{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_940","title":"Report: ''Financial and Operational Forensic Analysis of North Little Rock School District's Budget and Expenditure Patterns,'' Navigant, New York, New York","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":["2011-04-20"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","School integration","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Report: ''Financial and Operational Forensic Analysis of North Little Rock School District's Budget and Expenditure Patterns,'' Navigant, New York, New York"],"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/940"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"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\nProvided to the Office of the Attorney General, State of Arkansas\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_1427","title":"\"2010-11 Enrollment and Racial Composition of the Pulaski County Special School District,\" Office of Desegregation and Monitoring","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dc_date":["2011-03-14"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School enrollment","School integration","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["\"2010-11 Enrollment and Racial Composition of the Pulaski County Special School District,\" Office of Desegregation and Monitoring"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1427"],"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":["73 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_209","title":"Annual Report, Carver Magnet Elementary School, MRC","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2011/2012"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Educational statistics","Education and state","Pulaski County (Ark.)--History--20th century","Magnet schools","Carver Magnet Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dcterms_title":["Annual Report, Carver Magnet Elementary School, MRC"],"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/209"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"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\nStipulation Magnet Pnncapats ANNUAL REPO T to e MAG ET REVIEW CO E 2\"1 SCHOOL COMPOSITION SCHOOLC OMPOSITIONco nt. ...................,.... ........... 1112 7580 10-11 7350 08-10 70.38 08-09 851-4 07-08 5750 SCHOOL STAUCllJAAl. CHANGESnMPROVEMENTS RecycHngP rogram LRS --~ .. -llfll(llc.-w-a,\"-,_..,... , __ -~..., ._- - ., r __ .......,_, mw,. .--- .... .,.,... __ ................, ,, .....\"\".. ... ... \"\"'.--- \"\"---~ -,, ~\"r-- ... .,,._...,_ -.-~ C!I...,._._... ...... --- --.---- =:=:\"r-.--~_.,. .. ,......d..,..,.....u,u.,--. ..... ..,ftJl'II',- -~ J.oll,- __, HfW--~ .,,,...__, -..--- .,~ .. - -~- \"\"r .... _....,......, Recruitment SCHOOL HONORS/AWARDS \u0026amp;  Caver as one d the onlyelem~ atudent-predtieed yearbocka rv1ceAwar Karen Banks  AsiaCatn 4\" grade 1 place Central Region State Youth Art Show and LRSD Board Award Heifer Coloring Conte t  Jordan Moody Mr Carlock s 3\"' grade Attorney Gtwleral Art Awards Carver's Teacher ofthe Year Jason Crader LEGO Grant REACH Grant Karen Banks and Charlotte Cook  Attended the Space Educator's Confwence SEEC nHoullonTX  Karen Banka, New PTA P181idenfot r 20 2 1 -r:-,o-- Sara Brown  Achieved NllliclM B08ld Certificatioinn Early ChildhoodG llla'llllt. November2011  Attended the Arkanaas Ea,ty Childhood Aaaocialionm ..Ung in HatSpnnga  V, unteerad at Arkanaa ChildrenI Fun Q_aAy R Ch ldran s H011p11a1  Read entriel for two am9111N ationalB 08ld candidatea  r Linda Glenn  Attended Arkansas Reading Assoc1ati0n Conferencem Little Rock SWOW Conference  Lor Diffey and p la Sch g allanded the SchoolsW Walls Confer HotSpmga November2 012 Carver 1s a school where children come first! ACSIP Page 1 of 50 School Plan CARVER MAGNET ELEM. SCHOOL 2100 E. SIXTH ST.,LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 Arkansas Comprehensive School Improvement Plan 2011-2012 Carver is a school where children come first. Caring staff, parents, and community work together to ensure a quality academic, social and technological education for all students. Grade Span: K-5 Title I: Not Applicable School Improvement: MS Table of Contents Priority 1: Literacy Goal: Benchmark Test, IOWA: To achieve proficiency for all students in reading, particularly in our African American and economically disadvantaged subgroups (who are on school improvement year three and did not make standards for 2010-2011) by concentrating on the weak areas identified on the three year item by item analysis: comprehension (focused on inference, vocabulary and fluency), and writing open response (focused on content and style domains). Priority 2: Mathematics Goal: Benchmark Exam,IOWA: To achieve proficiency for all students in mathematics, especially in our African American subgroup(alert status) and our economically disadvantaged subgroup (alert status) by concentrating on weak areas identified by the three year Benchmark item analysis: measurement, data analysis/probability and geometry. Priority 3: Wellness Goal: All students, staff and parents will learn the importance of wellness through a variety of healthy lifestyle activities integrated into the regular curriculum and through wellness materials sent home. Priority 4: Discipline Goal: At least 95% of Carver students will be free of suspensions. Priority 5: Professional Development Goal: One hundred percent of Carver Magnet teachers will attend conferences/conventions/in-service trainings to equal 60 hours or above per person. Professional Development for 2011-2012 will focus on student needs from data assessments of Benchmark and IOWA to improve student achievement. Priority 6: Attendance/Parental Involvement Goal: The average daily attendance rate of Carver students will be 95% and for staff 95%. Parents will volunteer 50+ hours. To improve reading and writing skills and strategies for all students, particularly in our AfricanPriority 1 : American and economically disadvantaged subgroups. Supporting Data: 1. 2. Developmental Reading Assessment In 2008-2009 the DRA percentages for proficent and advance were Kindergarten 63%, First Grade 47%, Second Grade 71 %, Third Grade 64%, Fourth Grade 55%, and Fifth Grade 67%. Carver's total population that was proficent or advance was 67%. In 2009-2010 the DRA percentages for proficient and advanced were Kindergarten 66%, First Grade 93%, and Second Grade 56%. Carver's total popultaion K - 2nd grade is 71.67% proficient or advanced. In 2010-2011 the DRA was replaced with WRAP. The results were first grade - 55% proficient or advanced, second grade - 72% proficient or advanced, third grade - 71% proficient or advanced, fourth grade - 72% proficient or advanced, and fifth grade - 50% proficient or advanced. 3. SAT-10 Spring 2008 Reading First Grade 1-25 percentile - 28 students 26-50 percentile - 19 students 51-75 percentile - 15 students 76-99 percentile - 23 students Therefore, 38 students performed above the 50th percentile and 47 students performed below the 50th percentile. Reading Second Grade 1-25 percentile - 36 students 26-50 percentile - 22 students 51-75 percentile - 4 students 76-99 percentile - 12 students Therefore, 16 students performed above the 50th percentile and 58 students performed below the 50th percentile. At this time there is no combined population or subgroup item by item analysis. However the teachers are making individual academic improvement plans per student and the data there reveals individual strengths and weaknesses. SAT-10 Spring 2009 Reading First Grade 1-25 percentile - 40 students 26-50 percentile - 19 students 51-75 percentile - 6 students 76-99 percentile - 10 students Sixteen students performed at or above the 50th http://acsip.state.ar.us/cgi-bin/index.cgi?rm=report acsip\u0026amp;print=l 1?/\u0026lt;i1?n11 ACSIP Page 2 of 50 percentile and Fifty-nine students performed below the 50th percentile. Reading Second Grade 1-25 percentile - 27 students 26-50 percentile - 22 students 51-75 percentile - 14 students 76-99 percentile - 15 students Twenty nine students performed at or above the 50th percentile and Forty-nine students performed below the 50th percentile. SAT 10 Spring 2010 First Grade: Reading 40% scored at or above the national percent, 20% scored basic and 39% scored below basic. Second Grade: 40% scored at of above the national percent, 38% scored basic, and 35% scored below basic. In the spring of 2011 The School Based Committee met and identified 27 students to be placed in the GT program which identified 36% of the second grade populations as gifted. 4. Metropolitan 8 Spring 2009 Reading: Kindergarten 1-25 percentile - 31 students 26-50 percentile - 15 students 51-75 percentile - 22 students 76-99 percentile - 15 students Thirty Four students performed at or above the 50% percentile. Thirty one performed below the 50%. Metropolitan 8 Spring 2010 Reading: Kindergarten 40% Total Composite Score. 60% of students scored at or above the national percent. 11% scored basic and 29% scored below basic. 5. Comprehensive Needs Assessment from 2008-2009: Summer 2008-2009 the Benchmark results were analyzed by a Leadership Team composed of the principal and coaches. Annual yearly progress was 64% for literacy and 62.5% for math. The school combined population exceeded the standard for math with 71.6% proficient. The school combined population did not make the literacy standard missing it by 2.1 % with 61.9% proficient. The results of each grade level were disaggregated by math and literacy for each child for the past two years to show the growth or decline made by individuals as well as the whole group. This information by grade level was mailed to each of the third, fourth and fifth grade teachers for their review and reflection prior to school. The Leadership Team then analyzed individual grade level data by Combined Population, Caucasian, African American and Economically Disadvantaged for math and literacy. The Causation students made AYP at all grade levels in math and literacy. Our findings: Third Grade Literacy: Comb. Pop. - 51%, AA - 42.4%, ED- 45% Fourth Grade Literacy: Comb. Pop. - 73%, AA- 63%, ED - 59% Fifth Grade Literacy: Comb. Pop - 58%, AA - 38%, ED - 38% Third Grade Math: Comb. Pop - 78%, AA - 73%, ED - 62% Fourth Grade Math: Comb. Pop - 81%, AA - 70%, ED - 69% Fifth Grade Math: Comb. Pop - 56%, AA - 30%, ED - 30% The first day of pre-school professional development, the coaches showed the entire staff a graph summary by grade levels of their particular spring standardized tests broken out by sub groups where possible. This was painful for some but necessary for all. The principal and assistant led the staff through a study of \"the Four Factors of Failure\" as we looked for the root cause. Time was provided for each grade level to reflect on the causes of failure reflected is this recent data as they reviewed their individual student test results- attendance, engagement, production, persistence. Grade level groups shared this different look at data. Coaches used the Benchmark item by item analysis for math and literacy and ranked the combined responses by grade level SLE as compared to district and state. Coaches modeled some of the SLEs and provided guided practice. Teachers, by grade level groups, reviewed the SLEs with their curriculum maps for focus for this year. The principal using an advanced organizer led the entire staff through the hi-lights of the ACSIP with a focus on the data for the last three years by grade level and sub group. Based on our data analysis we have prioritized literacy for a more consistent delivery system as we reviewed the protocols for reader's workshop and writer's workshop. Specific low scoring literacy areas will be the focus for professional development. Although we made standards in math we plan to continue those strategies that we feel have been key for student success. Specific low scoring math areas will be the focus for professional development. We have prioritized our Economically Disadvantaged students noting that Carver has 65% free and reduced lunch students. Many of our African American students fall into this group, but not all. We will look at individuals for RTI and BOOST, after school tutoring. These two sub groups provided our lowest scores. They will receive special services and strategies as we as a staff learn more through a book study this year- A Framework for Understanding Poverty, by Ruby Payne. In addition, the principal sat with each classroom teacher to review his/her data specific to his/her standardized test and as compared to colleagues and other grade levels. \"How can we help you?\" was the question asked. Many of those ideas will be accommodated. We agree that we have an extensive school improvement plan and that each of us has a responsibility for its implementation. We are committed to the growth (which we know we are making from receiving a \"4\" on the state report card, a school achieving beyond standards), and we are committed to the Annual Yearly Progress of every child. Each of us is one part of the ACSIP but we feel the whole is greater than the sum of its parts! 6. Comprehensive Needs Assessment from 2009-2010: Spring 201 Benchmark results were analyzed by a Leadership Team composed of the principal and coaches. Classroom teachers and specialists also analyzed the data looking for growth of particular students. Annual yearly progress was set at 71.2% for Literacy and 70% for Mathematics. The school\npopulation exceeded the standard for math with 80.1% of the combined population http://acsip.state.ar.us/cgi-bin/index.cgi?rm=report_acsip\u0026amp;print=l 12/5/2011 ACSIP Page 3 of 50 proficient /advanced. The score for the combined population for literacy was 70.9, missing the state score of 71.2 by .3%. With the growth model added to the equation the state pronounced that Carver did indeed make annual year progress for the combined population in literacy as well. The results of each grade level were disaggregated by math and literacy for each child for the past two years to show growth or decline made by individuals as well as the whole group. This information was given to each of the third, fourth and fifth grade teachers for their review and reflection prior to school. The Leadership Team with the entire staff analyzed individual grade level data by all sub groups for math and literacy. Third grade literacy: Comb pop 65% (14%increase)\nAA 65% (22.6% increase)\nC 66% (3% drop)\nED 62% (17% increase) Fourth Grade Literacy: Comb pop 71% (2% drop)\nAA 63% (same)\nC 80% (10% drop) ED 69% (9% increase) Fifth Grade Literacy: Comb pop 78% (20% increase)\nAA 70% (32% increase)\nC 93% (9% increase)\nED 69% (31% increase). Third Grade Math: Comb pop 86% (8% increase),\nAA 83% (10% increase)\nC 92% (5% drop)\nED 83% (21% increase) Fourth Grade Math: Comb pop 71% (10% drop)\nAA 65% (5% drop)\nC 80% (17 % drop)\nED 69% (same) Fifth Grade Math\nComb pop 84% (28% increase)\nAA 78% (48% increase)\nC 96% 2% drop)\nEC 78% (58% increase) This look at data compares groups of students in grades 3,4,5 from 2009 tests to different students in grades 3,4,5 for 2010 tests. Another look at data compares student's scores from third grade in 2009 to their fourth grade scores in 2010. We found the following changes: Literacy: Advanced 2009 (14%) - 2010 (17%) - growth of 3%\nProficient 2009 (37%) - 2010 (54%) - growth of 17%\nBasic 2009(30%) - 2010 (27%) - decrease of 3% Below basic 2009(19%) -2010 (3%) - 16% decrease. The 20% growth in P and A is encouraging as well as the 16% decrease in below basic students shows we are moving children steadily to higher levels of literacy. Students who moved from third grade to fourth grade Mathematics changes: Advanced 2009 (39% -2010(36%) - decrease of 3%\nProficient 2009 (39%) - 2010 (35%) - decrease of 4%\nBasic 2009 (19% - 2010 (18%) - decrease of 1%\nBelow Basic 2009 (4% - 2010 (12%) - 8% increase. The 7% decrease at P and A and the 12% increase at BB point to slippage of student achievement at 4th grade in 2009-2010. What was different? What will we do to combat it? We will visit with individual teachers in math, look at strategies, delivery of instruction, broker /specialist pull outs and RTL We will work as a Professional Leaning Community to find answers as we analyze common formative assessments of our focus standards this year. Data comparing fourth grade, 2009 scores to those of the same group of student in the fifth grade 2010 shows changes: Literacy: Advanced 2009 (23%) -2010(25%) - 2% increase\nproficient 2009 (50%) -2010 (53%) - 3% increase\nBasic 2009- (24%) - 2010 (19%) 5%decrease\nBelow basic 2009 (3%) -2010 (4%) - 1 % increase. Small but steady improvement in P and A (5%), a decline in B of 5%, with 1 % increase in BB shows some growth in the already high scoring group of students. Mathematics: Advanced 2009 (49%) 2010 (48) - 4% increase\nProficient 2009 (37% - 2010 936%) 1% decrease\nBasic 2009 (13%) -2010 (14%) -1% increase\nBelow basic (6%) 2010 (3%) decrease. There was again a small percent of growth in math for this group of students. They were at a high level, maintained it and grew some. This is what we want across the board. The principal focused on the ADE school report card Subgroup Details for Growth Used in AYP 2010. There were 25 students, combining all subgroups, that met growth in math even though they were not proficient. There were 61 students , combining all sub groups, that met growth in literacy even though they did not score proficient. The AA sub pop had the highest number of students making growth. Our challenge as a staff is to singly identify these students on the move, the ones making growth, and work with them so that next year they indeed score proficient. Now is the time to use individual student data to plan Individual Academic Improvement Plans for all of our students, even though the ADE requires it only for those B and BB. Carver believes in growth for ALL students! The principal also has shown through a chart the amount of growth needed by this new years fourth and fifth grades subpopulations based on next years AYP and this years scores. It is a challenge that we will meet head on and will accomplish by working as Professional learning Communities, selecting focus standards, teaching to them, using common formative assessments to check progress, grade tests together as grade level teams and analyze the data to make teaching/learning decisions and plan for RTI when needed. 7. 2010-2011 Comprehensive Needs Assessment from 2010-2011: Spring 2011 Benchmark results were analyzed by a Leadership Team composed of the principal and coaches. Classroom teachers and specialists also analyzed the data looking for growth of particular students. Annual yearly progress was set at 78.4 for Literacy and 77.5 for Mathematics. The school: The score for the combined population for math was 74.6, missing the state score of 77.5 by 4%. 4 students that were basic and below did meet growth, however that was not enough to meet our growth goal. The score for the combined population for literacy was 72.2, missing the state score by 8%. With the growth model added to the equation the state pronounced that Carver did not make annual yearly progress for the combined population in literacy and math. An appeal was made based on the discrepancies in the coding of highly http://acsip.state.ar.us/cgi-bin/index.cgi?rm=report acsip\u0026amp;print=l 12/5/2011 ACSIP Page 4 of 50 mobile students, and incorrect numbers. The results of each grade level were disaggregated by math and literacy for each child for the past two years to show growth or decline made by individuals as well as the whole group. This information was given to each of the third, fourth and fifth grade teachers for their review and reflection prior to school. The Leadership Team with the entire staff analyzed individual grade level data by all sub groups for math and literacy. Third grade literacy: Combined population 71% (6% increase)\nAA 61% (4% decrease)\nC 83% (17% increase)\nED 64% (1% increase). 4th Grade Literacy: Comb pop 78% (7%)\nAA 73% (13% increase)\nC 86% (6% increase)\nED 74% (5% increase)\nFifth Grade Literacy: Com pop 68% (10% decrease)\nAA 63% ( 7% decrease)\nC 78% (15% decrease)\nED 63% ( 6% decrease). Mathematics changes: Third Grade : Com pop 80% (6% decrease)\nAA 70%(13% decrease)\nC 95% (3% increase)\nED 74% (9 % decrease\n4th Grade Math: Com pop 80% (9% increase)\nAA 73% (8 % increase)\nC 91% ( 11% increase)\nED 77% (9 % increase)\n5th Grade Math: Com pop 67% ( 17 % decrease)\nAA 61% ( 17 % decrease)\nCC 78% (18 % decrease) ED 64%(14% decrease). This look at data compares groups of students in grades 3, 4, 5 from 2010 tests to different students in grades 3, 4, 5, for 2010 tests. Another look at data compares students scores from third grade in 2010 to their fourth grade scores in 2011. We found the following changes: Literacy: Advanced 2010, 30%\n2011, 37%\ngrowth of 7%. Proficient: 2010 35%\n2011, 44%. Growth of 9%. Basic: 2010, 20%\n2011, 13%. Decrease of 7%. Below basic: 2010, 16%\n2011, 6 %. Decrease of 10%. 16% increase in proficient and advanced is very encouraging, with a 19% decrease in basic and below. Mathematics: Advanced: 2010, 49%\n2011, 38%\ndecrease of 11 %. Proficient: 2010, 36%\n2011, 43%.Increase of 7%. Basic: 2010, 14%\n2011, 8%. Decrease of 6%. Below basic: 2010, 0%\n2011, 11 %. Increase of 11 %. The 4% decrease at P and A seem to say that some A students slipped to P. The 5% drop in B and BB is encouraging. We will work as a Professional Learning Community to find answers as we analyze common formative assessments of our focus standards this year. Data comparing fourth grade 2010 scores to those of the same group of students in the fifth grade 2011 shows these changes: Literacy: Advanced 2010: 17%, 2011, 26%. Increase of 9%. Proficient 2010: 54%\n2011: 45%. Decrease of 9%. Basic: 2010, 28%\n2011, 29%. Increase of 1%. Below basic: 2010, 3%\n2011, 0%. Decrease of 3%. Proficient and advanced percentages stayed the same with basic and below had less than one percent drop. Mathematics: Advanced: 2010, 36%\n2011, 29%. Decrease of 7%. Proficient: 2010, 35%\n2011, 40%. Increase of 5%. Basic: 2010, 18%\n2011, 25%. Increase of 7%. Below Basic: 2010, 12%\n2011, 6%. Decrease of 6%. There was a 2% slippage in P and A with a 1 % drop in B and BB. We can see growth but some slippage. Our growth was not enough to reach AYP. We will visit with individual teachers, look at strategies, delivery of instruction, broker/specialist pull outs and RTI to find ways to move more students upward. Strategies for achievement of AYP: 1. RTI/SBIT with case managers supporting teachers and interventionists. 2. Small group instruction levelized for literacy reading groups and math. 3. BOOST after school tutoring 4. GT plan for individuals (3, 4, 5) 5. Grade level meetings with coaches and curriculum specialists. 6. PD focused on literacy and math needs. 7. SOAR assessments reviews per grade level. 8. Math/literacy assessment wall. 9. AIP's for all students. 10. Broker specialists/Intervention strategist for each grade level. 11. Math/literacy coaches modeling rigorous instruction. 12. Principal/counselor benchmark review and goals set with each 4th and 5th grade student. Goals home to parents with Benchmark test copy. 13. Item by item analysis of math and literacy question on the 3,4, 5 grade Benchmark test by the entire staff. School wide growth needed for AYP for literacy: CP 13.4% AA 29.4% C 4.9% ED 18.9% School wide growth needed for AYP for math: CP 10.4% AA 18.1 % C 0% ED 14.6 8. 2010-2011 Condensed Data Summary Spring and fall 2010 grade levels and the entire staff analyzed the results of the State Benchmark/IOWA and district WRAP tests along with perceptual data including discipline, attendance, economically disadvantaged percentage increases and mobility. At present we have been designated Alert status for literacy and math, but that is on appeal based on incorrect data reports of highly mobile students and coding errors. We noted strengths and weaknesses. Strengths include individual student growth. Although we did not meet the cut score for AYP in 09-10, we did make AYP when the growth percentage was added. Strengths also include discipline, a result of our strong Stop and Think social skills program. Weaknesses include the low scores exhibited by our African American and Economically Disadvantaged students who are on SI-3 in literacy, and alert status in math. Weaknesses also include alert status designation for the combined population in literacy and math. Our focus is on African American and Economically Disadvantaged students in particularly and the entire population in general for LITERACY, reading comprehension focused on inference, vocabulary, and fluency and writing focused on content and style domains. MATH focus for the combined population is measurement, data analysis/probability and geometry. Our school improvement plan includes strategic interventions that support \"Academic Performance, Learning Environment and Leadership\". http://acsip.state.ar.us/cgi-bin/index.cgi?rm=report_acsip\u0026amp;print=l 1?/\"/?()11 ACSIP Page 5 of 50 Benchmark Test, IOWA: To achieve proficiency for all students in reading, particularly in our African American and economically disadvantaged subgroups (who are on school improvement year three Goal and did not make standards for 2010-2011) by concentrating on the weak areas identified on the three year item by item analysis: comprehension (focused on inference, vocabulary and fluency), and writing open response (focused on content and style domains). Meet state AYP in 2012(85.6). Growth needed: Grade Three: Combined population 14.6%, AfricanAmericans 24.6%, Caucasian 2.6%, Economically Disadvantaged 21.6%. Grade Four: Combined B h k population 14.6%, African-Americans 12.6%, Caucasian 0%, Economically Disadvantaged 11.6%. enc mar Grade Five: Combined population 13.6% African-Americans 22.6%, Caucasian 3.6%, Economically Disadvantaged 22.6% **AN ASTERISK PLACED IN AN ACTION INDICATES SERVICES PROVIDED COMPARABLE TO INSTRUCTIONAL ACTIVITY FOR LOW ACHIEVING STUDENTS. IIntervention: Small flexible literacy groups - Kindergarten-Fifth - Tier II Intervention Scientific Based Research: Kuhn, M. (2005). Helping Students become accurate, expressive readers: Fluency instruction for small groups. The Reading Teacher, 58 (4, 338-343. Dorn, L.J. \u0026amp; Soffos, C. (2001) Shaping Literate Minds. Portland: Stenhouse. Fisher, D \u0026amp; Frey N. (2007). Implementing a schoolwide literacy Framework: improving in an urban elementary school. The Reading Teacher, 61(1), 32-41. Guiding Readers \u0026amp; Writers, Grades 3-5 (Fountas, Irene C \u0026amp; Pinnell, Gay Su.) Payne, Ruby K. (2005) A Framework for Understanding Poverty. Kafele, Baruti, K. (2009) Motivating Black Males to Achieve in School and Life. !Actions I Person : Responsible ITimeline IIR esources I Source of Funds Collaborate with classroom teachers and Laurie Start: specialists to establish small flexible Yarbrough, 08/15/2011 . School homogeneous literacy groups as a means to Grade Level End: Library ACTION $ improve reading and writing achievement of Chair 05/31/2012  Teachers BUDGET: all students. Basic and Below Basic students  Teaching receive daily instruction. Aids Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Special Education Collaborate with all staff to provide an Nina Huey, Start: uninterrupted 2 1/2 hour language arts block Grade Level 08/15/2011  Teachers every day as a means to focus instruction in Chair End:  Teaching ACTION $ this curricula content area for all students. 