{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_512","title":"Incentive Schools: Spanish programs","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":["1994/1995"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","Spanish language","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Incentive Schools: Spanish programs"],"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/512"],"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\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION NOV 1 6 1994 Oifice 01 Desegregauon Moniiofing LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING The Little Rock School District hereby gives notice of the filing of the following documents which are related to the district court order dated October 24, 1994: 1. Incentive School Spanish Program. 2. Incentive School Theme Implementation. 3 . Improving Student Transportation - A Business Case. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By^ Christopher Hei Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 16th day of November, 1994. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Hand Delivered Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept, of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 Christopher He :r 2 INCENTIVE SCHOOL SPANISH PROGRAM The October 24, 1994, Order from the United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division requested clarity relative to the Spanish program being offered at the incentive schools. The Order requested responses to specific descriptors which are provided. In addition, information is being provided relative to the First Grade Spanish Immersion Pilot Program.* I. The extent to which the program is offered during the regular instructional day or extended day. Franklin Spanish is offered as an integrated component of the Spanish Immersion Program II. III. Garland Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Spanish is offered three days per week for 30 minutes Spanish is offered during extended day Spanish is offered during extended day Spanish is provided through grade level integration during the regular day and on a volunteer basis during extended day During the budgeting process for the 1994-95 school year, incentive school principals were directed to determine their staffing needs that would allow them to provide Spanish during the regular school day. Business cases were developed and included in the tentative budget that was submitted to the Court. The Superintendent met regularly with the principals to secure feedback regarding the implementation of the incentive school plan. During one of these meetings, the principals recommended that Spanish should not be provided during the instructional day. (It was at the principals requests that the district withdrew the business cases for Spanish teachers for the 1994-95 school year. The principals beheve the existing program, included in this document, is a way to provide meaningful foreign language experiences to their students.) The date the program began in each school during this academic year. Franklin Garland Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller August 22, 1994 August 24, 1994 September 27, 1994 November 4, 1994 August 23, 1994 (regular classrooms) September 27, 1994 (extended day) The days and times Spanish is offered at each school. Franklin Monday - Friday (regular school day) Specific time at discretion of teacher Garland Monday, Wednesday, Friday 10:30 - 11 a.m.Mitchell Wednesday 3:05 - 4:35 p.m. Rightsell Wednesday 3:05 - 3:50 p.m. \u0026amp; 3:50 - 4:35 p.m. Rockefeller Monday - Friday (regular school day) Specific time at discretion of teacher Tuesday (extended day) 3:05 - 3:50 p.m. intermediate students 3:50 - 4:35 p.m. primary students rv. How instruction is being delivered. Franklin Students learn to speak and study Spanish as they learn the traditional first grade curriculum. The core content area subjects will be taught in the target language. English will be spoken and taught during the language arts block. Garland Garland utilizes the TI-IN satellite network to present Spanish to students. The TI-IN network Spanish program is a sequential language program, designed to provide developmentally appropriate learning opportunities for students in grades 2 through 6. The principal instructional goal for all TI-IN elementary Spanish courses is the progressive development of the four communications skills: listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Second year students will build on the progress they make as the program develops. Along with the teaching of communications skills, cultural information is infused at each level. The TI-IN elementary Spanish curriculum will spiral from year to year, as previously learned materials are reviewed, re-entered, and sequenced. Mitchell Students receive instruction from a certified Spanish teacher during extended day. Rightsell The certified auxiliary teacher provides instruction for the Spanish class. A variety of materials, to include but not limited to video/audio cassettes, drill cards, games, and guided and independent activities, will be used as instructional strategies. Rockefeller An instructor (certified in early childhood education and gifted and talented education), who is familiar with Spanish language, conducts the extended day sessions focusing on exposure and identification of the Spanish language. She has had inservice training, provided by Little Rock School District, to aid her with the use of the \"Amigos\" and \"Saludos\" programs which are utilized in the extended day atmosphere. 2V. The number of FTEs teaching the subject in each school. Franklin Garland Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller One FTE Ten h I Es One b l E (extended day) One FTE Sixteen Pits VT. Whether each teacher is certified in Spanish. Franklin Garland MitcheU Rightsell Rockefeller Yes Broadcast instructor - Yes Classroom teachers - No Yes No No VII. A description of each language lab and how it is being used to reinforce instruction. All incentive schools have computer labs that can be used with appropriate software for language instruction. Specific usage by individual schools follows: Franklin Garland Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Portable audio cassette players and cassettes are used on an as-needed individual basis. This method is consistent with the FEES approach that is viewed as the most appropriate means of teaching foreign languages. The language lab is located in the library with easy access to teachers and students to use. The lab offers a variety of mediums containing books, magazines, Geo-Safaries, filmstrips, and videotapes. VIII. The grade level at which Spanish is offered. Franklin Garland Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller First Grade Second Grade - Sixth Grade First Grade First Grade - Sixth Grade First Grade - Sixth Grade 3IX. The number of children enrolled in Spanish classes at each school by grade level. X. XI. SCHOOL Franklin Garland Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller 1ST 18 0 38 4 0 60 2ND 0 31 0 3 8 42 3RD 0 36 0 0 8 44 The specific learning objectives of the program. 4TH 0 32 0 5 8 45 5TH 0 40 0 2 5 47 Spanish provides students with the opportunity to develop skills in listening, speaking, reading, and writing the Spanish language as well as an introduction to the Spanish culture. Students of the Spanish program will be able to: 1. 2. 3. 4. 6TH 0 37 0 0 0 37 TOTAL 18 176 38 14 29 Master basic structure and vocabulary. Become familiar with Spanish syllabaries. Gain an understanding and appreciation of the Spanish culture, people, and society. Expand the students thinking and awareness of themselves and their world through the exposure of the Spanish language. How those objectives correlate to the program being offered in each school (for example, as related to the methodology, instructional time, language lab practice periods, interaction with native speakers, etc.) Franklin Students in the first grade Spanish classroom experience meaningful Spanish learning activities with the districts core curriculum. \"The Total Physical Response\" is used by the teacher. The teacher is a fluent speaker of Spanish. Garland Teachers are provided lesson plans to reinforce the satellite program provides developmentally appropriate learning experiences. Mitchell The certified Spanish teacher uses \"The Total Physical Response\" to enable the students to obtain the learning objectives. The teacher is a fluent speaker of Spanish. 4Rightsell Rcx:kefeller An assortment of materials such as video/audio cassettes, games, and drill cards are used to support the learning objectives. Each teacher or specialist correlates the Spanish objectives to each curriculum area. Example: The second grade students are taught songs in the Spanish language for performances. *The Spanish Immersion Pilot Program has been fully implemented in a first grade classroom at Franklin Incentive School. Ms. Edi Ax, who taught Spanish at Dunbar Magnet Junior High School and served as department chair, has been hired to teach the program. Ms. Ax is appropriately certified and has previous teaching experience at the elementary school level. Students in Ms. Axs first grade Spanish classroom were randomly selected and their parents or guardians were notified about the program. Many of the parents have already visited with Ms. Ax and all have been supportive of the program. No parents or guardians have objected to the program being implemented or to their children participating in the program. Ms. Ax is using the districts foreign language curriculum (novice level) to guide her in providing a Spanish experience, emphasizing oral proficiency. Students are experiencing a variety of cultural activities, as Ms. Ax uses the \"Total Physical Response\" (TPR) to enable the students to experience the Spanish language. Ms. Axs classroom has been equipped with over $1,500 worth of materials and supplies (see enclosed list), as well as special furniture and audio-visual equipment to ensure an appropriate Spanish learning environment. The districts reading specialists have worked with Ms. Ax to help her coordinate meaningful Spanish learning activities with the districts core curriculum and with appropriate first grade teaching strategies. Ms. Ax is currently participating in a new foreign languages masters degree program at UALR. This participation is affording Ms. Ax access to resources and expertise that will help her as she continues to implement the Spanish immersion program. 5Date: December 2, 1994 To: Judge Wright Froint^'Anr in Brown Subject: Informal Review of the LRSD November 16, 1994 Filing: Transportation Business Case, Incentive School Spanish Program, and Incentive School Theme Implementation. My staff and I have reviewed the submissions which the LRSD made last month to satisfy requirements of your October 24, 1994 Order. Our brief, very informal, and private assessment of each document follows below in three separate sections. If you should want us to write up a formal review, we will be happy to do so. 1. Transportation Business Case This case satisfies the mandate that the district provide a business case to explain how it will spend the Si.3 million which it appropriated for transportation in the 1994-95 budget. Both Bill and Melissa spent some time reviewing rough drafts of this business case with Russ Mayo (its author), posing questions and suggesting changes. Russ took some of those suggestions, but not all. For example, we suggested that the district think long-range and expand the business case to encompass transportation needs beyond the current school year. Other than the chart showing an extended bus replacement schedule, the proposal doesnt include such long-term planning. The business case only covers a solution and expenditures for the current budget year, 1994-95. Overall, e business case is acceptable. While several areas could be improved, it is better than most cases prepared by the LRSD. The case is weak in its alternative analysis, because it doesnt really address the pros and cons of each alternative identified, much less determine the cost and impact. It is obvious that this case was prepared after the failure of the outsourcing move, and as a justification of the only remaining option available at the time.2. Incentive School Spanish Program. Overall, the information in this report is poorly presented and appears to have been slapped together hastily. The shoddy report would matter little, if the Spanish program itself had any merit. This filing is just the latest installment in the districts attempt to shirk the commitments in its desegregation plan. The comments below are organized by the report page number and section. Page 1: (II) Rightsell did not begin any type of program until after the October 24, 1994 order. The report asserts that the principals believe the existing program, included in this II document, is a way to provide meaningful foreign language experiences to their students.' Unfortunately the report in sum does not convince us that children are receiving quality, meaningful foreign language instruction. Pages 1-2: (III) The days and times Spanish is offered varies among the schools, as does the total amount of instruction the students receive. At Franklin and Rockefeller, the amount of instructional time is \"at the discretion of the teacher\" and unspecified, although Rockefeller also adds 45 minutes once a week during extended day for both primary and intermediate students. Mitchell and Rightsell students get a 1.5 hour block once a week, and Garland students get 1/2 hour three times a week. Page 2: (IV) The report appears to be cobbled together from several sources (perhaps separate reports from each incentive school principal?). The summaries of the types of instruction offered at each school vary widely, from a comprehensive description of the satellite program in use at Garland to a terse sentence regarding the extended day program at Mitchell. Page 3: (V) Whoever wrote this report has no concept of the meaning of FTE. The district reports that at least one FTE is assigned to Spanish instruction at each incentive school. The report indicates that sixteen FTEs teach Spanish at Rockefeller. The author is quite confused. He or she has listed the number of persons involved in delivering instruction as an FTE when it is clear from the other documentation that no teacher in the incentive schools spends the equivalent of full-time employment teaching Spanish. Even at Franklin, the teacher assigned to the immersion class spends only a portion of the school day instructing in Spanish. (VII) The descriptions of the language labs are inadequate and unenlightening. After reading the vague mumbo jumbo offered as a description of how the labs are used to reinforce instruction, you can almost hear the LRSD administration sing, How I Love to Dance the Little Sidestep.\" 2The district has offered no information to give the reader a picture of how the language labs enhance instruction. Could this be because the labs and the instruction continue to be virtually non-existent? The submission also uses the term \"FLES approach\". The acronym FEES is never spelled out, nor is the approach defined, so we have no idea what it means. (VllI) All of the incentive schools restrict Spanish instruction to selected grade levels. Franklin and Mitchell are the worst offenders, offering Spanish only at the first grade. None of the schools provide Spanish instruction for children in kindergarten or the program for four-year- olds. Page 4: (IX) (X) (XI) At 176 participants. Garland claims the highest number of students taking Spanish. The totals drop markedly for the other schools, down to only 14 students at Rightsell. While only first graders at Franklin and Mitchell receive Spanish instruction, no first graders are involved in the program at Garland and Rockefeller. This section dealing with the learning objectives is unrealistic. Given the limited amount of time devoted to instruction in Spanish, it is unlikely that students will develop \"skills in listening, speaking, reading, and writing the Spanish language.\" The second objective listed is so esoteric that we wonder if it was included only to show off an obscure vocabulary word. According to item two, students will \"become familiar with Spanish syllabaries.\" It is incomprehensible that the anonymous author of is report would be aware of the word \"syllabaries\" and be unaware that the plural of medium is media (listed as mediums on page 3). This entire section is pretty weak also. A couple of the schools (Mitchell and Franklin) worked Total Physical Response into their blurb, but most of the information offered does not begin to address the requirements from the court order. None of the schools mention any interaction with native speakers, and any ties to the LRSD curriculum are very tenuous. Page 5: The final page of the report includes quite a bit of information on the Spanish immersion program offered in one first grade class at Franklin. The report claims that the immersion program has been fully implemented. We were going to make an unannounced site visit there on Wednesday, November 30, 1994, but tragically, the principals teenage son committed suicide, so we have postponed our visit until after the first of the year. We will withhold comment on the immersion program for now, and furnish a written summary of our findings within a few days of the visit. Our preliminary information on the program is that it is very poor and far from being fully implemented. 33. Incentive School Theme Implementation This submission is sadly inadequate in addressing the questions posed by the Court in the October order. The descriptions of programs are vague and dont provide any new information beyond what we had gained through our 1993-94 incentive school monitoring visits. If their update\" is accurate, our report is still timely. Franklin 1. The Communications Technology theme is poorly defined. The reader is told at the theme is \"the science of utilizing tools, machines, materials, and processes for the purpose of communicating.\" (p. 1). That definition has no meaning as it relates to what actually students do. No examples were provided. 2. There is no specific description of how the theme concepts have been integrated into the curriculum. 3. On page 2, the Franklin theme is described as \"operable\" (like a cancer!), but there is an indication that full implementation is not complete. No implementation timeline is provided, as requested by the Court. The excuse given for slowed implementation is that is is the first full year of employment for the theme specialist\nhowever, this is not the first theme specialist to hold the position since implementation began two years ago. Garland 1. The Garland summary describes computer-based instruction. The report does not specify how Garlands approach differs significantly from other schools which use computers as learning tools. 2. The full Garland theme is Multimedia Technology and Educational Research,\" but the theme description provides no mention of educational research. 3. Garlands theme is described as needing to be phased in due to high costs. A specific timeline isnt provided as requested by the Court, nor are the anticipated costs which make a phase-in necessary. 4. Full implementation of the theme is to occur in phases \"pending the outcome of initial phase\" (p. 4). The submission does not explain what this means. Mitchell I. if the description is accurate, the Creative Dramatics theme is not an integrated part of the curriculum. The specialty teachers (art, music, physical education) are the vehicles for delivering the theme. Based on this description, full theme integration is not occurring at Mitchell. 42. The theme is described as \"operable\" (new favorite word at LRSD?), but needing refinement. No indication is given as to the type of refinement that will be necessary and the timeline is missing. Rightsell 1. Rightsells theme description is the only one which highlights the role of the classroom teacher in infusing the curriculum. By the way. Rightsell was the only incentive school to supply an infused curriculum guide during our 1993-94 monitoring visit. 2. The explanation of the mass media component of the theme is quite weak. 3. With the recent installation of closed-circuit wiring for closed-circuit television, it appears that theme implementation is complete. Rockefeller 1. It is our conviction that computers are a tool, not a legitimate theme. We see very little in the Rockefeller description to convince us that the school is actually emphasizing \"computer science.\" While Rockefeller may have more classroom-based computers than the average, we havent observed any new skills or uses that set the school apart from other schools which are effectively using computers as an instructional tool. 2. Rockefeller is the only incentive school at which, the report states, theme implementation is complete. 5sone Little Rock School District fn /I'k. - UliD March 10, 1995 Mr. Horace Smith Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Horace, As you requested, I have enclosed the following materials which will explain, in detail, the TI- IN Elementary Spanish Program: H\" TI-IN Instructional Model: General Description Philosophy \u0026amp; Purpose, Program Outcomes, Course Syllabus IS- Curriculum Overview S Teacher Partner Guide Sample Spanish Lesson: Units I \u0026amp; II Review (Grades 2-6) 3* Multicultural Class (Grades K-1) As you know, this program is being used successfully at Garland Incentive School. I have notified the other incentive school principals of its benefits and have recently sent them the same materials which you are receiving at this time. As of this semester, both Rightsell and Mitchell have installed a closed circuit television system which is a requirement for the use of this program. Franklin and Rockefeller are still in the process of investigating installation costs. Please let me know, if you need additional information. Very truly yours. Paula Grier Staff Development Specialist for the Incentive Schools Enclosures 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361\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_519","title":"Inventory report","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1994/1996"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Inventory report"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/519"],"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\nLittle Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT April 7, 1994 pssk . 3 D APR 8 1994 Ms. Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court 201 East Markham Street, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Cities oi isssgresaliori '9 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: In keeping with your request of March 14, 1994, I have enclosed the Needs Assessment Report and the Program Inventory Report for your files. We are continuing to work on the Student Assignment Audit and the Instructions for Incorporating Additional Desegregation Obligations into the Program Budget Document. Additional documents will be submitted to you upon completion. Thanks for your patience. Sincerely ^e^^ P. Williams Superintendent of Schools HPW:nr Encl. 810 West .Markham Street  LltUe Rock, Arkaiisas 72201  (501)824-2000LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PROGRAM INVENTORY REPORT, FY 93-94 operating in the LRSD for the 1993-94 fiscal year. The Program Inventory Report presents an account and listing for the Desegregation Programs and Non-Desegregation Programs .q rnnn .= 4-x.- ... = - i Accompanying Cluster, Primary Leader, and Secondary Leader information is provided for each Program Name. DESEGREGATION PROGRAMS I PROGRAM NAME CLUSTER PRIMARY LEADER SECONDARY LEADER HIPPY Curriculum Estelle Matthis Marion Shead Four-Year Old Program/CityWide Early Childhood Program Curriculum Estelle Matthis Pat Price Academic Support Program Curriculum Estelle Matthis Leon Adams, Alice Stovall, Judy Trowell Multicultural Curriculum Curriculum Estelle Matthis Marie McNeal Special Education Curriculum Estelle Matthis Patty Kohler Gifted Programs Curriculum Estelle Matthis Mabel Donaldson Federal Programs Curriculum Estelle Matthis Leon Adams Vocational Education Curriculum Estelle Matthis Carol Green2 PROGRAM NAME School Operations Extra-Curricular Participation Student Hearing Officer In-School Suspension New Futures Academic Incentive Grant/ Focused Activities McClellan Community School Testing Assistance-Disadvantaged Job Fair Commitment to Desegregation/ Leadership Office of Desegregation/ Student Assignment Staff Development CLUSTER School Operations School Operations School Operations School Operations School Operations School Operations School Operations School Operations School Operations School Support School Support School Support PRIMARY LEADER Estelle Matthis Estelle Matthis Henry Williams Estelle Matthis Estelle Matthis Estelle Matthis Estelle Matthis Russ Mayo Estelle Matthis Board of Directors Russ Mayo Estelle Matthis SECONDARY LEADER ] Larry Robertson, Margaret Gremillion, Vic Anderson Larry Robertson, Margaret Gremillion, Vic Anderson Linda Watson Vic Anderson Linda Young Larry Robertson, Margaret Gremillion Vic Anderson Jodie Carter Robert Clowers Jo Evelyn Elston Henry Williams Estelle Matthis Donita Hudspeth3 [ PROGRAM NAME OLDSTER PRIMARY LEADER SECONDARY LEADER Library/Media School Support Estelle Matthis Lucy Lyons Computerized Transportation School Support Russ Mayo Brad Montgomery Data Processing School Support TBA John Ruffin (Acting) Safety and Security School Support Mark Milhollen Bill Barnhouse Teacher Recruitment School Support Brady Gadberry Robert Robinson Educational Equity Monitoring School Support Russ Mayo Robert Glowers Summer School (Interdistrict Plan) School Support Estelle Matthis Larry Robertson, Margaret Gremillion, Vic Anderson Summer Learning Program JTPA School Support Estelle Matthis Leon Adams Facilities School Support Mark Milhollwn Doug Eaton Guidance/Counseling Program School Support Estelle Matthis Jo Evelyn Elston Employment Practices School Support Henry Williams Richard Hurley Bidding Practices (Procurement) School Support Mark Milhollen Charlie Neal Contingency School Support Mark Milhollen4 [ PROGRAM NAME Parent Involvement-Recruitment VIPS-Recruiting Public Relations Office of Incentive Schools Writing to Read Science Labs Computer Labs Foreign Language Program Computer Loan Program Extended Day/Week Field Trips CLUSTER Recruitment Recruitment Recruitment Incentive Schools Incentive Schools Incentive Schools Incentive Schools Incentive Schools Incentive Schools Incentive Schools Incentive Schools PRIMARY LEADER Russ Mayo Russ Mayo Russ Mayo Margaret Gremillion Larry Robertson Margaret Gremillion Larry Robertson Margaret Gremillion Larry Robertson Margaret Gremillion Larry Robertson Margaret Gremillion Larry Robertson Margaret Gremillion Larry Robertson Margaret Gremillion Larry Robertson Margaret Gremillion Larry Robertson SECONDARY LEADER Jeanette Wagner Debbie Milam Jeanette Wagner Incentive School Principals Incentive School Principals Incentive School Principals Incentive School Principals Incentive School Principals Incentive School Principals Incentive School Principals Incentive School Principals5 PROGRAM NAME Transportation Instructional Aides Extended Year Incentive/Recognition Resident Counseling Service Camp Pfeiffer Monitoring Staffing-Recommended Full-time Required Staff Development Teacher Stipends for Inservice and Extra 5 Days CLUSTER Incentive Schools Incentive Schools Incentive Schools Incentive Schools Incentive Schools Incentive Schools Incentive Schools Incentive Schools Incentive Schools PRIMARY LEADER Margaret Gremillion Larry Robertson Margaret Gremillion Larry Robertson Margaret Gremillion Larry Robertson Margaret Gremillion Larry Robertson Margaret Gremillion Larry Robertson Margaret Gremillion Larry Robertson Margaret Gremillion Larry Robertson Margaret Gremillion Larry Robertson Margaret Gremillion Larry Robertson SECONDARY LEADER Incentive School Principals Incentive School Principals Incentive School Principals Incentive School Principals Incentive School Principals Incentive School Principals Incentive School Principals Incentive School Principals Incentive School Principals 6 PROGRAM NAME Other Incentive School Academic Programs Social Skills Special Activities Latin Enrichment Program Career Skills Development Incentive School Operations Counseling/Social Work School Policies and Procedures Student Choices and Options King Interdistrict School Stephens Interdistrict School CLUSTER Incentive Schools Incentive Schools Incentive Schools Incentive Schools Incentive Schools Incentive Schools Incentive Schools Incentive Schools Student Choices/Options Student Choices/Options Student Choices/Options PRIMARY LEADER Margaret Gremillion Larry Robertson Margaret Gremillion Larry Robertson Margaret Gremillion Larry Robertson Margaret Gremillion Larry Robertson Margaret Gremillion Larry Robertson Margaret Gremillion Larry Robertson Margaret Gremillion Larry Robertson Margaret Gremillion Larry Robertson Russ Mayo Estelle Matthis Estelle Matthis SECONDARY LEADER Incentive School Principals Incentive School Principals Incentive School Principals Incentive School Principals Incentive School Principals Incentive School Principals Incentive School Principals Incentive School Principals Sue Pederson, Julie Wiedower Russ Mayo, Margaret Gremillion Russ Mayo ]7 PROGRAM NAME CLUSTER PRIMARY LEADER SECONDARY LEADER 3 Romine Interdistrict School Student Choices/Options Estelle Matthis Russ Mayo, Margaret Gremillion Rockefeller Early Childhood Education Magnet Program Student Choices/Options Estelle Matthis Pat Price Original Magnets Student Choices/Options Estelle Matthis Larry Robertson/ Vic Anderson M-to-M Magnets Student Choices/Options Russ Mayo Sue Pederson, Julie Wiedower Vic Anderson8 NON-DESEGREGATION PROGRAMS [ PROGRAM MAME Four-Year Old Program/HIPPY Kindergarten Special Education Vocational Education Adult Education Compensatory Education Gifted and Talented Curriculum Services Elementary Junior High High School Athletics CLUSTER Curriculum Curriculum Curriculum Curriculum Curriculum Curriculum Curriculum Curriculum School Operations School Operations School Operations School Operations PRIMARY LEADER Estelle Matthis Estelle Matthis Estelle Matthis Estelle Matthis Estelle Matthis Estelle Matthis Estelle Matthis Estelle Matthis Estelle Matthis Estelle Matthis Estelle Matthis Estelle Matthis SECONDARY LEADER Pat Price and Marion Shead Pat Price Patty Kohler Carol Green Paulette Martin Leon Adams, Alice Stovall, Judy Trowell, Gene Parker Mabel Donaldson Donita Hudspeth Margaret Gremillion, Larry Robertson Vic Anderson Vic Anderson Vic Anderson9 I PROGRAM NAME CLUSTER PRIMARY LEADER SECONDARY LEADER Guidance Services School Support Estelle Matthis Jo Evelyn Elston Health Services School Support Estelle Matthis Gwen Efird Curriculum Services/VIPS School Support Russ Mayo Debbie Milam Educational Media Services School Support Estelle Matthis Lucy Lyons Board of Education Services School Support Board Henry Williams Executive Administration Services School Support Henry Williams Henry Williams Support Service Management School Support Mark Milhollen Fiscal Services School Support Mark Milhollen Plant Services School Support Mark Milhollen Doug Eaton Pupil Transport Services School Support Russ Mayo Brad Montgomery Purchasing Services School Support Mark Milhollen Charlie Neal Safety \u0026amp; Security Services School Support Mark Milhollen Bill Barnhouse Planning \u0026amp; Evaluation Services School Support Henry Williams Robert Glowers Communication Services School Support Russell Mayo Jeanette Wagner Human Resource Services School Support Richard Hurley Labor Relations School Support Brady Gadberry Data Processing Services School Support Robert Glowers John Ruffin (Acting)10 [ PROGRAM NAME Drug Abuse Prevention Family Life/New Futures Indebtedness Contingencies CLUSTER School Support School Support School Support School Support PRIMARY LEADER Estelle Matthis Estelle Matthis Mark Milhollen Mark Milhollen SECONDARY LEADER Jo Evelyn Elston Linda Young, Rene Carson, I\nc' i2 d 1'-.) DEC 2 2 1994 OHico of Oesegi ^naicn LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION Date: December 21, 1994 To: Mr. Bill Mooney, Office of Desegregation Monitoring From: 'l3^ Robert Clowers, Director Sub j : Copies of Various Reports Per your request, please find enclosed copies of the Extended Program Evaluation Format, Program Inventory Report (our latest revision), Town Hall Meeting Report and District Dialogue (Straight Talk) Report. If you have questions, please call me at 324-2120. Enclosure cc: Dr. Henry P. WilliamsL/i LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PROGRAM INVENTORY REPORT, FY 94-95 The Program Inventory Report presents an account and listing for the Desegregation Programs and Hon-Desegregation Programs operating in the LRSD for the 1994-95 fiscal year. Leader information is provided for each Program Name. Accompanying Cluster, Primary Leader, and Secondary DESEGRECATIOM PROGRAMS SEO # 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 PROGRAM NAME HIPPY Four-Year Old Program/ CityUide Early Childhood Program Academic Support Program Multicultural Curriculum Special Education Gifted Programs Federal Programs Vocational Education School Operations CLUSTER Curriculum Curriculum Curriculum Curriculum Curriculum Curriculum Curriculum Curriculum School Operations PRIMARY LEADER Estelle Matthis Estelle Matthis Estelle Matthis Estelle Matthis Estelle Matthis Estelle Matthis Estelle Matthis Estelle Matthis Estelle Matthis SECONDARY LEADER Marion Shead Pat Price Leon Adams Gene Parker Dennis Glasgow Marie McNeal Gene Parker Dennis Glasgow Patty Kohler Mabel Donaldson Leon Adams Carol Green Margaret Gremillion Sterling Ingram Sadie Mitchell Revised 11/29/94DESEGREGATION PROGRAMS SEQ  10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 PROGRAM NAME Extra*Curricular Participation Student Hearing Officer In*School Suspension New Futures Academic Incentive Grant/ Focused Activities McClellan Community School Testing Assistance- Disadvantaged Job Fair Office of Desegregation/ Student Assignment Staff Development Library/Media Computeri zed Transportation Data Processing Safety and Security Revised 11/29/94 2 CLUSTER School Operations School Operations School Operations School Operations School Operations School Operations School Operations School Operations School Support School Support School Support School Support School Support School Support PRIMARY LEADER Estelle Matthis Henry Williams Estelle Matthis Estelle Matthis Estelle Matthis Estelle Matthis Robert Glowers Estelle Matthis Russ Mayo Estelle Matthis Estelle Matthis Russ Mayo Robert Glowers Hark HiIhollen SECONDARY LEADER Sterling Ingram Margaret Gremillion Sadie Mitchell Larry Robertson Sterling Ingram Margaret Gremillion Sadie Mitchell Linda Young Sterling Ingram Margaret Gremillion Sadie Mitchell Jodie Carter Ethel Dunbar Jo Evelyn Elston Karen Buchanan Marion Woods Lucy Lyons Mary J. Cheatham David Beason Bobby JonesDESEGREGATION PROGRAMS 3 SEO  26 27 28 29 30 31 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 PROGRAM NAME Teacher Recruitment Educational Equity Monitoring Commitment to Desegregation/ Leadership Sunner School (Interdistrict Plan) Sumner Learning Program JTPA Cont i ngency Facilities Gu idance/Counseling Program Employment Practices Bidding Practices (Procurement) Parent Involvement- Recruitment VIPS-Recruiting Public Relations Revised 11/29/94 CLUSTER School Support School Support School Support School Support School Support School Support School Support School Support School Support School Support Recruitment Recruitment Recruitment PRIMARY LEADER Richard Hurley Robert Glowers Board of Directors Estelle Matthis Estelle Matthis Hark HiIhollen Hark HiIhollen Estelle Matthis Henry Ui 11iams Hark MiIhollen Russ Mayo Russ Mayo Russ Mayo SECONDARY LEADER Robert Robinson Paul Smith Henry Williams Sterling Ingram Margaret Gremillion Sadie Mitchell Leon Adams Sterling Ingram Hark MiIhollen Doug Eaton Jo Evelyn Elston Richard Hurley Charlie Neal Becky Rather Leon Hodeste Debbie Milam Dina TeagueDESEGREGATION PROGRAMS 4 SEO # 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 1 PROGRAM NAME Office of Incentive Schools Writing to Read Science Labs Computer Labs Foreign Language Program Computer Loan Program Extended Oay/Week Field Trips Revised 11/29/94 CLUSTER Incentive Schools Incentive Schools Incentive Schools Incentive Schools Incentive Schools Incentive Schools Incentive Schools Incentive Schools PRIMARY LEADER Margaret Gremillion Sterling Ingram Margaret Gremillion Sterling Ingram Margaret Gremillion Sterling Ingram Margaret Gremillion Sterling Ingram Margaret Gremillion Sterling Ingram Margaret Gremillion Sterling Ingram Margaret Gremillion Sterling Ingram Margaret Gremillion Sterling Ingram SECONDARY LEADER Incentive School Principals Incentive School Principals Incentive School Principals Incentive School Principals Incentive School Principals Incentive School Principals Incentive School Principals Incentive School PrincipalsSEO # 50 53 54 55 56 57 61 62 PROGRAM MAME Transportation Instructional Aides Extended Year Incentive/ Recognition Resident Counseling Service Camp Monitoring Staffing Requi red Staffing Development Revised 11/29/94 CLUSTER Incentive Schools Incentive Schools Incentive Schools Incentive Schools Incentive Schools Incentive Schools Incentive Schools Incentive Schools PRIMARY LEADER Margaret Gremillion Sterling Ingram Margaret Gremillion Sterling Ingram Margaret Gremillion Sterling Ingram Margaret Gremillion Sterling Ingram Margaret Gremillion Sterling Ingram Margaret Gremillion Sterling Ingram Margaret Gremillion Sterling Ingram Margaret Gremillion Sterling Ingram SECONDARY LEADER Incentive School Principals Incentive School Principals Incentive School Principals Incentive School Principals Incentive School Principals Incentive School Principals Incentive School Principals Irwentive School Principals DESEGREGATION PROGRAMS 5DESEGREGATION PROGRAMS 6 SEO \u0026lt; 63 64 65 66 67 69 70 71 PROGRAM NAME Teacher Stipends for Inservice and Extra 5 Days Other Incentive School Academic Programs Social Skills Special Activities Latin Enrichment Program Career Ski I Is Development Incentive School Operations Support Services Counsel/Social Uork Revised 11/29/94 CLUSTER Incentive Schools Incentive Schools Incentive Schools Incentive Schools Incentive Schools Incentive Schools Incentive Schools Incentive Schools PRIMARY LEADER Margaret Gremillion Sterling Ingram Margaret Gremillion Sterling Ingram Margaret Gremillion Sterling Ingram Margaret Gremillion Sterling Ingram Margaret Gremillion Sterling Ingram Margaret Gremillion Sterling Ingram Margaret Gremillion Sterling Ingram Margaret Gremillion Sterling Ingram SECONDARY LEADER Incentive School Principals Incentive School Principals Incentive School Principals Incentive School Principals Incentive School Principals Incentive School Principals Incentive School Principals Incentive School Principals7 SEQ  72 75 76 77 78 79 80 82 PROGRAM NAME School Policies and Procedures Student Choices/Options King Interdistrict School Stephens Interdistrict School Romine Interdistrict School Rockefeller Early Child- hood Education Magnet Original Magnets M-to-M Magnet Schools Revised 11/29/94 CLUSTER Incentive Schools Student Choices/ Options Student Choices/ Options Student Choices/ Opt i ons Student Choices/ Options Student Choices/ Opt i ons Student Choices/ Options Student Choices/ Options PRIMARY LEADER Margaret Gremillion Sterling Ingram Russ Mayo Russ Mayo Estelle Matthis Russ Mayo Estelle Matthis Russ Mayo Estelle Matthis Estelle Matthis Estelle Matthis Russ Mayo SECONDARY LEADER Incentive School Principals Karen Buchanan Julie Wiedower DESEGREGATION PROGRAMS Margaret Gremillion Margaret Gremillion Sadie Mitchell Pat Price Dennis Glasgow Karen Buchanan Julie WiedowerMON-OESEGREGATION PROGRAMS 8 SEO # PROGRAM NAME CLUSTER PRIMARY LEADER SECONDARY LEADER 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 Four-Year Old Program/ HIPPY Kindergarten Special Education Vocational Education Adult Education Compensatory Education Gifted and Talented Curriculim Services Elementary Junior High High School Athletics Guidance Services Drug Abuse Prevention Health Services Revised 11/29/94 Curriculun Curriculum Curriculum Curriculum Curriculum Curriculum Curriculum Curriculim School Operations School Operations School Operations School Operations School Support School Support School Support Estelle Matthis Estelle Matthis Estelle Matthis Estelle Matthis Estelle Matthis Estelle Matthis Estelle Matthis Estelle Matthis Estelle Matthis Estelle Matthis Estelle Matthis Estelle Matthis Estelle Matthis Estelle Matthis Estelle Matthis Pat Price Marion Shead Pat Price Patty Kohler Carol Green Paulette Martin Leon Adams Dennis Glasgow Mabel Donaldson Lucy Lyons Dennis Glasgow Margaret Gremillion Sadie Mitchell TBA TBA Ouida Carter Jo Evelyn Elston Jo Evelyn Elston Gwen Eft rd Jo Evelyn ElstonHON-DESEGREGATION PROGRAMS 9 SEQ # 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 PROGRAM NAME VIPS Educational Media Services Board of Education Services Executive Administration Support Service Management Fiscal Services Plant Services Pupil Transport Services Purchasing Services Safety \u0026amp; Security Services Planning \u0026amp; Evaluation Comnunication Services Human Resource Services Labor Relations Data Processing Services Revised 11/29/94 CLUSTER School Support School Support School Support School Support School Support School Support School Support School Support School Support School Support School Support School Support School Support School Support PRIMARY LEADER SECONDARY LEADER Russ Mayo Estelle Matthis Board Henry Williams Mark HiIhollen Mark MiIhollen Hark HiIhollen Russ Mayo Hark HiIhollen Hark HiIhollen Henry Williams Russ Mayo Richard Hurley Brady Gadberry Robert Glowers Debbie Mi lam Lucy Lyons Henry Ui Iliams Henry Williams Hark HiIhollen Mark Milhollen Doug Eaton Mary J.Cheatham Charlie Neal Bobby Jones Robert dowers Dina Teague Richard Hurley Brady Gadberry David BeasonMOH-DESEGREGATIOH PROGRAMS 10 SEQ  PROGRAM NAME CLUSTER PRIMARY LEADER SECONDARY LEADER 231 232 233 Fami ly Life/New Futures Indebtedness Contingencies Revised 11/29/94 School Support School Support School Support Estelle Matthis Mark MiIhollen Mark HiIhollen Linda Young Rene Carson Mark MiIhollen Mark MiIhollenB5071302 Date: July 13, 1995 To: Robert Glowers From: Bill Mooney Aiit Subject: Cycle III Program Inventory During our meeting this morning with Mark and Fred on the Program Inventory, I said that I would write down for you some of my thoughts on what the District needed to do to take the Program Inventory to the next level. The following is a list of what I would do during this cycle to improve the program information. This list is just a starting point, since we could probably think of some more improvements if we reflected over several days. 1. Identify all new programs and verify the carryover programs. The program leaders for the new programs shown in your budget document should make the decision (which should already be reflected in the supporting business case) as to whether this new program is a standalone program or part of a larger existing program. If it is a standalone program, you and the program leader will have to do a complete set up in the Program Budget Document. If it is part of a larger existing program, you and the program leader will have to roll it into that program, making the necessary changes in the Program Budget Document. 2. Validate all program descriptions and include program goals. The program leaders and the administration should review all program descriptions of both carryover and new programs to ensure those descriptions accurately reflect the program services. The program goals should also be reviewed. The descriptions and goals should be included in your Program Inventory document. 3. Validate District goal support for each carryover and new program. The program leaders and the administration should review and clean up the statement of District goals to which the program contributes. This area needs some heavy cleaning. Very few programs should support all six District goals\nmost should only support one or two. Keep the goal relationship simple, direct, and clean. Dont let your program leaders blow smoke on the great value of their program\nthat is how you got into this mess to begin with. 4. Establish/validate accounting codes to capture budget/expense data for each program. You and the program leaders should go to Mark with all of the above program material in place. Mark will tell you if he can capture the financial data at that program level, and if the capture is cost beneficial. If it can be done and is cost beneficial, set up the codes in the financial system and make the necessary entries in the Program Budget Document. If it can not be done or is not cost beneficial, then make a qualifying entry in the program financial section of the Program Budget Document stating the fact and referencing the parent program. The key thing to remember is that program decisions should drive financial decisions, not the other way around (what we are doing now). Dont spend a great amount of time trying to split out small amounts of money on sub-programs. Do it, document it, and move on. 5. Clean up the Program Budget Document. You and the program leaders should review the Q4 document before moving into the next cycle. Make all of the corrections from the steps above. The Program Budget Document should be a working document, so dont forget to update the primary and secondary leaders, since many are ill and may not return. There should be some figure or statement in every one of the financial sections. Every program should have a program code, or some identified method of capturing the financial information. On a somewhat different subject, the program leaders need extensive training on writing good achievements. Most of the statements are effort based, rather than effectiveness achievements. We must get away from this if we are to have a better and smaller document. 6. Build a spreadsheet for quick program level financial information. I am surprised you have not already been asked how much money the District spends on District goal number three. I would go ahead and build a simple spreadsheet with program, program code, expenditures, budget, and supported goals. This would allow me to sort by goal and provide some useful information in work with the Board and public. This would be an opportunity to educate and shape rather than react to a question. 7. Re-validate District goal support after the Board finalizes the goals for the cycle. If the Board does not complete its review and approval of the District goals before the Program Inventory is complete, you and the program leaders will have to go back and re-validate the District goal support for the programs. This should not take very long, assuming there is no major change to the goal structure. District and program goals must be completed early in the process since the needs assessment is dependent on both. The quality and scope of your Program Inventory should improve every year. Like all of the products of the sub-processes, they should get better each cycle. Nothing should ever stay the same. These few improvements should get you started, and should not take much time. I will help you in any way I can. Just give me a call.EB C. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research and Evaluation MEMORANDUM August 2, 1996 RECEIVED AUG 5 1996 OHice of Desegregation Monitoring TO: Superintendents Cabinet FROM: Ed Jackson, Director / RE: 1996-97 Program Inventory Please see the attached Program Inventory for the 1996-97 school year. Attachment cc: Dr. Vic Anderson LRSD Board of Directors Ann Brown, ODMSEQ# 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 PROGRAM NAME Four-Year Old Program/HIPPY Kindergarten Special Education Vocational Education Adult Education Compensatory Education Gifted and Talented Curriculum Services Elementary Junior High High School Athletics Guidance Services Drug Abuse Prevention Health Services VIPS Revised: 8/2/96 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NON-DESEGREGATION PROGRAM INVENTORY REPORT FY 96-97 PRIMARY LEADER Director, Staff Development Director, Staff Development Director Labor Relations Superintendent Assistant Superintendent Superintendent Director Special Education Director Staff Development Superintendent Superintendent Superintendent Assistant Superintendent Assistant Superintendents Director Labor Relations Director Pupil Services Associate Superintendent Page 1 AUG 5 1996 --------------------------OWIca ot Dasegregation SECONDARY LEADER Director Four-Year Old, Director HIPPY Director Early Childhood Education Director Exceptional Children Director Vocational Education Director Adult Education Director Federal Programs, Science Supervisor Gifted and Talented Supervisor Director Library/Media, Science Supervisor Assistant Superintendents Assistant Superintendent Secondary Schools Assistant Superintendent Secondary Schools TBA Assistant Superintendents, Director Pupil Services Director Pupil Services Health Services Coordinator, Director Pupil Services VIPS Coordinator Monitoring iSEQ# PROGRAM NAME 217 Educational Media Services 218 Board of Education Services 219 Executive Administration Services 220 Support Service Management 221 Fiscal Services 222 Plant Services 223 Pupil Transport Services 224 Purchasing Services 225 Safety \u0026amp; Security Services 226 Planning \u0026amp; Evaluation Services 227 Communication Services 228 Human Resource Services 229 Labor Relations  230 Data Processing Services 231 Family Life/New Futures 232 Indebtedness Revised\n8/2/96 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NON-DESEGREGATION PROGRAM INVENTORY REPORT FY 96-97 PRIMARY LEADER Superintendent Board Superintendent Superintendent Manager Support Services Manager Support Services Manager Support Services Manager Support Services Manager Support Services Associate Superintendent Associate Superintendent Director Labor Relations Superintendent Superintendent Superintendent Manager Support Services Page 2 SECONDARY LEADER Director Library/Media Superintendent Superintendent Manager Support Services Manager Financial Services Director Plant Services Director Transportation Director Procurement Director Safety and Security Director Planning, Research and Evaluation Director Communications Director Human Resources Director Labor Relations Director Information Services Coordinator New Futures Manager Financial ServicesSEQ# PROGRAM NAME 233 234 235 236 237 238 Contingencies Alternative Education Arkansas Crusades Beacon School New Comers Centers Reading Recovery Revised: 8/2/96 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NON-DESEGREGATION PROGRAM INVENTORY REPORT FY 96-97 PRIMARY LEADER Manager Support Services Director Labor Relations Director Staff Development Superintendent Director Staff Development Director Staff Development Page 3 SECONDARY LEADER Manager Financial Services Director Pupil Services Supervisor Science Director New Futures Supervisor English/Foreign Language Supervisor English/Foreign Language I iSEQ# PROGRAM NAME 1 HIPPY 2 Four-Year Old Program 6 Desegregation 7 Extracurricular Participation 7 8 9 Extracurricular Participation Tri-District Staff Recruiter: Tri-District (Teacher Recruiter) Staff Development 12 Multicultural Curriculum 13 14 17 18 Academic Program Incentive/Focused Activities (Academic Original Magnets Information Services (D/P system Student Info) M to M Magnet Program 22 Equity Monitoring (Monitoring Activities) 24 Computerized Transportation 26 McClellan Community Schools 29 Testing Revised: 8/2/96 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION PROGRAM INVENTORY REPORT FY 96-97 PRIMARY LEADER Director Staff Development Director Staff Development Associate Superintendent Asst. Superintendent Asst. Superintendent Director Human Resources Superintendent Director Staff Development Asst. Superintendent Assoc. Superintendent Superintendent Assoc. Superintendent Superintendent Manager Support Services Asst. Superintendent Secondary Schools Assoc. Superintendent Page 1 RECB' AUG 5 1996 SECONDARY LEADER Director HIPPY Dir. Early Childhood Ed. Asst. Superintendents Principals Principals Teacher Recruiter Director Staff Development Curriculum Supervisors Principals QHieo-efBesegfogat^ Monitoring Director Student Assignment Director Information Services Director Student Assignment Assoc. Superintendent Director Transportation McClellan Principal Director PRESEQ# PROGRAM NAME 29 Testing: Tri-District 32 Media Services: Tri-District 33 Parent Involvement 33 Parent Involvement: Tri-District 57 72 Incentive School Extended day/Week (Extended Day) Incentive School Staff Development (Required Staff Development) Incentive School Staffing (Recommended Staffing) Collaborate: Tri-District Facilities Federal Programs Finance Gifted Programs Guidance/Counseling Guidance/Counseling: Tri-District Henderson Magnet Incentive Schools Revised: 8/2/96 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION PROGRAM INVENTORY REPORT FY 96-97 PRIMARY LEADER Assoc.. Superintendent Superintendent Director Student Assignment Director Student Assignment Director Staff Development Superintendent Director Staff Development Assoc. Superintendent Manager Support Services Superintendent Manager Support Services Director Exceptional Children Superintendent Superintendent Asst. Supt. Secondary Schools Director Staff Development Page 2 SECONDARY LEADER Director PRE Director Media/Technology Coordinator Recruitment Coordinator Recruitment Incentive School Principals Director Staff Development Incentive School Principals Director Student Assignment Director Plant Services Director Federal Programs Manager of Finance Director Gifted Programs Principals Director Pupil Services Henderson Principal Asst. Supt. of Incentive SchoolsLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION PROGRAM INVENTORY REPORT FY 96-97 SEQ# PROGRAM NAME PRIMARY LEADER SECONDARY LEADER Interdistrict Schools Assoc. Supt. Interdistrict Principals Incentive School Academic Actvities Director Staff Development Asst. Supt. of Incentive Schools Incentive School Aacademic Programs Director Staff Development Asst. Supt. of Incentive Schools Incentive School Foriegn Language Director Staff Development Curriculum Specialist Incentive School Guidance/Counseling Director Staff Development Director Pupil Services Incentive School Latin Program Director Staff Development Curriculum Specialist Incentive School Parent Involvement Director Staff Development Coordinator Recruitment Incentive School Parent Recruitment Director Student Assignment Coordinator Recruitment Incentive School Policies/Procedures Director Staff Development Incentive School Principals Incentive School Social Skills Director Staff Development Incentive School Principals Incentive School Student Achievement Director Staff Development Incentive School Principals Incentive School Support Programs Director Staff Development Asst. Supt. Incentive Schools i. Library/Media Services McClellan Magnet New Futures Parkview Magnet Superintendent Asst. Supt. Secondary Superintendent Asst. Supt. Secondary Director Media/Technology McClellan Principal Coordinator New Futures Parkview Principal i Revised: 8/2/96 Page 3LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION PROGRAM INVENTORY REPORT FY 96-97 SEQ# PROGRAM NAME PRIMARY LEADER SECONDARY LEADER Planning Assoc. Supt. Director PRE Procurement Manager Support Services Director Procurement Public Relations: Tri-District Assoc. Supt. Director Communications Rockefeller Early Childhood Ed. Director Staff Development Director Early Childhood School Climate Asst. Superintendents Principals Site-Based Management Superintendent Asst. Superintendents Special Education: Tri-District Director Labor Relations Director Exceptional Children Staff Development: Tri-District Superintendent Asst. Superintendents Student Achievement Assoc. Superintendent Principals Student Assignment Assoc. Superintendent Director Student Assignment Student Discipline: Tri-District Superintendent Director Pupil Services Student Recruitment Director Student Assignment Coordinator Recruitment Summer School: Tri-District Director Staff Development Summer School Principals Vocational Education Superintendent Director Vocational Education Vocational Education: Tri-District Superintendent Director Vocational Education Revised: 8/2/96 Page 4\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_478","title":"\"\"Little Rock School District, Districtwide Biracial Committee Monitoring Report on Incentive Schools,\"\" Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department, Fourth quarter summary report","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1994/1995"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School improvement programs","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["\"\"Little Rock School District, Districtwide Biracial Committee Monitoring Report on Incentive Schools,\"\" Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department, Fourth quarter summary report"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/478"],"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\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT RECEIVED SEP 2 0 1995 Office of Desegregation Monitoring DISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE MONITORING REPORT ON INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1994-95 FOURTH QUARTER SUMMARY REPORT PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT Little Rock, Arkansas July 1995 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 TABLE OF CONTENTS Equitable Placement by Race/Gender in School Programs Curriculum School/District Initiated Honors and Awards Committees Extended Day Educational Opportunities Student Achievement/Assessment Special Education Gifted and Talented Education Staff Development Parental Involvement Student Discipline Building Leadership/Management Page 3 4 8 9 10 12 13 15 17 19 22 25LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT DISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE MONITORING REPORT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1994-95 FOURTH QUARTER SUMMARY REPORT The Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan mandates that \"the incentive schools will be monitored at least once each quarter by members of the districtwide biracial committee (page 224) The monitoring instrument and Standard Operating Procedures for Monitoring are provided to principals prior to the visits with instructions for these instruments to be shared with their school staffs. The visits are scheduled cooperatively with each principal. The Desegregation Plan further directs that \"quarterly reports summarizing all the monitoring visits will be prepared by personnel from the Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department and presented through the superintendent to the Board of Directors of the LRSD during a regular meeting (page 225).\" Progress or lack of progress is reported concerning the following areas: Separation of Races in School Programs Curriculum School/District Initiated Honors/Awards Committees Extracurricular Activities Student Achievement/Assessment Special Education Gifted and Talented Education Staff Development Parental Involvement Student Discipline Building Leadership/ManagementDISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE MONITORING REPORT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1994-95 FOURTH QUARTER SUMMARY REPORT Page 2 Each team reviews a school profile which contains basic information related to current conditions in the monitored areas. The school profile information is verified through the school visit and interviews with school personnel. This report provides a summary of visits conducted May 2, 1995 and May 25, 1995. The school reports identify conditions that were evident on the day of the visit. Many acceptable conditions were observed by the monitors during the visits. However, the intent of this report is to identify the degree to which each school is progressing toward the goals of desegregation (See LRSD Desegregation Plan pages 28-29) . At the conclusion of each visit. a conference is held with the building principal or designee to review the findings of the team. Upon completion of the process described above, reports from the incentive school monitoring teams are forwarded to the LRSD Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. The Desegregation Plan states that \"the associate superintendent for desegregation will be responsible for insuring that deficiencies listed in the monitoring reports are eliminated in a timely manner (page 225).\" During the 1994-95 academic year, only two incentive schools. Rightsell and Franklin, were monitored by members of the Districtwide Biracial Committee. A three member team monitored Rightsell on May 2, 1995\nhowever, the team did not submit aDISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE MONITORING REPORT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1994-95 FOURTH QUARTER SUMMARY REPORT Page 3 consensus report. Therefore, the writer of this summary report prepared the consensus report for Rightsell. Franklin was monitored on May 25, 1995 by one Districtwide Biracial Committee member\nthus, the consensus report for that school represents the views of only one person. 1.0 EQUITABLE PLACEMENT BY RACE/GENDER IN SCHOOL PROGRAMS At each school the monitors expected to find: Racially balanced (at least 25 % black) certified and (at least 25 % white) non-certified staff reflecting appropriate percentage Racial/Gender Balance (at least 25 % black) in staff assignments, programs, content areas, and grade level Strategies to increase the enrollment of white students FINDINGS: FRANKLIN According to the report submitted, the composition of the school staff ensured that students had access to, and contact with, a varied staff of certified and non-certified personnel. Furthermore, the report indicated that class enrollments generally reflected the racial/ethnic composition of the school. It was noted that because there were so few white students, the principal, to the degree possible, usually placed those students in the same classroom so as not to place them in racial isolation. As a result, there were severalDISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE MONITORING REPORT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1994-95 FOURTH QUARTER SUMMARY REPORT Page 4 classes with an enrollment of only black students, as per the report. An area of concern indicated by the report was that the school enrollment did not reflect the racial/ethnic composition prescribed by the court approved desegregation plan. According to the report, ninety percent of the students were black. RIGHTSELL The team from Rightsell noted that the composition of the school staff was an area of concern because the racial composition of the staff did not ensure that students had access to, and contact with, a varied staff of certified and non-certified personnel. In total, 79% of the staff was black, with a non-certified staff that was only five percent white and a certified staff of 64% black personnel. The reports indicated that a number of classes consisted solely of black students. Response from Principal(s): None 2.0 CURRICULUM At each school the monitors expected to find: Interaction among students promoted by classroom seating patterns An adequacy of materials and equipment to support theDISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE MONITORING REPORT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1994-95 FOURTH QUARTER SUMMARY REPORT Page 5 prescribed curriculum (Adequacy - can you implement the curriculum with what you have?) Varied teaching strategies reflected by display of student work Evidence of assessment/reteaching/retesting, when necessary Current and complete documentation of student progress Teachers demonstrating use of multiculturally infused curriculum (guides) Students participating in heterogeneous (mixed) groups to allow for cross racial/gender interaction, to the degree population permits Displays of bulletin boards, materials, and publications that reflect the cultural diversity of the student population and/or multiculturalism Peer tutoring/Cooperative Learning Group Evidence of hands-on discovery and exploratory approaches to teaching: - use of science lab - display of project - use of math manipulatives FINDINGS\nFRANKLIN No areas of concern relative to the \"Curriculum\" area of the monitoring instrument were reported for Franklin School. A majority of the teachers interviewed indicated that they had adequate materials and equipment to deliver the curriculum. However, the monitor reported that one teacher expressed the need for more materials but had not requestedDISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE MONITORING REPORT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1994-95 FOURTH QUARTER SUMMARY REPORT Page 6 any because she/he felt discouraged from doing so. According to the report submitted, student folders and other appropriate records were either on file or in view in each classroom monitored. All students were actively involved in classroom instruction in all classrooms visited\nexamples of student activities cited: group discussions and independent student work. It was impossible to document displays and bulletin boards of multiculturalism throughout the building because most of them had been removed in order to facilitate painting. However, the report indicated that selected classrooms had a variety of displays and print materials featuring African, Asian, Native Americans, and European cultures. Displays of student work were quite evident in the classrooms for the lower grade students\nbecause of the painting in progress at the school, student work had been removed from the upper grade classrooms. The report indicated that not enough evidence was available to determine if the multicultural objectives of the curriculum guide were being taught. The four-year old classes had completed a comprehensive unit on Germany, Hawaii, Japan, and Mexico, but several teachers at other grade levels were unable to provide any specific information about multiculturalDISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE MONITORING REPORT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1994-95 FOURTH QUARTER SUMMARY REPORT Page 7 study other than African of African-American cultures, according to the monitor. It was reported that acquisitions to the library media center were driven by the school curriculum and recommendations in professional journals. RIGHTSELL A majority of the reports submitted by monitors at Rightsell indicated that bulletin boards, displays of projects, etc., reflecting the racial/ethnic/gender differences of the student body and/or multiculturalism were in evidence. Examples cited: \"Greetings from Around the World,\" information about Egypt and Norway\ndisplays of famous black Americans, and pictures of famous white Americans. Multiculturalism was also depicted in a majority of the classrooms visited. Monitors further indicated that student work was on display. Teachers of all classrooms visited indicated that they had adequate materials and equipment to deliver the curriculum, according to reports submitted. Monitors also noted that current and complete student records were maintained in the classroom and school office to monitor the progress in achievement of the individual learner.DISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE MONITORING REPORT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1994-95 FOURTH QUARTER SUMMARY REPORT Page 8 Monitors further indicated that all students were actively involved in classroom instruction in each classroom visited\nexamples of instructional activities cited: group instruction and teacher directed instruction. Additionally, classroom seating patterns promoted interaction among students of different races/genders, as per reports. In a majority of the classrooms monitored, multicultural objectives of the curriculum guides were taught via the use of hands-on art, newspapers, visual aids, etc. Response from Principal(s): None 3.0 SCHOOL/DISTRICT INITIATED HONORS AND AWARDS At each school the monitors expected to find: A variety of awards and honors Evidence of written procedures and requirements governing honors and awards have been distributed to staff, students and parents A process to evaluate the honors and awards program for equity Plans to eliminate any racial/gender inequities relative to distribution of honors and awards FINDINGS\nFRANKLIN The report from Franklin indicated that a variety of honors and awards was provided in areas such as scholarship.DISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE MONITORING REPORT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1994-95 FOURTH QUARTER SUMMARY REPORT Page 9 citizenship, sports, clubs, and attendance. Written procedures and requirements governing honors and awards were distributed to staff, students, and parents, according to the monitor. Distribution methods cited: Bulletins were sent home at the beginning of the year, and newsletters and bulletins were sent home periodically. The offerings and procedures regarding honors and awards were evaluated regularly for equity and to determine if new awards were necessary to meet student needs, as per the report. The distribution of honors and awards generally reflected the school population, with 90% of the citations received by black students. RIGHTSELL The team from Rightsell did not monitor the area of \"School/District Initiated Honors and Awards.\" Response from Principal(s): None 4.0 COMMITTEES At each school the monitors expected to find: Racial/gender composition of appointed school-based committees (-25% to +12.5% of black student enrollment) generally reflects the school populationDISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE MONITORING REPORT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1994-95 FOURTH QUARTER SUMMARY REPORT Page 10 FINDINGS\nFRANKLIN According to the Franklin consensus report, the composition of each school based staff/parent committee did not generally reflect the staff/student populations. Sixty- nine percent of the committee members were black, which was not consistent with the school population, as per the report. RIGHTSELL The monitoring team from Rightsell did not respond to \"Committees\" section of the monitoring instrument. Response from Principal(s): None 5.0 EXTENDED DAY EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES At each school the monitors expected to find: Extended day activities (sports, clubs, etc.) generally balanced (-25% to +12.5% of black student enrollment) by race and gender Adult sponsorships generally balanced (-25% to +12.5% of black student enrollment) by race and gender Recruitment practices to promote participation of all races and both genders in extended day activities Parents had been provided with appropriate information relative to extended day activities/Saturday program Extended Day provided reinforcement of objectives of SEP Majority of students participated in extended day/ Saturday programDISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE MONITORING REPORT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1994-95 FOURTH QUARTER SUMMARY REPORT Page 11 Identified activities were conducted by qualified teachers FINDINGS\nFRANKLIN Bulletins and newsletters were used to ensure that students were apprised of information regarding various opportunities to participate in extracurricular activities/extended educational programs, according to the report from Franklin. An area of concern noted by the monitor was that participation in extracurricular activities/extended educational programs did not generally reflect the school population. The notation was made that only four percent of the students participating in the aforementioned programs were white, even though the school had a ten percent white student enrollment. However, the report pointed out that most of the school's white students were in pre-kindergarten and kindergarten and were not eligible for many of the extracurricular activities. RIGHTSELL A majority of the monitors from Rightsell did not respond to this section of the monitoring checklist. Response from Principal(s): NoneDISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE MONITORING REPORT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1994-95 FOURTH QUARTER SUMMARY REPORT Page 12 6.0 STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT/ASSESSMENT At each school the monitors expected to find: All students' strengths and weaknesses assessed and their educational programs planned accordingly (SEP) Evidence that promotion/retention rates were monitored and analyzed to reduce disparities in achievement disaggregated by race/gender) Test results used for diagnostic and prescriptive purposes and reported in a manner that was clear and helpful to administrators, teachers, students, and parents Strategies to close the disparity in test scores among identifiable groups FINDINGS: Two areas of concern were noted regarding Student Achievement/Assessment at Franklin. The report indicated that when results from the 1992-93 Stanford Eight Test were compared to those of 1993-94, the scores of black students did not improve. Secondly, one hundred percent of the students who failed/retained were black. According to the monitoring report, goals and strategies were developed and implemented to decrease the achievement disparity between black students and white students. Examples cited: faculty at each grade level drafted a plan utilizing last year's test data, including incentives for test preparation. Additionally, test taking skills were taughtDISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE MONITORING REPORT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1994-95 FOURTH QUARTER SUMMARY REPORT Page 13 throughout the year\nexamples cited\nuse of the series Te^ Best and Scoring Higher, according to the monitoring report. RIGHTSELL Monitors from Rightsell did not examine Stanford Eight Test results, nor did they report if the failure/retention rates reflected the school population. Goals and strategies were developed and implemented to decrease the achievement differences between black students and white students on the Stanford Eight Achievement Test\nthe \"Great Expectations II program was cited as an example of a strategy employed. Additionally, monitors reported that test taking skills were taught throughout the year, citing teacher made tests and practice taking tests as examples. Responses from Principal(s): None 7.0 SPECIAL EDUCATION At each school the monitors expected to find: Clear, well-defined referral, assessment and placement procedures Special Education facilities that were comparable to other educational programs on the campus and integrated into the total school environment Adequate textbooks, materials, and equipment available for all students to participate in classroom learning experiencesDISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE MONITORING REPORT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1994-95 FOURTH QUARTER SUMMARY REPORT Page 14 Strategies to decrease any over-representation of minorities Adequate facilities to meet the needs of the students served FINDINGS: FRANKLIN Special education facilities were comparable to those of the campus in general, integrated into the total school environment, and met the needs of the students served. according to the report submitted. Current copies of student records were maintained in the classroom to monitor the progress and achievement of the individual learner. One area of concern regarding special education was noted by the monitor. It was reported that the teacher expressed frustration about miscommunication at the district level as to procedures for requesting materials, and that there was a lack of guidelines regarding said. RIGHTSELL The team from Rightsell reported that Special Education facilities were not comparable to those of the campus in general but met the needs of the students served. Monitors indicated that current copies of student records were maintained in the classroom to monitor the progress andDISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE MONITORING REPORT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1994-95 FOURTH QUARTER SUMMARY REPORT Page 15 achievement of the individual learner. Response from Principal(s): None 8.0 GIFTED AND TALENTED EDUCATION At each school the monitors expected to find: Students identified through teacher referral, standardized test results, academic performance, and other criteria deemed appropriate by the school staff Planned and organized strategies to address any problem of under-representation of identifiable groups in gifted and talented programs Sufficient textbooks, materials, and equipment available to deliver the curriculum to all students in the class Gifted and talented facilities that are comparable to facilities of other educational programs on the campus and integrated into the total school environment Adequate facilities to meet the needs of the students served FINDINGS: FRANKLIN At Franklin, the teacher of G/T classes reported that material and equipment were adequate to deliver the curriculum\nthe monitoring report indicated that more materials were available than would ever be needed, plus a small budget for additional acquisitions. The G/T facilities were comparable to those of the campus in general, integrated into the total school environment, andDISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE MONITORING REPORT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1994-95 FOURTH QUARTER SUMMARY REPORT Page 16 met the needs of the students served. According to the report submitted, the classroom was spacious, the materials plentiful. Current copies of students' records were maintained in the classroom to monitor the progress and achievement of the individual learner. The report indicated that student files were kept in a file drawer by the teacher's desk. RIGHTSELL No areas of concern relative to the G/T program were noted on the reports submitted. However, it was reported that a file cabinet that would lock would be useful to the G/T teacher. Strategies to eliminate disproportionate student assignment to G/T were evident, and the teacher understood the school's policy, as per the report. According to monitors, the facility for G/T was excellent, but small\nit was comparable to those of the campus in general, integrated into the total school environment, and met the needs of the students served. Current copies of students' records were maintained in the classroom to monitor the progress of the individual learner.DISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE MONITORING REPORT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1994-95 FOURTH QUARTER SUMMARY REPORT Page 17 Response from Principal(s): None 9.0 STAFF DEVELOPMENT At each school the monitors expected to find: Ongoing staff development programs designed to enable staff members to fulfill the district/school mission and purpose Staff development provided at a variety of places and times Appropriate inservice provided to enable each staff member to understand his/her role and responsibility in the implementation of the districtwide desegregation plan Documentation of staff development participation Inservice provided to all teachers relative to the delivery of the district curriculum Required staff development including: Cooperative Learning/Learning Styles Human Effectiveness Training Parent/Educator Communication and Human Relations Skills Mentor Teacher Program Special Staff Development for Principal, Assistant Principal FINDINGS: FRANKLIN The monitoring report from Franklin indicated two areas of concern: (1) No staff development activities related to discipline/classroom management were offered, and (2) Regular classroom teachers were not provided ongoing training inDISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE MONITORING REPORT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1994-95 FOURTH QUARTER SUMMARY REPORT Page 18 understanding the remedial programs. The Franklin report further indicated that via an interview, the principal reported that staff development activities related to educational eguity to enhance the achievement of a diverse student population, e.g.. Cooperative Learning and PET, had been offered. However, the monitor stated that no documenting confirmation was available. The report also questioned if two staff development activities cited as evidence of offering activities in teaching strategies for multicultural curriculum delivery actually applied to the multicultural curriculum. The examples given were the \"Rites of Passage\" program inservice and a Spanish immersion inservice. RIGHTSELL No areas of concern were noted regarding the \"Staff Development\" section of the monitoring instrument. Examples of various staff development activities that had been offered included one on teaching with phonics, a parent/community involvement activity, and one on higher level thinking skills. The report also indicated that regular classroom teachers were provided on-going training in understanding the remedial program.DISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE MONITORING REPORT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1994-95 FOURTH QUARTER SUMMARY REPORT Page 19 Response from Principal(s): None 10.0 PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT At each school the monitors expected to find: Documentation of school-home communication and contact Documented evidence showing how all identifiable groups of parents had been actively solicited When financially possible, transportation provided to school functions for parents who needed the service School functions conducted in community facilities near identifiable groups of parents School functions scheduled to accommodate all parent groups Provisions for regularly informing and involving parents regarding all aspects of their child's school performance Documentation that parents were actively involved in remediation programs in which their students participated (support workshop attendance, conferences, ASDP signatures, etc.) Opportunities to develop leadership skills among all parent groups Documentation of parental involvement in writing the school improvement plans FINDINGS: FRANKLIN No areas of concern concerning the \"Parental Involvement\" section of the monitoring instrument were noted at Franklin. The school utilized a variety of methods to encourage parentalDISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE MONITORING REPORT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1994-95 FOURTH QUARTER SUMMARY REPORT Page 20 involvement in school and in home supported educational activities\nexamples cited: interim reports, parent conferences, and home visits. Additionally, documentation was available to indicate that parents were actively involved in each phase of remediation programs in which their child participated. Contact was also made regularly with the home to communicate positive/negative information related to student behavior and/or achievement. According to the report. home visits and phone calls were documented in teacher monitoring folders. All identifiable groups of parents were actively involved in school functions, as per the report. The monitor indicated that one notable undertaking was the Men's Club, which encouraged male participation. School patrons and parents were given an opportunity to actively participate in developing the local School Improvement Plan. The report indicated that parents served on committees related to the four COE target areas: Academic Growth, Time on Task, Parent Involvement, and Clear School Purpose. RIGHTSELL No areas of concern were noted regarding the \"Parental Involvement\" section of the monitoring instrument.DISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE MONITORING REPORT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1994-95 FOURTH QUARTER SUMMARY REPORT Page 21 The team from Rightsell indicated that the school utilized a variety of methods to encourage parental involvement in school and in home supported educational activities. Examples of the aforementioned methods cited: Happy Grams, home visits, meet and greet activities, phone calls, and parental visits to the school. All identifiable groups of parents were actively involved in school functions, and documentation was available to indicate that parents were actively involved in each phase of the remediation program in which their child participated. The team from Rightsell indicated that contact was made regularly with the home to communicate positive/negative information related to student behavior and/or achievement. Examples of such contact cited were: interim reports every three weeks, reports to parents, conferences, report cards. and newsletters. Mini-seminars at PTA meetings were held to make parents aware of district structure, policy and programs, and ways to access them. Additionally, monitors reported that this information was also distributed during Parent Involvement Day and at the Parent Center. The report also indicated that parents had an opportunity to actively participate in developing the local School Improvement Plan.DISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE MONITORING REPORT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1994-95 FOURTH QUARTER SUMMARY REPORT Page 22 Response from Principal(s): None 11.0 STUDENT DISCIPLINE At each school the monitors expected to find: No disproportionality among identifiable groups of students when discipline sanctions were analyzed (-25%- +12.5% of the black student enrollment at the school) Evidence of strategies to eliminate disproportionality in disciplinary sanctions, if such disproportionality existed Teachers receiving staff development and training to become more effective in discipline management and classroom management Discipline program monitored, evaluated, and updated to decrease any disproportionality among identifiable groups of students Evidence that a handbook/policy clearly stated expectations for student conduct and that these policies were distributed and explained Classroom instruction proceeded without disruption Mentor Program Community based support program FINDINGS: FRANKLIN Information, including the staff's expectation for student conduct, regarding student disciplinary policies and procedures was distributed to all students and parents. The Franklin report noted that posters in the hallway informedDISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE MONITORING REPORT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1994-95 FOURTH QUARTER SUMMARY REPORT Page 23 students about good behavior and that a behavior plan was sent home to parents, one which required signatures by the parents and to be returned to school for filing. The school staff had plans, procedures, and practices which were designed to enable students to remain in school. promote academic success and alleviate behavior problems. according to the submitted report. The principal wrote a multi-step discipline plan that involved several parent contacts before suspension or expulsion would occur, according to the report. An area of concern expressed by the monitor was that one hundred percent of the suspensions and expulsions for three quarters of the 1994-95 academic year were received by black males. However, strategies to eliminate disproportionate discipline sanctions among identifiable student groups were in evidence. Classroom instruction proceeded in an orderly manner in classrooms observed. The monitor further noted that fair and firm methods in maintaining order were employed. The principal, assistant principal, teachers and supervision aides were observed as being quite active in directing/controlling students. The report from Franklin indicated that many classes were observed passing through theDISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE MONITORING REPORT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1994-95 FOURTH QUARTER SUMMARY REPORT Page 24 hallways and that it was very pleasing to see the principal monitoring their movement. It was further shared that \"...miraculously, no paint was smeared!\" RIGHTSELL No areas of concern were noted concerning the \"School Discipline\" portion of the monitoring instrument. Although no examples were cited in the report, monitors indicated that information, including the staff's expectation for student conduct, regarding student disciplinary policies and procedures was distributed to all students and parents. Study hall, in-school suspension, and teachers' monitoring students during recess, as needed, were given as examples of the school staff having plans, procedures, and practices which were designed to enable students to remain in school, promote academic success and alleviate behavior problems. Strategies to eliminate disproportionate discipline sanctions among identifiable student groups were evident. No information was given concerning if suspension and expulsion rates were generally representative of the student population. Classroom instruction proceeded in an orderly manner in all classrooms observed, according to the reports submitted. School personnel were observed as being very active inDISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE MONITORING REPORT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1994-95 FOURTH QUARTER SUMMARY REPORT Page 25 directing/controlling students. Response by Principal(s): None 12.0 BUILDING LEADERSHIP/MANAGEMENT At each school the monitors expected to find: Clear, concise and well-written improvement goals for equity Physical environment which supported the goals of quality teaching and learning, i.e., clean buildings, no debris, orderly halls, no graffiti Equipment and learning aids in good condition, i.e., bulletin boards, chalk boards Evidence that the principal monitored the curriculum Evidence which indicated that all students were served by the guidance program, i.e., counselors' schedules/daily logsindividual/group counseling A system to receive information from former students and patrons regarding the quality/needs of the total program A safe and secure campus for all students, employees, and visitors Evidence that counselors assisted parents in obtaining services from outside agencies, i.e. counselor's daily log Friendly and helpful personnel Strategies to increase the number of minority students in upper-level courses/class groups District and school security guidelines being followedDISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE MONITORING REPORT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1994-95 FOURTH QUARTER SUMMARY REPORT Page 26 FINDINGS\nFRANKLIN No areas of concern regarding \"Building Leadership/Management\" were noted on the monitoring report from Franklin. The school had a clear, concise, well-written statement of specific improvement goals. Additionally, the campus and building were clean and free of graffiti, and student passage in the hallways was orderly. The monitoring report submitted for Franklin School indicated that curriculum monitoring was conducted by the principal. Teachers documented objectives in their plan books, and the principal frequently visited classrooms. The guidance program provided equitable services to all students, according to the monitoring report. In addition to the services offered by the counselors, a social worker worked with parents and students on both individual and group bases. District and school security guidelines were followed, as per the report. A new enhancement during the 1994-95 academic year was the procurement of walkie-talkies. RIGHTSELL The monitoring team at Rightsell reported that the school had a clear, concise, well-written statement of specificDISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE MONITORING REPORT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1994-95 FOURTH QUARTER SUMMARY REPORT Page 27 improvement goals, although the team cited no examples of these goals. Hallways were orderly on the day of the monitoring visit, according to the submitted reports. Curriculum monitoring occurred, and the guidance program provided equitable services to all students. The reports indicated that district and school security guidelines were being followed with the following reservation\na fence had been knocked down and not repaired, thus security was somewhat less than optimal. Monitors noted an area of concern regarding the campus and building being clean and free of debris and graffiti. The report indicated that the general interior of the building was very good, but that restrooms and the campus needed attention. A further notation indicated that occasionally there were mice and roaches present in the building. Responses from Principal(s): NoneLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SEP 2 0 1995 Office cf Desegregaacn DISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE MONITORING REPORT ON INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1994-95 FOURTH QUARTER SUMMARY REPORT PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT Little Rock, Arkansas July 1995 I 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 1.0 Equitable Placement by Race/Gender in School Programs 3 2.0 q 3.0 Curriculum 4 q 4.0 School/District Initiated Honors and Committees Awards 8 9 5.0 q 6.0 7.0 Extended Day Educational Opportunities Student Achievement/Assessment Special Education 10 12 q 13 8.0 9.0 q 10.0 q 11.0 12.0 Gifted and Talented Education Staff Development Parental Involvement Student Discipline Building Leadership/Management 15 17 19 22 25 q q q q q q qLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT DISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE MONITORING REPORT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1994-95 FOURTH QUARTER SUMMARY REPORT The Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan mandates that \"the incentive schools will be monitored at least once each n K quarter by members of the districtwide biracial committee (page 224).\" The monitoring instrument and Standard Operating Procedures for Monitoring are provided to principals prior to the visits with instructions for these instruments to be shared with their school staffs. The visits are scheduled cooperatively with each principal. q The Desegregation Plan further directs that \"quarterly reports summarizing all the monitoring visits will be prepared by personnel from the Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department and presented through the superintendent to the Board of Directors of n the LRSD during a regular meeting (page 225).\" n Progress or lack of progress is reported concerning the following areas: q q q q Separation of Races in School Programs Curriculum School/District Initiated Honors/Awards Committees Extracurricular Activities Student Achievement/Assessment Special Education Gifted and Talented Education Staff Development Parental Involvement Student Discipline Building Leadership/Management qDISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE MONITORING REPORT 1994-95 INCENTIVE SCHOOLS FOURTH QUARTER SUMMARY REPORT Page 2 Each team reviews a school profile which contains basic information related to current conditions in the monitored areas. The school profile information is verified through the school visit and interviews with school personnel. This report provides a summary of visits conducted May 2, 1995 and May 25, 1995. The school reports identify conditions that were evident on the day of the visit. Many acceptable conditions were observed by the monitors during the visits. However, the intent of this report is to identify the degree to which each school is progressing toward the goals of desegregation (See LRSD Desegregation Plan pages 28-29). At the conclusion of each visit, a conference is held with the building principal or designee to I n review the findings of the team. Upon completion of the process described above, reports from the incentive school monitoring teams are forwarded to the LRSD Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. The Desegregation Plan states that \"the associate superintendent for desegregation will be II m responsible for insuring that deficiencies listed in the monitoring reports are eliminated in a timely manner (page 225).\" During the 1994-95 academic year, only two incentive schools. Rightsell and Franklin, were monitored by members of the n Districtwide Biracial Committee. A three member team monitored Rightsell on May 2, 1995\nhowever, the team did not submit a HI IDISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE MONITORING REPORT q q q q q q q q q q q q INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1994-95 FOURTH QUARTER SUMMARY REPORT Page 3 consensus report. Therefore, the writer of this sununary report prepared the consensus report for Rightsell. Franklin was monitored on May 25, 1995 by one Districtwide Biracial Committee member\nthus, the consensus report for that school represents the views of only one person. 1.0 EQUITABLE PLACEMENT BY RACE/GENDER IN SCHOOL PROGRAMS At each school the monitors expected to find: Racially balanced (at least 25 % black) certified and (at least 25 % white) non-certified staff reflecting appropriate percentage Racial/Gender Balance (at least 25 % black) in staff assignments, programs, content areas, and grade level Strategies to increase the enrollment of white students FINDINGS: FRANKLIN According to the report submitted, the composition of the school staff ensured that students had access to, and contact with, a varied staff of certified and non-certified personnel. Furthermore, the report indicated that class enrollments generally reflected the racial/ethnic composition of the school. It was noted that because there were so few white students, the principal, to the degree possible, usually placed those students in the same classroom so as not to place them in racial isolation. As a result, there were several q qDISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE MONITORING REPORT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1994-95 FOURTH QUARTER SUMMARY REPORT Page 4 Classes with an enrollment of only black students, as per the report. An area of concern indicated by the report was that the school enrollment did not reflect the racial/ethnic q composition prescribed by the court approved desegregation plan. According to the report, ninety percent of the students q were black. RIGHTSELL q The team from Rightsell noted that the composition of the q school staff was an area of concern because the racial composition of the staff did not ensure that students had access to, and contact with, a varied staff of certified and non-certified personnel. In total, 79% of the staff was q black, with a non-certified staff that was only five percent white and a certified staff of 64% black personnel. The reports indicated that a number of classes consisted q solely of black students. Response from Principal(s): q None 2.0 CURRICULUM q At each school the monitors expected to find\nq Interaction among students promoted by classroom seating patterns q An adequacy of materials and equipment to support the qDISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE MONITORING REPORT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1994-95 FOURTH QUARTER SUMMARY REPORT Page 5 prescribed curriculum (Adequacy - can you implement the curriculum with what you have?) q Varied teaching strategies reflected by display of student work Evidence of assessment/reteaching/retesting, when necessary Current and complete documentation of student progress q Teachers demonstrating use of multiculturally infused curriculum (guides) q q Students participating in heterogeneous (mixed) groups to allow for cross racial/gender interaction, to the degree population permits Displays of bulletin boards, materials, and publications that reflect the cultural diversity of the student population and/or multiculturalism q Peer tutoring/Cooperative Learning Group q Evidence of hands-on discovery and exploratory approaches to teaching: q - use of science lab - display of project - use of math manipulatives q FINDINGS\nFRANKLIN q No areas of concern relative to the \"Curriculum area of q the monitoring instrument were reported for Franklin School. q A majority of the teachers interviewed indicated that they had adequate materials and equipment to deliver the curriculum. However, the monitor reported that one teacher M expressed the need for more materials but had not reguestedI 4 DISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE MONITORING REPORT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1994-95 FOURTH QUARTER SUMMARY REPORT Page 6 any because she/he felt discouraged from doing so. According to the report submitted, student folders and other appropriate records were either on file or in view in each classroom monitored. All students were actively involved in classroom instruction in all classrooms visited\nexamples I of student activities cited: group discussions and independent I student work. It was impossible to document displays and bulletin boards of multiculturalism throughout the building because most of them had been removed in order to facilitate painting. 14 However, the report indicated that selected classrooms had a variety of displays and print materials featuring African, Asian, Native Americans, and European cultures. Displays of 4 14 student work were quite evident in the classrooms for the lower grade students\nbecause of the painting in progress at the school, student work had been removed from the upper grade 14 classrooms. 4 The report indicated that not enough evidence was available to determine if the multicultural objectives of the 14 curriculum guide were being taught. The fouryear old classes had completed a comprehensive unit on Germany, Hawaii, Japan, and Mexico, but several teachers at other grade levels were unable to provide any specific information about multicultural\"I 5 DISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE MONITORING REPORT 1 H M I 1 4 I ) 2 INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1994-95 FOURTH QUARTER SUMMARY REPORT Page 7 study other than African of African-American cultures, according to the monitor. It was reported that acquisitions to the library media center were driven by the school curriculum and recommendations in professional journals. RIGHTSELL A majority of the reports submitted by monitors at Rightsell indicated that bulletin boards, displays of projects, etc., reflecting the racial/ethnic/gender differences of the student body and/or multiculturalism were in evidence. Examples cited\n\"Greetings from Around the World,\" information about Egypt and Norway\ndisplays of famous black Americans, and pictures of famous white Americans. Multiculturalism was also depicted in a majority of the classrooms visited. Monitors further indicated that student work was on display. Teachers of all classrooms visited indicated that they had adequate materials and equipment to deliver the curriculum, according to reports submitted. Monitors also noted that current and complete student records were maintained in the classroom and school office to monitor the progress in achievement of the individual learner. I 4 Ir 1 DISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE MONITORING REPORT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1994-95 FOURTH QUARTER SUMMARY REPORT Page 8 Monitors further indicated that all students were actively involved in classroom instruction in each classroom visited\nexamples of instructional activities cited: group instruction and teacher directed instruction. Add itionally. classroom seating patterns promoted interaction among students of different races/genders, as per reports. II In a majority of the classrooms monitored, multicultural objectives of the curriculum guides were taught via the use of hands-on art, newspapers, visual aids, etc. Response from Principal(s): None 3.0 SCHOOL/DISTRICT INITIATED HONORS AND AWARDS At each school the monitors expected to find: A variety of awards and honors Evidence of written procedures and requirements governing honors and awards have been distributed to staff, students and parents A process to evaluate the honors and awards program for equity Plans to eliminate any racial/gender inequities relative to distribution of honors and awards FINDINGS: FRANKLIN The report from Franklin indicated that a variety of honors and awards was provided in areas such as scholarship. K H K n K R ! 1DISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE MONITORING REPORT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1994-95 FOURTH QUARTER SUMMARY REPORT Page 9 citizenship, sports, clubs, and attendance. Written procedures and requirements governing honors and awards were distributed to staff, students, and parents, according to the monitor. Distribution methods cited: Bulletins were sent home at the beginning of the year, and newsletters and bulletins were sent home periodically. The offerings and procedures regarding honors and awards were evaluated regularly for equity and to determine if new n awards were necessary to meet student needs, as per the q report. The distribution of honors and awards generally reflected q the school population, with 90% of the citations received by black students. q RIGHTSELL The team from Rightsell did not monitor the area of q \"School/District Initiated Honors and Awards.