{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1046","title":"\"Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in the 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, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Ross, Steven M."],"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--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational planning","School improvement programs","Student assistance programs","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["\"Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in the 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/1046"],"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":["28 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\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nUSCHEL H FR10AY(lt22-1'94) JLLIAM H SUTTON, P.A iON M EISEMAN. JR, P.A  O BELL, PA JAMES A BUTTRY, PA FREDERICK. S URSERY,,. A. ,..SCARE DAVIS, JR, P.A MES C. CLARJC, JR , PA. OMAS p LEGGETT, P.A t{N DEWEY WATSON, PA PAUL B BENHAM Ill.PA LARRY W BUJlK.S, P A  WYCK.LIFP NISBET, JR..., P.A MES EDWARD HARRJS, P.A PHILLIP MALCOM, PA MES M SIMPSON, P A JAJllfES M SAXTON, PA J SHEPHERD RUSSELL Ill, PA DONALD H BACON. P.A ILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P A (HARD D TAYLOR.PA SEPH B HURST, JR.., PA ELIZABETH ROBBEN MUR.llAY, PA CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A LAUR.A HENSLEY SMITH, PA ROBERT S. SHAPER. P A WILLIAM M GRIFFIN Ill, P.A MICHAELS MOORE, P.A DIANE S MACKEY, PA WALTER M EBEL 111, P A KEVIN A CRASS, PA WILLIAM A WADDELL, JR., PA SCOTT J LANCASTER. P.A ROBERT 8 BEACH, JR . P A J LEE BROWN, P.A JAMES C. BAKER, JR.PA HAR.AV A LIGHT, PA SCOTT H TUCKER. PA GUY ALTON WADE, PA PRICE C. GARDNER.PA TONIA P JONES, P A DAVID D WILSON, PA JEFFREY H MOORE, P A DAVID M GRAF. P .A RECEIVED 1/'11/M DEC - 4 2002 j-/?Vid - Oc /,vu e cL OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ( By Hand Delivery) Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 FRlDA Y ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.fridayfirm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 3'25 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE, SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703-41!111 TELEPHONE 479-l!llil5-2011 FAX 479-l!llil5-2147 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 1!170-7\u0026amp;2-2898 FAX 870-7152-2911!1 December 4, 2002 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ( By Hand Delivery) Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: Compliance Remedy Dear Counsel \u0026amp; Ms. Marshall: CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P A JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR, PA JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO, P A R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON, P A FRAN C. HICK.MAN, P A BETTY J DEMORY, P.A LYNDA M JOHNSON, P A JAMES W SMITH, PA CLIFFORD W PLUNKETT, PA DANIEL L. HERRJNGTON, P A MARVIN L. CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK, JR ALLISON J_ CORNWELL ELLEN M OWENS JASON B HENDREN BRUCE B TIDWELL MICHAEL E KARNEY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P MCKAY ALEXANDRA A IFRAH JAY T TAYLOR MARTIN A KASTEN Mr. Steve Jones BRYAN W DUKE JOSEPH G NICHOLS ROBERT T SMITH RYAN A BOWMAN TIMOTKY C. EZELl T MICHELLE ATOR KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M COTTON PHILIP B MONTGOMERY KJUSTEN S RIGGINS ALAN G. BRYAN LINDSEY MITCHAM SLOAN KHAYYAM M EDDINGS JOHN F PEISERICH AMANDA CAP'PS ROSE BRANDON 1. HARRISON OFCOUNS[L BS CLARK. WILLIAM L TERJt.Y WILLIAM L PATTON, JR H T LARZELERE, P A JOHN C. ECHOLS, P A A O MCALLISTER JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL 501-l70ll23 FAX 5D1244-5341 f  ndl  yOftc.n  t Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Dennis Hansen Ofc of the Attorney qeneral 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Enclosed please find, \"Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in the Little Rock School District\" prepared by Dr. Steven M. Ross. The Little Rock School District intends to retain Dr. Ross, Dr. Larry McNeal and Dr. William Moore to complete the eight evaluations identified on page 148 of the Little Rock School District's March 15, 2001 compliance report that were not completed with the assistance of an outside expert. These were identified on page 12 of the Compliance Committee's proposed compliance plan previously provided to you. F \\HOME\\BBrown\\Fmdley\\LRSD\\dcseg\\counsel2 It. wpd n :o ro 0::, ~rt n\"\"\" ' ro l\"1 \u0026lt;  H'I tn 0 l\"1 l\"1 ro ~ en ro g~ ::, Cl C/l l\"1 ro n ::,' ,... = rt,, (I \u0026gt; Cl ~::r 00 n::, I\"\" Cl Qt All Counsel December 4, 2002 Page2 Little Rock School District hopes that its decision to follow the guidelines prepared by Dr. Ross will eleviate the Joshua Intervenors concerns about the preparation of these evaluations. If not, we respectfully request that ODM schedule facilitation related to the preparation of these evaluations as soon as possible so that the District may meet the court's March 15, 2003, deadline for Board approval and submission of the evaluations to the Court. Also enclosed for your reference are the responses to the RFQ submitted by the experts identified above. JCF/bgb enclosure(s) cc: Dr. Ken J arnes F:IHOME\\BBrownlfendleyll.RSDldcseg\\counscl2 h wpd Sincerely, John C. Fendley, Jr. () \"\"'1) 0 :, 1--' rt ~-Cl) n l'\"1 \u0026lt;  HI en o l'\"1 l'\"1 '1) ,:j en ro \"'Cl en 0 '1) :, Ill en l'\"1 ro n ::r Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in Little Rock School District Prepared by Steven M. Ross, Ph.D. The present guidelines are based on my review of the Revised Compliance Plan, the LRSD standards for program evaluation, and evaluation report drafts and associated materials related to the eight programs identified as requiring \"final\" evaluation reports. My analysis of this material, combined with my experiences as an educational researcher and familiarity with the Joshua case as it affected LRSD, was influenced by the following assumptions:  Invalid or questionable evaluation results can be much more detrimental than helpful to efforts to improve educational practices, and should not be disseminated without strong cautions and qualifications. Accordingly, studies that lack proper controls against bias or contamination from extraneous factors (e.g., differential sampling, history, diffusion of treatments) have limited value for guiding policies.  Program evaluations that focus predominately on student achievement outcomes while lacking sufficient implementation data have reduced value due to inability to determine the nature of the \"treatment.\" The study will also fail to inform policymakers about the practicality of the program, how it was used and reacted to by stakeholders, or whether and/or how it needs to be improved to impact atrisk learners.  Evaluations of programs that have been discontinued in the district are of much less interest relative to ones that are presently being implemented or informing ongoing practices.  To raise the achievement of African American students in LRSD, attempting to resuscitate existing studies that have insufficient data available, limited relevance to current practices, or require substantial time and resources with little promise of yielding useful information for policy decisions would be less productive than employing the \"lessons learned\n' from the prior evaluation work to support high quality and informative future studies. One such lesson is that the LRSD research department (formerly PRE) was understaffed to perform evaluations of the quality and quantity needed. Based on the above assumptions, I will recommend below a basic strategy for the third-party evaluators to use in preparing the eight identified evaluations for approval by the school board. Four of the evaluations concern programs that are no longer in use by LRSD and have limited or no relevance to programmatic decisions (Lyceum Scholars, Elementary Level Summer Schools, Vital Link, and Onward to Excellence). Of the remaining four evaluations, two have limited available data (Middle School Transition and Campus Leadership Teams) that, even with supplementary analyses, would not permit confident (valid) decisions to be made about program effectiveness (') \"ti (I) 0:::, ~rt ~-(I) 0 l\"1 \u0026lt;  HI en o l\"1 l\"1 (I) !:C en ro -c, en 0 (I) :::, Ill en l\"1 (I) 0 ::r 2 in general or about African American student achievement resulting from program participation. A seventh evaluation (Extended Year Education) could possibly yield informative evidence about an ongoing program, but to be sufficiently refined would require time and resources extending significantly beyond the current conditions for project completion. An eighth evaluation (HIPPY) also deals with an ongoing program, but unlike the others could possibly provide useful evidence through revisions completed within the available time frame. Accordingly, the HIPPY report is currently being rewritten by Dr. Ed Williams from LRSD. The suggested plan for the third-party evaluators is presented below followed by a brief review of each evaluation. A. Submit the current evaluation report as an attachment to a supplemental document as described in B-D. B. The supplement should begin with an expanded description of the program, its goals, and its history in LRSD. It should then describe the evaluation methodology and summarize and interpret the key findings. C. Most importantly, the supplement should discuss the limitations (and any strengths where indicated) of the evaluation with regard to: (a) informing current practices in LRSD\n(b) using appropriate methodology\nand (c) addressing student achievement effects, especially in reference to African American students. D. Finally, the supplement should present suggestions for conducting stronger studies of similar programs in future evaluation studies. 1. Middle School Transition (Moore) Thi/evaluation is in near-completed form and needs mostly editing and expansion. Because the middle school program is current and continuing, this evaluation study can be useful (mostly for guiding professional development and implementation improvement) for informing district strategies. The achievement results are fairly minimal and uninformative, but at the time of the evaluation (1999-2000), only baseline data existed. Thus, aside from providing additional description of the results (the tables and the narrative are sparse) and a more meaningful interpretation of trends (especially with regard to African American vs. Caucasian students), there is probably little more that needs to be done for this essentially baseline time period. The survey data appear to be reasonably analyzed and reported, but the interpretation and discussion should be extended to provide more meaningful conclusions and recommendations. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. (') \"O Cl) 0::, .... rt\" I-'('!) n ~ '\u0026lt; t-'11 en o ~ ~ Cl)?:-' en m \"Cl en 0 Cl) ::, Ill en ~ m n ::r )\" en en 0 n I- Ill Q rt Cl) 3 2. Lyceum Scholars (McNeal) The Lyceum Scholars' High School Program, which was evaluated in 1998-99 and 1999- 2000, is no longer being implemented in LRSD. The latter consideration, coupled with the obvious limitations of the evaluation design with regard to rigor, depth, and meaningfulness of the data, substantially reduce the value of the study and the need for devoting more than minimal resources to it, beyond perhaps a supplemental summary and explanation. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 3. Elementary Level Summer School (McNeal) Similar to the Lyceum Scholars' High School Program (#2 above), the Elementary Level Summer School program is no longer being implemented in LRSD. In addition, the evaluation study conducted in the summer of 2001 is limited in its design and methodology. Among the major concerns are the lack of: (a) implementation data to describe the program strategies and the degree to which they were actually used by teachers, (b) an adequate control group or norms to which the achievement scores of summer school students could be compared, and (c) qualitative data to describe the experiences of students and teachers in the program. Due to \"differential sampling\" the multiple tables provided are neither overly meaningful nor informative regarding the progress of summer school students in general and African American summer school students in particular. Seemingly, there is little useful information to be gained for informing future policies by. investing substantive resources in revamping the study. While more suitable control samples might be established using archival data, the absence of implementation assessments would still make the \"treatment\" essentially unknown. Therefore, suggestiJns similar to those made for the Lyceum Scholars program are also offered here. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 4. Vital Link (Ross) The Vital Link program, designed to provide students with on-the-job experiences, was offered to 394 middle school students in the summer of 1999. Because the program was of very limited duration (only one week) and is not focused on either academic curriculum or learning strategies, it is highly unlikely to have affected students' academic achievement. Although such a program would still potentially serve a useful purpose for fostering student motivation to achieve and complete school, it is no longer being implemented in LRSD. Further, the evaluation study conducted was so limited (a brief post-test only, closed-ended survey) that the policy implications of the results are minimal and even potentially misleading if derived. Therefore, suggestions similar to (\") \"Cl ro 0 ::, ~M' n'\"'' lr'oi -\u0026lt;  1'11 en o l'i l'i ro ~ en ro ~ en o ro ::, QI en l'i ro n ::,' 4 those made for the Lyceum Scholars Program and the Elementary Level Summer School Program (#'s 2 and 3 above) are again offered here. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 5. Onward to ExceIJence CSRD Program (Ross) The OTE model was implemented at Watson Elementary School for several years, starting in 1999. It has since been discontinued and was never formally evaluated, except for achievement data reports sent by the principal to ADE. Thus, in essence, there is no longer any program in LRSD to evaluate and no evaluation report to revise, expand, or redraft. It would seem wasteful of resources to reexamine historical data from this program, especially since implementation data are lacking. That is, if positive or negative results were found, it would be impossible to determine whether OTE or numerous others factors were the main cause. Suggestions, therefore, are similar to those for #'s 2-4 above. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 6. HIPPY (Ross) Because HIPPY is a continuing program, this evaluation can be potentially useful to LRSD by providing initial program results on student achievement and benefits to African American children. A limitation of the study, which unfortunately cannot be remedied retroactively, is the lack of implementation data to describe the fidelity with which HIPPY program components were actually used. The quantitative achievement results must therefore be viewed cautiously, but should sti11 be at least suggestive regarding program influences. Substantive expansion and revision, however, are needed to increase the readability and meaningfulness of the report. For example, there is inadequate description of the program, context, methodology, and analysis design. Tables and findings need to be presented in a more readable (\"user-friendly\") manner. Suggestions: A. Reorganize and expand the introduction and methodology to be in line with district evaluation standards (i.e., more context, more detailed methodology, clearer questions and organization). B. Ed Williams needs to run the revised analysis and write up results by January 31, 2003. A program description needs to be provided. Results need to be disaggregated, if possible, for African American and Caucasian students. Expand the Results sections to provide more informative reporting of outcomes, clearer tabular presentations, etc. C\"l \"O Cl) 0::, ~ rt' ~-Cl) n l'1 ~ - H'I en o l'1 l'1 Cl) ,:I en m \"O en 0 Cl) ::, llJ en l'1 m n ::,' ~- ::, t:l .0, C. Expand the Conclusions section to: (a) directly address whether there are implications for the achievement of African American and other disadvantaged groups (there probably are not at this stage), (b) more fully discuss implications and recommendations associated with the findings, and ( c) propose further evaluation research that will validly determine both implementation quality and influences of HIPPY on student achievement. D. The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy in expanding this report. 7. Extended Year Education (EYE) Report (Moore) 5 The EYE program is relevant to LRSD's current interests in improving academic achievement of its students. Unfortunately, the present evaluation design does not seem sufficiently sensitive to detect effects that might be attributable to EYE. Specifically, usage of whole-school data compared descriptively to district norms gives only a very surface examination of the schools' progress, with susceptibility to contamination by student mobility, differences in SES, etc. A more precise analysis would match students at the three schools to similar students at comparable schools not using EYE, and then examine progress using a multivariate-type (regression or MANOV A) analysis. It is questionable, however, that such analyses could be completed in the time remaining for the required submission of the final report. Also, the findings would be limited by having only two years of post-program data. Aside from the design limitations, the organization of the report is difficult to follow due to the many tables and brief but not very informative narrative descriptions. The survey data might be interpretable, but also need a much clearer and better organized presentation. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. , 8. Campus Leadership Teams (Ross) This initiative seems highly relevant to current and future goals of LRSD. However, the \"evaluation data\" collected to date consist of only results from two district-wide surveys that assessed team members' reactions to various activities. No information exists to verify the representativeness of the samples, the validity of the data collection in general, or the implementation of the CL Ts at the various schools. The aggregate survey results on the 24 combined items (14 in the team member survey\n10 in the certified/noncertified staff member survey) do not appear overly interesting or meaningful with regard to informing practice. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. C\"'l \"d Cl) 0::, r-' rt\" .... Cl) n l\"1 \u0026lt; - Hi tll 0 l\"1 l\"1 Cl) ~ Ill Cl) 'Cl Ill 0 Cl) ::, 0J Ill l\"1 ro n ::,\" .... ::, t'l .Q , ~The University of Memphis Memphis, Tennessee 38152-3340 A State of Tennessee Center of Excellence Center for Research in Educational Policy 325 Browning Hall October 28, 2002 Director of Procurement Little Rock School District 1800 East Sixth Street Little Rock, AR. 72202 Dear Mr. Paradis, RECEIVED 'j : I 2p rvJ DEC - 4 2002 I f.t,i,,J . /)C'l1 ~ ~~ c J., OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Local 901/678-2310 Toll 866/670-6147 FAX 901/678-4257 Enclosed are five copies of the Center for Research in Educational Policy's response to RFQ #23-010: Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Program Evaluation Consultant. If additional information is needed or ifl can be of further assistance, please contact the Center toll free at 1-866-670-6147. il~ Steven M. Ross Director A Tennessee Board of Regents Institution An Equal Opponunity/Afflrrnsliw Action University Response from the Center for Research in Educational Policy at the University of Memphis to: RFQ Number: 23-010 Title: Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Program Evaluation Consultant Opening date/time: ovember 6, 2002 (2:00 p.m.) CREP Response to RFQ23-010 1. Curriculum vitae with specific documentation of successful experience in education program evaluation. PERSONAL DATA Steven M. Ross 224 Eagle Spring Cove Cordova, TN 38018 Institution Pennsylvania State University Undergraduate Major: EDUCATION Psychology Home (901) 755-6654 Office (901) 678-3413 Degree-Year B.A. 1969 M.S. 1972 Ph.D. 1974 Graduate Major: Educational Psychology PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS American Psychological Association, Fellow American Educational Research Association, Member Mid-South Educational Research Association, Member Association for Educational Communications \u0026amp; Technology, Member International Congress for School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Member EXPERIENCE Instructor, Continuing Education, 1973-74, Pennsylvania State University Instructor, Psychology, Spring Semester, 1974, Lock Haven State College, Lock Haven, Pennsylvania Evaluator, Summer, 1974, Mitre Corporation, McLean, Virginia Assistant Professor, Educational Psychology, 197 4-79, University of Memphis Associate Professor, Educational Psychology, 1980-1985 Professor, Educational Psychology, 1985 - Present Senior Researcher, Center for Research in Education Policy, University of Memphis, 1995-2001 Director, Center for Research in Educational Policy, University of Memphis, 2001 - present COURSES RECENTLY TAUGHT Theories of Learning (undergraduate) Individual Differences and Learning (Graduate) Educational Statistics (Undergraduate and Graduate) Educational Research (Graduate) Computers in Education (Graduate and Undergraduate) Thesis Writing (Graduate) Educational Assessment (Graduate) CREP Response to RFQ23-010 2 HONORS AND DISTINCTIONS 1. NDEA Fellowship for graduate study at the Pennsylvania State University, 1971-1973. 2. Graduate Student Associate, Southwest Regional Laboratory, Summer, 1971. 3. Distinguished Teaching Service Award, University of Memphis, 1980. 4. Phi Delta Kappa Professional Research Award, Memphis Chapter, 1983. 5. Elected Fellow, Division 15, American Psychological Association, 1986. 6. Visiting Scholar, National Center for Research on Improving Postsecondary Teaching and Learning. University of Michigan, Summer 1987. 7. Distinguished Research Award, University of Memphis, 1987. 8. Distinguished Teacher Service Award, University of Memphis, 1988. (First eligibility since 1980\nno longer eligible) 9. Memphis State University nominee, CASE Professor of the Year Award, 1989 10. Superior Performance in University Research (SPUR) Award, University of Memphis, 1990, 1991, 1992 11. Distinguished Research Award, University of Memphis, 1993. 12. Board of Visitors Eminent Faculty Award, University of Memphis (first recipient), 1993 13. Editor, Educational Technology Research and Development, 1993-present 14. Editorial Board, Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk. 1995-present 15. Editorial Board, Computers and Human Behavior, 1994-present 16. Invited testimony, U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth, and Families, Committee on Education and the Workforce, June 26, 1998. 17. Invited panelist on comprehensive school reform, discussion with Secretary of Education Richard Riley, March 16. 1999. 18. Lillian and Morrie Moss Chair of Excellence in Urban Education, 2001 Publications in Refereed Journals Books Book Chapters SCHOLARSHIP Papers Presented at Professional Meetings 122 7 28 224 SELECTED RECENT PUBLICATIONS Ross, S. M., Henry, D., Phillipsen, L., Evans, K., Smith L., \u0026amp; Buggey, T. (1997). Matching restructuring programs to schools: Selection, negotiation, and preparation. School Effectiveness and School Improvement,~' 45-71. Ross, S. M., Troutman, A., Horgan, D., Maxwell, S., Laitinen, R., \u0026amp; Lowther, D. (1997). The success of schools in implementing eight restructuring designs: A synthesis of first-year evaluation outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 8_, 95-124. Ross, S.M., Smith, L. J., \u0026amp; Casey, J. (1997). Preventing early school failure: Impacts of Success For All on standardized test outcomes, minority group performance, and school effectiveness. Journal for Research on Students Placed At Risk, i, 29-54. CREP Response to RFQ23-010 3 Stringfield, S., \u0026amp; Ross, S. M. (1997). A \"reflection\" at mile three of marathon: The Memphis restructuring initiative in mid-stride. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 8, 151-161. Ross, S., \u0026amp; Smith, L. J. (1997). Improving the academic success of disadvantaged children: An examination of Success For All. Psychology in the Schools, ~..1, 171-180. Jayasinghe, M. G., Morrison, G. R., \u0026amp; Ross, S. M. (1997). The effect of distance learning classroom design on student perceptions. Educational Technology Research and Development,~ 5-20. Ross, S. M., \u0026amp; Smith, L. J. (1998). Improving school achievement and inter-group relations for children placed at risk. European Journal oflntercultural education, 9_(2), 141-154. Smith, L. J., Ross, S. M., McNelis, M, Squires, M., and others (1998), The Memphis restructuring initiative: Analysis of activities and outcomes that impact implementation success. Education and Urban Society, 30(3), 296-325. Stringfield, S., Datnow, A., Ross, S., \u0026amp; Snively, F. (1998). Scaling up school restructuring in multicultural multilingual contexts: Early observations from Sunland County. Education and Urban Society, 30(3), 326-357. Ross, S. M., Smith, L. J., \u0026amp; Casey, J.P. (1999). \"Bridging the gap\": The effects of the Success For All Program on elementary school reading achievement as a function of student ethnicity and ability level. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, lQ(2), 129-150. Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., \u0026amp; Kemp, J.E. (2000). Designing effective instruction (3'd ed.). New York, tN: Macmillan College Publishing. Ross, S. M., Alberg, M., Smith. L., Anderson, R., Bol, L., Dietrich, A., Lowther, D., \u0026amp; Phillipsen, L. (2000). Using whole-school restructuring to improve educational outcomes: The Memphis story at year 3. Teaching and Change, 1(2), 111-126. Ross, S. M., \u0026amp; Seidel, S. (2000). The introduction to the NEA Teacher Education Initiative. Teaching and Change,~' 5-9. Nath, L.R., \u0026amp; Ross, S.M. (2001). The influence of a peer tutoring training model for implementing cooperative groupings with elementarJ students. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 49(2), 41-56. Ross, S. M., Sanders, W. L., Wright, S. P., Stringfield, S., Wang, L. W., \u0026amp; Alberg, M. (September 2001). Two- and three-year achievement results from the Memphis Restructuring Initiative. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 1]_, 323-346. CREP Response to RFQ23-010 4 Summary of Interests During the past ten years, I have worked extensively with school districts, both regionally and locally, to develop and evaluate programs for improving student achievement. The primary focus of these studies bas been schools predominantly serving disadvantaged inner-city minority children. Currently, I am working on the formative and sumrnative evaluation of Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) projects at schools in various states. Additional ongoing research projects are studies of school restructuring designs as they are implemented in Memphis City Schools and other school districts and of professional development schools in seven national sites as part of the NEA Teacher Education Initiative (NEA-TEI). 2. Capacity and capability to perform education program evaluations including a writing sample (see appendix for writing sample). The Center for Research in Educational Policy (referred to in this document as the Center or CREP) is funded by the State of Tennessee as one of five Centers of Excellence located at The University of Memphis. The mission of the Center is to implement a research agenda associated with educational policies and practices in the preK-12 public schools of Tennessee and the nation, and to disseminate research findings so that they inform decisions made by educational practitioners and policymakers. Since 19.89, the Center bas served as a mechanism for mobilizing community and university resources to address educational problems and to meet the I University's commitment to primary and secondary schools. Functioning as a part of the College of Education, the Center seeks to accomplish its mission through a series of investigations conducted by Center personnel, College and University faculty, and graduate students. The Center's research agenda is developed through analysis of persistent or emerging issues in schools and their communities, changes occurring in teacher education programs, and recommendations from educational authorities. In order to plan and conduct inquiries relevant to issues associated with public schools, the Center supports research reflecting the following characteristics: potential for contributing to the solution of educational policy and practice issues\nan applied research and development focus\ncollaborations and partnerships with schools and other external organizations\ninterdisciplinary research teams\nmultiple modes of inquiry\nCREP Response to RFQ23-010 5 immediate and long-range planning\nand creation of databases to foster secondary analyses. Research outcomes are intended to provide a knowledge base for use by educational practitioners and policymakers by providing insight into the complexities of educational phenomena and offering recommendations for action. Through work in schools for over a decade, the Center has contributed to Tennessee policy decisions regarding teacher preparation and licensure, school governance and site-based decision making, and public school reforms. Additionally, the Center has gained national recognition for its contribution to discussions of issues such as reform of teacher education, educational equity, educational technology, school reform and restructuring, urban and multicultural education, interventions for at-risk students, and using formative evaluation methods for school improvement decision-making. In summary, the Center for Research in Educational Policy has extensive experience in evaluating diverse educational programs. The Center has developed numerous valid and reliable evaluation tools that have been effectively used by hundreds of schools and districts to examine the extent to which programmatic goals are being realized, and also fotmaking data-based improvement decisions. The Center's professional expertise, available evaluation resources, and proximity to the Little Rock School District all make it likely that CREP can assist the District in complying with the court order related to its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 3. Indication of the amount of available time between November 11, 2002 and March 1, 2003 for consulting and active work on this project. Dr. Steven Ross and staff from the Center for Research in Educational Policy can initially commit to ten hours per week for this project. This commitment is flexible, however, and can be negotiated based on the needs of the Little Rock School District. CREP Response to RFQ23-010 6 4. Two professional references who can attest to quality of work and ability to meet schedules and deadlines. RickBasoin Deputy Executive Director of Planning and Development SERVE 915 Northridge St., 2nd floor Greensboro, NC. 27403-2112 (800) 755-3277 RBASOM@serve.org Doris Redfield Director of Research AEL P.O. Box 1348 Charleston, WV. 25325-1348 (800) 624-9120 redfield@ael.org 5. Pending Lawsuits. None. IC !3: C Ill ll ::, ~ Ill., ..a r ro ~ 5ro1 c, ::, C: rt i: r. I \u0026gt;en lrl en., 0 C n....: : Ill Q 1\nCREP Response to RFQ23-010 7 Appendix Writing Sample 1 1 The writing sample is an executive summary. The full report will be provided upon request. PROGRESS AND OPTIONS REGARDING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DIRECT INSTRUCTION AND SUCCESS FOR ALL IN TOLEDO PUBLIC SCHOOLS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Prepared by: Center for Research in Educational Policy (CREP) at the University of Memphis www .memphis.edu/crep July 30, 2002 :J:\u0026gt;'lll t/l rl t/l 0 C (l ::i I ~- Ill Q rt 1m Progress and Options Regarding the Implementation of Direct Instruction and Success for All in Toledo Public Schools EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Purpose and Background The major goals of this research study were to evaluate the outcomes and provide recommendations on the implementation of two improvement models being used by multiple schools in the Toledo Public School (TPS) district. The district has taken bold steps to turn around some of its lowest performing schools, including the investment of about $2 million over the past four years to adopt two research-based comprehensive school reform models with solid national track records of effectiveness. These models, Direct Instruction (DI) and Success for All (SF A), have been implemented in a total of nine Toledo elementary schools. The design and methodology of the study, to be described below, was oriented towards answering the following research questions.  How do \"program\" (i.e., DI and SFA) schools compare to \"control\" (i.e., similar) schools in student achievement outcomes over time?  How well are program schools implementing their chosen models?  How do program schools compare to control schools in measures of school climate that make a difference in program implementation or student achievement?  What are key stakeholder reactions (e.g., district leaders, principals and teachers) to the effectiveness of the programs and their schools' ability to fully implement the programs?  Which factors appear to differentiate between program schools that are most and least successful in raising student achievement? Study Design The design of this project relies on a number of different approaches to determine program implementation. The findings and options for action reported here draw on multiple data sources consisting of:  Comparisons of student achievement results at program schools against similar TPS schools\n Targeted observations of the extent and quality of DI and SPA implementation\no Interviews of district and union leadership\n School climate inventories administered to teachers at program and control schools\n Teacher questionnaires administered to teachers teaching reading at program and control schools\n Focus groups comprised of program teachers that explored issues related to program implementation\nand  Interviews of principal and building representative. Nine schools participated in the evaluation, including three DI schools that began implementation in 1997-1998\nthree DI schools that began implementation in 1999-2000, one that began in 2001-2002\nand two SFA schools that began implementation in 1999-2000. (Note: As data was not yet available, the DI school that began implementation this year was not considered in the analysis of student achievement.)  For the student achievement study, the comparison sample consisted of all other (not SF A and DI) schools in the District, the scores for which (as explained below) were adjusted for school and student characteristics.  For the implementation analyses, experts in the school district selected matched control schools for DI and SF A sites based on prior achievement, SES factors, and ethnicity. There were six DI control schools and two SF A control schools. Again, the DI school that began implementation this year did not have a control school. Results Achievement Analysis Student achievement data was gathered from all available sources, including the Ohio proficiency test and the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT-9). Student results on these standardized tests in schools implementing DI and SF A were examined as well as results for all other (not DI and SFA) district schools. Results were compared for program and control schools and the analysis revealed the following. Overall Results. DI and SF A program schools included in the evaluation posted student achievement gains nearly equal to what would be expected of other Toledo schools serving similar student populations. DI Results.  Achievement gains tended to improve in DI schools from 1999 to 2001 in 2nd and 6th grade, but were still slightly below what would be expected given the pf)verty rate and pretest levels of the schools.  In 2001, DI schools as a whole produced a statistically significant negative effect for fourth grade.  Among the schools that implemented DI in 1997-1998, Mt. Vernon second grade students tended to post higher achievement gains than would be expected. Fourth and sixth grade achievement gains improved at Mt. Vernon from moderately below to roughly equal to the district average. Among 1999-2000 DI schools, student achievement improved substantially at King, particularly in 2nd and 6th grade. Second grade student performance declined precipitously at Warren from 1999 to 2001. 2 3: Ill ::, Ill IQ m 5l m ::, rt- ,~\u0026gt; 0 (') ~- Ill rtm SF A Results.  In both SF A schools, students at each grade level made achievement gains at a rate nearly equal to the district average for each year considered. School Climate Inventory (SCI) The main purpose of the School Climate Inventory (SCI) is to assess impacts of reform initiatives in relation to seven dimensions logically and empirically linked with factors associated with effective school organizational climates. 1 The inventory contains 49 items and responses are scored using a five-point scale ranging from strong disagreement (1) to strong agreement (5). Overall Results. SCI results showed no unusual positive or negative trends for any of the program or control groups, with the exception of one of the two SF A sites that had negative school climate results. DI Results. DI teachers reacted comparably to their control counterparts. SF A Results. SF A teachers reacted significantly more negatively than did the control teachers on three out of the seven dimensions (Environment, Leadership, and Order). One of the SF A schools bad very positive school climate results, while the other SF A site bad negative school climate results compared to both the controls and to national norms. Reading Teacher Survey (RTS) All teachers of reading at each DI, SF A, and control school were asked to complete the RTS, which contains 20 items teachers respond to using a five-point scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree ~). Items identified the specific program in the case of DI and SF A, but referred generically to the \"reading program\" for the control schools. Among the areas assessed were professional development, impacts on students, changes in teaching, support for the program, effects on technology use, and involvement of parents and the community. Overall Results. Findings for both DI and SF A sites indicated significant favorable teacher attitudes toward the DI and SF A reading programs relative to control group impressions of the district's general reading program. DI Results. DI teachers expressed more positive attitudes toward their reading program than did control teachers of their schools' approaches. Significant differences were obtained on 12 out of 20 items, with the largest effects indicated for: (1) external guidance and support\n(2) 1 The dimension on the Environment addresses pride in the school and caring about others\nthe Order dimension focuses on student behavior, discipline, and attendance\nthe Leadership dimension deals with the degree to which the administration is supportive, communicative, and effective\nInvolvement concerns the extent to which parents and the community are involved in the school\nthe dimension on Instruction considers the extent to which the instructional program is well developed and implemented\nthe Expectations dimension is the extent to which students are expected to learn and be responsible\nand the Collaboration dimension is the extent to which the administration, faculty, and students cooperate and participate in problem solving. 3 the reading program changing classroom learning activities a great deal\n(3) external professional development being valuable\nand, ( 4) student achievement being positively impacted. SF A Results. SF A teachers were significantly more positive than their control counterparts on 13 of the 20 items. The largest effects were obtained for items indicating a more positive teacher evaluation of: (1) the guidance provided by the school facilitator, support team, or others\n(2) changes in learning activities due to the reading program\n(3) the school's plan for evaluating the reading program\n( 4) the value of the professional development\nand, the involvement of parents. Interviews and Focus Groups Interviews were conducted with key stakeholders ( district leadership, union leadership, and a school board member), principals of schools implementing DI and SF A as well as Control schools, building level union representatives, and DI and SFA school facilitators. Teacher focus groups of about one-hour in length were held to provide background information about schools' usage of their selected programs to support more informed interpretations of outcome measures such as student achievement. Questions addressed teachers' experiences with and reactions to program implementation with regard to such areas as program appropriateness, resources, professional development, and outcomes. The principal at each of the nine schools participated in a one-hour, on-site interview. Interview questions addressed the principal's experiences and reactions to the program implementation and the associated outcomes for the school, students, faculty, and parents/community. Interviews with control school principals were conducted via telephone, using the same instruments. Results from DI Interviews and Focus Groups According to respondents (principals, teachers, and teacher union building representatives), the strengths of DI appear to be in the primary grades, especially with regard to phonics. The model also appears to them to be highly positive for special needs children, attributed to DI's structure, repetition, and appropriate ability grouping. Weaknesses in DI were perceived in the intermediate grades, including a lack of instruction in comprehension and higher-order thinking skills. Implementation, according to one teacher focus group, has gone well in the lower grades, but as reported by one building representative, the program lacks support among intermediate grade teachers. Almost all principals, building representatives, and teacher focus groups perceived a positive impact of DI on reading and interest in reading. High student mobility was identified as one of the biggest obstacles to DI implementation, since new students enter the school with no DI experience. Large class size was mentioned as another perceived impediment to implementation. A third impediment reported at some schools was high teacher turnover. In some schools, boredom and lack of interest during DI was identified as an issue, although others report increases in student motivation and enthusiasm about reading. 4 3: Ill ::, ill \"\" IQ (D s ~ g rt ~ :t\u0026gt;'P. tll \" ~ a n  I-' Ill ,~ Most respondents viewed initial DI training as positive. Several noted that training was inadequate for new/transfer teachers. Model developers appeared to have inconsistent contact with the schools. Across all schools, there appeared to be a need for improved district training and support, which was reported to be minimal and unspecific. In summary, teachers and principals in DI schools perceive the program to be very effective, especially in grades K-3, at teaching larger numbers of students to read. Teachers and principals indicate that students are more motivated and interested in reading and that they see progress in their classrooms on a regular basis. There appears to be a weakness in the training provided by model consultants and the district, particularly for new teachers entering the program buildings. Results from SFA Interviews and Focus Groups According to respondents, SF A implementation has been improving, but has been highly dependent on the rate of teacher turnover. The most effective elements of the SF A model were perceived to be the 90-minute block of reading time, ability grouping for reading, the use of phonics and tutoring at the primary levels, and program consistency from grade to grade. The least effective SFA elements were reported as the lack of nonfiction materials (an issue identified at both \"program\" and \"control\" schools), limited writing emphasis, time constraints, large class sizes, the scripted lessons, and the lack of alignment to Ohio standards. Focus groups in both schools perceived that SFA supports cooperative and team-based approaches. Other SF A classroom changes identified include smaller reading groups, flexible levels, individualized learning, interdisciplinary and project-based instruction, improved partnering, and more student enthusiasm for learning. Staff reported that special\"needs SF A students are ability-grouped according to reading level, and are given extra tutoring if necessary. I In summary, staff observed that students in both SF A schools appear to be more motivated to read. SF A schools reported that, according to SF A assessments, more students are reading on level, and students are reading more often. SF A principals reported increasing proficiency scores, although teachers in one school reported that test scores are down: One SF A school also noted improved communication, stronger student relationships, and fewer discipline problems during SF A implementation. In both SF A schools, teacher collaboration and teacher collegiality has reportedly improved, despite high teacher turnover in one of the schools. According to the focus groups, professional development and SF A training have been helpful overall at both schools. However, follow-up training and training for new teachers were viewed to be inadequate. Targeted Observations Independent, out-of-state consultants with expertise in the implementation of DI and SF A conducted site visits to the Toledo schools implementing these models. Targeted observations for each model follow. 5 IQ xi::: 0J 0J ::, 0J 1- -0 ro~I s ('I) ::, Cl rt C: 0 :x:,. 0J en rt en .... 00 0 ::i I-' 0J QI rt ('I) DI Targeted Observations In-depth observations of Toledo's DI schools by outside experts in the program indicate a rather inconsistent and incomplete level of implementation of the components of the DI model that are critical for accelerating student progress to reach grade-level performance. These expert observers noted that implementation is not yet geared to produce significantly more than a year's progress each year so that children can close the \"academic gap.\" On an encouraging note, the observers reported that school staff nearly unanimously identified a significant reduction in the number of children who are nonreaders, and a significant increase in the number of children who are encountering success during reading instruction. Specific recommendations to improve DI implementations are as follows: 1. Place more emphasis on accelerating student performance in kindergarten and first grade. 2. Increase reading instructional time to accelerate and expand student reading proficiency. 3. Provide children who are functioning below grade level with daily extra DI reading instruction. 4. Provide for structured reading in a wide variety of materials. 5. Place more emphasis on implementation of the DI language curricula. 6. Provide professional development to enable all teachers to reach high levels of proficiency in teaching DI. 7. Provide training and support for building principals to take a more active role in supporting implementation of DI model. 8. Provide more of a sense of urgency from the district level to ensure implementations are producing desired levels of student learning. This recommendation further stres,ses the need to establish a district-wide DI coordinator to monitor implementation and 'ensure consistency and quality in uses of DI across schools. 1 SF A Targeted Observations According to the SF A expert who visited the program schools, implementation in Toledo is uneven. While observations revealed that implementation of the SF A program is generally above average in curricular areas and both schools provided the requisite 90-minutes of reading instruction each day, several concerns exist. Implementation of the \"Reading Wings\" reading component in one school was below average. Both schools are below average in family support implementation and one school needs to improve in the area of teacher training. 6 ' tO 3:C:: Ill Ill ::, Ill 1- IO (I) I\u0026lt; El (I)~ ::, c:1 rt Cl \u0026gt;en r en 0 (\"l I-' Ill rt I (I) In terms of student performance, based on their analysis of SF A-provided student assessments, both schools report approximately 90% of first graders reading at or above grade level and close to 70% at or above grade in most second through sixth grades.2 According to the expert observer, teachers at each school appear to be working together to successfully implement the program in the face of implementation challenges. For instance, one site has been without a permanent facilitator for most of the 2001-2002 school year. The other SF A site has two facilitators, however, program implementation is challenging there as well due to the large student population and other conditions. The observer noted that the district appears to lack attention and focus to ensure that high quality program implementation is o.ccurring at each SF A site. Specific recommendations to improve SF A implementation are as follows: 1. Improve the alignment of SFA with the Ohio Proficiency Standards. 2. Ensure that adequate program facilitation is provided. 3. Improve the quality of professional training that SFA teachers receive. 4. Strengthen the implementation of SF A's writing component. 5. Implement fully the family support program component of the SFA model. Options for Action Our research team's goal in conducting this analysis was to support the ongoing efforts of all stakeholders in Toledo to engage in effective, evidence-based action to improve student achievement. We hope this report will provide the District the information it needs to weigh its options regarding the future implementation of two research-based, research-proven reading/school improvement programs. This report does not seek to promote or discredit either program or any alternative approach, or to call into question the well-intended and hard work of many district administrators and school staff. Rather, it lays out the available faqts, analyzes them and, on that basis, provides the following, forward-looking options. The District has several options regarding the future of Direct Instruction and Success for All in these schools. They range from the abandonment of the models entirely to their full, sustained, and potentially expanded implementation. At one end of this spectrum, before abandoning the models completely, the District would have to answer two key questions: 2 This statement on grade level performance refers to an SF A student assessment. This information contradicts other student assessment data provided by the Toledo Public Schools Office of Research showing that on the district assessment one SFA site has about 50% of its first graders and 60% of second graders performing on grade level while the other site has about 80% of first and second graders performing at grade level. 7 1. Have we done all that we could at the district and school level to fully implement these two programs in order to achieve successful student outcomes? 2. If we do decide to drop these programs, what do we have in hand, ready to go, that will produce better results? Given the observations detailed in our report, it would appear that the District could talce several more steps to assure high-quality implementations of these models. Furthermore, while the district may develop equally, or more effective, alternative approaches for raising reading achievement in these program schools, and perhaps across the entire district, no such option currently exists. Therefore, the district may wish to explore ways in which these programs could continue to operate-for a limited period of time, and with increased support and monitoring. The programs that the District has adopted have demonstrated success in many similar settings across the country. Therefore, given the right circumstances they may yet yield the desired-but as yet unattained---outcomes in Toledo. Based on the results of this study and our experiences as consultants and researchers in the area of comprehensive school reform, the following recommendations are offered for consideration by the TPS School Board and Superintendent. Improving Model Implementation this School Year. In the event the District decides to continue to operate these two models, for the 2002-2003 school year, there are a number of actions that should be considered in order to improve implementation. The District should:  Carefully review the detailed findings of the targeted observations provided in this report and make every possible suggested change in implementation. In the future, the district should monitor and act on the information provided by DI and SF A ongoing implementation checks and consider supplementing this data with other formative evaluation tools.  Establish a support, accountability and monitoring structure at the district level with one administrator charged with oversight of these models. This would ensure an ongoing focus on providing the support required for success. This individual-knowledgeable in the research-based programs and, preferably, about literacy instruction as well.-would oversee the quality of implementation across sites. The administrator would work closely with principals and school staff to meet their needs, and should have the authority and budgetary power to: a. Identify and oversee high quality providers of technical assistance, professional development, and supplies and materials\nb. Help identify and support school-based facilitators of the model\nc. Malce certain that materials and supplies are provided in a timely fashion to appropriate school staff\nd. Set and keep a master schedule for training new teachers, current teachers, and school-based program facilitators that complements District-provided training\nand 8 I-' 0J rt Cl) e. Increase principal involvement in and preparation for implementing models.  Negotiate and hold models and consultants to clear, transparent, performance-based agreements that specify what it is the District expects of the model provider(s), and consequences for success and failure. Improving Medium and Long Term Model Implementation. At the other end of the spectrum, indefinitely continuing and/or expanding implementation, would not appear to be a wise option given the limited academic success so far experienced, and the program implementation improvement needs noted in this report. Despite a national track record of success, unless a program can demonstrate substantial, long-term success in raising student achievement for Toledo's children, the program may not be the best option for meeting student needs. The District, and program advocates, must answer some tough questions before the programs are deemed worthy of long term support, including: 1. Why are we seeing less than adequate student progress in some of the program schools implementing these models? How can we track student achievement more accurately? 2. What is our capacity, interest, and commitment to fully implementing these models? Does the continuation of these models best serve the interest of Toledo's children? 3. How can we better monitor and assess the implementation of the models at the District level? 4. In the long term, what are the better solutions to meet the educational needs of Toledo's children? Other, intermediate and perhaps more viable choices exist for the District. For example, it might decide to choose a path of cautious optimism and allow the implementation of these models to continue for one or two more years-pending more results, and with additional supports. In our view, all schools wanting to continue their selected models should be given at least one year to show tangible progress. Presently, teacher support for the models being used is fairly strong at most schools. There are also community stakeholders who are both active and vocal in their advocacy of their chosen model. Using the present, third-party evaluation as a starting point for requiring tangible progress to be demonstrated within the next school year should present ostensibly a fair and reasonable plan to all stakeholder groups. The District should consider making subsequent policy decisions about model continuance on a case-by-case (school specific) basis. Even if, for example, the District chose to install a research-based, districtwide reading curriculum and approach, a decision could be made at that time whether the results at any given school were sufficient to justify allowing the particular school to continue with its current program. Some districts have chosen to allow schools to pursue individual program options, as long as they can demonstrate performance success, and prepare their students for further success in case they transfer, or when they graduate to their next grade level. 9 3: Ill ::, Ill IQ Cl) s Cl) ::, rt :i,,i tll tll .. 0 C C'l::, I-' Ill Ir 1~ Specific Options for DI Implementation. Although some DI schools have had sufficient time to achieve full implementation and raise student achievement, applications of DI still appear to be weak in many critical areas. Schools and the District need to show in the coming year that they are able and willing to achieve the effective program implementation required to significantly improve student achievement. Otherwise, there is little reason to believe that results will be more successful than shown in the present analysis. Over time the District might consider reducing the number of DI sites based on the different schools' performance and the quantity of teachers willing to make a long-term commitment to implementing the program. Creating more structures like the magnet schools reviewed in this study may be desirable both to promote greater teacher \"buy-in\" and reduce student mobility. Also, the District might consider whether to limit DI to the lower (preK-3) grades and phase out implementation in the intermediate grades ( 4-6). Alternatively, the District should provide substantially better and more consistent training to teachers working with the older primary students. The DI model has a track record of effectiveness in the intermediate grades, but only when proper, regular teacher training is conducted and a literature-rich student environment is cultivated. Specific Options for SF A Implementation. In the case of SF A, more time is needed for schools to gain experience in implementing the model. On the whole, SF A implementation is uneven and the district must pay more attention to implementing the model with fidelity. Before scaling up with any further SF A sites, the district should ensure full program implementation at both current sites. Particular attention must be paid to placing a trained SFA facilitator at each site, providi~g adequate professional development for all staff, and fully implementing the family support component of the model. Creating more structures like the magnet schools reviewed in this study may be desirable both to promote greater teacher \"buy-in\" and reduce student mobili~ The district should expect mixed student achievement results across SF A sites if implementation is not improved. Conclusion. Several years ago, the Toledo Public Schools initiated an exemplary pilot effort to implement two reading improvement programs that have among country's best track records of effectiveness in raising student achievement. The leadership of the District was to be commended then, for making the commitment to take on \"evidence-based\" reform. It has continued that commitment by commissioning this impartial, rigorous, and thorough examination of the results to date of those decisions. While there is room for disappointment that student outcomes are less than anticipated, and concern that program implementation needs to be improved, the District's reliance on following the trail of evidence to appropriate conclusions should provide hope that-whichever options are taken in the coming months and years-the result will be a better education for Toledo's children. 10 Quality Education and Management Associates A CONSULTANT COMPANY P.O. Box 26166 Little Rock, Arkansas 72221-6166 (501) 221-1178 or lxmcneal@netscape.net Dr. Kathy K. Franklin, Principal Consultant Dr. Larry McNeal, Principal Consultant Dr. Tom E. C. Smith, Principal Consultant Dr. Gordon E. Watts, Principal Consultant RECE:VED ./'/2pn7 DEC - 4 2002 / /,\n11/- /).:..I, 'v ( v, .f. OfACEOf DESEGREGATION IIONiTORJNG I \"For every complex problem there is a simple solution that is one hundred percent wrong. QEMA knows the right solution.\" cfQ...uahut cgdcawuv QM\n~ ~~ A CONSULTANT FIRM P. 0. Box 26166 Little Rock, Arkansas 72221-6166 (501) 221-1178 or lxmcneal@netscape.net November 4, 2002 Darral Paradis, CPPB, C.P.M. Director, Procurement and Materials Management Department Little Rock School District 1800 East 6th Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Dear Mr. Paradis: 1bis letter is to introduce the consulting finn of Quality Education \u0026amp; Management Associates (QEMA) of Little Rock, Arkansas. Members of the firm are university faculty with specialized expertise in educational issues, P-12, as well as postsecondary. Firm members have actively consulted with public school districts, private businesses, and institutions of higher education in a variety of areas. Members of the firm are offering their services to the Little Rock School District in the area of program evaluation. In particular, members of the firm are able and prepared to assist Little Rock School District personnel in evaluating the various programs outlined in the recent school desegregation court ruling. We are looking forward to assisting the Little Rock School District as it moves forward to address the program evaluation issue. Sincerely, r'..__ 'L~\\ ~ Dr. Larry McNeal Principal Consultant 2 1. Curriculum Vitae Quality Education and Management Associates (QEMA) Vitae A summary of Quality Education and Management Associates (QEMA) members' evaluation activities are listed below. Dr. Kathy K Franklin 2001 to 2004, Evaluator, Alternative Classroom Experience Project (Joseph Pfeifer Kiwanis Camp) 1998 to 2000, Evaluator, Freshman Year Experience program (University of Arkansas at Little Rock) 1998 to 1999, Evaluator, Adult First Year Experience course (University of Arkansas at Little Rock) 1998 to 1999, Evaluator, Learning Communities Program (University of Arkansas at Little Rock) 1997, Evaluator, Learning Community Experiment (University of Arkansas at Little Rock) Dr. Larry McN eal 2001 to 2004, Evaluator, Alternative Classroom Experience Project (Joseph Pfeifer Kiwanis Camp) 2000 to 2001, Evaluator, Little Rock Scliool District Charter Elementary School (Little Rock School District) 2001 to 2002, Evaluator, Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School 1998 to 2000, Chair, College of Education Assessment Committee (University of Arkansas at Little Rock) 1997 to 1998 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Elementary School, Gales Public School District (Galesburg, Illinois) 1997, Evaluator, Title 1: Summer School Evaluation - Peoria Public School District (Peoria, Illinois) 3 1995 to 1996, Evaluator, Illinois School for the Visually (Illinois Department of Rehabilitation Services) 1995 to 1996, Evaluator, Illinois Center for Rehabilitation and Education (Illinois Department of Rehabilitation Services) 1995 to 1996, Evaluator, Illinois School for the Deaf (Illinois Department of Rehabilitation Services) Dr. Tom E. C. Smith 2001 to 2004, Evaluator, Alternative Classroom Experience Project -Joseph Pfeifer Kiwanis Camp 1999 to Present, National Evaluation System 2001, Charlotte-Mecklenburg School District Dr. Gordon E. Watts 2002 to 2004, Evaluator, Alternative Classroom Experience Project (Joseph Pfeifer Kiwanis Camp) 2002, Program Evaluator, Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant (Delta Teacher Education Consortium) 2000, Program Evaluator, Higher Education Consortium for Careers in Early Childhood (University of Arkansas at Little Rock) 1992 to present, Consultant/Evaluator, Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools 1998 Program Reviewer (Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education) The curriculum vitae for individual QEMA members are in Appendix A 4 2. Capacity And Capability To Perform Program Evaluations. QEMA has both the capacity and capability to perform program evaluation within the timelines identified in the recent school desegregation court ruling. The capacity and capability of QEMA is imbedded in its structure as a research based consulting firm with specialized expertise in educational issues, P-12, as well as postsecondary. Principal Consultants of QEMA have conducted a variety of types of program evaluations at the public school, community college, and university levels. The unique backgrounds and experiences of the principals enable them to bring together a wide spectrum of program evaluation models and statistical methodologies in order to create a program evaluation that is specifically tailored to their client's needs. - Currently, firm members are engaged in conducting a multi-year evaluation of the Alternative Classroom Experience Project for the Joseph Pfeifer Kiwanis Camp in Little Rock, Arkansas. The project provides educational services to at-risk elementary children from the Little Rock School and the Pulaski County Special School Districts. The experience acquired from this venture enhances QEMA's understanding and ability to provide program evaluation services to public school districts in Central Arkansas. A copy of a program evaluation completed by a QEMA principal consultant in Appendix B 5 3. Time Available For Consultation In response to the timeline requirements, QEMA consultant principals can be available between November 11, 2002 and March 1, 2003 on the following dates. The actual dates are subjected to mutual agreement between Little Rock School District personnel and QEMA personnel. Dates after March 1, 2003 are also available upon request. November 11-15: November 18-22 November 25-29 Pecember 2-6 December 9-13 December 16-20 January 6-10 January 13-17 January 20-24 January 27-31 February 3-7 February 10-14 February 17-21 February 24-28 4. Professional References A. QEMAGroup: Sanford Tollette Director Joseph Pfeifer Camp 5512 Ferndale Co I Little Rock, AR 72208 501.821.3714 Sanford@pfeifercamp.com B. Dr. Kathy Franklin Dr. Thea Zidonowitz Hoeft Division Chief for University College Director of Academic Advising Coordinator of First Year Experience University of Arkansas at Little Rock 501.569.3386 tmhoeft@ualr.edu 6 C. Dr. Larry McNeal Dr. Jean Brown Principal Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Elementary School Galesburg, Illinois 309. 691.8023 343.0409 D. Dr. Tom Smith 5. Pending Lawsuits There are no lawsuits or any other legal actions pending on Quality Education and Management Associates as a.consulting company or any of its principal consultants as individuals. I 7 Appendix A Curriculum Vitaes For Dr. Kathy K. Franklin Dr. Larry McNeal Dr. Tom E.C. Smith Dr. Gordon E. Watts 8 I EDUCATION KATHY K. FRANKLIN, Ed.D. Department of Educational Leadership, Policy, and Technology Studies The University of Alabama Box 870302 Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0302 kfranldi@bamaed.ua.edu 205-348-2470 Kathy K. Franklin 1 Ed.D. Educational Leadership with a concentration in higher education. Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, Tennessee, 1996. Dissertation: Exploring the Congruency Between Student Satisfaction and Institutional Effectiveness in Higher Education. Utilized a qualitative research design with a focus group method of inquiry to explore the congruency between criteria used by students to determine satisfaction with the higher education experience and criteria used by administrators to evaluate institutional effectiveness. The purpose of this research was to investigate the validity of using student satisfaction assessment as a definition of institutional effectiveness. M.B.A. Concentration in marketing and economics. Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, 1991.  B.S. Commerce and Business Administration with a concentration in marketing. University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, 1977. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Associate Professor of Higher Education Administration, Department of Educational Leadership, Policy\nand Technology Studies, The University of Alabama, 2002 to present. Associate Professor of Higher Education Administration, Department of Educational Leadership, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, 1999 to 2002. Taught courses on the following topics: history and philosophy of higher education, governance and public policy in higher education, finance of higher education, leadership theories in higher education, and qualitative research methods. Chair, Department of Educational Leadership, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, 1999 to 2001. I Assistant Professor of Higher Education, Department of Educational Leadership, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, 1996 to 1999. Taught courses on the following topics: history and philosophy of higher education, overview of higher education in the United States, college teaching problems and issues, designing a college curricula, qualitative research methods, dissertation seminar\nand advanced research methods. Team Instructor, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis, East Tennessee State University, Spring 1996 and Summer 1996. Taught the following courses in collaboration with senior faculty from the ELP A department: Professional Needs of Individuals and Groups\nGraduate Internship Program\nand Theories of Educational Administration. Instructor, Kathy K. Franklin 2  East Tennessee State University, College of Business, Department of Management and Marketing, Johnson City, Tennessee\n1992 to 1996. Full-time Temporary faculty status -Taught Principles of Marketing, Sales Force Management, Retail Management, Introduction to Business, and Organizational Behavior to undergraduate students.  Milligan College, Adult Education Program, Johnson City, Tennessee\n1994 to 1996. Adjunct faculty status -- Taught Marketing Communications in the adult accelerated M.B.A. program.  Northeast State Technical Community College, Blountville, Tennessee\nJanuary 1992 to August 1992. Adjunct faculty status -- Taught courses in business economics, finance, and marketing.  Tusculum College, Greeneville, Tennessee\nJune 1992 to October 1992. Adjunct faculty status -Taught graduate courses in strategic marketing management to adult students in the accelerated M.B.A. program. Graduate Assistant, Office of the Dean, College of Education, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, Tennessee\nMay 1995 to August 1995. Worked with the Associate Dean to prepare for the 1995 NCATE visit. Assistant Director, Bell South Exemplary Superintendent Training (BEST) Program, East Tennessee State University, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis, Johnson City, Tennessee\nAugust 1994 to May 1995. Coordinated all activities related to the professional development of forty Tennessee educational leaders in preparation for a future superintendency position. The BEST program was a collaborative effort with the Bell South Foundation and East Tennessee State University. PUBLICATIONS Journal and Newsletter Publications Franklin, K.K. (2002). Qualitative coding: The allegory of the quilt. Research in the Schools 9(1 ), 65-71. Franklin, K.K. (2001, winter). The \"Mikey\" phenomenon: Reflections of a first year chair. The Department Chair 11(3), 26-28. Franklin, K.K., Chesser, J.S., Edleston, R.J., Edwards-Schafer, P., Marvin, S.R., \u0026amp; Satkowski, T. (2001). Faculty attitudes about instructional technology in a metropolitan university classroom. _Metropolitan Universities: An International Forum 12(1), 50-61. Franklin, K.K. \u0026amp; Lowry, C. (2001). Computer-mediated focus group sessions: Naturalistic inquiry in a networked environment. Qualitative Research 1 (2), i 169-184. Franklin, K.K. (2000). Shared and connected learning in a freshman learning community. Journal of the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition 12(2), 33-60. Conners, N.A. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (Spring, 2000). Using focus groups to evaluate client satisfaction in an alcohol and drug treatment program. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 18, 313-3\nW. Franklin, K.K. (1999). A theoretical framework for metropolitan student satisfaction. Metropolitan Universities: An International Forum 10(3), 81-88. Franklin, K.K. (1999). Forging the bonds: learning communities on an urban campus. The First-Year Experience Newsletter 11(3), 8.  Franklin, K.K. (1998). Looking in the looking glass: How administrators describe the effectiveness of the metropolitan university. Metropolitan Universities: An International Forum 9(3), 9-18. Manuscripts in Press Kathy K. Franklin 3 Franklin, K.K., Cranston, V., Perry, S.N., Purtle, D.K., \u0026amp; Robertson, B.E. (in press). Conversations with mTreatnrosiptioolnit.a n university freshmen. Journal of the Freshman Year Experience and Students in Manuscripts in Blind Review Perry, S.N. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (2002). I am not the Gingerbread Man! Exploring the Experiences 'of College Students Diagnosed with AD/HD. The Journal of Research on Learning Diabilities. Manuscripts in Progress Franklin, K.K. A Tale of Four Freshman Friends: The Urban University Experience. Trawick, K. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. Responsibilities for the Effective Metropolitan University Department Chair. Franklin, K.K. Assessing a Freshman Year Experience Program. Franklin, K.K. The Freshman Year Experience: Increasing Confidence in the Ability to Succeed Crum, C. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. Mentoring Female Graduate Students. Kondrick, L. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. Predicting Success for Female Graduate Students Enrolled in Math, Science, and Engineering Programs. Marvin, USn. i\u0026amp;ve rFsritayn. klin, K.K. Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences: Students in Transition at an Urban Franklin, K.K., Conners, N.A., \u0026amp; Perry, S.N. Teaching Naturalistic Inquiry: A Constructivist Approach. ERIC Publications Perry, S.N. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. An Analysis of College Students with AD/HD at a Private and Public Institution in Arkansas using a Grounded Theory Approach. (submitted, November 2002) Conners, N.A. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (November, 1999). Fostering research by female graduate students through mentoring. Washington, D.C.: Educational Resources Information Center (ERJC) Clearinghouse on Higher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 435 757). Lowry, C. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (November, 1999). Utilizing networked computer workstations to conduct electronic focus group sessions. Washington, D.C.: Educational Resources Information Center E(EDR I4C3)5 C7l6e2a)ri.n ghouse on Assessment and Evaluation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. Marvin, S., Franklin, K.K., Edleston, R., Oberste, C., Routen, I.J., \u0026amp; Satkowsk.i-Harper, T. (November, 1999). Faculty attitudes about the use of technology in the college classroom. Washington, D.C.: Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) Clearinghouse on Higher Education. Reference number IRO 19901. Franklin, K.K., Boggs, K.J., Conners, N.A., Crum, C.B., Nawarat, P., Ramirez, C.T., \u0026amp; Trawick, K.C. (1997). Defining institutional effectiveness for a metropolitan university. (Report No. HE 030 940). Washington, D.C.: Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) Clearinghouse on Higher Education. (ERJC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 416 747). Kathy K. Franklin 4 Chamberlin, G.D. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (November, 1997). Implications of the baby boom echo in arkansas. (Report No. HE 030 872). Washington, D.C.: Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) Clearinghouse on Higher Education, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 418 610). Franklin, K.K. \u0026amp; Shemwell, D.W. {1995). Disconfirmation theory: An approach to student satisfaction assessment in higher education. Washington, D.C.: Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) Clearinghouse on Higher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 388 199). Franklin, K.K. \u0026amp; Knight, W.H. (1995). Using focus groups to explore student opinion. Washington, D.C.: Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) Clearinghouse on Higher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 388 200). Franklin, K.K., Shemwell, D.W., \u0026amp; Witta, E.L. (1994). Hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis of a student satisfaction survey. Washington, D.C.: Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 388 694). Franklin, K.K. (1994). Multivariate correlation analysis of a student satisfaction survey. Washington, D.C.: Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 388 695). Workbooks Published for Conference Workshops Franklin, K.K., (1999). The search for a needle in a haystack, Part II: The art of coding. Workbook published for the annual meeting of Mid-South Educational Research Association, Point Clear, AL. Franklin, K.K., Donaldson, C.W., Hoeft, T.M., \u0026amp; Chapman, C.A. (1999). Assessing the service-learning component in a freshman year experience course. Workbook published for the American Association for Higher Education Assessment Conference. Denver, CO. Franklin, K.K., Donaldson, C.W., \u0026amp; Hoeft, T.M. (1999). Inspiration and perspiration: Combining service-\nlearning with the freshman year experience. Workbook published for the annual meeting of the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. New Orleans, LA. Franklin, K.K., \u0026amp; Nawarat, P. (1998). The search for a needle in a haystack: Qualitative data analysis. Workbook published for the annual meetipg of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA. i Franklin, K.K. \u0026amp; Hoeft, T.M. (1998) Assessing the learning community: A survival kit. Workbook pSupbrilnisghse, dA Rfo. r the annual meeting of the South Central Freshman Success Initiatives Association. Hot Franklin, K. K. \u0026amp; Donaldson, C.W. (June, 1998). Assessing the learning community: A survival kit. Workbook published for the American Association for Higher Education Assessment Conference. Cincinnati, OH. PRESENTATIONS International Kathy K. Franklin 5 Franklin, K.K. \u0026amp; Donaldson, C.W. (1999, April). An analysis of two postsecondary learning environments: Learning communities and freshmen year experience courses. Poster session at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada. Franklin, K.K. \u0026amp; Conners, N.A. (1999, April). Mentoring female graduate students in a qualitative research methods course. Roundtable discussion at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada. National Marvin, S., Franklin, K.K., Chesser, J.S., Edleston, R., Edwards-Sharer, P., Oberste, C., Routen, I.J., \u0026amp;  Satkowski-Harper, T. (2001, October), Traveling through the Land of Oz: Teaching Qualitative Research. Poster Session at the Nursing Research Conference sponsored by Gamma Xi Chapter, Beta Chi Chapter, Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing, the University of Arkansas for Medical Services College ofNursing, and the Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System. Nursing Service. Little Rock, AR. Franklin, K.K, Donaldson, C.W., Hoeft, T.M., \u0026amp; Chapman, C.A. (1999, October). Assessing the servicelearning component in a freshman year experience course. Presentation at the annual meeting of the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities. Boise, ID. Franklin, K.K., Donaldson, C.W., Hoeft, T.M., \u0026amp; Chapman, C.A. (1999, June). Assessing the servicelearning component in a freshman year experience course. Workshop presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Higher Education Conference on Assessment. Denver, CO. Franklin, K.K., Hoeft, T.M., \u0026amp; Donaldson, C.W. (1999, March). Inspiration and perspiration: _ Combining service-learning and the freshmen year experience. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. New Orleans, LA. Franklin, K.K. \u0026amp; Donaldson, C.W. (1998, November). Developing the assessment strategy for a linked course learning corf-zmunity. Poster session at the Assessment Institute Best Practices Fair, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis. Indianapolis, IN. Conners, N.A. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (1998, November). Using focus groups to evaluate client satisfaction in an alcohol and drug treatment program. Poster session at the annual meeting of the American Evaluation Association. Chicago, IL. Franklin, K.K. (1998, June). Assessing the learning community: A survival kit. Workshop conducted at the 1998 American Association for Higher Education Assessment Conference. Cincinnati, OH. Franklin, K.K. (1998, February). Explaining student satisfaction with a metropolitan university.  Grant funded research presented at the annual meeting of the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities. San Antonio, TX. Franklin, K.K. (1996, April). Exploring the congruency between student satisfaction and institutional effectiveness in higher education. Dissertation research presented at the 17th annual National Graduate Student Research Seminar in Educational Administration sponsored by the University Council for Educational Administration. New York City, NY. Re~ional Perry, S.N. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (2002, November) .. College Students with AD/HD. Presentation made at the 2002 annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Chattanooga, TN. Kathy K. Franklin 6 Trawick, K. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (2002, November). Exploring Department Chair Roles in Metropolitan Universities. Presentation made at the 2002 annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Chattanooga, TN. Hoeft, T.M., Franklin, K.K., \u0026amp; Donaldson, C.W. (2002, April). Conversations with First Year Students: Implications for Teaching and Learning. Presentation made at the 2002 annual meeting of the Arkansas Academic Advising Network. Jonesboro, AR. Franklin, K.K., Cranston, V., Peny, S.N., Purtle, D.K., Roberston, B.E. (2001, November). Conversations with metropolitan freshmen. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Little Rock, AR. Franklin, K.K. (1999, November). The search for a needle-in-a-haystack, Part II: The art of coding. PWooinrkt sCholepa rp, rAesLe.n ted at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Conners, N. A. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (1999, November). Fostering research by female graduate students through mentoring. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Point Clear, AL. Lowry, C. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (1999, November). Utilizing networked computer workstations to conduct electronic focus group sessions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Point Clear, AL. Marvin, S., Franklin, K.K., Edleston, R., Oberste, C., Routen, I.J., \u0026amp; .Satkowski-Harper, T. (1999, November). Faculty attitudes about the use of technology in the college classroom. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Point Clear, AL. Franklin, K.K., Conners, N. A., Edleston, R., Marvin, S., Oberste, C., Routen, I.I., \u0026amp; Satkowski-Harper (1999, November). Traveling through the Land of Oz: Teaching qualitative research. Poster pArLes. ented at the annual meeting of the Mid-Sotith Educational Research Association. Point Clear, Franklin, K.K. \u0026amp; Hoeft, T.M. (1998, October). Assessing a learning community: A survival kit. Workshop conducted at the South Central Freshman Success Initiatives Association. Hot Springs, AR. Franklin, K.K., Nawarat, P., \u0026amp; Ramirez, C. (1998,\nNovember). The search for a needle-in-a-haystack: Qualitative data analysis. Workshop conducted at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA. Franklin, K.K., Chamberlin, G.D., Kennedy, R.L., \u0026amp; Sewall, AM. (1997, November). A dissertation survival Mkite. mPpahpise,r TprNe.s ented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Franklin, K.K., Boggs, K.J., Conners, N.A., Crum, C.B., Nawarat, P., Ramirez, C.T., \u0026amp; Trawick, K.C. (1997, November). Defining institutional effectiveness for a metropolitan university. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Memphis, TN. Franklin, K.K., \u0026amp; Chamberlin, G.D. (1997, November). Implications of the baby boom echo in the midMsouemth. p hiPsa, pTeNr p. resented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Kathy K. Franklin 7 Chamberlin, G.D., \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (1997, November). The baby boom echo: Implications for two-year colleges in Arkansas. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Arkansas Association of Two- Y ear Colleges. Little Rock, AR. Franklin, K.K., \u0026amp; Knight, W.H. (1997, February). Exploring the congruency between student satisfaction and institutional effectiveness in higher education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Educational Research Association. Hilton Head, SC. Franklin, K.K., \u0026amp; Knight, W.H. (1996, November). Exploring the definition of institutional effectiveness in higher education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Tuscaloosa, AL. Franklin, K.K., \u0026amp; Bartell, N.O. (1996, November). How to survive a qualitative dissertation. Training session- for graduate students at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Tuscaloosa, AL. Franklin, K.K., \u0026amp; Shemwell, D.W. (1995, November). Disconfirmation theory: An approach to student satisfaction assessment in higher education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Biloxi, MS. Franklin, K.K. \u0026amp; Knight, W.H. (1995, November). Using focus groups to explore student opinion. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Biloxi, MS. Franklin, K.K., Shemwell, D.W., \u0026amp; Witta, E.L. (1995, March). Hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis of a student satisfaction survey. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Education Research Association. Hilton Head, SC. Franklin, K.K. (1995, March). Relationship between student satisfaction and assessing program effectiveness. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Education Research Association. Hilton Head, SC. I Franklin, K.K. (1994, November). Multivariate correlation analysis of a student satisfaction survey administered at East Tennessee State University. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the MidSouth Education Research Association. Nashville, TN. Local Franklin, K.K. (2000, January). Faculty attitudes about the use of instructional technology in the metropolitan. university classroom. Presentation of research findings to the University of Arkansas AatR L. ittle Rock (UALR) Strategic Planning Committee on Instructional Technology. Little Rock, Franklin, K.K. (1999, January). Explaining student satisfaction with a metropolitan university.\nPresentation of research findings to the UALR Retention Committee. Little Rock, AR. Conners, N.A. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (1999, January). Using focus groups to evaluate client satisfaction in an alcohol and drug treatment program. Poster session at the University of Arkansas Medical School, Department of Psychiatry, Grand Rounds. Little Rock, AR. Franklin, K.K. (1998, August). Assessing learning communities. Faculty development workshop at UALR. Little Rock, AR. Franklin, K.K. (1998, April). Explaining student satisfaction with a metropolitan university. Presentation of research findings to the UALR Faculty Senate. Little Rock, AR. Kathy K. Franklin 8 Franklin, K.K. (1998, April). Explaining student satisfaction with a metropolitan university. Presentation of research findings to the staff of the UALR Office of Educational and Student Services. Little Rock, AR. SPONSORED RESEARCH Evaluator for the Freshman Year Experience program sponsored by a grant from the Office of Educational and Student Services at UALR. Completed a two-year student learning assessment for the PEA W 1300 courses based on the six learning objectives identified for the course by the PEAW 1300 Curriculum Committee. The assessment included a freshmen profile survey administered to approximately 1100 students, a freshman attitude survey administered to approximately 900 students, a service-learning evaluation, and course portfolio evaluation (n = 161). Data provided evidence to support that the six learning objectives were accomplished. 1998 to 2000. Evaluator for the Adult First Year Experience course sponsored by a UALR Curriculum Development Grant. 1998 to 1999.   Evaluator for the fall and spring, 1998-1999 learning communities sponsored by a UALR Curriculum Development Grant.. 1998 to 1999. Conducted four focus group sessions with administrators and four focus group sessions with students on the University of North Texas campus to explore student perception of educational satisfaction and administrator perception of institutional effectiveness. Purpose of research was to explore the congruency between the criteria used by students to determine student satisfaction and the criteria used by administrators to evaluate institutional effectiveness. Research sponsored by a Coalition of Metropolitan and Urban Universities. 1997. Conducted four focus group sessions with administrators and seven focus group sessions with students on the. University of Arkansas at Little Rock campus to explore student perception of educational satisfaction and administrator perception of institutional effectiveness. Purpose of research was to explore the congruency between the criteria used by students to determine student satisfaction ai\nid , the criteria used by administrators to evaluate institutional effectiveness. Research sponsored by a UALR Faculty Development Grant. 1997. Evaluator for a learning community experiment, conducted during the 1997 fall semester, linking three freshmen core courses: speech communication, rhetoric and writing, and anthropology sponsored by an UALR Assessment Grant. 1997. ' PROFESSIONAL SERVICE Service to the Profession Continuous Service Member, Editorial Board, Research in the Schools, Mid-Sou.th Educational Research Association. 2002 to present. Member, Editorial Board, Journal of the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition, University of South Carolina Press. 1999 to present Member, Editorial Board, The Qualitative Report. http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QRJindex.html. 2001 to present. Referee, Qualitative Research, Sage Publications. 2001 to present. Research Coordinator, Coalition for Urban and Metropolitan Universities. Responsible for managing the Ernest Lynton Research Grant Program and Paige E. Mulhollan Dissertation Award Program. 1999 to 2002 2001 Kathy K. Franklin 9 Panel Member, Plenary Session, Developmental Education - Issues and Expectations, Arkansas Association for Developmental Education 2001 Fall Conference. Hot Springs, AR: October, 2001. 2000 Accepted an invitation to serve on the Strategic Study Committee for Roanoke College, Roanoke Virginia as a member of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) Visiting Team. November, 2000 . Mid-South Educational Research Association - 2003 President Mid-South Educational Research Association - 2002 Vice-President and President-Elect, 2002 Chair, Outstanding Paper and Dissertation Awards Committee Mid-South Educational Research Association - 2001 Site Coordinator, 2001 Annual Meeting, Little Rock Arkansas Member, Program Review Committee for the 2001 annual meeting Representative-at-Large, Board of Directors Mid-South Educational Research Association - 2000 Nominated by Board of Directors to serve as Secretary/Treasurer for MSERA. 2000 Site coordinator for the 2001 annual meeting to be held in Little Rock, Arkansas. Member, Program Review Committee for the 2000 annual meeting. Mid-South Educational Research Association - 1999 Elected by members of the Board of Directors to serve as a Representative-at-Large for MSERA. Member, Program Review Committee for the 1999 annual meeting. Mid-South Educational Research Association - 1998 Chair, Graduate Student Advisory Committee. Member, Program Review Committee for the 1998 annual meeting. Discussant, Mid-South Educational Research Association Conference, Discussion on Teaching and Learning. November, 1998. Session chair, Mid-South Educational Research Association Conference. Discussion on Early Childhood Education. November 1998. Session chair, Mid-South Educational Research Association Conference. Discussion on Teaching and Leaming. November, 1998. Mid-South Educational Research Association - 1997 Chair, Graduate Student Advisory Committee. .. Member, Program Review Committee for the 1997 annual meeting. Panel member, Mid-South Educational Research Association. Training session for graduate students titled: Life After Graduation: More Things You Need to Know About the Job Market. November 1997. Panel member, Mid-South Educational Research Association Conference. Training session for doctoral candidates titled: Dissertation Survival Kit. November 1997. g r. i ~ rt 01 .r.t. g Kathy K. Franklin I 0 Session chair, Mid-South Educational Research Association Conference, presentation of the 1997 Outstanding Paper awards. November 1997. Mid-South Educational Research Association - 1995 to 1996 Member, Graduate Student Advisory Committee. Session chair, Mid-South Educational Research Association Conference. Discussion on Higher Education. November, 1996. Session chair, Mid-South Educational Research Association Conference. Discussion on Test-Ta.long. November, 1996. Session chair, Mid-South Educational Research Association Conference. November, 1995. Service to The University of Alabama Member, Department of Educational Leadership, Technology, and Policy Studies Assessment Committee. 2002 to present. Service to the University of Arkansas at Little Rock Service to 2002 Member, UALR Department of Excellence Selection Committee. Jan. 2002 to April 2002 Service to 2001 Completed a two-year assessment of the PEA W 1300 courses at UALR for the Office of Educational and Student Services. The final assessment report included a detailed profile of approximately 1100 UALR freshmen emolled from the fall 1998 to spring 2000. The report also included the findings from a pre- and post-administered attitude survey, evaluation of course portfolios, and evaluation of service-learning activities. Data were analyzed using SPSS-PC v.9. Vice-Chair, UALR Graduate Council. 2000 to 2001 Chair, UALR Graduate Council Personnel Advisory Committee. 2000 to 2001 Evaluator, Freshman Year Experience Program at UALR. Responsible for developing and implementing an assessment strategy for all PEA W 1300 courses taught as a component of the Freshman Year Experience Program at UALR. 1998 to 2001 Member, Advisory Committee to the UALR Chancellor.  Serving on a committee of approximately 25 UALR faculty and administrators providing the Chancellor with feedback on proposed policies designed to enhance the metropolitan mission of the university. 1997 to 2001 Member, UALR Graduate Council. 1996 to 2001 Service to 2000 Member, elected by the Faculty Senate to serve 3$ a member of the UALR Research Committee. Responsibilities of the committee include  reviewing grant proposals written by UALR faculty for funding by the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs. 1998 to 2000. Chair, UALR Graduate Council Curriculum Subcommittee. 1998 to 2000. Evaluator, Service-Learning component of the Freshman Year Experience Program at UALR. Responsible for developing and implementing an assessment strategy for the service-learning component of PEAW 1300 courses. Member, UALR Faculty Appeals Committee. 1998 to 2000. Member, UALR Retention Committee. 1998 to 2000. Member, UALR Graduate Council Subcommittee on Graduate Curriculum. 1996 to 2000. Service to 1999 Member, Freshman Year Experience Brochure Development Committee. Spring, 1999. Member, First-Year Experience Curriculum Committee. 1998 to 1999. Member, UALR Academic Appeals Committee. September 1997 to 1999. Service to 1998 Member, Grant writing team to develop a grant proposal for the Kellogg Foundation visit. April 1998. Kathy K. Franklin 11 Member, UALR World Humanities Core Assessment Group. Served as the Core Assessment Committee liaison on this committee. Responsibility of the committee was to develop a core assessment strategy. March 1997 to 1998. Member, Advisory Subcommittee to the UALR Chancellor. Purpose of subcommittee was to provide s1u9p9p8o. rt for the development of a grant proposal for a 1997 Kellogg Foundation grant. 1997 to Member, UALR Core Assessment Committee. 1996 to 1998. Member, UALR Core Assessment Subcommittee on Implementing the University Core Assessment Plan. 1996 to 1998.  Co-authored the nomination packet for the John Templeton Award for the Freshman Year Experience Program at UALR. December, 1998. Attended the First-Year Experience Seminar hosted by the National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition and the University of South Carolina held in Little Rock, AR. April 6 - 7, 1998 Attended the Developing Larning Communities conference sponsored by the University of Miami in Miami, Florida. January 1998. Service to 1997 Developed and implemented an assessment strategy for a learning community experience at UALR at the request of the Office of the Provost and sponsored by a UALR assessment grant. The learning community linked three freshmen courses: Anthropology, Rhetoric and Writing, and Speech Communications. This course was designed based on the research of Vincent Tinto. Summer 1997 Conducted a focus group session of student leaders at UALR, analyzed the data, and drafted an executive summary of the findings for UALR administrators at the request' of the Office of the Provost. The purpose of the focus group session was to explore student leader attitudes concerning the strengths and weaknesses of UALR. The information was used to develop a SWOT analysis for the UALR five-year strategic plan. July 1997 Attended the 1997 Service Learning retreat sponsored by the Office of the Chancellor and the Office of the Provost. Invited by the Chancellor to join 65 UALR faculty and administrators in a daylong retreat discussing service-learning strategies for UALR. Attended the Critical Thinking Weekend Workshop, featuring Dr. Stanley Paul, at the request of the Office of the Provost in Seattle, Washington. May 1997. Visited with key change agents at Portland State University at the request of the Chancellor for the purpose of \"bridge-building\" between the two metropolitan campuses. May 1997. Service to 1996 Attended the Indiana University - Purdue University Indianapolis Assessment Conference~ held in Indianapolis, Indiana, at the request of the Office of the Provost. November 1996. Service to the College of Education, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Service to 2002 Chair, Department of Educational Leadership Annual Review Committee. Spring, 2002. Service to 2001 Department Chair. 1999 - 2001 Attended the annual conference for the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education. Dallas, Texas. 2001. Member, Annual Peer Review Committee. 2001 Member2, 0F0a0c.u lty Search Committee to select an Associate Professor of Higher Education Administration. Member, Faculty Search Committee to select an Assistant Professor of Higher Education Administration. 1999 to 2001. a ( E g r: Q Service to 2000 Member, Faculty Search Committee for the Vision Education Program. Spring, 2000. Member, Admissions, Retention, and Exit Committee. 1998 to 2000. Service to 1999 Kathy K. Franklin 12 Discussant, Millennium Forum, Metropolitan Focus Lecture on Instructional Technology, Dr. James In.man, featured speaker. September 30, 1999 Chair, UALR, College of Education Assessment Committee. Responsible for the on-going assessment of ANuCgAuTstE 1 s9t9a7n dtaor d1s9 9a9n.d the implementation of continuous-improvement strategies for the college. Chair, College of Education Assessment Readers Team to critique the college 1999 assessment reports. 1999 Elected by faculty in the Department of Educational Leadership to serve as the faculty reporter for all faculty meetings and to serve as acting chair for the department during the absence of the department chair. 1998 to 1999. Service to 1998 Chair, College of Education NCATE Readers Team. Responsible for reviewing and critiquing the NCATE report for the 1998 spring visit. August 1997 to April 1998. Member, Readers Team for the 1997-98 UALR Annual Assessment Progress Report. May, 1998 Member, College of Education NCATE Steering Committee. Coordination of the preparation for the NCATE 1998 spring visit. August 1997 to April 1998. Guided College of Education faculty through a S.W.O.T. analysis to develop the five-year strategic plan. September 1998. Service to 1997 Chair, Department of Educational Leadership Assessment Coordination Committee. 1996 to 1997. Submitted an application to serve as a Research Mentor for the McNair Scholars Program. FebI1\n1ary 1997. PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS Member, Arkansas Academic Advising Network. 2002 to present. Member, American Association of University Women. 2000 to present. Member, Mid-South Educational Research Association. 1994 to present. Member, The American Educational Research Association. 1999 to present. Member, The American Association of Higher Education. 1997 to 2001. Member, Eastern Educational Research Association. 1995 to 1997. PROFESSIONAL HONORS Kathy K. Franklin 13 Nominated for the 2001 Faculty Excellence Award in Research for the College of Education at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. December, 2001 A warded the 1999 Faculty Excellence Award in Service for the College of Education at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. April, 1999. Nominated by students in the Higher Education Administration program for the 1997-1998 Faculty Excellence Award in Teaching. December 1997. Awarded the East Tennessee State University, College of Education, 1997 Outstanding Dissertation Award. Nominated by Dr. Hal W. Knight, Associate Dean, College of Education. Selected by the University Council for Educational. Administration to attend the 17th annual National Graduate Student Research Seminar in Educational Administration held in New York City, 1996. I CURRICULUM LIST East Tennessee State University Higher Education Administration ELPA 6581 Internship with the Office of Enrollment Management ELPA 7820 Administration in Higher Education ELP A 68 80 Higher Education Finance and Law ELP A 6810 Theory of Educational Admjnistration ELP A 6010 Seminar in Education Administration and Organizations HDAL 5720 Student Personnel Services ELPA 6957 ELPA 6957 ELPA 6957 ELPA 6957 ELPA 6957 Special Topics - \"Leadership in Professional Development Centers.\" Special Topics - \"Program Planning in Continuing Education.\" Special Topics - \"Proposal and Grant Development.\" Special Topics - \"Politics of Higher Education.\" Special Topics - ''Leadership Studies.\" Education Foundations ELPA 6730 History and Philosophical Foundations of Education ELP A 6906 History and Philosophical Issues in Higher Education HDAL 5200 Human Relations and Group Processes Education Statistics Advanced Research and Analysis Kathy K. Franklin 14 Research ELPA 7810 ELPA 6950 ELPA 6901 MKTG5900 MKTG 5900 Independent Study - \"Multivariate Correlation Analysis\" Independent Study - \"Hierarchical Confirmatory Factor Analysis using LISREL 7.0\" Independent Study - \"Investigating the Use of Disconfirmation Theory to Measure College Student Satisfaction\" Middle-Tennessee State University Management and Marketing MGMT0660 Study of Organizations MGMT0665 Seminar in Operations Management BAD 0698 Business Policy MKT MKT MKT MKT 0680 0683 0685 0682 . Marketing Strategy Marketing Systems International Marketing Seminar Marketing Behavior General Business Theory ECON 5110 Economics and Business Decisions (East Tennessee State University) ECON 5240 Applied Macro Economic Theory (East Tennessee State University) FIN 0671 Advanced Financial Analysis lNFS 0671 Systems Analysis ACTG 0691 Accounting and Business Decisions REFERENCES Dr. Candace W. Burns, Chair Department of Educational Leadership University of Arkansas at Little Rock 2801 South University Ave. Little Rock, Arkansas 72204-1099 Phone: 501-569-3367 E-mail: cwbums@ualr edu Dr. Larry McNeal, Professor Department of Educational Leadership University of Arkansas at Little Rock 2801 South University Ave. Little Rock, Arkansas 72204-1099 Phone: 501-569-3552 E-mail: lxmcneal@ualr.edu Dr. Gordon E. Watts, Professor Department of Educational Leadership University of Arkansas at Little Rock 2801 South University Ave. Little Rock, Arkansas 72204-1099 Phone: 501-569-3267 E-mail: gewatts@ualr.edu Kathy K. Franklin 15 DR. LARRY MCNEAL BUSINESS ADDRESS University of Arkansas at Little Rock 2801 S. University Avenue Department of Educational Leadership Little Rock, Arkansas 72204-1099 Office 501-569-3552 Fax 501-569-3547 lxmcneal@ualr.edu HOME ADDRESS 15806 Patriot Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72212-2606 501-221-1178 lxmcneal@netscape.net or 1.mcneal59@hotmail.com PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION Ph.D. Educational Administration, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (1990) Emphasis: Fiscal and Community Support for Public Education Concentrations: Educational Finance, School-Co=nity Relations, and Public School\\ Administration M. S. Educational Administration, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (1989) Emphasis: Administration and Organization of Public Education Concentration: Educational Administration (Public School) M. A. Public Affairs. University oflowa, Iowa City (1976) Emphasis: Public Administration Concentration: Urban Administration B. A. Business Administration and Political Science, Dakota Wesleyan University, Mitchell, SD {1975) Emphasis: Political Economics Concentrations: Business Administration, Political Science and Economics Licensure: School Business Management (No longer active) Insurance Agent (No longer active) Entrepreneurship: Quality Education and Management Associates, President PROFESSIONAL WORK EXPERIENCE Professor, Department of Educational Leadership, Graduate School of Education, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, Arkansas, 1998 to the present Visiting Professor, Department of Educational Management \u0026amp; Development, Graduate School of  Education, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, Summer 2000 Educational Administration and Supervision Program Coordinator, Department of Educational Leadership, Graduate School of Education, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, Arkansas, 1998 to 2001 Visiting Professor, Department of Educational Management \u0026amp; Development, Graduate School of Education, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, Summer 1998 Associate Professor, Department of Educational Administration and Foundations, Graduate School of Education, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, 1995 to 1998 Visiting Professor, Bellver International College, Trenton State College (now College of New Jersey), Graduate School of Education, Palma de Mallorca, Baleares, Spain, Summer 1996 Associate Director, Office of Educational Finance, Center For Higher Education and Educational Finance, qraduate School of.Education, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, 1995-1997 State Coordinator, Illinois Education Policy Fellow Program, Institute for Educatio~ Leadership, Graduate School of Education, lliinois State University, Normal, lliinois 1994-1996 Research Associate, Center for the Study of Educational Finance, Graduate School of Education, lliinois State University, Normal, lliinois, 1993-1995 Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Administration and Foundations, Graduate School of Education, lliinois State University, Normal, Illinois, 1993-1995- Visiting Professor, Department of Educational Administration and Foundations, Graduate School of Education, University ofNorthern Iowa, Cedar Falls, Iowa, Summer 1993 Research Associate, Center for the Study of Small/Rural Schools, Graduate School of Education, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, 1992-1994 Adjunct Fellow, Center for Research on Multi-Ethnic Education, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, 1991-1992 Danforth Principal Preparation Program Co-Facilitator, Graduate School of Education, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, 1991-1993 Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, Graduate School of Education, University of Oklahoma, Normal, Oklahoma, 1991-1993 Coordinator of Multicultural Affairs, Wisconsin Alumni Association, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, 1990-1991 Budget Analyst Intern, University of Wisconsin System Administration, Madison, Wisconsin, 1989-90 Equal Rights Officer, Division of Care and Treatment Facilities, Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services, Madison, Wisconsin, Fall/Spring, 1988/1989 Budget and Management Analyst Intern, Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, Madison, Wisconsin, Summer, 1988 Marketing Manager, WarBuc Educultural Publications, Madison, Wisconsin, 1985-1987 Business Mathematics Instructor, Business Department, Madison Area Technical College, Madison, Wisconsin, Fall 1985 and Spring 1987 Finance Marketing Representative, John Deere \u0026amp; Company, Moline, lliinois, based in Madison, Wisconsin, 1978-1984 Commercial Service Representative, Honeywell, Incorporated, Minneapolis, Minnesota, based in Des Moines, Iowa, 1977-1978 Public Administration Intern, Mayor's Office, City of Davenport, Davenport, Iowa, 1976 2 DISSERTATION McNeal, L. (1990). The role of education for employment councils in education for employment programs. University of Wisconsin-Madison. RESEARCH INTERESTS School Cornrnunitarianism (the fundamental relationship between schools and their co=unities) Organizational Change (change processes and organizational effectiveness) Educational Finance ( adequacy and equity of funding for public education) Program Assessment and Evaluation GRADUATE COURSES TAUGHT Administration and Organization of Schools Advanced Administrative Theory and Behavior Administrative Problem Solving Organizational Change Educational Politics and Policy Dissertation Proposal Development Educational Finance School Business Administration Human and Fiscal Resources Management Educational Public Relations Introduction to Doctoral Studies Organizational Development PUBLICATIONS: REFERRED McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Christy, W.K. (In Press, 2003). The locus of control issue in standard-based accountability. Educational Considerations. Christy, W .K. \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (2002). Influence of school board members on state legislation in Arkansas. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EA 031517. McNeal, L. (2002). The school-community relations profile model: Combining school district and community-based data. In J. Thomas Owens and Jan C. Simmons (Eds.), In creating quality reform: Programs, communities, and governance (67-81). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Chesser, J.S., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (2001). Educational community study circles: How superintendents can enhance school improvement through community dialogue. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 446 370. Christy, W.K., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (2000). Implications oflegislative policy development for public school districts. F. Kochan (Ed~). Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Yearbook Chesser, J.S., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (1999). School improvement through community dialogue: The first community study circles on education in Arkansas and Oklahoma. ERIC Document Re:production Service No. ED 436 694..  Mogilka, J, Ashby, D.E, \u0026amp; McNeal, L., (Eds.). (1996). Planning \u0026amp; Changing, 27(1\u0026amp;2). McNeal, L. (1995). Fulfilling promises in the land of Will Rogers: A look at performance indicators in selected school districts since the enactment of Oklahoma house bill 1017. School Finance Policy Issues in the States and Provinces: Annual Update 1995 (135-138), C. Edlefson (Ed). The Ohio State University: Policy Research for Ohio-Based Education. McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Reed, R. (1995). Building a school-community relations profile through sociological inventorying. People \u0026amp; Education: The Human Side of Schools, 3(3), 371-386. 3 McNeal L., et al. (1994). National Sallie Mae winners and their principals. National Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision Journal, 11(3), 3-10. McNeal, L. (1994). Focusing on at-risk students: Case study of John Wilkinson Elementary School. Illinois School Research and Development Journal, 31(1), 7-10. McNeal L., \u0026amp; Ashby, D. (1993). Site-based management and changing relationships. Illinois School Research and Development Journal, 31(1), 7-10. McNeal L., \u0026amp; Lehman, B. J. (1993). A vision of the future: The full-service school. Planning and Changing, 24(3/4), 140-154. BOOK PROPOSAL IN PROGRESS Christy, W.K., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (2001). Working Title: The Superintendency: Theory to reflective practice. To be submitted to Wadsworth. Belmont, CA. MANUSCRIPTS IN PROGRESS McNeal, L. (2001). The contextual world of education for children and the school-co=unity: James coleman and the effective schools movement. To be submitted to Humanistic Counseling, Education and Development. McNeal, L., \u0026amp; Christy, W.K. (2001). Rethinking the school district model of funding for individual schools: Co=ents about site-based management of resources. To be submitted to Planning and Change. Christy, W.K., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (2001). Implications of charter schools and home schooling for the funding of public schools. To be submitted to Journal of School Leadership. PUBLICATIONS: MONOGRAPHS , McNeal, L., et al. (1993). Common sense: Plain talk to legislators about school finance. Center For the Study of Educational Finance. Illinois State University. PUBLICATIONS: NON-REFERRED McNeal, L. (December, 1990). The role of education for employment councils in education for employment programs. Dissertation. McNeal L. (1993). The education of African-American children in Oklahoma. State of Oklahoma: Annual Report. Urban League of Greater Oklahoma City, Inc., 36-45. McNeal, L., First, P. F., \u0026amp; Knudson, D. P. (1993). Evaluating the University of Oklahoma Danforth Principal Preparation Program. Connections. 1 (2), 3. McNeal, L. (1992). University of Oklahoma report. Danforth Programs for the Preparation of School Principals Newsletter, 1 (2). 3.  McNeal, L. (1987). From the desk of. National Multicultural Banner, 5 (6), 2. McNeal, L. (1986). From the desk of: Literacy, who's problem is it anyway? National Multicultural Banner, 5 (3), 2. 4 McNeal, L. (1986). The Black collegians guide to graduate fellowships for minority students. National Multicultural Banner, 5 (2), 9. CITED IN EDUCATION WEEK In the area of educational finance, Education Week has quoted me on several occasions. I have been quoted in the following articles: 11/26/97 in News ILL. Lawmakers Get One More Try To Pass School Funding Reforms 6/11/97 in News ILL. Lawmakers Duck Vow To Revamp Funding 3/26/97 in News ILL. Audit Questions Oversight of ILL. Education Agency 2/5/97 in News ILL. Odds Seen Better for F1.lllding Reform in ILL. REPORTS McNeal, L. Little Rock school district charter elementary school evaluation report for the 2001- 2002 school year. Prepared for the Little Rock School District, November, 2002. McNeal, L., et. al. The college of education assessment report: 2000-2001: University. of Arkansas at Little Rock. Prepared for the Provost's Advisory Group on Assessment, June, 2001.  McNeal, L. Little Rock school district charter elementary school evaluation report for the 2000- 2001 school year. Prepared for the Little Rock School District, June, 2001. McNeal, L. Projected student enrollment for the 2000-2001 school year: 6th and 7th grade student racial make up report. Prepared for Pulaski County Charter School Inc., April, 2001. McNeal, L. Enrollment trends in the Little Rock, North Little, and Pulaski County Special school districts: 1995-1996 to 1999-2000. Prepared for Pulaski County Charter School Inc., November, 2000. Coleen, B.C., Driskill, G., Leslie, S., McNeal, L., Mitchell, W., Taylor, C., \u0026amp; Webb, R. Provost's advisory group on assessment: University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Summer 2000 report, July, 2000. I McNeal, L., et. al. The college of education assessment report: 1999-2000: University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Prepared for the Provost's Advisory Group on Assessment, June, 2000. McNeal, L. Student enrollment needs assessment study of the Illinois school for the visually impaired, Illinois Center for Rehabilitation and Education and Illinois School for the Deaf. Prepared for the Illinois Department of Rehabilitation Services, Odober, 1995. McNeal, L, First, P., Walker, V., \u0026amp; Hobson, B. An inquiry into alleged cultural insensitivity at Capitol Hill High School. Prepared for Oklahoma City Public School District, March, 1993. McNeal, L, et al. School choice: Open enrollment and post secondary options. Prepared for the Association of Wisconsin School Administrators, March, 1990. McNeal, L. County veterans service officer training manual. Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs, June, 1990. McNeal, L. A Review of health care and medical services provided by the United States department of veterans affairs. Prepared for the Division of Veterans Programs, Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs, August, 1989. McNeal, L. A review of health care grants and the Wisconsin Veterans Home in King, Wisconsin. Prepared for the Division of Veterans Programs, Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs, August, 1989. 5 McNeal, L. Mendota mental health institute: An analysis of an organization in crisis. Prepared for the Division of Care and Treatment Facilities of the Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services, December 1988. PRESENTATIONS: REFERRED McNeal, L., Christy, W.K., \u0026amp; Lewis, R. (2002). New leaders and new implications for educational administration. Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Kansas City, MO. Christy, W.K., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (November, 2001). Mid-South Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Little Rock, AR. McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Christy, W .K. (November, 2001 ). A discussion of change theory, systems theory, and state designed standards and accountability initiatives. Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Jackspnville, FL. McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Christy, W.K. (November, 2001). State designed standards and accountability initiatives in the southwestern regional educational development laboratory service area. Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Jacksonville, FL. McNeal, L. (2001, July). The institutionalization of the assessment process: One story in one college of education. The Consortium for Assessment \u0026amp; Planning Support. San Juan, PR. MeNeal, L. (2001, July). Faculty perceptions of their involvement in the assessment (evaluation) process. The Consortium for Assessment \u0026amp; Planning Support. San Juan, PR. Chesser, J., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (November, 2000). The use of the study circle in school reform: Bringing all the voices to the table. Mid-South Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Bowling Green, KY. McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Christy, W.K. (November, 2000). Charter schools under construction: An analysis of a charter school evaluation plan. Southern- Regionaf Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Nashville, TN. Christy, W.K., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (November, 2000). Implications of charter schools and home schooling. Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Nashville, TN. I Christy, W.K. \u0026amp; McNeal. L. (November, 2000). The process of making sausage in the factory of program reform. Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Nashville, TN. Michaelis, K, \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (April, 2000). From indifference to injustice: The politics of teen violence. American Educational Research Association for the Spring 2000 Conference in New Orleans, LA.  Caram, C. A., Christy, W. K., Altom, B, \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (April, 2000). The sausage factory: The process of planning for accountability. Arkansas Association of Colleges of Teacher Education, Little Rock, AR. Caram, C. A., Christy, W. K., Altom, B., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (April, 2000). Responding to the call for accountability of a school leader preparation program Arkansas Association of Colleges of Teacher Education, Little Rock, AR. Chesser, J. S., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (March, 2000). Educational community study circles in Arkansas: How superintendents can enhance school improvement through community dialogue. American Association of School Administrators 11 th Annual Conference Within A Conference, San Francisco, CA. 6 Chesser, J. S., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. {November, 1999). School improvement through connnunity dialogue: The first community study circles on education in Arkansas and Oklahoma. Mid-South Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Clear Point, AL. McNeal, L., \u0026amp; Christy, W. K. (November, 1999). From preparation to practice in Arkansas: The relationship between program preparation standards and entry-level administrators' success. Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Charlotte, NC.  Christy, W. K., McNeal, L. (November, 1999). Implications oflegislative policy development for public school districts. Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Charlotte, NC. McNeal, L., Gonzalez, M. L., \u0026amp; Noley, Grayson. (October, 1999). The ethics of silencing in school accountability: Listening to the voices of Hispanic, Native American, and African-American Researchers. University Council for Educational Administration Convention, Minneapolis, MN. Christy, W. K. \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (March, 1999). Future policy implications of an Arkansas referendum initiative. American Education Finance Association, Seattle, WA. McNeal, L. (March, 1998). The link between quality and school cormnunitarianism. Creating the Quality School: 7th Annual National Conference, Arlington, VA. McNeal, L., Place, A. W., Tilbnan, L.C., Beaumont, J. J. \u0026amp; Sanders, E. T. W. (October, 1997). A cross-cultural discussion of the 1997 UCEA conference theme. University Council for Educational Administration Convention, Orlando, FL. McNeal, L. (October, 1997). The contextual world of education for children and the schoolconnnunity: James Coleman and the effective schools movement. MidW estem Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL. McNeal, L. (March, 1997). Influencing instructional strategies. to enhance leartti.ng by using the school-connnunity relations profile model. Creating the Quality School: 6th Annual National Conference, Oklahoma City, OK. McNeai L. (1996, March). The implications of community based information for caring schools: SCRPING along. Creating the Quality School: 5$ Annual National Conference, Oklahoma City, OK. McNe~ L. \u0026amp; Chi, J. (1996, March). Performance indicators and curriculum offerings: Is there a connection in Oklahoma? American Education Finance Association Conference, Salt Lake City, UT. McNeai L., Parks, J., Watson, L., Jackson, D., Midgette, T., \u0026amp; Glenn, E. (1996, March). Our pedagogy: Culture as a major variable. Pedagogy of the Oppressed Conference, Omaha, NE. McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Ashby, D. (1995, October). School-community relations profiling: Re examining leadership for community. University Council for Educational Administration, Salt Lake City, UT. McNeal, L. (1995, April). Fulfilling promises in the land of Will togers: A look at performance indicators in selected school districts since the enactment of Oklahoma house bill IO 17. Sponsored by the Special Interest Group on Fiscal Issues, Policy, and Educational Finance (FIPEF). American Educational Research Association Conference, San Francisco, CA. McNeal, L. (1995, March). Promoting quality in education through the SCRPING of schools. Creating the Quality School: 4th Annual National Conference, Oklahoma City, OK. 7 McNeal, L., Higham, R, \u0026amp; Boyd, M.A. (1994, October). Establishing community between higher education, public education, and self:. An effort of compromise in infusing multiculturalism. Midwestern Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. McNeal, L. (1994, April). The state of educational finance in Oklahoma. American Educational Research Association Conference, New Orleans, LA. McNeal, L. (1994, March). Governance structures in decentralized schools and school improvement: Lessons from Chicago school reform. Creating the Quality School: 3rd Annual National Conference, Oklahoma City, OK. McNeal, L. (1994, March).\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\u003eRoss, Steven M.\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_1318","title":"Proceedings: ''Joshua: Objection to Little Rock School District's Motion for 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":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2001-11-20"],"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","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","Educational innovations","School facilities","School improvement programs","School integration","School management and organization","Student assistance programs","Court records","Meetings"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Joshua: Objection to Little Rock School District's Motion for 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/1318"],"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":["158 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1177","title":"Little Rock School District, Quarterly Status Report, School Services, 1st Quarter","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":["2001-11-09"],"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","Educational statistics","School attendance","School discipline","School enrollment","Teachers","Student activities"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District, Quarterly Status Report, School Services, 1st Quarter"],"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/1177"],"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":["99 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nPre-AP/ AP Course l i \\i .. \"' -~ ~ ij r0e -~ c::a I.. . :..t.=.. Pre-AP/AP Grades - \"C\" Teacher Absences Drop-out Data ~ C) \u0026amp; ~ ~ ~ ~ Vo) ~ ~ ~ a ~ -~ ~ aJ V) c5 C) -s V) ~ ~ a~ .~..... Disciplinary Data -0 0 N ~ .... (LI .0 E z~ ~ -0 'i:: LI. Table of Contents Pre-AP and/or AP Course Enrollment Pre-AP and/or AP Grades -\"C\" or better Teacher Absences Drop-Out Data Disciplinary Data Grade Distribution Academic High Risk Attendance Report Volunteer Hours Professional Development Report John Ruffins John Ruffins Richard Hurley Everett Hawks Linda Watson John Ruffins Everett Hawks Mark Milhollen Debbie Milam Bonnie Lesley \"ti \"\"I ftl \u0026gt; \"ti -\u0026gt;-- \"ti n Q = \"\"I fl\u0026gt; ftl \"\"0 \"\"I ftl I \u0026gt; \"\"0 \u0026gt; \"ti C, \"\"I ~ Q. ftl fl\u0026gt; rj .., ftl ~ n ::r' ftl \"\"I \u0026gt; C\"' fl\u0026gt; ftl =n ftl C\u0026amp; i:, \"\"I Q \"C I Q -= LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT November 9, 2001 Ms. Ann Marshall, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: RECEIVE Nov 9 zoo, OfflG1: u, ~MONITORING Attached is a copy of our Quarterly Status Report for your information and files. The dropout dpta was not available at the time of printing. Please let me know if you have any questions. TKJ/bjg Attachment Sincerely, --r.T. Kenneth James, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 324-2012 .., n, = (') :r\" I!\u0026gt; \"\"I \u0026gt; i::r \"n', = (') n, \"\" 0 \"\"I 0 '0 I 0 = ~ Pre-AP/ AP Course Enrollment Pre-AP/AP Grades - \"C\" Teacher Absences Drop-out Data Disciplinary Data Student's Enrolled in at Least One AP, PRE-AP Course for 2001-2002 by School, 1st Quarter Thursday, Nove111ber OJ, 2001 School 1CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL_ _ lc.LOVERDALE MIDDLE S_CHOOL -- - - DUNBA_R_INT'L STUDIES _MAGNET MIDDLE SC !FAIR HIGH SCHOOL =-- Grade Total Gender Black %Black White % White Other %Other 09 562 F 65 12% 95 17% 8 1 % M 56 10% 96 17% 9 2% 10 M 2Z 5-0\u0026amp;~ _Q_Q_ 13% 5 _ 1% 508 F 42 8% 77 I 15% 10 2% F + - ~6 +- 9~o __ ,_92 _ 23% _ ,_4 __ 1 1!'.'.'o_ M ~ 14 _\n__3% 69 17% ~ - 1_ 2_o/g__ F _J_ - ~1_ --+- J3% 72 15% I 5 __ 1% _\n11 408 ,_M_ _22 , 4% 65 13% 4H 1% ~ 1 _ __ 06 _I_ 294 F 64 22% 3 1 % 1 0% M 59 20% 4 1 % 2 1 % r - 07 _J__ 234 F 67 29% 1 0% 1 0% M 38 16% 4 2% 1 0% 08 '- 215_ F 64 30% 5 2% I 1 0% _ M ~L _ 17% _ 3 1 % 1 0 0% 06 ~ 26_7-_:-- F __46 _j_ IT% __ _2.?_ 10o/~ r- 14 5% 07 08 09 10 11 12 M 3] _ 1_ J 4% _ . _31 _ LJ2% - _ 11 4% 233 F 48 . 21% _32 +--- 14_0/g_ 11 _ 5% M + 39 _ ~ __ _1 7_o/_o_~~3 14% -i- _ 11 __ _, 5%_ 225 F 41 18% 29 13% 1 4 2% _ , M 36 16% 43 19% 8 4% 269 F 42 16% 18 7% 0 0% L 224 M 2_j 8% ,- 7 __ 3% ~ 2 1% F 39 17% __ J3 _ j__ 6% _,_ 0 0% M ,- 23_  1 0%_ 1 13 l_ 6% 4 2% F !.- 38 l _19% 1 9 5% 1 1% M J 25_ 13% T 8 7-4/o- J __ 0 _ ,__ 0% 196 187 F 29 16% 6 3% 4 2% 1FORES_LHEIGHTS MIDDLE_SCHOOL - - ~ r 06 r M 30 16% ' 9 5% 0 0% F 37 15% 31 12% 1 0% M 26 10% 1 28 11 % 2 1 % T - l _ 07 _J_ 24_4 _ _ ,__ 1 -~F_ _1_ _4~ 0~-~1~6~%~_~3~5---,-_1~4~'~o --+-=2 __1- '--''=o- M I 2.___ 11% 31 13% 3 1% 08 --'-- 240 F J 28 12% 27 11 % 1 4 _----=-- 2/o - ~ ---1 _M I _29 1 12% 24 10% I 4 ~- 2_o/g HALL HIGH SCHOOL 09 414 F 5Q___ L 14% __ 20\n,%__~ 4 1% LRSD /11for111atio11 Service Dept. Page I o/3 HALL HIGH SCHOOL_ - - HENDERSON MIDO_L~ SCHOOL IMABELVALE MIDDLE SCHOOL IMA~_N ARTS/SCIENG_ES MAGNET ___ _ - --- ---- MC CLELLAN HIGH SCHOOL ... - - AR~VIEW ARTS/SCIENCE MAGNET LRSD /11for111atio11 Service Dept. 09 10 - 11 12 - 06 07 - 08 06 07 414 370 293 255 203 - 179 - 174 M 28 7% 18 4% 3 1 % F 78 21 % 44 12% 5 1 % M 56 15% 15 4% 5 1% F 64 22% 16 5% 4 1 % M 37 13% 15 5% 2 1% F 23 9%_ . _2_1_ -1 _ll%_ 5 2% M . j3 5% 22 _ 9_% 5 2% F L 41 -1 20/o __\n~ 4% J__ 3 1% M 38 _ 19% _ . _ 18 L 9% _ , 9 4% F 45 25% _ 11 6% 5 3% M 42 23% 13 7% 5 3% F 49 27% 6 3% 5 3% M 42 23% 9 5% 3 2% F +- 42 r 24~o 12 7% Q_ 0% M 2_1 _ 12% 11 6% 3 2% _ E --3._3 20% 6 4% o 0% , _M 32 19% 5 3% 3 -~2%~ , 08 -l 136 I _ F -1-- _35_ 26% 15 11 % 3 2% 1 M 1 - 20 15% 9 7% 3 2% 06 _ O_l_ __ 09 10 11 12 291 - 2-7.J 27_9 -1 328 I 264 254 L 201 F 39 13% 57 20% 9 3% M 35 12% 41 14% 7 2% F 52 19% 60 22% 7 3% M 33 12% 33 12% 8 3% F 47 17% 41 15%_L_ 11 4% M - 39 l 14% 45 16o/c 6 2% F L- ~9---i 123/o -+-- 4_ 1= 1/4 ~ 1 0% M 35 11 % 1 0% 0 0% F 53 20% 4 2% 4 2% M 21 8% 2 1 % 0 0% F 42 17% 3 1 % 0 0% M 30 12% 6 2% 1 0% F I- 39 19_% _ L _6_ f... ~O_ 4 2% M 23 11 /g_ __ 2 1 % 1 0% 09 294 F 63 1 21% 66 22% -L... j_3 __ ~ 4% - ' - M -r--49 17% I 42 14% 12 4% __ . _j_Q__ 295 _t MF L 550..2. _ _ 17% 65 22% 12_J_..4% _. J 1 , 18% 32 11 % 6 --r 21o [ 11 - --1 2TL~l -~MF~--=67~--2~4~%~-1~ 4=9~-~18~0=1/ 0 _____,1-~8~---'-l-=3~%~ 40 14% 52 19% 3 I 1% l _1_2-=:I_ 27__Q_ C F 33 12% 52 19% 10 .L.__4.o/o Page 2 of 3 UJUO tno-do.10 7 I PARKVIEW ARTS/SCIENCE MAGNET PULASKI HEIGHTS MIDDLE_SCH.OOL_ - -- - ~-M~ -~~24~ --~11~ % --~39- -I, -1~8%~ -1 -~1 --~ OL _ .. 252 _ ,'____~F_ .........I... . ~2=2~-+--9~0=1/o_---,-1_ 3~6~+I_ 1~4~/c~o_ _,1_~2~--~ 1 M 22 9% I 53 I 21 % 1 0% 1% r--- 0% 08 244 ! _ _j SOUTHWEST JVIIO_DLE_SCHOOL _ _ _ -- -- _ 06 F:_ _ ~_31 _J __13 ~%~--+--' ~ 5~1_1\u0026gt;----_~2~1% ___ 0 M ,_ 24 -, __J 0Lo 50 I 20% -- 4 _ ___j F _ ~ -- _32 _ J _ _1 8% 0 1 0%_ .j. I 2.. - 0% - _ 2_% 1% 07 1.6_2 M 21 12% 2 1% 1 -- - l - - -- ~~~- F _ .J 28 ____ 17%_ _2_ 1 % _ 0 2 0% 1% M 13 8% 0 0% 1 1% 08 165 F 32 19% 1 1% 0 0% M 20 12% 0 0% 1 1% Grand Totals: I 3309 0 2373_ L- 0 367 0 LRSD fllformatio11 Service Dept. Page 3 of 3 B}BQ JRO-dOJQ Student's that passed AP or Pre-AP Courses for 2001-2002 by School, 1st Quarter Thursday, November 01, 2001 School Grade T Total Gender - Black T %Black I White I % White- Other ,-%Other CENTRAL_ HJGH SCHOOL 09 562 F 94 17% 311 55% 28 5% M 49 9% 291 , 52% 25 1 4% 10 508 F 53 10% 199 39% 35 7% M 39 __ 7 8%_ _,_ _16.L__l __ 32%_ -1- :J 5_ 3% F 68 17% 346_' _ 85% 1B 4% M - 24 - L 6.(o --+- 263 - _ 64% - -- 41 - 10% j_2 - _4_92 -l- F -+ 52_ 11 .(g_,-238 48% 26 5%_ I _,__ M +-- 42 9% 188 38% _20 4% 06 _} 29_1 F 202 69% 10 3% 4 1% 1 11 _408 lcLOVERDALE_MJDQLE_SCHOOL_ -.=-___::_- - ' M , 186 63% 12 4% 3 1% _ 07 ----' 234 F 193 82% I 4 2% 4 2% M I 106 45% 7 3% 3 1 % 1 L _08-:--215- I F I 216 100% 18 8% 2 1% J M 1 109 51% 9 4% 0 0%_~ [DUNBAR INT'L STUDIES MAGNET MIDDLE_SCL _06 I 267 _ 1- -_r=---i- 123 46% I 89 33% -- 5Q____ __ 21%_ ---,- __ ___ _M _I _ 10j __ 38% I 114 43% 38 __ 14% 233_ - ,-- MF -  1_8437 1 _6336~0 C 102 44 % - -~ 3_9_ 17.(Q ,c 109 4]% _I_ 36 _ 15% 2_25~ -~F _l_ -~1~1~ 1 - -+! ------4--'=9-=01/o~--'----=8=8~_____,3=9'--'-o/c=--o _1 -'--\"'5---__7' -o''/-co\"-_ M 89 1 40% 120 53% 21 9% -~ -- - -1---~~--~--~~-~~~~~-~~--~~ 07 08 FAIR HIGH SCHOOL 09 269 F 87 32% 36 13% 0 0% _10 L 224 ---- - -- ' -- M 39 14%___,_ 10 4% _ _]__ 3 __,___ _ 1_% 1 ' F_ !- _59 -, 26%. _ 21 -t-- 9%_ ~ 0 0% M_ -'- 36 _16% 17 _ 8% 5 ___ 2% 11 196 - 12 187 F -~ __ Q6~ __J4% 31 16% 4 2% M _ ~ _32 _ 1 21 % 14_ 7%--~-=-_J) - --r- _ Q% F 1 51 1 27% , 10 1 5% 7 4% IFOREST HEIGl:ITS_MlDDLE_SCHO_OL---=- - - ' 06_ - 255 - M 36 19% 17 9% 0 0% F 147 58% 138 54% 2 1% M 79 1 31% 105 41% 9 4% 07 _ ___j_ 244 I F 117 48% I 144 I 59% I 4 I 2% I _ QB 240 !HALL HIGH~S=C=-H~O~O~L~ -------~I 09 _J 41_4 i M _.l 73 30% I 108 44% 9 J_ 4% _J _(.__ F - ~ 82 --__34% 116 48% -15___1 _ 6% M __ 60 25% I 89 37% 18 7% 1 t- - - I -r- - ~ F 1_96 I 23% 48 12% 8 I 2% - LRSD luformatio11 Service Dept. Page I o/3 IJ}IJO }OO-dOJO HALL HIGH SCHOOL 12 255 F 39 __ _\n_ _j5%_-' 26 j 10% _J 5 2% - M 13 5_% ___ 31 -+--12% 7 3% HENDERSON MIDDLE SCHOOL 06 203 F 177 87Lo __23_ 1 jj_o/o , 9 4% - M 14 \"l _ ___ 72Lo -5.5 __ _27% 24 12% 07 179 F 168 94% _40_ ~ 22% 18 10% M 140 78% 46 26% 12 7% 08 F 160 89% 13 ! 7% 16 9% M 112 63% 26 1 15% 5 3% MABELVALE MIDDLE SCHOOL 06 174 F 132 76% 40 23% 0 0% - M , _ 49 _ _ 28% . 34 -r _ 20% 8 _ 5,,to 07 j66 F 88 L 53% 23 14% 0 0% M ~- 68 =-i ~1%--10 L 6%- 12_ T 7% 08 136 [MANN ARTS/SCIENCES MAGNET ___ -=-- ~- Q6 = 29_1 F -1- 115 I _ 85%_ 50 37% 11 -+-_8_% M I 52 38% 26 19% 6 I 4% F 127 44% 200 69% 42 14% M 108 37% 162 56% 25 9% 07 273 F 168 62% 217 79% 28 10% M 102 37% 102 37% 22 ' 8% MC CLELLAN HIGH SCHOOL 08 279 F _, __ 14_8~.._53% 141 51% 44 16% M _116 j 42% 166 59% 24 I 9% F -' 70 21 % 9 3% 1 - f- 0% 1 M 51 I 16% 2 1% 0 0% 10 264 F 88 33% 3 1 % 7 3% - M 35 13% 4 2% 0 0% 11 254 F 109 43% 3 1% 0 0% - M 50 20% 20 8% 1 0% 12 201 - PARKVIEW ARTS/SCIENCE MAGNE_L_ 294 F 72 36% 15 7% 7 ,- 3% M 44 -, 22/o  -3 L----1 % , - 1 0% F 139 _ : _ 47%_ ~ -1113 __c5~() , 25 9% 10 295 M __ 80 27% 1 105 36% 38 _13% F ~. _ 99- -=- 34% __ 1 150 _ 1 51% -t 42 14% _ M 102 35% , 72 24% 19 6% _ _11 277__ F 149 54% , 138 50% 17 6% M 80 29% 147 53% 9 3% ~~1=2~~2~ 0 _.._ _F,___ __~ 52. 19% 111 41% 39 __ 1__14% LRSD !,,for111atio11 Service Dept. Page2of3 BJBO Jno-do.10 PARKVIEW ARTS/SCIENCE MAGNET 12 270 M 37 14% 72 27% 11 4% euLASKI HEIGHTS MIDDLE SCHOOL 1 06 221 F 98 44% 181 82% 10 5% M 70 32% 152 69% ' 4 2% _JJ7 252 F 59 23% 134 53% 3 1% M 55 22% I 198 79% 4 2% ,---- -- 08 2_44 _, F 85 ___ _35% ,_204 84% __Q_ 0% -- -- _, _ _ M_ - _fil) 24% 183 75% 14 --'-- 6% rsoUTHWEST MIDDLE SCHOOL ---- ' 06 ' ' 178 F 101 57% 0 0%+ 10 ~+- 6% -+-- M_ _ --M_ 30% 5 3% 0 -,- _ 0%_ 07 _162 _ F -I- --1)9 - __filo/o 6 4% ~ - 4% - M 45 28% 0 0% 1 1% 08 165 F 113 68% 1 1% 0 0% M 54 33% Q_ _L_ 0% 5 3% LRSD /uformatio11 Service Dept. Page 3 o/3 UJBO Jno-do.10 LOCATION/DATE 13 14 15 16 17 20 BOOKER BALE BRADY BADGETT MCDERMOTT CARVER 1 1 1 1 BASELINE FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FRANKLIN GIBBS CHICOT W. HILLS JEFFERSON CLOVERDALE DODD MEADOW CLIFF MITCHELL KING ROCKEFELLER G. SPRINGS PUL. HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL ROMINE STEPHENS 1 WASHINGTON WILLIAMS WILSON WOODRUFF 1 MABEL VALE 1 TERRY FULBRIGHT OTTERCREEK WAKEFIELD WATSON MANN DUNBAR FOR. HGTS. JR. 1 2 PUL. HGTS. JR. SOUTHWEST HENDERSON A.L.C. CLOVERDALE JR. MABELVALE JR. CENTRAL HALL METRO PARKVIEW J. A. FAIR McCLELLAN CHARTER Teacher Absences - AUGUST 2001 21 22 23 24 27 28 29 30 31 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Page 1 TOTALS 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 11 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 3 0 .1 0 6 6 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 \"'I 0 \"O I 0 =.... LOCATION/DATE 4 5 6 7 10 BOOKER BALE BRADY BADGETT MCDERMOTT CARVER BASELINE FAIR PARK 1 FOREST PARK FRANKLIN 1 1 GIBBS CHICOT 1 W. HILLS 1 JEFFERSON CLOVERDALE 1 DODD MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL 2 1 KING ROCKEFELLER 1 G. SPRINGS PUL. HEIGHTS RIGHTS ELL 1 ROMINE STEPHENS WASHINGTON 1 WILLIAMS WILSON 1 WOODRUFF MABEL VALE TERRY FULBRIGHT OTTERCREEK WAKEFIELD WATSON 3 MANN DUNBAR 1 FOR. HGTS. JR. 1 PUL. HGTS. JR. SOUTHWEST 2 2 HENDERSON 1 1 1 A.LC. 1 CLOVERDALE JR. 1 3 1 MABELVALE JR. 1 2 CENTRAL 1 1 2 3 2 HALL 1 METRO PARKVIEW 1 4 J. A. FAIR 1 1 1 2 McCLELLAN 1 3 3 CHARTER Teacher Absences - SEPTEMBER 2001 11 12 13 14 17 18 19 20 21 24 25 26 27 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 4 1 2 2 1 4 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 5 2 1 2 2 5 1 1 1 1 1 2 Page 1 28 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 4 6 2 3 2 TOTALS 1 ,_ _1 2 2 0 0 3 1 2 4 0 5 1 5 2 2 0 5 1 5 1 4 3 2 3 13 1 3 2 4 3 3 0 0 6 4 7 10 3 18 6 3 16 20 27 5 5 9 23 23 0 \u0026gt; t') = Q. !'I\u0026gt; 3\n:\n LOCATION/DATE 1 2 3 4 5 8 BOOKER BALE BRADY 1 1 2 1 BADGETT MCDERMOTT 1 1 1 CARVER 2 1 BASELINE 1 2 FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FRANKLIN 1 1 2 GIBBS CHICOT 2 1 1 2 1 1 W. HILLS 1 JEFFERSON CLOVERDALE 3 1 1 DODD 2 2 MEADOW CLIFF MITCHELL 1 1 2 KING ROCKEFELLER 1 1 3 2 2 G. SPRINGS 2 1 PUL. HEIGHTS 3 RIGHTS ELL 1 1 ROMINE 1 STEPHENS 1 1 1 1 WASHINGTON 1 1 1 3 4 WILLIAMS 1 WILSON 1 WOODRUFF 1 1 1 MABEL VALE 1 TERRY 1 1 FULBRIGHT 1 1 1 OTTERCREEK 1 WAKEFIELD 1 WATSON 1 1 1 1 1 MANN 1 2 2 DUNBAR 1 1 2 2 3 FOR. HGTS. JR. 2 1 PUL. HGTS. JR. SOUTHWEST 1 1 HENDERSON 5 2 2 A.L.C. CLOVERDALE JR. 2 3 1 4 4 2 MABELVALE JR. 2 1 4 1 CENTRAL 1 1 2 3 2 HALL 1 1 3 1 2 METRO 1 PARKVIEW 2 1 1 J. A. FAIR 2 1 2 4 McCLELLAN 2 1 2 1 CHARTER 1 2 Teacher Absences - OCTOBER 2001 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 18 19 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 4 3 1 2 2 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 7 2 3 1 2 1 2 2 1 3 1 3 2 1 1 4 2 1 1 2 2 5 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 1 1 1 3 2 5 3 1 1 1 5 2 2 3 1 2 5 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 4 1 3 1 2 1 1 5 1 1 1 Page 1 TOTALS 1 0 10 0 7 4 7 2 1 13 2 20 2 4 12 6 1 9 3 19 5 6 6 2 5 22 1 9 4 1 2 8 3 3 10 15 16 20 6 11 21 0 31 29 20 23 3 5 24 20 6 0 \"\"I 0 \"O I -=0 \u0026gt;-- ti\u0026gt; = C. ,==., ff\u0026gt; ,:, ff\u0026gt; \"O 0 -\"'I Grade Distribution Academic High Risk  C) ~ .~~ ~ ~ \u0026gt; ~ ~ ~ ~ Q 0 z Attendance Report Volunteer Hours Oiscipli1111ry Data LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 2000-2001 ANNUAL DISCIPLINARY MANAGEMENT REPORT 0 r:, ~ r:, 0 \"O 3 f'il -Cl TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 August 23, 2000 Board ofDirec:~~i Linda W ats~istant Superintendent THROUGH: Dr. Kenneth J runes, Superintendent SUBJECT: Annual Disciplinary Management Report The following data represents the Annual Disciplinary Management Report for the 2000- 2001 school year. An analysis of the 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 school years is presented. The Discipline Sanctions by Reason Codes and Recidivism Reports for the 2000-2001 school year are also included. \u0026gt; f') = Q,, :\"!'\n::\n \u0026lt; 0 C -= \"\"\"'I'' :t 0 C\n:i -:: \"'I 0 i\n' \"\"'' Q = It,) School Name E11rolled ' Blk -ACC- LEARN 274 76% ---- -- - ---- AGENCIES 132 62% CENTRAL 2072 55% -- FAIR 900 80% -HA-LL - ----- 1458 72% ---- MCCLELLA 1149 91% METRO ------ -- PARKVIEW 1162 51% Totals 7147 68% ALT LEARN 63 97% ---- ----  CLOVRJR 760 86% DUNBAR 747 59% FORST HT 759 65% HENDERSN 566 77% MABELJR 517 79% MANNM/S 854 53% PUL HT J 749 56% SOUTHWST 529 92% Totals 5544 69% BADGETT 187 93% -- BALE 338 76% - -- - --- - -- I------- -- - ~--- BASELINE 311 83% B-OO-KER 545 56% - ----- ----- BRADY 346 75% CARVER 511 53% ------- -- --- - -- -- CHARTER 89 85% CHICOT 510 67% --- .. ---- --- DODD 222 65% FORST PK 306 37% --------- FRANKLIN 464 97% GEYER SP 337 -87% ~\nSe\n.\n,ices Dept. JU3WdOpA3Q fBUOJ 3JO.JJ LRSD Discipline Management Report 2000/2001 Short Term/CIC S11spe11sio11 Lo11g Term/ALE Suspe11sio11 ! I BM J BF WM WF Total BM BF i WM WF Total BM ' 5  1 2 0 8 2 i 0 1 0 3 0 55 11 5 4 75 4 ' 1 ' ! o. 0 5 0 148 87 23 231 281 15 7 i 2  0 24 2 183 91 27 12 313 18 : 2 I 0 0 20 0 482 204 73 211 780 45 7 I i 1 1 54 0 290 149 25 3 467 25 6 0 1 32 2 36 13 4 2 55 0 0 I j 0 0 0 0 42 14 15 14 85 0 1 i 0 0 1 0 I 1241 570 174 79 2064 109 24 i 4 2 139 4 158 24 5 0 187 7 3 q 0 10 0 344 139 24 14 521 8 2 I 1 0 11 0 139 100 33 2 274 2 1 1 0 4 0 228 121 33 12 394 14 1 1 0 16 0 141 60 24 11 236 5 6 1 0 12 0 62 29 10 2 103 4 1 0 0 5 0 66 20 10 6 102 5 0 0 0 5 0 78 30 12 1 121 1 1\n0 0 2 0 ' 196 83 15 7 301 8 3 I 2 0 13 0 1412 606 166 .55 2239 54 18 !  5 0 78 0 I 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 : 14 3 0 0 17 0 i 0 0 0 0 0 - - I 8 0 2 ol 10 . 0 i 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 : 0 I 0 0 0 0 4 3  1 0 8 0 i i 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 2 0 10 0 0 i 0 0 0 0 . - 40 19 4 1 64 1 I 1 I 0 0 2 0 8' 2 1 0 11 0 0 i 0 .0 0 0 8 0 2 0 10 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 2 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 7 7 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 .JOOff .13.lJUOJOA 09-Aug-0I Expulsion Total I I BF WM: WF Total #S11sp : Blk 0 oi 0 0 11 73% oi -- - - -- - -- 0 0 0 80 89 ---- - 0 O! 0 2 -:f07 +...- 84% oi ... 0 0 0 333 ' 88% 0 0 0 0 834 I 88% ---- ----- -------- ------------ .... - - 0 0 0 2 501 i 94% 0 0 0 0 55 L 89% - ------- -- 0 0 0 0 .86 ! 66% 0 0 0 4 2207 ! 88 0 0 0 0 197 !' 97% 0 0 0 0 532 i 93% 0 0 0 0 278 I 87% 0 0 0 0 410 I 89% 0 0 \u0026lt;i 0 248 I 85% ------------ -- --- - ---- ... 0 oj 0 0 108 i 89% 0 0 0 0 107 ! 85% -  -------- - . 0 0 0 0 123 ' 89% 0 0 0 0 314 i 92% I 0 0 0 0 2317 I I 90% 0 ol 0 0 3 I 100% 0 0/ 0 0 17 ' I 100% - 0 ol 0 0 10 ' I 80% 0 OJ 0 0 3 ! 100% ------- ------- -- -- -------- -- --- 0 0 0 0 8 ' 88% 0 0 0 0 10 ! L 80% oi - ---- - - - 0 0 0 66 I' 92% 0 01 0 0 11 ! 91% - -- ---- -  --- 0 0 0 0 10 I i 80% 0 0 0 0 6 ! 100% 0 0 0 0 30 II 100% 0 0 0 0 29 I 76% ------ School Name Enrolled %Blk GIBBS 300 53% JEFFRSN 404 41 M LKING 597 54% MABEL EL 346 75% -MC-D-ERMOT 366 53% ~--- ---- MEADCLIF 264 73% MITCHELL 278 96% -- ------- ----- -- ----- OTTER CR 370 51% PULHTE 311 53% ----- -- ------- ----- RIGHTSEL 264 99% ROCKFELR 412 61% ROMINE 305 65% STEPHENS 327 94% - TERRY 490 46% WAKEFIEL 344 81% -  ------- ---,- WASHNGTN 491 59% WATSON 451 96% WESTHIL 266 74% WILLIAMS 454 52% - WILSON 288 89% WOODRUFF 281 85% Totals 11775 68 GTotal 24466 68% iRSD/,ifo\n:\n,\n~,, \nvices Dept. L~D Discipline Management Report 2000/2001 Short Term/CIC Suspension Lo11g Term/ALE Suspension BM BF WM wFI Total BM BF WM WF Total BM 17 7 6 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 3 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 6 2 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- - 18 3 4 0 25 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 33 9 4 0 46 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 - ---- ------ -- 1 0 0 0 1 0 i 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 3 0 ! 0 0 0 0 0 - -- 1 1 0 0 2 0 ! 0 0 0 0 0 7 6 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 . 1 0 4 0 I I 0 0 0 0 0 45 9 0 1 55 1 i 0 0 0 1 0 20 2 4 1 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 7 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 2 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 2 9 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 5 10 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 395 98 56 4 553 2 1 0 0 3 0 I 3048 1274 396 138 4856 165 43 10 2 220 4 i..rnou .133JUOf0A 09-Aug-0J Expulsion Total BF WM WF Total #S11sp j %Blk i 0 0 0 0 30 80% --- 0 0 0 0 18 100 0 0 0 0 6 I 33% --- 0 0 0 0 I 30 I 93% 0 0 0 0 6 100% -- -------- 0 0 0 0 25 I 84% 0 0 0 0 46 I --- i 91% ----------- 0 0 0 0 1 I 100% 0 oj 0 ~- 0 3 I 67% -------------- 0 0 0 0 2 I 100% 0 0 0 0 13 I j _ 100% ____________ 0 0 0 0 4 ! 75% 0 ol 0 0 56 98% -t- ---- !-------- _,, _ ----- - 0 , ol 0 0 27 81% 0 0 0 0 7 II 100% ----- 0 0 0 0 15 87%  0 0 0 0 9 100% 0 0 0 0 3 i 100% 0 0 0 0 44 77% 0 0 0 0 6 100% 0 0 0 0 2 100% 0 0 0 0 556 89 I 0 o, 0 4 5080 II 89% 2000 - 2001 Annual Disciplinary Management Report Summary The 2000-2001 Annual Disciplinary Management Report indicates, when compared to the 1999-2000 school year, there was a slight increase in the overall number of suspensions. -The data indicates 154 more suspensions were issued during the 2000-2001 school year. The data also indicates an increase of one expulsion during the same comparison period. 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 Short-term suspensions 4865 4588 4756 Long-term suspension/ALE referrals 446 335 220 Expulsions 1 3 4 Totals 5312 4926 5080 The Recidivism Report indicates the following: 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 Number of students committing offenses 3237(5312) 3011(4926) 3156(5080) The October 1, 2000 student enrollment figures indicate that 25,393 students were enrolled in the District schools. Therefore, the above data demonstrates that only 12% of the student population was involved in incidents that lead to suspensions. \u0026gt; n = Q. f') a\n:\n \u0026lt; 0 c= .... f') .f',) = 0 C\nz .'\",: 1 0 i\n' \"\"'' Q = -I School Name Enrolled ACC LEARN 274 AGENCIES 132 CENTRAL 2072 FAIR 900 HALL 1458 MCCLELLA 1149 METRO - PARKVIEW 1162 Totals 7147 ALT LEARN , 63 CLOVR JR 760 DUNBAR 747 FORST HT 759 -H-E-N-D-ER--S--N- - -. ---5-66- MABEL JR 517 MANN MIS 854 ------- PUL HT J 749 SOUTHWST 529 Totals 5544 BADGETT 187 BALE 338 BASELINE 311 BRADY 346 CARV~R 511 CHARTER 89 --- CHICOT 510 DODD 222 - ---- FORST PK 308 FRANKLIN 464 --- GEYER SP 337 GIBBS 300 LRSD Discipli11e Management Report 2000/2001 Semester II Short Term/CIC S11spe11sio11 Lo11g Term/ALE Suspension I WF! j BF I ' Blk BMJ BF WM Total BM !WM WF .Total .BM I 76% 5j 1 1 0 7 2 l 0\n0 0 2 0 - I 31j I I 62% 7 2 2 42 3 I 1 i 0 0 4 0 55%  971 71 15 12 195 4 I 4 i 0 0 a 2 80% 99 62 22 8 191 12 1 I -o 0 13 0 - I 72% 2411 120 36 10 407 22 4 0 0 26 0 91% 123 64 11 1 199 17 6 0 0 23 2 21 8 2 2 33 0 0 l 0 0 0 0 --- 51% 31 4 15 12 62 0 1 I 0 0 1 0 68% 648 337 104 47 1136 60 17 I 0 0 77 4 97% 127 21 4 0 152 7 2 0 0 9 0 86% 222 79 12 8 321 3 i 1 0 0 4 0 59% 87 75 17 2i 181 1 I 1 0 0 2 0 I : 65% 123j 70 16 8 217 a I 1 I 1 0 10 0 77% 93j 40 18 1! 158 3 i 3 0 0 6 0 ---- -- . . 79% 34 18 6 2 60 3 0 I 0 0 3 0 53% 47 15 9 6 77 4 I 0\n0 0 4 0 56% 46 16 6 1 69 1 1 0 0 2 0 1151 2j 92% . 45 8 170 3 1 I\n1 0 5 0 69~. 894 379 96 361 1405 33 10 Ii 2 0 45 0 93% 2 0 0 0 2 0 O  0 0 0 0 76% 13 3 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 83% 4 0 2 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 75% 4 3 I 1 0 8 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 53% 3 3 1 0 7 0 0 i 0 0 0 0 85% 32 15 4 11 52 1 1 : 0 0 2 0 -1----- ------- 67% 6 2 1 0 9 0 ! 0 I 0 0 0 0 (l5% 51 0 1 0 6 0 0 ! 0 0 0 0 ----- 37% 5! 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 97% 25 2 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 - ~- -- 87% 10 6 1 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 53-% ----14 6 3 -0 23 0 0 i 0 0 0 0 24-Aug-01 Expulsio11 Total WM \\ I BF  WF Total #Susp %Blk i 0 o\n0 0 9 I 89% -- 0 o! 0 0 46 Ii 91% 0 oi 0 2 205 87%  0 .. . ol 0 0 . 204 85% 0 0 0 0 433 89% . ------- - 0 0 0 2 224 95% 0 0 0 0 33 88% -------- - ------ --- 0 01 0 0 63 57% 0 o/ 0 4 1217 88% 0 oi I 0 0 161 : 98% 0 o! 0 0 325 i 94% - 0 o\n0 0 183 ! i 90% ------- 0 0! 0 0 227 ' 89% 0 Oi 0 0 164\n85% -- -------- -- -------------- 0 oi 0 0 63 ' . 87% 0 0/ 0 0 81 'i 81% ol I --------- 0 0 0 71 l 90% O! I 0 0 0 175 : 94% 0 o!l 0 0 1450 I 91 I 0 qi 0 0 2 100% 0 0 0 0 16 100% 0 oi 0 0 6 67% 0 0 0 0 --- - 8 . i 88% -J.--.---.- ----- - 0 0 0 0 I 7 86% 0 o! 0 0 54 ! 91% .. --------------r-------------- --- 0 oi 0 0 9 i 89% 0 ol 0 0 6 83% ----- ---------- 0 ol I 0 0 5 i 100% 0 oi 0 0 27 100%  --- 0 oi 0 0 17 I l 94% 0 o, 0 0 23 lI 87% __. ....,.___ _._ ___. .....,__.,~.i--.,_,... ___. ,.___ . ,..._,._c._ __. .__,_,.,~.~---------\",1~------...~--ll'-\"'r:,o,~41' .. ...... ,...,. . ...- .-...-.. ~-~.- ..,.._,,.__,. ,,.._...,,...,.....,.__,.,__,. . .,. . ..-.. ...,.-.,..,..... .. .,,., ..-. r 111:n Tufnmrn1ln11 .l:Pri,lrP\u0026lt; Deni. Page J of2 JU3WdOf3A:\u0026gt;Q jBUOJ ':JJO.IJ J.rndaH a:,u11puany School Name Enrolled Blk JEFFRSN 404 41% M LKING 597 54% MABEL EL 346 75% - MCDERMOT 31)6 53% MEADCLIF 264 73% MITCHELL 278 96% OTTER CR 370 51% PULHTE 311 53% ROCKFELR 412 61% ROMINE 305 65% STEPHENS 327 94% TERRY 490 46% WAKEFIEL 344 81% WASHNGTN 491 59% WATSON 451 96% - ---- WILLIAMS 454 52% -W-I-L-S-O-N-- --- - .288 89% WOODRUFF 281 85% Totals 10700 68\"/o GTotal 23391 68\"/o LRSD Discipline Management Report 2000/2001 Semester Ii Short Term/CIC S11spe11sio11 Lo11g Term/ALE Suspension ! BM ! BF WM WFi Total I BM I BF Ii wM. WF Total BM 14 3 0 0 17 0 i 0 ! 0 0 0 0 ' o! 0 3 ol 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 9j 2 1 0 12 0 ! 0 ! 0 0 0 0 1: 0 0 ol 1 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 14 1 4 0 19 0 0 iI 0 0 0 0 13 7 2 0 22 0 0 i 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 8 . o 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 32j 6 0 1 39 1 I 0 ! 0 0 1 0 13 2 4 0 1~ 0 0 i 0 0 0 0 sj 0 0 0 5 0 I 0 ! 0 0 0 0 71 oi I i 0 1 8 0 l 0 i 0 0 0 0 --+- 7  0 0 oj 7 . 0 ! 0 I 0 0 0 0 -- 22 3 7 0 32 0 0 i 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 oi 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 2 0 0 0 2 0 i I 0 I 0 0 0 0 272 70 38 2 382 2 1 I 0 0 3 0 1814 786 238 851 2923 95 ! 28 i 2 0 125 4 I . , 24-A11g-0J Exp11/sio11 Total I BF WMI WF Total #S11sp iI %8/k I I 0 oi 0 0 17 I ! 100%- ----- 0 o! 0 0 3 I\n0% 0 oj 0 0 I 12\n92% -- 0 01 . 0 0 1 100% 0 oi 0 0 19 79% ---- 0 0 0 o 22 91% 0 ol 0 .0 . 1 100% ..------------ 0 0 0 0 3 67% 0 0 0 0 8 100% ----------- r------------- 0 0 0 0 4 ' 75% 0 oi I 0 0 40 97% ------------- 0 0 0 0 19 i 79% 0 01 0 0 5 I 100% oi --------1 ------ 0 0 0 8 II 88% 0 oj 0 0 7 ! 100% oi - -------------- 0 0 0 32 i 78% --~i - 0 0 0 2 100% - -- 0 0 0 0 2 100% 0 o! 0 0 385 90% I 0 O' I 0 4 3052 89% Discipline Sanctions by Reason Code Year: 2000/2001 Quarter: 1 to Quarter: 4 09-Aug-OJ .~, Ill Level School Lvl Code O(fense BM WM OM BF WF OF TOTAL Q. r., Senior High ACC LEARN 060 FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 t::, 062 REFUSE TO OBEY RULES OR DIRECTIVES 1 0 0 0 O 0 -.\n 1 110 USE OF VERBAL ABUSE/FIGHTING WORDS/GES 0 0 0 0 0 ., s: 2 020 BATTERY 0 1 0 0 0 0 .C.. . 2 030 THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING 1 0 0 0 0 0 o = 2 040 FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 090 NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT 0 0 0 0 0 3 071 PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF 0 0 0 0 0 3 092 POSS./WEAP KNIFE/CLUB/FACSIM.BLADE LESS 0 0 0 0 0 \u0026gt; n 11 Ill Q. Senior High AGENCIES 062 REFUSE TO OBEY RULES OR DIRECTIVES 0 0 0 0 0 r., a 110 USE OF VERBAL ABUSE/FIGHTING WORDS/GES 1 0 0 0 0 0\n:\n 2 020 BATTERY 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 :c: c,o 2 030 THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING 0 0 0 1 0 0 =- . 2 040 FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT 9 0 0 2 0 0 11 ~ 2 080 VANDALISM (INTENTIONAL DESTRUCTION/PROP 0 0 0 0 0 1 \":i\n'- - 2 090 NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT 0 0 0 0 2 2 105 REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES 0 0 3 0 0 4 2 110 DISORDERLY CONDUCT 10 0 1 0 13 REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN \u0026gt; 2 115 33 3 0 3 2 0 41 --r., 2 121 REPEATED VIOLATION CATEGORY 11 OFFENSE 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 = Q.. . 3 072 VERBAL ABUSE OF STAFF 0 0 0 0 0 Ill = 3 121 USE OF A WEAPON 0 0 0 0 0 n r., 80 :\nz:, Senior High r., CENTRAL 030 MINOR ALTERCATION 1 0 0 0 0 0 \"C 0 050 LEFT SCHOOUCLASS WITHOUT PERMISSION 0 0 0 0 0 1 ...,. . 060 FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES 2 2 0 0 0 5 080 FAILURE TO SERVE DETENTION 3 2 0 9 3 0 17 090 REFUSED TO SERVE DETENTION 3 0 0 1 0 0 4 100 USE OR POSSESSION OF TOBACCO 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 131 USE/POSS ALCOHOL 0 2 \u0026lt; 0 2 0 0 0 0 132 USE/POSS. DRUGS 2 0 3 0 7 C .. -= 133 REPEATED SCHOOUCLASS TARDIES 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 r., r., 2 010 ASSAULT 2 0 0 2 0 0 4 ., :c: 2 020 BATTERY 6 0 0 6 0 0 12 0 C 2 030 THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING 4 0 0 0 0 5 .,,. 2 040 FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT 22 0 16 3 0 42 2 090 NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT 2 0 6 0 0 9 2 100 SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT 0 0 0 0 2 .-e, t 2 105 REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES 6 0 0 2 3 0 11 0 2 1 io DISORDERLY CONDUCT 16 2 0 15 1 0 34 ,\n.\n, ,. 2 115 REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN 70 6 0 30 5 0 111 Q = 2 120 HARASSING COMMUNICATIONS 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ~ 2 121 REPEATED VIOLATION CATEGORY II OFFENSE 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 122 FALSIFYING SIGNATURE/INFORMATION 0 0 0 0 0 r., -e r., 2 150 POSSESSION OR USE OF ALCOHOL 6 0 0 0 1 0 7 Q 2 151 POSSESSION OR USE OF DRUGS 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 \"O a 3 011 SALE OR DISTRIBUTION OF DRUGS 0 0 0 0 0 1 r., = 3 060 BURN OR ATTEMPT TO BURN SCHOOL PROPER 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 - LRSD Information Services Dept. Page I of 13 ,eve/ School Lvl Code O[fense BM WM OM BF WF OF TOTAL ienior High CENTRAL 3 071 PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 072 VERBAL ABUSE OF STAFF 2 0 0 0 0 3 3 080 POSSESSION OF FIREARM 0 0 0 0 0 1 ~ 3 090 POSSESSION OF WEAPON 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 ., = 3 120 INCITING TO RIOT 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 C. l'I) 3 121 USE OF A WEAPON 0 0 0 0 0 ~\n 3 130 VIOLENT TAKING BY FORCE OR THREAT 0 0 0 0 0 1 ...,.. 3 140 TERRORISTIC THREATENING 5 2 0 0 0 8\n: --- C 307 o.... ,enior High FAIR 030 MINOR ALTERCATION 1 0 0 0 0 2 = 040 BEHAVIOR THAT VIOLATES A PERSON'S RIGHTS 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 050 LEFT SCHOOUCLASS WITHOUT PERMISSION 0 0 4 0 0 5 060 FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES 5 3 0 0 0 0 8 \u0026gt; 062 REFUSE TO OBEY RULES OR DIRECTIVES 5 0 3 0 0 9 ,:, = 070 REFUSE TO OBEY BUS RULES/REGULATIONS 0 0 0 0 0 1 C. n, 080 FAILURE TO SERVE DETENTION 0 0 0 0 2 a 090 REFUSED TO SERVE DETENTION 0 0 1 0 0 2\n ::i: ' 1 100 USE OR POSSESSION OF TOBACCO 0 0 0 0 0 1 IJQ. 1 110 USE OF VERBAL ABUSE/FIGHTING WORDS/GES 4 2 1 3 0 0 10 ,::,r 132 USE/POSS. DRUGS 0 0 0 0 0\n 133 REPEATED SCHOOUCLASS TARDIES 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 :,\n-- 2 010 ASSAULT 13 0 0 3 0 0 16 2 020 BATTERY 5 0 0 1 8 2 030 THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING 11 0 2 0 0 14 \u0026gt; 2 040 FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT 31 2 1 23 2 0 59 ::i l'I) 2 050 GAMBLING 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 = ::i. 2 060 FALSE ALARM 0 0 0 0 0 1 == ,:, 2 \" 070 LOITERING OR CRIMINAL TRESPASS 6 0 15 2 0 24 l'I) 2 090 NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT 17 4 1 4 0 0 26 ,, l'I) 2 100 SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT 2 0 0 1 0 0 3 'O 0., 2 105 REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 - 2 110 DISORDERLY CONDUCT 10 0 7 0 0 18 2 115 REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN 36 1 0 14 2 2 55 2 120 HARASSING COMMUNICATIONS 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 121 REPEATED VIOLATION -CATEGORY II OFFENSE 13 0 0 2 0 16 \u0026lt; 2 122 FALSIFYING SIGNATURE/INFORMATION 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 C 2 123 POSSESSION OR USE/PAGING DEVICE 0 2 0 0 4 =.... 2 124 MEMBERSHIP AND PROHIBITIVE GANG/ORGANI 0 0 0 0 0 l'I) .I'!,) 2 150 POSSESSION OR USE OF ALCOHOL 8 2 0 2 0 13 ::i: 2 151 POSSESSION OR USE OF DRUGS 4 0 0 0 6 0 C 3 011 SALE OR DISTRIBUTION OF DRUGS 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ., \"' 3 071 PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF 2 0 0 0 0 3 3 072 VERBAL ABUSE OF STAFF 3 0 0 0 0 4 3 140 TERRORISTIC THREATENING 2 0 0 0 0 3 .\",t t 333 Q\n, Senior High HALL 030 MINOR ALTERCATION 2 0 0 5 0 0 7 \"\"'' 050 LEFT SCHOOUCLASS WITHOUT PERMISSION 5 0 0 5 0 0 10 Q = 060 FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ~ 062 REFUSE TO OBEY RULES OR DIRECTIVES 19 0 3 0 0 23 0 l'I) 070 REFUSE TO OBEY BUS RULES/REGULATIONS 2 0 0 1 0 0 3 ,\u0026lt;, 110 USE OF VERBAL ABUSE/FIGHTING WORDS/GES 3 0 0 4 0 0 7 Q \"O 131 USE/POSS ALCOHOL 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 a fl 132 USE/POSS. DRUGS 0 0 0 0 2 -= LRSD Information Services Dept. Page 2 of JJ Level School Lvl Code O[fense BM WM OM .BF WF OF TOTAL Senior High HALL 1 133 REPEATED SCHOOUCLASS TARDIES 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 1 140 FALSIFY INFO/RECORDS (ELEM) 1 0 0 0 0 O 1 2 010 ASSAULT 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 ~ 2 020 BATTERY 21 0 0 3 0 0 24 \"'! Ill 2 030 THEFTfTHEFT BY RECEIVING 3 0 0 0 0 4 ,Q, . 2 040 FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT 34 8 2 34 1 1 80 0 i\n 2 070 LOITERING OR CRIMINAL TRESPASS 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 ...,.. 2 080 VANDALISM (INTENTIONAL DESTRUCTION/PROP 1 0 0 2 0 4 s: C 2 090 NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT 44 2 15 2 0 64 .... ::\n- 2 100 SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT 5 0 0 0 0 6 = 2 105 REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES 194 14 6 83 6 2 305 2 110 DISORDERLY CONDUCT 48 7 3 19 2 0 79 2 115 REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN 84 13 4 22 1 0 124 \u0026gt; 2 120 HARASSING COMMUNICATIONS 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 I\") = 2 121 REPEATED VIOLATION CATEGORY II OFFENSE 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 ,Q, . 2 122 FALSIFYING SIGNATURE/INFORMATION 8 0 3 2 2 16 a\n::\n 2 123 POSSESSION OR USE/PAGING DEVICE 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 ::= 2 150 POSSESSION OR USE OF ALCOHOL 6 0 0 1 1 0 8 ~- =- 2 151 POSSESSION OR USE OF DRUGS 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 :\n, 3 011 SALE OR DISTRIBUTION OF DRUGS 0 0 0 0 0 i\n ::i:- 3 071 PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF 3 0 0 1 0 0 4 3 072 VERBAL ABUSE OF STAFF 20 2 1 3 0 0 26 3 090 POSSESSION OF WEAPON 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 092 POSS./WEAP KNIFE/CLUB/FACSIM.BLADE LESS 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 \u0026gt;.... 3 140 TERRORISTIC THREATENING 0 2 4 0 0 7 -,, = 834 Q. = Senior High MCCLELLA 030 MINOR ALTERCATION 0 0 0 0 0 = I\") 040 BEHAVIOR THAT VIOLATES A PERSON'S RIGHTS 3 0 0 2 0 o 5 ,, :\n, 050 LEFT SCHOOUCLASS WITHOUT PERMISSION 45 5 0 20 0 71 ,, \"::, 060 FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES 26 3 0 6 0 0 35 0 \"'! 062 REFUSE TO OBEY RULES OR DIRECTIVES 20 0 1 7 0 0 28 - 070 REFUSE TO OBEY BUS RULES/REGULATIONS 0 0 0 0 0 100 USE OR POSSESSION OF TOBACCO 1 0 0 0 0 0 110 USE OF VERBAL ABUSE/FIGHTING WORDS/GES 3 1 0 0 0 0 4 131 USE/POSS ALCOHOL 3 0 0 0 1 0 4 ~ 0 132 USE/POSS. DRUGS 4 0 0 1 0 0 5 C 133 REPEATED SCHOOUCLASS TARDIES 17 0 3 0 0 21 -,=, 2 010 ASSAULT 7 0 0 3 0 0 10 ,, \"'! 2 020 BATTERY 6 0 0 2 0 0 8 ::i: 0 2 030 THEFTfTHEFT BY RECEIVING 0 0 0 0 0 C \"'! 2 040 FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT 33 1 0 29 0 0 63 \"\" 2 050 GAMBLING 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 070 LOITERING OR CRIMINAL TRESPASS 15 0 14 0 0 30 2 080 VANDALISM (INTENTIONAL DESTRUCTION/PROP 3 1 0 0 6 .\"\",t: t 0 2 090 NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT 15 0 18 0 0 34\n, \"\" 2 100 SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 \"Q\" 2 105 REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES 6 0 0 2 0 0 8 :, 2 DISORDERLY CONDUCT 13 3 2 0 0 19 ~ 110 2 115 REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN 70 3 1 35 0 110 ,0, \u0026lt; 2 121 REPEATED VIOLATION CATEGORY II OFFENSE 4 0 0 2 0 0 6 ,, Q 2 140 USE OF FIREWORKS 0 0 0 0 0 'O 2 150 POSSESSION OR USE OF ALCOHOL 0 0 0 0 2 ,a, 2 151 POSSESSION OR USE OF DRUGS 0 0 0 0 0 -:, lRSD Information Services Dept. Page3 o/13 Level School Lvl Code Offense BM WM OM BF WF OF TOTAL Senior High MCCLELLA 3 071 PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 072 VERBAL ABUSE OF STAFF 7 0 3 0 0 11 3 080 POSSESSION OF FIREARM 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ~ 3 081 POSSESSION OF FIREARM,HANDGUN 0 0 0 0 0 \"'! = Q. 3 090 POSSESSION OF WEAPON 2 0 0 0 0 1 3 \"' 3 140 TERRORISTIC THREATENING 4 0 0 0 0 5 0\n 501 .... \"'! Senior High METRO 030 MINOR ALTERCATION 0 0 0 0 0 s: C 1 040 BEHAVIOR THAT VIOLATES A PERSON'S RIGHTS 0 0 0 0 0 .s... 050 LEFT SCHOOUCLASS WITHOUT PERMISSION 11 0 4 0 0 16 = 060 FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES 7 0 0 0 0 0 7 062 REFUSE TO OBEY RULES OR DIRECTIVES 4 2 0 0 0 0 6 110 USE OF VERBAL ABUSE/FIGHTING WORDS/GES 2 0 3 0 0 6 \u0026gt; 133 REPEATED SCHOOUCLASS TARDIES 2 0 0 1 0 0 3 ,., = 2 030 THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING 0 0 0 0 0 Q. \"' 2 080 VANDALISM (INTENTIONAL DESTRUCTION/PROP 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 a\n 2 090 NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT 0 0 0 0 0 ::i: 2 110 DISORDERLY CONDUCT 0 0 2 0 0 3 (JO. =- 2 115 REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN 0 0 0 0 0 ,, 2 120 HARASSING COMMUNICATIONS 0 0 0 0 1 0\n :,\n- 2 122 FALSIFYING SIGNATURE/INFORMATION 0 0 0 0 0 2 123 POSSESSION OR USE/PAGING DEVICE 0 0 0 0 0 3 000 USE OF RAP RINGS,CHEMICAL AGNTS OR FACS 0 0 0 0 0 3 072 VERBAL ABUSE OF STAFF 0 0 0 0 0 1 \u0026gt;.... 3 090 POSSESSION OF WEAPON 0 0 0 0 2 .... =\"' 55 Q. = Senior High PARKVIEW 080 FAILURE TO SERVE DETENTION 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 =,., 1 132 USE/POSS. DRUGS 0 7 0 0 0 0 7 ,\",' 2 020 BATTERY 0 0 0 0 0 1 \"\"O' 2 030 THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING 1 0 3 1 0 6 -0., 2 040 FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT 0 0 3 2 0 6 2 090 NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT 5 2 0 2 2 0 11 2 110 DISORDERLY CONDUCT 4 0 0 3 0 0 7 2 115 REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN 26 3 1 1 6 0 37 2 120 HARASSING COMMUNICATIONS 0 0 0 0 0 1  ~ 0 2 121 REPEATED VIOLATION - CATEGORY II OFFENSE 0 0 0 0 0 1 c 2 150 POSSESSION OR USE OF ALCOHOL 0 0 0 1 0 0 =.... \"' 2 151 POSSESSION OR USE OF DRUGS 1 0 0 0 0 2 \"\"'!' 3 072 VERBAL ABUSE OF STAFF 0 0 0 0 2 ::i: 0 3 092 POSS./WEAP KNIFE/CLUB/FACSIM.BLADE LESS 0 0 0 0 0 .C, 3 121 USE OF A WEAPON 0 0 0 0 0 ,. 86 Senior High 2207 -:, Middle School ALT LEARN 030 MINOR ALTERCATION 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 \"'! 0 0$0 LEFT SCHOOUCLASS WITHOUT PERMISSION 0 0 0 0 0 ,\n:.\n, ,. 060 FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES 0 0 0 1 0 0 Q 062 REFUSE TO OBEY RULES OR DIRECTIVES 0 0 0 0 0 = ~ 080 FAILURE TO SERVE DETENTION 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 090 REFUSED TO SERVE DETENTION 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 fl\u0026gt; \u0026lt; 110 USE OF VERBAL ABUSE/FIGHTING WORDS/GES 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 fl\u0026gt; Q 1 132 USE/POSS. DRUGS 3 0 0 0 0 4 \"O a 2 020 BATTERY 2 0 0 0 0 3 fl\u0026gt; = 2 030 THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 - - LRSD Information Services Dept. -- Page 4 o/13 Level School Lvl Code O[fense BM WM OM BF WF OF TOTAL Middle School ALT LEARN 2 040 FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT 14 0 0 2 0 0 16 2 050 GAMBLING 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 080 VANDALISM (INTENTIONAL DESTRUCTION/PROP 0 0 0 0 0 1 ~ 2 090 NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT 29 0 1 5 0 0 35 ., = 2 100 SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT 5 0 0 1 0 0 6 C. fl\u0026gt; 2 105 REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES  54 2 0 11 0 0 67 i:::, i\n 2 110 DISORDERLY CONDUCT 11 0 0 4 0 0 15 ...,.. 2 115 REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN 10 0 0 1 0 0 11 s: C: 2 120 HARASSING COMMUNICATIONS 1 0 0 0 0 0 -o 2 121 REPEATED VIOLATION -CATEGORY II OFFENSE 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 = 2 122 FALSIFYING SIGNATURE/INFORMATION 0 0 0 0 0 2 150 POSSESSION OR USE OF ALCOHOL 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 151 POSSESSION OR USE OF DRUGS 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 \u0026gt; 3 071 PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF 0 0 0 0 0 n = 3 072 VERBAL ABUSE OF STAFF 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 C. fl\u0026gt; 3 120 INCITING TO RIOT 5 0 0 1 0 0 6 a j\n 3 140 TERRORISTIC THREATENING 0 0 0 0 0 ::i:: 197 (iQ\" Middle School CLOVR JR 030 MINOR ALTERCATION 4 0 0 0 6 =- :\ni:, 040 BEHAVIOR THAT VIOLATES A PERSON'S RIGHTS 9 0 0 0 0 10 i\n ~ 050 LEFT SCHOOUCLASS WITHOUT PERMISSION 8 0 0 2 0 0 10 060 FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES 18 1 1 7 0 0 27 062 REFUSE TO OBEY RULES OR DIRECTIVES 43 0 3 .19 0 0 65 070 REFUSE TO OBEY BUS RULES/REGULATIONS 0 0 0 0 0 1 \u0026gt;.... 080 FAILURE TO SERVE DETENTION 12 0 0 7 0 1 20 .... l'I! = 090 REFUSED TO SERVE DETENTION 13 1 0 3 0 0 17 C. = 100 USE OR POSSESSION OF TOBACCO 1 0 0 0 0 0 n= 110 USE OF VERBAL ABUSE/FIGHTING WORDS/GES 7 1 9 0 0 18 I'll 133 REPEATED SCHOOUCLASS TARDIES 2 0 0 0 0 3 :i:l tll \"O 2 010 ASSAULT 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 \"'I 2 020 BATTERY 9 1 0 0 0 11 - 2 030 THEFTfrHEFT BY RECEIVING 5 0 0 1 0 0 6 2 040 FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT 61 4 3 51 3 7 129 2 070 LOITERING OR CRIMINAL TRESPASS 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 090 NON-THREATENlNG PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT 18 2 0 7 1 0 28 . \u0026lt; 2 100 SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT 10 0 0 0 0 11 0 = 2 105 REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES 23 1 6 1 0 32 -= tll 2 110 DISORDERLY CONDUCT 12 0 0 5 0 0 17 .tl,l 2 115 REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN 60 0 0 14 0 75 ::c: 0 2 120 HARASSING COMMUNICATIONS 5 0 0 0 0 6 C \"'I 2 121 REPEATED VIOLATION - CATEGORY II OFFENSE 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 \"' 2 122 FALSIFYING SIGNATURE/INFORMATION 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 150 POSSESSION OR USE OF ALCOHOL 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 151 POSSESSION OR USE OF DRUGS 4 0 0 1 0 0 5 .