{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_318","title":"Compliance hearing exhibits, 25","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":["1999/2001"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance hearing exhibits, 25"],"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/318"],"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":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"dcterms_extent":["354 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\nLRSD Quarterly Status Report School Monday, February 5,2001 QUARTER low 1 2,\u0026gt;.b4sSbiS9 liH^wr I W ak*\u0026lt;.4v*j WiTable of Contents Pre-AP and/or AP Course Enrollment John Ruffins Pre-AP and/or AP Grades - C or better John Ruffins Pre-AP and/or AP Course Drops John Ruffins Absent Teachers without Subs Richard Hurley Teacher Absences Richard Hurley Drop-Out Data Everett Hawks John Ruffins Disciplinary Data Linda Watson John Ruffins Assessment Data Kathy Lease Grade Distribution John Ruffins Academic High Risk Everett Hawks John Ruffins Average Daily Attendance (ADA) John Ruffins Volunteer Hours Debbie Milam Studenfs Enrolled in at Least One AP, PR^AP Course for 2000-2001 by Scho(^2nd Quarter Monday, January 29, 2001 _______________SchooL CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL HradsL__Total _ 09__L __58i_ IZJwlLI m7 T Gude. F M F M _ _F M i.Zj2ZX XbsZ j.._Xf Z CLOVERDALE MIDDLE SCHOOL T 06 ~r 3iT C07Zl_L25il. f 08 1 220 ~ DUNBAR INT'L STUDIES MAGNET MIDDLE SC I  Q6 _ZZ278 M  M F M F M F __Black 54 39 53 27 _ ^45 21 55__ _ 21 64 39 57 35 51 40_ _34_ FAIR HIGH SCHOOL______ forest heights middle SCHOOL HALL HIGH SCHOOL LKSD Information Service Dept. r 07 r 230 I 08 ^234 I 09 I 280 jo _X_222 I ____M_______29 _F M F M F M M i _ ll J - 198_____F I'\" L J2 L J89 X r 06 I 27^ LJ)7_.X_ Z254 rjO8Zl__241 L_ oXX. 4352 31 31 39 28 33 24 35 %Black 7% 10% _ 5% _J1% 5% __11% X% 21% 13% 23% 14% 23% 18% 12% .10% _ 13% 13% 17% 12% 12% _ _9% l6%  .. 28______13%_ M F M F M F __M _ ___F_, M F 31 3.1 21 17 31 30 29 16% 16% 11% 9% 11% 11% 11% I 1- X I i _.._,22_______9%__ ____28 29.__ .55 J 2% _ .12% __ ___13% White 83 72 96 72 85 67 108 69 7 2 5 2 5 0 33 38 26 37 31 39 7 5 9 10 3 10 __5__ 9 42 27 28 28 29 32 __32 %fr/iite Other %Other I- 14% 12% 18% 14% 20% 16% 21% 14% I ! 2/p 1%_^ 2% 1% 2% 0% 12% 14% 11% 16% 13% + t -i- 17% _ 3%\n2^/o 4% , 5% i 5% 3%_ _ 5% . 15 % 10% 11% _ 11% ! 12% i 13% 7/t\u0026gt; _9_ 5 X 14 6 4 3 7 1 2% _1%_ J/^ 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 3______1%__. 2 2 4 2 11 11 5 6 8 9 0 4 1 0 2 1 1% J__25L 1% 4% 4% 2% 3% .3% __ 4% __0%  1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 2______1%. 0 2 1 2 3 1 4 7 I 0% J% 0% _1% 1% 0% 2% 2% Pape / of 3__________________School HALL HIGH SCHOOL______ Grade Total render HENPERSON MIDDLE SCHOOL MABELVALE MIDDLE SCHOOL MANN ARTS_/.SCIENCE^MAGNET_ . MC CLELLAN HIGH SCHOlOL- PARKVIEW ARTS/SCIENCE MAGNET _ LRSD Information Ser\\\u0026gt;ice Dept. 09 10 _ 435 393 I 11 7 314 ~ LZi2_ZEZ26f P06 I 202 17. 07_ _ L _188 I 08 r 175 ----------r ] 06 L 185 LEiz ZIZ izz r 08 r 144 Z 06 7 290 I 07 r 21% I 08 Z\" 288~ I 09 I 369 IZioZZL_294_ I-._ZZlZZ.72wZZ: M F M F M F M___ F__ M _ F _ M F M F___ M _ F M _ _F M F M F M __F _ __M___ F___ M F M F M Black 15 3% 51 23 26. 15_ _ 42 ___32___ _^52_ _ 41 35 30 32 31 35 _ 16___ 31 20 52 33 44 35 __46___ 35 %Black 10% 19% 9% 16% 7% 10% _ J5% __21%._ 16% 28% 22% 20% 17% 17% _ 17% 20% 9% .22^/t^ 14% 18% 11% 16% 13% __16%. White 15 20 14 27 27 18 14 14 i %White Oth 3% 5% 4% 9% I t 9% J -I 11 io _ L-ZZ|2_Z72Q8^Z___F___ M 1 09 T 300 F r' 10^ 295 fZ-_nZZEL287 M_ _ F M F M F 48.__ 29 45 24 45 22 42 _ 22 _55__ _53_ 68___ 39 53 43 12%. _J3% _ 8% 15% 8% 16% 8% 20% _ 11% _18% Zl8% . 23% 13% ___185L_ 15% 8 20 12 6 6 15 10 12 9 64 33 41 46 68 36 _ 0 5 3 5 7 2 8 0 73 36 52 57 61 36 7% 5% 7% 5% 5% 4% 11% 7 _57___ 21% 57 I I j - i 7% 3% 3% 9% 6% 8% 6%_ I I 22% 1 I I I i i i 7 6 4 8 8 6 6 4 4 4 3 6 1 0 2 3 0 0 3 Z 7 11% 1 8 15% . 10 17% 24% 13% 0% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 4% 0% 24% 12% 18% _19%. i 2_l%-_ _ 13%_ _ 21% ' %Olher \\ 2%  2%_ ,___1%__ 3iL ___3%_ I 1 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% _3%__ ___4^ 0% 1% 2/t, 0% 0%\n__2'^h , J 2'^/o_ 6__ 5 1 2 0_. _bZ_ _ 3%_ _4%__ _ 2%_ 2% 2% 1% 0% _0% 1 3 2 2 2 14 6 9 __0% ___1%_ 1% 1% 1% 5% 2% 3% 5___ 13 5 7 _ ,5% 3% PaKe 2 of 3__________________Sdioid____________ PARKVIEW ARTS/SCIENCE MAGNET PULASKI HEIGHTS. MIDDLE.SCHOOL _ _ Grade__TotaL 12 06 275 222 LZqZZTLjm [L.-08ZZl 248__ 'ender M_ F___ M___ F___ M___ F SOUTHWEST MIDDLE school _ ~T 06 I 186 ~~ F I 07 1 174 08 163 lOrand Totals: M . M M LRSD Informallon Service Dept. BladL 3Q 15 19 26 18 _29_._ 23__ %Black 11% 7% 9% 10% 7% 12% fVhite. 32 29 %White Oth 12% 13% ! 54 24% 1 52 49 48 38 20%_ _ .19% ___ 26______14%____0 16 37 18 36 26 3112 9% 21% 10% 22% 16% 0 1 2 1 4 4 2425 I %Other 19% 15% 0% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 0 I 5 0 1 0 4_ 2^ 1 2 1 0 0 _0 359 X I 2% 0% 0% _ 0% 2% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% _1%_ 6% ___0%_ I 0 Page 3 of 3Stu^nfs that passed AP or Pre-AP Cou^s for 2000-2001 by School^ 2nd Qut^er Monday, January 29, 2001 __________________School CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL  T Grade f ZZqsO jjiiaL 581 I 10 T 527 r 11 I 428 ~' Black r%^ack 75 53 69 26 75 CLOVERDALE MIDDLE SCHOOL L i2__L^ Z r 06 i 311 jiZT 251. ? [ 08 [220 DUNBARTnT^ STUDIES MAGNET MIDDLE S 06 7 278 (tender F M F __ M___ __F_ M. _ If _ M F M F M F M _F___ m r 07^r 230 F I 08 I 234 FAIR HIGH SCHOOL___ I 09 LL280 f 10 222 t11 ~7 198 O2'\"J 189 FOREST-HEIGHTS middle SCHOOL T 06__[1273 l_07[_l_254 ll0811_.241 HALL HIGH SCHOOL _. LRSD Information Service Dept. II -JQ^ L 43r? M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F _51___ JB9_ 27 257 129 222 122 180 91____ 89_ 68__ _68 71 84 58 44 30 _70__ 52 13% 9% 13% __5%___ _J8% _ __12%_ __14% _ 5% 83% 41% 88% 49% 82% __41% _ _32% _ _ 24%_ 30% 31% 36% 25% 16% __1J% _ __32% White 231 196 322 _215 302 243 _ 363 191 22 6 18 9 14 __ 0 _107 142 86 109 88 116 13 4 31 I %irhite Other %Other 40%_ 34% : 61% 41% 71% 57% 72% 38% 7% 2% 7% 4% _ 6% 0% 38% 51% 37% 47% 38% I I 66______33% 23%____19 28 24 115 57 93 15% 13% 42% 32% 37% 6 17 17 19 179 108\n.61______24%,___ 67 64 28% ____27% __ ._ .79___1,._18% _ 26 17 20 55 25 20 13 23 5 I i 4%_ 3% 4% 10% 6% 5% 3% 5% _2% 10_____3%.. 5 6 _9 0 34 39 20 23 18 } i 2%_ 2% __4% 0% ' 12% 14% 9% 10% J___8% 50% 18 5% 1% 14% 9% 3% 9% I I .9%___. 0 9 4 0 2 1 6 4. I _8%_ 0%_ 3% 2% 0% 1% 1% 3% _ 10%______0. ..o%_ 66% 40% 124 I__49% 105 ,41% 111 117 61 46% 49% 14% I 10 4 4 11 3 15 7 __4% ____i%__ __2% ' 4% ' 1% 6% 2% Pape I of.1________________SduuiL HALL HIGH SCHOOL_____ Grade} Total 09 435 10 -J ---------------------------- I 3J374 i ZiiZJL 314Z I 12 I 267 HENDERSON MIDDLE SCHOOL  J 06 I 202 M F M F M F_ M F M 1_ . 07 _ 1^8_8 Z .. F L Q8_ I 175_ MABELVALE MIDDLE SCHOOL /  06 Zi J85l I MANN_ARTS/SCIENCE-S_MAGNET___ MC CLELLAN HIGH SCHOOL [ ? OlZ'' 172 r JosZJ  L Q6 _X1_29O r 07 T 276 r_b8 _ [ _288 71 r 09] 369 L 10 J 294 Ti L 282 L.122 C2O8 M , M F M F .,M____ F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F Black _ 65 113 48 79 14 L_ 31_ _ __14 _ _ 142 109 ___162 121 118 94 118 88 134 _ 48 __119 51 166 105 134 88 _131 ___.M PA^IEWARTS/SCIENCE MAGNET . _ 7ZZ7b9 ,X JOOZ Z7 F QioZ j Z 295Z [ 11 \"i 287 LRSD Information Service Dept. LZl2_2i_275Z._.._. M F M F M F 112 60 42 104 49 112 54 83__ _ 31 %Black 15% 29% 12% 25% 4% _12% 5% 70% 54% 86% 64% 67% 54% 64% 48% _ 78% _28% 83% 35% 51% 35% 49% 32% _ .__45% _ 39% __16% 11% 35% 17% 40% 19% __40% _ J 5% 94______31% 95___ 158 84___ 82___ 12 125 White \\ %White Oth %Other 32 45 46 66 41 26 21 56 48 24 20 56 29 24 17 60 37 _ 53 34 i * ! I j I- 238 i 119 i 141 174 236 123 0 6 __5___ 14 16 _2___ 16 0 _183 _.^32%____84 54% _ 28% 29% 25% _ 45% 151 144 7% 11% j 12% 21%. 13% 10% 8% 28% 24% I 13% . 11% i 32% 1 5 1_ 11 11 7 10 19 12 18 12 14 2% 1% ,__2% _ __4%_ _4%_ t i I I i 17% ' 25 13% 9% 35% 22% 37% L 24% 129 , 71 ..151 0 6 10 0 0 1 82% 29 41% 51% 63% 82% 43% 0% .2%__ _5% _ 6% . _!%_ 8% 0% 61% 28% 51% 49% 45% _ 29 36 19 24 29 4 0 3% 4% 9% 6% 10% _6%__ 8% i4%_ 0% 3% 6% 0% 0% 5% .\n_._lQ%-._ i 10%_... 13% 8% 10% 1% _ o%_ __Q._0%.._ _4 __ 6 ___1___. 3 4 44 24 31 9 42 I __ __0%_ 1% 2% 15% 8% 11% _ 3% 25%_____11 55% 21 15% _ 4% 8% Pape 2 of.i__________________School__________ PARKVIEW ARTS/SCIENCE MAGNET PULASKI HEIGHTS MIDDLE SCHOOL Grade Total 12 _0_6__ 275 222 _ L 07 _1_ i64_ SOUTHWEST MIDDLE_SCHOOL LRSD Information Service Dept. [ J38 _ r 06 T 186 L_ O7__T_174 [ 08 T 163 ender M F M F M _F_ _ M F M F_ M F M Black. QZ 45 51 70 45 _77L 54_ 44 118 65 79 ___59 %Black 23% 20% 23% 27% 17% 31% _22% _ 47% ^4% _ 68% _ 37% 48% 36% White\n%Wliite Oth\\ 74 127 222 205 165 188 145 0 4 1 4 1 I 4- 27% 57% 100% 73%_ 63% 7Q% 58% 0% 2% 1% 2% i %Other 15 5%__ 0 . 18 8 3 8 5 0 5 I 0% ^%^ 0% _?_%_ 3% 1% 4% 3% 0% 4% 0 4% 0 _3% ,0Z/o 0% Page 3 of 3October, 2000 LOCATION/DATE BOOKER 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 16 17 18 19 20 23 24 25 1 26 27 30 31 BALE BRADY____________ BADGETT__________ MCDERMOTT CARVER___________ BASELINE_________ FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FRANKLIN_________ GIBBS_____________ CHICOT___________ W. HILLS__________ JEFFERSON CLOVERDALE DODD_____________ MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL________ KING______________ ROCKEFELLER G. SPRINGS PUL. HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL ROMINE__________ STEPHENS WASHINGTON WILLIAMS________ WILSON__________ WOODRUFF MABELVALE TERRY____________ FULBRIGHT OTTER CREEK WAKEFIELD WATSON_________ MANN____________ DUNBAR__________ FOR. HGTS. JR. PUL. HGTS. JR. SOUTHWEST HENDERSON A.L.C._____________ CLOVERDALE JR. MABELVALE JR. CENTRAL________ HALL_____________ METRO___________ PARKVIEW J. A. FAIR________ MCCLELLAN CHARTER________ 2 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 31 1 33 T 2 1 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2J 1 1 2 1 1 3 2 3 6 5 1 1 12 7 1 2 1 2 3 2 Page 1 1 1 111 1 2 22 1 4 12 T 2 1 1 2 1 31 1 5 4 5 1 2 1 2 3 2 13722 3 6 89 2 13 1 2 2 1 2 4 1 2 22 31 4 1 11 13 43 1 1 6 11 1 2 T T 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 TOTALS 11 11 1 0623 021 91633 058 14 7 0133 12 05 2 022 0 51 79 17 24 6 0 18 26 27 7 3 4 11 84 Novermber. 2000 LOCATION/DATE BOOKER__________ BALE______________ BRADY____________ BADGETT_________ MCDERMOTT CARVER___________ BASELINE_________ FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FRANKLIN_________ GIBBS_____________ CHICOT___________ W. HILLS__________ JEFFERSON CLOVERDALE DODD_____________ MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL_________ KING______________ ROCKEFELLER G. SPRINGS PUL. HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL ROMINE___________ STEPHENS WASHINGTON WILLIAMS________ WILSON__________ WOODRUFF MABELVALE TERRY___________ FULBRIGHT OTTER CREEK WAKEFIELD WATSON_________ MANN____________ DUNBAR_________ FOR. HGTS. JR. PUL. HGTS. JR. SOUTHWEST HENDERSON A.L.C._____________ CLOVERDALE JR. MABELVALE JR. CENTRAL________ HALL_____________ METRO___________ PARKVIEW J. A FAIR________ McClellan CHARTER _____ 1 1 1 4 1 2 1 2 22 2 1 1 2 44 3 3 2 32 2 4 2 3 3 6 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 22 1 2 3 2 1 2 21 2 1 1 2 2 4 2 32 2 1 2 3 1 2. 2 2 1 2 3 5 2 3 5 62 22 224 2. 2 9 10 1 13 14 15 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 21 2 3 1 22 222 2 22 16 21 1 17 20 21 1 27 28 29 30 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 i_ 2 24212 25 2 23 6 1 1 7 1 2 2 2 3 1 2^ 2 3 2 1 2 21 1 1 2 1 2 1 222 2 4 1 2 2 2| 3 2 2 1 1 1 22 11 1 13 1 3 1 1 111 3 2 2 32 1 4^ 1 32 2 1 1 1 3 3 1 2 1 3 1 2222 24 21 2 1 1 1 4 2 1 1 32 2 3 22 I. 1 4 4 1 1 2 1 2 14 1 2 14 12 3 2 3 1 1 2 31 1 2 2 2 5 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 21 1 1 1 1 1 2 24 422 222 21 2, 2 1 1 2 2 2 21 2 2 22 266 682 2 76 2 221 42 6 4 22 4 6 342 22 3 1 2 1 3 2 22 21 6 52 21 2 2 27 2 1 2 31 4 521 1 2 13 1 1 3 1 22 41 4 3 2 61 11 11 6 2 2221 42 4 '2 5 2 22 2 51 922 221 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 Page 1 1 1 1 2 8 2 1 2 3 4 2 1 2 1 1 7 1 1 '2 8 12 1 2 TOTALS 56 14 14 11 9 56 19 8 28 2 10 10 11 2 13 22 39 13 10 21 19 26 4 8 1 52 10 0 1 14 35 52 67 26 32 26 6 44 31 64 28 16 25 32 76 8 December, 2000 LOCATION/DATE BOOKER BALE BRADY 1 1 4111 5 6 7 8 11 12 TOTALS 1 2 2 1 BADGETT MCDERMOTT CARVER BASELINE FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FRANKLIN GIBBS CHICOT W. HILLS JEFFERSON CLOVERDALE DODD MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL KING ROCKEFELLER G. SPRINGS PUL. HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL ROMINE STEPHENS WASHINGTON WILLIAMS WILSON WOODRUFF MABELVALE TERRY FULBRIGHT OTTER CREEK WAKEFIELD WATSON MANN 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 31 1 1 1 1 111 2 1 1 3 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 111 1 2 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 21 JI 3 11 1 2 3 3 Jj 1 3 1 4 1 3 2 1 1 3 3 2 31 1 3 4 21 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 11 1 2 31 1 1 1 111 1 2 1 1 2 DUNBAR FOR. HGTS. JR. PUL. HEIGHTS SOUTHWEST HENDERSON A.L.C. CLOVERDALE JR. MABELVALE JR. CENTRAL HALL METRO PARKVIEW J. A. FAIR McClellan CHARTER 26 5 6653135 11 1157 4 2 2 2 4 2 3 5 21 7 223 1 21 4 6 2 46 2 1 4 1 11 1 21 223 2 1 6 2 31 2 34 312 2 481 221 1 31 2 111 1 2 324 1 _4 4 5 1 Ji 4 4 1 1 2 116 11 261 1 3 1 2 7 ___ 2 36 5 2 5 2 10 3 3 81 0 8 3 22 3 78 2 11 15 1 6215 6114 19 17 22 14 13 19 3 14 23 37 11 5 14 26 48 4 Page 1 January. 2001 LOCATION/DATE BOOKER BALE BRADY BADGETT MCDERMOTT CARVER BASELINE FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FRANKLIN GIBBS CHICOT W. HILLS JEFFERSON CLOVERDALE DODD MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL KING ROCKEFELLER G. SPRINGS PUL. HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL ROMINE STEPHENS WASHINGTON WILLIAMS WILSON WOODRUFF MABELVALE TERRY FULBRIGHT OTTER CREEK WAKEFIELD WATSON MANN DUNBAR FOR. HGTS. JR. PUL. HGTS. JR. SOUTHWEST HENDERSON A.L.C._____________ CLOVERDALE JR. MABELVALE JR. CENTRAL________ HALL_____________ METRO___________ PARKVIEW J. A. FAIR________ McClellan CHARTER 3 4 5 8 9 10 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 41 1 2 1 2 12 2 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 111 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 3 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 2 2 1 1 1 21 11 11 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 22 22 2 1 1 1 1 4 3 1 21 1 2 2 1 12 6 51 12 11 1 2 1 3 1 2 1 2 TOTALS 0 1 2 1 0 2 3 7 2 3 2 1 0 4 3 2 1 10 2 7 4 3 4 4 1 14 0 3 2 1 0 4 1 2 3 11 19 15 1 4 4 0 6 7 4 4 5 0 3 12 0 Page 1 TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM OCTOBER 1, 2000 THRU DECEMBER 31, 2000 MONTH TOTAL SCHOOL: OCTOBER 13.50 NOVEMBER 12.00 DECEMBER 6 00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 31.50 SCHOOL: ACCELERATED LEARNING PROGRAMS OCTOBER 1.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 1.00 SCHOOL: ADULT EDUCATION SEPTEMBER 3.50 OCTOBER 17.00 NOVEMBER 23.50 DECEMBER 2.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 46.50 SCHOOL: ALTERNATIVE AGENCIES AUGUST -5.00 SEPTEMBER -15.00 OCTOBER 5.00 NOVEMBER 3.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: -12.00 SCHOOL: ALTERNATIVE LEARNING CENTER SEPTEMBER OCTOBER 4.00 17.00 NOVEMBER 20.50 DECEMBER 11.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 52.50 SCHOOL: ATHLETICS/QUIGLEY/SCOTT FIELD SEPTEMBER 5.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 5.00 Tuesday, January 30,2001 Page 1 of 13TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM OCTOBER 1, 2000 THRU DECEMBER 31, 2000 MONTH TOTAL SCHOOL: BADGETT SEPTEMBER 5.00 OCTOBER 8.00 NOVEMBER 16.00 DECEMBER 7.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 36.50 SCHOOL: BALE SEPTEMBER 6.50 OCTOBER 47.00 NOVEMBER 40.00 DECEMBER 20.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 114.00 SCHOOL: BASELINE SEPTEMBER 8.00 OCTOBER 63.50 NOVEMBER 64.00 DECEMBER 28.00 JANU/kRY 1.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 164.50 SCHOOL: BOOKER SEPTEMBER 14.00 OCTOBER 66.00 NOVEMBER 71.50 DECEMBER 30.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 182.00 SCHOOL: BRADY SEPTEMBER 4.50 OCTOBER 33.50 NOVEMBER 37.50 DECEMBER 16.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 91 50 Tuesday, January 30, 2001 Page 2 of 13TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM OCTOBER 1, 2000 THRU DECEMBER 31, 2000 MONTH TOTAL SCHOOL: CARVER SEPTEMBER 17.50 OCTOBER 129.00 NOVEMBER 74.00 DECEMBER 36.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 257.00 SCHOOL: CENTRAL SEPTEMBER 40.00 OCTOBER 141.00 NOVEMBER 124.00 DECEMBER 73.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 378.00 SCHOOL: CHARTER SCHOOLS OCTOBER NOVEMBER 5.00 7.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 12.00 SCHOOL: CHICOT SEPTEMBER 19.50 OCTOBER 133.50 NOVEMBER 91.00 DECEMBER 29.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 273.50 SCHOOL: CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY SEPTEMBER 18.50 OCTOBER 57.50 NOVEMBER 67.00 DECEMBER 17.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 160.50 SCHOOL: CLOVERDALE JR HIGH SEPTEMBER Tuesday, January 30, 2001 32.50 Page 3 of 13TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM OCTOBER 1, 2000 THRU DECEMBER 31, 2000 MONTH TOTAL OCTOBER 108.00 NOVEMBER 83.00 DECEMBER 20.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 244.00 SCHOOL: DODD SEPTEMBER 7.50 OCTOBER 52.00 NOVEMBER 33.00 DECEMBER 4.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 97.00 SCHOOL: DUNBAR SEPTEMBER 33.50 OCTOBER 134.50 NOVEMBER 153.50 DECEMBER 65.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 387.00 SCHOOL: ENGLISH NOVEMBER 2.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 2.50 SCHOOL: FAIR SEPTEMBER 30.00 OCTOBER 115.00 NOVEMBER 109.00 DECEMBER 58.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 312.50 SCHOOL: FAIR PARK SEPTEMBER 13.50 OCTOBER 34.00 NOVEMBER 36.00 DECEMBER 18.50 Tuesday, January 30, 2001 Page 4 of 13 TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM OCTOBER 1, 2000 THRU DECEMBER 31, 2000 MONTH TOTAL TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 102 00 SCHOOL: FOREST HEIGHTS SEPTEMBER 37.00 OCTOBER 140.00 NOVEMBER 144.50 DECEMBER 64.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 385.50 SCHOOL\nFOREST PARK SEPTEMBER 850 OCTOBER 41.00 NOVEMBER 48.50 DECEMBER 13.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 111.00 SCHOOL: FRANKLIN SEPTEMBER 3.00 OCTOBER 60.50 NOVEMBER 44.50 DECEMBER 21.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 129.00 SCHOOL: FULBRIGHT SEPTEMBER 7.00 OCTOBER 30.50 NOVEMBER 39.00 DECEMBER 8.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 85.00 SCHOOL: GEYER SPRINGS SEPTEMBER 8.50 OCTOBER 40.00 NOVEMBER 32.00 DECEMBER 25.00 Tuesday, January 30,2001 Page 5 of 13TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM OCTOBER 1, 2000 THRU DECEMBER 31, 2000 MONTH TOTAL TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 105.50 SCHOOL: GIBBS SEPTEMBER 2.00 OCTOBER 49.00 NOVEMBER 48.00 DECEMBER 15.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 114.00 SCHOOL: HALL SEPTEMBER 56.50 OCTOBER 142.50 NOVEMBER 125.00 DECEMBER 44.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 368.00 SCHOOL: HENDERSON SEPTEMBER 13.00 OCTOBER 90.00 NOVEMBER 129.00 DECEMBER 55.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 287.00 SCHOOL: INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS CENTER NOVEMBER 2.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 2.00 SCHOOL: IRC DECEMBER 1.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 1.00 SCHOOL: JEFFERSON SEPTEMBER 12.00 OCTOBER 37.00 NOVEMBER 44.50 Tuesday, January 30, 2001 Page 6 of 13 TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM OCTOBER 1, 2000 THRU DECEMBER 31, 2000 MONTH TOTAL DECEMBER 13.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 107.00 SCHOOL: M.L. KING SEPTEMBER 8.00 OCTOBER 41.50 NOVEMBER 32.00 DECEMBER 9.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 91.00 SCHOOL: MABELVALE ELEMENTARY SEPTEMBER 10.50 OCTOBER 13.50 NOVEMBER 28.50 DECEMBER 12.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 64.50 SCHOOL: MABELVALE JR HIGH SEPTEMBER 29.50 OCTOBER 101.50 NOVEMBER 91.50 DECEMBER 42.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 264.50 SCHOOL: MANN SEPTEMBER 25.00 OCTOBER 135.00 NOVEMBER 115.00 DECEMBER 69.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 344.50 SCHOOL: MATH OCTOBER 3.00 NOVEMBER 0.50 DECEMBER 2.00 Tuesday, January 30, 2001 Page 7 of 13 TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM OCTOBER 1, 2000 THRU DECEMBER 31, 2000 MONTH TOTAL TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 5.50 SCHOOL: MCCLELLAN COMMUNITY HIGH SCH SEPTEMBER 29.50 OCTOBER 130.50 NOVEMBER 183.50 DECEMBER 82.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 426.00 SCHOOL: MCDERMOTT SEPTEMBER 12.00 OCTOBER 49.00 NOVEMBER 52.50 DECEMBER 20.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 134.00 SCHOOL: MEADOWCLIFF SEPTEMBER 7.00 OCTOBER 27.50 NOVEMBER 14.00 DECEMBER 9.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 57.50 SCHOOL: METROPOLITAN SEPTEMBER 2.00 OCTOBER 22.00 NOVEMBER 26.50 DECEMBER 17.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 01.50 SCHOOL: MITCHELL SEPTEMBER 10.00 OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER 15.00 36.50 5.50 Tuesday, January 30, 2001 Page 8 of 13 TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM OCTOBER 1, 2000 THRU DECEMBER 31,2000 MONTH TOTAL TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 6700 SCHOOL: OTTER CREEK SEPTEMBER 2.00 CX7TOBER 12.00 NOVEMBER 24.00 DECEMBER 11.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 49.00 SCHOOL: PARKVIEW SEPTEMBER 24.00 OCTOBER 135.50 NOVEMBER 115.50 DECEMBER 45.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 320.50 SCHOOL: PULASKI HEIGHTS INT AUGUST -5.00 SEPTEMBER 2.00 OCTOBER 22.00 NOVEMBER 22.50 DECEMBER 10.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 52.00 SCHOOL: PULASKI HEIGHTS JR HIGH SEPTEMBER 23.00 OCTOBER 19.50 NOVEMBER 79.50 DECEMBER 30.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 212.00 SCHOOL: PUPIL PERSONNEL OCTOBER 9.00 NOVEMBER 4.50 DECEMBER 3.00 Tuesday, January 30, 2001 Page 9 of 13 TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM OCTOBER 1, 2000 THRU DECEMBER 31, 2000 MONTH TOTAL TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 16.50 SCHOOL: READING SEPTEMBER 0.50 OCTOBER 8.50 NOVEMBER 3.00 DECEMBER 3.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 15.00 SCHOOL: RIGHTSELL SEPTEMBER 5.00 OCTOBER 32.50 NOVEMBER 30.00 DECEMBER 18.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 86.00 SCHOOL: ROCKEFELLER SEPTEMBER 16.00 OCTOBER 74.00 NOVEMBER 58.00 DECEMBER 25.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 173.00 SCHOOL: ROMINE SEPTEMBER 10.00 OCTOBER 48.00 NOVEMBER 34.00 DECEMBER 8.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 100.00 SCHOOL: SCIENCE/ENV ED SEPTEMBER 0.50 OCTOBER 5.50 NOVEMBER 1.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 7.00 Tuesday, January 30, 2001 Page 10 of 13TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM OCTOBER 1, 2000 THRU DECEMBER 31, 2000 MONTH SCHOOL: SOCIAL STUDIES NOVEMBER TOTAL 4.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 4.00 SCHOOL: SOUTHWEST SEPTEMBER 31.50 OCTOBER 82.50 NOVEMBER 80.50 DECEMBER 33.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 228.00 SCHOOL: SPECIAL EDUCATION SEPTEMBER 3.00 OCTOBER 30.50 NOVEMBER 20.00 DECEMBER 7.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 60.50 SCHOOL: STEPHENS SEPTEMBER 13.50 OCTOBER 17.50 NOVEMBER 27.00 DECEMBER 27.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 85.50 SCHOOL: TERRY SEPTEMBER 11.50 OCTOBER 38.50 NOVEMBER 37.50 DECEMBER 20.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 107.50 SCHOOL: VOCATIONAL EDUCATION SEPTEMBER 6.50 OCTOBER 25.50 Tuesday, January 30,2001 Page 11 of 13 TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM OCTOBER 1, 2000 THRU DECEMBER 31, 2000 MONTH TOTAL NOVEMBER 22.00 DECEMBER 13 00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 67.00 SCHOOL: WAKEFIELD SEPTEMBER 10.00 OCTOBER 44.00 NOVEMBER 24.00 DECEMBER 9.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 87.50 SCHOOL: WASHINGTON SEPTEMBER 22.50 OCTOBER 98.00 NOVEMBER 74.50 DECEMBER 31.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 226.00 SCHOOL: WATSON SEPTEMBER 6.00 OCTOBER 45.50 NOVEMBER 36.00 DECEMBER 10.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 97.50 SCHOOL: WESTERN HILLS SEPTEMBER 6.50 OCTOBER 31.50 NOVEMBER 19.00 DECEMBER 9.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 66.50 SCHOOL: WILLIAMS SEPTEMBER 11.00 OCTOBER 57.50 NOVEMBER 41.50 DECEMBER 27.50 Tuesday, January 30, 2001 Page 12 of 13TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM OCTOBER 1,2000 THRU DECEMBER 31,2000 MONTH TOTAL TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 137.50 SCHOOL: WILSON SEPTEMBER 5.00 OCTOBER 29.50 NOVEMBER 20.50 DECEMBER 18.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 73.50 SCHOOL: WOODRUFF SEPTEMBER 7.00 OCTOBER 15.50 NOVEMBER 27.50 DECEMBER 6.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 56.50 GRAND TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 8,484.50 Tuesday, January 30,2001 Page 13 of 13 2ND QUARTER DROPOUT REPORT 2000 - 2001 [SCHOOLS ~i ACC leariF 9th Grade r 1 oth Grade 11th Grade ! I 12th Gradel enrollment 274 29 59 82 I 104 + CENTRAL 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade T 2072 600 537 426 509 %\nFAIR \u0026gt; 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade % HALL 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade % jgi MCCLELLAN :\u0026lt; 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade % 276 215 224 185 442 417 321 278 1149 366 296 282 205 PARKVIEW M62 ^4*' 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade % TOTZU-S - % \u0026gt;7 305 294 287 276 wyois . ... ,iz BM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.05% BF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 t WM WF 000 0 i 0 ! 0 00 0 000 i 0 0 00 00 0100 0.07%  '' '^5 0 00 00 0.05% I 0 T~o 00 0 0 01 0.05% I HM 0 0 0 0 0 0 .jOa 0 0 0 0 0 1 HF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0010 0.07% 0  0 00 I T I t OM 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0001 0.05% 0 00 0 0 x' OF TOTAL DROPOUTS fs. 0 00 00 00000 iW 000 00 0 00 00 0'^ 00000 -'XOSn: 00 000\n0\ns^'SyO'\u0026lt;': / . \u0026lt;0- 0 0000 0.03%: 0 000 0 \u0026gt;0.03%^ 0 0000 SB 00000 0411^^ ~ r- 0 0 00 00 000 0 0 6 \u0026gt; 023 0 0.34% 0 0 2 0 0.14% 0 00 00 ayO-.^ 0 0 0 o 0 0.07% 0 00 00 00 00 00 i) 00 00 0 0 00 00 1 0 0 0 10 0.07% 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 0.04% 1 0 0 0 00 I % 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 4 . 01 12 0 00 0 ^'TO:\n03 70 0 00 60 .-a.\u0026gt;0:. 000 00 .0.01^ T 0 00 006 00 00 0\n\u0026lt; 0 Compiled by the Office of Dropout Prevention 1/25/01 0 00 0 \u0026gt; .x,0. 0 000 14 0.19% 0 0.19% 0.23% 0.39% 0 00 0 a 0.69% 0 0.72% 2.18% 0 0 \"o 0 0 0 1 0 00 0 ojn6 I Schools Enrollment BM BF WM WF HM HF OM OF Total Dropouts % ALC 6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade % 63 1 8 12 20 13 6 3 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 4.76% CLOVERDALE i6th Grade 17th Grade 8th Grade % 760 300 238 222 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b b 0 6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade % 279 228 240 eorestOO^SI 0 0 b 0 0 0 o' 0 0 0 0 o' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0 _0 0 0 0 0 0 \" 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o' _0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 b' 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 o' 0 0 0 b 0 0 Z 0 _ 'o' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0\n0 0 0 'b 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 \no. 3 r  \u0026gt;rr ? . 6th Grade 7 th Grae 8^h Grade % 274 249 236 6th Grade 7th Grade 8 th Grade % 202 186 178 0 0 0 0 IM 0 0 0 0 6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade %  198 173 l\"46' 0 0 0 0 0____ 0 0 0 0__ b 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b 0 0 0 0 0 '0 b b 0 0 0 0 0 0 o' 0 294 276 284 '749.\nMANN I 6th Grade 7th Grad  PULASKI HTS^r 6th Grade__ 7th Grade_______ 8 th i^rad^_____ % SOUTHWEST\n^ 6th Grade_______ 7th Grade_______ 8 th Grade % 221 '269 253 529 181 182 166 TOTAL %  ' 5544 DISTRICT TOTALS % ::?,.-t2559 4.76% 0 0 0 0 7.69% 16.67% 33.33% 0 0 0 0 0 b 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6  0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b\no'Z 0 0 0 0 0 O q___ 0 'T 0 0 0 0 0 0 b o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 q 0 0 0 0 o' 0 0 0 b 0 0 0 0 3 0 J5% - 5 0 0 __0___ 0 :-.\n-0 r 0 0 0 b  : o-?\"- 5 0 . 0 0 0 0 . Osfe^ 1  0J4%^ 0.2% 0 0.01% 0 0 0 0 \"ZbS- 0 0 0 0 0.04% 'CSmpilS3~T72S^ 0 0 0 0\n0\u0026gt; 0 o' 0 0 iQ 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b o' 0 0^ 6 b 0 0 0 0 o' 3 ft M  \"s.- o.\nvO.'' 0.02% 0 0 __q 0 0 0 0 0 ^~o7 0\n. 1-. 0 0  0 .o: 0 o' 0 0.01%  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \" 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 I 0.05% i'z* 0.14%Memorandum Date: To: From: RE January 29,2001 Dr. Leslie Gamine, Superintendent Dr. Linda Watson, Assistant Superintendent Student Discipline First Semester and Second Quarter Disciplinary Management Reports The following data represents the First Semester and Second Quarter Disciplinary Management Reports for the 2000-01 school year. A comparative summary of the 1999-2000 and 2000-01 schra years is presented. The Discipline Sanctions by Reason Codes and Recidivism Reports for the 2000- 01 school year are also included. Attachments2000-2001 FIRST SEMESTER DISCIPLINARY MANAGEMENT REPORT2000 - 2001 First Semester Disciplinary Management Report Summary During the first semester of the 2000-2001 school year, the Little Rock School District experienced a marginal increase in the number of disciplinary sanctions, resulting in students receiving suspensions. However, the data indicates that the District had no expulsions during the first semester. The 2000-2001 First Semester Disciplinary Management Report indicates there was a 9% increase in the overall number of suspensions issued when compared to the first semester of the 1999-2000 school year. However, there was a decrease of 105 long-term suspensions/Alternative Learning Environment referrals representing a 57.7% decrease in students committing serious offenses. The data also indicates there was an increase of 287 suspensions at the high school level and a decrease of 66 suspensions at the middle school level. Forty-six middle level students served their suspensions in one of the Continuous Instruction Centers (CIC) that were established for middle school students through a federal grant obtained by the District. The data also indicates there was an increase of 35 suspensions at the elementary level. 1999-2000 2000-2001 Short-term suspensions 15S2 1843 Long-term suspension/ALE referrals 287 182 Expulsions 0 0 Totals 1839 2025 The Recidivism Report indicates the following: 1999-2000 2000-2001 Number of students committing offenses 1370(1839) 1447(2025) The October 1, 2000 student enrollment figures indicate that 25,525 students were enrolled in the Districts schools. Therefore the above data demonstrates that only 5.7% of the student population was involved in incidents that led to suspensions.Nama ACC LEARN AGENCIES CENTRAL FAIR HALL School EarolM 274 132 2072 900 1458 %Blk 76% 62% 55% Short Term Suspension BM I BF IFF Total ___\"L ._.i4 \u0026lt;4 0 4 15 [mcclella I [metro I parkview I Totals ALT LEARN CLOVR JR DUNBAR FORST HT HENDERSN MABEL JR MANN M/S PULHTJ 1149 _.4 0 1 .i2 31 LRSD Discipline Management Report 2000/2001 Semester 1 Long BM 0 1 OI-Fth-OI Term Suspension/ALE BF 0 0 IFM Total BM 1 0 Expulsion BF IFM IFF Total BM BF CIC 1 U'F ! Total Total ItSusp %Blk _11 1 0 0 0 0 -^1__?l___ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 __i__?. O ___ u u oj____0 i 0 2 32 0% 84% _________m|_____11 7^ I 934 60% 91% 1 I wl 1162 7147 63 760 747 759 566 617 854 61% 68% 97% 86% 59% 65% n% L 53% 79 83 4 4 1 14 11 70 17 3 1 i. 21 0 4 11 121 356 257 6 2 0 _ o|_____8 0 32 16 6 4 .l i Mm 10 LjI 224 __3o|_ 2 107| 55 i?L 44| 44 22 __ 28[ 10 70 I 79% 100 0 _0 J 0 0 0 0 0 _ii _.21. o| 0 0 0 0 93% 129 0 i 0 ! 0 67% 399 0 __4 4 43 0 0 0 0 0 ji 94% i 211 0 L  0 0 0 1 3 0 20 0 0 0 92% __ I _91%___I 99% 11__4-_.i- I _ .oL._.il__?i 22 0 __4__^.4. 4 4 4 ^1 ._._4__4. 4 4 0 0 0{ 221 0 0 0 0 o I 2?. iL,4 0 0 0 L_4. _,-_4 4. 1 11 12 14 6 21 1 0 1 0 0 0 886 34 170 o[ _ n 158 76 _ o|____40 73 1 12 6 9 3 2 I inj \u0026lt;1 l| l__?. 14 1 1 1 95 2 13 3 3 1 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 r 4 4 14 6 3 2 J ___I_____749_| I_________1*1___________?[_. .1____11__________^21____i SOUTHWST 529 J. 92% 38 I 6| 4 id 6 3 Totals BALE BASEUNE BOOKER CARVER CHARTER CHICOT DODO 5544 338 311 545 511 89 510 222 69% 76% 83% 56% 53% 65% 67% 65% LBSD lafarmatloa Sarviees Dept 469 212 0 H ^*1 4__4 780 1 47 0 0 A 2 H__1 .....4. L 0 0 L iL 2 2 .._91......4. \u0026lt;1 1 .. ..ol.. 1!. \u0026lt;1 4 3 10 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 - _..,4._. _iL_ . .4 ... __.4__ __..4L- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 983 0 0 0 0 0 0 t I _ ?l - -2. I i| t d__l 15 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _?.L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 97% 9 6 1 0 16 208 91% 2 2 2 0 6 93 81% S 0 3 0 __4 3 1 0 i 9 181 88% 1 1 1 t I__.4__1 0 0 0 I 0 I 1 83 68% ...5 L 0 I 4 1 .o.i....d 1 1..0 I. 2 47 26 91% 96% 68 I e5%_ I J 36 L 9% 1 ^4 4  4 4 4 4 72 0 2 ... l__.9 11__4. 11__sL 1 3 o|_ jI...... 11.4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 1 0 i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 15 0 0 46 876 89% 0 0 0 0 1 100% 0 0 0 ___0 j__ 0 4 100% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 100% 0 i 0 4 75% 0 [_ 0 13 100% 0 0 2 100% __11. 75% J Page I of 2Namt FORST PK FRANKLIN GEYER SP GIBBS JEFFRSN MI KING I MABEL EL School SnrolM 306 464 337 300 404 597 346 %Blk 37% 97% Short Term Suspension BM 1 . 3. BF 0 0 87% 5| 1 53% 41% 54% 75% WM I WF Total 1 MCDERMOT | 366 53% MEADCLIF J. 264 73% -j\u0026gt;L 0 1 I... Ji .. 3 21__sL 7 LRSD Discipline Management Report 2000/2001 Semester I Long BM 0 0 0 0 OlFtb-OI Term Suspenslon/ALE BF 0 0 0 0 FM l__i. Total BM 0 _ _ 4 - _l__ __4._. 4. __o|__4 0 0 Expulsion WM WF Totat BM BF CIC WM T ratal 'F i Tow/ 1 #Susp %Blk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ! 0 1 100% o| 0 I __Oj 0 0 0 0 0 MITCHELL I RIGHTSEL 278 264 ROCKFELR 412 STEPHENS 327 TERRY 490 WAKEFIEL 344 WASHNGTN 491 WATSON 451 WEST HIL WILLIAMS WILSON Totals GTolal __91__ I : .1._ I 4 2 4 0 _sI__5L__1 A 3 0 0 o|__o[_ _ _o 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .. 0 i 0 I 0 3 100% 0 12 50% 0 0 1__i 16 0 0 _l__4 0 0 0 0 0 0 i 0 7 57% ._4__L.__d. j__4 0 0 J_.4 0 L?*_1.. .L. d._I__l_..111-.-11 .  61% 94% 46% 81% 59% 96% 266 454 288 9979 22668 74% 52% 4 2 t ol 2I_0^ 0 5 0 0 o| d 4 t l i o| l _4 4 -._4Z o| o| 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 .J. I..._?.L _ 9. 4 4. 4 4 4 0 0 l_0l I 0 0 0 1 0 0 ___o| 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I y t . 0 0 0 0 [ _ 0 0 0 1 3 18 2 0 1 I____ 0 6 100% 67% 94% 100% 100% L J. ol 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I  i 0 25 92% 0 0 0 I 0 2 100% 4 .4 4 4 4 0 0 0 2 0 ___4 69% 68% 68% LRSD Information Strrica Dept 2 _ oj_____o|____10 l ^1 4_4 8 2 .9l__- 0 0 0 0 0 ___L J 0 0 0 0 .4__4 0 _4 4 0 0 o[_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L 0 5 100% 0 0 0 0 0 0 i 0 10 100% 0 0 _..4 msl 113b| 0 26 462 J__4 J__4 4__4 o| ol 4 l H.. 1 2 3 11 4 149 1797 0 0 0 0 1 0 9 129 0 0 33 *1__?!__A o| l \"I__4 J__4 J l 2^__i 0 0 1 0 18 182 __4 __.4 __4 __4 __4 __4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 __4 __4 0 0 ___o| _ _0 4 o| 4 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 I _  8 88% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i 0 i 0 0 0 0 2 7 100% 86% I .1. 0 2 100% .1... A 0  0 I 0 0  \\4b' 01 3 12 4 164 2025 100% 75% 100% 86% 69% Page 2 of 2Discipline Sanctions by Reason Code Year: 2001 Quarter: J to Quarter: 2 Ol-Feb-Ol Level_____ Senior High School_____ ACC LEARN LvI Coite Offense BM (FM OM BF fVF OF TOTAL 1 110 USE OF VERBAL ABUSE/FIGHTING WORDS/GES 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 020 BATTERY 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Senior High AGENCIES 1 062 1 110 2 030 2 040 2 080 2 110 2 115 3 121 REFUSE TO OBEY RULES OR DIRECTIVES USE OF VERBAL ABUSE/FIGHTING WORDS/GES THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT VANDALISM (INTENTIONAL DESTRUCTION/PROP DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN USE OF A WEAPON 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 6 13 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 7 16 1 Senior High CENTRAL 1 131 1 132 1 133 Senior High FAIR 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 010 020 040 090 100 105 110 115 121 122 150 060 072 090 120 140 050 060 062 080 090 100 110 010 030 040 2 2 2 2 2 2 050 060 090 100 110 115 120 LRSD Information Services Dept. USE/POSS ALCOHOL USE/POSS. DRUGS REPEATED SCHOOUCLASS TARDIES ASSAULT BATTERY FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN REPEATED VIOLATION - CATEGORY II OFFENSE FALSIFYING SIGNATURE/INFORMATION POSSESSION OR USE OF ALCOHOL BURN OR ATTEMPT TO BURN SCHOOL PROPER VERBAL ABUSE OF STAFF POSSESSION OF WEAPON INCITING TO RIOT TERRORISTIC THREATENING LEFT SCHOOL/CLASS WITHOUT PERMISSION FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES REFUSE TO OBEY RULES OR DIRECTIVES FAILURE TO SERVE DETENTION REFUSED TO SERVE DETENTION USE OR POSSESSION OF TOBACCO USE OF VERBAL ABUSE/FIGHTING WORDS/GES ASSAULT THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT GAMBLING FALSE ALARM NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN HARASSING COMMUNICATIONS 0 2 0 0 0 0 32 2 2 2 1 2 7 1 1 2 12 18 2 0 6 0 1 0 2 2 0 2 1 1 1 1 0 4 9 16 2 1 11 2 5 17 2 1 0 1 3 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 2 0 5 0 0 3 1 2 6 0 3 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 3 2 4 22 24 2 1 7 2 1 1 2 2 100 2 2 4 1 2 1 1 6 9 21 2 1 15 3 7 26 2 Page 1 of i Level Senior High School FAIR Lvl Code Offense___________________________________ 2 121 repeated VIOLATION - CATEGORY II OFFENSE 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 B,M W^T 'OM BF WF OF TOTAL Senior High HALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 Senior High MCCLELLA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 LRSD Information Services Dept. 121 122 123 124 150 071 072 140 FALSIFYING SIGNATURE/INFORMATION POSSESSION OR USE/PAGING DEVICE MEMBERSHIP AND PROHIBITIVE GANG/ORGANI POSSESSION OR USE OF ALCOHOL PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF VERBAL ABUSE OF STAFF TERRORISTIC THREATENING 030 050 060 062 070 110 132 133 010 020 030 040 070 080 090 100 105 110 115 120 121 122 150 071 072 090 092 MINOR ALTERCATION LEFT SCHOOL/CLASS WITHOUT PERMISSION FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES REFUSE TO OBEY RULES OR DIRECTIVES REFUSE TO OBEY BUS RULES/REGULATIONS USE OF VERBAL ABUSE/FIGHTING WORDS/GES USE/POSS. DRUGS REPEATED SCHOOL/CLASS TARDIES ASSAULT BATTERY THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT LOITERING OR CRIMINAL TRESPASS VANDALISM (INTENTIONAL DESTRUCTION/PROP NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN HARASSING COMMUNICATIONS REPEATED VIOLATION - CATEGORY II OFFENSE FALSIFYING SIGNATURE/INFORMATION POSSESSION OR USE OF ALCOHOL PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF VERBAL ABUSE OF STAFF POSSESSION OF WEAPON POSS./WEAP KNIFE/CLUB/FACSIM.BLADE LESS 140 TERRORISTIC THREATENING 040 050 060 062 070 100 110 131 133 010 020 040 050 070 080 BEHAVIOR THAT VIOLATES A PERSON'S RIGHTS LEFT SCHOOL/CLASS WITHOUT PERMISSION FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES REFUSE TO OBEY RULES OR DIRECTIVES REFUSE TO OBEY BUS RULES/REGULATIONS USE OR POSSESSION OF TOBACCO USE OF VERBAL ABUSE/FIGHTING WORDS/GES USE/POSS ALCOHOL REPEATED SCHOOL/CLASS TARDIES ASSAULT BATTERY FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT GAMBLING LOITERING OR CRIMINAL TRESPASS VANDALISM (INTENTIONAL DESTRUCTION/PROP 5 0 0 1 6 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 9 2 1 1 0 0 6 1 15 3 1 25 1 84 29 51 2 3 6 5 0 12 1 1 0 2 26 12 10 1 1 1 1 14 4 5 16 1 13 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 1 2 0 4 4 10 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 3 3 0 3 1 1 0 1 2 0 0 14 0 0 9 0 28 7 9 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 10 1 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 19 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 1 2 1 8 2 2 1 W 4 3 2 12 3 2 1 1 2 6 1 39 3 4 38 1 118 43 72 2 3 11 6 1 15 1 1 4 399 2 38 15 13 1 1 2 2 16 4 e 36 1 26 t Page 2 of iLevel_____ Senior High School MCCLELLA Lvl Code Offense BM UM OM BF WF OF TOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 090 105 110 115 121 150 072 090 140 NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN REPEATED VIOLATION - CATEGORY II OFFENSE POSSESSION OR USE OF ALCOHOL VERBAL ABUSE OF STAFF POSSESSION OF WEAPON TERRORISTIC THREATENING 4 2 9 43 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 2 26 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 -0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Senior High METRO 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 030 040 050 060 062 133 110 000 072 090 MINOR ALTERCATION BEHAVIOR THAT VIOLATES A PERSONS RIGHTS LEFT SCHOOL/CLASS WITHOUT PERMISSION FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES REFUSE TO OBEY RULES OR DIRECTIVES REPEATED SCHOOL/CLASS TARDIES DISORDERLY CONDUCT USE OF RAP RINGS,CHEMICAL AGNTS OR FACS VERBAL ABUSE OF STAFF POSSESSION OF WEAPON 0 1 4 5 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Senior High PARKVIEW 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 030 040 090 110 115 150 072 092 THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOLIT DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN POSSESSION OR USE OF ALCOHOL VERBAL ABUSE OF STAFF POSS./WEAP KNIFE/CLUB/FACSIM.BLADE LESS 1 0 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Senior High Middle School ALT LEARN 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 030 060 062 080 090 110 132 020 040 MINOR ALTERCATION FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES REFUSE TO OBEY RULES OR DIRECTIVES FAILURE TO SERVE DETENTION REFUSED TO SERVE DETENTION USE OF VERBAL ABUSE/FIGHTING WORDS/GES USE/POSS. DRUGS BATTERY FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT 080 VANDALISM (INTENTIONAL DESTRUCTION/PROP 090 100 105 110 115 121 150 NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN REPEATED VIOLATION - CATEGORY II OFFENSE POSSESSION OR USE OF ALCOHOL 1 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 3 1 5 2 2 1 4 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Middle School CLOVR JR 1 1 1 1 030 040 050 060 MINOR ALTERCATION BEHAVIOR THAT VIOLATES A PERSON'S RIGHTS LEFT SCHOOL/CLASS WITHOUT PERMISSION FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES 1 5 3 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LRSD Information Services Dept. 10 2 13 74 3 2 2 1 1 277 1 1 6 5 4 1 1 1 1 1 22 3 2 5 6 3 1 1 1 22 983 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 31 1\nPage 3 of 8 Level_______ Middle School School CLOVR JR Lvt Code Offense BMAVAt OM BF HE OF TOTAL Middle School DUNBAR Middle School FORST HT LBSD Information Services Dept. 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 062 080 090 110 133 020 030 040 070 090 100 105 110 115 120 150 000 010 071 072 REFUSE TO OBEY RULES OR DIRECTIVES FAILURE TO SERVE DETENTION REFUSED TO SERVE DETENTION USE OF VERBAL ABUSE/FIGHTING WORDS/GES REPEATED SCHOOL/CLASS TARDIES BATTERY THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT LOITERING OR CRIMINAL TRESPASS NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN HARASSING COMMUNICATIONS POSSESSION OR USE OF ALCOHOL USE OF RAP RINGS.CHEMICAL AGNTS OR FACS SALE OR DISTRIBUTION OF ALCOHOL PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF VERBAL ABUSE OF STAFF 140 TERRORISTIC THREATENING 030 050 010 020 030 040 080 090 100 105 110 115 120 122 071 092 140 040 060 062 020 030 18 6 1 4 1 6 3 22 0 5 1 2 2 28 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 9 0 0 7 1 0 0 28 1 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 29 6 1 12 2 6 3 60 1 13 1 2 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 3 32 1 1 1 1 3 2 3 208 MINOR ALTERCATION LEFT SCHOOL/CLASS WITHOUT PERMISSION ASSAULT BATTERY THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT VANDALISM (INTENTIONAL DESTRUCTION/PROP NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN HARASSING COMMUNICATIONS FALSIFYING SIGNATURE/INFORMATION PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF POSS./WEAP KNIFE/CLUB/FACSIM.BLADE LESS TERRORISTIC THREATENING BEHAVIOR THAT VIOLATES A PERSON'S RIGHTS FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES REFUSE TO OBEY RULES OR DIRECTIVES BATTERY THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING 040 FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT 080 090 100 105 110 115 120 VANDALISM (INTENTIONAL DESTRUCTION/PROP NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN HARASSING COMMUNICATIONS 0 1 3 0 3 17 1 1 6 2 3 5 4 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 3 1 6 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 15 0 2 0 0 1 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 5 4 38 1 5 6 2 4 12 5 1 1 2 1 1 0 13 4 1 47 2 5 2 2 23 4 1 0 1 3 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 8 2 1 23 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 93 1 1 2^: f 7^ f 4: Page 4 of 8Level_______ Middle School School FORST HT LvI Code Offense 2 121 BM Hlff OM BF HF OF TOTAL 2 2 3 3 3 3 Middle School HENDERSN 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 Middle School MABEL JR 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 122 150 010 071 121 140 030 040 090 100 110 115 150 071 060 070 110 010 030 040 090 100 2 2 2 2 3 3 Middle School MANN M/S 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 Middle School PUL HT J 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 110 115 120 121 071 072 060 110 020 040 090 100 115 090 130 140 030 062 010 020 030 040 080 2 2 2 100 105 110 LRSD Information Services Dept. REPEATED VIOLATION - CATEGORY II OFFENSE FALSIFYING SIGNATURE/INFORMATION POSSESSION OR USE OF ALCOHOL SALE OR DISTRIBUTION OF ALCOHOL PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF USE OF A WEAPON TERRORISTIC THREATENING MINOR ALTERCATION FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN POSSESSION OR USE OF ALCOHOL PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES REFUSE TO OBEY BUS RULES/REGULATIONS USE OF VERBAL ABUSE/FIGHTING WORDS/GES ASSAULT THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN HARASSING COMMUNICATIONS REPEATED VIOLATION - CATEGORY II OFFENSE PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF VERBAL ABUSE OF STAFF FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES USE OF VERBAL ABUSE/FIGHTING WORDS/GES BATTERY FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN POSSESSION OF WEAPON VIOLENT TAKING BY FORCE OR THREAT TERRORISTIC THREATENING MINOR ALTERCATION REFUSE TO OBEY RULES OR DIRECTIVES ASSAULT BATTERY THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT VANDALISM (INTENTIONAL DESTRUCTION/PROP SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES DISORDERLY CONDUCT 0 0 0 1 2 0 2 0 28 2 1 0 15 1 0 1 3 0 0 2 11 1 2 1 7 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 7 1 1 3 2 1 1 2 1 5 2 0 21 1 1 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 3 181 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 9 2 1 40 1 0 2 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 2 12 1 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 83 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 7 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 20 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 8 1 2 1 1 47 1 1 2 11 1 1 5 2 1 1 26 2 1 5 5 1 37 3 1 3 1 Page 5 of S Level_______ Middle School School PUL HT J Lvl Code Offense 2 115 REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN BM ff'M OM BF 3 1 0 1 WF 0 OF TOTAL 0 5 2 2 3 3 120 121 010 071 Middle School SOUTHWST 2 010 2 020 2 030 2 040 2 090 2 100 2 105 2 110 2 115 2 120 2 124 3 071 3 072 3 140 Elementary BALE 2 105 Elementary BASELINE 2 010 HARASSING COMMUNICATIONS REPEATED VIOLATION - CATEGORY II OFFENSE SALE OR DISTRIBUTION OF ALCOHOL PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF ASSAULT BATTERY THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN HARASSING COMMUNICATIONS MEMBERSHIP AND PROHIBITIVE GANG/ORGANI PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF VERBAL ABUSE OF STAFF TERRORISTIC THREATENING REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES 0 0 0 1 1 4 3 36 5 3 3 4 19 1 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 68 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 4 1 65 1 0 0 6 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 5 5 0 0 10 8 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 27 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Middle School 0 0 0 3 2 3 136 878 1 2 115 ASSAULT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 Elementary BOOKER 2 010 ASSAULT 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 040 FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 Elementary CARVER 1 030 1 070 MINOR ALTERCATION REFUSE TO OBEY BUS RULES/REGULATIONS 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 2 3 071 PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Elementary CHARTER 1 030 1 050 1 062 MINOR ALTERCATION LEFT SCHOOL/CLASS WITHOUT PERMISSION REFUSE TO OBEY RULES OR DIRECTIVES 0 0 1 2 040 2 105 FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES 1 1 2 110 3 071 DISORDERLY CONDUCT PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF 1 3 3 072 3 140 VERBAL ABUSE OF STAFF TERRORISTIC THREATENING 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 4 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 1 Elementary CHICOT 2 010 2 115 ASSAULT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Elementary DODD 2 010 2 110 3 071 3 092 ASSAULT DISORDERLY CONDUCT PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF POSS./WEAP KNIFE/CLUB/FACSIM.BLADE LESS 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Elementary FORST PK 1 040 BEHAVIOR THAT VIOLATES A PERSONS RIGHTS 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 LRSD Information Services Dept. Page 6 of i Level School Lvl Code Offense SM  OM BF Of TOTAL Elementary FRANKLIN 2 2 040 115 FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 Elementary GEYER SP 2 2 2 2 010 110 2 115 120 121 3 140 ASSAULT DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN HARASSING COMMUNICATIONS REPEATED VIOLATION - CATEGORY II OFFENSE TERRORISTIC THREATENING 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 Elementary GIBBS 2 2 040 105 Elementary JEFFRSN Elementary M L KING Elementary MABEL EL Elementary MCDERMOT Elementary MEADCLIF Elementary MITCHELL 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LKSD Information Services Dept. 3 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 110 115 071 FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF 140 TERRORISTIC THREATENING 060 110 030 030 040 060 062 010 030 110 115 071 100 110 040 105 040 060 062 110 010 030 040 090 100 105 110 000 072 091 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES USE OF VERBAL ABUSE/FIGHTING WORDS/GES THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING MINOR ALTERCATION BEHAVIOR THAT VIOLATES A PERSONS RIGHTS FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES REFUSE TO OBEY RULES OR DIRECTIVES ASSAULT THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT DISORDERLY CONDUCT FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES BEHAVIOR THAT VIOLATES A PERSON'S RIGHTS FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES REFUSE TO OBEY RULES OR DIRECTIVES USE OF VERBAL ABUSE/FIGHTING WORDS/GES ASSAULT THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES DISORDERLY CONDUCT USE OF RAP RINGS.CHEMICAL AGNTS OR FACS VERB/LL ABUSE OF STAFF POSSESSION OF WEAPON,KNIFE-BLADE 2 1/2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 2 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 12 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 4 1 1 1 3 1 18 1 1 2 2 4 6 Page 7 of 8 Level Elementary School MITCHELL LvI Code Offense 3 120 INCITING TO RIOT BM tFM OM BF 1 1 0 0 Elementary RIGHTSEL 2 100 3 140 SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT TERRORISTIC THREATENING 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Elementary ROCKFELR 1 030 1 110 MINOR ALTERCATION USE OF VERBAL ABUSE/FIGHTING WORDS/GES 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 WF OF TOTAL 0 0 2 0 0 25 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 4 1 Elementary STEPHENS 1 070 2 115 3 140 REFUSE TO OBEY BUS RULES/REGULATIONS REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN TERRORISTIC THREATENING 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 4 0 0 1 0 0 5 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 Elementary TERRY 1 060 1 140 2 040 2 115 3 071 3 091 3 140 FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES FALSIFY INFO/RECORDS (ELEM) FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF POSSESSION OF WEAPON.KNIFE-BLADE 2 1/2 TERRORISTIC THREATENING 0 0 0 0 1 0 10 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Elementary WAKEFIEL 2 105 3 071 REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Elementary WASHNGTN 2 010 ASSAULT 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 020 2 2 3 3 030 110 071 140 BATTERY THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING DISORDERLY CONDUCT PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF TERRORISTIC THREATENING 1 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 Elementary WATSON 3 140 TERRORISTIC THREATENING 0 0 0 2 0 0 7 2 Elementary WEST HIL 2 115 REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 Elementary WILLIAMS 1 030 1 062 1 070 2 115 3 140 MINOR ALTERCATION REFUSE TO OBEY RULES OR DIRECTIVES REFUSE TO OBEY BUS RULES/REGULATIONS REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN TERRORISTIC THREATENING 2 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 7 Elementary WILSON 1 060 3 092 3 140 FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES POSS./WEAP KNIFE/CLUB/FACSIM.BLADE LESS TERRORISTIC THREATENING 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 4 Elementary 164 Grand Total 2025 LRSD Information Services Dept. Page S of S Recidivism Report Counts each student once per total Year: 2001 Quarter: 1 to Quarter: 2 Ol-Feb-01 Level_____ Senior High School____ ACC LEARN Total 2 AGENCIES 19 CENTRAL 71 FAIR 92 HALL 247 MCCLELLA 172 METRO 18 PARKVIEW 19 Middle School ALT LEARN CLOVR JR DUNBAR FORST HT HENDERSN MABEL JR MANN M/S PULHT J SOUTHWST Elementary BALE BASELINE BOOKER CARVER CHARTER CHICOT DODD FORST PK FRANKLIN GEYER SP GIBBS M L KING MABEL EL MCDERMOT MEADCLIF MITCHELL RIGHTSEL ROCKFELR STEPHENS TERRY WAKEFIEL WASHNGTN WATSON WEST HIL WILLIAMS WILSON Senior High Middle School 640 20 126 69 118 62 74 21 85 100 675 1 4 2 4 13 2 4 1 3 8 6 3 10 2 5 17 2 5 6 7 1 6 2 2 12 4 Elementary 132 Grand Total 1447 LRSD Information Services Dept Page 1 of I 2000-2001 SECOND QUARTER DISCIPLINARY MANAGEMENT REPORT2000 - 2001 Second Quarter Disciplinary Management Report Summary During the second quarter of the 2000-2001 school year, the Little Rock School District experienced a decrease in the number of disciplinary sanctions, resulting in students receiving suspensions. The data indicates that the District had no expulsions during the second quarter. The 2000-2001 Second Quarter Disciplinary Management Report indicates there was a decrease of 135 suspensions, which represents a 12.5% decrease in the overall number of suspensions issued when compared to the second quarter of the 1999-2000 school year. There was also a decrease of eighty-three (83) long-term suspensions/Alternative Learning Environment referrals. 1999-2000 2000-2001 Short-term suspensions 1038 943 Long-term suspension/ALE referrals 179 96 Expulsions 0 0 Totals 1217 1082 The Recidivism Report indicates the following: 1999-2000 2000-2001 Number of students committing offenses 983(1217) 909(1082) The above data indicates there was a slight decrease in the number of students committing offenses during the second quarter of the 2000-2001 school year when compared to the 1999-2000 school year.School Short Term Suspension LRSD Discipline Management Report 2000/2001 Quarter 2 OlFeb-Ot Name A(^\u0026amp;^IES CENT^ FAIR HALL I MCCLELLA EnroUeti 132 2072 900 1456 I 1149 62% 55% 80% 91% BM 15 BF 2 ]_3 __1 Total Long BM METRO Totals ALLEAR^ DUNBAR FORST HT HENDERSN MABEL JR 1162 6673 63 760 141   566 517 I MANN _ I \u0026gt;58 I I PUL HT J 749 I SOUTHWST J____ Totals BASELINE BOOKER CARVER CHARTER CHICOT 0000 5544 _311 545 611 69 510 222 61% 67% 97% 66% 59% 65% 77% 79% 63% 56% _0^ 69% 56% 53% 85% 65% __21^___6 45I 16 \u0026gt;1 J I J k \u0026lt;1 1)4____si. 20 35 65 164 1 7 2 23 _ __________________12 I bI 3 I 2| o| n| i kild i 291 24 55 46 125 3Q 16 465 25 J_i 35 10 22 12 3 ....s!__jL \u0026gt;1 k ....8L....4_ 8| a| 96 42 76 0 0 45 1 7 43 I al l  .1?1.2.1__L -i Ui 253[ 2 22 111 1 8| l 12 14 1 I \u0026lt;1 .jL-jd -.__4._o i i 0 2 .L_ol. 3 13 ...o|_.. 0 A U4 0 0 . .i. o| 0 0 0 0 405 2 3 3 6 1 \u0026gt;11__.d Tenw BF 0 2 0 2 1 Suspension/ALE Total BM 0 0! 0 2 0 0 A 1 10 2 ol_ 27 _________ta 4 i .pL i Expulsion BF 0 0 0 ff'M 0 IFF I i Total 0 J__I______? i o| o| _o| .oJ_....9-L1- o| o|___l l o| o| I. o| o| l li- 2 5 6 1 0 1 1 3 0 1 1 2 ._..i 53 2 3 ___o|____8 4 k l l 0 0 0 0 0 0 1__ 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 i i i oLilki 1 1 1 4 o| ____1 ____i I____ol ___0 4 23 _1 0 0 -P 0 3  6 0 . ol- oj. 81 ol l i 33 ......oL_._4.__1. _o_l__.i.. .?L 0 1 2 .. o| ol. ..2 oJ o|___o[ .?!_4._i 0 3 K -i o| o| 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 2I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Al  I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ___0 0 0 __ o[ ___0 Al ,oL. 0 0 0 0 i i 0 0 0 0 1 i |fORCTPK j _.?06 I .?2%-.1 jL. .O.L ...ol . ol ._l__0I....0I. ol ol oj---o|----oJ I J 464 97% Ui 0 L d-?[ 2 0 I lL ol. 0 I ol _.aL. .. ol,. 0 0 0 0 i o| ol LRSD Information Services Dept. 0 2 _o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H BF 9 0 0 __0 0 0 0 C/C ff'M 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total ____.o|____ _i i 6 2 i i 1 1_-ol.-..-.?. 0 0 1_ 2 0 0 0 0 1 2L2 fFF Q I Total 9  I   -0l.. .0. i. 0 0 _ 1 _  I LL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ttSusp 21 45 191 _167 11 %Blli 78% 86% 95% l 0 0 16 6 7 1 516 29 120 52 91 45 ___82*____I 88% I 90% 83% 60% 87% .0.1__* L_ .i._...o I____o| __13 1 92% _2 i_____.O__. _.7 j____25 I 76% 1 J 1 o| 2! 81 1 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 L \u0026lt; 0.1.o[ 14 0 0 0_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .. o| 0 oL 0 0 0  0 0 0  i 0 ! 43 0 0 0 _ 0 0 o| -J I. 481 3 3 4 8 1 3 ai 69% 69% 100% 100% 75% 100% 100% 100^^ 100% 100% I of 2Name GEYER SP GIBBS M L KING MABEL EL School Enrollotl %Blk 337 300 597 346 87% 53% 54% 75% MCDERMOT Imeadcuf I I MITCHELL I 366 264 276 53% 73% 96% Short Term Suspension BM BF WM WF\\ Total 3j 1 3 ol 7 __4. __4 il jZi .l._.4 2 2 0 1 0 I STEPHENS _ 1___^ J I I I TERRY 490 46% 0 2 6 0 1 WASHNGTN WATSON WEST HIL WILLIAMS WILSON Totab GTotat 491 451 266 454 268 8213 20630 59% 96% ._.jL__1 1 12 0 0 0 ..L-J 0 4 L 3 LRSD Discipline Management Report 2000/2001 Quarter 2 BM 0 0 0 0 0 0 OI-Ftb-OI Term Suspension/ALE Expulsion CIC Total BF 0 0 0 0 WM Total BM BF WM WF Total BM BF I^F ! Total #Susp %Btk I__\u0026lt;L. ._4.. -4. __4__^4. _ 4 4 oj_i__i. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 57% oj_____0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 6 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 __?..l_ 0 0 3 12 67% 92% __il 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100% ii 0 0 3 jI oL_ o| A__1 _____9L._lL_I__i 74% 52% 89% M% 68% LRSD luformatioa Saroiees Dept. 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 4 o| o| 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .. 4. _1 3 B3| 0 14 250 4 2 0 0 j|__ 4__o|....?- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0_j___ o..,L_. 0 0 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 100% 83% 100% -4_. 4 ol I /L Bt) 33| 6 1 0 l l__ 4__4 _. 4 4..... 4 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 l l  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 67% 73 943 8 3 74 14 3 4_4 10 96 .__4_ _?L __4_ oL __gL 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 _4. 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I Q 0 0 3 1 100% 100% 0 I ...0.1.. i  .. 0 i 0 0 0 0 0 I I 0 2 7 1 83 1082 100% 86% 100% 87% 89% Page 2 of 2Discipline Sanctions by Reason Code Year: 2001 Level Senior High Senior High Senior High Senior High Quarter: 2 to Quarter: 2 School AGENCIES CENTRAL FAIR HALL LRSD Information Services Dept. Lvt Code Offense 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 BM WM OM BF Ol-Feb-Ol WF OF TOTAL 040 080 110 115 131 132 133 040 090 100 105 110 115 121 150 060 FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT VANDALISM (INTENTIONAL DESTRUCTION/PROP DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN USE/POSS ALCOHOL USE/POSS. DRUGS REPEATED SCHOOL/CLASS TARDIES FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN REPEATED VIOLATION - CATEGORY II OFFENSE POSSESSION OR USE OF ALCOHOL BURN OR ATTEMPT TO BURN SCHOOL PROPER 2 1 2 11 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 3 13 1 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 050 060 062 080 090 100 110 010 030 040 090 100 110 115 120 121 123 150 030 060 062 070 110 LEFT SCHOOL/CLASS WITHOUT PERMISSION FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES REFUSE TO OBEY RULES OR DIRECTIVES FAILURE TO SERVE DETENTION REFUSED TO SERVE DETENTION USE OR POSSESSION OF TOBACCO USE OF VERBAL ABUSE/FIGHTING WORDS/GES ASSAULT THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN HARASSING COMMUNICATIONS REPEATED VIOLATION - CATEGORY II OFFENSE POSSESSION OR USE/PAGING DEVICE POSSESSION OR USE OF ALCOHOL MINOR ALTERCATION FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES REFUSE TO OBEY RULES OR DIRECTIVES REFUSE TO OBEY BUS RULES/REGULATIONS USE OF VERBAL ABUSE/FIGHTING WORDS/GES 132 USE/POSS. DRUGS 133 020 040 070 080 090 REPEATED SCHOOL/CLASS TARDIES BATTERY FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT LOITERING OR CRIMINAL TRESPASS VANDALISM (INTENTIONAL DESTRUCTION/PROP NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT 0 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 10 4 2 4 9 2 3 0 4 1 1 5 1 1 1 0 2 5 1 0 15 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 13 21 2 3 1 5 1 2 2 5 17 1 4 2 \"as 2 2 4 1 2 1 1 1 i:  1- ( 6: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Page I of \u0026lt;Level Middle School School ALT LEARN Lvl Code Offense 1 BltT Hnr OM BF OF TOTAL 1 1 062 080 090 1 110 2 2 2 2 2 020 040 090 100 105 2 2 2 2 110 115 121 150 REFUSE TO OBEY RULES OR DIRECTIVES FAILURE TO SERVE DETENTION REFUSED TO SERVE DETENTION USE OF VERBAL ABUSE/FIGHTING WORDS/GES BATTERY FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN REPEATED VIOLATION - CATEGORY II OFFENSE POSSESSION OR USE OF ALCOHOL 1 1 1 2 0 1 4 2 2 1 3 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Middle School CLOVR JR 1 1 030 040 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 4 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 050 060 062 080 110 133 020 030 040 070 090 105 110 115 000 071 072 MINOR ALTERCATION BEHAVIOR THAT VIOLATES A PERSON'S RIGHTS LEFT SCHOOL/CLASS WITHOUT PERMISSION FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES REFUSE TO OBEY RULES OR DIRECTIVES FAILURE TO SERVE DETENTION USE OF VERBAL ABUSE/FIGHTING WORDS/GES REPEATED SCHOOL/CLASS TARDIES BATTERY THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT LOITERING OR CRIMINAL TRESPASS NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN USE OF RAP RINGS.CHEMICAL AGNTS OR FACS PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF VERBAL ABUSE OF STAFF 140 TERRORISTIC THREATENING 1 1 1 6 9 5 1 1 3 3 13 0 1 1 2 19 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Middle School DUNBAR 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 030 010 020 030 040 090 100 105 110 115 120 122 071 092 140 MINOR ALTERCATION ASSAULT BATTERY THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN HARASSING COMMUNICATIONS FALSIFYING SIGNATURE/INFORMATION PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF POSS./WEAP KNIFE/CLUB/FACSIM.BLADE LESS TERRORISTIC THREATENING 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 11 1 4 2 1 3 2 0 1 1 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 Middle School FORST HT 1 1 060 062 FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES REFUSE TO OBEY RULES OR DIRECTIVES 0 10 1 2 LRSD Information Services Dept. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 1 1 1 8 17 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 5 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 1 4 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 3 31 1 1 3 3 21 1 12C 0 1 0 0 6 1 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 1 Page 3 of I Level_______ Middle School School FORST HT Lvl Code Offense 2 020 2 030 2 040 2 090 2 100 2 105 2 110 2 115 2 121 3 010 3 071 Middle School HENDERSN Middle School MABEL JR 3 1 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 140 030 040 090 100 115 071 030 040 090 100 110 115 120 121 071 Middle School MANN M/S 1 110 2 2 2 3 040 090 115 130 Middle School PULHT J 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 030 010 040 080 100 115 120 2 121 3 071 Middle School SOUTHWST 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 BM Wt^F OM BF WF OF TOTAL LRSD Information Services Dept. BATTERY THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN REPEATED VIOLATION - CATEGORY II OFFENSE SALE OR DISTRIBUTION OF ALCOHOL PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF TERRORISTIC THREATENING MINOR ALTERCATION FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN HARASSING COMMUNICATIONS REPEATED VIOLATION - CATEGORY II OFFENSE PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF USE OF VERBAL ABUSE/FIGHTING WORDS/GES FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN VIOLENT TAKING BY FORCE OR THREAT MINOR ALTERCATION ASSAULT FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT VANDALISM (INTENTIONAL DESTRUCTION/PROP SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN HARASSING COMMUNICATIONS REPEATED VIOLATION - CATEGORY II OFFENSE PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF 2 0 20 3 2 1 11 3 0 1 1 1 0 14 2 1 8 0 2 7 0 2 1 4 1 0 1 1 4 1 3 1 2 1 6 1 1 3 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 0 0 0 8 0 1 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 6 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 32 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 3 1 1 2 1 91 1 21 2 1 19 1 45 2 12 1 2 1 4 1 1 1 25 1 5 1 5 1 13 2 1 10 3 1 5 1 1 1 020 030 040 090 110 115 124 BATTERY THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN MEMBERSHIP AND PROHIBITIVE GANG/ORGANI 1 1 23 4 3 15 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 25 2 0 9 0 4 0 0 1 39 1 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 2C 1 Page t of 6Level_______ Middle School School SOUTHWST LvI Code Offense 3 071 PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF BM' WM 'OM BF 0 1 0 1 WF OF TOTAL 0 0 2 3 3 3  i 072 091 140 VERBAL ABUSE OF STAFF POSSESSION OF WEAPON,KNIFE-BLADE 2 1/2- TERRORISTIC THREATENING 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 81 Elementary Elementary Elementary Elementary Elementary Elementary Elementary Elementary Elementary Elementary Elementary Elementary BASELINE BOOKER CARVER CHARTER CHICOT DODD FORST PK FRANKLIN GEYER SP GIBBS M L KING MABEL EL LRSD Information Services Dept. 2 2 2 2 1 1 3 1 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 1 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 010 115 010 040 030 070 071 030 040 105 071 072 140 115 010 071 092 040 115 110 115 120 140 040 105 110 115 140 110 030 030 060 062 010 030 115 Middle School 481 ASSAULT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN ASSAULT FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT MINOR ALTERCATION REFUSE TO OBEY BUS RULES/REGULATIONS PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF MINOR ALTERCATION FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF VERBAL ABUSE OF STAFF TERRORISTIC THREATENING REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN ASSAULT PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF POSS./WEAP KNIFE/CLUB/FACSIM.BLADE LESS BEHAVIOR THAT VIOLATES A PERSON'S RIGHTS REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN HARASSING COMMUNICATIONS TERRORISTIC THREATENING FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN TERRORISTIC THREATENING USE OF VERBAL ABUSE/FIGHTING WORDS/GES THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING MINOR ALTERCATION FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES REFUSE TO OBEY RULES OR DIRECTIVES ASSAULT THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN 1 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 2 3 2 1 1 4 1 1 1 2 2 1 8 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 7 2 1 1 1 1 6 2 1 3 3 1 2 1 1 3 Page 5 of 6 Level Elementary School MABEL EL Lvl Code Offense 3 071 PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF BM WM' OM BF 1 0 0 0 HF or TOTAL 0 0 1 Elementary MCDERMOT 2 110 DISORDERLY CONDUCT 1 0 0 0 0 0 12 1 Elementary MEADCLIF 2 105 REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 Elementary MITCHELL 1 110 2 030 2 100 3 091 3 120 USE OF VERBAL ABUSE/FIGHTING WORDS/GES THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT POSSESSION OF WEAPON.KNIFE-BLADE 2 1/2\" INCITING TO RIOT 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 Elementary STEPHENS 2 115 REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN 2 0 0 1 0 0 6 3 Elementary TERRY 1 060 2 115 3 140 FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN TERRORISTIC THREATENING 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Elementary WASHNGTN 2 110 3 140 DISORDERLY CONDUCT TERRORISTIC THREATENING 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 Elementary WATSON 3 140 TERRORISTIC THREATENING 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 1 Elementary WEST HIL 2 115 REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 Elementary WILLIAMS 1 1 030 062 1 3 070 140 MINOR ALTERCATION REFUSE TO OBEY RULES OR DIRECTIVES REFUSE TO OBEY BUS RULES/REGULATIONS TERRORISTIC THREATENING 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 Elementary WILSON 3 140 TERRORISTIC THREATENING LRSD Information Services Dept. 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 7 1 1 Elementary 83 Grand Total 1082 Page 6 of 6 Recidivism Report Counts each student once per total Year: 2001 Quarter: 2 to Quarter: 2 Ol-Feb-01 Level_____ Senior High School AGENCIES Total 15 CENTRAL 33 FAIR 54 HALL 152 MCCLELLA 124 Middle School Elementary METRO PARKVIEW ALT LEARN CLOVR JR DUNBAR FORST HT HENDERSN MABEL JR MANN M/S PULHTJ SOUTHWST BASELINE 11 15 Senior High Middle School 404 19 85 43 71 39 39 12 50 69 427 3 BOOKER 2 CARVER 4 CHARTER 8 CHICOT 1 DODD 3 FORST PK 1 FRANKLIN 2 GEYER SP 6 GIBBS 6 M L KING 3 MABEL EL 10 MCDERMOT 1 MEADCLIF 3 MITCHELL 6 STEPHENS 3 TERRY 3 WASHNGTN 3 WATSON 1 WEST HIL 1 WILLIAMS 7 WILSON 1 Elementary 78 Grand Total 909 LRSD Information Services Dept. Page t of 1LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research, and Evaluation Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition Percentile Rank (PR) Five Year Comparative Data By School, Grade, Subtest, and Race Badgett Grade 5 Bale Grade 5 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery \" No Students In this category I.Tfuett Set9_01 All Students Black Students White Students other Students 1996- 1997 PR 8 7 12 9 12 11 11 1996- 1997 PR 22 18 27 32 44 28 30 1997- 1998 PR 14 14 16 17 30 19 20 1998- 1999 PR 16 12 18 13 16 20 19 1999- 2000 PR 11 7 10 11 11 12 13 2000- 2001 PR 22 13 25 16 18 22 21 1996- 1997 PR 7 6 12 9 11 10 10 1997- 1998 PR 13 13 14 16 29 17 18 1998- 1999 PR 13 8 17 11 13 16 16 1999- 2000 PR 11 7 11 12 12 13 13 2000- 2001 PR 22 13 25 16 18 22 21 1996- 1997 PR 64 51 41 39 59 46 47 1997- 1998 PR 29 40 53 43 37 45 44 1998- 1999 PR 41 40 32 26 35 39 37 1999- 2000 PR 55332 86 2000- 2001 PR 1996- 1997 PR 1997- 1998 PR 1998- 1999 PR 1999- 2000 PR 2000- 2001 PR All Students 1997- 1998 PR 35 31 41 37 54 38 40 1998- 1999 PR 22 42 31 24 26 33 32 1999- 2000 PR 23 16 24 19 19 22 21 2000- 2001 PR 23 16 29 18 23 24 24 1996- 1997 PR 27 20 37 17 28 29 27 Black Students 1997- 1998 PR 29 27 34 30 48 32 33 1998- 1999 PR 20 42 32 21 23 32 30 1999- 2000 PR 19 14 19 16 15 19 18 2000- 2001 PR 20 13 29 16 20 21 21 1996- 1997 PR 95 83 76 84 85 84 84 White Students 1997- 1998 PR 47 43 53 49 64 51 53 1998- 1999 PR 29 45 30 36 39 40 39 1999- 2000 PR 76 24 76 42 60 53 53 2000- 2001 PR 35 26 30 23 29 34 34 1996- 1997 PR other Students 1997- 1998 PR 59 26 58 61 72 54 56 1998- 1999 PR 1999- 2000 PR 56 78 65 58 72 67 66 2000- 2001 PR 35 18 36 11 31 32 29 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research, and Evaluation Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition Percentile Rank (PR) Five Year Comparative Data By School, Grade, Subtest, and Race Base ine All Students Black Students White Students Other Students Grade 5 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 30 22 39 19 30 31 30 1997- 1998 PR 15 16 18 16 23 17 18 1998- 1999 PR 24 14 26 23 30 25 26 1999- 2000 PR 18 13 24 23 20 19 20 2000- 2001 PR 27 22 31 26 34 27 28 1996- 1997 PR 27 20 37 17 28 29 27 1997- 1998 PR 14 16 18 14 22 16 16 1998- 1999 PR 23 13 26 19 29 24 25 1999- 2000 PR 16 13 21 20 19 18 18 2000- 2001 PR 23 19 27 23 29 22 23 1996- 1997 PR 95 83 76 84 85 84 84 1997- 1998 PR 31 16 14 24 29 26 26 1998- 1999 PR 31 22 28 60 41 30 34 1999- 2000 PR 35 23 57 47 41 38 39 2000- 2001 PR 50 40 51 41 57 52 52 1996- 1997 PR 1997- 1998 PR 18 22 41 39 25 26 27 1998- 1999 PR 1999- 2000 PR 21 8 18 39 21 14 17 2000- 2001 PR Booker Grade 5 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 49 42 56 47 51 50 50 All Students Black Students 1997- 1998 PR 40 26 45 40 44 39 39 1998- 1999 PR 40 25 45 40 41 38 39 1999- 2000 PR 44 32 56 45 47 44 45 2000- 2001 PR 42 31 42 38 37 40 40 1996- 1997 PR 33 32 44 35 41 38 38 1997- 1998 PR 21 17 31 29 30 26 26 1998- 1999 PR 26 18 35 28 30 27 28 1999- 2000 PR 28 21 41 32 37 32 32 2000- 2001 PR 30 24 33 27 27 30 30 1996- 1997 PR 65 53 67 58 62 63 62 White Students Other Students 1997- 1998 PR 60 35 60 52 58 53 53 1998- 1999 PR 55 33 55 56 52 51 51 1999- 2000 PR 63' 45 70 61 59 59 60 2000- 2001 PR 56 37 50 50 45 50 51 1996- 1997 PR 52 46 62 63 42 55 55 1997- 1998 PR 56 48 55 48 53 53 53 1998- 1999 PR 81 32 73 45 63 66 65 1999- 2000 PR 55 37 81 32 53 51 49 2000- 2001 PR 58 48 61 54 65 61 61 ** No Students In this citegory I.Truetl SsS.OI LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research, and Evaluation Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition Percentile Rank (PR) Five Year Comparative Data By School, Grade, Subtest, and Race Brady Grade 5 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 48 32 52 40 49 46 46 All Students 1997- 1998 PR 25 16 24 22 27 25 25 1998- 1999 PR 29 25 30 27 20 31 29 1999- 2000 PR 21 16 24 19 18 22 21 2000- 2001 PR 35 27 35 29 33 34 33 1996- 1997 PR 27 18 43 24 32 32 31 Black Students 1997- 1998 PR 20 13 19 14 21 20 20 1998- 1999 PR 19 17 18 18 15 21 20 1999- 2000 PR 19 14 21 19 17 20 20 2000- 2001 PR 28 23 31 24 27 29 29 1996- 1997 PR 76 50 64 55 69 63 63 White Students 1997- 1998 PR 33 24 31 44 41 34 36 1998- 1999 PR 41 15 41 47 16 42 39 1999- 2000 PR 42 14 37 14 27 30 28 2000- 2001 PR 53 36 36 48 53 44 45 1996- 1997 PR 51 56 55 80 69 59 63 other Students 1997- 1998 PR 41 33 48 49 48 46 47 1998- 1999 PR 54 61 63 47 41 57 54 1999- 2000 PR 14 35 31 27 15 25 24 2000- 2001 PR 79 52 82 44 55 72 68 Carver Grade 5 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 60 46 54 53 60 57 57 ** No Students in this category (.Truett Set9_01 All Students 1997- 1998 PR 52 47 56 54 55 52 53 1998- 1999 PR 54 50 50 49 53 52 52 1999- 2000 PR 52 41 47 54 50 48 49 2000- 2001 PR 57 50 46 44 47 52 51 1996- 1997 PR 37 27 40 31 42 39 39 Black Students 1997- 1998 PR 22 21 30 25 33 27 28 1998- 1999 PR 33 30 34 26 34 33 33 1999- 2000 PR 31 24 32 34 32 31 32 2000- 2001 PR 30 26 27 20 26 31 29 1996- 1997 PR 77 64 66 73 76 72 72 White Students 1997- 1998 PR 78 70 77 80 74 74 75 1998- 1999 PR 73 66 64 74 71 67 69 1999- 2000 PR 79 63 66 80 74 71 72 2000- 2001 PR 82 73 69 74 71 74 73 1996- 1997 PR 91 84 83 92 88 86 87 Other Students 1997- 1998 PR 84 91 82 66 81 84 82 1998- 1999 PR 84 93 86 72 80 85 83 1999- 2000 PR 51 47 48 47 52 49 49 2000- 2001 PR 93 92 74 71 79 87 85 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research, and Evaluation Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition Percentile Rank (PR) Five Year Comparative Data By School, Grade, Subtest, and Race Chicot Grade 5 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery Cloverdale Grade 5 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery \" No Students In this cstegory I.Tfuetl SstS.O, All Students Black Students White Students Other Students 1996- 1997 PR 22 17 29 23 29 25 25 1997- 1998 PR 16 13 21 19 22 21 21 1998- 1999 PR 19 16 25 20 23 22 22 1999- 2000 PR 16 13 20 13 17 18 17 All Students 2000- 2001 PR 21 14 23 16 21 21 20 1996- 1997 PR 18 14 24 20 24 21 21 1997- 1998 PR 11 10 16 13 16 15 15 1998- 1999 PR 17 14 22 17 19 19 19 1999- 2000 PR 13 12 19 12 18 16 16 Black Students 2000- 2001 PR 20 14 23 15 21 21 20 1996- 1997 PR 43 26 46 39 51 41 42 1997- 1998 PR 62 35 56 57 60 59 59 1998- 1999 PR 45 36 46 41 47 45 45 1999- 2000 PR 38 19 30 23 16 32 29 2000- 2001 PR 32 17 22 32 27 26 27 1996- 1997 PR 1997- 1998 PR 1998- 1999 PR 1 2 5 8 5 3 3 1999- 2000 PR 19 5 19 10 7 14 12 2000- 2001 PR 20 7 16 14 15 13 14 White Students Other Students 1996- 1997 PR 22 24 32 17 25 27 26 1997- 1998 PR 29 35 35 26 35 34 33 1998- 1999 PR 48 56 54 37 37 59 54 1999- 2000 PR 22 29 26 22 21 29 27 2000- 2001 PR 23 38 42 23 23 37 34 1996- 1997 PR 22 24 33 17 25 28 26 1997- 1998 PR 26 31 32 25 32 31 31 1998- 1999 PR 47 55 53 35 35 58 53 1999- 2000 PR 22 29 26 21 21 28 27 2000- 2001 PR 24 38 44 24 24 37 35 1996- 1997 PR 1997- 1998 PR 66 80 68 51 78 66 66 1998- 1999 PR 89 92 80 96 94 90 91 1999- 2000 PR 18 31 14 18 7 21 19 2000- 2001 PR 2 38 18 10 9 25 21 1996- 1997 PR 21 6 10 12 18 10 11 1997- 1998 PR 1998- 1999 PR 1999- 2000 PR 42 48 34 39 33 39 39 2000- 2001 PR 18 22 19 13 9 23 20 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research, and Evaluation Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition Percentile Rank (PR) Five Year Comparative Data By School, Grade, Subtest, and Race Dodd All Students Black Students White Students other Students Grade Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 27 19 29 22 26 26 25 1997- 1998 PR 26 22 34 23 29 30 29 1998- 1999 PR 35 25 44 39 33 34 35 1999- 2000 PR 30 28 36 23 28 32 32 2000- 2001 PR 42 33 55 31 32 40 39 1996- 1997 PR 24 16 30 24 29 27 27 1997- 1998 PR 13 12 27 14 19 18 18 1998- 1999 PR 26 21 35 29 29 27 27 1999- 2000 PR 30 27 39 21 24 33 31 2000- 2001 PR 38 31 55 29 32 37 36 1996- 1997 PR 41 27 33 23 24 28 27 1997- 1998 PR 50 40 45 40 48 50 49 1998- 1999 PR 59 33 62 56 43 52 53 1999- 2000 PR 30 29 28 32 42 31 32 2000- 2001 PR 63 29 52 32 21 58 59 1996- 1997 PR 4 17 6 256 5 1997- 1998 PR 1998- 1999 PR 37 48 38 84 41 37 43 1999- 2000 PR 2000- 2001 PR 72 86 69 68 72 65 66 Fair Park 5 All Students Black Students White Students Other Students Grade Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 24 23 26 19 28 26 26 1997- 1998 PR 17 12 18 23 20 19 20 1998- 1999 PR 34 19 42 34 29 34 34 1999- 2000 PR 28 15 29 29 27 26 26 2000- 2001 PR 25 15 31 15 15 24 22 1996- 1997 PR 20 21 21 14 24 23 22 1997- 1998 PR 10 7 11 16 15 13 13 1998- 1999 PR 30 18 45 32 32 33 34 1999- 2000 PR 21 11 24 23 23 21 21 2000- 2001 PR 26 17 31 16 19 25 24 1996- 1997 PR 66 40 73 75 68 60 63 1997- 1998 PR 58 49 60 55 50 55 55 1998- 1999 PR 56 30 45 43 31 47 45 1999- 2000 PR 86 74 78 79 59 75 74 2000- 2001 PR 24 11 32 13 10 22 19 1996- 1997 PR 1997- 1998 PR 72 7 18 7 12 12 1998- 1999 PR 3138 2 33 1999- 2000 PR 2000- 2001 PR 5 ** No Students In this catogofy ITruett Sats Ot LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research, and Evaluation Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition Percentile Rank (PR) Five Year Comparative Data By School, Grade, Subtest, and Race Forest Park Grade 5 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery Black Students White Students other Students 1996- 1997 PR 43 43 51 41 51 48 47 All Students 1997- 1998 PR 58 57 60 65 73 61 63 1998- 1999 PR 65 51 63 45 60 61 60 1999- 2000 PR 80 64 71 58 69 71 70 2000- 2001 PR 66 54 66 50 56 60 59 1996- 1997 PR 24 26 36 27 31 30 30 1997- 1998 PR 28 25 32 34 50 33 35 1998- 1999 PR 33 27 40 21 30 37 35 1999- 2000 PR 36 29 35 16 36 34 33 2000- 2001 PR 35 26 37 27 28 34 32 1996- 1997 PR 73 67 71 60 77 71 71 1997- 1998 PR 85 84 83 87 88 85 86 1998- 1999 PR 85 70 79 66 81 78 77 1999- 2000 PR 91 79 84 78 80 83 82 2000- 2001 PR 87 77 86 70 78 81 80 1996- 1997 PR 7 86 35 52 37 39 40 1997- 1998 PR 51 63 61 74 85 62 66 1998- 1999 PR 1999- 2000 PR 83 83 69 58 94 83 82 2000- 2001 PR Franklin All Students Black Students White Students Other Students Grade 5 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 15 10 18 13 19 16 15 1997- 1998 PR 17 15 24 15 19 21 20 1998- 1999 PR 19 27 21 18 18 25 24 1999- 2000 PR 19 15 18 18 16 20 20 2000- 2001 PR 24 28 39 21 25 30 29 1996- 1997 PR 15 10 17 13 19 15 15 1997- 1998 PR 16 15 23 14 19 20 20 1998- 1999 PR 18 25 20 16 16 24 23 1999- 2000 PR 18 15 17 17 16 19 19 2000- 2001 PR 24 27 38 21 25 30 28 1996- 1997 PR 10 3 4 8 18 12 12 1997- 1998 PR 49 13 69 39 48 33 35 1998- 1999 PR 61 94 53 52 85 74 73 1999- 2000 PR 78 17 80 52 41 50 49 2000- 2001 PR 1996- 1997 PR 19 15 37 14 14 19 18 1997- 1998 PR 1998- 1999 PR 32 66 20 68 18 42 42 1999* 2000 PR 2000- 2001 PR 39 86 83 63 41 63 61 ** No Students In this cstsgory I.Truott SatS.OILITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research, and Evaluation Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition Percentile Rank (PR) Five Year Comparative Data By School, Grade, Subtest, and Race Fulbright Grade 5 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery Geyer Springs Grade 5 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery ** No Students In this category I.Truefl Sat9_01 All Students Black Students White Students other Students 1996- 1997 PR 49 35 51 44 49 46 46 1997- 1998 PR 58 38 54 49 54 54 54 1998- 1999 PR 52 38 43 40 48 46 46 1999- 2000 PR 53 34 47 43 48 48 48 All Students 2000- 2001 PR 64 51 50 51 55 57 57 1996- 1997 PR 19 18 26 20 22 22 22 1997- 1998 PR 39 22 35 28 35 39 38 1998- 1999 PR 34 22 32 26 33 32 31 1999- 2000 PR 27 17 27 20 26 26 26 2000- 2001 PR 36 29 29 29 35 36 35 1996- 1997 PR 78 56 75 70 76 71 71 1997- 1998 PR 78 58 77 75 75 70 71 1998- 1999 PR 74 63 59 61 69 66 66 1999- 2000 PR 71 50 63 63 66 63 63 2000- 2001 PR 80 66 63 66 68 70 69 1996- 1997 PR 1997- 1998 PR 80 88 86 92 93 81 84 1998- 1999 PR 1999- 2000 PR NA 45 41 27 33 NA NA 2000- 2001 PR 96 89 90 92 91 91 91 Black Students White Students Other Students 1996- 1997 PR 32 27 33 23 29 32 30 1997- 1998 PR 26 17 28 20 22 25 24 1998- 1999 PR 30 33 45 25 29 36 34 1999- 2000 PR 20 28 26 26 26 27 27 2000- 2001 PR 24 17 25 19 19 22 22 1996- 1997 PR 21 23 24 19 22 23 23 1997- 1998 PR 26 15 28 19 22 24 23 1998- 1999 PR 30 33 50 26 31 36 35 1999- 2000 PR 22 28 26 25 25 27 27 2000- 2001 PR 23 17 26 17 18 22 21 1996- 1997 PR 49 30 47 31 40 42 41 1997- 1998 PR 35 26 22 25 27 32 31 1998- 1999 PR 29 26 18 15 15 29 26 1999- 2000 PR 20 36 30 37 34 32 33 2000- 2001 PR 40 24 22 34 31 28 31 1996- 1997 PR 61 62 78 31 61 62 59 1997- 1998 PR 12 51 41 23 14 29 26 1998- 1999 PR 75 86 88 68 81 77 77 1999- 2000 PR 12145 33 2000- 2001 PR LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research, and Evaluation Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition Percentile Rank (PR) Five Year Comparative Data By School, Grade, Subtest, and Race Gibbs All Students Black Students White Students Other Students Grade Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 64 53 62 59 73 63 63 1997- 1998 PR 56 56 55 57 60 57 57 1998- 1999 PR 38 33 40 37 43 37 38 1999- 2000 PR 66 62 58 60 67 62 62 2000- 2001 PR 60 53 58 52 61 58 57 1996- 1997 PR 53 46 56 48 65 55 56 1997- 1998 PR 41 44 50 44 44 45 45 1998- 1999 PR 17 17 19 16 22 19 19 1999- 2000 PR 41 40 32 35 50 41 41 2000- 2001 PR 25 26 34 26 30 30 30 1996- 1997 PR 81 69 74 75 86 76 77 1997- 1998 PR 68 68 58 68 71 67 68 1998- 1999 PR 71 63 67 67 71 65 66 1999- 2000 PR 84 80 80 79 80 79 79 2000- 2001 PR 89 76 78 78 87 80 81 1996- 1997 PR 25 5 18 31 29 19 21 1997- 1998 PR 66 57 68 64 73 60 62 1998- 1999 PR 50 18 65 75 63 41 47 1999- 2000 PR 77 67 65 88 84 65 70 2000- 2001 PR 77 85 77 55 72 84 81 Jefferson 5 All Students Black Students White Students Other Students Grade Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 57 43 57 52 52 52 52 1997- 1998 PR 64 42 57 54 61 56 56 1998- 1999 PR 63 51 59 51 55 59 58 1999- 2000 PR 71 52 61 54 64 61 61 2000- 2001 PR 74 58 64 58 59 66 65 1996- 1997 PR 30 28 35 30 32 32 32 1997- 1998 PR 25 18 31 24 32 26 26 1998- 1999 PR 24 25 28 18 22 27 26 1999- 2000 PR 39 30 41 28 40 37 37 2000- 2001 PR 30 26 33 26 27 32 32 1996- 1997 PR 78 58 76 72 71 70 71 1997- 1998 PR 85 61 74 74 79 74 74 1998- 1999 PR 71 63 67 67 71 65 66 1999- 2000 PR 87 68 74 73 79 77 77 2000- 2001 PR 84 68 74 67 69 76 74 1996- 1997 PR 1997- 1998 PR 36 22 45 23 48 32 33 1998- 1999 PR 4 12 25 10 12 12 12 1999- 2000 PR 2000- 2001 PR 97 75 83 96 81 87 88 5 ** No Students In this cstegory ITruett Sit9_01 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research, and Evaluation Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition Percentile Rank (PR) Five Year Comparative Data By School, Grade, Subtest, and Race King Grade Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 54 42 51 43 51 52 51 All Students 1997- 1998 PR 38 35 41 40 44 40 40 1998- 1999 PR 54 61 50 48 53 57 56 1999- 2000 PR 46 37 43 41 42 43 43 2000- 2001 PR 47 32 52 38 39 44 43 1996- 1997 PR 37 23 37 22 35 34 34 Black Students 1997- 1998 PR 23 21 29 26 32 26 27 1998- 1999 PR 38 50 39 34 41 44 43 1999- 2000 PR 27 21 27 25 27 26 26 2000- 2001 PR 36 21 43 28 25 34 33 1996- 1997 PR 66 57 62 61 63 64 64 White Students 1997- 1998 PR 58 53 56 61 63 57 58 1998- 1999 PR 68 74 63 63 67 70 69 1999- 2000 PR 68 57 63 63 62 65 64 2000- 2001 PR 61 48 64 54 57 55 55 1996- 1997 PR 64 73 72 63 77 68 69 Other Students 1997- 1998 PR 54 61 64 44 48 59 56 1998- 1999 PR 70 59 48 54 48 62 60 1999- 2000 PR 39 73 32 31 59 51 50 2000- 2001 PR 60 53 62 34 77 65 63 Mabelvale 5 All Students Black Students Grade Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 31 30 40 32 42 35 35 1997- 1998 PR 31 22 30 22 29 31 30 1998- 1999 PR 22 21 26 20 22 27 26 1999- 2000 PR 21 18 25 17 18 22 21 2000- 2001 PR 23 17 22 22 27 22 22 1996- 1997 PR 23 24 37 27 34 29 29 1997- 1998 PR 26 21 27 18 27 29 28 1998- 1999 PR 22 18 25 18 20 26 24 1999- 2000 PR 18 17 21 15 17 20 19 2000- 2001 PR 17 13 18 16 20 17 17 1996- 1997 PR 59 46 49 51 64 54 55 White Students OtherStudents 1997- 1998 PR 40 20 37 31 32 34 34 1998- 1999 PR 23 28 28 42 29 31 30 1999- 2000 PR 17 21 29 18 15 22 21 2000- 2001 PR 52 41 47 53 62 49 51 1996- 1997 PR 86 83 72 58 94 77 78 1997- 1998 PR 75 55 53 39 63 62 60 1998- 1999 PR 1999- 2000 PR 86 29 78 71 48 73 71 2000- 2001 PR 71 47 49 54 68 49 51 5 ** No Students kt this category t.Tnjott Slt9_0tLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research, and Evaluation Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition Percentile Rank (PR) Five Year Comparative Data By School, Grade, Subtest, and Race McDermott All Students Black Students White Students Other Students Grade 5 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 42 33 40 36 44 44 44 1997- 1998 PR 39 33 39 37 47 40 40 1998- 1999 PR 56 53 52 48 55 55 54 1999- 2000 PR 44 44 46 38 41 46 45 2000- 2001 PR 49 28 40 32 41 39 38 1996- 1997 PR 26 21 27 23 29 29 28 1997- 1998 PR 22 19 28 21 33 26 26 1998- 1999 PR 44 47 41 36 42 46 45 1999- 2000 PR 21 30 30 24 25 30 29 2000- 2001 PR 45 24 33 25 35 34 33 1996- 1997 PR 70 53 63 60 71 71 70 1997- 1998 PR 72 64 60 70 71 66 67 1998- 1999 PR 72 61 65 65 71 66 67 1999- 2000 PR 76 62 65 58 63 67 67 2000- 2001 PR 78 54 63 62 66 63 64 1996- 1997 PR 47 56 56 37 44 50 48 1997- 1998 PR 47 50 40 33 55 52 50 1998- 1999 PR 56 61 63 48 74 62 62 1999- 2000 PR 53 53 67 53 58 55 55 2000- 2001 PR 34 23 57 42 48 36 38 Meadowcliff All Students Grade 5 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 32 22 38 27 30 31 31 1997- 1998 PR 37 29 34 35 30 34 34 1998- 1999 PR 21 12 22 15 16 20 19 1999- 2000 PR 27 25 28 19 19 28 26 2000- 2001 PR 47 34 40 33 33 40 39 1996- 1997 PR 28 20 34 25 28 27 27 Black Students White Students Other Students 1997- 1998 PR 33 28 34 31 27 33 32 1998- 1999 PR 14 8 17 10 13 14 13 1999- 2000 PR 28 25 27 17 19 28 26 2000- 2001 PR 35 30 34 29 27 33 32 1996- 1997 PR 45 29 50 37 39 45 44 1997- 1998 PR 56 37 38 42 43 46 46 1998- 1999 PR 61 45 51 47 30 55 52 1999- 2000 PR 12 15 31 34 25 23 24 2000- 2001 PR 76 47 55 43 50 62 61 1996- 1997 PR 1997- 1998 PR 25 11 18 58 41 18 23 1998- 1999 PR 25 13 21 22 25 25 25 1999- 2000 PR 46 40 57 39 14 56 50 2000- 2001 PR * No Student* in this category I.Truett Sets 01Mitchell Grade 5 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 23 24 30 21 30 29 28 Otter Creek Grade 5 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 43 38 48 34 51 45 45 * No Students In this category I.Truett Sat9_01 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research, and Evaluation Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition Percentile Rank (PR) Five Year Comparative Data By School, Grade, Subtest, and Race All Students 1997- 1998 PR 21 17 19 23 21 24 24 1998- 1999 PR 23 23 25 19 20 29 28 1999- 2000 PR 21 16 24 18 20 22 22 All Students 1997- 1998 PR 51 45 44 37 50 49 48 1998- 1999 PR 54 59 63 36 46 57 53 1999- 2000 PR 40 30 35 24 32 36 34 Black Students White Students other Students 2000- 2001 PR 27 18 32 16 19 26 24 2000- 2001 PR 51 49 51 45 49 50 49 1996- 1997 PR 25 26 31 22 30 30 30 1996- 1997 PR 30 26 49 27 34 35 34 1997- 1998 PR 22 17 21 20 20 25 24 1998- 1999 PR 23 23 25 19 20 29 28 1999- 2000 PR 21 16 24 18 20 22 22 2000- 2001 PR 29 18 33 17 21 26 25 1996- 1997 PR 1 3 6 12 18 3 5 1997- 1998 PR 25 45 20 58 59 33 38 1998- 1999 PR 1999- 2000 PR 2000- 2001 PR 22 15 20 10 2 21 16 1996- 1997 PR 34 26 65 23 48 39 39 1997- 1998 PR 13 6 1 31 14 9 11 1998- 1999 PR 1999- 2000 PR 2000- 2001 PR 5 77258 7 Black Students 1997- 1998 PR 39 40 39 30 44 42 41 1998- 1999 PR 34 37 47 19 25 39 35 1999- 2000 PR 26 21 26 14 20 25 23 2000- 2001 PR 23 26 30 27 23 28 28 1996- 1997 PR 60 52 54 45 67 58 57 White Students 1997- 1998 PR 61 48 47 42 55 55 54 1998- 1999 PR 74 78 78 57 69 73 71 1999- 2000 PR 53 38 44 36 44 46 45 2000- 2001 PR 71 66 66 60 68 65 65 1996- 1997 PR 13 22 9 7 48 19 20 Other Students 1997- 1998 PR 61 75 69 68 72 66 67 1998- 1999 PR 59 78 45 52 59 59 58 1999- 2000 PR 2000- 2001 PR 51 43 51 27 67 50 49 Pulaski Heights Grade 5 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery Rightsell Grade 5 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery ** No Students In this category I.ThmU Sat9_01 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research, and Evaluation Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition Percentile Rank (PR) Five Year Comparative Data By School, Grade, Subtest, and Race All Students Black Students White Students other Students 1996- 1997 PR 60 44 55 54 61 54 55 1996- 1997 PR 29 26 29 24 28 35 34 1997- 1998 PR 52 43 51 47 58 51 52 1998- 1999 PR 54 42 50 44 50 49 49 1999- 2000 PR 58 44 52 50 52 53 53 All Students 1997- 1998 PR 36 36 38 27 44 43 41 1998- 1999 PR 33 42 50 22 24 42 38 1999- 2000 PR 37 37 39 36 37 42 41 2000- 2001 PR 61 40 60 50 53 54 53 2000- 2001 PR 48 59 60 45 54 56 55 1996- 1997 PR 34 30 33 33 41 35 35 1997- 1998 PR 22 22 30 24 35 27 28 1998- 1999 PR 26 22 32 24 24 28 27 1999- 2000 PR 31 26 33 26 32 30 30 2000- 2001 PR 36 20 39 23 31 32 31 1996- 1997 PR 82 60 77 74 79 74 74 1997- 1998 PR 86 72 77 77 85 79 79 1998- 1999 PR 75 58 63 58 70 66 66 1999- 2000 PR 85 69 73 79 75 77 77 2000- 2001 PR 87 68 80 79 78 77 77 1996- 1997 PR 1997- 1998 PR 84 67 69 67 79 70 71 1998- 1999 PR 80 72 70 81 65 76 76 1999- 2000 PR 43 21 47 32 48 31 33 2000- 2001 PR 55 57 99 96 68 88 88 Black Students White Students Other Students 1996- 1997 PR 29 26 29 24 28 35 34 1997- 1998 PR 33 34 35 25 42 41 39 1998- 1999 PR 33 42 50 22 24 42 38 1999- 2000 PR 37 39 39 36 37 42 41 2000- 2001 PR 48 59 60 45 54 56 55 1996- 1997 PR 1997- 1998 PR 70 66 65 52 77 72 71 1998- 1999 PR 1999- 2000 PR 2000- 2001 PR 1996- 1997 PR 1997- 1998 PR 63 52 61 60 54 61 60 1998- 1999 PR 1999- 2000 PR 2000- 2001 PR LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research, and Evaluation Stanford Achievement Test. Ninth Edition Percentile Rank (PR) Five Year Comparative Data By School. Grade, Subtest, and Race Rockefeller Grade 5 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 42 31 38 34 54 40 41 All Students 1997- 1998 PR 45 37 37 37 43 42 42 1998- 1999 PR 33 26 32 31 30 32 32 1999- 2000 PR 49 40 51 42 42 47 46 2000- 2001 PR 51 32 51 34 42 47 46 1996- 1997 PR 28 22 27 25 38 29 30 Black Students 1997- 1998 PR 26 23 25 21 28 27 27 1998- 1999 PR 19 16 24 19 21 21 21 1999- 2000 PR 43 36 53 34 37 43 42 2000- 2001 PR 42 24 44 26 34 39 38 1996- 1997 PR 60 43 52 45 72 54 55 White Students 1997- 1998 PR 79 68 65 77 80 71 72 1998- 1999 PR 65 53 50 65 56 56 57 1999- 2000 PR 57 45 49 54 48 51 51 2000- 2001 PR 61 44 62 48 53 57 56 1996- 1997 PR other Students 1997- 1998 PR 29 17 19 6 7 23 18 1998- 1999 PR 41 50 58 34 44 46 44 1999- 2000 PR 2000- 2001 PR 89 82 70 71 91 81 81 Romine Grade 5 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 45 42 46 34 53 46 46 ** No Students In this catS9ory I.Truetl Sal9_at All Students 1997- 1998 PR 33 43 40 35 42 43 43 1998- 1999 PR 48 41 44 43 36 44 43 1999- 2000 PR 37 31 41 29 34 37 37 2000- 2001 PR 47 24 38 35 33 43 42 1996- 1997 PR 39 39 42 28 50 42 42 Black Students 1997- 1998 PR 48 39 45 39 37 45 43 1998- 1999 PR 48 39 45 39 37 45 43 1999- 2000 PR 26 23 34 21 23 29 28 2000- 2001 PR 44 22 34 29 32 39 39 1996- 1997 PR 69 55 61 63 62 61 61 White Students 1997- 1998 PR 42 46 42 46 57 53 54 1998- 1999 PR 50 50 48 64 35 44 44 1999- 2000 PR 65 57 60 51 72 57 59 2000- 2001 PR 55 25 47 54 24 50 47 1996- 1997 PR Other Students 1997- 1998 PR 1998- 1999 PR 42 38 37 32 35 41 39 1999- 2000 PR 60 49 55 48 47 61 59 2000- 2001 PR 56 60 72 68 89 63 67 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research, and Evaluation Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition Percentile Rank (PR) Five Year Comparative Data By School, Grade, Subtest, and Race Stephens/Garland All Students Black Students White Students other Students Grade 5 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 12 15 17 15 23 18 18 1997- 1998 PR 14 12 18 17 21 17 17 1998- 1999 PR 20 27 25 19 24 24 23 1999- 2000 PR 19 22 24 16 18 25 24 2000- 2001 PR 21 18 28 19 23 24 24 1996- 1997 PR 12 15 17 15 23 18 18 1997- 1998 PR 14 12 17 18 22 17 17 1998- 1999 PR 19 26 25 18 23 23 23 1999- 2000 PR 19 20 22 15 17 25 24 2000- 2001 PR 21 18 28 19 23 24 24 1996- 1997 PR 1997- 1998 PR 1998- 1999 PR 1999- 2000 PR 2000- 2001 PR 1996- 1997 PR 1997- 1998 PR 11 15 32 13 17 18 17 1998- 1999 PR 29 60 32 58 41 38 40 1999- 2000 PR NA 78 76 39 55 NA NA 2000- 2001 PR Terry Grade 5 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 51 43 54 48 60 52 52 ** No Students In this category I.Truett SlS.O, All Students 1997- 1998 PR 59 50 57 54 67 58 58 1998- 1999 PR 52 39 51 46 49 46 46 1999- 2000 PR 45 29 43 32 41 41 41 2000- 2001 PR 59 37 52 46 47 53 53 1996- 1997 PR 25 24 34 26 37 30 30 Black Students 1997- 1998 PR 31 21 31 24 39 30 30 1998- 1999 PR 23 20 29 22 31 24 25 1999- 2000 PR 23 15 29 19 25 25 25 2000- 2001 PR 44 22 37 26 31 38 37 1996- 1997 PR 78 61 74 74 79 73 74 White Students 1997- 1998 PR 78 71 74 76 82 76 77 1998- 1999 PR 79 62 72 72 69 69 70 1999- 2000 PR 74 51 61 55 64 63 62 2000- 2001 PR 66 50 59 58 58 61 62 1996- 1997 PR 65 82 69 52 87 74 73 Other Students 1997- 1998 PR 82 88 88 76 92 83 84 1998- 1999 PR 65 57 68 49 55 52 52 1999- 2000 PR 45 48 58 36 55 48 48 2000- 2001 PR 69 40 72 62 53 59 59 L LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning. Research, and Evaluation Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition Percentile Rank (PR) Five Year Comparative Data By School, Grade, Subtest, and Race Wakefield other Students Grade 5 Subtest Total Reading Total Math______ Language______ Science________ Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 22 16 22 19 28 23 23 All Students Black Students 1997- 1998 PR 24 19 22 19 26 25 25 1998- 1999 PR 22 20 22 20 20 24 23 1999- 2000 PR 18 14 20 17 19 21 21 2000- 2001 PR 19 13 20 16 16 21 21 1996- 1997 PR 18 13 20 16 24 20 20 1997- 1998 PR 19 16 19 15 22 22 21 1998- 1999 PR 23 21 22 20 20 24 24 1999- 2000 PR 14 11 16 13 15 16 16 2000- 2001 PR 20 12 20 14 15 21 19 1996- 1997 PR 79 63 56 71 77 70 71 White Students 1997- 1998 PR 73 57 63 82 72 64 67 1998- 1999 PR 1999- 2000 PR 70 69 73 66 70 71 70 2000- 2001 PR 11 15 11 33 21 19 20 1996- 1997 PR 37 23 30 27 53 31 32 1997- 1998 PR 47 34 59 47 72 44 47 1998- 1999 PR 2 36 3 12 34 1999- 2000 PR 63 44 41 58 65 54 56 2000- 2001 PR 29 63 41 35 63 38 40 Washington All Students Black Students White Students other Students Grade 5 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 47 45 50 42 53 50 50 1997- 1998 PR 43 39 46 41 51 45 46 1998- 1999 PR 39 47 37 40 38 41 41 1999- 2000 PR 27 28 33 25 27 28 28 2000- 2001 PR 28 19 30 26 26 26 27 1996- 1997 PR 21 24 28 22 27 27 27 1997- 1998 PR 19 22 22 18 33 24 24 1998- 1999 PR 24 32 22 19 20 28 26 1999- 2000 PR 16 18 24 15 20 18 18 2000- 2001 PR 19 14 26 20 20 20 20 1996- 1997 PR 67 63 66 60 72 67 67 1997- 1998 PR 67 55 68 63 68 66 67 1998- 1999 PR 60 66 54 65 64 59 60 1999- 2000 PR 52 55 51 57 43 48 48 2000- 2001 PR 66 40 49 53 46 50 50 1996- 1997 PR 85 78 81 65 80 81 80 1997- 1998 PR 51 47 57 54 52 50 51 1998- 1999 PR 22 47 42 44 32 33 33 1999- 2000 PR 55 47 54 47 41 53 53 2000- 2001 PR 54 36 32 30 59 54 54 ** Ne Students in this category ITruett SetS^Ot Watson Grade 5 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery Western Hills Grade 5 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery - No Students In this catoflory I.Truott Sst9_01 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research, and Evaluation Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition Percentile Rank (PR) Five Year Comparative Data By School, Grade, Subtest, and Race All Students Black Students White Students other Students 1996- 1997 PR 21 19 29 22 30 24 25 1997- 1998 PR 30 28 34 33 38 33 34 1998- 1999 PR 27 28 31 21 27 30 29 1999- 2000 PR 22 17 23 19 23 23 23 All Students 2000- 2001 PR 33 21 31 22 23 30 29 1996- 1997 PR 24 21 33 23 32 27 27 1997- 1998 PR 29 26 33 30 35 31 32 1998- 1999 PR 27 28 31 21 26 30 28 1999- 2000 PR 23 18 24 20 24 24 24 2000- 2001 PR 33 19 32 20 20 30 28 1996- 1997 PR 9 9 14 18 19 12 13 1997- 1998 PR 41 60 58 69 68 55 58 1998- 1999 PR 26 31 40 19 40 32 31 1999- 2000 PR 7 23 20 15 18 22 21 2000- 2001 PR 1996- 1997 PR 1997- 1998 PR 1998- 1999 PR 1999- 2000 PR 18 8 8 6 11 7 6 2000- 2001 PR 3 4 3 6 5 5 5 Black Students White Students Other Students 1996- 1997 PR 46 32 50 41 47 46 46 1997- 1998 PR 44 33 45 36 45 45 44 1998- 1999 PR 37 29 44 34 34 36 36 1999- 2000 PR 36 29 35 30 32 35 34 2000- 2001 PR 43 37 52 39 42 44 44 1996- 1997 PR 25 20 36 26 30 31 30 1997- 1998 PR 28 21 36 27 37 32 32 1998- 1999 PR 34 30 41 29 30 34 33 1999- 2000 PR 24 20 29 20 25 26 26 2000- 2001 PR 37 35 49 35 37 40 39 1996- 1997 PR 77 51 69 65 72 67 68 1997- 1998 PR 77 64 64 59 62 73 72 1998- 1999 PR 52 30 57 60 52 46 48 1999- 2000 PR 67 57 51 61 53 58 58 2000- 2001 PR 66 43 65 52 59 60 60 1996- 1997 PR 1997- 1998 PR 1998- 1999 PR 14 3 14 10 14 11 12 1999- 2000 PR 2000- 2001 PRWilliams Grade 5 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 72 63 66 62 73 68 68 Wilson Grade 5 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 36 31 36 32 41 37 37 ** No Students In this category I.Truott Sat9_01 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research, and Evaluation Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition Percentile Rank (PR) Five Year Comparative Data By School, Grade, Subtest, and Race All Students 1997- 1998 PR 70 66 66 61 74 68 68 1998- 1999 PR 74 67 70 61 73 71 70 1999- 2000 PR 71 67 70 54 70 69 68 All Students 1997- 1998 PR 24 19 26 26 30 26 26 1998- 1999 PR 24 19 24 19 21 26 25 1999- 2000 PR 24 23 31 20 26 29 27 Black Students White Students other Students 2000- 2001 PR 69 50 59 51 58 59 58 2000- 2001 PR 28 22 29 18 26 28 27 1996- 1997 PR 62 51 60 55 66 58 59 1997- 1998 PR 58 59 61 51 67 60 59 1998- 1999 PR 57 52 59 45 63 58 58 1999- 2000 PR 58 57 62 41 60 59 58 Black Students 1996- 1997 PR 27 20 28 27 38 29 29 1997- 1998 PR 20 16 23 23 24 22 23 1998- 1999 PR 21 18 23 17 18 24 23 1999- 2000 PR 25 22 31 19 26 29 28 2000- 2001 PR 48 33 44 34 42 43 42 2000- 2001 PR 28 22 29 18 26 28 27 1996- 1997 PR 82 70 68 68 79 75 75 1996- 1997 PR 73 63 53 56 59 65 63 1997- 1998 PR 81 73 71 69 80 76 76 1998- 1999 PR 87 80 79 76 82 81 81 1999- 2000 PR 83 78 77 65 80 79 78 2000- 2001 PR 83 60 67 66 70 71 70 1996- 1997 PR 87 95 90 74 91 89 88 1997- 1998 PR 1998- 1999 PR 1999- 2000 PR 85 74 87 85 86 79 80 2000- 2001 PR 95 94 92 86 91 91 90 White Students 1997- 1998 PR 50 26 38 44 64 43 45 1998- 1999 PR 41 21 25 31 32 37 36 1999- 2000 PR 18 38 28 36 45 30 33 2000- 2001 PR other Students 1996- 1997 PR 54 84 85 27 31 72 64 1997- 1998 PR 29 78 53 18 41 53 47 1998- 1999 PR 1999- 2000 PR 11 19 36 15 17 20 19 2000- 2001 PR Woodruff Grade 5 Subtest Total Reading Total Math_____ Language______ Science________ Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery ** No Studonts In this cstegwy I.Trustt SstS_01 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning. Research, and Evaluation Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition Percentile Rank (PR) Five Year Comparative Data By School, Grade, Subtest, and Race All Students Black Students White Students other Students 1996- 1997 PR 46 43 46 51 52 47 48 1997- 1998 PR 42 34 32 27 41 38 37 1998- 1999 PR 19 25 30 14 18 25 23 1999- 2000 PR 20 14 21 11 13 20 18 2000- 2001 PR 42 26 44 26 30 39 37 1996- 1997 PR 18 35 33 34 35 29 30 1997- 1998 PR 33 29 30 22 35 33 32 1998- 1999 PR 18 24 29 13 17 24 22 1999- 2000 PR 16 11 16 8 10 16 14 2000- 2001 PR 37 24 41 22 27 36 34 1996- 1997 PR 79 53 59 69 71 68 68 1997- 1998 PR 67 49 39 43 57 53 52 1998- 1999 PR 42 45 57 39 33 48 45 1999- 2000 PR 47 38 53 30 40 46 44 2000- 2001 PR 85 51 68 63 61 64 61 1996- 1997 PR 93 57 88 89 77 86 86 1997- 1998 PR 1998- 1999 PR 1999- 2000 PR 36 26 57 20 37 41 38 2000- 2001 PRLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research, and Evaluation Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition Percentile Rank (PR) Five Year Comparative Data By School, Grade, Subtest, and Race Cloverdale Middle All Students Black Students White Students other Students Grade 7 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 24 22 23 24 29 28 28 1997- 1998 PR 19 24 26 26 29 29 29 1998- 1999 PR 22 21 24 22 22 26 26 1999- 2000 PR 21 21 21 23 21 25 25 2000- 2001 PR 22 17 25 26 24 26 26 1996- 1997 PR 24 21 23 23 27 28 27 1997- 1998 PR 17 23 24 24 26 27 27 1998- 1999 PR 22 21 23 22 22 27 26 1999- 2000 PR 20 20 21 23 21 25 24 2000- 2001 PR 22 17 24 26 24 26 26 1996- 1997 PR 27 31 27 39 48 36 37 1997- 1998 PR 54 44 51 55 59 57 58 1998- 1999 PR 35 30 33 27 33 29 29 1999- 2000 PR 37 35 32 34 35 43 42 2000- 2001 PR 28 32 33 35 33 40 40 1996- 1997 PR 22 21 25 23 34 29 29 1997- 1998 PR 33 26 66 43 46 38 39 1998- 1999 PR 34 45 44 58 59 42 46 1999- 2000 PR 16 26 17 22 14 23 22 2000- 2001 PR 18 12 24 21 25 18 19 Dunbar Middle All Students Black Students White Students Other Students Grade 7 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 43 44 43 47 53 49 49 1997- 1998 PR 44 41 46 46 50 47 47 1998- 1999 PR 37 34 38 40 41 40 40 1999- 2000 PR 49 50 44 51 52 51 51 2000- 2001 PR 41 34 39 40 44 42 42 1996- 1997 PR 25 28 29 29 35 33 34 1997- 1998 PR 26 24 32 28 33 32 32 1998- 1999 PR 23 21 25 25 24 27 27 1999- 2000 PR 27 24 23 24 26 29 28 2000- 2001 PR 23 19 23 23 27 26 26 1996- 1997 PR 73 68 65 74 76 71 72 1997- 1998 PR 72 68 67 74 77 69 71 1998- 1999 PR 62 60 60 68 70 63 64 1999- 2000 PR 79 83 75 83 83 79 80 2000- 2001 PR 73 64 69 72 75 69 70 1996- 1997 PR 64 69 64 68 77 65 67 1997- 1998 PR 73 77 76 78 78 73 76 1998- 1999 PR 83 85 88 78 86 87 87 1999- 2000 PR 58 76 58 75 73 66 67 2000- 2001 PR 70 81 66 70 80 76 76 * No Students tn thts category I Truett Set9_01 LForest Heights Middle Grade 7 Subtest Total Reading Total Math_____ Language______ Science________ Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 30 30 31 37 39 36 37 Henderson Middle Grade 7 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 35 34 37 40 39 41 41 ** No Student! In this category ITruett SatS.OI LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research, and Evaluation Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition Percentile Rank (PR) Five Year Comparative Data By School, Grade, Subtest, and Race All Students 1997- 1998 PR 38 35 42 42 45 43 43 1998- 1999 PR 47 38 45 49 44 47 47 1999- 2000 PR 43 41 37 44 43 45 45 2000- 2001 PR 43 35 42 46 45 43 44 1996- 1997 PR 22 23 24 29 29 29 29 Black Students 1997- 1998 PR 25 23 28 30 31 30 30 1998- 1999 PR 33 26 34 34 32 36 36 1999- 2000 PR 32 30 26 30 30 35 34 2000- 2001 PR 27 21 29 31 30 30 30 1996- 1997 PR 62 57 57 66 73 61 63 White Students 1997- 1998 PR 71 66 72 71 75 70 70 1998- 1999 PR 68 59 61 73 64 65 66 1999- 2000 PR 66 66 60 72 69 65 66 2000- 2001 PR 74 67 70 75 75 71 72 1996- 1997 PR 71 72 70 82 69 71 72 All Students 1997- 1998 PR 25 24 26 34 28 31 31 1998- 1999 PR 25 21 25 31 26 30 30 1999- 2000 PR 31 28 28 30 30 34 33 2000- 2001 PR 30 24 28 29 28 33 33 1996- 1997 PR 29 28 33 34 33 35 35 Black Students 1997- 1998 PR 23 21 25 31 26 28 29 1998- 1999 PR 22 17 23 25 23 27 27 1999- 2000 PR 27 24 26 28 26 31 30 2000- 2001 PR 28 20 25 25 27 31 30 1996- 1997 PR 69 65 62 74 67 67 68 White Students 1997- 1998 PR 43 47 39 56 46 46 47 1998- 1999 PR 52 44 42 72 48 51 53 1999- 2000 PR 44 41 39 39 41 45 44 2000- 2001 PR 40 45 41 57 36 43 44 1996- 1997 PR 50 51 51 49 52 53 52 other Students 1997- 1998 PR 32 38 50 42 50 42 43 1998- 1999 PR 66 66 69 65 65 67 67 1999- 2000 PR 40 51 44 48 54 51 51 other Students 1997- 1998 PR 28 50 33 52 27 41 40 1998- 1999 PR 24 34 27 55 38 30 34 1999- 2000 PR 27 28 24 30 32 30 30 2000- 2001 PR 36 32 25 31 28 35 34 2000- 2001 PR 42 55 48 34 24 49 45LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research, and Evaluation Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition Percentile Rank (PR) Five Year Comparative Data By School, Grade, Subtest, and Race Mabelvale Middle All Students Black Students White Students Other Students Grade 7 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 24 23 28 30 32 30 31 1997- 1998 PR 33 31 37 36 36 37 37 1998- 1999 PR 25 24 23 31 28 29 29 1999- 2000 PR 33 26 29 32 38 35 35 2000- 2001 PR 32 25 29 31 31 32 32 1996- 1997 PR 19 18 24 24 26 26 26 1997- 1998 PR 25 23 29 28 27 30 29 1998- 1999 PR 21 20 20 26 23 25 25 1999- 2000 PR 27 21 25 25 32 30 29 2000- 2001 PR 28 20 25 25 28 28 29 1996- 1997 PR 42 41 41 53 52 45 47 1997- 1998 PR 59 57 60 61 63 59 60 1998- 1999 PR 43 40 34 51 47 45 46 1999- 2000 PR 52 44 39 53 58 50 51 2000- 2001 PR 50 47 45 52 44 48 48 1996- 1997 PR 79 50 50 75 85 64 68 1997- 1998 PR 62 40 61 42 72 55 55 1998- 1999 PR 51 34 35 50 66 41 44 1999- 2000 PR 39 22 29 41 39 37 38 2000- 2001 PR 29 26 28 43 31 26 27 Mann Middle All Students Black Students White Students Other Students Grade 7 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 55 51 54 56 59 57 57 1997- 1998 PR 49 46 52 56 57 53 54 1998- 1999 PR 58 50 58 59 57 58 58 1999- 2000 PR 56 58 50 59 58 58 58 2000- 2001 PR 50 52 45 51 49 52 52 1996- 1997 PR 37 35 39 38 43 42 42 1997- 1998 PR 34 30 39 40 44 40 40 1998- 1999 PR 40 34 43 42 38 43 43 1999- 2000 PR 36 37 33 40 40 40 40 2000- 2001 PR 34 36 32 36 34 39 38 1996- 1997 PR 72 66 69 74 74 71 71 1997- 1998 PR 66 64 65 72 72 67 68 1998- 1999 PR 72 64 64 73 72 69 70 1999- 2000 PR 74 77 65 77 74 74 74 2000- 2001 PR 70 70 62 70 67 68 68 1996- 1997 PR 68 73 63 71 74 71 71 1997- 1998 PR 52 52 65 56 51 55 55 1998- 1999 PR 78 77 82 80 82 82 82 1999- 2000 PR 71 70 76 72 67 73 74 2000- 2001 PR 62 67 62 59 61 65 64 ** No Student! In this category I.Trwett Satfl_01Pulaski Heights Middle Grade 7 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 52 52 54 54 60 56 56 Southwest Middle Grade 7 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 26 26 31 33 33 33 33 * No Students In thb category I.Truett Sa_01 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research, and Evaluation Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition Percentile Rank (PR) Five Year Comparative Data By School, Grade, Subtest, and Race All Students 1997- 1998 PR 53 54 58 59 59 57 58 1998- 1999 PR 47 35 48 46 47 47 47 1999- 2000 PR 48 48 43 46 49 49 49 All Students 1997- 1998 PR 25 20 27 25 28 31 30 1998- 1999 PR 23 15 20 22 18 23 23 1999- 2000 PR 26 24 23 26 26 30 29 Black Students White Students other Students 2000- 2001 PR 52 40 48 51 53 51 51 1996- 1997 PR 33 31 35 35 37 38 38 1997- 1998 PR 33 33 40 39 38 39 39 1998- 1999 PR 35 29 37 33 35 37 37 1999- 2000 PR 27 25 24 23 24 28 28 2000- 2001 PR 26 19 28 26 26 29 29 1996- 1997 PR 76 76 77 77 84 76 77 1997- 1998 PR 77 77 78 80 81 77 78 1998- 1999 PR 74 66 70 74 72 70 71 1999- 2000 PR 77 78 71 77 80 75 76 2000- 2001 PR 77 63 69 74 77 70 71 1996- 1997 PR 83 94 86 86 90 85 85 1997- 1998 PR 52 71 59 75 65 61 63 1998- 1999 PR 60 74 81 78 71 68 70 1999- 2000 PR 69 83 59 67 86 69 71 2000- 2001 PR 78 86 69 89 76 80 81 Black Students White Students Other Students 2000- 2001 PR 30 22 24 26 26 32 31 1996- 1997 PR 21 22 27 27 28 27 27 1997- 1998 PR 21 17 24 21 24 27 26 1998- 1999 PR 20 13 19 20 16 21 21 1999- 2000 PR 24 23 22 25 24 28 28 2000- 2001 PR 29 21 24 26 25 32 31 1996- 1997 PR 42 38 42 48 47 48 48 1997- 1998 PR 54 44 42 56 52 55 55 1998- 1999 PR 46 31 30 51\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_294","title":"Compliance hearing exhibits, 28","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":["1999/2000"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance hearing exhibits, 28"],"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/294"],"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":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"dcterms_extent":["631 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\nTEST Grade K 1 2 LRSD Observation Survey behavioral observation of literacy skitls______ LRSD Achievement Level Test (ALT) Reading, Language Arts, Math, A Science LRSD 1st Quarter CRT, October LRSD 2nd Quarter CRT, January LRSD 3rd Quarter CRT, March End of Module - Math End of Unit - Science End of Level Social Studies Test District Assessments\nThe Assessment Program for 2000-01 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 : 11 Sept. \u0026amp; April Sept. \u0026amp; April Sept. \u0026amp; April April Sept \u0026amp; April Sept \u0026amp; April Sept \u0026amp; April Sept \u0026amp; April Sept \u0026amp; April Sept \u0026amp; April Sept \u0026amp; April Algebra 1 \u0026amp; 2. Geometry. Trigonometry Sept \u0026amp; April Algebra 1 \u0026amp; 2. Geometry. Trigonometry Stale Benchmark: Math \u0026amp; Literacy End of Course Algebra I_______ End of Course Geometry End of Course Literacy SAT-9: Norm Referenced Test_________ PLAN _______________________ ___ EXPLORE_________________________ PSAT______________________________ NAEP (randomly selected schools) 7/18/00 Sept \u0026amp; April Algebra 1 \u0026amp; 2. Geometry. Trigonometry 12 Algebra 1 \u0026amp; 2 Geometry, Trigonometp Reading \u0026amp; Language Arts Reading \u0026amp; Language Arts As Modules are completed As Units are completed Reading \u0026amp; Language Arts Reading \u0026amp; Language /Vts As Modules are completed As Units are completed Reading \u0026amp; Language Arts Reading \u0026amp; Language Arts As Modules are completed As Units are completed Language Arts Language Arts As Modules are completed As Units are completed April April February September Revised DRAFT Language /Vts Language Arts As Modules are completed As Units are completed May September Language Arts Language Arts As Modules are completed Algebra 1 \u0026amp; 2, Geometry, Trigonometry Algebra 1 \u0026amp; 2, Geometry. Trigonometry Algebra 1 \u0026amp; 2, Geometry. Trigonometry /Mgebra 1 \u0026amp; 5 Geometry. Trigonometry May April May May May May May May May May Mav May May Oct - Feb February Septemoer Oct \u0026amp; Nov Oct (practice) .October February 1 INTRODUCTION The Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP), a comprehensive system encompassing high academic standards, professional development, student assessment, and accountability for schools and students, has the following purposes:  To improve student learning and classroom instruction\n To provide public accountability by establishing expected achievement levels and reporting on student achievement\n To provide program evaluation data\nand  To assist policymakers in decision-making. Based on principles of rigor, clarity, and fairness, ACTAAP makes student achievement of the academic standards the shared priority of all public schools, school districts, education service cooperatives, and the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE). It will result in improved teaching and learning. It will identify successful schools and programs and encourage replication of those successes. It will encourage individual schools and school districts to reflect on their practices, take corrective actions, and receive support from state agencies. Finally, it will fulfill the requirements of various Arkansas statutes, including Act 999 of 1999, which mandates that all students in the public schools of this state demonstrate grade-level academic proficiency through the application of knowledge and skills in the core academic subjects consistent with state curriculum frameworks, performance standards, and assessments. 