\" q Response from Principal(s): None q 4.0 COMMITTEES At each school the monitors expected to find: q q Racial/gender composition of appointed school-based committees (-25% to +12.5% of black student enrollment) generally reflects the school population q qDISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE MONITORING REPORT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1994-95 FOURTH QUARTER SUMMARY REPORT Page 10 FINDINGS: FRANKLIN According to the Franklin consensus report, the DI composition of each school based staff/parent committee did DI not generally reflect the staff/student populations. Sixty- nine percent of the committee members were black, which was DI not consistent with the school population, as per the report. RIGHTSELL II The monitoring team from Rightsell did not respond to Il \"Committees\" section of the monitoring instrument. Response from Principal(s): II None 5.0 EXTENDED DAY EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES ID At each school the monitors expected to find: IM Extended day activities (sports, clubs, etc.) generally balanced (-25% to +12.5% of black student enrollment) by race and gender IM Adult sponsorships generally balanced (-25% to +12.5% of black student enrollment) by race and gender IM Recruitment practices to promote participation of all races and both genders in extended day activities IM Parents had been provided with appropriate information relative to extended day activities/Saturday program IM Extended Day provided reinforcement of objectives of SEP Majority of students participated in extended day/ Saturday program IM IMDISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE MONITORING REPORT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1994-95 FOURTH QUARTER SUMMARY REPORT Page 10 FINDINGS\nFRANKLIN According to the Franklin consensus report, the q composition of each school based staff/parent committee did not generally reflect the staff/student populations. Sixty- q nine percent of the committee members were black, which was q not consistent with the school population, as per the report. RIGHTSELL q The monitoring team from Rightsell did not respond to \"Committees\" section of the monitoring instrument. q Response from Principal(s): q None 5.0 EXTENDED DAY EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES q At each school the monitors expected to find: q Extended day activities (sports, clubs, etc.) generally balanced (-25% to +12.5% of black student enrollment) by race and gender q Adult sponsorships generally balanced (-25% to +12.5% of black student enrollment) by race and gender q Recruitment practices to promote participation of all races and both genders in extended day activities q Parents had been provided with appropriate information relative to extended day activities/Saturday program q Extended Day provided reinforcement of objectives of SEP Majority of students participated in extended day/ Saturday program q qDISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE MONITORING REPORT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1994-95 FOURTH QUARTER SUMMARY REPORT Page 11 Identified activities were conducted by qualified teachers FINDINGS\nFRANKLIN q Bulletins and newsletters were used to ensure that q students were apprised of information regarding various opportunities to participate in extracurricular q activities/extended educational programs, according to the report from Franklin. q An area of concern noted by the monitor was that q participation in extracurricular activities/extended educational programs did not generally reflect the school q population. The notation was made that only four percent of the students participating in the aforementioned programs were q white, even though the school had a ten percent white student q enrollment. However, the report pointed out that most of the school's white students were in pre-kindergarten and q kindergarten and were not eligible for many of the extracurricular activities. q RIGHTSELL q A majority of the monitors from Rightsell did not respond to this section of the monitoring checklist. q Response from Principal(s): None qp DISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE MONITORING REPORT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1994-95 FOURTH QUARTER SUMMARY REPORT Page 12 6.0 STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT/ASSESSMENT At each school the monitors expected to find: HI All students' strengths and weaknesses assessed and their educational programs planned accordingly (SEP) Evidence that promotion/retention rates were monitored and analyzed to reduce disparities in achievement disaggregated by race/gender) Test results used for diagnostic and prescriptive purposes and reported in a manner that was clear and helpful to administrators, teachers, students, and parents Strategies to close the disparity in test scores among identifiable groups FINDINGS: Two areas of concern were noted regarding Student Achievement/Assessment at Franklin. The report indicated that when results from the 1992-93 Stanford Eight Test were compared to those of 1993-94, the scores of black students did not improve. Secondly, one hundred percent of the students who failed/retained were black. According to the monitoring report, goals and strategies were developed and implemented to decrease the achievement disparity between black students and white students. Examples cited: faculty at each grade level drafted a plan utilizing last year's test data, including incentives for test preparation. Additionally, test taking skills were taught q q q q q q q q Hp DISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE MONITORING REPORT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1994-95 FOURTH QUARTER SUMMARY REPORT Page 13 throughout the year\nexamples cited: use of the series Te^ Best and Scoring Higher, according to the monitoring report. RIGHTSELL q Monitors from Rightsell did not examine Stanford Eight Test results, nor did they report if the failure/retention q rates reflected the school population. q Goals and strategies were developed and implemented to decrease the achievement differences between black students q and white students on the Stanford Eight Achievement Test\nthe \"Great Expectations\" program was cited as an example of a q strategy employed. Additionally, monitors reported that test q taking skills were taught throughout the year, citing teacher made tests and practice taking tests as examples. q Responses from Principal(s): None q *  7.0 SPECIAL EDUCATION At each school the monitors expected to find: Clear, well-defined referral, assessment and placement procedures Special Education facilities that were comparable to other educational programs on the campus and integrated into the total school environment M * Adequate textbooks, materials, and equipment available for all students to participate in classroom learning experiences EDISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE MONITORING REPORT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1994-95 FOURTH QUARTER SUMMARY REPORT Page 14 Strategies to decrease any over-representation of minorities Adequate facilities to meet the needs of the students served FINDINGS\nFRANKLIN Special education facilities were comparable to those of m the campus in general, integrated into the total school environment, and met the needs of the students served. according to the report submitted. Current copies of student records were maintained in the II classroom to monitor the progress and achievement of the il individual learner. One area of concern regarding special education was noted H H by the monitor. It was reported that the teacher expressed frustration about miscommunication at the district level as to procedures for requesting materials, and that there was a lack II of guidelines regarding said. RIGHTSELL M The team from Rightsell reported that Special Education  facilities were not comparable to those of the campus in general but met the needs of the students served. Monitors indicated that current copies of student records were maintained in the classroom to monitor the progress and I 4DISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE MONITORING REPORT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1994-95 FOURTH QUARTER SUMMARY REPORT Page 15 achievement of the individual learner. Response from Principal(s): q 8.0 None GIFTED AND TALENTED EDUCATION q At each school the monitors expected to find: q Students identified through teacher referral, standardized test results, academic performance, and other criteria deemed appropriate by the school staff q Planned and organized strategies to address any problem of under-representation of identifiable groups in gifted and talented programs q Sufficient textbooks, materials, and equipment available to deliver the curriculum to all students in the class q Gifted and talented facilities that are comparable to facilities of other educational programs on the campus and integrated into the total school environment q Adequate facilities to meet the needs of the students served q FINDINGS: FRANKLIN q At Franklin, the teacher of G/T classes reported that material and equipment were adequate to deliver the q curriculum\nthe monitoring report indicated that more q materials were available than would ever be needed, plus a small budget for additional acquisitions. q The G/T facilities were comparable to those of the campus in general, integrated into the total school environment, and q qI DISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE MONITORING REPORT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1994-95 I FOURTH QUARTER SUMMARY REPORT Page 16 I met the needs of the students served. According to the report submitted, the classroom was spacious, the materials plentiful. I Current copies of students' records were maintained in I the classroom to monitor the progress and achievement of the individual learner. The report indicated that student files I were kept in a file drawer by the teacher's desk. RIGHTSELL I No areas of concern relative to the G/T program were I noted on the reports submitted. However, it was reported that a file cabinet that would lock would be useful to the G/T I teacher. Strategies to eliminate disproportionate student I assignment to G/T were evident, and the teacher understood the school's policy, as per the report. According to monitors, the facility for G/T was excellent, but small\nit was comparable to those of the campus in general, integrated into the total school environment, and I met the needs of the students served. I Current copies of students' records were maintained in the classroom to monitor the progress of the individual 4 learner. I aDISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE MONITORING REPORT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1994-95 FOURTH QUARTER SUMMARY REPORT Page 17 Response from Principal(s): None 9.0 STAFF DEVELOPMENT At each school the monitors expected to find: Ongoing staff development programs designed to enable staff members to fulfill the district/school mission and purpose Staff development provided at a variety of places and times Appropriate inservice provided to enable each staff member to understand his/her role and responsibility in the implementation of the districtwide desegregation plan Documentation of staff development participation Inservice provided to all teachers relative to the delivery of the district curriculum Required staff development including: HI Cooperative Learning/Learning Styles Human Effectiveness Training Parent/Educator Communication and Human Relations Skills Mentor Teacher Program Special Staff Development for Principal, Assistant Principal FINDINGS: H FRANKLIN The monitoring report from Franklin indicated two areas of concern: (1) No staff development activities related to 4 discipline/classroom management were offered, and (2) Regular classroom teachers were not provided ongoing training in R 1DISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE MONITORING REPORT q q q q q q q INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1994-95 FOURTH QUARTER SUMMARY REPORT Page 18 understanding the remedial programs. The Franklin report further indicated that via an interview, the principal reported that staff development activities related to educational equity to enhance the achievement of a diverse student population, e.g.. Cooperative Learning and PET, had been offered. However, the monitor stated that no documenting confirmation was available. The report also questioned if two staff development activities cited as evidence of offering activities in teaching strategies for multicultural curriculum delivery actually applied to the multicultural curriculum. The examples given were the \"Rites of Passage\" program inservice and a Spanish immersion inservice. RIGHTSELL No areas of concern were noted regarding the \"Staff Development\" section of the monitoring instrument. Examples of various staff development activities that had been offered included one on teaching with phonics, a parent/community involvement activity, and one on higher level thinking skills. The report also indicated that regular classroom teachers were provided on-going training in understanding the remedial program. q qDISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE MONITORING REPORT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1994-95 FOURTH QUARTER SUMMARY REPORT Page 19 Response from Principal(s): None 10.0 PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT At each school the monitors expected to find: Documentation of school-home communication and contact Documented evidence showing how all identifiable groups of parents had been actively solicited When financially possible, transportation provided to school functions for parents who needed the service 1 School functions conducted in community facilities near identifiable groups of parents School functions scheduled to accommodate all parent groups Provisions for regularly informing and involving parents regarding all aspects of their child's school performance HI Documentation that parents were actively involved in remediation programs in which their students participated (support workshop attendance, conferences, ASDP signatures, etc.) Opportunities to develop leadership skills among all parent groups Documentation of parental involvement in writing the school improvement plans FINDINGS: 4 FRANKLIN No areas of concern concerning the \"Parental Involvement\" Bl section of the monitoring instrument were noted at Franklin. The school utilized a variety of methods to encourage parentalI DISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE MONITORING REPORT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1994-95 FOURTH QUARTER SUMMARY REPORT Page 20 involvement in school and in home supported educational activities\nexamples cited: interim reports, parent conferences, and home visits. Additionally, documentation was available to indicate that parents were actively involved in each phase of remediation programs in which their child participated. Contact was also made regularly with the home to communicate positive/negative information related to student behavior and/or achievement. According to the report. home visits and phone calls were documented in teacher monitoring folders. All identifiable groups of parents were actively involved in school functions, as per the report. The monitor indicated that one notable undertaking was the Men's Club, which encouraged male participation. School patrons and parents were given an opportunity to HI actively participate in developing the local School n q Improvement Plan. The report indicated that parents served on committees related to the four COE target areas: Academic q Growth, Time on Task, Parent Involvement, and Clear School Purpose. q RIGHTSELL q No areas of concern were noted regarding the \"Parental Involvement\" section of the monitoring instrument. q q kuDISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE MONITORING REPORT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1994-95 FOURTH QUARTER SUMMARY REPORT Page 21 The team from Rightsell indicated that the school utilized a variety of methods to encourage parental involvement in school and in home supported educational \u0026gt;4 activities. Examples of the aforementioned methods cited: I Happy Grams, home visits, meet and greet activities, phone calls, and parental visits to the school. All identifiable groups of parents were actively involved in school functions, and documentation was available to indicate that parents were actively involved in each phase of the remediation program in which their child participated. The team from Rightsell indicated that contact was made regularly with the home to communicate positive/negative information related to student behavior and/or achievement. Examples of such contact cited were: interim reports every three weeks, reports to parents, conferences, report cards, and newsletters. 1 Mini-seminars at PTA meetings were held to make parents aware of district structure, policy and programs, and ways to access them. Additionally, monitors reported that this information was also distributed during Parent Involvement Day and at the Parent Center. The report also indicated that parents had an opportunity to actively participate in developing the local School Improvement Plan. q qDISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE MONITORING REPORT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1994-95 FOURTH QUARTER SUMMARY REPORT Page 22 Response from Principal(s)\nNone 11.0 STUDENT DISCIPLINE At each school the monitors expected to find: No disproportionality among identifiable groups of students when discipline sanctions were analyzed (-25%- +12.5% of the black student enrollment at the school) Evidence of strategies to eliminate disproportionality in disciplinary sanctions, if such disproportionality existed Teachers receiving staff development and training to become more effective in discipline management and classroom management q Discipline program monitored, evaluated, and updated to decrease any disproportionality among identifiable groups of students q Evidence that a handbook/policy clearly stated expectations for student conduct and that these policies were distributed and explained q Classroom instruction proceeded without disruption Mentor Program q Community based support program FINDINGS: q FRANKLIN q Information, including the staff's expectation for student conduct, regarding student disciplinary policies and q procedures was distributed to all students and parents. The * Franklin report noted that posters in the hallway informed5 DISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE MONITORING REPORT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1994-95 FOURTH QUARTER SUMMARY REPORT Page 23 students about good behavior and that a behavior plan was sent home to parents, one which required signatures by the parents and to be returned to school for filing. R The school staff had plans, procedures, and practices which were designed to enable students to remain in school. promote academic success and alleviate behavior problems, q according to the submitted report. The principal wrote a q multi-step discipline plan that involved several parent q contacts before suspension or expulsion would occur, according to the report. An area of concern expressed by the monitor was that one 5 hundred percent of the suspensions and expulsions for three quarters of the 1994-95 academic year were received by black males. However, strategies to eliminate disproportionate discipline sanctions among identifiable student groups were in evidence. Classroom instruction proceeded in an orderly manner in classrooms observed. The monitor further noted that fair and firm methods in maintaining order were employed. The principal, assistant principal, teachers and supervision aides were observed as being quite active in directing/controlling students. The report from Franklin indicated that many classes were observed passing through the I Jr DISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE MONITORING REPORT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1994-95 FOURTH QUARTER SUMMARY REPORT Page 24 hallways and that it was very pleasing to see the principal monitoring their movement. It was further shared that \"...miraculously, no paint was smeared!\" RIGHTSELL No areas of concern were noted concerning the \"School Discipline\" portion of the monitoring instrument. q __l Although no examples were cited in the report, monitors indicated that information, including the staff's expectation for student conduct, regarding student disciplinary policies and procedures was distributed to all students and parents. study hall, in-school suspension, and teachers' monitoring students during recess, as needed, were given as examples of the school staff having plans, procedures, and practices which were designed to enable students to remain in school, promote academic success and alleviate behavior problems. Strategies to eliminate disproportionate discipline sanctions among identifiable student groups were evident. No information was given concerning if suspension and expulsion rates were generally representative of the student population. Classroom instruction proceeded in an orderly manner in all classrooms observed, according to the reports submitted. .1 School personnel were observed as being very active in q 1 IR q qq qqq q qq DISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE MONITORING REPORT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1994-95 FOURTH QUARTER SUMMARY REPORT Page 25 directing/controlling students. Response by Principal(s): None 12.0 BUILDING LEADERSHIP/MANAGEMENT At each school the monitors expected to find: Clear, concise and well-written improvement goals for equity Physical environment which supported the goals of quality teaching and learning, i.e., clean buildings, no debris, orderly halls, no graffiti Equipment and learning aids in good condition, i.e., bulletin boards, chalk boards Evidence that the principal monitored the curriculum Evidence which indicated that all students were served by the guidance program, i.e., counselors' schedules/daily logsindividual/group counseling 4 A system to receive information from former students and patrons regarding the quality/needs of the total program 14 A safe and secure campus for all students, employees, and visitors 4 Evidence that counselors assisted parents in obtaining services from outside agencies, i.e. counselor's daily log 14 Friendly and helpful personnel 4 Strategies to increase the number of minority students in upper-level courses/class groups District and school security guidelines being followed 14 mDISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE MONITORING REPORT 1994-95 INCENTIVE SCHOOLS FOURTH QUARTER SUMMARY REPORT Page 26 FINDINGS\nFRANKLIN No areas of concern regarding \"Building 1 Leadership/Management\" were noted on the monitoring report 4 from Franklin. The school had a clear, concise, well-written statement of specific improvement goals. Additionally, the campus and building were clean and free of graffiti, and student passage in the hallways was orderly. I The monitoring report submitted for Franklin School indicated that curriculum monitoring was conducted by the principal. Teachers documented objectives in their plan books, and the principal frequently visited classrooms. \u0026gt;1 The guidance program provided equitable services to all students, according to the monitoring report. In addition to i the services offered by the counselors, a social worker worked with parents and students on both individual and group bases. District and school security guidelines were followed. as I per the report. A new enhancement during the 1994-95 academic year was the procurement of walkie-talkies. q RIGHTSELL q The monitoring team at Rightsell reported that the school had a clear, concise, well-written statement of specific q qDISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE MONITORING REPORT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1994-95 FOURTH QUARTER SUMMARY REPORT Page 27 improvement goals, although the team cited no examples of these goals. Hallways were orderly on the day of the monitoring visit, RI according to the submitted reports. Curriculum monitoring occurred, and the guidance program provided equitable services to all students. The reports indicated that district and school security guidelines were being followed with the following reservation\na fence had been knocked down and not repaired, thus security was somewhat less than optimal. 1 Monitors noted an area of concern regarding the campus 1 and building being clean and free of debris and graffiti. The report indicated that the general interior of the building was I very good, but that restrooms and the campus needed attention. A further notation indicated that occasionally there were mice i and roaches present in the building. Responses from Principal(s): None i 4 4 4\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_1193","title":"Little Rock School District Planning, Research and Evaluation: Extended Program Evaluations","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1994/1995"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational innovations","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District Planning, Research and Evaluation: Extended Program Evaluations"],"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/1193"],"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\nExhibit 310A\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION EXTENDED PROGRAM EVALUATIONS 1994-1995 1 of 2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION : EXTENDED PROGRAM EVALUATIONS 1994-1995 1 of 2 SEQ# 14 03 227 23 233 24 230 33 231 07 02 207 213 215 01 228 15 13 226 222 223 224 79 78 25/225 05 203 21 204 08 EXTENDED PROGRAM EVALUATIONS (Alphabetical Order) Program Name Academic Progress Incentive Grant Academic Support Program Communication Services Computerized Transportation Contingencies Data Processing(deseg) Data Processing Services (non-deseg) Facilities Family Life Education/New Futures Federal Programs Four-Year-Old Program Gifted and Talented Guidance Services Health Services/Nursing Services HIPPY Human Resources Services McClellan Community School New Futures Planning and Evaluation Plant Services Pupil Transportation Purchasing Services Rockefeller Early Childhood Romine Interdistrict Safety and Security School Closings Special Education/Learning Center (deseg) Special Education (non-deseg) Staff Development Student Assessment Substitute Teacher Vocational Education (non-deseg) Vocational Education (deseg) EXTENDED EVALUATION ACADEMIC PROGRESS INCENTIVE GRANT (APIG) Program Description 1990 - 1991 The Academic Progress Incentive Grant (APIG) was first made available to each area school principal in the 1990-91 school year in the sum of $25,000. The process to be followed was for each school principal to write a proposal attached to a budget sheet identifying items and cost as related to the proposal being submitted. The use of the money was to be directly connected to and support of the school's yearly annual school plan. The school plan was developed cooperatively by the principal and staff with parent committee input. All participants were in agreement that the annual school plan supported the goals of the Little Rock School District as well as the following goal objectives. LRSD Goals 1. To increase educational achievement of all students with specific emphasis on closing disparities in achievement. 2. To establish climates of educational excellence in all schools through: a) providing equitable educational opportunities for all students m a desegregated learning environment\nb) enabling all students to develop a lifelong capacity and love for learning\nc) leading all students to be productive contributors in the school, the community and the workplace d) providing a disciplined, structured learning environment for all students. 3. To enhance human relations skills for principals, teachers, and central office administrators. 1. APIG Objectives To increase the academic achievement for identified students in the core curricular areas by providing teachers with a broad base of resources and equipment. To provide varied enrichment activities that would broaden identified students' experience base. 1 3. To involve parents as full partners in planning at schools for identified students' growth and success. 4. To provide staff development activities which meet the specific needs of identified students. The grant proposals were then to be forwarded to the Academic Progress Grant Committee for review and approval. Upon approval, the budget sheet was forwarded to the Financial Services Department, and budget codes were set up for the individual schools to use in purchasing the items requested. The respective assistant superintendent over the area schools who monitored the school's annual plan would review incoming requisitions to see if the purchases requested related to the school's plan. The schools' grant proposals were slow in corning in that year in addition to many of the grants being returned to principals for revisions. Several schools were successful in receiving early approval in the first semester for the full amount. The majority of schools, however, did not receive grant approval until late January and early February of 1991 and not for the full amount. Even though the money was received on a late timeline, it did enable the schools to purchase needed equipment, materials, supplementary reading materials, enrichment trips, etc. for all students as well as providing funds for some tutoring assistance to their at-risk groups before the MPT (Minimum Performance Test) and MAT-6 (Metropolitan Achievement Test Edition 6) test dates. Considering the timeline with a week out for Spring Break and two to three weeks scheduled for MPT and MAT-6 testing, the principals were asked only to write a narrative for the grant evaluations that would be no longer than three typed pages describing the status of their grant. The report was to include: 1. Identification of local school grant goals. 2. A description of the results. 3. Identification of any proposed change for the 1991-92 school year, if possible. These narratives were attached to the school's annual report and forwarded to their assistant superintendents. 1991 - 1992 In the second year of the Academic Progress Incentive Grant, the funds were frozen the first semester of the school year. Once the funds were released, the procedures set forward for application were the same as outlined in the 1990-91 school year except for one change. 2 The school grant proposals were now to come to the assistant superintendent over the school and then forwarded to the associate's office for his signature. Principals, teachers, and parents worked together to develop tutoring schedules for their atrisk students. After-school programs and Saturday programs were implemented to assist their various targeted groups. All of this was possible because of the funds received. During this year a new standardized test, Stanford 8, was given in the place of the MAT-6 test. Principals were asked to use the same reporting format in describing the status of their grant. The narrative was to be attached to their annual school report and forwarded to their assistant superintendent. 1992-93 In the third year of the APIG, the funds were reduced to $10,000 for which the area schools could apply. Again, many of these grants were not funded until November due to the busy schedules at the beginning of the school year. The principals were to use the same format for applying and reporting as was used in the 1991-92 school year. Focused Activities - Each area school shall have a fundamentally sound and strong basic educational program. Each area school shall also have the option of developing focused activities (which may center around a theme) after appropriate community and parental involvement. All focused activities must promote the desegregation objectives ordered by the court. SUMMARY: Focused Activities - The purpose of the focused activities shall be threefold: (1) to promote the school as a \"community of learning\" among parents, staff and students\n(2) to provide enrichment opportunities at the building level\n(3) to ensure equitable opportunities for participation in the elementary area schools. The focused activities of each area school will be integrated into the core curriculum or reflected in the . school's environment and day-to-day activities. The academic performance of area school students will indicate achievement gained partially as a result of enrichment experiences provided by the core program and enrichment activities. Area school students will participate in ongoing, meaningful enrichment activities that complement and extended the core curricular activities. All are:i. schools will be viewed by the community as providing equitable and excellent educational programs. A steering committee was appointed to chair the inservice for the principals in order to implement Focus Activities in their schools. The principals were then to establish a school based committee who would develop an activities action plan for the school year. From this action plan a checklist would be developed by the school's 3 i. ,- I' activities coordinator. The principal and school committee were to use the checklist to monitor the program. The activities coordinator would prepare a report each semester to be submitted to the assistant superintendent for review. The grant was to be reviewed by a district committee and the proposal, if approved would be granted. Program Goals The program goals listed below will ensure that equity occurs in all phases of school activities and operations: 1) The grant opportunity would enrich each district's elementary curriculum to achieve greater racial balance through voluntary interdistrict and intradistrict transfers. 2) The Little Rock School District will establish an Academic Progress Incentive Grant Program, the goals of which will be to (a) improve the education of all students and (b) reduce the disparity in achievement among students of different racial, socio-economic, and gender groups. 3) Each non-magnet and non-incentive elementary school will provide focused activities for the total school population including attention to gender, race and socio-economic issues. 4) Each school will be recognized as a community of learning in which all students, staff members and parents are totally involved and supportive. 5) The focused activities of each non-magnet and non-incentive elementary school will be integrated into the core curriculum or reflected in the school's environment and day-to-day activities. 6) All elementary area school students will participate in ongoing, meaningful enrichment activities that complement and extend the core curricular activities. 7) All elementary area schools will be viewed by the Community as providing equitable and excellent educational programs. Evaluation Criteria Academic Incentive Grant Program - The number of low achievers will decrease as evidenced by upward quartile movement on the norm referenced test. 4 Focused Activities - At the end of each school year, the activities coordinator will include focused activities in a district-wide report. This report will focus on the following items: 1) the degree to which each focused activities have been interrelated with the core curriculum\n2) the number of enrichment activities that broadened the students' experience based\n3) the amount of parental involvement\n4) academic achievement as reflected on standardized tests and yearly grade reports\n5) the racial and socio-economic composition of the student population in each elementary area school\n6) the number of voluntary majority to minority transfers\n7) the type and amount of enrichment materials/supplies/purchased by each elementary area school through the focused activities budget\n8) the type and number of staff-development activities at each elementary school. Evaluation Results Evidence from the principals' narrative reports and surveys indicate that funds received from the APIG proposal over the three-year period were used to support the school plan as \"it related to the goals of the district.\" The programs and projects were numerous and were targeted to assist groups of students as well as the total school population. The selection of targeted groups are as follows: Principals and staff disaggregate test data by grade levels. Students that are 39 NCE and below go to the Reading Academic Support Program for assistance and those students below 30 NCE go to the Math Academic Support Program. The students whose NCE scores are between 40 and 49.9 NCE have not been eligible for the Academic Support Program. With the AIPG funds, plans can be made to assist these groups of students in the area of need in addition to any of the other who are in the Academic Support Program. At the conclusion of each school year, the principals would then submit in the narrative the names of the projects that were implemented, the list of students who were targeted, and if improvements were made. All of the reporting schools used their funds to provide activities interrelated to the core curriculum. It is also noted that school climate surveys 5 were used to target areas needing improvement. As a result of this data, principals, staff, and parents tried hard to provide a disciplined, structured learning environment for all students. An intense incentive progr:im was implemented to encourage good behavior. There were reports made by principals, staff, and parents, and program participants of the overall positive results that they could identify as happening for the benefit of the students. However, with all of the favorable behavior changes that were confirmed, achievement data did not reflect that the grants led to the disparity reduction that had been desired. Focus Activities - The Focus Activities of each non-magnet and non-incentive elementary school will be integra~ed into the core curriculum or reflected in the school's environment and day-to-day activities. All elementary area school students will participate in ongoing, meaningful enrichment activities that complement and extended the core curricular activities. Evidence - Academic Incentive Grant - The percentage of elementary principals reporting that their Academic Incentive Grant funds aided in the reduction of disparity on targeted groups are on file. Focused Activities - Steering committees have been identified in the area schools. To date, four proposals have been submitted for approval. Obstacles to Goal Attainment Obj. 1.0 To implement focused activities in elementary area schools.  Not Achieved The Focused Activities grant was provided to the schools in the spring of 1994. No data has been collected. Obj. 1 To provide means of local area schools to (A) improve the education of fill students, and (B) reduce the disparitv in achievement among students of different racial, socio-economic, and gender.  Not Achieved The quality of education was improved but not for ALL children. The lateness of funding did not provide for opportunities to organize and implement model programs. Eighteen weeks (second semester minus two weeks for testing and one for spring break) was not sufficient time to bring about the necessary academic improvement to offset the disparity in achievement levels. The $25,000 to Sl0,000 for the 1992-93 APIG. 6 Time prohibited the collection and analysis of data in order to provide uniform conclusions about the effectiveness of programming under the APIG. Parental support was limited in the planning and evaluation process. At the secondary level the majority of the impact of the Academic Progress Incentive Grant has been in directed assistance to the development of identified students in programs after the regular school day ends. Such an arrangement limits availability of students for program participation due w extra curricular activities, family responsibilities, and employment of students. Also, there is a need in some instances to show a more direct relationship between the strategies employed in a proposal and the attainment of the proposal goals under the Academic Progress Incentive Grant. Focused Activities - Proposals are presently being submitted and approved for the first time during the 1994-95 school year. Recommendation: Objective: Evaluation Criteria: Expected Benefits: Impact Analysis: Resource Analysis: Recommendations It is recommended that the Little Rock School District concentrate on the implementation of its new curriculum and standards. It is also recommended that any extra remediation be supported by the Chapter I funding and the Special Summer School for K-3. Discontinue the Academic Progress Incentive Grant and the Focused Activities Grant for the 1994-95 school year. The K-3 summer School and Chapter I evaluation will be utilized for documentation. The deletion of the APIG will provide the district in assisting with budget cuts and will enable schools to concentrate and implement a more uniform curriculum across the district. This is the fifth year for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants to be offered to area schools. Obligations implemented at this time will support the desegregation plan and address court orders favorally. Some principals, parents and board members may want to assure that extra funding is provided to the area schools :or equity reasons. The district will save a total of $445,000 by discontinuing both grants. (See graph below) 7 Elementary Junior High Senior High Total Schools Area Schools Area Schools Schools (3) (25) (4) APJG $10,000 $250,000 $40,000 $30,000 $320,000 Focused 5,000 125,000 125,000 - TOTAL $375,000 $40,000 $30,000 $445,000 Force Field Analysis: The primary supporters of this recommendation will be the parties involved in planning the budget for the 95-96 school year. Comments from previously principals in evaluations suggest that they will also support this recommendation. General Implementation Plans: The grant proposals will not be submitted in the 1995-96 school year budget. The Board will have to agree on this recommendation and the ultimate decision may be made by the federal courts. The programs will be evaluated at the end of this school year by the principals and the selection committee. Business Case is recommended: ___ Yes  No Plan modification is recommended:  Yes ___ No No budgetary impact. ___ _ Increased costs Decreased costs  8 Purpose ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM IN-DEPTH PROGRAM EVALUATION Program Description The purpose of the Academic Support Program is to provide support for participating students in grades one through twelve in the areas of reading, language arts, and mathematics. The program reinforces and enhances the academic achievem~nt of these targeted students. The support is provided by certified reading specialists and English and mathematics teachers in the regular classroom, in additional classes, and in labs. scope and content All of the District's remediation programs are part of the Academic Support Program. All such programs are located at the individual school sites, except the Metropolitan VocationalTechnical Education Center. The Academic support Program offers a variety of options to the individual schools for providing accelerated reading/language arts and mathematics learning experiences for students identified through a process using multiple criteria. The program is characterized by providing either direct or indirect services to identified students through additional classes, smaller class sizes, or in-class assistance at the secondary level and in-class assistance or limited pullout at the elementary level. Elementary Academic Suppor~ Program At the elementary level, the primary delivery method in the area of mathematics is in-class assistance for grade level 2, and limited pull-out as a possible second strategy for grade levels 3-6. Grade 1 teachers attend special inservice sessions to better prepare them to meet the needs of their students. In the area of reading/language arts, minimal pull-out is used to provide for the learning needs of students ~ith identified reading deficits for grade levels 1-6. Indirect Services Reading and math specialists are paired with classroom teachers to assist in implementing accelerated learning experiences for students with identified reading and mathematics skills deficits. An instructional program and duration of services are established for each student in order to address individualized needs. The Academic Support Program In Depth Program Evaluation Page 2 revised curriculum is used by the regular teacher and the reading/mathematics specialists to provide a uniform and integrated approach to learning . Schedules are developed in cooperation with the regular teacher to determine appropriate time for specialists to provide services in the regular classroom. Time is allocated for the specialists to plan and consult with the regular teacher in order to ensure consistency in student learning. This cooperative planning allows for a team effort to best meet needs of students and to prevent fragmentation in teaching and learning. In addition, this approach improves and enhances educational opportunities for these students to experience academic success in the regular classroom. Through the alternative methods for delivery of instruction, students increase their time on task, make greater gains, and maintain progress. Direct Services For students identified with severe reading problems, a reading class is available to assist them in mastering fundamental reading skills and to stimulate their interest in reading. Reading teachers focus on mastery learning and use of listening labs and computer labs to diagnose, remediate, and assess specific learning problems, using a variety of curricular approaches including computer technology. This arrangement promotes program continuity, connected learning, student/teacher bonding, and shared accountability. Data secured through individual assessment and other relevant records are used to develop the student's program and establish the duration of services. Secondary Academic Support Program Secondary schools implement the Academic Support Program according to one or a combination of the following possible approaches: APPROACH ONE Indirect Services The academic team approach pairs English, reading, learning foundations, and mathematics teachers. These paired teams of teachers jointly plan appropriate whole group instruction, small group instruction, and individual instruction for learning experiences. Academic Support Program In Depth Program Evaluation page 3 Direct Services For students identified with severe reading problems, a reading class is available to assist them in mastering fundamental reading skills and to stimulate their interest in reading. APPROACH TWO Direct Services Regular classroom teachers work to meet the needs of their own targeted students. Smaller class sizes are scheduled for regular language arts and/or mathematics teachers to allow them to provide more individual assistance for targeted students during each class period. APPROACH THREE Direct Services The Language Arts Plus and Math Plus Programs are intended to reinforce regular instruction exclusively and to focus on specific student deficits. The Plus Programs add an enrichment class to schedules of targeted students. This concept utilizes the services of regular English and mathematics teachers in whose classes the targeted students are enrolled. The Language Arts Plus and Math Plus teachers teach up to four regular periods and during the remaining periods provide tutorial and accelerated learning experiences for all academic support students enrolled in each of their regular classes. Average class size is not to exceed 15 students per period in the teachers' plus class periods. The Language Arts Plus Program approach reduces the number of separate reading classes and the number of language arts students per teacher. The Math Plus Program approach also provides a reduced number of math students per teacher. EXTENDED SERVICES - ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY To support and extend learning opportunities for targeted students, the academic team concept is supplemented by making available to these students before-school, at lunch, and afterschool instructional services. Additionally, some sites may schedule periodic extended weeks in order to provide a practice and review session on Saturdays. Principals may use flexible scheduling of staff to provide some of their extended day services. Academic Support Program In Depth Program Evaluation Page 4 The implementation of academic support programs may vary from school to school in design. However, the following common critical elements are evident in every program: instructional strategies including higher order thinking skills\nclose observance of time on task\nuse of the District's approved curriculum with appropriate materials and resources\na positive school climate that includes conveying high expectations for all students\nparent involvement designed to assure a collaborative partnership between parents and school\nproblem analysis consisting of collecting, analyzing, and disaggregating student data\nand monitoring, assessment, and evaluation. New staff members participate in development activities that assist them in use of curriculum guides as well as appropriate staff development activities for targeted students. Participants/Beneficiaries Target students are initially identified from the student population scoring in the lower quartile on the annual student assessment. Multiple criteria, including student grades, teacher recommendations, and student records are used to select students from the eligible population to participate in the Academic Support Program. Program Goal The goal of the Academic Support Program is to provide equitable language arts and mathematics learning experiences for all students in the mainstream setting by supporting them with the instructional and technical assistance needed to reduce the learning disparity. Specific objectives have been developed in order to designate what is to be accomplished to implement the adopted goals. The Academic Support Program includes the following objectives: 1. To identify and serve students who are at-risk in reading/language arts and mathematics. 2. To prescribe a personal education plan for targeted students. Academic Support Program In Depth Program Evaluation page 5 3. To reduce or eliminate pull-out academic support programs. 4. To provide parents with the knowledge and skills needed to promote the education of their children at home and at school. Evaluation Criteria The Academic Support Program has been evaluated by analyzing data from Spring 1992 through Fall 1994. Specifically the evaluation consists of: 1. Print-out of eligible students is provided to local school teams. Uniform District criteria are used (Stanford 8 cutoff score and multiple criteria) to identify targeted students. 2. Personal education plans of targeted students reflect implementation of the selected school option(s). 3. Individual student folders that include a systematic collection of student work, pre and post standardized test scores, grades, and recommendations to provide individual/group/school progress are maintained for continuous student and program progress. 4. Parental involvement reflects an increase in the numbers of parents attending parent conferences and parent training sessions and visiting schools. Evaluation Results Evaluation results reflect data gathered from several sources. These data have been compiled and analyzed and yield the following results, presented in correspondence with each previously stated objective. Objective 1 To identify and serve students who are at-risk in reading/language arts and mathematics. Each year the Academic Support Program options are explained to local school administrators and they are provided with an overview of how all of the individual Academic Support Programs are to be coordinated for continuity of services to children and efficient use of resources. Local school administrators select appropriate Academic Support Program components. I 11 I I II I I Academic Support Program In Depth Program Evaluation Page 6 Students eligible for participation in the Academic Support Program are identified from the District-wide printout of the Stanford 8 results. Identified students are those with total reading and/or mathematics scores falling within the lowest quartile on the Stanford 8 (total NCE of 35.8 or below). Multiple criteria, including student grades, teacher recommendations, and student records, are used to select targeted students from the identified population to participate in the Academic Support Program. Staff assignments are determined at the building-level and schedules are completed to ensure implementation of the selected school options. Discussion For the 1992-93 school year, thirteen secondary schools chose the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach, while one secondary school chose the Language Arts Plus Approach and three secondary schools chose the Direct Mathematics Approach. All elementary schools chose the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach. (Appendix A-1) For the 1993-94 school year, fourteen secondary schools chose the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach, while seven secondary schools chose the Language Arts Plus Approach and six secondary schools chose the Direct Mathematics Approach. All elementary schools chose the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach. (Appendix A-1) For the 1994-95 school year, fourteen secondary schools have chosen the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Direct/Indirect Approach. Seven secondary schools have chosen the Language Arts Plus Approach. All secondary schools have the Math Plus Approach with some degree of indirect services through pairing of regular math teachers with Math Plus teachers. (Appendix A-1) The District-wide printout of the Stanford 8 results for the 1992-93 school year revealed that 11,955 students were eligible for participation. For the 1993-94 school year, 11,044 students were eligible . For the 1994-95 school year, 12,033 students were eligible. (Appendix A-2) For the 1992-93 school year, uniform multiple criteria were used to identify 8,173 targeted students from the eligible population to be served by the Academic Support Program. For the 1993-94 school year, 7,466 students were selected. For the 1994-95 school year, 6,296 students have been selected, using the uniform multiple criteria. (Appendix A-2) Academic Support Program In Depth Program Evaluation page 7 During the 1992-93 school year, 2,525 students at the secondary 1evel were served by the Indirect/Direct Approach, 26 students were served by the Language Arts Plus Approach and 287 students were served by the Direct Mathematics Approach. At the elementary level, 5,385 students were served by the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach. (Appendix A-3) During the 1993-94 school year, 2,212 students at the secondary level were served by the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach. 466 students were served by the Language Arts Plus Approach and 622 students were served by the Direct Mathematics Approach. At the elementary level, 4,655 students were served by the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach. (Appendix A-3) During the 1994-95 school year, 3,230 students at the secondary level are being served by the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach. 420 students are being served by the Language Arts Plus Approach and 760 students are being served by the Math Plus Approach. At the elementary level, 4,787 students are being served by the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach. (Appendix A-3) For the 1992-93 school year, a total of 52 teachers staffed the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach, while .6 teachers staffed the Language Arts Plus Approach and 6.1 teachers staffed the Mathematics Direct Approach. At the elementary level, a total of 82.4 teachers staffed the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach. (Appendix A-4)  For the 1993-94 school year, a total of 40.6 teachers staffed the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach, while 8.2 teachers staffed the Language Arts Plus Approach and 15.3 teachers staffed the Mathematics Direct Approach. At the elementary level, a total of 71.6 teachers staffed the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach. (Appendix A-4) For the 1994-95 school year, a total of 24.6 teachers staff the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach, while 46 teachers staff the Language Arts Plus Approach and 11.6 teachers staff the Mathematics Direct Approach and 14.2 teachers staff the Math Plus Approach. At the elementary level, a total of 73.05 teachers staff the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach. (Appendix A-4) --------------~- ----------- Academic Support Program In Depth Program Evaluation Page 8 Objective 2 To prescribe a personal education plan for targeted students. The Stanford 8 Individual Record Sheet serves as the basis for developing a personal education plan for each targeted student. The Little Rock School District Curriculum, which is correlated to the Stanford 8 objectives, is used as the curriculum in each program option at each school site. Schools are clustered for delivery of staff development and a schedule is developed to provide training to the staff responsible for delivering each Academic Support Program. Workshops are provided on the topics of specialized content area strategies, team planning, learning styles/cultural diversity, interactive teaching/learning, mastery learning, and cooperative team learning. Workshops are monitored to ensure that all topics have been addressed. Instruction and learning in the Academic Support Program settings are monitored regularly to determine student involvement, appropriateness of learning strategies and cultural diversity, creativity and resourcefulness, use of tutors, small group instruction, and extended day/week programs, teacher-student interaction, and increased student achievement and social skills. Technical assistance is provided on an as-needed basis in each of the areas monitored. TABLE B MONITORING CATEGORIES I SCHOOL TECHNICAL SCHOOL I YEAR \u0026amp; CLASSIFICATION I VISITS ASSISTANCE BASED I XEETINGS I ' i 1992-93 ELEMENTARY 413 40 24 I Totals SECONDARY 97 6 13 I i 1993-94 ELEMENTARY 241 175 4 SECONDARY 125 78 8 ! 1994-95 ELEMENTARY 175 12 47 to 12/6/94) SECONDARY 53 2 3 'Academic Support Program In Depth Program Evaluation Page 9 Discussion A comparison of the total number of training sessions conducted during the 1992-93 school year to the total number of sessions conducted during the 1993-94 school year reveals that there was an increase in the amount of technical provided by the reading/language and Mathematics Departments. During the 1992-93 school year, staff members made 593 monitoring visits. For the 1993-94 school _year, staff members made 631 monitoring visits. for the 1994-95 school year, 287 monitoring visits have been made to date by staff members. (Appendix B-1) Objective 3 To reduce or eliminate pull-out Academic Support Programs. The collection of appropriate data, including pre and post standardized test scores, student grades and records, samples of student work, and parent/teacher/student recommendations, serves as the basis for targeting students to be served by the Academic support Program. These data are analyzed for each student targeted to evaluate program effectiveness in remediating student achievement and contributing to the reduction or elimination of pull-out Academic Support Program components. Discussion A three year comparison of the students served by the Academic support Program shows that the number of students decreased in four out of nine grade levels in reading and mathematics from 1992 to 1993. The number of students served decreased at all grade levels in reading and mathematics from 1993 to 1994. (Appendix C-1) For the 1993-94 school year, the Language Arts Plus Approach increased to seven schools from only one during the 1992-93 school year. Six secondary schools also chose the Mathematics Direct Approach, representing an increase of three schools over the 1992-93 school year. These changes represent a trend at the secondary level away from an exclusive Rea.ding/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach toward more Direct Approaches. The trend continues in 1994-95 as all thirteen secondary schools use the Direct Math Plus Approach and maintain the same level of Language Arts Plus that was established in 1993-94. (Appendix A-1) ' Academic Support Program In Depth Program Evaluation Page 10 Objective 4 To provide parents the knowledge and skills needed to promote the education of their children at home and at school. Parents were assisted in obtaining the knowledge and skills needed to promote the education of their children at home and at school through provision of information about students' achievement and behavior, conferences about their children, and the establishment of parent/school partnerships. Discussion A comparison of 1992-93 parent activity documentation to the 1993-94 parent activity documentation reveals there has been an increase in the number of participating parents. The number of parents involved during 1993-94 increased two and a third times the rate of parental participation during the 1992-93 school year. Twenty-eight of the twenty-nine schools where data were collected showed positive gains in parent participation. (Appendix D) Data have not yet been compiled showing participation during the 1994-95 school year. Obstacles to Goal Attainment Obstacles to goal attainment are indicated by specific objectives: 1. To identify and serve students who are at-risk in reading/language arts and mathematics. Although this objective is achieved, it has not been achieved in a timely manner. Students identified for Academic Support Program service need to be identified prior to the beginning of the school year during which they are to be served. The identification process should begin in the spring of the preceding year with teacher recommendations based on multiple criteria followed by a review of each recommended student's test score results in early summer. By matching teacher recommendations and test score results, the population in need of service can be determined in time to ensure that appropriate Academic Support Program components are in place at each school site when the new school year begins. Academic Support Program In Depth Program Evaluation Page 11 2. To prescribe a personal education plan for targeted students. This objective is largely achieved\nhowever, some folders are not complete because teachers do not have sufficient information to develop the plans. Individual Test Records (Stanford 8) for all Academic Support students are needed in order for teachers to develop the personal education plans. 3. To reduce or eliminate pull-out Academic Support Programs. Although progress toward reducing pull-out components of the Academic Support Program has been made in mathematics, more work needs to be done in reading/language arts at the elementary and junior high levels. While the data reveal a three year decrease in the total number of students needing services, too many students continue to need service from year-to-year after they enter the Academic Support Program. This fact requires a re-examination of the kinds of services available to students in reading/language arts at grades K-3 and grades 7-9. Several components of the current Academic Support Program are proving successful, most notably the language arts/mathematics plus classes (Approach Three) at the secondary level. Unfortunately, only two of the eight junior high schools are currently using the language arts plus model, while the other six continue to rely exclusively on Approach One, where traditional reading classes dominate without the direct support of the English teachers. More language arts plus classes are needed. At the elementary level, too much emphasis continues to be placed on traditional reading classes as a remediation strategy at all grade levels. The data do not indicate any concentrated effort on intervention/prevention at grades K- 3, where reading skills are developed. The current Academic Support Program lacks sufficient options at these grade levels necessary for developing the skills of the immature reader. The options for the primary grade levels need to be overhauled and expanded to ensure adequate support for students who are at-risk of becoming permanently trapped by the remediation cycle. Expansion of services must include concentrated approaches such as Reading Recovery, complemented by a greater degree of cooperation and interaction between the classroom teacher and the reading teacher. Academic Support Program In Depth Program Evaluation Page 12 4. To provide parents the knowledge and skills needed to promote the education of their children at home and at school. Although this objective is largely achieved at the elementary level, there is a need for strengthening efforts at the secondary level. Recommendation 1 Teacher recommendations based on analysis of multiple criteria should be made in the spring of the school year prior to the school year during which Academic Support Program service is to be provided. These recommendations should be forwarded to Central Office to be matched with test results as soon as they are available in order to determine the population to be served. This population should be identified on a customized printout, designed to reconcile teacher recommendations with test cut-off scores. The customized printout would be used to determine service needs so that appropriate Academic support Program components are in place at each school site before the new school year begins. Additionally, multiple copies of the customized printouts need to be in each school. at the beginning of the school year to facilitate timely service to all targeted students. Objective The objective of this recommendation is to ensure timely identification and selection of students to participate in the Academic Support Program and to serve targeted students by developing personal education plans based on their Stanford 8 Individual Test Recordf. Evaluation Criteria Documentation will indicate that the selection and identification processes occur in a timely and efficient manner and that program teacher record keeping is complete. Expected Benefits The District will meet its commitment of reducing academic disparity and pull-out programs. Academic Support Program In Depth Program Evaluation Page 13 Impact Analysis This recommendation will assist the District in providing appropriate instructional opportunities for students with identified needs in reading/language arts and in mathematics. As the students are served, pull-out programs and learning disparity will be reduced. Resource Analysis The Language Arts Office, Planning, Research and Evaluation Department, and the Data Processing Department will generate the necessary forms. The Office of Federal Programs will gather and report data so that analysis can be made. Force Field Analysis The primary supporters of this recommendation will be central office supervisors, director of federal programs, building principals, IRC reading and mathematics specialists, program teachers, students, and parents. There are no known detractors. General Implementation Plan 4/1/95 5/1/95 6/1/95 7/1/95 Activity Teacher recommendation based on multiple criteria. Teacher recommendation forms forwarded to Central Office Teacher recommendations matched with test results Customized printout forwarded to schools Person(s) Responsible Elementary classroom teachers, Secondary Language Arts/Math teachers Building Principals Director of Data Processing Director of Data Processing Academic Support Program In Depth Program Evaluation Page 14 Recommendation 2 Language Arts Plus classes should be included as an Academic Support Program option in all junior high schools. Utilization of this component would restructure the junior high school English departments, enabling regular English teachers to serve targeted students in additional enrichment classes. These teachers would teach up to four regular English classes and during the remaining periods would provide tutorial and accelerated learning experiences for all academic support students enrolled in each of their regular classes. The Language Arts Plus Program would reduce the current number of reading classes taught by additional teachers. Objective The objective of this recommendation is to reduce or eliminate pull-out Academic Support Program approaches by providing additional instructional time to targeted students with their regular English teachers. Evaluation Criteria Evaluation criteria will include personal education plans for targeted students, annual district printouts of standardized test scores, and annual reports on numbers of students eligible for service through the Academic Support Program and numbers of students actually served. Review of these criteria will indicate increased student mastery of District learning objectives, increased standardized test scores, decreased numbers of students eligible for Academic Support Program services, and decreased numbers of students actually served. Expected Benefits The District will meet its commitment of reducing academic disparity and pull-out programs. Impact Analysis This recommendation will assist the District in providing appropriate instructional opportunities for students with identified needs in reading/language arts. As the students are served, pull-out programs and learning disparity will be reduced. Academic Support Program In Depth Evaluation page 15 Resource Analysis This recommendation will utilize existing junior high school English department staff, while reducing the total number of reading specialists needed at the junior high level. Teachers and students will use the existing curriculum and textbooks. No additional classroom materials will be needed. force Field Analysis The primary supporters of this recommendation will be central office personnel, including supervisors and directors, building principals, teachers, students, and parents. Anticipated detractors will include reading teachers whose positions will be eliminated. General Implementation Plan Activity Person(s) Responsible 4/1/95 5/1/95 6/1/95 7/ 1 / 95 7/1/95 Teacher recommendations based on multiple criteria Teacher recommendation forms forwarded to Central Office Teacher recommendations matched with test results customized printout forwarded to schools Students and teachers assigned to Language Arts Plus classes Sixth grade teachers and secondary English teachers Building Principals Director of Data Processing Director of Data Processing Building Principals Academic Support Program In Depth Evaluation Page 16 Recommendation 3 The current Academic Support Program needs to be restructured at the elementary school level to ensure adequate support for students who are at-risk of becoming permanently trapped by the remediation cycle. This restructuring should focus on providing appropriate program components at grades K-3, where reading skills are developed. An aggressive intervention/prevention program targeting these grade levels would reduce the overall size of the Academic Support Program by mainstreaming before the fourth grade students who would otherwise continue to need the support of the current program. Expansion of services must include concentrated approaches such as Reading Recovery, supplemented by a greater degree of cooperation and interaction between the classroom teacher and the reading teacher. Objective The objective of this recommendation is to reduce or eliminate pull-out Academic Support and academic disparity. Evaluation Criteria Evaluation criteria will include personal education plans for targeted students, annual district printouts of standardized test scores, and annual reports on numbers of students eligible for service through the Academic Support Program and numbers of students actually served. Review of these criteria will indicate increased student mastery of District learning objectives, increased standardized test scores, decreased numbers of students eligible for Academic Support Program services, and decreased numbers of students actually served. Expected Benefits The District will meet its commitment of reducing academic disparity and pull-out programs. Impact Analysis This recommendation will assist the District in providing appropriate instructional opportunities for students with identified needs in reading/language arts. As the students are served, pull-out programs and learning disparity will be reduced. Academic Support Program In Depth Evaluation Page 17 Resource Analysis This recommendation will require reallocating available Chapter One funds to provide for staffing needs, materials and supplies, and staff development. Force Field Analysis The primary supporters of this recommendation will be central office personnel, including supervisors and directors, building principals, teachers, students, and parents. Anticipated detractors will include reading teachers whose position will be eliminated. General Implementation Plan Activity Person{s) Responsible 4/1/95 5/1/95 6/1/95 7/1/95 8/1/95 Teacher recommendations based on multiple criteria Teacher recommendation forms forwarded to Central Office Teacher recommendations matched with test results Customized printout forwarded to schools Students and teachers assigned to Academic Support Program Classroom teachers Building principals Director of Data Processing Director of Data Processing Building principals I I .i :I\ni ' ' ! INSTRUCTIONAL APPROACH SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Central J. A. Fair Hall McClellan Parkview Magnet JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Cloverdale Dunbar Magnet Forest Heights Henderson Magnet Mabel vale Mann Pulas}~i Heights Southwest l-.l t. Learning Ctr. ~I.,EMENTARY SCHOOLS l-.11 APPENDIX A-1 ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM READING/LANGUAGE ARTS/MATHEMATICS APPROACHES ONE, TWO, THREE 1992-93 READING/LANGUAGE ARTS ONE TWO THREE Indirect/ Language Direct Direct Arts Plus X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X .ppendix A-1 (page 1 of 3) MATHEMATICS ONE TWO Indirect/ Direct Direct X I X X X X I I X I X X X X X I X I X I X --- ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM READING/LANGUAGE ARTS/MATHEMATICS APPROACHES ONE, TWO, THREE I 1993-94 READING/LANGUAGE ARTS MATHEMATICS INSTRUCTIONAL APPROACH ONE TWO THREE ONE TWO 1, Indirect/ Language Indirect/ I Direct Direct Arts Plus Direct Direct ,,, SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Central X X X 1,11 J. A. Fair X X X I Hall X X 11 McClellan X X X Parkview Magnet X X X JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Cloverdale X X Dunbar Magnet X X Forest Heights X X Ii Henderson Magnet X X II Mabel vale X X X II Mann X X X X Pulaski Heights X X X Southwest X X Alt. Learning Ctr. X ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS All X X I ~ I I I I ~pendix A-1 (page 2 of 3) II II - ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM READING/LANGUAGE ARTS/MATHEMATICS APPROACHES ONE, TWO, THREE 1994-95 READING/LANGUAGE ARTS MATHEMATICS INSTRUCTIONAL ONE TWO THREE ONE TWO THREE APPROACH Indirect Language Indirect Math /Direct Direct Arts Plus /Direct Direct Plus SENIOR HIGHS Central X X X X I J. A. Fair X X X Hall X X X McClellan X X X X Parkview X X X X JUNIOR HIGHS Cloverdale X X X Dunbar X X X Forest Hts. X X X Henderson X X X Mabel vale X X X X Mann X X X X X I Pulaski Hts. X X X ii Southwest X X X I :1, Alt. Ln. Ctr. X I II 1: ELEMENTARY All X X f.ppendix A-1 (page 3 of 3) . l READING/LANGUAGE TOTAL TESTED # ELIGIBLE Spring 1992 1992-93 Gr. 1 2,094 Gr. 2 804 Gr. 2 1,881 Gr. 3 707 Gr. 3 1,783 Gr. 4 649 Gr. 4 1,904 Gr. 5 524 Gr. 5 1,922 Gr. 6 685 Gr. 6 1,843 Gr. 7 473 Gr. 7 1,795 Gr. 8 668 Gr. 8 1,573 Gr. 9 599 Gr. 9 1,554 Gr. 10 494 Gr. 10 1,602 Gr. 11 495 Gr. 11 1,472 Gr. 12 357 Appendix A-2 (page 1 of 3) APPENDIX A-2 READING/LANGUAGE ARTS/MATHEMATICS STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST 1992-93 ARTS # SERVED TOTAL TESTED 1992-93 Spring 1992 700 Gr. 1 2,094 599 Gr. 2 1,881 560 Gr. 3 1,783 505 Gr. 4 1,904 570 Gr. 5 1,922 428 Gr. 6 1,843 432 Gr. 7 1,795 282 Gr. 8 1,573 142 Gr. 9 1,554 137 Gr. 10 1,602 69 Gr. 11 1,472 MATHEMATICS # ELIGIBLE # SERVED 1992-93 1992-93 Gr. 2 625 531 Gr. 3 418 455 Gr. 4 358 491 Gr. 5 324 467 Gr. 6 406 507 Gr. 7 332 284 Gr. 8 544 276 Gr. 9 621 254 Gr. 10 728 360 Gr. 11 672 95 Gr. 12 472 29 --- -- --- ------------------------ READING/LANGUAGE TOTAL TESTED I ELIGIBLE Spring 1993 1993-94 Gr. 1 1,941 Gr. 2 686 Gr. 2 1,912 Gr. 3 714 Gr. 3 1,770 Gr. 4 575 Gr. 4 1,715 Gr. 5 486 Gr. 5 1,821 Gr. 6 623 Gr. 6 1,855 Gr. 7 466 Gr. 7 1,716 Gr. 8 603 Gr. 8 1,571 Gr. 9 548 Gr. 9 1,506 Gr. 10 471 Gr. 10 1,587 Gr. 11 403 Gr. 11 1,383 Gr. 12 392 Appendix A-2 (page 2 of 3) READING/LANGUAGE ARTS/MATHEMATICS STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST 1993-94 ARTS # SERVED TOTAL TESTED 1993-94 Spring 1993 514 Gr. 1 1,941 584 Gr. 2 1,912 499 Gr. 3 1,770 435 Gr. 4 1,715 475 Gr. 5 1,821 457 Gr. 6 1,855 503 Gr. 7 1,716 407 Gr. 8 1,571 195 Gr. 9 1,506 190 Gr. 10 1,587 110 Gr. 11 1,383 MATHEMATICS I ELIGIBLE 1993-94 Gr . 2 584 Gr. 3 405 Gr. 4 411 Gr. 5 197 Gr. 6 329 Gr. 7 303 Gr. 8 555 Gr. 9 539 Gr. 10 691 Gr. 11 547 Gr. 12 516 # SERVED 1993-94 366 334 360 218 324 305 354 422 335 72 7 READING/LANGUAGE TOTAL TESTED I ELIGIBLE Spring 1994 1994-95 Gr. 1 1,957 Gr. 2 625 Gr. 2 1,771 Gr. 3 663 Gr. 3 1,788 Gr. 4 666 Gr. 4 1,720 Gr. 5 493 Gr. 5 1,694 Gr. 6 584 Gr. 6 1,763 Gr. 7 561 Gr. 7 1,810 Gr. 8 627 Gr. 8 1,718 Gr. 9 608 Gr. 9 1,568 Gr. 10 569 Gr. 10 1,509 Gr. 11 414 Gr. 11 1,448 Gr. 12 416 Appendix A-2 {page 3 of 3) READING/LANGUAGE ARTS/MATHEMATICS STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST 1994-95 ARTS I SERVED TOTAL TESTED 1994-95 Spring 1994 580 Gr. 1 1,952 571 Gr. 2 1,775 487 Gr. 3 1,783 382 Gr. 4 1,717 439 Gr. 5 1,687 403 Gr. 6 1,760 445 Gr. 7 1,792 410 Gr. 8 1,688 182 Gr. 9 1,564 146 Gr. 10 1,503 110 Gr. 11 1,439 MATHEMATICS I ELIGIBLE I SERVED 1994-95 1994-95 Gr. 2 548 476 Gr. 3 455 388 Gr. 4 528 445 Gr. 5 306 244 Gr. 6 356 291 Gr. 7 462 274 Gr. 8 691 378 Gr. 9 644 501 Gr. 10 770 358 Gr. 11 514 22 Gr. 12 533 1 Extended Program Evaluation Communication Services Completed by: Dina Teague Communications Specialist December 14, 1994 Program Name Communication Services Program Description: Program Purpose: To keep all publics informed of the actions of the LRSD and its programs. Scope and Content: The Communication Services program is in place to facilitate the transferrance of information between district employees, board members and administrators. and the District itself with the public. All conventional means of communications are used from telephone and written correspondence. to television production and programming. In addition to being the primary source of infonnation for community members and the news media. the communications office also provides assistance to other district offices and school building personnel. The communication services program encompasses all functions of the communications office that are not specifically mentioned in the desegregation programmatic areas. Panicipants: Participants in the communication services program are primarily the employees of the communications department: Director of Communications, Communications Specialist, Secretary, part-time COE Student Worker, and District Receptionist. All functions of the department are under the direction of the Associate Superintendent of Desegregation. Beneficiaries: District students, patrons, board members, and employees benefit from good internal communication as well as external communication with tax payers. community members, opinion leaders. and media representatives. Program Goal To suppon the education mission and all of the goals and objectives of the Little Rock School District through improved community awareness. understanding and confidence. Evaluation Criteria 1.0 Documents available 2.0 Employee Directory 3.0 Media requests answered 4.0 Public requests answered 5.0 Internal requests completed 6.0 Clipping file 7 .0 Events completed 8.0 Bulk mailings completed 9.0 NIA I 0.0 Copy of Annual Report 11.0 Copy of videos 12.0 Board information prepared 13.0 LRSD representative on KLRE Board 14.0 Required reports available I 5.0 Documents available 16.0 Cable 4 operational, equipment up and running, Cable 4 updated, videos produced 17.0 Budget maintained 18.0 Correspondence completed 19.0 Projects in place, visits scheduled 20.0 Office maintained 2 Evaluation Results O~iective 1.0 Assist the Superintendent's office with technical writing and computer support, and other special projects, as requested. The communications staff produces various written documents such as scripts, resolutions. and letters for the Superintendent as needed. ( 1.1 J Various computer generated documents such as the district organizational chart, citations. etc. are produced on a regular basis. ( 1.2) From time to time assistance with special projects such as board photos. assembly of needed information, and meeting scheduling is provided. (1.3) Objective 2.0 Produce a district employee directory. The Communications Secretary annually gathers information with the assistance of Human Resources. She then organizes copy, secures advertising. and schedules printing of the employee directory. (2.1 ) Objective 3.0 Respond to all media requests. The Communications Director and Communications Specialist record all requests and obtain clearance from the Associate Superintendent of Desegregation to respond. (3.1, 3.lAJ When clearance is given, they gather infonnation or arrange interviews as appropriate and contact the media representative with a response. (3.3. 3.4) If necessary, requests are forwarded to the Superintendent. (3.1) All other request fonns are sent to the Superintendent upon completion. Objective 4.0 Respond to public requests for information The same procedure described above is followed unless a patron is requesting a district publication. Calendar and brochure requests are honored immediately upon receipt. Objective 5.0 Respond to all internal requests for information The same procedure described above is used to respond to internal requests. Objective 6.0 Maintain a clipping file of all education-related articles The communications office subscribes to all local newspapers and news magazines. The publications are reviewed each day and all articles related to education or to the Little Rock School District are clipped. copied and filed by date. (6.1, 6.3) A log is kept to facilitate research on a given subject. 16.2) Objective 7.0 Schedule. plan, and execute special events The communications staff plans and executes many special events at the request of the Superintendent or other administrators. Staff members often work closely with other departments such as Human Resources or the Superintendent's Office staff on these events. 3 Objective 7.0 (continued, Examples are the annual retirement pany \u0026lt;7.11 and the newly implemented winter holiday parties. Objective 8.0 Assist in district /schools bulk mailings The Communications Secretary coordinates bulk mailings of many district publications such as the calendars. recruitment surveys. and brochures. She also instructs school level employees and PTA members on bulk mailing procedures. (8.1 l Objective 9.0 Di-stribution of mail, faxes. and all internal communications The District Receptionist. with the help of the part-time COE Student Worker. operates the district switchboard and fax machine as well as distributes all district office external and internal mail. and fax transmissions. (9.1. 9.3. 9.4 \u0026amp; 9.5) They also stamp all mail and register district cenified mail. 19.2J Objective 10.0 Prepare district's Annual Repon Each fall, the Director of Communications gathers information for, generates graphics for and writes the District's Annual Report. (10.1, 10. 2 \u0026amp; 10.3) She then distri.butesthe report at board meetings and advertises the report in the newspaper. (10.4) Objective 11.0 Write scripts. edit and produce district videos The office of communications responds to all requests for video production and must rely on the teaching staff of Metropolitan Vo-Tech and the availability of their equipment to be able to create videos. Objective 12.0 Produce news releases and support documents for the Board of Directors The Communications Specialist prepares media advisories to notify the media of all board functions and advises them of agenda items or discussion topics as appropriate. ( 12. l ) Each member of the communications staff works to provide any information or materials requested by board members for their presentations. 02.2) Generally this refers to special citations presented by board members. Objective 13.0 Represent the district on the KLRE Board The director of communications attends all KLRE Board meetings, serves on the Personnel Committee. and attends special events. (13.1. 13.2 \u0026amp; 13.3 )* O~iective 14.0 Prepare required reports The communications department has prepared reports such as Coopers and Lybrand Outsourcing Report. Financial Reports. coun preparations. etc. as requested. ( 14.1 J* 4 Objective 15.U Provide technical writing support for other district departments The communications department has prepared documents. fliers. letters for other LRSD departments. such as ADA Campaign. and EPA notifications for Plant Services as requested.* Objecrive 16.0 Maintain. operate and produce Cable Channel 4 programming. The Communications Secretary coordinates all maintenance calls for equipment. (16. l l She also updates the district calendar and airs district videos.(16.2J O~iective 17.0 Preparation and maintenance of department budget and budget-related documents The Director of Communications maintains the budget and monitors department spending. 117. l l* Ol\u0026gt;jective 18.0 Correspondence to schools and community All members of the communications staff write thank you notes and letters as appropriate. (18.l l Objective 19.0 Develop and execute special projects with community group\\ No evaluation results.* Objective 20.0 General Non-Desegregation related office administration The communications staff orders supplies. maintains equipment. etc. as needed. (20.l l ,:, Please see attached memo from Dina Teague regarding these items. 5 Recommendations: No recommendations are made at this time. I feel it would be inappropriate for me as the Communications Specialist to suggest changes. Although many staff members have expressed an understanding that I am the Acting Director of Communications. an official change in title has not been made and I do not want to overstep my authority. It is my understanding that a Director of Communications will be in place in approximately one month. I feel that it would be more appropriate for the new director to suggest changes under the advisement of the Associate Superintendent of Desegregation (primary leader). 6 Addendum Program description: The purpose of the communication services program is to keep all publics infonned of the actions of the LRSD and its programs. The Communication Services program is in place to facilitate the transferrance of information between district employees. board members and administrators. as well as the District itself and the public. The communication services program encompasses all functions of the communications office that are not specifically mentioned in the desegregation programmatic areas. Participants in the communication services program are primarily the employees of the communications depanment: Director of Communications, Communications Specialist, Secretary. part-time COE Student Worker, and District Receptionist. All functions of the department are under the direction of the Associate Superintendent of Desegregation. District students, patrons, board members, and employees benefit from good internal communication as well as external communication with tax payers, community members. opinion leaders, and media representatives. Recommendations: No recommendations are made. 7 I I I I 11 I 11 I ' Human Resources Services The Human Resources Department serves the District as the focal point for all staffing functions including recrui tin9, hiring, staffing, transfers, promotions, salary schedules, benefits coordination and compliance with state and federal regulations as they apply to public schools. The Human Resources Department also serves as the unit responsible for the coverage of classes as needed with substitutes. Recommendations are listed as follows: 1. A more complete and comprehensive salary study be conducted. Preferably, the study would be done by an outside consulting firm to assure impartial, unbiased results as well as a timely study. To do the study internally would require vast amounts of man-hours from the Human Resources staff. Communications Services The Communications Services program is in place to facilitate the transference of information between district employees, board members and administrators, and the District itself with the public. In addition to being the primary source of information for community members and the news media, the communications office also provides assistance to other district offices and school building personnel. The communication services program encompasses all functions of the communications office that are not specifically mentioned in the desegregation programmatic areas. Recommendations are listed as follows: * No recommendation are made at this time 1, I II Ii I Ii I' I' Ii Ii I I I II I I I I I Evaluation criteria Specific evaluation criteria include: 1.0 Adequate service provided in support of programs. Determined by dividing numbers of requests by number provided. 1.1 All buses assigned only two routes. 1.2 Students effectively and efficiently routed to facilitate a smooth school opening 1988-89. 1. 3 Significant reduction in street address errors introduced by poor/inadequate data entry. 1. 4 No student required to exceed four blocks/six blocks walk. 1. 5 Published policies on student behavior /safety on LRSD buses. Published policies for drivers/driver aides to assist in communicating the districts' position on transportation safety procedures. Frequent meetings to address safety issues and concerns. Attendance verified through sign-in sheets. Review of supervisor's monitoring report. 1. 6 Routes generated based upon current assignment information. 1.7 Two mile list published and distributed to school staff . Add transportation policies and procedures. 1.8 Written request for student data forwarded. incremental initiated by routing supervisor. Research error listing to within 5%. Completion of first day prior to registration. Evaluation Results Census system routes Evaluation results were gathered from data available within the historical records in the Transportation Department. Objective 1. o The Transportation Department will request additional resources to help provide transportation support for evening and extended day programs. All request for extended day and evening support were honored in 1993-94. 2 ' Discussion The district has consistently requested additional resources from the state to support the M to Mand magnet programs. Extended day activities are provided based on requests submitted to the Transportation Department and the assets available to support these requests. Miles are added to the fleet each time a bus is used to support evening and extended day programs. These programs are charged a fee to cover the basic cost of the driver plus $1.31 a mile which has been established as the cost to run the bus one mile. Currently, all requests for support are being honored. In the future, consideration must be given to the impact such programs have on the life of the fleet and its primary purpose of transporting students to and from school. Objective 1.1 In 1990-91 the District reduced its number of runs from three to two. The district returned to a two run system - one elementary and one secondary - in the 1990-91 school year. Discussion The limit of a two run system determines the maximum number of routes that can be scheduled based on the number of available buses. With the expansion of the majority to minority (M to M) transfer program, resources have been redirected to support these students. For M to M students a route may be as much as 90 minutes long and the bus may stop at two or m~re schools. Therefore, these buses have only one route. Regular LRSD Buses generally have two routes. One route for elementary school is 45 minutes and the second route for secondary school is 45 minutes. Each bus, generally goes to only one school per run. Special Education buses have two runs of 45 minutes and may go to two or more schools on each run. Elementary students are usually on the first run and secondary students are on the second run. Currently, the number of students on each run varies from one to eight students, with four students as an average. This is a very expensive way to transport students. 3 I, I I I II II ,' I Some buses serve as few as four students while other buses serve 65 students. If regular route buses were to go to more than one school, some buses could be combined to free up additional assets for the regular program. Objective 1.2 LRSD has made progress in the utilization of the ECOTRAN MAPNET System. 1988-89 school opening. This item completed 06/90, and is not recurring. Objective 1.3 There is extensive work to be done in updating the geographic files, tables with the LRSD database. The number of errors found in 1993-94 were 6000 when data base was initially loaded. Discussion All new streets are added to the ECOTRAN MAPNET System based on the information provided by the LR City Engineers. When an error list is run, the street names/numbers are compared to the post office street names/numbers upon which the district data base is built. The ECOTRAN Database is changed to match the district data base. At the beginning of 1994-95 only 500 errors were initially fo~nd. An update is currently under way using November data. Objective 1.4 School attendance areas and upda~ed walk zones need to be encoded into map files. Based on the information in the data base, no student was required to walk more than four blocks to the bus if an elementary student or more than six blocks as a secondary student. Students who are within the walk zone are required to walk if no courtesy stop is provided. Discussion The Transportation Department continuously receives requests for closer bus stops than the four/six blocks criteria due to safety and supervision issues. Many parents state that four/ 4 six blocks is too far for the student to walk. Accommodating these requests can increase the routing time and require buses to go into areas that are difficult to maneuver within on large buses. Objective 1.5 (Transportation Safety Policies need to be reviewed and updated properly. Changes will be incorporated from Applicable Board Policies and Administrative Directives). Discussion The policies of the Transportation Department were governed by a negotiated agreement with the Classroom Teachers Association for the 1993-94 school year. The association lost its recognition for the 1994-95 school year. The practices and procedures were reviewed and published in the fall of 1994. Safety meetings are scheduled and conducted on a regular basis by the safety supervisors. Objective 1.6 (Assignment promotion population region tables need to be created to ensure proper student assignment). Discussion The data processing department provides tapes that are used to generate routes based on current assignment information. Objective 1.7 All school attendance areas will be encoded into the geographic tables. Corresponding walk zones will be generated for schools, all transportation policies will be reviewed and updated. The two mile lists were established after the attendance zone boundaries were encoded. The policies and procedures for the Transportation Department are shared annually with principals and assistant principals. 5 1 I II I ' Objective 1.8 An entire new stop network will be generated to improve efficiency and most economically utilize District resources. Census information provided by data processing was used to establish first day routes prior to registration. Obstacles to Goal Attainment Objective 1.0 Objective achieved 1.1 \" 1.2 \" 1.3 \" 1.4 \" 1.5 \" 1.6 \" 1.7 \" 1.8 \" \" Recommendations The failure of the Transportation Department to reach its stated program goal was not related to the program entitled Computerized Transportation Routing System. The factors involved manpower shortage, equipment failure, and the proposal to outsource. However, the district could profit from upgrading the system to the current edition of the software. Recommendation 1: Upgrade the ECOTRAN software and hardware to utilize the Mapnet Plus system similar to the Pulaski County School District system. Evaluation criteria: The routes prepared for the opening of school reflect the information available in the district's data base on August 1, 1995. 6 Expected Benefits: The amount of time required to route all buses for the district will be reduced. By training the staff, effective utilization of the special features in the system will enhance the routing procedures. To the degree the system is used in strategic planning, the system will allow the district to try several different attendance patterns and levels of organization based on the capacity of various schools. Impact Analysis: 1. Program. The computerized routing system will improve the efficiency of the routing process. Negatives a. The system will be down during the upgrade process and during training. Positives a. The routing process will be faster. b. The data base can be directly downloaded from the mainframe. c. The system will be compatible with the Pulaski County Special School District routing system. d. Reports can be generated concerning transported students to include race ~nd grade. e. The system can projecting attendance boundaries. 2. Desegregation Plan be used for strategic zone enrollments based planning by on varying The upgrade supports the Desegregation Plan to provide computerized routing system to optimize travel times. 3. court Orders There should be no impact on court orders. 7 I I I 4. Political factors The collaboration between the Pulaski County Special School District and the LRSD Transportation Department concerning student transportation and staff training would occur. 5. Risks There appears to be no risks to upgrading the system. The risk to not upgrading the system is not being able to use the system for strategic planning. 6. Timing Some cost savings could be realized by deciding to upgrade immediately. Also, training needs to be conducted for those individuals who will be operating the system before its full potential can be realized. Resource Analysis 1. Personnel Analysis No additional positions are needed to support this project. The number of individuals to be trained will depend upon how the system will be used. At least three individuals will receive training to support the routing of buses . 2. Financial Analysis a. The upgrade software will cost $16, 900. The cost of computer equipment to support upgrade is $5,104. If both stations are upgraded, an additional $200 will be required for the software and another $5,104 for the hardware. The total cost will be $27,308. The annual Maintenance/License fee will $1,635. b . The source of revenue would be from the current Transportation Department budget. Force Field Analysis 1. Forces For The supervisors directly responsible for routing will support the project because the time to route would be reduced. 8 Administrators involved in strategic planning should support the upgrade because it will allow them to experiment with several senecios and see the impact on student assignments when changing boundaries. The other parties who have an interest in assignment plans should support the upgrade because the software could be used to respond to their \"what if\" questions. 2. Forces Against The issue related to spending this money for the upgrade rather than saving for next year's budget would be a detractor. However, the value of being able to interface with Pulaski County School District and the increased accuracy of the routes because the information will come directly from the data base should overcome objections. I. General Implementation Plan Milestones Timeline Tasking 1. Proposal sent to Associate Superintendent 01/07/95 Cheatham 2. Approval of Proposal 02/01/95 Mayo 3. Order Upgrade of software/hardware 02/15/95 Neal 4. Installation of upgrade 03/15/95 Contractors 5. Staff Training 04/01/95 ECOTRAN 9 I I II I I\nI I I I I I ADDENDUM Program Evaluation Computerized Transportation A brief description of program being evaluated: The primary component is the Transportation Planning and Management System which is the routing and scheduling software. In addition, there is the Map Build and Maintenance System which updates the map, Census Processing which allows for matching the student file to the map file, and the Geographic Enrollment Analysis System which is redistricting software that can be used to propose modifying boundaries and test alternatives. RECOMMENDATION 1 - does not have a matching number. The area classification is Desegregation. The data used for the evaluation was located in the historical records in the Transportation Department. 10 Program Description: Purpose: Scope and Content: Panicipants/Beneficiaries: Program Goals: Evaluation Criteria: Evaluation Results: Objective 1.0 IN-DEPTI-l PROGRAM EVALUATION Non-Desegregation Contingencies Those activities concerned with maintaining a funding reserve for future operations as well as unforeseen events. The contingency fund is a reserve of funds established to provide for emergencies and expenditures that cannot be foreseen at the time of budget preparation. The contingency fund process entails the solicitation and securement of financial and other resources that may be necessary during the fiscal year to provide complete and adequate support for the District's schools and administrative sites. The contingency fund is established during the budget process based upon input from the Board, staff, and community. The allocation to fund or not fund the contingency is approved by the Board of Directors. All students and employees in the District benefit, either directly or indirectly, should the reserve become necessary to fund emergency situations or unforeseen expenditures. To provide a pool of reserve funding. 1.1 Fund balance at any point in time. 1.2 Transfer of funds. 1.1 Monthly financial reports and corresponding historical revenue and expenditure data. 1.2 Internally generated forms supporting any transfers required. To maintain a source to fund future and/or unforecasted events. I I I I I I I I I I In-Depth Program Evaluation Non-Desegregation Contingencies Page 2 Discussion 1.0 The District's monthly internal reporting format is structured to predict, based on certain historical data, the projected ending fund balance. Even though the past is being used to predict the future, a certain degree of continuity does exist. Current political events, as well as day-to-day operational happenings, must also be factored into this future projection equation. Although it is impossible to obtain the actual fund balance until all year end activities have been completed, a projection system such as we use certainly goes a long way in helping to spot trends and make sound decisions. Obstacles to Goal Obtainment: Objective I. 0: Recommendation I: Objective 1: Evaluation Criteria: Expected Benefits: This objective was not achieved due to the elimination of a budget allocation by the Board of Directors. However, the strategies to obtain the goal are an on-going process in order to maintain historical data on which to base future budgeting decisions. Continue to expand the historical data base used to summarize the past so the future can better be predicted. To maintain a reliable reporting structure for the District's fund balance (reserve pool). The objective will be evaluated mathematically based on the accuracy of the monthly projections to the actual ending balance. The District will have a more complete and broader data base on which to make future projections and decisions regarding the budget and contingency planning. Program Description DATA PROCESSING SERVICES PROGRAM EVALUATION 1 ::\nr To provide the resources (Hardware, Software, Training, Programming, Computer Operations, Hardware and Software Support) necessary to collect, store and report information on LRSD students. Information Services will provide the computer resources necessary to collect, store, and report student information in a timely and accurate manner. School and central officebased staff, parents, and students will benefit from accurate up-to-date information on students. Information Services also supports all LRSD corporate business functions and classroom technology infrastructure needs. Purpose Provide effective, efficient information service support to LRSD. Scope and Content Plan, develop, implement and maintain the telecommunications, computing and miscellaneous information services for: 1. LRSD corporate business functions\n2. LRSD student administrative functions\n3. LRSD desegregation reporting functions\n4. Classroom technology infrastructure needs. Participants/Beneficiaries 1. Each student, LRSD. 2. Each employee, LRSD. 3. Each school, LRSD. 4. Each staff agency, LRSD 5. Board of Directors, LRSD. 6. Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Program Goals To provide the programs and data bases necessary to collect and store all pertinent student information. To provide all necessary reports required to support school and central office based functions. To provide all necessary information required by outside interests. To provide timely response to all requests for information. Evaluation Criteria 1.0 Information is available in a timely manner for planning and decision making. 1.1 Appropriate hardware is available and functiona, as designed. 1.2 Appropriate software is available and functional to meet the needs of the district. 1.3 Appropriate telecommunications systems are functioning to meet the needs of the District. Evaluation Results 1.0 No, information is not available in a timely manner. 1.1 No, appropriate hardware is not available. 1.2 No, appropriate software is not available. 1.3 No evaluation results. I ,, I I I I I I I I I I I . I ' I I I I I ' I I I I I I Objective 1 To provide the necessary informational services that ensure appropriate planning and decisionmaking processes. Discussion Objectives have not been achieved. LRSD has no comprehensive Information Services strategy/plan. This lack of a comprehensive Information Services strategy/plan has significant negative input on LRSD's ability to meet goals/objectives. To use an analogous situation, suppose the decision was made to rebuild Chicot Elementary. No architect is hired\ninstead the librarian is given money to rebuild the library, food service is given money to rebuild the cafeteria, and each teacher is given money to rebuild his/her classroom. The probable result would be an excellent library, an excellent cafeteria and excellent individual classrooms. Unfortunately, Chicot would consist of multiple buildings, none connected to the other, no hallways, no lockers, no rest rooms etc., etc. In summary a new, expensive, Chicot Elementary would be nonfunctional. LRSD information infrastructure is currently comparable to this hypothetical new, expensive but nonfunctional Chicot Elementary. Currently, each school and staff agency spends considerable money to meet their specific automation needs. Personal computers, printers, fax machines, modems, etc., with a multitude of software applications have been purchased and installed. No comprehensive plan for connectivity, standardization, maintenance, etc. has been followed. Data/information now resides in multiple locations in multiple formats. There are no \"hallways\" connecting these diverse automation islands. LRSD will probably survive without one elementary school, however, an information infrastructure connects/encompasses all LRSD schools, staff agencies and activities. Obstacles to Goal Attainment 1. LRSD Information Services staff is not trained or staffed for current technology. 2. LRSD lacks an inadequate information services infrastructure. 3. LRSD lacks a comprehensive Information Services budgeting and procurement strategy/plan. 4. LRSD has not correctly implemented current technology. 5. LRSD has no global corporate data model. 6. LRSD has not acquired the correct tools for efficient ad-hoc reporting. 7. LRSD employees are not trained on current technical tools. 8. LRSD Instructional Resource Center is not staffed or trained for current technology. 9. LRSD has no comprehensive Information Services strategy/plan. Recommendations Develop a comprehensive Information Services plan for LRSD. -Business cases to address obstacles to goal attainment will be prepared as a part of LRSD budget-planning process. Program Description DATA PROCESSING PROGRAM EVALUATION To provide the resources (Hardware, Software, Training, Programming, Computer Operations, Hardware and Software Support) necessary to collect, store and report information on LRSD students. Information Services will provide the computer resources necessary to collect, store, and report student information in a timely and accurate manner. School and central officebased staff, parents, and students will benefit from accurate up-to-date information on students. Information SeNices also supports all LRSD corporate business functions and classroom technology infrastructure needs. Purpose Provide effective, efficient information service support to LRSD. Scope and Content Plan, develop, implement and maintain the telecommunications, computing and miscellaneous information services for: 1. LRSD corporate business functions\n2. LRSD student administrative functions\n3. LRSD desegregation reporting functions\n4. Classroom technology infrastructure needs. Participants/Beneficiaries 1. Each student, LRSD. 2. Each employee, LRSD. 3. Each school, LRSD. 4. Each staff agency, LRSD 5. Board of Directors, LRSD. 6. Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Program Goals To provide the programs and data bases necessary to collect and store all pertinent student information. To provide all necessary reports required to support school and central office based functions. To provide all necessary information required by outside interests. To provide timely response to all requests for information. Evaluation Criteria 1.A ( Administration has received all required reports for the school year). 1.8 ( All data is accurately stored and is retrievable). 1.C (Quality reports are being delivered on time). 1.0 (Complaints are no longer being received about information not available). 1.1 (Reports are available which accurately report dropout). 1.2 (All test results are stored in the computer and are reflected in pertinent reports). 1.3 (All available student achievement data is stored and reported as requested). 1.4 (Attendance data is accurately stored and reported to the state with minimum manual compilation). 1.5 (Discipline data is accurately entered and reported as required). 1.6 (Student assignment data is stored and all reporting requirements are met). 