\",C ' 0 3 000 USE OF RAP RINGS,CHEMICAL AGNTS OR FACS 0 0 0 0 0\n, 3 010 SALE OR DISTRIBUTION OF ALCOHOL 1 0 0 0 0 0 \"\"'' Q 3 071 PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF 2 0 1 0 0 4 = 3 072 VERBAL ABUSE OF STAFF 4 0 0 1 0 0 5 ~ 3 090 POSSESSION OF WEAPON 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 !':) 0 2 0 0 13 \u0026lt; 3 140 TERRORISTIC THREATENING 10 !':) 532 Q \"C Middle School DUNBAR 030 MINOR ALTERCATION 0 0 0 0 2 a tll 050 LEFT SCHOOUCLASS WITHOUT PERMISSION 0 0 3 0 0 4 -= LRSD Information Services Dept. Page5 of 13 Level School Lvl Code O[fense BM WM OM BF WF OF TOTAL Middle School DUNBAR 1 133 REPEATED SCHOOUCLASS TARDIES 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 010 ASSAULT 3 0 0 0 0 4 2 020 BATTERY 3 3 0 0 8 ~ 2 030 THEFTITHEFT BY RECEIVING 6 2 0 0 10 \"\"I = 2 040 FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT 45 13 1 Q. 32 1 93 \"' 2 080 VANDALISM (INTENTIONAL DESTRUCTION/PROP 0 0 0 0 0 0\n 2 090 NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT 8 2 0 4 0 0 14 -\"\"I 2 100 SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT 7 1 0 0 0 0 8\n: C 2 105 REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES 5 0 0 14 0 0 19 -o 2 110 DISORDERLY CONDUCT 5 0 0 7 0 0 12 = 2 115 REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN 34 4 0 31 0 0 69 2 120 HARASSING COMMUNICATIONS 12 1 0 0 15 2 121 REPEATED VIOLATION - CATEGORY II OFFENSE 2 0 2 0 0 5 \u0026gt; 2 122 FALSIFYING SIGNATURE/INFORMATION 0 0 0 0 2 I\") = 3 071 PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF 0 0 0 0 2 Q. \"' 3 072 VERBAL ABUSE OF STAFF 1 0 0 0 0 2 a\n 3 092 POSS./WEAP KNIFE/CLUB/FACSIM.BLADE LESS 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ::c 3 140 TERRORISTIC THREATENING 3 2 0 0 0 0 5 ~- :r 278 ~ Middle School FORST HT 030 MINOR ALTERCATION 0 0 0 0 0\n :i::-- 040 BEHAVIOR THAT VIOLATES A PERSON'S RIGHTS 0 0 0 0 0 1 060 FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES 4 0 0 7 062 REFUSE TO OBEY RULES OR DIRECTIVES 33 6 0 24 2 0 65 080 FAILURE TO SERVE DETENTION 0 0 0 0 0 -\u0026gt; 1 110 USE OF VERBAL ABUSE/FIGHTING WORDS/GES 0 0 0 0 0 -:\"I' 2 010 ASSAULT 0 0 0 0 2 Q. = 2 020 BATTERY 14 0 3 0 19 = I\") 2 030 THEFTITHEFT BY RECEIVING 3 0 0 8 0 0 11 \"' ~ 2 040 FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT 89 5 39 136 \"' \"C 2 060 FALSE ALARM 0 0 0 0 0 0., 2 080 VANDALISM (INTENTIONAL DESTRUCTION/PROP 2 0 0 0 0 - 3 2 090 NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT 11 0 2 2 0 16 2 100 SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT 10 0 0 1 0 0 11 2 105 REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES 4 0 0 2 0 0 6 2 110 DISORDERLY CONDUCT 38 9 26 0 1 75 \u0026lt; 0 2 115 REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN 14 0 8 1 0 24 c 2 120 HARASSING COMMUNICATIONS 2 1 0 0 0 4 -\"=' 2 121 REPEATED VIOLATION - CATEGORY II OFFENSE 3 0 0 0 0 4 \"\"\"'I 2 122 FALSIFYING SIGNATURE/INFORMATION 0 0 0 0 0 ::c 0 2 150 POSSESSION OR USE OF ALCOHOL 0 0 0 1 0 0 C \"'I 3 010 SALE OR DISTRIBUTION OF ALCOHOL 0 0 0 0 0 \"' 3 060 BURN OR ATTEMPT TO BURN SCHOOL PROPER 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 071 PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF 2 2 0 0 0 0 4 3 072 VERBAL ABUSE OF STAFF 1 0 0 0 0 0 .,, \"\"I 0 3 090 POSSESSION OF WEAPON 0 0 0 0 0\n, \"' 3 091 POSSESSION OF WEAPON.KNIFE-BLADE 2 1/2\" 3 0 0 0 0 4 \"Q' 3 121 USE OF A WEAPON 0 0 0 0 0 1 = 3 140 TERRORISTIC THREATENING 3 0 0 0 5 ~ --- 0 410 \"' Middle School \u0026lt; HENDERSN 030 MINOR ALTERCATION 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 \"' Q 040 BEHAVIOR THAT VIOLATES A PERSON'S RIGHTS 1 0 0 0 0 0 \"O 062 REFUSE TO OBEY RULES OR DIRECTIVES 2 0 0 1 1 0 4 a \"' 090 REFUSED TO SERVE DETENTION 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 -= LRSD Information Services Dept. - !bSJs\u0026amp;,..... Page 6 of 13 Level School Lvl Code O[fense BM WM OM BF WF OF TOTAL Middle School HENDERSN 1 110 USE OF VERBAL ABUSE/FIGHTING WORDS/GES 0 0 0 0 2 132 USE/POSS. DRUGS 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 010 ASSAULT 0 0 0 0 2 ~ 2 020 BATTERY 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 \"\"I = 2 030 THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING 0 0 Q. 0 0 0 r., 2 040 FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT 68 6 4 24 2 105 t:::, ~- 2 090 NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT 5 2 0 4 0 0 11 .... \"\"I 2 100 SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT 3 0 0 1 0 0 4 \u0026amp;: C 2 110 DISORDERLY CONDUCT 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 .o... 2 115 REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN 53 7 2 25 3 3 93 = 2 120 HARASSING COMMUNICATIONS 2 0 0 1 0 0 3 2 121 REPEATED VIOLATION CATEGORY II OFFENSE 0 0 0 0 0 2 150 POSSESSION OR USE OF ALCOHOL - 0 0 0 0 0 \u0026gt; 3 071 PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF 0 0 0 0 0 r:, = 3 072 VERBAL ABUSE OF STAFF 0 0 0 0 0 Q. r., 3 090  POSSESSION OF WEAPON 0 0 0 1 0 0 a\n 3 091 POSSESSION OF WEAPON.KNIFE-BLADE 2 1/2\" 0 0 0 0 0 = 3 140 TERRORISTIC THREATENING 2 0 2 0 0 5 ~- =- 248 :x, Middle School MABEL JR 030 MINOR ALTERCATION 2 0 0 0 0 3 ~- ,:- 050 LEFT SCHOOUCLASS WITHOUT PERMISSION 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 060 FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 062 REFUSE TO OBEY RULES OR DIRECTIVES 2 0 3 0 0 6 070 REFUSE TO OBEY BUS RULES/REGULATIONS 3 0 0 2 0 0 5 \u0026gt;.... 090 REFUSED TO SERVE DETENTION 1 0 0 0 0 0 .... r., = 110 USE OF VERBAL ABUSE/FIGHTING WORDS/GES 2 0 0 3 0 0 5 Q. = 133 REPEATED SCHOOUCLASS TARDIES 0 0 0 0 0 = r:, 2 010 ASSAULT 0 0 0 0 0 r., :x, 2 020 BATTERY 0 1 0 0 0 0 t!I \"'O 2 040 FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT 22 3 0 9 0 0 34 .0, 2 090 NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT 0 0 0 0 2 - 2 100 SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT 4 1 0 0 0 6 2 110 DISORDERLY CONDUCT 6 0 0 0 8 2 115 REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN 12 7 0 0 21 2 120 HARASSING COMMUNICATIONS 3 0 0 0 1 0 4 \u0026lt; 0 2 121 REPEATED VIOLATION - CATEGORY II OFFENSE 1 0 a 2 0 0 3 c 3 071 PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF 0 0 0 0 0 1 =.... t!I 3 072 VERBAL ABUSE OF STAFF 0 0 0 0 2 t!I \"\"I 108 = Middle School 0 MANN M/S 040 BEHAVIOR THAT VIOLATES A PERSON'S RIGHTS 0 0 0 0 0 .C, 060 FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES 0 0 0 0 0 ... 1 110 USE OF VERBAL ABUSE/FIGHTING WORDS/GES 0 0 0 0 0 2 010 ASSAULT 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 020 BATTERY 5 0 0 0 7 \"'Cl \"\"I 0 2 030 THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING 0 0 2 0 0 3 .\n.\n. , 2 040 FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT 19 3 2 7 0 0 31 ... Q 2 090 NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT 5 0 0 0 7 = ~ 2 100 SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 - 2 115 REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN 24 8 2 0 36 t:::, t!I \u0026lt; 2 150 POSSESSION OR USE OF ALCOHOL 0 1 0 0 0 2 r., Q 2 151 POSSESSION OR USE OF DRUGS 0 0 0 0 0 't:I 3 010 SALE OR DISTRIBUTION OF ALCOHOL 0 0 0 0 0 a r., 3 090 POSSESSION OF WEAPON 0 0 0 0 0 -= LRSD Information Services Dept. Page 7 of 13 ',eve[ School Lvl Code O[fense BM WM OM BF WF OF TOTAL v1iddle School MANN M/S 3 092 POSS./WEAP KNIFE/CLUB/FACSIM.BLADE LESS 0 0 0 0 0 3 130 VIOLENT TAKING BY FORCE OR THREAT 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 140 TERRORISTIC THREATENING 6 0 0 0 0 7 C, 107 \"'I = v1iddle School PUL HT J 030 MINOR ALTERCATION 6 2 0 0 0 0 8 C. n 040 BEHAVIOR THAT VIOLATES A PERSON'S RIGHTS 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 050 LEFT SCHOOUCLASS WITHOUT PERMISSION 0 0 2 0 0 3 -\n \"'I 060 FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES 0 2 0 0 4 6= C 062 REFUSE TO OBEY RULES OR DIRECTIVES 0 0 0 0 0 1 -o 080 FAILURE TO SERVE DETENTION 4 0 0 2 0 0 6 = 110 USE OF VERBAL ABUSE/FIGHTING WORDS/GES 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 133 REPEATED SCHOOUCLASS TARDIES 0 0 0 0 0 2 010 ASSAULT 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 \u0026gt; 2 020 BATTERY 0 1 0 0 0 0 n = 2 030 THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING 0 0 0 0 2 C. n 2 040 FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT 31 5 0 15 0 0 51 a 2 090 NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT 1 0 2 0 0 4\n:\n ::i:: 2 100 SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT 0 0 0 0 0 (IQ. 2 105 REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES 8 0 0 1 0 0 9 =- 2 110 DISORDERLY CONDUCT 0 0 0 0 0 ,:,\n 2 115 REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN 14 1 0 2 0 0 17 ,:- 2 120 HARASSING COMMUNICATIONS 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 121 REPEATED VIOLATION CATEGORY II OFFENSE 0 0 0 0 0 3 140 TERRORISTIC THREATENING 0 0 0 0 2 \u0026gt;- 123 -~ Middle School SOUTHWST 2 010 ASSAULT 0 0 0 0 0 = C. 2 020 BATTERY 12 1 2 0 0 16 == n 2 030 THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 n 2 040 FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT 81 3 2 39 5 2 132 ,:, n 2 080 VANDALISM {INTENTIONAL DESTRUCTION/PROP 0 0 0 0 0 'C 0 \"'I 2 090 NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT 12 0 0 2 0 0 14 - 2 100 SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT 8 0 0 0 10 2 105 REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES 3 0 1 1 0 0 5 2 110 DISORDERLY CONDUCT 10 2 2 14 0 0 28 2 115 REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN 52 0 19 0 0 72 ~ 2 120 HARASSING COMMUNICATIONS 6 0 1 2 0 0 9 S:. REPEATED .VIOLATION CATEGORY II OFFENSE C 2 121 0 0 0 0 0 -= 2 124 MEMBERSHIP AND PROHIBITIVE GANG/ORGANI 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 n n \"'I 3 071 PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF 0 0 0 0 2 ::i:: 3 072 VERBAL ABUSE OF STAFF 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 C 3 091 POSSESSION OF WEAPON.KNIFE-BLADE 2 1/2\" 1 0 0 0 0 0 \"' I 3 140 TERRORISTIC THREATENING 9 0 3 0 0 13 314 Middle School 2317 ',:t \"'I Elementary 0 BADGETT 1 060 FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES 2 0 0 0 0 0 2\n-, 2 040 FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT 0 0 0 0 0 \"Q' 3 = Elementary BALE 062 REFUSE TO OBEY RULES OR DIRECTIVES 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 2 040 FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT 0 0 0 0 0 0 n \u0026lt; 2 105 REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES 1 0 0 0 0 0 n Q 2 110 DISORDERLY CONDUCT 6 0 0 1 0 0 7 ~ 2 115 REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 a n - 3 071 PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF 0 0 0 0 0 -= LR.SD Information Services Dept. n:u\nc ._ Page 8 of 13 Level School Lvl Code O(fense BM WM OM BF WF OF TOTAL Elementary BALE 3 092 POSS./WEAP KNIFE/CLUB/FACSIM.BLADE LESS 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 140 TERRORISTIC THREATENING 0 0 0 0 0 17 C, \"'I Elementary BASELINE 040 BEHAVIOR THAT VIOLATES A PERSON'S RIGHTS 0 0 0 0 0 :::, Q.,, 060 FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES 0 0 0 0 0 tD 2 010 ASSAULT 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 .i\n..\n. 2 115 REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN 3 2 0 0 0 0 5 \"'I 2 120 HARASSING COMMUNICATIONS 0 0 0 0 0 s: .C.. . 2 121 REPEATED VIOLATION - CATEGORY II OFFENSE 0 0 0 0 0 =- 10 = Elementary BOOKER 2 010 ASSAULT 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 040 FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 \u0026gt; Elementary BRADY 2 090 NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT 1 0 n 0 0 0 0 = Q.,, 3 091 POSSESSION OF WEAPON.KNIFE-BLADE 2 1/2\" 0 1 0 0 0 0 tD 3 3 092 POSS./WEAP KNIFE/CLUB/FACSIM.BLADE LESS 1 0 0 0 0 0\n 3 140 TERRORISTIC THREATENING 2 0 0 3 0 0 5 ::r: 8 rRi\" =- Elementary CARVER 030 MINOR ALTERCATION 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 ,:l 070 REFUSE TO OBEY BUS RULES/REGULATIONS 0 0 0 0 0 i\n :i:- 2 030 THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 040  FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT 2 0 0 , 0 0 3 2 120 HARASSING COMMUNICATIONS 0 0 0 3 -- \u0026gt; 10 ........ Elementary CHARTER 030 MINOR ALTERCATION 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 = 060 FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 Q.,, = 062 REFUSE TO OBEY RULES OR DIRECTIVES 8 0 0 2 0 0 10 n fl, 070 REFUSE TO OBEY BUS RULES/REGULATIONS 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 ,:l 110 USE OF VERBAL ABUSE/FIGHTING WORDS/GES 0 1 0 0 0 0 fl, \"O 2 010 ASSAULT 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 -\"'I 2 030 THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 040 FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT 4 1 0 0 0 6 2 090 NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT 0 0 0 0 0 2 105 REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 110 DISORDERLY CONDUCT 10 1 0 7 1 0 19 \u0026lt; 0 2 121 REPEATED VIOLATION - CATEGORY 11 OFFENSE 5 0 0 1 0 0 6 =c 3 071 PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF 7 0 0 2 0 0 9 .... fl, fl, 3 072 VERBAL ABUSE OF STAFF 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 \"'I 3 140 TERRORISTIC THREATENING 0 0 0 0 2 ::r: 0 66 C \"'I Elementary CHICOT 2 010 ASSAULT 0 0 0 0 2 \"\" 2 020 BATTERY 0 0 0 0 0 2 115 REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN 0 0 0 0 0 \"'t1 3 071 PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF 0 0 0 0 0 \"'I 0 3 080 POSSESSION OF FIREARM 0 0 0 0 0\n, \"\" 3 090 POSSESSION OF WEAPON 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 Q 3 091 POSSESSION OF WEAPON,KNIFE-BLADE 2 1/2\" 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 = ~ 3 140 TERRORISTIC THREATENING 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 11 ~ \u0026lt; Elementary DODD 2 110 DISORDERLY CONDUCT 0 0 0 0 2 ~ Q 3 071 PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 \"O 3 3 092 POSS./WEAP KNIFE/CLUB/FACSIM.BLADE LESS 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 tD = 3 140 TERRORISTIC THREATENING 4 0 0 0 0 5 - LRSD Information Services Dept. Page 9 o/13 ',eve/ School Lvl Code Offense BM WM OM BF WF OF TOTAL 10 ~lemeritary FORST PK 040 BEHAVIOR THAT VIOLATES A PERSON'S RIGHTS 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 020 BATTERY 1 0 0 0 0 0 C1 2 110 DISORDERLY CONDUCT 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 '\"I = 6 Q. fl) =lementary FRANKLIN 2 040 FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 t, 1\n 2 090 NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT 0 0 0 0 0 .... '\"I 2 100 SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT 0 0 0 0 0 s: = 2 115 REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN 14 0 0 0 0 0 14 .... = 2 120 HARASSING COMMUNICATIONS 1 0 0 0 0 0 = 2 121 REPEATED VIOLATION - CATEGORY II OFFENSE 3 0 0 o 0 4 3 090 POSSESSION OF WEAPON 0 0 1 0 0 2 3 092 POSS./WEAP KNIFE/CLUB/FACSIM.BLADE LESS 0 0 0 0 0 \u0026gt; 3 140 TERRORISTIC THREATENING 0 0 0 0 0 (\") = 30 Q. fl) Elementary GEYER SP 2 010 ASSAULT 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 a\n::\n 2 040 FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT 1 0 0 0 0 0 ::i:: 2 090 NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT 0 1 0 0 0 0 CIQ. 2 110 DISORDERLY CONDUCT 7 0 0 5 0 0 12 =- ::c 2 115 REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN 2 0 1 1 0 0 4 1\n 2 120 HARASSING COMMUNICATIONS 1 0 0 0 0 2 1:\" 2 121 REPEATED VIOLATION - CATEGORY II OFFENSE 1 0 1 0 0 3 3 130 VIOLENT TAKING BY FORCE OR THREAT 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 140 TERRORISTIC THREATENING 1 0 0 0 0 2 \u0026gt;.... 29 .... lt Elementary GIBBS 110 USE OF VERBAL ABUSE/FIGHTING WORDS/GES 0 0 0 0 0 = C. 133 REPEATED SCHOOUCLASS TARDIES 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 == (\") 2 040 FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT 3 1 0 2 0 0 6 fl) 2 105 REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES 1 0 0 0 0 0 ::c fl) 2 110 DISORDERLY CONDUCT 5 1 2 0 0 9 \"'C 0., 2 115 REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN 0 0 2 0 0 3 - 2 120 HARASSING COMMUNICATIONS 2 0 0 0 0 3 3 071 PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF 1 0 0 0 0 2 3 090 POSSESSION OF WEAPON 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 140 TERRORISTIC THREATENING 2 0 0 0 0 3 \u0026lt; 30 0 C Elementary JEFFRSN 030 MINOR ALTERCATION 6 0 0 2 0 0 8 .=... 060 FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 fl) fl) '\"I 070 REFUSE TO OBEY BUS RULES/REGULATIONS 0 0 0 0 0 1 ::i:: 2 010 ASSAULT 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 C 2 100 SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ., \"\" 3 090 POSSESSION OF WEAPON 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 140 TERRORISTIC THREATENING 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 18 \"\"C:t '\"I Elementary ML KING 1 110 USE OF VERBAL ABUSE/FIGHTING WORDS/GES 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0\n, 2 030 THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING 0 0 0 0 1 0 \"' 2 120 HARASSING COMMUNICATIONS 0 0 0 0 0 Q = 3 130 VIOLENT TAKING BY FORCE OR THREAT 0 0 0 0 2 = 6 t, ~ Elementary MABEL EL 030 MINOR ALTERCATION 2 0 0 0 0 3 \u0026lt; ~ 040 BEHAVIOR THAT VIOLATES A PERSON'S RIGHTS 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 Q 'O 060 FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 a fl) 062 REFUSE TO OBEY RULES OR DIRECTIVES 0 2 0 0 4 -= LRSD Information Services Dept. Page JO o/13 level School Lvl Code O(fense BM WM OM BF WF OF TOTAL lementary MABEL EL 1 110 USE OF VERBAL ABUSE/FIGHTING WORDS/GES 0 0 0 0 0 2 010 ASSAULT 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 020 BATTERY 0 0 0 1 0 . 0 1 ~ 2 030 THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ., = 2 110 DISORDERLY CONDUCT 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 Q. ~ 2 115 REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN 6 0 0 0 0 7 ~ 3 071 PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 -.1,\n 3 090 POSSESSION OF WEAPON 0 0 0 0 0 CT C: 30 -o Elementary MCDERMOT 2 100 SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT 0 0 0 0 0 = 2 110 DISORDERLY CONDUCT 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 121 REPEATED VIOLATION CATEGORY II OFFENSE 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 \u0026gt; Elementary MEADCLIF 2 040 FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT 4 0 0 0 0 5 =n 2 090 NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT 1 0 0 0 0 0 Q. ~ 2 100 SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT 0 0 0 0 0 1 a 2 105 REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES 6 0 1 0 0 8\n::\n = 2 110 DISORDERLY CONDUCT 4 2 0 0 0 0 6 (IQ. 2 115 REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN 0 0 1 0 0 2 =- 2 120 HARASSING COMMUNICATIONS 0 0 0 0 0 C'. \"' 2 121 REPEATED VIOLATION - CATEGORY II OFFENSE 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 25 Elementary MITCHELL 040 BEHAVIOR THAT VIOLATES A PERSON'S RIGHTS 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 060 FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES 0 0 1 0 0 2 \u0026gt; 062 REFUSE TO OBEY RULES OR DIRECTIVES 0 0 0 0 0 ........ ~ 1 110 USE OF VERBAL ABUSE/FIGHTING WORDS/GES 0 0 0 0 0 = Q. 2 010  ASSAULT 0 0 2 0 0 3 == 2 030 THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING 0 0 0 0 0 n 1 ~ 2 040 FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 :\n.:, ~ 2 060 FALSE ALARM 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 \"O 0 2 090 NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT 2 0 0 0 0 0 ., 2 - 2 100 SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT 3 0 0 2 0 0 5 2 105 REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES 7 0 0 0 0 0 7 2 110 DISORDERLY CONDUCT 4 0 0 0 0 5 2 120 HARASSING COMMUNICATIONS 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 \u0026lt;! 3 000 USE OF RAP RINGS.CHEMICAL AGNTS OR FAGS 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 3 071 PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 .=... 3 072 VERBAL ABUSE OF STAFF 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ~ .~, 3 091 POSSESSION OF WEAPON,KNIFE-BLADE 2 1/2\" 0 0 0 0 0 = 3 120 INCITING TO RIOT 0 0 0 0 2 0 C 46 ., \"\" Elementary OTTER CR 060  FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES 0 0 0 0 0 Elementary PUL HT E 1 060 FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES 0 0 0 0 0 1 .\",t t 2 040 FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT 0 0 0 0 2 0\n, 3 Elementary RIGHTSEL 2 100 SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT 0 0 0 0 0 Q = 3 140 TERRORISTIC THREATENING 0 0 0 0 0 -I\u0026gt;:\u0026gt; 2 0 Elementary ~ ROCKFELR 030 MINOR ALTERCATION 2 0 0 3 0 0 5 ~ ~ 1 110 USE OF VERBAL ABUSE/FIGHTING WORDS/GES 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Q 'O 2 040 FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT 2 0 0 1 0 0 3 a ~ 2 110 DISORDERLY CONDUCT 0 0 0 0 0 -= lRSD Information Services Depl Page 11 of 13 Level -School Lvl Code O[fense BM Elementary WATSON 3 071 PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF 1 3 140 TERRORISTIC THREATEN ING 2 Elementary WESTHIL 2 115 REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN 3 Elementary WILLIAMS 030 MINOR ALTERCATION 2 040 BEHAVIOR THAT VIOLATES A PERSON'S RIGHTS 4 060 FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES 062 REFUSE TO OBEY RULES OR DIRECTIVES 3 070 REFUSE TO OBEY BUS RULES/REGULATIONS 1 2 010 ASSAULT 0 2 040 FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT 2 2 115 REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN 1 2 121 REPEATED VIOLATION -CATEGORY II OFFENSE 2 2 122 FALSIFYING SIGNATURE/INFORMATION 0 3 140 TERRORISTIC THREATENING 13 WILSON 060 FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES 3 092 POSS./WEAP KNIFE/CLUB/FACSIM.BLADE LESS 2 3 140 TERRORISTIC THREATENING 3 Elementary WOODRUFF 2 110 DISORDERLY CONDUCT 2 mD  ._. i Information Services Depl e liillll WWWlll'I l - WM OM BF WF OF TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 4 - 9 0 0 0 0 0 3 -- 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 6 0 0 2 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 18 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 Elementary 556 Grand Total 5080 a w~~ Page 13 of 13 .~, = Q. ft) et -..\n,\n\n: .o=... = \u0026gt; f':I = Q. ft) 9\n::\n ::r:: (JQ. =- :\ni:, .\n ,:- -\u0026gt;... ft) = Q. == f':I ft) :\ni:, ft) 'O -0., \u0026lt; 0 C -= ft) .ft,) ::r:: 0 C ~ .\"-,c t 0\n, \"\" C1 \"'I =- Recidivism Report - Black/White Q. ('I\u0026gt; t, Year: 2000/2001 Quarter: 1 to Quarter: 4 ~-- \"'I Counts Each Student Once s: -C LEVEL -SCHOOL BM BF WM WF OM OF Total o = Senior High ACC LEARN 7 2 0 11 AGENCIES 21 8 3 0 0 33 CENTRAL 105 66 19 19 0 0 209 \u0026gt; r:, =- FAIR 123 68 15 8 4 4 220 Q. ('I\u0026gt; HALL 245 117 29 12 16 16 423 a\n:\n MCCLELLA 177 91 10 2 3 3 284 a:o:= METRO 26 11  3 2 43 :r ::i:, PARKVIEW 27 12 12 9 61 ~- :\n:- Senior High 1284 Middle Schoo ALT LEARN 86 19 3 0 109 239 \u0026gt; CLOVRJR 138 78 4 5 9 9 -.... ('I\u0026gt; DUNBAR 76 49 19 3 3 149 = Q. =- FORST HT 107 73 17 5 4 4 208 = r:, ftl HENDERSN 81 36 12 4 5 5 141 ::i:, ('I\u0026gt; MABEL JR 95 37 12 4 4 4 153 \"'C -0., MANN MIS 46 13 6 5 2 2 72 PUL HT J 101 47 32 4 185 SOUTHWST 119 63 5 4 5 5 198 \u0026lt; Middle Schoo 1454 0 c Elementary BADGETT 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 =.... ('I\u0026gt; BALE 11 3 0 0 0 0 14 ('I\u0026gt; \"'I ::= BASELINE 6 0 0 0 0 7 0 .C, BOOKER 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 \"\" BRADY 5 3 0 0 0 9 CARVER 3 5 0 10 -0 \"'I 0 CHARTER. 24 9 3 0 0 37\n, \"\" CHICOT 8 2 0 0 0 11 Q = DODD 8 0 2 0 0 0 10 -~ FORST PK 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 t, ('I\u0026gt; \u0026lt; ...... r:, l :U y ......-u,w Q Thursday, August 09, 2001 Page I o/2 \"O a ('I\u0026gt; -= ~ '\"I Recidivism Report - Black/White = Q. \"0' Year: 2000/2001 Quarter: 1 to Quarter: 4 -\n Counts Each Student Once '\"I s: C LEVEL -SCHOOL BM BF WM WF OM OF Total -o = Elementary FRANKLIN 16 2 0 0 0 0 18 GEYER SP 12 4 3 0 20 GIBBS 14 5 5 0 25 \u0026gt; r'l JEFFRSN 11 3 0 0 0 0 14 = Q. \"' ML KING 0 2 2 6 3\n:\n MABEL EL 11 2 2 0 0 0 15 ::i:: ~- MCDERMOT 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 ::r ,:, MEADCLIF 12 2 4 0 0 0 18\n :\n:- MITCHELL 27 9 3 0 0 0 39 OTTER CR 0 0 0 0 0 PUL HT E 0 2 0 0 0 3 --\u0026gt; RIGHTSEL 0 0 0 0 2 =\"' Q. ROCKFELR 6 5 0 0 0 0 11 == r'l ROMINE 2 0 0 0 0 3 \",:', STEPHENS 28 7 0 0 0 0 36 '\"ti' 0 TERRY 15 2 3 0 0 21 -'\"I WAKEFIEL 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 WASHNGTN 12 0 2 0 0 0 14 WATSON 7 2 0 0 0 0 9 \u0026lt; WEST HIL 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 c = WILLIAMS 26 5 10 0 0 0 41 -\"\"'' WILSON 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 '\"I ::i:: WOODRUFF 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 C J Elementary 418 Grand Total 3156 .,, '\"I 0 ..\n..\n, Q ::s ~ 0 \"\u0026lt;' (l\u0026gt; t . ilii!JIIC WI. ,_ .-.,: ~  i ni1:=ar . Q Thursday, August 09, 2001 Page2of2 'O 3 -\"=' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT GRADE DISTRIBUTION REPORT 001 CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL BY TEACHER WITH 35% OR MORE D's AND F's, 2001-2002 QUARTER ONE Thursday, November OJ, 2001 Teacher /BLANCHARD J BROWN C CARUTH P ~ OXB DAVIS M Sec Course Title 101 I P21001 AUTO BODY I _!_92 j_ P21001 !AUTO -~ODY I TEACHER TOTALS -- - ---- PERC-ENT-TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 101 050141 EURO HIST AP 104 020041 WLD HIST R 105 020041 WLD HIST R 20.!_j 050141 ,EURO HIST AP r2 04 020041 WLD HIST R 2~ Q20041 -:_wLD HIST-~ t EACHER TOTALS PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 101 K30081 STATISTICS 102 K20081 CONCEPT GEOM c 1 o~t K20081 :coNCEPT GEOM 1-201 K50001 STATS AP I 202 K20O81 !CONCEPT GEOM I 203 K20081 ,CONCEPT GEOM ~ 'BACHER TOTAL_ _ - PERCENT - -- r TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's - t- 101\n030041 us HISTORY R-I 102 030041 us HISTORY R 201 030041 US HISTORY R 202 030041 1us HISTORY R TEACHER TOTALS - PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 101--i-091001 l H\u0026amp;INT:DESIGN - 101 110001 FAM\u0026amp;CONS SCI LRSD l11formatio11 Service Dept. JU3Wd0f3A3O fUU0Jl1113J0Jd A 0 0 0 I 0.0% 7 1 5 5 - 3 4 25 21.4% -i- 1 0 0 6 1 0 - 8 -- j 8.9% - 0 3 3 5 11 11.5% 3 6 - B C D F I NC Total 2 0 2 I 0 0 I 0 4 4 0 2 2 0 0 I 0 4\n- --- 0 --,-0 - 2 2 4 0 8 I - ---'-- - -  ] - __j_ 25.0% 1 25.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% ~ - .L - - - 50.0% 6 3 0 0 0 0 16 0 3 7 9 2 0 22 1 3 2 4 1 0 16 4 l- 4 1 0 I 0 _J 15 --t-- 3----r- 4 8 3 I 2 o 23 -- - .! r - ----~--  - -- --l--- --- 6 - +- 4 9 1 0 25 -~-- - - i -- 25 17 _ - _ 17_ _J_ _E__ 6 0 117 ,- 1- ----- 21.4% 14.5% 14.5% 23.1% 5.1% 0.0% 37.6% . - - 7 2 -- 0 2 I 0 0 12 --- - -j- - - 4 3 6 3 0 0 16 -i_ - ~- - - __, __ -~ - 5 4 4 0 J ___ o_ -- 14 +- - 6 0 -- .... 0 0 0 I 0 12 I --1- I 4 5 I 3 6 0 0 19 ! 4 I 9 2 2 0 I 0 17 I 26 24 15 17 0 I 0 ! 90 ~ ~8.9% _ t- ~6. 7/~=-CJ:6-7% -, 18.9% 0.0% 0.0% ---L - - 35.6% - 12 5 6 0 0 24 5 6 6 3 0 0 23 7 5 6 3 0 0 24 9 5 2 4 0 0 25 33 . - 17 19 16 I 0 0 96 - -- - -----\n-\n-t-- - - --r L 34.4% 17.7% _ 1~8% _j_ 16.7% _ 0.0% __ 0.0% 36.5% ---,- - - ~-0- -, - - 0 8 2 6 1 20 L 4 2 I 1 7 O_ _j_O_ _ 20 - - ___L -- Page J o/47 I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT GRADE DISTRIBUTION REPORT 001 CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL BY TEACHER WITH 35% OR MORE D's AND F's~ 2001-2002 QUARTER ONE Thursday, November OJ, 2001 Teacher DAVIS M [DUCKER L -- EASTER M FIELDS W Sec Course Title t 102 110001 FAM\u0026amp;CONS SCI 201 j ~1001 H\u0026amp;INT:DESIGN 201 , 110001 1FAM\u0026amp;CONS SCI ' 20~ 10001 ~FAM\u0026amp;CONS SCI CHER TOTALS - - - --- PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's F14001 SPANISH I F14001 SPANISH I - F14001 SPANISH I F14001_ ~ PANISH I F14001 !SPANISH I 203 F14001 SPANISH I ~EACHER TOTALS PERCENT j __ TO,!...AL -PER\u0026lt;\n_ENT OF D's AND F's 102 E50081 ENG IV AP - - 1-03 tt40021-l-ENGLISH IV R t 103 - E50081 tENG IV AP - 202 E40021 ENGLISH IV R 203 E40021 ENGLISH IV R r 201..__ E50081 EN~IV ~p TEACHER TOTALS PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 101 210001 AF ROTC 19 101 102 102 ~ 211001 AFROTC I 10 Z10001 AF ROTC I 9 211 OQ~ __ /FROTC I 10 Z10001 IAF ROTC I 9 211001 : AFROTC 110 LRSD /11for111atio11 Service Dept. + A B C D F I NC 2 4 5 3 7 0 0 3 7 4 ~-3- 0 0 3 9 4 2 7 0 0 3 l-- 1 _ __i_ 4 1 2 I - 8 0 0 i 20 -j 33 --=---i_21 ~~ 33 0 j 0 I 16.4% 27.0% 17.~ 12.3% I 27.0% 0.0% I 0.0% 1 -'- ----'- ___J_ - --~---~- ____j 5 4 2 2 6 1- --+ 4 39.3% 7 6 8 0 0 __,__ __0 0 --I------ 4 0 0 0 Total 21 18 25 18 122 23 26 23 18 - ' 6 5 3 4 i- 4 4 -- ~ 6 20 14.5% - 0 1 2 0 0 0 3 2.2% 2 0 0 2 0 L 0 0 24 2 5 3 12 1 0 24 26 27 19 41 5 0 138 __ _j 18.8% 19.6% 13.8% 29.7% 3.6% I 0.0% 7 4 2 2 4 11 30\n..... 15 _ +- 5 .j 12 6 2 6 I ---l 46 43.5% 5_ +- 10 5 15 14 4 53 I ~--- o I o o J__J __ o ---j---o o I o o 1 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 --------- 3 4 --, j__ 27 , 21 1 21 24 25 21 139 21.6% l 33.1% 38:1% l 2.2% 2.9% 0 0.0% 5 2 0 0 0 --- t--- 40.3% 2 3 3 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 5 3 4 10 0 0 18 0 0 6 0 _j 0 6 2 2 9 0 0 15 o-- 2---,----1--+---o-~I - o --,- 3 -- --~---~--~' ~ Page 2 o/47 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT GRADE DISTRIBUTION REPORT 001 CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL BY TEACHER WITH 35% OR MORE D's AND F's, 2001-2002 QUARTER ONE Thursday, November OJ, ZOO/ Teacher Sec Course Title TEACHER TOTALS i--- 1 PERCENT ~ - TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's HALL-JONES B 101 ' S10001 ENG I RR 101 S20021 READ II RR 101 S30001 ENG Ill RR 102 S10001 ENG I RR 201 S10061 PHYS SCI RR 1-201 S10081 ~IOLOGY I RR ~ 1 S201_21 EARTH SCI ~R ~ S1006:1._J:_HY~ SCI RR ~ CHER TOTALS PERCENT f--- - TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's HOLT-MCMILL ER T ~  104-1 E200~1 ~ENGLISH 11 R _!_05:1i2_Q021 fNGLISH II R 207 E20021 ~ENGLISH II R ~ 8 _10021 ENGLISH IR_ j!_ACHERTOTALS PERCENT l TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's -l-1_Q1 I E10021 ~~NGLISHJ R 102 E10021 ' ENGLISH IR 103 I E10021 ENGLISHIR 201 E10021 ENGLISH IR 202 E10021 !ENGLISH IR 203 E10021 1ENGLISH IR -TEA-CHE-R TOTALS ---- - - PERCENT -- TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's E40061jENG IV IS - - 101 I_ 104 _l E~0021 _1EN_GLISH JV R LRSD I11formatio11 Service Dept. iuawdoJaA:\u0026gt;Q rguo1si.aJo.Jd s.1noH .Jaa1un10A -1 -,-- A 5 8.2% 5 0 0 0 9 20.5% 5 3 10 11 .9% 3 3 2 4 2 1 15 - 11.5% ---+-- _J - 5 _'L 9 ., B 8 13.1% 2 0 1 2 - 0 0 3 C 7 ~- -- 11.5% - 0 2 0 2 0 1 D F I -1 0 -~-- 11 30 -- 18.0% 49.2% 0.0% - 67.2% 0 2-1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 2 2 0 1 0 - -4 - + - 2 -~ 1 -~- 0 1 I 1 0 -1- - 9 ---+- - - --- ---+--- _j 7 10 9 _, + I I I I 1 - 0 -- 20.5% 15.9% _ 22.7~ 20.5% 0.0% 8 7 4 5 24 - 28.6% 5 7 3 7 3 4 29 22.1% - I-I I J -~ 43.2% 5 r - 3 6 0 5 j 4 -!-- 2---+--- _3 _ , 4 _ _ _ 4 __ L 0 0 -- 5 3 6 0 18 21.4% 4 3 4 1 5 4 14 16.7% 38.1% ----- 18 0 -- - 21.4% 0.0% - --- 5 6 0 _J ------- 1 5 8 0 _j - -- - --~-- ! 4 I 7 1 0 I 1 I 6 I 0 I 1 I 10 I 0 I I 5 I 8 I 0 ~ -1 _ 21 __1 - 45 I 0 I 16.0% 16.0% 34.4% 0.0% --- ------ - 50.4% -r- - 9---4--, I 4 ' 2 0 6 I 3 3 5 0 - ~ - 1 ~ --j - -+ - NC 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t- - _1_ 0.0% 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0.0% - - I 0 J__ 0 -+ -1-- - I I J . Total 61 9 1 5 8 7 5 3 - - 6 - 44 -- 23 23 18 20 84 23 26 20 19 21 22 131 -- 24 26 - Page 3 o/47 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT GRADE DISTRIBUTION REPORT 001 CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL BY TEACHER WITH 35% OR MORE D's AND F's, 2001-2002 QUARTER ONE Thursday, November 01, 2001 Teacher MCDONALD D - LMCLENDON J MCMILLER J MILLER B Sec Course Title 105 E40021 ENGLISH IV R 1 201 E40061 ENG IV IS 202 E40061 ENG IV IS l 204 L E40021 ENGLISH IV R ITEACHER TOTALS r PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 101 081001 HEAL TH: 103 I 081001 HEAL TH: 105io81001 fl:JEALTH: 201 I Q.81001~ALTH: 2031 081001 HEAL TH: 205 081001 HEALTH: TEACHER TOTALS ~ __ PERCENT _ TOTAL PER\u0026lt;:\n_ENT OF D's AND F's 07 M30021 CHEMISTRY I - --+ 08 M30021 CHEMISTRY I 109 M30021 'cHEMISTRY I 206 M30021 CHEMISTRY I 207 M30021 CHEMISTRY I f 210 1 M10101 _!'.CTIVE PHYS TEACHER TOTALS PERCENT _ r TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 109 K10001 ALGEBRA I 110 K10001 ALGEBRA I 111 K10001 ALGEBRA I 206 ~ 20041 ,s3EOMETRY R 207 . K20041 GEOMETRY R 20~ K20041 1GEOMETR~ R LRSD lllformatio11 Service Dept. A 4 1 3 23 16.9% 9 12 4 15 7 6 53 39.0% 1 2 + - - ! 3 0 13 20 15.4% 0 3 2 2 3 5 B 2 5 7 12 41 30.1% 3 3 C 4 4 4 5 24 17.6% D 4 1 7 2 21 15.4% F I 12 0 3 0 - 1 3 0 - -- -~ 2 0 - -+- - 27 0 - -- -t- - 19.9% 0.0% - - - - 35.3% NC 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 4 4 0 0 4 4 5 0 0 Total 23 17 22 24 136 21 28 -------'- 6 - 4-~--3--1----0--+---o--,1~ 2 2 5 0 - 0----i---- 26 __, 2 2 5 - 5--+---4---+--0--4--0--j--2-3 --1 2 4 4 4 0 0 20 18 13.2% 17 23 25 0 0 136 3 4 5 - _,__ .\n-- 12.~%_]_ 1~.9% -1- 35.3% 4 7 -  - --l- 7 2 2 ---- ' 18.4% 0.0% - 0.0% ---- - 6 4 6 8 0 0 5 6 8 0 0 - 2 0 -- _.j._ 24 19 25 42 0 18.5% 14.6% 0.0% 6 3 5 6 3 6 9 3 -+ 9 7 --1 5 5_ _ J 19.2% 51.5% 6 ~ - 32.3% 10 7 5 5 I 4 0 0 0 ~-+- ~ ~ -+ -~ 5 2 ~ _Q_ 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 22 19 25 20 17 130 25 26 20 18 21 22 Page4 of47 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT GRADE DISTRIBUTION REPORT 001 CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL BY TEACHER WITH 35% OR MORE D's AND F's, 2001-2002 QUARTER ONE Thursday, November OJ, 2001 Teacher Sec Course Title A ITE-A_C-H_ER_ TO TALS 15 PERCENT r TOTAL PERCENT OF D's-AND F's -~I 11.4% B 37 28.0% C 30 22.7% D F I 21 0 --1 - ------t-- -- 15.9% 0.0% __ _L___ NC 0 0.0% Total 132 MILLERR ___ t 110jE11001 COMM I - - 7 3 5 T I 1 0 29 22.0% 37.9% 3 11 - T o 0 25 111 I E11001 COMM I 112 / E11001 COMMI 211 E11001 COMM I 212 E11001 COMM I 1 21u E11001 1coMM 1 _ TEACHER TOTALS PERCENT 11 3 8 11 4 44 30.3% + L 2 6 0 0 24 9 10 0 0 24 7 2 2 4 0 0 23 6 4 2 0 0 ~ 4 5  3 9 0 0 25 34 _ ~ 13 12_-+--1-_-_-_4-2=======0=====~o---+-_145_ 23.4% 9.0% 8.3% 29.0% 0.0% 0.0% TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 37.2% J _i___ __ j - - - -+---,----------------------,----------- - --~------~ PAGLIANITE R 101 E30021 ENG Ill R 5 6 3 4 4 0 I 0 PAXTONV 102 E30021 ~ENG 111 R + I 8 6 _.j. _ 7_---+ __ 3_---+ __ 0_ t 0 103 E30021 ENG Ill R_ 3 - j _ 3 _ + __ 4_-------+--- 2 I 7 2 __ O P202 E30021 ENG Ill R 1 r 4 t-~ --f-~ - 3---+---0---+-- 0 01 E30021 ]ENG Ill R__ 5 5 1 2 0 0 203 E30021 ENG Ill R 4 - 7 ----1--- 3 -- T 5--+ 4 0 0 I TEACHER T\u0026lt;!__TA.l:__ PERCENT I- - ---- ---t----. TOTAL PRCENT OF D'!_!iND F's 103 052009 _GRAMMAR: 1.... 104 E30021 ENG Ill R I 105 E30021 ENG Ill R 204 E30021 ENG Ill R 205 E30021 ENG Ill R 206 E30021 IENG Ill R TEACHER TOTALS - PERCENT TOT AL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 15 - 11.5% 3 0 0 0 4 8 7.0% ~- -1------- 33 30 28 22 2 0 I -+----+- T - 25.4% J.. 23.1 % _ 21.5% 16.9% 1.5% 0.0% 38.5% 7 6 3 -~ 1 - 0 _ 0 _ ~ _ 0 2 2 2 6 25 21.9% 8 3 7 4 26 - -- 22.8% 1 3 1 0 - - .... - ----+--- 11 3 6 8 2 29 - - 25.4% ---' 9 6 3 24 21.1% 0 0 0 2 1.8% 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% ~ -- -----~- 1 - -T -- [PRATHER L 101 P21161 MED PROFS I 0 0 --+ 22 25 21 14 25 23 130 14 19 20 19 23 19 114 102 P21161 jMED PRO1=:S I 0 __j__ __3 _ 2_~_ _0 _ -t--_0_~I _ 0 _l_ 6 LRSD /11for111atio11 Service Dept. Page 5 o/47 J.l0d3H 33UBpuanv LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT GRADE DISTRIBUTION REPORT 001 CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL BY TEACHER WITH 35% OR MORE D's AND F's, 2001-2002 QUARTER ONE Thursday, November OJ, 2001 Teacher Sec Course Title fTEACHER TOTA0__ __ f- PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's [ROBERTSON T =-+---1-0-1 ~ 240001 -AFROTCIV 12 - SAINE N 102 240001 AF ROTC IV 12 103 240001 AF ROTCIV 12 201 220001 AFROTC 1110 201 230001 AFROTCIII 11 201 t 231001 -+AFROTClll 12 _ 201 -1 240001 ,AF ROTCIV 12 ,-203 i 240001 AF ROTCIV 12 TEACHER TOTALS PERCENT I-TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 1 106 K10001 ALGEBRA I - --- I 107 -K-10 Q01 .:AL_GEBR-A-1 ~ 0_8-+-_K_10001 ALGEBRA I 203 K10001 ALGEBRA I 204 K10001 ALGEBRA I TEACHER TOTALS PERCENT -1 TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 7  TEETER E 1WILDER B 102 M20021 BIOLOGY IR 103 M20021 BIOLOGY IR 104 M20021 BIOLOGY I R 203 M20021 BIOLOGY I R 204 M20021 iBIOLOGY IR TEACHER TOTALS I PERCENT r TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's - -_ 1 101f K30041 TRIG/ADV ALG 102 K30041 TRIG/ADV ALG LRSD /11formatio11 Service Dept. A 0 0.0% 2 0 3 3 12 16.2% 1 0 0 -0 2 3 2.7% 1 0 2 0 2 5 4.6% L B 2 22.2% 0 0 0 2 3 0 7 9.5% C D F I NC 3 2 2 0 .j. --- I 3~-~0/o_ _ 22.2% J 22.2% r o.o I 0 0.0% + 44.4% 0 0 -- - 0 ~- 0 0 0 0 0 6 9 6 0 0 21 28.4% _J 0 0 8 3 0 0 0 11 - 14.9% 44.6% 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 9 0 0 3 0 -1- 0 0 0 0 0 -1- 0 0 0 22 29.7% 1 1.4% - 0.0% ~ 1_ ~ o I o -0- ,- 0 0 0 21 37 39 10 0 0 19.1%_ 7_ 33.6% Q s.5% --9.-1-1/.-f---O.-O-%--r 0.0% 2 5 3 12 11.0% 4 .l 44.5% 2 6 --- 4 4 3 4 5 4 2 6 16 24 14.7% _ _l_ 22.0% 67.9% 6 6 5 1_ _ 9_ 10 11 7 14 8 50 0 0 0 2 -- - 0 0 0 0 0 0 45.9% 1.8% 0.0% ----'- - -~ - 0 0 -t- Total 9 2 1 26 26 15 1 2 74 - 24 2-5- 17 19 25 110 22 24 17 24 22 109 20 21 Page 6 o/47 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT GRADE DISTRIBUTION REPORT 001 CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL BY TEACHER WITH 35% OR MORE D's AND F's, 2001-2002 QUARTER ONE Thursday, November 01, 2001 Teacher Sec Course Title A B C D F I NC Total WILDERB -1-04 --K3,00-61 -T-RIG- P-RE--AP, ------1-2 ---6- ---3- --I -1- --I -----0- ---0- ---23- - 201 K30041 TRIG/ADV ALG -+- [ 202 K30041 TTRIG/ADV ALG 203 I K30041 T RIG/ADV ALG [TEACHER TOTALS - - PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's LRSD /11formatio11 Service Dept. JuawdopA:\u0026gt;(I fBD0ft.t.3J0.fJ 1 3 r 2 20 ,- 15.9% - 5 __L _5 - 7 6 1-- 4 4 27 ., 29 . - 21.4% 23.0% 6 +- 3 I 0 0 20 1--0 t- - -4 1 0 21 0 ---,- - 5 _ _l_ 6 I 0 21 ~-1-- -- - 31 19 0 0 126 ' -+ 0.0% 7 - 24.6% 15.1% 0.0% 39.7% - Page 7 o/47 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT GRADE DISTRIBUTION REPORT 002 HALL HIGH SCHOOL BY TEACHER WITH 35% OR MORE D's AND F's, 2001-2002 QUARTER ONE Thursday, November OJ, 2001 Teacher [BA_!_LEY S BEST J !BRANCH K BURKEPILEW Sec Course Title 106 081001 HEALTH 108 081001 /HEAL TH 112 j 081001 _HEALTH - - 114 081001 HEALTH f- 123---t-081001 -HEALTH I-- ' 124 081001 HEALTH ,- TEACHER TOTALS PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 101 K50001 STATS AP 102 K30021 PRE-CALCULUS ' 104 ] K10001 ALGEBRA I 109 K10001 ALGEBRA I 311 K10001 ALGEBRA I 312 K10001 ALGEBRA I ( EACHER TOTALS _ PERCENT ~ - ~ Tf!TAL PERG_ENT OF D's AND F's 101 051103 COMMUN 1A 102 E21001 COMMUNICA II 104 E12001 DRAMA I 105 E12001 iDRAMA I _ 106 E11001 COMMUNICA I td oIT..12001 .DRAMA I _ TEACHER TOTALS PERCENT t TOTALPERCENTOFD'sANDF's 102 K20061 GEOM PRE-AP 103 K20061 GEOM PRE-AP :-105 -t-K20001 1ALGEBRA II t 107 K10001 ALGEBRA I 111 + K20001 ~ALGEBRA II LRSD I11formatio11 Service Dept. JU3Wd0f,M3O flW0f lt3J0.fd - - ' A 8 2 1 3 5 0 19 14.8% 3 13 7 2 2 28 ---i - -+ 20.7% 5 5 5 10 26 20.3% 4 1 0 2 B 6 3 10 1 7 28 21.9% 2 5 4 5 4 _j_ C 4 3 5 5 -T -- - _.._ 3 - 2 22 17.2% 2 0 7 9 4 6 ,- _J_ I D F 2 11 1 I 4 ' 5 I 8 I ---i--- - ___._ 1  9 13 46 10.2% 35.9% - 46.1% o o T I 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0.0% -.l T ~ --0~ --0~ -I 2 6 0 6 7 0 6 11 0 6 12 0 NC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 31 13 29 19 24 12 128 7 16 27 28 28 29 21_ J 28 21 _ _,___3_6_-l--_1_-+ 0 15.6% ' ~0.7_j__!5.6% 26.7% 0.7% _ 0.0% _ 135 42.2% 1---,- 5 --,-- -------- 6 0 0 0 2 0 8 9 2 2 0 3 _ ,_ _ 4 10 _ ,__ _ 3 __.. _0_ _ _1 2 5 -- 6- 13 0 6 _ J __3_ _,___ ?---+-__3 - -+--0 -,- 21 26 31 24 0 8 4 2 5 20.3% 2 7 1 3 2 ---r- - ~ ---+--- 24.2% 18.8% 0.0% -- ---\"-- 43.0% 7 5 10 6-T 7 0 14-1 - 1 - ' - -- - 12 0 ,__ -- 2 6 _j___ ~-- 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 8 26 25 27 29 128 23 0 24 0 28 0 28 0 13 Page 8 o/47 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT GRADE DISTRIBUTION REPORT 002 HALL HIGH SCHOOL BY TEACHER WITH 35% OR MORE D's AND F's, 2001-2002 QUARTER ONE Thursday, November 01, 2001 Teacher IBURKEPILE W COLLINS J [EASTER E EDDINGS !FALLS J-=- - Sec Course Title 112 K10001 ALGEBRA! [TEACHER TOTALS PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 102 K20081 CONCEPT GEOM 201 K20121 ESL GEOMETRY 202 K20121 ESL GEOMETRY 301 K10021 ESLALG 1 202 I K10021 ESL ALG 1 1 402-r K20041 'GEOMETRY TEACHER TOTALS PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's _ + 109 E40021 E40021 E40021 E40021 ENGLISH IV ENGLISH IV ]ENGLISH IV lENGLISH IV ENGLISH IV 1~1 302 t 306 307 - E40021 308 E40021 ENGLISH IV TEACHER TOTALS PERCENT -- ---- TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 101 K20001 ALGEBRA II --+-- -- -- 105 K10001 ALGEBRA I 107 112001 ACTPREP-MTH: 110 K10001 ALGEBRA! 111 K10001 ALGEBRA I 305 K10001 ALGEBRA I TEACHER TOTALS PERCENT r TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 108 1 M10101 ACTIVE PHYS LRSD /11formatio11 Service Dept. t..lOOff .133JUOf0 J\\ A 0 8 5.6% - 1 3 0 5 3 0 12 12.8% r B 2 22 15.5% 3 3 5 14 14.9% -'- C D F I NC 5 9 10 0 0 20 . _ ._.]9_ . _ so ___ 3_. 1- o 14.1% 27.5% 35.2% 62.7% 2 ,- 2 2 2 2 8 4 _ _j_ 8 5 6 16 27 17.0% 28.7% -- 46.8% - 7 0 2 5 2 17 2.1% 0.0% 0 T 0 0 2 0 1 -5 8 8.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 2 + 3 6 F 1_ 1 7 --+ __ 1_ ~ _ o 2 4 9 4 I 5 1 0 0 5 1- 7 4-+ 6_-+-- 0 0 -+ 2 2 L +8- + 5_ -9 _O 0 3 4 3 3 5 0 0 --' 4 9 - i. 5 - 8--r 3 o o  13 27 -t _ 38 _ ~ 2~_: 35 2 0  _9._31/o _1_ 19.3% ~ 27.1% __J_ _17.9~ 25.0% 1.4% 0.0% 2 2 8 - 5.7% 4 3 3 2 5 4 2 2 2 2 7 3 5 19 . -21 13.5% 14.9% 2 - T 3 42.9% 5 5 0 3 5 8 26 18.4% - 58.9% 8 10 -- 13 0 11 13 10 1 2 0 3 2 2 57 10 40.4/4T-7.1% - 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 Total 26 142 15 8 7 21 20 23 94 20 25 22 26 18 29 140 23 27 5 30 28 28 141 22 Page 9 o/47 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT GRADE DISTRIBUTION REPORT 002 HALL HIGH SCHOOL BY TEACHER WITH 35% OR MORE D's AND F's, 2001-2002 QUARTER ONE Thursday, November OJ, 2001 Teacher iFALLS J FORTSO GRAVES K GUYM HANNAH R Sec Course Title 109 I M10101 ACTIVE PHYS ~ !_:!Q_ ffi10101 _tCTIVE PHYS 111 M10101 _,ACT!_YE PHYS r 112t--M10101 ACTIVE PHYS ~ 10101 1',CTIVE PHYS_ TEACHER TOTALS -------- PERCENT - TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's -,- - 101 P21181 WELDING 1 ~ 102 L P21181 WELDING 1 TEACHER TOTALS PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 101 030021 ESL US HIST +- 1- 102 _ 030021 j ESL US !:f_lST 102 030041 US HISTORY 103 104 105 030041 US HISTORY --+- - 030041 US HISTORY 030041 \\Js HISTORY TEACHER TOTALS PERCENT -- -- - - TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 102 + E20021 ENGLISH II 103 E20021 -+ENGLISH II 104 I E20021 ENGLISH II 110 E10141 ENG I WKSHP 301 I E20021 ENGLISH II TEACHER TOTALS ' PERCENT f--- - _ -J- TOTAL PER\u0026lt;\nENTOF D's AND F's 101 E11001 COMMUNICA I 103 E11001 COMMUNICA I LRSD b1formatio11 Service Dept. JU3Wd0f3A3O fBU0JloS3J0.lc{ A 9 6 3 9 10 ' - 41 - 1 1--- :-- -I L 28.9% 0 0 0 0.0% 1 0 0 3 B 3 6 5 18 12.7% 0 1 1 33.3% 1 3 9 6 4 3 C D F I NC 4 7 3 0 0 0 - ]__ \"!_ __ t-- - 5_ . 6_ l- 0 0 1 0 2 11 4 3 4 2 0 - - -- --+- 3 3 3 2 L o --1-9 -+--3-1 --~-2-1 -~---6 --\"1 --o- --- 13.4% - 0 0 0 0.0% 3 21.8% ~-19._01/.~_4_.2% ___l___ 0.0% 40.8% 1 - ---1-- 1 2 66.7% 66.7% o o _ L 0 0 0 0 - ----+-- 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% 1 1 0 0 - - 2 1 I 1 0 6 3 1 - 5--1-2- 0 - ---- .+- - -4- 5 _ 1 _ _ J___? o 1 o_ ,. _ 7_-\n__0_ -111---5_-+-__3_ -f--- 0_ _ 6 2 8 1 . 0 Total 24 15 27 28 26 142 1 2 3 7 8 25 24 20 23 6 26 28 15 25 7 0 107 -1 5.6% -+- 24.3\"!.- _, 26.2o/\n-,14.0% +--2-3-.4- o/-c. -+--6-.5%--1- 0.0o/\n- -r- - 4 2 2 4 5 17 14.0% 7 2 4 5 5 4 3 5 4 11 5 7 21 32 17.4% 26.4% 6 0 5 2 J.rndalJ a:rnupuany 37.4% 6 4 9 4 5 28 23.1% -- 40.5% 3 0 ---+-- 8 0 3 5 2 21 17.4% 0 2 - 1.7% 2 9 L - 5 _ - - ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 22 - 23 23 28 25 121 25 27 P\u0026lt;,ge /0o/47 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT GRADE DISTRIBUTION REPORT 002 HALL HIGH SCHOOL BY TEACHER WITH 35% OR MORE D's AND F's, 2001-2002 QUARTER ONE Thursday, November 01, 2001 Teacher HANNAH R ~HNSON ~ LASKER A .!:!=FFINGWELL D Sec Course Title 104 E11001 COMMUNICA I l __!_95 ~ 1001 fOMMUt::JICA I 115 E11001 -lCOMMUN ICA I 116 E! 1001 L~OMMUNICA I TEACHER TOTALS PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 101 1 M10101 ACTIVE PHYS 102 I M20021 BIOLOGY I 1041M10101--rACTIVE PHYS - 1\"o\"67\" M10101 .ACTIVE PHYS j 10H M10101 :ACTIVE PHYS 307 M10101 ACTIVE PHYS TEACHER TOTALS PERCENT - TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's --i---109 '010041 -CIVICS - ---\n_ 110 + ~10041 !CIVICS - , 111 t-i10041 CIVICS 112 010041 CIVICS lTEACHER TOTA!:__ L PERCENT TOT AL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 103 ~ E10141 -ENG I WKSHP 104 E10141 ENG I WKSHP 105 E10141 IENG I WKSHP TEACHER TOTALS PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 101fM10041~ PHYS I PR-AP - 101 M40001 GEOL-SPACE 102 jj10041 jPHYS I PR:._AP LRSD lllformatio11 Service Dept. tU3WdOf3A3Q fgUOJllll3JO.lJ A B C D F I NC Total 4 3 3 3 7 0 21 9 0 0 5 3 ---t- 4 2 -- -+ - - 6 ___ 2 _[ l\" L 22 16.9% 2 1 5 11 6 26 18.2% 2 3 10 12.5% 29 12 1 22.3%-t 9.2% ~ 4 3 9 6 4 6 32 22.4% I 4 -, 3 6 6 19 4 7 6 0 0 4 5 9 0 0 3 5 9 I 0 ~ 3- -T 2 -4-- --1 4 1 2 - - 0 -,-- 0 --1- 6 0 0 5 6 4 I o o 23 26 36 16.1% 18.2% 25.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% ---'- 4 2 7 3 16 -+ - - ---- .L 43.4% - - - -~- 8 2  -_!! I 0 - 2- 0 ' 0 -----t--~- 0 - t- 0 3 4 0 0 26 9 0 23. 7% 20.0% ~ ----l 32.5% 11.3% 0.0% 0 0.0% 4 - _L_ __ _J_ - -----'-- --~--- 3 3 0 3 ,- 1 9--, 12 6 1 9 27 -}--- --- 1.4% 12.2% _ _1__ 36.5% \" 43.8% 9---4~-o-T 7 2 0 11 4 0 27 10 0 -~----- L 3J.5% 13.5% _j__0.0% ---1. 50.0% 0 0 0 0 0.0% 2 7- T - 7---0--, 3 Q 0 3 2 3 7 0 _7 _ l_ __5_ l_ 10_ __L. __ 2_-------'--__ 2 _ _____._ __ ---'-_0 - 22 23 27 18 26 27 143 20 20 21 19 80 --t-- 25 25 24 74 20 16 27 - _j Page /I of47 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT GRADE DISTRIBUTION REPORT 002 HALL HIGH SCHOOL BY TEACHER WITH 35% OR MORE D's AND F's, 2001-2002 QUARTER ONE Thursday, November OJ, 2001 Teacher [LEFFINGWELL D MALONE H Sec Course Title 114 M10101 ACTIVE PHYS 1-115 j ~10101 iACTIVE Pf-i.YS 116 -1 M10101 :ACTIVE PHYS TEACHER TOTALS \u0026gt; PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's - -- I - -- - 103 M20021 BIOLOGY I 104 M20021 BIOLOGY I ~~20021 i BIOLOGY I_ r~ ?6 M20021 BIOLOGY I 301 r M20021 Bl\u0026lt;2_LOGY I f-\n-302 . M20021 BIOLOGY I TEACHER TOTALS - PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's A 3 9 0 21 14.9% 0 0 2 3 2 1 8 5.5% -t- 109 jEE11001 COMMUNICA I - 2 - - - 110 E11001 COMMUNICA I ~ ~ - ~ 111 f- ~11001 -1COMMUNICA I 112 E11001 COMMUNICAI J 113 E11001 COMMUNICA I 114 E11001 COMMUNICA I 1TEACHER TOTALS PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 1 107 M20021 ,BIOLOGY I I 108 M20021 BIOLOGY I 109 M20021 BIOLOGY I 110 M20041 BIO I PRE-AP 111 M20041 BIO I PRE-AP -,-- - - 112 M20041 BIO I PRE-AP LRSD /11formatio11 Service Dept. 9 4 8 6 30 21.0% 2 0 0 1 9 11 I I I I I B C D F I NC 4 4 1 12 0 0 6 i 5 _o __ J 1 o _,_ o 3 +- ~ --l- 7 __ 1- _ 1_2____ 0 28 32 13 43 4 0 ~ 19.9%n 2.7~ 9.2% -, - 3=0=.5=o/=co ==-=-=2=-.8-=-o/-co_-_-+~: _O.O_/ 39.7% 6 5 2 2 4 24 16.4% 7 2 5 3 4 2 23 16.1% 4 5 2 6 10 9 -i-- 8 I 4 5 0 0 11 I 10 2 0 0 4 0 0 --- --~ 54 - 37.0% _L - T- 5 1 2 3 3 --+- 15_ J_ 10.5% 4 5 3 4 5 I ~ 41 28.1% 40.4% 1 0 - 3 l 1 3 I 0 18 J 1 12.3% 0.7% 7 6 [ _ 0_-+- 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 5 t 6 0 0 8-,--2- ~ I - 0 - 1 --- -- -1 3 7 I 1 o 9 11 43 L 30.1% - 51.0% 2 5 I 6 I 8 2 --r- 2 6 1 3 0 30 _,_ 2 21.0% 1.4% - --- -- -- - 8 0 10 I 0 10 I 1 4 I 0 2 I 0 1 1 -,. 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 - : I Total 24 27 27 141 22 29 25 24 22 24 146 27 23 21 25 22 25 143 20 25 22 23 28 2 7 Page 12 o/47 podaH a:mupuany LITTLE .ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT GRADE DISTRIBUTION REPORT 002 HALL HIGH SCHOOL BY TEACHER WITH 35% OR MORE D's AND F's, 2001-2002 QUARTER ONE Thursday, November OJ, 2001 Teacher RIDLEY R Sec Course Title lEACHER TOTALS - PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's I 105 M30021 - CHEMISTRY I 303 M30021 CHEMISTRY I I 304 I M30021 CHEMISTRY I 305 M30021 CHEMISTRY I 306 M30021 CHEMISTRY I ~ ~7 _0:130021 iCHEMISTR~ _ -TEACH- ER TOTALS ---- - PERCENT I TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 1 A 23 + 15.9% I 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 - 2.1% I B 36 24.8% 0 6 7 C D F 24 25 35 41.4% 5 6 3 I 9 4 4 5 14 6 I 2 I 11 I 5 12 I 6 52.1% I 2 0 I 0 0 I 0 NC 0 0.0% - 0 0 0 0 0 Total 145 16 18 I 25 I 24 I 29 28 140 'ROMAIN K - --+--~-------------------------~-------------- 101 K20061 GEOM PRE-AP I 2 1 8 ' 5 4 4 0 I 0 23 1 '- --t-! ----+----------------------------------------- 101 K30021 PRE-CALCULUS ' 2 \" _ 8_ _ 1 7 I 2 I 0 1 t1- 0 20 h o2- K20001 ALGEBRA II L o - o --:_ -- - -+-- __  .._, --9---+-I - 1- o , 1-9 r 103 b K20041 ~ GEOMETRY - ~ -- 0 0 ' ~- j !- ~--2-0-+- - 2- _)._ O ~ 29 SANDERS D 104 K2006~ _GEOM PRE-AP _ 1 2 + _ 3- -\n_ 5- --t- 7 __8 --,-- __Q_ _ j 0 25 ~ 306 K20041 GEOMETRY O I 4 _ j_ 4 _ _J~ , _1 _ _ 0 _ -I 25 EACHER TOTALS 6 20 31 23 56 I_ 5 0 141  -- P-ER- C-'ENT - 4.3% 14.2% -~ 22.01:- -i - 16.3- .!.-. --3-9-. 7-%-_r 3.5% 1 - 0.0% - TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 101 T O10~ 1 CIVICS - 102 010041 CIVICS -+- 103 1 010041 1CIVICS 104 , 010041 ,CIVICS 105 010041 CIVICS 106 I 010041 ICIVICS TEA CHER TOTALS PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's I I ! 2 0 0 0 2 5 4.0% I 0 3 2 3 4 13 I I I --r 10.3% - - __L 2 4 3 5 8 23 -I I I 56.0% _9_ + 5 7 4 8 I 6 39 I - - - 5 0 7 1 - -, 3 0 I 11 I I I 9 I 0 8 I 43 3 I - -- - --+- ------\n- ----, 1 a.3o/~ l 31__:0__ _3 4_.1_o\n_.. ~-2_.4_ 65.1% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 17 22 15 24 22 26 126 - -- -~ -- - --- . -- ----- ,-- 3 I 12\n3 _ ~I _ 8 __ J [_HELLS~ 101 I 050001 WRLD HIST AP 1 0 I I 12 2 3 7 I 0 0 0 0 30 21 - _ 1ou 020041 WORLD HISTRY LRSD /11formatio11 Service Dept. Page 13 of47 J.rndaH a\n,uupuany ! I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT GRADE DISTRIBUTION REPORT 002 HALL HIGH SCHOOL BY TEACHER WITH 35% OR MORE D's AND F's, 2001-2002 QUARTER ONE Thursday, November OJ, 2001 Teacher Sec Course Title A B C D F I NC Total SHELLS B 102 050001 WRLD HIST AP 2 4 7 7 3 0 0 23 103 J_ 050001 WRLD HIST AP 6 6 2 2 8 1- 0 25 TEACHER TOTALS 9 25 18 15 31 1 0 99 - - --~ -- PERCENT 9.1% 25.3% 18.2% 15.2% 31.3% 1.0% 0.0% - -- t - .L ____ _[_ -- ----- TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 46.5% ,WEBB,C 106 020041 WORLD HISTRY 6 2 6 2 0 18 113 020041 WORLD HISTRY 5 6 5 2 5 0 0 23 113 040041 US GOVERNMNT 5 3 4 10 4 0 27 114lli20041 WORLD HISTRY 6 5 2 2 5 0 0 20 - - -r j --- 115 020041 WORLD HISTRY 0 4 2 4_._._7 3 0 --t-~ lt-116 020041 ~ORLD HISTRY - -- 8 5 ~3- 0 I 10 1 0 27 T - TEACHER TOTALS 30 24 18 10 43 rl 10 j_ 0 135 - - - - ~ -t - -1--- 31.9% - -- PERCENT 22.2% 17.8% 13.3% 7.4% 7.4% 0.0% L_ TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 39.3% ~ 1131 E30021 -EN_GLISH Ill - - 1-~ ? __ ~- - 11-=i_- 0 -r- - WILSON F 2 6 4 1-- 0 26 - 114 E30021 _jENGLISH Ill 1 4 7 5 7 0 0 24 1 115 E30021 ENGLISHIII - j -- - ----'--  - - 0 6 4 - 2 8 0- 0 20 116 E30021 ENGLISH Ill 1 7 10 2 7 0 0 27 117--t E30021 - 1 ENGLISH Ill 2 10 3 2 6 0 0 23 118 I E30021 ENGLISH Ill 2 9 8 8 0 0 28 TEACHER TOTALS 8 42 36 15 47 0 0 148 f - PERCENT 5.4% 28.4% 24.3% ' 10.1% L_ ~~-8% 0.0% I 0.0% t-- TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 41 .9% - LRSD lnformatio11 Service Dept. Page 14 o/47 UOOff .133}UOJOA LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT GRADE DISTRIBUTION REPORT 003 MANN ARTS/SCIENCES MAGNET BY TEACHER WITH 35% OR MORE D's AND F's, 2001-2002 QUARTER ONE Thursday, November Of, 2001 Teacher Sec Course Title A B C D F I NC Total FREEMAN 101 K71001 MATH PLUS 7 0 2 3 5 0 0 0 10 103 [ K70021 JMATH 7 1 6 4 10 0 - ! 0 0 21 -- - - ' - - 104 K70021 MATH 7 5 5 7 L 6 __ j 0 0 0 23 ' -- 106 1 K70021 ... MATH? 0 4 7 8 0 --+-- 0 0 19 l -- -1 ---, - 107 K70021 MATH? 0 3 6 15 0 ' I 0 _j_ _J 24 \u0026gt; - --\n- - --- ' 1TEACH~ TOTALS 6 20 27 44 0 0 0 97 1 27.!Wo 1-45.4o/-\n- -+ 0.0%-r 0.0% r-\n- - ~ PERCENT 6.2% 20.6% _l - .1__0___:0% J_ TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 45.4% !LEVIN 101 K80021 MATH8 2 5 -L- 7 3 6 0 -,- 0 __J 23 --~-- - . - -- --- -- - - 101 K80041 --1MATH8 PRE-AP 1 4 -7 -, 4 2 0 0 18 - -- -.- -+- - 101 K81001 JMATH PL_US 8 4 2 3 1 0 - _J__O 11 -- +- -- 102 K80021 MATH8 1 4 4 4 0 I 0 14 103 K80021 MATH8 0 2 4 11 0 0 18 TEACHER TOTALS 8 16 23 13 24 0 0 84 - - - ---j -- PERCENT 9.5% 19.0% 27.4% 15.5% 28.6% 0.0% 0.0% L TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's - 44.0% LRSD lllformatio11 Service Dept. Page 15 o/47 lo.JOOff .133JUOfOA LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT GRADE DISTRIBUTION REPORT 005 PARKVIEW ARTS/SCIENCE MAGNET BY TEACHER WITH 35% OR MORE D's AND F's, 2001-2002 QUARTER ONE Thursday, November OJ, 2001 Teacher Sec Course Title A B C D F I NC Total ACKLEN R 101 M20021 ,BIOLOGY I 0 0 11 7 0 0 19 1of] M20021 BIOLOGY I 0 0 6 8 4 0 0 18 ! - -- T -----+--- - 103 M20021 BIOLOGY I 0 0 2 15 9 I 0 0 26 t 1BIO I PRE/AP - - -+ - 103 M20041 0 3 -l- 5 10 6 0 0 24 ! -- -~ ------ 104 M20021 BIOLOGY I 0 0 1 8 9 0 0 18 105 M20021 BIOLOGY I 0 0 7 16 0 0 24 7 ITE__ACHER TOTALS 0 4 15 59 51 =r_ o I 0 129 + - 1. 1 - ~ PERCENT 0.0% 3.1% 11.6% 45.7% 39.5% 0.0% 0.0% -+-- TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 85.3% - - _j.._!_0!__ l 020081 _ AFR/AFR AM H ---~- -- ,--- - -- ~RDIMANW_ 3 8 --9 -+ 0 0 1 0 _,__ ?1 - 105 020041 ~ - WLD HISTORY r 0 L 2 7 -+ 8 0 0 0 17 106 020041 WLD HISTORY 4 1 7 4 5 2 0 23 107 020041 WLD HISTORY 5 6 3 14 0 0 29 111 020041 WLD HISTORY 5 4 5 10 0 0 0 24 TEACHER TOTALS 17 21 31 36 I 5 4 0 114 --, - -, -! PERCENT 14.9% 18.4% 27.2% J 31.6% ~ 4% I 3.5% 0.0% - - - TOT AL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 36.0% +=101 [ M10101 l -+ I - MCGEE E ACTIVE PHYS 0 3 10 L 9 1 0 0 23 -- --- ----- -' - 102 M10101 ACTIVE PHYS 0 4 5 6 5 0 0 20 103 M10101 ACTIVE PHYS 3 3 7 6 7 0 0 26 104 M10101 ACTIVE PHYS 0 3 7 9 7 0 0 26 TEACHER TOTALS 3 ... 13 29 30 20 I 0 0 95 - .j 31.6%--j - PERCENT 3.2% 13.7% 30.5% 21.1% 0.0% 0.0% - ...j TO-TAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 52.6% ROBERTS C 101 010041 CIVICS 5 7 10 0 0 24 102 010041 1CIVICS 0 5 6 11 2 0 0 24 103 010041 CIVICS 0 4 1 6 8 0 0 19 104 010041 CIVICS 2 2 8 8 3 0 0 23 106 010061 _)_CIVICS PR/AP 9 8 4 2 3 0 0 26  - - - -+ L - TEACHER TOTALS 12 L 20 24 34 26 0 0 116 - -- - - -- +-- -- PERCENT 10.3% 1 17.2% 20.7% 29.3% 22.4% 0.0% 0.0% TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 51 .7% - --- - -- LRSD I11for111atio11 Service Dept. Page 16 of47 JU3WdOJ3A30 JBUOffifi3J0Jd Ii.IO Off J33JOOJO J\\ J.wdaH aJuupuany )tS!H lf~!H 3!W3pBJV LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT GRADE DISTRIBUTION REPORT 007 DUNBAR INT'L STUDIES MAGNET MIDDLE SCHL BY TEACHER WITH 35% OR MORE D's AND F's, 2001-2002 QUARTER ONE Thursday, November 01, 2001 Teacher Sec Course Title A B C D F I NC Total MOSBY A 101 I 037007 KEYBOARD 7-8 3 3 4 4 5 0 0 19 I 105 037005 KEYBD APPL: 8 4 L 4 3 4 0 J_ 0 23 I- 1 KEYBOARD 7-8 - -- --+-- - +-- -f-- 201 037007 5 2 2 6 4 0 0 19 +- --~ 205 037005 KEYBD APPL: 4 3 5 5 5 0 0 22 - - - - .j ---+- '-- ITEACHl!_R TOTALS _ 20 12 15 18 L 18 0 0 83 ~- - - 21.7% -1- - ~ _ PERCENT 24.1% 14.5% 18.1% 21.7% 0.0% 0.0% TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 43.4% VAN NORTON P 101 E80021 READ/WRITE 8 5 2 6 4 0 0 18 105 1- E80201 . RED/WRT PAPS 2 1 6 5 7 0 0 21 105 E82021 ESL ENG 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 + - 106 E80021 READ/WRITE 8 0 1 2 4 5 0 _j__ 0 12 ' .L -- + -+ ---1--  ,TEACHER TOTALS 8 3 10 15 1~~ 0 i _ O.~o/\n-\n52 r -+-- -t I ~ PERCENT 15.4% 5.8% I 19.2% 28.8% 30.8% 0.0% 1-_ --'- L___ TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's_ 59.6% ------- _j LRSD I11formatio11 Service Dept. Page 17 o/47 J.rndaH 33uupuany LITTLE NOCK SCHOOL DISTRICT GRADE DISTRIBUTION REPORT 008 FAIR HIGH SCHOOL BY TEACHER WITH 35% OR MORE D's AND F's., 2001-2002 QUARTER ONE Thursday, November OJ, 2001 Teacher A. OURY COLEMAN, M. [CULNRY FOODS - D. JONES Sec Course Title 101 F24001 SPANISH II 102 103 0 04 I 105 I 108 F14001 SPANISH I F24001 ~SPANISHII TEACHER TOTALS PERCENT - TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 1- 101 -\n_1 52103 } :_SY. TOT_ 101 153001 .P SYCHO-LOGY 106 1 020041 WORLD HISTRY I 109 020041 WORLD HISTRY I 110 I 020041 WORLD HISTRY I 114 I 020041 WORLD HISTRY lTEACHER TOTALS - - ~ PERCENT -- - - TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 101 P11341 1ND TECH ED 102 P11341 IND TECH ED TEACHER TOTALS L PERCENT - TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's -t- - - 101 K10001 ALGEBRA I 101 K10041 PRE AP ALG.1 102 K10001 ALGEBRA I 102 K20021 ALG II PR-AP 103 K10001 ALGEBRA I ~ 104 ~ K10001 LALGEBRA I TEA CHER TOTALS \u0026gt;- PERCENT 1-- TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's LRSD I11formatio11 Service Dept. JU3Wd0[3J\\3Q ,~U0Jl1113J0.fd unoH .1aaJonI0A A 2 0 ~ I I : 2 2 10 7.3% 0 2 0 0 2 3 B C 4 2 _L - ~ - + -! --, - i~-~ t 12 20 8.8% 14.6% 0 5 2 3 4 I I I 6 10 10 5 7 7 -t I I I D F I 10 8 0 8 5 0 7 12 0 4 I 15 o _ 6 ____ 12 i- _ 0 _ _I_ 2 6 0 . ---f -- i- - 37 58 0 27.0% 69.3% --- 0 42.3% 0.0% - - - - - - -.,,. - 0 I 0 NC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 ' ----+ - +- - 5 1 0 0 4 - - 5 r o I 0 13 2 0 0 5 3 I 0 0 8 0 0 0 --,-- I I Total 26 20 26 26 25 14 137 19 20 27 18 22 7 I 15 --+- 3~-t 35 I 11 0 +-a.~0/~ - 107 - - - 6.5% 0 _ 14.o J__ 36.4~ 32. 1% L 1 o.3% 0.0% ~ ~- . 43.0% 7' ~- --r - 01 -~ - 0 0 0 0 I 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 3 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 4 -----+- t-- 0.0% -I- 25.0% 0.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 0.0% L 50.0% ~ 2 4 3 5 10 0 0 24 3 7 1 8 2 0 0 21 0 3 4 3 13 0 0 23 2 8 3 3 0 0 0 16 1 5 11 3 4 0 0 24 0 2 4 6 13 0 0 25 _j, 8 29 26 28 42 0 0 133 - 6.0% 21.8% 19.5% 21.1% 31.6% 0.0% 0.0% - 52.6% - - - P\"ge 18 of47 J.rndaH a\n,uupuany 'fS!}I ({~!ff 3!W3pu\n,y I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT GRADE DISTRIBUTION REPORT 008 FAIR HIGH SCHOOL BY TEACHER WITH 35% OR MORE D's AND F's~ 2001-2002 QUARTER ONE Thursday, November OJ, 2001 Teacher D.CUMMINGS DI ESL.TECH [ACKLES HALL L Sec Course Title 101 E20161 ENG.II PREAP 102 E20161 +ENG.II P~EAP 105 E30021 _ENGLISH Ill 106 E30021 ENGLISH Ill !TEACHER TOTALS f- PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 101 P21261 DIESL TECH 1 102 L P21001 ~AUTO BODY I [TEACHER TG__TALS PERCENT - TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's _ j 102 1 P21021 AUTO TECH I TEACHER TOTALS PERCENT ----+ TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's - - --+ 103 010041 CIVICS 104 010041 CIVICS 105 010041 CIVICS 105 030041 t-jus HISTORY 106 010041 CIVICS 107 010061[CIVICS PREAP TEACHER TOTALS PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's __ _]_J 018]52001 --1BIBLE/IN_LIT 101 E40021 ENGLISH IV j 102 E40021 -ENGLISH IV - 103 E40021 ENGLISH IV 104 E40021 ENGLISH IV l 105 J_ E40021 ENGLISH IV --+ LRSD l,zformatio11 Service Dept. A 2 3 7 8.7% 0 0 1 B 4 2 6 2 14 17.5% 0 1 - C 4 I _3 _l 3 + -- _j_ -- 3 13 16.3% 0 0 0 D F I NC 6 3 0 0 2 7 0 0 -- --\"-- 2 11 0 0 ---+--- 3 12 0 0 -- 13 33 0 0 --+- -+- - - 16.3% 41.2% 0.0% 0.0% - 57.5% 0 0 0 0 1 0 -+ 0 0 -j- 1 __ -+ 0 --l- 0 -1-- 0 0 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% - I 5_0.~~0% l ~o __ o.oo/~ _, 50.0% i 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 --t- - --- --+-- 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% --~-------- -, 100.0% 5 --- 9 - 0- -/-0 2 8 11 0 0 0 ___J _ 1_-+-_ 9 ---i-- _ 9_-+--__1 - -+--0- 1 I 2 10 1 10 0 0 ~ -4 ~r l- ~ -- : -----+----2-----+--- ~ ---+----+-------,-- -+ 8 19 +- 44 48_---+-_ 5 ----+---0-- 6.5% 15.3% 35.5% 38.7% 4.0% 0.0% 1 - l _J_ 42.7% 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 -- 0 0.0% 0 3 5 2 5 9 4 5 - 3 - _j_ ---+-- + - 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 - -------+- 3 - 2-~ 0 - - 6 5 ' 5 0 0 7 8 5 2 0 0 0 11 5 3 I __ t_ 6 0 ---'- - - .L 0 _J Total 18 16 25 21 80 1 2 1 22 22 20 23 18 19 124 11 22 16 23 22 25 Page/9of47 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT GRADE DISTRIBUTION REPORT 008 FAIR HIGH SCHOOL BY TEACHER WITH 35% OR MORE D's AND F's, 2001-2002 QUARTER ONE Thursday, November OJ, 2001 Teacher !HARRISON K. Sec Course Title TEACHER TOTALS PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's -- - - 1 ~ - K20001 IALG EBRA 102 K20001 ALGEBRA 1 103 K20001 ALGEBRA 104 K20001 ALGEBRA 105 K20001 ALGEBRA 106 K20001 ALGEBRA !TEACHER TOTALS - PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 101 B20041 PAINTING 102 l B10001 INTRO TO ART I 1 05 - B10001 l1NTRO TO ART TEACHER TOTALS PERCENT -I A 10 8.4% 0 0 - 2 1.6% 2 7 10 - _, .. 20.8% _ j : I B 41 --, 34.5% 2 -, 2 2 2 5 14 11.4% 0 I C D F I 25 23 20 0 16.8% 0.0% ----~-- 36.1% NC I 0 - -- 0.0% .L_ 2- ~,--4----1-1 -~i - -0 - - - 0 0 2 4 _j 10 8.1% 0 4 17 0 I 0 5 12 0 0 6 7 0 I 0 6 I 16 0 0 - 3 6 0 0 --- 28 69 0 0 22.8% -- 56.1%- ~ 0- -,- 0.0% - 78.9% 0 0 0 0 7 5 1 7 0 0 2 , _ 0 = 3 ]'-=- 8 ~_,__ __5_ ___._ _0 _ 9 I ~ -~ 9 _ j __12 0 1a.ao\n.-t- 1s.1o\n. I 1a.ao\n. 2s.oo\n. o.oo\n. 7 -j -1 0 0.0% _____l_____ -- - ~-------+-__ T_O~T.'AL PER!\n_ENT OF D's AND F's -l _ _ 43.8% M. MEHYOU 101 F11001 FRENCH I I '1 9 4 101 F21001 FRENCH II 4 -5 ---+-- 101 F31001 IFRENCH Ill - -----r- ~~ - 1 -..._ 3 1 4 0 3 I 3 ,- 2 0 4 2 4 0 101 F51001 jFRENCH 1v AP _ _J __ o_ _ __ 1 __ J_ 102 F11001 FRENCH I - 102 F21001 FRENCH II 0 5 - 4 -j --- 3 3 --1 --+ 0 1 0 5- -, 4 5 0 6 8 0 103 F21001 !FRENCH II 4 4 5 9 0 25 22 --1 - 20.5% 18.0% (!EACHER TOTALS PERCENT 21 J_ 17 .2o/.\n--i-17.2% 21 33 0 27.0% 0.0% --~ - TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 44.3% 4 - - ---- -- ----..- M.HARDER 106 M30021 CHEMISTRY I 2 1 5 7 5 0 107 M30021 CHEMISTRY I 4 3 7 8 6 0 I 108 M30021 CHEMISTRY I 2 3 9 5 10 0 2 I 2 5 L 109 [\u0026amp;i20021 JBIOLO_GY I LRSD I11for111atio11 Service Dept. 0 -3 0 - ---1...----~---~-- J.rndal{ 33UUpmmv I -- I ~- I I - - 0 0 0 - 0.0% 0 0 0 _J 0 Total 119 19 22 20 18 25 19 123 22 25 48 20 27 122 20 28 29 12 .. Page 20 o/47 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT GRADE DISTRIBUTION REPORT 008 FAIR HIGH SCHOOL BY TEACHER WITH 35% OR MORE D's AND F's, 2001-2002 QUARTER ONE Thursday, November OJ, 2001 Teacher Sec Course Title ~.HARDER __ _ 109 I M30021 !CHEMISTRY I N. AUSTIN (PALMER R 113 I 131011 _l\\DVSCI/RSRCH TEACHER TOTALS --- -- ---- - PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 101 172135 TRAVEL/TOUR 107 031019 COMPTECH INT 109 031019 COMPTECH INT 111 031019 COMPTECH INT 113 031019 COMPTECH INT 115 031019 COMPTECH INT PieACHER TOTALS r-- PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's ::fo~ K20041 GEOMETRY 101 1-- K20061 1 GEO~ PRE-AP 102 K20041 GEOMETRY 102 K20061 GEOM PRE-AP 103 K20041 GEOMETRY 104 K20041 GEOMETRY TEACHER TOTALS ~ PERCENT --t-- . TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 101--r 020041 WORLD HISTRY 101 I 040041 US GOVERNMNT 102 020041 WORLD HISTRY 102 040041 US GOVERNMNT 103 020041 WORLD HISTRY 105 020041 LWORLD HISTRY TEACHER TOTALS PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's LRSD lllformatio11 Service Dept. I -1 I A _2_J 11 - -~ 9.3% 3 3 0 0 3 10 10.9% 2 1 2 4 B 7 2 -- 19 j 16.1% 1 5 2 3 3 5 19 20.7% 3 3 4 3 3 4 11 8.4% 20 ~ 1 5.3% f 3 0 4 10 0 18 15.0% 10 5 4 4 2 26 21.7% J.JOdaH .33UUpuanv C D F I NC Total o I 3 6 0 o I 17 5 I 2 1 33 0 28 I 27 0 -t- - 23. 7% 22.9_% __ L._2_8_.0_%__J_ ~0% 50.8% 0.0% 2 3 5 3 5 5 23 25.0% 4 5 8 i -t 6 6 I 4 4 2 4 10 0 21 22.8% 43.5% 7 --1. 8 2 2 3 3 19 20.7% - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% -f --j I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% I 0 4 ~ , 00 -+-- 0- 1 ---+-- -----l--- - ' 5 5 0 I 0 --+ - --r-----c - --j- - ~ i ~ I ~ - +--~----4 5 I 10 o o 32 35 I 33 0 0 25.2% - - 24.-4_%_'--2_6_. 7_%_ l 0~0% 51.1% 5 3 5 2 6 10 31 - 25.8% - --- - 5 1 5 5 5 0 5 3 3 8 4 31 14 ----+-- - 25.8% 11.7% 37.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- ~-0 0 0 - 0.0% 0.0% 17 14 15 13 19 14 92 25 15 23 16 28 24 131 22 21 14 13 26 24 120 Pagel/ o/47 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT GRADE DISTRIBUTION REPORT 008 FAIR HIGH SCHOOL BY TEACHER WITH 35% OR MORE D's AND F's, 2001-2002 QUARTER ONE Th11rsday, November OJ, 2001 Teacher lp1CKERING J R.CARPENTER RON HART Sec Course Title 1 101 052007 MYTHOLOGY f 10HJE30021 ....JENGLISH Ill 101 E50081 ENG IV AP -102 E30021 EN-GLISH Ill L.!_02 j E50081 ENG IV AP_ : 103  E30021 ENGLISH Ill TEACHER TOTALS I PERCENT  T(!!AL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 101 P21201 RADIO BRDCT1 - ~ ..i TEAC-HER TOTALS -- - PERCENT OTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 112001 -ACT P-REP-MTH 103 112001 ACT PREP-MTH 105 K20081 ' CONCEPT GEOM 106 ~ 10001 ALGEBRA I 107 108 4 K10001 .A LGEBRA I K10001 ALGEBRA I TEACHER TOTALS PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's ~ REGAN --~_102 -+ 052003 1 ACT_ PR_EP_ E_NG 103 E10041 1 ENG I PRE-AP 104 E10041\nENG I PRE-AP 108 I E10021 ENGLISH I 108 I E20141 ENG.II WKSP TEACHER TOTALS PERCENT - TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's ~ .ANDERSON 101 101 LRSD lllformatio11 Service Dept. - - - E11001 COMMUNICA I E11121 J_LEADE~SHIP l _J_ l_ I - --, A 2 2 1 3 0 9 7.9% 0 0 15 10 0 2 2 0 29 24.2% - 10 6 4 0 21 18.9% B 4 5 3 -+ - 6 4 --, 3 25 21.9% 0 0 0.0% --'- 6 3 _J - 0 2 2 2 15 12.5% 0 3 3 3 5 14 12.6% 4 T 2 21 _J 4 C D F I NC 0 6 0 0 0 6 9 0 0 ~ !_ --I- 1 3 0 j______Q__ ~ t ~  ~ ~ 6 1 1 , 1 .__ o 28 - 26 26 0 24.6% 0 I- - - -, - 7 22.8% 45.6% -- 0 22.8% 0.0% 0 0 0 --- 0 0 0.0% 0 _ _ o __0 _1 __1_ +- _ o_ o 0.0% ~0!o _J_ 100.:_0 L ~~ _l_ _ ~0% 100.0% __9 ----l-- o 1 o - T- - o 2  0 2 0 0 1()__~ __ 4 __ 1 o-r- o ___, __ o 4 7 4 0 0 -+ - - 2 3 2 7 0 0 4 14 7 0 0 21 17.5% o o o o I --,c---------+-----!-- ----, 10 4 2 0 I 2 4 7 0 2 6 15 0 0 - 0 0 0 8 3 12 0 22 17 36 1 0 1 Total 12 23 16 22 18 23 114 1 22 17 24 19 15 23 120 10 25 20 26 30 111 -----+----+-- J____ -- 19.8% 15.3% 32.4% 0.9% 0.0% 47.7% ----- ------ 7 5 1 0 T 0 19 0 ___._ _o_ ---L_ __o_ _ J_ ___Q_ 0 _ j 25 Page 22 o/47 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT GRADE DISTRIBUTION REPORT 008 FAIR HIGH SCHOOL BY TEACHER WITH 35% OR MORE D's AND F's, 2001-2002 QUARTER ONE Thursday, November OJ, 2001 Teacher S.ANDERSON S.GOODNIGHT THOMPSON P TOM ROSS Sec Course Title 102 E11001 COMMUNICA I 103 E11001 'COMMUN I CA I 104 E11001 COMMUNICA I +- - 105 E11001 COMMUNICA I TEACHER TOTALS ' PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 101 f 101 H02 102 105 107 109 111 T30001 ATHL TCS GIii T40001 ATHLTCS G IV T30001 ATHL TCS GIii T40001 'A THL TCS G IV 131011DVSCI/RSRCH 131011 ADVSCI/RSRCH 131011 ADVSCI/RSRCH 131011 ADVSCI/RSRCH TEACHER TOTALS r PERCENT I-- TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's ~ 01 E30041 ENG 3 PRE~AP 102 E30041 ENG 3 PRE-AP I 103 E30041 ENG 3 PRE-AP ~ 106 j E40021 ENGLISH IV 107 r E40021 [ENGLISH IV f- - TEA CHER TOTALS PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 101 E20141 ENG.II WKSP 102 103 104 E20141 ENG.II WKSP 052003 ACT PREP- ENG E30021 ENGLISH Ill '---~ LRSD lllformatio11 Service Dept, A 0 1 5 0 31 21.8% 2 8 3 8 0 5 28 25.7% 2 3 0 7 7.0% 5 4 11 0 -I -1 B 5 7 2 6 26 18.3% 0 0 0 0 3 6 6 4 19 - 17.4% 5 4 7 5 2 23 23.0% 3 3 7 4 C D F I 5 3 11 0 6 9 5 0 - - - - 7 7 4 0 5 ~-=- ~-=- -=-5----+-- _2 30 29 26 0 - +- 21.1% 20.4% 18.3% _ _j_ 0 o l o _L 0 2 4 2 9 17 15.6% - 7 8 2 3 6 38.7% 0 0 0 0 0 t _ 0-1 0 0 --i- 3 2 6 2 13 11.9% 41.3% 4 4 4 6 5 4 8 11 9 32 29.4% 3 4 4 4 6 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 NC 0 0 0 _(__ q_ l.. 0 0.0% 0 L _o r 0  ~ 0 -+ I 0 I o 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 26 23 21 0 0 26.0% 23.0~21.0% 1 0.0% ., 0.0% -~-- 44.0% 7 --,------------- _ _j_ 2 4 6 0 3 5 9 0 0 0 0 0 Total 24 28 25 21 142 2 8 3 8 13 20 26 29 109 20 22 18 21 19 100 20 24 24 23 P\"ge 23 of47 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT GRADE DISTRIBUTION REPORT 008 FAIR HIGH SCHOOL BY TEACHER WITH 35% OR MORE D's AND F's, 2001-2002 QUARTER ONE Thursday, November 01, 2001 Teacher Sec Course Title A B C D F I NC Total TEACHER TOTALS I PERCENT 20 17 11 14 I 29 0 0 91 ,-22.0% I ~ ---+- __ J __ --+---- -- - 18.7% 12.1% 15.4% 31.9% 0.0% 0.0% -- - +- _JOT1_L PERG_~N_T_OF D's AND F's 47.3% ~- UMERAH 101 K20081 CONCEPT GEOM 0 0 3 4 4 0 0 11 102 K20081 CONCEPT GEOM 8 5 8 0 0 23 104 K20081 CONCEPT GEOM 0 3 8 10 4 0 0 25 I 107 K20001 1ALGEBRA II 0 3 13 6 3 0 0 25 10a I K20001 ALGEBRA II 1 I 1 6 I 14 I 4 0 0 j 26 i 113 I K20081 !CONCEPT GEOM _ 3 3 I 5 I 9 I 4 0 0 24 +- - I 43 i - -- TEACHER TOTALS I 11 48 27 0 0 134  5 I - - -- --- I I PERCENT 3.7% 8.2% i 32.1% I 35.8% 20.1% 0.0% I 0.0% TOTALPERCENTOFD'sANDF's __ 56.0% -- LRSD I11formatio11 Service Dept. Page 24 o/47 J.JOd3H 33UUpuanv I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT GRADE DISTRIBUTION REPORT 009 FOREST HEIGHTS MIDDLE SCHOOL BY TEACHER WITH 35% OR MORE D's AND F's, 2001-2002 QUARTER ONE Thursday, No1ember OJ, 2001 Teacher JOHNSON T. ROBERT ROBERSON - [WILLIAMS K Sec Course Title 203 E80041 ENG 8 PRE-AP [ .1_03 E80061 1 RESRCH8PR-AP 204 E80041 ENG 8 PRE-AP +- 205 E80021 READ/WRITES TEACHER TOTALS - - PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 205 S60081 SOC ST 6 RR 205 S70061 SCIENCE 7 RR ' 205 1 S70081 'soc ST 7 RR 205 L S80081 roe ST 8 RR 1 502 I S60061 SCIENCE 6 RR 502 S60081 SOC ST 6 RR 502 502 503 503 504 I 504 '-- S70061 SCIENCE 7 RR S70081 SOC ST 7 RR S60061 ,SCIENCE 6 RR S80061 SCIENCE 8 RR - S60061 SCIENCE 6 RR S6ooa 1 l soc ST 6 RR- ~ 504 + S70061 SCIENCE 7 RR L 504 r S70081 SOC ST 7 RR I 504 ~ S80081 !SOC ST 8 RR I 506 S60081 SOC ST 6 RR I 506 S70061 SCIENCE 7 RR 506 S70081 SOC ST 7 RR 506 S80081 SOC ST 8 RR TEACHER TOTALS . PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 106 1 K80061 ALG I PRE-AP 201 K80021 MATH 8 tlBU K80021 jMATH 8 -- LRSD /11formatio11 Service Dept. A 0 5 1 2 8 9.1% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J._ - 1 - 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 10.3% 0 0 0 ' I I I I B 11 4 10 2 27 30.7% 0 C 4 3 -+ - 5 7 ~ -- 19 21.6% 0 0 0 0 - I _ o _ ~-1 -L 0 2 0 0 I 0 0 0 I I D 4 2 -..,-- 1 4 11 12.5% 37.5% 0 2 --- 0 0 0 0 0 i 0 0 F I 7 1 5 ___L_Q_ 5 ---- 5 0 0 22 1 25.0% 1.1% 0 0 -~- 0 0 ---+-- 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NC 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 I O 0 I o 0 0 I 0 --+- - - 0 0 0 0 ~_0_......,f,_ - 2 I t- 0 -+----+,-----+---- _____, -+ - 1 0 1 ~- _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7.7% 9 l_O -r - - + 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 15.4% - - 0 I 1 r- -1 13 33.3% I 56.4% 5 5 2 12 _j__1_0 _ L 11 2 0 0 0 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 23.1% 10.3% 0- -.-1 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 t Total 27 19 22 20 88 2 1 4 1 i3-i 1 2 I ' i 3 2 3 1 2 1 4 1 2 2 2 2 39 20 23 28 Page 25 o/47 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT GRADE DISTRIBUTION REPORT 009 FOREST HEIGHTS MIDDLE SCHOOL BY TEACHER WITH 35% OR MORE D's AND F's, 2001-2002 QUARTER ONE Tlt11rsday, November OJ, 2001 Teacher Sec Course Title A B C D F I NC Total ~ILLIAMS K 202 KS0041 MATHS PRE-AP 0 0 6 3 I 0 0 10 203 KS0041 MATHS PRE-AP 0 2 7 10 0 I 0 20 I-- -- - - - ~ + + TEACHER TOTALS 0 12 30 47 10 2 0 101 --!- - --1- - -+- --- PERCENT 0.0% 11.9% 29.7% 46.5% 9.9% 2.0% 0.0% - - - - - TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 56.4% - - - LRSD I11formatio11 Service Dept. Page26 of47 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT GRADE DISTRIBUTION REPORT 011 SOUTHWEST MIDDLE SCHOOL BY TEACHER WITH 35% OR MORE D's AND F's, 2001-2002 QUARTER ONE Thursday, November OJ, 1001 Teacher DAVIS, D. [DIRDEN, R. JACKSON, A. Sec Course Title 201 M80041 SCI 8 PRE-AP 202 M80021 SCIENCE 8 204 M80021 1SCIENCE 8 I--- - 206 M80021 SCIENCE 8 207 I M80021 SCIENCE 8 rTEACHER TOTAs - PERCENT -T~OT AL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 111 S60021 'READ/WR 6RR 111 S80021 1READ/WR 8 RR 114 -t S60041 MATH 6 RR 114 ' S70041 MATH 7 RR 114 S80041 MATH 8 RR 115 S60021 READ/WR 6RR 115 S70021 READ/WR 7 RR 1 115 S80021 READ/WR 8 RR [TEACHER TOTALS ____ _ PERCENT \u0026gt;--------- - A 13 1 3 1 3 21 28.8% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's --4 __ 201 M60041 SCI 6 PRE-AP 3 202 M60021 SCIENCE 6 6 205 M60021 SCIENCE 6 ---- - 206 M60021 SCIENCE 6 - - l 207 M60021 SCIENCE 6 TEACHER TOTALS ~- -- PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 201 E60021 READ/WRITE6 205 E60021 READ/WRITE6 207 j E60061 RESRCH6PR-AP 2 -3 -0 14 13.3% 2 3 0 LRSD l11formatio11 Service Dept, UUOff .1\n)3}UU(O J\\ I J B C D F I NC 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 0 0 0 2 - --- +- ~ ~ --, ---- 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 I 2 0 0 0 I I o o I o Total 16 5 2 4 1 7 3 3 3 1_-1 14 3.6% _j_ 50.0% 13 _ _,1'--o ___ o_ -L _ o __j 28 6 2 4 20 19.0% 5 3 2 [_ 46.4% o.o o.o __o.0 1c_. --i 46.4% 4 - 0 0 o -i----o 3 4 7 0 0 7 8 3 0 ---\n--- --+----\u0026gt;------+ 3 4 . 12 - ---t- ----+- - --+--- 2 6 7 0 ----+--- 19 22 29 - _..__ ----r-- - - 18.1% 6 4 4 21.0% 27.6% 1.0% 48.6% 7 3 8 3 _ [ _9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 14 26 21 25 +- 19 105 21 21 18 Page17of47 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT GRADE DISTRIBUTION REPORT 011 SOUTHWEST MIDDLE SCHOOL BY TEACHER WITH 35% OR MORE D's AND F's~ 2001-2002 QUARTER ONE Thursday, November OJ, 2001 Teacher JAMES B JOHNSON, M. OWENS Sec Course Title TEACHER TOTALS PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 201 080021 Tsoc ST a 204 SOC ST 8 205 SOC ST 8 206 080041 SOC ST8PREAP 207 080021 SOC ST 8 TEACHER TOTALS PERCENT TOTAL PERC-ENT OF D's AND F's 201 060021 SOC ST 6 202 060021 SOC ST 6 205 060021 SOC ST 6 206 060041 SOC ST6PREAP r 207 060021 SOC ST 6 TEACHER TOTALS L PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 10~ 060021 Tsoc ST 6 - - 103 060041 ~so~ ST6PREAP 104 060041 SOC ST6PREAP - - - 105 060021 SOC ST 6 106 060021 SOC ST 6 TEACHER TOTALS r -- -- PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 102 f- K60041 CMATH6 PRE-AP 103 K60021 MATH 6 104 K60021 MATH 6 105 K60041 ,MATH6 PRE-AP 106 K60021 MATH 6 LRSD Informatio11 Service Dept.' JuawdopA3Q 11mo111113J0.fd A 5 8.3% - 0 0 0 3 4 5.4% 5 0 0 5 0 10 10.4% 0 7 5 0 0 12 12.5% 3 1 7 2 I-B C D F I NC Total 10 14 7 24 0 60 ~ - 16.7% 23.3% 11.7% 40.0% 0.0% -~- 51 -7 ,- 2 5 3 0 0 11 4 13 5 0 0 23 3 3 3 3 0 0 12 3 2 5 0 0 0 13 0 4 8 2 0 0 15 8 15 34 13 0 74 - r 10.8% 20.3% 1 45.9% r -+ 17.6% 0 0.0% t--- 0.0% 6 6 3 7 2 24 6 6 4 4 4 24 25.0% 25.0% - 4 .-J- 7 4 _ I o 3 1- _ o 3 5 5 6 18 _J 63.5% 2 10 0 0 13 - ' -,.. 2 0 5 0 4 0 0 --+ O_ - 13- 1 -.- - 24 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 13.5% I 25.0% 1.0% 0.0% - 21 18 21 16 20 96 38.5% ---~-- -1 ~ 11 6 0 7 0 -+-28 - _L - _ o_-4-__ 1_---+ __ o 1-= o _ 1 12 -~ 0 ~ 0 0  __ 0 8 --+- 1 8 0_ 7 5 0 l 0 23 6 T o o 25 29 18 0 0 96 -,- ' - -- 19 19.8% 18.8% 30.2% 18.8% 0.0% 0.0% 4 1 2 2 5 4 j - 7 5 7 49.0% 1 6 7 2 7 -+- 6 0 0 8 0 0 0 5 _J_ _Q 0 0 0 0 ..L - 0 --, - 13 21 23 12 26 Page28of47 J.JOd.JH 33UBpuanv LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT GRADE DISTRIBUTION REPORT 011 SOUTHWEST MIDDLE SCHOOL BY TEACHER WITH 35% OR MORE D's AND F's, 2001-2002 QUARTER ONE Thursday, November 01, 2001 Teacher Sec Course Title rEACHER TOTALS PERCENT -- -- - TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's ~HEPHERoi=_I - -- 101 037001 CAREER ORIEN 102 037001 1CAREER ORIEN 103 036003 KEYBOARDING 105 037001 !CAREER ORIEN 107 I 037001 CAREER ORIEN TEACHER TOTALS A 14 ,_ 14.7% -+--- I 2 I 2 I 1 I 0 I 4 9 -- - STAGGS S. STRIGEL, I. [!ATE, K. I PERCENT t- -- -- ____ _J_ TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 102 O80021 7 SOCST 8-- 103 1 080021 soc ST 8 104 080021 SOC ST 8 106  080021 SOC ST 8 107 080041 _,_soc ST8PREA.!:__ [TEACHER TOTALS I- - - PERCENT L TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 202 K70021 MATH 7 + 203 K70021 MATH 7 r204 K70021 -,MATH 7 206 K7004\"!.._1J1ATH7 PRE-AP _ EACHER TOTALS PERCENT -t TO-TA L PER-CENT OF- D's AND F's 202 E70021 READ/WRITE? 204 E70061 1 RESRCH?PR-AP 215 E70021 READ/WRITE? LRSD /11formatio11 Service Dept. 10.1% - 3 0 0 - 1- 5 9 11.5% 0 0 0 6 r- - 6 8.3% 0 2 B 14 14.7% r 2 1 I 0 I 1 I 2 6 [___ _ \" 6.7% 4 2 7 15 19.2% C D F I NC Total 24 23 20 L_ 0 - - - - 1- 0 95 -I --25.3-% 24.2% 21.1% I 0.0% I 45.3% ---~-0.0_!'~ - 4 5 I 6 I 0 I 0 I 19 6 9 I 5 I 0 I 0 23 4 3 I 1 I 0 I 0 I 9 5 8 I 4 I 0 ' 0 i 18 3 5 I 6 I 0 I 0 20 22 30 22 0 0 89 I ...J. - - ~ 24.~~ _ _l _E.7 ~ 24. 7% 0.0% 0.0% I ~ -- 58.4% 3--~ - 5- ,--- 9- --r-- o - -- o 19 1 3 7 0 0 15 0 3 3 0 0 10 rr- -4 - i- 6 _,_ o-- o o -l---- -+--- - . ~- - 4 3_ 3 ~ 0 J _ -0 - -7 - 22 12 12 20 22 0 0 78 15.4% ~ 25.6 ~-28.2/~ 0.0/~- I -O.oo/:- 53.8 9 ~ -- 6 -T 1 0 18 I - ~- - 9 i _ 4 _ _I__ 4_ -- 0 0 18 2 1 3 5 11 -l-- 4 _ 9 _ __,f,--__2_ ---+-_0 0 4- 1 3 j O O 0 18 18 15.3% 0 - - 6 2 I -- --\n- 26 22 7 0 0 72 ---+- - 36.1% 30.6% 9.7% 0.0% 0.0% 40.3% 4 - 5-~ 0 0 I - f--4 - 0 -r- 0 _l 2 9 4 ~-4-~ __ 6_~ __ 0 __j_--=- 0 _L 11 19 17 Page 29 o/47 i I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT GRADE DISTRIBUTIONREPORT 011 SOUTHWEST MIDDLE SCHOOL BY TEACHER WITH 35% OR MORE D's AND F's~ 2001-2002 QUARTER ONE Thursday, November OJ, 2001 Teacher Sec Course Title A B C D F I NC Total TEACHER TOTALS 3 8 15 9 12 0 0 47 '. ~19.1 .=\n_ 2s.5d o.o ~ -- - PERCENT 6.4% 17.0% 31.9% 0.0% L TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's - --\u0026lt; 44.7% [!ATUM -- T - ---, - 201 K60021 MATH6 0 4 I 8 6 7 0 0 25 I 202 K60041 1MATH6 PRE-AP 0 5 4 5 0 0 0 14 205 K60021 MATH6 0 2 5 10 0 19 206 K60021 MATH6 0 1 2 3 10 0 0 16 207 K60021 MATH6 0 2 6 I 5 9 0 0 22 t TEACHER TOTALS_ 0 13 22 24 36 1 0 96 r - - PER-CENT 0.0% 13.5% ~-I 22.~ 0% ..L_37.~% J 1.0% 0.0% TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 62.5% IWOODLEYC - 1E60021 fREAD/WRITE6 7 - - -r- - 211 0 3 2 4 8 1 I 0 18 215 E60041 ENG 6 PRE-AP 5 8 2 2 I 2 0 0 19 216 E60021 READ/WRITE6 0 7 4 3_-1- 7 [_O 0 21 ~EACHER TOTALS - . - __)_ 5 18 _ 8 _ l _ 9 I 17 I 1 0 58 +---- PERCENT 8.6% 31.0% 13.8% 15.5% 29.3% 1.7__J_ 0.0% ' - _j_ __ __, TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 44.8% - L - - ---- LRSD l11formatio11 Service Dept. P\"ge 30of47 J.rndaH a:mupuany LITTLE NOCK SCHOOL DISTRICT GRADE DISTRIBUTION REPORT 012 MCCLELLAN HIGH SCHOOL BY TEACHER WITH 35% OR MORE D's AND F's, 2001-2002 QUARTER ONE Thursday, November OJ, 2001 Teacher lj,.LEXANDER JAMES Sec Course Title 131 M20021 BIOLOGY I f- 13ir M20021 BIOLOGY I _ 13t+-M20021 1 - BIOLOGY I f 214 1 M10101 _ACTIVE PHYS , 22?__M10101 1ACTIVE PHYS ~ 231 ~ M30021 Cl::!_EMISTRY I TEACHER TOTALS - - - - ....,_ PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's - 101 I O31081 ' ccEREL_I_ - ~ 103 031121 CCE COOPI PM 1 103 Q41121 -+CCE CP II PM 104 Q31101 CCE COOP I 201 031081 CCE REL I I 201 041081 CCERELII !TEACHER TOTALS PERCENT A 0 3 3 1 2 10 8.8% 2 2 0 4 4 13 22.8% __j J_ --+- B 3 3 14 6 3 4 33 28.9% 3 0 7 12.3% C 6 .L - 4 2 3 5 D 3 8 6 0 5 11 F 6 2 I NC 0 0 0 I 0 0 - j -- 0 0 0 -----, I o L-o 0 0 - -- - -- i- 21 + 33_ ___,__1_1_--+--__o --t 18.4% __1__ 28.9% ~-14_.9_0/co __ O.O_ _ _j__ 0 --- 0.0% 43.9% 0 -- 0 0 I - 0-1 2 I 1 11 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 6 17 0 24.6% - ---+- - 0 0.0% -+- - 10.5% 29.8% 0.0% Total 19 12 30 16 14 23 114 13 - 8 2 19 13 2 57 TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 40.4% [ooGAN-ARMON~R _1~ _1_0_1_ _1_ 10_0_2_1~ 1FAM D_Y_N_AM_IC_S_ _____3 _ ___5_ ___4_ ___2_ ___2_ -_-_-=-__o _ ___o_ ___16_ _ 102 091001 HSE/INT DSN: 6 0 7 2 5 0 0 20 CARTER MARION 104 091009 CHILD DEVEL: 201 091013 CLOTH MGMT: 202 --l- 091013 1CLOTH MGMT: L 203 -L 110021 FAM DYNAMICS [TEACHER TOTALS - PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 102 K20041 GEOMETRY 1i 4 K20001 ALGEBRA II 121 - K20041 ~GEOMETRY 201 K20001 ALGEBRA II 4- - - -- 202 K20041 -GEOM- ETRY -- --- LRSD I11formatio11 Service Dept. _l 2 7 3 2 4 0 0 18 2 4 J 2 + 4 + 2 0 0 I 14 3 1 1 0 2-- - 7 ~ -q__ 0 ] 14 5 6 _ , 3 ---+---2---+ __ o -1---o 11 21 t _ 23_ -\n~ --+ _ ~ I 22 Q Q T 99 21.2% 23.2% 2~.2% j 13.1o/\"._ ~ 22.21/~_0.0% 0.0% 35.4% 3 3 6 2 10 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 5 ,-6-+- - 6- -1 -o-- - o - ----~-_L 5 2 3 4 5 I 3 5 0 0 L -=-5-__ t_ 4 - 9 -t- - 0-_J_O 5 5 -2 ~ 8 - 24 10 24 23 28 Page JI o/47 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT GRADE DISTRIBUTION REPORT 012 MCCLELLAN HIGH SCHOOL BY TEACHER WITH 35% OR MORE D's AND F's, 2001-2002 QUARTER ONE Thursday, November 01, 1001 Teacher CARTER MARION CHAMBERS A I_QQ N IN____ J [puCKERY KRYSTAL Sec Course Title 204 I K20041 1GEOMETRY [TEACHER TOTA_!:S PERCENT - , TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's A 19 14.7% B 23 - 17.8% I r102 Q11001EXP IND TECH- -j- 2-1 -- 111 M10101 ACTIVE PHYS 113 M10101 ACTIVE PHYS 201 M10101 ACTIVE PHYS 212 M10101 ACTIVE PHYS 213 1 M10101_:ACTIVE PHYS _ TEACHER TOTALS PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 101 E40021 1ENGLISH IV 4 0 0 3 3 _ -- 0 --!-- 1 2 2 -- - - 5 14 4.6% 13.0% 0 3 f 103 3 8 t E40021 iENGLISH IV ---- -+ 04 E40021 ENGLISH IV _! 203 E40021 +ENGLISH~ ' 204 E40021 ENGLISH IV -- 1TEACHER TOTALS PERCENT -I TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 113 K10001 1 ALGEBRAI 121 K10001 ALGEBRA I ' 1241 K10001 ~ALGEBRA I 211 K10001 ALGEBRA I 213 K10001 ,ALGEBRA I 214 K10001 ALGEBRA I TEACHER TOTALS - ., PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's - 2 3 11 19 19.6% 0 2 0 2 6 5.2% 0 __j_ I I ' - 3 3 4 21 21.6% 6 4 3 4 3 6 26 - 22.6% ~ o J ~ C 10 31 24.0% i 8 4 4 1 7 - 8 32 L 29.6% 6 -- -j - 3- - 3 - - _.!_ __ l 18 - --, 18.6% 3 9 4 0 4 3 23 - 20.0% 0 - [EACKLES,V - - 03 I P21021 f1.UTO TECH I ----'------ LRSD Iufor111atio11 Service Dept. D F I NC 4 4 0 0 21 - 35 _1__ 0 0 16.3% 27.1% 0.0% I Q,Qo/o _j_ - I _____l_ _ 43.4% - 4 0 0 11 2 0 0 8 6 0 0 6 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 9 4 0 0 -1- 41_+ 38.0% ---- 52.8% 3 4 _ 1_-+- 5 1 14--t- 16 0 0 - - 14.8% 0.0% 0.0% - __ 5 --- 0 ....L _ 0 10 0 0 3 0 ~-- 0 4 0 0 --t:j_ _ o_ _ _ -:--o 25 0 0 14.~- 25.8% 0.0% - 40.2% 5 5 0 0 0 0 ~ -- T -\n--1= ~ 2 I 4 2 25 I --- 21.7% 52.2% 7 I 0 0 3 i 0 I 0 9 I 0 ' 0 35 0 ' 0 -- 30.4% 0.0% 0.0% Total 20 129 .L..-- 19 18 21 11 14 25- J_ 108 l-j_ i ! I - 17 28 14 18 - 20 97 19 23 22 15 14 22 115 - 1 Page31 of47 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT GRADE DISTRIBUTION REPORT 012 MCCLELLAN HIGH SCHOOL BY TEACHER WITH 35% OR MORE D's AND F's, 2001-2002 QUARTER ONE Thursday, November OJ, 100/ Teacher Sec Course Title r EACHER TOTALS L PERCENT _ TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's - ' FORTSON, G 103 P21181 WELDING 1 TEACHER TOTALS 1 PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's [F-RANKS E-- - I 101 ' 030041 US HISTORY - GRAY JANICE 103 050061 US HISTRYAP 104 I 030041 1US HISTORY 203 I 030041 US HISTORY 204 I 030041 IUS HISTORY 211 I 050061 1US HISTRY AP !TEACHER TOTALS PERCENT - TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's ~ - 122 K20001 ALGEBRA II 1 123 K20001 ALGEBRA II ( 134 K20081 _._CONCEPT GEOM f-222 K20001 ALGEBRA II j 224 K20001 ALGEBRA 11 '- 231 K20001 ALGEBRA II TEACHER TOTALS PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's I GREEN RACHEL 101 ~ M20021 _BIOLOGY! - + -----+ --+ 102 M20021 BIOLOGY I 104 M 20021 'BIOLOGY I 204 M20021 BIOLOGY I 212 M20021 BIOLOGY I 221 M20021 BIOLOGY I LRSD foformatio11 Service Dept. JU3WdOf3A3Q fBUOJi113JO.l\u0026lt;f A 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 4 0 3 2 0 0 9 7.2% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 1 0 0 0 0 0 I I - B C D F 0 0 1 0 - 1 0.0% 0.0% 100.oo/. T 0.0% - _J _j ___ --~-- 0 0 0 0 - - ------t- 100.0% 1 1 0.0% -'- 0.0% .J...._100.0% 100.0% 7 2 - - - t-- - - 5 5 7 5 3 I 2 I 3 4 ! 2 I 5 I 8 I 6 2 I 4 I 10 I 3 31 29 23 0 0 0.0% 5 6 5 8 3 6 33 I NC Total 0 0 1 0.0% r 0.0% - - 7 0 0 1 0 ___, 0 1 r 0.0% 0.0% ,- T 0 0 I 23 t 0 0 23 I 0 I 0 I 16 I 0 0 I 21 I 0 I 0 I 19 I 0 I 0 I 23 Q Q I 125 -t---------1--- 24.8% 23.2% 18.4% 26.4% 0.0% 0.0% 44.8% 0 4 7 2 T 0 0 13 1 4 13 3 0 0 21 1 ' 2 8 ..!__-----+ - 0 0 18 -- - - -i-- 0 9 13 4 0 0 26 - 1 6 _ 10~ ~ _ 0 0 22 1 4 I 14 3 0 0 22 --- 4 29 65 24 0 0 122 - -'-- - 3.3% 23.8% 53.3% 19.7% 0.0% 0.0% - - 73.0% r=o_ ~- - r 1 2 - --5- 8 _.J __0 -17 - 0 2 4 7 0 0 13 -r 2 3 6 0 0 12 -- -- - ~- 5 5 5 0 0 16 0 2 8 11 0 0 21 0 l 3 2 7 L_O _ _l_ 0 .L - 12 -- Page33 o/47 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT GRADE DISTRIBUTION REPORT 012 MCCLELLAN HIGH SCHOOL BY TEACHER WITH 35% OR MORE D's AND F's, 2001-2002 QUARTER ONE Thursday, November OJ, 2001 Teacher HEARN T !@GESS lHOLEMAN E Sec Course Title TEACHER TOTALS PERCENT TOT AL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 101 E30021 ENGLISH Ill 104 E30041 ENG 3 PRE-AP 113 E30021 ENGLISH Ill 203 E50041 ENG Ill AP 211 E30041 ENG 3 PRE-AP 214 E30021 ENGLISH Ill j_iiACHER TOTALS~ - PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 101 031001 KEYBOARDING: 102m 31005 WORD PROC:A J.04 C30161 -1BUSINESS LAW ~ 03 031005 WORD PROC:A 12 031001 'KEYBOARDING: 14 L C20021 _,_WRD PROC AJB TEACHER TOTALS t- PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's -i-- 101 -, 031201 ICT REL I 103 Q31241 ICT COOP! PM 103 Q41241 JCT CP II PM 104 Q31221 ICT COOP I 104 Q41221 ICT COOP II 122 201 201 202 C10043 KEYBD/KEYAPP ICT REL I JCT B_EL II 172103 ,WRKPL READY: LRSD /11for111atio11 Service Dept. A 1 1.1% 0 0 2 0 1 B 4 4.4% 6 6 10 4 3 - 30 C 15 - 16.5% 4 4 4 6 5 D 27 29.7% 78.0% 3 6 4 7 7 F 44 - 48.4% 5 0 7 2 I 0 1- 0.0% 0 0 0 0 _4 _ L 2 _ 6 _,_ _ o_-+- 21 __ L __29_ --+-__21_ --+-__1_ NC 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 91 18 17 18 26 17 16 4 112 3.6% 26.8% 0 L 24.1 % J_ 25.9% 18.8% 0.9% 0.0% --~--~-------\nl - 4 3 2 1 4 3 17 21.5% 4 2 0 2 0 4 0 3 3 0 1 3 9 11.4% 4 4 7 0 5 3 2 + + -, -1- J. J.1odaH a:mupuany 3 3 1 4 3 3 17 21.5% 3 0 0 4 0 2 0 --l 44.6% 2 2 0 0 3 3 4 0 0 I o --+--- o 1 I - --L _ 5 ---~ - 0 1 2 0 0 0 12 0 - - - 0 0 15.2% 45.6% 10 24 30.4% 0.0% 0.0% 4- ~ 2 2 3 0 6 2 1 0 _j_ 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 4 2 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 1 I O L __ 4_~1 _ 2 _ t_ 0- ::-=\n0 0 l 14 14 7 12 11 21 79 17 11 2 21 13 15 3 11 P\"ge34of47 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT GRADE DISTRIBUTION REPORT 012 MCCLELLAN HIGH SCHOOL BY TEACHER WITH 35% OR MORE D's AND F's, 2001-2002 QUARTER ONE Thursday, November OJ, 2001 Teacher Sec Course Title A B C D F I NC Total TEACHER TOTALS PERCENT f---- 16 17.0% _L 27 11 L -- 28.7% 11.7% 23 17 t -24.5\n/o - - -- _ 18.1% ____.....___ ---~- 42.6% 0 0.0% - 0 0.0% 94 /JoNES D J TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's __ ,,_ 10_2-rl_K_1_0_00_1~ !A_L_G_E_BRA l _______2 _~ [ _ -_4- _- ~~_ _2_ - -~~---0 _-=-_- __2 _ ___0_ ___0_ ___1_ 0_ 103 K10001 ALGEBRA I 5 ' 2 5 4 3 0 0 19 104 K10001 ALGEBRA I 7 4 9 3 0 0 24 201 K10001 ALGEBRA I 3 4 3 1 6 0 0 17 202 1 K10001 ALGEBRA I 4 4 7 6 4 0 0 25 I ----- - - - -t -- +---' I ' I -- - - - TEACHER TOTALS j_17 23 21 I 29 18 0 I 0 108 - - -- - - - - -1 -- 203 K10001 ALGEBRA I 2 2 0 9 0 0 0 13 PERCENT 15.7% 21.3% 19.4% 26.9% 16.7% 0.0% 0.0% -- - - ---i- - '--- TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 43.5% ~ ELLY CINDY 102 E20021 ENGLISH II 3 I 4 0 1 3 0 0 11 7 - 103 E20021 ENGLISH II 1 2 2 I 10 9 0 0 -l 24 ' --- +- - ----+---- -- - -- -1 104 E20021 ENGLISH II 1 1 6 2 6 0 0 J__ 16 E20021 j ENGLISH II -- --~t-= 0-, - 7 111 3 8 3 9 0 0 _I_ 23 211 E20021 ENGLISH II I 0 2 1 1 I 5 0 0 9 ~ 13 _ __20021 j ENGLISH} - - -, --- - -\n-- - 1 2 6 0 9 I - -- I- 0 0 18 -  - -+ - +-- - TEACHER TOTALS 6 14 23 17 41 0 0 101 - - -'- - I - - - \"--- - --+- - _J_ ~- PERCENT - 5.9% 13.9% 22.8% 16.8% 40.6% 0.0% 0.0% -- __ L___ -- TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 57.4% IMoRE ERICA _ ~ - 10~ ._\n091007 f OODS/~UTR:_ - 1-- - - r --- ~- ---- - 2 3 3 2 r -- + - 9- t , 103 ~ 0081 fD PRD MGT I 1 4 2 I 6 I - - - 4 3 -J --- t- 104 I 110001 FAM\u0026amp;CONS SCI 1 8 2 I 5 - -~- - 0 ----t-_Q 11 0 0 -T 22 --1- 0 0 19 113 I 140081 1FD PRD MGTII 0 0 1 0 ! 