aide 2-11-03 1-07 WAKEFIELD INA925 Care Worker 3-6-03 3-05 CARE CARE Care Worker 2-20-03 3-05 CARE CARE ANNUAL SALARY 14461.00 5164.50 annual 1740.21 prorated 7312.00 annual 2666.25 prorated 7312.00 annual 3272.22 prorated 13115.00 annual 4891.54 prorated 7.40/hr 7.40/hr ~ \u0026gt; C ~ ii! ~ !II s \u0026gt;\n= g!!! z!!!  Z -1m oen Zen en~ !II ~ ~ en ::c  8 Zr ~~ jg~ en C\n,,,\nS -tz men ~il =I~ m-1 ~ 0 0~ ~r ~~ ~!II Personnel Changes Page 5 March 20, 2003 NAME Corbin, Marquitta Carter, Noda POSITION SCHOOL Instr. Aide FAIR Instr. Aide MCCLELLAN START DATE END DATE 2-18-03 2-11-03 SALARY CLASS 1-01 INA925 1-02 INA925 ANNUAL SALARY 10577.00 annual 3716.24 prorated 11106.00 annual 4142.24 prorated ~ \u0026gt; C E :z ~ ~ s \u0026gt;\n= 8~ z!!l  Z --.m Oen Zen en~ n ~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS DATE: TO: March 20, 2003 Board of Education From: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools Re: Adoption of Arkansas School Boards Standards Background Information: Standards have recently been developed for Arkansas School Boards. The standards focus on: Vision/Philosophy\nOrganization\nBoard Operations\nBoard Development\nPersonnel Operations\nand Board/Staff/Community Relations. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board officially approve and adopt the Standards as proposed. TKJ/bjg .!:,D, z \u0026gt;z 0 ~ Standards for Arkansas School Boards I. Vision/Philosophy A. The School Board creates a clear vision for the district that focuses on students, excellence in education, and academic achievement. B. The School Board adopts this vision that is created through collaborative processes that involve the staff, parents, community, and students. C. The School Board effectively communicates this vision to the staff, parents, community, and students. D. The School Board adopts long- and short-term goals to accomplish the vision of the district. E. The School Board believes that accountability for achieving the goals of the district rests with the School Board, the superintendent, the staff, the parents, the community, the students, and the state. II. Organization A. The School Board adopts and follows a \"Code of Ethics. 11 B. The School Board adopts policies that clearly define the roles and duties of its members. C. The School Board adopts policies delineating the procedures for electing its officers and defining their roles and duties. Ill. Board Operations A. The School Board governs through approved policies and maintains a current policy manual which is reviewed regularly. B. The School Board conducts professional meetings in accordance with the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act by establishing and publishing the agenda prior to the meeting and by following the agenda during the meeting. C. The School Board conducts public forums periodically to receive input from citizens. D. The School Board acts with fiscal responsibility. IV. Board Development A. The School Board receives annual training as recommended and/or conducted by the Arkansas School Boards Association and is familiar with A Handbook for Arkansas School Board Members. B. New School Board members receive additional timely training regarding School Board member responsibilities. C. The School Board conducts annual self-assessments and avails itself of professional develop-ment opportunities based on the needs of its members. D. The School Board keeps abreast of state and federal laws that impact education. E. The School Board stays informed about current education issues. F. The School Board attends regional and state Arkansas School Boards Association meetings and remains informed of National School Boards Association meetings and issues. G. The School Board, at least annually, convenes for an extended work session to review goals, evaluate the progress of the district, and develop long-range plans.  H. The School Board is familiar with Key Work of School Boards and implements those concepts. V. Personnel Operations A. The School Board maintains a high standard of ethics in all personnel matters. B. The School Board remains neutral in all personnel matters until the superintendent brings a recommendation to them. C. The School Board adopts personnel policies with input from district personnel. D. The School Board empowers the administration to recruit and recommend highly qualified applicants to the Board. .!.l,l z ~ 0 ~ Ul E. The School Board expects the administration to maintain a highly qualified staff by offering timely and adequate opportunities for professional development F. The School Board hires the superintendent and is responsible for conducting a search to replace an exiting superintendent. G. The School Board evaluates the superintendent annually and determines the continued employment of the superintendent. VI. Board/Staff/Community Relations A. The School Board maintains a positive, supportive, and professional attitude toward all staff. B. The School Board and the superintendent work together as a leadership team. C. The School Board recognizes, protects, and encourages the chain of command at all times. D. The School Board and superintendent recognize that communication is a two-way process. E. The School Board and the superintendent work together to provide and follow a process that encourages and seeks input from the staff and community when appropriate on significant issues by: 1. providing leadership in the establishment of open dialogue through community discussion groups, school councils, and other means\n2. collaborating with local, state, and national agencies\n3. working with the media to provide information\n4. visiting schools\nand 5. including informative presentations from staff and students at school board meetings. F. The School Board models respect for the superintendent, staff, parents, community, and students. G. The School Board supports and adopts the use of Study Circles, or a similar process, as a method of communicating with the staff, the parents, the community, and the students. .!.J,' z \u0026gt; ~ i!: Ul LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS DATE: TO: March 20, 2003 Board of Education From: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools Re: OVERVIEW OF STATE TEST ITEMS Background Information: In an attempt to provide Board members with a better understanding of what our students experience while taking state examinations, Dennis Glasgow will provide an overview of some of the test items at the various grade levels. This will be an experiential activity. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board receive the report as submitted. s \u0026gt;\n= g~ ,z-!!z! _,m 0 gi Zu, (II\u0026lt; n !\" .!.I,' z n~ ~ (II Date: To: From: Through: Subject: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS March 20, 2003 Board of Directors Lucy Neal, Technology and Media Services T. Kenneth James, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools Revised LRSD Technology Plan The Little Rock School District's revised technology plan is due to the Arkansas Department of Education on or before April 15, 2003. A draft copy of the plan was provided for your review at the agenda meeting on March 13. The plan has undergone minor revisions and edits since that time, and a final document is being provided under separate cover. I am available to respond if there are questions or comments. It is recommended that the Board approve this document for submission to the Arkansas Department of Education. ~  0 iE ?! ~ !I' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: March 27, 2003 TO: Board of Education FROM: ~arral Paradis, Director, Procurement and Materials Mgmt. THROUGH: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Donations of Property Attached are requests to donate property to the Little Rock School District as follows: School/Department Item Donor Brady Elementary $800.00 cash to be used Bank of Ozarks School to defray the cost of art teacher Central High School Golf cart, valued at David \u0026amp; Dawn Terry approximately $1,000.00, to be used by security personnel to assist in the surveillance of campus Central High School Refrigerator, valued at Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Mark Ramm approximately $400.00, Dr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Randall Hundley for the teachers' lounge McClellan Magnet $250.00 cash to be used in Ms. Melissa Kumpe High School baseball program It is recommended that these donation requests be approved in accordance with the policies of the Board. !..l,' z \u0026gt;z 0\ni: U\u0026gt; BRADY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Date: To: From: Subject: MEMORANDUM February 10, 2003 Darrall Paradis Director of Procurement Ada Keown a,{ Principal Donation Bank of Ozarks, our Partner in Education, has donated $800.00 to Brady Elementary School. We sincerely appreciate this donation, which will be used to defray the cost of our art teacher. We recommend that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Little Rock School District. Bank of Oz.arks P.O. Box 196 Oz.ark, Arkansas 72949 7915 West Markham Street  Phone (501) '147-3900  Fax (501) 447-3901  Little Rock. Arkansas 72205 ?\u0026lt; (\") 5 en z C) I .!J.,I z \u0026gt;z (\") j!: en LittCe 'Rock Centra{ J-fifJli Sclioo{ 1500 Soutfi 'Park Street Litt[e 'Rock, .'Arkansas 72202 'Phone 501-447-1400 ]'ax 501-447-1401 DATE: FEBRUARY 24, 2003 TO: DARRAL PARADIS, DIRECTOR OF PROCUREMENT FROM: NA CY ROUSSEAU, PRI CIPAL Yf[.__- SUBJECT: DO ATIO Please accept the donation of a golf cart, estimated value of $1000 to Central High School. The golf cart will be utilized by Central security to assist in the surveilance of our campus. It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. David and Dawn Terry of 15 Platte Drive Maumelle, AR 72113 have made this very gracious contribution to our school. ?\u0026lt; (\") 5 !z! l c\n, ill I fJ) .itt{e 'Roci. Centra{ J-ffafi Scfioo{ 1500 Soutfi 'Park Street Litt{e 'Rock, .Jlrkansas 72202 Tfione 501-447-1400 ]'ax 501-447-1401 DATE: FEBRUARY 28, 2003 TO: DARRAL PARADIS, DIRECTOR OF PROCUREME T FROM: NANCY ROUSSEAU, PRINCIPAL yfl) SUBJECT: DO ATIO -SEPTEMBER2002 Please accept the donation of a refrigerator for the teachers' lounge, estimated value of $400 to Central High School. It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. Mr. and Mrs. Mark Ramm and Dr. and Mrs. Randall Hundley made this very gracious contribution to our school. Cc: Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Ramm Dr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Hundley ' ,, 'l !..I,I z \u0026gt;z n ~ en McCLELLAN MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL DATE: TO: FROM: THE ACADEMIES: BUSINESS FINANCE, ENGINEERING, MULTIMEDIA February 10, 2003 Darral Paradis, Direct~F\n~\nfrocurement Lany Buck, Princip~ SUBJECT: Donation Please accept this generous donation given to McClellan High School. Ms. Melissa Kumpe, 1905 McWiliams Lane, Little Rock, AR 72206 has given a cash donation of $250.00 to be used for the McClellan Baseball Team. We recommend that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Little Rock School District. Cc: Dr. Marion Lacey, Associate Superintendent FEB 1 0 2003 ! - ..:::- .. --:_:_- J 9417 Geyer Springs Road  Phone 447-2100  Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS March 20, 2003 Board Of Directors ~Mark D. Milhollen, Manager, Financial Services THROUGH:__ ~ _y-enneth James, Superintendent Of Schools ~onald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Financial Reports We recommend that the attached financial reports be approved as submitted. --- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED FEBRUARY 28, 2002 AND 2003 ..-- APPROVED RECEIPTS % APPROVED RECEIPTS % 2001 /02 02/28/02 COLLECTED 2002/03 02/28/03 COLLECTED REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 57,850,000 57,086,336 98.68% 58,550,000 57,147,781 97.61% DELINQUENT TAXES 6,950,000 6,730,591 96.84% 8,000,000 8,432,483 105.41% 40% PULLBACK 28,450,000 29,400,000 -EXCESS TREASURER'S FEE 190,000 186,429 98.12% 187,000 205,072 109.66% DEPOSITORY INTEREST 575,000 353,143 61 .42% 385,000 174,515 45.33% REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 125,000 126,034 100.83% 135,000 337,232 249.80% M ISCELLANEOUS AND RENTS 600,000 147,159 24.53% 340,000 235,596 69.29% INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 600,000 115,387 19.23% 275,000 119,016 43.28% ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 155,000 144,376 93.15% 160,000 175,342 109.59% TOTAL 95,495,000 64,889,454 67.95% 97,432,000 66,827,036 68.59% REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 25,000 17,024 68.10% 24,000 17,215 71.73% TOTAL 25,000 17,024 68.10% 24,000 17,215 71.73% REVENUE - STATE SOURCES EQUALIZATION FUNDING 54,568,331 34,184,630 62.65% 54,867,630 35,239,580 64.23% REIMBURSEMENT STRS/HEAL TH 7,455,741 5,478,756 73.48% 7,590,000 4,566,701 60.17% VOCATIONAL 1,325,000 857,796 64.74% 1,340,000 833,381 62.19% HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 1,900,000 66,075 3.48% 1,700,000 757,851 44.58% EARLY CHILDHOOD 233,992 175,782 75.12% 273,358 205,407 75.14% TRANSPORTATION 3,468,291 1,161,445 33.49% 3,685,226 2,453,084 66.57% INCENTIVE FUNDS - M TO M 3,865,000 1,894,530 49.02% 3,265,000 1,804,317 55.26% ADULT EDUCATION 987,869 547,481 55.42% 1,006,014 377,991 37.57% POVERTY INDEX FUNDS 1,195,000 1,097,074 91 .81% 658,607 658,607 100.00% EARLY LITERACY LEARNING 25,000 120,000 TAP PROGRAM 285,271 285,271 100.00% AT RISK FUNDING 605,000 158,878 26.26% 650,000 64,573 9.93% WORKER'S COMPENSATION 600,000 TOTAL 76,229,224 45,622,447 59.85% 75,441,106 47,246,763 62.63% REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES TRANSFER FROM CAP PROJ FUND 600,000 620,000 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 700,000 15,540 2.22% 1,126,233 175,922 15.62% TRANSFER FROM MAGNET FUND 1,639,927 546,642 33.33% 1,664,438 554,813 33.33% TOTAL 2,939,927 562,182 19.12% 3,410,671 730,735 21.42% TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 174,689,151 111,091,108 63.59% 176,307,777 114,821,750 65.13% REVENUE- OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 15,868,127 6,045,266 38.10% 22,230,023 10,731 ,261 48.27% DEDICATED M\u0026amp; 0 3,921 ,766 2,091 ,348 53.33% 3,980,000 2,082,476 52.32% MAGNET SCHOOLS 24,802,743 8,721,449 35.16% 25,065,942 10,408,214 41 .52% TOTAL 44,592,636 16,858,062 37.80% 51,275,965 23,221,951 45.29% TOTAL REVENUE 219,281,787 127,949,170 58.35% 227,583,742 138,043,700 60.66% - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED FEBRUARY 28, 2002 AND 2003 - APPROVED EXPENDED % APPROVED EXPENDED 2001/02 02/28/02 EXPENDED 2002/03 02/28/03 EXPENSES SALARIES 98,743,100 55,825,120 56.54% 100,865,586 59,903,522 -BENEFITS 25,603,621 14,188,170 55.41% 24,838,361 15,085,593 pURCHASED SERVICES 20,235,454 11,425,363 56.46% 19,795,774 11 ,960,581 -MATERIALS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES 9,252,512 5,077,623 54.88% 8,347,098 4,756,586 CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,792,554 647,958 36.15% 1,616,991 860,152 OTHER OBJECTS 8,402,940 2,853,528 33.96% 8,508,680 2,918,811 -DEBT SERVICE 10,526,942 10,653,854 101.21% 12,217,048 12,213,572 TOTAL EXPENSES OPERATING 174,557,123 100,671 ,616 57.67% 176,189,538 107,698,817 EXPENSES-OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 16,519,453 7,126,750 43.14% 22,995,210 10,208,019 -DEDICATED M\u0026amp; 0 3,921 ,766 2,213,186 56.43% 3,980,000 1,976,084 MAGNET SCHOOLS 24,802,743 12,196,030 49.17% 25,065,942 13,302,996 TOTAL 45,243,962 21,535,966 47.60% 52,041,152 25,487,100 - TOTAL EXPENSES 219,801,085 122,207,582 55.60% 228,230,690 133,185,917 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (519,298) 5,741 ,588 (646,948) 4,857,782 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET \u0026amp; OED M\u0026amp; 0 1,937,298 1,937,298 1,645,440 1,645,440 OPERATING 8,489,087 8,489,087 8,557,652 8,557,652 ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET \u0026amp; DED M\u0026amp; 0 1,285,972 (2,740,606) 880,253 (619,709) OPERATING 8,621,115 18,908,579 8,675,891 15,680,583 TOTAL 9,907,087 16,167,973 9,556,144 15,060,875 % EXPENDED 59.39% 60.74% 60.42% 56.98% 53.19% 34.30% 99.97% 61.13% 44.39% 49.65% 53.07% 48.97% 58.36%\n,\u0026lt; 0 5 en z C, Rl i en LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED FEBRUARY 28, 2003 PROJECT BEG BALANCE INCOME TRANSFERS EXPENDITURES ENCUMBRANCES END BALANCE ?\u0026lt; (\") 07-01-02 2002-03 2002-03 2002-03 2002-03 02-28-03 5 \"z' C\u0026gt; $6,200,000 BOND ISSUE Rl FAIR 33,282.90 33,282.90 ~ MCCLELLAN 78,319.02 800.00 77,519.02 ~ \"' CONTINGENCY 1,052,354.15 1,052,354.15 SUBTOTAL 1,163,956.07 0.00 0.00 800.00 0.00 1,163,156.07 $136,268,560 BOND ISSUES ~~ ADMINISTRATION 0.00 182,400.00 102,096.04 80,303.96 \u0026gt;~ NEW WORK PROJECTS 22,028,270.87 8,302,568.00 7,788,543.80 9,490,272.24 13,052,022.83 Cr\n! ~\no SECURITY PROJECTS 42,273.97 42,273.97 s! z LIGHTING PROJECTS 348,708.80 30,625.90 379,334.70 0.00 ~~ mz MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR 5,749,803.26 344,842.00 2,908,041.59 241,894.71 2,944,708.96 .... RENOVATION PROJECTS 47,947,115.45 983,360.00 12,036,498.29 12,115,817.09 24,778,160.07 TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES 4,744,881 .05 90,303.80 3,778,535.57 267,238.75 789,410.53 SUBTOTAL 80,861 ,053.40 0.00 9,934,099.70 26,993,049.99 22,115,222.79 41,686,880.32 REVENUES PROCEEDS-PROPERTY SALE 139,801.90 45,668.11 5,771 .03 179,698.98 DUNBAR PROJECT 5,266.71 5,266.71 FULBRIGHT PROJECT 0.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 PROCEEDS-BOND SALES 31,569,505.02 {9,934,099.70) 21 ,635,405.32 PROCEEDS-QZAB SALE 1,293,820.97 1,293,820.97 INTEREST STATE OF ARK 469,063.03 469,063.03 INTEREST 5,022,644.80 1,984,556.28 7,007,201.08 SUBTOTAL 38,500,102.43 2,080,224.39 {9,934,099.70) 5,771.03 0.00 30,640,456.09 GRAND TOTAL 1 jla :iil:i m 11a i a11a ii~ :111 l2J22 jl l!l!l! liill ail ijl ll:i 2~~ ZII za ~11a ~Iii ~11 - -- PROJECT - ALLOCATIONS PROJECT CATEGORIES THRU 02-28-03 - ADMINISTRATION 586,846.55 NEW WORK PROJECTS 35,363,912.16 SECURITY PROJECTS 265,814.17 LIGHTING PROJECTS 4,853,208.89 MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR 11,104,325.29 RENOVATION PROJECTS 53,447,136.00 TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES 9,735,402.78 - UNALLOCATED PROCEEDS 22,929,226.29 TOTAL - 138,285,872.13 - - - - - 'S:\u0026gt;AS lOOH:\u0026gt;S 'XI LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ISSUE PROJECT HISTORY THRU THE PERIOD ENDED FEBRUARY 28, 2003 EXPENSE EXPENSE EXPENSE 2000-01 2001-02 THRU 02-28-03 889,772.32 (485,325.77) 102,096.04 443,467.00 4,589,606.29 7,788,543.80 113,930.47 109,609.73 2,641,482.13 1,832,392.06 379,334.70 791,385.63 4,218,294.40 2,908,041.59 397,615.34 4,119,045.21 12,036,498.29 575,016.53 4,325,201.40 3,778,535.57 5,852,669.42 18,708,823.32 26,993,049.99 - - -  - ENCUMBERED THRU 02-28-03 SUBTOTAL -t 506,542.59 9,490,272.24 1 22,311,889.33 223,540.20 4,853,208.89 241,894.71 8,159,616.33 12,115,817.09 28,668,975.93 267,238.75 8,945,992.25 22,115,222.79 73,669,765.52 1N3WNMnorov nx S9Nll:IV3H 'IX ENDING ALLOCATION 02-28-03 80,303.96 13,052,022.83 42,273.97 0.00 2,944,708.96 24,778,160.07 789,410.53 22,929,226.29 64,616,106.61 S\u0026gt;n!VW3l:I 9NIS01:\u0026gt; x - Fund Purchase Date Qperating 12-09-02 - Operating 01-19-03 Operating 08-10-02 Operating 02-28-03 Operating 12-27-02 Total Food Service 02-28-03 Total Activity Fund 11-14-02 Total - - Bond Account 09-09-02 Capital Projects Fund 01-17-03 Capital Projects Fund 01-17-03 Capital Proje~s Fund 02-14-03 Capital Projects fund 01-29-03 Capital Projects Fund 01-17-03 Capital Projects Fund 02-14-03 Capital Projects Fund 11-15-02 Capital Projects Fund 02-14-03 Capital Projects Fund 01-22-03 Capital Projects Fund 07-17-02 Capital Projects Fund 11-15-02 Capital Projects Fund 09-17-02 Capital Projects Fund 09-17-02 Capital Projects _fund 02-24-03 - Total Deseg Plan Scholarship 01-10-03 Deseg Plan Scholarship 09-27-02 Total - Rockefeller Sc~olarship 01-30-03 Total s~AS lOOH~ \"XI LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS BY FUND FOR THE PERIOD ENDED FEBRUARY 28,2003 Maturity Institution Interest Rate Date 06-09-03 Regions 1.190% 07-19-03 Regions 1.190% 04-08-02 Pulaski 2.330% TFN Bank of America 1.150% 03-03-03 Bank of the Ozarks 1.360% TFN Bank of America 1.040% 04-02-03 Bank of America 1.120% 03-10-03 Regions 1.590% 01-16-04 Metropolitan 1.930% 01-16-04 Bank of the Ozarks ~ .250% 10-15-03 Bank of the Ozarks 1.440% 01-29-04 Bancorp South 2.000% 01-16-04 Superior 2.250% 11-14-03 Superior 1.900% 05-15-03 USBANK 1.380% 07-15-03 USBANK 1.360% 01-16-04 Bank of America 1.240% 03-14-03 Merrill Lynch 1.770% 05-15-03 Bank of the Ozarks 1.480% 04-15-03 Bank of the Ozarks 2.070% 09-15-03 Bank of the Ozarks 2.200% TFN Bank of America 1.070% 06-11-03 Bank of America 1.050% 06-10-03 Bank of America 1.430% 06-24-03 Bank of America 1.090% Type Money Market Money Market Money Market Repo CD Repo Treasury Bills CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD Treasury Bills Treasury Bills CD CD CD Repo Treasury Bills Treasury Bills Treasury Bills 1N3WNHnorav nx SONl'!IV3H \"IX Principal 20,000.00 20,000.00 10,000.00 13,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 23,050,000.00 540,000.00 540,000.00 800,523.15 800,523.15 400,000.00 1,000,934.31 5,116,598.09 10,000,000.00 2,058,896.90 2,500,000.00 11,000,000.00 11,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 5,299,646.43 4,940,754.17 9,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 9,890,000.00 95,206,829.90 124,445.83 534,508.80 658,954.63 249,898.04 249,898.04 S)l'!IVW3'!1 ONISOl~ x\nThis 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.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1042","title":"\"Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting\" agenda","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2003-02"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School board members","School boards","School improvement programs","School superintendents"],"dcterms_title":["\"Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting\" agenda"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1042"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["77 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nAgenda RECEIVED FEB 2 5 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting Obse,vln9 Blaclt Hbto,s, Month Celeb,atln9 Units, February 2003 ,.. n~ . :m:0 ~ C: ~ :ii: g~\n:o::O cm--\u0026lt;,,\n:oc -z\n:on 0~ F~ C')CJ) \u0026gt; F ~ I CJ) 8 I:: :ii: C z 0 ~ ~ z CJ) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS REGULAR MEETING February 27, 2003 5:30 p.m. I. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS A. Call to Order B. Roll Call 11. PROCEDURAL MATTERS A. Welcome to Guests B. Performance - Central High Drama Department 111. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS: A. Superintendent's Citations B. Partners in Education - New Partnerships Fulbright Elementary School - Debbie Milam for Deborah Mitchell Brent \u0026amp; Sam's Cookies - Brent Bumpers Metropolitan Career \u0026amp; Technical Center - Mike Peterson, Victor Eackles, \u0026amp; Allie Freeman North Point Nissan - Paul Buch, Executive Manager \u0026amp; Adam Guise, Service Manager Ford Motor Company - Training Facility- Frank M. Prosser, Instructor Landers Toyota - Dennis Harris, Lead Service Manager North Point Ford - David Lynch, Lead Service Manager Landers Ford - Rick Wadsworth, Service Manager C. Remarks from Citizens (persons who have signed up to speak) D. Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association E. Joshua lntervenors IV. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS: A. Remarks from Board Members B. Desegregation Update C. Budget Update D. Construction Report: Proposed Bond Projects n -o ?\"'~ rr r- -, 31: g~ ~~ m-., ::0 C: -z\non o'\"\" i=\nn en ~ ~ ~ a ~ en 8 31: 31: C: z  ~ z en ?\"' Regular Board Meeting February 27, 2003 Page 2 IV. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS: (continued) E. Internal Auditors Report F. Technology Update G. Fine Arts Update V. APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MATTERS: A. Minutes: Regular Meeting, 01-23-03 Special Meeting, 02-13-03 B. Personnel Changes VI. INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES DIVISION: A. Program Evaluation: Elementary Summer School B. Program Evaluation: Extended Year Education (EYE) C. Program Evaluation: Middle School Transition D. Program Evaluation: Lyceum Scholars E. Grant Proposal: Arkansas Reading First Grant Program F. Grant Proposal: Laura Bush Foundation G. Revised Regulations: EDCA-R VII. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION: VIII. BUSINESS SERVICES DIVISION: A. Second Reading: Policy DGD - Visa Purchasing Pro-Card B. Laidlaw Contract: 2003- 2008 C. Quitclaim Deed: Barrow Road D. Donations of Property E. Financial Report IX. SCHOOL SERVICES DIVISION: X. CLOSING REMARKS: A. Superintendent's Report: 1. Dates to Remember 2. Special Functions XI. EMPLOYEE HEARINGS XII. ADJOURNMENT n -o ),,:,::, r ,m,-_ .... :r: g~ el~ m-., :,::, C: -z :,::,n o--\u0026lt; F~ C')CII ~ r :\u0026lt; ~ c33 1!l \"' 8 I C: z c\"i ~ i5 z \"' I. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS CA.LL TO ORDER/ ROU CALL Ill. PROCEDURAL MATTERS STUDENT PERFORMANCE Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITION PUBLIC COMMENTS IV. REPORTS/COMMUNICATIONS A. REMARKS FROM BOARD Ul=URl=A!: To: From: Through: Subject: Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 February 27, 2003 Board of Directors Debbie Milam, Director, VIPS/Partners in Education ~ T. Kenneth James, Superintendent Partners in Education Program: New partnerships The Little Rock School District Partners in Education program is designed to develop strong relationships between the community and our schools. The partnership process encourages businesses, community agencies and private organizations to join with individual schools to enhance and support educational programs. Each partnership utilizes the resources of both the school and the business for their mutual benefit. The following schools and businesses have completed the requirements necessary to establish a partnership and are actively working together to accomplish their objectives. We recommend that the Board approve the following partnerships: Fulbright Elementary School and Brent and Sam's Cookies Metropolitan Career \u0026amp; Technical Center and North Point Nissan, Ford Motor Company-Training Facility, Landers Toyota, North Point Ford, and Landers Ford !:D C m U\u0026gt; fS C: ~ m Partners in Education Proposal Fulbright Elementary School and Brent \u0026amp; Sam's Cookies Fulbright Elementary School and Brent \u0026amp; Sam's Cookies have formed a partnership designed to enhance the education of the students at Fulbright. Fulbright commits to the following partnership activities:  Provide art from 4th and 5th grade classes for display in Brent \u0026amp; Sam's offices  Submit student artwork for consideration for company holiday cards  Acknowledge Brent \u0026amp; Sam's Cookies as a Partner in Education on school publications Brent \u0026amp; Sam's Cookies commits to the following partnership activities: Donate product to be used in fundraising projects benefiting technology at Fulbright On-going support as needed Partnership Between North Point Nissan and Metropolitan Career and Technical Center Metropolitan Career and Technical Center will: 1. Recognize North Point Nissan as a Partner-in Education on the Schools website under the Metropolitan sub link and in the monthly newsletter distributed to parents and students throughout the district. 2. Recognize North Point Nissan as a Partner In Education at the next Little Rock School Board meeting. 3. Display the plaque received at the Little Rock School Board meeting recognizing the partnership with North Point Nissan in the Central office at Metropolitan Career and Technical Center. 4. Metropolitan Career and Technical Center will identify and schedule qualified students for employment possibilities as A YES student interns with North Point Nissan  5. Metropolitan Career and Technical Center will establish a business and education council which will have strong education, dealership and manufacturer support and function to advise and assist the automotive department on A YES activities. 6. Arrange field trips for automotive service technician students and/or parents to tour the dealership as a part of a group learning experience. North Point Nissan will: I. Provide a representative to serve on Council in order to provide guidance regarding the enhancement of the school's automotive curriculum, and provide support where possible. 2. Provide job shadowing opportunities for high school students recommended by the school  3. Sponsor one or more of the A YES students for a paid summer internship in their junior year to be continued at a minimum of part- time internship during their senior year which will provide a variable work experience with an emphasis on skill development  4. Assign a mentor to each student and agree to allow for each mentor to receive training prior to the summer internship period. 5. Assist each selected intern with the acquisition of a set of Tools under the Tool Scholarship Program linked with the A YES curriculum offered at Metropolitan Career and Technical Center ~ a:, C: ~ C: iB ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ Cl) n 0 I: I: C: z n ~ lz5 Cl) Partnership Between Ford Motor Company Training Center and Metropolitan Career and Tech- Center The Metropolitan Career and Tech-Center will: 1. Recognize Ford Motor Co. as a Partner in Education on the Schools website under the Metropolitan sub link and in the monthly newsletter distributed to parents and students throughout the district. 2. Recognize Ford Motor Co. as a Partner in Education at the next Little Rock School Board meeting. 3. Display the plaque received at the Little Rock School Board meeting recognizing the partnership with Ford Motor Co. in the Central Office at Metropolitan career and Technical Center. 4. Metropolitan Career and Technical Center will encourage each student technician working at a Ford, Lincoln Mercury Dealership to pursue several certification training while continuing to working as an apprentice. Ford Motor Co. will: I. Recognize each Metropolitan Career and Technical Center apprentice who has completed his/her apprenticeship status and has been identified as a full time employee. 2. Provide certified training in order to assist students in starting certification compliance prior to graduating from high school. 3. Provide the same services for any student dually enrolled in Metropolitan Career and Technical Center and Little Rock Job Corps. Partnership Between Landers Toyota and Metropolitan Career and Technical Center Metropolitan Career and Technical Center will: 1. Recognize Landers Toyota of Little Rock as a Partner-in Education on the Schools website under the Metropolitan sub link and in the monthly newsletter distributed to parents and students throughout the district. 2. Recognize Landers Toyota of Little Rock as a Partner In Education at the next Little Rock School Board meeting. 3. Display the plaque received at the Little Rock School Board meeting recognizing the partnership with Landers Toyota of Little Rock in the Central office at Metropolitan Career and Technical Center. 4. Metropolitan Career and Technical Center will identify and schedule qualified students for employment possibilities as A YES student interns with Landers Toyota of Little Rock  5. Metropolitan Career and Technical Center will establish a business and education council which will have strong education, dealership and manufacturer support and function to advise and assist the automotive department on A YES activities. 6. Arrange field trips for automotive service technician students and/or parents to tour the dealership as a part of a group learning experience. Landers Toyota of Little Rock will: 1. Provide a representative to serve on Council in order to provide guidance regarding the enhancement of the school's automotive curriculum, and provide support where possible. 2. Provide job shadowing opportunities for high school students recommended by the school  3. Sponsor one or more of the A YES students for a paid summer internship in their junior year to be continued at a minimum of part- time internship during their senior year which will provide a variable work experience with an emphasis on skill development  4. Assign a mentor to each student and agree to allow for each mentor to receive training prior to the summer internship period. 5. Assist each selected intern with the acquisition of a set of Tools under the Tool Scholarship Program linked with the A YES curriculum offered at Metropolitan Career and Technical Center !II 0 rn !B C: ~ m fl l:D C: 8 !!l C: ~ m Partnership Between North Point Ford and Metropolitan Career and Technical Center Metropolitan Career and Technical Center will: I. Recognize North Point Ford as a Partner-in Education on the Schools website under the Metropolitan sub link and in the monthly newsletter distributed to parents and students throughout the district. 2. Recognize North Point Ford as a Partner In Education at the next Little Rock School Board meeting. 3. Display the plaque received at the Little Rock School Board meeting recognizing the partnership with North Point Ford in the Central office at Metropolitan Career and Technical Center. 4. Metropolitan Career and Technical Center will identify and schedule qualified students for employment possibilities as A YES student interns with North Point Ford. 5. Metropolitan Career and Technical Center will establish a business and education council which will have strong education, dealership and manufacturer support and function to advise and assist the automotive department on A YES activities. 6. Arrange field trips for automotive service technician students and/or parents to tour the dealership as a part of a group learning experience. North Point Ford will: 1. Provide a representative to serve on Council in order to provide guidance regarding the enhancement of the school's automotive curriculum, and provide support where possible. 2. Provide job shadowing opportunities for high school students recommended by the school  3. Sponsor one or more of the A YES students for a paid summer internship in their junior year to be continued at a minimwn of part- time internship during their senior year which will provide a variable work experience with an emphasis on skill development  4. Assign a mentor to each student and agree to allow for each mentor to receive training prior to the summer internship period. 