{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1538","title":"\"Third-Party Evaluation of the Lyceum Scholars 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","Educational innovations","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","School management and organization","School integration","Student assistance programs","Philander Smith College","Education, Secondary","Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_title":["\"Third-Party Evaluation of the Lyceum Scholars 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/1538"],"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":["66 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1565","title":"\"Third-Party Review of the Campus Leadership Teams Evaluation in 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":["Ross, Steven M."],"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","Educational innovations","Educational statistics","Little Rock School District","School management and organization","School employees","School improvement programs","School integration","Student assistance programs","Student activities"],"dcterms_title":["\"Third-Party Review of the Campus Leadership Teams Evaluation in 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/1565"],"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":["45 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1540","title":"\"Third-Party Review of the Hippy Evaluation in 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":["Ross, Steven M."],"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--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Educational law and legislation","Educational innovations","Education--Finance","Educational statistics","School management and organization","School improvement programs","School employees"],"dcterms_title":["\"Third-Party Review of the Hippy Evaluation in 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/1540"],"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":["37 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_458","title":"Program Evaluations for the Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement (CPMSA), 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-01, and 2001-02","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":["2002-12-19"],"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"],"dcterms_title":["Program Evaluations for the Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement (CPMSA), 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-01, and 2001-02"],"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/458"],"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":["121 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\nProgram Evaluations for the received DEC 1 1 2002 desegregation monitoring Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement (CPMSA) 1998-99,1999-2000, 2000-01, and 2001-02 Funded by the National Science Foundation Presented to the Board of Education for Approval December 19, 2002 Division of Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 www.lrsd.org 501/447-3320Table of Contents CPMSA Strategic Plan for 1998-1999 CPMSA Program Evaluation for 1998-1999 May 20,1999, Feedback from NSF Site Visit Team July 16,1999, Presentation Handouts for Reverse Site Visit to NSF 1999-2000 CPMSA Strategic Plan CPMSA Program Evaluation for 1999-2000 January 24,2000, Feedback from NSF Site Visit Team September 2000February 2002 CPMSA Strategic Plan CPMSA Program Evaluation for 2000-2001 January 16, 2001 Feedback from NSF Site Visit Team March 15, 2001 Feedback from Mid-Point Review (Reverse Site Visit to NSF) April 11, 2001 Revised CPMSA Strategic Plan September 1,2001February 28, 2002, CMPSA Strategic Plan CPMSA Program Evaluation for 2001-2002 May 7, 2002, Feedback from Reverse Site Visit to NSF September 2002August 2003 Strategic PlanLITTLE ROCK PARTNERSHIPS FOR MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE (LRPMSA) Management Plan Year One 1998-99 Strategy 1. Implement a plan to improve the achievement of all students Action Step 1. Form vertical teams involving all 5 high schools, all 8 junior high schools and representative elementary schools Drivers 6 C y Indicators List of team members Timeline September, 1998 Responsibility' Vanessa Cleaver Principals 2. Send representatives to College Board Vertical Teams (VT) Conference List of conference participants February, 1999 3. Train representative to facilitate group meeting Phyllis Caruth participated in College Boards train the trainer workshop Februry, 1999 Vanessa Cleaver Phyllis Caruth 4. VT to meet on a quarterly level Agenda and sign-in sheets Spring, 1999 Ongoing 12. Ensure the developed policies for mathematics and science education for all students will continue to be implemented 3. Add policies to strengthen the course offerings for mathematics and science 1. 2. 3. 1. Include matli/science improvement component in individual school improvement plans (SIP) Assess progress of schools in following or meeting their plan Review and revise middle and high school Curriculum Catalog Develop K-12 talent development plan to improve G/T, honors, and AP student enrollment and success 2 2 sips submitted and reviewed Annual principal evaluation conference Published High School Curriculum Catalog, 1999- 2000 K-12 Talent Development Committee established Eliminated the honors/enriched layer of courses between the regular level and the Pre-AP/AP level at grades 6-12 for 1999-2000 school year October, 1998 Spring, 1999 December, 1998 November, 1998 Sadie Mitchell Frances Cawihon Marian I acey Dennis Glasgow Sadie Mitchell Frances CawtF.on Marian Lacey Dr. Bonnie Lesley Dr. Bonnie Lesley Talent Development Committee Dr. Lesley I 22. Construct curriculum maps ofLRSD standards/benchm arks with Arkansas standards, SAT9 testing objectives (plus other tests as appropriate), and instructional materials K-12 Curriculum maps for science and mathematics January, 1999 Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Project Staff 4. Implement a standards-based curriculum 1. Pilot standards- based programs at District schools, monitor schools to determine level of implementation 1 List of schools/teachers who are piloting programs Spring, 1998 Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Project Staff Principals 2. Provide training for teachers who pilot programs Training dates, agendas and participants Fall, 1997 3. Provide training for 6\"' grade mathematics teachers who implement Connected Mathematics__ Training dates, agendas, participants Spring, 1999 Ongoing (4 34. 5. 6. J 7. Project (CMP) Provide training for 9\"' grade teachers who will implement Active Physics Provide training for 6\"' grade science teachers who will implement Science and Technology for Children (STC) Provide training for 4'' and 5' th grade teachers who will implement Investigations in Number, Data and Space Implement STC U Classroom observation Spring, 1999 (6 66 August, 1999 Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Project Staff Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Project Staff 4Principals 8. Implement CMP 4 Classroom observation August, 1999 9. Implement Investigations 10. Implement Active Physics Classroom observation Classroom observation August, 1999 August, 1999 5. Increase level of support for science and math education among all relevant stakeholders 6. Ensure all relevant stakeholders understand systemic change as a strategy for improving mathematics and science education 1. 1. 2. 3. Implement Family Math and Science program in six schools Present to Christian Ministerial Alliance Present to Volunteers in Public Schools (VIPS) Board Present to the Little Rock Parent 4 5 Schedule and participants Agenda Agenda Agenda Spring, 1999 November, 1998 March, 1999 April, 1999 Principals Family Math and Science Coordinators Vanessa Cleaver Vanessa Cleaver Vanessa Cleaver 5Jeacher Association Council 4. Design a dissemination brochure for key stakeholders about the LRPMSA 5 Brochure June, 1999 Vanessa Cleaver Suellen Vann 7. Develop plan to improve students interest in pursuing mathematics, science and engineering 8. Develop a plan to assure success tor all students in Algebra 1 1. Expand VITAI. LINK to include more businesses that have careers with math/science focus 2. Expand and monitor SECME programs 1. Coordinate the establishment of a two-week, halfday Algebra 1 program - Summer Mathematics Advanced 3 1 Math/science additions to VITAL LINK Phase-in schedule for SECME at District schools Schedule for SMART April, 1999 Spring, 1999 August, 1999 Vanessa Cleaver Debbie Milam Vanessa Cleaver Jo Evelyn Elston Vanessa Clea\\ er SMART Committee 6Readiness Ifaining (SMART) 99 9. Io increase the coordination among existing funding sources in support of sj stemic reform in mathematics and science 10. Plan professional development 1. Develop plan to fund (Title I, NSF) the new positions of lead teachers for mathematics and science standards-based curriculum implementation 3 Lead teachers hired August, 1999 Dr. Bonnie Leslej Dennis Glasgow Leon Adams Vanessa Cleaver 1. Provide ongoing training for new and first year secondary mathematics and science teachers 1 Agendas for inservices for new/first-year teachers Fall, 1998 Ongoing Vanessa Cleaver Dennis Glasgow Project Staff Principals ! i ___ I 7J I L I I I I I / r Little Rock Comprehensive Partnerships for il I I ! i i i Mathematics and Science Achievement Haas. # / 'V i ! I II I I Aimual Progress Report 1998-1999 1 i % I ) I  LITTLE ROCK COMPREHENSIVE PARTNERSHIPS FOR MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE ACHIEVEMENT (LR CPMSA) The Little Rock Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement (LR CPMSA) is a major effort to promote a higher standard of learning and performance in mathematics and science in all students in the Little Rock School District (LRSD). OVERVIEW OF THE SYSTEM There are fifty-one schools in the LRSD, serving approximately 25, 000 students: TOTAL 35 8 5 1 1 L 51 elementary schools middle schools high schools vocational technical school Alternative Learning Center Accelerated Learning Center (high school) There are 919 K-12 mathematics and science teachers in the LRSD. More specifically, 735 are elementary teachers, 94 secondary science teachers, and 90 secondary mathematics teachers. The following list describes the District's student demographics by race/ethnicity: Afidcan American 67% Hispanic, Asian, and other minorities 3%, White 30% The LR CPMSA is a comprehensive program designed to focus on all K-12 mathematics and science programs through a variety of components addressing the needs of students, educators, and parents. The primary program components include: 1. 2. 3. 4. Implementation of standards-based curricula Development of district-wide policy and practice changes Resource convergence Paitnerships Small scale implementation of some of the curricula occurred during the 1998-1999 school year, the first year of planning/implementation of the LR CPMSA, for the purpose of developing training and trainers for the programs and reforming the curriculum. A very comprehensive professional 1998-1999 Annual ReportT development program was then launched to prepare nearly 800 mathematics and science teachers for the first phase of implementing high quality standards-based curricula, effective instructional practices, and effective student assessment. Professional development occurred during the first year in preparation for implementation of standards-based curricula for all students in the following grade and subject levels during the 1999-2000 school year:  4* and 5* grade mathematics teachers  6* grade mathematics teachers  6* grade science teachers  9* grade science teachers  1 -5* grade science teachers (1 kit) SI INFLUENCE ON THE SYSTEM I Standards-Based Curricula/Instruction The mathematics and science curricula that are being phased-in over a period of four years are national curricula that were developed with fimding from the National Science Foundation: Mathematics Investigations in Number, Data, and Space Connected Mathematics Project (CMP) Elementary (K-5) Middle School (6-8) Heath McDougal-Littell High School (11-12) I Pacesetter Pre-calculus Through Modeling High School Science Science and Technology for Children (STC) Elementary - 6* grade Science and Life Issues (SALI) grade Science Education for Public Understanding Project (SEPUP) 8* grade Active Physics 9* grade Mathematics and science vertical teams were formed to align local mathematics and science standards and benchmarks to the national standards. These standards and benchmarks were used to I' 1998-1999 Annual Report 2 I I Ihelp select McDougal-Littel for the high school mathematics courses because it is well aligned with the national standards. Standards-based textbook programs are currently used as resources for biology, chemistry, and earth science. The textbook-based programs are used to support the districts science standards and frameworks that are based on the national standards in science. Additional resources are used by teachers as necessary to flesh-out the standards-based program. The implementation schedule for the standards-based curricula is detailed in the following chart- Standards-Based Mathematics and Science Implementation Schedule Grade Level Kindergarten r* Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4*^ Grade 5 Grade 6'\" Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9\" Grade 10-12' Grades IB\" 1999-00 2000-01 \u0026gt; 1 STC kit \u0026gt; 1 STC kit \u0026gt; 1 STC kit \u0026gt; 1 STC kit \u0026gt; All 4 modules of INV \u0026gt; 1 STC kit \u0026gt; All 4 modules of INV \u0026gt; All 5 modules of CMP \u0026gt; All 4 STC kits \u0026gt; 2 modules of CMP \u0026gt; 2 modules of CMP \u0026gt; All Active Physics modules \u0026gt; Continue 1 STC kit \u0026gt; Continue 1 STC kit \u0026gt; All 4 modules of INV \u0026gt; Continue 1 STC kit \u0026gt; All 4 modules of INV \u0026gt; All 4 STC kits 2001-02 \u0026gt; All 4 modules of INV \u0026gt; All 4 modules of INV \u0026gt; All 4 STC kits \u0026gt; All 4 STC kits \u0026gt; All 4 STC kits 2002-03 \u0026gt; All 4 STC kits \u0026gt; All 5 modules of CMP \u0026gt; All SALI kits \u0026gt; 3 modules of CMP \u0026gt; All 5 modules of CMP \u0026gt; All SEPUP Modules Secondary mathematics and science curricula will align with National Standards and textbooks will be used along with supplementary resources to support those standards. Pacesetter Pre-Calculus will be available at the high school level. INV - Investigations (Grades K-5 Math) CMP - Connected Math Project (Grades 6-8 Math) STC - Science and Technology for Children (Grades 1-6 Science) SALI - Science and Life Issues (Grade 7 Science) SEPUP - Science Education for Public Understanding Project (Grade 8 Science) Active Physics - (Grade 9 physics) All students in the identified grade-levels in grades K-8 will participate in the standards-based curricula according to the schedule. In grades 9-12 all students will be taught a curriculum that 1998-1999 Annual Report 3Tl aligns with the national standards. Not all students, however, will participate in the same program. Ninth grade physics students, for example, may take Active Physics or Pre-AP Physics, a theorybased course. Also, Pre-calculus Through Modeling is an elective course for students. Students may elect trigonometry as their pre-calculus course. I Assessment System (1998-1999) The assessment program consists of a menu of assessments that included the following: Standford Achievement Test (SAT-9) Arkansas Benchmark Exams EXPLORE and PLAN (Pre-ACT tests) Local Criterion-Referenced Test (CRT) ACT (optional) Advanced Placement Exams (optional) Grades 3,5, 7, 8,10 (mathematics and science) Grades 4, 8 (Literacy and math) Grades 8, 10 (math and science reasoning) Grades 2-6 (math and literacy) High school (math and science reasoning) AP students (math and science) These assessments are aligned with the curriculum. The closest alignment is obtained through the state benchmark exams and local CRTs. The EXPLORE, PLAN, ACT and AP exams are also closely aligned with the curriculum. The SAT-9, EXPLORE, PLAN, state benchmark exams and local CRTs were used with all (some exemptions allowed for special education and Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students) students at the identified grade levels. The ACT and AP exams were elected by a smaller group of students. 1998-1999 Annual Report 4 I I I,Professional Development Extensive professional development was provided for the standards-based curricula being implemented by the district. The professional development for the 1998-99 school year was as follows: STANDARDS-BASED PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT (List each activity conducted during the 98-99 project year.) Activity 12/10/98 03/10/99 03/11/99 03/24/99 03/16/99 03/17/99 04/06/99 04/07/99 04/08/99 04/17/99 04/20/99 04/22/99 04/27/99 04/28/99 04/29/99 05/04/99 05/05/99 1 Year Math/Science Teacher Training 1' Year Math/Science Teacher Training 1' Year Math/Science Teacher Training Extended Year Algebra I Planning 4* Grade STC Training 4' Grade STC Training s' Grade CMP Training S*** Grade CMP Training s' Grade CMP Training 6' Grade CMP Training 4* Grade STC Training 4 Grade STC Training 5 Grade TERC Training 5*' Grade TERC Training s' Grade TERC Training 5*' Grade TERC Training s Grade TERC Training 05/06/99 5* Grade TERC Training 05/11/99 s Grade TERC Training 05/12/99 s' Grade TERC Training 05/13/99 S* Grade TERC Training 05/13/99 Math Vertical Teams 05/18/99 STC Training of Trainers 05/18/99 Math Vertical Tearns 05/19/99 STC Training of Trainers 05/19/99 S* Grade STC Training 06/02/99 Kindergarten UMS Math Training 06/02/99 4' Grade TERC Training 06/02/99 1'Grade STC Training 06/02/99 3\"* Grade STC Training 06/03/99 1' Grade UMS Math Training 06/03/99 4\"'Grade TERC Training 06/03/99 2* Grade STC Training 06/03/99 5' Grade STC Training 06/04/99 2\"^ Grade UMS Math Training 06/04/99 4\"' Grade TERC Training 06/02/99 - 06/15/99 Active Physics Training 06/15/99 SMART Training (Algebra) 06/28/99 - 07/02/99 Math Solutions Training 07/06/99 - 07/16/99 Conceptual Physics Training 07/12/99 - 07/30/99 Summer Science Institute 08/12/99 9-12 Grade Math Training 08/12/99 9-12 Grade Science Vertical Tearns 08/12/99 Geology and Space Science Training 1998-1999 Annual Report Number of Participants For Mathematics Elem M/S 5 5 4 3 15 16 16 16 Sec. 1 1 1 4 Number of Participants For Science Elem. M/S 12 12 12 Sec. 3 4 3 16 17 21 23 Number of Hours Trained 22 22 22 24 24 24 27 29 29 2 1 5 9 6 13 6 22 105 121 120 121 111 121 19 3 6 2 54 135 132 128 98 18 19 10 46 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 1 6 1 6 6 3 6 6 6 3 6 6 6 6 6 60 3 30 60 105 6 6 6(List each activity conducted during the 98-99 project year.) Number of Participants For Mathematics Number of Participants For Science Number of Hours Trained Activity 08/13/99 9-12 Grade Math Training 08/13/99 - 08/13/99 08/13/99 08/13/99 08/16/99 08/16/99 08/16/99 08/16/99 08/16/99 08/16/99 08/16/99 08/16/99 08/16/99 08/16/99 08/16/99 08/16/99 08/17/99 08/17/99 08/17/99 09/01/99 09/01/99 09/02/99 09/02/99 09/08/99 09/08/99 09/10/99 09/14/99 09/20/99 09/21/99 09/21/99 09/22/99 09/23/99 09/24/99 09/28/99 09/29/99 09/30/99 Physics Training Earth Science Training Chemistry - SEPUP Training Biology - Project Life Training 3\"* Grade TERC Training 5**' Grade TERC Training 6'*' Grade CMP Training T'W Grade Math Training 8\" Grade Algebra Training 9-12 Grade Math Training 6*\" Grade Project Life Training 7'\" Grade Project Life Training Grade SEPUP Training Physics Training Chemistry Training Biology - Project Life Training 3^ Grade TERC Training 5' Grade TERC Training 6* Grade CMP Training 4* Grade STC Training s' Grade STC Training 5'*' Grade STC Training 6*^ Grade STC Training 4* Grade TERC Training 5\"' Grade TERC Training s' Grade TERC Training 4* Grade TERC Training 1' Grade STC Training Math Vertical Teams 2\"^ Grade STC Training 3^ Grade STC Training 4\" Grade TERC Training 4\" Grade TERC Training 6*\" Grade CMP Training Physics Training Physics Training 1998-1999 Annual Report Elem M/S Sec. 51 Elem M/S Sec. 104 89 20 6 10 17 96 89 21 33 31 21 30 29 6 19 25 11 16 4 16 51 14 37 19 13 12 6 17 19 15 4 7 17 10 20 19 19 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 1 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 I I I I 1': jiThe total number of teachers and administrators who participated in professional development during the 1998-99 school year is as follows: Professional Development Totals List the total number of participants in each of the following categories: (non-duplicate count) A. Teachers B. Preservice teachers C. Administrators/Supervisors 40 D. Other school staff 13L Total W List the number of participants who were: A. Male 131 B. Female 838 List the number of participants who were: A. White, non-Hispanic B. Black, non-Hispanic C. Hispanic D. Asian, Pacific Islander 333 2 1 E. American Indian/Alaskan Native Most of the professional development undertaken during the 1998-99 school year was initial formal training on the standards-based curriculum that the teachers were targeted to implement. All teachers who are implementing standards-based curricula are provided professional development. Principals, counselors, and lead teachers are also provided with professional development to assist 1998-1999 Annual Report 7them in understanding the standards-based curricula and the systemic change initiative being undertaken in the Little Rock School District. Once implementation began in the 1999-2000 school year, follow-up training has occuned, both at a district level and at the individual classroom level. Lead teachers in math/science provide individual teachers with in-classroom coaching, demonstration lessons, team teaching, and technical assistance. Policy Changes The policies for mathematics and science education are part of the systemic reform in all core curriculum areas in the Little Rock School District. For the past year, the District has been involved in a comprehensive process to review and revise the Board of Educations policy manual, resulting in an almost totally new set of policies in the section on Instruction. Those most relevant to Driver 2 are listed in the table below: The policies that \"indicate a coherent vision that encompasses all students \" are as follows: NEPNCode Ta IQ, IG-R IGA IGBA IGE, IGE-RI IHBB IHBEA. IHBEA-R IHCC IKE __________________Title_____________ Academic Content Standards/Benchmarks Curriculum Development, Adoption, and Review Curriculum Program Alignment and Coherence Grant-funded Projects Purpose Establishes academic content standards/benchmarks that high school graduates will possess Requires that all curricula be standards-based Curriculum Guides Gifted and Talented Education English as a Second Language Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement Courses General Education Graduation Requirements, Effective For the Graduating Class of2002 Requires that all special curricula and programs be aligned with the District's Strategic Plan Requires that grant-funded programs be tightly aligned with the District's Strategic Plan Requires that curriculum guides be aligned with state and national standards Establishes definition of giftedness and requires that all students have an opportunity to participate in gifted programs Requires that appropriate and equitable programs and services be provided for ESL students to ensure achievement of the standards and benchmarks Provides for pre-AP and AP courses in grades 6-12 and ensures that there are no barriers to participate in these programs Establishes graduation requirements that include 3 units of math to include Algebra I, Algebra II and Geometry and 3 units of science to include physics, biology and chemistry The Little Rock School District is committed to standards-based educational programs that ensure i! jl that all students will be appropriately challenged. The policies listed above address the components of a standards-based curriculum and ensure that all students are enrolled in high quality and I I 1 I i i I N I I I 3 I 1998-1999 Annual Report 8 111rigorous programs. By policy, all Little Rock School District students must enroll in and successfully complete Algebra I-II and Geometry and Physics I, Biology I, and Chemistry Ias minimums. The Recommended Curriculum includes a fourth year in both mathematics and science and a second year of technology applications. Recruiting high quality mathematics and science teachers is one of the priorities of the Little Rock School District. We continually work in partnerships with area colleges and universities to identify potential teachers in these priority areas, and we are currently working on a grant application with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) on a preservice program related to mathematics and science. The issue of providing adequate time for ongoing professional development of mathematics and science teachers has been a challenging one in the Little Rock School District due to our emphasis on keeping teachers in the classroom for the highest possible quality of instruction and on the shortage of qualified substitutes that would free teachers for professional development activities. A Cabinet-level retreat will be held to initiate a plan for a total infrastructure in support of a high quality professional development program for the District. Alignment The following policies and regulations address the requirement of a tight alignment among curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development: IG-R: IGA: IGBA: IGE: IGE-RI: Curriculum Development, Adoption, and Review Curriculum Program Alignment and Coherence Grant-Funded Projects Curriculum Guides Curriculum Guide Development Policies on professional development alignment are still under development. Currently, policies addressing assurance of adequate financial and administrative support for the ongoing professional development of mathematics and science teachers are still under development. However, the current practice is to support the development of mathematics and science teachers through as many funding sources as are available - such as the local budget. 1998-1999 Annual Report 9'r I Eisenhower funds, Class-size reduction funds, other grants, etc. (See Resource Convergence for further details). Six elementary math/science teachers, one middle school science teacher, one middle school math teacher, and one high school math teacher currently serve as teacher leaders in the implementation of new standards-based curriculum and instruction. These teachers were selected based on the demonstration of outstanding work in implementing standards-based instruction in the classroom. They serve as professional developers, coaches/mentors, and role models for other teachers in the District. Their new roles are one of the ways that the District recognizes and rewards our outstanding teachers. Teachers are encouraged to participate in all national, regional, and state recognition programs, and Little Rock mathematics and science teachers are frequently among the winners in such recognition programs. The Districts accountability system includes rewards and recognition for schools that meet the challenging trend and improvement goals established by the State and by the District. Each school is then encouraged to recognize and reward its outstanding teachers and students. Dr. Leslie Gamine, superintendent of the Little Rock School District, serves as principal investigator of the LR CPMSA. Dr. Camine has provided support and guidance for the LR CPMSA since his arrival in 1998. Dr. Camine has provided visibility for the LR CPMSA with the School Board, community members, administrators, and teachers in the district. An Advisory Committee was identified and met monthly to review the CPMSA project activities and to focus discussion on the progress in meeting the objectives. Members of the Advisory Committee include representatives from the programs primary partners and the six senior LRSD personnel. Additional committee members include school administrators, counselors. teachers, parents, business and community leaders, and professionals in areas of mathematics and science. Another layer of support, during the 1998-1999 school year, was the Management Team. The Management Team consists of senior administrators including the superintendent, associate and I 1998-1999 Annual Report 10 Iassistant superintendents. The following list identifies the departments of the other district personnel represented on the management team: \u0026gt; \u0026gt; \u0026gt; \u0026gt; \u0026gt; \u0026gt; \u0026gt; \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Mathematics and Science Planning, Research and Evaluation Gifted and Talented Staff Development Early Childhood Pupil Services Volunteers in Public Schools/Partners In Education Communications Business Office The management team met monthly to identify and address issues that impacted or impeded the progress of the CPMSA. Such issues include the following: \u0026gt; Current district policies/practices   a  Attendance Grades G/T - Talent Development Graduation \u0026gt; Endorsement of proj ect activities The Little Rock School District instituted a policy to establish campus leadership teams at each school to improve performance of all student populations in support of the Districts commitment of sustained school improvement. The campus team consists of school administrators, staff (both school and central office), students, parents, and business/community patrons. The work of the campus teams is organized around the basic components of the Little Rock School District Student Success Model: \u0026gt; \u0026gt; \u0026gt; \u0026gt; \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Skills and Knowledge Continuum Personalized Education Programs Staff Development Community Support Assessment Communication 1998-1999 Annual Report 11Resource Convergence There are four main funding sources that are leveraged in support of improving mathematics and science education: Dwight D. Eisenhower Fund, State Textbook (Math) Fund, Local District .f Budget and the Districts Title I Fund. During the 1998-99 school year, approximately 93% of the Eisenhower budget was used to support mathematics and science education in the Little Rock School District. More specifically, approximately $98,000 was used to fimd the positions of two teacher specialists who, collectively, provide demonstration lessons, team teaching, joint plaiming, school level and district-wide inservice directed at hands-on math and science instruction and the integration of social studies and language arts with science and mathematics. In addition. approximately $58,000 of the Eisenhower Funds were used for training on new mathematics and science standards-based programs as well as other professional development opportunities for mathematics and science teachers (workshops, conferences, consultant fees, materials, etc.). Approximately 95% of the local district budget for mathematics and science were leveraged for inkind services provided by the co-principal investigator, an elementary mathematics specialist and a middle school science specialist. In addition, the local budget (for mathematics and science) was I used to purchase curriculum materials, equipment and office supplies. Other uses of the local budget for mathematics and science include training expenses, and local travel (mileage). The local I district budget was used to match one-half of the Program Evaluators salary and for in-kind services provided by the principal investigator. Lead teachers were hired to help facilitate the implementation of standards-based mathematics and science curricula in the classroom. The lead teachers are funded in the following maimer: 2 - Class-Size Reduction Allocation 1 - Title VI Funds 4 - LR CPMSA 2 - District budget A key resource during the 1998-99 school year was provided by the district budget after securing a waiver from the Arkansas Department of Education to provide three paid days of 1998-1999 Annual Report 12 'Iadditional training for teachers in the implementation of new standards-based curricula and campus leadership planning. The Little Rock Center of Excellence for Research, Teaching and Learning (CERTL) is designed to provide standards-based teacher training and student laboratory experiences in math and science in support of the LR CPMSA. The Little Rock CERTL operates through area institutions of higher education. The University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) and Philander Smith College (PSC) serve as sponsoring institutions for CERTL. UALR and PSC provided the following services for CERTL: Lab School for Teachers/Summer Institute for Students UALR Training provided for pre-service and inservice teachers one week prior to the two- week institute for rising 5''' and 6'^ grade students. Once the institute began, master teachers mentored participating teachers as they applied their learning in a real-life environment by instructing students using standards-basedpedagogy. Summer Algebra Readiness Training PSC A summer institute designed to prepare a group of capable but underachieving rising 9^ grade students for success in Algebra I. The institute was led by a PSC faculty site facilitator and master middle/high school mathematics teachers who were assisted by undergraduate PSC students who served as mentors. Active Physics LRSD Resources provided to pay consultant fees for Active Physics professor from Wisconsin. Eighteen teachers completed coursework that qualified them to receive four hours of graduate physics credit. Leveraging of resources made this training possible for teachers. The Eisenhower Professional Development grant paid stipends to teachers for participating in the course\nthe District provided tuition reimbursement for teachers and supplies/materials for the course\nand, UALR provided the mechanism for teachers to get college credit for training. Additional funding resources were provided by the Arkansas Statewide Systemic Initiative (AS SI) to provide mini-grants to two LRSD schools for implementation of the Family Math/Science Program. State funds provided under the Advanced Placement Incentive Program, Act 929 of 1997 were allocated for teachers to attend one-day and/or two-day conferences (registration fees only) for Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement teachers. During 1998-99, thirty-one (31) mathematics teachers, grades 6-12, attended College Boards two-day Mathematics Vertical Teams Conference in Little Rock. In addition, twenty-six (26) science teachers, grades 6-12, attended 1998-1999 Annual Repon 13UALRs Vertical Teams Conference for science teachers. A total of $9,525 in state funds was allocated for LRSD mathematics and science teachers. SECME is a premiere pre-college program that prepares and motivates students for engineering and other technical fields. LRSD received $22,000 from SECME to implement the SECME program in thirteen elementary and secondary schools. SECMEs goal, which is tightly aligned with the LR CPMSA goals, is to increase the pool of minorities who are prepared to enter and complete post secondary studies in engineering, mathematics, and science. The Little Rock School District SECME program works in partnerships with faculty from the school of engineering at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR). The faculty provides in-kind contributions to deliver technical assistance to school teams. LR CPMSA funds were used to support the SECME program in five additional schools. The use of technology and telecommunications is expanding in the District with the programs and opportunities available: 1. 2. 3. Compressed Video - Available at three schools (two elementary schools and one middle school). The compressed video is the virtual classroom project that connects the sites with each other and with the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS). Professors from UAMS will provide learning experiences for students that will promote their competency in biology and other sciences. EAST (Environmental and Spatial Technology) Labs - Located at Central High and McClellan High Schools. Students have access to a project-based curriculum that integrates advanced software applications ranging form architectural and design engineering systems to global positioning systems and geographical information system software. The focus of this program is on the integration of the tools as aids to the learning process. Cisco Academy - Available at Hall High School. This program prepares students for jobs in network administration. The program involves a partnership with Cisco Systems as well as Pulaski Technical College, a Cisco regional academy that will provide teacher training and program monitoring. I I I In addition to the aforementioned programs, all school sites have access to the Internet. Most I J ' access areas are presently in the media centers although many schools are adding computers to the classroom as funds permit the purchases of the equipment. Internet is being used in a variety of I ways: using the web for searching local and distant libraries, databases, educational sites. I collaborating on projects and creating web sites. 1998-1999 Annual Report 14 aPartnerships During the 1998-99 school year, the initial year of the LR CPMSA, presentations about the goals of the LR CPMSA were developed and delivered to the following organizations: 1. 2. 3. 4. Little Rock PTA Council Volunteers in Public Schools Board Christian Ministerial Alliance Vital Link Business Partners In addition, a dissemination brochure was developed to describe the goals and objectives of the Little Rock CPMSA. During 1998, the District entered into a partnership with the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) called the Urban Professional Development Initiative. This initiative enabled District staff to develop an improved plan for delivering professional development to support implementation of new initiatives including those in mathematics and science. A partnership with the Arkansas Statewide Systemic Initiative (ASSI) provided Family Math and Science Programs in five additional elementary and middle schools. Currently, 58% of the Districts elementary and middle schools have implemented the Family Math and Science Program (up from 46.5%). An effort to promote understanding and acceptance among stakeholders about the systematic change necessary for improving mathematics and science education was through the Vital Link partnership. Vital Link is a system that is designed to give middle school students a behind-the- scenes look at the world of work. Seventy-three (73) businesses hosted nearly 400 rising 7* grade students for one week providing first-hand knowledge of the connection between skills learned in the classroom and those needed for success in the workplace. During the Vital Link Business Orientation, business representatives received an overview of the Little Rock CPMSA goals and objectives. The businesses along with the participating teachers were asked to provide more experiences in the work place that would allow students to see and understand the relationship between school and the work place. Of the nearly 400 students who went through the program. 1998-1999 Annual Report 15 J 42% indicated an interest in mathematics and 48% indicated an interest in science. Students participating in Vital Link recorded their experiences daily in a journal. Outputs and Outcomes of the System via SI Influence The following chart presents an itemized summary of the stated goals for the LR CPMSA project as of the 1998-1999 school year. Additionally, imder the heading entitled, Key Performance Indicators, is information indicating the extent to which each of the goals has been achieved. Three codes are used in the colunm entitled. Status: TARGET MET (target has been fully met)\nON TARGET (work is progressing as scheduled towards target)\nand NOT YET (indicating that work is not progressing as district expects and is thus identified for review by the CPMSA project staff). Note: August, 1999 - The LRSD board of directors adopted a comprehensive assessment program (for students in grades 3-11) that would allow student growth to he measured from the beginning of the year to the end of the year through CRTs aligned with the curriculum standards. Utemized Summary of Project Goal/Outcomes Key Performance Indicators Baseline 1997-1998 to 1998-1999 Status 1. To enact policies and practices that will result in an increase by 2% the composite scores of underrepresented minority students in grades 2-11 on the Stanford Achievement Test\nI a. SA T-9 complete battery for all students Decrease in the percent of 5 grade students scoring above the 50' percentile from 40% during the 1997- 1998 school year to 37% during the 1998-1999 school year\nNOT YET Decrease in the percent of 7'* grade students scoring above the 50' percentile from 40% during the 1997- 1998 school year to 37% during the 1998-1999 school year\nI Increase in the percent of 10'* grade students scoring above the 50\"' percentile from 37% during the 1997- 1998 school year to 39% during the 1998-1999 school year\nNOT YET ON TARGET I I I j b. SA 1-9 complete battery for underrepresented minority students Decrease in the percent of S* grade students scoring above the 50'' percentile from 25% during the 1997- 1998 school year to 23% during the 1998-1999 school year\nNOT YET I I 1 I I I I 1998-1999 Annual Report 16 I I I k ilc. Project Goal/Outcomes Key Performance Indicators Baseiine 1997-1998 to 1998-1999 Decrease in the percent of 7* grade students scoring above the 50* percentile from 26% during the 1997- 1998 school year to 24% during the 1998-1999 school year\nDecrease in the percent of 10* grade students scoring above the 50* percentile from 25% during the 1997- 1998 school year to 23% during the 1998-1999 school year Status NOT YET NOT YET SAT-9 mathematics sub-test for all students grades 5, 7, 10 Decrease in the percent of 5* grade students scoring above the 50th percentile on the SAT-9 (mathematics) from 33% to 31% during the 1998-1999 school year\nNOT YET No change in the percent of 7* grade students scoring above the 50* percentile on the SAT-9 (mathematics) - 35% (1997-1998 and 1998-1999) NOT YET Decrease in the percent of 10* grade students scoring above the 50th percentile on the SAT-9 (mathematics) from 42% during the 1997-1998 school year to 41% during the 1998-1999 school year\nNOT YET d. SAT-9 mathematics sub-test for underrepresented minority students Decrease in the percent of 5* grade students scoring above the 50* percentile from 20% during the 1997- 1998 school year to 24% during the 1998-1999 school year\nNOT YET Increase in the percent of 7* grade students scoring above the 50* percentile from 18% during the 1997- 1998 school year to 21% during the 1998-1999 school year\nON TARGET Decrease in the percent of 10* grade students scoring above the 50* percentile from 30% during the 1997- 1998 school year to 27% during the 1998-1999 school year NOT YET e. SA T-9 science sub-test for all students grades 5, 7, 10 Decrease in the percent of 5* grade students scoring above the 50* percentile from 38% during the 1997- 1998 school year to 33% during the 1998-1999 school year\nNOT YET / SA T-9 science sub-test for underrepresented minority students 1998-1999 Annual Report Decrease in the number of 7* grade students scoring above the 50* percentile from 40% during the 1997- 1998 school year to 39% during the 1998-1999 school year\nDecrease in the percent of 10* grade students scoring above the 50th percentile from 42% dining the 1997- 1998 school year to 40% during the 1998-1999 school year\nDecrease in the percent of 5* grade students scoring above the 50* percentile from 22% during the 1997- 1998 school year to 19% during the 1998-1999 school year\n17 NOT YET NOT YET NOT YET JProject Goal/Outcomes Key Performance Indicators Baseline 1997-1998 to 1998-1999 Status 1998-1999 Annual Report Decrease in the percent of 7* grade students scoring above the 50\"' percentile from 27% during the 1997- 1998 school year to 26% during the 1998-1999 school year\nDecrease in the percent of lO\"' grade students scoring above the 50'*' percentile from 29% during the 1997- 1998 school year to 25% during the 1998-1999 school year State Benchmark Exam Decrease in the number of 4* grade students scoring at the Proficient and Advanced Proficient levels on the mathematics exam from 26.3% during the 1997-1998 school year to 22.1/% during the 1998-1999 school year. A decrease of 4.2%\nGrade 8 EXPLORE EXPLORE is acts 8^ grade program that assesses students academic progress and helps students begin to explore and plan for the wide range of educational and career options open to them. Increase in the local mean score on the EXPLORE (mathematics) for S* grade students from 11.9 during the 1997-1998 school year to 14.6 during the 1998-1999 school year - 23% increase. The mean score for African American students increased from 11.7 during the 1997-1998 school year to 13 during the 1998-1999 school year on the EXPLORE (mathematics) - 11% increase. Increase in the local mean score on the science portion of the EXPLORE for all 8\" grade students from 11.3 during the 1997-1998 school year to 13.7 during the 1998-1999 school year - 21% increase. Increase in the local mean score for African American students on the science portion of the EXPLORE increased from 11.2 during the 1997-1998 school year to 12.1 during the 1998-1999 school year - 8% increase. PLAN PLAN is acts 1 (f'' grade program that provides a midpoint review of students progress toward their educational and career goals. Increase in the local mean score for 10*^ grade students on the math portion of the PLAN from 14.9 during the 1997-1998 school year to 15.6 during the 1998-1999 school year - 5% increase. A slight decrease in the mean score for African American students on the math portion of the PLAN from 13.8 during thel997-1998 school year to 13.7 18 NOT YET NOT YET NOT YET ON TARGET ON TARGET ON TARGET ON TARGET ON TARGET ON TARGET I I I I I I I' 1 J2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Project To implement policies and practices that will enroll all district 8^ and/or 9\"' graders in Algebra I by 2003\nTo increase the algebra success rates for all students by 2%\nTo increase the number of students who eruoll in geometry and trigonometry by 2%\nTo increase the student success rates in geometry and trigonometry by 2%\nTo increase the student success rates in biology by 2%\nTo increase the student success rates in chemistry from 62% in Year 1 to 75% in year V of the agreement\nTo increase the enrollment in physics from 17% to 30% by year V\n1998-1999 Annual Report Key Performance Indicators Baseline 1997-1998 to 1998-1999 during the 1998-1999 school year - ,7% decrease. Increase in the local mean score for 10'*' grade students on the science reasoning portion of the PLAN from 16.2 during the 1997-1998 school year to 16.7 during the 1998-1999 school year - 3% increase. An increase in the mean score for African American students on the science reasoning portion of the PLAN from 15.4 during the 1997-1998 school year to 15.5 during the 1998-1999 school year - .7% increase. LRSD Quality Indicator - 90% of a middle school's student will be enrolled in Algebra I by grade 8 - practice implemented during the 1998-1999 school year. Increase in the number of students who were successful in Algebra I from 57% during the 1997-1998 school year to 59% during the 1998-1999 school year. Increase in the number of students who enrolled in trigonometry from 497 during the 1997-1998 school year to 548 during the 1998-1999 school year resulting in a 10% increase\nA decrease in the number of students who enrolled in geometry from 1843 during the 1997-1998 school year to 1442 during the 1998-1999 school year- 22% decrease. An increase in the number of students who successfully completed geometry from 44% during the 1997-1998 school year to 57% during the 1998-1999 school year - 13% increase A decrease in the number of students successfully completing trigonometry from 80% during the 1997- 1998 school year to 75% during the 1998-1999 school year - 4% decrease An increase in the number of students who successfully completed biology from 56% during the 1997-1998 school year to 60% during the 1998-1999 school year - 4% increase. An increase in the number of students successfully completing chemistry from 66% during the 1997-1998 school year to 76% during the 1998-1999 school year. Increase in the number of students enrolling in physics from 136 during the 1997-1998 school year to 151 19 Status ON TARGET ON TARGET ON TARGET TARGET MET TARGET MET NOT YET TARGET MET NOT YET ON TARGET ON TARGET ON TARGET JProject Goal/Outcomes Key Performance Indicators Baseline 1997-1998 to 1998-1999 Status during the 1998-1999 school year - A 11% increase. 9. The CPMSA school district shall implement an articulated, standards- based curriculum, instructional, and assessment program that has been field tested by NSF or recommended by entities such as professional science educational organizations, and/or jurisdictions like the state where the CPMSA school district is located. The CPMSA school district shall also design and implement standards-based professional development for teachers, staff development for counselors and administrators, and student enrichment activities that support this articulated, standards-based program. Professional development began for implementation of standards-based mathematics and science program for all teachers at identified grade levels\nProfessional development also provided for principals and counselors during the 1998-1999 school year ON TARGET Summary Nearly 700 professional development hours were designated to prepare teachers to implement high- quality standards-based mathematics and science curricula. The LR CPMSA is moving in the right directions towards achieving its outcomes and goals. In August 1999, the Little Rock Board of Directors adopted a comprehensive assessment program for students in grades 3-11. This program will allow student growth to be measured from beginning of the year to the end of the year through criterion-referenced tests that are tightly aligned with curriculum standards. Results of these assessments will provide a catalyst for determining professional development and student academic enrichment needs in mathematics and science. Services provided by institutions of higher learning and other partners, for teachers and/or students. will also be driven by student achievement data. Modifications will be made in the following areas to further address student achievement in mathematics and science: 1 1998-1999 Annual Report 20 I I I, !Science curriculum A need exists to accelerate the science curriculum along with mathematics to ensure that all students receive high-quality standards-based instruction. The project staff is working closely with the superintendent to modify this program. High School Plan Standards and benchmarks aligned with national standards were developed for K-12 mathematics and science. Vertical teams will continue to be utilized to ensure a smooth transition in mathematics and science for all students through grade 12. The project staff will review high school models (for mathematics and science) that will provide a comprehensive high-quality education. Partners The primary partners, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Philander Smith College, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, and the Museum of Discovery, continue to provide professional development for teachers and enrichment programs for students that are aligned with the goals of the LR CPMSA. These programs include the Summer Science Institute, Summer Mathematics Advanced Readiness Training, Summer Algebra Readiness Program, and the After-School Science Clubs. These programs, which provide important support, will be scaled up to reach more students and teachers. 1998-1999 Annual Report 21 I' NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 4201 WILSON BOULEVARD ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22230 May 20,1999 Dr. Leslie Carnine Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Carnine: On behalf of the National Science Foundations (NSF), Division of Educational System Reform, 1 wish to express our gratefulness to the Little Rock School D/sfricf personnel, including teachers, principals, and students for their effective participation and warm hospitality during the site visit held on April 27-29 1999 _ The purpose of this site visit was to assess the progress made by the Little Rock Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement Program (LRCPMSA) to date. One of the key findings of the site visit was the notable progress made by the Little Rock School District in some of the areas relative to K-12 systemic reform in mathematics and science education. Piloting and implementing standards- based curriculum programs is, unequivocally, a Year 1 accomplishment w ic will lead the Initiative to further progress in this critical area. Likewise the establishment of new policies and measures, particularly programmatic is definitely an aspect of the District that favors the achievement of the Initiative s vision. While working with educational systems in the transformation and renewal of K- 12 mathematics and science education using systemic reform as a strategy, it this multifactorial enterprise, standards-based becomes apparent that among this multifactorial enterprise, curriculum implementation, professional development, an p measured bv reliable standards-based assessment systems are the three most S and cVrSequential elements. Therefore, the LRCPMSA is encouraged to ensure the quality of these essential variables, their alignment correspondence through effective, research-baset^ strategies^h patolar, the LRCPMSA is urged to revisit its profess,ona development com^ne make it consistent with the Initiatives purpose and concern to NSF-in order to make it consisteni wnn me - scope of work. Professional development is, consequent y. to be prioritized in the immediate future. fDr. Lelslie Camine 2. The major concern raised, as a direct result of this visit was the lack of substantive evidence to support the value added of the CPMSA Program in Little Rock to the Districts reform agenda in science and mathematics. The absence of an action plan to guide the work in Year 1 and the fact that approximately 62% of NSF funds are still unused are some of the factors contributing to this situation. There are fundamental areas that the LRCPMSA needs to focus in the immediate future. These areas include: (1) Convergence of the usage of all resources that are designed for or that reasonably could be used to support science and mathematics education fiscal, intellectual, material, curricular, and extra-curricular- into a focused and unitary program to constantly upgrade, renew, and improve the educational program in mathematics and science for all students. (2) Broad-based support from parents, policymakers, institutions of higher education, business and industry, foundations, and other segments of the community for the goals and collective values of the program, based on rich presentations of the ideas behind the program. (3) Accumulation of a broad and deep array of evidence that the program is enhancing all students achievement, through a set of indices (e.g., achievement test scores, higher level courses passed, advanced placement tests taken, college admission rates, college majors, portfolio assessment, research experiences, ratings from summer employers). (4) Improvement in the achievement of all students, including those historically underserved. The LRCPMSA is requested to attend a reverse site visit at NSF in July 1999. The purpose of this visit is to assess the progress made by the initiative in its first year of implementation and the specific plans for the immediate future, particularly Year 2. Furthermore, assessment of the impact and value added of the CPMSA Program to the Districts science and mathematics education agenda will be the primary focus of the reverse site visit. The evaluation of the progress made by the CPMSA in Little Rock conveyed during this reverse site visit, including a detailed analysis of the 1997 and 1998 mathematics and science student performance data by grade level, will be used by NSF to determine the level of funding for the LRCPMSAs second year of funding. It is important to underscore that per the extant cooperative agreement,Dr. Leslie Carnine 3. the level of continued NSF support will depend upon an annual review of achievement, the level of support from other sources, and the availability of funds. Likewise, the LRCPMSA is reminded that based on this annual progress report, the Foundation will determine whether full support to the CPMSA will continue or if funding to phase-out this effort will occur. The following set of dates are suggested for this purpose: July 9,16, or 23, 1999. The LRCPMSA is expected to select one of these dates or suggest a different option to NSF. The Initiatives key leadership should attend the reverse site visit, including the Principal Investigator, the co-Principal Investigators, and the Project Director. Attached is a copy of the site visit report. It includes major findings, concerns, and recommendations. Please share it with the LRCPMSAs staff and Districts representatives. Please call me at (703) 306-1685, extension 5836, should you have questions or comments regarding the content of this report. May I wish you success in achieving high standards of excellence in science and mathematics education for all students in the Little Rock Independent School District. Sincerely, I JuHo E. Ldpez-Ferrao Program Director Division of Educational System Reform cc: Luther S. Williams Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver National Science Foundation Directorate for Education and Human Resources Division of Educational System Reform Urban Systemic Program Little Rock Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement (LRCPMSA) Program Site Visit Report April 27-29,1999 Introduction The Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement (CPMSA) Program The Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement (CPMSA) Program strives to improve the quality and quantity of science and mathematics education delivered by entire school districts or systems. Recognizing that currently only a small percentage of precollege students ultimately pursue undergraduate studies in science and mathematics fields, the National Science Foundation (NSF) has encouraged the development of activities that focus on students who have not previously shown much interest in science, but who might become involved and successful if properly motivated to do so. Thus, the primary goal of the CPMSA Program is to develop systemic approaches to increase the number of students enrolling in and successfully completing precollege courses which will prepare them to pursue undergraduate programs in the sciences, engineering, and mathematics. Building on NSFs strategy of forging alliances and partnerships for systemic reform, eligible city school systems were required to link to institutions of higher education, business and industry, professional organizations, community-based organizations, and other educational organizations to facilitate the attainment of the following objectives:  Develop or revise courses and other enrichment activities in the elementary and secondary schools with a substantial number of students enrolled to improve the quality of precollege science and mathematics education.  Develop and strengthen the capacity to deliver standards-based quality instruction in school science and mathematics education for students that will result in a significant increase in the number of them becoming high school graduates who are academically prepared to enter college and major in the sciences, mathematics, or engineering. Develop and sustain district-wide policies that will significantly increase student enrollments and successful completion of gatekeeping courses, such as algebra in the eighth and ninth grades.  Substantially decrease or eliminate academic tracking, improve academic counseling, and facilitate the successful transitions of students from elementary to middle school, from middle school to high school, and from high school into undergraduate programs in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology.  Stimulate efforts among secondary schools and colleges and universities, as well as relevant informal science organizations (e.g., museums, aquaria, etc.) in the region to develop summer enrichment activities.  Stimulate efforts among professional organizations, business and industry to become involved in mentorship programs for precollege students to motivate them to succeed in challenging science and mathematics courses\nand coordinate the partners involved in the various NSF-supported programs, as well as precollege programs supported by other Federal agencies and private sector organizations, to avoid duplication, and to share resources to maximize the available funding.  Develop outreach programs to involve parents and guardians of students, especially those students who are not currently high achievers in the system.  Function in a complementary and collaborative way with other related NSF-funded educational activities within the region, such as the Statewide Systemic Initiatives (SSI) and the Alliances for Minority Participation (AMP). Effective FY 1999, the CPMSA Program, along with the Urban Systemic Initiative (USI) Program, were merged into the new Urban Systemic Programa K-12- based program through which NSF seeks to stimulate interest, increase participation, improve achievement, and accelerate career advancement and success of all students of the participating school districts. The Little Rock School District The Little Rock School District serves a total of 24,886 students for the 1998-99 school year. The District operates 50 school buildings, including 35 elementary schools, 8 junior-high schools, 5 senior-high schools, one vocational-technical- high school, and one alternative school. Since 1982, a federal court order and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals have guided Districts efforts for the 2desegregation of schools. School assignment is based on attendance zones, and predominantly minority neighborhoods are served by schools with high minority student enrollment. Minority students comprise 71% of the total student body: 67% African American\n29% White\nand 4% Hispanic, Asian, and other minorities. There are 2,191 teachers of whom 919 teach science and mathematics: 735 science and mathematics elementary teachers, 94 secondary science teachers, and 90 secondary mathematics teachers. The CPMSA Program in Little Rock keystaff includes a Director of Mathematics and Science, a Project Director, a Science Specialist, a Mathematics Specialist, and two Science and Mathematics Specialists. The Little Rock Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement (LRCPMSA) Program The Little Rock Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement (LRCPMSA) Program is a collaborative effort for systemic reform of public education aimed at impacting all students. Its overall mission is to develop educational systemic change approaches to produce significant increases in the number of students who are prepared to pursue undergraduate study in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. The LRCPMSA goals include: (i) Prepare 100% of graduates to successfully complete Algebra\n(ii) Increase the number of students who successfully complete upper-level mathematics and science courses\n(iii) Adopt a Board policy to require that students in Advanced Placement (AP) courses take the AP examination\n(iv) Revise the mathematics curriculum to limit the number of topics for each grade level and subject and to increase the depth at which each topic is taught\n(v) Implement standards-based pedagogy in all classrooms\n(vi) Provide support programs for students in upper level mathematics and science courses\n(vi) Increase the knowledge and involvement of parents in the mathematics and science programs\nand (vii) Provide targeted staff development to assist staff in facilitating the above stated objectives. To accomplish these goals, the Little Rock School District plans to build a partnership effort among leading institutions in the central Arkansas area, including higher education institutions (e.g., the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Philander Smith College, and the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences: the Arkansas Museum of Science and History\nmunicipal agencies, such as the City of Little Rock and the Little Rock Housing Authority\nthe Central Arkansas Library System\nand the Little Rock Alliance for Our Public Schools. LRCPMSAs monitoring and oversight will be done by the Governing Board\nthe Districts Mathematics and Science Director, the Project Director, and the Science and Mathematics Specialists. 3The NSFs Site Visit Julio E. Lopez-Ferrao, cognizant NSF Program Director, visited the LRCPMSA, on April 27-29,1999. The purpose of the visit was to assess the progress made by the CPMSA Program in Little Rock to date. The visit consisted of an introductory meeting on April 27 with the Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction, the Director of Mathematics and Science, the Project Director, the Mathematics and Science Specialists, teachers and other Districts representatives in which an overview of the District and the Initiative was provided. A meeting on April 28 with key project-related personnel who are contributing to the achievement of the CPMSA goals and objectives followed this activity. Information on curriculum, professional development, assessment, policies, tracking, partnerships, student support programs, and finance was provided. School visits were made on April 28 and 29 to Romaine Elementary School, Forest Heights Junior High School, and Central High School. Findings, Concerns, and Recommendations Curriculum: The Little Rock School District currently requires three units of science and three units in mathematics for graduation. It has developed K-12 standards and benchmarks for science and mathematics correlated with the state frameworks, the state assessment system {Stanford Achievement Test, 9 Edition or SAT 9), local assessments, and textbooks and instructional materials. A new K-12 curriculum scope and sequence for science encompasses the use of Science and Technology for Children (STC) from first through seventh grade\nScience Education for Public Understanding (SEPUP) at the eighth grade\nActive Physics for the ninth grade\nBiologyA Community Context for the 10 grade\nand ChemCom for the 11* grade, followed by one year for an elective course. The mathematics sequence includes Investigations in Number, Data, and Space from Kindergarten through fifth grade\nthe Connected Mathematics Project for sixth through eighth grade\nMath Connections for ninth and tenth grades, and two years of elective courses. The District has initiated the implementation of mathematics and science standards-based curriculum at different levels by piloting various instructional materials with approximately 3.3% of its mathematics and science teachers to date. This activity is viewed as an advance in this area, since it is evident that the Little Rock School District has decided what to be taught and how to teach it by establishing the new standards and benchmarks. Furthermore, it has begun to assist teachers in the appropriate use of effective mathernatics and science curricula. Nevertheless, it needs to be underscored that while the new curriculum sequence for mathematics is being piloted/implemented through the 4use of full and complete instructional programs with a larger number of teachers and classrooms, the science approach to the implementation of standards-based curricula has been through the use of a limited number of kits, units or modules in a reduced number of schools, which appears to be a slower pace approach. In addition, the official K-12 curriculum sequence pursued by the District is still unclear, since the information provided during the site visit does not identify the entire curriculum continuum being currently considered and promoted (e.g.. How do AP and Pre-AP courses fit into the promoted curriculum K-12 sequences for both science and mathematics?). The CPMSA leadership is encouraged to clarify urgently this important component of its science and mathematics reform agenda. Overall, the District appears to have made some progress in the implementation of standards-based curriculum. However, a major concern and an unacceptable condition to NSF remains regarding the pace of the K-12 science standards- based implementation process and results and the lack of a scale-up strategy to be used in order to ensure the participation of a significant number of schools by the end of the five-year implementation process. Likewise, the role of the four existing science and mathematics specialists in this process seems to be ambiguous. Thus, it is recommended that the LRCPMSA consider the use of additional human resources (e.g., lead teachers by regions) districtwide in the immediate future to address this critical aspect of systemic reform as well as the development and implementation of a comprehensive scale-up plan. Professional Development: It is apparent that the Little Rock School District has made efforts to implement standards-based science and mathematics curricula through professional development activities. Similarly, it seems that the CPMSA Program has provided professional development experiences for first year mathematics and science teachers, vertical teams, counselors, and school principals. New and first-year secondary mathematics and science teachers participated in a series of four workshops related to implementation of the mathematics and science curriculum, classroom management, learning styles, use of manipulative materials, cooperative learning, and the use of technology. Inservice programs have begun for all 4*', 5*, and 6' grade mathematics and science teachers for the fall 1999 implementation of new standards-based programs. Analysis of the information provided on mathematics and science inservice programs through August, 1999 indicates that the average duration of the experiences offered to teachers is 2.2 days and that they are essentially focused at assisting teachers with the implementation of new programs, such as STC, Investigations, and Active Physics. Nonetheless, these efforts seem to be fragmented and insufficient that will not lead the Initiative to the districtwide effective implementation of K-12 high-quality curricula as explicitly stated by one of the Initiatives goals. Therefore, the LRCPMSA is encouraged to design a research-based K-12 mathematics and science professional development master 5program for its 919 science and mathematics teachers to be implemented throughout the duration of the project. This program should be aimed at helping the Districts teachers to use high-quality, standards-based curricula at every grade level. Student Performance Assessment: Analysis of the information on student performance assessment (comparison between second semester 1997-1998 and first semester 1998-1999) provided during the site visit reflects an increase in the percent of students graded C or above in courses such as Algebra 1 (+5 /o). Algebra 11 (+6%), Geometry (+3%), Chemistry (+12%), Statistics (+14%), PreCalculus (+7%), AP Calculus (+4%), AP Physics (+1%), and AP Chemistry (+10%). Decreases are shown in Physics (-1%). Biology (-2%), Trigonometry (-1%), and AP Environmental Science (-10%). The Little Rock School District administers the SAT 9 since it is a state mandated test. However, data on this test's results were not provided during the visit. It is recommended that the CPMSA Program in Little Rock design a strategy to gather, interpret, and use student achievement data in order to effectively inform its programmatic decisions in the immediate future. Policies: The Little Rock School District has established a significant number of policies and measures that influence and support K-12 science and mathematics education. Some of these policies include the following\n Establishment of K-12 academic content standards and benchmarks in mathematics and science.  Promotion of mathematics and science standards-based curricula.  Increase in graduation requirements in 1998 (three units of science and three units of science are required currently). A recommended common core and career focus. Class of 2003, includes four units o science and four units of mathematics.  Use of three additional days for professional development through a state waiver.  Elimination of low-level courses effective FY 1999.  Various measures and regulations related to AP courses. The Little Rock School District has, unequivocally, a comprehensive set of policies in place that will benefit and advance the CPMSA Programs expectations in the future. 