05/31/2012 Aids BUDGET: Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Special Education Collaborate with classroom teachers and June Joseph, Start: specialists to use specific strategies such as Special 08/15/2011 . School making comparisons, predicting outcomes, Education End: Library ACTION $ drawing conclusions, identifying the main Specialist 05/31/2012  Teachers BUDGET: ideas, and understanding cause and effect to  Teaching comprehend a variety of literary genres from Aids diverse cultures and time periods as a means to improve reading achievement for basic and below basic students, primarily African- American, special education and economically disadvantaged students. Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Special Education **Evaluation of progress is determined by Marsha Start: 20% growth from the Houghton Mifflin Pre- Spears, 08/15/2011  Teachers ACTION Test to the Post-Test. Grade Level End:  Teaching BUDGET: $ Action Type: Program Evaluation Chair 05/31/2012 Aids Collaborate with students, teachers, Literacy Jason Crader, Start: Coach and family to implement the literacy Grade Level 08/15/2011 . Outside component of the Little Rock School District Chairman End: Consultants ACTION $ Literacy Model as a means to show progress 05/31/2012  Teachers BUDGET: in writing for all students.  Teaching Action Type: Equity Aids Action Type: Parental Engagement I http://acsip.state.ar. us/cgi-bin/index.cgi ?rm=report _ acsip\u0026amp;print= 1 12/5/2011 ACSIP Page 6 of 50 Collaborate with grade level teams to dissect Teata Pace, Start: the literacy benchmark released items that Grade Level 08/15/2011  Teachers correlate with specific grade levels weekly Chairman End:  Teaching ACTION $ plans, as they pertain to our Curriculum Map 05/31/2012 Aids BUDGET: as a means to improve literacy achievement focused on basic and below basic students, primarily African-American, special education students and economically disadvantaged students. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Equity *Permit collaboration between two Reading Dianne Start: Recovery teachers and grade level teachers to Runion, 08/15/2011  Outside develop problem solving strategies to expand Reading End: Consultants ACTION $ vocabulary through reading as a means to Recovery 05/31/2012  Teachers BUDGET: improve reading achievement for basic and Specialist  Teaching below basic students. Aids Action Type: Equity !Total Budget: II $01 IIntervention: Home/School Connection - Kindergarten - Tier I Intervention I Scientific Based Research: Fisher, D. \u0026amp; Frey, N. (2007). Implementing a schoolwide literacy framework: improving achievement in an urban elementary school. The Reading Teacher, 61(1) 32-41 Perkins, J.H. \u0026amp; Cooter, Jr., R.B.(2005). Issues in urban literacy: Evidence based literacy education and the African American child. The Reading Teacher, 59(2), 194-198. !Actions : Responsible I Person ITimeline II Resources I Source of Funds Collaborate with parents to send home Nina Huey, Start: weekly reading assignments as a means Kindergarten 08/15/2011  School to improve reading skills of all End: Library ACTION $ kindergarten students. 05/31/2012  Teachers BUDGET: Action Type: AIP/IRI  Teaching Action Type: Collaboration Aids Action Type: Equity Action Type: Parental Engagement Collaborate with the Pizza Hut, media Susie Daniel, Start: specialist, classroom teachers and parents Kindergarten 08/15/2011  Teaching to promote parental involvement in End: Aids ACTION $ reading at home as a means to improve 05/31/2012 BUDGET: reading skills of all kindergarten students. Action Type: AIP/IRI Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Parental Engagement Determine the impact of Home/School Susie Daniel, Start: connections to improve reading skills of Kindergarten 08/15/2011  Teachers all kindergarten students by 80% End:  Teaching ACTION $ kindergarten students participating with 05/31/2012 Aids BUDGET: the Home/School connection program. Action Type: Program Evaluation Collaborate with parents to send home Shanel Ditmore, Start: weekly kindergarten concept backpacks Kindergarten 08/15/2011  Teaching funded by a public education foundation Grade Level Chair End: Aids ACTION $ grant as a means to improve reading 05/31/2012 BUDGET: skills of all kindergarten students. Action Type: AIP/IRI Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Parental Engagement !Total Budget: II $01 IIntervention: Team Curriculum Sharing - Kindergarten - Filth - Tier I Intervention I http://acsip.state.ar.us/cgi-bin/index.cgi?rm=report_acsip\u0026amp;print=l 12/5/2011 ACSIP Page 7 of 50 Scientific Based Research: McDaniel, G. Isaac, M.Y., Brooks, H.M. \u0026amp; Hatch, A.(2005). Confronting K-3 Teaching Challenges in an era of accountability. NAEYC Young Children, 60,(2) 20-25. Fisher, D. \u0026amp; Frey, N. (2007). Implementing a schoolwide literacy framework: improving achievement in an urban elementary school. The Reading Teacher, 61(1) 32-41 !Actions I Person : Responsible ITimeline II Resources I Source of Funds Collaborate with grade level teams, coaches Rita Friend, Start: and principal by meeting weekly to coordinate Grade Level 08/15/2011  Teachers curriculum topics, strategies, materials, and Chair End: ACTION $ skills and to discuss assessed needs of students 05/31/2012 BUDGET: as a means to assure alignment of curriculum for all students. Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Special Education Determine the impact of weekly meetings to Linda Glenn, Start: assure curriculum alignment by 100% teacher Literacy Coach 08/15/2011  Teachers participation in meetings that correlate End: ACTION $ curriculum maps provided by the LRSD. 05/31/2012 BUDGET: Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Program Evaluation !Total Budget: II $01 Intervention: Little Rock School District Comprehensive Literacy Model - Kindergarten - Fifth - Tier I Intervention Scientific Based Research: Dorn, Linda J. and Soffos, C. (2005) Teaching For Deep Comprehension: A Reading Workshop Approach, Dorn, Linda J.\nFrench, Cathy\u0026amp; Jones, Tammy. (1998). Apprenticeship in Literacy: Transitions across Reading and Writing. Chapter 4, \"Guided Reading,\" p. 41-42 and Chapter 8, \"Establishing Routines and Organizing the Classroom,\" p. 103-121. Fountas, Irene C.\n\u0026amp; Pinnell, Gay Su (1997). Guided Reading: Good First Teaching For All Children. Chapter 8, \"Dynamic Grouping,\" p. 97-106. Dorn, Linda J., and Soffas, Carla. (2001). Shaping Literate Minds\nDeveloping Self-Regulated Learners. Chapter 6,\"Developing Self-Regulated Teachers\" p. 88-105. Clay, Marie M. (1989) The Early Detection of Reading Difficulties. Chapter 2, \"Reading Programmes,\" p. 9-15\nClay, Marie M. (2002). An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement. Chapter 3, \"Assisting Young Children Making Slow Progress,\" p. 23-36. Boushey, Gail \u0026amp; Moser, Joan (2006). The Daily Five: Fostering Literacy Independence in the Elementary Grades. \\Actions I Person : Responsible \\Timeline IIR esources I Source of Funds Collaborate with students, staff and Linda Glenn, Start: literacy coach as she mentors Literacy Coach 08/15/2011  Administrative teachers in weekly team meetings for End: Staff ACTION $ effective implementation of research 05/31/2012  Outside BUDGET: based instructional practices. Consultants Action Type: Alignment  Teachers Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Professional Development **Collaboration between grade level Jane Crum, Start: teachers and Reading Recovery Reading 08/15/2011  Teachers Specialists to access needs of low Recovery End:  Teaching Aids ACTION BUDGET: $ performing students and provide one- Specialist 05/31/2012 to-one and small group tutoring as a means to move children to grade level. Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity **Determine the impact of the Little Diane Start: Rock School District Comprehensive Barksdale, 08/15/2011  Teachers Literacy Curriculum by students Principal End:  Teaching Aids ACTION $ scoring 85.5% or above on weekly 05/31/2012 BUDGET: and unit assessments of the http:/ /acsip.state.ar. us/cgi-bin/index. cgi ?rm=report_ acsip\u0026amp;print= 1 12/5/2011 ACSIP Page 8 of 50 ! Houghton Mifflin literacy program. Action Type: Program Evaluation II II II II I !Total Budget: II $01 jintervention: Extra Reading Interventions - Kindergarten - Fifth - Tier II and III Interventions I Scientific Based Research: Dorn, Linda J. and Soffos C. (2005) Teaching for Deep comprehension: A Reading Workshop Approach\nRuzzo, K. and Sacco, M.J. (2004) Signifant Studies for Second Grade: Reading and Writing Investigations for Children.Dorn, Linda J.\nFrench, Cathy \u0026amp; Jones, Tammy. (1998). Apprenticeship in Literacy: Transitions across reading and writing. Chapter 4, \"Guided Reading,\" p. 41-42. Fountas, Irene C. \u0026amp; Pinnell, Gay Su. (1997). Guided Reading: Good First Teaching For All Children. Chapter 8, \"Dynamic Grouping,\" p. 97-106. What Works by Linda Fielding \u0026amp; P. David Pearson. Arkansas Department of Education Smart Step Literacy Lab Classroom Project, Harding University, Ken Stamatis, 2008-2009. Payne, Ruby K. (2005) A Framework for Understanding Poverty. Kafele, Baruti, K. (2009) Motivating Black Males to Achieve in School and Life. !Actions I Person : Responsible ITimeline II Resources I Source of Funds Collaboration between parents and staff Charlotte Start: to establish BOOST, an after school Cook, Grade 08/15/2011  Administrative tutoring program, to provide basic and Level End: Staff ACTION $ below basic students extra intervention Chairman 05/31/2012 . Performance BUDGET: in reading and writing. Focus on African- Assessments American and Economically  Teachers Disadvantaged Students.  Teaching Aids Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Parental Engagement Determine the impact of the following Diane Start: reading interventions\nRt!, BOOST, small Barksdale, 08/15/2011  Outside group instruction, and classroom library Principal End: Consultants ACTION $ access to improve student achievement 05/31/2012  Teachers BUDGET: as evidenced by 20% individual growth  Teaching Aids using the Houghton Mifflin assessment program. Action Type: AIP/IRI Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Program Evaluation Collaboration between grade level Diane Start: teachers, coaches and principal to Barksdale, 08/15/2011  Administrative determine students progress on a Principal End: Staff ACTION $ quarterly basis using SOAR and the 05/31/2012 . Performance BUDGET: assessment wall to plan Response to Assessments Intervention strategies for low  Teachers performing students focused on African-  Teaching Aids American and economically disadvantaged students. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Equity Collaboration between teachers and Linda Glenn, Start: students to develop an engaging Literacy 08/15/2011  School Library classroom reading library by giving Coach End:  Teachers ACTION $ students volumes of quality literature 05/31/2012  Teaching Aids BUDGET: and ample time to practice reading skills. Books purchased with recommendation of Harding Smart Step Literacy Lab. Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Collaborate with specialists, parents and Teata Pace, Start: students to identify students with Curriculum 08/15/2011 . School Library specific reading needs for targeted small Specialist End:  Teachers ACTION $ group instruction (Rt!) as a means to 05/31/2012  Teaching Aids BUDGET: improve reading comprehension and participation for all students. http://acsip.state.ar. us/cgi-bin/index. cgi ?rm=report_ acsip\u0026amp;print= 1 12/5/2011 ACSIP Page 9 of 50 Action Type: Equity Action Type: Parental Engagement II II II II I JTotal Budget: II $OJ Jintervention: Renaissance Place Accelerated Reader Program - Second - Fifth - Tier I Intervention I Scientific Based Research: Samuels, S.J., \u0026amp; Wu, Y. (2004). How the amount of time spent on independent reading affects reading achievement: A response to the National Reading Panel. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Department of Educational Psychology. McBride, J \u0026amp; Tardrew, S. (2002). Mapping the Development of Early Reading Skill with STAR Early Literacy: Abstract Tompkins, Gail E. (1997). Literacy for the 21st Century: A Balanced Approach. Chapter 9, \"Reading and Writing Workshop,\" p. 324-356. Payne, Ruby K. (2005) A Framework for Understanding Poverty. Kafele, Baruti, K. (2009) Motivating Black Males to Achieve in School and Life. !Actions : Responsible IP erson ITimeline IIR esources I Source of Funds Collaborate with students, staff and Holly Shields, Start: parents, to provide scheduled Grade Level 08/15/2011 . Community opportunities for selection of AR books, Chairman End: Leaders ACTION $ independent reading, computer testing, 05/31/2012 . Computers BUDGET: and recognition of achievement as a . School Library means to approve reading participation  Teachers and comprehension for all students with emphasis on African-American and economically disadvantaged students. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Parental Engagement Action Type: Technology Inclusion Collaborate with classroom teachers, Karen Banks, Start: parents, students and the AR committee to GT Specialist 08/15/2011  Computers encourage students to attend monthly End:  Outside ACTION $ recognition luncheons and the end of year 05/31/2012 Consultants BUDGET: skating party and limo ride by reading and  School Library testing on AR books to accumulate  Teachers necessary points.  Teaching Aids Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Parental Engagement Action Type: Technology Inclusion Determine impact of Renaissance Place Paula Start: Accelerated Reader to improve reading Schilling, 08/15/2011  Computers participation and comprehension progress Technology End: ACTION . Performance $ of individual student proficency of 80% or Specialist 05/31/2012 Assessments BUDGET: better throughout the year by reviewing . School Library weekly AR reports focusing on African-  Teachers American and economically disadvantaged students. Action Type: Program Evaluation JTotal Budget: II $OJ Jintervention: LRSD Writing Programs - Kindergarten - Fifth - Tier I Intervention I Scientific Based Research: Teaching for Deep Comprehension - Dorn, Soffos (2005). Thompkins, Gail E., (2004). Teaching Writing, Balancing Pocess and Product. Fletcher, Ralph \u0026amp; Portalupi, C. (2004) Teaching the Qualities of Writing. Payne, Ruby K. (2005) A Framework for Understanding Poverty. Kafele, Baruti, K. (2009) Motivating Black Males to Achieve in School and Life. !Actions I Person : Responsible ITimeline IIR esources I Source of Funds Collaborate with grade level teachers to pre- Linda Glenn, Start: test students to determine their readiness in Literacy 08/15/2011 . Outside writing as a means to prepare for planning Coach End: Consultants ACTION $ and implementation of Carver's writing 05/31/2012 . Performance BUDGET: program which will strengthen all children. Assessments Action Type: Collaboration  Teachers http:/ /acsip.state.ar. us/cgi-bin/index.cgi ?rm=report acsip\u0026amp;print= 1 1?/'i/?011 ACSIP Page 10 of 50 Action Type: Equity I II II  Teaching Aids II Action Type: Professional Development I Collaborate with staff to implement Writers Linda Glenn, Start: Workshop and LRSD writing programs, Literacy oan5\n2011 . Performance including Step Up to Writing, to improve Coach End: Assessments ACTION $ writing skills by monitoring all students 05/31/2012  Teachers BUDGET: progress throughout each phase of the  Teaching Aids writing process focused on African-American and economically disadvantaged students. Action Type: Alignment Determine the impact of Little Rock School Linda Glenn, Start: District writing curriculum as a means to Literacy 08/15/2011 . Performance teach the writing process with the goal for Coach End: Assessments ACTION $ 85.6% of students scoring proficient or 05/31/2012  Teachers BUDGET: above on the !TBS or Benchmark assessments. Action Type: Program Evaluation jTotal Budget: II $01 Intervention: A Kaleidoscope of Media Center Activities: Reading Awareness Day (Dr. Seuss Reading Day, Little Rock Scho9I District Library Media Curriculum, Book Fair, and Media Retrieval System. Lori Diffey - Media Specialist - Tier I Intervention Scientific Based Research: Read Across America Project-National Education Association, LRSD Curriculum Guide, School Library Media Activity Monthly Magazine(August, 2002-June, 2003), Arkansas Department of Education Frameworks Manual, Henkels and McCoy, Inc.-Safari Media Retrieval System Manual, LRSD Lesson Plans Manual, Scholastic Book Fair Web Sites and Chairperson Manual (2002-2003) - Lori Diffey, Media Specialists. Payne, Ruby K. (2005) A Framework for Understanding Poverty. Kafele, Baruti, K. (2009) Motivating Black Males to Achieve in School and Life. !Actions I Person : Responsible ITimeline IIR esources I Source of Funds Collaborate with staff throughout the year Lori Diffey, Start: to schedule educational videos through the Media 08/15/2011  Computers media retrieval system as a means to Specialist End: . District Staff ACTION $ strengthen the LRSD curriculum and 05/31/2012 . Outside BUDGET: enrich instruction for all students. Consultants Action Type: Collaboration . School Library Action Type: Equity  Teachers Action Type: Technology Inclusion Collaborate with all staff to provide Lori Diffey, Start: reading instruction, activities, and Media 08/15/2011 . District Staff enrichment as a means to levelize and Specialist End: . School Library ACTION $ enrich instruction for all students and 05/31/2012  Teachers BUDGET: increase reading comprehension, provide feedback to teachers, while concentrating on students who are basic and below basic, African-American and economically disadvantaged. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Collaborate with all staff to provide Lori Diffey, Start: checkout of books and free-flow of Media 08/15/2011 . Computers students as a means to promote reading Specialist End: . School Library ACTION $ for all students and to motivate all 05/31/2012  Teachers BUDGET: students to utilize appropriate areas of the media center. Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Technology Inclusion Collaborate with all staff, students and Lori Diffey, Start: parents to hold a two-week Book Fair as a Media 08/15/2011 . School Library means to motivate and encourage reading Specialist End:  Teachers ACTION $ for all students. 05/31/2012 BUDGET: http://acsip.state.ar.us/cgi-bin/index.cgi?rm=report_acsip\u0026amp;print=l 12/5/2011 ACSIP Page 11 of 50 Action Type: Collaboration II II II II I Action Type: Equity Action Type: Parental Engagement Collaborate with teachers, parents and Lori Watts, Start: community leaders to plan, schedule and Media 08/15/2011  Administrative implement Dr. Seuss Reading Day, Specialist End: Staff ACTION $ featuring a guest for each classroom as a 05/31/2012  Community BUDGET: means to motivate and encourage reading Leaders for all students. . Computers Action Type: Collaboration . District Staff Action Type: Equity . School Library Action Type: Parental Engagement  Teachers Action Type: Technology Inclusion Collaborate with students and staff to Lori Diffey, Start: produce an ongoing timely morning news Media 08/15/2011  Administrative program and continuous Busy School Specialist End: Staff ACTION $ News featuring important events, news 05/31/2012  Computers BUDGET: and activities to be shown on TV monitors . District Staff in the halls and classrooms using the  Outside Media Retrieval System as a means to Consultants inform Carver patrons of ongoing events. . School Library Action Type: Collaboration  Teachers Action Type: Equity Action Type: Technology Inclusion Collaborate with classroom teachers to Lori Diffey, Start: select appropriate reading materials from Media 08/15/2011 . School Library the library media center as a means to Specialist End:  Teachers ACTION $ improve reading achievement for basic 05/31/2012 BUDGET: and below basic students. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Focus on specific vocabulary during book Lori Diffey, Start: talks, such genre, tone, and mode to Media 08/15/2011  School Library improve achievement on standardized ACTION Specialist End:  Teachers $ tests. 05/31/2012  Teaching Aids BUDGET: Action Type: Alignment Determine the impact of the Kaleidoscope Lori, Diffey Start: of Media activities to encourage reading Media 08/15/2011  Computers and writing for all students by monitoring ACTION Specialist End:  Outside $ book checkout participation, Busy School 05/31/2012 Consultants BUDGET: News, Media Retrieval use and parent . Performance Book Fair participation. Assessments Action Type: Program Evaluation  School Library  Teachers !Total Budget: II $01 !intervention: Reading Integration - Charlotte Cook, Young Astronaut Lab - Tier II Intervention I Scientific Based Research: Tate, Marcia L.(2003). Worksheets Don't Grow Dendrites: 20 Instructional Strategies That Engage the Brain. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham\nIntegrating Science and Literacy Instruction: A Framework for Bridging the Gap\nG. Freeman and V. Taylor (2006) NSTA Press\nLinking Science and Literacy in K-8 Classroom\nR. Douglas (2006) Payne, Ruby K. (2005) A Framework for Understanding Poverty. Kafele, Baruti, K. (2009) Motivating Black Males to Achieve in School and Life. !Actions : Responsible IP erson ITimeline IRI esources I Source of Funds Collaborate with classroom teachers to include Charlotte Start: reteaching of deficit reading and writing skills, as Cook, Young 08/15/2011 . School determined by benchmark scores, within the Astronaut End: Library ACTION $ Young Astronaut science lesson by including the Specialist 05/31/2012  Teachers BUDGET: use of science textbooks, levelized science  Teaching readers, tradebooks (fiction and non-fiction) and Aids having a written component in selected lessons as a means to improve reading and writing http://acsip.state.ar. us/cgi-bin/index.cgi ?rm=report _ acsip\u0026amp;print= 1 12/5/2011 ACSIP Page 12 of 50 achievement for basic and below basic students, African-American and economically disadvantaged. Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Determine the impact of re-teaching deficit Charlotte Start: reading and writing skills within the content area Cook, Young 08/15/2011 . School of science through teacher observation of Astronaut End: Library ACTION $ student performance in activities and through Specialist 05/31/2012  Teachers BUDGET: their demonstrating mastery of written skills by  Teaching completing a student narrative. Student writing Aids will be evaluated with the AR writing rubric and students will score 15 or above on a 20 point scale. Students will score 80% or above on selected book tests (Accelerated Reader). Action Type: Program Evaluation !Total Budget: II $01 http://acsip.state.ar. us/cgi-bin/index.cgi ?rm=report _ acsip\u0026amp;print== 1 12/5/2011 ACSIP Page 13 of 50 ! Intervention: Individualized Instruction - Karen Banks and Kim Holland, Gifted and Talented Specialists - Tier II Intervention Scientific Based Research: AEA and AGATE workshops (2003) featuring Lisa Carter's \"Instructional Alignment\", and Robert J. Marzano's: Classroom Instruction That Works Payne, Ruby K. (2005) A Framework for Understanding Poverty. Kafele, Baruti, K. (2009) Motivating Black Males to Achieve in School and Life. !Actions : Responsible I Person ITimeline IIR esources I Source of Funds Collaborate with all 2nd,3rd, 4th and Karen Banks/Kim Start: 5th grade teachers to provide Holland, Gifted 08/15/2011  Teachers reinforcement of state standards and Talented End:  Teaching Aids ACTION $ (reading, writing, literacy and math) Specialists 05/31/2012 BUDGET: as part of the gifted and talented curriculum. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Collaborate with 4th grade teachers to Karen Banks, Start: specifically address the needs of GT Gifted and 08/15/2011  Teachers students who have not achieved Talented End:  Teaching Aids ACTION $ advance on ACTAPP. Specialist 05/31/2012 BUDGET: Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Collaborate with 3rd, 4th and 5th Karen Banks and Start: grade teachers to implement Kim Holland, 08/15/2011 . Performance strategies to improve GT students' Gifted and End: Assessments ACTION $ summary writing skills as evidenced Talented 05/31/2012  Teachers BUDGET: by their first summary compared to Specialist  Teaching Aids their last summary. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Determine the impact of GT Karen Banks, Start: curriculum alignment to state Gifted and 08/15/2011  Teachers standards by participating students Talented End:  Teaching Aids ACTION $ scoring at or above 85.6% on the Specialist 05/31/2012 BUDGET: Benchmark and SAT-10 assessments . Action Type: Program Evaluation Collaborate with LRSD to test more Karen Banks, GT Start: black males as a method to increase Specialist 08/15/2011  Teachers their participation in gt classes to End:  Title Teachers ACTION $ improve acadmeics and motivation 05/31/2012 BUDGET: Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity !Total Budget: II $01 lrntervention: Writing Across The Curriculum - Gene Williams, Science Specialist - Tier I Intervention I Scientific Based Research: Portalupi, JoAnn \u0026amp; Fletcher, Ralph (2004). Teaching the Qualities of Writing. Dorn, Linda J. \u0026amp; Soffos, Carla, \"Scaffolding Young Writers\" (2001) Michael P. Klentschy (2008) Using Science Notebooks in Elementary Classrooms. !Actions I Person : Responsible ITimeline IIR esources I Source of Funds Collaborate with third, fourth, and fifth Gene Williams, Start: students and staff to create and maintain Science 08/15/2011  Teachers science notebooks to increase writing skills in Specialist End:  Teaching ACTION $ preparation for the Benchmark exam. 05/31/2012 Aids BUDGET: Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity http://acsip.state.ar.us/cgi-bin/index.cgi?rm=report_acsip\u0026amp;print=l 12/5/2011 ACSIP Page 14 of 50 Determine the impact of writing activities in Gene Williams, Start: Science Lab to support writing across the Science 08/15/2011  Teachers curriculum by scoring one assignment per 9 Specialist End:  Teaching ACTION $ weeks to be used by classroom teachers for a 05/31/2012 Aids BUDGET: classroom grade. Action Type: Program Evaluation !Total Budget: II $01 1Intervention: Flexible Grouping with Third, Fourth and Filth Grade Students - Gene Williams, Science 1Specialist/Filth Grade Broker - Tier I Intervention Scientific Based Research: Fountas, Irene \u0026amp; Pinnell, Gay Su (2006). Leveled Books, K-8\nMatching Texts to Readers for Effective Teaching. Tate, Marcia L.