5. Assist each selected intern with the acquisition of a set of Tools under the Tool Scholarship Program linked with the A YES curriculum offered at Metropolitan Career and Technical Center Partnership Between Landers Ford and Metropolitan Career and Technical Center Metropolitan Career and Technical Center will: I. Recognize Landers Ford of Little Rock as a Partner-in Education on the Schools website under the Metropolitan sub link and in the monthly newsletter distributed to parents and students throughout the district. 2. Recognize Landers Ford of Little Rock as a Partner In Education at the next Little Rock School Board meeting. 3. Display the plaque received at the Little Rock School Board meeting recognizing the partnership with Landers Ford of Little Rock in the Central office at Metropolitan Career and Technical Center. 4. Metropolitan Career and Technical Center will identify and schedule qualified students for employment possibilities as A YES student interns with Landers Ford of Little Rock . 5. Metropolitan Career and Technical Center will establish a business and education council which will have strong education, dealership and manufacturer support and function to advise and assist the automotive department on A YES activities. 6. Arrange field trips for automotive service technician students and/or parents to tour the dealership as a part of a group learning experience. Landers Ford of Little Rock will: 1. Provide a representative to serve on Council in order to provide guidance regarding the enhancement of the school's automotive curriculum, and provide support where possible. 2. Provide job shadowing opportunities for high school students recommended by the school . 3. Sponsor one or more of the A YES students for a paid summer internship in their junior year to be continued at a minimum of part- time internship during their senior year which will provide a variable work experience with an emphasis on skill development . 4. Assign a mentor to each student and agree to allow for each mentor to receive training prior to the summer internship period. 5. Assist each selected intern with the acquisition of a set of Tools under the Tool Scholarship Program linked with the A YES curriculum offered at Metropolitan Career and Technical Center !1'J 0 m en !B C: ~ m r\u0026gt; a, C: 8 !!l C: ! !=' a,(\") 00 zz ~~\no\no ~~ n\no ~:::! ~ I en 8 I:: I:: C: z E ~ ezn\n,,,\no m s:::i sT::1: e~n :u.., ::l\no :n i I '54..n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" February 27, 2003 TO: Board of Directors THROUGH: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent FROM: Bill Goodman, District Engine$ SUBJECT: February Construction Report, Bond Projects I am pleased to report that the drawings of several projects have been completed and will be advertised for bidding soon. They are as follows: Technology Center, Phase 2, and remodeling of Metropolitan Building and parking lot additions at Williams Addition and remodeling of Pulaski Heights Middle and Elementary  Addition to J. A. Fair  New roof for Southwest Middle The classroom addition and the new gym at Hall High School are on schedule and should be completed in May. The design of the sound system and the scoreboard for the gym are underway and will be completed in May. LRSD and the Campus Leadership Team have approved the floor plan for the replacement school at Wakefield. The architect is working toward completing the drawings for bidding this summer. Bid openings are scheduled for March 12th for parking lot improvements at Carver and Wilson. Bids for rebuilding the football fields at Quigley, McClellan and J. A. Fair will be opened in March. If you have any questions, please call me at 447-1146. 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.1rsd.k12.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 :n .... ~ :zc 0  -\u0026lt; Facility Name Administration Central Franklin Hall Mabelvale MS Mann Otter Creek Romine Wilson CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD FEBRUARY 27, 2003 BOND PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION Project Description Cost Asbestos abatement $380,495 Renovation - Interior _119,200,266 Renovation $2 ,511,736 I Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $8,637,709 Renovation $6,851 ,621 Partial Replacement I $11,500,000 I Repair surface water drain I $2,500 I Major renovation \u0026amp; addition I $3,534,675 Renovation/expansion $1,263,876 I !::st. c.\nompletion Date Mar-03 Dec-05 Mar-03 May-03 Dec-03 Dec-03 Jan-03 Mar-03 Aug-03 BOND PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION WINTER/SPRING 2002-2003 Est. completion Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Administration Fire alarm $32,350 . Jun-03 Administration Fresh air system $55,000 Jun-03 Baseline 1 Renovation $953,520 Unknown Brady Addition/renovation $973,621 I Jun-04 Carver Parking lot $111,742 Jul-03 Central Parking Student parking I $50,000 Jul-03 Central/Quigley Stadium light repair \u0026amp; electrical repair $200,000 Jul-03 Dunbar Renovation/addition $6,161,950 I Dec-04 Facility Services I Fire alarm $12,000 Jun-03 6 classroom addition \u0026amp; cafeteria/music J. A. Fair room addition I $3,155,640 Mar-04 Forest Park Replace window units w/central HVAC $485,258 Aug-03 McClellan Classroom Addition $2,155,622 I Mar-03 Parkview Addition $2,121,226 I Mar-04 Procurement Fire alarm $25,000 I Jun-03 Pulaski Hgts. Elem Renovation $1,193,259 Dec-04 Pulaski Hgts. MS Renovation $3,755,041 Dec-04 Southwest Drainage / street widening $250,000 Jun-03 Southwest New roof $690,000 Jun-03 Student Assignment Fire alarm $9,000 Jun-03 Tech Ctr/ Metro Renovation Addition/Renovation - Phase II $2,725,000 Feb-04 Williams Renovation $2,106,492 Dec-03 Williams Parking expansions $183,717 Dec-03 Wilson Parking Expansion $110,000 Jun-03 BOND PROJECTS PLANNING STARTED CONST. DATE TO BE DETERMINED t:.Sl. 1...,ompIeuon Facility Name Project Description Cost Date J. A. Fair Roof repairs $391,871 Unknown Forest Park Diagonal parking $111,742 Unknown Pulaski Hgts. MS Energy monitoring system installation Unknown Southwest Addition $2,000,000 Unknown Wakefield Rebuild $5,300,000 Jun-04 Wilson Energy monitoring system installation Unknown Woodruff Parking addition $193,777 I Unknown CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD FEBRUARY 27, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name Project Description Cost Administration Annex Energy monitoring system installation Alternative Learning Ctr. Energy monitoring system installation $15,160 Alternative Learning Ctr. Energy efficient lighting $82,000 Badgett . Partial asbestos abatement $237,237 Badgett Fire alarm $18,250 Bale Classroom addition/renovation $2,244,524 Bale Energy monitoring system Bale 1 Partial roof replacement I $269,587 Bale HVAC $664,587 Booker Energy efficient lighting $170,295 Booker  Energy monitoring system installation I $23,710 Booker ,Asbestos abatement I $10,900 I Booker Fire alarm $34,501 Brady Energy efficient lighting $80,593 Brady Asbestos abatement $345,072 Carver Energy monitoring system installation $14,480 Central Purchase land for school Unknown Central Roof \u0026amp; exterior renovations $2,000,000 Central Ceiling and wall repair $24,000 I Central 1 Fire Alarm System Design/Installation $80,876 I Central Front landing tile repair $22,470 Cloverdale Elem. . Energy efficient lighting $132,678 Cloverdale MS 1 Energy efficient lighting $189,743 Cloverdale MS Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $1 ,393,822 Dodd I Energy efficient lighting I $90,665 Dodd Asbestos abatement-ceiling tile $156,299 Dodd Replace roof top HVAC $215,570 Facilities Service Interior renovation $84,672 Fair Park HVAC renovation/fire alarm $315,956 Fair Park Energy efficient lighting $90,162 Fair Park Asbestos abatement-ceiling $59,310 J. A. Fair Energy efficient lighting $277,594 J. A. Fair Press box $10,784 J. A. Fair Security cameras $12,500 Forest Park Energy efficient lighting $119,788 Fulbright Energy efficient lighting $134,463 Fulbright Energy monitoring system installation $11,950 Fulbright Replace roof top HVAC units $107,835 Fulbright Parking lot $140,000 Fulbright Roof repairs $200,000 Gibbs Energy efficient lighting $76,447 Gibbs Energy monitoring system installation $11,770 Hall Asbestos abatement $168,222 Hall Energy efficient lighting $42,931 Hall Energy efficient lighting $296,707 Hall Infrastructure improvements $93,657 Hall Intercom I Hall Security cameras I10,600 i t:.st. L\nompIet1on Date May-02 Oct-01 Dec-01 Jul-01 Aug-02 Dec-02 Mar-02 Dec-01 Aug-01 Apr-01 Oct-01 Feb-02 Mar-02 Sep-02 Aug-02 May-01 Dec-02 Dec-02 Oct-01 Aug-01 Aug-01 Jul-01 Jul-01 Nov-02 Aug-01 Jul-01 Aug-02 Mar-01 Apr-02 Aug-01 Aug-01 Apr-01 Nov-00 Jun-01 May-01 Jun-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Apr-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Jul-01 Apr-01 Aug-01 Feb-01 Jun-01 2 :.n.. Pl ::c z  -\u0026lt; Facility Name Henderson Henderson -- Henderson Henderson IRC Jefferson Jefferson Laidlaw Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale MS -Mann Mann ---- Mann Mann - Mann McClellan McClellan McClellan McCle-llan McDermott McDermott - Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Metropolitan Metropolitan Metropolitan Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Oakh-urst Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Parkview Parkview Parkview Parkview Parkview Parkview Procurement Pulaski Hgts. Elem Rightsell Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD FEBRUARY 27, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Project Description Cost Energy efficient lighting $193,679 Roof replacement gym $107,835 I Asbestos abatement Phase I $500,000 I Asbestos abatement Phase 2 $250,000 Energy efficient lighting $109,136 I Asbestos abatement I $43,639 I Renovation \u0026amp; fire alarm $1,630,000 Parking lot I $269,588 Energy monitoring system installation $12,150 Replace HVAC units $300,000 Asbestos Abatement $107,000 Energy efficient lighting $106,598 ! Renovate bleachers I $134,793 I Asphalt walks The total $1.8 1 walkway canopies million is what has I I been used so far I Boiler replacement I Fencing on the projects , Partial demolition/portable classrooms 'listed completed for . Security cameras 1 $36,300 I Energy efficient lighting $303,614 Stadium stands repair $235,000 I Intercom $46,000 Energy efficient lighting I $79,411 Replace roof top HVAC units I $476,000 Fire alarm $16,175 Asbestos abatement $253,412 I Engergy efficient lighting $88,297 Replace cooling tower $37,203 Replace shop vent system $20,000 Energy monitoring system installation I $17,145 Energy efficient lighting $103,642 . Energy monitoring system installation I $16,695 Asbestos abatement $13,000 HVAC renovation I $237,237 I Energy monitoring system installation $10,695 Energy efficient lighting I $81,828 Asbestos abatement $10,000 Parking lot $138,029 6 classroom addition $888,778 HVAC controls $210,000 I Roof replacement $273,877 Exterior lights $10,784 I I HVAC renovation \u0026amp; 700 area controls $301,938 Locker replacement $120,000 Energy efficient lighting $315,000 t Energy monitoring system installation $5,290 Move playground $17,000  Energy efficient lighting . $84,898 Energy efficient lighting $137,004 Replace roof top HVAC $539,175 Parkinq addition I $111,742 t:st. c.\nompIetIon Date Jul-01 May-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Jul-02 Oct-01 Nov-02 Jul-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Aug~ Dec-02 Aug-01 Dec-01 Dec-01 Oct-01 Sep-01 Aug-01 Jun-01 May-01 Aug-01 Feb-02 Feb-01 Aug-02 Jul-01 Aug-02 Dec-02 Dec-00 Mav-01 Aug-01 Apr-01 Jul-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 May-01 Apr-01 Aug-02 Aug-02 Oct-02 Jun-02 Sep-01 Nov-00 Aug-01 - - ~-0_1_ Jun-01 Jun-02 Dec-02 Apr-01 Mar-01 Aug-01 Auq-02 3 CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD FEBRUARY 27, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name Proiect Descriotion Cost Romine , Asbestos abatement $10,000 security/Transportation Bus cameras I $22,500 southwest Asbestos abatement $28,138 southwest Energy efficient lighting $168,719 Student Assignment Energy monitoring system installation $4,830 I Tech Center Phase 1 Renovation $275,000 Technology Upgrade Upgrade phone system \u0026amp; data I I~ Energy efficient lighting I $73,850 Terry Driveway \u0026amp; Parking $83,484 Terry Media Center addition I $704,932 Wakefield Security cameras $8,000 Wakefield Energv efficient lighting $74,776 Wakefield Demolition/Asbestos Abatemen-t --- - $200,000 Washington Security cameras I $7,900 Washington Energy efficient lighting $165,281 Watson Energy monitoring system installation $8,530 Watson Asbestos abatement $182,241 Watson Energy efficient lighting $106,868 Watson Asbestos abatement $10,000 Watson Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $800,000 Western Hills Asbestos abatement I $191,946 Western Hills Intercom $7,100 Western Hills Energy efficient lighting $106,000 Williams Energy efficient lighting $122,719 Woodruff Renovation $246,419 est. Completion Date Apr-02 Jun-01 Aug-00 Jan-02 Aug-02 Dec-01 Nov-02 Feb-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Jun-01 Feb-01 -- Nov-02 Jun-01 Apr-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Aug-02 Aug-02 Dec-01 Jul-01 Jun-01 Auo-02 4 :.n.. Pl ::c z  -\u0026lt; Date: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS February 27, 2003 To: Board of Directors @ From: Sandy Becker, Internal Auditor Re: Audit Report - February This is the fortieth communication regarding status of the current year projects and reviews. Activity Funds a) Working with three high schools and two middle school to resolve financial issues in their activity funds. b) Reviewing monthly financial information for all schools and assisting in resolving balance issues. c) Training school staff at schools on financial processes by request. Activities Advisory Board (AAB) a) Working with the new Activities Advisory Board to develop plans for the new school year and beyond. b) Assist the Activities Advisory Board in its mission to strengthen the effectiveness and viability of activities in the District. c) Working with the Activities Advisory Board to provide ways to assist the different Booster groups in our schools. Board Policy and Regulation a) Coordinating development of payroll guidelines with Financial Services as part of Financial Services Section of the District Operations Manual. Technology a) Monitoring implementation of technology by participation in the technology committee(s). b) Monitoring technology plans to determine how use of technology will improve and streamline the workflow for staff persons. c) Participating with the Technology Committee. .p., z m \u0026gt; :!:l u, C: ~ m !II 'ti m\no fS z z m r- Audit Report - February 2003 Page 2 of 2 Training a) Served as a trainer for financial portion of uts \u0026amp; Bolts, Bookkeeper \u0026amp; Secretaries Training, Security Guard Training, individual school in-service meetings, and others as needed. Working to facilitate best means to improve financial processes and increase accountability for resources. Training new bookkeepers on bookkeeping procedures as requested. b) Placed training material, smart worksheets, and other helpful items on the Teachers Lounge section of the Little Rock School District web page. c) Coordinated guidelines and aids to inform and assist new activity sponsors of specific tasks relating to each activity. Added new checklist for spirit sponsors. This information (less the last checklist) is now in the Teachers Lounge section of the District web page. Audit Area Sampling and Review of Financial Procedures a) Pulling samples of district expenditures to test for accuracy, accountability, and compliance with District policies. Reviewing district payroll processes for compliance, economy and efficiency, internal controls, and cost control. In process of assisting payroll to automate the reporting of the supplemental payroll. Working with Financial Services Payroll on internal control and b) c) d) e) f) g) Other a) processing issues. Working with Financial Services on internal controls and rules for payroll processes and implementation of a new interface system. Monitoring other selected risk areas for efficiency, cost effectiveness, and compliance with District policies. Reviewing grant programs. Working with Child Nutrition on implementation of streamlined information processing system with Information Services and Child Nutrition Staff. Working with Information Services on streamlining of data processes regarding SIS reporting. Monitoring cost reduction efforts in the District. Monitoring payroll for compliance with internal controls. Coordinated ShareFest (November 23, 2002) and Day of Caring (September 21, 2002) efforts for 2002. Reports are attached. Problem Resolution a) I have made myself available to help resolve financial issues, assist in improving processes, and help find solutions to questions that arise. Please let me know if you need further information. My telephone number is 501-447-1115. My e-mail is sandy.becker@lrsd.org. The following are reports from the schools on the Day of Caring on September 21, 2002: HENDERSON MIDDLE - Marvin Burton Group - Veterans Administration Re-striped the lines on the basketball courts and tennis courts. Painted the basketball goals (including poles) and the poles for the tennis nets. Put down new shrubbery in the two interior courts. Materials were supplied by donations from Home Depot and other local companies and coordinated through United Way. Facility Services reviewed specifications and reviewed the work to be done. Facilities Services removed all grass growth from the basketball tennis courts area, repaired the basketball backboards, and installed the hardware to put up the new tennis nets. The Athletic Department provided the tennis nets. RIGHTSELL ELEMENTARY - Eunice Thrasher Group- UPS UPS partnered with Rightsell on the Day of Caring and completed the following projects: Cleaned and added mulch to plants and flowerbeds in front of the building. Re-graveled a playground area. Painted the lower walls on each floor of the building. Donated bookcases that they had someone to build. Materials were supplied by donations from Home Depot and other local companies and coordinated through United Way. Facility Services reviewed specifications and reviewed the work to be done. GEYER SPRINGS ELEMENTARY - Donna Hall Group - Greater Second Baptist - Geyer Springs Greater Second Baptist built two low level decks for the preschool playground, poured and installed a low concrete play area, installed a new shade shelter for the pre-school children, and planted large crepe myrtle trees for beautification. Part of the cost of the concrete was donated by a concrete company , and the balance paid for from a donation from a local attorney. Materials were supplied by donations from Home Depot and other local companies and coordinated through United Way. Facility Services reviewed specifications and reviewed the work to be done. Carver Elementary Chicot Elementary Dodd Elementary Dunbar Middle Fair Park (23) Fulbright Elementary Henderson Middle Instructional Resource King Elementary (35) Rightsell Romine (40) Southwest Middle Wilson (44) Major General Partners Little Rock School District ShareFest Schools \u0026amp; Data Estimates 23-Nov-02 Dianne Barksdale 2100 East 6th (02) Jane Harkey 11100 Chicot Faith Mclaughlin 6423 Staqecoach Road (04) John Bacon 1100 Wriqht Avenue (06) Dr. Samuel Branch 616 North Harrison (05) Deborah Mitchell 300 Pleasant Valley (12) Marvin Burton 401 Barrow Road (04) Many 30th \u0026amp; Pulaski (06) Tyrone Harris 905 Martin L. King Blvd. (02) Eunice Thrasher 911 West 19th (06) Lillie Scull 3400 Romine Road (04) David Smith 3301 Brvant (04) Beverly Jones 4015 Stannus (04) Hiahllahted First Malor ShareFest Proiect Totals Partner # of Volunteers Fellowship Bible 200 First United Methodist - LR 10 West Little Rock Kiwanis Club 5 Grace Church 120 PTA \u0026amp; Community 15 Asbury United Methodist 30 Second Baptist (John Barrow) 19 West Tree Service PT A \u0026amp; Community Fellowship Bible 20 PT A \u0026amp; Community 20 Second Baptist (Downtown) 20 Hunter United Methodist 14 Cub Scout Troop 332 \u0026amp; parents Omega Psi Phi Pulaski County Work Center 28 PT A \u0026amp; Community Fellowship Bible 150 LRSD Facilities Services West Tree Service Department of Community Punis 4 651 # of Material Estimated Total Hrs Hours Donated Value Sha ref est 7 1,000.00 23,470.00 1400 6 1,060.00 2,023.00 60 3 0.00 240.75 15 6 2,000.00 13,556.00 720 4 0.00 963.00 60 6 0.00 2,889.00 180 4 400.00 1,619.80 76 4 0.00 1,284.00 80 6 300.00 2,226.00 120 6 0.00 1,926.00 120 6 100.00 1,448.20 84 7 400.00 3,545.80 196 7 2,000.00 18,852.50 1050 0 0 0.00 4,000.00 0 1,000.00 1,000.00 0 4 0.00 256.80 16 72 8,260.00 79,044.05 4,161.00 Current Projects:  New Network Little Rock School District Board of Directors Technology Update February 27, 2003 o Conversion to the new district network continues to be implemented site by site. Two to three sites per week are scheduled. o As each site comes on the network the benefits include:  Being able to share files and folders across the district,  Managing routine maintenance and management from the Tech Center,  Managing desktop troubleshooting from the Tech Center.  Asset Tracker Software o This software is being implemented at the Technology Center. It polls the district network and provides reports that tell us important information about each computer - processor type, speed, memory, and operating system. o Asset Tracker is important to us in developing the Computer Refresh Plan.  Computer Purchases o Computer purchases to bring every school up to a 5: 1 ratio are complete except for four schools. Computers for those four sites will be ordered shortly.  Technology Plan Update o Technology Planning Committee should have a draft of the revised technology plan to the Board by the end of next week. o Since the plan is due to the state by April 15, 2003, we will bring the plan to the Board at the March meeting. !.I.,' m ~ zz ,m... m\ns z ~ u, m ~ m u, ~?\u0026gt; ii=.., U)\n:o ~8 3: . :m:om,\nU),... o :r 8,... TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS February 27, 2003 Board of Education Beverly Williams, Director, Human Resources T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools Personnel Changes I recommend the approval of the following personnel changes at the indicated positions, salaries and classifications. In accordance with AC.A. 6-17-1502, it is recommended that one additional year of probationary status is provided for all teachers who have been employed in a school district in this state for three (3) years. Teachers with an effective date of employment after August 19, 2002 are considered intern teachers. Personnel Changes Page 2 February 27, 2003 NAME POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE SALARY CLASS Resignationsff erminations Certified Employees Alexander,James Biology 8-13-01 1-13 Reason: Health MCCLELLAN 1-17-03 TCH925 Cleveland, Kjmrnie Coaching Contract 8-24-87 3-18 Reason: Termination FAIR 2-13-03 TCH925 Duncan, Dana Music 12-16-63 6-21 Reason: Deceased ROM1NE 1-31-03 TCH925 Hughes, Sharon Health 7-30-01 1-10 Reason: Health METRO. 3-1-03 VOCl0 Jones, William General Music 9-16-02 6-01 Reason: None Given CHICOT 2-17-03 TCH925 Marshaleck, Walter Applied Math 7-1-92 6-18 Reason: Retired MCCLELLAN 2-3-03 TCH925 Midturi, J eevamma ElemV 8-7-02 1-01 Reason: Returning to School W ASHlNGTON 2-13-03 TCH925 Montgomery, Melissa Special Ed 11-5-02 4-07 Reason: Personal/Family STEPHENS 2-3-03 SPE925 Phillips, Mazie Counselor 8-6-79 5-20 Reason: Retired FAIR 1-31-03 CNLlO Smith, Gary Cert. Admin. 8-20-79 77-18 Reason: Retired SPECIAL ED 2-28-03 ADC12 ANNUAL SALARY 37777.00 2309.44 53213.00 34714.00 33335.00 49671.00 26546.00 35658.00 50788.00 84240.00 Personnel Changes Page 3 February 27, 2003 NAME Stone, Gwen Reason: Deceased Brown, Yolanda Butler-Green, Rachael Glenroy, Charles Ernst, Melody Finney, Jason POSITION SCHOOL Special Ed OTTERCREEK START DATE END DATE 3-5-74 1-22.-03 New Certified Employees Oral Comm. 1-21-03 MCCLELLAN Biology 2-12-03 MCCLELLAN Math 1-21-03 MCCLELLAN Elem ID 2-17-03 OTTERCREEK General Science 12-2-02 MANN SALARY CLASS 3-18 SPE925 1-01 TCH925 2-02 TCH925 6-09 TCH925 1-07 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 46015.00 26456.00 annual 12028.66 prorated 28384.00 annual 21435.83 prorated 40482.00 annual 18343.41 prorated 31651.00 annual 11209.73 prorated 32595.00 annual 19013.75 prorated l:n in:,, -\u0026lt;\n,\n, i~ !i r- !=' ~\ng s~: 8. ~~ :Z:j!: t Cl)\ns z Cl) :-\u0026lt; Cl) m ~ m Cl) m f\n,- ii=.., Cl)\n,\n) ~8\ni:  m~\n~,\n,\u0026gt; :z: 8 r- Personnel Changes Page 4 February 27, 2003 NAME Harder, Mariah Harris, Christopher Hill, Stephanie Humphries, Laura Jackson, Barbara Johnson, Carolyn Lee, Paula POSITION SCHOOL Elementary BOOKER English START DATE END DATE 1-13-03 1-17-03 CLOVERDALE MID. 4 Yr Old 2-24-03 CHICOT Kindergarten 1-6-03 RIGHTSELL Voe. Business 1-13-03 MCCLELLAN Voe. Business 1-6-03 MABELV ALE MID. Special Ed 1-6-03 PUL. HGTS. MID. SALARY CLASS 1-01 TCH925 4-01 TCH925 1-01 4YROLD 1-01 K925 1-12 TCH950 1-06 TCH950 1-02 SPE925 ANNUAL SALARY 26546.00 annual 12719.96 prorated 30553.00 annual 14003.46 prorated 26546.00 annual 8710.41 prorated 26546.00 annual 13411.26 prorated 36756.00 annual 17803.68 prorated 30630.00 annual 15634.06 prorated 27056.00 annual 21983.00 prorated Personnel Changes Page 5 February 27, 2003 NAME Martin, Catherine Moore, Deborah Peterson, Kathy Smiley, Beverly Spencer, Joel West, George Wren, Beth POSITION SCHOOL French CENTRAL ElemV WASHINGTON Math II MCCLELLAN Chemstry HALL Elem IV CHICOT World History CENTRAL Special Ed BALE START DATE END DATE 1-21-03 2-13-03 1-21-03 1-6-03 1-13-03 1-21-03 1-6-03 SALARY CLASS 1-01 TCH925 5-14 TCH925 4-02 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 4-12 TCH925 1-01 SPE925 ANNUAL SALARY 26546.00 annual 12028.66 prorated 44183.00 annual 16108.39 prorated 31064.00 annual 14075.88 prorated 26546.00 annual 13411.26 prorated 26546.00 annual 12719.96 prorated 40763.00 annual 18470.73 prorated 26546.00 annual 13411.26 prorated 1:n ~ ~ ...\n,o i~ !i ,-!=' ~\ng ~8 I: . l'l~ ~\u0026gt; ~r V, ~ z ~ V, m\n,o ~ m V, m f\n,,, ii=.., V,\n,o i8 3: . mm\no,\n: ~r ~ 8,... Personnel Changes Page 6 February 27, 2003 NAME POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE SALARY CLASS Resignationsfferminations Non-Certified Employees Anderson, Johnetta Custodian 9-16-02 1-01 Reason: None Given HALL 2-5-03 CUS925 Barnes, Arthur Custodian 11-20-02 1-01 Reason: None Given WASHINGTON 1-7-03 CUS925 Bullard, Evelyn Instr. Aide 2-2-02 1-02 Reason: None Given NONE GIVEN 11-11-02 INA925 Caradine, Donna Instr. Aide 9-29-98 1-06 Reason: None Given CHICOT 1-24-03 INA925 Coleman, Rose Bus Driver 8-12-02 3-01 Reason: Personal TRANS. 2-21-03 BUSDRV Crabtree, Josh Child Nutrition 10-30-00 1-01 Reason: Accepted Another WAREHOUSE 1-6-03 FSH4 Position Davis, Linda Instr. Aide 10-7-02 1-04 Reason: Personal ROCKEFELLER 1-6-03 INA925 Dickerson, Toni Child Nutrition 10-15-02 1-01 Reason: None Given TERRY 1-13-03 FSH5 Hagewood, John Custodian 12-9-02 1-01 Reason: Accepted Another FULBRIGHT 1-6-03 CUS925 Position ANNUAL SALARY 10329.00 10329.00 11106.00 12798.00 9540.00 4266.00 12163.00 7312.00 10329.00 Personnel Changes Page 7 February 27, 2003 NAME Higgins, Terry Reason: None Given Hunter, Roshuanda Reason: Personal Hunrtado, Cenobio Reason: None Given Landrum,Andree Reason: Health Lester, Georgia Reason: Personal Marshall, Angela Reason: Personal Martinez, Deborah Reason: None Given Moncrief, Doyle Reason: Personal Shelton, Annie Reason: Helath Smith, Sharon Reason: None Given Swaney, Susan Reason: Abandonment POSITION SCHOOL Custodian OTTERCREEK Custodian MCCLELLAN Child Nutrition START DATE END DATE 1-6-03 2-3-03 11-13-02 1-7-03 11-15-02 ClfilD NUTRJTION 1-31-03 Bus Driver 2-26-01 TRANSPORTATION 12-12-02 Security Officer 8-15-95 METRO. 1-13-03 Child Nutrition 9-17-01 ClfilD NUTRlTION 12-20-02 Care 8-23-02 CARE 12-1-02 Instr. Aide 8-9-00 TERRY 1-8-03 Care 10-8-01 CARE 1-31-03 Care 8-15-02 CARE 1-31-03 Child Nutrition 11-21-02 FAIR 12-20-02 SALARY CLASS 1-01 CUS925 1-01 CUS928 5-01 FSH6 3-07 CUSDRV 36-18 SOFR9 2-01 FSMEAL 2-02 CARE 1-10 INA925 1-03 CARE 1-08 CARE 1-01 FSH5 ANNUAL SALARY 10329.00 10329.00 8773.00 12696.00 17341.00 11469.00 6.80/hr 14067.00 6.25/hr 7.11/hr 7312.00 il:O ~~ -\u0026lt;\n,\n, ~8 Z  ~i z ,-!=' ~\n8 ~8 IC . !Ii~ :c ~ ~ -\n,\n, (J) ~ z ~ (J) m\n,\n, ~ m \"' m f\n,,- ii=.., U,\n,\n) i8 3: . m~\n,\n,\u0026gt; ~r :c 8,... Personnel Changes Page 8 February 27, 2003 NAME Anderson, Diane Barrett, Rohettie Boyd, Marlo Brazzell, Laura Bryant, Barry Carter, Noda Davey, Clarice POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE SALARY CLASS New Non-Certified Employees Care 1-28-03 1-04 CARE CARE Care 1-27-03 1-05 CARE CARE Child Nutrition 1-21-03 3-01 GEYER SPRINGS FSH4 Secretary 1-13-03 39-10 OTTERCREEK CLKl0 Custodian 1-6-03 1-01 DUNBAR CUS925 Care 2-3-03 4-01 CARE CARE Instr. Aide 2-10-03 1-03 FAIR.PARK ANNUAL SALARY 6.25/hr 6.68/hr 5687.00 annual 2681.94 prorated 21336.00 annual 10089.93 prorated 5164.50 annual 2638.39 prorated 6.25/hr 11635.00 annual 4402.43 prorated Personnel Changes Page 9 February 27, 2003 NAME Goad, Lena Hampton, Deidre Henry, Melanie Higgins, Terry Hurnphrey,Joyce Johnson, Cindy Johnson, Thomasine POSITION SCHOOL Parent Coor. BASELINE Care CARE Instr. Aide HENDERSON Custodian OTTERCREEK Child Nutrition TERRY Child Nutrition FAJR Care CARE START DATE END DATE 1-22-03 1-24-03 1-6-03 1-6-03 1-24-03 1-15-03 2-12-03 SALARY CLASS 1-02 INSTRC 4-01 CARE 1-10 INA925 1-01 CUS925 1-01 FSH5 1-01 FSH5 2-03 CARE ANNUAL SALARY 11720.00 annual 5249.58 prorated 6.25/hr 14067.00 annual 7147.56 prorated 5164.50 annual 2638.39 prorated 7312.00 annual 3272.22 prorated 7312.00 annual 3514.61 prorated 6.94/hr En ~~ -\u0026lt; ::c ~z 8. !Si iz5 r-r- !=' ~\ng ~8 I:. !Ii~ :I:\u0026gt; or- r \"'\ns z \":-\u0026lt;' \"m' ~ m \"' m ~~ ii=.., c,,\n:c ~8 3:. ~i !Ii :I: 8 r- Personnel Changes Page 10 February 27, 2003 NAME Jones, Mary Marshall, Deloris May, Valerie Morgan, Verna Parker, Cynthia Osborne, Linda POSITION SCHOOL Media Clerk START DATE END DATE 1-9-03 CLOVERALE ELEM. Instr. Aide 1-6-03 FULBRJGHT Bookkeeper 1-28-03 FINANCIAL SERV. Child Nutrition 1-24-03 ALC Child Nutrition 1-16-03 FAIR Nurses 1-24-02 HALL SALARY CLASS 31-10 CLK925 1-03 INA925 47-6 AN12 1-01 FSH5 1-01 FSH5 1-07 NURSES ANNUAL SALARY 16800.00 annual 8310.64 prorated 11635.00 annual 5911.84 prorated 24048.00 annual 10642.00 prorated 7312.00 annual 3272.22 prorated 7312.00 annual 3474.21 prorated 31651.00 annual 3132.13 prorated Personnel Changes Page 11 February 27, 2003 NAME Pattillo, Charles Poe, Lachunda Schrader, Lisa Tappin, Ranita Tappin, Ranita Wadkins, Tanya Wells, Judith POSITION SCHOOL Custodian PARK.VIEW Child Nutrition OTTERCREEK Instr. Aide TERRY Care CARE Child Nutrition HALL Secretary OTTERCREEK Child Nutrition MCCLELLAN START DATE END DATE 12-9-02 1-15-03 1-21-03 1-13-03 1-14-03 2-3-03 1-10-03 SALARY CLASS 1-01 CUS928 1-01 FSH5 1-07 INA925 4-01 CARE 1-01 FSH5 39-12 CLKl0 1-01 FSH5 ANNUAL SALARY 9414.66 annual 5312.33 prorated 7312.00 annual 3514.61 prorated 13115.00 annual 5954.92 prorated 6.25/hr 7312.00 annual 3555.01 prorated 22656.00 annual 9151.68 prorated 7312.00 annual 3635.80 prorated 11:0 ~~ -\u0026lt;,:, ~z.8 \"S'i~!: z ,.--!=' ~\ng ~8 ll: . lll~ :J:j!: t \"'\ns z ~ \"m' ~ m \"' m f:\n,- 11= \"C Cl),:) ~8 ll: \" m~ ,:,\u0026gt; !llr :i:: 8,.... Personnel Changes Page 12 February 27, 2003 NAME Wesson, Lynda Williams, James Williams, Sarah REINSTATED Williams-Jones, Vennetta POSITION SCHOOL Child Nutrition MCCLELLAN Child Nutrition START DATE END DATE 1-13-03 1-9-03 CHJLD NUTRITION Instr. Aide 2-3-03 BRADY Custodian 2-10-03 OTTERCREEK SALARY CLASS 1-01 FSH5 1-01 FSH4 1-04 INA185 1-03 CUS925 ANNUAL SALARY 7312.00 annual 3595.40 prorated 7044.00 annual 3368.87 prorated 12163.00 annual 8878.99 prorated 5600.50 annual 2161.06 prorated TO: FROM: I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 Board of Education T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools PREPARED BY: ,,\nN3onnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction DATE: February 27, 2003 SUBJECT: Elementary Summer School Program Evaluation Background Information on the Elementary Summer School Program Evaluation One in the group of programs required by the federal court to be evaluated with the participation of an external evaluator was the Elementary Summer School program. In 1998 the State discontinued funding for the elementary summer school program, which had been mandatory for identified students in grades K-3 during 1993-1997. During those years the District also offered a tuition-funded program for students in grades 4-6, providing approximately 25 days of extended instruction with an emphasis on reading and mathematics. Effective 1998, the District continued the funding for grades K-3, and grades 4-5 students had the option of attending a tuition program. (Grade 6 moved to middle school in fall 1999.) The K-3 program changed the emphasis from reading and mathematics to a focus on reading and writing, and instruction was patterned after the District's comprehensive early literacy program in Prek-3. Steps Taken as a Result of the Program Evaluation The Elementary Summer School program was abandoned after summer 2 001. This decision was made based on the analysis of data by District staff from the summer 2000 and summer 2001 programs and on the desire of elementary principals to provide their own school-based remedial programs throughout the year, instead of during the summer. They saw the summer intervention as being too late to impact achievement scores and too late to impact the initial retention decisions. The funds, approximately $250,000 annually, previously allocated for K-3 summer school are now divided among the elementary schools according to a formula based on the school's enrollment, achievement data, and the number of free/reduced lunch students. Each school submits a plan annually for the use of the funds, including goals, Board Memo February 27, 2003 Page Two strategies, assessments, and budget. Individual students at each school are identified for the program. Designation of External Consultant and His Qualifications On December 2, 2002, the District awarded the contract for the Elementary Summer School program evaluation to the firm, Quality Education and Management Associates, Inc., Dr. Larry McNeal, president. A copy of his resume is attached, establishing his qualifications. Administrator Participation in Conducting the Program Evaluation In addition to Dr. McNeal and his associates, the following LRSD administrators participated in the evaluation: Ms. Frances Cawthon Jones, Assistant Superintendent for Elementary School Services Dr. Ed Williams, Department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation Mr. Ken Savage, Department of Computer Information Systems Ms. Lillie Carter, Summer School Coordinator Summer 2000 Summer School administrators--Joyce Willingham, Eleanor Cox, Ada Keown, and Donna Hall Summer 2001 Summer School administrators-Joyce Willingham, Eleanor Cox, Ada Keown, and Les Taylor Teacher Participation in Conducting the Program Evaluation Elementary school-level test coordinators and teachers involved in administering the SAT-9 (grade 5), ALT (grades 2-5), ORA (grades K-2), Observation Surveys (grades K-2), and state Benchmark examinations (grade 4) Impact on African-American Student Achievement The external evaluator was not able to determine definitively from existing data whether the elementary summer school program resulted in improved achievement among African American students. The conclusion was that the \"program had mixed results.