2. (The District requirements for computer resources are being met). 2.1 (All employees requiring access to student records have access to terminals) . 2.1.A (The computer system has the capacity-disk, memory, print, speed, and processor speed meet peak demands). 2.1.B (At present time, the performance and monitoring tools that were implemented are being evaluated). 2.2 (All necessary software is installed and functioning properly to collect, store and report information in a timely and accurate manner). Evaluation Results 1.A No, report backlog frequently exists. 1.B No, data is not easily retrievable cannot ascertain if it is accurately stored. 1.C No, reports are of poor quality and not timely. 1.D No, complaints reference information availability are still received. 1.1 No evaluation results. 1.2 No evaluation results. 1.3 No evaluation results. 1.4 No, manual intervention is excessive. 1.5 No, reporting is cumbersome. 1.6 No, reporting is cumbersome. 2.0 No, LRSD computing resources are not adequately addressed. 2.1 No evaluation results. 2.1.A No, computing resources are not adequate. 2.1.B 2.2 No, software does not properly collect, store and report information in a timely and accurate manner. Objective 1 Data Processing (Information Services Department) will provide the necessary support for all school and central office based functions. Objective 2 Data Processing Department (Information Services Department Staff) will have the capacity to respond to District needs as required by District goals and state and federal laws such as grade distribution and the ability to identify students and cohorts of students. Discussion Objectives have not been achieved. LRSD has no comprehensive Information Services strategy/plan. This lack of a comprehensive Information Services strategy/plan has significant negative input on LRSD's ability to meet goals/objectives. To use an analogous situation, suppose the decision was made to rebuild Chicot Elementary. No architect is hired\ninstead the librarian is given money to rebuild the library, food service is given money to rebuild the cafeteria, and each teacher is given money to rebuild his/her classroom.  The probable result would be an excellent library, an excellent cafeteria and excellent individual classrooms. Unfortunately, Chicot would consist of multiple buildings, none connected to the other, no hallways, no lockers, no rest rooms etc., etc. In summary a new, expensive, Chicot Elementary would be nonfunctional. LRSD information infrastructure is currently comparable to this hypothetical new, expensive but nonfunctional Chicot Elementary. Currently, each school and staff agency spends considerable money to meet their specific automation needs. Personal computers, printers, fax machines, modems, etc., with a multitude of software applications have been purchased and installed. No comprehensive plan for connectivity, standardization, maintenance, etc. has been followed. Data/information now resides in multiple locations in multiple formats. There are no \"hallways\" connecting these diverse automation islands. LRSD will probably survive without one elementary school, however, an information infrastructure connects/encompasses all LRSD schools, staff agencies and activities. Obstacles to Goal Attainment 1. LRSD Information Services staff is not trained or staffed for current technology. 2. LRSD lacks an inadequate information services infrastructure. 3. LRSD lacks a comprehensive Information Services budgeting and procurement strategy/plan. 4. LRSD has not correctly implemented current technology. 5. LRSD has no global corporate data model. 6. LRSD has not acquired the correct tools for efficient ad-hoc reporting. 7. LRSD employees are not trained on current technical tools. 8. LRSD Instructional Resource Center is not staffed or trained for current technology. 9. LRSD has no comprehensive Information Services strategy/plan. Recommendations Develop a comprehensive Information Services plan for LRSD. Business cases to address obstacles to goal attainment will be prepared as a part of LRSD budget planning process. IN-DEPTH PROGRAM EVALUATION Program Description: Facilities service includes resources to identify, plan and execute maintenance/repair programs equitably so that Little Rock School District students can receive efficient, functional and effective education. Specifically, facilities includes maintenance programs to maintain/repair all District facilities in an equitable condition commensurate with financial resources and District priorities. Purpose: The purpose operation's necessary to critical as management. Scope and Content: of the Facilities Program is part of the base costs to maintain the buildings and grounds support the educational mission. This program is it encompasses all aspects of real property The Facilities Program encompasses the repair of all existing facilities, grounds and other real property, the maintenance thereof, new construction to support academic initiatives, all real estate actions to include leases, purchasing of property, selling of property, easements, grants, rights-of-way and licenses. It is extended to include the base operation costs of utility payments covering electric, water, gas, refuse, entomology and any other miscellaneous services. It includes long-range planning, responsibilities with regard to new construction, maintenance, acquisition and closing of facilities. Participants/Beneficiaries: The Facilities Program is a base operations program that supports all persons that work for the Little Rock School District, are educated by its programs, or visit its facilities. Program Goals: To equitably maintain and repair facilities to support academic programs, student enrollment and administrative support, the Little Rock School District is comrni tted to insure for all students equitable educational facilities and schools which are located in lower socio-economic areas shall receive attention and resources at least equal to those in more affluent areas in the District. l Evaluation Criteria: The evaluation criteria for the objectives listed in the Facilities Program consists principally of historical records indicating requests and completions of maintenance and repair work. The evaluation criteria is geared.specifically to the objectives as outlined in the Desegregation Plan, Court Orders and ODM Reports. They do not require a relative measure of success, but merely to report numbers of requests made and completions and the percent thereof. Evaluation Results: There is no measurable scale of success against which the evaluation can be made. The objectives reported in the Facilities Program Budget Document, as stated previously, merely report the percent of completion of requests made of the Facilities Program. There is no set goal that can be equated to measure this quantity. The amount of work completed has too many variables to establish a set percent to be achieved in any given reporting period. This is due to the complexity of the requests, the nature of the requests, the total number and the resources allocated to complete that goal, coupled with the priority. Objective U: To maintain all school facilities such that they are in a safe, operational condition, and to repair, as necessary, commensurate with resources. Discussion #1: The overall level of success indicates that we have met our objective on all reporting periods. It is to be reasonably expected that the percent completed of the items listed under \"Strategies\" will vary commensurate with the amount of work and the resources allocated these initiatives. Since there is no measure of success or pre-determined percent which must be completed, one can only assume that all work that could reasonably be accomplished during the reporting period was done so, and all uncompleted work will carry forth to the next reporting period. Objective t2: The capacities of junior high schools will be reviewed in light of needed programs. Such capacities will then be revised as necessary. Discussion #2: This objective was met in 1993 and later evaluated in 1994. It will be recommended that this objective be deleted from the Program Budget Document. Objective #3: Concrete walks and macadam drives will be in good repair. Discussion #3: This is a subjective evaluation. The numbers of requests made, and the numbers completed, are what is reported. It is not possible to establish a desired level of completion because the work is received at various times during the reporting period such that the complexities of scheduling and allocated resources will vary the completion rate. Objective #4: New public address systems and bell systems will be placed in buildings where such items are not repairable. Discussion #4: Almost eighty percent (80%) of the requests made during the last reporting period have been completed. This is a program, like others, which is ongoing and which will be funded commensurate with approved funding levels. Objective #5: Any school which has portable buildings will have these buildings replaced with new units or repaired so that they will be in a condition suitable for use. Discussion #5: Sixty-two percent ( 62%) of the work requested of the Directorate was completed during the last reporting period. Objective #6: All school construction shall be subject to the Court's prior approval and shall promote desegregation. New construction must be approved by the Court. l Discussion #6: This is an ongoing strategy. There are no requirements pending at this time. There is no need for further evaluation of this objective. Objective #7: Modify building space to increase library capacities at Mitchell and Garland, purge the shelves of outdated, well-worn materials at Mitchell. Books most frequently used by the Four-Year Old Program, Kindergarten, and First Grades could be permanently placed in the individual classrooms since those grades are all housed in structures that are detached from the main building. Discussion #7: The portion of this objective allocated to the Facilities Program was completed in 1992. Objective #8: Franklin: Repair or replace the roof on each level of the building. Replace all ceiling tiles damaged by water leaks. Repaint interior walls as needed. Discussion #8: Most of these repairs have been completed. The ones that have been requested have been attended to. This building is scheduled for painting during School Year '94 - '95. Objective #9: Garland: Determine the feasibility of adding bathrooms on the second floor of the building. Increase the size of the Media Center and relocating the building's main entrance. Discussion #9: This assessment and report was completed and filed in 1992. No further evaluation is needed. Objective UO: Ish: Professionally evaluate the structural condition of the building and correct the many problems caused by the leaking roof. May be necessary to add a new slope roof. Unsightly classroom bathrooms would be repaired at once by those qualified to deal with asbestos. Exterior lighting should be repaired or replaced and the building's trim painted. Once the roof no longer leaks, the entire interior should be repainted. Discussion #10: This objective was completed and reported in October of 1992. Objective Ul: Mitchell: Correct the drainage problems and then replace the water-damaged carpeting in the GT room. Address the shortage of Media Center space, possibly by adding bookshelves to the second floor hallway near the Librarian's Office which is located in a kiosk area. Also consider adding more shelves to create storage space within existing Media Center. Discussion f 11: This requirement requires no further evaluation. It was completed in 1992. Objective #12: Rightsell: Eliminate the moisture problem at the school. Professionals with restoration experience involved to help solve problems of the final Playground should receive major improvements additional age appropriate equipment. Discussion -#12: should be building. including This objective does not require further evaluation since it has not been completed. Objective #13: Rockefeller: Install a new heating and cooling system if the effectiveness of the present system is not corrected by the recently-replaced room thermostats. Discussion #13: This assessment was made and the correction was completed in 1992. Objective -#14: Stephens: Stephens' objective is to be deleted since the school has been demolished. l Discussion #14: NIA Objective #15: All seven (7) incentive schools would benefit aesthetically from the addition of attractive landscaping. Once plantings are installed, the custodial staff should be trained in proper plant care. Many Little Rock School District schools have lost mature plantings to improper and over-zealous pruning by District workers, or from under-watering in times of summer heat and drought. Discussion #15: This is an ongoing problem. Guidance has been given the facilities. It will continue to be monitored. There is no level of success against which this objective can be measured. Objective #16: Give the incentive schools priority in the District sequencing of capital improvement projects since doublefunding does not cover capital improvements and maintenance. Buildings must be sound, attractive and well-maintained. Discussion #16: This objective was met when the capital improvements project was prioritized in 1990. Objective #17: The District has stated it would make adjustments to the Omaha Formula to meet the needs of buildings like McClellan that have special needs. Discussion #17: The custodial program is accountable by the Omaha Formula which is used by this District to proportion its custodial resources to its many facilities. This program is evaluated on a periodic basis. Every time there is an addition or  change to a major facility structure the custodial structure is re-examined. It was last reexamined in December of 1993. It was submitted to the District and approved. Adjustments were made. The custodial program, at the present time, has sufficient manpower resources to meet its permanent needs. Temporary custodial needs, however, must be addressed by a separate correspondence. Obstacles to Goal Attainment: There is one principal obstacle to the desired goal attainment of an equitable Facilities Program, and that is resources. The Plant Services Directorate is far below the national and regional averages, and as such, falls further behind as its backlog of maintenance and repair increases on a yearly basis. The amount of work identified district-wide to keep our buildings in a good state of repair, and at an educational standard to support our programs, is mounting every year. With level or decreased funding each year, the backlog continues to increase. It is only through a higher funding level that we will be able to maintain our facilities to meet our operational needs. Recommendations: The Facilities Program, as reported under the Program Budget document, provides no guidance nor equitable measure to the Superintendent or Board of Directors on the success of the Facilities Program. This is something that is not measurable. The bulk of the Facilities Program is reacting to requests made by Facility Managers. As those requests are made, they are prioritized and they are funded. The addition of funds and resources would most assuredly allow more work to be accomplished by having it first identified, scheduled, and then completed. Without the resources to further identify additional work, it is not possible to identify how much work could be scheduled, and hence completed, thereby determining additional resources. Many of the items in the Facility Program Budget Document have been completed, and it has been recommended that they be deleted from this program. Recommendation #1: My recommendation would be to restructure the way the School District assesses its facilities. The bottom-line effort of the Little Rock School District is two-fold: 1) To maintain all of its facilities in a safe and orderly fashion to meet the goals of its educational program. 1 l DCE/rlh/pe 2) To insure that the resources allocated the Plant Services Director are equitably spent such that no schools are given favoritism for resources over others. The establishment of the priority system, which is in place at the Plant Services Directorate, insures that this happens. It is only through outside pressures and perception of conditions in the past that the Facilities Program of equitable spending is sometimes off-balance. I would recommend that additional resources be given the Plant Services Directorate, such that they approximate at least the regional or national average of the CWE per school district to allow it to maintain its facilities to meet the goals as stated above. A business case recommendation is budgetary impact. is recommended. The overall likely to have an increase in ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 1) The program being evaluated as outlined in the desegregation portion of the Program Budget Document specifically identifies i terns in the Desegregation Plan and Court Orders and ODM Reports that do not give an overall view of the Facilities Program. The Program Budget Document merely responds to specific areas of concern and does not adequately see nor measure the Facilities Program. The Facilities Program is general engineering support to the entire district. As stated on page one of this document, it encompasses all aspects of the engineering program to support the many facilities. It goes far beyond seventeen (17) specific items as outlined in the Budget Document. 2) The data that has been used to analyze this program is simply a tally of work order requests as made by the Facilities' Managers and as recorded by the Plant Services Directorate. All recommendations listed here are considered in the support area. 3) There are no desegregation funds allotted the program under the Little Rock School District budget. This is not a prudent area to be reported, nor commented on for the purposes of monetary programming. DCE/rlh/pe Program Name: Family Life Education (New Futures) EXTENDED EVALUATION DESEGREGATION PROGRAMS Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis 2 Secondary Leader(s): Linda Young Rene' Carson PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: The Family Life Education Program was implemented eight years ago to address the teen pregnancy problem in the Little Rock School District. An educational program was written and begun in the seventh grade eight years ago. Two specialists were hired to teach the junior high program. A module for grades 4-6 was written and begun in five schools. A K-3 program was later written and begun. The staff had increased to four elementary specialists and two junior high specialists at that time. currently, all of the Incentive Schools participate in the program along with the seven area schools and two magnet schools. The staff now consists of two elementary specialists, two junior high specialists, and a half-time coordinator. Purpose: The Family Life Education Program was designed to give the students of our District the correct information regarding their reproductive health, strategi~s to raise self-esteem, help formulate decision-making skills, and develop a feeling of individual importance. Scope and Content: The Family Life Education Program in the District (grades 4-7) has a spiraling curriculum. Each year the program has the following outline: I. Self-esteem II. Decision-making skills III. Communication skills IV. Reproductive Health V. Pregnancy and Birth (7th grade only) Participants/Beneficiaries: All seventh grade students in the District participate in the Family Life Education program through the seventh grade science class. The material is offered in a three week block of instructional time and is taught by two specialists who have received training. There are approximately 2500 seventh grade students served by this program. All incentive schools (five) are involved with the program, along with two magnet schools and eight area schools. Two thousand fourth and fifth grade students are served by the elementary program. PROGRAM GOALS: Family Life Education focuses on the developmental needs of children by addressing the areas of decision making skills, communication skills, self-esteem, and reproductive 3 heal th. The goal of the program is to help children make good decisions which will affect their future well-being. EVALUATION CRITERIA: The program's overall goal is long term. A reduction of or no increase in the number of pregnancies occurring in the district is an ideal goal. Overall good decision making skills shown by the students at school reflects on whether the program has had an impact on students. EVALUATION RESULTS: Evaluation results are based on results reported from Health Services. Objective l.: To provide Family Life Education for the Incentive Schools in grades l.-6 as a part of their Health and Physical Education Program. Discussion l.: Family Life Education is currently being taught in fifth and sixth grades in all of the Incentive Schools. Due to a reduction in staff only fifth and sixth grades could continue to receive instruction. Last year there were no elementary pregnancies in the Incentive Schools. Prior to 1991.-92 there were 15 elementary pregnancies reported by the school nurses. During the 92-93, 93-94 school years, only 2 elementary pregnancies have been reported. Objective 2: To provide Family Life Education for other targeted schools in the Little Rock School District. (7 area schools and two magnet schools) Discussion 2: Nine other schools are involved in the Family Life Program. Carver and King are the two magnet schools that are involved. King was added at semester last year. The area schools are Baseline, Watson, Geyer Springs, Cloverdale, Wilson, Terry, and Fulbright. Two specialists teach the program in all of these schools. Last year there was one elementary pregnancy in the nine school which this program serves. There were three pregnancies reported among students in these schools during the 90-93 school years. One of these students was raped and later reported this incident to the school nurse as a result of activities in Family Life class.The other students came to our District from other schools outside the District. Two of these students had not fully participated in our program. The nurses worked with these students and helped the each one receive necessary medical attention. 4 Objective 3: To provide Family Life Education in all of the Junior High Schools in the District through the seventh grade science classes. Discussion 3: All seventh grade students in the District receive instruction in the Family Life Education program through a three week module taught during their life science class. The classes are taught by two trained specialists. Pre-tests and post-tests have been given to students by the specialists each year since the program has been in operation. With very few exceptions, the students have scored higher on the post-test than the pre-test . Students have also written a verbal assessment of the program. Representative colllll\\ents from the students are as follows: \"Thanks for helping me understand some things about myself.\" \"I never knew about some of things we talked about, and I was embarrassed to talk to my parents about these things.\" \"I appreciate being taught about how to think about making good decisions.\" \"I am glad we had special teachers, I think it would have been hard to ask my regular teacher about sex and stuff. They might think I was bad or something.\" Comments from teachers: \"I don't think I could have taught this material to my students. I am not up-to-date on the information needed for this class. The students ask so many questions that are really specific. I would hate to give them the wrong information. It was probably best that a specialist came and taught my classes. I was able to observe my students and help with the class. I also learned a great deal about the human body.\" \"Thank goodness for special teachers. I am not comfortable teaching this topic. I probably would not have done a very good job because this topic is very difficult to teach.\" \"Our students need this program. I am glad that the District has made a commitment to have special teachers, nurses, and counselors work with our students with issues such as l 5 decision-making, and emotional and physical changes.\" Obstacles to Goal Attainment Objective l: This objective was met for three years, however, due to a budget deficit the staff was reduced. Currently, only the fifth and sixth grades classes continue to be served by specialists. These specialists do not have the time to serve the remaining fifty (50) K- 4 cl~sses along with the classes in the other nine schools. The counselors and nurses have received some training in the area of Family Life Education and were supposed to help teach the curriculum in the lower grades. Many of the counselors and nurses have not set aside the amount of time to teach the program as the specialists did when they were assigned to teach in the lower grades. The continuity of the program is not as evident as it was in the past when the same specialist saw the students over a period of time. The specialists worked closely with counselors and nurses in identifying younger children in possible child abuse situations. The Heal th Advisory Committee of New Futures has proposed an after school program to address postponing sexual involvement or those students targeted as \"at risk\" students. \"At risk\" students have low grades/self-esteem or have mothers who became pregnant as teens or have teenage siblings with babies. The program has not been initiated, but members of the committee have attended a training session. The program will hinge on volunteer efforts and students choosing to participate in the after school program. Objective 2: This objective was reached for three years. Two magnet schools and seven area schools continue to be served by the Family Life Education program. However, due to budget cuts and staff reduction, the services in these schools have also been reduced to just the fifth and sixth grade students. King Magnet School was added to the program last year because many of the students who were attending Ish Elementary enrolled at King. The counselor and nurse participate on a limited basis with the Family Life teacher. Due to the limited availability of the nurse, the problems encountered by the counselors, a complete and thorough program is not always taught in the lower grades. The nurses and counselors have both been involved in staff development 6 regarding family life education, but they often become involved in other school programs which take priority. Objective 3: The program in the junior high schools continues to be taught by two trained specialists. The program continues to be part of the LRSD science curriculum. Every student is held responsible for the program's objectives and is tested on all of the material. Teachers have continually praised our teachers for the excellent program and the professional way the classes are taught. Many have expressed appreciation for the program. Recommendations Recommendation 1: Reinstating the program to grades K-4 would be the most desirable recommendation for the Incentive Schools, but under the current budget constraints this is not a feasible suggestion. Since many of the students in these schools could benefit from attending classes where decision making skills, problem-solving skills, and discussions regarding reproductive health are discussed, implementing the program being studied by the Adolescent Health Advisory Committee and continuing the staff development program offered for the nurses and counselors would be the best recommendation .. Objective 1: Adding personnel to the Family Life Education staff would allow all classes in the Incentive Schools to receive the entire Family Life Education program. Since increasing the staff would cause an increase in the budget for the total program, adding personnel is not an option. Implementing the after school program and expanding staff development opportunities for the nurses and counselors is the best solution for this objective. Evaluation Criteria 1: Continuing to see an extremely low pregnancy rate among the students in these schools would be one effective criteria to use to evaluate the students exposed to our program. Having the students and teachers evaluate our program at the end of the year would give us some input about what the students and teachers think about and want from the program~ Expected Benefits 1: Preventing any child from an early pregnancy would benefit the child, family, District, and State. The AFDC benefits per child per year in the State is $2,290. From birth to 18 years the state spends $41,423 per child. Long term savings would be much greater. ------------------------ 7 Impact Analysis: Desegregation (Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p.156) This recommendation will assist the district in continuing to meet its obligation under the Desegregation Plan. Resource Analysis: The combined salary of the two specialists who teach the program in the Incentive Schools (but also teach in area/magnet schools) totals $58,561 plus travel expenses. Approximately another $2000 is spent on office supplies and copy expenses. The salary of the half-time coordinator is $22, 982. The total salary of the elementary specialists represent approximately 42% of the total salary budget of $137,690 for the Family Life Program. Force Field Analysis: The primary supporters of this program are the parents, teachers, administrators, nurses, and counselors in the school. General Implementation Plan: Ideally, returning this program to the full level of implementation would be an asset for the students in the Incentive Schools. Realistically, budget constraints prohibits this option. Retaining the program at its present level in all of the Incentive Schools is better than elimination of the program. More training needs to done with the counselors and nurses in the area of Family Life Education. This will be done during the spring semester. Recommendation 2: The program in the two magnet schools and the nine area schools should be maintained at the current level of service. Continuing service at the current schools would keep some consistency for the students currently enrolled. Objective 2: Program at the two magnet schools and the nine area schools should at least be maintained at the current level of service. Counselors and nurses need further training in the Family Life Education program and should document the time spent teaching the objectives of the program. This training will be done during the spring semester. Evaluation Criteria 2: Maintaining an extremely low to zero pregnancy rate in the elementary schools would be the ideal criteria. Teachers 8 and students could evaluate the program using a very specific questionnaire. Expected Benefits: Preventing any child from an early pregnancy would benefit the child, family, District, and State. The AFDC benefits per child per year in the State is $2,290. From birth to 18 years the state spends $41,423 per child. Long term savings would be much greater. Impact Analysis: The program in the magnet and area schools is not part of the Desegregation Plan. However, many of the schools have listed the program as part of their school improvement plans. Resources Analysis: The two specialists who teach the program in the Incentive Schools also teach the program in the magnet and area schools. The combined salary of these two specialists total $58,561 plus travel. This is approximately 42% of the total Family Life budget of $137,690. The junior high specialists also teach in three of the area schools. One week each month, the junior high specialists teach in the elementary schools. One-fourth of the salaries of the junior high specialists is $14,036. The total salaries for the complete elementary program is $72,597 or 52% of the total Family Life salary budget of $137,690. Office supplies and copy cost still fall within the $2000 amount listed in objective 1. Force Field Analysis: The primary supporters of this program are the parents, teachers, administrators, nurses, and counselors in the school. Recommendation 3: The Family Life Education program has been a strong component of the seventh grade science program and should continue to be taught by specialists. The two specialists have been able to maintain a strong and upto- date program. Continuation of this program with the current delivery system is very important. The program/content would be eliminated or possible taught incorrectly/improperly if the program is turned over to the regular classroom teacher. Objective 3: This program should be maintained at the current level of support. Two specialists I 9 are employed to teach the classes in all the seventh grade science classes in the District. The two specialists teach approximately 2500 students. Evaluation Criteria 3: Keeping the teen pregnancy rate at a low level would help support the idea that Family Life Education has had an impact on the decision-making processes for the junior high teen. The program will continue using the survey form for both the students and teachers. Expected Benefits: Preventing any student from dropping out of school due to an unexpected pregnancy would be a cost effective benefit. Arkansas ranks very high among states in teen pregnancy statistics. The overall goal for this portion of the New Futures Program is to reduce the pregnancy rate among our students. The chart of statistics for pregnancies in our district shows that the number of pregnancies last year was the lowest in seven years. Our program is now seven years old. Impact Analysis: Postponing sexual activity or preventing an early pregnancy would have an impact on the district as well as the State. Reducing the number of cases of sexually transmitted diseases, teen pregnancies, or the number of low birth weight babies which later becomes a burden on State welfare roles could be an ~conomic factor which needs to be considered. The AFDC benefits per child per year in the State is $2,290. From birth to 18 years the state spends $41,423 per child. Long term savings would be much greater. Resources Analysis: The salary of the two specialists who teach the program in all of our junior high schools plus four other elementary schools totals $56,147 plus travel. Seventy-five (75%) percent of this salary or $42, 110 can be designated as salary expense for the time spent in the junior high schools. The salary for the half-time coordinator is \\$22,982. Office expenses for media, copy cost, and printing of classroom materials is approximately $4,000. 10 Force Field Analysis: The parents, teachers, administrators, nurses, and counselors in the schools are very supportive of the program. To place this program in the hands of the regular classroom teacher could be disastrous. There would not be sufficient control over what is said by the instructor, what videos are shown, or what is allowed to be discussed in the class. This could cause the program to be destroyed. Many of our students would never receive the correct information about their reproductive health, and the myths about sexual behavior will continue to be perpetuated among our teens. I Grade/Race 5th grade African-American 5th grade/White 6th grade African-American 6th grade/White - 7th grade African-American 7th grade/White 8th grade African-American 8th grade/White 9th grade African-American 9th grade/White 10th grade African-American 10th grade/White 11th grade African-American 11th grade/White 12th grade African-American 12th/White Total LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PREGNANCY STATISTICS 87-88 88-89 89-90 90-91 3 2 3 2 * * 0 0 * * 7 8 * * 0 l 56 82 25 20 * * l l * * 31 40 * * 2 5 * * 60 56 * * 6 7 133 146 54 38 * * 7 4 * * 39 42 * * 13 8 186 230 248 232 91-92 92-93 93-94 l 0 0 0 5 0 l 0 0 0 3 8 5 0 0 l 18 20 17 0 0 l 32 35 29 3 3 2 38 51 27 4 5 5 38 48 30 5 7 6 27 44 38 8 8 12 181 230 174 * For the 87-88, 88-89 years - pregnancy statistics not recorded by grade and ethnic groups. 11 12 General Implementation Plan: Beginning in January, 1995, the following activities will occur: Date January, 1995 May, 1995 June, 1995 August, 1995 Sept., 1995 Activity Staff development for Nurses and Counselors Survey teachers, nurses, counselor, and students about issues in the FLE program staff development for specialists, UAMS (no cost) Begin program in schools Staff development for nurses and counselors Persons Responsible Family Life Ed. Staff Family Life Ed. Staff Coordinator of FLE Family Life Ed. Staff Family Life Ed. Staff I 13  Business Case is recommended __ yes no  Plan modification is recommended _yes __ no  overall recommendations are likely to have what type of budgetary impact: No budgetary impact Increased costs - Decreased costs Purpose FEDERAL PROGRAMS PROGRAM EVALUATION Program Description The Office of Federal Programs is a department of the Division of Curriculum and Learning Improvement. Compensatory and support services are provided to students by funds secured through federal, state and other agencies. Scope and Content Program operations are categorized in two broad areas. First, the department develops, implements, monitors and evaluates programs: Chapter 1, ESEA, 1965 - Amended 1994 Chapter 2, ESEA, 1965 - Amended 1994 State Compensatory Education Programs Act, 1990 Eisenhower Math/Science Education Act, 1982 - Amended 1994 Chapter 1, ESEA is the centerpiece of programs in the department. All program services are designed to provide a range of needs and contribute specifically to that effort in areas of early intervention, supplementary reading/language arts and mathematics, and parental involvement. For some students, funding programs contribute to opportun\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1216","title":"Little Rock School District Planning, Research and Evaluation: Extended Program Evaluations","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1994/1995"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","School employees","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District Planning, Research and Evaluation: Extended Program Evaluations"],"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/1216"],"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\nExhibit 310B\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION EXTENDED PROGRAM EVALUATIONS 1994-1995 2 of 2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION EXTENDED PROGRAM EVALUATIONS 1994-1995 2 of 2 NEW FUTURES EXTENDED PROGRAM EVALUATION Program Description Purpose New Futures Pagel In addition to the enrichment programs, Dunbar is a full participant in the New Futures for Little Rock Initiative. (The purpose of the New Futures junior high school restructuring initiative is to establish a school climate, culture and curriculum that is responsive to the developmental needs of early adolescent youth and the particular needs of at-risk students. ( Dunbar is not a participant of the program. This information was filed with the court in a motion to substitute language and provide updated information on May 13, 1993 and approved in a court order dated September 13, 1993. Scope and Content The program focuses on the development and implementation of (1) school restructuring which engages teachers and administrators in the long-term process of expanding their thinking and engage in basic and fundamental changes around issues that affect how they teach and support all students utilizing site-based management, (2) developing and implementing middle school practices and programs, (3) developing and implementing specific intervention programs and practices for at-risk youth through school improvement which may be based on the Effective Schools research. Participants/Bene~iciaries This program impacts the total school community including teachers, students, staff administrators, and parents at each New Futures school. The schools participating in this program are Cloverdale Junior High, Forest Heights Junior High, Pulaski Heights Junior High, and Southwest Junior High School. Program Goa.l I The first goal of the New Futures program is to assist local schools in the process of fundamental change and school reform to redesign schools that can provide success for all students. Specific objectives have been developed in order to specify what is to be accomplished to implement this goal. New Futures Page 2 1. Two heterogenous, interdisciplinary student teams that share a common group of teachers, common space, and common blocks of instructional time for 7th, 8th, and 9th grade students will be established. 2. Incentive programs and partnerships with community businesses to encourage and reward achievement, attendance, and good citizenship will be developed and implemented. 3. Homework Centers will be operational through the After School Program. 4. Tutoring opportunities will be available to students needing assistance through the After School Program. 5. In-school suspension programs will be developed and implemented as an alternative disciplinary response to suspendable actions. Evaluation Criteria The evaluation for the New Futures program will consist of: 1. Student team rosters, identifying team names, agendas, and participant evaluations. 2. Team documentation will reflect program implementation and numbers of students involved. 3. Student participation rosters, implementation of hotline program. 4. Student participation rosters. 5. Alternative disciplinary response to suspendable actions. Evaluation Results Evaluation results reflect data gathered from various sources. These data have been compiled and analyzed and provide the following results, presented in correspondence with each previously stated objective. Objective 1 Two heterogenous, interdisciplinary student teams that share a common group of teachers, common space, and common blocks of instructional time for 7th, 8th, and 9th grade students will be established. New Futures Page 3 At each participating school, the master schedule was developed to provide for two heterogeneous student teams at each grade level. Registrars provided a team roster to each team leader at the beginning of the academic year. No team is 100\\ pure referring to the fact that there are approximately 10-30 students out of a total of 120-150 students on each team that one or more classes on both teams. Each school is designated into team geographic areas either by floor, ramp, or wing. These teams have all the core team classes within a small geographic area. Student team lockers are assigned within this team geographic area. Students move out of the team area for related arts classes and lunch. Team areas are decorated with the team name, bulletin boards, calendar, logo, or theme. All teams have team names, logos, Tshirts, and other identifying strategies. Examples of team names are the WOW team (7th grade:PHJli)\nSkyriders team (7th grade:PHJli)\nPirates team (7th grade:SWJli)\nRed Hots (6th grade:FHJli). See attachment l. Teams have a common planning period each day in which to meet together to discuss student problems, hold joint parent conferences, meet with individual students, develop interdisciplinary units of instruction, and to develop incentive programs for students. All teams maintain team agendas/minutes to serve as a record of their activity. See attachment 2. Steering Committees were established as a way to enhance the teacher leadership being developed through teaming and as a way to begin the practice of effective shared decision making at the local level. Comprehensive training was provided to steering committee members, assistant principals, and principals. Models and decision making models and flow charts were provided as guides in the process. Steering committees maintained minutes and established a self-assessment process to guide the work and process. See attachment 3. During the 1993-1994 school year, staff development activities were conducted to assist local schools in the process of fundamental change and school reform to redesign schools that can provide success for all students. Evaluations of each activity were completed and compiled for review. Participant feedback was positive with 99\\ of the evaluations expressing complete satisfactions with the activity. See attachment 4. Date 7/23/93 Topic Strategic Imperatives _of Restructuring (5 days) Personnel Selected Staff 9/23/93 8/9/93 8/10/93 8/12/93 9/14/93 8/3/93 8/12/93 8/12/93 8/12/93 10/8/93 10/13/93- 12/01/93 10/14/93 10/19/93 10/20/93 10/27/93 11/9/93- 11/10/93 12/14/93- 12/15/93 School-Based Decision Making (3 days) Leadership Training Designing Knowledge Work for Student Success (2 days) Writing Process (2 days) Integration of Skills Understanding At-Risk Youth (2 days) Cooperative Discipline ((2 days) Developing and Implementing Peer Mediation Programs (2 days) Developing and Implementing Advisor/Advisee Programs (2 days) Making Language Meaningful (2 days) On-site technical assistance ( 4 days) Reading Process and Semantic Webbing School Based Decision Making School Based Decision Making Process Communications ( 2 days) Designing Knowledge Work Designing Knowledge Work New Futures Page 4 s t e e r i n g Committees Team Leaders All Staff L e a r n i n g Foundations staff L e a r n i n g Foundations staff Selected Staff Selected Staff Selected Staff Selected Staff Selected Staff L e a r n i n g Foundations staff Selected Staff Principals Assistant Principals Selected Staff Selected Staff Selected Staff 11/10/93 11/7/93 1/18/94 1/19/94- 2/23/94 2/15/94 1-/27/94 3/10/94- 3/11/94 4/5/94- 4/8/94 4/15/93- 4/16/93 School Based Decision Making Collaborative Teaching on-site technical assistance ( 4 days) Designing Knowledge Work ( 6 days) Process Communications Making Language Meaningful Peer Coaching Implementing Peer Coaching Network Leadership Retreat New Futures Page 5 S t e e r i n g Committees Selected Staff Learning Foundations Staff Selected Staff Selected staff Selected Staff Selected Staff Selected Staff Principals, Ass't Principals Team Leaders Conference participation was provided for local school staff primarily through funding from New Futures for Little Rock Youth as follows: 8/14/93- 8/18/93 8/20/93 7/18/93- 7/24/93 11/4/93- 11/7 /93 3/10/94 4/27/94- 4/29/94 12/5/93 National Conference Selected Staff on Peer Mediation UALR Conference of Peer Selected Staff Mediation Middle Level Summer Selected Staff Institute Conference participation selected Staff and presentation at National Middle School Conf. Conference:Drugs,Gangs Selected Staff Violence and Guns Arkansas Middle Level Selected Staff Conference National Restructuring Board/Staff Conference Discussion 1 New Futures Page 6 The results indicate a 100\\ successful implementation of the objectives. A review of the data reveals that interdisciplinary teams functioned effectively. outcomes of teaming include an increase in parent conferences with several teams reporting more than 150 documented team/parent conferences\ndevelopment and implementation of interdisciplinary uni ts across teams and schools\nsite visits by school districts from across the state\npresentations and training provided to other school districts on interdisciplinary teaming\ngrant received by the Carnegie Foundation for one school through the middle grade school state policy initiative for schools who had successfully implemented most of the recommendations of Turning Points\norganizational structure well developed and initial capacity for replication developed\nknowledge gained through training and conference participation resulted in implementation of innovative programming and academic development in which student outcomes were improved\ncollegial support for organizational structure articulated by teachers, local school administrators, parents, and students. A climate that supports innovation, collaboration, and change has been established and reflects the developmental growth experienced i-n these schools. Objective 2 Incentive programs and partnerships with community businesses to encourage and reward achievement, attendance, and good citizenship will be developed and implemented. A Young Professionals Club at Southwest Junior High School was established in cooperation with AP\u0026amp;L Redfield Power Plant to achieve the following objectives: help each child develop a worthwhile self-image by helping he/she find their identity, help all students understand the concept of pride, reduce the number of suspensions, strengthen academic achievement in underachievers, and improve communication skills. The club is open to 7th grade Pirate team students and meets during lunch under the guidance of the Pirate teaching team. A total of 65 students (35 boys and 30 girls) participated. During the first nine weeks, there were zero suspensions for participating students. The third nine weeks there were a total of 3 suspensions for participating students. This program has received national and state recognition as a model program. The Breakfast Club was established by the Wings Team, an 8th grade team at Pulaski Heights Junior High. The club serves all 8th grade black male students. The club meets on a monthly basis during first period. The focus of the group was to raise self-esteem, serve as a mentoring program, and provide motivation to increase academic achievement. Community speakers were invited to present New Futures Page 7 to the group during each meeting. Students were involved in follow up discussion. Assistant principals reported that there was a noticeable decline in the number of disciplinary sanctions against black males since the beginning of the breakfast club. The number of failures was reduced from 7 black males in 1993 to l black male in 1994. This improvement reflects the goals of the Breakfast Club. A Peer Mediation Program was begun by the Wings Teams after receiving training in developing and implementing such a program. Twenty-seven students were trained as Peer Mediators. The students successfully mediated with approximately 110 students. The targeted groups of the program are the student mediators and the students involved in a dispute who participate in the mediation. The student mediators completed two full days of intensive training. In addition, they met with the project coordinators on a weekly basis to further define their skills and help promote the program in the school. These weekly sessions provided an avenue to process the mediations that had taken place so that concerns and weaknesses in the program could be addressed. This portion of the program was integrated into the After School Program. This type of program is nationally recognized as an effective way to reduce conflict and focus on violence prevention. Discussion 2 The interdisciplinary teams across the schools developed and implemented various unique incentive programs to encourage and reward achievement, attendance, and good citizenship. Generally, most teams designed the incentive programs for a nine week period. Teams involved parents by invi~ing them to special ceremonies and assemblies. Teams recognized improvement as well as achievement. Teams also developed extended incentive prograI!lllling and partnerships as the examples above describe. Teams worked with the Parent and Comm~~ity Involvement staff to identify students in need of special services and include their parents in the Family Support Net Progra~, TOUCH Program, GED Program, and HEAL Program. Over 180 students and their families have bee~ involved in these various programs. Teams identified students to participate in an innovative summer program for high risk youth. This program served a dual purpose: practicum experience for teachers on working with high risk adolescents and summer programming for identi~ied s~udents. These students are woven back into support programming such as the after school program, HEAL groups, and case management during the academic year. Objective 3 Homework Centers will be operational through the After School Program. New Futures Page 8 Student participation rosters were maintained for the after school program. Students participated in academic programming, high interest club activities, and the homework center. Transportation and a nutritional snack were provided. The program was operational three days weekly. See attachment 5. Implementation of a hotline program was not implemented as a city wide program is available to students each evening. Discussion 3 The after school program provided students with opportunities to receive additional academic instruction, access to research and reference materials, special enrichment experiences and participation in high interest club activities such Video News clubs, chess clubs, community service clubs, music and theatrical clubs. Transportation was provided for students in this program as well as a nutritional snack. Cloverdale participated with UCA in a teacher preparation program that was included into the after school program. Objective 4 Tutoring opportunities will be available to students needing assistance through the After School Program. Through the after school program, tutoring opportunities were developed and implemented for students. The primary areas of focus were math, reading, and writing skills. Before testing, students participated in test preparation sessions. Some peer tutoring was also included in the program. Discussion 4 The opportunity to receive additional instruction is needed and beneficial for many students. Many of the students in these schools do not have conducive study environments at home nor the support reference materials to complete certain assignments. This program provides at-risk students with an additional opportunity to achieve academic success. Objective 5 An in-school suspension program will be developed and implemented as an alternative disciplinary response to suspendable actions. As an intervention strategy to assist in keeping students in school and continuing their academic work, the in-school suspension program was developed and implemented for category one offenses. Processes have been established to facilitate the communication of student assignments between the teaching staff and the in-school suspension teacher. Quarterly records were maintained noting the New Futures Page 9 number of students assigned to the program, parent contacts and counselor conferences. Quarterly participation ranged from 66 - 143 students each nine weeks. See attachment 6. Discussion 5 The objectives of the in-school suspension program include helping students accept the consequences for their actions, evaluate his/her behavior, and to modify social performance. The program has been successful in keeping large numbers of students in school and continuing their academic work. Teachers and counselors have supported the program by sending assignments in a timely manner and by participating in conferences with students and parents when necessary. The number of repeaters is low compared to the number of students participating ( less than l0t). Ob~tacles to Goal Attainment Objective l The objective of establishing interdisciplinary student teams that share a common group of teacher, common space, and common blocks of instructional time was attained. The computer process used to schedule students onto teams does not provide adequate support for achieving a minimum of students assigned to both teams. Cross teaming of students presents certain programmatic difficulties. More flexibility in the scheduling process would assist in decreasing the problem. Objective 2 The objective of developing incentive programs and partnerships with community businesses to encourage and rewa:::-d achievement, attendance, and good citizenship was attained. Objective 3 The objective of operating homework centers through the After School Program was attained. Objective 4 The objective of providing tutoring opportunities to students needing assistance through the After School Program was attained. Objective 5 The objective of providing in-school suspension programs as an alternative disciplinary response to suspendable actions was attained. Program Goal 2 New Futures Page 10 The second goal of the program is to promote collaboration/ coordination between local school and other youth serving agencies in the community. The following objective was developed in order to specify what is to be accomplished to implement this goal. 1. A school-based case management system will be operational. Evaluation criteria 1. There will be an increased number of students receiving needed services reflected in case management data reports. Evaluation Results Objective 1 There will be an increased number of students -receiving needed services reflected in case management data reports. Since January 1991, New Futures for Little Rock Youth, in partnership with five youth-serving agencies and the Little Rock School District, has sponsored a pilot program that has offered Case Management services to high-risk youth attending targeted junior high schools in the Little Rock School District: Cloverdale, Forest Heights, Pulaski Heights, and Southwest junior highs. Discussion 1 A team of four Case Managers was formed at each school comprised of youth worker employed by community agencies with expertise in addressing problem areas faced by young people, including adolescent pregnancy and parenting, substance abuse, adolescent mental health, youth employment, and poverty. Executive directors of participating agencies and principals of participating schools meet monthly as an advisory, \"roundtable\" to oversee implementation strategies, monitor program activities, identify program strengths and weaknesses and make recommendations for improvements in service to youth and their families. A New futures staff person, the CMST Coordinator, is assigned to each school to organize the functioning of the CMST. See attachment 7. As of August 1~94, 75% (547 out of 734) of the youth who had received on-going case management services showed improved circumstances at case termination. During the 1993-1994 school year, almost 500 youth participated in 27 various school-based support groups, led or co-facilitated by Case Managers. Case New Futures Page 11 Managers organized 26 typed of special events involving 600 at-risk youth participating in the program during the 1993-94 school year. A report of New Futures goals and objectives for the program and results are included. See attachment 8. Obstacles to Goal Attainment Objective 1 The objective of providing more services to students through the case management system was attained. Recommendation 1 It is recommended that the efforts of the New Futures program be focused on maintaining and supporting the current programming at Cloverdale, Forest Heights, Pulaski Heights, and Southwest junior highs and expanding the focus of the program to include supporting and assisting in the development of the district wide middle school planning/implementation process. This recommendation would capitalize on the developed capacity at four junior high schools within the district to support a middle school transition and serve as a planned method of capturing and utilizing the existing resources that exist within the district to support future program efforts for adolescent age students and students at-risk. Objective The objective of this recommendation is to maximize existing capacity within the district at the four junior highs to support institutional change in the area of middle school organization. Evaluation Criteria Existing practices of maintaining team roster, team names, agendas, team documentation, and participant evaluations will be followed. Expected Benefits The District will maintain its collaborative efforts with New Futures while utilizing the benefits of the relationship and the resulting capacity development within the district to support a district wide program which supports school reform and benefits atrisk students. Impact Analysis New Futures Page 12 This recommendation will provide a plan for the district to sustain established capacity while developing a middle school organization across the district. It provides a framework for the district to continue to base planning program development on research and best practice. Resource Analysis The current resource allocation to the existing program will be sufficient to implement this recommendation. Force Field Analysis The primary supporters for this recommendations will be the local school staffs and New Futures Board of Directors. General Implementation Plan 1/95 4/95 4/95 5/95 9/95 - 6/96 Activity Utilize existing capacity to assist middle level planning Meet with principals to examine scheduling needs to maintain teaming Continue staff development efforts Work with data processing to provide support Continue existing programming and support middle school planning Person Responsible New Futures Liaison Selected teachers and principals New Futures Liaison New Futures Liaison New Futures Liaison Principals New Futures Liaison Local school staff ' 1993 Interdisciplinary Teams Cloverdale Jr. High ~ 7 Wonders Untouchables P.A.w.s. Superstars Navigators AirFrosh Forest Heights ~ Red Hots Super 7's Wave News2 Gold Royals Green Royals Pulas~:i Heights ~ Skyriders w.o.w. Firecrackers Wings Superstars A Team Southwest Jr. High Team 7 S.A.I.L.S. Pirates Motionaires Terminators Super Novas Spurs nachaent 1 teau93 Team Leader Trish Poore Tammy Gullett Sue Smith Charles McFadden Nancy Hawking Bill Estes Team Leader Glenn Holloway Nancy Cross Ginger Tuck Leigh Cole Dan Drew Melinda Beggs Team Leader Sammy Grandy Ann Blaylock George Coleman Carol Kaffka Sam Steuart Wayne Knight Team Leader Sherry Lack Bettie Williford Chris Kline Jake Tidmore Charles Moore Jackie Falls Grade 7th 7th 8th 8th 9th 9th Grade 7th 7th 8th 8th 9th 9th Grade 7th 7th 8th 8th 9th 9th Grade 7th 7th 8th 8th 9th 9th I H!NUTES CF TE~H HEETI~G Ti:AM\n, .., Y,A~ (, ~J \\, ..... L . ~( : -1\\--i' ./ ,I IL.., '.  \\ -- , .. ' I ,f  \\ I )\n(,-fj TIHE rm, -~ef2-4-1T-i:-. _-) -,- ------- TEAM LEADER 1-i.....f, 1rj,. -_~c_ _ F RES ENT: L\\,~ I t(,-,,..~ ..\\. - r:,\\ 1 7  :{,-..,-1,-J t.-.C: .{ A c_ __ - -:(. , ...... \u0026gt; t,_, ... , y \\ -    J{..f 11,  1 ., lv _____ OTHERS PRSENT: ----------- -=.j.. -J_ ,)r_:...C_f I_?_/ _  ________ .J\\),z-,i-.,_~_j,{_ -,,_\u0026lt;JJ\"/\\. J.__,rr-c(!h. ( Ot,u'\\ ~~ (':-',,'\\.\n{{,cf.! ( -C L--::. -.__:,t_( ~ ... .,,e 1c .\"\\ \u0026amp; (,, ~('c, , ~A.,t c\\ G .,-., .. ~.4{\u0026amp;.  tcfF.. ,.., ~-i .c. ~.'lt?t ] ---------------------------------- - ------------------------------ --------------------------------- ---- - t\", ,.ll,J i :_.::, ,f L: r J C. .:.,1 1-1~:.i ihG ftff . .JJ ) #:9!/rf4 C/ ) Jo \u0026lt;{S-DATE TIME -.L..~'-\"-+'~\"--:--------- ~ l p / ------------------ OTHERS PRESE:HT: 11~ s (. v~ ~ ~~ c~ '. - ~r~~ ,: cO _t.fj::. cl, i.k Vr, ~\\, ho. .... , ~ry- -~~~.,\n::\n...\n...-....\n...-.\n._______,.,....~~--~-_,_ _. .\n_\\.-\"\"_~ (_ _\n_~-,,-\u0026lt;'\u0026gt;_ _\n...,~f~-1 ~-y,f- f#f.~\"', e,(:L))A..f- 6.. e-M 1ft cOl,R/r u L 1 lf --------------------------- --- ) SKYRIDER5 TEAM MEETING JANUARY 26, 1994 1 1 :00 A.M. / ROOM 307 AGENDA 1. MINUTES FROM HIE LAST MEETING c'.iJ...1,,\u0026lt;t lo..te. ~?cv\n.,-, c. aJ 2. STEERING C,OMMITTEE ME~TING ( TODAY )~ Ge~ C,.c,~t-J tr.a!:~ --~ :- St-\u0026gt;c~-=- c..1.o,-a.1cs it..1J'(:'u.Yi1T?,-s GFIY\\.(..~i r vs Cof'y\"-'\\_, O\"'o.-.J\u0026gt;rA- -,r,. :~ -~--.l,-,-L.:.~ - n,\n,, r~1c~. - Sc:c.: 1=, -Mf- . 3. ABOUT FACE ASSEMBLY - 4. DETENTION CENTER ASSEMBLY 5. BLACK HISTORY COMMITTEE 6. TARDY COMMITTEE 7. FUNDRA I SER pv-k . 8. ASSIGNMENT NOTEBOOKS 9. USE OF TEAM MONEY 10. INTERDISCIPLINARY TEACHING -Ceq~ tf 1~ 1 1. HOMEWORK BASH 111\n).Q OC\u0026gt; .ef-\n-{ ..,, , , 12. STUDENT CONFERENCES 13. OTHER ) MINUTES OF TEAM MEETING J/l d --z /,'rl) DATE ~,-,.- 'J. \n.I/ _j_ / TIME TEAM LEADER~ ___ .. MEMBERS PRESENT:~LO\"\"\"...,n'.\n.f ____ _ u ',0'33 ( \"T\nQQ\u0026lt;-Yj QI f.Q' ._-, ::_ __________ . .j A5enda 0 Mi md cs -t,ofY) } as1 we e.k.- ------. AZ .. SOtmiWEST JUNIOR HIGH SOiCOL STEERIJ\\IG C'CM-!ITI'EE MEETING N\u0026lt;NE11BER 11, 1993 AGENDA I. OLD BUSINESS - REPORTS FRCM CCMMITTEES A. PURPOSE/VISION - KLINE/MOORE B. ROLES/EXPECTATIONS - BARNES/COLEMAN/MUNNS C. PRcx::ESS - TICMORE ( (!.::,,-1~,.._.5.,.s) /Ut.3 D. INTERRELATIONALSHIP 0-!ARTS/GRAPHS - FALLS/WILLIFORD/BOLDEN ('IO BE PRESENTED NEXT 'IHURSDAY) II. NEW BUSINESS A. EQUITY MONI'IORIJ\\IG - DECD1BER 9 , 19 9 3 - SMI'.IH ..,. 8 /!JNC, {:,1~ B. ASSIQ.MENI'S FOR STUDEI.TS IN ISSP - BARNES.- I STEL/!-1L, ,v/\nc:.,.,.._n-.H'T\"i.E /f. R~fo5E- 1/2:. SJ~ ,v - ,Ct Po 1\u0026lt;.-r _,,,..,,, 14:, / j/JvC' ~IC -:t. r )fervu2. fc.~'-l A-r,.JI) ~C,\nU',1-.t -\n, /V F, ~ - -- 5\n-ak.,.r-f ~ CtJ#f PK/ TTE /II vu ~672--S: . ... Ms, . n/,-.1,. 1 5:. . r . . ft(~. g ,f-lT.,,./c-~ ./t(Jz. /\u0026lt;L1r-le Ak5, .)1LL1,Fr:llzb ft{Jz5. Ct:JLEM~ /ti t , r-,,,, L-L. S'.-~ - 7,:-\"\"J~-'7kc ,M/zL /soi...JE\"~ ,\nJ\u0026amp;.u~f/ ~1-~r/i37'l...S t,vli-l- ,t3E ,::Jv'T 7?.)/\n,\n'!Af -\nSLE-vfSc /11-5_\n/1/2.\u0026gt; \u0026amp;r-J 7L:J \"/~ fit~~\nZ c /J ok rs ,F}a\n,,v-- (!.LJ//'. vt.,, 77Ee...5 .A, )\u0026gt;u,z?~s./Vi'S1t\nr,.i - Mk.f-::.L1,-.J 5af7\"~'\u0026gt; L.\\.uE TD r1-/-6 Ms5,-,0eE ~F ,\n,1-.JE- J'r 7?/5,..k:. n-t ~/-\u0026amp;E::,h _ A / Fv. I.-'-- /z:.Yo.kT b-_,) 1 /....I..- AG\" Ou ...,. c3,,J ,.If 7 /'/1 t.. ~n=A= M?c.,, 1/4\"' l::\u0026gt;16 67/VC M-~ ovt:?k.1,r11:,Je 6., /z.aL-17~ /~ /\u0026gt;e~r,,-1 ~u,,...,5 - // t:o/'Y .o\n=- ,7?\n/c /z,\n-/\u0026gt;l'hZ.7 t,,vd:S 6, t v'c-7' 7o ,M.,/?1--//BGks rkE5t:.-=-7T ~ ~ ) /U) c..~ ., pt.(~, ...i 5. )L.e-4. b / r r 0 ~c.5 7\n, ,-...1 5 (/.J/37'z. ,!:3-1'.J 7-k.7/1/rJ\u0026amp;-_L) c /t/)c.s~ b'-.J11... .\n,/r~k\u0026lt;l ~ C,\u0026amp;,,..\nc.E-,t,...J wA-\u0026gt; 4-hl::}il::\"ss\u0026amp;~ ~r /ll\u0026gt;-61-~6- 7o '7/\n ,G.\u0026gt;c/'c~,~~l:5 1,,1.\n..\nh5k.... 7~ l-C,+h1t,--=h.s - 1~. ,4--s.s,,s.r v\u0026lt;J/r,,y\nr,,y,e ()\u0026amp;,/5Lc?E\nr\u0026lt;JT er- T~ d-~~A,, ,d/k, Jl--ct?J~.k-G\" 5/,,f-7236 b'Jlr~ ,,1 /\u0026gt;\"'1kE?\u0026lt;.)7 ,,,.~\u0026amp;. /S.. ?kcse/..J r -Wcr ~ 11c ~ L...D 2.E c:\n, ~v b-1 ,4 t.v/\u0026gt; y -r,::\n1:,/V,\"1-/ / N: vU tft7rdGt.. 7 tY ?7 //ff1/8 /'f7\u0026lt;J Y ~ uz\n=s 7\nc .,....:,~ ,::\n1:-_ -5\n,,t\u0026amp;.6:=E,/ o,,us\n~ t,,, ? lc.OC,ES5- 11,,(k, r f\u0026gt;pz,tc\n,,~c :Sr~?'E-.1::i M- l-.et\u0026gt;okT ~OvlL-~ AE 4v\".\n111.-ML AT /I L,,?l'\"E/C 6/1-TE: //411~. }!-L-1/J~ /JU\nbS'~~_s /\n-/J\u0026gt;I-T /i1/r bF.crS:ro...J . i l 1 II MA--/L,rJ6c. Fok~A-T ~/~,?\n1-1../.-/) BG 8- /~T r,tJk\n,:.r..ef L/ D //0,5uk. r#?fr C-,o~b'z,,._J~~~ut:...S /IA-.c 41\u0026gt;Jkc~~z=d ./  A-, tJk.bElc.L '( /t,,(~,tA.J,1--)f\n-k_ b \"\n:\n:\n.\nr\u0026amp;kkLA-v\u0026amp;?/'-'Sh\"o\u0026amp;l c' ,y/l-k:r5/\u0026amp;kA/-)//~ - //4.Ji L (... ~ t3 ~ lz ES\u0026amp;-:.\" c:-..2::. .4T A- L.\"'17 z::-.k 2.) A-TE f.\nJ GvJ lg t.\u0026lt;\u0026lt;\u0026gt;-,-/,,.J~\u0026lt;,. _!\n. .,4. Gf,u1 ry fllo~,r~k,,~k - DE-f\"'J. '7 ~w~, Svtt/n:,/ 5 / ,/-7'c32) //1/d T 7 ~ :=\u0026gt;ij-,:JU L ~ //~ -cv'\u0026amp;e,yT/// Al::\"t_ /,,.) /\u0026gt; L/lt-~ rkri.)1t. /Z' mdr br1 Ti=.., .:Srr-5 /4!3 Ln 7c-~ -r?rE / ~,,,.( /,!?k~c.E ,t)r LJc\n~ ~ ,gJ v\u0026amp;-~ 7\"tf /Z.E?Ob/~.T ~ ~b .5ukc //'4-f-T Ji= /1-,+vf. --U-JL~ (!_Ake t)F bcr/C:re,\u0026lt;-Jc=,-E-_s ,..._Jo~d\n~~~ v1511~/z.5 ~.1/-y A,E ?lcl3-5G\u0026lt;JT ,,,f-r ~\ny 7/~c ,? /l rt\u0026gt; k I c 771-c ,/4.,{ c ,\n-,, Tc:: k,, ,\n.-\u0026gt;6__. fs. /4'5\u0026gt; S r~,J/Mr\n~T.:S Ft:Jlr- 57ub~T.S. 1,,J -L-~ S ,r- /1,( ~. ~4-)~E-S. f/-A5 ,,f,s/t::E~ 7\"/r'~ r ~.-,/.//- /.'.'.'.G,/~,,b /ZhU//04 7\u0026amp;4-e..tVE..r~.5 TZ ,P,~v,6,e ,,-15S/~~G\"'C5 p,-J If kc6~ L,4k ~,1-s /\n. .l,,P/7'c~ /WJ?/AC:Avc,,J -~ /\n--~ Gi:\u0026gt; / .,.J Yi?~ .8.o.x.. t'/4\"',..z. 4{\"c))it Su.?_.-A.?7.k ,,. c=...6 -m,,. s A Y 1s,k-,,,,cJt5-r.,,~/4_ 1,A) /,1/E :5~c ~~,,,VL\u0026amp;t,..,._J /=-kb,L,J- /x'k.. C#EW?7~ .fJff .d/k\u0026gt; - ?~/?\n./ #-~ ,,f- /z:E~.Rw.~.Jbr??.tJ..-J 77#-r 7fi n-1 /T #FcA, \u0026lt;,w:f\nt\nPb,\n,? ~ }z~~.Gl\u0026gt;,,,,-v.a,...J /:\u0026gt;d-e,,.e.13-~ t/4-J /5i3 ~~t:\n=-_l) -0 /,'G~r ::5 7.w.b~zs '?/4,,+e77e SIL t-L~ A-~JJ ~/rE-~,,T C\nf-rJ ,g c G, ,//5?\"-J: -\n~- yU ~ E\ne..r\nFak._ ,4-/',PkoyA -L , _JJ7:- .!Uh. 1- u,.J~ ,P,1s5~ tf/L,t_ 'T $1,JFo~7r~_,,..j t9\n-) A-/=!Ek!\u0026gt;t::/.,t.oaL- r Jz o 6-,.k l}-y-v-- ,4--,,J ~ /3\n\u0026lt;.~ 5 c ff Eb K L. ~ s . ,, Ii I 1. Knowledge Work Project Total Evaluations 1993-94 /-Irr. '1 This group has facilitated my teaching techniques and ideas to another positive level. I believe only in the workshop atmosphere with other teams, could we have learned, been motivated, and expected to achieve the success we so desired. Meeting once a month was a constant and motivating factor in addressing new and innovative ways for kids to achieve emotional, social, as well as educational success. 2. The entire workshop on the whole was informative and creatively delivered. Sharing with teachers from other schools and our own gives a dynamic twist to it. The workshop presented a lot of thought and interaction. I really recommend that it be offered again. Since a few teachers dropped out due to the time consumed, perhaps a statement of their involvement when recruiting would help reduce dropouts. 3. 4. For the workshop as a whole, I've learned some new strategies to teach the work, and that I was already doing some of the strategies in my classroom. It's good to learn something new, but it also feels good to know you're doing something right. What a confidence builder. When planning units and activities I try to build in some of the qualities we have learned about. I think this has been very good for me personally. I believe the information gained is very useful and am excited about sharing it with others in my building. Personally, I would come to this training after school but I don't think many teachers would. 5. The fact that we have planned to present to our school shows we understand and will use the information we have studied this year. I've learned to focus on the work not the kids when preparing lessons. I needed this! 6. The knowledge work workshops have been extremely beneficial for me. I look at my lessons in an entirely different way, knowing what to build into a lesson to make it more interesting and relevant for students is very important. Not only does it make the student enjoy and value my class more, but it also helps with discipline! If a child is interested in the learning, he is less likely to get in trouble. Thank you! 7. With continued innovative training and sharing, we continue to be successful classroom teachers. The team concept and approach has created a new dimension to student learning and successes. l ! ~owledg Work Project Total Evaluation  by Participant 1993-94 /f#.4 8. Pluses: outstanding facilitator. I felt that I learned something about \"how\" I teach, not \"what\" I teach. Though good teachers use these qualities all the time, it has been an important tool in assessing my teaching. This course has served as an invaluable tool for me. I'm sure other teachers have and will gain from this experience. All objectives were met. Wishes: I realize that monthly meetings help generate new. concepts or reassess the qualities throughout the year, however I wish that we could do this in a shorter time span. 9. I have learned a lot from sharing with other teachers in the district what they have tried that works and what does not work. 10. This workshop has provided a resource so that I can design classroom activities to help engage students in the learning process. The work has also made me aware of qualities needed in order to create true classroom knowledge work. 11. During the process of these meetings, I was able to recognize the qualities that are needed to help make a more-effective lesson. Methods to get the students involved in learning are needed daily to meet expectations of today's society. I really enjoyed being able to share information and ideas with others who have had success in the teaching field. I gained valuable information that I can use daily in my classroom. 12. I feel I can articulate the objectives and qualities of knowledge work to others. I have enjoyed affiliating with others and learning strategies which have helped me in planning dynamic activities. I feel you would get more for your money if homework were given to the teachers. Assess teachers and make them accountable for actually using -che ideas in their schools  and classrooms. If we have these opportunities we should use them for what they are and not just as a day away from the students. 13. Fully understood the concepts of knowledge work. I will be able to identify design work for students. As facilitator can share and assess the degree of engagement of work of students. Share the success of design of knowledge work. The collaboration of planning was wonderful. 2 Xnowledge Work Project Total Evaluation by Participant 1993-94 ff{{.'1 14. The workshop has enabled me to feel confident in sharing and modelling actual knowledge work. Helped me to engage students in knowledge work and also design work for students to use. Given me time to associate and share with fellow teachers, as well as, involve resource people from the community. Can identify and assess the degree to which my students are engaged int he work and share examples. 15. I think the time was well spent. I learned many new techniques that I have and will implement in my classes. This has taught me to take the work load off of myself and put more responsibility on the students. I especially like the fact that students will be given choices: This will give the students more ownership in their work and more students will do it and be proud of it! 16. I believe we fully met the first three outcomes that are listed as well as the last two outcomes. I'm still having trouble with modifying variables. I believe that this workshop will cause me to strive for better prepared iessons and assignments. 17. We shared our successes which is always helpful. Practical discussion always counts more than theory. Most importantly, the knowledge work that we design will echo the activities of the other teachers involved. Hopefully kids will end up getting a majority of tasks designed with these qualities. We are now able to take this school wide. I think this is a project with a great potential for continuing, because of its's great practicability. 18. I think to be able to identify in work designed for students there can be some qualities that result in student's being engaged with the work. After working on this workshop I have been able to assess the degree to which students have been engaged. Thank you. 19. This workshop has enabled me to: to articulate and produce knowledge work. Engage students in knowledge work. I am able to design work for students use. We are able to identify and engage outside agencies in .community ~s facilitator. Assess knowledge work. Plan and solve problems individually and collaboratively.  20. The workshop has enabled me to articulate and produce J Jtnovledge Work Project Total Evaluation  by Participant  1993-94 /fff. T knowledge work. Engage students in knowledge work. I am able to design work for students to use. We are able to involve and identify outside agencies and community as facilitator. Assess knowledge work. Collaborative planning and problem solving. 4 rt: t:: The following is a compilation of pluses and wishes from the Leadership Retreat April 15-16, 1994. The leadership consisted of Principals, Assistant Principals, Team leaders or their designee, and the Steering Committee Chairpersons of the four restructuring schools. PLUSES~ ANYTHING YOU LIKED. 1. 2. 3. The ability of this group to be a open and honest about what is best for kids. What changes need to take place with staff to reach students. These are great dedicated people. I will miss this. Quality time to work on goals and action plans for our school. This meeting met our needs as well as or better than .!!.DY we have attended. Thanks to Linda Young! The entire day we had to work with our school team and focus on our plan for 94-95 was very beneficial. We were able to discuss some issues that we had previously swept aside, and we discussed some \"small\" things we could do this year to help with the 11big11 things next year. As usual, the food at the Red Apple was great. Thanks Linda and Gail for arranging a great retreat! 1. 2. 3. More discussion on strategies of delivery of instruction for students with low ability. The  assurance that these opportunities will continue for staff. None!! Excellent opportunity for work. We 1eed to continue these opportunit es. I really do not have any wishes for this retreat. I will just look forward to the next planning session! PLUSES - ANYTHING 4. 5. 6. 7. I like having the time to discuss school improvement and steps that can be followed to reach specific goals set out in our school COE plan. The communication was great! Sharing ideas with other schools. Emphasis on school planning of obtainable programs. Cooperation between administrator and staff. Uninterrupted time together to work through ideas. Sharing of ideas with other schools. Great! Looking intensely at the COE plan to evaluate and reinstated goals. When we shared with the different schools on what we are each doing positive. Dividing into our individual schools and talking about what we are going to do to improve staff morale. Things we planned to get parental involvement. 4. 5. 6. 7. I would like to have met more with teachers from other schools to share ideas and successes, but the day with our own school was great! These workshops help define goals, reestablish team and faculty successes. overall, I feel this workshop was very successful in meeting many needs. Hore time together. Hore resources to provide incentives for performance and behavior. Continued availability of team planning time. Nothing - I thought the time was refreshing, profitable and laid back all at the same time. Continued support in our endeavors to reach kids who have high needs. Nothing, really!! I was pleased with all we did. 8. The agendas of the meeting were excellent. I liked the format of the meetings as it allowed for group sharing and ample time for our school to work together independently. An excellent retreat. 9. Great opportunity to address an area we have skirted around for too long. Good progress made, an opportunity to get our thoughts in order. 10. Support system for new teachers and other staff. Students given an opportunity to have success in what every stage of development they are currently in. 11. Excellent accommodations - good food, great rooms. Well-planned agenda\neverything flowed very smoothly. Forest Heights group had a really productive and enlightening session. 12. I really enjoyed the school time. We were able to accomplish a lot of good work. Work that could not have been done in Little Rock with all our other distractions. (family, home, kids, etc ... ) 13. Our own agenda. B. My room was too warm last night/my fault/too lazy to adjust the temperature. 9. None. 10. Follow through on very welldeveloped plans. More inter team coordination. 11. I wish the cross-school sharing time had been a little more structured. We seemed to have been a little confused about our end goal coming out of the starting gate. 12. N/A. 13. We really need more time -- as usual. PLUSES - ANYTH:J:t~G 14. We got to work together with our colleagues in our school. We accomplished so many positive ideas for our school and our students. We were united for one idea - our goal. 15. It was great to be afforded the opportunity to get .2!!.t, of LR for our retreat. A lot of progress came out of this meeting. It's a fact, I believe this was the best meeting I've attended all year. 16. Time to share with our faculty members as a group. We were able to accomplish a great deal. 17. + Working with my fellow co-workers in a relaxed productive manner. + Accommodations. + Swap Session 14. Nothing. 15. This meeting was everything I wanted it to be. 16. We could have more retreats or workshops strictly for planning school acthrities and strategies. 17. More time. PLUSES - ANYTHING YOU 18. This retreat enabled me to have a better understanding of the other faculty members' attitudes toward certain issues. I had a wonderful time. 19. Sharing ideas as a group. I believe we accomplished what we set out to do. 20. Sharing. 21. I preferred this retreat to others because of the fact that we were allowed to work within our own school issues. 18. I liked the individual schools having the all-day session. We were able to relax~ discuss, and key in some key issues affecting our schools. We were able to accomplish a great deal of concerns. It was good for the fellowship (camaraderie) among the administrators and staff. (Thanks). The sharing of interdisciplinary ideas and units was very helpful. These and other ideas are valuable resources in making our approach to educating our children to be successful. These can provide exciting classroom experiences. 19. None. 20. Longer time. 21. None. PLUSES - ANYTHiNG YOU LIKED. 22. I preferred leaving here with some very distinct and workable solutions for the remainder of this school year to address a problem of tremendous concern for central office at present(# of discipline sanctions). Finally, we have a motto intact and a VISION!! I feel as if we are really moving forward. Enjoyed freedom to develop our own agenda - One of the best ones we've had. 23. We formed a vision statement. We had time to make some workable plans for alternative discipline. 24. I really enjoyed the commitment and excitement generated by the Southwest Jr. High Staff. We dealt with critical issues (1) absenteeism, (2) student/ teacher conflict, (3) discipline with dignity. our staff participation was excellent. We have developed a plan that can truly work. We enjoyed the team effort. 26. I enjoyed meeting with members of my school and trying to come up with solutions for problems, concerns of our school. 22. Too little time - passed too auicklyl! Didn't get up and run this am! (but felt good to sleep in.) 23. None. 25. None. 26. I wish we could have shared our ideas with the other schools. PLUSES 27. Everything - it was one of the best, productive retreats I've been too. 28. Today was super! I only wish that we could do this more often. This weekend was so beneficial to all of us. Working together to help our building to be better is what we're all about ... Making kids feel good about themselves and the school is very important! 29. I liked our goal: To suggest action steps to coordinate and unify the work of the steering committee and school staff members. (T-shirts - love it). 30. The valuable insight of the team leaders. The ability to plan for the future. The opportunity to have research available to offer a strong knowledge base for effective planning. 31. Atmosphere was great for sharing. 27. That the District would listen to us as well as just look at numbers!! We're now just statistics. What if Columbus had turned around and quit? 28. Wish we could do this morel Great Weekend! {Smile face.) 29. None. 30. \"I loved it\" {Smile face.) 31. Wish we could have met with the other schools after we met. It was great. PLUSES - 32. I enjoyed the time with staff - It would 32. None. be nice if we could meet twice per year. I think the steering committee has taken shape and is functioning well. We were able to put together some ideas that will, I am sure help our kids be more successful in school. Thanks for the opportunity. 33. I feel that I got more out of this 33. None. year's retreat than any other. The time spent Saturday was most productive and the Friday session helps us get an opportunity to applaud, assist and encourage each other. 34. I liked the time to plan with individual 34. None. schools. The time was well spent. Enjoyed the day. 35. Teachers sharing successful strategies 35. This was a great meeting! on how to reduce discipline problems and Thanks. improving academic performance is a very good concept. I really liked the ideas of letting teachers who are not team leaders attend the retreat. PLUSES - ANYTHING YOU LIKED. 36. Being able to come together as a team, working together, for a common goal, I feel, increased productivity on the part of teachers and students. students know that we caret We have less behavior problems because many minor problems are dealt with within the team. I see next year as a real opportunity, as we try to go full-force into the advisor-advisee program. 37. As a new team leader and a teacher new to the teaming approach, I am again very impressed with the support and time dedicated to making the re-structured approach work! I find this time with other staff and administrators to be extremely valuable and encouraging. The \"swap\" time last night gave me~ good ideas and the all day planning session today helped our staff design and begin to implement and wonderful new advisoradvisee program. Pulaski Heights is truly on the \"cutting edge\" of the restructuring movement. 38. Having time to develop a plan that we WILL use. Without the planning time, to develop programs (s) for increasing successful strategies for ALL students would be impossible and more students would fall through the educational cracks. 36. None. 37. None. 38. Hore planning time for schools to develop more successful strategies for all students! PLUSES - ANYTHING YOU LIKED. _, . -::::-\n~:l . . . . 39. I really liked the format this year. it is so helpful to get together with other teachers for idea exchanges. 40. Share sessions to find out about successful team activities that other schools are using to keep students in school and provide motivation for learning. Example: Discussed\nA. Interdisciplinary units. B. Conflict resolution - peer mediation. c. Block Scheduling. 2. Time for school planning - plans for small group setting - Advisor-Advisee. 41. The format was extremely beneficial. It was such that individual schools had 42. time to plan for the upcoming year after hearing on the previous night the successful interventions and programs being implemented in other schools. It was an excellent time to be creative, to dream, to take risks with brainstorming for better schools next year. Lots of definite plans with deadlines were established. Ended up with a product! Had an opportunity to plan a program that designed to reach~ of our kids. relaxed atmosphere promotes ideas. is The 39. Chances for more swap sessions during the school year. 40. All was valuable - need this time more often. 41. I think that the goals established were met, and an appreciation for our teams was renewed. Thanks for the opportunity. 42. Didn't have enough time to get everything done that needs to be done. PLUSES - ANYTHING YOU LIKED. 43. Great atmosphere - Extremely conducive to brainstorming and getting things done. Our group was close and on task in planning for the future and working for an even more effective learning environment. Hass meeting of sharing with other schools gave some great ideas that might be used at our own learning center. The New Futures Restructured schools seem to go all the way for the benefit of the whole child. 44. The accommodations and format for the weekend was great! The initiatives promoted by the restructuring schools are paramount to ensure the students' needs for tomorrow. The environment created allows teachers and students to work towards addressing the complex issues and challenges that today's society presents to our kids. Not only can we provide academic instructions, but we can assist the students with their growth a,~ maturation in becoming contributing citizens of our community. 45. Having the opportunity to work and plan strategies to help students achieve their potential - restructuring has allowed us to spend the time before implementation thinking about and planning our activities. 43. Longer sessions - possibly the use of audio visual material next time i.e. examples ' on tape of what was used at other schools or slides. 45. Time for a round of golf! 46. That we had more opportunities to plan like this during the school year - away from the day to day hassle. rr n . :.\u0026gt; CLOVERDALE JR HIGH AFTER 50-iOOL PROGRAM 1JiAME f1!AMf 1.t2t ~IEAM GPA 1 '1W GPA 2 ffi AII. ADKINS JERMAlNE 897813 9 NAV 2.57 2.87 EX ALLEN CEDRIC 913929 9 NAY 1.14 0.857 GOOD ALLEN SHONEY 167292 8 STARS 2.0 2.714 EX AWSON SHARONDA 166990 8 PAWS 2.83 3.167 EX ASHFORD JOHNNY 919538 8 PAWS 1.71 2.167 EX AYERS TIFFIN! 894198 7 UNTOUC 3.14 3.5 EX BAKER DEUNDRA 878038 7 7WOND 3.714 3.714 EX BEVERLEY TANESHIA 898261 9 NAV 3.14 2.571 GOOD BIDDLE ELIZABETH 914141 7 UNTOUC 4.0 4.0 EX BIWNGS JAVIA 931601 9 AFROSH 0.857 1.0 AV BIVENS RONNIESHA 164323 9 AFROSH 3.428 3.0 GOOD BLACK AL 937715 8 STARS 2.428 1.714 GOOD BLACKMON ARLESHIA 898297 8 STARS 2.5 3.333 EX BRENT LAVAR 914272 9 NAV 2.0 1.857 GOOD BROWN ROY 914404 9 NAV 2.0 2.0 AV BROWN SHAMEKA 898608 8 STARS 3.5 3.333 GOOD BUCKLEY RASHAWN 896737 9 NAV 2.857 3.286 EX BUFORD TINIKA 951774 8 PAWS 2.142 1.857 GOOD BURGESS SHELENA 892140 8 STARS 2.857 3.0 GOOD CALAHAN CHERRY 899103 9 NAV 3.571 3.571 EX CARTER ERICA 896872 7 7WOND 3.571 3.429 EX COGSHELL LAKISHA 899047 8 STARS 2.714 3.286 EX COMBS BEVERLY 899099 7 7WOND 3.285 3.0 GOOD COOPER SHANDTELL 168677 7 7WOND 0.428 1.5 EX COTTRELL LAKENYA 935376 9 NAV 3.167 3.167 EX COVINGTON HENRY 905510 9 AFROSH 2.714 1.571 GOOD CRAFT BRANDON 907074 7 7WOND 4.0 4.0 PERFECT CUNNINGHAM CASEY 165867 7 UNTOUC 1.857 1.714 GOOD DANIEL ROBERT 959568 9 AFROSH 2.285 1.571 GOOD DAVIS DEERICA 924963 7 7WOND 2.857 3.143 GOOD DEDNER TAMEKIA 899412 8 STARS 3.428 3.286 EX DEPRIEST GILLAN 909808 7 7WOND 3.428 3.286 EX DINWIDDLE CARLA 894060 7 UNTOUC 1.571 1.143 GOOD DIXON NIHISSA 890167 7 UNTOUC 3.0 3.667 PERFECT DRAKE DEDE 894505 7 UNTOUC 1.571 0.286 GOOD DUNCAN SHAWN 912593 7 7WOND 3.428 3.714 EX FLOWERS ANGELA 164265 9 NAV 0.143 0.143 POOR FLOWERS DIONDRA 896585 7 UNTOUC 3.714 3.286 EX FLOWERS KELANI 899888 7 UNTOUC 3.571 3.429 EX FRANKS SHARONDA 155075 9 NAV 3.5 3.5 GOOD FURGUERSON BILLY 900054 9 NAV 2.43 2.143 AV GARMON SHAMARRA 920200 8 PAWS 3.0 3.0 EX GIBSON ANDREW 163180 9 NAV 1.571 1.571 POOR GIBSON SIOBHAN 926399 8 STARS 3.0 2.714 EX GILL DARYL 900156 7 7WOND 3.428 2.0 EX GRIST RATHA 953000 9 NAV 3.571 3.571 GOOD HALL ALVIS 900405 9 AFROSH 3.285 3.429 EX HALL KIM 900424 7 UNTOUC 2.857 2.0 GOOD HAMMOND DAQUAN 908896 7 UNTOUC 2.0 1.286 EX CLOVERDALE JR. HIGH AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAM ~ FNAME .IQI. SIB IEAM GPA 1 9W GPA 2 9W ATT. HAMPTON BRANDON 900455 7 7WOND 4.0 3.333 EX HARRIS DEMARIUS 908916 9 NAV 1.857 1.429 EX HARRIS KIM 900539 8 STARS 2.857 3.0 GOOD HOLLEY TERRENCE 900820 8 PAWS 1.857 2.0 GOOD HOWARD April 164'150 7 7WOND 2.0 0.857 AV HURD CEDRIC 166967 9 NAV 3.285 2.429 GOOD HYMES KAREN 929676 7 7WOND 3.428 3.0 EX IRELAND CHERONDA 900980 8 PAWS 3.857 3.857 EX JACKSON LAFANTA 951955 7 UNTOUC 2.285 3.143 EX JACKSON TARSALON 901039 8 PAWS 2.428 2.571 PERFECT JOHNSON CAMEL.A 164'195 8 PAWS 2.857 3.0 EX JOHNSON MISTI 914\"147 7 UNTOUC 2.714 3.429 EX JOLLY LISA 907959 7 7WOND 3.714 3.714 EX JORDAN JAMES 892787 8 STARS 2.857 2.857 GOOD JORDAN YULANDA 166700 9 NAV 3.333 2.5 GOOD KING DEON 930003 7 7WOND 3.71\"1 3.429 GOOD LANIGAN ANTONIO 166701 9 AFROSH 3.0 3.714 EX LEE DWAYNE 901634 7 7WOND 3.429 2.286 PERFECT LONGLEY YOLANDA 901796 7 UNTOUC 3.429 3.429 EX LOVE JANA 901802 7 UNTOUC 2.587 2.833 EX LOVE NASHA 896558 8 STARS 2.285 3.143 GOOD LOVE TASHANA 155183 7 UNTOUC 2.285 1.714 EX  i MADISON LATRESHA 895011 7 7WOND 1.428 0.571 POOR MARBLEY NINA 891703 7 7WOND 3.571 3.571 GOOD t.4ARTIN ELONDA 914314 7 UNTOUC 2.285 2.143 GOOD MCCUNTON GREGORY 952953 8 PAWS 2.142 2.0 GOOD MCCUNTON KENYU 952952 9 NAV 3.142 2.0 GOOD MCCRARY SHAWNECE 902107 8 PAWS 3.142 3.286 GOOD MCGILL CHASTITY 926191 8 STARS 2.142 2.857 EX MCMILLAN JACQUELYN 902190 7 UNTOUC 3.5 3.0 EX MILLER ROBIN 959747 7 UNTOUC 4.0 4 EX NORFLEET ROSALYN 162033 9 NAV 1.285 1.857 EX PARKER CHINNAILL 951421 7 7WOND 2.0 2.286 GOOD PARKER TERRELL 902833 8 STARS 1.857 1.286 GOOD PATRICK BRODERICK 937179 9 AFROSH 2.428 1.571 GOOD PATRICK TOYRAN 896311 7 7WOND 3.714 4.0 EX PORTER ALBERT 153682 9 NAV 2 0.741 AV PORTER DERICKO 153892 9 NAV 0.857 0.857 AV PRIVETT JOHNA THAN 952864 9 NAV 3.714 3.429 EX RAFTER MARCUS 903156 9 NAV 1.285 1.571 EX RAY STEVE 903211 7 UNTOUC 3.0 2.857 EX REED LATIA 890134 8 STARS 2.714 3.143 EX ROBINSON LAWANDA 896142 7 UNTOUC 1.571 1.714 GOOD ROBINSON SHERELL 951097 7 7WOND 3.571 3.714 GOOD ROGERS STANLEY 911352 8 STARS 2.714 2.429 EX SASU ELIZABETH 960732 8 PAWS 2.428 3.667 EX SEBOURN AMANDA 916190 9 NAV 3.714 4.0 EX SHAVERS MAURICE 892971 8 PAWS 3.714 3.5 EX SHERRER MATOSHA 903709 8 STARS 2.142 3.286 EX SHERRER MONICA 903710 9 AFROSH 1.857 1.857 EX I - ~ II CLOVERDALE JR. HIGH AFTER 50-IOOL PROGRAM 111 ~ FNAME ll2! ~IEAM GPA 1 9W GPA 2 !1W AIL SIDERS DANIEL 931301 7 UNTOUC 2.142 1.857 EX Sil.AS CARL 937573 7 UNTOUC 3.0 2.143 GOOD SIMMONS I WILMON 903748 7 7WOND 2.714 1.571 GOOD SIMS SHARRA 903n1 8 STARS 3.0 3.60 EX SMITH CANDICE 959569 7 7WONO 3.857 3.714 EX SMITH DENISHA 925214 7 7WOND 3.428 4.0 EX SPEARMON CEDRIC 95233.tl 9 AFROSH 1.857 1.429 EX I SPEARMON Cl.EDIUS 932336 8 STARS 2.714 3.0 EX SPROUSE TIFFANY 903968 7 7WOND 2.857 3.571 EX 11 STOVER NATALEA 894752 7 7WONO 3.428 3.143 EX 11 STRONG CRYSTAL 926'179 7 UNTOUC 2.142 2.0 EX SUWVAN KIM 1679'12 8 STARS 3.0 2.571 EX SUMMERS MARQUIS 904148 9 NAV 2.428 2.0 EX TATUM STEPHANIE 9onos 7 UNTOUC 2.571 1.857 GOOD I! TERRELL LAKUA 914268 9 NAV 1.429 1.429 GOOD Ii THOMAS ERICKA 9096.tlS 7 7WOND 4.0 4 GOOD II THOMAS TINA 935n2 7 UNTOUC 2.587 3.286 EX I TURNER TARA 904454 7 7WOND 2.0 1.429 EX ,, TWITTY LENARD 951283 9 NAV 2.833 2.833 EX lYLER EARNEST , 908876 8 PAWS 0.714 0 .0 POOR WAL.KER SHELLEY 904573 11 8 PAWS 3.142 3286 EX II WATERS SCHEKISA 901319 9 NAV 2.428 2.0 GOOD WEBB LAKIESHA 913292 9 NAV 1.428 2286 GOOD WHALEY FRANK 891875 8 PAWS 2.0 0.714 GOOD J!I WHITE NAMONA 931658 7 7WOND 3.142 3.1 '13 EX fl WILDER VICTORIA 904841 7 7WONO  .O -1.0 EX I WIWAMS AMANDA 897438 7 7WONO 2.429 2.429 GOOD J! WIWAMS ANTOINETTE 8922'13 7 UNTOUC 1.714 2.1'13 EX WIWAMS BRIAN 16'1240 9 NAV 1.714 1.857 GOOD WIWAMS OOREY 892078 9 AFROSH 3.5 2.429 GOOD II WIWAMS JAMIE 890520 8 PAWS 2.571 2.571 EX ii WIWAMS PATRICE 951273 8 STARS 3.285 2.71.tl GOOD WIWAMS SHEVONNE 917345 8 STARS 2.571 3.1'13 EX 11 WIWAMS TAMIKA 892186 7 UNTOUC 0.857 1.143 GOOD \\,I WIWAMS TERRENCE 904956 9 NAV 3.857 3.1 '13 GOOD WITT SHAOONDRIA 905025 7 7WOND 3.428 3.0 EX ,\nI WOODLEY TAMEKA 905061 8 PAWS 3.33 3.5 EX WOODS ANTONIETTE 905064 7 7WOND 1.428 1.714 GOOD WOODS CLAUDIA 896273 7 7WONO 3.428 3286 EX WOODS KEISHA 896646 9 AFROSH 3.428 3.1 '13 EX 11 WOODS MY1A 905069 8 STARS 2285 3.143 EX WRIGHT KEVIN 162553 8 PAWS 1.571 0.857 POOR I , . , 11 .   J ~:~liOlli. SQ[JTHWEST._..lllNIQR._filGH ?Rr:JC::,111_ CHARITY SMITH TE ACHi: R_ _,. .A...,N\"\"N._.E~T._..T.. E ..._. B... .,Au:Ru.N,...E-S_.,__ l. Please in::!i::ate the r.t:.'7::)e::- of .stu:ients referred for ~nch grndc level by se:-:, \n~:'!::e 3nd:classification. -------,,,.......,..-,-~~----------:-::-:-:-:-:..:=-~\n-:,-\n,,..,,-\n,...,..-:...,.....,,-------r-----:---------- Totu I Cirau2 :!tl:i8Efl l\u0026lt;i:Fffr.\n.:._:, Enrollment t~ i i't::!: I l!hl te i ut:-:2r -:-ota 1 C'. :s:::i\n\".-:'i I i-------- '.:r2cie 5 l aci'. \\Jtli t8 j D ~r12r : :-1,:\n1 2 I :=:0.~10 I e Jhale Ferna1,s !\n-!a , f: r2ma le ri2fe:-red ! R::::1. I .,~I J\nI I ! ! I I ! I I I I i I ! i 7 183 32 7 1 9 7 4 0 I 3 I 0 I 33 I 32 ' 1 I I ---  I I I i I I I I .3 178 52 i 4 ! 18 i 15 6 0 i 0 I 0 39 I 36 I 3 I I\n' ----- I I i I i I I ! :\n169 44 8 26 8 2 1 0 0 37 29 8\nI : I I i i i ' i I I 7C.~.L 530 128 I 1 9 I 63 ' 30 12 1 ! 3 0 109 97 ! 12 I ,, Tctal students re-12r::cd: 109 ~. :otal recoraed ab.sei'lc-es: 63 Total da.ys assigned: 358 i~umber of studen:s not ::~:, ~ting ~ssignmen: t: :ssP: 9 RECEIVE,... i~urn~er :f r2pe5t2~3: 2~?te - 4 JUN 1 4. 1994 ------ NEW FUTUf .. Grcde 9 4 ?h:::me 5 School SOUTHWEST JR. Number of :e2cher sonfe~~~ses: Srade 7 4 Grad2 8 Gr\":2 9 -------- Grade 7 I 122 G:-ade 8 96 G:-ade 9 71 l~tervention and Follow-up Activities: Please describe in nar:--ative formthevarious interven:.ion strategies and fol1ow-up plans and/or contacts that have occurred with students as~igned to the ln-Schc~l Suspension Program. ISSP OBJECTIVES: 1. To help students evaluate his/her behavior by completing suspension learning packets. 2. To use self-discipline to improve academic and social performance. ~v\u0026amp;luation: Please describe in narrative form the aeneral reaction of the following\n~cups to the In-School Suspension Program: stuaents who have been referred, teache~s 2nd administrative staff, parents, and the In-School Suspension teacher. The overall acceptance of the program has been excellent. Students have responded very positively to the learning packets with intent to avoid return visits. Teachers, administrators, counselors, parents, case managers, and significant others have complimented the program with exceptional reviews . . Support is evidenced by written comments, physical presence, and student work and reactions. -, ~ota1 visits to ISSP by: School cd~inistrators --=2=3 _______ _ J . School counselors ____ .....:.7 ______ _ Teachers 140 .., J. O the: ( pi ease spec i f y ) _p=a.::r-=e\n.\nn\n:_\nt::\n.\ns::\n..__---'1 _ _ Attiti onal Comments: This year we are attempting to work closer with case management and the counseling staff by making contact for individual students and requesting personal visits. We have provided teachers with suggested strategies to help support students who have been assigned with personal invitations to stop in and visit with students during their period of assignment. Our aim is to remove students from the mainstream in order to work on unacceptable behavioral characteristics, keep them on schedule, provide them with positive alternatives, and return them equipped for academic success in the classroom. I School dist-rict pcrrticipation Provides experts in non-academic fields to assist in planning preventive programs, providing in-service training, and designing after care support systems in the school. Immediate accessibility for referral when youth are identified who need social or health services. Provides assistance from the broader community in addressing crisis situations that occur during the school day. Creates a more direct link between the school and the home. Enhances the parent's, youth's and community's perception of schools as caring places. Allows teachers to focus more clearly on the academic needs of the students. Creates a healthier, happier student body. Provides a caring supportive adult to assist with non-academic problems Provides a coordinated plan for delivering needed educational, social and health services to the youth or their family Ensures someone is responsible for following up on referrals to outside agencies to be sure they are provided. Establishes a more direct link between the school and the home. Increases the opportunities for youth to obtain the social and academic skills needed for later succcess. Youth-cente-red fr family-o-riented flt(. ? Coo-rdinated se-rv1ces Provides direct linkage between youth-serving agencies and the public schools. Facilitates coordinated service among numerous agencies serving the same youth or family. Increases the opportunities for agencies to assist in developing preventive programs for youth. Allows for earlier identification of problems and more appropriate referrals to needed services. Provides a person to assist with removing barriers to effective use of services and to provide follow up after services are completed. Provdies more accurate information about the nature and extent of problems confronted by youth for use in future planning and program development. Young Professionals Clubs Support Groups School visits from convicts Field trips Participation in Little Rock Civitan Club's \"Rainbow of Love\" bowling tournament Worthen Bank sponsors day at Wild River Country A.A. and Alanon Community connection 1/ /tff.'l\u0026gt; GOA.LS A'-\"D OBJECTIVES REPORT In the Spring of 1992, the Director of Case Management met with participating CMST Agency Supervisors and Case Managers to develop Goals and Objectives for the CMST Project. The major Goal identified is:  ENHANCE ACADE~IC PERFORMANCE OF CMST STUDENTS Four objectives are established as a way to realize the Goal: Objective 1  50% of students on CMST caseloads will increase GPA by at ]e?.st .2 per semester during involvement with CMST. Objective 2  50% of students on CMST caseloads will not be absent more than 12 days per semester. Objective 3  A positive success plan for beh\niviori\\l improvement will be developed by Case Manager, Teache: Team, Vice Principal. Parent(s) and student for all students on CMST caseloads with a history of suspension and/or expulsion. Plan development will begin October 1, 1992 anc will continue at the rate of one each week until !)Ian has been developed for all students on the Case Manager's caseioad with histo1\n of suspension and/or expulsion. Objective 4  All students identified as parents will be considered automatically referred to CMST for services, and no repeat pregnancies will occur within this population during the year. Outcome data were collected at the end of each school semester du ring the 1992-1993 school year and 1993-1994 school vear. The outcomes for some students were excluded from consideration in the following circumstances:  Never received signed consent for services.   Referred c?.ses where no need for Case Mana2ement services existe d.  Cases in which services were terminated prior -to November l during the Fall semester, and prior to April l during the Spring semester of each school year.  Cases where data were unavailable due to missing school records. The results for all other students follow. . . - CL FH PH SW / Ttls .~alysis: . . FALL 9.2 I SPRI:--\nG 93 I FALL 93 I SPRl!'.G 94 Tot Tot % Tot % Tot Tot % Cases \u0026gt;.2 I Tot Cases \u0026gt;.2 Cases \u0026gt;.2 l Tot Cases 58 82 64 44 248 19 33% 94 27 29% 53 17 32% 63 33 40% 100 31 31% 58 17 29% 71% 25 39% 117 30 26% 79 34 43% 98 16 36% 99 26 26% 58 13 22% 59 93 38% ~10 114 28% 248 81 33% 291 The objective of 50% of CMST students increasing GPA by at least .2 per semester was not achieved. In the Fall 93 semester, Pulaski Heights reached 43%, the highest percentage achieved in any semester. Significant increases in number of cases considered occurred each spring semester. This occurs as the number of cases referred increases caseload sizes as the school year progresses. It is also noted that there is a significant decrease in the percentage of students meeting the GPA outcome objective. This may be due to increased caseload sizes during the spring sei,1ester. Staff also cite a tendency for students to work only hard enough during the spring semester to assure passing to the next grade level. Tot % \u0026gt;.2 17 27% 17 24% 23 23% 19 32% 76 26% r. - - T - . l FALL 92 SPRI!'iG 93 . FALL 93 SPRING 94 Tot + % Tot + % Tot + % Tot + % Cases Att Cases Att Cases Att Cases Att CL 70 34 49% 96 62 65% 75 43 57% 73 29 40% FH 93 31 33% 104 40 38% 66 18 27% 75 16 21% PH 74 33 45% 120 65 54% 108 66 61% 100 45 45% 11 ' SW 72 28 39% 101 28 28% 69 23 33% 74 27 36% ,!: Ttls 309 126 41% 421 195 46% 318 150 47% 322 117 36%\n' Analysis: There is a wide range in these figures, from 65% at Cloverdale in Spring i 93 to 21 % at Forest Heights in Spring 94. Also the totals for Springs 94 i were 36%, a decrease from both the Spring 93 figure of 46% and the Fall I 93 figure of 47%. It is noted that staff resignations during the Spring 94 Iii semester left 2 of 4 positions vacant for several months at Forest Heights. !:,I !I ! Iii I II I ' . II II II i - -- .. I ! - - - . -. FALL 92 SPRl~G 93 I FALL 93 SPRING 94 ~ Tot + % Tot + % Tot + % Tot + % Cases Pia Cases Pia Cases Pia Cases Pia ' - CL 26 FH 51 PH 35 SW 34 Ttl 146 s .nalysis: n n n n 17 65% 47 28 60% 40 35 88% 53 46 14 27% 68 _., ..,. 34% 39 10 26% 40 3 18 51% 54 33 61% 45 43 96% 60 55 2 6% 59 2 3% 36 36 100 42 41 % 51 35% 2~S 86 38% 160 124 78% 195 145 Overall very good improvement from one school year to the next, especially for Southwest. Forest Heights is the notable exception, and this primarily due to staff vacancies. 87% 8% 92% 98% 74% L School Year 1992-93 School Year 1993-1994 Total Total w/ Tot.al Total w/ Parents 2nd Preg Parents 2nd Preg 11 1 15 1 bts 10 2 12 1 ights 10 3 12 5 est 11 1 4 0 ~ Totals 42 7(17%) 43 7(16%) Analysis: Outcomes are essentially the same for each year. Planning, Research and Evaluation Program Evaluation Primary Leader: Dr. Henry P. Williams Secondary Leader: Dr. Robert L. Clowers Program Name: Plannio\u0026amp; and Evaluation Services Program Description: Purpose: Scope and Content: Participants/Beneficiaries: Program Goals: Evaluation Criteria: The Planning, Research and Evaluation Department (PRE) operates as a quasi-independent unit which provides information and technical assistance to the Superintendent and Board for strategic planning. To provide overall planning activities for the District and to provide information required for District and building level decision making. The scope of activities included in Planning and Evaluation services include: semi-annual Educational Equity Monitoring visits\nCoordination of the Planning and Budgeting process\nCoordination of the Arkansas Minimum Performance Test (AMPT was discontinued following the spring 1994 administration)\nCoordination of the Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition\nCoordination of the School Climate/Human Relation Survey\nCoordination of the Arkansas Direct Writing Assessment\nCoordination of Home Schooling tasks\nconducts studies and prepares reports as identified by the Board\nMaintains archival records\nMaintains records of elementary students withdrawn from the district. Participants and beneficiaries includes students, building level principals and staff, administrators, the Board of Directors, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, and other parties involved in the court approved desegregation case. To provide appropriate data and technical assistance for planning and implementing equitable learning experiences for all students. 1.0 Completed semi-annual report of findings in the thirteen (13) monitoring categories. 1.1 Copies of completed documents. 2 1.2 List of local team members. 1.3 Agenda of completed training sessions and list of team members who received training. 1.4 Individual School Profiles are available through the AS/400 at the central office. 1.5 Completed monitoring schedule for all schools. 1.6 Completed composite report for each visit. 1. 7 Semi-annual reports are prepared and distributed as scheduled. 2.1 Planning and budgeting process is conducted as outlined in the Management Tool. 2.2 AMPT is administered as scheduled. 2.3 Stanford Achievement test is administered as scheduled. 2.4 Surveys are administered as scheduled. 2.5 All Arkansas Writing Assessment tasks are completed as designed and scheduled. 2.6 Home School tasks are completed according to Act 42 of 1985. 3. 0 Studies are conducted as designed and reports are published and distributed as required. 3.1 Assessment reports are published and distributed to appropriate persons. 3.2 Reports are published and distributed to appropriate persons. 3.3 The archival records are maintained and available for inspection. 3.4 The records are stored on microfilm for immediate Evaluation Results Objective 1: 3 retrieval. 4.0 Administration of School Climate/Human Relations Survey. To conduct semi-annual E.ducational Equity Monitoring visits with the assistance of the local school biracial committees. E.ducational Equity Monitoring teams comprised of an Evaluation Specialist along with local school biracial committee members conduct monitoring visits each semester of each school year. The outcome of each monitoring visit is a consensus report of the findings of the monitoring visit. These reports are on file in the PRE Department. Each school in the district was visited each semester during the 1993-94 school year. Principals are required to form the local school biracial committee for their building and then send a copy to PRE. At the beginning of each school year, PRE conducts an inservice/training for local school biracial committee participants. The inservice is typically conducted in October prior to the monitoring visits. School principals are also given instructions at the start of the school year to input information into the AS/400 which is used as part of the school profile. Monitoring schedules are established between the Evaluation Specialist assigned to monitor the school and the school principal. The monitoring visits are then conducted. The consensus reports are later summarized and compiled for a semester report. The individual consensus reports are copied and distributed to selected administrators and the building principals for feedback, as needed. The semester reports are distributed to selected administrators, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, and Joshua Intervenors. Discussion: The objective of conducting semi-annual E.ducational Equity Monitoring visits with the assistance of the local school biracial committee members was met. The monitoring visits serve as a cardinal form of feedback to the building principal and other LRSD administrators regarding the educational equity concept at the building level. Objective 2: To provide assistance that promotes the planning process of the LRSD. Please note that strategies listed under this objective include the planning and budgeting process along with the administration of various districtwide tests, a school climate survey, and home school tasks. 