(2003). Worksheets Don't Grow Dendrites: 20 Instructional Strategies That Engage the Brain. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham\nIntegrating Science and Literacy Instruction: A Framework for Bridging the Gap\nG. Freeman and V. Taylor (2006) NSTA Press\nLinking Science and Literacy in K-8 Classroom\nR. Douglas (2006) !Actions I Person : Responsible ITimeline II Resources I Source of Funds Collaborate with third, fourth and filth grade Gene Williams, Start: teachers to teach science lab weekly using Science 08/15/2011  Teachers ACTION research based strategies as a means to Specialist End:  Teaching BUDGET: $ raise Benchmark scores focusing on African- 05/31/2012 Aids American and economically disadvantaged students. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Determine the impact of the weekly science Gene Williams, Start: success through periodic teacher made Science 08/15/2011  Teachers assessments and the results of the Specialist End:  Teaching ACTION $ Benchmark. 05/31/2012 Aids BUDGET: Action Type: Program Evaluation !Total Budget: II $01 Intervention: Flexible Reading Groups of inclusion for special education students Kindergarten through Filth grade students in the regular classroom and/or resource room to meet skill deficits of the student's Individual Education Plan (IEP).- June Joseph, Special Education Specialist - Tiers II and III Interventions Scientific Based Research: Karten, Toby J. (2005) Inclusion Strategies That Work! Reseach-Based Methods for the Classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press School, Beverly A. (1999) The IEP Primer and the Individualized Program\nSundbye, Nita (1997) Helping the Struggling Reader\nKauffman, Hallahan (1994) Exceptional Children: Introduction to Special Education\nHenry, Marcia K. (2000) Patterns for Success in Reading and Spelling\nDIBELS Assessment Notebook. !Actions I Person : Responsible ITimeline IIResources I Source of Funds **Collaborate with grade level teachers in June Joseph, Start: literacy meetings in order to identify and Special 08/15/2011 . Performance schedule students for service and/or Education End: Assessments ACTION $ intervention in the form of guided reading Specialist 05/31/2012  Teachers BUDGET: groups or comprehension focus groups. Action Type: AIP/IRI Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity **Determine the impact of flexible June Joseph, Start: comprehension focus and guided reading Special 08/15/2011 . Performance groups in the resource room or regular Education End: Assessments ACTION $ classroom to meet the individual Specialist 05/31/2012  Teachers BUDGET: academic needs of special education students in accordance with their IEP using SOAR, DAR, SAT-10, STAR, and Benchmark. Action Type: Program Evaluation !Total Budget: II $01 http://acsip.state.ar.us/cgi-bin/index.cgi?rm=report_acsip\u0026amp;print=l 12/5/2011 ACSIP Page 15 of 50 Intervention: Speech/language therapy - Terri Value, Speech Language Pathologist - Tiers II and III Intervention. Scientific Based Research: Intervention References: Bear, D., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S.\nJohnston, F. (2004) Word Their Way, Word Study for Phonics, Vocabulary, and Spelling Instruction (3rd Edition). Merrill/Prentice Hall. Functional Language Intervention in the Classroom: Avoiding the Tutoring Trap. Topics in Language Disorders, 17 (2), 49-68\nEhren, B.J. (2002) Maintaining a Therapeutic Focus and Sharing Responsibility for Student Success\nKeys To In Classroom Speech and Language Services. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 31 (3), 219-229. Gillam S.L. and Gilliam, R.B. (2006) Making Evidence-based Practice About Child Language Intervention in Schools, 37, 304-315. Kamhi, A.G. (2006). Treatment Decisions for Children with Speech-Sound Disorders. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools. 37, 271-279 !Actions I Person : Responsible ITimeline IIR esources I Source of Funds Collaborate with parents, teachers, school Terri Value, Start: and district administrators, along with Speech 08/15/2011  Administrative consultants from the Department of Therapist End: Staff ACTION $ Education, to align speech therapy goals 05/31/2012 . District Staff BUDGET: with the Little Rock School District  Outside Literacy and Math frameworks to Consultants effectively meet the needs of K-5 students . Performance identified with a speech/language Assessments impairment.  Teachers Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Parental Engagement Action Type: Special Education Action Type: Technology Inclusion Collaborate with classroom and specialty Terri Value, Start: area teachers to provide opportunities for Speech 08/15/2011 . Performance all children diagnosed with a Therapist End: Assessments ACTION $ speech/language impairment to 05/31/2012  Teachers BUDGET: strengthen their individual skills in the areas of vocabulary and predicting outcome\ncompare/contrast\nand main idea as a means to improve literacy and math achievement. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Special Education Determine the impact of speech/language Terri Value, Start: therapy to improve academic performance Speech 08/15/2011 . Performance by monitoring the progress of children Therapist End: Assessments ACTION $ diagnosed with speech and language 05/31/2012  Teachers BUDGET: disorders throughout the year by  Teaching Aids reviewing their individualized educational plan, subject area grades and assessment results of selected therapy tests and reports on state tests. Action Type: Program Evaluation !Total Budget: II $01 ! Intervention: Integrated Curriculum for Writing and Arts Grades Kindergarten - Fifth - Judy Redditt, Art Specialist - Tier I Intervention Scientific Based Research: Arts Education Partnership (2003). National Endowment for the Arts. Washington, D.C. Deasy, Richard J. (2003) Learning in the Arts and Student Academic and Social Development. Washington, D.C. Arts Education Partnership (2005) Third Space: When Learning Matters. www.aep-arts.org Art Supports Reading Comprehension (Elementary) Jones, Dana\nMoore, Jim\nWurst, Douglas. School Arts, 2005 !Actions : Responsible I IPerson ITimeline IIR esources ljsource of Funds http://acsip.state.ar.us/cgi-bin/index.cgi?rm=report_acsip\u0026amp;print=l 12/5/2011 ACSIP Page 16 of 50 Collaborate with students and staff to Judy Redditt, Start: include writing short stories as a means Art Specialist 08/15/2011  Teachers to improve writing skills for all students End:  Teaching Aids ACTION $ in k - 2nd grades. 05/31/2012 BUDGET: Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Collaborate with students and staff to Judy Redditt, Start: include writing poetry as a means to Art Specialist 08/15/2011  Teachers improve writing skills for all students 3 - End:  Teaching Aids ACTION $ 5 grade. 05/31/2012 BUDGET: Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Determine the impact of art activities by Judy Redditt, Start: the application of rubrics for writing Art Specialist 08/15/2011  Community ACTION short stories and poetry to improve End: Leaders $ writing skills for all students in 05/31/2012  Outside BUDGET: kindergarten through fifth grade. Consultants Action Type: Program Evaluation  Teachers !Total Budget: II $01 Intervention: Integrated Curriculum for Writing, Math and Music-Teri Hughes, Music Specialist - Tier I Intervention Scientific Based Research: Handy, Shirley. (2002) The Singing/Reading Connection. Los Angeles, CA. Threshold to Music. Eleanor Kidd, New York, NY. 2004 !Actions I Person : Responsible ITimeline IIR esources I Source of Funds Collaborate with students and staff to include Teri Hughes, Start: writing in units of study as a means to Music 08/15/2011  Teachers improve writing skills for all students in Specialist End: ACTION $ kindergarten through fifth grade. 05/31/2012 BUDGET: Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Determine the impact music activities through Teri Hughes, Start: the application of rubrics to assess writing of Music 08/15/2011  Teachers simple summary sentences twice during the Specialist End:  Teaching ACTION $ school year. Rubrics will include content and 05/31/2012 Aids BUDGET: mechanics. Action Type: Program Evaluation !Total Budget: II $01 IIntervention: Grade Level Musicals - Teri Hughes, Music Specialist - Tier I Intervention I Scientific Based Research: Kidd, Eleanor.(2004) Threshhold to Music. New York, NY. D. L. Hamaan and L.M. Walker, \"Music teachers as a role model for African-America students, \"Journal of Research in Music Education,\" 41, 1993. !Actions I Person : Responsible ITimeline IIR esources I Source of Funds Collaborate with all students, staff, parents, Teri Hughes, Start: PTA, and outside resources to produce an Music 08/19/2010  Teachers annual musical as a means of enhancing Specialist End: ACTION $ literacy opportunities for all students in first, 06/02/2011 BUDGET: third, and fifth grades. Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Parental Engagement Determine the impact of the annual musicals to Teri Hughes, Start: enhance literacy opportunities for all students Music 08/19/2010  Teachers in first, third, and fifth grades by observing Specialist End: ACTION $ student growth in fluency and vocabulary 06/02/2011 BUDGET: http://acsip.state.ar.us/cgi-bin/index.cgi?rm=report_acsip\u0026amp;print=l 12/5/2011 ACSIP Page 17 of 50 during participation by students at PTA I II II II I musicas. Action Type: Program Evaluation !Total Budget: II $01 Intervention: Writing Across The Curriculum - Robert Springer, Physical Education Specialists Tier I Intervention !scientific Based Research: Portalupi, JoAnn and Fletcher, Ralph (2004). Teaching the Qualities of Writing. I !Actions I Person : Responsible ITimeline IIR esources I Source of Funds Collaborate with fifth grade teachers to keep Robert Springer, Start: P.E. journals as a means to improve reading Physical 08/15/2011  Teachers and writing achievement for all students with Education End:  Teaching ACTION $ focus on basic and below basic students, Specialist 05/31/2012 Aids BUDGET: primarily African-American and special education students. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Determine the impact of writing in PE by Robert Springer, Start: assessing journals for fluency perodically and Physical 08/15/2011  Teachers give feedback to all students. Education End:  Teaching ACTION $ Action Type: Program Evaluation Specialist 05/31/2012 Aids BUDGET: !Total Budget: II $01 !intervention: Test-taking strategies - Tracye Thomason, Counselor Tier I Intervention I Scientific Based Research: Help for Struggling Student, Mimi Gold 1st Edition (2004) Payne, Ruby K. (2005) A Framework for Understanding Poverty. Kafele, Baruti, K. (2009) Motivating Black Males to Achieve in School and Life. /Actions : Responsible I Person ITimeline IIR esources I Source of Funds Collaborate with students, staff and parents to Tracye Start: provide lessons and information on test-taking Thomason, 08/15/2011 . Teachers skills (Benchmark/SAT-10)in literacy and Counselor End:  Teaching ACTION $ math as a means to improve test taking 05/31/2012 Aids BUDGET: strategies and scores for all students with an emphasis on African-American and economically disadvantaged students and parents. Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Parental Engagement Attend workshops (AEA and State Counseling Tracye Start: Convention), along with other outside Thomason, 08/15/2011 . Community resources to provide materials and Counselor End: Leaders ACTION $ information to students, parents and teachers 05/31/2012 . Teaching BUDGET: to enrich students ability and readiness for Aids testing. Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Professional Development Determine the effect of teaching test-taking Tracye Start: strategies for all students through a Thomason, 08/15/2011 . Teachers cumulative student assessment given before Counselor End: . Teaching ACTION $ the standardized test and by monitoring 05/31/2012 Aids BUDGET: students' work habits during the test. Action Type: Program Evaluation !Total Budget: II $01 !intervention: Career Week - Counselor: Tracye Thomason - Tier I Intervention I http ://acsip.state.ar. us/cgi-bin/index.cgi ?rm=report _ acsip\u0026amp;print= 1 12/5/2011 ACSIP Page 18 of 50 ! !Scientific Based Research: The ASCA National Model, A Framework for School Counseling Programs, American School Counselor Association. Alexandria, VA (2003) !Actions I Person : Responsible ITimeline IIR esources I Source of Funds Collaborate with students, staff and the Tracye Start: community to implement Career Week as a Thomason, 05/01/2012  Administrative means to inform and provide opportunites Counselos End: Staff ACTION $ for students to make inferences. Attend the 05/31/2012  Community BUDGET: Arkansas Career Guidance Conference and Leaders seek outside resources for Career Week to  District Staff motivate students to achieve a career goal.  Teachers Invite African-American leaders to inspire African-American and economically disadvantaged students. Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Parental Engagement Determine the impact of Career Week to Tracye Start: inform and encourage students to strive for Thomason, 05/01/2012  Administrative knowledge to infer a career goal by Counselor End: Staff ACTION $ tabulating the results of a student survey 05/31/2012  Community BUDGET: focused on the impact of Career Week. Leaders Action Type: Program Evaluation . District Staff  Teachers !Total Budget: II $01 Intervention: Reading Recovery for First Grade Students - Dianne Runion and Jane Crum, Reading Recovery Specialists - Tier III Intervention Scientific Based Research: Clay, Marie, (2005), Literacy Lessons Part I: Clay, Marie, (2005), Literacy Lessons Part II: Clay, Marie (2002) An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement: Clay, Marie (1998), By Different Paths to Common Outcomes, Clay, Marie (1991) Becoming Literate\nClay, Marie (2001) Change Over Time In Children's Literacy Development\nAdams, Marilyn Jager (1994) Beginning to Read !Actions : Responsible I Person ITimeline IIR esources I Source of Funds **Collaborate with Reading Recovery Jane Crum, Start: Teacher leader and first grade Reading 08/15/2011  Administrative teachers to assess the needs of low Recovery End: Staff ACTION $ performing students and provide one- Specialist 05/31/2012 . Outside BUDGET: to-one tutoring as a means to move Consultants children to proficient. . Performance Action Type: AIP/IRI Assessments Action Type: Alignment  Teachers Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Special Education **Collaborate with other Reading Dianne Runion, Start: Recovery Teachers in Little Rock Reading 08/15/2011  Outside School District monthly for effective Recovery End: Consultants ACTION $ implementation of research based Specialist 05/31/2012  Teachers BUDGET: instructional practices. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Professional Development **Determine the impact of Reading Dianne Runion, Start: Recovery procedures by 86% Reading 08/15/2011 . Performance participating in the program Recovery End: Assessments ACTION $ performing at or above the proficient Specialist 05/31/2012 BUDGET: level as measured by the observation survey. Action Type: Program Evaluation http://acsip.state.ar.us/cgi-bin/index.cgi?rm=report_acsip\u0026amp;print=l 12/5/2011 ACSIP Page 19 of 50 !Total Budget: II $01 Intervention: Implement Small Flexible Groups for Instruction - Jane Crum and Dianne Runion, Reading Recovery Specialists Tier II Intervention Scientific Based Research: Clay, Marie (2005) Literacy Lessons Part I: Clay, Marie (2005) Literacy Lessons Part II: Clay Marie (2002) An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement: Clay, Marie (1998), By Different Paths to Common Outcomes, Clay, Marie (1991) Becoming Literate, Clay, Marie (2001) Change Over Time In Children's Literacy Development, Lyons, Carol (2003) Payne, Ruby K. (2005) A Framework for Understanding Poverty. Kafele, Baruti, K. (2009) Motivating Black Males to Achieve in School and Life. !Actions I Person : Responsible ITimeline IIR esources I Source of Funds Collaborate with first through fifth grade Dianne Runion, Start: teachers to identify low performing Reading 08/15/2011  Teachers African American and economically Recovery End: ACTION disadvantaged students and establish Specialist 05/31/2012 BUDGET: small flexible groups as a means to individualize instruction for all students. Action Type: AIP/IRI Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Determine the impact of small flexible Jane Crum, Start: reading groups by 86% of the students Reading 08/15/2011 ACTION performing at or above the proficient Recovery End: BUDGET: level as measured by the Slosson Oral Specialist 05/31/2012 Reading Test. Action Type: Program Evaluation Collaborate with the Reading Recovery Dianne Runion, Start: Teacher Leader and grade level teachers Reading 08/15/2011  Outside regularly for effective implementation of Recovery End: Consultants ACTION research based instructional practices for Specialist 05/31/2012  Teachers BUDGET: small groups to improve reading comprehension. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity !Total Budget: II To improve mathematical skills and strategies for all students, particularly our African American Priority 2: and economically disadvantaged subgroups. 1. $ $ $ $01 Supporting Data: 2. The Criterion-Reference Test: GT selection data from second grade\nIf a second grade student scores at the 50th percentile or better on the Raven, the Williams Creativity test is administered. Teachers and parents also contribute scored information and when the standardized test scores arrive, they are added to the already gathered information. In the year of 2008-2009, the LRSD Gifted program made several revisions due to our new Coordinator. The following revisions were made in the area of identification. The Sages 2 (K- 6), The Gift, and a new referral form were added to the identification procedure. A new profile sheet and Identification Matrix was added so that students are identified by stanines instead of a percentile break-down. In 2008-09, Carver's second grade had an enrollment of 88. Of these, forty were referred either by teachers, specialists, or parents. All forty of these students were tested. The School Based Committee met and identified 30 students out of this group of 40. Therefore, 34% of second grade was identified for the gifted program. 3. Metropolitan 8 Spring 2009: Kindergarten 1-25 percentile - 12 students 26-50 percentile - 25 students 51-75 percentile - 17 students 76-99 percentile - 14 students Therefore we have 31 students that performed above the 50th percentile and 37 that performed below the 50th percentile. Metropolitan 8 Spring 2010 Kindergarten 30% total composite score 38% of students scored at or above the national percent, 43% basic, and 18% below basic. 4. Comprehensive Needs Assessment from 2008-2009: Summer 2008-2009 the Benchmark results were analyzed by a Leadership Team composed of the principal and coaches. Annual yearly progress was 64% for literacy and 62.SO/o for math. The school combined population exceeded the standard for math with 71.6% proficient. The school combined population did not make the literacy standard missing it by 2.1 % with 61. 9% proficient. The results of each grade level were disaggregated by math and literacy for each child for the past two years to http://acsip.state.ar.us/cgi-bin/index.cgi?rm=report_acsip\u0026amp;print=l 12/5/2011 ACSIP Page 20 of 50 show the growth or decline made by individuals as well as the whole group. This information by grade level was mailed to each of the third, fourth and fifth grade teachers for their review and reflection prior to school. The Leadership Team then analyzed individual grade level data by Combined Population, Caucasian, African American and Economically Disadvantaged for math and literacy. The Causation students made AYP at all grade levels in math and literacy. Our findings: Third Grade Literacy: Comb. Pop. - 51%, AA - 42.4%, ED- 45% Fourth Grade Literacy: Comb. Pop. - 73%, AA- 63%, ED - 59% Fifth Grade Literacy: Comb. Pop - 58%, AA - 38%, ED - 38% Third Grade Math: Comb. Pop - 78%, AA - 73%, ED - 62% Fourth Grade Math: Comb. Pop - 81%, AA - 70%, ED - 69% Fifth Grade Math: Comb. Pop - 56%, AA - 30%, ED - 30% The first day of pre-school professional development, the coaches showed the entire staff a graph summary by grade levels of their particular spring standardized tests broken out by sub groups where possible. This was painful for some but necessary for all. The principal and assistant led the staff through a study of \"the Four Factors of Failure\" as we looked for the root cause. Time was provided for each grade level to reflect on the causes of failure reflected is this recent data as they reviewed their individual student test results- attendance, engagement, production, persistence. Grade level groups shared this different look at data. Coaches used the Benchmark item by item analysis for math and literacy and ranked the combined responses by grade level SLE as compared to district and state. Coaches modeled some of the SLEs and provided guided practice. Teachers, by grade level groups, reviewed the SLEs with their curriculum maps for focus for this year .. The principal using an advanced organizer led the entire staff through the hi-lights of the ACSIP with a focus on the data for the last three years by grade level and sub group. Based on our data analysis we have prioritized literacy for a more consistent delivery system as we reviewed the protocols for reader's workshop and writer's workshop. Specific low scoring literacy areas will be the focus for professional development. Although we made standards in math we plan to continue those strategies that we feel have been key for student success. Specific low scoring math areas will be the focus for professional development. We have prioritized our Economically Disadvantaged students noting that Carver has 65% free and reduced lunch students. Many of our African American students fall into this group, but not all. We will look at individuals for RTI and BOOST, after school tutoring. These two sub groups provided our lowest scores. They will receive special services and strategies as we as a staff learn more through a book study this year- A Framework for Understanding Poverty, by Ruby Payne. In addition, the principal sat with each classroom teacher to review his/her data specific to his/her standardized test and as compared to colleagues and other grade levels. \"How can we help you?\" was the question asked. Many of those ideas will be accommodated. We agree that we have an extensive school improvement plan and that each of us has a responsibility for its implementation. We are committed to the growth {which we know we are making from receiving a \"4\" on the state report card, a school achieving beyond standards), and we are committed to the Annual Yearly Progress of every child. Each of us is one part of the ACSIP but we feel the whole is greater than the sum of its parts! 5. Comprehensive Needs Assessment from 2009-2010: Spring 2010 Benchmark results were analyzed by a Leadership Team composed of the principal and coaches. Classroom teachers and specialists also analyzed the data looking for growth of particular students. Annual yearly progress was set at 71.2% for Literacy and 70% for Mathematics. The school\npopulation exceeded the standard for math with 80.1 % of the combined population proficient /advanced. The score for the combined population for literacy was 70.9, missing the state score of 71.2 by .3%. With the growth model added to the equation the state pronounced that Carver did indeed make annual year progress for the combined population in literacy as well. The results of each grade level were disaggregated by math and literacy for each child for the past two years to show growth or decline made by individuals as well as the whole group. This information was given to each of the third, fourth and fifth grade teachers for their review and reflection prior to school. The Leadership Team with the entire staff analyzed individual grade level data by all sub groups for math and literacy. Third grade literacy: Comb pop 65% {14%increase)\nAA 65% (22.6% increase)\nC 66% (3% drop)\nED 62% (17% increase) Fourth Grade Literacy: Comb pop 71% (2% drop)\nAA 63% (same)\nC 80% {10% drop) ED 69% (9% increase) Fifth Grade Literacy: Comb pop 78% (20% increase)\nAA 70% {32% increase)\nC 93% (9% increase)\nED 69% (31% increase). Third Grade Math: Comb pop 86% (8% increase),\nAA 83% (10% increase)\nC 92% (5% drop)\nED 83% (21% increase) Fourth Grade Math: Comb pop 71% {10% drop)\nAA 65% (5% drop)\nC 80% (17 % drop)\nED 69% (same) Fifth Grade Math\nComb pop 84% (28% increase)\nAA 78% (48% increase)\nC 96% 2% drop)\nEC 78% (58% increase) This look at data compares groups of students in grades 3,4,5 from 2009 tests to different students in grades 3,4,5 for 2010 tests. Another look at data compares students scores from third grade in 2009 to their fourth grade scores in 2010. We found the following changes : Literacy: Advanced 2009 (14%) - 2010 (17%) - growth of 3%\nProficient 2009 (37%) - 2010 (54%) - growth of 17%\nBasic 2009(30%) - 2010 (27%) - decrease of 3% Below http://acsip.state.ar. us/cgi-bin/index.cgi ?rm=report _ acsip\u0026amp;print= 1 12/5/2011 ACSIP Page 21 of 50 basic 2009(19%) -2010 (3%) - 16% decrease. The 20% growth in P and A is encouraging the 16% decrease in below basic shows that we are moving students steadily to higher levels of literacy. Students who moved from third grade to fourth grade Mathematics changes: Advanced 2009 (39% -2010(36%) - decrease of 3%\nProficient 2009(39%) - 2010 (35%) - decrease of 4%\nBasic 2009 (19% - 2010 (18%) - decrease of 1%\nBelow Basic 2009 (4%) - 2010 (12%) increase. The 7% decrease at P and A and the 8% increase at BB point to slippage of student achievement at 4th grade in 2009-2010. What was different? What will we do to combat it? We will visit with individual teachers in math, look at strategies, delivery of instruction, broker /specialist pull outs and RTL We will work as a Professional Leaning Community to find answers as we analyze common formative assessments of our focus standards this year. Data comparing fourth grade, 2009 scores to those of the same group of student in the fifth grade 2010 shows changes: Literacy: Advanced 2009 (23%) -2010(25%) - 2% increase\nproficient 2009 (50%) -2010 (53%) - 3% increase\nBasic 2009- (24%) - 2010 (19%) 5%decrease\nBelow basic 2009 (3%) -2010 (4%) - 1 % increase. Small but steady improvement in P and A (5%), a decline in B of 5%, with 1 % increase in BB shows some growth in the already high scoring group of students. Mathematics: Advanced 2009 (49%) 2010 (48) - 4% increase\nProficient 2009 (37% - 2010 936%) 1% decrease\nBasic 2009 (13%) -2010 (14%) -1% increase\nBelow basic (6%) 2010 (3%) decrease. There was again a small percent of growth in math for this group of students. They were at a high level, maintained it and grew some. This is what we want across the board. The principal focused on the ADE school report card Subgroup Details for Growth Used in AYP 2010. There were 25 students, combining all subgroups, that met growth in math even though they were not proficient. There were 61 students , combining all sub groups, that met growth in literacy even though they did not score proficient. The AA sub pop had the highest number of students making growth. Our challenge as a staff is to singly identify these students on the move, the ones making growth, and work with them so that next year they indeed score proficient. Now is the time to use individual student data to plan Individual Academic Improvement Plans for all of our students, even though the ADE requires it only for those B and BB. Carver believes in growth for ALL students! The principal also has shown through a chart the amount of growth needed by this new years fourth and fifth grades subpopulations based on next years AYP and this years scores. It is a challenge that we will meet head on and will accomplish by working as Professional learning Communities, selecting focus standards, teaching to them, using common formative assessments to check progress, grade tests together as grade level teams and analyze the data to make teaching/learning decisions and plan for RTI when needed. 