\" There was some growth among second- and third-grade students, but kindergarten and grade one students' performance \"maintained a similar level of achievement before and after the program.\" These findings were virtually identical to those concluded by the staff participating in the original study. Recommendation That the Board of Education approve the Elementary Summer School program evaluation for submission to the federal court. BAUadg DR. LARRY MCNEAL BUSINESS ADDRESS HOME ADDRESS University of Arkansas at Little Rock 2801 S. University Avenue Department of Educational Leadership Little Rock, Arkansas 72204-1099 15806 Patriot Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72212-2606 501-221-1178 lxrncneal@netscape.net or Office 501-569-3552 Fax 501-569-3547 Jrncneal5 9/@hotmail.com Jxmcneal@ualr.edu Ph.D. PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION Educational Administration, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (1990) Emphasis: Fiscal and Co=unity Support for Public Education Concentrations: Educational Finance, School-Community Relations, and Public School\\ Administration M. S. Educational Admi:iristration, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (1989) Emphasis: Administration and Organization of Public Education Concentration: Educational Administration (Public School) M. A. B.A. Public Affairs. University ofiowa, Iowa City (1976) Emphasis: Public Administration Concentration: Urban Administration Business Administration and Political Science, Dakota Wesleyan University, Mitchell, SD (1975) Emphasis: Political Economics Concentrations: Business Administration, Political Science and Economics Licensure: School Business Management (No longer active) Insurance Agent (No longer active) Entrepreneurship: Quality Education and Management Associates, President PROFESSIONAL WORK EXPERIENCE Professor, Department of Educational Leadership, GTaduate School of Education, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, Arkansas, 1998 to the present Visiting Professor, Department of Educational Management \u0026amp; Development, GTaduate School of  Education, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, Su=er 2000 Educational Administration and Supervision Program Coordinator, Department of Educational Leadership, Graduate School of Education, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, Arkansas, 1998 to 2001 Visiting Professor, Department of Educational Management \u0026amp; Development, Graduate School of Education, New Mexico State Universiry, Las Cruces, New Mexico, Surmner 1998 Associate Professor, Department of Educational Administration and Foundations, Graduate School of Education, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, 1995 to 1998 Visiting Professor, Bellver International College, Trenton State College (now College of New Jersey), Graduate School of Education, Palma de Mallorca, Baleares, Spain, Summer 1996 Associate Director, Office of Educational Finance, Center For Higher Education and Educational Finance, qritduate School of.Education, Illinois State University, Nonnal, Illinois, 1995-1997 State Coordinator, Illinois Education Policy Fellow Program, Institute for Educational Leadership, Graduate School of Education, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois 1994-1996 Research Associate, Center for the Study of Educational Finance, Graduate School of Education, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, 1993-1995 Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Administration and Foundations, Graduate School of Education, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, 1993-1995 Visiting Professor, Department of Educational Administration and Foundations, Graduate School of Education, University ofNorthem Iowa, Cedar Falls, Iowa, Su=er 1993 Research Associate, Center for the Study of Small/Rural Schools, Graduate School of Education, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, 1992-1994 Adjunct Fellow, Center for Research on Multi-Ethnic Education, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, 1991-1992 Danforth Principal Preparation Program Co-Facilitator, Graduate School of Education, University-of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, 1991-1993 Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, Graduate School of Education, University of Oklahoma, Normal, Oklahoma, 1991-1993 Coordinator of Multicultural Affairs, Wisconsin Alumni Association, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, 1990-1991 Budget Analyst Intern, University of Wisconsin System Administration, Madison, Wisconsin, 1989-90 Equal Rights Officer, Division of Care and Treatment Facilities, Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services, Madison, Wisconsin, Fall/Spring, 1988/1989 Budget and Management Analyst Intern, Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, Madison, Wisconsin, S=ner, 1988 Marketing Manager, W arBuc Educultural Publications, Madison, Wisconsin, 1985-1987 Business Mathematics Instructor, Business Department, Madison Area Technical College, Madison, Wisconsin, Fall 1985 and Spring 1987 Finance Marketing Representative, John Deere \u0026amp; Company, Moline, Illinois, based in Madison, Wisconsin, 1978-1984 Co=ercial Service Representative, Honeywell, Incorporated, Minneapolis, Minnesota, based in Des Moines, Iowa, 1977-1978 Public Administration Intern, Mayor's Office, City ofpavenport, Davenport, Iowa, 1976 2 DISSERTATION McNeal, L. (1990). The role of education for employment councils in education for employment programs. University ofWisconsin-Madison. RESEARCH INTERESTS School Communitarianism (the fundamental relationship between schools and their communities) Organizational Change (change processes and organizational effectiveness) Educational Finance ( adequacy and equity of funding for public education) Program Assessment and Evaluation GRADUATE COURSES TAUGHT Administration and Organization of Schools Advanced Administrative Theory and Behavior Administrative Problem Solving Organizational Change Educational Politics and Policy Dissertation Proposal Development Educational Finance School Business Administration Human and Fiscal Resources Management Educational Public Relations Introduction to Doctoral Studies Organizational Development PUBLICATIONS: REFERRED McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Christy, W .K. (In Press, 2003). The locus of control issue in standard-based accountability. Educational Considerations. Christy, W.K. \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (2002). Influence of school board members on state legislation in Arkansas. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EA 031517. McNeal, L. (2002). The school-community relations profile model: Combining school district and community-based data. In J. Thomas Owens and Jan C. Simmons (Eds.), In creating quality reform: Programs, communities. and governance (67-81). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Chesser, J.S., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (2001). Educational community study circles: How superintendents can enhance school improvement through community dialogue. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 446 370. Christy, W.K., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (2000). Implications of legislative policy development for public school districts. F. Kochan (Ed\".). Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Yearbook Chesser, J.S., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (1999). School improvement through community dialogue: The first community study circles on education in Arkansas and Oklahoma. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 436 694 .. Mogilka, J, Ashby, D.E, \u0026amp; McNeal, L., (Eds.). (1996). Planning \u0026amp; Changing, 27(1\u0026amp;2). McNeal, L. (1995). Fulfilling promises in the land of Will Rogers: A look at performance indicators in selected school districts since the enactment of Oklahoma house bill 101 7. School Finance Policv Issues in the States and Provinces: Annual Undate 1995 (135-138), C. Edlefson (Ed). The Ohio State University: Policy Research for Ohio-Based Education. McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Reed, R. (1995). Building a school-co=unity relations profile through sociological inventorying. People \u0026amp; Education: The Human Side of Schools, 3(3), 371-386. 3 !ll \"0\n:a ~8 m-i McNeal L., et al. (1994). National Sallie Mae winners and their principals. National Forum of Educational Administration and Suoervision Journal, 11(3), 3-10. McNeal, L. (1994). Focusing on at-risk students: Case smdy of John Wilkinson Elementary School. Illinois School Research and Development Journal, 31(1), 7-10. McNeal L., \u0026amp; Ashby, D. (1993). Site-based management and changing relationships. Illinois School Research and Deveiooment Journal, 31(1), 7-10. McNeal L., \u0026amp; Lehman, B. J. (1993). A vision of the future: The full-service school. Planning and Chaninng. 24(3/4), 140-154. BOOK PROPOSAL IN PROGRESS Christy, W.K., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (2001). Working Title: The Superintendency: Theorv to reflective practice. To be submitted to Wadsworth. Belmont, CA. MANUSCRIPTS IN PROGRESS McNeal, L. (2001). The contextual world of education for children and the school-community:-James coleman and the effective schools movement. To be submitted to Humanistic Counseling, Education and Development. McNeal, L., \u0026amp; Christy, W.K. (2001). Rethinking the school district model of funding for individual schools: Comments about site-based management of resources. To be submitted to Planning and Change. Christy, W.K., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (2001 ). Implications of charter scho~ls and home schooling for the funding of public schools. To be submitted to Journal of School Leadership. PUl3LICATIONS: MONOGRAPHS McNeal, L., et al. (1993). Common sense: Plain talk to legislators about school finance. Center For the Studv of Educational Finance. Illinois State University. PUBLICATIONS: NON-REFERRED McNeal, L. (December, 1990). The role of education for employment councils in education for employment programs. Dissertation. McNeal L. (1993). The education of African-American children in Oklahoma. State of Oklahoma: Annual Report. Urban League of Greater Oklahoma City, Inc., 36-45. McNeal, L., First, P. F., \u0026amp; Knudson, D. P. (1993). Evaluating the University of Oklahoma Danforth Principal Preparation Program. Connections, 1 (2), 3. McNeal, L. (1992). University of Oklahoma report. 'Danforth Programs for the Preparation of School Princioals Newsletter, 1 (2), 3.  McNeal, L. (1987). From the desk of. National Multicultural Banner, 5 (6), 2. McNeal, L. (1986). From the desk of: Literacy, who's problem is it anyway? National Multicultural Banner, 5 (3), 2. 4 McNeal, L. (1986). The Black collegians guide to graduate fellowships for minority students. National Multicultural Banner, 5 (2), 9. CITED IN EDUCATION WEEK In the area of educational finance, Education Week has quoted me on several occasions. I have been quoted in the following articles: 11/26/97 in News ILL. Lawmakers Get One More Try To Pass School Funding Reforms 6/11/97 in News ILL. Lawmakers Duck Vow To Revamp Funding 3/26/97 in News ILL. Audit Questions Oversight of ILL. Education Agency 2/5/97 in News ILL. Odds Seen Better for Funding Reform in ILL. REPORTS McNeal, L. Little Rock school district charter elementary school evaluation report for the 2001- 2002 school year. Prepared for the Little Rock School District, November, 2002. McNeal, L., et. al. The college of education assessment report: 2000-2001: University. of Arkansas at Little Rock. Prepared for the Provost's Advisory Group on Assessment, June, 2001. McNeal, L. Little Rock school district charter elementary school evaluation report for the 2000- 2001 school year. Prepared for the Little Rock School District, June, 2001. McNeal, L. Projected student enrollment for the 2000-2001 school year: 6th and 7th grade student racial make up report. Prepared for Pulaski County Charter School Inc., April, 2001. McNeal, L. Enrollment trends in the Little Rock, North Little, and Pulaski County Special scbool districts: 1995-1996 to 1999-2000. Prepared for Pulaski County Charter School Inc., November, 2000. Coleen, B.C., Driskill, G., Leslie, S., McNeal, L., Mitchell, W., Taylor, C., \u0026amp; Webb, R Provost's advisory group on assessment: University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Su=er 2000 report, July, 2000. McNeal, L., et. al. The college of education assessment report: 1999-2000: University of Arkansas at Little R-0ck. Prepared for the Provost's Advisory Group on Assessment, June, 2000. McNeal, L. Student enrollment needs assessment study of the Illinois school for the visually impaired, Illinois Center for Rehabilitation and Education and Illinois School for the Deaf. Prepared for the Illinois Department of Rehabilitation Services, October, 1995. McNeal, L, First, P ., Walker, V., \u0026amp; Hobson, B. An inquiry into alleged cultural insensitivity at Capitol Hill High School. Prepared for Oklahoma City Public School District, March, 1993. McNeal, L, et al. School choice: Open enrollment and post secondary options. Prepared for the Association of Wisconsin School Administrators, March, 1990. McN eal, L. County veterans service officer training manual. Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs, June, 1990. McN ea!, L. A Review of health care and medical services provided by the United States department of veterans affairs. Prepared for the Division of Veterans Programs, Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs, August, 1989. McNeal, L. A review of health care grants and the Wisconsin Veterans Home in King, Wisconsin. Prepared for the Division of Veterans Programs, Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs, August, 1989. 5 McNeal, L. Mendota mental health institute: Ar,. analysis of an organization in crisis. Prepared for the Division of Care and Treatment Facilities of the Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services, December 1988. PRESENTATIONS: REFERRED McNeal, L., Christy, W.K., \u0026amp; Lewis, R. (2002). New leaders and new implications for educational administration. Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Kansas City, MO. Christy, W.K., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (November, 2001). Mid-South Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Little Rock, AR. McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Christy, W.K. (November, 2001). A discussion of change theory,systems theory, and state designed standards and accountability initiatives. Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Jacksonville, FL. McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Christy, W.K. (Nov=ber, 2001). State designed standards and accountability initiatives in the southwestern regional educational development laboratory service area. Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Jacksonville, FL. McNeal, L. (2001, July). The institutionalization of the assessment process: One story in one college of education. The Consortium for Assessment \u0026amp; Planning Support. San Juan, PR. McNeal, L. (2001, July). Faculty perceptions of their involvement in the assessment (evaluation) process. The Consortium for Assessment \u0026amp; Planning Support. San Juan, PR. Chesser, J., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (November, 2000). The use of the study circle in school reform: Bringing all the voices to the table. Mid-South Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Bowling Green, KY. McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Christy, W.K. (November, 2000). Charter schools under construction: An analysis of a charter school evaluation plan. Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Nashville, TN. Christy, W.K.., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (November, 2000). Implications of charter schools and home schooling. Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Nashville, TN. Christy, W.K. \u0026amp; McNeal. L. (November, 2000). The process ofmalcing sausage in the factory of program reform. Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Nashville, TN. Michaelis, K, \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (April, 2000). From indifference to injustice: The politics of teen violence. American Educational Research Association for the Spring 2000 Conference in New Orleans, LA.  Caram, C. A., Christy, W. K.., Altom, B, \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (April, 2000). The sausage factory: The process of planning for accountability. Arkansas Association of Colleges of Teacher Education, Little Rock, AR. Caram, C. A., Christy, W. K., Altom, B., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (April, 2000). Responding to the call for accountability of a school leader preparation program. Arkansas Association of Colleges of Teacher Education, Little Rock, AR. Chesser, J. S., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (March, 2000). Educational co=unity study circles in Arkansas: How superintendents can enhance school improvement through co=unity dialogue. American Association of School Administrators 11 th Annual Conference Within A Conference, San Francisco, CA. 6 Chesser, J. S., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (November, 1999). School improvement tbrough community dialogue: The first community study circles on education in Arkansas and Oklahoma. Mid-South Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Clear Point, AL. McNeal, L., \u0026amp; Christy, W. K. (November, 1999). From preparation to practice in Arkansas: The relationship between program preparation standards and entry-level administrators' success. Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Charlotte, NC. Christy, W. K., McNeal, L. (November, 1999). Implications oflegislative policy development for public school districts. Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Charlotte, NC. McNeal, L., Gonzalez, M. L., \u0026amp; Noley, Grayson. (October, 1999). The ethics of silencing in school accountability: Listening to the voices of Hispanic, Native American, and African-American Researchers. University Couneil for Educational Administration Convention, Minneapolis, MN. Christy, W. K. \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (March, 1999). Future policy implications of an Arkansas referendum initiative. American Education Finance Association, Seattle, WA. McNeal, L. (March, 1998). The link between quality and school communitarianism. Creating the Quality School: 7th Annual National Conference, Arlington, VA. McNeal, L., Place, A. W., Tillman, LC., Beaumont, J. J. \u0026amp; Sanders, E.T. W. (October, 1997). A cross-cultural discussion of the 1997 UCEA conference theme. University Council for Educational Administration Convention, Orlando, FL. McNeal, L. (October, 1997). The contextual world of education for children and the school. community: James Coleman and the effective schools movement. MidW estern Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL. McNeal, L. (March, 1997). Influencing instructional strategies ,to enhance learning by using the school-co=unity relations profile model. Creating the Quality School: 6th Annual National Conference, Oklahoma City, OK. McNeal, L. ( 1996, March). The implications of community based information for caring schools: SCRPI:N'G along. Creating the Quality School: 5th Annual National Conference, Oklahoma City, OK.. McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Chi, J. (1996, March). Performance indicators and curriculum offerings: Is there a connection in Oklahoma? American Education Finance Association Conference, Salt Lake City, UT. McNeal, L., Parks, J., Watson, L., Jackson, D., Midgette, T., \u0026amp; Glenn, E. (1996, March). Our pedagogy: Culture as a major variable. Pedagogy of the Oppressed Conference, Omaha, NE. McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Ashby, D. (1995, October). School-community relations profiling: Re examining leadership for community. University Council for Educational Administration, Salt Lake City, UT. McNeal, L. (199{ April). Fulfilling promises in the land of Will !?-agers: A look at performance indicators in selected school di~tricts since the enactment of Oklahoma house bill 101 7. Sponsored by the Special Interest Group on Fiscal Issues, Policy, and Educational Finance (FIPEF). American Educational Research Association Conference, San Francisco, CA. McNeal, L. (1995, March). Promoting quality in education tbrough the SCRPI:N'G of schools. Creating the Quality School: 4th Annual National Conference, Oklahoma City, OK. 7 McNeal, L., Higham, R, \u0026amp; Boyd, M.A. (1994, October). Establishing community between higher education, public education, and self: An effort of compromise in infusing multiculnrralism. Midwestern Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. McNeal, L. (1994, April). The state of educational finance in Oklahoma. American Educational Research Association Conference, New Orleans, LA. McNeal, L. (1994, March). Governance structures in decentralized schools and school improvement: Lessons from Chicago school reform. Creating the Quality School: 3rd Annual National Conference, Oklahoma City, OK. McNeal, L. (1994, March). Governance structures in decentralized schools and decision-making: Another way to promote quality. Creating the Quality School Conference, Oklahoma City, OK. McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Lehman, B. J. (1994, February). A vision of the future: The full-service school. American Association of School Administrators (Conference-Within-A-Conference), San Francisco, CA. McNeal, L. (1993, March). Quality schools and site-based management: An issue of fiscal management. Creating The Quality School: 2nd Annual National Conference, Oklahoma City, OK. McNeal, L. (1993, March). Site-based fiscal management and the preparation ofbuilding administrators. American Education Finance Association Conference, Albuquerque, NM. McNeal, L., Chance, E.W., Langenbach, M., Costa, E.W., \u0026amp; Carem, C. (1993, March). Na1ional sallie mae winners and their principals. American Association of School Administrators (Conference- Within-A-Conference), Orlando, FL. McNeal, L. (1992, March). The university's role in the preparation of school site-based managers. Creating The Quality School: 1st Annual National Conference, Norman, OK. INVITED PRESENTATIONS McNeal, L. (October 8, 2001). Standards for school leaders: The next generation. EDAS 7380:  Practicum and EDAS 8380: Practicmn, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, AR. McNeal, L. (Spring, 2001). Concerned base adoption model (CBAM). EDAS 8314: Cont=porary Educational Administration Issues, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, AR. McNeal, L, (July, 2000). A conversation about charter schools in Arkansas. Crossing Boundaries: Teaching, Learning, Results. Southeast Comprehensive Assistance Center, Peachtree City, GA. McNeal, L, Broadnax, W., \u0026amp; McLean, L. (July, 2000). The charter school's A.PIEM process. Crossing Boundaries: Teaching, Learning, Results. Southeast Comprehensive Assistance Center, Peachtree City, GA. McNeal, L. (March, 2000). An alternative governance model for public education. International Academy of Educational Leaders, Nashville, TN. McNeal, L. (October, 1999). The change process, con=unications and interpersonal relations. Ray Graham Training Center, Chicago Public Schools. Chicago, IL. 8 McNeal, L. (September, 1999). Collegiality leadership for school improvement. Arkansas Institute for School Improvement, sponsored by the Southeast Comprehensive Assisrance Center, Little Rock, AR. McNeal, L. (January, 1999). National standards and their impact on educational administration .programs: Lessons learned from reflection. International Academy of Educational Leaders, San Antonio, TX. McNeal, L. (February, 1998). The change process and its impact on high school principals. Davenport Public School District, Davenport, IA. McNeal, L. (February, 1998). The change process and its impact on junior and middle school principals. Davenport Public School District, Davenport, IA. McNeal, L. (February, 1998). The change process and its impact on elementary school principals. Davenport Public School District, Davenport, IA. McNeal, L. (September, 1997). Focusing on the needs of children of color: Whose 30b is it anyway? Quad-Cities Alliance of Black Educators, Rock Island, IL. McNeal, L. (February, 1997). Revisiting the Coleman report: Parents, families, co=unities and schools. Illinois State University Administrators Club, Normal, IL. McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Parks, J. (October, 1996). Linking school-based data with co=unity based data: The school-co=unity relations profile model. Illinois School Board Association, Illinois Association of School Administrators and Illinois Association of School Business Officials 64th Joint Annual Conference, Chicago, IL. McNeal, L. (1993, January). Site-based management. Cooperative Council of Oklahoma School Administrators, New Principal Training Workshop, Norman, OK. McNeal, L, et al. (March, 1990). School choice: Open emol1ment and post secondary options. Association of Wisconsin School Administrators, Madison, WL McNeal, L., Bread, J. and Willamson, M. (November, 1992). Financing the colorization of the canon. New Directions for African American Scholarship and Research Conference: Colorizing the Canon, Norman, OK. FUNDED GRANTS 'Preparing tomorrow's teachers to use tecbnology (PTS) grant. The University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, AR. July l through August 15, 2001. $4,375 Arkansas department of education grant award: Administrator licensure preparations. (Project Director: Angela Sewall \u0026amp; Project Assistant Director: Larry McNeal). Arkansas Department of Education. July 1, 2001 through June 31, 2002. $10,000 Proposal for the professional development of those who prepare school administrators in the use oftecbnology to enhance teaching and learning. (Co-Principal Investigators: L. McNeal \u0026amp; D. Ashby). University Council for Educational Administration. May 1 through September 30, 1998. $1,000 Educational output in Illinois: Studying the disparity in academic test scores among school districts. University Research Grant (Illinois State University). June 1, 1996 through June 30, 1997. $5,000 9 !II -c, ::0 ~8 m i Student emolhnent needs assessment study of the Illinois School for the Visually Impaired, Illinois center for rehabilitation and education and Illinois School for the Deaf. Illinois Department of Rehabilitation Services. May 15, 1995 through October, 1995. $7,500 FELLOWSHIPS Advanced Opportunity Program Fellowship, University of Wisconsin, 1987-1990 Education Policy Fellow Program, Institute for Educational Leadership, 1993-94 EDITORIAL REVIEW BOARDS Editorial Review Board, Planning and Changing, 1993-1998 Editorial Review Board, Journal of School Leadership, 1997-1999 Editorial Review Board, Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Yearbook, 2000 to present REFERRED PROPOSALS AND MANUSCRIPTS FOR University Council for Educational Administration American Educational Research Association, Division A MidW estern Educational Research Association, Division A Southern Regional Council of Educational Ad.ministration Planning and Changing Journal of School Leadership MidW estern Educational Researcher Center for the Study of Small and Rural Schools SRCEA Yearbook SELECTED SERVICE ACTIVITIES Citizenship Service {Program. Department, College, University) Prmrram Level Program Coordinator, Educational Administration and Supervision, Department of Educational Leadership [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1998-2001 Chair, Educational Administration and Supervision Faculty Search Committee, Department of Educational Leadership [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-200~ Academic Advisor, Educational Administration and Supervision, Department of Educational Leadership [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1997 to present Academic Advisor, Department of Educational Administration \u0026amp; Foundations [Illinois State University] 1993-1998 Academic Advisor, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies [University of Oklahoma] 1991-1993 Dissertation Chair, Educational Administration and Supervision, Department of Educational Leadership [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1997 to present Dissertation Chair, Department of Educational Administration \u0026amp; Foundations [Illinois State University] 1993-1998 10 Dissertation Advisor, Educational Administration and Supervision, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies [University of Oklahoma] 1991-1993 Department Level Faculty Recorder, Department of Educational Leadership [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1999- present Member, Peer Evaluation Committee, Department of Educational Leadership [Urriversity of Arkansas at Little Rock] 2000-present Member, Srudent Evaluation Committee, Department of Educational Leadership [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 2000 Member, Higher Education Program Faculty Search Committee, Department of Educational Leadership [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1998-99 Academic Advisor, Quad Cities K-12 Doctoral Cohort, Department of Educational Administration \u0026amp; Foundations [Illinois State University] 1997- 1998 Member, K-12 Doctoral Curriculum Review Committee, Department of Educational Administration \u0026amp; Foundations [Illinois State University] 1997-~998 Member, Faculty Status Committee, Department ofEducational Administration \u0026amp; Foundations [Illinois State University] 1996-1998 Member, Faculty Search Committee, Department of Educational Administration \u0026amp; Foundations [Illinois State University] 1995-1996, 1997-98 Member, Research Committee, Department of Educational Administration \u0026amp; Foundations [Illinois State University] 1995-1998 Member, Student Recruitment Committee, Department of Educational Administration \u0026amp; Foundations [Illinois State University] 199 5-1997 Coordinator, K-12 Program Professional Practice, Department of Educational Administration \u0026amp; Foundations [Illinois State University] 1993-1998 Chair, Faculty Development Committee, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies [Urriversity of Oklahoma] 1992-1993 Chair, Graduate Tuition Fee Waivers Committee, Department ofEducational Leadership and Policy Studies [University of Oklahoma] 1992-1993 Member, Danforth Evaluation Team, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies Education [University of Oklahoma] 1992-93 College Level Member, Graduate Faculty, College of Education [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1998 to present Member, College of Education Retreat Committee [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1999 \u0026amp; 2001 Member, Associate Dean Search Committee College of Education [Illinois State University] 1997-1998 11 Member, College Council, College of Education [Illinois State University} 1994-1998 President, College Council, College of Education [Illinois State University) 1996-1998 Member, Elections Committee, College of Education [Illinois State University) 1996-1998 Member, Technology Committee, College of Education [Illinois State University) 1996-1998 Member, Multicultural Task Force, College of Education [Illinois State University] 1994-95 Member, Graduate Faculty, College of Education [Illinois State University) 1993-1998 Member, Graduate Faculty, College of Education [University of Oklahoma) 1991-1993 Member, Education Faculty Development Committee, College of Education [University of Oklahoma) 1991-1993 Member, Equal Opportunity Committee, College of Education [University of Oklahoma) 1991-1993 Member, Graduate Faculty Member [University of Oklahoma) 1991-1993  Member, Faculty Search Committee, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, COE [University of Oklahoma J 1991-1992) Universitv Level Member, Commission to Combat Intolerance and Harassment [Illinois State University] 1995 1996 Member, Multicultural Task Force, Member, Commission to Combat Intolerance and Harassment [Illmois State University) 1995 1996 Academic Calendar and Schedules Committee [University of Arkansas at Little Rock) 2001-present Program Development and Accreditation Service Member, Provost's Advisory Group on Assessment [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1999-2001 Chair, College of Education Assessment Committee [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1999-2001 Co-Chair, College of Education Assessment Committee [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1998-1999 Member, College of Education Assessment Committee [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1998-2001 Member, Program Advisory Assessment Committee [University of Arkansas at Little Rock) 1998-2001 Chair, K-12 Program Curriculum Review Committee, Department of Educational Leadership [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1998-2001 Member, North Central Se1f Study Task Force (Governance and Administration Community) [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1998-1999 Chair, K-12 Program Curriculum Review Committee Department of Educational Administration \u0026amp; Foundations [Illinois State University) 1997- 98 : 12 Member, K-12 Doctoral Curriculum Review Committee, Department of Educational Administration \u0026amp; Foundations [Illinois State University] 1997-1998 External Reviewer (Evaluation) ofDeparnnent of Educational Administration Northern Illinois University [sponsored by University Council for Educational Administration] spring 1996 Member, K-12 Program Review Committee, Department of Educational Administration \u0026amp; Foundations [Illinois State University] 1993-1997 Member, Administration Certificate Program Committee, Depamnent of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies [University of Oklahoma] 1991-1993 Member, NCATE Category Evaluation Committee, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies [University of Oklahoma] 1991-1992 Professional and Communitv Service (Program, Department, College, University) Professional Associations Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) 1999-to present American Educational Research Association (AERA) 1991-to present American Education Finance Association (AEF A) 1991-1999 International Academy ofEducational Leaders (IAEL) 1998-to present University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA) 1991-98 National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) 1996-2000 Mid-South Educational Research Association (MSERA) 1998 to present MidWestem Educational Research Association (MWERA) 1993-1998 Southern Regional Council of Professors of Educational Administration (SRCPEA) 1998-to present Illinois Council of Professors of Educational Administration (ICPEA) 1993-98 Illinois Association of School Administrators (IASA) 1995-98 Kappa Deha PI School Level (Service to Schools) Davenport Public School District, Davenport, IA Little Rock School District, Little Rock, AR Pulaski County School District, Pulaski County, AR Peoria Public School District, Peoria, IL Kankakee Public School District, Kankakee, IL Galesburg Public School District, Galesburg, IL :Pulaski Charter School, Inc., Maumelle, AR East St. Louis Public School District, East St. Louis, MO Bloomington Public School District, Bloomington, IL Oklahoma City Public School District, Oklahoma City, OK Rock Island Public Schools, Rock Island, IL Nicoma Park Public Schools, Nicoma Park, OK Moore Public School District, Moore, OK Metcalf School (Illinois State University), Normal, IL University High School (Illinois State University), Normal, IL Savannah, Public School District, Savannah, GA Chatham County School District, Chatham County, GA School District (Service to School Districts) Little Rock School District, Little Rock, AR 13 State Level Arkansas Association of Colleges of Teacher Education [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 2000 Executive Cormnittee Member, Oklahoma Cormnission for Educational Leadership (University of Oklahoma] 1991-1993 Chair, Administrative Procedure Committee Superintendent's Advisory Council for Accounting and Financial Reporting (sponsored Oklahoma Department of Education) [University of Oklahoma] 1991-1992 Executive Cormnittee Member, Oklahoma Association of School Administrators [University of Oklahoma] 1991-1993 Chair, Administrative Procedure Committee, Superintendent's Advisory Council for Accounting and [University of Oklahoma] 1991-1992 Executive Committee Member, Cooperative Council for Oklahoma School Administration Administrators [University of Oklahoma) 1991 1992 Regional/N ational/lntemational Level Regional Executive Board Member, Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration (University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1999 to present Junior Chair, Division A (Ad.ministration) MidWestern Educational Research Association [Illinois State University] 1997-1998 Chair, Division A (Administration) MidWestern Educational Research. Association [Illinois State University) 1995-1997 National .School Leaders Licensure Assessment Test Examiner, School Leader Licensure Educational Testing Service {Princeton, NJ} (University of Arkansas at Little Rock] July 200 Executive Committee Member, Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration (University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1999 to present Advisory Board Member, Center for the Study of Small/Rural Schools [University of Oklahoma] 1998- 2000 Executive Committee, University Council for Educational Administration [Illinois State University) 1996- 1998 Plenary Representative, University Council for Educational Administration [Illinois State University] 1993- 1996 Faculty Speaker, National Graduate Student Research Seminar (sponsored by the University Council for Educational Administration for UCEA National Convention in Louisville, KY) [Tilinois State University] 1996 14 Planning Committee Member, National Graduate Student Research Semmar in Educational Administration (sponsored by the Uruversiry Council for Educational Education and the American Educational Research Association for ABRA Conference in Francisco, CA) [Illinois State University) 1995-1996 Member, Ad Hoc Finance Committee Uruversity Council for Educational Admmistration [Illinois State University] 1994 1996 Member, Urban Education Consortium (based at Rutgers University in the Center for Government Services) [Illinois State University] 1994-1998 Planning Committee Member, Information Environment for School Leader Preparation Simulation Project [sponsored by UCEA sponsored] 1993-1997 Steering Committee Member, National Research Conference on African American Studies (sponsored.by University of Oklahoma) [University of Oklahoma] 1992-1993 Executive Committee Member, Wisconsin Alumni Association National Alumni Council For Multicultural Diversiry [University or Wisconsin-Madison] 1990-1992 International International Academy of Educational Leaders (IAEL) [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1998-to present SELECTED CONSULTING ACTIVITIES Topic School Leader Licensure Charter School Evaluation Student Emollment Student Emollment Trends Flexible Block Scheduling Change, Co=unications \u0026amp; Interpersonal Relations Collegiality and Leadership School Board and Superintendent Relations School Improvement/Change Process Site Educational Testing Service Princeton, NJ Little Rock School District Little Rock, AR Pulaski Charter School, Inc. Maumelle, AR Pulaski Charter School, Inc. Maumelle, AR Pulaski County School District Jacksonville, AR Chicago Public School District Chicago, IL. Little Rock, AR Little Rock, AR East St. Louis Public School District East St. Louis, MO Davenp'tlrt Public School District Davenport, IA 15 Date July 2001 June 2001 April 2001 November 2000 October 2000 October 1999 September 1999 July 1998 February 1998 After School Programs Evaluation Title 1: Sunnner School Evaluation Amlexation Curriculum Development/Computer Simulations Administrative Testing/Principalship Block Scheduling School Improvement/Community Relations School Improvement/Diversity Site-Based Fiscal Management Site-Based Management/Personnel Issues Student Diversity S1affRelations \u0026amp; Diversity Educational Finance/Montana Grant Writing/At-Risk Children Galesburg Public School District Gales burg, Illinois Peoria Public School District Peoria, IL Bloomington Public School District Bloomington, IL University Council for Educational Administration St. Louis, MO Educational Testing Services Princeton, NJ Rock Island Public School District Rock Island, IL Galesburg Public School District Galesburg, IL Kankakee Public School District Kankakee,IL Georgia Southern University Savannah., GA Nicoma Park Public School District Nicoma Park, OK Moore Public School District Moore, OK Oklahoma City Public School District February-March Oklahoma City, OK Center For The Study Of Small/ Rural Schools Norman, OK Oklahoma Public School District Oklahoma City, OK December 1997 April 1998 November 1997 Summer 1997 July 1997 June 1997 Spring 1997 February 1997 November 1996 May 1996 \u0026amp; April 1995 March 1993 Spring 1993 1993 Su=er1992 Summer 1992 THESIS AND DISSERTATION COMMITTEE SERVICE Student/Date D. Bangs (2001) Broadnax, W. (2001) Tonic A study of student drug-testing effects in selected Arkansas secondary s:::hools [Chair] A study of Arkansas public school superintendents' knowledge of and attitudes toward charter schools [Chair] 16 Sain, L. (2001) Austin, R (2001) V. Abernathy (2001) W. Bitely (2001) C. Claye (2001) M. Dalla Rosa (2001) A. Tucker (2001) J. Tackett (2000) M. Dickerson, (2000) T. J. Chesser (2000) D. Williams (2000) Y. Meade-Williams (2000) B. Wood (2000) L. J. Jackson (1999) E. Eddings (1999) E. Goldstone (1998) A comparison-of pre-post student outcomes after an intervention of a secondary alternative program for disruptive students [Chair] Role of the special education supervisor as perceived by Arkansas superintendents, principals, and special education supervisors [Member] A Study of the Superintendency supply issue for public education [Chair] English as a second language in the state of Arkansas [Chair] An analysis -of a case study of a secondary alternative education program in Brazil: Lessons for the United States [Chair] Principals' and educational interpreters' perceptions of the evaluation process of educational interpreters in Arkansas public schools [Member] An Investigation of student performance in Arkansas high schools using the traditional schedule, alternate day block scheduJe and intensive block schedule [Chair]  Self-reported teacher job satisfaction and perception of administrative listening skills [Chair] Superintendent perceptions of effectiveness: A study of Arkansas . school improvement [Chair] The first statewide study circles on education in America: Participant perceptions of study circles in two Arkansas co=unities (Chair] A descriptive case study of a single innovation's effect on multiple  literacy initiatives in Arkansas [Member] A study of the effect of principal leadership style on teacher stress in six. junior high schools in the Pulaski county special school district [Member) A profile of female superintendents in Arkansas 1999-2000 [Member] African-American and Caucasian American students' -satisfaction of perceived instructional strategies in third-and-sixth-grade urban elementary classrooms [Member] Illinois State University Does the level of implementation of total quality management affect student outcomes? [Co-Chair] University of Arkansas at Little Rock Case srudy of the involvement of the business co=unity in the Illinois partnership academy in eight Illinois school districts from 1993 to 1996 [Member] Illinois State University 17 R. L. Kilpatrick (1998) N. J. Anderson (1998) C. W. Dawson (1998) V. D. Steele (1998) B. Hinrichs (1998) E. J. Brown (1998) G. L. Harrison (1998) C. A. Stack (1997) T. M. Eddy (1997) J. D. White (1997) J. J. Pokorney (1997) D. P. Henry (1996) L.A. Obi (1995) J. R. Davis (1995) M. J. Moore (1994) Determining the costs of school year extensions [Member] Illinois State University The four block scheduling model as a change mechanism: A study of three selected high schools (Chair] Illinois State Universi~ A case study of desegregation in the rockford school system, rockford, Illinois, from 1989-1997 [Member] Illinois State University The relationship between leadership styles of elementary principals and school cultures (Member] Illinois State University Understanding situational leadership and its relationship to student project groups [Chair] Illinois State University The instructional leadership role of elementary school principals and its Influence on instructional practices as perceived by elementary school teachers [Chair] Illinois State University An analysis of the dismissal of tenured teachers under article 24A of Illinois public acts 84-126 and 84-972: evaluation of certified employers [Chair] Illinois State University A study of the organizational structure of middle level blue nobon schools and factors that promote efficiency [Chair] Illinois State University Teacher and student perceptions of school environment and student discipline [Chair] Illinois State University Reduced class size and teacher perceptions of its .impact in kindergarten through third grade [Member] Illinois State University Education: relationships with job satisfaction and organization commitment [Member] Illinois State University African American parents involvement in the elementary education of their children [Member] Illinois State University The efficacy of oral English language proficiency policies for international teaching assistants in institutions of higher education [Member] Illinois State University An investigation of the value congruence held by Illinois school board members regarding alternative schooling and the allocation of financial resources .to support alternative education [Member] Dlinois State University African American voter participation: The role ofreligion in the 1992 presidential election (Thesis) [Member] University of Oklahoma 18 E.W. Costa II (1993) I. B. Seay (1993) P.T.B . Freeman (1993) G.W.Griffin(l992) W. L. Anderson (1991) Furnished Upon Request The principal as leader: A study of the perceptions of entry-level teachers [Member] University of Oklahoma Women in leadership roles: Perspectives from female elementary administrators [Member] University of Oklahoma Presidential profiles in higher education: Perspectives from African American women [Member] University of Oklahoma Principals' and superintendents' perceptions of superintendent behaviors and activities which are linked to school effectiveness [Member] University of Oklahoma An analysis of the roles of.high school administrators as perceived by principals and assistant principals in selected Oklahoma .public high schools [Member] Illinois State University REFERENCES 19 TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 Board of Education T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools PREPARED BY: i, ~--Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction DATE: February 27, 2003 SUBJECT: Extended Year Education (EYE) Program Evaluation Background Information One of the group of programs required by the federal court to be evaluated with the participation of an external evaluator was the Extended Year Education (EYE) program. District staff had completed a program evaluation after the end of the 2000-2001 school year, and it was presented to the Board of Education for information. Another report was also completed for the 2001-2002 school year. Both of these preliminary studies are attached for the Board's information. Steps Taken as a Result of the 2000-2001 Program Evaluation Three schools initially participated as EYE schools: Stephens Elementary, Mabelvale Elementary, and Woodruff Elementary. In fall 2002, two additional schools were added: Cloverdale Elementary and Mitchell Elementary. Some modifications to the intersessions were made in 2002-2003, but these were not a result of the program evaluation. Designation of External Consultant and His/Her Qualifications On December 2, 2002, the District awarded the contract for the Extended Year Education (EYE) program evaluation to the firm, Youth Policy Research Group, Inc., Dr. William Moore, Senior Partner. Dr. Moore's and Dr. Theresa Akey's resumes are attached, establishing their qualifications. Administrator Participation in Conducting the Program Evaluation In addition to Dr. Moore and his associates, specifically Dr. Theresa Akey, the following LRSD administrators participated in the evaluation: Ms. Frances Jones, Assistant Superintendent for Elementary School Services Dr. Ed Williams, Department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation Ms. Patricia Price, Director of Early Childhood and Elementary Literacy Board Memo February 27, 2003 Page Two Mr. Ken Savage, Department of Computer Information Systems Ms. Sharon Brooks, Principal, Stephens Elementary School Ms. Tab Phillips, Principal, Mabelvale Elementary School Ms. Janice Wilson, Principal, Woodruff Elementary School Teacher Participation in Conducting the Program Evaluation Teachers at Stephens, Mabelvale, and Woodruff who administered the various assessments-ORA and Observation Surveys at grades K-2\nBenchmarks at grade 4\nAl Ts at grades 2-5\nand SAT-9 at grade 5. Impact on African-American Student Achievement The external evaluator's conclusion was that \" Unfortunately, the limited nature of the original design and existing data do not afford us an opportunity to answer in a rigorous manner the key evaluation question oft he extent of impact of the initiative on black student performance.\" Recommendation That the Board of Education approve the Extended Year Education (EYE) program evaluation for submission to the federal court. BAL/adg i1. JJ. Moore, 1 u u.u,, v h .....  .  - -- RFQ23-010--Response of J'ourh Policy Research Group, Inc WILLIAM P. MOORE, PH. D. BI0GRAHICAL SKETCH OCT0BE~ 2002 Dr. Moore holds a doctorate in Educational Psychology from the University of Kansas and is a Senior Partner with Youth Policy Research Group, Inc. located in Kansas City, Kansas. Cmrently he is the co-investigator for the evaluation of a systemic change initiative (First Things First) in the Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools and just completed a .post-doctoral fellowship with Juniper Gardens Children's Research Project exploring the dimensions of effective learning communities in schools. Dr. Moore serves also as a lecturer at the University of Kansas where he teaches Evaluating School Programs, a doctoral-level educational evaluation course. Dr. Moore has served as Research and Evaluation Director in two urban school districts\nSenior Research Associate with the Ewing Marion Kauffinan Foundation\nand held facuhy positions in research and measurement at the University of Kansas. Dr. Moore co-founded and directed the Dramatic AIDS Education Project, a collaborative AIDS education program for school-age youth and bas spent the last 6 years conducting research and evaluation studies on the effica~y of this AIDS education program for youth. Two years ago, the Project received Kansas City's Ribbon of Hope Award for outstanding community service towards the elimination of HIV/AIDS. Previously, Dr. Moore was Senior Managing Consultant with GPR\u0026amp;E, a research and evaluation consulting firm. He has consulted with school districts, not-for-profits, health care institutions, national foundations, youth development intermediaries and universities. He is a past member of the Board of Directors of Kansas City Public Achievement, a Minnesota-based youth empowerment program\nand recently retired, after 6 years, from the Board of Directors of Sunflower House: A Child Abuse Prevention Center, where he was Vice-President of Education and a member of the agency's Executive Connnittee. He now serves as a member of the Advisory Board. Dr. Moore has served as an expert witness in Federal school desegregation litigation\nwas a member of the Panel of Writers for the development of the new Student Evaluation Standards coordinated by The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation\nand served a twoyear term as a member of the National Research Development Connnittee for the American Occupational Therapy Foundation. Dr. Moore's research and evaluation interests have focused on effectively documenting the success of educational reform initiatives\nthe impact of mandated assessment programs on teacher instructional practice\nand the impact of education on the HIV -related knowledge, attitudes and behavioral intentions of youth. Dr. Moore has published in Applied Measurement in Education, Educational Assessment, the Jnrernational Journal of Educational Research, and The American Occupational Therapy Journal. Dr. Moore served 4 years on the Editorial Board of the Occupational Therapy Journal of Research and is currently a grant reviewer for the W. T. Grant Foundation. 7  ~ ~ ' '          ll '. P. Moore() ourh Po/rev Research uroup. iru:.1 _ RFQ23-0 J O--Response of l outh Policy Research Grow . Inc CURRICULUM VITAE WILLJAMP. MOORE, PH. D. Home 114 78 South Wtlder Street Olathe, KS 66061 913. 829. 3077 gprekc@.ao Lcom OCT0BE~ 2002 Office P. 0. Box4196 Kansas City, KS 66104-0196 816. 564. 0143 01) 913 . 390. 6162 (F) wmoore@YPrg.org Educational History 1991 Ph.D . 1984 M.A. 1981 B.S. University of Kansas, Lawrence KS Educational Psychology Major: Evaluation, Research, and Measurement University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS Education Major: Secondary Curriculum and InstruCtion University of Kansas- Lawrence, KS Education Major: Secondary Social Sciences Emphasis: Psychology and Sociology Current Appointments and Positions Senior Parmer, Youth Policy Research Group lnc., Kansas City, KS Lecturer. University of K.ansas. Lawrence. KS Granr Reviewer, William- T. Grant foundation, New York, NY Advisory Board, Sunflower House: A Child Abuse Prevention Center, Overland Park, KS Advisory Board. ComrnurotY Heatth Promotion Program- University of Kansas Medical Center. Kansas City. KS 8 Professional Experience Consultation W. P. Moore (J\"ourh Poiicy Research Group. mc.1 1 RFQ23-0JO-Response of Youth Pohcy Research Group, inc. 2002-Present Senior Partner, Youth Policy Research Group. Inc., Kansas City, KS. Youth Policy Research Group is a corporate partnership formed by youth and education researchers located in the Kansas City metropolitan area. The mission ofthis firm is to engage in applied research and evaluation studies that will contribute to policy and practice decisions and dialogue about the necessary supports and resources youth require to achieve long-term developmental success both academically and behaviorally. Much of the work already completed by YPRG researchers is in the K-12 education arena. Acting managing partner in research and evaluation corporation- administration and company management. 1993-2002 Senior Mana...o-in.2: Consultant, Great Plains Research and Evaluation, Olathe, KS. GPR\u0026amp;E was an education and youth development research and policy firm focused on improving the programming and organiz.ations that children and youth experience. Overall responsibility for managing research and evaluation contractual work. Oversaw a staff of part-time consultants. managed resources and budget, negotiated contracts, oversaw project development, implementation, coordination of data collection, analysis, dissemination, and action planning for future decision-making with clients. Clients included:  Ewing Marion Kanffinan Foundation. Through contactual work awarded by EMKF we assisted the following clients:  State of Kansas, SRS, Alcohol \u0026amp; Drug Abuse Services  State of Missouri, Dept. of Mental Health, Div. of Alcohol \u0026amp; Drug Abuse  State of Colorado, Team Fort Collins  Kansas City-St. Joseph Diocese Schools  Youth Opportunities Unlimited  Coalition for Positive Family Relationships  Shawnee Mission East High School, St. Thomas Aquinas High School, Shavvnee Mission North High School, Grandview High School, Lee's Summit High School, Blue Valley High School, Wmnetonka High School, Park Hill School District, Center High School, Hickman Mills Management School II  Telemedicine Research Center, Portland OR  Gambone \u0026amp; Associates: Youth Policy and Research Firm, Philadelphia, PA  Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Kansas  Shawnee Mission Medical Center Foundation  Johnson County Regional Prevention Center  Kansas City Young Audiences-KCY A  Center for Educational Testing and Evaluation, University of Kansas  Child Abuse Prevention Coalition  The Coterie Theatre 9 ff. P. Moore (fourn Poizcy Researcn uroup. 1 ru.. 1 , RFQ23-0JO-Response of YoUJh Policy Research Group, inc. Through contactual work awarded by KCY A we worked with the following clients: + Kansas City Arts Partners + Kansas City Lyric Opera  Kansas City Symphony  Fort Osage School District 1988 Evaluation Consultant. Deparrmenr of Art Education, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas. Evaluation and data analysis of survey data examining the impact on participants of the Artist-in-Residence program, an integrated art education approach. 1987-88 Research Consultant. Lawrence Unified School District, Lawrence, Kansas. City-wide telephone survey of anitudes towards Lawrence Public Schools. Development of sampling procedures, instrument development and revision., training of telephone interviews and protocol development. Oversee all technical aspects of data collection and analysis for survey of taxpayers and for survey of district employees. Research \u0026amp; Evaluation Management and Staff Positions 1998-20{)2 Director, Department of Educational Research and Assessment, Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools, Kansas City, Kansas. Cabinet-level position with direct report to Superintendent of Schools. Responsibilities included the overall management of research, evaluation and assessment functions within the District. Created and organized the department from separate functional units. Prepared short-term and long-range budget and operational plans. Responsibility for all personnel and resource utilization within the Department. Coordinated the actions of 8 professional and support staff members, as well as ten consuhants, to respond to policy and strategic decision making needs of senior district leadership, board members, building administrators and district staff. Met with State-level leadership, community leadership, and Unified Government staff to respond to external stakeholder needs for information. Planned for, and led applied and theoretical research projects to address pressing educational issues relevant to local policy and instructional practice. Collaborated withJdistrict stakeholders and school leadership to find innovative solutions to chronic educational problems in the District. 1997-1998 Senior Research Associate, Department of Research and Evaluation, Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, Kansas City, Missouri. Responsibilities include providing research and evaluation support to internal clients and external grantees. Primary responsibility for leading all research and evaluation support to Foundation youth development--k-12 educational program initiatives. Client initiatives include local and national restructuring efforts in urban school districts. Provide leadership and management of teams associated with research and evaluation efforts, supervise three junior research and evaluation associates, liaison between research and evaluation and clients\ncreate, plan and manage research and evaluation projects\nidentify and select external vendors for specific projects\ncreate and review RFPs\nreview grant proposals requiring research and evaluation oversight or support. Provide information for senior Foundation and school district leadership to inform policy and program decisions regarding urban school restructuring. 10 W P. Moore 11 uu11, , v .. ,_ . .. . RFQ23-0JO-Response of fou1h Policy Research Group, inc 1996-1997 Director, Depanmem of Educational Research and Improvement, Kansas Ciry, Missouri School Disrrict, Kansas City, Missouri. Cabinet-level position with direct report to Superintendent of Schools. Responsibilities included the overall management of research and evaluation functions within the District. Prepared short-term and long-range budget plans, fiscal authority for budget of $600,00o+. Responsibility for all personnel and resource utilization within the Department. Coordinated the actions of 10 professional and support staff. Established partnerships with community groups and school faculty to discuss innovative solutions to chronic educational problems in the District. Represented the District through information and expert testimony to attorneys and the Federal Court in desegregation litigation.. 1993-1995 Director of Research and Assistant Professor, Department of OT Education, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas. RespoDS1bilities included mentoring faculty and students to develop and complete research, coordinating and facilitating federal and private grant development, and conducting educational and psychological research_ Collaborating with other researchers in health and education. In addition, provided technical support, instrument and methods development, analytic assistance, and evaluation support to researchers, students, and faculty members university-wide. Membership in Data Envelopment Analysis Users Group and Tele-education users group. Served on departmental and school-wide committees representing research, curriculum and instruction interests. As a member of the faculty of the School of Allied Health I coordinated all school-wide professional development events for faculty. 1989-92 Prornun Evaluator. Kansas City, Missouri School Disrrict, Department of Research, Evaluation, and Testing, Kansas City, Missouri. Complete responsibility for the evaluation of seven to nine magnet school programs annually. Developed evaluation pl.ans, instrumentation, data collection procedures, trained evaluation personnel, coordinated all data collection schedules and activities, assessed reliability, analyzed all data, and wrote formative, sunnnative, and achievement-enrollment summaries annually. Reports informed local policy decisions for Board and senior district leadership. Reports were used to inform Federal court decisions regarding compliance with court orders and progress toward established desegregation outcomes as well as state-level policy regarding desegregation effectiveness in Missouri. 1987-88 Research Assistant. Center for Educatumal Testing and Evaluation, Kansas Internship Program, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas. Collected., analyzed., and presented data concerning the development of an observational system for intern teacher/trainer performance-based assessment. Teaching and Academic Appointments 2002 Lecturer. Department of Psychology and Research in Education, University of Kansas. Teaching PRE 816 Evaluation of School Programs, a graduate-level evaluation course for doctoral students. 11 If'. P. Moore (Youth Policy Researcn Group, inc._1 o RFQ13-0JO-Response o.f Yowh Policy Research Group, Inc. 1993-1995 Assistant Professor. Department of OT Education., Universiry of Kansas Medical Center. Tenure-line faculty appointment in the Graduate School. Concurrent appointment as Director of Research. Taught research methods course, graduate statistics and research seminar, graduate professional development seminar\nprovided thesis advising to students and contributed to the development of graduate program policies and curriculum. Mentored faculty and students in applied social science and behavioral research. Chairperson of Program Evaluation Committee. Coordinator of school-wide Faculty Development Education Seminars. Elected to School of Allied Health Research Committee. 1993-1995 Research Assistant Professor. University of Kansas Cancer Center, University of Kansas Medical Center. Honorary appointment recognizing contnbution to research and scholarly activity. Contnbute consulting and collaborative service to research projects. 1991-1992 Lecturer. Department of Educational Psychology and Research, University of Kansas. Courses taught included EPR 720 a graduate level classroom assessment course\nEPR 790 Research and Evaluation Proposal Development\nand EPR 710 a graduate level statistics course. 1988-89 Graduate Teaching Assistantship. Department of Educational Psychology and Research, University of Kansas. Complete responsibility for teaching two sections ofEPR 330, a first year graduate level educational assessment and measurement class. 1984-86 Social Sciences Instructor and Department Acting Chajrperson. Turner High School, Turner Unified School District, Kansas City, Kansas. Taught sections of psychology, sociology. political science, and history. Assumed acting chairperson position in Spring of 1986. 1981-82 Social Sciences Instructor. Parsons Junior High School, Parsons Unified School District, Parsons, Kansas. Taught sections of American history and introductory law. Assessment and Testing 1998-2002 Director, Educational Research and Assessment Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools, Kansas City, Kansas. (see above for description ofresponsibilities). 1996-1997 Director, Department of Educational Research and Improvement, Kansas City, Missouri School District, Kansas City, Missouri (see above for description ofresponsibilities). 1988-1989 .l\\ssistant to Testirur Coordinator. Center for Educational Testing and Evaluation, Kansas Minimum Competency Testing Program, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas. Responsible for assisting the coordinator in the daily operation and coordination of a state-wide legislative mandated basic skills testing program. Developed system for item banking 3.000 test items\ntest paste-up and consrruction\nreviewing printing drafts, administering pilot studies of items\nassisting with test equating and standard setting activities. 12 W. P. Moore (Youth Policy Research Group. Inc.) - RFQ23-0JO-Response of Youth Policy Research Group, Jru: 1987 Test Item Writer. Cenrer for Educational Testing and Evaluation. University of I(ansas, Lawrence, Kansas. Developed original and revised existing multiple choice mathematics and reading items for inclusion on the 1988 KMCT tests (grades 2, 4, 6, 8. and 10). 1986-1987 T estin!l. Research Assistant. Center for Educational Testing and Evaluacion, I(ansas Minimum Competency Testing Program, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas. Assisted in test construction, item tracking, and general test development activities and research regarding the KCMT. Publications Educational Psychology Gambone, M.A., Klem, A., Moore, W. P., and Summers, J. A. (2002). First Things First: Creating the conditions \u0026amp; capacity for community-wide reform in an urban school district. Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation: Kansas City, MO. Gambone, M. A., Klem, A.. Moore, W. P ., and Summers, J. A. (2002). Executive summary of First Things First: Creating the conditions \u0026amp; capacity for community-wide reform in an urban school district. Ewing Marion KaJrffinan Foundation, Kansas City, MO. Moranetz C.A., Hammig BJ., Moore W.P., and Coleman-Henderson K. Violence and Teens: Characteristics of High Risk Youth, Submitted to the The American Journal of Health Behavior. Moore W.P., Moranetz C.A., Owens M.M., Wordlaw-Watkins S.D., Parmet D.B., Enenbach M.J., Arroyo E.J., Hanna M.T., and Hammig B.J. The Effectiveness of a Dramatic HIV/AIDS Education Program on the .Knowledge, Attitudes, Behavioral Intentions and Perceived Personal Risk of Urban Adolescents, Submitted to the Journal of Adolescent Health Moranetz C.A., Hammig BJ., Moore W.P., Turkman D.F., Miller J.W., Stebbins D.R-. Brown C.M., and Mosier M.C. The Community Health Project: An E.xample of Effective Service Learning at the University of Kansas, Submitted to Academic Medicine. Moore, W. P. (1996). Successful grantspersonship: Achieving the three clarities. Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, Kansas City, MO. Brown, C., Moore, W. P., Heroman. D., \u0026amp; Yunek. A. (1996). Influence of instrumental activities of daily living assessment method on judgments of independence. The American Occupational Therapy Journal. 50(3), 202-206. Moore, W. P. (1995). Action research: A primer for teacher professional development. Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, Kansas City, MO. 13   ~  -\"'  -------- W P Moore (Youih Policy Research Group, Inc.. 6 RFQ23-0JO-Response of fouih Policy Research Graup, Inc Moore, W. P. (1994). Toe devaluation of standardized testing: One district's response to a mandated assessment. Applied Measurement in Education. 7(4), 343-367. Moore, W. P. (1994). Appropriate test preparation: Can we reach a consensus? Educational Assessment, 2(1 ), 51-68. Miller, M. D. \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. (1991). Private-public school differences in the United States: Findings from the Second International Mathematics Study. International Journal of Educational Research, 15 (5), 433-444. Moore, W. P. Relationships among teacher test performance pressures, perceived testing benefits test preparation strategies, and srodent test performance (Doctoral dissertation. University of Kansas. 1991 ). Dissertation Absrracts Jn1emationale. Health Research and Psychology Beisecker, A. E., Murden, R. Moore, W. P., Graham, D., Helmig, L. (1996) Attitudes of medical students and primary care physicians regarding input of older and younger patients in medical decisions. Medical Care, 34(2), 126-137. Fabian, C. J., Kamel, S., McKittrick, R., Zalles, C., Simon, C., Kimler, B. F  Zeiger, S., Moore, W. P ., and Chin, T. ( 1995). Breast tissue biomarkers in women at high and low risk for breast cancer. Proceedings of Cancer Symposium. Wayne State University: Kluwer Publishers. Beisecker, A E., Helmig, L., Graham, D., and Moore, W. P. (1994). Attitudes of oncologists, oncology nurses, and patients regarding medical decision-making by older and younger breast cancer patients. The Geroniologist, 34, 505-512 Fabian. C. J., Zalles, C., Kamel, S., Kimler, B. F., McKittrick, R., Train.in. AS., Zieger, S., Moore, W. P., Hassanein. R.S., Simon. C., Johnson, N., Vergara, B., Jewell, W. R., Lin. F  Bhatia, P., and Chin, T. (1994). Prevalence of aneuploidy, overexpressed ER and EGFR and dysplastic cytology in random breast aspirates of women at bigb and low risk for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 30, 263-274. Beisecker, A. E. \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. (1994). Oncologists' perceptions of the effects of cancer patients' companions on physician-patient interactions. Journal of Psychosocial Oncology, 12 (1/2), 23-39 . Fabian. C. J., Zalles. C., Kamel S., McKittrick- R., Moore, W. P., Zeiger, S  Simon, C., }illnler. B., Cramer, A., Garcia. F .. and Jewell, W. (1993). Biomarker and cytologic abnormalities in women at high and low risk for breast cancer. Journal of Cellular Biochemistry, 17G. 153- 160. 14 If'. P. Moore (}ouch Poi icy Researcn Group, Inc.) 9 RFQ23-0JO--Response ojfouth Policy Research Group. in::. Beisecker, A. E. \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. (1992). Physician-cancer patient-companion interactions. Proceedings from the first annual meering of Psychosocial Oncology: Enhancing Patient and Family Care , Beverly Hills. Research, Evaluation and Planning Reports Moore, W. P. and Husman, M. (in press). Constructing youth engagement: A synthesis of literature, observation and professional opinion. Prepared under contract to Kansas City Young Audiences by Youth Policy Research Group. Inc.: Kansas City, KS. Moore, W. P. \u0026lt;l?d Gramlich, A. (Sep. 2002). Evaluation of the impact of the school to entrepreneurship program: Findings from the 2001-2002 implementation. Prepared under contract to the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation by Youth Policy Research Group, Inc.: I(ansas City, KS. Gambone, M.A., Klem, A., Moore, W. P., and Summers, J. A. (2002). First Things First: Creating the conditions \u0026amp; capacity for community-wide reform in an urban school district. Gambone \u0026amp; Associates: Philadelphia: PA. Gambone, M.A., Klem, A., Moore, W. P., and Summers, J. A. (2002). Executive summary of First Things First: Creating the conditions \u0026amp; capacity for community-wide reform in an urban school district. Gambone \u0026amp; Associates: Philadelphia: PA. Moore, W. P., Anthony, J., and Husman, M. (Nov. 2001). Evaluation of the TeacherArrist Residency Professional Development Model. Great Plains Research and Evaluation: Olathe, KS. Moore, W. P. (June, 2001) Effectiveness of the Young Audiences ' Artist Training Conference. Great Plains Research and Evaluation: Olathe, KS. Moranetz, C., Moore, W. P., \u0026amp; Coleman-Henderson, K. (Dec, 1999). Evaluation of a Violence Prevention Program for High Risk Youth Phase One: Pro.filing Participants in Project SAFE. Great Plains Research and Evaluation: Olathe, KS. Moore, W. P. (1999). Learning about evaluation: Who are the stakeholders? Research Brief, 4, Department of Educational Research and Assessment, Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools. Moore, W. P. (1999). Summary of parent and staff support for the Early Release Program. Research Brief, 2, Department of Educational Research and Assessment, Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools. Moore, W. P. (1999). School leadership mobility in the Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools. KCKPS Research Brief, 1, Department of Educational Research and Assessment. Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools. 15 I   '  I  f i  I l  I l  I  ' ' '  -' ' ' '   ' l W. P. Moore (fourh Policy Researcn Group, inc.) JO RFQ23-0/0--Response of Yau1h Policy Research Group, inc. Moore, W. P .. Wright, D., \u0026amp; Cantwell, D. (1999). Assessment 2000: A Plan to creare a world class assessmenr system in the Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools. Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools. Moore, W. P., Wright D., \u0026amp; Cronister, J. (1998). 1997-1998 Student perceprions of insrrucrional environment: District summary. I(ansaS City, KS: Department of Educational Research and Assessment, Kansas City, KS Public Schools. Richtermeyer G., Moore, W. P., \u0026amp; Jones, R. L. (1998). Project Choice: A summary of parenr perceptions five years later. Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Moore, W. P., Hellmer, T., JianaS L., Jones, R., \u0026amp; Gonzalez, S. (1998). Public achievement in Kansas City: Evaluation of the first year of implementation. Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Moore, W. P .. JianaS, L., Helhner, T., \u0026amp; Jones, R. (1998). The scholarship initiative: Synthesis of findings from phases 1 and 2 of the implementation evaluation. Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Moore, W. P., Helhner, T., Jianas, L., Jones, R., \u0026amp; Robinson, R. (1998). Evaluation of the firsr year of implementation of Public Achievement in Kansas City: Mid-course findings  \"Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Moore, W. P. (1998). Long-term planning for the evaluation of Arts Partners programming in schools. Olathe, KS: Great Plains Research and Evaluation. Moore, W. P., Richtermeyer, G., Helhner, T., \u0026amp; Jones, R. (1998). Professional development for urban principals: Findings from a needs assessment of Kansas City principals. hfillSas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Jones, R. (1998). Evaluation of the third annual Successful Schools nerwork meeting. Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Moore, W.P. \u0026amp; Jones, R. (1998). Evaluation of the second Missouri Superintendent's Forum . Kansas City. MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Jones, R. (1998) Evaluation of the second First Things First educational round.table for school-site reform. Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Jones, R. (1998). Evaluation of the Missouri Superinrendent's Forum. Kansas City. MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation  16 Ir. P. Moore (louth Policy Research Group, inc. I I RFQ23-0JO-Re.sponse of foUih Poiicy Research Group. In:: Moore, W. P .. Jones. R. (1997). Evaluarion of the Firsl Things First Educarional Roundtablefor School-Sire Reform. Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Daniels, S. D., Jianas. L., \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. (1997). Sustainability srudy of youth development grancees. Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Moore, W. P. (1997). Teacher perceptions of school leadership: Decision making support informacion. Kansas City, MO: Kansas City. Missouri School District. Moore, W. P. (1997). College prepatory education? Results of observacions at Lincoln College Preparatory Academy. Kansas City, MO: Kansas City, Missouri School District. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Kass, H.K.. (1997). Evaluation of the educarional restructuring efforc in the Kansas City-St. Joseph Catholic Diocese elementary schools: Findings from the second year of evaluation. Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Moore, W. P. (1997). Internal audit of Iowa Tests of Basic Skills special testing to determine student eligibiliry for Admission to Lincoln College Prepartory: A report to the Superintendent. Kansas City, MO: Kansas City, MO School District. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Kass, H.K.. (1996). Evaluation of the implementation of the FYI Training Insrirute. Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Kass, H.K.. (1996). Evaluation of the initial implementation of the Bug H U. G. S. educational program. Shawnee Mission, KS: Shawnee Mission Medical Center Foundation. Moore, W. P., Kass, H.K.., \u0026amp; Welch, K.. (1996). Evaluation of the educational restructuring effort in the Kansas City-St. Joseph catholic diocese elementary schools: Findings from the first year of evaluation. Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Moore, W. P.\nThis 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.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1443","title":"\"Program Evaluation Supplement to the Extended Year Education (EYE) Report,\" Little Rock School District, Youth Policy Research Group, Inc., Kansas City, Missouri","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["2003-01-31"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational innovations","Educational planning","School attendance","School improvement programs","School management and organization","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["\"Program Evaluation Supplement to the Extended Year Education (EYE) Report,\" Little Rock School District, Youth Policy Research Group, Inc., Kansas City, Missouri"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1443"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["128 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1416","title":"\"Program Evaluation Supplement to the Middle School Transition Evaluation, School Year 1999-2000,\" Little Rock School District, Youth Policy Research Group Inc., Kansas City, Missouri","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["2003-01-31"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Educational innovations","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","School management and organization","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["\"Program Evaluation Supplement to the Middle School Transition Evaluation, School Year 1999-2000,\" Little Rock School District, Youth Policy Research Group Inc., Kansas City, Missouri"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1416"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["87 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_937","title":"Discipline: ''Analysis of Disciplinary Actions, District Level,'' North Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2003/2004"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","North Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School discipline"],"dcterms_title":["Discipline: ''Analysis of Disciplinary Actions, District Level,'' North Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/937"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["14 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\n) l J J ] ] NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT RECEIVED SEP 1 2004 OFFIOCFC DESEGREGiAtOTNIOIT ORING ANALYSIS OF DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS District Level FRAN CI CAL J. JACKSON Director of Student Affairs ] ] ] North Little Rock Public Schools ~Analysis of Discipline Actions ~School Year 2003-2004 ~ District Level Elementary ~Middle Schools ~High Schools ~9 Year Comparison I I I J I I l Ref: DIS032 Date: 8/12/04 Time : 11 : 1 7 : 31 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions DISTRICT LEVEL From AUGUST Through JUNE ================================================================---------------- 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 ===============-===========================================-====---------------- -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF-----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU =================================--===-----=================------==---------=== 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E.I.C. 17 EXPULSION 1903 632 522 280 244 151 252 130 2 2 52.3% 1050 421 66.0% 193 121 55.7% 86 56 61. 2% 97 52 50.0% 0 0 28.9% 24.4% 19.6% 23.5% .0% 512 232 63 49 83 65 52 36 2 2 14.1% 8.0% 18.9% 12.6% 50.0% 172 109 13 11 25 20 11 10 0 0 4.7% 3637 1394 1.6% 791 461 5.7% 438 292 2.7% 412 228 .0% 4 4 ============--======---------------==============================----------=---- 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 =======-------------------------------------==============-===------------==---- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NSF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU =============-======---------------======================--=-=====---------=---- 09 S.A.C. 1961 55.2% 980 27.6% 394 11.1% 220 6.2% 3555 680 430 201 137 1448 10 HOME SUSP. 469 66.1% 157 22.1% 66 9.3% 18 2.5% 710 272 96 39 14 421 11 BOYS CLUB 316 58. 7% 155 28.8% 51 9.5% 16 3.0% 538 187 96 39 11 333 12 E. I. C. 195 66.3% 70 23.8% 18 6.1% 11 3.7% 294 103 46 14 7 170 17 EXPULSION 2 50.0% 0 .0% 2 50.0% 0 .0% 4 2 0 2 0 4 COMPARISON -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU --------------==-=-=---------------====================--======================= 09 S.A.C. 58 3.0 % 70- 6.7-% 118- 23.0-% 48 27.9 % 82- 48 9 31- 28 54 10 HOME SUSP. 53- 10.2-% 36- 18.7-% 3 4. 8 % 5 38.5 % 81- 8- 25- 10- 3 40- 11 BOYS CLUB 72 29.5 % 69 80.2 % 32- 38.6-% 9- 36.0-% 100 36 40 26- 9- 41 12 E. I.C. 57- 22.6-% 27- 27.8-% 34- 65. 4-% 0 . 0 % 118- 27- 6- 22- 3- 58- 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032 Date: 8/12/04 Time : 11 : 1 7 : 31 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E. I.C. 17 EXPULSION Analysis of Disciplinary Actions ELEMENTARY K-5 From AUGUST Through JUNE 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 .0% 0 401 74.7% 198 0 .0% 0 252 61. 2% 130 0 .0% 0 -----BF-----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 .0% 0 93 17.3% 53 0 .0% 0 97 23.5% 52 0 .0% 0 -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 .0% 0 41 7.6% 31 0 .0% 0 52 12.6% 36 0 .0% 0 -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 .0% 0 2 .4% 2 0 .0% 0 11 2. 7% 10 0 .0% 0 0 0 537 284 0 0 412 228 0 0 =-------------------------------------------------==============---------------- 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NSF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------================================================= 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 228 65.1% 83 23.7% 33 9. 4% 6 1. 7% 350 145 51 20 5 221 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 194 66.2% 70 23.9% 18 6.1% 11 3.8% 293 102 46 14 7 169 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NSF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------===============================----=--=-=== 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .o % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 173- 43.1-% 10- 10.8-% 8- 19.5-% 4 200.0 % 187- 53- 2- 11- 3 63- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 58- 23.0-% 27- 27.8-% 34- 65.4-% 0 . 0 % 119- 28- 6- 22- 3- 59- 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .o % 0 0 0 0 0 0 ] ] ] ) 1 ] 1 J ] ] Ref: DIS032 Date: 8/12/04 Time: 11:17:31 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions MIDDLE SCHOOLS From AUGUST Through JUNE 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NSF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU ======---------================-==---------------=================----====-----= 09 S.A.C. 1296 52.4% 742 30.0% 327 13.2% 107 4.3% 2472 369 267 119 63 818 10 HOME SUSP. 33 47.1% 31 44.3% 5 7.1% 1 1. 4% 70 29 25 4 1 59 11 BOYS CLUB 165 55. 7% 60 20.3% 53 17.9% 18 6.1% 296 92 35 37 13 177 12 E. I. C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NSF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------=============================-============= 09 S.A.C. 1199 55.6% 614 28.5% 218 10.1% 125 5.8% 2156 397 250 100 71 818 10 HOME SUSP. 50 58.1% 23 26.7% 6 7.0% 7 8.1% 86 35 14 5 6 60 11 BOYS CLUB 246 59.3% 125 30.1% 33 8.0% 11 2. 7% 415 131 71 22 7 231 12 E. I.C. 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 1 0 0 0 1 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 -----------------------------------======================================----=== COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NSF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU 09 S.A.C. 97- 7.5-% 128- 17.3-% 109- 33.3-% 18 16.8 % 316- 28 17- 19- 8 0 10 HOME SUSP. 17 51. 5 % 8- 25.8-% 1 20.0 % 6 600.0 % 16 6 11- 1 5 1 11 BOYS CLUB 81 49.1 % 65 108.3 % 20- 37.7-% 7- 38.9-% 119 39 36 15- 6- 54 12 E. I.C. 1 100.0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 1 1 0 0 0 1 17 EXPULSION 1- 100.0-% 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 1- 1- 0 0 0 1- ] ] ] Ref: DIS032 Date: 8/12/04 Time : 11 : 1 7 : 31 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions HIGH SCHOOLS From AUGUST Through JUNE -=======-----------------========-=--------------------------------------------- 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 ========----------------=============------------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ==-=======-=============================-----------==========------------------- 09 S.A.C. 607 52.1% 308 26. 4 % 185 15.9% 65 5.6% 1165 263 154 113 46 576 10 HOME SUSP. 88 47.8% 69 37.5% 17 9.2% 10 5.4% 184 53 43 14 8 118 11 BOYS CLUB 79 55.6% 26 18.3% 30 21.1% 7 4.9% 142 59 21 28 7 115 12 E. I.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1 33.3% 0 .0% 2 66. 7% 0 .0% 3 1 0 2 0 3 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 7 62 54.5% 366 26. 2% 176 12.6% 95 6.8% 1399 283 180 101 66 630 10 HOME SUSP. 191 69.7% 51 18.6% 27 9.9% 5 1.8% 274 92 31 14 3 140 11 BOYS CLUB 70 56.9% 30 24.4% 18 14.6% 5 4.1% 123 56 25 17 4 102 12 E. I.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 2 50.0% 0 .0% 2 50.0% 0 .0% 4 2 0 2 0 4 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU 09 S.A.C. 155 25.5 % 58 18.8 % 9- 4.9-% 30 46.2 % 234 20 26 12- 20 54 10 HOME SUSP. 103 117. 0 % 18- 26.1-% 10 58.8 % 5- 50.0-% 90 39 12- 0 5- 22 11 BOYS CLUB 9- 11. 4-% 4 15.4 % 12- 40.0-% 2- 28.6-% 19- 3- 4 11- 3- 13- 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1 100.0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 1 1 0 0 0 1 ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] Ref: DIS032S Date: 8/12/04 Time: 11:17:31 School: 012 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE NORTH LITTLE ROCK HIGH SCHOOL - 11/12 -======--------------------------------------------=--=-=----------------------- 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 ==--===--------------------=-=-====---------------==========-------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 190 54.6% 65 18.7% 73 21.0% 20 5. 7% 348 108 51 53 16 228 10 HOME SUSP. 3 27.3% 3 27.3% 4 36. 4% 1 9 .1% 11 3 3 4 1 11 11 BOYS CLUB 16 59.3% 2 7.4% 7 25.9% 2 7.4% 27 14 2 6 2 24 12 E. I.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NSF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 200 53.6% 66 17. 7% 65 17.4% 42 11. 3% 373 99 53 46 27 225 10 HOME SUSP. 10 66. 7% 0 .0% 4 26. 7% 1 6.7% 15 9 0 4 1 14 11 BOYS CLUB 15 51.7% 5 17.2% 8 27.6% 1 3.4% 29 15 5 8 1 29 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ==---------------=======-----------==---======================================== 09 S.A.C. 10 5.3 % 1 1.5 % 8- 11.0-% 22 110. 0 % 25 9- 2 7- 11 3- 10 HOME SUSP. 7 233.3 % 3- 100.0-% 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 4 6 3- 0 0 3 11 BOYS CLUB 1- 6.3-% 3 150.0 % 1 14.3 % 1- 50.0-% 2 1 3 2 1- 5 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1- 100.0-% 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 1- 1- 0 0 0 1- 1 ] ] ] j J ] ] ] ] ] Ref: DIS032S Date: 8/12/04 Time : 11 : 1 7 : 31 School: 013 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE NORTH LITTLE ROCK HIGH SCHOOL - 09/10 ========---------------------=-===---------------------------------------------- 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 ==-==============-=========================--===============-------------------- -----BM-----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NSF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU =-====--------------=-=============-------=------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 416 51.1% 242 29.7% 111 13. 6% 45 5.5% 814 156 103 59 30 34 8 10 HOME SUSP. 11 39.3% 13 4 6. 4 % 2 7.1% 2 7.1% 28 10 11 2 2 25 11 BOYS CLUB 63 54.8% 24 20.9% 23 20.0% 5 4.3% 115 45 19 22 5 91 12 E. I.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 2 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 2 100.0% 0 .0% 2 0 0 2 0 2 =============-=-------------------------=---=-=----=---=====-------------------- 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 ===========-=-=-=-===-------------========================---------------------- 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E. I. C 17 EXPULSION -----BM-----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 562 54.8% 184 67 65.0% 37 55 58.5% 41 0 .0% 0 2 50.0% 2 -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU 300 29.2% 127 26 25.2% 13 25 26.6% 20 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 111 10.8% 55 10 9.7% 6 10 10.6% 9 0 .0% 0 2 50.0% 2 -----NBM----- # REF PCT(+/-) # STU -----NSF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 53 5.2% 39 0 .0% 0 4 4.3% 3 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 -----NSF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # STU 1026 405 103 56 94 73 0 0 4 4 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 146 35.1 % 58 24.0 % 0 . 0 % 8 17.8 % 212 28 24 4- 9 57 10 HOME SUSP. 56 509.1 % 13 100.0 % 8 400.0 % 2- 100.0-% 75 27 2 4 2- 31 11 BOYS CLUB 8- 12.7-% 1 4.2 % 13- 56.5-% 1- 20.0-% 21- 4- 1 13- 2- 18- 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 2 200.0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .o % 2 2 0 0 0 2 Ref: DIS032S Date: 8/12/04 Time: 11:17:31 School: 020 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE ARGENTA ACADEMY =============-=======================-------------------------------------====== 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 ==-=========---=====================---------------------------------------==--- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ==-==================================-------------------------------------=-=--- 09 S.A.C. 1 33.3% 1 33.3% 1 33.3% 0 .0% 3 1 1 1 0 3 10 HOME SUSP. 76 51.7% 53 36.1% 11 7.5% 7 4.8% 147 42 32 8 5 87 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 ===============--=-------------------------------------------------------------- 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 =======================--======---------=--------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU =============================================================------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 114 73.1% 25 16.0% 13 8.3% 4 2.6% 156 51 18 6 2 77 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ================================================================================ 09 S.A.C. 1- 100.0-% 1- 100.0-% 1- 100.0-% 0 . 0 % 3- 1- 1- 1- 0 3- 10 HOME SUSP. 38 50.0 % 28- 52.8-% 2 18.2 % 3- 42.9-% 9 9 14- 2- 3- 10- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .o % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I I l I l I l I J I I I I I I I I I I I I I Ref: DIS032S Date: 8/12/04 Time: 11:17:32 School: 02 4 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE RIDGEROAD MIDDLE CHARTER SCHOOL ---======-=-=------------=========-=====----------=-==-===---------------------- 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 ========----------------====-==========-------------=======--------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU =======---------------============-=--------------------===--------------------- 09 S.A.C. 764 53.4% 4 65 32.5% 161 11. 3% 40 2.8% 1430 155 116 37 22 330 10 HOME SUSP. 10 27.0% 23 62. 2% 3 8.1% 1 2.7% 37 10 19 2 1 32 11 BOYS CLUB 2 33.3% 1 16. 7% 1 16.7% 2 33.3% 6 2 1 1 2 6 12 E. I. C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 681 56.7% 341 28.4% 107 8.9% 73 6.1% 1202 156 106 34 34 330 10 HOME SUSP. 38 62.3% 16 26.2% 3 4.9% 4 6.6% 61 25 9 3 3 40 11 BOYS CLUB 81 70.4% 24 20.9% 8 7.0% 2 1. 7% 115 38 12 4 1 55 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU =-----------------=====-======================================================== 09 S.A.C. 83- 10.9-% 124- 26.7-% 54- 33.5-% 33 82.5 % 228- 1 10- 3- 12 0 10 HOME SUSP. 28 280.0 % 7- 30.4-% 0 . 0 % 3 300.0 % 24 15 10- 1 2 8 11 BOYS CLUB 79 3950.0 % 23 2300.0 % 7 700.0 % 0 . 0 % 109 36 11 3 1- 49 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I I ~ : Ref: DIS032S Date: 8/12/04 Time: 11: 1 7 : 3 2 School: 02 5 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE LAKEWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL ===-------------------------------=======-------------=====--------------------- 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 =====----------===============================--====================----=------= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ===------------===================-=========--------==============-----=-=---=== 09 S.A.C. 14 6 42.4% 72 20.9% 94 27.3% 32 9.3% 344 66 41 49 21 177 10 HOME SUSP. 2 66.7% 0 .0% 1 33.3% 0 .0% 3 2 0 1 0 3 11 BOYS CLUB 51 51. 5% 20 20.2% 25 25.3% 3 3.0% 99 25 9 21 2 57 12 E. I.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 1 0 0 0 1 =---------------------------------================-=-=====================-===== 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 =---------------------------------========================================-===== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU --------------================================================================== 09 S.A.C. 163 4 6. 7% 92 26.4% 60 17.2% 34 9.7% 349 68 45 38 25 176 10 HOME SUSP. 1 16.7% 1 16. 7% 1 16.7% 3 50.0% 6 1 1 1 3 6 11 BOYS CLUB 32 47.8% 18 26.9% 10 14.9% 7 10.4% 67 22 12 8 4 46 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------=------=----=---=-========--============================================== COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ----------------------------------===========---------=====================--=== 09 S.A.C. 17 11. 6 % 20 27.8 % 34- 36.2-% 2 6.3 % 5 2 4 11- 4 1- 10 HOME SUSP. 1- 50.0-% 1 100.0 % 0 . 0 % 3 300.0 % 3 1- 1 0 3 3 11 BOYS CLUB 19- 37.3-% 2- 10.0-% 15- 60.0-% 4 133 .3 % 32- 3- 3 13- 2 11- 12 E.I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .o % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1- 100.0-% 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 1- 1- 0 0 0 1- Ref: DIS032S Date: 8/12/04 Time: 11:17:32 School: 02 6 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE ROSE CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL ===-===============-=-================--------------------------------------==-- 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 ====-========-----------==============-------------------------------------=-=-- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NSF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ===---===================--=====--======-----------------==--------------------- 09 S.A.C. 65 60.2% 28 25.9% 6 5.6% 9 8.3% 108 43 23 3 4 73 10 HOME SUSP. 0 .0% 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 0 1 0 0 1 11 BOYS CLUB 33 68.8% 3 6.3% 7 14.6% 5 10.4% 48 23 2 5 4 34 12 E. I.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ===============================================================----------------- 09 S.A.C. 57 55.9% 41 40.2% 3 2.9% 1 1.0% 102 38 27 2 1 68 10 HOME SUSP. 4 80.0% 1 20.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 5 4 1 0 0 5 11 BOYS CLUB 23 39.0% 35 59.3% 1 1. 7% 0 .0% 59 16 24 1 0 41 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 8- 12.3-% 13 46.4 % 3- 50.0-% 8- 88.9-% 6- 5- 4 1- 3- 5- 10 HOME SUSP. 4 400.0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 4 4 0 0 0 4 11 BOYS CLUB 10- 30.3-% 32 1066.7 % 6- 85.7-% 5- 100.0-% 11 7- 22 4- 4- 7 12 E.I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .o % 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I I I I I I J J I - I I I I I - I I I - Ref: DIS032S Date: 8/12/04 Time : 11 : 1 7 : 3 2 School: 027 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE ROSE CITY MIDDLE LEVEL ACADEMY ====---===============================-=----------------------------------=====- 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 ===--=====================================---------=====---------------------=-- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NSF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ==-=====================================------------------------------------==-- 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E. I.C. 17 EXPULSION 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E. I.C 17 EXPULSION 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E.I.C. 17 EXPULSION 3 75.0% 0 .0% 3 0 5 41.7% 7 58.3% 3 5 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU 22 75.9% 15 7 50.0% 5 2 40.0% 2 \" 1 100.0% 1 0 .0% 0 -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU 4 13. 8% 3 5 35. 7% 3 3 60.0% 3 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 COMPARISON 1 25.0% 1 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 3 10.3% 1 2 14.3% 1 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 -----NSF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NSF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU 19 633.3 % 4 400.0 % 2 200.0 % 0 . 0 % 12 3 0 0 2 40.0 % 2- 28.6-% 2 200.0 % 0 . 0 % 2 2- 1 0 2 200.0 % 3 300.0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 2 3 0 0 1 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 1 0 0 0 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 4 4 12 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 19 14 9 5 5 1 1 0 0 25 15 2 1 5 5 1 1 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 8/12/04 Time: 11: 1 7 : 3 2 School: 030 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE POPLAR STREET MIDDLE SCHOOL 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 =-=====------------=--===============------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E. I.C. 17 EXPULSION -----BM-----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 318 54.3% 110 14 93.3% 12 79 55.2% 42 0 0 g.  0 0 0 0 g.  0 0 -----BF-----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 177 30.2% 91 0 .0% 0 36 25.2% 23 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 g.  0 0 -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 65 11.1% 30 1 6.7% 1 20 14.0% 11 0 09-  0 0 0 .0% 0 -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 26 4.4% 16 0 .0% 0 8 5.6% 5 0 09-  0 0 0 0 g.  0 0 586 247 15 13 143 81 0 0 0 0 -----~--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 276 58.2% 136 28.7% 45 9.5% 17 3.6% 474 128 72 25 12 237 10 HOME SUSP. 0 0 g.  0 0 0 g.  0 0 .0% 0 Og.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 BOYS CLUB 108 63.9% 45 26.6% 14 8.3% 2 1. 2% 169 54 21 9 2 86 12 E. I.C 0 0 g.  0 0 0 g.  0 0 Og.  0 0 0 g.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 0 9-  0 0 0 g.  0 0 0 g.  0 0 0 g.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 42- 13. 2-% 41- 23.2-% 20- 30.8-% 9- 34.6-% 112- 18 19- 5- 4- 10- 10 HOME SUSP. 14- 100.0-% 0 . 0 % 1- 100.0-% 0 . 0 % 15- 12- 0 1- 0 13- 11 BOYS CLUB 29 36.7 % 9 25.0 % 6- 30.0-% 6- 75.0-% 26 12 2- 2- 3- 5 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .o % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 I l I l I l I l I l I J I I I I I Ref: DIS032S Date: 8/12/04 Time: 11:17:32 School: 031 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE AMBOY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ============----======--============-=------------------------------------------ 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 -======-------------------=--=======-------------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ==---===================---==-------========---------========------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 36 67.9% 7 13.2% 10 18.9% 0 .0% 53 25 4 6 0 35 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 42 71. 