'IT II [I II I -I - ------ --- 4 A planning and budgeting process manual (the \"Gray Book\") is prepared by the summer of each newly started fiscal year and serves as an overall guide to the planning and budgeting process for the upcoming fiscal year. A \"Management Tool\" is similarly prepared for guidance in preparation of the budget for the upcoming fiscal year. The Superintendent's Council meets regularly to review the management tool, which is filed at the end of each month with the court. In addition to the management tool, the office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation also coordinates the compilation of a Program Budget Document (PBD), which is filed quarterly with the court. The PBD includes achievement information for the District's desegregation and nondesegregation programs. Training sessions regarding the PBD process are coordinated through PRE. The Arkansas Minimum Performance Test (AMPT) was coordinated through PRE as scheduled {spring 1994 was the last administration of the AMPT, however). The Stanford Achievement test, Eighth Edition, was administered during spring 1994 as scheduled. The Arkansas Direct Writing Assessment was also administered as scheduled. The School Climate survey was conducted in Spring 1994 among students, certified staff, and a random sampling of parents. Home schooling tasks, which principally relate to the distribution of requested home school application and forwarding of an enrollment list to the Arkansas Department of Education, was conducted through PRE. Discussion: The objective of providing assistance to promote the planning process of LRSD was met. The District is now in its second year of following a Planning and Budgeting process as directed by the court. The staff time required for the production of the Management Tool and the PBD has taken staff resources away from other projects or studies as described in this evaluation. In the 1993-94 school year, only one Evaluation Specialist was utilized to inservice District staff with respect to the planning process. As the planning and budgeting process becomes more institutionalized, it is anticipated that the number of professional staff in PRE that provide inservice training will increase. The program planning and budgeting process continues to be refined, and mid-stream adjustments in process may necessarily occur to respond appropriately to the needs of the District. Objective 3: To conduct educational research improving the teaching and learning process. PRE provides the results of the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT) and other reports as identified above to appropriate building principals and various LRSD administrators. Administrative summaries, group skills analysis, and historical information with respect to the Stanford Achievement test are provided to building level and other LRSD administrators. The majority of special requests for information have centered around the SAT because of the role it plays in the assessment of LRSD students. PRE also compiled an analysis of the 1994 SAT test results, the 1994 AMPT test results, and the School Climate/Human Relations survey. 7 5 Discussion: PRE met the objective of conducting educational research to improve the teaching and learning process. The test and survey results that are shared with principals, LRSD administrators, and other LRSD staff should assist with improvements in the teaching and learning process if the findings from the reports are used. Requests for data and special reports related to the SAT test results appear to be on the increase and sometimes strain staff resources. Additional staff could be used to increase the extent of educational research that is conducted for the LRSD\nhowever, no recommendations will be forthcoming at this time to request additional staff. Obstacles to Goal Attainment Objective 1: The attainment of this goal is sometimes hampered by members of the local school biracial committee who cancel their monitoring visit. In such instances, PRE Evaluation Specialists have had to reschedule the site visit(s). Objective 2: Providing assistance that promotes the planning process will be refined over time as the process is institutionalized. This objective, with specific respect to the planning process, is at times hampered because of the time constraints and reliance on various administrators to submit information on a timely basis. For example, the PBD diskettes sometimes come in after a specified due date. It should be noted that Planning, Research, and Evaluation lost a secreterial position in the 1993-94 school year. It is expected, however, that further understanding of the planning process would help alleviate some of time crunch. District staff also need additional training in WordPerfect as it relates to the entry of data for the PBD. Objective 3: The extent to which educational research may be conducted by PRE is limited by current staff size. PRE does, however, provide technical assistance to other LRSD units as needed to help promote the District's overall educational research effort. Only one of PRE's six specialists is on a 12 month contract (4 are on a 10.5 and one is on an 11 month contract)\nas a result, educational research and/or the preparation of varying studies may be delayed until the fall semester begins. Recommendation(s) Recommendation 1: The Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department needs to conduct and/or coordinate continuous training with respect to the planning and budgeting process. Objective 1: To provide program managers and other District staff with the necessary understanding to further institutionalize the District's planning and budgeting process. Evaluation Criteria: PRE will plan and offer/coordinate program planning and budgeting workshops for appropriate staff. Required PBD information will be submitted in a timely L 6 manner consistent with information due dates. Expected Benefits: Program managers and District staff will have a greater understanding of the program planning and budgeting process. Information related to the overall cycle of the planning and budgeting process will be provided in a timely manner. Impact Analysis: Additional time will need to be scheduled for program managers or appropriate staff to attend the workshops where such information will be presented. This recommendation will have a positive effect on the Desegregation Plan as the concept of following a planning and budgeting process becomes more institutionalized. This recommendation is consistent with a court order requiring the District to conduct training sessions so that the planning and budgeting process may be more readily understood. Resources Analysis: No additional hiring of personnel is anticipated. Support staff from the Instructional Resource Center\nPlanning, Research and Evaluation\nand selected principals and administrators are the personnel of choice to assist with facilitation, training and presentations. Force Field Analysis: The primary supports of the recommendation will be those administrators most closely linked to the program planning and budgeting process. Likely detractors of the recommendation will be those in the District who view the planning process as cumbersome and time consuming (the Program Budget Document as one example). General Implementation Plan: Note: the following topics, time lines, and facilitator coordination represent a general implementation plan, as no specific dates are set. The Planning and Budgeting Process Program Evaluation Program Budget Document Business Cases Financial and Manpower Reports Word Perfect Training for Staff Spring \u0026amp; Fall Spring \u0026amp; Fall Fall Fall Fall Each semester Coordinate through PRE Coordinate through PRE Coordinate through PRE Coordinate through PRE Coordinate through PRE PRE Staff Note: Where possible, specific times and dates will be scheduled to coincide with times in the school year that are of specific or timely interest to the particular topic. Additional workshops may be added as needed. Recommendation 2: Increase utiliz.ation of the Planning, Research, and Evaluation professional 7 staff to conduct inservices or individualized training with respect to the planning and budgeting process. Objective 2: To increase utilization of PRE's professional staff with respect to providing inservice workshops or individualized assistance in relation to the District's planning and budgeting process. Evaluation Criteria: The number of professional PRE staff providing or ass1sung with inservice training on various aspects of the planning and budgeting process will increase over the 1993-94 level. Expected Benefits: Program managers and District staff will have a greater understanding of the program planning and budgeting process. Information related to the overall cycle of the planning and budgeting process will be provided in a timely manner. Impact Analysis: Additional time will need to be scheduled for program managers or appropriate staff to attend the workshops where such information will be presented. This recommendation will have a positive effect on the Desegregation Plan as the concept of following a planning and budgeting process becomes more institutionalized. This recommendation is consistent with a court order requiring the District to conduct training sessions so that the planning and budgeting process may be more readily understood. Resources Analysis: No additional hiring of personnel is anticipated. Force Field Analysis: The primary supports of the recommendation will be those administrators most closely linked to the program planning and budgeting process. Likely detractors of the recommendation will be those in the District who view the planning process as cumbersome and time consuming. General Implementation Plan: PRE Evaluation Specialists will be trained throughout the school year in varying aspects of the program planning and budgeting process. The Director of PRE will provide initial guidance in training personnel in the utilization of the process\nthe current Evaluation Specialist who is involved with the Program Budget Document and the Management Tool will serve as a peer tutor within the department. IN-DEPTH PROGRAM EVALUATION Program Description: Plant Services includes resources to identify, plan and execute maintenance/repair programs equitably so that Little Rock School District students can receive efficient, functional and effective education. Specifically, facilities includes maintenance programs to maintain/repair all District facilities in an equitable condition commensurate with financial resources and District priorities. Purpose: The purpose operation's necessary to critical as management. of the Plant Services is part of the base costs to maintain the buildings and grounds support the educational mission. This program is it encompasses all aspects of real property Scope and Content: The Plant Services Program encompasses the repair of all existing facilities, grounds and other real property, the maintenance thereof, new construction to support academic initiatives, all real estate actions to include leases, purchasing of property, selling of property, easements, grants, rights-of-way and licenses. It is extended to include the base operation costs of utility payments covering electric, water, gas, refuse, entomology and any other miscellaneous services. It includes long-range planning, responsibilities with regard to new construction, maintenance, acquisition and closing of facilities. Participants/Beneficiaries: The Plant Services Program is a base operations program that supports all persons that work for the Little Rock School District, are educated by its programs, or visits its facilities. Program Goals: To equitably maintain and academic programs, student support. Evaluation Criteria: repair facilities to support enrollment and administrative The evaluation criteria for the objectives listed in the Plant Ser~ices Program consists principally of historical records 1 indicating requests and completions of maintenance and repair work. They do not require a relative measure of success, but merely to report numbers of requests made and completions and the percent thereof. Evaluation Results: There is no measurable scale of success against which the evaluation can be made. The objectives reported in the Plant Services Program Budget Document, as stated previously, merely report the percent of completion of requests made of the program. There is no set goal that can be equated to measure this quantity. The amount of work completed has too many variables to establish a set percent to be achieved in any given reporting period. This is due to the complexity of the requests, the nature of the requests, the total number and the resources allocated to complete that goal, coupled with the priority. Objective U: To maintain all school facilities such that they are in a safe, operational condition to meet the academic needs of the various programs and to repair as necessary commensurate with resources. Discussion fl: This objective will never be met based on the level of funding that this Directorate presently received. The evaluation criteria is simply a tracking of the number of requests received against the number of requests completed. As more and more deficiencies are identified and more and more new work is identified to support academic programs, the disparity in funding will cause the percentage to decrease tremendously. Since the percentage reported on the program budget document only accounts for completion versus requests, and does not show the backlog and the subsequent monetary impact of that backlog, the way the Plant Services Report is established, it is of no useful value in the reporting procedure. Obstacles to Goal Attainment: There is one principal obstacle to the desired goal attainment of an equitable Facilities Program, and that is resources. The Plant Services Directorate is far below the national and regional averages, and as such, falls further behind as its backlog of maintenance and repair increases on a yearly basis. The amount of work identified district-wide to keep our buildings in a good 2 state of repair, and at an educational standard to support our programs, is mounting every year. With level or decreased funding each year, the backlog continues to increase. It is only through a higher funding level that we will be able to maintain our facilities to meet our operational needs. Recommendation: A careful evaluation of both the facilities and Plant Services' program would result in a recommendation that the Facilities Program be funded at a prescribed percent of the total district budget, this percent to be determined based on the regional and national average and a pre-determined decrease of the existing backlog of maintenance and repair. Only by clearly identifying how this backlog will be decreased, will we be able to establish a rate of success and a comparable measure thereof. A business case is recommended with this study, and the overall recommendation will likely result in an increase in the budget. DCE/rlh/pe2 3 Ii L. 1) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The program being evaluated as outlined in the nondesegregation portion of the Program Budget Document does not give an overall view of the Plant Services Program. The Program Budget Document merely responds to specific areas of concern and does not adequately see nor measure the program. The program is general engineering support to the entire district. As stated on page one (1) of this document, it encompasses all aspects of the engineering program to support the many facilities. It goes far beyond the specific item outlined in the Budget Document. - 2) The data that has been used to analyze this program is simply a tally of work order requests as made by the Facilities' Managers and as recorded by the Plant Services Directorate. All recommendations listed here are considered in the support area. DCE/rlh/pe2 4 Pupil Transportation Services Program Description: This program includes (1) the management, maintenance, and supervision of over 300 buses valued at more than eleven million dollars\n(2) the personnel management, training, and supervision of 334 employees\n(3) supervision of over 3,500 bus stops and 14,000 students while being transported daily to and from school\n(4) management of an annual budget of $7,354,396.24\n(5) providing transportation for field trips, athletic transportation and after school programs as requested by others. Historical data available at the Transportation Departmeflt were reviewed tor this report. Recommendation l: The Program Budget Document (PBD) for Pupil Transportation Services should be rewritten to utilize evaluation criteria that are reflective of performance standards. Area Classification: support Area Recommendation 2: outsource the student transportation system to a private concern. Area Classification: Support Area l Extended Evaluation Pupil Transportation Services Prog~am Description: Department provides transportation services to support basic academic programs, Special Ed Programs/Activities, and Athletics. Purpose: The purpose of Pupil Transportation Services is to provide transportation to and from school for students living in the LRSD who reside two miles or more from the school of assignment, to provide transportation for students with Individual Education Plans (IEP) identifying need for specialized transportation, and to support, extracurricular and co-curricular activities to the degree that resources will allow. Scope and Content: This program includes (1) the management, maintenance, and supervision of over 300 buses valued at more than eleven million dollars\n(2) the personnel management, training, and supervision of 334 employees\n(3) supervision of over 3,500 bus stops and 14,000 students while being transported daily to and from school\n(4) management of an annual budget of $7,354,396.24\n(5) providing transportation for field trips, athletic transportation and after school programs as requested by others. Participants/Beneficiaries: The primary beneficiaries are students who live more than two miles from their school of assignment. Other beneficiaries are students with courtesy stops, students who need transportation for field trips, athletic practices, and/or extended day programs. Program Goals: To provide safe, efficient and reliable transportation for the students of the Little Rock School District. Evaluation criteria: 1.0 Procurement request 1.1 Procurement request 1.2 Requisition signed 1.3 Buildings polled on materials recei ed 2.0 Report fleet requirements 2.1 Report fleet requirements 2.2 Report fleet requirements 2.3 First day routes printed 2.4 2.5 2.6 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 Report-Staffing (no evaluation criteria) (no evaluation criteria) Report year-end mileage Summer check sheets completed Summer check sheets completed Summer check sheets completed Summer check sheets completed Summer check sheets completed Checks entered in State Police Log Summer check sheets completed All buses identified by route transported All buses identified for auction memo to procurement State Board Log sheets submitted Evaluation Results: The overall transportation system failed but that will not be reflected in evaluation results because the evaluation criteria do not establish performance expectations. Performance criteria should include as a minimum, on-time to school, number of bus breakdowns, number of chargeable accidents, attendance rate for drivers, and number buses available daily. ODjective 1.0: To conduct routine office functions. Discussion 1. o: All forms such as bus cards, discipline reports, and time sheets were obtained and distributed to the school by supervisors. These were received later than normal due to the lateness of the decision on outsourcing. ODjective 2.0: To maintain an appropriate operational fleet. Discussion 2.0: The fleet requirements are determined by the number of routes to be run at the same time. This requirement must be adjusted based upon the number of drivers funded by the budget. If only 260 drivers are available, then 260 buses will be required even if 275 buses are required by the number of established routes. The balancing depends on the number of buses available in the fleet and the number of drivers authorized. Last year, 281 buses were in the fleet. No new buses were added. The personnel count of drivers and aides was fixed at 311. The number of drivers in the ?econd semester never reached the allocated 273 drivers. As a result, routes were late due to not enough drivers. To be a Bus Driver, a person must hold a Commercial Driver's License (CDL) with a school endorsement. Even though potential drivers completed training, they had to wait up to one month to be tested by the State Police. This is a continuing problem in maintaining the appropriate number of drivers. Objective 3.0: To maintain appropriate vehicle servicing. Discussion 3. o: The fleet is aging. No replacement plan exists. New buses are bought when money is available. Although all buses passed inspection, buses continue to breakdown and require extensive maintenance that is not covered by warranties. This increases the cost in operating the fleet. In order to keep a fleet in good operational order, a replacement plan should be implemented to insure that all buses will be available most of the time. The district puts more than four million miles on buses annually. If the standard of replacing a bus every 150,000 miles is maintained, then the district should plan to replace 27 buses each year or markedly reduce the number of miles put on the buses annually. In order to reduce the number of miles _placed on buses means that services need to reduced in serving field trips, athletics and extended day or charge these programs for replacement of the buses. The length of routes and the number of routes must be reduced and/or money set aside for replacement buses in relation to the number of miles used annually. Obstacles to Goal Attainment Ol:\u0026gt;jective 1: To conduct routine office functions. Based upon the evaluation criteria in the Program Budget Document, this objective was achieved. Objective 2: To maintain an appropriate operational fleet. Based on the evaluation criteria, this objective was achieved. However, strategy 2.5 hire and train new drivers did not have evaluation criteria which should have been as a minimum maintaining a driver count of at least 273 drivers. This strategy failed in the spring of 1994 due to a shortage of at least 40 drivers. Therefore, the Objective 2 failed to maintain an appropriate operational fleet. Objective 3: To maintain appropriate vehicle servicing. Based on the evaluation criteria this objective was achieved. However, due to the age of the fleet, the current maintenance staff was unable to keep up with repairs needed to keep a sufficient number of buses available to support the routing system. Therefore, the appropriate vehicle servicing was not maintained during the school year and this objective was not achieved. Recommendations: The Pupil Transportation Services Program Budget Document (PBD) Evaluation Criteria are not appropriate evaluation criteria. Manpower shortages and equipment failure due to age caused the Pupil Transportation Services to fail to meet the stated program goal. Recommendation 1: The Program Budget Document (PBD) for Pupil Transportation Services should be rewritten to utilize evaluation criteria that are reflective of performance standards. Evaluation criteria: The new criteria will include, but not limited to, attendance rate for drivers, rate of vacancies, rate of employees on long term leave, rate of drivers on light duty, number of buses available daily, number of wrecker pulls, number of buses over 100,ooo/1so,ooo number of miles to support extracurricular and co-curricular activities, number of miles to support regular transportation by route, number of chargeable accidents per million miles, number of workman compensation claims, per-cent of not-on-time buses, and number of patron/parent complaints by category. Expected Benefits: These kinds of evaluation criteria will allow the district to establish realistic improvement goals for the Transportation Department. Impact Analysis: Negatives: 1. The change from the current PBD to the new one would be obvious. 2. Some individuals may not want to deal with data that shows whether or not the Department is doing a good job. Positives: 1. Facts will be available to evaluate the department. 2. Decisions can be made on facts rather than on what we feel is true. 3. The actual costs to support various activities will be easy to calculate. 4. Action plans for improvement can be developed and evaluated objectively. I l I ', ,1 ,1 !\n, 11 I' !! I' I' I' 11 I'  II I ' 111 Risks: The risk of not implementing this solution is to ignore the Dneeepda rttmo ehnat.v e clear planning guidance for the Transportation Timing: The rewrite should take place before the January report, so administrators have the information available to assist in decision making in the Spring of 1995. Resource Analysis: Personnel: No additional personnel will be required. Time of the administrators to gather the base data will be required but could be accomplished by reporting time. Financial: No additional cost will be required. Force Field Analysis: The Director of Transportation will welcome the opportunity to mdeavkeinlogp. a PBD that is based on data needed for decisionThose most opposed to the solution are those who want to keep the actual costs of extra curricular, co-curricular and athletic transportation hidden in the Transportation Department budget. General Zmplementation Plan: Milestone Direct Transportation to rewrite PBD Write PBD Review PBD Submit PBD with appropriate report Date 12/21/94 01/6/94 01/09/94 01/13/94 Recommendation 2: Outsource the system to a private concern. Person Clowers Cheatham Mayo Cheatham student transportation Expected Benefits: The district could save one million dollars or more. I Impact Analysis: The district is aware of the concern that exists among the bus drivers. The concern expressed has focused on job security. Those who have appeared in protest are those who will remain with the district anyway. The district will maintain special education routes and therefore about 80 drivers and aides. The proposal for outsourcing requires that those currently employed by the LRSD be employed by the contractor. Negatives: 1. The transition to a private contractor will require extra time for district administrators to turn over the operation which will no doubt have unpredictable inconveniences\n2. Bus driver reaction will be strong against the decision for fear of the loss of their jobs\nPositives: 1. Parent satisfaction will increase as indicated by a reduction in the number of complaints\n2. Currently employed drivers will maintain their jobs and benefits\n3. Buses will be on-time more often than they are now\n4. Accidents will decrease\n5. The number of buses out-of-service for repairs will decrease\n6. The cost of student transportation for the next three years will be less than that projected by LRSD\nand, 7. A schedule for replacement of equipment will be strictly followed providing students with badly needed new buses. Risks The risks of not implementing this solution is increasing costs to the district, increasing complaints by patrons, and a generally poor image of the district's transportation system. The risks of implementation of this solution are the unfounded presumptions that the costs will be greater than calculated and people will lose their jobs. Transition will strain our current management capability considering increased activities associated with the start up of the school year. ' I I I ' I ', I' II I 11.: ' ' I ' ,I I I I Timing It is critical that the decision be made before February 1, 1995 so it may be implemented by the opening of school for 1995-96. If this solution is to be implemented, patrons will need to know when the Board of Directors approves. Awareness must be generated in the community, staff must be identified of the change, and a number of other task as noted in the timeline included must be addressed. Resource Analysis: Personnel No additional costs for personnel are necessary to implement this proposal. No one will lose his or her job, however. Financial A savings of 1 million dollars is the estimated benefit over the next three years under this plan. The District will maintain the special education routes and a smaller maintenance facility already available. Even with these costs, outsourcing will reduce overall costs. Revenue Source The money normally allocated will be used to pay for outsourcing. Implementation of this proposal creates a yearto- year cost-reducing strategy for the 1995-96 budget. Force Field Analysis: Primary supporters of this proposal will be those directly affected by the solution - patrons and administrators within the District. The Board of Directors and administration of the school district are aware of the improvement this solution will bring for student service. Those more opposed to the solution will be the bus drivers who fear losing their jobs and those who fear private sector managing public sector services. The negative reaction may be reduced by keeping everyone informed as the decision is made and implemented. The strongest statement in favor of oursourcing is that service will improve while reducing costs. - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PROCUREMENT AND MATERIALS MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT EXTENDED PROGRAM BUDGET EVALUATION PROGRAM NAME: PURCHASING SERVICES, NON-DESEGREGATION FOR YEAR 9394 Program Description: The Procurement Department is organized to administer a centralized procurement function in the accomplishment of the acquisition of materials, services, and equipment in support of District operations in the most efficient, effective, and economical manner possible. The Centralized Procurement and Materials Management function interacts with all segments of the District. Purpose: The purpose of this program is to aid the Procurement Department in implementing, revising, and evaluating purchasing, property accounting, central warehouse operations, and property disposal procedures in order to best serve the District. Scope and Content: The program encompasses several functions that are the responsibility of the Procurement Department. These general functions include: Coordinating all District purchases of equipment, supplies, and services in such a manner that the maximum value will be obtained for the money expended\nEstablishing, administering, and coordinating central materials management encompassing property accounting and property disposal and\nOperating the Central Warehouse in an efficient and effective manner to assure prompt delivery and availability of frequently used supplies and materials utilized by schools/departments within the District. Participants/Beneficiaries: The beneficiaries of this program are all schools and departments within the District, vendors in the business community, district patrons and taxpayers. Program Goals: Support schools and administrative offices through cost effective procurement and efficient handling of all materials.  Evaluation Criteria: 1.1 Document recommendations and approved changes to the organizational structure of the department. 2.1 Copies of certification certificates are to be included in an employees personnel file. 3.1 Maintain a log of all vendor office visits. 1 I 17 l Ii 'I I I I 1' II ! I I : I I 1, I l I t I I I !: 1, I I l lW Evaluation Criteria (continued): 3.2 Document in bid files all specification changes and recommendations for change. (Requested to be removed per instructions in Dr. Mayo's memo dated 10/24/94) 4.1 Document attempts to identify shortcomings and defects with the current automated system in continued efforts to obtain a modern, professional purchasing management system. 5.1 Procurement Director to provide written recommendation. 5.2 Document verification of completed inventories. 6.1 Monitor user suggestions on order and delivery of supplies. 6.2 Suggestion from available to all schools/departments. 6.3 Monitor historical levels of inventory and correct as needed. 7.1 Monitor user suggestions on order and delivery of forms. 7.2 Request to the Procurement Director for the addition 4o the inventory of new standardized forrn(s). Evaluation Results: OBJECTIVE 1: REFINE THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE TO EFFECTIVELY ACCOMPLISH ALL FUNCTIONS REQUIRED OF A CENTRALIZED PROCUREMENT AND MATERIALS MANAGEMENT OPERATION. DISCUSSION: Procurement filled a custodial position in November of 1993. custodian works 1/2 day at Procurement five days a week. The selection process for this position is documented and on file in the Department. No other changes were made in 93-94. OBJECTIVE MET. OBJECTIVE 2: HAVE ALL BUYER POSITIONS BECOME FAMILIAR WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED PURCHASING PRINCIPLES AND TECHNIQUES. DISCUSSION: Two employees, Darral Paradis and Gretchen Spinelli, successfully completed the course work and examination to receive certification from NIGP (National Institute of Governmental Purchasing) as CPPB's (Certified Professional Public Buyers) in July of 1994. All buyers in the Department now have this national certification. 2 Evaluation Results (continued): In addition, Charles Neal, Procurement Director, served on the Board of Directors, and Gail Hester was chairperson of the membership committee for the Arkansas Chapter of NIGP. OBJECTIVE MET. OBJECTIVE 3 : EVALUATE NEW PRODUCTS AND SEEK TO OBTAIN THE MAXIMUM ULTIMATE VALUE FOR EACH PURCHASING DOLLAR EXPENDED. DISCUSSION: No evaluation results\nvendor log project is continuing into 1995. This cannot be fully implemented until the Department completes a planned mass mailing of vendor applications to businesses on our current vendor list. The purpose of this mailing would be to allow potential vendors an opportunity to identify comrnodi ty i terns they have available for sale. This information would then be put in the Automated Procurement Management System so that when the District is in need of a particular commodity, a listing of potential vendors could be made imrnediately available. Shortfalls in the current system have not allowed for this mailing to be accomplished. In addition, Procurement requested that strategy 3.2 be removed per instructions provided in Dr. Mayo's letter dated 10/24/94. This strategy is a routine operating function within the Department. OBJECTIVE NOT MET. OBJECTIVE 4: ENHANCE DEPARTMENT PRODUCTIVITY AND MANAGEMENT INFORMATION CAPABILITY BY UTILIZING A FULLY AUTOMATED PROCUREMENT, INVENTORY, AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. DISCUSSION: A complete analysis of shortcomings in the current purchasing system has been completed by the Procurement Department. An outside consultant is currently working on enhancements which we have as a goal to be on line by the end of the 94-95 fiscal year. The current system does not provide purchasing management with performance information necessary to effectively aid the Department in decision making. When needed, this information is gathered manually. Some examples of needed system information are: 1) Cost savings as a result of competitive bidding\n2) average dollar amount of purchase orders\n3) number of purchase orders processed per month by commodity and by dollar amount\n4) number of active vendors and\n5) average time from requisition receipt to delivery, etc. OBJECTIVE NOT COMPLETELY MET, WORK IS IN PROGRESS. 3 l Evaluation Results (continued): OBJECTIVE 5: PROVIDE TOTAL PROPERTY ACCOUNTING AND MATERIALS MANAGEMENT FOR THE DISTRICT FROM INITIAL ACQUISITION TO FINAL SALVAGE DISPOSITION. DISCUSSION: Procurement has developed a list of deficiencies in the current CIMS software relating to fixed assets programs. An outside consultant is currently performing a review of this list and will be working with us to develop enhancements to meet our needs. This work is about 70% completed. For instance, summary management reports are not available at this time that give the total number and types of assets and associated dollar amounts for specific sites in the District. currently to determine this information, an entire site inventory is run and the desired data is manually sorted. The fixed asset property accounting section performed physical inventories at Stephens and Ish Elementary schools because of anticipated closings. NO other schools were inventoried due mainly to computer software problems encountered with the fixed assets module of CIMS, plus shortage of staff to validate physical inventories at each site in a timely and effective manner. It's imperative that the District, at any given time, have accurate information available detailing assets on-hand at all sites. The Chicot Elementary fire illustrates this point as the asset information maintained by the Procurement Department was provided to the insurance companies to aid in loss evaluation. The Department currently relies on school/department personnel to verify the assets recorded in the property system. NO validations of these inventories are made by Procurement due to lack of personnel as mentioned above. This objective is not being met due mainly to computer system deficiencies and shortage of staff. In order to fully accomplish this objective, these two areas must be addressed. A prograrraning consultant is being used to address the system problems and the personnel issue may develop into a business case. The computer system deficiencies have been identified and corrective measures approved and are presently in progress. The personnel position is that of a property accounting secretary and has previously been approved but hiring has not been initiated. 4 Evaluation Results (continued): OBJECTIVE 6: MAINTAIN A CENTRAL WAREHOUSE OF COMMONLY USED OFFICE AND INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPLIES UTILIZED BY THE DISTRICT. In maintaining the warehouse, emphasis is placed on attaining maximum efficiency while maintaining effectiveness. In this regard, the Procurement Department has a goal to deliver requested school/office supplies within 48 hours of receipt of electronic requisitions from schools/departments\nhowever, the current system does not provide the capability to accumulate the information to measure this goal. This problem will be corrected with program enhancements planned for installment by the end of the 94-95 fiscal year. Since Procurement initiated electronic requisitioning in 1992-93, the number of requisitions received has been dramatically reduced due primarily to the schools/departments on-line requisitioning capability. Prior to 1992-93, all schools/departments typed their supply center requisitions. Requisitions were forwarded when created to Procurement via inter-office mail. This usually resulted in several a day depending on staff requests received by the school/department bookkeeper. Electronic requisitioning allows schools/departments to accumulate their request on one system requisition throughout the day. This electronic request is then processed by Procurement on-line the next work day. The chart below reflects this trend: Number of warehouse Requisitions Processed School Year 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 # of Requisitions 11,372 11,221 4,568 5,000 5 ,, ,.....,.. Ii I l i, I ' 1, l I i I l I 1, ,1 II Ii I 1, i 11 Evaluation Results (continued): The Procurement Department received five (5) requests/suggestions from schools/departments for new product additions to the warehouse during 93/94. All five were added to the supply center inventory as new catalogue items. The chart below reflects the total number of products carried in the supply center over the last four years and our progress in reducing uneconomical inventory: School Year 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 Total Number of Stock Items Carried 896 852 843 819 The Procurement Department has reduced supply center inventory costs to more economical levels each year. The chart below reflects ending inventory values over the last four years:  School Year 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 Ending Inventory Amount $ 345,879 362,531 319,030 308,997 DISCUSSION: Overall, this objective is being met with varying degrees of efficiency and economy. However, there are computer system deficiencies that restrict the retrieval of management information to enhance the achievement of this objective. In order to fully accomplish this objective, these data gathering deficiencies must be corrected. A prograrmning consultant is currently being used to review the system problem. Solutions are planned to be installed by the end of the 94-95 fiscal year. 6 I II I ,I . .... Evaluation Results (continued): OBJECTIVE 7: MAINTAIN A CENTRAL WAREHOUSE OF FREE-PRINTED FORMS UTILIZED BY THE DISTRICT. The Procurement Department received requests from schools/departments for six new printed forms to be added to inventory during 93/94. All six were added to the inventory. DISCUSSION: Objective met. Obstacles to Goal Attainment: 1. Objective Achieved. 2. Objective Achieved. 3. Objective Not Achieved. Project is ongoing into 94-95. 4. Objective Not Achieved. Project is ongoing into 94-95. 5. Objective Not Achieved. The Department is currently 70% complete in evaluating the current system for improvements required to fully accomplish this goal. This evaluation is expected to be completed by fiscal year end 1995. Also, shortage of staff has not allowed Procurement to validate physical inventories at schools/departments. Procurement has one (1) employee to accomplish all property accounting for the District including validation of school/department inventories. Procurement currently relies on school/department personnel to verify assets for their locations. Work backlog is a problem in several other key Property Accounting responsibility areas due to the shortage of staff. These areas include: a) Inputing asset data into the Fixed Asset System\nb) tagging new assets\nc) preparing for surplus property sales\nd) coordinating and accounting for excess property inter-district movements and\ne) accounting for donated property to the District. 6. Objective Not Achieved. Procurement is currently 70% complete in evaluating the current computerized inventory system for improvements needed in order to fully accomplish this goal. This evaluation is expected to be completed by fiscal year end 1995. 7. Objective Achieved. 7 Ii I I I 1, I II I ,I I I II I I! 11, I I II ' I I Recommendations: Recommendation 1: There are several areas under the Procurement Department's responsibility where procedural changes should be addressed. A new objective regarding these procedural changes should be added to our program budget document. These changes are required to improve the effectiveness and efficiencies of purchasing within the District. Objective 1: Define, develop, and implement relevant purchasing procedures and measures to enhance those functions required of an effective and efficient centralized procurement and materials management operation. This objective is needed in order to introduce cost containment and savings measures, improve relations with vendors, and lessen the potential for fiscal abuse. Several strategies would need to be added to this objective: 1. Delegate approval for local purchases under a predetermined dollar amount and guidelines to the school/department level (This constitutes spending approval only and does not eliminate the requirement for a written purchase order). 2. Incorporate activity fund purchases with vendors into the District's Centralized Automated Procurement system. 3. Develop procedures and dollar limits by which employees may be reimbursed for certain incidental expenditures. 4. Incorporate an invoice pre-audit function within the Department to verify contractual terms, conditions, and prices plus reduce the time required for payment of vendor invoices. Evaluation Criteria: The following would be the corresponding evaluation criteria for each new strategy previously listed. 1. Compare the number of purchase orders prepared by Centralized Procurement with the number of local small purchase orders prepared by school/departments. (If effective, the number of purchase orders prepared by Procurement should decrease and reduce the time required for schools/departments to make local small dollar purchases). 2. Purchasing transactions with vendors are documented with a standard District purchase order. 3. Monitor the number of reimbursement requisitions received by Procurement with previous years. This number should be reduced as a result of implementing this procedure. 8 Evaluation Criteria (continued): 4. Monitor contractual terms, conditions, and pricing plus measure time elapsed between receipt of goods and payment. (Also, verify that vendor invoices are mailed to Procurement). Expected Benefits: There are several benefits that would result if these changes were implemented: 1) More purchasing flexibility for schools/departments for local small dollar purchases. 2) Reduced paperwork, i.e., schools/departments would prepare on-site a local purchase order for small dollar purchases directly to vendor. 3) Vendors will receive one uniform purchase order from the district regardless of the fund being utilized. 4) Reimbursement to employees would be streamlined. 5) Reduced handling of invoices by mailing to one central location. 6) Days elapsed between receipt of goods and payment would be reduced. 7) Take advantage of vendor early payment discounts. 8) Improve relations with business community. 9) Greater utilization of Centralized Procurement System 10) Establishes more positive control over spending discipline. 11) Reduces the potential for improper spending practices. IMPACT ANALYSIS: These proposed changes would have no effect on the desegregation plan or court orders. There are political factors to overcome in that areas of responsibi1ity would be shifted from one department to another in some cases. Some risks associated with not implementing these procedures would be 1) continuing danger of deteriorating relations with the business community and 2) continuing danger of fiscal improprieties or improper expenditure of public funds. In order to successfully implement in a timely manner, some detailed coordination with user groups will be required. RESOURCES ANALYSIS: These proposed changes would require no changes in staffing to the Procurement Department. Training would be minimal and conducted in-house. FOR.CE FIELD ANALYSIS: The majority of Schools/Departments are in favor of these changes. A few principals may perceive the changes in activity fund procedures as an attempt by Procurement to control these funds. some personnel in the Business Office may also be reluctant to make changes. Procurement plans to overcome these obstacles by having group sessions involving affected users to discuss shortcomings, potential pitfalls, and benefits. The goal Will be to stress the changes as improving efficiency and Productivity for the entire District. 9 GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: Following are the proposed timelines for implementation: 1/95 - 2/95 3/95 3/95 - 4/95 3/95 - 4/95 4/95 - 5/95 6/95 7/95 7/95 Activity Meet with Business Office personnel to discuss proposed changes Pre-audit function implemented Meet with principal advisory council to review procedural changes Update procedure manual Train LRSD personnel on local purchase order Implement local purchase order process Incorporate activity fund purchases with District's centralized automated procurement system Implement revised employee reimbursement procedure Business Case is recommended ___yes _x_no Person(s) Responsible Director of Procurement \u0026amp; Controller Director of Procurement \u0026amp; Controller Director of Procurement Director of Procurement Purchasing Supervisors Director of Procurement Director of Procurement \u0026amp; Controller Director of Procurement \u0026amp; Controller Plan Modification is recommended _x_yes __ no Overall recommendations are likely to have what type of budgetary impact: No budgetary impact _x_ Increased costs Decreased costs 10 ROCKEFELLER EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION MAGNET PROGRAM Program Description: Purpose: Scope and Content: The purpose of the program is to meet the growing needs of disadvantaged students and to improve the racial balance at schools that are difficult to desegregate by incorporating Early Childhood Education programs into the elementary schools. The program provides experiences for young children which meet their needs and stimulate learning in all developmental areas- physical, social, emotional, and intellectual. Priority for identification of program sites will be given to areas that have a very high concentration of low income students and in schools that are difficult to desegregate. The Rockefeller Early Childhood Magnet Program will be available to children from ages six weeks to four years old. The program will serve as a model for improving the academic achievement of disadvantaged students and attracting students to comply with desegregation reguirements. To provide a unique opportunity to explore and develop excellent early childhood education services to children and parents by providing complete continuity of education and childcare from early infancy through grade six. The program serves as a demonstration center for training college students as well as for inservice observation. Rockefeller Early Childhood Program operates 12 months of the year, Monday through Friday, from 7 a.m. until 5:30 p.m., with the exception of holidays. A fee of $60.00 per week is charged for students between the ages of six weeks and three years old. There is no charge for the four-year-old program during regular school hours (7:55 a.m. - 2:35 p.m.). The developmental program revolves around an active learning philosophy with a full spectrum of activities designed to stimulate children at different levels of development. The program is licensed by the Department of Human Services. It is staffed with certified early childhood teachers and has the following teacher/child ratio: 6 weeks to 24 months - 1 adult to every 2 children A total of 5.50 adults for 10 children. 24 months to 36 months - 1 adult to every 4 children A total of 4.50 adults for 17 children. 36 months - 1 adult to every 6 children A total of 3 adults for 18 children. Snacks are served in the mornings and in the afternoons and well-balanced hot meals are available through food services. l I I ii I j I I II II I It I I I I  I 11 I I I Rockefeller Early Childhoood Education Magnet Program Page 2 Participants/ Beneficiaries: Program Goals: Evaluation Criteria: The participants served Childhood Magnet program identified as being between through the Rockefeller Early are students who have been the ages of six weeks and four years old. October 1 is the date used for student placements. To meet the needs of disadvantaged students and to improve racial balance in schools that are difficult to desegregate. The early childhood education program at Rockefeller School will capitalize upon the school's high quality early childhood education as a desegregation tool. The Rockefeller Early Childhood Magnet Program evaluation will consist of the following evaluation criteria: 1. Documentation of academic achievement and enrollment. 2. Partnership agreements developed between Rockefeller, U.A.L.R., and area colleges. 3. Documentation showing the use of Rockefeller for: 4. Training, lnservices, and Observations. Documentation showing the program receives the same attention as K-6 in: supervision, support, staff development, resource allotments, accountability, monitoring, and evaluation. 5. Number of children staying in the program. 6. The number of siblings attending Rockefeller K-6. 7. 8. 9. Documentation of meetings to review policies and recommendations made. Classroom observations, monitoring reports and documentation of work sessions. Documentation of inservice and orientation for parents. 10. Documentation of inservice evaluations. 11. Documentation of Task Force meetings. I Rockefeller Early Childhoood Education Magnet Program Page 3 Evaluation Results: Objective 1 : Discussion 1: E.P.S.F. Evaluation results reflect data gathered from several sources. These data have been compiled and analyzed and yield the following results. To establish Rockefeller as academic achievement of attracting students to requirements. a model for disadvantaged comply with improving the students and desegregation 1 . Documentation of academic achievement and enrollment. An analysis of students who participated in compared to students who did not participate in using Post E.P.S.F. results, eligibility, and in the K-3 Summer School program. the program the program participation According to the E.P.S.F. 1993-94 Post Assessment findings of 40 kindergarten children at Rockefeller School the following is a analysis of 32 students who participated in the program compared to eight students who did not participate i\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_639","title":"Newsletters, Scattered issues","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":["1994/2001"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School management and organization","School improvement programs","School employees","Student activities"],"dcterms_title":["Newsletters, Scattered issues"],"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/639"],"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\nIncludes: Home and School (1998-2002\n4 issues)\nLRSD News (August/September 2003)\nNews and Views (September 1994-May 5, 1997)\nParent Talk (October 1990)\nUpdate (spring 2003)\nand \"\"A Progress Report on the Little Rock School District, 2000-2001 School Year,\"\" Arkansas Democrat-Gazette(October 31, 2001)\nHome \u0026amp; School FIRST QUARTER 98-99 CONNECTION District Unveils New Programs and Initiatives for 1998-99 School Year Our schools are experiencing many positive changes this schoolyear. School and district leaders are implementing new programs and other initiatives designed to improve student achievement and to better serve the residents of Little Rock. We are instituting campus leadership at all schools this year. Campus leadership allows a team at each school to set school goals and establish ways to measure progress toward these goals. Specific results expected from campus leadership are: - improved student performance: - improved community involvement in the school improvement process\n- clearly established accountability parameters for student performance: - raised staff productivity and satisfaction\n- improved communication and information flow\n- consensus-based, effective decisions: - increased flexibility for schools to allocate resources\n- coordination of program components. Each school is forming a campus leadership team this fall. The team will include parents, teachers, principal and neighborhood representatives. Please feel free to visit with your principal for information about the campus leadership initiative and how you can be involved. Another major program we are working on this fall is middle schools. You will find articles with more information on middle schools in this issue. Please note that we will implement middle schools in the fall of 1999. That means that fifth and sixth grade students thisyear will move to middle schools next fall where grades six. seven and eight will be taught. This year's eighth and ninth grade students will move to high schools next fall which will serve grades 9-12. Parents, teachers and administrators are working diligently to prepare for middle schools next _year. Middle schools are much more than changing the grade levels within the school buildings. We are overhauling our curriculum and student support services to provide the best education possible for our students. The articles on pages 2 and 3 describe how your child will benefit from middle school education. A third major initiative this fall is CONTINUED ON PAGE 4 INSIDE . . Davis Named LRSD Coach of the Year Marcus Davis, coach and 8\"' grade health and RE. teacher at Cloverdale lunior High Academy, was named Little Rock School District Coach of the Year for 1997-98. Cloverdale's boys basketball, girls volleyball and girls track teams have all enjoyed success under Davis leadership.  Middle Sclw^'ITClpc^c-- pgs___  School.' j^paIs TisL\"'xQj^ '\\ pg. 4  Hall .2-3  Nevy^^V'  Voliml^r  HeaflTi' ahs- 4 ,. 5 ,. 5 Principal Cassandra Norman described the winning coach as an exemplaiy person as well as an exemplary educator: Marcus' instructional ability goes far beyond teaching students the skills of sport. He teaches them skills for successful living.\" Davis' record of achievement for the 1997-98 school year included Cloverdale's administrative MARCUS DAVIS  SchooKCpi  Public 9a PS- 7 pg- 7 award, Teacher of the Year. Students see Davis as a tough, by-the-book, but fair, teacher. Fellow staff members see him as a model educator who maintains a clear picture of where he is and where he is headed, and as one who is admired and respected by all. 'implementation I N THE FALL O F 19 9 9 What is guiding the development of the middle schools in Little Rock? Parents, teachers and district staff are working in committees to design the middle schools. Our plan is based on the Turning Points\" model developed by the Carnegie Council of Adolescent Development. This plan evolves from the idea that young adolescents face many opportunities, or turning points, during the ages of 10-15. These turning points\" are: - Teaching a core of common knowledge: Every student in the middle grades should learn to think critically through mastery of an appropriate body of knowledge, lead a healthy life, behave ethically and lawfully, and assume the responsibilities of citizenship in a pluralistic society. - Ensure success for all students: Al I young adolescents should have the opportunity to succeed in every aspect of the middle grade program, regardless of previous achievement or the pace at which they learn. - Empower teachers and administrators\nDecisions concerning the experiences of middle grade students should be made by the adults who know them best. - Improve academic performance through better health and fitness: Young adolescents must be healthy in order to learn. - Reengage families in the education of young adolescents: Families and middle grade schools must be allied through trust and respect ifyoung adolescents are to succeed in school. - Connect schools with communities\nResponsibility for each middle grade students success should be shared by schools and community organizations. Will magnet junior high schools convert to middle schools next year? Yes, the magnet junior high schools will become middle schools next year, as will all of our junior high schools. Parents may apply for magnet schools or transfers as they presently do. Magnet school applications/assignments will not change. Published by the Middle School Communication Committee Which grades will be taught at each level? Kindergarten through fifth grades will be in elementaiy schools: grades 6-8 will be in middle schools: and grades 9-12 will be in the high schools. My child wants to participate in after-school activities next year. How will these be organized in the middle schools? Parents, teachers and administrators are developing a wonderful program of sports (both intramural and interscholastic) and other extracurricular activities. The middle school philosophy addresses more than just academic needs of children - health and fitness are important aspects of a childs well-being. How will the ninth grade students fit\" into the high school buildings? District staff members are visiting high schools in early September to determine the exact capacity which exists in each of the high school buildings. Some students in 12th grade may enroll in the Accelerated Learning Center which opened this fall. This program helps students who are veiy close to meeting graduation reouirements - but who may have family and work commitments which prevent their finishing school - to accelerate their pace toward graduation. (For more information on the accelerated program, please call Carol Green at 570-4043 or Alicia Finch at 570-1400.) Will ninth grade classrooms be isolated from other grades in the high school setting? It is our intent that they will be housed in a specific area unless their course work repuires them to attend class in a specialized area, such as band or art classes or a science lab. Committees are working on the transition of students into the high schools and logistics of the move. Parents concerns about their children are paramount in this planning process, and we will structure the high schools, as well as all other schools, with safety of the students as one of our top priorities. Brown Bag Lunches Bringyour ideas to conversations on middle schools in the LRSD Board room, 810 W. Markham - FROM NOON - I P.M. - TUESDAY. OCT. 27 THURSDAY, NOV. 19Home \u0026amp; School Connection ^Bchool. UpxlaCc What are the major differences between middle schools and junior high schools? MIDDLE SCHOOL JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL Pages THE PRUDENTIAL SPIRIT OF COMMUNITY AWARDS Is student-centered\nspecifically Is subject-centered\nschool designed to address needs of components function separately, adolescents. Focuses on interdisciplinary, high Focuses on masteiy of concepts and content curriculum that emphasizes skills in separate disciplines. thinking skills and hands-on authentic instruction. Thematic and interdisciplinaiy units Divided into academic and special closely related to the student's real subject areas separated by categoiy. world and including complex skills and factual information. Allows for flexible scheduling with large Reouires a regular six/seven period day blocks of time. of 50-55 minute periods. Encourages multi-materials approach to Depends on textbook-oriented instruction. instruction. Organizes teachers on interdisciplinaiy Organizes teachers in departments with teams with common planning period. no common planning period. Arranges classrooms of teamed Arranges classrooms of teachers teachers adjacent to one another. according to disciplines taught. Organizes athletics around intramural Organizes athletics around and/or interscholastic concept. interscholastic concept. Promotes healthy environment, Health services generally provided by providing links/access to health/social part-time nurse, services. For more information about LRSD middle schools, please contact Linda Young at 324-2112, or visit the LRSD web site at www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us Special thanks to all of the parents, teachers, administrators and other community residents who are volunteering their time to this exciting and worthwhile endeavor. Information included from the National Middle School Association. Remember, our students will benefit as we work together to make middle schools successful in our district. Help us honor middle-level and high school youth for their volunteer community service! More than 600 awards Each states top middlelevel and high school youth volunteer receives $1,000, a silver medallion and a trip to Washington, D.C., for recognition ceremonies In Washington, Americas top five middle-level and five high school volunteers of the year are named, each receiving $5,000, a gold medallion and trophy Application deadline is October 30 Prudential, in partnership with the National Association of Secondary School Principals For information: Contact school principals Visit our web sites: htlp://www.prudential.com, or WWW. nassp. org/services/awards.htmHome \u0026amp; School Connection Page 4 Principals for i998-99 School Year Hall High Planning for University School SENIOR HIGH Central ............. |.A. Fair............. Hall ................... McClellan......... Parkview............ . Rudolph Howard William Broadnax ... Gayle Bradford .......lodie Carter ..Dr. Linda Brown Vocational Technical Center Metropolitan Michael Peterson lUNIOR HIGH Cloverdale Academy Dunbar.................... Forest Heights........ Henderson.............. Mabelvale................ Mann....................... Pulaski Heights....... Southwest............... Cassandra Norman .....Deborah Beriy .......Vernon Smith lames Washington .... lames Fullerton ..Dr. Brenda lames ... Nang/Rousseau .............|im Mosby The Hall High University School, opening on the Hall High campus in the 1999-2000 school year, is a joint effort with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock to enable Hall High students to take concurrent college credit courses at Hall and UALR. Many of the courses will be taught with an Advanced Placement curriculum by Hall teachers while other courses will be taught by UALR professors. Initially, courses will be taught on the Hall High campus for maximum convenience of the students. Marilyn Brewster, Assistant ELEMENTARY Badgett............ Bale.................. Baseline.......... Booker............. Brady............... Carver.............. Chicot.............. Cloverdale....... Dodd............... Fair Park.......... Forest Park...... Franklin............ Fulbright......... Garland............ Geyer Springs.. Gibbs.............. lefferson........... King.................. Mabelvale........ McDermott..... Meadowclilf..... Mitchell........... Otter Creek..... Pulaski Heights Rightsell......... Rockefeller...... Romine............ Teriy................. Wakefield........ Washington..... Watson............ Western Hills .. Williams........... Wilson............. Woodruff......... ...........Mary Golston .... Barbara Anderson .............Eleanor Cox ....Dr. Cheryl Carson ..............Ada Keown ......Diane Barksdale ..............lane Harkg .......Frederick Fields ..........Faith Donovan ...Dr. Samuel Branch ....Theresa Courtney ...........Ethel Dunbar .... Deborah Mitchell .............Lionel Ward ..............Donna Hall ...........Felicia Hobbs .............Susan Beard ...........Tyrone Harris .......Tabitha Phillips .........Virgina Ashig/ ..............Terry Worm .................Lillie Scull ............lanice Tucker .............Lillie Carter .........Sharon Brooks .........Anne Mangan ............Sharon Davis ..............Nang Acre Mag lane Cheatham ..........Gwen Zeigler ........Michael Oliver ...........Scott Morgan ..........Mag Menking ...........Beverly Iones ....Pat Higginbotham Principal, has been designated as the Universiy School Coordinator. She will be working with UALR during the 1998- 99 school year to finalize courses to be offered for college credit. It is anticipated that the courses will cover the spectrum of academic areas in English, history, foreign languages, art and science. A complete list of concurrent credit courses will be published and distributed to parents throughout the city. Research shows that increasingly it takes students more than four years to complete a college degree. The University School will give Hall students a chance to complete hours of college credit while still in high school. This program will save mong/ for families by shortening the time required to complete a post-secondary degree program. Students can begin accumulating college credit without the expense of room and board at an institute of higher learning. Courses accepted by UALR for credit and posted on the students permanent college transcript should be transferable to other institutions of higher learning. The Hall High University School is modeled after a program in Wichita Falls, TX. As with the Wichita Falls program, it is anticipated that pledges of financial support being sought from area businesses will make possible the granting of scholarships for either reduced tuition rates or full tuition paid. Aid will be based on financial need. Applicants will be screened for aid by Hall High School. Hall students who want to participate in the University School must meet the admissions requirements of UALR. They must have a 2.5 GPA and make a composite score of 21 on the ACT. Once admitted to the University School and UALR, students will have access to all the facilities available on the UALR campus. The Hall High staff is excited about the establishment of the University School and will be happy to provide additional information upon request. Interested patrons should call University School Coordinator Marilyn Brewster at 671-6209 or Principal Gayle Bradford at 671-6203. New Programs FROM PAGE I SPECIAL PROGRAMS Alternative Learning Ctr. Accelerated Learning Ctr ... Lloyd Sain Carol Green the announcement of new school assignment zones. A school is more successful when the surrounding neighborhood supports the school. By redrawing school assignment zones children will be able to attend a school close to their homes. Schools will benefit by increased parent involvement due to convenience associated with a shorter commute to attend meetings and other schoolevents. Students can still request transfers to other schools and apply for specialized programs, such as magnets. when the new zones are in place. The major proposal would be the elimination of \"satellite zones\" which were established to desegregate schools. Currently, satellite zones do not have a desegregative benefit and result in longer bus rides for children. The committee which is developing new school attendance zones is comprised of parents, district staff and other interested parties. One of the issues the committee is addressing is allowing children to continue at the school they presently attend\nthis is called \"grandfathering. A final recommendation on this is expected in the next few weeks.Home \u0026amp; School Connection Pages Cloverdale Academy Host to St. Vincent Health System and The Partnership fora Healtly with health and wellness programs through the school's New Clinic Community has opened a free community clinic at Cloverdale junior High Academy. Clinic hours will be 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. each Tuesday. \"The clinic has a dual mission: first, we want to reach theyoung people and teaching staff at Cloverdale junior High Academy. Second, we want to touch the lives of the Southwest Little Rock community,\" said Melonese Clarke, RN, Director of Health Promotion and Community Outreach for St. Vincent. \"The Cloverdale junior High Community Clinic is one-of-a-kind in that we will have the opportunity to reach the students 1*^ I )( Celebrating Cloverdale Academy's new clinic opening arc (front, l-r) Liz Lacker. LRSD: Superintendent Les Carnine\nprincipal Cassandra Norman: NLR Fire Chief Bill Nolan: city director Linda loyce: Melonese Clarke. St. Vincent Health System RN: and Sister Carole Kaucic. also of St. Vincent Health System. curriculum. In this way, we hope to alter habits that can adversely affect teenagers' health before they become ingrained into their lifestyles. There is no better way to fulfill St. Vincent's mission to the community than to offer this type of clinic for students and their families.\" \"We are encouraged about the partnership between St. Vincent Health System, the Partnership for a Healthy Community and the Little Rock School District,\" said Dr. Les Carnine, Superintendent of the Little Rock School District. \"This will be very beneficial for our students and the surrounding community as well.\" Services offered at Cloverdale include: a disease management program focused on such diseases as diabetes, asthma and hypertension: education on such topics as osteoporosis, nutrition, obesity and its effects on the body, preventive care, breast self examination, importance of prostate examinations, cancer warning signs, seat belt use, violence prevention, HIV and AIDS, sexually transmitted diseases, stress management and other topics. Immunizations, vision and dental screenings, counseling, exercise prescription, and other health-related services will also be provided. This is the second free clinic established in a predominantly under-served area by St. Vincent and the Partnership for a Healthy Community. In july a free clinic opened at Glenview Recreation Center in North Little Rock. \\ V* Gearing Up to Volunteer in Public Schools A new school year has started, and the need for volunteers is as great as ever. If you haven't signed up to volunteer at your child's school, please do so now. Whether you want to read to a child, mentor a child who needs a friend, chaperone a field trip or speak to a class, your child's school will match you up with an appropriate volunteer activity. Please remember to sign in at the off ice on the VIPS form when you arrive at the school to volunteer. 11 is increasingly important to capture our volunteer hours. Many people consider the number of volunteer hours at a school when they are selecting a school for their child. VIPS will sponsor another day of reading thisyear. Please sign up to read to an elementaiy school class on Tuesday, November 17,1998. We want to have even more readers in the schools this yearl Forms are available at your child s school or by calling the VIPS office. The Vital Link program this summer placed SOO sixth graders in one-week internships in local businesses. The students and the business volunteers who worked with them had an exciting OPPORTUNITIES ONGOING Tutoring, mentoring, listening to a child read, reading to a child, providing clerical assistance in an office, working in a health room, providing hands-on assistance to a teacher during Nifty Nutrition class, providing hands-on assistance to Fulbright Elcmentaiy's art program SATURDAYS Providing assistance to the students working in the WoodrutT community/ garden SFASONAL Reading to elementary students during Reading Day (November 17, 1998). assisting with the annual Mentor's Picnic (May), assisting with Field Days (May). opportunity to learn together. Be sureyour sixth grader signs up for the program next summer. Applications will be available in the spring. Don't hesitate to call the VIPS office at 324-2290 if you have any Questions regarding volunteer programs in the district. Home \u0026amp; School Connection Page 6 Our Goal - Healthy Kids HEALTH NOTES SERVICES OF YOUR SCHOOL NURSE The professional school nurse provides health services to the school age child by promoting and protecting their optimal health through health assessment, counseling, screening and education. Frequently the nurse is the case manager for students with chronic health problems. She also identifies health risk behaviors such as substance abuse and disabilities. The school nurse encourages you to utilize these services. She can help be an important provider of health care for your child. SCREENING SCHEDULE BY GRADE K - Hearing, vision, height and weight I - Hearing, vision, height and weight 2 - Height and weight 3 - Hearing, vision, height and weight 4 - Blood pressure, height and weight 5 - Hearing, vision, height and weight. Scoliosis-girls only 6 - Scoliosis - all students, height and weight 7 - Hearing - all students. Scoliosis - girls only 8 - Blood pressure - all students. Scoliosis-all students 9- Scoliosis-girls only 10 - Vision, blood pressure and Scoliosis on all students IMMUNIZATIONS Arkansas law requires that eveiy student enrolled in school be adeq.uately immunized against Diptheria, Tetanus, Polio, Measles and Rubella. Students born after November 21,1991 must also be immunized against HIBS if they are under five years of age and immunized against Hepatitis B. Students entering the Little Rock School District must present an immunization record to the school before he/she may attend. In seventh grade a second MR is required by State Law. J ~ LRSD Health Services Office ~ Nutrition Education Benefits the Entire Family By Rosalyn Scruggs, Nutrition Education Coordinator How many times have you asked someone, \"What's for dinner?\" Or wondered what quick dish you could put together that eveiyone would eat? How frustrating! Why not involve the family ___ in planning the groceiy shopping, planning the menus and preparing the food? Children can be a tremendous asset toward helping to plan the groceiy list and the menus. Providing adequate nutrition for the family can be a learning experience. Children learn on various levels about the importance of nutrition and how it affects the body. Teaching children about nutrition can start as early as kindergarten. Nutrition education in public schools helps to build the bridge between the cafeteria and the classroom. The teacher in the planning of meals for the family. Setting aside time to go to your child's school can be beneficial for the parent and the child. Students not only learn about food, but they also learn new words, math facts and experience special science activities that are related to nutrition. Many other aspects of nutrition are relevant to the family. These include food safety and sanitation which mostly revolve around eating out at fast food has the responsibility of challenging students to I learn about various foods f and how these foods provide nutrition for restaurants establishments. and other dining their bodies. The essential proteins. vitamins, fats, and carbohydrates have a vital role in building healthy bodies through a proper balance of nutrition and daily exercise. Parents are encouraged to discuss what they have learned in school about nutrition through actively involving them The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is sponsoring Team Nutrition in all schools across the country. Team Nutrition involves students, teachers, parents, and the community in the role of helping to ensure our students are receiving healthy meals. Families are challenged to eat five servings a day of fresh fruits and vegetables. This challenge is to maintain a healthy body. Take the challenge and make good nutrition and exercise vital parts of your family's well being. Eveyone benefitsiHome \u0026amp; School Connection Page? Schools + Parents, Families \u0026amp; Communities = Success Children succeed when learning is supported by schools working together with parents, families, and linking communities. Parents' participation and community involvement may take place in many ways. Listed are some basic tips from programs that work.  All parents and families want the best for their children and can help them be successful.  Good family involvement programs do not always reQuire new or additional money.  Peop Ie and organ izations wi 11 stretch to meet the needs of the program in creative and innovative ways.  Children do best when parents play four key roles in their children's learning:  teachers (helping children at home)\n supporters (volunteering at school):  advocates (helping children receive fair treatment): and  decision-makers (participating in joint problem-solving at school). (Henderson and Berla. 1994) Arkansas Public Schools Week OCTOBER 4-10, 1998 The fourth annual Arkansas Public Schools Week will be held October 4-iO, i998. The celebration is sponsored by the Arkansas Chapter of the National School Public Relations Association. The purpose of this week-long celebration of Arkansas' public schools is to give the community an opportuni^ to see firsthand the wonderful programs and opportunities available in the schools. School staff and administrators are encouraged to plan activities that will motivate community A major provision of the \"reauthorized\" Elementaiy and Secondaiy Education Act (ESEA). Title I. 1994. is the requirement that each Title I school develops a school-parent compact (learning compact). Schools receiving Title I funds (schoolwide and targeted assistance) must have on file a school-parent learning compact for each student. A compact is a written agreement that clearly states eveiyone's role in helping students meet district and state standards. A compact may include\n(I) how expectations of schools and parents are met\n(2) how clear school goals and rules are practiced\n(3) how teachers and students will work together: and (4) how schools and parents will share information. Schools that have used partnerships experienced an overall improved school atmosphere, parent participation, family support services, student study habits, and communication among teachers, parents and the school. There is no standard way to write a compact. However, a school-parent compact is required to include a school's responsibility to provide high-quality ARKANSAS PUBLIC SCHOOLS THE HEART OF OUR COMMUNITY Cefyrlglu C/gft. Chafltr o/rh, NallMul School Mlle Helallam^itoeolloe. support and further promote strong schoolcommunity collaboration. Parents and volunteers are invited to support their school(s) by lending a helping hand at activities planned by staff. curriculum and instruction\ndescribe ways in which parents will be responsible for supporting their childrens learning, such as monitoring attendance, homework completion and television watching: and address the importance of continuous two-way communication between teachers and parents. Compacts should become active tools in the operation of schools. Thg, may be used to describe expectations, plan training activities, help school personnel clarify efforts, and help teachers, parents and students make choices about how they spend their time. The compact should be reviewed annually for its effectiveness and, where necessarj', changed. Parents are encouraged to participate in the development of the school learning compact. For additional information, please contact the Little Rock School District Office of Federal Programs at 324-2110. 24 Named National Merit Semifinalists Twenty-four Little Rock School District students were recently named National Merit Semifinalists. These students will now compete for scholarships from the National Merit Scholarship Corporation and its sponsors. The students are\nSarah Argue, Lauren Autrey, Laura Beaton, Lauren Carter, |ohn Chamberlin, Thomas Deere, Amanda Dees, Evin Demirel, Ross Glotzbach, Elizabeth Holland, Shannon Keith, Patrick Kennedy, Katherine Laning, Maribeth Mock, Cynthia Nance, Courtney Nosari, Catherine Oswald. Carter Price, Kelli Roark, Elayna Wells and Christopher Wheat from Central High School\nand Mark Burling, )ami Harrison and Mark Thiedeman from Parkview Magnet High School. Home \u0026amp; School CONNECTION Home \u0026amp; School Connection is published by the Little Rock School District to provide busy parents and guardians with practical ideas that promote school success, parent involvement and more effective parenting. Communications Office 810 W. Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (SOI) 324-2020 http://www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us Home \u0026amp; School Connection IJ Little Rock School District SIOW. Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 TO THE PARENTS OF: ANDREW BROWN 1201 WELCH ST UTILE ROCK AR 72202-40(52 LRSD Graduates Receive Scholarships for Judo Shaun Burns, a graduate of Parkview, and B.). Bosah, a Non-Profit Organization U.S. Postage PAID Permit No. 1367 Little Rock, AR Page 8 - relationship helps children learn and gives volunteers a fulfilling way to make a difference in the life of a child. \"What an inspiration these children have provided me,\" says one volunteer. \"Their interest in learning as new skills are graduate of |.A, Fair, accepted full judo scholarships at introduced continue to prove our time does make a Southern Illinois University (^4\nU.) beginning Fall liK?8. differeneel\" Burns and Bosah both studied at the Little Rock judo Center Each tutor participates in an initial 11/2 hour orientation (LR|C) over the past s^ral years under the direction of and training. After the initial assessment is made tutors are Gaiy Norton, coach Mann Magnet Junior High, and Eric asked to spend 30 minutes a week with kindergarten students Baker. The S-yea^-qld LR|C Serves as an after school or 45 minutes a week with first and second grade students, program for stud^ts ip Little Rock School District and Those interested in tutorii from Central Arkansas. Burns and Bo^V are both ranked at the lop of their respective weighttM^ries nationally and have trained at program coordina^J^ atJefferson should contact the .! the U.S. Ol^jiipy^hipg Center in Colorado Springs, Studcnt Vtolcn^ Colorado. J j i , All of the nmhlems rt nw 1^0 program thisyear and has expressed relationship with the Little Rock S.I.U. f( interest in t |udo Centei Reading lefferson future athletes. :s Key to Suciress \"This time (ifcdina tutoring) has fed my soul and I am so proud of my stMdU^rogress,\" states Debbie Coates, one of the thirty-fi^rreeaafl flfe tutors who volunteered last 39.^1 in th Nations Schools All of the problems rooted in the home and on the street walk through the schoolhouse doors evegr day. Overall, about one school crime is reported lOO students. Of these, 95 percent are nonviolent fWpercent are serious .violent aimcs such as rape, robbery, battery or involving a weapon - five violent crimes for, every fO,0OQ students. Nearly percent of all students report some type of formal school violence prevention or reduction program. Data Illustrates that there students incur violent,acts at home than at school. In many places, sch^ \u0026gt;v^e the safest place. the most nourlSffig rr^s, tbelhi ist si^ortive environment, year at Jefferson Elemc.^,,^th.,p^o.k,.. Beginning its second ' the most nurturinMlaults ,5^ - esUfcalth care that children year, Jefferson STARS (Stut^^nts Taiget and Successfully) is a structured volunteer reading tutoring a , .   c program targeting at-risk kindergarten through seepfjradeT School Administrators Newsletter students. It is designed to enable student?to iftd^nd j comprehend at grade level by the beginning tai\nnts taiget and Achii As printed in the STARS program volunteers create wonderful partnerships with the children they tutor. The one-on-one Home \u0026amp; School SECOND QUARTER 1 999-2000 CONNECTION PTA Membership Increases 34% Membership in the PTA in Little Rock schools climbed dramatically this fall. The Little Rock PTA Council announced that LRSD schools recruited a total of 16,453 PTA members. This is a 34 percent increase over total PTA membership last year. Sixteen schools reported to the PTA Council that they have achieved 100 percent membership, which means a PTA member for every child enrolled as of Oct. 1 at the school. The schools reporting 100 percent PTA membership are: Bale, Booker, Carver, Dodd, Forest Park, Fulbright, Gibbs, Jefferson, Martin Luther King, McDermott, Rightsell, Rockefeller, Western Hills, Williams, Mann Magnet, and Pulaski Heights Middle School. Three other schools reported to the Arkansas PTA that they had 100 percent membership\nthese schools are Cloverdale Elementary, Garland SEE PTA ON PAGE 3 INSIDE . .  Preventing Illness pg- 2  Enrollment, Open Houses pg. 2 After School Programs  Dropout Prevention Volunteer Update  Graduation Schedule pg- 4 pg- 5 pg- 5 pg- 6 District Receives Arkansas Quality Award The Little Rock School District was one of 53 organizations or companies and the only school district in the state to receive a 1999 Arkansas Quality Award. The district received the Quality Interest Award, the starting point for any organization expressing interest in adopting and applying quality principles as defined by the seven categories of the Arkansas Quality Award Criteria. As well as the recognition, each organization received written feedback citing strengths and areas that need improvement in its quality Schools Present Repair/Renovation Needs at Public Meetings During five nights of public meetings in late November and early December, parents, teachers and principals outlined specific repairs, additions and renovations needed at the districts 50 schools. The list of needs was probably not a surprise to School Board and audience members in attendance since 10 years have passed since the community last voted for a millage increase for the Little Rock School District. Among the most frequently noted problems were school restroom facilities that are outdated. LRSD School Board President Sue Strickland receives the award from Gov. Mike Huckabee. management program. Other award categories are: Quality Commitment Award, designed for organizations that have progressed to a point of demonstrating a serious SEE QUALITY ON PAGE 3 inoperative or beyond repair\nroof leaks\ninadequate heating and cooling systems\nand need for additional classrooms. We are compiling the lists of building needs that the school campus leadership teams developed and will present these funding requirements to the School Board in January, said superintendent Les Carnine. It was important that parents and teachers help us to identify their schools needs since they are the ones using the buildings every day.  Home \u0026amp; School Connection Page 2 Prevention, Education - the Best Medicine With medical expenses increasing every year and with chronic diseases on the rise, prevention is key to staying healthy. This applies to both our students and our staff. Parents, school nurses and staff need to be proactive in this area. VARICELLA Of special importance to parents of children in our 4-year- old and preschool programs is the new Health Department requirement for Varicella vaccine by January, 2000 for the prevention of chickenpox. Chickenpox disease can range from very mild to very severe and can even result in death from complications. This is a highly contagious viral disease which many times may result in scars, seven to ten days out of school and other medical complications. Besides being a new requirement, the vaccine is recommended for children and adults who do not have a history of the disease. We encourage you to check with your physician or local health department to receive this vaccine. SCOLIOSIS Did you know that it is a state law (House Bill 1031) that school students be screened for the condition of scoliosis? If found early, scoliosis is easier to treat, and treatment is more likely to be successful. The name scoliosis means crooked, and this condition affects the spine. Starting with fifth grade girls, boys and girls are screened at significant points in their development. Students are referred to a physician for further evaluation if they have a scoliometer reading greater than 5 degrees. This screening is 95% completed in the LRSD for the year 1999-2000. HEPATITIS B VACCINE Hepatitis B is a virus that causes an infection in the liver. The disease is a widespread major health problem across the United States and can be life-threatening. Hepatitis B is significantly more infectious than the HIV virus that causes AIDS. Starting in 1991, hepatitis B vaccination was recommended for all newborns. Now, the Centers for Disease Control has recommended catchup immunizations for all adolescents. Since adolescents average less than one medical visit each year and are approaching the time in their lives when they are at greater risk, school-based vaccination programs are an ideal way to protect this vulnerable segment of the population. The Pulaski County Health Department and LRSD school Student Registration Office Announces 2000'2001 Schedule The LRSD Student Registration Office has announced its schedule for the 2000-2001 registration process. If you have any questions about the registration process, please call 324-2272. Jan. 8 Jan.10 Jan.18 Jan. 18 - 19 Jan. 20 Jan. 24 - Feb. 4 Magnet School Fair - Park Plaza Mall Elementary Open House Middle School Open House Check Us Out School Tours High School Open House March 1 March 6 March 6 - 17 April 5 June 2 - July 28 Registration (Open Enrollment Period for Kindergarten, Transfer, Magnet School, 4-year-old and New Students) Assignment letters mailed Registration reopens at Attendance Zone Schools and the Student Registration Office Special Circumstances Transfer application period 4-year-old Program assignment letters to be mailed Summer registration in Student Registration Office nurses are making available the hepatitis B series to our fifth grade students. FLU VACCINE What have you heard about the flu this year? It is going to be the worst. M U- It is starting early. It is Starting late. The things we do know for certain are that people of any age can get influenza and that influenza can make one slightly ill, severely ill or even result in death. Flu vaccine is recommended for any person who wishes to reduce the likelihood of becoming ill with influenza and has no contraindications to the vaccine. All persons 65 years of age and over, health care workers, household members of high-risk persons and people with medical conditions such as heart, lung or kidney disease, asthma, or metabolic diseases such as diabetes, anemia, and other blood disorders should get the vaccine. I i 10 a.m. - 4 p.m. 6:30 - 8:30 p.m. 6:30 - 8:30 p.m. 9 a.m. -1 p.m. 6:30 - 8:30 p.m. fHome \u0026amp; School Connection Page 3 Parents Support Millage for School Improvements A majority of Little Rock School District parents polled in September would support a millage increase for specific building and technology improvements. Staff members conducted the survey in every school on parent conference day. More than 2,000 parents responded to the questions which addressed technology\nschool and classroom security\nrenovations, repairs and additions\nand alternative classrooms. Parents considered technology the highest priority for a bond issue with more than 92% who rated it a 4 or 5 on a five-point scale. Repairs, renovations and building additions came in second with more than 87% of parents agreeing or strongly agreeing this is a priority for a bond issue. Security needs received more than 83% support, while alternative education facilities received about 80% support. Parents were specifically asked whether or not they would be willing to pay additional taxes to support the project areas included Construction crews prepare the site for the new Stephens Elementary School and Community Center at 3700 West ISth Street. The district plans to move into the building in January, 2001. in the survey. Almost 80% said they would be willing to pay more taxes to support school improvements. The district has not asked voters for a millage increase since 1990. Currently, the average age of LRSD buildings is 44 years, and more than half were built prior to 1960. PTA CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1__________ and Pulaski Heights Elementary. To put this in perspective, last year only 7 schools in the LRSD achieved 100 percent membership. This year, at least one-third of our schools will be 100 percent PTA membership units. Among those schools that did not quite reach 100 percent membership there were some significant gains, even with the loss of one grade level in the elementary schools: Mitchell increased 46 percent over last year\nOtter Creek, 106 percent\nRomine, 19 percent\nWashington, 9 percent\nWilson, 158 percent\nand Woodruff, 8 percent. Among middle schools, Dunbar showed a 33 percent increase\nForest Heights, 129 percent\nand Henderson, 27 percent. At the high school level Central showed a 128 percent increase. Fair a 125 percent increase. Hall a 34 percent increase, and Parkview a 21 percent increase. f Quality CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1 commitment to the use of total quality principles. Quality Achievement Award, received by organizations that have demonstrated sound and notable processes through their commitment and practice of quality principles.  Governors Quality Award, the highest level of recognition presented to organizations that have demonstrated through their practices and achievements the highest category of quality excellence. The Arkansas Quality Award program was created through a special partnership between the State of Arkansas and the private business community. The programs goal has been to encourage as many Arkansas organizations as possible to engage in continuous quality improvement and to provide significant recognition at its awards celebration for /Arkansas organizations that have demonstrated achievements in the implementation of quality principles and practices. Home \u0026amp; School Connection Page 4 Rootin ^'Tootin Reading Fun for AU Western Hills Elementary kicked off the 1999-2000 uRootin-Tootin-Reading incentive program with a special day for all students. The entire staff dressed in western wear, while everyone enjoyed cowboy games such as the Lariat Jump. A real cowpoke, Steve Jones of UALR, came to show students his horse. The Sunny Brook Farms Petting Zoo was also a hit as students enjoyed touching the cuddly critters. A chuckwagon sponsored by Sonic, Hometown Foods and the Western Hills PTA served chili, cowboy brew and moon pies. The group effort between Western Hills, neighborhood sponsors and guests kicked off the beginning of a Rootin-Tootin time of reading for all students. 21^ Century After'school Programs Making a Difference in Community BY MARION BALDWIN In June 1998, the Little Rock School District became the first district in Arkansas to receive a 21 Century grant\nthe award was slightly over $1 million. The money is being used to provide programs at McClellan Community High School, Cloverdale Middle Level Academy and Cloverdale Elementary. President Bill Clintons 21 Century Community Learning Centers program has made possible the expansion of after-school programs throughout the country. At the national level. Congress has provided $200 million dollars to fund after-school, weekend and summertime programs for youth. The Little Rock LEADERS (Literacy Education, Academic Development, Educational Resources Services) project provides youth and adults with educational and social services. LEADERS programming and other district initiatives are aligned with the districts Strategic Plan and Revised Desegregation and Education Plan to maximize academic support for students who are not performing at grade level. LEADERS programs include: after-school tutoring for children in grades K-12\nacademic enrichment\nrecreation\n2 Cool 4 School Summer Day Camp\nemployment preparation training\nand community service projects. Medical and mental health services also are provided to students and their families. A total of 587 youth between the ages of 5 and 18 participated in the first year of LEADERS programming. More than 80 families received medical services during Saturday clinics and 100 students participated in mental health programs. Currently, there are approximately 360 youth enrolled in after-school tutoring. For more information about these and other available programs, contact McClellan Community Education at 570-4149. I Student Named Wendy's Heisman State Winner Scott Schilb, a senior at Parkview Magnet High School, was selected as a State Winner in the 1999 Wendys High School Heisman Award program. This award is based on excellent achievement in academics, athletics and community service. The State Winners will receive a silver medal presented by Wendys International. Of the State Winners, 12 students (6 male and 6 female) will be selected National Finalists. They will travel to New York City for recognition ceremonies. This year, 12,000 nominations were submitted for the award program. The competition is also sponsored by the National Association of Secondary School Principals. Home \u0026amp; School Connection Pages ( Dropout Prevention Nobody wants to see a student drop out of school, but each year many students make this unfortunate decision. There are many reasons students drop out, and as parents and educators we must learn how to recognize students with the potential for leaving school before graduation. This year the Little Rock School District started a program that places a Dropout Prevention Coordinator in each middle school and high school. The primary responsibility of this staff member is to identify potential dropouts and to provide them with assistance that will prevent them from dropping out of school. The school district has many programs in place that are designed to help students who are not successful in their present school environment. The schoolbased Dropout Prevention Coordinators can work with these students and their parents to get students back on the track to academic success. To learn more about this program, or to seek help with a dropout problem, contact your schools Dropout Prevention Coordinator. ViPS Reading Day was a great success! 793 volunteers read to LRSD elementary students on November 16! ViPS H sss PU^lC SCHOOLS Whats happening next? Mark your calendar now, MARCH 1 - Be counted! Volunteer hours for the 1999-2000 school year are due. Send your volunteer hours to your schools ViPS chairperson or fax to the ViPS office at 324-2044. Any volunteer activity contributed on behalf of the school should be counted, including preparation and drive time to volunteer activities. Make sure your school receives credit for your hard work and support! MARCH 21 - ViPS Award nominations are due. You can nominate LRSD volunteers. Partners in Education and certified and non-certified staff for their support of volunteerism in your school. To request a ViPS Award nomination form, call the ViPS office at 324-2290. MARCH 24 - Vital Link student applications are due. Vital Link is a one-week student internship program held during the summer for any LRSD student entering seventh grade. All interested students must apply to participate. See your school counselor or contact the ViPS office for an application. ATTENTION LRSD-TV VIEWERS APRIL 25 - All LRSD volunteers and employees are invited to attend An Evening for the Stars Vit Ricks Armory from 5:30 - 7:30 p.m. ViPS Award winners will be announced after the close of our wonderful silent auction. Call for reservations, 324-2290. If you are experiencing problems with the reception and quality of LRSD-TV Cable Channel 4, please call Comcast Cable at 375-5755. After 5:00 p.m. call 375-0104. Want to volunteer? Volunteers in Public Schools has an ongoing need for volunteers throughout the district. For a list of opportunities, call the ViPS office at 324-2290 or tune in to the districts educational access channel 4 on Comcast.Home \u0026amp; School Connection Page 6 Students Say ALC Beneficial to Their Success Imagine a classroom where lessons are tailored to each students particular needs, and computers line the walls of the room. The Alternative Learning Center (ALC) provides such a setting as a nontraditional, structured school that serves students in grades 6-12. Students who have experienced discipline sanctions in their assigned schools may attend the ALC where small class sizes, computer-aided instruction and behavior modification classes help many students succeed. I came to the ALC for skipping school, said 11* grade student Jessie Vernon. The teachers helped me, encouraging me, telling me I can do it. They helped me be a role model for other students. I have self-discipline, self-control. I can make good grades. Here, they help you and tell you to wipe the slate clean and start fresh, Vernon added. t .4 ALC stwcients use computers for much of their instruction. Computers allow students to work at their own pace. Other students who have studied at the ALC agree that the alternative program has given them new perspective. My attitude has changed by a participating in group session, according to 9* grade student Tomi Phillips who spent a semester at the ALC. Tomi said controlling her temper is an area she has been working on, and the ALC staff taught her to think positively about herself. ALC principal Lloyd Sain and his staff enjoy the challenge of working with students who have experienced problems in their regular schools. He believes that the academic focus and conflict resolution discussions help students who may have not had much success in their regular schools. The ALC also serves as a transition back into the Little Rock School District for students who may have been in juvenile detention facilities. Monkietron Walls was one of those students. I came from Alexander training school. I did six months down there. It (ALC) helped me a lot, Walls advised. The teachers spend as much time as they can explaining, Walls continued. You work at your own pace. Working on the computer, you go through each lesson. Im in Geometry, Biology, History and English.  Walls said the ALC program also helps students with social skills, such as introductions, how to dress and how to act. He said the staff also talk with students about how to deal with feelings which helps them improve their attitudes. I used to have a bad attitude when I got here. Ive seen they can help me in I S' certain areas. Tenth grade student Andrew Ellis has been to the ALC on three occasions. He said that he has a better attitude now and thinks he will absorb the lessons better this time. He hopes that in his regular school he will find someone I can talk with, and I have to be ALC students binefitfrom group discussions with staff members about conflict resolution and behavior management. Many students feel the discussions help them \"adjust their attitudes when they return to their regularly assigned schools. more mature and be able to handle it myself. The ALC provides for more than the academic needs of its students, and its obvious that many of these students believe the ALC has given them another chance to succeed when they leave. Home \u0026amp; School Connection Page? Parent Tips With the information you have received from your childs school and the district about the new reading, math and science programs, you may wonder how you can continue important learning activities at home. College Board Recognizes Students for Exceptional Performance on AP Exams Of the 534 Advanced Placement (AP) exams taken by 295 LRSD students, a total of 276 exams earned a score of three or better. These marks brought $ 13,800 in incentive funds to the district based on Act 929 of 1997. The Arkansas Department of Education awards a district $50 for each exam that earns a score of three or better. The exams are Do you: - Sit with your child or children every night and let them read aloud to you? - Show your child how math and science are used in household chores, such as preparing recipes? - Take your child to the library and help her or him select books? - Ask your child questions about classroom activities in order to better understand what your child does each day? - Visit your childs school as often as possible to show your child that you are interested in his or her education? scored from one to five, with five being the highest score. The exams were taken in May of 1999. The funds must be spent on the schools Advanced Placement Programs. The funds allow schools to expand programming by purchasing instructional equipment/materials and providing professional development opportunities, student fee assistance and public relations activities. The two schools with the highest number of student scoring a three or above on the exams are Central High School with 191 exams and Parkview Magnet High School with 76 exams. More than 95,000 high school students received awards from the College Board for exceptional mastery of college-level material, as indicated by the grades they received on three or more Advanced Placement (AP) Examinations. This year's top College Board award. National AP Scholar, went to 1,031 students who had accumulated high grades on eight or more AP Exams - a level that qualifies students for two or more years of credit at virtually every college and university in the nation. Another 20,698 students were named AP Scholars with Distinction for having accumulated five or more AP grades averaging 3.5 or higher ~ a level that qualifies students for at least one year of college credit. The two other award categories went to 21,736 AP Scholars with Honors for grades of 3.25 or above on at least four AP Exams and 51,937 AP Scholars who had an average grade of 3 on at least three AP Exams. - Talk with your childs teachers to find out how you can help support what the teachers are doing at school? - Understand how important YOU are in your childs school success? On behalf of the administrators of the Little Rock School District, we would like to issue a special thank you to our outstanding faculty, principals and support staff. These wonderful professionals have given so much of their personal time this year to ensure our middle school transition, grade restructuring and new programs have gotten off to a successful beginning. Whfn you see a teacher, say thanks.