6. 2010-2011 Comprehensive Needs Assessment from 2010-2011: Spring 2011 Benchmark results were analyzed by a Leadership Team composed of the principal and coaches. Classroom teachers and specialists also analyzed the data looking for growth of particular students. Annual yearly progress was set at 78.4 for Literacy and 77 .5 for Mathematics. The school: The score for the combined population for math was 74.6, missing the state score of 77.5 by 4%. 4 students that were basic and below did meet growth, however that was not enough to meet our growth goal. The score for the combined population for literacy was 72.2, missing the state score by 8%. With the growth model added to the equation the state pronounced that Carver did not make annual yearly progress for the combined population in literacy and math. An appeal was made based on the discrepancies in the coding of highly mobile students, and incorrect numbers. The results of each grade level were disaggregated by math and literacy for each child for the past two years to show growth or decline made by individuals as well as the whole group. This information was given to each of the third, fourth and fifth grade teachers for their review and reflection prior to school. The Leadership Team with the entire staff analyzed individual grade level data by all sub groups for math and literacy. Third grade literacy: Combined population 71 % (6% increase)\nAA 61 % (4% decrease)\nC 83% (17% increase)\nED 64% (1% increase). 4th Grade Literacy: Comb pop 78% (7%)\nAA 73% (13% increase)\nC 86% (6% increase)\nED 74% (5% increase)\nFifth Grade Literacy: Com pop 68% (10% decrease)\nAA 63% ( 7% decrease)\nC 78% (15% decrease)\nED 63% ( 6% decrease). Mathematics changes: Third Grade : Com pop 80% (6% decrease)\nAA 70%(13% decrease)\nC 95% (3% increase)\nED 74% (9 % decrease\n4th Grade Math: Com pop 80% (9% increase)\nAA 73% (8 % increase)\nC 91 % ( 11 % increase)\nED 77% (9 % increase)\n5th Grade Math: Com pop 67% ( 17 % decrease)\nAA 61% ( 17 % decrease)\nCC 78% (18 % decrease) ED 64%(14% decrease). This look at data compares groups of students in grades 3, 4, 5 from 2010 tests to different students in grades 3, 4, 5, for 2010 tests. Another look at data compares students scores from third grade in 2010 to their fourth grade scores in 2011. We found the following changes: Literacy: Advanced 2010, 30%\n2011, 37%\ngrowth of 7%. Proficient: 2010 35%\n2011, 44%. Growth of 9%. Basic: 2010, 20%\n2011, 13%. Decrease of 7%. Below basic: 2010, 16%\n2011, 6 %. Decrease of 10%. 16% increase in proficient and advanced is very encouraging, with a 19% decrease in basic and below. Mathematics: Advanced: 2010, 49%\n2011, 38%\ndecrease of 11 %. Proficient: 2010, 36%\n2011, 43%.Increase of 7%. Basic: http://acsip.state.ar.us/cgi-bin/index.cgi?rm=report_acsip\u0026amp;print=l 12/5/2011 ACSIP Page 22 of 50 2010, 14%\n2011, 8%. Decrease of6%. Below basic: 2010, 0%\n2011, 11%. Increase of 11 %. The 4% decrease at P and A seem to say that some A students slipped to P. The 5% drop in B and BB is encouraging. We will work as a Professional Learning Community to find answers as we analyze common formative assessments of our focus standards this year. Data comparing fourth grade 2010 scores to those of the same group of students in the fifth grade 2011 shows these changes: Literacy: Advanced 2010: 17%, 2011, 26%. Increase of 9%. Proficient 2010: 54%\n2011: 45%. Decrease of 9%. Basic: 2010, 28%\n2011, 29%. Increase of 1%. Below basic: 2010, 3%\n2011, 0%. Decrease of 3%. Proficient and advanced percentages stayed the same with basic and below had less than one percent drop. Mathematics: Advanced: 2010, 36%\n2011, 29%. Decrease of 7%. Proficient: 2010, 35%\n2011, 40%. Increase of 5%. Basic: 2010, 18%\n2011, 25%. Increase of 7%. Below Basic: 2010, 12%\n2011, 6%. Decrease of 6%. There was a 2% slippage in P and A with a 1 % drop in B and BB. We can see growth but some slippage. Our growth was not enough to reach AYP. We will visit with individual teachers, look at strategies, delivery of instruction, broker/specialist pull outs and RTI to find ways to move more students upward. Strategies for achievement of AYP: 1. RTI/SBIT with case managers supporting teachers and interventionists. 2. Small group instruction levelized for literacy reading groups and math. 3. BOOST after school tutoring 4. GT plan for individuals (3, 4, 5) 5. Grade level meetings with coaches and curriculum specialists. 6. PD focused on literacy and math needs. 7. SOAR assessments reviews per grade level. 8. Math/literacy assessment wall. 9. AIP's for all students. 10. Broker specialists/Intervention strategist for each grade level. 11. Math/literacy coaches modeling rigorous instruction. 12. Principal/counselor benchmark review and goals set with each 4th and 5th grade student. Goals home to parents with Benchmark test copy. 13. Item by item analysis of math and literacy question on the 3,4, 5 grade Benchmark test by the entire staff. School wide growth needed for AYP for literacy: CP 13.4% AA 29.4% C 4.9% ED 18.9% School wide growth needed for AYP for math: CP 10.4% AA 18.1% C 0% ED 14.6 7. Arkansas Comprehensive School Improvement Data Source for CARVER MAGNET ELEM. SCHOOL IOWA TEST OF BASIC SKILLS -- Report Completed: Aug 30, 2011 Number Tested and Percent of Students Scoring At/Above 50th Percentile: COMBINED POPULATION Grade:00 Year 2011 Number Tested 49 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Vocabulary 49.0% Reading Comprehension 81.6% Reading Total 83.7% Punctuation 87.8% Language Total 93.9% Math Total Without Comp. 61.2% AFRICAN AMERICAN POPULATION Grade:00 Year 2011 Number Tested 32 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Vocabulary 46.9% Reading Comprehension 78.1% Reading Total 81.3% Punctuation 84.4% Language Total 90.6% Math Total Without Comp. 56.3% HISPANIC POPULATION Grade:00 Year 2011 Number Tested 3 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Vocabulary 33.3% Reading Comprehension 66.7% Reading Total 100.0% Punctuation 100.0% Language Total 100.0% Math Total Without Comp. 66.7% CAUCASIAN POPULATION Grade:00 Year 2011 Number Tested 10 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Vocabulary 60.0% Reading Comprehension 90.0% Reading Total 90.0% Punctuation 100.0% Language Total 100.0% Math Total Without Comp. 80.0% ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED Grade:00 Year 2011 Number Tested 41 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Vocabulary 46.3% Reading Comprehension 78.0% Reading Total 80.5% Punctuation 85.4% Language Total 92.7% Math Total Without Comp. 56.1% LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT Grade:00 Year 2011 Number Tested 4 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Vocabulary 25.0% Reading Comprehension 100.0% Reading Total 100.0% Punctuation 100.0% Language Total 100.0% Math Total Without Comp. 75.0% STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES Grade:00 Year 2011 Number Tested O % At/Above 50th NPR In: Vocabulary N/A% Reading Comprehension N/A% Reading Total N/A% Punctuation N/A% Language Total N/A% Math Total Without Comp. N/A% Arkansas Comprehensive School Improvement Data Source for CARVER MAGNET ELEM. SCHOOL IOWA TEST OF BASIC SKILLS -- Report Completed: Aug 30, 2011 Number Tested and Percent of Students Scoring At/Above 50th Percentile: COMBINED POPULATION Grade:01 Year 2011 Number Tested 74 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Vocabulary 31.1 % Reading Comprehension 55.4% Reading Total 44.6% Spelling 58.1 % Language Total 31.1% Math Concepts 45.9% Problems \u0026amp; Data Inter. 32.4% Math Total Without Comp. 40.5% AFRICAN AMERICAN POPULATION Grade:01 Year 2011 Number Tested 44 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Vocabulary 13.6% Reading Comprehension 45.5% Reading Total 31.8% Spelling 56.8% Language Total 18.2% Math Concepts 38.6% Problems \u0026amp; Data Inter. 25.0% Math Total Without Comp. 25.0% HISPANIC POPULATION Grade:01 Year 2011 Number Tested 2 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Vocabulary 50.0% Reading Comprehension 100.0% Reading Total 50.0% Spelling 50.0% Language Total 50.0% Math Concepts 50.0% Problems \u0026amp; Data Inter. 50.0% Math Total Without Comp. 50.0% CAUCASIAN POPULATION Grade:01 Year 2011 Number Tested 25 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Vocabulary 60.0% Reading Comprehension 68.0% Reading Total 64.0% Spelling 60.0% Language Total 48.0% Math Concepts 56.0% Problems \u0026amp; Data Inter. 40.0% Math Total Without Comp. 64.0% ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED Grade:01 Year 2011 Number http://acsip.state.ar. us/ cgi-bin/index.cgi ?rm=report _ acsip\u0026amp;print= 1 12/5/2011 ACSIP Page 23 of 50 Tested 50 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Vocabulary 22.0% Reading Comprehension 48.0% Reading Total 36.0% Spelling 50.0% Language Total 16.0% Math Concepts 34.0% Problems \u0026amp; Data Inter. 24.0% Math Total Without Comp. 28.0% LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT Grade:01 Year 2011 Number Tested 5 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Vocabulary 0% Reading Comprehension 40.0% Reading Total 20.0% Spelling 40.0% Language Total 20.0% Math Concepts 20.0% Problems \u0026amp; Data Inter. 20.0% Math Total Without Comp. 20.0% Arkansas Comprehensive School Improvement Data Source for CARVER MAGNET ELEM. SCHOOL IOWA TEST OF BASIC SKILLS -- Report Completed: Aug 30, 2011 Number Tested and Percent of Students Scoring At/Above 50th Percentile: COMBINED POPULATION Grade:02 Year 2011 Number Tested 75 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Vocabulary 36.0% Reading Comprehension 61.3% Reading Total 48.0% Spelling 53.3% Language Total 30.7% Math Concepts 62.7% Problems \u0026amp; Data Inter. 50.7% Math Total Without Comp. 48.0% AFRICAN AMERICAN POPULATION Grade:02 Year 2011 Number Tested 45 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Vocabulary 28.9% Reading Comprehension 62.2% Reading Total 44.4% Spelling 55.6% Language Total 22.2% Math Concepts 57 .8% Problems \u0026amp; Data Inter. 37 .8% Math Total Without Comp. 40.0% HISPANIC POPULATION Grade:02 Year 2011 Number Tested 4 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Vocabulary 50.0% Reading Comprehension 25.0% Reading Total 25.0% Spelling 50.0% Language Total 25.0% Math Concepts 50.0% Problems \u0026amp; Data Inter. 50.0% Math Total Without Comp. 50.0% CAUCASIAN POPULATION Grade:02 Year 2011 Number Tested 24 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Vocabulary 45.8% Reading Comprehension 66.7% Reading Total 58.3% Spelling 45.8% Language Total 45.8% Math Concepts 70.8% Problems \u0026amp; Data Inter. 70.8% Math Total Without Comp. 58.3% ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED Grade:02 Year 2011 Number Tested 53 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Vocabulary 32.1% Reading Comprehension 50.9% Reading Total 41.5% Spelling 47.2% Language Total 24.5% Math Concepts 56.6% Problems \u0026amp; Data Inter. 45.3% Math Total Without Comp. 41.5% LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT Grade:02 Year 2011 Number Tested 5 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Vocabulary 40.0% Reading Comprehension 40.0% Reading Total 40.0% Spelling 40.0% Language Total 0% Math Concepts 80.0% Problems \u0026amp; Data Inter. 80.0% Math Total Without Comp. 80.0% Arkansas Comprehensive School Improvement Data Source for CARVER MAGNET ELEM. SCHOOL IOWA TEST OF BASIC SKILLS -- Report Completed: Aug 30, 2011 Number Tested and Percent of Students Scoring At/Above 50th Percentile: COMBINED POPULATION Grade:05 Year 2011 Number Tested 73 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Reading Comprehension 45.2% Language Total 27.4% Math Total Without Comp. 45.2% Science 39.7% AFRICAN AMERICAN POPULATION Grade:05 Year 2011 Number Tested 48 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Reading Comprehension 37.5% Language Total 20.8% Math Total Without Comp. 35.4% Science 27 .1 % HISPANIC POPULATION Grade:05 Year 2011 Number Tested 3 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Reading Comprehension 100.0% Language Total 33.3% Math Total Without Comp. 33.3% Science 66.7% CAUCASIAN POPULATION Grade:05 Year 2011 Number Tested 18 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Reading Comprehension 66.7% Language Total 44.4% Math Total Without Comp. 66.7% Science 72.2% ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED Grade:05 Year 2011 Number Tested 58 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Reading Comprehension 43.1 % Language Total 22.4% Math Total Without Comp. 39.7% Science 32.8% LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT Grade:05 Year 2011 Number Tested 4 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Reading Comprehension 50.0% Language Total 25.0% Math Total Without Comp. 50.0% Science 50.0% STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES Grade:05 Year 2011 Number Tested 3 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Reading Comprehension 0% Language Total 0% Math Total Without Comp. 0% Science 0% Arkansas Comprehensive School Improvement Data Source for CARVER MAGNET ELEM. SCHOOL IOWA TEST OF BASIC SKILLS -- Report Completed: Aug 30, 2011 Number Tested and Percent of Students Scoring At/Above 50th Percentile: COMBINED POPULATION Grade:03 Year 2011 Number Tested 69 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Reading Comprehension 39.1 % Language Total 27.5% Math Total Without Comp. 42.0% AFRICAN AMERICAN POPULATION Grade:03 Year 2011 Number Tested 41 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Reading Comprehension 22.0% Language Total 9.8% Math Total Without Comp. 29.3% HISPANIC POPULATION Grade:03 Year 2011 Number Tested 4 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Reading Comprehension 75.0% Language Total 50.0% Math Total Without Comp. 50.0% CAUCASIAN POPULATION Grade:03 Year 2011 Number Tested 18 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Reading Comprehension 66.7% Language Total 44.4% Math Total Without Comp. 55.6% ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED Grade:03 Year 2011 Number Tested 51 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Reading Comprehension 31.4% Language Total 15.7% Math Total Without Comp. 33.3% LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT Grade:03 Year 2011 Number Tested 8 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Reading Comprehension 62.5% Language Total 87.5% Math Total Without Comp. 87.5% STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES Grade:03 Year 2011 Number Tested 9 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Reading Comprehension 0% Language Total 0% Math Total Without Comp. 22.2% Arkansas Comprehensive School Improvement Data Source for CARVER MAGNET ELEM. SCHOOL IOWA TEST OF BASIC SKILLS -- Report Completed: Aug 30, 2011 Number Tested and Percent of Students Scoring At/Above 50th Percentile: http://acsip.state.ar.us/cgi-bin/index.cgi?rm=report_acsip\u0026amp;print=l 12/5/2011 ACSIP Goal Page 24 of 50 COMBINED POPULATION Grade:04 Year 2011 Number Tested 76 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Reading Comprehension 56.6% Language Total 42.1% Math Total Without Comp. 63.2% AFRICAN AMERICAN POPULATION Grade:04 Year 2011 Number Tested 44 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Reading Comprehension 47.7% Language Total 31.8% Math Total Without Comp. 52.3% HISPANIC POPULATION Grade:04 Year 2011 Number Tested 5 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Reading Comprehension 60.0% Language Total 20.0% Math Total Without Comp. 80.0% CAUCASIAN POPULATION Grade:04 Year 2011 Number Tested 23 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Reading Comprehension 69.6% Language Total 60.9% Math Total Without Comp. 78.3% ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED Grade:04 Year 2011 Number Tested 58 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Reading Comprehension 46.6% Language Total 34.5% Math Total Without Comp. 56.9% LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT Grade:04 Year 2011 Number Tested 6 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Reading Comprehension 66.7% Language Total 50.0% Math Total Without Comp. 83.3% STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES Grade:04 Year 2011 Number Tested 6 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Reading Comprehension 16.7% Language Total 16.7% Math Total Without Comp. 16.7% 8. Spring and fall 2010 grade levels and the entire staff analyzed the results of the State Benchmark/IOWA and district WRAP tests along with perceptual data including discipline, attendance, economically disadvantaged percentage increases and mobility. At present we have been designated Alert status for literacy and math, but that is on appeal based on incorrect data reports of highly mobile students and coding errors. We noted strengths and weaknesses. Strengths include individual student growth. Although we did not meet the cut score for AYP in 09-10, we did make AYP when the growth percentage was added. Strengths also include discipline, a result of our strong Stop and Think social skills program. Weaknesses include the low scores exhibited by our African American and Economically Disadvantaged students who are on SI-3 in literacy, and alert status in math. Weaknesses also include alert status designation for the combined population in literacy and math. Our focus is on African American and Economically Disadvantaged students in particularly and the entire population in general for LITERACY, reading comprehension focused on inference, vocabulary, and fluency and writing focused on content and style domains. MATH focus for the combined population is measurement, data analysis/probability and geometry. Our school improvement plan includes strategic interventions that support \"Academic Performance, Learning Environment and Leadership\". Benchmark Exam,IOWA: To achieve proficiency for all students in mathematics, especially in our African American subgroup(alert status) and our economically disadvantaged subgroup (alert status) by concentrating on weak areas identified by the three year Benchmark item analysis: measurement, data analysis/probability and geometry. Meet state AYP in 2012(85%). Growth needed: Grade Three: Combined Population 5.0%, African American 15%, Caucasian 0%, Economically Disadvantaged growth needed 11 .. Grade Four: Combined Population 5% , African Americans 12%, Caucasion 0%,Economically Disadvantaged Benchmark 6.5%. Grade Five: Combined Population growth needed 18%, African Americans 24%, Caucasion 7% Economically Disadvantaged 21 %. **AN ASTERISK PLACED IN AN ACTION INDICATES SERVICES PROVIDED COMPARABLE TO INSTRUCTIONAL ACTIVITY FOR LOW ACHIEVING STUDENTS. jintervention: Classroom Math Centers - Kindergarten - Tier I Intervention I Scientific Based Research: Van De Walle, J.A. (2006). Teaching Student-Centered Mathematics Grades K-3. Boston: Pearson. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2006). Curriculum Focal Points for Prekindergarten through Grade 8 Mathematics. Reston, VA. Payne, Ruby K. (2005) A Framework for Understanding Poverty, Kafele, Baruti K.(2009) Motivating Black Males to Achieve in School and Life. !Actions I Person : Responsible ITimeline IIR esources I Source of Funds Collaborate with grade level team, math Nina Huey, Start: specialist, and special education teachers Kindergarten 08/15/2011  Teachers to implement activities using manipulatives End:  Teaching Aids ACTION $ to identify, count and match sets to 05/31/2012 BUDGET: numerals 1-20 (Standard 1, Benchmarks 1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.7,1.8) as a means to improve math achievement for all students. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Special Education http://acsip.state.ar. us/ cgi-bin/index.cgi ?rm=report_ acsip\u0026amp;print= 1 12/5/2011 ACSIP Page 25 of 50 Collaborate with grade level team, math Nina Huey, Start: specialist, and special education teachers Kindergarten 08/15/2011  Teachers to implement activities to identify plane End:  Teaching Aids ACTION $ shapes and sort shapes by attributes 05/31/2012 BUDGET: (Standard 4, Benchmark 4.2) as a means to improve math achievement for all students. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Special Education Collaborate with grade level team, math Shanel Start: specialist, and special education teachers Ditmore, 08/15/2011  Teachers to implement activities to create and Kindergarten End:  Teaching Aids ACTION $ extend patterns with manipulatives Grade Level 05/31/2012 BUDGET: (Standard 2, Benchmarks 2.1,2.2,2.3) as a Chair means to improve math achievement for all students. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Special Education Collaborate with grade level team, math Shanel Start: specialist, and special education teachers Ditmore, 08/15/2011  Teachers to implement activities to demonstrate an Kindergarten End:  Teaching Aids ACTION $ understanding of comparative language Grade Level 05/31/2012 BUDGET: (Standard 4, Benchmarks 4.2,4.3,4.4) as a Chair means to improve math achievement for all students. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Special Education Collaborate with classroom teachers and Shanel Start: specialists to implement activities to use Ditmore, 08/15/2011  Teachers systems of measurement such as the Kindergarten End:  Teaching Aids ACTION $ calendar, clock, and money as a means to Grade Level 05/31/2012 BUDGET: improve math achievement for all Chair students. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Special Education Determine the impact of math centers Shanel Start: implementing activities introduced whole Ditmore, 08/15/2011 . Performance group to demonstrate an understanding of Kindergarten End: Assessments ACTION $ all math skills targeted in action types Grade Level 05/31/2012  Teachers BUDGET: above by 88% of kindergarten students Chair  Teaching Aids performing at or above the proficient level on the on the calendar math post test. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Program Evaluation Action Type: Special Education jTotal Budget: II $01 Intervention: Labs - Math, Young Astronaut, Computer Lab - Kindergarten - Fifth - Tiers I, II, and III\nIntervention Scientific Based Research: Van De Walle, J.A. (2006). Teaching Student-Centered Mathematics Grades K-3. Boston: Pearson. !Actions IIPerson : Responsible ITimeline IIR esources I Source of Funds http://acsip.state.ar.us/cgi-bin/index.cgi?rm=report_acsip\u0026amp;print=l 12/5/2011 ACSIP Page 26 of 50 Collaborate with classroom teachers, math, Suellen Start: young astronaut, and computer specialists to DiMassimo, 08/15/2011 . Computers plan, assign, and monitor students in Math End:  Teachers ACTION $ completing computer based math Specialist 05/31/2012  Teaching Aids BUDGET: assignments which reinforce classroom and math lab-introduced skills as a means to improve math achievement for all students. Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Technology Inclusion Determine the impact of planning, assigning, Suellen Start: and monitoring students in computer math DiMassimo, 08/15/2011 . Computers assignments which reinforce classroom and Math End: . Performance ACTION $ math lab-introduced skills by students Specialist 05/31/2012 Assessments BUDGET: performing at the proficient or above level  Teachers on math lesson unit assessments from the individual labs. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Program Evaluation Collaborate with grade level teams and Teata Pace, Start: coaches to dissect the Benchmark released Curriculum 08/15/2011 . Teachers items in math by correlating the specific Specialist End: . Teaching Aids ACTION $ skills that align with weekly plans, as they 05/31/2012 BUDGET: pertain to our Curriculum Map as a means to improve math achievement focused on basic and below basic students, primarily African- American , special education students and economically disadvantaged students. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Equity Collaborate with Lab specialists to enrich Linda Start: math instruction through observation of Corrigan, 08/15/2011  Teachers model lessons in the labs and the classroom Grade Level End:  Teaching Aids ACTION $ with coaches feedback as a means to Chair 05/31/2012 BUDGET: enhance math skills for all students. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity !Total Budget: II $01 Intervention: Home-School Connection/Parental Involvement - Kindergarten - Fifth - Tiers I, II, and III Intervention Scientific Based Research: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics\n2000 Principals and Standards for School Mathematics. (2003) Armstrong, Thomas (1994) Multiple Intelligences: Seven Ways To Approach Curriculum, Educational Leadership\nS. Zemelman, H. Daniels, A. Hyde, Best Practice: New Standards for Teaching and Learning in America's Schools (1998). M. Schmoker\nThe Results Fieldbook: Practical Strategies from Dramatically Improved Schools (2001)\nThe BIG Picture: Education is Everyone's Business, Dennis Littky with Samatha Grabel le, 2004. S. Wagner\nResearch Ideas for the Classroom (Vol. 1 :Early Childhood Mathematics) (1993)\nM. Burns\nAbout Teaching Mathematics (2000) !Actions : Responsible I Person ITimeline IIR esources I Source of Funds Collaborate with grade level teams by Phillip Carlock, Start: meeting weekly to coordinate Parental 08/15/2011  Teaching Aids ACTION curriculum topics, strategies, Involvement End: BUDGET: $ materials, and skills to discuss Coordinator 05/31/2012 assessed needs of students with parents as need also to prepare for parent conference day. Action Type: AIP/IRI Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Parental Engagement http://acsip.state.ar.u s/cgi-bin/index.c gi ?rm==report a csip\u0026amp;print=1= 12/5/2011 ACSIP Page 27 of 50 Determine the impact of family Rita Friend, Start: involvement by evaluating attendance Grade Level 08/15/2011 ACTION during Family Math/Science night, Chair End: $ attendance at parent conferences, 05/31/2012 BUDGET: and informal assessments of returned signed take home materials and student attendance at extra curricula activities Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Parental Engagement Action Type: Program Evaluation Collaborate with parents to Marsha Spears, Start: communicate weekly math skills Grade Level 08/15/2011  Computers through specific grade level packets, Chairman End: . Performance ACTION $ planners, newsletters, calendars, etc 05/31/2012 Assessments BUDGET: as a means to provide reinforcement  Teachers and practice for all children.  Teaching Aids Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Parental Engagement Action Type: Technology Inclusion Collaborate with staff and families to Linda Corrigan, Start: attend Math/Science Family Night as Grade Level 08/15/2011  Teachers a means to strengthen Math/Science Chair End:  Teaching Aids ACTION $ skills learned daily in the classrooms 05/31/2012 BUDGET: of all children. Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Parental Engagement Collaborate with parents, students Holly Shields, Start: and staff to support WAGS (Work, Grade Level 08/15/2011  Administrative Attendance, Grades and Social Skills) Chairman End: Staff ACTION $ recognition as a means to encourage 05/31/2012  Community BUDGET: academic achievement for all Leaders students.  District Staff Action Type: Alignment  Teachers Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Parental Engagement Action Type: Professional Development Collaborate with staff and parents to Jason Crader, Start: provide an opportunity for extra Grade Level 08/15/2011  Administrative curricula activity instruction after Chairman End: Staff ACTION $ school as a means of enrichment in 05/31/2012 . District Staff BUDGET: art, science, chess, Destination  Teachers Imagination and music for all  Teaching Aids interested students. Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Parental Engagement Collaboration between parents and Jason Crader, Start: staff to establish BOOST, an after- Grade Level 08/15/2011  Administrative school tutoring program, to provide Chairman End: Staff ACTION $ basic and below basic students extra 05/31/2012  Performance BUDGET: intervention in math. Assessments Action Type: Collaboration  Teachers Action Type: Equity  Teaching Aids Action Type: Parental Engagement ITotal Budget: II $01 !intervention: Flexible Group Instruction - Kindergarten - Fifth - Tiers II and III Intervention I htto://acsio.state.ar.us/cgi-bin/index.cgi?rm=report acsip\u0026amp;print=l 12/5/2011 ACSIP Page 28 of 50 Scientific Based Research: S. Zemelman\nH. Daniels\nA. Hyde\nBest Practice New Standards for Teaching and Learning in America's School (1998)\nM. Schmoker\nThe Results Fieldbook: Practical Strategies from Dramatically Improved Schools (2001)\nHarcourt Arkansas Math Edition, 2007\nTERC\nLittle Rock School District Math Curriculum Map\nChildren's Mathematics, Cognitive Guided Instruction, Carpenter, Thomas (1999) . !Actions :I Responsible JPerson ITimeline IIR esources I Source of Funds Identify students using test data to Rita Friend, Start: establish small flexible groups as a Grade Level 08/15/2011 . Performance means to individualize instruction for all Chair End: Assessments ACTION $ students. Move children from group to 05/31/2012  Teachers BUDGET: group with student advancement.  Teaching Aids Action Type: AIP/IRI Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Determine the impact of flexible group Jason Crader, Start: instruction to move students to Grade Level 08/15/2011 . Performance proficiency by monitoring SOAR math Chairman End: Assessments ACTION $ assessments during RtI meetings, 05/31/2012  Teachers BUDGET: Cognitive Guided Instruction assessments and SAT-10 with socre of 85% expected. Action Type: AIP/IRI Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Program Evaluation Collaborate with grade level teachers, Shanel Start: specialist and broker to assess individual Ditmore, 08/15/2011  Performance student needs through the SOAR Grade Level End: Assessments ACTION $ evaluation as a means to establish Chair 05/31/2012  Teachers BUDGET: groups and to teach student learning  Teaching Aids expectations. Action Type: AIP/IRI Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity **Collaborate with second grade Linda Start: teachers specialist/broker to assess Corrigan, 08/15/2011  Administrative problem solving stategies using Grade Level End: Staff ACTION $ Cognitive Guided Instruction methods. Chairman 05/31/2012 . Performance BUDGET: Action Type: AIP/IRI Assessments Action Type: Alignment  Teachers Action Type: Collaboration  Teaching Aids Action Type: Equity Action Type: Professional Development **Collaborate with grade level team and Linda Start: broker to modify math curriculum to Corrigan, 08/15/2011  Administrative meet the student's instructional level as Grade Level End: Staff ACTION $ a means to improve math achievement Chair 05/31/2012  Performance BUDGET: for basic and below basic students, Assessments primarily economically disadvantaged.  Teachers Action Type: AIP/IRI  Teaching Aids Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Collaboration between grade level Diane Start: teachers, coaches, and principal to Barksdale, 08/15/2011 . Administrative determine students progress on a Principal End: Staff ACTION $ quarterly basis using SOAR and the 05/31/2012 . Performance BUDGET: assessment wall to plan Response to Assessments Intervention strategies for low  Teachers performing students.  Teaching Aids Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Equity http://acsip.state.ar.us/cgi-bin/index.cgi?rm=report_acsip\u0026amp;print=l 12/5/2011 ACSIP Page 29 of 50 First grade students will be assigned Sarah Elms, Start: work stations targeting individual needs First Grade 08/15/2011 . Performance on a weekly basis. Students performing Teacher End: Assessments ACTION $ at basic and below will work with 05/31/2012  Teachers BUDGET: teacher in a small group twice a week. !Total Budget: II $01 Intervention: Math/Science Family Night - Suellen DiMassimo-Math Specialist\nGene Williams - Science Specialist - Tier I Intervention I Scientific Based Research: Schussheim, Joan Ya res. Large Scale Family Math Nights: A Primer for Collaboration. January 2004, Volume 10, Issue 5, page 254, Teaching Children Mathematics. Connecting Mathematics Instruction with Families of Young Children. Diane W. Kyle, Ellen McEntire and Gayle More October 2001 Vol. 8, issue 2, p. 80 Teaching Children Mathematics. !Actions I Person : Responsible ITimeline IIR esources I Source of Funds Collaborate with students, staff and Suellen Start: parents to provide family math/science DiMassimo, Math 08/15/2011  Computers nights as a means to improve parent and Specialist, Gene End:  Teachers ACTION $ child communication focused on math Williams, Science 05/31/2012  Teaching Aids BUDGET: skills for all students. Specialist Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Parental Engagement Action Type: Program Evaluation Collaborate with staff, students and Gene Williams, Start: parents to conduct Math and Science Science 08/15/2011  School Fairs as a means for all students to Specialist End: Library ACTION $ demonstrate learned math skills. Suellen 05/31/2012  Teachers BUDGET: Action Type: Alignment DiMassimo, Math  Teaching Aids Action Type: Collaboration Specialist Action Type: Equity Action Type: Parental Engagement Determine the impact of Math/Science Suellen Start: Fairs and Family Math/Science Night and DiMassimo, Math 08/15/2011  Community Math Fair Week to improve parent/child Specialist End: Leaders ACTION $ communication and demonstration of 05/31/2012 . District Staff BUDGET: math/science skills by comparing . Performance attendance from previous years and by Assessments the number of Math/Science Fair  Teachers projects submitted.  Teaching Aids Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Parental Engagement Action Type: Program Evaluation !Total Budget: II $01 IIntervention: Small Cooperative grouping.: Suellen DiMassimo, Math Specialist -Tier II Intervention I Scientific Based Research: Cooperative Groups Abstract-Cooperative Groups, October 2003, Volume 9, Issue 2 MCMT. S. Zemel man\nH. Daniels\nA. Hyde\nBest Practice New Standards for Teaching and Learning in America's Schools (1998)\nM. Schmoker\nThe Results Fieldbook: Practical Strategies from Dramatically Improved Schools (2001). Payne, Ruby K. (2005) A Framework for Understanding Poverty, Kafele, Baruti K. (2009) Motivating Black Males to Achieve in School and Life. !Actions I Person : Responsible ITimeline II Resources I Source of Funds Collaborate with third and fifth grade Suellen Start: teachers and small groups of students to DiMassimo, 08/15/2011 . Administrative target specific math skills as a means to Math End: Staff ACTION $ raise the Benchmark scores for all Specialist 05/31/2012 . Teachers BUDGET: children.  Teaching Aids Action Type: AIP/IRI Action Type: Alignment htto://acsio.state.ar.us/cgi-bin/index.cgi?rm=report acsip\u0026amp;print=l 12/5/2011 ACSIP Page 30 of 50 Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity I II II II I Collaborate with all classroom teachers to Suellen Start: reinforce classroom instruction during DiMassimo, 08/15/2011  Teachers math lab as a means to encourage and Math End:  Teaching Aids ACTION $ motivate all students' to improve their Specialist 05/31/2012 BUDGET: math skills. Action Type: AIP/IRI Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Determine the impact of targeting specific Suellen Start: math skills for teaching in small DiMassimo, 08/15/2011  Teachers cooperative groups and during math lab Math End:  Teaching Aids ACTION $ to improve math scores of all students by Specialist 05/31/2012 BUDGET: 85% performing at or above the proficient level using a teacher made test from TL! that is aligned with the standards. Action Type: Program Evaluation Collaborate with all grade levels to deliver Suellen Start: Rt! to all identified student (African DiMassimo, 08/15/2011  Teachers American and economically Math End:  Teaching Aids ACTION $ disadvantaged) to improve math Specialist 05/31/2012 BUDGET: knowledge. Action Type: AIP/IRI Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity !Total Budget: II $01 !Intervention: Math problem solving in the early grades, June Joseph, Special Education Specialist - Tiers II and III Intervention Scientific Based Research: The 31st International Conference on Learning Disabilities in Dallas, TX: Responsive Assessment and Instructional Practices: Sessions to attend: Preventing Mathematical Difficulties in Early Grades: Interventions that Work! and Improving Mathematical Problems Solving for Students with Learning Disabilities. Payne, Ruby K. (2005) A Framework for Understanding Poverty, Kafele, Baruti K.(2009) Motivating Black Males to Achieve in School and Life. !Actions I Person : Responsible ITimeline IIResources I Source of Funds Attend Conferences on Learning Disabilities June Joseph, Start: specifically attend sessions on improving math Special 08/15/2011  Teachers skills and preventing math difficulties in the Education End:  Teaching ACTION $ early grades in order to work with students to Specialist 05/31/2012 Aids BUDGET: show growth on math assessments at the building, district and state levels focused on African-American and economically disadvantaged students. Action Type: AIP/IRI Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Professional Development **Determine the impact of conference June Joseph, Start: strategies used in inclusion groups to show Special 08/15/2011  Teachers growth of special education students in Education End:  Teaching ACTION $ quarterly SOAR assessments and nine week Specialist 05/31/2012 Aids BUDGET: grade percentages. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Program Evaluation Collaborate with fourth grade teachers in order IJJune Joseph, to form and service small math inclusion Special !Start: II 08/15/2011  Teachers II I http://acsip.state.ar. us/cgi-bin/index.cgi ?rm=report _ acsip\u0026amp;print= 1 12/5/2011 ACSIP Page 31 of 50 groups, four days a week for 30 minutes, while Education End:  Teaching ACTION implementing learning strategies from the 31st Specialist 05/31/2012 Aids BUDGET: $ International Conference on Learning Disabilities. Action Type: AIP/IRI Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Professional Development Action Type: Special Education Chart growth using quartly SOAR assessments, June Joseph, Start: nine week grade percentages, and Compasss Special 08/15/2011  Teachers Learning lessons. Education End:  Teaching ACTION $ Action Type: AIP/IRI Specialist 05/31/2012 Aids BUDGET: Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Special Education Action Type: Technology Inclusion jTotal Budget: II $01 jintervention: Young Astronaut Lab - Charlotte Cook - Tier II Intervention I Scientific Based Research: 2006 Math Benchmark Released Item Booklet\nTate, Marcia L.(2003). Worksheets Don't Grow Dendrites: 20 Instructional Strategies That Engage the Brain. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. Teachers College Press: Investigating Real Data in the Classroom Expanding Children's Understanding of Mathematics and Science\nR. Lehrer and L. Schauble (2002) !Actions : Responsible I Person ITimeline IIR esources I Source of Funds **Collaborate with grade-level teachers to re- Charlotte Start: teach deficit math skills in Young Astronauts Cook, Young 08/15/2011  Teachers science lessons to provide examples of real life Astronaut End:  Teaching ACTION $ usage and application of these skills as Specialist 05/31/2012 Aids BUDGET: determined from Benchmark exams for grades 3, 4, and 5 as a means to improve math skills. SOAR tests will be used to measure growth. Action Type: AIP/IRI Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Special Education **Determine the impact of math intervention Charlotte Start: for identified basic and below basic students Cook, Young 08/15/2011  Teachers through teacher observation of student Astronaut End:  Teaching ACTION $ participation in application process in lab and Specialist 05/31/2012 Aids BUDGET: through student written narrative explaining the process and application. 85% will move to profiency on the SOAR test by the end of the school year. Action Type: Program Evaluation jTotal Budget: II $01 jintervention: Parent Involvement - Gene Williams, Science Specialist - Tier I Intervention I Scientific Based Research: Schussheim, Joan Yares. Large Scale Family Math Nights: A Primer for Collaboration. January 2004, Volume 10, Issue 5, page 254, Teaching Children Mathematics. Connecting Mathematics Instruction with Families of Young Children. Diane W. Kyle, Ellen McEntire and Gayle More October 2001 Vol. 8, issue 2, p. 80 Teaching Children Mathematics !Actions I Person : Responsible ITimeline 11R esources I Source of Funds Collaborate with staff, students and Gene Williams, Start: parents to sponsor Science Fair Nights Science Specialist 08/15/2011 . Community for students and parents as a means to End: Leaders ACTION $ motivate, encourage and teach the 05/31/2012 . District Staff BUDGET: process of construction of projects by . School Library http://acsip.state.ar. us/cgi-bin/index.cgi ?rm=report _ acsip\u0026amp;print= 1 12/5/2011 ACSIP Page 32 of 50 all third, fourth and fifth grade  Teachers students.  Teaching Aids Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Parental Engagement Collaborate with staff, students and Gene Williams, Start: parents to establish a Math/Science Science Specialist 08/15/2011  Administrative Family Night, to teach parents and Suellen End: Staff ACTION $ students hands-on activities and DiMassimo, Math 05/31/2012  District Staff BUDGET: provide families with take-home Specialist  Teachers packets of activities to improve all  Teaching Aids students achievement in math and science. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Parental Engagement Determine the impact of parental Gene Williams, Start: involvement during Math/Science Science Specialist 08/15/2011  Administrative Family Night and Science and Math Suellen End: Staff ACTION $ Fairs to strengthen all students DiMassimo, Math 05/31/2012  Community BUDGET: science/math knowledge by tabulation Specialist Leaders of a parent/student survey.  District Staff Action Type: Alignment  Teachers Action Type: Parental Engagement  Teaching Aids Action Type: Program Evaluation !Total Budget: II $01 jintervention: Cooperative Grouping - Gene Williams, Science Specialist - Tiers II and III Intervention I Scientific Based Research: Cooperative Groups Abstract-Cooperative Groups, October 2003, Volume 9, Issue 2 MCMT. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics\n2000 Principals and Standards for School Mathematics (NCTM 2003)Payne, Ruby K. (2005) A Framework for Understanding Poverty, Kafele, Baruti K.(2009) Motivating Black Males to Achieve in School and Life. !Actions : Responsible I Person ITimeline IIR esources I Source of Funds Collaborate with fifth grade teachers and Gene Start: small groups of students to target specific Williams, 08/15/2011  Teachers math and literacy skills as a means to Science End:  Teaching Aids ACTION $ raise Benchmark scores of all students Specialist 05/31/2012 BUDGET: focusing on African-American and economically disadvantaged. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Determine the impact of the small group Gene Start: instruction by reviewing the SOAR Williams, 08/15/2011 . Performance assessments, Benchmark scores and Science End: Assessments ACTION $ through periodic teacher made Specialist 05/31/2012  Teachers BUDGET: assessments.  Teaching Aids Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Program Evaluation jTotal Budget: II $01 Intervention: Integrated Curriculum and Professional Development Workshops in Math - Teri Hughes, Music Specialist Tier I Intervention Scientific Based Research: Druyan, S.(2005) \"Effects of Kinesthetic movement and memorization of multiplication tables,\" Journal of Music Educators National Conference. 78. The Singing Reading Connection. Shirley Handy. Los Angeles, CA: 2002. Threshold to Music. Eleanor Kidd. New York, NY. 2004 !Actions IIIPerson : Responsible ITimeline IIR esources I Source of Funds http ://acsip.state.ar. us/cgi-bin/index.cgi ?rm=report _ acsip\u0026amp;print= 1 12/5/2011 ACSIP Page 33 of 50 Collaborate with students and staff to Teri Hughes, Start: include math activities learned throu\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_198","title":"Enrollment, LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD, gender and racial count, school capasity, and transfers","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2010-10-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Educational statistics","Education and state","School integration","Public libraries--Arkansas--Little Rock","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County"],"dcterms_title":["Enrollment, LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD, gender and racial count, school capasity, and transfers"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/198"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"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?,oo_ ?W.95 0 Polly Ramer From: Date: To: Subject: Polly, \"Ring, Jean\" \u0026lt;Jean.Ring@lrsd.org\u0026gt; Monday, March 07, 2011 1 :43 PM \"'Polly Ramer\"' \u0026lt;paramer@odmemail.com\u0026gt; M to M's There are still 2 NLRSD students that are M to M for 10/11. So the figures should be 337 .83 for the county and 2.00 for NLRSD. Sorry I was late getting back to you!! Jean A. Ring Director, Finance and Accounting Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 P (501) 447-1089 F (501) 447-1158 Page 1 of 1 3/7/2011 Polly Ramer From: \"BERRY SHARON\" \u0026lt;SBERRY@pcssd.org\u0026gt; Date: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 4:02 PM To: \"Polly Ramer\" \u0026lt;paramer@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Subject: RE: ADM for Cycle 3 for M to M Sorry, below are the figures for ADM: Little Rock - 792.36 North Little Rock - 180.69 THANKS! Sharon From: Polly Ramer [mailto:paramer@odmemail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 20111:37 PM To: BERRY SHARON Subject: Re: ADM for Cycle 3 for M to M Sharon, Page I of I Sorry, but I cannot open the attachment. Can you either send it in another format or just email me the ADM's from LRSD and also from NLRSD? Just for comparison, last year those numbers were 877.96 from LRSD and 240.52 from NLRSD. Thanks. Sorry for the inconvenience. Polly From: BERRY SHARON Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 201112:53 PM To: paramer@odmemail.com Cc: BROWN DERRICK Subject: ADM for Cycle 3 for M to M Attached is the District ADM report for Cycle 3 for M to M. If you need anything else, please let me know. THANKS! Sharon Berry Assistant Director IT Pulaski County Special School District 3/4/2011 M TOM STUDENT QUARTERLY ATTENDANCE REPORT FY 2010/11 (FOR CALCULATING ADT, ADA, AND ADM OF M TOM SCHOOL STUDENTS IN GRADES K-12) LEA: 6002000 COUNTY: NON-RESIDENT STUDENTS RECEIVED TO (BY M TOM TRANSFER) 7701 LITTLE ROCK 7702 NORTH LITTLE ROCK 7703 PULASKI CO SPECIAL 1 DAYS IN QTR 40 40 40 DISTRICT: 2 DAYS PRESENT TRANSPORTED 0.00 0.00 15877.50 QUARTER NO. 3 4 5 6 DAYS PRESENT NON- DAYS ADT ADA TRANSPORTED ABSENT 2/1 2+3/1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7662.50 579.00 396.98 588.54 1 7 ADM 2+3+4/1 0.00 0.00 602.99 TOTAL ADT, ADA, AND ADM OF M TOM RECEIVED: 396.98 588.54 602.99 STUDENTS ELIGIBLE TO BE COUNTED AS TRANSPORTED INCLUDE RESIDENT STUDENTS RESIDING TWO ROUTE MILES OR MORE FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE ASSIGNED SCHOOLS PAGE: 1 Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1001-CENTRAL I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 09 22 20 206 218 6 20 0 0 0 0 121 107 0 4 724 10 19 15 187 166 10 12 2 0 0 0 104 106 2 624 11 25 18 198 ~ 156 6 5 0~ 0 0 0 110 '3610 7 2 628 Pl\n~ -7~\n. 12 13 13 136 ~ 88 4 3 2~ 0 0 124 90 3 3 480 CENTRAL TOTAL: 79 66 727 628 26 40 4 1 0 0 459 410 7 9 c._ ~-- 1002-HALL I GRADEi AF AM BF BM I HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 09 3 2 119 139 28 37 0 0 0 0 8 10 0 0 346 10 2 2 142 135 22 27 0 0 0 0 15 5 0 1 351 11 2 2 122 ~ 120 20 20 0 ~ 0 0 0 17 f~ . 11 0 315 1\u0026lt;s7) 12 3 139 77 10 15 0 \" 0 0 0 9 12 0 0 266 HALL TOTAL: 8 9 522 471 80 99 0 0 0 0 49 38 1 1 1278 1003-MANN M/5 I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 06 2 5 89 61 11 8 3 0 0 0 54 35 3 272 07 7 6 70 t 84 10 10 ~o 0 0 52 ~ 45 2 288 ,, 1?1 ~~ 08 4 6 75 64 14 8 0 0 0 0 43 50 4 269 MANN M/5 TOTAL: 13 17 234 209 35 26 4 0 0 0 149 130 8 4 (s29 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information SeNices Page 1 of 21 Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1005-PARKVIEW I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 09 7 4 80 92 16 8 1 0 0 0 63 43 1 2 317 10 85 78 11 14 0 0 54 40 2 289 11 0 5 75 58 12 7 \\.). 2 0 0 53 0-.: 41 3 258 ? J ~ 12 4 71 V'ti 60 11 2 3 ~ 0 0 0 53 It~ 44 2 252 PARKVIEW TOTAL: 9 14 311 288 50 31 6 3 0 0 223 168 8 5 -1116 1006-BOOKER I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 2 0 28 22 2 4 0 0 0 0 16 17 3 95 02 0 0 31 26 6 5 0 0 0 0 13 11 0 93 03 0 0 31 25 2 5 0 0 0 0 18 10 2 94 0 0o \u0026gt; \"\n. 04 0 0 26 28 2 9 0 0 0 21 11 2 0 99 j6 05 0 26 27 5 0 0 14 15 0 92 K 0 24 25 3 6 0 0 0 5 16 0 0 81 BOOKER TOTAL: 3 1 166 153 16 34 1 1 0 1 87 80 6 5 \u0026lt;'5-5_4_\n_\n.-- 1007-DUNBAR M/S I GRADEi AF AM BF BM I HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 06 3 2 147 134 7 7 0 0 0 0 17 19 0 4 340 07 2 112 l'\\ 112 7 9 \u0026lt;J 0 0 0 13 11 3 1 272 q// \\~ 08 3 0 98 97 5 4 0 0 0 0 8 16 0 1 232 DUNBAR M/S TOTAL: 8 3 357 343 19 20 1 0 0 0 38 46 3 6 844 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information SeNices Page 2 of21 Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL I008-FAIR I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 09 0 97 138 4 10 0 0 0 0 8 8 0 0 266 10 0 130 ~ 122 9 7 0 0 0 0 6 8 0 0 283 11 0 0 81 ~ 73 6 3 ~o 0 0 4 ~ 8 0 0 176 ct6 7i) 12 0 59 63 5 5 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 FAIR TOTAL: 0 3 367 396 24 25 1 1 0 0 22 28 0 0 009-FORST HTS M/S GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM 06 0 75 81 6 4 0 0 0 0 7 12 0 187 07 0 0 82 ~74 14 1 0 \"' 0 0 0 7 7 0 186 ~11o 08 0 2 78 89 6 3 0 0 0 9 17 0 0 205 FORST HTS M/S TOTAL: 1 2 235 244 26 8 1 0 0 0 23 36 0 2 578 010-PUL HTS M/S GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 06 3 69 58 3 2 0 1 0 0 61 74 274 07 4 11 68 ~ 67 2 8 1 ~ 1 0 0 67 ~1 77 0 307 p1i 1 3 61 rro 75 0 0 ~ 08 1 1 80 76 0 0 300 PUL HTS MIS TOTAL: 6 17 198 200 6 11 2 3 0 0 208 227 1 2 ~o/ I012-MCCLELLA I GRADEi I = I AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 09 1 0 144 134 20 14 0 0 0 0 4 13 0 0 330 10 0 0 117 )..:. 