1ACADEMIC STANDARDS The first component, a set of clear, challenging academic standards, defines what students should know and be able to do in the basic academic core. Arkansas academic standards are delineated in ten state curriculum framework documents. Written by Arkansas classroom teachers, the curriculum frameworks are revised on a State Board of Education adopted schedule to ensure that state learning expectations will prepare students to succeed in increasingly more demanding post secondary education and in an ever more competitive job market. As part of Smart Start and Smart Step, and as a support and supplement to the curriculum frameworks, K-8 Benchmark documents in Language Arts and Mathematics have been created. These documents are examples of how a school district might implement the curriculum frameworks by grade level. The K-8 Curriculum Model documents also contain suggested instructional strategies, classroom assessments, and a K-3 grade-level skills checklist. Other supportive curriculum documents built around the academic standards are under development. 1 2 1-- PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT The second component, professional development, is a coordinated set of planned, research-based best practice, learning activities for teachers and administrators which are standards-based and continuous. It shall be tied with school improvement planning and with licensure renewal requirements. Thirty approved professional development hours annually will be required for each certified employee in the school district. Beginning in January 2002, thirty approved professional development hours armually over a five-year period shall be required to renew a teacher or administrator license. To be eligible, professional development activities must produce teaching and administrative knowledge and skills designed to improve students academic performance. Such activities may include approved conferences, workshops, institutes, individual learning, mentoring, peer coaching, study groups. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards Certification, distance learning, internships, and college/university coursework. Approved professional development activities shall relate to the twelve areas adopted by the State Board of Education: content (Grades K-12)\ninstructional strategies\nassessment\nadvocacy/leadership\nsystemic change process\nstandards, frameworks, and curriculum aligrunent\nsupervision\nmentoring/coaching\ninstructional technology\nprinciples of leaming/developmental stages\ncognitive research\nand building a collaborative learning community. All approved professional development activities, whether individual or school wide, shall be based on the improvement of student achievement on state- mandated criterion-referenced examinations and other related indicators as defined by ACTAAP. 3STUDENT ASSESSMENT The third component is a student assessment program, which includes both criterion- referenced and norm-referenced tests in the academic core. Criterion-referenced tests are customized around the academic standards in the Arkansas Curriculum Frameworks and are developed by committees of Arkansas teachers. These criterion-referenced tests are administered to establish the level of student achievement of the state academic standards and to compare the level of student achievement with the expected performance levels set by the State Board of Education. Norm-referenced tests provide information to compare the performance of Arkansas students against the performance of a sample of students from across the country (norming/standardization group). Because norm-referenced tests are not built exclusively around Arkansas academic standards and because their purpose is to group students based on their performance relative to the norming group, they can best be used for assisting in broad program evaluation and in individual student diagnosis. Norm-referenced test data will not be a primary state- mandated indicator within the accountability component, but will be reported annually on the School Performance Report. State-Mandated Assessments The results of all assessments should be used during the school improvement planning process to help the school focus on the Arkansas academic standards and the need to increase proficient student performance around those standards. State-mandated assessments shall be as follows\n___________Assessments Criterion-Referenced Primary Benchmark Intermediate Benchmark Middle Level Benchmark End-of-Course - Algebra I End-of-Course - Geometry End-of-Course - Literacy Norm-Referenced__________ Grade Level Grade 4 Grade 6 Grade 8 When Completed When Completed Grade 11 Grades 5,7, and 10 Month Administered April April April January/May January/May January/April September The Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams, as well as the End-of- Course Exams, will be given late in the school year to allow maximum instructional time for covering the academic standards. Special provisions will be made for an alternate administration in January for those secondary students on a block scheduling system. The Literacy End-of-Course Exam will be given to students in Grade 11 to allow time for additional remediation, at the schools option, before graduation. These exams are tailored to Arkansas curriculum standards, and their performance levels are absolute and held constant over time. The results of the End-of-Course Exams shall become a part of each students transcript or permanent record. 4An academic improvement plan means a plan which details supplemental and/or intervention and ...-remedial instruction in deficient academic areas. One shall be developed for each student not performing at the proficient level in every portion of the criterion-referenced examinations. The norm-referenced tests will be given in early fall of the school year in order to provide teachers with immediate and initial performance assessment data on students currently enrolled or newly enrolled in classes and content areas. The performance of Arkansas students taking the norm-referenced tests in the fall will be compared to the performance of a norming group who took the same tests during the same period in the fall, thus ensuring the reliability, validity and fairness of comparison. Score reports will be returned early in the school year for classroom teachers to use the testing information to address the individual student learning needs, and to modify the instructional program, teaching strategies, and/or classroom assessments as needed. Instruction then can focus fully on the Arkansas academic standards throughout the year and on increasing proficient student performance around those standards. Schools may request a waiver from the fall to a spring testing date. Such waivers will only be granted after a written plan is presented to the ADE and the school agrees to the guidelines as established. The timing of such requests must also fall within the deadlines as established by the testing company. As another part of the student assessment program for Grades K-4, schools shall select performance assessments or screening/diagnostic tools to assess primary grade students. Any student in Grades K-4 failing to perform at the proficient level in reading and writing literacy or mathematics shall be evaluated as early as possible within each of the Grades K-4 academic years. Those students shall be evaluated by personnel with expertise in reading and writing literacy or mathematics who shall develop and implement an academic improvement plan, using ADE sanctioned early intervention strategies for Grades K-1 students and remediation strategies for Grades 2-4 students. These strategies should assist the students in achieving the expected standard. Schools serving Grades 5-12 shall establish a plan to assess whether children are performing at the proficient level in order to help assure eventual success on every portion of the Intermediate, Middle Level, and End-of-Course Benchmark Exams. For accountability purposes, no points will be assigned for the results of these perfomance assessments or screening/diagnostic tools. Act 855 of 1999 mandates that students in Grades K-3 not performing at grade level during the regular school year shall participate in an ADE approved remediation program or a summer school remediation program to be eligible for promotion to the next grade. Those schools electing not to offer a summer school program shall offer an ADE approved remediation program during the regular school year to students in Grades K-3 not performing at grade level. 5Optional Assessments There are other assessments which are optional for student and school participation. These include the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), college entrance examinations (e.g., ACT and SAT), Advanced Placement testing, PLAN, EXPLORE, and others. Some of these may be included as indicators on the School Performance Report or in the annual school report to the public. Note\nAlthough NAEP is optional for individual school districts, state participation is mandated by Act 999 of 1999. 6ACCOUNTABILITY FOR SCHOOLS AND STUDENTS Accountability is a comprehensive, focused process designed to improve student learning. It is a shared responsibility of the state, school, district, public officials, educators, parents, and students. The ACTAAP accountability model focuses on each individual school and is constructed around a three-tiered system that includes statewide indicators, individual school improvement indicators, and a locally-generated school accountability narrative. Once appropriate time has elapsed to evaluate trends and improvement expectations in a sufficient number of indicators and a statistically-defensible point assignment system can be developed, points for each of the statewide and individual school improvement indicators will be given. This point system will form the basis for rewards and sanctions. These three tiers allow for meaningful and appropriate state and local involvement to implement accountability within clearly articulated parameters. ACTAAP encourages proactive corrections by individual schools and their local districts through the development and application of strategies using the school improvement process as a planning instrument. Performance Levels The primary goal of the accountability system is to assure that all students achieve grade-level performance. In this system, grade-level performance is defined as performing at the proficient or advanced level on state-mandated criterion-referenced tests. Four performance levels have been established for these exams\nadvanced, proficient, basic and below basic. The only tests for which scaled scores defining these levels have been set are the Primary Benchmark and Middle Level Benchmark Exams. Similar scales will be established by the State Board of Education as additional tests are completed and data become available. Definitions of Performance Levels Advanced students demonstrate superior performance well beyond proficient grade-level performance. They can apply Arkansas established reading, writing, and mathematics skills to solve complex problems and complete demanding tasks on their own. They can make insightful connections between abstract and concrete ideas and provide well- supported explanations and arguments. Proficient students demonstrate solid academic performance for the grade tested and are well-prepared for the next level of schooling. They can use Arkansas established reading, writing, and mathematics skills and knowledge to solve problems and complete tasks on their own. Students can tie ideas together and explain tihe ways their ideas are connected. 7Basic students demonstrate a need for some additional assistance, commitment, or study to reach the proficient level. They show substantial skills in reading, writing, and mathematics\nhowever, they only partially demonstrate the abilities to apply these skills. Below Basic students fail to show sufficient mastering of skills in reading, writing, and mathematics to attain the basic level. Performance Levels for the Primary and Middle Level Benchmark Examinations Performance Level Advanced Proficient Basic______ Below Basic Scaled Score Ranges for Performance Levels for Mathematics Primary 250 and above 200-249 155-199 154 and below Middle Level 250 and above 200-249 149-199 148 and below Scaled Score Ranges for Performance Levels for Literacy Primary 250 and above 200-249 179-199 178 and below Middle Level 250 and above 200-249 164-199 163 and below {^Performance is subject to adjustment on a periodic basis due to statistical scaling and variability in the test.) I 8 Public Reporting Each public school in Arkansas will have a School Performance Report that will be created through the combined efforts of the local school, school district, and the ADE. The School Performance Report will provide parents and the public with data upon which to evaluate their schools and provide benchmarks for measuring school improvement. Although results from the schools performance on the three-tiered system will be the primary focus of the School Performance Report, other indicators may be included as determined by law or State Board of Education rules and regulations. Although the same standards of student performance will be expected from all students, assessment data will be analyzed and reported separately for three student classifications: special education, limited English proficient, and high mobility. The purposes for tracking performance of these student groups are to focus on narrowing any achievement gap between them and their peers and to ensure that the progress of all student populations is annually and systematically monitored. For purposes of this reporting, the following definitions apply: Disaggregated Reporting General population students are those participating in the mandatory criterion- referenced and norm-referenced assessments that are not classified as special education, limited English proficient, or highly mobile. Combined population students include all those participating in the mandatory criterion-referenced and norm-referenced assessments regardless of classification. Special education students are those determined to be eligible for special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and who have an individualized education program (lEP). The students lEP must stipulate that the student may participate in the mandatory criterion- referenced and norm-referenced assessments either with or without accommodations. Beginning July 1, 2000, those unable to participate with or without accommodations will be assessed through the Alternate Assessment program. Beginning with the kindergarten class of 2000-2001, the scores of all students classified as special education students participating in the mandatory criterion-referenced and norm-referenced assessments with or without accommodations shall be aggregated (combined) with those of the general population students according to the following 2004-05 2005 - 06 2006 - 07 2007 - 08 2008 - 09 2008 - 09 2010-11 2011 - 12 calendar: Primary Benchmark Fifth Grade Norm-Referenced Intermediate Benchmark Seventh Grade Norm-Referenced Middle Level Benchmark End of Course (where applicable) Tenth Grade Norm-Referenced End of Course Literacy 9Limited,. English proficient students are those having a language background . other than English and whose proficiency in English is such that the probability of academic success in an English-only classroom is below that of native English language students. The districts Language Assessment Committee must have determined that the students may participate in the mandatory criterion-referenced and norm-referenced assessments either with or without accommodations. Beginning July 1, 2000, those unable to participate with or without accommodations will be assessed through the Alternate Assessment program. High mobility students are those who, at the time of spring testing, were not eiuolled in the current school district on October 1 of the current school year or who, at the time of fall testing, were not enrolled in the current school district on October 1 of the previous school year. Beginning with the 1999-2000 mandatory assessments, results will be reported separately for the following categories of students: General Population Special Education Students Limited English Proficient Students High Mobility Students Combined Population I Beginning with the 2000-01 mandatory assessments, the number of students not tested through either the mandatory criterion-referenced and norm-referenced assessments or Alternate Assessment program will be reported by school. Schools should make every effort to assure that all students are tested. Annual School Report to the Public: Each year, each school will prepare a report to the parents and community. This report will include a narrative description (such as prepared under Tier III indicators) that will highlight the schools improvement plan and indicate progress made in implementing the performance indicators within that plan. 1 Arkansas School Information Site (AS-IS): The ADE plans to make school accountability data available statewide through the Departments World Wide Web - as-is.org. This Web site will display school data based on student performance and other selected indicators. Annual ADE Report to the Legislature: The ADE shall report to the members of the House and Senate Interim Committees on Education on the progress of ACTAAP. The report shall be due on September 1, 1999 and annually thereafter. 10School Improvement Planning As part of the states accreditation process, each school is required to engage in the development and implementation of a school improvement plan based on priorities indicated by student assessment and other pertinent data. This plan is designed to ensure that all students demonstrate proficiency on all portions of the state-mandated criterion- referenced exams. The initial step in the plaiming model is a structured process that leads to disaggregation of student achievement and other student data. The study of this data helps schools identify areas within the curriculum where student performance does not meet expectation. Schools prioritize the needs areas, then develop performance-based benchmarks that can be tracked during the implementation phase of the plan. Schools then identify intervention and remediation strategies that, if effectively implemented, will move students toward meeting the established benchmarks. Finally, schools develop an action plan that assigns tasks, identifies resources (including the source of funds), and projects evaluation strategies that will signal movement toward meeting the performance standards. The process requires that the intervention and remediation be research-based and linked to proven practices. Rewards Rewards will be based on a system structured to recognize schools that demonstrate and maintain high performance over time and to recognize schools that demonstrate growth on both the state-mandated and school-selected indicators. Rewards also can be used to highlight individual schools so that their practices can be adapted in other schools and districts across the state. Each year the ADE will recognize individual schools that demonstrate exceptional performance in two categories: Performance Awards - Absolute levels of student achievement and other indicators. Growth Trend and Improvement Awards - Recognized growth trends and improvement in student achievement and other indicators. All award categories, which could include cash payments to individual schools, will be phased in over time and will be implemented as the indicator performance levels are established through the standard setting process. The focus of any cash awards must be to enhance the capability of the school to better serve its students. Awarded funds shall be used to expand programs, provide additional materials and supplies, support technology, provide bonuses to staff, or make possible other enhancements that serve the needs of the school or children. 11Sanctions Sanctions are applied for the purpose of improving teaching and learning, not for punishing schools or the people in them. Intervention from the state is not meant to be a permanent solution to unacceptable student achievement, but a way to help local schools improve student performance. It is expected that individual schools and districts will monitor their own progress and take corrective steps to improve student achievement prior to intervention from the state. To avoid sanctions, each school is expected to achieve annually a minimum percentage of its total possible points given for the accountability indicators described within the threetiered system. Failure to do so will result in the following designations:  High Priority Status - first year.  Alert Status - second year.  Low Performing Status - third year.  Academic Distress Phase I Status - fourth year. To be considered for removal from any sanctioned designation leading up to, but not including. Academic Distress Phase 1, a school must attain the minimum percentage of its total possible points for two consecutive years. Once classified as Academic Distress Phase I, a school must comply with rules and regulations to be promulgated by the ADE in order to be removed from this category. Failure to do So will result in the schools designation as Academic Distress Phase II and/or Academic Distress Phase III. The ADE reserves the right, for any school in any of the designations above, to mandate a specified intensive intervention plan which could include, but not be limited to, specific one-year goals in curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development. This plan could also include a mandated summer school program for students performing below grade level. Current rules and regulations governing schools in Academic Distress will remain in effect until the ACTAAP system described here is fully operational. 12Accountability Indicators Definitions of the non-academic (learning environment) indicators are provided later in this document. Tier I Indicators, all state-mandated, are based on performance goals and apply to every school in the state, where appropriate, by grade level configuration. They are as follows: Indicator Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Tests ______________Goal (Definition)_____________ 100% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in reading and writing literacy. 100% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in mathematics. Grade Level(s) 4'\", 6'\", and 8'\" Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Tests 100% of a schools secondary students shall perform at or above the proficient level in Algebra I. 100% of a schools secondary students shall perform at or above the proficient level in Geometry. Secondary School Drop Out Average Daily Attendance Classes Taught by an Appropriate! y Licensed Teacher Professional Development 100% of a schools secondary students shall perform at or above the proficient level in Literacy.__________________________________ At least 99% of secondary students will remain in school to complete the 12'*' grade.______________ Average daily attendance rate will be at least 95%. 100% of a schools classes will be taught by an appropriately licensed teacher. V'\" through 12* Kindergarten through 12\"' Kindergarten through 12'*' School Safety 100% of a schools certified staff will complete at least 30 hours of approved professional development annually.______________________ Schools will be free of drugs, weapons, and violent acts. Kindergarten through 12'*' Kindergarten through 12'*' Note: For purposes of assigning points for criterion-referenced tests under the Tier I accountability component, only the performance of general population students shall be measured. 13 1 I Tier II Indicators are based on trend and improvement goals on state-mandated criterion-referenced tests and on school-selected indicators. Any Other School Selected Indicators must have prior approval of the ADE. Trend goals will be established for different cohorts of students using cross-sectional data from the same indicator (e.g. Primary Benchmark Exam). Statistical techniques will be developed, by averaging multiple years of data, to minimize the inherent volatility associated with the natural variation in performance of these different groups. This means that if a school is continuing to improve, the trend will be a consistent indicator that fewer students are below proficient, with the effect of off-year or good-year performance minimized. Improvement goals will be established for the same cohort of students using a longitudinal database. As students progress from grade to grade, data will be maintained and constantly updated. ! Indicator Performance on State-Mandated Criterion- Referenced Tests Performance on State-Mandated Criterion- Referenced Tests _______Tier II - State-Mandated Indicators ____________Goal (Definition)____________ The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in reading and writing literacy on the criterion-referenced tests will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in mathematics on the criterion-referenced tests will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. The percent of secondary students performing at or above the proficient level in Algebra I will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. Grade Level(s) 4'\", 6, and 8'\" Secondary The percent of secondary students performing at or above the proficient level in Geometry will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. The percent of secondary students performing at or above the proficient level in Literacy will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. Note: For purposes of assigning points for state-mandated criterion-referenced tests under the Tier II accountability component, the performance of each of the student categories - general population, special education students, limited English proficient students, and high mobility students - shall be measured. 14Tier II - School-Selected Indicators (Schools select any 5) Indicator School Drop Out Average Daily Attendance Classes Taught by an Appropriately Licensed Teacher_____ Professional Development _________________Goal_________________ Secondary schools will improve the percentage of students who stay in school to complete the 12* grade._____________________________ Schools will improve their average daily attendance rate.__________________________ Schools will improve the percent of classes taught by an appropriately licensed teacher. Grade Level(s) Secondary All Levels All Levels School Safety Other School Selected Indicators Schools will increase the percent of certified staff who complete 60 or more hours of approved professional development annually. Schools will be free of drugs, weapons, and violent acts._____________________________ Schools will select trend or improvement goals directed to student achievement in specific sub-populations or sub-test areas. These must have prior approval of ADE. All Levels All Levels All Levels Trend and Improvement Goals on State-Mandated Criterion-Referenced Tests On average, each schools trend goal for annual rate of reduction in the number of students below proficient will be determined by dividing the total percent of students below the proficient level by 10. To help establish improvement goals, each cohort of students will be monitored, beginning with the 1999 Primary Benchmark Exam, and a longitudinal database developed. As students progress from grade to grade, data will be maintained and constantly updated. This information will allow for the assessment of performance changes relative to initial performance and will assist in the development of expected improvement models. Test analysis and methodical planning to reach these goals will be facilitated and guided by the state school evaluation process. Trend and Improvement Goals on School-Selected Indicators The school, with approval of the ADE, selects five additional indicators to complete Tier II. These additional indicators can be selected from among school drop out, average daily attendance, teacher licensure, school safety, or professional development as defined in Tier I\nOR, a school may identify trend or improvement goals directed to student achievement in specific sub-populations or sub-test areas related to the criterion- 15referenced or norm-referenced tests. Guidelines will be developed for use in selecting minimum numbers of students for sub-population study in order to preclude identification . of individual students. In order to protect the integrity of the accountability system, the ADE must also approve the trend and improvement goals selected by the school. If a school elects to include results of its norm-referenced tests within its Tier II indicators, points will be assigned even though no points are given for these exams in Tier I. Note: The Professional Development indicator is set at a minimum level of 60 hours in order to encourage schools to offer more than the state-required minimum of 30 hours. Thus, schools will be rewarded for encouraging additional professional development opportunities for its teachers and administrators. Once selected, Tier II indicators will remain until they have been substantially attained or alternate indicators approved by the ADE. The following are examples of indicators based on sub-populations: / The gap between the scale score in mathematics on the Primary Benchmark Exam for African-American students and white students will be decreased by 10% each year. Title I eligible students will improve 5 percentile points in reading comprehension each year on the fifth grade norm-referenced test. Voluntary Reporting of Off-Grade Data The ADE strongly encourages, and will provide assistance toward, voluntary implementation by local schools of an expansion of the process of measuring improvement goals by utilizing data for a longitudinal study of students performance on off-grade tests. Participating schools may include results from off-grade testing as Tier II indicators, if so desired. Tier UI Indicators Tier III is a narrative developed by the staff of each school. This annual narrative of approximately 500 words generally describes data sources (e.g., criterion-referenced tests, norm-referenced tests, etc.) used to address state and local performance indicators. The nanative also describes progress that the school has made in formulating the plan and in successfully implementing the trend and performance indicators within the school improvement process. This narrative, which shall be sent to the ADE during the spring of each year, will be incorporated in the School Performance Report that will be disseminated to the public. No points will be assigned for the narrative. 16Sample School Narrative For the last three years, scores on the Primary Benchmark Exams reading test have exceeded the districts average. Each child from kindergarten through fifth grade receives an hour and a half of developmental reading instruction per day. Emphasis is also placed on the implementation of activities as outlined in the School Improvement Plan. Independent reading of books by primary and intermediate grade level students has been a priority - a goal was set for each student. This year 85% of the fourth grade students met or exceeded their goal compared to 70% last year. Students are being taught writing skills using many different approaches including computer word processing. The writing and scoring process is designed to help students improve writing scores on the Benchmark Exams. The computer-student ratio is 1:4. Children have access to the Internet and the school has a homepage on the Web. In mathematics over the past five years, fifth grade students scored below the district goal of 50% above the national average on the SAT-9. This year, a staff focus group supported by a Title I supplemental grant, recommended a teacher accountability math pacing chart. It included chapter test scores, a consistent five-day math homework policy, in-service for staff and parents, a student test awareness program, homework room and a Math Intervention Assistance program. All recommendations were implemented with the approval of the school council. In May, an in-service continued to provide staff with training on computer software and accessing the Internet for mathematical teaching materials and techniques. Parent involvement (via parent-teacher conferences) increased by 40% this year. Parents participated in developing instructional materials for use at home to reinforce skills, learning instructional uses of the computer, donated time to serve as individual tutors for students during the school day and assisted with holiday events for the students. Definitions of Non-Academic (Learning Environment) Indicators School Dropout means the percentage of students who leave school for any of the following reasons as defined in the Statewide Information System (SIS) database: incarcerated, failing grades, suspended or expelled, lack of interest, conflict with school, economic hardship, pregnancy/marriage, peer conflict, lack of attendance, alcohol/drugs, other. A code will be used for GED participation but will not count as a dropout for ACTAAP purposes. A student will be considered a dropout for the previous year if he/she has a Dropout/Withdrawal date between October 1 of the previous school year and October 1 of the current school year and has not re-entered. The percentage completing will be calculated by dividing the number not dropping out by the previous years October 1 enrollment. Average Daily Attendance means the total number of days attended by students divided by the number of days actually taught by the school. The number includes those students who attend school outside of the resident district on a tuition agreement between the two respective districts. 17 )i I I Appropriately Licensed Teacher means that a teacher has the appropriate license and/or approval to teach, the respective class. The teacher is teaching a class that would not _ cause the school to have a citation in the accreditation process. For the purpose of this calculation, the teacher would fill one of the job assignments as defined in the SIS database. (These are instructional positions, not administrative or supervisory job classifications.) The percentage of classes taught by an appropriately licensed teacher will be .determined by dividing the number of classes taught by appropriately licensed teachers by the total number of classes taught. Professional Development is as defined in the component definition earlier. 1 I School Safety means a percentage safety index determined by dividing the number of violent incidences involving students by the current year three-quarter average daily membership of the school and subtracting from 100%. A safety infraction committed by a student includes any of the following as defined in the SIS database: drugs, alcohol, student assault, staff assault, knife, handgun, rifle, shotgun, explosive, club, and gang. Schools reporting user-defined infractions should request confirmation from the ADE as to their inclusion in this indicator. Each reported incident will be factored into the calculation\ntherefore, there is no difference between one student being reported four times and four students being reported once. i I I i 18 iCiilentlai' for Data Collection and Point Assignment System Since the determination of rewards and sanctions will be based on points assigned to the Tier I and Tier II indicators, it is extremely important that such a system be fair and statistically and legally defensible. It is also necessary to allow appropriate time for sufficient data to be gathered that will permit an accurate measurement of trends and improvement expectations in a sufficient number of indicators. Once the assignment of points is initiated, the ADE, through a contract with the University of Arkansas Office of Research, Measurement and Evaluation (ORME), will be responsible for all calculations and rankings. The local school should not need additional personnel or resources to respond to the requirements of ACTAAP. The following calendar outlines the Baseline Year, or the first year in which official data for each Tier I indicator will be collected. 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001 -02 Primary Benchmark Middle Level Benchmark School Dropout Average Daily Attendance Classes Taught by an Appropriately Licensed Teacher Professional Development School Safety None Intermediate Benchmark End-of-Course Algebra I End-of-Course Geometry End-of-Course Literacy The Baseline Year for trend goals with each Tier II indicator will be two years following that indicators introduction in Tier I. The Baseline Year for improvement goals will vary, depending on when the same cohort of students reaches the next appropriate, measurable indicator. Even though baseline data accumulation was begun with the 1998-99 year, actual points for rewards and sanctions will not be assigned until 2001-02, and then only for those Indicators for which sufficient data has been gathered. The complete accountability point system will become fully operational, with all indicators, in 2003-04. Note: In order to meet federal mandates, a temporary system will be developed to identify those schools designated for school improvement. Beginning in 2000-2001 and continuing until the ACTAAP accountability system is fully operational, a school will be designated in school improvement under the following condition: Seventy-five percent or more of the students perform below proficient on either the literacy (reading and writing) or the mathematics section of the Benchmark Exam for the designated grade or grades represented by the school. 19CMS DMMS DRA Kindergarten Results by Middle School Feeder Pattern Percent Readiness--LRSD Average: 72% FHMS HMS Mann MMS PHMS SMS Basel Chicot Clover Wakef Watson 51 56 56 47 56 King Mitch  Right . Steph Wash Woodr 64: 91 92 41 . 81 69 Bale Brady Fair P. F.Park Frank Fulb McDer Steph 59 11 56 68 64 95 95 41 Brady Dodd - McDer Rominc: Terry W.Hilis Wilson ? CMS DMMS Basel 30 Chicot 27 Clover 28 Wakef 22 Watson 25 Whg Mitch Right . Steph Wash 57-\n25:,, 3^ 24 36 Woodr \"84 my' 61-^ Gibbs Willia Booker Carver 89 89 81 81 Chico^ D^d~ Mabelv 7 Meado Otter 56 81 61\" 90 - Badgett F.Park Jeff King PH Rocke Wash Woodr 22 1 Bale T 68 Frank | 90 64 83 76 81 69 Geyer, Meado Steph Wakef -W.Hills\njWiIson 85 77 41 - ^47 75 61 DRA Grade 1 Results by Middle School Feeder Pattern Percent ReadinessLRSD Average: 54% FHMS HMS Mann MMS PHMS SMS  Il Bale 67 Brady 35 Gibbs 66 Brady Fair P. F.Park Frank Fulb McDer Steph 35 63 70 58 61 80 24 McDer Romine Terry W.Uills Wilson 58 80 60. 81- 83 Willia Booker Carver 84 69 16 Chicot Dodd Mabelv Meado Otter 58 51 \"tF 68 Badgett F.Park Jeff King PH Rocke Wash Woodr 06 70 69 SI 50 76 36 84 Bale Frank Geyer - Meadov Steph W^k^ W.Hilis Wilson 67 58. 47 \" '70 24 22 81 * 83 CMS DMMS Basel 47 Chicot 39 King Mitch 81 49 Clover 58 Wakef 40 Watson 54 Right Steph , Wash Woodr DRA Grade 2 Results by Middle School Feeder Pattern Percent ReadinessLRSD Average: 68% FHMS HMS Mann MMS PHMS SMS Bale 72 Brady Fair P. 71 63 31  '.78 F.Park Frank Fulb McDer Steph 90 81 79 67 31 Brady Dodd = McDer.'\nRomine* Terr:^^^ WMills Wilson 71 52 67- B90 Gibbs Willia Booker Carver 81 90 80 82 Chicot Dodd Mabelv Meado Otter 39 73 58 Badgett F.Park Jeff King PH Rocke Wash Woodr 12 90 71 81 45 71 63 78 Bale Frank Geyer Meado- Wakeff w.iaiiis WiEon  72 81 73  58 31- ,40  90 60 6/15/00 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - Districtwide by Grade Districtwide Grade Kindergarten Race Gender Female White Male Total Female Black Male Total Female Other Male Total Female Total Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 3.06 246 2.53 227 2.81 473 1.16 593 0.89 613 1.02 1206 1.90 68 2.00 52 1.94 120 1.73 907 1.37 892 1.55 1799 Spring Assessment 8.20 245 6.35 227 7.31 472 3.76 605 2.61 625 3.18 1230 5.93 70 5.77 52 5.86 122 5.11 920 3.73 904 4.43 1824 'Amount of Change +5.14 i +3.82 +4.51 +2.60 ' +1.72 +2.16 +4.03 +3:77 +3.92 +3.38 +2.36 +2.88 Developmental Reading Assessment Fall Assessment 7.52' 240 6.35 222 6.96 462 4.81 613 3.65 573 4.25 1186 5.94 49 6.12 50 6.03 99 5.59 902 4.50 845 5.07 1747 First Grade \"Spring Assessment 26.36 246 24.48 225 25.46 471 18.30 634 14.43 584 16.44 1218 16.67 57 22.78 51 19.56 108 20.31 937 17.56 860 18.99 1797 Amount of Change +18.84 +18.13 +18.50 +13.48 - +10.79 +12.20 , +10.73 ' +16\n66 +13.53 +14.72 +13.05 +13.93 Fall Assessment 25.79 231 24.57 231 25.18 462 19.68 601 16.05 604 17.86 1205 19.59 37 22.38 55 21.26 92 21.30 869 18.66 890 19.96 1759 Second Grade Spring Assessment 36.77 226 36.29 233 36.53 459 29.48 605 26.44 604 27.96 1209 29.49 45 29.68 62 29.60 107 31.36 876 29.22 899 30.27 1775 . Amount of 4 Change \"+10.98' *11.72 +11.35 +9.80 +10.39 +10.10 +9:89 +7.30 +8.34 - +10.06- +10.56\" +10\n31  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten ** An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. OS2000-Camine.KJhru^2 1 6/19/00 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Districtwide Grade Kindergarten Race White Black Other Total Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 3.06 246 2.53 227 2.81 473 1.16 593 0.89 613 1.02 1206 1.90 68 2.00 52 1.94 120 1.73 907 1.37 892 1.55 1799 Spring Assessment 8.20 245 6.35 227 7.31 472 3.76 605 2.61 625 3.18 1230 5.93 70 5.77 52 5.86 122 5.11 920 3.73 904 4.43 1824 Developmental Reading Assessment First Grade Second Grade  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in hrst grade. An average level of 24 or more is considered prohcient in second grade. Amount of Change +5.14 . St\n'..-.+3.82 fewOs 10 +2. 16 ^4\nf)3i +3.77 r-^92\n*3^8 +2.36 +2/88 Fall Assessment 7.52 240 6.35 222 6.96 462 4,81 613 3.65 573 4.25 1186 5.94 49 6.12 50 6.03 99 5.59 902 4.50 845 5.07 1747 **(Spring Assessment 26.36 246 24.48 225 25.46 471 18.30 634 14.43 584 16.45 1218 16.67 57 22,78 51 19.56 108 20.31 957 17.56 860 19.00 1797 \nArfiduhtjof Changer r +'l8 84 +1813 +18 50 ' +13 48 +10 79 +12 20 +10.73 +16.66 +13.53 , +14 12 +13 05 +13 93 Fall Assessment 25.79 231 24.57 231 25.18 462 19.68 601 16.05 604 17.86 1205 19.59 37 22.38 55 21.26 92 21.30 869 18.66 890 19.96 1759 -A**!Spring Assessment 36.77 226 36.29 233 36.53 459 29.48 605 26.44 604 27.96 1209 29.49 45 29.68 62 29.60 107 31.36 876 29.22 899 30.27 1775 Arnount of li. Change +10 98 , +1'1 72 . +11.35,\n+9 SO'\" d0 39- +io.io ' '+9.89' +7.30 +8.34 +10:08 +10 56 , +10 31 Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. Ella by sctibol 2Ot)OI3bles 6/19A)0 Race White Black other Total Badgett Grade Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 3.00 3 3.00 3 0.38 16 0.43 14 0.40 30 0.79 19 0.43 14 0.64 33 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fail to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten Spring Assessment 3.33 3 .i^eKafige: ? 1 +0 33 fW as i'3\u0026gt;\" a First Grade Second Grade Fall Assessment 2.00 1 \"Spring Assessment Amount of Change 3.33 3 1.13 16 0.92 12 1.04 28 r ^+0'6-4 : Si 1.47 19 0.92 12 1.26 31 '^i hhmmi 8 SSS5S.?SgWS '-'+0.62X-'  An average level of 2 or more Is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in 6rst grade. An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. 2.00 1 1.56 18 1.00 9 1.37 27 6.93 15 5.22 9 6.29 24 ^\u0026gt;5 38\" ^\"+422\" +4 92 ?B /M-aI^  d-^'A 1.58 19 1.00 9 1.39 28 6.93 15 5.22 9 6.29 24 . '\u0026gt;'+4 2^1 ' .+4:901 Fall Assessment 8.00 1 1.00 1 4.50 2 1.44 9 1.95 19 1.79 28 \"Spring Assessment 40.00 1 1.00 1 20.50 2 3.00 8 10.55 20 8.39 28 Aynountof\n'Change +32.00  +16 00^^ ft' BO0IW \" +6 61 s?' 2.10 10 1.90 20 1.97 30 7.11 9 10.10 21 9.20 30 fBt 20 +7I3 y Segments of the populetion not testing st a proficient level are highlighted in bold. Ella by school 2000lables 6/19/00 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Race White Black Other Total Bale Grade Gender Female Male Total Female Mate Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 0.50 2 0.00 2 0.25 4 2.19 21 0.13 15 1.33 36 0.80 5 0.00 1 0.67 6 1.82 28 0.11 18 1.15 46 Kindergarten Spring Assessment 3.50 2 1.00 2 2.25 4 5.77 22 0.60 15 3.68 37 4.20 5 2.00 1 3.83 6 5.34 29 0.72 18 3.57 47 ^Xhange^Zt- l \u0026lt; . -Y ~ : \u0026gt;ryo^-' '^j2.o. 0n0n*-  \" V h\nj f ajLO CQ + -''5- f-: +3 40 U.~JfbaOLJ[ a- +^52 g\nSjaSgitySfesaC-a -v^r 4i* '\\2 42\u0026lt;.-: S''' 5Ki Developmental Reading Assessment Fall Assessment 8.40 5 4.00 2 7.14 7 9.13 15 9.25 12 9.19 27 1.50 2 6.75 4 5.00 6 8.27 22 8.11 18 8.20 40 First Grade **Spring Assessment 25.57 7 14.00 2 23.00 9 22.53 15 21.33 12 22.00 27 8.00 2 20.00 5 16.57 7 22.21 24 20.21 19 21.33 43  Amountof ' - ,Chahgeio -r1V7 - +10 00 +^5 86 '+13^40 +12 08 ^^2*81 \\ \\^6 50^- s+13 25 , +11157^ ^^13'94?^ V .+42?1Q: i-jSTasSgSS: ^\u0026lt;3.137 Second Grade * An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. ** An average level of 16 or more is considered profcient in frst grade. * An average level of 24 or more Is considered proficient in second grade. Fall Assessment 18.50 4 20.00 2 19.00 6 15.69 16 14.93 15 15.32 31 Spring Assessment 33.50 4 44.00 2 37.00 6 25.53 17 28.00 17 26.76 34 jSrnouht'of^  .Change\nTfVoo r  . +24'00 ' 1 f e *  +18 00-^^1 '+9,84\nSJ5S535 /-.+13.'O7 - +11. 4 sWsaisOK 16.25 20 15.53 17 15.92 37 27.05 21 29.68 19 28.30 40 +14.4^^ f r- \" -1-3 g@8WR 1* Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highjighted in bold. Ella by school 2000tablas 6/19/00 Race White Black Other Total Baseline Grade Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 1.00 2 0.50 2 0.75 4 0.37 19 0.13 16 0.26 35 0.43 21 0.17 18 0.31 39 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten Spring Assessment 3.00 2 3.00 2 3.00 4 1.89 19 1.43 14 1.70 33 SSmduntiSfS Change +2\noo +2\n5Q- +2.25  Si' - -+1.44:7.\nFirst Grade Second Grade Fall Assessment \"Spring Assessment Amount of Change 2.00 21 1.63 16 1.84 37 S'S15Z++: ' +1.53- ' * An average level of 2 or more /s considered proficient in kindergarten. \" An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade.  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. 3.00 4 3.00 4 4.90 20 2.91 23 3.84 43 4.00 1 4.00 1 4.90 20 2.96 28 3.77 48 27.00 2 27.00 2 18.33 18 9.10 21 13.36 39 18.33 18 10.65 23 14.02 41 +24 OQ +24 00 +13 45 +6 18 +9 52 eft +13 43-, +7 69 +10 25 Fall Assessment 20.67 3 16.00 2 18.80 5 16.83 12 15.77 13 16.28 25 38.00 1 \"Spring Assessment 31.33 3 20.00 2 26.80 5 24.69 13 23.00 13 23.85 26 44.00 1 Afhdurit of ^Change. +10.67-.-''' +4:00.^\n. +8.00' ,,+7 86'', '-\u0026lt;l\n+7:23 +7,57 +6.00 38.00 1 18.88 16 15.80 15 17.39 31 44.00 1 27.00 17 22.60 15 24.94 32\nt6:(5o:^ ' 21. ' - +'6\n80v-' 0++7\n55 Segmenfs of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. Ella by school 2000lables 6/19/00 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Race White Black other Total Booker Grade Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 2.12 17 1.42 12 1.83 29 1.58 19 1.76 21 1.68 40 4.00 3 0.00 2 2.40 5 2.00 39 1.54 35 1.78 74 Kindergarten Spring Assessment 6.06 17 2.83 12 4.72 29 3.95 19 4.10 21 4.03 40 11.67 3 1.00 2 7.40 5 5.46 39 3.49 35 4.53 74 .XCharige_'' ig\nta?S!aigeiSB iy +9 V?  is'\n-j+5\n0QWffi as Developmental Reading Assessment Fall Assessment 6.61 23 4.92 12 6.03 35 3.71 21 2.43 23 3.05 44 2.75 4 First Grade \"Spring Assessment 24.83 23 23.25 12 24.29 35 19.05 21 16.38 21 17.71 42 21.00 4 Ambunt-pf , Change: +18r22 -^5. +18:33' . ,+182^ , 'i- .. +15'33' r r-\nX*'-?!' +13.95 1^ Second Grade Wi O 3' 'Sr\n'- 2.75 4 5.02 48 3.29 35 4.29 83 21.00 4 21.98 48 18.88 33 20.72 81 'VI8 25\nl+io'giB +15 59 +1\u0026amp;43 Fall Assessment 29.33 24 25.12 17 27.59 41 22.36 25 16.78 18 20.02 43 24.00 2 44.00 1 30.67 3 25.71 51 21.47 36 23.95 87 Spring Assessment 37.42 24 31.88 16 35.20 40 32.64 25 27.67 18 30.56 43 30.00 2 44.00 1 34.67 3 34.78 51 30.06 35 32.86 86 change--'. \nSSpssWii * An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered prohctent in 6rst grade. *** An average level of 24 or more is considered prescient in second grade. Si .+1O\n53 A ,\n- -ggai :^:4+\u0026lt;do^ .'MS: +8.58 iWW Segmenfs of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. Ella by school 2000tables6/19/00 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Race White Black Other Total Brady Grade Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 1.00 5 0.67 3 0.88 8 0.89 9 0.53 17 0.65 26 0.67 3 0.67 3 0.88 17 0.55 20 0.70 37 Kindergarten Spring Assessment 5.40 5 4.00 2 5.00 7 3.86 7 3.50 16 3.61 23 2.50 2 Armuri^of c  Ctiah\u0026amp;e  .v+3,33.^ Developmental Reading Assessment First Grade Second Grade +413 t - +2 95. T83S 5^ 2.50 2 4.21 14 3.56 18 3.84 32 , 1. +3 01 T  - t3 W Fall Assessment 8.00 7 8.00 3 8.00 10 5.47 17 5.24 21 5.34 , 38 5.50 4 6.00 3 5.71 7 6.11 28 5.63 27 5.87 55 Spring Assessment 14.29 7 20.00 3 16.00 10 12.44 16 13.00 19 12.74 35 13.50 4 14.33 3 13.86 7 13.07 27 14.00 25 13.52 52 Amouhtiof Change^ *M*n T +6 29. -+'1Z00 +8 00  +6.97 X' I,_____________ * , +7 40 Z-1+8 00  \u0026gt;+833'\n''\"+6,97 ~ a., B D a /i* J- * An average level of 2 or more Is considered proficient in kindergarten. * /Vi average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. *** An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Fall Assessment 18.00 3 18.00 1 18.00 4 19.13 16 17.74 23 18.31 39 Spring Assessment 29.33 3 30.00 1 29.50 4 29.29 14 26.00 21 27.31 35 .-JaBHangesfe +1 T,33,*/i^ -ii'AVi: iSSaSSte 16.00 1__ 16.00 1 18.95 19 17.68 25 18.23 44 28.00 1 28.00 1 29.29 17 26.26 23 27.55 40 -ft\n^r , ,+9.32  y.., Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. Ella by school 2000lablas6/19/00 Race White Black Other Total Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Carver Grade Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 8.38 13 8.00 18 8.16 31 4.05 19 1.50 20 2.74 39 2.00 1 9.25 4 7.80 5 5.70 33 5.02 42 5.32 75 Kindergarten Spring Assessment 11.46 13 11.83 18 11.68 31 5.95 19 3.20 20 4.54 39 4.00 1 12.50 4 10.80 5 8.06 33 7.79 42 7.91 75 * 'AiTfount of?' ^Change?i '7* '\\-t^,83 ',+\"1I'.-.-8O'r9i'A'\n-\n- - - .\"+1.'7O'-- ? _ i j'+O ^'i'O Ta-i \u0026gt;+r 3n 0n0n K'i Developmental Reading Assessment Fail Assessment 8.57 7 6.35 20 6.93 27 4.87 15 2.79 19 3.71 34 8.00 1 4.67 3 5.50 4 6.13 23 4.62 42 5.15 65 First Grade Second Grade Spring Assessment 28.00 7 26.10 20 26.59 27 20.87 15 16.95 19 18.68 34 30.00 1 31.33 3 31.00 4 23.43 23 22.33 42 22.72 65 Amounfof Changed +19 43 +19 75 +1S67,\u0026gt; +16-00... i:r^' - +14 16 +14j97 +22 00 +26 67 +25.50 +1730 +17171 +17 57 Fall Assessment 24.83 12 26.10 20 25.63 32 19.29 28 17.44 18 18.57 46 16.00 2 25.50 4 22.33 6 20.71 42 22.33 42 21.52 84 ***Spring Assessment 40.50 12 38.63 19 39.35 31 31.85 27 31.00 18 31.51 45 32.00 2 36.00 4 34.67 6 34.39 41 35.02 41 34.71 82 c ____ Ajnount of .'change +15 67 +12.53 +13 73  fin !\"+12 57 s' +13^56-- ^,5 '-+i^+' 2 95 +16 00\n\". *\"^10 so\"' - 33 i 'XS\" +13 68, +12 69 \" '+13-18.\n An average level of 2 or more Is considered proficient in kindergarten. An average level of 16 or more is considered pro6cienl in first grade. *** An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. Ella by school 2000tables 6/19/00 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Race White Black Other Total Chicot Grade Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 0.00 4 4.29 7 215 11 0.64 25 0.41 22 0.53 47 0.57 7 0.00 7 0.29 14 0.56 36 1.08 36 0.82 72 Kindergarten Spring Assessment 1.75 4 4.29 7 3.36 11 2.35 26 1.39 23 1.90 49 1.57 7 0.86 7 1.21 14 2.14 37 1.84 37 1.99 74 ^aChangev '\n/s/1-75 - 4+-0n R6/l4 -  rtWi^- las .+0.8. r-.  +1-00,^ 4+0 86\" \\ \u0026gt;'0 75,7.^ : -iH-117 Developmental Reading Assessment Fall Assessment 1.75 4 1.00 5 1.33 9 1.88 24 1.75 20 1.82 44 2.00 3 1.00 4 1.43 7 1.87 31 1.52 29 1.70 60 First Grade \"Spring Assessment 16.75 4 10.17 6 12.80 10 14.52 23 7.91 22 11.29 45 13.11 9 2.60 5 9.36 14 14.42 36 7.52 33 11.12 69 ' Amount of :\n,Chaihge 1 \"AS? Bias?! SSsi +.12\n6S +64'6 3-9\u0026gt;47 B +11.11 ssisssafs .J-*7 93\n?.+Ji'2.55\n- +6\no'o- Si\u0026amp;Ss +942iJ Second Grade * An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. \" An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. *** average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Fall Assessment 19.00 2 17.00 2 18.00 4 16.05 21 11.57 23 13.70 44 16.00 2 16.00 2 16.30 23 12.30 27 14.14 50 \"Spring Assessment 37.00 2 31.00 2 34.00 4 26.35 20 25.26 19 25.82 39 6.40 5 17.33 9 13.43 14 23.44 27 23.27 30 23.35 57 /^ount^of , ..'change-'\n1^0 1+16-00 '3. 340130?^* *sffi - +13^70 ^+^2^2: .fc1i33 SSiWBi =' +9:21 Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. Ella by school 2000labtes 6/19/00 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Race Cloverdale Grade Gender Female White Male Total Female Black Male Total Female Other Male Total Female Total Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 1.00 1 0.00 2 0.33 3 0.52 23 0.17 23 0.35 46 0.00 1 0.00 2 0.00 3 0.52 25 0.15 27 0.33 52 Kindergarten Spring Assessment 4.00 1 6.00 2 5.33 3 2.05 21 1.48 23 1.75 44 2.00 1 1.00 2 1.33 3 2.13 23 1.78 27 1.94 50 WmoujW^ WCfiangte^ *'-.^\u0026lt;+6.00 '\"S'\nDevelopmental Reading Assessment Fall Assessment First Grade Spring Assessment ^Snibuiit of change . Second Grade isss^wswiew\n-.4i:5'3 [U'S  '+'2'00''' PPUxsfiS 4.00 1 4.00 1 7.00 29 4.83 29 5.91 58 3.00 1 6.50 4 5.80 5 6.87 30 5.00 34 5.88 64 8.00 1 8.00 1_ 13.68 28 10.10 30 11.83 58 6.00 1 20.25 4 17.40 5 13.41 29 11.20 35 12.20 64 +4,00- +4.0\u0026amp; +6 6^ - ^s:2.7z. +310'0'' -'- .3l 6\u0026amp;^ 5SSw?i?i5!r^SWWi , . +6:55'  r Ss\u0026amp;SSg^fci w , '+6 20\n An average level of 2 or more Is considered proficient in kindergarten. An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in nrst grade. An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Fall Assessment 29.00 2 3.00 1 20.33 3 27.52 27 26.75 24 27.16 51 44.00 1 44.00 1 27.62 29 26.50 26 27.09 55 Spring Assessment 20.00 1 4.00 1 12.00 2 31.30 23 25.68 19 28.76 42 T^puntsof ^Change\nw -9,00 +1 00 Is aS +3^79 j1'.Q7 5^\n*r'K' 44.00 1 44.00 1 30.83 24 25.52 21 28.36 45 ifi +3 21-\nijSS-ffisSSM\n^,j-0'i9ffM-. giiggE Segments of the population not testing at a proricient level are highlighted in bold. Ella by school 2000tables6/19/00 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Race White Black other Total Dodd Grade Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 0.64 11 0.50 8 0.58 19 1.00 9 0.25 8 0.65 17 0.80 20 0.38 16 0.61 36 Kindergarten Spring Assessment 6.80 10 4.89 9 5.89 19 10.67 9 2.75 8 6.94 17 hSSf '^riSuntJofsl ri'.fetSrtUFTsCi'it'.ii'a-.t. S5\n32 4b: --,.=+9,675 - Developmental Reading Assessment First Grade Second Grade --7+2 50 Fall Assessment 1.33 3 11.00 4 6.86 1 2.14 7 3.00 7 2.57 14 18.00 1 Spring Assessment 16.67 3 23.00 4 20.29 7 19.29 1 19.43 7 19.36 14 30.00 1 Amount of Change -M+.ISrSOt +12 00 +13 43 +17 14  .+16'43\n+1679 +12 00 Fall Assessment \"Spring Assessment Afnount of -..Change, 8.63 19 3.88 17 6.39 36 sassSst T 18.00 1 3.36 11 5.91 11 4.64 22 30.00 1 19.55 11 20.73 11 20.14 22 +42'.00i +1618 +14 82 --4115 50\" I- .... -iV'^ ?\u0026gt;7  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. \" An average level of 16 or more is considered prondent in 6rst grade. * An average level of 24 or more Is considered profclent in second grade. 10.00 5 10.00 5 25.00 6 15.25 4 21.10 10 25.20 5 25.20 5 16.25 8 28.50 4 20.33 12 +15.20i +1520 -8 75, +13 25- -0 77' 4. 14.00 1 14.00 1 25.00 6 12.50 10 17.19 16 16.25 8 26.67 9 21.76 17 +14 17c^ ' +4'58 Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold Ella by school 2000tab!es6/19/00 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Race White Black Other Total Fair Park Grade Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 2.12 17 1.42 12 1.83 29 1.58 19 1.76 21 1.68 40 4.00 3 0.00 2 2.40 5 2.00 39 1.54 35 1.78 74 Kindergarten Spring Assessment 6.06 17 2.83 12 4.72 29 3.95 19 4.10 21 4.03 40 11.67 3 1.00 2 7.40 5 5.46 39 3.49 35 4.53 74 Ghange a.. ' 'si\n.'T2\n'90.%, T \u0026lt; L-V -I i\nw' a^\u0026gt;+^f251o3f77A^-ieE  L' iSi' r*'. \\50b-- 'Tfr t, i 2!2 9 '+2:74 \u0026lt; Developmental Reading Assessment Fall Assessment 6.61 23 4.92 12 6.03 35 3.71 21 2.43 23 3.05 44 2.75 4 2.75 4 5.02 48 3.29 35 4.29 83 First Grade **(Spring Assessment 24.83 23 23.25 12 24.29 35 19.05 21 16.38 21 17.71 42 21.00 4 21.00 4 21.98 48 18.88 33 20.72 81 Second Grade SjAmountiof: Ch^geat -- 418.33: , +15.33 +13.95 9^'8^5ft3 !3t Si +16^96: tW' STS: sl3\nFall Assessment 29.33 24 25.12 17 27.59 41 22.36 25 16.78 18 20.02 43 24.00 2 44.00 1 30.67 3 25.71 51 21.47 36 23.95 87 ***Spring Assessment 37.42 24 31.88 16 35.20 40 32.64 25 27.67 18 30.56 43 30.00 2 44.00 1 34.67 3 34.78 51 30.06 35 32.86 86 lounliof hange Sc\"* ' , A +6.76 +7 61 - ' +10 28* '\u0026gt;+J0 89-. - ~ +1053* +6 00 \\0-. gaitSigjaw S: +8'-58//-' S=WS? -p. -r ^+8 91  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. \"* An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. Ella by school 2000labl6S 6/19/00 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Forest Park Grade Kindergarten Race White Black Other Total Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 4.55 11 3.08 12 3.78 23 1.89 9 0.00 13 0.77 22 Spring '-JpSnoun^'oC .  ''S! - Assessment ?.'/. i,\n-* Chh'Oa nn nge ? 8.82 11 7.25 12 8.00 23 3.22 9_ 0.50 12 1.67 21 ^.\u0026gt;\n/4:27 ' -+417 5. A  ' +4.22 +l..33s' W asw^ +0.50a- r\"'- +V0b'-t8+9S?s-\n,-^' Developmental Reading Assessment Fall Assessment 8.75 20 13.80 15 10.91 35 6.00 5 4.20 10 4.80 15 First Grade \"Spring Assessment 27.70 20 31.13 15 29.17 35 21.60 5 15.60 10 17.60 15 jAffiouniW' CKarige +18:95 +17.33\n'i, 53! .+j.T.^0. KiSSSf+SSi\n5'' F\nSecond Grade 3.35 20 1.48 25 2.31 45 6.30 20 3.88 24 4.98 44 * An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. \" An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in krst grade. An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. j.O*OR - - f\n8.20 25 9.96 25 9.08 . 50 26.48 25 24.92 25 25.70 50 8 8:28 ^1, li Fall Assessment 18.55 11 18.29 14 18.40 25 18.40 5 11.83 12 13.76 17 20.00 2 \"Spring Assessment 39.09 11 36.29 14 37.52 25 34.80 5 25.33 12 28.12 17 42.00 2 3i5i\u0026gt;unt\u0026lt;of? ^Chan'gfe\n-. +i9.i2' 5g!j4?i55I5 .+16.40 tefsjioi\ni-TIMS? sBi^ 20.00 2 18.67 18 15.31 26 16.68 44 42.00 2 38.22 18 31.23 26 34.09 44 ^2Z(}0 ' SSgsS^SWS Segments of the population not testing al a proficient level are highlighted in bold. Ella by school 2000lables L 6/19/00 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Race White Black Other Total Franklin Grade Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 0.00 2 1.00 1 0.33 3 0.43 23 0.15 41 0.25 64 1.50 2 1.50 2 0.48 27 0.17 42 0.29 69 Kindergarten Spring Assessment 2.00 2 3.00 1 2.33 3 2.65 23 2.05 41 2.27 64 3.50 2 Amount of Change +2 00 +2 00 +2 00 T +2 22 +1 90 +2 02 +2 00 Developmental Reading Assessment Fall Assessment 14.00 1 14.00 1 6.23 30 5.96 26 6.11 56 3.00 1 First Grade Spring Assessment 44.00 1 44.00 1 24.38 32 18.82 28 21.78 60 26.00 1 Second Grade L: Amount of  -.Change.. ^:|+3o.^''' Fall Assessment \"Spring Assessment Amount of Change #3o\noa +18,14 +12:86 +15.68 +23.00 19.15 34 12.93 30 16.23 64 35.35 34 32.73 30 34.13 64 +16.21 +19 80 +17:89 3.50 2 2.67 27 2.07 42 2.30 69 '+2 00 +2119 - , +1.90: *2 01 J 3.00 1 6.38 32 5.96 26 6.19 58 26.00 1 25.00 34 18.82 28 22.21 62 +23 00' +18,63\n+16:02i s 19.15 34 12.93 30 16.23 64 35.35 34 32.73 30 34.13 64 +\"16 21 +19.80 ' ^''+17\n89 V * An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. \"An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Segments of the population not testing al a proficient level are highlighted in bold. Ella by school 2000tables6/19/00 Race White Black Other Total Fulbright Grade Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 5.33 12 2.70 23 3.60 35 2.25 4 5.31 13 4.59 17 3.00 1 3.00 1 4.56 16 3.62 37 3.91 53 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten Spring Assessment 18.67 12 6.91 22 11.06 34 5.40 5 7.62 13 7.00 18 ^5 +.13\"33'^J? g S: assfij . +7-46:Kj sW sM5!S^KSSaSEa! teMsSfS!?RSwat^ First Grade Second Grade 12.00 1 12.00 1 14.76 17 7.31 36 9.70 53 as ^^5 x^iiia-SiBiSSS +9-00 C' A?\nO0' t-'-r-fi io\n2di +3.68.. ^evn!MOSW-'j V+5.79 * An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. * An average level of 16 or more is considered pro6cient in first grade. *\" An average level of 24 or more Is considered proficient in second grade. Fall Assessment 9.86 14 2.12 17 5.61 31 2.27 11 3.18 11 2.73 22 5.00 1 5.00 1 6.52 25 2.62 29 4.43 54 4*1Spring Assessment 25.43 14 25.27 15 25.34 29 15.40 10 17.64 11 16.57 21 Amount of Change + 15 57 , +23'. 15 SI 9^\n+13.43\nglW45 2^ 38.00 1__ 38.00 1 21.25 24 22.63 27 21.98 51 S33iOQ\nt33L0Q\n+20\n0l\n7:5\nFall Assessment 34.93 15 36.00 12 35.41 27 25.91 11 34.00 11 29.95 22 44.00 2 44.00 1 44.00 3 32.04 28 35.42 24 33.60 52 \"Spring Assessment 40.40 15 43.33 12 41.70 27 33.60 10 36.83 12 35.36 22 44.00 2 44.00 1 44.00 3 38.15 27 40.24 25 39.15 52 Amount of ^Changew Xi +5.47 tri SS?' Z +6-.30 :'\u0026gt; ?a55^ +769 +5.4V: 0., \"* ,0? :(i SK1?1 M2\nS5VS6\nSegments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted tn bold. Ella by school 2000iablas 6/19/00 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Race White Black Other Total Garland Grade Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Kindergarten Developmental Reading Assessment First Grade Second Grade Fall Assessment Spring Assessment Amount .-^Ghangfe\" gfegS Fall Assessment \"Spring Assessment ' Arnountof's Ixa-Change Irl Fall Assessment \"Spring Assessment *  /^ount of Change-i) 0.69 16 2.29 28 1.70 44 1.00 1 1.00 1 0.69 16 2.24 29 1.69 45 1.47 17 1.41 29 1.43 46 0.00 1 0.00 1 1.47 17 1.37 30 1.40 47 * An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. * /tn average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. SsSssi 5K5!aii O'\n87f'\ny aiftS h:^\n^0ii2fea !3We TOO SfcWs! -i U.UjiiS O\nB f5^ ?*^SW?87^M 2.53 17 2.27 11 2.43 28 3.00 1 2.33 3 2.50 4 2.56 18 2.29 14 2.44 32 11.47 17 9.92 12 10.83 29 12.00 1 10.00 3 10.50 4 11.50 18 9.93 15 10.79 33 \u0026gt;7'64 \u0026gt;8.'4o: '+7.67^ BWiBSK- i-?' +8:00 +7'65 - 13.18 22 12.70 20 12.95 42 13.18 22 12.70 20 12.95 42 2.00 1 2.00 1 17.64 22 20.37 19 18.90 41 17.64 22 19.45 20 18.50 42 +4-45 +5-95 S +675?^ Ts 55 Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. Ella by school ZOOOtables 6/19/00 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Geyer Springs Grade Kindergarten Race White Black Other Total Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Developmental Reading Assessment First Grade Second Grade Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean ~~N~ Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 3.00 1 5.00 2 4.33 3 0.90 20 0.80 20 0.85 40 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 2 0.95 22 1.13 23 1.04 45 Spring Assessment 6.00 1 15.00 2 12.00 3 2.35 20 2.70 20 2.53 40 2.00 1 1.00 1 1.50 2 2.50 22 3.70 23 3.11 45 ,^.iiQaniam, ?! K5\u0026gt;WTi' .. ?A5 '*'--a'\n^.14.5 '+119Q ?:-^S5$.vK!35I .--r^1. ss .fe-fe^iiargteSai.'3i.. 1 t42.S7\n'^ * An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. * An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. *** An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Fall Assessment 5.80 5 0.75 4 3.56 9 2.60 20 2.36 14 . 2.50 34 \"Spring Assessment 30.40 5 17.00 4 24.44 9 20.15 20 14.08 13 17.76 33 \" AmtouhVof . '..Cha'ng^.j. i+24 60 . +16'-25i,\" +2089 .. +17 55 +11 72 +1526\n:g$^:gas. 1.25 4 1.25 4 3.24 25 1.86 22 2.60 47 11.75 4 11.75 4 22.20 25 14.19 21 18.54 46 1.10 50 \u0026lt;10'50^ '.\n\u0026gt;\n+18 96 +12\n^-\n,+15\n95 Fall Assessment 20.00 3 19.33 3 19.67 6 19.17 12 14.50 20 16.25 32 \"Spring Assessment 37.33 3 30.67 3 34.00 6 33.50 12 25.80 20 28.69 32 iGhanaei 11,133 +1^F33 I\n^?5-  +14.33 7 +11,30\n:Wii WO ags 20.00 1 20.00 1 19.33 15 15.33 24 16.87 39 40.00 1 40.00 1 34.27 15 27.00 24 29.79 39 +20i\u0026amp;0Str , 126'00-/, 1?\n+Bii- 8i +1.1\u0026lt;67.?. LV^.- Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. Ella by school 2000tables6/19/00 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Race White Black Other Total Gibbs Grade Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 0.00 4 0.00 3 0.00 7 0.00 4 0.00 6 0.00 10 0.00 2 0.00 2 0.00 10 0.00 9 0.00 19 Kindergarten Spring Assessment 6.33 6 10.00 6 8.17 12 5.88 8 4.58 12 5.10 20 8.67 3 iAmountofi Change - '^'+6.33 +10 00 +8 17 *5.g8.~ 3+8.67 Developmental Reading Assessment Fall Assessment 11.25 4 6.89 9 8.23 13 3.50 6 2.75 8 3.07 14 4.00 1 First Grade Second Grade 8.67 3 6.53 17 6.39 18 6.46 35 t5nWglSf +'6.53: +6 39' +6 46 4.00 1 6.36 11 4.94 17 5.50 28 \"Spring Assessment 27.57 7 28.10 10 27.88 17 17.56 9 14.43 14 15.65 23 18.00 2 24.00 1 20.00 3 21.50 18 20.28 25 20.79 43 - Amount of ,  Change \u0026lt;7 +16 32 +21.21 +19 65 +14 06 +11 68 +12 58 +14 00 +16 00 -+15 34 ./+15.29\n* An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. ** An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in frst grade. *\" An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Fall Assessment 22.60 10 20.89 9 21.79 19 13.40 10 13.45 11 13.43 21 \"Spring Assessment 32.89 9 37.56 9 35.22 18 28.40 10 25.45 11 26.86 21 Amount of +10 29 +16 67 '+13 43 +15 00 +12 00 +13 43 18.00 1 18.00 1 18.00 20 16.86 21 17.41 41 30.00 1 30.00 1 30.53 19 30.86 21 30.70 40 +12 00 si\n+12O6\n-' Si\n+12 53 +14.00 '+13.29-.' Segments of the poputation not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. Ella by school 2000lables6/19/00 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Race White Black other Total Jefferson Grade Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 5.45 20 4.07 14 4.88 34 2.00 12 1.88 8 1.95 20 8.00 2 8.00 2 4.38 34 3.27 22 3.95 56 Kindergarten Spring Assessment 12.70 20 11.93 14 12.38 34 4.92 12 3.25 8 4.25 20 24.00 2 ^AmdyHVof,^  Clfange +7 86 n 50, ^tl 38 ^.1 ,\u0026gt;+2 30- J SSSBi Developmental Reading Assessment Fall Assessment 6.82 11 5.81 21 6J6 32 5.62 13 1.57 7 4.20 20 First Grade Spring Assessment 36.36 11 28.00 21 30.88 32 21.38 13 11.57 7 17.95 20 Amoimtof L . Change_ ^29 55 \" i ( -it \u0026gt;. , , +2249 +247,2 litat S S' Mjrjj i'+ISJ'-T \u0026gt; ---,+IOQO ' S +13:75 \"'-JI' Second Grade 24.00 2 10.62 34 8.77 22 9.89 56 13i16^0.tk iSQj 'fK6 2'4\\V 595 \u0026lt; 6.17 24 4.75 28 5.40 52 28.25 24 23.89 28 25.90 52 t. Tt ,+22 08' '\u0026gt;5^v +20\"50 * An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in 6rst grade. \"** An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Fall Assessment 32.67 24 30.38 21 31.60 45 22.57 14 22.50 12 22.54 26 'Spring Assessment 38.32 19 35.90 20 37.08 39 25.64 14 29.64 11 27.40 25 of Change 4-5\n52 ^a-ESjElS e58O siSa^'SSsaSiS' +7m s? 'asset's 27.00 2 27.00 2 28.95 38 27.49 35 28.25 73 20.00 1 20.00 1 32.94 33 33.25 32 33.09 65 8i \u0026amp; gashes :isa\u0026gt;tlvta5\n^Gi)sacs. SSSi . 8 r^' Segments of the population not testing al a proficient level are highlighted in bold. Ella by school 2000lables6/19/00 Race Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade White Black other Total King Grade Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 1.71 17 0.36 14 1.10 31 0.76 25 0.55 20 0.67 45 1.50 4 0.00 3 0.86 7 1.17 46 0.43 37 0.84 83 Kindergarten Spring Assessment 5.71 17 3.38 13 4.70 30 4.19 26 2.29 21 3.34 47 3.67 6 5.00 3 4.11 9 4.65 49 2.89 37 3.90 86 sasfeg ^CnangeaK sfeafei \u0026gt;S?S03^ ,j:-,t3.6O ^+9+343 - ajaas'-\"\"- ri'! rjs?- Sii tiiJ ^2 !s i \"Vs 05 feaSii Sfl Developmental Reading Assessment Fall Assessment 7.24 25 6.67 12 ., 7.05 37 5.00 24 3.09 35 3.86 59 10.67 3 9.33 3 10.00 6 6.40 52 4.32 50 5.38 102 First Grade \"Spring Assessment 23.28 25 25.31 13 23.97 38 23.21 24 13.14 35 17.24 59 17.00 4 42.67 3 28.00 7 22.77 53 17.98 51 20.42 104 Second Grade * 4/7 average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. * An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. *** An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. ?Wnpin^K5 .'fiihange r\\+.t8s9T\\ .S - 1 iX/sTtilS'i- \"Spring Assessment 40.09 22 39.53 17 39.85 39 33.04 27 33.69 26 33.36 53 49.50 2 Fall Assessment 21.18 22 20.50 16 20.89 38 16.85 26 13.46 28 15.09 54 20.00 1 jjs^Byge- ^isJetL '+16.92'  \u0026gt;18 -21 Siaa^ei^is :T.V 01313 ' -^'+16'fy1s9i r'' +^.23 W3333!19? -FlS.QOi y i:'T.1ft5l6 37r jigsaaaa 8 20.00 1 18.86 49 16.02 44 17.52 93 49.50 2 36.73 51 36.00 43 36.39 94 SWSQS ' '+17^87-''' asswSs 04 y.-r^ +99.98-Ms- +18 88- Segments of the population not testing al a proficient Ie vel are highlighted in bold. Ella by school 2000tables 6/19/00 Mabelvale Elem Grade Race White Black other Total Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fail Assessment 1.50 8 2.29 7 1.87 15 0.82 17 0.50 20 0.65 37 0.00 1 0.00 1 1.00 26 0.96 27 0.98 53 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten Spring Assessment 6.13 8 4.14 7 5.20 15 2.47 17 2.05 20 2.24 37 3.00 1 /Amount of' ''t.^Change . .+4 63' e ''+T1 I (8J6U+ f IS. ,  +1 59 + +3'66 ,* First Grade Second Grade 3.00 1 3.62 26 2.59 27 3.09 53 '\u0026gt;''+3 00 I,.*..\n... '+2 62 I-.- 7-f+JJ -6153\u0026lt; jMf- ? * An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. An average level of 16 or more is considered prescient in 6rsl grade. * An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Fall Assessment 3.00 2 1.17 6 1.63 8 3.45 22 1.77 22 2.61 44 3.42 24 1.64 28 2.46 52 **lSpring Assessment 41.00 2 16.17 6 22.38 8 21.04 24 18.65 23 19.87 47 Amount of Change '+-38 00 +20 75^^ \\ te 45\n,+16,88^ +7 25 sss^siSJSJ^ Fall Assessment 11.14 7 11.00 5 11.08 12 8.23 13 8.30 20 8.27 33 15.00 2 Spring Assessment 24.86 7 39.00 7 31.93 14 22.15 13 19.60 20 20.61 33 41.00 2 Amount of - Change  +28\n00: '\ni3 92\n- gs Xii^so- p =:+-aai\n'aa' +12133\nsr +26.00 r 22.58 26 18.14 29 20.24 55 7^\n+1916, X+16-50 15.00 2 9.77 22 8.84 25 9.28 47 41.00 2 24.73 22 24.63 27 24.67 49 +26.001-.\n-+15.40 Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. Ella by school 2000tables 6/19/00 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Race McDermott Grade Gender Female White Male Total Female Black Male Total Female Other Male Total Female Total Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 1.07 14 0.62 13 0.85 27 0.00 9 0.00 9 0.00 18 0.50 6 1.00 4 0.70 10 0.62 29 0.46 26 0.55 55 Kindergarten Spring Assessment 9.29 14 4.15 13 6.81 27 4.67 9 2.56 9 3.61 18 5.17 6 10.50 4 7.30 10 7.00 29 4.58 26 5.85 55 ' Amo'unf of 'Change i\n, f -s+8-^' \" 3 +3.54 sfS?9 Developmental Reading Assessment First Grade Second Grade SOS Wfttt\n5QiS r +4\n12.- ^5 .ill- Fall Assessment 3.45 11 8.67 9 5.80 20 2.53 17 2.55 11 2.54 28 4.75 4 3.00 2 4.17 6 3.13 32 5.09 22 3.93 54 \"Spring Assessment 21.36 11 31.78 9 26.05 20 23.65 17 21.20 10 22.74 27 18.75 4 26.00 2 21.17 6 22.25 32 26.19 21 23.81 53 Amouhtof Change\n+17 91 --Tffti +2311 +20 25 +21 12 +18 65 +20 21 +14 00 +23 00 +17.00^\\ , Tig 13  +21 10 +19 89 Fall Assessment 27.00 10 26.00 17 26.37 27 18.94 32 16.06 17 17.94 49 12.00 2 3.33 3 6.80 5 20.45 44 19.59 37 20.06 81 Spring  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. * An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. *** An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Assessment 37.20 10 40.94 17 39.56 27 30.87 31 25.62 21 28.75 52 30.00 2 18.00 3 22.80 5 32.30 43 31.41 41 31.87 84 Afndunt of jehiange: ^10.20^ .^ir'Ss n'- +'13.19\n-+9.56\n18iO(T :t?14.67- +=M?8^ !!* = +1'182*-: +11.81'{ Segments of the population not testing al a proficient level are highlighted in bold. Ella by school 20Q0lables6/19/00 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Meadowcliff Grade Kindergarten Race White Black Other Total Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Tota! Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 1.00 3 0.00 5 0.38 8 2.23 13 0.11 9 1.36 22 Spring Assessment 4.00 3 1.75 4 2.71 7 6.57 14 2.22 9 4.87 23 Wou^ S+' ip\u0026gt;- si-aaSSia^ if fc Developmental Reading Assessment First Grade Second Grade *5 J 2.00 16 0.07 14 1.10 30 6.12 17 2.08 13 4.37 30 Be fe WSTK'Sf'\"'' * An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. \"* An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in 6rst grade. ** An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Fall Assessment 3.50 4 1.33 3 2.57 7 2.31 16 2.25 12 2.29 28 2.00 1 2.00 1 2.52 21 2.07 15 2.33 36 Spring Assessment 31.60 5 14.33 3 25.13 8 20.50 16 16.93 14 18.83 30 16.00 1 16.00 1 22.82 22 16.47 17 20.05 39 Arnouht of Change \u0026lt;+28-10 4-13.001 'W +22:55' !'X +1919^ ilW9 +14.00, -i ' -y-20-29 'Iff' is : 4^7772 l\"'- Fall Assessment 16.67 3 15.33 3 16.00 6 17.54 13 13.77 13 15.65 26 Spring Assessment 24.67 3 22.00 3 23.33 6 25.93 14 22.33 15 24.07 29 ^Change  SI I^+SW\"^ +6.'67 sg\u0026lt; +8 39:?^' 'ifSa-S5 +8.56 +8\n42 2.00 1 2.00 1 17.38 16 13.35 17 15.30 33 10.00 1 10.00 1 25.71 17 21.63 19 23.56 36 +8'.00 \u0026lt;n1 isafis? ... -h8.254 Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highjighted in bold. Ella by scboot ZOOOtables6/19/00 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Race White Black other Total Mitchell Grade Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.37 19 0.90 10 1.21 29 1.35 20 0.90 10 1.20 30 Kindergarten Spring Amount of. Assessment .'. Changa 3.00 1 3.00 1 3.53 19 3.00 10 3.34 29 3.50 20 3.00 10 3.33 30 * An average level of 2 or more Is considered proficient in kindergarten. ** An average level of 16 or more is considered pro6cient in first grade. ** An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. . +200. , Id? -+2\"00 36 ,4+2'16 . +2-ID **3^wWV^S5i2Sn'a-\u0026lt;l%if-\u0026lt; fl- +2-13^ ,- Developmental Reading Assessment Fall Assessment 0.00 1 0.00 1 3.67 15 6.71 17 5.28 32 3.44 16 6.71 17 5.12 33 First Grade Spring Assessment 1.00 1 Change\nSecond Grade Fall Assessment Spring Assessment li^ourifof 'Change.. 1.00 1 12.36 14 13.19 16 12.80 30 11.60 15 13.19 16 12.42 31 'iiSati-kvfr:'-\n+1^ +8\n69: +648 4-. V6:48 K 19.60 15 19.82 17 19.72 32 40.00 1 22.00 2 28.00 3 20.88 16 20.05 19 20.43 35 23.14 14 24.82 17 24.06 31 44.00 1 25.00 2 31.33 3 24.53 15 24.84 19 24.71 34 +3 541.-\" 3g\nrS'.iSyi a }Jf^ '  +3\n33' , ' +4'79 f',\n.ii: -J i-428'\"^ - Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. EHa by school 200CH3bles6/19/00 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade otter Creek Grade Kindergarten Race White Black Other Total Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 1.52 21 2.27 11 1.78 32 1.53 19 1.00 15 1.29 34 1.00 1 1.25 4 1.20 5 1.51 41 1.50 30 1.51 71 Spring Assessment 6.00 21 5.18 11 5.72 32 5.16 19 3.13 15 4.26 34 4.00 1 1.75 4 2.20 5 5.56 41 3.70 30 4.77 71 * An average level of 2 or more is considered proricient in kindergarten. ** /\\n average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. ** An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Developmental Reading Assessment First Grade Second Grade ArfiduriVofi Change\n\"7^ +4.'4'8' Mi '5 63^ -{fi +-2,97 Fall Assessment 5.12 17 4.54 13 4.87 30 3.21 14 1.55 11 2.48 25 Spring Assessment 28.56 18 21.50 14 25.47 32 17.80 15 15.18 11 16.69 26 Amount of Change +23 44^ +16 96 +20 60- '-'+14\n59 +-13\n64--\n_ ' +14 21 Fall Assessment 26.36 11 32.00 5 28.13 16 26.00 6 11.88 8 17.93 14 ***Spring Assessment 31.82 11 42.00 1 35.78 18 35.43 7 25.56 9 29.88 16 Amount of 'Change +5 45 .+10 00 +7'.'65~.' \"-+.15^68! +11 95 a0\n5a +1.00: ........ 6.50 2 6.50 2 4.26 31 3.42 26 3.88 57 44.00 2 44.00 2 23.e.7 33 20.59 27 22.28 60 +37 50 +37 50 +19 41 +17 17 +18 41 3.00 1 3.00 1 26.24 17 18.43 14 22.71 31 28.00 1 28.00 1 33.22 18 32.47 17 32.86 35 +25 00 +25 00 - +6 99 - +14 04  +10 i5'\nC Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. Ella by school 2000lables6/19/00 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Pulaski Hgts Elem Grade Kindergarten Race White Black Other Total Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 5.00 12 3.60 5 4.59 17 0.67 15 2.71 7 1.32 22 Spring Assessment 11.75 12 6.20 5 10.12 17 2.29 14 6.14 7 3.57 21 Arhountpf Change _____uJiiig \"+675 1 ' -'J'\" \" +2 60 Z \"+5 53^ +162 , +2 25 r Developmental Reading Assessment Fall Assessment 15.13 8 8.56 16 10.75 24 3.00 10 1.58 12 2.23 22 6.00 1 First Grade **Spring Assessment 26.00 8 19.50 16 21.67 24 14.70 10 9.67 12 11.95 22 20.00 1 Change 5d0.88 Cyl +10.941 +10.92 I?' ' 1+11-70': t8.08\n+973 ij! Second Grade 1.00 1 1.00 1 2.59 27 2.92 13 2.70 40 3.00 1 3.00 1 6.65 26 5.92 13 6.41 39 * An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarlen.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. *** An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. +2 00 +2 00 ^44 06- +3 0Q(, TC ssSto 6.00 1 8.26 19 5.57 28 6.66 47 20.00 1 19.74  19 15.29 28 17.09 47 M4\n0O: +1147 5' .+9-71 Fall Assessment 18.73 11 26.86 7 21.89 18 14.25 8 14.00 7 14.13 15 ***Spring Assessment 27.40 10 36.00 7 30.94 17 24.29 7 19.00 8 21.47 15 j^ounf of 'change +8 67 ,\n+9\ni4  ? +9.05 ,+10 04 +5 00 * +7 33 18.00 1 18.00 1 16.84 19 20.27 15 18.35 34 40.00 1 40.00 1 26.12 17 27.75 16 26.91 33 +22 00 . +22 00 +9 2 L .+7 48'\n+856\nH Segments of the population not testing al a proficient level are highlighted in bold. Ella by school ZOOOIables\u0026amp;/19/00 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Race White Black other Total Rightsell Grade Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean Fall Assessment 2.00 1 2.00 1 2.62 21 2.40 15 2.53 36 Male Total N Mean N Mean N 2.59 22 2.40 15 2.51 37 Kindergarten Spring Assessment 10.00 1 ^^^Ghange^\n:. Developmental Reading Assessment Fall Assessment First Grade \"Spring Assessment Amount of iChange Second Grade Fall Assessment \"Spring Assessment ii^ountjjf \u0026gt;  Ghangle^ 10.00 1 5.05 21 4.40 15 4.78 36 sffiS2S\u0026amp;O +2,00 4 'J 5.27 22 4.40 15 4.92 37 -vv 7'^ *V  An average level of 2 or more Is considered proficient in kindergarten. ** An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade.  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. 7.35 23 5.81 16 6.72 39 6.00 2 6.00 2 7.24 25 5.81 16 6.68 41 14.70 23 12.93 15 14.00 38 14.70 23 12.93 15 14.00 38 - .2-4-135-.\n+7 12 +7 28 28.96 25 32.36 11 30.00 36 36.88 25 40.83 12 38.16 37 A j4i^ ,+7'32-^ . 28.96 25 32.36 11 30.00 36 36.88 25 40.83 12 38.16 37 sWs  - +79? +8.47 +8 16 S- -+8'.47\u0026lt; r-'?# +'8 16 Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. Ella by school 2000table56/19/00 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Rockefeller Grade Kindergarten Race White Black Other Total Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 3.50 8 1.83 6 2.79 14 1.00 23 0.40 20 0.72 43 4.75 4 3.33 3 4.14 7 2.00 35 1.00 29 1.55 64 Spring yikmdunf of Assessment Change 10.50 8 3.67 6 7.57 14 3.30 23 1.90 20 2.65 43 7.25 4 8.67 3 7.86 7 5.40 35 2.97 29 4.30 64 4^7'OQ, , fl 83 -j: +1,50-.\"^ +^ 93 +2.50 +5 33. r*\u0026lt;/ ssa^Bssgsisa^ h3 40 ... 11 91 y s^WssS^ Developmental Reading Assessment Fall Assessment 5.63 16 4.83 6 5.41 22 6.05 21 3.50 14 5.03 35 4.00 1 4.00 1 5.82 38 3.90 20 5.16 58 First Grade Spring Assessment 26.50 16 27.14 7 26.70 23 20.30 20 17.29 14 19.06 34 18.00 1 18.00 1 22.92 37 20.57 21 22.07 58 Second Grade * An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. An average level of IB or more is considered proficient in first grade. * An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Amount of 'Change +20 88 t22 31 1 +21 29 '\"'*^+1425' +13 79 +14 03 +14 00\n10 1'16^7' J JW\" ...,+16 91 Fall Assessment 44.00 6 26.75 8 34.14 14 18.55 20 18.06 18 18.32 38 Spring Assessment 44.00 6 31.75 8 37.00 14 24.15 20 26.56 18 25.29 38 ATnoiinfeof' Change.. ft- ---T-i,' -+5:po +8 50 ' +6 97- 39.00 2 39.00 2 24.42 26 22.04 28 23.19 54 44.00 2 44.00 2 28.73 26 29.29 28 29.02 54 +5 00.*^::\n---5-^0^\n\"'+4'31^1/ rj+7'26 - ^\n,+583-\\ Segments of the poputation not testing et e proficient levet ere highlighted in bold. Ella by school 2000tables6/19/00 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Race White Black Other Total Romine Grade Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 0.50 2 0.00 4 0.17 6 1.00 13 0.00 18 0.42 31 0.00 4 0.00 4 0.00 8 0.74 19 0.00 26 0.31 45 Kindergarten Spring Assessment 5.50 2 1.40 5 2.57 7 3.44 16 3.09 22 3.24 38 1.50 4 1.75 4 1.63 8 3.27 22 2.65 31 2.91 53 +5 00 5, -\u0026lt;-+2'4O . i+3'd9' w: \u0026gt;SS7 J'\u0026lt;,+2,82 W -THSBaS\nI x- +1 63' 42,s\u0026lt; :\u0026lt; .\\+2'.65'\n: Has ^+Z59'?. Developmental Reading Assessment Fail Assessment 11.25 4 11.25 4 11.43 23 7.36 11 10.12 34 5.25 4 6.67 3 5.86 7 10.52 21 8.11 18 9.56 45 First Grade Spring Assessment Amount of Charige\n Second Grade * An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. ** An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. *** An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. 21.00 4 21.00 4 19.74 23 14.09 11 17.91 34 9.50 4 27.00 2 15.33 6 18.22 27 17.24 17 17.84 44 +9 75P +9.75^ - f8\n30 +6 73  %25 +20 33 * +9 48 gww ,+7 70 !: +9,12J +8 29  Fall Assessment 44.00 2 21.2,2, 2 40.00 5 31.20 15 23.75 24 26.62 39 23.71 7 27.09 11 25.78 18 30.08 24 25.79 38 27.45 62 Spring Assessment 44.00 2 44.00 2 44.00 4 37.88 16 30.78 23 33.69 39 31.71 7 36.00 10 34.24 17 36.64 25 33.03 35 34.53 60 WtriountToF igS'\u0026amp;iSSiS^s^ 'Change.^ :.*Ss a\n- Ir^tbo li ^+8:00^ :afS?Sy +8\n91 i ^8546\n\"I, +6.56 '\"\"'+7'08:'^ s Segmen/s of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. Ella by school 2000{ables6/19/00 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Race White Black Other Total Terry Grade Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 3.88 25 4.50 18 4.14 43 2.24 17 1.39 23 1.75 40 1.80 5 6.50 4 3.89 9 3.06 47 3.09 45 3.08 92 Kindergarten Spring Assessment 7.80 25 10.67 18 9.00 43 6.35 17 4.91 23 5.53 40 5.00 5 19.00 4 11.22 9 6.98 47 8.47 45 7.71 92 AmountSof\n^Charigei ^+3 92 - 's?  il t3?5^: \\V+3 20\nV+ +12,50 +733 tB Developmental Reading Assessment First Grade Second Grade \"\"\"+3:91'  Ci v:' +5 38 'P\n1:4.63 Fall Assessment 5.07 14 3.92 13 4.52 27 3.10 20 0.95 20 2.03 40 0.00 1 11.33 3 8.50 4 3.80 35 2.89 36 3.34 71 **\u0026lt; Spring Assessment 26.86 14 22.94 16 24.77 30 15.30 20 7,76 21 11.44 41 4.00 1 36.00 3 28.00 4 19.60 35 15.95 40 17.65 75 Amount of Change ' +21-79t c .r r.+'IS-OI \u0026gt; i +20 25 '.f+.12:20: +6 81 +9 41 +4 00 +24 67 , +.1950 +15 80 \u0026gt; +13 06' +14 32 Fall Assessment 20.63 8 20.81 16 20.75 24 24.15 13 16.12 17 19.60 30 15.50 4 22.50 4 19.00 8 21.64 25 18.84 37 19.97 62 \"Spring Assessment 37.64 11 30.82 17 33.50 28 37.20 20 28.45 22 32.62 42 38.40 5 29.43 7 33.17 12 37.50 36 29.48 46 33.00 82 Amountof. c, Change \" +17 01\n+.10.0.1,.^' jiyifX-iS\n+1275. tJi e--+-13705^ +12 34 +13 02 +22 90 +6 93* +1417 +15 86 +10 64 +13 03 .\u0026gt; * An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarlen. * An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. *** An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Segmenfs of the population not testing al a proficient level are highlighled in bold. Ella by school 2000iables6/10/00 Wakefield Grade Race Gender Fail Assessment Female White Male Total Female Black Male Total Female Other Male Total Female Total Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N 0.00 2 0.00 2 0.33 21 0.09 22 0.21 43 0.00 4 0.00 3 0.00 7 0.28 25 0.07 27 0.17 52 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Kindergarten Spring Assessment Anriodf*t of ^Change Developmental Reading Assessment First Grade Second Grade 0.00 2 0.00 2 1.86 21 0.95 22 1.40 43 1.00 4 1.00 3 1.00 7 1.72 25 0.89 27 1.29 52 0 0\nI^B Kss #sas!ichinRSi\n5\nFail Assessment 0.00 1 1.00 1  0.50 2 1.59 17 1.29 17 1.44 34 0.75 4 **lSpring Assessment 10.00 1 2.00 1 6.00 2 12.91 34 9.74 23 11.63 57 10.83 6 Amount of Change - Fall Assessment Spring Assessment T^dupt.pf 7Change: rSS i'5x SBaS\n+0.8T aasates 0. 0.75 4 1.36 22 1.28 18 1.33 40 10.83 6 12.54 41 9.42 24 11.38 65 'S^^cgwOnoOiSsgSMss a^St5s50'.e-?, - 32 , +8 45 +10 19 .-'+10.08 ' +10 08 tt +11 17 +8 14 r\"~+1006/ 10.27 22 9.95 20 10.12 42 1.00 2 7.00 4 5.00 6 9.50 24 9.46 24 9.48 48 20.52 21 19.68 19 20.13 40 7.00 2 28.00 4 21.00 6 19.35 23 21.13 23 20.24 46 B ftaSKtoOHEQlS Tv 'H-- +10.01 sOQi pHSa M'gaw : t+'T LT\"*?*'' +11.67- - +10.7'6\", S'  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. * An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient In first grade. An average level of 24 or more is considered pro6cienl in second grade. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highjighted in bold. Ella by school 2000lab/es 6/19/00 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Washington Grade Kindergarten Race Gender Female White Male Total Female Black Male Total Female Other Male Total Female Total Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 3.14 7 1.88 8 2.47 15 1.11 19 0.92 25 1.00 44 2.25 4 3.00 5 2.67 9 1.73 30 1.39 38 1.54 68 Spring Assessment 11.75 4 7.38 8 8.83 12 5.05 19 3.64 25 4.25 44 8.25 4 8.00 5 8.11 9 6.52 27 5.00 38 5.63 65 fffiuntBf\n^Gtia^eaii  .550 ij-S-iP is at S ^^.-5\np0 , \u0026gt;5 44\nS isse W-' Developmental Reading Assessment Fall Assessment 6.67 3 5.33 6 5.78 9 5.11 18 2.21 19 3.62 37 8.38 8 4.14 7 6.40 15 6.17 29 3.22 32 4.62 61 First Grade \"Spring Assessment 21.33 3 26.00 6 24.44 9 14.89 18 10.61 18 12.75 36 23.75 8 22.29 7 23.07 15 18.00 29 16.23 31 17.08 60 Amount of Change 3a-t14'.67. ^.118 67 \"'/^.')\n9:785\\ as - r8 4b-. ^9 13 18 14 H6 67i m 83 '\"-r^H3qi Fall Assessment 30.33 6 21.17 6 25.75 12 20.85 20 13.70 27 16.74 47 12.40 5 23.11 9 19.29 14 21.32 31 16.79 42 18.71 73 Second Grade \"Spring Assessment 40.67 6 38.00 6 39.33 12 28.55 20 22.11 27 24.85 47 21.60 5 29.33 9 26.57 14 29.77 31 25.93 42 27.56 73 . Amount.of Change i +1033 SssSS -'\u0026gt;16,83 as US 58*\n^ -\u0026gt;7 70 ^8 41 +8t-1-1 i!! Ss +9 20 r6 22 h7 29 h8 45 v+9ri4.\u0026gt;,*'* iSaSGs^j +8 85-^/ * An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. ** An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. *** An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient levet are highlighted in txild. Ella by school 2000l3bles6/19/00 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Race White Black other Total Watson Grade Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.41 37 1.09 35 0.74 72 0.39 38 1.09 35 0.73 73 Kindergarten Spring Assessment 0.00 1 0.00 1 2.37 38 2.29 38 2.33 76 2.31 39 2.29 38 2.30 77 * An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. ** An average level of 16 or more is considered proricient in first grade. ** An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. -Arnount?df tesGhangeg Developmental Reading Assessment Fall Assessment First Grade Spring Assessment S: Fall Assessment Second Grade Spring Assessment 'Ghartg^? 'S' M +1 96 it 5.00 1 5.00 1 5.88 24 3.20 35 4.29 59 17.03 29 8.67 36 12.40 65 Sgi SBS 'W 5^ Sjgiai 'A S\n\"' fl sS AigiWSft\n- 11-. / -+1,91-\u0026gt; sss'a^ \n?1.20i  5.88 24 3.25 36 4.30 60 17.03 29 8.67 36 12.40 65 :5. +~l1..1g +5.42 ^SS5S - J-+8.-10. .f\\. ^Vr 18.50 4 18.50 4 18.47 32 14.12 26 16.52 58 30.00 1 30.00 1 18.82 33 14.70 30 16.86 63 34.00 4 34.00 4 27.76 33 22.60 25 25.53 58 40.00 1 40.00 1 28.12 34 24.17 29 26.30 63 +15\n50 ,=,+15.50 \u0026gt;3? W^S'+c- aiW+9S3^W W +\nt9-QQ litWc )\n9\n47' +9W Segments of the population not testing at a prescient level are highlighled in bold. Ella by school 2000tables6/19/00 Western Hills Grade Race White Black other Total Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 0.50 2 0.40 5 0.43 7 0.67 9 0.62 13 0.64 22 4.00 1 0.00 1 2.00 2 0.92 12 0.53 19 0.68 31 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten Spring Assessment 3.00 2 2.40 5 2.57 7 4.11 9 2.15 13 2.95 22 28.00 1 3.00 1 15.50 2 5.92 12 2.26 19 3.68 31 ^!^Wuntlo ^gghafaeaia V2 00  .6V First Grade Second Grade +i1.^ijSj +-?32' SS +3^00'^\niiJi ssjgsiJfeaafis's'S. * An average level of 2 or more is considered prescient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. * An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Fall Assessment 6.50 6 2.67 3 5.22 9 4.29 17 3.60 15 3.97 32 Spring Assessment 28.86 7 16.67 3 25.20 10 22.24 17 20.47 15 21.41 32 :?ArriounUdf' Chanfigfa ______-fc \"r t.-- +i4\noo 1 /\nM6.87^ j- Fall Assessment 23.00 4 20.00 4 21.50 8 20.55 11 18.13 16 19.11 27 20.00 1 Spring Assessment , 44.00 4 42.50 4 43.25 8 39.40 10 36.25 16 37.46 26 44.00 1 Amount.'oT .. Change , +21 00  (5^? +22.50\"\n+21 75 +18 85 +18 13 +18 35+ +2400 14.00 1__ 14.00 1 4.87 23 4.00 19 4.48 42 28.00 1 28.00 1 24.17 24 20.26 19 22.44 43 '+,i4.oo\n^4:00: 7.^ *19:30\ng 44.00 +242)0'A 1 40.93 15 37.50 20 38.97 35 20.00 1 21.13 16 18.50 20 19.67 36\n4. L*'' +49 81 ^6:26i +179^ +19:00 +T9-30 + Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. Ella by school 2000tabies 6/19/00 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Race White Black other Total Williams Grade Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 3.88 8 1.50 12 2.45 20 1.56 18 0.50 8 1.23 26 5.83 6 5.83 6 2.94 32 1.10 20 2.23 52 Kindergarten Spring Assessment 8.13 8 5.00 12 6.25 20 5.11 18 3.00 8 4.46 26 11,50 6 SasBn\u0026amp;unfeoffi sfeChange^ J\u0026amp;o',anss^' EK Developmental Reading Assessment First Grade Second Grade 11.50 6 7.06 32 4.20 20 5.96 52 ssffi ^3 Fall Assessment 14,53 17 14.30 10 14.44 27 7.00 12 9.65 20 8.66 32 44.00 1 34.00 1 39.00 2 12.50 30 11.94 31 12.21 61 Spring Assessment 29.88 17 34.80 10 31.70 27 28.83 12 27.21 19 27.84 31 44.00 1 44.00 1 44.00 2 29.93 30 30.30 30 30.12 60 Change 9^ a S' +17-.56 +19 18 :0\n.+10.00 +5.00 ssfySiiSfS s -t17.90i\u0026lt; * /In average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. ** An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. *** An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Fall Assessment 28.40 15 31.80 20 30.34 35 27.82 17 23.29 14 25.77 31 \"Spring Assessment 37.33 15 40.42 19 39.06 34 37.41 17 36.62 13 37.07 30 T^ount of Change +8 93:^' '+9 59 +13 33 +11 29 28.09 32 28.29 34 28.20 66 37.38 32 38.88 32 38.13 64 28 ', t1Q-58 +9.93 Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. Ella by school 2000tabtes 6/19/00 Wilson Grade Race White Black Other Total Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 0.00 2 1.00 2 0.50 4 0.75 16 1.07 29 0.96 45 0.00 1 2.00 1 1.00 2 0.63 19 1.09 32 0.92 51 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Kindergarten Spring Assessment 1.00 2 0.00 1 0.67 3 4.35 17 2.67 30 3.28 47 0.00 1 3.00 1 1.50 2 3.80 20 2.59 32 3.06 52 ain'S'unt-''QF ^thangeV .1 00 J-iS-sw\u0026amp; gs?\ni+1.60y- \u0026amp; '' ' '- O''-'  +1 00 !3?Ss5sSsSfflS ^^ftOiSlJ^? SWRW /\u0026gt;+1.\n50: aasifeii *2.14^ Developmental Reading Assessment Fall Assessment 2.00 3 2.00 3 2.21 14 2.78 18 2.53 32 2.18 17 2.78 18 2.49 35 First Grade \"Spring Assessment 23.33 3 Amount of Change Second Grade * An average level of 2 or more Is considered proficient In kindergarten. ** An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. *** An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Fall Assessment 25.00 2 \"Spring Assessment 42.00 2 Amount of: .Change' +ioo site 23.33 3 20.00 14 23.11 18 21.75 32 20.59 17 23.11 18 21.89 35 ?y'+21 33^ . +17 79 9- +20 33 +19.22\n25.00 2 17.13 15 15.17 24 15.92 39 a5 sjg\nrie\u0026gt; +18?41 42C^ 32.00 2 32.00 2 18.06 17 16.46 26 17.09 43 42.00 2 26.56 18 25.21 24 25.79 42 4.00 1 39.00 2 21.33 3 26.95 21 26.27 26 26.57 47 +17 00/ --?S J*. * +9 42 +10 04 +9 86 +7 00 -4 67 IO ?h8.89 \" +9 81 +9 48 i Segmenfs of Ihe population not testing al a proficient level are highlighted in bold. lla by school 2000tables 6/19/00 Race Woodruff Grade Gender Female White Male Total Female Black Male Total Female Other Male Total Female Total Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 0.00 1 1.00 3 0.75 4 0.90 20 1.07 15 0.97 35 0.86 21 1.06 18 0.95 39 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Kindergarten Spring Assessment 1.00 1 3.00 3 2.50 4 2.05 20 2.07 15 2.06 35 gatCChhlaannggie \u0026gt;3^-+2.O9,^ BWOOs j' Developmental Reading Assessment Fall Assessment 19.00 4 4.00 1 16.00 5 8.14 22 7.10 10 7.81 32 First Grade Second Grade **('Spring Amount of: Assessment \u0026gt; Change 34.00 3 18.00 1 30.00 4 22.86 22 23.40 10 23.03 32 iSpieS-' iW\n+i5oo . '\"+1400 ' +^-}4'\n00 ! +147^ +1030 Fall Assessment 29.00 4 27.00 4 28.00 8 28.48 21 20.50 14 25.29 35 3.00 1 'Spring Assessment 31.50 4 36.00 4 33.75 8 37.10 20 27.43 14 33.12 34 6.00 1 T.w^- ountof' 'Change  r\" +2.5O^*'^' +9 00 , \\+5 7^ +8 62  iis +6 gsf\"''\"  +y83 +3 00 2.00 21 2.22 18 2.10 39 * An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. ** An average level of 16 or more is considered prescient in first grade. *** An average level of 24 or more is considered pro6cient in second grade. 34.00 1 34.00 1 24.20 25 23.83 12 24.08 37 18.00 1 18.00 1 9.81 26 7.75 12 9.16 38 +16 00 Si fill 7r'- i3i\u0026gt;1 +16 00 +14 39 +16 08 +14 92 3.00 1 27.58 26 21.94 18 25.27 44 6.00 1 34.96 25 29.33 18 32.60 43 +3 00 +7 38 +7 39 +7 33 Segmenis of the population not testing al a proficient level are highlighted in bold. Ella by school SOOOtables BADGETT Grade* Subtest 1996- 1997 3 Total Reading Total Math 14 9 5 Total Language Complete Battery Total Reading Total Math 15 14 7 6 Black Students 19^ 1998 30 20 20 26 13 13 Precentile Diff. 11 12 6 White Students Number Tested BALE 1998^ 1999 17 16 18 18 18 13 1999- 2000 Diff. -13 -2 -8 11 1 Total Language Complete Battery 12 10 Grade* Subtest 1997 3 Total Reading Total Math 35 27 5 Total Language Complete Battery Total Reading 27 33 21 Total Math 15 14 18 2 8 20 21 Black Students wr 1998 27 17 21 24 29 27 Percentile Diff. -8 -10 -6 8 12 11 13 w 1999 2000 28 20 26 26 22 42 19 14 Total Language Complete Battery BASELINE Grade* Subtest 3 Total Reading Total Math 5 Total Language Complete Battery Total Reading Total Math Total Language Complete Battery 23 34 11 31 19 27 33 0 32 18 Black Students Percentile 1996- 1997 18 19 13 20 27 20 37 27 1997- 1998 24 15 20 22 14 16 18 16 Diff. 6 -4 7 2 r13 -4\n-i9- 1998- 1999 26 29 31 29 22 14 26 26 1999- 2000 16 13 21 18 1996- 1997 27 32 31 29 Percentile 1998 86 45 61 64 Diff. 59 13 30: 35 \u0026lt;998^ 1999 15 1 6 12 1999- 2000 Diff.\u0026gt; -71: \"55: -52 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 7, iiL iSi 8 Diff. 1 3 5 ::2:: 3 28 Diff, 2 :\u0026gt;-i4- 11 7 6 64 51 41 47 w 1997 57 43 43 53 25 23 39 41 1996- 1997 32 28 28 32 95 83 76 84 29 40 53 44 TW:' 1998 16 29 23 25 47 43 53 53 1997- 1998 45 20 41 43 31 16 14 26 -35 -11 12 -3 41 40 32 37 White Students Percentile Diff. -41 \u0026gt;14: -20 -28 22 20 1'4 12 5 5 3 6 71 35: 29 31 21 23 23 21 14 14 16 20 17 18 17 16 Number Tested 199^- 1999 46 40 36 43 29 45 30 39 White Students Percentile Diff. '10: 8 13: 11 -64\n-67 r62 1999- 2000 Diff. 30 11 13 18 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 76 24 76 53 :47. 21: :46\n14 37 37 37 37 35 31 41 40 35 35 35 35 Number Tested 1998- 1999 59 35 61 46 31 22 28 34 1999- 2000 Diff. 14 45- 20 3 35 23 57 39 -1 t29 -5 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 14 15 13 12 1999-2000 23 16 24 21 1999-2000 25 25 25 25 15 16 18 18 16 19 19 16 31 31 31 31 BOOKER Black Students Grade* Subtest Percentile White Students Percentile Number Tested 3 Total Reading Total Math 5 Total Language Complete Battery Total Reading Total Math Total Language Complete Battery BRADY Grade* Subtest 3 Total Reading Total Math 5 Total Language Complete Battery Total Reading Total Math Total Language Complete Battery CARVER Grade* Subtest 3 Total Reading Total Math 5 Total Language Complete Battery Total Reading Total Math Total Language Complete Battery 1996- 1997 26 23 34 30 33 32 44 38 1996- 1997 27 34 32 32 27 18 43 31 1996- 1997 43 37 40 41 37 27 40 39 1997- 1998 26 19 24 27 21 17 31 26 Diff. 0 -3 -12 -15 -12 1998- 1999- 1999 2000 Diff. 1996- 1997 1997- 1998 Diff\n1998- 1999 1999- 2000 Diff. 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 35 28 32 34 39 28 11 25 44 38 Black Students Percentile 21 41 32 3- e 50 41 52 49 65 53 67 62 58 44 57 57 60 35 60 53 3 8 '5 -18 .-7-' 43 44 36 43 55 33 55 51 White Students Percentile 63 45 70 60 -8 -12 -15 -9 91 91 91 91 40 26 45 39 87 90 90 87 Number Tested 1997- 1998 26 25 28 27 20 13 19 20 Diff. 5-\u0026lt; -7 5 24 1998- 1999 30 20 26 30 23 17 21 23 Black Students Percentile 1997- 1998 36 28 35 36 22 21 30 28 Diff. -15 6 1998- 1999 41 31 33 40 51 45 47 49 1999- 2000 Diff, 1996- 1997 60 65 65 63 19 14 21 20 1999- 2000 31 24 32 32 3 0 3 Diff. 20 -21 15 atz 76 50 64 63 1996- 1997 71 71 70 70 77 64 66 72 1997- 1998 Diff. 1998- 1999 1999- 2000 Diff. 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 35 51 41 45 33 24 31 36 1997- 1998 77 71 78 76 78 70 77 75 -25 24 43 -26 -33 \n'27: 56 47 48 55 41 15 41 39 White Students Percentile Diff. 8 6 4 6 1T 3 42 14 37 28 -4 -11 24 24 24 24 25 16 24 25 41 40 40 40 Number Tested 1998- 1999 69 60 64 67 73 66 64 69 1999- 2000 Diff. 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 79 63 66 72 6 -3 2  3 98 102 102 98 52 47 56 53 .85 86 86 85 78 78 i 77 1 77 1999-2000 37 39 39 37 1999-2000 77 77 n 77 CHICOT Grade* Subtest 1996- 1997 3 Total Reading 22 5 Total Math 14 Black Students Percentile 1997- 1998 24 17 Diff. 2 3 1998- 1999 23 18 1999- 2000 Diff. White Students Percentile Number Tested 1996- 1997 43 57 1997- 1998 35 26 Diff. -8 -31 1998- 1999 47 39 1999- 2000 Dift 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 Total Language Complete Battery Total Reading Total Math 18 21 18 14 28 23 11 10 IQ 2 -7 -4 23 23 20 17 13 12 -5 7 -5 37 47 43 26 42 35 62 35 5 19 9 40 50 45 36 38 19 Total Language Complete Battery CLOVERDALE Grade* Subtest 24 21 1996- 1997 3 Total Reading Total Math 47 62 5 Total Language Complete Battery Total Reading Total Math 52 60 22 24 16 15 -8 -6 26 23 Black Students Percentile 19 16 -7 46 42 56 59 DODD Total Language Complete Battery 33 26 Grade* Subtest 1996- 1997 3 Total Reading Total Math Total Language 5 Complete Battery Total Reading Total Math Total Language Complete Battery 25 29 30 30 24 16 30 27 io 17 46 30 16 45 White Students Percentile 29 -16 56 56 56 55 16 13 21 21 48 48 48 48 Number Tested 1997- 1998 28 27 26 29 26 31 31 31 Diff. -19 :35: -26 -31 4 7 -2 ^5 1998- 1999 55 78 67 72 48 56 54 54 Black Students Percentile 1997- 1998 34 40 21 35 13 12 27 18 Diff. 9 11 -9 ^11 -3 1998- 1999 39 18 28 33 35 25 44 34 1999- 2000 Diff. 27 51 43: 22 29 26 27 1999- 2000 30 27 39 31 -26 -27 -28 Diff. 5 -22 7 \u0026gt;2- -5 2 ^9^ 1996- 1997 60 70 55 61 1996- 1997 54 43 47 48 41 27 33 27 1997- 1998 Diff. 1998- 1999 52 94 35 73 66 80 68 66 1997- 1998 64 67 45 59 50 40 45 49 89 92 80 91 White Students Percentile Diff, IQ: 24 :'-2:: 9 12 1999- 2000 Diff. 