6Elimination of Tracking: It appears that the Little Rock School District has made particular efforts to meet the individual needs of the student population. The elimination of all lower-level courses constitutes evidence in support of the eradication of academic tracking, which is one of the CPMSAs objectives. Similarly, the inclusion of advanced courses and the various curriculum measures will probably contribute to the successful transition of students from one level to another. Summer Enrichment Activities: The LRCPMSA plans to provide summer enrichment activities for students and teachers through the Southeastern Consortium for Minorities in Engineering (SECME), Joint Recruiting and Teaching for Effecting Aspiring Minorities in Science (J-R TEAMS), and VITAL LINK. SECME is a program offered through a consortium of southeastern universities that motivates minorities to excel in mathematics and science through a club format that includes local and national competitions. JR-TEAMS is a two-week multidisciplinary pre-college science and engineering program that will be offered through a partnership with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock aimed at increasing the number of minority students pursuing degrees in science and engineering. VITAL LINK is a summer work site experience that acquaints students with job requirements and responsibilities in a variety of careers. Furthermore, the Extended Year Algebra I Programa two-week summer institute to serve rising 9^* graders who need additional assistance to be successful in Algebra Iwill be implemented as well. Although the CPMSA Program in Little Rock has clear plans to provide student support through summer experiences, it needs to ensure that each of the programs to be implemented represent an extended learning experience for the students that enhances their classroom learning. A thorough evaluation of the outcomes of the upcoming summer programs is highly recommended. Mentorship Programs for Precollege Students: The University of Arkansas at Little Rock will offer Saturday research for students from 7\"11*** grades who will receive assistance in selecting appropriate research topics, setting up a research design, and carrying on the research. Likewise, the Philander Smith College will offer the Summer Algebra Readiness Institute for 9^-grade students who will enroll in Algebra I during the 1999-2000 school year. The program will target students from Central High School located in the surroundings of Philander Smith College. This innovative program will include a follow-up component through which college students will mentor participating students eight times during the school year. The LRCPMSA is encouraged to increase the number of mentorship programs in partnership with local and state organizations and higher education institutions. Parents and Community: The LRCPMSAs parent and community component includes the use of Family Science and Family Math as the main program. Five 7principals identified two teachers per school to participate in a training program designed to guide the implementation of Family Math and Family Science nights. Each school received small grants to hold three night events. Besides, the LRCPMSA plans to inform parents about standards-based mathematics and science via parent-teachers associations meetings, publications, and media coverage. Presentation have been made before the Volunteers in Public Schools Board and the Little Rock Parent and Teacher Association Council to provide information about the Initiative and changes that will take place. Although still in its first year of implementation, the Initiatives activities related to community outreach and parent involvement seem to be exceedingly restricted. The CPMSA Program in Little Rock is urged to design and implement an aggressive community involvement plan to ensure the effective participation of parents, industry, business, and the private sector in general. Building community support, as clearly expressed by the 1998-99 Work Plan forLRSD Priorities is, indeed, an area to which the LRCPMSA can make a significant contribution. As part of the recommended plan, the LRCPMSA is suggested the production of a brochure aimed at communicating to the public is objectives and main accomplishments. Collaboration with Other Related NSF-funded Educational Activities: It is evident that the Arkansas Statewide Systemic Initiative (AR SSI) has influenced the trajectory of the Little Rock School District, particularly in programmatic areas, such as standards-based curriculum implementation and professional development. Currently, the University of Arkansas at Little Rock is engaged in several partnerships with the District, including SECME, and the implementation of the AR SSI K-4, Math and Science Crusades. Likewise, the Museum of Discovery will implement a system of science clubs to be located at various community centers and after-school programs in Little Rock. Additional Findings Related to the Objective of the Site Visit Cooperative Agreement The analysis of Cooperative Agreement No. HRD-9801615 between NSF and the Little Rock School District (September 1,1998 through August 31,2003) revealed the following major issues and concerns:  Deliverables: The LRCPMSA showed no significant data or evidenced a process in place to collect the data needed to document each one of the agreed upon deliverables specified under Section 111 A 7, CPMSA Participant and Systemic Change Goals, pages 4-5 of the cooperative agreement. The Initiative does not seem to have a mechanism to gather the information needed and make it available to teachers, principals at. Furthermore, there does not seem to be a strategy by which the CPMSA leadership become aware of the current 8programmatic problems and situations that may be impeding the achievement of the aforementioned targets. Increasing K-12 science and mathematics student achievement and enrollment, as stated in the cooperative agreement, demands specific programmatic actions as well as a specific data collection system in placenone of which were evident during the site visit.  Governing Board: Section III A9, page 9, reads as follows: The CPMSA shall have a governing board as specified in the proposal. The board shall have sanctioned authority and responsibility for oversight of the programmatic components of the CPMSA. The governing board is expected to oversee the development of the goals, the implementation of the activities and the assessment of the outcomes. The board, in concert with the Principal Investigator, shall recommend to the school district the achievement of project goals and objectives. No evidence was presented during the site visit of the governing boards membership or its intervention in the Initiatives operation. Thus, the role of the aforementioned governing board is unclear at this moment.  Funding and Funding Schedule: Section III B, FUNDING AND FUNDING SCHEDULE, page 6 of the cooperative agreement, reads as follows: 1. It is the intent of the Foundation to provide up to $3,228,022 to support the CPMSA over the next 5 years. Funds in the amount of $960, 578 are hereby provided to support the CPMSA for the period September 1, 1999 to August 31, 2000, in accordance with the revised budget dated April 9, 1998. 2. The level of continued NSF support will be negotiated with the Awardee annually and will depend upon an annual review of achievement, the level of support from other sources, and the availability of funds. 3. The Foundation will evaluate annually the CPMSA to determine whether the Foundation will continue to support full activities, or will provide decreased funding to phase out Foundation support of the CPMSA. There was a misinterpretation about NSFs approved budgets for Years 1 and 2. In order to ensure an adequate understanding and the appropriate 9use of NSFs funds, the following amounts reflected in two separate (signed) budgets, were identified as those officially approved: Year 1 Year 2 $198,533 $752,045 The CPMSAs leadership was encouraged to submit a certified financial report of Year 1 expenditures and obligations. Similarly, the leadership was suggested to rebudget Year 1 in order to address some of the major needs identified during the site visit. Year 2 funds will be negotiated after the completion of Year 1. For this purpose, the LRCPMSA leadership will make a presentation of the Initiatives major accomplishments in Year 1 during a reverse site visit to be held by July 31,1999 at the Foundations headquarters.  Evaluation: Section III A, item 12, page 6 of the cooperative agreement reads as follows: The Awardee shall use the evaluation component found in the proposal ora modified version approved by NSF. There was no evidence of an evaluation plan being used by the LRCPMSA during the site visit. Thus, the Initiative is not in compliance with this inherent component of the agreed statement of work. It is urged to revisit its evaluation strategy and develop a comprehensive evaluation plan that: (i) specifies the strategies to gather, interpret, and use relevant data, (ii) addresses each of the Initiatives components, and (iii) informs the CPMSA leadership in its decision-making process and allows it to readjust plans. Summary One of the key findings of the April 27-29,1999 site visit was the notable progress made by the Little Rock School District in some of the areas relative to K-12 systemic reform in mathematics and science education. Piloting and implementing standards-based curriculum programs is, unequivocally, a Year 1 accomplishment, which will lead the Initiative to further progress in this critica area. Likewise, the establishment of new policies and measures, particular y programmatic policies, is definitely an aspect of the District that favors the achievement of the Initiatives vision. While working with educational systems in the transformation and renewal of K- itiiiiv vir\\iiiy vvivii uvwuwi i-\u0026gt; x x *. 12 mathematics and science education using systemic reform as a strategy, it becomes apparent that among this multifactorial enterprise, standards-based curriculum implementation, professional development, and student performance 10 measured by reliable, standards-based assessment systems are the three most critical and consequential elements. Therefore, the LRCPMSA is encouraged to ensure the quality of these essential variables and their alignment and correspondence through effective, research-based strategies. In particular, the LRCPMSA is urged to revisit its professional development componenta concern to NSFin order to make it consistent with the Initiatives purpose and scope of work. Professional development is, consequently, a domain that needs to be prioritized in the immediate future. The major concern raised, as a direct result of this visit was the lack of substantive evidence to support the value added of the CPMSA Program in Little Rock to the Districts reform agenda in science and mathematics. The absence of an action plan to guide the work in Year 1 and the fact that approximately 62 /o of NSF funds are still unused are some of the factors contributing to this situation. There are fundamental areas of concern that the LRCPMSA needs to address in the immediate future. These areas include: (1) Convergence of the usage of all resources that are designed for or that reasonably could be used to support science and mathematics education fiscal, intellectual, material, curricular, and extra-curricular into a focused and unitary program to constantly upgrade, renew, and improve the educational program in mathematics and science for all students. (2) Broad-based support from parents, policymakers, institutions of higher education, business and industry, foundations, and other segments of the community for the goals and collective values of the program, based on rich presentations of the ideas behind the program. (3) Accumulation of a broad and deep array of evidence that the program is enhancing all students achievement, through a set of indices (e.g., achievement test scores, higher level courses passed, advanced placement tests taken, college admission rates, college majors, portfolio assessment, research experiences, ratings from summer employers). (4) Improvement in the achievement of all students, including those historically underserved. Reverse Site Visit The LRCPMSA is requested to attend a reverse site visit at NSF in July 1999. The purpose of this visit is to assess the progress made by the Initiative in its first year of implementation and the specific plans for the immediate future, particularly Year 2. Furthermore, assessment of the impact and value added of 11 the CPMSA Program to the Districts science and mathematics education agenda will be the primary focus of the reverse site visit. The evaluation of the progress made by the CPMSA in Little Rock conveyed during this reverse site visit, including a detailed analysis by grade level of the 1997 and 1998 mathematics and science student performance data, will be used by NSF to determine the level of funding for the LRCPMSA second year of funding. It is important to underscore that per the extant cooperative agreement, the level of continued NSF support will depend upon an annual review of achievement, the level of support from other sources, and the availability of funds. Likewise, the LRCPMSA is reminded that based on this annual progress report, the Foundation will determine whether full support to the CPMSA will continue or if funding to phase-out this effort will occur. The following set of dates are suggested for this purpose\nJuly 9,16, or 23, 1999. The LRCPMSA is expected to select one of these or suggest a different option to NSF. The Initiatives key leadership should attend the reverse site visit, including the Principal Investigator, the co-Principal Investigators, and the Project Director. 12Reverse Site Visit NSF Friday, July 16,1999 Presentation \u0026gt; Value added by CPMSA \u0026gt; Year One Accomplishments \u0026gt; Data \u0026gt; Year Two Plan \u0026gt; Question and Answer SessionVALUE ADDED BY CPMSA Plan and Process Alignment for improved Student Achievement Little Rock School District Process Data Analysis Campus Plan Process Interventions Professional Development Standards Assessment Accountability Parent Involvement SP X X X X X X RDEP X X X X X X Title I X X X X X X X X ACSIP X X X X X X X X ACTAAP X X X X X X UPDI X X X X X NSF X X X X X X CLP X X X X X X X X SP RDEP Title I ACSIP ACTAAP UPDI NSF CLP strategic Plan Revised Desergregation and Education Plan Title I Arkansas Comprehensive School Improvement Planning Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Program Urban Professional Development Initiative National Science Foundation Campus Leadership PlanRelationship of CPMSA Goals and LRSD Quality Indicators _____________________ CPMSA Goals_________________________ (a) LRSD agrees to enact policies and practices that will result in an increase by 2% after Year I of the agreement the composite scores of underrepresented minority students in grades 2-11 on the SAT9. For each subsequent year of the agreement, the LRSD agrees to enact policies and practices that will result in a 5% increase of the composite scores of underrepresented minority students on the SAT9. Nofe: LRSD will no longer administer the SAT9 at grades 2-1 J. Rather, students in grades 2-11 will take each semester a new District-adopted CRT that is aligned with the currictdum standards and benchmarks. LRSD Quality Indicators 65% of a schools students in every sub-group of race and gender at grades 5, 7, and 10 shall perform at or above the 50* percentile in SAT9 mathematics. The percent of students in every sub-woup of race and gender at grades 5, 7, and 10 performing at or above the 50 percentile in SAT9 mathematics will meet or exceed the trend or improvement goals each year. 100% of a schools students in grades 4, 6, and 8 shall perform at or above the proficient level in mathematics on the Arkansas criterion-referenced test The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in mathematics on the grades 4, 6, and 8 Arkansas criterion-referenced tests will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 90% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in mathematics each semester on the District CRT. The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each semester on the District CRT. The percent of students demonstrating gains from the pre-test to the post-test will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year on the District CRT. (b) The LRSD agrees to implement policies and practices that will enroll all district eighth and/or ninth grade students in Algebra I by the Year 2003. 90% of a middle schools students will be enrolled in Algebra I by grade 8. The percent of students enrolled in Algebra I by grade 8 will meet or exceed the trend goal each year._____________________________________________________________________CPMSA Goals________________ (c) The LRSD agrees to increase the algebra success rates for all district students by 2% after Year I of the agreement\n5% after Year II of the agreement\n5% after Year III of the agreement\n5% after Year IV of the agreement\nand 5% after Year V of the agreement. (d) The LRSD agrees to increase the numbers of students who enroll in geometry and trigonometry by 2% in Year 1 of the agreement\n5% in Year II of the agreement\n5% in Year III of the agreement\n5% in Year IV of the agreement, and 5% in Year V of the agreement.___________________________ (e) The LRSD agrees to increase the student success rates in geometry and trigonometry by 2% after Year I of the agreement\n5% after Year II of the agreement\n5% after Year III of the agreement\n5% after Year IV of the agreement\nand 5% in Year V of the agreement. (f) The LRSD agrees to increase the student enrollment rates and student success rates in biology by 2% in Year I of the agreement\n5% in Year II of the agreement\n5% in Year III of the agreement\n5% in Year IV of the agreement\nand 5% in Year V of the agreement.____________________________________ (g) The LRSD agrees to increase the student success rates in biology by 2% after Year I of the agreement\n5% after Year II of the agreement\n5% after Year III of the agreement\n5% after Year IV of the agreement\nand 5% after Year V of the agreement.____________________________________________________ (h) The LRSD agrees to increase the student success rates in chemistry from 62% in Year I of the agreement to 75% in Year V of the agreement.__________ (i) The LRSD agrees to increase the student enrollment in physics from 17% to 30% by Year V of the agreement. LRSD Quality Indicators 100% of a schools secondary students shall perform at or above the proficient level in Algebra I. The percent of secondary students performing at or above the proficient level in Algebra I will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. Note: The success rate will also be determined by grades. Note: Geometry is required of all LRSD students for graduation. 100% of a schools secondary students shall perform at or above the proficient level in Geometry. The percent of secondary students performing at or above the proficient level in Geometry will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. Note: The success rates in Geometry and Trigonometry will also be determined by grades._________________________________________ Note: All LRSD students are required to take Biology Ifor graduation. Note: The success rate in Biology I will be determined by grades Note: The success rate in Chemistry I will be determined by grades. Note: Effective fall 1999, all LRSD students must take Physics I in order to graduate.CPMSA Goals LRSP Quality Indicators (j) The LRSD agrees to increase the numbers of students who graduate with SEM proficiency from 40% to 70% by Year V of the agreement. 65% of middle and high school students will be enrolled in at least one Pre-AP or AP course each year. The percent of students enrolled in at least one Pre-AP or AP course will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 90% of a high schools students who take the ACT will earn a score of at least 19. The percent of students earning a score of 19 or above will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. 65% of a high schools students will complete the requirements to earn the Honors Seal on their diplomas. Note: Four years of mathematics and science are required. The percent of students completing the requirements for the Honors Seal will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. (k) The CPMSA school district shall implement an articulated, standards- based curriculum, instructional, and assessment program that has been field tested by NSF or recommended by entities such as professional science educational organizations, and/or jurisdictions like the state where the CPMSA school district is located. The CPMSA school district shall also design and implement standards-based professional development for teachers, staff development for counselors and administrators, and student enrichment activities that support this articulated, standards-based program. _________ (I) The LRSD shall implement practices to recruit qualified minority science and mathematics professionals with the goal of increasing minority faculty by 10% by Year V of the agreement. ________________________________ (m) The CPMSA school district shall submit a written program management plan to the cognizant NSF program officer, annually, no later than two months after notification of the award (in year 1) and after notification of continuation of the award in years 2, 3, 4, and 5. ----------------------------------------------------- See Year Two Plan. Success will be determined by numbers of newly certified science and mathematics teachers. See annual Management Plan.CPMSA Goals :h (n) The following quantitative goals for student enrollment and successful completion rates for specific award year are minimal and should be exceeded: \u0026amp;e data report LRSD Qoality Indicators 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 10% of the projected increase from the baseline 30% of the projected increase from the baseline 50% of the projected increase from the baseline 70% of the projected increase from the baseline 100% of the projected increase from the baselineLRCPMSA YEAR ONE ACCOMPLISHMENTS 1992^-1999 POLICY #1 - Standards-Based Curriculum, instruction, and Assessment  Developed content standards and benchmarks in mathematics and science for grades K-12  Developed curriculum maps that correlate standards/benchmarks to SAT-9 test, State Mathematics and Science Frameworks, local resources, and assessment strategies  SMART 99 (Summer Mathematics Advanced Readiness Training), an extended year Algebra I program, July 26-August 6, 1999 - Program designed to serve 60 ninth grade students. This program will focus on strengthening skills needed before entering Algebra I by providing opportunities for students to solve real life problems by reasoning, modeling, verbalizing and generalizing patterns and relationships. The graphing calculator will be one of the many tools that students will have access to at all times.  SARP (Summer Algebra Readiness Program), a CERTL activity provided by Philander Smith College, designed to serve 75 ninth grade students beginning July 19, 1999 and concluding August 6, 1999. (Focus of this program is the same as SMART 99).  Summer Science Institute - A CERTL activity provided by UALR, designed to serve 135 fourth and fifth grade students, July 19-30, 1999. The program will focus on hands-on science learning experiences for students that support the newly adopted LRSD Science Curriculum Standards.  Piloted Investigations in two schools:  Romine Elementary School - AH teachers(K-5) in all classrooms implemented  Jefferson Elementary School - All 4** grade teachers in all classrooms implemented  Piloted Science and Technology for Children (STC) in 4 schools\n Chicot Elementary School - All 4 kits in all 5** grade classrooms  Rockefeller Elementary School - 2 kits in all 1* 2\", and 3^^ grade classrooms  Wakefield Elementary School - 2 kits in all 2\", 4* and S* grade classrooms  Franklin Elementary School - 2 kits in all 1-5 grade classrooms  Piloted one module of Connected Mathematics Project (CMP) in all 6 and 7* grade classrooms.  Proposal submitted, pending approval, by UALR for GEAR-UP grant to implement AVID for all 7*^ grade students in 4 middle schoolsDRIVER #2 - Policies and Procedures The Division of Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment (CIA) developed a work plan that identified 52 priorities including the activities of the CPMSA for the 1998-99 school year. One of the major tasks of the work plan was to review and recommend revisions of the Boards Instruction policies. Policies submitted to the Board addressed the following:  Increase in graduation requirements  Requirements for Pre-AP/AP Courses  Recommendation to eliminate low level courses  All students required to take Physics  Quality Index for Schools to improve students achievement  Increase the number of students who are successful in upper level courses  Increase the number of students who are enrolled in upper level courses Plan for 1999-2000  Review and revise grading policy  Review and revise attendance policyDRIVER #3 - District Leadership, Governance and Management  Developed and operationalized Campus Leadership Teams  Management team met monthly to address administrative or policy issues effecting the CPMSA  Governing Board (Advisory Committee) met monthly to review data, program implementation schedules, and to address any corrections needed  Proposal submitted to improve infrastructure for mathematics and scienceDRIVER #4 - Convergence of Resources  Teacher training/research provided by UALR  Local district funds. Eisenhower funds, Title VI, Class Size Reduction funds leveraged with NSF funds to improve infrastructure for mathematics and science  Mini grants provided by Arkansas SSI to two LRSD schools for Family Math and Science Program  Local district budget used to help achieve CPMSA objectives  Stipend for SMART mentors  Stipend for SECME participants  Training for Active Physics  Professional development for math and science specialist - National conferences I t  state textbook funds used for standards based curriculum materials  State funds allocated for teachers to attend AP/Pre-AP training (Science \u0026amp; Mathematics Vertical Teams Workshop)DRIVER #5 - Professional Development  Principals and other building administrators participated in hands-on activities in mathematics and science. Discussed the differences between standards- based instruction and traditional instruction  New and first year secondary mathematics and science teachers participated in a series of four workshops related to the implementation of the mathematics or science curriculum, classroom management, learning styles, use of manipulative materials, cooperative learning and use of technology  Training provided to teachers for the Fall, 1999 implementation of new standards-based programs\n Investigations - All 4* and 5* grade teachers in all schools (full implementation)  STC - All 6* grade science teachers in all schools  CMP - All 6** grade mathematics teachers in all schools  Active Physics -17 science teachers representing all five high schools  Junior High School Mathematics Vertical Teams met monthly Sept. 98- Jan. 99 teachers grades 6-12 attended College Boards  31 mathematics Mathematics Vertical Teams (MVT) Conference in Little Rock - Feb. 99  MVT Steering committee formed and met twice (following MVT Conference) to set short and long term goals for the LRSD\nexplored ways to involve more teachers  26 science teachers grades 6-12 attended UALRs Vertical Teams Conference for science teachersDRIVER #6 - Partnerships, Parental Involvement, Public Awareness  Expanded Family Math and Science program to 5 new schools. Currently 25/43 elementary and middle schools have participated in the Family Math and Science Program  CPMSA Presentation made to the following organizations:  Little Rock PTA Council  Volunteers in Public Schools (VIPS)  Chrisitan Ministerial Alliance  Vital Link Business Partners  Presented an annual update to the LRSD Board of Directors  Designed dissemination brochure (draft)  SMART 99 parent meetingAssessment Practices and Data Utilization  Administered quarterly CRTs to all students in grades 2-6  Administered SAT-9 to grades 5, 7. and 10 as mandated by the Arkansas State Dept, of Education (ADE)  Administered State Benchmark Exams to all students in grades 4, 8, and 11  Data gathered quarterly (and by semester) to determine number of students who are successfully completing the mathematics and science courses listed below: Algebra I Chemistry Pre-Calculus AP Biology AP Physics Algebra 11 Geometry Statistics AP Calculus AP Statistics Biology Physics T rigonometry AP Environmental Science AP Chemistry  Data gathered quarterly (and by semester) to determine number of students who are enrolled in the courses listed below: Geometry Physics Trigonometry Biology  All data disagregated by race, gender and schoolI I I i i I I LRPMSA YEAR ONE DATA 1998^-1999 I Ii SAT-9 Scaled Scores Test Date: September 14, 1998 Test Date for End of Year 1 is September 15, 1999 Five Year Goal: 22% increase First Year Goal: 2% increase Black Students Problem Math Solving Procedures Total Math Science 5th Grade Male Female Total 612 616 615 609 618 613 611 616 614 610 613 612 7th Grade Male Female Total 641 641 641 639 644 641 640 642 641 635 635 635 10th Grade Male Female Total n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 676 678 677 663 666 665 12nd Success Rates of Students in Math and Science Courses Five Year Goal: 22% increase First Year Goal\n2% increase Number Percent of 2nd Number Percent of Semester with 'C or 97-98 Miove \"C or Above Semester with 'C or 98-99 Above 'C' or Above Black Male Black Male Algebra I Algebra II AP Biology AP Calculus AP Chemistry AP Environmental AP Physics AP Statistics Biology Chemistry Geometry Physics Pre-Calculus Statistics Trigonometry 569 409 15 17 3 1 2 3 618 338 595 16 10 19 109 244 154 13 13 1 1 1 2 249 177 166 8 9 10 74 43% 38% 87% 76% 33% 100% 50% 67% 40% 52% 28% 50% 90% 53% 68% 572 398 19 21 10 6 0 3 485 297 451 31 20 11 120 259 183 14 17 8 3 0 2 230 199 192 19 14 9 72 45% 46% 74% 81% 80% 50% 0% 67% 47% 67% 43% 61% 70% 82% 60% % Change 2% 8% -13% 4% 47% -50% -50% 0% 7% 15% 15% 11% -20% 29% -8% 1Success Rates of Students in Math and Science Courses Five Year Goal: 22% increase First Year Goal\n2% increase Number Percent of 2ncl Semester with 'C or 97-98 Above \"C or Above 2nd Semester 98-99 Number Percent of with 'C or Above \"C or Above Black Female Black Female 1 Algebra I Algebra II AP Biology AP Calculus AP Chemistry AP Environmental AP Physics AP Statistics Biology Chemistry Geometry Physics Pre-Calculus Statistics Trigonometry 591 526 37 38 10 1 0 5 654 455 666 29 12 22 134 343 277 34 28 8 1 0 4 386 303 262 21 12 21 86 58% 53% 92% 74% 80% 100% 0% 80% 59% 67% 39% 72% 100% 95% 64% % 588 494 31 34 11 9 0 7 579 393 522 32 17 27 173 335 286 23 27 10 5 0 7 341 307 273 22 14 24 129 57% 58% 74% 79% 91% 56% 0% 100% 59% 78% 52% 69% 82% 89% 75% Change -1% 5% -18% 6% 11% -44% 0% 20% 0% 12% 13% -4% -18% -7% 10% 22nd Success Rates of Students in Math and Science Courses Five Year Goal\n22% increase First Year Goal\n2% increase Number Percent of 2nc/ Number Percent of Semester with 'C or 97-98 Maove \"C or Above Semester with 'C or 98-99 Above \"C or Above Total Black Total Black % Change Algebra I Algebra II AP Biology AP Calculus AP Chemistry AP Environmental AP Physics AP Statistics Biology Chemistry Geometry Physics Pre-Calculus Statistics Trigonometry 1160 935 52 55 13 2 2 8 1272 793 1261 45 22 41 243 587 431 47 41 9 2 1 6 635 480 428 29 21 31 160 51% 46% 90% 75% 69% 100% 50% 75% 50% 61% 34% 64% 95% 76% 66% 1160 892 50 55 21 15 0 10 1064 690 973 63 37 38 293 594 469 37 44 18 8 0 9 571 506 465 41 28 33 201 51% 53% 74% 80% 86% 53% 0% 51% 54% 73% 48% 65% 76% 87% 69% 1% 6% -16% 5% 16% -47% -50% -24% 4% 13% 14% 1% -20% 11% 3% 32nd Success Rates of Students in Math and Science Courses Five Year Goal: 22% increase First Year Goal\n2% increase Number Percent of Semester with 'C or 97-98 Above \"C or Above 2nd Semester 98-99 Number Percent of with 'C or Above \"C or Above Non-Black Male Non-Black Male % Change Algebra I Algebra II AP Biology AP Calculus AP Chemistry AP Environmental AP Physics AP Statistics Biology Chemistry Geometry Physics Pre-Calculus Statistics Trigonometry 274 240 31 75 23 4 24 18 252 198 249 50 6 7 110 163 156 31 64 20 3 22 18 160 139 142 41 5 2 101 59% 65% 100% 85% 87% 75% 92% 100% 63% 70% 57% 82% 83% 29% 92% 270 228 35 47 29 19 10 17 238 163 215 49 9 10 109 197 160 29 38 26 16 10 17 159 128 147 42 7 9 89 73% 70% 83% 81% 90% 84% 100% 100% 67% 79% 68% 86% 78% 90% 82% 13% 5% -17% -4% 3% 9% 8% 0% 3% 8% 11% 4% -6% 61% -10% 42nd Success Rates of Students in Math and Science Courses Five Year Goal\n22% increase First Year Goal: 2% increase Number Percent of Semester with 'C or 97-98 Above \"C or Above 2nc/ Semster 99 Number Percent of 98 with 'C or Above \"C or Above Non-Black Female Non-Black Female % Change Algebra I Algebra II AP Biology AP Calculus AP Chemistry AP Environmental AP Physics AP Statistics Biology Chemistry Geometry Physics Pre-Calculus Statistics Trigonometry 275 287 42 61 27 3 11 32 292 249 333 41 5 14 144 224 213 34 54 24 3 11 31 225 196 245 36 5 13 135 81% 74% 81% 89% 89% 100% 100% 97% 77% 79% 74% 88% 100% 93% 94% 271 305 46 57 24 24 9 27 297 217 254 39 9 9 146 213 245 40 49 24 20 7 26 234 182 212 36 8 7 122 79% 80% 87% 86% 100% 83% 78% 96% 79% 84% 83% 92% 89% 78% 84% -3% 6% 6% -3% 11% -17% -22% -1% 2% 5% 10% 5% -11% -15% -10% 52nd Success Rates of Students in Math and Science Courses Five Year Goal: 22% increase First Year Goal: 2% increase Number Percent of Semester with 'C or 97-98 Above \"C or Above 2nd Semester 99 Number Percent of 98 with 'C or Above \"C or Above Total Non-Black Total Non-Black % Change Algebra I Algebra II AP Biology AP Calculus AP Chemistry AP Environmental AP Physics AP Statistics Biology Chemistry Geometry Physics Pre-Calculus Statistics Trigonometry 549 527 73 136 50 7 35 50 544 447 582 91 11 21 254 387 369 65 118 44 6 33 49 385 335 387 77 10 15 236 70% 70% 89% 87% 88% 86% 94% 98% 71% 75% 66% 85% 91% 71% 93% 541 533 81 104 53 43 19 44 535 380 469 88 18 19 255 410 405 69 87 50 36 17 43 393 310 359 78 15 16 211 76% 76% 85% 84% 94% 84% 89% 98% 73% 82% 77% 89% 83% 84% 83% 5% 6% -4% -3% 6% -2% -5% 0% s3% '7% 10% 4% -8% 13% -10% Algebra I Algebra II AP Biology AP Calculus AP Chemistry AP Environme*' AP Physics AP Statistics Biology Chemistry Geometry Physics Pre-CalcL. I noo-  6Success Rates of Students in Math and Science Courses Five Year Goal\n22% increase First Year Goal: 2% increase 2nd Semester 97 98 Number Percent of with 'C or Above \"C or Above 2nd Semester 98 99 Number with 'C or Above Percent of \"C or Above All Students All Students % Change Algebra I Algebra II AP Biology AP Calculus AP Chemistry AP Environmental AP Physics AP Statistics Biology Chemistry Geometry Physics Pre-Calculus Statistics Trigonometry 1709 1462 125 191 63 9 37 58 1816 1240 1843 136 33 62 497 974 800 112 159 53 8 34 55 1020 815 815 106 31 46 396 57% 55% 90% 83% 84% 89% 92% 95% 56% 66% 44% 78% 94% 74% 80% 1701 1425 131 159 74 58 19 54 1599 1070 1442 151 55 57 548 1004 874 106 131 68 44 17 52 964 816 824 119 43 49 412 59% 61% 81% 82% 92% 76% 89% 96% 60% 76% 57% 79% 78% 86% 75% 2% 7% -9% -1% 8% -13% -2% 1% 4% 11% 13% 1% -16% 12% -4% 7District Enrollment by Grade Percent 1997-1998 1998-1999 Change 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th 1800 1783 1742 1923 1738 1477 1755 1763 1676 1913 1681 1492 -3% -1% -4% -1% -3% 1% Total 10463 10280 -2% Proportion of Students Enrolled to Total District Enrollment, Grades 7th - 12th Algebra I Algebra II AP Biology AP Calculus AP Chemistry AP Environmental AP Physics AP Statistics Biology Chemistry Geometry Physics Pre-Calculus Statistics Trigonometry Number enrolled in 1997-98 1709 1462 125 191 63 9 37 58 1816 1240 1843 136 33 62 497 1998 16.33% 13.97% 1.19% 1.83% 0.60% 0.09% 0.35% 0.55% 17.36% 11.85% 17.61% 1.30% 0.32% 0.59% 4.75% Number enrolled in 1998-99 1701 1425 131 159 74 58 19 54 1599 1070 1442 151 55 57 548 1999 16.55% 13.86% 1.27% 1.55% 0.72% 0.56% 0.18% 0.53% 15.55% 10.41% 14.03% 1.47% 0.54% 0.55% 5.33% Difference Between 97 \u0026amp; 98 0.21% -0.11% 0.08% -0.28% 0.12% 0.48% -0.17% -0.03% -1.80% -1.44% -3.59% 0.17% 0.22% -0.04% 0.58% 1student Enrollment in Math and Science Courses Five Year Goal\n22% increase First Year Goal\n2% increase 2nd Semester 97-98 2nd Semester 98-99 2nd Semester 97-98 2nd Semester 98-99 2nd Semester 97-98 2nd Semester 98-99 Black Male Black Female Total Black Algebra I Algebra II AP Biology AP Calculus AP Chemistry AP Environmental AP Physics AP Statistics Biology Chemistry Geometry Physics Pre-Calculus Statistics Trigonometry 569 409 15 17 3 1 2 3 618 338 595 16 10 19 109 572 398 19 21 10 6 0 3 485 297 451 31 20 11 120 % Change 1% -3% 27% 24% 233% 500% -100% 0% -22% -12% -24% 94% 100% -42% 10% 591 526 37 38 10 1 0 5 654 455 666 29 12 22 134 588 494 31 34 11 9 0 7 579 393 522 32 17 27 173 % Change -1% -6% -16% -11% 10% 800% 0% 40% -11% -14% -22% 10% 42% 23% 29% 1160 935 52 55 13 2 2 8 1272 793 1261 45 22 41 243 1160 892 50 55 21 15 0 10 1064 690 973 63 37 38 293 % Change 0% -5% -4% 0% 62% 650% -100% 25% -16% -13% -23% 40% 68% -7% 21% 1student Enrollment in Math and Science Courses Five Year Goal: 22% increase First Year Goal: 2% increase 2nd Semester 97-98 2nd Semester 98-99 2nd Semester 97-98 2nd Semester 98-99 2nd Semester 97-98 2nd Semester 98-99 Non-Black Male Non-Black Female Total NonBlack Algebra I Algebra II AP Biology AP Calculus AP Chemistry AP Environmental AP Physics AP Statistics Biology Chemistry Geometry Physics Pre-Calculus Statistics Trigonometry 274 240 31 75 23 4 24 18 252 198 249 50 6 7 110 270 228 35 47 29 19 10 17 238 163 215 49 9 10 109 % Change -1% -5% 13% -37% 26% 375% -58% -6% -6% -18% -14% -2% 50% 43% -1% 275 287 42 61 27 3 11 32 292 249 333 41 5 14 144 271 305 46 57 24 24 9 27 297 217 254 39 9 9 146 % Change ^i% 6% 10% -7% -11% 700% -18% -16% 2% -13% -24% -5% 80% -36% 1% 549 527 73 136 50 7 35 50 544 447 582 91 11 21 254 541 533 81 104 53 43 19 44 535 380 469 88 18 19 255 % Change -1% 1% 11% -24% 6% 514% -46% -12% -2% -15% -19% -3% 64% -10% 0% 22nd student Enrollment in Math and Science Courses Five Year Goal: 22% increase First Year Goal\n2% increase 2nd Semester Semester 97-98 98-99 All Students Algebra I Algebra II AP Biology AP Calculus AP Chemistry AP Environmental AP Physics AP Statistics Biology Chemistry Geometry Physics Pre-Calculus Statistics Trigonometry 1709 1462 125 191 63 9 37 58 1816 1240 1843 136 33 62 497 1701 1425 131 159 74 58 19 54 1599 1070 1442 151 55 57 548 % Change 0% -3% 5% -17% 17% 544% -49% -7% -12% -14% -22% 11% 67% -8% 10% 3 JLRPMSA YEAR TWO PLAN 1999-2000 LITTLE ROCK CPMSA YEAR TWO ACTIVITIES 1999-2000 PERSONNEL  The Project Director remains on full time status. BUDGET: $51,000  A full time secretary will be continued to manage office activities and perform clerical duties. BUDGET: $18,360 a The Program Evaluator will move from 25% FTE to 100% FTE with approximately one half salary provided by NSF and one half by the district: BUDGET: $24,000  Ten lead teachers will be utilized to improve the infrastructure for mathematics and science in the districts 50 schools. These lead teachers will provide professional development and classroom level support for the mathematics and science teachers in their cluster. NSF will fund the salaries of four of those lead teachers. BUDGET: $160,000  A full time Instructional Aide will be employed to assist with the implementation of standards based curriculum modules and materials. BUDGET: $10,000 TRAVEL a Travel to NSF Meetings. BUDGET: $5,000 STANDARDS BASED CURRICULA      a Implement Investigations in grades 4 and 5 with all teachers in all schools Implement Science and Technology for Children (STC) in grade 6 with all teachers in all schools Implement 1 STC kit in grades 1-5 with all teachers in all schools Implement Connected Mathematics Project (CMP) in 6** grade with all teachers in all middle schools Implement 2 modules of CMP in 7^ and 8* grade with all teachers in all schools Implement Active Physics in all high schools for o\" grade students PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT  a a New secondary mathematics and science teachers will attend 4 workshops per year. Substitutes will be provided and paid approximately $44/day. BUDGET: 24 substitutes x 4 days x $44/day = $4224 Inservice on new curriculum standards provided for all science and mathematics teachers Training to begin Spring, 2000 for the following teachers\nInvestigations - all 2\"^ and 3' grade teachers in all schools - all 4 modules 1    STC - all K-5 teachers in all schools - 2\" kit CMP - All 7^ grade teachers in all schools - all CMP modules All teachers implementing new standards based curriculum programs in mathematics and science will receive approximately 20 hours of follow-up that includes classroom visits and support by a lead teacher, and district-level follow-up training. Approximately 50% of districts 919 K-12 mathematics and science teachers will receive training on alternative assessment Mathematics and science vertical teams to meet monthly Subcontract with UALR to provide Laboratory School for Teacher Enhancement ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAMS   a   a  a    Conduct 8 follow-up sessions during the school year for 135 summer extended year Algebra I participants. Twelve high school mentors plus 10 college student mentors will conduct sessions. Dr. Frank James, Philander Smith College will facilitate (CERTL). BUDGET: $25/day x 8 days x 12 mentors = $2400 Conduct Summer Mathematics Advanced Readiness Training (SMART) for 240 rising 9* grade students. BUDGET: $100/suppiies x 240 students = $24,000 1 site facilitator x $102/day x 12 days = $1,224 16 teachers x $82/day x 12 days = $15,744 48 student mentors x $40 day x 10 days = $19,200 TOTAL BUDGET $38,568 Continue to Provide tutoring for students in advanced mathematics and science courses Conduct extended year program in science - SUBCONTRACT WITH UALR BUDGET: $50,220 Implement SECME program in 5 new schools during the 1999-2000 school year Continue to increase SECME program with the addition of 9 new schools for the 2000-2001 school year. Two teachers per school to attend summer institute for SECME training (Summer, 2000). BUDGET: $2200 (includes registration, meals, lodging, graduate tuition, and airfare) x 18 teachers = $39,600 Continue to expand VITAL LINK by increasing the number of students participating who are underrepresented and underserved. BUDGET: $6,300 Subcontract with UALR to provide JR-TEAMS Program BUDGET: $24,670 Subcontract with Museum of Discovery to provide Community Based Science Clubs. BUDGET: $40,000 Train students to use the technology component that is embedded in adopted curriculum Train students to use the internet for research purposes and exchange of information 2PARENT/FAMILY/COMIVIUNiTY INVOLVEMENT a    Increase the number of schools participating in the Family Math \u0026amp; Science program. BUDGET: $2,916 Print and disseminate brochure about CPMSA. BUDGET: $1,200 Develop presentation about standards based curricula for Campus Leadership teams, PTA meetings, churches, businesses (brown bag lunch sessions) Develop and produce a video to be aired on LRSD Access Channel about the CPMSA GOVERNANCE a  a  Plan a r/2 -day retreat for the CPMSA Governing Board. A consultant will be obtained to guide the group through team building activities and strategic planning. The governing board will form subgroups that will concentrate on certain aspects of the CPMSA. BUDGET: $1,000 Governing board will meet quarterly to review data and discuss mid-term corrections - subcommittees will meet monthly. Management team will meet quarterly to assist with administrative matters concerning the implementation of the project activities. Project Staff will meet weekly to provide feedback on CPMSA activities ASSESSMENT PRACTICES \u0026amp; DATA UTILIZATION a a a Administer quarterly CRTs in grades 3-11 Administer SAT-9 to grades 5, 7, and 10 as mandated by the State Administer State Benchmark exams to grades 4, 6, 8 and end-of-course (Algebra I and Geometry) TOTAL ESTIMATED BUDGET FOR YEAR TWO - $479,458 (Not including fringe benefits) 3 ILITTLE ROCK PARTNERSHIPS FOR MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE ACHIEVEMENT (LRPMSA) Strategic Plan, 1999-00 Strategies Action Steps Person(s) Responsible Timeline Measurable Outcomes Driver 1: Implementation of comprehensive, standards-based curricula and/or instructional materials that are aligned with instruction and assessment available to every student served by the system and its partners. 1.1 Provide appropriate interventions for students who are at risk of not meeting or exceeding the mathematics and science standards 1.2 Implement a standards-based curriculum 1.1.1 1.1.2 1.1.3 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3 1.2.4 1.2.5 Conduct extended year Algebra I programs Provide tutoring for students in advanced mathematics and science courses Conduct extended year programs in science ELEMENTARY MATHEMATICS 1.2.11 Implement Investigations in Number, Data, \u0026amp; Space in grades 4 and 5 at all schools and with all teachers MIDDLE SCHOOL MATHEMATICS 1.2.21 Implement Connected Math Project (CMP) in 6' grade in all schools with all teachers 1.2.22 Implement 2 modules of CMP in 7th gth gj.2(Jgg jjj 3JI schools with all teachers HIGH SCHOOL MATHEMATICS 1.2.31 Use content standards and benchmarks to provide standards- based instruction ELEMENTARY SCIENCE 1.2.41 Implement STC Kit in grades 1-5 in all schools with all teachers MIDDLE SCHOOL SCIENCE Vanessa Cleaver Principals Vanessa Cleaver Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Project Staff Principals August, 2000 September, 1999 August, 2000 Fall, 1999 Fall, 1999 Implementation of SMART '00 List of participants Assessment of Pre/Post test Tutoring plans of participating high schools Number of students participating Classroom observations Feedback/analysis given ongoing in grade level, campus, math dept. It n tlj .2.51 Implement all 4 kits of STC in 6*' I grade in all schools with all teachers 1.2.6 HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE Fall, 1999 1.3 Implement alternative assessment methods that allow teachers to determine a students actual functioning level in math and science so as to provide appropriate programming and to eliminate ability tracking______ 1.4 Train students to use cunent technology to access, evaluate, and apply information and to increase competencies in problem solving, specific content areas and critical thinking skills 1.3.1 1.4.1 1.2.61 Implement Active Physics in all high schools for 9 grade students 1.2.62 Utilize content standards and benchmarks to implement standards-based instruction______ Provide training for mathematics and science teachers on alternative assessment 1.3.11 Implement alternative assessment Train students to use technology component that is embedded in adopted curriculum 1.4.2 Train students to use the Internet for research purposes and exchange of information Dennis Glasgow Marion Woods Vanessa Cleaver Teachers December, 1999 1999-00 Ongoing Classroom observations feedback/analysis given ongoing in grade level, campus, math department 50% of all mathematics and science teachers receive and implement training samples ol alternative assessments Number of students trained H 21.5 Establish an infrastructure to support systemic change in mathematics and science 1.6 Implement vertical teams in mathematics and science 1.5.1 1.5.2 1.5.3 1.6.1 Hire lead teachers Divide elementary schools into 6 clusters and create a middle school cluster, assign a math/science lead teacher for each of the elementary clusters and a math and a science lead teacher for both the middle schools and high schools clusters Provide training for lead teachers Form and implement science vertical teams 1.6.11 1.6.12 Generate list of skills students need before entering next course Meet regularly to develop consistency among science teachers at the middle school and high school levels 1.6.2 Implement math vertical teams 1.6.21 1.6.22 1.6.23 Continue to train teachers to use vertical teams toolkit Meet in horizontal teams to outline lesson plans for the year Develop quarterly assessments for secondary math courses Dennis Glasgow Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Dennis Glasgow Rene' Carson Vanessa Cleaver Vanessa Cleaver Phyllis Caruth Teachers hired List of Clusters Ongoing September, 1999 September, 1999 September, 1999 Ongoing August, 1999 Ongoing August, 1999 August, 1999 Sign-in sheet, agenda List of participants Sign-in sheets List of skills Meeting dates Agendas Sign-in sheets Training/meeting dates Lesson plan outlines Assessment instruments 3j 1.7 Plan professional development rm Conduct needs assessment for mathematics and science teachers I Vanessa Cleaver Dennis Glasgow I September, 1999 Needs assessment evaluated and analyzed 1.7.2 Implement professional development plan Project Staff Ongoing Number of teachers participating in professional development 1.7.3 1.7.4 Provide math \u0026amp; science staff with opportunity to pursue educational endeavors that will promote high educational standards within the District Provide follow-up training for teachers using standard-based curricula Dennis Glasgow Project Staff Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Lead teachers 1.7.5 1.7.6 Train principals, assistant principals, and central administrative staff on the systemic reform in math and science Provide training for \"Brokers\" of each school on math and science reform Vanessa Cleaver Sadie Mitchell October, 1999 August, 1999 Ongoing July, 1999 Number of teachers selected to participate in educational endeavors All teachers using standards- based curricula will receive at least 20 hours of follow-up training Dates of training Sign-in sheets 4r DTh^FITD^oTmcnT^f a coherent, consistent set of policies that snpVorts provisions of broad-based reform in mathematics and science at the K-12 level. 2.1 Implement pro- grams, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that the district hires, assigns, utilizes and promotes qualified African Americans in a fair and equitable manner in such a way to maintain a teaching staff which is approximately third African American one- 2.2 Implement Administrative regulations to support a Board Policy that requires the development of a coherent, articulated set of K-12 academic standards and benchmarks in 2.1.1 Implement LRSD Minority Recruitment Plan 2.1.2 Provide tuition reimbursement to 2.1.3 support teachers, especially minority teachers, to gain certification endorsement in critical math or science areas Support teachers on a district level with a stipend to participate in 8 graduate hours of physics to obtain physics certification endorsement 2.2.1 Train principals, and teachers about the academic content standards 2.2.2 Develop a brochure that informs parents about the standards Robert Robinson Principals Richard Hurley Principals Dennis Glasgow Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Math/Science Staff Bonnie Lesley September, 1999 Ongoing September, 1999 Ongoing September, 1999 September, 1999 September, 1999 Number of African American teachers hired Percentage of African American teachers by school, by district, and by subject Number of newly certified math and science teachers by race, gender, and subject area Number of teachers supported by tuition reimbursement by race, gender and subject area Number of teachers paid a stipend to complete graduate physics hours Published standards and benchmarks in math and science, K-12 Number of principals and teachers who received training Completed brochure for parents 5mathematics and science 2.3 Implement administrative regulations to support a Board Policy that all curricula be standards-based and to define what students should know or be able to do at the conclusion of each grade level or course 2.4 Implement administrative regulations to support a Board Policy that guarantees that all students have an opportunity to participate in gifted programs, pre-AP and AP programs 2.2.3 2.2.4 2.2.5 Develop delivery standards to complement the content standards Approve a Board Policy that requires that the curriculum at all levels reflects the academic standards Ensure by policy that all special curriculum and instruction programs be aligned with the Strategic Plan, the revised desegregation plan and the regular education program 2.3.1 Develop administrative regulations to ensure that all curricula are standards- based 2.3.2 Develop benchmarks for each grade level and course that will move students toward the standards 2.4.1 Develop administrative regulations to help guarantee that all children have an opportunity to participate in gifted, pre- Ap and AP programs 2.4.2 Provide training for teachers and counselors about strategies for increasing the rate of participation and success of Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Mable Donaldson Vanessa Cleaver Dennis Glasgow January, 2000 September, 1999 September, 1999 September, 1999 September, 1999 September, 1999 January, 1999 Completed and approved delivery standards Board policy approved including this language Board policy approved including this language Written and approved administrative regulations to support the Board Policy 100% of curriculum documents referenced to th\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\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\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_195","title":"Enrollment, LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD, gender and racial count, school capacity, and transfers","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"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2002-10-01"],"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":["Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Educational statistics","Education and state","School integration","Little Rock School District","North Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District"],"dcterms_title":["Enrollment, LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD, gender and racial count, school capacity, and transfers"],"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/195"],"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":["75 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\ne,==- RECEIVED STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 NOV- 7 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT OFFIOCFE FINAL DESEGREGMAOTNIIOTNO RING 1001 - CENTRAL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! 09 7 10 212 187 3 0 0 118 121 659 10 5 4 139 166 2 3 0 112 119 551 11 5 3 Ill 108 3 0 0 88 93 412 12 5 5 107 79 0 3 0 0 103 87 389 ss 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~TALFOR:CE TRAL 22 22 569 541 8 7 l 421 420 2,012 $j1 I,//\u0026amp; .\nI j-1/ I 002-HALL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTALI 09 6 4 134 154 13 16 0 0 34 33 394 10 2 125 120 15 19 0 0 38 29 349 II 2 120 100 6 18 0 50 ?\" _., 321 12 2 0 107 106 9 7 0 0 18 29 278 ss 0 0 4 9 0 0 0 0 5 19 TOTALFOR:HALL 10 8 490 489 43 60 1 0 145 ll5 1,361 ,,,.. /P-.,, 003 - MANN MIS GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTALI 06 7 5 89 63 3 63 61 294 07 7 3 86 61 3 0 0 78 52 291 08 3 2 79 71 0 4 2 69 42 273 V TOTAL FOR: MANN M/S 17 10 254 195 6 s 2 4 210 155 858 ~~ f .., ~ -'=-\" .,) !OOS- PARKVIEW GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM Wf WM TOTAL! I 09 3 4 75 72 6 2 0 0 78 60 300 10 3 5 79 64 6 6 0 0 76 48 287 II 5 5 73 70 6 0 76 46 283 /4-AL FOR: PARK\"VIEW 12 4 3 77 59 5 0 0 0 62 59 269 15 17 304 265 23 9 0 1 292 213 1.139 ~ ? -=\n-.o. \" LRSD INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Monday, October 28. 2002 Page ! of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 006-BOOKER GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 24 29 0 2 0 0 17 21 94 02 0 21 24 2 2 0 22 16 89 03 2 33 28 0 2 0 0 23 19 108 04 0 0 35 24 3 0 0 38 16 117 05 0 0 36 24 0 0 31 20 113 V K 0 0 26 24 0 0 0 24 20 95 OTAL FOR: BOOKER 4 175 153 6 9 0 155 112 616 9.\n?. .,....., J 007 - DUNBAR MIS GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 06 4 6 75 79 6 6 2 0 42 46 266 07 7 5 71 73 6 5 0 0 33 43 243 ~TAL FOR: DUNBAR M/S 08 7 5 69 64 6 0 32 37 222 18 16 215 216 18 12 3 0 107 126 731 I  , -7./  ,, ~ ~ / [oos-FAIR GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 09 0 0 119 136 4 4 3 18 25 310 10 0 0 87 106 2 2 0 32 25 255 11 0 0 80 90 3 0 17 28 220 12 0 0 75 56 2 0 0 0 17 14 164 ss 0 0 9 II 0 0 0 0 0 5 25 TOTAL FOR: FAIR 0 0 370 399 9 9 I 5 84 97 974 7'}\n! ~\n? 1009 - FORST HTS M/S GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF M WF WM TOTAL 06 92 87 3 2 0 0 36 36 258 07 0 106 83 2 0 0 43 33 269 08 0 85 88 2 0 0 43 38 258 SM 0 0 2 9 0 0 0 2 5 19 TOTAL FOR: FORST HTS M/ 1 ! 285 267 8 4 0 0 124 112 804 t\n?1o I .:9,~ ..p LRSD INFORMATIOJ\\' SERVICES DEPT Monda\u0026gt;. October 28. 2002 Page 2 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 010 - PUL HTS M/S GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 06 0 59 69 0 0 0 0 36 45 210 07 2 2 71 80 0 0 0 51 44 251 08 0 0 60 57 4 0 43 61 227 SM 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 8 TOTALF OR:P ULH TSM IS 2 3 191 212 5 1 1 0 131 150 696 .:ts\"8jt' -(oa J ~OJ 011 - SOUTHWST M/S GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 06 99 100 0 0 0 0 0 6 207 07 0 0 96 98 2 0 0 5 3 205 08 0 0 80 80 2 2 0 0 5 4 173 SM 0 0 5 17 0 0 0 0 0 23 TOTALF OR:S OUTHWSTM IS 280 295 4 4 0 0 10 13 608 q~~ -5\"5 I e, ~o F-MCCLELLA GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM T-OTALI 09 0 0 146 155 3 3 0 0 7 11 325 10 0 0 136 142 3 5 0 0 3 9 298 11 0 0 120 97 0 0 7 9 235 12 0 0 89 92 0 0 0 6 6 194 ss 0 0 4 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 *TALFOR:MCCLELLA 0 0 495 496 7 9 1 0 23 35 1,066v' C/9/ 11 5~ 9:?J~ 013 - HENDERSN MIS GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTA~ 06 81 89 8 13 0 13 12 219 07 0 73 98 6 9 0 17 16 221 08 0 80 83 4 6 0 15 20 210 SM 0 0 6 19 0 0 0 0 0 5 30 ~T ALF OR:H ENDERSNM IS 2 2 240 289 18 28 2 45 53 680 g\ni.9 c/53 1'6 ?8?'., LRSD INFORMATJON SERVJCES DEPT Monday, October 28, 2002 Page 3 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 015 - CLOVR M/S GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 06 0 117 114 II 17 0 0 7 7 274 07 0 0 109 134 II 14 0 0 7 9 284 08 0 2 112 114 7 8 0 0 4 7 254 SM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 TOTAL FOR: CLOVR M/S 0 3 339 363 29 39 0 0 18 23 814.,., ft--\n{ '1 ~ , I 016-MABEL MIS GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 06 0 80 76 0 4 0 0 25 35 221 07 0 102 83 3 3 0 18 24 235 08 0 0 71 84 0 15 21 194 SM 0 0 2 JO 0 0 0 2 2 17 TOTAL FOR: MABEL MIS 0 2 255 253 4 8 l 2 60 82 667 -7,7- ,9 I 7 I ...,. 017 - BALE GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL I 01 0 18 24 4 0 0 2 SJ 02 0 0 JS 18 2 0 0 0 0 36 03 0 17 22 0 0 0 3 4 48 04 0 0 18 17 0 0 2 40 05 0 0 19 16 0 0 0 0 3 39 EE 0 4 7 0 0 0 0 2 15 K 0 24 23 4 4 0 0 2 59 p 0 0 11 ?.I 14 0 I 0 0 3 p 0 ~ 35\n\"\" TOTAL FOR: BALE 2 2 132 141 13 6 0 12 14 323  e1p :?!1 d-,f' ~ LRSD INFORMATION SERVJCES DEPT Monda). October 28. 200'.! Page 4 or 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 018-BRADY GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL I 01 0 0 25 24 0 0 0 2 53 02 0 0 32 21 0 0 0 2 4 60 03 0 0 17 15 0 0 0 6 40 04 0 0 15 15 2 0 0 2 0 35 05 0 0 16 23 0 0 0 0 5 0 44 EE 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 7 K 0 0 18 30 0 0 0 3 3 55 p 0 Q_ 5 )0 5 l_ Q_ I Q_ 0 3 '1 4 5 18  TOTAL FOR: BRADY 0 0 132 135 4 4 0 0 23 14 312  gt..?~ _) 5\" -\nz !020 -MCDERMOT GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 4 13 12 2 0 0 11 15 59 02 2 22 17 2 0 0 9 8 62 03 2 0 14 14 4 4 0 IS II 65 04 0 16 15 3 0 0 0 13 10 58 05 13 16 2 0 0 0 6 6 45 K 4 15 13 0 3 0 0 13 8 57 p 3 0 4 ,, 3 2 o AS o Q 3 l, 3 I! 18 TQTALFOR:MCDERMOT 15 6 97 90 13 11 -r~ 0 70 61 364v' _\nl,.-, / \"'\"' I 021-CARVER GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 2 14 29 0 0 15 20 83 02 0 23 16 0 0 0 IO 27 78 03 0 21 23 0 2 0 0 14 28 89 04 0 20 32 0 2 0 13 18 87 05 0 0 20 24 0 0 0 0 15 22 81 K 3 22 17 2 2 0 12 15 75 TOTAL FOR: CARVER 3 7 120 141 3 6 3 79 130 493V 9-l. I\n\"\\ ..., ~~1 ,:?\" LRSD INFORMt\u0026gt;.TJONSE RVJCESD EPT Monday. October 28. 2002 Page 5 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 022 - BASELINE GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 26 15 0 0 0 3 0 45 02 0 0 20 18 0 0 3 3 46 03 0 0 23 16 0 0 0 3 2 45 04 0 0 22 14 0 0 2 41 05 0 0 16 20 0 3 0 0 4 2 45 EE 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 K 0 0 17 19 0 0 2 0 40 p _o_ .ll.:~3 0 Q ?n 3 r. 4 32 / TOTAL FOR: BASELINE 0 137 116 5 5 2 19 13 299 / 7. ,:\n:j ~ 023 - FAIR PRK GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 17 8 0 0 0 0 4 3 32 02 0 0 18 13 0 0 0 0 3 3 37 03 0 0 13 13 0 0 0 0 5 7 38 04 0 0 10 7 0 0 0 0 0 2 19 05 0 0 14 7 0 0 0 0 s 2 28 K 0 0 17 18 0 0 0 2 2 40 p __ 2 15 ~-:\nJ 2 0 0 .3J)_ _l) A 'z -.5 t11 36 / TOTAL FOR: FAIR PRK 2 104 75 0 0 0 23 24 230 / ?J/. 1024 - FORST PK GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 2 9 12 0 0 0 19 24 68 02 0 2 8 11 0 0 0 0 7 15 43 03 0 2 8 12 0 0 0 10 11 44 04 0 0 7 10 0 0 0 0 17 14 48 05 0 9 8 0 0 0 0 16 16 50 K 2 2 5 5 0 0 19 25 60 L---!l--- --0-- , ~J)_ .....Q__\u0026lt;LQ._Q... ..Q_ - 15 8 :,. 7. 17 / TOTAL FOR: FORST PK 4 8 48 58 3 0 0 95 113 330 / ~\"?f\u0026gt; ''-' I~ ,\nLRSD INFORJ\\1AT JON SERVICESD EPT Monda). October 28. 2002 Page 6 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 025 - FRANKLIN GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 26 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 02 0 31 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 03 0 0 17 28 0 0 0 0 0 46 04 0 0 23 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 05 0 0 28 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 EE 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 13 K 0 19 37 0 0 0 0 2 60 p 0 0 285~24 0 0 0 0 0 l a-1 1.\u0026amp;7s4 __ TOTALFO~ 2 0 178 188 0 0 0 3 3 375 / 1 g70 ~~~ .3 (, 027 - GIBBS GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 16 8 0 0 0 0 9 12 46 02 0 2 18 14 0 13 14 64 03 17 16 2 0 0 17 10 65 04 0 11 12 0 0 0 ll ]] 47 05 0 0 13 13 0 0 12 7 47 /4L FOR:G IBBS K 0 2 10 10 0 0 0 0 9 9 40 2 6 85 73 4 4 1 0 71 1~1 309  \u0026amp;\"/lo 1~\"6 11 028-CHICOT GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 32 21 3 6 0 0 5 3 70 02 0 0 21 29 9 8 0 4 3 75 03 0 0 29 25 6 9 0 0 3 2 74 04 2 0 17 34 2 4 0 0 3 5 67 05 0 24 32 6 6 0 0 2 4 75 EE 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 5 18 K 0 0 25 39 4 7 0 0 2 3 80 p 0 0 13\n).\u0026amp;\\5 Q 2 ~ 0 0 0 C\u0026gt; 0 111 36  TOTAL FOR: CHICOT 2 164 200 36 43 0 23 25 495  ?~1i\u0026gt; j,\u0026amp;1 i.3 -1i LRSD INFORMATJON SERVICES DEPT Monday, October 28, 2002 Page 7 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 029 - WEST HIL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 22 16 0 0 0 8 2 49 02 0 0 10 19 0 2 0 0 6 4 41 03 0 0 17 21 2 0 0 0 4 5 49 04 0 0 25 14 0 2 0 0 5 4 50 05 0 13 15 0 0 0 0 s 0 34 K 0 0 15 18 0 0 0 0 s 39 p 0 Q_ 0 12 _Q_ 0 2 -1 2 1v,. 18 / TOTALF ORW: ESTH IL 0 107 112 2 5 0 0 35 18 280  .. ~ Q' :::\u0026gt; \"'5/J 030 - JEFFRSN GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 10 IO 0 0 0 18 12 53 02 0 0 15 II 0 0 0 0 19 18 63 03 0 15 14 0 0 0 0 20 19 69 04 0 0 25 II 0 0 0 0 14 18 68 05 0 9 18 0 0 0 28 20 77 EE 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 K 0 0 15 17 0 0 0 0 14 14 60 p _o_ Q_ I I 0 JL D D 0 0 5 1112 i.t.7 18 - TOTALF ORJ: EFFRSN 3 91r 87 0 0 118 113 415  ../6?. \" 1031 - CLOVR EL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 21 29 6 3 0 0 61 02 0 0 30 31 4 4 0 0 2 72 03 0 0 24 26 2 0 0 0 4 57 04 0 0 21 24 2 5 0 0 0 0 52 05 0 0 23 25 0 5 0 0 0 2 55 K 0 0 28 38 4 7 0 0 2 80 p 0 0 11'9/)19 3_.)L o 0 0 _/_J -~'~,o 35 / TOTAL FOR: CLOVR EL 0 0 158 192 19 27 I 0 4 11 412  3t- f1\n5 '-3'~ LRSD INFORM.AT.I ON SERVICESD EPT Monda). October 28. 2002 Page 8 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 1032-DODD GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! 01 0 0 6 14 0 0 4 3 29 02 0 0 9 9 3 0 0 0 8 34 03 0 0 15 6 0 0 0 12 35 04 0 0 6 8 0 0 0 2 18 05 0 0 6 3 0 0 0 2 4 16 EE 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 10 K 0 0 14 11 4 0 0 4 6 40 p 0 Q_ 11 $. 2... {L ~ 0 0 2.5 ..3 \u0026lt;.e_t718 / TOTALF OR:D ODD 0 0 59 64 12 3 0 0 32 30 200 ~::\u0026gt;-7. . I :::I 1- t~ 1033 - MEADCLIF GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! 01 0 18 12 2 3 0 0 4 7 47 02 0 0 15 26 0 0 0 5 3 50 03 0 13 16 3 0 0 7 5 46 04 0 0 20 11 4 0 0 0 8 4 47 05 0 0 22 14 2 2 0 0 2 43 K 0 0 22 26 0 0 0 5 6 60 0 0 IQ f~ 6 ~ 2 ..J Q_ Q 2 3 5,.,,jo 28 / TOTALF OR:M EADCLIF 120 111 17 9 0 0 33 29 321 / 73--?-i ~cl ~Q' I .) LRSD INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Monda). October ~8. 2002 Page 9 of I 7 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 034 - MITCHELL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL OJ 0 0 19 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 02 0 0 24 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 03 0 0 24 16 0 0 0 0 0 41 04 0 0 22 19 0 0 0 0 43 OS 0 0 25 20 0 0 0 0 2 48 EE 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 7 K 0 0 27 11 0 0 0 0 0 39 p 0 0 8 f?S IQ Q 0 C\u0026gt; 0 0 Q 0 Q 1~2-18/ TOTALF OR~:\n:) 0 0 151 125 2 0 0 0 4 2 284/ 97~ 77(., ~ (.p 035-MLKING GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 18 19 0 0 0 25 13 77 02 2 15 24 0 0 21 15 80 03 3 2 19 21 0 21 14 83 04 22 23 0 20 18 88 05 0 20 17 2 0 0 0 9 13 62 K 0 4 23 23 0 2 0 21 22 96 p 3 3 20 ~~13 Q Q (., 0 Q_ 1s~ 0 1s ~[-tl-69v ,OTAL FOR: ML KING IO 12 137 140 5 5 2 2 132 110 555V ~77 3(,, d(..\n/~ ol, 036 -ROCKFELR GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 15 20 2 0 0 0 13 14 64 02 0 0 18 17 0 0 0 0 8 7 50 t~$r'?) 03 0 0 26 13 3 0 0 7 7 57 04 0 0 15 15 0 0 0 8 6 45 05 0 0 20 J 8 0 2 0 0 8 IO 58 K 0 16 17 2 0 0 10 ll 58 p 2 4 22 ,j_j_ ?? Q 0 ~ 2 21,j~ 22 \u0026gt;(l,'?, 96/ *OTAL FOR: E~  2 5 132 122 5 7 2 75 77 428 ~Q.,._ ,.p_:)- JSc,)....J 11- LRSD INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Monday. October 28, 2002 Page 10 of 17 hL 1/Jrk,n~-- 3/io/~ ~.,~,.d- :th /4iL .J/ r olt\u0026gt;~ ,H.o\" +I I f\n)t1w~I/ ~u e \"\"' ?If' 0. STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 037- GEYER SP GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 16 13 0 3 0 0 3 3 38 02 0 0 26 21 0 0 0 50 03 0 0 23 18 0 0 2 2 47 04 0 0 25 17 0 0 3 4 51 05 0 0 16 27 0 4 0 0 0 48 K 0 0 25 14 0 0 0 0 0 40 p Q 0 l6~0I~ 2 2 ....\nQ Q o D o \u0026lt;{,'?6 o 34 / TOTALFOR:GEYERSP 0 0 147 124 6 12 0 0 10 9 308-:/ gg?o ~1/ I~ (1 038-PULHTE GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 10 11 0 0 0 0 12 13 46 02 2 8 0 0 0 0 11 11 41 03 11 13 0 0 0 0 12 6 44 04 0 ]I 11 0 0 0 0 13 16 52 05 0 0 ]I 12 0 0 0 0 JO 9 42 K 0 JO 10 0 0 0 0 9 9 39 p 0 2 4 ~ 4 0 I _3 0 0 2 7 2 .']_)/1, V TOTALF OR:P ULH TE 4 5 65, ~ ~9 0 1 0 0 72 66 282 ..yglo /C /:!, ~ 039 - RIGHTSEL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL I 01 0 0 21 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 02 0 0 20 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 03 0 0 23 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 04 0 0 26 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 05 0 0 25 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 K 0 0 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 p 0 Q 1s P'F 1s 0 0 0 0 0 o o _Q_J__,:~:\u0026gt;'r~ TOTALFOe~ 0 0 153 145 0 0 0 0 0 0 298 / Jt}f)(o ~13 0 0 LRSD INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Monday. October 28, 2002 Page 11 of l 7 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 040-ROMINE GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL OJ 0 0 12 8 5 0 0 6 4 36 02 0 0 12 15 5 0 0 5 4 42 03 0 JO 18 2 2 0 2 2 38 04 0 13 8 3 0 0 3 30 05 0 0 8 11 4 0 0 3 6 37 EE 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 4 17 K 0 14 17 4 4 0 5 7 53 e J'l (~ 5 1 2 1 0 0 4 I/ 7 #\u0026gt;!- 36  TOTA L FOR: ROMINE 3 2 83 94 16 26 2 0 28 35 2891 ~17' 171 ~1 G.3 041 - STEPHENS GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 45 47 3 2 0 0 2 100 02 0 0 35 37 0 0 0 75 03 0 0 45 40 0 5 0 0 2 0 92 04 0 0 38 27 2 2 0 0 0 0 69 05 0 0 37 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 EE 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 2 3 12 K 0 0 43 34 0 0 0 0 2 80 e Q Q 752_/ 26 0 I o 0 0 ,\nL, 2 q-11. 54 TOTAL FOR:~ ~,.. 0 271 261 6 10 1 0 7 9 c:6 q!?o 5~?- I~ /lt' LRSD INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Monday. October 28, 2002 Page 12 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 042 - WASHNGTN GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 2 0 28 24 3 0 0 6 3 67 02 2 3 17 19 7 5 0 0 7 8 68 03 2 0 15 24 4 0 0 6 53 04 21 18 7 2 0 0 7 13 70 05 17 21 5 7 0 0 4 8 64 EE 0 6 7 0 0 0 0 2 0 16 K 3 3 22 22 3 2 0 0 10 6 71 ~AL FOR, WASHNGTN p 2 _Q_ _.L(L 'u A _i_j _l_ 0 1. ,~ 12 2 54 / 13 9 136 152 33 19 0 49 51 463 (p,\n\u0026gt;-~ A~i 70 /t, c\u0026gt; 043 - WILLIAMS GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 13 19 0 0 0 0 17 15 64 02 4 18 13 0 0 0 0 14 13 63 03 3 6 29 16 0 0 13 19 88 04 2 6 18 28 0 0 0 0 18 18 90 05 3 6 25 23 0 0 0 0 13 25 95 0oTAL FOR: WILLIAMS K 2 19 1~ 0 0 0 0 8 18 60 13 21 122 lll 0 0 83 108 460/ 7e .A,., 3 .:5., 0 1044 - WILSON GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTALI 01 0 0 16 17 0 0 0 2 37 02 0 17 28 0 0 0 0 0 2 48 03 0 0 16 24 0 0 0 43 04 0 0 17 15 2 0 0 0 0 35 05 0 14 18 0 0 0 2 0 36 EE 0 4 16 0 0 0 0 0 22 K 0 0 20 16 2 0 0 0 40 l'_ _()_ 0 2 15 j_ ~ L _J -0- _a_ _Q_ /_1_ \"ilf  17  278 TOTAL FOR: WlL 01' 2 ]13 140 5 4 0 5 7 /1 .., ~ I :\n)_, I . LRSD INFORMATlON SERVICES DEPT Monda). October 28. 2002 Pagel3of17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 045 - WOODRUFF GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 22 20 0 0 0 4 48 02 0 0 14 17 0 0 0 0 3 35 03 0 0 21 17 0 0 0 0 40 04 0 0 22 12 0 0 0 0 0 35 05 0 0 22 17 0 0 0 0 2 42 K 0 0 19 14 0 0 0 0 4 3 40 p 0 0 14~q 15 Q._ 0--12 0- 3 (L__3_ ~ 7 35 / TOTAL FOR: WOODRUFF 0 0 134 112 0 0 0 2 14 13 m-/ 37 /2- ..\n?~ ~ ~, 046 - MABEL EL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 16 17 0 2 0 0 2 38 02 0 0 17 II 0 0 6 0 36 03 0 0 9 16 2 0 0 4 6 38 04 0 0 20 10 0 0 0 0 2 35 05 0 0 17 12 0 0 0 0 7 41 EE 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 0 10 K 0 16 17 0 0 0 0 2 3 39 p 0 0 s 1/ 6 0 Q OQ _lL 3 \" 4 lt/i y TOTALFOR:MABELEL 0 103 94 3 4 0 0 27 23 255 IV 77 ~ ,9~ Q ~ 1047-TERRY GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 4 7 22 29 2 4 0 0 17 15 100 02 2 21 19 3 0 0 13 12 72 03 5 0 19 17 4 2 0 0 19 14 80 04 0 21 19 3 2 0 0 12 13 71 05 2 25 20 0 3 0 0 15 13 79 K 6 3 28 22 6 0 0 16 15 97 p 2 2 4 '1 5 0 0 0 0 I ~ 3 ~\"' 18 ./' TOTAL FOR: TERRY 20 16 140 131 17 15 0 0 93 85 517 -':\u0026gt; ~l- ~'1/ e,,'5 1?0 LRSD INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Monda). October 28. 2002 Page 14 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 048 - FULBRIGH GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 12 16 0 0 0 27 33 89 02 2 0 12 s 0 0 0 0 11 37 67 03 0 14 18 0 0 0 23 15 72 04 0 0 21 17 0 0 0 0 18 20 76 OS 0 0 14 17 0 0 0 16 21 69 EE 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 6 K 3 2 10 18 0 0 18 24 77 p 0 2 3 I 0 0 I 0 0 s Ii 6 177. 18  TOTAL FOR: FULBRIGH 6 3 85 94 2 0 123 158 474  ~'6i'v !'?Cj I 050 - OTTER CR GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 23 23 0 0 0 0 11 16 74 02 0 16 22 2 0 0 0 14 10 65 03 0 26 17 0 0 ll 12 69 04 0 17 17 0 0 0 16 14 66 05 0 0 13 21 0 0 0 10 11 56 K 0 2 24 21 0 0 13 17 79 p 2 _Q_ 2 .ts 3 o.3 0 0 4 /0 6 fil 18 / TOTAL FOR: OTTER CR 4 4 121 124 6 3 0 0 79 86 427/ 5\"?,le ~/6\n7 /46 051 - W AKEFIEL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 16 18 3 2 0 0 0 40 02 0 0 24 I 8 6 7 0 0 0 56 03 0 0 19 18 0 2 0 0 0 3 42 04 0 0 26 23 2 0 0 0 0 52 05 0 0 30 18 0 2 0 0 0 0 50 K 0 0 ?_\", 28 7 0 ~ 0 69 TOTAL FOR: WAKEFfEL 0 0 138 123 19 21 0 2 2 4 309v tl- ~~( ..\n/::J-.-\n~ LRSD INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Monday. October 28. 2002 Page 15 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 052- WATSON GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL OJ 0 0 40 42 0 0 0 85 02 0 0 36 30 2 0 0 0 0 69 03 0 0 34 31 0 3 0 0 2 73 04 0 0 44 36 0 0 0 0 82 05 0 0 22 30 0 0 0 2 56 K 0 0 29 45 2 2 0 0 0 2 80 :e 0 Q ]!!~ 021 0 l o 0 0 c) 0 . ,171. 36 / TOTAL FOR: WATSON 0 0 219 235 7 7 /}/ 0 6 7 481/ 9-'l?o I~ 725-AGENCY GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL OJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 03 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 04 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 07 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 0 2 II 08 0 0 3 8 0 0 0 0 13 09 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 2 27 IO 0 0 3 9 0 0 0 0 2 15 11 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 5 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 K 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALFOR:AGENCY 0 0 16 59 0 0 0 0 7 JO 92 LRSD INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Monday. October 28, 2002 Page 16 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 766-ALC GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 06 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 07 0 0 3 19 0 0 0 0 0 23 08 0 0 4 .z../011 0 0 .P0- -, 0 0 0 0 Ji\nu 95?. 09 0 0 9 24 0 0 0 0 0 34 IO 0 0 4 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 II 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 6 TOTAL FOR: ALC\nI .. J:. 0 0 25 74 0 0 103 \" a/I D _?---- t I 97~ I 1767-ACCL P GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL\\ I 09 0 0 6 2 0 0 0 0 10 IO 0 0 9 6 0 0 0 0 3 4 22 JI 0 0 30 25 0 0 0 3 8 67 12 0 0 47 31 0 0 0 6 IO 95 TOTAL FOR: ACC LP 0 0 92 64 2 0 0 12 23 194 7. 1- ,:3 '3' GRA DTOTAL: 207 201 8777 8809 455 471 30 27 3294 3251 25,522 t\n:/,,, j --,=--..,..,.._/ 2?,t. 8'o/ ~o/ d),_\n1~'7 ~7.\n1,3 t\n'J~ /?l,p,_/,. ~./ 1\u0026lt;t1 P,'J\nL 1 -1/1 t[, fp~ 71?- ~,../~ /t~ /.,/ .,iiP$~ :5\u0026lt;?~ /) 88.\nL, c.f{, 1 {,~fl , . .::::,. .\n), ~)J~ \u0026lt;3/' is71 ~- \"B1 j,~IP{ /~1o1 t? ---r,-,,,..,/::\n, ~1lP -r\n,..\nl7i~tl\n) 9-CIJ t.~~g- ~.i\nao (,? 7,, ff~ t.,\n) I ,P 8~ ~-g\n.:\nr~tt ~(p~ LRSD INFORMATJON SERVICES DEPT Monda). October 28. 2002 Page 17 of 17 1,95/ ( I General Information - Enrollment Data Page 1 ,\n1 Count results for 2002-2003 for Districts: liiiiiii:iiiit@iittiiiii@ii TERMS:  EE: Elementary - Ungraded  E: Elementary - Ungraded  MU: Middle School - Ungraded  SM: Middle School - Ungraded  SS: Secondary - Ungraded  S: Secondary - Ungraded  P: Pre-Kindergarten  PK: Pre-Kindergarten  K: Kindergarten  KA Kindergarten AM  KF: Kindergarten Full Day  KP: Kindergarten PM Return to Search http://www.as-is.org/search/search_ enr. cgi ?year=2002\u0026amp;data _level=district\u0026amp;distname=600... 1/27/2003 01/08/2003 11:27 Tuniow Babbs 4.ssociate Superintendent lulie Wiedower Director- Dates to Remember: Nov. 27-28-29 Thanbg1vmg . Holiday Nov. 10 PTA Council Brady Elementaxy 11:30 501-324-2281 Nov. 19 School Board Meeting Dec. 23-Jan. 3 Winttt Vacation Jan. 6 Classes Resume Jan. 14 PTA Council Dunbar Middle 11:30 Jan. 17 Teacher Records Day Students Out Jan. 20 King Holiday Students Out Jan. 22-24 \"Check Us Out'' in all schools 9 am to 1:30 pm Jan.17-Feb.7,2003 Registration for 2003-04 Items Needed For Registration: Birth Certificate Social Security Number Proof of Address LR SD SRO PAGE: 01/02 UTTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Student Registration Office 501 Shennan Streei, Little Rock, 4.R 72202 501-447-2950 www.lrsd.org FAX COVER SHEET 501-447-2951 To:_....i..,L..-C?\u0026lt;Wj=-----+--- FaxNumber: 3 / / -O { 0 0 From:_----+-Q------\"A!_'=-WV\\\"\"-=-~-Q__,,i-=-Date:_. _ _.i_/_---=[f_-_0_3_ # Pages Including Cover Sheet: d' Re: ------------------------ cc: _______________________ _ 01/08/2003 11:27 501-324-2281 LR SD SRO Little Rock Schoof District 2002-2003 Capacities 2002-2003 Cape\u0026lt;:i\\let SCHOOi.. Capaciti C6ntraH1S + FairHs____ 122200(0 Hall HS ----1300 includes portables McC/e/lBHt1S 14-40\"i ncludes annex PeriMewM\u0026amp;g~ 1200 Sub-Total 7340 CloverdalMe iddle ~150 DvnbBMl iddle 780 F0tesHt eightMs iddleI -~ Hend9fSoMn iddle -r 960 Msb6t,taMlei ddl9 600 Mell/MI iddle 900 PulaskHi eightsM id\u0026lt;llo 750 SouthwesMt iddle 750 Sub-Total 0270 -----1 Bele:,_ _____ +- _ 383 Base/Jne I 3ro aoo1re, -~~ Brady ' ,09 Carver m Cllicot --~ 509 c~1~=J  -~ Dod_d_ _  27J_ FeirP~--=t~ ForestP 9rk , 400 Triinkfln 532 1-F_u\n_1_J_n_g_-\"--_h_l 49 358 _1 GgyerS pring$ Gibbs 324 ~rson -~ King i 715 ~elyal\u0026amp; -IT. 443 McDermott 453 MeedoWcliff f 358 Mitchell --~ OtterC1'891( +~ ~Heighls- '---~ Righlsell ---r 296 Rockefe~ --r-481  P1 - 5th Grade --- 403 Stephens '--~~ Terry I 597  ,ncludei\nportables Wakefleld I 395 utthzing Badgett Gita includes portables W\u0026amp;shingto,1 I 678 '-------~- Wstson t- 534 WestemH ills 370 ~:\ns=-+ : ~ -- --m Sub-Total 15015 Grand Total 28$25 PAGE 02/02 1/lliOJ LEA: 6002050 PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL FORM COUNTY: PULASKI SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT:'. N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: AMBOY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE: 1 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 I GRADEi ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ I TOTAL I I WHITE F BLACK HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M M F M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLL! 561 Bi 41 181 251 11 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I O I O I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLL I 5 6 I 9 I 9 I 16 I 2 2 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 01 11 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLL! 511 61 61 231 161 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 0 I 0 I 11 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLL I 50 I 71 6 I 20 I 14 I 2 I 11 0 I O I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLL I 621 131 91 161 24 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLL I 51 I 10 I 9 I 22 I 10 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 6 ENROLL I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 B ENROLL I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLL I 3261 531 431 ll51 llll 31 11 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 2 I 0 I 11 11 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- /(. x'~4- -y' \u0026amp;-r\u0026gt; 7,. Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y RECEIVED JAN 2 7 2003 OFACEOF DESEGREGMAOTNIOITNO RING J.,EA: 6002053 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: BELWOODE LEMENTARYS CHOOL PAGE: 2 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 I GRADEi I TOTAL I I WHITE F BLACK ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M M F M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLL! 281 31 31 121 101 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 2 5 I 5 I 2 I 6 I 11 I O I 1 I O I O I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI 20 I 51 3 I 5 I 71 0 I O I OI OI OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLLI 20 I 31 4 I 9 I 4 I O I OI O I O I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLLI 371 71 41 131 111 01 21 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 5 ENROLLI 18 I 4 I 4 I 7 I 3 I O I O I OI OI OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLLI 11 01 01 01 11 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 8 ENROLLI O I OI OI OI OI OI O I OI O I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 1491 271 201 521 471 01 31 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ..\u0026gt;/7 n 3 ~~,-/4 Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y\nLEA: 6002054 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 PAGE: 3 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: BOONEP ARK ELEMENTARYS CHOOL I GRADEi I TOTAL I I M WHITE F BLACK M F ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLLb\nS9~1 s .11 1111~,1 1so1 1.-1 01 01 01 01 o ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLLI 62 I 4 I 2 I 2 9 I 2 6 I O I 11 0 I O I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 761 31 21 331 361 11 11 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI 761 31 01 251 471 01 01 01 01 01 1 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLLI 581 31 11 241 291 01 11 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLLI 521 11 11 251 251 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLLI 72 I 3 I 3 I 33 I 311 2 I O I O I O I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 3961 171 91 1691 1941 31 31 01 01 01 1 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+.-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- -jl.5:5. ~.:)..., ~er s fl ~/ ?~ Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y .LEA: 6002055 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOL FORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 PAGE: 4 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: CRESTWOODE LEMENTARYS CHOOL !GRADEi I TOTAL! I M WHITE F BLACK M F ASIAN/ !AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLL! 551 161 181 151 61 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 101 51 51 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 711 2 5 I 2 6 I 14 I 6 I O I OI OI OI OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 1 I O I 1 I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLL! 581 211 181 101 91 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 1 I 1 I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLLI 4 9 I 15 I 14 I 111 8 I O I OI OI O I 11 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLL! 481 131 211 Bi 61 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 0 I 11 0 I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLLI 50 I 151 131 10 I 111 0 I O I 11 0 I OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLL! Oi 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLL! 3311 1051 1101 681 461 01 01 11 01 11 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 13 I 6 I 7 I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+--:::\n-16---+-----:\n7--+-----~--+---~:_\n-\n,--+-----+-----+---- Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y _LEA: 600205 6 PAGE: 5 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: GLENVIEWE LEMENTARYS CHOOL SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 I GRADEi I TOTAL I I M WHITE F BLACK M F I ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC IPACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLLI 2 4 I 6 I 1 I 8 I 9 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 2 9 I 5 I 5 I 10 I 9 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI 351 21  31 171 13 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLLI 311 31 31 131 12 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLLI 28 I 11 51 14 I 8 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLLI 36 I 4 I 21 18 I 121 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 1831 211 191 801 631 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ...yo /- 2' o 7/f/o Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y\nLEA: 6002057 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: INDIAN HILLS ELEMENTARYS CHOOL PAGE: 6 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 I GRADEi I TOTAL I I WHITE F BLACK ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M M F M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLLI 77 I 27 I 281 10 I 10 I 0 I 11 0 I 11 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 13 I 6 I 6 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 1 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 7 0 I 2 6 I 2 4 I 8 I 9 I 0 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLL! 751 241 301 71 111 01 01 21 11 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 3 I 11 2 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLL! 661 251 261 81 61 01 11 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 0 I 11 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 4 ENROLLI 7 5 I 2 9 I 2 5 I 10 I 7 I 0 I 1 I 1 I 2 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 11 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLL! 661 211 281 61 101 11 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 21 21 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I O I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 4291 1521 1611 491 531 11 41 41 51 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 201 101 91 01 01 01 11 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+---_:\n3--+----/~:\nL.-+-----+\n7+--- ~+-----+-----+---- Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y :LEA: 6002058 PAGE: 7 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOL FORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: LAKEWOODE LEMENTARYS CHOOL SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 \\GRADE\\ \\TOTAL\\ I M WHITE F BLACK M F ASIAN/ \\AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC \\PACIFIC ISL\\ALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLL\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLL\\ 60\\ 24\\ 26\\ 3\\ 6\\ 1\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 54 I 14 I 20 I 11 I 7 I 2 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLL\\ 55\\ 221 14\\ 9\\ 7\\ 1\\ 11 1\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLL I 4 9 I 17 I 9 I 11 I 8 I 2 I 2 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0\\ 0\\ 01 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLL\\ 421 13\\ 12\\ 131 3\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 11 0\\ 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLL\\ 53\\ 16\\ 15\\ 71 11\\ 1\\ 3\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLL\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 01 0\\ 0\\ 01 0\\ 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLL I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 01 01 0\\ 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLL\\ 0\\ 0\\ 01 0\\ 0\\ 01 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE\\ 0\\ 01 0\\ 0\\ 01 0\\ 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLL\\ 3131 106\\ 96\\ 541 421 7\\ 61 11 1\\ 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 01 0\\ 01 01 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ~0_\n2..-, 9C'r /6 ,4/?.. Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y ~EA: 6002059 PUPIL ENROLLMENBT Y SCHOOLF ORM PAGE: 8 COUNTY: PULASKI SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 SIS: rpt404 ~~\n~~~~:~~~~~:~~\n:\n:~~~~:~~\n~~~:::::~__pl~--~_!:'~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~ I GRADEi ITOTALI I M WHITE F BLACK M F ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI O I OI OI OI O I O I OI O I OI OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLLI O I OI OI OI O I OI OI O I OI OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLLI O I OI OI OI OI OI OI O I OI OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLLI 6591 1151 1121 1921 2131 111 131 11 01 21 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 1 I O I O I O I 1 I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 6591 1151 1121 1921 2131 111 131 11 01 21 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 01 01 01 11 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ~~7 -\u0026lt;105 ~ '\"I c\n./7, Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y LEA: 6002060 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 PAGE: 9 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: LYNCH DRIVE ELEMENTARYS CHOOL I GRADEi I TOTAL I I M WHITE F BLACK M F ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLLI 4 3 I 3 I 2 I 21 I 1 7 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 01 01 11 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 561 51 41 161 301 11 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI 531 31 4 I 27 I 1 7 I 2 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 0 I 0 I 11 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLL! 661 21 61 261 311 11 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 1 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 1 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLLI 631 91 4 I 251 251 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLL! 521 61 91 131 241 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 8 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 3331 281 291 1281 1441 41 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 3 I 0 I 0 I 2 I 11 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+--- c:57 --+--- ~7~ +----y ---+- g-_\ni~ ----+-----+-----+---- Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y\nLEA: 6002061 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: MEADOWPA RK ELEMENTARYS CHOOL PAGE: 10 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 I GRADEi I TOTAL I I WHITE F BLACK ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC IPACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M M F M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLLI 2 6 I 4 I 4 I 11 I 7 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 351 31 51 101 171 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI 251 3 I 3 I 8 I 9 I 0 I 0 I 11 1 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 3 ENROLLI 21 I 0 I 0 I 8 I 12 I 1 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLLI 261 31 31 71 131 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLLI 24 I 4 I 4 I 9 I 7 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 8 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 1571 171 191 531 651 11 01 11 11 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- -34, 118 ..3 ?~,/4 Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y ,LEA: 6002063 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 PAGE: 11 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: NO. HEIGHTS ELEMENTARYS CHOOL I GRADEi I TOTAL I I M WHITE F BLACK M F ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLLI 651 Bl 71 161 181 31 131 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 01 01 01 11 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLL! 671 81 71 171 191 101 61 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI 711 61 101 221 181 Bl 71 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLLI 82 I 19 I 12 I 13 I 18 I 13 I 71 0 I O I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+----. +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLLI 87 I 111 121 22 I 251 111 61 0 I O I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLLI 791 131 131 201 231 71 21 01 01 11 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 8 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 4511 651 611 1101 1211 521 411 01 01 11 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 01 01 01 11 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- /.\n? ~ ~.31 7~ I?. Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y LEA: 6002064 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOL FORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: PARK HILL ELEMENTARYS CHOOL PAGE: 12 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 I GRADEi ITOTALI I WHITE F BLACK ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC IPACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M M F M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLLI 351 91 71 81 111 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 38 I 12 I 8 I 8 I 10 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI 38 I 9 I 4 I 14 I 11 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLLI 381 51 101 101 121 01 11 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 4 ENROLLI 4 2 I 11 I 7 I 14 I 8 I 2 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLLI 561 111 111 181 151 01 11 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 2471 571 471 721 671 21 21 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+----10 -+----\n/ic/--+------ ---+--~~--\n,~--+-----+-----+---- Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y ):,EA: 6002065 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 PAGE: 13 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARYS CHOOL I GRADEi I TOTAL I I M WHITE F BLACK M F ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC IPACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLLI 561 121 41 231 151 21 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 11 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 501 111 111 171 101 01 11 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----~-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI 411 61 61 131 161 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLLI 551 101 101 201 141 01 01 11 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLLI 641 91 111 211 201 01 21 11 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLLI 451 71 121 111 141 11 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 6 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 3111 551 541 1051 891 31 31 21 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 11 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+----/-\n1--+---:\nw--+-----~---+---~~\u0026gt;=--+-----+-----+---- Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y t'EA: 6002069 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: SEVENTH STREET ELEM. SCHOOL PAGE: 14 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 I GRADEi I TOTAL I I M WHITE F BLACK M F ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC IPACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLLI 4 2 I 0 I 0 I 21 I 21 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 441 01 11 231 201 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI 501 01 11 261 231 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLLI 481 21 11 211 241 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLLI 53 I 2 I 2 I 25 I 24 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLLI 571 61 41 271 201 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 6 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 2941 101 91 1431 1321 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- / 1 _\n\u0026gt;?5 0 9-Y' Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y -r. 0 -1,o 95 .LEA: 6002070 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOL FORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: LAKEWOODM IDDLE SCHOOL PAGE: 15 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 I GRADEi I TOTAL I I WHITE M I F BLACK ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+--. --+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 6 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI 2741 771 881 581 471 11 11 11 11 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 711 261 421 01 11 01 11 11 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLL! 3021 901 1011 621 431 21 21 11 11 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 61 21 31 01 01 11 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 5761 1671 1891 1201 901 31 31 21 21 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- +-----+---- +-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 771 281 451 01 11 11 11 11 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ~~ ~10 /0 ~ts,?, Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y RECEIVED JAN2 7 2003 OFFIOCFE DESEGREGMAOTNIOITNO RING EA: 6002072 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: RIDGEROAD MIDDLE SCHOOL PAGE: 16 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 I GRADEi I TOTAL I I WHITE F BLACK M ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC IPACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 3 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 4 ENROLLI O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI 288 I 381 381 104 I 90 I 111 7 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLL! 3011 471 381 1101 951 61 41 11 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 11 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 5891 851 761 2141 1851 171 111 11 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 1 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+--- / ~ r --+-- ~9...-.-+,- -- ~ 1---+- c:8. '?-----+-----+-----+---- Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y ,LEA: 600207 5 PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOLF ORM PAGE: 17 COUNTY: PULASKI SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 SIS: rpt404 ~~~~~~~~~~1@:~\n,/4:?~,\n,t:a,:.1.D ___________ RuN~Yi~~~s\n~~~\n/~~~~1 I GRADEi ITOTALI I M WHITE F BLACK M F ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLLI /$~I /ll ~I \u0026amp;-'/6'1 4,01 ~I ~I 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 4 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLl/34'1 /-(fl -..e-1 ~~I ~I ~1-1 ~0'1 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+--- -5' ----+--- /~?---+--?----+ ,9..d/4 ----+-----+-----+---- Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y LEA: 6002077 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOL FORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: ROSE CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL PAGE: 19 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 I GRADEi I TOTAL I I WHITE F BLACK ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M M F M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 6 ENROLLI 3 I 11 0 I 1 I 11 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI 11 7 I 7 I 7 I 54 I 4 7 I 0 I 0 I 11 11 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLLI 1221 101 111 591 421 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 o9\n~\n~~~7--\n~---~:7---~,7--~~~7---\n7----\n7----\n7----~7----~7----\n------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ~-5 3 8 .\n?05 d).-' ?i-.Yi\".. Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y LEA: 6002077 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: ROSE CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL-(7,::-,,J-,f. PAGE: 38 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 I GRADEi I TOTAL I I M WHITE F BLACK M F ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC IPACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 9 ENROLLI 3 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 10 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 11 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 12 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0i 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 13 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- EE ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I  0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- SM ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ss ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 31 11 11 11 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ******************************************************************************** NUMBERO F GRADUATESF OR PREVIOUS SCHOOLY EAR TOTAL ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- GRADUATEIS 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ******************************************************************************** ~EA: 6002075 PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOL FORM PAGE: 36 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 COUNTY: PULASKI SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: NLR HIGH SCHOOL-EAST CAMPUS !GRADEi I TOTAL! I M WHITE F M BLACK F ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 09 ENROLL! 7121 1561 1611 1941 1741 151 lll 01 01 01 1 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 61 31 21 01 11 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 10 ENROLL! 609! 1451 1341 1711 139! 71 61 31 21 11 1 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! lll Si Si 11 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 11 ENROLLI O I OI OI OI OI O I OI O I OI OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 12 ENROLLI O I OI OI O I O I OI OI O I OI OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 13 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- EE ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- SM ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ss ENROLL! Oi 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLL! 13211 301! 295! 365! 313! 221 171 31 21 11 2 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 1 7 I 8 I 7 I 11 11 0 I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- d59\u0026lt;\no ?75\" ~7 d/?. ******************************************************************************** NUMBERO F GRADUATESF OR PREVIOUS SCHOOLY EAR TOTAL ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- GRADUATES! 01 01 01 01 01 OJ 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ******************************************************************************** LEA: 6002076 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: NLR HIGH SCHOOL-WEST CAMPUS PAGE: 37 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 I GRADEi I TOTAL I I M WHITE F BLACK M F ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 09 ENROLL! 251 41 11 131 51 11 11 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 10 ENROLLI 1301 211 121 561 351 21 41 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 11 ENROLL! 5721 1291 1691 1211 1421 21 61 21 11 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 261 81 171 01 01 01 11 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 12 ENROLLI 5841 1511 1461 1121 1631 31 31 11 31 01 2 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 31 11 21 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 13 ENROLLI O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+----.+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- EE ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- SM ENROLLI O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ss ENROLLI OJ O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 13111 3051 3281 3021 3451 81 141 31 41 01 2 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 291 91 191 01 01 01 11 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- \u0026amp;33- \u0026lt;\n4,7 ~/ -Y'??.. ****************************************************************************** NUMBERO F GRADUATESF OR PREVIOUS SCHOOLY EAR TOTAL ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-- GRADUATEIS 508 I 1391 1221 94 I 128 I 51 91 31 61 11 1 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-- ****************************************************************************** 0, -t7ol LEA: 6002000 PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY DISTRICT PAGE: 1 COUNTY: PULASKI SCHOOL CHOICE BY DISTRICT ON OCT. 1 SIS: rpt304 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CYCLE: 10/15/2002 :=~~~~~---~.\u0026amp;-/ ------------------------------------~~~~-=~~==~~~~~-~=~~~ I GRADEi I TOTAL I I M WHITE F BLACK M F ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ I HISPANIC IPACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLLI 6291 1241 1061 1951 1811 71 151 01 11 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 261 121 111 11 11 01 11 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 6711 1261 1241 1891 2061 141 101 11 11 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 2 I 0 I 2 I O I 0 I O I O I O I O I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI 6481 1101 1021 2061 2041 111 81 41 21 01 1 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 6 I 2 I 2 I 2 I 0 I O I O I 0 I 0 I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLLI 6331 1111 1021 1941 1921 191 131 11 01 11 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 21 01 11 01 11 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLLI 6791 1221 1161 2131 1991 131 111 21 31 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 21 11 11 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLLI 6591 1201 1271 2011 1911 121 61 11 01 11 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 2 I 2 I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLLI 6631 1161 1121 1931 2151 111 131 11 01 21 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 0 I O I O I 1 I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI 6791 1221 1331 2161 1841 121 81 21 21 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 711 261 421 01 11 01 11 11 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLLI 7251 1471 1501 2311 1801 81 61 21 11 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 7 I 3 I . 3 J O I O I 1 I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------~36--~9+-~+-4\u0026amp;8\"+-~+--~+--_:jt+---4,-+---(\n.+----l-+----+---- ~~~~~~!-::~!-=~=}1-=~~.-\n=, 12 1:~!- 1=-~---=-=~\n1,l-!- --~1----=+---- ---=~~=1.=.\n~\n~~--t-li~i--1-7---~-ti~~1----1=~?.-~1----1~----~+---- Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y RECEIVED JAN 2 7 2003 OFFIOCEF DESEGREGMAOTNIOITNO ,. LEA: 6002000 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y DISTRICT SCHOOL CHOICE BY DISTRICT ON OCT. 1 PAGE: 2 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: SIS: rpt304 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:40 !GRADEi I TOTAL I I M WHITE F BLACK M F I I HISPANIC M F ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 09 ENROLL! 7401 1611 1631 2081 1791 161 121 01 01 01 1 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 6 I 31 2 I 0 I 11 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 10 ENROLL! 7391 1661 1461 2271 1741 91 101 31 21 11 1 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 111 51 51 11 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 11 ENROLLI 5721 1291 1691 1211 1421 21 61 21 11 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 261 Bl 171 01 01 01 11 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 12 ENROLLI 5841 1511 1461 1121 1631 31 31 11 31 01 2 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 3 I 11 2 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 13 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- EE ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- SM ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ss ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 26351 6071 6241 6681 6581 301 311 61 61 11 4 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 461 171 261 11 11 01 11 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ******************************************************************************** NUMBER OF GRADUATES FOR PREVIOUS SCHOOL YEAR TOTAL ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- GRADUATEIS 5081 1391 1221 941 1281 51 91 31 61 11 1 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ******************************************************************************** RECEIVED JAN 2 7 2003 OFFIOCFE DESEGREGMAOTNIOITNO RING ' ..  General Information - Enrollment Data Page 1 of 2 Count results for 2002-2003 for Districts: NORTH LITTLE ROCK (6002) B African African Asian Asian Hispanic Hispanic Native Native White White American American American American ITotall Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female ~II 189 II 206 II=:DI 1 14 10 0 II 0 11~1 124 II~ ~II 206 II 204 11~1 2 11 8 0 II 1 11~1 102 116481 ~I 194 II 192 II=:DI 0 19 13 1 II 0 II :DTII 102 116331 ~JI 213 199 IIJJI 3 13 11 0 II 0 II }fill 116 116191 ~II 201 191 II=:DI 0 12 6 1 II 0 11~1 127 116591 ~II 193 215 II=:DI 0 11 13 2 II 0 ll:DIJI 112 116631 ~II 216 184 IIJJI 2 12 8 0 II 0 ll}fill 133 116791 ~II 231 180 IIJJI 1 8 6 0 II 0 1[2]1 150 111251 ~II 208 I 179 I0:JI 0 16 12 0 II 1 ll2illl 163 11140 I ~II 227 II 174 IOJI 2 9 10 1 II 1 11~1 146 117391 ~II 121 II 142 I1-=:DI 1 2 6 0 II 0 11~1 169 115121 DIii 112 II 163 [TI! 3 3 3 0 II 2 11~1 146 II5s41 ~II 0 II 0 11~1 0 0 0 0 I 0 ll~I 0 10 ~II 195 II 181 11~1 1 7 15 0 0 IIEDI 106 II 629I ~II 0 II 0 11~1 0 0 0 0 0 IL~! 0 II~ ~JI 0 II 0 11~1 0 0 0 0 0 11~1 0 10 I Total JI 2506 II 2410 lc:fill 16 I 137 121 5 5 111105111 696 1is6211 ,I Nov 22 02 U9:05a facsimile1 rans111ittal ,o: Margie Powell Fax: From: Hobby J. Acklin Date: Re: 2002-2003 Buiiding Capi1eities Pages: CC: 0 Urgent 0 FocReview D Please Comment Notes: 5017718001 Bobhy J. Acl.1111 Norlh Little Rock School D1stnct 21U\\l Popiar Slrcei l'.O.B-m\\6\u0026amp;1 North Little Rock, AR 72 I 15-0687 501-77180S0 Fax: 501-771-8001 371-0100 J 1/22/02 3 D Please Reply 0 Please Recyci p. 1  .. ,.~,,. , Nov 22 02 U9:U~a NLRSD Student AFFa1rs Building Capacities 2002-2003 5017718001 I Location I Building Capacity I West j 1354 I East 11254 1-akewood Middie 1583 , R1dgeroad Middle j 638 i Rose City tvfiddle ! 4 34 I Poplar Street Middle i 752 I Argenta Academy I 1 iO i I Amboy Elementary 1379 j Belwood Elementary I 227 I I Boone Park Eiementary 1 468 i1c_r_e__smrn__o~_ d_E__e_l_e _tn_--m~ _ ry-:_~._-_-_-_-_-_-_-\n1_3-=_s-=_o-=_-=_-=_-=_-=_-=_-=_-=_-=_-=_-=_-=_-=_-=_-=_-=_~-=Gienview Elementary ! 225 I II Indian Hills Elementary j 457 I _ Lakewood Elementary 1319 I I Lvnch Drive Elementary I 455 I I rvieadow Park Elementary 1208 I ! North Heights Elementary -f ?_0___4_ ______ ----1 I n~-1- U~ll Cl,-m-=-n+\u0026lt;\u0026gt;n, ? 0 2 11 ail'.. .1UU .l...,J.\"J. \u0026lt;vu~..._.J 1 _\u0026lt;'.'\\ I Pike View Elementary I 362 ~ I Seventh Street Elem_,en_,__t__ ary -+!-4__3__ ~0 ---=-==-------p-:0--,~-. p.2 ' Nov 22 02 0S:0ba NLRSD Student RFFa1rs 5017718001 p.3 2002-2003 School Building Capacity REDWOOD (without portable) CURRENT USE ONLY-ACTUAL CAPACITY NOT CALCULATED STEP 1- Identity each room by use and capacity. 6 Pre K X 18 = 108 RECEIVED  North Little Rock School District Employees 0~~2 2 2002 Pupil Enrollment by School October 1, 2002 Amboy Elementary Belwood Elen:-ientary 1 Boone Park Elementary  Crestwood Elementary Glenview Elementary Indian Hills Elementary IIL akewood Elementary IL ynch Drive Elementary Meadow Park Elementary I !North Heights Elementary 1 j Park Hill Elementary I Pike View Elementary I Seventh Street Fine Arts 11 Poplar Street Middle JJLakewood Middle jjR1dgeroad Middle I 1 Rose City Middle I Argenta Academy I I NLRHS-EasCt ampus I INLRHS-West~ ampus I DISTRICT2 003 TOTALS I District 2002 Totals II District 2001 To~ ~ I 0 v (' 7 North Little Rock Public Schools (Return to top of page) I October 1, 2002 Pupil Enrollment as reported to the State Department of Education October 15, 2002 District Totals White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Am Ind/A/a Ntv Grade Totals M Fl Ml Fl Ml F M F M F K 6] 128 110 I 1991 188 8 15 0 1 1 0 01 68 130 128 193 210 14 10 1 1 0 0 02 66 112 I 1041 212 I 2oall 1111 811 41 21 011 1 03 64l 115 104 197 198 19 131 1 II 011 1 II 0 04 691 125 117 219 201 13 11 2 3 0 0 05 673 124 129 205 195 12 1 6 1 0 1 0 06 679 119 116 198 219 11 131 1 II 011 21 0 07 697 127 134 222 190 12 al 211 21 0 0 08 46 152 243 183 8 6 2 1 0 0 \" http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar. us/intranet/enrollment_ 2000.htm 11/20/02 09 755 164 I 16811 2121 181 I 1611 13 0 0 0 1 10 . 772 1751 15111 2391 181 Bl 101 3 2 1 1 11 i::nn 132 176 ~ 147 I 61 2 1 0 0 12 609 159 149 I 16911 311 31 1 3 0 2 Totals 8859 1761 1738 I 258311 2470~ 13811 12211 201 16 6 5 -- f39.5o% l 157.04% I 2.93% I I o.41% I 0.12% -  I I I I I I I I lI I I I I I I I I  OCTOBER 1, 2001 DISTRICT TOTALS. (Return to top of page) CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:DISTRICT TOTALS GRADE SPAN: K-12 WHITE BLACK HISPANIC EffiEESIAN/PI IND/ALS NAT GRADE TOTAL ~~I M I F M F I K 706 138 126 203 211 13 12 2 0 0 01 655 114 105 195 220 8 9 4 0 0 0 02 661 ~ 101 204 204 11 10 1 2 1 0 03 711 132 127 211 218 10 10 1 2 0 0 04 693 ~ 131 228 194 12 7 0 1 l 0 05 682 123 117 199 221 10 9 l 0 2 0 ' 06 664 110 104 226 205 10 6 0 2 1 0 I 07 765 165 153 236 188 10 9 3 1 0 0 08 682 ~ 151 199 170 13 5 0 0 0 I 0 I 09 660 155 128 210 152 9 4 1 0 0 I 1 I 10 877 194 194 242 218 6 13 3 5 0 2 11 668 158 156 154 187 9 3 0 l 0 I 0 I 12 625 156,~ 123 165 5 Bo 1 6 coEB TOTALS 9059 1845 7 2630 2553 126 107 ~DJ 4 Percentage 39.68% 57.21% 2.57% 0.42% 0.11% -C I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I  http://www.nlrsd.k12.ar.us/intranet/enrol1ment_2000.htm 11/20/02 OCTOBER 2, 2000 DISTRICT TOTALS (Return to top of page) CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:POLASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:DISTRICT TOTALS GRADE SPAN: K-12 I WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PI AM IND/ALS NAT 11 GRADE TOTAL IGJ F M F M F ~ M F 11 J II 164 [~ 8 71 76 3 2 G:J~ 0 0 I K II 669 I 117 100 I 213 221 9 3 ~ EB 647 124 105 I 194 209 7 6 EB 0 2 711 138 117 216 218 11 6 2 03 659 124 127 I 205 188 5 0 ~ 0 04 675 107 126 I 201 220 8 ~ 0 2 05 627 101 0 CJ:J 06 658 0 07 656 08 610 09 756 I 0 10 I 854 0 11 621 2 12 529 0 EX 0 0 SCHOOLS 8836 2574 2559 TOTALS 58.1% W/0 8003 16 09 2290 2262 91 8 6 7 GRD J/K 40.6% 56.9% 2.1% .3% .2% '--14~_B_s_ck_~l lJ Home I Fl Next To place information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsd.k12.ar.u~ http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar.us/intranet/enrollment_2000.htm 11/20/02 North Little Rock School District Employees Only ~'\n.l?.1' : ,?(t OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA 16002-054 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT:NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:BOONE PARK ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 65 4 2 30 27 1 1 0 0 0 0 01 77 3 2 33 37 1 1 0 0 0 0 02 77 3 0 25 48 0 0 0 0 0 1 03 59 3 ,~ 25 29 0 1 0 0 0 0 04 53 1 1 26 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 75 4 3 35 31 2 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 406 18 9 ,\n,l. 174 197 4 3 0 0 0 1 7.39% 91.38% 1.72% 0.00% 0.25% ~1: 371 v ~1:-:J~_Bfa$j_ ck_~I \"\"' Home 7 I t I Up I b-:1 Next To place information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsq.k12.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar.us/intranet/boone _park_ elementary.htm 11/20/02 t' :\n$:\nL 7 C,, _\n)/ I ~ / 0 t::\u0026gt; 0 ~ -I ~ 7' -I 0 0 0 0 -I\n)'y I 0 '9 ~ 1-1 '/ 0 0 I C: ~I ~ 3 13 /7 6 tr) 0 C? e.\u0026gt; {,~ ~ (, ~ 4, 0 I 0 ~f\n? 9 // C, 0 ~7 (,, ~4, ~/ I 0 0 I 0 \u0026lt;g' a- I (b 0 1'1 19 I I 1.3 ? cO --II C. // /0 /\ni5 0 I r, 0 ) 1 /0 I .:\no /~ p\n:\n. I\nP '\" 0 -- -- ~ II lcf'/ 197 Ii I\nI~ I 0 I fc', -f~o- -r-,I /,o t ~? /I~ /0 /91 //ff' /\") /a I 0 /  North Little Rock School District Employees Only OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA #6002-050 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COONTY:POLASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:AMBOY ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/A/a Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 58 9 4 19 25 1 0 0 0 0 0 01 56 9 9 16 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 55 6 6 27 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 52 7 6 21 15 2 1 0 0 0 0 04 64 14 9 17 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 52 10 9 22 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 !Totals II 33711 5511 4311 12211 1131 3 1 0 ole]JC] I29.oa I 169.73% I 1.19% 0.00% 10.00%1 I fj Home lit! Up I Fl Next To place information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsd.kl2.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar.us/intranet/amboy _ elementary.htm 11/20/02 North Little Rock School District Employees Only \"\"\"'\"'\" OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA #6002-053 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:BELWOOD ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 30 3 4 12 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 26 6 2 6 11 0 1 0 0 0 0 02 22 6 3 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 22 4 5 9 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 38 8 4 13 11 0 2 0 0 0 0 05 20 5 4 7 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 06 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 159 32 22 54 48 0 3 0 0 0 0 33.96% 64.15% 1.89% 0.00% 0.00% .'o/\nCl~ ..3. j~ Back I l$j Home 1t1 I Up I t+I Next To place information here, contact webmoster@moil.nlrsd.k12.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar. us/intranet/belwood _ elementary.htm 11/20/02 North Little Rock School District Employees Only .,  ',. .'.o/i OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA #6002-055 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COONTY:POLASKI DISTRICT:NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:CRESTWOOD ELEl-:IENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/A/a Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 57 17 18 15 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 73 25 27 14 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 58 21 18 10 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 49 15 14 11 8 0 0 0 0 1 0 04 49 13 22 8 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 51 16 13 10 11 0 0 1 0 0 0 Totals 337 107 112 68 48 0 0 1 0 1 0 64.99% 34.42% 0.00% 0.30% 0.30% Back j fj /I? ,\n- Home j .-lt,_j--up--j~ F_~NIe _~-~ To place information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsd.k12.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar. us/intranet/crestwood _ elementary .htm 11/20/02  North Little Rock School District Employees Only 1,:' -L~\n1 11 OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA #6002-056 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS I COUNTY:POLASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK I SCHOOL:GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/A/a Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 24 6 1 8 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 29 5 5 10 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 35 2 3 17 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 31 3 3 13 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 29 1 5 15 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 38 4 2 19 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 186 21 19 82 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 21.51% 78.49% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% -210 1-r~ -r-? ~j.-j~-Ba-ck-f~$I J Home 1t1-1 --up--Fl ~-NIe -xi-~ To place information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsd_,kl2.ar.us http:/ /www.nlrsd.k12.ar. us/intranet/glenview _ elementary.htm 11/20/02  North Little Rock School District Employees Only Grade K 01 02 03 04 05 Totals ~:. ..~. ~.:.t-\" OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA #6002-057 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT:NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: INDIAN HILLS ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Totals M F M F M F M 79 27 29 10 11 0 1 0 71 26 25 8 9 0 1 1 75 24 30 7 11 0 0 2 66 25 26 8 6 0 1 0 75 29 25 10 7 0 1 1 66 21 28 6 10 0 1 0 432 152 163 49 54 0 5 4 72.92% 23.84% 1.16% 208% \u0026lt;:PIO / / ~'4~_Ba_ck_~j L.-LfJ~_Ho_me_j1_,' --t'_I _,_1_ U_p _ _,I ..._f--:...N,_eI _xi _ _, To place information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsd.k12.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.k12.ar.us/intranet/indian _hills_ elementary.htm Am Ind/Ala Ntv F M F 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0.00% 11/20/02  North Little Rock School District Employees Only OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA ij6002-058 CORRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 61 24 26 3 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 01 56 15 20 11 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 02 56 22 14 9 8 1 1 1 0 0 0 03 49 17 9 11 8 2 2 0 0 0 0 04 42 13 12 13 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 05 53 16 15 7 11 1 3 0 0 0 0 Totals 317 107 96 54 45 7 6 1 1 0 0 64.04% 31.23% 4.10% 0.63% 0.00% Back fj Home 1 JI,t--,---1.- ,U. p---,/f.--F-r-1 -N-ext----, To place information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsd.k12.ar.M_S http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar. us/intranet/lakewood _ elementary.htm 11/20/02 North Little Rock School District Employees Only -, r - OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA #6002-060 I CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:LYNCH DRIVE ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 43 3 2 21 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 59 6 5 17 30 1 0 0 0 0 0 02 53 3 4 27 17 2 0 0 0 0 0 03 67 3 6 26 31 1 0 0 0 0 0 04 63 9 4 25 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 52 6 9 13 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 337 30 30 129 144 4 0 0 0 0 0 17.80% 81.01% 1.19% 0.00% 0.00% ?0 c:\u0026lt;7B -I ~1:--1~-Ba-ck-~@j j Home I J t I Up I ~~~I -Ne_xt_~ To place information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsd.k12.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar.us/intranet/lynch _drive_ elementary.htm 11/20/02 North Little Rock School District Employees Only ..,.s .l OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA lt6002-061 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:MEADOW PARK ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 I Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 30 5 5 12 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 36 3 5 11 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 26 3 3 8 10 0 0 1 1 0 0 03 21 0 0 8 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 04 26 3 3 7 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 25 4 4 10 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 164 18 20 56 67 1 0 1 1 0 0 I 23.17% 75.00% 0.61% 1.22% 0.00% /~3 oB Back If $l Home I ~t~' _lU _p -~' F~-NIe _xt_~ To place information here, contact we~master@mail.nlrsd.k12.gr.us http://www.nlrsd.k12.ar. us/intranet/meadow _park_ elementary.htrn 11/20/02 North Little Rock Sch-oo-l District Employees Only OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA ll6002-063 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:NORTH HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN:K-05 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/A/a Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 65 8 7 16 18 3 13 0 0 0 0 01 67 8 7 17 19 10 6 0 0 0 0 02 73 6 12 22 18 8 7 0 0 0 0 03 82 19 12 13 18 13 7 0 0 0 0 04 87 11 12 22 25 11 6 0 0 0 0 05 80 13 13 21 23 7 2 0 0 1 0 Totals 454 65 63 111 121 52 41 0 0 1 0 28.19% 51.10% 20.48% 0.00% 0.22% ~a.,., ?.J , Back I lJ Home II. ---tc-rl--up-'-'----,1.- --F~I_N_e~-~ To place information here, contact webmaster@mall.nlrsd.kl2.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar. us/intranet/north _heights_ elementary .htrn 11/20/02  North Little Rock School District Employees Only ) ) Grade K 01 02 03 04 05 Totals :\n})'c~ OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA #6002-064 CORRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COONTY:POLASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: PARK HILL ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Totals M F M F M F M 38 10 8 8 11 0 0 0 41 13 8 10 10 0 0 0 39 10 4 14 11 0 0 0 41 6 11 10 13 0 1 0 45 12 7 16 8 2 0 0 58 12 12 18 15 0 1 0 262 63 50 76 68 2 2 0 43.13% 54.96% 1.53% 0.00% 11 a /-3/-1/ s 1.-J Back J f\u0026lt;tj Home J I t J Up J t4: J Next To place Information here, contact webmaster@mai1.nlrsd.k12.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar. us/intranet/park _hill_ elementary.htm Am Ind/Ala Ntv F M F 0 /% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I A' 0 0.00% 11/20/02 c\n.~ ..i:,i 7 iJ 5Y CJ -/ /fj I n r. .., 0 .::3 /.\n,.. // \u0026lt;!J c0 e:\u0026gt; 0 f\u0026gt;') ? /7 /~ /~ ? 0 0 n tX \u0026amp; / y 7 t? c\u0026gt; 0 c-\u0026gt; {\"\") 79 ~7 ~? /0 // 0 / 0 / 0 I _\n)? 7 / 0 0 0 C) 3 ?- /7 0 0 ('\") .,pe\u0026gt; ? ~ /\nl s? 0 0 t:.:\u0026gt; i tt.~ ~ 7 I (,e, If I. 0 f?:JJ. ~ /0 'B' /I 0 0 ~7 /,/ ~ ,\n)-# / ~ 0 0 \u0026lt;:O ) .J/~ I t:\n-\n5 /.\n! //.:\u0026gt; 19\u0026lt;j I '8 0 I :) /4,-,1, ,.JI~ r\n.\n,o /~~ J/D 11? r~)f' '8' 0 I 0 ~f'- eO /~ I North Little Rock School District Employees Only ~,. t OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA #6002-065 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 57 12 4 24 15 2 0 0 0 0 0 01 51 11 12 17 10 0 1 0 0 0 0 02 43 6 6 14 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 57 10 10 20 16 0 0 1 0 0 0 04 65 9 11 21 21 0 2 1 0 0 0 05 47 7 13 11 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 320 55 56 107 94 3 3 2 0 0 0 34.69% 62.81% 1.88% 0.63% 0.00% ~lii~-BIa -cfkj- ~I ,dol~--~3 Home 1t1 I Up IF ~-NIe -xt-~ To place information here, contact web__master@mail.nlrsd.k12.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar. us/intranet/pike _view_ elementary .htm 11/20/02  North Little Rock School District Employees Only .,,.~ - -. ,\"1 OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA #6002-069 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:SEVENTH STREET ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 43 0 0 21 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 45 0 1 23 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 50 0 1 26 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 52 3 1 22 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 55 2 2 26 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 57 6 4 27 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 302 11 9 145 137 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.62% 93.38% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% .\n?So\u0026gt;- o Back If j Home IIt~~ -UI- p -~, r:~-N--e-,x t-~ To place information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsd.kl2.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar. us/intranet/ seventh_ street_ fine_ arts.htm 11/20/02  North Little Rock School District Employees Only ~, '\"\"~-~- OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA #6002-070 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTYl:? ULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: LAKEWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL GRADE Sl?AN: 07-08 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F 07 278 80 88 59 47 1 1 1 1 0 0 08 307 91 102 65 43 2 2 1 1 0 0 Totals 585 171 190 124 90 3 3 2 2 0 0 61.71% 36.58% 1.03% 0.68% 0.00% lil Back I lJ\n?(/~ ___ ........,/()~--~ Home 11t j Up I F... .I. _.N.._.e.x.t. . ___, To place information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsd.kl2.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar.us/intranet/lakewood_midd1e.htm 11/20/02  North Little Rock School District Employees Only i']jc'~ OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA #6002-059 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: POPLAR STREET MIDDLE SCHOOL GRADE SPAN: 06 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F 06 675 118 116 197 217 11 13 1 0 2 0 Totals 675 118 116 197 217 11 13 1 0 2 0 34.67% 61.33% 3.56% 0.15% 0.30% ~~_i/ ../1~ ~7 j, :4'.j.......__B _ac___k, fI $J Home 11 t I Up I b:I Next To place information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsd.k12.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar.us/intranet/poplar _ street_ middle.htm 11/20/02  North Little Rock School District Employees Only Ji:i!. . ,~:\n_. _ .\n_, OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA #6002-072 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:RIDGEROAD MIDDLE SCHOOL GRADE SPAN: 07-08 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F 07 299 40 39 109 93 11 7 0 0 0 0 08 315 50 39 118 97 6 4 1 0 0 0 Totals 614 90 78 227 190 17 11 1 0 0 0 27.36% 67.92% 4.56% 0.16% 0.00% 1-il To place information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsd.kl2.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar. us/intranet/ridgeroad _ rniddle.htm 11/20/02  North Little Rock School District Employees Only OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA J6002-077 I CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK i SCHOOL:ROSE CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL GRA[E SPAN: 07-08 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F 07 123 8 7 55 51 0 0 1 1 0 0 08 127 11 12 61 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 250 19 19 116 94 0 0 1 1 0 0 15.20% 84.00% 0.00% 0.80% 0.00% ~? c:!)/0 ~ 1.--4-r---B-ac~-k-. I ~@l~-H-om-e~~I ,-tI, ..,..1--up---.-.-lF -rl-N-ext-----, To place information here, contact webmaster@m_ail.nJ~d.kl2.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar. us/intranet/rose _city_ middle.htm 11/20/02 North Little Rock School District Employees Only OCTOBER 1, 2001 LEA #6002-07 6 CORRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:ARGENTA ACADEMY GRADE SPAN: 06-12 HISPANIC IND/ALS NAT GRADE TOTAL M F 05 0 0 06 5 0 3 0 0 0 07 21 2 15 2 0 0 0 08 20 4 0 10 6 0 0 0 09 41 3 23 5 CI] 0 0 10 54 20 0 0 11 43 7 16 10 0 12 28 5 5 10 8 0 0 0 TOTALS 213 37 19 100 52 3 ,, 0 Percentage 26.29% 71.36% 1.88% 0.00% 0.00% 9~ /9?- ~ 1--3 Back I k0 Home I llL Up =7 Fl Next To place Information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsd.k12.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar. us/intranet/argenta _ academy .htin 11/20/02  North Little Rock School District Employees Only 1:1:-s -.l'f:IOIIIP. . ,i,l I OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA #6002-075 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:NLRHS-EAST CAMPUS GRADF. SPAN: 09-10 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/A/a Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F 09 722 157 164 197 176 15 12 0 0 0 1 10 626 148 138 177 143 7 6 3 2 1 1 Totals 1348 305 302 374 319 22 18 3 2 1 2 45.03% 51.41% 2.97% 0.37% 0.22% Back j @j To place information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsd.kl2.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar. us/intranet/nlrhs-east_ campus.htrn 11/20/02  North Little Rock School District Employees Only r:J:.?::~~: :ruw~,-., _\n-'::i-\\'.,~ r=- OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA #6002-076 I CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS I COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK I SCHOOL:NLRHS-WEST CAMPUS GRADE SPAN: 11-12 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv .Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F 09 30 6 3 14 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 10 146 27 13 62 38 2 4 0 0 0 0 11 590 132 176 124 147 2 6 2 1 0 0 12 608 159 149 119 169 3 3 1 3 0 2 Totals 1374 324 341 319 359 8 14 3 4 0 2 48.40% 49.34% 1.60% 0.51% 0.15% ~6 r.,7g' ~'4~_B_ac_k_~I fj Home 11 t I Up To place information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsd.k12.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.k12.ar. us/intranet/nlrhs-west_ carnpus.htm 11/20/02 !Grade 103 104 jo5 06 07 08 09 10 12 I Totals North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 2002 Pupil Enrollment as reported to the State Department of Education October 15, 2002 District Totals i!Totals I II 6501 II 6871 II 6621 II 6481 II 6911 Black M F 195 219 190 18311 181 Hispanic 19 13 12 11 12 al 16 18 9 247011 1381 12.93% 1 13 11 6 13 8 6 13 10 6  I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I  0 0 0 0 0 3 0 16 6 0.12% 0 F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 North Little Rock Public Schools j October 1, 2002 Pupil Enrollment as reported to the State Department of Education October 15, 2002 - )'--------\n=========D=is=tr=ic=t=T\n=o=ta=ls=============== /,-----,,~-- 11 Grade I Totals K Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Am Ind/Ala Ntv F M F 18811 81 0 21011 14) 0 20811 111 1 19811 191 0 04 219 20111 131 0 05 205 19511 121 0 06 198 21911 11 1 0 07 222 19011 121 0 08 8 0 09 16 10 9 11 2 0 169 3 1 3 0 2 !Totals 2470 13 1221 2011 161 6 5 39.50% 12.93% 1 I o.41% I 10.12% 1  I I I I I I I I lI I I I I I I I I  I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Plan Provisions Schools will have a racial composition within 25% of the racial composition of the district as a whole. (NLRSD Plan, pg. 8) Findings While the NLRSD desegregation plan makes no reference to organizational level, district officials calculate racial balance for elementary and secondary schools separately each year based on the overall racial composition of each level. For the 1993-94 school year, the district is 52% black at the elementary level and 46% black at the secondary level. Calculations based on these figures yield a target range for elementary schools of 39% to 65% black, and 34% to 58% black for the secondary schools. All but two NLRSD schools fall within the acceptable ranges for racial balance\ntwo special schools both exceed the target range. Enrollment at the secondary alternative school is 70% black, and secondary enrollment at Baring Cross, a school for students who are developmentally disabled, is 71 % black, proportions which far exceed the target limits for black enrollment. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Plan Provisions PCSSD schools are to strive for a minimum black enrollment of 20%. Bayou Meta Elementary school is exempt due to its remote location. (PCSSD Plan, pg. 72) The goal of the plan is to achieve a minimum black student enrollment of 20% by the end of six years in all PCSSD schools. By the end of the implementation period, all PCSSD schools should be within the range of plus or minus 25% of the then prevailing districtwide average of blacks by organizational level. (PCSSD Plan, pg. 84, incorporating the Joshua Agreement, page 9) Findings To determine the upper end of the target racial balance range for PCSSD schools, we used a mathematical formula based on the parties' Joshua Agreement. PCSSD 1993-94 enrollment is 30% black at both the elementary and secondary level, meaning that the maximum black percentage at any PCSSD school this year should be 38%. Because the plan specifies 20% as the minimum black enrollment target, the racial balance range in PCSSD schools this year is between 20% to 38% black. Bates, College Station, Fuller, Harris, and Landmark elementaries exceed the maximum black enrollment. Fuller Junior High and Mills High School, with a 43% and a 48% black enrollment respectively, fail to achieve the 38% maximum limit. Lawson Elementary is the only school (other than the exempt Bayou Meta) with a black enrollment below the 20% Page 5 I I I I I I I I I I Findings While the NLRSD desegregation plan makes no reference to organizational level, district officials calculate racial balance for elementary and secondary schools separately each year based on the overall racial composition of each level. In the last year, the percentage of NLRSD enrollment comprised by blacks grew at both the elementary and secondary levels. For the 1994-95 school year, the district is 54% black at the elementary level and 49% black at the secondary level. Calculations based on these figures yield a target range this year for elementary schools of 40% to 68% black, and 37% to 61 % black for the secondary schools. The target ranges last year were 39% to 65% black at the elementary level and 34% to 58% black for secondary schools. The NLRSD desegregation plan excludes kindergarten children from mandatory bussing to achieve desegregation. The district maintains that the exclusion of these students from the desegregation assignment plan also excludes them from consideration in the racial balance calculations for each elementary school. However, in this report we counted kindergarten and four-year-old children just as we counted all students in the other elementary grades, and we calculated the school's racial balance with those students included. We followed this procedure because enrollment figures maintained by both LRSD and PCSSD include their four-year-old and kindergarten students. By including these grade levels in NLRSD's figures, we are able to produce a more complete and consistent picture of enrollment among all three Pulaski County school districts. All but three NLRSD schools fall within this year's acceptable ranges for racial balance: both the elementary and secondary alternative schools, along with Redwood Elementary School, exceed the target range. While the total enrollment at Redwood is 71 % black, which is three percentage points above the maximum, the school's racial balance would fall within the guidelines if kindergarten and four-year-old students were excluded. Enrollment at the elementary alternative school is 82% black, and 80% of the students at the secondary alternative school are black, proportions far outside the target limits for black enrollment. PULASKI COU TY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRJCT Plan Provisions PCS SD schools are to strive for a minimum black enrollment of 20%. Bayou Meto Elementary school is exempt due to its remote location. (PCSSD Plan, pg. 72) The goal of the plan is to achieve a minimum black student enrollment of 20% by the end of six years in all PCS SD schools. By the end of the implementation period, all PCS SD schools should be within the range of plus or minus 25% of the then prevailing districtwide average of blacks by organizational level. (PCSSD Plan, pg. 84, incorporating the Joshua Agreement, page 9) Findings To determine the upper end of the target racial balance range for PCS SD schools, we used a mathematical formula based on the parties' Joshua Agreement. This year, black students comprise a larger proportion of the PCSSD enrollment. at both the elementary and secondary levels, than in Page 7 Jan 31 03 04:26p NLRSD Student AFFa1rs 5017718001 Office of Student Affairs North L'tde Rock School District 2 700 Poplar S /reet North l.Jttle Rock. AR 72115-0687 (501) 771-8010 Francicalj. Jackson, Director DATE: I -3J-o3 TO: ___ c/7_!l_~_r~..__,~___'t \u0026gt;7__ _l,,_t__,_ 'uLV.. _ RE: _____________________ _ FAX J 7J-()j()Q ******************* FROM: __ 1-t_,.a1, _-,+_-I~-_ /G:J_t_fa_-_.Y_' _ _ 0 FAX: \"]1 /.-fOu I PHONE: ---------- COMENTS: _______________ _ This fax is o( page {s) including the cover page. If you do not receive all the pages, please call our of.ice at (501) 771-8010. p. 1 ,., (\\J Q.. .... 0 0 .C.X.\u0026gt;. r-r.-.-.. 0 II) Ill .L. . Ill \u0026lt;+- \u0026lt;+- a: ..., C Cl) \"'O .:., ., (/) Q (/) ~ ..J z: Q.. r-- (\\.J . T 0 (T) 0 .... (TJ C fV '7 SCHOOL: GRADE LEVEL PRE-K KINDERGARTEN FIRST SECOND THIRD FOURTH FIFTH TOTAL ~ GRACES 1 -5 \u0026lt; \"- ........ ..,.. .... ..., 0 C) .. ' ,_ 0\ng WHITE M F # ) 6 % 1% 3% # % # % # % # % # % # % # J 6 % t% 3% ELEMENTARY SCHOOELN ROLLMENT TOTAL BLACK TOTAL WHITE M F BLACK 9 tCS 913 203 4% 48% 44% 92% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 lCS\ne 203 4% 48% 44\".4 92% 2002-2003 OTHER TOTAL M F OTHER TOTAL 7 2 9 221 3% 1% 4% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '7 2 9 221 3% 1% 4% Pages PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT FOR 1 OCTOBER 2002 WHITE BLACK OTHER GRADE SCHOOL/GRADE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE TOTAL 01 Adkins Elementary 6003090 PK* 6 4 5 3 3 ~ 0\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\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\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_1459","title":"Report: Disciplinary Sanctions in the 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":["2002-05-31"],"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","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School discipline","School integration","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Report: Disciplinary Sanctions in the 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/1459"],"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":["33 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1723","title":"Court filings: District Court, memorandum brief in support of motion for an immediate declaration of unitary status; District Court, exhibits one through three from memorandum brief","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":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2002-03-15"],"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","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education and state","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School districts","School management and organization","School integration","Educational statistics","School employees","Student assistance programs","Universities and colleges","School improvement programs","Education--Curricula","Education--Finance"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, memorandum brief in support of motion for an immediate declaration of unitary status; District Court, exhibits one through three from memorandum brief"],"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/1723"],"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":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["20 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Wright, Susan Webber, 1948-"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. LR-C-82-866 RECEIVED PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MAR 1 5 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN IMMEDIATE DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS I. Introduction. On April 10, 1998, this Court granted the joint motion of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") and the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") and approved the LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"). See Docket Nos. 3107, 3136 and 3144. The Revised Plan expired by its own terms on May 31, 2001, the last day of classes for the 2000- 01 school year. See Revised Plan 9. The LRSD moves for an immediate declaration of unitary status and an end to court supervision based on its substantial compliance with the Revised Plan in accordance with Revised Plan  11. Section 11 of the Revised Plan provided: At the conclusion of the 2000-01 school year, the district court shall enter an order releasing LRSD from court supervision and finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations provided that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in this Revised Plan. In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a report on March 15, 2001 indicating the state ofLRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. Any party challenging LRSD's compliance bears the burden of proof. Ifno party challenges LRSD's compliance, the abovedescribed order shall be entered without further proceedings. The LRSD reported on March 15, 2001, that it had substantially complied with the Revised Plan. See Docket No. 3410. Joshua challenged the LRSD's compliance with a limited number of Revised Plan sections. See Docket No. 3447. Joshua bears the burden of proving that the LRSD I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I failed to substantially comply with those Revised Plan sections. See Revised Plan  11. Unitary status should be granted if the Court finds either that the LRSD complied with those Revised Plan sections challenged by Joshua or that the LRSD's noncompliance does not cast doubt on the District's intent to comply with the Constitution absent court supervision. See Cody v. Hillard, 139 F.3d 1197, 1199 (8th Cir. 1998). In proceedings before the Honorable Susan Webber Wright, the Court heard five and onehalf days of testimony and received 201 exhibits on the Revised Plan sections covering academic achievement( 2.7), program assessment( 2.7.1) and student discipline( 2.5 - 2.5.4). The LRSD should be granted unitary status with regard to these Revised Plan sections based on the record of those proceedings. Joshua failed to come forward with any evidence that the LRSD failed to comply with those sections or that would cast doubt on the LRSD's intent to comply with the Constitution absent court supervision. Additionally, the LRSD should be granted summary judgment as to all remaining Revised Plan sections with respect to which Joshua challenged the LRSD's compliance. The discovery process revealed that Joshua has no evidence that would cast doubt on the LRSD's intent to comply with the Constitution in the future absent court supervision. As a result, there are no material factual disputes, and additional hearings are unnecessary. Cody. 139 F.3d at 1200 (\"They do not cite any cases stating that a hearing is a necessary prerequisite to terminating supervision of a decree . . . . At any rate, the necessity of a hearing depends on whether there are disputed factual issues.\"). Finally, the LRSD should be granted unitary status with regard to those Revised Plan sections to which no party filed a timely challenge to the LRSD's compliance. See Revised Plan 11. 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II. Discussion. A. Background. 1. 1954 Through 1972. On May 20, 1954, three days after the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), the LRSD released a public statement declaring its intent to comply with the Constitution and to integrate the LRSD. See Aaron v. Cooper, 156 F. Supp. 220, 222-23 (E.D. Ark. 1957). The first LRSD desegregation plan was adopted in 1956 and was approved by the Eighth Circuit in 1957. See Cooper v. Aaron, 243 F.2d 361 (8th Cir. 1957). That plan called for gradual desegregation based on geographic attendance zones and was to be fully implemented by 1963. Id. Governor Orval Faubus' attempt to block implementation of this plan resulted in the infamous \"crisis\" at Central High School in 1957. However, as noted by the Supreme Court in Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 9 (1958), \"the Governor's action had not been requested by the school authorities, and was entirely unheralded.\" In 1966, the Eighth Circuit approved, with two minor modifications, a \"freedom of choice\" desegregation plan for the LRSD. See Clark v. Little Rock School District, 369 F.2d 661 (8th Cir. 1966). The Eighth Circuit noted the LRSD's good faith commitment to desegregation: Many of the problems encountered are not of the Board's making or choosing and, we believe, the Board has evidenced a genuine desire to follow the commands of the Brown case to ultimately place into effect a non-racially operated school system. Id., at 666. The freedom of choice plan was in effect through the 1968-69 school year. In 1968, the Supreme Court held that \"freedom of choice\" plans, standing alone, failed to satisfy the constitutional obligation of school districts formerly segregated by law. See Green v. County Sch. Bd. ofNew Kent County. 391 U.S. 430, 439-440 (1968). Accordingly, the LRSD developed a new desegregation plan based on geographic attendance zones for the 1969-70 school year. See Clark v. Little Rock School District, 426 F.2d 1035 (8th Cir. 1970). Due to segregated housing patterns which existed in Little Rock at that time, however, a number 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I of racially identifiable schools remained under this plan, and the Eighth Circuit found this plan to be \"constitutionally infirm.\" Clark, 426 F.2d at 1044. The LRSD began massive crosstown busing of students to achieve racial balance in grades 6 through 12 in the 1971-72 school year. See Clark v. Little Rock School District, 328 F. Supp. 1205, 1209 and 1214 (E.D. Ark. 1971). Racial balance was achieved in grades 4 and 5 by means of crosstown busing in the 1972-73 school year. See Clark v. Little Rock School District, 465 F.2d. 1044, 1046 (8th Cir. 1972). By the 1973-74 school year, all LRSD schools and all LRSD grade levels were racially balanced. See Exhibit 1 attached, Memorandum and Order filed July 9, 1982, p. 16. 2. 1973 Through 1982. The LRSD maintained almost perfect racial balance in its schools from 1973 through 1982 with voluntary periodic adjustment of attendance zones. The district court in Clark noted that \"the Little Rock School District has operated in compliance with court decrees for nine years as a completely unitary desegregated school system . . . . \" See Exhibit 1, p. 16. Despite nine years of successful desegregation, however, the LRSD was on its way to becoming a one race school district. In the fall of 1971, the LRSD was 42% black. In each year from 1971 through 1981, the number of black students increased while the number of white students decreased. See Exhibit 2 attached, Austin Study, p. 17. In the fall of 1981, 76% of elementary students were black and 55% of high school students were black. See Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 584 F. Supp. 328,335 (E.D. Ark. 1984)(\"LRSD v. PCSSD\"). If existing trends continued, it was expected that 90% of the students entering the first grade in the LRSD in the fall of 1989 would be black. See Exhibit 2, p. 19; see also LRSD v. PCSSD, 584 F. Supp. 328, 351 (E.D. Ark. 1984)(\"The Little Rock School District in spite of its good faith efforts to comply with orders of this court and to establish a unitary school system will become a segregated all-black district in a few years if present trends continue, which appears highly likely.\"). 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I In early 1981, the LRSD commissioned a study of desegregation in the LRSD by the Desegregation Assistance Team from Stephen F. Austin University (the \"Austin Study\"). The Austin Study concluded that the demographic trends which accounted for the decrease in white enrollment in the LRSD were \"long-term\" and \"deeply rooted,\" and as a result, \"[t]hey are not likely to be fundamentally altered by any change in the desegregation plan within the city .... The changes are rooted in migration patterns, housing segregation practices, changing birth rates, factors that determine the location of new private market housing, and decisions on the location of new subsidized housing.\" Exhibit 2, p. 28. The \"fundamental\" problem, according to the study, \"has been the school board's inability to expand its boundaries in pace with a very rapidly expanding urban area.\" Exhibit 2, p. 28. Thus, the Austin Study concluded that the LRSD had done all it could do within its borders to desegregate its schools and that, if the LRSD's accomplishments were not to be undone by the \"vast forces of demographic change,\" the LRSD would have to seek an interdistrict remedy. See Exhibit 2, p. 28. As an initial step to stem the tide of white flight, the LRSD adopted the Partial K-6 Plan on April 26, 1982. Under this plan, the LRSD created twelve K-6 neighborhood schools and retained fourteen paired schools with grades K-3 at one site and grades 4-6 at another. Eight of the 12 neighborhood schools were racially balanced and four were virtually all black. The plan converted Booker from a junior high school to an intermediate school. Finally, the Partial K-6 Plan provided for the creation of a magnet school west of University Avenue and required that a committee be appointed to ensure that the four virtually all black schools would be treated equally. See Clark v. Little Rock School District, 705 F.2d 265 (8th Cir. 1983). The Partial K-6 Plan was approved by the Eighth Circuit in 1983. Clark, 705 F.2d at 272. 3. Interdistrict Relief. In late 1982, the LRSD filed the present case against the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\"), the North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") and the State of Arkansas seeking consolidation of the three school districts into one metropolitan school district and state 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I funding to assist in eliminating any remaining vestiges of segregation in the three school districts. On April 13, 1984, the Honorable Henry Woods found the PCSSD, the NLRSD and the State of Arkansas liable for interdistrict constitutional violations. LRSD v. PCSSD, 584 F. Supp. at 328. Judge Woods ordered consolidation of the three districts in a memorandum opinion dated November 19, 1984. LRSD v. PCSSD, 597 F. Supp. 1220 (E.D. Ark. 1984). The Eighth Circuit reversed Judge Woods' consolidation order a year later, finding consolidation too drastic a remedy. LRSD v. PCSSD, 778 F.2d 404 (8th Cir. 1985). In reversing, the Eighth Circuit ordered as part of a comprehensive interdistrict remedy that each district \"revise its attendance zones so that each school will reasonably reflect the racial composition of its district\" and permitted a variance of plus or minus 25% of the minority race. Id., 778 F.2d at 435. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 839 F.2d 1296, 1305 (8th Cir. 1988). The Eighth Circuit also ordered the adjustment of district boundaries, making the LRSD coterminous with the City of Little Rock. LRSD v. PCSSD, 778 F.2d at 435. Recognizing the need for the LRSD to grow with the City of Little Rock, Judge Woods interpreted the Eighth Circuit's order to require the automatic expansion of the LRSD upon expansion of the City of Little Rock. Unfortunately, the Eighth Circuit disagreed with Judge Woods' interpretation and effectively eliminated further boundary changes as a means to desegregating the LRSD. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 805 F.2d 815, 816 (8th Cir. 1986). The LRSD's \"controlled choice\" desegregation plan was approved by Judge Woods on February 27, 1987. Docket No. 739. Under this plan, the LRSD was divided into two attendance zones of approximately equal racial balance. Students were assigned to schools so that each grade at each school reflected the racial balance within that attendance zone. After a student was assigned to a particular school, the student's parents could request reassignment to another school within their attendance zone. That request would be granted so long as each school would remain within a range of plus or minus one-eighth of the black student population at the school. Additionally, the plan provided for eight magnet schools (four elementary, two 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I junior high and two high schools) with seats reserved for students of each of the three Pulaski County school districts. The target racial composition of the magnet schools was 50%-50%. A Magnet Review Committee was established with representatives of each of the three districts. Joshua and the Knight Intervenors were each granted a non-voting member on the committee. This plan was implemented beginning with the 1987-88 school year. See Docket No. 670. The controlled choice plan resulted in many central and east Little Rock schools having fewer than fifty white students. The LRSD submitted a new desegregation plan for the 1988-89 year which was approved by Judge Woods. The 1988-89 school year was to be a \"stabilizing year\" to allow the LRSD to carefully plan for the 1989-90 school year and beyond. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 716 F. Supp. 1162, 1188 (E.D. Ark. 1989). Negotiations related to the development of a long-term desegregation plan for the LRSD culminated in a settlement agreement in March of 1989 (the \"Settlement Agreement\").1 The Settlement Agreement also included desegregation plans for the PCSSD and the NLRSD, as well as an interdistrict desegregation plan. 4. 1989 Settlement Agreement. The LRSD's 1989 desegregation plan reflected the fact that the LRSD was, and had been for some time, unitary with regard to student assignments, faculty and staff. See Exhibit 1, p. 18. While these areas had been the focus of past desegregation plans, the 227-page 1989 plan contained only a six-page section on student assignments and no separate section specifically dedicated to the hiring and assignment of faculty and staff. The 1989 desegregation plan focused instead on secondary desegregation issues, such as improving African-American academic achievement. The Settlement Agreement was initially rejected by Judge Woods who ordered implementation of a more comprehensive plan known as the Tri-District Plan. The parties appealed, and the Settlement Agreement as originally written was approved by the Eighth Circuit 1 A revised Settlement Agreement was agreed to by the parties on September 28, 1989. None of the revisions are relevant to this motion. \"Settlement Agreement\" as used hereinafter shall refer to the agreement as revised September 28, 1989. 7 I I in December of 1990. LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1374 (8th Cir. 1990). In approving the Settlement Agreement, the Eighth Circuit recognized that, \"It may be necessary, in order to make I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I a smooth transition, for the details of the settlement plans to be adjusted to produce an appropriate fit between their future application and existing circumstances.\" Id., at 1394. Judge Woods recused following the Eighth Circuit's December 1990 decision, and the case was reassigned to the Honorable Susan Webber Wright. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 740 F.Supp. 632 (E.D. Ark. 1990). The parties agreed to modifications to the desegregation plans and submitted them to Judge Wright for approval. On June 21, 1991, Judge Wright rejected the modifications, finding that they exceeded the authority granted by the Eighth Circuit. LRSD v. PCSSD, 769 F. Supp. 1483 (E.D. Ark. 1991). The parties appealed, and on November 14, 1991, the Eighth Circuit vacated Judge Wright's opinion and remanded for consideration of the proposed modifications based on the analysis set forth in its opinion. Appeal ofLRSD, 949 F.2d 253 (8th Cir. 1991). On May 1, 1992, Judge Wright issued an order approving in part and rejecting in part the revised desegregation plans. No appeal was taken. 5. Implementation of the 1989 Plan. The Settlement Agreement required the LRSD to implement its 1989 desegregation plan for six years.2 The parties agreed, in effect, that implementation of the plan would eliminate to the extent practicable any remaining vestiges of discrimination resulting from the interdistrict constitutional violations by the defendants. See Settlement Agreement, p. 1. Because the Tri-District Plan was substantially similar to, but more comprehensive than, the LRSD's 1989 desegregation plan, the LRSD considered implementation of the Tri-District Plan during the 2The six-year term of the plan was one of the primary reasons that the Settlement Agreement was rejected by Judge Woods. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 716 F. Supp. at 1167 (\"LRSD admits that the double funding is guaranteed for only six years, but contends that it 'retains its commitment to provide compensatory and enhancement funding to any school which might remain racially identifiable.' That commitment does not appear in the plan.\"). The LRSD argued to Judge Woods that its six-year plan could be successful: \"We think a six-year plan can succeed where a one-year plan has failed. There are several components in place to help us assure the Court that a six-year plan can succeed.\" Tr. May 30, 1989, p. 13. 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1990-91 school year as the first year of implementation of its six-year desegregation plan. During the 1995-96 school year, the LRSD conducted an audit of its desegregation obligations and found that it had substantially and in good faith complied with 96% of its desegregation obligations. See Exhibit 3 attached, p. 1. Accordingly, on May 17, 1996, the LRSD moved for a declaration of unitary status and an end to federal court supervision. See Docket Nos. 2665 and 2666. Without a hearing, Judge Wright denied the LRSD's Motion to End Federal Court Supervision, finding \"nothing in the settlement plans which would release the LRSD from the Court's jurisdiction after six years of implementation of the plans.\" See Docket No. 2821, p. 10. Although Judge Wright recognized that the LRSD compared favorably to other urban school districts already declared unitary, Judge Wright focused on the ambitious \"goals\" of the 1989 plan. See Docket No. 2821 , p. 12. Judge Wright stated, \"Reports of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and other evidence received in hearings in this matter reflect that the LRSD has fallen short of its goals with respect to many aspects of the plan.\" Id. In conclusion, Judge Wright invited the parties to niodify those parts of the LRSD desegregation plan which had proved \"ineffective and unworkable.\" Id. 6. The Revised Plan. Rather than appeal Judge Wright's denial of unitary status, the LRSD decided to work with Joshua to reach an agreement for ending more than 40 years of federal court control of the LRSD. On January 21, 1998, the LRSD and Joshua filed a joint motion seeking approval of the LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. See Docket No. 3107. The Revised Plan addressed numerous deficiencies in the 1989 desegregation plan. First, to prevent the plan's express or implied goals from being construed as obligations, the Revised Plan included a footnote which stated: The identification of specific goals in this Revised Plan is not intended to create an obligation that LRSD shall have fully met the goal by the end of the plan's term. LRSD's failure to obtain any of the goals of this Revised Plan will not be considered a failure to comply with the plan ifLRSD followed the strategies 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I described in the plan and the policies, practices and procedures developed in accordance with the plan. Revised Plan, p. 14 n.2. Second, the 277-page 1989 plan included too much detail and provided too little flexibility. The Revised Plan simply obligated the LRSD to implement \"programs, policies and/or procedures\" in 13 different areas. See Revised Plan 2. With some exceptions, the LRSD had discretion to determine the \"programs, policies and/or procedures\" to be implemented. The Revised Plan included a process by which Joshua or any other party could raise compliance issues, including a failure by the LRSD to adopt or implement the required programs, policies and/or procedures. See Revised Plan  8.2 and 8.3. The LRSD also agreed in advance to pay Joshua to monitor the LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan, and Joshua billed the LRSD for monitoring the LRSD's Compliance. See Exhibits 7 and 8 attached. Even so, Joshua raised no objection to the programs, policies or procedures implemented by the LRSD during the term of the Revised Plan. Finally, the Revised Plan included a definite term and a process for terminating federal court supervision at the conclusion of that term. The term of the Revised Plan was \"three (3) years beginning the 1998-99 school year and ending the last day of classes of the 2000-01 school year.\" See Revised Plan, 9. The last day of classes for the 2000-01 school year was May 31, 2001. Section 11 of the Revised Plan provided: At the conclusion of the 2000-01 school year, the district court shall enter an order releasing LRSD from court supervision and finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations provided that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in this Revised Plan. In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a report on March 15, 2001 indicating the state of LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. Any party challenging LRSD's compliance bears the burden of proof. If no party challenges LRSD's compliance, the abovedescribed order shall be entered without further proceedings. See Revised Plan,  11. 7. Status of Current Proceedings. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The LRSD provided the Court and the parties with an Interim Compliance Report on March 15, 2000 (\"Interim Report\") \"to help the District assess its progress toward full compliance and to reassure the court, the parties, and the community of the District's good faith efforts to be in total compliance with the Revised Plan.\" See Docket No. 3344, Interim Report, p. 1. The Interim Report expressly requested that the parties and other interested persons submit comments on the content or format of the report. Id. No party commented on the Interim Report or otherwise challenged the District's \"progress toward full compliance.\" See Docket No. 3410, Final Report, p. iv. One year later, on March 15, 2001, the LRSD reported that it had substantially complied with all provisions of the Revised Plan (\"Final Report\"). See Docket No. 3410. On June 25, 2001, and after being granted two extensions of time, Joshua filed a pleading challenging the LRSD's compliance with some, but not all, sections of the Revised Plan. Joshua's challenge included little more than general allegations of noncompliance. Hearings were held on July 5-6, August 1-2 and November 19-20, 2001, on the issues of academic achievement( 2.7), program assessment( 2.7.1) and discipline( 2.5 - 2.5.4).3 B. Substantial Compliance. The Revised Plan does not define \"substantial compliance.\" In Cody v. Hillard, supra, the Eighth Circuit discussed the meaning of the term \"substantial\" as it related to compliance with and termination of a consent decree. The consent decree in that case arose out of prison reform litigation in the State of South Dakota. Prison officials moved to terminate the consent decree after operating under the decree for nearly 11 years. The plaintiffs opposed the motion 3Judge Wright stated at the conclusion of the November 20, 2001, hearing that Joshua could have 25 minutes to present true rebuttal evidence, even though Joshua had used all of their allotted time. Tr. Nov. 20, 2001, 399 and 575. Judge Wright defined rebuttal evidence as evidence necessary to respond to evidence presented by the other side which could not have been anticipated. Tr. Nov. 20, 2001, 399. The LRSD submits that it presented no evidence which could not have been anticipated by Joshua, rendering Joshua's request for rebuttal time moot. The Court could resolve this matter by requiring Joshua to proffer their purported rebuttal evidence as a part of their response to this Motion. 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I and requested a hearing. The district court refused to order a hearing, but ordered the plaintiffs to submit evidence supporting their allegations of noncompliance. Id. at 1198. The plaintiffs filed a report from their expert, Robert Powitz, which stated that he inspected the prison and found \"a number of conditions that pose serious health or safety risks,\" but he failed to specify how those conditions violated the consent decree. The plaintiffs then filed a supplemental brief linking those conditions to provisions of the consent decree. Without a hearing, the district court entered a two-paragraph order terminating the consent decree but making no findings of fact with regard to the conditions identified by Powitz. Id. at 1199. stating: The plaintiffs appealed, and the Eighth Circuit remanded the case for factual findings We cannot determine the basis for the district court's decision from this brief order. The record indicates that there have been failures in the past to comply with the decree and supplemental orders, and that there are at least some violations of the decree. The district judge's order does not give us enough information to determine whether he ignored the evidence of past and present violations or whether he considered any violations inconsequential in the context of substantial compliance. If the conditions Powitz complained of constitute violations of the consent decree, the district court must exercise its discretion in determining whether those violations were serious enough to constitute substantial noncompliance and to cast doubt on defendants' future compliance with the Constitution. See McDonald [v. Carnahan]. 109 F.3d [1319,] 1322-23 [(8th Cir. 1997)]. Moreover, the ultimate question of whether the defendants are likely to comply with the Constitution in the absence of court supervision is a question of fact, see [Board of Educ. v.] Dowell, 498 U.S. [237,] 247, 111 S.Ct. [630,] 636-37 [(1991)], for which the district court made no finding. Id. at 1199-1200 (emphasis supplied). Therefore, a party to a consent decree substantially complies with the decree so long as the party's noncompliance does not \"cast doubt on [the party's] future compliance with the Constitution.\" Id. See Manning v. The School Bd. of Hillsborough County. 244 F.3d 927, 946 (11 th Cir. 2001)(\"[I]n determining whether a school board has acted in good faith, a court should not dwell on isolated discrepancies, but rather should 'consider whether the school board's policies form a consistent pattern of lawful conduct directed at eliminating earlier violations,\"' quoting Lockett v. Bd. of Educ. of Muscogee County. 111 F.3d 839, 843 (11 th Cir. 1997)). 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Both the past and recent conduct of the LRSD Board of Directors confirms the District's commitment to complying with the Constitution. Three days after the Supreme Court's 1954 decision in Brown, the LRSD released a public statement declaring its intent to comply with the Constitution and integrate the LRSD. In 1982, the district court in Clark stated that \"the Little Rock School District has operated in compliance with court decrees for nine years as a completely unitary desegregated school system . . . . \" See Exhibit 1, p. 16. Having done all that it could do on its own, the LRSD filed the present case that same year, seeking and obtaining interdistrict relief. During the term of the Revised Plan, the LRSD Board of Directors (\"Board\") conducted a comprehensive review of all District policies. See CX 719. Fifteen of the 21 policies making up the District's \"Foundation and Basic Commitments\" express the District's commitment to fighting discrimination of all types. See CX 719, Section A. Among those were regulations setting forth the District's commitment to comply with the Revised Plan and to establish procedures for employees and patrons to raise compliance issues. See CX 719, Policy ACG-Rl, R2 and R3. The Board institutionalized numerous provisions of the Revised Plan by making them official Board policy. See CX 719.4 Finally, in anticipation of being released from court supervision, the Board adopted the \"Covenant for the Future\" (\"Covenant\") on January 11, 2001. In the Covenant, the Board promised to continue to exercise its best efforts to: (1) improve the academic achievement of all students, (2) comply with the Constitution and ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis or race, color or ethnicity in the operation of the District, and (3) provide equitable educational resources, programs and opportunity in a nondiscriminatory environment for all students attending LRSD schools. See Final Report, p. 1, CX 739, and CX 719, Policy AB. 4The following Board policies and regulations come directly from the Revised Plan: ACBB, ACBE, ACG, ACG-Rl, ACG-R2, ACG-R3, GCE, GCE-R, IHBH, JB, IBA, JBA-R, JC, JCA, n, JJ, JJ-R, JllA, JnB, JnB-Rl, JnB-R2, JLD, JMA, JMA-R, JRAA, and JRAA-R. See ex 719. 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I To be sure, the LRSD is not a perfect school system, but the Constitution does not require perfection. See Belle v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 269 F.3d 305, 335 (4th Cir. 2001) (Traxler, J.)(\"This is not to say that CMS is a perfect school system- it is not.\"). The ultimate question is whether the Board can be trusted to comply with the Constitution absent court supervision. In the five and one-half days of hearings held to date, Joshua presented no evidence indicating that it could not. C. Revised Plan Sections Already Litigated. 1. Revised Plan 2.7: Academic Achievement. 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. The LRSD identified and described the programs, policies and procedures implemented pursuant to Revised Plan 2.7 in the Interim Report (pp. 41-69 and 93-127) and the Final Report (pp. 51-148). Although Joshua monitored the LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan and received fees for doing so, Joshua did not raise any objection during the term of the Revised Plan to the programs, policies and procedures pertaining to academic achievement which were outlined in the Interim Report and the Final Report. Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 370-71. Joshua's belated challenge to the LRSD's compliance with 2.7 is based on the long-standing achievement gap between African-American and non-African-American students on standardized tests (hereinafter \"achievement gap\"). See Docket No. 3447, pp. 28-30. Joshua's challenge fails because the Revised Plan contained no requirement that the LRSD eliminate or reduce the achievement gap. The Revised Plan simply required the LRSD to implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve African-American achievement. See Revised Plan,  2. 7. To that end, the LRSD began in the Spring of 1998 what has been perhaps the most comprehensive curriculum reform in the history of the District. As a part of the reform effort, the District adopted research-based teaching strategies that have been proven to be effective in improving 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I African-American achievement. Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 195-210. The District provided its teachers with comprehensive, in-depth professional development. See Final Report, pp. 32-33 (Gifted and Talented), 60-61 (K-12 Social Studies), 67-68 (middle schools), 73 (PreK), 81-90 (early childhood and primary grade literacy), 96-102 (intermediate grade literacy), 109-111 (secondary literacy), 117-123 (math and science) and 138-143 (technology). New instructional materials, including technological applications, were adopted in all curriculum areas. See Interim Report, pp. 41-51 (generally), 96 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1743","title":"District Court, exhibits four through nine from memorandum brief.","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":["2002-03-15"],"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","Little Rock School District","School integration","Education--Evaluation","School employees","Students","Parents","Education--Standards","African Americans--Education","Literacy","School improvement programs","Educational statistics","School districts","Educational planning"],"dcterms_title":["District Court, exhibits four through nine from memorandum brief."],"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/1743"],"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":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["14 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eThis transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    I 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 - Prepared by Dr. Bonnie A. Lcslc~ Dr. Ed Williams Patricia Price Pat Busbea Ann Freeman Ken Savage \"\" EXHIBIT Anita Gilliam i Sharon Kiilsgaard l ~ l 1-28-020111 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table of Contents Section I: Introduction Introduction Research Questions Methodology Outline of Program Evaluation Sections Outline of Appendices 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 Section III: The Assessments The Assessments: Observation Survey The Assessments: Developmental Reading Assessment Definition 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 1-6 1-2 3 3-5 5-6 6 7-13 7-8 8 8-13 14-25 14-15 15-21 16-19 19-20 20-21 21 -23 23-25 Section IV: Alignment with National Research on Early Literacy 26-29 Section V: Description of Tables 30-42 Table 1: Kindergarten, 1999-2000, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance 31 Table 2: Kindergarten, 2000-01, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance 31 Table 3: Gradel, 1999-2000, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance 32 Table 4: Grade 1, 2000-01, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance 33 Table 5: Grade 2, 1999-2000, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance 33 1-28-020112 Table 6: Grade 2, 2000-0 I, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance 34 Table 7: Cohort 1, Kindergarten Fall 1999 and Grade 1 Spring 2001 35 Table 8: Cohort 2, Grade 1 Fall 1999 and Grade 2 Spring 2001 35 Table 9: Grades K-2, 1999-2000, Fall to Spring Performance, All Students 36 Table 10: Grades K-2, 2000-01, Fall to Spring Performance, All Students 3 7 Table 11: Percent of Maximum Scores, Kindergarten Black Students 37 Table 12: Percent of Maximum Scores, Kindergarten Non-Black Students 38 Table 13: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 1 All Students 38 Table 14: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 1 Black Students 38 Table 15: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 1 Non-Black Students 38 Table 16: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 1 All Students 39 Table 17: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 2 Black Students 39 Table 18: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 2 Non-Black Students 39 Table 19: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 2 All Students 39 Table 20: Cohort 1-All Students, Kindergarten Fall 1999 and Grade 1 Spring 2001 40 Table 21 : Cohort 2-All Students, Grade 1 Fall 1999 and Grade 2 Spring 2001 40 Table 22: Percent Readiness, DRA, Black and Non-Black Students 41 Table 23: Percent Readiness, DRA, All Students 41 Table 24: Grade 2 Reading, ALT, Black and Non-Black Comparisons 41 Table 25: Grade 2 Reading, ALT, All Students 42 Table 26: Grade 2 Language Usage, ALT, Black and Non-Black Comparisons 42 Table 27: Grade 2 Language Usage, ALT, All Students 42 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I o\" \"'?\u0026gt; I ~'o .. oi '\\- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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 Section VII: Additional Data Achievement Gap Among Schools Impact of Professional Development Section VIII: Program Evaluation Findings and Recommendations for Improvement Research Question I-Program Effectiveness Research Question 2-Achievement Disparities Research Question 3-Professional Development Research Question 4-Four Literacy Models Research Question 5-Program Strengths and Weaknesses Research Question 6-Cost Effectiveness Recommendations for Improvement Instruction Parent Involvement Interventions Professional Development Schools Identified for Improvement Year 3 Program Evaluation 43-67 43-46 47-51 52-54 55-59 60-63 64-67 68-71 68-70 70-71 72-113 7~-80 81-96 96-100 100-103 103-105 105-106 106- 107-109 109-110 110-112 112 112 112-113 Section IX: Bibliography - 114-116 Section X: School-Level Data Letter Identification, Kindergarten Word Test, Kindergarten Concepts about Print, Kindergarten Writing Vocabulary, Kindergarten Hearing and Recording Sounds, Kindergarten Developmental Reading Assessment, Kindergarten Letter Identification, Grade 1 Word Test, Grade 1 Concepts about Print, Grade 1 Writing Vocabulary, Grade 1 Hearing and Recording Sounds, Grade 1 117-205 119-122 123-126 127-130 131-134 135-138 139-142 143-146 147-150 151-154 155-158 159-162 1-28-020114 Developmental Reading Assessment, Grade 1 Word Test, Grade 2 Writing Vocabulary, Grade 2 Hearing and Recording Sounds, Grade 2 Developmental Reading Assessment, Grade 2 Cohort I-Letter Identification, Black and Non-Black Cohort I-Word Test, Black and Non-Black Cohort I-Concepts about Print, Black and Non-Black Cohort I-Writing Vocabulary, Black and Non-Black Cohort I-Hearing and Recording Sounds, Black and Non-Black Cohort I-Developmental Reading Assessment, Black and Non-Black Cohort 2-Word Test, Black and Non-Black Cohort 2-Writing Vocabulary, Black and Non-Black Cohort 2-Hearing and Recording Sounds, Black and Non-Black Cohort 2-Developmental Reading Assessment, Black and Non-Black Percent Readiness, Developmental Reading Assessment, K-2 Percent Readiness, DRA, Rank Order, K-2 Percent Readiness, DRA, Black and Non-Black 163-166 167-170 171-174 175-178 179-182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193-195 196-198 199-201 Grade 2 ALT, Reading-All Students 202 Grade 2 ALT, Reading, Black and Non-Black 203 Grade 2, ALT, Language Usage, All Students 204 Grade 2, ALT, Language Usage, Black and Non-Black 205 Appendices A. PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan B. Section 5.2.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan's March 2000 Interim Compliance Report C. Section 5.2.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan's March 200 I Compliance Report D. Presentation to the Board of Education, January 2000 (update on program implementation and early results) \".2s-02011 s I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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 1-28-020116 Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Section I: Introduction 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 Education- just 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. 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 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.\" 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. 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; level 16 at grade 1; and 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 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I teachers and parents. (See Appendix E.) Elementary principals used these materials in their August 2001 preschool inservice sessions. 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. 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; it includes the results of the five sub-tests of the Observation Survey; and 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 nonblack 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 year's kindergarten class was that much weaker than the one the year before--especially when this past year's end-of-year scores were higher than the previous class's 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 Developmental 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 African American children.\" 1-28-020118 2 Research Questions Using the obligations set forth in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (RDEP), the Board's Strategic Plan, and the Board's Policy IL, the following research questions were established to guide this study: 1. 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 .2.1 a of RDEP and Strategy 2 of the Strategic Plan.) 2. Is the new program effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students? (See Section 2.7 of RDEP.) 3. 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.) 4. Is there evidence of success in each of the four literacy models in use-Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) only; ELLA and Reading Recovery; Success for All; and Direct Instruction? (See Section 2.7 of RDEP.) 5. What are the program's strengths and weaknesses? (See Policy IL.) 6. 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 1-28-020119 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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. The District's 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. 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 reviewed-especially 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 Ineguality, 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 program's 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 school's 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. 1-28-020120 4 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 writer's 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 II provides background information on the program design and its relationship to the Strategic Plan and the Revised Desegregation Plan. 3. Section III 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 plan's 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 Vis 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); the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA); and 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 VIII that summarizes the program strengths and weaknesses and specifies the implications for instruction, with specific recommendations for improvements in 2001-2002. 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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\" B. Section 5.2.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan's March 2000 Interim Compliance Report C. Section 5.2.l of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan's 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 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1-28-020122 6 '---- --- - - - - II. 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 District's 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 from the same research base on early literacy; they 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 . 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I      Writing aloud . Revising and editing . Independent writing and conferencing . Phonetic skills . Classroom management. Each school is required to dedicate a two and one-half hour block of uninterrupted time daily for literacy instruction. Background on Program Reguirements: 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 5dh percentile on standardized tests or who are at serious risk of not achieving District standards in the core curriculum. Strategy 7: We will design a comprehensive staff development system to best achieve the mission and objectives in the Strategic Plan. Background on Program Reguirements: 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 Se_ction 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. Section 2. 7: LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan. On January 21, 1998, Mr. John Walker, on behalfofthe Joshua Intervenors, signed an agreement with the Little Rock School District that was filed with the federal court, which included the following statement: 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). 1-28-020124 8 - ---- - - - 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 AfricanAmerican 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); the research in scores of studies sponsored by the International Reading Association; and 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 today's 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: Teachers 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 wellintentioned 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). She explains that\" the cycle of failure often starts early in a child's school career\" arid 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, 1-28-020125 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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: 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 frequently 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: 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. .. . 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). In their summary of Chapter 1, they wrote: Prevention ofreading 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). 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. Dorn, ~ ill ( 1998) urge teachers, therefore, to \"identify the strengths of young children and use this infonnation as the basis for designing rich learning experiences that emphasize problem-solving (p. 25).\" In these ways, schools can prevent failure. 1-28-020126 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 from the Revised Plan (2. 7. l) requires the District to conduct annual assessments of English language arts and mathematics in order to determine their effectiveness in improving the achievement of African American students-and then to take appropriate action if the program is not effective by either modifying the program's implementation or replacing it. Section 2. 7.1: 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 AfricanAmerican 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 learning-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 grov.1h 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. 1-28-020127 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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: Reading/Language Arts Section 5.2. l: Primary Grades. LRSD shall implement at least the following strategies to improve the academic achievement of students in kindergarten through third grade: a. 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; b. Focus teaching efforts on reading/language arts instruction by teaching science and social studies through reading/language arts and mathematics experiences; c. Promote thematic instruction; d. Identify clear objectives for student mastery of all three reading cueing systems (phonics, semantics, and syntax) and of knowing-how-to-learn skills; e. Monitor the appropriateness of teaching/learning materials to achieving curricular objectives and the availability of such materials in all classrooms; f Establish uninterrupted blocks of time for reading/language arts and mathematics instruction; g. Monitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices; h. Provide parents/guardians with better information about their child's academic achievement in order to help facilitate the academic development of the students; i. Provide pre-kindergarten, kindergarten, and first grade learning readiness experiences for students who come to school without such experiences; j. Train teachers to manage successful learning for all students in diverse, mainstreamed classrooms; k. Use the third and/or fourth grade as a transition year from focused reading/language arts and mathematics instruction to a more traditional school day; and I. 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): 1-28-020128 12 --- ----            Title I programming was restructured and aligned with the District's 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. Cuniculum 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 District's 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 $350,000 was expended in the purchase of reading and other cuniculum support materials during the past two years.  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 Report 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 . 1-28-020129 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I III. The Assessments 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 summary 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 child's preferred mode of identifying letters; the letters a child confuses; and the unknown letters. (Clay, p. 43) The maximum score is 54. This test is administered in grades K-1. Word Test The student is tested over the most frequently occurring words in whatever basic reading texts are being used. Scores on this measure are useful in determining a child's \"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 1-28-020130 14 he/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 child's performance is scored by counting the child's 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 skillsprimarily 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. Teacher selects book 2. Teacher introduces text 3. Teacher reads one or two pages 4. Child points and reads rest of story; teacher takes running record 5. Teacher asks print questions 6. 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; tells what is happening 4. Child reads story aloud; teacher takes running record  5. Child retells story 6. Teacher asks response questions 7. 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. Child reads first 2-4 paragraphs aloud 5. Child predicts what will happen in story 6. Child reads complete story silently in another location 7. Child retells story 8. Teacher asks response questions 9. Child reads selected portion of text; teacher takes running record 1-28-020131 15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10. Teacher asks preference questions 11. Teachers asks one or two inference questions (L~vels 28-44). \"Readiness\" levels for the Little Rock School District have been established as follows:  Kindergarten- Level 2  Grade I-Level 16; and  Grade 2-Level 24. The explanation below (developed in summer 2000) on \"Definition of 'Readiness' vs. 'Proficiency\"' is a delineation of the District's 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. 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 connected. 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. 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 by 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: 1-28-020132 16 Grade Level Readinl! Standards DRA Level Kindergarten Children at the end of kindergarten should Assessment texts A through 2 consist of a repeated word or Gradel Grade 2 understand that every word in a text says sentence pattern with natural language structures. The simple something specific. They can demonstrate this illustrations include animals and objects familiar to primary competence by reading Level B books that they children and highly support the text. One or two lines of text have not seen before, but that have been appear on the left page and are large and well spaced so that previewed for them, attending to each word in children can point as they read. The number of words in the seouence and l!Cttinl! most of them correct. texts ranees from ten to thirtv-six . By the end of the year, we expect first-grade Assessment texts 16 through 28 arc stories with beginnings, students to be able to: middles, and ends, throughout which problems are presented read Level 16 books that they have not seen and resolved. The characters are either imaginary (giants and before, but that have been previewed for them, elves) or animals with human characteristics. The content with 90 percent or better accuracy of word begins to move beyond children 's personal experiences and recognition (self-correction allowed). builds a basis with which to compare and contrast other When they read aloud, we expect first graders stories. Literacy language structures are integrated with to sound like they know what they are reading. natural language. Some description of characters and setting Fluent readers may pause occasionally to work is included. Illustrations provide moderate to minimum out difficult passages. By the end of the year, support. The text may be three to twelve lines above or we expect first-grade students to be able to beneath the illustrations, or a full page. The number of words independently read aloud from Level I books in these texts starts at 266 and increases with each level of that have been previewed for them, using difficulty. 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 Assessment texts 16 through 28 arc stories with beginnings, students to be able to independently read aloud middles, and ends, throughout which problems are presented unfamiliar Level 24 books with 90 percent or and resolved. The characters are either imaginary (giants and better accuracy of word recognition (self- elves) or animals with human characteristics. The content correction allowed). 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 sett ing 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 difficultv. 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 states 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 student's performance at levels 1, 2 on the DRA; grade 1 is levels 16, 18; and grade 2 is levels 24, 28. \"Above Grade Level\" is defined as levels 3-14 at kindergarten; levels 20-28 at grade 1; and levels 30-38 at grade 2. In Lindsay, California, the \"Approaching Proficiency\" levels are defined similarly: level 2 at kindergarten; levels 10-12 at grade 1; and level 24 at grade 2. 1-28-020133 17 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I A program evaluation conducted by the Austin, Texas, Independent School District indicates that the \"Grade Level\" performance on the DRA was defined as level 2 at kindergarten; level 16 at grade 1; and levels 24-28 at grade 2. 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 progress-similar to the District's 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; at grade 1 level 16; and at grade 2 level 28. Ve-rmont, likewise, uses the DRA in their state assessment program and has established similar levels of proficiency. 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; levels 16-18 at grade 1; and levels 24-28 at grade 2. All these efforts to define proficiency are either exactly aligned with the decisions made by LRSD staff or are very close. 1-28-020134 18 Given, however, the difficulty of establishing with confidence an equivalent definition 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 performance. 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 statistical calculations that will enable the District to set cut scores that reliably predict \"Proficient\" performance on the grade 4 Benchmark. 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 within a literature-based reading program\" (p. 2). Over the next six years there were numerous revisions in response to teacher feedback. In spring 1996 the first formal validation study was conducted. Seventy-eight teachers from 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 DRA was found to be a valid assessment. Teachers found it very helpful in  determining individual students' instructional text reading level;  describing his/her performance as a reader;  selecting appropriate interventions and/or focus for instruction; and  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 that 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 validity 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 Reading subscale, very positively. The conclusion, then, was that \"the DRA validly measures a child's 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 19 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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). 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 instruction-for 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 Young Children that was adopted in 1998: Throughout these critical years accurate assessment of children's 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 reliable 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). Reliability and Validity: LRSD Study The following correlational matrix constructed by the District's statistician in spring 2001 displays the relationships between the scores on the Achievement Level Tests (AL Ts) and the Observation Survey and Developmental Reading Assessment scores. Correlational Matrix, Spring 2001 ALT Reading RIT, ALT Reading Goal RITs, Observation Survey, and DRA Scores Goal I : Word Goal 2: Goal 3: Goal 4: Observation Observation Observation Meaning Literal Interpretive Evaluative Survey: Survey: Survey: Compreben Compreben Comprehen Word Test Writing Dictation sion sion 1ion . Vocabulary Reading RIT Score 0.937 0.940 0.922 0.917 0.280 0.467 0.638 Goal I : Word Meaning 0.839 0.805 0.815 0.255 0.438 0.602 Goal 2: Literal :: 1 .. 0.823 0.822 0.223 0.418 0.577 Comnrehension ; l ' Goal 3: Interpretive Comprehension .. 0.795 0.1 99 0.410 0.535 Goal 4: Evaluative Comprehension 0.207 0.413 0.574 Observation Survey: Word Test ' \" 0.276 0.351 Observation Survey: Writiug Vocabulary .. 0.442 Observation Suney: Dictation . . ' All correlations arc significantat the .05 level DRA 0.788 0.733 0.724 0.696 0.719 0.360 0.478 0.683 N's range from 1577 to 1684 1-28-020136 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 .788. Only Hearing and Recording Sounds (Dictation) on the Observation Survey has a value above .50--.683. Also, within the Observation Survey correlational values are lower. The staff anticipated this result since the Observation Survey measures learninghow- 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. The statistician subsequently ran a statistical test called Cronbach's Alpha, which is a reliability test for internal consistency of an assessment. Reliability is a measure of a test's stability; that 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 Developmental Reading Assessment for both fall and spring administrations are as follows: 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 administered one-on-one by the classroom teacher to the student. The teacher scores the student's 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 child's 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 scores- those most likely to be influenced by bias. Students' spring scores are matched with their fall scores the following year, and then ifthere 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 year's fall scores, then an investigation must be conducted. One school with suspiciously high spring scores was flagged for review in fall 2000. However, when 1-28-020137 21 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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 staff 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. 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, Leaming 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: Group-administered, multiple-choice standardized achievement tests in reading and writing skills should not be used before third grade or preferably even before fourth grade. The younger the child, the more difficult 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 teaching-one approach fits all-the 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, AP A, \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 1-28-020138 22 - - -------- with the curriculum and teaching strategies that were to be used by teachers; they measured the learning-to-read skills that were essential for children becoming independent readers; they provided teachers with necessary diagnostic and summative data; they were developmentally appropriate; their administration procedures met test administration standards for young children; and their results were much likely to be valid and reliable than if a standardized test was used. The Assessments: Achievement Level Tests in Reading and Language Usage The Achievement Level Test (ALT) at grade 2 in reading and language usage was first administered in spring 2000. The AL Ts 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 from year to year. With the AL Ts, 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 student's academic growth. ALTs are not timed, and they take about one hour per subject for most students. The District scores the AL Ts, 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 cannot 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 AL Ts, 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 (RIT). It is an equal interval measure. It can be compared to measuring a child's 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 1-28-020139 23 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2. Literal Comprehension A. Recall/identify significant details B. Identify main idea C. Locate information D. Follow directions E. Sequence details 3. Interpretive Comprehension A. Inference B. Identify cause and effect C. Author's purpose D. Prediction E. Summarize F. Identify literacy elements (character, plot, setting, theme, etc.) 4. Evaluative Comprehension A. Evaluate conclusions, validity (supporting context) B. Identify fact and opinion C. Identify literary techniques (figurative language, mood, tone, etc.) D. Distinguish text forms E. Identify bias, stereotypes. Three goals/standards are tested on the Language Usage sub-test: l . Writing Process A. Prewriting skills B. Drafting and revising C. Editing/proofreading D. Choosing appropriate format E. Sentence choice appropriate to purpose F. Paragraph skills (topic and concluding sentences, indenting, etc.) 2. 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 3. Mechanics A. End punctuation B. Commas C. Apostrophes D. Enclosing punctuation E. Titles F. Beginning capitalization G. Proper nouns and adjectives 1-28-020140 24 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 learning-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. 1-28-020141 25 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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 report's 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 knovm to predict future reading achievement, especially those for which a causal role has been demonstrated. Kindergarten: Kindergarten instruction should be designed to stimulate verbal interaction; to enrich children's vocabularies; to encourage talk about books; to provide practice with the sound structure of words; to develop knowledge about print, including the production and recognition of letters; and 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 frequent words, and independent reading, including reading aloud. Fluency should be promoted through practice with a wide variety of wellwritten and engaging tests at the child's own comfortable reading level. Children who have started to read independently, D'J)ically 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. 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 1-28-020142 26    in 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 understanding that the use of invented spelling is not in conflict with teaching correct spelling. Beginning writing with invented spelling can be helpful for developing understanding of the identity and segmentation of speech sounds and sound-spelling relationships. Conventionally, correct spelling should be developed through focused instruction and practice. Primary-grade children should be expected to spell previously studied words and spelling patterns correctly in their final written products. Writing should take place regularly and frequently to encourage children to become more comfortable and familiar with it. Throughout the early grades, time, materials, and resources should be provided with two goals: (a) to support daily independent reading of texts selected to be of particular interest for the individual student, and beneath the individual student's capacity for independent reading and (b) to support daily assisted or supported reading and rereading of texts that are slightly more difficult in wording or in linguistic, rhetorical, or conceptual structure in order to promote advances in the student's capabilities. Throughout the early grades, schools should promote independent reading outside school by such means as daily at-home reading assignments and expectations, summer reading lists, encouraging parent involvement, and by working with community groups, including pu~lic librarians, who share this goal (7-9). Similar research is quoted, and similar recommendations are found in an earlier study from the Center for the Study of Reading at the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign (1990), Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print by Marilyn Jager Adams. Then in April 2000 with the publication of the findings of the National Reading Panel in their report, Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction, one finds similar findings and recommendations. The research-based practices for kindergarten and primary grades advocated by the International Reading Association (IRA) and the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) in their 1998 position paper, Leaming to Read and Write: Developmentally Appropriate Practices for Young Children, follow: 1-28-020143 27 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I        daily experiences of being read to and independently reading meaningful and engaging stories and informational texts; a balanced instructional program that includes systematic code instruction along with meaningful reading and writing activities; daily opportunities and teacher support to write many kinds of texts for different purposes, including stories, lists, messages to others, poems, reports, and responses to literature; writing experiences that allow the flexibility to use nonconventional forms of writing at first (invented or phonic spelling) and over time move to conventional forms; opportunities to work in small groups for focused instruction and collaboration with other children; an intellectually engaging and challenging curriculum that expands knowledge of the world and vocabulary; and adaptation of instructional strategies or more individualized instruction if the child fails to make expected progress in reading or when literacy skills are advanced (10). This research base under-girds the work of Linda Dorn of the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, developer of the Arkansas Early Literacy and Literacy Coach model that is recommended by the Arkansas Department of Education and was adopted by the Little Rock School District. The alignment between the research on what works in early litera~y and the assessments selected by the District to measure children's progress in these pre-reading and early reading skills should be evident when comparing the list of recommended practices cited above and the descriptions of what is tested in the assessments described in the following section.  For example, \"knowledge about print\" is assessed in the sub-test on the Observation Survey called \"Concepts about Print.\"    The \"production and recognition of letters\" is assessed in \"Letter Identification.\" \"Recognition of frequent words\" is assessed in the sub-test, \"Word Test.\" \"Word recognition and reading fluency\" are tested in the \"Word Test\" and on the Developmental Reading Assessment. 1-28-020144 28   \"Writing words and parts of words\" is tested in \"Writing Vocabulary.\" \"Linguistic and conceptual knowledge\" is tested on the Developmental Reading Assessment, in \"Writing Vocabulary,\" and in \"Hearing/Recording Sounds.\" 1-28-020145 29 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I V. Description of Tables Numerous tables displaying test data for each of the three assessments used in K-2 literacy are included in this section. The District-level results only are reported. The tables displaying data for each school on the Observation Survey, the Developmental Reading Assessment, and the Achievement Level Test are in Section IX. Tables lA, 2A, etc. include a calculation of the \"Percent Improvement.\" Some statisticians do not see value in this calculation since it sometimes may mislead a reader. For instance, it is possible to show a greater percent of improvement for a low-performing group than for a higher performing group, even when the lower group gained fewer total points than the higher group. On the other hand, many readers are familiar with the calculation since it is commonly used in the news media to report changes in stock prices, changes in the crime rate, and other reports on issues of interest to the general public. The evaluators made a decision to leave the calculation in the tables in Section V and in the analysis of those tables in Section VI so that the reader may draw his or her own conclusions about their use. They are not used, however, in any way in arriving at the \"findings\" or recommendations for improvement in Section VIII. Table 1 Description Table l displays the mean performance levels of kindergarten black and non-black students in 1999-2000-both the fall pre-test and the spring post-test scores. The third set of data in this table, \"B/NB Ratio,\" is a calculation of the black student scores divided by the white student scores as a method of determining the achievement gap at each stage of testing. For instance, black students entered kindergarten in fall 1999 scoring 0.95, as compared to non-black students who scored 2.72. If one divides 0.95 by 2.72, he/she finds that entering black kindergarten students' scores were 35 percent of non-black kindergarten students' scores. The \"Growth\" column in the first two sets of data is simply a subtraction of the fall scores from the spring scores to determine the year's growth. One can compare/contrast the \"Growth\" columns for black and non-black students to determine whether black students were growing at the same pace as non-black students in terms of total points. The \"Growth\" column in the third set of columns, \"B/NB Ratio,\" is a calculation of the number of points gained by black kindergarten students divided by the number of points gained by non-black kindergarten students. This ratio then defines the degree to which black student growth approximates non-black student growth over the year. Where this ratio is equal to or more than l 00 percent, black student growth for the year equaled or exceeded non-black student growth. 1-28-020146 30 Table I: Kindergarten, 1999-2000 Fall to Spring Black and !'ion-Black Performance lllad, Students l'ion-lllark Studnr, II/II.II Rotio Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth 1999 2000 1999 2000 1999 2000 Letter Identification 27.59 48.48 20.89 34.08 50.30 16.22 81% 96% Word Test 1.75 11.33 9.58 3.05 14.91 11.86 57% 76% Conceots about Print 6.54 14.30 7.76 9.50 17.56 8.06 69% 81% Writin2 Vocabularv 2.93 14.50 I 1.57 4.70 22.13 17.43 62% 66% Hearin1\u0026gt;/R~cordin2 3.58 17.02 13 .44 6.66 24.37 17.71 54% 70% ORA 0.95 3.09 2.14 2.72 7.12 4.40 35% 43% Table 1 A Description Table IA includes the same data for 1999-2000 as Table 1, except for two columns. Rather than compute simply the number of points of \"Growth,\" as Table 1 displays, Table IA includes in that column for both black and non-black students a column called \"Percent Improvement.\" This column indicates the rate of growth. That is, the number of growth points in Table 1 for a given sub-test was divided by the fall score to calculate the growth rate for that year. By comparing the two columns, one can determine whether black students grew at or less/more than the rate of non-black growth on each sub-test. Table 1A: Kindergarten, 1999-2000 Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance, with Percent Improvement lll~ck Studrnls l\\nn-lllack S1udr111s Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Percent Fall Spring Growth Percent 1999 2000 lmnrv. 1999 2000 lmnrv. Letter Identification 27.59 48.48 20.89 76% 34.08 50.30 16.22 48% Word Test 1.75 11.33 9.58 547% 3.05 14.91 11.86 389% Concepts about Print 6.54 14.30 7.76 119\"/o 9.50 17.56 8.06 85% Writinl! Vocabularv 2.93 14.50 11.57 395% 4.70 22.13 17.43 371% Hearin1?1Recordin2 3.58 17.02 13.44 375% 6.66 24.37 17.71 266% ORA 0.95 3.09 2.14 225% 2.72 7.12 4.40 162% Table 2 Description Table 2 includes the same data as Table 1 for kindergarten students, except for school year 2000-0 l. Table 2: Kindergarten, 2000-01 Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance Hlack s111drnt, !\\on-lllack Students U/MI Ratio Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth 2000 2001 2000 2001 2000 2001 Ratio Letter Identification 27.43 49.38 21.95 33.02 51.06 18.04 83% 97% 122% Word Test 1.38 13.41 12.03 2.59 16.32 13.73 53% 82% 88% Concepts about Print 5.95 16.02 10.07 8.30 18.41 10.11 72% 87% 100% Writing Vocabularv 1.96 18.82 16.86 3.36 26.42 23.06 58% 71% 73% Hearim!/Recordin2 2.16 19.59 17.43 4.66 25.69 21.03 46% 76% 83% ORA 0.35 3.56 3.21 0.85 7.47 6.62 41% 48% 48% Table 2A Description Ratio 129% 81% 96% 66% 76% 49% Table 2A includes the same data as Table IA for kindergarten students, except for school year 2000-01. 1-28-020147 31 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 2A: Kindergarten, 2000--01 Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance, With Percent Improvement lllackStull,nh 1\\011-lllack Stullcnls Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth , Percent Fall Spring Growth Percent 2000 2001 lmorv. 2000 2001 lmorv. Lener Identification 27.43 49.38 21.95 80% 33.02 51.06 18.04 55% Word Test 1.38 13.41 12.03 872% 2.59 16.32 13.73 530% Concepts about Print 5.95 16.02 10.o7 169% 8.30 18.41 10.11 122% Writinl! Vocabulary 1.96 18.82 16.86 860% 3.36 26.42 23.06 686% Hearim?1Recordin2 2.16 19.59 17.43 807% 4.66 25.69 21.03 451% DRA 0.35 3.56 3.21 917% 0.85 7.47 6.62 779% Table 3 Description Table 3 includes the same data for 1999-2000 as Table 1, except Table 3 displays grade 1 data. Table 3: Grade 1, 1999-2000 Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance lllack Students l\\nn-lllack St111knts 11/1\\ll Ratio Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth 1999 2000 1999 2000 1999 2000 Ratio Letter Identification 47.44 52.80 5.36 49.54 52.96 3.42 96% 100% 157% Word Test 5.75 16.87 11.12 7.89 18.34 10.45 73% 92% 106% Conceots about Print 13.81 19.46 5.65 15.70 20.91 5.21 88% 93% 108% Writin2 Vocabularv 13.54 37.11 23.57 15.65 44.04 28.39 87% 84% 83% Hearim!/Recordin2 17.25 30.87 13.62 21.98 34.l l 12.13 78% 91% 112% DRA 4.29 16.67 12.38 6.68 24.37 17.69 64% 68% 70% Table 3A Description Table 3A includes the same data for 1999-2000 as Table IA. except Table 3A displays grade I data. Table 3A: Grade I, 1999-2000 Fall to SprinG Black and Non-Black Performance. With Percent Improvement lllack Studrnh l\\nn-lllack Students Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Percent Fall Spring Gro,.1b Percent 1999 2000 lmorv. 1999 2000 - Imorv. Lener Identification 47.44 52.80 5.36 11% 49.54 52.96 3.42 7% Word Test 5.75 16.87 11.12 193% 7.89 18.34 10.45 132% Conccots about Print 13.81 19.46 5.65 41% 15.70 20.91 5.21 33% Writing Vocabularv 13.54 37.11 23.57 174% 15.65 44.04 28.39 181% Hearin g/Recording 17.25 30.87 13.62 79% 21.98 34.11 12.13 55% DRA 4.29 16.67 12.38 289\"/o 6.68 24.37 17.69 265% Table 4 Description Table 4 displays the same data for 2000-2001 as Table 2, except Table 4 displays grade 2 data. 1-28-020148 32 Table 4: Grade I, 2000--01 Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance lllack Sludcnh l\\on-lllack Student. 11/:\\11 Ratio Suh-Test Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth 2000 2001 2000 2001 2000 2001 Ratio Letter ldenti Ii cation 48.95 53.01 4.06 49.66 53.08 3.42 99% 100% 119% Word Test 5.81 17.33 11.52 8.49 18.53 10.04 68% 94% 115% Conccots about Print 13.51 19.76 6.25 16.11 21.22 5.11 84% 93% 122% Writin2 Vocabulary 12.94 40.16 27.22 16.15 45.44 29.29 80/c, 88% 93% HeaJinc,IRecordin2 17.49 31.70 14.21 23.55 34.40 10.85 74% 92% 131% ORA 3.72 17.94 14.22 7.95 25.41 17.46 47% 71% 81% Table 4A Description Table 4A displays the same data for 2000-2001 as Table 2A, except Table 4A displays grade 2 data. Table 4A: Grade I, 2000--01 Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance, With Percent Improvement lllack Studcnl, 1\\1111-lllack Student\\ Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Percent Fall Spring Growth Percent 2000 2001 lmprv. 2000 2001 lmprv. Lener Identification 48.95 53.01 4.06 8% 49.66 53.08 3.42 7% Word Test 5.81 17.33 11.52 198% 8.49 18.53 10.04 118% Conceots about Print 13.51 19.76 6.25 46% 16.11 21.22 5.11 32% Writin2 Vocabulary 12.94 40.16 27.22 210% 16.15 45.44 29.29 181% Hearin2/Recordin2 17.49 31.70 14.21 81% 23.55 34.40 10.85 46% ORA 3.72 17.94 14.22 382% 7.95 25.41 17.46 220% Table 5 Description Table 5 includes the same data for 1999-2000 as Table 1, except Table 5 displays grade 2 data. Letter Identification and Concepts about Print are not administered after grade 1. Table 5: Grade 2, 1999-2000 Fall to Spring Black aod Non-Black Performance lllack Sludcnh l\\nn-lllack Srud,nts 11/:\\U Ratio Sul\u0026gt;-Ttst Fall Spring Growth Fall Sprini: Growth Fall Spring Growth 1999 2000 1999 2000 1999 2000 Ratio Word Test 16.11 18.93 2.82 18.07 19.80 1.73 89% 96% 163% Writing Vocabulary 35.09 50.27 15.18 36.91 60.99 24.08 95% 82% 63% Hcaring/Recordin2 42.16 50.34 8.18 48.96 57.17 8.21 86% 88% 100% ORA 17.81 27.92 JO.II 24.21 36.00 11.79 74% 78% 86% Table 5A Description Table 5A displays the same data for 1999-2000 as Table IA except Table 5A displays grade 2 data. 1-28-020149 33 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table SA: Grade 2, 1999-2000 Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance, With Percent Improvement lllatk Studl'nls l\\cm-lllack Stud,nh Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Percent Fall Spring Grol'1h Percent 1999 2000 lmnrv. 1999 2000 lmnrv. Word Test 16.1 I 18.93 2.82 18% 18.07 19.80 1.73 10%, Writinl( Vocabularv 35.09 50.27 15.18 43% 36.91 60.99 24.08 65% Hearinu/Recordin2 42.16 50.34 8.18 19% 48.96 57.17 8.21 17% DRA 17.81 27.92 JO. I I 57% 24.21 36.00 11.79 49\"/o Table 6 Description Table 6 displays the same data for 2000-2001 as Table 2, except Table 6 displays grade 2 data. Table 6: Grade 2, 2000-01 Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance lllack Students l\\nn-lllack Studl'nls 11/llill Ratio Sub-Telil Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth 2000 2001 2000 2001 2000 2001 Ratio Word Test 16.00 18.06 2.06 17.60 18.91 1.31 91% 96% 157% Writing Vocabularv 29.80 55.76 25.96 35.43 63 .97 28.54 84% 87% 91% Hearim?!Recordin2 45.50 51.60 6.10 52.44 56.78 4.34 87% 91% 141% DRA 18.20 28.75 10.55 26.01 35.88 9.87 70% 80% 107% Table 6A Description Table 6A displays the same data for 2000-2001 as Table 2A, except Table 6A displays grade 2 data. Table 6A: Grade 2, 2000-01 Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance, With Percent Improvement lllack Stud,nts l\\nn-lllack Students Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Percent Fall Spring Growth Percent 2000 2001 lmnrv. 2000 2001 lmnrv. Word Test 16.00 18.06 2.06 13% 17.60 18.91 1.31 7% Writin2 Vocabularv 29.80 55.76 25.96 87% 35.43 63 .97 28.54 81% Heari n11./Recordin2 45.50 51.60 6.10 13% 52.44 56.78 4.34 8% DRA 18.20 2875 10.55 58% 26.01 35.88 9.87 38% Table 7 Description Table 7 displays black and non-black students' performance for a cohort of students as they moved from kindergarten in fall 1999-2000 to the end of grade 1 in spring 2000-01 . In other words, the table displays the evidence of two years of growth. Although the data include all students enrolled for the full year each of the two years, not just those who were in LRSD for both years, they provide a good picture of the growth of a cohort of students over a two-year period, while Tables 1-6 compared different groups of students at a given grade level. The black/non-black ratios that are displayed in the third set of columns were calculated by dividing the black student scores by the non-black scores. Where the growth is at or above 100 percent in the last column indicates that black growth over the two-year period was more than that of non-black growth, based on total points of growth. 1-28-020150 34 Table 7: Cohort I Kindergarten, Fall 1999-2000 and Grade I, Spring 2000-01 lllack Stud~nh Non-lllack Student, 11/lliB Ralio Sub-Tut Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Gro.,tb Fall Spring Gro,.th 1999 2001 1999 2001 1999 2001 Ralio Letter Identification 27.59 53.01 25.42 34.08 53.08 19.00 81% 100% 134% Word Test 1.75 17.33 15.58 3.05 18.53 15.48 57% 94% 101% Concepts about Print 6.54 19.76 13.22 9.50 21.22 11.72 69% 93% 113% Writing Vocabulary 2.93 40.16 37.23 4.70 45.44 40.74 62% 88% 91% Hearing/Recording 3.58 31.70 28.12 6.66 34.40 27.74 54% 92% 101,~ DRA 0.95 17.94 16.99 2.72 25.41 22.69 35% 71% 75% Table 7 A Description Table 7 A displays the same data as Table 7 except that instead of the number of \"Growth\" points being displayed in the third column for black and non-black students, the table includes \"Percent Improvement.\" This calculation was the result of dividing the number of growth points in Table 7 by the fall 1999 score for black and then non-black students to determine the growth rate. A comparison of these two columns will reveal the degree to which the program is especially effective for African-American students, as compared to non-black students. Sub-Test Lener ldenrificarion Word Test Concepts about Print Writing Vocabulary Heari nj!{Recordinl! DRA Table 8 Description Table 7A: Cohort I-Percent Improvement Kindergarten, Fall 1999-2000 and Grade I, Spring 2000--01 lllack S1udents Non-Black Studenh Fall Spring Growth Percenl Fall Spring Growth 1999 2001 Jmprv. 1999 2001 27.59 53.01 25.42 92% 34.08 53.08 19.00 1.75 17.33 15.58 890% 3.05 18.53 15.48 6.54 19.76 13.22 202% 9.50 21.22 11.72 2.93 40.16 37.23 1271% 4.70 45.44 40.74 3.58 31.70 28.12 785% 6.66 34.40 27.74 0.95 17.94 16.99 1788% 2.72 25.41 22.69 Percenl lmprv. 56% 508% 123% 867% 417% 834% Table 8 is similar to Table 7, except that the cohort data displayed if for fall 1999-2000 grade 1 black and non-black students and spring 2000-2001 grade 2 black and non-black students. Letter Identification and Concepts about Print were not administered after grade 1. Table 8: Cohort 2 Grade I, Fall 1999-2000 and Grade 2, Spring 2000--01 Ulock Sludents 1'011-Black Studlnls 81!\\8 Ratio Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth 1999 2001 1999 2001 1999 2001 Ratio Lener Identification 47.44 NIA 49.54 NIA 96% NIA Word Test 5.75 18.06 12.31 7.89 18.91 11.02 73% 96% 112% 13.81 NIA 15.70 NIA 88% NIA Writin 13.54 55.76 42.22 15.65 63.97 48.32 87% 87% 87% Hearin 17.25 51.60 34.35 21.98 56.78 34.80 78% 91% 99% DRA 4.29 28.75 24.46 6.68 35.88 29.20 64% 80% 84% '\\-28-020'\\ 5'\\ 35 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 8A Description See description of Table 7A and 8 above. Table 8A: Cohort 2,-Percent Improvement Grade 1, Fall 1999-2000 and Grade 2, Spring 2000-01 lllark Studrnls l\\on-lllark Studtnh Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Percent Fall Spring Growth 1999 2001 lmnrv. 1999 2001 Lener Identification 47.44 NIA 49.54 NIA Word Test 5.75 18.06 12.31 214% 7.89 18.91 11.02 Concepts about Print 13.81 NIA 15.70 NIA Writing Vocabulary 13.54 55.76 42.22 312% 15.65 63.97 48.32 Heannj!/Recordin2 17.25 51.60 34.35 199% 21.98 56.78 34.80 DRA 4.29 28.75 24.46 570% 6.68 35.88 29.20 Table 9 Description Percent lmprv. 140\"/o 309% 158% 437% Table 9 displays the kindergarten, grade 1, and grade 2 performance of all students in 1999-2000, including the amount of fall to spring growth on each sub-test. This table includes only those students who were present for both fall and spring testing, not all those enrolled. Table 9: Grades K-2, 1999-2000 Fall to Spring Performance, All Students h:ind1rj!artrn c;rade I Gradr2 Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth 1999 2000 1999 2000 1999 2000 Lener Identification 29.72 49.05 19.33 48.11 52.86 4.75 Word Test 2.18 12.48 10.30 6.43 17.34 10.91 16.76 19.23 2.47 Concepts about Print 7.52 15.37 7.85 14.41 19.91 5.50 Writin11: Vocabulary 3.51 16.99 13.48 14.20 39.30 25.10 35.71 53.80 18.09 HearinJ!/Recordin11: 4.59 19.41 14.82 18.75 31.89 13.14 44.34 52.51 8.17 DRA 1.52 4.40 2.88 5.05 19.11 14.06 19.85 30.50 10.65 Table 9A Description Table 9A calculates the growth rate for all students from fall to spring in 1999-2000. Table 9A: Grades K-2, 1999-2000 Fall to Spring Performance, All Students, with Percent of Improvement h:inderj!nrtrn (iradr I Grade 2 Sub-Test Fall Spring Percent Fall Spring Percent Fall Spring Percent 1999 2000 lmnrv. 1999 2000 lmnrv. 1999 2000 lmnrv. Lener Identification 29.72 49.05 65% 48.11 52.86 10% NIA Word Test 2.18 12.48 472% 6.43 17.34 170% 16.76 19.23 15% Conceots about Print 7.52 15.37 104% 14.41 19.91 38% NIA Writin2 Vocabulary 3.51 16.99 384% 14.20 39.30 177% 35.71 53 .80 51% Heatin~IRecordin2 4.59 19.41 323% 18.75 31.89 70% 44.34 52.51 18% DRA 1.52 4.40 189% 5.05 19.11 278% 19.85 30.50 54% 1-28-020152 36 --- ---- ----- - ----- Table 10 Description Table 10 is similar to Table 9 except that it includes 2000-2001 data for all students. Table 10: Grades K-2, 2000-01 Fall to Spring Performance, All Students h:inderi:artcn \u0026lt;.rade I Gradc2 Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth 2000 2001 2000 2001 2000 2001 Letter Identification 29.05 49.79 20.74 49.07 53.02 3.95 Word Test 1.81 14.29 12.48 6.68 17.67 10.99 16.48 18.33 1.85 Concepts about Print 6.67 16.75 10.08 14.29 20.21 5.92 Writing Vocabulary 2.41 21.07 18.66 14.02 41.72 27.70 31.59 58.35 26.76 Hearinl!/Recording 3.00 21.42 18.42 19.46 32.48 13.02 47.53 53.07 5.54 DRA 0.52 4.80 4.28 5.10 20.24 15.14 20.56 30.93 10.37 Table 1 OA Description See description of Table 9A and 10 above. Table JOA: Grades K-2, 2000--01 Fall to Spring Performance, All Students, With Percent or Improvement Kindtrcarltn (;rndc 1 (;rade 2 Sub-Test Fall Spring Percent Fall Spring Percent Fall Spring Percent 2000 2001 lmorv. 2000 2001 lmorv. 2000 2001 lmnrv. Lener Identification 29.05 49.79 71% 49.07 53.02 8% NIA Word Test 1.81 14.29 690\"/o 6.68 17.67 165% 16.48 18.33 11% Concepts about Print 6.67 16.75 151% 14.29 20.21 41% NIA Writing Vocabulary 2.41 21.07 774% 14.02 41.72 198% 31.59 58.35 85% HearinivRccordinR 3.00 21.42 614% 19.46 32.48 67% 47.53 53.07 12% DRA 0.52 4.80 823% 5.10 20.24 297% 20.56 30.93 50% Table 11 Description Table 11 displays for each sub-test the percent of the maximum score that black kindergarten students on average attained for school years 1999-2000 and 2000-01 . Each test score is divided by the maximum score to calculate the percent score. Sub-Test l\\ln. Letter Identification 54 Word Test 20 Concepts about Print 24 Writing Vocabulary None Heannj!/Rccording 37 DRA 44 Table 12 Description Table 11: Percent or Maximum Scores-Kindergarten Black Students Fall Pcncnt Spring Percent an 1999 2000 2000 27.59 51% 48.48 90\"/o 27.43 1.75 9% 11.33 57% 1.38 6.54 27% 14.30 60% 5.95 2.93 NIA 14.50 NIA 1.96 3.58 10% 17.02 46% 2.16 0.95 2% 3.09 7% 0.35 l'crcent Spring 1'11rcent 2001 51% 49.38 91% 7% 13.41 67% 25% 16.02 67% NIA 18.82 NIA 6% 19.59 53% 1% 3.56 8% See Table 11. Table 12 is the same, except that the data are for non-black students. 1-28-020153 37 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Sub-lc,t Max. Letter Identification 54 Word Test 20 Concepts about Print 24 Writin11 Vocabulary None HearinltfRecordin11 37 DRA 44 Table 13 Description Table 12: Percent of l\\luimum Scores-Kindergarten Non-Black Students au P,rccnt Sprini: l'crc,nt Fall 1999 2000 2000 34.08 63% 50.30 93% 33.02 3.05 15% 14.91 75% 2.59 9.50 40% 17.56 73% 8.30 4.70 NIA 22.13 NIA 3.36 6.66 18% 24.37 66% 4.66 2.72 6% 7.12 16% 0.85 Pcrc.,nl Spri111: 2001 61% 51.06 13% 16.32 35% 18.41 NIA 26.42 13% 25.69 2% 7.47 See Table 11. Table 12 is the same, except that the data are for all students. Sub-Test !