113 9 15 0 l\" 0 0 0 3 ~ 6 0 264 ~{)o 11 0 0 93 0o 82 11 9 0 O(J 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 203 12 0 0 83 48 11 3 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 151 MCCLELLA TOTAL: 1 0 437 377 51 41 1 0 0 0 12 27 0 1 ~ 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information Services Page 3 of 21 Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL I013-HENDERSN M/S !GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 06 0 0 105 10 8 0 0 0 0 6 10 0 0 211 07 4 2 98 15 8 0 0 0 10 7 0 0 257 3~lT) 08 2 2 115 91 9 11 2 0 0 0 6 6 0 2 246 HENDERSN M/S TOTAL: 6 4 318 275 34 27 3 0 0 0 22 23 0 2 714 015-CLOVR M/S GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM 06 0 1 66 92 18 20 0 0 0 0 6 4 0 0 207 07 70 i 81 15 17 0 0 0 0 3 ~ 3 0 0 191 1S4 08 0 0 79 75 14 22 0 0 0 0 ~ 4 0 0 195 CLOVR M/S TOTAL: 1 2 215 248 47 59 0 0 0 0 10 11 0 0 '593 016-MABEL M/S GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM 06 0 2 93 106 11 14 0 0 0 0 9 6 0 0 241 , ~ 116 J. 07 0 0 70 10 10 0 0 0 12 ~ 11 0 231 ~')7. 08 0 0 96 ~ 91 12 13 0 0 0 9 3 0 226 MABEL M/S TOTAL: 0 2 259 313 33 37 1 1 0 0 30 20 1 1 c.__698 ) 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information Services Page 4 of21 Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1017-BALE I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 2 20 25 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 61 02 0 0 19 33 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 60 03 0 19 27 0 6 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 59 04 0 2 22 rt-24 2 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 2 'll 0 0 0 52 05 0 0 22 f\\\" 24 2 0 \" 0 0 0 0 'r 0 2 52 1110 K 2 24 19 6 3 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 61 p 0 0 6 10 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 BALE TOTAL: 3 6 132 162 15 18 1 1 0 0 11 12 0 3 C 1018-BRADY I GRADEi AF AM I BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 0 25 25 2 2 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 59 02 0 0 27 21 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 60 03 0 0 14 ~,, 15 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 37 04 0 0 14 \"' ~ ?JJu 20 2 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 , ~ 05 0 0 21 19 4 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 50 K 0 27 23 6 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 64 p 0 0 9 7 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 20 BRADY TOTAL: 1 0 137 130 17 19 0 0 0 0 11 11 1 0 021 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information Services Page 5 of21 Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1020-MCDERMOT I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 1 0 21 20 4 2 0 0 0 9 0 0 59 02 0 0 18 23 3 3 1 0 0 0 4 5 0 0 57 03 0 0 20 27 6 6 0 0 0 0 5 4 70 04 25 ~ 31 2 2 J 0 0 0 0 2 6 0 71 \"- ,ij 1J7. 05 0 0 24 '- 24 3 \\) 0 0 0 0 2 ~ 1 0 0 55 K 2 0 19 fl 19 5 4 0 0 0 0 5 6 0 0 60 p 0 0 12 14 5 5 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 40 MCDERMOT TOTAL: 4 1 139 158 26 25 1 0 0 1 28 25 1 3 ~2 1021-CARVER I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 2 23 22 2 0 0 0 0 16 14 0 0 81 02 0 0 20 23 2 3 0 0 0 0 9 15 0 0 72 03 3 20 ~ 23 3 0 0 0 8 r\\ 11 1 0 72 04 0 3 23 ~ 21 4 0 0 0 8 \\'{\\ 17 0 0 78 tt 1\"' 05 2 0 25 25 0 0 0 0 8 11 75 K 1 3 15 16 2 0 0 0 0 6 7 0 52 p 0 0 4 11 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 19\n..\u0026gt; ) CARVER TOTAL: 8 8 130 141 9 15 0 2 0 0 56 76 3 1 ~9 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information Services Page 6 of21 Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1022-BASELINE I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 0 4 16 7 15 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 44 02 0 0 11 12 12 7 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 45 03 0 0 10 14 8 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 04 0 0 11 1 11 5 11 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 41 ef~ I, 05 0 0 7 15 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 K 0 0 12 18 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 51 p 0 0 3 3 4 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 BASELINE TOTAL: 0 0 58 89 51 67 0 0 0 0 5 7 0 0 277 023-FAIR PRK GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM p 3 37 ~ 35 2 4 0 0 43 ~ 46 4 3 180 _)o} FAIR PRK TOTAL: 1 3 37 35 2 4 0 1 1 0 43 46 4 3 ?.i8o.: .----- 1024-FORST PK I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF I WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 2 2 5 3 2 0 0 0 0 31 27 0 73 02 0 0 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 25 32 0 68 03 2 7 n... 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 19 27 0 66 \u0026lt; G j'? 7. 04 10 5 0 0 0 0 0 33 21 0 0 72 05 2 0 9 4 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 24 28 0 0 67 K 7 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 28 23 0 0 63 p 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 21 11 0 40 FORST PK TOTAL: 7 7 40 29 5 5 2 0 0 0 181 169 4 0 449 ) 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information Services Page 7 of 21 Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1025-FRANKLIN I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 0 19 27 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 02 0 0 28 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 03 0 0 30 18 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 04 0 0 36 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1, 2 0 0 58 0 05 0 0 21 ~ 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 1 K 0 0 27 22 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 55 p 0 0 6 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 FRANKLIN TOTAL: 0 0 167 135 4 5 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 1 320 1027-GIBBS I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 12 9 2 2 0 0 0 0 10 6 0 43 02 2 1 8 14 0 0 0 0 9 7 2 0 45 03 2 0 15 q 9 0 2 0 0 0 0 7 10 0 46 04 5 15 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 0 46 ~\u0026gt;l 05 0 1 13 13 0 0 2 0 0 8 9 0 48 K 0 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 7 9 0 39 p 0 14 15 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 39 GIBBS TOT AL: 11 4 87 78 4 7 0 3 1 0 53 51 6 1 ~ 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information Services Page 8 of 21 Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1028-CHICOT !GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 0 58 58 27 28 0 0 0 0 5 3 0 0 179 02 0 0 42 r\\ 61 23 22 0 ~ 1 0 0 2 4 0 0 155 I.~, 1-- K 0 71 ~ 78 28 30 0 'll 0 0 0 5 ~ 4 0 0 217 p 0 0 61 58 45 32 0 ~ 0 0 0 4 4 206 ?r51 - CHICOT TOTAL: 0 1 232 255 123 112 0 1 0 0 16 15 1 1 029-WEST HIL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 0 18 13 3 3 0 0 0 0 6 2 47 02 0 0 15 21 6 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 48 03 0 0 23 S:l\\ 15 3 0 ~ 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 47 C 04 0 0 20 0 17 2 2 0 0 0 3 0\\ 4 0 0 49 pJ. IJ 'l 05 0 0 18 20 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 K 0 0 13 16 4 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 39 p 0 0 9 2 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 20 WEST HIL TOTAL: 0 0 108 111 21 16 0 1 0 0 10 19 2 3 ~ 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information Services Page 9 of 21 Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1030-JEFFRSN I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 10 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 27 31 0 0 77 02 4 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 33 0 0 73 03 0 8 5 0 0 0 0 0 20 17 0 0 52 04 0 0 6 5 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 23 o... 33 0 0 67 (6Jo ~ 0 2 --..:: 05 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 \"l 30 0 0 60 K 2 0 5 7 0 0 0 0 0 17 27 0 0 59 p 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 19 15 0 0 40 JEFFRSN TOTAL: 5 2 42 35 4 0 1 0 0 0 153 186 0 0 032-DODD GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM 01 0 11 14 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 47 02 0 10 10 10 6 0 0 0 0 0 4 43 03 0 0 17 (.) 24 10 11 0 0, 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 66 G 'I. 0v. \\ jtJ~ 04 0 0 16 :i 17 6 8 0 \" 0 0 0 6 'h 4 3 0 60 ~ 05 0 0 12 12 5 3 0 0 0 0 2 6 0 41 K 0 0 19 16 8 12 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 61 p 0 0 12 10 5 6 0 0 0 0 3 4 0 0 40 DODD TOTAL: 0 2 97 103 53 55 0 0 0 0 16 23 4 5 ~ 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information Services Page 10of 21 Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1033-MEADCLIF !GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 0 22 16 4 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 48 02 0 0 18 18 8 4 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 52 03 0 0 20 10 2 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 39 04 0 0 17 t 18 8 0 ~ 0 0 0 3 \\ 4 0 0 51 117 05 0 0 25 \\'\\. 18 2 2 0 0 0 0 3 ?i 0 0 0 50 f K 0 0 23 18 3 5 0. 0 0 0 2 0 0 52 p 0 0 12 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 MEADCLIF TOTAL: 0 0 137 104 22 25 0 0 0 0 14 10 0 0 \u0026lt;-__? 1035-M L KING !GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM I TOTAL I 01 0 0 45 43 2 0 0 0 0 2 7 0 0 100 02 0 1 37 52 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 0 100 03 0 45 34 2 0 0 C 1 0 0 3 0 0 87 04 0 0 42 J } 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 6 0 0 103 qo1, 05 0 0 49 ii 40 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 6 0 1 101 K 0 0 42 34 2 0 0 0 3 4 0 88 p 0 0 31 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 56 M L KING TOTAL: 1 1 291 278 7 5 0 3 0 0 15 31 1 2 ~ 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information Services Page 11 of21 1036-ROCKFELR I GRADEi AF AM Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 0 24 15 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 45 02 0 0 21 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 03 0 0 21 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 44 _0_4 __ 0_ _ 0_ _ 1_8~'.,--2__0_ ___ 0 __ 0_~~,.?\"--0 0_ _ 0 _ 2 2 _5'.....,...._3_ _ o __ o_ __ 44_ _ ~J1 05 o o 20 ()r, 15 o o o o o o T 3 o o 40 K O O 23 29 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 57 p 3 26 36 4 0 2 0 0 14 14 103 -... ROCKFELR TOTAL: 1 3 153 154 6 2 1 2 0 0 21 28 2 1 374/ 1037-GEYER SP I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL I 01 0 0 20 15 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 02 0 0 12 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 03 0 0 22 ~ 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 u _o_4 __ 0_ _ 0_ _ 1_3_~~~_1_s_ o_ __ 5 __ o_~~--o ___ o __ o_ ______ o __ o ___ 3__5_ ii% 05 0 0 12 9 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 K O O 28 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 GEYER SP TOTAL: P O O 18 17 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 0 125 87 8 14 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 ~40 7 L 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information Services Page 12 of 21 Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1038-PUL HT E I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 2 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 14 11 48 02 0 7 9 0 0 0 0 0 12 19 0 0 49 03 0 0 12 11 0 0 '\\. 0 0 0 15 21 2 0 62 04 2 0 18 18 2 0 -f\\. 0 0 0 8 13 0 0 62 ~f! fl' 05 2 20 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 15 1 2 76 K 0 2 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 10 13 0 0 36 PUL HT E TOTAL: 4 6 71 71 3 3 0 1 0 0 75 92 4 3 333 1040-ROMINE I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 0 30 27 3 6 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 70 02 0 31 22 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 67 03 0 0 32 20 7 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 63 ,10 04 0 0 31 f\"t) 25 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 i 05 0 0 19 25 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 K 0 0 21 25 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 58 p 0 0 17 13 5 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 40 ROMINE TOTAL: 0 1 181 157 32 27 0 0 0 0 5 11 1 1 ~6 ) '-.:..,.:.. 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information Services Page 13 of 21 Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1041-STEPHENS !GRADEi AF AM I BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 0 36 34 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 02 0 0 40 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 71 03 0 0 24 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 04 0 0 38 ~ 19 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 2 0 63 q~?~ 05 0 0 28 t 32 0 0 'o 1 0 0 1 \"' 1 0 0 64 K 0 0 33 31 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 68 p 0 0 11 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 35-=---- STEPHENS TOTAL: 0 0 210 197 11 5 0 1 0 0 4 7 2 1 ~ 1042-WASHNGTN !GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL I 01 0 0 41 40 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 86 02 0 35 28 0 0 0 2 0 71 03 0 0 26~ 40 2 0 {) 0 0 0 2 0 73 C\\, r'fj 04 0 42~ 39 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 qi7. ' 0 0 85 05 0 0 36 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 79 K 0 0 33 42 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 p 0 0 24 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 59 WASHNGTN TOTAL: 0 2 237 259 6 10 0 1 0 0 5 8 1 5 ~ 10/1412010 Department of Computer Information Services Page 14 of21 Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1043-WILLIAMS I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 5 3 15 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 13 0 0 64 02 3 6 15 17 0 0 0 0 0 11 11 0 65 03 3 4 22 ~ 15 2 2 ~ 0 0 13 11 0 2 76 04 6 2 27 18 2 0 0 12 f) 10 2 0 82 9~7 ', Cl j 05 5 7 23 15 0 3 0 0 0 13 8 0 0 75 K 3 3 11 19 0 0 0 0 8 8 0 0 54 WILLIAMS TOTAL: 25 25 113 105 4 8 3 3 0 0 64 61 3 2 ~~ 1044-WILSON I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL I 01 0 0 16 18 4 5 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 47 02 0 0 14 23 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 47 03 0 0 12 X?14 4 6 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 39 04 0 12 15 0 ~ i~ 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 34 05 0 15 22 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 1~ 1. K 0 0 10 18 4 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 41 p 0 0 14 12 3 7 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 40~ WILSON TOTAL: 0 2 93 122 19 34 0 0 0 0 13 9 0 1 293 045-WOODRUFF GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL p 0 2 54 61 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 126 WOODRUFF TOTAL: 0 2 54 61 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 2 1 2 126 o, 1 10 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information Services Page 15of21 Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1046-MABEL EL I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 1 24 25 5 3 0 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 65 02 0 1 21 14 6 7 0 0 0 0 6 2 0 58 03 0 0 27 31 5 4 0 2 0 0 5 0 0 75 04 0 0 17 17 2 4 0 0 0 0 5 3 0 0 48 '1~7 05 0 0 33 32 5 5 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 77 K 0 0 19 21 4 5 0 0 0 0 6 2 0 58 p 0 0 12 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MABEL EL TOTAL: 0 2 153 145 28 30 0 2 0 0 26 12 2 1 047-TERRY GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM 01 2 3 16 28 4 7 1 0 0 4 15 83 02 3 2 25 22 8 4 1 0 0 0 5 7 0 0 77 03 0 27 n 14 3 5 0 2 0 0 11 ~ 9 0 0 72 D) 04 0 21 f\\ 22 4 4 1 0 0 0 9 7 0 1 70 i~7i) 05 0 3 25 16 2 7 0 0 0 0 6 9 0 0 68 K 0 22 26 7 12 0 0 0 0 7 6 0 1 82 p 2 0 9 12 5 7 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 0 40 TERRY TOTAL: 9 9 145 140 33 46 3 3 0 1 44 55 1 3 --49-2 - 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information Services Page 16of 21 Little Rock School District , October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1048-FULBRIGH I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 2 0 20 12 0 3 0 0 0 0 35 31 0 0 103 02 3 4 9 10 0 2 0 0 15 22 0 68 03 5 17 23 0 0 0 0 20 26 0 0 94 04 2 22 a 15 2 2 0 'l) 0 0 0 18 \"\" 23 0 86 :P7,, 3 9 ~ 7 0 2 0 \\j: 05 0 0 0 31 ~ 23 0 0 76 ~ t K 6 4 17 ' 13 0 2 0 0 0 0 31 29 2 0 104 p 3 3 5 3 3 0 0 0 0 6 16 0 0 FULBRIGH TOTAL: 19 19 99 83 6 10 2 3 0 0 156 170 2 2 049-ROBERTS GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM 01 7 4 5 14 2 4 0 0 0 40 53 0 131 02 6 14 10 0 0 0 0 0 49 32 0 114 03 11 2 0 0- 0 0 0 32 ~ 44 0 0 106 04 8 2 8 2 0 0 \\}' 0 0 0 36 34 0 108 ~11\" 05 2 6 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 15 28 0 64 K 2 4 15 16 0 0 0 0 0 36 43 1 119 p 2 3 7 0 2 0 0 0 0 17 28 0 0 6,9 ROBERTS TOTAL: 27 15 74 74 10 8 0 1 0 0 225 262 4 2 O2~ / 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information Services Page 17 of 21 Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1050-0TTER CR I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 0 22 27 4 8 0 0 0 7 7 0 0 76 02 0 26 40 2 5 0 0 0 6 4 0 86 03 2 28 34 6 8 0 0 0 0 13 7 0 0 99 04 2 29 D 38 5 8 0 :, 0 0 0 5 ~ 13 0 0 101 U'l(o 05 2 32 22 2 4 0 0 0 0 7 ' 8 0 79 K 0 26 27 7 6 0 2 0 0 6 5 0 81 p 0 0 12 11 3 4 0 0 0 0 6 4 0 0 40 OTTER CR TOTAL: 7 4 175 199 29 43 0 4 0 0 50 48 2 1 /562 1051-WAKEFIEL I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM I TOTAL 01 0 0 32 32 12 9 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 87 02 0 0 37 33 15 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 f1 ~1 1f\n1 03 0 0 37 26 5 10 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 82 04 0 0 33 41 8 9 0 ' 0 0 0 1 \" 2 0 95 05 0 0 37 38 10 10 0 0 0 2 101 K 0 0 30 26 10 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 79 p 0 0 16 15 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 WAKEFIEL TOTAL: 0 0 222 211 65 62 1 1 0 0 2 9 4 1 578 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information Services Page 18 of 21 Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1052-WATSON I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL I 03 0 0 49 '\\.... 49 18 18 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 141 \u0026amp;o,1 04 0 0 47 ~ 51 16 18 0 0 0 0 3 ~ 4 0 0 139 05 0 0 42 -~ 40 22 16 0 ' 0 0 1 0 0 123 =) WATSON TOTAL: 0 0 138 140 56 52 0 2 0 0 8 7 0 0 /4o3 1703-FELDER ALC I GRADEi AF AM I BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL ~ 06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1) -\nJ./-v 07 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 /41' I 08 0 5 J l, 4 0 0 0 l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 11 I )- ~D 09 0 0 11 23 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 37 /l~iO i)J 10 0 0 7 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 _,,o ,G 17 I , 11 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 ,:i .# :\u0026gt; 12 0 0 0 (,zQ 1 0 0 0 l 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 1 'g FELDER ALC TOTAL: 1 0 26 55 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 85 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information SeNices Page 19 of 21 Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1711-HAMILTON AC !GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL I 06 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 14 i'.f 'I? 07 0 0 10 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 08 0 0 14 9 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,V~ 09 0 0 30 53 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 90 10 0 0 28 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 0 0 78 tp11\u0026gt; 11 0 0 9 23 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 35 12 0 0 5 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HAMIL TON AC TOTAL: 0 0 97 179 1 4 0 0 0 0 9 16 0 0 306 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information Services Page 20of 21 Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 725-AL T AGCY GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 t~SJ) rj-\n,~~ 02 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 i? p ~ ..J- 7 (),I, (_)I, //? 03 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 f / I _,,1) 04 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 f '-'~ (ff' 1-J\nJl?-\"D1 ~~ 05 0 0 o ~l 6 0 0 0 () 0 0 0 0 2. 0 0 0 6 .\n2.3 :\n,\n, {) I\niof l ()o' 06 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 07 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 7 /r\u0026gt;il~P 08 0 0 1 I I 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 3 0 0 8 11_ ~f\nJi~-17 )-' 7 09 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 1' ~.-, 10 0 0 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 10 11 0 0 0 15 2 0 0 0 f() 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 ,~ K 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ALT AGCYTOTAL: 0 0 7 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 0 0 58 1767-ACC LP !GRADEi AF AM I BF I BM HF I HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 10 0 0 0 ~ 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 25 ?\n/1- ~' 27 2 0 0 0 0 1 5J 4 0 0 60 \u0026gt; 12 0 0 41 68 5 8 ' 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 133 ACC LP TOTAL: 0 0 66 96 7 9 1 0 0 0 6 9 0 0 e~/ GRAND TOTA~L:. 269 265 8,619 8,563 1,135 1,204 41 47 2 3 2,667 2,750 91 87 25,743 I , /21,../4..I CJ ~(,, 5 0 0 0 I 0 IQ I , / D 0 g~ t/71/\u0026gt; ,JJ.~ All- o 0 1 --/o r, I\"'\"- ---L--'- I'?- '. \u0026lt;\" c-' / /Cl ,0 0 :S~ -- -- --- ,17,c5,Y ~ 1-1./:\n_ ~-3/01 ,,:?5~, \") 0- 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information Services Page 21 of 21 .. Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment By Grade Report With Agency FINAL I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF I NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 25 18 629 641 111 125 3 5 0 1 241 268 11 10 2,088 02 19 21 602 \\ 634 120 102 5 5 0 0 8 7 1,959 03 15 16 649-{J 607 96 112 :{ 9 0 0 9 6 1,956 04 26 18 668 ~ 643 71 109 3 0 0 10 5 2,004 05 18 18 635 603 77 89 2 6 0 0 182 207 6 12 1,855 /~,~~/ 06 7 13 645 66 63 3 1 0 0 161 ~ 165 4 7 1,749 07 18 21 581 73 64 4 .K... . 2 0 0 164 ~ 165 4 6 1,775 08 11 13 622 618 61 63 5 '\u0026lt;~ 1 0 0 157 175 5 4 1,735 5\n)..~9- 09 33 27 688 801 74 91 1 1 0 0 207 186 1 6 2,116 10 22 19 698 .'5::6:7 8 61 75 3 1 0 0 185 ~ J 173 4 4 1,923 11 27 25 605 ):~ 546 58 45 2 2 0 0 191 ~ 175 6 2 1,684 12 15 21 534 414 46 36 7 2 0 0 196 160 5 4 1,440 71(.,~ K 23 20 631 633 116 134 0 4 0 1 203 219 9 7 2,000 p 10 15 432 458 105 96 0 5 2 150 169 9 7 1,459 TOTAL: 269 265 8,619 8.563 1,135 1,204 41 4 2 3 2,667 2,750 91 87 25,743 ~ V Elert\\..) ~-y(, 5 ~'t99\n,9~7 1-a,3 I l~1. /?1 A._l,1 I 0\n... ~~ g,\u0026gt; /.JII !, \u0026lt;is99 --- _____,---/ ~9 13, ~9~ r,1..,or I~ -$)9 ,\nft\u0026gt;~ ----- r ~-- ~-7 ,n1,~ 0 (,, r/ 111 hit\u0026gt; ~ I 0 ~7 .} 7. 5.? --- ~ \u0026lt;?\" I $,~\n,-5 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information Services I /-/1? Page 1 oft C v.,., -_)  ~~:.\nJo:s Air _,?t-1/ 7:\nC:. /-73 ?/C. /..5 C ~ /J' ,,,c\n/~--/.. ~5 / ~ G:r ..V,iif-1 ~..yl? f 7, ?7 I,, 91. ~ :\n),lq8 /4 .... I cef,J. ./... .\nL., 5.-Vc-2/' t.,1f --r::\n~1 / ?, t:'\n. -I ~ ~ ~----- ?6~4-, SCHOOL CAPACITIES HIGH SCHOOL CAPACITY PORT. CLASSRMS CAPACITY TOTAL CAPACITY CENTRAL 2276 20@25 500 2776 J.A. FAIR 1200 6@ 25 150 1350 HALL 1754 0 0 1754 MCCLELLAN 1440 0 0 1440 PARKVIEW 1200 6@25 150 1350 Subtotal 7870 32@25 800 8670 MIDDLE 0 CLOVERDALE 885 0 0 885 DUNBAR 888 4@25 100 988 FOREST HEIGHTS 780 0 0 780 HENDERSON 960 4@25 100 1060 MABEL VALE 681 8@25 200 881 MANN 900 0 0 900 PULASKI HEIGHTS 858 0 0 858 Subtotal 5952 16@25 400 6352 ELEMENTARY 0 BALE 488 0 0 488 BASELINE 360 0 0 360 BOOKER 645 2@25 50 695 BRADY 528 0 0 528 CARVER 556 1 @25 25 581 CHICOT 749 6@25 150 899 DODD 271 8@25 200 471 FAIR PARK ECC 304 0 0 304 FOREST PARK 400 2@25 50 450 FRANKLIN 532 0 0 532 FULBRIGHT 565 10@25 250 815 GEYER SPRINGS 358 0 0 358 GIBBS 472 0 0 472 JEFFERSON 471 0 0 471 KING 715 0 0 715 MABEL VALE 443 0 0 443 MCDERMOTT 453 4@25 100 553 MEADOWCLIFF 358 0 0 358 OTTERCREEK 537 4@25 100 637 PULASKI HEIGHTS 350 0 0 350 ROBERTS 895 0 0 895 ROCKEFELLER 481 0 0 481 ROMINE 507 0 0 507 STEPHENS 646 0 0 646 TERRY 575 6@25 150 725 WAKEFIELD 607 0 0 607 WASHINGTON 836 0 0 836 WATSON 591 12@25 300 891 WESTERN HILLS 320 0 0 320 WILLIAMS 585 0 0 585 WILSON 340 0 0 340 WOODRUFF - ECC 160 0 0 160 Subtotal Elem. 16098 55@25 1375 17473 Subtotal Mid. 5952 16@25 400 6352 Subtotal H.S. 7870 32@25 800 8670 Grand Total 29920 103@25 2575 32495 Alternative Schools HAMILTON 912 0 0 912 FELDER (Badgett) 162 0 0 162 --- ACC at METRO 250 0 0 250 Alternative Total 1324 0 0 1324 11-01-10 Arkansas Division of Public School Academic Facilities and Transportation Caoacitv Calculator For District Use K-5 Elementarv Kinderaarten thru 5th Grade # General # S12ecial~ Student 10-11 % Classrooms Rooms Net Caoacitv Enrollment Ca12aci~ Amboy 22 6 16 400 335 84 Belwood 15 9 6 150 138 92 Boone Park 31 13 18 450 315 70 Crestwood 29 10 19 475 478 101 Glenview 17 9 8 200 160 80 Indian Hills 34 9 25 625 595 96 Lakewood Elem 22 4 18 450 406 91 Lynch Drive 29 12 17 425 270 64 Meadow Park 13 5 8 200 172 86 North Heiqhts 31 12 19 475 395 84 Park Hill 24 10 14 350 277 80 Pike View 25 9 16 400 346 87 Seventh Street 28 12 16 450 262 59 Total _,.4875 4149 86 I Redwood Pre-K J 1-,, J,./ 0 tJ l.. - Pre-k - 5 total i.