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 18 31 14 19 -71 ^1 t66: -72 46 47 47 46 29 35 35 33 55 55 55 53 Number Tested 1998- 1999 37 24 39 35 59 33 62 53 1999- 2000 Diff. -27 -43 -24 30 29 28 32 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 -29 -4 -34 -21 24 24 24 23 26 22 34 29 28 '29 29 28 54 56 55 53 1999-2000 52 52 52 52 1999-2000 15 16 16 15 FAIR PARK Grade* Subtest 1996- 1997 3 Total Reading 30 5 Total Math Total Language Complete Battery Total Reading Total Math Total Language Complete Battery FOREST PARK Grade* Subtest 3 Total Reading Total Math 5 Total Language Complete Battery Total Reading Total Math Total Language Complete Battery FRANKLIN Grade* Subtest 3 Total Reading Total Math 5 Total Language Complete Battery Total Reading Total Math Total Language Complete Battery 31 28 34 20 21 21 22 Black Students Percentile 1997- 1998 17 11 14 19 10 7 11 Diff. ^3: -20 -14 ^15 :Tt4- -10 13 \u0026gt;9\n1996- 1997 48 52 55 53 24 26 36 3Q 1996- 1997 18 14 16 19 15 10 17 15 1998- 1999 18 8 10 16 37 21 45 37 Black Students Percentile 1999- 2000 21 11 24 21 1997- 1998 33 37 39 37 28 25 32 35 Diff. -15 -15\n-16 -16 4 -1 r4 5 1998- 1999 42 37 49 44 65 51 63 60 Black Students Percentile 1997- 1998 16 13 13 17 16 15 23 20 biff. 1998- 1999 2 :-3' 2 .1 5 6 5 25 23 25 26 18 26 21 24 1999- 2000 36 29 35 33 1999- 2000 18 15 17 19 White Students Percentile Diff. -4 -3 \u0026gt;16 -ip\nDiff. 9 0 10 -29 22 27 biff. Number Tested 1996- 1997 '407 742\n0\n: -11 4\": 35 42 28 42 66 40 73 63 1997- 1998 61 68 72 68 58 49 60 Diff. 25 .26\n44 26 -8 9 1 55 -8^ 1998- 1999 18 8 10 16 56 30 45 45 1999- 2000 Diff. -43 -62 86 74 78 74 White Students Percentile\n30\n44 33 29 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 1996- 1997 82 80 85 83 73 67 71 71 1996- 1997 83 79 71 77 10 3 4 12 1997- 1998 87 81 88 85 85 84 83 86 1997- 1998 17 4 4 16 49 13 69 35 Diff. 5 1 3: 2 12 17 12 15 1998- 1999 81 79 87 80 85 70 79 77 White Students Percentile Diff. 66. -75 -67 6t 39 10 65: 23 1998- 1999 61 94 53 73 1999- 2000 Diff. -6 -2 -1 -5 91 79 84 82 1999- 2000 78 17 80 49 6 9 5 5 Diff. 17: -77^ 27 ?-24-- 28 27 28 27 17 12 18 20 22 23 23 21 Number Tested 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 50 51 51 50 58 57 60 63 55 56 56 55 Number tested 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 17 18 17\n16 1999-2000 42 44 44 42 1999-2000 34 34 34 33 17 15 24 20 40 45 45 39 39 50 50 39 FULBRIGHT Grade* Subtest 1996- 1997 3 Total Reading Total Math 34 21 5 Total Language Complete Battery Total Reading Total Math 31 33 19 18 Black Students Percentile 1997- 1998 25 13 19 24 39 22 Dift -9 22 4 1998- 1999 34 24 32 36 51 37 1999- 2000 27 17 Total Language Complete Battery GARLAND Grade* Subtest 3 Total Reading Total Math 5 Total Language Complete Battery Total Reading Total Math Total Language Complete Battery GEYER SPRINGS Grade* Subtest 3 Total Reading Total Math Total Language 5 Complete Battery Total Reading Total Math Total Language Complete Battery 26 22 35 38 2-22. 42 44 Black Students Percentile 27 26 1996- 1997 29 26 27 29 12 15 17 18 1996- 1997 23 14 23 24 21 23 24 23 1997- 1998 16 13 15 19 14 12 17 17 Diff. -12 0 1998- 1999 20 13 17 21 19 26 25 23 Black Students Percentile 1999- 2000 19 20 22 24 1997- 1998 29 32 32 30 26 15 28 2Z Diff. 6 : '16: '8 1998- 1999 37 47 34 40 30 32 44 ZZ 1999- 2000 22 28 26 21 Diff. 9 ii\n13 12 -24 :r20 -15 rl8 Diff. 2 2 0 -6 -3 -W Diff. 15 2 TO -^8? -4 ri 8: White Students Percentile Number Tested 1996- 1997 64 61 67 67 78 56 75 71 1996- 1997 1996- 1997 38 27 46 40 49 30 41 1997- 1998 71 59 70 69 78 58 77 71 1997- 1998 Diff. 7 -2. 3 2 0 2 2 1998- 1999 72 52 68 67 74 63 59 66 1999- 2000 Diff. 4 -7 -2 \u0026lt;2 1996-1997 1997-1998 19981999 71 50 63 63 White Students Percentile Diff. 1998- 1999 1999- 2000 White Students Percentile -3 -13 A 55 55 55 55 58 38 54 54 67 67 67 67 Number Tested Diff. 1996-1997 1997-1998 1997- 1998 46 65 59 51 35 26 22 31 Dift ?,8\u0026gt; 25 TO 1998- 1999 1999- 2000 Diff. 29 2Q 18 26 20 36 30 33 TO 12 7: 1998-1999 19992000 59 __ 62 . 62 59 1999-2000 30 33 33 30 14 12 18 17 35 18 35 35 Number Tested 19961997 1997-1998 1998-1999 32 35 35 32 26 17 28 24 44 45 45 44 22 28 28 22 1999-2000 41 41 41 41 GIBBS Grade* Subtest 1996- 1997 3 Total Reading 31 5 Total Math 25 Black Students Percentile White Students Percentile Number Tested 1997- 1998 37 35 Diff. 6 IQ 1998- 1999 33 23 1999- 2000 Diff. -12 1996- 1997 67 62 1997- 1998 67 78 Diff. 0 46' 1998- 1999 76 60 1999- 2000 Diff* 9 -18 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 Total Language Complete Battery Total Reading Total Math 32 34 2 35 1 64 70 6 81 11 29 53 46 36 41 44 7 -2 33 37 34 -3 66 70 4 73 3 41 40 4 6 81 69 68 38 -13 -31 71 63 84 80 13 17 Total Language Complete Battery JEFFERSON Grade* Subtest 3 Total Reading Total Math 5 Total Language Complete Battery Total Reading Total Math Total Language Complete Battery 56 56 1996- 1997 23 21 17 22 30 28 35 32 50 45 37 32 -5 74 58 16 67 80 KING Grade* Subtest 1996- 1997 3 Total Reading Total Math 39 37 5 -11 37 Black Students Percentile 41 4 77 68 ^9: 66 White Students Percentile 79 13 34 34 34 34 56 56 55 57 48 48 48 48 Number Tested Total Language 43 1997- 1998 21 20 23 24 25 18 31 26 Diff. -2 -1 6 2 5 410 -4 76' 1998- 1999 32 20 28 30 64 52 59 59 Black Students Percentile 1999- 2000 Diff. 41: O 5 6 39 30 41 37 23 -22 -18 -22 1997- 1998 32 23 27 Diff. 1998- 1999 1999- 2000 Diff. -7 43 11 414i 26 38 :41- 1996- 1997 76 71 74 72 73 58 76 71 1996- 1997 56 61 53 1997- 1998 70 63 68 69 85 61 74 74 1997- 1998 56 54 61 Diff. -6 -3 7 3 -2 3 1998- 1999 67 57 67 67 86 71 79 79 White Students Percentile Diff. 0 -7 8 1999- 2000 Diff. -3 tI-: -2 S7 68 74 77 -3 ^5: -2 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 1998- 1999 54 50 59 1999- 2000 Diff. -2 .^4 -2 Complete Battery Total Reading Total Math 41 31 \"40 40 9 58 57 :S1' 54 -3 37 23 23 21 52 27 -25 66 58 :^8\n: 68 68 0 -2 62 21 441: 57 53 -4 74 57 7I7 Total Language Complete Battery 37 34 29 27 -8 :7' 50 27 23 62 56 -6 63 63 0 55 26 -29 64 58\nr6\n69 64 -5 65 64 65 64 64 42 57 56 53 55 55 53 Number Tested 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 38 38  38 38 1999-2000 52 52 52 51 1999-2000 44 45 45 44 38 35 41 40\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_336","title":"Compliance hearing exhibits, 37-38","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":["1999/2001"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance hearing exhibits, 37-38"],"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/336"],"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":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"dcterms_extent":["147 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\nCampus Leadership Institute Summer 1999 I f\u0026gt; 8:00 a.m.-8:30 a.m. 8:30-8:50 a.m. 8:50-9:30 a.m. 9:30-9:50 a.m. 9:50 -10:00 a.m. 10:00- 10:15 a.m. 10:15- 11:15a.m. 11:15- 12:00 p.m. 12:00- 12:45 p.m. 12:45-1:45 p.m. 1:45-2:45 p.m. 2:45 - 3:00 p.m. 3:00-4:00 p.m. 4:00-4:15 p.m. 4:15 4:15 - 4:30 p.m. I Campus Leadership Institute] Living the Vision Session I Monday, July 26, 1999 Welcome \u0026amp; Introductions Team Building Activity Overview Team Norms Typical - Aligned Organization Change Process and Tools Campus Leadership Handbook Systems Change Model Decision Making Model A. B. C. D. Resolving Conflicts In Teams Team Building and Maintenance Team Problem Solving Site Based Decision Making Decision Making Model A. Resolving Conflicts In Teanis B. C. D. Team Building and Maintenance Team Problem Solving Site Based Decision Making CLOSURE BROKER FACILITATOR MEETING REGISTRATION Sadie Mitchell Les Carnine Superintendent of Schools Linda Watson Bonnie Lesley BREAK Victor Anderson Linda Austin Gayle Bradford Frances Cawthon Marian Lacey LUNCH Gene Parker Marion Woods Kathy Lease Mable Donaldson Vanessa Cleaver Linda Watson Dennis Glasgow BREAK Mable Donaldson Vanessa Cleaver Linda Watson Dennis Glasgow Sadie Mitchell ADJOURN Sadie Mitchell Kathy Lease 1 8:0 0 - 8:30 a.m. 8\n30 - 8:45 a.m. 8:45 - 9:45 a.m. 9:45 - 10:00 a.m. Session I Tuesday, July 27, 1999 Review \u0026amp; Reflections The Railroad Track Announcements Decision Making Model A. Resolving Conflicts In Teams B. Team Building and Maintenance C. Team Problem Solving D. Site Based Decision Making REGISTRATION Sadie Mitchell Mable Donaldson Vanessa Cleaver Linda Watson Dennis Glasgow BREAK 10:00-11:00 a.m. Decision-Making Model A. Resolving Conflicts In Teams B. Team Building and Maintenance C. Team Problem Solving D. Site Based Decision Making Mable Donaldson Vanessa Cleaver Linda Watson Dennis Glasgow 11:00- 12:10 a.m. Core Beliefs Brady Gadberry Linda Watson 12:10- 1:00 p.m. LUNCH 1:00-2:00 p.m. Goal Setting and Planning Marie McNeal Pat Price 2:00-2:15p.m. BREAK 2:1 5-4:00 p.m. All the Parts Action Planning Kathy Lease 4:00 - 4:15 p.m. CLOSURE The Railroad Track Sadie Mitchell 4:15 p.m. ADJOURN 4:15 - 4:30 p.m. Broker/Facilitator Meeting Sadie Mitchell Kathy Lease 2 1 Session I Wednesday, July 28, 1999** 8:00 - 8:30 a.m. REGISTRA^TION 8:30 - 8:45 a.m. Review \u0026amp; Reflections Sadie Mitchell 8:45-10:45 a.m. Action Planning Campus Leadership Teams 10:45-11:00 a.m. BREAK 11:00- 11:45 a.m. Team Reports 11:45 a.m. Closure Key Learnings Institute Evaluations Kathy Lease 12:00 p.m. ADJOURN * Broker Facilitator Debriefing Meeting for all Brokers Monday, August 2,1999, 1:30, Board Room i 312:30- 1:00 p.m. 1:00 -1:20 p.m. 1:20-2:00 p.m. 2:00-2:20 p.m. 2:20-2:30 p.m. 2:30 - 2:45 p.m. 2:45 - 3:45 p.m. 3:45 - 4:30 p.m. 4:30 - 4:45 p.m. 4:45 p.m. 4:45 - 5:00 p.m. Session II Wednesday, July 28,1999 Welcome \u0026amp; Introductions Team Building Activity Overview Team Norms Typical - Aligned Organization Change Process and Tools Campus Leadership Handbook Closure Broker/Facilitator Meeting REGISTRATION Sadie Mitchell Les Carnine Superintendent of Schools Linda Watson Bonnie Lesley BREAK Victor Anderson Linda Austin Gayle Bradford Frances Cawthon Marian Lacey Sadie Mitchell ADJOURN Sadie Mitchell Kathy Lease 4Session II Thursday, July 29,1999 8:00 - 8:30 a.m. REGISTRATION 8:30 - 8:45 a.m. Review and Reflection The Railroad Track Evaluations Sadie Mitchell 8:45-9:45 a.m. Systems Change Model Gene Parker Marian Woods 9:45-10:45 a.m. Decision Making Models Kathy Lease A. B. C. D. Resolving Conflicts in Teams Team Building and Maintenance Team Problem Solving Site Based Decision Making Mable Donaldson Vanessa Cleaver Linda Watson Dennis Glasgow 10:45 - 11:00 a.m. BREAK 11:00-12:00 p.m. Decision Making Models A. B. C. D. Resolving Conflicts in Teams Team Building and Maintenance Team Problem Solving Site Based Decision Making Mable Donaldson Vanessa Cleaver Linda Watson Dennis Glasgow 12:00-12:45 p.m. LUNCH 12:45-1:45 p.m. Decision-Making Models A. B. C. D. Resolving Conflicts in Teams Team Building and Maintenance Team Problem Solving Site Based Decision Making Mable Donaldson Vanessa Cleaver Linda Watson Dennis Glasgow 1:45 - 2:00 p.m. BREAK 2:00 - 3:00 p.m. Decision-Making Models A. B. C. D. Resolving Conflicts in Teams Team Building and Maintenance Team Problem Solving Site Based Decision Making Mable Donaldson Vanessa Cleaver Linda Watson Dennis Glasgow 3:00-4:00 p.m. Core Beliefs Brady Gadberry Linda Watson 4:00-4:15 p.m. CLOSURE The Railroad Track Sadie Mitchell 4:15 p.m. ADJOURN 4:15 - 4:30 p.m. Broker/Facilitator Meeting 5 Session II Friday, July 30,1999** 8:00 - 8:30 a.m. REGISTRATION 8:30 - 8:45 a.m. Review \u0026amp; Reflections Sadie Mitchell 8:45 - 9:45 a.m. Goal Setting \u0026amp; Planning Marie McNeal Pat Price 9:45 - 10:00 BREAK 10:00-11:30 a.m. All the Parts Action Planning Kathy Lease 11:30- 12:15 p.m. LUNCH 12:15-2:15p.m. Action Planning Campus Leadership Teams 2:15-2:30 p.m. BREAK 2:30-3:30 p.m. Team Presentations Campus Leadership Teams 3:30 - 3:45 p.m. CLOSURE Key Learnings Institute Evaluations Kathy Lease 3:45 ADJOURN Broker Facilitator Debriefing Meeting for all Brokers Monday, August 2, 1999, 1:30, Board Room 6Site - based decision making will only work if you focus on individual classroom instruction - do not let yourself to get into school operations - cleaning out the refrigerator, parking place assignments, etc. Marian pp- i - 7 Basic foundation of Campus Leadership based on LRSD Vision and Mission  entire system  how teams established  policies regulating the CLT concepts pp. 55 - 60 Forms for CLT to use  Nomination to be appointed  Team Nomination Form  Application for Local or State Waiver Bonnie pp. 8-10 Cluster Coordinating Committee Membership Administrative Policy pp. 16 - 54 Collective Responsibility for Student Achievement Frances pp. 11-12 Campus Leadership Team Calendar pp. 65 - 68 School Improvement Plan Site - based decision making will only work if you focus on individual classroom instruction - do not let yourself to get into school operations - cleaning out the refrigerator, parking place assignments. Kathy pp. 13 - 15 CLT Evaluation Planning and Decision Making Process pp. 61 - 64 Climate Survey Gayle pp. 69 - end handbook is not static, be used, make notes, timelines in it, they will receive comprehensive training in small groups on \u0026gt;-sing this handbook - don't put it o\" the shelf and forget it. Site - based decision making will only work if you focus on individual classroom instruction - do not let yourself to gat into school operations - cleaning out the refrigerator, parking place assignments, etc. I ISite - based decision making will only work if you focus on individual classroom instruction - do not let yourself to get into school operations - cleaning out the refrigerator, parking place assignments, etc. Marian pp- i - 7 Basic foundation of Campus Leadership based on LRSD Vision and Mission  entire system  how teams established  policies regulating the CLT concepts pp. 55 - 60 Forms for CLT to use  Nomination to be appointed  Team Nomination Form  Application for Local or State Waiver Bonnie pp. 8-10 Cluster Coordinating Committee Membership Administrative Policy pp. 16 - 54 Collective Responsibility for Student Achievement Frances pp. 11-12 Campus Leadership Team Calendar pp. 65 - 68 School Improvement Plan Site - based decision making will only work if you focus on individual classroom instruction - do not let yourself to get into school operations - cleaning out the refrigerator, parking place assignments. Kathy pp. 13 - 15 CLT Evaluation Planning and Decision Making Process pp. 61 - 64 Climate Survey Gayle pp. 69 - end handbook is not static, be used, make notes, timelines in it, they will receive comprehensive training in small groups on using this handbook - don't put it on the shelf and forget it. Site - based decision making will only work if you focus on individual classroom instruction - do not let yourself to get into school operations - cleaning out the refrigerator, parking place assignments, etc.Its to DRAFT classroomdn Consider the fo 46 Millioq 1. 2. 3. 1. Introduction 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 6.2 Millioi 6.2 Millioi with 2 Mil 2 Million s 2 Million i 1 Million j 'A Million i 'A Million 14 Millior a. Pride in who you are b. We have a the top confidence levelAmerican Public I. Myths My remarks are not pollyarmaish. Public education has serious problems in the rm we can not ignore that. But a. Teachers teach only nine months so why do they bellyache about sala Studies show that teachers time in 9 'A months is equal to a 40 hour \\ months of work. And todays st educators. H.^ b. IV. Morale Bt a. b. c. d. I I J c. J The higher a n Fight backC 1. Never let i stroke for teacl 2. Establishe 3. Create a ci false informati d. Where have wi e. Use Data Ovei A. B. C. D. E. F. b g n I / G. a H. I I. ( Where are we See I We have students graduating from public schools who cant even reai diploma? You bet! They are among the nearly six million special education yc most wont real very well but they are getting their chance based on gifts they bring to school. Its the best umeported story in America. Public educators are afraid of competition. Thats why they oppose c and vouchers? Only most uninformed would favor vouchers, which take funds from system. Voucher is another spelling of segregationthis time along Depending on the Charter lawone must be careful about the financ: Private schools do a better job with less money? The average in 1997 was $3200 compares with $5800 but that where comparison ends. Public schools by law must offer vocational educt education, counseling, dropout prevention, alternative education, att( contact, bilingual education, compensatory education, health service\nservices, food service, security, violence prevention, student transpoi attempt to provide a living wage and retirement programs. Public education students need to make more rigorous courses to pre] college? The report entitled The Condition of Education 1995 revealed stun ment in public education between 1985-95 in percentage of high sch taking upper level core courses47% increase and the numbers con increase. Secondly, the graduation rate has continued to improve an major improvement since the 1990. III. Whom to Believe? Why are public schools in the crosshairs when 90% of them are as good a world? One reason is that major news media outlets are in the cities with the majo schools. Network news is almost always negative. Too may viewers with no first knowledge extrapolate those conditions to all public schools. Add to this a heavy religious right fever, cash strapped parochial schools, and nonstop right-wing slam Stir in 60% of adults with no connection with schools today in an environment of i and political cohesion, and you have a recipe for disaster. IV. Who will Answer the Bell?Table of Contents I. Introduction II. The Change Process III. Systems Change Model IV. Resolving Conflicts in Teams V. Team Building and Maintenance VI. Team Problem Solving VII. Site-Based Decision Making VIII. Goal Setting and Planning IX. ResourcesArkansas Leadership Academy for Brainstorming  No Criticisms  No Evaluation  Get Ideas Out...Do Not Discuss Them  Record All Ideas  Expect Wild Ideas  Be Spontaneous  Suspend Judgements  Quantity of Ideas, Not Quality Counts  Build on Each Others Ideas I ?! sFacilitator Recorder Reporter COMMITTEE ROLES Guides discussion so everyone participates\nkeeps talk focused upon the question Writes down main points\nwrites down the summary and/or list of beliefs\nasks questions for clarification Explains teams beliefs to large group Timekeeper Gives time checks for group focusTEAM-DEVELOPMENT WHEEL INSTRUCTIONS: Place a mark on the circumference of the wheel to represent the present status of your team. STAGE FOUR 11 9 10 MATURE CLOSENESS Resourceful Flexible Open Effective Close and Supportive 0 -f 1 STAGE ONE TESTING Polite Impersonal Watchful Guarded 2 -- 3 GETTING ORGANIZED Developing Skills Establishing Procedures Giving Feedback Confronting Issues 8 INFIGHTING Controlling Conflicts Confronting People Opting Out Experiencing Difficulties Feeling Stuck 4 7 5 STAGE THREE 6 STAGE TWORULES FOR BRAINSTORMING NO CRITICISMS o c r (7. [MC f N  1 I I I I I ! NO EVALUATIONS GET IDEAS OUT... DO NOT DISCUSS THEM RECORD ALL IDEAS EXPECT WILD IDEAS BE SPONTANEOUS SUSPEND JUDGMENTS  QUANTITY OF IDEAS, NOT QUALITY, COUNTS BUILD ON EACH OTHER'S IDEAS I pu-r I vvjiS-START FRCGR AMS I I Radio HEcT THE UCAi. OFFICERS GO OIR=CT!_Y T: THc _/ Team Norms, Roles and Practices ?  Decision making rules, including joint agenda building, keeping and posting public records, and debriefing team meetings.  Productive participation, including facilitation, recording, timekeeping, process observing, and encouraging.  Communication norms, including active listening, criticizing ideas, not people, and speaking briefly.  Problem solving, consensusbuilding, and valuing diversity.  Feedback, reflection, and critique.Meeting Guidelines General  Punctual attendance  Start on time  Right people are present  Purpose is well understood  Roles are assigned (facilitator, timekeeper, scribe) Agenda  Communicate and agree (adjust if appropriate  Visible, with time frames for each item  Desired outcome for each item (info sharing, info processing, decision required)  Monitor time, agree to adjust if necessary ) Group Behavior  Active listening and participation  Help to summarize and test for understanding  Be open and encourage ideas  Look for facts  Strive for closure and consensus  Provide secondary facilitation  Limit war stories  Avoid side conversations  Leave only at the scheduled break Wrap Up  Review action items agreed to and decisions made  Discuss next meeting and tentative agenda  Conduct a process checkPlan and Process Alignment for Improved Student Achievement Little Rock School District Process Data Analysis Campus Plan Process Interventions Professional Development Standards Assessment Accountability Parent Involvement SP X X X X RDEP X X X X OCR X )( X X Title I X X X )( ACSIP X X X X X X ACTAAP X UPDI NSF X X X X CLP X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X i X X X X X X X X X SP RDEP OCR Title I ACSIP ACTAAP UPDI NSF CLP strategic Plan Revised Desergregation and Education Plan Office of Civil Rights Resolution Agreement Title I Arkansas Comprehensive School Improvement Planning Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Program Urban Professional Development Initiative National Science Foundation Campus Leadership PlanRAILROAD MODEL OF GROUP DEVELOPMENT SHARED VISION * *  Task Tool Ties That Bind Ineffective working relationships  Negative attention Individual difference separate * * * * People support what they help create. Local people solve local problems best. Everyone is responsible for pulling his own happiness wagon Change takes place faster in groups. /Arkansas / eaJe-rship /^caJemy LEVELS OF TEAMWORK BELIEF LEVEL Interdependence recognized. Individual strengths cover other's weak areas. Deep understanding/trust in beliefs and actions of others. Win/win always. Frequent negotiation and collaboration. Commitment to care for others is clear. TRUST LEVEL Predictable positive behavior. Strong faith that others will perform as expected in (mostly) useful ways. Occasional confronts and sincere efforts to resolve differences/problems. Similar goals. OPEN LEVEL . Individual efforts to establish positive teamwork relationships. Search for shared values and non-judgmental acceptance. Lots of \"if only\" and \"yes, but.\" i CLOSED LEVEL Frequently seen as easier to work alone than spend effort and time trying to build relationships. Occasional outbursts of anger and/or shows of frustration.^ 2 Modified by Sharon Williams, North Little Rock School DistrictCHANGE is =\u0026gt;PROCESS, not an event :^made by INDIVIDUALS first, then institutions/systems =\u0026gt;highly PERSONAL experience ^DEVELOPMENTAL growth in feelings and skills INTER VENTIONS must be related to =\u0026gt;the people first =\u0026gt;the innovations secondSeven Propositions for Success 1. Change is learning, loaded with uncertainty. 2. Change is a journey, not a blueprint. 3. Problems are our friends. 4. Change is resource-hungry. 5. Change requires the power to manage it. 6. Change is systemic. 7. All large-scale change is implemented locally. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory 211 E. Seventh Street Austin, Texas 78701 Tp II.8The Change Process OUS, Incremental Change. The 196Cys theory that improvement will be continu-regular, and incremental. \"Everyday, in every way, we get better and better.\" 'Notes: Implementation Dip. Fullan (1992) notes that substantial change causes _ initial disruption and confusion, causing performance to deteriorate for a while. \"Old habits, no matter how bad they are, that are properly mastered produce more regular results than better habits over which you have little control.\" The Schlechty Circle. Schlechty (1993) notes that individuals whose performance, is deteriorating because of the Implementation Dip often return to their, originali performance, rather than continue with the change iniative. \"When people find fiiat they are down to the point of being worse than they used to be, they decide it's better to be as bad as they used to be because that s better than they are now.\" Source\nDr. Phillip Schlechty The Centex fox Leaoexshif in School Refoxm I Arkansas Leadership Academy 3 Phases of Transition Through Change External/ Environment Transition Grid Denial Commitment Past* Future Resistance / Exploration Internal/ Self  The Transition Grid is pan of the Chanse Prosrams offered by Flora/Elkind Associates, in Cynthia D. Scott,. and Dennis T. Jaffe, Managing Altos, CA\nCrisp Publications, 1989), Ornani:a!ional Change: A Practical Guide for Managers (Los o 5Arkansas Leadership Academy Managing Complex Change^ Vision Skills Incentives \u0026gt; Resources 1 \u0026gt; Action Plan Clinnge Skills Incentives \u0026gt; Resources ----\u0026gt; Action Plan \u0026gt; Confusion Vision Incentives \u0026gt; Resources Action Plan  Anxiety Vision Skills Resources \u0026gt; Action Plan \u0026gt; Gradual Change Vision Skills Incentives \u0026gt; Action Plan \u0026gt; Frustration Vision \u0026gt; Skills Incentives Resources \u0026gt; False Start.s ' Bnteipiisc Management Ltd., 1987. .3 Concerns and the Facilitation of Change  Stage 0 - Awareness Concerns  Stage 1 - Informationarcqncerns Is\n Stage 2 - Personal Concerns I  Stage 3 - Management Con^ferns  Stage 4 - Consequence Concerns  Stage 5 - Collaborative Concerns  Stage 6 - Refocusing ConcernsConcerns and the Facilitation of Change A first step in using concerns to guide interventions is to know what concerns the individuals have, especially their most intense concerns. The second step is to deliver interventions that might respond to those concerns. Unfortunately, there is no absolute set of universal prescriptions, but the following suggestions offer examples of interventions that might be useful. Stage 0 - Awareness Concerns a. If possible, involve teachers in discussions and decisions about the innovation and its implementation. b. Share enough information to arouse interest, but not so much that it over- c. whelms. Acknowledge that a lack of awareness is expected and reasonable, and that no questions about the innovation are foolish. d. Encourage unaware persons to talk with colleagues who know about the innova- e. tion. Take steps to minimize gossip and inaccurate sharing of information about the innovation. Stage 1  Informational Concerns a. Provide clear and accurate information about the innovation. b. Use a variety of ways to share information  verbally, in writing, and through any available media. Communicate with individuals and with small and large groups. c. Have persons who have used the innovation in other settings visit with your teachers. Visits to user schools could also be arranged. d. Help teachers see how the innovation relates to their current practices, in regard to both similarities and differences. e. Be enthusiastic and enhance the visibility of others who are excited. Stage 2 - Personal Concerns a. Legitimize the existence and expression of personal concerns. Knowing that these concerns are common and that others share them can be comforting. b. Use personal notes and conversations to provide encouragement and reinforce personal adequacy. c. Connect these teachers with others whose personal concerns have diminished and who will be supportive. d. Show how the innovation can be implemented sequentially rather than in one e. big leap. It is important to establish expectations that are attainable. Do not push innovation use, but encourage and support it while maintaining expectations. From: Hord, S. M., Rutherford, W. L., Huling-Austin. L., \u0026amp; Hall, G. E. Taking Charge of Change. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory 211 E. Seventh Street Austin, Texas 78701 Ho.X.4aStage 3 - Management Concerns a. Clarify the steps and components of the innovation. Information from innovation configurations will be helpful here. b. Provide answers that address the small, specific \"how-to\" issues that are so often c. the cause of management concerns. Demonstrate exact and practical solutions to the logistical problems that contribute to these concerns.  d. Help teachers sequence specific activities and set timelines for their accomplishments. e. Attend to the immediate demands of the innovation, not what will be or could be in the future. Stage 4 - Consequence Concerns a. Provide these individuals with opportunities to visit other settings where the innovation is in use and to attend conferences on the topic. b. Don't overlook these individuals. Give them positive feedback and needed support. c. Find opportunities for these persons to share their skills with others. d. Share with these persons information pertaining to the innovation. Stage 5  Collaborative Concerns a. b. c. d. e. Provide these individuals with opportunities to develop those skills necessary for working collaboratively. Bring together those persons, both within and outside the school, who are interested in collaboration. Help the collaborators establish reasonable expectations and guidelines for the collaborative effort. Use these persons to provide technical assistance to others who need assistance. Encourage the collaborators, but don't attempt to force collaboration on those who are not interested. Stage 6 - Refocusing Concerns a. b. c. d. e. Respect and encourage the interest these persons have for finding a better way. Help these individuals channel their ideas and energies in ways that will be productive rather than counterproductive. Encourage these individuals to act on their concerns for program inprovement. Help these persons access the resources they may need to refine their ideas and put them into practice. Be aware of and willing to accept the fact that these persons may replace or significantly modify the existing innovations. Individuals do have concerns about change, and these concerns will have a powerful influence on the implementation of change. The CBAM offers several easy ways to identify these concerns. It is up to those who guide change to identify concerns, inter- pret them, and then act on them. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory 211 E. Seventh Street Austin, Texas 78701 Ho X 4bi Arkansas Leadership Academy 9 Reasons for Resistance to Change 1. When the purpose of the change is not made clear. t. 2. When persons affected by the change are not involved. 3. When an appeal for change is based on personal reasons. 4. 5. When the habit patterns of the individual are ignored When there is poor communication regarding the change. 6. When there is fear of failure. 7. When excessive pressure is involved. 8. When the cost is too high, or the reward inadequate. 9, When anxiety over personal security is not allowed. 10. When there is a lack of respect and trust in the initiator. 11. When there is satisfaction with the status quo. \\ I Gordon Lippin. A Handbook for Visual Problem Solvin\nA Resource Guide for Creoting Change Models (Bethesda. MD: Development Publications. 1983). 9 15 9Arkansas Leadership Academy Why People Dont Do What We Want Them To*^ 1. Dont know what to do (knowledge/expectations) 2. Dont know how to do it (ability/skill) 3. Dont know why they should do it (importance) 4. Dont want to (lack of will) 5, Arent well suited or matched to the task (selection) K * Douglas S. Flemins and Ann Kilcher, Orsani-.in^ end Managing School Change Workshop^EA National Center for Innovation National Conference, Colorado Springs. CO, November 8, 1991. I 8Arkansas Leadership Academy Enablers of Change^ 1. There is a sense of openness, both individually and organizationally. 2. Individuals feel they have control of their own fate with the change. Individuals are empowered. 3. The change will have an influence or impact on some outcome. The change will make a difference. 4. The change will foster understanding. 5. The change will clarify roles. 6. The change provides an opportunity to pursue deeply held beliefs and values. 7. The change brings status. 1 8. TheJ change brings opportunity for more affiliative relationships. / 9. The change relieves boredom and routine. 10. The change provides individuals with some options and  alternatives. 11. The change brings power to influence or control others. 12. The change brings material ($) rewards. 13. The change is required to respond to punishment. a threat and/or avoid 14. Individuals see they are needed in the change process. 15. Change facilitator is honest about limitations of the 'O innovation. II Paul Berman and Milbrey McLaughlin, \"Supponing Change\" in The Rand Report iSanta Monica, CA\n1975), 14\\ Arkansas Leadership Academy Creating Tools to Communicate Change^\" 1. The Master Plan: A Flow Chart Symbolic representation of the stages, steps, or major events in a complex process. Enables participants to see the big -picture. 2. Mission Statement In five hundred words or less, captures the central purpose of the school or program. Describes succinctly who is served, what they will learn, and how staff are prepared to work with them to achieve the desired outcomes. 3. Core Beliefs A statement of the commonly held beliefs, attitudes, and convictions of the school or program. One set of core beliefs may relate to learners, learning, and schools as learning places. Another may relate to beliefs about how adults best work together. 4. Annual Goals Five or ten general statements relating to the overall mission of the school or program. District goals are framed broadly. Building level goals are targeted to the grade levels served. 5. Action Plans An outline or framework depicting the sequence of activities, events, or products needed to achieve goals. Action plans generally follow a hierarchy of objectives, strategies, and tactics. Most identify who is accountable for completing the work, the resources needed\nthe steps necessary, and a tentative completion date. 6. Monthly Planning Wheel A tool for identifying strategic initiatives in each of the key result areas a program instructional teams. Frequently used by serves. Douglas S. Fleming and Ann Kilcher. Organizing and Managing School Change Workshop. NEA- National Center for Innovation National Conference, Colorado Springs, CO, November 8, 1991. 15Arkansas Leadership Academy Managing the Process of Change in Schools Understand the Nature of the Change Itself Define and illustrate the change in terms of what teachers. administrators and students will say or do when the change is implemented. Outline how a set of different but interrelated actions fit together in a strategic way to achieve the desired outcomes.  Know what it is  Know what it is not  Design (or adopt) a coherent framework for school change * 14 Turning Points Recommendations 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Create small communities of learning Teach a core academic program Ensure success for all students Empower teachers and administrators Suff middle grades schools with teachers who are expert at ^eachin: adolescents 6) improve academic performance through better health and fitness 7) Re-engage families in the education of young adolescents 8) Connect schools with communities O o I Dou alas S. Fleming and Ann Kilcher, Organizing and Managing School Change Workshop NEA National Center for Innovation National Conference, Colorado Springs. CO. November 8, 19 . Carnegie Foundation. 1989. 16( Arkansas Leadership Academy Managing the Process of Change in Schools (confd)_____________________ Acknowledge how the Change May be Viewed by Individuals Successful change efforts recognize the diversity of the adult population in terms of their life stages.  interests, and concerns.  Address the complexity of adult learning.  Provide multiple and flexible entry- and exit points for participation.  Emphasize beliefs and behaviors - the why as well as the how. Characteristics of Adults as Learners 15 1)^ Self directed rather than dependent on direction form others 2) Have life experiences and accumulated wisdom to share 3) Readiness to leam stems from real needs and problems at the time 4) Motivated by curiosity and internal incentives 5) Leam best from mutual diagnosis of needs, goal setting and monitoring Address the Needs of People as Well as the Needs of the Change Individuals and organizations adapt to innovations and People acknowledge change, change developmentally. accept it, and integrate it at different understand its meaning, rates.  Legitimize individual concerns.  Provide support for innovators and early adopters.  Move with a critical mass of support. 15 Malcolm Knowles, 1978. 17Arkansas Leadership Academy Managing the Process of Change in Schools (contd) Understand how Change May be Viewed Within the Organization Every school has a unique culture, with its own history, traditions, and ways of doing business. Consequently, there is no single formula for school improvement. Change occurs within the context of distinct organizational filters,.including:  Local structures and policies present.  Human resources available.  Politics of the school and community.  Symbolic meaning innovation. associated with a particular strategy or Use Consensus Management Getting everyone on board and heading in the same general direction doesnt mean that everyone accepts every detail regarding the change. It does mean that they are willing to give the change strategy a fair shot at succeeding within a reasonable trial period. (  Provide flexibility, choice, and genuine options within a . broad framework to enable each unit to determine its own way of changing the way it does business.  Employ a unifying language. Avoid divisive terminology, and trigger words that may have negative connotations. 18Arkansas Leadership Academy Managing the Process of Change in Schools (contd) .................................... ............... Provide Ongoing Professional Development In improving schools, professional development shifts from a simple training model to a more comprehensive \"learning model.  Emphasize teacher learning and provide the time, resources. and supports necessary.  Reduce dependence on workshops and outside consultants through activities such as curriculum development, peer coaching, teacher research programs, problem-solving groups, and collegial support teams. An Action Research Framework* 1) Where are we now? 2) Where do we want to be? 3) How do we get there? 4) How are we doing? 5) What do we need to look at next?. Demonstrate and Cultivate Leadership Leadership is essential to change, banner, someone waves the flag. Someone carries the School leaders champion ideas, provide support, maintain focus and, mitiate movement from where we are to where we want to be.  Enable the emergence and development of leadership at all levels in the school and community. Whether this occurs through community-wide strategic plannin, programs, site'-based decision making councils, teacher-  --   ------------ teamed occurs 'g or planned staff development programs, instruction groups, new roles for teachers, parents, administrators and community members are created and experienced. Change norms of isolation, fragmentation, and competition to norms of collegiality, connectedness, and collaboration. Holly and South worth, 1990. 19Arkansas Leadership Academy Demonstrate and Cultivate Leadership (contd) Managing the Process of Change in Schools (contd) 17 Building Systems for Professional Growth 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) Foster collegiality and collaboration Promote experimentation and risk-taking Use available knowledge bases Ensure participant involvement Provide time to meet and plan Secure top level support and commitment Develop appropriate incentives and rewards Apply knowledge about adult learning and change 9)~ Integrate individual, school, and district goals 10) Promote linkage of staff development with school philosophy and structure Recognize that Change is a Long-term Process Some researchers suggest that it takes from three to five years to fully integrate a new idea or practice.  / Change is a process, not an event. ' Change takes time. ig  Change cannot be imposed from above without enrollin! the commitment of those who must make it happen and providing them with the skills and tools to do the job. People need time to meet and plan, to reflect on current practice, to try out something new, and to evaluate their efforts.  Arbuckle and Baker, 1989. 20Preparing for Change Small-Group Discussion: Think about the trailblazers, pioneers, settlers, stay-at-homes, and saboteurs who are involved with your school. How will you prepare/manage change in your school for each of these roles, and what resources (time, people, space, knowledge, and technology) are needed to accomplish your task? Complete columns 1,2,3, 4, and 5 on the chart that follows brainstorming methods of preparing for change for each of those roles. Trailblazers. Those who take the first steps in creating/sustaining change in your school. Pioneers. Those who are willing to take considerable risks but need assurance that their ventures are worthwhile. Settlers. Those who need to be persuaded that the undertaking is worthwhile. Stay-at-Homes. Those who do not particularly want to change and are not likely to be encouraged to change but are not necessarily opposed to those involved in restructuring your school. Saboteurs. Those who are actively committed to stopping change in your school.PREPARING FOR CHANGE TRAILBLAZERS, PIONEERS, SETTLERS, STAY-AT-HOMES, AND SABOTEURS 1 Trailblazers 2 Pioneers Adopted from: The Center for Leadership in Schooi Reform 1993 3 Settlers 4 Stay-at-Homes 5 SaboteursvO wi\nTheLRSD 5 Campus Based Leadership Initiative A Change Process Model Based on Systems Thinking aS 15dJ rceyjo^yg Essential Questions About Systems Thinking / What defines the systems 9 work?  What drives the systems work? 0 How is the systems work achieved?X' Essential Questions About Systems Thinking  What defines the systems work? LRSD Campus Based Leadership Parameters 9 \nWhat drives the systems work? LRSD Campus Based Leadership Principles How is the systems work achieved? LRSD CBL Total Quality Work PlansWa The Three Ps of Systems Thinking  Parameters  Principles  Plansf/j Why The 3 Ps?  Parameters provide context  Principles establish ethic  Plans provide results 'OWw ft.\n.,.51.^1?\nvsw \\ \u0026gt;* sjl LRSD Campus Based Leadership Principles  The quest for deep knowledge about teaching and learning is clear and abiding  Total quality management skills are used to lead and facilitate change process  Collaborative leadership is modeled  The accountability system is sustained  The vision is lived i T-i+sv LRSD CBL Total Qu\u0026amp;lity Work Plan Standards STANDARD ONE: Create and sustain customer involvement and support climate BENCHMARKS Seek Diversity Nurture Stakeholders KEY SKILLS KEY SKILLS  Identify, access and recruit diverse customers and support  Ensure diverse customer participation in goal setting, planning and shared decision making  Include diverse customers and support representation to produce quality work  Use effective communication skills to build, nurture, and sustain diverse and democratic customer and support base  Use conflict resolution skills to strengthen and maintain diverse and democratic customer and support base Ates'*w W* W 'J LRSD CBL Total QuTility Work Plan Standards STANDARD TWO: Create and sustain accountability system___________________________________ BENCHMARKS Set Goals \u0026amp; Plans Align Curriculum Instruction \u0026amp; Assessment Share Decision Making KEY SKILLS KEY SKILLS KEY SKILLS  Establish priorities and benchmarks  Analyze and disaggregate student achievement data  Use Quality Management Tools  Identify and select Research Based Practices  Monitor Customer Service for Satisfaction  Design CCOE School Improvement Plan to Align work of district/state initiatives  Identify the standards, instructional strategies, and appropriate assessments to insure student success throughout all of the Districts Initiatives  Use total quality problem solving processes  Use total quality consensus building and decision making  Focus priorities for decisions to leverage change in student achievement results  Use multiple deicision making tools  Provide equal access to information and data r.f-Yr ' Kt S'a i LRSD CBL TOTAL QUALITY WORK PLAN ACTION CONTINUUM  PLAN------ SkBb Create and sustain customer involvement and support climate Improved Student Achievement Create and sustain an accountability system ACT DO CHECK Isos-  Ji-  .w f-  :  ','^#08 ' -.'-Ks? \u0026gt;,0S\n: M' \u0026lt;i-'-^\u0026gt;Ir w iS' Description Key Learning Arkansas Leadership Academy Resolving Conflict in Teams All teams will experience conflict if they are exploring new ways of learning and working together, o co Conflicts will arise for different reasons. When different stakeholders serve on teams, conflicts may arise just because of differences in the language used to communicate about issues or the content of filters used to talk about the issues. Regardless of when, why or how a conflict is generated, successful teams acknowledge their conflicts and have strategies for dealing with their differences. Participants will identify their conflict style and those of others and learn tactics for resolving differences, which produce a more cohesive and productive team. At the conclusion of this session you will be able to:  Identify the processes, tools, and tips for resolving conflict.  Understand that conflicts may arise from differences in facts, methods, goals, and values.  See conflict as an opportunity to identify our emotional baggage so that we can heal it.  Utilize the think/feel/act process.  Be aware of the need for teams to attain consensus on acceptable norms of behavior in order to reduce conflict.  Identify personal conflict management strategies including stress reduction. 1Arkansas Leadership Academy Conflict Resolution Definition  Conflict situations are those in which the concerns of two people appear to be incompatible.  Conflict is a process that begins when one of the panics in the interaction perceives that another has frustrated, or is about to frustrate, one of his or her needs or concerns.  Conflicts may arise from differences in interests, desires, values, or from scarcity of some resources such as time, space, and position\nor they may reflect a rivalry in which one person tries to outdo or undo the other. Differences that Create Conflict FACTS: Same Facts - Different Viewpoints METHODS: Disagree on How to GOALS: Different VALUES: Values Differ 2Arkansas Leadership Academy Tips for Resolving Conflicts while Maintaining Relationships  Be unconditionally constructive.  Pursue relationships and substantive goals independently.  Beware of partisan perceptions: dont forget how differently people see things.  Balance emotions and reason. You need both. Too much emotion can cloud judgement. Too little emotion impairs motivation and understanding.  Explore the other persons thinking. Always assume a need to leam more. Avoid at all costs: * * * Assuming there is no need to talk. Believing you are communicating when you are telling. Sending mixed messages.  Always consult before deciding.  Work to increase your own reliability. Examine your trustworthiness and improve your conduct. Ask people to give you feedback on your reliability.  Help them to be more reliable. Describe their behavior and the consequences of their actions. Trust them when they deserve it. 3Arkansas Leadership Academy Tips for Resolving Conflicts while Maintaining Relationships  Avoid using coercive tactics: * * * Attacking the individual vs. attacking the problem. Winning a contest vs. solving a problem. Commit early vs. remain open. Focus on positions vs. explore interests. Either/or vs. multiple options. Break their will vs. persuade for whats fair. Worsen their walk away alternative vs. improve ours.  Deal seriously with those whom we differ.  Create congruence. Periodically stop to evaluate the state of the relationship and work to bring behaviors more in line with your beliefs.'  Watch for heavy tactics. (Psychological warfare) I * * * * * * * Phony facts Ambiguous details Personal attacks Threats The good-guy/bad-guy routine Escalating demands Lock in tactics  Remember, it is not a question of winning and losing. You are trying to achieve a better process for dealing with your differences.\" * R. Fisher and S. Brown, Getting Together: Building Relationships As V/e Negotiate (The Harvard Negotiation Project), (Penguin Books, 1988).  R. Fisher and W. Ury, Getting To Yes: Negotiating Agreements Without Giving In (Penauin Books, 1981). 4Arkansas Leadership Academy Interpersonal Confrontation Strategies 1. Self- Judgement You ask the person to look in the mirror and evaluate whether or not their behavior is helping them get what they want. Ask them:  What do you want?  Is your behavior helping you get...?  Is their any way your behavior is hurting you getting...? 2. State the Impact on You Give the person direct feedback about the impact of their behavior on you. In essence, you look in the mirror and describe the effects. You connect their behavior with how you feel and think, as well as answer the questions why. Say: When you because I (think, feel) 3. Compare Pictures Ask the person to describe what they see happening between you. (What are the issues? Problems?) You then describe how you see the situation. My understanding Your understanding Ask for Solutions/Strategies  Establishes the discrepancy between your perceptions Confronts them clarification with problem identification and  Moves them to solution finding vs. problem beating 5Arkansas Leadership Academy Conflict Management Tips  Arguing over positions produces unwise agreements.  Every conflict negotiation has two kinds of interest: in substance (details) and in the relationship.  Discuss each others perceptions, how they see or understand the issues.  Recognize and understand emotions, theirs and yours. Acknowledge them as legitimate.  Listen attentively and acknowledge what is being said.  Speak about yourself, not about them.  Face the problem, not the people.  Behind opposed positions lie shared and compatible interests, as well as conflicting ones. Work to identify interests by asking Why? and Why not?  Talk about your interests while looking forward, not back.  Avoid the assumption of a fixed pie. Brainstorm ideas to invent options for mutual gain. Separate inventing from deciding. O'  Identify shared interests.  Insist on using objective criteria. Develop fair standards and fair procedures.  If they are more powerful, develop your BATNA (Best Alternative To A Negotiated Agreement)  What if they wont participate? * * * * * Dont attack their positions, look behind it. Dont defend your ideas, invite criticism and advice. Redirect an attack on you as an attack on the problem. Ask questions, talk less. Discuss the principle behind their action. Stress fairness and really work to understand their issues. There is a reason for their behavior. 6 IArkansas Leadership Academy Conflict Problem-Solving Worksheet 1. Definition of the Problem What is happening here? My List Your List Whose problem is it? (Clear up differences in perception here.) I say You say How would I (we) like things to be? My list Your list Why do I (we) have to take action? What would happen if I (we) did nothing? I say You say 7Arkansas Leadership Academy Conflict Problem-Solving Worksheet 2. OfUcial Statement What is my (our) clearest statement of what I (we) want? (Check statements to see if they reflect mutual understanding of the conflict problem.) My statement Your statement 3. Possible Solutions (Work these out individually without talking\nthen share and prioritize them together.) What are all the possible solutions to the problem (in priority order)? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 4. Reality Test Reality test each solution against these questions. Start with the highest priority and work down: v Is there common understanding of the idea? Do we have 'o the same perception of what it means?  Is it realistically possible to accomplish?  Do we have the necessary desire and commitment to make it work?  What are all the possible things that could go wrong with the idea?  What will happen if we try it and it does not work? 8Arkansas Leadership Academy Conflict Problem-Solving Worksheet 5. Action Plan 6. Action Agree on a plan of action. (Identify a contingency plan. Agree on how to renegotiate.) Carry out your best (highest priority) solution in small, agreed- on, realistic steps to enhance possibilities for success. Build in an agreement to reevaluate within a reasonable time and to plan again if necessary.  M. Roberts, Managing Conflict: From the Inside Out. (Austin. TX: Learning Concepts, 1982). 9Arkansas Leadership Academy Roadblocks to Communications Blockinn Action Example Effect ORDERING, DIRECTING, COMMANDING You must, you have to Resistance, rebellion WARNING, ADMONISHING You had better, if you dont Obey only out of fear, resentment MORALIZING, OBLIGING You should, it is your duty, it is your responsibility Makes one feel guilty, should 1... LOGIC, ARGUING Here is why you are wrong, the facts are Defensiveness, counter arguments, you always think youre right ADVISING, RECOMMENDING It would be best for you Feel inadequate, inferior, duck responsibility, dependent EVALUATING, DISAPPROVING, NAMECALLING Youre not thinking straight, youre confused o Feel inferior, incompetent, guilty I PRAISING, JUDGING, APPROVING Thats good, thats nice Threatening, often feel manipulated, embarrassed SUPPORTING, REASSURING, EXCUSING Dont worry, youll feel better, thats too bad I cant accept such feelings, may disbelieve you DIAGNOSING, PSYCHOANALYZING, INTERPRETING What you need is, you dont really mean that If the analysis is wrong, person resists\nif it is right, person may feel exposed, trapped 5 10Arkansas Leadership Academy Roadblocks to Communications (contd) Blocking Action Example Effect QUESTIONING, PROBING, CROSS-EXAMINING Why? Who? Where? What? Conveys lack of trust, on the witness stand DIVERTING. AVOIDING, SHIFTING Lets think about that later, not now Feel rejected, lack of respect KIDDING, TEASING, USING SARCASM Got up on the wrong side of the bed?! Cuts off communication, not interested, stems from hostility, provokes counter hostility 11Arkansas Leadership Academy Conflict Approaches Questionnaire Directions: Consider situations in which you find that your wishes differ from the wishes of another person. How do you usually respond to such situations? On the following pages are several pairs of statements describing possible behavioral responses. For each pair, please circle the A\" or B statement depending on which is most characteristic of your own behavior. That is, please indicate which of these two responses is more typical of your behavior in situations where you find that your wishes differ from someone elses wishes. many cases, neither the A nor the B statement may be very typical of your behavior: but please select the response which you would be more likely to use. 1. a. b. I push hard to achieve my goals. I try to consider the other persons concerns and goals, as well as my own. ! 2. a. b. I try to see things from the other persons point of view. I try to strike a balance of wins and losses with the other person. 3. a. b. I try hard not to hurt the other persons feelings. I try to understand all the other persons concerns and goals. 4. a. b. I try to propose a compromise solution that both of us can agree to. I put off dealing with the conflict until Ive had a chance to think about it. 5. a. b. 1 try hard to influence others to accept my position. I try to find the middle ground, where the other person and I can agree. 6. a. b. 1 try to deal with all of the other persons concerns and goals as well as my own. I try to avoid situations in which there is anger and hostility. 12Arkansas Leadership Academy Conflict Approaches Questionnaire 7. a. b. I try to persuade the other person to see the positive side of things. 1 try to find a middle ground where the other person and I can agree. 8. a. b. I often acquiesce in order to maintain a good relationship with the other person. I am firm in pursuing my goals and ideas. 9. a. b. I do what ever I can to demonstrate the advantages of my position. I try not to get involved in controversies with others. 10. a. b. I believe it is important to maintain good relations with the other person in resolving our differences. I give in rather than hurt the other persons feelings. 11. a. b. I try to get the other person to see the things on which we agree. I try not to get involved in controversies with others. 12. a. b. I let others deal with the difficult and controversial issues. I try hard to maintain positive relations with the other person. 13. a. b. Winning my position is more important than maintaining positive relations with others. Consensus or agreement is more important than winning my own position. 14. a. b. I am willing to give on some points if the other person does too. I do whatever I can to demonstrate the advantages of my position. 15. a. b. I stay away from situations in which there is anger and hostility. I try to achieve my goals regardless of the others feelings. 13Arkansas Leadership Academy Conflict Approaches Questionnaire'* 16. a. b. I avoid topics that provoke disagreement and controversy. I try to see things from the other persons point of view. 17. a. b. I am willing to reveal all of my concerns and ideas in order to come to agreement with the other person. 1 push hard to achieve my goals. 18. a. b. I try to find the middle ground where we can both agree. I am willing to reveal all my concerns and ideas in order to come to agreement with the other person. 19. a. b. I put off dealing with conflict until Ive had a chance to think about it. I try to strike a balance of wins and losses with the other person. 20. a. b. I believe it is better to reach a compromise than to let the conflict go on. I usually concede if the other person feels more strongly about the issue. 4 Carleen OConnell, Western Organizational Consultants, Box 5769, Vancouver, WA 98668-5769. 14Arkansas Leadership Academy Scoring the Questionnaire Instructions: Working from your answers in the questionnaire, circle the answer (a or b) in the chart below. Add the circled items from each column to get your scores. Pair No. 1. I. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. B A B A B A B A B A B A B A A B A B A B A B B B A A B B A A A B A B B A B A A B ] Forcing (Competing) Accommodating Negotiating (Smoothing) Collaborating (Compromising) (Problem- Solving) Avoiding (Withdrawing) 15Arkansas Leadership Academy Graphing Your Approaches to Conflict Instructions: Your scores for your approach to conflict will probably be mixed. Some will be high and some low. In order to develop a profile, circle your score for each category in the chart below, then draw a line between each of the circles. Forcing (Competing) Accommodating (Smoothing) Negotiating (Compromising) Collaborating (Problem- Solving) Avoiding (Withdrawing) High Mid Low 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 8 7 6 5 4 3 1. 1 0 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 16 'OInterpreting Your Approach to Conflict Styles___________________ Forcing: Aimed at accomplishing one.s preferred decision or source of action.  Use of power, rank, or persuasion.  Winning ones position over oppo.sition.  Taking a position and pushing for it. Accommodating: Aimed at maintaining good relationships with others.  Sensitivity to others feelings.  Trying to meet the other persons demands.  Smoothing over differences.  Yielding ones own position to others. Negotiating: Aimed at achieving a compromise or middle ground.  Use of bargaining of gains and losses. Involves give and take on the issues. Is intermediate between forcing, harmonizing, integrating, and dividing. Advantages  When quick decisions are required, i.e.. crisis situation.s  When unpopular decisions are required, or unpopular rules need to be enforced  When a more harmoniou.s approach may be exploited by others When issue is far more important to the other person There is a danger of losing your position. You are interested in trade offs* from the other person in the future. When it is not the lime for controversy. When opponents are of equal strength, and committed to different goals. An expedient and temporary solution is needed. When other styles fail to solve the problem. Disadvantages__________  May strain relationships with others, causing tension, hurt feelings.  May lead to win/lose outcomes.  May lower ownership in decisions, lead to a _____lack of support.  When a decision is necessary.  You will have trouble living up to the solution.  When yielding your position will cause you to feel badly.  When you know youre right. Solutions are temporary. Each party achieves only part of its goals. Each party must give up some of its goals. To think about High ScoreZUse__________ Low Score/Use  Do others agree too much with me'?  Am I gelling all of the ideas and feelings of others'?  Are my decisions supported?  What about morale? Do I get my way often enough? Am 1 too concerned with others* feelings. Am 1 aware of the power that 1 have? Am I yielding so much that my ideas arent getting enough attention? So we spend too much time paying attention to feelings and good relations? Are our procedures too loose to be effective? When I am wrong, do 1 have trouble changing my position? Do others see me as difficult and unreasonable? Are others reluctant to share their ideas and feelings? Do I get so entangled in the technicalities of bargaining that I lose sight of my goals? Am I prepared to renegotiate the solution in the future? Is it hard for me to trade .some of my positions in order to gain others? Do 1 take the negotiations personally, rather than as a way of doing business?  Requires good faith to be effective._____ Collaborating: Aimed at finding a solution that meets the needs and goals of both parties.  Incorporates both goals/task and human relations considerations.  Full examination of all concerns, ideas and feelings.  Requires openness and candid communications._ Avoiding: Aimed at staying out of the conflict situation.  Low involvemenl in either task or relationship concerns.  May involve withdrawing, changing subject, postponing the issue, or sidestepping the problem. When there is a readiness to grow and change. When a unified approach is needed. When maintenance of working relationships is important When likely to be more harm than good resulting from the conflict When the conflict is a *no-win* situation. When other business is really more important. To postpone the conflict until a bener time. When a quick solution is needed. When parties are not willing to change. When one party is likely to take advantage of the others efforts. Avoiding issues that might make the organization less effective. Without full participation of all members, the staff may make decisions without knowing all ideas and feelings. 17 Do I spend too much time examining the issues and feelings? Is an integrating approach really needed in all cases? Are there issues the staff cannot address without my participation? Are we making some decisions by default, because of avoidance? Does the community or other groups expect the issues to be resolved? Is there a lack of direction because of avoidance of issues? Do other members, staff and community lack commitment to your decisions and pobcies? Are you overwhelmed by the number of problems and issues? Are there some problems that are better left to others to deal with? Am 1 seen as loo conftonung in my approach? Arkansas Leadership Academy Conflict Resolution Competing  Power oriented mode  Pursuing your concerns at the others expense  Uses arguments, rank, sanction Accommodating  Person neglects his own concerns to satisfy the concerns of others  Selfless generosity or charity  Obey - when you dont want to Avoiding  You are not looking at your concern or the other persons  Sidestep, postpone, withdraw Collaborating  You attempt to work through the conflict with the other person to a solution that satisfies both Compromising  Trying to find an expedient solution  Partial satisfaction  Mutually acceptable 18Arkansas Leadership Academy Conflict Management Tips for Groups Take time to get to know one another.  Set norms of operation.  Conduct formal or informal needs assessment to determine: * * Group and individual strengths and areas of expertise Process skills needed by the group Information needed by the group Make time for training in identified areas of need.  Review group norms often.  Establish a process for checking groups temperature. Celebrate successes. 19Description Key Learning Arkansas Leadership Academy Team Building and Maintenance Individuals working together need a variety of tools to ensure the effectiveness of the work of the team. The effectiveness of teams develops over time as members learn to use' each others knowledge, skills, and experience. Participants will learn different tools and techniques to assess the effectiveness of the group process and understand group roles that promote and hinder group work. At the conclusion of this session you will:  Understand that people support what they help create.  Know that effective teams are clear about: goal (both team and individual) roles, procedures and norms for relationships.  Have experienced a variety of team building activities and processed them for learning.  Understand the relationship between team building and effective team maintenance.  Understand that team building is an ongoing process of growth and development. 1Arkansas Leadership Academy STAGE FOUR 12 STAGE ONE 9 11 Mature Closeness 10 Resourceful Flexible Open Effective Close and Supportive 2 Form Storm Perform Norm 3 Getting Organized Infighting 8 Developing Skills Establishing Procedures Giving Feedback Confronting Issues Controlling Conflicts Confronting People Opting Out Experiencing Difficulties Feeling Stuck 4 7 5 STAGE THREE 6 STAGE TWO 2 3 Arkansas Leadership Academy Teamwork: A Personal Action Plan 1 Think over the material you have read. Review the selfassessment questionnaires. Reflect on the conversations you have had. What have you learned about team building? What did you learn about yourself? How can you apply what you learned? Make a commitment to yourself to become a better team member and a more effective team contributor by designing a personal action plan to help you accomplish this goal. The following guide may help you clarify your goals and outline actions required to achieve your goals. 1. My current team skills are effective in the following areas: 2. I need to improve my team skills in the following areas: i 3. My goals for improving my team skills are as follows: 4. Following are my action steps, along with a time-table to accomplish each goal: Action Evidence Due Date a) b) c) ' Adapted from Robert B. Maddux, Team Building (Los Altos, CA: Crisp Publications. 1992). 4Arkansas Leadership Academy Team Action Plan What we want to share Who we want to involve How we will go about doing it Persons Responsible Resources Needed Due Date 5Arkansas Leadership Academy The Conflict Curve Most relationships and most groups that become intimate or learn to work closely together go through the following stages. / A V / / Z Z I I / Z I y I I 7 / z z / I I I I I Getting Acquainted People are polite while strangers. To work well they need to build trust and get to know each other. Norm Development People get serious. Conflicts over power and norms. Need to learn to negotiate conflicts. Effective Work Phase If norms have developed well, group should handle conflicts well. If major conflicts develop, norms may need to be renegotiated. Termination People are sad as group prepares to end. a Legend  Effectiveness of group at working together _ . Level of conflict in the group. 6Arkansas Leadership Academy Receiving Criticism 1. Listen carefully. Give the speaker your full attention. Watch your non-verbal responses. 2. Hear the other person out. Dont interrupt or raise objections. 3. Be objective. Separate the words from the speaker. They may be critical of your work, your actions, or your ideas, but that does not mean that they do not like you! 4. Summarize the speakers main points. That lets them know their message has been received and understood, even if you dont a^ree with it. 5. Ask questions to clarify items. 6. If you are feeling hostile, defensive, or overwhelmed, request some time to think it over before responding, distance between yourself and the other person. Put some 7. Use the opportunity to leam from the feedback. Are the criticisms valid? Could a misunderstanding be avoided? What would it take to make things right? Where do you go from here? 8. Separate your work from yourself - dont take it personally. If you have been wrong, admit it and move on. To be sorry is to behave differently. It is not to wallow in guilt, shame, or embarrassment. Live life in the present tense. 7Arkansas Leadership Academy Description of Affective/Community-Building Activities 1. Birthday line-up 2. Forced- Choice Questions and Responses 3. Family Group Introductions 4. Knots This is a common icebreaker that takes little time and is fun. Participants line up according to their birth dates, day and month, starting from January through December. The mle is they can not talk as they figure out where to get in the line. When we process this we talk about communication and how we rely on verbal communications. Participants respond to a number of questions by going to the area of the room where their appropriate response is designated. Example: I ask them: When you have free time, if you prefer to go to the beach, go to that comer (I point), to go shopping, go to that comer (point-different comer), to take a nap, go to that comer (point again), or to read a good book, go to that comer (last comer). The questions range from preference in music to whether you are an only child, have 1-2 siblings, have 3-5 siblings, or have 6 or more\nto responses as to whether you prefer to lead or follow, etc. this activity gives them a chance to see the various things they have in common with one another and how the groups change depending on the questions. Once they are place in their Family group for the day they are to choose a partner and interview them for one minute. They are to find out as much about that person as they can, including one accomplishment that their partner is particularly proud of. Then each takes a turn introducing their partners to the rest of the group, being sure to tell the thing that their partner was proud of. Everyone applauds each introduction. The participants stand in a circle facing inwards. Each person puts their right hand in and clasps the hand of someone across the circle from them. Then being careful not to cross their own arms in the process they do the same with the left hands, not clasping the same persons hand as before. The object then is to untangle without breaking hand-clasps. 8Arkansas Leadership Academy Description of Affective/Community-Building Activities (contd) 5. Lean-in 6. Lifelines 7. Muscle Testing 8. Positive I Ams This is a trust activity done in dyads. Partners face one another with about three feet of space between them. With feet a shoulders width apart, they extend their hands in front of themselves, palms forward and then push off, trying to return themselves and partners to upright positions. Each time they take a small step backwards and lengthen the space between them and repeat the process. I have included the description of this one. This activity involves a volunteer who comes up in front of the group with me. He extends his strongest arm out to the side and resists as I try to push it down. We do this several times while he is doing various types of positive and negative thinking. Questions such as thinking about someone he really dislikes as I push down and then doing it while he thinks of someone he really likes. The results are usually surprising to people. A writing activity  they have a sheet with ten I Arns and lines after each one. I ask them to take five minutes to complete the ten I Arns with positive statements that they believe to be true about themselves. Then they circle the three that they think are most important in their lives. After they have completed this one, I ask them to think of one I am that they wish they could say, but is not yet true about them\nsomething they would like to be able to say about themselves. They then choose a partner and share these ten statements with their partners, identifying the three and telling why they are most important. When this is done, I give each group a small mirror and the instructions that they are to focus on the mirror where all they can see is their own eyes, each participant says that affirmation aloud and the group says the persons name and repeats it back to them (I am a great organizer. - Davis, you are a great organizer). Each participant repeats it five to ten times (depending on time) with the group responding to each one. 9Arkansas Leadership Academy Description of Affective/Community-Building Activities (contd) 9, Wind in the Willows 10. Conducting This is an old but good one. The group stands in a circle facing inward, shoulder to shoulder and bracing with their strongest leg. Each participant takes a turn in the center of the circle, arms across chest, closes her eyes and keeping knees straight, leans back and lets the group pass her gently around. Using imaginations, the group spaces out around the room standing up with plenty of arm space. After having them close their eyes, I play a tape with the sounds of an audience in a concert hall, the orchestra is warming up and finally the Stars Forever as they are lead to conduct the orchestra silliness and emphasizes the need to play, laugh, and to not take ourselves too seriously. 11. Acid River Description included. 12. Labels I am including a description of this one too. I dont know if I would use it with elementary kids or not. It would depend on the group and I would certainly edit labels. 13. Affirming Circles Participants are told at the beginning of the day to be watching the members of their Family Group and note their positive characteristics. This activity lets each member take a seat in the center of the circle while the others each share something positive they know or have observed about that person. Activities compiled (but not created) by Davis and Cheryl Hendricks. The sources of activities should get credit but have been lost to the ages. Another source of good team-building activities is: Belonging: A Guide for Group facilitators Jayne Devencenzi and SusanPendergast 2960 Hawk Hill Lane San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 544-5359 10Description Materials Time Arkansas Leadership Academy Lifeline Exercise This activity is designed to give students a non-threatening opportunity to share personal history with one or more partners in a whole brain approach. In the early stages of developing a sense of community in the classroom, it is important for students to have opportunities to leam about each other in ways that leave them in control of how much information they are sharin\ng- This activity has been effective in beginning the process of bonding within a group. White paper or newsprint for each student, colored pencils or crayons. 45-60 minutes Process Give each student a piece of paper and pencils or crayons and ask them to take about ten to fifteen minutes to reflect on their lives from birth to the present. After a few minutes of reflection they are to construct lifelines that represent the major event,s that have happened in their lives that they feel have made a difference. Tell them that the form of their lifeline is up to them but give them the suggestion to use as many graphic symbols as possible to represent these significant events. Also suggest symbols as possible to represent these significant events. Also suggest that corresponding dates along the line would help give the events some degree of chronology and history. Tell them that when they are done with their line they should find a partner that is also finished, preferably someone they do not know very well. Each partner should take about five minutes to share their lifeline, explaining symbols and their meaning and how these events have affected their lives. Let them know that it is appropriate to ask questions of one another for clarification. When students have completed their sharing, debrief each dyad as to what they learned about each other that they did not already know. Check for commonalties and interesting connections between partners. Note: If time allows, or on another day, have students switch partners and share again. This can be repeated as many times as time allows. The timelines can also be personalized and posted in a special place in the classroom so students can examine the lives of those whom they did not get to share. 11Arkansas Leadership Academy Acid River (An experiential activity in teambuilding and problem-solving.) Objective To develop leadership, team-building skills and group problemsolving skills. o Materials Four to five one-by-four boards or poster board sections cut 18 in length per team, ten to twelve scarves, or handkerchiefs to be used as blindfolds, masking tape. Site A gym or activity room, or area outdoors not less than fifty feet, depending on size of teams (four to eight members is best). Use tape to mark off a lane of action for each team. Construct the river width so that teams cannot lay the boards end-to-end and walk across the river (For example: Using five boards that are four feet long means that the river must be at least 28 to 30 feet long.) Description Your team is on a relief mission to bring a vital serum to a village that is rapidly dying of a rare disease. In your trek across the dangerous uncharted terrain you encounter a huge standing pool of acid that is too wide to walk around. You must get across to get the serum to the village, which is only about a mile further, but time is running out! Your problem is to devise a way to get your team across the acid without losing anyone in the process. Your only tools are four one-by-four boards that are impervious to the acid. As long as you stay on the boards, you are safe. Any contact with the acid results in the loss of whatever touches it. To fall in is instant death. You can not throw the boards across or slide them along the top of the acid. Be prepared for unexpected developments that challenge your efforts. 12Arkansas Leadership Academy Acid River (An experiential activity in teambuilding and problem-solving.) (contd) Description (contd) Teams should be told to devise a plan and then begin executing their plan. The exercise can be set up for as long as you choose, depending on the size of the room and the number of members of each team. Point out to the team that the acid pool is slowly eating away their side of the shore and that leaving members on the shore will result in eventual death, so everyone must be gotten across unless they choose to abandon part of the team. Tell them that fate occasionally steps in and either simplifies their task or sometimes makes it more challenging. (You are Fate.) From time to time you may remove a board if a team is moving rapidly through the exercise or you may add a board. The room size would dictate less boards but no less than three. You may also blindfold a person who is in the middle of the river, explaining that sometimes things happen in life that seem quite unfair. Use your own judgement but be somewhat balanced in your doling out fate. Let them know how long they have and remind them periodically how much time is left. 13Arkansas Leadership Academy Acid River (An experiential activity in teambuilding and problem-solving.) (contd) Processing this activity is the most important part of it. While groups tend to have a good time doing it, it is important to talk about the dynamics of solving the problem as well as how team members responded to challenges. Pose some of the following questions in processing the activity. 1. What was your plan and how did it work? Was it necessary to modify it? Why was it necessary and how did your modification work? 2. Who were the take charge people and how did the group respond to their leadership? 3. What unexpected challenges came up for your group and how did you respond to them? 4. Did anyone play a sacrificing role and volunteer to stay behind or risk themselves in the effort? How did the group respond to them? 5. What role did you play in both the planning stage and the actual attempt at crossing the river? 6. Was your group competing with the other groups? If so, why? 7. How is this activity like life? What did you learn about yourself and your group? If you have time, it is valuable to have a spokesperson from each team respond to several of the above questions to see how different teams respond differently to the challenge of ACID RIVER. 14Rationale Materials Target Age Group Description Arkansas Leadership Academy Stereotyping (Labels) This activity addresses the premise that much of the prejudice and stereotyping that goes on in our lives can be reduced through actual experience with those whom we stereotype. Before we can begin to attempt to reduce labeling and prejudice, we must first be aware of our own personal biases and perceived differences. The purpose of this activity is to give the participants an opportunity to confront their personal prejudices and to open up discussion about the concept of prejudice and stereotypes and how they limit or otherwise affect our lives. Adhesive backed file folder labels (one per participant), background music (optional). Fourth grade (depending on level of maturity) and up. Prior to doing the activity, participants are to have brainstormed as many stereotypic labels as possible that they have either used or heard used in describing people. These may be either negative or positive in connotation. Examples would be: dumb, retard. nerd, prude, skater, cowboy, princess, etc. These are then transferred by marker one per label prior to the activity so that there is a label for each participant. Select labels based on the maturity level of your group. Some labels are disgusting to some of us and may be too emotionally challenging for some participants. If you use racial labels or labels referring to sexual orientation, make sure your group knows that these are not meant to demean anyone but rather are included to be authentic. Also, be sure not to label someone appropriately. That is, if you know that someone has been stereotyped as poor or if they truly are poor, do not label them that way. (If your group is not mature enough to understand this, or is too volatile to be able to handle strong labels, eliminate any that could be a problem.) 15Arkansas Leadership Academy Stereotyping (Labels) (contd) Description (contd) Have everyone form a large circle facing outwards and tell them that this activity requires that they be as quiet as possible with no verbal communication after this point. Tell them that they not talk to anyone or reveal anything about their labels. Then begin placing a label on each persons forehead, reminding them all the while not to tell each other what their labels are. (There will probably be some degree of giggling and laughing when they see each others labels. Keep reminding them that it is a silent activity but tolerate the giggling until everyone i.s labeled. Most of us find this to be a difficult and uncomfortable activity and giggling is a way to release some of the stress.) When everyone is labeled, tell the group to begin walking around the room looking at the people and labels they encounter and thinking about how they feel as they attach the label to the person they pass and how they feel as they observe how others regard them. (At this point begin playing the background music - something quiet and instrumental - meditative.) After a minute of walking, tell them to stop and stand opposite someone and look at their label then into their eyes as you ask two or more of the following questions. 1. What are you feeling as you look at this person and his/her label? Is it acceptance, fear guilt, pity, friendliness, trust, anger... 2. How is this person looking at you  with feelings of acceptance or rejection, fear, anger, pity,...what do you think they are thinking about you and how does it feel? 3. Would you invite this person into your home for dinner? 4. Would you extend your hand to this person in friendship? 5. Would you trust this person? 6. Could you have a serious relationship with this person? 7. Would you support your son or daughter if they wanted to have a serious relationship with this person? 16Arkansas Leadership Academy Stereotyping (Labels) (contd) Description (contd) Then tell them to move on and keep walking around in circles until you stop them and tell them to find another partner and repeat the above process. Keep emphasizing that this is an inner activity without any verbal interaction and they are to be considering their own feelings and how they feel about the way others received them. Repeat the process so that they stop with a partner a minimum of six times. At the end of the activity they can take off their labels and know what they were. Once the activity is completed it is important to process it and allow participants time to share their feelings and insights about stereotyping and prejudice. This can be more effectively accomplished by putting participants in small groups of four to six (depending on the size of the overall group) and giving them the following questions to discuss and share. Processing Questions 1. What were you feeling as you regarded how others were reacting to you and your label? 2. Define stereotypes and prejudices. Are they the same thing or are they different? 3. What are the sources of stereotypes and prejudices in our lives? 4. How do stereotypes and prejudices limit' us in our capacity to understand those who are different form us? How do they limit us in other ways? 5. Share a personal experience with how stereotypes and prejudices have affected you positively or negatively in your life? 6. Are there any instances in which prejudices or stereotypes are desirable. 1. What can we do individually to decrease the influence of prejudices or stereotypes in our lives? 8. What can we do as a society to decrease destructive prejudices and stereotypes? 17Arkansas Leadership Academy Stereotyping (Labels) (contd) This activity needs plenty of processing time for groups to work through some of the complexities of this topic. Allow groups to discuss for at least 20-30 minutes before asking a spokesperson from each group to respond to one of the eight questions. As debriefer, go around the room posing a question or asking each group to pick a question and letting their spokesperson share the groups thoughts about it. Since this activity is somewhat challenging and can sometimes leave groups in an emotional valley, we have followed it up with a positive activity such as an Affirmation Circle or Circle of Strength Bombardment in which each person sits in the center while each of the others takes a turn making one sincere affirmative statement about the person in the center. (This activity was developed by Eric Smoyer at the age of 17.) ) 18Arkansas Leadership Academy Site-based Decision Making Description Site-based decision making is a way of empowering stakeholders to implement and sustain systemic change and improvement. Key Learning At the conclusion of this session you will be able to:  Verbalize an operational/functional definition of site-based decision making.  Assess the degree of implementation of site-based decision making at present work site.  Identify steps for implementation of site-based decision making.  Utilize at least one tool for site-based decision making. 1Arkansas Leadership Academy The Ten Most Widely Used Aids to Decision Making 1. Straw Voting 2. Negative Voting 3. Ranking Alternatives 4. Weighting Alternatives 5. Pro/Con Technique 6. Criteria Matrix 7. Going Around the Group Participants are asked to vote to give a general impression of reactions, not to make a decision. If there are several alternatives, each participant gets three votes to get a broader picture of reactions. Participants are asked to identify alternatives they favor the least or could not accept Participants are asked to rank order the most favorable is assigned a 1 and the total of the number of the alternatives is the least favorable. The totals or average ranks are presented to the group for further work. Similar to rank ordering but participants are given five or ten weights to assign to the various alternatives. The weight can be assigned in any one way from all on one item to equal distribution. Participants make up two lists on a flip chart, one showing all the favorable factors of a specific issue or plan. This clarifies all the reasons the proposal may not work and surfaces the fears restraining a decision. Criteria for evaluating the proposals are listed before the proposals are generated. After the proposals are summarized and reduced to a working number, they are assessed or scored according to the predetermined criteria and the results compared. The facilitator goes around the group asking each person in turn what he or she thinks about a specific issue. A polarized discussion that gets bogged down may be freed up by hearing from the silent majority. 2Arkansas Leadership Academy The Ten Most Widely Used Aids to Decision Making 1 8. Active- Listening Discussion Each member is asked to summarize the last speakers point of view - and to check the summary with that person - before he or she can express an opinion. When sensitive issues become polarized, listening often ceases as participants spend the time while others are talking preparing their next comment. 9. Trials-With- Experience Reports When two to four alternatives seem equally useful, they are tried out on an experimenul basis for a specific period of time and then reported back on to give the group more dau on possibilities. It may turn out that there is more than one successful way of handling the situation. 10. Confidential Listing of Opinions Opinions or votes on a critical issue are collected and presented anonymously\nthis often diffuses much of the emotion and confrontation of a verbal discussion. The Delphi Technique and Nominal Group Technique use this strategy by asking members to give opinions in writing and then summarizing the responses for further work. ' Hedley G. Dimock. Inler\\ention and Collaboration: Helping Organizations to Change (San Diego, CA: Pfieffer \u0026amp; Company, 1993). 3Arkansas Leadership Academy Hierarchy of Problem-Solving Involvement' High Involvement Ownership Team is directly responsible for all aspects of problem solving g and implementation of solutions (i.e., identification, and recommendations of alternative solutions and responsibility for assuring that the problem is designed out\" of the process). The team addresses problem.s relating to the performance of their work as well as competitive, organizational, and customer-related issues. Resolution Team is directly responsible for identifying and implementing solutions to the problems they encounter in their work area. ig JU Recommendations Group makes recommendations to management for possible solutions relating to problems they encounter in their work area. Identification Group is asked to identify problems in their work area. Any solutions that are developed or any actions taken are solely the responsibility of management. Low Involvement  Steven R. Rayner. Recreating the Workplace: The Pathway to High Performance Work Systems. (Essex Junction, VT\nOliver Wright Publications, 1993). 4Definition What are School-Based Planning Teams Asked to Do? 3 Arkansas Leadership Academy Site-Based Decision Making^ A process in which members of a school community collaborate in identifying problems, defining goals, formulating buildinglevel policy, shaping direction, and ensuring widespread implementation of practices aimed at raising levels of achievement for all students. The persons who are responsible for implementation of a decision at the building level are actively and legitimately involved in making decisions. 1. Find out what needs to be done to improve student performance at the school. 2. Write a plan to meet those needs. 3. Present the plan to the school community. 4. See that the plan is carried out. 5. Evaluate and report to the school community the results of the plans activities. Adams Twelve Five Star Schools, 11285 Highline Drive, Northglenn, Colorado 80233. 5Arkansas Leadership Academy Site-Based Decision Making Building Level Decisions Budget allocations  Recruitment/hiring  Curriculum design/implementation Instructional strategies  Assessment techniques Schedule  Staff development  Community relations Extracurricular activities Student outcomes  Improvements to learning environments 6Arkansas Leadership Academy Site-Based Decision Making Steps in the Process 1. Develop awareness 2. Determine readiness 3. Organize for action 4. Assess building needs 5. Establish improvement priorities 6. Draft plans for action 7. Get additional input 8. Provide support to the team 9. Involve others in putting plans to work 10. Make adjustments as you go 7CONSENSUS DECISIONSArkansas Leadership Academy Consensus Decisions Description Consensus requires that all group members share the final decision and agree to take responsibility for implementing it. So, how do you get teams to this point? Learn and practice several different techniques that assist teams in reaching consensus. Discussion will focus on the general types of group decisions and differences between voting and consensus decision making. Key Learning At the conclusion of this session you will:  Discuss the differences between compromise and consensus checks and consensus decisions. Provide tools to test for consensus decision making: weighted voting, criteria matrix.  Learn why consensus can be a longer process than compromise or a voting process.  Practice four tools for seeking or checking for consensus.  Know the essential elements for reaching consensus.  Understand why decisions reached by consensus are the most powerful decision that teams make. 1Arkansas Leadership Academy Consensus Decisions Overview The goal of consensus is a decision that is consented to by all group members. Of course, full consent does not mean that everyone must be completely satisfied with the final outcome - in fact, total satisfaction is rare. The decision must be acceptable enough, however, that all will agree to support it. Consensus Means...  All group members contribute.  Everyones opinions are heard and encouraged.  Differences are viewed as helpful.  Everyone can paraphrase the issue.  Those who disagree indicate a willingness to experiment for a certain period of time.  All members-have the final decision.  All members agree to take responsibility for implementing the final decision. Consensus Does Not Mean...  A unanimous vote.  The result is everyones first choice.  Everyone agrees. (There may only be enough suppon for the decision to be carried out for a trial period.)  Conflict or resistance will be overcome immediately.Arkansas Leadership Academy A Decision Making Continuum One person decides A few people (the The decision is in group) choose made by a majority vote The team discusses the problem and comes to a consensus The team comes to a unanimous conclusion 3' David W. Johnson and Frank Johnson, Learning Together and Alone: Cooperation, Competition, and Individuaiization (Enslewood Cliffs. NJ\nPrentice-Hall. 1975). 4 Arkansas Leadership Academy Comparing Decision Making Processes\" Voting vs. Consensus 1. Considers two points 1. Considers many points 2. Discussion divides group 2. Discussion solidifies group 3. Polarizes majority and minority 3. All sides feel heard and accepted 4. Faster, but implementation is slower 4, Slower, but implementation is faster  Adams Twelve Five Star Schools, 11285 Highline Drive. Northglenn. CO 80233. 5Arkansas Leadership Academy Consensus: A Step-by-step Process Preparing for Group Discussion A. An agenda is set at the beginning of the meeting so members know and agree on what they will talk about in w'hat order. B. The facilitator introduces an item from the agenda (or calls someone else to introduce the item). The introduction should include\n1. A clear definition of the area being discussed. 2. A clear statement of what has to be decided. Exactly what needs must be filled or what problem must be solved by the decision? This statement should be precise enough to have a limiting effect\nmembers should know what they are NOT talking about. Example: Vague-. closings. We want to solve the problem of school (This may include discussion of city government policies, citizens attitudes about property taxes, emigration of young families to the suburbs, etc.) Specific: Today we have to think of a way to raise funds to keep Albion Middle School open next year. C. Background information is provided by the person who introduced the topic or by other group members who have information. As the discussion progresses, other relevant information is added whenever needed. Group Discussion: Building United Judgement A. An individual introduces an idea for discussion. This idea may be an opinion, a definition of the problem, a suggestion for an approach to the problem, or a proposal for a decision. 6Arkansas Leadership Academy Consensus: A Step-by-step Process (contd) Group Discussion: Building United Judgement (contd) B. Another individual responds to that idea. The second speakers statement is a combination of her or his own opinion and that of the previous speaker.  It includes a response to the first speakers idea and her or his own thoughts as they have been influenced by the previous statement. C. A third person develops the ideas further. Her or his contribution is different than it would have been if the two previous speakers had not spoken. D.Other people begin responding to earlier statements and offering their views on the subject. Each contribution builds on previous statements yet is unique as different individuals express themselves. The effect of such a discussion is that the comments taken as a whole are greater than the sum of c' them individually: group members respond to each other so each statement i.s the unique contribution of an individual and at the same time is influenced by previous speakers E. During the discussion, the facilitator and other members are responsible for: 1. Keeping the discussion on topic. (If it is necessary to redefine the topic, the shift should be made explicit and all group members should understand the change.) 2. Providing the clarification and rephrasing of complicated or confusing discussion. 3. Summarizing underlying agreement and differences in viewpoint. 4. Identifying the new issues as they arise. 5. Ensuring that all viewpoints are heard and understood by the group as a whole. 6. Identifying problems with the groups process and attempting to remedy them. All group members share responsibility for the groups process and may perform any of the above functions. 7Arkansas Leadership Academy Consensus: A Step-by-step Process (contd) Group Discussion: Building United Judgement (contd) F. When it is apparent that all viewpoints have been expressed, all new information has been given, and/or some part of the discussion begins to be repeated, the facilitator or someone else states the conclusion toward which the group appears to be moving. Example: It seem.s the group is leaning towards writing a grant to the Mott Foundation to fund the school as an experimental center for community education. Does anyone object to this proposal? When Testing for consensus.\" ask whether anyone has anything else important to say. Central to consensus is gathering. all relevant information, opinions and feelings about the subject, so it is essential not to move forward until these views have been expressed. Making the Decision A. The group responds by agreement or disagreemeuc. Special care is taken to make sure that any objectives are heard. The facilitator may ask if there are objections, or if consensus has been reached. In addition to raising specific concerns, it is legitimate for someone to say, I have no specific objections, but I dont feel settled on the subject yet. B. Concerns are discussed and the process of developing agreement, or building united judgement, continues until a decision is endorsed by the meeting of the whole. The decision that is reached may not completely satisfy everyone in the group, but it must be one that all group members are willing to live with. If serious objections still exist, then a decision is not made. 8Arkansas Leadership Academy Consensus: A Step-by-step Process (contd)^ C. If a decision implies that an action be taken, responsibilities are clarified to ensure that the action is carried out. If a phone call must be made, or a letter written, make sure that someone volunteers to do it. In addition, some method should be chosen to follow up on the decision. This may require reporting back to the group when the task is completed, writing down the outcome and posting it, or putting the matter on the agenda for discussion at the next meeting. Record your decision and implementation plan in the minutes for future reference. D. If the group can not agree: 1. It is possible that the group does not have enough information to make a good decision. Sometimes a decision must be defened until more facts are gathered, more discussion takes place, or members have more time to think about it. Fuller understanding by each participant will increase the possibility of reaching consensus. 2. The group as a whole may decide that it is more important to reach a decision at this particular time than to make a decision that meets the groups usual levels of acceptability. Some members may feel that this is a special circumstance where reaching an immediate decision is so important that they will go along with a decision they would not otherwise support. (This kind of concession is sometimes make by individuals for the sake of the group, but a group should never pressure someone into doing so, or the result will not represent a true consensus decision. ' .Michael Avery, et al.. Building United Judgement: A Handbook for Consensus Decision Making (Madison, Wl: The Center for Conflict Resolution, 1981). 9Arkansas Leadership Academy Criteria Matrix What is it? A Criteria Matrix produces a grid of cells or boxes formed by the intersection of rows and columns. The rows contain descriptions of items under consideration\nthe columns contain descriptions of desirable attributes or important features used to rate the times in the rows. The cells contain space for recording a numerical ranking indicating urgency, perceived importance. or extent to column. which the item in the row meets the criteria in the When is it best used? A Criteria Matrix may be used by a problem-solving group to select among possible items for discussion. It may also be used to evaluate potential solutions generated in response to a problem selected for discussion. How is it done? 1. Agree on a restatement of the problem or question under consideration. 2. Use brainstorming to generate ideas for suggested solutions. List these ideas in the solutions column of the Criteria Matrix. 3. Develop criteria for judging the selected solutions under consideration. Criteria might include cost, training required, resources already available, or other factors. Limit the criteria to five. Record these in the criteria columns of the matrix. 10Arkansas Leadership Academy Criteria Matrix (contd) 4 4. Large groups may find it easier to work in smaller groups, with each group generating their own solutions and criteria. There should be only one matrix worksheet per group. 5. Rank each solution according to the degree you feel it meets the criteria you have chosen. Lise one of the following scales: 3 = To a great extent 2 = To some extent 1 = To a slight extent 5 = Best idea 4 = Very good idea 3 = O.K. 2 = Less attractive 1 = Least valuable to me 6. Write all criteria as positive statements. For example, write easy to use rather than doesnt require much effort. 7. Reading across each row. add the total number of pints for that particular solution and record it in the total column. 8. Identify the item that received the highest number of points, give it a priority rating of 1 and record that in the priority column. Continue ranking all of the solutions. The solution with the fewest number of points receives the lowest priority. ' Ann Kilcher, and Lawrence Ryan, The Paideia Consulting Group, Box 9615, Halifax, Nova Scotia B3K5S4 (902) 477-0909, IIArkansas Leadership Academy I. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Objcctive/Strategy Possible Solutions 12 Criteria Matrix Criteria I () r A L P K I () K I r YArkansas Leadership Academy Fist-Five What is it? Fist-Five is a consensus building technique in which a proposal is tested by having members of a problem-solving group show how they feel about the proposed solution by holding up a certain number of fingers. When is it best used? Use Fist-Five when the problem situation has been thoroughly discussed and a solution has been proposed to address the agreed- upon problem. This will determine whether or not more discussion is needed. Fist-Five is a test for consensus, not a binding agreement or vote to continue with implementation of the plan. How is it done? 1. Define and discuss the problem situation. 2. Solicit proposals to resolve the problem situation. 3. Clarify and discuss the proposal. 4. See if the person who has stated the proposal will agree to accept modification based on input and discussion. 5. Ask the person who has stated the proposal to restate the proposal, as is or amended.  James Bellanca and Robin Fogarty. Blueprints for Thinking in the Cooperative Classroom (Palatine, IL: Skylight Publishing, lnc 1990), 13Arkansas Leadership Academy Fist-Five (contd) How is it done? (contd) 6. Test for consensus by asking members to raise their finders according to the chart. 5 Fingers 4 Fingers 3 Fingers 2 Fingers 1 Finger Fist Five All for it\na top priority for me. Yes: high on my list. Its O.K. Ill go along. I think the proposal has serious limitations as explained. Lets talk some more. This is a really bad idea but I will trust the group and give thi.s proposal a fair trial for the limited period we agreed on. 0 Fingers (Fist)No way! A better idea would be to... 7. If you have a two point spread, you may want to see what can be done to raise the lower vote to the next higher rung on the ladder. Again, this is just a test for consensus. Use Fist-Five to let you discover where the resistance will occur, and engage the group in removing obstacles to their participation and commitment. 