\"Home \u0026amp; School CONNECTION Home \u0026amp; Scliao! 'CJo^Tieftion 15 published by the Liljle Kock School District to provide lAisi^arents and guardians with practicjfl idea'sJWat ptbrnote school success, parent involve^nt and more effective par^^Ul . Com  v  arkliam ' /w,. . . LittleRock,72201 (soirsifeoio http://www.lrsd.kl2,ar.us Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ************* TO THE PARENTS OF: BROWN, ANDREW 707 N SPRUCE ST ***ECRLOT**C-002 little EOCK AR 72205.375 ] Non^rofit Organization U.S. Postage PAID Pennit No. 1367 LitUe Rock, AR Home \u0026amp; School Connection Page 6 Important Dates EXAM SCHEDULE: First Semester: January 10, 11, 12 and 13 Second Semester: May 28, 30, 31 and June 1 Senior Exams: May 17, 18, 19 and 22 GRADUATION SCHEDULE: Baccalaureate: May 30: May 31: June 1: May 28 (all schools - times may vary) Parkview - 6 p.m. McClellan - 8:30 p.m. Fair - 6 p.m. Hall - 8:30 p.m. Central - 7 p.m. ft Have Happy and Safe Holidays! What do you think... Please take a minute to let us know how to better meet your needs as parents. As we look forward to the millennium school year, we know times change and so do the needs of our parents. The Communications Department is requesting your input on the content and title of this newsletter.  Does the newsletter keep you informed about our schools? yes sometimes no  If yes, what do you like most about the newsletter?  If sometimes or no, what kind of information would better meet your needs as a parent? ______________________________________________  Do you have a suggestion for a new name for this publication? Please send your comments or suggestions to: Suellen Vann, Communications Director, 810 W. Markham, Little Rock, AR 72201 OR sevann@lrsdadm.lrsd.k12.ar.usD Homi A PUBLIOATIONOF THE * LITTLE ROCK SCWOL DH -2_______ - BACK-TO-SCHOOL EDITION SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2001 I-\"T Improvement Projects Are Underway in LRSD Schools LRSDs schools honestly can be called works in progress, thanks to the voters of Little Rock who approved a 5-mill increase last year to benefit our schools and our children. The maze of ductwork in the hallways of Bale Elementary is a result of the new heating/air conditioning system that was installed at the school over the summer. Many building improvements have already been completed, some are currently in the works and even more are in various stages of planning. The construction plans, said Doug Eaton, LRSD Director of Facility Services, will benefit virtually every school in the Little Rock School District, be it a small improvement to the electrical system or a major rebuilding project. Some of the upcoming projects include: Central High School will see some major renovations beginning this fall. The first phase includes replacing the buildings roof and doing extensive work on its facade. First and foremost in Centrals plan is moisture mitiga-tion, said Bill Goodman, LRSDs Engineer. A lot of damage has been done over the years from water seeping into the building from the roof, the windows and other places around the buildings (continited on p. 2) LRSD Welcomes New Staff The Little Rock School District Board of Directors has approved the appointment of the following people to administrative positions: Major Changes in Store for Mann The news came from out of the blue, but youd be hard pressed to find a student who upset about it! Mann Arts \u0026amp; Science Magnet Middle School was students discovered on May 29 that their summer vacation would begin two days early. The reason for the early dismissal was a surprising engineering report that declared several buildings on the Mann campus were deteriorating more rapidly than previously known. Students were sent home that day with a letter from Mann principal Jim Fullerton explaining how school and district administrators had come to make this decision. The report states that two On the first day of the 2001-2002 school year, Manns stuJencs test out their new portable classroom buildings. A deserted hallway, lined with hastily emptied lockers, awaited the u/recking bail at Mann in June. of the buildings at Mann are structurally unsound, he said, and others also have serious problems. While there would have to be some triggering event to cause an immediate safety issue, there is some potential risk. While the school was already planning for major demolition and rebuilding under the districts improvement plan, the original construction schedule for Mann had to be moved up eight months. Teachers and staff at Mann spent the remainder of that week (continued on p. 2)  Johnny Johnson joins the LRSD as Athletic Director. He was Assistant Athletic Director and Mens Basketball Coach at the University of the Ozarks.  Debbie Price, former Principal at Dunbar Magnet Middle School, was appointed to the newly created position of Magnet Schools Assistance Program Director (see related story on magnet schools on page 2).  John Bacon, former Assistant Principal at Dunbar Magnet Middle School, has been named Principal at that school.  Angela Munns, former Assistant Principal at Central High School, is the new Principal at Cloverdale Magnet Middle Level Academy.  Karen Carter, former Assistant Principal at Franklin Elementary, was promoted to become Principal at Meadowcliff Elementary. 'elcome back to school! As we begin the new school year, you will notice a change in our newsletters. We  Message from the Superintendent  2001 Convocation: A Real Circus!  Volunteering Your Time can Help a Child  Substance Abuse Program Rewards Students  Improve Your Childs Test-taking Skills  Good News from around the District pg- 3 pg- 3 pg- 4 pg-pg- 6 pg- 7 have expanded Home \u0026amp; School Connection to include news of importance to parents of children in Little Rocks schools, to LRSD staff members and to the community at large. This change eliminates the need for News \u0026amp; Views, our former staff newsletter. Home \u0026amp; School Connection will be published bimonthly. Parents will continue to receive copies in the mail, and teachers and administrators will receive their copies via interoffice mail. What do you think? If you have questions, comments or ideas, please call 324-2020, fax to 324-2023 or email to jmdavis@lrsdadm.lrsd.kl2.ar.us. We would love to hear from you! w. Page 2 Little Rock School District Federal Education Grant Is Approved\nFour Little Rock Schools Get Magnetized Imagine that you are in the 6th grade and you have a great interest in building things. You take an introductory class in Engineering at your school, and youre hooked. Then imagine that you spend the rest of your middle school years concentrating your study in the area of engineering and go on to high school with the same subject focus. You graduate from high school with a background in engineering, and youre well prepared to go on to college and begin your career. Years ago, this scenario would have seemed impossible. In todays world, however, it is entirely within reach. Magnet schools make it possible. Thanks to an important grant the LRSD has received from the Projects, from page 1 exterior. We will take care of this before any other work is done. The second phase will encompass some major renovations, including a new air conditioning system. This phase is expected to begin this winter. A new athletic center is in the works for Hall University Studies High School. This addition to the school will also include expansion of the cafeteria and some new classrooms. Halls construction is planned to begin this winter. Mabelvale Magnet Middle School, which has just received grant money to develop magnet programs in Environmental Science, Information \u0026amp; Communications Technology and Medical Investigations (see story above), also will undergo major renovations this winter. Additions to the cafeteria and administrative area Thomas Elected Governor at Boys' State Byron Thomas, a student at Parkview Arts \u0026amp; Science Magnet High School, was elected Governor at Arkansas Boys State during the summer. The Governor has a lot to do. It has really taught me a lot about how state government works, and I think maybe someday this could be something that I would like to do, Thomas stated. Thomas is the vice president of the Parkview Student Council. School Board Elects Officers At the September 28, 2001, school board meeting, the Little Rock Board of Education elected new officers for the 2001-02 school year. Baker Kurrus, Zone 4 representative, was elected president of the Board. Judy Magness, Zone 3, was elected vice president, while Tony Rose, Zone 6, was chosen to serve as Board secretary. Outgoing Board president Dr. Katherine Mitchell, Zone 1, expressed her appreciation for the high level of cooperation among Board members during the past year and acknowledged that one of the Boards major accomplishments was selecting Dr. Ken James as the new superintendent. U. S. Department of Education, more students than ever have the opportunity to specialize in a particular field of study while in middle school and high school. The three-year Magnet Schools Assistance Program grant, with a total value in excess of $7 million, will provide over $2.3 million this school year alone to establish a range of magnet programs at four secondary schools in the district. Debbie Price, former principal at Dunbar Magnet Middle School, has been appointed Director of Magnet Schools /Assistance Program and will coordinate the development and oversee implementation of the new magnet programs. Part of the grant money has been earmarked for the addition of a Central Highs facade will get a much-needed overhaul this year. will be built, as well as classroom additions designed to support the schools new magnet programs. Progress on all millage projects is updated monthly\nyou can log on to the Little Rock School District website at www.LRSD.org and click on Construction Projects to check out your school. curriculum coordinator and two lead teachers at each of the schools, supplies, equipment to set up labs, teacher training and consultants for staff development. The schools that will benefit from this magnet grant are: Cloverdale Magnet Middle Level Academy will add magnet programs in the fields of Economics, Multimedia, Engineering and an International Baccalaureate program. McClellan International Baccalaureate Magnet Academy will begin corresponding programs in Business \u0026amp; Finance, Multimedia \u0026amp; Graphic Design, Engineering and its own International Baccalaureate program. Mabelvale Magnet Middle School will incorporate magnet course strands in Environmental Science, Information \u0026amp; Communications Technology and, in partnership with Southwest Hospital, Medical Investigations. J. A. Fair Science \u0026amp; Technology Systems Magnet High Schoors magnet programs will encompass Environmental Science, Systems Engineering \u0026amp; Information Sciences and Medical Studies. Incoming 6th grade students at the two middle schools will Mann, from page 1 packing up offices and classrooms in preparation for the upcoming demolition. Until the new classrooms are built, students will attend most of their classes in portable buildings. All of this relocation and temporary housing will result in a brand-new building designed to enhance Manns specialty programs, said Fullerton. All of us students, teachers, parents and administratorshave a lot to look forward to as Mann gets spend their first year sampling introductory courses from the various programs to try to find a subject area, or strand, of interest. The 7 th and Sth grade years will be spent working in the academic strand of choice. When the student progresses to high school, he or she may choose to continue in the same academic strand or to review the other available options. The introductory courses are already in place for incoming 6th graders at the middle school level and 9th graders at the high school level\ncourses for the remainder of the grades will be ready in 2002-2003. We are hoping that students will choose to continue on the same career path from middle school to high school and beyond, said Price. For instance, a student who chooses to study engineering at Cloverdale will hopefully go on to McClellan and continue the same course of study. Our goal is to encourage students to think about possible career paths and prepare for college and the world of work. these much-awaited building improvements. Architects are working with district administration, Manns Campus Leadership Team and others to devise a plan for the new building that will best accommodate the classrooms needed for the schools magnet programs and core subject areas, ccording to Bill Goodman, LRSDs District Engineer. Construction will begin soon after the design is approved and is expected to take about a year and a half. Watch your mailbox! Every six months the LRSD will mail to every Little Rock household an update on the status of building projects in the district. When voters approved the millage increase in 2000, the LRSD committed to monthly updates to the school board and semi-annual mailed reports to the community. Home \u0026amp; School Connection Page 3 From the Superintendent by T. Kenneth James We begin this new school year with many, many thanks to all who have contributed to an exceptional opening of the 2001-2002 academic year. We stood together as staff, school board members, parents, community members and students to ensure that opening day was a wonderful experience for all. We are moving forward to repair our schools and provide the safe, secure environment that is so crucial to the well-being and education of our children. As we enter the 2001-2002 academic year, we enter a time of excitement and renewed focus. The Little Rock School District, An Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge, is on the move. We hope that you, as a parent or guardian, understand that this vision is our road map to success. Our Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge guides us along our journey and keeps our focus clear. Just as the long-distance runner focuses on the finish line, and just as civil rights songwriter Alice Wine told people to keep their eyes on the prize, we are keeping our eyes on our prize and Little Rocks future our children. We cannot fail our children, for if we do, we will rob them of their opportunities to become our future leaders. If we fail, we steal their chances to become our doctors, nurses and healthcare providers. If we fail, we take away their abilities to write new software and design more powerful computers. If we fail, we deny their rights to build new cities, explore space, expand the world of science and create new art. If we fail our children, we do away with their opportunities to compete, to flourish, to prosper, to improve our world and to live as we want them to livestrong, successful, happy and free. As we embark on our journey together, we must focus on five key design tasks that are essential to our success. These design tasks will guide us to small successes now and ultimate success in the future. Our focal points will be: standards and assessments, learning environments, high-performance management, public engagement and community services and supports. How will we know that we have been successful? We invite you to look for:  Improved scores on the Statewide ACTAAP examination  Improved achievement on the SAT-9 examination Improved achievement on district-level examinations Higher graduation rates Staff and administration engaged in meaningful professional development opportunities linked to increased student achievement An aggressive teacher recruitment process from a wider variety of colleges and universities More teachers and principals actively seeking employment within the Little Rock School District  An aggressive approach to increasing LRSDs student enrollment Were serious about developing the minds of all the children within the Little Rock School District. We must celebrate our diversity, maintain our commitment to the Covenant, and collaboratively build the premier school district in the state. It is our goal and our mindset to become the flagship school district in the state of Arkansas. As parents/guardians, you are tremendously important to your childs success. We invite you to become involved and engaged in our pursuit of academic excellence for the students that we are all here to serve. Sincerely, T. Kenneth James, Ed. D. Superintendent of Schools F LRSD Employees Meet under the Big Top\nConvocations Theme Is Serving Those Who Serve Our Children Popcorn, cotton candy, clowns and balloonsall the ingredients necessary for a successful meeting. Or are they? In this case, the meeting definitely was a success as all employees of the school districtteachers, administrators, bus drivers, child nutrition specialists and all othersgathered together for the districts fourth annual Employee Convocation. The circus theme, which lent itself well to the setting of Barton Coliseum, seemed to put everyone in a festive spirit. Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction, commented that some people didnt see the relationship between the circus theme Associate Superintendent Junious Babbs got into the spirit of the occasion and handed out peanuts and Cracker Jacks to the assembled crowd. and education. It seems to me that educators know something about trapeze work, about getting shot out of a cannon, about how to walk the high wire, we perform magic tricks, we know something about clown acts and we are experts at taming lions, she explained. So Barnum and Bailey just think that they are the greatest show on earth. What you do every day in the classroom, on the bus, in the halls and on the playground is really the greatest show on earth. Winthrop Rockefeller, Arkansas Lieutenant Governor, spoke of the importance of quality public education. He thanked the assembled crowd for their willingness to shape and mold tomorrows leaders. We all appreciate learning as a lifetime activity, he said. Only you as teachers and parents can pass that message on. Our future depends on that. We believe in the inherent ability of children to learn, said LRSDs new Superintendent Ken James. It is our job to nurture youngsters to help them realize their full potential. The names of 11 lucky employees, who had perfect attendance from April 2 to May 31, were drawn to receive awards. They vre: Natasch Acker, Rose Bowman, Carolyn Cole, Margaret Dawson, Eddie Mae Finley, Deborah Jones, Barbara Mays, Marjorie Rutherford, Jeffrey Walters, Irish Williams and John Word. Door prize winners were Chicot Elementarys Lisa Poteet, who won a computer, and Vera Weller of Southwest Middle School, who won two round-trip tickets on Southwest Airlines. Companies that furnished door prizes, provided financial consideration and/or exhibited at Convocation were: Aerospace Education Center/lMAX\nBank of America Mortgage\nCingular Wireless\nCricket Communications\nDell Computers\nFriday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark\nKATV Channel 7\nLittle Rock Teachers Federal Credit Union\nPulaski Technical College\nSouthwest Airlines\nStaples\nStephens Inc.\nUALR\nand VALIC. Dr. James concluded his remarks with a f What circus would be complete without a few clowns! parable. Come to the cliff, he said. TTzey said they were afraid. Come to the cliff, he said again. They came. He pushed them. And they flew. I want to challenge you today to not forget to fly, said Dr. James. Spread your wings. The most important thing we can do is support, nurture and encourage the kids we are here to serve. It * * School Board President Dr. Katherine Mitchell welcomes everyone to Convocation with renewed eneigj arui great expectations. Page 4 Little Rock School District Volunteering: More than Just Giving Your Time Do you enjoy working with people? Do you have a genuine interest in helping children succeed in school? If so, you can become a ViPS! Volunteers in Public Schools, or ViPS, is an organization that serves as a link between the LRSD and the community. During the 2000-01 school year alone, over 310,CXX) hours of volunteer service, with an estimated worth of $4,584,000, were contributed to the LRSD. If I become a ViPS, what kinds of things can I do to help? Volunteer services cover a very broad range and depend on the needs of the school and the interests and abilities of the volunteer. Activities include tutoring students, mentoring, chaperoning field trips, becoming a classroom speaker and participating in special education for gifted students or students with learning disabilities. You can volunteer as much or as little time as your schedule permits. Charlie Hamon of the Young Lawyers Association spends time tutoring a student at Mitchell Academy. Volunteers are always welcome for tutoring, mentoring and other activities in the districts schools. NEA Issues Challenge to White House about Early Childhood Education The nations teachers challenged President George W. Bush in July to fill the gaps in early child care. This challenge came just before the White House Conference on Early Childhood. Our members see firsthand which children have received the nourishment and social building blocks required to start school and which children have not, said National Education Association (NEA) President Bob Chase. A safe and healthy passage into kindergarten requires a seamless support network. These gaps in child health and social navigation Volunteers in Public Schools What kinds of special activities does ViPS sponsor? Aside from individual volunteers, ViPS works with local businesses and community organizations in the Partners in Education (PIE) program. Businesses may develop enrichment programs for students, provide student achievement incentives or grant release time to employees to visit schools, and the schools may in turn recognize their partners with decorative art, musical presentations or other special projects. State Farm Insurance is a Parmer in Education with Woodruff Elementary. Launey Jason, Senior Agency Field Specialist at State Farm, believes that the benefits of partnering with a school are mutually beneficial. As an active partner with Woodruff, we feel it is our duty to be good mentors and role models, provide educational aids for teachers and expose students to corporate America, because these things play an intricate part in creating an atmosphere conducive to a higher quality of learning. I personally take great pride in knowing that Woodruff really appreciates our efforts. ViPS will co-sponsor the first districtwide Parent Institute.this year on Saturday, October 27, at J. A. Fair Magnet High School. Speakers and workshops will be offered that are geared towards parents and other members of the persist into adulthood and exact a costly toll on children, their families and the economic health of our nation. Chase praised President Bushs focus on literacy, but warned that ...research and common sense tell us that education cannot be successful if we dont do right by the youngest children. If a child is hungry, sick and not cared for in ways that spark proper emotional and intellectual development, he or she will have more trouble with reading and in school. Research shows that children receiving better quality care have stronger language, pre-mathematics community. For more information, contact Kaye Rainey, Parent Involvement Coordinator, at 660-6610. ViPS also sponsors an annual Reading Day, which will take place this fall on Tuesday, November 13. Scheduled specifically to coincide with American Education Week and National Childrens Book Week, ViPS Reading Day provides an opportunity for members of businesses, churches, civic organizations and others to take a small amount of time out of their schedules to read to a class of elementary students. You can select a particular class, grade or school to visit Call ViPS at 324-2290 to obtain a Reading Day Commitment Card or register online at www.LRSD.org by clicking on Volunteers. Readers will receive confirmation by mail. How are my volunteer hours credited? When you perform volunteer work at a school, you should sign in and out in the school office. Off- campus volunteering (such as game concessions, PTA phone calling from home, etc.) can be reported directly to your schools ViPS Chairperson or to the ViPS office (324-2290). You can also e-mail the information through the LRSD website. It is very important that you report all of your volunteer service time, no matter how much or little. ViPS volunteers are always welcome! A small investment of your time can reap big rewards in a childs educational success. Please call Debbie Milam, ViPS Director, at 324-2290 for an application or for more information about volunteering, or log on to www.LRSD.org and click on Volunteers. and social skills than those with low-quality care. Chase called for a more comprehensive approach to early care and education:  federal funding of early care and education, including Early Head Start and Head Start\n expansion of the Child Care and Development Block Grant\n continued use of welfare funds to provide childcare for parents working toward self-sufficiency\n more research into effective child development strategies\n more training and education for early childhood professionals\n quality standards for early education settings. Looking for a Good Book for Your Child? With so many books available in libraries and bookstores in such a wide array of topics, how can you be sure that the books your children choose to read are appropriate? If you are unsure about which books to recommend to your children, take a look below at some suggested books for young scholars, broken down by age category, which have been suggested by Suzi Davis, Director of LRSDs English and Foreign Languages Department, and Judy Teeter, Early Childhood/Elemen- tary Literacy Specialist. Elementary School (in order of difficulty) Miss Bindergarten Gets Ready for Kindergarten (Slate) Over in the Meadow (Keats) The Random House Book of Poetry for Children (Prelutsky) The Doorbell Rang (Hutchins) Swimmy (Lionni) Chicken Soup with Rice (Sendak) Cam Jansen Mysteries (Adler) Ramona Quimby, Age 8 (Cleary) Charlottes Web (White) Jumanji (van Allsburg) Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (Dahl) Middle School Bud, Not Buddy (Curtis) The Contender (Lipsyte) The Egypt Game (Snyder) Gathering Blue (Lowry) Hatchet (Paulsen) Holes (Sachar) Huckleberry Finn (Twain) 1 Am the Cheese (Cormier) Jump Ship to Freedom (Collier) Let the Circle Be Unbroken (Taylor) Night (Weisel) The Outsiders (Hinton) Phoenix Rising (Hess) Ransom (Duncan) Tom Sawyer (Twain) Watsons Go to Birmingham (Curtis) i High School The Enders Game (Card) Hiroshima (Hersey) The Hobbit (Tolkien) I Always Wanted to Be Somebody (Gibson) I Heard the Owl Call My Name (Craven) I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings (Angelou) Jane Eyre (Bronte) The Learning Tree (Parks) A Midsummer Nights Dream (Shakespeare) Out of the Dust (Hess) When Legends Die (Borland) Wed love to know about your favorite books! You may even see them on future reading lists.Home \u0026amp; School Connection Page 5 Ji Parent Involvement Office Helps All The LRSDs parent involvement efforts have been reorganized to unite and share common resources with parents for the benefit of keeping our children first, which in turn contributes to a higher level of educational success and a growing community. The ViPS Parent Involvement Office will work with district schools to make parents aware of services provided by the district that can help their children achieve educational success. One of the services is the Title I Parent Advisory Council, which is now being reorganized. The council is a working committee that will go through parent education training to help themselves, other parents within their school and the district to become more knowledgeable of opportunities within the district. The Parent Involvement Office is making plans to share the \"Active Parenting Today\" program, both in English and Spanish, with some Title I schools and also to activate a lending library of materials with academic and social topics that parents can use to help their children. For more information, contact Kaye Rainey, Parent Involvement Coordinator, at 660-6610, and Stella T. Loya, ESL Parent Liaison, at 660-6609. Students May Declare TRUCE LRSD students may earn rewards from local merchants by participating in TRUCE. The name TRUCE stands for Teens Resisting Unhealthy Choices Everyday. It is a voluntary program which reward students for being drug and alcohol free, and it encourages those using drugs to reject substance abuse. Positive peer pressure encourages students who choose to remain drug-free. With parent or guardian permission, students in TRUCE are voluntarily tested to prove that they are not using drugs or alcohol. Those who test drug- and alcohol-free receive an official TRUCE card which entitles the student to rewards such as discounts from local businesses and activities such as pizza parties, retreats and other planned events. TRUCE information was sent home to parents of secondary students the week of October 8\nif you would like for your child to participate, please sign the consent form and return it to school. LRSD School Directory Se han reorganizado los esfuerzos de \"ViPS Parent Involvement\" del distrito para unit y de compartir recursos comunes con los padres para la ventaja de mantener a nuestros nihos primero, que alternadamente contribuye a un nivel mas alto del exito educative y de una comunidad cada vez mayor. La oficina de \"ViPS Parent Involvement\" trabajara con las escuelas del distrito para informar a los padres de los servicios proporcionados por el distrito que puede ayudar a sus nihos a alcanzar exito educative. Uno de los servicios que se reorganize es el comite de \"Title IParent Advisory Council.\" Este comite pasara por un entrenamiento de la educacion de los padres y se podran ayudar ellos mismos y a la misma ves ayudar a otros padres del distrito escolar. Los padres conoceran oportunidades que el distrito les ofrece. La oficina de \"ViPS Parent Involvement\" esta haciendo planes para compartir el programa \"Active Parenting Today\" en ambos idiomas (espahol e ingles) con las escuelas de \"Title I\" (Titulo I) y tambien activar una biblioteca de prestamos de recursos materiales que los padres pueden utilizar para ayudar a sus nihos con asuntos academicos y sociales. Para mas informacion, llame a Kaye Rainey, Coordinadora de Los Padres Envueltos del Distrito Escolar de Little Rock, 660-6610\ny Stella T. Loya, Coordinadora entre Los Ladres y el Distrito Escolar de Little Rock, 660-6609. School Central High J. A. Fair Magnet High Hall University Studies High McClellan Magnet High Parkview Magnet High Metro Career-Technical Center Cloverdale Magnet Middle Dunbar Magnet Middle Forest Heights Middle Henderson Magnet Middle Mabelvale Magnet Middle Mann Magnet Middle Pulaski Heights Middle Southwest Middle Principal Rudolph Howard Cassandra Norman Vernon Smith Jodie Carter Dr. Linda Brown Michael Peterson Angela Munns John Bacon Elouise Hudson Larry Buck Ann Blaylock Jim Fullerton Nancy Rousseau Jim Mosby Phone 324-2300 228-3100 671-6200 5704100 228-3000 565-8465 570-4085 324-2440 671-6390 228-3050 455-7400 324-2450 671-6250 570-4070 Congratulations to Benjamin Franklin Communications Technology Elementary School. It has received one of five 2001 Arkansas Star School awards from the Arkansas Department of Education, Office of Comprehensive School Health. The award was presented to Franklin for its efforts in creating a healthy school environment in eight critical areas, including health education, physical education, school nutrition, health services and family \u0026amp; community involvement. Badgett Elementary Bale Elementary Baseline Elementary Booker Magnet Elementary Brady Elementary Carver Magnet Elementary Chicot Elementary Cloverdale Elementary Dodd Elementary Fair Park Elementary Forest Park Elementary Franklin Elementary Fulbright Elementary Geyer Springs Elementary Gibbs Magnet Elementary Jefferson Elementary King Magnet Elementary McDermott Elementary Mabelvale Elementary Meadowcliff Elementary Mitchell Elementary Otter Creek Elementary Pulaski Heights Elementary Rightsell Elementary Rockefeller Magnet Elementary Romine Elementary Stephens Elementary Terry Elementary Wakefield Elementary Washington Magnet Elementary Watson Elementary Western Hills Elementary Williams Magnet Elementary Wilson Elementary Woodruff Elementary Mary Golston Barbara Anderson Eleanor Cox Dr. Cheryl Carson Ada Keown Diane Barksdale Jane Harkey Frederick Fields Faith Donovan Dr. Samuel Branch Theresa Ketcher Ethel Dunbar Deborah Mitchell Donna Hall Felicia Hobbs Roberta Mannon Tyrone Harris Virginia Ashley Tab Phillips Karen Carter Darian Smith Janis Tucker Lillie Carter Mary Smith Anne Mangan Lillie Scull Sharon Brooks Nancy Acre Les Taylor Gwen Zeigler Mike Oliver Scott Morgan Mary Menking Beverly Jones Janice Wilson 324-2475 5704050 5704150 324-2482 228-3065 324-2460 5704062 5704055 455-7430 671-6260 671-6267 671-6380 228-3080 5704160 324-2490 671-6281 324-2135 228-3072 455-7420 5704165 324-2415 455-7440 671-6290 324-2430 324-2385 228-3086 671-6275 228-3093 5704190 324-2470 5704195 5704175 671-6363 5704180 671-6270 ACC (Metro) ALC Elementary Charter Evening High School Dr. Alicia Finch Lloyd Sain Krishna Young Carol Green 570-1400 324-2370 324-0590 570-1400 Page 6 Little Rock School District Can Your Child Improve Test-taking Skills? Note to Parents and Students Test. This is one of the most unnerving words in a students vocabulary. Of course, tests are important. A test can measure a basic skill. It can affect a years grade. Or, if it measures the ability to learn, it can affect a childs placement in school. Besides, the ability to do well on tests can help throughout life in such things as getting a drivers license, trying out for sports or getting a job. Without this ability, a person can be severely handicapped out in the real world. Students all across \" the Little Rock School District will take many different types of tests at different times throughout the school year. You can help your child prepare for the test-taking experi- 6 ence and ease some of his or her anxiety. Just have your children try these simple techniques developed through research by the U.S. Department of Educations Office of Educational Research and Improvement:  Eating well and getting plenty of rest and exercise are as important to test taking as they are to all other schoolwork. All three factors contribute to keeping the brain healthy and alert.  Carefully read the test directions, and look over the entire test before beginning. Ask questions if you are unsure.  Answer the easiest questions first, then go back to the harder ones. Parents also can do their part to help their children do well:  Calm down. If you are nervous about your childs test scores. The Achievement Level Tests (ALTs) that had been scheduled between September 24 and October 12, 2001, were canceled by the Board of Directors. LRSD teachers and administrators felt that these tests, administered so close to the Stanford 9 Achievement Tests in September, would not be very beneficial. Instead, students will take the ALTs as scheduled in the spring, and their academic progress will be measured between years. your anxiety can rub off onto your child.  Encourage and praise your child whenever possible. Children who are afraid of failing are more likely to become anxious at test time.  Avoid making judgments based on a single test score. If your child does not perform as well as you expected, encourage him to do better the next time. (adapted from Help Your Child Improve in Test-Taking/ U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement\nwww.ed.gov/pubs) National Merit Semifinalists Announced Fifteen LRSD students have been named Semifinalists in the 2002 National Merit Scholarship Program, and two LRSD students were named National Achievement Semifinalists. Approximately 16,000 high school seniors have been named Semifinalists in the program. These academically talented high school seniors are now eligible to advance in the competition for Merit Scholarships. The National Merit Semifinalists are: Elizabeth S. Arnold, Melissa L. Bandy, Jay M. Bauman, Edward D. Fleming, Chris Fox-Lent, James Harrell, Toby H. Huang, Charles W. Lyford, Solvig A. Pittenger, Alex J. Schmidt, Gary S. Slater, James A. Szenher, Maxwell Teitel-Paule and Tracy Tran, all of Central High School, and Anita Budhraja of Parkview Magnet High School. The National Achievement Seminalists are Frederick McKindra and Justin H. Mercer of Central High School. More than 1.2 million students entered the 2002 Merit Program when they were juniors by taking the 2002 Preliminary SAT/National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test (PSAT/NMSQT), which served as an initial screening of program entrants. Semifinalists in each state are the highest scoring entrants in each state and represent less than one percent of the states seniors. LRSD Receives $900,000 for Electronics Upgrades Schools Are Winners in Malls4Schools Program Six secondary schools came out winners in Park Plazas Malls4Schools program during the spring semester. These schools, with the help of parents and other supporters, received money based on the amount of votes they received during the promotional campaign. The winning schools were: The LRSD recently received notification from the Universal Service Administrative Companys Schools and Libraries Division that the district will receive up to $900,000 in funds for technology projects. Commonly known as E-Rate funds, these funds provide discounts on telecommunications services and will be applied to the cost of the districts new wide area network as well as local, long distance and cellular telephone service. E-Rate is a federal program designed to provide assistance to schools Parkview Magnet High School $1,250 Mann Magnet Middle School $1,000 Forest Heights Middle School $850 [Ullllllt lb'l O'liiniii'ul and libraries for telecommunications, Internet I access and Dunbar Magnet Middle School $500 Southwest Middle School $350 J. A. Fair Magnet High School $200 The MalMSchools program is co-sponsored by KARK-TV Channel 4 and Radio Disney. This fall, elementary schools will once again have their turn participate in the program. LRSD schools planning to go for the gold include: Baseline Elementary, Forest Park Elementary, Geyer Springs Elementary, Rockefeller Magnet Elementary, Romine Interdistrict Elementary and Woodruff Elementary. You can cast your votes for your favorite school at Park Plaza between September 1 and December 31. For more information about this program, check out www.parkplazamall.com or www.malls4schools.com on the Internet. internal connections such as cabling and electronics. LRSD has also applied for funds for cabling, electronics, servers and telephone systems. Notification of funding decisions should continue owr the next few months. -reported by Lucy Neal, LRSD Director of Instructional Technology Home \u0026amp; School Connection Page 7 Teachers \u0026amp; Students Good News around the LRSD \u0026lt; ( Katina Ray D I K\u0026gt; X atina Simpson Ray, 1 grade teacher at .JX^ashington Magnet Elementary, has been named 2000-2001 National SECME Teacher of the Year. Additionally, Kristian Henderson received first place honors in the 2000-2001 National SECME Essay Competition. She attended Pulaski Heights Middle School last year and is a freshman at Central High School this year. ionna Murphy, Adaptive P. E. Coach at J. A. Fair High School, has been named Arkansas Special Olympics Coach of the Year. Louise Carpenter, first grade teacher at Carver Magnet Elementary, received the LRSD Service-in-Action Teacher Award by ShareAmerica of Children International and the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. c Kristian Henderson lonnie Green was one of 20 teachers in 'the U. S. who were chosen to attend the Brandwein Environmental Institute in Pennsylvania during the summer break. She received training in field studies for the classroom and will incorporate this training in her new position as Environmental and Medical Lead Teacher at Mabelvale Magnet Middle School. Ann Callaway, Nurse at Carver Magnet Elementary, has received the Lorene Blair Award from the Arkansas School Nurse Association. This is a state-level award for outstanding service and contributions to health care for the children of Arkansas. Deirdre Jones, a student at Central High School, attend the National Young Leaders Conference [, was selected to in Washington, DC, in July. Only 350 students from around the nation were chosen to attend this conference, which inspires young people to achieve their full leadership potential. Patrick L. Clark, a student at McClellan High School, recently has been named a United States National Award winner by the United States Achievement Academy. I Mfany JLnigh s Gunn, Valedictorian of McClellan .High Schools Class of 2001, has been named 2001 Gatorade Arkansas High School Girls Track \u0026amp; Field Athlete of the Year. Twt at 'Q LRSD seniors will travel overseas this autumn as part of a special study tour. Amber Mendoza of McClellan High School and Hannah Singer of Central High School have been selected by Heifer Project International (HPI) to participate in this tour abroad, which will take them to Thailand and Laos for Tiffany Gunn two weeks to observe the organization at work and learn about different cultures. Since 1944, HPI has enabled over 4 million hungry families worldwide to become self-reliant for food and income. w\n^oodruff Elementary student Briana Massey was the recipient of a $100 prize for an essay she wrote for the Circle the City contest earlier this year. The citywide event was sponsored by the Centers for Youth and Families. A rAi manda Springs and Derrick Smith, S' hirley Krannichfeld, a L  grade teacher at Wilson .both seniors at McClellan High ST Shirley Krannichfeld (2nd from right) accepts her Teacher of the Year award from Wal-Mart representatives. Wilson Principal Beverly Jones holds the check that was presented to the school. Elementary, was named Teacher of the Year by the Wal-Mart store on Bowman Road in Little Rock. On August 20 store representatives presented Krannichfeld with a plaque, a bouquet of flowers and a blue Wal-Mart vest with 2001 Teacher of the Year emblazoned on the back. Wilson Elementary also received a $500 check from the retailer. School, were elected to serve as state DECA officers. Smith will serve this year as Vice President, and Springs will serve as Southern Region Vice President. Both students W'J ... Tracy Mason, a science teacher at Mabelvale Magnet Middle School, served in a summer externship at Pinnacle Mountain State Park. The program was sponsored by Arkansas Career Opportunities. The LRSD Athletic Department recently announced its picks for Coach of the Year honors. George Cirks, basketball coach at H Hall High School, was the winner in the High School/Male Tern category. Bill Spivey, womens soccer coach at Central, was named winner in the High School/Female Team category. Marcus Davis, who coaches volleyball, basketball and track at Cloverdale Middle Level Academy, was named top coach in the Middle School/Male Team category, and Anitra Jackson, the volleyball, basketball and track coach at Southwest Middle School, received top honors in the Middle School/Female Team category. S' hannon L. Watson, a senior at Parkview Arts Sc Science Magnet 'High School, has received a $2,500 scholarship as part of the Discover Card Tribute Award Scholarship program. .kt Derrick Smith and DECA sponsor Nancy Leslie participate in a trnst-building exercise. recently returned from DECAs state officer workshop in nRflfifcCKW? i Amanda Springs at the DECA officer workshop. Springdale. The schools DECA sponsor, Nancy Leslie, accompanied the two to the workshop, which included sessions in teamwork, communication skills, decision making skills and parliamentary procedure. The two students will attend the DECA Southern and North Atlantic Region Leadership Conference in November with the other members of the Arkansas delegation. J ennifer Hale Milligan, a science teacher at Mabelvale Magnet Middle School, was one of only 14 teachers nationwide who were chosen to participate in the Frontiers in Physiology program. Sponsored by the American Physiological Society (APS) , the 2001 Summer Research Fellowships were awarded to middle- and high-school-level science teachers to work in a laboratory setting with an APS member. Milligan studied with Dr. Michael Edward Soulsby, 1 b- Jennifer Hale Milligan Ph.D., who is an APS member and is on the faculty of DAMS.Home \u0026amp; School CONNECTION Home \u0026amp; School Connection is published five times during the school year to provide information about the Little Rock School District and its individual schools to parents, teachers, staff and other members of the Linle Rock community. Please address comments to Julie M. Davis, Communications Specialist. Communications Office 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 324-2020 jinJavis@lrsdadm.lrsd.kl2.ar.us www.LRSD.org Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 received NOV 2 8 20QJ OFFICEOF lESEGREGATIOMMONITOfillllg received ? s 2001 o\u0026amp;bwesaiiou i^ouiToimie TO THE PAREJXTS OF\nGULDiN, WILLIAM 6509 CANTRELL RD LITTLE ROCK 72207-4218 AUTO s-Dicrr 72207 FKG 1 SACK 72 Non-Profit Organization U.S. Postage PAID Permit No. 1367 Little Rock, AR Page 8 Home \u0026amp; School Connection Little Rock Mayor Jim Dailey recently announced the newly elected members of the Mayors Youth Council for 2001-2002. Serving as Chairperson is Mary Rutherford of Central High School. Other officers include: Co-chair, Jessica Marshall of Central\nRecording Secretary, Morgan Miller of Central\nand Public Relations Chair, Chris Love of Parkview Magnet High School. Calvin Johnson of McClellan High School was named Senior Member-at-Large\nSarah Alexander of Hall High School and Foster Davis of Parkview were named Junior Members-at-Large\nand Bryan Hall of Central and Kenyon Lowe of Parkview were named Sophomore Members-at-Large. Mayor Dailey established the Youth Council to promote youth volunteerism and community service. To date, it has volunteered over 8,700 hours including projects with the Red Cross, the Arts Center, the Hope Center, P.A.R.K., the Greek Food Festival and Easter Seals. The National Education Association (NEA) recently honored Eleanor Coleman, a counselor at Forest Park Elementary. The organizations Committee on Human and Civil Rights has named Coleman the recipient of its H. Council Trenholm Memorial Award for her promotion of the ideals of human achievement, justice and equality. She was nominated by the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association and the Arkansas Education Association, which was presented at the NEA annual meeting in Los Angeles, Calif. Other Arkansans who have received this I Efe Eleanor Coleman distinguished award include Daisy Bates, Dr. Joycelyn Elders and the Central High School Womens Emergency Committee. Original Operas a Big Hit at Gibbs The spring semester at Gibbs Magnet School of International Studies and Foreign Languages was a busy and exciting one\nstudents in the 4th and 5th grades had the opportunity to conceive, write and perform their own original operas! In addition to their regular music curriculum, these students were involved in a program from the Wildwood Park for the Performing Arts called Music, Words and Opera. The program was developed by Opera America and funded in Little Rock by the Arkansas Arts Council. Artists in residence for the program were Helene Fisher Elbein (visual arts) and Judy Trice (theatre arts), who worked with Gibbs Music Specialist Kayren Grayson Baker. The scripts, sets, costumes, choreography and music for the original operas were created by the 4th and 5th grade students (with a little help from Trice, Elbein and Baker). Ms. Susie Robinsons class performed The Saga of Wordsville (an Old West tale with a twist)\nMs. Pat Luzzis class performed a comic Medieval opera called Sauce and Burgers. Sanderella was performed by Ms. Kristy Kidds class. Finally, Ms. Jill Johnsons class performed The Wizard of the Nile (an Egyptian twist on The Wizard of Oz)- Most of the operas had an Egyptian theme because Egypt was the schoolwide nation of focus. The Wizard of the Nile, as performed by Jill Johnsons 4th grade class, was based on The Wizard of Oz, but with an Egyptian twist. CONVOCATION 2001  fl Sanderella was the original opera written and performed by Kristy Kidd's 4th grade students. It was based on a kidnapped Cinderella in Egypt. When LRSD employees get together, Barton Coliseum is just about the only place in town large enough to hold them all!Home, EARLY SPRING EDITION 2002 A PUBLICATION OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT State Reduces School Funding: PTA Presents Annual Awards Badgett, Charter School to Close Governor Mike Huckabee has substantially cut state spending due to lower-than-expected state revenues in recent months. The reduction in funding for education alone amounted to $140 million and will affect every school district in the state. Since the Little Rock School District is the largest in the state, the repercussions of this cutback will be felt intensely here. Even more cutbacks are possible in the future, and the district also has to provide funds to pay for a contracted teacher pay raise for the 2002-2003 school year. When all is said and done, the total funding reduction for the LRSD is expected to be approximately $5.5 million. The district has been forced to make up this reduction in funding the only way possibleby making budget cuts, and that is exactly what Superintendent Ken James and the Board of Directors are trying to do. The Board held a special meeting on January 15 to make a decision on the first part Fair Park Elementary (above) and David O. Dodd Elementary will remain open. Badgett and the Charter School will close at the end of the school year. of this difficult job: whether or not to close four LRSD elementary schools. Badgett, Dodd, Fair Park and the Residential Elementary Charter schools were considered for closure as one part of the budget reduction plan. Closing all four schools would save the district an estimated $2.5 million. Before making this difficult decision, however, the School Board held public meetings at each of the schools in early January to answer (continued on p. 5) Celebrating Community Involvement was the theme of the PTAs annual Founders Day luncheon. Awards were presented by the PTA Council to outstanding administrators, educators and volunteers. The council named Felicia Hobbs, principal at Gibbs Magnet Elementary, Administrator of the Year. Both Sarah Purtle, Pre-k teacher at M. L. King Magnet Elementary, and Dr. L J. Routen, music teacher at Rockefeller Elementary, received Educator of the Year awards. The PTA Life Membership Award was presented to Lee Ann Matson, Resource/Field Trip Coordinator in the ViPS office. kbfiu____ Smart Money at Work \"V If you see construction in progress at your neighborhood school, you know that your tax dollars are hard at work. Improvement and renovation work continues on LRSDs Scaffolding appears to grow on the exterior walls of Central High School as contractors continue their work to waterproof the building.  Technology Upgrades Throughout the District  2002-2003 Student Calendars  New Extended Year Schools Announced  Changes to L.R. City Curfew Ordinance  Help Available Through EAP  Duke Talent Search Participants Announced schools, thanks to funds from the millage increase that was approved by Little Rock voters in 2000. Bill Goodman, LRSDs Engineer, and Doug Eaton, Director of Facility Services, are coordinating the many projects that are on the drawing board or are currendy in progress. Scaffolding climbs the outside walls of Central High School as work progresses (weatherproofing the windows and the buildings exterior as well as work on the roof). Interior renovations, including a new air conditioning system and repair of extensive water damage, are expected to start this summer. PS- 2 PS- 3 PS- 3 PS-4 PS- 6 PS- 8 Architects Tendering o/ the building addition scheduled to be constTwcted nt Hall High School. Not quite as obvious to the passerby is the work in progress at Jefferson Elementary. This school, which was built in 1950, is undergoing a total renovation. Classrooms and hallways are in the process of being completely remodeled, then the entire building will get new windows and a new heating/air conditioning system. Work is currently in progress at Otter Creek and Watson elementary schools as well. Otter Creek will have a new classroom addition when the job is completed, and work at Watson includes an addition as well as renovations to the existing building. Other projects that are expected to start this spring or summer include: Romine Elementary (renovation/addition). Hall High (new gymnasium and (continued on p. 5) Gibbs principal Felicia Hobbs accepts the PTA Council Administrator of the Tear award from superintendent Ken James. National Merit/Achievement Finalists Announced LRSD is proud to announce that all of the students who previously had been named National Merit and National Achievement Semifinalists have now advanced to Finalist status. National Merit Finalists are: Anita Budhraja of Parkview Arts \u0026amp; Science Magnet High School and Elizabeth S. Arnold, Melissa L. Bandy, Jay M. Bauman, Edward D. Fleming, Chris Fox- Lent, James Harrell, Toby H. Huang, Charles W. Lyford, Solvig A. Pittenger, Alex J. Schmidt, Gary S. Slater, James A. Szenher, Maxwell Teitel-Paule and Tracy Tran, all of Central High School. LRSDs two National Achievement Semifinalists who have been named finalists are Frederick McKindra and Justin H. Mercer, both of Central High. Congratulations to all of our scholars. Page 2 Little Rock School District From the Superintendent by T. Kenneth |ames r Teacher Advancement Program (TAP) We are very excited to announce that two of our elementary schools, Rockefeller and Stephens, have voted to participate in a new and exciting program that is a systemic approach to transforming the teaching profession. The Arkansas State Department of Education and the Milken Family Foundation have selected Rockefeller and Stephens to be part of a pilot program for the Teacher Advancement Program. The Walton Family Foundation will consider funding this initiative later this month. The Teacher Advancement Program builds upon five key principles: 1. Multiple career paths for teachers\n2. Market'driven, performance-based compensation\n3. Performance-based accountability\n4. Ongoing, applied professional growth\nand 5. Expanding the supply of high-quality educators. Though the principles of TAP are unique, they are highly interrelated and dependent upon each other. For example, without a rigorous accountability system and performance-based compensation, the multiple career paths principle would simply be a traditional career ladder program. By the same token, a comprehensive professional growth program is necessary to support the rigorous accountability system. Although some elements of TAP are found in other school reform efforts, TAP 1 Fk-J is unique because it combines these various reforms into a single, comprehensive model. The Teacher Advancement Program provides an opportunity for a systemic, comprehensive paradigm shift, grounded in existing research findings, that we believe will improve the quality of teachers entering and staying in the profession. Stay tuned for more information about the Teacher Advancement Program at Rockefeller and Stephens elementary schools. Thank you for your continued support of the Little Rock School District. Sincerely, T. Kenneth James, Ed. D. Superintendent of Schools Technology Upgrades Are Evident Throughout the District by Lucy Neal Great Books for Your Kids! The planning phase for LRSDs technology upgrades is now complete, and the implementation of those upgrades has already begun. Technology projects scheduled for this school year include:      new wide area network technology center equipment room help desk (Techline) telephone in every classroom and voice mail for every employee computer for every classroom technology training Funds for this districtwide technology upgrade are partly from a $900,000 E-Rate federal funding project and partly from the millage increase approved in 2000, which promised voters that every classroom would have a computer and a telephone. All sites will be connected to the new wide area network by the end of April. The new network provides LRSD users with high-speed Internet access, making the use of Web-based resources a reality for teachers and students. Construction of the new technology equipment room at Metropolitan Career-Technical Center is complete, and equipment is currently being installed. This room houses the equipment that is essential to run the districts network, including the new telephone system, the midrange computer system that holds the districts business applications, a server farm and the new help desk (Techline). The LRSD help desk (Techline) is now up and running. Techline will provide a single point of contact for all technology-related issues. Techline staff can I 3 1 V a b 4 School Board members take a guided tour of the newly completed technology equipment room at Metro. resolve many technology calls on the spot and refer others to the appropriate support staff. Every LRSD classroom will have a telephone, and most employees will have voice mail. The new telephone system will enhance communication between faculty, parents and other patrons. While phones will be programmed not to ring during instructional time, they can be used by teachers and students to contact experts and do research. New computers will be installed in all classrooms that do not already have them. Each classroom is being wired with a teacher workstation plate (TWS) where a teachers telephone and computer will be located. In a separate location from student computers, the TWS ensures that a teachers technology tools are all together in one efficient work area. Technology training classes are offered several nights a week, and teachers continue to take advantage of these free classes that offer instruction in a variety of software applications. LRSD has also installed new data integration software that will help track and record changes to student records. The LiveAudit system allows the district to generate student reports that are accurate and up to date. We needed a solution that would enable us to automatically track changes to our student records for accuracy, security and accountability to our students, parents and staff, said John Ruffins, Director of Information Services. This new system will not only help the district meet federal regulations governing E-Records, but also will enable the LRSD to be accountable to the public and to ensure the security and accuracy of its records. It may seem that the technology upgrades are a long time coming, but with the planning phase now complete, things will be happening very quickly. Watch for exciting new developments at your campus! Lucy Neal is the Director of Instructional Technology for the Little Rock School District. Listed below are some age-appropriate reading suggestions for your child that have been provided by Judy Teeter, Early Childhood/Elementary Literacy Specialist, and Suzi Davis, Director of LRSDs English and Foreign Languages Department. Visit your local library or bookstore to find these and many other exciting tales! Elementary School (in order of difficulty) Mrs. Piggle-Wiggle (MacDonald) Stone Soup (Brown) Youre the Boss, Baby Duck (Hest \u0026amp; Barton) Henry and Mudge: The First Book of Their Adventure (Rylant) Night Noises (Fox) Pinky and Rex (Howe) Houdini Box (Selznick) The BFG (Dahl) Holes (Sachar) Middle and High School (multicultural titles) Dragonwings (Yep) Jacobs Rescue: A Holocaust Story (Drucker) Zlatas Diary: A Childs Life in Sarajevo (Filipovic) The Double Life of Pocahontas (Fritz) Parrot in the Oven: Mi Vida (Martinez) The Friends (Yumoto) Journey to JoBurg: A South African Story (Naidoo) Canyons (Paulsen) The Bridge of San Luis Rey (Wilder) A Long Way from Chicago: A Novel in Stories (Peck) El Guero (De Trevino) Home \u0026amp; School Connection Page 3 LRSD Changes Elementary Summer School Policy Two More LRSD Schools Change to Extended Year Format The Little Rock School Districts School Services and Curriculum \u0026amp; Instruction departments have changed the way that academic intervention will be provided for those students in need of extra help. The district staff believes that teachers can be more effective by preventing failure during the school year rather than trying to remediate it during Summer School. In the past, one of the means of providing intervention was the districts Summer School program. After carefully evaluating that program, the district has decided to no longer provide Summer School for elementary students. Instead, each elementary school will be allocated additional funds to provide an intervention plan for students during the school year. This plan will target individual students who need extra helpthose for whom schools have developed Student Academic Improvement Plans (SAIPs). If your child is in need of extra help, that help can be obtained in a variety of ways at your childs school. This change affects elementary schools only. Secondary Summer School will remain the same. You can expect to receive Summer School information soon from your childs middle or high school. If you have questions or concerns on the elementary school level, please call Frances Cawthon Jones, Assistant Superintendent, at 447-1134. The LRSD has recently announced that two more elementary schools will change to the extended year format in the 2002-03 school year, bringing the total number of extended year schools in the district to five. Cloverdale and Mitchell elementary schools will join Mabelvale, Stephens and Woodruff, which have operated under the extended year format since Fall 2000. The extended year calendar starts the school year earlier and ends later than other schools. Research has shown that reducing the long summer break and taking shorter, more frequent breaks throughout the year is beneficial for students. During the breaks, called intersessions, students who need additional help may attend school. I believe that this new format will help our students and will lead to more student achievement, said Darian Smith, principal at Mitchell. Our parents are very positive about the change as well.' f % Little Rock School District 2002-03 Student Calendar New Years Resolutions? Its Not Too Late! by Sue Ward, R.N. Even though the New Year is already well under way, its not too late to resolve to make some changes that will improve your life and enable your body to do its best. Resolution ^1: Get Plenty of Exercise. What does exercise do for you? A lot! It makes your body systems work better. It stretches and strengthens all of your muscles, particularly your heart. It helps control your weight. It makes your body work more efficientlyyour lungs hold more air, your heart is stronger and provides better circulation, your blood vessels expand and let blood flow more easily, cholesterol and blood fats dont build up and your blood pressure can improve. It improves your endurance and flexibility. It also improves your self-esteem. Since a link has been found between our \"couch-potato lifestyle and the increase in the number of young people with chronic conditions like asthma, obesity and diabetes, now is the time to:  Plan an exercise program with your child, and keep to your plans. Try activities like biking, skating, jumping rope, walking, tennis or basketball.  When possible, break that automatic driving impulse: walk instead of drive.  Limit the time your family spends watching television.  Drink plenty of water. The water you lose as perspiration during exercise must be replaced to avoid dehydration. Resolution ^2: Get Plenty of Rest. It matters when your child doesnt get a full nights sleep. It also matters when you dont! More than 100 million Americans of all ages fail to get a good nights sleep each night. Inadequate sleep leads to poor concentration, forgetfulness, crankiness and sluggishness. Lack of sleep makes us vulnerable to infection and other medical problems such as high blood pressure, anxiety, weight gain and stress. Sleep is necessary so that your body has chance to rest. a August 5-6, 2002 August 19,2002 September 2,2002 October 4, 2002 October 18,2002 October 21,2002 November 7-8,2002 November 27, 2002 November 28-29,2002 December 23,2002 January 6, 2003 January 16,2003 January 17,2003 January 20,2003 February 17,2003 March 10, 2003 March 20, 2003 March 21, 2003 March 24-28, 2003 April 18,2003 May 26, 2003 May 28, 2003 A body needs more slumber while its growing: three year olds need about 12 hours each night, elementary \u0026amp; intermediate age students require ten hours of sleep, high school students and young adults up to age 20 need at least nine hours of sleep and adults require eight hours of sleep each night. How can we get the rest we need?  Keep a regular bedtime.  Once you rob your sleep bank, you must refill it, ideally by several days worth of extra sleep.  Regular exercise deepens and extends sleep, but dont exercise just prior to bedtime.  Dont eat a meal or large snack before bedtime.  Avoid caffeine for at least 3 hours before bedtime.  Make sure your bed and pillow are comfortable. Exercise and rest work together to help keep you healthy! July 24-25, 2002 August 13,2002 September 2,2002 October 4, 2002 October 10,2002 October 11,2002 October 14-18,2002 October21-25,2002 November 7-8,2002 November 27, 2002 November 28-29,2002 December 23,2002 January 6, 2003 January 15,2003 January 16, 2003 January 17, 2003 January 20, 2003 February 3-7, 2003 February 10-14, 2003 March 10, 2003 March 24-28,2003 April 16, 2003 April 17,2003 April 18, 2003 May 5-9, 2003 May 26,2003 June 26,2003 Sue Ward is the school nurse at Williams Magnet Elementary. School \"Check-In\" First Day for Students Labor Day Holiday * Parent Conference Day * End of First Quarter Teacher Records Day * AEA/Professional Development * Professional Development Day * Thanksgiving Holiday * Winter Vacation Begins * Classes Resume End of Second Quarter Teacher Records Day * Martin Luther King, ]r. Holiday * Parent Conference Day * Professional Development Day * End of Third Quarter Teacher Records Day * Spring Break * Professional Development Day * Memorial Day Holiday * End of Fourth Quarter/Last Day for Students Extended Year Schools 2002-03 Student Calendar (Cloverdale, Mabelvale, Mitchell, Stephens and Woodruff Elementaries ONLY) School \"Check-In\" First Day for Students Labor Day Holiday * Parent Conference Day * End of First Quarter Teacher Records Day * Intersession * Vacation * AEA/Professional Development * Professional Development Day * Thanksgiving Holiday * Winter Vacation Begins * Classes Resume End of Second Quarter Teacher Records Day * Parent Conference Day * Martin Luther King, ]r. Holiday * Intersession * Vacation * Professional Development Day * Spring Break * End of Third Quarter Teacher Records Day * Professional Development Day * Intersession * Memorial Day Holiday * End of Fourth Quarter/Last Day for Students *  Students do not attend class.Page 4 Little Rock School District Protecting Against Tooth Decay Going to the dentist. Its a thought most of us would like to banish from our minds. But what if you didnt have to go to the dentist? What if the dentist came to you? Students at Franklin Elementary were the first to benefit from a school-based tooth sealant program called Future Smiles, which was launched by UALR Share America, Colgate-Palmolive, DAMS Head Start and a group of dentists and dental health professionals called the Dental Health Action Team. Future Smiles provided free dental sealants (plastic coatings placed on the chewing surfaces of back teeth to seal out food and bacteria) to inner\u0026lt;ity elementary students during the month of February, which is also known as National Childrens Dental Health Month. Children participating in Future Smiles were identified by a dental screening completed last fall by Dr. Lynn Mouden, Director of Oral Health for the Arkansas Department of Health, students and faculty from DAMS School of Dental Hygiene and volunteer dentists from ^4 A I St. Vincents Health System and the Department of Human Services. The study revealed that about 57.5% of children screened were already affected by dental disease, and only 1.7% of children in the third grade and up actually had dental sealants, which have a tremendous potential to prevent tooth decay in children. Unfortunately, many of these children have never even been to a dentist, said Dr. Rosetta Calvin, a volunteer Its really not as bad as it looks: This student doesnt seem too h\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_570","title":"Program evaluation","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":["1994/2003-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School improvement programs","Educational law and legislation"],"dcterms_title":["Program evaluation"],"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/570"],"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(ra' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 TO: Board of Education FROM: PREPARED BY: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools ij^onnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction DATE: October 24, 2002 SUBJECT: Program Evaluation Agenda, 2002-03 Background Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan included the following obligation: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. In response to Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, the District implemented in 1999-2000 a new student assessment plan and proposed to the Board of Education a program evaluation agenda to include the most critical programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7 and detailed in Section 5: elementary, middle, and/or high school English language arts and mathematics programs. Each year the agenda has also included the evaluation of one or more additional programssuch as the ESL program mandated by the Office for Civil Rights. Judge Wilsons Compliance Remedy A summary of the Compliance Teams interpretation of Judge Wilsons order of September 13, 2002, pertaining to the 2002-2003 programs to be evaluated is a follows: Continue to assess the programs implemented under 2.7 to improve the academic achievement of African-American students for 2002-03 and through the first semester of 2003-04. Since the District has now eliminated all fall testing, except for certain diagnostic tests that teachers administer without 1 Board of Education - Memo October 24, 2002 Page Two reporting to the district the results, this obligation to assess students ends at the end of the 2002-03 school year. The judge stated that he expected the District to use all of that available data and information in assessing the effectiveness of those programs and in deciding whether any of those programs should be modified or eliminated. Therefore, the program evaluations that will be completed as per the 2002-2003 program evaluation agenda will include all available data, including scores from previously administered fall tests, and they will all be completed by the end of the first semester of 2003-04. Each one will answer several research questions, including the one most critical to compliance, Was this program effective in improving and remediating the achievement of African American students? The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan obligated the District in Section 5 to assess students in the following programs, as follows: 5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2.3 5.3.2 Primary Reading/Language Arts. g. Monitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices. Intermediate Reading/Language Arts e. Monitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices. Secondary Schools Reading/Language Arts f. Monitor student progress and achievement using appropriate assessment devices. Mathematics Develop appropriate assessment devices for measuring individual student achievement and the success of the revised curriculum. The 2002-03 Program Evaluation Agenda outlined in this proposal includes these required components. Status of the Requirements of the 2001-02 Program Evaluation Agenda The Boards program evaluation agenda for 2001-02 was as follows: Primary Reading/Language Arts Middle and High School Literacy K-12 Mathematics and Science (CPMSA) English as a Second Language 2Board of Education - Memo October 24, 2002 Page Three None of the four program evaluations for 2001-02 has been completed as yet due to the tardiness of our receipt of the States Benchmark scores for literacy and mathematics in grades 4, 6, and 8. The scores arrived on Thursday, October 3, 2002. The Board received an update on the Early Literacy program evaluation in June 2002 based on the Observation Surveys and the Developmental Reading Assessment data. That update confirmed the findings of the 2000-01 report and also documented even higher achievement. The previous evaluation, along with the update, are on the Boards agenda for approval on October 24, 2002. I Staff have planned to produce a brief report with data and analysis as a beginning program evaluation of the grades 3-5, 6-8, and 9-12 literacy programs with a more thorough evaluation report to come at the end of 2002-03. However, without the Benchmark scores, that report has not yet been drafted. The Board has received annual reports on assessment results for each of these programs. Comprehensive program evaluations of the grades K-5 and 6-12 literacy programs will be produced at the end of the 2002-03 school year for Board approval. The CPMSA (NSF-funded project) program evaluation (the fourth annual) will be presented at the December meeting and then will be submitted to the National Science Foundation for their review and feedback. At that time, the staff will bundle each of the previous three annual reports produced thus far, along with the NSF feedback, for the Boards formal approval of these program evaluations. The ESL report was originally scheduled for an October presentation, but we have had to reschedule since we do not yet have the Benchmark data. We anticipate being able to present that study in November. The Office for Civil Rights in Dallas has been very complimentary of our 2000-01 ESL program evaluation and has asked us to assist them in providing technical assistance to other districts on how to conduct this study. When the 2001-02 report is presented, the staff will bundle the reports for 1999-2000 and 2000-01, along with the 2001-02 report for the Boards formal approval. 2002-03 Proposed Program Evaluation Agenda The District will provide for the evaluation of the following programs for 2002-03. 1. Elementary Literacy Staff will produce, with the assistance of an external expert, a comprehensive evaluation of the elementary literacy program (grades K-5) at the end of 2002-03. This study will include findings for the following four literacy programs being implemented in LRSD: Balanced Literacy (Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas or ELLA at grades K-2 and Effective Literacy at grades 3Board of Education - Memo October 24, 2002 Page Four 3-5), Balanced Literacy with Reading Recovery, Success for All, and Direct Instruction. This report will be completed and presented to the Board for approval prior to the winter break in 2003. 2. Secondary Literacy Staff will produce, with the assistance of an external expert, a comprehensive evaluation of the secondary literacy program (grades 6-12) at the end of 2002-03. This study will include findings for the Reading/Writing Workshop implemented at grades 6-8 and the English I Workshop implemented in three schools at grade 9. All available data will be used in determining the effectiveness of the overall program. 2. CPMSA (K-12 Mathematics and Science) Staff will issue a final report on and evaluation of the five-year NSF-funded project for grades K-12 mathematics and science, and it will be presented to the Board for approval prior to the winter break in 2003. When NSF (external experts) provides its feedback, that report will be added to the documents submitted to the court. Fiscal Impact The District will be able to complete all the program evaluation requirements outlined in the 2002-03 program evaluation agenda through funds already budgeted, except for the cost of the external experts who will serve on each team. The costs for external consultants to complete the 2002-03 program evaluations are not yet known since the District has not yet had the opportunity to identify who they might be and to negotiate contracts. Recommendations That the Board of Education approve the 2002-03 program evaluation agenda as outlined. BAL/adg 4LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 TO\nBoard of Education FROM\nPREPARED BY\nT. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools ^^onnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Pat Price, Director of Early Childhood and Elementary Literacy DATE\nOctober 24, 2002 SUBJECT\nEarly Literacy Program Evaluations Background The Board of Education approved in its 1999-2000 program evaluation agenda the Early Literacy program, which began implementation in fall 1999. During July and August 2000 the Assistant Superintendent of PRE presented to the Board drafts of this evaluation, which the Board tabled in August 2000 pending completion. That early draft was never completed and was not again submitted to the Board of Education for review and approval. During summer 2001 Dr. Bonnie Lesley, on behalf of the Early Literacy Program Evaluation team (Pat Price, Pat Busbea, Ann Freeman, Ed Williams, Ken Savage, Anita Gilliam, and Sharon Kiilsgaard) presented a completed 204-page program evaluation\nYear 2 Evaluation\nThe Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District (1999-2000 and 2000-2001). This report was presented for information, but our Section 2.7.1 Compliance Plan now requires that all program evaluations be presented for Board acceptance and approval. Dr. Steve Ross of the University of Memphis had served as an external consultant to the team. He read both a near-complete draft and made several suggestions for its improvement, which were incorporated into the final draft. He also read the final draft and responded. All grades K-2 teachers administered the assessments, both fall and spring, in all three years, 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002. All elementary principals supervised both the fall and spring administrations of the Developmental Reading Assessment and the Observation Surveys and the Achievement Level Tests at grade 2. Central office Elementary Literacy staff conducted the training for the assessments, collected the answer documents, and participated in the analysis of data\nPatricia Price, Pat Busbea, Judy Milam, Judy Teeter, Kris Huffman, and Ann Freeman. Both Dr. Ed Williams and Board of Education - Memo October 24, 2002 Page Two Ken Savage assisted in the production and analysis of score reports. Anita Gilliam and Sharon Kiilsgaard assisted in checking the data tables for accuracy and in preparing the final reports. Copies of this program evaluation were provided to Mr. John Walker, to Ms. Ann Marshall at ODM, and to all elementary principals and elementary literacy staff. Executive summaries, including the program evaluation recommendations, were sent to all K-2 teachers with a cover memorandum congratulating them on their successes. The program evaluation was comprehensive, including the following:  an introduction:  a chapter on the literacy program design and its relationship to the Districts Strategic Plan and the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan\n a description of all of the K-2 assessments used to measure student progress\n a chapter aligning the program with national research studies on effective early literacy programs\n numerous tables displaying the data in several different ways, disaggregated by grade level and race\n an analysis of the results (based on student performance data)\n an analysis of additional data relating to achievement gap among schools and the impact of professional development on student achievement\n a chapter on findingsanswers to the six research questions originally posed\n a bibliography\nand  tables of school-level data on each assessment for the two-year period. 1 An important chapter of the program evaluation relating to Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan was the one on findings. Research Question 2 was as follows\n/s the new program effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students? The discussion filled pages 81-96. The following paragraph includes the criteria that were used to determine effectiveness. i To determine the effectiveness of the new program in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students, the District used the performance results of the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment. The basic criterion established in determining program effectiveness for black students was that black student achievement would have to improve and then that growth over the two-year period of the programs implementation would need to be equal to, but preferably greater than, the growth of non-black students, (p. 81)Board of Education - Memo October 24, 2002 Page Three The report included a detailed analysis of all available data\nThe following findings based on Observation Survey, Developmental Reading Assessment, and Achievement Level Test results make it possible to conclude that the new early literacy program has so far been effective in improving and remediating the reading achievement of African American students, as well as all students. It is unusual in any District to find gains by both blacks and non-blacks over a two-year period on eight different measurements, as this study finds. Again, however, experts on program implementation advise that it takes approximately five years to determine program effectiveness, so this year 2 study at best establishes baseline and early trend data for comparisons in future years, (pp. 82-83) In this sections conclusions, the program evaluation included not only a summary of findings as they relate to the achievement gap, but also how they compare to the findings in recent national research on reading achievement among African American and white students: The results of two years of changes in the LRSD policies, programs, and procedures in grades PreK-2 indicate that both black and non-black children in the Little Rock School District are learning to read independently by grade 3 (see Section 5.2.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan). The findings and analyses in this report indicate trends in the opposite direction of the national research findings cited above and of scores of other similar studies. Instead of black students growing at slower rates than non-blacks, in most of the measurements the LRSD results indicate higher rates of growth of black students than non-blacks. Instead of the gap widening between grades 1 and 2 as it does in national studies, it narrows significantly in the LRSD by every one of the eight measures (five sub-tests of the Observation Survey, the Developmental Reading Assessment, and two sub-tests of the Achievement Level Test), (p. 94) Pages 107-113 included recommendations for improvement in instruction, parent involvement, interventions, and professional development. Five schools were identified for improvement since they were the lowest performing schools in at least two of the three grades tested. Recommendations for the next program evaluation were also included. These recommendations were all considered by the program staff and by school-level staff and many were immediately implemented, as well as others identified in formative evaluations during year 3. The major recommendations made to principals for program improvement included (1) ensuring that all teachers are fully trained and are implementing the District program\nand (2) adding Reading Recovery and literacy coaches wherever possible, since both of these actions in some schools had resulted in higher achievement.Board of Education - Memo October 24, 2002 Page Four At the end of 2001-02 the staff decided that another comprehensive study was not necessary so early in the program's implementation (year 3). They, therefore, presented to the Board of Education in June 2002 an update that included all the 2001- 02 scores on the Observation Surveys and Developmental Reading Assessment, along with a summary of analysis of performance, especially comparisons of African American student achievement with other students. Those findings not only confirmed the findings of the 1999-2001 study, but the results were even stronger in year 3. At the end of year 3, African American students scores were at least 90 percent of other student scores on all five measures of the Observation Survey by the end of grade 2. In other words, the achievement gap was either closed on these measurements or almost closed, given the standard of 90 percent as an acceptable ratio. On the Developmental Reading Assessment, the most difficult of the measurements, the black to non-black ratio grew from 35 percent at the beginning of kindergarten in fall 1999 to 82 percent at the end of grade 2 in 2002. Deeper analysis also revealed that although many African American children from poverty were not learning to read in grade 1, they did successfully learn to read in grade 2, so they will most likely reach the goal of independent reading by grade 3, even though they began far behind their peers. Interestingly, the grovtrth of other students generally exceeded African American student growth on the DRA in grade 1, but African American growth exceeded other student growth in grade 2. Copies of the program evaluation and the update are attached for Board members' review. Recommendation That the Board of Education accept and approve, as submitted, the following: Year 2 Evaluation\nThe Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Update on the Implementation of the PreK-2 Literacy Program, Little Rock School District, 1999-2000, 2000-01, and 2001-02 BAL/adg AttachmentsLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 TO\nBoard of Education FROM\nT. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools PREPARED BY\nI Linda Watson, Assistant Superintendent ^bBonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction DATE\nOctober 24, 2002 SUBJECT\nApproval of the Charter School Program Evaluation Background Information Dr. Linda Watson and Ms. Krishna Young, former director of the LRSD Charter School, presented to the Board of Education in June 2001 the program evaluation for the Charter School. That report was presented as information, but the Section 2.7.1 Compliance Plan requires that the Board formally approve each of the program evaluations listed on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. The Charter School Program Evaluation was prepared by Dr. Larry McNeal, Professor at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Serving on the team with him were Dr. Linda Watson, Ms. Krishna Young, and Dr. Ed Williams, members of the LRSD staff. All of the Charter School teachers, grades 3-5, participated in administering the assessments\nthe Achievement Level Tests at grades 3-5, the SAT9 at grade 5, and the State Literacy and Mathematics Benchmark examinations at grade 4, and the Success for All quarterly assessments in reading. The program evaluation included not only student achievement data, but also demographic data, student attendance rates, records of suspensions, student grades, and financial costs for the program. Performance data for the program evaluation were not disaggregated by race. The student body, however, was 87 percent African American. Due primarily to budget constraints, the District eliminated funding for the Charter School in summer 2002 after two years of operation, so this program has now been abandoned. Recommendation That the Board of Education accept and approve the LRSD Charter School Program Evaluation for 2000-2001. BAL/adg Attachment 1 -ZDOi. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 TO: Board of Education FROM: T. Kenneth James,. Superintendent of Schools PREPARED BY: Ionnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction DATE: November 21,2002 SUBJECT: Approval of Program Evaluation for Southwest Middle Schools Partnership with Southwest Education Development Lab (SEDL) Background Information During 1998-99 and 1999-2000 SEDL formed a two-year research partnership with five schools in their five-state region. The project was entitled Facilitating Implementation of Reform Strategies and Tactics (FIRST). Southwest Middle School was the only middle school to be selected for participation. The focus areas for the project at Southwest were literacy achievement: mathematics achievement\nstudent attendance\nand student health, wellness, and safety. The SEDL staff published two evaluations of their work with the five schools and their findings relating to the effectiveness of certain school improvement efforts. Those two reports are attached. LRSD s PRE department through Dr. Ed Williams provided data over the two-year period as requested by SEDL for their analysis. In addition, SEDL conducted informal surveys, observations, and interviews and documented each schools conditions with journal entries (see p. 2, Volume 9, Number f. Issues about Change). SEDL staff, primarily Dr. DeEtte Cowan, conducted the study and wrote the program evaluation. Southwest Middle Schools principal and grades 6-8 teachers participated in data collection and in administering student assessments. Five core issues were identified as having significant impact on the five schools past and present efforts at improvement:  organizational structures  focus of improvement work  personal and social dynamics  contextual influences  , leadership. Board of Education - Memo November 21, 2002 Page Two Although the purpose of the SEDL study was not specifically to determine the  rrQ\u0026lt;'Tn/Anr,r.n _Z___ . rr . . . reform efforts on the academic achievement of African American children, whatever findings were made would be relevant t:..,, Z__L___' Schools students are almost all African Americans. The findings for Southwest found as follows in the Volume 9, Number 2 report: since Southwest Middle are organizational structuresp. 4, first column (year 1) and second column (Year 2) focus of improvement workp. 2, second column (year 1) personal and social dynamicsp. 5, second column (year 1) and p 6 first column  contextual influencesp. 6, second column leadership p. 8, first column (year 1) and p. 8, second column (year 2) In conclusion, when improved academic achievement did not including Southwest, the researchers stated the following: occur in the five schools, While increased student achievement is the goal of any responsible school improvement effort, administrative and organizational difficulties must often be addressed before a coherent view of the student body and its needs can be formulated and connected to staff capabilities and goals. Left unaddressed issues of leadership, organization, and context, as well as personal and social dynamics can detail school improvement efforts and sap the energy of the most gifted and talented teachers. Most critically, if these /ssues are not addressed and a schoolwide improvement effort is not advanced, the quality of education individual students receive can become simply a matter of chance and class assignment (pp. 9-10, Volume 9, Number?). Recommendation That the Board of Education approve the attached research reports on the Facilitatinq Implementation of Reform Strategies and Tactics (FIRST) project / M C* . .Xi_________ X 1   I I I Al I. ... ' ' ' ..UHCU.CIUOUUII UI r\\erorm iiraiegies and lactics (FIRST) project as the proqram evaluations for Southwest Middle School's participation in the SEDL partnership. BAL/adg AttachmentVolume 9, Number 2 2000 Issues . about Change Year One and Year Two: What Do You Do In Comprehensive School Improvement Introduction During the summer of 1998, the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL) began a partnership project entitled Facihtating Implementation of Reform Strategies and Tactics (FIRST). A two-year initiative, FIRST partnered staff from SEDLs Strategies for Increasing School Success (SISS) program with staff at five schoolsone in each of the five states defining SEDLs service region^Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. These initiatives would differ from former models of school improvement. FIRST partnerships would be long-term, broad scale, in-depth. u. joined at the hip partnerships focusing on the identified needs of the schools and including all relevant staff. Identified needs were not hmited to a particular program or organizational aspect of the school, but could encompass curriculmn, instruction, assessment, classroom management, professional development, parental and community involvement, school management, and a consideration of how these parts fxmctioned as a whole to create a particular school culture. For two years, SEDL staff provided information, guidance, and technical support for improvement efforts determined by the school personnel. FIRST schools collaborated with SEDL in conducting interviews, surveys, and observations about the course these improvement efforts took, including major accomplishments and stumbling blocks. The entire school program was examined and prioritized\nspecific academic areas and/or organizational structures were chosen as the focus of improvement work at each of the FIRST schools. The intent of the FIRST project was to develop the capacity of school personnel to plan, monitor, and continue improvement efforts. To that end, technical assistance providers were enlisted and coordinated with SEDL staffs work to assist the schools during the FIRST initiative. FIRST schools represented the regions diversity on many levels\nthree high schools (Banner, Community, and Pelican), one middle school (Tall Pines), and one K-8 school (San Fernando) were chosen. These schools, whose names are pseudonyms, served students across a range of ethnic and socioeconomic backgroimds, and struggled with issues both specific to their schools and common to many schools (e.g. low student achievement, lack of parent involvement). In the course of the research into school improvement strategies and particularly through the first year of experience in partner schools, SEDL staff identified and confirmed the primacy of five core issues for school improvement efforts. The staffs analysis of school issues and strategies for advancing school improvement was framed within these areas: focus of the improvement work, orgamzational structures that support school change, personal and social dynamics of the indi'viduals and organizations involved, the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory 211 East Seventh-Street, Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 476-6861widening circles of contexts that influence school work, and leadership that influence all of the preceding can Much of the first year of SEDL staffs work was devoted to becoming familiar -wi-th the school culture and context, and building relationships -wi-th school personnel. First year efforts tended to identify the issues that impeded school improvement. As these issues had often been hidden by routine and low expectations prior to the partnership, many participants became discouraged as improvement efforts caused these issues to emerge or re-emerge. I Major tasks facing the SEDL staff in the second year thus included maintaining momentum in ongoing changa efforts, continuing relationship-building, and celebrating accomphshments as they occurred. SEDL partners had bmlt trust -with school staff in their roles as external changa facilitatorsneutral parties in district, school, and interpersonal pohtics. In order to advance change efforts and maintain this trust, SEDL personnel focused their efforts on each schools identified needs, with particular attention to the five core school change issues. Focus of the Improvement Work Year 1. In order for partner schools to fully engage in the work of school improvement, the focus of the improvement work that was undertaken was identified and chosen with the full participation of staff at each school. The level and root of difficulty in achieving this objective varied from school to school. For example, Barmer High School was reconstituted during the first year of its partnership with SEDL. In its effort to provide students with a sense of community and to encourage personal relationships between students sind teachers, this single large high school was divided into four academies. The focus of improvement work quickly became apparent\nimplementation of the academies concepts and structures. At San Fernando School, SEDL assisted staff in re-viewing achievement data and performing action research. As a result of their learning, staff at San Fernando decided to focus improvement work on student retention of skills, and on curriculum, particularly in mathematics. The SEDL facilitator at Cnm-munity High School conducted student focus groups for faculty observation, supported professional development for faculty and administrators, and assisted in the collection and analysis of data from multiple so-urces in the community and from students. Freshman student success was chosen as the focus of improvement work, and the rest of the first year at Commimity High was spent identifying leverage points and making plans for implementation in the second year. At Pelican High School, issues of communication between the central office and the school inserted themselves into efforts to define the focus of improvement work. These issues were worked on as the facilitator introduced the study of student achievement data and its analysis, followed by tie-fining a -vision focused on student outcomes. While staff and administrators quickly agreed to focus efforts on improving instructional effectiveness, the consensus broke down when the SEDL facilitator pushed for more specifics. The staff ultimately decided to focus on planning^ as a way of addressing instructional effectiveness. Student achievement and other forms of data were collected by SEDL staff and utilized to inform staff at Tall Pines Middle School about the academic needs of students and the factors operating -within the school that impacted student learning. SEDL facilitated development of a shared -vision of exemplary SEDL 2schools through the distribution of researchbased studies on successful middle school reform. With this support and guidance, Tall Pines staff identified four areas for improvement\nhteracy achievement, mathematics achievement\nstudent attendance\nand student health, wellness, and safety. Year 2. In Year 2, SEDL staff sought to ensure that students remained a visible and vital target of school improvement efforts. At Tall Pines, an administrator from a neighboring school district, trained by staff from SEDLs Program for Teaching and Learning (PITL), developed Uid delivered professional development for teachers that focused on what students learnednot what teachers taught. As part of their year-long staff development in mathematics instruction, teachers at San Fernando were trained in conducting student interviews, in order to gain insight into the process and success of student learning To discover and disseminate student priorities and perceptions, SEDL staff conducted student focus groups at San Fernando School, Community High, and Pehcan High. At Pehcan High School, development of a school improvement plan began as SEDL engaged Pehcan staff in a return to the schools migainn and vision, and led the staff in reflecting on the skills and attributes of an ideal Pehcan High graduate. - These efforts to keep school improvement work focused on students helped to diminish political issues and increase staff enthusiasm and commitment. At Pelican High School, for example, staff who had been adept at blaming external circumstancedistrict pohcy, student socio-economic background^for students lack of success began to see and take responsibility for their impact on students. Staff became both more accountable and more enthusiastic as they planned, implemented, assessed, and revised specific strategies for improved student achievement. SEDL made available the resources of both its SISS and PITL programs, creating and dehvering professional development activities specifi.c to each schools needs\nconducting, analyzing, reporting and guiding revision in response to the assessment of school improvement strategies that were initiated\nleading, planning, and attending meetings of school and/or district staff\nand providing each school an observer and aUy both removed from divisive school issues and fuUy committed to school improvement and increased student achievement. In addition, SEDL staff brought in outside experts and assisted schools in accessing local resources, and devp1 oping relationships between school and district staff, and between the FIRST school and education professionals at neighboring schools and universities. Reflection. Lack of access to and understanding of student achievement data played a large role in the difficulties encountered as each partner school sought to define and maintain the focus of their improvement efforts. SEDL spent time at each school gathering existing data, collecting new data, and training school staff in interpreting data and identifying logical, research-tested strategies for school improvement In the absence of empirical information about their students' achievement, school staff had developed their own rationale for student achievement and lack of achievement. SEDL staff had to address these straw men,' ft including: student socioeconomic background\ngovernment-mandated program .q, standards, and measurements\ninterpersonal disputes\nand other factors outside staff control. SEDL partners pushed school staff to assume responsibility for student learning, and to believe in their ability to positively affect that learning 3 SEDLOrganizational Structures Year 1. During Year 1, SEDL staff famiharized themselves with the organizational structures that existed at partner schools, and assisted in the development of orgamzational structures where there were none. 