---- \\ \\ /( ~,-'I-'\n\\ / - DEC - J 2010 TOPSJ Arkansas Division of Public School Academic Facilities and Transportatio Capacity Calculator For District Use 6-12 Secondary 6th Grade thru 12th Grade # General #of Student Classrooms Students Caoacitv West Campus 65 30 1657.5 East Campus 60 30 1530 Lakewood Middle 33 30 841.5 Ridqeroad Middle 28 30 714 Rose City Middle 16 30 408 Poplar Street Middle 31 28 737 Secondary Total 5887 Arqenta Alternative District Total 10762 10-11 I % I Enrollment Ca~ac1ty 1452 88 1350 89 695 83 453 64 138 34 625 85 4713 80 8862 83 ~ EC - 2010 l=flCEOF DESEGREGMttOTNIOITNO RING Oct 10 2010 HIGH SCHOOLS B w CENTRAL 1355 869 FAIR 763 50 HALL 993 87 MCCLELLAN 814 39 PARKVIEW 599 391 ACC 162 15 HAMITL ON/SWLA 198 17 FELDER 65 2 ALT. AGENCIES 15 3 SUB TOTAL 4964 1473 MIDDLES CHOOLS CLOVERDALE 463 21 DUNBAR 700 84 FORESTH EIGHTS 479 59 HENDERSON 593 45 MABEVL ALE 572 50 MANN 443 279 PULASKHI EIGHTS 398 435 HAMILT ON/ SWLA 78 8 FELDER 16 0 ALT. AGENCIES 11 6 SUB TOTAL 3753 987 ELEMENTARY BALE 294 23 BASELINE 147 12 BOOKER 319 167 BRADY 267 22 CARVER 271 132 CHICOT 487 31 DODD 200 39 FAIR PARK 72 89 FORESTP ARK 69 350 FRANKLIN 302 8 FULBRIGHT 182 326 GEYERS PRINGS 212 6 GIBBS 165 104 JEFFERSON 77 339 KING 569 46 MABEVL ALE 298 38 MCDERMOTT 297 53 MEADOWCLIFF 241 24 OTTERCREEK 374 98 PULASKHI EIGHTS 142 167 ROBERTS 148 487 ROCKEFELLER 307 49 ROMINE 338 16 STEPHENS 407 11 TERRY 285 99 WAKEFIELD 433 11 WASHINGTON 496 13 WATSON 278 15 WESTERNH ILLS 219 29 WILLIAMS 218 125 WILSON 215 22 WOODRUFF 115 4 ALT. AGENCIES 21 2 SUB TOTAL 8465 2957 GRANDT OTAL 17182 5417 LRSDO FFICIALE NROLLMENT 2010-11v s. 2009-10 October 1, 2010 Oct 1 2009 0 TOTAL %BLK B 232 2456 55.2% 1296 54 867 88.0% 880 198 1278 77.7% 1115 95 948 85.9% 742 126 1116 53.7% 601 17 194 83.5% 178 3 218 90.8% 215 1 68 95.6% 47 0 18 83.3% 18 726 7163 69.3% 5092 109 593 78.1% 498 60 844 82.9% 647 40 578 82.9% 587 76 714 83.1% 657 76 698 81.9% 514 107 829 53.4% 440 48 881 45.2% 371 2 88 88.6% 70 1 17 94.1% 9 0 17 64.7% 10 519 5259 71.4% 3803 47 364 80.8% 280 118 277 53.1% 196 68 554 57.6% 330 38 327 81.7% 288 46 449 60.4% 285 239 757 64.3% 519 119 358 55.9% 162 19 180 40.0% 72 30 449 15.4% 59 10 320 94.4% 309 63 571 31.9% 160 22 240 88.3% 219 37 306 53.9% 158 12 428 18.0% 80 20 635 89.6% 612 65 401 74.3% 310 62 412 72.1% 277 47 312 77.2% 275 90 562 66.5% 386 24 333 42.6% 149 67 702 21.1% 18 374 82.1% 322 62 416 81.3% 343 20 438 92.9% 447 108 492 57.9% 420 134 578 74.9% 404 25 534 92.9% 538 110 403 69.0% 305 43 291 75.3% 240 73 416 52.4% 221 56 293 73.4% 231 7 126 91.3% 74 0 23 91.3% 23 1899 13321 63.5% 8694 3144 25743 66.7% 17589 w 0 TOTAL %BLK 940 168 2404 53.9% 62 52 994 88.5% 99 178 1392 80.1% 36 62 840 88.3% 430 106 1137 52.9% 21 12 211 84.4% 12 6 233 92.3% 1 0 48 97.9% 4 0 22 81.8% 1605 584 7281 69.9% 19 106 623 79.9% 81 45 773 83.7% 70 36 693 84.7% 47 96 800 82.1% 73 61 648 79.3% 348 79 867 50.7% 407 36 814 45.6% 9 3 82 85.4% 2 1 12 75.0% 4 1 15 66.7% 1060 464 5327 71.4% 21 42 343 81.6% 7 108 311 63.0% 196 43 569 58.0% 33 44 365 78.9% 157 34 476 59.9% 35 226 780 66.5% 52 98 312 51.9% 99 9 180 40.0% 353 25 437 13.5% 7 7 323 95.7% 574 52 786 20.4% 15 29 263 83.3% 112 30 300 52.7% 341 11 432 18.5% 62 14 688 89.0% 46 58 414 74.9% 60 44 381 72.7% 40 60 375 73.3% 89 71 546 70.7% 180 13 342 43.6% 51 11 384 83.9% 17 52 412 83.3% 6 14 467 95.7% 153 118 691 60.8% 23 139 566 71.4% 18 25 581 92.6% 18 92 415 73.5% 35 26 301 79.7% 155 66 442 50.0% 24 35 290 79.7% 15 5 94 78.7% 2 0 25 92.0% 2996 1601 13291 65.4% 5661 2649 25899 67.9% NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas RACIAL COMPOSTION OF SCHOOLS  Incl ding Kindergarten D Oc ober 1, 2010 School Enrollment Black % Non-black % Amboy 335 229 68% 106 32% Belwood 138 111 80% 27 20% Boone Park 315 284 90% 31 10% Crestwood 478 129 27% 349 73% Glenview 160 132 83% 28 18% Indian Hills 595 154 26% 441 74% Lakewood 406 101 25% 305 75% Lynch Drive 270 231 86% 39 14% Meadow Park 172 156 91% 16 9% North Heights 395 242 61% 153 39% Park Hill 277 138 50% 139 50% Pike View 346 245 71% 101 29% Seventh Street 262 255 97% 7 3% Elementary Total: 4,149 2,407 58% 1,742 42% Poplar Street Middle 625 366 59% 259 41% Lakewood Middle 695 288 41% 407 59% Ridgeroad Middle 453 357 79% 96 21% Rose City Middle 138 117 85% 21 15% Middle School Total: 1,911 1,128 59% 783 41% NLRHS-East Campus 1350 740 55% 610 45% NLRHS-West Campus 1452 829 57% 623 43% Total High School: 2,802 1,569 56% 1,233 44% I District Total: 8,862 5,104 58% 3,758 42% R I FC - J 2010 ORING LEA: 6002050 White Black Grade Total M F M F PK 20 5 4 2 K 53 5 3 22 01 66 13 7 18 02 58 6 5 24 03 48 8 1 15 04 54 5 7 21 05 56 4 5 20 - --- Totals ,,. 355 46 32 122 w/o PK 335 41 28 120 21.97% 67.04% 1 North Little Rock School District Amboy Elementary October 1, 2010 Count Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat M F M F M F 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 19 1 3 0 0 0 0 21 2 5 0 0 0 0 17 4 2 0 0 0 0 17 3 4 0 0 0 0 16 3 2 0 0 0 0 19 4 4 0 0 0 0 116 19 20 0 0 0 0 109 17 20 0 0 0 0 10.99% 0.00% 0.00% Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% LEA: 6002053 White Grade Total M F M K 23 1 1 01 20 1 1 02 31 3 2 03 18 5 2 04 32 0 1 05 14 2 0 1/\"\" Totals {138 l/ 12 7 13.77% Black F 7 10 10 4 17 3 51 North Little Rock School District Belwood Elementary October 1, 2010 Count Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat M F M F M F 12 0 2 0 0 0 0 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 13 0 1 0 0 0 0 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 60 2 6 0 0 0 0 80.43% 5.80% 0.00% 0.00% I \\ I Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% LEA: 6002054 North Little Rock School District Boone Park Elementary October 1, 2010 Count White Black Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat Hawaiian/Pac Isl .Two or more Grade Total M F M F M F M F M F M F M F PK 56 1 2 20 28 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 K 56 3 2 17 33 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 44 2 1 18 20 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 49 0 2 24 21 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 53 2 1 25 22 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 57 0 4 27 24 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 56 1 1 24 29 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -? \\ Totals 371 9 13 155 177 8 7 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 w/o PK 315 8 11 135 149 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.93% 89.49% 4.04% 0.00% 0.54% 0.00% 0.00% LEA: 6002055 White Grade Total M F M K 82 31 24 01 83 30 29 02 79 27 30 03 75 31 22 04 79 26 29 05 80 29 27 Totals 478 174 161 70.08% North Little Rock School District Crestwood Elementary October 1, 2010 Count Black Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat F M F M F M F 13 10 1 2 0 1 0 0 11 10 0 1 0 2 0 0 11 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 10 9 0 0 3 0 0 0 11 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 15 1 0 2 0 0 0 62 67 3 3 5 3 0 0 26.99% 1.26% 1.67% 0.00% J1fo Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% LEA: 6002056 White Grade Total M F M PK 18 0 0 K 37 5 5 01 30 3 1 02 21 1 2 03 26 1 0 04 22 1 2 OS 24 2 2 Totals 178 13 12 w/o PK 160 13 12 14.04% Black F 11 14 10 8 8 9 6 66 55 North Little Rock School District Glenview Elementary October 1, 2010 Count Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat M F M F M F 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 12 0 1 0 0 0 0 14 1 1 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 83 1 3 0 0 0 0 77 1 2 0 0 0 0 83.71% 2.25% 0.00% 0.00% Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% LEA: 6002057 North Little Rock School District Indian Hills Elementary October 1, 2010 Count White Black Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more Grade Total M F M F M F M F M F M F M F K 95 38 32 12 8 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 105 31 40 18 13 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 97 31 42 11 10 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 03 98 38 32 14 11 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 04 98 31 34 12 14 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 102 31 32 11 20 3 0 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 Totals 595 200 212 78 76 9 3 5 6 2 3 0 1 0 0 69.24% 25.88% 2.02% 1.85% 0.84% 0.17% 0.00% LEA: 6002058 White Grade Total M F M K 60 20 26 01 72 27 26 02 72 25 23 03 72 29 25 04 64 23 18 OS 66 14 25 Totals ~406 138 143 ~ 69.21% North Little Rock School District Lakewood Elementary October 1, 2010 Count Black Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat F M F M F M F 4 7 2 0 0 0 1 0 13 3 1 1 0 1 0 0 11 8 0 4 0 1 0 0 8 8 0 0 1 1 0 0 12 8 0 1 2 0 0 0 10 9 4 1 1 2 0 0 58 43 7 7 4 5 1 0 24.88% 3.45% 2.22% 0.25% 1o l Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% LEA: 6002059 White Grade Total M F M 06 625 105 106 Totals 625 105 106 33.76% North Little Rock School District Poplar Street Middle October 1, 2010 Count Black Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat F M F M F M F 185 181 17 21 2 3 0 1 185 181 17 21 2 3 0 1 58.56% 6.08% 0.80% 0.16% Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more M F M F 0 0 1 3 0 0 1 3 0.00% 0.64% LEA: 6002060 North Little Rock School District Lynch Drive Elementary October 1, 2010 Count White Black Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more Grade Total M F M F M F M F M F M F M F PK 40 3 2 21 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 K 54 3 4 22 23 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 38 3 1 16 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 52 5 3 23 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 42 6 0 17 15 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 44 1 3 24 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 40 2 1 17 19 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _,,.-- l Totals 310 23 14 140 126 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w/o PK'-- -270 20 12 119 112 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.94% 85.81% 2.26% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 LEA: 6002061 North Little Rock School District Meadow Park Elementary October 1, 2010 Count White Black Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more Grade Total M F M F M F M F M F M F M F PK 20 1 2 11 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 K 25 0 0 12 9 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 31 2 1 18 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 35 4 1 15 13 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 22 0 0 14 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 26 0 0 10 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 33 0 0 17 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - Totals 192 7 4 97 74 1 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w/o PK - 172 6 2 86 70 1 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.73% 89.06% 4.17% 1.04% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% JI 111 /D LEA: 6002063 North Little Rock School District North Heights Elementary October 1, 2010 Count White Black Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more Grade Total M F M F M F M F M F M F M F PK 40 1 3 9 13 2 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 K 54 5 2 16 15 7 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 61 1 6 23 16 6 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 60 9 1 18 9 8 14 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 78 3 2 28 25 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 62 2 5 17 21 10 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 80 3 3 31 23 12 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---., Totals 435 24 22 142 122 55 69 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 w/o PK -395 23 19 133 109 53 57 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.57% 60.69% 28.51% 0.23% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% LEA: 6002064 North Little Rock School District Park Hill Elementary October 1, 2010 Count White Black Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more Grade Total M F M F M F M F M F M F M F PK 19 4 1 5 5 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 K 53 9 3 15 11 9 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 55 7 2 14 20 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 so 7 10 9 9 8 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 46 3 8 9 16 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 34 4 3 9 9 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 39 9 4 12 5 2 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 ,.-\"j Totals ,,,,.......,29/6 43 31 73 75 39 32 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 w/o PK \u0026lt;- ---277 39 30 68 70 38 30 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 25.00% 50.00% 23.99% 0.68% 0.34% 0.00% 0.00% LEA: 6002065 North Little Rock School District Pike View Elementary October 1, 2010 Count White Black Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more Grade Total M F M F M F M F M F M F M F PK 40 5 3 9 18 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 K 59 6 8 15 22 3 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 54 7 1 18 21 3 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 70 6 8 24 26 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 47 3 5 15 21 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 52 8 3 19 15 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 64 6 4 30 19 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 386 41 32 130 142 21 11 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 w/o PK 346 36 29 121 124 18 10 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 18.91% 70.47% 8.29% 2.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 LEA: 6002069 North Little Rock School District Seventh Street Elementary October 1, 2010 Count White Black Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more Grade Total M F M F M F M F M F M F M F PK 40 1 1 20 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 K 52 0 0 26 25 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 39 0 0 19 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 53 0 0 23 30 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 03 41 1 0 17 21 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 35 0 0 17 17 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 42 0 2 21 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i.---. Totals l/\"'\"302 1-- 2 3 143 150 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w/o PK ~ 262 1 2 123 132 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.66% 97.02% 0.99% 0.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% LEA: 6002070 White Black Grade Total M F M F 07 375 86 104 91 08 320 89 83 69 ~ Totals 695 175 187 160 52.09% 41.44% North Little Rock School District Lakewood Middle October 1, 2010 Count Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat M F M F M F 73 8 9 3 1 0 0 55 7 10 3 4 0 0 128 15 19 6 5 0 0 4.89% 1.58% 0.00% Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% LEA: 6002075 White Black Grade Total M F M F 09 794 155 144 215 10 556 101 120 132 ~ \\ Totals/ 1350 ,/ 256 264 347 ,_ 38.52% 54.81% North Little Rock School District NLRHS East Campus October 1, 2010 Count Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat M F M F M F 230 27 16 3 2 0 0 163 11 19 6 3 1 0 393 38 35 9 5 1 0 5.41% 1.04% 0.07% Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more M F M F 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0.15% 0.00% . , LEA: 6002076 North Little Rock School District NLRHS West Campus/Argenta October 1, 2010 Count White Black Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more Grade Total M F M F M F M F M F M F M F 09 65 5 1 40 16 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 156 15 7 74 52 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 615 105 133 143 194 20 14 1 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 12 616 118 146 144 166 15 14 3 5 4 0 1 0 0 0 /\"\" i Totals 11.?) .../243 287 401 428 42 31 5 8 5 1 1 0 0 0 36.50% 57.09% 5.03% 0.90% 0.41% 0.07% 0.00% . . LEA: 6002077 White Black Grade Total M F M F 06 16 2 0 11 07 59 6 2 24 08 63 4 1 32 -- Totals .../.i._38_ /_12, .- 3 67 10.87% 84.78% North Little Rock School District Rose City Middle October 1, 2010 Count Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat M F M F M F 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 26 1 0 0 0 0 0 22 2 2 0 0 0 0 50 4 2 0 0 0 0 4.35% 0.00% 0.00% Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% . . LEA: 6002702 White Grade Total M F M 07 224 14 9 08 229 17 8 Totals V453 31 17 10.60% North Little Rock School District Ridgeroad Middle Charter October 1, 2010 Count Black Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat F M F M F M F 80 98 17 5 1 0 0 0 95 84 8 16 0 0 1 0 175 182 25 21 1 0 1 0 78.81% 10.15% 0.22% 0.22% ..).I Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% LEA: 6002067 White Black Grade Total M F M F PK 245 16 10 88 Totals 245, 16 10 88 10.61% 82.86% North Little Rock School District Redwood Preschool October 1, 2010 Count Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat M F M F M F 115 5 8 1 0 0 0 115 5 8 1 0 0 0 5.31% 0.41% 0.00% Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more M F M F 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0.00% 0.82% . .., LEA: 6002000 White Black Grade Total M F M F PK 538 37 28 196 228 K 703 126 110 195 206 01 698 127 116 206 192 02 727 124 129 211 199 03 666 130 98 184 195 04 659 101 109 205 191 05 696 103 106 208 215 ..1/,~,.' I I, {!/J ~ IQ3/ 06 641 107 106 196 183 07 658 106 115 195 197 08 612 110 92 196 161 09 859 160 145 255 246 10 712 116 127 206 215 11 615 105 133 143 194 12 616 118 146 144 166 -\u0026lt; \"./ -\n,, , z., .,,, \"' .P Totals 9400 1570 1560 2740 2788 North Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Count Hispanic Asian M F M F 15 27 1 2 25 30 6 4 29 23 1 4 28 29 2 3 24 26 6 1 26 21 4 2 30 23 4 4 ~\n_ 18 21 2 3 26 14 4 1 17 28 3 4 30 16 3 2 15 22 7 3 20 14 1 3 15 14 3 5 O 318 308 47 41 Nat Am/Ala Nat Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more M F M F M F 1 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1/.J)h) 0 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 (, \" .r 11 7 2 2 1 5 lw/o PK I 88621 15331 15321 25441 25601 3031 2811 461 391 101 61 I I I 33.30% I 58.81% I 6.66% I o.94% I 0.19% I 0.04% I 0.06% I November 23, 2010 Margie Powell One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1610 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Powell: PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 925 East Dixon Road/P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, Arkansas 72216 www.pcssd.org (501) 490-2000 NOV\n~ ) 2-IO C~FICEOF DESEGREGt OA ITTIO RIHG Attached is an updated copy of the 2010-2011 October 1 Enrollment Report to replace the copy you received earlier this month. There was a minor error in calculations and an additional 13 students have been added to the secondary enrollment. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me. CiJ~Bc~ Brenda Bowles, Ed. D Assistant Superintendent for Equity and Pupil Services C Sam Jones, Attorney PULASKI COUNTY SPEOAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SEX/RACE TOTALS BY LEA -14 October 2010 Black White Other Percentages Bid Bid Name Grade Male Female Male Female Male Female Total Black Non-Black !1Q Adkins PreK PK 35 31 30 24 11 9 140 School Total 35 1,,1.f3 1 30 ~) 24 11 Jv 9 140  47.14% 52.86% School Total Including_ PK 35 31 30 24 11 9 140 47.14% 52.86% 2 Baker Elementa,:y_ 01 13 15 22 19 12 15 96 02 16 19 25 22 14 13 109 03 9 14 17 18 7 16 81 04 14 16 9 20 8 7 74 05 9 14 18 11 10 7 69 KF 13 10 16 \\ 17 14 12 82 ~/t:' IL,? f-) School Total H. ~ 107 ?' 107 ~'~ I!l. 511  31.70% 68.30% !U C[Y_stal Hill Elementa,:y_ 01 26 20 43 38 2 3 132 02 17 19 32 35 5 109 03 20 25 31 26 4 107 04 29 12 31 36 2 2 112 05 26 27 38 30 4 2 127 KF 18 18 38 32 6 5 117 School Total 136 'J-121 213 \\ 197 23 14 704 36.51% ' 63.49% PK 6 i 9 11 ,)? 10 3 1 40 -5) School Total Including_ PK 142 , 130 224 207 ~ 12 744 .,/ 36.56% 63.44% 21_ Bay_ou Meto Elementary_ 01 3 3 31 31 70 02 4 0 27 32 2 0 65 03 3 1 17 29 0 51 04 2 0 27 28 1 59 05 2 3 19 21 0 2 47 KF 4 24 25 0 2 56 School Total 18 8 145 166 4 7 348 7.47% \u0026amp;i 92.53% PK 0 i~ 0 10~~, 10 0 0 20 1 Schoof Total Including_ PK 1! ~ 155 176 1 z 368 V' 7.07% 92.93% 2. Clinton Elementa,:y_ 01 23 33 25 29 7 9 126 02 29 29 26 20 5 8 117 03 31 28 33 23 3 119 04 29 28 25 13 6 3 104 05 28 28 13 13 1 2 85 KF 25 31 21 31 6 8 122 School Total 165 177 143 \\ 129 26 33 673 50.82% 49.18% PK 15 ~')-, 25 21 0  11 5 l,~ 2 79 ?'., School Total Including_ PK 1801 202 164@ 140 ~\nJi 752  50.80% 49.20% RE E!VED i\nOV\n~ 0 2010 3-8 Q,CfiOCEF DEStGfi~Q1~1.TiOl~NNI TORING PUU\u0026gt;.SKI COUNTY SPEaAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SEX/RACE TOTALS BY LEA -14 October 2010 Black White Other Percentages Bid Bid Name Grade Male Female Male Female Male Female Total Black Non-Black ~ Dupree Elementary 01 18 17 15 9 5 2 66 02 10 13 12 10 0 5 so 03 15 12 11 6 3 2 49 04 10 8 11 10 2 5 46 OS 10 11 8 2 4 42 KF 10 J 14 10 9 3 4 so o'1- /~ a1 \u0026gt;l Schoof Total ll. l I. Z M. 1.. ll 303 48.84% 51.16% 102 Harris Elementary 01 18 11 5 2 0 37 02 14 15 3 0 3 1 36 03 19 14 3 3 2 42 04 12 13 3 4 2 35 OS 13 11 3 2 31 KF 17 16 4 4 43 '7' '1 11'? 9' ,C\\ Schoof Total ~ ~ -21? -11 11. z 224  77.23% 22.77% 103 Jacksonvi/le Efementar'i. 01 9 16 5 5 7 2 44 02 18 16 8 8 2 4 56 03 22 20 4 6 4 4 60 04 19 16 6 9 4 4 58 OS 16 18 2 4 4 4 48 KF 18 ~~ 9 10 9 8 2 56 ., 1L\u0026lt; ~' I Schoof Total 102 ~\nl. ~ ~ l!l. 322./ 61.18% 38.82% 104 Landmark Elementary 01 7 5 10 11 4 3 40 02 4 6 9 12 4 2 37 03 8 12 10 15 5 3 53 04 12 6 14 11 4 3 50 05 7 7 11 11 2 39 KF 7 4 20 14 7 53 School Total 45 40 74 ~ 74 26 13 272 31.25% 68.75% PK 3 \" 6 9 11.t 10 7 5 40 1 School Total Including PK ~ ~ 1 M ll. 1.!!. 312  30.13% 69.87% 105 Lawson Elementary 01 7 5 11 19 2 0 44 02 5 6 18 15 2 1 47 03 3 4 13 21 2 2 45 04 5 4 18 20 0 0 47 OS 6 7 26 15 2 2 58 KF 6 6 16 9 0 38 Schoof Total 32 32 102 ? 99 9 5 279 22.94% 77.06% PK 1 l.\u0026lt;.t, 3 a? 1 I 3 20 ~\"?\u0026gt; Schoof Total Including PK ll.\nl. 110 ill 1Q . 299 22.74% 77.26% 4-8 PULASKI COUNTY SPEOAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SEX/RACE TOTALS BY LEA - 14 October 2010 Black White Other Percentages Bid Bid Name Grade Male Female Male Female Male Female Total Black Non-Black 106 Tolleson Elementary_ 01 6 4 13 16 4 44 02 10 5 22 10 1 49 03 6 8 14 12 3 44 04 10 15 8 8 3 2 46 05 10 5 8 12 3 39 KF 14 15 19 15 4 2 69 School Total 56 52 84 73 14 12 291 37.11% 62.89% PK 4 I~~ 17 iJ 10 ~jl 3 40 ~ School Total Including PK ~ 101 \\ ll. 1. 331  35.05% 64.95% 108 Oak Grove Elementa!}'. 01 4 8 21 19 5 4 61 02 2 15 12 5 3 38 03 9 3 14 8 4 5 43 04 6 4 16 13 5 4 48 05 5 3 12 17 4 45 KF 7 7 15 12 6 49 School Total 33 26 93 81 29 22 284 20. 77% 79.23% PK 2 11 13 r) 15 13 6 60 )\\} School Total Including PK\n!_ 1d\" E. 106? ~ ~ 1() l! 344  20.93% 79.07% 110 Robinson Elementary_ 01 4 2 10 5 2 24 02 3' 4 12 11 3 34 03 5 11 16 12 2 47 04 8 5 11 12 1 38 05 8 7 7 10 2 3 37 KF 2 0 9 8 4 2 25 School Tola/ 30 29 65 58 14 9 205 28. 78% 71.22% PK\n11 0 4 H 7 7 2 20 .J,' School fatal Including PK ~ @ ,~ M. 11 ~~ 11 225  26.22', ~ 111 Scott Elementary_ 01 5 11 5 0 23 02 5 3 7 9 0 0 24 03 5 4 5 16 0 31 04 4 7 4 6 0 1 22 05 0 6 13 9 0 29 06 2 2 2 5 1 13 KF 4 2 13 7 0 27 School Total 25 25 55 57 3 4 169 29.59% 70.41% PK ~~~ 2 6 1 9 1 'l 20 ,1). School Total Including PK ll. 1. 1.? 66 1 . 189 / 28.04% ZLifili 5-8 ' PULASKI COUNTY SPEOAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SEX/RACE TOTALS BY LEA -14 October 2010 Black White Other Percentages Bid Bid Name Grade Male Female Male Female Male Female Total Black Non-Black 112 Sherwood Elementar'i_ 01 6 8 12 17 7 3 53 02 7 6 16 17 3 5 54 03 12 8 17 14 4 56 04 14 10 15 13 3 56 05 12 10 17 17 3 60 KF 10 7 18 12 2 8 57 School Total  61 49 95 90 22 19 336 32.74% 67.26% PK 2 l ... 2 5 q 8 1 ~~ 20 School Total Including_ PK g 1 100 ~ ll. 356...,,, 32.02 67.98% 113 S'i_lvan Hills Elementar'i. 01 7 14 13 13 50 02 14 6 15 7 3 46 03 19 11 12 9 0 52 04 14 10 16 12 0 53 05 12 18 16 14 4 2 66 KF 18 13 17 12 4 2 66 School Total 84 72 89 67 13 8 333 46.85% 53.15% PK 1 ry 5 6 \"~ Op1 20 ~ School Total Including_ PK ~ 1\" ll. ~ H 11 !1 353-./' 45.89% ~ 119 Jacksonville Middle School 06 89 56 43 52 6 7 253 07 67 67 32 31 6 5 208 08 80 67 57 34 4 6 248 .., L, 0 ., 236 J1\n') School Total 190 132 117 ll 11. 709  60.08% 39.92% 120 Fuller Middle School 06 48 55 34 21 8 4 170 07 53 54 38 33 9 7 194 08 54 ,, 52 32 35 6 4 183 ,:-\"' _,, ~?--~ ~ School Total 155 w. 104 ll. 1i 547 57.77% 42.23% 122 S'i_lvan Hills Middle 06 61 69 62 71 5 5 273 07 45 44 41 44 5 4 183 08 53 55 48 46 8 5 215 7 '\u0026gt;,\" ) q ~ School Total 159 168 151 161 11. H 671  ~ ~ 123 Jacksonville Hig_h 09 103 83 41 51 5 4 287 10 52 74 45 50 3 3 227 11 68 55 45 43 4 2 217 12 46 80 51 30 4 3 214 School Total 269 292 182 174 ll !1 945 59.37% 40.63% 6-8 PULASKI COUNTY SPEaAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SEX/RACE TOTALS BY LEA -14 October 2010 Black White Other Percentages Bid Bid Name Grade Male Female Male Female Male Female Total Black Non-Black 125 Mills High 09 64 so 47 33 9 7 210 10 54 57 40 47 9 5 212 11 69 43 31 35 6 9 193 12 62 51 16 30 4 2 165 :J~'7' ,A ~l School Total 249 201 134 145 M ll 780  57.69% 42.31% 126 Oak Grove High 09 52 40 so 49 4 6 201 10 34 20 24 31 3 113 11 26 20 16 26 2 3 93 12 21 f 22 15 22 0 5 85 ..,,_o,, School Total ??J,'.J 133 102 105 ~ 128 2 1i 492  47.76% 52.24% 127 Robinson High 09 35 32 42 32 6 3 150 10 10 24 24 30 4 2 94 11 28 24 41 27 4 2 126 12 29 17 38 24 3 5 116 ..,, J 'J ,,..t.'-l --\nO.. School Total 102 2Z 145 113 ll. 11 486 40.95% 59.05% ill Sylvan Hills High 09 72 55 59 58 8 3 255 10 42 48 35 38 4 7 174 11 44 42 45 so 8 4 193 12 38 qo 49 52 52 5 7 203 -\"\" \u0026gt;-llr ~ 196 ~ 194\n):. School Total 191 198 ?. ll 825  47.27% 52.73% 129 Cato Elementary 01 7 10 17 16 1 52 02 4 7 25 12 2 51 03 7 8 13 11 0 0 39 04 9 5 16 20 3 3 56 OS 11 5 22 20 0 0 58 KF 5 4 15 21 1 47 School Total 43 39 108 100 6 7 303 27. 06% 7 72. 94% PK 2 1\n4 2 9 ). 7 0 1? 0 20\nf}  School Total Including PK ~ ~ 117 ') 107 ~ z 323  26.63% 73.37% 130 Pinewood Elementa[Y_ 01 21 22 11 20 2 77 02 22 20 11 15 2 4 74 03 13 18 11 13 3 0 58 04 24 23 11 13 5 2 78 OS 22 16 13 8 4 2 65 KF 21 11 19 ,!J~ 11 3 1 11 76 p\n,,'(\" -\n,?) School Total 123 ~ 110 ~ M 11!~ ll 428 / 54.44% 45.56% 7-8 PULASKI COUNTY SPEOAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SEX/RACE TOTALS BY LEA -14 October 2010 Black White Other Percentages Bid Bid Name Grade Male Female Male Female Male Female Total Black Non-Black 135 College Station Elementar'i 01 13 12 2 2 1 31 02 11 11 2 0 2 0 26 03 11 7 5 2 0 0 25 04 9 11 7 2 31 05 11 16 4 6 39 KF 10 9 3 0 0 23 0 School Total 65 66 23 12 5 4 175 74.86\nJr. 25.14% PK 6 0\" 6 2 1 0 \\ \\ 2 17 School Total Including PK I1 ll l. 11  ~ 192./' 74.48% 25.52% 136 North Pulaski High 09 51 34 61 65 8 4 223 10 37 35 63 59 13 6 213 11 38 35 49 43 11 12 188 12 34 50 47 57 4 4 196 f!,'lu 160 :3\u0026gt;- I ,y \u0026gt; School Total 154 220 224 ~  820 38.29% 61.71% 137 Arnold Drive Elementar\ny_ 01 0 13 20 5 7 46 02 3 5 16 9 1 9 43 03 4 3 6 6 2 4 25 04 6 3 10 5 1 26 05 1 4 5 6 2 5 23 KF 2 3 8 17 5 5 40 '1_ School Total 17 18 58 63 16 31 203 17.24% 82. 76% PK 2 ,J 2 15 /1 7 3 ? 8 37 School Total Including PK 1! gJ2 I1 I2. 1! 12 240 ~ 83.75% 139 Oakbrooke Elementar\ny_ 01 14 17 23 19 0 6 79 02 18 16 23 15 0 73 03 18 18 36 18 0 0 90 04 21 14 21 25 2 84 05 22 10 21 24 79 KF 22 19 28 22 0 92 I '/ .,, School Total 115 94 152 ._/123 4 9 497 42.05% 57.95% ~ 11 r ., PK 5,., 8 13 2 40 School Total Including PK 120 105 160 136  1.1 537/ 41.90% 58.10% 140 Northwood Middle 06 38 28 51 50 14 8 189 07 36 49 57 44 12 7 205 08 36 40 43 49 9 11 188 ,, /'rt' r ~, School Total 110 117 151 143 ~  582  39.00% 61.00% 8-8 PULASKI COUNTY SPEOAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SEX/RACE TOTALS BY LEA  14 October 2010 Black White Other Percentages Bid Bid Name Grade Male Female Male Female Male Female Total Black Non-Black 141 Tay_lor Elementary: 01 23 20 11 13 0 0 67 02 25 18 11 12 1 68 03 8 16 9 10 2 2 47 04 22 30 6 7 1 68 05 13 16 12 9 3 0 53 KF 25 1 21 16 14 4 81 'J 1161- 'I)' '1 384/ 61.72% \u0026amp; School Total 121 g g 11 i 38.28% 142 Pine Forest Elementar::t. 01 13 15 33 32 3 5 101 02 9 15 25 22 2 3 76 03 10 16 27 37 3 5 98 04 22 13 32 27 0 96 05 12 9 37 30 5 3 96 KF 11 9 34 4 20 2 5 81 -71 )?,. q ~ School Total Zl Zl 188i) 168 ~ ~ E. 548  ~ 71.90% 143 Robinson Middle 06 26 25 44 37 8 10 150 07 25 26 33 27 4 2 117 08 29 26 39 23 9 2 128 r1 .