8. You may need to repeat the consensus building process several times before getting the cohesiveness you need to proceed confidently with the group plan. 14Arkansas Leadership Academy ,6 Weighted Voting' \u0026amp; What is it? Weighted Voting is a way to quantify the positions and preferences of group members. When is it best used? Weighted Voting is most useful for \"taking the temperature\" of a group a.s it is working toward consensus. The approach can be used to identify the group's positions and priorities when fewer than 8 or 10 options are under consideration. How is it done? 1. Following some discussion of the problem or situation, the group generate!? a number of options for next step action or resolution. 2. The facilitator constructs a grid with the different options identified (or referred to by letter)listed at the top of the column heading. The name.s of each group member are recorded in separate rows. The bottom row is used to record the total of values assigned to each option. '' Problem-Solving User's Manual (Stanford. CT\nXerox Corporation. 1991). 15Arkansas Leadership Academy Weighted Voting (contd) How is it done? (contd) 3, The facilitator then explains the rules for assigning weighted voting. Tips: a) Encourage people to distribute their points to represent their feeling,s about the options. Rather than lumping votes into one option is better to distribute votes across all of them in order to indicate relative preferences. b) The total number of votes each person will have to distribute should be about 1.5 times the number of options. c) Ask each person to write their votes down on a piece of scrap paper before collecting information for the public record. d) Have members of the group show their votes all at on^e by raising fingers to signal their response to each option e) Call for votes by option, not by person. f) Record all votes so that the group can see where the agreements and disagreements lie. Weighted Voting does not necessarily mean a binding agreement to proceed with the item getting the highest value in the totals row. It merely gives the group more information about where individual members stand, and how strongly. This information makes it easier to surface and deal with opposing viewpoints. Example: A team facilitator constructed a matrix which contained five columns - one for each option generated by the team, and six rows - one for each team member. The facilitator then asked each person to assign (on paper) six points across the five options (five options x 1,5 = 7,5\nthe facilitator might have just as easily asked members to assign 7 or even 8 points across options). 16A Member 1 Member 2 Member 3 Member 4 Totals Member 1 Member 2 Member 3 Member 4 Totals Arkansas Leadership Academy Weighted Voting B B C D E Weighted Voting C D E 17Arkansas Leadership Academy Helping Teams Reach Consensus 1. Establish and use evaluative criteria 7 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Provide adequate time to work through the issue. Accept conflict as part of the process of reaching consensus. Encourage negotiation and collaboration between team members. Emphasize fact over opinion. Use structured decision-making tools. Remember that giving in on a point is not losing\ngaining on an issue is not winning. Dont give in just to avoid conflict. Flipping coins and voting are not viable alternatives to sharing information, debating points, providing data' and exploring other alternatives. 10. Encourage members to develop alternatives and work toward a compromise solution if the team is unable to reach consensus on the proposal. Donald Hackett and Charles L. Martin, Facilitation Skills for Team Leaders (Los Altos, CA\nCrisp Publications, 1993), 181 1 Arkansas Leadership Academy I i Beliefs, Vision, Mission, and Goals^ Statement of Core Beliefs A list of 15-24 statements that capture widely shared beliefs about the organizations customers, how those customers should be served and treated, and how the organization should be structured, operated, and connected to its surroundings in meeting customers needs. Approximately 1-2 pages. 1 I I I I Vision Statement A description of the ideal state that serves to inspire and guide the work of the organization. In a paragraph or two, the vision statement presents images of preferred conditions that the organization strives toward. o' A vision statement portrays standards of excellence, value to the customer, and how the company is unique. Less than one page. I ! Mission Statement Goals A clear, concise statement that indicates who the customer is, what the ultimate outcomes are, what products, services, or relationships the organization provides, and how members of the organization work toward achieving the desired results. Less than 50 words is ideal. Four to five urgent and important targets or performance areas which must be acted upon if the organization is to accomplish its mission and be true to its beliefs. I s School Strategies \u0026amp; Options. P.O. Box 1705. Lunnenburg, MA 01462 (508) 582-4217. 2Arkansas Leadership Acader Core Beliefs (Example) Beliefs about People 1. 2. Leadership is a function, not a position. The talents and expertise of different persons at different times can and should be employed in order to get.the job done. People are resources, not instruments. They should be stretched and supported in making, contributions to the organization. 3. All of us are better than just a few of us. Collective and collaborative methods of working sharing ideas, 4. responsibilities, and decisions - result in balanced perspectives and better choices. Continual development and openness to ideas is vital to renewal and productivity in individuals and organizations. 5. Frequent feedback, both to and from others, facilitates growth and development. 6. People discover their own potential through work that provides autonomy and responsibility coupled with coaching, support, and the freedom to take risks and make mistakes. 7. Use of accurate information and objective data helps to promote better decisions and reduce feelings of isolation and helplessness. 8. Mutual trust and respect between role groups is necessary for school based improvement to occur. Competition for resources and control is counterproductive in shared leadership and decision making, practices. 9. Clear goals and steps to reach them must be widely known and accepted. Everyone involved must share a common vision and purpose. 3Arkansas Leadership Academ^rkansas Leadership Academy Core Beliefs (contd)(Example)* i i I Beliefs about Schools 1. The individual school is the fundamental unit of change and improvement. 2. All students can learn. This requires high expectations from teachers and administrators, and active involvement by the learner. 3. Our schools must constantly be examined and refined to make them responsive to the needs of the student populations they serve. 4. A school improvement strategy that does not enhance studentteacher interactions, specify student outcomes, or build the capacity of the organization to address future problems is not likely to achieve much. 5. Parent and community involvement in schools results in better communication and more connectedness between the world of schools and the worlds of family and work. 6. Student outcomes can be defined and measured in alternative ways. Standardized tests are but one way of measuring student outcomes. 9 School Strategies \u0026amp; Options. P.O. Box 1705, Lunnenburg, MA 01462 (508) 582-4217. 4We Believe Core Beliefs (cont'd)(Example) 1. Every student can learn, and every student will learn, if presented with the right opportunity to do so. It is the purpose of school to invent learning opportunities for each student each day. 2. Learning, opportunities are determined by the nature of the schoolwork (knowledge work) students are assigned or encouraged to undertake. It is the responsibility of teachers and aHministrators to assure that students are provided with those forms of schoolwork at which they experience success and from which the leam those thin-s of most value to them, y to the community, and to the society at large. 3. All school activity should be focused on the creation and delivery of schoolwork at which students are successful and from which they gain skills and develop understanding that will equip them to an information-based, knowledge-work participate fully in society. 4. Property conceived schools are knowledge-work organizations. Students are central to the operation of schools for they are the 5. 6. 7. primary recipients of what the school has to offer - the opportunity to work on and with knowledge and knowledge- related products. Teachers are leaders just as executives are leaders\nprincipals are leaders of instructors or leaders of leaders. The curriculum is the raw material upon which students work, and all parts of the school system are to be organized in whatever fashion produces the greatest likelihood that students will be successfully en-aged in working, on and with-knowledge. The primary role of the superintendent is to educate the community about education, to promote the articulation and persistent pursuit of a compelling vision, and to ensure that results, rather than program, dominate the attention of all. Teachers and principals are accountable for results, and the results expected are that all students will be provided schoolwork at which they experience success and from which the students gain knowledge and skills that are socially and culturally valued. 5Arkansas Leadership Academy Core Beliefs (contd)(Example) We Believe (cont'd) 8. It is the obligation of the superintendent, the board of education, and all members of the community to provide teachers, principals, and students with those conditions and forms of support that assure optimal conditions for performance, continuing growth and development. 9. As a responsible and ethical employer, the school system has an obligation to assure working conditions that confirm the professional status of all educators and the importance of the tasks assigned to all who work in and around schools. 10. Continuous improvement, persistence iimovation, and a commitment to continuing growth should be expected of all people and all programs supported by school district resources, and school district resources should be committed to assure that these expectations can be met. '(Phillip Schlecty, Schools for the 21\" Centurw (1990). 6Arkansas Leadership Academy Tools for Developing a Vision Every organization or workgroup needs a vision - a clear and exciting, picture of what it seeks to become. Many individuals within schools can greatly stimulate their own performance and well-being if they develop their own personal vision. In creating a vision, the goal is to summarize your ideal picture of t the future in a concise, colorful statement. It can be very short: Founder Ray Kroc's vision for McDonald's was: \"Quality, Service, Cleanliness, Value.\" He summarized the organization's goal in a formula that was impossible to misunderstand and hard to forget. To create a vision for a school: 1. Create a group to work on vision. 2. Use the tools in this section to help you think about vision. 3. Create a draft vision as a group. 4. Have all members of the group talk io others inside and outside of the school to get feedback. 5. Redraft. 6. Repeat steps 4 and 5 if necessary. 7. Promote the final vision throughout your school and community. 7Arkansas Leadership Academy Tools for Developing a Vision (contd) Here~are \"six took useful in thinking about a vision for a district, school, or classroom. You may not need to use all of them, but try at least two or three. They'll help you start to envision what you can be. 1. Imaginary journalism - Imagine that you are a journalist writii^ an article for your favorite business publication. Create a story vividly describing the successes you and your school will have achieved at a future time - two, five, or even ten years from now. 2. Your values - Think about what you and your school values most. Then, list five ways of completing the phrase, \"In my school, we really care most about... 3. Customer wants - Complete a paragraph that begins, \"If I tl were a student in my school, I would want... 4. A picture - Take a pencil or crayon and, on a blank sheet of paper draw a picture of how you want your school to look in the future, 5. Analogies - Try shaping your vision with analogies. The leader of the team said: \"I think of this school as a sports car - polished, tuned up, and ready to race.\" Listed here are the categories that will prompt you to describe your school with an analogy. For each category, write the image that comes to mind when you say, \"If I were to describe my school as a (fill in category), I would say it is...\" Categories to consider are: Color - Season - Sport - Geographic location - Song or other music - movie - Machine - Emotion - Food or beverage - 8Arkansas Leadership Academy Tools for Developing a Vision (contd)  6. The Five Whys - use a Five-Whys worksheet like this: Five Whys Worksheet Think of a school issue that is very important to you. Then, use the Five Whys to discover key values associated with that issue. Example: The computer network is not reliable. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Why is that important? The students get frustrated when the network isn't working. Why is that important? 1 need to take time out to solve the problem Why is that important? Projects dont get finished on time. Why is that important? We can't deliver what we promised to our students. Why is that important? Student accomplishment is our top priority. II Richard C. Whiteley, The Customer Driven Company: Moving from Talk to Action (Reading, MA\nAddison-Wesley, 1992), 226-228. 9A Personal Vision A personal vision statement portrays what you want the organization to stand for\nwhat the primary mission of the school is\nwhat basic, core values you represent\na sense of how all the parts fit together\nand, above all, how the vision maker fits into the grand plan. 1. When I leave this school I would like to be remembered for... 2. I want my school to become a place where... 3. The kind of school I would like my own children to attend would... 4. The kind of school I would like to teach in would... 5. In order to accomplish this, we need to: i 1012 Arkansas Leadership Academy Vision Statement and Belief (Example)^\" We Believe That: 1. All students can succeed academically when given the opportunity to leam through active participation. 2. All students should receive the highest levels of academic education. 3. All middle level students need to develop high standards of appropriate behavior. 4. Relevant fine and practical arts education enhances academic learning for the middle level student. 5. Middle level students need to leam their role as citizens in a s \u0026amp;\nlobal society. 6. Schools are responsible for providing the highest levels of curriculum in a variety of ways to learners. 7. Students leam best in cooperative relationships. 8. School is a place that should be sensitive to the needs of both children and adults. 9. Successful, responsible students become successful, responsible adults. 10. School is an extension of the childs family and community. 11. School personnel should address the academic, social, physical, and psychological needs of students. 12. Schools should provide state-of-the-art technology to enhance learning for students. 13. Students should participate in cross-curricular studies. 14. Parents, teachers, and community agencies should share in the educational decision making process. 15. School should be structured to extend learning experiences beyond the school site and day. 16. The school environment must nurture the teacher as learner and researcher. O'Fan-ell Community School (A Magnet School for Academic Studies), San Diego, CA. 11Arkansas Leadership Academy Vision (Example) 13 \"Dream with me if you will... Can you see a school that children want to go to, that teachers want to go to, that parents want to go to, where teachers work- closely together to provide the best education possible for ALL kids, where students succeed academically, where adults and children work closely together, where people smile, where the feeling is warm and the environment is safe, where decisions made about children are shared decisions, where responsibility is shared, where creativity is high, where gender and race are just part of your uniqueness and not a barrier to your learning, where there is an extended family of teacher, family, community, agency, where classrooms are exciting places to be, where teachers are turned on to teaching, where students are the number one concern...? Mission Statement (Example)^'* The O'Farrell Community School will promote excellence by providing all middle level students a sin-le, academically enriched curriculum within a multiethnic, student-centered environment. The mission of the school is to attend to the social, intellectual, psychological, and physical needs of middle level youth so they will become responsible, literate, thinking, and contributing citizens. 13 Robert Stein, Team O'Farrell Chief Educational Officer, O'Farrell Community School, San Diego, CA. 14 O'Farrell Community School, San Diego, CA. 12Arkansas Leadership Academy Mission Statements Value of Mission Statements 1. Empowers everyone in the school community to assume responsibility for the ultimate direction of the school. 2. Represents a commitment, a promise, a guide against which actions can be decided. 3. Represents a set of criteria against which progress toward purposes can be measured. 4. Sets the agenda for leadership in the building. Schools that lack a clear sense of mission are characterized by aimlessness and high levels of disagreement. There is little harmony among staff members or between staff members and students. Discipline problems are more likely to occur because staff members lack a common set of expectations, and students have a poor sense of what the purpose of school really is. Nature of Mission Statements 1. Shared vision about the ultimate purpose of schools. 2. Shared by teachers, administrators, students, and the community. 3. Generally short and easily remembered. 4. Not long and detailed outlines of goals and objectives. Examples of Mission Statements 1. Park Middle School is committed to cultivating a respect for the individual and encouraging students to make sound personal choices and decisions. 2. Washington Middle School is committed to preparing young adolescent students with the understandings and skills necessary to cope with their own changes from childhood to adolescence and with the academic skills and knowledge essential for continued school success and life-long learning. 3. The students, staff, and administrators of East Middle School are committed to building respect for and cultivating cultural pluralism in the schools and community. 13Arkansas Leadership Academy Mission Statements (contd) Examples of Mission Statements (contd) 4. The faculty, staff, students, and community of Parkside Junior High School are devoted to academic excellence and the cultivation of individual strengths and talents in a supportive environment where individual differences and respect for the rights of others guide school and community behavior. 5. The mission of Northside High School is to support the personal growth of the students in their development of attitudes, knowledge, and skills. The most important skills to be taught are how to think and how to learn. 6. The mission of Detroit Public Schools is to educate and empower children, youth, and adults for full participation in a rapidly changing society and to build, sustain, and extend learning community which improves the quality of life. a Common Elements 1. 2. 3. 4. A statement of purpose. An indication of uniqueness. An explicit statement of commitment. A clear value position. Guidelines for Developing a Mission Statement 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Identify the schools major stakeholder groups. Formulate a plan or structure that includes them in the process of developing a mission statement. Use a process that permits the group actually charged with drafting the statement to check with constituents to be sure they are not drifting. Focus on areas of agreement, not areas of disagreement. Draft a statement that is simple, direct, and easy to remember. Once the mission statement is ratified or accepted, refer to it frequently and acknowledge its use in making decisions about policies, programs, and practices. Review the mission statement periodically to be sure it is still appropriate for the population served by the school, changes in school programs, or new community expectations. Distribute the mission statement widely in the school, district, and community. 141 I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VIL Sample Annual Goal Statements (District) We will develop and implement individualized outcomes-based education. We win redefine student achievement to be congruent with our school district mission statement We will involve parents in aH aspects of the student learning experience. We will integrate state-of-the-art technology into all aspects of the learning system. We will develop a national recruiting program to attract and retain the highest quality staff. We will develop a program for the development and appraisal of staff based on student achievement We will obtain funding from public and private sources to help us accomplish our mission. Organizing and Managing School Change Workshop, Douglas S. Fleming and Ann Kilcher, NEA-National Center for Innovation National Conference, Colorado Springs, Colorado, November 8,1991. 15Arkansas Leadership Academy Performance Goals (Baseline Figures plus a school-by-school negotiated % of increase per year.) District/ School Goals Performance Measures Key Action Areas 1. Continuous Improvement In All of Our Students Percent of pupils passing local or state measures of academic achievement Percent of students well above passing local or state measures of academic achievement Percent of students passing rigorous academic courses Percent of staff involved in a program of staff development Establish annual school progress reports Accelerate school improvement Improve districtwide instruction Create a safe and productive enviromnent Decrease in the percent of student population suspended 2. Build Greater Community Support For Schools And Students Number of community partnerships Number of business partnerships Number of students participating in a pre-school experience Percent of students who participate in parent/student or teacher/student non-academic acti\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_290","title":"Compliance hearing exhibits, 65-72","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":["1999/2000"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance hearing exhibits, 65-72"],"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/290"],"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":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"dcterms_extent":["107 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\ni Data prep: Teams. LI230-90 LeadershipCampus Leadership Team Certified/Non-Certified Input Districtwide Activity 1. Use strategies and operate team activities that improve effectiveness. Maintain Activity 718 58.7% Increase Activity 421 34.4% Change Decrease Eliminate Activity 45 3.7% Activity 17 1.4% Activity 22 1.8% 2. Reach decisions through consensus building rather than voting. 684 55.1% 361 29.1% 102 8.2% 39 3.1% 56 4.5% 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Advise the principal in the area of planning, budgeting, and school oroganization. Provide opportunites for faculty and staff to be involved in soliciting, collecting, analyzing, and distributing feedback on data-related goals to be included in the School Improvement Plan. Promote the active contribution of parent and community CLT members on goals to be included in the School Improvement Plan. Identify specific strategies for measuring progress toward achieving school improvement goals. Coordinate staff development with school improvement goals. Utilize District leadership and support of campus initiatives to improve student achievement. Inform staff about decisions and plans made at meeting using a written and verbal system of communication. 10, Improve customer satisfaction through increased parent involvement. 786 63.1% 395 31.7% 36 2.9% 17 1.4% 12 1.0% 744 59.7% 402 32.3% 40 3.2% 39 3.1% 21 1.7% 657 52.9% 524 42.2% 35 2.8% 14 1.1% 11 0.9% 657 55.6% 685 54.6% 657 52.8% 635 50.6% 557 45.0% 452 38.2% 489 39.0% 503 40.4% 572 45.6% 620 50.1% 48 4.1% 45 3.6% 51 4.1% 26 2.1% 39 3.2% 15 1.3% 25 2.0% 15 1.2% 13 1.0% 9 0.7% 10 0.8% 11 0.9% 19 1.5% 8 0.6% 12 1.0% Campus Leadership Team Team Member Self-Assessment DISTRICTWIDE 1. 2. 3. 4. Activity Maintain Activity Agendas and Minutes Use an agenda format that will promote efficient meeting flow and maintain the focus of members. Use an efficient process for including items on the agenda. Organize an efficeint process for keeping, copying, and distributing minutes. Focus on CLT's primary purpose/function: Improve performance of all student populations. 329 88.7% 296 80.4% 270 72.6% 255 68.9% Meeting Conduct Increase Activity 41 11.1% 69 18.8% 89 23.9% 108 29.2% Change Decrease Eliminate Activity Activity Activity 5. Convey overall motivation to participate and actively express positivism. 255 70.2% 101 27.8% 6. Focus on each agenda item and actively contribute to the dialogue to address the item throughly before moving on to the next. 255 79.4% 53 16.5% 7. Address complex problems with extra effort to produce creative team-generated solutions. 249 67.7% 106 28.8% 8. Appropriately reinforce other team members for their contributions. 260 70.7% 100 27.2% 9. Accept responsibility for quickly postponing or eliminating specific agenda items as needed. 285 79.2% 65 18.1% 10. Periodically summarize progress. 259 70.2% 93 25.2% Problem Solving 11. Honor the obligation to be adequately informed on issues and problems by asking questions or seeking outside information. 262 70.6% 99 26.7% 12. Help generate a list of alternatives and evaluate each thoroughly until members are fully prepared to select a solution or make a decision. 252 68.3% 108 29.3% 13. Specify precisely who, when, and how a decision will be carried out or a solution implemented and how outcomes will be monitored. 244 65.6% 119 32.0% 14. Periodically review monitoring of outcomes from previous decision making and evaluate the need to intervene. 238 64.2% 120 32.3% Friday. May 11. 2001 1 0.3% 3 0.8% 10 2.7% 4 1.1% 3 0.8% 3 0.9% 4 1.1% 5 1.4% 9 2.5% 5 1.4% 4 1.1% 4 1.1% 4 1.1% 9 2.4% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 0.5% 2 0.5% 1 0.3% 7 2.2% 4 1.1% 0 0.0% 1 0.3% 5 1.4% 3 0.8% 4 0.3% 1 0.3% 2 0.5% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.3% 1 0.3% 3 0.8% 3 0.9% 5 1.4% 3 0.8% 0 0.0% 7 1.9% 3 0.8% 4 1.1% 4 1.1% 2 0.5% Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 :hool c^trAt- .high.schqql. Signature of Princip! L L CTFoT\" TEAM MEMBER CQRTTNFX BALDWIN KATHERINE Barbara Position . TF.AP.HFP________ SUPPORT STAFF EUEdTEDlAPPOlNTEEl rAc^ ibENDER (chei*) X (shsci) X 44. W XF EWIS--------- HALL BETSY GARQLU SUPPORT. .STAFF TEACHER HOLLADAY KATO HOWARD RUDOLPH TEACHER CO^CHAIR/PRTNGTHAl HUNT SAM TEA^IIgR X X X_ W . JiU -B-Xi F F Ji K '\u0026lt;1 V i LITTLE NASH CAROL. ANGEL RORERTR RHODES SAVIERS SEWARD joaa. DEDE VICKI DARRELL STAFFORD BARBARA STEADMAN ANNICE WATSON BILLY WILLIAMSON MARGARET COBB BEGGS BROWN TANDY MELINDA KARYN OLONEL ROBERTSON. MAYS GRACIfi COLBURN MELISSA teacher TEACHER SUPPORT. STAFF SUPPORT STAFF CQMMUMTTY TSACSER. TEACHER TEACHER TEACHER TEACHER TEACHER TEACHER JEACflER TFAGHFR JXACHG\u0026amp;. TEACHER X XX X X X X X X XX i X T 44- w-w JIL 44- W  W . B X_ 44- W X AL-for example: 1l flraae iwcner. algebra leachor. 3Brin9 oommittee etialr, support staff, etc. - list all positions held r p J X JU. F F M X X X X-M X X Ui /LU Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School SignaUjre of Principal J. A- Fair High School rame ~ team MEMBER Anne Magee Judith Pickering Martha Nahlen Lucy Willis Jerry Cookus Robert Palmer Martha Rains_____ _ Evelyn Callaway Sharon Jackson Danny Brown Marsha Vault_______ _ Lee Willingham Trish Killingsworth Rev. Larry Ott_____ 'POSrflON Spanish Teacher English Teacher Business Teacher Art Teacher [English Teacher~ History Teacher Science Teacher Home Ec. Teacher Drama Teacher Partner In Educ. Parent__________ President, PTSA Broker Parent EUEdTED IAPPOInVed RACe seniS^r (check) X ii X Ji Ji -X. X X X (Qfi^ck) W . W w B , W  B W , B B F F F F  M M F F F I b X i. X X X. W B - B , W  W  'tor enempte: 1I orade tescher. algebra (tscher, swthng committee ehatr, support staff. Wc. - 1st all poeWons held M F M F M 04/04/2000 15:13 5016716207 HALL HIGH PAGE 02 -If I \u0026lt;91 f  ill' ii u Campus Lssdsrship Tsam Verification Perm Iddd'SCOO I School Hall High School SignatursofPilndpal. NAMEOF TEAM MEMBER Best, Joan Brant.PPennis Maddison, Sue ~~ Runshanq, Mary Sanders, Kitty Walker, EHa______ Walton, Georgia Watson, Pat_______ Watson, Gladystine Paulson, Terri Cyr, Betty Tnotnas, Sarah Burks, Karen_____ gostic, Kelvin Garner, Susan Graves, Ken ^ys, Sherrie Shells, Byron Zink, Judy________ Moore, Kgn Vibhakar, Diane Gamos. Ann_____ Burks, Roy________ Lease, Kathy______ Marilyn, Brewster FOSITION Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Parent Teacher Parent Parent Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher,, Teacher Asst. Prin-i' Teacher Parent Parent ,. Parent_______ Parent Asst. Prin. i sssrasr ___ 2___ XX X X X X __X____ X Afi^lNKt X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Race U w Ji__ w_ JL_ _L_ _B__ W JL- _iL_ W M-JB_ B w JL B _iL_ w iT\" w OEWOER -E____ ja____ _h____ F____ F____ _E____ _E___ E------ _E____ F F _E____ _E____ _JI___ F .1!___ F____ M___ JJ____ F F___ N F____ F____ N ------ F I ' i ItftMInfitt-. 1* sad* toehir, !\u0026amp;( MMh',9Ur\u0026lt;A0oaaunMMeir, tuppad MR. ate. - M Id poMItm tMW A i 1 u.' i Campus Leadership Tam Verification Form 1999-2000 Signaiure Gf PrinfioJT^ii ' t SchoottlQellan /\u0026gt; ! NAMfeOF TEAMMEMBSR POSTTiON tet aUhrey Chriatie CcJjaiBn Steve \u0026amp;urln Barfcaca toy David Gum ,Stella Loya Ajeal Wtllians_____ Orolyn Carter_____ Vsra Broailee Ralph Kwe Steve Neely \\ Whiter Rktiard ATpela Gaippll  Gtendaterts Janey lawscn_______ Murrie ^ths-. Shudi^ Ftersjgcn Stepbanifi Stallwtfa Betty'Eujlde______ I^t HjTiicutt Sandra Aithmy_ Et. ^trice Read Timifeynie Carol Oooper JcdLe I. Carter Tteacher IfeadEc Ifeacfier Iteacher Iteacher Daadiec.. _____ Tteadier_________ Qaanmlty Camnte------- Cananily--------- SeogitY Offijgec MlfegXeaaeec. ^Baneot_______ Harem .flSES^._________ __________ Bacient nHinFm_______ BtBineaa Baaineaa_______ EUsanass R.Kdrefa JGlllflS--------- ErJnrijRl____. eCected U. X X X i i i  APPOINTBtJ U_ Y Y___ JU. Ji____ JL- U_ X JU JU i- ji__ X- X  X X RACE Ji-i- i___ JB___ JU- ja____ .fl JO------ .a__- .K_ B . .u_ x.-_ Ji. K u E_^_ JixZ B ' B OeiOER j:_ lU. JEJU. F M JU  JU ..BLU- JU JU JU X-:* T F F  -F_ F - JU F F ' JU F  M I f  i I {  fcif wampte\n1 ** e\u0026lt;lt tapoher, toocnet. (fina cown* \u0026lt;**i Upport Uff, ate. \u0026gt; IM all posJUona hldCAMPUS LEADERSHIP TEAM VERIFICATION FORft^i 1999-2000  I I Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School Name of Team Member Brown, Dr. Linda Biggs, LaGail Position(a) Elected Appointed Race Gendet 11c me Brown, Debbi Carr, David Fuller. Danny Hampton, Vannessa Henry, Sarah Hobbs, Pam Jackson. Christy Johnson, Nancy Lee, Chris Lusk, Jennifer McNeal, Marie Mitchell, Derrick Picard, Dick Randolph, Myra Thomas, Dr. Billy Thompson. Carol Principal,Chairperson Communications Teacher, Student Teacher Supv._________ PTSA President________ Community/Twin Lake Assoc. Rep. Science Depl. Chair Math Dept. Chair. Math Vertical Team Steering Committee Member______ E nglish Teacher__________ Journalism Teacher. ACT Coordinator Math Teacher. Student Teacher Supv., Math Vertical Team Steering Committee Member______ Guidance Secretary______ Science Teacher_____ German Teacher, SAP Coordinator, Pupil Services______________ Broker___________________ Junior Class President Science Teacher Community Rep., Parent Community Rcp./UAMS Senior Class Rep._______ X X X X X X ......X x\" X X X X X X 'X X X X w B F F\n227-j\ni 834-1: I 56W 3247 Work Phone 226-3000 228-3000 W-' B  w-  B B  V\\1 . W . W W W B B B S W ' F tfessTssgs M M 'f' F F F F M F F M M F M F ! a i/J 0\n!224- 5085 247-6391 224-5085 '27 \u0026gt;Q2- g25' 758 604- I 4690 ri9'54 4371 6141 7498 127 0995 7731 224^4713 ^435|2996 |6a6|6598 19324150 738)5737 221|3322 223|8919 I I I I I I I li 228-3000 228-3000 228-3000 228-3006 228-3000 '228-3000 228-3000 228-3000' 324-0511 228-3000 835-4399 296-1397I ix'on Cloverdale Academy Uto a HAGE 01 Campus Leadership Team William Andnsss Sarah Shutte Andrew Bennctt Kenneth Fishe- Michael Jeffers Sharon Harris David Patterson Carolyn Lamb Karen Greenlee Ann Firestone Mona Briggs Frank Adcock Pamela Adcock 6300 Hinkson Road Phhno Campus LeadershfpTeamVenfic^ 1999-2000 Signature of PrtncSpel. polltan Career \u0026amp; Technical Center ... NAfZS'Sp team member Laurie Prather Carl Grummer_____ Mitchell Perry Bill Nolem Janey Lawson Chris Ames Stacy Blacknall .. POSITION Teacher Teacher Teacher Bus. Partner Parent________ Appt. Coor. -gpTupt S.nec. ELEdtED (ohaok) X X X appointed (ablotO RACE A L X X V B V B W GENDER ________ M M F, M ________ for exatapl*\n1\" gad# leather, algebr* teacher, slasrlng oommlnee ehalf. support slaft, eto, - list all positions hsW11/03/1399 10:23 3242032 LRSD PAi3E 01/01 Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School Signature of Principal C^li. hKi. ^^0 ID.L^ .aj^2 i NAME OF team MEMBER*- hICUT. 4 H JIRaj- -U.u.\u0026lt;rn i_i POSITION l-.ou:i. iC -QtxH'ki e.3 Prinripryg Cinytc-Lr ... _ ELECTED (check) APPOINTED (check) / RACE GENDER LiC'iijvc Po LLi i I CfiYVMYMmitc LsnJi/- y / J 10 IkL l_ A J^4v'e/-lc.T3a r.Q^. V^On-^rrv Hr\\\u0026gt; Kj I icmiA ADn-Ce.i4i-Fieri idi inm'i SiuebK-k ' L Jibf^n ^urq-g ^ rr-^ L Ca r r XtQ ncu j\u0026amp;n fnaoi KflAW-/k rntinTG^ -AHbirr nil\nilin TrygciCjifyB s^^-fuJieo-Chciir ^brl  use k ^nc-ini,Al^ -L^vtin J'lVl IJ .1-- k^lii^K. AV-f- Cwt r'lf uOuivA cy J. \u0026lt;1 (I tl (I b () I) \u0026gt;1 II I -4- -ki- I-A-^ i: Lukin lo fe -^. r___ -E___ JE___ _E___ JL__ m__ J3Q__ JL__ ___ jn___ F___ -in__ -in__ JOi__ -E___ J___ -E___ rn__ I IjJ. - F Tor example: 1st grade teacher, algebra teacher, steering committee cnsir. support staff, etc, - list all positions heldCampus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School Signature of Principal J NAME OF TEAM MEMBE.R 'POSITION Id ELECTED (check) APPOINTED! RACE (check) GENDER 2 Id M. Id Ld Bixkt A/L^\u0026amp; f- \\ /O -5 itkt fb iJd. -i id id ~/5 Id Id P P F p F F rd F F P P P far example: 1st grade teacher, algebra teacher, Steering committee chair, suppo,! staff, etc. - list all positions held Henderson Health Sciences Magnet Middle School CAMPUS LEADERSHIP TEAM VERIFICATION FORM School Hsnderson HSM Middle School 1999-2000 School Year Name of Team Member Larry Buck (WM) Sue Stowers (WF) Judith Murray (WF) Carolyn Slater (BF)~ Teretha Kelly (BF) Vicki ElUs (BF) Kathy Tatum ( BF) Melanie Smith (BF) Mary Whitlow (WF) Barbara Hannahs (WF) Louie Lewis (BM) Annita Paul (WF) Jackie Moore (BF) Mike Ciowers (WM) Leta Anthony (BF) Mike Thrasher (BM) Sherry Daughtery (BF) Position Chairman Teacher/Certified T eacher/Certlfied Teacher/Certified Teacher/Certified Teacher/ Certified Teacher/Certified Teacher/Certified Teacher/Certified Teacher/Certified Teacher/Certified Central Office Parent ~~ Parent______ Business Business Non-Certifled Elected Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes  Yes Yes Yes Yes Appointed Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Signature (Pri^tsfpal) rs___ Campus Leadership Team 1999-2000 Name of Team Member Green, Connie_______ Moseley, Fran________ Peoples, Linda_______ Boykin, Patricia_______ Picker, Diane________ Fullerton, Jim________ Cameron, Stella______ Longinotti, Joe_______ Swinney, Joyce______ Gullett, Randy________ Betton, Sherry_______ Milligan, Jennifer_____ Ellington, Jeff________- Dorris, Shannon_____ Wallace, Pam________ Hudson, Valerie______ Thompson, Lauren Lowe, Kenyon________ Campbell, Heidi_______ Cleveland, Ellean_____ Booth, Virginia Position Teacher Teacher Teacher Administrator Community Administrator P.I.E. Rep. Parent Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Broker Student Student Teacher Administrator Teacher Elected X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Appointed X X X X XCampus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School Horace Mann Arts/Sclence Middle School *1, Signature of Principal Dr. Brenda JameW, Principal NAME OF TEAM MEMBER * Baker, Frank Briggs, Demetria Bumpers, Bonnie Duerr, Donna Fleming, Linda Fletcher, Danny Gilbert-Wise, Barbara Harper, Drew Hayes, Stella Henry, Vai Holt, Dee Ann Jasper, Thelma Johnson, Lorraine Penn-Norman, Kathy Redmond, Wendell Weatherford, Tory James, Brenda 'POSITION ELECTED (check) Teacher Parent Teacher. Administrator Teacher Teacher Teacher Community Teacher ' Community Teacher Parent Teacher Coordinator - Teacher Student Administrator X X X X X X X X 504 X appointed race (check) X X X X X X X X 02 01 01 02 01 02 02 01 01 02 02 01 02 01 02 for example: 1st grade teacher, algebra teacher, steering committee chair, stipport staff, etc. - list all positions held GENDER M F F F7 M F M F M F F F F M F /I I Signature of Principal a J 0 NAME OF TEAM MEMBER POSITION ELECTED APPOINTED RACE GENDER (check) (check) Nancy Rousseau Ann Blaylock Elizabeth Lucker Kathy Jarrett Calvin Smith Peggy Hawthorne Bryan Hall Carolyn Williams Jean Givens Libby Thalheimer Margaret Lewis Laura Doramus Jim Metzger Renee Dickins Lee Thompson Betty Mitchell Beth Munson Sammy Grandy Lynn Cardin Janet Buford LB Easter Rick Woole Renee Bennett principal assistant principal broker non-certifiedZregistrar non-certified/custodian counselor student council president parent parent/PTA co-president parent/PTA co-president parent parent_____________ business' representative community representative science teacher - 6th fecial needs teacher English teacher - 7th math teacher - 7th English teacher - Sth social studies - Sth art teacher 6-8th math teacher - Sth business teacher 6-8th X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X W W W B \\N W B B B W W W B W W B for example: 1st grade teacher, algebra teacher, steering committee chair, support staff, ^c. - list all positions held F F F F M F M F F F F F M F M F F M F F M M F Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 19992000 Signature of Principal School Southwest Middle,School NAME OF TEAM MEMBER'. Mark Clarlc Mahle Collins Cathy Dillon Regina Ezell Stephanie Jones Carolyn Jennings Sandra Pearson Walter Rowe Claudia Smith Cliristopher Kline Gloria Owens Betty Larry Versie Burgess________ Dr. Scotty Glaaco Elizabeth Willingham Pl 1T1ON ELECTED' (check) Math Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher J-S\u0026amp;SllgL Teacher  ___ ____ ^Tgacher Teacher ' Teacher Parent Parent JUU Conimunitv X ___ 2. .X_____ .X. i 25. .X.___ A__ APPOliTrffl RACE . (check) X X ...-X I I  P-GENDER I T----- W A i. i JI Ji. ....ja__ JI .K 44. .... M jE. _E. JE Jd. X___ p X X ------.... ( I ..J. m,nittee chair. support staff, e-,c, _ list jn positions held I I I .J 11/03/1333 11:18 3242032 LRSD PAGE 01/01 Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School Signature of Principal NAME OF - TEAM MSXBER J ~J POSITION Lt2l ELECTED lAPPOINTEi RACE GENDER (check) )(-cJ rk \u0026gt; enf' }\\(^f V 'UL Yh I^QC kr (check) CO hk 7a eh r^o-' /ji-rrn TaliXirm' rka (\u0026gt;7 V- b.nc.ei-^. ICA E tr U2 Ccn a'i e l/on( jn (?5anc T^zn ^....jh 'i. Pen-h A ix\nLl2 U '7df\\o(er ('Yom' I (J! 5(yr.5 akY nJ J aC h '?q1 ^,i..____' \u0026lt;J .f^Aina Yam ,g^ryimiOTi ^Tx lOcV'y'h /Kraih Tt hk ( iec{dx?f'. ~reac K(- K E 'ler example: Is) grade teacher, algebra tsachsr, stsehna coirmittse chair, support staff, etc. - list all poslSons held f- k 'h I \"T F f=^- IpT..  little rock school DISTRICT Baseline Elementary School fosition Number Title Race Gender Eleanor Cox, Principal 1 Chairman B F Certified Teacher Primary Brenda Thomas Marilyn James. 2 Elected Elected Elected W B F P Certified Teacher Intermediate Brooklyn Grimm Rebekah Martin Elected Elected W W F F Certified Specialist Teacher Phontonia Belin Elected B F Central Office Eddie McCoy Appointed U F Parent Rev, Roosvclt Bowman Kelli MePhearson Appointed Appointed B B M F ! Business Wal-Mart Randy Ilarryman Appointed W M Comniiiiiity James Killion Appointed B M 3623 Bassllno Road Phone 570-4150 Little Rock. Arkansas 72209 04/83/2000 14:10 3242100 BOOKER PAGE 02 '4 Campus Uadarship T am Varificertion Form 1999-2000 School Booker Arts M\u0026lt;wn*t Signature of Principal NAME OF TEAM MEMBER Rita Bledsoe POSr ION Cheryl A. Carson Susan Coif ord Yolanda Pavia Ernie Dotson Janie Fletcher Moggie Hawkins Dorrell Hayden 6ail Hester Tanony Higdon Atoyrean Johnson Mary McMoiron Patsy Middleton Darryl Powell Tammy Sexton Tracy Tucker Joyce Willingham Mualc/Or .hestro Sped list Print ggl___ s* Srade regehar 1 nide reacher Business Aember, EMt BA_______ For nt______ Communih Member, 21** 5 reet Neighbarl xtd Alert Cei- 'er ___ _ A*** grade Teacher ______ Bn. r_______ 2\"grad Teacher 5* 6rmt Teacher Resourca Teacher Technok jy Center Ass itant _______ Po gnt Klndergor en Teacher 3'* grod\nTeacher Assistar r Principal ELECTED (check) X appointed (check) RACE GENOER is- X X X X )(. X X X X X X X X X B F W W B 8 W B B W B B W yfi/ 3 \"forexomple\n1** grade te -cher, algebra teacher, steering committee choir, s^jpart staff, etc. - Ils f all positions held F F F P F F M F F F F F M p F F lA\n4 ?? \"I Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School Brady Elementary Signature of Principal NAME OF 'POSITION ELECTED APPOINTED RACE GENDER TEAM MEMBER (check) (check) Collette Bell Christiann Daniel Teacher Counselor X W XF Linda Rose Teacher W F Cheri Washburn SFA Coordinator w F JoAnn White Parent F Mary Wood Beth Boyd Xaflchs.r______ Community PTE X X W F Lynda Elledge Parent X W F Becky Dugan X W F Morlin McCoy Ada Keown Teacher Broker Principal X X B XF for example: 1 st grade teacher, algebra teacher, steering committee chair, support staff, etc. - list all positions held 11/03/19'33 10:43 3242032 LRSD PAGE 01/01 Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School ')' i\nSignature of Principal Ui NAMEOPy TEAM MEMBER Res OSITION Elected (check) APPOINTED RACE GENDER K, (check) Raak-C. pthhl-e- lab landra l^el lb i (n $i/m~i~H4 Re.^Q\u0026gt;^\u0026lt;r(jL-'t7Jar, KifTisfi^, TcM R7hK, /^'hb R, fl-' gj ,  -|o 'kC gf^palA-^^, iriah. \\a/ saL ysL o J )) 11 F M. P for example: 1st grade teacher, algebra teacher, steering committsa chair, support staff, etc. - list ail positions heldCampus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School: Cloverdale Elementary School Signature of PrincipaL\u0026gt;^\n^^^zxZ Name T. Dockett-Wilson C. Lacy K. Daneshmandi C. Langston D. White B. Banks K. Shuffield F. Fields L. Taylor J. Williams L. Young T. Brown C. Johnson Position Music Teacher Counselor Title I Inst. Aide ALC Teacher 5* Gr. Teacher Gr. Teacher Principal Asst. Principal Community Rep Parent Parent Community Rep Elected X X X X X X 'X X X Appointed X X X Race B B W B B B W B W B B B B Gender F F F M M F F M M F F F MDodd Elementary School TogBthsr building 3 bsttGr tomorrow, one child 3t 3 tims CAMPUS LEADERSHIP TEAM 1999-2000 VALERIE HARE SHERRY CHAMBERS ALICIA RANKIN CINDY PRICE MARTHA LOWE PAM MOORE JO CARSON SALLY MCGOWAN DIANE VIEBOCHER REGGIE MORRISON ELNA HASBERRY BARB KENNEDY BF WF WF WF WF BF BF WF WF BM BF WF KTEACHER 1ST GR 4 GR RESOURCE COUNSELOR 2 YRS NEW (1 YR) 2 YRS 2 YRS. 2 YRS. INSTRUCTIONAL AIDE APPOINTED MEMBER-AT-LARGE PARENT PARENT COMMUNITY BUSINESS BROKER MEDIA SPEC. APPOINTED APPOINTED APPOINTED APPOINTED LRSD APPOINTED FAITH DONOVAN WF PRINCIPAL DODD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION APPOINTED TO SERVE WITH ROTATING REPRESENTATION ON THE CLT. 6423 Stagecoach Road Phone 455-7430 I ittio Rnr'k 7oonzi PAGE 01/01 Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 Signature of Principal School Fair Park Elementary ' NAME OF-team member Samuel Branch______ Tina Poacher_____ Boyce Pearson Rosie Powell Opal Rice Fred Chilcote Lucille.Montgomery Nadine Fitzpa tri c,)t Loretta Alexander Ben Jones ^dSffldN ELECTED (appointed RACS IgENDST (chsck) Erincipal Teacher -Teacher  Teac-her Teacher (check) X X XX X X Paraprofesgicnal Business Perf.nr r business Partner Patron X X X 02  01 112_ Q2 01 01 02 02___ 02__ 01 .. M . F M F F M F _E_ F M 'foe example: i t grade teacher, aigebni teacher, steering eommlnae cnalr, cvpport staff, etc. - Mt all positions (laid Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School FOREST PARK ELEMENTARY Signature of Principal JU. NAME OF team member THERESA KETCHER'. ELEANOR COLEMAN MARY BOYCE PAIGE WESTBROOK BARBARA MCBRIDE LAURA DORAMUS  ALLEN BULLARD Betty ann buliard SUSAN BAUMAN JENNIFER BALLARD *i^osiTroN PRINCIPAL________ counselor_______ media SPECIALIST THIRD GRADE TEA, SPEECH THERAPIST PARENT COMMUNITY_________ COMMUNITY SECOND GRAPE TEA fifth grade' tea. ELECTED (check) X X X X S^POINT^DJ Ra6e (checic) X___ X X 'Sender w W R w w ____ V! . W- . for oxompla.' 1t grade [eacher, algeto taacfier, sieeiing commlttae chair. uppons(a, etc. - uat all positions held F F F 1. F M JE. F F I ZflLRSD PA' 02/02 Campua Leadership Team Verification Form ie9$-2000 School ___________(L/fyy'Ay Marcy Signaiurt of Principal  ~\"NXue'5F'~- ,.. TE^ MEMBER C^elL^unhfir POSITION jUfin IVlby. ,_,_.. ELECTED \u0026lt;!*e0 APPOINTED lwW 'I r 1^., I ^yyaii//er ___UA^ur.. ^fdry/u)' ----------------- V y- ... far eiampie: 1* gad* tachf, tigabra laiehar, aieerina cammiif** chair, *ut\u0026gt;prt ataff, *to - Hat iK peaitjona hid RACE -A- ML. MM A- JiL. M. L JiL QFNDER __ ..^A__ _ JL___ A....._. .E..... F_____ ML___ F M.___Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School FULBRIGHT ELEMENTARY Signature of Principal NAME OF TEAM MEMBER Almond, Greg Carter, Karen Chucoski, Sharon Gaddie Olivia POSITION ELECTED APPOINTED RACE GENDER (check) Community Administrator PTA (check) X W W , M F X W F Griffith, LeeAnn Hall, Carolyn Hilburn, Karla Kriz, John Kurrus, Virginia Mitchell, Deborah Pittman, Charlotte Robinson, Steve Sanders, Belinda Smith, Rhonda______ Williams, Irish Wilson, Brenda Sth Gr Teacher Speech Therapist Title I Community Parent Parent Administrator Instructional Aide 5th Gr Teacher Parent Counselor Sth Gr Teacher Parent X X X X i -X X X X X X W W W W ' W - B - B B B-B'^ for example: 1st grade teacher, algebra teacher, steering committee chair, support staff, etc. - list all positiens held F F F E M  F F M F ZF F Campus Verification of Development of a Campus Leadership Plan Campus GARLAND ACajJSMY Date OCTOBER 15, 199S Enter below the dates the following action occurred: Announced public meeting(s) of proposed Campus Leadership Team and review of policy establishing same. District review and / or adoption of Campus Leadership Team Composition. Attach evidence or broad based communications to all campus staff and to the general campus community regarding the campus team composition and related procedures for a campus leadership team. Affix the following signatures to indicate support and involvement of the principal, and members of the campus collaborative committee who assisted the principal in the design of the campus team composition which is consistent with district guidelines. Principal ____Parent Rep.  __ Teacher Community Rep. ' I The campus collaborative committee may be smaller or larger at the discretion of the campus principal. Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 a '3 Signature of Principal School Geyer Springs Elementary School ' 3 ' c, { NAME OF ________ TEAM MEMBER Hall, Donna Bohra, Becky Stubblefield, Evelyn Dumas, Jo Parker, Linda Graves, MicheUe Gilbert, Jean Frazier, Raymond Eaton, Doug Dickerson, Cameshia Humphreys, Joa (Geyer Springs Neighborhood Association) Crawford, Maria (Little Rock Water Works)_______________ *POSITION ELECTED (check) APPOINTED (check) RACE GENDER Principal 3\"* Grade Teacher 5* Grade Teacher Reading Specialist Counselor Media Specialist Resource Specialist Paraprofessional Broker Parent Community Community X X X X X X X X X X X *for example: 1** grade teacher, algebra teacher, steering committee chair, support staff, etc.  list all positions held B O B t B B -V B W B B ' F F F F F F F M M F F F .-1 Campus Leadership Team Verification } Form 1999-2000 f: 1 t Signature of Princi name of Team ___ Member Altheimer, Donald Branch, Susan Dickson, Dr, Betty Gray, Alvin Gulden, Carla Hedges, Jon Huffman, Kelty Johnson, Jill Luzzi, Pat Parkhurst, Liz Skarda, Toni Vena, Sera Rynders, Diane School Gibbs Magnet School Position Elected (check) Parent Teacher Community Parent Parent Parent Teacher Teacher Teacher Parent Teacher Parent Broker Appointed (check) X Race Gender X X. y X X ~~X ~X X X X 'x B b \"b^ \"B-w 'w~ 'w~ M V 'V M ~F~ 'y v y y y Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School Jefferson School ! i Signature of Principal NAME OF TEAM MEMBER  Su.san Beard Lucy Rhodes______ Brenda Dorman Becky Ramsey Meg Lankford Kristin Compton -Cheryl Crntckpr Annie Roas Karin McAtee_____ Valerie Jones_ Claudia Courtway Linda Smith Xan-Tii ght_______ -V.aJies.sa -Jackson -Ji.nt Ingram______ Ronnie Stone Rene Kovach positionT ELECTED (check) APPOINTEi RACE GENDER (check) Pri nci p.a.1. Counselor X-inHerg teache'~ lst.gr. teacher 2nd gr. teache 3ra-Xr^- teacher ird ...jjx 4 th gr teache teache-\nETC teacher Parapro./Parent PTA Pres. PTA Pres._______ Cnmmiin-ity Rep Parent_________ Parent________ Sp.Ed. teacher Di St Rap X X X X X X X X X X X X F i X X X X X L_ w . W . - X VI w B - VI isL ja. K vr Jii- for example: is\ngrade teacher, algebra teacher, stoorihg commItTae chair, suppoh Stan. etc. - list ar pojiiiors held X F F z X X F F F X X K M -11/03/1999 11:13 3'242032 LRSD PAGE 01/01 Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School KING MAGNET i Signature of Principal' -A NAME OP - TEAM MEMBER Tyrone Harris___ Mary Lou Kahler Virginia Johnson Ann Gregory Mary Zies_______ Beverly Hines Monica Norwood Candi VanPatter Kiffany Pride Greg Harris Minnie Washington Cheryl Wilburn Chris Cerrato____ Scott Allen______ Dr. Rex Horne Evan Lee________ Ira Betton Joyclyn Davis 'POSITION ELECTED APPOINTED RACE GENDER (check) (check) Principal Asst. Prineinal Broker Counselor_____ Music Spec. PK  Teacher 2nd - Teacher 4th  Teacher 5th Teacher 3rd  Teaciier Paraprofessiona Parent Parent PIE Community Student Title I Parent X i X X 11 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X B Jj. W W B w .B_ B B B - W w IL. SL. B \"for example: 1st grads teacher, algebra teacher, aieering committee chair, support staff, etc. list all positions held u. _X F __ E _X __ E JL M Z F JI Jt -tL Jd. X X 11/03/1999 ,11:07 I I I 3242032 LRSD Campus Leadership Team Verification Foirm 1999*2000 School Mv(xhel\\fal c, Signature Of Pnndipel nam?'5f TEAM MEMBER POSITION I: PAGE 01/01 ij r, F-G ELECTED (check) APP\u0026lt; lit:\u0026gt; INTO' tck) GENb^f \\Dto _ dn C.li.7.-Li Tdnnrxfi GiiA^e-nS ______ /_'i r\\Ar^ CAtAujf ll .dn. -} .ri nr. j...pod. dXrLcKejC ^Tjefi.Vh-g.ic_ A enc Vhe-r \"TgOLcJiey 1 -r. (I 'SiiA/ika ( G/j picr\\6 n Tdci/f ~Wh KiiAdi-s^ \\/6hn5txn..- .' f*/! r V -g r P I g -cot I* w w w w _J2l 1 X X i i I F F F F F F F I 4 iI J. i i t 1 i at ximpls- lat smde teacher, algebra teacher, iiL Ing committee chair. support start, etc. - list all positions heW :1 FROM\nMCDERMOTT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL id! PHONE NO. : 501 2283104 Nov. 04 1999 03:30PM P2 Ui/Wl Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 Signature of Principal nam of TEAM MEMBER Ashley. Virginia R Kemp,. LangJte . Mounger, Anita McCarther. Gerri Washington, Marv Ann Hbvt, Lori Rdyij , .'Vefa .Jaui'tlii, Eiffilifa James. Suzie O'Neal. Erica Dial, Darlene Swatv, Nancy Kitchen, Eton, School Mr.npT-mnt-t POSITION ELECTED (eh*cK) APPOINTEI (check) RACE GENDER n Admim* gtrahrn- Admin-i ^ttrAhor Teacher TearbAr______ Teacher_______ Jearher_______ Jle^cher P^T-Pnt ______ Brnkej:_______ _ Parent .Teacher_______ Teacher Teacher_______ Siirpert Staff X X I ) X X XX X X X-JU. :iL-  R lU R.. X_ W ' _ for cxampia\ntsi grade teacher, algeora teacher, siaeriHg commlitae chair, support Starr, etc. -nat an positions held XX  X . x_ F _ _ _ _ M 11/03/1399 113:49 3242032 LRSD PAGE 01/01 Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School Signature of Principal uXWMntuan*! NAME OF POSITION TEAM MEMBER ELECTED (check) APPOINTED RACE (check) GENDER 7\u0026lt;sU:r/L _ 3^L^.. .Jj. J2:\u0026gt;ahhxl. .J\u0026amp;rrjLie^______ Par/. P^re'?t\np ____!(d_ nt _ \u0026lt; _ M. 0/  _______ M. M M. r for example: 1st grade teacher, algebra teacher, steering commIttaB chair, support staff, etc. - list all oo,sitions haW FROM : Panasonic FAX SYSTEM PHONE NO,\nNov. 05 1999 11:21AM P2 Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School Hi-j-cLell AcqJ signature of Principel NAME OF TEAM MEMBER POSITION ELECTED APPOINTED RACE ^SNibER uP (check) (check) DcciCio Smif-k Riclpey 3a citron Keicq Sml+K Soe VJatts Connie P r I ncj p a! P\u0026lt;Xr\u0026lt;:n+ /pTft Pres, B 6 fA M Fr-ed Sn I'+K ftlice B\u0026lt;'Q4ber! P^ir-en-V S'+udef^+ C\u0026lt;arnrmrtfi'Y Re, lie P- \"Teacher TtA^-or 4 61a^y$ CoiemaA \"TRAlma 4eQ\u0026lt;c-ln. F +AcJne\u0026gt;- J B 6 6  F F F F Susan Lofsbcn-t fAar^f'e+ Dcloris IverjHon 4-^o.g-lner Eiiuc +ea.cFe{- S\u0026gt;\u0026gt;ppor-+ S+i^pf B } B , VJ. 6 N\\ F r F \"ter example: 1st jrade teacher, algebra teacher, steering committee chair, support staff, etc. - list an positions helduampus Leaaersnip leam veritication horm Otter Creek Elementary Signature of Principal NAMS OF'^ TEAM MEMBER School POSITION ELECTED (check) APPO' \"CE / GENDER Re.becca'TCesBinger Vickye Mitchell Beverly Kinneman Ettatricia Clark Shana Young Zeornee\" Hert.s Greg Stutts Denise Nunnlev Tommy Hodges Truman Ball______ Sarah Cole Title I Teacher First Grade Teacher Gifted/Taiented / XX J JA Vi Kindergarten TeacIer X Counselor Broker Parent Parent_____________ ComrmmityZBusinea Communitv/Business Student (Grade 5) X X X X. X V, F M B W W W far example' 1st grads teacher, algsbre teacher, steering committee chair, support staff, etc. - list all positions held F M-M F CAMPUS LEADERSHIP TEAM VERIFICATION FORM SCHOOL: PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY 1999-2000 Signature of Principal Name of Team Member Lillie Carter Jamie Lou Neal Yvette Peterson Eva Maeweather Terrie Davis Position Principal K-Teacher 1 Grade Teacher 2\"* Grade Teacher Grade Teacher Elected Appointed Race/Gender B/F W/F B/F B/F B/F V-- X X X X / t s i i Pat Yates d\"*\" Grade Teacher X W/F , Sandra Fountain Carol Blann Mary Gillespie Laura Beth Arnold Toni White Stacy Pittman Paul Fisher Robin Borne' Tony Woodell Marion Woods 5* Grade Teacher Resource Teacher Media Specialist E.T.C. Teacher Instructional Aide Parent Parent Business Community Broker X X X X X X X X X X W/F W/F W/F W/F B/F W/F B/M W/M, W/M B/F1/03/1999 11:00 3242032 LRSD PAGE 01/01 Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School Rightsell Academy Signature of Principal Sharon A. Brooks .^/\\\u0026lt;5r- 1 . 2 , 3 . 4. 5 . NAME OF POSITION ELECTED APPOINTED RACE GENDER TEAM MEMBER Sharon A. Brooks Mac Huffman Principal Broker (check) (check) X B F W M Stephanie Neal Sharon Faiilkenhe Title I 5th Gr. Teacher X, X B W F F Frenzella Dodson K Teacher X B F 6 . Barbara Fincher 2nd Gr. Teacher X W F 1 . 8. 9. JLaafl-.ELittake.r------ Margaret Williams Pat Holder Curriculum Spec. Counselor X X B B F F Parent X B Z TO. Beverly Jones 11. Charles Ruth 12. Lucious Powell 13. Dladra Lindsey 14. Chasity Rosby Parent X B Z Community Rep. Business Rep. Non-Certified X X B B Student X z B K JI F F far example\n1st grade teacher, algebra teacher, steering committee chair, support staff, etc. ~ list all positions held Campus Leadership Team Verification Form School: Rockefeller 1999 -2000 Name of Team Member _(Please Type) Position Elected | Appointed (Choose One) Race Gender Anne Mangan Eloise Booth Principal X W F Dana Keller Ann Larkowski Beth Foti Valencia Butts Barbi Freiermuth Debbie Gross Teri Frankum Melvia Mathis Assistant Principal Supt. CLT Representative COE Chairperson EC Teacher Representative EC Teacher Representative Primary Teacher Rep, Primary Teacher Rep. Intermediate Teacher Rep. Specialist Representative X X X X X X X X X B w . w W B w w w B F F F F F F F F F Coreen Frasier Specialist Representative X w F Martha Roberts EC Coordinator X w F Vivian Mangan Rick Taylor Parent/P.T.A. President X w F Business Partner X w M Mary Kay Roe Theme Specialist X w F Candy Blackwell Smart Start Rep. X w F Rose Mitchell Erma Jackson Fred Allen Non-Certified Staff Rep. Non-Certified Staff Rep. Business Partner X X X B B B F F M Father Kirtley Yearwood Community Leader X B M Fay and Donald McTyer . Parents X B/B M/F Pat Price Kathy Wells LRSD Broker X w F Downtown Neighborhood Association W F J Campus Leadership Team Verification Form School Romine Interdlst rlct 1999 - 2000 Name of Team Member - (Please Type) Position Elected/AppoinTed 'i (Check One) -LilJ.ic, Scii1]________ -Itidrmc.. Lane lev Jacque Rain^'aier _^loris Banks Er.lrif 1\nvi! -laaiiisr. Teachc\nr Teacher - Ch 1 V i n Ch r_l_cj_-_ onH)ii1f,r....Sr)eci?il i-0 Tout iL Phillip'^ JQrjna lliinrap ____ -Mr,.. Sandy Becker - Rev. Charles McAdtJo ^/XMaili_SjMidLaLlsi ------- tjlialC-Special isi- Parent Coniniunii y ssi(? Middlei_i.m Pa' ric ia Phill ius - .-Br/Acr___ G/T SperlHl ist____ fa=iggy Car.cnU....... Jlarcnt. Signature (Principal) ii/oj/ ioao Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School TERRY ELHyENTARY SCHOOL\nSignature ot Principal name of TEAM MEMBER  NANCY ACRE. ANNA TATUM JOYCE ALT.FY ANN MOORE TERESA COOK DOROTHY MALONE. BRENDA OSBORNE BEVERLY ROBINSON MARGO ROWE JANA TERRI ANDERSON ED WILLIAMS BARBARA SCHIRACK KELLY WHITEHORN iTiE mSLEY NICHOLE HENDERSON poSItioH PPTMPTPM ELECTED lA^PdlbiTE GENOfeb {chck) (chok) 1ST GR. TEACHER iHt. GR  TEACHER MEDIA SPECIALIST 4th GR. TEACHER Sth GR. TEACHER 00UNSEU3R title I - PTA PRESIDENT PARENT DIBTRICT-RRQKER iwa:*.awi PTA VICE_PRES BI,1SINE.S.S,.BEP parent Z X Ji. X JL X Z X J z X Z WH BL BL WH ZL ZH. JSH. WH JlQL id jFjH WH BL 'for xamels: 1st grade laachor, BlgsOrs teacfiar, steering cornminee chelr, support eteff, etc, - net at) positions hew F E . F  Z F JE. z F Z z z Z Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School WakpflplH__RI pmon t- ary Signature of Principal I . NAME OF TEAM MEMBER -T.i 11. i, a Ka.nk.s_____ :: -Barbara_ F tynar t_____ Sita Montgomery Sherry Trim1inc\nrin Dorothy Davis______ Julie Wiedover Shirley Gordon Joy Davidson________ Raymond House_______ Greg Hughes_________ Heather Gage_____ Mary Jane Cheatham Gary Patterson POSITION ELECTED APPOINTED RACE GENDER (check) (check) E-rimary Teachcr^ .. Primary Toarhor Intermediate  Tntprmprli at-p  xSiinnnrt Tparhpr Central Offire Non-certified Community Person Parent_______ Parent______ P.artner -in Edur,, Principal______ Girls \u0026amp; Boys Cl uh X X X X X X X 112 Bl B2 Bl B2 Bi 02 B2 02 BZ Bi Bi Bi z X X . z F i X K X Z K for example: 1 st grade teacher, algebra teacher, steering committee chair, support staff, etc. -- list all positions held Booker T. Washington Magnet School Campus Leadership Team 1999-2000  + Gwen Strong-Zeigler + Johnny Neeley + Katherine Snyder Principal, Washington Magnet Assistant Principal, Washington Magnet Assistant Principal, Washington Magnet * Lucy Neal Broker, Information Services, LRSD * Ruben Johnson * Carolyn Williams PTA Co-President, Washington Magnet PTA Co-President, Washington Magnet * Stephanie Dhonau Community Representative, Division of International and Second Language Studies, UALR * Kelly Robbins\nCommunity Representative Arkansas Forestry Association * Dr, Katherine Mitchell Community Representative LRSD Board of Directors W atershed Proj ect * Becky Ramsey Community Representative Aerospace Education Center \u0026lt; Barbara Brown \u0026lt; Rebecca Broussard \u0026lt; Tommie Walker \u0026gt; Darrick Williams \u0026gt; Katina Ray \u0026gt; Linda Umerah * Shantail Miller First Grade Teacher, Washington Magnet Kindergarten Teacher, Washington Magnet Fifth Grade Teacher, Washington Magnet Third Grade Teacher, Washington Magnet Fourth Grade Teacher, Washington Magnet Second Grade Teacher, Washington Magnet Technology Specialist, Washington Magnet Appointed Position * Ex-Officio Member + Elected Position  Tenn Ends June 2000 \u0026lt; Elected Position - Term Ends June 2001 \u0026gt;Booker T, Washington Magnet School Campus Leadership Team Meeting Agenda November 4,1999 I. IL m. IV. V. VI. VII. Welcome - Gwen Strong-Zeigler Introduction of Members - Danick Williams School Improvement Plan A. Introductory Statements - Katina Ray  B. Priority #1 - Reading and Language Arts  Linda Umerah C. Priority #2 - Mathematics - Barbara Brown D. Priority #3 - Science - Rebecca Broussard E. Priority #4 English as Second Language (ESL) Newcomer Program  Shantail Miller F. Plan Evaluation-Katherine Snyder Extended Year / Year Round-School  Paulette Den son Campus Work Audit - Tommie Walker Assignments for Future Meetings - Katina Ray Other BusinessTo: Campus Leadership Team Members From\nG. S. Zeigler Subject: CLT Meeting Dates The following dates have been established for Campus Leadership Team monthly meetings: November 4, 1999 December 2, 1999 January 6, 2000 February 3, 2000 March 2, 2000 April 6, 2000 May 4,2000 June 2,2000 The meetings will begin at 2:45 in the Washington Media Center. If you cannot attend please make certain that you contact Gwen Strong-Zeigler at 501/324-2470. I am looking forward to working with each of you this school year. Working on this team promises to be a challenging and worthwhile experience.04/04/2000 14:36 3242032 LRSD PAGE 02/02 Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School Signature of Principal NAME OF ________TEAM MEMBER Janice Anderson ^ara Brown Maraaret Dawson Karen Ditto Mary Ann Forrest Sandra Hinson Paulette Martin Michael Oliver Paula Kamsey Vera Robinson Marvin Henderson' POSITION Tcac.her-5 th Teacher-4Y0 TcachGr-2nd Teacher-3rd Teacher-4Y0 Broker Principal Counselor PTA Pres. ELECTED (eMO X X X X X X APPOIHTED {otweW X X X Z. RACE W W B W w VI B _IL^ GENDER F F F F __ F F .a.__ F F....... _a__ \"fee amsli l\" Bii t*ehr, algebra toaoher, steering committee chair. uppori staff, etc. - Sat ill poaltiorM heW Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1S99-2000 NAME OF Western Hills Elementary Signature of Principal School 'OSITION ELECTED APPOINTED RACE GENDER TEAM MEMBER (check) (check) Scott Morgan Jennifer Welborn Principal 1 st Grade VI \"W MT Shirley Thomas Terese Klaus Ruth Anderson 2nd Grade 2nd Grade 3rd Grade B W W F F F Nancy Brandt Ruth Schwerin Librarian Title I W FT Lee Ann Matson Lona Taunton Versie Burgess Broker F Parent Neighborhood W B F F Pam Perry Parent W F for exampla: 1st grade teacfter, algebra teacher, steering eommlttee chair, support staff, etc. - list all positions held Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School Williams Traditional Magnet Signature of Principal NAME OF TEAM MEMBER Mary Menking Eunice Thrasher .Wi Hiam.q Behn___________ Barbara .Phr-i clri anri Maryipp- Rnbinann________ Flrirptta Babh.s__________ Ella Moble^r----------- Nancy Mnrtnn_____________ Deborah Tsreal_________ Stephanip Wa 1kpr-Pjmpp Eddy Pphpr.a__________ _ nffirpr Crpo Vint______ Chris- Ra^znolds-------------- Suellen Vann 'POSITION ELECTED (chsck) APPOINTED RACE GENDER Principal/Chairman Vice Principal Certified Member PF___X fdember (^F^fP^y^ber Ie (check) X X W F X X X X ?^ler Y w IL X X M. X X 11 X X X X X P Paronh___________ Parpnt-__________ CnThrmini ty_______ 'Rnoinpgg_______ Central Office X X XX X X wX w 'for example: 1st grade teacher, algebra teacher, steering ccnimittee chair, support staff, etc. - list all positions held M K F Recommended # 1 6 1 2 - 1 1 1 1 TEAM MEMBERS POSITION Principal Assistant Principal P.E. Specialist Music Specialist Gifted/Talented Specialist Kindergarten Specialist r Grade Specialist Curriculum Specialist_____ Paraprofessional Parent Parent Community Business Central Office CAMPUS TEAM MATRIX Of Positions Principal Certified Teachers Central Office _____Parent Business Community Non-certified Staff Assistant Principal NAME Mary Menking Eunice Thrasher William Bobo Barbara Strickland Marylee Robinson Floretta Babbs Ella Mobley Nancy Morton Deborah Isreal Stephanie Walker-Hynes Eddy Peters Officer Greg Vint Chris Reynolds Suellen Vann Position Title Chairman _____Elected_____ Invited/Appointed Appointed Appointed Appointed Elected/Appointed Appointed Membership Required Required Required Required Required Required Optional Optional ADDRESS________ 5 Heritage Court Little Rock, 72211 2000 Dennison Little Rock 72202 13617 Napeleon Rd. Little Rock, 72211 202 East Maddox Jacksonville, 72076 #7 Longfellow Ln Little Rock, 72207 12804 St. Charles Blvd. Little Rock, 72211 11283 Southrid^e Dr. Little Rock, 72212 4710 Westchester Dr. Little Rock, 72212 3812 Wimbledon Loop Little Rock, 72209 5414 Robin Rd. Little Rock, 72204 21 Countryside Cv. Little Rock, 72212 7206 Evergreen Dr. Little Rock, 72207 2516-F Cantrell Rd Little Rock, 72207 21 Winona Dr. Maumelle, 72113 PHONE \" (H) 225-3822 (W)671-6363  (H) 374-0528 (W0671-6363  (H)223-4998 (W)671-6363  (H)982-2308 (W)671-6363  (11)664-2222 (W)671-6363 ' (H)227-5415 (V0671-6363  (H)227-6496 (W)671-6363  (H) 868-4322 (W)671-6363  (H) 455-5503 (W)671-6363  (H) 565-3449 (W)324-2250 (H) 868-6604 (W)664-1004 (H) 664-8660 (W)280-7688 (W)666-9500 (H) (W)324-2020Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School Wn.W Er.FMRNTAPV Signature of Principal NAME OF TEAM MEMBER POSITION ELECTED appointed RACE GENDER (check) (check) SUSAN WEST TEACHER MICHELLE DORSEY TEACHER WILLYE TALLEY EDNA SCHOEMAKER ROSEMARY ROLAND GREGORY JONES MARJORIE RIANT KIMBERLY REEVKS TEACHER JEACHER aide ..TEACHER TEACHER. teacher X. X X X X 'for example: 1st grade teacher, algebra teacher, steering commlttsa chair, support staff, etc, - list all positions held rjJ./ Ui Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School Signature of Principal NAME OF -- *Qr*5Cirs\u0026gt;\u0026gt;M POSITION TEAM MEMBER (fAono.. V-^o\u0026lt;jd 'uc\\r\\\u0026lt;s ELECTED (check) APPOINTED (oiieok) RACE GENDER GVYirx. '\u0026lt;f?nA- Laij.rox W\nHFnm5 Norberci Ib/r.sn Vvny'Vw^ Prf V''\"~VfC\u0026gt;.r'T' FF\u0026lt; \\ Ca VA n cF\u0026lt;\u0026gt;' \\ fW/i^ 14. f I iAjrrh^t'A KxvH ~Vtn\\rp. Wi\\So.'i 1 iSr^-n y.\\.i rwxrv-'n L\u0026gt;F4jAWkY\\L_ FV. V-Y N'lriF'Ver Mtcn.b An Aubfe-\\- ' G r CvlOr (A\\\\ kiSW.vip An CVYAA\\\\p,icO VpG A S\\ k\\V'JQ PnuFcA'pgrVi.'^'f AnCr^-Vr-r.rF 5y\u0026lt;-] Qitzbo -Vt^/rbgi ZrT Af^.nrbr=\u0026gt;r Y 1 FoAgrarkrAen FFii fa~br TTAir\\5()nr pGrteAfnA f.mrvA-O-Mff-inV- \\ 1 A UAmb Cm urn \u0026gt; nt bl Ca(F( ParAn-f 'G\u0026gt;?Vv.r\\ ey-s: 5Aa ).r.\\eAnA A, X 1 V. W. :^... FZ r) b w k/ JF F F AX \\aL for exampla: 1st grade teacher, algebra teacher, steering committee chair, support staff, etc. - lie! ell positions held r\" T F F F F !-V\u0026gt;, ______ F O'A t-Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 7 Schooi Alternative Learning Center Signature of Principal ,7( 2=tf NAME OF \\ TEAM MEMBER POSITION ELECTED (check) APPOINTEI (check) RACE GENDE Lloyd Sain, Jr, Sharon Cauley Lee Braden Carol Overton Kay Kimbrough Kelan Watson Otis Banks Michael Reynold Phyllis Hodge s Arlandris Norris *This member changes as a ------nijractoE________ Facilitator Z-gyaprof ess Tonal -Ean'l t' i-a.i-n.- Community/Busin Facilitator Facilitatoi parent Su\u0026lt;jeiiT. result X B X X X B ir. X X .B. B X X X of changin\n/migrating populat W B -B- on K F M F M F M .___ -M---- to_a:id.. from ALC. Of example, tstprade teacher, alpebra teacher, steering cornmitteo chair, support staff, etc. - list all positions heldExhibit No. 66: LI230-90 Program Evaluation for English as a Second Language. I I i k I Program Evaluation For English-as-a Second Language (ESL) School Year: 1999-2000 October 30, 2000 IMIfllHllly S } AK Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Ish Instructional Resource Center 3001 S. Pulaski Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501-324-212 \\\\ I I 1 able of Contents Executive Summary - -----pg. 3 Purpose of this Evaluation  I I -pg. 6 Evaluation Design------ ------pg. 6 Research Questions  -pg. 7 Methodology  -----pg. 8 ESL Curriculum Delivery and Instructional Model School Choices: Magnet, Incentive, \u0026amp; Area------- Participants------------------------------------------- Academic Variables------------------------------------ Behavioral Variables------------------------------- Pg. 8 pg. 9 -pg. pg. pg- 11 16 18 Results  ----pg. 19 Conclusions  pg. 31 Recommendations  ------pg. 3 3 References  pg. 34 Appendix A\nNumber of Students by Grade by PHLOTE Category____________ Appendix B: Comparison of Newcomer v. Non-Newcomer schools____________ Appendix C: Students Receiving G/T and Special Education Services___________ Appendix D: Students by the Top Four Languages---------------------------------------- Appendix E: LRSD Regulations on the Academic Assessment of PHLOTE Students Appendix F: LRSD Audit Policy--------------------------------------- pg- 35 pg. 37 pg. 44 pg. 47 pg. 62 ------pg. 64 Appendix G: Achievement Data by Area, Magnet, and Incentive Appendix H: Achievement Data by School_________________ Schools pg. 67 pg. 75 A 2Executive Summary Evalu ofPlanning, Research, and E aluation (PRE) has undertaken this evaluation to determine if the Districts English-a\u0026lt;- - nroSernTLEPlstud! succeeding in meeting the needs of limited-English p oticient (LEP) students in overcoming their laneuaae ham'pre tUo t ___ as-a- overcoming their language barriers. The LRSDs Commitment to Resolve (CTR, agreement with the Office for Civil Rights (NveX?0, 1999,ZZ LRSD to compare hrntted-Enghsh proficient students' academic achievement, retention dZut Vd attendance data to the general population and to make similar comparisons with limited English th to their fluent-English proficiency. aI per section L of the CTR the scope of this evaluation will consider\ncomparisons with limited English 1.) the curriculum service delivery, staffing and scope of teacher trainina- 2.) the extent to which limited English language students to other students in the District\nand are performing in comparison 3.) the extent to which limited English proficient students who have English (i.e., have exited the ESL other students in the District. become proficient in program due to proficiency in English) compare to The CTR requires that a longitudinal evaluation be conducted annually. The data reported in this evaluation are baseline data and constitutes the initial collection of comparison annual evaluations. With baseline datA it ic Hiffi/'nit nrosram succe\u0026lt;\n\u0026lt;i nr fniliirp Ft i  **^^PPropnate to make picsumptions o program success or failure. Future evaluations will address the issue of program effectiveness. data for future presumptions of Concerning staffing and scope of teacher training, as of June 2000, 15 teachers have their ESL .dd H teachers earned theh ESL endorsemeTSn ddition 15 teachers have taken at least three credit hours towards earning an ESL endorsement Given the increase in the number of ESL endorsed teachers, ftiture evaluations will add tWs variable m comparing students across the LRSD.  805 students whose primary home language is other than English (PHLOTE) Wilhm this poptilatton of PHLOTE students are sub-populations identified by the LRSD to L in * and to provide a greater understanding of what the LRSD considers when approaching the education of PEILOTE students greater understanding of what the LRSD 3The sub-populations of PHLOTE students have been identified as: Limited-English proficient (LEP) - students administered the Language Assessment Scales (LAS) upon admission to the LRSD and determined not to be proficient in reading, writing. listening comprehension, and/or speaking English.  Not assessed as to their English proficiency (NAEP)  students who have not been administered the LAS.  Fluent-English proficient (FEP) - students administered the LAS upon admission to the LRSD and determined to be proficient in reading, writing, listening comprehension, and speaking English.  Fluent-English proficient and exited from the program (FEPE) - students initially identified as LEP, received LRSD ESL program services, and exited the program after the LAS indicated a proficiency in reading, writing, listening comprehension, and speaking English. The top four languages spoken are Spanish (56%), Chinese (8%), Arabic (3%) and Korean (3%) M /\"It\"*-! at- i'qm 1 ______ C T !-\u0026gt; _ '' Newcomer Center schools serve most of the LEP students (N= 309). However, there are LEP students in all but seven of the LRSDs schools. The highest enrollment for a Newcomer Center is Chicot Elementary with 74 LEP students, and the highest enrollment for a neighborhood school is Wakefield Elementary with 20 LEP students. Results from comparing students enrolled in a Newcomer v. a Non-newcomer indicate:  Newcomer Centers had higher growth for LEP and FEP kindergarten students, as measured by the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA), than similar students attending newcomer school. a non-  Newcomer Centers had lower growth for LEP and FEP students on the DRA for and 2^ grade students in comparison to similar students at non-Newcomer schools.  Comparison data on other academic variables for 4^^ grade and above are mixed. The number of PHLOTE students receiving G/T and Special Education services is small making data comparison difficult. However, PHLOTE receiving G/T services generally perform above the LRSD and national averages. Across the four top languages of Spanish, Chinese, Arabic, and Korean, LEP students ...............* Ml upaiuMi, vmucsc, Mjaoic, ana Korean, I.hl' students compare favorably with other PHLOTE students on DRA growth scores, but they have lower scores on other academic variables. PHLOTE students who attend a magnet school, regardless of their sub-population category, scored higher than other PHLOTE students. Typically on a school by school comparison. Newcomer Center School PHLOTE students do not compare as well as PHLOTE students who attend a Non-Newcomer Center School. This phenomenon could be attributed to the dearth of ESL endorsed teachers across the LRSD. As of June 1, 2000, there were only 15 ESL endorsed teachers in the LRSD. 4Concerning the extent to which LEP and FEPE students are performing in comparison to other students in the District, the results indicate that a majority of kindergarten and 2\"'' grade LEP students are reading at grade level, while only a third of the V* grade LEP students are at the readiness level. Reading growth for LEP students in grade 1 are not growing as fast as the general population. Across other achievement measures LEP students are performing below the general population. On these same academic measures, FEPE students typically perform above the general population. Also, LEP students have lower rates of attendance than the general population. Given that this is the baseline year for future yearly evaluations it would be premature to attribute any evaluation results to ESL program success or failure. However, recommendations include investigating the high retention numbers of not only LEP, but also FEP students\ncontinue to expand the professional development opportunities and ESL endorsement\nand continue to support early literacy strategies. w 5Introduction Purpose of this Evaluation The purpose of this evaluation to determine if the Little Rock School Districts (LRSDs) Enghsh-as-a-Second Language (ESL) Program is succeeding in meeting the needs of limitedEnglish proficient (LEP) students in overcoming their language barriers. The LRSDs Commitment to Resolve (CTR) agreement with the Office for Civil Rights, November 10, 1999, requires LRSD to compare limited-English proficient students academic achievement, retention, dropout, and attendance data to the general population and to make similar comparisons with limited English proficient students who have exited the program due to their fluent-English proficiency. As per section L of the CTR the scope of this evaluation will consider: 1.) the curriculum service delivery, staffing and scope of teacher training\n2.) the extent to which limited English language students are performing in comparison to other students in the District\nand 3.) the extent to which limited English proficient students who have become proficient in English (i.e., have exited the ESL program due to proficiency in English) compare other students in the District. to This evaluation will examine students who have participated in the Districts ESL program to determine mastery of English language skills (reading, writing, speaking, and listening/comprehension), content area concepts, and skills. To be assessed is the amount of progress identified students have made during program participation, after program exit, and upon reclassifying/reentry into the program. The evaluation will report data indicating student performance in mathematics, literacy, reading, and language usage. Curriculum service delivery by school and the progress of teacher training will be reported, as well as comparison data on Newcomer v. Non-newcomer centers (see Appendix B). Achievement data will also be reported on PHLOTE students receiving G/T and Special Education services (see Appendix C). There are 8 LEP and 28 FEP suidents receiving G/T services. There are 7 LEP and 3 NAEP students receiving special education services. Data will be reported by students attending -------------------g area, magnet, and incentive schools (see Appendix G) and also by individual school (see Appendix H). Evaluation Design The following are sub-populations of PHLOTE students:  Limited-English proficient (LEP) - students administered the Language Assessment Survey (LAS) upon admission to the LRSD and determined not to be proficient in reading, writing, listening comprehension, and speaking English.  Not assessed as to their English proficiency (NAEP) - students who have not been administered the LAS. 6 Fluent-English proficient (FEP) - students administered the LAS upon admission to the LRSD and determined to be proficient in reading and writing English.  Fluent-English proficient and exited from the program (FEPE)  students initially identified as LEP, received LRSD ESL program services, and exited the program after the LAS indicated a proficiency in reading, writing, listening comprehension, and speaking English. The aforementioned sub-populations will be compared to each other and to the general population on the following academic and behavioral variables\nArkansas State Benchmark Examination LRSDs Achievement Level Tests Stanford Achievement Test-9' edition (SAT-9) Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) Retention Dropout Attendance Graduation In addition, PHLOTE sub-population data will be reported by students receiving gifted and talented (GT) and special education (SPD) (see Appendix C)\nstudents attending a Newcomer Center v. Non-Newcomer Center (see Appendix B)\ntop four languages (see Appendix D)\narea, incentive, or Magnet school (see Appendix G)\nand individual school (see Appendix H). The general population for this report, unless otherwise stated, will consist of all students in the Little Rock School District except those students classified as LEP, NAEP, FEP, and FEPE. Research Questions What types of curriculum service delivery are PHLOTE students receiving and how do schools receiving these service deliveries compare. Is the academic progress and behavior of LEP, NAEP, FEP and FEPE comparable to the general population? What level of training are teachers working with LEP students receiving? Examination of student academic performance as measured by the academic variables, retention, and attendance rates of LEP, NAEP, FEP, and FEPE students versus the general population of students will address these questions. Methodology w 7LRSD ESL Curriculum Delivery and Instructional Model Elementary Schools: LEP students are served in the alternative language services program in one of two ways: Students who are developing their proficiency in English are clustered in classes with native English speakers, and the teachers provide the essential modifications to accommodate their developing fluency. in classes which  Students who are developing their proficiency in English are grouped are designated for LEP students. There are fewer students in these classes. The numbers were kept low because of a class size reduction grant. The schools who benefited from this during the 1999-2000 school year were Brady, Chicot, Romine, Terry and Washington. The teachers at these five former Newcomer Center Schools either have their ESL endorsement or are working on completing the course requirements for the endorsement. The Newcomer Center elementary schools maintain larger numbers of LEP students. LEP students have the option of attending a Newcomer Center or any of the other LRSD. Teachers at the non-Newcomer Center schools receive a comprehensive ESL training program which is research-based and from the Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL). Middle Schools: LEP students are primarily served in the alternative language services program at our Newcomer Center schools, Dunbar and Cloverdale Middle Schools. There are two configurations to provide the same type of service\n At Cloverdale Middle Level Academy students are grouped into discrete ESL classes for Reading/Writing Workshop classes, ESL Science and ESL Social Studies. These students receive their instruction from an ESL endorsed teacher or one who is working on completing the endorsement courses.  At Dunbar Magnet Middle School, LEP students receive their specialized, modified instruction in mainstream classes beside their peers. The difference for these students is in the teacher's training and qualifications. Teachers at Dunbar Middle School are also completing their ESL endorsement courses. There is a smaller group of LEP students at Dunbar, not enough to constitute discrete ESL classes for groups of students at each respective grade level (grades 6,7,\u0026amp; 8). LEP students who attend some of the other middle schools, not designated a Newcomer Center school receive their instruction from their classroom teachers. Those teachers in the 4 core disciplines either participated in the ESL training during the summer of SY2000 or will participate during the current school year. High School: LEP students are primarily served in the alternative language services program at our Newcomer Center school. Hall High School.  There are a few exceptions where students attend some of our other high school for a specialized program, such as Parkview Arts/Science Magnet.  Students at Hall High School receive their instruction in ESL classes, which provide a sheltered English model.  This approach allows the teachers to build on prior knowledge in the content areas in which the student is developing his/her proficiency in English. 8J i 1 i * ESL-endorsed or completing the required courses for At Hall High School students are assigned to ESL classes, made up of LEP students. In the English classes the grouping reflects levels of proficiency rather than distinct grade levels. School Choices: Magnet, Incentive, and Area Magnet schools are themed schools in which enrollment requests are filled by a I irttpr\\z T PQH ctmi_______ ___i random lottery, LRSD stipulation magnet schools are:  Booker Arts Elementary  Carver Basic Skills / Math Elementary  Gibbs Foreign Languages! International Studies Elementary  Williams Traditional Elementary  Mann Arts \u0026amp; Science Middle School  Parkview Arts \u0026amp; Science High School Incentive schools, identified in 1990, continue to receive extra financial resources in order to improve basic skills education and provide enrichment. These schools offer extended-day, extended-week and extended-year programs as well as before and after school care. Students who live near these schools make up the majority of the enrollment. The incentive schools are:  Franklin Communications Technology Elementary  Academy Elementary (This school will become Stephens Elementary ^\\J\\J\\J 1 in Fall  Mitchell Academy of Creative Dramatic Arts Elementary  Rightsell Academy Elementary  Rockefeller Academy Elementary There are no PHLOTE students at Rightsell or Mitchell. 9Area schools are:  Badgett Elementary  Bale Elementary  Baseline Elementary  Brady Elementary  Chicot Elementary  Cloverdale Elementary  Dodd Elementary  Fair Park Elementary  Forest Park Elementary  Fulbright Elementary  Geyer Springs Elementary  King Elementary  Jefferson Elementary  Mabelvale Elementary  McDermott Elementary  Meadowcliff Elementary  Otter Creek Elementary  Pulaski Heights Elementary  Romine Elementary  Terry Elementary  Wakefield Elementary  Washington Elementary  Watson Elementary  Western Hills Elementary  Wilson Elementary  Woodruff Elementary  Cloverdale Middle School  Dunbar Middle School  Forest Heights Middle School  Henderson Middle School  Mabelvale Middle School  Pulaski Heights Middle School  Southwest Middle School  Central High School  J.A. Fair High School  Hall High School  McClellan High School There were no PHLOTE students at Badgett, Dodd, Jefferson, Western Hills, and Woodruff. 10Participants The LRSD student enrollment process includes a determination of the primary home language other than English (PHLOTE). Once the Home Language Survey is administered, an attempt to assess is made if the student is PHOTE. After a review of assessment results or an attempt to assess, students are tagged within the LRSDs database as\n1. LEP - limited-English proficient, 2. NAEP - not assessed as to their English proficiency, 3. FEP - fluent-English proficient, and 4. FEPE - fluent-English proficient and exited from the program. As of June 2,2000, the District had identified 805 PHLOTE students (LEP = 467, NAEP = 45, and FEP = 268, FEPE = 25). Appendix A lists PHLOTE students by category and by grade level. Elementary LEP students have the option of attending a Newcomer Center school or any of the other LRSD schools. Middle and high school level LEP students are assigned to Newcomer Center schools. See Tables 1 and 2 for enrollment data on newcomer and nonNewcomer Center schools. Table 1 Table 2 Newcomer Center: LEP Enrollment Top 7 Non-newcomer: LEP Enrollment Brady Chicot Romine Terry_____ Washington Cloverdale MS Dunbar MS . I Hall HS I Total 11/30/99 26 68 33 22 38 42 16 3/24/00 25 71 30 18 33 I 80 I 44 16 74 6/2/00 26 74 28 23 30 47 13 I 325 I 311 I 309 \"I 11 Wakefield Cloverdale McDermott Bale Garland Henderson MS Forest Heights MS pfotd 11/30/99 21 17 17 10 6 7 11 89 3/24/00 22 14 18 9 8 8 10 ] 89 6/2/00 20 14 13 12 8 8 7The District s primary database housed on the AS400 mainframe computer X VUU.V. O piuuary uaiaoase nousea on the AS400 mainframe computer uses CIMS as Its electronic student database software. Student data are collected at the school level. Current year data are filed in the students permanent record file (PRE'). Baseline data are stored in ESL Department files. The initial portion of this section will report demographic data (i.e., gender, language school location, grade level distribution, and any sub-groups) on LEP, NAEP FEP and FEPE students. The subsequent sections will report academic and behavioral bcciiuns win report academic and behavioral progress (e.g. attendance) of LEP students and how LEP students compare on academic and behavioral variables to NAEP, FEP, FEPE and the Districts general school population. Unless otherwise stated, general population is defined as all students in the District except LEP NAEP FEP and FEPE students.    Description of Limited English Proficient (LEP) Students. As of June 2 2000 there were 467 LEP students in the Little Rock School District (LRSD). Supporting charts reflect three data gathering points, 11/30/99, 3/24/00, and 6/2/00, and correspond to the Districts reporting to the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), Districts Quarterly Report, and the program evaluation report, conducted annually, as required by Title VI. As previously reported, LEP students have the option to attend a Newcomer Center school or any of the other LRSD schools Demographics on this population are the following:  There are 255 male (54.6%) and 212 female (45.4%) students.  Newcomer Centers serve most of the LEP students, 309 students (66.2%) (see Table 1).  LRSD has 48 schools and LEP students are being served in all of the high schools, middle schools, ^d all but seven of the elementary schools (i.e., Badgett, Dodd, Jefferson, Mitchell Western Hills, Rightsell, and Woodruff).  Non-Newcomer Centers serve the remaining LEP students (N = 158), with the top schools serving between 7 and 20 students (see Table 2). seven  Appendix A lists the following breakdown of students by grade level and sub-population: The pre-kindergarten program (i.e. LRSDs 4-year-old program) had 29 LEP students enrolled. * (grades kindergarten through 5*^ has the highest number of LEP students per grade level with an average grade-level enrollment of 46.  Middle school (grades 6* through 8*') average grade-level enrollment is 29.  High school (grades 9* through 12) per grade level enrollment average of 19. 12 Among LEP students Spanish is the most common language spoken (71.3%), followed by Chinese (4.5%), Arabic (3.6%), Assyrian (2.3%), Korean (2.3%), and Vietnamese (1.5%). An additional 29 languages account for the remaining 14.2% of LEP students. To provide insight in understanding what the LRSD considers when approaching the education of students receiving ESL program services, students within the sub-population of LEP are further identified as: LEPNC - In an ESL program at a Newcomer Center (N = 309) LEPSO - Being served at a school other than a Newcomer Center (N = 158) LEPNS - Not being served (N = 9). Parental denial of alternative language services. LEPSPD - Receiving special education and LEP services (N = 7) LEPGT- Receiving gifted and talented (GT) and LEP services (N = 8) LEPREC - Students who have left the program, have been reclassified, and have re-entered the program (N = 0) Additional demographic data on these sub-populations are as follows\n Newcomer Centers serve all of the LEP students receiving gifted and talented services (N = 7).  Five of the nine LEP students receiving special education services (LEPSPD) attend a Newcomer Center. Five of the nine LEP students not receiving services (LEPNS) attend Newcomer Centers. Academic and behavioral data for the above groups will be reported in the results section. Description of Not Assessed as to their English Proficiency (NAEP). There are 45 NAEP students identified in the Districts database. Demographics for this population are as follows:  There are 23 male (51.1 %) and 22 female (48.9%) students.  Spanish is the most common language (31.1%), followed by Korean (15.5%), Gujarati (8.9%), German (4.4%), Farsi (4.4%), and Chinese (4.4%).  Appendix A lists the following breakdown of NAEP students by grade level and subpopulation:  In grades kindergarten through 5\" there is an average grade-level enrollment of 1. 13 In grades 6* through 8*' there is an average enrollment of 2. In grades 9**' through 12* there is an average enrollment of 8.  Within the sub-population of NAEP students\n Thirty-six NAEP students have refused to be assessed\n Three are special education students and were unable to complete the Language Assessment Survey (LAS)\nThree have not been at school when the LAS was administered\n One student had been auditing (see Appendix F for LRSD policy on auditing), but is no longer a student for SY2000-2001\n One has not returned the signed letter from a parent, and one has been assessed but the score report has not been received by the ESL office. The ESL program has been informed of these two irregularities for follow-up.  Only 6.7% (N = 3) attend a Newcomer Center.  Parkview High School has the most NAEP students, 44.4% (N = 20). Parkview High School is an arts and science magnet school. Description of Fluent English Proficient (FEP) Students. FEP students are PHLOTE students who at the time of admission to the LRSD are assessed by the LAS and have demonstrated a proficiency in reading, writing, listening comprehension, and speaking English. There are 293 FEP in the Little Rock School District. Demographics for this population are as follows:  There are 147 male (50.2%) and 146 female (49.8%) students.  Spanish is the most common language (35.2%), followed by Chinese (11.6%), Vietnamese (6.7%), Urdu (4.5%), Korean (3.4%), Arabic (3.4%), and Russian (3.0%). The 34 remaining languages constitute an additional 32.2%. One hundred eighteen (31.8%) of the students attend a Newcomer Center, with Chicot Elementary having 75 students, Cloverdale Middle 46 students, and Hall High 72 students. A 14 Appendix A lists the following breakdown of students by grade level and sub-population\n In grades kindergarten through 5* the average grade level distribution is 26.  In grades 6* through 8* the average grade level distribution is 27.  In grades 9* through 12* the average grade level distribution is 13.  There are nine FEP students in the Districts 4-year old program.  Twenty-eight students receive gifted and talented (G/T) services. One student attends Cloverdale Middle, 22 attend Dunbar Middle, and 5 attend Hall High school. Description of Fluent English Proficient-Exited (FEPE) Students. FEPE students are LEP students that have exited from the ESL program due to their demonstration of proficiency in English, as measured by the LAS. Twenty-five students, since 11/30/99, have exited from LEP to FEPE. Demographics for this sub-population are as follows\n There are 12 male (48%) and 13 female (52%) students.  Ten students were exited with an LAS of 3/4 and 15 students with a LAS of 3/5. A score of 3/4 is indicative of high-level reading and writing skills. A score of 3/5 is indicative of high- level proficient listening and speaking skills.  One student exited September 1999, 2 exited November 1999,2 exited February 2000 2 exited March 2000, 5 exited April 2000, and 13 exited May 2000.  Spanish is the most common language (60%, N = 15), followed by Chinese (16%, N = 4), Vietnamese (4%, N = 1), Laotian (4%, N = 1), Mongolian (4%, N = 1), Pakistan (4%, N = 1), Portuguese (4%, N = 1), and Slovakia (4%, N = 1).  None of the FEPE students received (G/T) services.  Appendix A lists the breakdown of FEPE students by grade level and sub-population\n Sixty-four percent of the exited students were from grades 2\" through 5*.  Twenty-eight percent were from grades 6* through 8*.  Eight percent were from grades 9 and 11.  11 of the students (44%) were from Newcomer Centers. 15Academic Variables State Mandated ACTAAP Benchmark Examination, Grades 4 fe 8. The State is in the process of implementing its Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment \u0026amp; Accountability Program (ACTAAP) which includes a Benchmark Examination containing a measure of mathematics and literacy achievement. The intent and purpose of this component is to identify students in need of additional instruction in mathematics and literacy. The comprehensive mathematics and literacy exams are valid, reliable, and objective measures that contain multiple-choice and open-response questions based on The Arkansas Mathematics, Reading, and English/Language Arts Curriculum Frameworks. Items are developed with the assistance and approval of the Arkansas Content Advisory Committees composed of active Arkansas educators with expertise in mathematics and literacy. The committees developed and reviewed both multiple-choice and open-response items to ensure they reflect the Arkansas Citrriculum Frameworks and are grade-appropriate. The multiple-choice questions are scored by machine to determine if the student chose the correct answer from four options. Trained readers using a pre-established set of scoring criteria score answers to open-response mathematics and literacy questions. Students are given scores in math and literacy. Students can receive a test score of one through four with four representing Advanced followed by Proficient, Basic, and Below Basic. On both exams the Proficient cut-off score is 200 and the Advanced cut-off score is 250 and above. On the mathematics exam the Basic cut-off score is 149-199 and the Below-Basic cut-off score is 148 and below. On the literacy exam the Basic cut-off score is 164-199 and the Below-Basic cut-off score is 163 and below This examination process is being developed, piloted, and implemented in a sequential and cumulative process begirming with 4* grade in SY 1997-98, and including 8* grade in SY 1998-99. SY 2000-2001 will incorporate the math measure for b* grade currently being piloted in schools across Arkansas. Also end-of-course measures for Algebra I, Geometry, and Biology 1 are cunently in the item development phase. The test for the 1999-2000 school year was given in April 2000. Scores from the April 2000 test will not be available until the end of October 2000. This evaluation will examine students who took the test during the 1998-1999 school year as 4* graders. LEP students are required to take the test unless the language proficiency assessment committee at the students school determines that the test is inappropriate. In addition, parental permission is required to confirm the exemption. Achievement Level Test (ALTT Grades 2-11. The recently implemented Achievement Level Test (ALT) includes a series of mathematics, reading, language usage, and science achievement measures that increase in difficulty across eight levels. This test is important to the ESL program evaluation process, for the tests are designed to document growth by assessing students at the cutting edge of their individual achievement level. Fall and spring administration across grades 3-11 permit measurement of growth within and across school years expressed in two kinds of scores: percentile scores and scale or RIT (Rasch Interval Scale) scores. Percentile scores can be used to compare students to the large group of test takers using the ALT developed by the Northwest Evaluation Association. It is important to note that this is a comparative group currently involving 104 schools districts and 500,000 students and growing 164 to 13 points annually. This is not a norm group configured to represent public school populations. LRSD regulations (see Appendix E ) can exempt LEP students from District level tests for up to tw'o years on LRSD criterion referenced tests (CRTs). However, for program evaluation purposes all students, including LEP students, are to take the ALT. Demonstration of growth within and across an individuals matriculation. Fall to Spring, in grades 3  11 is documented using the RJT score designed to make direct comparisons to a criterion performance level along a scale from 160 to 250. Students typically start at a RIT__ of about 170-190 in the fall of the 3 grade and progress to the 230260 range by high school. Students at 235 have reached a readiness level for Algebra 1. It is very important to note that along the Rasch Interval Scale, scores have the same meaning regardless of the individual students grade level. This type of measurement allows some students to start at a higher RIT level and some low-achieving students to never reach the top level. The design provides an accurate measure of each students achievement where the typical standardized test, by its nature, provides inadequate measures for many students, especially those at the high and low ends of the scale. score Also important is the fact that tests are aligned with The Arkansas Mathematics, Reading, and English/Language Arts 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 calibrated for difficulty and assigned to a level (e.g.. Math levels 1-8). For example: An appropriate expectation of a Level 1 student is to multiply whole numbers, while a Level 6 student should be able to multiply fractions. This calibration makes it possible to calculate the RIT score which is tied directly to the curriculum. ALTs are administered during the P* and 4* quarters annually. were Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA). The DRA is administered individually kindergarten through 2\"^a . . . . .\nrade students. Administration of the DRA is to occur during to gl September and April of each school year. The DRA is a measure of a readiness to read at grade level. Test results provide a method for comparing students within the LRSD. The Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) provides teachers with a method for assessing and documenting primary students development as readers over time within a literature-based instructional reading program. The DRA is designed to be used in K-3 classrooms with rich literate environments. The assessments are conducted during one- on-one reading conferences as children read specially selected assessment texts. Sets of 20 stories, which increase in difficulty, are used for the assessment. The DRA evaluates two major aspects of reading: accuracy of oral reading and comprehension through reading and retelling of narrative stores. Both aspects of reading are critical to independence as a reader. Factors which contribute to the gradient of difficulty of the stories include the number of words on a page, complexity of vocabulary, length of the stories, degree of support from the pictures, as well as complexity of sentence and story 17Structure. Questions pertaining to concepts about print are also included in the assessment of lower leveled texts (Southeastern Louisiana University, 1998, p. 1). The DRA is appropriate for assessing grade-level reading ability\nit is also used for early detection of reading difficulties. This test is important to the ESL program evaluation process for the tests are designed to document growth by assessing students at the cutting edge of their individual achievement level. The instrument helps teachers by focusing on specific problems of each child and by serving as a guide to the classroom reading instruction, based on the individual needs of each child. Early diagnosis of specific reading difficulties, when matched with appropriate instruction, can help to ensure that the students progress in school. The structure of the PreK-3 Literacy Program ensures that these assessment instruments are aligned with the curriculum content standards for these grades and the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) teaching strategies that shape the professional development for teachers at these grade levels. The DRA is written for classroom teachers who must become careful observers of young children as they leam to read and write. The DRA is useful to teachers who work one-on-one with students who are having difficulty in learning to read and write. The DRA is administered to all students. Stanford Achievement Test- 9*** edition (SAT-9'). The SAT-9 is a overall measure of achievement in reading, mathematics, language arts, science, and social science. The SAT-9 is designed to measure student achievement in relation to the performance of a national sample selected to be representative of the nations students in each of the grades tested. The test provides a method for comparing the achievement of students with that of students in the same grade across the country. The SAT-9 is administered to students in grades 5, 7, and 10 during the month of September. The SAT-9 is a timed test. Results are reported as raw scores, mean scaled scores, normal curve equivalent (NCE), percentile, and stanine scores. For this report, complete battery NCE scores from SY1999-2000 are used. The general population does not include LEP, NAEP, FEP, FEPE or special education students. Future evaluations will include data on the SAT-9 math, reading, and language subtest scores. Behavioral and Professional Development Data LEP, NAEP, FEP, and FEPE students will be compared among themselves and the general population on attendance, retention, graduation, and dropout rates. In addition, PHLOTE students receiving G/T and Special Education services will be compared on the above behavioral variables. The number of ESL endorsed teachers and other professional development will be reported. \\\\ 18Results State Mandated ACTAAP Benchmark Examination, Grades 4 \u0026amp; 8 The State Benchmark exam for the 1999-2000 school year was given in April 2000 and the results will not be available to the District until the end of October 2000. The Benchmark exam was given to 4**' grade students in February 1999 for the 1998-1999 school year. Fifth- grade data from SY1998-1999 will be used for this report. Several LEP students (N = 11) did not take the test. The State of Arkansas allows LEP students, with permission from their parents, to be exempted from taking the test. The Arkansas Department of Education is currently field testing an alternate assessment for students who would be considered for exemption. Training on the administration of the alternate assessment will begin in fall 2000. Interpretation. The State of Arkansas expects all students to be proficient or advanced. A scaled score of 200 is considered proficient and a score of 250 is considered to be advanced. All of the LEP students that took the test scored in the Below-Basic category in both mathematics and literacy. The general population had 59% of those tested in the Below-Basic category in Math and 42% in literacy. FEP students performed above District results with 53% of students at Proficient and above in math and 58% in literacy. In math both students were in the Basic category and in literacy, one student was Basic and the other Below-Basic. The general population had 22% at Proficient and above in math and 30% in literacy (see Tables 3 and 4). Table 3 Math: 4'*' Grade Benchmark Exam, SY1998-1999 (See page 4 for a description of LEP, NAEP, FEP, and FEPE) General Population LEP % Below Basic 59% N= 1,038 100% N = 9 % Basic 19^ N = 332 % Proficient 13% N = 228 % Advanced 9% N = 162 NAEP \u0026gt; FEP 23% N = 6 FEPE 23% N = 6 100% N = 2 i \\\\ 19 31% N = 8 23% N = 6Table 4 Literacy: 4'*' Grade Benchmark Exam, SY1998-1999 (See page 4 for a description of LEP, NAEP, FEP, and FEPE) General Population LEP % Below Basic 42% N = 677 100% N = 9 % Basic 28^ N = 460 % Proficient 28% N = 453 % Advanced 2% N = 31 NAEP FEP FEPE 15% N = 4 50% N = 1 27% N = 7 50% N = 1 50% N= 13 8% N = 2 Conclusion. Neither the LEP, NAEP, FEP, FEPE, nor the general population of students attained the state goal of 100% proficient or advanced. LEP students did not perform as well as general population, FEP, or FEPE students. FEPE students did not perform as well as FEP students. However, FEP students performed better than the general population. These results could be attributed to fact that these FEPE students tested had not received the ESL services that are currently in place. ESL services in years prior to the 1999-2000 school year were not as structured as the current program. Plus, the used for this evaluation was collected two years ago, during SYl998-99. While all students in the District would benefit from additional intervention (e.g., learning the State standards), it appears that LEP and FEPE students should be provided additional practice on completing opened-ended questions, a cornerstone of the State Benchmark assessment. Achievement Level Test (ALT), Grades 2-11 The Districts ALT exams were given during March 2000. Grades 2-11 were assessed on Reading and Language Usage. The Elementary and Middle grades were assessed on general mathematics skills and students enrolled in Algebra 1, 2, and Geometry were assessed in these specific subject areas. The national comparison group for Tables 5-11 is comprised of 104 schools districts and 500,000 students that have taken the ALT. Interpretation. Across all subjects, LEP student performance was below the general, FEP, and NAEP population.  