'The reconstitution of Banner High School into academies required that new communication structures be developed and implemented. Pehcan High School, which had recently been created by the division of a K-12 school into an elementary, middle, and high school, had a similar need to develop new organizational structures, particularly addressing commumcation between central office staff and the school. At Community High and San Fernando School, organizational structures that were already in place were strengthened and supported through the FIRST partnership. At Commumty High, the principal provided meals and, in some cases, stipends, in support of afterschool planning meetings among teachers\nthis was to change in year two. Facffitation of meetings at San Fernando School helped to assure that all staff were included in plannings and all voices were heard at staff meetings. At San Fernando, SEDL also assisted in the creation and operation of action research teams, which collected and presented the data utilized in developing that schools focus of improvement work. Organizational structures at Tail Pines provided little support for change. Systems for routine procedures, such as tracking attendance and communicating hallway duties, were lacking. Communication among teachers and between the school administration and teachers was sporadic and ineffective. Structures such as grade level teams and the schools steering committee, while in place, were not utihzed effectively. Grade level teams collaborated on student discipline, parent/teacher conferences, and planning for special events. The schools steering committee existed primarily to commumcate the principals unilaterally developed agenda to the rest of the staff. Expectations and opportunities for teacher leadership or problem-solving were nearly nonexistent. Year 2. During the FIRST initiatives second year, orgamzational structures remained a focus of attention at partner schools. SEDL facihtators sought to enhance structures and practices that worked and mitigate the effects of structures that did not exist or work well. When funds to provide meals and stipends for professional development dried up at Community High School, SEDL supported the principal in utilizing other school resources to support unprovement efforts. Communication via e-mail helped fill the gap created by fewer meetings\nthe schools video equipment (and students) provided a means to create videotapes of training activities. At Pelican High School, in light of a new school structure, and with the cooperation of a new administrator, SEDL staff supported school personnel in adapting necessary procedures to the new organization and structures. At Banner High School, FIRST efforts targeted one academy of the four (that understood the value of FIRST and articulated interest) created by the division of a large high school. The lack of organizational structure at Tall Pines Middle School remained a .signifirant obstacle to school improvement efforts. The SEDL facilitator at Tail Pines advocated for fuller use of existing organizational structures, and helped the principal realize the strength and skills of the campus leadership team. In addition, the facilitator created opportunities from external mandated policies\nthe district required the completion of a campus plana difficult task given the lack of organization and staff expertise that characterized Tall Pines. The SEDL coordinator volunteered to assist in this effort, and in the process modeled I i SEDL 4inclusion, data driven decisions, planning and communicationand embedded greater capacity for ongoing school improvement into Tall Pines future. District requirements provided accoimtabhity and legitimacy to school efforts at San Fernando School. Here, the SEPT, facilitator utihzed district pressure to align curriculum within the school, and with state assessments helped to unify teachers^by quelling resistanci in taking the next steps in the schools focus on improved mathematics instruction and achievement. Reflection. As a result of two years work in partner schools, SEDL staff learned that they had been too optimistic in terms of organizational structures at partner schools. Partner schools functioned with minimal organization, allowing informal networks and unspoken expectations to guide and define their work, and reinforcing the isolation of teachers in their individual classrooms. Without clear access to information, the means to express opinions, or the assurance that their perspective would be honored, teachers and staff retreated from one another, convinced themselves that school-wide improvement was impossible, and focused their efforts narrowly. SEDL facilitators found themselves  working within organizational structures that were cumbersome and ineffective, or creating new organizational structures with personnel who were often skeptical and occasionally resistant. Facihtators found this work to be critical to maintaining improvement efforts, but also to be quite difficult, thankless, and slow to show benefits. improvement efforts at each school, advanced dynamics that supported those efforts, and most criticallyavoided being drawn into or ahgned with any one side of personal and social conflicts involving the partner schools. At Banner and Community High Schools, personal and socieil dynaTnirs were generally positive. Banner High School was marked by strong, clear, and widespread teacher conTmitrnp-nt. to and knowledge of students. For the most part, this commitment fueled supportive professional relationships between teachers, although there was little opportunity for teachers suggestions to be incorporated into administrative decisions about the new academy structure. At Commumty High School, trust in the principal translated into the ability for teachers to work well with one another, and to ignore small factions that arose in opposition to improvement efforts. In schools where the personal and social dynamics were less positive, SEDL facihtators sought to engage all staff in the improvement effortsand in the meetings eind decisionmaking that informed and shaped those efforts. Nudging teachers to learn one anothers names by asking a group who is missing provided a small but vital fotmdation for teachers to begin talking to one another about instruction at Pelican High School. At San Fernando, providing the opportunity for staff to discuss the issues that simmered between them allowed some of these issues to be resolved. At Tall Pines, attending to organizational structures helped to dispel some of the tensions that precluded the development of strong personal relationships among teachers and staff. Personal and Social Dynamics of Individuals and Organizations Year 1. SEDL facilitators observed the personal and social dynamics that impacted Year 2. For the most part, issues of personal and social dynamics were addressed only tangentially during the second year. SEDL staff maintained their focus on building relationships among teachers and between 5 SEDLteachers and adm i n i strators in the context of professional development and school improvement efforts. When facilitating meetings, SEDL staff worked to ensure that every voice was heard, and maintained professional neutrahty when tensions emerged. SEDL staff utilized emerging teacher leaders and other individuals invested in school change efforts to encourage schoolwide commitment to the project. In this project and in others, SEDL has learned that professional growth, focused efforts toward school improvement, and the academic success of students form the strongest bonds between school professionals. Banner High School and Tall Pines Middle School did provide notable exceptions, where personal and social d5mamics jeopardized improvement efforts. At Banner, three of the four academy principals began to isolate and undermine the fourth principal, and to reduce their commitment to the FIRST project. These three principals ultimately left the FIRST project, and the SEDL facflitator worked exclusively with that fourth principal, in the academy she administered. Issues related to leadership negatively impacted personal and social dynamics at Tall Pines Middle School. A school climate survey was conducted during each year of the FIRST projectall indicators fell in the second year, and the subscale of Collegial support fell most dramatically. Unfortunately, SEDL could do little to directly address these issues until issues of leadership improved. Reflection. Personal and social dynamics is perhaps the least distinctly bounded of the five critical areas the FIRST project identified and addressed. Problems that are rooted in leadership, context, and organizational structures almost always affect personal and social dynamics negatively. Similarly^ advancement in any of the four other areas tends to support positive dynamics. But, while SEDL facihtators acknowledged that personal and social dynamics tended to bleed into and out of the other critical areas, they found it remained an important area to consider independently. one When school personnel know and trust another, the work of school change gets easier. Communicating expectations of respect and participation, bringing parties in conflict together to dialogue, and teaching techniques for assuring full participation and equal representation helped to advance positive personal and social dynamics, which in turn advanced school improvement efforts. Contextual Influences Year 1. Each of the five partner schools operated within a different community and district context. At Community and Banner High Schools, contextual issues were minimal, and easily addressed through assuring clear communication between all stakeholders. This was a central tenet of the focus of improvement efforts, although some attention was required at Banner because of the schools reaction to the community and city politics that were at play. Contextual issues were most significant at Tall Pines, where new state and di strict, pohcies and mandated curricular changes created new roles, relationships, and responsibflities among administrntors, teachers, parents, and students. In addition. Tail Pines operated under a long-standing desegregation order that required careful scrutiny of any changes that might affect the racial composition of the school. A strong teachers union actively monitored the effect of these changes and FIRST improvement efforts on teachers work and responsibflities. At Tall Pines, SEDL sought to connect all these factors to develop a coherent improvement effort. SEDL 6 1Similarly, tensions between the digfrict- and school at Pelican High School were addressed in the first year by providing opportunities for representatives of each orgamzation to meet, dialogue, and problem- solve. The establishment of regular meetings had a powerful and immediate impact on communication and trust between school and district personnel. The students at San Fernando School provided this school its most challenging contextual issue. While most of the core staff at San Fernando were Euro-American, the majority of instructional assistants and students were Native American and T-Tispanic SEDL staff worked to assure that the voices of instructional assistants were included and honored at staff meetings, and brought in research-based materials on connecting school curricula to students ethnic and cultural backgrounds. Year 2. SEDL facilitators continued to assist school personnel in identifying and responding to a variety of contextual influences. Peril a pi more critically, SEDL facilitators sought to maintain school focus on improvement goals and specific activities toward those goals, in order to prevent contextual influences from becoming excuses for stasis. SEDL helped school personnel learn to define their real IS spheres of influence and to handle issues of context. They also provided technical support in the completion of campus improvement plans, offered advice on utilization of Title I funds, and guided professional development in areas of multiculturalisni and age-appropriate teaching strategies. Reflection. While schools are the location of improvement work, they are critically affected for better or worse by the context in which they exist. External change facilitators must have a wide and deep range of strategies and uiformation in oi\nder to be ready to anticipate and address issues of context during improvement efforts. Bringing all parties to the table, where possible, is the best first strategy in addressing contextual issues. In aU cases, more and better communication, and more and better understanding mitigated the negative aspects of context, and allowed stakeholders to begin to imagine context as a strength of, and not a hindrance to, their school. Leadership Year 1. Gathering an accurate impression of each partner school was the first step for SEDL facihtators across each of the five critical arpas for school improvement. Doing so quickly was particularly important in the area of leadership. While shared leadership is acknowledged as a pwerful form of school administration, at the FIRST partner schools, the principals retained most of the power, made most of the admimstrative decisions unilaterally, and thus wielded tremendous influence on the staffs perception of the FIRST initiative and their willingness to fiflly participate. At Community High School, relationships between staff and a d m i m'.gtr a tors were generally positive, and the Assistant Principal was particularly enthusiastic about the FIRST project. His enthusiasm would eventually lead him to overload the project with mitiatives, but at the beginning it served to create momentum, interest, and commitment among school staff. During the first year, tensions between the four academy principals at Banner High School came to a head. When the fm-mer superintendent had made them equals as administrators, she had not provided them with any model for operating as such. The resulting power struggle defused improvement efforts and negatively impacted interpersonal dynamics. The SEDL facihtator sought to assuage hurt feelings and discover and i 7 SEDL Ldisseminate leadership models that might work between these four administrators. She was unsuccessful at finding such a model, and ultimately decided to focus the FIRST project on only one of the academies. Leadership at Tall Pines was a very apparent area for potential improvement. The principal, though well meaning, seemed not to understand the function or practical value of shared leadership. While both a steering committee and campus leadership team were in place, there were no clearly defined areas of responsibihty for each or between the two. The principal rarely shared substantive decisionmaking with either body, and in fact appointed some members of the campus leadership team despite district guidelines calling for their election. When the principal did delegate responsibility, he neither monitored nor followed up to gauge progress or to identify how he could support staff efforts. As a result, many tasks were never completed, or if completed, were not recorded. Within this environment, the SEDL facihtator sought to develop a shared focus and a sense of self-efficacy among the staff. While this approach yielded enthusiasm in small group settings, plans were often jettisoned in responses to some crisis or other, and no coherent improvement plan could be developed and maintained. The principalship at San Fernando School and Pehcan High School changed hands after the first year of the FIRST initiative. At each of these schools, SEDL facihtators began again with new administrators, and built upon the relationships they had established with school staff. At Pehcan the facihtator was able to establish an immediate positive relationship with the new principal, while at San Fernando, teacher leaders maintained continuation of the project and specifically asked the new principal in the hiring interview if she was willing to support the SEDL project. In both instances, this turnover negatively impacted the momentum of the project, but did not completely erase the achievements nor void the plans made for implementation of school improvement efforts. Year 2. SEDL staff worked with FIRST school principals where they were, and in some cases, where they were not. When three of four principals in Banner High Schools new academy structure evidenced a lack of interest in or focus on how SEDL might support them, SEDL shifted its focus to full, supportive cooperation with the one principal who remained active and interested. At Tall Pines Middle School, the need for better management of routine procedures impeded efforts at communication, change, and improvement. The SEDL facihtator worked to develop leadership skills of the principal and of school staff. She advocated for utilizing existing structmes to share decision-making with the staff, and by the end of the project year, the campus leadership team was more involved in important decisions about school personnel and pohcies. In addition, the SEDL FIRST facihtator ultimately met with the school principal behind closed doors and confronted him about the need for stronger management and greater administrator visibihty in the school. The principal was able to accept this counsel, and made changes. At Community High School, one principals enthusiasm for the focus on freshman students led him to overbuild that program, nearly to the breaking point. The SEDL facilitator at Community High advocated for the staff and brought this principal to an awareness ofand sense of humor about^his tendency to take on too much. f i i At two FIRST schools, the projects second year began with new principals. SEDL facihtators took responsibihty for educating these fldTnini.qtrat.ors on the history, purposes. I SEDL 8and progress of the FIRST initiative. At Pelican High School, SEDL consistently supported and advanced the strengths of the new principal, even in trying times of adjustment. The SEDL facilitator pushed the new Pelican principal to define his vision of leadership, and supported the principal in implementing that vision throughout the predictable highs and lows of adjusting to a new school and a new assistant principal. At San Fernando school, the SEDL facilitator explained the staffs choice of mathematics as a school focus, and supported the principal in advancing this focus even as the district pushed for a shift to reading. The SEDL facihtator helped to assure the principals interest in professional development and assessment were incorporated into the school improvement plans, and reminded the principal that change takes time. When this principal also left the school, SEDL began again with San Fernandos third leader, explaining the FIRST initiatives focus, detailing the history and achievements of the staff, and offering continued assistance. Reflection. Through FIRST and other school improvement initiatives, SEDL has developed an abiding respect for the role of leadership in any school change effort. These efforts advance most effectively and smoothly in schools where principals are committed to high quality mstruction leading to success for every student\nare adept at handling both day-to-day operations as well as the crises that routinely break these routines\nenjoy strong working relationships with district and school staff\nand have both the professional security and commitment to advance and utihze teacher leadership. Unfortimately, principals with such broad and deep strengths are few and far between. In addition, all school leaders subject to relocation, retirement, and are reassignment. Shifts in leadership, even when anticipated, can have profound, lingering, deleterious effects on teacher morale and school improvement efforts. SEDL supported principals who had skills and strengthened the skill base of principals who struggled with leadership. Developing personal relationships with these administrators was an important first step. Once this foundation was estabhshed, SEDL facilitators shared professional literature on leadership with principals and coached the principals on leadership strategies ranging from use of active verbs and first person plural (in their communication with teachers) to implementing significant shared leadership. SEDL also sought to connect these school administrators with a wide web of ongoing support, and so assisted in building relationships between FIRST school principals, and supported their professional development and attendance at national and local conferences. Conclusions Through the FIRST initiative, SEDL has developed a body of research on school improvement efforts that includes close study of five schools in the process of change, a widening library of strategies for supporting school change, and confirmation of the critical role change agents can play in schools undertaking improvement and change. As outside agents, change facihtators can develop a clearer view of dynamics that support and impede change efforts, and provide and build resources and abihties. In addition, they can offer assistance that is free of existing power relationships and requirements, can advocate for aU school personnel, md, most importantly, can maintain the focus of improvement efforts on unproved instruction and increased student achievement. While increased student achievement is the goal of any responsible school improvement effort, administrative and organizational difficulties must often be addressed before a coherent view of the student body and its needs can be formulated and connected to staff capabihties and goals. Left unaddressed, issues 9 SEDLof leadership, organization, and context, as well as personal and social dynetmics can derail school improvement efforts and sap the energy of the most gifted and dedicated teachers. Most critically, if these issues are not addressed and a schoolwide improvement effort is not advanced, the quality of education individual students receive can become simply a matter of chance and class assignment. School change is a daunting proposal, and school change professionals must develop and utilize a deep and broad variety of strategies for assisting schools in change and improvement. Change facilitators must be able to respond to the particular issues of a school, and must be willing to devote time and attention to developing a clear understanding of the schools readiness and its cultural ethos, in order to adapt and implement change strategies that are specific to each schools circnmstance In addition, change agents must maintain an awareness of more universal issues in education^including administrative turnover, fluctuating funds, and student populations that are increasingly diverse and face increasing demands, both academic and personal. i i 1 j i Issues.-.about Change is published twice a year by Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. This issue was written by Melissa Capers, consultant\nD'Ette Cowan, SEDL Program Associate\nand Grace Fleming, Tara Leo, and Melanie Morrissey, Program Spedahsts, SEDL. SEDL I OERI This publication is based on work sponsored wholly, or in part, by the OfBce of Educational Research \u0026amp; Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, under Contract Number RP91002003. The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of OERI, the Department, or any other agency of the U. S. Government. This publication may be reproduced and copies distributed to others. Please acknowledge SEDL as the source on all copies. I i I I I J i SEDL 10Voltime 9, Number 1 2000 Issues . . about Change Comprehensive School Improvement: Addressing the Challenges The report of the 1996 National Commission on Teaching and Americas Future bore a strong message regarding the need for educational change\nSchool transformation cannot succeed unless it focuses on creating conditions in which teachers can teach and teach well. This report, coupled with current nationwide interest in encouraging schools to adopt comprehensive reform strategies or programs, urgently communicates the need for school improvement. Such reform may not be much to ask of schools that are already supported by adequate funding, continuous professional development programs, and active parent involvement. Many schools dont fit that picture however, and are crying out for help. It is with these schools, the ones that are struggling to meet the needs of their students, that SEDL has engaged in the Facilitating Implementation of Reform Strategies and Tactics (FIRST) project. The goals of this paper are to provide a deeper understanding of how schools experience comprehensive reform and to identify the issues that affect schools efforts at improvement. Taking a Different Approach This project took a systemwide look at comprehensive school improvement while simultaneously working with schools that were undertaking reform efforts. For the purposes of this work, comprehensive school improvement is an inclusive term for engaging an entire school staff in an in-depth study of the teaching and learning process. Emphasis is placed on the examination of all aspects of the school  curriculum, instruction, assessment, classroom management, professional development, parental and community involvement, school management, and so on and identification of how all of these parts can work together to improve student results. SEDL formed in-depth partnerships with five schools, one in each state of the educational laboratorys diverse service region. These partnerships were intended to differ from former models of school improvement in three specific ways. First, the focus of attention and assistance was on the entire school program and all factors that have the potential to affect student learning. This work was in no way to be a quick fix to show a fast turnaround in standardized test scores. Rather, the intent was to develop the capacity of school personnel and to promote their engagement in continuous improvement. Second, the existing and proposed structures and practices at each school site were examined in terms of their expected benefits for student learning. Each schools needs were viewed as individual and unique, which required the creation of a program tailored to that specific site and a process to address specific areas of need. Third, multiple technical assistance providers were coordinated to assist in the improvement efforts at each site during the FIRST project, and also beyond that time, to enable staff to stay informed and current in their practice. Again, because of the individual needs of each school site, the providers and the assistance that they offered varied. Developing Alliances with Schools Similarities existed among the schools in that each entered the partnership acknowledging that it was at risk of fading to meet the learning needs of its students, and each lacked experiences in school change. More important, staff at the five sites expressed their interest and commitment to the partnership as a means of producing meaningful changes in their schools and positively affecting student results. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory 211 East Seventh Street, Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 476-6861Together, the sites- displayed characteristics that are symptomatic of the challenges in pubhc education across the nationachievement scores were consistently low or falling, students were unhappy and/or unmotivated, parents were ignored, community members were disengaged, and school staff did not beheve they could affect student learning. The sues varied in terms of geography and demographics (race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, students cultural background), as well as in their capacity for reform planning and implementation. What We Are Learning SEDL staff conducted ongoing informal surveys, observations, and interviews, and documented each schools existing conditions with journal entries. In the process of reviewing the first years work across all five sites, the researchers found five core issues, each of which had signifirant impact on the schools past and present efforts at improvement:  organizational structures  focus of improvement work  personal and social dynamics  contextual influences  leadership. While the school sites themselves were more dissimilar than similar, the five core issues were factors at each site, to varying degrees. Such commonalities motivated SEDL staff to examine more thoroughly the core issues and their impact on each of the schools. Each of the core issues is thematic, encompassing a number of related areas in which the schools have needed assistance. The issues are highly interactive and interrelated, some to a stronger degree than others. Growth and progress at each site required that the external agent be aware of the five core issues. Actions were taken to nurture, support, and encourage positive developments within each of the core issues, in attempts to build up the capacity of staff and administration and to develop a system that is supportive of change. Findings regarding these issues have evolved from the experiences, observations, and documentation of work done at the five sites by SEDL staff and by the shared observations and commentary of the school staffs. This paper will clarify and discuss each core issue, using observations from the FIRST sites. While the situation in the schools with respect to these core issues does raise concerns, SEDL staff feel it is increasingly important to assess the overall picture, to acknowledge school staffs weaknesses along with their strengths, in order to knowledgeably facihtate school change. While SEDL staff continue to work on these issues with schools, it is hoped that other external school improvement facihtators will benefit from the insights provided regarding the challenges that all schools may face as they undertake comprehensive reform. Organizational Structures With appropriate structures and processes in place, effective schools run efficiently. At the FIRST schools, many of the necessary organizational supports were lacking, and the result was disorganization, unclear directions and processes, few to no avenues for problem solving or collaboration among staff, and frustrated teachers. Three specific areas within the organizational structures of schools were identified as areas that needed attention: time, communication, and organization. Finding time. One of the schools had regularly scheduled in-services for the whole staff to meet for professional development or collaboration. At the other four sites, faculty meetings were often held after school and were kept short to stay within state or union guidelines. Such meetings functioned primarily as a time to address administrative items, rather an to provide an opportunity for staff to come together as a whole for learning, problem solving, or decisionmaking. The result was fragmented understanding of the schools vision or collective purpose and continued isolation of teachers within their own classroom, grade level, and/or subject area. f 1 Though in-service days and/or daily planning periods of 45 minutes or longer were scheduled at each school site, the staffs tended to use the time SEDL 2 Iindependently for grading, planning, etc. No times or structures were designated specifically to facilitate collaboration among teachers. The inabihty to find time and/or the inefficient use of time greatly affected staffs opportunities to discuss issues regarding their vision, their goals, the school, the students, and the curriculum. 1110 result at each of the sites was a disconnection of purpose, intent, and action. Staff and administrators at each site identified a need for making time to work together as a staff and for using allotted time efficiently. This particular issue required ongoing negotiation and creative problem solving between SEDL staff and the campus administrator(s). In some instances, the large size of the staff and limited time constraints have meant that only, part of a staff was together at any one point. Within this configuration, the staffs were just learning how to use their time most productively so that their collective work has a positive impact on student learning. Communication. Although aU the schools could identify some form(s) of communication between administrators, staff, students, and parents, several of them did not have a regular means of daily or weekly communication of events. Rather, they rehed on word-of-mouth messages and/or PA announcements, which were disruptive and frequently consumed valuable classroom instruction time. Each of the schools lacked efficient methods for regular, ongoing communication regarding events whether scheduled or unscheduled. Such inadequate communication often resulted in last minute scrambhng on due dates, changes in staff or student meetings, and in hasty decisionmaking. At three of the schools in particular, information from the central office was not communicated to staff and/or administrators effectively or in a timely manner. Since much of the communication between schools and the central office is in the form of requests, concerns, or questions, the lack of efficient systems for such communication led to misinformation and confusion. Several of the school sites did not have any consistent means of communicating calendar events to parents, and so parental involvement in school activities was limited. School stakeholdersthe students, parents, and community members were rarely informed of or invited to participate in school activities, especially those that required decisionmaking. Teachers contact with parents was generally in the context of reporting concerns or grievances regarding their students. Parents and surrounding community members were viewed as unsupportive of schools efforts, and yet the staffs did not know how to nurture more positive relationships. Organization. In the time that SEDL staff spent in the schools during the first year, it appeared that few organizational systems were in place for making requests, identifying concerns, allocating materials or resources, or handling necessary paperwork. At one school site, it was not unusual for administrators to be unaware of a students location  during the day, since no system existed for accessing students class schedules. If a parent came to pick up his or her child, or the administrator wanted to talk to a particular student, school office personnel would have to interrupt instructional time by making a call over the PA system asking the child to report to the office. Most office personnel and administrators had not designed an efficient system for filing or accessing pertinent information, whether it was a state mandate regarding curriculum, personnel information, or student records. Focus of Improvement Work Maintaining an undeviating focus on students is central to identifying and articulating purposeful intent for any schools reform work. Such a focus was lacking at the sites. Often, small groups or individuals appeared to have a grasp of the overall intent of improvement work at the sites, but staffwide common focus and effort were not apparent. Also significant were the low levels of teacher empowerment found within these schools teachers ability and willingness to access information, identify needs and potential solutions, and engage in self-study were hmited. The result was inconsistency of purpose, mixed messages, and inefficient implementation of instructional strategies across the sites. Four specific areas of need 3 SEDLwere noted this first year: data analysis, problem solving, access to inrormation/resources, and conflict resolution/celebration. Data analysis. SEDL staff involved each school staff in examining their schools strengths and areas of concern, engaging the entire staff in data collection, analyzing trends, and developing hypotheses. Four of the five sites found it diffimit to provide recent student achievement data for this process, often not having the scores from the past years assessments on hand at the school. Accessing longitudinal dau for interpretation and analysis was even more difficult. When SEDL staff did access student achievement data, the staff were not clear about the usefulness of information gained from examining these data. Teachers and administrators exhibited limited understanding of alternative student assessment techniques, and this restricted their ability to accurately identify the needs of their students. Therefore, SEDL staff began to teach the school staffs how to interpret and analyze testing data. Once data were accessed, and teachers were taught how to read the scores and use them to identify strengths and needs, dialogue about the impact of instruction in the classroom began. Collaborative problem solving. Beyond the examination of data is the opportunity for school staffs to engage in dialogue regarding the needs of their students and their school. Before estabhsh- ing a partnership with SEDL, the five school sites had devoted little to no time to such discourse. As noted in the Organizational Structures section above, there was limited time provided for collaborative work. When administrators or staff attempted to discuss needs, it was often in a context of hurried decisionmaking, without referring to data or acknowledging everyones concerns. Dialogue techniquesallowing everyones voice to be heard without judgementwere not employed at any of the school sites. No clear norms were established for the school personnel to use in group discussions. The result was that a few vocal staff members at each school site were heard, while the test of the group was quiet and less involved. Often the more vocal staff members were aware that not everyone was involved. and yet did not seem to know how to address the problem. On the other hand, the quieter, less involved staff members spoke of feehng alienated from the discussions and decisionmaking, and therefore were admittedly less committed to making things work. The schools, in general, did not spend time identifying the potential for their students, their school, or themselves. Staffs were continually inundated by demands to improve student test scores, improve discipline referrals, or improve something else that was seen by someone else as unsatisfactory. School staffs did not spend any time identifying their strengths, or their vision for their students, schools, or themselves, and therefore they could not collectively relate to their successes or to their potential for improvement. Access to information/resources/training. Only one of the schools had access to and made use of available technical assistance in the form of training or resources. The other sites have either had difficulty in the past accessing outside resources, were unaware of what assistance was available to them, or simply could not identify what kind of assistance would benefit them. Directly related to the schools need for a vision and goals for their improvement work, the schools staff did not regularly seek information by tapping into research or literature regarding best practices. Staffs were more likely to attempt implementation of programs that another school in the district was doing, or what they heard from other teachers about what was working in their schools, rather than investigating the claims first. School staffs often did not receive adequate training in the programs they were trying to implement. An example of this was the implementation of block scheduling at one high school. Though the block scheduling strategy was adopted three years ago, the staff never received training regarding their instructional practices while teaching in longer periods. Conflict resolution and celebration. In any organization involving creative and energetic individuals, a certain degree of conflict will be present. Such friction does not result in negative attitudes or perceptions when there are clear norms and strategies for resolution in effect. SEDL 4These school sites, however, all struggled with conflict and they had limited resolution strategies in place. The results ranged firom the development of factions within a school staff, to complete ignorance of conflict, to individuals resigning their positions and leaving the school or district. Celebration strategies were very limited at the school sites. Since the schools seldom acknowledged their progress, there was no apparent need to celebrate accomplishments, learning, or growth. When one high schools state assessment scores significantly increased this year, the SEDL staff member who had written congratulatory notes to the instructional teams was informed by teachers that the note was the only acknowledgment they had received upon learning of the improved scores. Without celebration of even the little things, staff motivation was low, which in turn affected the students perceptions of school and learning, resulting in disenfranchised staff and students. Personal and Social Dynamics A trustful culture, mutual respect and regard within relationships, and collective engagement of staff and administrators are key components of effective cultures within schools. The personal and social dynamics at these sites varied substantially. Trustful culture. Change of any kind is a very difficult process. SEDL staff recognize that when a group has personal or information concerns, it is unlikely that sustainable progress will be made until those concerns are resolved. At some schools, the staff were open with each other, and a certain level of trust had been established over time. At other sites, however, the culture was distrustfulor at best, unsupportive of staff-wide openness and respect. At each of the sites, there was the need for SEDL staff to establish norms with the group about working together and set some precedence regarding group involvement. Several of the schools displayed a pervasive feehng of distrust toward district office staff. The causes of the distrust are unknown, but the lack of trust and respept significantly affected the ability of the staff to learn to work together with district staff. Relationships. The development of a trustful culture requires strong professional relationships, and the key to developing those ties is to strengthen the personal relationships as well. Too often, the workplace is seen as the place for work, and there is no acknowledgment that everyone has a life outside. Each of the five school sites was limited in the development of relationships among staff members. There were very few opportunities, either within school or outside of it, for staff to do fun things together, learn together, laugh together, or just get to know each other. Relationships that were nurtured occurred primarily, in small groups in grade level or subject area, because of proximity in location or similar scheduling. The groups that did engage in these types of interactions and relationship building worked more effectively together within the school as a result. Collective engagement. Since the school staffs had had few experiences of working together in these schools, it is understandable iat they had not had many opportunities to experience differences, develop mutual regard, or engage in collective learning. Little to no work had been done with school staffs to acknowledge and value the differences in culture, experience, and expertise that they brought to the school environment. Due to the limited interactions between staff, opportunities for building trust and collegial growth were hindered. In several instances, pockets of staff members had worked together over a long period of time and had established some trusting relationships. In only a few instances, however, did staff use these relationships to engage in learning with and from each other regarding classroom practice. Contextual Influences A school does not operate separate or apart from surrounding entities. Four specific areas were found to have the most direct impact on the school staff and their improvement efforts: the school itself, the community, the district, and the state. School context. The most apparent issue at two of the five sites was the quality and maintenance of the facilities and grounds. Each day students 5 SEDLcame to a school that was not well cared for, and the result was a continuing lack of respect for the facilities, displayed by ripped wallcoverings, beat- up lockers, trash on the floors, writing on the desks, and general classroom and hallway disrepair. Such an environment had become so common to school staff that little was done to address the issue of facilities maintenance, either among themselves, with the custodial staff, or with the students. Upon entering the buildings, one encountered an environment that was dismal, unkempt, and drabnot an atmosphere that would encourage positive self-esteem, communicate value and respect, or nurture pride. and parents, which further alienated the two groups and kept them from developing positive relationships and understanding. Finally, the schools teachers and administrators had low expectations with regard to themselves as professionals and as self-learners. This was com- mtmicated in many ways, but the most obvious to the teachers at several of the sites was the reality that resources, materials, and training were not available. Although each of these schools struggled with low funding for such items, teachers perceived the lack of supplies and opportunity as indications of disrespect for their work. Deeply intertwined with the context at the school sites was. the quality of relationships between the students and the staff. At several of the schools these relationships were noticeably strained, and poor commimication, behavior, and morale were the result. In classes and while engaging in one-on-one conversation with students, teachers were frequently disciplining students rather than refocusing them on their work or encouraging then- creativity in class. Students were overheard complaining about how the teachers treated them, and they rebelled by acting out in class or skipping classes altogether. There was significant emphasis on maintaining control through discipline. It was questionable, however, whether such tactics had the intended positive effects on student/staff relationships and student learning. Directly related was a comment made by staff and students alike\nWe dont talk to each other. Since most students see their teachers more than they see their own parents, such unsupportive relationships can be detrimental to student learning, self-esteem, and personal growth. In three of the five schools, there were significant attitudes and/or beliefs among the school staff affecting perceptions of students, parents, and community. Issues of culture, race, and education surfaced in many overt ways. Staff did not appear to acknowledge or understand the cultural beliefs or environmental situations of their students, and community members. This affected the students and their families perceptions of the worthiness and value of the school and staff. Sometimes school staff communicated their own economic or educational superiority to students There were also low expectations held for the students as learners and for the district/community/state as viable support systems. Community context. Every school ftmctions within a community, which can maintain a limited undersunding of the school, how it works, and what its impact is on students. The community comprises the parents of schoolchildren and also the area businesses that support and prosper from the education of the communitys students. To varying degrees, each of the sites struggled with relationships within the community. It was not uncommon to hear that the community held the school in less-than-supportive regard. Often articles appeared in the local media that reflected negatively on the school, the staff, or the students. Active community members and board members at several sites voiced their concerns about their schools effectiveness publicly, which served to further deepen the divide between the school and the community. However, the school staffs engaged in little outreach to encourage more parental or community understanding. The general attitude of the school staffs seemed to be, Theres nothing we can do about it anyway. f f Staff at each site discussed the importance of involving parents and community members, informing them of the work that is done at the school, and enlisting their assistance, but at most of the sites, staff experienced difficulty with this component and were unable to overcome their discomfort in working with parents and community members'. i I SEDL 6District context. Insofar as schools work within a larger system of education, they must be responsive to the requests, mandates, and desires of that surrounding system. District offices, charged with communicating state requirements, often make demands on schools regarding policies, curriculum, discipline, and professional development. With regard to policies, administrative demands, record keeping, facility maintenance, access to data, and availability of resources and materials, the numerous interactions between the schools and their district offices were less than smooth. Until the partnership with SEDL, most of these school sites took ho action to improve the lines of cornmunica- tion between themselves and the district offices. State context. The states demands on these school sites either have changed significantly within the last few years (with the adoption of a new accountability system, for example), or are frequently changing. Therefore, clear communication of pohcies, adoptions, and mandates is very important. While district offices are often the voice of such communication, the inconsistency of messages and constant changes from the state departments continued to cause schools to struggle. Leadership The most critical of the themes emerging from the first year of work was the leadership capacity of the principals. Such administrative development includes the principals ability to communicate a clear vision, inspire others to maintain high expectations, create strong organizational systems for themselves and the school, understand what is possible regard- mg improvement, and develop a culture of murntil respect and regard. In other words, leadership capacity has significant impact and influence on the other four core issues. Clear vision. Strong leadership is a necessary component for successful school reform. In order to provide such leadership, administrators need to be clear in identifying the vision they have for their school, their staff, their students, and themselves. The administrators at these sites simply held a common vision to improve achievement scores. Although this goal is certainly desirable for each of these schools, it was unclear how the administrators envisioned achieving it, and why that goal would be importantboth'necessary components of a strong vision. Without identifying a shared focus for improvement, administrators could not guide their staff in developing and articulating a collective vision for their students or their school. This lack of clarity made it difficult for the administrators to model the image through his or her actions with staff, students, parents, and community. Without strong vision as a path toward improvement, the a schools often lost their way. 11 Expectations. Closely related to the vision are the expectations that a school leader communicates to his/her staff and students. At these school sites, high expectations were rare. There is some relationship between the Personal and Social Dynamics and Contextual Influences in this subcategory, as expectations are often based on historical norms and professional relationships. In the case of one high school, the historical norms took precedence over the principals desire to set higher expectations. Being a new principal, he deferred to the existing norms rather than estabhsh- ing his own strong expectations directly related to a clear vision for improvement. Several of the administrators at the sites spoke of high expectations for staff and students, but they rarely modeled or followed through on such expectations. Decisionmaking. As discussed in the Organizational Structures section, there were few clear procedures for decisionmaking at the school sites. The absence of decisionmaking structures prevented teachers from being involved in long-range planning and resulted in unilateral decisions made by the administrator(s). If issues were brought to the staff, they were often voted on without accurate or thorough information. Organization. School administrators at several of the sites had difficulty organizing the daily tasks and paperwork with a user-friendly system. It did not appear that office personnel were utilized effectively for organizational assistance, and it was difficult to locate something when it was needed for a teacher, a parent, or district office staff. This lack of organization was apparent in plaiming efforts, in meetings, and in daily work. 7 SEDLSystems for communication among staff and between school and home were also inadequate. Both of these forms of communication were mentioned in the Organizational Structures section. Knowledge. One of the most important roles of a school leader is to function as a model for learning. It is imperative that administrators have a deep understanding of student learning and of teaching for learning, best practices, and current educational research. Such a foundation allows them to recognize and model strong teaching strategies for teaching staff. It is also important that administrators be familiar with state and district curriculum expectations and be able to communicate them to teachers and parents. We found administrators to be willing to pursue their own learning in these areas, but too overwhelmed by the daily routine to devote any time to increasing their own understanding. Administrators who were involved in their own advanced studies were more likely to be current with best practice and aware of developing research. This strongly supports the idea that administrators need to pursue opportunities for their own professional growth, in order to increase the effectiveness of their leadership. Administrators who valued continuous learning were more likely to make the cormection between teacher efficacy and continuous improvement in their schools. They were also more likely to admit they didnt always have the right answers and to encourage teacher leadership among their staff. It is crucial that administrators be able to model the will to develop the skill. Culture. The role of the administrator includes nurturing a positive, learning culture of mutual respect and regard among staff setting high expectations, but it also requires commitment to the vision of such a culture. At the schools studied, administrators did not address the culture among the staff and students. In some cases, they appeared oblivious to the needs of the staff or students, or unable to figure out how to respond to those needs. Some of the teachers felt that the principal didnt really know what'was going on in classrooms, but should, and in some cases, students echoed that sentiment. These teachers wanted to see the principal around the school on a daily basis. Administrators also needed to develop skills that would allow them to use resolution or mediation strategies appropriately in times of conflict, whether it was between students, parents, or staff. Too often, conflict was left to resolve itself and became detrimental to the school and/or the staff. Some of the unproductive norms at these sites had arisen from unresolved conflicts that were buried and in turn, had festered into a bigger issue. Finally, the culture of a school includes the parents, and few administrators were comfortable or skilled in communicating clearly with parents and/ or community members. In some instances, parents had been caUing directly to the district office regarding issues or concerns, since they did not feel they received adequate responses from the school administrator. In Summary Although much of the work being done in schools today is called comprehensive, in fact many efforts continue to focus on a quick fix to improve student achievement results rather than addressing the system as a whole and building up the parts in need. Such reforms may suffice in the short term, but they can rarely be sustained over time, or through administrative turnover, staff changes, or legal mandates. i SEDLs FIRST project attempted to address the needs of low-performing schools at a system level and to increase the capacity of staff to address continuous improvement for the purposes of increasing student learning. In order to do that, however, it was necessary to evaluate how these schools were functioning regarding their student results, the staffs professional development, and their capacity for growth. i i This project has found that schools that fail to meet the achievement needs of their students often also lack the necessary structures and skills for initiating and sustaining continual, growth and improvementsupportive organizational structures, focus for the work, attention to human dynamics, ability to wor^ within multiple contexts, and highly skilled leadership. In order to support meaningful t I 1 SEDL 8growth and change over time, significant attention must be devoted to strengthening the schools capacity in each of these areas. Successful comprehensive reform work will necessarily include such a focus. Although results of the identification and discussion of core issues in these schools seem discouraging, we have found them to be an accurate representation of the challenges currently confronting schools that undertake comprehensive school reform efforts. The next Issues.. .about Change paper will report the actions taken by SEDL and school staff at these sites to address the five core issues that emerged in this work. References National Commission on Teaching and Americas Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching for Americas future. New York: Author. SEDL is addressing the challenges that accompany efforts at school reform. The difference between the FIRST project and previous reform efforts lies in this acknowledgment and identification of the issues that affect the schools past and current efforts to make changes. Without addressing the underlying issues, reform efforts will merely scratch the surface and are unlikely to be sustainable over time to benefit student learning. Identification of the core issues provides insights about schools current conditions while engaged in comprehensive reform efforts and proves invaluable in determining capacity strengths and needs at each of the school sites. Comprehensive school reform as it is defined here- ingaging an entire school staff in an indepth, broad-scope examination of the teaching and learning process and working with them to improve student outcomesplants seeds of change that will continue to grow beyond the limits of this project. We hope that other external school improvement facilitators will be informed by the findings of this work and will use this information to promote school staffs grovrth and learning more effectively, and thus have stronger impact on building schools capacity for continuous improvement. We have much yet to learn. True comprehensive reform requires a thoughtful, reflectively adapting pace. As observers and participants in this process, we are learning that continuous reform can be encouraged by practicing tolerance for the investment of time that is necessary, and by nurturing continuous development within the core issues that surface in the process. Issues... about Change is published twice a year by Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. This issue was written by Melanie S. Morrissey, Program Specialist, Strategies for Increasing School Success at SEDL. SEDL I OERI This publication is based on work sponsored wholly, or in part, by the Office ofEducational Research \u0026amp; Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, under Contract Number RP91002003. The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of OERI, the Department, or any other agency of the U. S. Government. This publicationmay be reproduced and copies distributed to others. Please acknowledge SEDL as the source on all copies. 9 SEDLRECEIVED DEC 1 1 2002 A.n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge OFRCEOF  DESEGREGATION MONITORING December 3, 2002 DNiaOilNOW N011VD3a03S3a 30331330 Ms. Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring One National Plaza 124 W. Capital, Ste. 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 2002 I I 330 a3AI333a Dear Ms. Marshall: So that you are aware, we are presenting to the Board of Education for approval at the December 19, 2002, meeting the 2001-2002 evaluation of the Alternative Language Program for limited-English proficient students. Since it is not relevant to African American student achievement, we have not included a copy for you. If you would like to have one. however, just give me a call. We are also requesting the Boards formal approval of the first three years (1998- 99. 1999-2000, 2000-01) of the program evaluations of the Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement, along with the feedback we received on each from the National Science Foundation, and then, for each, the next years Strategic Plan for the project. We are including in that package the program evaluation for 2001-2002 and will be asking the Board to review and formally approve that document as well. Copies of all the CPMSA documents are included in this mailing for your information, although all the documents for the first three years have already been provided to you as part of the exhibits for the court. If you have questions, please let us know. As a review of the progress we have made thus far, the Board will have approved, by the end of December 2002, six of the 14 program evaluations listed on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report: 1. Pre-Kindergarten through Grade 2 Literacy. 1999-2000 and 2000- 2001. plus the Update provided to the Board in June 2002formally approved at October 2002 meeting\n810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 Mr. Ann Marshall December 3, 2002 Page Two 2. Charter School (first year)formally approved at October 2002 meeting\n3. Southwest Middle Schools Partnership with Southwestern Education Development Lab (Austin)formally approved at November 2002 meeting\n4. Collaborative Action Team (also a partnership with SEDL)formally approved at November 2002 meeting: 5. 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Evaluations of the Alternative Language Programformally approved at November 2002 meeting: the 2001- 2002 evaluation will be approved in December\n6. 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-01, and 2001-02 evaluations of the Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievementwill be formally approved at December 2002 meeting. Yours truly. Bonnie A. Lesley, Ed. D. Associate Superintendent for Instruction Enclosures BAL/adg cc: Kenneth James Chris Heller Clay Pendley Junious Babbs Sadie Mitchell Don Stewart John Walker The University of Memphis Memphis, Tennessee 38152-3340 A State of Tennessee Center of Excellence Center for Research in Educational Policy 325 Browning Hall Local 901/678-2310 Toll 866/670-6147 FAX 901/678-4257 October 28,2002 Director of Procurement Little Rock School District 1800 East Sixth Street Little Rock, AR. 72202 RECEIVED y. / 2p eV? DEC - 4 2002 desegregation MONITORING Dear Mr. Paradis, Enclosed are five copies of the Center for Research in Educational Policys response to RFQ #23-010: Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Program Evaluation Consultant. If additional information is needed or if I can be of further assistance, please contact the Center toll free at 1-866-670-6147. Sincerely, Steven M. Ross Director / A Tennessee Board of Regents Institution An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action University Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1922-1994) WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR.. P.A. JOE D. BELL. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY. P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR., P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON, P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM HI. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFP NISBET. JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III, P.A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A, RICHARD D. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER, P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN HI. P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL HI. P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR.. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH, JR.. P.A. J. LEE BROWN, P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR.. P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE, P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER. P.A. TONIA P. JONES. P.A. DAVID D. WILSON. P.A. JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A. DAVID M. GRAF. P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.fridayfirm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 3425 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE, SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72703-4811 TELEPHONE 479-695-2011 FAX 479-695-2147 CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P.A. JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR.. P.A. JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO. P.A. R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON. P A. FRAN C. HICKMAN. P.A. BETTY J. DEMORY. P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A. JAMES W. SMITH. P.A. CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT. P.A. DANIEL L. HERRINGTON. P.A. MARVIN L. CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR. ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL MICHAEL E. KARNEY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN A. KASTEN BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH RYAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M. COTTON PHILIP B. MONTGOMERY KRISTEN S. RIGGINS ALAN G. BRYAN LINDSEY MITCHAM SLOAN KHAYYAM M. EDDINGS JOHN F. PEISERICH AMANDA CAPPS ROSE BRANDON J. HARRISON RECEIVED DEC - 4 2002 fje/, 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-762-2898 OF COUNSEL B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS, P.A A.D. MCALLISTER FAX 870-762-2918 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING December 4, 2002 JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL 501-370-3323 FAX 501-244-5341 fendleyQfec.n*! ( By Hand Delivery ) Mr. John W. Walker Mr. Sam Jones Mr. Steve Jones John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm ( By Hand Delivery) Ms. Ann Marshall Mr. Dennis Hansen Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza Ofc of the Attorney General 323 Center Street RE: 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Compliance Remedy Dear Counsel \u0026amp; Ms. Marshall: Enclosed please find, Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in the Little Rock School District prepared by Dr. Steven M. Ross. The Little Rock School District intends to retain Dr. Ross, Dr. Larry McNeal and Dr. William Moore to complete the eight evaluations identified on page 148 of the Little Rock School Districts March 15, 2001 compliance report that were not completed with the assistance of an outside expert. These were identified on page 12 of the Compliance Committees proposed compliance plan previously provided to you. F \\HOME\\BBrown\\Fendky\\LRSD\\deseg\\counseI2 It.wpd/ All Counsel December 4, 2002 Page 2 Little Rock School District hopes that its decision to follow the guidelines prepared by Dr. Ross will deviate the Joshua Intervenors concerns about the preparation of these evaluations. If not, we respectfully request that ODM schedule facilitation related to the preparation of these evaluations as soon as possible so that the District may meet the courts March 15, 2003, deadline for Board approval and submission of the evaluations to the Court. Also enclosed for your reference are the responses to the RFQ submitted by the experts identified above. Sincerely, John C. Pendley, Jr. JCF/bgb enclosure(s) cc: Dr. Ken James F:\\HOME\\BBrown\\Fcndley\\LRSD\\dcscg\\counsel2 k.wpd1 Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in Little Rock School District Prepared by Steven M. Ross, Ph.D. The present guidelines are based on my review of the Revised Compliance Plan, the LRSD standards for program evaluation, and evaluation report drafts and associated materials related to the eight programs identified as requiring final evaluation reports. My analysis of this material, combined with my experiences as an educational researcher and familiarity with the Joshua case as it affected LRSD, was influenced by the following assumptions:  Invalid or questionable evaluation results can be much more detrimental than helpful to efforts to improve educational practices, and should not be disseminated without strong cautions and qualifications. Accordingly, studies that lack proper controls against bias or contamination from extraneous factors (e.g., differential sampling, history, diffusion of treatments) have limited value for guiding policies.  Program evaluations that focus predominately on student achievement outcomes while lacking sufficient implementation data have reduced value due to inability to determine the nature of the treatment. The study will also fail to inform policymakers about the practicality of the program, how it was used and reacted to by stakeholders, or whether and/or how it needs to be improved to impact at- risk learners.  Evaluations of programs that have been discontinued in the district are of much less interest relative to ones that are presently being implemented or informing ongoing practices.  To raise the achievement of African American students in LRSD, attempting to resuscitate existing studies that have insufficient data available, limited relevance to cunent practices, or require substantial time and resources with little promise of yielding useful information for policy decisions would be less productive than employing the lessons learned from the prior evaluation work to support high quality and informative future studies. One such lesson is that the LRSD research department (formerly PRE) was understaffed to perform evaluations of the quality and quantity needed. Based on the above assumptions, I will recommend below a basic strategy for the third-party evaluators to use in preparing the eight identified evaluations for approval by the school board. Four of the evaluations concern programs that are no longer in use by LRSD and have limited or no relevance to programmatic decisions (Lyceum Scholars, Elementary Level Summer Schools, Vital Link, and Onward to Excellence). Of the remaining four evaluations, two have limited available data (Middle School Transition and Campus Leadership Teams) that, even with supplementary analyses, would not permit confident (valid) decisions to be made about program effectiveness 2 in general or about African American student achievement resulting from program participation. A seventh evaluation (Extended Year Education) could possibly yield informative evidence about an ongoing program, but to be sufficiently refined would require time and resources extending significantly beyond the current conditions for project completion. An eighth evaluation (HIPPY) also deals with an ongoing program, but unlike the others could possibly provide useful evidence through revisions completed within the available time frame. Accordingly, the HIPPY report is currently being rewritten by Dr. Ed Williams from LRSD. The suggested plan for the third-party evaluators is presented below followed by a brief review of each evaluation. A. Submit the current evaluation report as an attachment to a supplemental document as described in B-D. B. The supplement should begin with an expanded description of the program, its goals, and its history in LRSD. It should then describe the evaluation methodology and summarize and interpret the key findings. C. Most importantly, the supplement should discuss the limitations (and any strengths where indicated) of the evaluation with regard to: (a) informing current practices in LRSD\n(b) using appropriate methodology\nand (c) addressing student achievement effects, especially in reference to African American students. D. Finally, the supplement should present suggestions for conducting stronger studies of similar programs in future evaluation studies. 1. Middle School Transition (Moore) This^evaluation is in near-completed form and needs mostly editing and expansion. Because the middle school program is current and continuing, this evaluation study can be useful (mostly for guiding professional development and implementation improvement) for informing district strategies. The achievement results are fairly minimal and uninformative, but at the time of the evaluation (1999-2000), only baseline data existed. Thus, aside from providing additional description of the results (the tables and the narrative are sparse) and a more meaningful interpretation of trends (especially with regard to African American vs. Caucasian students), there is probably little more that needs to be done for this essentially baseline time period. The survey data appear to be reasonably analyzed and reported, but the interpretation and discussion should be extended to provide more meaningful conclusions and recommendations. Suggestions'. The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section.3 2. Lyceum Scholars (McNeal) The Lyceum Scholars High School Program, which was evaluated in 1998-99 and 1999- 2000, is no longer being implemented in LRSD. The latter consideration, coupled with the obvious limitations of the evaluation design with regard to rigor, depth, and meaningfulness of the data, substantially reduce the value of the study and the need for devoting more than minimal resources to it, beyond perhaps a supplemental summary and explanation. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 3. Elementary Level Summer School (McNeal) Similar to the Lyceum Scholars High School Program (#2 above), the Elementary Level Summer School program is no longer being implemented in LRSD. In addition, the evaluation study conducted in the summer of 2001 is limited in its design and methodology. Among the major concerns are the lack of: (a) implementation data to describe the program strategies and the degree to which they were actually used by teachers, (b) an adequate control group or norms to which the achievement scores of summer school students could be compared, and (c) qualitative data to describe the experiences of students and teachers in the program. Due to differential sampling the multiple tables provided are neither overly meaningful nor informative regarding the progress of summer school students in general and African American summer school students in particular. Seemingly, there is little useful information to be gained for informing future policies by. investing substantive resources in revamping the study. While more suitable control samples might be established using archival data, the absence of implementation assessments would still make the treatment essentially unknown. Therefore, suggestions similar to those made for the Lyceum Scholars program are also offered here. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 4. Vital Link (Ross) The Vital Link program, designed to provide students with on-the-job experiences, was offered to 394 middle school students in the summer of 1999. Because the program was of very limited duration (only one week) and is not focused on either academic curriculum or learning strategies, it is highly unlikely to have affected students academic achievement. Although such a program would still potentially serve a useful purpose for fostering student motivation to achieve and complete school, it is no longer being implemented in LRSD. Further, the evaluation study conducted was so limited (a brief post-test only, closed-ended survey) that the policy implications of the results are minimal and even potentially misleading if derived. Therefore, suggestions similar to 4 those made for the Lyceum Scholars Program and the Elementary Level Summer School Program (#s 2 and 3 above) are again offered here. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 5. Onward to Excellence CSRD Program (Ross) The OTE model was implemented at Watson Elementary School for several years, starting in 1999. It has since been discontinued and was never formally evaluated, except for achievement data reports sent by the principal to ADE. Thus, in essence, there is no longer any program in LRSD to evaluate and no evaluation report to revise, expand, or redraft. It would seem wasteful of resources to reexamine historical data from this program, especially since implementation data are lacking. That is, if positive or negative results were found, it would be impossible to determine whether OTE or numerous others factors were the main cause. Suggestions, therefore, are similar to those for #s 2-4 above. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 6. HIPPY (Ross) Because HIPPY is a continuing program, this evaluation can be potentially useful to LRSD by providing initial program results on student achievement and benefits to African American children. A limitation of the study, which unfortunately cannot be remedied retroactively, is the lack of implementation data to describe the fidelity with which HIPPY program components were actually used. The quantitative achievement results must therefore be viewed cautiously, but should still be at least suggestive regarding program influences. Substantive expansion and revision, however, are needed to increase the readability and meaningfulness of the report. For example, there is inadequate description of the program, context, methodology, and analysis design. Tables and findings need to be presented in a more readable (user-friendly) manner. Suggestions: A. Reorganize and expand the introduction and methodology to be in line with district evaluation standards (i.e., more context, more detailed methodology, clearer questions and organization). B. Ed Williams needs to run the revised analysis and write up results by January 31,2003. A program description needs to be provided. Results need to be disaggregated, if possible, for African American and Caucasian students. Expand the Results sections to provide more informative reporting of outcomes, clearer tabular presentations, etc.5 C. Expand the Conclusions section to: (a) directly address whether there are implications for the achievement of African American and other disadvantaged groups (there probably are not at this stage), (b) more fully discuss implications and recommendations associated with the findings, and (c) propose further evaluation research that will validly determine both implementation quality and influences of HIPPY on student achievement. D. The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy in expanding this report. 7. Extended Year Education (EYE) Report (Moore) The EYE program is relevant to LRSDs current interests in improving academic achievement of its students. Unfortunately, the present evaluation design does not seem sufficiently sensitive to detect effects that might be attributable to EYE. Specifically, usage of whole-school data compared descriptively to district norms gives only a very surface examination of the schools progress, with susceptibility to contamination by student mobility, differences in SES, etc. A more precise analysis would match students at the three schools to similar students at comparable schools not using EYE, and then examine progress using a multivariate-type (regression or MANOVA) analysis. It is questionable, however, that such analyses could be completed in the time remaining for the required submission of the final report. Also, the findings would be limited by having only two years of post-program data. Aside from the design limitations, the organization of the report is difficult to follow due to the many tables and brief but not very informative narrative descriptions. The survey data might be interpretable, but also need a much clearer and better organized presentation. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. / 8. Campus Leadership Teams (Ross) This initiative seems highly relevant to current and future goals of LRSD. However, the evaluation data collected to date consist of only results from two district-wide surveys that assessed team members reactions to various activities. No information exists to verify the representativeness of the samples, the validity of the data collection in general, or the implementation of the CLTs at the various schools. The aggregate survey results on the 24 combined items (14 in the team member survey\n10 in the certified/non- certified staff member survey) do not appear overly interesting or meaningful with regard to informing practice. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section.JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS John w. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187  OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHenry. P A DONNA J. McHENRY' S210 Heoterson Ro.ad Little Rock. .Aekans.as 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Pjs (501) 372-3428 Email: mche1u7d@swbell.net Via Facsimile January 6, 2003 Dr. Bonnie Lesley Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72201 RECEIVED JAN -8 2003  OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Dear Dr. Lesley: On December 10, 2002 you mailed me a package which I have just received. I enclosing a copy of the address page for your information. am Please note that you have had my correct address for years. I am sending a copy of this letter to Judge Tom Ray because I am not certain whether there are any time response requirements involved, but I do not wish to be disadvantaged by receiving your document almost a month after its mailing. Very truly yours. -''^John W. Walker JWW:js Enclosure cc\nMr. Chris Heller Ms. Ann MarshallBonnie Lesley gl 0 W. Markham IRC Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 \u0026gt;t4 www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000 501-324-2032 (M C. 19 sw SBfflS K.h't- Hl  i\u0026lt;!\n'Ox .J/ X An Individual Approach (o a ]]7orUofKnonledff I : Mr. John Walker 3601 S. Broadway UUle Ror\nk, AR 72206received FEB 1 1 2003 An Individual Approach to a World of'Knowledge OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORIHG February 10, 2003 Mr. John Walker Attorney at Law 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 received FEB 1  2003 DESEGREGOAFTFIIOCN** OMFO NITOWNG Dear Mr. Walker: I am attaching four items that will be on the Board of Educations agenda for approval at their February 27, 2003, meeting. The four items are as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. Approval of the Elementary Summer School program evaluation Approval of the Lyceum Scholars program evaluation Approval of the Extended Year Education program evaluation Approval of the Middle School Transition program evaluation The cover memoranda and attached program evaluations are included for your review and information. Please give us a call if you have questions. Yours truly, A Bonnie A. Lesley, Ed. D. Associate Superintendent for Instruction cc\nKen James Chris Heller Junious Babbs, Jr. Don Stewart Sadie Mitchell /Ann Marshall BAL/adg Attachments 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax\n501-324-2032 u I f 7 -fi  'Xw Individual Approach to a World ofKnowledge January 9, 2003 RECEIVED Mr. John Walker 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 JAN 1 4 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Dear Mr. Walker: I received your letter admonishing me for sending my December 10, 2002, mailing to you to an incorrect address. I apologize profoundly, and I want to explain. The address of the packet to 3601 S. Broadway, rather than to 1723 Broadway, was a clerical error. In every other time that I have drafted a letter to you, I have included the address in my file in my draft and then sent it to my administrative assistant to complete and mail. In that particular letter, I just asked her to address it to you and to Ms. Marshall at ODM, and I failed to list the addresses. The address she had in her file was the old one. Neither of us knew that the mistake had occurred until we returned to work on January 6 after the winter break. When the person who delivers mail told me that it had been returned that Monday, 1 was very concerned and immediately requested that he hand-deliver the packet to you that day, which he did. That the package arrived in your office almost a month after its initial mailing, please note, was the result of our being out of the office for the winter break. The letter and accompanying document were related to the Boards approval at their December meeting of the program evaluations for the 2000-2001 ESL program and for the 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-01, and 2001-02 mathematics/science programs (CPMSA). You were advised earlier that these two programs would be considered at that meeting, and, of course, you received the Board agenda materials. Again, 1 apologize for the error, and 1 hope that you see that I sent the information and materials in good faith. Yours truly, L\u0026gt;- Bonnie A. Lesley'Ed. D. Associate Superintendent for Instruction BAL/adg cc: Kenneth James Chris Heller I'Ann Marshall Don Stewart Junious Babbs Sadie Mitchell 810 W Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 6 www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000 c fax: 501-324-20326^ 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Direct Phone: Communications Office: (501) 447-1030 (501) 447-1025 DATE: February 13, 2003 TO: Central Arkansas Media Cynthia Howell, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette FROM: Suellen Vann, Director of Communications SUBJECT: Special School Board Meeting MESSAGE: The Little Rock School District (LRSD) Board of Directors will hold a special meeting Thursday, February 13, in conjunction with its agenda meeting. Tire special meeting agenda will include tire review of program evaluations and employee hearings. Tlie meetings will begin at 5:00 p.m. in the Board Room of the LRSD Administration Building, 810 West Markliam. Pages (including cover) 1 To Fax * An Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge *A Ze % tl 1 An Individual Approach to a World ofKnowledge February 10, 2003 RECclVED Mr. John Walker Attorney at Law 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 FEB 1 1 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Dear Mr. Walker\nI am attaching five items that will be on the Board of Educations agenda for review/ approval at a special session on February 13, 2003, the evening of their agenda meeting. (We are asking them to approve four of the eight remaining program evaluations at their agenda meeting and the last four at the regular February meeting.) The five items are as follows: 1. Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in the Little Rock School District: Fiscal Impact 2. Approval of the HIPPY program evaluation 3. Approval of the Campus Leadership program evaluation 4. Approval of the Vital Link program evaluation 5. Approval of the Onward to Excellence program evaluation Please note that all four of the programs evaluated were previously abandoned by the District either due to d ata analysis that suggested program ineffectiveness or due to fiscal constraints. The cover memoranda and attached program evaluations are included for your review and information. Please give us a call if you have questions. truly, Yoprs truly. Bonnie A. Lesle/ Ed. D. Associate Superintendent for Instruction cc: Ken James Chris Heller Junious Babbs, Jr. Don Stewart Sadie Mitchell i/Ann Marshall BAL/adg Attachments 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032V IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ET AL received MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL MAR 1 4 2003 DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF FILING PROGRAM EVALUATIONS REQUIRED BY PARAGRAPH C OF THE COURTS COMPLIANCE REMEDY Plaintiff Little Rock School District (LRSD) for its Notice of Filing Program Evaluations Required by the Courts Order of September 13, 2002 states: 1. On September 13, 2002, the District Court issued its Order finding that the LRSD had substantially complied with all areas of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (Revised Plan), with the exception Revised Plan  2.7.1. The Courts Order set forth a detailed Compliance Remedy as to Revised Plan  2.7.1. Paragraph C. of the Compliance Remedy stated: LRSD must use Dr. Nunnerly or another expert from outside LRSD with equivalent qualifications and expertise to prepare program evaluations on each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. I will accept all program evaluations that have already been completed by Dr. Nunnerly or someone with similar qualifications and approved by the Board. All program evaluations that have not yet been completed on the remaining programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report must be prepared and approved by the Board as soon as practicable, but, in no event, later than March 15, 2003. In addition, as these program evaluations are prepared, LRSD shall use them, as part of the program assessment process, to determine the effectiveness of those programs in improving African-American achievement and whether, based on the evaluations, any changes or modifications should be made in those programs. In addition, LRSD must use those program evaluations, to the extent they may be relevant, in assessing the effectiveness of other related programs.2. On October 10, 2002, the LRSD Board of Directors adopted a Compliance Plan designed to meet the requirements of the Courts Compliance Remedy. A copy of the Compliance Plan is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. As to Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy, the LRSD concluded that the following evaluations had already been completed as required by Paragraph C and only needed to be submitted to the Board for approval: Early Literacy, Mathematics and Science, Charter School, English-as-a-Second Language, Southwest Middle Schools SEDL Program and Collaborative Action Team. The Charter School and Early Literacy evaluations were approved by the Board on October 24, 2002. The Southwest Middle Schools SEDL Program, 2000\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_576","title":"Program evaluation","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":["1994/2003-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School improvement programs","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Program evaluation"],"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/576"],"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\nCorrespondence, evaluations. Program evaluations determined the effectiveness of programs to improve the academic achievement of African American students.\nC0RR18 Date: August 19, 1993 To: Estelle Matthis Sterling Ingram From: Bill Mooney Subj: Fast-Track Evaluations In reviewing the Program Planning and Budget Process, activities related to the fast- track evaluations are to begin this month with completion in early January. The results will be input into the budget decision-making process. Items should be identified as candidates for fast-track evaluations if they have high impact on the goals and direction of the district and involve a significant amount of money. In reviewing the Desegregation Plan and my notes from this past budget development effort, I have identified some candidates for your consideration. I am sure many of these targets are already on your list. - Incentive school operations\ntwo reports, things not working well. - Possible school closings. - Criteria for closing incentive schools. - All employment contracts. - Student assignment process. - Construction of Stephens. - Outsourcing support services. - Substitutes. - Special education. - Vocational education. - Incentive school scholarship program. - Academic progress incentive grants. - Library media services resurvey requirement. - Early retirement incentive program. Many of the above items could yield significant savings, and several could result in cost avoidance and be removed from the plan requirements. The curriculum audit would be another good source of ideas for improvement and possible savings. As we begin the fast-track evaluation process, I believe it important to set out some written guidelines and directions to helpf^h^ program people in developing their material.We should develop a standard program evaluation format, and require well-written business cases on every major decision option within each evaluation project. This would help ensure the consistency of our work, and would provide us with the business cases we will need for the coming budgeting process. If I can be of any assistance, just give me a call. Thanks.13 SO* 9J LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SIO WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS September 7, 1993 MEMORANDUM TO: Program Managers, Directors, and Supervisors FROM\nEstelle MatthnhrrSsw,, IInnterim Superintendent SUBJECT: Procedures to be Used for Fast Track Evaluation of Desegregation Plan The districts Program Planning and Budgeting document identified a number of activities that are to be implemented during the 1993-94 school year. An activity for August 1993 is for the Superintendent and the Cabinet to begin to identify programs for \"fast track\" evaluation. A fast track evaluation will not have as many dimensions or details as a regular evaluation, since the evaluative process is conducted in a reduced time frame. Evaluation of the districts program will provide the information that is needed for us to determine if programs are effective and that such implementation will assist us in meeting our commitment to our Court-approved Desegregation Plan. The following guidelines are to be used to conduct fast track evaluations of targeted programs. 1. Prepare a comprehensive program description for each area or component that is targeted for evaluation. 2. Identify program goals for each area or component of the program that is being evaluated. 3. Identify the evaluation criteria that is to be used to fast track evaluate each goal. Include all evaluative measures and instruments that will be used in this process. 4. Identify any obstacles or problems that were encountered that hindered or impacted the obtainment of program goals. 5. Given the results of your fast track evaluation, recommendations for program additions, deletions, and/or changes are deemed appropriate. This data can be extremely helpful as you develop a strong business case for making a major decision(s) regarding continued implementation of various programs in the Desegregation Plan. The format for a business 2 case is enclosed for your review as well as copies of the standard format that is to be used to fast track evaluate targeted programs. The following programs have been targeted for fast track evaluation: Targeted Program Person(s) Responsible 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. All Employment Contracts Student Assignment Audit Construction of Stephens Special Education Vocational Education Academic Progress Incentive Grant Academic Support Program Library Media Services Resurvey Requirement Lucy Lyon Early Retirement Incentive Program Substitute Teachers Recruitment Brady Gadberry Estelle Matthis Doug Eaton/John Riggs Patty Kohler Carol Green Margaret Gremillion/Larry Robertson Leon Adams/Alice Stovall/Gene Parker Mark Milhollen/Brady Gadberry Brady Gadberry/Human Resources Director Jeanette Wagner/Becky Rather We need each program manager to submit your preliminary evaluation report to my office by November 15, 1993. The final report is due by December 15, 1993. All evaluation reports will be submitted to the Board of Directors during January, 1994. /Iks t i iFORMAT FOR PROGRAM EVALUATION PROGRAM DESCRIPTION GOALS / EVALUATION CRITERIA / EVALUATION RESULTS OBSTACLES TO GOAL ATTAINMENT RECOMMENDATION I Objective - (Evaluation Criteria, Expected Benefits) Impact Analysis Resources Analysis Force Field Analysis General Implementation Plan RECOMMENDATION II RECOMMENDATION III Recommendation(s) will be made if changes to the program are needed. Each recommendation should be supported by the information included in the business case. I IC0RR18 Date: August 19, 1993 To: Estelle Matthis Sterling Ingram From: Bill Mooney Subj: Fast-Track Evaluations In reviewing the Program Planning and Budget Process, activities related to the fast-track evaluations are to begin this month with completion in early January. The results will be input into the budget decision-making process. Items should be identified as candidates for fast-track evaluations if they have high impact on the goals and direction of the district and involve a significant amount of money. In reviewing the Desegregation Plan and my notes from this past budget development effort, I have identified some candidates for your consideration. I am sure many of these targets are already on your list. - Incentive school operations\ntwo reports, things not working well. - Possible school closings. - Criteria for closing incentive schools. Q All employment contracts. ^Student assignment process. ^Construction of Stephens. - Outsourcing support services. Q Substitutes. ^Special education. ^Vocational education. - Incentive school scholarship program. f Academic progress incentive grants. Library media services resurvey requirement. Early retirement incentive program. I Many of the above items could yield significant savings, and several could result in cost avoidance and be removed from the plan requirements. The curriculum audit would be another good source of ideas for improvement and possible savings. As we begin the fast-track evaluation process, I believe it important to set out some written guidelines and directions to help The program people in developing their material. We should develop a standard program evaluation format, and require well-written business cases on every major decision option within each evaluation project. This would help ensure the consistency of our work, and would provide us with the business cases we will need for the coming budgeting process.DESEGREGATION PROGRAMS Program Name: School Operations Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader(s): (Margaret Gremillion) Program Evaluation Format Fall 1994 Your program evaluation should include the elements listed below. Please be succinct. The length of your program evaluation document will be dependent to some degree based on the extensiveness of the program. In general, however, each program evaluation should not exceed two pages. Program Description: Please describe your program. This description comes from the program description in the Program Budget Document (PBD). Evaluation Criteria: The program goal(s) taken from the PBD should be used as the evaluation criteria. In other words, the program goal(s) should be used to evaluate the effectiveness of your program. Summary: Provide a summary of the overall effectiveness of implementation of your section of the desegregation plan as per the goals. A similar summary of overall effectiveness should be provided as per the goals for the nondesegregation programs. Goal Attainment: Please identify and describe the factors that facilitated goal attainment. Evidence: Please provide or describe evidence (i.e., data, documentation, etc.) for which goals were or were not achieved. I \u0026lt;ggfraBHii 1 Little Rock School District December 11, 1995 RECESVEO DEC J 2 J995 MEMORANDUM Olfice of Desegregation Moruionny TO: Mrs. Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring FROM: Dr. Ed Jackson, Director Planning, Research, and Evaluation RE: Enclosed Reports u2i.O'. Ase!.S.m(n+'^ Please find enclosed a draft of the 1995-96 Needs Assessment document and a copy of the Extended Evaluations for the Little Rock School District. Please let me know if you have questions or need additional information. drg Enclosure cc: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Dr. Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-20009 /CX/  i ODM Review of LRSD Extended Program Evaluations 1995-96 Program Name - Mann Arts and Sciences Magnet Junior High School Program Summary Mann Arts and Sciences Magnet School houses grades seven, eight, and nine in the only junior high to be included as one of the original six magnet schools. Established in 1987 with the interdistrict format, the school offers the arts and sciences specialties as two separate programs. Science magnet students are required to take the traditional and required core courses along with at least one science laboratory course each year. Arts students must select an area of concentration from visual arts, drama, dance, or music m addition to the traditional and required core courses. Eight hundred fifty students attend. Fifty-three percent are black. Evaluation Criteria 1. Sufficient program personnel are in place as measured by the monitoring instrument. 2. School climate survey will be used to measure parent, student and teacher perceptions. (The author of the extended evaluation appears to have mixed a process and an outcome.) Evaluation Processes Evaluators cite the LRSD Equity Monitoring Assessment and the school climate survey as the source of data used to draw inferences supporting the recommendations. Evaluation Results 1. There is a need for renovations of and additions to the building. 2. There is a need for new equipment, updated materials and computers, and program additions. 3.There is a need for additional personnel to staff 1 and 2 above. Recommendations 1. Modernize and expand science classrooms and laboratories, add one science classroom, enlarge dance and drama rooms, and provide additional storage space. A. Would not require plan modification. B. Major budget increases required for construction, remodeling, and equipment purchase.2. Extend the 7th grade science laboratory course from one semester to a full year and add courses in ceramics, crafts, and cartooning to the arts magnet program. A. Would not require plan modification. B. Would require one additional teacher - $31,000. 3. Establish teacher computer demonstration stations in all science classrooms, including equipment to go on line with Internet and install computer system in the piano lab. A. Would not require plan modification. B. Substantial budget increases for equipment and wiring in science classrooms. Piano lab costs - $4,000 plus. 4. Limit enrollment in science classes to 25. Create ensembles in music and dance. A. Would not require plan modification. B. Budget impact - one teacher for science recommendation, $31,000. For ensemble recommendation - $15,000 for materials (costumes and music). Total costs, all recommendations - $81,000 plus major construction and renovation. Evaluation Critique The evaluation consists primarily of perceptions and wishes of the staff. Little data support the recommendations, but they are comprehensive and probably reasonable if continued improvement in the magnet program is a viable option. The district will probably have to prioritize the requests and spend whatever it can afford.Program Name - Henderson Health Sciences Magnet Program Program Summary The Henderson Health Sciences Program was developed in 1992 to serve students rising from Carver, Romine and Washington Elementary Schools, which have science specialties, and to serve as a feeder school to Parkview Science Magnet. Because of the declining white enrollment at Mann, the districts planners believed the science program was needed because of the potential for desegregative effect. Evaluation Criteria A. Comparisons of enrollment data from 1992 - 1995 to determine desegregative effects. B. Costs of supplies, equipment, materials, and staff development related to benefits. Evaluation Processes The evaluator attempted to show that white students who transferred from out of the attendance zone to the magnet program had a desegregative effect and that the districf s failure to fally fund the program had impeded the potential effects. The evaluation builds a case for fall funding of the magnet program as originally conceived. Evaluation Results The results indicate that students who transferred to Henderson for the magnet program had a desegregative effect since the percentage white was greater in the transferring population than in the resident population. The data reflect 1995 expenditures of $244 ($58,958 budgeted) per magnet student for magnet programs including the purchase of an 18-station computer lab. It also includes a list of equipment and materials valued at $14,000 which had been included in the original plan but have never been purchased. The conclusion is that if the plan were fally implemented, the program could be more successful. Recommendations Though not stated as a recommendation, the clear intent is that the equipment and materials described in the original plan should be bought immediately. A. Would not require a plan modification. B. The budget impact is $14,000.Evaluation Critique The evaluation format leaves much to be desired, but the message that more money is needed comes through. The other conclusions are not clear\nnor is the recommendation.Program Name - Central High International Studies Magnet Program Summary The Central High International Studies Magnet complements the international studies programs at Dunbar Junior and Gibbs Elementary in that it offers a logical culmination of studies started at lower grades. The program uses the highly academic atmosphere of the foreign language, social studies, and English classes to provide the core of international studies. The strong Advanced Placement programs match well with IS. Evaluation Criteria I. The magnet component will result in the further desegregation of the school by attracting M-to-M and out-of-zone students. 2, The costs of the magnet program are justified by the benefits. Evaluation Processes Evaluators identified the numbers of M-to-M and out-of-zone students by race who attend the magnet program and the school at large. The minimal costs of the magnet program were itemized. Benefits to students were subjectively described. Evaluation Results One hundred twenty-three students transferred from other attendance zones or districts to attend the International Studies Magnet in 1995-96. Seventy-eight per cent (96) are nonblack. The total school population is 37 per cent non-black. The magnet program clearly contributes to desegregating the school. One period release time for the magnet coordinator plus $1,990 for materials are the only costs identified for the program. Benefits were described as outstanding. Recommendations 1. That the IS program be established as a node on the Internet. 2. That the IS coordinator be given a ten month contract and three periods release time. A. Neither recommendation will require a plan modification. B. Costs are not described in detail but $9,000 for equipment and software plus $200 per month line costs is a fair estimate. Personnel costs will be an additional two periods per day release time, $12,000. Total - $23,400 (ODM estimate)Evaluation Critique The evaluation is not well done in format or content, and conclusions have little support. However, it does make the case for program improvement. Curiously, International Baccalaureate is not mentioned in the recommendations even though a business case has been presented recommending its implementation.Program Name - Dunbar Junior High School International Studies/Gifted and Talented Magnet Program Summary The Dunbar program offers the dual themes international studies and gifted and talented. All students are identified as magnet either in gifted or international studies because all students are required to take some foreign language. Other than languages, the only international studies course being taught in 1995-96 is African studies. Gifted students are enrolled in the gifted sections of the core courses. Evaluation Criteria The magnet program was evaluated by determining whether the out-of-zone and M-to-M students contributed to the desegregation of the school, and whether the benefits of the program outweighed the costs. Evaluation Processes Evaluators compared white and black enrollment differences before and after seven years of the magnet programs existence, and summarized magnet costs when considered in the context of student accomplishments. Evaluation Results Evaluators compared enrollment data that indicate the school has moved from 79% black in 1989-90 to 59% black in 1995-96. The change is attributed to the majority white enrollment of M-to-M and out-of-zone students which number 266 students, 28% of the total student body. Expenditures for the magnet program for 1995-96 total $76,809 or $289 per participant. The cost estimates are followed by a litany 17 different honors, contest winners, and awards bestowed on Dunbar students. Recommendations That the criteria for application to the magnet program be expanded to include black out- of-zone and M-to-M students who have been identified as gifted. A. Implementation of the recommendation would require a change in the M-to-M stipulation agreement as well as the LRSD student assignment regulations. The desegregation plans would require changes in areas that refer to the stipulation agreement. B. Budget increases would occur only as a result of an increase in student population.Evaluation Critique The evaluation is more clearly written than any of the other extended evaluations I have read, but the recommendation is probably a bad one. The magnet program was developed to attract white students. It is working as intended but has the down side of creating majority white classes in the gifted program. Opening the program to black students from outside the attendance zone would diminish success and, in the case of black students from outside LRSD, violate state law.APIG/Focused Activities Summary: Eval. Criteria: Eval. Process: This administrative summary provides a short history ot APIG/Focused Activities from their inception to the submission of the April 1995 business case that changed the basis of program funding. The history quotes program goals from the desegregation plan but doesnt provide insight as to the nature of the programs individual schools have implemented. The summary lacked evaluation criteria since no attempt was made to evaluate the program. The summary did not show evidence of an evaluation process. Results: N/A Recomm: Continue to give area schools the opportunity to enrich their programs with the twenty dollar per student allocation in their budget. The process has only been in place for one year. Opinion: Im not sure of the point here. This document is called an Administrative Summary and bears no resemblance to an evaluation. The recommendation is groundless in that it isnt based on ant type of evaluation of the program for the 1994-95 school year. Parkview Arts/Science Magnet Summary: The extended evaluation focuses on both the Parkview science and art components. Particular emphasis is placed on the facilities and equipment believed to be necessary for maintenance and expansion of the programs. Eval. Criteria: The two criteria were the school climate survey and monitoring reports competed by supervisors and assistant superintendents. The evaluation writer noted that the yearly Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School Evaluation was used as a reference. Eval. Process: Uncertain. The evaluation process was not described as part of the document. The narrative skipped from criteria to results without an explanation of process. Results: 1. Yearly departmental summaries revealed a need for repairs, equipment and/or renovations. 2. Information was collected through the Magnet Review Committee which was instrumental establishing a curriculum update and the enrichment of curriculum offerings.Recomm: Budget: Opinion: 1. Installation of hardware and equipment for establishment of Parkview being functional and on-line with APSCN. 2. Renovate Rm. 1-101 into a mini-theatre to greater accommodate small performances/presentations. 3. Purchase additional lab equipment to greater accommodate increased enrollment of science/art magnet students. 4. Purchase major instrument pieces to better equip the band/orchestra magnet program areas. Some equipment is in poor condition or outdated. $164,842 over a three year period The recommendations are justifiable\nhowever, as I mentioned to you, the evaluation doesnt provide the type of substantial data needed to make the case. For example, the addition of equipment is justified by increased program enrollment, but the only year for which an enrollment figure is given is 1995-96. The evaluation does not describe the disadvantage the school suffers from not being on-line with APSCN. A simple chart of the current number of musical instruments and the ages of those instruments in addition to increased music program enrollment would have been ample documentation of the need for replacements and additional new instruments. McClellan Business/Communications Magnet Program Summary: Eval. Criteria: Eval. Process: Results: The evaluation is based on two program goals. 1. The magnet component of the program will result in the further desegregation of the school by attracting M-to-M and out-of-zone students to the program. 