\u0026gt; School Total Q )9 Zl ill ll l1 H. 395  39.75% 60.25% 146 Bates Elementary: 01 17 16 24 16 4 7 84 02 13 10 11 10 8 9 61 03 15 26 17 17 2 8 85 04 21 18 21 6 3 6 75 05 18 16 14 10 9 5 72 KF 17 13 14 15 6 9 74 School Total 101 f\ni 99 101 74 32 44 451 44.35% ~ 55.65% PK 6i 9 11 ciit\u0026gt;9 4 ii 40 School Total Including PK 107 108 112 l ~ ~ ~ 491 43.79% 56.21% 1j2, Maumelle Middle 06 57 55 78 70 10 9 279 07 40 51 78 64 3 7 243 08 59 52 69 \" 64 5 3 252 \u0026gt;- ,.:\n\" J i. School Total 156 158 225 198 11!. 11 774/ 40.57% 59.43% 150 Chenal Elementar::t. 01 10 10 41 32 2 5 100 02 12 14 36 27 5 2 96 03 11 11 25 30 6 4 87 04 15 15 30 26 3 90 05 19 16 22 32 4 4 97 KF 8 ,\u0026gt;ti 6 29 ~ 44 j'-1 89 ? J., School Total li ll 183 ~ 1 191 11 11 559  ~ 73.70% 9-8 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SEX/RACE TOTALS BY LEA -14 October 2010 TOTAL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT Black White Other Percentages Bid Bid Name Grade Male Female Male Female Male Female Total Black Non-Black PreK Totals 91 118 185 161 59 48 673 32.54% 67.4611 KF 294 248 416 380 90 85 1513 01 275 284 422 407 79 80 1547 02 275 264 407 342 74. 77 1439 03 283 298 366 360 59 68 1434 04 337 286 368 346 59 56 1452 05 293 283 361 337 69 61 1404 E/ementa Totals wlo PreK 1757 417 8789 38.91% 61.09% 3,,J,, Elementa Totals with PreK 475 9461 38.46% 61.54% 06 321 290 314 306 52 44 1327 07 266 291 279 243 39 32 1150 08 311 292 288 251 41 31 1214 09 377 294 300 288 40 27 1326 10 229 258 231 255 36 24 1033 11 273 227 35 32 1010 12 230 26 979 19/i i Seconda Totals 1007 116 8039 48.76% 51.24 District Totals w/o PreK 3764 3576 4198 3954 693 543 16818 43.62% 56.3811 District Totals with PreK 3855 3704 4383 4116 751 691 17501- 43.19% 56.8111 \"1,{\n9~. i,\n,  I I, -3 .\u0026gt;J~f~ 7, 8-8 November 12, 2010 Margie Powell, Federal Mo Office of Desegregation Mo oring 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Powell: Enclosedis a copy of the October State reporting. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 925 East Dixon Road/P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, Arkansas 72216 NOV. 2010 www.pcssd.org (501) 490-2000 This data is being utilized for If you have any questions please con ncerely, /,1 ~,,),-- /(yv---{1 Dr. Brenda Bowles, Assistant Superintende for Equity and Pupil Services c Sam Jones, Attorney RECE~\\fED NOV 1 J. ~ 2010 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFIOCFE SEX/RACE TOTALS BY LEA -14 October 2010 DESEGREG1Ai1T0I1OllIT' ORING Black White Other Percentages Bid Bid Name Grade Male Female Male Female Male Female Total Black Non-Black M Adkins PreK PK 35 31 30 24 11 9 140 School Total 35 31 30 24 11 9 140 47.14% 52.86% School Total Including_ PK 35 31 30 24 11 9 lli 47.14% 52.86% U Baker Elementary 01 13 15 22 19 12 15 96 02 16 19 25 22 14 13 109 03 9 14 17 18 7 16 81 04 14 16 9 20 8 7 74 05 9 14 18 11 10 7 69 KF 13 10 16 17 14 12 82 School Total H ~ 107 107 ~ l.Q 511 31.70% 68.30% ~ Crystal Hill Elementary 01 26 20 43 38 2 3 132 02 17 19 32 35 109 03 20 25 31 26 4 1 107 04 29 12 31 36 2 2 112 05 26 27 38 30 4 2 127 KF 18 18 38 32 6 5 117 School Total 136 121 213 197 23 14 704 36.51% 63.49% PK 6 9 11 10 3 1 40 School Total Including_ PK 142 130 224 ~ ~ 11 lli 36.56% 63.44% ~ Ba~ou Meto Elementart. 01 3 3 31 31 1 70 02 4 0 27 32 2 0 65 03 3 17 29 0 51 04 2 0 27 28 1 59 05 2 3 19 21 0 2 47 KF 4 24 25 0 2 56 School Total 18 8 145 166 4 7 348 7.47% 92.53% PK 0 0 10 10 0 0 20 School Total Including_ PK 1! !! 155 178 ~ z 388 7.07% 92.93% 11. Clinton Elementart. 01 23 33 25 29 7 9 126 02 29 29 26 20 5 8 117 03 31 28 33 23 1 3 119 04 29 28 25 13 6 3 104 05 28 28 13 13 1 2 85 KF 25 31 21 31 6 8 122 School Total 165 177 143 129 26 33 673 50.82% 49.18% PK 15 25 21 11 5 2 79 School Total lnctc,:'ing_ PK lli 202 164 140 ll ~ 752 50.80% 49.20% ~ 1 - 8 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SEX/RACE TOTALS BY LEA -14 October 2010 Black White Other Bid Percentages Bid Name Grade Male Female Male Female Male Female Total Black Non-Black ~ Dupree Elementary 01 18 17 15 9 5 2 66 02 10 13 12 10 0 5 50 03 15 12 11 6 3 2 49 04 10 8 11 10 2 5 46 05 10 11 8 7 2 4 42 KF 10 14 10 9 4 50 Schoo/ Total !J. I !l ll ll ll. 303 48.84% 51.16% 102 Harris Elementary 01 18 11 5 2 0 37 02 14 15 3 0 3 36 03 19 14 3 3 2 42 04 12 13 3 4 2 35 05 13 11 3 2 31 KF 17 16 4 4 43 Schoo/ Total ll fill l! 11 11 l lli 77.23% 22.77% 103 Jg_cksonvil/e Elementary 01 9 16 5 5 7 2 44 02 18 16 8 8 2 4 56 03 22 20 4 6 4 4 60 04 19 16 6 9 4 4 58 05 16 18 2 4 4 4 48 KF 18 9 10 9 8 2 56 Schoo/ Total 102 ~ ~  1!1 lQ 322 61.18% 38.82% J.!M Landmark Elementary 01 7 5 10 11 4 3  rJ 02 4 6 9 12 4 2 37 03 8 12 10 15 5 3 53 04 12 6 14 11 4 3 50 05 7 7 11 11 2 39 KF 7 4 20 14 7 53 School Total 45 40 74 74 26 13 272 31.25% 68.75% PK 3 6 9 10 7 5 40 Schoo/ Total Including PK ~ ~ u ~ ll 11 m 30.13% 69.87% 105 Lawson Elementa!l'. 01 7 11 19 2 0 44 02 5 6 18 15 2 1 47 03 3 4 13 21 2 2 45 04 5 4 18 20 0 0 47 05 6 7 26 15 2 2 58 KF 6 6 16 9 0 38 School Total 32 32 102 99 9 5 279 22.94% 77.06% PK 1 3 8 4 ~ 20 Schoo/ Total Including PK ll ~ 110 m 1Q . 299 22.74% 77.26% 2-8 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SEX/RACE TOTALS BY LEA -14 October 2010 Black White Other Percentages Bid Bid Name ~Male Female Male Female Male Female Total Black Non-Black 106 Tolleson Elementary 01 6 4 13 16 4 44 02 10 5 22 10 49 03 6 8 14 12 3 44 04 10 15 8 8 3 2 46 05 10 5 8 12 3 39 KF 14 15 19 15 4 2 69 School Total 56 52 84 73 14 12 291 37.11% 62.89% PK 4 4 17 10 2 3 40 School Total Including_ PK Q ~ 101 ~ 11 11 m. ~ 64.95% 108 Oak Grove Elg_mentar:Y 01 4 8 21 19 5 4 61 02 2 1 15 12 5 3 38 03 9 3 14 8 4 5 43 04 6 4 16 13 5 4 48 05 5 3 12 17 4 4 45 KF 7 7 15 12 6 2 49 School Total 33 26 93 81 29 22 284 20.77% 79.23% PK 2 11 13 15 13 6 60 School Total Including_ PK ~ ll. 106 ~ ~ l! ~ 20.93% 79.07% ill Robinson Elementary 01 4 2 10 5 2 24 02 3 4 12 11 3 34 03 5 11 16 12 2 47 04 8 5 11 12 1 38 05 8 7 7 10 2 3 37 KF 2 0 9 8 4 2 25 School Total 30 29 65 58 14 9 205 28.78% 71.22% PK 0 0 4 7 7 2 20 School Total Including_ PK\nlQ ~ ~ M 11 11 225 26.22% 73.78% 111 Scott Elementa!Y 01 5 11 5 0 23 02 5 3 7 9 0 0 24 03 5 4 5 16 0 31 04 4 7 4 6 0 22 05 0 6 13 9 0 29 06 2 2 2 5 1 13 KF 4 2 13 7 0 27 School Total 25 25 55 57 3 4 169 29.59% 70.41% PK 2 6 9 1 20 School Total Including_ PK il ll. !! M ~ ~ ill 28.04% 71.96  3-8 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SEX/RACE TOTALS BY LEA -14 October 2010 Black White Other Percentages Bid Bid Name Grade Male Female Male Female Male Female Total Black Non-Black 112 Sherwood Elementart. 01 6 8 12 17 7 3 53 02 7 6 16 17 3 5 54 03 12 8 17 14 4 56 04 14 10 15 13 3 56 05 12 10 17 17 3 60 KF 10 7 18 12 2 8 57 School Total 61 49 95 90 22 19 336 32.74% 67.26% PK 2 2 5 8 2 20 School Total Including_ PK ll 1. 100 !! ll 11. 356 32.02% 67.98% ill Sylvan Hills Elementart. 01 7 14 13 13 2 50 02 14 6 15 7 3 46 03 19 11 12 9 0 52 04 14 10 16 12 0 53 05 12 18 16 14 4 2 66 KF 18 13 17 12 4 2 66 School Total 84 72 89 67 13 8 333 46.85% 53.15% PK 5 6 7 0 20 School Total Including_ PK M l1 M ~ 11 ~ 353 45.89% 54.11% 119 Jacksonville Middle School 06 89 56 43 52 6 7 253 07 67 67 32 31 6 5 208 08 80 67 57 34 4 6 248 School Total 236 190 132 117 1. 1. 709 60.08% 39.92% 11.QF uller Middle School 06 48 55 34 21 8 4 170 07 53 54 38 33 9 7 194 08 54 52 32 35 6 4 183 School Total 155 161 104 ~ ll ~ 547 57.77% 42.23% 122 Sylvan Hills Middle 06 61 69 62 71 5 5 273 07 45 44 41 44 5 4 183 08 53 55 48 46 8 5 215 School Total ill m ill ill 1. ~ 671 48.73% 51.27% 123 Jacksonville Hig_h 09 103 83 41 51 ~ 4 287 10 52 74 45 50 3 3 227 11 68 55 45 43 4 2 217 12 46 80 51 30 (\"- 3 214 School Total 269 292 182 174 1. ll 945 59.37% 40.63% ii 4-8 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SEX/RACE TOTALS BY LEA -14 October 2010 Black White Other Percentages Bid Bid Name Grade Male Female Male Female Male Female Total Black Non-Black ill Mills High 09 64 50 47 33 9 7 210 10 54 57 40 47 9 5 212 11 69 43 31 35 6 9 193 12 62 51 16 30 4 2 165 School Total .ill w. 134 145 ~ ll 780 ~ 42.31% 126 Oak Grove High 09 52 40 50 49 4 6 201 10 34 20 24 31 3 1 113 11 26 20 16 26 2 3 93 12 21 22 15 22 0 5 85 School Total 133 102 105 128 ! ll 492 47.76% 52.24% ill Robinson High 09 35 32 42 32 6 3 150 10 10 24 24 30 4 2 94 11 28 24 41 27 4 2 126 12 29 17 38 24 3 5 116 School Total ill !l ill 113 11 11 486 40.95% 59.05 128 Sr/van HIiis High 09 72 55 59 58 8 3 255 10 42 48 35 38 4 7 174 11 44 42 45 50 8 4 193 12 38 49 52 52 5 7 203 School Total 196 194 191 198 ~ 11 ill 47.27% 52.73% ~ Cato Elements!}'. 01 7 10 17 16 1 52 02 4 7 25 12 1 2 51 03 7 8 13 11 0 0 39 04 9 5 16 20 3 3 56 05 11 5 22 20 0 0 58 KF 5 4 15 21 47 School Total 43 39 108 100 6 7 303 27.06% 72.94% PK 2 2 9 7 0 0 20 School Total Including PK ~ ~ 117 107 . l 323 26.63% 73.37 119. Pinewood Elements!}'. 01 21 22 11 20 2 77 02 22 20 11 15 2 4 74 03 13 18 11 13 3 0 58 04 24 23 11 13 5 2 78 05 22 16 13 8 4 2 65 KF 21 11 19 11 11 76 School Total II ill !.1Q I! ~ 11 11 ill 54.44 45.56 5-8 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SEX/RACE TOTALS BY LEA -14 October 2010 Black White Other Percentages Bid Bid Name Grade Male Female Male Female Male Female Total Black Non-Black 135 f\n_ol/eg_eS tation Efementa/'.Y_ 01 13 12 2 2 1 1 31 02 11 11 2 0 2 0 26 03 11 7 5 2 0 0 25 04 9 11 7 2 31 05 11 16 4 6 1 39 KF 10 9 3 0 0 23 0 Schoof Total 65 66 23 12 5 4 175 74.86% 25.14 PK 6 6 2 0 2 17 .choof Total Including_ PK lJ. ll ~ ll ~  192 74.48% 25.52% 136 North Pulaski High 09 51 34 61 65 8 4 223 10 37 35 63 59 13 6 213 11 38 35 49 43 11 12 188 12 34 50 47 57 4 4 196 Schoof Total 160 154 220 224 ~ ~ 820 38.29% 61.71% 137 Arnold Drive Efementa!Y. 01 0 13 20 5 7 46 02 3 5 16 9 1 9 43 03 4 3 6 6 2 4 25 04 6 3 10 5 1 1 26 05 1 4 5 6 2 5 23 KF 2 3 8 17 5 5 40 Schoof Total 17 18 58 63 16 31 203 17.24 82.76 PK 2 2 15 7 3 8 37 Schoof Total Including_ PK !l. 1Q ll ~ !l. ~ 240 16.25% 83.75% 139 Oakbrooke Efementa!Y. 01 14 17 23 19 0 6 79 02 18 16 23 15 0 1 73 03 18 18 36 18 0 0 90 04 21 14 21 25 2 84 05 22 10 21 24 79 KF 22 19 28 22 0 92 Schoof Total 115 94 152 123 4 9 497 42.05 57.95 PK 5 11 8 13 2 40 Schoof Total Including_ PK 120 105 ill! ill ~ 11 537 41.90% 58.10% 140 Northwood Middle 06 38 28 51 50 14 8 189 07 36 49 57 44 12 7 205 08 36 40 43 49 9 11 188 Schoof Total 11.Q 117 151 143 ~-- ~ 582 39.00% 61.00% \" 6-8 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SEX/RACE TOTALS BY LEA -14 October 2010 Black White Bid Bid Name Other Percentages Grade Male Female Male Female Male Female Total Black Non-Black ill Ta'{_lorE lementary 01 23 20 11 13 0 0 67 02 25 18 11 12 1 1 68 03 8 16 9 10 2 2 47 04 22 30 6 7 2 68 05 13 16 12 9 3 0 53 KF 25 21 16 14 4 81 School Total 116 121 M g 11 J! ill 61.72% 38.28% 142 Pine Forest Elementary 01 13 15 33 32 3 5 101 02 9 15 25 22 2 3 76 03 10 16 27 37 3 5 98 04 22 13 32 27 0 2 96 05 12 9 37 30 5 3 96 KF 11 9 34 20 2 5 81 School Total l1 l1 ill 168 1. n 548 28.10 71.90 143 Robinson Middle 06 26 25 44 37 8 10 150 07 25 26 33 27 4 2 117 08 29 26 39 23 9 2 128 School Total ~ l1 116 !!l 11 Y. 395 39.75% 60.25% 146 Bates Elementary 01 17 16 24 16 4 7 84 02 13 10 11 10 8 9 61 03 15 26 17 17 2 8 85 04 21 18 21 6 3 6 75 05 18 16 14 10 9 5 72 KF 17 13 14 15 6 9 74 School Total 101 99 101 74 32 44 451 44.35% 55.65% PK 6 9 11 9 4 40 School Total Including PK 107 108 ill ~ ~ ~ ill ill'.lli 56.21% 149 Maumelle Middle 06 57 55 78 70 10 9 279 07 40 51 78 64 3 7 243 08 59 52 69 64 5 3 252 School Total ill 158 .ill ill 11 u m. 40.57% 59.43% 150 Chenal Elementary 01 10 10 41 32 2 5 100 ... 02 12 14 36 27 5 2 96 03 11 11 25 30 6 4 87 04 15 15 30 26 3 90 ,, 05 19 16 22 32 4 4 97 KF 8 6 29 44 89 School Total 1. 11 133 191 u u fil 26.30% 73.70% 7-8 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SEX/RACE TOTALS BY LEA -14 October 2010 TOTAL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT Black White Other Percentages Bid Bid Name Grade Male Female Male Female .Mfil! Female Total Black Non-Black PreK Totals u 12B ill w ~ g, m 32.54 87.48%! Kf 294 248 416 380 90 BS 1513 01 275 284 422 407 79 80 1547 02 275 264 407 342 74 77 1439 03 283 298 366 360 59 68 1434 04 337 286 368 346 59 56 1452 OS 293 283 361 337 69 61 1404 Elementao,\n: Totals w/o PreK mz !W lMQ lm WI w: 1~ 38.91% 81.091 Elementao,\nT:o tals with PreK 184B 1791 2525 2334 4B9 475 9462 38.46 81.54%1 06 319 288 312 301 51 43 1314 07 266 291 279 243 39 32 1150 08 311 292 288 251 41 31 1214 09 377 294 300 288 40 27 1326 10 229 258 231 255 36 24 !033 11 273 219 227 224 35 32 1010 12 230 269 219 215 20 26 979 Secondary Totals 2005 1911 1B56 1777 262 215 B026 48.79 51.21%11 District Totals wlo PreK ~ ~ 41~ ~ ~ ~ l~l~ 43.83 srnII District Totals with PreK is~ ~ ~m ilU m. ~ 1Z,4Bf. 43.20% 58.80%11 8-8 ELEMENTARY Class PRE-K SCHOOLS Capacity (Rev,sed) Blk NB Adkins 526 72 66 Arnold Dr 453 6 31 Baker 428 0 0 Bates 863 16 24 Bayou Mato 697 0 20 Cato BOO 4 16 Chenal 550 0 0 Clinton 840 40 39 Coll Sta 439 12 5 ~talHIII 870 15 25 Ouoree 496 0 0 Hanis 906 0 0 Jax Elem 850 0 0 Landmark 711 10 30 Lawson 372 4 16 Oak Grove 626 17 43 Oakbrooke 553 17 23 Pine Forest 554 0 0 Pinewood en 0 0 Robinson 544 0 20 Scott 294 3 17 She\u0026lt;wood 561 4 15 Svtilan Hills 606 6 14 TavlOf 566 0 0 ToHeson 561 8 32 Total Elem: 15,345 234 436 SECONDARY Cius SIXTH SCHOOLS (\"R-cervtyt sedl Bl\u0026lt; NB 7 Leamlno Academ-. 90 2 0 Star Acadernv TBA 0 0 FulerMiddle 1360 103 67 Jax MlckUe 990 141 108 Jax Hinh 1360 0 0 Maumele Middle 840 113 168 MIDSH lah 1130 0 0 North Pulasij Hloh 1050 0 0 Northwood Mid 1030 68 124 Oak Grove tflQh 1130 0 0 RobinsonM id 650 51 98 Robinson Hlah 770 0 0 Svtvan HIits Mid 1060 131 140 Svl\\lan Hills HkJh 1120 0 0 Tola! Secondary 12.600 607 705 TOTAL ENROLLMENT PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT ht Quartff Enrotlmi1nt TNI Count 2010--11:O ctober 1l, 2010 (Le1W11lnARc ad*nrt St.r Acll\u0026lt;f\"myrmwcounted '\" 11epftratP 1choots\",) KIND FIRST SECOND THIRD FOURTH FIFTH SIXTH TOT Blk NB TOT Blk NB TOT Blk NB TOT Blk NB TOT Blk NB TOT Blk NB TOT Blk NB TOT Blk % 138 ,t ~ .... - o. 0  - o \u0026lt; -,,\"'.'i0l' J:'!\"'Liu o or 0 l!\".!0 !',. 0, 0\n O 72 52.2% 37 6 34 40 2 44 46 8 35 43 8 17 25 10 17 27 6 15 21 '\"\"' {46) 19.2% 0 24 59 83 27 68 95 35 74 109 24 57 81 30 44 74 23 46 69 ~.r.,:\n~o0 =\"I 163 31:9% 40 30 44 74 33 52 85 23 38 61 41 44 85 38 37 75 34 39 73 --o. 215 43.6% 20 5 49 54 6 64 70 4 61 65 4 47 51 2 58 60 5 42 47 w\u0026lt;1\u0026gt; .,~o \"\"--.o 26 7.1% 20 9 38 47 17 35 52 11 41 52 15 25 40 14 42 56 16 42 58 li.\nrJ.Dl\n.\\\naO _,,..,. 'llij 26.5% 0 14 75 89 20 60 100 26 70 96 22 64 86 30 60 90 35 62 97 '~ 147 26.3% 79 56 66 122 56 72 128 60 58 118 60 60 120 58 47 105 55 29 84  .,\"'1). 385 50.9% 17 19 4 23 25 7 32 22 5 27 18 8 26 21 11 32 28 11 39 1~5 74.0% 40 37 81 118 47 87 134 38 73 109 46 60 106 41 71 112 54 74 128 . ..,.,0 wn ,.,, ... 276 36.9% 0 24 26 50 37 30 67 24 26 50 27 22 49 18 28 46 22 21 43 .. , .. o i,I ......., I 152 49.8% 0 35 9 44 28 7 35 30 7 37 35 8 43 27 11 38 23 7 30 ~ ~ _,,. 178 78.4% 0 28 29 57 26 18 44 34 22 56 42 18 60 35 22 57 34 14 48 :i. ... ~( j\n'll'O ~ 199 61:8% 40 11 42 53 13 27 40 10 27 37 19 33 52 20 30 50 14 25 39 .,,,:\u0026gt;\nO ., ~- 97 31.2% 20 12 26 38 13 32 45 11 36 47 7 38 45 9 38 47 14 45 59 ,..t-..-4-r0- iO. , 70 23.3% 60 14 34 46 11 51 62 4 34 38 14 30 44 10 38 48 8 37 45 :iCt.\"\"0 \n78 22.6% 40 41 51 92 31 48 79 34 39 73 36 54 90 35 49 84 31 48 79 ~'l\u0026lt;.O ~. '$ 225 41.9% 0 20 81 81 27 74 101 23 52 75 26 74 100 35 61 96 19 75 94-.:-ovc ... D 150 27.4% 0 38 40 76 43 35 78 43 32 75 32 26 58 46 30 76 38 26 64 ~(J \\t., ~-- 240 55.9% 20 4 21 25 7 17 24 8 26 34 15 31 46 13 25 38 15 22 37 ~o 0 ,, 62 27.7% 20 8 21 29 7 16 23 8 16 24 9 22 31 11 10 21 6 23 29 4 8 12 56 29.6% 19 16 40 56 13 41 54 14 39 53 21 36 57 23 34 57 22 37 59 ...-..:...1  .,: - . 113 31.8% 20 33 34 67 20 29 49 20 26 46 30 22 52 25 29 54 29 37 66 ..,..,.!),\u0026gt;: ,-.:.\u0026lt;1.T'i, 163 46.0% 0 48 34 82 44 24 68 43 24 67 24 21 45 so 16 66 29 23 52 ~ .... , ..,,\n:,.,.DI..,~ ( 238 62.6% 40 29 39 68 10 32 42 13 32 45 14 30 44 22 22 44 15 24 39 -.,o  0 - ., ' 111 34.5% 670 561 957 1518 563 990 1553 544 893 1437 589 847 1436 623 830 1453 575 824 1399 4 8 12 3,693 39.0'.4 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 11:O u11rtltfE nrollrnftf'ltT otI Coont201n.11: Octobr 1. 2010 (Ul111mfnoA Clldemv ~t.r ACJ1dNnyn nw eounffld \"\" a P~\"'ht- \"~honh, ...) SEVENTH EIGHTH NINTH TENTH ELEVENTH TWELFTH TOTAL SECONDARY TOT Blk NB TOT Blk NB TOT Blk NB TOT Blk NB TOT Blk NB TOT Blk NB TOT Blk % NonBlack \n. 2 3 4 7 10 3 13 19 3 22 10 1 11 5 1 6 1 0 1 50 80.6% 12 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 24 29 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 24 45.3% 29 170 106 85 191 105 n 162 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 314 57.8% 229 249 132 71 203 143 99 242 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 416 59.9% 278 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 166 71 237 123 102 225 123 91 214 128 90 218 540 60.4% 354 281 88 152 240 109 143 252 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 310 40.1% 463 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 117 0. 211 110 101 211 108 81 189 115 51 166 450 57.9% 327 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 79 135 214 73 139 212 73 113 186 86 110 196 311 38.5% 497 190 88 118 206 76 112 188 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 230 39.4% 354 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 88 107 195 52 58 110 46 49 95 42 42 84 228 47.1% 256 149 50 84 114 54 70 124 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 155 40.1% 232 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66 84 150 36 61 97 52 74 126 46 72 118 200 40.7% 291 271 88 0. 182 104 105 209 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 323 48.8% 339 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 126 130 256 88 83 171 87 106 193 87 117 204 388 47.1% 436 13121555 588 1143 601 609 1210 685 653 1338 492 545 1037 40. 515 1009 505 482 987 3,939 49.0'.4 4,097 I 7,632 43.6'!. 9,8821 TOTAL ELEMENTARY Non-Black 66 193 348 278 341 239 411 371 51 471 153 49 123 214 231 267 312 397 189 162 133 242 191 142 211 5,785 TOTAL 19.4% 62 54.7% 53 42.2% 543 40.1% 694 39.6% 894 59.9% 773 42.1% 777 61.5% 808 60.6% 584 52.9% 484 59.9% 387 59.3% 491 51.2% 662 52.9% 824 51.0% 8,036 56.4o/,I 17,514 .,,. Page4 of5 Total 47.8% 138 80.8% 239 68.1% 511 56.4% 493 92.9% 367 73.5% 325 73.7% 558 49.1% 756 26.0% 196 63.1% 747 50.2% 305 21.6% 227 38.2% 322 68.8% 311 76.7% 301 77.4% 345 58.1% 537 72.6% 547 44.1% 429 72.3% 224 70.4% 189 68.2% 355 54.0% 354 37.4% 380 65.5% 322 61.0% 9,478 R C DEC- r 2010 R tA Office of Educational Accounlabtily. Pnnted oo 10/22/2010 at 11:15 AM.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_889","title":"Proposal: ''Long Range Strategic Facilities Plan,'' DLR Group, Architecture, Engineering Planning Interiors, Overland Park, Kansas","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":["2010-02-18"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School buildings","School facilities"],"dcterms_title":["Proposal: ''Long Range Strategic Facilities Plan,'' DLR Group, Architecture, Engineering Planning Interiors, Overland Park, Kansas"],"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/889"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\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_891","title":"'Unitary Status Hearing Notebook''","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":["2010-01-25/2010-02-17"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","School districts","School integration","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["'Unitary Status Hearing Notebook''"],"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/891"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"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.\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_995","title":"Exhibits: Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) and Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement","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":["2010"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Court records","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School enrollment","School improvement programs","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Exhibits: Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) and Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement"],"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/995"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"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\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition 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_1108","title":"Exhibits: Charter Schools","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":["2010"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational planning","Educational statistics","Court records","Charter schools"],"dcterms_title":["Exhibits: Charter Schools"],"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/1108"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"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\nDocuments: 4466-1 to 4466-11, exhibits O-Y. Includes \"\"\"\"Smart Course to Success: Arkansas's Race to the Top,\"\"\"\" Arkansas Department of Education\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 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_1207","title":"Exhibits: Charter Schools","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":["2010"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Educational statistics","Education--Evaluation","Court records","Charter schools"],"dcterms_title":["Exhibits: Charter Schools"],"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/1207"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"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\nDocuments: 4446-1 to 4446-4, LRSD exhibit 52. Little Rock Urban Collegiate Public Charter School for Young Men\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 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_1154","title":"Exhibits: Motion to enforce 1989 settlement agreement by 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":["2010"],"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","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","School integration","Educational planning","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Exhibits: Motion to enforce 1989 settlement agreement by 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/1154"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"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\nDocuments 4440-1 to 4440-16, LRSD exhibits 1-13\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 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_1170","title":"Exhibits: Motion to enforce 1989 settlement agreement by 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":["2010"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Finance","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School integration","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Exhibits: Motion to enforce 1989 settlement agreement by 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/1170"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"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\nDocuments 4440-17 to 4440-33, LRSD exhibits 14-27\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 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_943","title":"Report: [School] ''Monitoring Report and Principals' Responses,'' 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":["2010/2011"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School enrollment","School facilities","School principals","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring"],"dcterms_title":["Report: [School] ''Monitoring Report and Principals' Responses,'' 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/943"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"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 "}],"pages":{"current_page":3,"next_page":4,"prev_page":2,"total_pages":47,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":24,"total_count":561,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":560},{"value":"Sound","hits":1}],"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":72},{"value":"Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","hits":53},{"value":"United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)","hits":28},{"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":561},{"value":"Education--Arkansas","hits":560},{"value":"Education--Evaluation","hits":398},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":371},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","hits":351},{"value":"School improvement programs","hits":174},{"value":"Educational law and legislation","hits":173},{"value":"School integration","hits":171},{"value":"Education--Finance","hits":152},{"value":"School management and organization","hits":151},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","hits":143}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Intervenors, Knight","hits":1},{"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":560},{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":559},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":549},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":481},{"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":560},{"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":97},{"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":"1986","hits":14},{"value":"1987","hits":13},{"value":"2013","hits":13},{"value":"2012","hits":11},{"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}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"1950","max":"2024","count":1633,"missing":0},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":289},{"value":"reports","hits":193},{"value":"exhibition (associated concept)","hits":34},{"value":"legal documents","hits":24},{"value":"agendas (administrative records)","hits":17},{"value":"handbills","hits":16},{"value":"minutes (administrative records)","hits":16},{"value":"judicial records","hits":13},{"value":"correspondence","hits":3},{"value":"prints (visual works)","hits":3},{"value":"project management","hits":3}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":561}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Office of Desegregation Management","hits":560}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":561}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":560},{"value":"Collection","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":561}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}