Consistently across subjects, FEP and NAEP students performed above the general population.  Specifically, in reading and language usage, FEPE students out-performed the general population in all grade levels 2\"' through 9*, elementary math grades 2'\" through 5*, and middle math grades 6'* and S*. 20 FEPE students performed better than FEP students in grades 2 and 3 in reading and language usage.  In math FEPE students out-performed LEP students in the grades 3 and 6.  Algebra 1 is taken primarily by students in the Q* grade, Geometry in lO'*, and Algebra 2 in 11*. Given these primary grade levels, there are no comparison data between FEPE students and their peers (see RIT Score Tables 5-11).  All groups scored below the national comparison group.  Newcomer data are mixed, but FEPE students generally did better that other PHLOTE students at the elementary level (e.g., grades 2 and 3 in reading).  FEP students receiving G/T services did better that the national comparison group. Table 5 (See page 4 for a description of LEP, NAEP, FEP, and FEPE) ALT Reading Scores: Spring 2000 8 7 5 6 Grade Level National Comparison Group 2 1^ 3 4 9 10 11 1981 205| 21212171 2211225 228 230  j' General Population Number Tested 179 1761 1911 1991 20512091 2131216 221 223 227 1891 1879 1795 1574 1517 1511 1360 1411 1179 LEP Number Tested I 160| 172| 184| 187| 192| 204| 202| 178| 174| 20^ 54 43 33 24 11 29 26 14 6 6 NAEP Number Tested 1 2 2 2 5 4 3 4 FEP Number Tested FEPE Number Tested I 184{ 201| 211| 215| 216| 222| 225| 230| 225| 159] 16 23 23 31 28 20 24 10 12 3 Q89[22O5[2O3]2212[216[22^^ 3 1 4 5 3 1 4 21Table 6 (See page 4 for a description of LEP, NAEP, FEP, and FEPE) ALT Language Usage Scores: Spring 2000 Grade Level 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 National Comparison Group 193 199 207 213 2161 2201 223 225  General Population 186 195 203 208 212 216 218 223 224 228 Number Tested 1735 1890 1870 1758 1561 1503 1477 1357 1357 1156 LEP Number Tested I 173| 183| 192| 191| 198| 208| 207| 211| 210| 214| 54 43 33 24 11 29 26 14 6 6 NAEP Number Tested I,, 207| 200|ft^ 230| 227| 239| 229| 227| 214| 2 2 0 1 0 2 5 4 2 4 FEP Number Tested I 1911 207| 216| 218| 220| 227| 230| 236] 208| 224| 16 23 23 31 28 20 24 10 12 3 FEPE Number Tested I 194] 212| 211| 215| 217| 214] 227|'-7 [ 5 4 3 3 1 1 4 Table 7 (See page 4 for a description of LEP, NAEP, FEP, and FEPE) ALT Elementary Math Scores: Spring 2000 Table 8 (See page 4 for a description of LEP, NAEP, FEP, and FEPE) Grade Level 2 3 4 5 National Comparison Group 192 200 208 215 ALT Middle Math Scores: Spring 2000 Grade Level 6 7 8 National Comparison Group 220 227 235 General Population 182 193 202 208 Number Tested 1785 1911 1899 1804 General Population Number Tested 207 1633 213 213 1566 1235 LEP Number Tested I 167] 186] 195] 191] 54 43 33 24 LEP Number Tested I 199] 204] 208] 11 29 26 NAEP Number Tested [ rig] 207] 209] 0 1 2 0 NAEP Number Tested I 234] 230|~^ 2 2 0 FEP Number Tested 1 197] 208| 216|~2^ 16 23 23 31 FEP Number Tested I 2211 228]'^ 16 13 8 FEPE Number Tested I 193] 2111 2lT[2Zr| 5 4 3 3 FEPE Number Tested I 223] 210|2^ 1 1 3 22Table 9 (See page 4 for a description of LEP, NAEP, FEP, and FEPE) Table 10 (See page 4 for a description of LEP, NAEP, FEP, and FEPE) ALT Algebra 1 Scores\nSpring 2000 ALT Algebra 2 Scores: Spring 2000 Grade Level General Population Number Tested 7 8 9 10 2601 252 241 239 23 281 1010 151 Grade Level General Population Number Tested 8 9 10 11 2591 2561 254 250 1 314 245 553 LEP Number Tested I ^,1P86|T1^ 0 0 9 2 LEP Number Tested 0 2511 3 0 2 NAEP Number Tested iBil 257| 24O|^ 0 4 1 NAEP Number Tested I 2711 253| 266| 126| 1 i 12 1 FEP Number Tested I 267| 238| 244|247| 7 14 3 1 FEP Number Tested I 169| 174| 254| 0 3 3 3 FEPE Number Tested WB 0 I 0 0 1 FEPE Number Tested 0 0 0 0 Table 11 ALT Geometry Scores: Spring 2000 (See page 4 for a description of LEP, NAEP, FEP, and FEPE) Grade Level General Population Number Tested 10 11 264 256 248 246 11 100 1067 278 8 9 LEP Number Tested I 266| 250| 246| 246| 114 3 \\\\ NAEP Number Tested FEP Number Tested FEPE Number Tested 273| 25Tp50l I 2711 273| 250(^ I \"-a ,1 257] 23 0 2 0 1 2 2 4 8 0 0 0 1Conclusion. Since SYl 999-2000 was the first year for the administration of the ALT across grades 2 - 11 it would be difficult to make an assumption, based on the data, indicating ESL program success. However, LEP performance on the Districts ALT is consistent with performance on the State Benchmark assessment (i.e., 4* grade) and, as will be noted later, on the SAT-9 (i.e., 5*, 7*, and 10* grade) in that LEP students are performing below the general population. However, FEPE students (i.e., LEP students who have exited the program) are performing above the general population. Stanford Achievement Test. 9* edition (SAT-9) Students in the 5*, 7*, and 10* grades took the SAT-9 during September 1999. For this evaluation report, students will be compared on complete battery percentile scores. The complete battery scores reported are a compilation of reading, mathematics, language, spelling, study skills, science, social science, using information, and thinking skills subtest results. In addition to LEP, FEP, NAEP, and FEPE students, the general population does not include special education students. Future evaluations will include subtest results on reading, math, and language. Interpretation. LEP students in the 5*, 7*, and 10* grades performed below the general population and FEP and NAEP students. FEPE, FEP, and NAEP students who took the test performed above the general population (see Table 12). A number of LEP students (18-5 graders, 15-7* graders, and 18-10* graders) did not take the SAT-9. School staff determines whether it is appropriate for LEP students to take the SAT-9 and the State of Arkansas allows LEP students, with permission from their parents, to be exempted from taking the test. Table 12 SAT-9 Complete Battery Percentile Scores, SY1999-2000 (See page 4 for a description of LEP, NAEP, FEP, and FEPE) Grade 5* yth 10* General Population 36 N= 1481 42 N= 1363 40 N= 1448 LEP 15 N= 11 21 N = 22 30 N = 2 NAEP N = 0 78 N = 2 40 N = 6 FEP 55 N = 30 71 N = 21 55 N = 16 FEPE 39 N = 2 33 N = 2 N = 0 Conclusion. Several paper and pencil assessments (i.e., ALT, State Benchmark, \u0026amp; SAT- 9) have validated the below-average performance of LEP students vs. other populations (i.e., general, FEP, and NAEP). However, it appears that FEPE students are becoming proficient in English and maintaining their academic achievement. 24Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) The DRA is designed to measure growth over the school year by administering the DRA in the fall and spring. The DRA was administered to kindergarten through 2\"'* grade students during the early fall and late spring SY 1999-2000. During the DRA observation the student reads materials that are typically used within the classroom, and the observer records the directional movements that are made, errors or miscues. The student is assessed on deriving meaning, structure and information from the material. The spring DRA score is used to determine grade-level readiness. Readiness is indicated by a score of 2 at kindergarten, 16 at grade, and 24 at 2\"* grade. On most of the State and District assessments (i.e., SAT-9 and State Benchmark), LEP students are allowed to be exempted, with parental permission, from testing with the DRA. Teachers were asked to assess all students. Unless otherwise noted, the growth data in the DRA tables reflects only those students who were assessed both in the fall and spring. The fall and spring scores reflect all students who were assessed. Interpretation. LEP students in kindergarten out-performed the general population and were performing above the readiness level of 2.  LEP students in the and 2\"'* grade did not perform as well as the general population.  grade LEP students as a group are below the readiness level, and 2\"* grade students are performing at the readiness level.  FEP students are outperforming the general population.  While there are no FEPE students in kindergarten or 1 st grade, FEPE students in the 2\"' grade performed the same as LEP students, but below the general population.  FEPE students in the 2\"** grade, with average reading readiness of 24.87, exceeded grade readiness level equivalency of 24 (see Tables 13-15). Table 13 Kindergarten DRA scores (See page 4 for a description of LEP, NAEP, FEP, and FEPE) General Population LEP NAEP FEP FEPE Fall 1.55 1.22 4.48 25 Spring 4.43 4.47 Growth +2.88  +3.18 9.57 +5.09Table 14 1 Grade DRA scores (See page 4 for a description of LEP, NAEP, FEP, and FEPE) General Population LEP NAEP FEP FEPE Fall 5.1 3.46 1 8.52 Spring 21.2 14.03 6 21.29 Growth +14.0 +11.9 +5 +12.77 Table 15 2\"* Grade DRA scores (See page 4 for a description of LEP, NAEP, FEP, and FEPE) General Population LEP NAEP FEP FEPE Fall 19.9 15.74 34.7 19.5 Spring 30.8 24.87 38.5 34 Growth +10.3 +13.0 +7.8 +14.5 In kindergarten and grade, LEP and FEPE students had higher DRA growth scores than the general population. However, LEP students in 1 grade did not have DRA growth scores as high as the general population. Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA), supported by the Arkansas Department of Education and by LRSD, consists of teacher training in early literacy strategies and the administration of the DRA. District-wide results correlating DRA scores to ELLA training indicates a significant positive relationship between the amount of training that teachers participated in and the amount of growth achieved. Teachers can receive from 2 to 12 days of training. The first two days of training covers the administration of the DRA. Subsequent training days covers early literacy strategies. Conclusion. While and 2\" grade LEP students are performing below the general population, kindergarten LEP students demonstrated exceptional performance and growth. It is possible that the expanded District pre-kindergarten programs and the Animated Literacy program at the kindergarten level may have had an effect on kindergarten scores. Also, FEPE 2' grade students are performing at the grade readiness level. Scores on the DRA are supported by the reading and language usage scores on the Districts ALT. It appears that the early literacy program may be having more effect on the early grades (i.e., kindergarten and grade) than on nd 262\"'. This is probably due to the date and level of early literacy program intervention. Future evaluations will identify and report on the academic progress of PHLOTE students who attended the LRSDs pre-kindergarten program. Dropout, Retention, Attendance, and Graduation Interpretation. No PHLOTE students dropped out during SY1998-1999 or SY1999-200O. Table 16 Retention rates for SY1998-1999 and SY1999-2000 (See page 4 for a description of LEP, NAEP, FEP, and FEPE) Level and SY Elementary SY1998-1999 SY1999-2000 Middle School SY1998-1999 SY1999-2000 High School SY1998-1999 SYl 999-2000 General Population 1.33% N=169 available 12/15/00 .98% N=52 available 12/15/00 .42% N=28 available 12/15/00 LEP 4.29% N=13 1.32% N=4 2.94% N=2 1.31% N=1 2.62% N=2 NAEP 3.39% N=1 3.39% N=1 FEP .65% N=1 5.06% N=4 6% N=6 2% N=2 FEPE  Retention data SY1998-1999: Twenty-five students (16 LEP, 1 NAEP, and 8 FEP) were retained after the 1998-1999 school year. Retention rates of these subpopulations were generally higher than the general school population.  Among the LEP students retained, there were 10 male and 6 female students. Of these students, 14 students spoke Spanish, 1 spoke Chinese and 1 spoke Filipino.  The one NAEP student was female and spoke Spanish.  One Spanish speaking LEPSPD male in the 7* grade was retained.  Among the FEP students retained, there were 6 males and 2 females, with 7 speaking Spanish and 1 speaking Portuguese. \\\\ 27 One Spanish speaking FEP male in the 6* grade, receiving G/T services, was retained.  LEP students had high retention rates in the middle and high school levels (see Table 16).  Retention data SY1999-2000: Thirteen students (10 LEP, 1 NAEP, and 2 FEP) were retained.  Among LEP students, there were 9 males and 1 female student. All of these students spoke Spanish.  The one 11* grade NAEP student is male and speaks Spanish.  The two FEP students are 9* and 11* grade Spanish speaking males.  One 9* grade LEP student at JA Fair High School was retained for both SYl998-1999 and SY 1999-2000. Table 17 Student Attendance Rates for SY1999-2000: Average Number of Days Missed (See page 4 for a description of LEP, NAEP, FEP, and FEPE) School Year SY1999-2000 General Population 4?88 LEP 9.8 NAEP 7.62 FEP 7.16 FEPE 7.52  The average number of days missed by a general population, during ST 1999-2000 was 4.88 days  LEP students miss over twice as many days as the general population.  NAEP, FEP, and FEPE students miss more days than the general population (see Table 17).  FEP and LEP students receiving G/T services missed an average of 3.64 and 7.87 days respectively.  LEP students receiving special education services missed an average of 12.43 days.  NAEP students receiving special education services missed an average of 13.33 days. 28Graduation rate. All of the 12* grade PHLOTE students (N = 27) graduated with a diploma at the end of SY1999-2000.  Nine FEP students.  Twelve LEP students.  Six NAEP students. Conclusion. It is commendable that there were no LEP student dropouts for the last two years. The District has made a concerted effort to decrease the dropout rate. The graduation rate was 100% of 12* grade students. While students receiving G/T services had lower absenteeism rates than the general population, students receiving Special Education services had higher absenteeism rates than the general population. The number of students retained fell by almost 50% from SY1998-1999 to SY1999-2000. Professional Development LRSD professional development activities have focused on teacher ESL endorsement and enhancing English language learning in the classroom. State ESL endorsement requires 12 credit hours consisting of four classes: 1. 2. Teaching second languages. Second language acquisition. 3. Teaching people of other cultures, and 4. Second language assessment. As of this date, 29 teachers have received their ESL endorsement: School Name As of June 2,2000 # of ESL Endorsed Teachers # of Teachers Endorsed during the summer of 2000 8 . Hall High*  McClellan High  Cloverdale Middle*  Forest Heights Middle  Mabelvale Middle  Henderson Middle  Chicot Elementary*  Washington Elementary^  Geyer Springs Elementary  Wakefield Elementary  McDermott Elementary 3 1 2 2 Total * = Newcomer Center 15 14 \\\\ 29 1 1 2 1 1 1 4 2Also, approximately 75 teachers have taken at least three hours of credit toward ESL endorsement. In addition, 181 teachers have received training in enhancing English language learning in the classroom. As an increased number of teachers become endorsed, future evaluations should provide comparison data on PHLOTE students being served by non-endorsed vs. endorsed teachers. \\\\ 30Conclusions Evaluating the curriculum service delivery, staffing and scope of teacher training Concerning the curriculum service delivery, staffing and scope of teacher training it appears that Newcomer and non-Newcomer center schools are contributing equally to student achievement. There is not a critical mass of ESL endorsed teachers in the Newcomer Center schools. This situation is not changing. Only 5 of the 15 teachers endorsed during summer 2000 were from Newcomer Center schools. Future evaluations will need to examine closely the: 1.) diffusion of LEP students throughout the LRSD\n2.) amount of staffing and teacher training as it relates to the above diffusion\nand 3.) the relationship of ESL endorsement to student achievement. Evaluating the extent to which limited English language students are performing in comparison to other students in the District Regarding student achievement, LEP students do not perform as well as their FEP or general population peers on the DRA, SAT-9, State Benchmark Exam, and ALT. While academic achievement is of particular concern, so also the absenteeism rates of LEP and FEPE students. ESL program staff need to continue to consult and work closely with the Districts curriculum specialists to insure that ESL students are receiving the optimal services possible under the LRSDs ESL curriculum delivery plan. In addition to providing quality service to ESL students, the ESL program staff needs to focus on the absenteeism rates through increased parental involvement. The number of PHLOTE students receiving G/T and Special Education services is small, making data comparison difficult. However, PHLOTE students receiving G/T services generally perform above the LRSD and National averages. A concern is that there are few students in the elementary grades receiving G/T services. Across the four top languages of Spanish, Chinese, Arabic, and Korean, LEP students compare favorably with other PHLOTE students on DRA growth scores, but have lower scores on other academic variables. PHLOTE students, regardless of their sub-population category who attend a magnet school, score higher than other PHLOTE students in the LRSD. Typically on a school-by-school comparison. Newcomer Center school PHLOTE students do not compaie as well as PHLOTE students who attend a non-Newcomer Center school. Evaluating the extent to which limited English proficient students who have become proficient in English (i.e., have exited the ESL program due to proficiency in English) compare to other students in the District 1 I 31It appears that these FEPE students in the early elementary years, grades Z\"** and 3^*, are out-performing their LEP and general population peers. It is apparent that FEPE students in 4 grade and above are not performing as well as the 2\"'* and 3^'* grade FEPE students. English proficiency is no guarantee that these students will be able to perform academically and it is only through the analysis of a variety of academic variables that any assumptions can be made. Given the baseline data for this evaluation, it is not possible to draw conclusions as to the reasons for FEPE student achievement. Future evaluations will continue to monitor the progress of all FEPE students. Since the 11/30/99 report to the Arkansas State Department of Education, 25 of the 325 LEP students exited from the program. Since this is a baseline year, it is not possible to determine whether these numbers are low, average, or high. However, a 7.7% exit rate seems low. Most students exit the program during their elementary years (64%). An additional data point is time in the program. Due to the style of record keeping prior to SY 1999-2000, this data was not available. Future evaluations will have this data available for students who entered the program during SY1999-2000. Limitations of this Evaluation Date of entry into the ESL program is not available for most LEP students. Future evaluation reports will use date registered with the LRSD as a program entry date for those students missing data on this variable. This evaluation report reflects baseline data that will be used for future ESL evaluation reports. Given the type of data, it is difficult and inappropriate determine the success or failure of LRSDs ESL program. LRSD has made a concerted effort to staff and train teachers. While LEP students do perform below other students in the District, FEPE students who have been in the ESL program perform above other LRSD students on a number of variables. 32Recommendations  Attendance is an important variable affecting student achievement. The LRSDs Division of Administrative Services needs to investigate and intervene on the low attendance rates of LEP students. Also recommended is that the ESL parent coordinator work on this need.  Professional development is a building block to student achievement. The ESL program needs to continue to offer and promote the professional development opportunities for all teachers in the areas of ESL methodology, alternate assessments, cultural awareness, and second language acquisition. Future ESL program evaluations will consider this a key variable to student success.  Early intervention is a proven model for improving student achievement. The ESL program needs to work closely with LRSDs Department of Early Childhood! Elementary Literacy. In particular, this department needs to insure that all elementary teachers in the LRSD have the opportunity to attend early literacy professional development activities. Future ESL evaluations will consider professional development, in early intervention, a key variable.  Program entry and exit dates are important variables in helping to determine program success. Most LEP students are missing program entry data. Future evaluations will use the LRSD student registration date as a program entry date for those students missing data on this variable.  ESL endorsed teachers have the foundation to improve PHLOTE student achievement. It is imperative that the ESL program support teachers in attaining the ESL Endorsement. Future ESL evaluations will compare students who are taught by endorsed v. non-endorsed teachers.  Students receiving G/T services perform above the LRSD average. However, there are few of these students in the elementary grades. The ESL program needs to work closely with the LRSDs Department of Exceptional Children to promote early identification of PFILOTE students that qualify for G/T services.  Students currently attending Newcomer Center schools do not necessarily perform better than students attending non-Newcomer Center schools. There is insufficient data to analyze the outcomes of this situation accurately. Future ESL evaluations will closely monitor and report data on Newcomer v. non-Newcomer Center schools. 33References Southeastern Louisiana University (2000). Administering the developmental reading assessment. \\\\ 34Appendix A Number of Students by Grade by PHLOTE Category A 35Limit-English Proficient (LEP) Not-Assessed as to their English Proficiency (NAEP) Grade Level PK K 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 Total Number of Students 29 56 47 58 46 38 29 20 37 31 26 20 18 12 467 Grade Level PK K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total Number of Students 0 0 1 1 2 2 0 2 2 5 3 5 15 6 45 Fluent-English Proficient (FEP) Fluent-English Proficient Exited (FEPE) Grade Level PK K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total Number of Students 9 23 22 17 23 23 31 28 20 24 10 17 12 9 268 Grade Level PK K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total Number of Students 0 0 0 5 5 3 J 1 2 4 1 0 1 0 25 36Appendix B Comparison of Newcomer and Non-Newcomer schools on Academic Variables W 37Number of Students by Grade Level at Newcomer and Non-Newcomer Center Schools LEP FEP FEPE PK Kindergarten EJ Grade 2\" Grade 3^'* Grade 4^ Grade 5^ Grade 6**' Grade 7^ Grade 8^ Grade 9'*\" Grade 10'Grade lE*^ Grade 12* Grade Newcomer 13 33 28 37 25 27 18 18 21 21 21 19 16 12 Non ST 23 19 21 21 11 11 2 16 10 5 1 2 Newcomer 1 8 12 9 9 11 14 7 9 11 3 3 4 6 Non T 15 10 8 14 12 17 21 11 13 7 14 8 3 Newcomer Non NAEP Newcomer 1 DRA Scores LEP - Kindergarten FEP- Kindergarten FEPE - Kindergarten NAEP- Kindergarten LEP - Grade FEP -1 Grade FEPE - Grade NAEP - Grade LEP - 2\"^ GradT\" FEP-2\"Gradr~ FEPE - 2^* Grade NAEP- 2\"** Grade Non Newcomer fKiI 1.1 4.3 2.8 1 -Sial 16.76 34.7 38 Spring 4.1 11.4 Growth +r +7.1 9.4 19.1 6 23.21 41.37 44 +6.6 +12.1 +5 +6.45 +6.67 +6 38 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 2 1 2 1 J 1 1 2 2 2 5 3 5 14 6 Non-Newcomer Fali 1.3 4.6 Spring 8.6 Growth +3.7 +4  -iTA 4 10.2 14.6 34.2 13.3 18.1 23.7 27.8 43.5 30.6 +14.1 +13.5 +13.2 +9.3 +17.3SAT-9 Complete Battery\nNational Curve Equivalent Scores LEP - 5* Grade FEP - 5* Grade FEPE - 5* Grade NAEP - 5* Grade LEP - Grade FEP - 7^^ Grade FEPE - 7*^ Gr\"^ NAEP - 7'\" Grade LEP - 10'*^ Grade FEP - 10^** GradT\" FEPE - 10^^ Grade NAEP - 10* Grade Newcomer 167 42.3 39 T 26.4 74.5 21 K ^4 *  30 33.5 Non-New comer 1^3 61 27.9 75.1 39 77.5 Vs'- I^SSR,' 51 :i^ ALT RIT Scores: Elementary Math LEP-2'^2 Grade FEP - 2\"** Grade FEPE-2\"^Gr'^ NAEP- 2\"' Grade LEP - 3^ Gradr~ FEP - 3 Grade FEPE - 3'^Grade NAEP - 3^'' Grade LEP - 4^'^ Grade FEP-4^ Grade FEPE - 4* Grade NAEP - 4th Grade LEP - 5* GradT\" FEP - 5^** GradT\" FEPE - 5^ Gr^ NAEP - 5* Grade Newcomer Is? 197 222 Non-Newcomer 184 198 186 A 185 206 217 197 213 202 209 185 217 223 187 209 204 207 193 220 216 204 224 218 \u0026amp; 39ALT RIT Scores: Reading Elementary Level LEP - 2\"*' Grade FEP - 2\"^* Grade FEPE-2\" Grade NAEP- 2\" Grade LEP - 3^^ Grade FEP - 3\"* Grade FEPE - S^^Grade NAEP - 3\"* Grade LEP - 4*^ Grade FEP - d*** Grade FEPE - 4* Grade NAEP - 4th Grade LEP - 5'*^ Grade FEP - 5* Grade FEPE - 5* Grade NAEP - 5*^ Grade Newcomer 184 211 215  \"1 164 194 212 184 209 199 191 184 211 215 41 Non-Newcomer 193 218 '1Q1 ('\"h 180 204 199 201 183 215 205 193 218 207 ALT RIT Scores: Language Elementary Level LEP - 2\"^ Grade FEP - 2\"^* GradT\" FEPE-2\"*G'r^ NAEP- 2\"** Grade LEP - 3^ Grade FEP - 3^^* GradT\" FEPE - d'^Grade NAEP - 3^ Grade LEP - 4*^ Grade FEP -4*^ Grade FEPE-d^^ Grade NAEP - 4th Grade LEP - 5^*^ GradT\" FEP - 5* Grade FEPE - 5^^ Gr^ NAEP - 5^^ Grade Newcomer 166 174 Non-Newcomer [84 206 190 178 203 220 * 188 209 205 207 193 214 201 200 189 214 219 i*.\ni/ 189 220 216 ' jVi. Ki Si .\\k, 197 222 208 StsS! ?7\"4?5:A 40ALT RIT Scores: Middle Level Math LEP - 6* Grade FEP - 6* Grade FEPE - 6* Grade NAEP- 6^*' Grade Newcomer 195 228 223 Non-Newcomer 216 218 234 LEP-7^ Grade FEP - 7*^ Grade FEPE -7^1^ Grade NAEP - 7'*' Grade 214 247 195 239 210 230 LEP - 8^* Grade FEP - 8* Grade FEPE - 8* Grade NAEP - 8* Grade 211 229 211 MB? 209 240 209 260 ALT RIT Scores: Middle Level Reading LEP - 6'** Grade FEP - 6^*^ Gradr~ FEPE - 6'* Grade NAEP- 6* Grade' Newcomer 187 218 216 i Non-Newcomer 216 215 LEP - 7^Grade FEP-7*^ Grade FEPE - 7^'^ Gr^ NAEP - T'^ Grade 203 222 205 224 205 227 LEP - 8* Grade FEP -8^ Grade ' FEPE - 8' Grade NAEP - 8* Grade 199 226 210 S 208 225 208 236 \\\\ 41ALT RIT Scores: Middle Level Language LEP - 6* Grade FEP - 6* Grade FEPE - 6* Grade NAEP- O'** Grade Newcomer 195 220 2\\1 Non-Newcomer 212 219 230 LEP - 7^ Grade FEP - 7^*^ Grade FEPE - 7^ Grade NAEP - 7'* Grade 205 225 'k 210 230 214 227 LEP - 8* Grade FEP - 8* Grade FEPE - 8* Grade NAEP - 8* Grade 203 231 210 vr 216 229 215 239 ALT RIT Scores: High School Level Reading LEP - 9* Grad?\" FEP - 9^** GradT\" FEPE-9^Gi^ NAEP-9^ Grade LEP -10* Grade FEP - 10* Grade FEPE - 10* Gr^ NAEP-10* Grade LEP - 11^ Grade FEP - 1L** Grade\" FEPE - 11^ Grade NAEP-ll'^ Grade Newcomer 163 222 174 226 208 208 213 -w w Non-Neyvcomer 205 234 223 224..... 228 206 208 228 42ALT RIT Scores\nHigh School Level Language LEP - 9'* Grade FEP - 9* Grade FEPE - 9* Grade NAEP-9' Grade Newcomer 214 215 1 Non-Neyvcomer 208 241 229 LEP - 10* Grade FEP-10* Grade FEPE - 10* Grade NAEP -10* Grade LEP -11* Grade FEP - 11* Grade FEPE -11* Grade NAEP-11* Grade \\\\. 210 227 216 223 233 .'fe 202 in 201 215 - * * 214 43Appendix C Results of PHLOTE Students Receiving G/T and Special Education Services 44Gifted and Talented Students by Grade Level FEP 3^'* Grade 4* Grade 5* Grade ' 6* Grade ~ 7* Grade 8* Grade ~ 9* Grade 10* Grade 11* Grade 12* Grade Math RIT Score 3\"^** Grade 6*' Grade 7^ Grade 8'*' Grade 9* Grade 10* Grade FEP LEP 186 LEP 3 6 7 10 1 T\" 1 2 1 1 232 256 231 256 Reading RIT Score 3^' Grade 6* Grade 7* Grade 8* Grade 9* Grade 10* Grade 237 252 FEP w 228 228 LEP 123 233 Language Usage RIT Score 3^^ Grade 6* Grade 7* Grade 8* Grade 9*Grade 10* Grade \\\\ 210 218 FEP 222 230 233 235 LEP 180 217 226 45SAT-9 NCE Scores: Complete Battery 7'* Grade FEP 82.7 Special Education Students by Grade Level LEP 2\"** Grade 3^* Grade 4* Grade 5^** Grade ~ 6'*' Grade 7* Grade  8* Grade 9^** Grade~ 1 O'** Grade 11^ Grade n'** Grade 1 2 3 1 LEP 6' Grade S'** Grade 9*^ Grade NAEP 4* Grade Math RIT Score 195 181 182 201 Reading RIT Score 166 172 150 172 NAEP 1 1 1 Language Usage RIT Score 173 183 162 189 46Appendix D Academic Results of PHLOTE Students by the Top Four Languages 47Top Four Languages by Grade Level LEP NAEP FEP FEPE PK Spanish Chinese Arabic Korean 22 1 01 0 00 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kindergarten Spanish Chinese Arabic Korean 35 542 0 0 00 72 2 0 1 Grade Spanish Chinese Arabic Korean 36 121 10 0 0 11 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 2\" Grade Spanish Chinese Arabic Korean 38 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 6101 410 0 3\"* Grade Spanish Chinese Arabic Korean 36 1 02 2 00 0 9214 2 00 0 4'* Grade Spanish Chinese Arabic Korean 29 2 2 0 010 0 6511 3 0 0 0 5* Grade Spanish Chinese Arabic Korean 20 0 01 0 00 0 12 211 110 0 6* Grade Spanish Chinese Arabic Korean I \\ 14 2 0 2 0 0 01 10 511 48 010 0 LEP ..NAEP FEP FEPE 7* Grade 8* Grade P* Grade 10'*'Grade IP Grade 12 Grade L Spanish Chinese Arabic Korean Spanish Chinese Arabic Korean Spanish Chinese Arabic Korean Spanish Chinese Arabic Korean Spanish Chinese Arabic Korean Spanish Chinese Arabic Korean  'I 29 3 21 24 0 0 0 15 2 21 15 01 0 13 01 0 61 10 i 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 010 0 2 0 0 0 5 0 0 4 4 0 01 651 1 7 10 0 4 10 0 7 10 0 6 0 0 0 210 0 49 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spanish language DRA Scores K Fall .2 n=31 2.6 n=20 13.6 n=25 LEP Spring 1.7 11.6 25.4 Growth 1.5 9 11.8 Fall 1 n=l State Benchmark Exam Math 5'* Grade Language 5'* Grade NAEP Spring 6 Growth 5 Fall 1.3 n=7 5.5 n=ll 38 n=4 FEP Spring 3.7 16.1 42.5 Growth 2.4 10.6 4.5 Fall 12 n=2 FEPE Spring 28 Growth 17 LEP 67 n=7 LEP 140 n=7 NAEP FEP 148 n=10 FEPE 165 n=l NAEP FEP 191 n=10 FEPE 158 n=l SAT-9: Complete Battery NCE Scores 5'* Grade 7'* Grade' 10* Grade LEP 12 n=9 25.5 n=14 16 n=l NAEP 21 n=2 FEP 40 n=l 1 58.2 n=5 n=l FEPE 25 n=l A 50 ALT RIT Scores Reading 2\" Grade 3^'* Grade 4* Grade 5* Grade 6* Grade 2^\" Grade 8'*' Grade 9'*' Grade IO'** Grade 11'** Grade Language 2\"** Grade 3^' Grade 4* Grade 5'* Grade O'*' Grade 7'\" Grade 8* Grade 9* Grade 1 O'*\" Grade 11'*'Grade LEP 149 n=34 171 n=33 n=25 W n=17 192 n=7 202 n=21 202 n=20 174 n=8 208 n=4 208 n=6 NAEP 201 n=l 224 n=l 232 n=3 FEP 157 n=5 191 n=9 205 n=6 ioT n=12 211 n=10 214 n=6 w n=2 221 n=4 W n=6 W n=l FEPE 181 n=3 203 n=3 203 n=l 203 n=l 220 n=2 213 n=l LEP 165 n=34 182 n=33 187 n=25 192 n=17 196 n=7 202 n=21 202 n=20 205 n=8 215 n=4 214 n=6 NAEP 207 n=l 214 n=l 213 n=3 FEP 161 n=5 199 n=9 nr n=6 213 n=12 yiT n=10 220 n=6 nr 'in n=4 W n=6 nr n=2 FEPE 186 n=3 212' n=3 \"TTT n=l 202 n=l  \u0026gt;M- - 225 n=2 233 n=l 51 Math 2\" Grade 3^*^ Grade 4'*' Grade 5* Grade 6* Grade 7' Grade 8* Grade 9* Grade' 10*' Grade 11^ Grade LEP 162 n=34 183 n=33 191 n=25 199 n=17 198 n=l 199 n=21 210 n=20 itT n=8 \"W n=4 207 NAEP 207 n=l 253 n=l 250 n=3 FEP 191 n=5 \"W\" n=9 213 n=6 ITT' n=12 211 n=10 226 n=6 W n=7 185 n=4 206 n=6 n=2 FEPE 185 n=3 211 n=3 ITT n=l 217 n=l 231 n=2 233 n=l 52 Chinese Language DRA Scores K 1^ Fall 5.7 n=4 0 n=l 19 n=3 LEP Spring 16.5 1 33 Growth 10.8 1 14 Fall State Benchmark Exam Math 5'* Grade Language 5^ Grade i NAEP Spring LEP LEP Growth NAEP NAEP i-f SAT-9: Complete Battery NCE Scores LEP NAEP 5* Grade 7'* Grade IO' Grade w 27 n=3 FEP 70 n=2 9l4 n=5 TT n=l FEP 195 n=l Fall 2.5 n=2 n=3 20 n=l FEP 208 n=l 53 FEP Spring 9 42.7 FEPE FEPE FEPE 53 n=l 44 Growth 6.5 14.7 24 Fall 38 n=l FEPE Spring 44 Growth 6 ALT RIT Scores Reading 2\"* Grade 3'** Grade 4* Grade LEP 188 n=6 1^ n=l 193 n=2 NAEP 210 n=l 5* Grade 6^ Grade 7'*' Grade 202 n=2 2TO n=3 8'' Grade 9* Grade 231 n=2 10* Grade 225 n=l FEP 214 n=l 216 n=2 1^ n=5 \"W n=2 22^ n=5 '133' n=5 240 n=l 240 n=l 142 n=l FEPE 207 n=l - 226 n=l 216 n=l 228 n=l 11* Grade Language 2\" Grade 3^ Grade 4'^ Grade LEP 195 n=6 n=l 199 n=2 NAEP 211 n=l 5^ Grade 6* Grade 7'*' Grade 2\u0026lt;il n=2 W n=3 8'*' Grade 9*^ Grade 111 n=2 236 n=l 10* Grade 11'*'Grade FEP 223 n=l 214 n=2 n=5 n=2 a=5 239 n=5 249 n=l 251 n=l 14T n=l FEPE 209 n=l 231 n=l lAl n=l 236 n=l 54 Math 2\"** Grade Grade 4'* Grade LEP 193 n=6 179 n=l 218 n=2 NAEP \u0026gt;.w' s'** Grade 6^' Grade 7^ Grade 207 n=2 213 n=3 8* Grade 9*' Grade 252 n=2 10'^ Grade 11^ Grade 217 n=l 273 n=l FEP 203 n=l 220 n=2 n=5 234 n=2 23? n=5 n=5 \"W n=l W n=l FEPE 222 n=l * 229 n=l 223 n=l 254 n=l\n 264 n=l 55K Arabic Language DRA Scores Fall 4 n=l 20 n=l LEP Spring 10 38 Growth 6 18 ' * Fall State Benchmark Exam Math 5^ Grade Language 5'*' Grade NAEP Spring * LEP LEP Growth NAEP NAEP SAT-9: Complete Battery NCE Scores LEP NAEP 5* Grade 7'*' Grade 15.5 n=2 10'*' Grade FEP 19 n=l 83 n=l n=l \\\\ FEP 315 n=l FEP 255 n=l Fall 4 n=2 TT n=2 FEP Spring FEPE FEPE FEPE 56 16 Growth 5 9.5 Fall FEPE Spring Growth 5*-ALT RIT Scores Reading 2\" Grade 3^* Grade 4\" Grade 5* Grade 6'*' Grade 7' Grade 8' Grade 9' Grade 10' Grade 11*^ Grade Language 2\" Grade Grade 4'* Grade 5* Grade 6' Grade 7' Grade 8* Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11' Grade LEP 189 n=2 197 n=l 204 n=2 212 n=l Sag LEP 191 n=2 203 n=2 NAEP 205 n=2 216 n=l 213 n=l \\\\ NAEP ji FEP 193 n=l 217 n=l 227 n=l 204 n=l 227 n=l FEP 208 n=l 216 n=l 225 n=l 209 n=l 232 n=l FEPE a FEPE t- 51 Math LEP NAEP FEP FEPE 2\" Grade 182 n=l 3^* Grade 4'*' Grade 197 n=l 5'* Grade :Sa 6* Grade 7' Grade 212 n=2 204 n=l 217 n=l n=l 216 n=l n=l *?T 8'*' Grade 9'*' Grade 10'*' Grade 11'* Grade 237 n=l 252 n=l W 58 Korean Language DRA Scores K P\" 2^ Fall 1.5 n=2 n=l LEP Spring 2.5 34 Growth i Fall Y'' 28 State Benchmark Exam Math 5' Grade LEP Language 5'' Grade LEP NAEP Spring Growth NAEP NAEP SAT-9: Complete Battery NCE Scores LEP NAEP Fall 28 n=l 5*^ Grade 7' Grade IO'** Grade \\\\ 52 n=l FEP 34 n=l 87 n=l FEP Spring 44 Growth 16 Fall FEPE Spring Growth FEP 195 n=l FEP 218 n=l FEPE FEPE 4 FEPE IB ALT RIT Scores 59 Reading LEP NAEP 2\"' Grade 3\"* Grade 166 n=2 4* Grade 5* Grade 6* Grade 7* Grade 163 n=l 185 n=2 214 n=l 21n=l FEP 193 n=l \"204 n=4 221 n=l \"W n=l 204 n=l 229 n=l FEPE 8* Grade 9* Grade 10* Grade 11* Grade Language LEP 2\" Grade 3^ Grade 181 n=2 4* Grade 5* Grade 6* Grade 7* Grade 8* Grade 9^^ Grade 10* Grade 11* Grade 228 n=l NAEP 173 n=l 195 n=2 211 n=l .. '.i.E .-,- ITl n=l ' - t\n-. 230 n=l -PS it-: FEP 206 n=l 210 n=4 \"229 n=l W n=l 222 n=l IdO n=l FEPE 60Math LEP NAEP 2\"** Grade 3'I Grade 202 n=2 4 Grade S'** Grade 6 Grade 7'* Grade 8* Grade Grade 10'*'Grade 11Grade 194 n=l 192 n=2 n=l 234 n= 1 247 n=l 1 FEP 214 n=l 207 n=4 218 n=l 213 n=l 211 n=l n=l FEPE '-f'' 61Appendix E LRSD Regulations on the Academic Assessment of PHLOTE St\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_367","title":"Compliance hearing exhibits, ''Student Academic Improvement Plans (SAIPs) Using Data to Improve Individual Student Performance''","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":["1999/2001"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance hearing exhibits, ''Student Academic Improvement Plans (SAIPs) Using Data to Improve Individual Student Performance''"],"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/367"],"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":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"dcterms_extent":["87 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nSTUDENT ACADEMIC IMPROVEMENT PLANS (SAIPs) -USING DATA TO IMPROVE INDIVIDUAL STUDENT PERFORMANCE0-1 ozo5o mm z o in Student Academic Improvement Plans (SAIPs)Using Data to Improve Individual Student Performance 1. 1. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 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 Memorandum to Board of Education, Aug. 24, 2000, requesting approval of the attached administrative regulations (IHBDA-R2) and review of other information E-mail to Dennis Glasgow, Patricia Price, and Suzi Davis, Sept. 15, 2000, requesting that they develop sample SAIPs for the teachers to use ''7 Memorandum in Sept. 20, 2000, Learning Links to all principals from Bonnie Lesley stating a philosophy relating to the SAIPs Memorandum in Sept. 20, 2000, Learning Links to elementary principals from Patricia Price clarifying the use of data in SAIPs and attaching sample SAIPs Memorandum in Sept. 27, 2000, Learning Links to all middle school principals from Suzi Davis providing information on SAIPs and attaching sample SAIPs Memorandum in Sept. 27, 2000, Learning Links to all middle school principals from Suzi Davis on how to use the SAIP form for parent conferencing 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 E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, Sept. 21, 2000, from Lillie Carter expressing appreciation for the copy of the SAIP philosophy and the sample SAIPs 10. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, Sept. 27, 2000, from Eleanor Cox expressing appreciation for the SAIP philosophy and for the sample SAIPs 11. E-mail to middle school principals, Sept. 29, 2000, from Suzi Davis providing more assistance with SAIPs 12. 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 SAIPs1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 (501)324-2131 November 15,1999 TO: Gary Smith (or designee) Mable Donaldson Patricia Price Leon Adams Karen Broadnax Eddie McCoy Vanessa Cleaver Linda Austin Sadie Mitchell (or designee) Everett Hawks Marion Baldwin Suzi Davis I FROM: SUBJECT: Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Personalized Education Plan The states ACTAAP plan states the following: An academic improvement plan means a plan that details supplemental and/or intervention and remedial instruction in deficient academic areas. One shall be developed for each student no performing at the proficient level in every portion of the criterion - referenced examinations. Our 1999-200 Work Plan includes the following priority: 9. Develop Personalized Education Plan design for K-12 students for fall 2000 implementation. Dr. Carnine has stated more than once that'he envisions a personalized Education Plan for every student - not just those who are not performing at the proficient level. I think we can learn a lot about how to think about such plans from our colleagues in special education, so Dr. Smith may wish to add one or more to the committee. We should also add Clementine Kelly and other teacher representatives, and you need to be sure to include an ODM representative, plus some parents since the students plan development must certainly include parents. Personalized Education Plan Memo November 15, 1999 Page Two I request that Gary Smith call the first meeting, and then you all decide who should chair the greater committee. Your charge includes the following: 1. Determine the full committees membership. 2. Conduct research to determine what the critical attributes will be of the LRSD Personalized Education Plan. What are other Districts doing? 3. 4. 5. 6, 7. 8. 9. Will ADE publish a model? Review Mable Donaldsons directory of Personalized Education programs to consider available options/interventions. Consider how planning of electives at the middle school level fits into the plan. Consider how planning for graduation fits into the plan. What should the Boards policy say? The regulations? Design the process/procedures/forms. Design the training/professional development. Propose the necessary budget for implementation. 10. Lay out the plan to secure the support of teachers, students, and parents. 11 .Write a handbook for teachers and a brochure for parents. All this work must be completed by the end of June, but there's lots to do - especially communication to and from teachers - so we should get started now. I request that you provide me with frequent updates on how you are doing. Also, please let me know how you want me to help. Thanks to all of you in advance for the work youll do on this challenging project. We want to create processes that ensure the effectiveness of the PEP's not just create another paperwork exercise. BAL/rcm Cc: Les Carnine Kathy Lease Junious Babbs Suellen Vann Brady Gadberry Victor Anderson Linda Watson I2 TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 (501) 324-2131 August 24, 2000 Board of Education ^r. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction THROUGH: Dr. Les Gamine, Superintendent, Little Rock School District SUBJECT: Student Academic Improvement Plan Act 999 of 1999 requires that schools develop student Academic Improvement Plans for all students not performing at grade level (K-4), those not proficient\" on any part of Benchmark examinations at primary (grade 4), intermediate (grade 6), and middle (grade 8) levels, and those not scoring at the \"proficient\" level on End-of-Course examinations in literacy, Algebra I, and Geometry. One of the priorities in the 1999-2000 work plan for the Division of Instruction was the development of a plan and process to comply with the mandate. Dr. Gary Smith chaired the committee (see names attached), and they involved a broader group of staff and parents in their design work. The administrative regulations (IHBDA-R2)to implement this plan are attached for the Board's review. Attachments BAL/rcm STUDENT ACADEMIC IMPROVEMENT PLAN (SAIP)- DRAFT COMMITTEE - Gary Smith, Janice Wyatt-Ross, Susan Colford, Eddie McCoy, Kathy Tatum, Everett Hawks, Mable Donaldson, Pat Price, Karen Broadnax, Leon Adams, Marion Baldwin, Jim Fullerton, Jim Fullerton, Ada Keown, Gail Bradford, Vanessa Cleaver, Linda Austin, Suzi Davis, Dennis Glascow, Gloria Billingsly, Joevelyn Elston, Cassandra Norman, Mona Briggs REGULATION - Act 999 of 1999 requiring Student Academic Improvement Plan for students not performing on grade level (K-4), not proficient on any part of Benchmark (primary, intermediate, middle), students not scoring proficient on End-of-Course exams in Literacy, Geometry, Algebra OUR CHARGE - To develop a plan and procedure to meet the requirements of Act 999. Specifically\nCONSIDERATIONS___________________ 1. Determine critical attributes of a P.E.P. COMMENTS________________________ Must be skill specific. Use a pre-assessment/post-assessment process. Must be user friendly and not overburdening to teachers. Must identify deficits and develop goals with suggested strategies. 2. How do electives at middle school and graduation planning fit? Should augment strategies recommended in SAIP. 3. What should the regulations say? 4. Design a process, procedure, and forms 5. Design training and professional development 6. Determine budget See attached draft. See attached draft. See attached plan. See attached budget considerations.I TRAINING AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TRAINING NEED FOR TEACHERS Process and procedures of SAIP Interpretation of assessment Development of strategies RESOURCES AVAILABLE SAIP committee to train trainers to train school site teachers. _________________ Planning Research, and Evaluation staff to train trainers to train school site teachers. Curriculum specialists, Special Education teachers, GT specialists. Embed in all curriculum trainings. Include The Pre-Referral Intervention Manual (and other text resources) in schools professional libraries. Secure The Pre-Referral Intervention Manual computer version for access by teachers. Computer access to The Pre-Referral Intervention Manual and interactive WEB site for the posting and reading of strategies. Develop interactive WEB site for the posting and reading of strategies.________ Computer services to train trainers to train school site teachers in the use of software. BUDGET - APPROXIMATE ITEM SAIP forms in triplicate_ The Pre-Referral Intervention Manual The Pre-Referral Intervention Manual - computer version COST PER ITEM .10 $36.00 $190.00 QUANTITY 20,000 One per school (52 schools) One per school (52 schools) TOTAL COST $2,000.00 $1,872.00 $9,880.00 Additional costs to be identified: Development of interactive WEB site Materials for staff development Refreshments for staff development Stipends for teachers to attend ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS Parents can be informed of the process for SAIP via District wide publications, WEB site, television station, PTA meetings, etc. Parent/Teachers conferences would need to be scheduled to assure time for teachers to have assessment results available to use in SAIP. Develop processes to produce individual student printouts of assessment results on a SAIP template and/or available on disk, allowing teachers to utilize computers to create computer documents of the SAIP. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPNCODE: IHBDA-R2 STUDENT ACADEMIC IMPROVEMENT PLAN (SAIP) In compliance with Act 999 of 1999, elementary classroom teachers and both middle and high school teachers of English language arts and mathematics will develop a Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP) for each student who  is not performing on grade level (K-4)\n is not proficient on any part of the states Benchmark examinationsprimary (grade 4), intermediate (grade 6), middle (grade 8)\nand  is not scoring proficient on End-of-Course examinations in literacy, geometry, and/or algebra. Grade-level performance in grades K-2 shall be defined as performing at or above the readiness level on the Developmental Reading Assessment. Grade-level performance in grades 3-4 shall be defined as performing at or above the national median on the Achievement Level Tests (ALTs) in reading, language, and mathematics. Schools and individual teachers are encouraged to develop plans for additional students who, in their judgment, require remediation or intervention. The Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP) will document a students achievement through District-adopted assessment tools, consideration of personalized education services (special education, English-as-a-Second Language, Title I, gifted programs, etc.) identification of areas of need, specific skills to improve, strategies that will be implemented (see IHBDA-R), and progress. The Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP) and the students progress toward grade-level or proficient performance must be shared with parents/guardians at the parent-teacher conferences that are regularly scheduled. If parents do not attend the scheduled parent-teacher conferences, alternate conference times may be scheduled or the form may be mailed. The principal must review and sign all SAIPs. The SAIP will be used to document parent-teacher conferences. Student Academic Improvement Plans are to be filed in the students permanent record folders at the end of each school year or when the student withdraws from the school. Current services -__IDEA 504 ESL T TITLEI OTHER-Little Rock School District - Academic Improvement Plan for Student - School year - Student: ID#: Grade: Teacher: School: Principal: Date developed: ASSESSMENT/ RESULTS __ Developmental Reading Assessment _ ALT Benchmark Exam End-of-Course-______________ AREA OF NEEDS SKILLS TO IMPROVE DATES REVIEWED Date Reviewed by: Results - (AREA) AT END OF YEAR - FILE IN PERMANENT RECORD FOLDER STRATEGIES TO BE USED PROGRESS SIGNATURES - TEACHER PARENT STUDENT (IF APPLICABLE) PRINCIPAL WHITFCnPY -TFACHFRS WORKING COPY VFI I nW COPY - PARENT r9\u0026gt; mNFFRFNrFt PINK COPY -PAR PNT ir r-riNPPR cNrcr 1 3 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Friday, September 15, 2000 12:17 PM GLASGOW, DENNIS\nPRICE, PATRICIA\nDAVIS, SUZI SAIP I promised the principals that we would do some sample SAIPs for them. We need to get them to them right away. Please work with your staff to generate a sample for K-2. another for 3-5, then 6-8, and 9-12 in both language arts and mathematics, please. You may need to get access to the book/CD that Gary Smith disseminated so that you will be working with the same resources we asked the schools to use. Each kid does not need a unique SAIP. Teachers can identify kids with similar needs and then duplicate the form for all that set of kids. SAIPs are mandated for kids in grades k-4 who are not performing at grade level, in grade 5 (after grade 4 benchmark), grade 7 (after grade 6 benchmark), grade 9 (after grade 8 benchmark), and high school after the end-of-course tests (whichever grade level is appropriate for individual kids). SAIPs should continue for students who do not reach proficient performance in one year. Please get these samples to me asap. We need toget them out to the schools! Those parent-teacher conferences are already occurring. 1 4 TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 September 15, 2000 All Principals Jt)r. Bonnie Lesley. Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: SAIPsSome Philosophy I Ive been thinking about our discussion about the SAIPs at the Cluster Meeting last week, and I worry that we talked too much about compliance with the law and not enough about the potential benefits to our kids. One of the things, of course, that outrages really fine educators is for legislators and other lay people to micromanage our processes. For SAIPs to be mandated is very similar to the mandate I received last week from my insurance company to take another medication rather than the one prescribed by my doctor. Both actions ARE outrageous! We also resent unfunded and time intensive demands'on usas this new requirement certainly is. So our reactions to this new law should have been totally anticipated. Now the other side: Parents, legislators, and business people also become outraged when we educators fail, in their view, to take the leadership to initiate processes that seem to them to be commonsensical, to be reasonable if we truly want to improve learning. And, indeed, SAIPs are totally reasonable and even reflective of good practice. Think for a moment about the four principles of quality management that we have embraced: customer service, data-driven decisions, continuous learning, and continuous improvement. A good faculty meeting activity might be to reflect together on the ways that SAIPs fit into those four principles. So I invite you to put aside your outrage relating to this new mandate and to think about the ways that you can exploit the mandate and use it as an opportunity to do something good. The SAIP process has the potential to: prevent student failure improve academic performance of individual students improve students self-concept and their perceptions of school and education reduce the dropout rate educate and involve parents provide a focus for professional development I SAIPsSome Philosophy - Memo September 15, 2000 Page Two  improve instructional practices  start a dialogue among teachers on effective interventions  provide a focus for budget prioritization  inform the design of the Title I and School Improvement Plan  create a commitment to develop a SAIP for all students  etc., etc., etc. Now none of these good things will happen if we see the SAIP only as an exercise in paperwork, if we see it as an event that we have to get through and then file the documentation, if we only comply with the letter of the law. I hope you will all use the SAIPs in ways that serve children well, as additional sets of data to guide decision-making in the school, and as opportunities for reflective dialogue with parents and students about improved academic performance. Use them, in other words, as a quality management tool. Please let us know if we can assist you. BAL/adg 5 LL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EARLY CHILDHOOD/ELEMENTARY LITERACY DEPARTMENT 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 Sqjtember 18, 2000 To: Elementary Principals From: Pat Price, Director of Early Childhood/Elementary Literacy Subject: Information regarding SAIP (Student Academic Improvement Plan) for Reading K-5 Please be sure to use the following data when filling out the Assessment Results on the SAIP: Developmental Reading Assessment  A Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP) should be filled out only for Kindergarten children who are retained. If a student is retained in Kindergarten their score on the Spring DRA should be below a 2.  A Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP) should be filled out for any First Grade student who scored below a 2 on the Spring Kindergarten DRA.  A Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP) should be filled out for any Second Grade student who scored below a 16 on the Spring First Grade DRA.  A Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP) should be filled out for any Third Grade student who scored below a 24 on the Spring Second Grade DRA. Achievement Level Test  A Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP) should be filled out for any Fourth Grade student who scored below a 198 RTT score in Reading on the 3\"* Grade Spring ALT.  A Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP) should be filled out for any Fifth Grade student who scored below a 205 RTF score in Reading on the 4*** Grade Spring ALT. In addition, any student who scored Basic or Below Basic on the 4* Grade Benchmark Exam in Reading, must have a Student Academic Improvement Plan. Current services -IDEA 504 ESL G/T TITLEI X Little Rock School District - Academic Improvement Plan for Student - School year - 2000-2001 Student: Tiffany Smith ID#: 100100 School: Main Street Elementary Principal: Mr. Morgan Grade: Kindergarten ASSESSMENT/ RESULTS X Developmentil Reading Assessment _ ALT __ Benchmark Exam End-of-Course________________ AREA OF NEEDS Letter/sound association (AREA) Results\nKindergarten Spring results DRA Level A Recognition of upper and lower case letters Recognizing rhyming words Constructing and writing words Concepts about print STRATEGIES TO BE USED The teacher will model and instruct the student in how to: Hear and record sounds in words through interactive writing Develop concepts about print, letter and Word recognition, and rhyming patterns through shared reading Develop the use of meaning structure and visual cues through shared reading The parent will: Listen to the child read Read to the child Discuss reading and writing assignments with child SIGNATURES - TEACHER PARENT f WHITE COPY - TEACHER'S WORKING COPY Teacher: Ms. Jones Date developed\n10/4/00 SKILLS TO IMPROVE Phonemic awareness Letter recognition Using letter sound knowledge in writing Directionality One - to - one matching Date 10/4/00 10/4/00 DATES REVIEWED Reviewed by\nMs, Jones - Teacher Mrs. Smith - Parent AT END OF YEAR - FILE IN PERMANENT RECORD FOLDER PROGRESS STUDENT (IF APPLICABLE) YELLOW COPY - PARENT (2\" CONFERENqE) T PRINCIPAL PINK COPY - PARENT (l\" CONFERENCE) Current services - IDEA 50 ESL G/T TITLEI X Little Rock School District - Academic Improvement Plan for Student - School year - 2000-2001 Student: Tiffany Smith ID#\n100100 Grade: 1st School: Main Street Elementary Principal: Mr. Morgan ASSESSMENT/ RESULTS X Developmental Reading Assessment . ALT __ Benchmark Exam End-of-Course________________ Results: (AREA) Kindergarten Spring results DRA Level A First Grade Fall results DRA Level 1 AREA OF NEEDS Letter/sound association Letter recognition Use of meaning, structure \u0026amp; visual cues in reading. Constructing \u0026amp; writing sentences Teacher\nMs. Jones Date developed: 10/4/00 SKILLS TO IMPROVE Independent writing Independent reading Writing vocabulary DATES REVIEWED Date I Reviewed by: 10/4^0 Ms. Jones - Teacher 10/4/00 Mrs. Smith - Parent AT END OF YEAR - FILE IN PERMANENT RECORD FOLDER STRATEGIES TO BE USED PROGRESS The teacher will model and instruct the student in how to: Hear \u0026amp; record sounds in words through interactive writing Use meaning visual and structure cues through guided reading Provide literacy centers to reinforce letter identification, letter sound association and writing vocabulary The parent will: Listen to the child read Read to the child Discuss reading and writing assignments with child SIGNATURES - TEACHER PARENT STUDENT (IF APPLICABLE) PRINCIPAL WHITE COPY - TEACHER'S WORKING COPY YELLOW COPY - PARENT t:* CONFERENCE) PINKCOPY -PARNT(lCONFERNCE) Current services - IDEA 504 ESL G/T TITLEI X Little Rock School District - Academic Improvement Plan for Student - School year - 2000-2001 Student: Tiffany Smith ID#: 100100 Grade: 2nd School: Main Street Elementary Principal: Mr, Morgan ASSESSMENT/ RESULTS X Devclopmenlil Reading Assessment _ ALT __ Benchmark Exam EDd-or-Courie________________ AREA OF NEEDS Vocabulary (AREA) Spelling pattom Results: Comprehension 1\" grade Spring results DRA Level 12 Spelling \u0026amp; writing development 2\"* grade Fall results DRA Level 14 Use of structure, meaning \u0026amp; visual cues when Reading STRATEGIES TO BE USED The teacher will model and instruct the student in bow to: Use known spelling patterns to spell and read new words Cross check meaning, structure, and visual cues in reading Use the writing process (edit and revise writing) The parent will\nListen to the child read Read to the child Discuss reading and writing assignments with child Teacher: Ms. Jones Date developed: 10/4/00 SKILLS TO IMPROVE Independent Writing Independent Reading Reading for Information I Date 10/4/00 10/4/00 DATES REVIEWED Reviewed by: Ms. Jones - Teacher Mrs. Smith - Parent AT END OF YEAR - FILE IN PERMANENT RECORD FOLDER PROGRESS I I SIGNATURES - TEACHER PARENT STUDENT (IF APPLICABLE) PRINCIPAL WHITE COPY - TEACHER'S WORKING COPY YELLOW COPY - PARENT (2\" CONFERENCE) PtNKCOPY . PARENT (I\" CONFERENCE) Current services -IDEA 50 ESL G/T TITLEI X Little Rock School District - Academic Improvement Plan for Student - School year - 2000-2001 Student: Tiffany Smith ID#: 100100 Grade: 3\"* Grade School: Main Street Elementary Principal: Mr. Morgan ASSESSMENT/ RESULTS X Dcveiopmeotal Readiag Asseumeol _ ALT __ Beacbmark Exam End-of-Courae_____________ AREA OF NEEDS Teacher: Ms. Jones Date developed: 10/4/00 SKILLS TO IMPROVE DATES REVIEWED (AREA) Comprehension: Predicting Making inferences Reading for information Reading Comprehension Process Writing Date 10/4/00 Results: Second grade Spring DRA Level 14 Development of Spelling patterns for Reading and Writing Spelling Development Vocabulary Development 10/4/00 Reviewed by: Ms. Jones - Teacher Mrs. Smith - Parent Writing: Revising Editing STRATEGIES TO BE USED AT END OF YEAR - FILE IN PERMANENT RECORD FOLDER PROGRESS The teacher will model and instruct the student in bow to: Use comprehension strategies to make meaning through guided reading, read alouds, and literature circles Use writing process to write narrative and expository texts, expand vocabulary and develop spelling The parent will: Listen to the child read Read to the child Discuss reading and writing assignments with child SIGNATURES - TEACHER PARENT STUDENT (IF APPLICABLE) PRINCIPAL WHITE COPY - TEACHERS WORKING COPY YELLOW COPY - PARENT (2 CONFERENCE) PINK.COPY -PARNT(l^CONFERENCE) I I I Current services -IDEA 504 ESL G/T TITLE I X Little Rock School District - Academic Improvement Plan for Student - School year - 2000-2001 Student: Tiffany Smith ID#: 100100 Grade: 4th Teacher\nMs. Jones School: Main Street Elementary Principal: Mr. Morgan ASSESSMENT/ RESULTS __ Developmental Reading Assessment X ALT __ Benchmark Exam Eod'Of'Course_____________ AREA OF NEEDS Reading Comprehension: (AREA) Reading for meaning - fiction and non fiction text Results\nReading nanative and expository Date developed: 10/4/00________ SKILLS TO IMPROVE Reading: Monitor comprehension and use fix up strategies Writing: 10/4/00 10/4/00 DATES REVIEWED I Reviewed by: Ms. Jones - Teach Mrs. Smith - Parent Third Grade Spring results ALT - RIT score 190 Write paragraph with topic sentence supporting details Organize paragraphs to develop cohesive text AT END OF YEAR - FILE IN PERMANENT RECORD FOLDER I pate., STRATEGIES TO BE USED PROGRESS The teacher will model and instruct the student in bow to: Model comprehension strategies through \"think alouds\", self-correct, reread, read on, self question, and summarize Use student conferences to discuss revisions/editing The parent will: Continue to read to and with child Discuss and work with child in various subject areas Encourage child to read-for \" SIGNATURES - TEACHER PARENT STUDENT (IF APPLICABLE) PRINCIPAL WHITE COPY - TEACHERS WORKING COPY YELLOW COPY - PARENT (2* CONFERENCE) PINK COPY - PARENT (1\" CONFERENCE) .a Bnsse-c I Current services -__IDEA Little Rock School District - Academic Improvement Plan for Student - School year - 2000-2001 Student: Tiffany Smith ID#: 100100 Grade: Sth G/T TITLEI X School: Main Street Elementary Principal: Mr. Morgan ASSESSMENT/ RESULTS __ Developmental Reading Assessment X ALT __ Benchmark Exam End-of-Course_____________ AREA OF NEEDS Reading Comprehension: (AREA) Reading for purpose Results: Use personal background to comprehend 4 th grade Benchmark Exam (ACTAAP) Reading - Below Basic 4'*' grade Spring ALT - RIT score 200 The teacher will: Read functional text Writing: Writing Process STRATEGIES TO BE USED Use activities to establish prior learning/predict new learning Have students read for a variety of purposes Conference student on writing to prompts/using writing process The parent will: Continue to read to and with child Discuss and work with child in various subject areas Encourage child to read-for' SIGNATURES - TEACHER PARENT Teacher: Ms. Jones Date developed: 10/4/00 SKILLS TO IMPROVE Reading Comprehension: Read and discuss inferential information Evaluate new information by Comparing Writing: Revise and edit writing for . content/mechanics I STUDENT,(IF APPLICABLE) DATES REVIEWED Date 10/4/00 10/4/00 Reviewed by: Ms. Jones - Teacher Mrs. Smith - Parent AT END OF YEAR - FILE IN PERMANENT RECORD FOLDER PROGRESS I I I PRINCIPAL WHITE COPY - TEACHER'S WORKING COPY YELLOW COPY^.Pjii^^(^ - .ri'\"'* ' 5\" \\ v'jXs 6 LL ft. Secondary English/Foreign Languages Instructional Resource Center 3001 South Pulaski, Little Rock, AR 72206 Phone (501) 324-0510, 324-0513 Fax (501) 324-0504 To: From: Date: All Middle School Principals Suzi Davis September 21, 2000 Attached you will find the sample SAIP form for middle school reading, language arts, writing. Please read below carefully to understand the form and how to fill one out. Assessments Used: 6* grade\n5* grade spring ALT Cut off RIT scores\nReading= 211, Language= 212 7* grade\n6* grade spring ALT Cut off RIT scores: Reading=215, Language-216 6\"' grade spring State Benchmark Test For Basic and Below Basic scores 8* grade: V'*\" grade spring ALT Cut off RIT scores\nReading=220, Language-219 There^^e four areas or goal areas listed by the NWEA for ALT Reading tests, and three ^eas for ALT Language (which include writing skills). Under each of these goal areas are L- -- -------- ________ ran hp. determined which skills in which areas are weak. On the sample, which is a listed several skills. From the report of each child, it can be determined which skills in which areas are . 1 __ til____x1-KAaori' s^ple for reading SAIP only, you will see that in area one. Word Meanings, this student showed weakness skills co A -c were co skills in Uus firs, area wbreh need address.Sl* meanings. In the second area. Interpretive Comprehension, cre were also two remediations needed\none in Snee, and one in authors purpose. A third area and its skill are also listed, but since there is no mention of the fourth area (Literal Comprehension), we know that this child performed satisfactonly m that area and On SAIP, if necessary, a childs language needs and writing needs could be ad^essed. In the future when State Benchmark scores are available, a seventh graders SAIP should also reflect any needs identified by the sixth grade State Benchmark test. Strategies To Be Used: ., , . It has been suggested as a more efficient way of dealmg with this area. that a checklist could be made for skills with the specific needs checked off for each child and this checklist attached to the S^P^It ^uld tSe a team effort to prepare the initial checklist, but after the work is done once it would save time. This SAIP should be available for parent conferences. Progress: This area should reflect data to indicate student is practicing and acquiring skills needed. Notations should be added as the school year progresses. 1 5AmPlc Little Rock School District - Student\nTiffany Smith Cunenl services - _ IDEA 504 ___ESL _ G/T TITLE 1 X OTHER - Academic Improvement Plan for Student - School year ID#: 100100 Grade: 6th -^2000-2001 Teacher\nR. Martin School: Hogwarts Middle School Principal: Dumbledorf Date developed: 10/4/00 ASSESSMENT/ RESULTS Developnieiitl Reading Assessment X ALT Benctiinark Exam End-of-Course _------------------ I area OF NEEDS 1. Word Meanings 1. (AREA) 2. Interpretive Comprehension 2. Results: 3. Evaluative Comprehension SKILLS TO IMPROVE Context Clues Multiple Meanings Inference Authors Purpose Date: 10-1-00 10-1-00 DATES REVIEWED Reviewed by\nR. Martin, teacher B. Spears, parent 5i'* grade Spring ALT Reading RIT - 208 strategies to be USED rVrTviSrpmctke in predicting word meaning and identifying clues in context Provide students with word lists having multiple meanings and practice different context and meanings. . 2. Use short passages to practice inference and drawing conclusions when formation is not given. Teach purposes of literature and provide practice in identifying the purposes in several forms and identifying fact^ias. 3 Teach meaning and purpose c.----------- . Teach meaning of stereotypes and identify examples with studen . The parent will: 1. Read aloud to child and listen to child read aloud, noting words child has 2 child in all subject areas and the meaning of 3. Sse television and magazine advertisements to show bias and purpose of presented 3 material. Encourage the child to read for pleasure! SIGNATURES - TEACHER PARENT 3. Identify bias, stereotypes PROGRESS STUDENT (IF APPLICABLE) PRINCIPAL WHITE COPY - TEACHERS WORKING COPY YELLOW COPY - PARENT (2\" CONFERENCE) PINK COPY - PARENT (1^^ CONFERENCE) ] Little Rock Public Schools Reading Achievement Level Test Goals 1. Word Meaning a. b. c. d. e. Phonetic skills Context clues Synonyms, antonyms, homonyms Component structure (prefix, suffix, origin, roots Multiple meanings 2. Literal Comprehension a. Recall/identify significant details b. c. d. e. Identify main idea Locate information Follow directions Sequence details 3. Interpretive Comprehension a. b. c. d. e. f. Inference Identify cause and effect Authors purpose Prediction Summarize Identify literary elements (character, plot, setting, theme, etc.) 4. Evaluative Comprehension a. b. c. d. e. Evaluate conclusions, validity (supporting context) Identify fact and opinion Identify literary techniques (figurative language, mood, tone, etc.) Distinguish text forms Identify bias, stereotypes Little Rock School District Language Usage Achievement Level Test Goals 1. Writing Process a. Prewriting skills b. c. d. e. f. Drafting and revising Editing/proofreading Choosing appropriate format Sentence choice appropriate to purpose Paragraph skills (topic and concluding sentences, indenting, etc.) 2. Grammar and Usage a. b. c. d. e. f. g-h. i. Sentence patterns Phrases and clauses Noun forms Verb usage: tenses, irregular verbs, subject-verb agreement Adjective forms Adverb forms Pronoun forms Pronoun antecedent agreement Negative forms 3. Mechanics a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. End punctuation Commas Apostrophes Enclosing punctuation Titles Beginning Capitalization Proper nouns and adjectives Capital I I ! I 7I LL Secondary English, Foreign Languages I I f 5 Memo To: From\nCC\nDate: Re: Middle School Principals ^Suzi Davis September 26,2000 Parent Conferences for SAIP Attached you will find a copy of the information regarding use of the SAIP form for parent conferencing. Please note the part about mailing home the SAIP if the parent is unable to attend a conference or sign the form. I thought the information included in this page was important and might be helpful to you. Please let me know if there is more that you need.  Page 1**4 , Ji / background - Act 999 of 1999 requires LRSD to develop a Student Academic ImnrtJ^lTpian for students not performing on grade level (K-4), not proficient ow XXXark (primary, intermediate, middle), ^d students ~ proficient on Cv XiXA*** J ) 7 f' Al K End-of-Course exams in Literacy, Geometry, Algebra PROCESS, PROCEDURE, AND FORM - DRAFT A Student Achievement Improvement Plan will be developed/revised for students who are not proficient according to the results of\n. Observation Surveys (Grades K-Z\"-*) conducted in September and April, . Achievement Level Tests (Grades 3\"*-11*) conducted m August/September and . EnTo^f Course Exams (Algebra I, Geometry, Literacy) conducted in May, and _1_______1, i-n AAoV th 4' Quarter Benchmark Exams (3'^ -8') in May. The SAIP will document the consideration of cutreut personalized services (apecial Xato English as a Second Language, Title I, Gifted programs etc.) f areas of need, specific skills to improve, strategies that will be implemented. progress. The SAIP conferences in will be reviewed/revised with parents at scheduled in the Fall and Spring. The parent, teacher, and student (if applicable) will ies for the home and school, and discuss which area of needs will be addressed, sriategies The principal, or desi^ee will review and si^ dl  P review progress. . _ are unable to attend the Parent Teacher Conference, a copy of the SAIP will be mailed to them. X form is to be used in heu of current Parent Teacher Conference form. The SAIP will be kept in the classroom during the school year as a working copy for the Al_ _ 0 A IIJ teacher. At the end of the school year. or if the student exits the school, the SAIP would SS iXXts permaneni record folder for review by fiiture teachers. ) I I Snecific strategies will be developed by the teacher, parent, and student (if applicable). IrXST^tegiescancom^ftomavari^ofs^^^^ knowledge and experience, student team meetmgs, or r.  sessions. Some of the sources recommended are\nschool generated problem-solving . The Pre-Referral Intervention Manual by McCamey, Wunderlich \u0026amp; Bauer Second Edition, (see attached cover, index, and sample page) Cost - $36.00 Manual, $190.00 Computer version. District created interactive WEB site for posting and locating strategies that can  S XsXstatf members. This would neeb to be developed. Cost unknown. . Imbed into all curricular suff development training specific strategies to address areas of need that are assessed. 1 s8 TO. FROM. LL little rock school district INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 SOUTH PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 September 27, 2000 middle school PRINCIPALS I^ENNIS GLASGOW. DIRECTOR OF MATH AND SCIENCE SUBJECT: SAIP Form The SAIP form for middle school mathematics will follow the same format as the iwuauw Tii\u0026gt; will find the sample SAIP form for middle readinq/language arts. Attached you will find the samples oMir ____and the areas and skills listed for the ALT. school mathematics and the areas Below you will find the cut off RIT scores for mathematics\n1 I 6' grade\n7 grade\ns grade\n5\"* grade spring ALT 6* grade spring ALT 7 grade spring ALT Cut off RIT scores\nMath = 215 Cut off RIT scores\nMath = 220 Cut off RIT scores\nMath = 227 I) Little Rock School District Mathematics Achievement Level Test Goals 1. Operations a. Whole number computation b. Fraction, decimal, mixed number percents computation c. Computation with positive and negative numbers d. Estimation and rounding e. Applications 2. Number Sense and Properties a. Identify numerical patterns b. Counting and recognition, odd-even, grouping c. Place value, expanded notation d. Powers of ten, factoring, prime numbers, multiples e. Exponents, squares, scientific notation, roots f. Whole and fractional concepts g. Number lines, coordinate graphs h. Applications I 3. Geometry and Spatial Sense i S Identify, describe, classify shapes, figures, and objects b. Classify and measure angles and triangles, Pythagorean Theorem c. Line segments, lines, rays, relationships (perpendicular, parallel, intersecting, etc.) d. Congruence, symmetry, translations (flips, slides, rotations) a. e. Circles (circumference, diameter, radius) f. Coordinates, ordered pairs O' Applications 4. Measurement I I a. b. Linear measurement Measure/estimate perimeter, area, mass, volume in standard and non-standard measures c. Time, rate, speed, ratio, scale d. Weight, temperature e. Units of money f. Conversion within a system g- Compare or convert between systems h. Applications 5. Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability a. Analyze, interpret data displays b. Probability and prediction c. Measures of central tendency and distribution d. Applications 6. Patterns, Algebra and Functions Equations, variables, expressions b. Equalities and inequalities (=,\u0026gt;,\u0026lt;) a. c. Patterns and functions d. Applications Current services -__IDEA  504 ------ U/l iiiLbi AuinnK.- Little Rock School District - Grad^*^**^h Teacher\nR. Martin Student\nTiffany Smith ED #\n100100 School: Hogwarts Middle School Principal: Dumbledorf Date developed\n10/4/00 ASSESSMENT/ RESULTS _ DevetopmenUl Rudins Asseument X ALT __ Benchmark Eim End-of-Coune________________ /JtEA OF NEEDS SKBXS TO IMPROVE ni\\TES reviewed (AREA) I, Operations 2. Number Sense and Properties 1. Whole number computation Estimation and rounding Date\nReviewed by: Results\n3. Geometry and Spatial Sense 2. Identify numerical patterns Whole and fractional concepts 10-1- 00 10 -1-00 R. Martin, teacher R. Snears, parent 5i'* grade Spring ATT Mathematics RIT - 3. Circles (circumference, diameter, radius) 208 STRATEGIES TO BE USED ^ctiK in whole number computation using a variety of resources including practice sheets, games and computer software^ resources including 2 Provide pracUce in estimation and rounding usmg a variety reso practice s.h eets, gam__e_s_ _a_n_d1 computer CsAoffttwwfalTreC. 3 Develop alternative algorithms for computation. 4 5. Use concrete activities to attributes of circles. and progress The parent will\n1. Practice computation. 2. Discuss material read with child in in mathematics and the meaning of material. 3. 4. Provide opportunities to Use television and magazine advertisements to estimation skills (i.c.. shopping) ..ccH in show mathematical concepts used in real life. Encourage the child to have a positive attitude about problem solving! SIGNATURES - TEACHER parent STUDENT (IF APPLICABLE) PRINCIPAL TC acmpdo tvAoviKin rODV VT?T T rk/ /^ov DA Dwxrr r-** Drxtv rnDV DA D cxrr dp 9LESLEY, BONNIE From: lent: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Wednesday, September 27, 2000 6:28 PM CARTER, LILLIE RE: SAIP Thanks so much for this nice feedback, Lillie. And thanks for being our victim principal today. You're a great sport. Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: CARTER\u0026gt;ltriE ) Thursd^September 21, 2000, LESLEvSOMMlS------ SAIP If52 PM Dr. Lesley, I just finished reading this week's Learning Links. Thank you so much for sharing your philosophy and for sending sample copies of the SAIP. Many years ago, we had to write a plan for students who did not pass the Arkansas M.P.T. (Minimum Performance Test). I know that you are very busy. I just wanted you to know how much I appreciate what you do for our district on a daily basis. This will be shared with my staff during grade-level meetings on Monday and Tuesday of next week. Lillie Carter 1 10 LESLEY, BONNIE From: bSent: To: Cc: Subject: LESLEY. BONNIE Wednesday, September 27, 2000 6:22 PM COX, ELEANOR PRICE. PATRICIA RE: SAIP'S Thanks so much for this feedback, Eleanor. I will pass it along to Pat as well. We appreciate your taking the time. Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: cox, ELEANOR Friday, September 22, 2000 3:11 PM LESLEY, BONNIE SAIP'S I really appreciate your comments in the \"Learning Links\" regarding the SAIP mandate. I do not understand all the complaints or \"disasterizing\" as I call it. This is not anything new. The incentive schools have done this for years. I initiated a practice similar to this at every school I have been principal except Baseline. It does work and helps to keep teachers focused on what needs to be taught and how to use the benchmarks to accomplish these goals. I personally am thrilled about the process, and like you, outraged with the mandate. But, we ae living in different times and we have to go with the flow or find employment elsewhere. Tell Pat thanks for the examples of the SAIP's. Good move for us visual learner (Smile). 1 11LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent\nTo: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Friday, September 29, 2000 12:43 PM DAVIS, SUZI RE: More SAIP help I'm free now. Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: DAVIS, SUZI Friday, September 29, 2000 11:25 AM LESLEY, BONNIE FW: More SAIP help Maybe this has calmed the storm a little bit for Nancy. We have talked and I will go there next week and get them on task with SAIP. The testing problem I cannot help with much, but I perhaps can give them something. Meantime, I will be here all day as Jim Fullerton has moved me to Monday. So let me know when we can visit. Especially before you get out of here. Who is going with you to see \"Grapes\"? Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: ROUSSEAU, NANCY Friday, September 29, 2000 10:59 AM DAVIS, SUZI RE: More SAIP help I am copying this and distributing it to all of my wonderful English teachers. Thank you, Suzi, for all that you do for the LRSD and my English teachers. You are a most competent, wonderful professional. We thank you here at PHMS -  -----Original Message----- From: DAVIS, SUZI Sent: To: Friday, September 29, 2000 9:43 AM BUCK, LARRY\nBLAYLOCK, ANN\nFULLERTON, JIM\nMOSBY, JIMMY\nBERRY, DEBORAH\nPATTERSON, DAVID\nROUSSEAU, NANCY\nHUDSON, ELOUISE Subject: More SAIP help I will send you by email later this morning a checklist with strategies listed for ail the areas of the ALT tests, reading and language, that teachers can simply check the ones that apply to each student not proficient, and then staple to the SAIP form. It should make teachers' lives quite a bit simpler when filling these things out. I know it won't be a perfect list of strategies, but I wanted to do something to help as soon as possible. Look for it later this morning. 1 12 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 April 3, 2001 TO: FROM: Pat Price Pat Busbea Dr. Ed Williams ^r. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: DRA Please read the attached document carefully. Think about our own procedures, levels of readiness, SAIP requirements, etc. Lets meet to discuss Friday, April 6, at 1:30 in my office. Thanks! I BAL/adg Attachments I Connecticut State Department of Education An Act Concerning Educational Accountability Q\u0026amp;A  Use of the Developmental Reading Assessment  All Students Grades 1-3  Special Education Students  Bilingual Education Students  Additional Support for 4^*\" Grade Students Scoring Below Intervention Level on CMT 1. How is the DRA used to meet the requirements of Public Act 99-288, An Act Concerning Educational Accountability? Public Act 99-288, An Act Concerning Educational Accountability, states that for each school year commencing on or after July 1, 1999, each local and regional board of education for a priority school district shall require the schools under its jurisdiction to evaluate the reading level of students enrolled in grades one through three, inclusive, in the middle of the school year and at the end of the school year. The legislation further states, a student shall be determined to be substantially deficient in reading based on measures set by the State Board of Education.\" On 12/1/99 the State Board of Education adopted the Developmental Reading Assessment [DRA] as the approved standardized assessment for identifying which students are substantially deficient in reading and in need of additional support for students in grades 1-3. 2. When mu^ the DRA be given as required by state legislation and which texts should be used for the assessment? To fulfill the legislative requirement the state-approved DRA must be administered twice a year to all students in grades 1-3. Based on previous assessments and the judgment of the teacher, the appropriate level text should be used for the assessment. If the student has met the standard on the state identified text or on texts beyond that level, the student will not be identified as substantially deficient in reading. If the student is not able to meet the standard on the state identified text or they can only be assessed on texts below the state identified text, they would be identified as substantially deficient in reading. 1Mid-year, priority school districts must select a four-week period in January-February in which to do the testing. At the end of the year, priority school districts must test during the last week in April and the first three weeks of May. 3. What are the levels at which a student will be considered substantially deficient? The following table provides the DRA substantially deficient standard level information. In order for a student to be considered beyond the substantially deficient level, s/he would have to achieve both of the following standards:  The student would have to read the appropriate text with 95%-100% accuracy\nand  The student would have to receive a score of 3 or 4 on a 4-point rubric assessing the student's ability to comprehend and retell a story Grade Level 1 Mid-Year Level Level 6 Why Are We Stopping Level 14 The Wagon End of Year Level Level 10 Shoe Boxes\" Level 16 The Pot of Gold\" Level 20 \u0026lt;Green Freddie\" Level 24 The Wonderful Day 2 3 4. How often can the DRA be used to assess students? The use of the DRA Kit should be limited for use in classrooms for the following-reasons\n to determine base-line reading levels\n for new students\n for mid-year and end-of-the year state-mandated assessments\nand  to determine a satisfactory level of progress in reading for students for whom a reading intervention has been provided. The state-approved DRA should not be used to practice for future state-mandated assessments. District and school personnel are responsible to ensure that appropriate materials are provided for classroom teachers to continue on-going assessments throughout the school year. Alternate titles have been developed by the publisher of the Developmental Reading Assessment and may be used for on-going assessments. However, these alternate DRA texts at the substantially deficient standard\" levels are not to be used for the state-mandated formal assessment at mid-year or at the end-of-the year. 2 The Developmental Reading Assessment was intended for use with students in grades K-3. It may also be used appropriately to assess students who are performing below expected reading levels in fourth grade. Assessments using the DRA should not take place with more frequency than a six-week interval. The state approved DRA should be used only for the purposes addressed in paragraph 1. Efforts should be made to keep the state approved DRA in a central location in the school and available to classroom teachers and personnel as needed for those stated purposes. 5. What services are required to be provided if a student scores below the substantially deficient level on the state approved DRA? The legislation requires that if a student is found to be substantially deficient in reading based on: 1. 2. 6. the middle of the year evaluation  the school shall notify the parents or guardians of the student of such result.\" 'A District and school personnel should develop a letter to inform the students family about the students performance including the schools plan(s) for intervention and suggestions on what the family could do to assist the child Additionally we recommend that districts should: Develop a personal (individual) reading plan that outlines additional instructional support and monitors student progress. This instructional support may include but not necessarily be limited to tutoring, after school support, Saturday Academies as well as explicit instruction in small-groups. the end of the year evaluation  the school shall develop a personal reading plan for each student. The personal reading plan shall include measures to improve the students reading level, such as tutoring, a transitional class, or a summer reading program ... and shall be maintained until the student achieves a satisfactory level of progress. If a student scores at or above the substantially deficient level does that mean the student is a competent independent reader? No. If the student has scored at the substantially deficient level, the student still requires a great deal of instruction to become a competent independent reader. The score only implies that the student needs intervention in reading. 7. Will bilingual students be assessed using the state approved DRA? I Yes. The legislation states that all students in the priority school districts in grades one through three, inclusive, must be assessed. This has been interpreted to mean that students in bilingual prograrhs will be assessed for their ability to read in English, as measured by the state approved DRA. Only after the English version of the state-approved DRA has been administered, the 3 Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE) recommends that Spanish speaking students in bilingual programs be assessed for their ability to read and comprehend in Spanish using the Spanish version of the DRA, Evaluacidn del Desarrollo de la Lecture (EDL). The use of the EDL will allow teachers of bilingual students to plan instruction based on ongoing assessment. 8. How is the DRA also used to fulfill the P.A. 99-211, An Act Improving Bilingual Education, requirement for the annual assessment of academic progress for students in bilingual programs? To be eligible to exit a bilingual program or stop receiving bilingual support, a student in Grades K, 1,2 and 3 must meet the grade level standard on the DRA, in addition to meeting a linguistic standard (third grade students also have to score above the inten/ention level on the CMT). DRA Grade Level Standard K 1 2 3 Level 2 Level 16 Level 28 Level 38 I Can See The Pot of Gold You Dont Look Beautiful to Me Trouble at the Beaver Pond 9. When is the DRA administered to meet the requirements to annually assess students In bilingual programs? The results of the spring DRA assessment (last week in April through third week in May) can also be used to fulfill the assessment requirements for bilingual students. 10. If a student in a bilingual program is identified as substantially deficient in reading and the individual reading plan identifies the need for summer school, must the summer school instruction be provided in the students native language? Yes, if the individual reading plan indicates the need for continued literacy development in the students native language. 11. What is the districts obligation to include measures to improve special education students reading level, such as tutoring, transitional classes, after school and summer school when the student scores below the substantially deficient level? 4The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires that public agencies ...ensure that its children with disabilities have available to them the variety of educational programs and services available to non-disabled children in the area served by the agency... As such special education students who are substantially deficient on the state approved DRA must have the same access to measures to improve student learning as regular education students who also scored in the substantially-deficient range. 12.Will students in special education be assessed using the state approved DRA? Yes. ALL special education students in an academic program (1-3) should be assessed with all other students, and if they are not making sufficient progress towards learning to read they should have access to the extra help provided. As such, only severely cognitively impaired students in grades 1-3 who are participating in a functionally based program, which does not include reading should not participate. The Individual Educational Plans (lEPs) of students in this latter group should reflect how they would be assessed on appropriate developmental communication skills. Students who have not been tested using the state approved DRA should not be included in the number of students who are found to be substantially deficient in reading. 13. Do special education students with lEPs need a Personai/lndividual Reading Plan? Yes, every student who has been identified as substantially deficient\" on the state-approved DRA must have a Personai/lndividual Reading Plan. School teams should review the lEPs of special education students who score in the substantially deficient range on the state-approved DRA. Appropriate components of the lEP may be copied and included in the students Personai/lndividual Reading Plan to ensure that the student has a comprehensive and coordinated reading program, with appropriate interventions in place. 14. Who should administer the state-approved DRA7 The classroom teacher is responsible for the administration of the state-approved DRA to all regular education students and bilingual education students. In the case of special education students, the teacher who has primary responsibility for planning and implementing the reading instruction program should administer the state-approved DRA. 5 15. What is the official state-approved DRA retelling rubric and what are the directions? DRA Retelling Rubric Teacher: start at the beginning and tell me in your own words what happened in the story. Teachier may add (ohl^ once)\nTell me more. Important note: No other prompts (questions) may be given to the student prior to scoring the students retelling. Assessors notes should reflect what the child tells the teacher. The assessor should use the story overview to underline phrases and words and to write pertinent words and phrases that the student uses- JPASS (score 3 or 4) ir' . . .\u0026lt;  -  U'.f i.'.zyrv,. V?, h. 4 Retelling reflects very good comprehension:  Captures the essence of the story or information  Sequential: includes important events/facts  Includes important information about the characters and setting  Refers to characters and places by name  Reveals use of background knowledge to interpret 3 Retelling reflects adequate comprehension:  Relates the gist of the story or information  Sequential for the most part: 1 or 2 events/facts may be omitted  Includes some information about the characters and setting  Refers to most characters by name  Literal interpretation FAIL? (score 2 or 1)1. w 2 Retelling reflects some comprehension:  Relates pieces of the story or information  Some events/facts omitted or out of sequence  Mentions most of the characters  Refers to 1 or 2 characters by name  Some misinterpretation 1 Retelling reflects very little comprehension:  Focuses on a limited part of the story or information  Only 1 or 2 events/facts mentioned  Some characters omitted  Refers to characters in common terms (boy, girl, dog, he, she)  Misinterpretation or incorrect information 16. Will the current state-approved rubric and standards be revised as a result of changes in Joetta Beavers newly published DRA? 6 After two years of use, we will re-examine the standards in light of our state results and in light of Joetta Beaver's changes. For the 2000-2001 academic year, these will be NO CHANGES. 17. What are the requirements for providing additional instruction to students in priority school districts who scored below the intervention level on the 4**^ grade CMT tests during the 2000-2001 school year? According to PA 99-288, the additional instruction should be geared to addressing the students' deficiencies and may include tutoring, after school or school vacation programs or weekend school programs. The additional instruction should be provided as soon as possible after the CMT student results are released. The Principal may waive the additional instruction based on the recommendation of the classroom teacher with documentation that the student has demonstrated significant growth in the subject tested and would not benefit from additional instruction. 18. If students scored below the intervention (remedial) level on more than one test, what is the priority for providing additional instruction? Since this is the first year of the requirement, priority should be given to providing additional instruction to students during the school year who scored below the intervention level in reading. If resources are available within the district, a comprehensive program of additional instruction should be provided to students who scored below the intervention level in writing and/or mathematics. 19. What are the summer school requirements for 4'* grade students in priority school districts who scored below the intervention level on the 4**^ grade CMT tests during the 2000-2001 school year? Again, priority should be given to students who scored below the intervention level in reading. These students are expected to attend summer school unless they are exempt by the Superintendent. Exemption from summer school may mean that there is supporting evidence to indicate that a student is performing above the intervention level. Decisions for exempting students from summer school should be made using only standardized procedures and assessment data established at the district level. It is recommended that additional student assessment data to document that progress in reading be obtained through the use of the school secure Reading Comprehension test of the CMT, the DRP, Level 40 {Old Ben Bailey Meets His Match) of the state approved DRA, local district assessments or other standardized reading tests. 20. What if summer school is offered to those students in priority school districts for whom an exemption is not recommended and they do not attend summer school? I Any student who scored below the intervention level on the reading 4* grade CMT in 2000-2001, who was not exempt from summer school and did not attend, shall not be promoted to 5'* grade. 7Where do I have information or questions answered? Name Organization Phone No. DRA Questions Linda Kauffmann CSDE 860-566-3135 Office of Priority Schools/ Implementation of DRA Barbara Beaudin CSDE 860-566-4306 DRA and accountability evaluation model Kristina Eiias^taron CSDE 860-566-1103 LA Consultant/Curriculum questions Nancy Stark CSDE 860-804-2021 Special Ed LA Consultant/Speciai Ed curriculum questions John Frolich Celebration Press/Pearson Learning 914-925-0346 FAX 914-925-0347 vm\n800-435-3499 ext. 12021 Ordering Information H:\\DRA MemostDRA - Q and A Revisions 01 -09-01 .doc 8 Curriculum Mapping (Examples) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Memorandum to Division of Instruction, Dec. 3, 1998, with agenda for Dec. 9 meeting\nincludes reports on District-Level Curriculum Maps 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 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 Memorandum in Nov. 9, 1999, Learning Links providing information on curriculum mapping with attached article Memorandum in Nov. 17, 1999, Learning Links to selected principals establishing training schedule for curriculum mapping training Memorandum in Dec. 1,1999, Learning Links to selected principals establishing training schedule for curriculum mapping Memorandum in Jan. 12, 2000, Learning Links to selected principals establishing training schedule for curriculum mapping 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 Memorandum in Jan. 19, 2000, Learning Links to selected principals establishing training schedule for curriculum mapping 10. Memorandum in Feb. 16, 2000, Learning Links to selected principals establishing training schedule for curriculum mapping 11. E-mail, Feb. 15-17, 2000, relating to training for curriculum mapping trainers 12. Memorandum in Apr. 5, 2000, Learning Links to Brokers and IRC Specialists establishing training schedule on curriculum mapping 13. E-mail to Mona Briggs and Marion Woods, Apr. 14, 2000, relating to additional curriculum mapping training 14. E-mail, Apr. 26-May 2, 2000, relating to plans for curriculum mapping 15. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, June 6, 2000, with information on curriculum mapping16. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, June 6, 2000, relating to results of curriculum mapping training LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 SOUTH PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 December 3,1998 TO\nDennis Glasgow Judy Teeter Marie McNeal Marion Woods Patty Kohler Dr. Kathy Lease Marion Baldwin Linda Young Debbie Milam Lucy Lyon Leon Adams Carol Green Catherine Gill Marian Shead-Jackson Pat Price Ann Freeman Vanessa Cleaver Paulette Martin FROM: Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: December 9 Division Meeting Please be reminded of our Division meeting on Wednesday, December 9, 9:00 - noon. Room 19 here at the IRC. Our tentative agenda follows: 1. Opening Remarks and Announcements Bonnie Lesley 2. Report on Status of CRTs Kathy Lease 3. Brief Reports on Status of Curriculum Maps, K-4 4. Smart Start Data Analysis Dennis Glasgow Marie McNeal Judy Teeter Pat Price Ann Freeman Please invite those members of your departments who should attend. BAL/adg LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 (501) 324-2131 July 16, 1999 TO: Mona Briggs FROM: Dr. Bonnie Lesley,, AAssssociate Superintendent, for Instruction SUBJECT: Curriculum Mapping Attached is a copy of the training notebook that someone picked up for me at last summers training on Curriculum Mapping. Gene Parker has one. I am also attaching a copy of a newsletter article. Id like you and Gene Parker to collaborate on putting together a training package on Curriculum Mapping for, first. Division staff and other Brokers\nfor principals\nand then perhaps a plan to train someone else at each school. I think we should leverage and exploit this new ACSIP expectation to take us to the next step of standards implementation. Lets meet to discuss - you. Gene, and me, on Tuesday, August 10, at 9:00, in Room 19. Attachments BAL/rcm cc: Kathy Lease Gene Parker LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 (501)324-2131 August 30, 1999 TO: Kathy Lease Mona Briggs Eddie McCoy Ed Williams Yvette Dillingham Marion Woods Patty Kohler Diane Rynders Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Mable Donaldson Pat Price Marie McNeal Carol Green Sue Walls Pam Crawford Linda Austin Debbie Milam Paulette Martin Marion Baldwin Lucy Neal Selma Hobby Leon Adams Marian S. Jackson FROM: Dr. Bonnie Lesle' .ssociate Superintendent, for Instruction SUBJECT: September 1 Division Meeting I am looking forward to seeing you at the Sept.1 Division meeting - 9:00 am until Noon in Room 19 here at the IRC. Our tentative agenda is attached. Please let me know if there are topics or action items you would like to add. Attachment BAL/rcm Agenda, Division of Instruction September 1,1999 Discussion: 1999-2000 Work Plan Priorities Team Leaders Discussion and Reading Assignment Why Teams? Roles of Work Teams in School Improvement What Is Our Portfolio of Services? Guidelines for School Improvement Planning Discussion: Curriculmn Mapping Project ACC Curriculum/Assessment Professional DevelopmentScheduling Miscellaneous Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley Mona Briggs Eddie McCoy Carol Green Kathy Lease Marion Woods All LL \"/\"l/H 7 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 (501) 324-2131 November 4, 1999 I TO: FROM\nEveryone Dr. Bonnie LesleyrA^ociate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT\nCurriculum Mapping I I The ACSIP process requires you to do curriculum mapping. A better reason is that it is a process that ensures that every teacher is aligning his/her lessons with the Curriculum Standards. It's a wonderful professional development actively, and it will move your school forward in being successful. Attached is an article that will be helpful. For more information, study Heidi Hayes Jacobs' book. Mapping the Big Picture. For even more information, call Mona Briggs or Eddie McCoy, 324-2120. I 1 1! Attachment BAL/rcm \u0026gt;1 / I { I -A 2 Lessons Learned from Curriculum Mapping By Charlotte Vlases aToya is excited. Her Sth grade class is planning a field trip to Chickamauga ___Battlefield, a local site made famous during the Civil War. LaToya had a great time when her 4th grade class toured the museum last yearshe even v/rote a paper on her visit. This year, she thinks, itll be a breeze. Theres no way shes going to tell her teacher shes been there beforeLaToya has always appreciated L an easy A.. Many teachers can see a truth reflected in the fictitious scenario above: That although we try to give our students rich learning activities, we sometimes forget that we re building on a childs entire educational experience. What happens, then, is that students like LaToya arent really challenged and dont really deepen their understanding. She may indeed have fun on that field trip. But how did her teacher make sure the trip was as intellectually rigorous as it was enjoyable? How did the teacher extend what LaToya learned during her earlier visit to Chickamauga Battlefield? Here at the Chattanooga School for the Liberal Arts (CSLA) in Chattanooga, Tenn., weve found a way to eliminate such repetitions, as well as gaps, in our curriculum. We map our curriculum so all of our teachers know what we want our students to learn, what they have learned in the past, and what theyll learn in the next gradeand beyond. Just as a road map shows where you are. the teachers within a grade level compared maps and together developed a map that represented the curriculum taught at that grade. These maps were first handwritten on large sheets of paper and posted on a wall in the office, where they remained for all teachers at every grade level to review before any changes were made. As we examined the maps, we began to see where repetitions and gaps occurred in the curriculum. Working together, we started making revisions that would ensure a logical and meaningful curriculum for all of our students. We have changed the maps several times and continue to refine them by adding essential questions, assessments, and lists of the precise skills we want students to acquire. Computer technology has made creating and revising where you've been, and where you are going, a curriculum map. gives the. sam. e information about what is occurring in a classroom, in a school, and in schools throughout a district. A Brief History of Mapping at CSLA Former principal Mary Ann Holt brought the idea of curriculum mapping to CSLA fac-ulty after reading articles by Heidi Hayes Jacobs, author of the 1997 ASCD book Mapping the Big Picture. Holt also attended workshops presented by Jacobs and was convinced that most teachers would find curriculum mapping to be a logical way to see exactly what would be taught each year within our building. What Teachers Say /Curriculum mappin gtakes time, effort.and .a wtaessTo / work witb coheagues to rret\u0026amp;finiee tteeaacchhjinngg^ ppllamnSs.\nSSttiiUll,, .mmaaktiongg: fect.sehse to teachers. Tliey sayitbest: i'After having sperrt raanyhours trymglo rnd^i^ani^a curricuhimsfit theneedsof my:swdents,\nthe.idea,^^^^ .mappingwas^i*m...e.diately, appe^, g-t p-. me\n. 1 , S -. thinkhawiig time to refledbiWhe raaps-vatli^Q^.^\u0026amp;i sw leaguesiisveiy inipoTtanTitp?y^^:^^^y^^?^' 1^\n^'bwnrnapjbml c^genera]yibimt.\u0026amp;  nevvideatobe'-sparked by^ne of m'ypeers dtmng a ..  reflection session: :..v' '7\n, ' - .f-'-^enni^H\u0026lt;mtkih,a}Tnputertec^ ?}: Curriculum inapping helps me -visualize what s bemg ,  taught , ASancy Huston^ foreign'Janguage Tt immediately rn^e sense fb me, because of how it . looks at chiidreris overall irarnmg frbm year to year, 5\" ^dbecauM ofhbwit'cqririders eachteacher and each p\u0026gt;-\ngrade as'a^tal part of an.overall lemfeg process.  _ : 7\nRobert\nV \\ It helps me focus on the objectives I want to teach. maps manageable. By keeping the maps on a database, teachers can easily share and review one anothers documents. At CSLA, our computer technology teacher created map templates for each teacher, making it simple for them to create, revise, and store the curriculum maps. cisms of their teaching plans personaUy. Everyone must be willing to work together. Teachers should never feel intimidated or judged. They must have the freedom to be completely honest when creating their first map so that it truly reflects the operational curriculum. If teachers describe their teach-ing the way they think it should be instead of Lesson Learned: A Collegial Environment Is Key Curriculum mapping isnt easy. Its time consuming and cannot be done alone. Teachers may naturally feel possessive of the units and the curriculum they have developed and perhaps taught for years. It can be difficult when a colleague suggests that a teacher give up a cherished piece of literature or a favorite activity so that someone else can use it. But those are the types of discussions that have to take place and the types of changes that have to occur to successfully implement curriculum mapping. To create a schoolwide curriculum that truly is best for students, teachers have to feel free to express themselves and not take criti-the way it actually is, then the maps will be flawed, and any revisions will be false. At CSLA, we always start the school year with a team-building activity that is fun, and not related to academics. This gives teachers opportunities to get to know one another outsidethe school setting. For example, one school year began with a white-water rafting adventure. Another year we tried a ropes course at a survival camp. The next fall we were sent on a scavenger hunt all around town, using only public transportation. Ismahen Kangles, our current principal, continued the tradition by taking the faculty to a secluded mountain cabin for some reflection time, followed by an outdoor ed a calendar-based map by listing the units lunch at a riverside restaurant. Such activities taught each month of the school year. Then We began slowly. First, each teacher creat 3 set the tone for the kind of camaraderie that must exist before the real work begins and continues. i r Lesson Learned: Support from Administrators Is ^sential To sustain a curriculum mapping approach, teachers must hear from those colleagues who have been there and are willing to share their experiences and results. Creating and refining the maps is a collaborative process that takes a substantial amount of time. Savvy administrators make sure teachers have that time. Here at CSLA, our principal devotes two faculty meetings each month to curriculum mapping work. According to Kangles, teachers need to be given time to revisit and revise their maps if they are to take an active role in bringing about curriculum mapping within their building. Training and time are important elements that an administrator provides, but equally important is the clear expectation set by the principalthat mapping willhe done. Both Holt and Kangles set deadlines for the completion of maps. When the principal sets the expectation that work will be accomplished by a specific date and then offers support, teachers get the message that mapping is a top priority and something that must be done. ! i f Personal Reflections The teachers at CSLA have accomplished a great deal in a fairly short amount of time. We began curriculum mapping with the support of knowledgeable administrators who shared a 'vision. We are committed to curriculum mapping because we are willing to do whatever it takes to create the best learning experience for our students, juh No More First-Year Jitters Preparing teachers for a successful first year of teaching sometimes seems a near-impossible task. Trying to bridge the gap between good theories in college and successful practices in the classroom is a complicated and enormous responsibility for first-year teachers. A new publication written by Amy DePaul and available from the U.S. Department of Education may be just the tool se/o\\nm-/e tttefaacrhrieprrsc nnpepeHd tton nnnott oAnnl Vy ssuurrvviivvee' but also succeed in their first year. Entitled What to Expect Your First Year of Teaching, the book is a compilation of first-year teachers responses to questions about their first year of teaching. Among the issues the book addresses is What Colleges and Universities Should Know. This chapter includes teachers comments about how their education prepared or failed to prepare them for classroom experiences. Many of the respondents stated that they lacked adequate computer training and that they could have benefitted from spending more time in real classrooms and learning more about social problems affecting young people today. These observations relate directly to teachers suggestions on how colleges and universities could improve their education programs. Top among the-suggestions\n Require student teachers to complete an internship at a crisis center to get experience with kids with social issues. The Wisdom of Experience  Help student teachers make connections with students and faculty in local districts so they can connect what theyre learning to the reality of the K-12 school setting.  Create mentoring programs so first-year teachers can share experiences and work with veteran teachers. The teachers who contributed to 'What to Expect Your First Year of Teaching also acknowledged that there were some experiences for which no college or university understanding the absolute commitment they must make to students. Respondents also felt that no teacher preparation program can adequately deal with the real-world challenges of social issues like gangs, violence, and abuse and the need to fill the many demanding roles of a teacher. The teachers whose responses are included in What to Expect were winners of the First Class Teacher Award, an award that honors the nations outstanding elementary and secondary first-year teachers. Other topics in the book include tips on having a successful first year, advice from veteran teachers on being a successful teacher, and what principals and administrators can do to help first-year teachers. H Laura Kelly Editors Note: The entire text 0/What to Expect Your First Year of Teaching is available on the Web at \u0026lt;.http:/fwww.ed .gov/pubs/FirstYear\u0026gt;. 5'S Editor's Note: Charlotte Vlasis is the library media specialist at the Chattanooga School for the Liberal Arts. As media specialist, I am a resource person. But I also serve as a curriculum coordinator because I plan with all teachers and work with everyones maps, she says. SiA\nAwar^winningveteriiteathershave supplied a set oftips to p^s on to their .first-year colleagues.\nMai^ of these suggestiqiw^etips that all teachers would be. advisedto'fbliow. Heres a sampling: It's Vlasis'job to always have the big picture'' perspective, so it's also her responsibility to let teachers know when they're stepping on one another's toes. A lot of times it's easier for me to do that,\" she notes. \"I help make sure that we are developing a curriculum that grows in a spiral and instead of just repeating things.\" Vlasis can be reached via e-mail at \u0026lt; Vlasis_char@al .cps.k-12.tn.us\u0026gt;.  Be consistentdo what you say you are going to do at all times and with  every child.\n' A? s/D.. f. . Ntodelaiovefbrlearning. l Di.i^j v : ' 7\n/.\ni\u0026lt;'\"Maintama'senseofhumori\nyf 'A 'fN j-Sffefavarid^tifintetestingi3idices.qfactivitiesfbrldds.' W N.NN Keep an open doorto parents. A T ,  \u0026gt; i*. Maintain reject above all. yy:,\nD?'A-'i-I'i'\n. ' . In a nut^ell:.bejyourself,'Wofk with'paEents, love-the kids, lqye .teaching\n'\n. Source: From What to Expect Your TirstYear of Teaching,Try A DePaul Septmt b^^ 'T'998iJVasKn^n,L\u0026gt;C:tlJS.D^drfmehtofEducdtipil.'.... I ASCD Professional Development Newsletter 5\n:!ggi856W^sda WE 1 t I t ( t t i 1 t T Curriculum Mapping: Charting the Course for Content T he Chattanooga School for the Liberal Arts is one of the schools featured in Curriculum Mapping: Charting the Course for Content, a new ASCD video-based staff development program designed to help educators explore curriculum mapping. The series consists of two videotapes and a Facilitator s Guide. The first program, The Essentials of Mapping, examines the purpose and possibilities of mapping and provides an overview of the mapping process as it has occurred in schools. The second video, Putting Mapping to Work, focuses on revising the maps using essential questions, developmental assessments, and computer technology. In bo programs, interviews and on-site observations offer perspectives of the many variables involved in curriculum mapping, including how to develop a school culture that supports mapping. The videos also describe how implementing curriculum mapping enhances student learning. The Facilitator's Guide includes detailed agendas and activities for six workshops three per videotapeas well as handouts, overheads, and additional readings and resources. Curriculum Mapping: Charting the Course for Content may be purchased for $326 (ASCD members) or $396 (nonmembers). For more information or to order, call the ASCD Service Center at 800-933-ASCD, then press 2. lilBa : i.^'f-' 1 :? A' \u0026gt;5. CTea.lmg and usmg curri^im' maps'ma^ lead to chmges in the way cur^culuni '., decisibnshremade?  \"S*'-'*' -r-.,. :  i-  Curriculum committees can be replaced with site-based councilsvwho use diejnaps r ftr.a clearpicture of the curriculum taught within the site aiidi^o make d^ioi^ ... .^^about issues that arise:  Member of the site-based councils meet at the (U^ct level to. coordinate laues between feeder schools. 1  Task forces are formed to study iKUK that need further research at e site or.. - district level. They iare disbanded when they have completed the study and inade  . Tecommendations. .Se\u0026gt;.-  To (tteafe a school culture that enables effective mapping, teachers mustbe comfbriable working with one another and feel free to be open Md honMt about their operational curriculum..'._ ....................  All decisions about the curriculum mustbe based on what is best for the leyher.  Mapping improves student performance by providing a clear picture of what Aesm- dent actuaUy experiences in grades K-12. giving teachers an opportunity to refine the curriculum to best-meet thestudents needs.  Source: From Curriculum Mapping: Charting the Course for Content, Facmtator s . Guide,^ 1999. Alexdndria,.Vd.:AssociationforSupervisionandG^^mDevelop^t^Ll I///7/9? Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Little Rock School District To: Selected Principals/Schools (Carver, Cloverdale Elem., Geyer Springs, Gibbs, Hall, King, Mabelvale Elem., Meadowcliff, Pulaski Heights Middle, Cloverdale Middle, Southwest Middle, Badgett, McDermitt, Wakefield, Woodruff) From: Mona Briggs, Evaluation Through: Kathy Lease, Assistant Superintendent\u0026lt;X^Xs Re: Curriculum Mapping Training Date: November 8, 1999 As you know. Curriculum Mapping is a vital part of the school improvement process. Our field representatives from the Arkansas Department of Education will be expecting to see evidence of our mapping as they visit our schools, as this is part of the ACSIP requirement. Your school has been selected for the first round of training\na team from each school will participate in learning this procedure. It will enable you and your teachers to develop and use curriculum, maps. In order to provide your team with all the information and tools that will be needed to train the rest of your staff, we have scheduled one day and a half on January 11 and 12 at the State Police Headquarters facility at Geyer Springs and I-30. The first days schedule will be from 8:30 am until 4:00 pm\nthe second day will begin at 8:30 and will end at noon. Since teachers have had to be out of the building so much this fall for curriculum training, we are suggesting that a team be comprised of the administrator and two or three staff members who do not require substitutes. For example, a team might be a principal, a counselor, a media specialist, and a curriculum specialist. It is essential that an administrator be present\nif the principal cannot be present, please permit and assistant principal to attend. The same participants must attend both days. You will be sent another notification of the training\nhowever, I wanted to get this on your calendar well in advance so as to prevent possible conflicts. If you have any questions vvhatsoever, please feel free to contact me or Eddie McCoy. Cl LL Lt Planriing, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Little Rock School District To: From: Selected Principals/Schools ( Bale, Booker, Brady, Central High, Fulbright, Metro, Mitchell, Otter Creek, Rockefeller, Western Jiills, McDermott, Baseline, J. A. Fair, Dunbar) Mona Briggs, Evaluation SpecialistVy^ Through: Kathy Lease, Assistant Superintendent Re: Curriculum Mapping Training Date: November 19, 1999 1' 4 iiS As you know, Curriculum Mapping is a vital part of the school improvement process. Our field representatives from the Arkansas Department of Education will be expecting to see evidence of our mapping as they visit our schools, as this is part of the ACSIP requirement. i  I\u0026lt; Your school has been selected for the second round of training\na team from each school will participate in learning this procedure. It will enable you and your teachers to develop and use curriculum maps. In order to provide your team with all the information and tools that will be needed to train the rest of your staff, we have scheduled one day and a half on January 18 and 19 at the State Police Headquarters facility at Geyer Springs and I-30. The first day's schedule will be from 8:30 am until 4:00 pm\nthe second day will begin at 8:30 and will end at noon. fj  'S? i Since teachers have had to be out of the building so much this fall for curriculum training, we are suggesting that a team be comprised of the administrator and two or three staff members who do not require substitutes. For example, a team might be a principal, a counselor, a media specialist, and a curriculum specialist. It is essential that an administrator be present\nif the principal cannot be present, please permit an assistant principal to attend. The same participants must attend both days. You will be sent another notification of the training\nhowever, I wanted to get this on your calendar well in advance so as to prevent possible conflicts. If you have any questions whatsoever, please feel free to contact me or Eddie McCoy. 9 LL l|P|av Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Little Rock School District January 12, 2000 To: From\nSelected Principals (Central, J.A. Fair, Dunbar, Baseline, Bale, Brady, Otter Creek, Rockefeller, Western Hills) , Mona Briggs, Evaluation Specialist Through\nKathy Lease, Assistant Superintendent RE: Curriculum Mapping Training Your school is scheduled on February 9 and 10,2000 to participate in Curriculum Mapping training. Our new ACSIP process requires this as part of the school improvement planning process. In order to provide you with the information and materials needed to present to your staff, please identify a team from your school consisting of an administrator and two or three other staff members who do not require substitutes. For example, a team might be the principal, a media specialist, a counselor, and a curriculum specialist. This will prevent you from having teachers out of the building. The same participants must participate both days. The training will be held at the State Police Headquarters. It is located off 1-30 at the Geyer Springs exit. The facility is located south of 1-30 on the access road. You will need to come through the main doors to the information desk. You will receive visitors' badges and will be required to sign in. The workshop is in Classroom A\nthe information desk clerk can direct you to the room. The first days schedule is from 8:30 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. The second day will begin at 8:30 and will end at noon. Have each team member bring a plan book from last year for use in applying the skills learned on day 1. The more detailed the planbook, the better it will be for you to do the mapping. Be sure and eat a hearty breakfast, as we are not permitted to bring food or drink into the classroom area. However, there is a break room where you can purchase drinks and snacks during the mid-moming and mid-afternoon break. LESLEY, BONNIE From: pent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Tuesday, January 18, 2000 5:39 PM BRIGGS, MONA\nMcCOY, EDDIE\nLEASE, KATHY R. Curriculum Mapping--April Inservice Please think through what the schools will need if we let them do Curriculum Mapping training on the April inservice day. I know the videos will be an issue. Can we get permission from ASCD to copy the tape for use that one day? I know we bought several tapes already, but we certainly don't have 50 for the schools to use. Should we combine some schools, perhaps? Let me know what you think. 1 To: u- 1 nloo t .1 1 I 1 I From: Through: RE: Planning, Research, and Evaluation Little Rock School District Instructional Resource Center Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 January 14,2000 Selected Principals (McClellan, Forest Heights, Henderson, Chicot, Dodd, Fair Park, Forest Park, Franklin, Garland, Jefferson, Fulbright, McDermott, Hall, Pulaski Heights Elementary, Mann Magnet) Mona Briggs, Evaluation Specialist Kathy Lease, Assistant Superintendent Curriculum Mapping Training Your school is scheduled on March 7 and 8,2000 to participate in Curriculum Mapping training. As you know, the states ACSIP process requires mapping as part of the school improvement planning process. In order to provide you with the information and materials needed to teach your staff, please identify a team from your school consisting of an administrator and two or three other staff members who do not require substitutes. For example, a team might be the principal, a counselor, the media specialist, and a curriculum specialist. This will prevent you from having a number of teachers out of your building You are encouraged to invite your broker to the training, as well. The same participants should participate on both days. The training will be held at the State Police Headquarters. It is located off 1-30 at the Geyer Springs exit. The facility is located south of 1-30 on the access road. You will to come through the main doors to the information desk. You will be given a visitors badge and will be required to sign in. The workshops is in Classroom C\nthe information desk clerk can direct you to the room. The first days schedule is from 8:30 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. The second day will begin at 8:30 a.m. and will end at noon. Have each team member bring a plan book from last fall or last year for use in applying the skills learned. The more detailed the plan book, the better it will be for you to do the mapping activities. Be sure and eat a hearty breakfast, as we are not permitted to bring food or drink into classroom area. However, there is a break room where you can purchase drinks and snacks during the mid-morning and mid-afternoon breaks. Please e-mail me when you have identified your school team. Call me at 324-2120 if you have any questions. f UL Planning, Research, and Evaluation Instructional Resource Center Little Rock, Arkansas To: Selected Principals (McClellan, Forest Heights, Henderson, Chicot, Dodd, Fair Park, Forest Park, Fulbright, Garland, Jefferson, Fulbright, McDermott, Mann, Pulaski Heights Elementary) /I From: Mona Briggs, Technical Assistance ^9^ Through: Dr. Kathy Lease, Assistant Superintendent for RE: Curriculum Mapping Training Date: February 14, 2000 This is just a reminder that your school is scheduled for March 7 and 8 to participate in Curriculum Mapping training. Please identify a team from your school consisting of an administrator and two or three other staff members. If you are experiencing difficulty in getting substitutes, you may choose to bring the counselor, media specialist, and a curriculum specialist. Some principals have felt strongly, particularly at the secondary level, at math and/or language arts teachers should be included. That decision is up to you\nyou may also invite your broker as weU. However, we wiU be doing training for brokers in April. The important thing is that the same participants attend both days. Don't forget, the training wiU be held at e State Police Headquarters, located at Geyer Springs exit. You must enter through the front entrance and check in at the front desk where you wUl be given a visitor's pass. The workshop will be held in Classroom C. Please arrive early enough to go through the check-in procedures and still be ready to work at 8:30. The first day is tightly scheduled. The first day's schedule is from 8130 until 4:00. The second day will begin at 8:30 and end at noon. Have each team member including yourself bring a plan book to use in applying the mapping skills. If you have questions, please call or e-mail me. I know this is a busy time of year, but earlier in the spring is always better than later when you consider aU the end of the year activities that you will be involved with. Thanks for your cooperation! LESLEY, BONNIE From: Bent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Thursday, February 17, 2000 12:29 PM BRIGGS, MONA RE: CM You always make me smile. Thank you. Oh, by the way, I can pay the $4000 plus for the inservice day. Just send me the bill and don't bother the schools with that. Have you heard that we may use the April day for snow day make-up and then move the inservice day to the end of the school year? Does that make a difference in our licensing agreement? Whatever you decide about New Orleans is fine, but I have the money if you want to go. Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: BRIGGS, MONA Thursday, February 17, 2000 12:10 PM LESLEY, BONNIE RE: CM Dear B, Having just read Gayle's request, Eddie and I think it would be great for Gayle and Cassandra to be able to go to the pre-conference. Gayle really wants to go and Cassandra did not even get to go to Wilson because of the money issue at that time. Eddie and I believe that the sessions are well presented\nthere is some resistance, as will always be the case when you move peoplej out of their comfort zone. Actually, the resistance has less than one would expect\nthat last session, one school had some \"issues. II Gayle and Cassandra can bring back the information to us\nspending that money on all of us would not be an efficient use of sorely limited funds. There's a lot we need to know about this, but we don't think we will get that kind of knowledge in a conference setting where we hear the overview from a speaker and just listen. However, we do think that a site visit at some pointperhaps in the summer when we have more timeto a school district that has been doing mapping for some year would be extremely beneficial for the \"Bobsey Twins\" aka AAONA and EDDIE! (smile) So, keep that in mind... 1MAE from PRE who are doing NWEA ASAP...yadda, yadda, yadda From: Sent: To: Original Message- Cc: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Thursday, February 17, 2000 12:00 PM BRADFORD, GAYLE\nBRIGGS, MONA\nSTEELE, CASSANDRA\nMcCOY, EDDIE\nMcCOY, EDDIE\nMcNEAL, MARIE\nGLASGOW, DENNIS: DAVIS, SUZI\nCLEAVER, VANESSA GILLIAM, ANITA RE: CM If any or all of you would like to attend the ASCD pre-conference on curriculum mapping (see Gayle Bradford's appeal below), then I will fund it out of my budget. Please send your forms to Anita Gilliam for processing. From: Sent: Original Message- To: LESLEY, BONNIE BRADFORD, GAYLE Thursday, February 17, 2000 11:26 AM Subject: Importance: RE: CM High Sorry I missed you last night - I'll be at the NSF meeting at 8:30 tomorrow at Adult Leisure Center. Let me tell you what I wanted to discuss. I'm not sure but think that probably Kathy, Sadie or Mona/Eddie have told you what a fiasco we had in the last curriculum mapping training. There was much negativism on the part of one school in particular and comments as to lack of expertise on the part of the presenters. Well, we (in the opening portion of the workshop) explained that we were not experts and that we were learning along with everyone else but had been slated to deliver this information to them in an orderly fashion to assist them in training their teachers to do CM. We also explained that mapping is a state mandate and have no choice about implementing - however, noting that it was chosen by the state because it has been shown to be effective in increasing student achievement. Anyway, at the end of the session, the four of us met. I told them and later told Sadie and Kathy that I feel quite inadequate. I immediately got on the internet and found that there is a two-day session at ASCD this year (March 22/23) where Heidi Hayes Jacobs is doing CM. I asked Sadie about it - she suggested that I sit down and talk with you about it. I believe we need the training since this is a long-term commitment on our part - a multi-year process. I am requesting that we be allowed to get the training in March so that we can be ready for the rest of the training and implementing all seven phases of Jacobs' model - we're still at phase one but need the fine-tuned information from a training session on the model. We also need to visit a school (s) where the model has been implemented and \"pick their brains\" as to how their training took place, timelines for implementation of the seven phases, etc. Could you please send us to the training? I'm not the type person who feels good about doing half-ass work - presentations need to be good - I don't like to go before a group of folks and present information, let them know what we have lying ahead, and then can't field questions. PLEASE HELP! Gayle B. Bradford Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 501.324.0568\nfax: 501.324.2213 gbbradf@lrsdadm.lrsd.kl2.ar.us Original Message----- From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Wednesday, February 16, 2000 10:02 AM BRADFORD, GAYLE RE: CM I'll be there for the Board meeting on Thursday and for the compliance meeting on Friday morning. Original Message From: BRADFORD, GAYLE 2 Sent: To: Subject: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 1:17 PM LESLEY, BONNIE CM Hi, Will you be coming over to this building in the next few days? I'd like to talk with you about CM training. I won't be in your shop for a number of days because of cluster meetings, etc. around here. Thanks. Gayle B. Bradford Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 501.324.0568\nfax: 501.324.2213 gbbradf@lrsdadm.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 3 DO Planning, Research, and Evaluation Little Rock School District March 27, 2000 To: Brokers/IRC Specialists From: Mona Briggs, Technical Assistance Through: Dr. Kathy Lease, Assistant Superintendent for P.R.E. I RE: Curriculum Mapping Training We are providing a one-day curriculum mapping training session on April 24, 2000, for Brokers and interested IRC Specialists who have not yet had the training. The training will be held at the State Police Headquarters, located at 1-30 and the Geyer Springs exit. You will be required to enter the front entrance and check in at the front desk where you will be given a visitors pass. The workshop will be held in Classroom C. The workshop will begin at 8:30 a.m. and will conclude at 4:00 p.m. Be sure and eat a hearty breakfast, as we are not permitted to bring any food or drink into the room itself. There is, however, a break-room where drinks and snacks can be purchased during morning and afternoon breaks. Please let me know if you are not going to be able to attend. You can telephone me at 324-2120 or e-mail me. If you have any questions, let me know. Thanks!LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Friday, April 14, 2000 10:40 AM BRIGGS, MONA\nWOODS, MARION LEASE, KATHY R. RE\nCM Day for High Schools The high schools have two and one half days of pre-school inservice. They must use one of those days to do curriculum mapping. Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: BRIGGS, MONA Friday, April 14, 2000 10:25 AM WOODS, MARION LEASE, KATHY R.\nLESLEY, BONNIE CM Day for High Schools M, Is there a way we can build in time during our summer pre-school days for the five high schools to inservice their staffs on Curriculum mapping? They cannot do it in June with everyone else due to CAP activities. They have concerns about how they are going to be able to do it. Let me know what you think. Thanks. Seek first to understand, then to be understood Mona mrbrigg@irc.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 1 LESLEY, BONNIE aFrom: lent: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Tuesday, May 02, 2000 3:24 PM BRIGGS, MONA RE\nCM District Timeline See Anita for a time for us to meet. -Original Message- From: Sent: To: Subject: Importance: High BRIGGS, MONA Wednesday, April 26, 2000 5:09 PM LEASE, KATHY R.\nLESLEY, BONNIE\nMcCOY, EDDIE\nSTEELE, CASSANDRA\nBRADFORD, GAYLE FW: CM District Timeline Great minds run in the same vein...Eddie and I have been \"saying\" we have got to get this stuff nailed down. I gave Daniel the tapes to copy and he completed the taping and they are ready for June 5. We need to get a memo out to principals and yes, we need to determine expectations and a timeline...etc. Kathy and Bonnie: would you guys be willing to sit down with us for a few focused minutes and give us your input on our next steps? If so, give me some times and I will get with Gayle, Eddie, and Cassandra and set up the time and date. Let me know... MONA Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: Importance: High BRADFORD, GAYLE Wednesday, April 26, 2000 4:36 PM BRIGGS, MONA CM District Timeline Mona, I am really antsy about getting our CM in focus for both now and the future -- we need to sit down with Kathy and Bonnie, plan/draft a timeline for the district and get their input as to implementation levels, etc. Remember, the principals and even the team members attending the training had the \"need\" to know where they are going -- our district's plan in getting the whole process implemented from the time the teachers map their lesson plans, take their individual maps on to their grade levels, and then on to the final stage of having those maps established -- posted in their buildings for all to see -- and then on a semester basis, reviewing the previous semester's map and modifying those areas they see where changes need to be made, etc. Sorry so long -- kind of thinking as I am typing. BOTTOM LINE -- PLEASE, LET'S GET INPUT FROM KATHY AND BONNIE. Bye, Gayle Gayle B. Bradford Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Uttle Rock, AR 72201 501.324.0568\nfax: 501.324.2213 gbbradf@lrsdadm.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 1 LESLEY, BONNIE a From: lent: Subject: McCOY, EDDIE Tuesday, June 06, 2000 3:50 PM LESLEY, BONNIE RE: curriculum mapping models I checked this out and it's very interesting. I printed some of the grade levels in the areas of math and language arts. They did a good job of focusing on content, skills/concepts, and assessment. The Sth grade curriculum is divided into six units, each lasting four weeks. This example may be helpful to schools using thematic units. This can serve as a good example for those schools having difficulty with the mapping concept/process! Of course, they appear to be further along in the process than we are. Thanks for the \"heads up.\" We have received a lot of positive feed-back on Monday's curriculum mapping activities! Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY. BONNIE Tuesday, June 06, 2000 8:36 AM BRIGGS, MONA\nMcCOY, EDDIE FW: curriculum mapping models Want to check this out? Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: MADDOX, BEVERLY Friday, June 02, 2000 3:14 PM BUCK, LARRY\nROGERS, SHERRY\nBOYKIN, PATRICIA BRIGGS, MONA\nWILSON, VEKISSA\nLESLEY, BONNIE\nLACEY, MARIAN G. curriculum mapping models  File\ncurriculum mappping.doc  If this site is still active, it could contain some useful models. I'm going to visit it before Monday, if I have time. I know you would be interested. Beverly 1LESLEY, BONNIE From: pent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Tuesday, June 06, 2000 12:06 PM BRIGGS, MONA RE: curriculum mapping models Great news! Pinch me tool Making taking the pressure off them helped. Now they are doing it because they want to-not because we said they had to. Original Message- From: Sent: To: Subject: BRIGGS, MONA Tuesday, June 06, 2000 10:36 AM LESLEY, BONNIE RE: curriculum mapping models Thanks! I have continued to get positive reports--from Rightsell, Baseline. Mann, and Southwest. They really got into it! My husband was mapping his physcial education classes and is gonna complete his map over the summer...pinch me now! Original Message- From: Sent: To: LESLEY, BONNIE Tuesday, June 06, 2000 8:36 AM BRIGGS, MONA: McCOY, EDDIE Subject: FW: curriculum mapping models Want to check this out? Original Message- From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: MADDOX, BEVERLY Friday, June 02, 2000 3:14 PM BUCK, LARRY\nROGERS, SHERRY\nBOYKIN, PATRICIA BRIGGS, MONA\nWILSON, VEKISSA\nLESLEY, BONNIE\nLACEY, MARIAN G. curriculum mapping models  File: curriculum mappping.doc  If this site is still active, it could contain some useful models. I'm going to visit it before Monday, if I have time. I know you would be interested. Beverly 1\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_907","title":"Discipline: ''Analysis of Disciplinary Actions, District Level,'' North Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1999/2000"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","North Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School discipline"],"dcterms_title":["Discipline: ''Analysis of Disciplinary Actions, District Level,'' North Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/907"],"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":["85 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nNORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ANALYSIS Of DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS District Level FRANC/CAL J JACKSON Director of Student Afjairs DIS0 .. 6/ _/00 ime: 10: ': 35 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions DISTRICT LEVEL From AUGUST Through JUNE 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 -----BM-----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF-----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU --------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 S.A.C. 1443 52.3% 718 26.0% 458 16.6% 138 5.0% 2757 604 356 257 95 1312 0 HOME SC' P. 566 66.3% 141 16.5% 125 14.6% 22 2.6% 854 293 90 71 14 468 BOYS CI fB 359 58.2% 148 24.0% 88 14.3% 22 3.6% 617 207 97 68 16 388 2 E. I.C. 211 60.3% 106 30.3% 27 7. 7% 6 1. 7% 350 118 52 24 6 200 EXPULSION 7 63.6% 2 18.2% 1 9.1% 1 9 .1% 11 7 2 1 1 11 ==========================================================================------ 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 -=======================================================================-------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU =========================================================================------- S.A.C. 1468 55.0% 662 24.8% 401 15.0% 139 5.2% 2670 615 379 234 85 1313 0 HOME SUSP. 406 63.5% 113 17.7% 102 16.0% 18 2.8% 639 247 75 69 15 406 1 BOYS CLUB 351 58.8% 129 21.6% 90 15 .1% 27 4.5% 597 218 92 67 17 394 E. I. C. 246 61.5% 63 15.8% 75 18.8% 16 4.0% 400 120 40 36 8 204 7 EXPULSION 3 60.0% 0 O!l,.  0 2 40.0% 0 O!l,.  0 5 3 0 2 0 5 ====================================================================---------== COMPARISON -=-==================================================================-------=-== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ===================================================================------------- 9 S.A.C. 25 1.7 % 56- 7.8-% 57- 12.4-% 1 .7 % 87- 11 23 23- 10- 1 HOME SUSP. 160- 28.3-% 28- 19.9-% 23- 18.4-% 4- 18.2-% 215- 46- 15- 2- 1 62- 1 BOYS CLUB 8- 2.2-% 19- 12.8-% 2 2.3 !!,. 0 5 22.7 !!,. 0 20- 11 5- 1- 1 6 2 E. I.C. 35 16.6 % 43- 40.6-% 48 177.8 % 10 166.7 % 50 2 12- 12 2 4 7 EXPULSION 4- 57.1-% 2- 100.0-% 1 100.0 % 1- 100.0-% 6- 4- 2- 1 1- 6- DIS032 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions ~Date: 6/21/00 ELEMENTARY K-5  Time: 10:04:35 From AUGUST Through JUNE --=--===-----------------======================================----============= 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 ===============-----BM------==-----BF------==-----NBM-----==-----NBF-----======= # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU \n=\n~~~~~=========\n~====:\n~\n====~~====\n:~\n====~\n====\n~~\n=====\n======~\n====\nHOME SlSP. 11 BOYS c- :.JB E. I.C. EXPULE ON 24 13 12 0 49 374 66.9% 101 18.1% 68 12.2% 16 2.9% 559 202 69 45 12 328 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 211 60.3% 106 30.3% 27 7.7% 6 1.7% 350 118 52 24 6 200 0 Og.. 0 Og.. 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0  0  0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 -----BM-----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ---------- -----------------===================================================- 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME Sl '11 BOYS Cl 12 E. I.C. 17 EXPULS: HOME SU BOYS CL 1112 E.I.C. 17 EXPULSI I I ? 3 113 58.5% 58 30.1% 19 9.8% 3 1.6% 54 39 17 2 263 62.9% 80 19.1% 62 14.8% 13 3.1% 171 54 42 11 ... 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 246 61.5% 63 15.8% 75 18.8% 16 4.0% 120 40 36 8 0 .0% 0 Og..  0 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 0 1 0 COMPARISON -----BM-----# REF PCT ( + / - ) # STU -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU 193 112 418 278 0 0 400 204 1 1 ===========================================================--------- 77 213. 9 % 40 222.2 % 0 .0 % 3 300.0 % 120 30 26 5 2 63 111- 29.7-% 21- 20.8-% 6- 8.8-% 3- 18.8-% 141- 31- 15- 3- 1- so- 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .o % 0 .o % 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 16.6 % 43- 40.6-% 48 177.8 % 10 166.7 % 50 2 12- 12 2 4 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 1 100.0 % 0 .0 % 1 0 0 1 0 1 ef: DIS032 ate: 6/21/00 'ime: 10:04:36 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions MIDDLE SCHOOLS From AUGUST Through JUNE --------------------------===================================================== 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 ------------------------------================================================= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -----------------------------=--===========================================---= 9 S.A.C. 744 54.3% 353 25.7% 224 16.3% 50 3.6% 1371 316 180 130 35 661 .0 HOME SC.SP. 100 64.5% 23 14.8% 29 18. 7% 3 1. 9% 155 43 10 12 1 66 BOYS C:JB 238 58.2% 107 26.2% 54 13.2% 10 2.4% 409 120 64 37 5 226 2 E. I.C. 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 2 50.0% 1 25.0% 0 09-  0 1 25.0% 4 2 1 0 1 4 ---=======-=-===----------===================================================-=- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----====------------------===============================================------ S.A.C. 652 52.7% 329 26.6% 186 15.0% 71 5.7% 1238 295 185 107 43 630 _o HOME SUSP. 47 52.2% 14 15.6% 28 31.1% 1 1.1% 90 21 9 16 1 47 1 BOYS CLUB 203 54 .1% 98 26 .1% 58 15.5% 16 4.3% 375 116 66 40 9 231 E.I.C. 0 09-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 1 100.0% 0 0 9-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 1 1 0 0 0 1 -----===---=====---------==============================================-------- COMPARISON -----==============---=-=================================================------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -----=================================================================---------- 9 S.A.C. 92- 12.4-% 24- 6.8-% 38- 17.0-% 21 42.0 % 133- 21- 5 23- 8 31- HOME SUSP. 53- 53.0-% 9- 39.1-% 1- 3.4-% 2- 66.7-% 65- 22- 1- 4 0 19- 1 BOYS CLUB 35- 14.7-% 9- 8.4-% 4 7.4 9- 0 6 60.0 % 34- 4- 2 3 4 5 2 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 1- 50.0-% 1- 100.0-% 0 . 0 % 1- 100.0-% 3- 1- 1- 0 1- 3- Ref: DIS032 ate: 6/21/00 ime: 10:04:36 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions HIGH SCHOOLS From AUGUST Through JUNE 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU --====-==-----------------------------=========-------================--------- 9 S.A.C. 663 50.5% 347 26.4% 215 16.4% 88 6. 7%- 1313 265 163 115 60 603 0 HOME SUSP. 90 65.2% 17 12.3% 28 20.3% 3 2 . 2 %- 138 47 11 14 1 73 11 BOYS CLUB 121 58.2% 41 19.7% 34 16.3% 12 5.8% 208 87 33 31 11 162 2 E. I.C. 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 5 71.4% 1 14.3% 1 14.3% 0 0 !1--  0 7 5 1 1 0 7 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 -==============-----------===============================================------ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ---=======-=====-=----------======================-----==================------- S.A.C. 703 56. 7%- 275 22.2% 196 15.8% 65 5.2% 1239 266 155 110 40 571 0 HOME SUSP. 94 72.9% 19 14 . 7%- 12 9 . 3 %- 4 3 .1%- 129 54 12 11 3 80 1 BOYS CLUB 148 66. 7%- 31 14.0% 32 14.4% 11 5.0% 222 102 26 27 8 163 E. I.C. 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 2 66. 7%- 0 Og..  0 1 33.3% 0 0!1--  0 3 2 0 1 0 3 -======================================================================-------- COMPARISON ---====================================================================--------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU =========================================================================------- 9 S.A.C. 40 6.0 %- 72- 20.7-%- 19- 8.8-%- 23- 26.1-%- 74- 1 8- 5- 20- 32- HOME SUSP. 4 4.4 %- 2 11.8 %- 16- 57.1-%- 1 33.3 %- 9- 7 1 3- 2 7 1 BOYS CLL 27 22.3 %- 10- 24.4-%- 2- 5.9-%- 1- 8 .3-% 14 15 7- 4- 3- 1 2 E. I.C. 0 . 0 %- 0 .0 %- 0 .0 %- 0 .0 %- 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSIC 3- 60.0-%- 1- 100.0-%- 0 .0 %- 0 .0 %- 4- 3- 1- 0 0 4- ef: DIS0 ate: 6/ ime: 10: chool: 3 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 100 by School :36 From AUGUST Through JUNE 2 NORTH LITTLE ROCK HIGH SCHOOL - 11/12 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 ------------------================================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ---------- ---------------===============================================----=- 09 S.A.C. 138 49.6% 66 23.7% 63 22.7% 11 4.0% 278 92 49 42 10 193 0 HOME Sl. :i 4 36.4% 3 27.3% 4 36.4% 0 0~  0 11 4 2 4 0 10 1 BOYS c 3 33 58.9% 13 23.2% 9 16.1% 1 1.8% 56 24 11 9 1 45 12 E. I.C. 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 1 0~  0 0 0~  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSI N 1 50.0% 0 0~  0 1 50.0% 0 0~  0 2 1 0 1 0 2 ---======-------=----------===============================================------ 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 -----==--------------------===============================================------ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ---------------------------==============================================------- S.A.C. 160 47.5% 90 26.7% 63 18.7% 24 7 .1% 337 94 65 44 17 220 HOME SUSP. 7 63.6% 0 0~  0 2 18.2% 2 18.2% 11 5 0 2 2 9 1 BOYS CLUB 44 56.4% 12 15.4% 16 20.5% 6 7.7% 78 34 11 14 4 63 E. I. C 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 1 50.0% 0 0~  0 1 50.0% 0 0~  0 2 1 0 1 0 2 --------------===----------===========================================---------- COMPARISON =---====================================================================-------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ---================================================================------------ 9 S.A.C. 22 15.9 % 24 36.4 % 0 . 0 % 13 118.2 % 59 2 16 2 7 27 0 HOME SUSP. 3 75.0 % 3- 100.0-% 2- 50.0-% 2 200.0 % 0 1 2- 2- 2 1- BOYS CLUB 11 33.3 % 1- 7.7-% 7 77.8 % 5 500.0 % 22 10 0 5 3 18 2 E.I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 ef: DIS032S Date: 6/21/00 ime: 10:04:37 chool: 013 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE NORTH LITTLE ROCK HIGH SCHOOL - 09/10 ================-==---------------============================================== 1998-.:!9 -----BM------ -BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # EF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # .u # STU # STU ===================-------------- ---------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 505 50.8% 72 27.4% 140 14.1% 77 7.7% 994 166 12 67 51 396 10 HOME SUSP. 4 100.0% 0 OS--  0 0 OS--  0 0 OS--  0 4 2 0 0 0 2 1 BOYS CLUB 88 57.9% 8 18.4% 25 16.4% 11 7.2% 152 64 -'-2 22 10 118 12 E. I.C. 0 OS--  0 0 OS--  0 0 OS--  0 0 OS--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 3 75.0% 1 25.0% 0 OS--  0 0 OS--  0 4 3 1 0 0 4 1999-L.0 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ----------------=-----------------=========================================----- S.A.C. 538 60.2% 184 20.6% 132 14.8% 40 4.5% 894 170 92 66 23 351 HOME SUSP. 7 58.3% 2 16.7% 3 25.0% 0 OS--  0 12 7 2 3 0 12 1 BOYS CLUB 104 72.2% 19 13. 2% 16 11.1% 5 3.5% 144 68 15 14 5 102 E. I.C 0 OS--  0 0 OS--  0 0 OS--  0 0 OS--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 1 100.0% 0 O!l--  0 0 O!l--  0 0 OS--  0 1 1 0 0 0 1 -----=====-==========-====-=====-=======================================-------- 9 S.A.C. 0 HOME SUSP. BOYS CLUB 2 E. I.C. EXPULSION COMPARISON -----BM------ # REF PCT(+/-) # # STU # 33 6.5 % 4 3 75.0 S-- 0 5 16 18.2 % 4 0 .0 % 0 2- 66.7-% 2- ======================================--------- --BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----~ F PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) ..,U # STU # STU =================================------------- 32.4-% 8- 5.7-% 37- 48.1-% 100- 1- 28- 45- 200.0 % 3 300.0 % 0 .0 % 8 3 0 10 32.1-% 9- 36.0-% 6- 54.5-% 8- 8- 5- 16- .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 100.0-% 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 3- 0 0 3- ef: DIS032S pate: 6/21/00 i me : 10 : 0 4 : 3 7 chool: 020 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE ARGENTA ACADEMY -----------------------------------=================--==================--====== 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 ----------------------------------================---=================---===-== -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -======---------=-----------==================================================== S.A.C. 47 59.5% 14 17. 7% 18 22.8% 0 0 9-  0 79 25 9 11 0 45 0 HOME SUSP. 176 65.2% 35 13.0% 53 19.6% 6 2.2% 270 79 17 22 2 120 1 BOYS CLUB 0 09-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I.C. 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 1 100.0% 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 9-  0 1 1 0 0 0 1 ---==----------=-----------==================================================== 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 ----------------=------------=-----==============------==================-===--- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ----------------=------------=-----===============-----======================--= 9 S.A.C. 7 58.3% 3 25.0% 1 8.3% 1 8.3% 12 7 3 1 1 12 HOME SUSP. 126 65.3% 32 16.6% 33 17.1% 2 1.0% 193 62 21 20 1 104 1 BOYS CLUB 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I.C 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -=--------------=------------==========================-============------------ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ---------------=====------=====================================---------------- 9 S.A.C. 40- 85.1-% 11- 78.6-% 17- 94.4-% 1 100.0 % 67- 18- 6- 10- 1 33- 0 HOME SUSP. 50- 28.4-% 3- 8.6-% 20- 37.7-% 4- 66.7-% 77- 17- 4 2- 1- 16- BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I.C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 1- 100.0-% 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 1- 1- 0 0 0 1- DIS032S ate: 6/21/00 ime: 10:04:37 School: 024 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE RIDGEROAD MIDDLE SCHOOL 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU =====================-==------===========================================------- S.A.C. 228 56.7% 108 26.9% 57 14.2% 9 2.2% 402 98 56 35 8 197 HOME SUSP. 3 75.0% 1 25.0% 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 4 3 1 0 0 4 11 BOYS CLUB 121 63.4% 46 24.1% 19 9. 9% 5 2.6% 191 54 28 15 3 100 12 E. I.C. 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 2 66. 7% 1 33.3% 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 3 2 1 0 0 3 =========================================================================------- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ======================================================================---------- 09 S.A.C. 220 55. 7% 82 20.8% 52 13.2% 41 10.4% 395 103 48 31 21 203 10 HOME SUSP. 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 1 100.0% 1 0 0 0 1 1 11 BOYS CLUB 119 64.0% 33 17.7% 21 11. 3% 13 7.0% 186 66 23 19 6 114 12 E. I.C 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 1 100.0% 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 1 1 0 0 0 1 -======================================================================----====== COMPARISON ========================================================================-======- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ==================================================================-------------- '09 S.A.C. 8- 3.5-% 26- 24.1-% 5- 8.8-% 32 355.6 g.. 0 7- lf10 5 8- 4- 13 6 HOME SUSP. 3- 100.0-% 1- 100.0-% 0 .0 % 1 100.0 % 3- 3- 1- 0 1 3- 11 BOYS CLUB 2- 1.7-% 13- 28.3-% 2 10.5 % 8 160.0 % 5- 11112 12 5- 4 3 14 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .o % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1- 50.0-% 1- 100.0-% 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 2- 1- 1- 0 0 2-  DIS032S ate: 6/21/00 ime: 10:04:37 chool: 025 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE LAKEWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -===========----------------------==--========-==-------=============----------- 9 S.A.C. 129 54.0% 61 25.5% 27 11. 3% 22 9.2% 239 64 32 21 11 128 0 HOME SUSP. 3 100.0% 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 3 3 0 0 0 3 1 BOYS CLUB 42 72 .4% 16 27.6% 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 58 22 9 0 0 31 E. I.C. 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 ==========================================================================------ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -=======================================================================-------- 9 S.A.C. 96 45.7% 66 31.4% 41 19.5% 7 3.3% 210 48 37 28 5 118 HOME SUSP. 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 BOYS CLUB 13 35.1% 17 45.9% 6 16.2% 1 2.7% 37 9 12 5 1 27 2 E. I.C 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -======================================================================---====== COMPARISON ==================================================================------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ================================================================--------------- S.A.C. 33- 25.6-% 5 8.2 % 14 51.9 % 15- 68.2-% 29- 16- 5 7 6- 10- 0 HOME SUSP. 3- 100.0-% 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 3- 3- 0 0 0 3- BOYS CLUB 29- 69.0-% 1 6.3 % 6 600.0 % 1 100.0 % 21- 13 - 3 5 1 4- 2 E. I.C. 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .o % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIS03 ., 6/2 , 00 Time: 10: 0 37 School: C 6 ROSE Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU ----------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 134 49.6% 73 27.0% 55 20.4% 8 3.0% 270 62 42 30 6 140 10 HOME sm:?. 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 BOYS CL 3 54 43.2% 38 30.4% 28 22.4% 5 4.0% 125 30 21 17 2 70 12 E. I. C. 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ==========================================================================------ 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 --==========-======--------=============================================-------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------=---=-=-===---------===========================-===============---------- 09 S.A.C. 119 48.4% 62 25.2% 49 19.9% 16 6.5% 246 64 39 20 12 135 10 HOME SUSP. 1 33.3% 0 Og..  0 2 66. 7% 0 Og..  0 3 1 0 2 0 3 11 BOYS CLUB 41 41.8% 30 30.6% 26 26.5% 1 1.0% 98 22 17 13 1 53 12 E. I.C 0 09,  0 0 09,  0 0 09,  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---================================================================-------====== COMPARISON ===================================================================------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # sru #Sru #sru #Sru ==============================================================------------------ 09 S.A.C. 15- 11.2-% 11- 15.1-% 6- 10.9-% 8 100.0 % 24- 2 3- 10- 6 5- 10 HOME SUSP. 1 100.0 % 0 . 0 % 2 200.0 % 0 .0 % 3 1 0 2 0 3 11 BOYS CLUB 13- 24.1-% 8- 21.1-% 2- 7.1-% 4- 80.0-% 27- 8- 4- 4- 1- 17- 12 E. I. C. 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 g.. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 g.. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIS032S ate: 6/21/00 ime: 10:04:38 chool: 030 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE POPLAR STREET MIDDLE SCHOOL =======--------===============================================------ 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ----------- ====-------------=====================-----===============---------- 9 S.A.C. 226 53.6% 106 25.1% 79 18.7% 11 2.6% 422 88 50 42 10 190 0 HOME SUE 0 O!l,-  0 1 100.0% 0 O!l,-  0 0 O!l,-  0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 BOYS CLl, 21 60.0% 7 20.0% 7 20.0% 0 O!l,-  0 35 16 7 5 0 28 E. I.C. 0 O!l,-  0 0 O!l,-  0 0 O!l,-  0 1 O!l,-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSIO 0 O!l,-  0 0 O!l,-  0 0 O!l,-  0 1 100.0% 1 0 0 0 1 1 =============================================================------ 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ----------- -=======================================-==================--------- 9 S.A.C. 215 56.1% 117 30.5% 44 11. 5% 7 1.8% 383 84 60 28 6 178 HOME susr. 0 O!l,-  0 0 O!l,-  0 0 O!l,-  0 0 O!l,-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 BOYS CLU::., 30 55.6% 18 33.3% 5 9.3% 1 1.9% 54 21 14 3 1 39 2 E. I.C 0 O!l,-  0 0 O!l,-  0 0 O!l,-  0 0 O!l,-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSIO, 0 O!l,-  0 0 O!l,-  0 0 O!l,-  0 0 O!l,-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --=================================================================-----======= COMPARISON ===================================================================------------ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ===============================================================---------------- 9 S.A.C. 11- 4.9-% 11 10.4 % 35- 44.3-% 4- 36.4-% 39- 4- 10 14- 4- 12- 0 HOME SUSP. 0 .0 % 1- 100.0-% 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 1- 0 1- 0 0 1- BOYS CLUB 9 42.9 % 11 157.1 % 2- 28.6-% 1 100.0 % 19 5 7 2- 1 11 2 E.I.C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 1- 100.0-% 1- 0 0 0 1- 1- DIS032S ate: 6/21/00 ime: 10:04:38 chool: 031 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE AMBOY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----=-=-------------------------------=---------------------=======------------ 9 S.A.C. 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 31 86.1% 3 8.3% 2 5.6% 0 0!1--  0 36 16 3 2 0 21 1 BOYS CLUB 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I.C. 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -=====================-===============================================---------- 9 S.A.C. 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 42 75.0% 5 8.9% 7 12.5% 2 3.6% 56 20 5 6 2 33 1 BOYS CLUB 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I.C 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ----===============================================================------------- COMPARISON ---==========================================================--=--------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # ~TU # STU # STU --=============================-========================----------------------- S.A.C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 11 35.5 % 2 66.7 % 5 250.0 % 2 200.0 % 20 4 2 4 2 12 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I.C. 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 !1-- 0 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S ate: 6/21/00 ime: 10:04:38 ::\nchool: 032 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 S.A.C. 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 3 42.9% 0 09--  0 4 57.1% 0 0 9-  0 7 2 0 1 0 3 1 BOYS CLUB 0 09-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 09--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I.C. 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 09,  0 0 0 9-  0 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ==================-=--=================================================-------- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 =========================================================================----=== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU --=======================================================================----==== 9 S.A.C. 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 0 9,  0 0 09--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 1 16.7% 4 66. 7% 1 16. 7% 0 09--  0 6 1 3 1 0 5 1 BOYS CLUB 0 09,  0 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I.C 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -===================================================================------------ COMPARISON ==============================================================----------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU =========================================================---------------------- 9 S.A.C. 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 2- 66.7-% 4 400.0 % 3- 75.0-% 0 . 0 % 1- 1- 3 0 0 2 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 6/21/00 by School ime: 10:04:38 chool: 033 From AUGUST Through JUNE BOONE PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ----------- 9 S.A.C. 0 HOME SUS 1 BOYS CLl E. I.C. 7 EXPULSI 9 S.A.C. HOME SUS 1 BOYS CLC 2 E.I.C EXPULSIO ---------- 9 S.A.C. 0 HOME SUS BOYS CLU 2 E.I.C. 7 EXPULSIO 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ========------=-===========================================--------- 3 60.0% 1 20.0% 1 20.0% 0 Og..  0 5 3 1 1 0 5 104 82.5% 20 15.9% 0 Og..  0 2 1. 6% 126 57 12 0 1 70 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 09-,  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ===========-===========================-----=-=-=========----------- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 =======================================--=-=--=========-=---------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ======================================================------------- 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 051-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 73.4% 17 26.6% 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 64 31 9 0 0 40 0 Og..  0 0 051-  0 0 Og..  0 0 051-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 82.5% 20 16. 7% 0 Og..  0 1 851-  0 120 53 11 0 1 65 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ===================================================---------------- COMPARISON =================================================------------------ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU =======================================---===---------------------- 3- 100.0-% 1- 100.0-% 1- 100.0-% 0 . 0 % 5- 3- 1- 1- 0 5- 57- 54.8-% 3- 15.0-% 0 .0 % 2- 100.0-% 62- 26- 3- 0 1- 30- 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 . 0 % 20 .0 % 0 .0 % 1 . 0 % 120 99 20 0 1 65 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIS032S 6/21/00 10:04:38 035 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE SEVENTH STREET ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 '------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF-----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU =================---------------==============----====================---------- S.A.C. 1 100.0% 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 1 1 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 23 65.7% 12 34.3% 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 13 11 0 0 BOYS CLUB 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 0 0 0 0 E. I.C. 115 57.5% 82 41.0% o1 1. 5% 0 0~  0 51 33 3 . 0 EXPULSION 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 0 0 g.  0 0 0 g.  0 0 0 0 0 ~=====================---===-===================-=====================---------- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 -==================-----------================----===================----------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU --=================------------==============----------=--========----------==== S.A.C. 93 66.4% 41 29.3% 6 4.3% 0 Og.  0 140 42 26 5 0 73 HOME SUSP. 21 70.0% 5 16.7% 4 13.3% 0 0 g.  0 30 17 3 2 0 22 BOYS CLUB 0 0 g.  0 0 0 g.  0 0 0 g.  0 0 0 g.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I. C 4 100.0% 0 Og.  0 0 0 g.  0 0 Og.  0 4 4 0 0 0 4 EXPULSION 0 0 g.  0 0 Og.  0 0 0 g.  0 0 Og.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---=============================~= ==========================------------------- COMPARISO ==-============================ -----BM------ # REF PCT(+/-) # # STU # ==--=========================== S.A.C. 92 9200.0 % 41 HOME SUSP. 2- 8.7-% 4 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 E. I. C. 111- .0 % 1- EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 =============================------------------ --BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----SF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) TU # STU # STU =========-------------------------------------- 1 4100.0 % 6 600.0 % 0 .0 % 139 5 0 72 7- 58.3-% 4 400.0 % 0 .0 % 5- 3- 2 0 2- J . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 2- .0 % 3- .0 % 0 .0 % 196- 3- 0 83- 1 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 ) 0 0 0 DIS0 6/ Time: 10: School: S Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Joo by School :38 From AUGUST Through JUNE 7 LYNCH DRIVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU ----------- =====----------=============================================-------- 09 S.A.C. 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUS 36 80.0% 6 13.3% 2 4.4% 1 2.2% 45 27 5 2 1 35 11 BOYS CLU 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 62 72.1% 15 17.4% 0 5.8% 0 4.7% 86 39 11 5 4 59 17 EXPULSION 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 =========================================================================------- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 -==================-==================================-=================-------- -----BM-----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ---================------=============================--=-============---------- 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E.I.C 17 EXPULSION 0 0 16 11 0 0 38 24 0 0 09-  0 66.7% 09-  0 73.1% 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 6 25.0% 6 0 0 9-  0 0 11 21. 2% 11 0 09-  0 0 0 0 9-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 1 4.2% 1 4.2% 24 1 1 19 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 3 5.8% 0 09-  0 52 2 0 37 0 0 9-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 ---========= =====------=====================================-----------======-- COMPARISON ---========= =====-=----=================================----------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU =--=========== ===================================-=---------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 9- 0 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSI 20- 55.6-% 0 .0 % 1- 50.0-% 0 .0 % 21- 16- 1 1- 0 16- 11 BOYS CLUF 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 24- .0 % 4- .0 % 2- . 0 % 4- .0 % 34- 0 0 2- 4- 22- EXPDLSIO. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIS032S ate: 6/21/00 ime: 10: 04: 38 chool: 040 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE MEADOW PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL =============-------------------================================================ 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 ===========----------------------=========================================----- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ---------------------------------------=======--------===================------- 9 S.A.C. 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 47 73.4% 6 9.4% 5 7.8% 6 9.4% 64 23 6 4 3 36 1 BOYS CLUB 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E.I.C. 0 O!?-  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 O!?-  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 ---==============---------====--=======================================--------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ----===========-------------=-====================-----------=====------------- 9 S.A.C. 2 50.0% 1 25.0% 0 Og..  0 1 25.0% 4 2 1 0 1 4 HOME SUSP. 51 59.3% 14 16.3% 18 20.9% 3 3.5% 86 28 7 7 2 44 1 BOYS CLUB 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I.C 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 0 O!?-  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -----==============-----===========================================------------- COMPARISON -----============-----========================================------------=---- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU --===========================================================------------------ 9 S.A.C. 2 200.0 % 1 100.0 % 0 .0 % 1 100.0 % 4 2 1 0 1 4 0 HOME SUSP. 4 8.5 % 8 133.3 % 13 260.0 % 3- 50.0-% 22 5 1 3 1- 8 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I.C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 !?- 0 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIS032S ate: 6/21/00 ime: 10:04:38 chool: 041 Analysis o by School From Al NORTH HEIGHTS EL} -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # F # STU # s 8isciplinary Actions DST Through JUNE ENTARY SCHOOL -BF------ -----NBM----- ~ PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT J # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU --------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- 9 S.A.C. 0 Og..  0 J Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 CJ 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 28 50.9% 2 3.6% 24 43.6% 1 1.8% 55 16 2 18 1 37 1 BOYS CLUB 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I.C. 10 37.0% 3 11.1% 0 48.1% 0 3.7% 27 9 2 10 1 22 7 EXPULSION 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---==============---------------==============--=========================------ 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ====================----===---==========================================------- 9 S.A.C. 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 22 52.4% 1 2.4% 13 31.0% 6 14.3% 42 16 1 12 5 34 1 BOYS CLUB 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I.C 105 46.9% 32 14.3% 72 32.1% 15 6.7% 224 40 18 34 7 99 EXPULSION 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ----===============================================================------------- COMPARISON ---=========================================================------------===-=-= -----BM------ --- -BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # R-F PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # s~u # STU # STU -===============================-========================---------------------- S.A.C. 0 . 0 % . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 6- 21.4-% , 50.0-% 11- 45.8-% 5 500.0 % 13- ~ 0 . 6- 4 3- ~ BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % C .0 % 0 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I.C. 95 .0 g.. 0 29 .0 % 59 . 0 % 14 .0 % 197 10 1 , 59 14 77 7 EXPULSION 0 .0 % . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 DIS03 S ate: 6/2 _/00 i me : 10 : 0 . 3 8 chool: 0%2 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU --============-==----------======================---=====================-==---- 9 S.A.C. 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 23 67.6% 7 20.6% 2 5.9% 2 5.9% 34 16 5 2 2 25 1 BOYS CLUB 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 05!,,  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I.C. 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 -------------=---------------=-=================-===----=================------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ---=======================================================================------ 9 S.A.C. 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 15 55.6% 9 33.3% 3 11.1% 0 Og..  0 27 11 4 2 0 17 1 BOYS CLUB 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I.C 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 05!,,  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -=----------=======-------=====================================-==----------=--- COMPARISON ----===============================================================------------ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU =----====================================================---------------------- 9 S.A.C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 8- 34.8-% 2 28.6 % 1 50.0 % 2- 100.0-% 7- 5- 1- 0 2- 8- BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I.C. 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIS032S ate: 6/21/00 ime: 10:04:38 chool: 043 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE PARK HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ---===-====--==-------------===================================================- 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 ----=-=====--=-------------==================================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ---------=----------------------==============================================-- 9 S.A.C. 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 48 44.4% 33 30.6% 23 21.3% 4 3.7% 108 24 15 12 4 55 1 BOYS CLUB 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I.C. 19 59.4% 6 18.8% 0 18.8% 0 3.1% 32 15 6 6 1 28 7 EXPULSION 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------===----=------------========================-=======================-=--- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 -------=====-==-=----------========================-=======================----- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ----------======---------=========================--====-===============------- 9 S.A.C. 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 20 54 .1% 10 27.0% 7 18.9% 0 O!,.-  0 37 13 9 6 0 28 1 BOYS CLUB 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I.C 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -=----=================================================================--------- COMPARISON -=-------==========----=-========================================--------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) #SW # SW #SW #SW ---======= ==========--=--==========================---------------------------- S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SU 28- 58.3-% 23- 69.7-% 16- 69.6-% 4- 100.0-% 71- 11- 6- 6- 4- 27- BOYS CL 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I.C. 19- . 0 % 6- .0 % 6- .0 % 1- .0 % 32- 1- 1- 6- 1- 28- EXPULSI 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIS032S ate: 6/21/00 i me : l O : O 4 : 3 8 :::\nchool: 044 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL -----=--------=--==--------===================================================-= l 9 9 8 - 9 9 ---------------------------------=============-=============================--= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ---------=------------------==================================================== 9 S.A.C. 0 Os-  0 0 Os-  0 0 0 s-  0 0 Os-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 17 77.3% 2 9 .1% 3 13. 6% 0 Os-  0 22 12 2 2 0 16 1 BOYS CLJB 0 0 s-  0 0 Os-  0 0 0 s-  0 0 Os-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I.C. 4 100.0% 0 Os-  0 0 Os-  0 0 Os-  0 4 4 0 0 0 4 7 EXPULSION 0 Os-  0 0 Os-  0 0 0 s-  0 0 0 s-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ----=---=-----=-----------==============================================------- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 ------=------=====--------===========================-===================------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ----=====-=======------==================================================------ 9 S.A.C. 0 0 s-  0 0 0 s-  0 0 0 s-  0 0 Os-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 9 100.0% 0 Os-  0 0 Os-  0 0 Os-  0 9 7 0 0 0 7 1 BOYS CLUB 0 0 s-  0 0 Os-  0 0 Os-  0 0 Os-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I.C 0 0 s-  0 0 Os-  0 0 Os-  0 0 Os-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 0 0 s-  0 0 Os-  0 0 0 s-  0 0 0 s-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------===============-==============================================------------ COMPARISON -----=============================================================------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU =---=======================================================-------============= S.A.C. 0 .0 s- 0 0 . 0 s- 0 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 8- 47.1-% 2- 100.0-% 3- 100.0-% 0 .0 % 13- 5- 2- 2- 0 9- BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I.C. 4- .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 4- 1- 0 0 0 4- 7 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIS032S ate: 6/21/00 i me : 10 : 0 4 : 3 8 chool: 045 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE BELWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU ---============-=----------===================================================== 9 S.A.C. 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 4 50.0% 3 37.5% 1 12.5% 0 O!l-  0 8 1 2 1 0 4 1 BOYS CLUB 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I.C. 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 O!l-  0 0 02,,  0 0 02,,  0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 ---================--------==============================================------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ----====-=======----------==========================--===============-------=-- 9 S.A.C. 0 02,,  0 0 02,,  0 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 5 62.5% 1 12.5% 2 25.0% 0 02,,  0 8 5 1 2 0 8 1 BOYS CLUB 0 02,,  0 0 02,,  0 0 Og,.  0 0 Og,.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I.C 0 O!l-  0 0 02,,  0 0 Og,.  0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 1 100.0% 0 02,,  0 1 0 0 1 0 1 -----=============-----==========================================--------====--- COMPARISON ---==============================================================--------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) #SW #Sru #Sru #Sru =-=========================================================---------============ S.A.C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 1 25.0 % 2- 66.7-% 1 100.0 % 0 .0 % 0 4 1- 1 0 4 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I. C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 1 100.0 % 0 .0 % 1 0 0 1 0 1 Disors ate: 6/2\" loo 'ime: 10:04.38 chool: 046 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL -----------~-----------------------==============------==================-====== 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 ---------------=------------========================-========================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -----====-=-----==-=--------=======================---========================== S.A.C. 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 3 60.0% 2 40.0% 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 5 3 2 0 0 5 1 BOYS CLUB 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I.C. 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---------------==----------======================----===================-=----- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 -----==---=-----====-------=========================--===================-=-=--- -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ---------------==----------======================----=================--------- 9 S.A.C. HOME SUS 1 BOYS CLU- 2 E.I.C EXPULSIC ---======= 9 S.A.C. 0 HOME SUS BOYS CLU_ E. I.C. 7 EXPULSIO! 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100.0% 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0% 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -=====--------=======================================-------------- COMPARISON ========---========================================---------=------ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT ( +/-) # REF PCT ( +/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT ( +/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU =============================================-----------====------ 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 !!- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2- 66.7-% 2- 100.0-% 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 4- 2- 2- 0 0 4- 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 !!- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 % 0 .0 %- 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 !!- 0 0 .0 !!- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIS032S 6/21/00 ime: 10: 04: 38 School: 048 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE INDIAN HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU ====================----===========================-================------------ S.A.C. 32 47.8%- 17 25.4%- 18 26. 9%- 0 0 2--  0 67 21 12 11 0 44 HOME SUSP. 7 50.0%- 5 35.7%- 2 14.3%- 0 02--  0 14 5 4 2 0 11 BOYS CLUB 0 0 2--  0 0 02--  0 0 02--  0 0 0 2--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I.C. 1 100.0%- 0 0 2--  0 0 02--  0 0 0 2--  0 1 1 0 0 0 1 EXPULSION 0 0 2--  0 0 02--  0 0 0 2--  0 0 0 2--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ========================================================================-------- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 -===================--==================================================---===== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -===================--================================================----====== S.A.C. 18 36.7%- 16 32.7%- 13 26.5%- 2 4 . 1%- 49 10 12 12 1 35 HOME SUSP. 12 46.2%- 7 26.9%- 6 23.1%- 1 3 . 8%- 26 10 7 5 1 23 BOYS CLUB 0 0 2--  0 0 0 2--  0 0 02--  0 0 02--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E.I.C 0 0 2--  0 0 0 2--  0 0 02--  0 0 02--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 0 0 2--  0 0 0 2--  0 0 O!l,.  0 0 02--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---========================================================--------------------- COMPARISON --==========================================================--==---------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ---======================================================----------------------- S.A.C. 14- 43.8-%- 1- 5.9-%- 5- 27.8-%- 2 200.0 %- 18- 11- 0 1 1 9- HOME SUSP. 5 71.4 %- 2 40.0 %- 4 200.0 %- 1 100.0 %- 12 5 3 3 1 12 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 %- 0 .0 %- 0 . 0 %- 0 .0 %- 0 0 0 0 0 0 E.I.C. 1- . 0 %- 0 .0 %- 0 . 0 %- 0 .0 %- 1- 1- 0 0 0 1- EXPULSION 0 .0 %- 0 .0 %- 0 . 0 %- 0 .0 %- 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIS032S 6/21/00 ime: 10:04:38 chool: 049 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE REDWOOD PRE-SCHOOL 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT #\" REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -===============-==--------------========================================------- S.A.C. 0 09,.  0 0 0 g..  0 0 09,.  0 0 09,.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 2 100.0% 0 09,.  0 0 09,.  0 0 09,.  0 2 2 0 0 0 2 BOYS CLUB 0 09,.  0 0 09,.  0 0 09,.  0 0 09,.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I.C. 0 09,.  0 0 09,.  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 09,.  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 -========================================================================------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU --=================-----=====--========================================--------- S.A.C. 0 09,.  0 0 09,.  0 0 09,.  0 0 O!e-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 3 100.0% 0 O!e-  0 0 O!e-  0 0 O!e-  0 3 2 0 0 0 2 BOYS CLUB 0 09,.  0 0 09,.  0 0 09,.  0 0 09,.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I.C 0 Og..  0 0 09,.  0 0 Og..  0 0 09,.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 0 09,.  0 0 Og..  0 0 09,.  0 0 09,.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --==================================================================------------ COMPARISON ---=============================================================---------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # R3F PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-} # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # S :'U # STU # STU =-=============================================================-=-============== S.A.C. 0 .0 % .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 1 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 1 50.0 % .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 1 0 0 0 0 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 NCJrth Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions School Year 1999-2000 District Level Elementary Middle Schools High Schools 7 year Comparison Graphs 1 1 1 1 N4t\u0026gt;rth Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level 600-/ .--. 400- v,_ ,c.._ 200- ~- 000- V\"\u0026gt;- 800- v ..... 600- i.-- 400- i.-- 200- vi- 0 - BM D 98-99 1443 D 99-00 1468 Action 09: SAC ~ ~. I!:.-- ,____ - u BF NBM 718 458 662 401 I I NBF 138 139 IL 98-99  99-00 Ne\u0026gt;rth Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level ,Action 10: Home Suspension 600 _,, ,.c:\n500- i,,t- - 400- --~ - 300- v- 98-99  99-00 200 _,,c- FL ~ 100~,,--- ~ I - -:.a 0-. - - ---- I I --.. BM BF NBM NBF 11198-99 566 141 125 22 I  99-00 I 406 113 102 18 Nce\u0026gt;rth Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Action 11: Boys Club 400-~ - 350-\" L..... 300- 1,- 250- L, '-- 200- 1,/-- 98-99 150- I,~ ~ b  99-00 100- i..,'- ~ 50- 1.,'-- ~ 0 - fl L BM BF NBM NBF ltil 98-99 359 148 88 22 D 99-00 351 129 90 27 Nt:\u0026gt;rth Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Alction 12: Alt School Susp K-5 250- ,.c::::\ne::. 200- 1,1\u0026gt;- 150- ,..~ - ..:::::::.j 98-99 100- i..,t-  99-00 ~ -'-- 50- i,,- ~ ,,c=\n. 0 - ---- - ~ BM BF NBM NBF !D 98-99 211 106 27 6  99-00 246 63 75 16 N,orth Little Rock Public Schools A.nalysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Action 17: Expulsion 7- ,,c,\n...:.\n:. 6- I\n',- 5- 1,t- 4- .,,- .,,,- - 98-99 3-  99-00 2- 1,,- L- - 1 -1,t- F-- - 0- - - - - - BM BF NBM NBF a 98-99 7 2 1 1 D 99-00 3 0 2 0 N:\u0026gt;rth Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Action 09: SAC 120-\" ~ 100- so-~ 60-\"' - ~ 98-99  99-00 40_L, - c.::::. 20- L,~ .c=. - I L::::::.i!ll 0 - - - BM BF NBM NBF l'!l 98-99 36 18 19 0 D 99-00 113 58 19 3  II N4:\u0026gt;rth Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 J\"ction 10: Home Suspension 400-\" c::: 350- 1,,I- 300- I,,~ - - 250- ,..,- 200- ~,- 98-99 150- 1,,I-  99-00 100- ~,- ,._ '=- ~ ~ 50- i,t- ,...__ - -- ~ 0 - I ~ BM BF NBM NBF .198-99 374 101 68 16 0 99-00 263 80 62 13 Ne\u0026gt;rth Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 q Action 11: Boys Club II 1 _,, 0.9 _v 0.8 _v 0.7-.., 0.6 _v 0.5 _v 98-99 0.4-,,  99-00 0.3-\" 0.2--- 0.1 _,, 0 BM BF NBM NBF ID 98-99 0 0 0 0 a 99-00 0 0 0 0 II N:\u0026gt;rth Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Alction 12: Alt School Susp K-5 250_/ c::::: C: 200- ,,._ 150- v- 100- i,,- 50- L,- 0- - ..___,_,_ BM la 98-99 211 D 99-00 246 ,.c::::\n- ~ -= BF 106 63 .t::::i .t:=. NBM 27 75 Ff1 NBF 6 16 98-99  99-00 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Action 17: Expulsion 1 - ,L.._ 0.9-\" 0.8 _,, 0.7--- 0.6 _v 0.5 _v 98-99 0.4-v  99-00 0.3 _,, 0.2-\"' 0.1-  0 - - - - BM BF NBM NBF I  98-99 0 0 0 0 D 99-00 0 0 1 0 N,orth Little Rock Public Schools A.nalysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools Action 09: SAC 800-\" ::: 700- I,,'- - - 600- i,'- 500- i,'- 400-1,, ~ 98-99 ~ 300- i,,'- ~  99-00 200-L, ~ ,___ ~ \u0026gt;--- s-:-: ,__ ,____ \u0026gt;--- 100- i.,'- 0 ._ - Lr=fll. BM BF NBM NBF ID 98-99 744 353 224 50 D 99-00 652 329 186 71 q II N4t\u0026gt;rth Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools ~\"ction 10: Home Suspension 100 _,, ,,c..- 90- v- 80- ..-. 70- v- 60- - I,,,- 50- - - 98-99 40- i,,\u0026gt;-  99-00 30- i,, .... ~ ~ ,.:=\n20- 1,, .... ,___ -.-- 10- .,- - 0 - - --- - - BM BF NBM NBF Im 98-99 100 23 29 3 D 99-00 47 14 28 1 NDrth Little Rock Public Schools A.nalysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools 250-\n200- ,.~ 150- i..,'- 100- ,-'- 50- i..,'- 0 - ID 98-99  99-00 Action 11: Boys Club .::.::: '-- ,_ ..c:::\njl E:,_ - ,_ ~ L\"\"\"\"\"\".:ll - ---- F1 L,. BM BF NBM NBF 238 107 54 10 203 98 58 16 98-99  99-00 Ni\u0026gt;rth Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools A~ction 12: Alt School Susp K-5 1 _,, 0.9 _,, 0.8- 0.7 _,, 0.6 _,, 0.5-\" 98-99 0.4 _v  99-00 0.3 _v 0.2 _v 0.1 - 0 - BM BF NBM NBF ID 98-99 0 0 0 0 D 99-00 0 0 0 0 II N\u0026gt;rth Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools 2-' 1.8- 1\n1- 1.6- 1.,t- 1.4- i,,- 1.2- v\u0026gt;- 1 -1,,\u0026gt;- 0.8- ..-. 0.6- I, 1-- 0.4- ..-. 0.2- ,,- 0 ...., CJ 98-99 D 99-00 Action 17: Expulsion rL- '-- ~ ~ .,__ - - - BM BF NBM NBF 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 - -  98-99 D 99-00 -IIJ II Nc,rth Little Rock Public Schools A1nalysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 09: SAC 800-\" 700 _,, - ~ 600-\n\u0026gt;- 500- v\u0026gt;- 400- v,_ ~ 98-99 300- v- ---  99-00 - 200- v- ~ 100- i,,- 11.. 0- ... BM BF NBM NBF ID 98-99 663 347 215 88 D 99-00 703 275 196 65 Nctrth Little Rock Public Schools A1r1alysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Jlction 10: Home Suspension 1ool ..c:::: 90-\" ~ 80- ...... 70- v- 60- ,,- 50- ...- 40- .,,- 30- i.,\u0026gt;- ,.t::::: 20- ..-. ,, ~ - 10- 1,,- - ..__ .. ..__ A -..., 0- -- BM BF NBM NBF  98-99 90 17 28 3  99-00 94 19 12 4 98-99  99-00 North Little Rock Public Schools Araalysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 11: Boys Club ,\n' ~ ~ -- 160- 140- 120- .,,-z:::: 100- 1, 1-- _.,-- 60- 40- 20 0- - 1,\n'- L,'- ... BM 121 148 -b -- ~ ' I BF NBM NBF 41 34 12 31 32 11 -- L . 98-99 099-00 NCJrth Little Rock Public Schools A11alysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 12: Alt School Susp K-5 1T 0.9j 0.8 _v 0.7 _v 0.6 _v 0.5 _v 98-99 0.4-v  99-00 0.3\" 0.2- 0.1 _,, 0 - - - - BM BF NBM NBF D 98-99 0 0 0 0 D 99-00 0 0 0 0 Ncrth Little Rock Public Schools A1r1alysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 17: Expulsion -r -- _\n-- _..,..- _ 1,1.. ...\n- _v- . ,,-,\n__.\n\u0026gt;- _,-,, '-- - _,\u0026gt;.- - - -- 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 BM BF NBM NBF 5 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 98-99 099-00 North Little Rock Public Schools Aa,1alysis of Disciplinary Actions 7 Year Comparison Action 09: SAC 21000 _________ ___, 1500 93-94 1000  94-95  95-96 500  96-97  97-98 0 BM BF NBM NBF  98-99 1 93-94 977 529 449 156  99-00  94-95 869 460 411 126  95-96 1052 446 410 140  96-97 1264 55 469 142  97-98 1801 862 547 132  98-99 1443 718 458 138  99-00 1468 662 401 139 Nctrth Little Rock Public Schools A1r1alysis of Disciplinary Actions 7 Year Comparison ~lction 10: Home Suspension tSOO !500 ,400 93-94 300  94-95 200  95-96  96-97 100  97-98 0 BM BF NBM NBF  98-99 93-94 231 60 76 22  99-00 D 94-95 236 106 103 20  95-96 162 46 47 3  96-97 591 208 125 17  97-98 511 125 104 13  98-99 566 141 125 22  99-00 406 113 102 18 North Little Rock Public Schools Ar1alysis of Disciplinary Actions 7 Year Comparison Action 11: Boys Club EiOO !iOO ~,oo 93-94 :JOO  94-95 !ZOO  95-96  96-97 100  97-98 0 BM BF NBM NBF  98-99 1J 93-94 119 39 39 9  99-00 [] 94-95 133 44 31 a 1195-96 334 82 72 12 1196-97 357 146 85 20 1197-98 515 148 112 a 1198-99 359 148 88 22 1199-00 351 129 90 27 No,rth Little Rock Public Schools A11alysis of Disciplinary Actions 7 Year Comparison Acction 12: Alt School Susp K-5 2000~------~ 1500 93-94 1000  94-95  95-96 500  96-97  97-98 0 BM BF NBM NBF  98-99 93-94 168 54 45 8  99-00 a 94-95 178 68 58 5  95-96 1563 492 510 71  96-97 154 30 32 3  97-98 0 0 0 0  98-99 211 106 27 6  99-00 246 63 75 16 Nc,rth Little Rock Public Schools A1nalysis of Disciplinary Actions 7 Year Comparison Action 17: Expulsion 8 .....-----------, 6 93-94 4  94-95  95-96 2  96-97  97-98 0 BM BF NBM NBF  98-99 1193-94 6 4 3 0  99-00 ,:J 94-95 7 0 1 0  95-96 2 1 0 2  96-97 3 7 0 0  97-98 6 5 0 0  98-99 7 2 1 1  99-00 3 0 2 0\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_420","title":"Discipline, management 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":["1999/2000"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School discipline","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Discipline, management 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/420"],"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":["233 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\ne, Recidivism Report - Black/White Year: Quarter: Quarter:  Counts Each Student Once I LEVEL SCHQQL BM BF fYM WF QM QF Total Senior High ACC LEARN 3 0 3 1 0 0 7 agencies 10 1 1 0 0 0 12 1 received CENTRAL FAIR 85 31 24 2 0 0 142 112 72 22 14 5 1 226 JUN 212001 HALL 207 93 24 13 16 6 3S9 MCCLELLA 148 99 S 7 4 2 26S OfflCEOF desegregation MONITORING METRO PARKVIEW 25 29 6 9 7 3 0 0 43 8 3 1 0 55 Middle Schoo ALT LEARN 64 24 2 4 CLOVR JR 171 87 11 6 DUNBAR 85 42 16 2 FORST HT 119 64 28 3 HENDERSN 67 42 12 4 Elementary MABELJR MANN M/S PULHTJ SOUTHWST BALE BASELINE BOOKER BRADY CARVER CHICOT DODD FAIR PRK FORST PK FRANKUN Tuesday, May OS, 2001 68 29 19 6 54 19 22 3 31 88 6 3 8 1 15 11 7 3 7 44 57 22 4 59 2 2 1 3 2 4 1 0 1 17 6 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Senior High 1112 1 0 95 10 4 269 0 5 2 2 0 0 2 3 3 1 2 0 0 0 Middle Schoo 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 148 222 128 126 98 164 159 1409 8 5 14 4 17 19 11 4 8 61 Fage I of 2 I I asm SOAS ojni TTOZTZC rvd iT:60 T0/80/S0Recidivism Report - Black/White Year\n Quarter: 1 Quarter\n4 Counts Each Student Once LEVEL SCHQQL BM BF WM WF OM QF Totai Elementary FULBRIGH GEYER SP 13 18 GIBBS 12 18 3 3 1 0 0 0 7 1 4 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 JEFFRSN 9 5 2 0 0 0 16 M U KING 12 0 0 S 2 S 0 MABEL EL 29 10 47 MCDERMOT 19 24 MEADCLIF 13 14 MITCHELL 22 30 5 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 2 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 OTTER CR 0 2 0 1 0 0 3 PULHTE 7 2 0 0 0 0 9 RIGHTSEL 2 2 0 0 0 0 4 ROCKFELR 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 ROMINE 6 4 1 1 0 0 12 0 TERRY 13 23 WAKEFIEL 21 26 1 9 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 WASHNGTN a 0 0 2 0 1 5 0 WATSON 12 17 5 0 0 0 WESTHIL 13 1 0 0 0 3 9 4 0 WILLIAMS 11 17 2 0 0 WILSON 2 3 0 0 0 0 5 WOODRUFF 0 7 4 3 0 0 0 Elementary 487 Tuesday, May OS, 2001 CO asl SOAS OJMI Grand Total 3008 Page 2 af 2 TtOZfZC IVd il-:80 T0/80/S0RECEiVEC APR 6 JffW mwmniiie: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1999-2000 ANNUAL DISCIPLINARY MANAGEMENT REPORT TO: FROM: SLTBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 June 28,2000 Dr. Leslie Carnine, Superintendent Linda Watson, Assistant Superintendent Student Discipline 1999-2000 Annual Disciplinary Management Report The following data represents the Annual Disciplinary Management Report for the 1999-2000 school year. A comparative summary of the 1998-99 and 1999-2000 school years is presented. The Discipline Sanctions by Reason Codes and Recidivism Reports for the 1999-2000 school year are also included.1999-2000 ANNUAL DISCIPLINARY MANAGEMENT REPORT SUMMARY During the 1999-2000 school year, the Little Rock School District experienced a decrease in the number of disciplinary sanctions issued to students when compared to the 1998- 1999 school year. The data indicates that during the 1998-1999 school year 5312 suspensions were issued when compared to 4926 suspensions during the 1999-2000 school year, which represents a decrease of 386 suspensions. When the 1999-2000 school year was compared to the 1997-1998 school year, there was a noticeable decrease of 1321 suspensions. There were 25,190 students enrolled in the LRSD according to the October 1, 1999, enrollment figure. The recidivism report indicates that only 11.9 percent of the students enrolled in the District received suspensions during the 1999-2000 school year when compared to 12.9 percent during the 1998-1999 school year and 14.5 percent during the 1997-98 school year. 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 Short-term suspensions 5664 4865 4588 Long-term suspensions 474 446 335 Expulsions 109 1 3 TOTALS 6247 5312 4926 Number of students committing offenses 3585(6247) 3237(5312) 3011(4926) The disciplinary report also indicates that fewer than two 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, staff assaults, knives with two and one-half inch blades, handguns, rifles, shotguns, explosives, clubs and gang activity. The District can contribute this success to the establishment of middle schools, which moved the 9* grade students to the high school level and the 6* grade students to the middle school level. The success can also be contributed to the revamping of the Districts Alternative Learning Environments coupled with the implementation of the Accelerated Learning Program at Metropolitan Career and Technical Education Center. The Disciplinary Management Report indicates that the number of students receiving suspensions at the high school level increased. However, the number of studentsreceiving suspension at the middle school and elementary levels decreased, information below represents the nrunber of suspensions for a three-year period: The 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 High Schools 1311 1226 1762 Middle Schools 3455 2976 2505 Elementary Schools 1481 1110 659 TOTALS 6247 5312 4926Name /\\CC LEARN AGENCIES CENTRAL FAIR HALL MCCLELLA METRO PARKVIEW Totals ALT LEARN CLOVR JR DUNBAR FORST HT HENDERSN MABEL JR MANN M/S PULHTJ SOUTHWST Totals BALE BASELINE BOOKER BRADY CARVER CHICOT DODD FAIR PRK FORST PK FRANKLIN School Enrolled 205 118 2045 955 1391 1192 0 1157 7063 63 705 739 785 551 494 842 760 447 5386 312 296 534 348 525 510 203 221 318 485 ITednesday, June 2S, 2000 %Blk 77% 49% 57% 80% 71% 89% 0% 50% 68% 90% 88% 60% 65% 77% 73% 52% 60% 91% 69% 74% 85% 51% 71% 52% 67% 65% 72% 44% 96% LRSD Discipline Management Report 1999/2000 Year Short Term Suspension BM BF IFM T otal 1 0 3 1 5 14 1 1 0 16 136 170 362 218 22 34 957 101 364 144 229 110 97 73 156 169 1443 9 2 7 1 14 10 7 3 12 63 43 103 162 142 8 8 467 37 118 72 105 60 41 31 74 95 633 2 3 1 3 2 4 1 0 1 25 27 33 62 13 3 7 149 7 38 28 55 18 31 25 32 16 250 0 0 5 0 0 3 3 1 0 0 2 20 23 14 0 7 67 9 11 11 6 6 6 3 4 7 63 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 208 326 609 387 33 56 1640 154 531 255 395 194 175 132 266 287 2389 11 5 14 4 16 18 11 4 13 88 Long Term Suspension ! ' ' \"' BM \\bP i lEM I WF Total 2 1 5 14 37 17 1 4 81 14 14 5 7 4 8 5 4 5 66 0 1 1 0 4 3 1 0 0 10 0 1 1 5 3 2 1 1 14 5 5 0 9 1 1 3 3 5 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 0 0 2 1 1 8 7 8 3 0 2 22 0 0 3 2 4 0 1 0 2 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 5 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d 0 0 27 49 22 2 9 Expulsion Recommendation BM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 122 0 20 19 8 18 9 11 9 7 12 113 0 1 1 0 4 3 2 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BF IFM fVF Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total HSiisp 8 18 216 353 658 409 35 65 1762 174 550 263 413 203 186 141 273 302 2505 11 6 15 4 20 21 13 4 13 99 %Blk 38% 94% 86% 83% 86% 93% 91% 72% 86% 90% 91% 84% 85% 86% 79% 79% 87% 92% 87% 100% 100% 60% 100% 100% 81% 69% 75% 100% 100% Page 1 of 2Name FULBRIGH GARLAND GEYER SP GIBBS JEFFRSN M L KING MABEL EL MCDERMOT MEADCLIF MITCHELL OTTER CR PUL HT E RIGHTSEL ROCKFELR ROMINE TERRY WAKEFIEL School Enrolled %Blk 410 267 324 285 370 612 378 373 251 247 349 306 269 401 322 515 334 41% 94% 82% 52% 39% 55% 74% 57% 79% 97% 47% 57% 97% 61% 66% 46% 84% WASHNGTN 543 61% WATSON 445 WEST HIL 255 WILLIAMS 458 WILSON 313 WOODRUFF Totals GTotal 99/00 282 12061 24510 Wednesday, June 28, 2000 LRSD Discipline Management Report 1999/2000 Year Short Term Suspension Long Term Suspension 94% 75% 51% 89% 80% BM 2 0 15 15 11 4 39 66% 67% BF ITM WF j T oial BM T BF IVM IFF Total 3 0 1 4 7 2 4 1 0 6 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0! 0 0 1 4 0 20 1 0 0 0 1 2 2 2 15 30 2 4 0 0 0 2 0 19 22 0 7 1 4 6 23 22 2 10 9 11 4 6 390 2790 1 8 2 1 0 0 4 2 12 1 2 3 0 3 5 109 1209 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 53 452 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 137 21 20 8 60 36 20 31 3 8 1 4 12 31 34 6 12 13 11 7 11 559 4588 4 0 2 7 1 1 7 0 1 1 0 0 2 5 4 2 0 4 1 1 67 214 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 0 0 12 58 1 0 5 0 0 0 3 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 21 55l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 14 1 1 7 0 2 3 0 0 8 5 5 5 1 10 1 1 Expulsion Recommendation BM 100 335 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3| 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total WM \\wF j Total itSusp %Blk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T 0 0 8 88% I 0 i -+ 0 ! 0 0 0 0 1 21 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 h 0 i 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 74 37 100% 81% 88% 90% 62% 70% 89% T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 21 38 3 10 4 4 12 39 39 11 17 14 21 8 12 659 4926 100% 97% 67% 100% 100% 100% 83% 69% 100% 64% 100% 93% 81% 100% 100% 88% 87% Page 2 of 2Discipline Sanctions by Reason Code Year: 2000 Quarter: 1 to Quarter: 4 27-Jun-OO Level School Lvl Code Offense BM WM OM BF WF OF Total Senior High ACC LEARN 2 2 2 3 3 3 080 090 115 000 090 091 Malicious Mischief / Vandalis Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Repeat Violation USE RAP RINGS,CHEMICA Possession of Weapon Possession Weapon/Knife 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 1 1 1 8 Senior High AGENCIES 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 050 062 040 no 115 121 072 Left School w/o Permission Reftised to obey Rule/Directi Fighting Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Repeated Violation-Smoking Verbal Assault on Staff 1 0 4 7 I 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 7 1 2 2 18 Senior High CENTRAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 030 050 060 090 no 131 132 133 010 020 030 040 080 090 100 105 no 115 121 122 150 010 072 091 092 120 121 140 Minor Altercation Left School w/o Permission Failure to Follow Rui. or Dir. Refused to Serve Detention Using Foul or Abusive Langu First Offense Use/Poss Alcoh Use/Poss. Drugs (1st) Repeated School/Class Tardie Assault Battery Theft Fighting Malicious Mischief / Vandalis Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Indecent Exposure Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Repeated Violation-Smoking Forgery/Failure to Provide ID Poss, or Use Alcohol/Drugs Sale/Distribution of Alcohol Verbal Assault on Staff Possession Weapon/Knife Possession Weapon/Club Inciting to Riot Use of Weapon TERRORISTIC THREATENI 1 0 2 1 0 1 5 0 2 4 4 22 2 5 1 2 8 72 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 8 8 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 15 0 0 1 4 4 14 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 1 1 1 7 1 4 4 4 38 3 6 3 6 21 94 2 4 3 1 I 1 1 2 1 1 216 Senior High FAIR 1 1 1 2 2 060 062 110 010 020 Failure to Follow Rui. or Dir. Refused to obey Rule/Directi Using Foul or Abusive Langu Assault Battery 1 1 1 6 9 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 2 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 23 14 LRSD Information Services 1Level School Lvl Code Offense BM WM OM BF WF OF Total Senior High FAIR 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 030 040 070 080 090 100 no 115 120 121 122 150 000 010 060 071 072 090 100 121 140 Theft Fighting Loitering / Criminal Tresspas Malicious Mischief! Vandalis Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Indecent Exposure Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Repeated Violation-Smoking Forgery/Failure to Provide ID Poss, or Use Alcohol/Drugs USE RAP RINGS.CHEMICA Sale/Distribution of Alcohol Arson Physical Assault of Staff Verbal Assault on Staff Possession ofWeapon Poss Fireworks or Explosives Use ofWeapon TERRORISTIC THREATEN! 