2% 5 8.5% 0 13.6% 0 6.8% 59 23 5 6 4 38 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 20 58.8% 11 32.4% 2 5.9% 1 2.9% 34 16 5 2 1 24 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 8 66.7% 3 25.0% 0 .0% 1 8.3% 12 6 3 0 1 10 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 16- 44.4-% 4 57.1 % 8- 80.0-% 1 100.0 % 19- 9- 1 4- 1 11- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 34- . 0 % 2- . 0 % 8- . 0 % 3- . 0 % 47- 1- 0 8- 3- 28- 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I I I I I I I I J I I I I Ref: DIS032S Date: 8/12/04 Time : 11: 1 7 : 3 2 School: 032 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL --==========---====================--------------------------------------------- 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 ===--=======================-===-=====----------------=====--------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ===========----=======================------------------===--------------------- 09 S .A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 3 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 3 3 0 0 0 3 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 1 100. 0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 1 0 0 0 1 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 2- 66.7-% 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 2- 2- 0 0 0 2- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 .o % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % o- . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I I I l I I I I Ref: DIS032S Date: 8/12/04 Time: 11:17:32 School: 033 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE BOONE PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL -===--------------------------------------------------==------------------------ 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 -===------------------------------=-------------------===--=-------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 Og_  0 0 .0% 0 Og_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 161 78.9% 38 18.6% 5 2.5% 0 .0% 204 57 17 3 0 77 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 Og_  0 0 .0% 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 Og_  0 0 .0% 0 Og_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 =---------------------------------------------------=-=========------=========== 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 =---------------------------------========--==================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU --------------------------=-------===============-=-=-=========-------===-====== 09 S.A.C. 0 Og_  0 0 .0% 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 27 79.4% 7 20.6% 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 34 16 4 0 0 20 11 BOYS CLUB 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 49 84.5% 9 15.5% 0 Og_  0 0 0 9-  0 58 15 3 0 0 18 17 EXPULSION 0 0 g_  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 g_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ----------------. -----------------=-------------------====================--==== 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 134- 83.2-% 31- 81.6-% 5- 100.0-% 0 . 0 % 170- 41- 13- 3- 0 57- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 49 . 0 % 9 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 58 49 9 0 0 18 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I I I Ref: DIS032S Date: 8/12/04 T irne : 11 : 1 7 : 3 2 School: 035 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE SEVENTH STREET ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ==--===-=====------==-=-==========--=--------------===-==----------------------- 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 =------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -======---=-=----===============----------------------=====--------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 22 91. 7% 2 8.3% 0 .0% 0 .0% 24 16 2 0 0 18 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 58 75.3% 19 24.7% 0 .0% 0 .0% 77 30 11 0 0 41 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ======---====----===========================--------==---==================-==-- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 53 79.1% 14 20.9% 0 .0% 0 .0% 67 34 9 0 0 43 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 72 74.2% 25 25.8% 0 .0% 0 .0% 97 40 17 0 0 57 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 31 140.9 % 12 600.0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 43 18 7 0 0 25 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 14 . 0 % 6 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 20 0 0 0 0 16 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I I I I l I I I I J Ref: Date: Time: DIS032S 8/12/04 11:17:32 School: 037 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE LYNCH DRIVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL =--====--=----------------=---===----------------------------------------------- 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 =---=====-------------============---------------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NSF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ==--================-----------====---------------=========--------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 12 70.6% 4 23.5% 1 5.9% 0 .0% 17 11 3 1 0 15 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 24 63.2% 12 31. 6% 0 2.6% 0 2.6% 38 15 8 1 1 25 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NSF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 21 77.8% 5 18.5% 0 .0% 1 3. 7% 27 13 3 0 1 17 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 23 50.0% 18 39.1% 0 .0% 5 10.9% 46 13 11 0 2 26 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NSF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU =---------------================================================================ 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 9 75.0 % 1 25.0 % 1- 100.0-% 1 100.0 % 10 2 0 1- 1 2 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 1- . 0 % 6 .0 % 1- . 0 % 4 . 0 % 8 0 1 1- 4 1 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I I I I I I J J Ref: DIS032S Date: 8/12/04 Time : 11 : 1 7 : 3 2 School: 040 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE MEADOW PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU =------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 28 70.0% 8 20.0% 4 10.0% 0 .0% 40 19 5 3 0 27 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU =-------------------=-========================================================== 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 38 44.7% 26 30.6% 18 21. 2% 3 3.5% 85 23 14 6 2 45 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I. C 1 16. 7% 4 66. 7% 1 16.7% 0 .0% 6 1 2 1 0 4 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ------------------======================-======================================= 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .o % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 10 35.7 % 18 225.0 % 14 350.0 % 3 300.0 % 45 4 9 3 2 18 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .o % 0 .o % 0 .o % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 1 . 0 % 4 .0 % 1 .0 % 0 . 0 % 6 1 4 1 0 4 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I I I I I Ref: DIS032S Date: 8/12/04 Time: 11:17:32 School: 041 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE NORTH HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU ========-------=====================-----=====--==============------------------ 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 10 52.6% 0 .0% 8 42.1% 1 5.3% 19 8 0 6 1 15 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 31 60.8% 2 3.9% 0 31. 4% 0 3.9% 51 15 2 11 2 30 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------======================================================= 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 4 50.0% 0 .0% 4 50.0% 0 .0% 8 2 0 3 0 5 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 18 72. 0% 2 8.0% 5 20.0% 0 .0% 25 12 2 5 0 19 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ----------------------=-=====---=--=-=---=====--================================ 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 6- 60.0-% 0 . 0 % 4- 50.0-% 1- 100.0-% 11- 6- 0 3- 1- 10- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 13- . 0 % 0 .0 % 11- . 0 % 2- . 0 % 26- 0 0 11- 2- 11- 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 8/12/04 Time: 11:17:32 School: 042 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ==-=================================-==--------------=--------------------====== 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 ===-=================================---------------====------------------=====- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU =-===---------====================---------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 Og.  0 0 Og.  0 0 Og.  0 0 Og.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 54 85.7% 7 11.1% 2 3.2% 0 Og.  0 63 17 5 2 0 24 11 BOYS CLUB 0 Og.  0 0 Og.  0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I. C. 0 .0% 0 Og.  0 0 .0% 0 Og.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 Og.  0 0 Og.  0 0 Og.  0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 ==------------===========------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 Og.  0 0 .0% 0 Og.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 15 93.8% 0 .0% 1 6.3% 0 Og.  0 16 9 0 1 0 10 11 BOYS CLUB 0 Og.  0 0 Og.  0 0 .0% 0 Og.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I. C 0 .0% 0 Og.  0 0 0 g.  0 0 Og.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 Og.  0 0 Og.  0 0 0 g.  0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 39- 72. 2-% 7- 100.0-% 1- 50.0-% 0 .0 % 47- 8- 5- 1- 0 14- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .o % 0 .o % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .o % 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I Ref: DIS032S Date: 8/12/04 Time: 11:17:32 School: 043 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE PARK HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU ===----------------===========------------------------===----------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 11 64.7% 1 5.9% 5 29. 4% 0 .0% 17 8 1 5 0 14 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 . 0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 3 60.0% 0 .0% 0 20.0% 0 20.0% 5 3 0 1 1 5 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ------------------------=================================-====================== 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 1 10.0% 9 90.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 10 1 7 0 0 8 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 0 1 0 0 1 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 -----------=-=================================================================== COMPARISON ---------------================================================================= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -----------------=============================================================== 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 10- 90.9-% 8 800.0 % 5- 100.0-% 0 .0 % 7- 7- 6 5- 0 6- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 3- . 0 % 1 . 0 % 1- . 0 % 1- . 0 % 4- 1- 1 1- 1- 4- 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 8/12/04 Time: 11:17:32 School: 044 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ====-----------------------==--------------------------------------------------- 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NSF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ==------------------------=====------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 19 48. 7% 19 48.7% 1 2.6% 0 .0% 39 12 13 1 0 26 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 87 51. 8% 59 35.1% 0 11. 3% 0 1.8% 168 40 26 14 2 82 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 . 0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NSF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 . 0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 3 75.0% 1 25.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 4 2 1 0 0 3 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 13 59.1% 7 31. 8% 2 9.1% 0 .0% 22 10 6 2 0 18 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 . 0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON --------------================================================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NSF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ---------------================================================================= 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 16- 84.2-% 18- 94.7-% 1- 100.0-% 0 .0 % 35- 10- 12- 1- 0 23- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 74- .o % 52- . 0 % 17- . 0 % 3- .0 % 146- 1- 1- 17- 3- 64- 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I I I J J ] Ref: DIS032S Date: 8/12/04 Time : 11 : 1 7 : 3 2 School: 045 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE BELWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NSF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 0 g..  0 0 .0% 0 0 g..  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 7 77.8% 2 22.2% 0 Og..  0 0 .0% 9 2 1 0 0 3 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 Og..  0 0 .0% 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 0 9-  0 0 .0% 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NSF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 6 60.0% 4 40.0% 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 10 3 3 0 0 6 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 Og..  0 0 09-  0 0 .0% 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NSF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 1- 14.3-% 2 100.0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 1 1 2 0 0 3 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .o % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .o % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 I Ref: DIS032S Date: 8/12/04 Time : 11 : 1 7 : 3 2 School: 04 6 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL =------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 =-=-------------------==-====--------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU =------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 0 !l-  0 0 .0% 0 0 !l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 31 81.6% 4 10.5% 3 7.9% 0 O!l-  0 38 23 2 2 0 27 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 !l-  0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 0 !l-  0 0 .0% 0 0 !l-  0 0 0 !l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 0 !l-  0 0 .0% 0 0 !l-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 09-  0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 31 75.6% 5 12.2% 5 12.2% 0 O!l-  0 41 23 5 5 0 33 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 9-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 0 9-  0 0 O!l-  0 1 1 0 0 0 1 17 EXPULSION 0 0 9-  0 0 .0% 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 0 . 0 % 1 25.0 % 2 66.7 % 0 . 0 % 3 0 3 3 0 6 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 1 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 1 1 0 0 0 1 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 J J ] Ref: DIS032S Date: 8/12/04 Time: 11:17:32 School: 048 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE INDIAN HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ========================================================--=----=---------------- 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E. I.C. 17 EXPULSION 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 -----BM-----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 .0% 0 7 63.6% 3 0 .0% 0 7 50.0% 4 0 .0% 0 -----BF-----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 .0% 0 1 9 .1% 1 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 .0% 0 2 18.2% 2 0 .0% 0 0 50.0% 3 0 .0% 0 -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NSF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 .0% 0 1 9.1% 1 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 -----NSF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 0 11 7 0 0 14 7 0 0 ==============================================================---============-=- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 8 61. 5% 1 7.7% 3 23.1% 1 7.7% 13 4 1 3 1 9 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 9 36.0% 1 4.0% 10 40.0% 5 20.0% 25 6 1 6 4 17 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NSF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 1 14.3 % 0 . 0 % 1 50.0 % 0 . 0 % 2 1 0 1 0 2 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .o % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 2 . 0 % 1 . 0 % 3 . 0 % 5 . 0 % 11 0 1 3 5 10 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .o % 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I J North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Action 09: SAC 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 BM BF NBM NBF  '02-03 1903 1050 512 172  '03-04 1961 980 394 220 Ill '02-03  '03-04 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Action 10: Home Suspension BM BF NBM NBF  02-03 522 193 63 13  03-04 469 157 66 18 02-03  03-04 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Action 11: Boys Club BM BF NBM NBF  02-03 244 86 83 25  03-04 316 155 51 16 02-03  03-04 I J I J 1:] I J I 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Action 12: E. I. C. K-5 BM BF NBM NBF  01-02 342 164 67 29  02-03 253 97 52 11 02- 03 1 02 ()?\n-() y I J I I J I J I J I J I J I J 2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Action 17: Expulsion BM BF NBM NBF  02-03 2 0 2 0  03-04 2 0 2 0 02-03  03-04 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Action 09: SAC 1-  0.9-v 0 8-V 0.7-v O.\u0026amp;-v o.s-v 0.4-V 0.3-v 0.2-\" 0.1-\"' 0 BM BF NBM NBF  02-03 0 0 0 0 13 03-04 0 0 0 0 II 02-03 D 03-04 I J I I I I I I J I l I l 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Action 10: Home Suspension BM BF NBM NBF 02-03 401 93 41 2  03-04 228 83 33 6  02-03  03-04 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Action 11: Boys Club 1 _/ 0.9-v 0.8- 0.7-/ 0.6-v 0.5_/ 0.4-V 0.3-/ 0.2- 0.1 y 0 BM BF NBM NBF  02-03 0 0 0 0  03-04 0 0 0 0 02-03  03-04 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Action 12: E. I. C. K-5 BM BF NBM NBF  02-03 252 97 52 11  03-04 194 70 18 11 \\ 02-03  03-04 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Action 17: Expulsion 1 - 0.9_/ 0.8-\" 0.7-v 0.6-V o.s-  0.4-  0.3-v 0.2-v 0.1- 0 BM BF NBM NBF II 02-03 0 0 0 0 D 03-04 0 0 0 0 02-03 D 03-04 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools Action 09: SAC 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 BM BF NBM NBF  02-03 1296 742 327 107  03-04 1199 614 218 125 02-03  03-04 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools Action 10: Home Suspension BM BF NBM NBF  02-03 33 31 5 1 B 03-04 50 23 6 7 02-03  03-04 250 200 150 50 0 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools Action 11: Boys Club BM BF NBM NBF  02-03 165 60 53 18  03-04 246 125 33 11 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools Action 12: E. I. C. K-5 1-\" \"\"'---'-\" 0.9- 0.8- 0.7-/ ' 0.6-v ' 1, 0.5_/ 0.4- 0.3-  0.2-  0.1 _v 0 \" BM BF NBM NBF  02-03 0 0 0 0 0 03-04 1 0 0 0 02-03 D 03-04 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools Action 17: Expulsion BM BF NBM NBF  02-03 1 0 0 0  03-04 0 0 0 0 02-03 D 03-04 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 09: SAC BM BF NBM NBF 02-03 607 308 185 65 D 03-04 762 366 176 95 02-03  03-04 IJ I I I J ] J I I J I J I J [J [J I 1 I - J 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 10: Home Suspension BM BF NBM NBF  02-03 88 69 17 10  03-04 191 52 27 5 02-03 D 03-04 ] I I I l I 1 I i-1 IJ I J I 'l IJ I IJ 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 11: Boys Club BM BF NBM NBF  02-03 79 26 30 7 Gl 03-04 70 30 18 5 02-03  03-04 I l I North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 12: E. I. C. K-5 1--\" 0.9-v 0.8-\"' 0.7-L, 0.6- o.s_v 0.4-v 0.3- 0.2-\" 0.1 _v 0 BM BF NBM NBF  02-03 0 0 0 0  03-04 0 0 0 0 02-03 D 03-04 2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 17: Expulsion BM BF NBM NBF  02-03 1 0 2 0  03-04 2 0 2 0  02-03  03-04 .. \"' u North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 10 Year Comparison Action 09: SAC 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 BM BF NBM NBF D 94-95 869 460 411 126  95-96 1052 446 410 140  96-97 1264 55 469 142  97-98 1801 862 547 132  98-99 1443 718 458 138  99-00 1468 662 401 139 D 00-01 1092 556 267 69  01-02 1276 574 354 107 D 02-03 1903 1050 512 172  03-04 1961 980 394 220 D 94-95 1195-96 96-97  97-98  98-99  99-00 D 00-01  01-02 D 02-03 03-04 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 10 Year Comparison Action 10: Home Suspension 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 BM BF NBM NBF D 94-95 236 106 103 20  95-96 162 46 47 3  96-97 591 208 125 17  97-98 511 125 104 13  98-99 566 141 125 22  99-00 406 113 102 18 D 00-01 385 92 64 7  01-02 692 234 92 21 D 02-03 522 193 63 13 469 157 66 18  94-95  95-96 96-97  97-98  98-99  99-00  00-01  01-02  02-03 03-04 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 10 Year Comparison Action 11: Boys Club 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 BM BF NBM NBF  94-95 133 44 31 8  95-96 334 82 72 12  96-97 357 146 85 20  97-98 515 148 112 8  98-99 359 148 88 22  99-00 351 129 90 27 III 00-01 325 136 56 12  01-02 210 83 52 11 D 02-03 244 86 83 25  03-04 316 155 51 16 D 94-95  95-96  96-97  97-98  98-99  99-00 D 00-01  01-02 D 02-03 03-04 I I I I I I I I I I I I I l I North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 10 Year Comparison Action 12: E. I. C. K-5 1600 1400 1200 1000- 800- 600 400 200- ~ i Ir .lrfrb 0- --~ g ~ BM BF NBM NBF D 94-95 178 68 58 5  95-96 1563 492 510 71  96-97 154 30 32 3  97-98 0 0 0 0  98-99 211 106 27 6  99-00 246 63 75 16 D 00-01 162 55 40 21  01-02 342 164 67 29  02-03 252 97 52 11 le 03-04 195 70 18 11  94-95  95-96 96-97  97-98  98-99  99-00 D 00-01  01-02 D 02-03 03-04 ] ] J J IJ I I  I I I I I I I I I I I North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 10 Year Comparison Action 17: Expulsion 7...........-----r-----------------, 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 BM BF NBM NBF  94-95 7 0 1 0  95-96 2 1 0 2  96-97 3 7 0 0  97-98 6 5 0 0  98-99 7 2 1 1  99-00 3 0 2 0  00-01 3 0 5 3  01-02 1 0 2 1 D 02-03 2 0 2 0 D 94-95  95-96 96-97  97-98  98-99  99-00  00-01  01-02 D 02-03 03-04\nThis 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.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1075","title":"\"Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting\" agenda","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2003-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School board members","School boards","School superintendents","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["\"Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting\" agenda"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1075"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["386 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nRECEIVED JAN 2 2 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Agenda Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting January 2003 :- n.., ?-~ ~ C: .... !I: Oz 0~ 1g-\u0026lt; m-n\n,\n, C: -z\n,\n,n o--\u0026lt; .... i5 r-z nu, ~ :\u0026lt; ~ c13 ~ U) n 0 !I: !I: C: z  iz5 \"'\n,- I. 11. 111. IV. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS A. Call to Order B. Roll Call PROCEDURAL MATTERS A. Welcome to Guests BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGULAR MEETING January 23, 2003 5:30 p.m. 8. Performance - Mabe/vale Magnet Middle School Choir REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS: A. Superintendent's Citations 8. Partners in Education - New Partnerships Rockefeller Elementary and Early Childhood Magnet School - Anne Mangan Little Rock Job Corps - Tim Foley and Willie Jones C. Remarks from Citizens (persons who have signed up to speak) D. Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association E. Joshua lntervenors F. PTA Council REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS: A. Remarks from Board Members 8. Desegregation Update C. Budget Update D. Construction Report: Proposed Bond Projects E. Internal Auditors Report F. Technology Update 0\"0 \u0026gt;,-m::0 ,.. ,_-,: ii: Oz o\u0026gt; el~ m.., ::0 C: -z\non .o...' \"~\"' r-z C\")(/) ~ Regular Board Meeting January 23, 2003 Page 2 V. APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MATTERS: A. Minutes B. Personnel Changes C. Student Calendar, 2003-04 D. Superintendent's Evaluation/Contract Extension VI. INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES DIVISION: A. Completion of Program Evaluations VII. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION: VIII. BUSINESS SERVICES DIVISION: A. First Reading: Policy DGD - Visa Purchasing Pro-Card B. Agreement Between City of Little Rock and LRSD - Use of Facilities C. Donations of Property D. Financial Report IX. SCHOOL SERVICES DIVISION: X. DISTRICT OPERATIONS: XI. CLOSING REMARKS: A. Superintendent's Report: 1. Dates to Remember 2. Special Functions XII. EMPLOYEE HEARINGS XIII. ADJOURNMENT n~ ?\"-i::l ,r--,_- t!I: Oz o\u0026gt; el~ m-.,\n,c, C: -z\n,on o-t r- c5 r-z nv, ~ :\u0026lt; i::l i8 ~ V, 8 !C !I: C: z E c5 z V, I. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS CA.LL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL Ill. PROCEDURAL MATTERS STllnl'NT Pl'RS:nRIUNl\".I' Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITION PUBLIC COIIIIENTS rv. REPORTS/ COMMUNICATIONS A. REMARKS FROM BOARD MEMBERS To: From: Through: Subject: Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 January 23, 2003 Board of Directors Debbie Milam, Director, VIPS/Partners in Education ~ T. Kenneth James, Superintendent Partners in Education Program: New partnerships The Little Rock School District Partners in Education program is designed to develop strong relationships between the community and our schools. The partnership process encourages businesses, community agencies and private organizations to join with individual schools to enhance and support educational programs. Each partnership utilizes the resources of both the school and the business for their mutual benefit. The following schools and businesses have completed the requirements necessary to establish a partnership and are actively working together to accomplish their objectives. We recommend that the Board approve the following partnerships: Rockefeller Elementary and Early Childhood Magnet School and Little Rock Job Corps !1:1 0 m CJJ p C: ~ m fl a, C: 8 !!I C:\ng ?\nm :\u0026lt; ~ c'3 ::!l CJJ n 0 31: 31: C: z ~ z CJJ :,0 m 31:~ m~ 31: CJJ ~\nB :::oo CJJ:I: I ROCKEFELLER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL To: Debbie Milam, Director, VIPS/Partners in Education u From: ~Anne Mangan, Principal, Rockefeller School Subject: Partners in Education Program: New Partnership Date: December 12, 2002 Partnership Agreement Between Rockefeller Elementary and Early Childhood Magnet School And Little Rock Job Corps Rockefeller Elementary School commits to the following:  Share new educational strategies that would benefit students in job training.  Notify job corp. students about any on-site technology inservice training.  Provide opportunities for educational training for students in the work world.  Provide opportunity for students to participate in community service.  Allow students to work in their field of interest such as community relations or facility services.  Develop collaborative plans between community and school. Little Rock Job Corps commits to the following:  Tutoring for elementary school students  Lunch Buddy Program  Grounds Cleanup  Recess supervision  Screening for any workers under the age of 21 .  Survey students to determine interests.  Mr. Willie Jones will be the liaison between community organization and the school. VIPS commits to the following:  Background check on persons 21 of age or older  Training for any volunteer workers 700 i::ast 17th Street  Phone 447-6200  Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 _, \u0026lt; '54.n Individual Approach to a World if Knowledge\" TO: THROUGH: FROM: SUBJECT: January 23, 2003 Board of Directors T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools Bill Goodman, District Engineer f$.._ b January Construction Report, Bond Projects Construction started on January 7 for the interior renovation of Central High School. Twelve [12] construction phases are scheduled. Each construction phase consists of moving students from a wing on a floor to the portable classrooms. The moves are done between semesters so as to limit the disruption of students and teachers. Construction will take thirty-five [35] months, with completion in December 2005. The exterior renovation of Central High School was completed in December 2002. The exterior renovation included a new roof and the cleaning of the exterior masonry. This project was funded in part by a National Park Service grant, \"Save America's Treasures\" in the amount of $500,000. The purchase ofland at Central on the north side of Daisy Bates Drive has been completed. Engineers are designing a parking lot that will be an addition to the existing student parking lot. This will relieve the congestion of parked cars on the streets around the school. Construction is scheduled for completion in July. Construction for the media center addition to Wilson Elementary has begun. The project also consists of general renovation to the building, electrical upgrade to support technology, and correcting ADA problems. Call me at 44 7-1146 if you have any questions. 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-124-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 !.D., m\n:o z~ z ,m- :_n, -c.:,mo o::c \u0026gt;Z -tO m -\u0026lt; Facilitv Name Administration Central Franklin Hall Mabelvale MS Mann Otter Creek Romine Wilson CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JANUARY 23, 2003 BOND PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION Proiect Descriotion Cost Asbestos abatement $380,495 Renovation - Interior $10,200,266 Renovation $2,511,736 Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $8,637,709 Renovation $6,851,621 Partial Replacement $11,500,000 Repair surface water drain $25,000 Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $3,534,675 Renovation/exoansion $1,263,876 est. (\n()mp1euon Date Feb-03 Dec-05 Apr-03 May-03 Dec-03 Dec-03 Jan-03 Feb-03 Auo-03 BOND PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION WINTER/SPRING 2002-2003 Est Comp1euon Facilitv Name Proiect Descriotion Cost Date Administration Fire alarm $32,350 Mar-03 Baseline Renovation $953,520 Unknown Brady Addition/renovation $973,621 Jun-04 Carver Parking lot $111,742 Jul-03 Central Parking Student parking $50,000 Jul-03 Central/Quigley Stadium light repair \u0026amp; electrical repair $100,000 Jul-03 Dunbar Renovation/addition $6,161,950 Dec-04 Facility Services Fire alarm $12,000 Jun-03 6 classroom addition \u0026amp; cafeteria/music J. A. Fair room addition $3,155,640 Mar-04 Forest Park Replace window units w/central HVAC $485,258 Aug-03 McClellan Classroom Addition $2,155,622 Mar-03 Parkview Addition $2,121,226 Mar-04 Procurement Fire alarm $25,000 Jun-03 Pulaski Hgts. Elem Renovation $1,193,259 Dec-04 fulaski Hgts. MS Renovation $3,755,041 Dec-04 -- Southwest Drainage corrections $56,402 Jun-03 Student Assignment 1 ~ire alarm $9,000 Jun-03 Tech Ctr/ Metro Renovation Addition/Renovation - Phase II $2,725,000 Feb-04 Williams 1 Renovation $2,106,492 Dec-03 Williams I Parking expansions $183,717 Dec-03 Wilson Parking Expansion I $110,000 Jun-03 BOND PROJECTS PLANNING STARTED CONST. DATE TO BE DETERMINED t:st (.\nomp1euon Facilitv Name Proiect Descriotion Cost Date J. A. Fair Roof repairs $391,871 Unknown Forest Park Diagonal parking $111,742 Unknown Pulaski Hgts. MS ~ nergy monitoring system installation Unknown Southwest dition $2,774,946 Unknown Wakefield build $4,750,000 Jun-04 Wilson ergy monitoring system installation Unknown Woodruff Parkina addition $193,777 Unknown CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JANUARY 23, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Est. comp1euon Facility Name Proiect Descriotion Cost Date Administration Annex Energy monitoring system installation May-02 Alternative Leaming Ctr. Energy monitoring system installation $15,160 Oct-01 Alternative Learning Ctr. Energy efficient lighting $82,000 Dec-01 Badgett Partial asbestos abatement $237,237 Jul-01 Badgett Fire alarm $18,250 Aua-02 Bale Classroom addition/renovation $2,244,524 Dec-02 Bale Energy monitoring system Mar-02 Bale Partial roof replacement $269,587 Dec-01 Bale HVAC $664,587 Aug-01 Booker Energy efficient lighting $170,295 Apr-01 Booker Energy monitoring system installation $23,710 Oct-01 Booker Asbestos abatement $10,900 Feb-02 Booker Fire alarm $34,501 Mar-02 Brady Energy efficient lighting $80,593 Seo-02 Brady Asbestos abatement $345,072 Aug-02 Carver Energy monitoring system installation $14,480 May-01 Central Purchase land for school Unknown Dec-02 Central Roof \u0026amp; exterior renovations $2,000,000 Dec-02 Central Ceiling and wall repair $24,000 Oct-01 Central Fire Alarm System Design/Installation $80,876 Aug-01 Central Front landing tile repair $22,470 Aug-01 Cloverdale Elem. Energy efficient lighting $132,678 Jul-01 Cloverdale MS Energy efficient lighting $189,743 Jul-01_ Cloverdale MS Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $1,393,822 Nov-02 Dodd Energy efficient lighting $90,665 Aua-01 Dodd Asbestos abatement-ceiling tile $156,299 Jul-01 Dodd Replace roof top HV AC $215,570 Aug-02 Facilities Service Interior renovation $84,672 Mar-01 Fair Park HVAC renovation/fire alarm $315,956 Aor-02 - Fair Park Energy efficient lighting $90,162_'- Aug-01 Fair Park Asbestos abatement-ceiling $59,310 Aug-01 - J. A. Fair Energy efficient lighting $277,594 Apr-01 J. A. Fair j_Press box $10,784 Nov-00 J. A. Fair Security cameras -- - - $12,500 Jun-Q! Forest Park Energy efficient lighting - - $119,788 May-01 Fulbright Energy efficient lighting_ $134,463 Jun-01 Fulbright Energy monitoring system installation -~ $11,950 Aug-01 Fulbright Replace roof top HVAC units $107.