2 0 0 3 201 I 110001 FAM\u0026amp;CONS SCI 0 6 11 i 3 I 0 0 21 202 I 091007 FOODS/NUTR: 2 I 4 8 0 I 2 3 0 19 204 I 110001 FAM\u0026amp;CONS SCI 3 5 5 6 2 0 0 21 TEACHER TOTALS 8 29 l 33 21 22 I - - -r PERCENT 6.9% 25.0% 28.4% 18.1% I 19.0% 3 L_ 0 116 2.6% 0.0% ----- \u0026gt;--- - -- _!. TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 37.1% -I /NICHOLS SANDRA I jENG I WKSHO':._- - - 1- . - l - -4--T - - 101 E10141 1 l ____ 2 7 =r=- 0 ~ -- 0 I 15 , LRSD lllformatio11 Service Dept. Page 35 of47 J.rndaH a\n,uupuany LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT GRADE DISTRIBUTION REPORT 012 MCCLELLAN HIGH SCHOOL BY TEACHER WITH 35% OR MORE D's AND F's, 2001-2002 QUARTER ONE Thursday, November OJ, 100/ Teacher NICHOLS SANDRA ONEIL S Sec Course Title 102 E10161 ENG I WK PAP 133 E10141 ENG I WKSHOP ~ --- TEACHER TOTALS - PERCENT t- TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 101 E11001 COMMUNICA I 103 E11001 COMMUNICA I 132 E11001 COMMUNICA I 201 E11001 COMMUNICA I  - f-\n223 _, E11001 ,COMMUNICA I f_~24 E11001 COMMUNICA I TEACHER TOTALS PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's PERKINS MICHAEL _w~ ' M10101 ACTIVE PHYS ~ M10101 ACTIVE PHYS 133 1 M10101 ) CTIVE PH_:tS M10101 AC-TIVE PHYS- 221 M10101 ACTIVE PHYS 233 M10041 PHYS I PREAP TEACHER TOTALS - PERCENT - TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's -\n- A 2 4 - B 6 5 15 7.8% -1 _29~% 3 2 2 3 2 13 9.6% 2 0 1 0 4 6 3 0 2 6 21 15.4% ,- 1 - r ~ --- 0 o -r 0 I- 0 0 5 4 6 4.2% -r 6.3% 1 ___L C 5 4 11 - D F 0 3 : ---+---1 6 6--+- - I NC 0 0 0 0 7 - 0 Total 16 20 51 21.6% J 9.8% 31.4% 0 0.0% 0.0% 2 4 2 4 14 10.3% 1 2 4 5 6 19 20.0% 41.2% 4 5 +-4- ~ - 3_J 2 10 0 11 0 8 0 -~:-t -~ 13 - I o - -1-- 19 I 69 Q 1 14.0o/\n-:_ 50.7/o _ _:- 0.0% 64.7% 0 21 0 29 0 16 j___O-+- 24 0 22 T - 0 24 0 136 0.0% 18 12 24 16 13 0 0 0 0 12 _j_ 31 35 0 _j_ 0 95 1_32.6% 36.8% 0.0% --'----0.0% 69.5% RAFTER,P ~+--_1_02~J_M_30_0_6_1 ~1A_N_A_T_\u0026amp;_ PH_Y_s_ _____4_ _____, _ _5~ ~-~~- _4= ==-=-~_10_ _-_ T __o_ -'-__0_ ___2_ 4_ I 111 M30061 ANAT \u0026amp; PHYS 2 2 4 3 15 0 0 26 113 M20021 BIOLOGY I 10 5 5 1 5 0 0 26 203 M20021 BIOLOGY I 211 M20021 BIOLOGY I 222 M20021 BIOLOGY I 'TEACHER TOTALS ___ - - - f-- PERCENT L_ TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's LRSD /11formatio11 Service Dept. unoH .iaaJunro A 3 1 3 5 0 0 13 1 2 1 9 2 0 0 15 1 4 2 3 8 0 0 18 - 1- 21 15 18 23 45 0 0 122 -1 - ___ j_ 17.2% 12.3% .L 14.8% 18.901_co~_36_.9_0/co~_0.0_%_ _t __0 .0% 55.7% Page 36 of47 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT GRADE DISTRIBUTION REPORT 012 MCCLELLAN HIGH SCHOOL BY TEACHER WITH 35% OR MORE D's AND F's, 2001-2002 QUARTER ONE Th11rsday, November 01, 2001 Teacher !SHOFNER KAREN SMITH D Sec Course Title 102 E10141 ENG I WKSHOP ,_ _!9~ E10141 ENG I WKSHOP 111 J E10141 ENGIWKSHOP (TEACHER TOTALS -- t - PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 112 r E11061 DEBATE I 113 E11061 DEBATE I 114 E11061 DEBATE I 202 E11061 'DEBATE I  221 -l E11061 ,-DEBATE I ~ 234 ~ E11001 rCOMMUNICA I TEACHER TOTALS PERCENT f-- TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's ~MITHSON, L --+-----+-_E10141 IENG_!_WKSHOP E10141 ENG I WKSHOP STANDLEY J [Tu_MPLETON HEATH - -t--- E10141 ENG- I WKSHOP F ACHER TOTALS --- -- PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's 101 l 010041 _ _G_!.Yl~S _ 102 + 010041 (CIVlg_S 103 010041 CIVICS 202 010041 CIVICS 203 010041 CIVICS 211 010041 CIVICS TEACHER TOTALS PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT OF D's AND F's ---+--- 102 M30021 CHEMISTRY I 103 - M30021 CHEMISTRY I LRSD /11formatio11 Service Dept. JU3WdOpAaQ JEUOJ!ili3JO.lc:J A 2 0 0 2 3.5% 0 2 B 2 6 9 15.8% C D F I NC 6 5 0 0 10 7 4 0 0 ~----+---- 6 6 1 0 0 22 --r--18 ___ 6 0 0 '--- - ._ --4----- - ----+ - 38.6% 31.6% 10.5% 0.0% 0.0% 42.1% - - -- 2 2 3 4 0 0 4 3 6 0 0 -j- 0 3 I 2 0 0 2 2 0 3 t 0 0 -1 2 2 o 3 r- o o 2 4 7 - 2 -7 10 - t- - 0 - 0 8 14 15 10 28 0 0 j _: 10.7% -,- 18.7% -~ 20.-0/4-o r- 13-.3/-co~_3_7._3_1/o~_O.O/co~~-0._0/~- 50.7% Total 15 23 19 57 11 16 7 8 8 25 75 2 !_ _ 1 -----l _ 6_---+_ _6 _ ___o_ 1 ~ _ 4_ _ J 5_-----! _ 2 _ 14 0 __j___ o __ ... _ 16 0 26 ...J_ - 2 5 7 I 4 0 0 0 18 4 6.7% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 11 18.3% 4 3 2 12 10.8% 3 3 t - 13 --l- 12 20 0 4- ~--t-1-- .j 0 0.0% 60 21.7% 20.-0% _ 33.3% 0.0% _..__ 53.3% - 4 13 I 0 - _,__ --- t-- -----l--- L __ O 0 0 20 8 24 2 4 6 3 5 22 19.8% J 8-r 4 2 3 0 7 12 1 - 0 5 10 0 0 25 3 6 0 0 15 4 8 0 0 19 25 52 0 0 111 - ------+-- -+-- 22.5% 46.8% 0.0% 0.0% 69.4% ____J_ - ----, ----,---- 5 3 _4_ _j_ __6 -0 -~- 0 17 Page 37 o/47 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT GRADE DISTRIBUTION REPO\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 Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\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_185","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":["2001-10-01"],"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","Little Rock School District","North Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","School integration"],"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/185"],"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":["33 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n,._, ,....JA./ r .... ~,...,,,\u0026gt; ,J.._,.,,._ _,._, ,v MAGHET GTUDEIIT QUARTEJU.YA TI\"EllllANCER !PORT FY 2001/02 (f'OR CAI\n..\"U\"..Al'ING ADT. AJ)A, AND ADM OF l'JICNP SCHOOL S.v\"DEITTS tN GRADE$ K-12) v\n,., 6001000 COUl\u0026lt;'N, P!JI.ASXI DISTlUCT: L1ttle Jloc:Jt School l)ist:nct OUIIRT6'l. 1(0. l l 2 4 5 6 OA\".(S DAYS DAYS PRES~ IN l'RtSENT NOif DAY$ Mrt ADA crra TAA\u0026gt;ISPOR'IXD TIU\\NSPOR'IED MSElfT 2/1 2+3/1 7601 LI rn.E ROO. S'tUDBNTS SENT TO 1~01 Lil\"?LE J!.00( HAGN!IT SOJOOJ:.S tO 5739:Z 15896 2995 H34.80 233:2,21. 1,02 NOaTii LITTLt ROCK ST1.ltlDITS SENT TO 7601 LlTil. l!OClC Ml',C:-,r: SO!OOLS ,o 124 191,2 778 3.ll l72.90 1so3 PULI\\SlCl co spgc1111. STUDEHTs SENT TO '7601. Liffi.X IIOCK MAGNET SCIIOQLS 40 241 35797 1.212 6,03 900.96  !OTl\\1, lU7I, ~, AND ADM OF \u0026amp;TUDBNTS A'I'I'WDUIG MAGNf Soro\u0026lt;)t.S : 1443.9,t 3706. 0? , 1'%lN 2.J,./1 2,01.01 .,:z,33 n1.2i\nlBJO 66 SI1JPJ\nN1'S ELIOUII.J: T0 BE: c= 115 nv.NSPOR'ttl) INCUJDE RESIDf.lff STUDl!NTS ~IJUNG T1IO ROtJTt! MILKS OR ~ FROH TRl\u0026gt;Ilt R.':PJE:CT:rvi: ASSIGNl!D S~OOI.S l M TOM STIJDEl'T Q\nMTERL\"!\n-:-:rt:,ro:cr 'l':VOR.T FY 2001/0i '-' ~ -Ll'lt-tl,,,__,_., .,._ -''-' ~V (FOR CALCUJATIUG l\u0026gt;.D'I. 11:)ll., l\\IO kOl'I OF M TO M 8C1!COL STUt\u0026gt;~'l:S IN GRl\u0026gt;.Pi:S K-12) !..EA, 600~00C COUNTY: PUI..ASKI DISTRICT: Little Rock School Oi~~riec QUA.TtTEI\\ NO. l NON-RESID~)l'l' STu\"IlWTS RliCE!V!:D TO (BY M TO M 1'RANSFE!ll 7701. LITn,E ROClt 7702 NORrH LITTLE ROC1' 7103 PUIASKI CO SPACIAL l DAYS IN 2 DAYS PRE8ellT QrR TRANSPORT),,() o 0 40 0 \u0026lt;0 0 'IOT!\u0026gt;,L APT, ADA, Al ADM OF M 'IO M l'..CEIVED .3 DA1(S PRESENT NON- DAY6 TRANSPORTJ.P ABSEJ-11' 0 508 17 l'.l2GS \\007 Al)'!' 2/1 0 00 0 00 0 00 o. 00 C.00 1:._59 331,)7 J~.3. 76 I 7 o.oc 13 00 356. 32 309.32 Sl\"UDfillTS L:GIB\n,,E TO\nill: COU?ITED T,$ TRM'SPORTED !ltCLUDE RESIDENT STUIJEl\"T6 RESIDING TWO ROUT\n)'IILS OR MOR FR.OM THEIR RSPC':'IVl'.: ASSIGNE!l SCHOOLS uec 1~ -UJ. J.U! ::.'ta NLI\u0026lt; !:,L,HUULS 5017718056 p. 1 (\\J Q., CD in M TOM STUDENTQ UARTERLJYIT BN:\u0026gt;ANCER EPORT FY 2001/02 (FOR CALCULATINAGD T, ADA, ANDA DMO F M TO M SCHOOLS TUDENTSI N GRADESK -12) LEA: 6002000 COUNTY: PULASKI NON-RESIDENTS TJDENTS RECEIVEDT O (BY M l'O M TRANSFER) 7701 L:TTLE ROCK 7702 NORTH LITTLE ROCK 7703 l?OLAS~I CO Sl?ECIAL 1 DAYS IN QTR 40 40 40 DISTRICT: N. Little Rock School 2 3 4 uAYS DAYS ?RESENT !?RESENT TRANSl?ORrED 0 0 0 NON-TRANSPORTED 444 0 10735 DAYS ABSENT 42 0 491 DistrictQOARTER NO. 5 ADI' 2/1 0.00 0.00 0.00 6 ADA 2+3/1 1.1.10 0.00 268. 40 1 7 ACM 2+3+4/1 12 .13 o.oo 280.64 TOTAL ADT, ADA, AND ADM OF M TO~ RECEIVED: 0.00 279.50 292.77 STUDENTSE LIGIBLE TO BE COUNTEDA S TRANS?ORTEDIN :'.:LODER ESIDENTS T'JDENTS: :i.ESIDINGT WOR OUTSM ILES OR )~OREF ROM ':'HEIR RESPECTIVE ASSIGNED SCHOOLS PAGE: 1 Date: To: Fax: Re: Sender: EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE ... ' ' ... Pulaski County Special School District Equity and Pupil Se11Jices 925 E. Dixon RtlJP.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, Arkamas 7221 6 (501) 490-6215 (501) 490-1352 Fax FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET 1i-11-oi 311-0100 PAGE 01/0~ YOU SHOULD RECEIVE Q PAGE(S). INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL (501) 490-6215. MESSA.GE: w (!) \u0026lt;r a.. uw H ii: w l!l _J H a.. J a.. ?.: H J 0 w M TOM STUDENT QUARTERLY ATTENDANCB RBPORT FY 2001/02 (FOR CALCULATING ADT, ADA, AND ADM OF M TO M SCJ!OOL STUDENTS IN GRADES I\u0026lt;-12) LEA: 6003000 COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: Pulaski Co. Spec. School Dist.QUARTER }JO. l 2 3 4 5 6 DAYS DAYS DAYS PRBSBNT IN PRESENT NON- DAYS ADT ADA QTR TRANSPORTBD TRANSPORTED ABSHNT 2/1 2+3/1 NON-RBSIDBNT STUDENTS RECBIVBD TO {BY M TON TRANSFER) 7701 LITrLE ROCK 41 0 45602 1324 0.00 1112.24 7702 NORTH LITTLE ROCK 41 0 7409 173 0.00 1B0.71 7703 PULASKI CO SPECIAL 41 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 1 7 ADM 2 ~3+4/1 - ---~ (1141.51) ~---- ( 184--:-94) 0.00 TOTAL ADT, ADA, AND ADM OF M TO M RECEIVED: 0 .00 1292. 95 1329. 45 STUDENTS ELIGIBLE TO BE COUNTBDA S TRANSPORTE:DIN CLUDE RBSIDBNT STUDBNTSR ESIDING TWO ROUTE MILES OR 1-!0RBF ROMT HEIR RBSPBCTIVE ASSIGNED SCHOOLS PAGE: 1 t-'A\\:lt:. tll/0~ STUDENT REGISTRATION OFFICE --- ~--- - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 501 SHERMAN ST. LITTLE ROCK AR 72202 PHONE: 324--2272 FAX: 324-2281 FAX COVER SHEET \" To: ToQ ~ J M Ck! FaxNumber:_ _ 3.\n::\n7,.._ _ I_ _- 0 I C~r ' J __ ..,..--_.1 From: ~ lOJvCl L Da1e_: __,_l-=.--'O-- \"\"'2---.'.-Ll---(_ o # Pages Including Cover Sheet. _ ___.\n.....__ Re:, _...:....F________, _'/-=-I_-_ cc:. ____________________ _ ACC ALC LRSD2 0012 002O fficial EnrollmentC ount Al T AGENCIES SUBTOT~ CLOVERO DUNBAR FORESTH HENDERS SUBT OTAL- ~~--4-082 1423 2tl0 5765  Counto oesn o! includeP 1,P 2, P3 alil He9dS tartP 4 students. 1 \u0026gt;1\\,..U... U.L/ CJ ... 95% 85')', 43% 71% 10-15-01 ~ae- 383 I r'R~C'~li.,,. \\..CQ s~0i~\n- 6~., I Carver I Chicot Cloverdale I Dodd 'fair Park 1 Forest Park  Franklin ru1bnght , Gc:)er Sprlllgs 0100\nI- - 1 ,efferson :\\..ir.g ~ ..c. e:,a\n' k.::)eIT'.:~tt i 'vt.:,adoYcli ff ',f':che'.l L C'rrer Cree1- !'uhs1\u0026lt;:i Heights r R.i!.'\"tse! 1 ll..o~kefel!er 1 Romine I Stephens . Terry. I Wakefield I Washmgton tWatson I Western Hills I \\villiams I kW1lson l I Wvodrutf I Grand Total Stwd~nt Registratiun 05.c~ Septerober 27, 2001 409 i 4llQ 271 304 400 532 491 358 324 471 715 .',. ..,. , 453 3:,8 :?.33 -lJ.5 350 j '.:96 481 l 403 646 597 416 678 534 320 490 340 314 15275 - L' - - / t r V TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: FAX# 37/- )/tz\u0026gt;O ~/\u0026lt;- u-:::,u 1-!NAl\u0026lt;\\..:lAL SE.RV #PAGES INCLUDING COVER:___,::i\u0026lt;.~------- PAGE Ell MY PHONE# _____________ _ THE CONTENTS OF THIS FAX IS CONFIDENTIAL AND IS ONLY FOR THE PERSON LISTED ABOVE. PLEASE DELIVER AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. COMMENTS ----------------------------- .,_.,_u,, , ..::...uuJ. J.C. ~I ~t:.1.1...:,_4L.01~ Lt-'.:i!J 1-lllAllCIAL SERV PAGE 0~ Rockefeller October 1, 2001 GRADE AF AM BF BM Hf HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! Pl 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 3 3 12 P2 0 5 3 0 0 Q 0 4 3 16 --~- ~\n:,7r, P3 7 9 0 0 0 0 s ,,.7. 30 ,tt:\n)97~ !'4 7 0 0 ti 11 Q 0 0 7 /?8 '3' 34 GR.AND TOTAL: 8 3 15 25 0 0 0 19 21 92 -Y: ...l .). 0 /_\nJ., _, RECEIVED I ' STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OC2T 9 2001 OCTOBER 1, 2001 ENROLLMENT REPORT OFFOICfE DESEGREMGAOTNIIOTNO RING WITH PRE-K STUDENTS r------- r.01 - CENTRAL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! 09 5 7 184 195 2 3 0 110 123 630 10 6 3 141 138 2 2 94 97 485 11 4 4 121 91 0 2 0 I 05 102 430 120 ~ -~2 I) 12 6 0 0 89 91 401 --\u0026gt;-- ~ TOTALFOR:CENTRAL 21 15 566 516 5 8 2 2 398 413 f 1,946 \\002 - HALL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! ! 09 0 2 143 161 17 16 0 0 37 41 417 10 2 140 138 8 17 0 53 24 384 II 3 0 125 129 7 10 0 0 34 33 341 12 0 3 94 81 4 8 0 0 35 34 259 ~ ss 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 3 ~ 5 18 ,~ TOT AL FOR: HALL 4 7 503 518 36 51 0 162 \\ 13~ 1,419 .- 1003 - ~NN M/S GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTALj 06 6 3 82 65 4 0 0 77 50 288 07 3 3 79 72 2 4 0 2 74 41 280 .. 08 8 4 74 68 0 0 56 56 268 ~ 23s t2os 201 \"l141 ~ TOT AL FOR: MANN MIS 17 10 7 5 0 3 836 r---- 1 n~J!ARK1RW GRAD~ AE. .AM _B.E_ BM HF HM NF NM wi\n: WM TOT!-L I - 09 3 5 78 72 8 5 0 0 79 53 303 ---- -- -------- -- 10 5 5 71 72 6 0 0 80 47 287 -------- - ---- - - --- II 3 3 84 61 2 0 0 0 64 67 284 12 5 0 70 58 3 0 82 50 ~! 270 303 { ' p TOTAL FOR: PARKVJEW 16 13 263 17 9 0 305 I 217 ) 1,144 COMPlITER INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Tuesday, October 16, 200 I Page 1 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2001 ENROLLMENT REPORT WITH PRE-K STUDENTS [~__6_o_ - _B_o_o_K_E___R G_RA_D__E A__F_ A_M__ BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL j 14 78 TOTAL FOR: BOOKER !001 - DU BAR MIS I TOT AL FOR: DUNBAR M/S I \\008-FAIR I 01 0 02 2 03 0 0 04 0 0 05 2 0 K 0 6 19 24 33 23 30 26 35 25 31 18 20 '- 27 '\u0026gt;' 168 ' 143 0 2 2 2 0 7 0 17 0 0 18 14 0 0 39 17 0 0 0 33 19 0 0 22 II 2 2 17 19 6 2 2 146 ~ 94 GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM 06 10 6 80 84 9 0 0 29 36 07 6 80 72 6 4 36 43 08 4 62 64 4 3 0 0 30  52 20 19 222 ' 220 15 16 95 131 GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM 09 0 0 101 120 7 27 24 10 0 0 87 105 2 0 2 19 30 II 0 0 94 89 3 0 0 0 20 19 12 0 70 64 4 0 JO 16 92 115 114 87 89 p. 575 259 254 227 \\ 740 282 246 225 167 ss 0 0 12 ~ ,._ 8 0 0 9 ~10 0 0 0 4 ~ 24 . TOTAL FOR: FAlR 0 364 386 4 16 1009-FO\n~~s Mts--G~\n--A-\n--:-M ---\nF -~~\n~ -HM--N-\n-- ~~---w-F_W_M __ T__o_T A~i i'- -- - -- ----------------------- - -- - --- ----- ------------- 06 0 0 91 88 0 0 0 43 36 259 07 0 2 80 93 0 0 42 39 258 08 0 5 84 80 2 0 44 31 247 3 f!L2 TOT AL FOR: FORST HTS MIS-----0 --8--25-8 ~ 27-3--4--3-- 0 SM 0 0 0 0 3 6 26 132 112 790 C:OMPUTER INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Tuesday, October 16, 200 I Page 2 of I 7 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2001 ENROLLMENT REPORT WITH PRE-K STUDENTS jo10  PUL HTS M/S 7 GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! J 06 2 2 65 65 0 0 0 47 44 226 07 0 62 58 3 0 39 61 226 08 0 3 62 64 0 0 56 56 243 1-.. SM 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 I 2 9 ~ 190 ~ 192 \"' ~, TOT AL FOR: PUL HTS MIS 2 6 4 2 2 0 143 '1 163 704 tl 1  SOUTHWST MIS GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! 06 0 O' 95 107 2 0 0 4 5 214 07 0 0 82 78 2 2 0 0 4 2 170 08 0 0 76 78 0 2 0 0 4 161 I SM 0 0 4 II 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 257 ~ 1' 274 ~ (,.~ TOT AL FOR: SOUTHWST MIS 0 0 3 6 0 0 12 8 560 jo12. ~CCLELLA GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! 09 0 0 130 159 2 5 0 0 5 15 316 10 0 0 148 129 3 0 0 9 5 295 11 0 0 102 126 0 0 0 8 18 255 12 0 0 104 78 2 2 0 0 10 5 201 ss 0 0 6 9 0 0 0 0 1 ~ \" 0 16 TOTALFOR:MCCLELLA 0 0 490 ~501 7 9 0 0 33 (\\ 43 ~\\,os3 l013  HENDERSN M/S GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL I --------- ---- ---- ----- 06 0 2 74 87 4 7 0 15 30 220 -- -- - -- -- -- - - --- ~------ 07 0 75 95 4 6 0 0 18 18 217 08 2 73 88 2 0 0 14 13 194 J .,._ (, SM 0 0 12  25 0 0 0 0 1 4 0- 42 ['I ~ 48 ~ TOTAL FOR: HENDERSN MIS 2 4 234 ~ 295 JO 13 65 iflj6 73 COMPUTER INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Tuesday, October 16, 2001 Page3of17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2001 ENROLLMENT REPORT WITH PRE-K STUDENTS f -- - 1015 - CLOVR MIS GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM 'TOTAL I 06 0 07 08 0 SM 0 TOT AL FOR: CLOVR M/S 0 121 131 2 127 125 0 115 99 0 2 0 ~ 1 363 ~ 356 II 4 6 0 21 15 10 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 6 6 7 8 0 0 19 ~ 20 290 281 243 I ~ 815 r-----------------------------------~ GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM F NM WF WM TOTAL r16-MABEL MIS 06 0 07 0 08 0 SM 0 TOT AL FOR: MABEL M/S 0 0 0 0 91 70 69 87 61 57 I \\l 10 222 t 224 2 2 0 0 20 20 0 2 II 15 2 2 18 14 0 0 0 I (} 1 6 6 2 3 50 50 I \\017 - BALE GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM 01 0 17 16 0 0 0 02 0 0 18 22 0 0 0 03 0 0 19 18 2 0 0 04 0 0 15 15 0 0 0 0 05 0 0 21 23 2 0 0 EE 3 3 0 0 0 0 K 0 0 21 27 0 0 p 0 TOTAL FOR: BALE ----- 2 ~ ---------- 13 14 2 0 --- --- --------- 127 138 9 6 0 I 0 COMPUTER INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Tuesday, October 16, 2001 6 4 2 2 3 4 4 3 3 ~ 0 29 1-17 206 186 158 14 ~ 564 TOTAL\\ 42 50 45 35 54 15 Page 4 of 17 f\\\u0026lt;J STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2001 ENROLLMENT REPORT WITH PRE-K STUDENTS r- 1018- BRADY GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL L ___ 01 0 0 29 30 0 0 0 0 3 67 02 0 17 19 0 0 0 0 7 2 46 03 0 16 9 0 0 5 3 36 04 0 0 20 19 0 0 0 0 4 44 05 0 17 29 0 0 0 0 4 4 55 EE 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 K 0 0 27 21 0 0 4 5 59 A.\" p 0 0 2 ~ 7 0 0 0 6 2 18 TOTAL FOR: BRADY 2 130 -136 3 2 0 0 33 Y)2 5 ~ 332 ~ r---- 1019- BADGETT GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTALI I _ 01 0 0 11 9 0 0 0 0 0 21 02 0 0 15 16 0 0 0 0 33 03 0 0 16 14 0 0 0 0 0 31 04 0 0 14 11 0 0 0 0 27 05 0 0 9 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 K 0 0 7 11 0 0 0 19 ~ 0 0 1 ~ ~ TOTAL FOR: BADGETT 0 0 72 74 0 2 0 0 4~ 153 \\020 - MCDERMOT GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL\\ 01 2 2 18 12 2 2 0 0 13 12 63 - ----------- --- --------- - --- 02 0 18 9 5 0 17 9 63 ----------- ---- -- --- ----------- .. ---- ------ ----- 03 17 14 3 0 0 0 14 12 62 04 0 15 15 0 0 8 10 51 05 0 17 16 0 0 10 16 66 K 4 9 14 0 0 0 0 12 11 51 p 3 0 4 5 0 0 0 0 2 4 18 TOTAL FOR: MCDERMOT 13 4 98 85 12 11 0 76 ~ 74 374 COMPlITER INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Tuesday, October 16, 2001 J\u0026gt;age 5 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2001 ENROLLMENT REPORT WITH PRE-K STUDENTS \\021 - CARVER GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL I ----' 01 0 21 17 0 0 0 0 15 24 78 02 2 0 19 24 0 0 0 14 25 85 03 0 0 22 28 0 0 9 24 85 04 0 25 21 0 0 0 0 16 21 84 05 3 25 24 0 0 0 0 13 25 91 ~ K 0 0 12 1/) 27 0 0 0 12 lo 20 ~ 72 {1 124 ~ 141 ' TOT AL FOR: CAR\\:'ER 6 2 0 2 79 r~ 139 495 022 - BASELINE GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 20 15 0 0 4 6 47 02 0 0 21 14 0 0 0 0 2 3 40 03 0 0 25 10 0 0 0 0 3 39 04 0 0 16 13 0 2 0 0 4 3 38 05 0 0 17 14 0 0 0 0 4 3 38 EE 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 6 K 0 0 18 18 0 0 0 0 2 39 p 0 0 14~ 18 0 0 0 2 \u0026amp;J 0 35 (Jc, TOTAL FOR: BASELINE 0 0 133 f1J1 05 2 4 0 0 21 , 17 ~ 282 1023 - FAIR PRK GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL] 01 0 17 17 0 0 Q 0 2 2 39 --- - - ____ ,.. __ _. 02 0 0 14 IO 0 0 0 0 4 7 35 -------- --------- ------- 03 0 0 11 9 0 0 0 0 2 2 24 04 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 2 0 21 05 0 0 8 9 0 0 0 0 2 3 22 K 0 0 I 8 10 0 0 0 0 5 4 37 r-e p 0 2 IO 12 0 0 0 0 5 {\\ 2 31 kl TOTAL FOR: FAIR PRK 2 89 ~ 75 0 0 0 0 22 ' 20 ~ 209 f\\ COMPlITER INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Tuesday, October 16, 2001 Page 6 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2001 ENROLLMENT REPORT WITH PRE-K STUDENTS r~\n-F~O RSTP K GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL] ' 01 0 9 14 0 0 0 0 8 15 47 02 0 12 15 0 0 0 8 13 50 03 0 0 7 8 0 0 0 0 19 15 49 04 0 7 II 0 0 0 0 12 16 47 05 0 0 9 9 0 0 0 0 8 15 41 K 0 3 6 7 0 0 0 18 18 53 '\\ p 0 I ~ 0 0 0 0 4 Q II 0 18 t TOT AL FOR: FORST PK 6 51 ~ 64 2 0 0 77 ~ 103 \"' 305 1025  FRANK.LIN GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! 01 0 24 37 0 0 0 0 0 63 02 0 0 IS 29 2 0 0 0 0 47 03 0 0 19 19 0 0 0 0 0 39 04 0 0 31 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 05 0 29 30 0 0 0 0 0 61 EE 0 0 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 IO K 0 0 26 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 60  p 0 19 r\\. 28 0 0 0 0 0 2 50 I\\. 3 .-:) 2 ~388 Q\\ TOT AL FOR: FRANKLIN 3 0 166~ 210 2 2 0 0 xn futi~trnM- GRAD\"-Ex , A:M\"' '.EOHI BP- Bih IIF mv~!M \\l\nsF .-fJ.4 l ~ 01 0 2 20 I 5 0 0 13 17 69 ------ - ---- 02 0 14 18 2 0 0 16 9 61 03 0 0 9 14 2 0 0 0 8 12 45 04 0 0 13 13 0 0 0 IO 8 45 05 0 0 14 9 0 0 0 8 15 47 r..:: K 0 13 ~ 8 0 0 0 6 II ~o ~ TOTAL FOR: GIBBS 3 83 ~ 77 5 4 0 61 i,e7 2 307 COMPUTER INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Tuesday, October 16, 2001 Page 7 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2001 ENROLLMENT REPORT WITH PRE-K STUDENTS I --- 1028 - CHICOT GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! 01 0 0 27 30 8 10 0 4 3 83 02 0 0 30 27 5 9 0 0 3 2 76 03 20 29 3 8 0 0 4 7 73 04 0 23 27 7 7 0 0 2 6 73 05 0 20 30 4 7 0 0 8 5 75 EE 0 0 5 8 0 0 0 2 3 19 K 0 0 34 21 7 0 0 4 2 73 p 0 0 14 Q 15 2 3 0 0 !ti 36 ~ 173 ~ 187 ~ ('\\ TOTAL FOR: CHICOT 3 34 52 0 28 -29 508 r----- e9-WESTHIL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! 01 0 0 10 20 2 0 0 6 3 42 02 0 0 15 20 2 0 0 0 7 45 03 0 0 18 14 0 0 0 9 5 47 04 0 13 17 0 0 0 4 37 OS 0 0 19 15 0 0 0 8 6 49 K 0 0 15 11 2 0 0 7 3 39 I\\: p 0 0 7 Q 7 0 0 0 0 4 0 18 ~ p. TOTAL FOR: WEST HIL 0 97 104 5 6 0 0 39 '\\'.\n25 'V 277 r030 -JEFFRSN GRADE AF AM BF BM m HM NF===r-cM W?62w1Vl' =11'ffl 01 0 0 14 15 0 0 0 17 16 63 ... -- ----- ------ ---- ------- - -- ------  - - - ------ --------- 02 0 0 20 15 0 0 0 0 19 18 72 03 0 0 20 10 0 0 0 0 15 21 66 04 0 13 14 0 0 0 28 19 76 05 2 16 10 0 0 0 0 g 14 51 EE 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 7 K 0 12 11 0 0 0 17 14 56 p 0 0 I'-. 2 0 0 0 0 51 IO 18 110 ~ 112 ~ TOTAL FOR: JEFFRSN 2 3 98 81 2 0 0 409 COMPUTER INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Tuesday, October 16, 200 I Page 8 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2001 ENROLLMENT REPORT WITH PRE-K STUDENTS [031 - CLOVR EL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! -------- 01 0 31 29 5 4 0 0 2 2 74 02 0 0 30 34 4 0 0 3 73 03 0 0 27 22 3 4 0 0 0 57 04 0 0 26 21 0 2 0 0 0 50 05 0 0 30 28 3 5 0 0 2 2 70 K 0 24 28 6 2 0 0 2 3 66 0 u, 36 J/ p 0 16 13 4 0 0 0 2 :t 184 ', 115 6114 TOTAL FOR: CLOVR EL 0 2 19 25 0 426 I TOTAL\\ 1032-DODD GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM 01 0 0 5 12 0 0 0 0 5 8 30 02 0 0 11 8 0 0 0 10 4 34 03 0 9 7 0 0 0 4 4 26 04 0 0 9 5 0 0 0 2 6 23 05 0 0 10 5 0 0 2 2 21 EE 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 8 ------ K 0 0 5 10 0 0 5 7 29 '6 p 0 0 8 4 0 0 2 \\. l 17 \\5 TOT AL FOR: DODD 0 59 ~ 55 5 4 0 0 31 ,, 33 ~ 188 1033 - MEADCLIF \"GRJ!Wi,, Ar ~ .. Dr BM HF-\"IIM__.NF~M )}IF WM IQTAJ I I 01 0 0 15 24 0 0 0 4 5 49 -- - -- - --- - - - . - --------- 02 0 14 12 0 0 0 4 10 42 03 0 0 21 10 0 0 0 5 2 39 04 0 0 19 17 0 0 3 2 43 05 0 0 23 18 0 0 0 0 8 50 K 0 13 17 0 0 0 0 3 6 40 ~ p 0 0 3 C'--,1_1 0 0 0 1 ~- 17 TOTAL FOR: MEADCLIF 108 ...~.. 109 ~ l 34 ~ 4 2 0 0 21 280 COMPUTER INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Tuesday, October 16, 2001 Page9 ofl7 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2001 ENROLLMENT REPORT WITH PRE-K STUDENTS j034 - MITCHELL ------ GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTALI L ____ -- 01 0 0 25 16 0 0 0 0 0 42 02 0 0 23 23 0 0 0 0 0 47 03 0 0 21 25 0 0 0 0 0 47 04 0 0 23 19 0 0 0 2 46 05 0 0 23 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 EE 0 0 3 9 0 0 0 0 14 K 0 0 17 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 ~ p 0 0 14~ 3 0 0 0 0 0 18 ~ TOT AL FOR: MITCHELL 0 0 149 r) 139 0 0 4 .\\} 4 ~ 298 f\n-~~~~NG GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL I 01 2 20 22 0 2 20 13 82 02 2 2 21 18 2 0 26 15 88 03 21 23 0 19 18 86 04 2 0 22 20 2 0 0 0 11 19 76 05 0 0 19 24 0 2 0 22 19 87 K 21 23 0 0 0 21 14 82 190\"-. 16 11 ' 19 11\\'ll p 2 0 2 0 0 YJ 70 ~ ~ TOTAL FOR: ML KING 8 8 143 !~ 146 6 8 3 2 130 rr 117 lf~ 571 [[[}~~FEEGRRXDE AF kM'\"''-'\"ffl'\"lffil''\"'\"'\"'l',.L, Pl~IM ~~l\\!M T-0.-H-1I -- 01 0 0 12 19 0 0 0 0 9 8 48 -- --- -- ------------------- 02 0 17 16 0 0 0 7 7 49 03 0 0 18 11 0 0 0 0 13 7 49 04 0 0 15 15 0 2 0 0 7 8 47 05 0 18 12 0 0 0 12 49 K 0 0 16 15 0 0 0 9 14 55 ' 19  21 ~ p 3 22 l'q 25 0 0 0 ~ 92 TOTAL FOR: ROCKFELR 2 4 118 Ct1)1 3 2 3 0 69 ' 77 389 ~ COMPUTER INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Tuesday, October 16, 2001 Page10of17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2001 ENROLLMENT REPORT WITH PRE-K STUDENTS\n--- TOTAL I i037 - GEYER SP GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM l__ _ 01 0 0 27 22 0 0 0 0 0 50 02 0 0 22 20 0 0 2 3 49 03 0 0 23 18 0 0 0 4 4 50 04 0 0 19 29 0 0 0 0 52 05 0 0 15 25 2 0 0 2 3 48 K 0 0 IS 10 3 0 0 7 2 38 ,0 p 0 0 19 ~ I I 0 0 OQ 0 ~ 33 ~ ~ TOT AL FOR: GEYER SP 0 0 140 '1 135 4 10 0 11 \"D 13 320 1038-PULHTE GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTALI OJ 9 10 0 0 0 0 13 10 44 02 12 9 0 0 0 0 14 6 43 03 0 II JI 0 0 0 0 10 17 50 04 0 0 9 9 0 0 0 0 13 9 40 05 0 19 16 0 0 0 0 13 12 61 .. K 0 0 8 14 0 0 0 8 ~ 13 {\\ 44 t 68 ~ 71 ~ 67 TOTAL FOR: PUL HT E 3 3 69 0 0 0 282 \\039 - RJGHTSEL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF M WF WM TOTAL\\ 01 0 0 16 23 0 0 0 0 0 40 M (\\ n ?1 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 .,, 03 0 0 26 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 --- . --- ----------- - -- ------ -- - - ---------- 04 0 0 19 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 -------- 05 0 0 17 21 0 0 0 0 0 39 K 0 0 17 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 p 0 0 17 19 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 36 ~ 133 ~ 133 ~ ~ TOTAL FOR: RlGHTSEL 0 0 0 0 0 0 268 COMPUTER INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Tuesday, October 16, 200 l Page 11 ofl 7 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2001 ENROLLMENT REPORT WITH PRE-K STUDENTS r-- TOTAL\\ \\040 - ROMINE GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM \\VF WM I 01 0 0 17 21 5 0 0 5 4 53 02 0 II 22 3 0 0 4 43 03 0 18 9 2 0 0 2 4 37 04 0 7 15 4 5 0 0 2 6 40 05 0 8 18 2 4 0 0 2 36 EE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 K 0 0 16 14 2 0 0 3 5 41 \\) p 0 0 8 td 11 0 0 0 9 4 \\J. 33 ~ TOT AL FOR: ROMINE 3 85 ~ 110 13 19 0 0 23 ~ 30 1l'J 284 lo,-\nS\nT EPHENS GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTALI L__ ___ 01 0 0 36 35 0 0 75 02 0 0 42 41 0 4 0 0 89 03 0 0 40 26 2 2 0 0 0 71 04 0 0 37 36 0 0 0 0 0 74 05 0 0 34 35 2 0 0 0 73 EE 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 9 K 0 0 51 41 3 0 0 2 2 100 ' p 0 0 28 24 0 0 0 0 1  I 54 ' V1 ~ ~ _:rOTAL FOR: STEPHENS 0 269 ~ 242 8 8 0 9 545 .... COMPUTER INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Tuesday, October 16, 2001 Page 12 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2001 ENROLLMENT REPORT WITH PRE-K STUDENTS l~\n~\nA-S_HN GTN GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! 01 3 16 24 6 6 0 0 8 11 75 02 0 3 13 20 0 3 0 0 8 5 52 03 15 17 6 2 0 0 7 12 61 04 0 13 20 6 7 0 0 II 63 05 18 12 3 4 0 0 10 16 65 EE 0 7 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 13 K 3 0 31 26 2 2 0 0 7 7 78 15 \\ 12  p 0 0 0 0 13 ? 10 f\\ ~ TOTAL FOR: WASHNGTN 7 11 128 I ij 134 23 24 0 0 60 ~ 72 459 [043 ~~ILLlAMS GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 2 0 17 15 0 0 0 0 12 15 61 02 3 3 21 13 0 0 11 14 67 03 2 7 16 24 0 0 0 0 20 11 80 04 5 5 24 21 0 0 0 0 10 22 87 OS 27 24 0 0 0 19 18 91 12 a (\\_ K 18 0 0 0 0 17 'v 11 \u0026gt;-60 1) I!: TOTAL FOR: WILLIAMS 14 17 111'ft11s 0 89 91 110 446 044-WILSON GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 14 25 0 0 0 0 0 r---42---..- 02 0 0 19 23 0 0 0 45 --- ---------- 03 0 19 19 0 0 0 0 0 40 04 0 13 17 0 0 0 2 0 34 05 0 0 12 13 0 0 0 0 2 28 EE 0 2 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 K 0 0 II 17 0 0 0 2 0 31 I\\ 0 p 0 0 9 \"Q 7 0 0 0 0 0 17 ~ TOTAL FOR: WIL ON 4 0 99 'Jr1 33 2 2 0 5 6 f\\ 252 COMPUTER INFORMATION SER VICES DEPT Tuesday, October 16, 2001 Page 13 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2001 ENROLLMENT REPORT WITH PRE-K STUDENTS 1045 - WOODRUFF GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTALI I L ____ +_ 01 0 0 19 22 0 0 0 0 2 44 02 0 0 19 14 0 0 0 0 35 03 0 0 20 II 0 0 0 0 2 0 33 04 0 0 23 14 0 0 0 0 3 2 42 05 0 0 16 18 0 0 0 2 38 K 0 0 20 14 0 0 0 4 40 p 0 0 9 ~ 12 2 0 0 7 4 35 ~ TOTALFOR:WOODRUFF 0 0 1261 105 3 0 18 ~ 13 ~ ~ 046 - MABEL EL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 17 10 0 0 0 7 36 02 0 0 12 13 2 0 0 7 7 42 03 0 0 21 10 0 0 0 0 2 34 04 0 0 16 10 0 0 0 0 6 37 05 0 0 15 19 3 0 0 8 9 55 EE 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 0 2 2 12 - ----- ---- K 0 0 ll 19 0 0 0 5 37 ---------- ~ p 0 0 8 5 0 0 0 0 4 18 ~ \"i\n: 37 ~., ' . TOTAL FOR: MABEL EL 0 0 103 91 3 6 0 0 31 271 ---- io41:TERR -- GRAITT:-AF A\"M\"\"-BF BM HF HM NF -NM- WF WM TOTAL 01 2 4 22 14 2 0 0 16 I 3 74 --------- --------------- --- - .. - - - ~ ----- ---- 02 6 18 17 6 0 0 19 17 85 ---------- 03 4 15 17 4 4 0 0 13 10 68 04 5 0 26 24 0 3 0 0 II 13 82 05 26 12 3 2 0 0 20 15 80 K 4 7 18 26 0 4 0 0 20 21 JOO p 4 5 3 0 0 0 0 4 ~ I 18 ~ ~ 90 r'- TOTAL FOR: TERRY 23 1_8 130 f'a11 3 14 16 0 0 103 \\ 507 COMPUTER INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Tuesday, October 16, 2001 Page 14 of17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2001 ENROLLMENT REPORT WITH PRE-K STUDENTS 1048 - FULBRIGH GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! I 01 2 0 12 6 0 0 0 17 33 71 02 2 l3 16 0 0 0 0 24 15 71 03 0 0 17 17 0 0 0 0 20 17 71 04 0 0 16 15 0 0 0 0 22 20 73 05 0 17 14 0 0 0 32 13 78 EE 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 2 7 K 0 0 11 8 0 0 0 23 34 77 Cl p I('\\ 5 0 0 0 4~5 ~ 18 f\\. TOTAL FOR: FULBRIGH 6 2 87 84 2 0 144 ~ 139 466 ~ 050 - OTTER CR GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 17 22 0 0 0 17 11 69 02 0 22 19 0 0 0 14 9 66 03 0 17 15 0 0 0 17 17 68 04 0 0 12 I 7 0 0 12 12 55 05 0 0 14 16 0 0 0 9 10 50 K 0 2 24 16 0 0 0 0 II 19 72 ~ p 0 6 0 0 0 0 5 I\\. 4 ~ 17 TOTAL FOR: OTTER CR 2 4 112 1106 3 0 2 85 ~ 82 397 ~ \\os1-W AKEFIEL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM ~OTALL 01 0 0 28 27 5 7 0 0 2 70 ------------- ----- -- --- ----- -- . 02 0 0 22 24 4 4 0 0 0 6 60 03 0 0 30 22 7 4 0 0 0 3 66 04 0 0 25 21 2 6 0 0 56 05 0 0 32 18 3 2 0 0 0 56 K 0 0 20 27 5 4 0 0 58 4~ ~ p 0 0 5 3 6 0 0 0 (\\ 0 ~ 18 V\\ -- ' \\7 f\\ TOTAL FOR: WAKEFIEL 0 0 161 144 29 33 0 0 4 13 384 COMPlJfER INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Tuesday, October 16, 200 I Pagel5ofl7 r 1052- WATSON STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2001 ENROLLMENT REPORT WITH PRE-K STUDENTS GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM 'T~ 01 0 0 36 32 2 0 0 73 02 0 0 32 29 0 0 0 0 63 03 0 0 36 43 0 0 0 0 81 04 0 0 24 26 0 0 0 2 54 05 0 0 30 36 2 0 0 2 72 K 0 0 40 33 0 0 2 0 77 p 0 0 0 0 0 TOT AL FOR: WATSON 0 0 13 I\\ 11 211~ 216 6 4 0 32 ~ 452 1124 - LRSD RE CHRTR GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 03 0 0 3 10 0 0 0 0 0 14 04 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 3 0 34 05 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 35 {',, TOT AL FOR: LRSD RE CHRTR SC 0 0 3 \\,_ 29 16 (\\ 60 0 0 0 5 - 2 83 1766-ALC GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 06 0 0 I 6 0 0 0 0 2 0 07 0 0 5 14 0 0 0 0 0 3 22 ---------\"\"A ~------------~~-~~~--r- rj 08 0 0 6 ~ 21 0 0 0 0 2 \" 2 I 31 t - 09 0 0 9 20 0 0 0 0 30 ----------- ------------------ 10 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 17 TOTAL FOR: ALC COMPUTER INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Tuesday, October 16, 2001 Pagel6ofl7 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2001 ,- I ENROLLMENT REPORT WITH PRE-K STUDENTS r-------- TOTAL\\ t_::_-ACCLP GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM ------ 09 0 0 \\\\ 9 0 0 0 0 28 ------ \\0 o. 0 \\8 15 0 0 0 3 7 44 ------------ \\l 0 0 28 24 0 2 0 0 5 7 66 ~ 12 0 0 44 it~ 3 0 0 1 8 I) l 7 \\ 09 ~ TOT AL FOR: ACC LP 0 0 101 '- 84 4 2 ---0 - l __ 19V36l-L-~ 17\n.,Y\n\u0026amp;' I /~~-3/ (/17, TOTAL WITHOUT AGENCY STUDENTS 195 185 8690 8738 379 441 26 28 3371 3314 25,367 K 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 05 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 p 06 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 07 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 6 9 08 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 8 09 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 5 5 14 10 0 0 5 4 0 0 0 0 3 6 18 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 12 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 GRANDT OTAL: 195 185 8704 8755 379 441 26 28 3383 3346 25,442 ----------------------------- --~  ,..T\"\",.,.,,r,o C\" f\"\\t:'PT Tuesday, October 16, 2001 Page 17 of l 7 Grade Totals K 44 01 33 02 38 03 38 04 55 05 39 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 Totals 247 North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 2001 Pupil Enrollment as reported to the State Department of Education October 15, 2001 Park Hill Elementary 6002-064 M F M F M F M 15 8 9 12 0 0 0 6 5 9 13 0 0 0 8 8 11 10 0 1 0 9 11 8 8 2 0 0 13 10 18 12 1 1 0 7 12 8 11 0 1 0 !!oL l:J. '1 (.., 58 54 63 66 3 3 0 45.34% 52.23% 2.43% 0.00% F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 2001 Pupil Enrollment as reported to the State Department of Education October 15, 2001 Pike View Elementary 6002-065 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Am Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 60 9 13 21 15 1 1 0 0 0 0 01 59 12 7 19 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 61 11 10 19 19 1 0 1 0 0 0 03 71 9 9 20 31 0 2 0 0 0 0 04 56 9 9 18 18 1 0 0 1 0 0 05 66 16 11 26 10 1 1 1 0 0 0 06 07 08 09 10 11 12\n,?.5 1~7 JI Totals 373 66 59 123 114 4 4 2 1 0 0 33.51% 63.54% 2.14% 0.80% 0.00% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 2001 Pupil Enrollment as reported to the State Department of Education October 15, 2001 Seventh Street Elementary 6002-069 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac ls Am Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 48 0 1 24 22 0 1 0 0 0 0 01 51 0 0 26 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 53 2 1 20 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 64 2 3 34 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 59 7 4 25 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 48 3 2 17 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 ~ ,\ny1 I Totals 323 14 11 146 151 0 1 0 0 0 0 7.74% 91.95% 0.31% 0.00% 0.00% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 2001 Pupil Enrollment as reported to the State Department of Education October 15, 2001 Redwood Pre-School 6002-067 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Am Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 16 0 0 6 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 - ,01'\" :-J /\u0026amp;-1/ .5 0 .-Y /-.3 I / 0 t:) 0 0 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 ~ ,~~. ~ 12 M~ ~ 0 l',,,,(C 7~ I / V C 0 .:_) Totals ..A-0' .A ....a..-. - ...e.- -- ~- _Id, i, _o.,. . __.e~ _-0- _o _..e ~ 1.0~0% jl.00% ..Q.~ 0:00% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 2001 Pupil Enrollment as reported to the State Department of Education October 15, 2001 Poplar Street Middle School 6002-059 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Am Ind/A/a Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 01 02 03 04 05 06 658 110 104 222 204 10 6 0 2 0 0 07 08 09 10 11 , 12 :~/.,J./ -\"'~ JI( Totals 658 110 104 222 204 10 6 0 2 0 0 32.52% 64.74% 2.43% 0.30% 0.00% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 2001 Pupil Enrollment as reported to the State Department of Education October 15, 2001 Lakewood Middle School 6002-070 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Am Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 313 96 103 59 50 1 2 1 1 0 0 08 253 84 97 38 30 3 1 0 0 0 0 09 10 11 - 12 ~ /1// ? Totals 566 180 200 97 80 4 3 1 1 0 0 67.14% 31.27% 1.24% 0.35% 0.00% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 2001 Pupil Enrollment as reported to the State Department of Education October 15, 2001 Ridgeroad Middle School 6002-072 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Am Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 287 50 38 102 85 6 5 1 0 0 0 08 283 49 42 98 82 9 3 0 0 0 0 09 10 11 J 12 171 ,3~'1 ~ Totals 570 99 80 200 167 15 , 8 1 0 0 0 31.40% 64.39% 4.04% 0.18% 0.00% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 2001 Pupil Enrollment as reported to the State Department of Education October 15, 2001 Rose City Middle School 6002-077 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Am Ind/A/a Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 143 17 11 59 51 2 2 1 0 0 0 08 134 17 12 52 51 1 1 0 0 0 0 09 10 11 12 I~' ,_:)J.~ '/ Totals 277 34 23 111 102 3 3 1 0 0 0 20.58% 76.90% 2.17% 0.36% 0.00% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 2001 Pupil Enrollment as reported to the State Department of Education October 15, 2001 North Little Rock High School East Campus 6002-075 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Am Ind/A/a Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 586 142 125 169 137 7 4 1 0 0 1 10 673 158 177 157 158 5 10 3 5 0 0 11 12 (r:,~ (~/ ..aG,, Totals 1259 300 302 326 295 12 14 4 5 0 1 47.82% 49.32% 2.07% 0.71% 0.08% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 2001 Pupil Enrollment as reported to the State Department of Education October 15, 2001 North Little Rock High School West Campus 6002-076 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Am Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 01 02 03 04 05 06 6 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 07 22 2 1 16 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 08 22 4 0 11 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 09 74 13 3 41 15 2 0 0 0 0 0 10 204 36 17 85 60 1 3 0 0 0 2 11 668 158 156 154 187 9 3 0 1 0 0 ?o.:3.. ?J'l / --'r/ ,1_2_ 625 156 157 123 165 5 10 1 6 1 1 Totals 1621 369 334 434 437 18 16 1 7 2 3 43.37% 53.73% 2.10% 0.49% 0.31% Nov 30 01 10:13a NLR SCHOOLS 5017718058 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATI01'1 OFFICE 2700 POPLA STREFT NORTH LITTLE ROCK AR 72114 FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET TO, FROM. MellisaG uldin BobbyJ .A cklin COMPANY DATE, ODM 11/30/01 FAX NUMBER, TOTAL NO OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER, 501 371-0100 2 . OTES/COMMENTS, [Cl !C. HERE AND TYPE RETIJR 'ADDRCSSl p. 1 Nov 30 01 10: 13a NLR SCHOOLS Building Capacities 2001-2002 5017718056 I Locat10n West ---- _ I Building Capacity 11321 L East I 1261 I Lakewood Middle 598 Ridgeroad Mi_ddle 666 Rose City Middle j 457 Poplar Street Middle 814 I Argenta Academy 192 1 Amboy Elementary - - 419 Belwood Elementary 191 13oone Park Elementary 468 Crestwood Elementary 320 Glenview Elementary 209 Indian Hills Elementary 426 Lakewood Elementary 254 tJ,ynch Drive Elem~!).tary 1506 I Meadow Park Elementary 203 North Heights Elementary 509 Park Hill Elementary 295 Pike View Elementary 370 Seventh Street Elementary 434 -- - - p.2 j i 7 I I I I I l - \"\"' .... Of.ice of Student Affairs North Little Rock 5 choolD istrict 2700 PoplaSr treet North Little Rock, AR 7 2115-0687 (501) 771-8010 Francical J. Jackson, Director DATE: if-30 -D I TO: =-fbo~ RE: Dek I e'Ll, I( FAX 31/ - o IOO FAX: 'J 7 I - ':il?O PHONE: ______ _ PHONE: :J\"l I-go 14 COMENT _______________ _ This fax is __ page (s) induding the cover page. If you do not rec-eive all the pages, please call our ollice at (501) 771-8010_ PAGE 01/02 ..JU~ I f.l.l.\u0026gt;JU.l. NLRSD To: Francical J .Jackson/NLRSD@NLRSD cc: 1 ~ Greg Danlslr. ~ 11/30/01 09:31 AM Sub1ect: Oct 1 Pre-K Pre-K as of Oct 1 17 /t pl? Greg Daniels Director-Computer Services Greg.D1miels@mai1.nJrsd.k12.ar.us 501 771-8025 1 1 PAGE 02/0'.:: otaJ 7 124 NOV-29-T01H U1 1:47A M FAXN O. P. 01 Pulaski County Speci~I School Distric.t FAX COVER Time: // :yo I Number of Pages: (including cover sheet) --- Message: _______________ _ P.O. Box 8601  little Rock, A,.kansas 72216-8601 925 East Dixon Rd. (501) 490-2000  http://pessdweb.k12.ar.us HOV-29-T01H U1 1:47A M FAXN O. C ~\u0026lt;t, + ~ SCHOOL CAPACITY INFORMATION PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SEPTEMBER 181 2001 HIGH SCHOOL Jacksonville Mills North Pulaski Oak Grove Jr./Sr. Robinson Sylvan Hills JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Fuller Middle Jacksonville Middle Jacksonville Junior High Northwood Middle Robinson Middle (2-rooms devided) Alpha Academy Sylvan Hills Middle ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Adkins Arnold Drive Baker Bates Bayou Meto Cato Clinton College Station Crystal Hill Dupree Harris Jacksonville Landmark Lawson Oak Grove Oakbrooke Pine Forest Pinewood  Robinson Scott Sherwood Sylvan Hills Murrell Taylor Tolleson SCHOOL CAPACITY 1025 780 900 935 506 998 SCHOOL CAPACITY 945 800 800 964 486 300 925 SCHOOL CAPACITY 370 420 330 800 660 576 833 340 820 465 525 785 568 325 476 500 556 523 450 280 460 456 450 570 P. 02 NOV-29-0T1H U1 1:4 7 AM FAXN O. P. 02 SCHOOL CAPACITY INFORMATION PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SEPTEMBER 18, 2001 HIGH SCHOOL Jacksonville Mills North Pulaski Oak Grove Jr./Sr. Robinson Sylvan Hills JUNIOR H1GH SCHOOLS Fuller Middle Jacksonville Middle Jacksonville Junior High Northwood Middle Robinson Middle (2-rooms devided) Alpha Academy Sylvan Hills Middle ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Adkins Arnold Drive Baker Bates Bayou Meto Cato Clinton College Station Crystal Hill Dupree Harris Jacksonville Landmark Lawson Oak Grove Oakbrooke Pine Forest Pinewood Robinson Scott Sherwood Sylvan Hills Murrell Taylor Tolleson SCHOOL CAPACITY 1025 780 900 935 506 998 SCHOOL CAPACITY 945 800 800 964 486 300 925 SCHOOL CAPACITY 370 420 330 800 660 576 833 340 820 465 525 785 568 325 476 500 556 523 450 280 460 456 450 570 10/31/2001 16:04 501-490-1352 EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE Date: To: Fax: Re: Sender: Pulaski County Special School District Equity and-Pupil Services 925 E. Dixon Rd/P.O. Box 8601\" Littlr: Rock, A.rkansas 7221 6 (501) 490-6215 (501) 490-1352 Fax FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET 31 \\- 0\\0 o PAGE 01/13  YOU SHOULD RECEIVE \\ 3 PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL (501) 490-6215. MESSAGE: 10/31/:001 16:04 501-490-135'.: EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE PAGE 0'.:/13 ,,  ' .'Pulaski c_ountyS pecial .School District {?ctober 31, 2001 Mrs: Ann Marshall  . Office of .Desegi:egatioMno ni~ring On.eU nion ~atiqnal Plaza ... . .  -124 Westcapitol, Suite 1895 Little Roe~, AR 72201  Dear Mrs. Brown,: . . . . . . Attached is theoctober 1, 2001 enrollment counts for Pulaski County Special  School Distrjct:  The following schools are out side the racial balance guidelines: Ad.k i.n s Elementary- _59% ,. . . Baker Elementary - 16% Bates Elementary -\" 52% .College Station Elementary- 50% _   Folier Middle-'-50% Harris Elementary - 65% Jacksonville Elementary - 51 % . Land.mark Elementary ..:.4. 8% Lawson Elementary - 18% Sincerely, . w~ - Kart Brown . Assistant Superi~tendent Equity and. Pupil Services ch. c Houston Yuille Sam Jones John Walker . P.O. Box 8601  .J,ittle Rock, Arkansas 72216-8 1 92S East Dixon Road .  (501) 490-2000- http://pcssdweb.kl2.ar.us . ..... - 10/31/2001 15:04 501-490-1352 EQUITYP UPIL SERVICE PAGE 03/13 - 0 Pulaski County Special School District Enrollltnent Counts for 1 October 2001 WHITE Bl.ACK OTHER GRADE SCHOOL/GRADE MALE FEMALE MAL.E FEMALE MALE FEMAL.E TOTAL 01 ~dkins Elementcry 6003090 PK* 2 (1 5 4 (J'\nJ..) 8 1 '1) 0 t cf 20 K 6 6 21 14 0 0 47 1 IO 7 12 13 0 1 43 2 7 9 12 11 1 0 40 3 10 5 12 11 0 0 38 4 9 9 12 6 0 0 36 5 13 12 12 10 Q Q 47 SCHOOL TOTAL 57 I () 53 85 ,t' 73 z ~ 1 271 ~~ 03 {aker Interdistrict 6003092 I( 21 23 2 2 0 1 49 1 23 19 4 4 0 0 50 2 23 13 5 5 0 0 46 3 17 17 4 4 0 0 42 4 24 21 3 2 0 0 50 5 17 1 9 ~ \u0026gt;19 1 Q 0 36 SCHOOL TOTAL 125\n/J. 102 24 21 Q I 1 273 /tb\nJI. 02 {rystaf Hill Magnt 6003093 PK* 19 (\n. ~ 9 13 (\nt,.) 13 0 ()) 0 \u0026gt;Pl~ 54 I( 36 25 20 30 3 115 1 27 25 21 24 1 0 98 2 25 22 31 20 0 0 98 3 24 17 29 23 1 2 96 4 22 22 23 32 0 0 99 5 31 26 22 28 0 0 107 6 18 13 23 20 } Q 77 SCHOOL TOT AL 202 J~I 159 182 1'~190 l JI i 744 ~0J1 Pagel of 11 Date: 10/31/2001 10/31/2001 15:04 501-490-1352 EQUITYP UPIL SERVICE PAGE 04/13 Pulaski County Special School District Enrolllment Counts for 1 October 2001 WHITE Bl.ACK OTHER GRAJ:)E SC~OI../GRA()E MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE TOTAL. 05 Bayou Meto Elementary 6003094 K 36 31 2 1 2 2 74 1 47 31 2 1 2 2 85 2 31 38 2 1 2 1 75 3 32 44 2 1 0 1 80 4 34 49 l 2 1 l 88 5 ~ 28 .f. ! '- .f. 70 SCHOOL TOT AL 215 ~\n/.f2 21 ll 18 z 2 ,g ~ 472 -Yl 42 f linton Mo.gnet School 6003095 PK* 11 14 20 (1~ 22 0 2 (,,7/  69 IC 20 27 24 23 1 2 97 1 23 18 22 17 2 1 83 2 22 22 18 22 4 2 90 3 24 31 29 33 1 0 118 4 16 21 17 23 2 3 82 5 22 24 27 31 l 1 106 SCHOOL TOT AL 138 /'1~ 157 157 j\n,~ 171 11\n-\nyll 645 cJJ- 11 Jbupree Elementary 6003099 \" 14 14 14 7 1 0 50 1 16 16 5 5 0 0 42 2 10 19 12 6 2 0 49 3 13 15 8 7 3 3 49 4 26 12 11 15 l 2 67 5 9 21 ~ ,~4~ f. ,4 0 46 SCHOOL TOT AL 88 ~ 97 56 48 2 ~ 303 ~-IT Page 2 of 11 Dote: 10/31/2001 10/31/:001 16:04 501-490-135: EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE PAGE 05/13 Pulaski County Special School District Enrolllment Counts for 1 October 2001 WHITE Bl.ACK OTHER GRADE SC~L/GRADE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE TOTAL 15 Harris Elementary 6003102 IC 7 4 11 5 0 0 27 1 7 l 6 7 0 0 21 2 9 3 9 16 0 0 37 3 6 3 12 5 0 0 26 4 5 3 7 12 0 0 27 5 2 ~ 12 ~ ! Q 33 SCHOOL TOT AL 40 ti\u0026gt; 20 57 ,,o 53 l 0 171 G-1, ~ 8 J ccksonville Elementary 6003103 K 26 12 31 22 1 1 93 l 28 27 23 22 l 2 103 2 24 23 21 ?2 1 92 3 23 15 31 26 1 2 98 4 22 25 32 19 2 1 101 5 20 19 29 19 0 2 89 6 2 0 1 0 Q Q 3 SCHOOL TOTAL 145 ?~ 12\n16\n.ef! 13~ ~ 11:\u0026gt;~ 579 17- 21-t.ondmarkE le~ntary 6003104 PK- 3 f? 10 9 _\n,\n)) 13 0 9 0 t.Jl 35 IC 11 11 11 19 0 0 58 1 15 8 8 14 0 0 45 2 17 15 10 14 1 0 57 3 12 18 9 11 0 0 50 4 19 21 8 16 1 1 66 5 12 fl~ 15 15 16 Q\n.j l 59 SCHOOL TOTAL 95 98 70 11? 103 2 f 370 -17T-Page 3 of 11 Dote. 10/31/2001 lf)/31/:001 16:04 501-490-135: EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE PAGE 06/13 Pulaski County Special School District Enrolllment Counts for l October 2001 WHITE BLACK OTHER GRADE SCHOOUGRAt\u0026gt;E MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE TOTAL 22{cwson Elementary 6003105 K 16 11 4 4 0 0 35 1 22 18 5 2 0 1 48 2 18 13 1 3 0 1 36 3 17 11 5 4 0 0 37 4 21 12 5 2 0 0 40 5 15 1'6i{ 12 2. -4~ 1 1 0 37 SCHOOL TOT AL 109 17 26 18 1 p ~ 233 11'- 234-olleson Elernentcry 6003106 K 23 22 5 6 3 1 60 1 31 19 4 12 1 l 68 2 27 20 6 7 2 2 64 3 20 16 10 10 4 2 62 4 12 24 6 lO 1 1 54 5 19 15 10 2 1  55 SCHOOL TOT AL .ill~ 116 41 \"\"' 51 14 i?. 9 363 ~~l 28 \"6ak Grove Elein ntary 6003108 Pk* 27 26 11\n\u0026gt;.~ 12 0 0 0 ,?-07  76 I( 18 21 6 2 1 0 48 1 18 16 5 4 0 0 43 2 12 18 5 6 2 1 44 3 11 19 5 5 1 0 41 4 10 22 4 5 1 0 42 5 21 17 4 7 0 0 49 6 12 rtJ\" 21 I ~ 1 Q 46 SCHOOL TOTAL m ~ 160 47 ~~ 46 ~ 1 1 ~ ,,)./?. Page 4 of 11 Date. 10/31/2001 HJ/31/:001 16:04 501-436-135: EQUITYP UPIL SERVICE PAGE 07/13 Pulaski County Special School District Enrolllment Counts for 1 October 2001 WHITE BLACK OTHER GRADE SCl.OUGRADE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE TOTAL 31 Robinson Elementary 6003110 K 20 14 5 5 1 1 46 1 17 20 4 5 0 2 48 2 23 22 6 3 0 0 54 3 31 15 12 6 l 1 66 4 28 19 5 14 0 0 66 5 28 25 10 7 Q 1 71 SCHOOL TOT AL 147 ,\"~115 42 i~40 i 1 ~ 351 -2~7. 34 lott Elementa.ry School 6003111 IC 7 4 2 0 0 0 13 1 14 7 1 3 0 0 25 2 13 11 1 8 0 0 33 3 4 3 3 6 0 0 16 4 6 7 5 3 0 0 Zl 5 z z i 2 Q Q 21 SC~OOL TOTAL _ Cfe\u0026gt; 39 14 ii 25 Q D Q m ~t\u0026gt;?. i 37 Sherwood Elememtary 6003112 K 16 19 5 5 0 0 45 l 28 16 9 10 1 l 65 2 17 19 6 11 0 0 ~3 3 14 18 7 4 1 0 44 4 27 17 10 5 1 0 60 5 16 16 ~ 13 l Q 5-4 SCHOOL TOT AL 118 -\n\"J'?1 05 5 1~ 48 1 ~ 1 321 ~ \u0026lt;r1. Page 5 of 11 Date: 10/31/2001 10/31/:001 16:04 501-490-135: EOUITV PUPIL SERVICE PAGE 08/13 Pulaski County Special School District Enrolllment Counts for 1 October 2001 WHITE SCHOOUGRADE MALE FEMALE 39-.{ylvan Hills Elementary 6003113 K 25 20 1 20 13 2 3 4 5 SCHOOL TOT AL ---9 Jacksonville Middle School 6 7 SCHOOL TOT Al. - ~8 Jacksonville Jr High 8 9 SCHOOL TOT AL {3 Fuller Middl School 6 7 8 SCHOOL TOTAL j40 .Sylvan Hills Middl School 6 7 8 SCHOOL TOT AL Page 6 of 11 12 11 23 6003116 13 14 15 94 93 87 100 181 ~ 193 6003117 91 104 106 89 197 ~ 193 6003120 59 64 61 55 43 59 163 ~I 17s 6003122 104 72 95 68 102 77 301 :\n1\u0026lt;\"6 ill BLACK MALE FEMALE 7 7 9 11 5 8 10 13 9 16 13 J 6 53 ,,\u0026gt;t ~ 76 64 73 J 11 149\n/tlf 135 65 64 88 gl 1~3\ni11 125 65 56 62 55 56 46 183 y 157 57 62 69 60 61 ~ 187 51-Y1e5 OTHER GRADE MALE FEMAlE TOTAL 2 0 3 0 1 0 3 1 3 0 2 1 1 2 2 l 2 Q  1 'I ~ 61 ~6 42 51 64 62 336 ~~,_ 334 338 672 _/\n.?- 327 345 672 -/17, 248 236 206 690 --j\"t.J1,, 301 299 310 910 Date\n10/31/2001 Hl/31/2001 15:04 501-490-1352 EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE PAGE 09/13 Pulaski County Special School District Enrolllment Counts for 1 October 2001 WHITE BLACI{ OTHER GRADE SC~OOL/GRADE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE TOTAL 20 Jacksonville Sr High 6003123 10 94 95 64 71 0 1 325 11 98 94 49 52 2 4 299 12 83 78 42 62 ! z 273 SCHOOL TOTAL 275 ~1\ny267 155 ,9\u0026gt;1185 1 rf\n, ll 897 ~rfk / 47 Mills University High 600312!5 9 91 68 83 68 2 4 316 10 78 58 55 59 6 3 259 11 49 52 56 49 4 3 213 12 67 36 30 37 5 3 178 SCHOOL TOT At. 285 ~~~ 214 224 \u0026gt;/?12 13 1\nJ6 1i 966 -15'0 29/0ak Grove Jr/Sr High 6003126 7 47 40 20 17 3 1 128 8 42 50 14 25 0 0 131 9 60 50 28 20 3 0 161 10 63 54 25 19 3 0 164 11 60 50 17 22 1 3 153 12 45 45 15 0 11 1 0 117 SCHOOL TOT AL 317 l 0 /.f 289 119 ~~ 114 .li ,~ 1 854 ~71 3l~obinson Sr. High 6003127 9 56 52 24 34 1 0 167 10 50 59 28 21 0 0 158 11 70 57 24 14 1 0 166 12 48 38 23 19 Q _Q 128 SCHOOL TOT AL 224 ~?I 206 99 1z1 88 ~ ~Q 619 ~o7 Page 7 of 11 Date: 10/31/2001 10/31/2001 16:04 501-490-1352 EQUITYP UPIL SERVICE PAGE 10/13 Pulaski County Special Sc:hool Distl'ict E\"rolllment Counts for 1 October 2001 WHITE BLACK OTHER GRAC\u0026gt;E SCHOOUGRADE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE TOTAL 41..fsylvan Hills Sr High 6003128 9 112 79 47 58 3 3 302 10 76 87 45 36 0 1 2-45 11 108 91 34 36 0 0 269 12 92 i 83 30 34 0 0 239 0- 1 ~\u0026lt;\u0026gt;,.. SCHOOL. TOT AL 388 1J- 340 156 J'\n)- 1M 1 4 1.055 45JCcto Elementary 6003129 \" 25 24 6 4 0 0 61 l 27 15 5 7 2 0 56 2 27 29 5 8 1 3 73 3 17 23 9 8 3 0 60 4 34 23 9 10 1 78 5 30 23 ~ ~ 1 I~ Q 73 SCHOOL TOT AL 160\n.'113 7 45 qo 4~ 10 ~ 401 ~-\n,-7- 461inewood Elementary 6003130 K 26 18 13 15 2 75 1 21 17 15 14 1 2 70 2 20 19 13 11 3 0 66 3 22 16 10 14 2 0 64 4 19 25 12 15 0 2 73 5 14 -\ny15 ~ ,(p) 17 1 1 65 SCHOOLT OT AL 122 ~?\n110 78 86 ll I( 2 413 \u0026gt;/D 7. oe{o llege Station Elementory 600313~ '{'d PK* 2\n1 5 /J 7 0 0 0 15 \" 1 5 4 6 0 1 17 1 4 3 1 5 0 0 13 z 2 l 5 4 0 0 12 3 6 9 13 11 3 1 43 4 19 16 9 19 0 2 65 5 .il L ll 10 ~ l 5Z SCHOOLT. OTAL 55 o,1 42 48 ,,o ~ ~ ,o ~ 217 ~,7. Page 8 of 11 Date. 10/31/2001 10/31/~001 15:04 501-490-135~ EOUIT .' PUPIL SERVICE PAGE 11/13 Pulaski County Special School District Enrolllment Counts for 1 Odobe.r 2001 WHITE BLACK OTHER GRADE SCHOOL/GRADE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE TOTAL 49jNorth Pulaski High 6003136 9 99 73 43 44 5 3 267 10 125 75 31 36 5 7 279 11 86 66 35 40 4 5 236 12 68 ~ 63 20 '!) 26 2. 1 186 SCHOOL TOT AL 378 ~? 2,.77 129 ~'1 146 20 ?J'D18 968 ~'81- 27~rnold Dri\\le Elementary 6003137 \" 25 27 6 10 6 3 77 1 23 23 3 12 3 2 66 z 30 18 5 5 6 4 68 3 21 21 7 7 1 2 59 4 21 14 6 10 4 1 56 5 24 13 l 2 l 1 54 -- 0 - SCHOOL TOT AL 144\nI, lli 34 ~~ 49 2\n~1 16 380 ~'\n),,7- 11 loakbrooke Elementary 6003139 \" 17 16 5 6 0 1 45 1 14 17 8 8 0 0 47 2 13 16 7 12 0 0 48 3 21 10 12 9 0 3 !5!5 4 15 24 12 10 1 1 63 5 19 13 z 2 Q Q 48 SCHOOL TOt AL 99 ,Cl~ 96 51 10~ 54 ! Cr ~ 306 ~,. \"16 Northwood Middle School 6003140 6 93 85 44 31 7 3 263 7 102 75 40 30 2 4 253 8 87 67 37 \\ 39 i 2 236 SCHOOL TOTAL 282 ~o'\\ 227 121 ~~ 100 13 i~ 2 752\nXtl Page. 9 of 11 Date: 10/31/2001 10/31/2001 16:04 501-490-1352 EQUITYP UPIL SERVICE PAGE 12/13 Pulaski Coui,ty Special School District Enrolllment Counts for- l October 2001 WHITE BLACK OTHER GRADE SCt'OUGRADE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE TOTAL 51 Murrell Taylor Elementary 6003141 I( 13 15 11 15 0 0 54 1 14 14 8 10 l l 48 2 14 15 11 11 0 0 51 3 18 10 16 14 1 0 59 4 17 17 17 7 0 0 58 5 27 ~ 18 13 ,~l 8 Q Q 66 -1~1. SCHOOL TOT AL 103 { 11 89 76 65 i ?\u0026gt; ! 336  52 Pine Forest Elementary 6003142 k 33 28 9 2 0 0 72 1 22 20 12 9 1 1 65 2 28 28 3 6 1 l 67 3 25 13 11 4 0 0 53 4 44 26 6 ll 0 3 90 5 25 22 5 5 1 3 61 6 27 ~ i ~ .f ,j 1 69 SCHOOL TOTAL 204 ?' 163 55 q~ 41 ~ 2 477\n.\" 7 - ~O R.obinson Middle School 6003143 6 60 47 26 29 I 1 164 7 62 58 31 24 1 1 177 8 62 52 30 ,~4 19 1 0 164 SCHOOL TOT AL 184 J~ I 157 87 72 1 ~ 2 505 ,\n17- 53 ~ates Elementary 6003146 PK\" 13 J 11 17 (31) 14 0 u 0 G 55 IC 31 21 21 15 1 l 90 1 26 18 17 23 2 0 86 2 23 15 32 19 0 0 89 3 20 13 29 21 1 3 87 4 25 15 23 21 3 2 89 5 20 J.Q B. ~ Q ,,} ! 121 SCHOOL TOTAL 158 7 123 171 , !fil. z z 617 7o Page 10 of 11 Dote: 10/31/2001 10/31/2001 16:04 501-490-1352 EQUITYP UPIL SERVICE PAGE 13/13 Pulaski County Special School District Enrolllment Counts for 1 October 2001 WHITE BLACK OTHER GRADE SCHOOL/GRAOE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE TOTAL TOT AL OISTIUCT ENROLLMENT t~~ 76 1 Pl(* 77 79 1 (, 89 ', 1 :, i P 324 K 479 418 247 225 24 16 1,409 1 497 388 209 242 18 zo 1,374 2 447 421 231 239 29 17 1,384 3 419 376 295 257 24 23 1,394 4 498 459 252 285 20 21 1,535 5 474 410 ZBJ 272 22 21 1,482 6 469 '\\ 421 308 ~J 271 24 \"~ 12 1,505 3.2s3l? z.s93 1 825 -,,'l - ELEMENTA RY TOTALS 1,791 ill~ UQ ~ ~lo 1 7 8 9 10 11 12 SECONDARY TOTALS DISTIUCT TOTALS AS REPORTEbT O THE STATE (WITHOUT \"PRE IC\" STUDENTS) 454 396 427 409 5Z4 4/1 486 428 471 410 403 I,~ J4J 2,765 ' 2,397 295 257 263 256 313 ,?85 248 242 215 213 160 4'J'1\u0026lt;8 9 1,494 ~ 1,442 3,319 3,233 -=== 0 17 12 1,-431 9 JO 1,374 1-4 I.I 1,558 14 12 1,430 12 15 1,336 13 '1.J l ,121 79 ,~ 73 8,250 e9tl 240 -203 [ DISTRICT TOTALS ----------- ... --- ~q-------------(-7, -1--lf----- : !,WITH \"PRE-K\" \u0026amp;,.!25111 ~ ~ 3,323 '241 205 ~ 1 ~(, ?.. :.STUDENTS - - == _, -\nL ---------------------------------- ----------------- .. ------------------ .. ---- _, ---J ,-----------------MOR~NrNOrES~----------------, : (1) PK* - ''l'RF-K\" CHIU\u0026gt;RtN AR NOT INal/l\u0026gt;ED IN TH STATE'S OCTO8tR J I I 0/ROllMENr ?'Ol/NT FOR Pt/LASKI COVNTY SPCIAl SCHOOi,, l\u0026gt;I$TRICT I : (.2) THE ALPHA ACADEMY WAS NOr REPOR11:DB, CAVS THE 5TVl\u0026gt;NTS WFREC OUNTtl\u0026gt; : I~ ------A-S -PA-RT- O-F- TH-t -.S-CH-OO-i. -WH-IC-H- T-HE-Y N-O-RM-A-/.J.-Y A-TT-EN-D-. --------I ---- Page 11 of 11 Date: 10/31/2001\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_1552","title":"\"Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001''","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":["2001-10"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Educational innovations","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","School management and organization","Student assistance programs","Education, Elementary"],"dcterms_title":["\"Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001''"],"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/1552"],"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":["101 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1084","title":"\"Extended Year Education (EYE) Report: SY 2000-2001\" Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2001-09-28"],"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","Educational statistics","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["\"Extended Year Education (EYE) Report: SY 2000-2001\" Planning, Research, and Evaluation, 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/1084"],"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":["62 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\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nEC IVE DEC 13 2001 Extended Year Education (EYE) Report SY2000-2001 Planning, Research, and Evaluation September 28, 2001 Abstract National research on Extended Year Education (EYE) programs has indicated a number of key variables.  Achievement is similar to or better than traditional calendar year schools.  Students and teachers have a positive perception of their school.  Most parents are satisfied with the EYE program.  EYE schools cost more to operate than traditional calendar year schools. Demographically the three EYE schools (i.e., Mabelvale, Stephens, and Woodruff) are more different than similar.  They share similar ethnic and SES ratios.  The schools are of different size, their instructional programs are different, and they are allocated varying levels of resources.  Stephens is a new school that opened in January 2001. Achievement data is mixed.  4th grade Benchmark scores improved at Mabel vale.  On some subjects measured by the Achievement Level Test (ALT), schools are growing faster than the national comparison sample.  The three schools also performed well in comparison to other schools in the District on the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) readiness to read percent. Other variables indicate mixed results.  Discipline sanctions, compared to Woodruff, appear high at Mabelvale and Stephens.  Surveys of EYE parents, students, and teachers indicated a positive perception of the EYE program and in particular, parents are satisfied with the EYE program.  The cost of implementing the EYE program adds $23,993 to each school's operating budget.  Teacher behavior (i.e., sick and personal leave, professional development, and inservice days) has not measurably changed. The new District reporting system indicates mixed results, with Woodruff performing above the District average in the percent of teachers with 30+ professional development hours It is uncertain whether the aforementioned results were due to calendar change or to the continuity of instruction (e.g., intersessions). Continued annual reports will help to validate EYE program success or lack thereof. Concluding remarks indicate a need for the District and schools to review their allocation of resources and intervene where possible, to work on improving the amount of professional development, and to incorporate not only achievement goals and data, but also EYE survey goals and data into each school's improvement plan. 2 Introduction and Method Description of the EYE Program In August of 2000, Little Rock School District opened the school year with three of its elementary schools (i.e., Mabelvale, Stephens, and Woodruff) operating on an extended year calendar. Below is the calendar for the upcoming SY2001-2002. August 8 - School begins October 15-18 - 1st intersession October 22-26 - Vacation Dec. 2-January 1 - Winter break February 4-8 - 2nd intersession February 11-13 - Vacation March 25-29- Spring break April 17-19 - 3rd intersession June 19 - Last day June 24-29 - 4th intersession EYE is a concept, which reorganizes the school year so that the standard instructional period is distributed throughout the year with regularly scheduled breaks or vacations interspersed. Educational instruction and vacations are organized into smaller segments and spaced throughout the year for more continuous learning and more frequent breaks. EYE has emerged nationally as a way to offer all students a better education, regardless of their ethnic background, social status or academic performance. This is just another avenue that the Little Rock School District is employing to offer all students an opportunity for outstanding achievement. Little Rock's design is a single track 45-10 calendar where all students and teachers in the school are in class or on vacation at the same time. The 45-10 refers to 45 days in a quarter then 10 days of intersession/vacation. Intersession is a five-day program and attendance is voluntary. Comparison of EYE and Traditional Calendars EXTENDED YEAR CALENDAR 178 STUDENT DAYS 30 STUDENT INTERSESSION DAYS ONE MONTH SUMMER VACATION (JULY) 4 NINE WEEK QUARTERS 3 TRADITIONAL CALENDAR 178 STUDENT DAYS SUMMER SCHOOL 2  MONTHS BREAK 4 NINE WEEK QUARTERS Expected Outcomes from Implementing EYE Section 2. 7 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 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. Less time needed to reteach. In order to start a new year effectively, teachers tend to devote four or more weeks on reviewing and reteaching. Time is recognized as a major factor that leads to loss of learning. Increased reading skills. Reading is the biggest hurdle for disadvantaged children in the primary grades. The gap between disadvantaged and average children widens between September and June as well as over the span of several calendar years. Studies show that low socioeconomic students lose as much as 1 to 2 months during the summer without the benefit of compensatory programs. It is true that all students regardless of ability or background forget, but for the disadvantaged the problem is greater. Disadvantaged children acquire new skills and knowledge during the school year only to have their gains dissipate over the months when schools are not in session. Intersession. For students working below grade level, extended year schedules offer an opportunity to gain individual help. The traditional calendar makes these students wait until the end of the year for summer school. It does not provide the opportunity for additional help close to the times of the learning problem. Balanced holidays. Most people in a working community are not limited only to summer vacation. Scheduling vacations during times other than when most people travel is attractive to many\nthe cost of travel, lodging and admission costs are often reduced. Large crowds can be avoided. Vacations can be scheduled at times that are better for the working parent and the employer. Families whose children attend extended year schools can easily plan for a wider variety of family vacation experiences. Children in schools on the traditional calendar and the extended calendar will find that all of the major holiday periods are the same. Less burnout. Frequent breaks result in less stress and burnout. The intersession/vacation periods refresh teachers and students, resulting in improved teachers' and students' attitudes and decreasing teacher burnout. Teachers and students return from breaks refreshed and motivated. Results of National Research National research has indicated that EYE type schools have outcomes similar to or better than traditional calendar schools. This national research has reached the following conclusions.  Achievement is similar to or better than traditional calendar year schools.  Students and teachers have a positive perception of their school.  Most parents are satisfied with the EYE program.  EYE schools cost more to operate than traditional calendar year schools. 4 National research is uncertain as to the reasons that certain EYE type schools have demonstrated an increase in achievement schools versus traditional calendar year schools. Researchers have speculated that the remediation and enrichment activities provided during intersession have an effect and also, the reduction of the summer vacation may contribute to a lessening of the traditional summer fall off (Kirk, 2000). Methodology This report will examine a number of variables to determine the impact of EYE on student achievement, teacher behavior, parent, teacher, and student attitudes toward the EYE program, and the cost of the EYE program. The variables to be reported and discussed in this report are: 1. Demographic and equitable allocation data. 2. Observation Survey (OS) and Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) scores for grades K-2. 3. Achievement Test Level (ALT) growth scores in reading, language usage, mathematics, and science for grades 2-5. 4. SAT-9 for grade 5 and Benchmark scores for grade 4. 5. Teacher use of sick, personal, professional development, and inservice days. 6. Survey data of EYE program parents, students, and teachers. 7. Additional EYE program costs. Data will be reported in aggregate and disagregate form. However, given the high percentage of Black students at the three EYE schools and the importance of improving the achievement scores of Black students, concluding remarks will focus on Black student performance. 5 Results Demographic Data 10/1/00 Enrollment by Grade level and Ethnicity PreK Kindergarten 1st 2nd 3rd 4tn 5'n Black/Non-Black Black/Non-Black Black/Non-Black Black/Non-Black Black/Non-Black Black/Non-Black Black/Non-Black Mabel vale 919 35 / 14 35 / 15 46 / 5 40 I 13 46 I 20 47 I 12 Stephens 32 / 3 54 / 3 45 / 3 36 / 4 45 / l 49 / 4 46 / 2 Woodruff 42 /l 1 35 / 4 37 / 3 35 / 4 34/7 27 /7 30 I 5 Ethnicity, SES, and Instructional Program School N Ethnicity %SES Instructional (PreK) Black/ Non-Black Strategies Mabel vale 346 75%/25% 83% (18) ELLA Stephens 327 94%/6% 90% ELLA (35) Woodruff 281 85% / 15% 85% SFA (53) 6 Equitable Allocation Worksheet Data Scores are based on a 1-8 scale, with the higher score indicating more resources allocated to that school. Scores were calculated in December 2000 and derived from the 10/1 /00 enrollment report. Caution is advised in comparing Stephens to Garland. The mid-year changeover from Garland affected several of the variables ( e.g .. % of new teachers, computer/pupil ratio, and sq. ft. per pupil). Except for these three variables, scores tend to reflect the status of Garland at 10/1/00 rather than Stephens. Given that most data is based on 10/1/00 enrollment, it will be at least another two years before a reliable comparison is available for Stephens. Mabel vale Stephens Woodruff 98-99 99-00 00-01 98-99 99-00 00-01 98-99 99-00 Teacher/Pupil Ratio 4 3 4 6 6 6 5 6 Staff/Pupil Ratio 4 5 6 7 8 8 6 6 Sq. Feet per Pupil 5 7 8 5 6 3 5 5 % of Staff with MA, +9 1 1 I I I 2 3 I years Experience % of new Teachers 6 4 7 3 .., ., 1 2 4 School Size 4 3 4 6 7 5 6 7 Computer/Pupil Ratio 6 5 7 4 3 8 3 1 Per Pupil Expenditure 5 3 3 6 7 6 5 6 Volunteer hours per Pupil 1 1 1 4 4 4 4 4 Donations per pupil 5 4 6 4 5 4 2 2 Total Score 41 36 44 46 50 47 41 42 Conclusions  Woodruff is the smallest school but has the largest Pre-K program and is due to the temporary placement of some Pre-K students from Stephens until Stephens opened in January 2001.  There is some variability in ethnicity with a range of 75% Black students at Mabelvale to 94% Black students at Stephens. However, all three schools are above the District average of 68% Black.  With a range of 83% to 90%, there appears to be less variability for the SES variable.  Woodruff is the only SF A school, with Stephens and Mabelvale using ELLA instructional strategies.  Mabel vale has a lower enrollment in Kindergarten and 1st grade than other grade levels at Mabelvale. Woodruff has consistent grade level enrollments. Stephens has a comparatively large Kindergarten class.  Equitable allocation worksheet scores for Mabelvale and Woodruff have increased over time.  For SY2000-200 I, Mabelvale had an increase in the computer to pupil ratio, and donations per pupil. 7 00-01 7 7 5 5 5 7 2 5 2 7 52  There was less teacher turnover at Mabelvale.  Mabelvale has remained consistently low on the volunteer hours per pupil variable and % of staff with MA +9 years experience, with a score of 1 for all three years.  Woodruff had an increased number of staff with MA +9 years experience and per pupil donations. However, Woodruff has remained consistently low in the ratio of computers per pupil. With some minor variation, the three EYE schools are similar on the other allocation variables. There appears to be more differences than similarities in the demographic make-up of the three EYE schools. The three schools share similar SES and ethnic makeup, teacher and staff per pupil ratio, and per pupil expenditure. Differences between the schools are  Enrollment and grade level size.  The instructional programs, with two schools using ELLA and one a SF A school.  The ratio of computers, volunteer hours, donations, and % of staff with MA +9 years experience. Observation Survey (OS) and Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) scores for grades K-2 The OS and ORA are observational measures used to guide student work on tasks related to reading and writing. The OS consists of five measurable tasks:  Letter Identification (Letter) records the letters a student knows.  Word Test (Word) records the number of words a students knows.  Concepts in Print (Cap) records what a student is attending to on the printed page.  Writing Vocabulary (Voe) records all the words a student can write in ten minutes.  Writing Records (Diet) identifies a student's writing behavior. The ORA is considered a pivotal task in which student reading behavior is recorded as text is read aloud. During this observation students read materials that are typically used within the classroom and the observer (i.e., the classroom teacher) records the directional movements that are made and errors or miscues. The student is assessed on deriving meaning, structure and information from the material. The OS and DRA were administered in the fall and spring to Kindergarten through 2nd grade students. The OS and DRA is written for classroom teachers who want to become careful observers of young children as these students learn to read and write. The OS and DRA are useful to teachers who work one-on-one with students who are having difficulty in learning to read and write. Where appropriate, the OS and DRA are administered to all students. A student is considered to be ready to read at the next grade level with a DRA score of 2 in kindergarten, 16 in 1st grade, and 24 in 2nd grade. Growth scores on the OS and DRA by District and the three EYE schools are reported in Appendix A. The table below reports the percent of students by ethnicity and grade level who are considered to be ready to read at the next grade level. SY2000-2001 scores are derived from 8 the DRA assessment completed during April 2001. Data for schools in which there were less than five non-black students will not be reported. Percent of students at the readiness level Kindere:arten 1st Grade 20 Grade Black Non-Black Black Non-Black Black Non-Black 99-00 00-01 99-00 00-01 99-00 00-01 99-00 00-01 99-00 00-01 99-00 Mabel vale 61.5 86.4 75 100 51.1 87.5 66.7 87.9 32.4 60 68.8 Stephens 40.4 87.5 24.1 36.6 39.3 58.5 ,, Woodruff 68.6 48.6 - 84.4 65.7 . 82.9 84.8 District 69.3 77 84.7 88.8 48.3 57.4 71.2 77.3 63.8 69.8 81.6 Conclusions For Black students, at the kindergarten level, Mabelvale and Stephens exceeded the District cohort improvement scores. At the kindergarten level, Mabelvale and Stephens exceeded the District average in percent of students at the readiness level. At the I st grade level Mabel vale and Woodruff exceeded the District cohort improvement scores and the District average in percent of students at the readiness level. At the 2nd grade level Mabelvale and Stephens exceeded the District cohort improvement scores, with only Woodruff exceeding the District average in percent of students at the readiness level. Except for Mabelvale the number of Non-Black students is small. Actual Black student growth performance from Fall to Spring is mixed (See appendix A). In Kindergarten:  Mabelvale performed above the District in hearing and recording sounds and the DRA.  Stephens performed above the District average in letter identification, word test, writing vocabulary, and hearing and recording sounds.  Woodruff performed better in letter identification and word test. In I st grade:  Mabelvale preformed better than the District in word test, writing vocabulary, and DRA.  Stephens performed better in concepts in print and hearing and recording word sounds.  Woodruff performed better in letter identification. In 2nd grade:  Mabelvale performed better than the District in letter identification and hearing and recording word sounds. 9 00-01 83.3 ' 86.8  Stephens performed better in writing vocabulary, hearing and recording word sounds, and DRA.  Woodruff performed better in hearing and recording word sounds. Achievement Level Test (ALT) Growth Scores The AL Ts include a series of mathematics, reading, language usage, and science achievement measures that increase in difficulty across levels. The tests are designed to document growth by assessing students at the \"cutting edge\" of their individual achievement level. Spring administration across grades 2 - 9 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. 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. Demonstration of growth within and across an individual's matriculation, spring to spring, in grades 2 - 9 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 160-190 in the spring of the 2nd grade and progress to the 230-260 range by high school. Along the scale, scores have the same meaning regardless of the individual student's 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 student's 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. The AL Ts are aligned with The Arkansas Mathematics, Reading, and English/Language Arts, and Science Curriculum Frameworks, 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. Teachers and curriculum specialists balanced by race, gender, and grade level matched the pool of questions to the standards and their attending benchmarks included in the aforementioned Frameworks. 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. ALT median and median growth scores by District and the three EYE schools are reported in Appendix B. A median score represents data in which 50% of the students scored above the median score and 50% of the students scored below the median score. The outcome scores for this report are the Spring 2001 results. EYE Spring 2001 results for Black students will be compared to District Black students. The target scores listed in appendix B were derived from a nationwide comparison group of 500,000 students that have taken the AL Ts. ALT data will be reported in two ways. First, Black student scores will be reported by school, grade level, and subject in which these students performed equal to or better than the District median scores. None of the EYE schools met or exceed the comparison group median target scores. Secondly, Black student scores will be reported by school, grade level, and subject is which these students performed equal to or better than the District and comparison group growth scores (i.e., target scores). Below are the Black student median outcome results for Spring 2001 that were equal to or greater than the Black student District median. Mabel vale Reading 2nd grade 4th grade Garland/Stephens Reading none Woodruff Reading 2nd grade 3rd grade 4th grade 5th grade Language none Language none Language 2nd grade Math 2nd grade 4th grade Math none Math 2nd grade 5th grade Science 3rd grade Science none Science 3rd grade 5th grade Below are the Black student one-year growth results or EYE schools that were equal to or greater than the Black student District median. An * means than the students grew at or above the target score. Mabel vale Reading 3rd grade* 4th grade* 5th grade* Garland/Stephens Reading 4th grade* Language 3rd grade 4th grade Language 3rd grade 4th grade* 5th grade* 11 Math 4th grade* Math 3rd grade* 4th grade 5th grade* Science 5th grade Science 4th grade Woodruff Conclusions Reading 3rd grade* 4th grade* 5th grade* Language 4th grade* Math 3rd grade Science 4th grade While median outcome results for Black students at Mabelvale and Woodruff had mixed results, reading appears to be a strong subject primarily at Woodruff. Growth scores appear optimistic. In all three schools a number of grades are growing not only faster than the District median, but also faster than the target score. SA T-9 for grade 5 and Benchmark scores for grade 4 SAT-9 and Benchmark data report a cohort of students in time. The SA T-9 is given in the fall to 5th grade students and the Benchmark is given in the spring to 4th grade students. SA T-9 for the District and three EYE schools are reported in Appendix C. Black student percentile scores for SAT-9: Complete battery 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 Mabel vale 29 28 24 19 17 Garland/ 18 17 23 24 24 Stephens Woodruff 30 32 22 14 34 District 26 25 30 26 29 Percent of Black students at or above the proficient level on Benchmark exam Mathematics Literacv 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 1998-1999 1999-2000 Mabel vale 0% 16% 18% 15% 21% Stephens 0% 0% 0% 13% 13% Woodruff 4% 20% 19% 4% 34% District 8% 15% 16% 20% 29% Conclusions The SAT-9 data for 2000-2001 was collected at the beginning of the EYE program and will be useful in future EYE reports. The Benchmark data was collected in the spring 200 I and is somewhat a reflection of the change to EYE. Obviously what a student has incurred in the years prior to the EYE program will have as equal or greater affect than the one year in EYE. Mabel vale had an increase in the number of Black students at or above the proficient level, while Stephens and Woodruff had no change or a decrease 12 2000 2 4 1 2 4th Grade Benchmark Exam - -~ Grade 4 Benchmark Examination Mathematics School Summary Report: General Population Mabelvale Elementary Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 All Students 42 81% 34 67% 33 66% 10 19% 6 12% 7 14% 0 0% 7 14% 8 16% 0 0% 4 8% 2 4% Asian/Pacific Islander 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% African/American 22 76% 30 75% 26 76% 7 24% 4 10% 2 6% 0 0% 5 13% 4 12% 0 0% 1 3% 2 6% Hispanic 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Native American 5 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% White 12 80% 4 40% 6 43% 3 20% 2 20% 4 29% 0 0% 1 10% 4 29% 0 0% 3 30% 0 0% Grade 4 Benchmark Examination Literacy School Summary Report: General Population Mabelvale Elementary Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 All Students 29 60% 27 53% 22 44% 14 29% 13 25% 17 34% 5 10% 10 20% 11 22% 0 0% 1 2% 0 0% Asian/Pacific Islander 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 100% 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% African/American 15 58% 25 63% 17 50% 7 27% 7 18% 11 32% 4 15% 7 18% 6 18% 0 0% 1 3% 0 0% Hispanic 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Native American 3 60% 0 0% 0 0% 1 20% 0 0% 0 0% 1 20% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% White 10 71% 2 20% 4 29% 4 29% 5 50% 6 43% 0 0% 3 30% 4 29% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 13 - - Grade 4 Benchmark Examination Mathematics School Summary Report: General Population Stephens Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 All Students 24 89% 28 88% 43 91% 2 7% 4 13% 4 9% 1 4% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Asian/Pacific Islander 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% African/American 22 92% 28 88% 42 93% 2 8% 4 13% 3 7% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Hispanic 2 67% 0 0% 1 50% 0 0% 0 0% 1 50% 1 33% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Native American 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% White 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Grade 4 Benchmark Examination Literacy School Summary Report: General Population Stephens Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 All Students 16 62% 17 53% 35 74% 6 23% 11 34% 9 19% 4 15% 4 13% 3 6% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Asian/Pacific Islander 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% African/American 14 61% 17 53% 35 78% 6 26% 11 34% 8 18% 3 13% 4 13% 2 4% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Hispanic 2 67% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 50% 1 33% 0 0% 1 50% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Native American 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% White 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 14 - Grade 4 Benchmark Examination Mathematics School Summary Report: General Population Woodruff Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 All Students 25 76% 23 68% 19 66% 4 12% 3 9% 4 14% 2 6% 6 18% 2 7% 2 6% 2 6% 4 14% Asian/Pacific Islander 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% African/American 22 81% 20 69% 17 77% 4 15% 3 10% 1 5% 1 4% 5 17% 1 5% 0 0% 1 3% 3 14% Hispanic 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Native American 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% White 3 50% 3 60% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2 67% 1 17% 1 20% 0 0% 2 33% 1 20% 1 33% Grade 4 Benchmark Examination Literacy School Summary Report: General Population Woodruff Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 All Students 20 59% 11 32% 11 38% 12 35% 11 32% 10 34% 2 6% 12 35% 8 28% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Asian/Pacific Islander 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% African/American 18 64% 10 34% 10 45% 9 32% 9 31% 8 36% 1 4% 10 34% 4 18% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Hispanic 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Native American 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% White 2 33% 1 20% 0 0% 3 50% 2 40% 0 0% 1 17% 2 40% 3 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 15 Discipline Sanctions Number and Percent to student population . Sanctions minus repeat offenses School of Sanctions (Grades 1-3) Mabel vale 30 (19.5%) 23 (15%) Stephens 55 (41%) 32 (23.9%) Woodruff 2 (1.7%) 2 (1.7%) Conclusions Both Mabel vale and Stephens had a number of repeat offenses. However, Stephens had almost 25% of their 1st through 3rd grade students sanctioned. In addition, the 15% single sanctions at Mabelvale is also high. Teacher use of sick, personal, professional development, and inservice days Data from Garland is used for SY's 1998-1999 and 1999-2000. There appears considerable variability in the tables for professional development and inservice days. Since this appears to be so, the last table combines both these data. The first set of tables are data received from the Financial Services Department and reflect the number of days a teacher was out of the school. The last table are data received from the Staff Development Department and reflect staff development hours teachers received either during or after school hours. Average Sick Days School 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 Mabel vale 12.45 9.69 11.1 Stephens 7.21 * 8.11 * 7.99 Woodruff 12.8 9.13 7.12 District 8.84 8.74 8.99 Average Personal Days School 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 Mabel vale .76 .87 .94 Stephens .89* 1.12* .86 Woodruff 1.06 1.29 1.16 District 1.01 1.05 1.13 16 Average Professional Development Days School 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 Mabel vale 1.61 3.00 .17 Stephens 1.62* 1.80* .37 Woodruff 1.13 1.03 .49 District 1.61 1.68 2.42 Average Inservice Days School 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 Mabel vale 0 0 2.34 Stephens .13* .14* 1.67 Woodruff .35 1.5 1.61 District .33 .57 .32 Average Combined Professional Development and Inservice Days School 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 Mabel vale 1.61 3.00 2.51 Stephens 1.75 1.93 2.04 Woodruff 1.48 2.53 2.09 District 1.94 2.25 2.74 Average Staff Development Hours, using the District's new reporting system, provided by the Staff Development Department. Data is not available for years prior to 2000- 2001. School 2000-2001 Mabel vale 33.4 Stephens 40.3 Woodruff 50.1 % below 30 hours % 30 to 60 hours % above 60 hours Mabel vale 35% 35% 31% Stephens 27% 33% 40% Woodruff 4% 39% 57% District 32% 38% 31% 17 Conclusions Average sick days. The District trend is mixed, but appears to be on the increase. Woodruff s use of sick days shows a decreasing trend, while Mabel vale and Stephens are mixed. Stephens and Woodruff are below the District average, with Mabel vale above the average. Average personnel days. The District trend is on the increase and also at Mabel vale. Stephen's data may indicate a downward trend, with Woodruff data mixed. Mabelvale and Stephens are below the District average, with Woodruff above. Combined professional development and inservice days. While both the District and Stephens have an increase trend in these days, all three schools are below the District average. Staff Development. The minimum required yearly hours for teacher certification is 30. Woodruff by far has the highest average staff development hours and the most teachers with 30+ hours of professional development. Survey data of EYE program parents, students, and teachers The survey results by the combined three schools and the individual schools are reported in Appendix D (parents), E (students), and F (teachers). Typically school results do not vary greatly from the combined report. Thus, concluding remarks will be directed towards the combined data. The purpose of the EYE program survey was to determine parent, student and teacher perception of their school. Several key survey questions, asked across all groups, are reported below by combined results. Interest in educational program. Parents, students, and teachers perceive a greater interest by students in the educational program this year as opposed to last year. Short vacation periods. Most parents and teachers feel that their children/students like the shorter periods. A little over half (56%) of the students liked the shorter periods. Students achieve higher than at their traditional school year. Many parents (57%) felt their children performed better during the EYE calendar year rather than during a traditional calendar. Less than half ( 46%) of the teachers felt that their students did better during the EYE calendar. However, 68% of the students felt they performed better during the EYE calendar. Continuation of the EYE program. Most parents (76%) want the EYE program to continue. Students (63%) as well as teachers (83%) felt the same way as parents. Value of intersessions. The perceptions of intersessions are mixed. Parents have ambivalent feelings towards intersession, with 52% of parents feeling that an intersession has more value than a summer vacation. Students (65%) enjoyed the intersessions. Teachers (63%) felt that students benefited more the intersession than other typical summer programs. Expansion of the EYE program. Parents, students and teachers agree than the program should be expanded to other District schools. 