{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1555","title":"Court filings concerning school constriction, educational law, and court proceedings.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1993-10"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics","School buildings","School facilities","School management and organization","School improvement programs","Stephens Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning school constriction, educational law, and court proceedings."],"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/1555"],"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":["legal documents"],"dcterms_extent":["50 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_993","title":"''Status Report,'' North Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1993-10/1993-12"],"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","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"],"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/993"],"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_1566","title":"Court filings concerning educational law, student scholarships and incentives, and legal proceedings","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1993-08-02/1993-08-18"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School board members","School boards","School districts","School management and organization","School improvement programs","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning educational law, student scholarships and incentives, and legal proceedings"],"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/1566"],"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":["legal documents"],"dcterms_extent":["53 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1137","title":"Little Rock School District Court Submission","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":["1993-07-30"],"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--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School improvement programs","Student assistance programs","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District Court Submission"],"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/1137"],"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\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 COURT SUBMISSION JULY 30, 1993 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING July 30, 1993 GENERAL CONCEPT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING A comprehensive program planning and budgeting process will improve the district's ability to allocate its revenue rationally and, therefore, have maximum impact on achieving the goals of the district. By linking program objectives and program expenditures we can see more clearly if our money is being spent appropriately. During the planning and budgeting process, we will do the following: 1. Determine the needs of the district, particularly legal obligations under the desegregation and settlement plans. 2. Define goals and objectives. 3. Define programs to achieve those objectives, particularly those required by the desegregation plans. 4. Measure performance and expenditures. 5. Prepare information for corrective decision-making. A. Organizational Structure for Planning and Budgeting Process 1. Key Players - The Superintendent shall lead the planning and budgeting process with direct support from his/her cabinet. The Board is the ultimate decisionmaker for the planning and budgeting process. 2. Description - The planning and budgeting process shall be under the leadership of the Superintendent with LRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 2 direct support from the Superintendent's Cabinet. The planning and budgeting process will be coordinated by the Director of Planning, Research and Evaluation (PRE) and the Manager of Resources and School Support who both serve on the superintendent's Cabinet. The Board will provide guidance for developing a planning and budgeting calendar. The calendar will allow the Board to continuously monitor progress of the planning and budgeting process. The Director of Planning, Research and Evaluation will be the lead planning person. He/She will ensure that the planning process is conducted according to established timeframes, provide technical assistance, coordinate the planning process, collect appropriate reports, coordinate the preparation of related documents and advise the Superintendent and Board relative to the planning process. In addition, the lead planning person will be responsible for ensuring all requirements from the desegregation plans and court orders are integrated into the planning process. The Director of PRE will be assisted by a Planning, Research and Evaluation Specialist whose major responsibility will be district-wide planning. The PRE Specialist will be housed in the PRE office. The job description for the PRE Specialist details the necessary qualifications and job responsibilities (See Attachment 1). LRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 3 3. Outcome - An organizational chart that displays the current lines of authority and responsibility is attached (Attachment 2), as well as the proposed Planning and Budget Development Calendar (Attachment 4). 4. Timeframe - The lead planning person will be named in July 1993. The Planning and Budget Development Calendar will be finalized in August 1993. The organizational structure will be reviewed in May 1994 to ensure that the July 1993 configuration is the most effective and efficient arrangement. Necessary revisions and adjustments will be made by the district at that time. B. Needs Assessment A needs assessment is a process of comparing the current situation with the desired conditions. 1. Key Players - The Superintendent will provide leadership and direction for the needs assessment process. The lead planning person will coordinate the process. The Superintendent's Cabinet will be responsible for directing the staff in the collection of assessment information. The Superintendent and the Cabinet will be the decision-makers for identifying the needs. 2. Description - Utilizing a combination of district-wide perceptual, empirical and objective instruments, data LRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 4 will be collected and analyzed to determine the needs of the students, parents, teachers, and administrators. Perceptual information will be collected through broadbased input sessions such as community forums and district dialogue sessions. e community forums will be conducted. One forum each for area schools, magnet schools and incentive schools will be scheduled. Every effort will be made to strategically locate the sessions to accommodate maximum participation. Additional sessions may be scheduled with other focus groups, when necessary. One district dialogue will be conducted with principals, teachers, classified staff, and central office administrators. An administrative work session will be conducted to review and analyze various districtwide reports and objective data. The following data will be reviewed: Arkansas Minimum Performance Test Results Stanford Achievement Test Results Desegregation Monitoring Reports Desegregation Plan Audit LRSD Desegregation Plans and Court Orders Curriculum Audit School Climate/Human Relations Survey Results LRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 5 Facilities study Proportional Allocation Formulas Program Inventory A comparison between identified needs and the program inventory will be conducted to determine if there are programmatic gaps and areas of need. 3. outcome - The outcome of the administrative work sessions, community forums and district dialogue sessions will be a list of needs in the curriculum, desegregation, and support areas that will be rank ordered based on supporting data. The Superintendent and Cabinet will begin to identify programs in need of \"fast-track\" evaluations. 4. Timeframe - The needs assessment for the 1994-95 budget process begins in August 1993 with data collection. An initial list will be developed in September 1993. The final list will be developed in November 1993 after the community forums and district dialogues are completed. c. Program Inventory During the needs assessment period which starts in August 1993 for the 1994-95 budget y~ar, current desegregation programs will be identified. 