2. The costs incurred in the delivery of the magnet program are outweighed by the benefits of participation rates in the magnet program and the achievement of the participants. Criteria was whether each of the program goals could be affirmatively demonstrated. Use of enrollment data on M-to-M and out-of-zone students in addition to standardized achievement scores for McClellan students 1993-95. Related to the first goal, the data indicates that 22% of the 177 non-black students at McClellan are from other high school zones. Curiously, 98 out-of-zone black students are also attending McClellan. The evaluation claims that without the out-of-zone black students the McClellan black enrollment would be 78% instead of the current 80%. Related to the second goal, participation in the magnet program has increased from 57 in 1992 to 203 in 1995. The overall McClellan enrollment has been mixed, but has grown since the inception of the magnet program. McClellans overall SAT scores have improved since the 1992-93 school year. The evaluation attributes the improvement to the increased funding, class offerings, and equipment resulting from the magnet program. The magnet program teachers and students have been the recipients of numerous honors and awards at both the state and national levels. Obstacles: Recomm: Plan Mod: Budget: Opinion: The evaluation identifies the demographics of the McClellan attendance zone as an impediment to continued efforts to desegregate. The satellite zone is 100% black. Magnet courses such as Desktop Publishing I and II are now being offered at other LRSD high schools. These used to set the McClellan business program apart from others. The duplication lessens the magnetic appeal of the McClellan program. It is recommended that McClellans attendance zone be adjusted in such a way as to bring its black component into line with the attendance zones of the other LRSD area high schools. The LRSD should adopt a policy by which a new magnet course will be added to a schools magnet curriculum when one of their existing magnet courses is put into the general course offerings of the LRSD. The evaluation indicates that there is a need for a plan modification. Rather, I see the case being made for alteration of current attendance boundaries. No budget impact is indicated by the evaluation. I do wonder if the school will move to add new, more unique courses to the magnet program while retaining the ones now being duplicated at other area high schools. If so, the addition would seem to affect the budget - possibly through new equipment and additional staff. Overall, I believe the recommendations to be sound. Altering the attendance boundaries would further desegregative efforts and reward the community and school. It is also logical that the district adopt a policy on course offerings which will safeguard the uniqueness of the magnet programs. Once again, the evaluation itself had weaknesses. For example, no documentation was provided as to the increase in out-of-zone and M-to-M students resulting from the magnet program to address the first goal. In reference to the second goal, the achievement data didnt reveal a significant, sustained growth on the part of McClellan students. In addition, the goal regarding achievement was related to the program specifically. Yet, the evaluation did not separate out the achievement of magnet program participants.McClellan Community School Summary: Eval. Criteria: Eval. Results: The evaluation sought to measure the effectiveness of the McClellan Community School on a wide range of involvement from community involvement to affecting McClellan student academic achievement. The evaluator(s) used 1991-95 data to evaluate the program based on the following objectives: Enhancing the McClellan educational format and eradicating test score disparities. Expanding the participation on the Advisory Board Expanding use of the well-child clinic Enhance the Advisory Boards knowledge of school district policies Re-integrate older adults into community activities Inform the school population and community of school goals/objectives Expand the use of the school facilities Results regarding educational enhancements for McClellan students were sketchy. The evaluation only provided data on the number of students participating in the current Healthy Family Center After-School Tutorial and the ACT Lock-In of 1993-94. To expand the Advisory Board, new members were elected to fill vacancies on September 25, 1995. In addition, the evaluation mentions that the community school director has been involved in developing a strategy to survey the community. The evaluation notes that the well-child clinic serves an average of 20 students per day, but no comparative data is provided. The McClellan principal reports monthly to the Advisory board concerning issues pertaining specifically to the school and the district as a whole. In addition, other school district officials visit Advisory Board meetings and Advisory Board members also attend the LRSD school board meetings. Classes are offered to older citizens to help reintegrate them into the workforce. In addition, older citizens are encouraged to join the Community School Advisory Board. Community Education brochures are the most frequently distributed pieces of literature disseminated to the community. Other documentation offered as sources of information for the community: Advisory Board meetings, community school staff, McClellan faculty and staff, LRSD Communication, and the patrons of McClellan High School.McClellan is open to the community year-round. In addition to the courses oflfered the community school sponsors a summer camp, tutoring, and the ACT Lock-In. Additionally, local businesses and organizations use the facility for various activities. Recomm: Plan Mod: Budget: Opinion: It is recommended that a survey of the community be conducted to recapture community interest in the program. It is recommended that needed enhancements to the schools facility be made in order to better serve the educational needs of the school and community. The evaluation indicates a plan modification, but I dont see where any of the recommendations necessitate modification. The evaluation indicates that the recommendations will require a budget increase. The cost of enhancements is set at $25,000. The evaluation contains no information regarding the regular courses offered by the Community School (e.g. course offerings, enrollment trends, etc.). While the cost of enhancements is estimated to be $25,000, the evaluation lacks information about how this total was reached. Although a budget increase and plan modification were indicated, the writer also claimed that a business case was unnecessary - that doesnt make sense. In my opinion, the evaluation is very weak. Past program evaluations of the Community School, while at times fluffy, have made a better use of data than this attempt. The first recommendation is not founded in the findings of the evaluation. Otherwise, there would be more information regarding a lack of community enthusiasm, support, and participation in programs, documentation is provided to that effect. No Special Education Transportation Summary: Eval. Criteria: The evaluation attempts to ascertain whether the Special Education Transportation Program provides safe, efficient, and reliable transportation for students in the LRSD. A series of tasks listed in the PBD ranging from the signing of requisitions to the completion of summer check sheets. The writer of the evaluation acknowledges that the relationship of the tasks to an operational evaluation is weak since completion of the tasks is no indication of the quality of service provided. The writer indicates that in the future criteria such as percent of on-time arrivals, driver attendance, and the amount of training received by individual drivers should be developed and used. Eval. Results: Obstacles: Recomm: Budget: The number of buses is limited. For Special Education, no buses have been purchased since 1993. Manpower shortages taxed the resources of the Transportation Dept. Including the Special Education section. The fleet continues to age and no replacement plan exists. Buses continue to breakdown and require extensive maintenance not covered by warranties. Ideally, an organization should replace 5-8 buses per year for a fleet of 53 buses. The district meets state and federal regulations for Special Education transportation, but falls short of voluntary guidelines suggested by various agencies that exceed the state and federal minimums. Beginning in 1996-97, there will be no specific funding from state or federal government sources for transportation of special needs children. All costs will be paid from the districts general fund. Due to the age of the fleet and lack of a replacement plan, maintenance workers cant keep up with the repairs needed to keep a sufficient number of buses available to support the overall need. It is recommended that the district outsource the Special Education transportation to a private company. Make the Special Education Transportation Department a model system meeting all recommended (voluntary) guidelines for providing transportation to special needs children. Although no specific figures are given, the evaluation indicates that recommendation #1 would possibly save the district money over a three year period. In essence, the writer claims that outsourcing Special Education transportation would not cost the district any more than it would if a decision was made to continue the present service with the purchase of new equipment. The evaluation states that recommendation #2, the model program, is would cost in excess of $1.6 million with the purchase of all new equipment. If a replacement schedule is used, $250,000 per year should be budgeted for replacement of equipment. Additional personnel would cost at least $12,000 per person including all pay, and benefits. No preference for either recommendation is noted. The evaluator did not indicate the need for a business case.Opinion: The strongest aspect of the evaluation was that having to do with the age and condition of the fleet. The evaluation and recommendations have less to do with the eflflciency of service and patron satisfaction as they do with the cost of upgrading a fleet that the district has lacked the resources to upgrade or simply benignly neglected. Once again, as with facilities, a lack of foresight seems to have placed the district in yet another deep hole. On the other hand, it could be argued that if the current outsourcing of non-Special Education transportation works to the district s advantage, it would only make sense to outsource Special Education transportation in light of the lack of state and federal subsidies for the transportation of special needs children. 1.A Program\nBooker Arts Magnet Focus: Support for and Expansion of Bookers Theme Evaluation Criteria: School Improvement assessment School-wide planning and addressing achievement disparity Ongoing staff development Evaluation Process: As part of their assessment for general school improvement the Booker team examined student achievement data, enrollment figures over the last three years, evidence of home/ school communication, student participation in extracurricular and co-curricular activities, recruitment efforts, inventories of band instruments, as well as other documents. After looking at all the information listed above, the evaluation team composed as \"discussion\" of the schools efforts toward school wide improvement and their recommendations for further improvements. Evaluation Results: The evaluation team found that enrollment at Booker was far below the schools capacity and attributed this to the failure of the school to grow and change since its establishment. The Booker proposal seeks to create additional support for the schools arts theme and expand their fine arts emphasis to also incorporate more performing arts. An ongoing goal of school improvement has been to increase participation, especially among minorities, in extracurricular and co-curricular activities. The evaluation documents that participation has increased over 100% in both orchestra and recorder, but it also shows that the school faces a severe shortage of band instruments. The orchestra has 215 enrolled, but only 60 instruments. In order to support the theme and guarantee equal access to all students, the school wants to purchase instruments, secure regular maintenance for them, and ensure secure storage for all instruments. Reconunendations: Incorporate drama in the Booker curriculum Purchase additional orchestra instruments Establish fund for yearly repair and maintenance Add a piano lab Expand the artists-in-residence program Develop new brochures and flyers to facilitate recruitment of new students Reinstate the 3-day preschool inservice to promote the integrated curriculum and sound instructional practices Update the computer labThese recommendations do not require plan modification. They do result in a budget increase. The total cost, which is spread over five years, is $292,05356 Evaluation Quality: This is not the best evaluation Ive ever read, but it is far from the worst. I did find it a little difficult to follow and some areas lacked sufficient detail (the section seeking $130,00 for computer updates is very vague). I think the authors of this evaluation did a good job identifying some of the problems the school faces. They concentrated a great deal of their resources on issues that address the low enrollment. I think the case they made for the added orchestra instruments and the piano lab is strong. The a school with and arts program should provide instruments for all the students. The free instruments coupled with the staffs outreach efforts ensure equal opportunities for all students to participate. I also had a favorable reaction to the proposal to add drama to the school. I think that a drama component is an integral part of any arts program. The addition of such a program would compete with the theme offered at Mitchell, but Booker might be able to recruit students whose parents would not consider the incentive school option. The $35,000 estimated to fund the position of drama instructor seems a little low, if it is to include salary and benefits. Also, the evaluation records this expenditure as if it occurs once, when it will be a recurring cost. The total costs for staff development are under $10,000. Little detail is provided about the training except to say that all teachers would receive training aimed at instructional effectiveness and a core group of 10 teachers would have an additional planning session devoted to the integration of arts into the curriculum. As I mentioned above, the final section on the computer lab updates is sparse. I can not determine whether they plan to buy new hardware, software, or both.Program: Carver Math and Science Magnet Focus: Developing a \"state of the art\" technology program Evaluation Criteria: School climate based on the belief that all children can learn. And provide the resources to support that belief. Develop policies that foster a positive school climate while addressing individual student needs and learning styles. To provide opportunities for all students to participate in extracurricular and co- curricular activities. Give principals authority and accountability for school improvement, making sure all students have the opportunity to succeed. Provide staff development. Evaluation Process: The evaluation team examined a variety of documents, data, and school procedures: student achievement records, enrollment records, discipline practices, recognition programs for good behavior, evidence of home/ school communications, current levels of technology usage, and Evaluation Results: After study of the various documents and school procedures outlined above, the Carver evaluation team came to the conclusion that the school needs to upgrade its technology to improve student performance and to continue to be able to attract white students to the school. The computer labs found at Carver are those established when the school opened eight years ago. The study mentions that, as a math and science school, they should be leaders in technology. The evaluation states that this technology \"was needed yesterday.\" The current system does not have the memory necessary to allow students to use a computerized encyclopedia. The aged computers do not contribute to efficient, effective instruction. Reconuneudations: Select and install new hardware and software Conduct staff development training related to the new system These recommendation do not require a plan change but they will require and expenditure of $28,130 in each of the next five school years (the LRSD portion would be about $8400 per year). The total cost is estimated at $140,650. Evaluation Quality: This evaluation is very well done. It outlines the need for the technology upgrades and gives a detailed implementation schedule with a yearly budget. When reviewing this document, you can see what they plan to do, when tasks should be complete, and how much it will cost.Program: Gibbs International Studies Magnet Focus: Additional Support for the Magnet Theme Evaluation Criteria: The team preparing the Gibbs evaluation based their evaluation criteria around the school operation goal to provide equitable educational opportunities for all students in the LRSD. Evaluation Process: A variety of documents were examined including the School Improvement Plan, the School Climate Surveys, achievement data, enrollment data, magnet seat allotments by district, documentation of waiting lists from 1989 to the present, and the like. Evaluation Results: In analyzing the schools progress towards meeting a wide variety of educational objectives, the authors of the evaluation determined that the school had a long way to go before fulfilling the terms of those objectives. The report indicated that much of the schools operations had become static (and perhaps stagnate) since its founding. The report mentions that materials such as maps an globes have not been updated. The school does not offer modern technology, and the disparity in achievement between black and white students persists. When making same grade comparisons of test scores over time, you find a decline at every grade level. The decline ranges from 2.6 percentile points at the sixth grade level to 35.7 percentile points at the second grade level. The good news here is that childrens scores appear to improve as they remain in the school. Recouuiiendations: Recruit an International Studies Technology Specialist Update existing computer lab and include program designed for at-risk first graders Incorporate closed circuit TV Technology training for staff Replace out-of-date or worn globes, maps, and research materials Develop International Studies Staff Development Plan Purchase new materials to enhance the media center Install portable classroom to house the foreign language teachers Automate the media center and enhance materials, equipment, and resources in the media center The improvements to the Gibbs educational program would be instituted in five phases: Phases I, II Phase III Phase IV Technology International Studies (update resource, materials, and equipment) Foreign Languages (secure portable classroom for instruction of French, Spanish, and German)Phase V Enhance the Media Center Gibbs Extended Evaluation, continued No plan change is required. The total cost for each of the phases is as follows: Phase I, II Phase III Phase IV Phase V $68, 835. 10 ($38,805.10 of this would be a recurring expense, since it represents the cost of adding a technology specialist to the Gibbs staff.) While the proposal includes this recurring expense, the evaluation only mentions the first year cost. $17,341.86 No cost listed. The evaluation recommends relocation of an already-owned portable to the Gibbs campus. The authors of the evaluation must not have been aware that the relocation of a portable will cost several thousand dollars. $11,827 GRAND TOTAL $98,009.86 Evaluation Quality: The evaluation presents a great deal of good information, and it honestly examines the strengths and needs of Gibbs. As noted above, some of the figures require further examination. My biggest question regarding the evaluation is why werent some of these items purchased over the years with instructional money? I know the school has not had the funds for a technology update, but it seems that the standard instructional budget could have allowed for the update of globes and maps.Program: Williams Magnet School Focus: Educational quality and school climate Evaluation Criteria:  To provide a climate based on the belief that all students can learn and to provide the resources necessary to support that belief  To design a program that meet the needs of all children  Monitor school climate and resource allocation  To design a program which meets the specific need of the students Evaluation Process: The evaluation examined the successes of the Williams program and its current needs. The background information gives a good overview of investments made in the instructional program and physical plant over the last few years. This narrative makes reference to data gleaned from the School Climate Survey, student achievement data, the school profile, the mission statement, and the like. Evaluation Results: While the evaluation mentions the many successes and accomplishments of the Williams program, it also outlines the need for updated technology at the school. PTA contributions have begun to automate the media center, but could not be completed \"because of LRSD systems requirements.\" Evaluators found that the Williams computer lab consist entirely of Tandy computers purchased about eight years ago. Other computers have been added to classrooms over the years, as funds allowed. The computers are not part of a network. Reconunendations: Purchase the hardware and software needed to update the lab and classroom computers. Automate the library system Connect with the Internet and network the computers within the building Purchase new printers Conduct staff development related to new technology None of these proposals would require a change in the desegregation plan. The total cost for the technology upgrade is $167,900. The cost would be spread over the period from August 1998 to August 2000. Evaluation Quality: This evaluation did not have the excruciating level of detail that some of the others presented, but I felt it gave a very good picture of the school and its needs. The evaluation also pointed out the efforts the school has made to upgrade technology within the annual budgets of the last several years. It also pointed out parental contributions to technology purchases. I found the evaluation to be quite adequate.Program: Four-Year-Old Focus: The programs progress towards meeting the commitments outlined in the desegregation plan. Evaluation Criteria: The evaluation examined the extent to which each of the provisions regarding the four-year-old program has been met. Evaluation Process: The provisions regarding areas such as curriculum, establishments of sites, racial balance, and the like were examined and discussed individually. Evaluation Results: The evaluation found that all objectives had been attained. This is not to say that no work remains in this area. Many of the early childhood plan obligations are ongoing. Only two problem areas were noted\nthe districtwide shortage of substitutes sometimes makes teacher release for staff development a problem, and the lack of any support staff for the Director of Early Childhood Education. The evaluation states that the effectiveness of the department is reduced because as a one-person operation a great deal of time is spent on clerical tasks. The IRC secretaries are available to help with early childhood chores, but they can do this only after they have fulfilled all the tasks assigned by their immediate supervisor. Recomiiieiidatious: Add one new position to the early childhood education department. This position could be either a secretary or an early childhood specialist. This would not require a plan modification, but it would increase the budget. No dollar figure is attached. The amount spent would depend on whether the district hired a secretarial or professional support person. Evaluation Quality: This is a very through evaluation of the early childhood program. The program objectives are tied directly to the desegregation plan.LRSD EXTENDED EVALUATIONS ALTERNATIVE LEARNING CENTER (ALC) Focus The evaluation covers five (5) areas: In-school suspension. Alternative Learning Center, Curriculum Offering, Attendance Pattems/Rates, and Behavior Modification procedures. Supposedly, the writer evaluated the program by examining seven (7) objectives. The document is poorly written and somewhat difficult to follow. I believe the writer wants the reader to believe that the alternative school is meeting all of its objectives, but with a little help (2 additional staff members), the staff could do a better job. Criteria The A-School evaluation relies on data that was written and interpreted by the director. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Number of reports submitted from ALCs office. Review of attendance rosters. The ALC Profile Book. Review of school-based objectives, policies, and procedures. Review of statistical information on race and gender for roll, grades, awards, discipline, and other areas. , , Evaluation of the number of reports of counseling interventions, parent involvement, and due-process procedures. Evaluation of curriculum offerings. Note: Evaluation is a very misleading term in this report. Nothing is evaluated. Process The only discernable process seems to be to say something is true, which then makes it true. The writer outlines or summarizes some general descriptions of the ALC program, regurgitates some highly suspicious data, and proclaims the program a success. Results According to the evaluation, the ALC is meeting all of its objectives. The ALC now submits reports to^all the junior highs, central office, and advisory board. Added to the recipients are the SAO Communication Office, and Special Education. The report shows an average attendance rate of 88% for the first 12 weeks of school (the goal was 75%). The director developed a nng binder library which covers 19 areas. The evaluation concludes that the ALC has proven effective because they publish the Alternative Learning Center Mission Package. The staff holds an intake conference on every enteringstudent, students participate in a three day orientation, teachers are prepared to provide individualized lesson plans, however, they provide no evidence that they do. Further, they have in-school detention and suspension for those who commit violations outlined in the Mission Package. Other students may take academically related field trips to Central Flying Service and Aerospace Education Center. The evaluation also claims that students can participate in several clubs, such as electronics, weight lifting, science, or Scrabble Club, among others. Finally, the evaluation claims a reduction in black enrollment from 85% to 77% and that at least four students a day receive counseling. Disciplinary sanctions remain high, but are less than past years. Students receive a basic curriculum, but the report states that they cannot provide much needed hand-on instruction because they do not have a qualified wood working instructor. Recommendations 1. 2. Hire an additional instructional aide to supervise the in-school suspension class. Hire an additional instructional aide to supervise wood working as an activity instead of a class (because the cost of a real teacher would add to the district s financial stress). Requires budget change, approximately $20,000 for both positions @ $10,000 each. Review Crap! Crap! Crap! O.K., I feel better now. This so-called extended evaluation neither extends information, nor evaluates any program. Although it has been a year since ODM monitored the alternative school, 1 sincerely doubt that the program is any better than what we found, and what we found stunk. In essence, the evaluation tries to substantiate a need for two additional instructional aides. One to supervise the in-school suspension class and the other to supervise a wood working activity or arts and crafts class. The justification for the in-school suspension aide is that evaluation of the behavior modification procedures indicates that by having two behavior level groups in one room (level zero and level one) too many disruptions occur and it is difficult to maintain order. Apparently, the loss of support from the Delta Service Project (a service provided by Americorps) has exacerbated the problem, but the evaluation does not make clear how. The evaluation claims an attendance rate over 80%. What the report fails to mention is the number of students attending compared to the number of students referred. Its easy to have good attendance rates when you drop students on a regular basis, make no attempts to locate noshows, and fail to account for all of your students. The staff has no clue as to what behavior modification means. Their idea of behavior modificationis to ask or tell a student to do something, and if he or she does it, then the behavior is modified. The school does not have a behavior modification program, and provides no competent group or individual counseling services. Parent involvement translates into a requirement that parents attend an in-take session or a re-entry hearing. Teachers receive no training in dealing with this population, all of the referrals are disciplinary in nature, and students do not have individualized contracts or plans for improvement. Unless things changed, the principal had stopped accepting ninth graders altogether. The evaluation lists 6 sections of a non-categorical special education class, but the principal informed me last year that he did not accept special education students. The little group counseling provided for these students came from a counselor-social worker assigned to the four restructuring schools. Students assigned to non-restructuring schools did not get even that little bit of additional help. Nursing services were almost non-existent. One part-time reading specialist visits the school. No speech therapist, social worker, music, art, or foreign language teacher is on staff. The school does not have a librarian or media specialist. The directors idea of hands-on teaching involves wood working or arts and crafts. This man does not have a clue! The school lacks a science lab and a computer specialist, yet the director wants to add an instructional aide to supervise a wood working activity! His idea of educational field trips is to visit the Central Flying Service to visit his buddy over there. Never mind that the students may have other interests. This proposal is a big waste of money!LRSD EXTENDED EVALUATION TEAMING IN NEW FUTURES RESTRUCTURING SCHOOLS Focus The evaluation focuses on how school restructuring, through teaming, affects achievement, school climate, and the development of appropriate educational environments for adolescents. Criteria Assessment of possible added personnel costs Assessment of student achievement Assessment of school climate in areas such as: discipline, parent involvement, faculty absentee rates, curriculum enrichment, incentives, and recognition of success as evidenced by participation in a Carnegie Grant. ProcessZResuIts The evaluators compared staffing levels at a teamed and a non-teamed school, with similar student populations, to determine the difference in FTEs. They found a difference of .8 FTE. When comparing the staffing ratios in all of the junior highs, they found no significant differences between them. The evaluation notes that the staff ratios of magnet schools to teaming schools is 15.4 to 14.5. Most important, the evaluation found no increased costs due to teaming. A three-year assessment of student achievement on reading and math tests in the participating schools using cohort student files from 1992-3-4 reveals a slight increase in reading scores for two of the restructuring schools, no change for one, and a decline of 2 NCEs at another. All of the districts JHs saw declining math scores over the three year period assessed, however, on average, math scores in the restructuring schools declined somewhat less than the others. An examination of discipline data for the districts junior highs indicate that magnet schools, which do not practice teaming, averaged 50 fewer suspensions and expulsions in the 1994-95 school year than the teaming schools. Therefore, the writers concluded that the use of sanctions in the schools did not significantly affect school climate. According to the extended evaluation, parent involvement increased in all of the restructuring schools. In some cases PTA membership increased, in other cases monthly volunteer hours increased. For instance. Southwest reported a 76.3% increase in volunteer hours for the 94-95 school year. With the exception of Cloverdale, the teaming schools had significant increases in PTA membership from SY 90 through SY 95. Absenteeism was lower at the restructuring schools than at the magnet schools. The authors concluded that job satisfaction, as manifested in attendance, is greater at the restructuring schools. The document does not evaluate enrichment/extension experiences in the restructuring schools, rather it lists some of the components of teaming and some of the programs and services provided at the schools. Key to the teaming concept is the development and implementation of interdisciplinary units. Other major features in the restructuring schools are requiring students to participate in two major educational activities, service learning projects, and advisory programming, to name a few. An evaluation of incentives for student achievement consists of a list of strategies and activities that have shown to have a positive impact on student achievement. Team leaders reward students with special activities such as homework bash, field trips, or team recognition assemblies. Students can earn additional percentage points for classroom participation\nthey can receive tutorial assistance at lunch and after school\nor students can join special clubs such as the Young Professionals Club, Breakfast Club, and the Ladies or Gentlemens Club. The report concludes that middle level restructuring has been a success because Pulaski Heights JH has been designated as a Carnegie Foundation Systemic Change School by the ADE Carnegie Middle Grade School State Policy Initiative. The school accepted a grant from the ADECMGSSPI, and became one of only six schools in Arkansas chosen and one of only 90 in the U. S. To work on the advancement of middle level practices. Recommendations Implement middle school programming to provide a developmentally-appropriate educational environment for the academic success of adolescents. The evaluation makes no recommendation on plan modifications, asserting that district personnel are still making decisions based on the facilities study. Implementing the middle school concept will require some monetary investment for staff development needs. However, teachers and equipment are already available\nmost likely, some assignments and allocations would change. The evaluation indicates that more detailed information is included in a business case. This evaluation is more of an outline, than an evaluation. Unless one was very familiar with the middle school concept, this evaluation does not yield enough information to make an informed decision which would result in a radical change in the districts educational system. The business case is more comprehensive. I believe that approval of the recommendation would require some sort of plan modification, because grade configurations would change. Instead of junior highs, the district would have middle schools with a grade configuration of 6-7-8. All of the elementary schools would lose their sixth grade and all of the high schools would gain the ninth grade. Implementing the middle school concept will have the greatest impact on magnet schools. While the magnet schools will keep their themes, the district would have to make some accommodations for students already in their system when the change occurs. Some teachers would have to get additional certification, however, it is my understanding that ADE has already studied this matter and has a plan in place to ease certification requirements. As a member of the districts middle school task force, I endorse the recommendation.LRSD EXTENDED EVALUATIONS ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM (ASP) Focus The evaluation focuses on the ASP at the secondary level. Specifically, the following areas are addressed: degree of implementation at the secondary level administrative coordination external funding Criteria The extent to which the secondary schools are implementing the reading and language arts plus (LAP) and the math plus (MP) models. A listing of major program activities with a timeline and the person(s) who initiated or implemented the activity. A description of program components and the cost of each component for the 1995-96 SY. Process/Results Evaluators surveyed all of the LRSDs secondary schools to determine the total number of Language Arts Plus and Math Plus classes and the total number of students enrolled in each class. At the junior high level, they found that of the 352 LAP students, 27 were not being served by their own English Teacher. Of the 437 MP students, 80 were not being served by their own math teacher. Similarly, at the senior high level, 95 of 343 MAP students were not being served by their English teacher, and 2 of 72 MP students were not being served by their own math teacher. According to the tables on page 9 of the evaluation, much of the eligible population is not being served. Class enrollment in both programs is not to exceed 15 students, however, the average Lap Class has 9.5 students, and the average MP class has 9.8 students. Enrollment of eligible LAP students ranged from a high of 63.9% at Dunbar to a low of 12.5% at Cloverdale. In MP classes, enrollment of eligible students ranged from a high of 62.2% at Cloverdale to a low of 0% at Parkview. The evaluators examined the coordination of services and events that are required for full implementation of the two programs. They found 32 separate entries which they reduced to 7 function categories. They then took the categories and matched them with their corresponding departments in the district. Departments responsible for implementing the programs are: Federal Programs, Reading/Language Arts Department, Mathematics Department, AssistantSuperintendent of Secondary Schools, and building-level principals. Some events required coordination between two or more entities. Next, evaluators examined program administration. They looked at application preparation, student selection, monitoring, personnel and evaluation. Additionally, they looked at time lines for completion and persons responsible for task completion. The report indicates that in several cases the process broke down because of lack of coordination between program or resource managers. The system lacked continuity and as a result, students who should have been receiving services were often overlooked, not recommended but should have been, or their cases were mishandled because of a lack of follow through. Finally, after comparing the difference in funding levels between SY 95 and SY 96 for both programs, the evaluators found that funding levels had decreased a combined total of $572, 860. (Note: My calculations show a decrease of $507,140. I dont understand how they got their total.) The report also indicates that the senior high schools, along with Pulaski Heights JH were not eligible in SY 96. I assume they mean not eligible for Title I funds. The evaluation further states that Comp-ed funding would drop by $250,000 in 1997 and Title I funds could be decreased by 10% in that same year. With the decrease in funding came a drop in FTEs. The secondary programs lost a total of 20.8 FTEs between 1995 and 1996. LAP and reading lost 16 FTEs, and .MP lost 4.8 FTEs. Naturally, such a decrease in staff had a negative impact on services. Recommendations 1. 2. 3. All schools follow the model as it is written. Apparently, the secondary schools have pieced together LAP and readins programs as well as Math Plus Programs. In particular, one of the main features of the programs is that students would retain their regular subject area teachers. In that way, the teachers could reinforce earlier lessons, provide continuity with current curricula, and they would be familiar with the problems that initiated a students referral to a program. Instructional supervisors have a greater role in program design, implementation, staff development and related technical assistance. It seems that the right hand doesnt always know what the left hand is doing. According to the extended evaluation, even overlapping services arent coordinated very well. As a result many students who should be referred to the LAP and MP programs are not, thereby creating a service gap. Also, the people who actually deliver program services are left out of the design and decision making steps and program supervisors do not seemed to be adequately involved with building-level people. Investigate more cost efficient alternatives to the current ASP at the secondary level.Included in the recommendation is the suggestion that Math Plus at the 10th grade level be eliminated. The reasoning is that students in the MP population have the common denominator of having failed Algebra I in junior high. As a result, this homogenous group would just as easily benefit from extra attention and individualized instructional strategies from the senior high Algebra I teachers. The recommendation also suggests that similar alternatives could be explored for reading and language arts. 3-a. Explore consolidating resources at lower grade levels. This could be done by eliminating or reducing some services at the secondary level. This is by far the best e?rtended evaluation I have read of late. Although the evaluation doesnt go into great detail, it is succinct and to the point. Technically the recommendations do not require any plan changes or budget changes. The first two recommendations merely ask the district to implement the Language Arts/Reading Plus program and the Math Plus program according to their filing and in an efficient manner. The major change occurs in the third recommendation, eliminating Math Plus at the 10th grade level. The ASP submission of March 24, 1993 (which in itself was a plan change) does not identify individual grade levels, it only specifies elementary or secondary. More importantly, the document does not mention Math Plus. The submission identifies Language Arts Plus as a separate program. Other approaches to remediation mentioned include pairing language arts teachers with reading specialists (math teachers were already paired for instruction), so that teams could jointly plan appropriate whole group and small group instruction, as well as individual instruction, and utilizing math assistants to tutor math students. The evaluation clearly identifies the problems and offers reasonable solutionsSAMPLE DESEGREGATION PROGRAM EVALUATION of (Fill in name.) SCHOOL Date: Program Name: School Operations Name of School Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader(s): (Margaret Gremillion) Principal's Name PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: School Operations includes the total integrated learning experiences which meet the academic, social, and developmental needs of all LRSD students in a desegregated educational setting. Central Office staff [and] principals of the schools collaborate to ensure quality educational program planning for all students with the support of staff, parents, and the larger community. EVALUATION CRITERIA: The intent of the School Operations goal is to provide equitable educational opportunities for all students in the LRSD\nevaluation of the stated intent serves as the evaluation the case of this particular desegregation program evaluation, the foregoing statement applies specificallv to Pill in In the foregoing statement applies specifically to Fill in name of school. SUMMARY: (Using the objectives outlined in the Program Budget Document (PBD), write a summary of the overall effectiveness of goal results, as they relate to your school.) 1. Example of a summary beginning - Equitable educational opportunities were (or were not) provided for all students at (Name the school.) during the 1993-94 academic year. An organizational structure was in place which provided equal opportunity and access for parents, students, and staff. (Following these introductory sentences, either write how these opportunities were provided or explain why they were not. In the paragraphs that follow the summary of the overall effectiveness of the first objective, do the same for each objective listed. As you continue writing your summary, combine objectives, if you wish. year. (Following BODY OF SUMMARY Example of a concluding sentence - By implementing the strategies summarized above, or (because of the factors explained above which prevented the successful implementation of planned strategies,) equitable educational opportunities were (were not) provided to all students at (Fill of school.) It is possible that you may have a combination of strategies which were successfully implemented and ones which were not. If so, this combination should be reflected in your summary. in were not. 2 .Sample PBD Eval. Report Page 2 GOAL ATTAINMENT: The following list provides examples of factors that facilitated (or prevented) goal attainment\nincluded in this list is the identification of the factor, along with its description. Factors and Descriptions PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT  A cross-section of parents were actively involved in a variety of projects and in attendance at all functions and Beetinos. all functions and meetings. STAFF DEVELOPMENT Courses and/or workshops were provided for teacher development, to improve student achievement, etc. (Continue listing the factors and descriptions which cite as examples.) you choose to EVIDENCE: Evidence substantiating the summary and explanation o attainment may be found in total in the Program Budget Document, School Profile, and/or the Extended COE. - -- of goal examples of such evidence: Following are several the Factors and Evidence PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT P.T.A., Dad's Club, Biracial Committee, tutors, VIPS Open House, mentors Science Fair (Continue listing the factors and evidence which as examples.) you choose to citeTO: Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Board of Education FROM: THROUGH\nDr. Kathy LeaaefAssistant Superintendent, PRE Dr. Ed Williams, Research and Evaluation Specialist, PRE Gamine, Superintendent ionnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent DATE: August 24, 1999 SUBJECT: Program Evaluation Plan According to Sec. 2.7 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan. Section 2.7.1. states: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving A\u0026amp;ican-American achievement If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. The Superintendent and the Associate Superintendents have established the evaluation agenda for the 1999-2000 school year. Planning, Research, and Evaluation will be responsible for the program evaluation design and the program evaluation for the following programs: Title I/Elementary Literacy ELLA Success for All Direct Instruction Little Rock Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement (LRPMSANSF Grant) English as a Second Language (ESL programs) Middle School Transition and Program Implementation wdU work in conjunction with Campus Leadership Teams, curriculum specialists, pnncipals, parents, teachers, and other interested parties as appropriate to design and implement these evaluations. Several meetings have already been held with , --O- -  J MV'AV* miil our desegregation consultant, Dr. Steve Ross, from the University of Memphis. He is providing technical assistance to guide the development of our program evaluation components. Upon completion, results of these program evaluations will be presented to the Board,*An Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge February 21, 2000 Ms. Aim Brown ODM 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 rECSVBD MAR 10 OFRGEOf Dear Ann\nI am sending to you a bundle of recent LRSD publications that I know youll be interested in. Also, I hope youll share them with your staff. K-8 Refrigerator Curriculum (Grade-Level and Course Benchmarks for Parents) Middle School Curriculum Catalog Middle School Student/Parent Guide High School Curriculum Catalog High School Student/Parent Guide to Course Selection and Graduation Requirements Please call if you have questions or feedback for improvement. Sincerely, Bonnie A. Lesley, Ed.D /rem Cc: Junious Babbs Brady Gadberry 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax:501-324-2032 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 April 13, 2000 Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Bonnie: This note is to let you know that we received your February 21, 2000 letter and attachments (various LRSD curriculum guides and catalogs) on March 10, 2000. We thank you very much for sharing the documents and inviting our feedback. Well be glad to look them over. As you know, I was involved in a car accident on March 7. I returned to work for the first time yesterday, so please forgive me for just now acknowledging your correspondence. I havent found the bottom of my desk yet and am slowing working my way through the accumulated piles. Please give me a call when you can and lets schedule some time to spend together catching up. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown Date: April 17, 2000 To: Gene, Horace, and Melissa From: Ann Re: Recent LRSD Publications Attached are some LRSD publications that Bonnie Lesley recently sent us, asking for our feedback. Please review each document individually according to the assignments below, answering the seven review questions in writing for each document. Note that these publications are the originals, so please dont mark them up. If youd like to jot notes on them (edits, etc.), work on a copy. Id like to have your reviews by this Thursday. April 20. Thanks. Gene: Horace: Melissa: High Schools:  High School Curriculum Catalog 2000-2001  Guide to Course Selection and Graduation Requirements, 2000-2001 Middle Schools:  6* Grade Standards, Benchmarks  7* Grade Standards, Benchmarks  8* Grade Standards, Benchmarks  Middle School Curriculum Catalog 2000-2001  Guide to Learning in Middle School Elementary Schools:  Kindergarten Standards, Benchmarks  1' Grade Standards, Benchmarks  2\"'' Grade Standards, Benchmarks  3* Grade Standards, Benchmarks  4*** Grade Standards, Benchmarks  5* Grade Standards, Benchmarks Review Questions 1. For which audience is the publication intended? 2. What is the stated purpose of the publication? 3. List the documents strengths in relation to its purpose. 4. List the documents weaknesses in relation to its purpose. 5. Overall, how well do you think the publication fulfills its purpose? Why? 6. What suggestions do you have for improving the publication so that it can better fulfill its purpose? 7. Additional comments.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United Slates District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: April 25, 2000 To\nBonnie Lesley From: Ann BrOy Re: Feedback on LRSD Curriculum Documents I took you at your word when you invited our feedback on the various curriculum documents you kindly sent us last month. I asked my staff to look them over, and their responses are attached. Their comments are unvarnished and strictly FYI, so take them or them, but please accept them in the spirit of collegiality in which we offer them. Listed below are the questions I asked the staff to use as their guide in reviewing the documents. By the way, weve have gotten several calls from frustrated parents wanting to know, Whats a refrigerator curriculum?\" Evidently that undefined phrase appears in a recent district publication on behalf of the millage, and perhaps elsewhere on parent-directed documents. We tell them a refiigerator curriculum enables them to learn how to fix their refrigerator, or in the alternative we say its a curriculum their refrigerator can study in order to become a smart refrigerator. No, we dont! (Just kidding.) Actually, we have to tell them the truth: In-house education-speak is one of lifes continuing mysteries, and none of us at ODM know what a refrigerator curriculum is either. Another point of bewilderment has come to our attention. Many parents and students (and who knows, maybe teachers too) are very confused about the difference between standards and benchmarks. We think we know how to define those words, but maybe the district needs to take care to differentiate between the two terms and to widely broadcast definitions that will enable everyone to work from the same understanding. Review Questions 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. For which audience is the publication intended? What is the stated purpose of the publication? List the documents strengths in relation to its purpose. List the documents weaknesses in relation to its purpose. Overall, how well do you think the publication fulfills its purpose? Why'i What suggestions do you have for improving the publication so that it can better fulfill its purpose? Additional comments.Comments regarding LRSDs High School Student and Parent Guide to Course Selection and Graduation Requirements, 2000-2001 1. For which audience is the publication intended? The guide is directed at high school students and their parents. Though the document does not explicitly say so, it would be useful also to middle school students as they decide whether or not to take high school courses as 8* graders. For example, students who wish to take calculus in high school must take algebra I in grade 8 as explained in the guide. 2. What is the stated purpose of publication? A convoluted sentence on page 2 in a section captioned Where do I start? says the guide is intended to assist students and parents by providing information that will help them to plan next years courses, meet graduation requirements, and to know college admission requirements. 3. List the documents strengths in relation to its purpose. It is complete. Few details regarding student placement have been omitted. 4. List the documents weaknesses in relation to its purpose. The guide is not clear enough for its intended audience because the language is garbled and the layout is inconsistent. For example, the table of contents lists Purpose for Guide and indicates it is on page 1. No heading on page 1 says Purpose. Instead there is a two-paragraph section titled Where do I start? in which the first paragraph extols the quality of LRSD. The second paragraph contains three items, not parallel, in what could be called a statement of purpose. Language used in the curriculum discussions is often vague. For example, the Unconditional Admission section on page 2 does not state a requirement and then list the courses by number and title which could fulfill it. Instead, for example, the natural science admission requirement section says, Three units, with laboratories, chosen from Physical Science, Biology, Chemistry, or physics. Only one unit may come from a life science. Few students could complete the course selection sheet accurately from this information, and the guide is full of examples similar to this. Frequently, supplemental information is included with course requirement listings and is introduced by a question. Page five has the question, What may I take to satisfy the technology requirement? The first paragraph following explains that the keyboarding class will not count. The second paragraph explains that students can test out of keyboarding, and the third explains something else. Nowhere, in this section, is the question answered clearly.The document is sprinkled with items enclosed in boxes but the boxes do not signify a single and consistent purpose. Some enclose quotes while others enclose significant information in thumbnail fashion, but the reader cannot tell the difference without close reading. The layout should help the reader focus on the key elements quickly. 5. Overall, how well do you think the publication fulfills its purpose? Why? If the guide fails to meet its purpose it will be because of the weaknesses described in section 4 above. As it is rewritten and republished the mistakes will be taken care of. 6. Suggestions! Clean up the language with clear declarative sentences that avoid ambiguity. Courses should be identified by name and number. The layout should help readers find information quickly and easily by using symbols consistently for information types. For example, if bold type indicates a particular meaning in one place, it should do the same in every place. Rhetorical questions used to draw attention to certain types of information should be answered directly and in sensible fashion. 7. Additional comments The guide is a useful publication that meets an important need. LRSD should be commended for the effort.Comments Regarding LRSDs High School Curriculum Catalog 1. For which audience is the publication intended? Apparently, the catalog is intended for staff use in assisting students with course selection. Some directives are clearly intended for staff, but students could use the catalog with little assistance from staff members. 2. What is the stated purpose of the publication? The purpose is not explicitly stated, but its title. Curriculum Catalog, probably makes a statement of purpose unnecessary. 3. List the documents strengths in relation to its purpose. The catalog is detailed. It includes information for every circumstance imaginable from specialty courses in unique schools to correspondence courses available for dual credit, high school credit, or college credit. The only obsen able omissions are the regulations for administration. These omissions are explained in a foreword. 4. List the documents weaknesses in relation to its purpose. Other than the occasional typographical error or missed heading (Board Policy), the catalog appears to be accurate and to offer everything needed for general student assignment. It does not include special education student assignment procedures, but they probably should not be contained in this catalog. 5. Overall, how well do you think the publication fulfills its purpose? Why? The Curriculum Catalog fulfills its purpose completely. Except for the omission explained in the foreword, it contains everything the school staffs need for student placement. 6. Suggestions! The format could be spiffed up with illustrations or humor. 7. Comments! LRSDs instructional department is making good progress in formalizing its curriculum. The ill-defined courses and arbitrary student placements seem to be disappearing.LRSD d\"*, 7*, S\"*, Grade Standards, Benchmarks Audience: Parents or Guardians Purpose: To help parents or guardians to monitor student progress in learning and to help reinforce at home what the students are learning at school. Strengths: Various guides are color coded. For parents with more than one child, this makes it easier to differentiate the guides. The general layout of the document makes it easy to use and attractive without being overly simplistic or juvenile. The explanatory cover memo from Bonnie is detailed enough to clearly state the purpose of the document, but also avoids excessive details which might lose the attention of the reader. For the most part, the benchmarks within subject areas are brief and relatively self-explanatory to even the reader with a very basic level of knowledge in various curriculum areas. Weaknesses: I may be confused, but where are the standards? Somewhere, the documents need to differentiate standards and benchmarks. Some benchmarks are not clearly expressed. In some cases, I got the impression that some benchmarks were condensed in order to keep the documents brief. However, condensing seems to have made some statements confusing or tremendously vague. Fulfdls Purpose: Generally, these documents fulfill the purpose of being simple and informative. It is quite a task to write an informative document that will inform a broad spectrum of individuals without being either insultingly simplistic or confusingly pedantic. I feel that the writers avoided the extremes in most cases. Suggestions: Define and give examples of standards. Parenthetical examples would have helped clarify some of the benchmarks. Are the curriculum documents printed in any other language other than English?A Parent and Student Guide to Learning in Middle School LRSD 2000-2001 Audience: Purpose: Middle school students and their parents To explain the progression of required and elective middle school courses. Strengths: The guide is less formally formatted than the curriculum catalog. The question and answer arrangement should make the guide more user-friendly. Weaknesses: The pages aren t numbered! It seems that if you were discussing the content with a teacher or counselor, you would have difficulty with references. In reality, the question and answer format is not as effective as it should be. The guide should have followed the format consistently rather than varying off into specific course descriptions. The more specific descriptions might have been more appropriate as a reference to the rear of the document. Also, the questions arent answered directly. Often, the real answer comes only after a lengthy explanation. The document places the notice to non-English speaking parents at the end - and in English! In addition, the notice only offers oral translation as an option rather than a written version. The guide deals less with the middle school concept and environment than I thought it should. Fulfills Purpose: The guide does fulfill the purpose of clearly describing course offerings and requirements. Im not so sure it is user-friendly enough for many parents and students to make practical use of it. Suggestions: Although the guide does not claim to do so, I would still like to see more of an explanation of the benefits of middle school. The guide does give a description of interdisciplinary teaming, but it seems that the district should explain more and place those explanations near the beginning of the guide rather than near the end Additionally, the guide should follow a conversational format fully as if the reader were visiting a school counselor and discussing the school, course requirements, and scheduling options. A minor visual suggestion - on the front cover, separate the title A Parent and Student Guide to Learning in Middle School from LRSD with a space.Middle School (Grades 6-8) Curriculum Guide 2000-2001 Audience: LRSD staff I assume. However, I think I did receive a copy of this as a middle school parent. Purpose: A reference guide to the middle school mission, policies, structure, and curriculum. Strengths: One-stop shopping. This document includes all relevant info on middle schools for fairly quick reference. Weaknesses: Minor point, but why are the page number positions alternated? At first, I thought the booklet was only numbered on every other page. Fuirdls Purpose: This is a good resource for staff\"membersand possibly parents who know exactly what type of information they are seeking or choose to use this as a supplement to the Parent and Student Guide to Learning in the Middle School.I Language Arts k READING Practice reading individually and in groups. Recognize and determine main idea and details in reading selections. Identify different purposes of reading and writing. Identify styles of authors. Follow written directions. Recognize difference between fact and opinion. Use word-attack skills to read accurately and to understand information. Determine word meaning from clues in reading material. , zi - Use information from previously learned information to evaluate new information, Use headings, italics, footnotes, and other printed features to sort and organize information. Identify and compare elements of reading such as setting and characterization. Lite . I Select reading materials representing a variety of cultures. Read orally with expression and ease. Increase vocabulary from reading. Use reference aids such as a dictionary, thesaunjs, and computer. Select reading materials appropriate for reading for pleasure, finding information, and for use to help in writing. Use predicting, putting events in order, and skimming to increase understanding of reading material. Use examples to support opinions and conclusions about reading material. Use computers and library skills to find information. Read graphs, tables, maps, and diagrams. WRITING  Write in personal journals for specific periods of time.  Write about real world, personal, and classroom ex^periences.  Write in complete sentences using varied patfem's including simple, complex, and compound,  Use prewriting and beginning activities.  Explain through writing what is learned in all subjects by use of outlines, categorizing, and writing directions.  Create a first draft with paragraphs containing a topic sentence, supporting details, and logical organization.  Use appropriate skills in mechanics, spelling, and usage in writing.  Use a dictionary, thesaurus, and other appropriate resources to correct spelling, grammar, punctuation, and usage.  Use computer and human resources to collect and organize information for writing.  Edit and correct errors with Spell Check and Grammar Check on computers. r PHYSICAL SCIENCE  Investigate the effects of magnets on each other.  Know that the Earth is a magnet.  Understand the operation of a compass.  Use a coil of wire and an electric current to produce magnetism.  Build a simple motor.  Describe how an electric current can be made from using a coil of wire and a magnet  LLiisstt tthhee mmaatteerriiaallss ffrrnomm whichn paanpoerr i ois made.  Describe properties of paper and how they relate to its use.  Make paper using the steps in papermaking.  Identify paper as a major renewable resource. Pr- p^r noA c_ re \u0026gt;  Describe the steps in designing different types of paper. .  Observe, describe, and record test results on the strength, transparency, and absorption properties of paper.  Vrcei crp P.-^pC 1 I , LIFE SCIENCE  Describe the basic needs of plants.  Identify the things that affect plant growth.  Describe how plants reproduce.  Describe how light and gravity affect the growth of a plant.  Plant and care for plants.  Control the environment and conditions when the seeds are planted and the plants are growing  Obbsseerrvvee,, mmeeaassuurree, rdieessncrriihbAe, aannrdi record changes iinn plant growth.  E EARTH SCIENCE  Understand that time can be measured using the natural cycles of the sun and moon.  Describe how shadows from the sun can be used to measure and predict the passage of time during a day.  Describe how the phases of the moon can be used to predict the passage of time during a month.  Understand that mechanical clocks can be constructed and used to measure specific intervals of time consistently. Social Studies CITIZENSHIP  Describe political patterns in ancient civilizations.  Describe the development of Greek and Roman democracies.  Explain Greek and Roman citizenship and its significance. INTERDEPENDENCE  Explain the interdependence of ancient people with their environment  Locate and describe ancient and early civilizations in Africa and Asia.  Locate and describe life in ancient and early America.  Analyze the impact of trade in ancient/early civilizations.  Locate and describe the way of life in early Europe such as Greece, Rome, and Russia.  Analyze the structure of feudalism.  Explore current event issues in lands of ancient and early civilizations.  Use various methods and processes to explore the interdependence of people of ancient and early civilizations. CONTINUITY AND CHANGE a_- . of- peopic. people  Explain hew the development of agriculture impaated ancient and eariy people.  Use various methods and processes to explore and explain changes in ancient and early civilizations.  Describe the impact of the rise and fall of ancient and early civilizations such as Egypt, Rome, and Meso America.  Evaluate the impact of change overtime.  Investigate how political events have affected the way people live, such as their literature and language.CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES  Use various sources to explore how ancient and early people transmitted their cultures.  Compare and contrast various and diverse cultures of ancient and early people with respect to location, place, region, and how they interacted with each other and their environment.  Compare and contrast the ways ancient and early people met their basic needs.  Associate ancient and early group leaders with places of origin and beliefs.  Describe contributions of ancient and early groups and individuals(t6s^Iei^ cca-rcM 5ccicU ?  Describe the role ofthe church in early Europe.  Read literature about people/events of ancient and early civilizations. SCARCITY AND CHOICE * Describe and analyze the economic patterns of early people.  Analyze how ancient and early societies dealt with scarcity.  Relate factors associated with economic development, such as technology, population growth, and resources. COOPERATION AND CONFLICT  Describe the conflicts between early people, such as the Romans and Christians, and Christians and Muslims.  Explain conditions and events that led to cooperation and conflict among ancient and early groups of people. A o t 2. Si Oz UIU X J Language Arts READING Practice reading individually and in groups. Gain information from reading. Put material read into own words. Draw conclusions and make inferences in regard to reading material. Identify different purposes of reading and writing. Identify styles of authors. Identify kinds of literature and their purposes (literary, self-expressive, persuasive, and informative). Follow written directions. Use logic to follow directions. Use word-attack skills to read accurately and to understand information. Determine word meaning from clues in the reading material. Use information from previously learned information to evaluate new information. Use headings, italics, footnotes, and other printed features to sort and organize information. Identify and compare elements of reading such as setting and characterization. Select reading materials representing a variety of cultures. Read orally with expression and ease. Increase vocabulary from reading. Use reference aids such as a dictionary, thesaurus, and computer. Select reading materials appropriate for reading for pleasure, finding information, and for use to help in writing. Use compare and contrast skills in reading. Understand metaphor, simile, personification, and other figurative language techniques. Use examples to support opinions and conclusions about reading material. Read graphs, tables, maps, and diagrams. V lV y- [\ngjj dic'tioin-ary T Social Studies CITIZENSHIP  Describe the difference between democracy and other forms of world governments.  Compare and contrast the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of citizens in diverse political systems.  Analyze the characteristics of citizenship as it relates to different countries.  Identify and describe the qualities of citizenship needed to solve todays global problems and issues. INTERDEPENDENCE 9  Use various geographic and reference materials to acquire, organize, analyze, and interpret geographic information and issues.  Identify, locate, and describe physical regions, l^untries' and major cities of the U^A''Canada, Latin America, Europe, Ru^ia. Southwest and East AsiaTAfrica, and Australia. ~  Identify continents by outlines and compare and contrast physical features of continents.  Describe ways people and nations interact with each other and with the environment.  Read, and analyze current event global issues and problems. CONTINUITY AND CHANGE  Describe and analyze the impact of human changes to the environment  Demonstrate an understanding of technological changes and the impact on how people live.  Relate an event in history with social change.  Use a variety of processes and appropriate methods and tools to explore and understand continuity and change in the global society. CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES  Describe the elements and factors that distinguish cultures.  Compare and contrast cultural features of regions. Qj-cc-5 . of ccoA  Identify and describe the major cultural regions of the U.S.A., Canada, Latin America, Europe, Russia, Southwest and East Asia, Africa, and Australia.  Determine ways that culture influences peoples perceptions of places and regions.  Identify and evaluate different viewpoints regarding the use of resources.  Examine the relationship between historical events and cultural development.  Demonstrate a respect for different cultural perspectives.COOPERATION AND CONFLICT  Examine effects of prejudice and discrimination against racial, cultural, ethnic, and religious groups of the world.  Examine ways people attempt to combat world prejudice and discrimination.  Identify and explain reasons for conflict within and between regions and countries.  Give examples of global conflicts and cooperation.  Relate competition for resources to conflict and cooperation between regions and countries.  Draw conclusions about how regional differences or similarities may lead to cooperation and conflict. SCARCITY AND CHOICE  Explore how factors such as technology, population growth, and resources are related to economic development of nations.  Analyze the distribution of goods and resources among nations of the world.  Describe major industries and businesses in the United States.  Describe and compare the economic systems of the world.  Use various methods, tools, and resources to understand, explain, and analyze scarcity in the world. Arkansas Studies CITIZENSHIP  Identify and explain the purposes of Arkansas government.  Discuss and evaluate the concepts of good citizenship, and practice forms of civic participation.  Explain the historical and current impact of American public policy on Arkansas racial, religious, geographic, ethnic, economic, aTidJinguistic diversity ?  Know and understand the organization, function, and operation of local, county, and state governments, and examine methods of influencing policy in a democratic government.  Analyze the characteristics of effective leadership in Arkansas today and in the past.  Analyze and compare opposing viewpoints in creating and effectively communicating solutions to public issues in Arkansas.  Describe and analyze the use, abuse, and limits of power and authority in Arkansas.  Demonstrate a sound knowledge of the geography of Arkansas as it relates to politics. SCARCITY AND CHOICE  Describe the various Arkansas institutions at local, state, and national levels that make up economic systems, such as households, business firms, banks, government agencies, labor unions, and corporations.  Examine existing data and research from various viewpoints showing how technology, population growth, resource use, and environmental quality are related to economic development within the state.  Describe the role that location, supply and demand, prices, incentives, and profits play in determining what is produced and distributed by Arkansas companies in a competitive market system.  Propose and evaluate alternative uses of environments and resources in Arkansas.  Analyze and explain how choices made with respect to scarcity in the past have profound influences on choices available today.COOPERATION AND CONFLICT o'  Demonstrate areas of inequity and discrimination based on race, sex, age, physical condition, and socioeconomic status in Arkansas.  Examine the contribution ofthe arts, literature, media, technology, and languages in fostering cooperation and in causing conflict in Arkansas.  Analyze how disparities in power and economic status lead to conflict.  Compare and contrast the causes and consequences of conflict within the state, the nation, and the world.  Identify, explore, and analyze conflict among individuals and groups as well as various methods used to resolve conflict.  Evaluate the role of technology in contributing to the creation and resolution of conflict in Arkansas. INTERDEPENDENCE  Analyze how decisions and events in Arkansas and the world affect each other.  Use various methods to illustrate interactions between the people of Arkansas and their environment.  Relate the evidence of historical and cultural languages to the development of the state.  Analyze and evaluate the history, causes, consequences, and possible solutions to present-d^issues and emerging global issues, such as health, security, resource distribution, economic development, and environmental quality.  Understand spatial relationships and locate places on Arkansas, U.S., and world maps.  Describe and evaluate the role of Arkansas in the global arena. CONTINUITY AND CHANGE  Investigate the processes and evaluate the impact of change over time in Arkansas.  Explore and explain the changes in developments such as technology, transportation, agriculture, and communications that affect Arkansas social and economic activity.  Investigate how political events, technological changes, and cultural diffusion have affected literature, languages, and arts over time in Arkansas.  Analyze continuity and change in concepts of individual rights (race, ethnic, and gender issues) and responsibilities overtime in the state.  Explore, interpret, analyze, and evaluate various viewpoints within and across cultures related to events and issues. CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES  Examine information and developments in Arkansas and explain how they may be viewed differently by people from diverse cultures.  Analyze the historical perspectives that contribute to the development and transmission of Arkansas cultures through language, literature, the arts, architecture, traditions, beliefs, and values.  Compare and contrast various cultures in Arkansas.  Describe the ways family, religion, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and other group characteristics contribute to developing an appreciation of Arkansas heritage.  Identify and describe the various movements or periods of significant historical change within and across cultures.  Explore ways that Arkansas natural and built environments interact with culture.  Analyze and demonstrate the value of both cultural diversity and cohesion within and across groups.  Examine and explain belief systems underlying Arkansas traditions and laws.LIFE SCIENCE  Describe the major characteristics and activities of 9 of' monerans, protists, and fungi. * J monerans, protists, and fungi affect other living things  DDeessccrriibbee tthhee rchhaarraarctoteHriesltiirces. oailll animals ih__a_v__e in c_ ommon.  Classify animals using their characteristics.  Explain the differences between sexual and asexual reproductions.  Draw and eAxpp,lain,, tuh.ec saticaigyecss iInII tmhee lIilfiee ccyyccllee oorf aanniimmaallss ((ssuucchh as egg-caterpillar-butterflv and eoa tartnnio SS Jr rT examptes). Ple-frog).  List the characteristics of plants.  Describe the structure and function of roots, stems, leaves, and flowers  Describe methods of reproduction in plants.  Know how the ecology of the environment is organized, such as population\u0026gt;community\u0026gt;ecosystem\u0026gt;biosphere Describe how the amount of food, water, or other environmental factors affect  Describe how different plants change in an area over time  cZr, -**(-=\u0026gt; as mutuallsn, organisms. commensalism, parasitism).  Describe the process of color vision. PHYSICAL SCIENCE  Understand time, distance, and displacement form the basis for  Distinguish between velocity and speed.  Distinguish between velocity and acceleration.  Understand acceleration along curves.  Calculate the acceleration of a falling object.  Describe projectile motion.  Describe how a satellite is a projectile in free-fall.  Understand factors related to the motion of a pendulum.  Describe the characteristics of waves.  Identify the different types of waves (transverse and longitudinal). Explain the relationship between frequency, wavelength, and speed in a wave.  Explain constructive and destructive wave interference.  Describe how sound waves are formed, transmitted, and received. motion. * yo^uT'^^*^'^'^ Doppler Effect (such as how the sound changes as it comes towards you or goes away from  Describe the waves caused by earthquakes.  Identify how light travels.  Describe reflection and refraction of light. Compare and contrast opaque, translucent, and transparent materials.  Examine the visible light spectrum.  Explain the differences between substances, elements,  Describe the physical properties of matter. compounds, and mixtures.  Distinguish between physical and chemical changes and properties * IU nderstand solution__s_ _a_n_dI fra. ct. ors t.h.a.t .a.ffe ct sol. ubility. r r  Describe the properties of acid and base.  Explain how a reaction between an acid and a base produces a salt. Language Arts READING  Practice reading individually and in groups.  Gain information from reading.  Summarize, compare, and put into own words while analyzing reading material.  Draw conclusions and make inferences in regard to reading material.  Judge, critique, and defend opinions of reading selections.  Identify different purposes of reading and writing.  Identify styles of authors.  Identify kinds of literature and their purposes.  Follow written directions with increasing difficulty and complexity.  Use logic to follow directions.  Use word-attack skills to read accurately and to understand information.  Determine word meaning from clues in the reading material.  Use information from previously learned information to evaluate new information.  Use headings, italics, footnotes, and other printed features to sort and organize information.  Identify and compare elements of reading such as setting and characterization.  Select reading materials representing a variety of cultures.  Understand metaphor, simile, personification, and other figurative language techniques.  Increase vocabulary from reading.  Use reference aids such as a dictionary, thesaurus, and computer.  Select reading materials appropriate for reading for pleasure, finding information, and for use to help in writing.  Use compare and contrast skills in reading.  Use predicting, sequencing, and skimming to increase understanding of reading.  Read graphs, tables, maps, and diagrams. WRITING  Write in personal journals, logs, and in other assigned ways in both formal and informal assignments.  Write in class for uninterrupted periods of time on topics from personal experiences and topics assigned in class.  Use freewriting, brainstorming, and other methods for prewriting and beginning activities.  Create a first draft with a central idea and with paragraphs containing a topic sentence, supporting details, and a closing sentence.  Produce a longer, detailed paper using organization and details concentrating on a central theme.  Use appropriate outlines and organizing methods to practice thinking and analyzing skills.  Use appropriate skills in mechanics, spelling, and usage in writing.  Vary sentence styles to include simple, complex, and compound.  Proofread writing in peer groups and with teacher for information, organization, and style.  Use a dictionary, thesaurus, and other resources to correct spelling, grammar, punctuation and usage.  Use internet, reference books, library materials, and personal interviews to collect information.  Produce polished pieces of writing to be shared or published and collected in a writing portfolio.  Express awareness of varied cultures and universal issues in writing.  Relate elements, atoms, molecules, and compounds.  Explain the behavior of gases in terms of the particle theory of matter.  Find the relationships involving pressure, volume, and temperature of a gas.  Distinguish among metals, nonmetals, and metalloids.  List elements that are classified as metals, nonmetals, and metalloids and give their uses.  Recognize when chemical reactions have taken place.  Write word equations for reactions.  Describe how energy is involved in chemical reactions.  Classify energy resources as either renewable or nonrenewable.  Compare and contrast types of fossil fuels.  Describe the benefits and drawbacks of using different energy resources.  Describe the operation of a steam generator electric power plant. EARTH SCIENCE  Name conditions that define minerals.  List and describe identifying characteristics of minerals (such as hardness, color, streak, cleavage, and fracture).  Test minerals to identify them.  Describe the value of minerals.  Distinguish between a rock and a mineral.  Understand the rock cycle.  Identify rocks based on their characteristics. United States History Exploration to 1914 CITIZENSHIP  Explain the philosophy of government expressed in the Declaration of Independence.  Analyze foundations of the U.S. Constitution andjS^gnificance. '  Explain the major debates, compromises, and resolutions during the development of the Constitution.  Describe the development of the two-party system.  Outline the principles of federalism.  Compare and contrast powers in the U.S. Constitution given Congress, the President, the Supreme Court, and the states.  Explain the responsibility of a free press and give examples.  Practice the roles, rights, and responsibilities as participating citizens in a democracy.  Participate in a project designed to serve the community.r INTERDEPENDENCE f  Use diverse map skills and tools to locate places and gain infonriation associated with the growth and development ofthe U.S.  Interpret various timelines related to American/U.S. history.  Read historical documents and narratives of American/U.S. history up to 1914.  Identify, analyze, and interpret primary sources and historical and editorial cartoons.  Summarize the Exploration and Colonization Periods.  Describe the role of early 20*^ century U.S. in world and domestic affairs.  Identify major events in American/U.S. history up to 1914 and evaluate the causes, costs, and benefits.  Read, interpret, and analyze current events. CONTINUITY AND CHANGE  Describe the impact of change on places and the movements of people and goods.  Understand the transformation and response to the Industrial Revolution.  Use various methods and tools to explore and understand changes in the nation over time. CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES  Analyze the historical perspectives of different people and groups in American history, and explain factors that influenced them.  Compare and contrast diverse cultures in American and U.S. history.  Analyze the significance of the issue of slavery to society, politics, and economy.  Outline the development and growth ofthe American education system.  Recognize contributions of diverse individuals and groups such as African Americans and women to American life. COOPERATION AND CONFLICT  Analyze the causes and consequences of wars involving the U.S. to 1914.  Describe the critical developments during the Civil War and their impact.  Outline the causes ofWorld War I. Review of LRSD Elementary Standards and Benchmarks Document for Parents GRADE: K AUDIENCE: parents PURPOSE: To explain the districts curriculum content standards. The district intends for this document to enable parents to check on their childs progress and reinforce skills at home. STRENGTHS: It is well organized, categorized by broad subjects and further subcategories, illustrations are super, and language has been simplified from that in the districts curriculum. The entire document is very professional looking. WEAKNESSES: There is a limit to the degree that the standards can be simplified. Some parents will not understand every item, but I think they did a good job avoiding jargon and insider terms. The problem is that it takes a certain level of learning to understand an, educational standard. FULFILLS PURPOSE: It does as good a job as one can expect. This is a great document for a parent who wants to understand the standards and help their child in school. The document does not purport to answer all questions, but to serve as a basis for further parent/school communication. It does an excellent job. SUGGESTIONS: Under the geometry subsection, specify which geometric shapes In life science, specify which body parts In the citizenship subsection, define state symbol ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: This document, and all the others designed for grades 1-5, were distributed to parents in November 1999. I cant see what our feedback accomplishes at this late date. There is no mention of these guides being available in languages other than English.Review of LRSD Elementary Standards and Benchmarks Document for Parents GRADE: First AUDIENCE: parents PURPOSE: To explain the districts curriculum content standards. The district intends for this document to enable parents to check on their childs progress and reinforce skills at home. STRENGTHS: It is well organized, categorized by broad subjects and fiirther subcategories, illustrations are super, and language has been simplified from that in the districts curriculum. The entire document is very professional looking. WEAKNESSES: There is a limit to the degree that the standards can be simplified. Some parents will not understand every item, but I think they did a good job avoiding jargon and insider terms. The problem is that it takes a certain level of learning to understand and educational standard. FULFILLS PURPOSE: It does as good a job as one can expect. This is a great document for a parent who wants to understand the standards and help their child in school. The document does not purport to answer all questions, but to serve as a basis for further parent/school communication. It does an excellent job. SUGGESTIONS: In the writing section, substitute a term such as commonly used words for high frequency words ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: noneReview of LRSD Elementary Standards and Benchmarks Document for Parents GRADE: Second AUDIENCE: parents PURPOSE: To explain the districts curriculum content standards. The district intends for this document to enable parents to check on their childs progress and reinforce skills at home. STRENGTHS: It is well organized, categorized by broad subjects and further subcategories, illustrations are super, and language has been simplified from that in the districts curriculum. The entire document is very professional looking. WEAKNESSES: There is a limit to the degree that the standards can be simplified. Some parents will not understand every item, but I think they did a good job avoiding jargon and insider terms. The problem is that it takes a certain level of learning to understand and educational standard. FULFILLS PURPOSE: It does as good a job as one can expect. This is a great document for a parent who wants to understand the standards and help their child in school. The document does not purport to answer all questions, but to serve as a basis for further parent/school communication. It does an excellent job. SUGGESTIONS: Under the section on data, probability and statistics, define Venn diagram or use alternate language In earth and space science, place a list the steps of the water cycle in order, in parentheses Under citizenship, explain whetheridentify leaders means by tite -+\u0026lt;+(* such as president or proper name ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: noneReview of LRSD Elementary Standards and Benchmarks Document for Parents GRADE: Third AUDIENCE: parents PLT\u0026lt;POSE: To explain the districts curriculum content standards. The district intends for this document to enable parents to check on their childs progress and reinforce skills at home. STRENGTHS: It is well organized, categorized by broad subjects and fiirther subcategories, illustrations are super, and language has been simplified from that in the districts curriculum. The entire document is very professional looking. WEAKNESSES: There is a limit to the degree that the standards can be simplified. Some parents will not understand every item, but I think they did a good job avoiding jargon and insider terms. The problem is that it takes a certain level of learning to understand and educational standard. FULFILLS PURPOSE: It does as good a job as one can expect. This is a great document for a parent who wants to understand the standards and help their child in school. The document does not purport to answer all questions, but to serve as a basis for further parent/school communication. It does an excellent job. SUGGESTIONS: In the language arts section, the phrase large core of high frequency words will not have much meaning to parents. It needs to be translated to laymens terms. In the writing section, it is not clear what express cultural diversity in writing means. Does this mean that students are to spontaneously include characters from a variety of cultures in their writing or does it mean that they can respond in writing to an assignment such as, Write five important facts about Kwanza. Under mathematics, two items are confusing. Realize that fractional parts must be equal means? I guess this is in reference to common denominators, but Im not sure. Also, the item that talks about becoming familiar with grouping fractions with numerators of one and the same denominators needs a parenthetical example in order to be understood. In the life science subsection, the five main kingdoms of living organisms should be listed. In the citizenship subsection, list the three branches of the U.S. government. oReview of LRSD Elementary Standards and Benchmarks Document for Parents GRADE: Fourth AUDIENCE: Parents PURPOSE: To explain the districts curriculum content standards. The district intends for this document to enable parents to check on their childs progress and reinforce skills at home. STRENGTHS: It is well organized, categorized by broad subjects and further subcategories, illustrations are super, and language has been simplified from that in the districts curriculum. The entire document is very professional lookins. WEAKNESSES: There is a limit to the degree that the standards can be simplified. Some parents will not understand every item, but I think they did a good job avoiding jargon and insider terms. The problem is that it takes a certain level of learning to understand and educational standard. FULFILLS PURPOSE: It does as good a job as one can expect. This is a great document for a parent who wants to understand the standards and help their child in school. The document does not purport to answer all questions, but to serve as a basis for further parent/school communication. It does an excellent job. SUGGESTIONS: Under earth and space science, the rock cycle needs further explanation. The subsection on number sense states that, division notation represents a variety of situations. It is not at all clear what this means. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: noneReview of LRSD Elementary Standards and Benchmarks Document for Parents GRADE: Fifth AUDIENCE: Parents PURPOSE: To explain the districts curriculum content standards. The district intends for this document to enable parents to check on their childs progress and reinforce skills at home. STRENGTHS: It is well organized, categorized by broad subjects and further subcategories, illustrations are super, and language has been simplified from that in the districts curriculum. The entire document is very professional looking. WEAKNESSES: There is a limit to the degree that the standards can be simplified. Some parents will not understand every item, but I think they did a good job avoiding jargon and insider terms. The problem is that it takes a certain level of learning to understand and educational standard. FULFILLS PURPOSE: It does as good a job as one can expect. This is a great document for a parent who wants to understand the standards and help their child in school. The document does not purport to answer all questions, but to serve as a basis for further parent/school communication. It does an excellent job. SUGGESTIONS: The final item under the Social Studies subheading cultural perspective makes reference to demonstrating ways to interact with diverse cultures. Is it demonstrate really the best verb? Wouldnt explain better describe the behavior expected of the child? ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: none ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: nonetc received AUG 1 0 2000 OFFICE OF DESEGREGAPONMQIlTORjiijg Program Evaluation For Title I - PreK-3 Literacy Program School Year: 1999-2000 August 24,2000 Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Ish Instructional Resource Center 3001 S. Pulaski Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501-324-2121 Executive Summary Learning to read and write is critical to a childs success in school and later life. One of the best predictors of whether a child will function competently in school and go on to contribute actively in our increasingly literate society is the level to which the child progresses in reading and writing. Although reading and writing abilities continue to develop throughout the life span, the early childhood years - from birth through age eight - are the most important period for literacy development. A lack of pre-school literacy experiences (storybook reading, daily living routines, listening comprehension, vocabulary, language facility) places a child at risk. Section 5.2.1 ofthe Little Rock School Districts Revised Desegregation and Education Plan relates specifically to reading/language arts at the primary level. Section 2.7 state that, LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of 5? this revised plan\nSection 2.7.1 specifies that: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. An assessment of programs outlined in Section 2.7.1 that were not successful in improving the academic achievement of African-American children was conducted by the Curriculum and Instruction staff during the 1998-1999 school year. This assessment included an examination of Title I schools. The results determined that many of the Title I schools had not met their improvement goals which were based on the following:  SAT-9 Reading/Language Arts Grades 3 and Grade 5 - 1997\n SAT-9 Grade 5 Reading/Language Arts - 1998\nand  Arkansas State Grade 4 Benchmark Examination Literacy - 1999. Assessment activities also identified the absence of or lack of consistent delivery of literacy content standards established by the District. These findings contributed to restructuring Title I to support implementation of the District literacy plan to address these problems. This restructuring effort impacted all of the elementary schools with the exception of four magnet schools (Booker, Carver, Gibbs and Williams), who do not receive Title I funding. The goal of Title I is to provide support so that all children can achieve the rigorous curriculum content standards established by the State and the District. In response to the Little Rock School Districts Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and the Districts Strategic Plan, and the finding of assessment of programs, the Board of Directors adopted the PreK-3 Literacy Program during the 1998-1999 school year. The primary goal of 08/10/00 1 4:52 PMthe PreK-3 Literacy Program is that each child learn to read by 3* grade. To measure this goal, the District administered the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment as pre and post measures in the fall of 1999 and spring of 2000. K-2 students continue to take this assessment until promoted to 3'^'* grade in order to measure their growth in literacy. The Observation Survey is comprised of 6 literacy tasks. The tasks have the qualities of sound assessment instruments with reliabilities and validities and discrimination indices established in research studies. The Survey is based on the notion of controlled, systematic observation, when a teacher sets aside time from teaching to become a neutral observer of children and to objectively record exactly what a child does on a particular task. Training is considered important for teachers who attempt to use and interpret the observation task da\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_941","title":"\"Status Report,\" North Little Rock School District, , January-March 1994","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":["1994-01/1994-03"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics","School discipline","School employees","School enrollment","School facilities","School improvement programs","Student activities","Student assistance programs","Gifted persons"],"dcterms_title":["\"Status Report,\" North Little Rock School District, , January-March 1994"],"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/941"],"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   \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_1549","title":"\"The Arkansas Department of Education's Implementation Plan''","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":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["1994"],"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","Education--Arkansas","Education--Standards","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","Student assistance programs","School enrollment","School improvement programs","Education--Finance","Education, Elementary","Education--Economic aspects"],"dcterms_title":["\"The Arkansas Department of Education's Implementation Plan''"],"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/1549"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["87 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_714","title":"Workshops","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":["1994/1996"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","School improvement programs","School employees"],"dcterms_title":["Workshops"],"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/714"],"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'Program Planning and Budgeting Process Workshops'' and ''Phonics Instruction Workshop''\nB5O5O1O1 05/10/1100 PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING PROCESS WORKSHOPS WORKSHOPS EVALUATION SUMMARY NOTE: The following summary report is designed to assist the ODM staff, and the Court, in preparation for the June 8/9, 1995 LRSD budget hearing. 8/12/94. The final budget hearing on the LRSD FY94-95 budget was held on August 12,1994. During that hearing, the Court addressed some of the deficiencies in the LRSD planning and budgeting processes. At page 77-82 of the hearing transcript, the Judge directed the district to conduct some staff development on the budget process and to contact ODM concerning those workshops. Further, the Judge indicated that she would follow up with a written order to that effect. 8/26/94. Bill Mooney started preparing a design and material for an ODM training session on the Program Budget Document (PBD) and concepts for recommending LRSD workshops. 8/30/94. Ann Brown and Bill Mooney met to discuss initial ideas on the ODM training and what to recommend to LRSD for their workshops. 9/2/94. Bill Mooney conducted training on the PBD for the ODM staff. Lessons learned went into recommendations for LRSD workshops. 9/12/94. Russ Mayo, Robert Glowers, Ann Brown, and Bill Mooney met to discuss the LRSD plan for the workshops suggested by the Court. The meeting was a general discussion on what the district had already tentatively planned\nthe who, what, when, where, and why. Brown suggested the LRSD wait until the order comes out. Mayo and Glowers felt the district had to move quickly in order to meet their timelines. 9/13/94. Robert Glowers issued a memo outlining the workshop schedule. (Attachment A)9/19/94. Ann Brown sent a memo to Robert Glowers in response to his 9/13/94 memo. She informed him that his listing of workshop offerings, contrary to what he stated in his memo, was neither Court mandated nor Court approved. (Attachment A, notation) 9/19/94. Robert Glowers issued a memo reducing the time allotted for the Program Planning and Budget Process workshop and the Program Evaluation workshop in order to minimize the time principals were out of their buildings. 9/20/94. Robert Glowers asked Bill Mooney to attend the Program Planning and Budget Process workshop to help answer any questions. Bill Mooney agreed. 9/22/94. The LRSD conducted the Program Planning and Budget Process and the Program Evaluation workshops. 9/23/94. The LRSD conducted the Program Planning and Budget Process and the program Evaluation workshops (two sessions each). 10/5/94. The LRSD conducted the Program Budget Document workshop (two sessions). 10/6/94. The LRSD conducted the Program Budget Document workshop. 10/24/94. The Court issued the order relating to the staff development requirements. The Court required the LRSD to work with ODM to develop and conduct quality, continuous training on the program planning and budget process for all those who participate in that process. At a minimum, these training sessions were to address the operational responsibilities of the participants in each of the components of the process (needs assessment, program inventory, goals and objectives, program development, budgeting, monitoring and reporting, and evaluation). The LRSD was charged to work with ODM to ensure that the training was adequately defined and implemented. 11/21/94. Robert Glowers called Bill Mooney for a meeting on the Court order. 11/22/94. Russ Mayo, Robert Glowers, Ann Brown, and Bill Mooney met to discuss the training requirements of the Court order. There was a general discussion of what the LRSD had already planned. Brown and Mooney suggested using other staff members to help in the instruction, and mentioned a problem with time allotments. 11/23/94. Bill Mooney began preparing material and examples of good business cases to assist the LRSD in getting ready for the Business Case workshop. 11/28/94. Russ Mayo, Robert Glowers, Ann Brown, and Bill Mooney met on the Business Case workshop. The meeting mainly addressed the various options for the session format, the need for some policy guidelines on when to use a business case, and the time allocation problem. 11/29/94. Robert Glowers and Bill Mooney met to discuss the Business Case and Budget Process workshops. They reviewed the workshop outline, and discussed session format. Mooney reminded Clowers of the time problem. Mooney did not accept the invitation to be the instructor due to the time allotment problems. 11/29/94. Robert Clowers called Bill Mooney to inform him that Superintendent Williams had rejected the time allotment recommendations, and directed him to stay with the original allotments. 11/30/94. Bill Mooney discussed the time allotment problem with Superintendent Williams. Williams said he would stay with the schedule. 11/30/94. Robert Clowers informed Bill Mooney that Estelle Matthis would be the instructor for the Business Case workshop. There were only five work days before the first session. 12/1/94. Bill Mooney delivered a complete set of business case examples, organized into a training package, and supported by some overheads for the LRSD to use in the Business Case workshop. The cover memo discussed the enclosed material and the time allotment problem. 12/2/94. Robert Clowers sent a memo to Ann Brown with the agenda and timelines for the coming workshops. 12/5/94. Bill Mooney met with Estelle Matthis on the Business Case workshop. Matthis shared her plan for the session. Mooney discussed his ideas on subject matter and session format. Mooney shared his concerns with the time allotments. Mooney provided other assistance. 12/6/94. Bill Mooney met with Estelle Matthis prior to the Business Case workshop. Matthis shared her revisions for the session, and asked for final comments. Mooney reviewed the material and format, and provided suggestions. 12/6/94. The LRSD conducted the Business Case workshop and the Budget Process workshop (two sessions each). 12/8/94. The LRSD conducted the Business Case workshop and the Budget Process workshop. 12/19/94. Robert Clowers informed Bill Mooney that the LRSD would conduct follow-up training sessions on the Business Case and the Budget Process for those that missed the first sessions or wanted more information. Clowers said follow-up workshop would be on 12/20/94. 12/20/94. The LRSD conducted a follow-up workshop on the Business Case and the Budget Process.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research and Evaluation Evaluation of the Seminar on PROGRAM EVALUATION FORMAT Please help us evaluate this seminar by responding to the items below. Circle the number which best express your reaction to each of the items. Space for additional comments has been provided. 