\\lax. Letter Identification 54 Word Test 20 Conceots about Print 24 Writing Vocabulary None Hearing/RecordinJZ 37 DRA 44 Table 14 Description Table 13: Percent of Maximum Scores-Kindergarten All Students Fall Perca,nt Spring l'crccnt fall 1999 2000 2000 29.72 55% 49.05 91% 29.05 2.18 11% 12.48 62% 1.81 7.52 31% 15.37 64% 6.67 3.51 NIA 16.99 NIA '.!.42 4.59 12% 19.41 52% 3.00 1.52 3% 4.40 10% 0.52 Percent Spring 2001 54% 49.79 9% 14.29 28% 16.75 NIA 21.07 8% 21.42 1% 4.80 Percmt 95% 82% 77% NIA 69% 17% Percent 92% 71% 70% NIA 58% 11% See Table 11 description. This table is the same, except that the data are for grade 1 students. Sub-Test l\\lax. Letter Identification 54 Word Test 20 Concepts about Print 24 Writing Vocabulary None Hearinu!Recordin2 37 DRA 44 Table 15 Description Table 14: Percent of Mui mum Scores-Grade 1 Black Studenu 'Fall l'crccnt Sprini: l'crccnt Fall 1999 2000 '2000 47 .44 88% 52.80 98% 48.95 5.15 29%, 16.87 S4% 5.81 13.81 58% 19.46 81% 13.51 13.54 NIA 37.11 NIA 12.94 17.25 47% 30.87 83% 17.49 4.29 10% 16.67 38% 3.72 Percent Spring Percent 2001 91% 53.01 98% 29% 17.33 87% 56% 19.76 82% NIA 40.16 NIA  47% 31.70 86% 8% 17.94 41% See Table 11 description. This table is the same except that the data are for grade 1 non-  black students. Sub-Test Mu. Letter Identification 54 Word Test 20 Concepts about Print 24 WritinJZ Vocabulary None Hearing/Recording 37 DRA 44 Table 15: Percent of Maximum Scores-Grade 1 Non-Black Students Fall Percent Sprlni: Percent Fall 1999 2000 2000 49.54 92% 52.96 98% 49.66 7.89 39% 18.34 92% 8.49 15.70 65% 20.91 87% 16.11 15.65 NIA 44.04 NIA 16.15 21.98 59% 34.11 92% 23.55 6.68 15% 24.37 55% 7.95 l'crcent Spring l'ercent 2001 92% 53.08 98% 42% 18.53 93% 67% 21.22 88% NIA 45.44 NIA 64% 34.40 93% 18% 25 .41 58% 1-28-020154 38 Table 16 Description See Table 11 description. This table is the same except that the data are for grade I-all students. Sub-Test l\\ln. Letter Identification 54 Word Test 20 Concepts about Print 24 Writing Vocabulary None Hearing/Recording 37 ORA 44 Table 17 Description Table 16: Percent of Maximum Scores-Grade 1 All Students l'all l'ercent Spring Percent Fall 1999 2000 2000 48.11 89% 52.86 98% 49.07 6.43 32% 17.34 87% 6.68 14.41 60% 19.91 83% 14.29 14.20 NIA 39.30 NIA 14.02 18.75 51% 31.89 86% 19.46 5.05 11% 19.11 43% 5.10 Percent Spring l'erccnt 2001 91% 53.02 98% 33% 17.67 88% 60% 20.21 84% NIA 41.72 NIA 53% 32.48 88% 12% 20.24 46% See Table 11 description. This table is the same except that the data are for grade 2 black students. Sub-Tt,st !\\lax. Word Test 20 Writing Vocabulary None Hearinl!iRecordinl! 64 ORA 44 Table 18 Description Table 17: Percent of Mui mum Scores-Grade 2 Black Students f\"all Pl'rcent Spring l'ncent Fall 1999 2000 2000 16.11 81% 18.93 95% 16.00 35.09 NIA 51.27 NIA 29.80 42.16 66% 50.34 79% 45.50 17.81 40% 27.92 63% 18.20 l'ercent Spring Percent 2001 80% 18.06 90% NIA 55.76 NIA 71% 51.60 81% 41% 28.75 65% See Table 11 description. This table is the same except that the data are for grade 2 nonblack students. Sub-Test !\\lax. Word Test 20 Writing Vocabularv None Hearinl!/Recordinl! 64 ORA 44 Table 19 Description Table 18: Percent of Maximum Scores-Grade 2 Noa-Black Students Fall Percent Sprini: l'crcent Fall 1999 2000 2000 18.07 90% 19.80 99\"/o 17.60 36.91 NIA 60.99 NIA 35.43 48.96 77% 57.17 89% 52.44 24.21 55% 36.00 82% 26.01 Percent Spring Percent 2001 88% 18.91 95% NIA 63.97 NIA 82% 56.78 89% 59% 35.88 82% See Table 11 description. This table is the same except that the data are for grade 2-all students. Sub-Trst !\\lax. Word Test 20 Writine: Vocabularv None Hearinl!IRccordine: 64 ORA 44 Table 19: Percent of Maximum Scorn-Grade 2 All Students Fall l'ernnt Sprin~ Percent Fall 1999 2000 2000 16.76 84% 19.23 96% 16.48 35.71 NIA 53.80 NIA 31.59 44.34 69% 52.51 82% 47.53 19.85 45% 30.50 69% 20.56 Percent Spring l'crccnt 2001 82% 18.33 92% NIA 58.35 NIA 74% 53 .07 83% 47% 30.93 70% 1-28-020155 39 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 20 Description Table 20 displays the all-student cohort data for fall 1999-2000 kindergarten students and end-of-year 2000-01 grade 1 students. Table 20: Cohort I-All Students Kindergarten, fall 1999-2000 and Grade I, Spring 200~1 Suh.\"l\u0026lt;'\u0026lt;I Fall 1999 Sprin:? 2001 (;rm,th Letter Identification 29.72 53.02 23.30 Word Tesl 2.18 17.67 15.49 Concepts aboul Print 7.52 20.21 12.69 Writinl! Yocabularv 3.51 41.72 38.21 Hearine/Recordin2 4.59 32.48 27.89 ORA 1.52 20.24 18.72 Table 20A Description Table 20A calculates the growth rate for the fall 1999-2000 kindergarten and 2000-01 grade! cohort. Table 20A: Cohort I-All Students, Percent Improvement IGndergarten, Fall 1999-2000 and Grade I, Spring 2~1 Suh-1 c,1 F:ill 1999 Sprinl! :?001 (;rm,th 0/.,lmpn. Letter Identification 29.72 53.02 23.30 78% Word Test 2.18 17.67 15.49 711% Conceots abou1 Print 7.52 20.21 12.69 169% Writine Yocabularv 3.51 41.72 38.21 1089\"/4 Hcaring/RecordinR 4.59 32.48 27.89 608% ORA 1.52 20.24 18.72 1232% Table 21 Description Table 21 is similar to Table 20 except that it includes the fall 1999-2000 grade I and endof- year 2000-2001 grade 2 cohort data. Table 21: Cohort 2-AII Students Grade 1, Fall 1999-2000 and Grade 2. Spring 2001 Suh-1 l'St Fall 1999 Spri111? 2001 Grnnlh Letter Identification 48.11 NIA Word Test 6.43 18.33 11.90 Conccnts about Print 14.41 NIA Writine Vocabularv 14.20 58.35 44.15 Hearine/Recordine 18.75 53.07 34.32 ORA 5.05 30.93 25.88 Table 21A Description See description of Table 20A and 21 above. 1-28-020156 40 Table 21A: Cohort 2--AII Students, Percent Improvement Grade I, Fall 1999-2000 and Grade 2, Spring 2001 Suh-1.,,t Fall 1999 Spring 2001 \u0026lt;iro\\\\th %lmpn. Letter ldcntifica1ion 48.11 NIA NIA Word Test 6.43 18.33 11.90 185% Conceots about Print 14.41 NIA NIA Writin~ Vocabulary 14.20 58.35 44.15 311% Hearinl!IRccordinl! 18.75 53.07 34.32 183% DRA 5.05 30.93 25.88 512% Table 22 Description Table 22 includes for the Developmental Reading Assessment at all three grades tested the percent of black and non-black students who scored at or above the \"readiness\" level. Also shown is the perfonnance disparity (gap) between blacks and non-blacks for each of the two years of the testing data and, in the last column, the difference between those gaps. Table 22 Percent Readiness, Developmental Reading Assessment Black and Non-Black Students Gradt: Black 1'011-II Gap lllacl, :\\011-B Gap +I-Spr. 2000 Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2001 K10der 69.3 84.7 15.4 77.0 88.8 I 1.8 3.60 Grade I 48.3 71.2 22.9 57.4 77.3 19.9 -3 .00 Grade 2 63.8 81.6 17.8 69.8 86.8 17.0 -0.80 Table 23 Description Table 23 provides District-level data on the percent of students at each grade level who scored at or above the \"readiness\" level for each of the two years of the testing. Kinder,:art Spr. 2000 72.2 I Table 24 Description Table 23 Percent Readiness, Developmental Reading Assessment All Students Grade I pr. 2000 Spr. 200 63.8 Table 24 includes District-level ALT data on the perfonnance of black, non-black, and all students on the spring 2000 and spring 2001 administrations of the Reading and Language Usage sub-tests of the Achievement Level Tests for grade 2. Table 24 Grade 2 Reading, Achievement Level Test Median RIT Scores, Black and Non-Black Comparisons 1-28-C,20157 41 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 25 Description Table 25 includes the median RIT score on the grade 2 Achievement Level Test- Reading for spring 2000 and spring 2001 . Table 2S Grade 2 Reading, Achievement Level Test Median RJT Scores, All Students Spr. 2001 ffllrk,iit\u0026amp; 183 21 Table 26 Description Table 26 is the same as Table 24, except that the data display the results of the Language Usage sub-test. Table26 Grade 2 Langua~ Usage, Achievement Level Test Median RJT Scores, Black and Non-Black Comparisons r:-u7m# : .. ,..196a .~-14 ,\"118:4 ilil19:6 11-1 21 1 Table 27 Description Table 27 is the same as Table 25, except the data display the results of the Language Usage sub-test. Table 27 Grade 2 Language Usage, Achit\\'ement Level Test Median RJT Scores, All Students rffi\"m Spr. 2001 188 1-28-020158 42 - -- - ------ ------- VI. Analysis of Results, 1999-2000 and 2000-01 For each sub-test of the Observation Survey and for the Developmental Reading Assessment at grades K-2 and for each sub-test of the Achievement Level Tests at grade 2, results are analyzed below in several ways, particularly in what they reveal about the achievement of African American children. Letter Identification Letter identification is tested at the kindergarten and grade I level. Out of a maximum of 54 points, students performed on this measure as follows in 1999-2000 and 2000-01: Fall and Spring Performance Comparisons  Black kindergarten students scored 27.59 on the fall test in 1999-2000 and 27.43 in fall 2000-01--a difference of .16. Although the 2000-01 group performed at a slightly lower level on the fall test than those in 1999-2000, they ended the year a little stronger--from 48.48 in spring 1999-2000 to 49.38 in spring 2000-01--a difference of .90. (See Tables 1 and 2.)    Non-black kindergarten students scored 34.08 on the fall 1999-2000 test and 33.02 in fall 2000-01--a difference of 1.06. Non-black kindergarten students,just as blacks, started lower in fall 2000-01 than in fall 1999- 2000, yet they too ended the year a little stronger than the previous year's group--from 50.30 in 1999-2000 to 51.06 in 2000-01--a difference of.76. (See Tables l and 2.) Black grade 1 students scored 4 7.44 on Letter Identification in fall 1999 and 48.95 in fall 2000--an improvement of 1.51 points, perhaps indicating the strength of the 1999-2000 kindergarten instructional program for African-American students, even in its first year of implementation. As in kindergarten, the grade 1 black students in 2000-0J ended the year stronger than the grade 1 black students in 1999-2000--from 52.80 in spring 2000 to 53.01 in spring 2001--a difference of .21. (See Tables 3 and 4.) Non-black grade 1 students scored 49.54 in fall 1999 and 49.66 in fall 2000--a difference of .12. As in kindergarten and as for black students, the grade 1 non-black students ended spring 2001 at a higher level than they were in spring 2000--from 52.96 in 2000 to 53.08 in 2001--a difference of .12--the same amount of difference, then, as the fall to fall scores. (See Tables 3 and 4.) 1-28-020159 43 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I One-Year Growth Black kindergarten students grew 20.89 points on Letter Identification in 1999-2000 and 21.95 points in 2000-01, again indicating more growth in the second year of the program implementation than in year one for African-American students. (See Tables 1 and 2.)   Non-black kindergarten students also grew more in the second year of the program--from 16.22 points in 1999-2000 to 18.04 in 2000-01. (See  Tables 1 and 2.) Black grade 1 students grew 5.36 points in Letter Identification in 1999- 2000 and 4.06 in 2000-01 . Perhaps the reason for the declining amount of growth was that the 2000-01 grade 1 students were closer to the maximum score in 2000-01 than they were in 1999-2000. (See Tables 3 and 4.)  Non-black grade 1 students grew 3.42 points in both 1999-2000 and 2000- 01. (See Tables 3 and 4.) Growth Rate {Percent Improvement)  Black kindergarten students' percent improvement (rate of growth) in 1999-2000 on Letter Identification was 76 percent, as compared to 80 percent in 2000-01. (See Tables lA and 2A.)  Non-black students' percent improvement in 1999-2000 was 48 percent as compared to 55 percent in 2000-01. (See Tables IA and 2A.)  Black grade l students' percent improvement in 1999-2000 was 11 percent, as compared to 8 percent in 2000-01. (See Tables 3A and 4A.)  Non-black grade 1 students' percent improvement. was 7 percent in both 1999-2000 and 2000-01. (See Tables 3A and 4A.) Kindergarten Spring and Grade 1 Fall Comparison  Black kindergarten students ended the 1999-2000 school year with a score of 48.48, and they entered grade 1 with a score of 48.95--a slight improvement of .4 7, indicating no regression over the summer. (See  Tables 1 and 4.) Non-black kindergarten students ended the 1999-2000 year with a score of 50.30, and they entered grade 1 in 2000-01 with a score of 49.66- a slight regression over the summer of .64. (See Tables 1 and 4.) 1-28-020160 44 Black to Non-Black Ratios  In fall 1999 the black kindergarten students ' scores on Letter Identification were 81 percent those of non-black students. By the end of that year their scores were 96 percent of those of non-black students--indicating an improvement of 15 percentage points. The achievement gap was virtually closed, therefore, on this measure by the end of the kindergarten year.   (See Table I.) In fall 2000 the black kindergarten students' scores started the year at 83 percent of those of non-black students--two points higher than they were at the beginning of the previous kindergarten class. By the end of the year their scores were 97 percent of those of non-black students--one point closer to closing the achievement gap on this measure than at the end of the previous kindergarten year. (See Table 2.) In fall 1999 the black grade 1 students' scores were 96 percent of those of non-black students. By the end of the year their scores were almost exactly the same as non-black students--I 00 percent. The achievement gap was closed on this measure. (See Table 3.)  Again in fall 2000 the black grade I students' scores were 99 percent of those of non-black students, and by the end of the year the achievement gap closed when black scores were 100 percent of non-black scores on this measure. (See Table 4.) Black to Non-Black Growth Ratios  In 1999-2000 black kindergarten student growth was 129 percent ofnonblack student growth. In 2000-01 black kindergarten growth continued to exceed non-black growth--this time at 122 percent. (See Tables 1 and 2.)  In 1999-2000 black grade 1 student growth was 157 percent of non-black student growth. That pattern continued in 2000-01 when black grade 1 growth was 119 percent of non-black growth. (See Tables 3 and 4.) Kindergarten--Grade 1 Cohort {Fall 1999 to Spring 2001)  Black kindergarten students grew from 27.59 in fall 1999 to 53.01 in spring 2000-01 when they were in grade 1--a total of25.42 points. (See Table 7.)  Non-black kindergarten students grew from 34.08 in fall 1999 to 53.08 in spring 2001 when they were in grade 1--a total of 19.00 points. (See Table 7.) 1-28-020161 45 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I K.indergarten--Grade 1 Cohort (Fall 1999 to Spring 2001) Growth Rate  Black kindergarten students' percent improvement from fall 1999-2000 to spring 2000-01 in grade 1 was 92 percent. Given that black students began kindergarten knowing a little more than half of their letters, they almost doubled their knowledge in this area over the two-year period. (See Table 7A.)  Non-black kindergarten students' percent improvement from fall 1999 to spring 2001 in grade l was 56 percent. Even though black students grew at a rate considerably higher than non-black students over the two years, non-black students continued also to improve. (See Table 7 A.) Black to Non-Black Ratios for Kindergarten to Grade 1 Cohort  In fall 1999 the black kindergarten students' scores were 81 percent of those of non-black students. By the end of grade 1, the achievement gap was closed with black scores at 100 percent of non-black scores. (See Table 7.)  During the two-year period the black growth was 134 percent of non-black growth on this measure. (See Table 7.) 1-28-020162 46 Word Test The Word Test, with a maximum score of 20, is administered at all three grades levels, K-2. Observations about student performance in 1999-2000 and 2000-01 follow: Fall and Spring Performance Comparisons  Black kindergarten students scored 1. 75 on the fall test in 1999-2000 and 1.38 in fall 2000-01--a difference of .37, repeating the pattern seen on the Letter Identification test--slightly lower perfonnance in fall 2000 than in fall 1999. Again, however, just as in Letter Identification, the spring 2001 scores were higher than they were in spring 2000. The spring 2000 score was 11.33, and the spring 2001 score was 13.41--a difference of 2.08 points--a good increase in decoding skill. (See Tables l and 2.)      Non-black kindergarten students scored 3.05 in fall 1999 and 2.59 in fall 2000--a slightly lower score, .46 lower. Again the pattern holds, however. The spring 2001 scores were higher than the spring 2000 scores--from 14.91 in spring 2000 to 16.32 in spring 2001--a difference of 1.41 points. (See Tables 1 and 2.) Black grade I students scored 5.75 on the Word Test in fall 1999 and 5.81 in fall 2000--continuing the pattern of higher scores at the beginning of the year for students who had been in the program two years. Also, black students in spring 2001 had higher scores than those in spring 2000. Spring 2000 scores for grade I black students were 16.87, and they were 17.33 in spring 2001--a difference of .46 points. (See Tables 3 and 4.) Non-black grade I students scored 7.89 in fall 1999 and 8.49 in fall 2000-an increase of .60. In spring 2000 the scores were 18.34, and in spring 2001 they were 18.53--again higher by .19. (See Tables 3 and 4.) Black grade 2 students scored 16.11 in fall 1999 an the Word Test and 16.00 in fall 2000--down .11. The spring performance for 2000 was 18.93, and the spring performance for 2001 was 18.06--down .87. (See Tables 5 and 6.) Non-black grade 2 students scored 18.07 in fall 1999 and 17.60 in fall 2000--down .47 from the previous year. The spring performance for 2000 was 19.80 and for spring 2001 18.91--down .90. (See Tables 5 and 6.) One-Year Growth  Black kindergarten students grew 9.58 points in 1999-2000 and 12.03 points in 2000-01, again indicating more growth the second year of the program implementation than in year one. (See Tables 1 and 2)  Non-black kindergarten students grew 11.86 points in 1999-2000 and 13.73 points in 2000-01. (See Tables I and 2.) 1-28-020163 47 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I  Black grade 1 students grew 11 .12 points in 1999-2000 and 11.52 points in 2000-01 . (See Tables 3 and 4.)  Non-black grade 1 students grew 10.45 in 1999-2000 and 10.04 in 2000- 01 . One possible reason for this reduced growth is that the non-black students in grade 1 were already getting close to the maximum score of 20 on this measure. (See Tables 3 and 4.)  Black grade 2 students grew 2.82 points in 1999-2000 and 2.06 points in 2000-01. (See Tables 5 and 6.)  Non-black grade 2 students grew 1.73 in 1999-2000 and 1.31 in 2000-01. (See Tables 5 and 6.) Growth Rate (Percent Improvement)  Black kindergarten students' percent improvement (rate of growth) in 1999-2000 was 54 7 percent, as compared to 872 percent in 2000-0 l. Although black kindergarten students did not grow as many points as nonblack students in either 1999-2000 or 2000-01, their percent of improvement or growth rate far exceeded that of non-black students. (See Tables IA and 2A.)  Non-black kindergarten students' percent improvement in 1999-2000 was 389 percent, and in 2000-01, it was 530 percent. (See Tables IA and 2A.)     Black grade 1 students' growth rate in 1999-2000 was 193 percent, as compared to 198 percent in 2000-01. At grade 1 in 2000-01 not only did black students have a higher growth rate than in 1999-2000, they also grew more in terms of points. (See Tables 3A and 4A.) Non-black grade 1 students' growth rate in both 1999-2000 was 132 percent, and in 2000-01 it was 118 percent. Again, black students' higher growth rate indicates a closing of the achievement gap on this measure. (See Tables 3A and 4A.) Black grade 2 students' growth rate in 1999-2000 was 18 percent-considerably lower than in kindergarten and grade l, but due to the approximation of the maximum score of 20. In 2000-01 the growth rate was 13 percent. (See Tables SA and 6A.) Non-black grade 2 students' growth rate in 1999-200 was 10 percent and in 2000-01, 7 percent. (See Tables SA and 6A.) 1-28-020164 48 Kindergarten Spring and Grade 1 Fall Comparison: Grade 1 Spring and Grade 2 Fall Comparison  Black kindergarten students ended the 1999-2000 school year with a score of 11.33 on the Word Test, and they entered grade 1 in fall 2000 with a score of 5.81--indicating, most likely, little reinforcement of school vocabulary during the summer months. (See Tables 1 and 4.)  Non-black kindergarten students ended the 1999-2000 school year with a score of 14.91, and they entered grade 1 in fall 2000 with a score of 8.49-again indicating little reinforcement of school vocabulary during the summer months. (See Tables 1 and 4.)   Black grade 1 students ended the 1999-2000 school year with a score of 16.87, and they entered grade 2 in fall 2000 with a score of 16.00--a slight regression of .87. Summer regression may decline when students begin to read independently. It is interesting that the regression between grade 1 and 2 is much lower than between kindergarten and grade 1. (See Tables 3 and 6.) Non-black grade 1 students ended the 1999-2000 school year with a score of 18.34 and began grade 2 in fall 2000 with a score of 17 .60--a regression of .74. (See Tables 3 and 6.) Black to Non-Black Ratios  In fall 1999 the black kindergarten students' scores were 57 percent of those of non-black students. By the end of the year, they were 76 percent of those of non-black students--indicating an improvement of 19 percentage points in the first year of instruction. (See Table 1.)    In fall 2000 the black kindergarten students' score:. were only 53 percent of those of non-black students. By the end of the year, however, they were 82 percent of those of non-black students--an improvement of29 percentage points. (See Table 2.) In fall 1999 the black grade 1 students' scores were 73 percent of those of non-black students. By the end of the year, however, they were 92 percent of those of non-black students--an improvement of 19 percentage points. (See Table 3.) In fall 2000 the black grade 1 students' scores were 68 percent of those of non-black students. By the end of the year, however, they were 94 percent of those of non-black students--an improvement of 26 percentage points in one year and an indication that the achievement gap is ahnost closed. (See Table 4.) 1-28-020165 49 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I   In fall 1999 the black grade 2 students' scores were 89 percent of those of non-black students. By the end of the year, however, they were 96 percent of those of non-black students--an improvement of7 percentage points in one year. (See Table 5.) In fall 2000 the black grade 2 students' scores were 91 percent of those of non-black students. By the end of the year, they were 96 percent, and the achievement gap on this measure was virtually closed after three years of instruction. (See Table 6.) Black to Non-Black Growth Ratios In 1999-2000 black kindergarten student growth was 81 percent of nonblack student growth. In 2000-01 black kindergarten growth was 88 percent of non-black student growth. (See Tables I and 2.)   In 1999-2000 black grade 1 student growth exceeded that ofnon-blacks-- 106 percent. The growth ratio in 2000-01 for grade I students was 115 percent, so, again, black growth exceeded non-black growth in grade l . (See Tables 3 and 4.)  In 1999-2000 black grade 2 student growth greatly exceeded the growth of non-black students--163 percent. The growth ratio in 2000-01 continued at a high rate--157 percent. Black students made their greatest gains in closing the achievement gap on this measure in grade 2. (See Tables 5 and 6.) Kindergarten--Grade 1 Cohort {Fall I 999 and Spring 2001)  Black kindergarten students grew from 1.75 in fall 1999 to 17.33 in spring 2000 when they were in grade 1--a total of 15.58 points. (See Table 7.)  Non-black students in this cohort grew from 3.05 in fall 1999 to 18.53 in spring 2001--a total of 15.48 points. (See Table 7.) Grade 1--Grade 2 Cohort (Fall 1999 and Spring 2001)  Black grade l students grew from 5. 75 to 18.06 in spring of grade 2--a total of 12.31 points. (See Table 8.)  Non-black grade 1 students grew from 7 .89 to 18. 91 in spring of grade 2-a total of 11.02 points. (See Table 8.) Kindergarten--Grade 1 Cohort Growth Rate  Black kindergarten students' percent improvement from fall 1999 to spring 2001 in grade 1 was 890 percent. (See Table 7A.) 1-28-020166 50    Non-black kindergarten students' percent improvement from fall 1999 to spring 2001 in grade 1 was 508 percent. (See Table 7 A.) Black grade l students' percent improvement from fall 1999 to spring 2001 in grade 2 was 214 percent. (See Table SA.) Non-black grade l students' percent improvement from fall 1999 to spring 2001 in grade 2 was 140 percent. (See Table SA.) Black to Non-Black Ratios for Kindergarten to Grade 1 Cohort  In fall 1999 the black kindergarten scores were 57 percent of those ofnonblack students. By spring 2001 at the end of grade 1, the black scores were 94 percent of t    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_753","title":"Unitary status: ''Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status''","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":["2002-03-15"],"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","School management and organization","Educational law and legislation","School integration","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Unitary status: ''Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status''"],"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/753"],"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":["431 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\nUnited States District Court, Eastern Arkansas District of Arkansas, Western Division\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROC SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, ET AL RECEIVED MRS. LORE,NE JOSHUA, ET AL MAR 1 5 2002 DEFENDANTS KATHERDJT KNIGHT, ET AL OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MCl'ION FOR AN IMMEDIATE DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Motion for an Immediate Declaration g. Unitary Status states: 1. Che LRSD moves for an immediate declaration of unitary status and an end to court superx uion based on its substantial compliance with the Revised Plan in accordance with ' Revised Plan 11, which provides: At th'^ conclusion of the 2000-01 school year, the district court shall enter an order relf-a.\".ng LRSD from court supervision and finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations provided that LRSD has substantially complied witli Its obligations set forth in this Revised Plan. In anticipation of release, LRSC shall issue a report on March 15, 2001 indicating the state of LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. Any party challenging LRSD's compliance bears the burden of proof. If no party challenges LRSD's compliance, the above- descnbed order shall be entered without further proceedings. 2. The LRSD reported on March 15, 2001, that it had substantially complied with the Revises! Pisa. See Docket No. 3410. 3. The Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") challenged the LRSD's compliance with a limited number of Revised Plan sections. See Docket No. 3447. 4. In proceedings before the Honorable Susan Webber Wright, the Court heard five and one-halt days of testimony and received 201 exhibits on the Revised Plan sections covering academic achievement ( 2.7), program assessment ( 2.7.1) and.student discipline ( 2.5 -2.5.4). The LRSD should be granted unitary status with regard to these Revised Plan sections based on the record of those proceedings. Joshua failed to come forward with any evidence that the LRSD failed to comply with those sections or that would cast doubt on the LRSD's intent to comply with the Constitution in the future absent court supervision. 5. Additionally, the LRSD should be granted summary judgment as to all remaining Revised Plan sections with which Joshua challenged the LRSD's compliance. The discovery process revealed that Joshua has no evidence that would cast doubt on the LRSD's intent to comply with the Constitution in the future absent court supervision. As a result, there are no material factual disputes, and additional hearings are unnecessary. 6. Finally, the LRSD should be granted unitary status with regard to those Revised Plan sections to which no party filed a timely challenge to the LRSD's compliance. See Revised Plan  11. 7. The accompanying brief and the attached exhibits are hereby incorporated by reference. WHEREFORE, the LRSD prays that an Order be entered without further evidentiary hearings granting the LRSD unitary status and releasing the LRSD from court supervision and that it be awarded all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) BVi Christopher Heller 2 ACERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on March 15, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall (hand-delivered) Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 stopher Heller 3 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. LET AL RECEIVED DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL MAR 1 5 2002 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN IMMEDIATE DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Statement of Material Facts Not In Dispute Submitted in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status states: 1. 2. The LRSD substantially complied with its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. There is no reason to doubt the LRSD Board of Directors' intent to comply with the Constitution in the future absent court supervision. WHEREFORE, the LRSD prays that an Order be entered without further evidentiary hearings granting the LRSD unitary status and releasing the LRSD from court supervision and that it be awarded all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled.Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 37^,2\u0026amp;tt--~\\ BY:, istopher Heller 2CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on March 15, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall (hand-delivered) Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Hei 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 RECEIVED PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. LET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL MAR 1 5 2002 office OF desegregation monitoring DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN IMMEDIATE DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS Introduction. On April 10, 1998, this Court granted the joint motion of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") and the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") and approved the LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"). See Docket Nos. 3107, 3136 and 3144. The Revised Plan expired by its own terms on May 31,2001, the last day of classes for the 2000- 01 school year. See Revised Plan  9. The LRSD moves for an immediate declaration of unitary status and an end to court supervision based on its substantial compliance with the Revised Plan in accordance with Revised Plan  11. Section 11 of the Revised Plan provided: At the conclusion of the 2000-01 school year, the district court shall enter an order releasing LRSD from court supervision and finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations provided that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in this Revised Plan. In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a report on March 15, 2001 indicating the state of LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. Any party challenging LRSD's compliance bears the burden of proof. If no party challenges LRSD's compliance, the abovedescribed order shall be entered without further proceedings. The LRSD reported on March 15,2001, that it had substantially complied with the Revised Plan. See Docket No. 3410. Joshua challenged the LRSD's compliance with a limited number of Revised Plan sections. See Docket No. 3447. Joshua bears the burden of proving that the LRSD failed to substantially comply with those Revised Plan sections. See Revised Plan  11. Unitary status should be granted if the Court finds either that the LRSD complied with those Revised Plan sections challenged by Joshua or that the LRSD's noncompliance does not cast doubt on the District's intent to comply with the Constitution absent court supervision. See Cody v. Hillard. 139 F.3d 1197, 1199 (8* Cir. 1998). In proceedings before the Honorable Susan Webber Wright, the Court heard five and one- half days of testimony and received 201 exhibits on the Revised Plan sections covering academic achievement ( 2.7), program assessment ( 2.7.1) and student discipline ( 2.5 - 2.5.4). The LRSD should be granted unitary status with regard to these Revised Plan sections based on the record of those proceedings. Joshua failed to come forward with any evidence that the LRSD failed to comply with those sections or that would cast doubt on the LRSD's intent to comply with the Constitution absent court supervision. Additionally, the LRSD should be granted summary judgment as to all remaining Revised Plan sections with respect to which Joshua challenged the LRSD's compliance. The discovery process revealed that Joshua has no evidence that would cast doubt on the LRSD's intent to comply with the Constitution in the future absent court supervision. As a result, there are no material factual disputes, and additional hearings are unnecessary. Cody, 139 F.3d at 1200 (\"They do not cite any cases stating that a hearing is a necessary prerequisite to terminating supervision of a decree.... At any rate, the necessity of a hearing depends on whether there are disputed factual issues.\"). Finally, the LRSD should be granted unitary status with regard to those Revised Plan sections to which no party filed a timely challenge to the LRSD's compliance. See Revised Plan 11. 2t I : f' r-' n. Discussion. A. Background. 1. 1954 Through 1972. I (  r (' On May 20, 1954, three days after the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education. 347 U.S. 483 (1954), the LRSD released a public statement declaring its intent to comply with the Constitution and to integrate the LRSD. See Aaron v. Cooper, 156 F. Supp. 220,222-23 (E.D. Ark. 1957). The first LRSD desegregation plan was adopted in 1956 and was approved by the Eighth Circuit in 1957. See Cooper v. Aaron, 243 F.2d 361 (8th Cir. 1957). That plan called for gradual desegregation based on geographic attendance zones and was to be fully implemented by 1963. Id. Governor Orval Faubus' attempt to block implementation of this plan resulted in the infamous \"crisis\" at Central High School in 1957. However, as noted by the Supreme Court in Cooper v, Aaron, 358 U.S. 1,9 (1958), \"the Governor's action had not I been requested by the school authorities, and was entirely unheralded. (I 1 In 1966, the Eighth Circuit approved, with two minor modifications, a \"freedom of choice\" desegregation plan for the LRSD. See Clark v. Little Rock School District. 369 F.2d 661 (8th Cir. 1966). The Eighth Circuit noted the LRSD's good faith commitment to desegregation: Many of the problems encountered are not of the Board's making or choosing and, we believe, the Board has evidenced a genuine desire to follow the commands of the Brown case to ultimately place into effect a non-racially operated school system. Id., at 666. The freedom of choice plan was in effect through the 1968-69 school year. In 1968, the Supreme Court held that \"freedom of choice\" plans, standing alone, failed to satisfy the constitutional obligation of school districts formerly segregated by law. See Green County Sch. Bd. of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430,439-440 (1968). Accordingly, the LRSD developed a new desegregation plan based on geographic attendance zones for the V. 1969-70 school year. See Clark v. Little Rock School District. 426 F.2d 1035 (Sth Cir. 1970). Due to segregated housing patterns which existed in Little Rock at that time, however, a number 3of racially identifiable schools remained under this plan, and the Eighth Circuit found this plan to be \"constitutionally infirm.\" Cl^, 426 F.2d at 1044. The LRSD began massive crosstown busing of students to achieve racial balance in grades 6 through 12 in the 1971-72 school year. Clark v. Little Rock School District. 328 F. Supp. 1205, 1209 and 1214 (E.D. Ark. 1971). Racial balance was achieved in grades 4 and 5 by means of crosstown busing in the 1972-73 school year. See Clark v. Little Rock School District. 465 F.2d. 1044,1046 (8th Cir. 1972). By the 1973-74 school year, all LRSD schools and all LRSD grade levels were racially balanced. S^ Exhibit 1 attached. Memorandum and Order filed July 9,1982, p. 16. 1. 1973 Through 1982. The LRSD maintained almost perfect racial balance in its schools from 1973 through 1982 with voluntary periodic adjustment of attendance zones. The district court in Clark noted that the Little Rock School District has operated in compliance with court decrees for nine years as a completely unitary desegregated school system . . . .\" See Exhibit 1, p. 16. Despite nine years of successful desegregation, however, the LRSD was on its way to becoming a one race school district. In the fall of 1971, the LRSD was 42% black. In each year from 1971 through 1981, the number of black students increased while the number of white students decreased. Exhibit 2 attached, Austin Study, p. 17. In the fall of 1981, 76% of elementary students were black and 55% of high school students were black. See Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District. 584 F. Supp. 328, 335 (E.D. Ark. 1984)(\"LRSD v. PCSSD\"). If existing trends continued, it was expected that 90% of the students entering the first grade in the LRSD in the fall of 1989 would be black. See Exhibit 2, p. 19\nalso LRSD v. PCSSD. 584 F. Supp. 328, 351 (E.D. Ark. 1984)(\"The Little Rock School District in spite of its good faith efforts to comply with orders of this court and to establish a unitary school system will become a segregated all-black district in a few years if present trends continue, which appears highly likely.\"). 4 I i r\n( -  1 In early 1981, the LRSD commissioned a study of desegregation in the LRSD by the Desegregation Assistance Team from Stephen F. Austin University (the \"Austin Study\"). The Austin Study concluded that the demographic trends which accounted for the decrease in white enrollment in the LRSD were \"long-term\" and \"deeply rooted,\" and as a result, [t]hey are not likely to be fundamentally altered by any change in the desegregation plan within the city.... The changes are rooted in migration patterns, housing segregation practices, changing birth rates, factors that determine the location of new private market housing, and decisions on the location of new subsidized housing.\" Exhibit 2, p. 28. The \"fundamental\" problem, according to the study, \"has been the school board's inability to expand its boundaries in pace with a very rapidly expanding urban area.\" Exhibit 2, p. 28. Thus, the Austin Study concluded that the LRSD had done all it could do within its borders to desegregate its schools and that, if the LRSD's accomplishments were not to be undone by the \"vast forces of demographic change,\" the LRSD would have to seek an interdistrict remedy. See Exhibit 2, p. 28. As an initial step to stem the tide of white flight, the LRSD adopted the Partial K-6 Plan on April 26, 1982. Under this plan, the LRSD created twelve K-6 neighborhood schools and retained fourteen paired schools with grades K-3 at one site and grades 4-6 at another. Eight of the 12 neighborhood schools were racially balanced and four were virtually all black. The plan converted Booker from a junior high school to an intermediate school. Finally, the Partial K-6 Plan provided for the creation of a magnet school west of University Avenue and required that committee be appointed to ensure that the four virtually all black schools would be treated a equally. Sgg Clark v. Little Rock School District. 705 F.2d 265 (Sth Cir. 1983). The Partial K-6 Plan was approved by the Eighth Circuit in 1983. Clark. 705 F.2d at 272. 3. Interdistrict Relief. In late 1982, the LRSD filed the present case against the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\"), the North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") and the State of Arkansas seeking consolidation of the three school districts into one metropolitan school district and state 5funding to assist in eliminating any remaining vestiges of segregation in the three school districts. On April 13,1984, the Honorable Henry Woods foimd the PCSSD, the NLRSD and the State of Arkansas liable for interdistrict constitutional violations. LRSD v. PCSSD. 584 F. Supp. at 328. Judge Woods ordered consolidation of the three districts in a memorandum opinion dated November 19,1984. LRSD v. PCSSD. 597 F. Supp. 1220 (E.D. Ark. 1984). The Eighth Circuit reversed Judge Woods' consolidation order a year later, finding consolidation too drastic a remedy. LRSD v. PCSSD. 778 F.2d 404 (8th Cir. 1985). In reversing, the Eighth Circuit ordered as part of a comprehensive interdistrict remedy that each district II. 'revise its attendance zones so that each school will reasonably reflect the racial composition of its district\" and permitted a variance of plus or minus 25% of the minority race. Id., 778 F.2d at 435. See LRSD v. PCSSD. 839 F.2d 1296, 1305 (8th Cir. 1988). The Eighth Circuit also ordered the adjustment of district boundaries, making the LRSD coterminous with the City of Little Rock. LRSD V. PCSSD, 778 F.2d at 435. Recognizing the need for the LRSD to grow with the City of Little Rock, Judge Woods interpreted the Eighth Circuit's order to require the automatic expansion of the LRSD upon expansion of the City of Little Rock. Unfortunately, the Eighth Circuit disagreed with Judge Woods' interpretation and effectively eliminated further boundary changes as a means to desegregating the LRSD. See LRSD v. PCSSD. 805 F.2d 815, 816 (8^ Cir. 1986). The LRSD's \"controlled choice\" desegregation plan was approved by Judge Woods on February 27, 1987. Docket No. 739. Under this plan, the LRSD was divided into two attendance zones of approximately equal racial balance. Students were assigned to schools so that each grade at each school reflected the racial balance within that attendance zone. After a student was assigned to a particular school, the student's parents could request reassignment to another school within their attendance zone. That request would be granted so long as each school would remain within a range of plus or minus one-eighth of the black student population at the school. Additionally, the plan provided for eight magnet schools (four elementary, two 6junior high and two high schools) with seats reserved for students of each of the three Pulaski County school districts. The target racial composition of the magnet schools was 50%-50%. A Magnet Review Committee was established with representatives of each of the three districts. Joshua and the Knight Intervenors were each granted a non-voting member on the committee This plan was implemented beginning with the 1987-88 school year. Docket No. 670. The controlled choice plan resulted in many central and east Little Rock schools having fewer than fifty white students. The LRSD submitted a new desegregation plan for the 1988-89 year which was approved by Judge Woods. The 1988-89 school year was to be a \"stabilizing year\" to allow the LRSD to carefully plan for the 1989-90 school year and beyond. S^ LRSD v. PCSSD, 716 F. Supp. 1162, 1188 (E.D. Ark. 1989). Negotiations related to the development of a long-term desegregation plan for the LRSD culminated in a settlement agreement in March of 1989 (the \"Settlement Agreement\").' The Settlement Agreement also included desegregation plans for the PCSSD and the NLRSD, as well as an interdistrict desegregation plan. 4. 1989 Settlement Agreement. The LRSD's 1989 desegregation plan reflected the fact that the LRSD was, and had been for some time, imitary with regard to student assignments, faculty and staff. See Exhibit 1, p. 18. While these areas had been the focus of past desegregation plans, the 227-page 1989 plan contained only a six-page section on student assignments and no separate section specifically dedicated to the hiring and assignment of faculty and staff. The 1989 desegregation plan focused instead on secondary desegregation issues, such as improving Afiican-American academic achievement. The Settlement Agreement was initially rejected by Judge Woods who ordered implementation of a more comprehensive plan known as the Tri-District Plan. The parties appealed, and the Settlement Agreement as originally written was approved by the Eighth Circuit A revised Settlement Agreement was agreed to by the parties on September 28, 1989. None of the revisions are relevant to this motion. \"Settlement Agreement\" as used hereinafter shall refer to the agreement as revised September 28,1989. 7in December of 1990. LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1374 (8th Cir. 1990). In approving the Settlement Agreement, the Eighth Circuit recognized that, \"It may be necessary, in order to make a smooth transition, for the details of the settlement plans to be adjusted to produce an appropriate fit between their future application and existing circumstances.\" Id., at 1394. Judge Woods recused following the Eighth Circuit's December 1990 decision, and the case was reassigned to the Honorable Susan Webber Wright. S^ LRSD v. PCSSD. 740 F.Supp. 632 (E.D. Ark. 1990). The parties agreed to modifications to the desegregation plans and submitted them to Judge Wright for approval. On June 21, 1991, Judge Wright rejected the modifications, finding that they exceeded the authority granted by the Eighth Circuit. LRSD v. PCSSD. 769 F. Supp. 1483 (E.D. Ark. 1991). The parties appealed, and on November 14, 1991, the Eighth Circuit vacated Judge Wright's opinion and remanded for consideration of the proposed modifications based on the analysis set forth in its opinion. Appeal of LRSD. 949 F.2d 253 (Sth Cir. 1991). On May 1,1992, Judge Wright issued an order approving in part and rejecting in part the revised desegregation plans. No appeal was taken. 5. Implementation of the 1989 Plan. The Settlement Agreement required the LRSD to implement its 1989 desegregation plan for six years.^ The parties agreed, in effect, that implementation of the plan would eliminate to the extent practicable any remaining vestiges of discrimination resulting from the interdistrict constitutional violations by the defendants. See Settlement Agreement, p 1. Because the Tri-District Plan was substantially similar to, but more comprehensive than, the LRSD's 1989 desegregation plan, the LRSD considered implementation of the Tri-District Plan during the The six-year term of the plan was one of the primary reasons that the Settlement Agreement was rejected by Judge Woods. S^ LRSD v. PCSSD, 716 F. Supp. at 1167 (\"LRSD admits that the double funding is guaranteed for only six years, but contends that it 'retains its comrnitment to provide compensatory and enhancement funding to any school which might remain racially identifiable.' That commitment does not appear in the plan.\"). The LRSD argued to Judge Woods that its six-year plan could be successful: \"We think a six-year plan can succeed where a one-year plan has failed. There are several components in place to help us assure the Court that a six-year plan can succeed.\" Tr. May 30, 1989, p. 13. 8f f i t 1990-91 school year as the first year of implementation of its six-year desegregation plan. During the 1995-96 school year, the LRSD conducted an audit of its desegregation obligations and found that it had substantially and in good faith complied with 96% of its desegregation obligations. See Exhibit 3 attached, p. 1. Accordingly, on May 17, 1996, the LRSD moved for a declaration of unitary status and an end to federal court supervision. See Docket Nos. 2665 and 2666. ( Without a hearing. Judge Wright denied the LRSD's Motion to End Federal Court Supervision, finding \"nothing in the settlement plans which would release the LRSD from the Court's jurisdiction after six years of implementation of the plans.\" See Docket No. 2821, p. 10. Although Judge Wright recognized that the LRSD compared favorably to other urban school districts already declared unitary. Judge Wright focused on the ambitious \"goals\" of the 1989 plan. See Docket No. 2821, p. 12. Judge Wright stated, \"Reports of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and other evidence received in hearings in this matter reflect that the LRSD has fallen short of its goals with respect to many aspects of the plan.\" Id. In conclusion. Judge Wright invited the parties to modify those parts of the LRSD desegregation plan which had proved \"ineffective and unworkable.\" Id. 6. The Revised Plan. t f Rather than appeal Judge Wright's denial of unitary status, the LRSD decided to work with Joshua to reach an agreement for ending more than 40 years of federal court control of the LRSD. On January 21,1998, the LRSD and Joshua filed a joint motion seeking approval of the LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. See Docket No. 3107. The Revised Plan addressed numerous deficiencies in the 1989 desegregation plan. First, to prevent the plan's express or implied goals from being construed as obligations, the Revised Plan included a footnote which stated: The identification of specific goals in this Revised Plan is not intended to create an obligation that LRSD shall have fully met the goal by the end of the plan's term. LRSD's failure to obtain any of the goals of this Revised Plan will not be considered a failure to comply with the plan if LRSD followed the strategies 9r- f r described in the plan and the policies, practices and procedures developed in accordance with the plan. Revised Plan, p. 14 n.2. Second, the 277-page 1989 plan included too much detail and provided too little flexibility. The Revised Plan simply obligated the LRSD to implement \"programs, policies and/or procedures\" in 13 different areas. See Revised Plan  2. With some exceptions, the LRSD had discretion to determine the \"programs, policies and/or procedures\" to be implemented. The Revised Plan included a process by which Joshua or any other party could raise compliance issues, including a failure by the LRSD to adopt or implement the required programs, policies and/or procedures. See Revised Plan  8.2 and 8.3. The LRSD also agreed in advance to pay Joshua to monitor the LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan, and Joshua billed the LRSD for monitoring the LRSD s Compliance. See Exhibits 7 and 8 attached. Even so, Joshua raised no objection to the programs, policies or procedures implemented by the LRSD during the term of the Revised Plan. Finally, the Revised Plan included a definite term and a process for terminating federal court supervision at the conclusion of that term. The term of the Revised Plan was \"three (3) years beginning the 1998-99 school year and ending the last day of classes of the 2000-01 school year. See Revised Plan,  9, The last day of classes for the 2000-01 school year was May 31, 2001. Section 11 of the Revised Plan provided\nAt the conclusion of the 2000-01 school year, the district court shall enter an order releasing LRSD from court supervision and finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations provided that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in tliis Revised Plan. In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a report on March 15, 2001 indicating the state of LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. Any party challenging LRSDs compliance bears the burden of proof. If no party challenges LRSD's compliance, the abovedescribed order shall be entered without fiirther proceedings. See Revised Plan, 11. 7. Status of Current Proceedings. 10r  f ( f  The LRSD provided the Court and the parties with an Interim Comphance Report on March 15, 2000 (\"Interim Report\") \"to help the District assess its progress toward full compliance and to reassure the court, the parties, and the community of the District's good faith efforts to be in total compliance with the Revised Plan.\" See Docket No. 3344, Interim Report, p. 1. The Interim Report expressly requested that the parties and other interested persons submit comments on the content or format of the report. Id. No party commented on the Interim Report or otherwise challenged the District's \"progress toward full compliance.\" See Docket No. 3410, Final Report, p. iv. One year later, on March 15,2001, the LRSD reported that it had substantially complied with all provisions of the Revised Plan (\"Final Report\"). See Docket No. 3410. ( I On Jime 25,2001, and after being granted two extensions of time, Joshua filed a pleading challenging the LRSD's compliance with some, but not all, sections of the Revised Plan. Joshua's challenge included little more than general allegations of noncompliance. Hearings were held on July 5-6, August 1-2 and November 19-20, 2001, on the issues of academic achievement ( 2.7), program assessment ( 2.7.1) and discipline ( 2.5 - 2.5.4). B. Substantial Compliance. I I The Revised Plan does not define \"substantial compliance.\" In Cody v. Hillard, supra. the Eighth Circuit discussed the meaning of the term \"substantial\" as it related to compliance with and temunation of a consent decree. The consent decree in that case arose out of prison reform litigation in the State of South Dakota. Prison officials moved to terminate the consent decree after operating under the decree for nearly 11 years. The plaintiffs opposed the motion t Judge Wright stated at the conclusion of the November 20,2001, hearing that Joshua could have 25 minutes to present true rebuttal evidence, even though Joshua had used all of their allotted time. Tr. Nov. 20, 2001, 399 and 575. Judge Wright defined rebuttal evidence as evidence necessary to respond to evidence presented by the other side which could not have been anticipated. Tr. Nov. 20, 2001, 399. The LRSD submits that it presented no evidence which could not have been anticipated by Joshua, rendering Joshua's request for rebuttal time moot. The Court could resolve this matter by requiring Joshua to proffer their purported rebuttal evidence as a part of their response to this Motion. 11 and requested a hearing. The district court refused to order a hearing, but ordered the plaintiffs to submit evidence supporting their allegations of noncompliance. Id. at 1198. The plaintiffs filed a report from their expert, Robert Powitz, which stated that he inspected the prison and found It a number of conditions that pose serious health or safety risks,\" but he failed to specify how those conditions violated the consent decree. The plaintiffs then filed a supplemental brief linking those conditions to provisions of the consent decree. Without a hearing, the district court entered a two-paragraph order terminating the consent decree but making no findings of fact with regard to the conditions identified by Powitz. Id. at 1199. The plaintiffs appealed, and the Eighth Circuit remanded the case for factual findings stating: We cannot determine the basis for the district court's decision from this brief order. The record indicates that there have been failures in the past to comply with the decree and supplemental orders, and that there are at least some violations of the decree. The district judge's order does not give us enough information to determine whether he ignored the evidence of past and present violations or whether he considered any violations inconsequential in the context of substantial compliance. If the conditions Powitz complained of constitute violations of the consent decree, the district court must exercise its discretion in determining whether those violations were serious enough to constitute substantial noncompliance and to cast doubt on defendants future compliance with the Constitution. See McDonald Iv. Carnahan], 109 F.3d [1319,] 1322-23 [(8 Cir. 1997)]. Moreover, the ultimate question of whether the defendants are likely to comply with the Constitution in the absence of court supervision is a question of fact, see [Board of Educ. v.] Dowell. 498 U.S. [237,] 247, 111 S.Ct. [630,] 636-37 [(1991)], for which the district court made no finding. Id. at 1199-1200 (emphasis supplied). Therefore, a party to a consent decree substantially complies with the decree so long as the party's noncompliance does not \"cast doubt on [the party's] future compliance with the Constitution.\" Id. See Manning v. The School Bd. of Hillsborough County. 244 F.3d 927,946 (11* Cir. 2001 )(\"[I]n determining whether a school board has acted in good faith, a court should not dwell on isolated discrepancies, but rather should 'consider whether the school board's policies form a consistent pattern of lawful conduct directed at eliminating earlier violations,\"' quoting Lockett v. Bd. of Educ. of Muscogee County. 111 F.3d 839, 843 (11* Cir. 1997)). 12Both the past and recent conduct of the LRSD Board of Directors confirms the District's commitment to complying with the Constitution. Three days after the Supreme Court's 1954 decision in Brown, the LRSD released a public statement declaring its intent to comply with the Constitution and integrate the LRSD. In 1982, the district court in Clark stated that \"the Little Rock School District has operated in compliance with court decrees for nine years as a completely unitary desegregated school system . . . .\" See Exhibit 1. p. 16. Having done all that it could do on its own, the LRSD filed the present case that same year, seeking and obtaining interdistrict relief. During the term of the Revised Plan, the LRSD Board of Directors (\"Board\") conducted a comprehensive review of all District policies. See CX 719. Fifteen of the 21 policies making up the District's \"Foundation and Basic Commitments\" express the District's commitment to fighting discrimination of all types. See CX 719, Section A. Among those were regulations setting forth the District's commitment to comply with the Revised Plan and to establish procediues for employees and patrons to raise compliance issues. See CX 719, Policy ACG-Rl, R2 and R3. The Board institutionalized numerous provisions of the Revised Plan by making them official Board policy. See CX 719.\"* Finally, in anticipation of being released from court supervision, the Board adopted the \"Covenant for the Future\" (\"Covenant\") on January 11, 2001. In the Covenant, the Board promised to continue to exercise its best efforts to: (1) improve the academic achievement of all students, (2) comply with the Constitution and ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis or race, color or ethnicity in the operation of the District, and (3) provide equitable educational resources, programs and opportunity in a nondiscriminatory environment for all students attending LRSD schools. See Final Report, p. 1, CX 739, and CX 719, Policy AB. 4' 'The following Board policies and regulations come directly from the Revised Plan: ACBB, ACBE, ACG, ACG-Rl, ACG-R2, ACG-R3, GCE, GCE-R, IHBH, JB, JBA, JBA-R, JC, JCA, JI, JJ, JJ-R, JJIA, JJIB, JJIB-Rl, JJIB-R2, JLD, JMA, JMA-R, JRAA, and JRAA-R. See CX719. 13To be sure, the LRSD is not a perfect school system, but the Constitution does not require perfection. See Belk v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ.. 269 F.3d 305,335 (4* Cir. 2001) (Traxler, J.)(\"This is not to say that CMS is a perfect school system - it is not.\"). The ultimate question is whether the Board can be trusted to comply with the Constitution absent court supervision. In the five and one-half days of hearings held to date, Joshua presented no evidence indicating that it could not. c. Revised Plan Sections Already Litigated. 1. Revised Plan $ 2.7: Academic Achievement. 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. The LRSD identified and described the programs, policies and procedures implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2.7 in the Interim Report (pp. 41-69 and 93-127) and the Final Report (pp. 51-148). Although Joshua monitored the LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan and received fees for doing so, Joshua did not raise any objection during the term of the Revised Plan to the programs, policies and procedures pertaining to academic achievement which were outlined in the Interim Report and the Final Report. Tr. Nov. 19,2001, pp. 370-71. Joshua's belated challenge to the LRSD's compliance with  2.7 is based on the long-standing achievement gap between Afiican-American and non-African-American students on standardized tests (hereinafter \"achievement gap\"). See Docket No. 3447, pp. 28-30. Joshua's challenge fails because the Revised Plan contained no requirement that the LRSD eliminate or reduce the achievement gap. The Revised Plan simply required the LRSD to implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed io improve Afiican-American achievement. See Revised Plan,  2.7. To that end, the LRSD began in the Spring of 1998 what has been perhaps the most comprehensive curriculum reform in the history of the District. As a part of the reform effort, the District adopted research-based teaching strategies that have been proven to be effective in improving 14African-American achievement. Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 195-210. The District provided its teachers with comprehensive, in-depth professional development. See Final Report, pp. 32-33 (Gifted and Talented), 60-61 (K-12 Social Studies), 67-68 (middle schools), 73 (PreK), 81-90 (early childhood and primary grade literacy), 96-102 (intermediate grade literacy), 109-111 (secondary literacy), 117-123 (math and science) and 138-143 (technology). New instructional materials, including technological applications, were adopted in all curriculum areas. S^ Interim Report, pp. 41-51 (generally), 96-101 (primary language arts), 105-107 (intermediate grades language arts), 109-161 (secondary language arts)\n117-118 (K-12 mathematics)\nand Final Report pp. 51- 54, 57-59 and 62-65 (generally), 72-73 (early childhood), 75-79 (primary language arts), 93-95 (intermediate language arts), 105-109 (secondary language arts) and 115- 117 and 126-131 (math and science). See also CXs 696, 697, 699 and 714. The District rewrote and began implementation of an instructional technology plan (see Interim Report, pp. 122-126 and Final Report, pp. 136-38 and CX 705, tabs 19 and 20)\nrestructured its parent involvement program (see Interim Report, pp. 69-77 and Final Report pp. 149-157)\nrevised the Districts policies and procedures related to teaching and learning (see Interim Report, pp. 17-20 and 93 and Final Report, pp. 51-55). Among the policy changes have been enhanced graduation standards, the design of a recommended curriculum and higher standards for the honors diploma (see Interim Report, pp. 17-20 and Final Report, p. 30), and an emphasis on the improved access to and success in advanced courses by Afiican-American students. See Interim Report, pp. 17-41 and Final Report, pp. 30-50. It is too early to make a final judgment about the success of the LRSD's efforts to improve African-American achievement given the implementation status of the District's reform efforts. Dr. Steven Ross, one of two desegregation experts retained by the LRSD with approval from Joshua, wrote in a September 8,2000, memo: There is substantial rationale, both logical and empirical, for giving programs time to impact student achievement. The first stage of impact is program implementation, the next is changing instruction and/or conditions for learning, and after these effects occur, achievement may be impacted. In our Memphis 15r i f study, it took at least two years for school reform programs to show positive results. In fact, after the first year, achievement went down! This same pattern was replicated with three different cohorts of schools. f ex 702, tab 15. While the LRSD remains in the process of changing conditions for learning, early indications are that the LRSD's reform efforts are working. These include: Improvements in reading achievement at the K-2 level, especially in schools implementing the District literacy model, including Reading Recovery, s^ Interim Report, pp. 90-93, CX 703, tabs 1-27, and Exhibit 4 attached. Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001', r Advances in closing the achievement gap in all areas of early literacy in grades K- 2, see Exhibit 4, pp. 81-100\nI Improvements in the percent scoring at the proficient/advanced level on both the grade 4 literacy and mathematics state benchmark examinations, see Final Report, pp. 102-104 (language arts), 131-32 (math), CX 704, tabs 7, 12, 13, 15,18, and 19 and CX740\nDecreased numbers and percentages of students performing in the below basic level of both the grade 4 literacy and mathematics state benchmark examinations, see Final Report, pp. 102-104 and 131-132 and CX 740\nImprovements in the percent scoring at the proficient/advanced level on both the grade 8 literacy and mathematics state benchmark examinations, s^ CX 740\ni . Decreased numbers and percentages of students performing in the below basic level of both the grade 8 literacy and mathematics state benchmark examinations, see CX 740\nt Tremendous increases in the enrollment of students, including African-American students, in upper-level science and mathematics courses, see Final Report, pp. 126-129 and Exhibit 5 attached, 2000-2001 CPMSA Annual Report-, More than 100 percent increase of Afiican-American students enrolled in Advanced Placement courses at the high school level, see Final Report, pp. 37-39, Exhibit 5 and CX 705, tab 15. Significant increases in the enrollment of Afiican-American students enrolled in Pre-Advanced Placement courses in English, mathematics, science, and social studies at the middle and high school levels, see Final Report, pp. 39-43, Exhibit 5 and CX 705, tab 15\n( Significantly more Afiican-American students taking the ACT for college admission, see Final Report, pp. 47-49\nSignificantly more Afiican-American students taking the Advanced Placement examinations, Final Report, pp. 43-44 and CX 705, tab 15\nand 16Increases in the number of volunteer hours recorded by Volunteers in Public Schools, see Final Report, p. 157. While the LRSD believes these indicators portend improving Afiican-American achievement, factors beyond the LRSD's control make it unlikely that the achievement gap will be eliminated in the near future. In 1996, Judge Wright called Dr. David Armor and Dr. Herbert Walberg as court-appointed experts. Both testified that, given the current socioeconomic differences between Afiican-Americans and whites, it is impossible to eliminate the achievement gap. Dr. Armor testified: Q Doctor Armor, if I understood correctly yesterday, did you testify that, to your knowledge, there's no desegregation plan that has ever overcome the achievement gap between black and white students, that you're aware of? A That I'm aware of, yes. Q And I think you also testified that making the achievement gap zero is virtually impossible? A Well, impossible as long as there are socioeconomic differences between black and white families that exist today in this country. Tr. May 15,1996, p. 152-53. Dr. Walberg explained: Well, as an educational psychologist, I would like to have all students learn as much as they possibly can. But given the fact that students spend only about ten percent of their time in school, to say that a school district can remove the achievement gap between blacks and whites, I think, is too much. I think it's making a promise that can't be kept. If 90 percent of the students' time is outside of the school, where there are many other factors that affect the students' learning and capacity to learn, I think that it's an impossible promise to keep. Tr. May 13,1996, p. 33. Joshua may argue that the Eighth Circuit's decision in Appeal of Little Rock School District, 949 F.2d 253, 256 (8^ Cir. 1991), requires the LRSD to eliminate the achievement gap The LRSD introduced evidence fiom the Arkansas Department of Health and U.S. Census documenting the socioeconomic differences between Afiican-Americans and whites in the City of Little Rock, State of Arkansas and throughout the country. See CX 716 and 717. 17 before it may be released from court supervision. In that decision, the Eighth Circuit reviewed Judge Wright's decision prohibiting the parties from making modifications to their desegregation plans approved by the Eighth Circuit in Little Rock School District v, Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371 (8* Cir. 1990). The Eighth Circuit identified seven \"crucial\" elements of the 1989 plans \"with respect to which no retreat should be approved.\" Appeal of LRSD, 949 F.2d at 256. One of those crucial elements was the agreed \"effort\" to eliminate the achievement gap. Id. (emphasis supplied). Even so, nothing in the Eighth Circuit's opinion suggested that the \"effort\" to eliminate the achievement gap must be successful in order for the LRSD to be released from court supervision. Moreover, no court has held that elimination of the achievement gap is a necessary prerequisite to being released from court supervision. To the contrary, the Supreme Court has cautioned against reliance on African-American achievement as a basis for continued judicial supervision. Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70, 101-02,115 S.Ct. 2038, 2055-56 (1995). As the Supreme Court explained: Just as demographic changes independent of de jure segregation will affect the racial composition of student assignments. Freeman fv. Pittsl. 503 U.S. [467], at 494-95, 112 S.Ct. [1430], 1447-48 [(1992)], so too will numerous external factors beyond the control of the KCMSD and the State affect minority student achievement. So long as these external factors are not the result of segregation, they do not figure in the remedial calculus. See [Pasadena City Bd. of Educ. v.1 Spangler, 427 U.S. [424], at 434, 96 S.Ct. [2697], at 2703-2704 [(1976)]\nSwann [v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ.1.402 U.S. [1], at 22, 91 S.Ct. [1267], at 1279 [(1971)]. Insistence upon academic goals unrelated to the effects of legal segregation unwarrantably postpones the day when the KCMSD will be able to operate on its own. Id. Accordingly, the achievement gap has not prevented other school districts around the country from being declared unitary. See, e.g.. Coalition to Save Our Children v. State Bd. of Educ.. 901 F.Supp 784, 819 (D. Del. 1995) (\"Because the environment outside school is so strong, cumulative, and varied, schools cannot overcome such environmental differences among children.\"), affd 90 F.3d 752 (3\" Cir. 1996)\nKeves v. School District No. 1. 902 F. Supp. 1274, 1300 (D. Colo. 1995)(\"There are too many variables, including societal and socio-economic 18 factors, to infer causation from prior unconstitutional conduct.\")\nTasbv v. Woolerv. 869 F. Supp. 454, Aril (N.D. Tex. 1994) (\"The Court is unable to find that the achievement gap in DISD is a vestige of the prior segregated school system.\"). Finally, Joshua bore the burden of establishing the LRSD's noncompliance with the Revised Plan. See Revised Plan, 11. To meet that burden, Joshua would have been required to come forward with evidence that the achievement gap resulted from the LRSD's noncompliance. rather than other factors. See People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., 246 F.3d 1073, 1076- 77 (7* Cir. 2001). As the Com! of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has recognized: The reality is that imtil minority students achieve parity of educational achievement with the white students in the Rockford public schools, the plaintiffs will contend that the minority students are victims of the unlawful discrimination of an earlier period in Rockford's history. Yet it is obvious that other factors besides discrimination contribute to unequal educational attainment, such as poverty, parents' education and employment, family size, parental attitudes and behavior, prenatal, neonatal, and child health care, peer-group pressures, and ethnic culture. Some of these factors may themselves be due to or exacerbated by discrimination, but not to discrimination by the Rockford school board. The board has no legal duty to remove those vestiges of societal discrimination for which it is not responsible. Insofar as the factors that we have mentioned, rather than unlawful conduct by the Rockford school board in years past, are responsible for lags in educational achievement by minority students, the board has no duty that a federal court can enforce to help those students catch up. It may have a moral duty\nit has no federal constitutional duty. Id. Joshua made no effort to prove that the LRSD's alleged noncompliance caused or contributed to the current achievement gap. Therefore, Joshua failed to meet their burden to prove the LRSD's noncompliance with Revised Plan  2.7. The LRSD agreed to implement programs, policies and procedures designed to improve African-American achievement, and it has done so. Early indicators suggest that the programs, policies and procedures being implemented are improving African-American achievement. While it is unlikely that these efforts will completely eliminate the achievement gap anytime soon, neither the Revised Plan nor the Constitution requires elimination of the achievement gap as a prerequisite to ending court supervision. The LRSD should be declared unitary and released from court supervision in the area of student achievement. See Freeman v, 19Pitts, 503 U.S. 467,489, 112 S.Ct. 1430 (1992)(\"Partial relinquishment of judicial control, where justified by the facts of the case, can be an important step in fulfilling the district court's duty to return the operations and control of schools to local authorities.\"). 2. Revised Plan  2.7.1: Program Assessment. 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. Joshua alleges that the LRSD had done \"no assessment of the academic programs for each of the three years following the court's approval of the modified desegregation plan.\" See Docket No. 3447, p. 27. At the hearing, Joshua focused on the program evaluations prepared by the District's Department of Planning, Research and Evaluation (\"PRE\"), and in particular, the program evaluations identified on the bottom of page 148 of the Final Report. On the bottom of page 148, the Final Report states: In addition to the three programs on the Board-i evaluated the following programs\nadopted research agenda, PRE Extended Year Schools Summer School HIPPY Program Charter School Campus Leadership Teams English as a Second Language Lyceum Scholars Pro^am at Philander Smith College Southwest Middle School's SEDL Program Onward to Excellence (Watson Elementary) Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Vital Link While the term of the plan was three years beginning with the 1998-99 school year, the first semester of the 1998-99 school year was a transition period in preparation for implementation of the Revised Plan. See Revised Plan,  9 and 10. 20Joshua's focus on the evaluations listed on the bottom of page 148 resulted, at least in part, from comments made by Judge Wright. Judge Wright had expressed concern that \"the District has not accomplished what it set out with respect to monitoring programs that were geared toward raising the achievement level of African-American students.