1 24 4 4 12 2 3 76 1 5 2 18 0 4 1 1 3 0 1 0 4 0 5 5 1 2 0 I 7 1 3 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 , 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 21 0 1 8 0 5 38 0 9 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 2 0 3 0 2 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 52 11 7 26 2 II 128 2 19 5 20 2 4 1 2 5 2 1 2 8 353 Senior High HALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 030 040 050 060 062 090 no 131 132 133 010 020 030 040 070 080 090 100 105 110 115 120 121 122 140 150 000 010 071 072 090 091 120 121 Minor Altercation Harrassment Left School w/o Permission Failure to Follow Rui. or Dir. Refused to obey Rule/Directi Refused to Serve Detention Using Foul or Abusive Langu First Offense Use/Poss Alcoh Use/Poss. Drugs (1st) Repeated School/Class Tardie Assault Battery Theft Fighting Loitering / Criminal Tresspas Malicious Mischief / Vandalis Non-threaten, Profanity/Staff Indecent Exposure Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Repeated Violation-Smoking Forgeiy/Failure to Provide ID Possession of Fireworks Poss, or Use Alcohol/Drugs USE RAP RINGS.CHEMICA Sale/Distribution of Alcohol Physical Assault of Staff Verbal Assault on Staff Possession ofWeapon Possession Weapon/Knife Inciting to Riot Use ofWeapon 1 3 7 1 5 1 4 0 1 33 2 7 2 16 14 1 35 4 43 39 130 I 3 2 2 5 1 3 4 6 1 0 21 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 2 0 2 0 0 5 0 3 2 16 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 I 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 2 0 10 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 4 0 0 1 3 1 2 1 0 13 0 3 3 14 II 0 14 0 7 19 56 0 2 6 0 2 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 5 1 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 3 7 2 11 3 6 2 1 53 2 12 6 35 27 1 56 5 60 61 219 2 5 12 2 10 2 3 5 9 1 1 27 1 LRSD Information Services 2Level School Lvl Code Offense BM WM OM BF WF OF Total 658 Senior High MCCLELLA 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 030 040 050 060 062 100 110 132 133 140 010 020 030 040 070 080 090 100 105 no 115 120 150 000 071 072 091 092 120 140 Minor Altercation Harrassment Left School w/o Permission Failure to Follow Rul. or Dir. Refused to obey Rule/Directi Smoking Using Foul or Abusive Langu Use/Poss. Drugs (1st) Repeated School/Class Tardie Fais, of Info/Records (Elem) Assault Battery Theft Fighting Loitering / Criminal Tresspas Malicious Mischief / Vandalis Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Indecent Exposure Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Poss, or Use Alcohol/Drugs USE RAP RINGS,CHEMICA Physical Assault of Staff Verbal Assault on Staff Possession Weapon/Knife Possession Weapon/Club Inciting to Riot TERRORISTIC THREATENI 2 1 23 28 5 2 5 2 17 1 2 6 2 27 6 0 20 1 9 12 42 1 4 1 1 4 3 1 6 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 12 17 3 0 3 0 25 0 4 3 1 31 4 1 10 0 3 1 23 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 40 48 8 2 8 2 43 1 8 9 3 60 II 2 33 2 13 14 71 1 4 1 1 6 5 1 6 2 409 Senior High METRO 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 050 060 062 070 no 010 040 080 090 100 115 120 123 072 140 Left School w/o Permission Failure to Follow Rui. or Dir. Refused to obey Rule/Directi Refused to obey Bus Rules\u0026amp; Using Foul or Abusive Langu Assault Fighting Malicious Mischief / Vandalis Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Indecent Exposure Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Use of Paging Devices Verbal Assault on Staff TERRORISTIC THREATENI 4 3 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 2 1 4 1 5 1 4 1 1 1 2 1 1 35 Senior High PARKVIEW 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 030 040 090 105 no 115 120 Theft Fighting Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Harassing Communications 3 8 2 3 6 10 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 11 8 3 8 12 2 LRSD Information Services 3Level School LvI Code Offense BM WM OM BF WF OF Total Senior High PARKVIEW 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 121 122 150 072 090 091 140 Repeated Violation-Smoking Forgery/Failure to Provide ID Poss, or Use Alcohol/Drugs Verbal Assault on Staff Possession of Weapon Possession Weapon/Knife TERRORISTIC THREATENI 2 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 4 2 1 2 4 65 Middle School ALT LEARN 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 030 040 060 062 070 080 090 no 010 020 030 040 070 080 090 100 105 no 115 120 121 123 150 000 071 072 090 091 140 Minor Altercation Harrassment Failure to Follow Rui. or Dir. Refused to obey Rule/Directi Refused to obey Bus Rules\u0026amp; Failure to Serve Detention Refused to Serve Detention Using Foul or Abusive Langu Assault Battery Theft Fighting Loitering / Criminal Tresspas Malicious Mischief / Vandalis Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Indecent Exposure Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Repeated Violation-Smoking Use of Paging Devices Poss, or Use Alcohol/Drugs USE RAP RINGS,CHEMICA Physical Assault of Staff Verbal Assault on Staff Possession of Weapon Possession Weapon/Knife TERRORISTIC THREATENI 3 0 1 4 1 4 0 3 3 1 1 29 3 2 17 1 9 7 4 5 1 0 2 1 3 3 1 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 1 1 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 7 1 8 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 Middle School CLOVRJR 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 030 040 050 060 062 070 080 090 no 133 010 020 030 040 050 Minor Altercation Harrassment Left School w/o Permission Failure to Follow Rui. or Dir. Refused to obey Rule/Directi Refused to obey Bus Rules\u0026amp; Failure to Serve Detention Refused to Serve Detention Using Foul or Abusive Langu Repeated School/Class Tardie Assault Battery Theft Fighting Gambling 16 9 13 17 20 1 7 11 5 7 3 3 3 64 1 0 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 LRSD Information Services Senior High 1762 3 1 5 2 4 0 0 2 4 0 1 1 3 26 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 1 7 3 7 2 7 3 1 1 36 3 2 27 2 20 12 5 5 I 1 3 2 6 3 1 3 5 174 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 10 20 21 26 1 7 14 13 7 4 5 7 105 1 4Level School Lvl Code Offense BM WM OM BF WF OF Total Middle School CLOVRJR 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 080 090 100 105 no 115 120 121 122 150 071 072 090 091 092 140 Malicious Mischief / Vandalis Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Indecent Exposure Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Repeated Violation-Smoking Forgery/Failure to Provide ID Poss, or Use Alcohol/Drugs Physical Assault of Staff Verbal Assault on Staff Possession of Weapon Possession Weapon/Knife Possession Weapon/Club TERRORISTIC THREATENI 2 18 5 55 23 62 2 16 1 0 2 4 1 2 1 4 1 1 0 3 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 26 8 14 1 8 2 0 1 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 27 5 89 32 83 3 24 3 1 3 7 1 2 1 5 550 Middle School DUNBAR 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 030 080 010 020 030 040 060 080 090 100 105 no 115 120 121 122 123 150 000 071 091 100 140 Minor Altercation Failure to Serve Detention Assault Battery Theft Fighting False Alarm Malicious Mischief / Vandalis Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Indecent Exposure Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Repeated Violation-Smoking Forgery/Failure to Provide ID Use of Paging Devices Poss, or Use Alcohol/Drugs . USE RAP RINGS,CHEMICA Physical Assault of Staff Possession Weapon/Knife Poss Fireworks or Explosives TERRORISTIC THREATENI 1 3 8 4 5 47 1 7 7 8 6 4 32 7 2 1 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 0 2 1 2 1 1 8 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 0 29 2 2 5 3 2 3 17 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 I 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 12 10 6 81 3 12 13 13 11 8 63 11 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 263 Middle School FORST HT 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 040 060 062 100 no 132 010 020 030 040 060 080 090 100 105 Harrassment Failure to Follow Rui. or Dir. Refused to obey Rule/Directi Smoking Using Foul or Abusive Langu Use/Poss. Drugs (1st) Assault Battery Theft Fighting False Alarm Malicious Mischief / Vandalis Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Indecent Exposure Refusing to Follow Directives 0 2 20 0 1 1 10 14 10 70 1 1 8 8 3 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 3 1 13 0 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 15 0 1 0 2 2 4 25 0 0 5 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 36 1 2 1 13 20 15 114 1 1 19 11 5 LRSD Information Services 5 ILevel School Lvl Code Offense BM WM OM BF WF OF Total Middle School FORST HT 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 no 115 120 121 122 140 150 071 090 091 121 140 Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Repeated Violation-Smoking Forgery/Failure to Provide ID Possession of Fireworks Poss, or Use Alcohol/Drugs Physical Assault of Staff Possession ofWeapon Possession Weapon/Knife Use ofWeapon TERRORISTIC THREATENI 44 31 2 2 0 1 0 3 0 1 1 2 6 11 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 5 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 3 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 47 3 2 1 1 4 4 1 4 2 7 413 Middle School HENDERSN 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 030 062 020 030 040 080 090 100 no 115 120 121 150 010 071 072 140 Minor Altercation Refused to obey Rule/Directi Battery Theft Fighting Malicious Mischief / Vandalis Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Indecent Exposure Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Repeated Violation-Smoking Poss, or Use Alcohol/Drugs Sale/Distribution of Alcohol Physical Assault of Staff Verbal Assault on Staff TERRORISTIC THREATENI 0 0 6 4 40 1 10 1 2 45 0 1 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 5 0 2 0 0 8 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 24 0 1 0 0 30 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 7 5 73 1 13 1 2 86 2 1 1 2 I 2 4 203 Middle School MABEL JR 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 030 040 050 060 062 070 no 133 010 020 030 040 080 090 100 105 no 115 121 150 071 072 091 092 140 Minor Altercation Harrassment Left School w/o Permission Failure to Follow Rui. or Dir. Refused to obey Rule/Directi Refused to obey Bus Rules\u0026amp; Using Foul or Abusive Langu Repeated School/Class Tardie Assault Battery Theft Fighting Malicious Mischief / Vandalis Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Indecent Exposure Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Repeated Violation-Smoking Poss, or Use Alcohol/Drugs Physical Assault of Staff Verbal Assault on Staff Possession Weapon/Knife Possession Weapon/Club TERRORISTIC THREATENI 2 1 1 2 3 2 1 1 1 3 4 39 1 6 7 1 3 14 2 3 1 2 1 1 3 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 11 0 0 0 0 2 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 15 0 2 0 0 8 8 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 1 6 4 2 1 1 1 6 6 73 1 8 7 1 13 30 2 3 1 3 3 1 3 LRSD Information Services 6Level School Lvl Code Offense BM WM OM BF WF OF Total 186 Middle School MANN M/S 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 010 020 030 040 050 090 100 no 115 120 121 000 072 091 140 Assault Battery Theft Fighting Gambling Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Indecent Exposure Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Repeated Violation-Smoking USE RAP RINGS,CHEMICA Verbal Assault on Staff Possession Weapon/Knife TERRORISTIC THREATENI 1 2 1 23 2 1 6 0 34 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 0 1 15 0 1 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 1 1 20 1 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 46 2 2 7 1 63 2 4 2 2 2 3 141 Middle School PUL HT J 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 030 040 050 060 062 070 080 090 110 132 133 010 020 030 040 080 090 100 105 110 115 120 121 122 123 150 071 072 091 092 140 Minor Altercation Harrassment Left School w/o Permission Failure to Follow Rui. or Dir. Refused to obey Rule/Directi Refused to obey Bus Rules\u0026amp; Failure to Serve Detention Refused to Serve Detention Using Foul or Abusive Langu Use/Poss. Drugs (1st) Repeated School/Class Tardie Assault Battery Theft Fighting Malicious Mischief / Vandalis Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Indecent Exposure Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Repeated Violation-Smoking Forgery/Failure to Provide ID Use of Paging Devices Poss, or Use Alcohol/Drugs Physical Assault of Staff Verbal Assault on Staff Possession Weapon/Knife Possession Weapon/Club TERRORISTIC THREATENI 11 0 0 2 2 1 6 1 3 0 2 4 4 8 58 2 4 1 2 1 36 1 6 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 2 15 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 5 35 0 3 0 1 6 15 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 I 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 1 1 2 2 1 7 1 5 1 2 6 4 16 109 2 8 2 3 7 57 3 7 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 273 Middle School SOUTHWST 1 2 2 2 2 2 132 010 020 030 040 080 Use/Poss. Drugs (1st) Assault Battery Theft Fighting Malicious Mischief / Vandalis 1 5 9 4 67 2 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 2 0 51 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 11 4 130 3 LRSD Information Services 7Level School Lvl Code Offense BM WM OM BF WF OF Total Middle School SOUTHWST 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 090 100 105 no 115 120 123 071 . 072 081 091 no 140 Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Indecent Exposure Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Use of Paging Devices Physical Assault of Staff Verbal Assault on Staff Possession of Firearm/Pistol Possession Weapon/Knife Extortion, Blackmail, Coercio TERRORISTIC THREATENI 11 10 2 6 50 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 4 16 18 I 0 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 10 8 22 76 2 1 3 2 3 4 1 2 302 Elementary BALE 1 2 2 060 110 115 Failure to Follow Rui. or Dir. Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation 3 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Elementary BASELINE 2 2 3 010 115 071 Assault Repeat Violation Physical Assault of Staff 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Elementary BOOKER 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 060 010 040 100 no 122 072 Failure to Follow Rul. or Dir. Assault Fighting Indecent Exposure Disorderly Conduct Forgeiy/Failure to Provide ID Verbal Assault on Staff 4 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Elementary BRADY 2 2 010 no Assault Disorderly Conduct 1 0 0 0 0 0 Elementary CARVER 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 030 030 040 115 060 071 140 Minor Altercation Theft Fighting Repeat Violation Arson Physical Assault of Staff TERRORISTIC THREATENI 1 3 8 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Elementary CHICOT 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 040 060 062 030 040 050 no Harrassment Failure to Follow Rul. or Dir. Refused to obey Rule/Directi Theft Fighting Gambling Disorderly Conduct 1 0 2 I 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Middle School 2505 LRSD Information Services 1 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 5 2 11 2 3 1 6 5 3 3 1 1 1 1 15 2 2 4 1 3 10 2 1 I 2 20 1 1 2 1 3 1 3 8Level School Lvl Code Offense BM WM OM BF WF OF Total Elementary CHICOT 2 2 3 3 3 115 120 071 091 092 Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Physical Assault of Staff Possession Weapon/Knife Possession Weapon/Club 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 3 1 1 1 21 Elementary DODD 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 no 010 020 090 105 no 115 121 071 140 Using Foul or Abusive Langu Assault Battery Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Repeated Violation-Smoking Physical Assault of Staff TERRORISTIC THREATENI 0 2 0 1 1 I 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 2 I 1 1 1 1 1 13 Elementary FAIRPRK 2 2 110 115 Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 4 Elementary FORST PK 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 040 no 010 030 040 100 115 121 Harrassment Using Foul or Abusive Langu Assault Theft Fighting Indecent Exposure Repeat Violation Repeated Violation-Smoking 1 2 1 1 3 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 4 1 2 I 13 Elementary FRANKLIN 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 050 060 062 070 no 010 030 090 100 105 no 115 120 121 071 091 140 Left School w/o Permission Failure to Follow Rui. or Dir. Refused to obey Rule/Directi Refused to obey Bus Rules\u0026amp; Using Foul or Abusive Langu Assault Theft Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Indecent Exposure Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Repeated Violation-Smoking Physical Assault of Staff Possession Weapon/Knife TERRORISTIC THREATENI 1 I 1 1 1 6 3 1 1 1 12 22 10 2 4 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 8 9 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 I 7 3 2 1 3 20 31 11 4 4 3 4 99 Elementary FULBRIGH 1 2 2 2 2 060 020 030 040 115 Failure to Follow Rui. or Dir. Battery Theft Fighting Repeat Violation 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 1 LRSD Information Services 9Level School Lvl Code Offense BM WM OM BF WF OF Total Elementary FULBRIGH 3 091 Possession Weapon/Knife 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 8 Elementary GARLAND 3 140 TERRORISTIC THREATENI 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Elementary GEYER SP 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 010 020 105 110 115 121 071 Assault Battery Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Repeated Violation-Smoking Physical Assault of Staff 0 1 1 4 7 2 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 4 10 2 1 21 Elementary GIBBS 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 030 070 110 040 115 150 000 071 140 Minor Altercation Refused to obey Bus Rules\u0026amp; Using Foul or Abusive Langu Fighting Repeat Violation Poss, or Use Alcohol/Drugs USE RAP RINGS.CHEMICA Physical Assault of Staff TERRORISTIC THREATENI 5 1 0 7 2 0 0 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 1 1 7 2 1 1 2 2 26 Elementary lEFFRSN 1 1 2 2 2 2 030 062 010 040 115 120 Minor Altercation Refused to obey Rule/Directi Assault Fighting Repeat Violation Harassing Communications 0 1 0 5 4 I 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 10 5 1 20 Elementary ML KING 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 060 020 030 040 115 091 140 Failure to Follow Rui. or Dir. Battery Theft Fighting Repeat Violation Possession Weapon/Knife TERRORISTIC THREATENI 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 3 3 2 13 Elementary MABEL EL 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 030 040 050 060 062 110 010 020 030 040 090 no 115 120 Minor Altercation Harrassment Left School w/o Permission Failure to Follow Rui. or Dir. Refused to obey Rule/Direcb Using Foul or Abusive Langu Assault Battery Theft Fighting Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Harassing Communications 0 3 1 11 6 0 2 1 3 1 2 1 6 1 0 1 0 3 1 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 14 7 1 9 1 4 2 2 2 9 1 LRSD Information Services 10Level School Lvl Code Offense BM WM OM BF WF OF Total Elementary MABEL EL 2 3 3 3 3 3 121 072 090 091 092 140 Repeated Violation-Smoking Verbal Assault on Staff Possession of Weapon Possession Weapon/Knife Possession Weapon/Club TERRORISTIC THREATENI 1 2 0 1 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 2 2 2 5 74 Elementary MCDERMOT 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 060 062 040 080 100 115 120 091 Failure to Follow Rui. or Dir. Refused to obey Rule/Directi Fighting Malicious Mischief/Vandalis Indecent Exposure Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Possession Weapon/Knife 1 0 3 2 2 20 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 5 3 2 22 2 1 37 Elementary MEADCLIF 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 010 040 090 105 no 115 092 Assault Fighting Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Possession Weapon/Club 1 2 1 4 10 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 4 11 1 1 21 Elementary MITCHELL 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 030 040 060 010 030 040 100 105 no 115 120 071 091 140 Minor Altercation Harrassment Failure to Follow Rui. or Dir. Assault Theft Fighting Indecent Exposure Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Physical Assault of Staff Possession Weapon/Knife TERRORISTIC THREATENI 1 1 0 8 1 1 4 1 3 2 0 1 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 13 1 1 5 1 3 2 1 1 1 5 38 Elementary OTTER CR 1 2 2 062 010 090 Refused to obey Rule/Directi Assault Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 Elementary PULHTE 1 2 2 2 2 3 040 040 100 105 no 140 Harrassment Fighting Indecent Exposure Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct TERRORISTIC THREATENI 1 2 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 2 2 10 Elementary RIGHTSEL 2 115 Repeat Violation 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 LRSD Information Services 11Level School Lvl Code Offense BM WM OM BF WF OF Total Elementary RIGHTSEL 3 3 071 140 Physical Assault of Staff TERRORISTIC THREATENI 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 4 Elementary ROCKFELR 1 2 2 040 010 020 Harrassment Assault Battery 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 4 Elementary ROMINE 1 1 2 2 060 062 010 020 Failure to Follow Rul. or Dir, Refused to obey Rule/Directi Assault Battery 1 1 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 8 1 12 Elementary TERRY 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 030 060 062 070 010 030 040 080 100 115 120 121 071 092 140 Minor Altercation Failure to Follow Rul. or Dir. Refused to obey Rule/Directi Refused to obey Bus Rules\u0026amp; Assault Theft Fighting Malicious Mischief / Vandalis Indecent Exposure Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Repeated Violation-Smoking Physical Assault of Staff Possession Weapon/Club TERRORISTIC THREATENI 5 1 0 1 5 1 1 0 2 6 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 I 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 1 1 6 1 1 2 2 7 2 1 1 1 6 39 Elementary WAKEFIEL 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 no 010 020 040 no 115 121 071 140 Using Foul or Abusive Langu Assault Battery Fighting Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Repeated Violation-Smoking Physical Assault of Staff TERRORISTIC THREATENI 1 1 1 10 4 5 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 4 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 I 12 8 9 I 3 2 39 Elementary WASHNGTN 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 010 020 no 091 092 121 140 Assault Battery Disorderly Conduct Possession Weapon/Knife Possession Weapon/Club Use of Weapon TERRORISTIC THREATENI 1 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 11 Elementary WATSON 1 1 2 2 2 060 062 020 030 040 Failure to Follow Rul. or Dir. Refused to obey Rule/Directi Battery Theft Fighting 1 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 I 2 1 LRSD Information Services 12Level School Lvl Code Offense BM WM OM BF WF OF Total Elementary WATSON 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 100 no 120 071 091 121 140 Indecent Exposure Disorderly Conduct Harassing Communications Physical Assault of Staff Possession Weapon/Knife Use of Weapon TERRORISTIC THREATENI 1 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 2 1 1 1 2 1 17 Elementary WESTHIL 2 2 2 3 010 105 115 091 Assault Refusing to Follow Directives Repeat Violation Possession Weapon/Knife 1 1 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 9 1 14 Elementary WILLIAMS 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 030 060 062 030 040 115 140 Minor Altercation Failure to Follow Rui. or Dir. Refused to obey Rule/Directi Theft Fighting Repeat Violation TERRORISTIC THREATENI 4 1 2 2 1 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 2 2 1 1 10 21 Elementary WILSON 1 1 1 2 2 3 030 040 060 no 115 091 Minor Altercation Harrassment Failure to Follow Rui. or Dir. Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Possession Weapon/Knife 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 1 1 8 Elementary WOODRUFF 2 2 2 2 3 020 040 no 121 091 Battery Fighting Disorderly Conduct Repeated Violation-Smoking Possession Weapon/Knife 1 0 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 7 1 1 12 LRSD Information Services Elementary Grand Total: 659 4926 13Recidivism Report Counts each student once per total Year: 2000 Quarter: 1 to Quarter: 4 27-Jun-00 Level School Total Senior High ACC LEARN AGENCIES 7 12 CENTRAL 142 FAIR HALL MCCLELLA METRO 226 359 269 44 PARKVIEW 55 Middle School Elementary Senior High ALT LEARN CLOVR JR DUNBAR FORST HT HENDERSN MABEL JR MANN M/S PULHTJ SOUTHWST Middle School BALE BASELINE BOOKER BRADY CARVER CHICOT DODD FAIR PRK FORST PK FRANKLIN FULBRIGH GARLAND GEYER SP GIBBS JEFFRSN M LKING MABEL EL MCDERMOT MEADCLIF MITCHELL OTTER CR PUL HT E RIGHTSEL ROCKFELR ROMINE TERRY WAKEFIEL WASHNGTN WATSON WESTHIL WILLIAMS LRSD Information Services 1114 94 269 148 222 128 126 98 164 159 1408 8 5 14 4 17 19 II 4 8 61 7 1 18 18 16 12 47 24 14 30 3 9 4 4 12 24 28 8 17 13 17 1Level School Total Elementary WILSON WOODRUFF 5 7 Elementary 489 Grand Total: 3011 LRSD Information Services 2\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1202","title":"Magnet Review Committee: Budget","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":["1999/2000"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational statistics","Magnet schools"],"dcterms_title":["Magnet Review Committee: Budget"],"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/1202"],"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":["520 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\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nArkansas Democrat azette  WED_N~_~(?~Y, J~NE ?~, ~-999 Magnet school panel to get $35,000 budget increase i BY CYNTHIA HO\\VELL to S92.500. Each district will con- the de,elopment and operation AR~A,s1rnc,1cxR,r-Gizrm tribute S30.833.33 a year. up from of magnet schools. which offer Chief U.S. District Judge Susan S25,000. special programs designed to at- Webber Wright has appro\\'ed a Wright directed the contribu- tract both black and white stu$ 35,000 increase in the a1,nual tors to make payments for the dents to schools that are other-budget for the )lagnet Re1iew current year by Friday. wise difficult to desegregate. Committee. the first increase to The )Iagnet Re,iew Commit- Committee functions include the supervisory committee in tee is made up of representa- ernluating. monitoring and recmore than 10 years of operation. ti ves from each of the three ommending changes in the six The increase to $185.000 is ef- school districts. the state and the original magnet schools. as well fective beginning with the 1998-99 Joshua intenenors - the black as recruiting for those schools school year. The state of Arkan- students and families who inter- and for other special-program sas will absorb half of the cost of ,ened in the ongoing Pulaski schools in the Little Rock and Pu- , the increase. and the rest will be County school desegregation laski County Special school dis- I divided among the three Pulaski lawsuit. tricts. County school districts. The 8th L'.S. Circuit Court of The committee has two staff The state's yearly share of the Appeals at St. Louis established members and an office in North budget will increase from S75.000 the committee in 1987 to 01ersee Little Rock. LR magnet schools seek . approval of larger budget ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE The cost of educating students in Little Rock's six original magnet schools rose $470 per student to an average $.5,597 in 1999-2000 as compared with the previous year, according to documents filed recently in federal court. Chief U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright said this week that she will approve that final proposed budget unless she hears objections from the Little Rock School District, North Little Rock School District, Pulaski County Special School District or the other parties in the 17- year-old Pulaski County school desegregation lawsuit. She gave the parties 10 days to file any complaints. The Magnet Review Committee - made up ofrepresentatives of the three districts, the state Department of Education and the Joshua intervenors, the class of all black students in the districts - prepared the final $21.4 million budget for the past year as well as a proposed $22.5 million budget for the next year. Wright said she would deal with the ~1 budget in a later order. In a letter accompanying the bud-get proposals, Magnet Review Committee Chairman Sadie Mitchell said the cost increase resulted partly from program improvements at the schools. The schools have just completed the fourth year of a five-year program-improvement plan. The six original magnet schools are Booker Arts Magnet Elementary, Carver Basic Skills/Math-Science Magnet Elementary, Gibbs International Studies Magnet Elementary, Williams 'Iraditional Magnet Elementary, Mann Arts and Sciences Magnet Middle , School, and Parkview Arts and Sciences Magnet High School. The special-program schools were established in the 1980s a6, a way to racially desegregate schools with virtually all-black enrollments. The state pays the transportation costs for magnet school students, who come from all three districts, and half the educational cost per student. The three Pulaski County districts share the remaining costs,, The Little Rock School District operates the schools and the Magnet Review Committee, an arm of the federal court, oversees the operation. August 28, 2000 Magnet RevieHJ Conz,nittee 1920 North Main Street, Suite 101  North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 (501) 758-0156 {Phone}  (501) 758-5366 {Fax}  magnet@magnetschool.com {E -mail} June 30, 1999 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U. S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Suite 302 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Judge Wright: RECEIVED G.mGE OF ilESEGREGATION MONITORING At its June 22, 1999 special-called meeting, the Magnet Review Committee, by formal motion and 4-0 vote (North Little Rock and Joshua lntervenors representatives were not present), approved the interdistrict magnet schools' actual budget for the six original magnet schools for the 1998-99 school year (Draft 1 ). FINAL 1998-99 STIPULATED ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGET: The total amount budgeted, $20,146,910, is based on a per pupil expenditure of $5,127.00, calculated from an average third-quarter enrollment of 3,929.86 students. This budget reflects an increase of $473.00 per student over the 1997-98 budget, with the third year of the five-year proposed program improvement plan included. This final 1998-99 budget reflects actual figures and takes into account the variables (teacher retirement and health insurance changes) that were uncertain when the proposed budget was submitted in June, 1998. As you know, in correspondence dated May 7, 1999, the Magnet Review Committee requested a change in the magnet school grade configurations beginning with the 1999- 2000 school year. As described in that May 7, 1999 letter, tbe changes result in an additional 132 magnet school seats. At its June 22, 1999 meeting, the Magnet Review Committee approved the proposed budget for the 1999-2000 school year for the six original magnet schools which reflected costs associated with the additio~al seats (Draft l ). PROPOSED 1999-2000 STIPULATED ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGET: The total proposed budget for the 1999-2000 school year is $22,941,363, which results in a per-pupil expenditure of $5,648 and an increase of $521.00 per student over the 1998-99 actual budget. Salary negotiations are in progress, and it should be noted that these negotiations may have an impact on the 1999-2000 proposed budget. It is the intention of the Magnet Review CommitteE:, therefore, to submit this budget with the recognition that some flexibility may be necessary. The Magnet Review Committee respectfully requests the Court's review and approval of the 1998-99 finalized budget, as well as the proposed 1999-2000 budget, both attached herewith. \"Pursue the l'o.\\sibilitin 11/ ,\\lai:1111 Scho11/ J,11rol/1111'1lf'\" The Honorable Susan Webber Wright -2- June 30, 1999 The Magnet Review Committee is committed to maintaining the existing quality of the original magnet schools. We will continue to work with the host district as we exercise stringent oversight of the magnet schools' budget in an effort to achieve and ensure efficient management and cost containment to the greatest extent possible. Sadie Mitchell, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee SM/DGC:sl Attachments - Actual 1998-99 Original Magnet Schools Budget (Draft 1) Proposed 1999-2000 Original Magnet Schools Budget (Draft 1) ce: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor - Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1999-00 BUDGET PROPOSAL(PRAFT 1} ...  :98'-99 i i,\\98':.99':)}}\\ ) 99:::00 :xrtt,ss.\n-   .. SUMMARY FOR MAGNET SCHOOLS .-F.T.E. .. / Proposecf// :\n.} F/1\\ E{: \\t::propo~ed \\ { CERTIFIED 01 Pr1nc1pal 6.0 $405,002 6.0 $425,252 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 10.0 $538,313 100 $565,229 03 Specialists 40.2 $1,573,736 40.2 $1,652,423 04 Counselors 12.4 $562,628 12.4 $590,759 05 Media Spec. 6.5 $285,649 6.5 $299,933 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 1.0 $29,673 1.0 $31,157 07 Music 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreiqn Lanq. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 12.6 $362,514 12.6 $380,639 10 Special Education 8.7 $358,938 8.7 $376,887 11 Gifted 5.4 $224,300 5.4 $235,515 12 Classroom 177.9 $6,850,936 192.3 $7,700,364 13 Substitutes 0.0 $130,000 0.0 $130,000 14 Other-Kind erg art en 13.0 $507,181 13.0 $532,540 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 293.7 $11,828,870 308.1 $12,920,697 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 20.0 $442,653 20.0 $464,786 STAFF 16 Nurses 5.4 $199,997 5.4 $209,997 17 Custodians 29.0 $453,656 29.0 $476,340 18 Information Services 1.0 $49,635 1.0 $52,120 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 6.0 $173,752 6.0 $182,440 20 Other-Aides 37.0 $364,471 37.0 $382,696 21 Fringe Benefits(20) , $3,601,089 -~ $4,857,249 TOT AL SUPPORT SALARY TOTAL (10-20) PURCHASED 22 Utilities SERVICES 23 Travel (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements 25 Other TOTAL (30) MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom (40 ) 28 Media 29 Other TOTAL (40) CAPITAL 30 Equipment OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. (50) 32 Other TOTAL (50) OTHER 33 Dues and Fees (60) 34 Other TOTAL (60) TOTAL (30-60) TOTAL (10-60) TOTAL LINE ITEMS (SECOND PAGE) .ci\u0026gt;  iGRANO:TOTAL.-t:.:,:::::,,::,::C 98.4 -~ ,v,JV XXX)(j()()()( ~ ..:,:\n-.'' 392.1 .. .... .: ,, $5,285,254 98.4 $6,625,626 $17,114,123 ~ $19,546,323 $607,657 ~ $607,657 $46,000 :~ $58,950 $0 :~ $0 $164,009 ~ $92,729 $817,666 ~ $759,336 $1 ,500 :~ $1,650 $510,244 :~ $539,326 $43,250 ~ $52,600 $26,700 $26,700 $581,694 $620,276 $412,097 ~ $592,388 $0 $0 $0 $0 $412,097 $592,388 $21,900 ~ $24,950 $0 ~ $0 $21,900 ~ $24,950 $1,833,357 $1,996,950 $18,947,481 406.5 $21,543,273 $1,199,429 ~ $1,398,090 \\ t\u0026gt; $2Q\nt46{91Q .~ : j:$22\n941\n~.fl:t A CEI JUI_ 1 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING line Item Costs  Proposed Ptop0sed .. 1998-99 1999--00 Stipends $37,366 $58,590 Other Objects $0 $0 Indirect Costs $1,075,563 $1,253,000 Vocational $32,000 $32,000 Athletics $33,000 $33,000 Gifted Proqrams $500 $500 Plant Services $15,000 $15,000 Reading $500 $500 Science $0 $0 Enqlish $1,500 $1,500 Special Education $4,000 $4,000 $0 $0 xxxxxx $0 $0 xxxxxx $0 $0 fotal Line Items $1,199,429 $1,398,090 Per Pupil Cost 1998-99 .)/4999.--00 '''\" 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 3,929.86 4,061.86 Total Costs $20,146,910 $22,941,363 Per Pupil Cost $5,127 --.- $5,648 1999--00 BUDGET PROPOSAL{DRAFT1) Booker M :ignef School .  ... CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $67,173 1.0 $70,532 STAFF  SUPPORT STAFF PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) 02 Asst Prin. 1.0 $56,872 1.0 $59,716 03 Specialists 7.0 $293,535 7.0 $308,212 04 Counselors 2.0 $85,862 2.0 $90,155 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $46,975 1.0 $49,324 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 1.0 $29,673 1.0 $31,157 07 Music 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreign Lang. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 1 O Special Education 1.3 $61,889 1.3 $64,983 11 Gifted 1.0 $44,121 1.0 $46,327 12 Classroom 30.2 $1,144,112 32.6 $1,280,312 13 Substitutes 0.0 $21,000 0.0 $21,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 4.0 $146,338 4.0 $153,655 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 49.5 $1,997,549 51.9 $2,175,372 15 Secretaries 2.0 $42,999 2.0 $45,149 16 Nurses 1.0 $36,169 1.0 $37,977 17 Custodians 4.0 $61,704 4.0 $64,789 18 Information Services 0.2 $8,273 0.2 $8,687 19 Paraprofessionals-Other O.C $0 0.0 $0 20 Other-Aides 7.0 $68,802 7.0 $72,242 21 Fringe Benefits(20) $589,205 ~ $793,050 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 14.2 $807,152 14.2 $1,021,895 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 TOTAL (10-20) Utilities Travel Maintenance Agreements Other TOTAL (30) Principal's Office Reqular Classroom Media , Other TOTAL (40) Equipment Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) Dues and Fees Other ~ $2,804,701 ~ $74,250 ~ $10,000 $28,584 ~ $112,834 ~ $72,000 ~ $6,500 $5,000 ~ $83,500 .~ $77,833 ~ $0 $77,833 ~ $1,000 ~ $3,197,267 $74,250 $10,000 $20,750 $105,000 $65,498 $7,000 $5,000 $77,498 $83,255 $0 $83,255 $2,500 TOTAL (60) $1,000 ~ $2,500 TOTAL (30 60) $275,167 ~ $268,253 TOTAL ( 10-60) 63. 7 $3,079,868 66.1 $3,465,520 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) $186,314 $210,618 Line Item Costs - Proposed :/ , Proposed }: Booker / -  . ..-::\n:i 1998-99 1999-00 Stipends $10,686 $20,000 Other Objects Indirect Costs $172,114 $187,213 Vocational $0 $0 Athletics $0 $0 Gifted Programs $153 $157 Plant Services $2,400 $2,320 Reading $80 $77 Science $0 $0 English $240 $232 Special Education $640 $619 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $186,314 $210,618 Per Pupil Cost 1998-99 . 1999--00 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 630.43 606,89 Total Costs $3,266,181 $3,676,137 Per Pupil Cost $5,181 $6,057 1999..-00 BUDGET PROPOSALlDRAFT1)   C,(  98~9 )' 98~99:) :f / /: ).99\n.()0\\ ,::,: :{#\" nn.  '\"' carver Magnet School ..:  '2 ')} ..  F.T.E, \u0026lt; Prol)osedi :.::: ::.: E\\:f~E  : : E?ropds\u0026amp;L:  CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $63,061 1.0 $66,214 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $53,026 1.0 $55,677 03 Specialists 8.0 $315,292 8.0 $331,057 04 Counselors 2.0 $74,292 2.0 $78,007 05 Media Spec. 1.5 $61,288 1.5 $64,352 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 07 Music 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreign Lang. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 10 Special Education 1.5 $56,857 1.5 $59,700 11 Gifted 1.4 $55,762 1.4 $58,550 12 Classroom 24.3 $828,825 22.3 $804,438 13 Substitutes 0.0 $20,000 0.0 $20,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 4.0 $145,675 4.0 $152,959 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 44.7 $1,674,077 42.7 $1,690,953 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 3.0 $60,537 3.0 $63,564 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $28,366 1.0 $29,784 PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) 17 Custodians 4.0 $71,278 4.0 $74,842 18 Information Services 0.2 $8,273 0.2 $8,687 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 20 Other-Aides 11.0 $112,097 11.0 $117,702 21 FringeBenefits(20) . $544,184 $677,627 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 19.2 $824,735 19.2 $972,206 TOTAL (10-20) ~ ' $2,498,812 ~  $2,663,159 Utilities $83,707  $83,707 Travel $10,000 :~ $12,000 Maintenance Agreements Other TOTAL (30) Principal's Office Regular Classroom Media Other . TOTAL (40) Equipment Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) Dues and Fees Other $12,915 ~ $106,622 ~ $57,800 ~ $10,000 $3,200 $71,000 $36,430 $36,430 $8,000 ~ $11,200 $106,907 $66,900 $10,000 $3,200 $80,100 $51,470 $51,470 $8,000 TOTAL (60) $8,000 ~ $8,000 TOTAL (30-60) $222,052 ~ $246,477 TOTAL (10-60) 63.9 $2,720,864 61.9 $2,909,636 TOTAL LINE ITEMS (SECOND PAGE) $183,238 $198,862 line Item Costs - Proposed Prooosed Carver 1998-99 1999..00 Stipends $12,010 $12,890 Other Objects Indirect Costs $167,803 $183,055 Vocational $0 $0 Athletics $0 $0 Gifted Programs $149 $135 Plant Services $2,340 $1,987 Reading $78 $66 Science $0 $0 English $234 $199 Special Education $624 $530 XX)()()()( XX)()()()( T.otal Line Items $183,238 $198,862 Per Pupil Cost 1998-99 ' .,.,,,, .. 1999,-00:/'. 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 616.33 593.41 Total Costs $2,904,102 $3,108,498 Per Pupil Cost $4,712 $5,238 '1999..00 BUDGET PROPOS.AJ.\n,(DR.AFIT.jJ   \\ . 98\"99 ? 98~99 { 9~:::0:Q)  \\ $94)0.( Gibbs Magnet School        /     F,T\nE/   PJ'opos~l$ ft Fil\\~# J P.t.\\5p(lj~f fa CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $62,256 1.0 $65,369 STAFF 02 Asst Prin. 1.0 $48,518 1.0 $50,944 SUPPORT STAFF PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60 ) 03 Specialists 6.8 $230,842 6.8 $242,384 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Counselors 1.0 $48,507 1.0 $50,932 Media Spec 1.0 $49,766 1.0 $52,254 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 Music 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 Foreign Lano . 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 Vocational 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 Special Education 1.5 $74,622 1.5 $78,353 Gifted 1.0 $35,171 1.0 $36,930 Classroom 15.0 $522,415 15.0 $548,536 Substitutes 0.0 $14,000 0.0 $14,Q00 Other-Kindergarten 2.0 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 30.3 Secretaries 1.4 Nurses 0.8 Custodians 3.0 Information Services 0.2 Paraprofessionals-Ott1er 0.0 Other-Aides 5.6 Fringe Benefits(20)   :  TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 11.0 Utilities Travel TOTAL (10-20) Maintenance Aqreements Other TOTAL (30) Principal's Office Regular Classroom Media Other . TOTAL (40) Equipment Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) Dues and Fees Other ~ ~ $76,237 2.0 $80,049 $1,162,334 30.3 $1,219,751 $29,288 1.4 $30,752 $32,457 0.8 $34,080 $45,642 3.0 $47,924 $8,273 0.2 $8,687 $0 0.0 $0 $36,188 5.6 $369,681 ~ $521,529 11.0 $1,683,863 \"\"' \"\"- $38,201 .~ $8,500 ~ ~ $15,824 ~ $62,525 $1,000 ~ $39,141 ~ $3,000 ~ $3,000 ~ $46,141 ~ $183,040 :~ $183,040 ~ $1,000 ~ $37,997 $465,429 $624,869 $1,844,620 $38,201 $20,000 $4,800 $63,001 $1,000 $32,252 $8,000 $3,000 $44,252 $18,665 $18,665 $1,000 TOTAL (60) 1~..: $1,000 ~ $1,000 TOTAL (30-60) IAN\"'-'YV~ $292,706 ~ TOTAL (10-60) 41.3 $1,976,569 41.3 $126,918 $1,971,538 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) $89,919 ~ $98,217 - .-GRANDJOTAL./ .. : .. xxxxxx $2\n.0.B~A~~ idc~~tj() S?tC~~i:15:$/ line Item Costs - Proposed  i\\. Pt01:\u0026gt;0sed , .. Gibbs 1998-99 1999-00 Stipends $835 Other Objects Indirect Costs $87,302 $96,412 Vocational $0 $0 Athletics $0 $0 Gifted Programs $78 $83 Plant Services $1,218 $1,229 Readin\u0026lt;:J $41 $41 Science $0 $0 Enqlish $122 $123 Special Education $325 $328 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $89,919 $98,217 Per Pupil Cost 1998-99 1999-00 ,, 3rd Qtr ADM or Proj 324.80 312.54 Total Costs $2,066,488 $2,069,755 Per Pupil Cost $6,362 $6,622 1999-00 BUDGET PROPOSAL(DRAFT1) 98-99 98-99 99-00 99-00 Williams Magnet School F,T.E. Proposed F.T.E. Proposed CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $72,7]0 1.0 $76,409 STAFF 02 Asst. Pnn 1 0 $47,761 1.0 $50,149 03 Specialists 5.0 $223,133 5.0 $234,290 04 Counselors 1.4 $57,763 1.4 $60,651 05 Media Spec 1.0 $36,985 1.0 $38,834 06 Art-Perf./Prod 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 07 Music 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreign Lang 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 10 Special Education 1 1 $50,456 1.1 $52,979 11 Gifted 2.0 $89,246 2.0 $93,708 12 Classroom 20.0 $807,642 20.0 $848,024 13 Substitutes 0.0 $20,000 0.0 $20,000 14 Other-Kinderqarten 3.0 $138,931 3.0 $145,878 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 35.5 $1,544,686 35.5 $1 ,620,921 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.6 $53,584 2.6 $56,263 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $44,854 1.0 $47,097 17 Custodians 4.0 $55,662 4.0 $58,445 18 Information Services 0.2 $8,273 0.2 $8,687 19 Para professionals-Other 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 20 Other-Aides 9.fl $62,177 9.0 $65,286 21 Fringe Benefits(20) $472,966 , ... $616,335 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 16.8 $697,515 16.8 $852,113 TOTAL (10-20) $2,242,201 )0()()()000( $2,473,034 PURCHASED 22 Util1t1es xxxxxxxx $50,168 )()(X)OO(X)( $50,168 SERVICES 23 Travel $3,500 $3,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements 25 Other $6,329 .X\u0026gt;\u0026lt;Xl\u0026lt;X\u0026gt;O\u0026lt;i\u0026lt; $5,100 TOTAL (30) $59,997 X\u0026gt;OOOO(X)( $58,268 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office -~ SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom $62,608 )OOO()()()Q( $68,176 (40) 28 Media $5,000 $5,000 29 Other  $2,500 $2,500 TOTAL (40) A, $70,108 $75,676 CAPITAL 30 Equipment - $34,400 $55,678 OUTLAY 31 Bu1ldinq Repair, etc (50) 32 Other $0 XXiO\u0026lt;X\u0026gt;6a\u0026lt; TOTAL (50) $34,400 ~ $55,678 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees - $3,900 $1 ,800 (60) 34 Other TOTAL (60) $3,900 ... . $1,800 TOTAL (30-60) $168,405 )0()()000()( $191,422 TOTAL (10-\u0026amp;0) 52.3 $2,410,606 52.3 $2,664,456 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) $146,494 $158,460 GRANO TOTAL xxxxxx $2,557,100 xxxxxx :,,,x,,,,.,,:_ . .$2~822\n916. Line Item Costs - Proposed Prooosed Williams ., 1998-99 1999--00 Stipends $8,358 $11,200 Other Objects Indirect Costs $135,373 $144,569 Vocational $0 $0 Athletics $0 $0 Gifted Proqrams $120 $124 Plant Services $1,888 $1,833 Reading $63 $61 Science $0 $0 EnQlish $189 $183 Special Education $503 $489 xxxxxx xxxxxx T.otal Line Items $146,494 $158,460 Per Pupil Cost 1998-99 1998-100 3rd Qtr. ADM or ProJ. 486.93 468.65 Total Costs $2,557,100 $2,822,916 Per Pupil Cost $5,251 $6,024 '1999-00 BUDGET PROPOSAL(DRAFT 1) 98-99 98-99 99-00 99-00 Mann Macinet School F.T.E. Propos~ F.T.E. Proposed CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $67,313 1.0 $70,679 STAFF 02 Asst Pnn. 3.0 $150,847 3.0 $158,389 03 Specialists 3.6 $137,303 3.6 $144,168 04 Counselors - 3.0 $138,1 40 3.0 $145,047 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $49,770 1.0 $52,259 06 Art-Perf./Prod 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 07 Music 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Fore1qn Lanq. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 5.6 $161,424 5.6 $169,495 10 Special Education 1.3 $44,557 1.3 $46,785 11 Gifted 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 12 Classroom 47.8 $1,736,395 47.8 $1,823,215 13 Substitutes 00 $30,000 0.0 $30,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 66.3 $2,515,749 66.3 $2,640,036 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 5.0 $111 ,209 5.0 $116,769 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $38,901 1.0 $40,846 17 Custodians 6.0 $87,118 6.0 $91,474 18 Information Services 0.2 $8,273 0.2 $8,687 19 Para professionals-Other 1.0 $25,957 1.0 $27,255 20 Other-Aides 211 $46,059 2.4 $48,362 21 Fringe Benefits(20)  $738,034 $981,276 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 15.6 $1,055,550 15.6 $1,314,669 TOTAL (10-20) ... $3,571,299 $3,954,706 PURCHASED 22 Ut1l1tles $158,629 $158,629 SERVICES 23 Travel $7,000\n()O(XJ()(X)( $4,500 (30) 24 Maintenance Aqreements $0 XXX\u0026gt;OO\u0026lt;XX $0 25 Other $58,878 $30,779 TOTAL (30) $224,507 ~ $193,908 MATERIALS, 26 Pnnc1pal's Office $0 'lOOOOO\u0026lt;)()( SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom $119,615 $121,350 (40) 28 Media $10,550 X)()()(X)()()( $10,600 29 Other $5,000 XlOOOOOO( $5,000 TOTAL (40) $135,165 $136,950 CAPITAL 30 Equipment $16,450 ')()\u0026lt;X)()()(X)( $71,576 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. $0 XX\u0026gt;OOOOO\u0026lt; (50) 32 Other TOTAL (50) $16,450 $71,576 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees $4,000 $3,500 (60) 34 Other TOTAL (60) $4,000 $3,500 TOTAL (30-60) $380,122 $405,934 TOTAL (10-60) 81 .9 $3,951,421 81 .9 $4,360,640 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) .. $286,111 $316,739 GRAND TOTAL xx.xxxx $4,237,$32 ' X\u0026gt;Oi:XXX: : .:\n::::::::::::::\n:- $4\n677\n376 line Item Costs - Proposed Proposed Mann 1998-99 1999-00 Stipends $1,672 $9,100 Other Objects Indirect Costs $248,150 $274,494 Vocational $15,480 $14,014 Athletics $15,964 $14,452 Gifted Proqrams $0 $0 Plant Services $3,461 $3,342 Readinq $115 $111 Science $0 $0 Enql1sh $346 $334 Special Education $923 $891 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $286,111 $316,739 Per Pupil Cost 1998-99 199!}.-00 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proi. 889.83 889.83 Total Costs $4,237,532 $4,677,378 Per Pupil Cost .. , $4,76.Z $5,256 1999..00 BUDGET PROPOSAL(DRAFT1) Parkview Maqnet School . 98-99 F.T.E. CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 3.0 9.8 $72,429 1.0 $76,050 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. $181,289 3.0 $190,353 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 SUPPORT 15 STAFF 16 17 18 19 20 21 PURCHASED 22 SERVICES 23 (30) 24 25 MATERIALS, 26 SUPPLIES 27 (40) 28 29 CAPITAL 30 OUTLAY 31 (50) 32 OTHER 33 (60) 34 TOTAL LINE ITEMS Specialists Counselors 3.0 Media Spec. 1.0 Art-Perf./Prod . 0.0 Music 0.0 Foreign Lang. 0.0 Vocational 7.0 Special Education 2.0 Gifted 0.0 Classroom 40.6 Substitutes 0.0 Other-Kinderqarten 0.0 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 67.4 Secretaries 6.0 Nurses 0.6 Custodians 8.0 Information Services 0.2 Para professionals-Other 5.0 Other-Aides 2D Fringe Benefits(20) 1x,o  oc  xxxxt TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 21.8 Utilities Travel TOTAL (10-20) Maintenance Aqreements Other TOTAL (30) Principal's Office Regular Classroom Media Other TOTAL (40) Equipment Buildinq Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) Dues and Fees Other ~ ~~ --:--.- .:.:. $373,632 9.8 $392,313 $158,064 3.0 $165,967 $40,866 1.0 $42,909 $0 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 $201,089 7.0 $211,143 $70,559 2.0 $74,087 $0 0.0 $0 $1,811,547 54.6 $2,395,840 $25,000 0.0 $25,000 $0 0.0 $0 $2,934,474 81.4 $3,573,663 $145,036 6.0 $152,288 $19,250 0.6 $20,213 $132,253 8.0 $138,866 $8,273 $147,795 $39,149 $887,018 $1,378,773 $4,313,247 $202,702 $7,000 $0 $41,480 $251,182 $500 $159,080 $8,200 $8,000 $175,780 $63,944 0.2 5.0 2.0 21.8 .~ ~ ~ $63,944 ~ $4,000 ..... .. ..... ,. ........ . $8,687 $155,185 $41,106 $1,323,531 $1,839,875 $5,413,538 $202,702 $9,450 $0 $20,100 $232,252 $650 $185,150 $12,000 $8,000 $205,800 $311,744 $311,744 $8,150 TOTAL (60) ~\n.. $4,000 ~ $8,150 TOTAL (30-60) -vvvv $494,906 $757,946 TOTAL (10-60) 89.2 $4,808,154 103.2 $6,171,484 (SECOND PAGE) $307,353 ~ $415,195 \u0026lt; GRANDT.OTAL\\ t xxi\u0026amp;x\nc t $s\nnsfsg7 x#ttK  tih'S~\ning Line Item Costs - '\"' Proposed ,,,.\" \" Pro nosed ,,, Parkvlew 1998-99 1999-00 Stipends . $3,805 $5,400 Other Objects Indirect Costs $264,821 $367,257 Vocational $16,520 $17,986 Athletics $17,036 $18,548 Gifted Prograrps $0 $0 Plant Services $3,693 $4,289 Reading $123 $143 Science $0 $0 English $369 $429 Special Education $985 $1 ,144 )0()()()()( )0()()()()( Total Line Items $307,353 $415,195 Per Pupil Cost 1998-99 1999-00 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proi. 981.54 1,190.54 Total Costs $5,115,507 $6,586,679 Per Pupil Cost $5,212 :.. \\ ,\u0026gt; $5,5.33 , IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION 0v0 r t .5 1j('\n/t',/r',f LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * EC 0 Intervenors, * * oc KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., * Intervenors. * ORDER Before the Court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee (\"MRC\") for approval of the interdistrict magnet schools' final budget for the 1998-1999 school year. The MRC communicated the final budget to the Court in a letter dated June 30, 1999 (attached). The letter also contains a proposed budget for the 1999-2000 school year\nhowever, the Court will address the proposed budget in a separate Order. The Court will allow the parties to and including 10 days from entry of this Order to object to MRC's final budget for 1998-1999. Should no objections be filed within the time allowed, the Court will enter an Order approving the budget. _./h- IT IS SO ORDERED THIS / :J DAY OF OCTOBER, 1999 CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT fHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPUAN1i:~m 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP e\u0026gt;H I I..:\n/  ev rt:::: Magnet Review Committee 1920 North Main Street, Suite 1 01  North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 (501) 758-0156 {Phone}  (501) 758-5366 {Fax}  magnet@magnetschool.com {E-mail} June 30, 1999 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U. S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Suite 302 Little Rock, AR 7220 l Dear Judge Wright: At its June 22, 1999 special-called meeting, the Magnet Review Committee, by formal motion and 4-0 vote (North Little Rock and Joshua lntervenors representatives were not present), approved the interdistrict magnet schools' actual budget for the six original magnet schools for the 1998-99 school year (Draft l ). FINAL 1998-99 STIPULATED ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGET: The total amount budgeted, $20,146,910, is based on a per pupil expenditure of $5,127 .00, calculated from an average third-quarter enrollment of 3,929.86 students. This budget reflects an increase of $473.00 per student over the 1997-98 budget, with the third year of the five-year proposed program improvement plan included. This final 1998-99 budget reflects actual figures and takes into account the variables (teacher retirement and health insurance changes) that were uncertain when the proposed budget was submitted in June, 1998. As you know, in correspondence dated May 7, 1999, the Magnet Review Committee requested a change in the magnet school grade configurations beginning with the 1999- 2000 school year. As described in that May 7, 1999 letter, the changes result in an additional 132 magnet school seats. At its June 22, 1999 meeting, the Magnet Review Committee approved the proposed budget for the 1999-2000 school year for the six original magnet schools which reflected costs associated with the additional seats (Draft l ). PROPOSED 1999-2000 STIPULATED ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGET: The total proposed budget for the 1999-2000 school year is $22,941,363, which results in a per-pupil expenditure of $5,648 and an increase of $521.00 per student over the 1998-99 actual budget. Salary negotiations are in progress, and it should be noted that these negotiations may have an impact on the 1999-2000 proposed budget. It is the intention of the Magnet Review Committee, therefore, to submit this budget with the recognition that some flexibility may be necessary. The Magnet Review Committee respectfully requests the Court's review and approval of the 1998-99 finalized budget, as well as the proposed 1999-2000 budget, both attached herewith. \"Pursue the Possibilities of Magnet School Enrollment\" The Honorable Susan Webber Wright -2- June 30, 1999 The Magnet Review Committee is committed to maintaining the existing quality of the original magnet schools. We will continue to work with the host district as we exercise stringent oversight of the magnet schools' budget in an effort to achieve and ensure efficient management and cost containment to the greatest extent possible. Sincerely, ~ Sadie Mitchell, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee SM/DGC:sl Attachments - Actual 1998-99 Original Magnet Schools Budget (Draft l) Proposed 1999-2000 Original Magnet Schools Budget (Draft l) cc: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor - Office of Desegregation Monitoring u.fo'61rn1~ QRT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS AUG 2 3 2000 WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. * * * * * * * * * No. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., Intervenors. * * * * * ORDER EC IVED AUG 2 5 2000 of SES~S.fflUllr MiJNlTIJRIN! Before the Court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee (\"MRC\") for approval of the interdistrict magnet schools' final budget for the 1999-2000 school year, The MRC communicated the final budget to the Court in a letter dated July 28, 2000 (attached). The letter also contains a proposed budget for the 2000-2001 school year\nhowever, the Court will address the proposed budget in a separate Order. The Court will allow the parties to and including 10 days from the date of entry of this Order to object to the MR.C's final budget for 1999-2000. Should no objections be filed within the time allowed, the Court will enter an Order :,roving the budget. IT IS SO ORDERED this ).,.3 day of August 2000. ~~1 CHIEF JUDG UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET LN COMPLIANCE Wl~ULE 58 AND/OR 79(8) FRCP 0N ~-,?. 00 BY rt:: - : Magnet Review Committee 1920 North Main Street, Suite 101  North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 (501) 758-0156 {Phone}  (501) 758-5366 {Fax}  magnet@magnetschool.com {E-mail} July 28, 2000 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Suite 302 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Judge Wright: At its July 14, 2000 special-called meeting, the Magnet Review Committee, by formal motion and 5-0 vote (the Pulaski County Special School District representative was not present but later voted the District's approval via telephone), approved the interdistrict magnet schools' actual budget for the six original magnet schools for the 1999-2000 school year (Draft 1). FINAL 1999-2000 STIPULATED ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGET The total amount budgeted, $21,351,086, is based on a per-pupil expenditure of $5,597.00, calculated from an average third-quarter enrollment of3,814.79 . students. This budget reflects an increase of$470.00 per student over the 1998-99 budget, with the fourth year of the five-year proposed program improvement plan included. This final 1999-2000 budget reflects actual figures and takes into account the variables (teacher retirement and health insurance changes) that were uncertain when the proposed budget was submitted in June, 1999. This final budget also reflects costs associated with the additional seats which were added during the Little Rock School District's grade configurations, commencing with the 1999-2000 school year. At its special-called meeting on July 27, 2000, the Magnet Review Committee unanimously approved the proposed budget for the six original Stipulation magnet schools for the 2000-2001 school year. PROPOSED 2000-2001 STIPULATED ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGET The total proposed budget for the 2000-2001 school year is $22,500,211, which results in a per-pupil expenditure of $5,898.00 and an increase of $301.00 over the 1999-2000 actual budget. Salary negotiations are in progress, and it should be noted that these negotiations may have an impact on the 2000-2001 proposed budget. It is the intention of the Magnet Review Committee, therefore, to submit this budget with the recognition that some :flexibility may be necessary. \"Pursue the Possibilities of Magnet School Enrollment\" The Honorable Susan Webber Wright -2- July 28, 2000 The Magnet Review Committee respectfully requests the Court's review and approval of the 1999-2000 :finalized budget, as well as the proposed 2000-2001 budget\nboth attached herewith. - The Magnet Review Committee is committed to maintaining the existing quality of the original magnet-schools. We will continue to work with the host district as we exercise stringent oversight of the magnet schools' budget in an effort to achieve and ensure efficient management and cost containment to the greatest extent possible. Sincerely, J~ fkd'dd,/ Sadie Mitchell, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee SM/DGC:sl Attachments: Actual 1999-2000 Original Magnet Schools Budget (Draft 1) Proposed 2000-2001 Original Magnet Schools Budget (Draft 1) cc: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor - Office of Desegregation Monitoring ~0~fBUD~l\n[:PROPOAt.([)Rl\n.fJJh, UI{\\ , 99-0(F ,. :,\n:':'99--00\u0026gt; ,, :, ., OO\"(W,, \u0026lt;\u0026lt;\u0026gt;00-01, ,: /: SUMMARY'FOR)~AGNETSCHOcits':)(:, \u0026lt; , .. ::: F\nT,E!' . :  . Actual\u0026lt;\n: UF . T\nE/ \u0026lt;HP.r.oposetLY CERTIFIED 01 Principal 6.0 $423,711 6.0 $441 ,017 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 10.0 $540,287 10.0 $572,704 SUPPORT STAFF 03 Soecialists 04 Counselors 05 Media Soec. 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreion Lang. 09 Vocational 10 Special Education 11 Gifted 12 Classroom 13 Substitutes 14 Other-Kindergarten TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 15 Secretaries 16 Nurses 17 Custodians 18 Information Services 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 21 Fringe Benefits(20 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY TOTAL (10-20) 40.2 $1 ,638,478 40.2 $1,736,787 13.4 $592,038 13.4 $627,561 6.5 $288,210 6.5 $305,502 1.0 $35,443 1.0 $37,570 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 7.6 $349,156 7.6 $370,106 9.2 $340,504 9.2 $360,934 5.4 $227,711 5.4 $241 ,374 190.8 $7,180,546 188.8 $7,611 ,379 0.0 $196,924 0.0 $206,000 15.0 $621 ,745 16.0 $659,050 305.1 $12,434,753 304.1 $13,169,982 20.4 $517,493 21.4 $568,543 6.0 $223,684 6.0 $237,105 30.0 $431 ,533 30.0 $457,425 1.0 $51 ,156 1.0 $54,225 6.0 $165,698 6.0 $175,640 35.0 $405,160 35 .0 $429,470 XXXXJ(Jd:\\ $3,599,572 ~ ' $4,022,814 98.4 $5,394,297 99 .4 $5,945,223 XJ\u0026lt;io:XJO( $17,829,050 ~  $19,115,205 PURCHASED 1-22-+U~t_ili_tie_s_ _______r .-~~\"-~'-':-~:: ___$ ~4~5_4~,3~6~8~lO O-~O-O-~O-OC_X:~: t--__$ ~4~8~5,~0~6--:-10 SERVICES 23 Travel xxx:xxxx $29,937 iOOoooO\u0026lt;Jt, $41,450 (30) 24 Maintenance Aqreements xxxxxio( $0 iooooocxx\n$0 25 Other XXJ()(XXX $393,895 ~  $187,123 TOTAL (30) ~  $878,200 ~  $713,633 MATERIALS, t--26--t-P_r_in_c~ip_a_l's_O_ffi_1c_e_ ____t -xxx:_ xxx - x _--1 __- ,-_$_4_1_9-.._:. ,:_.-~-.,.....,.....:, r------:---$_1,7 _5___,0 SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom XX)00()(\n( ' $632,772 ~ : $503,452 (40) 28 Media ~  $45,163 ~  $46,900 CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) 29 Other ~  $25,424 XXJ.ixiioo( $20,797 TOTAL (40) xxxxxxi $703,778 ~  $572,899 30 Equipment ~ $369,502 XlOOOOOCX $452,387 31 Building Repair, etc. XXJQ.O(XX: $0 ~  $0 32 Other TOTAL (50) xioooo\u0026amp; $369,502 ~  $452,387 33 Dues and Fees ~  $33,474 ~  $17,500 34 Other TOTAL (60) ~  $33,474 ~  $17,500 TOTAL (30-60) xxioooo:\\ $1,984,954 ~  $1,756,419 TOTAL (10-60) 403.5 $19,814,003 403.5 $20,871,625 TOTAL LINE ITEMS- (SECOND PAGE) ~  $1,537,083 ~ \\ $1 ,628,587 tine 11emc\u0026amp;ts:}it/:: .\n::\n::i::: \u0026lt;Aclua1\u0026gt;tt: P.i#iioiiiiich/ summarvi:c::::,:, :::.::, 1999-00 2000-01 Stipends $21 ,871 $37,400 Other Objects $0 $0 Indirect Costs $1 ,411 ,708 $1,487,687 Vocational $32,000 $32,000 Athletics $33,000 $33,000 Gifted Proarams $504 $500 Plant Services $32,000 $32,000 Reading $500 $500 Science $0 $0 English $1,500 $1,500 Special Education $4,000 $4,000 $0 $0 xxxxxx $0 $0 xxxxxx $0 $0 Total Line Items $1,537,083 $1 ,628,587 Per.PupifCosL \u0026lt;\u0026gt;:c ::: \u0026gt; 1999:-D0\u0026lt;\u0026gt; \u0026lt;::::iooo\not/\u0026gt; 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proi. 3,814.79 3,814.79 Total Costs $21,351,086 $22,500,211 Pei Pupil CosC\u0026gt;\u0026lt;::: k \\ : $5,591:: /////$5\n898: CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $69,272 1.0 $ 73,428 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 03 Specialists 7.0 04 Counselors 2.0 05 Media Spec. 1.0 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 1.0 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Vocational 10 Special Education 1.3 11 Gifted 1.0 12 Classroom 32.6 13 Substitutes 14 Other-Kindergarten 4.0 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 51 .9 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 17 Custodians 4.0 18 Information Services 0.2 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 7.0 21 Fringe Benefits(20) XXXJOO\u0026lt;X: TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 14.2 TOTAL (10-20) XXXlOOOC PURCHASED 22 Utilities XXloo\u0026lt;XX. SERVICES 23 Travel xxfuxx: (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements 25 Other )OO(XXXX TOTAL(30) xxxxxxx. MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office XXXXXXXi. SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom (40) 28 Media xxxxxxx 29 Other . TOTAL (40) ~ . CAPITAL 30 Eauioment OUTLAY 31 Buildina Reoair, etc. ~ . (50) 32 Other ~  TOTAU50) OTHER 33 Dues and Fees (60) 34 Other ~ . TOTAL (60) TOTAL (30-60) xiifuxi' TOTAL (10-60) 66.1 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) $56,669 $293,910 $87,214 $47,376 $35,443 $0 $0 $0 $62,744 $43,999 $1 ,165,224 $18,609 $171 ,635 $2,052,095 $34,286 $37,591 $57,275 8,528 $0 $93,153 $603,562 $834,396 1.0 $ 60,069 7.0 $ 311 ,544 2.0 $ 92,446 1.0 $ 50,219 1.0 $ 37,570 $0 $0 $0 1.3 $ 66,509 1.0 $ 46,639 31 .6 $ 1,235,137 $ 21 ,000 5.0 $ 181 ,933 51 .9 $2,176,495 2.0 $ 36,344 1.0 $ 39,846 4.0 $ 60,712 0.2 $ 9,039 $0 7.0 $ 98,743 xxxxxxx $648,855 14.2 $893,538 $2,886,491 ~  $3,070,033 $57,485 ~ : $61,400 $6,356 ~ : $10,000 $0 $16,038\ni:ioboocx $26,025 $79,879 XlOOO\u0026lt;l\u0026lt;X' $97,425 $ 0 :ioo6oocX  $0 $86,038 ~  $67,403 $6,572 xi\u0026lt;xiooci $7,000 $3,490 ~  $5,050 $96,101 ~ : $79,453 $86,476 ~ : $108,560 $0 ~  $0 $0 ~  $0 $86,476 ~ : $108,560 $6,258 ~  $2,500 $0 ~  $0 $6,258 ~  $2,500 $268,714 ~ : $287,938 $3,155,205 66.1 $3,357,971 $217,044 ~  $228,001 Stipends $9,891 $10,000 Other Objects $0 $0 Indirect Costs $201 ,576 $212,425 Vocational $0 $0 Athletics $0 $0 Gifted Programs $151 $151 Plant Services $4,569 $4,569 Reading $71 $71 Science $0 $0 English $214 $214 Special Education $571 $571 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $217,044 $228,001 i:iefPupiH::fo~F\u0026gt;\u0026lt;U,, ,:// ,c\\1'999:bit -  :c 2000\"01-Y\\ 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 544.71 544.71 Total Costs $3,372,249 $3,585,972 -P~t:P.JP.tlicb~tiilill\\ll'. =\nii:=1\ni i!i!!li!!ii!$6it~1I\n\n!ili!i!ili!i!jii!~ l583! CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $65,840 1.0 $ 69,790 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $51 ,989 1.0 $ 55,108 03 Specialists 8.0 $314,459 8.0 $ 333,327 04 Counselors 2.0 $72,367 2.0 $ 76,709 05 Media Spec. 1.5 $61 ,802 1.5 $ 65,510 06 Art-Perf./Prod. $0 $0 07 Music $0 $0 08 Foreign Lang. $0 $0 09 Vocational $0 $0 10 Special Education 1.5 $38,627 1.5 $ 40, 11 Gifted 1.4 $56,496 1.4 $ 59, 12 Classroom 21 .3 $683,203 21.3 $ 724, 13 Substitutes $28,558 $ 30, 14 Other-Kindergarten 5.0 $185,552 5.0 $ 196, TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 42.7 $1 ,558,893 42.7 $1 ,652, SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 3.0 $61,721 3.0 $ 65, STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $36,340 1.0 $ 38, 17 Custodians 4.0 $55,669 4.0 $ 59, 18 Information Services 0.2 8,528 0.2 $ 9, 19 Paraprofessionals-Other $0 20 Other-Aides 11 .0 $107,386 11 .0 $ 113,829 21 Fringe Benefits(20) )()(J(XX)(j(: $479,870 XXJOOOO:. $ 542,901 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 19.2 $749,514 19.2 $828,724 TOTAL (10-20) ~  $2,308,407 ~  $2,480,879 PURCHASED 22 Utilities XXXlQOG( $49,101 X\u0026gt;OOQ()(X . $52,300 SERVICES 23 Travel )(){)OO(J(X'. $5, 151 ~ $12,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements 25 Other ~ - $14,934 ~  $13,055 TOTAL (30) XXlOO\u0026lt;)(X. $69,186 ~ - $77,355 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office XXl\u0026lt;)(J(JcX $0 ~ : $0 SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom ~ - $118,231 ~ . $56,046 (40) 28 Media ~ $8,911 xioooooi: $9,500 29 Other ~ - $3,904 ~ : $3,000 TOTAL (40) ~ $131 ,046 ~ : $68,546 CAPITAL 30 Equipment ~ $49,822 ~ : $41,802 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. ~ $0 ~  $0 (50) 32 Other ~ $0 ~ . $0 TOTAL (50) ~ $49,822 ~ : $41,802 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees ~ - $5,154 ~  $2,000 (60) 34 Other TOTAL(60) ~  $5,154 ~  $2,000 TOTAL (30-60) ~ - $255,209 ~  $189,703 TOTAL (10-60) 61.9 $2,563,615 61.9 $2,670,582 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) ~  $205,684 ~  $223,951 Stipends $4,277 $12,000 Other Objects $0 $0 Indirect Costs $195,985 $206,533 Vocational $0 $0 Athletics $0 $0 Gifted Programs $147 $144 Plant Services $4,442 $4,442 Reading $69 $69 Science $0 $0 English $208 $208 Special Education $555 $555 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $205,684 $223,951 Pe.r.PiJoilCosf' :// \u0026gt;\u0026lt;\u0026lt;i= /'' ::1999--00'\u0026gt;  =i ,21100:.-01= \u0026gt; 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proi. 529.60 529.60 Total Costs $2,769,300 $2,894,533 Per.Pupil Cost':==,==::'\n::==::/ 1:l:lc:::=j?$5\n21!t :=!:!: $.5A66:: :2DOOf~1B~l:l~E:FPRQPOS~(DMFH):.:,:H: Bibt9s~~nits2h\u0026amp;i/ /// J/HH :: :':c \u0026lt; .. CERTIFIED 01 Principal STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 03 Specialists 04 Counselors 05 Media Spec. 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreion Lano. 09 Vocational 10 Special Education 11 Gifted 12 Classroom 13 Substitutes 14 Other-Kinderoarten TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY SUPPORT 15 Secretaries STAFF 16 Nurses 17 Custodians 18 Information Services 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 1.0 1.0 6.8 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 13.5 3.0 30.3 1.4 1.0 3.0 0.2 5.6 21 Fringe Benefits(20) ~  PURCHASED 22 SERVICES 23 (30) 24 25 MATERIALS, 26 SUPPLIES 27 (40) 28 29 CAPITAL 30 OUTLAY 31 (50) 32 OTHER 33 (60) 34 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 11.2 TOTAL (10-20) xxxxxxx Utilities Travel Maintenance Aoreements Other TOTAL (30) Principal's Office Reoular Classroom Media Other TOTAL (40) Eouipment Buildino Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) Dues and Fees Other TOTAL (60) TOTAL (30-60) TOTAL (10-60) xxxxxxx: ioooooo(: XXXXl(J(X. Xl\u0026lt;)()OO(X )Q()(JOOC( ~~ : ~ . ~ : ~ ~ - ~ : ~  ~ : 41.5 TOTAL LINE ITEMS- (SECOND PAGE) ~ : $64,456 1.0 $ 68,323 $46,301 1.0 $ 49,079 $239,142 6.8 $ 253,491 $48,372 1.0 $ 51,274 $49,380 1.0 $ 52,343 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $78,541 2.0 $ 83,253 $36,021 1.0 $ 38,182 $501 ,102 13.5 $ 531,168 $13,155 $ 14,000 $126,118 3.0 $ 133,685 $1,202,588 30.3 $1 ,274,799 $29,738 1.4 $ 31,522 $33,314 1.0 $ 35,313 $46,030 3.0 $ 48,792 8,528 0.2 $ 9,039 $0 $0 $40,981 5.6 $ 43,440 $338,590 ~ : $392,172 $497,181 11 .2 $560,278 $1,699,769 xxxxxxx' $1,835,077 $27,159 :iooooo\u0026lt;x' $29,660 $4,646 ~ $5,000 $0 ~  $0 $10,739 ~ : $13,818 $42,544 ~ $48,478 $0 : $1,000 $46,173 ~  $40,000 $2,257 XXXXJOO(\n$3,500 $2,740 ~ : $334 $51,170 ~. $44,834 $19,503 ~ . $8,497 $0 : $0 $0 ~. $0 $19,503 $8,497 $6,977 ~  $1,000 $0 $0 $6,977 ~  $1,000 $120,194 xiooooci $102,809 $1,819,963 41.5 $1,937,886 $108,028 ~ $113,686  :/$.Hl~'M92 xxxxi\u0026amp; :::S2o!S1Ws.1~: 1999-00 2000-01 Stipends $0 $0 Other Obiects $0 $0 Indirect Costs $105,120 $110,777 Vocational $0 $0 Athletics $0 $0 Gifted Proorams $79 $79 Plant Services $2,383 $2,383 Readino $37 $37 Science $0 $0 Enolish $112 $112 Special Education $298 $298 xxxxxx JOO()()()( Total Line Items $108,028 $113,686 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 284.06 284.06 Total Costs $1 ,927,992 $2,051 ,572  99~00  :///99\n00\u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; oo.ofo :u,y::::oo~on:: F,T\nE\n' :CActtfal \u0026gt;: :: i F.tTTJ\n~ : H\u0026lt;Piciposed  CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $76,612 1.0 $ 81 ,209 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $46,301 1.0 $ 49,079 03 Specialists 5.0 $221 ,426 5.0 $ 234,712 04 Counselors 1.4 $59,491 1.4 $ 63,060 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $39,266 1.0 $ 41,622 06 Art-Perf./Prod. $0 $0 07 Music $0 $0 08 Foreian Lana. $0 $0 09 Vocational $0 $0 10 Special Education 1.1 $39,102 1.1 $ 41,448 11 Gifted 2.0 $91 ,195 2.0 $ 96,667 12 Classroom 20.0 $782,571 20.0 $ 829,525 13 Substitutes $24,972 $ 14 Other-Kinderaarten 3.0 $138,440 3.0 $ TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 35.5 $1 ,519,376 35.5 $1 ,612,068 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 3.0 $54,199 3.0 $ 57,451 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $45,768 1.0 $ 48,514 17 Custodians 3.5 $53,048 3.5 $ 56,231 18 Information Services 0.2 8,528 0.2 $ 9,039 19 Paraprofessionals-Other $0 $0 20 Other-Aides 7.0 $40,613 7.0 $ 43,050 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xxio1:xxi( $422,858 ~ $490,313 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 14.7 $625,014 14.7 $704,598 TOTAL (10-20) XX)()(XXX. $2,144,389 XlOOOOtX $2,316,666 PURCHASED 22 Utilities xxxxxxx, $37,929 ~ $41,800 SERVICES 23 Travel mxxxx $1 ,037 ~  $3,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Aareements J00000(X $0 25 Other ~ : $19,220 ~ ' $15,080 TOTAL (30) xxxxxxx, $58,186 Xi\u0026lt;fux:x: $59,880 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office ~ . $0 SUPPLIES 27 Reaular Classroom xxxxxxx: $73,217 ~  $69,834 (40) 28 Media xxxxxxx' $5,210 ~  $4,600 29 Other X\u0026gt;ooooci:: $2,288 ~  $2,000 TOTAL (40) ~  $80,714 ~  $76,434 CAPITAL 30 Equipment $34,670 ~ : $79,151 OUTLAY 31 Building Reoair, etc. ~ ' $0 (50) 32 Other ~ : $0 TOTAL (50) ~  $34,670 ~  $79,151 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees ~ : $3,571 ~  $2,000 (60) 34 Other $0 TOTAL (60) ~ : $3,571 ~ ' $2,000 TOTAL (30-60) iooooixx. $177,140 ~  $217,465 TOTAL (10-60) 50.2 $2,321 ,530 50.2 $2,534,131 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) $173,772 ~ : $191,960 1999-00 2000-01 Stioends $868 $10,000 Other Objects $0 $0 Indirect Costs $168,249 $177,304 Vocational $0 $0 Athletics $0 $0 Gifted Programs $126 $126 Plant Services $3,814 $3,814 Reading $60 $60 Science $0 $0 English $179 $179 Special Education $477 $477 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $173,772 $191,960 Par P1u:in cost 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proi. 454.65 454.65 Total Costs $2,495,301 $2,726,091 :2000.0:1- BUDGET PROPOSAL(DRAH rll ,:. )!!\n:99.00 : \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt;:99\"00' -:::\n::: : : O.O~Ot: : \u0026gt;H\u0026gt;,OOOf :):: Man11\nMa(i11et Sc:lfool  :-  : . .    . .  i F.T.E\n:/ \u0026gt;Ac.tuar ,,,,. ?Fff\nE\u0026gt; I HiProi:\u0026gt;bs:ed \u0026lt;:C CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $72,883 1.0 $69,139 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 3.0 $155,693 3.0 $165,035 03 Specialists 3.6 $147,162 3.6 $155,991 04 Counselors 3.0 $139,798 3.0 $148,186 05 Media Soec. 1.0 $49,632 1.0 $52,610 06 Art-Perf./Prod. $0 $0 07 Music $0 $0 08 Foreion Lano. $0 $0 09 Vocational 2.6 $114 ,273 2.6 $121,130 10 Soecial Education 1.3 $60,168 1.3 $63,778 11 Gifted $0 $0 12 Classroom 49.8 $1 ,909 ,802 49.8 $2,024,390 13 Substitutes 0.0 $54,540 $55,000 14 Other-Kindergarten $0 $0 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 65.3 $2,703,950 65.3 $2,855,258 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 5.0 $112,644 5.0 $119,403 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $38,794 1.0 $41 ,122 17 Custodians 6.0 $85,422 6.0 $90,547 18 Information Services 0.2 8,528 0.2 $9,039 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 1.0 $27,207 1.0 $28,839 20 Other-Aides 2.4 $51,843 2.4 $54,954 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxxxxx: $774,1 01 ~  $840,504 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 15.6 $1,098,538 15.6 $1 ,184,408 TOTAL (10-20) ioooOO\u0026lt;X: $3,802,489 xxxxxxx. $4,039,666 PURCHASED 22 Utilities J()(}()Q()(X, $130,844 xxxxxxx $136,400 SERVICES 23 Travel XXJOOO\u0026lt;x: $3,007 xxxxxxx: $2,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements xxxxxxx $0 XlOOO()(X: $0 25 Other ~ : $105,688 ~  $59,840 TOTAL (30) ~ . $239,539 xxxxxxx: $198,240 MATERIALS, 26 Princioal's Office XXXXXXX $0 JOOOO\u0026lt;XX' $0 SUPPLIES 27 Reoular Classroom )()()OO(XX. $90,585 JOOCXXXX, $85,464 (40) 28 Media )00000()(\n: $10,204 :xxxxxxx: $10,300 29 Other ~  $4,631 ~  $4,000 TOTAL (40) ~ : $105,420 ~  $99,764 CAPITAL 30 Equipment xxxxxic( $71,107 ~  $99,348 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. ~ $0 ~  $0 (50) 32 Other ~ : $0 : $0 TOTAL (50) ~ $71,107 : $99,348 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees ~ $1,694 $2,000 (60) 34 Other ~ $0 xioooixx $0 TOTAL (60) xxxio.ixx $1,694 ~  $2,000 TOTAL (30-60) ~ - $417,760 ~ : $399,351 TOTAL (10-60) 80.9 $4,220,248 80.9 $4,439,018 TOTAL LINE ITEMS- (SECOND PAGE) ~ $349,225 ~ $365,228 ::\\:~RANbtOTALH:\n:..-  ioe(x)i\nJ(  (] :/ $4\n569')413  iilixit .... .-: -: :::::: } $i0Dili\n2'.45!: Stipends $820 $0 Other Objects $0 $0 Indirect Costs $312,565 $329,388 Vocational $13,502 $13,502 Athletics $13,924 $13,924 Gifted Programs $0 $0 Plant Services $7,085 $7,085 Reading $111 $111 $0 Em:ilish $332 $332 Special Education $886 $886 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $349,225 $365,228 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proi. 844.63 844.63 Total Costs $4,569,473 $4,804,245 CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $74,648 1.0 $79,127 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 3.0 $183,334 3.0 $194,334 03 Specialists 9.8 $422,380 9.8 $447,723 04 Counselors 4.0 $184,797 4.0 $195,884 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $40,753 1.0 $43,199 06 Art-Perf./Prod. $0 $0 07 08 Foreign Lang. $0 $0 09 Vocational 5.0 $234,883 5.0 $248,976 10 Special Education 2.0 $61 ,322 2.0 $65,001 11 Gifted $0 $0 12 Classroom 53.6 $2,138,644 52.6 $2,266,963 13 Substitutes $57,090 $58,000 14 Other-Kindergarten $0 $0 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 79.4 $3,397,851 78.4 $3,599,207 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 6.0 $224,905 7.0 $258,399 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $31,877 1.0 $33,790 17 Custodians 9.5 $134,089 9.5 $142,134 18 Information Services 0.2 8,517 0.2 $9,029 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 5.0 $138,492 5.0 $146,801 20 Other-Aides 2.0 $71,184 2.0 $75,455 21 Fringe Benefits(20) ~ $980,591 ~ $1,108,069 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 23.7 $1,589,654 24.7 $1,773,677 TOTAL (10-20) ~ $4,987,505 ~ $5,372,884 PURCHASED 22 Utilities $151,850 ~ $163,500 SERVICES 23 Travel $9,740 ~ $9,450 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements $0 ~ $0 25 Other $227,275 ~ $59,305 TOTAL (30) $388,865 ~ $232,255 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office $419 ~ $750 SUPPLIES 27 Reoular Classroom $218,528 ~ $184,705 (40) 28 Media $12,009 ~ $12,000 29 Other ~ $8,371 ~ $6,413 TOTAL (40) $239,328 ~  $203,868 CAPITAL 30 Equipment $107,924 ~ $115,029 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. $0 ~  $0 (50) 32 Other $0 ~  $0 TOTAL/50) $107,924 ~  $115,029 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees $9,820 ~  $8,000 (60) 34 Other ~ $0 ~ $0 TOTAL/60) $9,820 ~  $8,000 TOTAL (30-60) $745,937 ~  $559,152 TOTAL (10-60) 103.1 $5,733,442 103.1 $5,932,036 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) ~ $483,329 ~  $505,761 1999-00 2000-01 Stioends $6,015 $5,400 Other Obiects $0 $0 Indirect Costs $428,213 $451,260 Vocational $18,498 $18,498 Athletics $19,076 $19,076 Gifted Proqrams $0 $0 Plant Services $9,707 $9,707 Readino $152 $152 Science $0 $0 Enolish $455 $455 Soecial Education $1 ,213 $1,213 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $483,329 $505,761 PerJ),upifCosFi ,:\u0026lt; :)/i\u0026lt; \u0026lt;\u0026gt;'f9ll9\n.0lh / :2000~0:1\\\u0026gt;' 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proi. 1,157.14 1,157.14 Total Costs $6,216,771 $6,437,797 Pei,P.uofl,Cost:i,,,,,,\n::: .,,\u0026gt;=,=,',,=- :=:::),,:=:'\ni$5,37cS, :,:,:::,=,:::::=1$5~564i IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS AUG 23 2000 vs. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * No. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., Intervenors. IVE AUG 2 5 2000 ORDER Before the Court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee (''MRC\") for approval of the interdistrict magnet schools' final budget for the 1999-2000 school year, The MRC communicated the final budget to the Court in a letter dated July 28, 2000 ( attached). The letter also contains a proposed budget for the 2000-2001 school year\nhowever, the Court will address the proposed budget in a separate Order. The Court will allow the parties to and including 10 days from the date of entry of this Order to object to the MR.C's final budget for 1999-2000. Should no objections be filed within the time allowed, the Court will enter an Order :\nroving the budget. IT IS SO ORDERED this }..\n!\u0026gt; day of August 2000. Qtk.:2~'t:\nvr CHIEFruDG UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET lN GO.  M PUA.NCE W.l~.RULE 58 AND/OR 79(\u0026amp;) FRCP . QN___a.-:J: 0V BY \u0026gt;7'C: - _: Magnet Review Committee 1920 North Main Street, Suite 1 01  North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 (501) 758-0156 {Phone}  (501) 758-5366 {Fax}  magnet@magnetschool.com {E-mail} July 28, 2000 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U. S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Suite 302 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Judge Wright: At its July 14, 2000 special-called meeting, the Magnet Review Committee, by formal motion and 5-0 vote (the Pulaski County Special School District representative was not present but later voted the District's approval via telephone), approved the interdistrict magnet schools' actual budget for the six original magnet schools for the 1999-2000 school year (Draft 1). FINAL 1999-2000 STIPULATED ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGET The total amount budgeted, $21,351,086, is based on a per-pupil expenditure of $5,597.00, calculated from an average third-quarter enrollment of3,814.79 students. This budget reflects an increase of$470.00 per student over the 1998-99 budget, with the fourth year of the five-year proposed program improvement plan included. This final 1999-2000 budget reflects actual figures and takes into account the variables (teacher retirement and health insurance changes) that were uncertain when the proposed budget was submitted in June, 1999. This final budget also reflects costs associated with the additional seats which were added during the Little Rock School District's grade configurations, commencing with the 1999-2000 school year. At its special-called meeting on July 27, 2000, the Magnet Review Committee unanimously approved the proposed budget for the six original Stipulation magnet schools for the 2000-2001 school year. PROPOSED 2000-2001 STIPULATED ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGET The total proposed budget for the 2000-2001 school year is $22,500,211, which results in a per-pupil expenditure of $5,898.00 and an increase of $301.00 over the 1999-2000 actual budget. Salary negotiations are in progress, and it should be noted that these negotiations may have an impact on the 2000-2001 proposed budget. It is the intention of the Magnet Review Committee, therefore, to submit this budget with the recognition that some flextbility may be necessary. \"Pursue the Possibilities of Magnet School Enrollment\" The Honorable Susan Webber Wright -2- July 28, 2000 The Magnet Review Committee respectfully requests the Court's review and approval of the 1999-2000 finalized budget, as well as the proposed 2000-2001 budget, both attached herewith. The Magnet Review Committee is committed to maintaining the existing quality of the original magnet schools. We will continue to work with the host district as we exercise stringent oversight of the magnet schools' budget in an effort to achieve and ensure efficient management and cost containment to the greatest extent possible. Sincerely, Jeufu, MdJl/ Sadie Mitchell, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee SM/DGC:sl Attachments: Actual 1999-2000 Original Magnet Schools Budget (Draft 1) Proposed 2000-2001 Original Magnet Schools Budget (Draft 1) cc: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor - Office of Desegregation Monitoring 2.00~01 BUDGE'i'PROPOSAt(ORAFt1F  :99'.\n.oo.H \\. //$.9\n.(JtV \u0026lt;  / 004\u0026gt;:f/ Y\u0026gt;  oo4H\\/ / sillMMARfr F-~ M.:isiijkif:ijfaicibilJ:/    / Fltlet un \u0026lt;Ac~1 \u0026lt; \u0026lt; Hfttl~\u0026gt; rmt~n~~~d.H\u0026gt; CERTIFIED 01 Principal 6.0 $423,711 6.0 $441,017 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 10.0 $540,287 10.0 $572,704 SUPPORT STAFF 03 Specialists 40.2 $1 ,638,478 40.2 $1 ,736,787 04 Counselors 13.4 $592,038 13.4 $627,561 05 Media Spec. 6.5 $288,210 6.5 $305,502 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 1.0 $35,443 1.0 $37,570 07 Music 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreian Lana. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 7.6 $349,156 7.6 $370,106 10 Special Education 9.2 $340,504 9.2 $360,934 11 Gifted 5.4 $227,711 5.4 $241,374 12 Classroom 190.8 $7,180,546 188.8 $7,611,379 13 Substitutes 0.0 $196,924 0.0 $206,000 14 Other-Kinderaarten 15.0 $621 ,745 16.0 $659,050 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 305.1 $12,434,753 304.1 $13,169,982 15 Secretaries 20.4 $517,493 21.4 $568,543 16 Nurses 6.0 $223,684 6.0 $237,105 17 Custodians 30.0 $431 ,533 30.0 $457,425 18 Information Services 1.0 $51 ,156 1.0 $54,225 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 6.0 $165,698 6.0 $175,640 20 Other-Aides 35.0 $405,160 35.0 $429,470 21 Fringe Benefits(20) ~ : $3,599,572 ~  $4,022,814 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 98.4 $5,394,297 99.4 $5,945,223 TOTAL (10-20) ~ : $17,829,050 ~  $19,115,205 PURCHASED ~2_2_u_t_ilit_ie_s_ _______~ XXJ~OO~O\u0026gt;O~C\u0026gt;~ ___$ ~4~5_4,3~_68--+ioo~oo~ocx~x~~ ---$~4_8_5,~0_60~ SERVICES 23 Travel ~ : $29,937 ~ ' $41,450 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements ~  $0 ~  $0 MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) 25 Other ~  $393,895 ~  $187,123 TOTAL (30) ~ : $878,200 ~ : $713,633 26 Principal's Office ~  $419 ~  $1 ,750 27 Reaular Classroom ii\u0026lt;\u0026gt;ooo\u0026lt;xx: $632,772 ~  $503,452 28 Media ~ $45,163 ~ . $46,900 29 Other ~  $25,424 ~  $20,797 TOTAL (40) xxxxxxx: $703,778 ~ : $572,899 30 Eauipment ~  $369,502 i\u0026amp;xxioo\u0026amp;: $452,387 31 Buildina Repair, etc. 32 Other TOTAL (50) ~ : $369,502  .--~  $452,387 33 Dues and Fees ~ - $33,474 ~ - $17,500 34 Other TOTAL (60) ~ \\ $33,474 ~ \\ $17,500 TOTAL (30-60) ~  $1,984,954 xxiooo.oof $1 ,756,419 TOTAL (10-60) 403.5 $19,814,003 403.5 $20,871 ,625 TOTAL LINE ITEMS- (SECOND PAGE) ~ ' $1,537,083 \u0026gt;OOOClOOOt. $1 ,628,587  :c:. GRAND:TOTAl.i: )YJ:: ~  ?/:$2f3$l\n08.6i ~ - ,\n:,$ZZi0\n~1:f= Uneue.m'osts~t\"\" 'itActi:Jal/'n' H:! Pr.oribsed'+ Summarv':''''\u0026lt;,,'' 1999-00 2000-01 Stipends $21 ,871 $37,400 Other Objects $0 $0 Indirect Costs $1,411 ,708 $1 ,487,687 Vocational $32,000 $32,000 Athletics $33,000 $33,000 Gifted ProQrams $504 $500 Plant Services $32,000 $32,000 ReadinQ $500 $500 Science $0 $0 EnQlish $1 ,500 $1,500 Special Education $4,000 $4,000 $0 $0 xxxxxx $0 $0 xxxxxx $0 $0 Total Line Items $1 ,537,083 $1 ,628,587 P.er:PuoilCosC 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proi. 3,814.79 3,814.79 Total Costs $21 ,351 ,086 $22,500,211 99~00\\ \u0026lt;\u0026gt;9$AAJ)Y/ \\ OOi-01: // 00~01/(/ J\\'T:!Ef \u0026gt; :i:AcWji:/:/: ::f .. \".t\n~/ HJ~foi:id.S'~d\\H CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $69,272 1.0 $ 73,428 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 03 Specialists 1.0 $56,669 1.0 $ 60,069 7.0 $293,910 7.0 $ 311,544 SUPPORT STAFF 04 Counselors 2.0 $87,214 2.0 $ 92,446 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $47,376 1.0 $ 50,219 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 1.0 $35,443 1.0 $ 37,570 07 Music $0 $0 08 Foreign Lang. $0 $0 09 Vocational $0 $0 10 Special Education 1.3 $62,744 1.3 $ 66,509 11 Gifted 1.0 $43,999 1.0 $ 46,639 12 Classroom 32.6 $1,165,224 31.6 $ 1,235,137 13 Substitutes $18,609 $ 21,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 4.0 $171,635 5.0 $ 181,933 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 51.9 $2,052,095 51.9 $2,176,495 15 Secretaries 2.0 $34,286 2.0 $ 36,344 16 Nurses 1.0 $37,591 1.0 $ 39,846 17 Custodians 4.0 $57,275 4.0 $ 60,712 18 Information Services 0.2 8,528 0.2 $ 9,039 19 Paraprofessionals-Other $0 $0 20 Other-Aides 7.0 $93,153 7.0 $ 98,743 21 Frinoe Benefits(20) ~ - $603,562 xxiooixx. $648,855 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 14.2 $834,396 14.2 $893,538 TOTAL (10-20) ~  $2,886,491 ~ . $3,070,033 PURCHASED 22 Utilities ~ - $57,485 ~ ) $61,400 ------------+-------1-------+..,=..--'-+----......\n..----1 SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) 23 Travel ~ . $6,356 ~  $10,000 24 Maintenance Agreements 25 Other ~ $16,038 X\u0026gt;Obcxxx $26,025 TOTAL(30l :ioo66clcX $79,879 ~ - $97,425 26 Principal's Office ~ $0 ~ : $0 27 Reoular Classroom ~  $86,038 ~  $67,403 28 Media ~ : $6,572 ~  $7,000 29 Other ioooCiO(Ji\n$3,490 ~ : $5,050 TOTAL/40) ~ : $96,101 ~ : $79,453 30 Eouipment ~ : $86,476 ~  $108,560 31 Buildino Repair, etc. 32 Other ~ $0 ~  $0 TOTAL(50) ~ $86 476 ~ ' $108,560 33 Dues and Fees ~ $6,258 ~ : $2,500 34 Other TOT AL (60 l lOOClOixi $6,258 ~ $2,500 TOTAL (30-60) ixxxxi $268,714 ~  $287,938 TOTAL (10-60) 66.1 $3,155,205 66.1 $3,357,971 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) XXiOoo\u0026lt;X $217,044 XXJOOC)(X $228,001 2000-01 Stipends $9,891 $10,000 Other Objects $0 $0 Indirect Costs $201 ,576 $212,425 Vocational $0 $0 Athletics $0 $0 Gifted Programs $151 $151 Plant Services $4,569 $4,569 Reading $71 $71 Science $0 $0 English $214 $214 Special Education $571 $571 )()()0()()( xxxxxx Total Line Items $217,044 $228,001 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 544.71 544.71 Total Costs $3,372,249 $3,585,972\np~[F,i~piJ.:~~( :::::m: ::::::::::: it \\/HHn tn~1:: .:::n:'IHHJt,~58:J CERTIFIED 01 Princioal 1.0 $65,840 1.0 $ 69,790 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 03 Specialists 1.0 $51 ,989 1.0 $ 55,108 8.0 $314,459 8.0 $ 333,327 04 Counselors 2.0 $72,367 2.0 $ 76,709 05 Media Spec. 1.5 $61,802 1.5 $ 65,510 06 Art-Perf./Prod. $0 $0 07 Music $0 $0 08 Foreign Lang. $0 $0 09 Vocational $0 $0 10 Soecial Education 1.5 $38,627 1.5 $ 40,945 11 Gifted 1.4 $56,496 1.4 $ 59,886 12 Classroom 21 .3 $683,203 21 .3 $ 724,195 13 Substitutes $28,558 $ 30,000 14 Other-Kinderaarten 5.0 $185,552 5.0 $ 196,685 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 42.7 $1,558,893 42.7 $1 ,652,155 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 3.0 $61 ,721 3.0 $ 65,424 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $36,340 1.0 $ 38,520 17 Custodians 4.0 $55,669 4.0 $ 59,009 18 Information Services 0.2 8,528 0.2 $ 9,039 19 Paraprofessionals-Other $0 $0 20 Other-Aides 11 .0 $107,386 11 .0 $ 113,829 21 Fringe Benefits(20) ~ - $479,870 ~ : $ 542,901 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 19.2 $749,514 19.2 $828,724 TOTAL (10-20) ~ - $2,308,407 ~  $2,480,879 PURCHASED 1-:-2~2+U_ t i'li_tie~s'---------r.iOOOO\u0026lt;J.'\u0026lt;~\"X~:~~,:. __~ $~4~9,~1~0~1~XJOO'O:O~::\u0026lt;~X~~~ r-----:$~5~2,~3~0-:-i0 SERVICES 23 Travel ~ $5,151 ~  $12,000 l---+-----------1-,.,.,.,.--....,-,----~-..,,,,,.,.,.,.,-,i----'----------i (30) 24 Maintenance Aareements ~ $0 ~ : $0 25 Other ~ $14,934 ~ : $13,055 TOTAL (30) ~ : $69,186 ~ . $77,355 MATERIALS, 1-:-26_ +P__ n _ n \"\"c-\"'io.c..a-cl's_O\n...\nff1i c\"\"\"e'------'l!'J00000,0...c,,... ,... . --\"'7\":~-::-:-$0.,:. -~+,,~,.,.~ .-~,r-----::-:--:---:-'-$-:-i0 SUPPLIES 27 ReaularClassroom ~ $118,231 ~ : $56,046 (40) 28 Media ~ $8,911 ~ - $9,500 CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) 29 Other ~ - $3,904 ~ - $3,000 TOTAL (40) ~  $131 ,046 ~ : $68,546 30 Equipment XXXJOO\u0026lt;X $49,822 ~ - $41 ,802 31 Buildina Repair, etc. XiOOOOcX $0 ~ - $0 32 Other TOTAL (50) ~ $49,822 ~ $41 ,802 33 Dues and Fees ~ : $5,154 ~\n$2,000 34 Other TOTAL(60) ~ - $5,154 i.iooooooi:' $2,000 TOTAL (30-60) JOQOO(J(X $255,209 ~\n$189,703 TOTAL (10-60) 61 .9 $2,563,615 61 .9 $2,670,582 TOTAL LINE ITEMS- (SECOND PAGE) XlQQOOOC. $205,684 ~ . $223,951 :))f)GRA'NP.ffOTAt/iHYH ~ : )/?$2'1$9'\n300:C xx:idoo(:: :::t/:S2\nll94JS33, 1999-00 2000-01 Stipends $4,277 $12,000 Other Objects $0 $0 Indirect Costs $195,985 $206,533 Vocational $0 $0 Athletics $0 $0 Gifted Proqrams $147 $144 Plant Services $4,442 $4,442 Readinq $69 $69 Science $0 $0 Enqlish $208 $208 Special Education $555 $555 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $205,684 $223,951 Pi#f~pifGo~( \u0026gt;\u0026gt; \u0026lt; \u0026lt; //h~!!$\n.plf \u0026lt;  / ~~\u0026lt;XHif HH 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proi. 529.60 529.60 Total Costs $2,769,300 $2,894,533 PetPplfo~e \u0026gt; nnts\n2~: \u0026gt; r:nssA:Gif / 99~00\\ Hi / 9~H)O// \u0026lt; ::00-0.t ?U\u0026gt;Uoo-Ok :t .. tl!\n/ n\u0026lt; { Ac.~jk H : ~.'j'\nE/ \u0026lt;\u0026lt;Prqi)o.S.'ed)/ CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $64,456 1.0 $ 68,323 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $46,301 1.0 $ 49,079 03 Specialists 6.8 $239,142 6.8 $ 253,491 04 Counselors 1.0 $48,372 1.0 $ 51,274 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $49,380 1.0 $ 52,343 06 Art-Perf./Prod. $0 $0 07 Music $0 $0 08 Foreign Lang. $0 $0 09 Vocational $0 $0 10 Special Education 2.0 $78,541 2.0 $ 83,253 11 Gifted 1.0 $36,021 1.0 $ 38, 12 Classroom 13.5 $501,102 13.5 $ 531, 13 Substitutes $13,155 $ 14 Other-Kinderaarten 3.0 $126,118 3.0 $ TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 30.3 $1 ,202,588 30.3 $1 ,274,799 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 1.4 $29,738 1.4 $ 31, STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $33,314 1.0 $ 35,313 17 Custodians 3.0 $46,030 3.0 $ 48, 18 Information Services 0.2 8,528 0.2 $ 9,039 19 Paraprofessionals-Other $0 $0 20 Other-Aides 5.6 $40,981 5.6 $ 43,440 21 Fringe Benefits(20) ~  $338,590 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 11 .2 $497,181 ~ 11 .2 $560,278 TOTAL (10-20) ~ - $1,699,769 ~ : $1 ,835,077 PURCHASED 22 Utilities ~  $27,159 ~  $29,660 SERVICES 23 Travel xxx:)i\u0026lt;lf $4,646 ~  $5,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements ~ : $0 ~ ' $0 25 Other ~  $10,739 ~ : $13,818 TOTAL (30) ~  $42,544 ~ : $48,478 MATERIALS, i--\n.26\"-l-'P...\n.r.c..in\n..\n.c\"'\"ip\"\"\",al\n....\n's_O_ffi_1c_e ____ +XX)C\"') .\"O'..O ..(.- X--..-\n.:i_ ____ _._$0\"-\n1\n.c- .-'.~.. \".\n\" ..':... __- :$...\n.1.,:.0\n...\n..0-'--'0 SUPPLIES 27 Reaular Classroom ~ ' $46,173 ~  $40,000 (40) 28 Media mxxxx. $2,257 ~ : $3,500 CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) 29 Other ~ - $2,740 ~ : $334 TOTAL (40) ~ $51 ,170 ~ : $44,834 30 Equipment ~ - $19,503 ~ : $8,497 31 Building Repair, etc. 32 Other ~ $0 ~ $0 TOTAL (50) ~ $19,503 ~ . $8,497 33 Dues and Fees ~ $6,977 ~ : $1,000 34 Other TOTAL(60) ~ $6,977 ~ : $1,000 TOTAL (30-60) ~ $120,194 ioOO\u0026amp;xx' $102,809 TOTAL (10-60) 41 .5 $1 ,819,963 41 .5 $1 ,937,886 TOTAL LINE ITEMS-(SECOND PAGE) ~ $108,028 ~ : $113,686 Stipends $0 $0 Other Objects $0 $0 Indirect Costs $105,120 $110,777 Vocational $0 $0 Gifted Programs $79 $79 Plant Services $2,383 $2,383 Reading $37 $37 Science $0 $0 English $112 $112 Special Education $298 $298 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $108,028 $113,686 P~f ppil GP~ti  t~~i3.4iP :2Pt\u0026gt;(Hn.  3rd Qtr. ADM or Proi. 284.06 284.06 Total Costs $1 ,927,992 $2,051 ,572 CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $76,612 1.0 $ 1.0 $ 5.0 $ 81,209 49,079 234,712 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $46,301 03 Specialists 5.0 $221,426 04 Counselors 1.4 $59,491 1.4 $ 63,060 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $39,266 1.0 $ 41,622 06 Art-Perf./Prod. $0 $0 07 Music $0 $0 08 Foreign Lana. $0 $0 09 Vocational $0 $0 10 Special Education 1.1 $39,102 1.1 $ 41,448 11 Gifted 2.0 $91,195 2.0 $ 96,667 12 Classroom 20.0 $782,571 20.0 $ 829,525 13 Substitutes $24,972 $ 28,000 14 Other-Kinderaarten 3.0 $138,440 3.0 $ 146,746 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 35.5 $1 ,519,376 35.5 $1,612,068 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 3.0 1.0 3.5 $54,199 $45,768 $53,048 3.0 $ 57,451 48,514 56,231 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $ 17 Custodians 3.5 $ 18 Information Services 0.2 8,528 0.2 $ 19 Paraprofessionals-Other $0 20 Other-Aides 7.0 $40,613 7.0 $ 21 Fringe Benefits(20) ~  $422,858 %@i\u0026amp;f TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 14.7 $625,014 14.7 $704,598 TOTAL (10-20) ~ : $2,144,389 ~  $2,316,666 PURCHASED i-\n.22\n....i..U~t_ili_tie~s_ _______+ XXlc~XXX~X~~:c ------'$_3_7,~9_29:-~-~+~~:~~)+---$~4_1~,8_0--t0 SERVICES 23 Travel ~ : $1,037 ~ ) $3,000 (30) 24 Maintenance AQreements ~ . $0 ~ : $0 MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) 25 Other ~ : $19,220 ~  $15,080 TOTAL (30) ~ : $58,186 ~ : $59,880 26 Principal's Office 27 Reaular Classroom ~ : $73,217 ~ : $69,834 28 Media ~  $5,210 ~  $4,600 29 Other ~ : $2,288 ~  $2,000 TOTAL (40) ~ : $80,714 ~  $76,434 30 Equipment ~  $34,670 ~  $79,151 31 Building Repair, etc. 32 Other XXXlOO\u0026lt;X $0 ~ : $0 TOTAL (50) ~ . $34,670 ~\n$79,151 33 Dues and Fees ~ : $3,571 ~ : $2,000 34 Other TOTAL (60) ~ $3,571 ~  $2,000 TOTAL (30-60) ~ - $177,140 ~\n$217,465 TOTAL (10-60) 50.2 $2,321,530 50.2 $2,534,131 TOTALLINEITEMS-(SECONDPAGE) ::000000:: $173,772 ~\n$191,960 'GRA\"ND.!OTALil?/i:} xxxxxx :)i\\:$2(49$\n301 : ~ : ::$2JZM91  2000-01 Stipends $868 $10,000 Other Objects $0 $0 Indirect Costs $168,249 $177,304 Vocational $0 $0 Athletics $0 $0 Gifted Programs $126 $126 Plant Services $3,814 $3,814 Reading $60 $60 $0 English $179 $179 Special Education $4 77 $477 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $173,772 $191 ,960 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proi. 454.65 454.65 Total Costs $2,495,301 $2,726,091 CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 3.0 3.6 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 03 Soecialists 04 Counselors 3.0 05 Media Spec. 1.0 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreiqn Lanq. 09 Vocational 2.6 10 Special Education 1.3 11 Gifted 12 Classroom 49.8 13 Substitutes 0.0 14 Other-Kinderqarten TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 65.3 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 5.0 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 17 Custodians 6.0 18 Information Services 0.2 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 1.0 20 Other-Aides 2.4 21 Fringe Benefits{20) ~\nTOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 15.6 TOTAL (10-20) ~ PURCHASED 22 Utilities ~ SERVICES 23 Travel (30) 24 Maintenance Aoreements ~. 25 Other ~  TOTAL (30) ~ - MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office ~ SUPPLIES 27 Reoular Classroom Xi\u0026lt;iOOOOC (40) 28 Media XJOOOO\u0026lt;X. 29 Other xxxx:xxx TOTAL (40) XiOOOO\u0026lt;X CAPITAL 30 Equipment\noo()(lO(X OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. XiOOOO\u0026lt;X. (50) 32 Other ~ TOTAL (50) ~ OTHER 33 Dues and Fees ~ . (60) 34 Other ~ - TOTAL (60) xioooooc TOTAL (30-60) ~ - TOTAL (10-60) 80.9 TOTAL LINE ITEMS- (SECOND PAGE) ~ 99~00i\u0026gt;  4W : oo~qj::\u0026lt; JAcfoaC ... \\ f .. T\nE/  / Pfoposed  H $72,883 1.0 $69,139 $155,693 3.0 $165,035 $147,162 3.6 $155,991 $139,798 3.0 $148,186 $49,632 1.0 $52,610 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $114,273 2.6 $121 ,130 $60,168 1.3 $63,778 $0 $0 $1,909,802 49.8 $2,024,390 $54,540 $55,000 $0 $0 $2,703,950 65.3 $2,855,258 $112,644 5.0 $119,403 $38,794 1.0 $41,122 $85,422 6.0 $90,547 8,528 0.2 $9,039 $27,207 1.0 $28,839 $51 ,843 2.4 $54,954 $774,101 xiooooci $840,504 $1 ,098,538 15.6 $1,184,408 $3,802,489 ~  $4,039,666 $130,844 ~ : $136,400 $3,007 ~  $2,000 $0 ~  $0 $105,688 ~  $59,840 $239,539 ~ : $198,240 $0 ~ . $0 $90,585 ~  $85,464 $10,204 ~ $10,300 $4,631 X\u0026gt;OOOOCX. $4,000 $105,420 ~\n$99,764 $71 ,107 ~  $99,348 $0 ~  $0 $0 ~  $0 $71 ,107 ~  $99,348 $1,694 ~  $2,000 $0 ~  $0 $1,694 ~  $2,000 $417,760 ~  $399,351 $4,220,248 80.9 $4,439,018 $349,225 JO()()O(XX $365,228 1999-00 2000-01 Stipends $820 $0 Other Obiects $0 $0 Indirect Costs $312,565 $329,388 Vocational $13,502 $13,502 Athletics $13,924 $13,924 Gifted Proorams $0 $0 Plant Services $7,085 $7,085 Readino $111 $111 Science $0 $0 Enolish $332 $332 Special Education $886 $886 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $349,225 $365,228 Pe.f Pil.ift::oisf \u0026lt; \u0026lt;\u0026lt; / 1~~!3.i-Olf  /H~Pi\u0026gt;(Hit H  3rd Qtr. ADM or Proi. 844.63 844.63 Total Costs $4,569,473 $4,804,245 Pi:i.f P@lfCihW H   \u0026gt; \" \u0026lt; \u0026lt; / $$\n41~ H H/ \\ $$~~$if 2001auDGEt'PROPO$Altl)RAft1f '      99~ . / 99.~00/ \u0026lt;  / 00-0.f \u0026gt;\u0026lt;\u0026gt; 00-01)   ,,. #~~j~W!~~ts~~~\u0026amp;iii/?:1!:1\\1:i:1::rn::::.. : f\\'1]:E~ +HActu~i c:,:.: f.tlE~  Pfoi:ios.ed  CERTIFIED 1-0_1_P_n_n_ci..._p,a_l_ _________1._ o_ __~ $_74~,_64_8-+-__1._ 0_ ___$ _ 7 _9_,_,1 _2_7 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 3.0 $183,334 3.0 $194,334 03 Specialists 9.8 $422,380 9.8 $447,723 04 Counselors 4.0 $184,797 4.0 $195,884 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $40,753 1.0 $43,199 06 Art-Perf./Prod. $0 $0 07 Music $0 $0 08 Foreii:in Lanq. $0 $0 09 Vocational 5.0 $234,883 5.0 $248,976 10 Special Education 2.0 $61,322 2.0 $65,001 11 Gifted $0 $0 12 Classroom 53.6 $2,138,644 52.6 $2,266,963 13 Substitutes $57,090 $58,000 14 Other-Kinderqarten $0 $0 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 79.4 $3,397,851 78.4 $3,599,207 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 6.0 $224,905 7.0 $258,399 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $31,877 1.0 $33,790 17 Custodians 9.5 $134,089 9.5 $142,134 18 Information Services 0.2 8,517 0.2 $9,029 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 5.0 $138,492 5.0 $146,801 20 Other-Aides 2.0 $71,184 2.0 $75,455 21 Fringe Benefits(20) ~ : $980,591 ~ : $1,108,069 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 23.7 $1,589,654 24.7 $1,773,677 TOTAL (10-20) ~ $4,987,505 ~  $5,372,884 PURCHASED 22 Utilities ~ . $151,850 ~  $163,500 SERVICES t--23--t-T-r-av_e_l- -------r-~\"\"=: \"\"'.:.. .,:.. .. ,,: .--~..,.$9-,-74 -0-+-XX::),0_0,.:(.),0..:(\u0026gt;\"-\"\n:,\"1 ----$-9--,4-50- (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements ~  $0 ~  $0 MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) 25 Other ~  $227,275 ~  $59,305 TOTAL (30) ~ : $388,865 ~  $232,255 26 Principal's Office ~ $419 ~  $750 27 Regular Classroom ~ : $218,528 ~  $184,705 28 Media )Q()(JOO(X' $12,009 ~  $12,000 29 Other Xi90000\u0026lt; $8,371 riiooooi, $6,413 TOTAL (40) ~ - $239,328 ~ . $203,868 30 Equipment ~ $107,924 ~ . $115,029 31 Building Repair, etc. ~ $0 ~  $0 32 Other ~ $0 ~  $0 TOTAL (50) ~ $107,924 ~  $115,029 33 Dues and Fees ~ . $9,820 ~  $8,000 34 Other TOTAL (60) ~ $9,820 ~  $8,000 TOTAL (30-60) ~  $745,937 ~  $559,152 TOTAL (10-60) 103.1 $5,733,442 103.1 $5,932,036 TOTAL LINE ITEMS- (SECOND PAGE) ~ $483,329 ~ . $505,761 :,\u0026lt;,c:~RANP.lOTAlfi,f\u0026lt;,.: xxxil\u0026amp; i,:,:$621.6.711'' ~ . ,::: $6437,797: 1999-00 2000-01 Stipends $6,015 $5,400 Other Obiects $0 $0 Indirect Costs $428,213 $451 ,260 Vocational $18,498 $18,498 Athletics $19,076 $19,076 Gifted Proorams $0 $0 Plant Services $9,707 $9,707 Readino $152 $152 Science $0 $0 Enolish $455 $455 Soecial Education $1 ,213 $1 ,213 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $483,329 $505,761 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proi. 1,157.14 1,157.14 Total Costs $6,216,771 $6,437,797 FILED EAST~l DISTRICT COURT N DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION SEP 11 2000 ~~:M~W~fil~ztERK DEP CL'iRK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. * * * * * No. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT, ET AL., * Defendants, REC IVEO MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., lntervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., Intervenors. * * * * * * * ORDER SEP l c. 2CG0 u\\t\\Gt Ur OESEG~Gf\\l\\0 MONITOR! Before the Court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee (\"MRC\") for approval of the interdistrict magnet schools' final budget for the 1999-2000 school year.1 Without objection, the Court hereby approves the budget as submitted. When the budget for the 2000-2001 school year is final, the MRC should submit it to the Court for approval. ~ IT IS SO ORDERED this _l_L day of September 2000. ~42t\nvr UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPUl\nt,JCE ~ITH RULE 58 ANDIOA 79(a) FRCP 0N__:L\n//-Oo BY yt::: - 1 The MRC communicated the final budget to the Court in a letter dated July 28, 2000. For a copy of the letter, see docket no. 3389, attachment.\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   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\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_1417","title":"Program Evaluations, Penick Boys Club/Alternative Middle School, Little Rock, Ark.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1999/2001"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Educational innovations","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School management and organization","School improvement programs","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["Program Evaluations, Penick Boys Club/Alternative Middle School, Little Rock, Ark."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1417"],"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":["74 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_901","title":"Report: ''School Monitoring Report,'' North Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1999/2000"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","North Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School enrollment","School facilities","School principals","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dcterms_title":["Report: ''School Monitoring Report,'' North Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/901"],"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":["71 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\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\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_935","title":"'Status Report,'' North Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1999/2000"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","North Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics","School discipline","School employees","School enrollment","School facilities","School improvement programs","Student activities","Student assistance programs","Gifted \u0026 talented"],"dcterms_title":["'Status Report,'' North Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/935"],"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":["32 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\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\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_711","title":"Student achievement","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":["1999/2004"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","School improvement programs","Student assistance programs","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Student achievement"],"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/711"],"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":["241 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\nDate: June 16, 1999 To: All Associates From: Re: LRSD Collective Responsibility Proposal Attached is a draft document that Bonnie Lesley would like for us to look over. She wants our feedback, but would like for us to keep the document in-house since its only a draft at this point. Her proposal is in response to Dr. Carnines request that Bonnie develop accountability processes, standards, rewards, and sanctions for the LRSD. Hes on a value-added kick (business buzzword that the business world is about tired of but the education world is just now discovering), which youll note in the document. Bonnie tried to weave in the state accountability standards to avoid duplication or conflicts, thereby hopefully forestalling those annoying feelings of confusion and overload that are on the loose in the LRSD these days. Bonnie welcomes all comments, questions, etc. When you have a chance, just type up any comments and 111 put them all together and give them to her with no names attached. Thanks.?-i5 --1 Collective Responsibility for Student Achievement definition of \"Collective Responsibility\" \"Collective Responsibility\" means that all the adults in the district and at each school hold themselves accountable for all the students' meeting the challenging behavior and academic content standards and benchmarks established by the Board of Education, by the state for accreditation, by federally funded programs, and by external funders of reform initiatives approved by the Board of Education. District-level staff share with school-level staffs in the \"collective responsibility\" for school improvement. This critically important attitude is developed and nurtured through professional learning communities established by the District and each school. In addition, the Superintendent shall ensure that all job descriptions of appropriate District-level and building-level staff\nannual work plans\nDistrict-level processes and schoollevel parameters for decision-making\npersonnel hiring, assignment, promotion, and evaluation systems\nand the professional development programs are results-based and aligned with the improvement indicators established in the Quality Index. Reporting Responsibilities The Superintendent shall report to the Board of Education annually on progress related to the implementation of the Strategic Plan and the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. In addition, so that the community is also informed on the District's progress in meeting expected improvement goals, the following reports must be submitted to the Board of Education in open sessions. district Annual Performance Report The Annual Performance Report is to be submitted to the Board of Education no later than August 30 annually. It shall include data relating to each of the quality indicators, including the baseline year data so that progress can be identified. The Annual Performance Report shall also include the accreditation status and accountability status for each school, as determined by the State of Arkansas. 