~~ '- Aug-02 Fulbright Parking lot $140,000 Sep-02 ulbright Roof repairs $200,000 Oct-02 Gibbs Energy efficient lighting I $76,447 Apr-01 Gibbs - - Energy monitoring system installation I $11,770 Jul-01 Hall Asbestos abatement $168,222 Aug-01 Hall Energy efficient lighting $42,931 Jul-0-1 Hall Energy efficient lighting I $296,707 Apr-01 Hall Infrastructure improvements _ ~ $93,657-1 Aug-01 Hail - Feb-01 Intercom Hall 1 Securitv cameras - $1(),60ot- Jun-01 2 .!l.C, m\na ~z z m r- Facility Name Henderson Henderson Henderson Henderson IRC Jefferson Jefferson Laidlaw Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale MS Mann Mann Mann Mann Mann McClellan McClellan McClellan McClellan McDermott McDermott Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Metropolitan --- ~opolitan Metropolitan Mitchell f- Mitchell 1-Aftchell O-akhu-rst Otter Creek Otter Creek 'c5tiercreek -~- Otter Creek Otter Creek -Park-view Parkview Parkview Parkview - Parkview Parkview Procurement Pulaski Hgts. Elem Rightsell Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JANUARY 23, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Project Description Cost Energy efficient lighting $193,679 Roof replacement gym $107,835 Asbestos abatement Phase I $500,000 Asbestos abatement Phase 2 $250,000 Energy efficient lighting $109,136 Asbestos abatement $43,639 Renovation \u0026amp; fire alarm $1,630,000 Parking lot $269,588 Energy monitoring system installation $12,150 Replace HVAC units $300,000 Asbestos Abatement $107,000 Energy efficient lighting $106,598 Renovate bleachers $134,793 Asphalt walks The total $1.8 Walkway canopies million is what has Boiler replacement been used so far Fencing on the projects Partial demolition/portable classrooms listed completed for  Security cameras $36,300 Energy efficient lighting $303,614 Stadium stands repair $235,000 Intercom $46,000 Energy efficient lighting $79,411 Replace roof top HVAC units $476,000 Fire alarm $16,175 Asbestos abatement $253,412 Engergy efficient lighting I $88,297 Replace cooling tower $37,203 Replace shop vent system $20,000 Energy monitoring system installation $17,145 Energy efficient lighting __ $103,642 Energy monitoring system installation $16,695 Asbestos abatement $13,000 HVAC renovation $237,237 Energy monitoring system installation $10,695 Energ efficient lighting ---$81,828 Asbestos abatement $10,000 - -- Parking lot $138,029 -- 6 classroom addition $888,778 HVAC controls $210,000 Roof replacement $273,877 Exterior lights $10,784 ~ AC renovation \u0026amp; 700 area controls $301,938 ker replacement $120,000 _ _ Energy efficient lighting I $315,000 Energy monitoring system installation I $5,290 Move playground $17,000 Energy efficient lighting $84,898 Energy efficient lighting $137,004 Replace roof top HVAC $539,175 Parking addition $111,742 1:st. (.\nOmp1euon Date Jul-01 May-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Jul-02 Oct-01 Nov-02 Jul-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Aug-02 Dec-02 Aug-01 Dec-01 Dec-01 Oct-01 Sep-01 Aug-01 Jun-01 May-01 Aug-01 Feb-02 Feb-01 Aug-02 Jul-01 Aug-02 Dec-02 Dec-00 May-01 Aug-01 Apr-01 Jul-01 Jul-01 Aug..:Q!_ May-01 Apr-01 Aug-02 Aug-02 Oct-02 Jun-02 Sep-01 Nov-00 Aug-01 Aug-01 Jun-01 Jun-02 Dec-02 Apr-01 Mar-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 3 CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JANUARY 23, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name Proiect Descriotion Cost Romine Asbestos abatement $10,000 Security/Transportation Bus cameras $22,500 Southwest Asbestos abatement $28,138 Southwest Energy efficient lighting $168,719 Student Assignment Energy monitoring system installation $4,830 Tech Center Phase 1 Renovation $275,000 Technology Upgrade Upgrade phone system \u0026amp; data Terry Energy efficient lighting $73,850 Terry Driveway \u0026amp; Parking $83,484 Terry Media Center addition $704,932 Wakefield Security cameras $8,000 Wakefield Energy efficient lighting $74,776 Wakefield Demolition/Asbestos Abatement $200,000 Washington Security cameras $7,900 Washington Energy efficient lighting $165,281 Watson Energy monitoring system installation $8,530 Watson Asbestos abatement $182,241 Watson Energy efficient lighting $106,868 Watson Asbestos abatement $10,000 Watson Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $800,000 Western Hills Asbestos abatement $191,946 Western Hills Intercom $7,100 Western Hills Energy efficient lighting $106,000 Williams Energy efficient lighting $122,719 Woodruff Renovation $246,419 Est. completion Date Apr-02 Jun-01 Aug-00 Jan-02 Aug-02 Dec-01 Nov-02 Feb-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Jun-01 Feb-01 Nov-02 Jun-01 Apr-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Aug-02 Aug-02 Dec-01 Jul-01 Jun-01 Auo-02 .?.,' m\n:o is z z m r- !\" .z.. !B ~ ~ .., r-o \u0026gt;\n:o C: ... o a\n:o U\u0026gt; .:'.\".' c: m .., C'\u0026gt; 0 :c \u0026gt;Z iri~ ~ Current Projects:  New Network Little Rock School District Board of Directors Technology Update January 23, 2003 o Conversion to the new district network is being implemented site by site. Two to three sites per week are scheduled. o As each site comes on the network the benefits include:  Being able to share files and folders across the district  Managing routine maintenance and management from the Tech Center  Managing desktop troubleshooting from the Tech Center  Computer Purchases o Computers are being purchased to bring every school up to a 5:1 ratio of students to computers. Twenty-two schools will receive computers.  E-rate Applications o We have applied fore-rate funding for the 2003-2004 school year for the following:  WAN (wide area network)  Phone system maintenance  Local and long distance telephone service  Cellular and paging service  Servers  Switches  Wakefield cabling and phone system o We were recently notified that final payment is on the way fore-rate projects of the 2001-2002 school year. The district received approximately $1.6 million in e-rate funds for that year.  Technology Plan Update o Technology Planning Committee is meeting regularly to update the district's technology plan. o One component of the plan is an updated Acceptable Use Policy. o The plan is due to the state by April 15, 2003. !D \"ti m\na:, z~ z .m.... TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS January 23, 2002 Board of Education f#~everly Williams, Director, Human Resources T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools Personnel Changes I recommend the approval of the following personnel changes at the indicated positions, salaries and classifications. In accordance with AC.A. 6-17-1502, it is recommended that one additional year of probationary status is provided for all teachers who have been employed in a school district in this state for three (3) years. Teachers with an effective date of employment after August 19, 2002 are considered intern teachers. Personnel Changes Page 2 January 23, 2003 NAME Bateman, Robin Reason: Leaving City Boxley, Tracy Reason: Cert. Expired Duckery, Krystal Reason: Cert. Expired Fife, Vanessa Reason: Personal Goodman, Tamora Reason: Personal Pafford, Jennifer Reason: one Given Randall, Leigh Reason: Leaving City Rowland, Patricia Reason: None Given Shawarby, Tina Reason: Personal Stueart, Sam Reason: Personal POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE SALARY CLASS Resignationsff erminations Certified Employees English 8-9-00 1-04 FAIR 12-20-02 TCH925 Special Ed 8-13-01 4-02 DODD 1-7-03 SPE925 Algebra I 1-3-96 1-02 CENTRAL 1-6-03 TCH925 Kindergarten 8-9-00 1-03 RIGHTSELL 12-31-02 K925 ElemV 8-16-93 1-17 KING 1-10-03 TCH925 Special Ed 8-13-98 4-05 BALE 12-31-02 SPE925 Leaming Skills 8-7-02 1-02 BOOKER 1-10-03 TCH925 Secretary 8-7-95 39-19 OTTERCREEK 1-24-03 CLKl0 Spanish 8-7-02 1-01 CLOVERDALE MID 12-20-02 TCH925 History 6-9-87 6-21 CENTRAL 1-17-03 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 28588.00 31064.00 27056.00 27567.00 42339.00 33616.00 27056.00 27912.00 26546.00 53213.00 Personnel Changes Page 3 January 23, 2003 NAME Walker, Charles Reason: Leaving City Blackwell, Willie Carlisle, Holly Dobbins, William Field, Marie Moore, Garrick POSITION SCHOOL Social Studies ALC START DATE END DATE 9-16-97 12-19-03 New Certified Employees Biology 11-25-02 MCCLELLAN ElemV 1-6-03 PUL. HGTS. EL. English 1-6-02 PUL. HGTS. MID. Elem IV 1-6-03 WTI.,SON Social Studies 11-25-02 CLOVERDALE MID. SALARY CLASS 4-06 TCH925 6-11 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 4-12 TCH925 1-12 TCH925 4-01 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 34637.00 42524.00 annual 25470.10 prorated 26546.00 annual 13411.26 prorated 40763.00 annual 20593.81 prorated 36756.00 annual 18569.44 prorated 30553.00 annual 18299.97 prorated ~ a, C: CJ\u0026gt; z m g: CJ\u0026gt; m ~ m CJ\u0026gt; f\u0026gt; CJ\u0026gt; -\u0026lt; C: C g~ ~~,- m z C ~ C n\n,, Cc: ~-0 ~:-\u0026lt; s~~i ~ -\u0026lt; !'!?\noz - ,.,.~ -~0 z- OU\u0026gt; Cl\n-\u0026lt; ~~ E~  m -\u0026lt; CJ\u0026gt; 0z CJ\u0026gt; Personnel Changes Page 4 January 23, 2003 NAME Swanigan, Carrie Van Brunt, Debra Washington, Lapara Willis, Vora POSITION SCHOOL Elem I BASELINE Special Ed ROCKEFELLER English FAIR Elem I STEPHENS START DATE END DATE 1-6-03 12-3-02 12-18-02 1-6-03 SALARY CLASS 1-01 TCH925 2-12 SPE925 4-01 TCH925 1-05 TCH925 Resignationsfferminations Non-Certified Employees Colorigh, Mary Child Nutrition 10-9-01 1-02 Reason: None Given CLOVERDALE MID. 12-20-02 FSH5 Cyrus, William Maintenance 6-12-00 54-7 Reason: one Given FACILITY SERV. 1-9-03 ADN12 Dunning, Michael Instr. Aide 8-19-02 1-03 Reason: None Given FRANKLIN 1-9-03 INA925 ANNUAL SALARY 26546.00 annual 13411.26 prorated 38083.00 annual 34711.07 prorated 30553.00 annual 15913.02 prorated 29609.00 annual prorated 7340.00 30528.00 11635.00 Personnel Changes Page 5 January 23, 2003 NAME Flanigan, Keith Reason: Accepted Another Position Jackson, Lakeisha Reason: Abandonment Jackson, Rose Reason: Abandonment Laster, Othell Reason: Personal Reed, Delia Reason: Accepted Another Position Saine, Kenoris POSITION SCHOOL Instr. Aide SOUTHWEST Child Nutrition CARVER Child Nutrition PUL. HGTS. MID. Security Officer HALL Instr. Aide FAIR PARK Instr. Aide START DATE END DATE 1-25-01 1-9-03 9-9-02 12-17-02 9-3-02 12-10-02 8-8-02 12-12-02 8-28-00 1-5-03 4-16-96 Reason: Returning to School ACC 12-20-03 Value, Jacqueline Child Nutrition 9-9-02 Reason: Abandonment FAIR 12-3-02 White, Joann Instr. Aide 8-25-86 Reason: Deceased BRADY 12-28-02 White, Latonia Child Nutrition Mgr. 12-1-88 Reason: Personal CHIT.,D NUTRITION 12-25-02 Williams, Sarah Instr. Aide 3-10-80 Reason: Abandonment BRADY 12-9-02 Underwood, Dorothy Child Nutrition 6-1-79 Reason: Retired CHil.,D NUTRITION 1-31-03 SALARY CLASS 1-01 INA925 1-01 FSH5 1-01 FSH5 36-16 SOFR9 1-02 INA185 1-10 INA925 1-01 FSH5 1-04 INA185 2-01 FSMEAL 1-04 INA185 55-18 ADN12 ANNUAL SALARY 10577.00 7312.00 7312.00 16336.00 11106.00 14067.00 7312.00 12163.00 11469.00 12163.00 43680.00 ~ Ill C \"z' m \"\"'' \"m' ~ m \"' f\u0026gt; \"-\u0026lt;' C C g\n~,.. m z C ~ !=' Ou, Oc ::j~ ~- s~~~ m-\u0026lt; 3\n0 o:: z ?\u0026gt;~\n\",o0 -z 8~ ~~ c~  m is\"' z \"' Personnel Changes Page 6 January 23, 2003 NAME Avery, Frankie Barrenstine, Gary Farmer, Gilbert Gipson, Rickey Hagewood, John Harper, Michelle POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE SALARY CLASS New Non-Certified Employees Custodian 11-4-02 1-01 SOUTHWEST CUS12 Maintenance 12-16-02 51-07 FACILITY SERV. MA.INT. Custodian 9-19-02 1-04 SOUTHWEST CUS12 Custodian 12-9-02 1-01 TERRY CUS12 Custodian 12-9-02 1-01 FULBRIGHT CUS925 Instr. Aide 12-2-02 1-03 ACC INA925 ANNUAL SALARY 13399.00 annual 8552.55 prorated 27912.00 annual 14846.81 prorated 17824.00 annual 8552.55 prorated 13399.00 annual 7298.18 prorated 5164.50 annual 2919.07 prorated 11635.00 annual 6855.22 prorated Personnel Changes Page 7 January 23, 2003 NAME Harris, Nicholas Hunter, Roshuanda Johnson, Patrick Jones, Jessinca Murdock, Phyllis Patrick, Mildred Thomas, Anthony POSITION SCHOOL Maintenance FACILITY SERV. Custodian MCCLELLAN Custodian MANN Care START DATE END DATE 12-2-02 11-13-02 11-11-02 11-25-02 CLOVERDALE MID. Security Officer 12-2-02 HALL Instr. Aide 1-6-03 MABELV ALE MID. Custodian 11-11-02 MCCLELLAN SALARY CLASS 40-03 MAINT. 1-01 CUS928 1-01 CUS928 4-01 FSH5 1-05 SOFR9 1-07 INA925 1-01 CUS12 ANNUAL SALARY 17844.00 annual 10098.94 prorated 8971.56 annual 5801.61 prorated 8914.42 annual 5862.20 prorated 6.25 hourly 11764.00 annual 6980.84 prorated 13115.00 annual 6663.84 prorated 11901.70 annual 7394.25 prorated\n:ii \u0026gt; C 3: 1Z Ul ~ m Ul ~ a, C: Ul z m Ul Ul Uml ~ m Ul fl .U..l C: C g~ i~ hi z C\n\u0026gt;:o !=' 0 Ul 0 C: ::j\"O ~:-\u0026lt; s~~i m-\u0026lt; ~o 0~ z ii\"\ns \"\no0z- 8~ ~~ \u0026gt;\no E~ \u0026gt;m -\u0026lt; Ul 0 z Ul Personnel Changes Page 8 January 23, 2003 NAME Walls, Kenya Wold, Donald Phillips, Penny POSITION SCHOOL Secretary CLOVERDALE EL. Program Eval. Spec. CUR/LEARNING START DATE END DATE 12-20-02 1-6-03 Non-Certified Promotions Reimbursement Coor. 1-6-03 CHil.D NUTRITION SALARY CLASS 39-12 CLKl0 66-12 ADN12 52-16 AN12 ANNUAL SALARY 22656.00 annual 11607.01 prorated 50712.00 annual 25558.85 prorated 37650.00 annual 20196.26 prorated LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT CALENDAR 2003-2004 MONTH M T w TH M T w TH JULY 2 3 7 8 9 10 SDW AUGUST 4 5 6 7 SEPTEMBER 2 3 4 5 8 9 10 11 OCTOBER 2 3 6 7 8 9 AEA AEA NOVEMBER 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 DECEMBER 2 3 4 5 8 9 10 11 JANUARY'04 5 6 7 8 FEBRUARY 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 11 12 MARCH 2 3 4 5 8 9 10 11 APRIL 2 5 6 7 8 MAY 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 JUNE 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 Legend 1 st Day Students H [) End Quarter WO WV Winter Vacation SD sv Spring Vacation sow ER.PC Ear1y Release/Parent Cont. TCD ST DAY Student Days SNOtlVnlV/\\3 ooMd v S3:\u0026gt;IAM3S 1sNI lh # R NOtSN3lX3 l:\u0026gt;WlN0:\u0026gt; / N0llVnlVJ\\3 'ldns o F M T w TH F M 11 14 15 16 17 18 21 SD SD WD WD WD * II 12 13 14 15 18 SD 12 15 16 17 18 19 22 1421 R SD 10 13 14 15 16 17 20 14 17 18 19 20 12 15 16 17 18 1901 13 14 15 9 12 13 14 15 16 19 14 17 18 19 20 21 24 11 14 15 16 17 18 21 Holiday Non-Student WO!k Days Staff Development Staff Development-ADE Waiver T olal Contract Days Last Day Students Record Days 090 A:\u0026gt;ll0d =9NI0~ is~ 'V Proposal to Board ST ER T w TH F M T w TH F DAY H TCD PC 22 23 24 25 28 29 30 31 0 0 0 0 0 19 20 21 22 25 26 27 28 29 10 0 3 4 17 0 23 24 25 26 29 30 20 0 21 21 22 23 24 27 28 29 30 31 21 0 23 0 15 3 0 2 17 0 15 8 0 0 15 0 21 22 23 26 27 28 29 30 18 3 0 19 0 24 25 26 27 20 0 0 0 20 [133] R 23 24 25 26 29 30 31 17 5 0 18 0 SD SDW 20 21 22 23 26 27 28 29 30 20 0 0 2 22 0 # R 11751 25 26 27 28 19 0 20 0 22 23 24 25 29 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 175 22 7 10 192 2 STUDENTS DO NOT ATI'END ON THE DAYS SHADED ABOVE 1st Quarter = 42 student days 2nd Quarter = 48 student days 3rd Quarter = 43 student days 4th Quarter = 42 student days Jan 23, 2003 S3:\u0026gt;IAM3S SS3NISna 'Ill/\\ S3:\u0026gt;IAM3S 'NIW0V 'Iii\\ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Date: January 23, 2003 To: Board of Directors From: Bonnie Lesley, Ed.D. Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction Through: T. Kenneth James, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools Re: Completion of Program Evaluations Background Information The Compliance Team made a decision to contract out the eight remaining program evaluations that are due to the federal court by March 15, 2003, to three separate consulting firms. Each of the three has made a commitment to complete the assigned work by the end of January. In the event that any are submitted to us before the January meeting, we will place them on the agenda for the Board's review and approval for submission to the federal court. Otherwise, the Board will need to make these decisions in February. ~ \u0026gt; C 31:: ~ en m ~ m en ~ a, C: en z m eenn emn ~ (\") m en\n,,, 0 C 0 ~ z en Memorandum Date: To: Through: January 23, 2003 Board of Education T. Kenneth James, Superintendent Don Stewart, Chief Financial Officer Prepared by: Darral Paradis, Director, Procurement and Materials Management Subject: Background Proposed New Policy DGD: Visa Purchasing Card (Pro-Card) First Reading One of the areas discussed in February 2002 concerning potential budget reductions for the 2002-2003 school year was to reduce the cost associated with processing purchase orders, by implementing a purchasing card system. The attached policy is the first step in this transition. Our goal is to pilot the program with selected schools and departments for the remainder of the 2002-03 school year. Full implementation will be phased in over the next school year. District wide this program should: reduce costs associated with small dollar purchases(\u0026lt; $1,000)\nreduce paperwork\nimprove reportability and accountability and empower users. Details of the program are available in the LRSD Pro-Card Handbook. Fiscal Impact The District will be utilizing a contract secured by the State of Arkansas and will pay no charges for the use of the cards. The District will be eligible to participate in a rebate program administered by the State. The rebate program rewards participants with cash back dependent upon several variables including but not limited to timely payment and volume of purchases. In addition to the rebate, the actual productivity and costs savings to the District could be substantial. Recommendation It is recommended that the Board of Education approves the proposed new policy and the pilot and phase-in timelines detailed above. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: DGD VISA PURCHASING CARD (PRO-CARD) Schools and departments may apply to the Procurement Department for the issuance of Visa Purchasing Cards (Pro-Card) to authorized employees. The cards may be used for purchases of $1,000 or less within restricted limits established by the Procurement Department. All Pro-Cardholders must comply with the terms and conditions of the cardholder handbook and agreement approved by the Procurement Department. The location Principal or Director will issue cards to approved individuals. Pro-Cards are best assigned to individual staff members that make frequent, small dollar purchases. All authorized charges are the liability of the District. Adopted: Cross Reference: LRSD Pro-Card Handbook LRSD PRO-CARD HANDBOOK We hope you find our Procurement Card (PRO-CARD) program to be helpful in conducting everyday small dollar (less than $1,000) purchases for the District. The ProCard will simplify the purchasing process and reduce overall costs by reducing the number of purchase requisitions, purchase orders, petty cash transactions and other cumbersome forms of purchasing activity. Please read this handbook in its entirety. The handbook provides information regarding the Pro-Card process. Please do not hesitate to contact the Procurement Department for any questions regarding this program. LOST OR STOLEN CARD CARDHOLDERS: TO REPORT A LOST OR STOLEN CARD IMMEDIATELY CALL USBANKAT 1-800-344-5696 inform them this is a \"Purchasing Card\" NOTE: After contacting US Bank, please notify your Principal/Director and Location Liaison who will in turn contact Procurement. Page 1 PARTICIPANTS AND THEIR ROLES Procurement Dept. Financial Services School/Dept. Principal/Director Location Liaison Cardholder(s) Responsible for the overall administration of the program and will conduct random audits in conjunction with the internal audit department to ensure rule adherence. Responsible for account code reconciliation and payment to US Bank, provider of the Pro-Card. Participates in the setup decisions, such as spending limits for cardholders under their authority. Responsible for reviewing and approving all cardholder purchases for their location and signing off on cardholder monthly statements. Responsible for reporting any violations to the Procurement Department. Person at location delegated by Principal/Director and trained by Procurement to manage the program for that location. Responsible for reviewing the monthly account statements and reallocating transactions from the default account and object code to the final account code. Will have access to the on-line web based software to accomplish this. Acquire authorized and allowable goods for the District using the Pro-card. Ensure there is documentation for each transaction. Reconcile and sign the monthly account statement for any cycle in which transactions have been made. Responsible for immediately reporting a lost/stolen card To US Bank at 1-800-344-5696, the Principal/Director and Location Liaison. Page2 GENERAL KEY INFORMATION The program helps to eliminate the use of local, activity and regular purchase orders for items estimated to cost less than $1,000. The program is not intended to avoid or bypass appropriate purchasing or payment procedures. The program is intended to complement LRSD's existing processes. The program is not intended to replace LRSD's current travel and entertainment program. The card is NOT for personal use. The program can be used for both purchases at a vendor location and for mail, Internet or fax orders. (DO NOT PROVIDE YOUR PRO-CARD NUMBER TO ANYONE OTHER THAN A BONA FIDE VISA CARD VENDOR). The US Bank Pro-Card may be used at any vendor who accepts the Visa card throughout the United States. If a Vendor requires that an account be set up, please coordinate with Procurement BEFORE completing an application. You are responsible for the security of your card and the transactions made with the card. The card is issued in your name and it will be assumed that any purchases made with the card will have been made by you. HOW TO OBTAIN A CARD After receiving approval to be a cardholder from your Principal/Director, you must attend a Pro-Card training class conducted by Procurement. At the class, you will receive a training certificate, a Pro-Card New Account Application Form and an Agreement Form for the Usage of the Visa Pro-Card. Ask your Principal/Director to sign the Agreement Form and forward it along with your New Account Application. Your Principal/Director's signature is required on the Agreement Form prior to card issuance. Your card will be issued to your Location Liaison who will store and check-out to you as approved by the Principal/Director. All card requests must be processed through the Procurement Department. Before first using your card, call the 1-800 telephone number on the label attached to your card to activate its use, sign the back and keep it in a secure place. Although the card is issued in your name, it is the property of the District and is only to be used for approved District purchases. Page 3 !.=.,' z \u0026gt;z C') \u0026gt; ~ ~ C') 5 en z C) ill I en !,\") C 0 .f.\n.. 0z en Using the Pro-Card 1. Obtain Approval: Before placing an order, obtain written approval from your Principal/Director by completing a Pro-Card Expenditure Request Form. Once the form is approved, take it to your Location Liaison who will sign the form and issue out your card. Return your card to your Location Liaison after the transaction is complete and attach the request form to your receipt/proof of purchase documentation. 2. Place The Order: The cardholder may visit, call, fax, email or order via the Internet a vendor to initiate a purchase. Request that the vendor charge the purchase to your purchasing card or card number. If a vendor requires that an account be set up, please coordinate with Procurement BEFORE completing an application. Do not send your card number over the Internet without ensuring the LINE IS SECURE. Inform the vendor of the following:  You are with the LRSD and should be accorded any applicable discounts.  Your name as it appears on the card.  Specific delivery information. Your name should be on the shipping label. \"Visa Purchase\" should be on the shipping label or package.  Your phone number.  Ensure the delivery is FOB destination.  Request documentation showing description and cost of item.  NOTIFY VENDORS NOT TO SUBMIT INVOICES TO PROCUREMENT OR FINANCIAL SERVICES.  COD deliveries are not allowed.  Deliveries will not be accepted at the LRSD Supply Center. NOTE: As a cardholder, we encourage you to rotate vendor sources. It is the policy of the Little Rock School District that minority business enterprises shall have the maximum opportunity to participate in the District's purchasing process. Therefore, the District encourages all minority businesses to compete for goods, services, and construction contracts.   Page4 3. Keep A Record Of All Orders Placed: Keeping a record of the orders you place will allow you to follow-up on late deliveries, order problems, partial shipments and other order issues. Include the following information:  Vendorname/ID.  Date of purchase.  Description and quantity of item(s) purchased.  Total cost of order.  Per item cost if available from the vendor. 4. Receive and Inspect Goods and Services: Inspect all goods and services IMMEDIATELY upon receipt or completion of service. If there is a problem with the order or the service conducted, contact the vendor immediately. Keep notes on problems and their resolution including names, dates and conversation results. Vendors are not permitted to bill an account until the goods or services are delivered. This is Arkansas State law. 5. Document Each Transaction: Each transaction including Internet purchases MUST have valid and complete source documentation from the vendor. Valid source documentation may include:  A receipt and card transaction slip from the vendor.  A packing slip with prices.  An invoice showing credit card payment If a vendor did not provide documentation, contact the vendor directly to provide it. If the vendor will not provide documentation, you must provide your information contained in your Record of Orders Placed and a justification for not having the transaction documentation. If original documentation is lost, contact the vendor directly to provide it. If the vendor will not provide the documentation, you must provide the information in your Record of Orders Placed and a justification for the purchases and the loss of documentation. LACK OF ORIGINAL DOCUMENTATION IS CONSIDERED TO BE A CARDHOLDER VIOLATION. Page 5 \u0026gt;\u0026lt; j\u0026gt;\u0026lt;~ o::c s~! 8 r- .... en l5m z::o en ?i m en ~ (\") 5 en z C) Rl I en r-\u0026gt; 8 .~... 0z en 6. Returns And/Or Exchanges:  Before item(s) are shipped, make arrangements with the vendor for the possible return ofitem(s).  Vendors must credit returns and charge for a new transaction. Exchange oflike items for a different color may not require a credit transaction.  Do not allow a vendor to refund cash for a credit return. It is a vendor violation. It is also a cardholder violation to accept cash as a refund for a credit purchase.  Document all returns and exchanges. This information may be needed if a formal dispute occurs. 7. Account Reconciliation: The monthly cycle ends on 5th of each month. Three to Five days after the end of the cycle, US Bank will send each cardholder a statement identifying the transactions made against the card during the previous billing cycle. The statement will be mailed to the address identified on the New Account Application. Review the statement for accuracy and attach the sales receipts and ProCard Request Forms to the back of the statement in the order in which they appear on the statement. Send the reconciled statement and attached documentation to your Location Liaison for review and approval. The statement will be reviewed/signed by both the Location Liaison and Principal/Director and forwarded to Financial Services for payment processing and filing for reference and/or audit purposes. If your statement is lost or stolen, immediately call US Bank Customer Service at 1- 800-344-5696. YOUR activity may be audited at any time. You are responsible for the transactions identified on your statement. If an error is discovered, you may be asked about the error or dispute resolution process. 8. Statement Accounting: The District default account codes charged will be dependent on the type of purchase made. For those purchases that need to be directed to different cost accounts, the Location Liaison will be responsible for reallocating transactions online from the default accounts and object codes to the final codes. 9. Payment: LRSD Financial Services Department will pay US Bank. You will not be required to pay your Monthly Pro-Card Statement using your own personal funds. Your Principal/Director's signature will be required to verify his/her approval of your monthly purchases upon receipt of your statement. The program does not impact your personal credit rating in any way. Page 6 10. Sales and Use Tax: Tax authorities usually require vendors to include sales but not use tax at the time you purchase goods. The amount is dependent on a variety of factors, including the state, county and city where you are purchasing the goods. A vendor within the state of Arkansas must charge the applicable tax to the transaction. Out of state vendors are to be instructed not to charge taxes. LRSD Financial Services will adjust the state tax payment for out of state purchases. 11. Disputes:  Examples of how Disputed billing can result: a. Failure to receive goods or materials. b. Fraud or misuse. c. Altered charges, incorrect amounts, duplicate charges, statement amounts don't match receipts. d. Defective merchandise credits not processed. e. Quality or service issues.  The cardholder is responsible for contacting and following up with the vendor on any erroneous charges or disputed items as soon as possible. Most issues can be resolved in this way. If the vendor agrees that an error has been made, he will credit your account.  If the cardholder is unable to reach an agreement with the vendor, the next step is to contact the Procurement Department.  US Bank must be notified of any disputed items within 60 days of the last cycle in which the item was purchased.  In the event of fraud, notify the Procurement Department immediately. 12.Daily On-Line Transaction Review: US Bank provides web based on-line software that will allow authorized users to review cardholder transactions on a daily basis. The Principal/Director will have the ability to review transactions for those individual cardholders under their authority. Procurement, Internal Audit and other approved Administrators will have the authority to view any cardholder's account. 13. Lost or Stolen Cards: The US Bank Pro-Card is District property and should be secured just as personal credit cards. If your card is lost or stolen, contact US Bank Customer Service at 1-800-344-5696 to cancel the card immediately. Also notify your Principal/Director and Location Liaison. The Location Liaison will notify the Procurement Department immediately upon notification from cardholder. Promptly send by mail or fax a written confirmation of the request for cancellation of the card. Upon receipt of your call, further use of the card will be blocked. Prompt action in these circumstances can reduce the LRSD's liability for fraudulent charges. Page 7 r\u0026gt; C 0z \u0026gt; :::! 0 z tJ) Purchasing Card Program Restrictions. Violations and Consequences RESTRICTIONS: Each card is assigned a single purchase limit. No transaction may exceed your single purchase limit in value. In addition, each card has been assigned an individual monthly credit limit that cannot be exceeded. Some vendors have been \"blocked\" from usage in the program. If a card is presented to any of these vendors, the transaction will be declined. Most vendors that you currently utilize as a source for products or services will accept your card. If you are declined and believe the decline should not have occurred, call the 800 number on your card. US Bank Customer Service will determine if you were declined because of vendor blocking or exceeding the monthly credit limit or single-purchase limit imposed on the card. Procurement may be contacted for further resolution. VIOLATIONS \u0026amp; CONSEQUENCES: Abuse and/or willful or negligent misuse of the Pro-Card will be investigated and may result in cancellation of the card and could result in termination of employment and/or criminal prosecution permitted by law. Any violation must be documented via memo by the PrincipaVDirector or Procurement with a copy provided to the card holder (informing them of an investigation) for any of the following violations:  Personal, cash or cash type purchases: the District must be reimbursed immediately.  Split purchases (items costing more than $1,000, split between two or more transactions.  Failure to provide original documentation of purchases.  Inappropriate/non-approved purchases as listed below. Non-approved Pro-Card Uses Any personal use Capital Equipment Dues Registrations Fuel Telecommunications Medical/ Ambulance ATM, Cash Advances Travel \u0026amp; Entertainment Charitable Organizations/Donations Consultant Services Any purchase using grant or Title I funds Professional Services Page8 Government Services Supply items otherwise available through the District's Supply Center Any item(s) for which the District has a contract - examples: copiers, technology - hardware, printers, and audiovisual equipment Technology software Alcoholic beverages or products with alcoholic content Tobacco products Any item exceeding the cost limit of a single purchase Any product or service for which the use of District funds would normally be considered inappropriate In Summary The program is designed to be simple and easy to use, providing the goods you need to perform your job. As we continue to improve the way we conduct business, leading to greater cost savings and processing efficiencies, your use of this program will be a significant component in LRSD's overall success. If you have any questions about the program or need additional information, please contact your Location Liaison. Page 9 ?\u0026lt; ?\u0026lt;~ o::c\nRo ~:\n2 -lu, c5m z\n:o Cl) s (\") m Cl) 0 0 0 .f.\n.. z0 Cl) Frequentlv Asked Questions 1. How do I get my card? Answer: The District is preparing a training program for all card users. A card user MUST attend the training class before being eligible for a card. At the training class, the employee will be provided an enrollment packet. Included in the packet will be the ProCard New Account Application and the Employee Usage Agreement form. Once you have attended training, completed and signed the Pro-Card New Account Application and the Employee Usage Agreement form have your Principal/Director forward the documents to the Procurement Department. Your card will be sent directly to the address indicated on your application. Allow 7-10 days for delivery. 