18 Teachers felt the EYE program reduced the need to reteach, the program reduced stress levels, and provided for continuity in instruction. However, teachers felt that parents are not any more involved than before with their children's education. Students reported they had more time to learn and get extra help. However, these same students (50%) were ambivalent as to the benefit of Voyager lessons. Parents felt there were more programs available to help their children, that the EYE calendar did not effect the family life, and that their children had attended at least one intersession. Most reporting parents had sent their child to at least one intersession. Conclusions By and large parents, students, and teachers have a positive perception of the EYE program. These groups feel that there is more interest in school because of the EYE program, they like the shorter vacation periods, and would like not only to continue the EYE program at these three schools, but to also see the program expanded to other District schools. However, parents and teachers are not yet convinced that the EYE program is improving student achievement. Also, there are mixed feelings towards the benefits of intersession. Additional EYE program costs Intersession Payroll Cost #1 Mabelvale $11,403.45 Stephens $31,649.76 Woodruff $20,461.13 Total by intersession $63,514.34 #2 $8,382.45 $6,192.51 $7,590.38 $22,165.34 #3 Total by school $14,930.76 $34,716.66 $9,884.26 $47,726.53 $11,012.59 $39,064.10 $35,827.62 $121,507.30 Each school used $10,000 each from their summer school budget. The only additional cost was transportation with an average cost per school of $23,993. Total additional transportation costs were $71,979. Special education transportation costs were not billed to the EYE schools, but rather were paid by the transportation department. Budget 2000-2001 Mabel vale $1,663,685.09 Stephens $1, 770.258.07 Woodruff $1,313,414.06 Conclusions The only additional cost incurred by the schools that was not in their yearly budget was the cost of intersession transportation. 19 Concluding Remarks Other than similarities in ethnicity and SES, the three EYE schools are more different than similar. The fact that Stephens is a new school makes comparison analysis very difficult. In terms of the allocation ofresources, Mabel vale continues to rank low in% of teachers with an MA and experience, and volunteer hours. Woodruff has remained low in the ratio of computers to pupils. Achievement data is mixed. While the schools generally outperform the District in the percent of students ready to read at the next grade level, as measured by the DRA, these schools do not necessarily outperform the District average in actual growth on the OS and DRA. Median ALT scores for Spring 2001 are not that impressive. However, the bright spot is the ALT growth from Spring 2000 to Spring 2001. All of the schools, on a number of subjects and grade levels, not only outperformed the District median scores, but also the target median scores. Benchmark and SAT-9 data indicate mixed improvement in scores. Teacher behavior data is mixed. While the District is experiencing an increasing trend in the use of sick, personnel days there is also an increase in professional development and inservice days. EYE schools' use of sick and personal days is mixed. There is no downward trend. Also, these schools are below the District average in combined professional development and days. The new District reporting system indicates mixed results, with Woodruff above the District average in the percent of teachers with 30+ hours in professional development. Overall, the data tends to indicate that while staff may like the concept of EYE, it in of itself is not sufficient enough to change teacher behavior. The surveys of parents, teachers, and students indicated a positive perception of the EYE program. However, teachers continue to perceive a lack of parental involvement and they also feel that their students may not be performing as well as during the traditional year. Parents are not sure that the intersessions are that beneficial. However, they feel that the EYE program is not disruptive to their lives. The cost of the EYE program adds approximately 1.5 percent (1.5%)  to the budgets of each school. While achievement data is mixed, there is a phenomenon occurring that has affected the ALT growth median scores and percent readiness scores on the DRA. These results could be the product of calendar change itself, or it could be the continuity of instruction time via intersessions. The phenomenon has not produced measurable change in teacher behavior. Staff development hours should be a priority for these three schools. Also, at this point in time, parents, students, and teachers have a positive perception of the EYE. The EYE program has gotten off to an optimistic start. The District and schools need to review their allocation of resources and work towards improvement ( e.g., volunteer hours at school level and targeting Woodruff for computers). In addition to achievement goals and data, each school 's improvement plan needs to incorporate the EYE survey goals and data. The District's EYE program results are very similar to national research results and as thus, the EYE program should continue. Annual reports such as this one will help establish whether the results are due to the phenomenon of change itself or to the continuity of instruction time. 20 References Kirk, Phillip J. Jr. (2000, February). Year-round schools and achievement in North Carolina. Evaluation Brief, 2 (2). Retrieved March 27, 2001 from the World Wide Web :http:/ /ncpublicschoo ls .org/ accountability I evaluation/ eval brief s/vo 12n2-yr. html. 21\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_1568","title":"\"Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001''","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":["2001-08-31"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Educational innovations","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","School management and organization","Student assistance programs","Education, Elementary"],"dcterms_title":["\"Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001''"],"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/1568"],"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":["105 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1579","title":"Testing: Achievement Level Test and Benchmark Examination, comparative data, Little Rock School District, , 1998-2001","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":["2001-08-28"],"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 statistics","Education, Elementary","Education, Secondary","Education, Higher","School improvement programs","School integration","Students"],"dcterms_title":["Testing: Achievement Level Test and Benchmark Examination, comparative data, Little Rock School District, , 1998-2001"],"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/1579"],"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":["22 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1152","title":"Little Rock School District (LRSD) Athletic Task Force Report Findings","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":["2001-05-25"],"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","Educational statistics","Education--Curricula","Athletics"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District (LRSD) Athletic Task Force Report Findings"],"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/1152"],"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":["144 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\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nLRSD ATHLETIC TASK FORCE REPORT FINDINGS Committee Members Junious Babbs Sandy Becker Rett Tucker Skip Rutherford May 25, 2001 Taking into account the seriousness of recent allegations related to the LRSD Athletic Program, Task Force Committee Members were assigned with the following charge: 1. Address issues that have come to the forefront that relate to LRCH athletic program/ player eligibility. 2. Investigate eligibility issues and/ or concerns at LRCH. 3. Provide a detailed report of findings. 4. Availability to investigate activities and finding of LRSD school allegations. 5. Report to the Superintendent and Board in an expeditious timeline. Introduction Since Thursday, May 17, we have reviewed questions raised about the Little Rock Central High Varsity Boys Basketball team and specifically player eligibility. In this process we have met with Associate Superintendent for Instruction Dr. Bonnie Lesley\nAssistant Superintendent for Secondary School Services Dr. Marian Lacey\nAthletic Director Ray Gillespie\nCentral Principal Rudolph Howard\nCentral Assistant Principal John Kelly\nCentral Assistant Principal Dr. Dan Whitehorn\nCentral Head Basketball Coach Oliver Fitzpatrick\nand Central Registrar Jane Welch. All were very cooperative. Chris Heller, the Little Rock School District Attorney, served as our legal advisor. We reviewed the policies of the Arkansas Department of Education, the Arkansas Activities Association (AAA) and the Little Rock School District. When records were examined, committee members Rett Tucker and Skip Rutherford--since they are not employees of the school district--did not see individual names. In order to protect student confidentiality, each player was assigned a number. When records containing student names were examined, the student names were redacted. Committee members Junious Babbs and Sandy Becker, because they are school district employees, did see names. The committee examined several issues and looked at both the second semester of the 1999-2000 school year and the first semester of the 2000-2001 school year. The second semester of 1999-2000 was a determining factor for eligibility during the first semester of 2000-2001. The first semester of 2000-2001 was a determining factor for eligibility during the second semester of this year. Basketball season included both semesters during the 2000-2001 school year. All Central basketball players consent forms and physicals were complete and on file. The Student Registration Office reviewed its records and confirmed that all Central basketball players were properly enrolled in Central High School. While Central's consent forms, physicals and school assignment records were in order, a lesson learned is the importance of updated eligibility data collection through the use of technology and monitoring systems. - 1 - Eligibility Eligibility requirements are different for those who make a 2.0 grade point average or better than for those who make less than a 2.0 grade point average. For those who make less than a 2.0 grade point average, the AAA Rule 10 B applies. It can be found on pages 33-34 of the 2001 AAA Handbook. (Attachment A) During the 1999-2000 second semester, the average grade point for the Central basketball team was 2.785. Eleven of the 16 players made a 2.0 or better. Six of those made a 3.0 or better and two of the six made a 4.0 or better. Of the five players who made less than 2.0, two were not eligible and did not play during the first semester. Three players who made less than 2.0 participated under Rule 10 B. During the 1999-2000 second semester, none of the Central players had a grade change. During the 2000-2001 first semester, the average grade point for the Central basketball team was 2.780. Fifteen of the 16 players made a 2.0 or better. Six of those made a 3.0 or better, and one of the six made a 4.0. One player made less than a 2.0 and did participate in the Supplemental Instruction Program (SIP) under AAA Rule 10 B. Supplemental Instruction Program (SIP) The schedule for SIP at Central is: Monday/Wednesday from 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. and Tuesday/Thursday from 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. Two sessions each week are required to meet the minimum of 100 minutes per week required by the Arkansas Department of Education. (Attachment B) Students may also attend either or both of the other two sessions to make up absences. There are two SIP coordinators at Central: one responsible for the morning session and one responsible for the afternoon session. Coaches are assigned to monitor student athlete participation in SIP. The athletic department handbook contains a notification form to be sent by the SIP coordinator to the coach in the event an athlete misses a required SIP class. - 2 - These safeguards are important because if an athlete misses only one unexcused SIP class and does not make it up within the same week, he or she then becomes ineligible. According to a detailed report from Dr. Lacey, the one Central player participating in SIP did not meet the eligibility requirements. (Attachment C) During the week of January 8-12, the student did not meet the 100-minute requirement because of an unexcused absence from his SIP class. At that time--according to the Little Rock School District's SIP Plan (Attachment D) and confirmed by the Arkansas Activities Association, the student became ineligible. Under SIP guidelines once a student becomes ineligible at any time during the semester, he or she is ineligible for the remainder of the semester. According to Dr. Lacey's report, the student in question also did not meet the SIP eligibility attendance requirements during the weeks of January 15-19, February 26-March 2 and March 5-9. Coach Fitzpatrick said he was not aware of the player's January SIP absences until he was informed by the committee on May 23. The committee also reviewed the AAA Rule 15, which is found on pages 35-36 of the AAA 2001 handbook. (Attachment E) This is the hardship exemption rule. The committee was informed by the principal and the head basketball coach that neither knew of a basis for the application of a hardship exemption in this case. Therefore, we believe the student athlete was ineligible beginning January 12, 2001. Students enrolled in SIP are required to have no unexcused absences in order to remain eligible for athletics. The student's attendance records also indicate he had unexcused absences during the first semester of 2000-2001 school year. It is therefore possible that the student became ineligible before January 12. The Little Rock School District administration learned about this on April 27. Dr. Lacey immediately began to research this matter. During the time period between the week of January 8 and April 27, timely attendance checking and monitoring did not occur. For three months, there apparently was no supervisory safety net for the only Central basketball player in SIP. The system in place broke down. We find this regrettable, even though it was the student's responsibility to attend the class. After reviewing this very unfortunate example, we believe it could have and should have been prevented. - 3 - One lesson learned is that there should be documented and mandatory 24-hour notification from the SIP coordinator to the coach, principal, school athletic administrator, athletic director and assistant superintendent for secondary school services of each unexcused absence by an athlete who is attending for eligibility. We also endorse what the Little Rock School Board said in its May 17 statement: that it plans to meet with the incoming superintendent to clearly state policies and procedures and to confirm lines of authority, responsibility and accountability to ensure compliance. (Attachment F). In addition, the district should clearly define who will be doing the required reporting to the Arkansas Department of Education and the AAA. Grades During the first semester 2000-2001, 13 of the 16 Central players had no grade changes. Changes made for two players had no impact on eligibility at all. One player had changes made in four subjects and also received credit for a Plato course. According to the registrar at Central, \"the Plato program is offered to all students who have failed or are failing a course or courses in the mainstream curriculum. It allows each student to progress at his or her own pace so those students complete the coursework at different times. There are no quarter grades or exam grades--only final grades. The teacher or facilitator gives the registrar the grade upon each student's completion of the work.\" In addition to the Accelerated Learning Center and the Alternative Leaming Center, the Plato program is offered at Central, Fair, Hall and McClellan. The schools view it as an alternative education program. In 1999-2000, there were 123 students in the program at Central and no varsity basketball players. In 2000-2001 there were 144 students in the program at Central and one varsity basketball player. The one Central varsity basketball player who was in the Plato course in the first semester 2000-2001 received a \"B\" in Algebra I. He registered for the program on August 9, 2000 and began class on August 23, 2000. His grade was turned in on January 26, 2001 and was posted on January 30, 2001. The course subject and the grade were posted manually by the registrar because the course had been listed in the computer as Plato and not Algebra. The student athlete did not participate in any varsity basketball games prior to January 30, 2001. - 4 - Questions have arisen about whether Plato course credit should count in the grade point average. According to the Little Rock School District Curriculum publication, if it is an alternative education program, it should be counted as part of the grade point average. (Attachment G) If it is a credit by examination program, it should not. (Attachment H) While we think there needs to be an official district interpretation, Plato has been treated as an alternative education program at Central, Fair, Hall and McClellan since its inception. It has been counted in the grade point averages of all students who participated at these schools. The athlete in question was treated just like everyone else. Along with the \"B\" Plato Algebra credit, grade changes in four subjects resulted in the student's athletic eligibility. (Attachment I) With all the grade changes and with the \"B\" in Plato Algebra, he made a 2.0. Letters from each of the teachers who changed the grades are enclosed with the report. The student and teacher names are redacted. (Attachments J, K, Land M) Grade changes are not uncommon in LRSD high schools and grades are often changed for good reasons. The discretion of teachers and administrators to change grades is broad. The committee found no evidence that athletes were the primary beneficiaries of grade changes. According to the documentation, in one course this student received extra credit for purchasing and donating two novels to the class. In another class the student's first semester grade changed due to improved performance in the early part of the second semester. We seriously question whether or not these changes comply with the District's grading policy. (Attachment N) We believe procedures should be implemented which include time limitations on both grade changes and make-up work. In cases of multiple grade changes involving one student, we believe central office administrative oversight should be required. Even though teachers and administrators currently have wide discretion in making grade changes and while the student became eligible as a result of these four changes, we find them troubling. Central's registrar said when she learned of them she notified the school's principal. We think her notification was appropriate. However, we also conclude, notwithstanding this one very unique case, that grade changes for other players on the Central basketball team have been justified, rare and unrelated to eligibility. The schools should monitor student athlete grades not only because of eligibility but to make certain that academics are stressed as well as athletics. - 5 - Recruiting On the matter of recruiting, the Little Rock School District is one of only three school districts in Arkansas which have more than one high school. The AAA rules are written primarily with the other 307 districts in mind. The AAA rules do not specifically address the unique issues of intra-district recruiting. LRSD is unique in Arkansas because recruiting of students is an essential element of the district's voluntary desegregation plan. LRSD has established a number of school choice options, including magnet schools and specialty programs to attract students. The problem comes when students are recruited by high school coaches solely for athletics. There is presently no LRSD board policy differentiating between the expected recruiting for desegregation purposes and recruiting solely for athletic purposes. The AAA rules, which prohibit recruiting but do not define it, have not served as a significant deterrent. The District should take steps to define and prohibit impermissible recruiting of student athletes. This recommendation is not intended to limit a school's ability to inform students about all programs and extra-curricular activities available to them. Attendance Attendance is another issue of immediate concern. In our review, we have concluded that computerized attendance records do not necessarily correspond with teacher recorded attendance records. For example, in Central's block scheduling system, there is a first period \"A\" course and a first period \"B\" course. When the report cards are issued, the period one absences for both \"A\" and \"B\" are combined rather than listed separately. Parents, therefore, do not have an accurate accounting of the first period \"A\" absences or the first period \"B\" absences. This in itself makes monitoring and compliance more difficult. It also justifiably subjects attendance records to questions about accuracy. - 6 - For example, according to computerized attendance records received just yesterday afternoon, three students exceeded the maximum number of allowable unexcused absences during the first semester 2000-2001. (Attachment 0) They, nevertheless, received credit for the courses. One of the lessons learned is there needs to be an additional procedure in place by which each coach receives regular and accurate attendance reports for his or her athletes to verify their eligibility. Currently, the procedure appears to be 'hit and miss.' Conclusion In summary, we believe the issues and problems with Central basketball eligibility for the most part are reflective of district-wide issues. Throughout this report, we've attempted to make it clear that the lessons learned are lessons for the entire district, not just for Central High School. The vast majority of these problems were the result of inadequate procedures, benign neglect and poor organization - all of which can be fixed in a timely manner. We believe the board will do just that and, along with a new superintendent and new athletic director, put the mechanisms in place to get it done. Without diminishing the significance of the findings in this report, it is important to note that the committee found no evidence of an intent to knowingly use an ineligible player. The facts, to the best of our ability, are now before you. We have completed our task within the 10-day time frame. Following any questions you might have, the committee will have concluded its assignment. - 7 - nsas Activities Asso 3 920 Ric-hards ~oad. North Little Rock,. AR' 72117 501-955-2500  FAX 501-955-2600/955-2521 Building Citizenship Through Activities Partlcipation ATTACHME TA t ' t \\   : .  Amateur- Tryouts Scholarship (Academics) Rule 8. AMATEUR. A. The amateur rule for eligibility in interscholastic athletics requires the student to engage in sport solely for the pleasure and physical, mental, or social benefit derived from participation in sports and to whom sport is nothing more than an avocation. B. The junior high or senior high student who violates the amateur rule in any of the AAA-sponsored sports may lose eligiblility in that sport for up to one full year (365 days). C. Violations. A student may not: 1. Compete under an assumed name. 2. Accept monetary awards or compensation. This includes: cash\ngift certificates\nexpenses for a trip or any other of this type award. 3. Accept gifts or awards exceeding $100.00 in value unless the gifts or awards are given under the auspices of the school\nhowever, the student may receive awards of equipment in golf, tennis and road races as permitted in the amateur rules of the USGA, the USTA, and USATF. 4. Receive remuneration for coaching, instructing, or preparing any person for competition\nexcept, he may receive from an organization offering instruction in sport skills to youth, monetary compensation on an hourly basis or as a salary for teaching basic skills. 5. A student who has participated interscholastically may not permit his name, picture, or person to be used to advertise, recommend, or promote a firm or a product. NOTE: An athlete may be named a player of the week or game and be presented a certificate or plaque provided there is no advertising connected with the pie-ture or announcement. NOTE: A team picture may appear on a calendar or poster. This indicates support for the school. 6. Compete with or against a professional except in: a. Pro-Am golf meets\nwhen the scores of the professional and the amateur are not combined for a team score\n7. Appear in a competition before or during a professional event except as approved by the Arkansas Activities Association. NOTE: Since it is impossible to cover all instances of possible violations to the amateur rule, it is suggested that the Executive Director be consulted in any questionable case. Rule 9. TRYOUTS. A. A student may not play with a college or a professional team without losing eligibility for up to one year in the sport played. B. A student may not try out for a college or professional team during the school year without losing eligibility for up to one year in that sport. NOTE: A tryout consists of athletic demonstrations relative to a specific sport in the presence of a coach, scout, or official representing an institution or club. Rule 10. SCHOLARSHIP. (Academics) A. Junior high. A student promoted from the sixth to the seventh grade automatically meets the academic eligibility (scholarship) requirements. A student promoted from the seventh to the eighth grade automatically meets the academic eligibility requirements for the first semester. The second semester eighth grade student and the first semester ninth grade student meet the academic eligi bility requirements for junior high by successfully passing four (4) academic courses the previous semester, three of which shall be in the core curriculum areas specified by the Arkansas Department of Education's Standards for Accreditation of Arkansas Public Schools. Ninth grade students must meet the senior high academic eligibility by the end of second semester in order to be eligible to participate the fall of their tenth grade year. \"'8. Senior high. A student who does not meet the Arkansas Department of Education's requirement of a 2.00 GPA or has not met the proficiency standard defined by the State Board of Education on the state criterion-referenced tests or achieved at or above the fiftieth percentile on the basic battery on the normreferenced test may continue to participate by meeting the following requirements: b. Semi-professional baseball games\nhowever, the stu- / dent must compete within the definition of ama- V 1. The student must have passed four academic courses teurism . in the previous semester. Any of these four courses for 2000-2001 AAA Handbook - Page 33 which concurrent high school credit is earned may be from an institution of higher learning recognized by the Arkansas Department of Education. 2. The student must be enrolled in and attending a supplemental instruction program approved by the Arkansas Department of Education, or a supplemental instruction program meeting ADE guidelines as approved by AAA. 3. The student must have no unexcused absences for the current semester or its equivalent. 4. The student must have no school disciplinary action for the current semester. School disciplinary action may be defined by the school but, as a minimum, the policy shall state that a student has been disciplined when being placed on suspension where the student is out of school for a period of time. 5. The student must have no known criminal convictions. Academic Course: An academic course is one for which class time is scheduled and which can be credited to meet minimum requirements for graduation\nwhich is taught by a teacher required to have state certification in the course, and which has a course content guide approved by the Arkansas Department of Education. NOTE: P.E. may be considered an academic course for one full credit within the 21 minimum credits. The first time a P.E. grade appears on the transcript in grades 9-12 is when it will be considered an academic course. C. ALTERNATE COURSE CREDIT. A student may satisfy the requirement by successfully completing a course(s) failed or courses(s) needed or an equivalent course(s) in a summer term(s) or a correspondence course(s) approved by the Arkansas Department of Education for granting credit for graduation requirements. Such credit shall be applied to the previous semester. NOTE: When the same course is repeated, the former grade may be replaced. When a substitute course is completed, the grade shall be added to the courses for the previous semesters and the GPA recomputed. D. SPECIAL EDUCATION (HANDICAPPED). A student must have earned passing grades in four academic courses of the I.E.P. for the previous semester. In junior high three of the four courses must be in the core curriculum areas (Math, Science, English, Social Studies). E. CHANGING ELIGIBILITY STATUS. A student may Page 34 - 2000-2001 AAA Handbook regain or lose academic eligibility the first day of classes in a new semester. Eligibility shall be determined twice per year, once at the beginning of the fall semester (August/September) and once at mid-term (December /January). Rationale - An athlete must first be a student and must meet certain minimum academic requirements. R.!!k..11. INELIGIBLE IN ANOTHER STATE. A student who is ineligible in any sport under the rules of the state association in the state of the student's residence will, upon transfer to any AAA member school be ineligible for interscholastic competition. If Arkansas' rules are less restricitive than the rules of the state where the student has been attending, the student may become eligible to participate in interscholastic competition in Arkansas upon the approval of the Executive Director. Rationale - To prevent parents from shopping for a school in Arkansas when their child is ineligible in their home state. Rule 12. PARTICIPATION ON NON-SCHOOL TEAMS. A. TEAM SPORTS 1. A student who is a member of a school's athletic team and who has engaged in interscholastic competition may not try out for, practice with, or otherwise participate with, or be a member of a non-school athletic team in the same sport, in season, without losing eligibility for up to a full year (365 days) from the date of such participation with the non-school team. This limitation shall apply to the team sports of football, basketball, volleyball, baseball, softball, and soccer, except that in baseball, softball and soccer, a member of an interscholastic baseball, softball or soccer team may try out for or practice with a non-school team on days when the school team does not practice or play\nhowever, this exception for baseball, softball and soccer shall not apply in weeks the school team is i!)volved in AAA-sponsored championship tournaments. 2. Participation on a non-school athletic team in the same sport, in season, shall define in season as the AAA established beginning date until the end of the state tournament in that sport for grades 9-12 in the sports of football, volleyball and basketball. 3. Students in grades 7-9 shall have end of seasor, defined as, when their high school team has been eliminated from qualifying competition for anJ conference, region or state championship for the sports of baseball, softball and soccer.\n, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION RULES AND REGULATIONS ESTABLISHING THE ACADEMIC STANDARDS FOR STUDENT PARTICIPATION IN COMPETITIVE INTERSCHOLASTIC ACTIVITIES Revised September 2000 ===-== =-=================--~=== l[oo J\\!'E~LATORY AUTHORlT~'.---~ 7 i-01 \\ These regulations shall be known as Arkansas \\ \\ Department of Education Regulations Governing \\ School DistJict Academic Requirements for Student Participation in Competitive Interscholastic Activities. [ l.02\\ These regulations a,e enacted pmsuant to the State \\ \\ Board of Education's authority under Arkansas Code 1 ___ Annotated 6-11-l OS and 6-15-202 (1999 Repl.). \\[!i(i_]j:uRPOSE ] 1 2.01 The purpose of these regulations is to set forth for \\ school districts the Standard for Academic Requirements for Competitive Interscholastic Activity 1 \\ Partici~ation which schools must meet in order to be \\ i accredited.  the acadermc standards for public school competitive \\ The further _Purpose of these regulations is to est~b_llsh interscholastic activities. [ooJ DEFl l ITIO s 3.01 \"Competitive Interscholastic Activities\" as used in these regulations mean those school-sponsored 1 activities in which students from two or more schools are competing for the purpose of receiving an award, 1 rating, recognition, or criticism, or qualification for additional competition. These regulations apply to 1 r competitive interscholastic activities only. 3.021\"Supplemental Instruction Program\" as used in these I regulations means an additional instructional o_ppo:1unity for identified students_ outside of their ume m the regular classroom and 1s further defined as: \\ \\ 3 .02. l a program verified and certified by the. \\ \\ administration of the local scho_o~ distnct 1 and the sponsors of the compet1 tl ve \\ interscholastic activities in which the school I district participates, and r--T 3.02.2\\' a program directed by a state-certified 1\\[L - -_,1. \\ classroom teacher, and 3 .02 .3\\ a program z-\ni\nd\n, an assessment of \\ the factors contributing to the student's TT CHM TTB \\ \\ l__JI !!inadequate academic performance, and I 1:====:~=== 3.02.41 a program designed to provide instruction I specific to the needs of the student in subject 1 areas where he is experiencing inadequate performance by providing assistance to the student by teachers, volunteers, or other I students who are proficient in the identified I J subject areas and that the instruction is focused on improving the student's skills in I the identified subject(s), and =-:==3=.0=2=_==:5 a program which requires identified school J personnel to contact the student's parent(s) 1\n====\n====, or guardian(s) to explain the supplemental instrnctional program to discuss the recommended course of action to meet the needs of their student, and the identified school personnel is required to keep a record of the contact made and the responses of the parent(s) or guardian(s), and 3.02.6 a program with procedures defined by the local district for monitoring student progress that includes requiring a progress report to be filed each grading period from the classroom teacher(s) in the subject a.rea(s) where the student's inadequate perfonnance has occuned with t11e report(s) sent to and held by the district's appointed director of the program. ~ ,========================== 3.03 \"Academic courses\" as used in these regulations means ==== those courses that are identified in the Arkansas Department of Education's Standards for !Accreditation of Arkansas Public Sclzools as one of the 38 course offe1ings or is a definable course for which class time is scheduled and which can be credited to meet the minimum requirements for graduation and is taught by a teacher required to have State certification in the course, and has been approved by the Arkansas Department of Education. Any of these courses for which concurrent high school credit is earned may be from an institution of higher education recognized by the Arkansas Department of Education. 3.03 .1 Physical education (PE) may be considered an academic course for one full credit within the 21 minimum credits required for graduation by the Arkansas Department of Education's Standards for Accreditation of !Arkansas Public Sclzools, and for eligibility I purposes, the first time the PE ~a.de app_ears on the transcript in grades 9-12 1s when 11  r-  - ............. ~ .............. .:wvv 1.ltlll L.JI llwill be considered an academic course. I 3.03.2 A student may satisfy an academic requirement by successfully completing academic course(s) failed which must be repeated and passed\nor academic course(s) needed\nor an equivalent course(s) in a summer term(s)\nor a correspondence course(s) approved by the local school board for granting credit for graduation requirements. If the identical course(s) is/are taken in the regular school year, in summer school, or by correspondence, the better grade(s) may be substituted for computing the Grade Point Average of the student for\n=== the previous semester. 3.03.3 If an academic course, as defined in Section 3.03, is scheduled for 90 minutes per day every day of the semester as in the case of schools set up on block schedules and the student passes the course, then that course can be counted twice toward meeting the requirement for students to pass four ( 4) academic courses as used in any following section. 1 4.00 I ST Al~DARD: COMPETITIVE INTERSCHOLASTIC ACTIVITIES POLICY ,--- 4.01 Each school district shall adopt and operate by a written policy specifying the requirements for competitive interscholastic activity pru.ticipation which shall include, but shall not be limited to, the requirements set forth herein in Section 5.00. LJ ACADEMIC REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPETITIVE INTERSCHOLASTIC ACTIVITY PARTICIPATION 5.01 The State Standard Requirements for Junior High Effective Spring Semester, 1997-98 School Year. A student promoted from the sixth to the seventh grade automatically meets scholarship requirements. A student promoted from the seventh to the eighth grade automatically meets scholarship requirements for the first semester. The second semester ei_ghi1_1-gi:_aje student meet~ the scholarship req~fre\"m~ntsf.9r:iu11.i,or 1ugh ff he has successfuliy passed-four-(4) acad~giic courses the previous semester, three (3) of which shall be in the core curriculum areas of math, science, social studies, and language arts specifi.ed by the Arkansas Department of Education's Standards for Accreditation of Arkansas Public Schools. I S.02 jjThe first semester ninth-grade student meets the I II scholarship requirements for junior high if he has successfully passed four ( 4) academic courses the previous semester, three (3) of which shall be in the core cuniculum area of math, science, social studies, and language a.tis specified by the Arkansas Department of Education's Standards for Accreditation of Arkansas Public Sclzools. :===:=========================: 5.03 The second semester ninth-grade sh1dent meets the scholarship requirements for junior high ifhe has successfully passed four (4) academic courses the previous semester which count toward his graduation ~ requirements. 5.04 Ninth-grade students must meet the requirements of the senior high scholarship rule as set forth herein in Sections 5. 0 5 and 5. 06 by the end of the second semester in the ninth grade in order to be eligible to participate the fall semester of their tenth-grade year. Student promotions at the seventh and eighth grades meet scholarship requirements for participation in competitive interscholastic activities. 5.05 The State Standard Requirements for Senior High Effective Spring Semester, 1997-98 School Year. In order to remain eligible for competitive interscholastic activity, a student must have passed four ( 4) academic courses the previous semester and either: 5.05.l Have earned a minimum Grade Point Average of 2.0 from all academic courses the previous semester, or Have met the \"proficiency perfo1mance standard\" as defined by the State Board of Education on the state crite1ion-referenced literacy end-of-course test in the eleventh-grade for twelfth-grade eligibility, or ' Have met the \"proficiency performance standard\" as defined by the State Board of Education on the state criterion-referenced ~lgebr~eGme-try-efi\u0026amp;- urse tests, or ~chieved at or above the 50t ( percentile on the Basic Battery on the norm-referenced test administered by the state, for tenth-and eleventh-grade eligib  ty, or 5.05.2 Loca~ds..m~1:resfa waiver from the State Standard by submitting a plan following a required fo1mat to the Department of Education to implement the procedures for a supplemental instruction program outlined in Section 5.06. The LJLJIIDep~rtment will review the pla~ and approve:! or disapprove the requested waiver. LJ If th: student has passed four ( 4) academic courses the previous semester but does not meet any one of the requirements in Section 5.05.1, then the student must: 5.06.1 Be enrolled and attending a supplemental instruction program of at least 100 minutes duration each week outside the regular school day in the subject areas where inadequate performance has occurred. and Have no unexcused absences for the cunent semester or its equivalent and Have no school disciplinary actions for the current semester or its equivalent or known := criminal convictions. 5.06.2 A policy statement defining \"school disciplinary action\" for purposes of imposing a sanction under Section 5.06.1 shall be adopted by the local school board and distributed to the schools prior to enforcing a sanction. As a minimum, the policy shall state that when a student has been disciplined by being placed on suspension where he is out of school for a period of time will be defined as a \"school disciplinary action\" for the pw-poses of these regulations. 5.06.3 At the end of each semester grading period (December/January or May/June) if it is detelTilined by the supplemental instruction program director that the student in the supplemental instructional program is not meeting the State Standard Requirements in Section 5.05.1 for participation in competitive interscholastic activities, the student must remain in the supplemental instructional program during the following semester grading peiiod. 5.06.4 Sanctions. At any point the student falls out of compliance with any criteria in Section 5.06.1 during the semester, he wi11 be immediately suspended from competition for the remainder of the semester and must remain in the supplemental instructional program in order for his eligibility to be reconsidered at the end of the semester. If a I student fails to participate in the supplemental instructional program during ! any semester, then eligibility can only be LJLJ regained by the student earning a Grade Point Average of2 .0 from all academic courses lhe previous semester. 5.06.5 lf a student is declared ineligible at the end I of the fall semester and only participates in interscholastic competitive activities during the fall semester, he must be placed in the supplemental instrnction program and meet the requirements in Section 5.06.1 during the spring semester in order to be considered for eligibility the following fall. The same requirement applies to a student who only participates in spring semester activities. He must be placed in the supplemental instruction program and meet the requirements in Section 5.06.1 during the next fall semester in order to be considered == for eligibility in the following spring. 5.06.6 For the purposes of meeting the supplemental instruction requirement in Section 5.06.1, a \"week\" shall be considered to begin and end with the close of the official school day on Friday. 5.06.7 Any school district which would like to submit an alternative proposal for providing the supplemental instruction program during the school day may request a waiver from the State Board of Education for this requirement. These waiver requests will be considered by the State Board of Education on a school-by-school basis. School district officials seeking this waiver may need to appear before the State Board at a regularly scheduled meeting. 5.06.8 Any school district which requested and received a waiver as described in 5.06.7 from the State Board of Education following the effective date of the 1997 revisions will not have to reapply for this waiver as of the effective date of the 2000 revisions. 5.06.9 Reporting requirement: At the end of each school year, any school with an approved supplemental instruction program must file a report with the Department of Education on fom1s provided by the Department or electronically as directed by the Department. r, Students with disabilities under IDEA function under conditions specified in their Individualized Education Program (IEP) in order to be considered eligible to Ill lp:11 arKeau.stale.ar.USIU(J 7.hlrr LJ participate in competitive interscholastic activities. In order to be considered eligible to paiticipate in these activities, students with disabilities must pass at least four ( 4) courses required by the sh1dent's IBP. LJ The regulations as set forth herein in Sections 5 .01 through 5.07 establish the minimum academic requirements for participation. Noncompetitive interscholastic activity and competitive intrascholastic activity participation are not affected by these regulations. ~\\PENALTY I 6.01 Any school which allows a_st.udent toyarticipate in _~ ~o.wpetttive interscholastic.activity w~o is ineligible as defineq by these rules and regulations must rep\u0026lt;::\u0026gt;rt such a violation inunediately upon discovery of the violation to the Director of the Department of Education. = 6.02 A school will be placed in probationary status for allowing a student who has not met the established academic requirements in Section 5 .00 to participate in competitive interscholastic activities. Such probationary status will begin with the school year in which the violation occurs. If an eligibility violation occurs during either one of the next two following academic school years, then the school will be placed in loss of accreditation status. :== 6.03 These regulations establish the minimum requirements a school district's policy on competitive interscholastic activity participation must meet in order for schools in the district to be accredited. Local school districts are not precluded from implementing higher standards in their efforts to improve student achievement. ADE Homepage OF THE ELIGIBILITY OF   TT J J GRADE BASKETBALL PLAYER CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL ~elow is the timeline, indicating dates of occurrences and actions: MAY 1 6 ?.001 pril 27 received a phone call from Mrs. Laura Flanigan, Assistant Athletic Director. A returned call to Ms. lanigan indicated that she had information that had not attended SIP since January, yet he had played in the state tournament. (The January date proved inaccurate\nrather, March 1, 2001, was the verified date.) I called Mr. Howard, who agreed to investigate. In the meantime, Ms. Flanigan had stated that she would check the SIP logs for verification of attendance. Mr. Howard reported his findings (see Mr. Howard's message below. His April 31 e-mail, and packet are on file). I, had stopped SIP. However, he should not have been in SIP\" because of 5.05 of the Arkansas Department of Education Rules and Reaulations. Ms. Flanigan reported her findings as copied from her memo. (Her April 30 memo and accompanying packet are on file.) A section from her memo follows: After a careful check of the sign-in sheets, I found that the student in question,  did indeed stop attending the required SIP sessions on 3/1/01, as well as missed sessions on several occasions prior to that date (1/9, 1/18, 2/27)\nfrom that point on he was ineligible to participate in athletics with the Little Rock School District. However, .. participated in the 2001 AAAAA Central State Basketball Tournament and Championship for Central High School. Students are given the opportunity to make up sessions missed because an (a.m. \u0026amp; p.m.) session is offered to students. According to the records, no attempt was made for make-up. According to the rules and regulations of the program, no absences are allowed (that includes class absences) while in the program but as you can see from the enclosed attendance log, T  \u0026amp;Dwas listed absent on a daily basis. That violation in itself would disqualify a student from participation. This phase of the program should be monitored by the school administration but I realize that they are as I am, stretched to the limit and time is not always available to keep on top on all of this information so I am forced to look this up on the computer when I have the opportunity to do so. ATTACHME TC Reviewed all data from Mr. Howard and Ms. Flanigan and talked with Dr. Ed Williams in Evaluation and Testing. The findings are as follows: -1 est data provided by the school does indicate above 50 percentile on the basic battery for W\u0026amp;U, however, the data represent the results of C 10th grade testing, rather than \"previous semester\" as stipulated in SIP rules and regulations. Mrs. Flanigan's data appear accurate and complete. Dr. Williams reported that there were no test results for the previous semester because 11th graders do not take the Stan\u0026amp;rd 9 Test and the end-of-level tests are pilot tests. Therefore, had no test results for his 11th grade year, making the 5.05 invalid. Mav 7 Discussion of situation in the Superintendent's Cabinet meeting. Dr. Carnine advised legal consultation with our lawyers. Telephone conversation with Clay Fendley, who advised that I seek answers from an interview with Mr. Howard, the student, (SIP coordinator), and Coach..., NC , finding out if the coach and principal knew that the student was not in SIP. Other questions to be answered: Did someone tell the student to stop? Did talk with anyone at the school? Did we intentionally, purposefully violate policy or was this a mistake in reading the regulations, etc.? ,, ,cerviews held with Mr. Howard, John Kelly (assistant principal in charge of athletics),~, ~,and :a I- ,~ I explained my findings to Mr. Howard and Mr. Kelly, informing them of the problem with the test scores and, consequently, eligibility. At this point it seemed that we played an ineligible player in some games, including the state tournament. Mr. Howard and Mr. Kelly both acknowledged that the first time they knew of the possibility of Ii iJeing ineligible was April 27. Neither was aware that a  Q had stopped going to SIP. Mr. Howard admitted at this point that J a did not attend SIP the week before the state tournament and the documentation does not help. eported that he \"stopped going.\" (He had no reason.) He stated that no one told him to stop. reported that she gave the coaches a copy of the attendance log after the Tuesday and Thursday sessions and that she had told tr  :while passing him in the hall), \"I haven't seen you in SIP.\" had responded \"he didn't need to go anymore.\" stated that he first found out tha  I had not attended SIP on April 27. He - [i:her stated that he had delegated the responsibility of attending the SIP class and the checking of \"1e attendance logs to his assistant. ddendum - Ma 14 2001 1:30 .m. talked with Mr. Ray Lumpkin, Arkansas Department of Education. A summary of the conversation r 11lws: ,S ,He received a call from il T I  C approximately two weeks ago, inquir~out the 5.05 section of the SIP. Mr. Lumpkin emphatically stated that this section applies to eligibility only for the 10th and 11th grade years. For the athlete to be eligible during the 12th grade year, he must either have passed the four .\\:lasic courses, with a 2.0, or attend SIP--not missing a day. If the athlete misses one day unexcused, \"he's ineligible immediately.\" He added, \"The sanctions imposed by the Arkansas Department of Education are different from those imposed by the Arkansas Activities Association: the first time - we give a warning\nsecond time - the school loses its accreditation.\" Mr. Lumpkin further mentioned that about \"three or four weeks ago, Mrs. Flanigan had invited him to a meeting with the high school coaches where he talked about SIP.\" SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTION PROGRAM PLAN A. Describe how you plan to offer the required 100 minutes of supplemental instruction each week outside of the regular school day for the students, and how you will monitor attendance. The Little Rock School District will use the 1997 ADE Rules and Regulations Establishing the Academic Standards for Student Participation in Competitive Interscholastic Activities as the eligibility rule-s for the District (attached), - The--Little Rock-school- District -will-operate a-supplemental instruction program outside the regular school day for students in grades nine through twelve who are participants in competitive interscholastic activities (including cheerleaders and drill team members) and who have passed four academic courses the previous semester but have failed to maintain a 2.00 grade point average during the semester preceding participation. The program will be developed in each secondary school by the principal and faculty and will be directed by a certified teacher (coordinator) at each building. The coordinator at each building will be assisted at each program session by a coach or sponsor who is working with students involved in the program. Students wishing to continue as participants in competitive interscholastic activities will attend two hours per week of supplemental instruction in those courses in which their grades fall below the required 2.00 grade average. After the roster of participants is developed by the school coordinator, attendance will be recorded for each session. B. How will the factors contributing to the inadequate academic performance by students in the Supplemental Instruction Program be assessed? Explain what assessment tools will be used. The supplemental instruction program will be based on an assessment of factors that contributed to the student's inadequate performance. Teachers of the courses wherein the student performed below the 2.00 grade level will identify the concepts that were not sufficiently mastered by the student and will provide instructional materials to be completed during the supplemental instruction program. The concepts will be identified from a review of the course objectives that were not successfully mastered and/or a profile of the concepts not mastered on standardized tests. ATTACHME TD C. Describe how the program will be designed to specifically address the needs of the students in the subject areas where assistance is needed (i.e., math, science, social studies, language arts, etc.). Include in your explanation whether or not you will use classroom teachers, volunteers, and/or students who have demonstrated knowledge in the identified subject areas. If the student tutors are used, what criteria will be used to identify these students?  Instructional materials identified by the teacher will be provided to the coordinator of the supplemental instruction program for each participating student. Those materials will be distributed to the student for completion during the program sessions. The coordinator may be assisted in the program sessions by other teachers, volunteers, ---- - - - ---- or--by---peer--tutors (students- who- have -demonstrated mastery -ef-the concepts, as evidenced by making a 3.00 grade point in the course in which assistance is being provided). D. Who will contact the student's parents or guardians to explain the supplemental  instruction program and how will this process be documented? The coach/sponsor of the student who wishes to participate in the supplemental instruction program will contact the student's parent and explain the program and the recommended course of action to reestablish the student's academic eligibility. The coach/sponsor will record the contact and any parental response to the program. E. Explain the procedures that will be used to monitor student progress while the students are in the supplemental instruction program. Be certain to include as one of the requirements a progress report to be filed each grading period by the classroom teachers in the subject areas where the students are experiencing difficulty. The supplemental instruction program director is required to keep a copy of these progress reports on file. Progress of the students participating in the supplemental instructional program will be monitored quarterly by use of the interim progress report for all students who are failing, are near failure, or who are working below capacity, Interim reports will be complet~d l\u0026gt;y the classroom teacher at the mid-point of each quarter and will be sent home to the parent, and a copy provided to the coordinator of the program. Progress will also be monitored by the distribution of quarterly grade reports by all teachers. Grade reports will be sent home to parents, and a copy will also be provided to the program coordinator. Both interim and quarterly grade reports will be retained by the program coordinator for each student who participated in the program. F. Explain the procedures you will use during the semester, and the end of each semester (December/January or May/June, to determine if the students in the Supplemental Instruction Program maintain eligibility. Include in the explanation how the requirements in Section 5.03 of the rules and regulations wlll be monitored. Students who choose to participated in the supplemental instruction program will maintain their eligibility during the semester by having passed four academic courses the previous semester (with PE counting as an academic course the first time it appears on the transcript in grades 9-12), by attending sessions of the program, having no unexcused absences or out-out-school suspensions for the current semester, and having no criminal convictions during the current semester,- -- --- - - --  - - ---- -- - - -    -   If, at the end of the semester (January/June), it is determined by the program coordinator that the student in the supplemental instruction program is not meeting the State Standard Requirements in section 5.02.1 of the ADE Rules and Regulations Establishing the Academic Standards for Student Participation in Competitive Interscholastic Activities, the student must remain in the supplemental instruction program during the following semester grading period. At any point the student falls out of compliance with any criteria in Section 5.03.1 during the semester, he will be immediately suspended from competition for the remainder of the semester but remain in the supplemental instruction program in order for his eligibility to be reconsidered at the end of the semester. If a student is declared ineligible at the end of the fall semester and only participates in interscholastic competitive activities during the fall semester, he must be placed in the supplemental instruction program and meet the requirements in section 5.03.1 during the spring semester in order to be considered for eligibility the following fall. The same requirement applies to a student who only participates in the spring semester activities. He must be placed in the supplemental program and meet the requirements in section 5.03.1 during the next fall semester in order to be considered for eligibility in the following spring. Students with disabilities that have been documented under IDEA function under conditions specified in their individualized Education Program (IEP) in order to be considered eligible to participate in competitive interscholastic activities. In order to be considered eligible to participate in these activities, students with disabilities must pass at least ( 4) courses required by the student's IEP. A school will be placed in probationary status for allowing a st1.1dent who has not met the established academic requirements in Section 5.00 to participate in competitive interscholastic activities. Such probationary status will begin with the school year in which the violation occurs. If an eligibility violation occurs during either one of the next two academic school years, then the school will be placed in loss of accreditation status. Any coach/sponsor who knowingly violates the Little Rock School District plan for the supplemental instruction program, herein described, will be subject to the penalties set forth in the LRSD Policy IGD-R (1989-90). The Little Rock School District has chosen to implement a higher standard than the regulations required to improve academic -achievement by including grade nine students as a part of this program. The District Coordinator of the Supplemental Instruction Program is Ms. Laura Flanigan of the Athletic Office. Committee: Ray Gillespie, Athletic Director Laura Flanigan, Athletic Office Shirley Goodnight, J.A. Fair High School Sandra McFadden, Forest Heights Middle School Jay Pickering, Parkview Magnet High School Marcus Davis, Cloverdale Middle School Tiffany Gunn, Mcclellan High School Rashunda White, J.A. Fair-High School Nick Davis, Parkview Magnet High School rkansas Activities Associ . 3 920 Ricli.ar~s _RQa:d  North Little Rock, AR 72117 501-955-2500  FAX 501-955-2600/955--2521   ite a '131.E .A. . S.PO.RT ll Building Citizenship Through Activities Participation ATTACHME TE '. . : . Non-School Participation  Physical Exam - Hardship Exceptions 4. The definition of a non-school team includes one or more of the following: a. A team affiliated with and scheduled for participation in an organized league. b. A team participating against a team that meets criterion (1.) above. c. A team identified by a name or a uniform, and which participates in contests independent from league affiliation. NOTE: Practice is an activity involving the players of only one school's team. B. NATIONAL TEAM, OLYMPIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS, AND INTERNATIONAL SCHOOLSPORT FEDERATION. An exception to A. above may be granted: 1. A National Team (and the actual, direct tryouts therefore), which is defined as one selected by the national governing body (NGB) of the sport on a national qualification basis, either through a defined selective process or actual tryouts, for the purpose of international competition which requires the entries to officially represent their respective nations, although it is not necessary that there be team scoring by nation\nor 2. in an Olympic Development Program, which is defined as a training program or competition: a. conducted or sponsored by the United States Olympic Committee (USO()\nor b. directly funded and conducted by the USOC member national governing body (NGB) on a national level (e.g. NGB national championship competition and the direct qualifications therefore)\nor c. specifically authorized by a national governing body involving only athletes previously identified by the NGB as having potential for future participation in regional, national or international competition in the sport involved\nProvided in 1, 2, and 3: a. participation, if during the school year, is approved by the student's school administration, and the Arkansas Activities Association is notified in writing by the principal at least 30 days prior to the date of the program\nand b. the student makes prior arrangement to complete missed academic lessons, assignments, and tests before the last day of classes of the credit grading period in which that student's absence occurs\nand c. the student misses no AAA-sponsored athletic event involving a team in that sport. Rationale - To prevent conflicts in coaching philosophies during the school season and to prevent athletes from being exploited by over-participation. .!Mu.3.. PARTIGPATION IN INDMDUAL NON-SCHOOL ACTIVITIES. A. A student who is a member of a school's athletic program as a participant in a sport and who has engaged in interscholastic competition in that sport may enter non-school competition as an individual during or outside of the school season for that sport. These individual sports include: Cross Country, Track, Gymnastics, Tennis, Golf, and Swimming. B. If a participant is school-sponsored, the activity must be sanctioned under Article II, Section 8, Rule 6, Sanction (Approval)' of Events. Rationale - Athletes may participate on an individual basis without harm to a team since they compete by themselves. This provides opportunities for individuals to participate in a normally limited season. .!M.e.._li. PHYSICAL EXAMINATION. In any year that a student engages in interscholastic competition, the student must present to the coach a physical examination verification prior to beginning practice. Rationale - The coaches and school administration must be assured that the athletes are physically fit prior to beginning practice as well as competition. ~fu!k...15.. HARDSHIP EXCEPTIONS FOR ELIGIBILITY. Upon petition from a student's school administrator, the Executive Director is authorized to waive the requirements of all eligibility rules except the age rule if the school develops acceptable proof based on the stated criteria for such a waiver. A. Residence Exceptions: 1. After an investigation, a court of law has removed the student from the parents or guardians and subsequently assigned the student a place of residence. 2. The student is an orphan or there is no record of the parent's whereabouts. 3. The student's parents are out-of-state residents and the student is attending school in a school district where the parents maintain a legal residence (military, etc.). 4. The student's parents(s) have abrogated their responsibility toward the student as parents. .S. The student's parent(s) employment requires absence from home a great portion of the time the student is home and have arranged residence with relatives or friends for the purpose of supervision. 6. The student is married and living with a spouse, having a parent with residence in school district, or a spouse who had an established residence in the district one year previous to the marriage. 7. A student having lived three continuous years at any time as a bona fide member of a family may establish the family heads as substitute parents with respect to the residence rule. 8. An extreme and unusual circumstance exists that is no fault of the student or the parents. NOTE: The Executive Director is authorized to specify limitations or contingency conditions as needed when giving approvals, to ensure that such student shall not be induced to another school district or played under the pretense of being eligible should the eligibility status change. NOTE: The petition shall not be authorized if the director obtains reliable information that the student is transferring to the petitioning school primarily for athletic purposes or as a result of inducement or recruitment. B. Exception to Other Eligibility Requirements. 1. There has been an extreme and unusual circumstance that is no fault of the student, the parent, or the school that has prevented school attendance sufficient to cause that student to be in violation of the drop-out rule or the scholarship rule or the semester rule. 2. The student has been identified as being in need of special education or other special programs of study as authorized by the Arkansas Department of Education regulations, but is subsequently required by the school to participate in non-recommended courses. NOTE: If negligence or irresponsibility on the part of Page 36 - 2000-2001 MA Handbook the parent or school has a significant influence relative to the student being ineligible, such negligence or lack of responsibility may be considered. Rationale - There should be the opportunity to make exceptions to all rules, except the age rule, if the proof can be substantiated . SECTION 2  NON-ATHLETIC COMPETITIVE ACTIVITIES Ru.lLl, BONA FIDE STIJDENT. (Same as athletic Rule 4.) Rule 2. SCHOLARSHIP. (Same as athletic Rule 10.) .B..u.k.]_, SEMESTERS. (Same as athletic Rule 6.) .B..l!.!u, AGE. (Senior High same as athletic Rule 7, Junior High none.) fu!.le....5.. VOCATIONAL EDUCATION YOUTH ORGANIZATIONS. A student involved in a vocational education youth organization need only be a bona fide student of a school and meet the scholarship rule. The student may not participate in an interscholastic event on or after the twenty-first birthday. ~- HARDSHIP CASES. (Same as athletic Rule 15.) SECTION 3 - CHEER AND DRILL/DANCE SQUADS .R.u.lLl. ELIGIBILITY. Students participating as a member of a school's cheer or drill/dance squad must meet eligibility requirements for interscholastic non-athletic competitive activities. lMLZ,. PHYSICAL EXAMINATION. In any year that a student tries out for, or participates as a member of, the school's cheer or dance/drill squad, the student shall be required to have a physical examination prior to beginning an organized practice or workshop for  .tryouts and shall present a signed statement or verification which shall be valid for one calendar year. Rl.!.iLJ, STUDENT PARTICIPATION. Only a school's cheer squad members are authorized to participate on the sidelines, floor, or field during an athletic contest. This does not include pregame, halftime, or postgame activities if authorized by the school administration. An individual who is designated as a part of the squad to stand or perform with the squad on the sidelines, floor, or field during an athletic contest or spirit competition (ex: mascot) shall meet all eligibility requirements of cheer and dance/drill squad members. ii: 'An Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" For Immediate Release May 17, 2001 For more information: Dr. Katherine Mitchell Board President 370-5255 School Board Statement Regarding LRSD Athletic Program The Little Rock School Board is aware of the seriousness of the recent allegations relative to the district's athletic program and is taking an active role in resolving the issues. First, the board has called for a thorough and intensive investigation of the allegations. The administration has assured the board that the investigation will be substantially completed in 30 days and will provide information that will allow the board to take appropriate action. Secondly, the board will meet with Dr. Kenneth James, the incoming superintendent, to clearly state policies and procedures and to confirm lines of authority, responsibility and accountability to ensure compliance. Finally, the board will institute internal audit procedures to fairly test the district's compliance to rules and regulations. The board is committed to academic excellence and achievement of all students in this district as well as the principles of fair play in athletics and other extracurricular activities. The actions of the board will substantiate its firm commitment. ATTACHME TF 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.k12.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 HIGH SCHOOL (Grades 9 - 12) CURRICULUM CATALOG 2001-2002 Little Rock School District Division of Instruction 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501/324-2000 www. lrsd. org ATTACHME TG LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IKC-R CLASS RA.~, GS/GRADE-POINT AVERAGES All grades, except those noted in the \"exceptions\" below, earned for high school courses, including excess elective units, shall be used in calculating the grade-point average and rankin- class. Grades included in the computation are as follows: 1. Grades earned for high school courses, whether taken in the regular day, evening school, or summer school program. ---\u0026gt;z,-,_ 2. Grades earned in alternative education programs, including those in LRSD, administered by school districts or other organizations which are accredited through their state department of education or a regional accreditation organization, such as North Central Association of Schools and Colleges ( CA). 3. Transfer grades from accredited schools outside the Little Rock School District. 4. Algebra I (or higher-level mathematics course) and Level I foreign language (or higher-level foreign language course) taken in the eighth grade. 5. Only one (1) unit of physical education (One-halfun.it is required\none-half unit may count as an elective. Therefore, only the grades for one unit of physical education shall be computed in the grade-point average.) 6. Grades earned in approved concurrent credit college courses offered in cooperation with institutions of higher education. 7. Grades earned in summer enrichment programs conducted by institutions of higher education, if the course and credit were approved by the District. (See IKEC-Rl.) 8. Failing grades, even for those courses re-taken. 9. First grades of courses retaken to improve understandings and skills. 10. Grade earned for one semester of Driver Education taken from an accredited high school. 11. Grades earned on credit-by-examination to make up failed courses. (See IKEC-R3.) 12. Grades earned in the District's home-bound programs. 13. Grades earned in approved correspondence courses. (See IKEC-R2.) 14. Grades earned in approved on-line or distance-learning courses. 15. Courses in which a student earns an C (no credit due to excessive absences). Regardless of the student's grade in a course for which he/she earns an C, the NC, which equals O points, replaces the grade and is used in the calculation of the grade-point average. 28 HIGH SCHOOL (Grades 9 - 12) CURRICULUM CATALOG 2001-2002 Little Rock School District Division of Instruction 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501/324-2000 www. lrsd. org TTACH IE TH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEP\" CODE: IKEC-R3 CREDIT BY EXAMINATION Purpose The following regulations provide guidelines for the administration of the credit-byexamination program, effective the 1999-2000 school year. Eli!!ibilitv Criteria In order to be eligible to earn credit by examination, a student must meet all the following criteria: 1. Be enrolled in grades 6-12\n2. Have been enrolled, according to a review of school records, at least 55 scholastic hours for a semester core course. Exception: Keyboarding credit may be earned through examination at either the middle school and high school levels, without prior enrollment in the course, as per a waiver granted by the Arkansas Department of Education. 3. Be recommended for the credit by examination program by a teacher or counselor and the principal of the school\nand 4. Have parent permission to take the examination for possible credit instead of retaking the course. Available Courses Credit by examination shall be available to students for the following courses: Middle School High School English 6, 7, 8 English I, II, III, IV Mathematics 6, 7, 8 Algebra I Keyboarding Geometry Achievement of Course Benchmarks Concepts of Geometry Civics World History United States History Keyboarding Examinations used to earn credit under this policy shall assess the student's achievement of course benchmarks and shall be properly evaluated by the Associate Superintendent for Instruction or designee before credit is granted. The District may develop the examinations or may purchase end-of-course examinations that are aligned with the State's curriculum frameworks. Examination Development The following procedures shall apply if examinations are developed locally for credit by examination: 1. All tests developed for credit by examination shall be written by staff in the Division of Instruction with the advice and input of classroom teachers. 2. Tests used for credit by examination shall be comparable in difficulty to semester examinations administered to students during the regular school year. 3. All tests administered for credit by examination shall be evaluated (graded) by a member of the staff of the Division of Instruction and/or a teacher in that subject area. Procedures The following procedures shall apply: 1. Credit-by-examination tests shall be administered at the end of each semester according to a schedule developed by the Department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation. 2. A student shall attain a passing grade in order to receive credit. 3. No student in grades 6-8 may earn more than one course credit each year through creditby- examination. No student in grades 9-12 may earn more than two total units through credit by examination. 4. Students are limited to one test administration per semester per course. 5. Students will be notified in writing of their examination grade and whether credit will be awarded. Such notification shall occur in time for decisions relating to summer school attendance can be made. 6. The credit-by-examination procedures shall be coordinated by the Assistant Superintendent for Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE), with input from appropriate curriculum directors and other staff. Grant and Record of Credit The grant of credit is subject to District approval. Credit obtained by this method shall be recorded on the permanent record for grades 6-8 and the high school transcript for grades 9- 12, upon written authorization by the Association Superintendent for Instruction. A student may not take the Keyboarding course for credit in both middle school and high school. Use of Credit V 1. Credit by examination shall not be used to gain eligibility for participation in extracurricular activities. 2. Credit-by-examination cannot be used by grade 12 students to earn eligibility to participate in graduation ceremonies since the administration of the tests occurs after the graduation ceremony. 3. Credit-by-examination may be used to earn promotion from one grade level to the next at the middle school and high school levels . . otice The District shall give reasonable notice of the availability of credit by examination in student handbooks and other documents made available to students and parents. 33 -LTTl_E r~~.JG:-\\ t:'CHo\n:n._ I7'15Tf:Z1GT ::E!J7-RAL '.,ifJ~ SC~0tJL 'Jl f:1PAi'iJ.8H T. J j~  FD 5.~ NVI R l : J:2  GJ:nMf.TR \\\"( r~ ,1:3 . GEfJL-EJF hC E :n wu, HJST Fi ).-'i, ENG l I I fl CJ.. Eie.'ovu ... l.'. \\ . 7.3\u0026gt; y.3) O C D (] L D ,.,,..~ t) F C .oc. --rJ) 1~101 .J)-C.. 'h.s101 C\n,,C.... Yz.C\\101 ~ ,(IC.. '/7Alo I \u0026amp; ATTACHMENT I ~-iom e roorn f=~ur11ber 3 JO 8M l cu1ren~ G. P.A. Cumu l ative G. P. A. P ER I OD ADBEf\"lT 01 3 o~, e 03   \"2. C4 8 To Whom lt May Concern: In the past few weeks there have been press reports, conjecture, and widespread speculation that a Central High student's grades were changed for unethical reasons. Namely, just so that be could play basketball. As a human being, I am hurt to have my name so recklessly and unfairly tied to such implications. As an educator, I am deeply troubled that these implications have been made without a thorough investigation into the facts at hand. I have never been offered the opportunity to explain myself. I have done nothing unethical. My true motivations for changing this student's grade have, up until now, .been my own private knowledge. That will change with this letter. In the beginning weeks of the third quarter, approached me about changing his grade \"so that [he] could play basketball.\" I was unwilling to do so. I cited . low-test grades, his behavior problems in my class, and the fact that he had never attended the after-school tutoring that I offer every school day. I told that I had no reason to believe that changing his grade would accomplish anything. After our conversation, I saw behavior and attitude changes in  that caused me to reconsider my unwillingness to change his grade. The behavior problems that I bad had with him completely disappeared. His attention span in class improved dramatically. His interest in Spanish, which had been low, began to grow. He came in for tutoring after school, and made a high score on a vocabulary quiz. Changing a student's grade in a conspiracy to maintain an advantage in athletics would not only be illegal, but it would also be unethical and immoral. That is something I would never do. However, I would also never deprive a student from participating in an activity that was a great motivator for him or her to improve academically. It was clear to me that, for , basketball was such a motivator. When I saw the difference in approach to Spanish, I realized it was due to his desire to play basketball. Consequently, I decided that a grade change was appropriate because it reinforced his academic improvement. These are the facts regarding the changes I made in grade in my class and my reasons for doing so. These reasons are rooted solely in . best interests and in nothing else. I would do the same for any one of my students, and feel good about it. And in hindsight, if I had it all to do over again, I would do nothing differently. As a teacher, I believe I have a responsibility to do everything in my power to help a student excel in academics. In this situation, as in every other situation with every one of my students, my actions were consistent with this responsibility. Sincerely, ATTACHME TT J HOWARD, RUDOLPH I, . TEACHERS OF . ELIGIBILITY INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE REASON FOR GR.P..DE CHAl~lGE . ) . Fn i:: 1 ht-- 1 TEACHER Qi= 0A teacher suoject CHANGED HIS: (CHECK ONE) 1st quarter grade _ 3rd quarter grade _ Exam Grade _ _ 2nd quarter grade_L 4th quarter grade _ _ Final Grade __ _ for the following reason: At e. eV\\d D+ -=th~ 9 rc.{d 1n3 -:p-e\n,-: od. 1 had. hot +vr-r1ed 1n h1':s -MO al rec.tp:e., pr-dkct Lt\u0026gt;h, c1 rntt.de his average n...,(D), H-e. -tvY-Y'\\e-e~ 1n h,'.s ('C1pes,, bu+- 1Jo1 os were.. I oo hoo due.... -+o be, n\u0026lt;A 1 lo..,4e_. Q(\\d ove 1,..0L l\\ ov-o\\ec,,+. V I ~ Did you , the teacher, initiate the change? __ yes __ no Did s~~~~ni:lse in)tiate tr change1 I X yes __ no Did you, the teacher, discuss. e chang~ with anyone? )S,_yes __ no Who? Indicate the nature of the discussion: ask'e rn-e... 111hoJ--- \u0026gt; rn, ssed baJ caused h,'~ YO-de, :6 h-e Ct 11D\", I+o\\d him \\r\\,'s py oJec\ntbo Ls IJlOdb ~oo ptsi Is it \"common prac1ice\" to change students grades when warranted? yes _x__ ___ no Was any precedent set as a resu lt of your changing the grade? yes--.X_ ___ no ATTACHMENT K To: Mr. Rudolph Howard From:W .,,,... Date: May 18, 2001 Re: Grade change explanation Dear Sir: In reference to the grade that I changed on January 25, 2001 for . -, I would like to give a full explanation. On many occasions, students bring in missed or late assignments that when completed requires a change of grade. This was the case with . Because I felt he had an excusable reason for not turning in his required work, I allowed him to tum it in at a later date. The required assignment was a recipe file. The assignment was worth 200pts. Below, you will find a detailed e:i..-planation of his grades before and after his grade change. 