\" Tr. July 9,2001, p. 31. The LRSD later learned that this concern likely had sprung from the Court's ex parte commumcations with Ann Marshall of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Marshall informed Judge Wright that the District had not performed certain program evaluations listed on page 148 of the Final Report after the District failed to provide the reports to her office. See Exhibit 6 attached, Marshall, pp. 59-60. In fact, PRE had either provided data for an evaluation or had evaluated each program identified on bottom of page 148 of the Final Report. See CX 720-730. The failure of PRE to provide the evaluations to ODM resulted from the departure from the District of the Assistant Superintendent for PRE, Dr. Kathy Lease, in June of 2001. See Tr. Nov. 20,2001, p. 369. As a result of Dr. Lease's departure, the task fell on Dr. Lesley to locate the evaluations. Dr. Lesley candidly admitted that her initial search failed to reveal all of the evaluations, but eventually they were all located. See Tr. Nov. 20,2001, pp. 356-369\nsee also CX 616. The evaluations were introduced as Court's Exhibits 720-730. Joshua's focus on the evaluations listed on the bottom of page 148 reflects an effort to distort the meaning of Revised Plan  2.7.1 to suit their case. Revised Plan  2.7.1 required the administration of an assessment each year, not formal program evaluations. The LRSD continuously used available assessment data \"to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement.\" See Revised Plan,  2.7.1, See Tr. Nov. 19,2001, p. 246. Dr. Lesley provided several examples of how the District used assessment data to make program decisions\nidentifying implementation problems with the Success for All program (Tr. Nov. 19,2001, pp. 247-264), refusing to extend for another year a curriculum waiver to Mann Magnet Middle School (Tr. Nov. 19,2001, pp. 264-267)\nmodifying the pre-kindergarten curriculum (Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 269-271)\ndeveloping pacing guides for 21 i middle school math teachers (Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 271-273)\nand revising the class schedule for ninth grade English students (Tr. Nov. 19,2001, pp. 273-75). While no formal program evaluations were required, the LRSD evaluated some programs as a part of its efforts to comply with Revised Plan  2.7.1. Those programs were part of the Board-adopted research agenda also discussed on page 148 of the Final Report. See also Interim Report, p. 53. Additional evaluations performed by PRE were included on the bottom of page 148 so the Final Report would not be misleading. The District did not want to leave the impression that PRE had done nothing more than the three evaluations from the Board-adopted research agenda. See Tr. Nov. 20,2001, pp. 354-56. The evaluations on the bottom of page 148 would be relevant only if Revised Plan  2.7.1 required a formal program evaluation every year of every program affecting African-American achievement. To impose such a requirement would blur the distinction between an \"assessment' and an \"evaluation.\" While these words might be interchangeable in some contexts, they have separate and distinct meanings in the field of education. See Tr. Nov. 19,2001, p. 242-43. S^ .11 AMI Civil 4 3014 (Supp. 2001) (\"You should interpret words or phrases associated with particular trade or occupation as experienced and knowledgeable members of that trade or a occupation use them, unless evidence discloses that the parties used them in a different sense.\"). An assessment is a norm-referenced or criterion-referenced test administered to students. Norm- referenced assessments compare a student's achievement to that of a sample of students known the norming group. Criterion-referenced assessments seek to determine the level of student achievement of specific academic standards. See Exhibit 9 attached, Arkansas Comprehensive as Testing, Assessment \u0026amp; Accountability Program, p. 4 and Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 242-43. Assessments may be one component of a formal program evaluation. See CX 586. Formal program evaluations are typically long-term, time consuming and very expensive. See Tr. Nov. 20,2001, p. 339. Dr. Lesley testified that she was not aware of any school district that formally 22 evaluates all of its programs and that, in her opinion, it would be impossible to do so given the District's limited resources. See Tr. Nov. 20,2001, pp. 339-40. From the very beginning, Joshua and ODM knew that the LRSD did not intend to prepare a formal program evaluation every year for every program in the District affecting African- American achievement, yet Joshua raised no objection during the term of the Revised Plan. S^ Tr. Nov. 20,2001, pp. 370-71. See AMI Civil 4\"' 3015 (Supp. 2001) (\"You should give weight to the meaning placed on the language by the parties themselves, as shown by their statements, acts, or conduct after the contract was made.\"). ODM issued a monitoring report on August 11, 1999, on the LRSD's \"Preparations for Implementation of its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan.\" With regard to program assessment, ODM reported, \"According to the Assistant Superintendent [Dr. Lease], the PRE staff will select programs to be evaluated each year rather than attempting to evaluate the district's entire instructional program at any one time.\" See Docket No. 3289, ODM Report, August 11,1999, p. 42. ODM offered no recommendations in the area of program assessment and did not suggest that the Revised Plan required that every program affecting African-American achievement be evaluated every year. See Docket No. 3289, ODM Report, August 11, 1999, p. 43. On August 26, 1999, the Board voted to formally evaluate three programs being implemented pursuant to the Revised Plan: the pre-kindergarten through grade 3 (\"preK-3\") literacy program, the transition to middle schools and the math and science project funded by the National Science Foundation. See Tr. Nov. 20,2001, pp. 319-321 and CXs 718 and 739. These three formal program evaluations became known as the Board-adopted research agenda. At the same Board meeting, the Board separately approved an \"assessment\" plan. The assessment plan included not only the state-mandated benchmark examinations, but also locally adopted criterion- 7' t The evaluation of the English as a Second Language program was also part of the Board- adopted research agenda. Obviously unrelated to the District's Revised Plan obligations, a memorandum agreement between the District and OCR required this evaluation. See Tr. Nov 20, 2001, p. 354. 23 referenced tests for grades K-2 reading and for grades 2-9 in English, language arts, mathematics, and science. See Tr. Nov. 19,2001, p. 216. Both the Board-adopted research agenda and the assessment plan were explained in the Interim Report. See Interim Report, pp. 53 (Board research agenda), 56-57 (assessment plan), 101 (primary grade language arts), 107 (intermediate grade language arts), 113 (secondary language arts), and 118 (math). Even after publication of the Interim Report, Joshua raised no objection to the Board-adopted research agenda or the assessment plan. See Tr. Nov. 20, 2001, pp. 370-71. The District's evaluations made pursuant to the Board-adopted research agenda were admitted into evidence as a part of Court's Exhibits 703 (literacy), 705 (math and science) and 711 (middle schools). Joshua will likely argue that these evaluations were poorly written and never approved by the Board. While it is true that the Board never approved the evaluations, nothing required the Board to approve them. When presented to the Board in August of 2000, the Board voted to table consideration of the evaluations until additional assessment data were available. See CX 739, Minutes of August 24, 2000, meeting, p. 5. If anything, the Board's tabling of the evaluations demonstrates its good faith commitment to having quality evaluations. It is also true that Dr. Lesley was not satisfied with the quality of the evaluations. See Tr. Nov. 20, 2001, pp. 329-330. Dr. Lesley discussed her concerns with Dr. Les Camine, then the The District paid particular attention to alignment between the District's curriculum and the assessments in order to better gauge the achievement of Afiican-American students. Dr. Bonme Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction, explained: Alignment is absolutely critical, particularly in an urban school district, because alignment means that everything you are going to test kids over, that you have given them a chance to leam that, that you have got that included in the curriculum. And so, without alignment, poor kids in particular suffer most, because there may not be an opportunity for them to get that knowledge or skill anywhere else. Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 199-200. Results of the assessments were included in the final report. See Final Report, pp. 55-56 (assessments generally), 79 (early literacy), 90-93 (primary grade language arts), 102-105 (intermediate grade language arts), 111-114 (secondary language arts), 125-129 (math and science), and 131-135 (math). See also CXs 699, 700 and 701. 24 1.i District's Superintendent. Dr. Gamine sent the evaluations for review by Dr. Ross, one of the desegregation consultants approved by Joshua. See Tr. Nov. 20, 2001, p. 330. After reviewing the evaluations. Dr. Ross e-mailed Dr. Gamine stating, \"I have read three of the recent program evaluation reports completed by your research department. They appear to be of very good quality - well-written, clear and comprehensive.\" GX 702, tab 15. Not surprisingly, Dr. Lesley's dissatisfaction with PRE's evaluations created a rift between Dr. Lesley and Dr. Lease. Joshua sought to capitalize on this rift by offering numerous District e-mails as exhibits. As a whole, these prove nothing more than the fact that Dr. Lesley was willing to fight for better program evaluations, even if Dr. Ross found them to be \"of very good quality.\" Therefore, notwithstanding questions about the quality of PRE's formal program evaluations, Joshua failed to meet their burden in establishing noncompliance with Revised Plan  2.7.1. Revised Plan  2.7.1 required annual assessments, not annual program evaluations. The District administered assessments at least annually at each grade level. The District continuously used available assessment data to make program decisions. The Board and Dr. Lesley's concerns about the quality of PRE's program evaluations evidence their good faith commitment to improving Afiican-American achievement. Accordingly, the LRSD should be declared unitary and released from court supervision with regard to Revised Plan  2.7.1. See Freeman, 503 U.S. at 489. 3. 2.5. Revised Plan 2.5 - 2.5.4: Student Discipline. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline. 2.5.1. LRSD shall strictly adhere to the policies set forth in the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook to ensure that all students are disciplined in a fair and equitable manner. 2.5.2. LRSD shall purge students' discipline records after the fifth grade and eighth grade of all offenses, except weapons offenses, arson and robbery, unless LRSD finds that to do so would not be in the best interest of the student. 252.5.3. LRSD shall establish the position of \"ombudsman \" the job description for which shall include the following responsibilities: ensuring that students are aware of their rights pursuant to the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook, acting as an advocate on behalf of students involved in the discipline process, investigating parent and student complaints of race-based mistreatment and attempting to achieve equitable solutions. 2.5.4. LRSD shall work with students and their parents to develop behavior modification plans for students who exhibit frequent misbehavior. Dr. Linda Watson, Assistant Superintendent for Student Hearings, led the District's effort to ensure no racial discrimination in student discipline by strict adherence to the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook (the \"Handbook\"). See Tr. Nov. 19,2001, pp. 24-25: see also Interim Report, pp. 13-16. Dr. Watson testified that the her goal was to reduce the number of suspensions and expulsions while at the same time strictly adhering to the Handbook. See Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 45 and 55. Dr. Watson achieved her goal. The number of suspensions decreased 21 percent from the 1997-98 school year through the 1999-2000 school year - a decrease of over 1,100 suspensions. See Tr. Nov. 19,2001, pp. 72-73. Expulsions dropped from 109 during the 1997-98 school year to 3 in 1999-2000. See Final Report, p. 24. The improved learning environment was obvious to both teachers and students. In 1999-2000, 94 percent of teachers indicated they felt safe at school, compared to only 42% in 1997-98. See Interim Report, p. 14. Also in 1999-2000, 93 percent of parents that expressed an opinion felt that their child was safe at school. See Final Report, pp. 24-25. Dr. Watson explained a number of strategies implemented by the District to ensure strict adherence to the Handbook. First, each year the District involved all stakeholders (students, parents, teachers and administrators), including Joshua, in the process of revising the Handbook. See Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 33-34. Second, the District provided training to students, teachers and administrators on the provisions of the Handbook. See Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 33 and 38-44 and CXs 672-675. Third, the District asked all parents to sign a \"parent contract\" by which a parent stated that he or she had read the Handbook and agreed to ensure his or her child's 26 compliance with the Handbook. Tr. Nov. 19,2001, p. 33 and CXs 661-670 (back cover). Fourth, the District created the Ombudsman position to investigate student complaints of racebased mistreatment in student discipline. See Tr. Nov. 19,2001, pp. 16-17. Finally^ Dr. Watson monitored schools' compliance with the Handbook in two ways. Dr. Watson (or another hearing officer working under her supervision) reviewed every long-term suspension and expulsion and those short-term suspensions that were appealed. Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 35-37 and 54. Dr. Watson testified that any failure by the school to follow the Handbook resulted in the suspension or expulsion being expunged from the student's record and the student being returned to school. See Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 26-27 and 35-37. Dr. Watson also prepared and reviewed quarterly Discipline Management Reports cataloging the number of suspensions and expulsions at each school. Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 55-56 and CXs 678-681 (annual reports). Dr. Watson provided these reports to Joshua on a regular, ongoing basis. Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 62-63 and CX 682. She used these reports to identify schools having discipline problems and would conference with the school's administrators to work out solutions. Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 64-71 and CXs 684 and 685. The District also engaged in a number of activities designed to decrease the number of suspensions and expulsions. First, the District revised the curriculum in an effort to make it more engaging. Students engaged in learning are less likely to misbehave. See Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, p. 45. Second, the District established a number of new alternative learning environments to allow students with behavioral problems to remain in an educational setting. See Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 49-55. Third, each year schools were asked to develop strategies for reducing the number of suspensions and expulsions. See Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, p. 48 and CX 677. Fourth, the District offered traimng for teachers and other personnel in classroom management and effective discipline. See Tr. Nov. 19,2001, pp. 45-46 and CX 676. Fifth, the District provided training to students in conflict resolution and peer mediation and provided group counseling and case managers. See Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, p. 46. Finally, for those students who violated the Handbook's 27 !code of conduct, the District followed progressive discipline imposing lesser sanctions before suspending students. Behavior modification plans were used as a part of the progressive discipline process. Tr. Nov. 19,2001, p. 46. Despite the substantial decrease in the number of suspensions and expulsions, there was no decrease in the percentage of suspensions going to Afiican-American students. Courts have used a statistic called the total suspension index to measure the extent to which Afiican- American students are disproportionately suspended, often referred to as the \"discipline disparity.\" The total suspension index is calculated by dividing the percentage of Afiican- American students suspended and expelled by the percentage of Afiican-American students in the total student population. Thus, proportional discipline of Afiican-American students would yield a total suspension index of 1.00. SSS Hoots v. Pennsylvania. 118 F.Supp.2d 577, 608 n.25 (W.D. Pa. 2000). The LRSD's total suspension index has ranged from 1.31 to 1.25 from the 1992-93 school year through the 2000-01 school year. See Exhibit 743 and Docket No. 2226, Exhibit 17. According to 1998' data from the Office of Civil Rights, the total suspension index for all of Arkansas was 2.16. The national total suspension index was 2.24. Other school districts around the country have been declared umtary despite a total suspension index greater than that of the LRSD. See Coalition of Save Our Children. 901 F.Supp. at 817 (total suspension index of 1.81) and Hoots. 118 F.Supp.2d at 608 (total suspension index of 1.50). Joshua will likely argue that the District should have done more to try to reduce the discipline disparity. However, the Revised Plan did not require the LRSD to reduce the discipline disparity. The Revised Plan required strict adherence with the Handbook, irrespective of whether strict adherence to the Handbook resulted in a discipline disparity. The only way to ensure proportional discipline is racial disciplinary quotas. In reversing a remedial decree requiring proportional discipline, the Seventh Circuit noted\n^This was the most recent data available at the time of the hearings. 28( . r' Racial disciplinary quotas violate equity in its root sense. They entail either systematically overpunishing the innocent or systematically imderpunishing the guilty. They place race at war with justice. They teach schoolchildren an unedifying lesson of racial entitlements. And they incidentally are inconsistent with another provision of the decree, which requires that discipline be administered without regard to race or ethnicity. People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ.. Ill F.3d 528, 538 (7** Cir. 1997). See Keyes. 902 1  F.Supp. at 1304 (\"If a student's conduct violates the discipline policy, it is expected that he or she will be disciplined regardless of the potential disparate effect on racial/ethnic statistics.\"). See also Ark. Code Ann.  6-18-506(c) (\"Every school district board of directors in this state shall hold its pupils strictly accountable for any disorderly conduct in school, on the school grounds, in r a school bus, or at any school function.\"). Similarly in the present case, mandating proportional discipline would violate the Revised Plan's promise of \"no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline.\" See Revised Plan  2.5. ( Joshua came forward with no evidence that the current racial disparity resulted from systematic discrimination by the LRSD. Not a single student testified that he or she had been discriminated against by the LRSD in the imposition of discipline. Dr. Watson, an Afiican- American, testified that, based on her experience as a hearing officer, Afiican-American students were being suspended more because they were engaging in behavior requiring suspension imder the Handbook. See Tr. Nov. 19,2001, pp. 83-84. Dr. Watson stated that socioeconomic factors likely explain the current disparity. See Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, p. 84. The District's Ombudsman, ^^Similarly, Dr. Walberg testified: Q I asked you about whether or not socioeconomic status was related, or bore a relationship to disparity in Special Education, you indicated that it was. I think you mentioned also gifted and talented as another area that would be impacted in the same manner. What about discipline, suspensions, expulsions, that type of activity? Are you familiar with the relationship between socioeconomic status and school discipline? A It's not my primary area of interest, but I am somewhat familiar, and the relation is what you would expect from the other research that poor children more often get into difficulties of various kinds of indiscipline and so on, and are suspended from school. Tr. May 13, 1996, p. 183. See also Tr. May 13, 1996, p. 189. 29 {-  iJames Washington, an African-American, investigated student claims of race-based mistreatment with regard to discipline. Washington testified: Q. A. Finally, Mr. Walker asked you about the over representation of black students among students suspended and expelled. Based on your experience as Ombudsman and your experience in the District, do you have any reason to believe that the over-representation of African-Americans in discipline has resulted from any systematic discrimination by the Little Rock School District? No, sir, I have no reason to believe that that is true. S^Tr.Nov. 19,2001, p. 21. Therefore, the LRSD successfully endeavored to reduce the number of suspensions while at the same time strictly adhering to the Handbook. The Revised Plan did not require the LRSD to eliminate the discipline disparity. To the contrary, the Revised Plan required \"no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline.\" See Revised Plan  2.5. Joshua failed to meet their burden in establishing that the current racial disparity was caused by systematic racial discrimination by the LRSD. Accordingly, the LRSD should be declared unitary and released from court supervision with regard to Revised Plan  2.5 - 2.5.4. See Freeman, 503 U.S. at 489. D. Siunmary Judgment. For purposes of summary judgment, the Revised Plan sections can be divided into two categories: sections timely challenged by Joshua and those that were not. With regard to those Revised Plan sections not timely challenged by Joshua, the Revised Plan requires that the LRSD be immediately granted unitary status and released from court supervision. See Revised Plan  11. With regard to sections timely challenged by Joshua but not yet litigated, the LRSD moves for summary judgment. Discovery has revealed no evidence that the Board cannot be trusted to comply with the Constitution in the future absent court supervision. Consequently, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the LRSD should be granted judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)\nCelotex Corp, v. Catrett. 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) Cody. 139 F.3d at 1200. 30I i There will hkely be a dispute as to what Revised Plan sections were timely challenged by Joshua. On April 4, 2001, Judge Wright issued a scheduling order pertaining to challenges to the LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. The order stated, \"Any challenges to the LRSD's compliance must be filed on or before May 18, 2001.\" See Docket No. 3414, p. 2. Following two extensions of time, Joshua's challenges to the LRSD's compliance were due June 25,2001. See Docket Nos. 3434 and 3445. On June 25, 2001, Joshua filed a pleading challenging the LRSD's compliance with following sections of the Revised Plan: 2.1, 2.1.1,2.2,2.2.1,2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.2.4, 2.2.5, 2.2.6, 2.2.7, 2.3, 3.6, 2.4, 2.5, 2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2.5.3, 2.5.4, 2.6, 2.6.1, 2.6.2, 2.7, 2.7.1, 2.8, 2.9,2.11.1, 3.4, 3.6, 5.4 and 5.6. Docket No. 3447. Joshua's June 25, 2001, pleading included little more than general allegations of noncompliance. As Judge Wright recognized at the June 29, 2001, pretrial hearing, \"His objections are very general I might add.\" Tr. June 29,2001, p. 49. In preparation for hearings scheduled for July 5-6, 2001, and August 1-2,2001, Judge Wright admonished Joshua: THE COURT: ... Try to tailor your evidence, so that the Court hears the strongest evidence you have against these people. MR. WALKER: Yes. Your Honor, we would ask - THE COURT: I mean, I am not saying that you have any evidence against them, but don't fritter away your time with - MR. WALKER: I understand. THE COURT:  with trivial matters, you know. And I am not like some judges, but I do get, you know, and all of us get tired of hearing just, you know, the trivial things. We want to hear the, you know, we want to hear the strongest evidence you have got. Tr. Jxme 29, 2001, pp. 54-55. On July 5-6, 2001, Joshua called as witnesses Junious Babbs, the LRSD's Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services, and Dr. Gamine, the LRSD's Superintendent during the term of the Revised Plan.'^ Joshua wasted almost an entire day ^^At the conclusion of these hearings. Judge Wright observed, \"[I]t has occurred to me that more likely than not, just more likely than not, if all we were looking at were the constitution, that is the FGreen v. County Sch. Bd. of New Kent County. 391 U.S. 430(1968)] factors. Little Rock is probably unitary.\" Tr. July 6,2001, p. 553. The Green factors are: (1) 31 Iquestioning Babbs about Revised Plan sections for which he was not directly responsible. See, e^, Tr. July 5,2001, pp. 249-250 . As a result, it became obvious that additional time would be needed beyond the August 1-2, 2001 hearing dates, and that time limits would be necessary. On July 9,2001, Judge Wright scheduled two additional hearing days on Revised Plan  2.7, 2.7.1 and 2.5 - 2.5.4 for November 19-20, 2001, and advised the parties that all remaining hearing time would be split evenly between the LRSD and Joshua. Tr. July 9,2001, p. 64. In addition. Judge Wright set aside the week of January 28,2002, for a hearing on the LRSD's compliance with other Revised Plan sections challenged by Joshua. In preparation for the January 28, 2002, hearing. Judge Wright directed Joshua to narrow the issues by specifically identifying how the LRSD had failed to comply with the Revised Plan sections identified in Joshua's general objections filed June 25,2001. Judge Wright stated: I want you, Mr. Walker, to decide between now and, I will give you a date, but sometime in December, what other issues you want to bring to the Court's attention, and what other issues you object to, and want to carry a burden of proving that the District is not in compliance on. And I want you to be very specific about these in terms of what parts of the Compliance Report you are objecting to, so that we can once again, beginning January 28th, have a hearing a discrete part of this plan, if that is what you want to do. I don't want just general objections. I want it to be, you know, very explicit, as to why you think this District has not complied. If you have just a more general objection, such as the one you filed initially, that still stands of record. on Tr. 536 (11/20/01) (emphasis supplied). In response to Judge Wright's directive, however, Joshua simply identified additional sections of the Revised Plan that it \"intend[ed] to show noncompliance by the [LRSD].\" See Docket No. 3557. More disturbing to the LRSD than the lack of specifics was the fact that Joshua for the first time challenged the LRSD's compliance with Revised Plan  2.11, 3.1, 3.8, 3.9,4.0, 5.5,6.0, 7.0 and 8.3. Compare Docket No. 3447 with 3557. Joshua's challenge to these Revised Plan sections was untimely pursuant to Judge Wright's order of April 4, 2001, and the LRSD should be granted immediate unitary status with student assignment, (2) facilities, (3) faculty, (4) staff, (5) transportation and (6) extracurricular activities. Id. at 435. 32 regard to Revised Plan  2.11, 3.1, 3.8, 3.9, 4.0, 5.5, 6.0, 7.0 and 8.3. as required by Revised Plan  11. See Freeman. 503 U.S. at 489. in. Conclusion. This Court has a \"duty to return the operations and control of schools to local authorities' ,11 at the earliest practicable date. Freeman, 503 U.S. at 489. The Supreme Court explained: As we have long observed, 'local autonomy of school districts is a vital national tradition.' Dayton Bd. of Education v, Brinkman, 433 U.S. 406,410, 97 S.Ct. 2766, 2770, 53 L.Ed.2d 851 (1977) (Dayton I). Returning schools to the control of local authorities at the earliest practicable date is essential to restore their true accountability in our governmental system. When the school district and all state entities participating with it in operating the schools make decisions in the absence of judicial supervision, they can be held accountable to the citizenry, to the political process, and to the courts in the ordinary course. Id. at 490 (emphasis supplied). See also Missouri v. Jenkins. 515 U.S. 70,138 (1995) (\"Usurpation of the traditionally local control over education not only takes the judiciary beyond its proper sphere, it also deprives the States and their elected officials of their constitutional powers. At some point, we must recognize that the judiciary is not omniscient, and that all problems do not require a remedy of constitutional proportions.\")\nFreeman v. Pitts. 503 U.S. 467, 505-06 (1992)(Scalia, J., concurring)('\"From the very first, federal supervision of local school systems was intended as a temporary measure to remedy past discrimination.' Dowell. 498 U.S., at 247, 111 S.Ct., at 637 (emphasis added). We envisioned it as temporary partly because '[n]o single tradition in public education is more deeply rooted than local control over the operation of schools,' Milliken v. Bradley. 418 U.S. 717, 741, 94 S.Ct. 3112, 3125,41 L.Ed.2d 1069 (1974) (Milliken I), and because no one's interest is furthered by subjecting the Nation's educational system to 'judicial tutelage for the indefinite future,' Dowell, supra. 498 U.S., at 249, 111 S.Ct., at 638\nsee also Dayton Bd. of Education v. Brinkman. 433 U.S. 406, 410, 97 S.Ct. 2766, 2770, 53 L.Ed.2d 851 (1977)\nSpangler v. Pasadena City Bd, of Education. 611 F.2d 1239, 1245, n. 5 (CA9 1979) (Kennedy, J., concurring). But we also envisioned it as temporary, I think, because the rational basis for the extraordinary presumption of causation simply must dissipate as the de jure system and the school boards who produced it recede fiirther 33 into the past. Since a multitude of private factors has shaped school systems in the years after abandonment of de jure segregationnormal migration, population growth (as in this case), 'white flight' Iftom the inner cities, increases in the costs of new facilities-the percentage of the current makeup of school systems attributable to the prior, government-enforced discrimination has diminished with each passing year, to the point where it caiuiot realistically be assumed to be a significant factor.\")\nBd. of Educ. v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237, 248 (1991)(\"Dissolving a desegregation decree after the local authorities have operated in compliance with it for a reasonable period of time properly recognizes that 'necessary concern for the important values of local control of public school systems dictates that a federal court's regulatory control of such systems not extend beyond the time required to remedy the effects of past intentional discrimination. See Milliken v. Bradley [Milliken 11 ], 433 U.S., at 280-82, 97 S.Ct., at 2757-58.' Spangler v. Pasadena City Bd. of Education, 611 F.2d, at 1245, n. 5 (Kennedy, J., concurring).\"). The \"ultimate question\" before this Court is \"whether the [LRSD] [is] likely to comply with the Constitution in the absence of court supervision ...Cody. 139 F.3d at 1199-1200. Joshua bears the burden of proof on this question. See Revised Plan 11. Joshua has not and cannot meet their burden. After over 40 years of court supervision of the LRSD, the time has come to return control to the democratically elected Board. Fourth Circuit Chief Judge Wilkinson's final thoughts in affirming the district court's granting of unitary status to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg school district apply with equal force to the LRSD: No decisions are more sensitive and difficult than those involving public schools, and no process more wrenching than that of matching limited resources to the limitless array of educational needs. But these challenges are better met by communities than by courts and, after thirty-five years of sporadic judicial supervision, the time has come to conclude. If not now, when? Each child is a human being to educate. If this essential task of education has become too daunting for democracy, then I know not who we are or what we shall become. Belk, 269 F.3d at 356 (Wilkinson, C.J., concurring). For the reasons set forth above, the LRSD should be granted unitary status and released from court supervision without further evidentiary hearings. 34f' Respectfully Submitted, f  LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT   Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR_22201-3493 (5011 r^ii r BY: :hristopher Hi r I 35 bp CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on March 15, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 I Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 I Ms. Ann Marshall (hand-delivered) Desep-egation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Hellei ( f 36 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION DELORES CLARK, ET AL. VS. NO. LR 64 C 15S THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER FILED UAOtsnocT courr EASTtWH DtSnRCT AKKANSAS JUL 91982 CA^R. BRENTS, CLERK OE^.CLLRA PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS The Board of Education of the Little Rock School District has petitioned the Court for approval of a revised elementary school student assignment plan. The plan is referred to as the \"Partial K-6 Plan\". 1 In 1973, after years of litigation, 2 the plaintiffs ana the school district reached a mutually satisfactory agreement involving a number of issues, including a student assignment plan, and a moratorium was declared with respect to further litigation. Beginning in the school year 1973-74, the elementary schools were essentially desegregated. Because the eastern parts of the district are essentially black residential areas and western parts of the district are essentially white residential areas, it has been necessary to employ extensive bussing to achieve school desegregation. Over the years, there has been a steady trend of increasing black enrollment and decreasing white enrollment in the elementary schools. The trend is present, although less pronounced, in the upper grades. 1. DX 20. 2. The original desegregation case against the Little Rock School District was filed in 1956. The pending case, was simply a continuation of the original litigation, in 1964. The pending case which was filea : exhibit J 1 The following chart 3 illustrates the trend' which has been established and maintained since 1971: Little Rock Public Schools, Grades 1-12 Change in Student Enrollment, Fall 1971 to Fall 1981 Year Number of Whites Number of Blacks Decline in Whites Percent DecIn In Whites 1971 13,413 9,814 1,256 1972 11,926 9,909 1,487 11.1 1973 10,999 10,096 927 7.8% 1974 10,303 10,246 696 6.3% 1975 9,760 10,730 543 5.3% 1976 9,320 10,991 440 4.5% 1977 8,708 11,089 612 6.6% 1978 7,979 11,142 729 8.4% 1979 7,454 11,517 525 6.6% 1980 6,806 11,780 648 8.7% 1981 6,291 11,813 515 7.5%' b.b% The trend is generally explained by a number of demographic factors, such as population shifts by whites to the suburbs. increase in black population in the district, differences in birth rates, and, to some extent, the element of \"white 4 flight\". As previously mentioned, the increasing disparity in the ratio between black and white students attending the district is most pronounced at the elementary school level. The following chart^ illustrates that trend. 3. DX 19, page 17. 4. 5. DX 19, pages 12-28\ntestimony of Dr. Dewitt Davis. Composite from Exhibits 2 through 13. 2I Little Rock Public Schools, Grades 1-6 Change in Student Enrollment, Fall 1971 to Fall 1981 Year Number of Whites Number of Blacks Decline in Whites Percent beclin in Whites 1971 7,283 5,712 1972 6,497 5,933 786 10.8% 1973 5,700 5,822 797 12.3% 1974 5,012 5,805 688 12.1% 1975 4,560 5,864 452 9.1% 1976 4,374 5,928 186 4.1% 1977 4,066 6,022 308 7.1% 1978 3,871 6,218 195 4.8% 1979 3,459 6,637 412 10.7% 1980 3,152 6,661 307 8.9% 1981 2,501 6,953 651 20.8% During the 1977-78 school year. it became apparent that the student assignment plan implemented in earlier years was not accomplishing the desegregation goals established by the district. 7 The district took the initiative in correcting the problem. A \"Reorganization Committee\" was formed which studied various proposals and, as a product of that work. the district adopted a reorganization of the student assignment plan which was implemented in the 1978-79 school year. 6. The Court was given two sets of figures for student enrollment in the 1979-1980 school year. This chart is basea on the figures contained in Defendant's Exhibit 12. 7. Testimony of Dr. Leonard Thalmueller. 3Under -^e 1978-79 reorganization plan, the first three grades were designated prinary grades and graaes four through six were designated as intermediate graaes. At that tine blacks accounted for 63% of the students in graaes one through six. One of the goals of reorganization was to maintain a black-white attendance ratio at each school which was within a ten percent variation from the district average at the elementary school level. 8 For example, as a result of the 1978-79 reorganization plan. Forest Park School had the lowest percentage of black students at 53% and Garland and Mitchell Schools had the highest percent at 70%. By 1980-81 the declining white enrollment, particularly * in the primary grades, again resulted in significant deviations in the black-white ratio at a number of schools. For example. at Williams School, which is located in a predominantly white residential area, only 8 white children enrolled in the first grade for the 1981-82 school year while 117 black children enrolled. There were seven schools, grades one through six, irtiich had black enrollment of 80% or more, one in excess of 86%. Although the School District has been conscious of the trend of decreasing white enrollment and taken some measures to curtail the erosion. 9 nothing has significantly affected the trend. All of the persuasive evidence indicates the school district will have an enrollment which is essentially all black, particularly in the elementary grades, within the next few years. 8. Testimony of Dr. Thalmueller. 9. The administration has done an admirable job of offering quality education. Considerable effort has been drrectea toward providing curricula calculated to attract whites who have left the district's schools because of a belief that the district was not offering quality education. These efforts include honors classes, ability grouping. emphasis on improvement in basic skills, etc. Addi- tionally, the administration has worked with the civic community and volunteer groups in efforts to encourage support for public schools and improvement in the quality of education provided. 4Faced with a significantly reduced white enrollment in the primary grades and a vocal protest by white parents against white racial insolation in some of the primary classes, the School Board adopted a \"65-35\" classroom assignment plan in the fall of 1981. The plan was a hurriedly conceivea stopgap measure to appease white parents of primary age children. The plan required that white children be assigned to home room classes with other whites until the percentage reached 35% in each class. The plan had the effect, of course, of creating some all black classes. The plan was disapproved by this Court following an evidentiary hearing in September, 1981. In the fall of 1981, the Little Rock School Board faced a host of problems which prompted reconsideration of the school attendance plan. For example, a significant disparity had developed in the black-white ratio of attendance at the various elementary schools and there was reason to believe the ratio would increase. Some of the black parents complained that their children were being bussed across the city to attend all black classes. Additionally, the last two milleage increase proposals had been defeated by the electorate and the district is faced with severe financial problems and an eroding financial base. The overall declining enrollment in the district and financial considerations dictated the closing of some school buildings. The Board took several steps in response to the problems. A \"Patrons Reorganization Committee^ was appointed to receive and review various proposals for pupil assignment plans and determine the feasibility of implementing the pro- posals. The Committee was asked to conduct public hearings 10. The committee was a twenty member committee composea of 10 blacks and 10 whites, 10 who were males and 10 females. 5in various parts of the city in order to get as much input from the public as possible. The Board arranged for a stuay of the district's desegregation efforts by the Technical Assistance Center of Stephen F. Austin State.University. This \"Desegregation Assistance Team\" submitted a report of its findings and conclusions to th_e Board in December, 1981. 11 The Biracial Committee, which is an advisory com- mittee formed as a result of the agreement in 1973, was asked to review the various plans and proposals for changes in the attendance plan. The administrative staff was assigned the task of compiling information and lending support assistance to committees. The Board also investigated the possibility of seeking an interdistrict remedy through legal proceedings against the adjacent County School District and has hired a law firm to pursue that remedy. Some 15 proposed plans or concepts for elementary pupxl assignment were submitted to the Board, Patrons Committee and Biracial Committee for consideration. The plans were reduced to three, and finally \"Partial K-6 Plan\" was adopted by the Board after a number of minor modifications. The Board apparently views Partial K-6 as a temporary plan which provides the best chance for maintaining an integrated school system pending a decision in the interdistrict remedy suit. Partial K-6 Plan produces a number of results the Board views as preferable over the present plan. 1. The plan eliminates the primary-intermediate grouping, (or 3-3) plan (or has the same effect by pairing schools). Apparently one of the recurring complaints about the present plan is that students are moved from school to school too frequently. 11. DX 19. 6and their classmates change every three years. K-6 permits elementary age children to attend the same school or at least attend with the same schoolmates for six years, thereby fostering a sense of security, continuity and stability. 2. Partial K-6 permits the organization of nine neighborhood schools. 3. Approximately 1,000 fewer students will be bussed under Partial K-6. The number of bus routes will be reduced from 104 to 72 with an estimated immediate savings of $132,000. Furthermore, the number of school opening and closing times can be reduced. 4. Two elementary school buildings will be closed under partial K-6. 5. Partial K-6 employs the concept of a magnet school with a curricula attractive to some parents who are concerned about the quality of education. 6. The number of schools with a black ratio of 80% or more will be reduced from seven to four. Plaintiffs oppose the plan for several reasons. The \"objections to petition\" will be discussed in the order raised in plaintiffs' response to the Board's petition. 1. The \"plaintiffs object to additional black school closings\". This objection revolves around the part of Partial K-b which proposes that Booker Junior High School be changed to an elementary school. Although it is asserted that Booker will be \"closed\", such is not the case. 7Because of declining enrollments in junior high school. the Board concluded that one junior high facility was not needed. Booker had the fewest number of students ano reassignment of its students to other schools caused the least disruption. Thus, Booker was selected for conversion to an elementary school. Under the final plan, the schools which will be closed are Jefferson and King. Jefferson is in a white neighborhood and King is in a black neighborhood. The Board commissioned an evaluation of school physical plants and a report was submitted to the Board (the Leggett report) which indicatea that the cost of refurbishing and repairing King Elementary would be 51,500,000. On the basis of that estimate. King was selected for closing. Plaintiffs' argument that converting Booker to an elementary school causes a \"burden\" on blacks is puzzling. as is the claim that such a move is calculated \"to further relieve white stufendts (sic) of educational presence in the Black community.\" First, if there is a burden on black junior high students, there is a corresponding buroen on white elementary students who will be transported to Booker. Second, the black neighborhood will certainly have the \"presence\" of those white elementary age students who attend Booker, Third, while black junior high students may be transported from the Booker neighborhood to other areas. black elementary age children will be relieved of that burden. It would seem that bussing older children is preferable to transporting elementary age children. With respect to the general allegations that school closings have, over the years, had the effect of relieving the \"proportionate burden\" upon white children and enhancing it for black children, such is simply not supported by the evidence. First, all site selection for construction has 8been the subject of court approval. (Testimony of Lacey). Second, plaintiffs failed to produce any evioence that a school has been \"closed or downgraded* because of improper consideration. Third, if there has been a \"disproportionate burden\" caused by transportation of students, it has fallen on white students, not blac)c, and such will continue as the case under Partial K-6. (Testimony of Thalmueller and Lacey). The only bases for this objection are conclusory allegations which are not supported by persuasive evidence. 2. \"Plaintiffs object to the efforts to develop four 'segregated' or 'racially' identifiable\" schools. Under Partial K-6, four elementary schools will have a black enrollment of 90% or more. These schools are locatea in black residential areas. The black enrollment in the eighteen remaining elementary schools will range from bU% to 77%. Currently, the average black elementary enrollment in the district is 76%. Plaintiffs contend that creating four schools which have a black enrollment in excess of 90% is simply an effort to establish segregated schools and, that if allowed, \"there will be no prohibition upon the defendants in establishing them for white school children\". Plaintiffs further argue that by simply \"adjusting\" the attendance zones of the present plan a racial l\u0026gt;alance can be maintained in each school. The Board's decision to depart from the present plan was prompted by a numljer of factors. First, the present plan is not working. Although attendance zones can be drawn based upon school age census in the zone, predictions as to the number of students who actually enroll in school from that zone cannot be made with any degree of accuracy. Predictions as to enrollment by grade from a zone are even more troublesome. A good example of the problem is the 9situation last school year at Williams Elementary where b white children and 117 black children enrolled in the first grade. The problem of maintaining a racial balance at each school is compounded by the declining white enrollment at the elementary age level. In 1981-82, only 2,501 white elementary age students enrolled. 1 This was a decline of bSl from the previous year. Obviously, if the trend continues. t and there is no reason to believe otherwise, in a matter of two or three years there will be no \"critical mass\" of white students in any elementary school for the purpose of meaningful integration. Dnder the present plan, seven schools have a black I i enrollment of 80S or more. The Board's conclusion that \"meaningful integration\" did not exist at those schools is apparently supported by a majority of authorities on the subject of desegregation. Those authorities think that in order to have meaningful integration, 20S'of the students must be of the second race. 12 Given the difficulties in predicting enrollment and the sharp decline each year in white enrollment, there is no reason to believe that a I simple \"adjustment\" in attendance zones will reduce the number of schools with a black enrollment in excess of 80%. 3. Plaintiffs argue that Partial K-6 is \"reimposition\" of the concept of separate but equal. This argument would have some persuasiveness if there was any realistic hope of stabilizing the ratio of blacks and whites enrolled in elementary schools. Such stabilization plus a reasonable degree of predictability as to enrollment 12. DX 19, pages 7, 8. Testimony of Orfield, page 2b. 10?! by grades from an attendance zone may permit the maintenance of a \"balanced ratio\" at each school. Unfortunately, such is not the case. Partial K-6 is simply recognition of the fact that a substantial number of black students are now being bussed across the district to attend classes which ctre essentially all black. Although maintaining a \"balanced ratio\" at each school is a worthy goal of any desegregation plan, it is not the sole criterion. Most importantly, the four elementary schools in question are not part of a separate school system for blacKs. Attendance is determined by neighborhood, not by race. Furthermore, under a modification to the plan, black students are given the opportunity of transferring from those four schools to other schools in the district. 4. Plaintiffs make a number of general objections to the plan which will be discussed collectively. Plaintiffs contend the plan violates a part of the moratorium agreement which required that the primary grades would be located in the black community when the black enrollment reached 65%. No such agreement has been established by the evidence. Furthermore, if there was such an agreement, it has not been enforced because black enrollment in the primary grades has been in excess of 65% for several years. In any event, any informal agreement between the parties reached in 1973 cannot reasonably be applied so as to dictate the terns of an attendance plan in 1982.* - During the evidentiary hearing plaintiffs contended that the facilities at the four essentially all black schools would be \"overcrowded\". Defendants' witnesses denied the 11allegation And contend that guidelines in the plan are calculated to insure quality education at the four schools. The Court is unwilling at this point to predict failure or the Board's stated goals of insuring quality education at the four schools. If any disparity develops in the facilities or the quality of education offered at the four schools, the plaintiffs can always file a motion seeking correction of the disparity. Plaintiffs contend the Partial K-6 plan is actually the same as the \"65-35\" plan offered by the Board and rejected by this Court in September, 1981. The argument is made that Partial K-6 effectively segregates by placing clacks in separate school buildings instead of separate classes, which was the effect of the 65-35 plan. There is little parallel between the two plans. The 65-35 plan was an ill-conceived reaction to vocal white parents who were alarmed about racial insolation in the primary grades. The partial K-6 plan is the product of a reorganization project which utilized the' Patrons Committee, Biracial Committee and administrative staff in an effort to seek community involvement in a student attendance plan. Moreover, the factors influencing the adoption of the plan are legitimate considerations for any student assignment plan. The only weight which can be given the 65-35 plan in any evaluation of Partial K-6 is on the issue of the Board's motive. The Court concludes that the Board is not motivated by a desire to resegregate the schools in adopting.Partial K-6. Finally, plaintiffs contend that the district has not achieved unitary status in that \"vestiges of discrimination\" have not been totally eliminated. Particularly, plaintiffs claim that discrimination persists in the \"faculty, staff. programs, activities, discipline and site selection policies and practices of the district\". Since this same argument 12has come up at the last three hearings, the Court will address it although resolution is not essential to the issue at hand. The claim is asserted that administrative and faculty positions are filled in a discriminatory manner. The issue regarding the recent employment of_ a white superintendent over plaintiffs' objections was decided following our evidentiary hearing in February, 1982, and need not be reviewea again. The question of faculty and administrative staffing has been monitored for years by Dr. J.J. Lacey, a black wno is Special Assistant to the Superintendent for Desegregation in the district. Dr. Lacey knows and understands the require-' ments of the Clark decrees and, without reviewing the details, the Court accepts Dr. Lacey's testimony that the district has been, and is, in compliance with those guidelines. Plaintiffs suggested, during the evidentiary hearings, that the black-white faculty and staff ratio should coincide with the ratio of black to white students. The Court concurs with Dr. Lacey's view that the available labor market more appropriately determines the racial composition of the faculty and staff than does the ratio of students. Plaintiffs claim all the \"heads of departments\" are white. This is not a fact but, in any event, the supervisor of all the academic department heads is Dr. Benjamin Williams, a black. The argument is made that currently there are no black principals of any of the three high schools, white principals and one position is vacant. There are two A black woman was recommended by Dr. Masem^^ for the vacant position, but she was not hired by the Board. Plaintiffs also argue that 13. Dr. Paul Masem was Superintendent of the District for a little over three years and the Board voted to replace him. Dr. Masem's departure was not an amicable he harbors some bitterness toward the District. him. one ana 13Dr. Ruth Patterson was denied a position because of racxal reasons and that racial considerations influenceo personnel decisions involving William Thrasher and Paul Margrow. These arguments are supported solely by conclusions ana opinions of the witnesses. In any event, the opinions ana conclusions from such witnesses as~Dr. Patterson, who can hardly be characterized as a disinterested witness, are not persuasive evidence that the district pursues discriminatory personnel practices. 14 Plaintiffs point to the fact that whites predominate in the honors courses, advanced academic courses and language courses as a \"vestige\" of discrimination. While it is true that whites predominate in those courses, there is absolutely no evidence that such enrollment is the product of any discriminatory policy or practice pursued by the Board. To the contrary, advanced academic courses and language courses are \"open\" to anybody who elects to take the courses. There is no evidence that the honors program is administered in anything other than an objective fashion. According to br. Benjamin Williams, the administration has been conscious of the disproportionate numbers of whites in these programs as well as the fact that blacks are represented in disproportionate numbers in the basic courses. If there was any explanation grounded in racially discriminatory practices, surely those reasons would have been produced. Reference was made to disciplinary action and the claim that blacks are disciplined in disproportionate numbers to 14. Dr. Patterson has a lawsuit pending against the district asserting her claims that she has been subjected to discriminatory treatment, . I 15. Testimony of Dr. Williams. 14) whites. Dr'. Lacey monitors the discipline situation and says that he makes \"every effort\" to see that discriminatory practices play no part in disciplinary procedures. Plaintiffs produced no evidence that any practice or policy regarding discipline was discriminatory or applied in a discriminatory manner. The suggestion has been made that one vestige of discrimination is the fact that whites are represented in disproportionate numbers on the cheerleader squads. A reference is also made to discrimination in \"extracurricular activities\". There is no evidence before the Court as to how cheerleaders are selected, the composition of the cheerleader squads or even a description of the policy or practice adopted by the district which is supposed to discriminate against black students. The Court has no idea what other \"extracurricular activities\" are involved in the allegation. Site selection for school closing and construction is alleged as a vestige of discrimination. That allegation has been discussed in preceding sections. Plaintiffs point to the fact that the Board has only one black member. 16 Plaintiffs claim the \"at large\" election procedure discriminates against blacks and that under Arkansas law the Board has the power to change the procedure so that members will be elected by wards. The Board's failure to oo so is asserted as further evidence of official discrimination. Although plaintiffs' attorney assured the Court at trial that an Arkansas statute exists which confers that power upon the Board, he has been unable to furnish the citation to the statute and the Court cannot find any sucn procedure in the Arkansas Code. In any event, the Board 16. T.E. Patterson, a black, had been a Board member for at least 10 years. In 1981, B.G. Williams, a black. against Patterson and defeated him. ran 15can hardly be criticized for failing to employ a proceaure which is nonexistent. Plaintiffs are critical of the Board for failing to take affirmative measures to halt the trend of increasing black enrollment in the district and stop the decreasing white enrollment. Specifically, plaintiffs' attorney repeatedly asked witnesses if the Board had taken any steps to \"de-annex\" black residential areas from the district. Changes in district boundaries require, under Arkansas law. concurrence of the electorate in the affected districts. Ark. Stat. S80-404, et seg. Unilateral action taken by the Little Rock School Board is ineffective. The surrounding Pulaski County District has publicly announced that it has no interest in merging with the Little Rock District. Aside from the legal impediments, it would seem that \"de-annexing\" black residential areas in order to deliberately get blacks out of the district is unprecedented and, undoubtedly constitutional. unIn summary, the Court finds no evidence of vestiges of discrimination in the district policies or practices. The Court adopts the opinion of Dr. Orfield and the Austin Stuay Group that the district has done an admirable job in the task of desegregation. Doubtless, there will always be allegations of racial discrimination when any school decision is reviewed in an adversary setting, particularly when there is an integrated enrollment of almost 18,000 pupils and 1,250 teachers and administrators operating under court order. Nevertheless, the Little Rock School District has operated in compliance with court decrees for nine years as a completely unitary desegregated school system and isolateo complaints of discrimination without persuasive specific evidence to the contrary do not detract from that record. 16Conclusions of Law The only serious question in this case is whether that portion of Partial K-6 which produces four elementary scoools with black enrollment in excess of 90% is unconstitutional. Although racial balance in each school is one method which may be used for dismantling \"dual school systems, there can be no serious claim that \"racial balance\" in the public schools is constitutionally mandated. Milliken v. Bradley, 418 D.S. 717, 740-741 (1974)\nSwann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Education, 402 U.S. 1, 22-25\nand Pasadena City Bd. of Education v. Spangler, 427 U.S. 424, 434. Furthermore, a small number of onerace, or virtually one-race, schools within a district is not in and of itself the mark of a system that still practices segregation by law. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Education, supra at 26. This is particularly true where, as here, the one race schools are the product of demographics over which the Board has no control. Pasadena City Bd. of Education, supra at 436. As a tool for accomplishing desegregation of elementary grades, the present plan has, perhaps, outlived its usefulness. The dual system has long since been eliminated and the Board should be permitted to consider factors other than \"racial balance\" in structuring an elementary attendance plan. Neighborhood schools, a magnet school, financial considerations, and the desirable aspects of a K through 6 grouping are legitimate factors which may be considered when weighing the educational benefits of one attendance plan against another. Given the declining value of the present plan for desegregation purposes, the Board is certainly entitlea to adopt an attendance plan which meets constitutional standards and permits the district to achieve other educational goals. 17Under the circumstances of this case, Partial K-b Plan is a constitutionally sound plan which may be implementea by the Little Rock School District. Dated this day of July, 1982. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 IBuilding on a Generation of Accomplishment Maintaining and Strengthening Desegregation in Little Rock A Report to the Little Rock School District Desegregation Assistance Team December 16, 1981 The Technical Assistance Center Box 13010A, SFA Station Nacogdoches, Texas 75962 (713) 569-5307 Bennat Mullen, Director J EXHIBIT 2- Dr. Bennat C. Mullen, Team Manager and Director of the Technical Assistance Center Dr. Shirley McCune, Chairperson, Committee on the Maintenance of Quality Integrated Education Dr. Gary Orfield, Committee to Examine the Current Desegregation Plan and to Explore Options Dr. McCune and Dr. Orfield respectively drafted the reports for the two committees above. Other members of the visiting team are listed on the following page.VISITING TEAM Ms. Wanda Banks Jonal Coordinator P.O. Box 39 Marianna, AR 72360 (501) 295-5429 Dr. Clara Jenning.s Chairperson Dept, of Elem/Early Childhood Education University of Arkansas Pine Bluff, AR 71601 (501) 541-6854 \"r. Glenn Campbell Executive Director of Desegregation Monitoring Office 911 Locust St. St. Louis, MO 63101 (314) 231-4153 Dr. Alex John Dean of University Relation.s Northeast Ixjuisiana University 1-5 Administration Bldg. Monroe, LA 71209 (318) 342-2055 Ms. Linda Yee Chew Assistant Director Technical Assistance Center of the Southwest Box 13010A-SFA Station Nacogdoches, TX 75962 (713) 569-5307 Dr. Sheryl Uenbo, Director Race Desegregation Assistance Center The zimcrican University SbO8 Carlynn Drive Bethesda, MD 20034 (202) 686-3511 Dr. Ralph Eddins Professor of Secondary Education Stephen F. Austin State University Box 13023-SFA Station 75962 , TX Nacogiloche (713) 509-3409 Ms. Donna Grady Speech Therapist Marianna School District 212 Church Marianna, AR (501) 295-3364 72360 Dr. Burnett Joiner Dean, College of Education Granibling State University . P.O. Box 46 Grambling, LA 71245 (318) 247-6941 Dr. Lee Mahon Associate Director Project Equity 2047 Ticonderoga Drive San Mateo, CA 94402 (408) 984-4696 Dr. Shirley McCune Director Education Commission of the States State Services Division 1860 Lincoln St. Denver, CO 80295 (303) 830-3786 Mr. George Mirnbal, Manager Shreveport Chamber of Coiiiiiierce P.O. Box 20074 529 Crockett Street Shreveport, LA 71120 (318) 226-8521 Lois Hart Consultant Technical Assistance Center of the Southwest Box 13010A-SFA Station Nacogdoches, TX 75962 (713) 569-5307 Dr. Bennat C. Mullen Director Technical Assistance Center of the Soutliwe.st Box 13010A-SFA Station Nacogdoches, TX 75962 (713) 569-5307Ms. Willia Murphy Senior Program Administrator Technical Assistance Center of the Southwest Box 13010A-SFA Station (713) 569-5307 Mr. Allen E. Alonzo Desegregation Coordinating Supervisor East Baton Rouge Parish School Board P. 0. Box 2950 Baton Rouge, LA 70821 (504) 928-2651 Dr. Gary Orfield, Guest Scholar in Governmental Studies Brookings Institution and Professor at at the University of Illinois 1775 Mass N.W. Washington, D.C. (202) 797-6066 (217) 333-2574 (217) 352-0696 20006 Mr. Win Grant East Baton Rouge Parish School Board P. 0. Box 2950 Baton Rouge, LA 70821 (504) 928-2651 Ms. Susan Paynter Instructor of Secondary Education Stephen F. Austin State University Box 13018-SFA Station Nacogdoches, TX 75962 (713) 569-2908 Dr. Kay Rogers 3809 Sevier North Little Rock, AR 42116 (501) 450-3110 Dr. Donnya Stephens Professor of Secondary Education Stephen F. Austin State University Box 13018-SFA Station Nacogdoches, TX 75962 (713) 569-2908 RESOURCE PERSONS Dr. Dewitt Davis, Demographer Associate Professor of Geography The University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff 4003 Old Warren Road Pine Bluff, AR 71603 (501) 541-6855 Mr. Nathaniel Griffin, Urban Planner Director of Comprehensive Planning City Hall Markham 4 Broadway, Room 311 Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 371-4790 Dr. J. J. Lacey Special Assistant to the Superintendent for Desegregation Little Rock Public Schools West Markham 6 Izard Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 374-3361 Mr. Paul Masem Superintendent of Schools Little Rock Public Schools West Markham \u0026amp; Izard Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 490-2000Technical Assistance Center of the Southwest December 16, 1981 Mr. Paul Masem Superintendent of Schools Little Rock Public Schools West Markham and Izard Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Masem: Herewith in this report are the results .of the study that you asked our Center The support and cooperation that you, members of your staff. Board to conduct. of Education, faculty, students, and community gave us throughout the long course of the study was beyond anything that could have been expected. The quality of interest in and support of the school district exhibited during this study will surely enable the community to meet some of the very real challenges that exist. The visiting team members were again and again impressed with the quality of personnel and the quality of programs found within the district. You and the members of the Board of Education can indeed be proud of the affirmative progress and the quality education progress that are in evidence. At Stephen F. Austin State University we are pleased to have been a part with you of a major effort to simultaneously address equity and excellence in education. The report is organized around those two concerns. It is believed that they complement each other very well. It is our hope that you will find this report useful as you plan for the future. On behalf of our University, the staff of the Technical Assistance Center, and the members of the visiting team I thank you for your hospitality and wish you well. Sincerely yours. Bennat C. MiXLlen Director BCM:pc Box 13010 A SFA Station Nacosdoches, Texas 75962 (713) 569-5307 INTRODUCTION into The image of nine Black children being accompanied by military personnel Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957 is etched into the minds of many adult Americans. This event, the result of the confrontation between Governor Orval Faubus and President Eisenhower, captured the drama of the nations' commitment to dismantle dual school systems and end school deseg- regation. Less well known to Americans, however, is the current status of desegregation and the quality of public education in Central High School and the Little Rock schools. Today, Little Rock's ten all Black schools and 23 all white schools are integrated. The quality of education in Little Rock has shown steady improvement and progress despite the usual setbacks and controversies. Much has been accomplished through the leadership provided by the community and the steady efforts of local school personnel. Once again the commitment of the Little Rock community to the maintenance of quality, integrated, public education is being tested. Concerns about increasing racial isolation, white flight, differential treatment and achievement of Black and white students, and the future of Little Rock schools have been raised. Most of Little Rock citizens recognize that these problems will be increased in the future if nothing is done. The solutions of the past can no longer meet the needs of the community and the schools. The situation found in Little Rock is similar to that of many other cities. Changes in our societydemographic changes, economic changes, socialpolitical changes, and technological changesare as evident in Little Rock as in other areas of the nation. In 1957, Little Rock was a community with a Black population of approximately 25,352 of the total population of 107,813. Little Rock served as the trading center for an agricultural economy. Today,the community consists of 393,494, with a Black population of approximately 82,865, and it has become a growing industrial center. The structure and needs of the community have changed during this period of time and these changes require a reevaluation of the evolving needs and the steps which are required if progress is to be maintained in future years. The following is a report of the observations of a team of twenty-two social scientists, business leaders, educators and technical assistance specialists from all parts of the United States who are involved in the study of school desegregation issues. This team visited the Little Rock community in November, 1981, under the auspices of the Technical Assistance Center located in Nacogdoches, Texas. This Center, a project of Stephen F. Austin State University, serves schools in the states of Arkansas, Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and New Mexico. The team spent four days in Little Rock observing schools\ninterviewing community leaders, parents and school personnel\nand reviewing available research and program documentation. The purpose of the visit was to review the progress of desegregation in Little Rock and to identify ways that the progress could be maintained and expanded. Considerable information had been collected prior to the teams' visit in Little Rock, but it was not anticipated that the team would be able to devote the time or effort necessary for an in- depth study of the Little Rock schools. Rather, the goal of the visit was to utilize the experience of the team as a means of gaining general impressions and recommendations and identifying those areas where further study and consideration was needed. The team was divided into two groups. One group focused on an examination of the current desegregation plan, the demographics and attitudes of the community, and the alternatives which are available for the maintenance andimprovement of Integrated education programs. The second group focused on the internal structure and operation of school programs, the quality of education services provided to Black and white students, and the steps which could be taken to improve the quality of education for all students. A primary assumption of the team was that the maintenance and Im- provement of the quality of education is an essential component of any desegregation effort. The report is organized in two primary sections. The first section deals with the report of the community teamthe feasible adjustments in the desegregation plan within the community and the demographic change and racial trends in Little Rock. The second section of the report focuses on the general quality of integrated education in Little Rock and the opportunities for improvement within the school system. The team was Impressed by the level of community concern about maintaining quality, integrated, public education in Little Rock and the openness and can- dor of school officials and personnel. The team was provided complete coopera- cion and access to schools and information. School personnel were candid in discussing weaknes\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_1445","title":"Report: ''2001-02 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":["2002-03-01"],"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","Pulaski County Special School District","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics","School enrollment","School integration","School management and organization","School improvement programs","Magnet schools"],"dcterms_title":["Report: ''2001-02 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/1445"],"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":["20 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_980","title":"Discipline: ''Analysis of Disciplinary Actions, District Level,'' North Little Rock School District, 2 copies","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":["2002/2003"],"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, 2 copies"],"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/980"],"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":["53 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.\nNORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ANALYSIS OF DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS District Level FRAN CI CAL J. JACKSON Director of Student Affairs ' ) uu.l mcEoF OESEGREMmilOnKo RGI Ref: Date: Time: DIS032 9/16/03 13: 38: 18 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions DISTRICT LEVEL From AUGUST Through JUNE ---================================---------------------------------------==---- 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 --===================-==============-------------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------=-------------------------=====---=-----------==========------====------- 09 S.A.C. 1276 55.2% 574 24.8% 354 15.3% 107 4.6% 2311 566 322 205 68 1161 10 HOME SUSP. 692 66.6% 234 22.5% 92 8.9% 21 2.0% 1039 370 135 68 11 584 11 BOYS CLUB 210 59.0% 83 23.3% 52 14.6% 11 3.1% 356 135 55 39 11 240 12 E.I.C. 342 56.8% 164 27.2% 67 11.1% 29 4.8% 602 172 84 46 19 321 17 EXPULSION 1 25.0% 0 .0% 2 50.0% 1 25.0% 4 1 0 2 1 4 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. 1903 52.3% 1050 28.9% 513 14.1% 172 4.7% 3638 632 421 233 109 1395 10 HOME SUSP. 522 66.0% 193 24.4% 63 8.0% 13 1. 6% 791 280 121 49 11 461 11 BOYS CLUB 244 55.6% 86 19.6% 84 19.1% 25 5. 7% 439 151 56 66 20 293 12 E.I.C. 252 61. 2% 97 23.5% 52 12.6% 11 2.7% 412 130 52 36 10 228 17 EXPULSION 2 40.0% 0 .0% 3 60.0% 0 .0% 5 2 0 3 0 5 COMPARISON -----BM------ -. ---BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 627 49.1 % 476 82.9 % 159 44.9 % 65 60.7 % 1327 66 99 28 41 234 10 HOME SUSP. 170- 24.6-% 41- 17.5-% 29- 31. 5-% 8- 38.1-% 248- 90- 14- 19- 0 123- 11 BOYS CLUB 34 16.2 % 3 3.6 % 32 61. 5 % 14 127.3 % 83 16 1 27 9 53 12 E.I.C. 90- 26.3-% 67- 40.9-% 15- 22.4-% 18- 62.1-% 190- 42- 32- 10- 9- 93- 17 EXPULSION 1 100.0 % 0 . 0 % 1 50.0 % 1- 100.0-% 1 1 0 1 1- 1 Ref: Date: Time: DIS032 9/16/03 13:38:19 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions ELEMENTARYK -5 From AUGUST Through JUNE 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 4 80.0% 1 20.