2. How do I use my card? Answer: Once you receive your card in the mail, simply call the 1-800 number located on the affixed sticker. Once activated, your card should be used in place of your previous purchasing method for all appropriate items. 3. What should I do if my card is lost or stolen? Answer: Immediately call the US Bank 24-hour customer service toll free number at 1- 800-344-5696. Your Principal/Director and Location Liaison should also be notified. The Location Liaison will notify Procurement. Any verbal requests must be followed up by a written confirmation by mail or fax requesting card cancellation. 4. How do I reconcile my statement? Answer: Match your receipts against your monthly statement to ensure that the two match. If there is a transaction which needs to be disputed either call the vendor to reconcile or contact Procurement. Page 10 LOST OR STOLEN CARD CARDHOLDERS: TO REPORT A LOST OR STOLEN CARD IMMEDIATELY CALL USBANKAT 1-800-344-5696 inform them this is a \"Purchasing Card\" OTE: After contacting US Bank, please notify your Principal/Director and Location Liaison who will in turn contact Procurement. !=' \"Tl z ~ C') \u0026gt;,.... u, ~ C') 0 u, z C) ill I u, !\") 8 z .\u0026gt;.. 0z u, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Date: January 23, 2003 To: Board of Directors From: Re: T. Kenneth James, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools Agreement Between the City of Little Rock and the Little Rock School District - Use of Facilities Background Information: Mr. Bryan Day has worked with District representatives to formulate the proposed agreement. The agreement reflects a five-year commitment to promote an adequate program of community education and recreation utilizing City and District facilities. Legal counsel has reviewed this document. Fiscal Impact: Costs will be paid from existing City and District resources. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board of Directors approve the agreement as submitted. ~ (\") 5 \"z' C) ~ I \"' ~\n= \u0026gt;\u0026lt; \n= 0::,:: 5~ C: :0 ~z 3:::: C) men .z... . !\"' C 0 ! 0 z \"' AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK AND THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , 2002, by --- ----- and between the CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, a municipal corporation, hereinafter called \"City\", and the LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, hereinafter called \"District\". WITNESSE TH: WHEREAS, the governing bodies of the City and the District are mutually interested in an adequate program of community education and recreation which can best serve the citizenry most economically\nand WHEREAS, full cooperation between the City and the District is necessary to achieve the best service and creation of a \"City in a Park\" with the least possible expenditure of public funds\nand WHEREAS, the governing bodies of the City and the District desire to appoint representatives to examine possibilities for cooperation between the City and the District in recreation programming and leisure opportunities and services\nand WHEREAS, the City of Little Rock will appoint representatives of the City to serve on a recreation steering committee to examine possibilities for cooperation between the City and the District in recreation programming and leisure opportunities and services\nand WHEREAS, the Little Rock School District will appoint representatives of the District to serve on a recreation steering committee to examine possibilities for cooperation between the City and the District in recreation programming and leisure opportunities and services. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, said City and said District do now agree to cooperate with each other in carrying out the above purposes, and to that end do agree as follows: 1. The District will make available to the City for community recreational activities certain school playground areas to help the City accomplish its \"City in a Park\" vision, subject to the approval of the Superintendent of Schools of the District, or his delegate. 2. The City will make available to the District certain City parks and recreational facilities for school events, activities and programs, subject to the approval of the Director of Little Rock Parks and Recreation, or his delegate. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. The District agrees to allow the City to use other selected school facilities which are suitable for community recreation, including, but not limited to, computer class rooms, cafeterias, auditoriums, tennis courts, football fields, track fields, gymnasiums, classrooms, subject to the approval of the Superintendent of Schools, or his delegate. A schedule of dates for the use of the District school facilities will be arranged by the parties as to avoid conflict between school and recreation use\nthat in the scheduling of said facilities, school events and programs shall have first priority and recreation programs, established by little Rock Parks and Recreation, shall have second priority, and any other events by other groups or agencies shall have third priority. Whenever possible, the scheduled dates shall be provided to the District prior to December 1\" of the preceding calendar year. A schedule of dates for the use of the City facilities will be worked out in advar1ce by the parties, and that this schedule will be arranged as to avoid conflict between recreation and school use\nthat in the scheduling of said facilities, Little Rock Parks and Recreation activities shall have first priority, and school events and programs shall have second priority, and any other events by other groups or agencies shall have third priority. Whenever possible, the scheduled dates shall be provided to the City prior to December 1st of the preceding calendar year. The City and District shall cooperate to make information about their respective individual and joint programs available to the public. The City's Board of Directors and the Board of Directors of the District have appointed a recreation steering committee to continue searching for new areas of cooperation, and to that end shall meet at least quarterly along with interested community groups, and appropriate City and District administrative officials, using the procedures developed for the group known as the Recreation Steering Committee. Minutes of the meetings shall be provided to the superintendent of schools of the District and Director of Little Rock Parks and Recreation. The committee will make an annual report to the City Board of Directors and little Rock School District Board. The Recreation Steering Committee will: 1.) Research and implement, where possible, best practice models from around the country. - 2 - ?\u0026lt; ?\u0026lt;~ o:c ~o ~~ --4u, c5m ~~ ~ 0 m Cl)\n= \u0026gt;\u0026lt; \u0026gt;\n= O:z:: 5~ C:\n:o ~z .=mz.=. CCII) ~ 0 0 ! 0z Cl) 2.) Develop and implement, where possible, fitness and wellness programs that include regular health screens, health promotion classes and fitness classes. 3.) Expand educational activities and programs, where possible, to include computer, arts, crafts, and humanities classes. 8. The City and the District mutually agree that the sponsor of recreation activities will provide funds to pay for the necessary building, security and custodial services for their respective facilities, and that these services shall, in general be performed by the City personnel when City facilities are used and by District personnel when District facilities are used. 9. The City and the District agree that individual agreements will be prepared between the parties for the use of each facility to clarify responsibilities of both parties. 10. The parties shall jointly conduct a review of the terms of this agreement annually. 11. The terms of this agreement may be altered upon mutual consent of the Boards of the City and the District. Any such modifications to this agreement shall be in writing, signed by the parties hereto. 12. The term of this agreement shall be five (5) years. The parties shall have an option to renew the agreement annually\nprovided, however, that either party shall have the right to terminate this agreement for any reason whatsoever, without penalty, upon giving thirty (30) calendar days written notice to the other party. 13. The District and the City agree to comply with all applicable federal and state laws regarding non-discrimination, including non-discrimination in employment, and specifically agrees not to unlawfully discriminate against any participant because of race, creed, religion, disability, sex or national origin. 14. 15. 16. 17. Independent Contractor. It is expressly agreed that the District and the City are acting as an independent contractors in performing the duties specified herein. Immunity. The City and the District shall rely on tort immunity to the extent it is available to them. This Agreement is governed by the laws of the state of Arkansas. The District and the City agree to comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations, and ordinances and to require such compliance in - 3 - 18. 19. contractual agreements with subcontractors. The District and the City further agree to comply with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Equal Employment Opportunity Act, and regulations promulgated thereunder, and to require such compliance in contractual agreements with subcontractors. The officials who executed this Agreement hereby represent and warrant that they have full and complete authority to act on behalf of the City and the District, and that by their signatures below, the terms and provisions hereof, constitute valid and enforceable obligations of each. This Agreement shall be executed in the original, and any number of executed copies. Any copy of this Agreement so executed shall be deemed an original and shall be deemed authentic for any other use. 20. The terms of this Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto, their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assignees. 21. This Agreement and the documents referenced or incorporated herein contain the complete and entire agreement of the parties respecting the transactions contemplated herein, and supersede all prior negotiations, agreements, representations, and understandings, if any, among the parties regarding such matters. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed in their behalf. [Signatures on Next Page] -4- \u0026gt;\u0026lt; i= \u0026gt;\u0026lt; \u0026gt;\n=: C:,\n: 5~ C: XI ~:i: 3.zm.:. mG) CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Bruce Moore City Manager Date: ___________ _ ATTEST: Nancy Wood City Clerk Date: ___________ _ APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: Thomas M. Carpenter, City Attorney By: __________ _ Beth Blevins Carpenter Deputy City Attorney II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II - 5 - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT T. Kenneth James, Ed.D. Superintendent Date: ___________ _ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: TO: January 23, 2003 Board of Education FROM: ~arral Paradis, Director, Procurement and Materials Mgmt. THROUGH: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Donations of Property Attached are requests to donate property to the Little Rock School District as follows: School/Degartment Item Donor Jefferson Elementary Pizza, valued at approximately Mr. Harold Beckwith School $100.00, for the faculty and staff McClellan Community $150.00 cash for the Boy's Mr. Alvin Smith of High School baseball program State Farm Insurance McClellan Community $50.00 cash for the Boy's Dr. Lee Hinson, DDS High School baseball program McClellan Community $250.00 cash for the Boy's Mr. Tom Dillon of High School baseball program Dillon Enterprises, Inc. McClellan Community $100.00 cash for the Boy's Mr. Everett Martindale, High School baseball program Attorney at Law McClellan Community $100.00 cash Staley, Inc. High School Metropolitan Career- 2003 Dodge Durango, valued Daimler-Chrysler Corp. Technical Center $27,329.00, for the automotive through a partnership with technology program AYES i!:S .~.., z \u0026gt;z C') ,... u, ~ ,C..'.) 0 u, z C) Al f\n~ u,\n=: \u0026gt;\u0026lt; ~\n=: '-:,: 0~ c=\n,o ~z :I: C) mU\u0026gt; .z.. . Board of Education January 23, 2003 Page 2 School/Department Little Rock School District Little Rock School District Welfare Fund 24 office cubicle workstations valued at approximately $400.00 per unit. Total value of donation is approximately $9,600.00. $110.00 cash to be used to purchase school clothing for deserving students University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service Bale Elementary School's Peer Helper Service Project It is recommended that these donation requests be approved in accordance with the policies of the Board. JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL December 12, 2002 To: From: Subject: Darral Paradis, Director Procurement and Materials Management Roberta Mannon, Principal j!.ri. Jefferson Elementary School Donation Mr. Harold Beckwith, 365 . Ridge Rd., Little Rock, AR 72207, donated pizza to the Jefferson Faculty and staff. The value of the pizza was approximately $100.00 .. It is recommended that this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. 2600 N. McKinley Street Phone 671-6281 Little Rock. A rkansas 72207 JOHN L. MCCLELLAN COMMUNITY HIGH SCHOOL TO: FROM: RE: DATE: A 8USINSs/COMMUNICATIONS MAGNET Darrell Paradis, Director of Procurement Larry Buck, Principai$ Donations December 16, 2002 I would like to recommend that the following donations to McClellan High School be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District: A donation of $150.00 from Alvin Smith, State Farm Insurance, 11701 I-30, Suite 500, Little Rock, AR 72209 for our Boy's baseball program. A donation of $50.00 from Dr. Lee Hinson, DDS, 5304 Mabel vale Pike, Little Rock, AR 72209 for our Boy's baseball program. A donation of $250.00 from Tom Dillon, Dillon Enterprises, Inc., 4805 Westwood, Little Rock, AR 72204 for our Boy's baseball program. A donation of $100.00 from Everett Martindale, Attorney at Law, 902 W. 2 nd St., Little Rock, AR 72201 for our Boy's baseball program. A donation of $100.00 from Staley, Inc., 3400 J.E. Davis Dr., Little Rock, AR 72209 DEC 1 'i 22C2 9417 Geyer Sprinas Road  Phnn~ 447-?1nn  LittlP. Rnr.k Arbnc::::ic:: 7??nQ - December 16, 2002 Mr. Darral Paradis, Director Procurement Department Little Rock School District Mr. Paradis: The Automotive Technology program at Metropolitan Career/Technical Center is in Partnership with AYES (Automotive Youth Education System) as part of that partnership several Dealerships and Manufacturers will donate vehicles to our program. The Daimler-Chrysler Donation Department in Newark, Delaware would like to donate a 2003 Dodge Durango, Valued at $27,329.00 to Metropolitan. The Vehicle will be delivered to our campus from Newark assembly line in Newark, Delaware. I would like to recommend that this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. Yours truly, ~Qt=_ Michael Pterson, Principal Metropolitan Career/Technical Center r- ,, i,.  ,. I\". 1 - ,.r \" t ~ : -~\\-:: .!, ...  ...  \\. ... Metropolitan Career-Technical Center 7701 Scott Hamilton Drive  Little Rock, Arkansas 72209  (501) 565-8465 i!:S ~ (\") 5 \"z' Cl i!ll I \"'\n= \u0026gt;\u0026lt; ~== ._:,: 0~ c::\ni:, ~z :I: Cl zm cn .... View Agreement Letter View Press Release View Tax Form Agreement Accepted, Thank you ... You must print off the Tax Form, sign it, and fax it in to Sherri Beckwith/Charles Irwin @ (248) 276-7253. Once the signed Tax form is received and processed, your donation will be shipped. Assigned School: Metropolitan Career \u0026amp; Technical Center -AYES Edit School Profile VIN 3F515333 Ship Method: Ship Year 2003 Make DODGE Date Comm. Approved: Date Finance Apprvd: 11/19/2002 Model DURANGO Date Assigned: School Response Due School Response Date: Est Delivery Date: Date: 12/04/2002 Fair Market Value $27,329.00 School Notified: 11/19/2002 Date Carrier Delivered: Date School Received: Date School Redonated: Date School Scrapped: Date Archived: Vehicle Pickup Information: Pickup Location Name: Newark Assembly Address: 550 South College Aveune City: Newark State: DE I CJv...\n..J ~ Zip: 19713 Contact Name: Andy McKay Contact Telephone: 302-453-5219 Contact EMail Address: William A McKay/FIN/DCC/DCX XXX Notes: https://zoddda0 l .extra.daimlerchrysler .corn/ data/vehdon/vehicledonation.nsf/default View\n. . . 12/13/2002 PROCUREMENT \u0026amp; MATERIALS MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 1800 East 6th Street  Little Rock, AR 72202  (501) 324-2230  Fax: (501) 324-2233 DATE: TO: January 6, 2003 Board of Education FROM: ~arral Paradis, Director, Procurement and Materials Management THROUGH: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Donation The University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service at 2301 South University Avenue, LR, AR wishes to donate 24 office cubicle workstations to the Little Rock School District. Each unit consists of a desk, bookshelf, pull-out keyboard tray, printer stand and 2-drawer file cabinet. The donor estimates the value of workstations at approximately $400.00 each for a total estimated value of $9,600.00. It is recommended that this donation request be approved in accordance with the policies of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District. Thank you. x ?\u0026lt;~ ox ~8 ~ ..... - en c5m ~~ m en ~ F=x \u0026gt;\n:: O:z: [5~ C:\n,o !l1z .3zm..: eCn\u0026gt; LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT - SECONDARY SCHOOLS TO: FROM: SUBJECT: December 19, 2002 Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement Marian G. Lacey, Assistant Superintendent for Secondary Schools Donation Bale Elementary School's Peer Helper Service Project has donated the amount of $110.00 to the LRSD Welfare Fund, to be used toward the purchase of school clothing for deserving students. It is recommended that this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rod~ School District. TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS January 23, 2003 Board Of Directors ~ Mark D. Milhollen, Manager, Financial Services THROUGH: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent Of Schools ronald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Financial Reports We recommend that the attached financial reports be approved as submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2001 AND 2002 I APPROVED RECEIPTS % APPROVED RECEIPTS % 2001/02 12/31/01 COLLECTED 2002/03 12/31/02 COLLECTED REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 57,850,000 57,086,336 98.68% 58,550,000 57,147,781 97.61% DELINQUENT TAXES 6,950,000 5,287,912 76.09% 8,000,000 7,108,960 88.86% 40% PULLBACK 28,450,000 29,400,000 EXCESS TREASURER'S FEE 190,000 187,000 DEPOSITORY INTEREST 575,000 353,143 61.42% 385,000 REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 125,000 135,000 220,757 163.52% MISCELLANEOUS AND RENTS 600,000 41,515 6.92% 340,000 219,948 64.69% INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 600,000 64,221 10.70% 275,000 68,627 24.96% ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 155,000 100,024 64.53% 160,000 136,431 85.27% TOTAL 95,495,000 62,933,150 65.90% 97,432,000 64,902,502 66.61% REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 25,000 11,505 \"46.02% 24,000 11 ,170 46.54% TOTAL 25,000 11,505 46.02% 24,000 11,170 46.54% REVENUE- STATE SOURCES EQUALIZATION FUNDING 54,568,331 24,474,098 44.85% 54,867,630 25,092,813 45.73% REIMBURSEMENT STRS/HEAL TH 7,455,741 1,061 ,832 14.24% 7,590,000 3,891 ,937 51.28% VOCATIONAL 1,325,000 571,502 43.13% 1,340,000 512,285 38.23% HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 1,900,000 19,113 1.01% 1,700,000 320 0.02% EARLY CHILDHOOD 233,992 118,246 50.53% 273,358 136,486 49.93% TRANSPORTATION 3,468,291 1,161,445 33.49% 3,685,226 1,226,542 33.28% INCENTIVE FUNDS - M TO M 3,865,000 1,515,624 39.21% 3,265,000 1,396,152 42.76% ADULT EDUCATION 987,869 329,045 33.31% 1,006,014 273,287 27.17% POVERTY INDEX FUNDS 1,195,000 548,532 45.90% 658,607 329,297 50.00% EARLY LITERACY LEARNING 25,000 120,000 TAP PROGRAM 285,271 142,636 50.00% AT RISK FUNDING 605,000 107,900 17.83% 650,000 57,386 8.83% WORKER'S COMPENSATION 600,000 TOTAL 76,229,224 29,907,337 39.23% 75,441,106 33,059,140 43.82% REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES TRANSFER FROM CAP PROJ FUND 600,000 620,000 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 700,000 7,916 1.13% 1,126,233 13,857 1.23% TRANSFER FROM MAGNET FUND 1,639,927 546,642 33.33% 1,664,438 554,813 33.33% TOTAL 2,939,927 554,558 18.86% 3,410,671 568,669 16.67% TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 174,689,151 93,406,550 53.47% 176,307,777 98,541,483 55.89% REVENUE - OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 15,868,1 27 4,731,252 29.82% 22,230,023 6,212,729 27.95% DEDICATED M\u0026amp; 0 3,921 ,766 2,083,442 53.13% 3,980,000 2,073,471 52.10% MAGNET SCHOOLS ' 24,802,743 7,683,581 30.98% 25,065,942 9,202,775 36.71% TOTAL 44,592,636 14,498,275 32.51% 51,275,965 17,488,976 34.11% TOTAL REVENUE 219,281,787 107,904,825 49.21% 227,583,742 116,030,457 50.98% LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2001 AND 2002 APPROVED EXPENDED % APPROVED EXPENDED % 2001/02 12/31/01 EXPENDED 2002/03 12/31/02 EXPENDED EXPENSES SALARIES 98,743,100 38,774,495 39.27% 100,865,586 38,613,023 38.28% BENEFITS 25,603,621 9,964,486 38.92% 24,838,361 9,597,788 38.64% PURCHASED SERVICES 20,235,454 7,480,236 36.97% 19,795,774 8,031 ,646 40.57% MATERIALS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES 9,252,512 3,878,947 41.92% 8,347,098 3,485,453 41 .76% CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,792,554 431 ,036 24.05% 1,616,991 486,437 30.08% OTHER OBJECTS 8,402,940 2,824,945 33.62% 8,508,680 2,892,930 34.00% DEBT SERVICE 10,526,942 3,420,466 32.49% 12,217,048 4,880,555 39.95% TOTAL EXPENSES OPERATING 174,557,123 66,774,612 38.25% 176,189,538 67,987,831 38.59% EXPENSES-OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 16,519,453 5,090,563 30.82% 22,995,210 5,908,341 25.69% DEDICATED M\u0026amp; 0 3,921 ,766 1,924,218 49.07% 3,980,000 1,082,832 27.21% MAGNET SCHOOLS 24,802,743 8,592,494 34.64% 25,065,942 8,567,693 34.18% TOTAL 45,243,962 15,607,276 34.50% 52,041,152 15,558,866 29.90% TOTAL EXPENSES 219,801,085 82,381,887 37.48% 228,230,690 83,546,697 36.61% INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (519,298) 25,522,938 (646,948) 32,483,759 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET \u0026amp; OED M\u0026amp; 0 1,937,298 1,937,298 1,645,440 1,645,440 OPERATING 8,489,087 8,489,087 8,557,652 8,557,652 ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET \u0026amp; OED M\u0026amp; 0 1,285,972 828,297 880,253 3,575,550 OPERATING 8,621 ,115 35,121 ,025 8,675,891 39,111 ,302 TOTAL 9,907,087 35,949,322 9,556,144 42,686,852 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2002 PROJECT BEG BALANCE INCOME TRANSFERS EXPENDITURES ENCUMBRANCES END BALANCE 07-01 -02 2002-03 2002-03 2002-03 2002-03 12-31-02 $6,200,000 BOND ISSUE FAIR 33,282.90 33,282.90 MCCLELLAN 78,319.02 800.00 77,519.02 CONTINGENCY 1,052,354.15 1,052,354.15 SUBTOTAL 1, 163,956.07 0.00 0.00 800.00 0.00 1,163,156.07 $136,268,560 BOND ISSUES ADMINISTRATION 0.00 182,400.00 78,527.07 21.33 103,851.60 NEW WORK PROJECTS 22,028,270.87 8,254,950.00 5,793,843.81 11 ,330,428.12 13,158,948.94 SECURITY PROJECTS 42,273.97 42,273.97 LIGHTING PROJECTS 348,708.80 343,721.70 4,987.10 MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR 5,749,803.26 336,342.00 2,755,842.68 255,340.82 3,074,961.76 RENOVATION PROJECTS 47,947,115.45 50,000.00 10,223,055.21 6,538,321 .10 31,235,739.14 TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES 4,744,881 .05 90,303.80 3,770,719.81 2,212.48 1,062,252.56 SUBTOTAL 80,861,053.40 0.00 8,913,995.80 22,965,710.28 18, 126,323.85 48,683,015.07 REVENUES PROCEEDS-PROPERTY SALE 139,801 .90 45,078.11 5,898.50 178,981 .51 DUNBAR PROJECT 5,266.71 5,266.71 FULBRIGHT PROJECT 0.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 PROCEEDS-BOND SALES 31 ,569,505.02 (8,913,995.80) 22,655,509.22 PROCEEDS-QZAB SALE 1,293,820.97 1,293,820.97 INTEREST STATE OF ARK 469,063.03 469,063.03 INTEREST 5,022,644.80 1,440,804.23 6,463,449.03 SUBTOTAL 38,500,102.43 1,535,882.34 (8,913,995.80) 0.00 5,898.50 31,116,090.47 GRAND TOTAL l ill :ii:i l l lllll l :ia:i aa~ a~ ll.lll2 ii lllili :illl i: lD l~2 222 ~:i ll lllii ilil lil PROJECT CATEGORIES ADMINISTRATION NEW WORK PROJECTS SECURITY PROJECTS LIGHTING PROJECTS MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR RENOVATION PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES UNALLOCATED PROCEEDS TOTAL 1 r + I + PROJECT ALLOCATIONS I THRU 12-31-02 I 586,846.55 35,316,294.16 265,814.17 1 4,822,582.99 11 ,095,825.29 52,513,776.00 9,735,402.78 23,949,330.19 138,285,872.13 lN3w,ainorov mx SDNl!fV3H 'IIX LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ISSUE PROJECT HISTORY THRU THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2002 EXPENSE 2000-01 889,772.32 443,467.00 113,930.47 2,641,482.13 791,385.63 397,615.34 I 575,016.53 I I 5,852,669.42 EXPENSE 2001-02 (485,325.77) 4,589,606.29 109,609.73 1,832,392.06 4,218,294.40 4,119,045.21 4,325,201.40 18,708,823.32 EXPENSE ENCUMBERED ! j THRU 12-31-02 THRU 12-31-02\nI I 78,527.07 21.33 I 5,793,843.81 11,330,428.12 343,721 .70 2,755,842.68 10,223,055.21 I 3,770,719.81 22,965,710.28 255,340.82 6,538,321 .10 2,212.48 1 I I 18. 126,323.85 I S\u0026gt;RIVW3!f DNISOl:\u0026gt; 1x SN Oil V!f3d0 x S3:\u0026gt;IAH3S lOOH:\u0026gt;S 'XI SUBTOTAL 482,994.95 22,157,345.22 I 223,540.20 j 4,817,595.89 8,020,863.53 21,278,036.86 8,673,150.22 I 65,653,526.87 ENDING ALLOCATION 12-31-02 103,851 .60 13,158,948.94 42,273.97 4,987.10 3,074,961.76 31 ,235,739.14 1,062,252.56 23,949,330.19 72,632,345.26 Operating Operating Operating Operating Operating Operating Operating Operating Fund Total Activity Fund Total Bond Account Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund gapital Projects Fund Capital !:'rojects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital ~rojects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Total Deseg Plan Scholarship Total Rockefeller Sc~~arship Total - - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS BY FUND -FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEM-BER- 3-1, -2002 - Purchase Date 12-09-02 07-19-02 08-10-02 12-24-02 - 12-24-02 12-24-02 12-27-02 12-27-02 - 11-14-02 09-09-02 12-19-02 12-19-02 10-29-02 01-18-02 11-15-02 - 01-22-02 07-17-02 01-25-02 11-15-02 09-17-02 09-17-02 12-20-02 09-27-02 08-19-02 Maturity Date ---- 06-09-03 01-19-03 04-08-02 TFN 01-31-03 0-2-14-03- 01-15-03 - 03-01-03 04-02-03 Institution ~egions ~egio__,:i_s Pulaski - - - - Bank of America Bank of America Bank of America - ----- Bank of the Ozarks - - __!.!_90'.'.f?~ Money-Market - - ~O,QQQ.QQ 1.590% ~o~y ~a.i:_ket _ _?Q,QQ0.Q0 2.330% __ Mon~ M_51rl:_e_!_ __ 1 Q,QQ0:Q0 .Q:~80% _ Repo i,.Q00,QQQ.Q0 __1.~ 20'.'.fo __C_ D__ _ _ 6,000,Q00.00 ,_ _1._320_01/o _ _ CD _ !Q,00Q.,000.QQ 1.380% _ __CQ__ 10,000,000.00 Bank of the Ozarks -1- 1.360_%_ ___C _D_ _ 10,000,000.00 __ ----t-_30..!.050,000.00 Bank of -America -- 1.120% Treasury _E!llls 800,523.15 - - - - - - - 03-10-03 Re~ions_ - 1]ooolo - -~ - CQ _ _ - __ - 400,000.66 01-17-03 01-17-03 01-29-03 01-17-03 05-15-03 - 01-22-03 03-14-03- 02-14-03 05-15-03 04-15-03 09-15-03 TFN - 06-10-03 01-30-03 _ ~etropolitan _ 1.100% __ CD _ 1,000,060.28 Bank of the Ozarks 1.350% __ QQ_ _ __ 5,111, 115.89 B~~orp S9uu\n- - __lagoo\n-\n- _ CD ___ 2,049,078.59 Superio_r:__ _ 2.7~Q~ CD 2,500,000.00 USBANK 1.380% __ SQ--= 11,000,000.00 B~k 9-[America - 2.110% _Ir~~~ury Bills 5,300,000 . .QQ Mer!:l!!_Lynch .!.:U0% Treasury Bills 4,940,754.!_I Bank of America 2.000% _ Treasury _ii~ 30,93!,!!Q0.QQ Bank of !be Ozar}~ - 1.4801 _ _ CD ~.000,QQQ.00 Bank of the Ozarks 2.070% CD 3,000,000.00 ~~nk of the Oza!~S ?-?0Q% -  - ~ C(? __ \u0026gt;- 1 Q,Q_00,00Q.Q~ B~k of Am~ica !.130%_ R~po ___ 10,100,000.00 _ _ _ -- _ _ _ _ _ _ 95,~2.~_08.9~ - Bank of America - --- Bank of America -------------- 1.430% . _Ireasury Bil~_ 1----53_4-'-,5_0_8_.8_0-i --- I4,~08.f!0 _ 1.400% _ JreasuryBillsc-~---24_- 8-'-,4_0_5_.5_6-i 248,405.56\nThis 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.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1563","title":"\"Third-Party Evaluation of the Elementary Level Summer School Program,'' Quality Education and Management Associates, Inc., Little Rock, Ark.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Quality Education and Management Associates"],"dc_date":["2003-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Education, Elementary","Educational statistics","Educational innovations","School management and organization","Summer schools","Student assistance programs","School improvement programs","Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_title":["\"Third-Party Evaluation of the Elementary Level Summer School Program,'' Quality Education and Management Associates, Inc., Little Rock, Ark."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1563"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":["44 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null}],"pages":{"current_page":12,"next_page":13,"prev_page":11,"total_pages":48,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":132,"total_count":567,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":567}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":90},{"value":"Arkansas. Department of Education","hits":73},{"value":"Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","hits":53},{"value":"United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)","hits":33},{"value":"North Little Rock School District","hits":6},{"value":"Arkanasas State University. Office of Educational Research and Services","hits":5},{"value":"Office of Education and Lead Planning and Desegregation","hits":5},{"value":"Center for Research in Educational Policy, University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee","hits":3},{"value":"Ross, Steven M.","hits":3},{"value":"William Gordon Associates","hits":3},{"value":"Area School Advisory Committee","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"Educational statistics","hits":567},{"value":"Education--Arkansas","hits":561},{"value":"Education--Evaluation","hits":400},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":376},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","hits":351},{"value":"School integration","hits":176},{"value":"School improvement programs","hits":174},{"value":"Educational law and legislation","hits":173},{"value":"Education--Finance","hits":156},{"value":"School management and organization","hits":151},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","hits":144}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Wright, Susan Webber, 1948-","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":3}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":566},{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":565},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":555},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":486},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Chicot County, 33.26725, -91.29397","hits":1},{"value":"United States, Massachusetts, Middlesex County, Cambridge, Harvard University, 42.377, -71.11666","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Arkansas","hits":566},{"value":"Massachusetts","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1994","hits":129},{"value":"1995","hits":120},{"value":"1996","hits":107},{"value":"1993","hits":98},{"value":"1997","hits":93},{"value":"1992","hits":85},{"value":"1998","hits":82},{"value":"1999","hits":81},{"value":"2000","hits":78},{"value":"1991","hits":77},{"value":"2001","hits":72},{"value":"2003","hits":62},{"value":"1990","hits":53},{"value":"2002","hits":53},{"value":"2004","hits":50},{"value":"2005","hits":47},{"value":"1989","hits":39},{"value":"2006","hits":31},{"value":"1988","hits":24},{"value":"2010","hits":21},{"value":"2008","hits":19},{"value":"2009","hits":17},{"value":"2007","hits":15},{"value":"2013","hits":15},{"value":"1986","hits":14},{"value":"2012","hits":14},{"value":"1987","hits":13},{"value":"2011","hits":9},{"value":"1984","hits":8},{"value":"1985","hits":8},{"value":"2014","hits":6},{"value":"1974","hits":4},{"value":"1975","hits":4},{"value":"1976","hits":4},{"value":"1977","hits":4},{"value":"1978","hits":4},{"value":"1979","hits":4},{"value":"1980","hits":4},{"value":"1981","hits":4},{"value":"1982","hits":4},{"value":"1983","hits":4},{"value":"1973","hits":3},{"value":"1950","hits":2},{"value":"1951","hits":2},{"value":"1952","hits":2},{"value":"1953","hits":2},{"value":"1954","hits":2},{"value":"1955","hits":2},{"value":"1956","hits":2},{"value":"1957","hits":2},{"value":"1958","hits":2},{"value":"1959","hits":2},{"value":"1960","hits":2},{"value":"1961","hits":2},{"value":"1962","hits":2},{"value":"1963","hits":2},{"value":"1964","hits":2},{"value":"1965","hits":2},{"value":"1966","hits":2},{"value":"1967","hits":2},{"value":"1968","hits":2},{"value":"1969","hits":2},{"value":"1970","hits":2},{"value":"1971","hits":2},{"value":"1972","hits":2},{"value":"2015","hits":1},{"value":"2016","hits":1},{"value":"2017","hits":1},{"value":"2018","hits":1},{"value":"2019","hits":1},{"value":"2020","hits":1},{"value":"2021","hits":1},{"value":"2022","hits":1},{"value":"2023","hits":1},{"value":"2024","hits":1},{"value":"2025","hits":1},{"value":"2026","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"1950","max":"2026","count":1641,"missing":0},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":282},{"value":"reports","hits":194},{"value":"filing","hits":49},{"value":"exhibition (associated concept)","hits":34},{"value":"agendas (administrative records)","hits":17},{"value":"handbills","hits":16},{"value":"minutes (administrative records)","hits":16},{"value":"correspondence","hits":3},{"value":"books","hits":2},{"value":"newspaper clippings","hits":2},{"value":"printouts","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":567}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Office of Desegregation Management","hits":566}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":567}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":566},{"value":"Collection","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":567}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}