1. The objectives of the seminar were\nClearly evident 5 4 3 2 1 Vague 2. The organization of the seminar was: Excellent 5 4 3 2 1 Poor 3. How effective was the presenter(s)\nExcellent 5 4 3 2 1 Poor 4. Did the presenter(s) communicate effectively: Excellent 5 4 3 2 1 Poor 5. Was the presentation effective: Adequate 5 4 3 2 1 Inadequate 6. The information gained should prove: Beneficial 5 4 3 2 1 Not Beneficial 7. Overall, I thought this seminar was: Excellent 5 4 3 2 1 Poor What additional information would have been advantageous to you: Comments:Workshop: Dates: The Program Planning and Budgeting Process 9/22/94, 9/23/94 (two sessions) Presenter: Russ Mayo Audience: All budget managers and principals Total evaluations returned: 19 Rating scale: excellent = 5, poor = 1 1. The objectives of the seminar were: (Clearly evident/vague) 4.32 2. The organization of the seminar was: (Excellent/poor) 3.84 3. How effective was the presenter(s): (Excellent/poor) 4.05 4. Did the presenter(s) communicate effectively: (Excellent/poor) 4.11 5. Was the presentation effective: (Adequate/inadequate) 4.16 6. The information gained should prove: (Beneficial/not beneficial) 4.42 7. Overall, I thought this seminar was: (Excellent/poor) 4.00 Overall rating: 4.13 Evaluations with comments: 3 Comments follow: * Very concrete / lots of specific examples - pleasant delivery! * If possible, future presentations of the planning process would take place earlier in the work year/annual cycle. * Overall redundant programs: 1. PBD, 2. Program Eval, 3. Annual Reports, 4. COE, 5. NCA, 6. State Department reports, 7. Periodic evaluation instruments.Workshop: The Program Evaluation Dates: 9/22/94, 9/23/94 (two sessions) Presenter: Robert Glowers, Selma Hobby Audience: All budget managers and principals Total evaluations returned: 45 Rating scale: excellent = 5, poor = 1 1. The objectives of the seminar were: (Clearly evident/vague) 4.02 2. The organization of the seminar was: (Excellent/poor) 3.98 3. How effective was the presenter(s): (Excellent/poor) 4.00 4. Did the presenter(s) communicate effectively: (Excellent/poor) 3.98 5. Was the presentation effective: (Adequate/inadequate) 3.96 6. The information gained should prove: (Beneficial/not beneficial) 4.07 7. Overall, I thought this seminar was: (Excellent/poor) 4.00 Overall rating: Evaluations with comments: 13 4.00 Comments follow: * Fantastic! Great job! * Like the concrete * Great! Im relieved and I welcome the challenge. * Thanks for your help. * Very good presentation. I was lost, but now Im found.* Dr. Hobby was very clear and to the point. I understand the expectations. * The well defined and written sample and the step-by-step explanation of the process was very helpful. * Additional information requested: why we have to do this, and what is in it for me\nQ\u0026amp;A example walk-through using overhead so all can participate. 1. Policy questions must be handled, and not avoided. How does this fit in with the other plans they are having to do? 2. Presenter attitude sometimes projects this is something you just have to do. Up The Down Staircase example. 3. Why are you not using the established evaluation criteria? This could lead to wasted effort. * Dr. Hobby was great. * More clarity is needed - each area has its own unique problems that could not be addressed in the whole group. Need a complete sample. I dont think the process has been thought through completely. * Sample and commentary should not be together. Please provide a clean sample, so that participants may see exactly what the final product is to look like. Thanks. * I already was familiar with the process, but the presentation helped clarify a couple of issues for me. * Additional information requested\nAccess to the overall process.Workshop: The Program Budget Document Dates: 10/5/94 (two sessions) Presenter: Robert Glowers Audience: All budget managers and principals Total evaluations returned: 33 Rating scale: excellent = 5, poor = 1 1. The objectives of the seminar were: (Clearly evident/vague) 3.88 2. The organization of the seminar was: (Excellent/poor) 3.79 3. How effective was the presenter(s): (Excellent/poor) 3.55 4. Did the presenter(s) communicate effectively: (Excellent/poor) 3.67 5. Was the presentation effective: (Adequate/inadequate) 3.76 6. The information gained should prove: (Beneficial/not beneficial) 3.85 7. Overall, I thought this seminar was: (Excellent/poor) 3.58 Overall rating: Evaluations with comments: 11 3.72 Comments follow: * Additional information requested: To be able to use our own PBD plans at seminar. Have scheduled individual sessions about our PBD. Are talk to other program managers about their PBD. This seminar really helped in clearing up so of my misconfusion. * The evaluation criteria is not as clear as I would like it to be. How can we truly tell the evaluation is what the District want it to be. * Lets work in the lab for hands on activities. When you are opening and closing please consider the PET model to make your presentation better. * Wasted time talking about Plant Services problems. * Effective, but would have been more helpful if it had been done two weeks earlier to avoid 3 or 4 reports being due OCT 14 - But the effort is very much appreciated - Wish we had in service for each report for us new folks. * It would be nice if you could bring a PC to the next seminar. * Point out differences between normal schools and incentive schools and not directions are different (No PROGBUD1.DOC). Provide dates for all upcoming quarters. * Thanks. * The presentation was helpful. * This workshop was a bit elementary. It should have been voluntary. Most of the principals are done with the document of this quarter. * Not needed by principals who have been doing it right for one year.Workshop: The Business Cases Dates: 12/6/94 (two sessions), 12/8/94 Presenter: Vic Anderson, Estelle Matthis Audience: All budget managers and principals Total evaluations returned: 38 Rating scale: excellent = 5, poor = 1 1. The objectives of the seminar were: (Clearly evident/vague) 4.76 2. The organization of the seminar was: (Excellent/poor) 4.66 3. How effective was the presenter(s): (Excellent/poor) 4.68 4. Did the presenter(s) communicate effectively: (Excellent/poor) 4.74 5. Was the presentation effective: (Adequate/inadequate) 4.63 6. The information gained should prove: (Beneficial/not beneficial) 4.58 7. Overall, I thought this seminar was: (Excellent/poor) 4.58 Overall rating: 4.66 Evaluations with comments: 30 Comments follow: * Not enough time for the activities. * Lack of time was a major factor. Did not allow for enough work...A consultant will be needed to....the business case will be accepted. * work this year. For next year - more time to study samples - with January 13 deadline, no need for more * Page numbers on the handouts.* A sample of one, comprehensive approved business case. One of the best LRSD in services in which Ive participated. Quite informative and familiarizing about the budgeting process - inclusive of the business case. Thanks! * We should practice. * How will this business case effect area schools with limited budgets? Do we write cases for current programs for possible more funding to better service students? Please have these seminars on school time. It is inhumane to expect effective participation when most of us have been up since 5:00 am. * At the time inservice is to begin, close door ~ let late arrivers go to make-up session. * Mrs Matthis has a reputation for beginning meetings on time. I was disappointed that those of us who were on time had to wait almost 30 minutes for all participants to arrive. In the case of mandatory meetings, participants should not have been allowed to enter after a certain time - they should have to come back to another meeting. * More time to go through the actual process, but I know we were given the opportunity to get more. It was good. * Very good! * I needed more think time to reflect and digest info. * I would like to read one business case that was successful from start to finish. * More time to understand presentation. * Getting out after 6 PM was not acceptable. I have 3-4 hours of LRSD work to do this evening in preparation for a workshop tomorrow. The meeting should have stated on time.  The time allotted did not allow for actually developing a business case, but analysis of the parts (examples) was helpful. Perhaps another workshop for those who desire it. * Presentation was interesting and well articulated. Wished we had more time. * Good job! More time for work sessions. * Not enough time to write business case or program evaluations. * The hands-on approach was very effective. The information given was very thorough 10and presented very well. Very helpful!! * Good presentation but needed more time to do sample cases in group. Too much noise for those of us that need quiet when reading. * More time to analyze business cases would help! * An example of a business case that is considered to be perfect. Not enough time. * Good job! * You did a super job. * Need more time on subject. * Need follow-up! Also someone to contact about questions about the business plan. Someone to review and give me feed back about my plan before turning it in on January 13, 1995. * Mrs. Matthis did an excellent job. * Good handouts, helpful visuals - very nice job. Clear and articulate presenters. * How about a complete business case which exemplifies the best in each of the 10 elements? A good model is the best teacher! 11Workshop: The Financial and Manpower Reports Dates: 12/6/94 (two sessions), 12/8/94 Presenter: Brady Gadberry, Mark Milhollen Audience: All budget managers and principals Total evaluations returned: 63 Rating scale: excellent = 5, poor = 1 1. The objectives of the seminar were\n(Clearly evident/vague) 4.38 2. The organization of the seminar was: (Excellent/poor) 4.43 3. How effective was the presenter(s): (Excellent/poor) 4.38 4. Did the presenter(s) communicate effectively: (Excellent/poor) 4.44 5. Was the presentation effective\n(Adequate/inadequate) 4.29 6. The information gained should prove: (Beneficial/not beneficial) 4.51 7. Overall, I thought this seminar was: (Excellent/poor) 4.32 Overall rating: Evaluations with comments: 34 4.39 Comments follow: * More time to understand presentation. * Work with individual principals that are new to the district or with district procedures. * More time for elaboration and questions would have helped me. I would have been more alert and able to digest all the info had it been presented earlier in the day. 12* I think that more time should be given to principal to help them understand the process. Its critical that all of us know how the process works. * This was totally inadequate for the new principals (no offense intended to Brady). We need a walk-through workshop by an expert to prepare these forms properly. * Small groups which include like schools. Mark should have been here\nlet this part be done later. Brady did his best. * Very helpful in that I knew nothing before or about these topics. * It was no fault of the presenter that the time was too short. He was also standing in for another which led to a bit of disorganization. * Too rushed! Need more time. * Needed a little more time to ask questions. * Time allocation was too short and intended presenter was absent. My manpower report has been conected in the same place at least 3 times. Could some please fix it this time - a big red note will be sent. * Need more time. * Short and sweet. * Need more time on subject. * I would like one a little more in depth for first year principals. * Good, short to the point. * Excellent, clear and helpfill. * Too tired at end of the day. * Mark, you are always thorough. Thanks! * Good job, Mark! I understand most of the information\nhowever, I will probably need help with it. 13* Not clear at all. * More time! * Very effective presentation. * Well done. * We need a work session on the budget addition, deletion and allocation. * Very good. * Magnet schools at a disadvantage without materials to track. * Mark is always clear, to the point and very well prepared - appreciate packet again this year very much. * Thank you for the Budget Instruction booklet - Im very pleased with it! * Presenter was rushed due to time limitation. * Financial staff not present/available for presentation. Budget staff needs to be available with more time spent on this process. * Well organized and concise. 14PHONICS INSTRUCTION WORKSHOP Presenter: Denvi Williams, Consultant Open Court Publishing Company Rightsell Elementary Incentive School September 21, 1994 1:30 - 5:00 p.m. I. II. AGENDA Welcome and Introduction Program Philosophy Otlice o( Desegrega^'O'^ Monttonng SEP 2 ' W* in. Introduction to Wall Sound Cards IV. Phonics Techniques A. Introducing New Sounds and Words B. Word Lines V. C. D. Dictation Response Card Drill Wrap-up and Summary VI. Question and Answer Period VII. EvaluationRECEIVED Little Rock School District Program Planning \u0026amp; Budgeting Process SEP 2 3 1994 Office of Desegregation Momtonnfl The purpose of this session is to:  Help you understand how you can get what you need to do your job\nClarify why the answer is NO to some of your requests at certain times of the year\n Explain why program evaluations, a Program Budget Document, etc. are necessary\nand.  Justify why we have a planning process and how we are all involved. We will need from you:  Any questions you have as the presentation is made\n A careful understanding of the process when the presentation is complete\n Accurate and complete Program Budget Document information\n Accurate program evaluations\nand,  Properly formatted business cases. In its simplest form, the purpose of the Planning \u0026amp; Budgeting Process is to link what we should be doing as a school district with how we spend our money.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research and Evaluation Evaluation of the Seminar on PLANNING PROCESS Please help us evaluate this seminar by responding to the items below. Circle the number which best express your reaction to each of the items. Space for additional comments has been provided. 1. The objectives of the seminar were: Clearly evident 5 4 3 2 1 Vague 2. The organization of the seminar was: Excellent 5 4 3 2 1 Poor 3. How effective was the presenter(s): Excellent 5 4 3 2 1 Poor 4. Did the presenter(s) communicate effectively: Excellent 5 4 3 2 1 Poor 5. Was the presentation effective: Adequate 5 4 3 2 1 Inadequate 6. The information gained should prove: Beneficial 5 4 3 2 1 Not Beneficial 7. Overall, I thought this seminar was: Excellent 5 4 3 2 1 Poor What additional information would have been advantageous to you: Comments:Planning \u0026amp; Budgeting Time Line MAY JUN JLY AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JLY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Prog. Inventory Prog. Evaluation Needs Assessment Goals Prog. Devel. I Budgeting T T T I I I I I I I I I Monitoring \u0026amp; Reporting I 1 I T T I I I I Reassessment of Planning Process \u0026amp; Organization I I I I T Little Rock School District I T I AUG R. Mayo TERM MANAGEMENT TOOL PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT (PBD) ALLOCATIONS FORMULAS MINIMUM FOUNDATION PERFORMANCE AID (MFPA) CARRY-OVER FISCAL-YEAR GOALS OBJECTIVE PROGRAM PROGRAM DESCRIPTION PROGRAM GOAL ACHIEVEMENTS PROGRAM NAME LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning Budget Process Glossary MEANING A listing of annual tasks to be done related to Planning and Budgeting. Tasks appear listed by task, completion percentage, start date, finish date, and person(s) responsible. A listing of all legal obligations of LRSD divided by program areas. Obligations appear listed by reference, obligation, activities, start and finish dates, person(s) responsible, and evidence criteria for the completion of activities. At one time this was known as the \"Rainbow Document\" because it was printed on paper of many colors. Mathematical formulas used to determine how resources are allocated. Technical term. Refers to part of the monies the district receives toward per- pupil expenditure. The amount of money not spent by LRSD when the budget is closed for a given fiscal year. The beginning month period during which spending on the new budget begins and ends our fiscal year is July 1-June 30. If only one year appears with the word \"fiscal\" or \"FY\" in a document, it is the last year of that budget. For example, fiscal year 1995-96 may be expressed as FY 96. A broad expression of one purpose of LRSD. A specific, measurable expression of something to be achieved within a stated time period. A program is an established plan of operation, composed of a group or series of related activities which are carried out to serve a specific area of identified need. (PBD) A program description includes a purpose, scope and content, and participantsZbeneficiaries related to the respective program. (PBD) A program goal is a broad guiding statement and should describe the overall aim(s), purpose{s), or ambition(s) of the specific program. (PBD) Achievements are efforts, tasks, evidence, performance, or actions undertaken in a program which contributes to the accomplishment of the strategy. Achievements are placed in alpha order underneath the relative strategy. (PBD) To eliminate confusion, an established name for each program has been assigned by the district planner. (PBD)OBJECTIVES STRATEGIES PRIMARY LEADER SECONDARY LEADER DISTRICT GOAL SUPPORT BEGINNING DATE COMPLETION DATE RESPONSIBILITY Program objectives present explicitly the desired impact the program should have on a problem. They should provide detail to the goals. (PBD) Strategies are the jobs, tasks, efforts, or actions undertaken in a program which contributes to the accomplishment of the objective. (PBD) The Primary Leader is the council\\cabinet level associate responsible for the management and operation of the respective program. (PBD) The Secondary Leader is the associate who is back-up to the Primary and will function in that capacity in the absence of the Primary (i.e. the Program Manager or the Principal). (PBD) Each program directly supports at least one district goal. If more than one district goal is relative, then the appropriate district goals have been listed in descending priority order. (PBD) This is the actual date a particular strategy began. For consistency, all dates should be printed in the following manner: MM/DD/YY, (09/30/93). (PBD) This is the actual date a particular objective or strategy was completed. For consistency, all dates should be entered in the following format: MM/DD/YY, (09/30/93). If an activity toward a strategy has been started but not completed, a percent of completion (75 %) should be entered. (PBD) This is the name of the individual(s) tasked with ensuring an activity has been accomplished. (PBD)SAMPLE DESEGREGATION PROGRAM EVALUATION of (Fill in name.) SCHOOL Date: Program Name: School Operations Name of School Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader(s): (Margaret Gremillion) Principal's Name PROGRAM DESCRIPTION\nSchool Operations includes the total integrated learning experiences which meet the academic, social, and developmental needs of all LRSD students in a desegregated educational setting. Central Office staff [and] principals of the schools collaborate to ensure quality educational program planning for all students with the support of staff, parents, and the larger community. EVALUATION CRITERIA: The intent of the School Operations goal is to provide equitable educational opportunities for all students in the LRSD\nevaluation of the stated intent serves as the evaluation criteria. In the case of this particular desegregation program evaluation, the foregoing statement applies specifically to Fill in name of school. SUMMARY\n(Using the objectives outlined in the Program Budget Document (PBD), write a summary of the overall effectiveness of goal results, as they relate to your school.) 1. Example of a summary beginning - Equitable educational opportunities were (or were not) provided for all students at (Name the school.) during the 1993-94 academic year. An organizational structure was in place which provided equal opportunity and access for parents, students, and staff. (Following these introductory sentences, either write how these opportunities were provided or explain why they were not. In the paragraphs that follow the summary of the overall effectiveness of the first objective, do the same for each objective listed.\nwriting your summary, combine objectives, if you wish. As you continue 2. BODY OF SUMMARY Example of a concluding sentence - By implementing the strategies summari above ay summarized above, or (because of the factors explained above which prevented the successful implementation of planned strategies,) equitable educational opportunities were (were not) provided to all students at (Fill in na^ of school.) it is possible that you may have a combination of strategies which were successfully implemented and ones which were not. If so, this combination should be reflected in your summary.Sample PBD Eval. Report Page 2 GOAL ATTAINMENT: The following list provides examples of factors that facilitated (or prevented) goal attainment\nincluded in this list is the identification of the factor, along with its description. Factors and Descriptions PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT A cross-section of parents were actively involved in a variety of projects and in attendance at all functions and meetings. STAFF DEVELOPMENT Courses and/or workshops were provided for teacher development, to improve student achievement, etc. (Continue listing the factors and descriptions which you choose to cite as examples.) EVIDENCE: Evidence substantiating the summary and explanation of goal attainment may be found in total in the Program Budget Document, the Following are several School Profile, and/or the Extended COE. examples of such evidence: Factors and Evidence PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT P.T.A., Dad's Club, Biracial Committee, tutors, VIPS Open House, mentors Science Fair (Continue listing the factors and evidence which you choose to cite as examples.)DESEGREGATION PROGRAMS Program Name: School Operations Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader(s): (Margaret Gremillion) Program Evaluation Format Fall 1994 Your program evaluation should include the elements listed below. Please be succinct. The length of your program evaluation document will be dependent to some degree based on the extensiveness of the program. In general, however, each program evaluation should not exceed two pages. Program Description: Please describe your program. This description comes from the program description in the Program Budget Document (PBD). Evaluation Criteria: The program goal(s) taken from the PBD should be used as the evaluation criteria. In other words, the program goal(s) should be used to evaluate the effectiveness of your program. Summary\nProvide a summary of the overall effectiveness of implementation of your section of the desegregation plan as per the goals. A similar summary of overall effectiveness should be provided as per the goals for the nondesegregation programs. Goal Attainment: Please identify and describe the factors that facilitated goal attainment. Evidence: Please provide or describe evidence (i.e., data, documentation, etc.) for which goals were or were not achieved. ILITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research and Evaluation Evaluation of the Seminar on PROGRAM EVALUATION FORMAT Please help us evaluate this seminar by responding to the items below. Circle the number which best express your reaction to each of the items. Space for additional comments has been provided. 1. The objectives of the seminar were: Clearly evident 5 4 3 2 1 Vague 2. The organization of the seminar was: Excellent 5 4 3 2 1 Poor 3. How effective was the presenter(s): Excellent 5 4 3 2 1 Poor 4. Did the presenter(s) communicate effectively: Excellent 5 4 3 2 1 Poor 5. Was the presentation effective: Adequate 5 4 3 2 1 Inadequate 6. The information gained should prove: Beneficial 5 4 3 2 1 Not Beneficial 7. Overall, I thought this seminar was: Excellent 5 4 3 2 1 Poor What additional information would have been advantageous to you: Comments:MEMORAiNDUM To: From: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT All Program Managers r. Robert Glowers, Director of Planning, Research \u0026amp; Evaluation RECE8VE0 JUL 2 7 1995 Oflice of Desegragalion Monitorif^g Through: Dr. Russell Mayo, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Date: July 26, 1995 Subject: Planning Process Workshops During the 1993-94 School year, we implemented a new planning process. This year, as we did last year, we are refining that process for improvement while ensuring that all of us are clear about its intent. Judge Susan Webber Wright issued an order for us to present workshops to all program managers involved in the process. We are repeating that this year. Below is a listing of workshops with dates, times, and the intended audience. Please place the workshops on your schedules. All will be presented at the district office in the board room, except for August 4th workshops, which will be presented during the \"Nuts \u0026amp; Bolts\" Sessions. The importance of these workshops caimot be overemphasized. Thanks for your cooperation. Date 8/4/95 9/6/95 9-7-95 10/4/95 10/5/95 11/8/95 11/9/95 12/6/95 12-7-95 Time 8:00 am-12\n00 pm 9:00-11:00 am 2:30-4:30 pm 2:30-4:30 pm 9:00 -11:00 2:30-4:30 pm 2:30-4:30 pm 8:00 am-12:00 pm 1:00-5:00 pm 1:00-5:00 pm 9:00-12:00 am 1:00-4:00 pm 1:00-4:00 pm Audience Program Managers (not principals) Secondary Principals Elementary Principals Program Managers (not principals) Secondary Principals Elementary Prmcipals Program Managers (not pnncipals) Secondary Principals Elementary Prmcipals Program Managers (not principal) Secondary Principals Elementary Prmcipals Program iManagers (not principals) Topic(s} Planning/Budgeting Process\nProgram Evaluation Secondary Principals Elementary Principals Program Budget Document Program Budget Document Program Budget Document Extended Evaluations Extended Evaluations Extended Evaluations Business Cases______________ Business Cases Business Cases Budget Preparation\nFinancial \u0026amp; Manpower Reports Budget Preparation\nFinancial \u0026amp; Manpower Reports Budget Preparation\nFinancial \u0026amp; Manpower Reports cc: Superintendents Cabinet Chris Heller, LRSD Attorney Jerry Malone, LRSD Attorney Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring PlanPra5.doc MEMORANDUM To: From: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT AU Program Managers r. Robert Glowers, Director of Planning, Research \u0026amp; Evaluation RECE^VEO JUL 2 7 1995 Office of Desegragation Monitoring Through: Dr. Russell Mayo, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Date: July 26, 1995 y, s C Subject: Planning Process Workshops During the 1993-94 School year, we implemented a new planning process. This year, as we did last year, we are refining that process for improvement while ensuring that all of us are clear about its intent. Judge Susan Webber Wright issued an order for us to present workshops to all program managers involved in the process. We are repeating that this year. Below is a listing of workshops with dates, times, and the intended audience. Please place the workshops on your schedules. All will be presented at the district office in the board room, except for August 4th workshops, which will be presented during the \"Nuts \u0026amp; Bolts\" Sessions. The importance of these workshops cannot be overemphasized. Thanks for your cooperation. Date 8/4/95 9/6/95 9-7-95 10/4/95 10/5/95 11/8/95 11/9/95 12/6/95 12-7-95 Time 8:00 am-12:00 pm 9:00-11:00 am 2:30-1:30 pm 2:30-4:30 pm 9:00 -11:00 am^ 2:30-4:30 pm 2:30-4:30 pm 8:00 am-12:00 pm 1:00-5:00 pm 1:00-5:00 pm 9:00-12:00 am 1:00-4:00 pm 1:00-4:00 pm Audience Program Managers (not principals) Secondary Principals Elementary Principals Program Managers (not principals) Secondary Principals Elementary Principals Program Managers (not principals) Secondary Principals Elementary Principals Program Managers (not principal) Secondary Principals Elementary Principals Program Managers (not principals) Topic(s) Planning/Budgeting Process\nProgram Evaluation Secondary Principals Elementary Principals Program Budget Document Program Budget Document Program Budget Document Extended Evaluations_________ Extended Evaluations Extended Evaluations Business Cases ~ Business Cases Business Cases Budget Preparation\nFinancial \u0026amp; Manpower Reports Budget Preparation\nFinancial \u0026amp; Manpower Reports Budget Preparation\nFinancial \u0026amp; Manpower Reports cc: Superintendents Cabinet Chris Heller, LRSD Attorney Jerry Malone, LRSD Attorney Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring PlanPmS .doc J\" PROGRAM PLANNING BUDGET PROCESS WORKSHOPS December 20, 1994 Little Rock School District Follow-Up Workshop AGENDA Welcome Dr. Robert Clowers / Session Schedules I. BUSINESS CASES Objectives Timeline on Business Cases Guidelines - When a Business Case is Required \"Whats In It For Me\" Mrs. Estelle Matthis Purpose of A Business Case History of the Business Case and Why Development of the Business Case  The 10 Elements Questions and Answers Evaluations BREAK IL BUDGET PROCESS Objectives Mark Milhollen Financial Manpower Reports Questions and Answers Evaluations1 Little Rnek SehnnI District MEMORANDUM To\nI'tom: Through\nDale: Subject: All Pri/)riitn Munaifers Robert Glowers, Direct^ of Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation D41\u0026gt;eijC^illiJfife^ tendent September 13, 1994 Planning Process Workshops During the 1993-94 school year, we implemented a new planning process. This vear we are refining that process while ensuring that all of us are clear about its intent. Recently, Judge Wright issued an order for us to present workshops to all program managers involved in the process. Below is a listing of workshops with dates, times, places, and the intended audience. Please place the workshops on your schedules. All will be presented at the district office in the board room. The importance of these worksliops cannot be overemphasized. Thanks for your cooperation. Dute Time Audience Topic y/22/94 Program Managers (not principals) The Planning \u0026amp; Budgeting Process Tlie Program Evaluation l:O(tpin - 4:()t)piii -J 9/23/94 9\n()()ani - l2:()0pni Secondary principals The Planning \u0026amp; Budgeting Process Tlie Program Evaluation 1\nOl\u0026gt;pm - 4:()()pm Elemcnian- principals The Planning \u0026amp; Budgeting Process Tlie Program Evaluation 10/5/94 LOOprn - 2:30pni Program Managers (not principals) The Program Budget Document 10/6/94 12/6/94 3:00pm - 4\n30pm 4:00pm - 5:30pm 1:00pm - 3:00pm Elementarv' principals Secondary- principals Program Managers (not principals) Tlic Program Budget Document Tlie Program Budget Document Business Cases Financial and Manpower Reports 4:00pm - 6:00pm Sccondarj- principals Business Cases Financial and Manpon er Reports 12/8/94 3:00pm - 5:00pm Elementan- principals Business Cases Financial tmd Manpower Reports C: ) Superintendents Council Chris Heller, LRSD Attorney Jerry Malone, LRSD Attorney Ann Brown, Monitor,\\RK ANSAS TIMES  MARCH 8. 1996  To subscribe call 375-2985 Tfie Arkatt^ reporter LR schools: An upbeat assessment Parents do the grading in new poll. VOTE OF CONFIDENCE: Little Rock School Superintendent Henry Williams got a better rating than the school board in a recent poll for KATV. BY MAX BRANTLEY Little Rock School District parents feel better about the school district than you might imagine, given the well-documented flight of whites to suburbs that has occuned in recent years. The sampling of parents sentiment came in a poll commissioned by KATV, Channel 7. Opinion Research Associates of Little Rock questioned 404 district parents Feb. 7-9. It was the first comprehensive scientific poll in memory of district parents. Parents generally were more satisfied than dissatisfied with the safety, curriculum and quality of education, though less satisfied with classroom discipline and the amount of busing. Parents also had positive assessments of Henry Williams, the embattled superintendent (he was rated far more favorably than the school board, a majority of whose members seem intent on ousting Williams), and John Walker, the often controversial civil rights lawyer. The combination of discipline, safety and student behavior (drug and alcohol use) led the list of parental concerns, far outstripping concerns about desegregation. (Parents overwhelmingly believed, however, that the desegregation case had harmed the economy of Little Rock.) It was remarkable how highly regarded the schools are,\" said Ernest Oakleaf, who, with his wife, Zoe, heads Opinion Research. Oakleaf said that attitudes had See SCHOOLS next page Schools Continued from previous page improved dramatically from a more limited sample of school district parents opinion in a citywide survey he conducted in 1989. In that survey, nearly half the parents were dissatisfied with Very dissatisfied.. .5 What impact do you think racial integration has had on the quality of education in Little Rock schools. Only about a quarter of respondents felt that negatively in the recent survey and 78 percent were at Little Rock public schools? Has made the quality of education better........... Has had little effect.......... Has made the quality of education worse............ How would you say the quality of education provided by the Little Rock public schools compares with other school districts around it such a.s Conway, Cabot and Benton? Would JO .38 .24 least somewhat satisfied. The attitudes of black and white parents tended to be about the same. Oakleaf said. How would you rate the way Superintendent Henry Williams has handled his job so far? say it is... Much better....... Somewhat better. About the same.. Somewhat worse Much worse....... .12 .21 .29 .16 ..3 with one exception: John Walker drew an overwhelmingly favorable response from black parents. White parents werent so en- thusiastic, though even then only about Excellent Good..... Only fair Poor....... a .13 .38 .31 .10 What kind of impact would you say John Walker has had on the overall quality of education in the Little Rock public schools? In general, have John Walkers efforts made the quality of education... third believed Walkers impact had been nega- live. Good feeUngs aside, about half the parents said they would take a free private school education if it were available over public schools. Some key questions and results (all in percentages and with the percentage answering dont know omitted): In general, how satisfied are you with the Little Rock public school system? How would you rate the way the Little Rock School Board is handling its job? Excellent. Good..... Only fair Poor...... ...2 .23 .44 .26 Much better...... Somewhat better Aboutthesame.... Somewhat worse. Much worse ...... .t ....5 ,.28 ..29 .11 ...8 Very satisfied.............. Somewhat satisfied.... Somewhat dissatisfied 26 .52 .17 How would you say the quality of education provided by the Little Rock public schools compares with private schools in the city? Is it generally.... Have any of your children been involved in a violent incident at a public school? Yes No.. .21 .78 Much better...... Somewhat better About the same... Somewhat worse. Much worse....... 10 .24 .26 .24 ..6 If your child or children could go to a private school on a fuU scholarship (that is, for free) would you send them to a private school, orwould you stay in the public school system? Send them to private school Send them to public school. .55 .38\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_474","title":"Incentive Schools: ''Little Rock School District Incentive School Monitoring Report (1992-93) Summary of Recommendations,''","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":["1993-12-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","School improvement programs","School integration","Educational law and legislation"],"dcterms_title":["Incentive Schools: ''Little Rock School District Incentive School Monitoring Report (1992-93) Summary of Recommendations,''"],"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/474"],"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\nSummary of recommendations for U.S. District Court hearing for January 26, 1994\nLittle Rock School District INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1992-93) December 9, 1993 Summary of Recommendations U. S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Hearing, January 26, 1994 Incentive Schools Franklin Ish Rightsell Stephens Garland Mitchell RockefellerApprox. 12/9/93 12/10/93 12/10/93 12/14/93 12/20/93 1/3/94 1/6/94 1/12/94 1/12/94 1/13/94 Little Rock Schoo! District INCENTIVE SCHOOLS MONITORING REPORT (1992-93) Done (1/26/94) ________ Item Received copies of report____________________ Distributed copies of the Report for reading to: / School Board / Superintendent's Council / Desegregation Facilitator / Incentive School Principals / Other administrators responsible___________ Report was discussed in Superintendent's Cabinet meeting____________________________ Recommendation summarized in chart form Administrative Offices Close__________________ Administrative Offices Reopen________________ Superintendent's Council met all day together reading each page and discussing: / implications of each recommendation on our progress in implementing the plan, court orders, and directives / Impact on our budget and resources / Listing who is and should be responsible for the recommendation____________________ Superintendent's Council met all day together reviewing each recommendation and determining which administrator is or should be responsible Feedback from each of those administrators responsible was solicited_____________________ Met with curriculum supervisors to discuss and receive input concerning recommendations in the Report Approx. 1/13/94 1/19/94 1/20/94 1/20/94 1/22/94 1/26/94 1/27/94 2/3/94 ____________________Item__________________ Met with Student Assignment Office Staff, Desegregation Facilitator, Communications Director, Recruitment Staff, Director of Transportation, and VIPS Coordinator to discuss and receive input concerning recommendations in the Report______________________________ Met with incentive school principals to discuss and receive input concerning recommendations in the Report______________________________ Met with incentive school principals to plan recruitment activities for February registration to consider the relationship between the Report recommendations and registration____________ Feedback was received and follow-up discussions began with individuals who have responsibilities for areas touched by the recommendations__________________________ Feedback was analyzed and a summary compiled in chart form listing each recommendation and where we currently stand on it______________________________________ Court hearing began on the Report____________ Update School Board on status of the Report Agenda item at School Board RetreatLittle Rock School District INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1992-93) December 9, 1993 Summary of Recommendations Included here is a summary of recommendations from the INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1992-93). Each recommendation has been numbered consecutively based on its order in the report. This was done to facilitate discussion and cross-referencing. A breakdown of recommendations listed by these numbers appears on the first page entitled Summary of 102 Recommendations by Category. Three charts are attached to that. The first is a listing of all 102 recommendations. For each recommendation, the chart displays a number (No), page (Pg), section, and a symbol. The full name of the abbreviations used in the section column appears on the last page of section one. If either no symbol, a \" + or a \"++\" appears in the right margin beside the recommendation, we agree with the recommendation. If an The meaning of each symbol is as follows: #  *  appears, we disagree with the recommendation. Disagree + In Progress + + Completed Behind the complete chart of all recommendations, are two charts in the same format. One chart represents only the recommendations with which we agree, and the other represents recommendations with which we disagree. Included with the \"disagree\" chart recommendations are the associated requirements mentioned in the report. They are noted by a Z mark. Two of the recommendations (numbers 31 and 66) in the complete chart were duplicated when the original chart was typed. The error was discovered as the research process developed. They have been shaded. Therefore, the last recommendation is numbered 104, but there are only 102 recommendations. Duplicated entries were not removed when discovered because renumbering would confuse previous cross-referencing in our discussion notes. Number 1 7 is a reference to tsh School which closed in June of 1 993. RUSS MMO ASSOCIATE SUPERINTENDENT FOR DESEGREGATIONLrt?^llock^^Rool District INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1992-93) Summary of 102 Recommendations by Category AGREEMENT To be done 37 Total In progress(+) 44 Total Completed (++) 9 Total Disagreement (*) 12 Total # 1 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [17] 19 24 25 26 28 29 32 41 # 42 46 58 59 60 62 63 65 67 68 69 70 85 86 90 91 96 100 # 5 13 14 16 18 20 27 30 34 36 37 38 39 40 43 44 45 47 48 49 50 51 # 52 53 55 56 57 61 72 73 77 79 80 81 82 83 84 87 89 93 94 97 98 102 # 15 21 22 35 78 92 101 103 104 # 4 23 33 54 64 71 # 74 75 76 88 95 99 I [17] Ish closed June, 1993 01/26S4 aLittle Rock School District INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1992-93) December 9, 1993 Summary Chart of RecommendationsNo 1 2 3 Pg 5 5 12 Section 4-Yr Enroll Compared 4-Yr Enroll Compared Staff I 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 1 12 13 15 15 15 15 22 22 22 27 30 34 38 38 38 38 38 38 Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Test Data Discp/Susp Expul G\u0026amp;T Enroll Facilities Facilities Facilities Facilities Facilities Facilities Ish closed June, 1993. INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1992-93) December 9, 1993 Summary of Recommendations ____________________________________________Recommendation____________________________________________ Make recruiting white students to the incentive schools among district priorities, focusing the energy and resources necessary to ensure that the incentive schools become fully desegregated.________________________________________ Identify the facts that are working to make Rockefeller a desegregated school and adopt or adapt them for the other incentive schools._______________________________________________________________________________________ Establish goals and objectives for racially balancing each incentive school staff as part of a comprehensive long-range strategic plan for implementing the incentive school features.___________________________________________________ Exempt incentive schools from being forced to accept any employees that have not been interviewed and recommended by the principal and the school's staffing committee.__________________________________________________________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plans._____________________________________________________________________ Institute staffing needs assessments as an annual process in the incentive schools._________________________________ Develop a comprehensive guide for assessing staffing needs which incorporates the factors listed in the plan as well as other relevant archival and anecdotal data.___________________________________________________________________ Train principals and staffing committees in procedures for effective assessing staffing needs._________________________ Involve the LRSD Human Resource Department as an integral part of the assessment process.________________________ Develop specific, comprehensive job descriptions for instructional and supervision aides._____________________________ Make sure all aides receive a thorough orientation to their individual job along with comprehensive, ongoing formal training in areas such as child development, supervision and classroom management, learning styles, and discipline techniques._____________________________________________________________________________________________ Provide teacher inservice training in the effective use of instructional aides that include team-building activities for teacher and aide teams.________________________________________________________________________________________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plan.____________________________________________________________________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plan.____________________________________________________________________ Increase the amount of time the gifted and talented program specialists spend in the incentive schools so they can fully implement the G/T program and spend more time identifying the children whose needs can be met through the program. Continue to repair roof leaks at Franklin as they occur. Once a leak is corrected, repair or replace water damaged ceiling tiles and carpet. Repaint the interior of Ish, if the school remains open.^ The spot-painting completed during the summer of 1992 improved the appearance of the building, but the walls need a complete paint job._______ Repair or replace the leaky roof in Mitchell's reading room.___________________________ Replace the loose floor tiles in Mitchells hallway.__________________________________ Develop a schedule of carpet repair or replacement for Rockefeller, Mitchell, and Rightsell. Repair the floor and wall in Rightsell classroom 3-B, and then replace any damaged carpet. [ * Disagree + In Progress -I- -I- Completed ] + + + + + + -I- + + 01/26/94INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT - 1992-93 2 No 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Dup 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Pg 38 38 40 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 43 43 43 45 45 46 47 47 Section Facilities Facilities Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper ____________________________________________Recommendation ___________________________ Take steps to correct the remaining drainage problems at Rightsell, including relocation of any down spout draining toward the foundation._________________________________________________________________________ Make sure all incentive school principals are aware that district funds are available to improve landscaping at their schools if a parent, teacher, or community organization will take maintenance responsibility for plantings._____________________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plans___________________________________________________ Create job descriptions for council members that clearly identify the district's expectations of the council, membership responsibilities, and the amount of service time involved.______________________________________________________ Outline the council's organizational structure and its working and reporting relationship to the school board, district administrators, the incentive schools, and other monitoring entities._____________________________________________ Provide a comprehensive orientation for the council at the beginning of each school year so all members will understand their role, district policies and procedures, communication channels, and what district resources and support are available. Develop and carry out a specific plan for meeting council obligations that includes goals and objectives, tasks, timelines, persons responsible, and evaluation criteria that addresses the council's desegregation plan obligations.________________ Develop a monitoring instrument for council use that correlates specifically with desegregation plan and court order requirements. Such an instrument and the information it elicits will facilitate an ongoing assessment of how well the district is complying with its obligations.____________________________________________________________________ Help the council develop monitoring and reporting procedures, guideline, and schedules that provide members clear direction for their monitoring tasks. HeJp the council develop monhoring end reporting procedures, guidelines, and schedules that provide members dean ..................................:.....\nCoordinate monitoring activities with other internal monitoring groups including the district biracial committee, school biracial committee, and the Department of Planning, Research and Evaluation. Such coordination will help avoid monitoring gaps and duplication and also help ensure more effective use of time and other resources.__________________ Include as a member of the Early Childhood Education Task Force at least one instructional aide or teacher from each school having a four-year-old program._________________________________________________________________ Increase the involvement of area colleges and universities by naming active higher education representatives to the task force._______________________________________________________________________________________________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plan.______________________________________________________ Base staff development on activities on areas of demonstrated need.______________________________________ Utilize Teacher Assistance Plan (TAP) for those teachers who need the help available through the TAP approach.____ Encourage principals and assistant principals to attend subject area in service meetings so they, too, are well informed and understand the new curriculum____________________________________________________________________ Ensure that each school develops and executes a plan for fully implementing its theme by the opening of the 1993-94 school year.____________________________________________________________________________________ Provide equal treatment for Stephens Incentive School by providing full support for a school theme. Children at Stephens are entitled to every incentive school feature guaranteed them by the Settlement Plans, unless the district should seek, and the Court grant, permission to temporarily deviate from a particular plan provision. -I- + 4- -I- [ * Disagree -I- In Progress + -I- Completed ] uuiKiHga ITUlilO + -I- + 4- + 4- -I- -I- 01/26/94INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT - 1992-93 3 No 41 Pg 48 Section Prog/oper 42 48 Prog/oper 43 I 49 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 49 51 51 51 51 52 53 55 56 57 58 55 8 61 56 57 58 Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper VIPS 61 63 65 VIPS VIPS Career Dev. ____________________________________________Recommendation_________________ Establish a schedule of regular meetings among the incentive school program specialists so they can discuss effective theme implementation strategies, share ideas, and review experiences. Encourage interaction among the incentive school program specialists and those specialists assigned to the magnet schools. Capitalizing on in-house expertise and encouraging cooperation among the schools will help strengthen the district's programs.___________________________________ Schedule science inservice training for teachers who need or want help improving their science instruction. Principals should be able to determine which teachers are not fully using the science labs and steer them to staff development sessions devoted to enlivening science in the classroom.____________________ Ensure that the materials needed for all science experiments are available to school staff and make sure teachers are aware of procurement procedures.____________________________ Capitalize on the district's resident expertise and experience to assist the incentive schools in establishing a foreign language program as an integral part of the overall school program.__________________________________ Place as many qualified foreign language teachers as needed to provide Spanish instruction to incentive school students as part of the regular school day instructional program.________________________________ Encourage the Spanish teachers to develop a series of Spanish \"mini-lessons\" for each grade level to help the regular classroom teachers reinforce foreign language instruction across the curriculum. Increase the amount and improve the quality of Spanish language materials available in each school.________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plans.____________________________ Provide sufficient training and support to enable all schools to fully implement Abacus during the 1993-94 school year, ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plans.___________________________________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plans.____________________________________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitment in its desegregation plans.________________________________ Incorporate leisure time activities, which students can pursue throughout their lifetime, as part of the physical education curriculum._________________________________________________ Strengthen efforts to recruit mentors for the students. Having at least one special friend, coach, and encourager can be so important to a child's development that every student who needs or wants a mentor should have one. Consider a trainer of trainers program or similar means to equip principals or other school staff to train volunteer mentors. Abandon the practice of limiting three-and-four-year-old children to walking field trips and allow them to travel by bus to any appropriate site, with parental approval. Whatever the past misunderstanding that resulted in travel restrictions for young students, ADE should confirm that, with appropriate parent permission, it is lawful to transport children of these ages in public school buses.___________________________________________________ Treat and teach career skills development as an integral part of school life. -F -I- -I- 4- 4- . + + 4- -t- * 4- 4- 4- I * Disagree 4- In Progress 4- 4- Completed ] 01/26/94INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT - 1992-93 4 No 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 Dup 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 Pg 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 70 70 72 72 76 76 78 Section Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Recommendation Solicit candid feedback from summer school participants (including staff, parents, and students) about what they most and least valued about the summer school programs. Ask them to identify those elements that enticed them into the program, what facilitated their participation, and any barriers that impeded it.______________ Ask incentive school parents and students who did not take part in summer school to identify why they did not participate and what would most likely induce them to attend.____________ Seek broad-based input from incentive school staff, parents, and students to learn what course offerings or other program features make summer school most appealing to prospective participants. Routinely monitor and evaluate summer school as part of a comprehensive, ongoing process for continuous improvement. Include the incentive school principals, teachers, students, and parents in the assessment, publish and analyze the results, and when act decisively upon what the evaluation reveals._____________ Mount an aggressive marketing campaign for summer school recruitment, getting ideas from staff, students, and parents and also encouraging them to help recruit.__________ Maintain thorough and accurate records of all summer school information, including planning, recruitment efforts, surveys or other means of input and feedback, evaluations, a tally of children participating in each program category and individual class, and a record of these students home school. Comprehensive records will enable program planners to track success and make appropriate program modifications as needed.____________ Consider implementing the recommendations made by the extended year administrative staff in the district's summary report._________________________________ Consider impiementing the recommendatfons made by the extended year adminfsttative staff in the district's summary report._______________________________________________ Encourage partnered schools to develop some joint projects and co-activities so students will learn how to plan, organize, and cooperate on activities that they develop. Shared ventures could held increase participation in Saturday School activities. The principals should collaborate with each other to provide the necessary resources and to ensure successful projects.___________________________________________________ Consider pairing Franklin with two smaller incentive schools for Saturday School activities so no incentive school is without a partner to encourage sharing and variety.______________ Design the extended day survey to include a description of the skills a student develops while engaged in leisure time activities. This design will help parents and students recognize the importance of a good balance between work and play. Make sure all extended day students have an opportunity for some fun activities, such as jump rope, board games, or making up and reciting rhymes. It's developmentally and emotionally healthy for students to participate in wholesome activities just for fun. .Mgke an effortjo ^air aides and teachers who are compatible with each other, and provide training that will enable instructional aides and classroom teachers to work together as an effective team. Provide pre-service orientation and training for all aides, and follow-up with regular inservice, on topics that include behavior management techniques and other subjects that will contribute to the aides' effectiveness. Consider having VIPS train incentive school principals to serve as instructors for new mentors so these building leaders can conduct their own streamlined, on-site mentor training. I * Disagree -I- In Progress -I- -I- Completed -I- -t- -h 01/26/94INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT - 1992-93 No 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 to 5 Pg 78 78 84 85 89 89 89 91 92 92 95 97 97 98 Section Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Parent Involve Parent Involve Parent Involve Parent Involve Parent Involve Parent Involve Parent Involve ____________________________________________Recommendation___________________________________________ Allow principals to contact and select pre-professionals from institutions of higher education when the opportunity presents itself. Sometimes the best deals occur because of a chance meeting at a seminar or conference. It doesn't make sense for a good opportunity to get lost in bureaucratic wastelands.________________________________________ Expand contacts with and widen access to the variety of community-based programs designed to support children and families.______________________________________________________________________________________________ Allow teachers who want to leave the incentive schools to do so with impunity. If staff members wish to transfer elsewhere, they are not necessarily unfit or incompetent\nthey may simply not be suited for the incentive school experience. It cannot be overemphasized that the district should only assign people to the incentive schools who are not only talented, committed, and experienced, and who also want to be there.______________________________________ Comply with the requirement to develop complete student performance profiles for each child and then use the information to define and guide each student's learning path and to help determine the effect of the variables these profiles record._________________________________________________________________________________________ Make sure that each incentive school has a full-time certified guidance counselor on staff throughout the school year. Decide each incentive school's need for a social worker, then staff accordingly. Require incentive school counselor to meet as a group on a regular basis. Such meetings will provide an informal atmosphere in which to discuss problems unique to incentive schools, develop solutions, share ideas and success stories, and to explore ways to expand their resources. Counselors need the support and encouragement they could get from an organized group of peers.________________________________________________________________________________ Assign a district employee the responsibility for fully developing and implementing the plan requirements for a program that will equip parents with job skills necessary for employment at all levels within the incentive schools. Be sure to include program goals, objectives, timelines, persons responsible for each step of implementation, and evaluation criteria. Follow up to provide appropriate assistance to survey respondents who have expressed interest in receiving specialized help from the district, such as obtaining their GED.___________________________________________________________ Evaluate the cost effectiveness of using local community resources, such as the Parent Learning Center, as a means for providing education opportunities for parents._______________________________________________________________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plans.____________________________________________________________________ Evaluate the parent workshops offered to determine if they are meeting the plan's goal of helping incentive school parents understand and carry out school expectations.________________________________________________________ Ask workshop participants to evaluate each session at its conclusion to make candid suggestions for training improvement and future session topics. Then carefully analyze the feedback to assess the quality and relevancy of the training and make changes accordingly._____________________________________________________________________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitment in its desegregation plan. I * Disagr^ -I- In Progress -I- -I- Completed  -I- -I- 4- + -I- + -h -I- + 01/26/94INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT - 1992-93 6 No 88 pPg 105 Section Parent Involve 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 105 105 106 109 109 109 116 116 117 117 117 100 I 11 7 101 117 102 117 Parent Involve Parent Involve Parent Involve Parent Involve Parent Involve Parent Involve Rockefeller Early Child Rockefeller Early Child Rockefeller Early Child Rockefeller Early Child Rockefeller Early Child Rockefeller Early Child Rockefeller Early Child Rockefeller Early Child _____________________________________Recommendation___________________________________________ Standardize the method staff uses to document and report home and school communication to promote data consistency and accuracy. In order to standardize reporting and minimize the burden of documentation, schools could use a simple form identifying the contact date, type of contact (such as parent/teacher conference, home visit, interim or monthly report, phone call, success or alert card), which staff member contacted whom (parent, grandparent, or other), and a brief description of the results of the contact or any other pertinent information.__________________________________ Train incentive school principals and staff to serve as trainers for new mentors so they can conduct their own mentor training, if needed, and thereby expedite mentor placement.___________________________________________________ Develop transportation policies and procedures, ensuring that principals are aware of this service, know how to identify parents' transportation needs, and understand how to arrange for it to support parent participation where needed.______ Provide parents with current school year contracts to sign when they register their children in the incentive schools. Contracts with old dates and information convey a sloppy message that parents can interpret as a sign that either the school, the district, or both don't place much value on the contracts or parent commitments.________________________ Assign a LRSD employee the responsibility for coordinating the speakers bureaus and assisting the key communicators. Without consistent direction and support, those who volunteer as a speaker or key communicator can't be expected to carry out their responsibilities effectively.___________________________________________________________________ Develop and implement a comprehensive plan for utilizing the services of the speakers bureaus and key communicators that includes specific goals, objectives, the persons responsible, and evaluation criteria to determine success and where changes need to be made._____ Develop job descriptions for the speakers bureau and key communicators that clearly identify the job goal, qualifications, performance expectations, the participant and district responsibilities, and the amount of time that will likely be required to successfully perform each job.__________________________________________________________________________ Seriously consider placing at Rockefeller an early childhood program specialist who has the credentials and experience that clearly illustrate adequate training and interest in the education of very young children._________________________ Re-establish the Rockefeller advisory group. Regularly evaluate Rockefeller's early childhood education policies as specified in the plan and then publish the results in an informational handbook for parents._____________________________________________________________________ Make sure that the early childhood students receive the services of the school's counselor. Very young children can need the specialized insights and services of a counselor professional just as much as older children._______________________ Concentrate the same level of attention, funding, and materials on the Rockefeller Early Childhood Magnet Program that the district lavishes on other magnet schools and programs.____________________________________________________ Broadly publicize the Early Childhood Magnet Program. This program is truly unique and the district should capitalize on its success.___________________________________________________________________________________________ Refrain from placing any uncertified teacher in an early childhood classroom. Provide regular, quality staff development opportunities for the early childhood education staff. I * Disagree -b In Progress -b -b Completed ] -b + -)- -b + -b -b * + -b + 01/26/94INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT - 1992-93 7 No 103 104 117 120 Section Rockefeller Early Child Incent Sch Doubl Fund ____________________________________________Recommendation ______________ Ensure that Rockefeller serves as an early childhood education model, demonstration site, and training center by initiating the innovative practices described in the desegregation plan, utilizing advice and expertise from parents, teachers, and college and university staff. __________________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plan. -I- -)- -h +  Four-Year Enrollment Comparisons  Staffing  Test Data  Discipline, Suspension, and Expulsion  Gifted and Talented Enrollment Sections  Extended Year/Week  Parent Involvement  Rockefeller Early Childhood Magnet School  Double Funding Facilities Programs and Operations VIPS Career Development I * Disagree 4- In Progress + + Completed ] 01/26/94Little Rock School District INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1992-93) December 9, 1993 Summary Chart of Recommendations (Agreement Only)No 1 F? 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 1 5 12 13 15 15 15 15 22 22 22 27 30 34 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1992-93) Summary of Recommendations (Agree) Section 4-Yr Enroll Compared 4-Yr Enroll Compared Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Test Data Discp/Susp Expul G\u0026amp;T Enroll Facilities Facilities Facilities Facilities Facilities Facilities Facilities Ish closed June, 1993. ____________________________________________Recommendation ____________________ Make recruiting white students to the incentive schools among district priorities, focusing the energy and resources necessary to ensure that the incentive schools become fully desegregated. Identify the facts that are working to make Rockefeller a desegregated school and adopt or adapt them for the other incentive schools._____________________________________________________ Establish goals and objectives for racially balancing each incentive school staff as part of a comprehensive long-range strategic plan for implementing the incentive school features.______________________________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plans.___________________________________________________ Institute staffing needs assessments as an annual process in the incentive schools. Develop a comprehensive guide for assessing staffing needs which incorporates the factors listed in the plan as well as other relevant archival and anecdotal data._______________________________ Train principals and staffing committees in procedures for effective assessing staffing needs.__________ Involve the LRSD Human Resource Department as an integral part of the assessment process.___________________ Develop specific, comprehensive job descriptions for instructional and supervision aides.____________ Make sure all aides receive a thorough orientation to their individual job along with comprehensive, ongoing formal training in areas such as child development, supervision and classroom management, learning styles, and discipline techniques.___________________________________________________________________________ Provide teacher inservice training in the effective use of instructional aides that include team-building activities for teacher and aide teams._______________________________________________________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plan. ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plan.________________________________________ Increase the amount of time the gifted and talented program specialists spend in the incentive schools so they can fully implement the G/T program and spend more time identifying the children whose needs can be met through the program. Continue to repair roof leaks at Franklin as they occur. Once a leak is corrected, repair or replace water damaged ceiling tiles and carpet. Repaint the interior of Ish, if the school remains open. The spot-painting completed during the summer of 1992 improved the appearance of the building, but the walls need a complete paint job.________________ Repair or replace the leaky roof in Mitchell's reading room._________________ Replace the loose floor tiles in Mitchell's hallway.__________________________________________ Develop a schedule of carpet repair or replacement for Rockefeller, Mitchell, and Rightsell. Repair the floor and wall in Rightsell classroom 3-B, and then replace any damaged carpet.____________ Take steps to correct the remaining drainage problems at Rightsell, including relocation of any down spout draining toward the foundation. + + + + + + -I- -I- -I- 4- -I- + 01/264INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT - 1992-93 (Agree) 2 No 24 Pg 40 Section Prog/oper 25 26 27 28 29 30 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 43 43 45 45 46 47 47 48 48 Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper ____________________________________________Recommendation___________________________________________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plans_____________________________________________________________________ Create job descriptions for council members that clearly identify the district's expectations of the council, membership responsibilities, and the amount of service time involved.______________________________________________________ Outline the council's organizational structure and its working and reporting relationship to the school board, district administrators, the incentive schools, and other monitoring entities._____________________________________________ Provide a comprehensive orientation for the council at the beginning of each school year so all members will understand their role, district policies and procedures, communication channels, and what district resources and support are available. Develop and carry out a specific plan for meeting council obligations that includes goals and objectives, tasks, timelines, persons responsible, and evaluation criteria that addresses the council's desegregation plan obligations._______________ Develop a monitoring instrument for council use that correlates specifically with desegregation plan and court order requirements. Such an instrument and the information it elicits will facilitate an ongoing assessment of how well the district is complying with its obligations.____________________________________________________________________ Help the council develop monitoring and reporting procedures, guideline, and schedules that provide members clear direction for their monitoring tasks.________________________________________________________________________ Coordinate monitoring activities with other internal monitoring groups including the district biracial committee, school biracial committee, and the Department of Planning, Research and Evaluation. Such coordination will help avoid monitoring gaps and duplication and also help ensure more effective use of time and other resources._________________ Increase the involvement of area colleges and universities by naming active higher education representatives to the task force._________________________________________________________________________________________________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plan.________________________________________________________________ Base staff development on activities on areas of demonstrated need.____________________________________________ Utilize Teacher Assistance Plan (TAP) for those teachers who need the help available through the TAP approach.________ Encourage principals and assistant principals to attend subject area in service meetings so they, too, are well informed and understand the new curriculum________________________________________________________________________ Ensure that each school develops and executes a plan for fully implementing its theme by the opening of the 1993-94 school year.____________________________________________________________________________________________ Provide equal treatment for Stephens Incentive School by providing full support for a school theme. Children at Stephens are entitled to every incentive school feature guaranteed them by the Settlement Plans, unless the district should seek, and the Court grant, permission to temporarily deviate from a particular plan provision.______________________________ Establish a schedule of regular meetings among the incentive school program specialists so they can discuss effective theme implementation strategies, share ideas, and review experiences.___________________________________________ Encourage interaction among the incentive school program specialists and those specialists assigned to the magnet schools. Capitalizing on in-house expertise and encouraging cooperation among the schools will help strengthen the district's programs. -I- -F- 4- -I- + + -I- -F- -F -I- 01/26/94INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT - 1992-93 (Agree) 3 No 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 Pg 49 49 51 51 51 51 52 53 55 56 57 61 61 63 65 68 68 68 Section Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper VIPS VIPS VIPS Career Dev. Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk ____________________________________________Recommendation___________________________________________ Schedule science inservice training for teachers who need or want help improving their science instruction. Principals should be able to determine which teachers are not fully using the science labs and steer them to staff development sessions devoted to enlivening science in the classroom.______________________________________________________ Ensure that the materials needed for all science experiments are available to school staff and make sure teachers are aware of procurement procedures._________________________________________________________________________ Capitalize on the district's resident expertise and experience to assist the incentive schools in establishing a foreign language program as an integral part of the overall school program._____________________________________________ Place as many qualified foreign language teachers as needed to provide Spanish instruction to incentive school students as part of the regular school day instructional program._______________________________________________________ Encourage the Spanish teachers to develop a series of Spanish \"mini-lessons\" for each grade level to help the regular classroom teachers reinforce foreign language instruction across the curriculum.___________________________________ Increase the amount and improve the quality of Spanish language materials available in each school._________________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plans.____________________________________________________________________ Provide sufficient training and support to enable all schools to fully implement Abacus during the 1993-94 school year. ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plans.____________________________________________________________________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plans.____________________________________________________________________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitment in its desegregation plans._____________________________________________________________________ Strengthen efforts to recruit mentors for the students. Having at least one special friend, coach, and encourager can be so important to a child's development that every student who needs or wants a mentor should have one._____________ Consider a trainer of trainers program or similar means to equip principals or other school staff to train volunteer mentors. Abandon the practice of limiting three-and-four-year-old children to walking field trips and allow them to travel by bus to any appropriate site, with parental approval. Whatever the past misunderstanding that resulted in travel restrictions for young students, ADE should confirm that, with appropriate parent permission, it is lawful to transport children of these ages in public school buses.______________________________________________________________________________ Treat and teach career skills development as an integral part of school life._______________________________________ Solicit candid feedback from summer school participants (including staff, parents, and students) about what they most and least valued about the summer school programs. Ask them to identify those elements that enticed them into the program, what facilitated their participation, and any barriers that impeded it._____________________________________ Ask incentive school parents and students who did not take part in summer school to identify why they did not participate and what would most likely induce them to attend.____________________________________________ Seek broad-based input from incentive school staff, parents, and students to learn what course offerings or other program features make summer school most appealing to prospective participants. -I- + -I- + -F -F + + -F -I- + -F 01/26/94INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT - 1992-93 (/iffree) 4 No 62 63 65 67 68 69 70 72 73 77 78 79 80 81 82 Pg 68 68 68 70 70 72 72 76 78 85 89 89 89 91 92 Section Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Parent Involve Parent Involve ____________________________________________Recommendation___________________________________________ Routinely monitor and evaluate summer school as part of a comprehensive, ongoing process for continuous improvement. Include the incentive school principals, teachers, students, and parents in the assessment, publish and analyze the results, and when act decisively upon what the evaluation reveals.______________________________________________ Mount an aggressive marketing campaign for summer school recruitment, getting ideas from staff, students, and parents and also encouraging them to help recruit.___________________________________________________________________ Consider implementing the recommendations made by the extended year administrative staff in the district's summary report.________________________________________________________________________________________________ Encourage partnered schools to develop some joint projects and co-activities so students will learn how to plan, organize, and cooperate on activities that they develop. Shared ventures could held increase participation in Saturday School activities. The principals should collaborate with each other to provide the necessary resources and to ensure successful projects._____ Consider pairing Franklin with two smaller incentive schools for Saturday School activities so no incentive school is without a partner to encourage sharing and variety.___________________________________________________________ Design the extended day survey to include a description of the skills a student develops while engaged in leisure time activities. This design will help parents and students recognize the importance of a good balance between work and play. Make sure all extended day students have an opportunity for some fun activities, such as jump rope, board games, or making up and reciting rhymes. It's developmentally and emotionally healthy for students to participate in wholesome activities just for fun.____________________________________________________________________________________ Provide pre-service orientation and training for all aides, and follow-up with regular inservice, on topics that include behavior management techniques and other subjects that will contribute to the aides' effectiveness.__________________ Consider having VIPS train incentive school principals to serve as instructors for new mentors so these building leaders can conduct their own streamlined, on-site mentor training._______________________________________________ Comply with the requirement to develop complete student performance profiles for each child and then use the information to define and guide each student's learning path and to help determine the effect of the variables these profiles record. ___________________________________________________________________________________ Make sure that each incentive school has a full-time certified guidance counselor on staff throughout the school year. Decide each incentive school's need for a social worker, then staff accordingly. Require incentive school counselor to meet as a group on a regular basis. Such meetings will provide an informal atmosphere in which to discuss problems unique to incentive schools, develop solutions, share ideas and success stories, and to explore ways to expand their resources. Counselors need the support and encouragement they could get from an organized group of peers.________________________________________________________________________________ Assign a district employee the responsibility for fully developing and implementing the plan requirements for a program that will equip parents with job skills necessary for employment at all levels within the incentive schools. Be sure to incIude program goals, objectives, timelines, persons responsible for each step of implementation, and evaluation criteria. Follow up to provide appropriate assistance to survey respondents who have expressed interest in receiving specialized help from the district, such as obtaining their GED. -I- 4- + + -I- -I- + + 01/26/94 aINCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT - 1992-93 [Agree] No 83 84 85 86 87 89 90 91 92 93 94 96 97 98 100 101 Pg 92 95 97 97 98 105 105 106 109 109 109 116 117 117 117 117 B 5 Section Parent Involve Parent Involve Parent Involve Parent Involve Parent Involve Parent Involve Parent Involve Parent Involve Parent Involve Parent Involve Parent Involve Rockefeller Early Child Rockefeller Early Child Rockefeller Early Child Rockefeller Early Child Rockefeller Early Child ____________________________________________Recommendation__________________________________________ Evaluate the cost effectiveness of using local community resources, such as the Parent Learning Center, as a means for providing education opportunities for parents.______________________________________________________________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plans.___________________________________________________________________ Evaluate the parent workshops offered to determine if they are meeting the plan's goal of helping incentive school parents understand and carry out school expectations._______________________________________________________ Ask workshop participants to evaluate each session at its conclusion to make candid suggestions for training improvement and future session topics. Then carefully analyze the feedback to assess the quality and relevancy of the training and make changes accordingly.___________________________________________________________________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitment in its desegregation plan.____________________________________________________________________ Train incentive school principals and staff to serve as trainers for new mentors so they can conduct their own mentor training, if needed, and thereby expedite mentor placement.__________________________________________________ Develop transportation policies and procedures, ensuring that principals are aware of this service, know how to identify parents' transportation needs, and understand how to arrange for it to support parent participation where needed._____ Provide parents with current school year contracts to sign when they register their children in the incentive schools. Contracts with old dates and information convey a sloppy message that parents can interpret as a sign that either the school, the district, or both don't place much value on the contracts or parent commitments._______________________ Assign a LRSD employee the responsibility for coordinating the speakers bureaus and assisting the key communicators. Without consistent direction and support, those who volunteer as a speaker or key communicator can't be expected to carry out their responsibilities effectively.__________________________________________________________________ Develop and implement a comprehensive plan for utilizing the services of the speakers bureaus and key communicators that includes specific goals, objectives, the persons responsible, and evaluation criteria to determine success and where changes need to be made.______________________________________________________________________________ Develop job descriptions for the speakers bureau and key communicators that clearly identify the job goal, qualifications, performance expectations, the participant and district responsibilities, and the amount of time that will likely be required to successfully perform each job._________________________________________________________________________ Re-establish the Rockefeller advisory group. Regularly evaluate Rockefeller's early childhood education policies as specified in the plan and then publish the results in an informational handbook for parents._____________________________________________________________________ Make sure that the early childhood students receive the services of the school's counselor. Very young children can need the specialized insights and services of a counselor professional just as much as older children._______________________ Broadly publicize the Early Childhood Magnet Program. This program is truly unique and the district should capitalize on its success.____________________________________________________________________________________________ Refrain from placing any uncertified teacher in an early childhood classroom. -I- + -h -I- -I- -I- + + + -I- -I- -I- 01/26/94INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT - 1992-93 (/Igree) 6 No 102 103 104 Pg 117 117 120 Section Rockefeller Early Child Rockefeller Early Child ____________________________________________Recommendation_____________________ Provide regular, quality staff development opportunities for the early childhood education staff. Incent Sch Doubl Fund Ensure that Rockefeller serves as an early childhood education model, demonstration site, and training center by initiating the innovative practices described in the desegregation plan, utilizing advice and expertise from parents, teachers, and college and university staff.______________________________________________________________________________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plan. -I- -I- 4- 01/26/94Little Rock School District INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1992-93) December 9, 1993 Summary Chart of Recommendations (Disagreement Only)No 4 23 33 54 64 Pg 12 38 43 58 68 Section Staff Facilities Prog/oper Prog/oper Extended Yr/wk INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1992-93) Summary of Recommendations (Disagree) ____________________________________________Recommendation___________________________________________ Exempt incentive schools from being forced to accept any employees that have not been interviewed and recommended by the principal and the school's staffing committee. / The selection and support of quality staff members will be critical factors in the success of incentive schools. Carefully planned staff-selection criteria and procedures will provide the quality personnel capable of successfully attaining the goals and implementing the programs and curriculum of these schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 190)  Progress is being made toward racially balancing both the certified and non-certified staff. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 6) Make sure all incentive school principals are aware that district funds are available to improve landscaping at their schools if a parent, teacher, or community organization will take maintenance responsibility for plantings. / All seven incentive schools would benefit aesthetically from the addition of attractive landscaping. Once plantings are installed, train the custodial staff in proper plant care to prevent loss of plantings to improper pruning or underwatering [SIC]. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43.)___________________________________________________________________ Include as a member of the Early Childhood Education Task Force at least one instructional aide or teacher from each school having a four-year-old program. / / The four-year-old program uses High Scope or a comparable curriculum model and a parent component is incorporated into the program. (LRSD Plan, pg. 152) Four-year-old enrollment is limited to 18 children per class. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 10) The Early Childhood Education Task Force is an avenue for parent, teacher, and community input. (ODM 1992 Report, pg- 17)__________________________________________________________________________________________ Incorporate leisure time activities, which students can pursue throughout their lifetime, as part of the physical education curriculum. / Physical education (PE) and health are included in the total elementary curriculum with emphasis on wellness, lifelong leisure skills, nutrition, and respect for those with disabilities. (LRSD Plan, pg. 156)___________________________ Maintain thorough and accurate records of all summer school information, including planning, recruitment efforts, surveys or other means of input and feedback, evaluations, a tally of children participating in each program category and individual class, and a record of these students' home school. Comprehensive records will enable program planners to track success and make appropriate program modifications as needed. / / / / Extended year school includes summer remediation and enrichment options at all incentive schools at no cost to students. Summer courses are prescribed for students. (LRSD Plan, pp. 172, 180) Extended year is a continuation of the regular school year. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 25) Academic enhancements are evident in extended programs. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 25) Attendance at extended programs is recorded by grade level, race, and gender. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 25) Cumulative records document both host and guest school's participating in Saturday programs. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 25) Saturday programs will be developed to enhance learning. These programs will include but shall not be limited to field trips, enrichment activities, tutoring, parent/child make-and-take sessions, book fairs, and physical education activities. (LRSD Plan, pg. 179) * 01/26/94INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT - 1992-93 (Disagree} 2 No 71 IQ 76 Pg 76 IQ 84 Section Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk ____________________________________________Recommendation______________________________________ Make an effort to pair aides and teachers who are compatible with each other, and provide training that will enable instructional aides and classroom teachers to work together as an effective team. / / 7 7 7 / Attendance and behavior guidelines include time-out rooms that are staffed with trained personnel. Students help develop school-based management rules and receive help with problem solving. (LRSD Plan, pp. 175, 184) Staff, parents, and students cooperatively design discipline policies. ODM 1992 Report, pg. 23) Discipline policies and procedures are well-publicized, clearly indicate what is appropriate and inappropriate behavior, and spell out consequences for infractions. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 23) Policy enforcement is fair and consistent. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 23) The district collects and closely monitors discipline data in order to make appropriate modifications to the discipline program. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 23) Classroom management approaches are appropriate for the work being done. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 32) Allow principals to contact and select pre-professionals from institutions of higher education when the opportunity presents itself. Sometimes the best deals occur because of a chance meeting at a seminar or conference. It doesn't make sense for a good opportunity to get lost in bureaucratic wastelands. Z Compacts provide students access to community support programs, such as volunteers and pre-professionals from colleges and universities, and assistance from social agencies. (LRSD Plan, pp. 175,183) Z Students have access to a wide spectrum of community-based programs. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39)_____________ Expand contacts with and widen access to the variety of community-based programs designed to support children and families. Z Compacts provide students access to community support programs, such as volunteers and pre-professionals from colleges and universities, and assistance from social agencies. (LRSD Plan, pp. 175,183) Z Students have access to a wide spectrum of community-based programs. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39)_____________ Allow teachers who want to leave the incentive schools to do so with ifhpunjt^. If staff members wish to transfer elsewhere, they are not necessarily unfit or incompetent\nthey may simply not be suited for the incentive school experience. It cannot be overemphasized that the district should only assign people to the incentive schools who are not only talented, committed, and experienced, and who also want to be there. / 7 7 Study skills training enhances skills in test taking, listening, and studying. Test taking skills are being taught and students practice test taking. (LRSD Plan, pp. 153, 176, 183\nODM 1992 Report, pg. 32) Meaning and understanding is stressed in all academic instruction, keeping in mind the relationship between what is taught, learned, and tested. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 32) Emphasize continuous growth in mathematics understanding and application, reducing computation isolated from application context along with redundancy across grade levels. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 32) Cultural infusion is evident in classroom materials. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 32) Teacher-directed and learner-directed instruction co-exist in the classroom. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 32) Regular tracking of student attendance, behavior, discipline, and achievement is systematic and assessed at least quarterly. Individual and class profiles are utilized. Individual students plans and interventions are based on needs determined through ongoing data review. (LRSD Plan, pp. 176, 186) Disaggregate test results to enable an assessment of the short- and long-term correlation between test performance and such variables as how long a student has been enrolled at a particular school, behavior and attendance records, and participation in such programs as early childhood and extended day, week, and year. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 32) *   01/26/94INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT - 1992-93 [Disagree] 3 No 88 Pg 105 Section Parent Involve ____________________________________________Recommendation_________________ Standardize the method staff uses to document and report home and school communication to promote data consistency and accuracy. In order to standardize reporting and minimize the burden of documentation, schools could use a simple form identifying the contact date, type of contact (such as parent/teacher conference, home visit, interim or monthly report, phone call, success or alert card), which staff member contacted whom (parent, grandparent, or other), and a brief description of the results of the contact or any other pertinent information. Z Z 7 Each school provides community role models and a mentoring program (LRSD Plan, pg. 157) The district has mounted an intense mentor recruitment campaign. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 29) Individual school volunteer mentoring programs are coordinated with VIPS and all volunteers are screened and trained prior to being matched with students. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 29) The school maintains mentor-student records that include the race, gender, participation hours, and types of activities shared by the mentors and their students. Records of training participants by race, gender, and classification (i.e. 95 116 Rockefeller Early Child student, mentor, parent, teacher) are also maintained. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 30)_______________________ Seriously consider placing at Rockefeller an early childhood program specialist who has the credentials and experience that clearly illustrate adequate training and interest in the education of very young children. * / / z 7 7 The Rockefeller Early Childhood Magnet Program is available to children from six weeks to four years of age. The program serves as a model for improving the academic achievement of disadvantaged students and attracting white students to the school in order to comply with desegregation requirements, (LRSD Plan, pg, 12) Rockefeller is designated as a Cooperative Early Childhood Education Demonstration Magnet between UALR and to her area colleges. The LRSD works cooperatively with local colleges and universities to enhance and support the program, (LRSD Plan, pg, 12) At Rockefeller, the district gives special emphasis to developing and piloting innovative approaches to the education of young children, (LRSD Plan, pg, 12) Rockefeller is used as a demonstration center for training the county's teachers, administrators, aides, HIPPY (HOME Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters), and daycare program workers, (LRSD Plan, pg, 12) Parents and educational professionals from UALR and Other area colleges advise the school and district staffs on all aspects of planning and implementation of the early childhood program, (LRSD Plan, pg, 12) Students attending the three-year-old program are allowed to continue on into the school's four-year-old program, kindergarten, and beyond, (LRSD Plan, pg, 13) Explore developing Rockefeller as a year-round, full-day school for children form infancy through sixth grade, A biracial group of teachers, parents, administrators, and experts from local universities and colleges works with the district to assess the feasibility of such a program, (LRSD Plan, pg, 13) Evaluate Rockefeller's early childhood education policies in terms of their impact on desegregation and education goals. The parent committee on early childhood education is to evaluate policies (including private pay rates, lunch charges, vacation days, enrollment age, and sick days) for their impact on the early childhood program's viability desegregation tool, its competitiveness with private schools and daycare, and its ability to retain both its private paying and Title XX students. (LRSD Plan, pg. 13) as a 01/26/94INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT - 1992-93 (Disagree} 4 No 99 Pg 117 Section Rockefeller Early Child ________________________________________ Recommendation__________________________________________ Concentrate the same level of attention, funding, and materials on the Rockefeller Early Childhood Magnet Program that the district lavishes on other magnet schools and programs. / / / / 7 The Rockefeller Early Childhood Magnet Program is available to children from six weeks to four years of age. The program serves as a model for improving the academic achievement of disadvantaged students and attracting white students to the school in order to comply with desegregation requirements. (LRSD Plan, pg. 12) Rockefeller is designated as a Cooperative Early Childhood Education Demonstration Magnet between UALR and to her area colleges. The LRSD works cooperatively with local colleges and universities to enhance and support the program. (LRSD Plan, pg. 12) At Rockefeller, the district gives special emphasis to developing and piloting innovative approaches to the education of young children. (LRSD Plan, pg. 12) Rockefeller is used as a demonstration center for training the county's teachers, administrators, aides, HIPPY (HOME Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters), and daycare program workers. (LRSD Plan, pg. 12) Parents and educational professionals from UALR and other area colleges advise the school and district staffs on all aspects of planning and implementation of the early childhood program. (LRSD Plan, pg. 12) Students attending the three-year-old program are allowed to continue on into the school's four-year-old program, kindergarten, and beyond. (LRSD Plan, pg. 13) Explore developing Rockefeller as a year-round, full-day school for children form infancy through sixth grade. A biracial group of teachers, parents, administrators, and experts from local universities and colleges works with the district to assess the feasibility of such a program. (LRSD Plan, pg. 13) Evaluate Rockefeller's early childhood education policies in terms of their impact on desegregation and education goals. The parent committee on early childhood education is to evaluate policies (including private pay rates, lunch charges, vacation days, enrollment age, and sick days) for their impact on the early childhood program's viability as a desegregation tool, its competitiveness with private schools and daycare, and its ability to retain both its private paying and Title XX students. (LRSD Plan, pg. 13) * 01/26/94\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":23,"next_page":24,"prev_page":22,"total_pages":35,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":264,"total_count":419,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":418},{"value":"StillImage","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)","hits":60},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":42},{"value":"Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","hits":23},{"value":"United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit","hits":5},{"value":"Arkansas Association of Educational Administrators","hits":4},{"value":"North Little Rock School District","hits":3},{"value":"Ross, Steven M.","hits":3},{"value":"Arkansas Policy Foundation","hits":2},{"value":"Arkansas. Department of Education","hits":2},{"value":"Quality Education and Management Associates","hits":2},{"value":"Area School Advisory Committee","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"School improvement programs","hits":419},{"value":"Education--Arkansas","hits":413},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":307},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","hits":287},{"value":"Education--Evaluation","hits":280},{"value":"Educational planning","hits":229},{"value":"Educational law and legislation","hits":204},{"value":"Educational statistics","hits":174},{"value":"School management and organization","hits":151},{"value":"Student assistance programs","hits":139},{"value":"School integration","hits":138}],"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":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":417},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":415},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":411},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":405},{"value":"United States, New York, 43.00035, -75.4999","hits":2},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Phillips County, 34.42829, -90.84802","hits":1},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, North Little Rock, 34.76954, -92.26709","hits":1},{"value":"United States, Connecticut, 41.66704, -72.66648","hits":1},{"value":"United States, Maryland, 39.00039, -76.74997","hits":1},{"value":"United States, Michigan, 44.25029, -85.50033","hits":1},{"value":"United States, Michigan, Wayne County, Detroit, 42.33143, -83.04575","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Arkansas","hits":415},{"value":"New York","hits":2},{"value":"Connecticut","hits":1},{"value":"Maryland","hits":1},{"value":"Michigan","hits":1},{"value":"Missouri","hits":1},{"value":"Texas","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1995","hits":88},{"value":"1993","hits":74},{"value":"1994","hits":74},{"value":"1996","hits":72},{"value":"1992","hits":64},{"value":"1999","hits":59},{"value":"2001","hits":59},{"value":"1997","hits":58},{"value":"1991","hits":53},{"value":"2003","hits":53},{"value":"2000","hits":52},{"value":"1990","hits":40},{"value":"1998","hits":40},{"value":"2004","hits":40},{"value":"2002","hits":38},{"value":"1989","hits":33},{"value":"2005","hits":31},{"value":"2006","hits":21},{"value":"1986","hits":10},{"value":"1988","hits":9},{"value":"1984","hits":8},{"value":"2007","hits":8},{"value":"2008","hits":8},{"value":"1987","hits":7},{"value":"2010","hits":7},{"value":"1985","hits":6},{"value":"2009","hits":6},{"value":"2011","hits":6},{"value":"1980","hits":5},{"value":"1981","hits":5},{"value":"1982","hits":5},{"value":"1983","hits":5},{"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":"2012","hits":4},{"value":"1950","hits":3},{"value":"1951","hits":3},{"value":"1952","hits":3},{"value":"1953","hits":3},{"value":"1954","hits":3},{"value":"1955","hits":3},{"value":"1956","hits":3},{"value":"1957","hits":3},{"value":"1958","hits":3},{"value":"1959","hits":3},{"value":"1960","hits":3},{"value":"1961","hits":3},{"value":"1962","hits":3},{"value":"1963","hits":3},{"value":"1964","hits":3},{"value":"1965","hits":3},{"value":"1966","hits":3},{"value":"1967","hits":3},{"value":"1968","hits":3},{"value":"1969","hits":3},{"value":"1970","hits":3},{"value":"1971","hits":3},{"value":"1972","hits":3},{"value":"1973","hits":3},{"value":"2013","hits":3},{"value":"2014","hits":3},{"value":"2015","hits":2},{"value":"2016","hits":2},{"value":"2017","hits":2},{"value":"2018","hits":2},{"value":"2019","hits":2},{"value":"2020","hits":2},{"value":"2021","hits":2},{"value":"2022","hits":2},{"value":"2023","hits":2},{"value":"2024","hits":2},{"value":"1910","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"1910","max":"2024","count":1171,"missing":0},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":244},{"value":"reports","hits":71},{"value":"legal documents","hits":38},{"value":"judicial records","hits":36},{"value":"correspondence","hits":10},{"value":"handbooks","hits":9},{"value":"exhibition (associated concept)","hits":7},{"value":"budgets","hits":6},{"value":"books","hits":2},{"value":"newspaper clippings","hits":2},{"value":"agendas (administrative records)","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":419}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Office of Desegregation Management","hits":417},{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies Photographs Collection","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":419}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":418},{"value":"Collection","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":419}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}