1st 9weeks grade 20/20 100/100 80/100 75/100 25/25 40/100 0/50 425/610 possible 69.67 - 70% IC Before Grade Change 50/50 20/ 93/100 76/100 65/100 70/100 It\n80/100 0/200----(Recipe files) 454/ 750 possible= 60%/ D Semester Calculations (Before) Grade charu!e 70 - 1st nine weeks grade 70 60 - 2nd nine weeks grade 60 7 6 - Semester Test 336 divided by 5 = 67.2/ D After Grade Charu!e 50/50 20 93/100 76/100 65/100 70/100 80/100 100/200 554/750 possible= 74%/C (After) Grade Chanire 70 - 1st nine wee!G gi\"ade 70 7 4 - 2nd nine weeks grade 74 i 6 - Semester Test 36 divided by 5 = 72.8/ C  Because all students ru:e beginners in cooking, their cooking labs are not calculated and therefore, are not counted against student grades. Statement Concerning eceived a 65 percent \"D\" his first nine weeks grading period. The \"D\" was due in part to his failure to hand in four textbook assignments. He asked if he could tum in the assignments late, but my answer was no. S earned a 79 percent \"C\" the second nine weeks grading period. His semester final was a 50 percent \"F\". His semester grade calculated out to be a 68 percent \"F\" and the grade sheet was given to the registrar. S _ f asked if I would look at the grade again and consider letting him make up past assignments. I agreed to look at the entire semester again. I realized upon review that letting  turn in only two of the assignments missed from the first nine weeks would result in his grade being a \"C\"  Further calculation, based on the new information, revealed his semester grade would have been a \"C\" and not a \"D\". At this point, I felt I had been unfair to ff and informed him that I would make a grade change. I am forwarding this information with the hope that it will in no way be used to violate or compromise 1$  rights under the FERP A Act. Sincerely, ATTACH IE TL iOWARD, RUDOLPH TEACHERS OF ELIGIBILITY INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE REASON FOR GRADE CHANGE EDWARDS CHANGED HIS: (CHECK ONE) 1st quarter grade _ 2nd quarter grade __ 3rd quarter grade __ _ Exam Grade __ _ 4th quarter grade __ _ ,/ Final Grade for the following reason: A~ Sf A+ d i/J ,A ltm7l /ILc--V!cXu. ~ _( I,{_ h /4. ~f-/F ,\u0026lt; I .=ii f fill- I L.,/ {\ntA\u0026lt;. ~::{.,\u0026lt;.,~ ~ f?l A I u dJ,1\ns ~\ns r 9 /4. cl /4 ,.-t:flr. /4.\n, a.efipi,., 1/u\nfJ ~ . IU.a.h ,4 5t!Jt(Ef,7?:Z. Did you, the teacher, initiate the change? ~es __ no :Jid someone else initiate the change? __ yes Z Who? ________ / Did you, the teacher, discuss the change with anyone? _yes __ no Who? _______ _ Indicate the nature of the discussion: !s it \"common prjCtice\" to change students grades when warranted? yes~ ___ no Was any precedent set as a result Qf--1our changing the grace? yes_ ~ HOWARD, RUDOLPH Ta: TEACHERS OF ELIGIBILITY INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE ,...._ \\SON FOR GRADE CHANGE ~,\u0026amp;TEACHER OF , teache,r --/-- subject/ EDWARDS CHANGED HIS: (CHECK ONE) 1st quarter grade _ 3rd quarter grade __ Exam Grade / / 2nd quarter grade__L_ 4th quarter grade _ _ Final Grade / Did someone else initiate the change? __ yes / no Who? ______ _ Did you\nth  yone? /ves __ no Who?~~~~~!::::,l:.........::::l~t:.c.-t.e\n,~ Indicate the nature of the discussion: \\ /40 ~ ~ ~~v ~ 4-,y.ua ,?\n~ 'A.i, P'.e~ ~ ::::Z' -.z,, pu::zZ\n.,. Is it \"common pr,ittice\" to change students grades whepwarranted? yes -1L ___ no Was any precedent set as a result of your changing the g~ade? yes__  no ATTACHME rTM :OWARD, RUDOLPH I,~ Teachers of Eligibility Investigating Committee Reason for Grade Change ,,, teacri-,r changed his: ~check one) \u0026lt;~ mTeacherof SU ect ff-0 1st quarter grade __ 2nd quarter gradeL f -~ 3rd quarter grade __ 4th quarter grade __ Final a.... rade .,f r-- (\n. for the following reason: ' ..AHt,1/\nf z.,w .q\nk ~ 4/'-tfU/t:, d'A42Z\n:.,f(/2\n2\u0026amp;( ~ A',\u0026amp; ~A ZZ~~~ ' ,U,u?.,W ~ 44/ ,v ~.ii!hi ~ft\u0026lt;-~~~~ -i~ ~ (j:-,0'},-L,IV ..Zt70 _,,e  ~ ~ T0:J ~ ~' .,,y signature below ~ests to the fact that I wis not coeroe\"d 1n any way by anyone to make the grade cffunge and that ,. the change w..~ . s ma~ because the student's efforts in my class warranted a grade change. teacher's signature LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT NEPN CODE: I.KA. GRJ\\DING SYSTEMS The primary purpose of grading is to keep parents and students fully informed of a student's progress in meeting course standards and benchmarks and to provide teachers and principals with a continuous and accurate record of each student's achievement in order to assess the effectiveness of instruction. Grades for progress summary reports to parents are issued on a nine-week basis, semester, and/or yearly basis. While completely uniform grading criteria at and between all school levels may not be possible, the grading system is established with the intent of being fair and in having enough consistency to accomplish its purposes. The procedures for nine-week, semester, and yearly grading are set forth in the administrative regulations. It is the policy of the Board of Education that grades assigned to students for performance in a course shall reflect only the extent to which a student has achieved the expressed standards and benchmarks of the course. Academic grades shall not be reduced for disciplinary reasons except in the case oflate assignments or academic dishonesty. Neither shall academic grades be enhanced for disciplinary compliance or for other non-academic rewards. Variations in instruction, performance standards, and assessment strategies for students with disabilities shall be determined by the admission, review, and dismissal committee and included in the student's individual education plan. Teachers are responsible for adapting pacing, instructional strategies, materials, and assessments for students who have been identified as limited-English proficient. Revised: Septe!I_lber 23, 1999 Adopted: July 23, 1998 Legal Reference: AC.A. 6-15-902 Cross Reference: Administrative Regulation IKA-R ATTACHME T Senior High School Student Handbook ATTACHME TO ATTENDANCE POLICY AND PROCEDURES Penalties and Notification Procedures l. When a student has missed three or more unexcused absences in any class during one semester, the school attendance secretary shall notify the student's parents, guardians, or persons in loco parentis. Notice shall be via telephone contact by the end of the school day in which the absence occurred or sent via regular mail, with a return addressed envelope, no later than the following school day. Data from the student's Pupil Information Form will be used in this procedure. 2. When a student has six unexcused absences in any class during one semester, the school attendance secretary shall again notify the student's parent or guardian of the number of absences. Also, the student's building-level administrator shall schedule a conference with the student and his or her parent or guardian to discuss the student's absence pattern and its effects together with appropriate interventions. The administrator shall explain during the conference that course credit will be denied if the student receives seven (7) unexcused absences in a semester. 3. Course credit will not be denied if a student/parent/administrator conference is not held or if appropriate documentation of the student's absences has not been forwarded to the parent, at the student's address of record. However, a parent's failure to attend a conference or respond to notification of a conference will not circumvent the loss of course credit for the student. 4. Course credit shall be denied for each class in which a student has more than six (6) unexcused absences during one semester and when the administrative conference has been held, unless the principal or assistant principal finds there are extenuating circumstances of such that to deny credit would be unfair. 5. If the principal or assistant principal denies course credit, the student may appeal the course credit denial to the LRSD Student Hearing Officer [324-2170]. The student must request an appeal within 24 hours of the principal or assistant principal's final decision to deny course credit. 57 ATTENDANCE POLICY AND PROCEDURES 6. On the seventh unexcused absence, the parent/guardian shall be notified that a referral to the Pulaski County Juvenile Cour1 has been made in accordance with Act 1308, adopted by the Arkansas Legislature, March, 1997. 7. When a student who is fourteen or older has missed more thru seven (7) consecutive days without approval of the principal o assistant principal, the school attendance secretary shall notif\nthe Arkansas Department of Finance and AdministratiOJ (DF\u0026amp;A). DF\u0026amp;A may suspend the student's driver's license unti the student provides satisfactory evidence that he or she i attending school or has reached age eighteen. WARNING: The District will count three (3) or more class absences one day as a full-day absence. 58\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 Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\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_1456","title":"\"2000-01 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":["2001-04-11"],"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 improvement programs","School integration","School management and organization","Magnet schools"],"dcterms_title":["\"2000-01 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/1456"],"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":["50 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1112","title":"Little Rock School District Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Compliance Report","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":["2001-03-15"],"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","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics","School discipline","School employees","School improvement programs","School integration","Student activities","Student assistance programs","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Compliance Report"],"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/1112"],"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":["184 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nPROPERTY OF O0M LIBRARY RECEIVED M.4R 1 ~ 200! OriiGEGF Little Rock School District Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Compliance Report March 15, 2001 TABLE OF CONTE:\\'TS INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... I\\\" C0:\\1PLIANCE REPORT .................................................................................. 1 I. Good Faith Section 2.1 ............................................................................... 1 Section2.l.l ............................................................................... 3 II. Facultv and Staff III. IV. V. Section 2.2 ................................................................................ 5 Section 2.2.1 ........................................................................... 5 Section 2.2.2 .............................................................................. 7 Section 2.2.3 .............................................................................. 8 Section 2.2.4 ............................................................................... 9 Section 2.2.5 ............................................................................ 9 Section 2.2.6 ............................................................................ 9 Section2.2.7 ........................................................................... 14 Student Assignment Section 2.3 ......................................................................... 15 Section 3.6 ......................................................................... 18 Special Education and Related Programs Section 2.4 ............................... .-.......................................... 20 Discipline Section 2.5 ........................................................................... 24 Section 2.5 .1 ............................................................................ 25 Section 2.5.2 ........................................................................ 25 Section 2.5.3 ......................................................................... 25 Section 2.5.4 .......................................................................... 26 VI. Extracurricular Activities Section 2.6 ......................................................................... 27 Section 2.6.3 ............................................................................... 29 VII. Advanced Placement Courses and the Gifted and Talented Program Section 2.6.1 ........................................................................ 30 Section 2.6.2 ........................................................................ 30 VII. Academic Achievement A. Generally Section 2. 7 ...................................................................... 51 B. Transition to Middle Schools Section 3.4 .................................................................... 66 C. Early Childhood Education Section 5.1 ........................................................................ 72 D. Reading and Language Arts Section 5.2 ...................................................................... 75 Primary Grades Section 5.2.1 ...................................................................... 75 Section 5.2.l(a) ......................................................... 77 Section 5.2.l(b) ......................................................... 77 Section 5.2.l(c) ......................................................... 77 --------------~- Section 5.2.l(d) ........................................ ................. 78 Section 5.2.l(e) ......................................................... 78 Section 5.2.l(f) ................... . ....................... . .............. 79 Section 5 .2.1 (g) ....................... .................................. 79 Section 5.2.1 (h) .................................... : .................... 80 Section 5 .2.1 (i) .......................................................... 80 Section 5.2.l(j) .......................................................... 81 Section 5 .2.1 (k) ......................................................... 90 Section 5 .2.1 (I) .......................................................... 90 Intermediate Grades Section 5.2.2 ..................................................................... 93 Section 5.2.2(a) ......................................................... 94 Section 5.2.2(b) ......................................................... 94 Section 5.2.2(c) .......................................................... 95 Section 5.2.2(d) .......................................................... 95 Section 5.2.2(e) .......................................................... 95 Section 5.2.2() .......................................................... 96 Section 5.2.2(g) ......................................................... 96 Section 5.2.2(h) ........................................................ 102 Secondary Schools E. Section5.2.3 ..................................................................... 105 Section 5.2.3(a) ........................................................ 107 Section 5.2.3(b) ........................................................ 108 Section 5 .2.3( c) ........................................................ 108 Section 5.2.3(d) ........................................................ 109 Section 5.2.3(e) ........................................................ 109 Section 5.2.3() ............................................... ...... : ... 111 Mathematics F. Section 5.3 ...................................................................... 115 Section 5.3.1 ..................................................................... 115 Section 5.3.2 ..................................................................... 125 Section 5.3.3 ..................................................................... 125 Section 5.3.4 ..................................................................... 126 Section 5.3.5 ..................................................................... 129 Computer Literacy G. H. Section 5.4 ....................................................................... 136 Alternative Educational Opportunities Section5.6.l ..................................................................... 145 Program Evaluation IX. Section2.7.l ...................................................................... 148 Parental Involvement Section 2.8 ................................................................................ 149 ii I ~ I I I I I I I I I I X. Equitable Allocation of Resources Section.2.9 ............................................................................ 158 Section 2.10 .......................................................................... 158 XI. Guidance and Counseling Section 2.11 ............................................................................... 160 Section 2.11.1 ......................................................................... 160 Section 5.8 ........................................................................... 162 XII. Cultural Sensitivity Section 2.12 .............................................................................. 163 Section 2.12.1 ............................................................................ 163 Section 2.12.2 ......................................................................... 165 XIII. Compliance Section 2.13 ............................................................................ 166 APPENDIX Resource Allocation Review (Three-year Comparison and 2000-01 Correlation Analysis) Dedicated Millage Projects Proposed Bond Projects iii INTRODUCTIO'.\\' The Little Rock School District (hereinafter \"LRSD\" or \"'District\") submits this Compliance Report in accordance with Section 11 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"). On March 15, 2000, the District filed with the Court an Interim Compliance Report. The purpose of the Interim Compliance Report was to advise the Court, the other parties to this case, and interested persons of the status of the District's efforts to meet its obligations under the Revised Plan and to develop a format for this report. The District asked the parties and other interested persons to provide comments or suggestions with regard to the substance and format of the Interim Compliance Report. It received none. Accordingly, this report will follow a similar format as the Interim Compliance Report. The Interim Compliance Report cataloged the programs, policies and procedures implemented by the District in an effort to comply with the Revised Plan. To avoid duplication, the Interim Compliance Report is hereby incorporated by reference. The programs, policies and procedures implemented by the District and identified in the Interim Compliance Report will not be repeated in this report. Where there is nothing new to report, this report will simply refer the reader to the Interim Compliance Report. This report assumes that the reader is familiar with the Interim Compliance Report. This report will vary in one significant respect from the Interim Compliance Report. The Interim Compliance Report included information related to every substantive section of the Revised Plan. This resulted in some redundancy within that report. This report attempts to avoid this redundancy by focusing on the core obligations contained in Section 2 of the Revised Plan. This report is divided into thirteen sections, each of which correlates to a Section 2 obligation. Other sections of the Revised Plan are discussed along with the underlying Section 2 obligation. Effort has been made to refer the reader to other related sections of the report rather than iv repeating information in multiple sections. A table of contents also has been added to assist readers in finding information based on either subject area or section number. Finally, this report was prepared for the Board of Directors (\"Board\") by the District's Compliance Committee. However, it reflects the hard work of a large group of dedicated District employees, including administrators, principals, teachers, counselors and other staff members. While that group is too large for individual acknowledgement, their efforts are greatly appreciated and should not go without mention. Thank you. Compliance Committee V COMPLIANCE REPORT I. Good Faith. Section 2.1 LRSD shall in good faith exercise its best efforts to comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against African-American students, to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color or ethnicity in the operation of LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools. The Covenant During the term of this Revised Plan, the District attempted to demonstrate its good faith by meeting its plan obligations. As the term of the Revised Plan nears its end, the District sought a means to manifest its good faith commitment for the future. On January 11, 2001, the Board adopted a \"Covenant for the Future\" (hereinafter \"Covenant\"). In the Covenant, the Board promised to continue to exercise its best efforts to:  improve the academic achievement of all students,  comply with the Constitution, and ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color or ethnicity in the operation of the District, and  provide equitable educational resources, programs and opportunity in a nondiscriminatory environment for all students attending District schools. On January 12, 2001, the District brought together administrators from every school in the District to affirm the Covenant. Participants were presented with the Covenant and then asked to outline strategies to be implemented at their respective schools to fulfill the promises made in the Covenant. Participants were later required to share the Covenant with their Campus Leadership Teams (\"CL Ts\"). Campus Leadership Teams and Total Quality Management The District's success in fulfilling the promises set forth in the Covenant will in large measure depend on the continued success of the CLTs. The CLT program was at the heart of the District's efforts to meet its obligations under the Revised Plan. Since their formation in 1998, the CL Ts have provided the horsepower driving the District's efforts to improve student achievement. They derive their power from the philosophy of Total Quality Management (\"TQM\"). TQM stresses four basic principals: continuous improvement, continuous education, customer satisfaction and data-driven decisions. Training in TQM has been a top priority for the District. Training began during the 1998-99 school year. Principals meet monthly for TQM group study sessions. The CL Ts, including principals, and the Cluster Coordinating Committees conduct a monthly-\"leadership\" meeting. The Cluster Coordinating Committees also meet quarterly. Dr. Terrence Roberts has provided additional professional development to school principals and the CLTs. In October 2000, high school principals and some administrators involved in the TQM initiative attended the National Quality Conference in Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina. All principals have had an opportunity to receive additional TQ\n,.,.1 training thro ugh a series of four-day intensive training sessions conducted by the Arkansas Leadership Academy in the summer of 2000. This training has continued during the 2000-01 school year with two-day training sessions in November 2000 and February 2001 and with rigorous \"homework\" assignments in the interim. During the 1998-99 school year, the District sought to be formally recognized as a quality school district by the Arkansas Quality Award (\"AQA\"), a non-profit agency formed to provide opportunities for interested organizations in the state to measure their progress toward quality. AQA's team of examiners scrutinized the District using the nationally recognized Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Program criteria. These criteria are considered to be organizational best practices and are the foundation for developing and integrating all processes in an organization's operation. The award criteria are divided into seven categories that reflect the major areas for organizations to develop and improve: Leadership, Strategic Planning, Customer and Market Focus, Information and Analysis, Human Resource Focus, Process Management, and Business Results. There are four quality award levels: Level 1 -- Quality Interest Award: For an organization expressing an interest in adopting and applying quality principles. Recognition is given to any organization completing the basic elements associated with quality awareness and understanding. Level 2 -- Quality Commitment Award: For an organization that has advanced from the knowledge and skills gained from initial steps and has a plan to move the organization toward total quality improvement and has progressed to a point of potential serious commitment. Level 3 -- Quality Achievement Award: For an organization that has demonstrated significant progress in building sound and notable processes through its cornmitme~t and practice of quality principles. Level 4 -- Governor's Quality Award: For an organization which is an outstanding example of a quality organization in the state of Arkansas exhibiting \"World Class\" processes which serve as a role model for others. In the fall of 1999, the District received the \"Quality Interest Award.\" In the feedback report, the examiners wrote: Overall, this applicant has established a strong initial process to achieve performance excellence . . .. Substantial planning and training have taken place and the organization is clearly committed to the process .... Significantly, the success of this particular organization will be applauded as a success for the organization and for the State as a whole. 2 Motivated by this positive feedback, the District submitted its second application to AQA in the spring of 2000. Last fall, AQA awarded the District the Quality Commitment A\\\\'ard. The A.QA. provided the following feedback: [T]he applicant has a systematic approach that is responsive to the basic purposes of Leadership, Strategic Planning, Customer and Market Focus, Information and Analysis, Human Resource Focus, Process Management, and Business Results: The early stages of developing trends and obtaining comparative information are evident from the data that are presented .... Work systems are designed to promote cooperation and collaboration by the use of work teams, teacher teams, cluster teams, and Campus Leadership Teams. This applicant's approach to education and training balances both short and longer term goals by providing professional development for certified personnel geared toward successful implementation of new initiatives .... Currently, the District is reviewing AQA's feedback and compiling data in preparation for submitting its application for the \"Quality Achievement Award.\" A quality school district meets the needs of all students. In adopting the CLT program, the District committed itself to providing each school the leadership and autonomy necessary to meet the needs of each school's unique student population. With that autonomy comes a responsibility to ensure the success of each student. The TQM training provided by the District to principals and CL Ts represents an effort to ensure that they are equipped to meet that responsibility. Section 2.1.1 LRSD shall retain a desegregation and/or education expert approved by the JoshuaIntervenors to work with LRSD in the development of the programs, policies and procedures to be implemented in accordance with this Revised Plan and to assist LRSD in devising remedies to problems concerning desegregation or racial discrimination which adversely affect African-American students. Dr. Terrence Roberts continues to assist the District in meeting its plan obligations by:  Consulting with teachers, counselors, and administrators\n Reviewing programs, policies and/or procedures\n Identifying areas in need of reshaping and problem solving\n Providing methods for maintaining District goals and focus\n Aiding in future projections to address the District needs and strategies for improvement\n Developing the \"Leaming to Cope With Difference\" employee training program\n Meeting with individuals and groups to rethink and/or affirm their commitment and personal development plan\n Working to establish a level of enthusiasm toward personal commitment, growth, and development\nand 3  Seeking to formulate the concept that each individual \\\\ ould be so committed to personal growth that results would be seen District-wide, resulting in the District becoming a positive model for our nation. Likewise, Dr. Steven Ross continues to assist the District in meeting its plan obligations by:  Consulting with Department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (\"PRE\") and the Director of Federal Programs on the evaluation of Title I programs\n Advising PRE staff on school profiles\n Planning with PRE regarding program evaluation models\n Assisting the Superintendent and PRE in determining appropriate categories of data to present in order to determine whether there has been improvement in student achievement\n Reviewing drafts of data reports for program evaluation\n Discussing data reports with PRE staff and making suggestions for improvement\n Meeting with the Compliance Committee to discuss program evaluation issues\n Providing assistance in securing a consultant for outsourcing some program evaluation responsibilities\nand  Making a presentation to the Board on program evaluation and the formation of a research committee. 4 II. Facultv and Staff. Section 2.2 LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that LRSD hires, assigns, utilizes and promotes qualified African-Americans in a fair and equitable manner. Total Administrative Staff The overall percentage of African-American administrative staff increased from 48.86 percent to 50.29 percent from 1998-99 through 2000-01. While the number of African-American administrators has remained relatively constant (86, 84, 86), the number of white administrators has decreased slightly each year (90, 89, 85). There has been no change in the racial composition of assistant and associate superintendents (three African-American and four white/other). Total Administrative Staff Year African-American White/Other Percent A-A* 1998-1999 86 90 48.86% 1999-2000 84 89 48.55% 2000-2001 86 85 50.29% * African-Arnencan will be abbreviated \"A-A\" where necessary because of space Iurutat1ons. Building Level Administrators The majority of building level administrators continues to be African-American with a slight increase in the percentage of African-American administrators in the 2000-01 school year. In schools with more than one administrator, the District attempts to maintain racial diversity among administrators where practicable and consistent with other legal requirements. Building Level Administrators Year African-American White/Other Percent A-A 1998-1999 55 46 54.5% 1999-2000 55 46 54.5% 2000-2001 57 42 57.6% Section 2.2.1 LRSD shall maintain in place its current policies and practices relating to the recruitment of African-American teachers which have allowed LRSD to maintain a teaching staff which is approximately one-third African-American. The District continues to aggressively and successfully recruit qualified African-American teachers. From July 1, 2000, through September 1, 2000, there were 198 full-time teachers hired, 42 percent of whom were African-American. As the table below demonstrates, this raised 5 the District 's percentage of African-American teachers to 3 percent, up from 37 percent in the 1997-98 school year. Total District Teachers Year African-American White/Other Percent A-A 1997-1998 704 1205 37% 1998-1999 728 1192 38% 1999-2000 719 1218 37% 2000-2001 757 1208 39% Recruiting and Retaining Teachers The District's success in recruiting and retaining African-American teachers has not been matched by the other school districts in Pulaski County. Twenty-one percent of the Pulaski County Special School District's certfied staff and 18 percent of the North Little Rock School District's certified staff are African-American. Even so, all of the districts are doing a good job in this regard considering that only 8 percent of college graduates in Arkansas are AfricanAmerican. During the 2000-2001 school year, 84 percent of District recruitment binders were issued to African-Americans. Recruitment binders are advanced commitment agreements enabling applicants to be assured of employment. New recruitment and retention strategies being implemented or developed include:  Tuition assistance programs for full-time students to complete their undergraduate degree, for full-time students to complete a master's degree and for non-certified employees to obtain an undergraduate degree\n The Teachers of Tomorrow Program which provides scholarships to District high school graduates interested in becoming teachers\n Waiver of the tenure requirement for tuition reimbursement for African-American teachers willing to complete an additional certification in a critical supply area\nand  Arkansas New Teacher Mentor Program which partners first year teachers with master teachers. Desegregation of Teaching Staffs The District has also sought to ensure desegregation of the teaching staff at each school. It has measured success in this regard by looking at the number of schools whose percentage of African-American teachers is within plus or minus 15 percentage points (+/-15%) of the overall percentage of African-American teachers at that grade level. As the table below demonstrates, three schools fall outside +/- 15% measure at the elementary level. This is down from seven in 1998-99 school year. At the secondary level, only one school, Metropolitan Career Technical Center, remains outside the +/-15% measure, compared to four schools in the 1998-99 school year. 6 Year 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 Year 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 Section 2.2.2 Percentage Of Elementary Schools Within+ / -15% Of Overall ElementanRacial Composition Total Schools Schools Inside Range 36 29 36 29 36 31 36 33 % Of Secondary Schools Within+ / -15% Of Overall Elementary Racial Composition Total Schools Schools Inside Range 15 12 15 11 15 13 15 14 Percent Inside Range 81% 81% 86% 92% Percent Inside Range 80% 73% 87% 93% LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to increase the number of African-American media specialists, guidance counselors, early childhood teachers, primary grade teachers and secondary core subject teachers, including offering incentives for African-American teachers to obtain certification in these areas, and to assign those teachers to the LRSD schools where the greatest disparity exists. The District's efforts at increasing the number of African-American media specialists, guidance counselors, early childhood teachers, primary grade teachers and secondary core subject teachers have met with modest success. While the percentage of African-Americans in these areas has increased, the increase has been small, as shown in the tables below. Media Specialists Year African-American White/Other Percent A-A 1997 8 44 14% 1998 8 I 43 16% 1999 8 43 16% 2000 9 43 17% 7 Counselors Year African-American White/Other Percent A-A 1997 36 48 43% 1998 39 49 44% 1999 39 49 44% 2000 40 49 45% Core Secondary Year African-American White/Other Percent A-A 1997 156 230 40% 1998 179 227 44% 1999 189 249 43% 2000 206 259 44% Earlv Childhood Year African-American White/Other Percent A-A 1997 40 104 28% 1998 47 116 29% 1999 47 109 30% 2000 46 107 30% Primary Grade Teachers Year African-American White/Other Percent A-A 1997 94 186 34% 1998 92 180 34% 1999 92 198 32% 2000 105 197 35% Section 2.2.3 LRSD shall establish a uniform salary schedule for all positions within the District, including a salary range for director and associate and assistant superintendent positions, designed to provide compensation in accordance with qualifications and to minimize complaints of favoritism. See Interim Compliance Report filed March 15, 2000. 8 L Section 2.2.4 LRSD shall implement a policy for the centralized hidng and assignment of teachers b) the LRSD Human Resources Department designed to provide an equitable distribution of teaching resources and to prevent nepotism and pre-selection by a school principal. See Interim Compliance Report filed March 15, 2000. Section 2.2.5 LRSD shall implement a policy of promotion from within which shall include procedures for notifying District employees of open positions. Over the last three years, between 62 percent and 71 percent of administrative positions have been filled by promoting existing District employees. The percentage of African-Americans promoted has roughly mirrored the percentage of African-Americans in the District as a whole. Administrative Positions Filled Via Promotion Year Vacancies Promotions Percent Promotions 1998-99 15 10 67% 1999-00 1.7 12 71% 2000-01 13 8 62% Section 2.2.6 LRSD shall implement programs, policies and /or procedures designed to ensure that the teaching staffs at all LRSD schools are substantially similar with regard to average years of experience and percentage of teachers with advanced degrees. The District decided not to require involuntary transfers in order to meet this obligation. Rather, the District compiled data on each school's average years of teaching experience, percentage of teachers with advanced degrees and percentage of teachers with a master's degree and nine or more years of experience. These data are provided in the tables below. Principals were expected to take this information into account when making hiring recommendations. Average Years of Experience The average length of service of teachers by school ranges from 6.65 years (Baseline) to 16.74 (McDermott) in the elementary schools\n6.95 years (Mabelvale) to 12.96 years (Henderson) in the middle schools\nand 7.9 years (McClellan) to 13.96 years (Parkview) in the high schools. 9 Average Years of Experience Elementarv School 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 Badgett 11.63 10.26 8.29 Bale 11.88 12.24 10.81 Baseline 10.52 9.29 6.65 Booker 14.29 13.04 12.62 Brady 11.38 11.54 12. 71 Carver 10.85 10.10 10.12 Cloverdale 12.96 12.70 12.32 Charter NIA NIA 3.00 Chicot 11.69 10.00 9.07 Dodd 8.77 8.94 8.05 Fair Park 16.00 17.16 14.89 Franklin 10.30 8.73 10.00 Forest Park 12.44 10.95 9.95 Fulbright 15.51 13.60 13.64 Garland 9.50 Closed Closed Geyer Springs 10.60 10.47 11.36 Gibbs 12.25 12.45 12.52 Jefferson 15.06 15.42 14.08 King 11.40 11.97 10.95 McDermott 16.25 17.32 16.74 Meadowc!iff 14.80 12.95 14.68 Mitchell 7.63 6.77 7.38 Mabel vale 11.06 11.25 11 .23 Otter Creek 12.28 11.44 9.21 Pulaski Heights 10.72 11.35 9.41 Rightsell 11.33 11.04 7.38 Rockefeller 9.86 9.76 10.19 Romine 15.29 14.37 15.92 Stephens Closed Closed 6.85 Terry 13.23 11.71 12.79 Wakefield 15.80 15.17 15.61 Washington 10.47 9.32 9.31 Watson 10.39 9.95 9.45 Western Hills 14.77 13.35 12.50 Williams 16.51 16.09 14.79 Wilson 13.70 12.72 13.67 Woodruff 9.18 7.00 7.38 Secondary School 1998-99 1999-::?000 ! 2000-01 Middle Schools Cloverdale Middle 9.84 8.62 -8.36 Dunbar 10.02 8.54 7.42 Forest Heights 12.78 10.50 10.16 Henderson 12.88 13.27 12.96 Mann 12.92 12.38 12.19 Mabelvale Middle 7.90 8.55 6.95 Pulaski Heights 14.84 10.23 9.73 Southwest 10.16 10.22 10.40 High Schools Central 14.54 11.66 12.04 Fair 12.17 9.03 8.84 Hall 14.48 11.94 11.37 McClellan 9.67 8.59 7.90 Metro 14.26 13.81 14.72 Parkview 15.36 14.38 13.96 Percentage of Teachers with Advanced Degrees The table below provides the percentage of teachers with advanced degrees at each District school for the last three school years. Elementary schools have so few teachers that looking only at the percentage of teachers with advanced degrees can be misleading. A school's percentage can change substantially with the change of only a few teachers. At the middle and high school levels, the alternative schools and Metropolitan High School have the lowest percentage of teachers with advanced degrees. The alternative schools' percentages may be explained by the relative newness of those staffs. Metropolitan's percentage is low due to the nature of the vocational subjects being taught. There simply are not many advanced degrees in those areas. Percentage of Teachers with Advanced Degrees Elementary School 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 Badgett 57% 47% 60% Bale 56% 40% 58% Baseline 61% 52% 38% Booker 63% 54% 56% Brady 63o/cl 58% 50% Carver 55% 50% 50% Cloverdale Elem. 54% 52% 52% Chicot 49% 50% 48% 11 Dodd 50% -1-t 52% Fair Park 62% 5S 0 0 I 50~-o I Franklin 36% 36% I 41% Forest Park 47% 50% 50% Fulbright 56% 54% i 58% Garland 29% 42% Closed Geyer Springs 62% 40% 33% Gibbs 65% 59% 63% Jefferson 74% 74% 74% King 52% 41% 42% McDermott 50% 44% 48% Meadowcliff 46% 42% 40% Mitchell 57% 40% 38% Mabel vale 42% 24% 23% Otter Creek 64% 54% 64% Pulaski Heights Elem. 56% 71% 55% Rightsell 65% 54% 32% Rockefeller 49% 41% 45% Romine 41% 45% 48% Stephens Closed Closed 40% Teny 45% 50% 50% Wakefield 71% 67% 71% Washington 47% 38% 37% Watson 53% 55% 52% Wes tern Hills 52% 55% 60% Williams 80% 76% 57% Wilson 75% 70% 68% Woodruff 44% 45% 48%, Secondary School 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 Middle Schools Cloverdale Middle 48% 38% 32% Dunbar 69% 56% 50% Forest Heights 55% 48% 40% Henderson 41% 48% 40% Mann 54% 54% 59% Mabelvale Middle 47% 51% 50% Pulaski Heights Middle 56% 45% 47% Southwest 56% 51% 50% ACC- Metro 67% 59% 67% ALT Agency 25% 40% 25% ALC 62% 53% 47% High Schools 12 Central 69% 62% 63% Fair 61% . 60% 5 -o , ) / 0 Hall 60% 54% 56% McClellan 50% 44% 49% Metropolitan 37% 28% 23% Parkview 75% 67% 71% Master's Plus Nine The District also compiled data on the percentage of teachers with a master's degree and nine or more years of experience since this was the measure used in the District's resource allocation review. See Section 2.9. The percentage of teachers with a master's degree and nine or more years of experience ranges from 19 percent (Mabelvale) to 67 percent (Wakefield) in the elementary schools\n27 percent (Cloverdale and Forest Heights) to 52 percent (Mann) in the middle schools\nand 35 percent (McClellan) to 55 percent (Parkview) in the high schools. Overall, there are 40 schools where more than 33 percent of the teachers have a master's degree and nine or more years of experience . . Master's Degree Plus Nine or More Years of Experience Elementary School 1998-99 ..  1999-2000 2000-01 Badgett 10/28 36% 8/17 47% 8/15 53% Bale 15/36 42% 12/35 34% 11/26 42% Baseline 13/36 36% 12/27 44% 10/26 38% Booker 23/59 39% 20/52 38% 24/55 44% Brady 14/30 47% 10/26 38% 10/26 38% Carver 19/47 40% 14/44 32% 15/42 36% Cloverdale Elem. 12/37 32% 10/29 34% 9/27 33% Chicot 14/43 33% 13/42 31% 14/42 33% Dodd 9/28 32% 8/20 40% 9/21 43% Fair Park 11/26 42% 10/19 53% 10/20 50% Franklin 11/45 24% 11/45 24% 13/41 32% Forest Park 9/64 14% 7/26 27% 8/22 36% Fulbright 16/41 39% 15/35 43% 14/31 45% Garland 4/25 16% 6/26 24% Closed Geyer Springs 13/34 38% 10/25 40% 6/21 29% Gibbs 12/31 39% 14/29 48% 15/27 56% Jefferson 22/39 56% 17/27 63% 17/27 63% King 19/52 ,37% 17/46 37% 18/45 40% McDermott 12/38 32% 10/27 37% 10/27 37% Meadowcliff 11/26 42% 7/19 37% 9/25 36% Mitchell 9/28 32% 7/25 28% 7/24 29% Mabelvale 7/36 19% 5/29 17% 5/26 19% 13 Otter Creek 11/28 39% 11 26 42% 12/25 48% Pulaski Heights Elem. 13/36 36% 12 23 52~0 I I 10 22 -+) ~o Rightsell 10/23 43% 11 '2-+ 46% 5/28 18% Rockefeller 11 /43 28% 11/39 28% 12/38 32% Romine 11 /32 34% 11 /29 38% 11 /27 41% Stephens Closed Closed 9/30 30% Terry 12/31 39% 13/40 33% 14/36 39% Wakefield 17/28 61% 14/27 52% 16/24 67% Washington 18/34 53% 17/55 31% 17/51 33% Watson 12/60 20% 12/13 92% 13/31 42% W estem Hills 10/23 43% 10/20 50% 9/20 45% Williams 25/41 61% 23/34 68% 23/35 66% Wilson 17/32 53% 14/23 61% 15/25 60% Woodruff 5/27 19% 7/22 32% 8/21 38% Secondary School 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 Middle Schools Cloverdale Middle 16/54 30% 15/56 27% 16/60 27% Dunbar 28/68 41% 22/63 35% 19/62 31% Forest Heights 22/64 34% 18/65 28% 17/63 27% Henderson 18/63 29% 21/61 34% 19/60 32% Mann 30/59 51% 29/61 48% 34/66 52% Mabelvale Middle 17/53 32% 18/47 38% 18/48 38% Pulaski Heights Middle 30/61 49% 25/62 40% 23/58 40% Southwest 18/54 33% 20/55 36% 21/56 38% ACC- Metro 7/12 59% 8/16 50% 10/21 48% ALT Agency 0/4 0% 1/5 20% 1/17 1% ALC NIA 4/15 27% 3/17 18% High Schools . Central 60/108 56% 60/135 44% 64/125 51% Fair 27/67 40% 28/75 37% 27/75 36% Hall 36/70 51% 39/102 38% 44/102 43% McClellan 30/78 38% 31/91 34% 32/91 35% Metropolitan 7/19 37% 5/18 28% 5/22 23% Parkview 37/67 55% 43/87 49% 45/82 55% Section 2.2. 7 LRSD shall negotiate with the Knight lntervenors to establish a procedure for the mandatory reassignment of teachers as necessary to enable LRSD to meet its obligations under Section 2.2 of this Revised Plan. See Interim Compliance Report filed March 15, 2000. III. Student Assignment. 14 I I I Section 2.3 LRSD shall implement student assignment programs, policies and /or procedures designed to ensure the desegregation of LRSD schools to the extent practicable, including but not limited to Sections 3 and 4 of this Revised Plan. Policies Policy JC, School Attendance Zones, and JCA, Student Assignment, were approved and adopted by the Board on May 25, 2000. Overall Enrollment From the 1998-99 school year through the 2000-01 school year, the District's enrollment increased a total of 627 students, and the overall racial composition moved from 67 percent African-~erican to 68 percent African-American. Total Enrollment Year Total Enrollment Percent African-American 1998-99 24,898 67% 1999-2000 25,159 68% 2000-01 25,525 68% Enrollment by School The table on the following page shows the percentage of African-American students attending the District's schools for the years 1996-97 through the current school year. The District has used two measures to assess the degree of desegregation within the District. First, it has looked at the number ofracially isolated schools, defined as schools that are 90 percent or more AfricanAmerican. These schools are shaded in the table. While the number of racially isolated schools has increased from four to nine, this occurred with very little change in the racial composition at the affected schools. 15 Percentage African-American B, School Elementarv Schools School 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 Badgett 84 92 94 91 93 Bale 71 73 73 74 76 Baseline 80 83 84 85 84 Booker 52 52 49 51 55 Brady 64 63 65 71 75 Carver 51 52 51 52 53 Chicot 70 69 71 67 68 Cloverdale 88 92 93 89 89 Dodd 64 65 66 64 65 Fair Park 76 76 73 72 73 Forest Park 48 48 53 44 38 Franklin 91 92 94 96 97 Fulbright 53 48 57 41 40 Garland 92 93 93 94 closed Geyer Springs 75 75 78 82 86 Gibbs 51 52 50 52 52 Jefferson 42 44 45 39 42 King 53 54 52 55 54 Mabelvale 74 73 69 73 75 McDermott 57 57 59 57 53 Meadowcliff 76 79 78 79 74 Mitchell 95 92 95 98 97 Otter Creek 42 46 46 47 51 Pulaski Heights 54 55 55 57 53 Rightsell 96 94 96 97 99 Rockefeller 61 59 56 61 61 Romine 66 63 62 65 66 Stephens closed closed closed closed 94 Terry 45 46 52 46 46 Wakefield 88 86 87 84 81 Washington 55 53 52 61 60 Watson 82 89 94 94 95 Western Hills 70 70 73 75 74 Williams 52 52 52 51 52 Wilson 81 82 85 89 90 Woodruff 69 71 78 80 85 Total Elem. 65 65 67 68 68 16 Middle Schools - Middle Schools 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 Cloverdale 86 89 89 88 -- 86 Dunbar 58 57 59 60 59 Forest Heights 77 70 64 65 65 Henderson 82 86 88 76 76 Mabelvale 74 75 76 73 79 Mann 52 52 51 52 53 Pulaski Heights 59 57 62 60 56 Southwest 78 83 85  -.,:. --~--. , ...... 91 -\"J:v/ -~v\n: :. 92 Total Middle 69 69 70 69 69 High Schools High Schools 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 Central 62 59 59 57 55 Fair 79 81 82 80 80 Hall 72 71 70 71 72 McClellan 83 84 86 89 ...... _ -t ....\nf.\"l~~l:~..,--~o Parkview 52 51 51 50 51 Total H.S. 68 67 66 68 68 The District also looked at the number of schools within plus or minus 20 percentage points(+/- 20%) from the district-wide percentage African-American by organizational level. Twenty-three of the 35 elementary schools (66 percent) fall within the+/- 20%. Of the 12 remaining elementary schools, eight have an African-American population more than 20 percent above overall African-American percentage at the elementary level. The racial population at 11 of the 13 secondary schools (85 percent) remains within+/- 20% of the overall African-American percentage at the secondary level. While the number of schools outside the+/- 20% range increased under the Revised Plan, the increase occurred with very little change in the racial balance at the affected schools. Schools Outside +/- 20% Range Year Schools Outside Range 1996-97 9 1997-98 9 1998-99 I 11 1999-2000 15 2000-01 14 17 Assignment Options A significant number of the District 's students continue to take adrnntage of altcmati\\e assignment options provided by the District. In the current school year. 70 percent of high school students are attending their zone schools (80 percent if Parkview students are removed) and 75 percent of middle school students are attending their zone schools (83 percent if Mann students are removed). At the elementary level 62 percent of the students are attending their zone schools (68 percent if stipulation magnet students are removed). Not including students attending a Stipulation Magnet or attending school in another district based on an M-to-M transfer, 731 students are attending a school other than their zone school pursuant to the Revised Plan. In total, 20 percent of the District's students take advantage of an alternative assignment option available under the Revised Plan. The District's Stipulation Magnets remain a very attractive option. Enrollment has increased under the Revised Plan, as shown on the table below. Student numbers for the six Stipulation Magnets show growth and reflect a 2 percent increase over the past three years. Stipulation Magnet School Enrollment 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 3763 3787 3837 Similarly, students in Pulaski County continue to take advantage of the M-to-M Transfer program in large numbers, as shown in the table below. Although the number of incoming PCSSD students to elementary interdistrict magnets dropped, this was partly due in part to the middle school transition and grade restructuring. Summary of M-To-M Transfer Students NLR 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01. Sending 8 0 Receiving 65 27 PCSSD 0 21 Sending 482 399 366 Receiving 1310 1122 1128 LRSD Sending 1375 1149 1149 Receiving 490 399 366 Section 3.6 LRSD-shall construct at least two new area elementary schools, one in west Little Rock and one at the site of the former Stephens school. When the new Stephens Elementary opens, it shall receive additional funding as described in Section 5.5 of this Revised Plan and one or more of the schools identified in Section 5.5 will be closed. When a school identified in 18 Section 5.5 is closed, LRSD shall exercise its best efforts to find a community or educational use for the property. Otherwise, LRSD shall not seek-to close schools in African-American neighborhoods solely because of age or poor maintenance except when a new school will be located in the same general area. The new Stephens Elementary School held its first classes on January 8, 2001. It receives double funding in accordance with the current formula as described in the August 16, 1995, report of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Plans for construction of an elementary school in west Little Rock are being developed. A site selection committee is currently investigating potential school sites. The first meeting of the West Little Rock School Site Selection Committee was held on February 5, 2001. 19 IV. Special Education and Related Programs. Section 2.4 LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination in the referral and placement of students in special education or in other programs designed to meet special student needs. Policies The Board of Education revised Policy IKF, General Education Graduation Requirements, in December 2000. The revision included among the diploma-earning options, \"Diploma with waived or altered requirements established by an Individual Education Program (\"IEP\") team for a student identified with disabilities.\" Procedures A new \"504\" Handbook was distributed in fall 2000 to campus \"504\" coordinators and to selected central office staff to ensure greater consistency and equity in administering the \"504\" program. A group of secondary Advanced Placement (\"AP\") teachers was convened in fall 2000 to meet with the District's \"504\" supervisor in order to define reasonable accommodations for teachers of AP classes to employ in order to open access to the courses for \"504\" students. They agreed on a set of accommodations to pennit students with disabilities to participate in AP courses. A fonn was developed for the \"504\" committee to use in meeting with parents to establish agreedupon accommodations. The list of available accommodations was published in both the 2001-02 Middle School Curriculum Catalog and the 2001-02 High School Curriculum Catalog. Department staff worked throughout spring 2000 and fall 2000 with the English-as-a-Second Language (\"ESL\") Supervisor and consultant in establishing procedures for the screening/identification of limited-English proficient students who are referred for special education testing.  Programs School-Based Day Treatment Program The Division of Exceptional Children has instituted a school-based day treatment program consisting of two elementary classrooms at Romine Elementary staffed by two certified teachers and two paraprofessionals. The program is coordinated by a school psychology specialist and receives support services from a clinical therapist and psychiatrist provided by The Centers for Youth and Family. The purpose of the program is to provide a school-based placement option that is less restrictive than an off-campus day treatment program. The program addresses academic and social skills individually identified for each student. Students obtain the skills necessary to return to their home campuses and are afforded the opportunity to strengthen those skills by participating in regular classrooms at Romine. Language Arts In order to assure linkage of curriculum with specialized programs and to provide consistent and balanced literacy instruction for special education students, District reading materials and 20 curriculum implementation training were provided to all elementary special education teachers. along with general education teachers. Additionally, special education teachers have participated in the middle and high school teacher training on the implementation of the Reading and Writing Workshop in grades 6-9. Mathematics and Science All special education teachers have been trained in the implementation of both the mathematics and science curricula. Special education teachers share materials with the general education teachers in their building. Inclusion The Director for Exceptional Children was on the agenda for all three of the curriculum orientation workshops for counselors in January 2001. In his presentation he emphasized the importance of reducing the number of hours in which middle school special education students are served in the resource room to assure equitable exposure to the general education curriculum. He advised counselors to be prepared to place virtually all students who might formerly have been placed in resource room programs in the regular levels of Reading/Writing Workshop based on the IEP team's recommendations during annual reviews. He and the Director of Secondary Language Arts collaborated on the design of that curriculum and on professional development and determined that appropriate modifications could be made in the regular classroom for most special education students. Special education teachers have been informed of the curricular modifications and have been strongly encouraged to have IEP teams place students in regular Reading/Writing Workshop. School Psychology Specialists In 2000-01 the Department of Exceptional Children relocated to school sites the school psychology specialists. By placing school psychology specialists at school sites, they now:  participate on individual schools' Pupil Service Teams to provide technical assistance in pre-referral interventions to the general classroom teachers\n participate in pre-referral and referral conferences to assure students are not inappropriately referred for consideration of special education services\nand  are available to meet and confer with parents and staff regarding behavioral interventions for all students. In addition, the Department redistributed school assignments to school psychology specialists, assuring that no school psychology specialist serves more than three school sites. During fall 2000 the Department assigned three school psychology specialists specifically to middle schools to conduct activities outlined in the Safe School/Healthy Students grant proposal. Compliance Staff The Department recruited and hired compliance personnel to ensure that due process documentation is monitored and corrected for compliance and equity. 21 \"504\" Coordination A new District-level \"504\" supervisor was designated to provide technical assistance and training to school-based \"504\" coordinators, principals, and teachers to ensure that students are not inappropriately referred for consideration of special education services. Identified Students The following three tables are reports of ( 1) the numbers of identified students with disabilities for 1998-99, 1999-2000, and 2000-01 by race and gender\n(2) the numbers of identified students with mental retardation and learning disabilities, again by race and gender, for the same three years\nand (3) the numbers of special education students according to free/reduced lunch eligibility in 2000-01. Numbers ofldentified Students with Disabilities School Year A-A A-A White White Other Other Total Males Females Males Females Males Females 1998-99 1239 547 383 220 28 13 2430 Percents 51% 23% 16% 9% 1% 1% 1999-2000 1233 536 362 199 30 13 2373 Percents 52% 23% 15% 8% 1% 1% 2000-01 1257 584 379 193 39 22 2474 Percents 51% 24% 15% 8% 2% 1% Percents add up to more than I 00% due to roundmg. Numbers ofldentified Students with Mental Retardation and Learning Disabilities School Year A-A A-A White White Other Other Totals Males Females Males Females Males Females 1998-99 842 360 165 96 14 7 1484 Percents 57% 24% 11% 7% 1% 1% 1999-2000 839 369 160 87 14 7 1476 Percents 57% 25% 11% 6% 1% 1% 2000-01 873 399 144 74 21 12 1523 Percents 57% 26% 10% 5% 1% 1% Percents add up to more than JOO% due to rounding. Students Identified with Disabilities A-A A-A White White Other Other Totals Percents Status Males Females Males Females Males Females Free 855 399 63 33 15 12 1377 61% Reduced 79 32 23 15 0 2 151 1% Total ldent. 1257 584 379 193 39 22 2474 100% Free/Reduced 74% 74% 23% 25% 38% 64% Percent of Total Interpretations of this data are difficult since African-American students with disabilities are more likely to be enrolled in public education than are their white peers with disabilities. For instance, according to the December 2000 Child Count, there were 44 white students identified 22 with disabilities who were being educated either in private or home schools as compared to zero African-American children. Other factors impacting the relative percentage of AfricanAmerican students with disabilities are the disproportionate percentage of African-Americans who live in poverty and lower levels of pre-natal care among African-Americans. 23 V. Discipline. Section 2.5 LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline. Overall, the number of disciplinary sanctions issued decreased by 21 percent from the 1997-98 school year through the 1999-2000 school year, as shown in the table below. For that same time period, the number of students committing offenses decreased 16 percent. Thus, fewer students are committing offenses, and those that do commit an offense are less likely to commit a second offense. Moreover, fewer than 2 percent of the students enrolled in the District were involved in violent offenses. Violent offenses are considered by the Arkansas Department of Education as incidents involving drugs, alcohol, student assaults, knives, handguns, rifles, shotguns, explosives, clubs, and gang activity. Overall Disciplinary Sanctions 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 Short Term 5486 5664 4865 4588 Suspensions Long Term 453 474 446 335 Suspensions Expulsions 82 109 1 3 TOTALS 6021 6247 5312 4926 Number of Students 3585 3672 3237 3011 Committing Offenses The number of African-American students suspended decreased 20 percent consistent with the overall reduction in disciplinary sanctions. The proportion of suspensions issued to AfricanAmerican students remained in the neighborhood of 85 percent. Suspensions By Race 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 Suspensions issued to African-American 5341 4470 4274 students Suspensions issued to White/ Other 906 842 652 students Total Suspensions 6247 5312 4926 The decrease in discipline sanctions has had a positive impact on parents' and teachers' perceptions of District schools. A survey of parents and teachers conducted during the 1999- 2000 school year revealed that 93 percent of African-American parents and 95 percent of white/other parents that expressed on opinion agreed that their child was safe at school. Ninetyone percent of both African-American and white/other parents that expressed an opinion agreed 24 that their child has a feeling of belonging at schools. Ninety-seven percent of African-American teachers and 96 percent of white/other teachers that expressed an opinion indicated that they felt safe at school. Section 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. Policy JBA, Nondiscrimination in Programs and Activities, and Regulation JI, Student Rights and Responsibilities, were approved and adopted by the Board on May 25, 2000. The policy and related regulations affirmed the District's ongoing commitment to make decisions involving students based on individual merit and free from discrimination in all its forms. Section 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. Building administrators purge students' discipline records at the end of each school year unless the student has been disciplined for an identified offense. In that case, the Student Hearing Office determines if it is in the best interest of the student for the records to be purged. Section 2.5.3 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. As a new position for the District, the ombudsman needed substantial training in order to fulfill his responsibilities. Since the position was established, the ombudsman has received training in conflict resolution (Fred Pryor Seminars), mediation (Center for Dispute Resolution, Austin, Texas), the role of an ombudsman (United States Ombudsman Association) and racial diversity (Dr. Terrence Roberts, \"Learning to Cope with Differences\"). In order to increase public awareness of the services available through the ombudsman, information about the ombudsman was disseminated by way of the District's cable network and printed publications. The ombudsman's rple in the discipline process has been included in the Student Rights and Responsibility Handbook, and the ombudsman made presentations at local churches, PT A, civic, and community meetings and participated in school/community activities, e.g., the Wright Avenue Neighborhood Association's Annual Fall Fest and the Magnet School Fair. 25 Efforts to raise public awareness of the ombudsman appear to h::iYe been successful. In the last year, the ombudsman has been contacted by over 358 parents and/or students. In addition, the ombudsman has implemented intervention activities at Badgett Elementary and McClellan High School designed to assist African-American males who demonstrate unacceptable behavior. Efforts are in place to expand these activities to include other schools. Section 2.5.4 LRSD shall work with students and their parents to develop behavior modification plans for students who exhibit frequent misbehavior. Behavior modification plans are developed by the Pupil Services Team or Educational Management Team. The Team typically includes the student, his or her parent, a building administrator, a counselor and one or more of the student's teachers. Others, such as the \"504\" Coordinator or a Special Education Supervisor, may be included depending on the student's individual needs. All members of the Team share responsibility for monitoring implementation of the behavior modification plan. 26 VI. Extracurricular Activities. Section 2.6 LRSD shaH implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified AfricanAmericans in extracurricular activities, advanced placement courses, honors and enriched courses, and the gifted and talented program.  Extracurricular Activities Participation of African-Americans in extracurricular and co-curricular activities showed a significant increase through the 1999-2000 school year. Extracurricular activities are activities designed to provide opportunities for students to explore areas of interest that compliment and enrich the curriculum. These activities include athletics, clubs and organizations such as Student Council, Y-Teens, and Beta Club. As the table below demonstrates, the number of AfricanAmerican students participating in extracurricular activities increased 76 percent in the 1998-99 school year and an additional 26 percent in the 1999-2000 school year. Sixty-two percent of the District's African-American students participated in an extracurricular activity during the 1999- 2000 school year. Data for the 2000-01 school year are not yet available. Extracurricular Activity Participation A-A I W/O I A-A I W/O I A-A I 2335 I 393 I 4121 I 803 I 5203 I Co-Curricular Activities Extracurriclar Participation (Secondary) 4000 2000 0 African-American Participation a91.9s  98-99  99~0 W/O I 902 I African-American participation in co-curricular activities also showed an increase through the 1999-2000 school year. Co-curricular activities are activities designed to extend learning experiences through group or individual activities at school or public events, including band, orchestra, choir, or debate. As the table below demonstrates, the number of African-American students participating in co-curricular activities increased 9 percent in the 1998-99 school year and an additional 30 percent in the 1999-200 school year. Sixty-six percent of the District's African-American students participated in a co-curricular activity during the 1999-2000 school year. Data for the 2000-01 school year are not yet available. 27 Co-Curricular Activity Participation A-A I W/O I A-A I W/O I 2579 I 1222 I 2806 I u 15 I CO-CURRICULAR PARTICIPATION (SECONDARY) 2000 African-American Participation 11:198-99   99-00 -  00-01 A-A 3988 I W/O I I 1864 I The increased participation in extracurricular and co-curricular activities is likely the result of active recruitment by activity sponsors, coaches, principals, and the athletic director. School incentives and community involvement also played a role in increasing student interest and participation in activities. Specifically in terms of athletics, implementation by the District of a \"no cut\" policy for the new middle school sixth graders has been responsible for the tremendous escalation of numbers of young African-American athletes. Finally, the adherence of the District to the Supplemental Instruction Plan (\"SIP\") has had a positive effect on growth of student participants. The SIP program allows athletes to continue to participate in sports while they attend tutoring to improve their grades. Parent and Teacher Survey The 1999-2000 survey of parents and teachers reflects the District's success in the area of ' extracurricular activities. Ninety percent of African-American parents and 93 percent of white/other parents that expressed an opinion agreed that activities were open to students. Ninety-three percent of African-American teachers and 95 percent of white/other teachers that expressed an opinion agreed that students have opportunities for activities. Activities Advisory Board At the time of the District's Interim Compliance Report, a steering committee had been formed to organize an Activities Advisory Board (\"AAB\") for the purpose of promoting, supporting, and enhancing extracurricular and co-curricular activities at all schools. The AAB, comprised of District staff, parents, students, and community representatives, began monthly meetings in April of 2000. Specific areas related to activities have been targeted for discussion and implementation. The focus of these discussions has been on a disproportionate number of African-American students who do not have the financial resources to participate in activities. Other areas of discussion and implementation include marketing, facilities, funding, accessibility, procedural process, and 28 scheduling. Each area has been discussed in connection with increasing student participation. with emphasis on assuring African-American participation. Fine Arts Director The Board has approved the position of Fine Arts Director. One of the basic responsibili.Hes of the Fine Arts Director is to provide leadership in improving student participation and success in fine arts courses, perfonnances, and competitions. In addition, the Fine Arts Director will be responsible for ensuring equitable opportunities are available to qualified African-American students. Section 2.6.3 LRSD shall provide transportation to students otherwise eligible for transportation to school to allow those students to participate in after-school activities required for participation in an extracurricular activity. The District provides transportation to students otherwise eligible for transportation to allow those students to participate in after-school extracurricular activities. Through December 7, 2000, the District averaged 74.3 extracurricular activity runs per day, 29.1 for high schools and 45.2 for the middle schools. No records are kept of the students taking advantage of this service because the number and type of activities vary so greatly day to day. However, no extracurricular activity transportation request made by an eligible student has been denied. 29 VII. Advanced Placement Courses and the Gifted and Talented Program. Section 2.6.1 LRSD shall implement a training program during each of the next three years designed to assist teachers and counselors in identifying and encouraging African-American students to participate in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement courses. Section 2.6.2 LRSD shall implement programs to assist African-American students in being successful in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement courses. Policies The Board approved the revision of Policy IKF, General Education Graduation Requirements, in December 2000. This revision included enhancements of the recommended curriculum. Effective for the class of 2004, students taking the recommended Curriculum must complete a total of 28 units, including at least eight Pre-AP or AP courses. The University Studies courses offered at Hall High School may substitute, as well as any other approved dual-credit courses taken by District students. To receive an Honors Seal on their diploma, students must complete the recommended curriculum and earn a grade-point average of at least 3.5. Criteria for earning the new Arkansas Scholars Seal and a Magnet Program Seal were also included. These changes provide incentives and recognition for more students to take the most challenging courses. Procedures With the revision of Policy IKF, the Board also revised the related regulations. The new regulations include new career focus areas for Teachers of Tomorrow, Computer Technology, and International Studies at Central High School, as well as new programs in Career and Technical Education, such as the new Aviation Technology courses. New courses were also added to the list of courses that will satisfy the Technology Applications requirement. See Section 2.4 for a discussion of procedures for participation of students with disabiliti~s in AP courses. The 2001-02 Middle School Curriculum Catalog and the 2001-02 High School Curriculum Catalog included the following language in bold print: \"Schools are encouraged to allow open admission to all Pre-AP and AP courses and then to require attendance, good behavior, and acceptable performance (including effort, not just a minimum grade) to stay in the course, rather than to deny admission to any motivated student who wishes to try a more challenging curriculum.\" The curriculum catalogs also contained language making it clear that ESL students must have access to AP courses. All this information was presented to counselors, registrars, and principals during the January 2001 curriculum orientation workshops conducted by the Associate Superintendent for Instruction. She emphasized the importance of increasing the participation and performance of African-American students in advanced programs and in extracurricular activities. 30 The middle school and high school Student/Parent Guides to Course Selection for 2001-02 also included extensive information about Pre-AP and AP courses. as well as strong encouragement to students to take the courses. The District's Quality Index continues to include indicators that the District is achieving_!he goals of improved access and success in AP courses among all students, especially AfricanAmerican students. These indicators include the enrollment and completion rates in advanced courses, including Pre-AP and AP, as well as University Studies courses at Hall High School\nthe percent of seniors who graduate earning the Honors Seal\nthe percent of grade 8 students who have completed Algebra I\nand the percent of students scoring at a \"3\" or above on the Advanced Placement examinations. Data with regard to some of these indicators are presented below. Programs Gifted and Talented Program The Gifted and Talented (\"GT\") Program specialists and facilitators (teachers) are responsible for being resources in their respective schools to aid in the academic achievement of identified gifted students as well as aiding teachers in providing enrichment for all students. The teachers are, therefore, encouraged to participate in all professional activities that would help them to be more effective in their jobs. The teachers are provided opportunities for professional growth through various inservice sessions and conferences. GT facilitators representing each secondary school (middle and high) meet each month to share ideas, develop materials, receive new information regarding gifted programs, and learn new ideas to enhance their schools. Facilitators share curricular and co-curricular activities at their respective schools through a publication called \"Sharing the Good News.\" This publication is published six times per year. GT specialists provide a connection between the regular curriculum and the gifted curriculum\ntherefore, they must be well informed of both curricula. The professional development activities that they receive must connect to all of the curriculum departments because they are the advocates and resources in their schools for high achievement. They in turn become resources to the various departments because of their expertise. The table on the following page outlines the professional development growth opportunities for and by the GT Department. 31 Gifted and Talented Program Professional Development Date Title I Number Participating 1/30/98 Tn-District GT Specialists lnserv1ce (Pulaski Co, NLR and 66 LRSD) 3/19/98 Kingore Observauon Inventory Traimng (Designed to 32 observe gifted behaviors of students in grades K-2 whole group enrichment) 9/3/99 GT Student Achievement and Assessment (Rubrics and 16 Ponfolios) Cluster B 9/10/98 GT Student Achievement and Assessment (Rubrics and 17 Ponfolios) Cluster C 9/28/98 Office for Civil Rights Visit - Identification of Gifted 7 Students 10/15/98 AVID Awareness (Advancement Via Individual 24 Determination - Program designed to help underachieving and underrepresented students in advanced classes/programs)(lncluded principals, community persons, counselors and teachers) 10/9/98 GT Curriculum Writing Workshop 5 11/17/98 GT Student Achievement and Assessment - Cluster A 10 11 / 18/98 GT Student Achievement and Assessment - Cluster B 7 11 /19/98 GT Student Achievement and Assessment - Cluster C II 12/4/98 Testing Procedures and Research Development 35 515-5/7/99 Implementation of the Research Guide 35 6/2/99 Curriculum Development 32 6/3/99 Curriculum Development 32 6/4/99 Curriculum Development 33 9/29/99 Introduction to Windows 95 (Technology Course- This 3 course was provided according to the skills and needs of the specialists) I 0/1/99 Introduction to Word Processing (Technology Course) 8 10/5/99 Curriculum Mapping and Content Standards/Performance 10 Assessment- Cluster A 10/6199 Curriculum Mapping and Content Standards/Performance 11 Assessment- Cluster B 10/7/99 Curriculum Mapping and Content Standards/Performance 11 Assessment - Cluster C 10/8/99 Introduction to Word Processing (Technology Course) JO 10/ 14/99 Senior High Counselors- Recruiting and Preparing Students for a Rigorous Academic Curriculum 11 /9/11 Using E-Mail and the Internet (Technology Course) 12 32 Date Title - Number Participating 12/3/99 Curriculum Mappmg and Portfolios, ESL Students and 33 Refrigerator Curriculum 2/22/00 PowerPoint Productions 8 2/24/00 PowerPoint Productions 7 3/9/00 PowerPoint Productions 10 3/6/00 ESL Training/Curriculum Issues - Cluster A 11 3/21/00 ESL Training/Curriculum Issues - Cluster B 7 3/23/00 ESL Training/Curriculum Issues - Cluster C 13 3/16/00 PowerPoint Productions 12 4/6/00 Marco Polo Training (Technology Course) l* 4/7/00 Marco Polo Training (Technology Course) 2* 4/10/00 Effective Literacy Training 35 4/11/00 Marco Polo Training (Technology Course) 17 4/17/00 ELLA Training 33 4/18/00 Graphic Organizers in the Classroom (Technology Course) 11 4/20/00 Graphic Organizers in the Classroom (Technology Course) 10 4/25/00 ESL Students (LEP) in Gifted Programs and Pre-AP and AP 10 Programs (GT Facilitators) 4/27/00 Science Program - Hands On 32 5/30/00 Math Program - Hands On 32 9/11/00 Middle School Research - 6w Grade Teachers  24 9/11/00 Teaching Thinking Using CoRT and the Six Thinking Hats 19 9/12/00 Middle School Research- 7w Grade Teachers** 23 9/13/00 Middle School Research- 8w Grade Teachers 25 9/18/00 Teaching Thinking Using CoRT and the Six Thinking Hats 17 10/3 and Instructional Strategics of GIT Unit Design 31 10/5/00 10/27/00 ESL Strategies for GT Specialists (ESL Designated Schools) 6 11/10/00 ESL Strategics for GT Specialists 8 12/09/00 GT Instructional Strategies and Assessment 31  Teachers mcluded ma larger group  GT Staff Provided Instruction for Classroom Teachers New AP and Pre-AP Courses Two new AP courses, Human Geography and Economics, were added to the curriculum for 2000-2001. An additional two new AP courses, World History and Physics II, were added to the curriculum for 2001-2002. One new science Pre-AP course, Advanced Science/Theoretical Research II, was added to the curriculum for 2001-02. Proposed International Baccalaureate Programme at Cloverdale Middle School and McClellan High School The magnet school grant proposal submitted by the District to the U.S. Department of Education in December 2000 included the proposed implementation of the International Baccalaureate Programme at Cloverdale Middle School and McClellan High School. This plan includes the introduction of the International Baccalaureate Middle Years Programme in grades 6-8, integrated with three other curricula themes: Economics, Multimedia, and Engineering. The planning team stated that they see this approach as necessary to ensure academic rigor at their 33 school. The Middle Years Programme will continue at McClel lan High School in grades 9-1 0. and then the International Baccalaureate Diploma program \\\\ill be implemented in grades 11 -12. At McClellan the International Baccalaureate courses will be integrated with that school 's themes -- Business and Finance, Multimedia and Graphic Design, and Engineering Design and Fabrication -- creating a continuity of curricula purpose throughout the high school and from its feeder middle school. If this grant is funded (notification is expected in April 2001), then the International Baccalaureate Programme courses will be another category of advanced and challenging courses available to students, and their enrollment will be tracked and analyzed, along with the AP, PreAP, and University Studies courses. Middle School Research and Writing Pre-AP The English department for secondary schools worked with teachers, librarians/media specialists, and gifted/talented teachers during summer 2000 to write a new curriculum guide for Research and Writing 6 Pre-AP, 7 Pre-AP, and 8 Pre-AP. Then teachers were trained in how to use the guide in fall 2000. This work grew out of the Middle School Curriculum Refinement Plan that was developed in summer 2000 and included an activity to create qualitatively differentiated courses at the Pre-AP level. High School Reading and Writing Workshop I Three high schools (Fair, Hall, and McClellan) opted to include the two-period English I Workshop and English I Workshop Pre-AP in their master schedules for 2000-01. As of January 2001, all three of those schools plan to continue the program in 2001-02, plus Parkview High School and, perhaps, Central High School. Additionally, effective fall 2001, the Fair, Hall and McClellan have plans to implement the two-period English II Workshop and English II Workshop Pre-AP. This program incorporates some of the characteristics of the Project A YID support class for students so that they can be more successful in their advanced courses. The course was also created to improve student performance on the End-of-Level Literacy test. that all students must take in grade 11 as a part of the State Benchmark examinations, as well as performance on the SAT/ACT necessary for college admission. Teacher and Counselor Training The District has committed to providing teachers with the appropriate training to ensure that all students are successful in upper-level courses. Teachers are involved in the training offered through the College Board. The District has provided the funds to participate though a reimbursement program provided by the State. During summer 2000, 28 teachers participated in Advanced Placement Summer Institutes in Hot Springs and Fayetteville. The subject areas were science, mathematics, social studies, art, and foreign language. During fall 2000, 53 teachers in English, social studies and foreign language attended an AP workshop. The number of teachers attending is lower this fall because Pre-AP training in social studies was not available. 34 Forty-four teachers participated in the Gifted Programs Secondary Content Workshop on August 4, 2000. This training is designed to help teachers work more effectively with identified students in their classes. All counselors and registrars participated in training on January 9-11, 2001, during the ammal curriculum orientations conducted by the Division oflnstruction on the importance of student access to and success in Pre-AP and AP courses. Results of Policies/Procedures/Programs Implementation Identified GT Students The following table displays the number of identified GT students at the elementary school level for school years 1998-99, 1999-2000, and 2000-01 ( as of January 2001 ). There was a significant reduction in elementary school numbers in 1999-2000 when grade 6 students moved from the elementary schools to the middle schools. Then there was an increase of 131 students identified and served from 1999-2000 to 2000-01. Eighty-nine of those were African-American (or 68 percent of the increase). The percentage of African-American students in the elementary program has remained steady at 45 percent. White student participation has declined slightly over three years from 50 percent to 48 percent, with \"other\" students improving from 5 percent to 7 percent. The total number of identified students at the elementary level in 2000-01 was 1516. A-A White Other Total Little Rock School District Gifted Program Elementary Participants 1998-99 Percent 1999-2000 Percent 2000-2001 883 45% 599 43% 688 986 50% 708 51% 723 106 5% 78 6% 105 1975 1385 1516 Percent 45% 48% 7% Secondary students include those in middle schools (grades 6-8) and in high schools (grades 9- 12). At the secondary level GT students are served primarily through the Pre-AP and AP courses. The only school that serves GT students in courses separate from Pre-AP and AP courses is Dunbar Magnet Middle Schoolj which is a GT magnet. GT courses are offered at Dunbar in all three grade levels and in all the core subject areas. In addition, a GT Seminar course is available to students at all three grade levels. The following table displays secondary student enrollment over three school years: 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-01. Although the numbers of African-American students participating in the gifted/talented program have increased from 1224 to 1333 (an increase of 109), the percentage of the total enrollment has declined slightly from 50 percent to 48 percent. White student enrollment went up only one percentage point over the three-year period, as did \"other\" student enrollment. The total number of identified students at the secondary level in 2000-01 was 2758. 