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 5 4 1 0 0 5 10 HOME SUSP. 335 68.5% 105 21. 5% 42 8.6% 7 1. 4% 489 186 64 28 3 281 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 341 56. 7% 164 27.3% 67 11.1% 29 4.8% 601 171 84 46 19 320 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 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. 401 74. 7% 93 17.3% 41 7.6% 2 .4% 537 198 53 31 2 284 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 252 61.2% 97 23.5% 52 12.6% 11 2. 7% 412 130 52 36 10 228 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. 4- 100.0-% 1- 100.0-% 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 5- 4- 1- 0 0 5- 10 HOME SUSP. 66 19.7 % 12- 11. 4-% 1- 2.4-% 5- 71. 4-% 48 12 11- 3 1- 3 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 89- 26.1-% 67- 40.9-% 15- 22.4-% 18- 62.1-% 189- 41- 32- 10- 9- 92- 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: Date: Time: DIS032 9/16/03 13:38:19 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions MIDDLE SCHOOLS From AUGUST Through JUNE ===---==========================------------------------------------------------ 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 ==-===========================-------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU =-=========================----------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 688 55.2% 342 27.4% 182 14.6% 34 2. 7% 1246 319 193 108 25 645 10 HOME SUSP. 205 62. 9% 94 28.8% 22 6. 7% 5 1.5% 326 102 52 17 4 175 11 BOYS CLUB 125 53.9% 66 28.4% 33 14.2% 8 3.4% 232 73 42 26 8 149 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% 1 33.3% 1 33.3% 3 1 0 1 1 3 ==========================------------------------------------------------------ 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. 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 55.6% 60 20.2% 54 18.2% 18 6.1% 297 92 35 38 13 178 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 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU 09 S.A.C. 608 88.4 % 400 117.0 % 145 79. 7 % 73 214.7 % 1226 50 74 11 38 173 10 HOME SUSP. 172- 83.9-% 63- 67.0-% 17- 77.3-% 4- 80.0-% 256- 73- 27- 13- 3- 116- 11 BOYS CLUB 40 32.0 % 6- 9.1-% 21 63.6 % 10 125.0 % 65 19 7- 12 5 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 % 1- 100.0-% 1- 100.0-% 2- 0 0 1- 1- 2- Ref: Date: Time: DIS032 9/16/03 13:38:19 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions HIGH SCHOOLS From AUGUST Through JUNE =------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ================================---------------------========-=----------------- 09 S.A.C. 584 55.1% 231 21.8% 172 16.2% 73 6.9% 1060 243 128 98 43 512 10 HOME SUSP. 152 67.9% 35 15.6% 28 12.5% 9 4.0% 224 82 19 23 4 128 11 BOYS CLUB 85 68.5% 17 13. 7% 19 15.3% 3 2.4% 124 62 13 13 3 91 12 E.I.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 100.0% 0 .0% 1 0 0 1 0 1 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% 186 16.0% 65 5. 6% 1166 263 154 114 46 577 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 25.0% 0 .0% 3 75.0% 0 .0% 4 1 0 3 0 4 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 23 3.9 % 77 33.3 % 14 8.1 % 8- 11. 0-% 106 20 26 16 3 65 10 HOME SUSP. 64- 42.1-% 34 97 .1 % 11- 39.3-% 1 11.1 % 40- 29- 24 9- 4 10- 11 BOYS CLUB 6- 7.1-% 9 52.9 % 11 57.9 % 4 133.3 % 18 3- 8 15 4 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 % 2 200.0 % 0 . 0 % 3 1 0 2 0 3 Ref: DIS032S Date: 7/14/03 Time : 10 : 0 8 : 4 9 School: 012 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E.I.C. 17 EXPULSION Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE NORTH LITTLE ROCK HIGH SCHOOL - 11/12 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU 148 47.9% 80 25.9% 62 20.1% 94 53 43 4 33.3% 2 16.7% 6 50.0% 4 2 6 28 62.2% 7 15. 6% 9 20.0% 25 6 8 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 -------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU 09 S.A.C. 190 54.6% 65 18.7% 73 21.0% 108 51 53 10 HOME SUSP. 3 27.3% 3 27.3% 4 36.4% 3 3 4 11 BOYS CLUB 16 59.3% 2 7.4% 7 25.9% 14 2 6 12 E.I.C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION t .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% f 0 0 -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 19 6.1% 13 0 .0% 0 1 2.2% 1 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 309 203 12 12 45 40 0 0 0 0 ----------------- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU 20 5.7% 348 16 228 1 9.1% 11 1 11 2 7.4% 27 2 24 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. 42 28.4 % 15- 18.8-% 11 17.7 % 1 5.3 % 39 14 2- 10 3 25 10 HOME SUSP. 1- 25.0-% 1 50.0 % 2- 33.3-% 1 100.0 % 1- 1- 1 2- 1 1- 11 BOYS CLUB 12- 42.9-% 5- 71. 4-% 2- 22.2-% 1 100.0 % 18- 11- 4- 2- 1 16- 12 E.I.C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .o % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .o % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 7/14/03 Time: 10:08:50 School: 013 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE NORTH LITTLE ROCK HIGH SCHOOL - 09/10 ======================================================-------------------------- 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU ====-=-===-================----------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 433 57.9% 151 20.2% 110 14. 7% 54 7.2% 748 149 76 55 30 310 10 HOME SUSP. 29 76.3% 1 2.6% 8 21.1% 0 .0% 38 24 1 8 0 33 11 BOYS CLUB 57 72.2% 10 12.7% 10 12.7% 2 2.5% 79 38 7 5 2 52 12 E. I .C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 100.0% 0 .0% 1 0 0 1 0 1 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. 416 51.1% 242 29. 7% 111 13.6% 45 5.5% 814 156 103 59 30 348 10 HOME SUSP. 11 39.3% 13 46.4% 2 7.1% 2 7.1% 28 10 11 2 2 25 11 BOYS CLUB 63 54.3% 24 20. 7% 24 20. 7% 5 4.3% 116 45 19 23 5 92 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 :\n0 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- 3.9-% 91 60.3 % 1 . 9 % 9- 16.7-% 66 7 27 4 0 38 10 HOME SUSP. 18- 62.1-% 12 1200.0 % 6- 75.0-% 2 200.0 % 10- 14- 10 6- 2 8- 11 BOYS CLUB 6 10.5 % 14 140.0 % 14 140.0 % 3 150.0 % 37 7 12 18 3 40 12 E.I.C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 1- 100.0-% 0 . 0 % 1- 0 0 1- 0 1- Ref: DIS032S Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Date: 7/14/03 by School Time: 10:08:50 From AUGUST Through JUNE School: 020 ARGENTA ACADEMY 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU ===========================----------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 224 66. 7% 81 24.1% 20 6.0% 11 3.3% 336 87 33 12 5 137 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 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 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. 148- 66.1-% 28- 34.6-% 9- 45.0-% 4- 36.4-% 189- 45- 1- 4- 0 50- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .o % 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 .o % 0 0 0 0 0 0 N __, 0 0 0 ...  '\"d 0 ti:, 0 ~ ' 00 __, z 0 ...... ::r ..-.... ,. :,:I 0 (\u0026gt; :,\n--  :,:I __, N '\"\"' '\"\"' \\J1 0 ' _00_ , \\J1 0 00 0 0 0 The  Choice North Little Rock School District RECEIVED MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: CC: DATE: RE: Margie Powell, Associate Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring Francical J. Jackson, Director Office of Student Affairs Bobby J. Acklin, Assistant Superintendent Office of Desegregation Monitoring September 25, 2003 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 2002-2003 SEP2 9 2003 OFFIOCFE DESEGREGMAOTNIIOTNO RING Enclosed you will find a copy of the 2002-2003 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions report. Per our phone conference on Thursday, September 25, 2003, the report contains the following errors: School - 012 - North Little Rock High School -11112 Should reflect one (I) black male expelled . School - 013 - North Little Rock High School - 09/10 Should reflect three (3) non-black males expelled. School - 025 - Lakewood Middle School - 718 Should reflect one (I) black male expelled. Ridgeroad Middle Charter School The school is being reviewed to insure accuracy due to the large increase in suspensions in SAC (Student Assignment Class). A copy of the revised report will be forwarded to you.  An Equal Opportunity Employer www.nlrsd.k12.ar.us Ref: DIS032S Date: 7/14/03 Time: 10:08:50 School: 024 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE RIDGEROADM IDDLE SCHOOL 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU ------------===================------------------===--==------------------------ 09 S.A.C. 318 59.2% 123 22.9% 84 15.6% 12 2.2% 537 127 66 46 8 247 10 HOME SUSP. 64 75.3% 13 15.3% 6 7.1% 2 2.4% 85 42 10 6 2 60 11 BOYS CLUB 97 63.4% 39 25.5% 13 8.5% 4 2. 6% 153 50 21 9 4 84 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 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% 465 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 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU 09 S.A.C. 446 140.3 % 342 278.0 % 77 91. 7 % 28 233.3 % 893 28 50 9- 14 83 10 HOME SUSP. 54- 84.4-% 10 76.9 % 3- 50.0-% 1- 50.0-% 48- 32- 9 4- 1- 28- 11 BOYS CLUB 95- 97.9-% 38- 97.4-% 12- 92. 3-% 2- 50.0-% 147- 48- 20- 8- 2- 78- 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 ~ 1L 'i ~1 Ref: DIS032S Date: 7 /14/03 Time: 10:08:50 School: 025 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE LAKEWOOMD IDDLES CHOOL 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU 09 S.A.C. 110 45.3% 66 27.2% 53 21. 8% 14 5.8% 58 39 33 11 10 HOME SUSP. 2 66. 7% 1 33.3% 0 .0% 0 .0% 2 1 0 0 11 BOYS CLUB 11 29. 7% 14 37.8% 10 27.0% 2 5.4% 10 10 9 2 12 E. I.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 .0% 1 .0% 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1 33.3% 0 .0% 1 33.3% 1 33.3% 1 0 1 1 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. 146 42.3% 72 20.9% 95 27.5% 32 9.3% 66 41 50 21 10 HOME SUSP. 2 66. 7% 0 .0% 1 33.3% 0 .0% 2 0 1 0 11 BOYS CLUB 51 51.0% 20 20.0% 26 26.0% 3 3.0% 25 9 22 2 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% f 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF---'-- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU 243 141 3 3 37 31 0 0 3 3 345 178 3 3 100 58 0 0 0 0 ------------------------------------------------===-============================ 09 S.A.C. 36 32.7 % 6 9.1 % 42 79.2 % 18 128.6 % 102 8 2 17 10 37 10 HOME SUSP. 0 .0 % 1- 100.0-% 1 100.0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 1- 1 0 0 11 BOYS CLUB 40 363.6 % 6 42.9 % 16 160.0 % 1 50.0 % 63 15 1- 13 0 27 12 E.I.C. 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1- 100.0-% 0 .o % 1- 100.0-% 1- 100.0-% 3- 1- 0 1- 1- 3- Ref: DIS032S Date: 7/14/03 Time : 10 : 0 8 : 5 0 School: 026 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE ROSE CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU =============================================-==---=---------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 90 48.4% 70 37.6% 23 12.4% 3 1. 6% 186 53 41 15 2 111 10 HOME SUSP. 7 33.3% 10 47.6% 4 19.0% 0 .0% 21 7 10 3 0 20 11 BOYS CLUB 14 40.0% 10 28.6% 9 25. 7% 2 5.7% 35 11 8 7 2 28 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 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. 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 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 25- 27.8-% 42- 60.0-% 17- 73.9-% 6 200.0 % 78- 10- 18- 12- 2 38- 10 HOME SUSP. 7- 100.0-% 9- 90.0-% 4- 100.0-% 0 . 0 % 20- 7- 9- 3- 0 19- 11 BOYS CLUB 19 135.7 % 7- 70.0-% 2- 22.2-% 3 150.0 % 13 12 6- 2- 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 Ref: DIS032S Date: 7 /14 /03 Time: 10:08:51 School: 027 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE ROSE CITY MIDDLE LEVEL ACADEMY =-=================================-------------------------------------------- 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # 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. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 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. 3 75.0% 0 .0% 1 25.0% 0 .0% 4 3 0 1 0 4 10 HOME SUSP. 5 41. 7% 7 58.3% 0 .0% 0 .0% 12 3 5 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% 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 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU 09 S.A.C. 3 300.0 % 0 .0 % 1 100.0 % 0 .o % 4 3 0 1 0 4 10 HOME SUSP. 5 500.0 % 7 700.0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 12 3 5 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 .o % 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: 7 /14/03 Time: 10:08:51 School: 030 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE POPLAR STREET MIDDLE SCHOOL - ------------------------------------------------------ 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ======-=====================---------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 173 61.1% 83 29.3% 22 7.8% 5 1.8% 283 88 50 15 4 157 10 HOME SUSP. 27 49.1% 21 38.2% 6 10.9% 1 1.8% 55 20 16 5 1 42 11 BOYS CLUB 3 42.9% 3 42.9% 1 14.3% 0 .0% 7 3 3 1 0 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 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 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. 318 54.3% 177 30.2% 65 11.1% 26 4.4% 586 110 91 30 16 247 10 HOME SUSP. 14 93.3% 0 .0% 1 6. 7% 0 .0% 15 12 0 1 0 13 11 BOYS CLUB 79 55.2% 36 25.2% 20 14.0% 8 5.6% 143 42 23 11 5 81 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. 145 83.8 % 94 113.3 % 43 195.5 % 21 420.0 % 303 22 41 15 12 90 10 HOME SUSP. 13- 48.1-% 21- 100.0-% 5- 83.3-% 1- 100.0-% 40- 8- 16- 4- 1- 29- 11 BOYS CLUB 76 2533.3 % 33 1100.0 % 19 1900.0 % 8 800.0 % 136 39 20 10 5 74 12 E.I.C. 0 .o % 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 Ref: DIS032S Date: 7 /14 /03 T irne : 10 : 0 8 : 51 School: 031 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE AMBOYE LEMENTARYSC HOOL ======-~-=====================------=------------------------------------------- 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 ===================================================----=------------------------ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ===--===-===============================-----=--------==-----------------------= 09 S.A.C. 4 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 4 4 0 0 0 4 10 HOME SUSP. 78 71. 6% 24 22.0% 7 6.4% 0 .0% 109 39 12 4 0 55 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 33 56.9% 14 24.1% 0 19.0% 0 .0% 58 21 11 9 0 41 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 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% 8 13.6% 4 6.8% 59 23 5 6 4 38 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. 4- 100.0-% 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .o % 4- 4- 0 0 0 4- 10 HOME SUSP. 42- 53.8-% 17- 70.8-% 3 42.9 % 0 .0 % 56- 14- 8- 2 0 20- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 9 .0 % 9- . 0 % 3- . 0 % 4 .0 % 1 0 1- 3- 4 3- 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 7 /14 /03 Time: 10:08:51 School: 032 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE LAKEWOODE LEMENTARYS CHOOL ==-========================-==-=------------------------------------------------ 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 ==-====================================------------------------------------===-- -----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 37.5% 5 62.5% 0 .0% 0 . 0% 8 2 3 0 0 5 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 2 - 0 3 ===============================================--------------------------------- -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # 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. 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 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 % 5- 100.0-% 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 5- 1 3- 0 0 2- 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 .o % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 7 /14/03 Time: 10:08:51 School: 033 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE BOONE PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL =------------------========================---=--------------------------------- 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 ==--===================================----------------------------------------- -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # 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. 90 67.2% 35 2,6.1% 4 3.0% 5 3. 7% 134 39 18 2 1 60 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 77 63.1% 38 31.1% 0 .8% 0 4.9% 122 44 22 1 4 71 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 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. 161 78.9% 38 18.6% 5 2.5% 0 .0% 204 57 17 3 0 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. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 71 78.9 % 3 8.6 % 1 25.0 % 5- 100. 0-% 70 18 1- 1 1- 17 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 77- .0 % 38- .o % 1- .0 % 6- .o % 122- 1- 1- 1- 6- 71- 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .o % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 7 /14/03 Time: 10:08:51 School: 035 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 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE SEVENTH STREET ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 16 94.1% 1 5.9% 0 .0% 10 1 0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 74 63.2% 37 31. 6% 0 1. 7% 40 21 2 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 22 91. 7% 2 8.3% 0 .0% 16 2 0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 58 75.3% 19 24.7% 0 .0% 30 11 0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 ------------------------------- COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU 09 S.A.C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 6 37.5 % 1 100.0 % 0 . 0 % 6 1 0 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 16- .0 % 18- . 0 % 2- .0 % 0 0 2- 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 .o % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 .0% 17 0 11 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 3.4% 117 4 67 0 .0% 0 0 0 -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 .0% 24 0 18 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 .0% 77 0 41 0 .0% 0 0 0 -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # STU - - -- 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 . 0 % 7 0 7 0 .0 % 0 0 0 4- .0 % 40- 4- 26- 0 .0 % 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 7 /14/03 Time: 10:08:51 School: 037 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE LYNCH DRIVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ======---======================================-===-----=----=------------------ 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 =========================================================================-----=~ -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 16 72. 7% 2 9.1% 14 2 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 12 E.I.C. 10 100. 0% 0 .0% 7 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 .0% 0 4 18.2% 1 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 0 22 17 0 0 10 7 0 0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. 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% 1 2.6% 1 2.6% 38 15 8 1 1 25 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. 4- 25.0-% 2 100.0 % 3- 75.0-% 0 .0 % 5- 3- 1 0 0 2- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 14 .0 % 12 .o % 1 .0 % 1 . 0 % 28 1 12 1 1 18 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 7 /14/03 Time: 10:08:51 School: 040 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE MEADOWP ARK ELEMENTARYS CHOOL 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 -------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E. I.C. 17 EXPULSION -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 .0% 0 51 67.1% 26 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 -----BF------ -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 21 27.6% 4 5.3% 12 3 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 .0% 0 100.0% 0 2 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 0 76 41 0 0 2 2 0 0 ------------==-====-------=-----============----=---===-=-=-=================== 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 ------------============---=-================================================== -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # 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 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. 23- 45.1-% 13- 61. 9-% 0 .o % 0 . 0 % 36- 7- 7- 0 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 . 0 % 2- . 0 % 0 .o % 2- 0 0 2- 0 2- 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 7 /14/03 Time: 10:08:51 School: 041 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE NORTH HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 ==-===================---------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # 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 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 15 57.7% 2 7.7% 9 34.6% 13 2 7 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 110 52.6% 51 24.4% 0 16. 7% 38 14 20 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 .0% 0 10 52.6% 8 0 .0% 0 31 60.8% 15 0 .0% 0 -----BF------ -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 .0% 8 42.1% 0 6 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 2 3.9% 16 31. 4% 2 11 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 COMPARISON 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 6.2% 7 0 .0% 0 -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 .0% 0 1 5.3% 1 0 .0% 0 2 3.9% 2 0 .0% 0 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU 0 0 26 22 0 0 209 79 0 0 0 0 19 15 0 0 51 30 0 0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 5- 33.3-% 2- 100.0-% 1- 11.1-% 1 100.0 % 7- 5- 2- 1- 1 7- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 79- .0 % 49- .o % 19- .0 % 11- . 0 % 158- 1- 1- 19- 11- 49- 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 .o % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 7 /14/03 Time: 10:08:51 School: 042 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 =============================================----==----=----------------------= -----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. 30 83.3% 5 13. 9% 0 .0% 1 2.8% 36 17 5 0 1 23 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 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. 54 85.7% 7 11.1% 2 3.2% 0 .0% 63 17 5 2 0 24 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 .o % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 24 80.0 % 2 40.0 % 2 200.0 % 1- 100.0-% 27 0 0 2 1- 1 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .o % 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 .o % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 7/14/03 Time: 10:08:51 School: 043 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE PARK HILL ELEMENTARYS CHOOL ====-=--========================================================--------------== 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 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 .0% 0 10 66.7% 6 0 .0% 0 6 40.0% 6 0 .0% 0 -----BF------ -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 1 6.7% 4 26. 7% 1 4 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 1 6. 7% 0 46.7% 1 7 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT /TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 11 64.7% 1 5.9% 5 29.4% 8 1 5 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 3 60.0% 0 .0% 1 20.0% 3 0 1 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 6.7% 1 0 .0% 0 -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 1 20.0% 1 0 .0% 0 0 0 15 11 0 0 15 15 0 0 0 0 17 14 0 0 5 5 0 0 ------------------------------------------------====-=----=--------====~======== 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E.I.C. 17 EXPULSION COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 1 10.0 % 0 .0 % 1 25.0 % 0 . 0 % 2 0 1 0 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 3- .0 % 1- .0 % 6- .0 % 0 . 0 % 1- 1- 6- 0 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .o % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 10- 10- 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 7 /14 /03 Time: 10:08:51 School: 044 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARYSC HOOL 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 ==============================================-==------------------------------ -----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. 10 55.6% 6 33.3% 2 11.1% 0 .0% 18 8 5 2 0 15 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 31 53.4% 18 31.0% 0 8.6% 0 6.9% 58 18 11 3 2 34 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 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. 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% 19 11. 3% 3 1.8% 168 40 26 14 2 82 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 .o % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 9 90.0 % 13 216.7 % 1- 50.0-% 0 .0 % 21 4 8 1- 0 11 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 56 .0 % 41 .0 % 14 .o % 1- .0 % 110 2 2 14 1- 48 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 7/14/03 Time: 10:08:51 School: 045 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE BELWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ================================================--=-===-----=---------------== 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E. I.C. 17 EXPULSION 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 6 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 4 0 0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 0 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. 7 77.8% 2 22.2% 0 .0% 0 .0% 9 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 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 .o % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 1 16.7 % 2 200.0 % 0 .0 % 0 .o % 3 2- 1 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 Ref: DIS032S Date: 7 /14 /03 Time: 10:08:51 School: 046 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E.I.C. 17 EXPULSION Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 9 60.0% 3 20.0% 3 20.0% 8 3 2 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 .0% 15 0 13 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 .0% 0 0 0 --------------------------------------========================================== 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. 31 81. 6% 4 10.5% 3 7.9% 0 .0% 38 23 2 2 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 --------------------------=---================================================== 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. 22 244.4 % 1 33.3 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 23 15 1- 0 0 14 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .o % 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 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 7 /14/03 Time : 10 : 0 8 : 51 School: 048 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE INDIAN HILLS ELEMENTARYSC HOOL ===================================================-====------=---------------=- 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 -----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% 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 0 1 0 0 1 10 HOME SUSP. 1 14.3% 0 .0% 5 71.4% 1 14.3% 7 1 0 3 1 5 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 1 9.1% 5 45.5% 0 36.4% 0 9.1% 11 1 5 3 1 10 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 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. 7 63.6% 1 9.1% 2 18.2% 1 9.1% 11 3 1 2 1 7 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C 7 50.0% 0 .0% 7 50.0% 0 .0% 14 4 0 3 0 7 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 % 1- 100.0-% 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 1- 0 1- 0 0 1- 10 HOME SUSP. 6 600.0 % 1 100.0 % 3- 60.0-% 0 .0 % 4 2 1 1- 0 2 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 .o % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 6 .0 % 5- .0 % 3 . 0 % 1- . 0 % 3 6 1- 3 1- 3- 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .o % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 North Little Rock Public Schools .. -. . - I Analysis of Discipline Actions . I School Year 2002-2003 I District Level I Elementary I Middle Schools I High Schools I 9 Year Comparison 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  01-02 1276 574 354 107 02-03 1903 1050 513 172  01-02  02-03 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Action 10: Home Suspension ---~.....-....~~-----~~ - =--- [t[\nJ\n:!iittllt~~~~~~~ 700 600 500 400  01-02 300 ml 02-03 200 100 0 BM BF NBM NBF  01-02 692 234 92 21 02-03 522 193 63 13 250 200 150 100 50 0  01-02 02-03 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Action 11: Boys Club BM BF NBM NBF 210 83 52 11 244 86 85 25  01-02 G'.i102-03 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0  01-02 13 02-03 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Action 12: Alt School Susp K-5 BM BF NBM NBF 342 164 67 29 253 97 52 11  01-02  02-03 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0  01-02  02-03 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Action 17: Expulsion ~ BM BF NBM NBF 1 0 2 1 2 0 3 0  01-02  02-03 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0  01-02 02-03 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Action 09: SAC BM BF NBM NBF 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0  01-02  02-03 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Action 10: Home Suspension ..-1..-.~-~- --~ ----~~-i-~J4]E\n.\n.~~~~ 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 BM  01-02 335 02-03 401 BF NBM 105 42 93 41 NBF 7 2  01-02 ml 02-03 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Action 11: Boys Club 1 _,, 0.9 _., 0.8 _v 0.7_/ 0.6 _\n0.5-\" 0.4- 0.3 _\n0.2- 0.1 _,, 0 BM BF NBM NBF  01-02 0 0 0 0 GI 02-03 0 0 0 0  01-02 lLl 02-03 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0  01-02 02-03 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Action 12: Alt School Susp K-5 BM BF NBM NBF 341 164 67 29 252 97 52 11  01-02 02-03 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Action 17: Expulsion 1 _/ 0.9 _v 0.8 _v 0.7-\" 0.6- 0.5-L, 0.4- 0.3 _v 0.2 _v 0.1 _v 0 BM BF NBM NBF  01-02 0 0 0 0 lliil 02-03 0 0 0 0  01-02 EJ 02-03 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  01-02 688 342 182 34 02-03 1296 742 327 107  01-02 IJI 02-03 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools Action 10: Home Suspension - - J-~-\n:::\n~~~~.....,..,.- 250 200 150 100 50 0 BM  01-02 205 02-03 33 BF NBM 94 22 31 5 NBF 5 1  01-02 02-03 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0  01-02 02-03 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools Action 11: Boys Club BM BF NBM NBF 125 66 33 8 165 60 54 18  01-02 Q 02-03 2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0  01-02 02-03 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools Action 17: Expulsion BM BF NBM NBF 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0  01-02 l2102-03 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0  01-02 02-03 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 09: SAC BM BF NBM NBF 584 231 172 73 607 308 186 65  01-02 l4102-03 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0  01-02 02-03 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 10: Home Suspension - - -.---- BM BF NBM NBF 152 35 28 9 88 69 17 10  01-02 GJ0I 2-03 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0  01-02 02-03 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 11: Boys Club BM BF NBM NBF 85 17 19 3 79 26 31 7  01-02 ~02-03 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 17: Expulsion 0 ...i.-1111111.S~~--11111 BM BF NBM NBF  01-02 0 0 1 0 0 02-03 1 0 3 0  01-02 DI 02-03 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  93-94 977 529 449 156 El 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  00-01 1092 556 267 69  01-02 1276 574 354 107  02-03 1903 1050 513 172  93-94 CD94 -95  95-96  96-97  97-98  98-99  99-00  00-01  01-02  02-03 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  93.94 231 60 76 22 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 21 522 193 63 13  93-94 E19I4 -95  95-96  96-97  97-98  98-99  99-00  00-01  01-02 D 02-03 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  93-94 119 39 39 9 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  00-01 325 136 56 12  01-02 210 83 52 11  02-03 244 86 85 25  93-94  94-95  95-96  96-97  97-98  98-99  99-00  00-01  01-02  02-03 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 10 Year Comparison Action 12: Alt School Susp K-5 1600- 1400 1200 1000 800- 600 400 200- Ii _I-fl~ 0- ~ _...,  - BM BF NBM NBF  93-94 168 54 45 8 1139 4-95 178 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  00-01 162 55 40 21  01-02 342 164 67 29  02-03 253 97 52 11  93-94 8 94-95  95-96  96-97  97-98  98-99  99-00  00-01  01-02  02-03 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 10 Year Comparison Action 17: Expulsion 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 BM BF NBM NBF  93-94 6 4 3 0 Cil 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  93.94  94-95  95-96  96-97  97-98  98-99  99-00  00-01  01-02  02-03\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_445","title":"English as a Second Language","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":["2002"],"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","Educational planning","English language--Study and teaching--Foreign speakers","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","Student activities"],"dcterms_title":["English as a Second Language"],"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/445"],"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":["123 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\na .- RECEIVED TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 February 7, 2002 Ann Marshall, ODM FEB 1 2 2002 (SnCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING bl-i FROM: Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: 2000-2001 ESL Program Evaluation We are attaching a copy of the 2000-2001 ESL program evaluation. Please share it also with Horace Smith. We are rather pleased with the findings. Weve come a long way. Let us know if you have questions. BAL/adg Attachment frtn tJlSC) i-it-IZ 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 Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction DATE: February 28, 2002 SUBJECT: Program Evaluation: Alternative Language Program Background Information A part of the Districts Commitment to Resolve with the Office for Civil Rights in 1999 was to conduct an annual program evaluation of the Alternative Language Program and to modify the programs and services based on the findings. The first program evaluation was presented to the Board of Education in August 2000 and submitted to OCR in October 2000. The second annual evaluation is now ready for Board review. Eddie McCoy was assigned the lead responsibility for writing the program evaluation in fall 1999. Other staff (Karen Broadnax, Ed Williams, Ken Savage, and Bonnie Lesley) have worked with her to verify data and the overall accuracy of the report. Mark Vasquez served as consultant to the process. Fiscal Impact No fiscal impact is anticipated. Recommendation That the Board of Education review and provide feedback to the ESL program evaluation. BAL/adg Attachment cc: Karen Broadnax Dr. Eddie McCoy I The Second Annual Program Evaluation for Alternative Language Program (ALP) School Year: 2000-2001 (Introduction and Key Findings/Recommendations) January 30, 2002 Division of Instruction Little Rock School District Prepared by Eddie Williams-McCoy Karen Broadnax Dr. Ed Williams Ken Savage Dr. Bonnie Lesley Mark Vasquez, Consultant T Table of Contents I I 1 I Section I: introduction Introduction Program Goals and Objectives Research Questions Methodology Evaluation Design and Focus Assessments Outline of Program Evaluation Section II: Policies, Procedures, and Programs to Ensure Compliance i I Top Ten Languages of PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE Students PHLOTE Students LEP Students FEPE Students Policy, Procedural, and Program Changes Program Objective 1 (Student Identification) Program Objective 2 (Assessment) Program Objective 3 (Program Placement) Organization and Role of LPACs Student Assignment Program Objective 4 (ESL Program) Curriculum Standards and Benchmarks Assessments ESL InstructionElementary Schools ESL InstructionMiddle Schools ESL InstructionHigh Schools Program Objective 5 (Staffing/Development) ESL Training Program (Elementary) ESL Training Program (Secondary) Schedule for ESL Training Summary of ESL Training Participation ESL Endorsement Program Summary of ESL Endorsement Participation Program Objective 6 (Instructional Materials) Program Objective 7 (Program Exit) Program Objective 8 (Parental Involvement) Program Objective 9 (Special Programs) Special Education Gifted and Talented Special Programs by PHLOTE and Grades Third Grade G/T PHLOTE Students Fourth Grade G/T PHLOTE Students Fifth Grade G/T PHLOTE Students 1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5 5-6 7-9 7 8 8-9 9 9-10 10 10-12 11 11-12 13-16 13-14 14 14-15 15 16 17-19 17 17 18 18 18-19 19 21 22 22 22-27 23 23-24 24 24 24-25 25r-  Middle-Level G/T and Special Education PHLOTE Students Special Education PHLOTE Students GfT PHLOTE Students Senior-Level G/T and Special Education Special Education PHLOTEs (9-10) G/T PHLOTEs (9-10) Special Educatoin PHLOTEs (11-12) G/T PHLOTEs (11-12) Program Objective 10 (Exited LEPs) Students Who Exited Prior to Fall 2000 Students Who Exited in 2000-2001 Program Objective 11 (Program Evaluation) Program Objective 12 (Student Records) Program Cost Section III: English Language Acquisition of LEP and FEPE Students Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten Performance Overall Performance of PHLOTEs Kindergarten PHLOTES with PreK Kindergarten PHLOTES without PreK Overall Performance of LEPs Kindergarten LEPs with PreK Kindergarten LEPs without PreK Kindergarten FEPEs Kindergarten PerformanceTwo Years Overall Performance of PHLOTEs Overall Performance of LEPs Summary and Conclusions First Grade PerformanceTwo Years Overall Performance of PHLOTEs Performance of LEPs Summary and Conclusions Second Grade PerformanceTwo Years Overall Performance of PHLOTEs Performance of LEPs Performance of FEPEs Summary and Conclusions Newcomer Centers School Enrollment by PHLOTE Elementary Newcomer Centers Elementary Non-Newcomer Centers DRA Results by Schools DRA by Newcomer Centers DRA by Non-Newcomer Centers Overall Performance of PHLOTEs 25 25 26 26 26 27 27 27 28-34 29-32 32-34 34-35 35-36 36 37-38 38- 38-39 39 39-40 40 40-41 41 42 42-44 42-43 43 43-44 44-45 44 44-45 45 45-47 46 46-47 47 47 48- 48 48-49 49-50 50-54 50 50-51 51-52 iiOverall Performance of LEPs Conclusions Achievement Level Tests 52-54 54 54-55 Data Interpretation for LEPs and FEPEs 55 ALT ReadingGrade 2 PHLOTEs ALT ReadingGrade 2 LEPs Summary and Conclusions ALT ReadingGrade 3 PHLOTEs ALT ReadingGrade 3 LEPs ALT ReadingGrade 3 FEPEs Summary and Conclusions ALT ReadingGrade 4 PHLOTEs ALT ReadingGrade 4 LEPs ALT ReadingGrade 4 FEPEs Summary and Conclusions ALT ReadingGrade 5 PHLOTEs ALT ReadingGrade 5 LEPs ALT ReadingGrade 5 FEPEs Summary and Conclusions ALT ReadingGrade 6 PHLOTEs ALT ReadingGrade 6 LEPs ALT ReadingGrade 6 FEPEs Summary and Conclusions ALT ReadingGrade 7 PHLOTEs ALT ReadingGrade 7 LEPs ALT ReadingGrade 7 FEPEs Summary and Conclusions ALT ReadingGrade 8 PHLOTEs ALT ReadingGrade 8 LEPs ALT ReadingGrade 8 FEPEs ALT ReadingGrade 9 PHLOTEs ALT ReadingGrade 9 LEPs ALT ReadingGrade 9 FEPEs Summary and Conclusions ALT ReadingGrade 10 PHLOTEs ALT ReadingGrade 10 LEPs ALT ReadingGrade 10 FEPEs Summary and Conclusions Conclusions\nALT Reading 55-56 56 56 56-57 57 58 58-59 59-60 60 60-61 61 61-62 62-63 63 63 63-64 64-65 65 65 65-66 66-67 67 67 68 68-69 69-70 70 71 71-72 72 72-73 73 73-74 74 74 ALT Language Usage ALT Language Grade 2 LEPs ALT Language Grade 2 FEPEs ALT Language Grade 3 LEPs ALT Language Grade 3 FEPEs ALT Language Grade 4 LEPs ALT Language Grade 4 FEPEs ALT Language Grade 5 LEPs 74-75 75 75 75-76 76 76-77 77 78 iiiALT Language Grade 5 FEPEs ALT Language Grade 6 LEPs ALT Language Grade 6 FEPEs ALT Language Grade 7 LEPs ALT Language Grade 7 FEPEs ALT Language Grade 8 LEPs ALT Language Grade 8 FEPEs ALT Language Grade 9 LEPs ALT Language Grade 9 FEPEs ALT Language Grade 10 LEPs ALT Language Grade 10 FEPEs ALT Language Grade 11 LEPs ALT Language Grade 11 FEPEs 78-79 79 79-80 80 80-81 81 81-82 82 82-83 83 83 83 83-84 Section IV: Content Area Knowledge and Skills of LEP and FEPE Students ALT Mathematics Grade 2 LEPs ALT Mathematics Grade 2 FEPEs ALT Mathematics Grade 3 LEPs ALT Mathematics Grade 3 FEPEs ALT Mathematics Grade 4 LEPs ALT Mathematics Grade 4 FEPEs ALT Mathematics Grade 5 LEPs ALT Mathematics Grade 5 FEPEs ALT Mathematics Grade 6 LEPs ALT Mathematics Grade 6 FEPEs ALT Mathematics Grade 7 LEPs ALT Mathematics Grade 7 FEPEs ALT Mathematics Grade 8 LEPs ALT Mathematics Grade 8 FEPEs ALT Algebra I LEPs and FEPEs ALT Algebra 11 LEPs and FEPEs ALT Geometry LEPs and FEPEs 85 85 86 86-87 87 87-88 88 88-89 89 89-90 90 90 91 91 91-92 92 92 ALT Biology LEPs and FEPEs ALT Physics LEPs and FEPEs ALT Chemistry LEPs and FEPEs 93 93 93-94 Stanford Achievement Test, 9* Edition Grade 5 PHLOTEs Grade 5 LEPs Grade 5 FEPEs Grade 7 PHLOTEs Grade 7 LEPs Grade 7 FEPEs Grade 10 PHLOTEs Grade 10 LEPs Grade 10 FEPEs 94-95 95 95-96 96 96-97 97 97 97-98 98 98 ivArkansas Benchmark Examinations Primary and Middle Level Definitions Grade 4 PHLOTEs Grade 4 LEPs Grade 4 FEPEs Grade 8 PHLOTEs Grade 8 LEPs Grade 8 FEPEs 99 99-100 100 100-101 101 101 101-102 102 Section V: Behavioral Performance Indicators of LEP and FEPE Students Background Information on PHLOTEs in District Grade Distribution of PHLOTEs Grade Distribution of LEPs and FEPEs Six Highest PHLOTE Student Enrollments School Enrollment by LEP and FEPE PreKindergarten PHLOTEs Kindergarten PHLOTEs First Grade PHLOTEs Second Grade PHLOTEs Third Grade PHLOTEs Fourth Grade PHLOTEs Fifth Grade PHLOTEs Sixth Grade PHLOTEs Seventh Grade PHLOTEs Eighth Grade PHLOTEs Ninth Grade PHLOTEs Tenth Grade PHLOTEs Eleventh Grade PHLOTEs Twelfth Grade PHLOTEs 103 103-104 104 105 105 106 106 106-107 107 108 108-109 109-110 110-111 111 112 112-113 113-114 114-115 115-116 Graduation Rates for PHLOTEs Summary Who Are the Dropouts? 116 116 116-117 Section VI\nKey Findings and Recommendations Research Question 1 (Policies, Procedures, Programs) Research Question 2 (Special Opportunity Programs) Research Question 3 (Quality of Instruction) Research Question 4 (Learning English) Effect of PreKindergarten Two-Year Comparison of Kindergarten DRAs Two-Year Comparison of Grade 1 DRAs Two-Year Comparison of Grade 2 DRAs Summary of K-2 Findings 118 118 118-119 119-125 119-120 120 120-121 121 121 VComparison of K-2 Students in Newcomer and Non-Newcomer Center Schools Summary of Findings 121-122 122 Cohort Performance on ALT Reading Summary of Findings 122-123 123 Cohort Performance on ALT Language Usage Summary of Findings 123-124 124 Stanford Achievement Test Summary of Findings 124-125 125 Arkansas Benchmark Examinations Summary of Findings Conclusions 125 125 125 Research Question 5 (Content Knowledge and Skills) Cohort Performance on ALT Mathematics Summary of Findings 125-127 125-126 126 ALT High School Mathematics/Science Summary of Findings 126-127 127 Stanford Achievement TestMathematics Summary of Findings 127 127 Arkansas Benchmark Examinations Summary of Findings Conclusions 127 127 127 Research Question 6 (Behavioral Indicators) Attendance Discipline and Suspensions Retention Dropouts Graduation Rate Summary of Findings 127-129 128 128 128 128 128 128-129 Recommendations 129-130 References 131 vi Second Annual Evaluation of the Little Rock School Districts Alternative Language Program Section I: Introduction This Second Annual Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Little Rock School Districts (LRSD) Alternative Language Program builds on the information provided in an earlier report that was submitted to the Board of Education in August 2000 and to the Dallas Office of Civil Rights (OCR) in October 2000. The report for school year 2000-2001 is a part of the Little Rock School Districts continuing efforts to meet the requirements outlined in the LRSDs Commitment to Resolve (CTR) agreement with the Office for Civil Rights (September 29, 1999), to comply with the requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and to meet the requirements of the Arkansas Department of Education. The requirement to conduct an annual evaluation of the Alternative Language Program was formally established by the Board of Education in its adoption of Policy IHBEA: English as a Second Language, on November 18,1999. Specific requirements and procedures were delineated in the administrative regulations (IHBEA-R) as adopted in October 1999 and amended in November 2001. This report also is in compliance with the Boards Policy IL: Evaluation of Instructional Programs, adopted on March 22, 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. Program Goals and Objectives According to the Districts Administrative Regulation IHBEA-R: English as a Second Language (adopted in September 1999 and amended in November 2001), the first goal of the ESL program is 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. The second goal of the program is to provide identified students with the cultural literacy necessary for them to feel comfortable in participating in the school, community, and greater community. To reach those goals, the District also established twelve program objectives. Each one addressed a policy, procedural, or program requirement mandated by federal, state, and/or local governance bodies. They are as follows: 1 I 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 student 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. Research Questions To address the requirements of federal, state, and local governance, the following research questions were selected to guide the evaluation of the effectiveness of the Districts Alternative Language program\nProgram Implementation 1. Has the District implemented appropriate policies, procedures, and programs to comply with federal law, the Commitment to Resolve with OCR, the ADE, and local LRSD policy? What has been the cost of implementation? 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, 504 programs, and co/extra-curricular 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? I 2 I 5 t Academic Progress 4. Are identified LEP students being served in the Alternative Language Pmnrorr* _ __________  ____  .. . _ iy prggress in learning reading and English language arts soki/iiHllcsO? How does their _p__e__rfco__r_m___a nce compare wi_t_h__ _t_h e general popiyulation with PHLOTE students in general, and with fluent English-proficient students who have exited the program (FEPEs)? 5. 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, with PHLOTE students in general, and with fluent English-proficient students who have exited the program (FEPEs)? Other Behavioral Indicators 6. What are the attendance rates, retention rates, discipline/suspension rates dropout rates, and graduation rates of identified LEP students being served i the Alternative Language Program? How does their performance compare with that of the general population, with PHLOTE students in general and in with fluent English-proficient students who have exited the program (FEPEs)? Methodology A team comprised of staff from the Division of Instruction and from the Department of Testing, Research and Evaluation was assembled early in the year to determine the scope and focus of the evaluation, to formulate the research questions, and to ensure the 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 aanud ceififceucutivvec iimiiippileemmeennitaaitiioonn oorf AAlltteerrnnaattiivvee LLaanngguuaaggee PPrrooggrraammss and effective techniques for monitoring and assessing the performance of limited-EnqIish Mr. Mark Vasquez, an expert on the requirements for compliance with the Office of Civil Rights relating to LEP issues, served as a consultant to the team who prepared the program evaluation. Since this study is a year-two evaluation, the team decided to focus on the gualitv of the iimmnplloemmoennttoattiiroinn of the program, Xto__ _m___o__n:ixt_o_r 1t1h. e. _p errf ormance of _L__E__P_ and__ _F__EjPr ^E1 sUtudents academic performance in relation to the performance of the general student population in both acquiring English language skills and content knowledge and skills, and to monitor certain behavioral variables such as attendance, retention, discipline/ suspension, dropout, and graduation rates. Compiled data results for each academic or behavioral variable are displayed Tables follow the descriptions of the data. The descriptions always start with an overview of the demographics of the table, i.e., how many LEPs, FEPs, etc. The demographic overview is followed by An Overview of the Overall Performance of PHLOTE Students (Primary Home Language Other Than English) students. Caul description proceeds with the performance of LEP (Limited English Proficient) and in tables. Each FEPE (Fluent English Proficient Exited) students. A summary follows each description 3 of each PHLOTE category. Conclusions are included at the end of each grade-level section. Unless otherwise indicated, pre assessment refers to the spring of the 1999-2000 school year, and post refers to the spring of the 2000-2001 school year. The exception is with the Development Reading Assessment (DRA) for the kindergarten, first grade, and second grade students who took the DRA during the 2000-2001 school year. In these cases, pre refers to the fall of the 2000-2001 school year, and post refers to the spring of the 2000-2001 school year. Evaluation Design and Focus The general population for this report will consist of all students in the LRSD except the PHLOTE (Primary Home Language Other Than English) students. PHLOTE students include the following sub-populations: LEP, FEP, FEPE, NALMS, REFUSE, LEPREC, and LEPREF which are designated by acronyms. The acronyms and the definitions of the sub-populations of PHLOTE students are as follows:  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 students English proficiency. I i I J  LEPREC (Limited English Proficient Reclassified): FEPE students whose performance after exiting the ESL program required that the student to again be identified as LEP.  LEPREF (Limited English Proficient Refused Services)\nPHLOTE students who were identified through language assessment to be LEP\nhowever, the parents refused permission to place the student in the ESL program. 4Although the evaluation analyzes the achievement of PHLOTE students as a group, the primary focus of the evaluation is the performance (behavioral and academic) of LEP (Limited- English Proficient) and FEPE (Fluent-English Proficient Exited) students. LEP students are the students receiving ALP (Alternative Language Program) services, and FEPE students are former LEP students who have been exited from the AL program and are no longer receiving direct services. The performance (academic) of FEPE students must be monitored 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. Assessments The descriptions of academic performance in the English language arts are based upon student performance on the following national, state, and local assessments\n\" Stanford Achievement Test Series - Ninth Edition (grades 5, 7 and 10),Total Reading and Total Language\n Arkansas Benchmark Examination (grade 4 and 8), Literacy Examinations\n Developmental Reading Assessment (grades K-2)\n LRSD Achievement Level Tests\nReading and Language Usage (grades 2 through 11). The descriptions of academic performance in specific content knowledge and skills are based upon student performance on the following assessments\n LRSD Achievement Level Tests\nElementary Mathematics (Grades 2-5)\nMiddle School Mathematics (Grades 6-8), and the following content courses at the secondary level\n Physics  Chemistry  Biology,  Algebra I and II  Geometry. Outline of Program Evaluation This document is divided into six sections. Each of sections ll-V addresses specific research questions. 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 and behavioral data, and an outline of the sections in the stud/ Section II\nPolicies, Procedures, and Programs to Ensure Compliance 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. Also included are demographic datanumbers of PHLOTE, LEP, and PEPE students, as well as statistics on the top ten language communities represented by each subpopulation. 5 s 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\nBehavioral 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 VI: Key Findings and Recommendations\nBibliography 6Section VI: Key Findings and Recommendations Program Implementation 1. Has the District implemented appropriate policies, procedures, and programs to comply with federal law, the Commitment to Resolve with OCR, the ADE, and local LRSD policy? What has been the cost of implementation? A review of documents submitted to OCR as per the agreed-upon schedule, of the annual report to the ADE, and of LRSD data and reports, along with the information provided for this program evaluation provides adequate evidence for the Districts compliance with federal, state, and local expectations. Although the District has invested substantial funding in these efforts, most of the funds have come from the federal Class-size Reduction grant, from Title I, and from the States allocation for LEP students. District funds have been used to pay the salaries and office expenses of the ESL Supervisor, one-half secretary, and 20 percent of the ESL Parent Coordinators salary. The remaining 80 percent of her salary is paid through Title I. 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, 504 programs, and co/extra-curricular programs? 5 J i As described under Program Objective 9 above, the LRSD has established and implemented appropriate policies and procedures, as well as training of various levels of staff, to ensure compliance with the expectation that LEP students will have appropriate access to the range of special opportunity programs. The District has provided evidence of the inclusion of LEP students in its special education and gifted/talented programs. In addition to the data provided, LEP students are also represented in the Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement courses at all secondary schools and in the University Studies (concurrent enrollment with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock) at Hall High School. Section III of this study also provides evidence of the participation of LEP students in the Districts pre-kindergarten program. 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? Program Objective 5 activities described above includes evidence of the Districts effort's to support teacher endorsement in ESL, to provide training for scores of other teachers to enhance their effectiveness, to provide administrator training, and to schedule students appropriately with the trained or endorsed teachers. The ESL Supervisors database provides further evidence of the Districts commitment to provide quality instruction for LEP students. At all three levels of schools (elementary, middle, and high), the District already had at the end of the second year (2000-2001) more endorsed teachers than they projected a need for in the fall of 1999. 118Having more and more teachers endorsed allows a school to be more flexible in scheduling students, and it also enables the District to serve without so much stress its growing population of LEP students. 1 i Academic Progress 4. Are identified LEP students being served in the Alternative Language Program making progress in learning reading and English language arts skills? How does their performance compare with the general population, with PHLOTE students in general, and with fluent English-proficient students who have exited the program (FEPEs)? i i i 5 Effect of Prekindergarten on Academic Progress The performance of six groups of kindergarten students were displayed in the tables in the first part of Section 111\nall kindergarten PHLOTE students\nkindergarten PHLOTE students with pre-kindergarten\nkindergarten PHLOTE students without pre- kindergarten\nall kindergarten LEP students\nkindergarten LEP students with pre- kindergarten\nand, finally, kindergarten LEP students without pre-kindergarten. Each of the groups is rank-ordered below in terms of its performance on the spring 2001 DRA the percent of students performing At/Above the readiness level: PHLOTE kindergarten with pre-kindergarten LEP kindergarten with pre-kindergarten LRSD General Population All PHLOTE kindergarten All LEP kindergarten PHLOTE kindergarten without pre-kindergarten LEP kindergarten without pre-kindergarten 86% 81% 81% 78% 76% 68% 67% The rank order of the groups according to gains from the fall 2000 pre-test to the spring 2001 post-test is as follows: LEP kindergarten with pre-kindergarten PHLOTE kindergarten with pre-kindergarten All LEP kindergarten All PHLOTE kindergarten LEP kindergarten without pre-kindergarten PHLOTE kindergarten without pre-kindergarten 76%age points 72%age points 67%age points 67%age points 57%age points 57%age points Either way the data are examined reveals the importance of students participation in the pre-kindergarten program for more rapid acquisition of English language skills. The PHLOTE and LEP students with LRSD pre-kindergarten experience both out-performed those without pre-kindergarten, and they grew at faster rates. In comparison to all kindergarten students in the District, both the PHLOTE and LEP kindergarten students with LRSD pre-kindergarten experience out-performed the general population. The LRSD average in spring 2001 for all students was 80.7. The PHLOTE kindergarten average was 86%, and the LEP kindergarten average was 81%. It is also important to examine the differences in the performance of PHLOTE kindergarten students with LRSD pre-kindergarten (86% At/Above readiness) and those 119 without (68%)a difference of 18 percentage points. A similar disparity is found between the LEP kindergarten students with LRSD pre-kindergarten (81% At/Above readiness) and those without (67%)a 14 point difference. These differences are especially important, given that there is almost no difference between the performance of PHLOTE kindergarten students in general (78% At/Above readiness) and LEP kindergarten students in general (75% At/Above readiness), although the LEP students comprise 86 percent of the total kindergarten PHLOTE population. This study further finds that LEP kindergarten students who have attended LRSD pre-kindergarten (81 % At/Above readiness) out-perform PHLOTE kindergarten students in general (78% At/Above) and LRSDs general population (80.7% At/Above readiness). The students with the pre-kindergarten experience had an advantage over the students without the pre-kindergarten experience. This finding validates the research on the importance of early childhood education (Bredekamp, Knuth, Kunesh, and Shulman. 1992\nKagan, 1995\nSchwartz, 1996). Two-Year Comparison of Kindergarten DRA Scores Just as the students in the second year of the Districts new literacy program improved at each grade level, K-2, over the performance of students in the first year of the programs implementation, so did the PHLOTE and LEP students.  LRSDs general kindergarten population improved from 72% readiness to 81%-9 points.  Kindergarten PHLOTE students improved from 67% to 79%12 points.  Kindergarten LEP students improved from 59% to 76%-17 points. Both PHLOTE and LEP students improved more on average than the general population, with LEP students achieving the most improvement. The gap between the general population and PHLOTE students decreased from 5 points in 1999-2000 to only 2 points in 2000-2001 The gap between the general population and LEP students decreased from 13 points to 5 points in the second year. Two-Year Comparison of Grade 1 DRA Scores At grade 1, the general population, PHLOTEs and LEPs students all improved the second year of the program:  LRSDs general grade 1 population improved from 54% to 64%-10 points.  Grade 1 PHLOTE students improved from 33% to 60%--17 points.  Grade 1 LEP students improved from 23% to 59%--36 points. Again, both PHLOTE and LEP students improved more on average than the general population, and, again, with LEP students improving the most. The gap between the general population and PHLOTE students decreased from 21 points in 1999-2000 to 4 120 I points in 2000-2001, and the gap between the general population and LEPs decreased from 31 points to 5. Two-Year Comparison of Grade 2 DRA Scores The pattern of improved achievement during the second year of program implementation continued for grade 2 for the general population, PHLOTEs, LEPs, and FEPEs.  LRSDs general population at grade 2 improved from 68% to 75%--7 points.  Grade 2 PHLOTE students improved from 56% to 65%--9 points.  Grade 2 LEP students improved from 50% to 57%--7 points.  Grade 2 FEPE students improved from 60% to 100%~40 points. The grade 2 PHLOTE and FEPE students both improved more in the second year than did the general population. The LEP students improved the same. The gap between the general population and PHLOTE grade 2 students decreased from 12 points to 10 points in the second year and for the FEPE students decreased from 8 points to -25. The gap remained the same for LEP students18 points. Summary of K-2 Findings LEP students grew more than PHLOTE students or the general population in both kindergarten and grade 1. FEPE students, although small in number, all achieved the District standard at grade 2 (100% readiness), and their improvement in the second year was 40 points. FEPE students outperformed the general population in grade 3. Comparison of K-2 Students in Newcomer and Non-Newcomer Schools At the K-2 levels, there were 145 PHLOTE students attending Newcomer Schools in 2000-2001, and 140 attended non-Newcomer Center schools. Eight elementary schools had no PHLOTE students.  At the kindergarten level the Newcomer Center PHLOTE students (82%) outperformed the District (81%) and non-Newcomer Center schools (76%) with the percent of students reaching the readiness standard. LEP students (83%) at Newcomer Centers also outperformed the District and non-Newcomer Center schools (70%).  At grade 1 the PHLOTE (66%) students at the non-Newcomer Center schools outperformed the PHLOTE students at Newcomer Centers (53%), as well as the general population (64%). LEP students at the Newcomer Center schools performed as well as those in non-Newcomer Center schools (59%), but not as well as the general population (64%), 121 i Grade 2 non-Newcomer Center school PHLOTE students (70%) performed significantly better than those in the Newcomer Center schools (56%) and just five points below the general population (75%). Non-Newcomer Center LEP students (76%) also significantly outperformed LEP students in the Newcomer Centers (44%) and outperformed the general population by one point (75%). Summary of Findings Both PHLOTE and LEP students at the kindergarten level at the Newcomer Center schools outperformed the PHLOTE and LEP students at the non-Newcomer Center schools, as well as the Districts general population. At grades 1 and 2, however, both PHLOTE and LEP students at the non-Newcomer Center schools outperformed their peers in the Newcomer Center schools. In grade 1 the PHLOTE students in the nonNewcomer Center schools outperformed the general population. Cohort Performance on the Achievement Level Reading Test The Northwest Evaluation Association recommends the use of median RIT scores for the purpose of evaluating student performance.  The Grade 2 general population (183) outperformed both PHLOTE (171) and LEP (179) students.  The 1999-2000 grade 2 FEPE students grew 21 points by the end of grade 3, as compared to an 18-point growth by PHLOTEs, a 10-point growth by LEPs, and only one point by the general population. Both PHLOTE and FEPE students scored higher than the general population in grade 3 during 2000-2001. i 1  The 1999-2000 grade 3 PHLOTE students grew 16 points by the end of grade 4, as compared to a 13-point growth by LEPs, 10 points by FEPEs, and no growth by the general population. FEPE students outperformed the general population both in grade 3 in 1999-2000 and in grade 4 in 2000-2001. PHLOTE students also outperformed the general population in 2000-2001.  The 1999-2000 grade 4 LEP students grew 11 points by the end of grade 5, as compared to 10 points by the FEPEs, 3 points by the general population and a -9 points by PHLOTES, Both PHLOTEs and FEPEs outperformed the general population in grade 4 in 1999-2000, and FEPEs outperformed the general population in grade 5 in 2000-2001.  The 1999-2000 grade 5 LEP students grew 6 points by the end of grade 6 in 2000- .- 2001, as compared to 4 points each by PHLOTEs, FEPEs, and the general population. The general population outperformed PHLOTEs, LEPs, and FEPEs at the end of grade 6.  The 1999-2000 grade 6 FEPE students grew 15 points by the end of grade 7 in 2000-2001, as compared to 10 points by PHLOTEs, 3 points by LEPs, and 2 points by the general population. The general population scored higher than PHLOTEs, 122LEPs. and FEPEs in grade 6. but both FEPEs (222) and PHLOTEs (221) outperformed the general population (216) in grade 7.  The 1999-2000 grade 7 PHLOTE students grew 15 points by the end of grade 8 in 2000-2001, as compared to 10 points by FEPEs. 7 points by LEPs, and 2 points by the general population. The general population outperformed the PHLOTEs. LEPs. and FEPEs in grade 7. but PHLOTE students significantly outperformed the general population in grade 8.  The 1999-2000 grade 8 LEP students grew 7 points by the end of grade 9 in 2000- 2001. as compared to only one point of growth by PHLOTE and FEPE students and none by the general population. The general population outperformed the PHLOTE. LEP. and FEPE students in both grades 8 and 9.  The 1999-2000 grade 9 PHLOTE students grew 6 points by the end of grade 10 in 2000-2001. as compared to only one point by the general population, no growth by FEPEs. and a -2 by LEPs. Summary of Findings In general. PHLOTE and FEPE students performed better than the general population on the ALT Reading test in grades 3-4 and 7-8. This finding provides evidence of the strength and effectiveness of the elementary Alternative Language Program. The lower performance of these students in grades 6 and 9-10 requires examination to determine whether their lower performance is a result of the schools to which they are assigned, changes in the LEP and FEPE populations themselves from year to year, or the quality the Alternative Language Program at these levels. I Cohort Performance on the Achievement Level Language Usage Test Both the DRA and ALT reading scores already reported provide evidence that PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE students are improving in their ability to read in English. The following analysis provides evidence of the acquisition of English usage skills for these students.  At grade 2 in 2000-2001, the FEPE students outperformed the general population.  The 1999-2000 grade 2 LEP students grew 14 points by the end of grade 3 in 2000- 2001. as compared to 11 points by the general population and 10 points by FEPE students. The grade 2 FEPE students outperformed the general population, as did the grade 3 FEPE students in 2000-2001.  The 1999-2000 grade 3 FEPE students grew 8 points by the end of grade 4 in 2000- 2001, as compared to 5 points by the LEPs and no growth by the general population. The grade 3 FEPE students outperformed the general population, as did the FEPE students in grade 4 in 2000-2001.  The 1999-2000 grade 4 LEP students grew 12 points by the end of grade 5 in 2000- 2001, as compared to 5 points by FEPE students and 4 by the general population. 123The grade 4 FEPE students outperformed the general population in 1999-2000, as well as in grade 5 in 2000-2001.  The 1999-2000 grade 5 LEP students grew 3 points, as compared to no growth by FEPEs and -2 by the general population by the end of grade 6 in 2000-2001. The general population outperformed the LEP and FEPE students in both grade 5 and grade 6.  The 1999-2000 grade 6 FEPE students grew 5 points by the end of grade 7 in 2000- 2001, as compared to 1 point for LEP students, and -2 for the general population. The general population outperformed LEP and FEPE students in grade 6, but the FEPE students outperformed the general population in grade 7.  The 1999-2000 grade 7 FEPE students grew 7 points by the end of grade 8 in 2000- 2001, as compared to 2 points for LEP students and none for the general population. The general population outperformed the LEP and FEPE students in both grades 7 and 8.  The 1999-2000 grade 8 LEP students grew 4 points by the end of grade 9, but both FEPEs and the general population declined. The general population outperformed both LEP and FEPE students in both grades 8 and 9.  The 1999-2000 grade 9 general population posted no growth by the end of grade 10, and both the LEPs and FEPEs posted declines. The general population outperformed both the LEPs and FEPEs in grades 9 and 10. i Summary of Findings FEPE students in grades 2-5 consistently outperformed the general population on the English Language Usage ALT. With only one exception, however, neither LEP nor FEPE students scored as well as the general population in grades 6-10. I Stanford Achievement Test The degree to which PHLOTE students, as well as LEPs and FEPEs, are acquiring English reading and language arts skills can also be measured by the SAT9 reading and language subtests, although not all LEP students take these tests, as they do the DRA and ALTS. j I  At grade 5, the FEPE students (64' %ile) significantly outperformed the general population (42 %ile) on the language subtest. PHLOTE students (45 %ile) also outperformed the general population.  At grade 7 the PHLOTE students (45' %ile) outperformed the general population (39^ %ile) on the reading subtest. The FEPE students scored at the 38' %ile.  At grade 7 both the PHLOTES (49' %ile) and FEPEs (51 %ile) outperformed the general population (SS^^ %ile) on the language subtest. i I 124 At grade 10 the PHLOTE students (44** %ile) outperformed the general population (42\" %ile). I Summary of Findings PHLOTEs outperformed the general population at all three grade levels tests on the language subtest, and FEPE students did better in grades 5 and 7. Only in grade 7 did PHLOTEs and FEPEs outperform the general population in reading. Arkansas Benchmark Examinations Not all LEP students take the Benchmark Examinations, but the scores on these tests can also be analyzed to determine the degree to which PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE students are acquiring English literacy skills.  At grade 4, FEPE students (75%) significantly outperformed the general population (35%). PHLOTEs were close behind with 33%.  At grade 8, both PHLOTE (28%) and FEPE (25%) students outperformed the general population (17%). Summary of Findings Both PHLOTE and FEPE students are doing very well on the state Benchmark Examinations, as compared to the general population. i Conclusions A review of PHLOTE, FEPE, and LEP performance on the DRA, ALT reading, ALT language usage, SAT9 reading, SAT9 language usage, and Arkansas Benchmark Literacy Examinations, as compared to the general population, shows strong performance by PHLOTE and FEPE students at the elementary level and to some degree at the middle school level. Both PHLOTE and FEPE students compared to the general population more favorably on the SAT9 and Arkansas Benchmark examinations than they did on the ALTs. Kindergarten students who attended the LRSD prekindergarten program performed significantly better than those without this experience. Grades 1-2 students in the non-Newcomer Center schools outperformed their peers in the Newcomer Centers. ! I 5. 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)? This question will be answered through analysis of student performance on the ALT mathematics test, the SAT9 mathematics subtest, and the Arkansas Benchmark Mathematics Examinations. Scores are also included for high school science ALTs. Cohort Performance on the Achievement Level Mathematics Test  The 2000-2001 grade 2 FEPE students outperformed the general population, and the LEPs did as well as the general population. 125 The 1999-2000 grade 2 LEP students grew 17 points by the end of grade 3 in 2000- 2001, as compared to 9 points by FEPEs and 2 points by the general population. In grade 2 the general population outperformed LEPs and FEPEs, but FEPEs outperformed the general population in grade 3, and the LEPs tied their score.  The 1999-2000 grade 3 FEPE students grew 8 points by the end of grade 4, compared to 5 points for LEPs and 2 points for the general population. The FEPE students outperformed the general population in grade grade 3 and grade 4. . The 1999-2000 grade 4 LEP students grew 11 points by the end of grade 5, as compared to 3 for the general population, and none for FEPEs. FEPE students tied the performance of the general population in grade 4, and the general population outscored both LEPs and FEPEs in grade 5.  The 1999-2000 grade 5 general population grew 4 points, as compared to none for LEP students and 6 for FEPEs. The FEPEs tied the performance of the general population in grade 5, but the general population outperformed the LEP and FEPE students in grade 6.  The 1999-2000 grade 6 LEP students grew 5 points by the end of grade 7 in 2000- 2001, as compared to 2 for the general population and none by FEPEs. The general population outperformed both groups in both grades 6 and 7.  The 1999-2000 grade 7 LEP students grew 8 points by the end of grade 8 in 2000- 2001, as compared to 3 by the general population and none for FEPEs. The general population performed slightly higher than FEPEs in grade 7 and slightly higher than LEPs in grade 8. Summary of Findings FEPE students generally outperformed the general population in mathematics in grades 2-4. They fall behind, however, in grades 508. Achievement Level Test: High School Mathematics and Science  FEPE students outperformed the general population in 2000-2001 in Algebra I.  FEPE students outperformed the general population in 2000-2001 in Algebra II.  FEPE students outperformed the general population in 2000-2001 in Geometry.  The general population outperformed FEPEs in 2000-2001 in Biology.  The general population outperformed FEPEs in 2000-2001 in Physics.  FEPE students outperformed the general population in 2000-2001 in Chemistry. 126Summary of Findings FEPE students outperformed the general population in all three required mathematics courses and in Chemistry. Stanford Achievement Mathematics Test  At grade 5 PHLOTE students (40* %ile) outperformed the general population (31  %ile).  At grade 7 PHLOTE students (53^' %ile) and FEPEs (41 %ile) both outperformed the general population %ile).  At grade 10 PHLOTE students (52\"'^ %ile) and LEPs (48* %ile) both outperformed the general population (46 %ile). Summary of Findings PHLOTE students outperformed the general population at all three grade levels on the SAT9 mathematics subtest. FEPE students outperformed the general population at grade 7 and LEPs outperformed them at grade 10. Arkansas Benchmark Mathematics Examination  PHLOTE (46%), LEP (33%), and FEPE (75%) students all outperformed the general population on the grade 4 Benchmark.  