1Building-Level Report Cards Building-Level Report Cards shall be published and distributed to parents and other interested patrons annually. These report cards shall include the data mandated by the State of Arkansas, but also school data relating to improvement gains and to other quality indicators not included by the State. School principals shall disseminate these reports to all the staff members and parents in their school community and make them available to interested patrons. At least one parent meeting shall be conducted annually by the Campus Leadership Team and the principal to discuss the performance of the school and planned short- and long- range improvements. Accreditation and Accountability Status If a school has been identified for \"school improvement,\" as per Title I regulations and/or if the school is conditionally accredited or nonaccredited, then the designation and an explanation of its implications, as well as the accountability status of the school as defined by the State shall be included in the building-level report card. Program Evaluations The results of any internal program evaluation studies or evaluations of grant-funded projects are to be provided to the Board of Education within a month of their submission to the Superintendent and/or to the funding organization. Academic Quality Indicators The Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Program (ACTAAP) establishes the following academic indicators based on the State's criterion-referenced tests: 2Indicator____________ Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Tests Goal (Definition)______________ 100% of a school's students shall perform at or above the \"proficient\" level in reading and writing literacy. The percent of students performing at or above the \"proficient\" level in reading and writing literacy on the criterion- referenced tests will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year. 100% of a school's students shall perform at or above the \"proficient\" level in mathematics. The percent of students performing at or above the \"proficient\" level in mathematics on the criterion-referenced tests will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year. Grade Level(s) Grades 4, 6,8 Performance on State- AAandated Criterion- Referenced Tests 1007o of a school's secondary students shall perform at or above the \"proficient\" level in Algebra I. The percent of secondary students performing at or above the \"proficient\" level in Algebra I will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year. Secondary 3100% of a school's secondary students shall perform at or above the \"proficient\" level in Geometry. The percent of secondary students performing at or above the \"proficient\" level in Geometry will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year. 100% of a school's secondary students shall perform at or above the \"proficient\" level in Literacy. The percent of secondary students performing at or above the \"proficient\" level in Literacy will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year. J Additional District-Selected Indicators The following additional academic indicators have been established by the Little Rock School District: Indicator Performance on bistrict-adopted kindergarten literacy test Goal (Definition)______________ 100% of a school's students shall perform at or above the \"proficient\" level in literacy. Grade Level(s) Kindergarten The percent of students demonstrating gains from the pre-test to the post-test will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year, 4Performance on district-adopted grade 1 literacy test 1007o of a school's students shall perform at or above the \"proficient\" level in literacy. Grade 1 Performance on SAT9, a norm-referenced fest The percent of students demonstrating gains from the pre-test to the post-test will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year.________________ 1007o of a school's students shall perform at or above the 50 percentile in reading. .th Grades 5, 7,10 The percent of students performing at or above the 50 .th percentile in reading will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year. 100% of a school's students shall perform at or above the bO^ percentile in mathematics. The percent of students performing at or above the 50 percentile in mathematics will |th meet or exceed the improvement goal each year. 5Performance on district-adopted quarterly criterion- referenced tests 100% of a school's students shall perform at or above the \"proficient\" level in reading each quarter. Grades 2-11 The percent of students performing at or above the \"proficient\" level in reading each quarter will meet or exceed the improvement goal. The percent of students demonstrating gains from the pre-test to the post-test will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year. 100% of a school's students shall perform at or above the \"proficient\" level in mathematics each quarter. The percent of students performing at or above the \"proficient\" level in mathematics each quarter will meet or exceed the improvement goal. The percent of students demonstrating gains from the pre-test to the post-test will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year. 6Enrollment in Pre-AP and/or AP Courses Enrollment in Algebra I in grade 7 or 8 Enrollment in Foreign Language in Grade 8 1007o of middle and high school students will be enrolled in at least one Pre-AP or AP course each year. The percent of students enrolled in at least one Pre-AP or AP course each year will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year.____________________ 1007o of a middle school's students will be enrolled in Algebra I in either grade 7 or 8. The percent of students enrolled in Algebra I in grades 7 or 8 will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year.________________ 1007o of a middle school's students will enroll in Level I or Level II of a foreign language in grade. The percent of students enrolled in Level I or Level II of a foreign language in grade 8 will meet or exceed the improvement goal I each year. Grades 6-12 Grade 7 or 8 Grade 8 7Honors Seal on High School diploma 1007o of a high school's students will complete the requirements to earn the Honors Seal on their diplomas. Grades 9-12 Taking the ACT The percent of students completing the requirements for the Honors Seal will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year.____________________ 100% of a high school's students will take the ACT. Grades 11-12 Performance on the ACT The percent of students taking the ACT will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year. 1007o of a high school's students will earn a score of at least 19 on the ACT. Grades 11-12 Taking Advanced Placement Examinations The percent of students earning a score of 19 or above will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year.____________________ 100% of a high school's seniors will take at least one AP examination. The percent of students taking at least one AP examination will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year. Srades 11-12 8Performance on Advanced Placement Examinations Completion of Graduation Requirements 1007o of a high school's students taking AP examinations will score a \"3\" or above. The percent of students earning a score of \"3\" or above on AP examinations will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year. 1007o of a high school's seniors will complete all the graduation requirements prior to participation in the graduation ceremony, Grades 11-12 Grade 12 The percent of seniors meeting all graduation requirements prior to participation in the graduation ceremony will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year, A school's performance on these district-selected indicators may be reflected in a local supplement to the state-mandated Building-Level Report Card or as a part of the narrative in the Tier III report that becomes a part of the state's Building-Level Report Card. Improvement Goals Every year, each school's goal for annual rate of improvement will be determined by dividing the total percent of students below the desired performance level by 10. \"Value-added\" improvement goals will be established based on statistical information provided by the testing vendor(s). Value-Added Gains The bistrict-adopted criterion-referenced tests for grades K-11 will be administered to provide pre- and post-test scores so that gains of individual students may be measured annually. Only those scores of students who were 9in the school the previous test administration will be used in calculating value-added gains. The purpose of this measure is to be able to determine the extent to which a school adds value\" through individual students' gains. In other words, regardless of whether students attain the \"proficient\" level at any given grade, the District is interested in whether the students progressed toward proficiency\" during that year. Rewards for Schools The District shall develop a system to reward (a) schools absolutely meeting all the State's performance indicators and (b) schools demonstrating improvement: meeting a preponderance of the improvement goals established by the State of Arkansas and LRSD. The District shall determine a point system and a definition of predonderance.\" Quality Schools and Improving Schools Quality Schools and Improving schools may be recognized and rewarded in the following ways, as determined by the Superintendent\na. A presentation will be made to the Board of Education on the school's achievements involving both staff and parents, a press release commending the school's performance will be issued, and schools will be featured in District publications, on cable television, and on the web page. b. The school may be designated as a mentor school and granted resources to provide technical assistance and support to another school in the District identified for improvement. c. As appropriate, the District will support a school's application for state and national recognition in the national Blue Ribbon School program. d. The District will collaborate with the community to identify other possible recognitions of the school's progress and achievement. e. Schools will receive a grant to encourage and facilitate further improvement. The amount of the grant will be determined by annual budget appropriations. Awarded funds will be used for innovative programs, to provide additional materials and supplies, to support technology enhancements, to improve meaningful parent involvement, and/or for professional development of the staff. f. Each school will receive a banner/f lag that celebrates its success. 10Rewards for Staff and Students Each Quality and each Improving School is encouraged to design, in collaboration with parents and the community, celebrations of success and recognition for contributing teachers, teacher teams, other staff, and parent/community volunteers, as well as students who meet the performance goals. 11Sanctions According to ADE and the State Board of Education, sanctions in the ACTAAP system are applied for the purpose of improving teaching and learning, not for punishing schools or the people in them. The LRSD supports this view. Each LRSD school is expected to achieve annually a minimum percentage of its total possible points assigned for the performance indicators in the ACTAAP system for accountability. Failure to do so will result in the following designations: First year: Second year: Third year: Fourth year: Fifth year: Sixth year: High Priority Status Alert Status Low Performing Status Academic Distress Phase I Status Academic Distress Phase II Status Academic Distress Phase III Status To be eligible for removal of any santion designation, leading up to, but not including. Academic Distress Phase I, a school must attain the minimum percentage of its total possible points for two consecutive years. Once classified as Academic Distress Phase I, a school must comply with the rules and regulations to be promulgated by the ADE in order to be removed from this category. Failure to do so will result in the designationof Academic Distress Phase II, and so forth. The District will not identify schools for sanctions. Rather, the District will ensure the following levels of technical assistance and/or corrective actions for schools identifed for improvement by the State. In other words, the District will form a partnership with each school in need of improvement and will assist and support that school in its improvement efforts. To that end, the District has reorganized staff in the Division of Instruction to form a multi-disciplinary School Improvement department composed of four teams: (a) Testing and Program Evaluation\n(b) Professional Development\n(c) Technical Assistance (COE and Title I)\nand (d) Planning, Development, and Accountability. These teams will be supplemented by three additional teams 12 in the Teaching and Learning department\n(a) Curriculum and Instruction\n(b) Special Programs\n(c) VIPs and Parent Involvement, A common mission for all Division of Instruction teams will be to help schools help students achieve the challenging standards established by the State of Arkansas and the LRSD and as measured by the various performance indicators. The following technical assistance and support services are established for schools requiring improvements: First Year\nHigh Priority Status A school identified by ADE as High Priority Status\" is a school that for two consecutive years has not met the expected improvement goals. The Superintendent will ensure that staff are designated to\n1. Inform the principal, the central office broker, the Campus Leadership Team, the Cabinet, and the Board of Education of the designation of the school and its implications. 2. Provide appropriate levels of technical assistance to the school as it develops and implements its School Improvement Plan so that it addresses specific elements of student performance problems and includes waivers of any policies or regulations that impede the ability of the school to educate its students. 3. Conduct a School Improvement Audit to determine the extent to which the Campus Leadership Plan is being implemented at the school (meetings conducted, participation of CLT members, quality of the School Improvement Plan, use of disaggregated data for decision-making, action research projects underway, sense of collective responsibility, quality of professional development, etc.). 4. Require that the recommendations from the School Improvement Audit be addressed in the following year's School Improvement Plan, if not immediately. 5. Monitor regularly and conduct formative evaluations of the implementation of the School Improvement Plan, reviewing with the principal and the Campus Leadership Team formative data and making suggestions for modifications and adjustments to the implementation plan. 136. Provide the principal, the broker, members of the Campus Leadership Team, and other appropriate staff opportunities to participate in professional development activities that should lead to school improvement. Year Two: Alert Status A school identifed as \"Alert Status\" is a school that failed to make necessary improvements after identification as \"High Priority Status.\" The Superintendent will ensure that staff are designated to: 1. Inform the principal, the Campus Leadership Team, the Cabinet, and the Board of Education of the designation and its implications. 2. Conduct a comprehensive Curriculum Audit, including interviews with most staff and representative numbers of students and parents. A written report will be compiled by the audit team, approved by the Assistant Superintendent for School Improvement and the Associate Superintendent for Teaching and Learning and provided orally and in writing to the Associate Superintendent for School Operations, the Assistant Superintendent for School Operations, the principal, the broker, and the Campus Leadership Team. Copies will be provided to the Superintendent, the Cabinet, and other appropriate central office staff who need to be involved in the school's improvement efforts. 3. The School Improvement Plan for the following year, if not immediately, must address the recommendations from the Curriculum Audit. 4. Provide appropriate technical assistance as the school develops and implements its School Improvement Plan so that it addresses specific elements of student performance and includes waivers of any policies or regulations that impede the ability of the school to educate its students. At this stage, the District may mandate the implementation of specific actions, professional development, or programs to address needs identified in the Curriculum Audit and/or the analysis of disaggregated student performance data. 5. The District shall take corrective action during the Alert Status year through one or more of the following\na. Decrease the decision-making authority of the Campus Leadership Team\n14b. Require participation in remedial training or professional development and then implementing the necessary changes\nc. Reflect the school's low performance in the evaluation of the principal, as well as teachers and other staff who contributed to the low performance of the school. Year Three: Low Performing Status A school identified as \"Low Performing Status\" is a school that failed to make necessary improvements after its identification \"Alert Status.\" If a school fails to make acceptable progress within its third year of sanctions, then the District shall apply \u0026lt; or more of the following sanctions: as one a. b. c. d. Revoke the authority of the school to design its School Improvement Plan and budget. Require participation in remedial training or professional development and then implementing the necessary changes. Reflect the low performance of the school in the performance evaluations of responsible staff, including the principal, as well as teachers and other staff who contributed to the low performance of the school. Conduct follow-up audits to determine the extent to which the school has effectively implemented the recommendations of the School Improvement Audit and the Curriculum Audit conducted in years one and two. Year Four: Academic Distress Phase I Status If a school fails to make acceptable progress within its fourth year, then the District shall apply one or more of the following sanctions: a. Revoke the authority of the school to design its School Improvement Plan and budget. b. Require participation in remedial training or professional development and then implementing the necessary changes. c. Reflect the low performance of the school in the performance evaluations of responsible staff, including the principal, as well as teachers and other staff who contributed to the low performance of the school. 15d. Conduct follow-up audits to determine the extent to which the school has effectively implemented the recommendations of the School Improvement Audit and the Curriculum Audit conducted in years one and two. Sanctions for Central Office Upon the Superintendent's recommendation, the performance evaluations of central office staff designated to provide leadership in human resources, teaching and learning, school improvement, school operations, administrative services, and technology, including members of the Superintendent's Cabinet, shall also reflect the schoools' low performance if it can be determined that they shared responsibility, through their decisions or actions, or lack thereof, for the low achievement of schools identified for sanctions. School Role When Identified for Sanctions Each school identified for sanctions shall: a. In consultation with central staff and the Campus Leadership Team develop or revise a School Improvement Plan in ways that have the greatest likelihood of improving the performance of all children in meeting the expected improvement goals outlined in ACTAAP and the Quality Index. b. Align all the school's systems and resources behind the effective implementation of the plan. c. Submit the plan in a timely manner to school and District-level staff for review, feedback, and approval. d. Implement the plan, conducting self-monitoring on a frequent basis to determine success and then making appropriate adjustments. e. Consult frequently with District-level staff assigned to support the school and to provide technical assistance. f. Improve the skills of its staff by providing effective professional development activities. At least ten percent of the Title I funds (if received) shall be committed over a two-year period to professional development\nor the school must otherwise demonstrate that it is effectively carrying out professional development activities from other funding sources. Decisions about how to use the professional development funds shall be made 16by teachers, principals, and other school staff in that school during the first year a school is identified for sanctions. 17C\nPage 1 of2 From: To: Date: LESLEY, BONNIE \u0026lt;BALESLE@IRC.LRSD.K12.AR.US\u0026gt; 'asbrown@aristotle.net' \u0026lt;asbrown@aristotle.net\u0026gt; Tuesday, July 13, 1999 2:47 PM Subject: Collective Responsibility Thanks to all of you for your feedback. You'll see much of it incorporated into the attached latest draft. We appreciate the time that everyone took to review this lengthy document. Many of your comments were very helpful and have made it stronger. One problem, it was clear, is that some of you have not seen the state ACTAAP plan, and you wrote all over the state portions without undersanding that we can't change those. The state's indicators were copied verbatum, as were the names of the levels, of sanctions. What we did was take the state system and then build around it our own local indicators and local systems of support, rewards, and sanctions. You may want to review the ACTAAP plan on the ADE web page. It will make our plan much more understandable. There have been multiple revisions to the draft that I gave to you. We received feedback from Dr. Steve Ross, from the Cabinet, from the Supt., and last Thursday from board members, in addition to your comments, so this new draft reflects all those suggestions. You all used the following words to describe our inclusive goals of 100% (some of which are from the state and cannot be changed): \"artificial, \"airheaded,\" \"diminishing the value of honors,\" \"not realistic,\" \"incongruous,\" \"premature,\" \"set up for failure,\" \"dream on,\" and so forth. Many of us are very uncomfortable with a goal statement reflecting fewer than 100%, however, for we fear that some will interpret that to mean that II tl tl II we have differentiated expectations for students. We are especially uncomfortable if anyone interprets those differentiated expectations to be racial-for we believe exactly the opposite! We feel strongly that if we do not aim high and inclusively, then we will continue to get the same poor results. We especially believe that high goals are important on CRTs. And we do not want anyone to ask, \"Whose kid are you giving up on?\" ill You will note that the new draft, nevertheless (and against my personal better judgment), changes many of the percentages to reflect those in the Strategic Plan--65% above grade level, for instance, on the SAT9, and 90% mastery of CRTs since one of the goals says 9 of 10 will meet standards. In truth, we are most interested in schools' progress toward meeting the goals, not that all the schools will absolutely perform at the goal level. See what you think. The suggestions that you all made that were the most helpful were as follows: * use a chart to display the actions to be taken each year of sanctions and to assign responsibility for each action. *clarify that the ADE, not the State of Arkansas, has done or will do certain things. define the various kinds of goals earlier in the document-before the tables rather than after them. 7/13/99*be more Page 2 of 2 specific about when sanctions will be applied to central office clarify the definitions of \"Quality Schools\" and \"Improving Schools. Again, thanks to all of you for your help. 1 am attaching a copy of the latest draft--the one that will be presented to the board next week. Collective Responsibility for Student Achievement.doc 7/13/99Collective Responsibility for Student Achievement Definition of Collective Responsibility Collective Responsibility means that all the adults in the District and at each school hold themselves accountable for all the students meeting the challenging behavior and academic content standards and benchmarks and other outcomes established by the Board of Education, by the state for accreditation, by federally funded programs, and by external funders of reform initiatives approved by the Board of Education. District-level staff share with school-level staffs in the collective responsibility for school improvement. This critically important attitude is developed and nurtured through professional learning communities established by the District and each school. In addition, the Superintendent shall ensure that all job descriptions of appropriate District-level and building-level staff\nannual work plans\nDi strict-level processes and school-level parameters for decision-making\npersonnel hiring, assignment, promotion, and evaluation systems\nand the professional development programs are results-based and aligned with the improvement indicators established in the Quality Index. Reporting Responsibilities The Superintendent shall report to the Board of Education annually on progress related to the implementation of the Strategic Plan and the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. In addition, so that the community is also informed on the Districts progress in meeting expected improvement goals, the following reports must be submitted to the Board of Education in open sessions. District Annual Performance Report The Annual Performance Report is to be submitted to the Board of Education no later than August 30 annually. It shall include data relating to each of the Quality Indicators, including the baseline year data so that progress can be identified. The Annual Performance Report shall also include the accreditation status and accountability status for each school, as determined by the Arkansas Department of Education. School Performance Reports The state-mandated School Performance Reports shall be published and distributed to parents and other interested patrons annually. These report cards shall include the data mandated by the Arkansas Department of Education, but also school data relating to the Districts Quality Indicators. School principals shall disseminate these reports to all the staff members and parents in their school community and make them available to interested patrons. At least one parent meeting shall be conducted annually by the Campus Leadership Team and the principal to discuss the 1performance of the school and planned short- and long-range improvements. The District may disseminate school-level supplements to the School Performance Reports to include data relating to District-selected Quality Indicators. Accreditation and Accountability Status If a school has been identified for school improvement, as per Title I regulations and/or if the school is conditionally accredited or nonaccredited, then the designation and an explanation of its implications, as well as the accountability status of the school as defined by the State shall be included in the School Performance Report. Program Evaluations The results of any internal program evaluation studies or evaluations of grant-funded projects are to be provided to the Board of Education within a month of their submission to the Superintendent and/or to the funding organization. School Improvement Plans Although there are multiple state and local indicators, Campus Leadership Teams should select, based on their data analysis, three to five priority improvement goals as a focus for the School Improvement Plan. (See the Arkansas Comprehensive School Improvement Planning process.) 2State Quality IndicatorsTier I The Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Program (ACTAAP) establishes the following indicators based on performance goals for Tier I: State Indicator Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Tests Goal (Definition)______________ 100% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in reading and writing literacy. Grade Level(s) Grades 4, 6, 8 100% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in mathematics. Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Tests 100% of a schools secondary students shall perform at or above the proficient level in Algebra I. Secondary 100% of a schools secondary students shall perform at or above the proficient level in Geometry. School Drop Out Average Daily Attendance Classes Taught by an Appropriately Licensed Teacher____________ Professional Development School Safety 100% of a schools secondary students shall perform at or above the proficient level in Literacy. At least 99% of secondary students will remain in school to complete the 12* grade._________________ Average daily attendance rate will be at least 95%.________________ 100% of a schools classes will be taught by an appropriately licensed teacher._______________________ 100% of a schools certified staff will complete at least 30 hours of approved professional development annually.__________ Schools will be free of drugs, weapons, and violent acts. Grades 7-12 Grades K-12 Grades K-12 Grades K-12 Grades K-12 3State Quality Indicators^Tier II The Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Program (ACTAAP) establishes the following indicators for Tier II. Tier II indicators are based on trend and improvement goals. Trend goals will be established for different cohorts of students, and improvement goals will be established for the same cohort of students over time. State Indicator Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Tests Goal (Distlrtition)______________ The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in reading and writing literacy on the criterion-referenced tests will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in mathematics on the criterion- referenced tests will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Tests The percent of secondary students performing at or above the proficient level in Algebra I will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. The percent of secondary students performing at or above the proficient level in Geometry will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. The percent of secondary students performing at or above the proficient level in Literacy will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. Grade Level(s) Grades 4, 6, and 8 Secondary 4Tier 11School Selected Indicators (Schools Select Any 5) State indicator Drop-outs Average Daily Attendance_________ Classes Taught by an Appropriately Licensed Teacher____________ Professional Development School Safety Other School Selected Indicators Goal (Definition)_______________ Secondary schools will improve the percentage of students who stay in school to complete the 12* grade. Schools will improve their average daily attendance rate.____________ Schools will improve the percent of classes taught by an appropriately licensed teacher._______________ Schools will increase the percent of certified staff who complete 60 or more hours of approved professional development annually. Schools will be free of drugs, weapons, and violent acts._______ Schools will select trend or improvement goals directed to student achievement in specific sub-populations or sub-test areas. These must have prior approval of ADE. Grade Levet(s) Secondary All levels All levels All levels All levels All levels 5Additional District-Selected Indicators The following additional academic indicators (based also on both performance and trend/improvement) have been established by the Little Rock School District. Value-Added Goals or Improvement Goals The District-adopted criterion-referenced tests for grades K-11 will be administered to provide pre- and post-test scores so that gains of individual students may be measured each semester. Only those scores of students who were in the school the previous test administration will be used in calculating value-added gains (or improvement). The purpose of this measure is to be able to determine the extent to which a school adds value through individual students gains. In other words, regardless of whether students attain the proficient level at any given grade, the District is interested in whether the students progressed toward proficiency during that year. Both trend and improvement data will be tracked as well. LRSD indicator Performance on District- Adopted Kindergarten Literacy Test Goal (Definition)______________ 90% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in literacy. Grade Level(s) Kindergarten Performance on District- Adopted Grade 1 Literacy Test The percent of students demonstrating gains from the pretest to the post-test will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. 90% of a school's students shall perform at or above the proficient level in literacy. Grade 1 The percent of grade 1 students demonstrating gains from the pretest to the post-test will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. i 6LRSD Indicator Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Test Goal (Definition) 65% of a schools students in every Grade Level(s) Grades 5, 7, 10 sub-group of race and gender shall ,th perform at or above the 50 percentile in reading. The percent of students in every sub-group or race and gender performing at or above the 50^ percentile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 65% of a schools students in every sub-group of race and gender shall perform at or above the 50'^ percentile in mathematics. Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Test The percent of students in every sub-group of race and gender performing at or above the 50'^ percentile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 30% of a schools students will perform at the highest quartile in reading. The percent of a schools students performing at the highest quartile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 30% of a schools students will perform at the highest quartile in mathematics. The percent of a schools students performing at the highest quartile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 7LRSD Indicator Performance on SATO, a Norm-Referenced Test Goal (Definition) _____________ At least 90% of a schools students will perform above the lowest quartile in reading. The percent of a schools students performing above the lowest quartile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. At least 90% of a schools students will perform above the lowest quartile in mathematics. Grade Level(s) Performance on District-Adopted Criterion-Referenced Tests The percent of a schools students performing above the lowest quartile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year.________________ 90% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in reading each semester. The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each semester. The percent of students demonstrating gains from the pretest to the post-test will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year. Grades 2-11 8LRSD indicator Gc^l (Definition) ___________ 90% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in mathematics each semester. Grade liMt(s) Enrollment in Pre-AP and/or AP Courses Enrollment in Algebra I by grade 8 Honors Seal on High School Diploma The percent of students performing at or above the proficient\" level in mathematics each quarter will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each semester. The percent of students demonstrating gains from the pretest to the post-test will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year._________________________ 65% of middle and high school students will be enrolled in at least one Pre-AP or AP course each year. The percent of students enrolled in at least one Pre-AP or AP course will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 90% of a middle schools students will be enrolled in Algebra I by grade 8. The percent of students enrolled in Algebra I by grade 8 will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. 65% of a high schools students will complete the requirements to earn the Honors Seal on their diplomas. The percent of students completing the requirements for the Honors Seal will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. Grades 6-12 Grade 8 Grades 9-12 9IZRSD Indicator Taking the ACT Gd^i (Deflhitlon)_______________ 65% of a high schools students will take the ACT. Grade Level(s) Grades 11-12 Performance on the ACT The percent of students taking the ACT will meet or exceed the trend goal each year.________________ 90% of a high schools students who take the ACT will earn a score of at least 19. Grades 11-12 Taking Advanced Placement Examinations The percent of students earning a score of 19 or above will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. 65% of a high schools graduates will have taken at least one AP examination. Grades 11-12 Performance on Advanced Placement Examinations The percent of students taking at least one AP examination will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. 90% of a high schools students taking AP examinations will score a 3 or above. Grades 11-12 Completion of Graduation Requirements The percent of students earning a score of 3 or above on AP examinations will meet or exceed the trend goal each year._________ 100% of a high schools seniors will complete all the graduation requirements prior to participation in the graduation ceremony, The percent of seniors meeting all graduation requirements prior to participation in the graduation ceremony will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. Grade 12 A schools performance on these District-selected indicators may be reflected in a local supplement to the state-mandated School Performance Report or as a part of the narrative in the Tier III report that becomes a part of the states School Performance Report. 10Indicators by School Level On the following pages are lists of the state and district indicators by school level. These indicators include the priorities established in the LRSD Strategic Plan, the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, the National Science Foundation Project, Title I, ACTAAP, and ACSIP. Also included in the tables are the columns of data that will be used to determine a schools status. 11Quality Indicators for Elementary Schools Baseline Year 1998-99 1998-99 1999-00 1999-00 1999-00 1990-00 1998-99 1998-99 Grade Levels 4 4 K-5 K-5 K-5 K-5 4 4 State Indicators - Tier I - Performance on State Mandated Criterion- Referenced Grade 4 Literacy T est Performance on State Mandated Criterion- Referenced Grade 4 Mathematics Test Average Daily Attendance Classes Taught by an Appropriately Licensed Teacher Professional Development School Safety Pedormance on State- Mandated Criterion Referenced Grade 4 Literacy Test Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Grade 4 Mathematics Test Goal (Definition) 100% of a school's students shall periorm at or above the proficient\" level in reading and writing literacy. 100% of a school's students shall perform at or above the proficient\" level in mathematics. Average daily attendance rate will be at least 95%._________________________________ 100% of a school's classes will be taught by an appropriately licensed teacher. 100% of a school's certified staff will complete at least 30 hours of approved professional development annually. Schools will be free of drugs, weapons, and violent acts. The percent of students performing at or above the proficient\" level in reading and writing literacy on the criterion-referenced test will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. The percent of students performing at or above the proficient\" level in mathematics on the criterion-referenced test will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your\nScoire 12Baseline Year Grade Levels 1999-00 K-5 School-Selected Indicators Tier II (Select five.) Average Daily Attendance Goal (Deiinltion\u0026gt; ' Your Results Growth Goat Your Growth Your Score 1999-00 K-5 1999-00 K-5 Classes Taught by an Appropriately Licensed Teacher Professional Development Schools will improve their average daily attendance rate. Schools will improve the percent of classes taught by an appropriately licensed teacher. 1999-00 K-5 School Safety 1999-00 K-5 Other School Selected Indicators Schools will increase the percent of certified staff who complete 60 or more hours of approved professional development annually. Schools will be free of drugs, weapons, and violent acts. Schools will select trend or improvement goals directed to student achievement in specific sub-populations or sub-test areas. These must have prior approval of ADE. LRSD Elementary School Quality Indicators Baseline Year Grade Levels LRSD Indicators Goal (Definition) 1999-00 K Performance on District- Adopted Kindergarten Literacy T est 90% of a school's kindergarten students shall perform at or atxive the proficient level in literacy. Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 1999-00 K Performance on District- Adopted Kindergarten Literacy Test 1999-00 1 Performance on District- Adopted Grade 1 Literacy Test The percent of kindergarten students demonstrating gains from the pre-test to the post-test will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. 90% of a school's grade 1 students shall perform at or above the \"proficient level in literacy. 13Bas^ine Year 1999-00 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 Grade Levels 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 LRSD Indicators Performance on District- Adopted Grade 1 Literacy Test Performance on SAT9, the Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9. the Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9, the Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9, the Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9, the Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9, the Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9, the Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Goal (Definition) The percent of grade 1 students demonstrating gains from the pre-test to the post-test will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 65% of a school's students in every subgroup of race and gender will perform at or above the 50'\" percentile in reading. The percent of a school's students in every sub-group of race and gender performing at or above the 50'\" percentile will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. At least 30% of a school's students will perform at the highest quartile in reading. The percent of a school's students performing at the highest quartile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. At least 90% of a school's students will perform atxjve the lowest quartile in reading. The percent of a schools students performing above the lowest quartile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 65% of a school's students shall perform al or above the 50'\" percentile in grade 5 mathematics. Your Results Growth: Goat Your , Growth Your Score 14Baseline Year 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1999-00 1999-00 1999-00 Grade Levels 5 5 5 5 5 2-5 2-5 2-5 LRSD Indicators Goat {Definition} Performance on SAT9, the Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on SATO, the Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on SAT9, the Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on SAT9, the Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on SAT9, the Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Readinq Test Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Reading Test Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Reading Test The percent of students performing at or above the SO' percentile in grade 5 mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. At least 30% of a schools students will perform at the highest quartile in mathematics. The percent of a school's students performing at the highest quartile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. At least 90% of a school's students will perform above the lowest quartile in mathematics. The percent of a school's students performing above the lowest quartile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement qoals each year. 90% of a school's students shall perform at or above the \"proficient level in grades 2-5 reading each semester. The percent of students performing at or above the \"proficient\" level in grades 2-5 reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement qoals each semester. The percent of students demonstrating gains from the grades 2-5 reading pre-test to the post-test will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year. Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth ,Your Score 15Baseline Year Grade Levels LRSD Indicators Goal (Definition) 1999-00 2-5 1999-00 2-5 1999-00 2-5 Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test 90% of a school's students shall perform at or above the proficient\" level in grades 2-5 mathematics each semester. The percent of students performing at or above the \"proficient\" level in grades 2-5 mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each semester. The percent of students demonstrating gains from the grades 2-5 mathematics pre-test to the post-test will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year. Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 16Quality Indicators for Middle Schools Baseline Year Grade teweis 2001-02 6 1999-00 8 2001-02 6 1999-00 8 2001-02 7 (Dunbar) or 8 2001-02 8 (Dunbar) 1999-00 7-8 State Indicators Tier I Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Literacy Test Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Literacy Test Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test School Dropout Goal (Definition) 100% of a school's students shall perform at or above the proficient\" level in grade 6 reading and writing literacy. 100% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient\" level in grade 8 reading and writing literacy. 100% of a school's students shall perform at or above the \"proficient\" level in grade 6 mathematics. 100% of a school's students shall perform at or above the proficient\" level in grade 8 mathematics. 100% of a school's grade 7 or 8 students who complete Algebra I shall perform at or above the \"proficient\" level. 100% of a school's grade 8 students who complete Geometry shall perform at or above the proficient\" level. 1999-00 6-8 1999-00 6-8 Average Daily Attendance Classes Taught by an Appropriately Licensed Teacher At least 99% of secondary students will remain in school to complete the 12' grade. Average daily attendance rate will be at least 95%. 100% of a school's classes will be taught by an appropriately licensed teacher. Your Results Growth Goal Your GrciWttt your 17Baseline Year Grade Levels 1999-00 6-8 State Indicators Tier I Professional Development Goal (Definition) 1999-00 6-8 School Safety 100% of a school's certified staff will complete at least 30 hours of approved professional development. Schools will be free of drugs, weapons, and violent acts. Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score Basetine. Year Grade Levels 2001-02 6 State-Mandated Indicators .Si\n, Tier II ' Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Literacy Test. Goal (Definition) Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 1999-00 8 Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Literacy Test. 2001-02 6 Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test. 1999-00 8 Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test. The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in reading and writing literacy on the criterion-referenced tests will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. The percent of students performing at or above the proficient\" level in reading and writing literacy on the criterion-referenced tests will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. The percent of students performing at or above the proficient\" level in mathematics on the criterion-referenced tests will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in mathematics on the criterion-referenced tests will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 18Baseline Year Grade Levels 2001-02 7 (Dunbar) or 8 2001-02 8 (Dunbar) State-Mandated Indicators Tier II Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test. Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test. Goal (Deflnlllon) Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score Baseline Year Grade Levels 1999-00 e-8 SchodhSeteMd Indicators Tier tl (Select five,) Drop-outs 1999-00 6-8 1999-00 6-8 1999-00 6-8 Average Daily Attendance Classes Taught by an Appropriately Licensed Teacher Professional Development 1999-00 6-8 School Safety 6-8 Other School Selected Indicators The percent of students completing Algebra I performing at or above the proficient\" level will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. The percent of students completing Geometry performing at or above the proficient\" level will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. Goal (Oalinition) Secondary schools will improve the percentage of students who stay in school to complete the 12'\" grade. Schools will improve their average daily attendance rate. Schools will improve the percent of classes taught by an appropriately licensed teacher. Schools will increase the percent of certified staff who complete 60 or more hours of approved professional development annually. Schools will be free of drugs, weapons, and violent acts. Schools will select trend or improvement goals directed to student achievement in specific sub-populations or sub-test areas. These must have prior approval of ADE. Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 19LRSD Middle School Quality Indicators Baseline Year 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 Grade Levels 7 7 7 7 7 7 1 LRSD Indicators Goal (Deiinition) Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9. a Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9. a Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test 65% of a school's students in every subgroup of race and gender shall perform at or above the 50'\" percentile in reading. The percent of students in every sub-group of race and gender performing at or above the 50'\" percentile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. At least 30% of a school's students will perform at the highest quartile in reading. The percent of a school's students performing at the highest quartile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. At least 90% of a school's students will perform above the lowest quartile in reading. The percent of a school's students performing above the lowest quartile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 65% of a school's students in every subgroup of race and gender shall perform at or above the 50'\" percentile in mathematics. Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 20Baseline Year 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1999-00 1999-00 1999-00 Grade Levels 7 7 7 7 1 6-8 6-8 6-8 LRSD Indicators Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on SAT9. a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on District- Adopted Criterion Referenced Reading Test Performance on District- Adopted Criterion Referenced Reading Test Performance on District- Adopted Criterion Referenced Reading Test Goal (Definition) The percent of students in every sub-group of race and gender performing at or above the so'\" percentile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. At least 30% of a school's students will perform at the highest quartile in mathematics. The percent of a schools students performing at the highest quartile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. At least 90% of a school's students will perform above the lowest quartile in mathematics. The percent of a school's students performing above the lowest quartile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 90% of a school's students shall perform at or above the proficient\" level in reading each semester. The percent of students performing at or above the proficient\" level in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each semester. The percent of students demonstrating gains from the reading pre-test to the post-test will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year. Your, Results Growth, Goat Your Growth Your Score 21Baseline: Year 1999-00 1999-00 1999-00 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 Grade Levels 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 LRSD Indicators Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test_________________ Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test_________________ Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test_________________ Enrollment in Pre-AP Courses Enrollment in Pre-AP Courses Enrollment in Algebra I by Grade 8 Enrollment in Algebra I by Grade 8 Goal {Definition) 90% of a school's students shall perform at or above the \"proficient\" level in mathematics each semester. The percent of students performing at or above the proficient\" level in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each semester._____ The percent of students demonstrating gains from the mathematics pre-test to the posttest will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year._________________________ 65% of a middle school's students will be enrolled in at least one Pre-AP course each year. The percent of students enrolled in at least one Pre-AP course will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 90% of a middle school's students will be enrolled in Algebra I by grade 8. The percent of students enrolled in Algebra I by grade 8 will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 22Quality Indicators for High Schools Baseline Year 2001-02 2001-02 2001-02 1999-00 1999-00 1999-00 1999-00 1999-00 Grade levela 9-12 9-12 11 9-12 9-12 9-12 9-12 9-12 State Indicators TIeri Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Algebra I Test_______________ Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Geometry Test_______________ Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Algebra I Test_______________ School Drop Out Average Daily Attendance_________ Classes Taught by an Appropriately Licensed Teacher____________ Professional Development School Safety Goal (Definition) 100% of a high schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in Algebra I. 100% of a high schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in Geometry. 100% of a high school's students shall perform at or above the proficient\" level in Reading and Writing Literacy. At least 99% of secondary students will remain in school to complete the 12'\" grade. Average daily attendance rate will be at least 95%._________________________________ 100% of a schools classes will be taught by an appropriately licensed teacher. 100% of a schools certified staff will complete at least 30 hours of approved professional development annually. Schools will be free of drugs, weapons, and I violent acts. Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Sodre 23Baseline Year Grade Levels 2001-02 9-12 2001-02 9-12 2001-02 11 State-Mandated indicators Tier 11 Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Algebra I Test Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Geometry Test Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Literacy Test Goal (Oellnition) The percent of students performing at or above the \"proficient level in Algebra I will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. The percent of students performing at or above the proficient\" level in Geometry will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. The percent of students performing at or above the proficient\" level in Literacy will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. Baseline Year , Grade Levels 2001-02 9-12 SchookSetected indicators Tier II (Select live.) Drop-outs Goal (Definition) 2001-02 9-12 2001-02 9-12 2001-02 9-12 Average Daily Attendance Classes Taught by an Appropriately Licensed Teacher Professional Development High schools will improve the percentage of students who stay in school to complete the 12\" grade. Schools will improve their average daily attendance rate. Schools will improve the percent of classes taught by an appropriately licensed teacher. Schools will increase the percent of certified staff who complete 60 or more hours of approved professional development annually. Your Results Your Results Growth Goal Growth Goal Your Growth Your Growth Your Score Your Score 24Baseline Year, , Grade Levels 2001-02 9-12 9-12 School-Selected Indicatora Tier II (Set^ live.) School Safety Goal {Deiinition) Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score Other School Selected Indicators Schools will be free of drugs, weapons, and violent acts. Schools will select trend or improvement goals directed to student achievement in specific sub-populations or sub-test areas. These must have prior approval of ADE. LRSD High School Quality Indicators Baseline Year Grade Levels LRSD Indicators Goal (Definition) 1998-99 10 1998-99 10 Performance on SAT9. a Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Reading Test 65% of a school's students in every subgroup of race and gender shall perform at or above the 50\" percentile in reading. The percent of students performing at or above the 50 percentile in reading will meet 1998-99 10 1998-99 10 Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Reading Test or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. At least 30% of a schools students will perform at the highest quartile in reading. 1998-99 10 Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Reading Test The percent of a school's students performing at the highest quartile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. At least 90% of a school's students will perform above the lowest quartile in reading. Your Results Growth Goat Your Grdvrth Your Score 25Baseline. Year 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1999-00 Grade Levels 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 9-11 LRSD Indicators Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on SAT9. a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Reading Test Goal {Definition) The percent of a schools students performing above the lowest quartile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 65% of a school's students in every subgroup of race and gender shall perform at or above the 50'\" percentile in mathematics. The percent of students performing at or above the 50'\" percentile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. At least 30% of a school's students will perform at the highest quartile in mathematics. The percent of a school's students performing at the highest quartile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. At least 90% of a school's student's will perform above the lowest quartile in mathematics. The percent of a school's students performing above the lowest quartile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 90% of a school's students shall perform at or above the proficient\" level in reading each semester. Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 26Baseline Year 1999-00 1999-00 1999-00 1999-00 1999-00 1998-99 1998-99 2002-03 2002-03 Grade Levels 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-12 9-12 12 12 LRSD Indicators Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Reading Test Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Reading Test Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test_________________ Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test_________________ Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test_________________ Enrollment in Pre-AP and/or AP Courses Enrollment in Pre-AP and/or AP Courses Honors Seal on High School Diploma Honors Seal on High School Diploma Goal {Definition) The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each semester. The percent of students demonstrating gains from the reading pre-test to the post-test will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year._________________________________ 90% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient\" level in mathematics each semester. 1 The percent of students performing at or above the proficient\" level in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each semester. The percent of students demonstrating gains from the mathematics pre-test to the posttest will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year._________________________ 65% of a high school's students will be enrolled in at least one Pre-AP or AP course each year._____________________________ The percent of students enrolled in at least one Pre-AP or AP course will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 65% of a high school's students will complete the requirements to earn the Honors Seal on their diplomas._________________________ The percent of students completing the requirements for the Honors Seal will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 27Baselirie Year 1998-99 Grade Levels 11-12 LRSD tndioators Goal (Deltnition) Taking the ACT Your Results Growth Goat' Vour Growth 1998-99 1998-99 11-12 11-12 Taking the ACT Performance on the ACT 1998-99 11-12 Performance on the ACT 1998-99 11-12 1998-99 11-12 Taking Advanced Placement Examinations Taking Advanced Placement Examinations 1998-99 11-12 1998-99 11-12 Performance on Advanced Piacement Examinations Performance on Advanced Piacement Examinations 65% of a high school's students will take the ACT._________________________________ The percent of students taking the ACT will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. 90% of a high school's students who take the ACT will earn a score of at least 19. The percent of students earning a score of 19 or above on the ACT will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. 65% of a high school's graduates will take at least one AP examination. The percent of students taking at least one AP examination will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. 90% of a high school's students taking AP examinations will score a \"3\" or above. Your Score 1998-99 12 Completion of Graduation Requirements 1998-99 12 Completion of Graduation Requirements The percent of a high schools students earning a score of 3\" or above on AP examinations will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. 100% of a high school's seniors will complete all the graduation requirements prior to participation in the graduation ceremony. The percent of seniors meeting all graduation requirements prior to participation in the graduation ceremony will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. 28Rewards for Schools The District shall develop a system to reward (a) Quality Schools: schools absolutely meeting all the performance indicators established by the Arkansas Department of Education and (b) Improving Schools: schools demonstrating improvement: meeting a preponderance of the trend and/or improvement goals established by the Arkansas Department of Education and LRSD. The following points are established for each indicator. They will be added to determine a schools total score. 0 1 2 3 Declined in performance from previous year or semester Maintained last years performance and/or improved but did not meet trend/improvement goal Met trend/improvement goal Exceeded trend/improvement goal A definition of preponderance and the number of minimum points required for rewards will be established. Quality Schools and Improvina Schools Quality Schools and Improving Schools may be recognized and rewarded in the following ways, as determined by the Superintendent: a. b. c. d. e. f. A presentation will be made to the Board of Education on the schools achievements involving both staff and parents, a press release commending the schools performance will be issued, and schools will be featured in District publications, on cable television, and on the web page. The school may be designated as a mentor school and granted resources to provide technical assistance and support to another school in the District identified for improvement. As appropriate, the District will support a schools application for state and national recognition in the national Blue Ribbon School program. The District will collaborate with the community to identify other possible recognitions of the schools progress and achievement. Schools will receive a grant to encourage and facilitate further improvement. The amount of the grant will be determined by annual budget appropriations. Awarded funds will be used for innovative programs, to provide additional materials and supplies, to support technology enhancements, to improve meaningful parent involvement, and/or for professional development of the staff. Each school will receive a banner/flag that celebrates its success. Rewards for Staff and Students Each Quality and each Improving School is encouraged to design, in collaboration with parents and the community, celebrations of success and recognition for contributing teachers, teacher teams, other staff, and 29 parent/community volunteers, as well as students who meet the performance goals. Sanctions According to ADE and the State Board of Education, sanctions in the ACTAAP system are applied for the purpose of improving teaching and learning, not for punishing schools or the people in them. The LRSD supports this view. Each Arkansas school is expected to achieve annually a minimum percentage of its total possible points assigned for the performance indicators in the ACTAAP system for accountability. Failure to do so will result in the following designations, as determined by the Arkansas Department of Education: First year: Second year: Third year: Fourth year: Fifth year: Sixth year: High Priority Status Alert Status Low Performing Status Academic Distress Phase I Status Academic Distress Phase II Status Academic Distress Phase III Status To be eligible for removal of any sanction designation, leading up to, but not including. Academic Distress Phase I, a school must attain the minimum percentage of its total possible points for two consecutive years. Once classified as Academic Distress Phase 1, a school must comply with the rules and regulations to be promulgated by the ADE in order to be removed from this category. Failure to do so will result in the designation of Academic Distress Phase II, and so forth. The District will not identify schools for sanctions. Rather, the District will ensure the following levels of technical assistance and/or corrective actions for schools identifed for improvement by the Arkansas Department of Education. In other words, the District will form a partnership with each school in need of improvement and will assist and support that school in its improvement efforts. To that end, the District has reorganized staff in the Division of Instruction to form a multi-disciplinary School Improvement department. A common mission for all Division of Instruction teams will be to help schools help students achieve the challenging standards established by the Arkansas Department of Education and the LRSD and as measured by the various performance, trend, and improvement indicators. The assignment of a Broker for each school is another level of support. The following technical assistance and support services are established for schools requiring improvements: 30Technical Assistance and Support for Schools Identified for Improvement Year/Status/ Definition Year One: Warned LRSD Assistance/Support Assigned Responsibility The Superintendent will ensure that staff are designated to: 1. The first year that an LRSD school fails to meet its performance, trend, and/or improvement goals. 2. 3. 4. 5. Inform the principal, the central office broker, the Campus Leadership Team, the Cabinet, and the Board of Education of the designation of the school and its implications. Provide appropriate levels of technical assistance to the school as it develops and implements its School Improvement Plan so that it addresses specific elements of student performance problems and includes waivers of any policies or regulations that impede the ability of the school to education its students. Conduct a School Improvement Audit to determine the extent to which the Campus Leadership Plan is being implemented at the school. Require the recommendations from the School Improvement Audit to be addressed in the following years School Improvement Plan, if not possible to do so immediately. Monitor regularly and conduct formative evaluations of the implementation of the School Improvement Plan, reviewing with the principal and the Campus Leadership Team formative data and making suggestions for modifications and adjustments to the implementation plan. Testing and Program Evaluation Team Technical Assistance Team\nCurriculum/ Instruction Team Technical Assistance Team Associate Superintendent for School Services Associate Superintendent for School Services 31Year\nStatus/ Detlnttion LRSD Assistance/Support 6. Provide the principal, the broker, members of the Campus Leadership Team, and other appropriate staff opportunities to participate in professional development activities that should lead to school improvement. Assigned Responsibliity Professional Development Team\nCurriculum/ Instruction Team\nAssociate Superintendent for School Services 32Year/Status/ Definition LRSD Assistance/Support Assigned Responsibiiity Year Two: High Priority Status The Superintendent will ensure that staff are designated to: 1. A school identified by ADE that for two consecutive years fails to meet the performance, trend, and/or improvement goals. 2. 3. 4. Inform the principal, the central office broker, the Campus Leadership Team, the Cabinet, and the Board of Education of the designation of the school and its implications. Provide appropriate levels of technical assistance to the school as it develops and implements its School Improvement Plan so that it addresses specific elements of student performance problems and includes waives of any policies or regulations that impede the ability of the school to educate its students. Conduct a comprehensive Curriculum Audit to determine the extent to which the school is implementing the District curriculum and the quality of its interventions for students not meeting the standards. Require that the recommendations from the Curriculum Audit be addressed in the following years School Improvement Plan, if impossible to do so immediately. Possibly mandate the implementation of specific actions, professional development, or programs to address needs identified in the Curriculum Audit and/or the analysis of disaggregated student performance data. 5. The District shall take corrective action during the High Priority Status Year through one or more of the following: Testing and Program Evaluation Team Technical Assistance Team\nCurriculum/ Instruction Team Curriculum/ Instruction Team\nPlanning and Development Team Associate Superintendent for School Services Associate Superintendent for School Services 33Year/StatusZ Definition LRSD Assistance/Support (a) Decrease the decision making authority of the Campus Leadership Team, (b) Require participation in remedial training or professional development, and then implementating the necessary changes, (c) Reflect the schools low performance in the evaluation of the principal, as well as teachers and other staff who contributed to the low performance of the school, (d) Replace the school principal. Assigned Responsibility 34Year/Status/ Definition Year Three: Alert Status LRSD Assistance/Support The Superintendent will ensure that staff are designated to: 1. Assigned Responsibility A school identified by ADE that for three consecutive years fails to meet the performance, trend, and/or improvement goals. Inform the principal, the Campus Leadership Team, the Cabinet, and the Board of Education of the designation and its implications. Testing and Program Evaluation Team 2. Conduct follow-up or monitoring of implementation of School Improvement and Curriculum Audit recommendations. Technical Assistance Team\nCurriculum/ Instruction Team 3. Mandate appropriate specific actions, professional development, and/or programs to address student needs. Associate Superintendent for School Services 4. Continue to provide appropriate technical assistance as the school develops and implements its School Improvement Plan. 5. The District shall take corrective action during the Alert Status Year through one or more of the following: (a) Decrease the decision-making authority of the Campus Leadership Team\n(b) Require participation in remedial training or professional development and then implementing the necessary changes\n(c) Reflect the schools low performance in the evaluation of the principal, as well as teachers and other staff who contributed to the low performance of the school. Technical Assistance Team\nCurriculum/ Instruction Team Associate Superintendent for School Services 35Year/StatusZ Definition LRSD Assistance/Support (d) Reconstitute the school staff by replacing the principal and up to 50 percent of the teachers and other staff, as appropriate. Assigned Responsibility Year/Status/ Definition Year Four: Low Performing Status LRSD Assistance/Support The Superintendent will ensure that staff are designated to apply one or more of the following sanctions: 1. Assigned Responsibility A school identified by ADE that for four consecutive years fails to meet its performance, trend, and/or improvement goals. Revoke the authority of the school to design its School Improvement Plan. Associate Superintendent for School Services 2. 3. Require participation in remedial training or professional development and then implementing the necessary changes. Reflect the low performance of the school in the performance evaluations of responsible staff, including the principal, as well as teachers and other staff who contributed to the low performance. 4. Conduct follow-up audits to determine the extent to which the school has effectively implemented the recommendations of the School Improvement Audit and the Curriculum Audit conducted in years one and two. 5. Reconstitute the school staff by replacing the principal and up to 50 percent of the teachers and other staff, as appropriate. Associate Superintendent for School Services Associate Superintendent for School Services Technical Assistance Team\nCurriculum/ Instruction Team Associate Superintendent for School Services 36Year/Status/ Definition Year Five: Academic Distress Phase I Status LRSD Assistance/Support The Superintendent will ensure that staff are designated to apply one or more of the following sanctions: 1. Assigned Responsibility A school identified by ADE that for five consecutive years fails to meet its performance, trend, and/or improvement goals. 2. 3. 4. 5. Revoke the authority of the school to design its School Improvement Plan. Require participation in remedial training or professional development and then implementing the necessary changes. Reflect the low performance of the school in the performance evaluations of responsible staff, including the principal, as well as teachers and other staff who contributed to the low performance. Conduct follow-up audits to determine the extent to which the school has effectively implemented the recommendations of the School Improvement Audit and the Curriculum Audit conducted in years one and two. Reconstitute the school staff by replacing the principal and up to 50 percent of the teachers and other staff, as appropriate. Associate Superintendent for School Services Associate Superintendent for School Services Associate Superintendent for School Services Technical Assistance Team\nCurriculum/ Instruction Team Associate Superintendent for School Services Sanctions for Central Office Effective Year Two, upon the Superintendents recommendation, the performance evaluations of central office staff designated to provide leadership in human resources, teaching and learning, school improvement, school operations, administrative services, and technology, including members of the Superintendents Cabinet, shall also reflect the schoools low performance if it can be determined that they shared responsibility, through their decisions or actions, or lack thereof, for the low achievement of schools identified for sanctions. Sanctions for the Superintendent will be determined by the Board of Education. 37I School Role When Identified for Sanctions Each school identified for sanctions shall: a. In consultation with central staff and the Campus Leadership Team develop or revise a School Improvement Plan in ways that have the greatest likelihood of improving the performance of all children in meeting the expected improvement goals outlined in ACTAAP and the b. c. d. e. f. Quality Index. Align all the schools systems and resources behind the effective implementation of the plan. Submit the plan in a timely manner to school and District-level staff for review, feedback, and approval. Implement the plan, conducting self-monitoring on a frequent basis to determine success and then making appropriate adjustments. Consult frequently with District-level staff assigned to support the school and to provide technical assistance. Improve the skills of its staff by providing effective professional development activities. At least ten percent of the Title I funds (if received) shall be committed over a two-year period to professional development\nor the school must otherwise demonstrate that it is effectively carrying out professional development activities from other funding sources. Decisions about how to use the professional development funds shall be made by teachers, principals, and other school staff in that school during the first year a school is identified for sanctions. Definitions School Improvement AuditThis audit will include a review of the meeting minutes of the Campus Leadership Team, the participation level of CLT members, quality of the School Improvement Plan, use of disaggregated data for decision-making, action research projects underway, sense of collective responsibility, quality of professional development, etc. If the school receives Title I funds, the audit will include determinations of the extent to which the school is in compliance with federal regulations and expectations. The audit team will be composed of staff from both the central office and campus levels. A written report will be compiled by the audit team and then approved by the Assistant Superintendent for School Improvement and the Associate Superintendent for School Services. It shall be provided orally and in writing to the Assistant Superintendent for School Services, the principal, the broker, and the Campus Leadership Team. Copies will be provided to the Superintendent, the Cabinet, and other appropriate central office staff who need to be involved in the schools improvement efforts. 385013744187 UlfiLKER LAW FIRM 528 P02/02 JUL 21 99 11:35 John W. Walker, P.A. attorney Ai Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 R4X (601) 374-4187 JOHN W WALKER RALPH Washington MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER. JR. Via Facsimile - 324*2146 July 21. 1999 Dr. Leslie Camine Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr, Camine\nPlease reserve a space on tomorrows agenda before the Board for us to have a discussion about the subject of remediation of achievement disparities and about the Hall High School situation of last year. We have arrived at the tentative conclusion that Dr. Bonnie Lesleys approach to remediation has been ineffective and, with the line-up that she, with your approval, has in mind for implementing new policies is doomed to repeat past failures. We have further tentatively concluded that people like Ms. Gayle Bradford, as we have noted to you repeatedly, appear to be favored in face of if not because of, their treatment, mistreatment, or omissive treatment (newly created word by me) of African American people. As I have reminded you, when Ms. Bradford was at Cloverdale she sent black students on scores of occasions home without behavior documents. There were other complaints from her staff of a racial nature. She was promoted. Now the same scenario has repeated itself at Hall High School. She has been promoted again to be your special assistant. Something is remiss here and I bdievc that the Board should be made aware of it from my perspective as counsel for the Joshua Intervenors. You may share this letter with the Board members, Dr. Lesley and Ms. Bradford. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, / 1 John W. Walker JWW\njs CC-. Mr. Chris Heller Ms. Ann Brown NOV 17 1999/^ Si- CfflCEOF \\ DESEGHEGATiONMOSITORIi The Little Rock School District Board of Education invites you to attend A Status Report: Student Achievement in Little Rock and a Design for Improved Performance. The program will be held at the Statehouse Conference Center in the back of the Excelsior. A question and answer session will follow the presentation. Monday, Nov. 22, 1999 6:30 p.m. RECEIVED i STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT DATA LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT AUG - 4 2004 Grade 4 Mathematics Benchmark Examination OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Percent Performing at Proficient/Advanced LevelsStudents Little Rock School District, 1998-99 through 2003-04 Target Score - 40.16 School 1998- 99 1999- 00 2000- 01 2001- 02 2002 -03 2003- 04 Change State of Arkansas LRSD Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright______ Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson King__________ Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell_______ Rockefeller Romine Stephens_______ Terry__________ Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff 34 22 16 11 24 6 32 10 4 19 10 52 2 29 12 49 63 31 0 23 0 4 17 35 12 36 35 4 34 6 22 6 7 48 6 12 41 30 11 12 29 22 54 6 10 27 0 55 10 42 7 49 55 30 22 43 28 9 57 44 41 34 32 0 38 3 28 8 25 45 16 24 48 30 30 35 37 14 44 11 11 10 18 57 24 53 12 46 64 37 20 46 9 6 39 42 30 32 28 0 48 9 24 9 16 52 6 21 55 38 38 50 49 12 64 26 20 28 32 65 22 66 17 48 68 41 15 53 21 20 38 69 27 45 21 17 41 21 34 17 33 66 15 24 76 49 27 40 51 27 48 19 60 60 33 71 23 59 54 77 69 54 47 78 51 17 47 69 43 37 52 17 67 38 45 19 39 75 33 30 71 54 41 78 59 16 71 57 76 58 42 73 23 72 52 79 83 54 45 63 42 19 58 78 35 43 58 24 74 59 45 23 38 67 33 29 +37 +32 +25 +67 +35 +10 +39 +47 +72 +39 +32 +21 +21 +43 +40 +30 +20 +23 +45 +40 +42 +15 +41 +43 +23 +7 +23 +20 +40 +53 +23 +17 +31 +19 +27 +17Grade 4 Mathematics Benchmark Examination Percent Performing at Proficient/Advanced LevelsBlack Students Little Rock School District, 1998-99 through 2003-04 Target Score - 40.16 School 1998- 99 1999- 00 2000- 01 Arkansas LRSD Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson King________ Mabelvale McDemott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell_____ Rockefeller Romine Stephens_____ Terry________ Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff 9 8 15 13 2 0 16 4 4 13 0 18 2 9 13 6 30 12 0 11 0 4 0 11 12 25 18 0 9 0 4 6 3 33 7 4 14 15 4 11 18 15 31 0 11 23 0 18 8 25 8 15 21 13 16 32 11 10 21 17 41 25 16 0 15 3 13 8 19 29 14 20 18 16 22 32 23 12 22 12 10 6 7 20 22 10 8 15 26 20 18 20 9 6 23 27 30 4 27 0 25 9 11 9 12 36 0 19 IM 24 24 30 45 31 13 49 24 24 22 25 27 22 40 14 26 35 21 4 40 19 22 18 30 27 22 12 15 24 21 23 14 18 51 12 18 1- 2002- 03 2003- 04 Change 38 35 29 31 30 21 26 14 45 45 28 33 23 35 47 50 42 45 45 68 45 14 31 42 44 23 44 14 50 36 27 19 34 66 31 29 43 43 29 76 46 6 51 50 75 61 30 50 23 63 52 64 61 36 55 58 36 19 48 59 35 28 52 24 52 59 33 24 33 50 32 29 +34 +35 +14 +63 +44 +6 +41 +46 +71 +48 +30 +32 +21 +54 +39 +58 +31 +24 +55 +47 +36 +15 +48 +48 +13 +3 +34 +24 +43 +59 +29 +18 +30 +17 +25 +25School Grade 4 Mathematics Benchmark Examination Percent Performing at Below Basic Level^All Students Little Rock School District, 1998-99 through 2003-04 1998- 99 1999 -00 2000- 01 2001- 02 2002 -03 2003- 04 Change Arkansas_____ LRSD_______ Bale________ Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright____ Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson_____ King________ Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell_____ Rockefeller Romine Stephens_____ Terry________ Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff 41 59 71 75 57 77 46 76 84 52 65 27 81 53 70 41 26 49 81 48 85 83 67 35 70 40 39 89 46 82 44 87 68 21 69 76 39 55 83 67 49 60 35 89 73 58 93 34 78 34 79 29 31 51 67 43 50 81 32 40 35 46 44 88 35 85 58 83 58 40 71 68 i 33 51 47 45 38 67 38 79 52 76 65 29 64 26 74 29 14 37 66 42 71 74 39 40 50 36 60 91 33 77 57 78 61 30 62 66 26 42 52 41 25 62 24 51 57 43 56 30 52 21 56 33 15 37 79 17 53 67 40 23 48 42 63 63 29 60 49 67 32 14 71 50 17 32 45 34 24 56 38 46 14 33 47 10 37 20 27 13 23 26 32 6 28 57 33 20 32 42 22 69 19 46 32 64 35 11 57 41 16 29 38 11 21 58 14 19 6 23 38 11 60 19 27 13 5 31 30 18 41 66 27 13 43 39 32 59 17 18 29 55 56 15 41 54 -25 -30 -33 -64 -36 -19 -32 -57 -78 -29 -27 -16 -21 -34 -43 -28 -21 -18 -51 -30 -44 -17 -40 -22 -27 -1 -7 -30 -29 -64 -15 -32 -12 -6 -28 -22School Grade 4 Mathematics Benchmark Examination Percent Performing at Below Basic LevelBlack Students Little Rock School District, 1998-99 through 2003-04 1998- 99 1999- 00 2000- 01 2001- 02 2002- 03 2003- 04 Change Arkansas LRSD Bale Baseline Booker______ Brady_______ Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin_____ Fulbright_____ Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson King________ Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell_____ Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry________ Wakefield Washington Watson Western HiUs Williams Wilson Woodruff 72 74 70 77 80 88 71 82 83 60 75 55 82 77 70 71 61 74 76 63 89 83 92 58 70 54 50 92 76 91 64 88 79 28 67 81 71 69 88 67 65 65 55 95 71 62 100 63 79 54 83 60 58 68 75 55 64 81 58 63 35 57 58 88 50 87 74 83 61 62 71 69 66 65 52 46 51 71 55 76 55 75 71 60 65 58 75 52 20 54 76 73 69 74 64 56 50 52 64 93 54 79 73 79 73 43 66 77 54 55 58 45 39 68 40 52  54 44 67 73 52 44 61 52 40 55 96 20 56 64 59 60 48 59 72 64 40 59 60 70 39 26 73 57 41 42 43 41 40 59 53 49 15 45 50 25 37 39 33 28 42 37 33 10 32 59 41 37 33 50 31 71 31 50 43 63 39 17 62 42 37 37 39 12 25 61 23 21 6 23 45 25 62 21 29 18 13 42 25 29 46 68 35 25 43 52 36 59 32 19 36 55 61 26 42 54 -35 -37 -31 -65 -55 -27 -48 -61 -77 -37 -30 -30 -20 -56 -41 -53 -48 -32 -51 -34 -43 -15 -57 -33 -27 -2 -14 -33 -44 -72 -28 -33 -18 -2 -25 -27Grade 6 Mathematics Benchmark Examination Percent Performing at Proficient/Advanced LevelAll Students Little Rock School District, 2000-01 through 2003-04 Target Score - 29.42 School 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 Arkansas LRSD Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest XI 10 2 15 8 1 13 22 2 36 16 2 32 20 6 6 29 23 6 40 20 4 35 17 11. 11 35 31 5 47 26 6 30 26 17 10 44 41 17 Change +30 +16 +4 +13 +11 +9 +9 +31 +19 +15 Grade 6 Mathematics Benchmark Examination Percent Performing at Proficient/Advanced LevelBlack Students Little Rock School District, 2000-01 through 2003-04 Target Score - 29.42 School 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 Arkansas LRSD Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest 3 2 1 2 5 6 0 1 1 2 11 7 2 13 9 5 3 14 4 5 12 8 3 11 6 7 4 20 10 4 18 15 6 13 19 14 5 32 16 16 Change +15 +13 +5 +11 +14 +8 +5 +31 +14 +14 iGrade 6 Mathematics Benchmark Examination Percent Performing at Below Basic LevelAll Students Little Rock School District, 2000-01 through 2003-04 School 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 State of Arkansas LRSD Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest 46 66 87 59 63 65 86 48 51 73 32 59 86 36 57 72 71 34 49 77 27 55 77 41 . 54 66 65 31 43 76 Change 20 39 67 32 36 41 59 19 31 41 -26 -27 -20 -27 -27 -24 -27 -29 -20 -32 Grade 6 Mathematics Benchmark Examination Percent Performing at Below Basic LevelBlack Students Little Rock School District, 2000-01 through 2003-04 School 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 State of Arkansas LRSD Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest 76 79 87 79 82 72 87 65 81 75 64 72 87 50 75 77 77 49 75 77 61 68 80 60 68 72 72 44 67 77 45 49 66 44 43 43 69 25 52 43 Change -31 -30 -21 -35 -39 -29 -18 -40 -29 -32Grade 8 Mathematics Benchmark Examination Percent Performing at Proficient/Advanced LevelAll Students Little Rock School District, 1999-00 through 2003-04 Target Score - 29.42 School 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 Arkansas LRSD Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest 16 9 1 14 14 8 5 17 10 1 21 17 2 23 18 10 3 29 32 5 24 15 1  18 22 7 9 18 30 4 26 16 3 23 22 11 2 23 32 2 Change 37 21 3 33 27 11 15 27 41 3 +21 +12 +2 +19 +13 +3 +10 +10 +31 +2 Grade 8 Mathematics Benchmark Examination Percent Performing at Proficient/Advanced LevelBlack Students Little Rock School District, 1999-00 through 2003-04 Target Score - 29.42 School 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 Arkansas LRSD Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest 3' 2 0 1 4 4 4 6 3 0 4 4 1 0 6 8 1 11 1 5 4 1 4 1 5 5 5 6 3 5 4 3 5 5 1 0 1 2 3 10 8 4 10 15 8 8 9 13 4 Change +1 +6 +4 +9 +11 +4 +4 +3 +10 +4Grade 8 Mathematics Benchmark Examination Percent Performing at Below Basic LevelAll Students Little Rock School District, 1999-00 through 2003-04 School 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 State of Arkansas LRSD Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Maim Pulaski Heights Southwest 37 58 83 55 56 60 60 35 53 80 37 55 77 53 54 57 69 31 42 76 30 51 74- 47 46 60 54 31 32 73 24 44 60 40 36 44 56 27 32 61 23 47 66 34 45 50 55 34 28 71 Change -14 -11 -17 -21 -11 -10 -5 -1 -25 -9 1 Grade 8 Mathematics Benchmark Examination Percent Performing at Below Basic LevelBlack Students Little Rock School District, 1999-00 through 2003-04 School 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 State of Arkansas LRSD Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest 71 72 86 73 74 67 65 51 68 81 70 72 81 83 70 63 83 46 70 79 62 64 74 72 63 61 59 45 57 74 55 55 62 56 51 50 61 37 56 63 53 59 66 50 55 56 62 53 48 72 Change -18 -13 -20 -23 -19 -11 -3 +2 -20 -9STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT DATA LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Grade 4 Literacy Benchmark Examination Percent Performing at Proficient/Advanced LevelsAll Stndents Little Rock School District, 1998-99 through 2003-04 ! School 1998- 99 1999- 00 2000- 01 2001- 02 2002 -03 2003- 04 Change State of Arkansas LRSD Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright______ Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson Kins__________ Mabelvale McDermott Meadowchff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell_______ Rockefeller Romine Stephens_______ Terry__________ Wakefield Washington_____ Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff 44 32 23 22 39 19 41 11 13 35 20 61 16 38 27 49 69 37 10 30 17 13 32 54 41 54 48 15 41 15 49 11 27 74 19 6 47 42 33 12 35 20 51 11 17 24 21 73 31 68 31 64 71 43 22 57 33 14 51 73 41 60 40 13 59 12 37 30 53 57 26 35 43 35 34 16 44 21 42 6 11 24 35 71 19 74 19 45 95 43 22 47 20 10 43 42 24 45 32 6 49 23 31 8 33 52 24 28 65 50 41 15 62 44 53 35 27 50 37 72 56 79 32 39 86 52 18 78 32 27 56 85 45 56 25 23 73 28 59 13 47 84 11 47 69 64 83 55 71 32 56 39 80 80 60 90 45 82 48 90 80 79 53 92 46 30 59 91 55 68 65 28 82 46 74 33 53 83 54 62 76 68 55 85 78 45 82 62 56 70 50 84 49 79 52 89 92 77 56 71 56 41 81 91 51 55 65 41 88 67 50 36 68 90 65 58 +32 +36 +32 +63 +39 +26 +41 +51 +43 +35 +30 +23 +33 +41 +25 +40 +23 +40 +46 +41 +39 +28 +49 +37 +10 +1 +17 +26 +47 +52 +1 +25 +41 +16 +46 +52 J I !Grade 4 Literacy Benchmark Examination Percent Performing at Proficient/Advanced LevelsBlack Students Little Rock School District, 1998-99 through 2003-04 School 1998- 99 1999- 00 2000- 01 2001- 02 2002- 03 2003- 04 Change Arkansas LRSD Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright_____ Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson King________ Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell_____ Rockefeller Romine______ Stephens_____ Terry________ Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff 21 20 19 23 18 15 17 9 13 31 6 32 16 11 24 35 38 24 15 16 13 13 13 31 41 46 41 13 21 7 12 12 24 64 21 4 26 30 23 7 22 21 31 10 18 27 20 52 30 42 33 35 42 41 21 51 25 14 26 57 41 46 26 13 50 10 25 31 48 42 29 34 21 23 30 18 40 20 33 9 10 25 29 33 20 53 19 29 93 29 18 19 19 10 23 24 24 36 36 4 32 21 22 7 19 41 21 18 42 39 38 17 46 42 51 33 44 44 25 53 56 68 29 22 70 42 4 72 31 27 36 70 45 52 23 23 60 28 57 9 36 85 12 43 46 53 86 48 63 28 35 39 73 73 57 81 45 71 41 78 71 66 50 90 48 31 51 79 56 59 69 25 72 41 68 31 45 78 50 61 55 60 57 85 76 39 75 56 55 69 40 69 49 75 50 83 83 71 55 62 54 39 75 83 51 48 77 41 76 69 42 35 61 81 64 29 +34 +40 +38 +62 +58 +24 +58 +47 +42 +38 +34 +37 +33 +64 +26 +48 +45 +47 +40 +46 +41 +26 +62 +52 +10 +2 +36 +28 +55 +62 +30 +23 +37 +17 +43 +25Grade 4 Literacy Benchmark Examination Percent Performing at Below Basic LevelStudents Little Rock School District, 1998-99 through 2003-04 School 1998- 99 1999- 00 2000- 01 2001- 02 2002- 03 2003- 04 Change Arkansas LRSD Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson King Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff 26 41 52 53 40 64 24 60 64 30 50 15 63 26 48 22 18 35 60 53 45 52 35 29 34 15 32 62 38 69 43 54 34 3 52 59 20 28 28 42 29 36 24 51 59 33 29 7 42 10 26 5 14 19 53 14 25 53 9 10 12 14 16 53 14 68 30 43 28 11 50 32 22 32 33 45 21 35 21 51 46 48 41 9 40 7 43 12 0 17 44 12 63 52 23 25 44 14 36 74 24 51 26 59 39 13 35 38 11 19 10 41 14 24 14 20 32 29 44 7 10 5 20 10 3 15 44 10 18 33 14 4 24 30 25 35 5 33 13 57 15 0 36 18 7 10 0 6 5 32 7 15 24 20 20 2 11 2 25 0 2 8 16 2 18 33 11 5 8 16 0 20 2 8 4 33 4 0 4 12 6 8 1 0 4 16 4 17 9 4 19 3 5 5 16 0 1 3 1 5 21 13 3 1 19 8 18 24 2 5 5 21 9 1 18 13 -20 -33 -45 -53 -36 -48 -20 -43 -55 -26 -31 -12 -58 -21 -32 -22 -16 -32 -53 -48 -24 -39 -32 -27 -15 -7 -14 -38 -36 -64 -38 -27 -25 -2 -34 -46 1 I ISchool Grade 4 Literacy Benchmark Examination Percent Performing at Below Basic LevelBlack Students Little Rock School District, 1998-99 through 2003-04 1998- 99 1999- 00 2000- 01 2001- 02 2002- 03 2003- 04 Change Arkansas LRSD_______ Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin_____ Fulbright_____ Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson_____ KJSS________ Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell_____ Rockefeller Romine Stephens_____ Terry________ Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills WiUiams Wilson Woodruff 50 52 52 58 60 70 38 64 65 29 63 27 64 46 49 35 38 53 58 68 45 52 50 47 34 13 41 61 65 73 64 53 37 6 49 64 39 36 27 48 41 32 40 46 57 31 40 15 43 21 28 10 32 27 63 19 32 52 16 17 12 19 21 53 18 67 42 42 29 20 51 34 43 41 37 43 28 37 31 55 49 44 50 20 41 5 47 24 0 23 50 19 63 52 36 35 44 24 36 78 43 52 35 60 50 16 34 45 24 25 13 41 21 23 14 19 31 44 58 20 10 12 21 17 10 21 54 12 22 29 27 10 24 30 28 36 7 33 10 59 18 0 38 14 15 14 0 7 8 38 12 17 25 27 21 6 11 3 28 0 4 13 17 3 19 34 X'] 11 8 18 0 21 3 9 5 34 6 0 4 10 13 11 7 0 1 19 8 18 9 0 25 6 3 0 17 0 4 3 10 10 25 13 5 4 19 10 24 22 4 6 6 21 11 2 18 13 -21 -41 -45 -58 -53 -51 -30 -46 -56 -29 -38 -21 -61 -46 -32 -35 -34 -50 -48 -58 -20 -39 -45 -43 -15 -3 -17 -39 -61 -67 -58 -26 -26 -4__ -31 -51Grade 6 Literacy Benchmark Examination Percent Performing at Proficient/Advanced LevelsAll Students Little Rock School District, 1998-99 through 2003-04 School 2000-01 2001-02 State of Arkansas LRSD Cloverdale Dunbar________ Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest 2002-03 2003-04 20 13 3 20 19 12 2 19 30 2 30 20 6 28 29 9 11 33 24 8 31 22 15 29 25 7 15 34 31 5 47 32 16 37 35 21 16 54 51 12 Change +27 +19 +13 +17 +16 +9 +14 +35 +21 +10 Grade 6 Literacy Benchmark Examination Percent Performing at Proficient/Advanced LevelsBlack Students Little Rock School District, 1998-99 through 2003-04 School 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 State of Arkansas LRSD Cloverdale_____ Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest 6 5 3 4 5 1 2 12 7 2 11 10 5 14 20 9 7 22 2 6 14 13 12 14 16 1 11 24 16 6 22 22 17 23 29 19 12 43 23 12 Change +16 +17 +14 +19 +24 +12 +10 +31 +16 +10Grade 6 Literacy Benchmark Examination Percent Performing at Below Basic LevelAll Students Little Rock School District, 1998-99 through 2003-04 School 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 State of Arkansas LRSD Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest 35 55 76 46 50 52 74 35 41 72 21 41 63 30 34 45 44 25 31 54 16 28 34 21 25 31 43 13 25 40 12 26 44 18 19 26 32 12 19 43 Change -23 -29 -32 -28 -31 -26 -42 -23 -22 -29 Grade 6 Literacy Benchmark Examination Percent Performing at Below Basic LevelBlack Students Little Rock School District, 1998-99 through 2003-04 School 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 State of Arkansas LRSD Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest 63 67 76 63 68 58 77 46 66 72 44 51 67 41 45 49 51 39 50 77 33 35 35 31 30 36 48 18 37 43 Change 29 33 46 23 22 28 40 18 32 43 -34 -34 -30 -40 -46 -30 -37 -28 -34 -29Grade 8 Literacy Benchmark Examination Percent Performing at Proficient/Advanced LevelsAll Students Little Rock School District, 1998-99 through 2003-04 School 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 State of Arkansas LRSD Cloverdale_____ Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest 24 15 8 9 17 11 8 29 19 9 37 31 9 32 48 19 29 44 45 12 37 30 22 26 48 13 21 41 46 13 48 39 31 42 44 30 25 55 53 15 Chanse 60 46 26 46 55 42 36 65 67 16 +36 +31 +18 +37 +38 +31 +28 +36 +48 +7 Grade 8 Literacy Benchmark Examination Percent Performing at Proficient/Advanced LevelsBlack Students Little Rock School District, 1998-99 through 2003-04 School 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 State of Arkansas LRSD Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale_____ Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest 2003-04 9 8 8 4 8 7 9 15 11 8 21 20 9 13 36 12 18 27 19 12 16 21 22 11 35 13 21 30 22 13 25 28 31 24 29 28 24 46 26 12 33 35 26 28 46 42 32 51 43 17 Change +24 +27 +18 +24 +38 +35 +23 +36 +32 +9 Grade 8 Literacy Benchmark Examination Percent Performing at Below Basic LevelAll Students Little Rock School District, 1998-99 through 2003-04 School 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 State of Arkansas LRSD_________ Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson_____ Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest 31 46 63 55 43 47 57 23 37 54 22 33 51 31 25 32 31 17 27 53 17 29 30 34 22 41 30 13 18 49 12 23 31 22 20 24 24 12 17 35 7 13 31 9 12 9 10 3 8 26 Change -24 -33 -32 -46 -31 -38 -47 -20 -29 -28Grade 8 Literacy Benchmark Examination Percent Performing at Below Basic LevelBlack Students Little Rock School District, 1998-99 through 2003-04 School 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 State of Arkansas LRSD Cloverdale_____ Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale______ Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest 2003-04 56 56 65 66 55 53 60 36 48 55 43 43 54 43 29 39 38 25 44 56 36 36 31 48 30 42 37 17 30' 48 29 28 30 34 27 27 24 15 32 35 18 17 31 14 15 10 10 4 14 26 Change -38 -39 -34 -52 -40 -43 -50 -32 -34 -29LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT END-OF-COURSE ALGEBRA 1 2000-01 TO 2003-04 Algebra 1 End-of-Course General Population Percent Proficient and Advanced ___ AYP = 25.34 State District Central Hall Fair McClellan Parkview Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Hghts Henderson Mabelvale Maim______ Pul Hghts Southwest ueJ 21 14 1 3______ 1 0 7 5 52 65 43 4 40_____ 77 No Class 39 21 11 9 3 4 14 1 61 68 49 32 49 77 32 47 30 13 32 5 6 17 21 87 79 25 19 72 87 33 56 33 23 25 7 8 31 19 89 97 23 42 73 92 53 +35 +19 +22 +22 +6 +8 +24 +14 +37 +32 -20 +38 +33 +15 +21 Algebra 1 End-of-Course Afidcan American Students Percent Proficient and Advanced AYP = 25.34 F\" State District Central Hall Fair McClellan Parkview Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Hghts Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pul Hghts Southwest 4 2 0 0 0 0 1 3_______ 0 64 40_____ 0 9 60 No Class 13 11 7 6 1 4 12 2 40 51 54 17 40 75 29 1|I4'VVW 19 16 1 27 2 6 6 20 50 64 27 0 60 77 23 24 17 13 19 6 7 21 17 77 91 21 16 55 77 50 jti +20 +15 +13 +19 +6 +7 +20 +14 +77 +27 -19 +16 +46 +17 +21Algebra 1 End-of-Course General Population Percent Below Basic State District Central Hall JAFair McClellan Parkview Cloverdale Dunbar For Hghts Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pul Hghts Southwest 29 55 66_____ 71 83 90 44 39_____ 3_______ 3 0 36 3 1 No Class 18 40 50 48 71 67 29 41 5 0 10 10 3 0 14 12 29 40 22 59 58 17 13 0 2 11 14 1 0 20 12 30 33 29 56 47 25 16 3 0 9 15 3 0 18 Algebra 1 End-of-Course Afiican American Students Percent Below Basic State District Central Hall JA Fair McClellan Parkview Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Hghts Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pul Hghts Southwest OOE 58 72 77 77 87 90 50 38 0 0 0 63 5 0 No Class Wil 42 49 56 52 72 66 32 41 0 0 14 11 6 0 14 29 39 48 23 64 57 25 11 0 0 8 0 2 0 23 33 39 41 32 59 47 32 17 8 0 12 21 6 0 19 -17 -25 -33 -42 -27 -43 -19 -23 -0 -3 +9 -21 -0 -1 +4 ii.*' -25 -33 -36 -45 -28 -43 -18 -21 +8 0 +12 -42 +1 0 +5LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT END-OF-COURSE GEOMETRY 2000-01 TO 2003-04 Geometry End-of-Course General Population Percent Proficient and Advanced ___________________________AYP = 25.34 SchoaE State District Central Hall JA Fair McClellan Parkview ZUIIU-Q1 20 13 26 3 2 2 17 2001-02 33 17 27 20 2 3 23 41 39 67 32 24 3 26 50 33 52 19 13 5 46 -1-30 -F20 +26 +16 +11 +3 +29 Geometry End-of-Course African American Students Percent Proficient and Advanced _ AYP = 25.34 PSW State District Central Hall JA Fair McClellan Parkview 1^^ ig20C^2 3 3 5 2 1 2 17 8 6 6 11 1 3 23 2pO24agK 11 17 27 24 23 0 26 rS5Sj(*t^ 15 15 21 12 8 5 30 rfr i Geometry End-of-Course General Population Percent Below Basic State District Central Hall JAFair McClellan Parkview 33 55 37 71 77 75 34 J. 26 52 42 41 74 78 36 15 17 8 17 13 42 19 Tl i 0 11 25 15 31 40 45 11 Geometry End-of-Course African American Percent Below Basic 'SchooL State District Central Hall JA Fair McClellan Parkview 69 72 63 81 82 77 51 58 66 65 50 78 50 2002-03- 41 28 23 27 19 12 29 33 36 31 37 42 47 13 +12 +12 +16 +10 +7 -3 +13 -22 -30 -22 -40 -37 -30 -23  J f -36 -36 -32 -44 -40 -30 -38 JELEVENTH GRADE END-OF-LITERACY RESULTS 2000-01 TO 2003-04 11* Grade Literacy General Population Percent Proficient and Advanced _________________________ AYP = 32.92 State District Central Hall JA Fair McClellan Parkview 24 17 23 14 6 8 23 4.2001-02 -------- 43 32 46 22 22 12 38  47 36 49 32 17 16 53  51 42 60 27 18 19 57 +27 +25 +37 +13 +12 +11 +34 11* Grade Literacy African American Students Percent Proficient and Advanced - AYP = 32.92 I* T State District Central Hall JAFair McClellan Parkview 6 7 9 9 4 7 9 17 17 18 16 16 12 24 19 20 19 21 14 15 35 21 23 26 19 13 18 42 Jhahge' . +15 +16 +17 +10 +9 +11 +33 th 11 Grade Literacy General Population Percent Below Basic ^7 SST5 State District Central Hall JA Fair McClellan Parkview 25 39 40 41 45 47 25 14 24 18 32 34 35 12 10 23 15 19 44 31 12 11*** Grade Literacy African American Percent Below Basic I^scIitoI^:^*^ State_____ District Central Hall JA Fair McClellan Parkview 49 48 52 50 48 49 35 \u0026gt;L\nr'7i ^2001=02^' 33 32 31 34 38 36 15 3T T\n2i2?0S3'*: 28 29 24 23 48 31 18 8 16 9 26 31 26 4 1'2003:04\" 21 22 14 26 35 27 5 JL -17 -23 -31 -15 -14 -21 -21 33 -28 -26 -38 -24 -13 -22 -30FRIDAY, JULY 9. 1999  LR board studies ways to measure school performance BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DE.MOfRAT-GAZETTE Little Rock School Board members got their first look Thursday at proposed student achievement goals by which the state could evaluate schools and ultimately reward or penalize them. \"rhe board reviewed the propousedu adccccoouunntiaaboiuliittyy system aatt a lengthy agenda meeting where it also reviewed for the first time plans for implementing recommen-the district and civic leaders S meeting the stu-trict expands on a mandatory' three-tier school evaluation system adopted last month by the Arkansas Board of Education for all 310 school districts. The state system I will not operate fully until 2003-2001. I Tier I of the state system calls for all students at a school to achieve at a proficient or advanced level on new bench-mark exams, which will be given in the fourth, sixth and eighth grades, and on specific secondary school exams in literacy, first-year algebra and geometry. The state sy-stem also sets goals for high school graduation, student at-tendance, teacher licensure, ongoing professional development for teachers, and student safety. Also, the state system establishes each district to establish goals or quality indicators of its owm, - Little Rock School District staff recommended quality indicators be based on the scores students earn on two types of tests. The first would be the Stanford .Achievement Test nniinntthh edition, which is a__ n__axti:o__n_anl?ly ' designated as troubled schools by  standardized test that most students ' the state Department of Education I take each September, The second measure would be scores students earn on the districts own tests derived from the districts own cur-riculinn and given to students four times a year in grades two through 11. Separate tests would be used for I kindergarten and first grade. The Little Rock quality indicators, for example, call for 65 percent of students in every subgroup of students, based on race and sex, to score at or above the 50th percentile in reading and math on the Stanford test The indicators further call for 30 percent of students to score above the 75th percentile, or among the top 25 percent of students nationally. No more than 10 percent of Little Rock students should score among I the bottom 25 percent nationally, ac- I cording to the proposed goals. The school district indicators also include a system for measuring each schools rate of progress toward the goals on the Stanford test and on the districts own tests. Other proposed quality indicators for Little Rock schools call for  65 percent of students at a school to be enrolled in either Advanced Place- .A ment courses or prerequisite courses for Advanced Placement classes,  65 percent of a high schools graduates to take at least one Advanced Placement exam, which can provide the student with college credit for  high school work,  100 percent of students taking the Advanced Placement exam to score 3 or better on a scale of 1 to 5,  100 percent of high school seniors to complete all graduation requirements prior to participating in a graduation ceremony. Students now can participate in a ceremony even ' if they need a credit from summer school to aget their diploma,  100 percent of middle school stu-' dents to be enrolled in algebra by  eighth grade,  65 percent of high school stu- ' dents to complete all the high school courses necess^ to earn an honors seal on their diplomas,  65 percent of high school students to take the ACT AssessmenL a college entrance exam,  100 percent of students taking the ACT to earn a score of at least 19, Each school in Little Rock and throughout the state wall publish a-school performance report for parents based on the accountabili^ system results. Schools that do not make adequate progress in meeting goals will and targeted by the Little Rock district for assistance. Schools that do make sufficient progress will be rewarded with public recognition and with nominations for national honors. Representatives from each Little  Rock school will be provided initial training on the accountability system at a workshop at the end of this month. \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":17,"next_page":18,"prev_page":16,"total_pages":48,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":192,"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}}]}}