35 1998-99 A-A 1224 Whne 1136 Other 93 Total 2453 Little Rock School District Gifted Program Secondary Participants Percent 1999-2000 Percent 2000-2001 50% 1468 49% 1333 46% 1404 47% 1298 4% 124 4% 127 2996 2758 Advanced Placement Courses Percent 48% 47% 5% Great effort has been expended in improving student, especially African-American student, access to AP courses. In summary, the following strategies were implemented:  Improved recruitment of students by teachers and counselors for AP course enrollment\n Added several new AP courses to the curriculum in 1999-2000 and again in 2000- 01\n Authorized all AP courses to be available in all five high schools\n Included enrollment in AP courses as one of the Quality Index indicators\n Changed regulations so that students may now enroll in a Pre-AP or AP course if they earned at least a \"C\" in the previous course\n Increased awareness of goals through the Revised Plan, the National Science Foundation Project, policies and regulations adoption, and professional development for teachers, counselors, and principals\n Published in the curriculum catalogs the guidelines for ensuring access of students to the AP and Pre-AP courses, including those with disabilities, those identified as \"504,\" ESL students, and those who are non-traditional students\n Ensured equal access to the professional development courses for teachers oy advancing the funds so that teachers could participate in the AP and Pre-AP conferences and Institute, thereby ensuring more equity for students at all schools\n Conducted parent night meetings at secondary schools to provide infonnation to parents about AP and Pre-AP programs, the importance of enrollment in courses, and the need for parental support in keeping students in courses\nand  Increased communication with parents through direct conferences and through the High School Student/Parent Guide to Course Selection and Graduation Requirements. 36 Enrollment in AP Courses The table on the following page displays enrollment in each of the AP courses offered by the College Board for African-American students as compared to .. other\" students for school years 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000, and 2000-01. Important findings are as follows: Improvements in Total Enrollments in AP Courses  The total enrollment of African-American students in AP courses increased from 4 71 in 1997-98 to 797 in 2000-0 I-an increase of 326 students or 69 percent.  The total enrollment of \"other\" students in AP courses increased from 964 in 1997-98 to 1495 in 2000-01-an increase of 53 I students or 55 percent.  The total enrollment of all students in AP courses increased from 1435 in 1997-98 to 2292 in 2000-01-an increase of 857 students or 60 percent. Changes in Enrollments in Specific AP Courses  In 1997-98 the District had students enrolled in 16 AP courses. The number of courses taught in 1998-99 increased to 18, in 1999-2000 to 20, and remained at 20 in 2000-01. According to the College Board's 1998 Advanced Placement Yearbook, \"the average participating high school offers six AP courses.\" A greater variety of courses in the District contributed to the attraction of more diverse students to the program. (Note: Spanish IV-VI was counted as one course, as were the multiple levels of French, German, and Latin, so the total number of courses may be higher than the numbers provided.)  The most popular AP course in 1997-98 was American History, with 284 students enrolled, followed closely by English IV with 277 students. These two AP courses substituted for graduation requirements, which, no doubt, contributed to the high enrollment. A similar pattern in course taking occurred in 1998-99, with 287 students enrolled in English IV and 260 in American History. With the addition of AP English ill in fall 1999, the enrollment shifted somewhat: 320 students enrolled in American History, 246 in English IV, and 186 in English III. English IV was the most popular course in 2000-01, with 359 students enrolled. American History had 299 students, and English III had 261.  Over the three-year period the biggest enrollment increases among AfricanAmerican students were in American History-an increase of 60 students\nEnvironmental Science-an increase of 57 students\nEnglish IV--an increase of 49 students\nand Statistics-an increase of 42 students. Also, 75 African-American students were enrolled in AP English ill in 2000-01 (that course was not offered in 1997-98).  The biggest improvements over the three-year period in AP enrollment were in English III (increase of 261), Environmental Science (increase of 174), in English IV (increase of 82)\nPsychology (increase of 63)\nin Art History (increase of 58)\nand Statistics (increase of 53). Some of the improvement in English III AP comes from a reduced number of students taking English ill Pre-AP\nand some of the improvement in Statistics AP is the result of fewer students taking Algebra II PreAP. 37 Enrollment in Advanced Placement Courses APCoune 1997-98 19~8-99 1999-2000 2 Yr. Change 2000--01 3 Yr. Change A-A Other Total A-A Other Total A-A Other Total A-A Other Total A-A Other Total A-A Other Total English Ill 0 0 0 22 13 3S 70 116 186 +70 +116 186 7S 186 261 +7S +186 261 English IV 93 184 277 98 189 287 I0S 141 246 +12 -43 -31 142 217 3S9 +49 +33 82 Caltulus AB 55 96 ISi 53 79 132 50 66 116 -5 -30 -35 58 122 180 +3 +26 29 Caltulus BC 2 IS 17 4 10 14 0 8 8 -2 -7 -9 0 10 10 -2 -5 -7 Slalislits 8 46 54 10 40 50 36 36 72 +28 -10 18 so S7 107 +42 +II 53 Biology JI 42 52 94 31 59 90 58 66 124 +16 +14 30 42 116 128 0 +34 34 Chemistry II s 27 32 13 43 56 20 42 62 +IS +15 30 2S 311 63 +20 +II 31 Physits II 2 25 27 0 14 14 8 25 33 +6 0 6 3 30 33 +I +5 6 Env. Stitncr 2 s 7 16 42 58 41 42 83 +39 +37 76 59 122 181 +57 +117 174 Eur. History 88 114 202 90 90 180 so 79 129 -38 -35 -73 54 90 144 -34 -24 -SIi Amtr. llislory 107 177 284 115 145 260 127 193 320 +20 +16 36 167 132 299 +60 -45 15 Psythology 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 26 36 +10 +26 36 18 4S 63 +18 +45 63 Gov. \u0026amp; Polilits 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 7 +4 +3 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 Etonomits 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Human Geog. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s 9 14 +5 +9 14 Frtnth IV-VI 12 56 68 10 24 34 18 31 49 +6 -25 -19 16 56 72 +4 0 4 Gtrman IV-VI I 27 28 0 15 IS 0 16 16 -I -II -12 0 17 17 -I -10 -11 Spanish IV-VI 32 96 128 27 57 84 so 74 124 +18 -22 -4 38 128 166 +6 +32 311 Lalin 111-V I 3 4 0 2 2 0 2 2 -1 -I -2 2 32 34 +I +29 30 Art llislory 0 0 0 29 70 99 18 67 85 +18 +67 85 6 52 58 +6 +52 58 Studio Art 9 16 25 14 21 3S 12 30 42 +3 +14 17 18 37 ss +9 +21 ~o Mus. Theory 12 2S 37 9 23 32 18 33 51 +6 +8 14 19 29 48 +7 +4 ~ Comp. Stitnte 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 471 964 1435 541 936 1477 695 1096 1791 +224 +132 356 797 1495 2292 +326 +531 857 Ptrttnt or Total 33 67 100 37 63 100 39 61 .,,. 100% 35% 65% 100%  I Yr.lncreast IS -3 3% 28 17% 21% IS 36% 28%  2 Yr.lntrtan 48 14 25% 47% 60% 55%  3 Yr. Increase 69% 5S - 60% The ltst of co11rses above mc/11des all AP courses ava,lable through Jhe College Board.  The greatest decline in enrollment over the three-year period has been in AP European History. Enrollment has declined 58 students-from 202 to 144. The major reason for this decline is that under the former graduation policy, students could substitute this course for the requirement of World History. Effectiye fall 1998, the State Board of Education changed their rules and stated that European History could no longer substitute for World History-thus reducing student interest in the course, especially among African-American students who accounted for 34 of the 58-student decline.  The District also experienced a drop in German IV-V-VI enrollment over the three-year period-from 28 students in 1997-98 to only 17 in 2000-01, a decrease of 11 students. Ten of the I I-student decrease in enrollment were \"other\" students. The District sees increased student interest in Spanish and the difficulty of staffing German classes as contributing to the change in this area. Pre-Advanced Placement Courses In December 1998 the Board approved a major revision of the high school curriculum. Among the changes were the elimination of all former courses labeled \"honors,\" \"advanced,\" or \"enriched.\" The District made a decision to label all such courses as Pre-AP so that the alignment behind the AP courses was more evident for everyone and for greater consistency and ease of communication. Another change was the establishment of Pre-AP courses in the core subject areas, beginning in grade 6, with the transition to middle school. Data were collected in 1999-2000 and again in 2000-01 on the enrollment in the Pre-AP program since this is the pipeline through which the District plans to develop the talent already in the District. Through these courses teachers can build the students' capacity to perform at higher and higher levels and, thus, to succeed in the AP courses in grades 11 and 12. Improvements in Enrollments in High School Pre-AP Courses The table on the following page displays enrollment in all Pre-AP courses at the high school level for both school years of implementation, 1999-2000 and 2000-01. 39 Enrollment in High School Pre-AP Courses Course 1999-2000 2000-2001 One-Year Change A-A Other Total A-A Other Total A-A Other English I 267 293 560 340 346 686 73 53 English II 253 284 537 298 316 614 45 32 English III 149 187 336 208 155 363 59 -32 Algebra II 169 330 499 168 257 425 -1 -73 Geometry 152 184 336 200 291 491 48 107 Trig/Adv. 92 168 260 79 222 301 -13 54 Biology I 280 277 557 289 332 621 9 55 Chemistry I 189 234 423 247 269 516 58 35 Physics I 171 191 362 177 274 451 6 83 Sci. Rsrch. 10 10 20 2 14 16 -8 4 Civics 283 282 565 333 347 680 50 65 World Hist. 326 284 610 374 415 789 48 131 World Geog. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 2341 2724 5065 2715 3238 5953 374 514 Percents 46% 54% 100% 46% 54% 100% 1-Yr. Growth 16% 15% 15% Key findings are as follows:  The total number of high school students who enrolled in Pre-AP courses improved in 2000-2001 from 5065 to 5953-an increase of 888 students or a 15 percent improvement.  African-American student enrollment improved at a slightly higher rate-from 2341 in 1999-2000 to 2715 in 2000-01, an increase of 374 students or 16 percent. \"Other\" student enrollment also improved-from 2724 in 1999-2000 to 3238 in 2000-01 for an increase of 514 students or 15 percent.  The percentage of African-American students in the total high school Pre-AP enrollment remained the same- 46 percent in 1999-2000 and in 2000-2001.  The most popular high school Pre-AP course in 1999-2000 was World History . Pre-AP with 610 students enrolled and the only course with more than 600 students. In 2000-01 five courses surpassed 600, but World History remained the favorite: English II Pre-AP with 614, Biology I Pre-AP with 621, Civics Pre-AP with 680, English I Pre-AP with 686, and World History Pre-AP with 789.  African-American student enrollment improved in English III Pre-AP by 59 students\n\"other\" student enrollment, however, declined by 32. Seventy AfricanAmerican students chose English III AP at this level, rather than the Pre-AP option, and 116 \"other\" students made this decision, which most likely accounts for the decline in \"other\" enrollment in the Pre-AP course.  African-American enrollment in Pre-AP Algebra II declined by one student, and \"other\" student enrollment declined by 73. A partial explanation for this situation is that Statistics AP, which is an alternative course to Algebra II Pre-AP, increased by 22 students in 2000-01.  The largest one-year improvement in enrollment was in World History Pre-AP with 179. Close behind were Geometry with a 155 improvement, English I with 40 Total 126 77 27 -74 155 41 64 93 89 -4 115 179 0 888 126, and Civics with 115. The largest grm~'th for African-American students was in English I Pre-AP (73), and the largest gtowth for \"other\" students was in \\\\'orld History Pre-AP ( 131).  Freshman and sophomore-level course enrollments were generally much higher than those at the junior level. Just as in middle school, it is important to keep these students in the pipeline toward talcing the AP courses. If the District is successful in doing so, AP English enrollment, as an example, could potentially increase a great deal in just two years. Improvements in Enrollments in Middle School Pre-AP Courses The table on the following page displays enrollment in all Pre-AP courses at the middle school level for both years of implementation, 1999-2000 and 2000-0 I. Key findings are as follows:  Even though some feared that students were over-enrolled in the Pre-AP courses at the middle school level in 1999-2000, even more students stepped up to the challenge in 2000-01. The African-American student enrollment grew 937 in one year for an improvement of 19 percent\n\"other\" students grew by 1076 for an improvement of 24 percent. The District as a whole grew by 2013 students or 22 percent.  In contrast to enrollment in the high school AP courses, where African-American enrollment was 35 percent of the total in 2000-01, the African-American enrollment in middle school Pre-AP courses was 51 percent of the total.  If students currently in the middle school pipeline continue through high school in the Pre-AP courses and then take AP courses in grades 11-12, the District can project significant improvements in the AP course enrollments as the current middle school students move into grade 11. As an example, there are currently 828 students enrolled in English 6 Pre-AP and 80 additional students enrolled in English 6 GT for a total of 908 students taking an advanced English course in grade 6 during 2000-01. At the high school level there are only 261 students talcing AP English III in 2000-01. If AP English III enrollment increased to 908, the District would have almost a 250 percent improvement. Enrollment in Specific Middle School Pre-AP Courses   The most popular Pre-AP courses at any grade level in middle schools are the English courses. For example, 908 grade 6 students are enrolled in a Pre-AP or GT English course. Enrollment in other core areas is less: 742 in Pre-AP/GT mathematics\n792 in Pre-AP/GT science\nand 754 in Pre-AP/GT social studies. Algebra I enrollment in middle school made a big jump in 2000-01-from 300 students in 1999-2000 to 426 in 2000-01, a 42 percent increase. In addition, four students were enrolled in 2000-01 in Algebra II and another 19 in Geometry for a total of 449 students enrolled in high school mathematics courses in 2000-01 , as compared to 308 in 1999-2000. That is an increase of 46 percent in one year. 41 - - II - \n1 I I I 111 I Enrollment in Middle School Pre-AP Courses I Course 1999-2000 2000-2001 One-Year Change 1~ 1 A-A Other Total A-A Other Total A-A Other Total i- Read/Write 6 Pre-AP 370 299 669 438 390 828 68 91 159 Read/Write 7 Pre-AP 391 305 696 411 318 729 20 13 33 Read/Write 8 Pre-AP 321 241 562 365 322 687 44 81 125 Read/Write 6 GT 14 37 51 21 59 80 7 22 29 Read/Wnte 7 GT 17 58 75 14 48 62 -3 -10 -13 I-Read/ Write 8 GT 18 41 59 15 59 74 -3 18 15 Rsrch/Write 6 Pre-AP 187 152 339 302 208 510 115 56 171 Rsrch/Write 7 Pre-AP 156 107 263 309 196 505 153 89 242  Rsrch/Write 8 Pre-AP 118 65 183 243 132 375 125 67 192 Rsrch/Write 6 GT 2 14 16 21 59 80 19 45 64 Rsrch/Write 7 GT 7 22 29 14 48 62 7 26 33  Rsrch/Write 8 GT 4 6 10 15 59 74 11 53 64 Mathematics 6 Pre-AP 313 266 579 363 314 677 50 48 98 Mathematics 7 Pre-AP 287 322 609 345 290 635 58 -32 26 - '\\ Mathematics 8 Pre-AP 261 142 403 233 104 337 -28 -38 -66 Algebra I Pre-AP 124 176 300 130 296 426 6 120 126 Algebra II Pre-AP 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 4 4 Geometry Pre-AP 0 8 8 I 18 19 I 10 11 II Mathematics 6 GT 13 32 45 12 53 65 -1 21 20 Mathematics 7 GT 9 28 37 9 28 37 Science 6 Pre-AP 330 291 621 381 339 720 51 48 99 II I! Science 7 Pre-AP 365 320 685 399 339 738 34 19 53 Science 8 Pre-AP 299 256 555 379 341 720 80 85 165 Science 6 GT 19 39 58 19 53 72 0 14 14 I 11 Science 7 GT 15 54 69 16 48 64 1 -6 -5 Science 8 GT 15 43 58 14 61 75 -1 18 17 Health Sci. 6 Pre-AP 31 17 48 30 24 54 -1 7 6 Health Sci. 7 Pre-AP 18 30 48 32 22 54 14 -8 6 - Health Sci. 8 Pre-AP 12 17 29 18 30 48 6 13 19 Lab Science 6 Pre-AP 22 28 50 25 37 62 3 9 12 Lab Science 7 Pre-AP 23 32 55 27 31 58 4 -1 3 II Lab Science 8 Pre-AP 24 26 50 28 39 67 4 13 17 Soc. Studies 6 Pre-AP 337 291 628 359 323 682 22 32 54 Soc. Studies 7 Pre-AP 344 303 647 374 324 698 30 21 51 Soc. Studies 8 Pre-AP 322 241 563 347 316 663 25 75 100 I Soc. Studies 6 GT 11 36 47 19 53 72 8 17 25 Soc. Studies 7 GT 16 56 72 16 45 61 0 -11 -11 Soc. Studies 8 GT 14 44 58 13 63 76 -1 19 18 II Totals 4820 4417 9237 5757 5493 11,250 937 1076 2013 Percents 52% 48% 100% 51% 49% 100% One-Year Change 19% 24% 22% I 11 I\\ I II 42  -  Enrollment in Pre-AP courses predictably declines at each grade level as students drop out of the program. Interestingly, ho\\vever, in 1999-2000 there were 720 students enrolled in grade 6 Pre-AP/GT English. In 2000-01 those students enrolled in Pre-AP/GT English 7 in even greater numbers: 791-an increase of 71 students in one grade level and a trend that runs counter to what usually h_appens.  There were large increases of enrollment in 2000-01 in the Research and Writing Pre-AP/GT course -- 171 in grade 6,242 in grade 7, and 192 in grade 8. This change reflects a change in the schools' policy. In 1999-2000 Pre-AP/GT students were enrolled in only one period of the Reading/Writing Workshop, and they were free to choose the second period as an elective-Research and Writing. Given the importance of this course, most schools decided to register all PreAP/ GT students into both periods in 2000-01. AP Examination The District's major emphasis in 1999-2000 and 2000-01 has been on encouraging enrollment in the advanced courses so that increasing numbers of students experience a more rigorous curriculum and begin to see themselves as college-bound. College Board research shows that students talcing an AP course and earning even a \"2\" on the test (\"3\" is the minimum score required to earn college credit) do better in college courses than those who did not talce the course. Although the District's priority during 1999-2000 and 2000-01 was not in increasing the number of students talcing AP examinations or in improving the percent who earned college credit on the examinations (but rather on improvements in enrollment), some notable improvements did occur in the number of examinations talcen. AP Examination Participation 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 Change Number of candidates 249 298 251 1% Number of exams 427 508 489 15% The District also recognized that when the numbers of students talcing any test increase, average scores generally decline since the test was formerly reserved for a more select group of students. The trade-off is worthwhile, since in the long run greater participation in the AP program will reap more benefits for greater numbers of students than simply meeting the goal of raising the average scores of a small group. The following table displays the percentage of District students earning a score of \"3\" or above on AP examinations over the past three years, 1997-98, 1998-99, and 1999-2000. The District anticipates that the percentage of students earning college credit will continue to be stagnant until the increased numbers of students talcing the AP examinations are those who have been in the Pre-AP courses for several years. Many of the new students currently talcing the tests are in their first advanced course and have simply not had enough years of preparation to do well. For now, the celebration is that more students took the examination in 1998-99 and 1999-2000 than in the baseline year, 1997-98, and more students are earning a \"3\" or more on the examinations than in 43 the baseline year. Fifty-five percent of 489 (or 268) is, therefore, better than 59 percent of 427 (or252). Number and Percent of Students Earning a '3\" or More on AP Examinations 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 252 (59%) 273 (54%) 268 (55%) Grades in Advanced Placement Courses The table on the following page displays the percentage of students, by race, earning a grade of \"C\" or above in AP courses in 1999-2000, spring semester. Data for earlier years could not be retrieved for comparison purposes due to changes in the course numbers and titles that occurred in fall 1999. Final grades for 2000-01 will not be available until June 2001. Percentage of Students Earning a \"C\" or Above in AP, 1999-2000 Spring Semester AP Course A-A White Other Total English III 87 96 95 93 English IV 82 93 93 89 Calculus AB 77 87 100 85 Calculus BC -- 88 100 89 Statistics 89 83 92 87 Biology II 80 97 86 89 Chemistry II 85 90 100 91 Physics II 88 95 91 92 Env. Science 91 90 100 90 Eur. History 86 88 90 88 Amer. History 72 88 81 81 Psychology 80 96 100 92 Gov. \u0026amp; Politics -- -- -- -- Economics -- - -- -- Human Geog. -- -- -- -- French IV 73 85 100 81 French V 75 100 -- 91 French VI -- 100 -- 100 German IV -- 100 -- 100 German V -- 100 -- 100 German VI -- 100 -- 100 Spanish IV 75 96 92 88 Spanish V 100 86 86 91 Spamsh VI 89 92 100 92 Laun III 100 96 100 97 Latin IV -- -- -- -- Latin V -- -- -- -- Art History 83 90 89 89 Studio Art 91 82 100 86 Mus. Theory 100 97 100 98 Comp. Science -- -- -- -- -- denotes no enrollment m course m spnng 2000. 44 Grades in High School Pre-AP Courses, Spring 1999-2000 The following table provides information relating to the p-ercentage of students, by race, who earned a \"C\" or above in Pre-AP courses at the high school level in spring 2000. Percentage of Students Earning a \"C\" or Above in High School Pre-AP Courses, 1999-2000 Spring Semester Pre-AP Course A-A White Other Total English I 74 90 97 83 English II 64 81 91 74 English III 74 77 90 76 Algebra II 77 89 96 85 Geometry 68 87 89 79 Trig/Adv. 78 90 93 86 Biology I 73 85 79 79 Chemistry I 67 81 87 76 Physics I 71 84 93 80 Sci. Research 70 100 - 85 Civics 90 94 93 92 World History 81 88 87 85 Grades in Middle School Pre-AP Courses, Spring 1999-2000 The following table displays the percent of students, by race, who earned a \"C\" or above in middle school Pre-AP courses in spring, 1999-2000. Percentage of Students Earning a \"C\" or Above in Middle School Pre-AP Courses, 1999-2000 Spring Semester Pre-AP Course A-A White Other Total Read/Write 6 Pre-AP 92 96 100 94 Read/Write 7 Pre-AP 80 89 92 85 Read/Write 8 Pre-AP 83 91 94 87 Read/Write 6 GT 100 100 100 100 Read/Write 7 GT 88 98 88 95 Read/Write 8 GT 39 78 100 70 Rsrch/Write 6 Pre-AP 93 95 100 94 Rsrch/Write 7 Pre-AP 89 97 100 92 Rsrch/Write 8 Pre-AP 82 92 100 87 Rsrch/Write 6 GT 100 100 100 100 Rsrch/Write 7 GT 100 100 100 100 Rsrch/Write 8 GT 75 83 100 83 Mathematics 6 Pre-AP 88 95 100 92 Mathematics 7 Pre-AP 74 90 86 83 Mathematics 8 Pre-AP 67 75 69 70 Algebra I Pre-AP 76 85 81 81 Algebra II Pre-AP - -- 100 100 Geometry Pre-AP .. 100 100 100 Mathematics 6 GT 100 94 100 96 Science 6 Pre-AP 96 99 100 97 Science 7 Pre-AP 79 91 89 85 Science 8 Pre-AP 91 91 94 91 45 Science 6 GT 95 100 100 : 98 I Science 7 GT 80 100 - 89 95 I Science 8 GT 67 82 I 100 I Sl Health Sci. 6 Pre-AP 84 77 S.3 s::: I Health Sci. 7 Pre-AP 63 46 100 57 Health Sci. 8 Pre-AP 92 88 88 89 ' Lab Science 6 Pre-AP 95 100 100 98 Lab Science 7 Pre-AP 83 90 100 88 Lab Science 8 Pre-AP 78 85 86 82 Soc. Studies 6 Pre-AP 89 96 96 92 Soc. Studies 7 Pre-AP 87 94 100 91 Soc. Studies 8 Pre-AP 87 92 94 89 Soc. Studies 6 GT 100 100 100 100 Soc. Studies 7 GT 94 100 100 99 Soc. Studies 8 GT 79 90 100 89 -- denotes no enrollment m course dunng spnng 2000. Enrollment in University Studies Courses at Hall High School Another category of advanced-level courses is the University Studies program at Hall High School, made available through a collaboration with UALR. The program began in 1999-2000 and continued in 2000-01. The following table displays the enrollment of students by race in these courses, where students earn concurrently both high school and university credit. Each course listed is a one-semester course, earning the student one-half high school credit and three semester hours of university credit. Course A-A Composition I 23 Composition II 19 Communications 6 Biology 8 Inrroduction to 14 Sociology Introduction to 9 Psychology Physics I Physics II College Algebra U.S. History I U. S. History II Totals 79 Percents 58% Enrollment in Universitv Studies Courses Hall High School, 1999-2000, 2000-01 1999-2000 2000-01 Other Total A-A Other 16 39 7 9 13 32 7 7 7 13 2 3 5 13 2 9 10 24 8 12 6 15 9 10 4 7 2 6 4 6 6 18 6 18 57 136 57 105 42% 100% 35% 65% Key observations are as follows: Total 16 14 5 11 20 19 11 8 10 24 24 162 100%  Enrollment in University Studies courses increased 26 students in 2000-01 over the initial year enrollment in 1999-2000 (from 136 to 162), representing an increase of 19 percent. 46  African-American student enrollment declined in 2000-01 from 79 the first year to 57-a decrease of22 students. \"Other\"srudent enrollment increased from 57 to 105 for an increase of 48. Numbers of Students Earning a \"C\" or Above in University Studies The following table shows the number and percent of students earning a grade of \"C\" or above in the University Studies courses at Hall High School. ACT Results Students Earning a Grade of \"C\" or Above University Studies, Hall High School, 1999-2000, 2000-01 Course 1999-2000 A-A Other Total Composition I 22/23 12/ 16 34/39 96% 75% 87% Composition II 16/19 12/13 28/32 84% 92% 88% Communications 5/6 7/7 12/13 83% 100% 92% Biology 6/8 4/5 10/13 75% 80% 77% Introduction to 10/14 519 15/23 Sociology 71% 56% 65% Introduction to 6/9 4/6 10/15 Psychology 67% 67% 67% Totals 65/79 44/56 109/122 82% 79% 89% The District has two quality indicators in its accountability system that relate to performance on the ACT, the college admission examination that most District students take. The first goal is to improve the numbers of students who take the ACT, and the second goal is to improve the performance of students on the ACT. Just as with the Advanced Placement examinations, the emphasis during the first few years is on encouraging students to take the test, to see themselves as college-bound, and to use the results for post-secondary planning. At the same time, a number of initiatives has been undertaken to improve student performance. They include:  Enhancing graduation requirements so that all students take the courses that are recommended in ACT preparation materials\n Including at least eight advanced courses to the recommended curriculum so that students are encouraged to take the most rigorous curriculum possible\n Revising ACT preparation courses for both English and mathematics and offering these courses in all five high schools\n Providing comprehensive Pre-AP and AP courses for students who see themselves going to college\n Aligning the Pre-AP curriculum, not only with the AP course requirements, but also with the ACT expectations\n47  Providing a series of pre-test workshops in each of the subject areas through the Community Education Department\nand. -  Better communicating with students and parents about ACT test dates, advantages of taking the test, financial aid, how to make scholarship applications, and how to apply to college. The following table includes the ACT results for school years 1997-98 through 1999-2000, disaggregated by race. The results are provided for each sub-test, as well as the composite (average) score. Students are required to earn a composite score ofat least a \"19\" to qualify for an Arkansas Challenge Scholarship. Year Total 1997-98 ' No:_ofTest\"s ~~-91 ~ ,-..:~~ akers.,,_'!i~ -~ - English Math Reading Sci. Reasoning Composite 1998-99 l\n\\~~2,.,.0~st~ ,.,. 929  .\n~alcers~ ~ English Math Reading Sci. Reasoning Composite 1999-00 ~ 9\n-ofJpt?f. e~- ,,_:_'Takers.~ ~ --- ~ English Math Reading Sci. Reasoning Composite ACT Results by Race and Gender 1997-98, 1998-99, and 1999-2000 Male Female A-A All White Mex./ Alsk. Chicano Ntv.\nJ:-,  ,1 .5,.\" '_ \"'=4.1ll\n-,,410~ -,,. -. 6- ---~-. -?268irj il~~JJ:~ ~ , ~ -a!:\",g~ : - ~ - .! it. -~ ~~'l-R )~i,..--.W. '- ,~. ~~~- 18.8 19.9 17.2 25.2 22.5 17 19.2 18 16.5 23 20.7 16.5 19.5 20.4 17.4 26.2 23.4 18.3 19.8 18.9 17.2 23.2 21.8 17.3 19.4 19.4 17.2 24.7 22.2 17.5 ~ ~5fb\"\"' ,~_ 55~4 \n\u0026gt;480 '.t? ,  .r1, ,. ' ' 3414 1\n'\n\".t: _~6\n\"l ~ ~ ' ,,_ ~ ~ :.\u0026lt;, - ~ .. ,\nl~ ~ t ... ~. ~ - ~~.: :?i! '_\n,..\",\"~'~ ~ -''. ''ii.-_ C .. ~- ., 19 20.3 17.1 20 23.2 16 18.6 18.3 16.5 20 20.6 15.5 19.6 20.2 17.2 24 23 .6 14.8 19.3 19.4 17.3 26 22 17 19.2 19.7 17.2 23 22.5 16.2 ~ .4.1'1.~- ~,.609,~ - ,, 111,,., 3 ... l,\nl t'.:-3~5t' rf6'1\u0026lt;,.~l? m~ ~~ -~1~$,.f~ \u0026amp;'ttil ~it ~ !) .. ~ :-..-, . .. ~~ 18.2 20 17.4 12.3 22.2 18.3 18.l 17.6 16.4 13.7 19.6 16.8 18.6 19.9 17.4 14 22.2 21.5 19.l 19 17.4 15.7 21.4 17.7 18.6 19.2 17.3 14 21.5 18.7 Asian/ P.R./ Mean PL Hispanic ~ 24,\n.\n,-~.:. s irs ' :~- ~~ -~:~~-1~~~tl ~. ~~ ~ .. ~- e ,,, .. l( 23.4 24.3 19.4 24.4 21.6 18.3 24.2 24.8 20.3 23 .6 21.1 19.5 24 23 19.5\n.i:.19~\n~ {,.\n~ ~:-ti... * ~\n,\n,.,..'lj ~-:f~::.8 .\ni: )~].,: cl'\"'.}, ~'\\IF,~~\n,.., .. - ~. 20.1 24.3 19.8 21.8 21.6 18.4 20.2 24.8 19.9 20.7 21.1 19.3 20.8 23 19.5 ., 20 \" ' ~:If ' 6 \\#1, 1 ..\n.~f~ ~j}\n. ff::i~ft ~.i'-'i~ l1,i1, . ,1::\"\n.'.,,c,\n~ .\n-'if.. . \u0026amp;i 21.6 16 19.3 23 .3 16.3 17.8 21.3 18.8 19.3 21.8 19.2 19 22.1 17.7 19 Key observations are as follows:  The number oftest-takers improved from 786 in 1997-98 to 1026 in 1999-2000 for an increase of 240 or a 31 percent improvement. The number of AfricanAmerican test-takers improved from 410 to 570--an increase of 160 students or a 39 percent improvement. The number of white test-takers also increased-from 268 in 1997-98 to 345 in 1999-2000--an improvement of77 students or a 29 percent improvement. 48  Only 40 percent of the test-takers in 1997-98 were male. This percentage remained at 40 percent in 1998-99 and went up slightly to 41 percent in 1999- 2000. These figures suggest the need for initiatives to increase the percentage of male test-takers.  African-American students improved their English scores from 17.2 in 1997-98 to 17.4 in 1999-2000. White students' scores declined from 22.5 to 22.2 in the same period. The District's average scores in English went down from 19 .4 to 19 .3.  African-American students' mathematics scores over the three years declined from 16.5 to 16.4, and white students' scores went down from 20.7 to 19.6. The average for the District went down from 18.3 to 17.8 between 1997-98 and 1999- 2000.  Reading scores for African-American students stayed at 17.4 from 1997-98 to 1999-2000, even though many more students were taking the test in 1999-2000. White students' scores went down from 23.4 to 22.2, and the District average declined in reading from 20.3 to 19.3.  African-American students improved their Science Reasoning scores from 17.2 in 1997-98 to 17.4 in 1999-2000-again with many more students taking the test. During the same period white students' scores declined from 21.8 to 21.4. The District's average score declined from 19.5 to 19.  African-American students improved their average composite score from 17.2 in 1997-98 to 17 .3 in 1999-2000, again with many more students taking the test. During the same period, white students' composite scores declined from 22.2 to 21.5. The District average declined from 19.5 to 19. That African-American participation in taking the ACT has improved so dramatically over three years (39 percent) while at the same time achievement has generally gone up is evidence that the initiatives to enroll these students in advanced courses are paying off already. It is very difficult for any group to increase its numbers and at the same time to improve their average scores. Parent Survey African-American students' willingness to move into more rigorous academic courses may reflect their belief that they will get the support they need to succeed. In the 1999-2000 parent survey, 88 percent of African-American parents who expressed on opinion agreed that their child received academic support. Eighty-six percent of white/other parents who expressed an opinion agreed with this statement. Summary and Next Steps Continued improvements are necessary for full equity of access to Pre-AP, AP, and other advanced courses, but the District is clearly on the right track in making these improvements, with large percentages of African-American students now taking advantage of the opportunity to participate. District and school-level staff members will continue to seek additional funding to 49 improve the program, especially for enhancements in student recruitment, parent involvement, and student support systems, as well as for curriculum development and staff development. 50 VIII. Academic Achievement. A. Generally. Section 2.7 LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan. Policies On August 24, 2000, the Board approved a new policy on Home Schooling (IKED). This policy reflects state law and State Board of Education regulations, as well as District views. In December 2000 the Board approved a revision to Policy IKF, General Education Graduation Requirements. The new policy moved much of the detail about required courses that was formerly in regulations into policy. Changes included the following:  Increasing for the Class of 2004 the number of required units from 24 to 26 and the number of units in the recommended curriculum from 27 to 28\n Modifying the recommended curriculum to include eight Pre-AP/AP or University Studies courses\n Establishing criteria for the Magnet Program Seal\n Establishing criteria for the Arkansas Scholars Seal\n Modifying slightly the requirements for the Honors Diploma Seal\nand  Changing the one unit requirement in oral communications to one-half unit in oral communications and an additional one-half unit in any English, communications, or journalism course. A new course in Modem Grammar is recommended. The Board adopted in February 2001 Policy lAA on Professional Development. This new policy states that the Board will \"commit the necessary time and other resources to a comprehensive professional development program that will be driven primarily by student performance data and result in improved educational achievement and equity of outcomes for all students.\" Procedures The regulations for Policy ID on the School Day were revised on May 25, 2000. Formerly, grade 12 students were not required to take more than four units of credit if that was all they needed to complete graduation requirements. The regulations were changed to require seniors to take eight courses, one of which could be a study hall or enrollment as a student monitor/assistant. The principal is authorized to modify this requirement if there are extenuating circumstances, which are defined. The Board reviewed on August 24, 2000, the new regulations for the policy on Remedial Instruction, 1HBDA-R2. These regulations establish the Student Academic Improvement Plan (\"SAIP\"). Effective fall 2000, a SAIP is to be developed for all students who are (1) not performing on grade level (K-4)\n(2) not proficient on any part of the state's Benchmark examinations -primary (grade 4), intermediate (grade 51 6), middle (grade 8)\nand (3) not scoring \"proficient\" on End-of-Course examinations in literacy, geometry, and/or algebra. An electronic form was de\\eloped for teacher use, and all schools received a reference text and software to use in writing the SAIPs. During fall 2000 the Board amended regulations IK.f--R. They eliminated the former procedures that had been established to provide for semester test exemptions for students with good grades, attendance, and behavior I This change was in response to the expressed concerns of many parents and teachers that such exemptions were not in the best interests of students. The exception was reinstated in February 2001 for seniors only. The Board reviewed on October 21, 1999, and then reviewed proposed revisions on May 25, 2000, the regulations on Class Rankings/Grade-Point Averages, IKC-R. These regulations delineate the kinds of grades that will be included in the calculations for class rankings/grade-point averages\nthe kinds of grades that will not be included\nprocedures to be used when students re-enroll for a course to make up a failing grade or to improve a low grade\nhow to calculate transfer grades\nthe grade points of regular-level and AP course grades\nprocedures for determining rank-inclass\nprocedures to be used in determining senior honors\nand definitions of key terms. The May revisions included a new provision that allows a student who earns a grade of \"C\" or \"D\" to retake a course to improve the grade. Both the first and second grades will be included in the calculation of the grade-point average. A new set of regulations, IKEC-R, Credit for Courses Taken Through Distance Learning, was reviewed by the Board on September 14, 2000. These regulations allow District students to take certain high school courses through the Arkansas Virtual High School. Such opportunities open doors to meet more students' needs. The regulations note that these courses might especially be appropriate for \"students who need to make up failed courses, for the resolution of scheduling conflicts, for students transferring in from other high schools, to provide courses where there is a lack of certified teachers available, for home-bound students, for returning home school students who lack credits, for pregnant teens and teen parents, and others with extenuating circumstances.\" The Board reviewed on August 24, 2000, the proposed regulations IKED-R on Home Schooling. The procedures that were established include how to place home school students in grade levels or courses upon their entry or re-entry into the District. The Board reviewed in December 2000 new regulations for General Education Graduation Requirements, IKF-R. The new regulations delineate the procedures for placing students in English and social studies courses\nadded new technology courses that c.an satisfy the requirements for Technology Applications\nand added new Career Focus areas, including one for Teachers of Tomorrow, one in Aviation Technology, and another for the out-of-zone students transferring into Central High School. 52 The Board reviewed on January 11, 2001, proposed new Professional Development regulations, IAA-R. These regulations defined the required professional development hours\nthe necessity of a professional development individual improvement plan\nthe use of the school day for professional development\nprocedures for awarding salary credit\nprocedures for paying stipends\nprocedures for tuition reimbursement\nprocedures for earning time off on Turkey Day (the Wednesday before Thanksgiving)\nencouragement to teachers to become National Board certified\nthe status of AEA Days\na definition of the District's induction program for beginning teachers\nthe importance of professional development in school improvement plans\nand the requirement for program evaluation. On May 1, 2000, a new Administrative Directive ID was issued on the Length of the Instructional Day. Administrative Directive IIB on Minimum Class Enrollment was issued on May 1, 2000. Administrative Directive IKA(2) on Grading Procedures was issued on January 21, 2000. Administrative Directive IKAB on Reporting Pupil Progress was issued on May 1, 2000. Administrative Directive IKC on Implementation of Policy IKC was issued on May 1,2000. Administrative Directive IKF A on Scheduling High School Students was issued on May5,2000. The Middle School Curriculum Catalog, 2001-02, was published and distributed during January 2001. The High School Curriculum Catalog, 2001-02, was published and distributed during January 2001. The Middle School Parent/Student Guide to Course Selection, 2001-02, was published and distributed to schools during January 2001. The High School Parent/Student Guide to Course Selection and Graduation Requirements, 2001-02, was published and distributed to schools during January 2001. Priority Intervention Procedures In early September 2000 the District adopted a set of Priority Intervention Procedures (\"PIP\"). PIP is the system for providing support, corrective actions, and sanctions for schools identified by the Arkansas Department of Education for improvement. This 53 system includes both a set of supportive interventions to help schools improve and a set of corrective actions if schools fail to improve. The procedures include a variety of interventions for schools identified for improvement: I  Accessible data for principals, Campus Leadership Teams, and others involved in school improvement\n Professional development for teachers, principals, and instructional support personnel\n School Improvement Plan coaching for principals and Campus Leadership Teams\n School Improvement Audits and/or Curriculum Audits conducted by District staff and then shared with the principal, Campus Leadership Team, and the faculty\n Technical assistance, on demand, for all schools.  Equitable resources to all schools\nprovision for extra resources for schools in need\nand  Principal evaluation system that is aligned with the accountability system. The PIP also includes a list of possible corrective actions for schools that are identified for improvement:  Diminished autonomy\n Required professional development for the principal and/or other staff.  Negative impact on evaluations for the principal and/or other staff\n Removal of the principal after two consecutive years of a school being identified for improvement\nand  Removal of 50 percent of more of a school's teachers after three consecutive years of a school being identified for improvement. At the September 2000 Leadership Team meeting (principals and central office brokers), the PIP was presented, and a meeting schedule with clusters of principals was distributed. During early October representatives of the School Services and the Instruction Divisions met with each group of four to five principals to talk with them about what is available to support school improvement, to listen to a presentation on their School Improvement Plans, and to listen to their needs for assistance and support. Staff members took notes at these meetings so that follow-up could occur. Subsequent meetings with the same groups of principals were conducted to discuss the results of assessments as they became available. Additionally, the School Services staff conducted monthly follow-up meetings with principals, and two of the PIP gr_oups of principals are meeting to plan together for improvement. Mid-year conferences have been scheduled to follow up on recommendations made as a result of the group pre-conferences conducted in October. 54 Another planned follow-up is to provide training for the Di,ision oflnstruction staff, as well as principals and assistant principals, in the use of the School Observation Measure developed by Dr. Steve Ross and his associates at the University of Memphis. This instrument allows observers to visit classrooms and then to construct a school profile of the instructional program. These data will be used as a part of the Curriculum Audits proposed as a possible intervention in the PIP. The training will be conducted for fall 2001 implementation. Programs Assessments Achievement Level Tests The District's Achievement Level Tests (\"ALTs\") in reading, language, and mathematics are administered in grades 3-11. The ALT is administered early each fall and again in late spring so that the year's growth can be measured. These tests are criterion-referenced in that they are closely aligned with the District's curriculum content standards and grade-level benchmarks. The scores are on a continuum that allows parents, teachers, students, and others to determine a student's growth during a given year, as well as over time. Also, the scoring software allows the staff to compare a student's performance with that of all the students in the nation who also take the ALTs, and a percentile score is derived. This percentile is not the same as the one used to score the SAT9 tests. The ALT national sample is inclusive of all students who take the test, and there has been no attempt to establish a norm based on representative students acc'0rding to region, poverty, race/ethnicity, gender, and so forth. Criterion-Referenced Tests-Literacy, Grades 3-5 Also, second and third quarter criterion referenced tests are administered to third, fourth and fifth grade students. These tests are designed by the District's teacher leaders with input from classroom teachers. They are closely aligned with the District's elementary curriculum content standards and grade-level benchmarks so that they give the school and parents good information about the status of a student's performance in terms of achieving the standards. They are also intended to be predictive of how a student will perfonn on more formal measures unless appropriate interventions are made to improve perfonnance. Criterion-Referenced Tests-Literacy, Grades 6-12 To measure students' growth against the District and State benchmarks, criterion referenced tests (\"CRTs\") were developed by the English curriculum staff in the areas ofreading, writing, and grammar. These tests are used by each classroom teacher to measure students' growth and to plan instruction. Tests were carefully written to model form and procedure of the SAT9, the State Benchmark Exam, End of Course Literacy Test, and the AL Ts. Items are annotated to reflect benchmark(s) tested. The CRT's are designed to be given during the second and third quarters, but teachers have the prerogative1to administer tests during a period of several weeks for maximum value and individual needs. 55 Criterion Referenced Test (End ofUnit/Module Exams), Mathematics and Science CRTs were also developed by the District's Mathematics-and Science Departments in collaboration with PRE. This CRT measures performance at critical junctures in the new math and science curricula: specifically at the end of each mathematics \"module\" and each science \"unit.\" The test directly assesses student performance on District benchmarks in math and science. Each benchmark includes 4 test items. Stu~ents are expected to answer at least 3 of those items correctly to be proficient on the benchmark. In addition the test includes openended, free-response items that are formatted like the open-ended items on the Siate Benchmark Exam. Results on the CRT inform teachers, principals, and the District about how students are achieving the District benchmarks. A process is being implemented to efficiently convey test results to teachers, parents, and principals in order to achieve the CRT goal of identifying student performance in relation to our own curriculum and to identify students in need of additional instruction. To facilitate administration of the math and science multi-module CRTs, a systematic approach is being used for scanning, scoring, and the generation of reports for teacher, parents, and principals. The reports will include an \"item analysis\" that reveals how students performed on the test question by question. This will give the teacher detailed information about the content and skil\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 Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\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_308","title":"Compliance correspondence","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":["2001-03/2001-07"],"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","School administrators","Educational planning","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance correspondence"],"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/308"],"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":["correspondence"],"dcterms_extent":["192 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  *- GADBERRY, BRADY L. From: Sent\nTo: Subject: CARMINE, LESLIE V. Friday, March 02, 2001 12:45 PM LESLEY. BONNIE\nBABBS, JUNIOUS\nSTEWART DONALD M  GADBERRY. BRADY L.\nMITCHELL. SADIE ' FW: Mathematics program evaluation Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc Subjecfc LESLEY, BONNIE Thursday, Mardl 01, 2001 1:25 PM CA^NE^ LEtS V ^bBERRY, BRADY L\nSTEWART, DONALD M. r^athematics program evaluation We have yet another sflrifiUfi problem concerning program evaluation, Ooew^w^ contains numarous erws of facf and anerpretetion-ao many that i1 is going to taxa me a tot of ame to 2- The District is paying Virginia Johnson full-time to do the math/science evaluation for NSF and what Nunnprv hac \"T? '1 fVirginia has done and submitted to NSK We ^n Mt Into a l o^M^usion Interpretations of the project! And we are terribly vulnerable to justified criticisr^ we say two ^^reri? . .dP Dennis and I wrote for the Compliance Report-so if Nunnery's reoort is submitted and It dMsn't Jive with the Compliance Report, we are going to look like fools again submitted and 4. The Nunnery report makes many of the same errors that PRE made originally It devoid of context\nit is incomplete in its data analysis\nthe Interoretations are nor infnr wrtten is nt^at all aligned with the reports that Virginia NSF 3. etc. is incomplete in its data analysis\nthe Interpretations are not mform^^bniTiatwTare District decide to spend yet more money on the NSF evaluation? esoeciallv t. neversuppos^ Bdo. .epaU evaluallop cTmSae^S hare or jS rSrSnSS Sb? iteTOF rfp^lL *iaveh,ent as b a,adoral cdor, information in one place. Why in the world are we allowina to continue decision-making the one person who can help the District avoid these embarrassing w^i^hdtoi^TT ''D' xpensive problems? The two meetings of the Research Committee have been scheduled absolutely could not attenrf-which happened as well in the scheduled meetings with Steve Ross I do not t that all these inci'dents are ^incidento^^ s=bdulS mtrngsStevl R^^  indication of what we are going to get with the other reports-then we don't just have one oroblem have multiple problems. I am VERY wearv of trvino to clean un the mecc uuhen we rriHrr4 r -------iP*i__ __ place. Itiple weary trying toclean up mess ^rn w^didn^ to hav?one in toe^t It makes NO sense to me, given the last year's events, to allow Kathy Lease to continue overseeino the orooram evaluation reouirements for this riiKthrt That le ,h., i h,o _______r-rZ J.l Z  2.\" Program I ra w *M wiiww ixaoiy bcci3w Lw wUliUllUC UVciScG e^luation requirements district. is why I have removed Virginia Johnson from PRE OFTI^A VA/lfn \\/in A* A A a.Uikt! I U.^. _______a a.*.. . * 'uL , , mar is wny i nave removed Virginia Johnson from PRE and moved her into the office with Vanwsa. ^d that is why I have assigned Eddie McCoy to do the ESL evaluation for this school year At least StSoffier^oS SpoS accePteble quality and do not contradict what we havi SvI%Tre,!^mmeX'inn \u0026lt;his. Otherwise, I would just let it go. You have my concerns. You I lavo iiiy I owi III I loriQowOn. Below is a list of errors that I identified in the report from just one quick read-through 1. First sentence\nThe grant began in 1998-99, not 1997-98 not'2?^Athynn^?dL^^^^^ ?.''o,^''''' performance in mathematics and science\" are not something we dreamed upbut required in the NSF program evaluation iak?hoS,tot\u0026amp;oS \" 854. Lots Of capitalization and punctuation errors. 5. Tkis dra^l uses 190 as ike baseline for SATS ficopss. Tho cdhipliancs reporf used f 55T-Sfisince il was iln year before we began to implement changes 6. Disaggregation is unclear, is it \"white\" or is it \"non-black\" scores that are reported'? a M??nDDDnDT?I ' ' * sutints themselves changel n^'^mcSr WAroHid,r science scores tell us anything since that test is in no way aligned with the 12 Achievement gap scores are not as easy to interpret on the SAT9 as they are on the Benchmark Al-sn iftr..i \u0026amp; aS science and math that are outlined and analyzed in the Compliance Report Those are the courses that should be examined. Near the end of the first paragraph ' -----------------  . A? 'J? -^Sebra I in Sth grade faifed the cou'rse.\" Our very'high^t achievinqVfadente are wha?so'^vll^] \" tt^at concYusion ^thouf a^^^ rVi laloU9Var 1 we have so far any is a gross error. He states that \"relatively large \"district is providing increasingly equitable access to Algebra 1.\" Well thats true but it is n or S^atiS ***  GeomeS and either 4ai!?LVonSis^j^he'Co''4 \"\"\" The f\u0026lt;evise\u0026lt;i Desegregation Plan-is the title of another section of the paper f 5,  G^I'Sation 2.6-the one having to do with access to and success in advanced, g/t, and AP courses^e programs that are outlined are for the most part remedial-implemented to ensure success in regular-level courses not to ensure access to or success in advanced courses, necessarily. The interpretation is all wrongX Sm and rSpTfanceWpoS\"^ achievement in this area. All those programs, etc. are outlinXthe '?  rekrence t^olicy IG as being the one allowing dual-credit courses. That is an error Policy IG has to do with curriculum adoption. There is another policy and set of regs having to do with college enrollment (IHOTA and WCDA- writer apparently had no understanding of the University Studies courses as our best examole of the PP\u0026lt;^\u0026lt;jnity to earn coIImc credit while still in high school. All that information is in the Compliance Report. *2 2.6.1. which is the section on teacher/counselor training having to ao will  ff*' fond in the Compliance Report. Are you seeing the pattern here Pf 'ofo fais paper the stuff that we have already described and analyzed in the Compliance Report? 20. 1 he writer attempted to analyze increased enrollment in AP math and science-hut aoain had no data and nn .which is the section on teacher/counselor training having to do with .rrfr,rmaHr,r, analyzc^incre^ed enrollment in AP math and science-but again had no data and no information about the many actions taken to accomplish what we have. What we have done for remediation. An w^at we have done. including most of the prMrams that he erroneously listed under the advanced course section 22. It seems to me that if he wants to evaluation Section 2.71 that a desnrintinn nf th^ now ifhe description of the new assessments would be ap^ropnate, as well as a discussion of the Quality Index, the ACTAAP accountability requirements, etc. None of ^t is 23. Obligation 2.8. This section is pitifulagain because the writer did not understand the wunyoMun i D. , Hio ,s piuiui-again oecause the writer did not understand the program or what we have done have1)X a^bfg failure of which have been wonderfully suc^ssful, and others of which most part, student 24. This section also falls to include in the analysis all of several other partnerships. 25. Now, here's the clincher\nUnder \"Findings and Conclusions,\" the writer states that \"For the most di outi^mes in Mathematics (sc) and Science (sic) did not change substantially between 1997 and 2001 m! profound finding on one measurement alone-the SAT9. No ^nchmark data. No ALT data? No CRT date of t^he tremendous increases in course enrollments, participation, etc., etc.,, etc. VJe have paid big 'P'^' 'f'\" fo \u0026gt;0 Po whatever ho has done, and now to Nunnery to declare that we tha\\1\u0026lt;wkrat/Sl^^e^ate^at we^have*^ absolutely wrong And we are continuing to pay staff to work on the NSF reporf for LRSD students\" noi Inn^aragraph about the'implementation dip,\" one of the phrases that I've heard Kathy use a lot of fim^. The fact of the matter is that we did NOT have an implementation dip. Fourth grade went up A LOT in the first year of implementationif we look at the one test that is best aligned with what we are doingthe Benchmark SAT9 declines are NOT due to implementation dips. They are due to the fact that the SAT9 does not correlate with the wmculum framework or the new curriculum and assessments we are using. Goodness! 27. The discussion about achievement gaps is based upon the same flaws in information and understanding. 86dLunX,'^n \"? 2?^ '\"' draining program-and the feet is that we have tons of also have an assessment of the oTamTkTImplementation. We also have an assessment of the quality of teacher implementation of the new curriculum-again in the Compliance Report. Vn dSRod Whdt wo hsd or for infinrmafion rwi fha tflOSe d3t3 tO N^^^d Kathy never analysis of what went wrong last year). One of 30. The Recommendations section is nothing but shallow-but then oiven what th^ writer knouu th.- ...__ . c^ld we ex^ We have some critical issJes that should ^e^ to arfo even s^ed some o^em already this school year based on our own analysis of what went wrong last vear) One of the basics in program evaluation is to derive the recommendations for improved^Kdafe^lh^te the program staff who can shed light on interpretations and on identifying what went wrong or what ' P0\"ay hink about this stuff ail the tiriie, and so d\u0026lt;^ Dwn^nlj w do^Xs^ W^^va ewry right to be outraged that people without any direct Information, with giant gaps of information without observation of knowledge of what we are doing and why. without infixmation about NSF wrthout anv ^empt to find out what we kriTO would deem it even possible to make judgments about the work about what the outcomes mean, or what should happen next. For goodness sake! * coounne worn, aoomwnattne the Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski UtOe Rock, Arkansas 72206 SO1/324-2131 501/324-0567 (fax) GADBERRY, BRADY L. From: Sent: To: Subject: CARNINE, LESLIE V. Friday, March 02, 2001 12:31 PM GADBERRY, BRADY L\nSTEWART, DONALD M. I , I W I hB.y W I V vr~il \\ I , Ivll FW\nCentral High School Parking and/or Baseball Field K  3lwa^ thrTO side to the story but this Is going to go public and there will be a lot of finger not be a good Kme to visit with Baldwin Shell about the logistics of the Central renovation. That could then determine the number of portables and feasibility of the faculty parking and the other issues. Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc Subject HOWARD, RUDOLPH Wednesday, February 28. 2001 S\n39 PM EATON, DOUGLAS LACEY, MARIAN G.\nGADBERRY, BRADY L\nCARNINE, LESLIE V. Central High School Parking anq/or Baseball Reid We keep going \"around and around\" in an effort to avoid the issue. det^ine whethw or not the district was going to support the building of a baseball field SPMifically.how mu^ was the district going to contnbute in order to match what the baseball boosters(Mr.Yancey) would contribute. After waitmn fnr a rmuhnn Inr nu^r 9 mnr.ke 1 _____t.___r,___ . '.. y'*!) waiting fora mating for over 2 months. I receive this memo ffom DouT^O^^^^ already been covered. Specifically, the issue about the parking lot and the portables. wouW give up the teacher parking lot in order to accommodate the portables. WE ARE NOT AGREEABLE TO GIVING UP ANY ADDITlOl^L SPACE ON THE PRACTICE FIELD. additional space for portables, but you ner tell us how many portables that n^ded. Therefore, we can never determine if the space on the parking lot and/or the space around uenvai is adequate or not. 875013744137 WALKER LAW FIRM 050 P02 JUL 24 01 11:20 GADBERRY, BRADY L From: Sent: To: Subject: CARNINE, LESLIE V. Friday, March 02, 2001 12:45 PM LESLEY, BONNIE: BABBS. JUNIOUS\nSTEWART, DONALD M.\nGADBERRY, BRADY L\nMITCHELL, SADIE FW: Mathematics program evaluation I understand your concern and there are some issues that should be discussed but this no more serious than the errors found in the NSF evaluation grant that we sent to the visiting team. I am sorry but I hope the other Associates can be objective. Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE hiursaay, March 01, 2001 1:25 PM BAB8S, JUNIOUS, MITCHELL, SADIE\nGADBERRY, BRADY L\nSTEWART, DONALD M. CARNINE, LESUE V. Mathematics program evaluation We have yet another serious problem concerning program evaluation. I received on Monday afternoon a copy of the draft of the mathematics program evaluation that Kathy has apparently asked John Nunnery to do. I have these urgent concerns\n1. The draft contains numerous errors of fact and interpretation-so many that if is going to take me a lot of time to document. 2. The District is paying Virginia Johnson full-time to do the math/science evaluation for NSF, and what Nunnery has written is not at all aligned with the reports that Virginia has done and submitted to NSF. We can get Into a lot of confusion with such different interpretations of the project! And we are terribly vulnerable to justified criticism if we say two different things. 3. The draft is not aligned with what Dennis and I wrote for the Compliance Report-so if Nunnery's report is submitted and it doesn't \"jive\" with the Compliance Report, we are going to look like fools a^ain. 4. The Nunnery report makes many of the same errors that PRE made originally. It is based on wrong assumptions\nit is devoid of context\nit is incomplete in its data analysis\nthe Interpretations are not informed by what we are doing this year, etc. My question is this: Why in the world did the District decide to spend yet more money on the NSF evaluation? especially when what is written is of such poor quality? PRE was never supposed to do a separate evaluation of math/science from what we are required to do for NSF. NSF is just as concerned about African American achievement as is die federal court here or Joshua. Aii the relevant information will be in the NSF reports. And again, I am the only person vi^o has all the of information in one place. Why in the world are we allowing to continue the practice of excluding from decision-making the one person who can help the District avoid these embarrassing problems? these very expensive problems? The two meetings of the Research Committee have been scheduled at times when I absolutely could not attend-which happened as well in the scheduled meetings with Steve Ross. I do not believe that all these incidents are coincidental. If this first paper is any indication of what we are going to get with the other reports-then we dont just have one problem. We have multiple problems. I am VERY weary of trying to clean up the mess when we didn't need to have one in the first place. It makes NO sense to me, given the last year's events, to allow Kathy Lease to continue overseeing the program evaluation requirements for this district. That is why I have removed Virginia Johnson from PRE and moved her into the office with Vanessa. And that is why I have assigned Eddie McCoy to do the ESL evaluation for this school year. At least this way I can be sure that the reports to NSF and OCR are of acceptable quality and do not contradict what we have written in other official reports. There are serious legal and financial implications in all this. Otherwise. I would just let it go. You have my concerns. You have my recommendation. Below is a list of errors that I identified in the report from just one quick read-through. 1. First sentence\nThe grant began in 1998-99, not 1997-98. 2. The \"drivers that he says \"ostensibly influence overall levels of student performance in mathematics and science\" are not something we dreamed upbut required in the NSF program evaluation. 3. The example given about CPMSA activities makes no sense. Everything the project has done involves ail those stakeholders, not just policy formulation.\" 855013744187 UALKEP LhU firm 050 P03 JUL 24 01 11:21 4. Lots of capitalization and punctuation errors. 5. Tkis draft uses imi as Ike basalins for 8AT9 scoras. Tka ccmplianca reporl used ^95?-58-Slnce it was Ike year before we began to implement changes. 6. Disaggregation is unclear. Is it \"white\" or is it \"non-black\" scores that are reported? 7. A big problem with cohort studies is also that students themselves changel 8. MAJOR PROBLEM: Scores are reported without any context that describes where we were in program implementation. No where does the paper establish when specific grade levels were implemented-and that is the only way to look at the data in any meaningful way. Grade 10 scores, for example, could not have been impacted before f^l 2000 because we didn't have any interventions before then that could have made a difference. 9. ANOTHER MAJOR PROBLEM: This report excludes the all-important Benchmark data. The grade 4 data are the BEST evidence that we have so far that the project is working. The grade 8 data are the best evidence that we have so far that change is imperative. 10. It is a terrible error to assume that SATO science scores tell us anything since that test is in no way aligned with the new curricula. We could use the scores, I suppose, but they surely need to be Interpreted with caution. Again, there is no context laid for making interpretations in this draft. 11. Inteipretations of the cohort data are the same problem. He looked at T-scorss for grades 5 and 7 without any explanation of when the reforms were implemented. 12. Achievement gap scores are not as easy to interpret on the SAT9 as they are on the Benchmark. Also, if we are truly trying to figure out if black kids are gaining, we need to look at their movement from Below Basic to Basic since when we started all this, the vast majority 13. There is a section called \"A\u0026lt;  were in the Below Basic level. access to High-Level Math and Science Courses.\" The ONLY course that is examined is Algebra l~hardly a high-level course, especially now that it is required of all students. We have pre- and post-data on course enrollments for both science and math that are outlined and analyzed in the Compliance Report. Those are the courses that should be examined. Near the end of the first paragraph is a gross error. He states that \"relatively large proportions of students who enrolled in Algebra I in Sth grace failed the course.\" Our very highest achieving students. the ones who take Algebra I in grade 8, and almost none of them fail! He drew that conclusion without any data are whatsoever! 14. The paper states that the \"district is providing increasingly equitable access to Algebra 1.\" Well, that's true, but it is grossly understated. We are requiring ALL students now to take not only Algebra I, but also Geometry and either Algebra II or Statistics. 15. This section fails to look at any of the data on Pre-AP, and there is a note that he didn't have the AP data to examine. Again, all of this is in the Compliance Report. 16. Fulfillment of Obligations Contained in the Revised Desegregation Plan-is the title of another section of the paper. The first topic is Obligation 2.6-the one having to do with access to and success in advanced, g/t, and AP courses. The programs that are outlined are for the most part remedial-implemented to ensure success in regular-level courses, not to ensure access to or success in advanced courses, necessarily. The interpretation is all wrong. Also, the section iarnores many other initiatives taken by the District to impact achievement in this area. All those programs, etc. are ouBineo in the Interim and final Compliance Reports. 17. There is a reference to policy IG as being the one allowing dual-credit courses. That is an error. Policy IG has to do with curriculum adoption. There is another policy and set of regs having to do with college enrollment (IHCDAand IHCDA- R). 18. Further, the writer apparently had no understanding of the University Studies courses as our best example of the opportunity to earn college credit while still in high school. All that information is in the Compliance Report. 19. The writer attempted to write about Section 2.6.1, which is the section on teacher/counselor training having to do with advanced courses. He had no data-and all of that is found in the Compliance Report. Are you seeing the pattern here? Why put into this paper the stuff that we have already described and analyzed in the Compliance Report? 20. The writer attempted to analyze increased enrollment in AP math and science-but again had no data and no information about the many actions taken to accomplish what we have. 21. The writer attempted to analyze Section 2.7, but he only mentioned SAIPs as what we have done for remediation. An examination of the Interim and final Compliance Reports would reveal MANY more examples of what we have done, including most of the programs that he erroneously listed under the advanced course section. 22. It seems to me that if he wants to evaluation Section 2.71 that a description of the new assessments would be appropriate, as well as a discussion of the Quality Index, the ACTAAP accountability requirements, etc. None of that is here. 23. Obligation 2.8. This section is pitiful-again because the writer did not understand the program or what we have done to engage parents, and we've done a million things, some of which have been wonderfully successful, and others of which have been a big failure. 24. This section also fails to Include in the analysis all of several other partnerships. 25. Now, here's the clincher\nUnder \"Findings and Conclusions,\" the writer states that \"For the most part, student outcomes in Mathematics (sic) and Science (sic) did not change substantially between 1997 and 2001 for LRSD students\" He based that profound finding on one measurement alone-the SAT9. No Benchmark data. No ALT data. No CRT data. No acknowledgement of the tremendous increases in course enrollments, participation, etc., etc.,, etc. We have paid big bucksto staff to write a first report, then to Ross to do whatever he has done, and now to Nunnery to declare that we have failed-and for that declaration to be absolutely wrong. And we are continuing to pay staff to work on the NSF report that looks at ALL the data that we have. 26. Then there Is a big long paragraph about the \"implementation dip,\" one of the phrases that I've heard Kathy use a lot of times. The fact of the matter is that we did NOT have an implementation dip. Fourth grade went up A LOT in the first year of implementatlon~if we look at the one test that is best aligned with what we are doing-the Benchmark. SAT9 declines are NOT due to implementation dips. They are due to the fact that the SAT9 does not correlate with the curriculum framework or the new curriculum and assessments we are using. Goodness! 27. The discussion about achievement gaps is based upon the same flaws in information and understanding. 865013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM 050 P04 JUL 24 01 11:22 2^ The paragraph on access to higher-level courses is very disappointing. Again, he only looked at Algebra I. There is innovative freshrnan Physics course. There Is no mention of the data we already have In the NSF data reports about course completions. This section is tembly Inadequate. And again, much of it is already rn the Com^iance Report. 29. The writer states that we have no documentation about our training program-and the fact is that we have tons of documentation throughout the Compliance Report-both on advanced courses and on the curriculum Implementation. We also have an assessment of the quality of teacher implementation of the new curriculum-again in the Compliance Report. I want to note here again the arrogance of PRE in even attempting to make judgments about these programs without meeting with the program staff and me to ensure that they know what they need to know to write a report. We are collecting data everywhere, and we are analyzing those data, and we are reporting those data to NSF-and Kathy never even asked what we had or for information on the phase-in of the reforms, for documentation on training, etc., etc., etc My insistence on being included was to prevent these kinds of errors and misinterpretations. 30. The Recommendations section is nothing but shallowbut then given what the writer knew of the program, what else could we expect? We have some critical issues that should be addressed (and we are in fact addressing many of them and even solved some of them already this school year based on our own analysis of what went wrong last year). One of the basics in program evaluation is to derive the recommendations for improvement both from data analysis and from deep conversations with the program staff who can shed light on interpretations and on identifying what went wrong or what could be done better. I personally think about this stuff all the time, and so does Dennis ano so does Vanessa. We have every right to be outraged that people without any direct information, with giant gaps of information, without observation of the program implementation, without knowledge of what we are doing and why. without information about NSF. without any attempt to find out what we know would deem it even possible to make judgments about the work, about what the outcomes mean, or what should happen next. For goodness sake! Or. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/324-0567 (fex) GADBERRY, BRADY L. From: Sent: To: Subject: CARNINE, LESLIE V. Friday, March 02, 2001 12:31 PM GADBERRY, BRADY L\nSTEWART, DONALD M. FW: Central High School Parking and/or Baseball Field As both of you know there is always three side to the story but this Is going to go public and there will be a lot of finger pointing, would this not be a good time to visit with Baldwin Shell about the logistics of the Central renovation. That could then determine the number of portables and feasibility of the faculty parking and the other issues. Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc Subject: HOWARD, RUDOLPH Wednesday, Fetxuary 28, 2001 5:39 PM EATON, DOUGLAS LACEY, MARIAN 6.\nGADBERRY, BRADY L\nCARNtNE, LESUE V. Central Htgri School Parking and/or Baseball Reid We keep going \"around and around\" in an effort to avoid the issue. I asked for a meeting to determine whether or not the district was going to support the building of a baseball field. Specifically, how much was the district going to contribute in order to match what the baseball boosters(Mr.Yancey) would contribute. After waiting for a meeting for over 2 months. I receive this memo from Doug- 2/22/01- rehashing what has already been covered. Specifically, the issue about the parking lot and the portables. Now. I have indicated and the CLT has indicated that we would give up the teacher parking lot in order to accommodate the portables. WE ARE NOT AGREEABLE TO GIVING UP ANY ADDITIONAL SPACE ON THE PRACTICE FIELD. Doug, you continue to talk about the need for additional space for portables, but you ner tell us how many portables that are going to be needed. Therefore, we can never determine if the space on the parking lot and/or the space around Central is adequate or not. 875013744187 walker LAW FIRM 050 P01 JUL 24 01 11:20 JOHN IT. WALKER. P.A. Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-5758 Fax (501) 574-4187 TRANSMISSION COVERSHEET Date: [, To: [. ] Fax: L 1 Re: L J Sender: J YOU SHOULD RECEIVE [ rmcluding cover sheet)] PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVERSHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL \"\u0026lt;(501) 574-3758\u0026gt;\" The information contained in this facsimile message is attorney privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not die intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, piease immediate notify us by telephone, and return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you. I JOHN w. walker SHAWN CHILDS 5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile 682-3479 March 26, 2001 388 P02Z05 MAR 26 01 13:17 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 HENDsnsoN Road LlTn. Rock, Askans.vs 72210 Phone: (5U1) 372-3425  Fax (SOl) 372-3428 Em-aiL: inchenryd@8wboU.nrc Representative Pat arker Bond House Of Represer\natives State Capitol, Rooi i 350 Little Rock, AR 7201 Dear Ms. Bond: 1 understanc annex or detach the that your bill which is now under consideration by the Legislature to deJacksonville area from the Pulaski County Special School District has not received comments from us and possibly from other interested panics in the long stating Pulaski County Desegregat on case. 1 am writing to inform you that while the bill may be popular with some of the Jacksoj ' desegregation plan\nville constituents, it may also have negative impact upon the court approved and that any legislation being considered will have to pass muster under the 14* Amendment as kvell as the law of the case concept. As you are\nrobably aware, no one has sought input from the Joshua Intervenors with respect to the legist ition or to the charter school which was approved for the Maumelle area. While our approval resort to the Coun is not required, our lack of knowledge and input will tend to cause us to o have matters ferreted out. Rather than get into a public dispute with you and the other propc nents of your legislation, 1 respectfully request that you and the other proponent legislate s meet with possibly the ODM, school officials and myself so that you have a better under landing of why opposition from Joshua, at least, is well placed. can Would you suggest that you sp :indly get in touch with me regarding this matter as soon as possible. I also with Ms. Ann Marshall of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring in order to obtain that office s perspective regarding pending legislation. !hn W. Walker f JWjS 5013744187 walker LAW FIRM 388 P03/05 MAR 26 01 13:17 cc\nMs. Ann Marshal Dr. Gary Smith Dr. Leslie Carni Mr. James Smitj Mr. Ray Simon le Ail Counsel of I ecord5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRd 388 P05/05 MAR 26 01 13:18 With due re peci lo the court, I remain, JWWjs cc: Mr. Chris Helle Ms. ,Ajin Brown Mr, Sam Jones Mr. Steve Jone: Mr. Richard Ro / Walker Sincerely yours, .chcll Mr. Timothy Gs iger '' I^EQSIVSO ^AR 3 0 200! GrBCECf ^^SESREGfiJJQSi^^- ^JIS C\u0026gt; CF John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile March 26, 2001 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone\n(501) 372-3425  F.ax (501) 372-3428 Email\nrachenryd@swbell.net Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright Chief Judge United States District Court 600 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD v PCSSD Dear Judge Wright: Due to the fact that I was in trial before the Honorable George Howard Jr. in Pine Bluff, Arkansas from March 19-22, 2001 and in intense preparation for the days preceding the 19* I am just getting in position to address the Little Rock filing. Notice of Filing Compliance Report and Request for Scheduling Order. I further note that Little Rock has indicated that it wishes to limit our time for filing challenges to twenty (20) days. This letter is being written to request that the Court set a time for a conference before addressing the issue of a scheduling order so that all parties, as well as the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, would have an opportunity to address the propriety of the scheduling order request. The compliance report is extensive. It appears to be more than two hundred (200) pages in length, is very detail oriented and it makes many claims which are unfamiliar to us and probably to the ODM as well. I am writing the Court this letter, rather than filin\nHeller, who I am advised is away until Wednesday, expressed an ig a motion, because Mr. interest in having some dialogue regarding this matter, and the State settlement as well, before this matter becomes, if it ever does. a public dispute which the Court must resolve. I understand that the Court intends to schedule a hearing in the near future regarding the middle school issues raised by the PCSSD. May I suggest that the matter of the hearing of the scheduling order be set for the same day inasmuch as all parties are expected to be in court for the PCSSD matter. Although I have been unable to speak with Mr. Heller and I have not attempted to reach his co-counsel, Mr. Clay Fendley who I intend to try and reach immediately, I have informed Ms. Ann Marshall regarding my concerns herein and will be having further conversations with the parties until such time I receive the Courts reply to this letter.With due respect to the court, I remain, JWW.js cc: Mr. Chris Heller Ms Ann Brown Mr. Sam Jones Mr. Steve Jones Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Timothy Gauger Sincerely yours. n W. Walker ro mx JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS John w. Walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 1 4 ZOQi. urfluE OF B^eSA'nGK5fiOtSITORIM\u0026amp; OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY. P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Hender.5O.\\ Road Little Rock. Ark.a.\\s.as 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  F.ax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenrydSswbell.net Via Facsimile - 310-822-4824 April 9, 2001 Tr'mfl'i on g^ECESVc Dr. Terrence Roberts 932 South Oakland Pasenda, CA 91106 Re: LRSD Dear Terrence:' Joy gave me a report of your brief conversation with her on Friday. I am writing to inquire of your opinion as to whether the Little Rock School District has made it to the point where it can be established to be a unitary school system. I need a written response to this by the end of the week. The expectancy of the plan was that the Joshua consultant would be closely associated with Joshua as policies and procedures were being developed and established. In addition, the plan contemplated that we would be integrally involved in all aspects of policy devisation and promulgation. I thought we had established that during our several conversations with you. We had the same expectancy from Dr. Ross. To date, our involvement has been superficial and mostly nonexistent except for our initiative. Accordingly, when you provide your opinion regarding the readiness of the District for unitary status, would you kindly address our non involvement, i.e., in communication with you and District officials and in the reporting process in which you were involved. We believe that good faith was required of school officials in implementing the plan and that at minimal we were not to be circumvented by any persons in the process. I am sending Mr. Junious Babbs a copy of this letter because Junious has not kept us involved and, in our opinion, has actively sought to prevent our involvement, I believe, as provided for in the plan. His position seems to be that if you were invo.lved then we were involved, for you were our consultant rather than theirs. At a hearing, he, of course, will be a necessary witness regarding this point. Please let me hear from you as requested. Furthermore, if Mr. Babbs chooses to address these points with you, would you please let us know his position in your response to us. Office of Desegregation Monitoring FILE COPYWith warm personal regards, 1 remain, Sincerely, John W. Walker JWW:js cc: Mr. Junious Babbs Ms. Ann BrownAn. O' OOXQZ.H-^Z01 L K S D Rpr 1601 10:17a RITA ROBERTS SRD 626-793-7654 PAGE 02 P-2 Terrence J. Roberts, Ph.D. P.O. Box 96 Pasadena, CA 91102 (626) 644-4956 April 16, 2001 John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 RE: Your April 9,2001 letter to me Dear John: As always, it was good to hear from you, and I trust the report frna Joy was useful and informative. I will schedule lime lo meet with you when I am in Little Rock in the future. The work in the School District is going well and my feeling is that the employees have found the Coping With Difference program to be challenging and substantive. You ask, in your letter, about my opinion as to whether or not the School District has marie it to the point where it can be established as a unitary school system. Briefly, in my opinion, possibly. But, it is imperative to note that there arc many factors to be weighed and my opinion is but one of many to be considered. I add this because until all interested parties can come together and the available evidence, it is simply, and only, a matter of opinion. I feel ill equipped to comment on your level of non involvement in this process since I dont have enough information about communications between you and the District When I spoke to Mr. Babbs, he was surprised to find that you were of the opinion that he has actively sought to prevent your iiivolvement. As to Uk matter of whether or not T nm a Joshua consultant or a District consultant, I must say I find this rather confusing. In one sense it bespeaks an adversarial process which seems to pit you against the District with me somewhere in the middle. On the other band, it suggests a need for me to decide where my loyalties lie. In either case, the focus appears to be on things other than those that might benefit the children of the District. John, I am in this process because I want to see positive change that will result in greater educarional opportunities for children in this school system. My commitment is to do whatever it might take to realize that goal. If that end result is best achieved by unitary Office Of Desegregation Monitoring FILE COPYai/ ib / zooi 14: 04 501-324-2281 Apr IG 01 10:18a RITR ROBERTS LRSD SRO 62B-793-7G54 PAGE 03 P-3 status, so be it. However, if the opposite is true, I will support non-unitary status with a vengeance. You see, for me, this effort has never been about integration per sc. Integration in the absence of changed mind sets about the worth and value of children of color is an unworthy goal Obviously, there remains much to be done io this arena. Thats why I say, possibly, the District is ready for unitary status. In any case, we will talk further. Sincerely, A Terrence J. Rober^ PhJ), Cc: Mi. Junious Babbs, Ms. Ann Brown Received John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JUL 2 - 200J Off ICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile - 376-2147 June 29, 2001 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd^wbeU.net Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Chris: Please provide all the information that has been provided to you by District officials at any time since June 10, 1999. Our tentative list of witnesses includes your senior administrators, beginning with Dr. Carnine and going to the level of Director. I am unable to give specific names because your letter of June 29, 2001 does not give specific names of the people responsible for [the] specific section of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. These are the names that I think are responsible: Dr. Les Carnine, Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Dr. Kathy Lease\nDr. Marion Lacey\nDr. Linda Watson\nDr. Richard Hurley\nDr. Ed Williams\nDr. Don Stewart\nDr. Gary Smith\nMs. Sadie Mitchell\nMr. Junious Babbs\nMs. Jo Evelyn Elston\nMr. Brady Gadberry\nMr. James Washington\nMr. Robert Robinson\nMs. Pat Price\nMr. Leon Adams\nMs. Vanessa Cleaver\nMr. Dennis Glasgow\nMs. Frances Jones: Ms. Kay Rainey\nMr. Michael Oliver\nMr. Everett Hawks\nMr. Larry Mitchell\nMs. Gayle Bradford\nMr. Lionel Ward\nMr. William Broadnax\nMr. Ray Gillespie\nMs. Levanna Wilson\nMr. Gene Parker\nMr. Michael Oliver\nMr. Larry Mitchell\nand Mr. Jim Mobsy. Other tentative witnesses include: Dr. Terrence Roberts\nDr. Steven Ross, Dr. John Fluker\nDr. Ray Simon, Dr. Charity Smith\nDr. Ken James\nand Mr. Willie Morris. I will supplement this list on Monday after receipt of all the requested information. With respect to exhibits, I intend to use some of the documents that you submit to me by the end of the day, the ODM reports, and the FOIA responses that you have received copies of as you requested those copies from the school staff. I also may find it necessary to use correspondence between us and yourself, Dr. Carnine and staff members of the Little Rock School District. I also expect that we may make reference to information provided to the District from Drs. Steven Ross and Terrence Roberts, as well as the ADE. We have asked Dr. John Fluker to look at some of your statistical data and are not certain what he has done with it at this time. I will share any reports from him as soon as I receive them. Finally, I expect to use the Monitor and Associate Monitors of the ODM as witnesses as well. Siiicerely, / ^hn W. Walker JWW:js cc: Ms. Ann Brown Counsel of Record Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark HERSCHEL H FRIDAY (1922-1994) WILLIAM H SUTTON. P A BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR.. P.A. JOE D. BELL. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY, P.A FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS, JR., P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR , P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON, P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM UI. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL UI. P.A. DONALD H- BACON, P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD D. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR . P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN UI. P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III. P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR.. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY. P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR., P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR.. P A HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER. P.A. TONIA P. JONES. P.A. DAVID D. WILSON. P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.fridayfirm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 237 EAST MILLSAP. SUITE 7 FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703 TELEPHONE 501-695-2011 FAX 501-695-2147 JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A. DAVID M. GRAF. P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P.A. JOHN C FENDLEY. JR . P.A. JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO. P.A. R- CHRISTOPHER LAWSON. P.A. GREGORY D TAYLOR, P A. TONY L. WILCOX. P.A. FRAN C. HICKMAN. P.A. BETTY J. DEMORY, P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A. JAMES W. SMITH. P.A. CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT, P.A. DANIEL L. HERRINGTON, P.A. MARVIN L. CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR. ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B TIDWELL MICHAEL E. KARNEY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN A. KASTEN BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH TAMARA G. MARTIN RYAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M. COTTON OFCOUNSEL B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. A.D. MCALLISTER 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-762-2896 FAX 870-762-2918 June 29, 2001 JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL 501-370-3323 FAX 501-244-5341 fendleyOfec.net Via Hand Delivery RECEIVED The Honorable Susan Webber Wright 522 U.S. Post Office and Courthouse JUN 2 9 2001 600 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3325 OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITIM RE: Little Rock School District v. PCSSD Dear Judge Wright: Enclosed please find two documents which the Little Rock School District may introduce as exhibits in the hearings beginning July 5, 2001, pertaining to Little Rock School Districts compliance with its revised desegregation and education plan. Little Rock School District will also rely on its interim Compliance Report filed March 15,2000, and its Compliance Report filed March 15,2001, which have already been filed with the Court. We thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Respectfully, JCF/jm Enclosures John C. Fendley, Jr. cc via hand delivery: Mr. John Walker Ms. Ann Marshall The Honorable Susan Webber Wright June 29, 2001 Page 2 cc via U.S. mail: Mr. Sam Jones Mr. Steve Jones Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Sammye TaylorLittle Rock School District Pupil Services Department Scholarship Awards 2000-2001 School Year School # Scholar^ip Recipients BM BF WM WF OM OF Central 4 4% 11 10% 25 23% 64 4 1 HIS Male 0 HISF Female 1 58% 4% 1% 0 1% Total no BM J.A. Fair 6 22 4 8 0 0 1 1 42 14% 52% 10% 19% 0 0 1% Hall McClellan Parkview TOTALS 15 13 5 5 0 0 1 0 39 38% 8 21% 7 10% 40 13% 33% 26 68% 19 26% 91 30% 13% 0 0 7 10% 41 14% 13% 3 8% 31 42% 111 37% 0 0 0 2 3% 6 2% 0 0 0 4 5% 5 2% 1% 1 0 38 1% 0 3 73 0 3 1% 4% 5 302 2% SCHOLARSHIP AWARD TOTALS 5185,242 $32,600 $406,458 $91,496 $332,781 $1,048,577 BF WM WF HisM HisF OM $309396 $278,606 $284,752 $334,680 $425,881 $1,633,315 $454330 $116,640 $342,450 0 $97,610 $1,010330 $963,662 $40,072 $240,000 $46,316 $647,566 $1337,616 $74,000 0 0 0 $82,192 $156,192 $16,000 0 0 0 $195,662 $211,662 $10,000 $10,000 $60,000 0 0 $80,000 deceived JW 2 9 2001 OF 0 $4,000 0 0 $500 $4300 Total Award By School $2,012330.00 $481,918 $1333,660 $472,492 $1,782,192 $6,082,792.00 ScholarshipAwards.OlHighlights of Grades K-2 Results Developmental Reading Assessment 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 2 9 25\n,I OmCEOF All three grade levels improved in spring 2001. 1999-2000 Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 72.2 53.6 67.5 2000-2001 80 7 63.8 75.4 First grade showed the greatest improvement in spring 2001. Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Change +8.5 +10.2 +7.9 More than 75 percent of the schools improved in spring 2001. Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 # of Schools Improving 27 (77%) 29 (83%) 29 (83%) 1Both area and magnet schools did well. The five highest performing schools at each grade level for each year follow. 1999-2000 2000-2001 Kindergarten McDermott* Fulbright* Rightsell* Terry * Grade 1 Grade 2 Mitchell* Woodruff* Williams Wilson* Western Hills* McDermott* Rightsell* Williams Forest Park* Western Hills* Otter Creek* Denotes area schools. McDermott* Baseline* Fulbright* Gibbs Brady* Williams Carver McDermott* Booker Forest Park* Carver Williams Western Hills* Otter Creek* McDermott* 2Many schools improved dramatically in spring 2001. Schools improving 20 or more points are as follows. All are area schools, and most are high poverty schools. Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 _______2000-01 Baseline (42.9)* Badgett (28.4)* Forest Park (27.1) Cloverdale (26.1)* Stephens (25.3)* Wakefield (44.6)* Watson (41.9)* Baseline (41.2)* Stephens/Garland (27.5)* Western Hills (25.8) Chicot (24.4)* Badgett (20.6)* Dodd (31.1) Badgett (31.1)* Stephens/Gariand (30.1)* Pulaski Heights (29.3) McDermott (22.5) Denotes schools with 75% or higher eligible for free/reduced lunch. 3The Incentive Schools are, in general, improving. With the exception of Mitchell and Rightsell at grade 1, a majority of the students are performing at or above the \"readiness\" level. Kindergarten Franklin Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Stephens 1999-2000 64.3 90.6 92.1 75.8 40.8 2000-2001 58.6 92.3 80.5 76.2 66.1 Change -5.7 1.7 -11.6 0.4 25.3 Grade 1 Franklin Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Stephens 1999-2000 57.6 25.0 35.7 76.3 23.5 2000-2001 58.9 25.0 41.7 65.2 51.0 Change 1.3 0.0 6.0 -11.1 27.5 Grade 2 Franklin Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Stephens 1999-2000 81.2 48.6 94.7 71.4 31.3 2000-2001 83.6 50.0 70.5 84.2 61.4 Change 2.4 1.4 -24.2 12.8 30.1 4The Newcomer Centers are improving, except for Terry at kindergarten and grade 2. Kindergarten Brady Chicot Romine Terry Washington 1999-2000 76.9 56.1 66.7 91.9 81.2 2000-2001 93.4 70.9 86.4 86.7 84.1 Change 16.5 14.8 19.7 -5.2 2.9 Grade 1 Brady Chicot Romine Terry Washington 1999-2000 34.9 26.8 59.6 47.1 35.5 2000-2001 53.5 51.2 76.5 59.8 41.1 Change 18.6 24.4 16.9 12.7 5.6 Grade 2 Brady Chicot Romine Terry Washington 1999-2000 70.8 38.6 68.8 81.2 63.3 2000-2001 79.6 52.1 81.6 67.1 81.4 Change 8.8 13.5 12.8 -14.1 18.1 5There are seventeen (49 percent) elementary schools in the District where 75 percent or more of the students are eligible for free/reduced lunch. Many of these schools improved dramatically in spring 2001 and/or some are performing in the highest range of scores (80 percent or higher). Kindergarten Badgett (94%)____ Franklin (90%) Stephens (90%) Chicot (87%) Baseline (86%) Woodruff (86%) Cloverdale (85%) Wilson (85%) Mabelvale (85%) Mitchell (84%) Watson (83%) Geyer Springs (83%)____________ Rightsell (82%) Meadowcliff (81%) Wakefield (80%) Fair Park (78%) 1999-2000 21.6 64.3 40.8 56.1 51.1 69.2 56.4 66.7 61.0 90.6 56.4 85.1 2000-2001 50.0 58.6 66.1 70.9 94.0 46.2 82.5 80.0 73.3 92.3 73.7 87.7 Change 28.4 -5.7 25.3 14.8 42.9 -23.0 26.1 13.3 12.3 1.7 17.3 2.6 92.1 77.4 46.8 68.3 80.5 77.1 61.1 75.6 -11.6 -0.3 14.3 7.3 6Badgett (94%) Franklin (90%) Stephens (90%) Chicot (87%) Baseline (86%) Woodruff (86%) Cloverdale (85%) Wilson (85%) Mabelvale (85%) Mitchell (84%) Watson (83%)_____ Geyer Springs (83%)____________ Rightsell (82%) Meadowcliff (81%) Wakefield (80%) Fair Park (78%) Grade 1 1999-2000 5.9 57.6 23.5 26.8 29.6 84.2 28.4 82.9 50.8 25.0 24.7 46.8 2000-2001 26.5 58.9 51.0 51.2 70.8 61.5 33.9 53.8 60.5 25.0 66.6 38.6 Change 20.6 1.3 27.5 24.4 41.2 -22.7 5.5 -29.1 9.7 0.0 41.9 -8.2 35.7 70.0 22.0 62.5 41.7 66.6 66.6 72.7 6.0 -3.4 44.6 10.2 7Badgett (94%)____ Franklin (90%) Stephens (90%) Chicot (87%)_____ Baseline (86%) Woodruff (86%) Cloverdale (85%) Wilson (85%) Mabelvale (85%) Mitchell (84%) Watson (83%)_____ Geyer Springs (83%)____________ Rightsell (82%) Meadowcliff (81%) Wakefield (80%) Fair Park (78%) Grade 2 1999-2000 11.8 81.2 31.3 38.6 47.1 78.3 57.9 60.4 43.4 48.6 54.4 72.5 2000-2001 42.9 83.6 61.4 52.1 60.5 86.5 45.1 61.4 63.0 50.0 51.2 66.0 Change 31.1 2.4 30.1 13.5 13.4 8.2 -12.8 1.0 19.6 1.4 -3.2 -6.5 94.7 57.9 40.0 62.9 70.5 75.0 54.4 67.7 -24.2 17.1 14.4 4.8 8Most of the Success for All (SFA) schools improved in spring 2001. Most are now enriching the SFA program with ELLA strategies. Kindergarten Brady Baseline Cloverdale Fair Park Meadowcliff Romine Woodruff 1999-2000 76.9 51.1 56.4 68.3 77.4 66.7 69.2 2000-2001 93.4 94.0 82.5 75.6 77.1 86.4 46.2 Change 16.5 42.9 26.1 7.3 -0.3 19.7 -23.0 Grade 1 Brady Baseline Cloverdale Fair Park Meadowcliff Romine Woodruff 1999-2000 34.9 29.6 28.4 62.5 70.0 59.6 84.2 2000-2001 53.5 70.8 33.9 72.7 66.6 76.5 61.5 Change 18.6 41.2 5.5 10.2 -3.4 16.9 -22.7 Grade 2 Brady______ Baseline Cloverdale Fair Park Meadowcliff Romine Woodruff 1999-2000 70.8 47.1 57.9 62.9 57.9 68.8 78.3 2p00E20Ql 79.6 60.5 45.1 67.7 75.0 81.6 86.5 Change 8.8 13.4 -12.8 4.8 17.1 12.8 8.2 Schools with the Reading Recovery program in grade 1 are performing well. Grade 1 Booker Chicot* 1999-2000 69.3 26.8 2000-2001 87.4 51.2 Change 18.1 24.4 9Dodd Franklin Fulbright** Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson Otter Creek Pulaski Heights** Williams Wilson* 58.3 57.6 61.0 46.8 65.9 69.1 67.7 50.0 84.1 82.9 *2000-2001 was a training year. Reading Recovery not continued in 2000-2001. Grade 2 1999-2000 73.5 58.9 66.6 38.6 71.4 73.9 69.6 61.7 97.1 53.8 2000-2001 15.2 1.3 5.6 -8.2 5.5 4.8 1.9 11.7 13.0 -29.1 Change Booker Chicot* Dodd Franklin Fulbright** Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson Otter Creek Pulaski Heights** Williams Wilson* 79.8 38.6 51.7 81.2 79.3 72.5 80.5 71.1 87.2 45.2 81.4 52.1 82.8 83.6 88.7 66.0 82.9 85.0 90.5 74.5 1.6 13.5 31.1 2.4 9.4 -6.5 2.4 13.9 3.3 29.3 89.7 60.4 92.6 61.4 2.9 1.0 The number of schools with a majority of students performing below the \"readiness\" level is declining. Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 1999-2000 3 (9%) 13 (37%) 8 (23%) 2000-2001 1 (3%) 6 (17%) 2 (6%) 10The number of schools with at least 80 percent of the students performing at the \"readiness\" level is increasing. Kindergarten Grade 1_____ Grade 2 1999-2000 15 (43%) 5 (14%) 10 (29%) 2000-2001 21 (23%) 5 (14%) 18 (51%) The gap between the lowest and highest performing schools is decreasing. Kindergarte n Grade 1 Grade 2 1999-2000 73.2 2000-2001 48.1 Change 25.1 78.3 82.9 72.1 50.2 6.2 32.7 11Black students are improving at every grade level and at a higher rate than Non-Black students. 1999-2000 Kindergarte n Grade 1____ Grade 2 69.3 48.3 63.8 2000-2001 77.0 57.4 69.8 Change 7.7 9.1 6.0 Non-Black students are improving at every grade level. Kindergarte n Grade 1 Grade 2 1999-2000 84.7 71.2 81.6 2000-2001 88.8 77.3 86.8 Change 4.1 6.1 5.2 The achievement gap is much lower in grades K-3 now than in higher grade levels and is decreasing. It is lowest at kindergarten. Kindergarte n Grade 1 Grade 2 1999-2000 15.4 2000-2001 11.8 Change -3.6 22.9 17.8 19.9 17.0 -3.0 -0.8 12John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 RECEIVED JUN 2 9 2001 ^Of JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd^wbell.net Via Facsimile June 28, 2001 Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright Chief Judge - United States District Court 600 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al., Case No. 4:CV82-866 Dear Judge Wright: I am writing this letter to request that you schedule an informal conference between the Little Rock School District counsel and us regarding the forthcoming hearing. The timing of the hearing appears to be insufficient for us to prepare to make our case. The District officials simply have not cooperated with us in providing information on a voluntary basis. We are now met with the inability to communicate with any District official without going through counsel and we are experiencing other problems as well. This is due to instructions and advice of counsel. Let me cite an example of the problems that we are having. We met with Chris Heller, Clay Fendley and Ms. Marshall on Monday of this week. We were informed that there were large numbers of evaluation reports regarding the many programs that have been undertaken by the District in the past three years and before that are sitting, according to Clay, in Clays office. Those reports have been requested by us many times and we were essentially informed that no such reports existed. We still have not seen the reports. Now Clay and Chris do not make them and other District data available to us as has been the normal expectation and practice. That practice has abated since Joshua filed their objections. The timing problem also involves our inability to meet the courts directive that we provide our exhibits by tomorrow. With the Districts lack of cooperation, without there being formal discovery, and with the obstruction directed by Clay and Chris, we simply need much more time to meet our burden of proof. We request that we be allowed to use the time that you have set for trial in July and August to engage in discovery and that the matter be reset for a period of time thereafter. We also note that the District is in the process of preparing reports that it intends to submit in its portion of the hearing. If they attempt to do this, it will prejudice our presentation.This is so because they were obliged, at the time of their report in March, to have fiilly met their obligations and to have that established by documentation. A conference is sorely and urgently needed so that we can address these and other concerns of the parties. May we meet with you either by telephone, or in person, either later today or tomorrow? Sincerely, John W. Walker JWWjs cc: Mr. Chris Heller Ms. Ann Brown Mr. Richard Roachell Counsel of Record C  Cu/ RECEIVED JUL 2 - 7001 received JU12-2O(I1 OmCEOF desegregation MONITORING OmCEOF OESEgfGKnONIMHgm OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF ARKANSAS Mark Pryor Attorney General Samrayc L. Taylor Chief Barrister Direct dial: (501)682-1320 E-mail: sammvet@aq.state.ar.us KL4 FACSIMILE Honorable Susan Webber Wright 302 U.S Post Office and Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 604-5169 Re: LRSD V. PCSSD\nUSDC\n4:82CV866SWW Dear Judge Wright: Mark and I would like to thank you for excusing us from the hearing currently being scheduled by the court for the morning of June 29, 2001. I was not scheduled to be in the office tomorrow and Mark has a deposition scheduled to begin at 10:00 a.m. If we were to attend the hearing, we would object to Mr. Walkers untimely request to continue the hearing dates in July and August, as these dates have been set by court order since April 4, 2001. Again, we appreciate your granting us leave to not attend the June 29 hearing. Respectfully yours, Chief Barrister SLT/alh cc: Counsel of Record via Regular Mail 323 Center Street  Suite 200  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007  FAX (501) 682-8084 Internet Website  http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ Q:\\Civil\\Sammye Taylor\\Deseg\\Judge 6-28-01 .doc 954 Peaces ju. 03 01 18:29 JOHN W. walker SHAWN CHILDS John W. Walker, P.a. AitorneyAt Law 1723 Broadway Lmts Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile - 376-2147 July 3. 2001 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENKYEa. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Hbjdsrson Boao Email: nwhcnrydgawbelhaet Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Chris\nJoshua may use the following documents as exhibits during the hearings on July 5** and 6*: 1) Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999 and any subsequent plans I D n________ J - 1 _______________ *  * -2) LRSD Interim Report dated March 15. 2000\n-3) LRSD Compliance Report dated March 15, 2001\nODM Report dated June 21, 1995\n^5) ODM Repon dated October 26, 1999\n*^5) ODM Repon dated March 29, 2000\n^7) ODM Repon dated April 11, 2001\nt-^) ODM Repon dated August 11, 1999\n9) Draft Ev^uations from PRE\n10) Responses to request for information dated 6-8-01 to Mr. Babbs\n11) Responses to request for information dated 6-13-01 to Dr, Lesley 12) Documents listed in Dr, Lesleys letters dated 6-14-01 and 6-27-01 to Ms, Springer\n13) Responses to request for information dated 6-20-01 to Ms, Mitchell\n14) Responses to request for information dated 6-27-01\n15) Responses to request for information dated 6-28-01 to Mr. Heller 16) Loan requests to State of Arkansas from LRSD\n17) Responses to requests for information dated 6-27-01 to Ms, Mitchell\n18) Responses to requests for information dated 7-2-01 to Dr, James\n19) LRSD 2000-01 Recruitment and Placement Service Annual Report 20) Dept, Of Exceptional Children Strategic Plans - 1998 and 2001 21) Budget and Enrollment data for LRSD elementary schools\n22) Manpower Reports for 1998-99 through 2000-01, 23) Standardized test results (SAT, ACT, Stanford) from 1982 to present 24) Leners dated April 14, 1999, April 20, 1999, May 12, 1999 to Dr. Carnine5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM 954 803/03 JUL 03 01 18:29 ----- 25) Letters dated July 8, 1999 and October to John Walker\n18, 2000 from Christopher Heller - 26) Letter dated September 13, 1999 to Mr. Larry Berkeley\nLumpkin to Junious Babbs- ^'garding equitable allocation 1-29) Settlement Agreement dated 1989 pages 15-16\n26-27\nof resources\nAgreement between State and LRSD dated 3-19-2001 321 Walker d^ed 5-11-13-99- Correspondence between Mr. Babbs and Drs. Ross and Roberts- 341 from Mr. Babbs office on 7-2-01- and -34) Dr. Camine s Pnonty Repons.   There are several requests that are still outstanding and documents as exhibitc Tf  ana we may use some of those all documents that are given to tbs XVwkh \"structed District personnel to share you. Your cooperation is appreciated. Sincerely, John W. Walker JWWjs cc: Ms. Ann Marshall5013744187 UfiLKER LfiW FIRM 954 P01Z03 JUL 03 01 18:29 W. WALKER, P.A. Anorney at Law 5723 Broadway Tittle Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 FAX transmission COVER SHEET Date: To: Fax: [. [, r 'Ll3-^0! J ] Re: L Sender: YOU SHOULD RECEIVE S J ] - ---------(including cover sheet)]PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVERSHEET. TF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THEPAGES PLEASECALL \"\u0026lt;(501) 374-575S\u0026gt; . only for th use of the individiiBi or andconfideatial infonnationintentted ___ I entit-y- -n--a-m---e-d-- -a--b- ove. I*f t*he rea*der of' th-is mIessSage is HnOoTt tmhee iinmteenaodeedd J Wsibie to deUver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissenunation, distribution or copying of this communication is strirrlv i_____ received this communication in error, please immediate notify or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank us by telephone, and return the original message :you. a 1015744187 WALKER LAW FIRM 932 P02/03 JUL 03 01 06:50 JOHN w. walker SHAWN CHILDS John w. Walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway LmtE Rock, Arkansas 72206 TELEraoNE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile July 3, 2001 O' COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY. Ra pONNALMcHENW 8210 Hknoceson Road Ti. . Liras Rock AaxANBAs 72210 Phons: (501) 87^3426  Faz (501) 372-3428 Email\nmcbeniydaswbellnat Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright Chief Judge - United States District Court 600 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 7220] Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al. - Case No, 4\nCV82-866 Dear Judge Wright\nnought to meet with Little Rock school officials since our  * Honor on Friday. After providing names of possible witnesses to Mr Heller nn R a u------- to them available on Monday. On yesterday 1 snnke m u n  Fnday, he agre the inteiviews and he indicated that he would ge?btk wth^me At Wn m that we will be unable to make thL Since our conference 5vith Her on Friday, agreed interviews this week, we will be unable to make them available for requesting a conference with the Court to assist us with an amicable resolution of this matter. ificerely, ictated but not read John W. Walker JWW:js cc\nMr Chris Heller Ms. Ann Brown Qffioeof OMsgregation MonRoring FILE COPYrxioAYdni.)^) H. lUTTOW. px. ,nm K. nioua. j., r.. ^AavmT.fA  uluny. C Aavtx. JAMtt C. CXaAX. JV F.A, tvomaa  Lcocxrr. zx. iotoi OCWT wanea. 7.A. FAUL X SXMXAM lU. r A. LAArrw auxxAF.A. A **cxurrpiSMr^jx..zA. MMXS C9WMP \"AAAiA. f-A. h FWUJF MaLCAM. F.A JAHJJ M. aWSAN. FJL ZAMttM. UXTAH. F.A. J siienBKo pj, H. MCON.  A. *nXlAMTTMH lAXrn. M AWY s. conm. f.a. UatAAA 0. TAVLOt. 7.A 5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM iKLUAi liWKjbliGt\na CLARK 932 P03/03 JUL 03 '01 0002 06:50 Josmo. WMT. nu. i.a UZAtlTH kOMCN MUAXAt * a CttKTOnrBl Htuat F A. w/MWjunm iomTs.:RAPMu?.A vn.UAH M. oxtmw tn. f a. X noctt. ZA. iNAFCt. MACxrr r.A. OVtNA. fA. TA. A. WAPOBU. JtL. f.A. tCOTT I. a.A M.0AVVlC0V.tY..A. *O*\u0026lt;*T \u0026gt;. aCACM. flL. tjL. J. LZE BXOMr, r,A. jAMsac aAax.JK.. *y A. LWWI. F.A. rT K. rargy j fluy ALWN VAOe. FtlOSCOAMM\u0026amp;Lrx YONlA f. town. \u0026gt;.A. OAvw 0. YOMt. e.A. Friday Eldredge A Clark ATToaxeys t law * JMITSC tlAgiuTY rAfiTNBtSfllf \".friosyflrm.com 2000 AEQlONS CCNTgft 468 WZ6ST CAPITOt. ttls rock. ARKANflAa rzzovjAss TCLfPhone 501-378-4011 Fax 501-378-2,47 EAST utusAp. wire 'Avengviue. awcum \u0026gt;jj I^IEFMONE sei.AM.20lt Fax Ml.sMeMAT zM pipTM sneer eurrneviLtt. AMfA/tStit \u0026gt;ia TBLW\u0026lt;^\u0026lt; 70.m24M FAX x7eeTi.aia VIA FAZ No, 374-4187 July 2,2001 n MOOXX. ClAA F. A MO(Ar ALBteMVtA A trXAM Mtrna * CwJTOMttl tJhVSON. fJL ------------- OAlCAay a. TaVX^ Pji. WRXOX. zx. C meXMAN. r./i, tWOA K fOWiOt^ f,/c UMXX V. AMtTK r.A. msocrrr. oafju, t MtuuiiQmi XAKVatLORLOCM colbmam wunoLoox. m. AUUOKX OOwrVBU. aUXHHdWlK 'ASON 4. WN0A1N IUJC8 *. nowiu. WA.l.XAJlV OLLY ituKnrr Wttxro. woiQu nom TAMAAU MARYW ctaita. wmiAM C O'\" t T. WOBUZ ATOt s. 4AUrr \u0026lt;a\u0026lt;AAM. OITTQa XCAAXC *RiUM u. nouiT \u0026lt;r. LABxeLsix Kfk \u0026amp; COMU. F A. A\u0026gt; MGAtUlTEfc CMMstOPNCA malsx LiTTUenOCX rev Crt\u0026lt;47*tuA FAX CMeaMeMM Mr. John Walker JOHNW\nWALKER,?,A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Re: LRSD V. PCSSD Dear John\nme know the order in which they will testify so that I can mnlfB time. In accordance wrth your letter. Dr. Lesley wiU not be avaailrarbalneg uenmtieln tthse t oA hauveg thuemst pSreJseSnt? at the appropriate You have said fiiat you plan to call Ann Marshall, Gene Jones and Horace Smith fiom Desegregation Monitoring. I have called ODM to attempt as I hear something, I will let you know. to the Of\u0026amp;ce of arrange ameetingin advance of their testimony. As soon We also discussed tfaeavailability of Steve Ross and Terrence Roberts, Itold you that we have not made any arrangements to have them present on Thunday or Friday. Lk Camine is in the process of moving to FayetteviUe. Dick Hurley has not yet remmed firm not yet returned from a trip out the available for interviews\" this week to make them Yoj Christopher J. Heller CJH/dh I John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS July 3, 2001 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, PA DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road LnTLE Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone\n(501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd^wbell.net Mr. Ray Simon Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 RECEIVED JUL 5 - 2001 Dear Mr. Simon: OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Would you please let us have access today to your correspondence files and other files regarding the 20 million dollar loan forgiveness discussions that you have been having with Little Rock. You will recall that we asked to be included in those discussions and have not been. This is to also inform you that we expect to call you as a witness in the existing case. We may not get to you on Thursday or Friday of this week, but if we dont we, please expect to be called on either August I\" or August 2\". With best regards, I remain, Sincerely, John W. Walker JWW:js cc\nMs. Sammye Taylor Ms. Ann Brown Mr. Chris Heller / 5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM 260 P02 AUG 15 01 11:22 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE: IMH Effective\nJuly 11,2001 CLASS INTERRUPTIONS Purpose The purpose of these regulations is to increase significantly the amount of time on task or engaged learning time without increasing the school day or school year. The organization of the school and the use of time in the allotted school day send a powerful message to teachers and students about the value of learning. Keeping instructional time sacred is respectful of both teaching and learning. Extending engaged learning time\" is a research-based strategy for improving student achievement. I Interruptions to Instruction The principal and the Campus Leadership Team of each school are directed to protect instructional time from interruptions for non-instructiona! matters to every extent possible. Schools should periodically audit the amount of potential engaged time that is being lost due to teacher absences, student absences, tardiness in beginning lessons, time lost due to discipline infractions, time lost due to assemblies or presentations unrelated to the course benchmarks, early releases, field trips not tightly correlated with the course benchmarks, and similar losses. These data collections will enable the school to find ways to increase the amount of instructional time without adding to the school day, week, or year. Some specific guidelines follow: 1. 2. 3. Principals and other office personnel should not use the intercom more than twice per day (once in the morning and once in the afternoon), except when an emergency justifies the interruption of instruction. Students should generally not be allowed to miss core instruction, especially English language arts and mathematics, for field trips, presentations on non-academic topics, health screenings, school pictures, non-academic assemblies, events to reward students, early dismissals for athletic participation, etc. Principals should generally forbid the showing of rented videos to classes, even when they are loosely connected to curriculum topics. Rather, teachers should use video that is tightly correlated to the course benchmarks or use only clips from longer videos to illustrate~a point. Entertainment videos should not be used during core instructional time. 4. Allowing students during the instructional day to play games of any kind that do not have an instructional purpose (i.e., related to the course standards and/or benchmarks) is inappropriate.I [ 5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM 260 P03 AUG 15 01 11:23 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE: IMH Effective: July 11,2001 -continued- 5, Schools should not engage in the practice of giving students free time' at the beginning of school year, the day before holidays, days during semester examinations, the last week of school, for \"team\" days, and so forth. 6. Instruction should not be interrupted by pulling students out to take care of library business, to see the nurse, to see the counselor, to take unnecessary phone calls. Rather, the support staff should make arrangements with teachers ahead of time to send students at their convenience. These guidelines are not meant to suggest that classrooms should be devoid of joy. Rather, they are intended to communicate a climate of respect for teaching and learning, to communicate to students a consistent message that their learning is important, and to enable all of the Districts students to be successful learners. Each Campus Leadership Team shall include in its work a review of current practices that interrupt instruction and shall design strategies to eliminate or radically limit the times during any school day when teaching and learning are interrupted for unplanned, non-instructional issues.OlACutl/jy 5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM 260 P01 AUG 15 01 11:22 fOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorn^ at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET To: Date: Tax: Te: Sender: YOU SHOULD receive [ (including cover sheet)] PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS CO VEE SHEET IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL \"\u0026lt;(501) 374-3758\u0026gt;\" The information contained in this facsimile message is attorney privileged and confidential information intended only for die use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of tliis message is not the intended recipient, or die employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediate notify us by telephone, and return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you. Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Marshall. Federal Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 July 23, 2001 Dr. Ken James Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ken: My associate, Gene Jones, has been closely monitoring the districts program evaluation efforts. Gene has been able to obtain some program evaluations, but he has been unsuccessful in procuring others, so Im asking for your help. While the districts March 2001 Compliance Report reads that PRE has evaluated a number of specific programs (page 148), most of those evaluations were not available when we made our latest request for them on June 26, 2001. Below is a list of the 12 evaluations we need in order to continue our monitoring. All are for 2000-01 unless otherwise indicated. 1. NSF (We received a copy on 6-26-01, but are unsure that its a final version.) 2. Middle schools 3. Extended year schools 4. Summer schools (for 1999-00) 5. HIPPY 6. Charter school 7. Campus Leadership Teams 8. English as a Second Language 9. Lyceum Scholars Program 10. Southwest Middle Schools SEDL program 11. Watson Elementarys Onward to Excellence 12. Collaborative Action Team Please forward these program evaluations to us as soon as possible. If any are still not available, please let us know the status of their preparation and when we may expect to receive them. Thank you very much for your assistance. Sincerely yours. Ann S. MarshallFriday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY {1M2-I994) WILLIAM H. SUTTON, P.A. BYRON M. EISEMAN, JR,, P.A. JOE D. BELL. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY, P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR.. P.A JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM 111. P.A. LARRY W BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL 111. P.A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD D. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN HI. P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S MACKEY, P.A WALTER M EBEL III. P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR.. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY. P.A. ROBERT B BEACH. JR . P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR.. P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER. P.A. TONIA P, JONES, P.A. DAVID D. WILSON. P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.fridayfirm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 601-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 237 EAST MILLSAP. SUITE 7 FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72703 TELEPHONE 501-695-2011 FAX 501-695-2147 JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A. DAVID M. GRAF, P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P.A. JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR., P.A. JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO. P.A. R CHRISTOPHER LAWSON. P.A GREGORY D. TAYLOR. P.A. TONY L. WILCOX, P.A. FRAN C. HICKMAN. P.A. BETTY J. DEMORY. P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A. JAMES W. SMITH. P.A. CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT. P.A. DANIEL L. HERRINGTON. P.A. MARVIN L. CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR. ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B TIDWELL MICHAEL E. KARNEY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN A. KASTEN BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH RYAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M. COTTON OFCOUNSEL B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. A.D. MCALLISTER RECEIVED 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-762-2898 FAX 870-762-2918 JUL 17 2001 CHRISTOPHER HELLER LITTLE ROCK TEL 501-370-1506 FAX 501-244-5344 hnrg?c.rot OmCEOF DESEGREGRniianDRm July 16, 2001 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza RECEIVED 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 JUL 1 7 ZOOl Re\nLRSD Compliance Report - March 15, 2001 OFFlGfcOl DESEGREGATION MONITORING Dear Ann\nI will attempt to arrange a meeting among the representatives of the parties and the members of your staff in accordance with our conversation last week. In the meantime, I would like to request that you share with the parties any written information developed by your office concerning errors in LRSDs March 2001 Compliance Report. This would make it easier for the parties to prepare for possible meetings with the members of your staff as well as the hearing scheduled in August and November. Thank you for your consideration. very Christopher Heller CJH/bk cc\nMr. John W. Walker Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Samuel Jones Ms. Sammye Taylor Mr. Steve Jones Dr. Ken JamesJohn W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKEK SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile - 604-5106 July 23, 2001 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, PA. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Hendekson Road Little Rock, Aekansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mcheiuyd^wbell.net Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright Chief United States District Judge 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 RECESVED JUL 25 2001 Re: Case No. LR-C-82-866 OmCEOF OESEGi\u0026amp;GMlONHQWTOHifjS Dear Judge Wright: This IS to inform you that we have experienced some difSculty in obtaining documents from the Little Rock School District. We informed your office while you were away of one set of problems we were experiencing last week. We are mindful of the courts deadline to provide Mr. Heller and Mr. Pendley with a listing of our exhibits, which is tomorrow. Our FOIA requests were dated June 5, 2001, July 2, 2001 and July 11, 2001 respectively, well in advance of last Friday s deadline and we have not been given the data. As I am writing this letter, Mr. Hellers secretary is on the telephone requesting that we must come to his office, look at and copy whatever is in two boxes. That is entirely unacceptable and fhistrates our ability to be prepared I will ask the secretary to have the boxes delivered to our offices in order to see whether the matenal being provided is what we requested. We will safely keep the boxes and return them to Mr. Heller on tomorrow. The Court is being asked to schedule a conference for identification of documents and document delivery for Wednesday, assuming that we have been unable to get the information that we have requested. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, ictated but not read John W. Walker JWW:js cc: Mr. Chris Heller Ms. Ann MarshallOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Marshall, Federal Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 July 23, 2001 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Dear Chris: Your letter of July 16, 2001 arrived while I was out of state last week, so please understand my delay in responding to your request for information about errors we identified in the LRSDs March 2001 Compliance Report. Enclosed is a list of the math errors we found in the pages of the Compliance Report. These are solely errors in mathematical calculations, based on figures that the district used in its report. For example, page 13 charts the Masters Degree Plus Nine or More Years of Experience for elementary schools. In the 1999-2000 column, the numbers for Garland are 6/26 24% when 6 is actually 23% of 26. Most of the math errors we found were minor, but some are significant. For example, page 27, last paragraph, 6' line: The report claims that 66% of the districts African-American students participated in a co-curricular activity during the 1999-00 school year. The correct calculation is between 46% and 48%, depending on which enrollment numbers the district used to arrive at 62% as the corresponding proportion of African-Americans who participated in extracurricular activities, which is cited in the paragraph at the top of page 27. We have not catalogued any other errors we may have found in the report, such as a chart that erroneously lists a school as closed in a year when the building was actually open, inconsistencies among charts, or discrepancies between what a chart shows and what the accompanying narrative asserts. Sincerely yours,  Ann S. Marshall Enc. cc: All Counsel of Record Dr. Ken James . ^4 Math Errors Found by ODM in LRSDs March 15, 2001 Compliance Report 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1. 8. 9. Page 7, bottom chart, 1997, Percent A-A Page 13, bottom chart. Garland, 1999-2000 Page 13, top of page. Rockefeller, 1\" column Page 13, bottom chart, ACC-Metro, 1998-99 Page 17, bottom chart, 1996-97 Page 17, bottom chart, 1998-99 Page 22, middle chart, 1998-99 Percents, White Females Page 22, middle chart, 1998-99 Percents, Other Females Page 22, middle chart, 1999-2000 Percents, Other Females 10. Page 22, middle chart, 2000-01 Percents, White Males 11. Page 24, 1* paragraph, 3\"* line 12. Page 27, last paragraph, 6* line 13. Page 27, last paragraph, b* line 14. Page 40, bottom row, 2000-2001, Other 15. Page 40, bottom row, 2000-2001, Total 16. Page 40, 1 bullet, second line 17. Page 40, 2\"** bullet, last line 18. Page 47, bottom row. Total 19. Page 47, bottom row. Total 20. Page 92, bottom row. Change 21. Page 93, bottom row. Change 22. Page 124, bottom row, 4\"' column 23. Page 127, 2\"* chart, 1999, Total 24. Page 129, 1 chart, 2000, Total 25. Page 129, 1* chart, Increases, Total 26. Page 129, 1* chart, % Change, Total 27. Page 132, 1 chart. All Students, % Change 28. Page 132, 1' chart. A-A Students, % Change 29. Page 145, ALC, 1999-2000, Total 30. Page 145, Totals, 1999-2000, Total 31. Page 146, ALC, 1997-98, D/0 32. Page 146, Total, 1997-98, D/0 33. Page 146, Total, 1999-2000, D/0 34. Page 146, Ft. Hgts., 1997-98 D/0 35. Page 146, Ft. Hgts., 1998-99, D/0 36. Page 146, Mann, 1998-99 D/0 37. Page 146, Pul. Hgt., 1997-98 D/0 38. Page 146, TOTAL, 1997-98 D/0 39. Page 146, TOTAL, 1999-00 Enr 40. Page 146, GRAND TOTAL, 1999-2000 Enr 41. Page 147, 1 paragraph, 4* line 42. Page 161, TOTALS, 1998-99 White 43. Page 161, 1\" paragraph, 4* line 1 /in/ 1*4 0 O-xn/ Z*4 /O 00X1/ Zo /O er\\n/  TZU 9 FL 7% -1% 1 on/ 1V / 0 1 /rn/ 1 0/0 ^on/ J V / o z-z-n/ 00 0 1 gn/ 1 3/0 . 1 gn/ 1 3/0 +5 +5 +22 ono/ oTTO 1 n ACi lo.4o F+tSO 669 1200 22 OTT 1 o 4 1 r\\ 1 n/  IvO 7% J fyv 690 oz~ *400 /in/ *4/0 6% F% 3% 339 67323 12733F YH} 3\n29e-\n46+ eight 15% 23% 26% 58% 8 9 0 0 9% 18% 42% 46% to 48% 19% 18% 18 19 135 81% 18.49 11.81 577 1282 2220 1061 92% -7% -7% 277 795 38% 600 466 5% 4% 0 0 326 5,343 12,351 173 3,290,452 nineArxwwAc -fo e.1- JOHN W. Walker, RA. Attorney Ar Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, RA. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Hendebson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenrydi^wbell.net Via Facsimile: 324-2146 July 24, 2001 Dr. Kenneth James Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 received JUL 2 5 2001 Re: FOIA Office Of OSESKKfflONMONHOfflWe Dear Dr. James: This request is pursuant to the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act. Would you provide for review, inspection, and copying the responses received to the e-mail request dated July 12, 2001 from Dr. Lesley to members of the Cabinet for : the ways that ODM has been involved in our work- committees, reviews of materials, etc. By copy of this letter to Ms. Ann Marshall, we are asking that she allow us to inspect any documents that she has related to this request. We also intend to call Ms. Marshall as a witness on the good faith issue and her knowledge of the Districts implementation activities during the next hearing, if time permits. Please make all of these responses available to me by Friday, July 27, 2001 at 1:00 p. m. Sincerely, W. Walker cc: Ms. Ann Marshall JWW:fcJohn w. Walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKEE SHAWN CHILDS July 24, 2001 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHenry pa. DONNA J. McHENEY 8210 Hendeeson Road Little RocxAskansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mcheiiryd@swbell.iiet Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 RECEIVED JUL 2 5 2001 Re: LRSD Compliance Hearings OFHCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Dear Chris\nPlease find enclosed ave been told that they did not exist, we shall ask the court for sanctions that Jumous Babbs lied, i.e., perjured himself many times. It appears that r I hope that this pattern of deception and misrepresentation does not up m your exhibit list after we It is already evident continue. it was with your advice. JWW\njs Enclosure cc: Ms. Ann Marshall All Counsel of Record EXHIBIT LIST -Job description - Associate Superintendent for Desegregation -Job description - Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services -E-mails from J. Babbs desegregation folder provided by Clay Pendley on 7/18/2001 -E-mails to and from Junious Babbs provided by Clay Pendley on 7/18/01 -E-mails to and from Sadie Mitchell provided by Clay Pendley on 7/19/01 -Response from Dr. Bonnie Lesley dated July 20,2001 in response to POIA request dated 7/12/01 for test data and other data regarding Rightsell, Otter Creek, Pulaski Heights and Central -Response from Dr. Bonme Lesley dated 7/20/2001 in response to POLA request dated 7/12/01 for written instructions regarding the DRA and validation studies regarding DRA -Letter dated July 18, 2001 from Clay Pendley to Joy Springer regarding requests for information -Response to request dated June 13, 2001 requesting dis-aggregated summer school data for each of the last three years -Letter dated September 5, 2000 to Ray Simon from Brady Gadberry and Juniuos Babbs -Resource C: Standards from Programs Evaluation -Letter dated 6/26/01 from Dr. Bonme Lesley indicating that information regarding summer school should be obtained from School Services - Sadie Mitchells division -Letter dated 7/13/01 from Sadie Mitchell indicating that information regarding school should be obtained from Instruction - Dr. Bonnie Lesleys division summer -Letter dated November 16,2000 to Dr. Carnine from John Walker regarding Joshuas lack of participation in the development of program, policies and procedures -Memo dated 8/28/01 from Busbea and Preeman re: observation survey and DRA testing -Test results four (4) schools - Rightsell, Otter Creek, Pulaski Heights and Central -formats for reporting test results -Email dated 3/1/2001 from Dr. Lesley to Dr. Carnine-Letter dated 6/26/01 frora Dr. Lesley to Joy Springer -Letter dates 7/13/01 from Sadie Mitchell to Joy Springer -Email dated 8/23/99 from Bonnie Lesley to Associate Supts -Email dated 1/10/2000 re: Public Information Folder on compliance -Email dated 10/16/2000 from Babbs to Dr. Camine -Email dated 10/19/2000 from Dr. Lease to Babbs \u0026amp; Dr. Camine -Email dated 10/24/2000 from Dr. Ross to J. Babbs -Email dated 11/3/2000 from Babbs to Dr. Ross -Email dated 11/9/2000 from Babbs to Dr. Lesley -Email dated 11/19/200 and 11/18/2000 from Babbs to Dr. Lesley -Email dated 11/30/2000 from Dr. Camine to Babbs -Email dated 1/3/2001 from Lease to Camine -Email dated 1/11/2001 from Babbs to Lesley -Email dated 7/12/2001 from Lesley to Cabinet -Email dated 3/14/2001 from Babbs to Camine -Revised Desegregation Education Plan/Compliance Checklist -West Little Rock School -Letter dated 10/7/99 from Babbs to Compliance committee -Memo dated 4/20/99 from Babbs to Board -Parent Survey Results 1999-2000 -Letter dated 8/16/99 to Dr. Camine and othersE-mail dated 8/24/99 from Dr. Lesley to Compliance Committee members Arkansas Department of Education File regarding loan forgiveness Exhibits included by Little Rock School District on their exhibit listJOSHUA WITNESS LIST AUGUST 1-2, 2001 1. Dr. Leslie Camine 2. Sadie Mitchell 3. Dr. Bonnie Lesley 4. James Washington 5. Dr. Linda Watson Joshua also reserves the right to call the witnesses listed by Little Rock School District4 Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1932-1994) WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. BYRON M. eiSEMAN. JR.. P.A. JOE D. BELL. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY. P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR.. P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM III, P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL ID. P.A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P A. BARRY E. COPLIN. F.A. RICHARD D TAYLOR. P A JOSEPH B. HURST. JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT 5. SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN HI. P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III. P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR.. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P.A. M GAYLE CORLEY. P A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR.. P.A. J. LEE BROWN. F.A. JAMES C BAKER. JR.. P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.fridayfirm.corn 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 HARRY LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P A. PRICE C GARDNER. P.A. TONIA P. JONES. P.A. DAVID D. WILSON. P A. 237 EAST MILLSAP. SUITE 7 FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72703 TELEPHONE 501-695-2011 FAX 501-695-2147 JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A. DAVID M. GRAF. P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P.A. JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR.. P A. JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO. P.A. R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON. P.A. GREGORY D. TAYLOR. P.A. TONY L. WILCOX. P.A, FRAN C. HICKMAN. P.A. BETTY J. DEMORY. P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A. JAMES W SMITH. P.A. CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT. P.A DANIEL L. HERRINGTON. P.A MARVIN L. CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR. ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B TIDWELL MICHAEL E. KARNEY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN KASTEN BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH RYAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M. COTTON orCOUKSEL B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. AD. MCALLISTER 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-762-2698 FAX 870-762-2918 JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL 501-370-3323 FAX 501-244-5341 fndl*yQfc.ntt Via Hand Delivery Mr. John W. Walker Attorney at Law 1723 South Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 RE: LRSD V. PCSSD Dear Mr. Walker: July 24, 2001 RECEIVED JUL 2 5 2001 OmCEGF DESffiRESAnOHMGWnDfWS Enclosed please LRSDs Witness and Exhibit Lists for the August 1-2,2001, hearing. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions. Sincerely, John C. Pendley, Jr. JCF/jm Enclosurescc w/enc.\nMs. Ann Marshall Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Samuel Jones Ms. Sammye Taylor Mr. Steve Jones Dr. Ken JamesLRSD WITNESS LIST FOR AUGUST 1-2, 2001 1. Dr. Bonnie Lesley 2. Sadie Mitchell 3. Dr. Leslie V. Camine 4. Dr. Linda Watson 5. James Washington 6. Jo Evelyn Elston LRSD would also reserve the right to call any witness listed by Joshua and to call witnesses solely for the purpose of rebuttal. H EB BQ LRSD EXHIBIT LIST FOR AUGUST 1-2,2001 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Summary of Assessment/Evaluation Activities by LRSD Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley to elementary principals, Oct. 20, 1998, providing information on Smart Start training on standards, assessments, and accountability Copy of handout from ADEs training for educators on Smart Start: Higher Student Achievement through Standards and Performance Assessment, fall 1998 Plan and Process Alignment for Improved Student Achievement, Little Rock School District (Matrix showing relationship of various required plans to District processes), created fall 1998 Invitation to meeting on Systemic Planning Session for Assessment and Program Evaluation, May 18, 1999 Agenda for Assessment and Program Evaluation Work Session, May 18, 1999 Portfolio of Services of Division of Instruction, 1999-2000 Agenda for Division of Instruction, June 17, 1999 meeting\npresentation on the LRSD Assessment Plan Memorandum in July 28, 1999, Learning Links with attached article on Changing the Entitlement Culture -emphasis on results rather than process. 10. LRSD Assessment Plan\nUsing Assessment to Enhance Student Achievement (PowerPoint presentation slides)presented to Board of Education in August 1999 11. Reading List prepared to distribute at the summer 2000 Campus Leadership Institute\nsection on Building and Maintaining Accountability Systems is about assessment and program evaluation 12. Transparencies used in July 19, 2000, Curriculum Day for principals, assistant principals, and brokers. 13. Notebook/handouts for July 19, 2000, Curriculum Dayfocus on quality management, data-driven decisions, and LRSD assessment programs 14. Memorandum in August 23, 2000, Learning Links with attached Primer on Assessment Literacy for distribution to Campus Leadership Teams 15. District Assessments: The Assessment Program for 2000-01 116. Memorandum to the Board of Education for July 26, 2001, agenda on Proposed Amendments to the Assessment Program Memorandum to elementary and junior high principals, Nov. 16, 1998, on schedule for picking up SAT9 testing materials 17. Memorandum to elementary school principals, Dec. 14, 1998, on procedures for upcoming administration of the criterion-referenced tests in reading and mathematics 18. Memorandum to elementary and junior high principals, Jan. 5, 1999, on the testing procedures for grades 4 and 8 ACTAAP Benchmark examinations 19. Memorandum to elementary and junior high principals and counselors, Jan. 26, 1999, on inservice schedule for test coordinators for the ACTAP Benchmarks for grades 4 and 8 20. Memorandum to selected administrators on Data Quality with attached paper written by Dr. Glynn Ligon 21. Memorandum to elementary principals, Aug. 17, 1999, relating to use of released items from Smart Start assessments 22. E-mail to curriculum staff, Aug. 23, 1999, relating to use of released items from Smart Start assessments 23. E-mail to elementary and middle school principals, Sept. 17, 1999, inviting them to an overview session on the new pre- and post-test Achievement Level Tests developed by Northwest Evaluation Association. 24. Memorandum in Sept. 22, 1999, Learning Links to principals identifying training needs to administer the Observation Survey and Developmental Reading Assessment 25. Memorandum to principals and K-2 teachers in March 15, 2000, Learning Links setting up an assessment training review for the Developmental Reading Assessment and Observation Survey 26. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley on Mar. 17, 2000, suggesting a resource on how to assess technology knowledge 27. Memorandum in Apr. 5, 2000, Learning Links to elementary and middle school principals and test coordinators on new information relating to ACTAAP Benchmark examinations in grades 4 and 8 and the field testing in grade 6. 28. Document entitled Description of the Assessment System prepared in April 2000 in response to a request from the National Science Foundationrelating to the assessment of mathematics and science 229. Document entitled Procedures for Providing Data Analysis/Interpretation to Decision Makers prepared in April 2000 in response to a request from the National Science Foundationrelating to the assessment of mathematics and science 30. Document entitled Orientation to the Analysis and Interpretation of Test Results prepared in April 2000 in response to a request from the National Science Foundationrelating to the assessment of mathematics and science. 31. E-mail to Kathy Lease, May 23, 2000, providing feedback to proposed survey of middle school students and teachers. 32. E-mail to principals, Aug. 25, 2000, providing information on upcoming administration of the Achievement Level Tests in September. 33. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, Aug. 31, 2000, providing information on new middle school report card 34. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, Aug. 31, 2000, providing copy of new middle school report card report 35. Memorandum from Linda Austin to Marian Lacey providing Middle School Report Card Update 36. E-mail to middle school principals, Jan. 3, 2000, setting up training for teachers on how to administer the State Benchmark examinations 37. Memorandum to Division of Instruction, Feb. 1, 2000, setting agenda for Feb. 2 meeting, includes information on the District Assessment Plan 38. E-mail to elementary principals, Feb. 1, 2000, providing information on the use of calculators on Benchmark examinations 39. E-mail to principals, Feb. 3, 2000, providing copy of assessment schedule/matrix to distribute to teachers 40. Document prepared in fall 1999 by PRE on Achievement Level Tests: Assessments that Make a Difference 41. Memorandum to all principals and test coordinators, Mar. 17, 2000, establishing training sessions for the administration of the Benchmark and end-of-course examinations 42, Memorandum in Apr. 5, 2000, Learning Links to high school principals and test coordinators providing new information from ADE on the end-of-course literacy examination 343. E-mail to Kathy Lease and Les Carnine, Apr. 7, 2000, providing rationale for adding science assessments to the Achievement Level Tests 44. Memorandum in Aug. 30, 2000, Learning Links to elementary principals and K-2 teachers including pre-testing instructions for the Observation Survey and Developmental Reading Assessment 45. Memorandum in Aug. 30, 2000, Learning Links to all principals and test coordinators establishing inservice schedule for administration of the SAT9 and ALTs 46. Memorandum in Sept. 8, 2000, Learning Links to elementary principals relating to K- 2 assessment and the importance of the language arts instructional block 47. Memorandum in Sept. 27, 2000, Learning Links to elementary and middle school principals relating to the administration of the end-of-module tests in mathematics and the end-of-unit tests in science 48. Memorandum in Sept. 26, 2000, Learning Links to elementary principals relating to instructions to complete the Observation Survey and Developmental Reading Assessment 49. Memorandum to principals, Oct. 13, 2000, requesting feedback through a survey for consideration by the Assessment Focus Group\ncopy of survey attached 50. Memorandum to principals, Feb. 13, 2001, with information on the administration of the climate surveys for parents, teachers, students, and administrators 51. E-mail, Feb. 26, 2001, relating to administration of surveys for the Extended Year Education school evaluation 52. E-mail to curriculum directors, Feb. 27, 2001, relating to discussion of the potential purchase of an electronic curriculum/assessment management system 53. E-mail to principals and selected others on Mar. 1, 2001, relating to an information session on ALT online testing 54. E-mail to principals. Mar. 1, 2001, providing spring testing schedule for elementary, middle, and high schools 55. E-mail to Les Carnine, Mar. 8, 2001, providing outline of PRE responsibilities for Dr. James, incoming superintendent 56. Memorandum to elementary principals. Mar. 14, 2001, providing information on end- of-module mathematics criterion-referenced tests 457. E-mail between various staff. Mar. 14-15, 2001, relating to analysis of results of mathematics and science criterion-referenced tests 58. Document entitled Mathematics, Reading, and Language Achievement Tests\nAdministration Guide prepared by PRE for use in training sessions for the ALTs, 2000-01 59. Memorandum to elementary principals and teachers in Feb. 3, 1999, Learning Links. attaching the results for the second quarter reading and mathematics CRTs 60. Memorandum to Les Camine, June 1, 1999, providing status report on the development of the Quality Index and reporting on recommendations of Dr. Steve Ross relating to the assessment program 61. E-mail to Cabinet, Sept. 28, 1999, providing preview of grade 8 Benchmark examination results 62. E-mail to middle school principals, Oct. 8, 1999, relating to dissemination of Benchmark results 63. E-mail between Lucy Neal and Kathy Lease, Oct. 28-Nov. 2, 1999, relating to need for SAT9 scores to evaluate Title VI 64. Memorandum to Judy Milam, Nov. 4, 1999, requesting report on quarterly SFA assessments 65. Memorandum to Kathy Lease, Nov. 4, 1999, requesting report on DRA results for fall 66. E-mail to Kathy Lease, Dec. 3, 1999, advising her of Dr. Camines request for results of climate surveys 67. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, Apr. 3, 2000, with report on Advanced Placement scores 68. Memorandum to principals in Apr. 5, 2000, Learning Links providing information on packets being sent to schools on ALT results 69. E-mail to John Ruflfins and Kathy Lease, Apr. 12, 2000, requesting course enrollment data for NSF report 70. Memorandum to principals and teachers in Apr. 26, 2000, Learning Links with comparisons of second quarter CRT results for 1998-99 and 1999-2000 71. E-mail to Diane Barksdale, Apr. 19, 2000, providing feedback on ALT scores 72. Memorandum to all principals in May 10, 2000, Learning Links providing information about a data interpretation workshop to be conducted by NWEA staff 573. Memorandum to counselors and ALT coordinators in May 10, 2000, Learning Links providing information about a data interpretation workshop to be conducted by NWEA staff 74. Memorandum to professional staff of Division of Instruction in May 10, 2000, Learning Links providing information about a data interpretation workshop to be conducted by NWEA staff 75. E-mail to Dennis Glasgow and Ed Williams, May 15, 2000, requesting a special report on the middle school ALT mathematics scores 76. E-mail to SFA principals. May 23, 2000, relating to training for SFA schools for improved academic achievement 77. E-mail to Virginia Johnson, May 19-23, 2000, relating to data collections for NSF evaluations and results of middle school student survey 78. E-mail to elementary principals, June 1, 2000, relating to results of 1999-2000 Developmental Reading Assessment 79. E-mail to Kathy Lease, June 7, 2000, requesting report on Science ALTs 80. E-mail to Virginia Johnson and Ed Williams, June 7, 2000, relating to data requests from Dr. Gamine 81. E-mail to Kathy Lease, June 7, 2000, requesting results of middle school student survey 82. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, June 23, 2000, requesting interpretation of DRA results 83. E-mail to Les Gamine, July 7, 2000, providing information on interpretation of DRA results 84. E-mail to Kathy Lease, Ed Williams, and Linda Austin, July 13, 2000, requesting data for Southwest Education Development Lab relating to implementation of the Collaborative Action Team 85. E-mail to Sadie Mitchell and Frances Cawthon Jones, July 14, 2000, relating to DRA interpretations 86. E-mail to Pat Busbea, Patricia Price, and Ed Williams, July 14, 2000, relating to interpretation of DRA results\nattached document defines proficient 87. E-mail to Patricia Price and Pat Busbea, July 17, 2000, requesting correlation of teacher participation in ELLA training and student achievement 688. E-mail to elementary staff, July 21, 2000, attaching copy of presentation slides to the Campus Leadership Institute on DRA results 89. E-mail to Leon Adams, July 28, 2000, providing rationale from Mitchell Academy for the abandonment of Success for All, based on data analysis 90. E-mail to selected SFA principals, Aug. 8, 2000, with report on achievement of SFA schools as compared to others and with suggestions on possible abandonment of SFA based on data analysis 91. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, Aug. 9, 2000, from Freddie Fields relating to possible modification of SFA and requesting ELLA training, based on data analysis 92. E-mail to Kathy Lease, Sept. 14, 2000, from Linda Austin requesting copy of LRSD Assessment Notebook 93. Memorandum to curriculum division, Oct. 25, 2000, announcing available reports on grades 4 and 8 Benchmark examinations 94. Memorandum to Board of Directors, Oct. 25, 2000, announcing available reports on grades 4 and 8 Benchmarks 95. Memorandum to Cabinet, Oct. 25, 2000, announcing available reports on grades 4 and 8 Benchmarks 96. Memoranda to selected principals, Nov. 3, 2000, congratulating them for achievement on grade 4 Benchmarks 97. E-mail to Kathy Lease, Nov. 6, 2000, requesting several sets of data to include in Compliance Report 98. E-mail to Patricia Price and Dennis Glasgow, Nov. 8, 2000, attaching spreadsheets on Benchmark data by SES status 99. E-mail to Kathy Lease from Tara Adams, Jan. 17, 2001, requesting information on interpretation of the ALT results 100. E-mail to principals and cabinet, Jan. 17, 2001, with attached reports on SAT9 scores, five-year comparison\nSAT9, three-year comparison\nand SAT9 quartile report. 101. E-mail to principals. May 30, 2000, with attached sample letter to parents that can accompany the ALT results 7102. Document entitled Identified Issues from Data/Attendance Focus Group prepared by PRE 103. Group Document entitled Assessment Window prepared with advice from Focus 104. Document entitled Assessment Advisory Committee, 2000-01 with names of advisory committee members 105. Copies of PowerPoint presentation to Board of Education, Nov. 16, 2000: A Quick Look at the 4* Grade Benchmark Exam and a Preview of the SAT-9 106. E-mail to Steve Ross, Nov. 20, 2000, including feedback to a draft plan he had written relating to Ioan forgiveness 107. E-mail to principals and Cabinet, Nov. 29, 2000, with information on how to access test data on the ADE web page 108. Memorandum to IRC Staff, Dec. 1, 2000, relating to available SAT9 and Benchmark reports 109. Memorandum to middle school principals, Dec. 11, 2000, attaching reports on assignments of eighth graders to high schools 110. E-mail to SFA principals and facilitators, Feb. 23, 2001, announcing training on the SFA Student Data Base 111. E-mail to Virginia Johnson, Mar. 14, 2001, relating to analysis of end-of-module test results 112. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, Apr. 23, 2001, with attached information on the Duke Talent Search 113. E-mail to middle school principals, June 29, 2001, reminding them of information sent to them earlier about how to access test data on the ADE web site 114. E-mail to principals, June 29, 2001, attaching copies of DRA test results 115. Memorandum to Division of Instruction staff and others, Nov. 15, 1999, providing information on new requirements from the state on a personalized education plan, appointing a committee to develop a plan, and stating the committee charge 116. Memorandum to Board of Education, Aug. 24, 2000, requesting approval of the attached administrative regulations (IHBDA-R2) and review of other information 8117. E-mail to Dennis Glasgow, Patricia Price, and Suzi Davis, Sept. 15, 2000, requesting that they develop sample SAIPs for the teachers to use 118. Memorandum in Sept. 20, 2000, Learning Links to all principals from Bonnie Lesley stating a philosophy relating to the SAIPs 119. Memorandum in Sept. 20, 2000, Learning Links to elementary principals from Patricia Price clarifying the use of data in SAIPs and attaching sample SAIPs 120. Memorandum in Sept. 27, 2000, Learning Links to all middle school principals from Suzi Davis providing information on SAIPs and attaching sample SAIPs 121. Memorandum in Sept. 27, 2000, Learning Links to all middle school principals from Suzi Davis on how to use the SAtP form for parent conferencing 122. Memorandum in Sept. 27, 2000, Learning Links to middle school principals on how to use the SAIP form for middle school mathematics, how to use the ALT data to interpret need, and including a sample SAIP 123. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, Sept. 21, 2000, from Lillie Carter expressing appreciation for the copy of the SALP philosophy and the sample SAIPs 124. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, Sept. 27, 2000, from Eleanor Cox expressing appreciation for the SAIP philosophy and for the sample SAIPs 125. E-mail to middle school principals, Sept. 29, 2000, from Suzi Davis providing more assistance with SAIPs 126. Memorandum to Pat Price, Pat Busbea, and Ed Williams, Apr. 3, 2001, with attached document from Connecticut on interpretation of the DRA and use of that data with SAIPs 127. Memorandum to Division of Instruction, Dec. 3, 1998, with agenda for Dec. 9 meeting\nincludes reports on District-Level Curriculum Maps 128. Memorandum to Mona Briggs, July 16, 1999, with copy of a training notebook on curriculum mapping and with charge to put together a training program on curriculum mapping 129. Memorandum to Division of Instruction, Aug. 30, 1999, with agenda for Sept. 1 meeting\nincludes discussion led by Mona Briggs and Eddie McCoy on Curriculum Mapping Project 130. Memorandum in Nov. 9, 1999, Learning Links providing information on curriculum mapping with attached article 9131. Memorandum in Nov. 17, 1999, Learning Links to selected principals establishing training schedule for curriculum mapping training 132. Memorandum in Dec. 1, 1999, Learning Links to selected principals establishing training schedule for curriculum mapping 133. Memorandum in Jan. 12, 2000, Learning Links to selected principals establishing training schedule for curriculum mapping 134. E-mail to Mona Briggs, Eddie McCoy, and Kathy Lease, Jan. 18, 2000, requesting that they develop a plan for April inservice on curriculum mapping 135. Memorandum in Jan. 19, 2000, Learning Links to selected principals establishing training schedule for curriculum mapping 136. Memorandum in Feb. 16, 2000, Learning Links to selected principals establishing training schedule for curriculum mapping 137. E-mail, Feb. 15-17, 2000, relating to training for curriculum mapping trainers 138. Memorandum in Apr. 5, 2000, Learning Links to Brokers and IRC Specialists establishing training schedule on cuniculum mapping 139. E-mail to Mona Briggs and Marion Woods, Apr. 14, 2000, relating to additional curriculum mapping training 140. E-mail, Apr. 26~May 2, 2000, relating to plans for curriculum mapping 141. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, June 6, 2000, with information on curriculum mapping 142. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, June 6, 2000, relating to results of curriculum mapping training 143. Memorandum to designated principals from Mona Briggs, Aug. 23, 1999, providing information on standards for accreditation from ADE 144. Memorandum to elementary staff, Jan. 20, 1999, relating to an ADE evaluation of Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) 145. Memorandum to Kathy Lease and Ed Williams, June 29, 1999, on program evaluation with attached articles on qualitative research and an example of a research report from Austin ISD by Glynn Ligon 146. Memorandum to Division of Instruction, Feb. 1, 2000, with agenda relating to program implementation 10147. E-mail to Virginia Johnson and Debbie Milam, Feb. 4, 2000, suggesting a model for the evaluation of ViPS programs 148. Memorandum in March 15, 2000, Learning Link relating to progress made by schools implementing the ALT assessment program 149. Document from Kathy Leasecalendar of meetings with Dr. Steve Ross since March 15, 2000\nattached planning document on program evaluation 150. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, Mar. 24, 2000, providing information about a meeting with Dr. Steve Ross to discuss the middle school evaluation 151. E-mail to Kathy Lease, May 23, 2000, providing feedback on proposed middle school student survey 152. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, Marian Lacey, and Sadie Mitchell, June 12, 2000, from Les Camine requesting information about the middle school evaluation 153. E-mail from Steve Ross to Kathy Lease, June 27, 2000, with attached design notes for Title I/Elementary Literacy Program Evaluation 154. E-mail from Kathy Lease to her staff, Aug. 6, 2000, requesting them to place the memorandum and program evaluations on the Board agenda 155. E-mail from Kathy Lease to Les Camine, Aug. 10, 2000, providing copies of drafts of the ESL and middle school evaluations, then his questions and her answers. 156. Memorandum to Board of Education, Aug. 24, 2000, from Kathy Lease presenting the program evaluations: Title 1/Elementary Literacy, LRCPMSA (mathematics and science), English as a Second Language, and Middle School Transition and Program Implementation. Attached is her PowerPoint presentation\nProgram Evaluation. 157. E-mail from Steve Ross to Les Camine, Sept. 7, 2000, giving his feedback to the program evaluation reports. 158. E-mail from Debbie Milam to Cabinet members, Sept. 20, 2000, requesting permission to conduct interviews of parents on the subject of parental involvement. 159. E-mail from Kathy Lease to staff, Oct. 11, 2000, advising them of an upcoming meeting with Dr. Steve Ross related to program evaluation 160. E-mail from Virginia Johnson to Bonnie Lesley and Vanessa Cleaver, Oct. 20, 2000, relating to our required participation in an evaluation study conducted by the National Science Foundation 11161. Memorandum to Gene Jones, ODM, from Kathy Lease, Oct. 27, 2000, inviting him to an intensive work session with Dr. Steve Ross on program evaluation 162. Document prepared by PRE in November 2000 that lists Additional Programs and Strategies Requesting Evaluation 163. E-mail to Cabinet members from Kathy Lease, Nov. 28, 2000, attaching Dr. Steve Ross planned presentation to the Board of Education on Using Evaluation for Program Improvement: Lessons Learned 164. E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to Virginia Johnson, Jan. 2, 2001, setting up a meeting to finalize CPMSA program evaluation plan 165. E-mail from Virginia Johnson to Bonnie Lesley, Jan. 3, 2001, attaching her tentative plan 166. E-mail from Kathy Lease to Les Carnine and Junious Babbs, Jan. 5, 2001, providing information relating to outsourcing program evaluations to Dr. John Nunnery 167. E-mail from/to Virginia Johnson, Jan. 5-20, 2000, relating to submission of Core Data Elements to the National Science Foundation 168. E-mail from/to Virginia Johnson, Apr. 14-16, 2000, relating to CPMSA program evaluation issues 169. E-mail from Kathy Lease to Les Carnine, Jan. 22, 2001, attaching a draft of the work from Dr. John Nunnery 170. Memorandum (one of several) from Kathy Lease, Jan. 24, 2001, inviting participants to the first meeting of the Research Committee 171. Memorandum from Kathy Lease to John Walker, Jan. 24, 2001, inviting him to participate in first meeting of Research Committee 172. Agenda for Feb. 5, 2001, meeting of the Research Committee and sign-in sheet 173. E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to Eddie McCoy, Ed Williams, and Karen Broadnax, Feb. 16, 2001, to set up a meeting to discuss ESL program evaluation 174. Memorandum from Kathy Lease to Research Committee setting up Feb. 26, 2001, meeting 175. Agenda for Feb. 26, 2001, Research Committee meeting and sign-in sheet 12176. 2001 Invoice from Dr. John Nunnery to LRSD for services rendered, February-March 177. E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to CPMSA staff, Feb. 21, 2001, setting up a meeting to discuss the CPMSA program evaluation 178. E-mail from Virginia Johnson to Bonnie Lesley, March 14, 2001, providing updates 179. E-mail to middle school staff from Bonnie Lesley, Mar, 15, 2001, summarizing a meeting to plan for a Middle School Team Leaders Institute, including recognition of need to train team leaders on assessment and using data 180. E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to CPMSA staff. Mar. 19, 2001, setting up follow-up meeting to discuss CPMSA program evaluation 181. Memorandum to Carnegie Management Team, March 20, 2001, from Bonnie Lesley with information about counseling program and need for a program evaluation 182. Memorandum from Kathy Lease to Research Committee, Apr. 16, 2001, setting up next meeting on summer school evaluation and program evaluation for the National Science Foundation grant 183. Sign-in sheet for Apr. 23, 2001, meeting of the Research Committee 184. E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to Dennis Glasgow, Suzi Davis, and Laura Beth Arnold, April 17, 2001, to discuss program evaluation for Element 5 of the Safe Schools/ Healthy Students project 185. E-mail from Virginia Johnson to Bonnie Lesley, Apr. 18, 2001, relating to next steps in providing information about SAT9 item analyses for teachers 186. E-mail from Mona Briggs to Bonnie Lesley, Apr. 25,2001, relating to survey needs for national evaluation of Safe Schools/ Healthy Students project 187. E-mail from Dennis Glasgow to elementary and middle school staff, Apr. 26, 2001, summarizing a large scale study that links classroom practices to student achievement in mathematics 188. E-mail among team working on CPMSA program evaluation, Apr. 18-May 2, 2001, relating to model for program evaluation and data analysis 189. E-mail from Kathy Lease to Research Committee, May 2, 2001, with attached latest version of the Guidelines for Program Evaluations 190. Agenda for May 7, 2001, meeting of the Research Committee and sign-in sheet 13191. E-mail from Don Crary to Bonnie Lesley, May 24, 2001, announcing that a program evaluator had been hired by New Futures to conduct the program evaluation for Safe Schools/ Healthy Students 192. E-mail from Kathy Lease to Research Committee with attached memorandum relating to ne?d meeting on June 11, 2001 193. Agenda for June 11, 2001, meeting of the Research Committee and sign-in sheet 194. E-mail from Junious Babbs to Bonnie Lesley, June 12, 2001, relating to information on program evaluation 195. E-mail from Kathy Lease to Compliance Team, June 14, 2001, with an outline of a plan for the completion of the Middle School Evaluation 196. E-mail from Kathy Lease to Research Committee, June 14, 2001, attaching a copy of final draft of Dr. Nunnerys evaluation of the mathematics/science programs 197. E-mail from Dennis Glasgow to Ed Williams, July 3, 2001, requesting additional ALT reports 198. E-mail from Vanessa Cleaver to others working on CPMSA program evaluation, July 10, 2001, requesting help in publishing a three-year progress report on the CPMSA 199. PreK-3 Literacy Plan (with needs assessment, see pp. 12-26), June 1999 200. Memorandum to Board of Education from Bonnie Lesley, June 24, 1999, requesting their review of the proposed PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan 201. Report on Level of ELLA training for K-2 teachers, May 10, 2000 202. Definition of Proficient for the Developmental Reading Assessment, K-2, May 2000 203. Report on Spring 2000 Developmental Reading Assessment, Percent At or Above Readiness 204. Correlation StudyAmount of Training Hours and Student Achievement on the Developmental Reading Assessment, Spring 2000 205. Correlation StudyMultiple Comparisons of Effect of Four Approaches to Literacy Development, Spring 2000 206. Executive Summary, Title I/Elementary Literacy Program Evaluation, July 2000 14207. Title I/Elementary Literacy Program Evaluation, August 2000 208. 2000 Updated Draft of Title I/PreK-3 Literacy Plan Program Evaluation, December 209. 2001 Progress Report on Elementary Literacy Plan to Board of Education, January 210. Update on Implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan, June 2001, presented to Board of Education 211. Copies of slide presentation to Board of Education on PreK-3 Literacy Program, June 2001 212. E-mail to principals and Division of Instruction from Bonnie Lesley, June 29, 2001, attaching copies of the formal Update on Implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan to the Board of Education, plus the Highlights documents, and a copy of the presentation slides. 213. E-mail to elementary principals and other staff from Bonnie Lesley, June 29, 2001, attaching tables of DRA results by middle school feeder pattern. 214. Evaluation of Success for All Programs, Little Rock School District, Year 1: 1997-98 by Steve Ross, Mary McNelis, Tracey Lewis, and Steve Loomis, University ofMemphis 215. Evaluation of Success for All Program, Little Rock School District, Year 2: 1998-99 by Weipling Want and Steven Ross, University of Memphis, July 1999 216. Memorandum to elementary principals from Bonnie Lesley in Sept. 1, 1999, Learning Links, assigning supervision of the Success for All program in the Division of Instruction for greater effectiveness 217. Memorandum to Kathy Lease from Bonnie Lesley, Mar. 31, 1999, attaching a copy of a contract for the evaluation of the Success for All program 218. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley to selected SFA staff, Oct. 8, 1999, setting up training on Success for All 219. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley to SFA principals, Nov. 11, 1999, providing to them copies of their contracts with the University of Memphis for SFA services 220. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley to SFA principals, Nov. 15, 1999, providing them a study on SFA effectiveness\nattached article, Success for All: A Summary of Evaluations, by Jeanne Weiler, ERIC. 15221. E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to selected SFA principals, Aug. 8, 2000, suggesting that data analysis indicates SFA not being effective in their schools\nattached tables. 222. Report on Success for All Inservice activities, 1999-2000 School Year 223. Reports from eight-week assessments in Success for All schools, 1999-2000. 224. Success for All Implementation Report for December 1, 1999 (site visit reports from the University of Memphis that are done twice annually) 225. Success for All Implementation Reports for Spring 2001 (site visit reports from the University of Memphis that are done twice annually) 226. Executive Summary, English as a Second Language Program Evaluation, July 2000 227. English as a Second Language Program Evaluation (submitted to Office of Civil Rights), October 2000Proposal to National Science Foundation, Aug. 1, 1998, to fund Collaborative Partnerships in Mathematics and Science Achievement (see pp. 2-4 for needs assessment). 228. Management Plan for Year One, 1998-99, CPMSA (based on proposal for funding to the National Science Foundation. 229. 1999-2000 Strategic Plan, CPMSA (based on data analysis and decisions about next steps) 230. September 2000February 2002 Strategic Plan, CPMSA (based on data analysis and decisions about next steps) 231. September 1, 2000August 31, 2003 Strategic Plan, CPMSA (based on data analysis and decisions about next steps) 232. Revised Three-Year Strategic Plan, April 11, 2001, CPMSA (based on data analysis and decisions about next steps) 233. Annual Progress Report, 1998-99, submitted to the National Science Foundation. 234. Letter from National Science Foundation to Dr. Les Carnine, May 20, 1999, with follow-up report to Site Visit of April 27-29, 1999. 235. Document prepared for December 3, 1999, Site Visit: Relationship of CPMSA Goals and LRSD Quality Indicators 236. Agenda for NSF Site Visit, December 3, 1999 16237. Letter from National Science Foundation to Dr. Les Camine, January 24, 2000, with follow-up report to Site Visit of December 1-3, 1999. 238. Annual Progress Report, 1999-2000, submitted to the National Science Foundation. 239. Copy of slide presentation to the National Science Foundation Site Visit team. December 1-3, 1999. 240. Letter from National Science Foundation to Dr. Les Camine, January 16, 2001, with follow-up report to Site Visit of December 6-8, 2000. 241. Copy of slide presentation to Board of Education relating to CPMSA progress. January 2001. 242. Copy of slide presentation to the National Science Foundation Midpoint Review (reverse site visit) in Washington, DC, February 5, 2001. 243. Letter from National Science Foundation to Dr. Les Camine, March 15, 2001, with follow-up report on Midpoint Review presentation in Washington, DC (reverse site visit) of February 5, 2001. 244. Systemic Initiatives Core Data Elements, 1998-99: Results for Little Rock, report submitted to the National Science Foundation relating to implementation of new mathematics/science programs 245. Systemic Initiatives Core Data Elements, 1999-2000: Results for Little Rock, report submitted to the National Science Foundation relating to implementation of new mathematics/science programs 246. Program EvaluationSigns of Success: Trends in Mathematics and Science Student Performance, 1997-98 and 1999-2000, report submitted by CPMSA Program Evaluator to project staff. 247. Program EvaluationBenchmark ExaminationOpen Response Mathematics Items: Student Outcomes of a Targeted Initiative with 4* Grade Students, 1998-99. 248. Program EvaluationACTAAP Benchmark Examination Mathematics Results, Grades 4 and 8, 1997-98 to 2000-01. 249. Program EvaluationDistrict Criterion Referenced Tests (CRTs), Higher-Level Mathematics and Science, 3^^ Quarter, 2000-01 250. Program EvaluationStanford Achievement Test, 9* Edition, Mathematics Results, 1997-98 to 2000-01. 17251. Program EvaluationStanford Achievement Test, 9* Edition, Science Reasoning Results, 1997-98 to 2000-01. 252. Program EvaluationAdvanced Placement Test: Mathematics Results, 1997-98 to 2000-01. 253. Program EvaluationAdvanced Placement Test\nScience Results, 1997-98 to 2000-01. 254. Program EvaluationAmerican College Test Results for 8* Grade EXPLORE, 1997-98 to 2000-01. 255. Program EvaluationAmerican College Test Results for 10* Grade PLAN, 1997-98 to 2000-01. 256. Program EvaluationAmerican College Test Results for 12* Grade ACT Test, 1997-98 to 2000-01. 257. Program EvaluationCompre\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":14,"next_page":15,"prev_page":13,"total_pages":48,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":156,"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}}]}}