PHLOTE (25%) students outperformed the general population (17%) in grade 8. Summary of Findings As seen in elementary reading and language usage and in elementary mathematics on the ALT, PHLOTE students outperformed the general population in both grades 4 and 8. In addition, both LEP and FEPE students outperformed the general population in grade 4 on this important measurement. Conclusions Based on the available data on mathematics achievement, PHLOTE and FEPE students appear to be doing very well at all three levels of schools, even though the scores were weaker at the middle school level on the ALT. PHLOTE and FEPE achievement was good in chemistry, but weaker in biology and physics. Other Behavioral Indicators 6. 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 that of the general population, with PHLOTE students in general, and with fluent English-proficient students who have exited the program (FEPEs)? The data indicate that kindergarten and grade 1 have the largest PHLOTE enrollments\nkindergarten through grade 3 the largest LEP enrollment, and grades 3 and 4 the 127 largest FEPE enrollment. The elementary school with the largest enrollment is Chicot with 109\nthe middle school with the most PHLOTEs is Cloverdale\nand the high school with the largest PHLOTE enrollment in Hall High School. Attendance  FEPE students attendance is better than the general population in grades kindergarten, 2-6, and 8-12. PHLOTE students attendance is better than the general population at grades 4-7 and grade 12. LEP students attendance is better than the general population at grade 12.  LEP students missed an average of 18 days at grade 9, apparently as a result in part of their being suspended. Discipline/Suspensions  There were no PHLOTE, LEP, or FEPE students disciplined in grades K-4. At grade 5 there were 2 students with 3 sanctions\nat grade 6 there were 6 students with 9 sanctions\nat grade 7 there were 6 students with 10 sanctions\nand at grade 8 there were 9 students with 15 sanctions. I  At the high school level at grade 9 there were 17 students with 41 sanctions and 416 missed days of school for suspensions. Grade 10 had 12 students, 26 sanctions, and 93 days of suspension. Twenty of the 29 students receiving discipline were LEP.  At grade 11 there were 5 students, 6 sanctions, and 19 days of suspension. Only 5 seniors were disciplined, with 10 sanctions, but with 371 days of missed school. Retention  A total of 50 PHLOTE students were retained in 2000-2001. Nineteen of these were in grades K-5\n6 in grades 6-8\nand 26 in grades 9-12. Dropouts  Only 4 PHLOTE students dropped out in 2000-2001. Graduation Rate  In 2000-2001,42 of the 48 PHLOTE students (88%) graduated, as compared to 27 of 27 the year before. Summary of Findings  Attendance of FEPE and PHLOTE students generally was better than the attendance of the general population. LEP attendance typically was not.  Discipline/suspensions does not appear to be a problem for any PHLOTE students, except at grades 9-10 and 12. The largest sub-group of those receiving sanctions is LEP students.  Retention occurs infrequently for PHLOTEs at the elementary and middle schools. 128 The retention rate of LEP students at the high school level is a weakness. . The dropout rate of PHLOTE students is less than that of the general population.  The graduation rate of PHLOTE students is about the same as the general population. Recommendations  The District's school-level staff must ensure that LEP students are scheduled with teachers who are either endorsed, partially endorsed, or fully trained in ESL methodologies. District-level staff should monitor carefully at the beginning of each school year to ensure compliance.  The District should continue to be advocates for more state funds for the education of LEP students.  The District should develop a plan in spring 2002 for the potential loss of the Classsize Reduction grant from the federal government and how extra teachers and professional development may be funded in 2002-2003.  District-level staff should complete and publish the procedural handbook for school staff in identifying and serving students in the Alternative Language Program. . Parent recruiters, the ESL Parent Coordinator, and other staff should actively recruit LEP students for the prekindergarten program, given the importance of that extra year in LEP students reading performance.  The District should continue with its plan to phase out elementary Newcomer Centers, given the performance of students in the non-Newcomer Center schools.  The District should examine the dip of performance of middle school LEP students to determine the cause.  The District should examine the attendance and discipline problems of LEP students in grades 9-10 and develop plans for improvement.  PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE student performance on the elementary ALT science tests should be analyzed in 2002-2003 to help determine whether these students are acquiring content area knowledge and skills. The 2002-2003 program evaluation should include an analysis of PHLOTE, LEP,  Ine ZUUZ'ZUUO piuyidi11 cvdiuduiut oiluuiu \u0026gt;v- j i and FEPE participation in Pre-AP, AP, and University Studies courses at the middle and high school levels. 129 The District should continue to provide high levels of professional development for staff responsible for the Alternative Language Program to ensure continuous improvement. i I I s i 130Agenda RECEIVED FEB 2 8 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting February 2002 R. 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 ^/Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent of Instruction DATE: April 25, 2002 SUBJECT: Proposed Revision of Policy IHBEA: English as a Second Language Background Information The District gathered data in 1999-2000 on its identified limited-English proficient students (LEP) relating to where they were attending school. Significant percentages were assigned to the five elementary Newcomer Centers, the two middle school centers, and the one high school center. What surprised everyone, however, is how many were attending their neighborhood schools. Virtually every school in the District had LEP students in attendance. In 1999-2000 the District also conducted its first ESL program evaluation. That study included a look at the performance of students in the Newcomer Centers as opposed to other schools. Tentative findings indicated that the elementary students in the nonNewcomer schools were performing as well as or better than those assigned to the Newcomer Centers. That finding was repeated in the 2000-2001 study, with the exception of kindergarten LEP students. This important finding told the staff several things: 1. The literacy curriculum was working well for both native English speakers and for second-language students\n2. The assignment of LEP students to trained/endorsed teachers, regardless of whether the school was a Newcomer Center, was reaping benefits\n3. Significant savings could result in transportation if LEP students, at least at the elementary level, could attend their neighborhood schools\n4. Parental involvement for LEP students would more likely improve if LEP students were not bused to Newcomer Centers but attended school closer to their homes. Also, of course, the Districts obligation to provide an alternative language program is the same in the non-Newcomer schools as it is in the Newcomer schools. Board of Education April 25, 2002 Page Two District staff began informally to phase out the automatic assignment of elementary LEP students to Newcomer Centers in 2000-2001 and have continued to allow (and not discourage) attendance at the neighborhood school in 2001-2002. Those who wished to stay in the Newcomer schools to complete elementary school were allowed to do so. The proposed deletions to Policy IHBEA remove the language relating to Newcomer Centers to reflect this proposed change. At this time LEP secondary students continue to be offered an assignment to a Newcomer Center. If, however, enrollment continues to grow in other secondary schools, this option may in the future also be discontinued as more and more students are served well in their zoned schools. Fiscal Impact This proposed change will not cost the District anything. Instead, it should continue to provide opportunities to save money formerly required for transportation. Recommendation That the Board of Education approve on first reading the proposed amendments (deletions of language) to Policy IHBEA: English as a Second Language. BAL/adgLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IHBEA ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE The Board of Education is committed to providing appropriate and equitable programs and services in compliance with federal and state mandates and which are designed to ensure that students who are limited-English-proficient (LEP) achieve the curriculum content standards and benchmarks established by the State of Arkansas and the Little Rock School District. The Districts program will be designed to address the affective, linguistic, and cognitive needs of the limited-English proficient (LEP) students. A research-based English-as-a-Second-Language (ESL) program will be provided in designated Newcomer Centers at the elementary, middle, and high school levels for all identified students, regardless of the students grade levels and home language, except where parents have denied placement in the program. The District will meet its obligations to provide language services to students whose parents have denied services and placement in a Nowcomer Center through teachers professional development in ESL methodologies, tutoring, summer school opportunities, parental involvement, and monitoring of students academic progress. The District will ensure the provision of appropriate ESL curriculum standards and benchmarks, professional development, technical assistance, parent involvement, staffing, materials, access to special education and other special opportunity programs, qualified staff, and othqr resources to ensure compliance and effectiveness. The District will annually conduct an evaluation of the ESL programs and services, report the findings to the Board of Education, and make appropriate program modifications based on the evaluation. Revised: Adopted: November 18,1999 Legal Reference: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. 2000d seq., and sections 100.3(a), (b) of its implementing regulation, at 34 C.F.R. Part 100.0b/iy/2002 08: 48 501-324-2023 LRSD COMMUNICATIONS RAISE 01/05 810 West Markham Is Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 447-1027 \" (501)447-1161 Fax: DATE: June 19, 2002 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Central Arkansas Media Cynthia Howell, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette JuHe Davis, Communications Specialist ESL Graduate Academy Continues through June 28 Forty-one teachers from the Little Rock School District have joined forces with teachers from other central Arkansas school districts at the two-week ESL (English As a Second Language) Graduate Academy, held at the Oasis Renewal Center, 14913 Cooper Orbit Road. Technology Day, held on June 27, will take place at three locations: Williams Magnet Elementary (7301 Evergreen St.), Southwest Middle School (3301 S. Bryant St.) and the Instructional Resource Center (3001 S. Pulaski St.). The academy is sponsored by the Little Rock School District, the Arkansas Department of Education and Arkansas Tech University. The Little Rock School District is home to students who speak 42 foreign languages. Spanish-speaking children comprise the largest segment of this population. A schedule of activities and a list of presenters are attached. ###06/19/2002 08:49 501-324-2023 LRSD COMMUNICATIONS PAGE 02/05 ESL GKADUATE ACADEMY VI Week One at a Glance June 17 - 22,2002 Little Rock, Arkansas Time Monday 6/17 Tuesday 6a8 Wednesday 6/19 Thursday 6/20 Friday 6/21 Saturday 6/22 9:00 Welcome Addresses 10:00 11:00 Limguage Acquisition/ ESL . Medtodology JOr-Carmen Sarudtez-Sadek Life of an Immigrant Child Dr. Urisula Chandler Teaching with Arkansas Frameworks MaTgaret Zoller Language  Acquisition (Continued) -\nL--\nTauent-\u0026amp; .  Commiini^ \"'ReJationslups Al Lopez Culture (Continued) 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 ' Dmguage Aeqaieitiotd- ESL Methodology . (Continued) Language Acquisition/ ESL Methodology (Continued) Lanj^a^ Acquisition Dr. tlena Iztftiierdp L^guage Acquiritioh (Cdntiiiuiid)'  Culture , . Dr. Afa^ . Bmitei Culture (Continued ~ ~ L U N C H 4:00 5:00 --DINl^ER-- 6:00 7:00 I^guage Acquisitioii/ f'jSL Methodology (Cqnrinuedl Language '/Acquisition/ ,, I^thodolo^ (Continued) Laiigua^ , Acquisition (Continued). .Language Acqulsitiqiv . Vitali ' }- 8:00 --DISMISSAL-- fKv. 't ESL Graduate Academy VI Coordinators: Little Rock School OiatricL Karen Broadnax Arkansas Tech University# Dr- Ursula Chandler 06/13/2002 08:43 501-324-2023 LRSD COMMUNICATIONS PAGE 03/05 Time 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5-.00 6z00 7:00 8:00 Sunday 6/23 Group Projects Project^ Showcase Asiui Odtnie Mai te Ngttyeii ESL GRADUATE ACADEMY VI Week Two at a Glance June 23 - 28,2002 Little Rock, Arkansas Monday 6724 Tuesday 6/25 Wedaesday 6/26 Thursday 6/27 Triday 6/28 ESL Standards Workshop Dehhtr Sabo \u0026amp; Lisa Poteet ADE  Ron Tolson Methodology Dr. Prank Gonzales (Ltem.) \u0026amp; Diana Conzalez Worthen (Secondary) Language Assessment Dr. Carmen Sanchez-Sadei Technology. Dr. Yvonne Watts, .. -CItzistote z  B^k \u0026amp; Grace Kerr /tssesemeiA Karen Broadnax '--LUNCH Office of Civil Rights Recjuirements Mark Vas/fuez ESL Strategies Karen Broadnax AXKTESOt Resouice Display Methodology \u0026amp; Children's Literature (Continued) Language Assessment (Condhued) Technolo^ (Cp'ntUaed) Gtaduation , --DINNER-- Assessmmt Karen Broadnax . .. Hispanic Cultiue S tella Lt^a i ^^DISMISSAL-- ESI Graduate Academy VI Coordinators: Little Kock School DistricL Karen Broadnax Arkansas Tech University, Dr. Ursula Chandler 06/19/2002 08:49 501-324-2023 LRSD COMMUNICATIONS PAGE 04/05 Little Rock School District ESL Graduate Academy Oasis Renewal Center Little Rock, AR June 17-28, 2002 Presenters and Topics 1. Dr. Mario Benitez, Chair (Emeritus), Curriculum and Instruction, University of Texas at Austin Topic: Socio-Cultural Influences of Language on Learning 2. Dr. Carmen Sanchez-Sadek, Educational Consultant/Program Evaluator, Los Angeles, California Topic- Second Language Acquisition, ESL Methodology and Assessment 3. Dr. Ursula Chandler, Department Head, Foreign Languages and International Studies. Arkansas Tech University, Russellville, AR Topic: The Life of an Immigrant child 4. Dr. Elena Izquierdo, College of Education. University of Texas at El Paso Topic: Second Language Acquisition 5. Mark Vasquez, Esq., Consultant/Civil Rights Attorney, Dallas, Texas Topic: Civil Rights Requirements for Language Minority Students 6. Dr. Frank Gonzales Topic: Methodology/Childrens Literature (Elementary) 7. Christine Black, ESL Services/Gifted Education, Lake Hamilton School District Grace Kerr, Media Specialist, The New School. Fayetteville, AR Dr. Yvonne Waits, Consultant/ADE, Little Rock, Arkansas Topic: Utilizing technology for ESL/ Core Content Instruction with LEP students 8. Dr. Diana Worthen Topic: Methodology/Childrens Literature (Secondary) The following presenters will provide special presentations^ Arkansas Department of Education Ron Tolson, Director Professional Licensure Topic: The ESL Endorsement Application Process Al Papa Rap Lopez, Springdale Public Schools/N.W. Arkansas Multicultural Youth Clubs Topic: Parent and Community Relationships06/19/2002 08:49 501-324-2023 LRSD COMMUNICATIONS PAGE 05/05 ESL Graduate Academy Oasis Renewal Center Little Rock, AR June 17-28, 2002 The following presenters will provide special presentations: Fort Smith Public Schools Mai Le Nguyen Topic: Asian Culture Little Rock School District Debbie Sabo and Lisa Poteet Topic: ESL Standards Workshop Little Rock School District Karen Broadnax, ESL Supervisor Topic: The Language Assessment Scales/An Introduction Little Rock School District Stella Loya, ESL Parent Liaison Topic: Hispanic Culture0 f/ov. 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: ^^Sonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction DATE: SUBJECT: November 21,2002 Approval of the ESL Program Evaluations for 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Background The LRSDs Compliance Plan for completion of the tasks relating to page 148 of the Final Compliance Report (Section 2.7.1) requires the Boards approval of already completed program evaluations that were conducted with the assistance of external experts. Two of those completed program evaluations are those for the English-as-a-Second Language program for 1999-2000 and 2000-01, which the Board has previously reviewed. The external expert who participated on those evaluation teams was Mr. Mark Vasquez, a former employee of the Office for Civil Rights in Dallas and an expert on OCRs expectations for the evaluation of alternative language programs. Those participating in the design and writing of the 1999-2000 evaluation included Dr. Ed Williams, Karen Broadnax, Ken Savage, and Mr. Vasquez. The Board of Education initially reviewed this program evaluation in fall 2000. Those participating in the design and writing of the 2000-2001 evaluation included Dr. Eddie McCoy, Dr. Ed Williams, Karen Broadnax, Ken Savage, Dr. Bonnie Lesley, and Mr. Vasquez. The Board of Education initially reviewed this program evaluation in fall 2001. Neither of these program evaluations included data related to the improvement or remediation of student achievement for African American students. Rather, the data were disaggregated for limited-English proficient students and fluent-English proficient students who had exited the LRSDs alternative language program. These data were then compared to the data for the general population. The research questions, the data to be collected, and the disaggregations were Board of Education - Memo November 21,2002 Page Two specified, for the most part, in the Commitment to Resolve, the District's voluntary agreement with OCR to put into place the necessary programs, policies, and procedures to be in full compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Fiscal Impact None Recommendation That the Board of Education formally approve the following: 1. 1999-2000 program evaluation for LRSDs alternative language program 2. 2000-2001 program evaluation for LRSDs alternative language program \u0026amp; i BAL/adg 3 Attachment 1?ESL Standards for Pre-K-12 Students *1 Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.die ess .on .tor 197 Introduction: Promising Futures ESL Standards for Pre-K-12 Students All elementary and secondary school students currently in the United States will be Ihing in and contributing to an increasingly diverse society and interdependent community' of nanons in the 21st century. To realize their personal, social, and long-term career goals, indincuals will need to be able to communicate with others skillfully, appropriately, and effectively. The challenge of contemporary education is to prepare all students for life in this new world, including those learners who enter schools with a lang'uage other than English. The purpose of this document is to identify the ESL standards and their role in meeting this challenge. Why ESL Standards Are Needed Schools and communides throughout the United States are facing increased linguistic and cultural diversity. Ever}' year, more and more studencs who speak languages ocher than Er h r from homes and communities with diverse histones, traditions, world news, and experiences, populate classrooms in urban, suburban, and rural settings. Th num: school-age children and youth who speak languages other than English at home increas 68.6% in the past 10 years. By 1993 English lang'uage learners in U.S. public schools m more than 2.5 million. Current projections estimate that by the year 2000 the majonty school-age population in 50 or more major U.S. cities will be from language minor.?.' b: grounds. I I 1 fn this document use [WO acronyms. E5L and ESOL. ES refers io [hefieid oj ing'.ish as a se: 0 com.e tonal\nen oy imbered of the .1 fSOL students vary greatly in proficiency level and academic needs. Some ESOL students are recent immigrants, brought to the United States by families seeking refuge from political repression or persecution or by families seeking economic opporrunim Others are members of ethnolinguisuc groups that have lived on this continent for generations, some for longer than the United States has e.xisted as a nation. Some'have had prior education, including literacy, in their native languages. Others hav'e had limited formal schooling. Some have had normal dev'elopmental histories, while others have identified disabilities that challenge their learning. Our'  primary concerns in this document are with students in elementary and secondary' schools who are not native speakers of English, and whom we refer to as ESOL students and learners. ESL Standards describe the language skills necessary for social and academic purposes. The standards described in this document specify the language competencies ESOL students tn elementary and secondary schools need to become fully proficient in English, to have unre- ESL Standards for Pre-K-12 Students I I I i i language ana te cht scandards chemsecves. EiCL ( En^iish io sve-iic' oy ocher languagesj refers co che ieamer u ho are idencifiea a sccll in the process o acquiring Engiish a an additional language. 1 stricted access to grade-appropriate instruction in challenging academic subjects, and ultimately to lead nch and productive lives. The development of these standards has been informed by the work of other national standards groups, particularly by the English language arts and foreign language standards. All three language standards projects share an emphasis on the importance of:  language as communication  language learning through meaningful and significant use  the indixddual and societal value of bi- and multilingualism 8' th  the role of ESOL students native languages in their English language and general acade- -SU mic development o' o' cultural, social, and cognitive processes in language and academic development * assessment that respects language and cultural diversity let th The ESL Standards provide the bridge to general education standards expected of all Ths ESL standards articulate the developmental Endish language needs of ESOL learners and highlight special instructional and assessment considerations that must be given to ESOL learners if they are to benefit from and achieve the high standards proposed for other subjects. 2 dents in the United States. stu- Standods do not ano cannot stand alone. Other professional have developed standards that organizations and groups Of useful. Thes\nincluding E and strategic are world-class, imponant. developmentally appropriate, and standards mandate high levels of achievement in content learning for ail learners. :Oi- students. But the content standards do not orovide educators the directions\ns mey need to assist ESOL leaimers to attain these standards because t student understanding of and ability to use English to engase with content. Many tent stanna\nO' do not acknowledge the central role of language in the achievement of iSor do they highlight the learning styles and particular instructional and assessme learners who are still developing proficiency in English. In sum. the content stand: 14 Er bii ac e\\ assume f the Con: content, needs of s do not in addiess the specific needs of ESOL students who are adding znglish to their home !an\u0026lt;maoes. Therefore. ESL standards are needed. o O or mt The uSL standards recognize that upon entry to scnool ESOL learners must acquire an addi- tional language and culture and learn the English language com.petencies that are characteristic of native Englisn speakers of the same age and, most importantly, that are fundamental to the full attainment of English language arts and other content standards. The ESL standards articu- late the developmental English language needs of ESOL learners and highlight special mstruc- tional and assessment considerations that must be given-to. ESOL learners if they are to benefit from and achieve the high standards proposed for other subjects. Thus, the ESL Standards important because they:  aniculate the English language development needs of E5OL learners  pro\\-ide directions to educators on how to meet the needs of ESOL learners  emphasize the central role of language in the attainment of other standards are Introduction: Promising Futures if. T fo\ndu In ESely he 1 ce Myths About Second Language Learning Several myths regarding second language learning prevail both among many lay persons and some educational professionals and policy makers. One intent of this document is to refute these myths. Myth 1\nESOL students learn English easily and quickly simply by being exposed to and surrounded by native English speakers. Fact: Learning a second language takes time and significant intellectual effort on the part of the learner. Learning a second language is hard work\neven the youngest learners do not simply pick up\" the language. Myth 2: When ESOL learners are able to converse comfortably in English, they have developed proficiency in the language. Face It can take 6-9 years for ESOL students to achie^/e the same le'.'cls of proficiency in academic English as native speakers. Moreover, ESOL students participating in thoughtfiilly designed programs of bilingual or sheltered content instruction remain in school longer and attain signifii academic achie'/ement in comparison to students without such advantages. I Myth 3: In earlier times immigrant children learned English rapidly and into American life. '.dy higher ra[es of niiated .1- I i I Fact: Many immigrant students during the early part of this century did not learn English auicklv or well. Many dropped out of school to work in Jobs that did not require the kinds of academic achie.'e-ment and communication skills chat substantive employment oppotiunities reauire :odav. 1- I i TESOLs Vision of Effective Education for All Students The role of ESL standards can only be fully understood in the broader context of education for ESOL students. Therefore, before presenting the ESL Standards, it is important to desenbe our overarching vision of effecave education. In TESOLs vision:  Effective education for ESOL students includes nativelike levels of proficient?/ in English.  Effective education for ESOL students includes the maintenance and promotion of ESOL students' native languages in school and community contexts. \u0026gt; All educational personnel assume responsibility for the educadon of ESOL students. - Effective education also calls for comprehensive provision of first-rate services and full access to those services by all students \u0026gt; Knowledge of more than one language and culture is advantageous for all students. !S ESL Standards for Pre-K-12 Students 3 Effective education for ESOL students includes nativelike levels of proficiency in English. For ESOL students to be successful in school and ultimately in the world outside school. they must be able to use English to accomplish their academic, personal, and social goals with the same proficiency as native speakers of English. In school environments, ESOL students need to be able to use spoken and written English both to acquire academic content and to demonstrate their learning. ESOL learners also need to be able to follow routine classroom instructions given o' in English and understand and use appropriate communication patterns so that they can be successful learners in academic environments. Finally, ESOL learners need to use English to function effectively in social settings outside the school, as well as in academic settmgs. The ESL standards in this document are concerned with these types of social and acad- emic skills. Moreover, appropriate performance and assessment standards that distinguish between language and academic achievement are also required if ESOL students are* to be given full credit for learning academic content while acquiring English. o' Effective education for ESOL students includes the maintenance and promotion of ESOL students native languages in school and community contexts. The auHinmeni. oi ihallenging, wo.'-ld- ciass eaucatioria\nBy definition. ESOL learners already know and use another language. Both the academic Siam SLUG .cards by ui! ier.LS is oniv j achievement and the school completion of ESOL learners is significantly enrianced when they are able to use their native languages to leam in school. In fact, full proficiency in the native language (including literacy) facilitates second language development. Developing and using COSSfOL scnoos i design their i I ESOL students guistic and cul\nBilingualism is o native languages also sen'es U.S. national interests because it increases the lin- rral resources available as the United States competes in the global economy. UI dsset whose \\aiue for the indhidual and for societv can onlv increase as the a, Kmc Sim Sdiv |at} id me U Ian ^Th S sp\u0026lt; i she cot eaucanonai | :ons v.-.d- EiCi.\nL .S. role in the global market place expands in the next centurv. siuden Olh: \u0026lt; as well ss i All educational personnel assume responsibility for the education of ESOL students. Ai in mi: ' I I I i I The attainment of challenging, worid-class educational standards by al! students is only possible it scnools design their educational missions with ESOL students, as well as others, in mind, u.omprehen.si'. e education calls tor shared responsibility by and collaboration among all educational protessionals wort-ting wuth ESOL students. It also calls for professionals to expand their knowledge to encompass issues of relevance to the education of ESOL students. This e.xpanded knowledge base includes an understanding of similarities and differences in first and second language acquisition, the role ot the native language in second language and content learning, instructional methods and strategies that facilitate both English language and content learning, instructional practices that accommodate individual differences in learning styles, the interrelationships between culture, cogniuon and academic achievement, alternative approaches to assessment, and the imponance of community-school linkages in education. These are all  for tx'scf f?- tin \u0026amp; ^wh det ^coi aca 4 I 1 I I part of the professional development of ESL specialists that general educators must tap into if educational reform is to result in the attainment of high standards by all students. Effective education also calls for comprehensive provision of first-rate services and full access to those services hy all students. Quality educational experiences and ser\\nces must be made fully accessible to all ESOL students. These include, among others, comprehensive and challenging curricula, access to the full range of curricula (e .g., gifted classes, laboratory sciences, college preparatory courses), safe and Introduction: Promising Futures we us\u0026lt; off\nSr' wc ?- ^0 ESi a:h 1 ) id- 2n well-equipped classrooms, appropriate instructional practices and assessment measures, inclusion in extracurricular activities, fully and appropriately certified teachers, and other educational specialists and resources. However, this is often not the case in most schools. To have quality programs and to serve ESOL students appropriately on their way to mastery of English, instruction must take into account the different entry-level abilities in English that ESOL learners have. Some learners come to school with oral and written skills\nothers do not. In addition, where necessary, programs should provide some instruction in the native languages of ESOL students. TESOLs Access Brochure provides a description of the conditions needed to provide ESOL students with equitable opportunities to leam. (See Appendix A.) Knowledge of more than one language and culture is advantageous for all students. Internationalism is the hallmark of modem U.S. education and of the education reform movement, and linguistic and cultural diversity are the hallmarks of internationalism. The challenge of contemporary education is to contribute to students abilities to live in increasingly diverse local communities and an ever-shrinking world community. Effective education for the 21st century' must provide firsthand opportunities for students to leam about the cultural diversity around them and to leam world languages. Cross-cultural competence can be fostered bv meaningful and long-term interactions with others with different world views, life e.xperiences. languages, and cultures. Language learning can be fostered by interactions with native speakers. This means that, not only should ESOL students leam about the U.S. from native-Envli^h speakers, but native-English-speaking students, teachers, administrators, and school staff should leam about the world and its languages from ESOL students, their families, and their communities. IfESOLsiudii iO have full aci challenging i cumeuia and: i achieve :o che I high level content a: native Ens Audience \u0026gt;5- 1 This document is written for educators who work with ESOL learners. First, it is intended for educators who work directly with ESOL students at elementary\nmiddle, and secondarv school levels. This includes designated ESL teachers (whether in resource or self-contained set- tings), bilingual teachers who work with ESOL students in their native languages and English, 'O 4 t e .es and teachers who work with ESOL students with special needs and talents. Other educators who will use these standards are content area teachers who teach ESOL students. If ESOL students are to have full access to challenging curricula and to achieve to the same high level in the content are:^ as native English speakers, then content area specialists must become aware of the importance of language in relationship to their disciplines, so that they' can better facilitate the ^^demic achievement of their ESOL students. Curriculum developers and program coordinators are likely to refer to thus document as The standards and descriptors will be helpful for developers of ESL curricula and may be ^rj^^ out learning objectives. The sample progress indicators, vignettes, and discussions ^yoffer ideas for learning activities, assessment and program design. 111 id speakers, \"ler. content area specialists rat-t become awareate imponar.ee of language in relationship to ateir disciplines sc that they can better facilitate the academic achievement of their ESOL students. document may be used as a reference for educators such as counselors, school social ^ud psychologists who provide additional service to ESOL students and for profes- ^onals whose activities and decisions affect programs for ESOL students, that is, building es i KL Standards for Pre-K-12 Students 5i i ! i I 6 administrators, preservice and in-service teacher educators, and local, state and national policy makers. Parents and communities with ESOL learners may also wish to consult this document so that they may better understand what constitutes appropriate and effective education for their children. General Principles of Language Acquisition . A number of general principles derived from current research and theory about the nature of language, language learning, human development, and pedagogy, underlie the ESL standards described in this document. These principles are described briefly here.  Language is functional\nO o  Language varies. o  Language learning is cultural learning.  Language acquisition is a long-term process.  Language acquisition occurs through meaningful use and interaction.  Language processes develop interdependently.  Native language proficiency contributes to second language acquisition. ,x Etc ca idf t f-  Bilingualism is an indixidual and societal asset. Language is junctional. Language, oral and written, is primarily a means of communication used by people in multiple and varied social contexts to express themselves, interact with others, learn about the world, and meet their indi\\-idual and collective needs. Successful language learning and language teaching emphasize the goal of functional proficiency. This is a departure from traditional pedagogical approaches that new language learning and teaching primarily as mastety of the elements of language, such as grammar and vocabulary, without reference to their functional usefulness. Therefore, what is most important for ESOL learners is to function effectively in English and through English while learning challenging academic content. Language varies. Language, oral and written, is not monolithic\nit comes in different varieties. Language varies according to person, topic, purpose, and situation. Everyone is proficient in more than one of these social varieties of their native language. Language also varies with respect to regional, social class, and ethnic group differences. Such language varieties are characterized by distinctive structural and functional characteristics, and they constitute legitimate and functional systems of communication within their respective sociocultural niches. Additionally, language varies from one academic domain to anotherthe language of mathematics is different from the language of social studies. As competent language users, ESOL students already use their own language varieties. They must also learn the oral and written language varieties used in schools and in the community in large. What is most important for ESOL learners is to function effectively in academic environments, while retaining their own native language varieties. Introduction: Promising Futures Bl S ar be le\nac ac \u0026gt; er F.i/ Li e L er ^ac ^le Seb L-f' to ^in g'lb ^al feicy .nt -e of s Language learning is cultural learning. Patterns of language usage vary across cultures and reflect differences in values, norms, and beliefs about social roles and relationships in each culture. 'When children learn their first language, they learn the cultural values, norms, and beliefs that are characteristic of their cultures. To learn another language is to learn new norms, behaviors and beliefs that are appropriate in the new culture, and thus to extend one's sociocultural competence to new environments. To add a new language, therefore, is to add a new culture. Learning a new language and culture also provides insights into ones own language and culture. This is imponant for ESOL students because general education in U.S. schools tends to reflect a culture other than their own. If ESOL students are to attain the same high standards as native-English-spealdng students, educational programs must be based on acknowledgment of, understanding of, respect for, and valuing of diverse cultural backgrounds. What is imponant for all language learners is to develop attitudes of additive bilingualism and biculturalism. Language acquisition is a long-term process. iki- rld. dae- j fo ties .f 5- Language acquisition occurs over time with learners moving through developmental stages and gradually growing in prohciency. Individual learners however move through these stages at variable rates. Rates of acquisition are influenced by multiple factors including an indhiduals educational background, first language background, learning style, cognitive style, motivation, and personality. In addition, sociocultural factors, such as the influence of the English or native language communir. in the learners life, may play a role in acquisition. In many instances. learners pick up\" conversation skills related to social language more quickly than th acquire academic language skills. Educational programs must recognize the length of time it takes to acquire the English language skills necessary for success in school. This means that ESOL !eam- ers must be given the time it takes to attain full academic proficiency in English, often fro.m 5 to 1 years. Language acquisition occurs through meaningful use and interaction. Research in first and second language acquisition indicates that language is learned most effectively when it is used in significant and meaningful situations as learners interact with others (some of whom should be more proficient than the learners are) to accomplish their purposes. Language acquisition takes place as learners engage in activities of a social nature with opportunities to practice language forms for a variety of communicative purposes. Language acquisition also takes place during actixnties that are of a cognitive or intellectual nature where learners have oppormnities to become skilled in using language for reasoning and mastery of S- challenging new information. This means that ESOL learners must have multiple opportunities to Efigiish, to interact with others as they study meaningful and intellectually challengng content, and receive feedback on their language use. ^Language processes develop interdependently. Learner K' conversation\nrelated to sect language more 5- quickly man: acquire acace: O' / Educui ?ro.^ra: recoi^r.izs 'O of time it acquire tf language le le :e: necessar.' ior 5UCCSS5 in sc\nICCl. I lan^. Traditional distinctions among the processes of reading, listening, writing, and speaking are ^^cial. So is the conceptualization that language acquisition as linear (with listening preced- ion jres peaking, and speaking preceding reading, and so forth). Authentic language often entails simultaneous use of different language modalities, and acquisition of functional language ^^lities occurs simultaneously and interdependently, rather than sequentially. Thus, for exam- 'depending on the age of the learner, reading activities may activate the development of Standards for Pre-K-12 Students 71 -I 8 speaking abilities, or vice versa. Additionally, listening, speaking, reading, and writing develop as learners engage with and through different modes and technologies, such as computers. music, film, and video. This means that ESOL learners need learning environments that provide demonstrations of the interdependence of listening. e\u0026gt; speaking, reading, and writing. They also need to develop all of their language abilities through the use of varied modes and technologies. Native language proficiency contributes to second language acquisition. Because, by definition, ESOL students know and use at least one other language, they have acquired an mtuitive understanding of the general structural and functional characteristics of language. They bring this knowledge to the task of second language learning..students also come to the task of learning English and learning content through. English already lit- erate in their native languages. These learners know what a Some E5OL stu- it means to be literatethey know that they can use written forms of language to leam more about the world, to convey information and receive information from others, to establish and maintain relationships with others, and to e.xplore the perspectives of others. Literacy in the native language correlates positively with the acquisition of literacy' in a second language. In addition, academic A fl i - ! 1 I I i i j I i I I 1 I I I includes the use of E5OL students instraction that native languages, especially if they are literate in that Ian- guage. promotes learners' academic achievement while they are acquiring the English needed to benefit fully from instruction through English. Native language literacy abilities cin a_____ students in English-medium classrooms to construct meaning from academic materials and o ESOL expenences in English. And. in learning a new language, students also leam more about their natii e tongae-. This means that for aSOL leatmers the most effective teaching and learning are those th romote ESOL students' native langua\u0026lt; environments for secona language as a foundation jor English language and academic dc'.elopment. Bilingualism is an individual and societal asset. o' '.ge and literacy development .Acquisition of two languages simultaneously is a common and normal developmental ph? nomenon and that acquisition of a second (or third) language can confer certain cognitive and linguistic advantages on the indindual. To realize these benefits, however, advanced levels of pne- proficiency in both languages are necessary. Therefore, the most effective educational environ- ments for ESOL learners are those that promote the continued development of learners' primary' languages for both academic and social purposes. In addition, as noted earlier, bilingual proficiency enhances employment possibilities in the international marketplace and enhances the competitive strength of U.S. industry' and business worldwide. This means that bilingualism benefits the individual and serves the national development of multiple languages. Goals for ESOL Learners o' interest, and schools need to promote the retention and TESOL has established three broad goals for ESOL learners at all age levels, goals that include personal, social, and acadermc uses of English. Each goal is associated wth three dis- tinct standards. In TESOLs vision, ESOL learners will meet these standards as a result of the instruction they receive, thereby achieving the goals. Our schools need to ensure that all stu- Introduction\nPromising Futuresop dents achieve the English language competence needed for academic success and for life in a literate culture. 0 Goal 1: To use English to communicate in social settings\nve if lU- y lit- V .la- s, V SB' A primary goal of ESL instruction is to assist students in communicating effectively in English, both in and out of school. Such communication is vital if ESOL learners are to avoid ' the negative social and economic consequences of low proficiency in English and are to panici-  pate as informed participants in our democracy. ESOL learners also need to see that ere are j personal rewards to be gained from communicating effectively in English. This goal does not S'suggest, however, that students should lose their native language proficiency. Standards for Goal 1 Students will\n:d to SOL\n.x gi- 1. 2. 3. use English to participate in social interaction interact in, through, and with spoken and written English for personal expression and enjoyment use learning strategies to extend their communicative competence\nir nags r.snt  Goal 2: To use English to achieve academically in ail content areas In school settings, English competence is critical for success and expectations fcr -SOL I learners are high. They are expected to leam academic content through the English .anguase I lend m- T'and to compete academically with native-English-speaking ^/kamers use spoken and written Engiish in their schooiwor ig^ndards for Goal 2 -Students will\neers. This process requires that\nal :es im nd use English to interact in the classroom use English to obtain, process, construct, and proxide subject matter information in spoken and written form use appropriate learning strategies to construct and apply academic knowledge s- 1- in socially and culturally appropriate ways ^tt^udents in U.S. schools come into contact with peers and adults who are different ^^rlmguistically and culturally. The diversity in U.S. schools mirrors the diversity in g^^y and around the world that young people will encounter as they move into the 21st of work. In order to work and live amid diversity, students need to be able to appreciate people who are different and communicate effectively with them. ^^^gmcation includes the ability to interact in multiple social settings. itures for Pre-K-12 Students 9 aStandards for Goal 3 Students will: 1. 2. use the appropriate language variety, register, and genre according to audience, purpose, and setting use nonverbal communication appropriate to audience, purpose, and setting 1. J. use appropriate learning strategies to extend their sociolinguistic and sociocultural competence Conclusion 11 The ESL standards dsscnoe the proficiencies in Enaiish that ESOL students need to acquire sc they can Full proficiency in English is critical for the long-term personal, social, and economic development .of all students in the United States. In this document, TESOL outlines a framework for considering and planning language education for ESOL students and for interpreting and making use of the ESL standards. The ESL standards describe the proficiencies in English that E50L students need to acquire so.they can attain the same high level standards in other content domains, including English language arts, as fully proficient English-speaking students. Thus, the ESL Standards for Pre-K-12 Siudenis is the starting point for developing effective and equitable education for ESOL students. Planning effective English language instruction for ESOL students cannot be don isolation. It must be part of a comprehensive and challenging educational program that takes into a same hish itandaros in 0! lonisnt domains, including English language arts, as .fully proficient English- speaking students.  10 account OL students social, educational, and personal backgrounds as well as the: existing skills and knowledge bases. It must understand and respond appropriatelv to the interrelation- ships between language, academic, and sociocultural developm^ent. The linguistic, cosnitive. and sociocultural competencies that ESOL students bring to school are a solid base for buildin: 'g their future, in terms of educational and career success. Only if tSL instruction is part of a comprehensive, challenging, and enriching educational program, however, will the promising futures of ESOL learners be realized. Introduction: Promising Futures 31ie Hie ^Haku! ?K\nHo\u0026amp;r ^^Krash lihdfc II cLat rCac ilii I* Sta s m- .'el-for ik- OL References for Further Reading Bilingualism and Second Language Acquisiti(^n \u0026lt; Ai d: August, D., \u0026amp; Hakuta, K. (Ed.). (1997). Improving schooling^^rl(ingiiage-mindri^,cifyi\u0026gt;^, A' research agenda. Washington, DC\nNational Academy K^sS' 'V Bialystok, E., \u0026amp; Hakuta, K. (1994). In ocher words: The scienc'^^nd:psvchplogy oj secori^^ldtx^iage acijuisicion. New York: Basic Books. A'-.. . d- Collier, V (1987). Age and rate of acquisitio'^.bt^econd langua^)fe?.\nach\n^^ic purposes. ' TESOL Quarterly, 21 (3), 617-641.' 'f fi ' ' ' ' \"(S'' % Collier, V (1989). How long? A synthesis of research on academ.ic achievement in a second language. TE5OL Quarterly, 23(2), 509-532' W- p Hak-uta, K. (1986). mVirror o/language\n1 he dehafil^n'New York^^^sic Books. Hoffman, C. (1991). Introduction to bilingualism. NetV.-YSfk: Longmian. Krashen, S. (1982). Princi_p!es of first and second lang'.iage^cduisicion. O.xford: P. iamon. Lindfors, J. (1987). Children's language and leatming. (2nd ed\u0026lt;)\n^ Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentl Hall. .ulus McLaughlin, B. (1984). Second language acquisition in children. Volume 1: Preschool children. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. McLaughlin, B. (1985). Second language acquisition in children. Volume 2\nSchool-age children. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. McLaughlin, B. (1992). Myths and misconceptions about second language learning:,.What teacher needs to know. Educational Practice Report No. 5. Santa Cruz, CA and'^asl^.'gt^n^ DC: Nauqnal Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language t^rhins. a\nPease-Alvarec, L, \u0026amp; Hakuta, K. (1992). Enriching our views of bilingualism and bilin'^i^i^U' cation. Educational Researcher, 21(2), 4-6. Bilingual Education: Importance of Native Language Collier, V (1992). A synthesis of studies'e-xamining long-term language-minority student data on academic achievement. Bilingual Research Journal, 16(1/2), 187-212. ESL Standards for Pre-K-12 Students Si-f* ! 1 II I si-.- \\ hi, v\u0026lt;- %%. '.v 11 V Exhibit No. 66: LI230-90 Program Evaluation for English as a Second Language.Section L. Program Evaluation Program Goals The Little Rock School district shall provide a research-based English-as-a- Second Language (ESL) program for its students who are identified limited-English proficient (LEP). The first goal of the ESL program is to enable students to master English language skills (reading, writing, speaking, and listening), content area concepts, and skills so that the students are able to participate effectively in the regular program as quickly as possible. The second goal of the ESL program is to provide identified students with the cultural literacy necessary for them to feel comfortable in participating in the school, community, and greater community. Program Objectives ESL program objectives are as follows: 1. 2. J. 4. 5, 6. 1. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. To implement and maintain consistent procedures for student identification processes. To assess all students who have a primary 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-on-one with the identified stodents 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 student learning. To provide equitable access to other district programs and services, including special education, gifted/talented education, and all procedural safeguards. To monitor the progress of all identified students during program participation and after program exit and to reclassify students as needed. To evaluate the ESL program and make program modifications as needed. To maintain accurate and useful student records, including procedural safeguards (See Administrative Regulations, IHBEA-R, approved November, 1999). Categories of English Second Language Students An objective of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) is to assess all PHLOTE students regardless of whether they are enrolled in a Newcomer Center. After attempting to assess these students, they are tagged within the Districts database as: (1) LEP - Limited English proficient, (2) NALEP - not assessed, or (3) FEP - Fluent English proficient. As of June 2,2000 the District has identified 805 PHLOTE students (LEP = 467, N-AfcEP = 45, and FEP = 293). -4here-i3-\u0026amp;fte-horTte-schQoled-sludent that has heerLassessed-EEPrbtrrwiltTTorbe included in this~' Supporting charts reflect three data gathering points, 11/30/99, 3/24/00, and 6/2/00, and correspond to the Districts reporting to the Arkansas State Department of Education, Districts Quarterly Report, and the Annual OCR report. The Districts primary database is the AS400 mainframe computer using CIMS, an electronic student database software. Student data are collected at school level. Cunent year data are filed with the students permanent record file (PRF). Baseline data are stored in ESL Department files. 'BSi7pTograirrand'DRtricrstaff1iave-reviewed-studenliiala_aud_mlLcnittinueJu44pdate4he mainframe database. As i^fereRecririrHlhHApdan. District staff are members nCthe Divi.sion of Curriculum andTnstraction. The Divisions-Associate Superintendent is Dr. Bonnie-Lesley^ The initial portion of this section will report demographic data (i.e,, gender, language, school location, grade level distribution, and any sub-groups) on LEP, NALEP, and FEP students. The subsequent sections will report academic and behavioral progress (e.g., attendance) of LEP students and how LEP students compare on academic and behavioral variables to NALEP, LEP, and the Districts general school population. Description of Limited English Proficient (LEP) Students. As of June 2, 2000, there are 467 LEP students in the Little Rock School District (LRSD). Demographics on this population are:  255 male (54.6%) and 212 female (45.4%),  Newcomer Centers serve most of the LEP students, 309 students (66.2%) (see also Figure#!), 3  LRSD has 48 schools, LEP students are being served in all of the High schools. Middle schools, and all but six of the Elementary schools (i.e., Badgett, Dodd, Jefferson, Mitchell, Western Hills, Rightsell, and Woodruff),  Non-Newcomer Centers serve the remaining LEP students (N = 158), with the top seven schools serving between 7 and 20 students (see also Figure 2),  The elementary level (grades Kindergarten through 5*) has the highest number of students per grade level with an average grade level enrollment of 46. Middle school (grades 6* through 8*') average grade level enrollment is 29, and high school (grades 9* through 12'*) per grade level enrollment averaged 19. The pre-kindergarten program (i.e. LRSDs 4-year- old program) had 29 LEP students enrolled, and  Among LEP students Spanish is the most common language spoken (71.1%), followed by Chinese (4.5%), Arabic (3.6%), Assyrian (2.3%), Korean (2.3%), and Vietnamese (1.5%). An additional 29 languages account for the remaining 14.3% of LEP students. One student has no language listed. Within the LEP population are several sub-groups: LEPNC - LEPSO - In an ESL program at a Newcomer Center (N = 309) Being served at a school other than a Newcomer Center (N = 158) LEPNS - Not being served (N = 9) LEPSPD - Receiving special education services (N = 9) LEPGT- Receiving gifted and talented (GT) services (N = 7) LEPREC - Students who have left the program, have been reclassified, and have re-entered the program (N = 0) Additional demographic data on these sub-populations are:  Newcomer Centers serve all of the students receiving gifted and talented services (N = 8),  Five of the Center, ^e^ students receiving special education services (LEPGT) attend a Newcomer  Five of the nine LEP students not receiving services (LEPNS) attend Newcomer Centers, and  Students not rei being monitored (N = 4y lirect services (LEPNS) have either refused services (N = 5) or areNewcomer Center LEP Enrollment Brady Chicot Romine Terry V\\feshington 11/30/99 26 _____68 33 22 38 3/24/00 25 71 30 18 33 6/2/00 ___  74 28 23 30 Cloverdale Middle Dunbar Middle 42 16 44 16 47 13 Hail High Total Languages LMS [ Figure 2 Top 7 Non-Newcomer Centers serving LEP Students Wakefield Cloverdale El McDermott Bale Garland Henderson Middle Forest Heights 11/30/99 21 17 17 10 6 7 11 3/24/00 22 14 18 9 8 8 10 6/2/00 20 14 13 12 8 8 7 Total I 97 I 73  88 Description of Not Assessed Limited English Proficient (NALEP) Students. There are 45 NALEP students identified in the Districts database. Demographics for this population are:  23 Male (51.1%) and 22 Female (48.9%),  Spanish is the most common language (31.1%), followed by Korean (15.5%), Gujarati (8.9%), German (4.4%), Farsi (4.4%), and Chinese (4.4%),  Grades kindergarten through 5* have an average grade level enrollment of 1, grades 6* through 8* have an average enrollment of 2, and grades 9* through 12* have an average enrollment of 8, 5  Most NALEP students, 80% (N = 36), have refused to be assessed, three (6.7%) are special education students and were unable to complete the Language Assessment Survey (LAS), three (6.7%) have not been at school when the LAS was administered, one (2.2%) is auditing, one (2.2%) has not returned the signed letter from a parent, and one (2.2%) has been assessed but the score report has not been received by the ESL office, and  Only 6.7% (N - 3) attend a Newcomer Center. Parkview High School has the most NALEP students, 44.4% (N = 20). Description of Fluent English Proficient (FEP) Students. There are 299 FEP in the Little Rock School District. Demographics for this population are:  147 male (50.2%) and 146 female (49.8%),  Spanish is the most common language (32.2%), followed by Chinese (11.2%), Vietnamese (6.4%), Urdu (4.1%), Korean (3.1%), Arabic (3.1%), and Russian (2.7%). While 34 remaining languages constitute an additional 31.4%, 5.8% (N = 17) have no language listed,  One hundred and eighteen (N = 118, 31.8%) of the students attend a Newcomer Center, with Chicot Elementary having 75 students, Cloverdale Middle having 46 students, and Hall High having 72 students.  For grades Kindergarten through 5 the average grade level distribution is 26, grades 6* through 8the average grade level distribution is 27, and grades 9 through 12^'the average grade level distribution is 13. There are nine FEP students in the Districts 4-year old program. Evaluation Plan Across four components listed below data will be collected, analyzed, and used to make appropriate, research-based, modifications to the program. The process of this evaluation is to report not only the basic program, demographic, and achievement data, but to used the data and data analysis to investigate and develop new and innovative instructional strategies. 1.(2,  Discussion of variables. All LEP academic and other data (e.g/lattendance) will be compared to the general population. The general population for this report consists of all students in the Little Rock School District except those students classified as LEP and students receiving special education services. The District will not compile the graduation, attendance, or retention rates for the 1999-2000 school year until August of 2000y These data will not be reported. LAS scores have only been entered into the Districts debase for those students who have become fluent after October 1999. Since most of the LEP, r and Pep students were not tagged in the Districts database 1999-2000 school ye^graduation data for 1998-1999 is not available. Retention and attendance data only will be reported for the 1998-1999 school year. Database information indicates that no students dropped out during the 1998-1999 or 1999-2000 school year. / Evaluation Components Curriculum service delivery, including curriculum for students who are identified for both Special Education and ESL. Materials and resources\nstaffing, including the number of teachers and aides trained, frequency of training, scope of training and results\nand student progress. Student progre^^^ademic progress of LEP students in ESL programs, LEP students who have been exited, anoifEP students not served in ESL programs. Examination of the number of retentions, drop-outs, and the student attendance rates of LEP students, former LEP students, and non-LEP students, and the extra become proficient in English/^ extent to which the aforementioned groups are becoming or have _______ .eview and comparison of data reflecting the gradtiation-and-\n(d^but rates of LEP a^former LEP students with that of their non-LEP peers. 7 Description of LRSDs Academic Testing to Assess LEP Student Progress State Mandated ACTAAP Benchmark Examination, Grades 4 \u0026amp; 8. The State is in the process of implementing its Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment \u0026amp; Accountability Program (ACTAAP) which includes a Benchmark Examination containing a measure of mathematics achievement and literacy. The intent and purpose of this component is to identify students in need of additional instruction in mathematics and literacy. This examination process is being developed, piloted, and implemented in a sequential and cumulative process beginning with 4* grade in SY 1997-98, and including 8* grade in SY 1998-99. SY 2000-01 will incorporate the math measure for 6* grade currently being piloted in other schools across Arkansas. Also end-of- course measures for Algebra I, Geometry, and Biology I are currently in the item development phase. All ESL students are to take the test unless parental permission to exempt is given. The comprehensive mathematics and literacy components contain multiple-choice and openresponse questions based on The Arkansas Mathematics, Reading, and English/Language Arts Curriculum Frameyvorks. Items are developed with the assistance and approval of the Arkansas Content Advisory Committees composed of active Arkansas educators with expertise in mathematics and literacy. The committees developed and reviewed both multiple-choice and open-response items to ensure they reflect the Arkansas Curriculum Frameworks and are grade-appropriate. While multiple-choice questions are scored by machine to determine if the student chose the correct answer from four options, responses to open-response mathematics questions are scored by trained readers using a pre-established set of scoring criteria. Students are given scores in math and literacy. Students can receive a test score of one through four with four representing Advanced followed by Proficient, Basic, and Below Basic. Achievement Level Test (ALT), Grades 2-11. The recently implemented Achievement Level Test (ALT) includes a series of mathematics, reading, language, usage, and science achievement measures that increase in difficulty across eight levels. This type of measurement is designed to document growth by assessing students at the cutting edge of their individual achievement level. Fall and spring administration across grades 3-11 permit measurement of growth within and across school years expressed in two kinds of scores: percentile scores and scale or RIT (Rasch Interval Scale) scores. Percentile scores can be used to compare students to the large group of test takers using the ALT developed by the Northwest Evaluation Association. It is important to note that this is a comparative group currently involving 104 schools districts and 500,000 students and growing 4 to 13 points annually. This is not a norm group configured to represent public school populations. All ESL students are to take the test unless parental permission to exempt is given. More importantly, demonstration of growth within and across an individuals matriculation in grades 2 - 11 is documented using the RIT score designed to make direct comparisons to a criterion performance level along a scale from 160 to 250. Students typically start at a RIT score of about 170-190 in the fall of the 3\"^* grade and progress to the 230-260 range by high school. Students at 235 have reached a readiness level for Algebra I. It is very important to note that along the Rasch Interval Scale, scores have the same meaning regardless of the individual students grade level. This type of measurement allows some students to start at a higher RIT level and some low-achieving students to never reach the top level. The design provides an accurate measure of each students achievement where the typical standardized test, by its nature, provides inadequate measures for many students, especially those at the high and low ends of the scale. Also important is the fact that tests are aligned with The Arkansas Mathematics, Reading, and English/Language Arts Curriculum Frameyvorks, thus enabling the District to determine impact and effectiveness of its instructional programs. The pool of test questions, developed by the Northwest Evaluation Association, has been extensively field tested to insure items of the highest quality and fairness. A balance of math teachers and curriculum specialists (i.e., race, gender, and grade level) matched the pool of questions to the standards and their attending benchmarks included in the aforementioned Frame^vorks. During test development activities, questions were calibrated for difficulty and assigned to a level (e.g.. Math levels 1-8). For example: An appropriate expectation of a Level 1 student is to multiply whole numbers, while a Level 6 student should be able to multiply fractions. This calibration makes it possible to calculate the RIT score which is tied directly to the curriculum. ALTs are administered during the f  and 4th quarters. Stanford Achievement Test- O*** edition (SAT-9). The Sat-9 is a overall measure of achievement in reading, mathematics, language arts, science, and social science. The SAT-9 is designed to measure student achievement in relation to the performance of a national sample selected to be representative of the nations students in each of the grades tested. The test provides a method for comparing the achievement of students with that of students in the same grade across the country. The SAT-9 is administered to students in grades 5, 7, and 10 during the month of September. The SAT-9 is a timed test. In addition to a raw score, mean scaled scores, normal curve equivalent (NCE), percentile, and stanine scores are provided. For this report, NCE scores are to be used.Marie M. Clav: An Observation Survey (AOS). The AOS is an observational measure that is used to guide student work on tasks related to reading and writing. The AOS consists of six measurable tasks.  Running Records records student behavior as text is read aloud.  Letter Identification records the what letters a student knows.  Concepts in Print records what a student is attending to on the printed page.  Word Test records the number of words a students knows.  Writing records a students writing behavior, and  Writing Vocabulary records all the words a student can write in ten minutes. Running records is considered the pivotal task among the remainder of the observation tasks. During this observation the student reads materials that are typically used within the classroom and the observer records the directional movements that are made, errors or miscues, and the student is assessed on deriving meaning, structure and information from the material. Given the number of observational tasks, only the running record data will be reported. The AOS is administered in the fall and spring to Kinderg^en through 2\"* grade. The AOS is written for classroom teachers who want to become careful observers of young children as they learn to read and write. The Survey is useful to teachers who work one-on-one with students who are having difficulty in learning to read and write. The AOS is administered to all students. Results State Mandated ACTAAP Benchmark Examination. Grades 4 \u0026amp; 8. The State Benchmark exam for the 1999-2000 school year was given in April 2000 and the results will not be available to the District until October 2000. The Benchmark exam was given to 4* and 8* grade students in February 1999 for the 1998-1999 school year. Data from the 1998-1999 school year will be used Jbr this report. Initial test results are provided to the District in hard copy form, only disagregating the data by race and ethnicity. At this time database data (e.g. Excel file) are only available for 4* grade students. Several LEP students (N = 18) did not take the test. The State of Arkansas allows LEP students, with permission from their parents, to be exempted from taking the test. This is probably the case for most of these students. The Arkansas Department of Education is currently field testing an alternative assessment for exempted students. Training on the administration of the alternative assessment will begin in fall 2000. There were no 4^ grader NALEP students, thus no test results. LEP students that took the test performed below District results and FEP students performed above District results (see Figures 3 \u0026amp; 4). (insert Figures 3 \u0026amp; 4) CL Stanford Achievement Test, 9^ edition (SAT-O). Students in the 5*, 7*, and lO'^ grades took the SAT-9 during September 2000. The complete battery scores reported are a compilation of reading, mathematics, language, spelling, study skills, science, social science, using information, and thinking skills subtest results. Percentile scores are reported (see Figure 5). The general population consists of all student with the exception of exempted LEP and special education students. A number of students (18 5 graders, 15 graders, and 18 10* graders) did not take the SAT-9. The State of Arkansas allows LEP students, with permission from their parents, to be exempted from taking the test. %js=?rpF^ably=^e\u0026lt;ise-fb-iaastailise-stedeHts. The Arkansas Department of Education is currently field testing an.alteBtrative assessment for exempted students. Training on the administration of the altemativ\nassessment will begin in fall 2000. Figure 5 SAT-9 Complete Battery Percentile Scores Grade General Population LEP NALEP FEP Sth 7th 10th 36 N = 1481 42 N = 1363 40 N = 1448 15 N = 11 27 N = 22 30 N=2 78 N = 2 40 N = 5 55 N = 30 71 N = 21 55 N = 16 Marie M. Clay: An Observation Survey (AOS). During the 1999-2000 school year, kindergarten through 2\"' grade students were assessed during the early fall and late spring on the six categories of the AOS. No students were to be exempted from taking the test. However, there were some students that were not assessed. During the fall testing 10 kindergarten, 19 1 grade, and 19 2\" grade students and during spring testing 11 kindergarten, 15 1 grade, and 5 2\"'' grade wee not assessed. There was an improvement from fall to spring on the number tested. On most of the State and District assessments (i.e., SAT-9 and State Benchmark), LEP students are allowed to be exempted, with parental permission, from testing. Teachers were asked to assess all students. With the exception of Kindergarten, LEP students did not grow as fast as the general population (see Figures 6, 7, \u0026amp; 8). V (insert figures 6, 7, \u0026amp; 8) rd Retention rate. Twenty-five students (16 LEP, 1 NALEP, arid 8 FEP)^ere retained after the 1998-1999 school year. Retention rates of these subpopulatiQns_were generally higher than the general school population (see Figure 8). Among the LEP students there were 10 male and 6 female students, and 14 students spoke Spanish, with 1 speaking Chinese and 1 Filipino. The one NALEP student was female and spoke Spanish. Among the FEP students there were 6 male and 2 females, with 7 speaking Spanish and 1 speaking Portuguese Figure 4 Retention Rate for the 1998-1999 school year by Level Level General Population LEP NALEP lElementar^ |Middle f HZ 1.33%| 4.29% I [High EI 0.98%| 2.94^ 0.42%| 1,31^ 3.30% I ^.00%| I 0.65%l iJ--  I 5.06%] EP I Attendance. The average daily attendance for the District in 1998-1999 was 92%. District data is not reported by level. Average Daily Membership (ADM) data is sent to the Arkansas State Department of Education and the Dept, of Ed. calculates the attendance rate. Dropout. According to the Districts database, no LEP, NALEP, FEP students dropped out during the 1998-1999 or 1999-2000 school years. However, 63 students did leave the District. Reasons for leave were:  Moved to another country, 23%, N = 15  Transferred to a private school, 10%, N = 6  Moved out of state, 30%, N = 19  Moved to another school District within the state, 35%, N = 22  Withdrew from school, 2%, N = 1 / ^eview^f academic dataj)f students reclassified and exited from ESL programs. Review of data reflecfing fh'e number of LEP students who have exited from ESL but returned to e ESL program to address academic deficits. Twenty-five students, since 11/30/99, have beeia-r/clasai-fied fro\n200 school year, no students have exited the program and ret\n, ,^me^ De data for this subpopulation are: ,EP to FEP. ^uring the 1999- le^ Demographic and academic  12 males (48%) and 13 females (52%),  10 students with aLASof3/4andl5 students with a L AS o f 3/5,  2 students exited March 2000, 5 exited April 2000, 10 exited May 2000, and 8 have no exit date,  17 of the 25 students do not have a language code in the database.  All of the students receive Gifted and Talented (GT) services.  64% of the exited students were from grades 2\" through 5*, 28% from grades 6* through 8*, / and 8% from grades 9 and 11, /  11 of the students (44%) were from Newcomer Centers. /fcr 4 P Z L L 1^- Figure 5 SAT-9 Complete Battery Percentile Scores Grade General Population LEP NALEP FEP Sth 7th 10th Figure 9 36 N = 1481 42 N = 1363 40 N = 1448 15 N = 11 21 N =22 30 N =2 78 N = 2 40 N = 5 55 N = 30 71 N = 21 55 N= 16 Retention Rate for the 1998-1999 school year by Level Level General Population LEP NALEP LEP 3 J I Elementary} 1.33% I 4.29% I I 0,65^ [Middle 0.98%| 2.9\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 "}],"pages":{"current_page":13,"next_page":14,"prev_page":12,"total_pages":48,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":144,"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}}]}}