1. Key Players - The Superintendent will provide overall direction, and the Board will review the findings. The lead planning person will coordinate the collection of basic data and prepare the data into appropriate LRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 6 documents for use in goal setting and program modification and/or development. The Cabinet and staff will collect the necessary data. 2. Description - All current programs and services will be identified. Using the desegregation Audit, desegregation programs will be identified and defined first. Non-desegregation programs will be identified, defined and merged with the list of desegregation programs to formulate a composite list of all programs. The desegregation plan and court orders will be reviewed to ensure all obligations related to compliance are operative. Primary and secondary responsible persons will be identified for each program or service. 3. outcome - A Program Inventory Report will be generated and used during the goals and objectives development process, program modification and/or development process, and the budgeting process. 4. Timeframe - The program inventory will be conducted during the needs assessment period. All desegregation programs will be identified in August 1993. The non-desegregation programs should be identified by the completion of the needs assessment period in November 1993. LRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 7 D. Planning and Budget Goals The goal setting process helps guide all actions of the administration. The process defines the expected outcomes for a specified period of time. 1. Key Players - The Board and Superintendent will provide leadership for identifying the mission and goals of the district. 'The Cabinet will provide assistance and support by defining objectives for programs which will satisfy the accepted goals. The goal setting process will be coordinated by the lead planning person. 2. Description - The Board will conduct a work session. After reviewing the preliminary list of issues for the needs assessment and the Program Inventory Report, the Board will: * Review and revise, if necessary, the mission statement. * Establish tentative written goals/objectives. The goals and objectives will define what the district expects to realistically accomplish for the year. Goals and objectives that conflict with the desegregation plan will not be adopted. * Review and provide guidance related to proportional allocation formulas (materials and supplies, staffing, etc.). * Establish written priorities. These priorities will guide staff in program modification and program LRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page a development, as well as to help allocate funding and resources during the budgeting process. * Identify any additional programs for \"fast-track\" evaluation. * Consider strategies for funding shortfalls. The Cabinet will work to ensure that program goals and evaluation criteria are linked to the established goals. 3. outcome - At the conclusion of the goal setting session(s), the Board will publish: * a written mission statement * written goals * a list of priorities The staff will revise program objectives and evaluation criteria as needed for each program, and these will be incorporated into the Program Budget Document. 4. Timeframe - Although the goal setting process is dependent on the needs assessment and program inventory, it will operate concurrently with them. The work session will be conducted in September 1993. Program objectives and evaluation criteria will be established by November 1993. A status report will also be provided to the Board in November 1993. E. Program Development If a service or program does not exist to support needs addressed by the defined goals, it may be necessary to develop a program or modify an existing program. LRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 9 1. Key Players - The Superintendent will provide leadership and guidance to ensure that goals are achieved by offering the best possible programs. The Cabinet will provide direction to staff in developing, modifying, and implementing effective and efficient programs. The lead planning person will monitor and advise the Superintendent throughout the program modification and development phase. 2. Description - Programs may need to be developed to address newly identified needs or fill gaps. Current programs may have to be modified to successfully meet objectives. Some programs may have to be eliminated. The District will establish a framework for program development. The framework will include: * Overview/Program Description * Program Goals/Objectives * Identified Needs * Target Population * Organizational Management/Personnel * Staff Development * Parental Involvement, if any * Physical Facilities, if any * Identification of possible funding sources * Proposed Budget (start-up costs/recurring costs) * Impact on Desegregation Plan * Evaluation Criteria * Program Budget Document (See Attachment 5, p. 2) LRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 10 Program development and modification will be conducted by staff with the appropriate cabinet level official providing oversight to ensure that all tasks are completed in a timely manner. The Superintendent and the Cabinet will review all program development and modification to ensure that commitments in the desegregation plan are not hindered by such program development or modification. 3. outcome - Existing programs and programs that are developed to satisfy a need will include all of the elements for budget development and can be directly placed into the Program Budget Document. 4. Timeframe - The program development process will begin in October 1993, if necessary, and conclude in January 1994. F. Budget Priorities - Budgeting 1. Key Players - The Board is the ultimate decision-making authority on the budget. However, the Superintendent will ensure that a balanced budget is developed that meets the needs and goals of the school district. The Manager for Resources and School Support will coordinate the budget preparation process and the lead planning person will ensure that the planning and budgeting components are linked appropriately. Budget managers will provide input relative to his/her area of LRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 11 responsibility. The Controller will produce the budget information. 2. Description - Funds, personnel and facilities will be allocated based on the goals and objectives of the district. Directions for budget preparation will be issued by the Superintendent. These directions will include the identification of all proportional formulas and exceptions. 3. outcome - A budget document will be developed that satisfies traditional budgeting and accounting requirements with a program planning and budgeting component which links the program and budget allocations. Funding of desegregation requirements will be a priority. 4. Timeframe - December - Prepare initial financial forecast for next and out years. - Issue directions for budget preparation. - Budget managers submit requests for 1994-95 school year. - Begin developing program budget document. January - Begin budget development February - Continue budget development. - Continue developing program budget document March - Revise financial forecast. - Revise program budget document April - Complete program budget document LRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 12 May-June - Revise budget as needed July - Adopt Budget August - Submit 1994-95 budget to Arkansas Department of Education G. Budget-Planning Document (Program Budget Document) The document will provide the means for monitoring program performance and expenditures throughout the fiscal year. 1. Key Players - The Superintendent will provide guidance for the development of the document. The Cabinet members will provide program information for their respective areas. The Controller will provide financial information for each program. The lead planning person will coordinate the document into the final product. 2. Description - The Desegregation Audit and Program Inventory will provide the information necessary to develop the initial budget document. Programs will be developed or modified in such a manner that the Program Budget Document (Attachment 5, p. 2) will be a necessary component of the submission. A Cabinet member will be assigned as the responsible primary leader for each identified program. A secondary leader will also be assigned. The primary leader is tasked with ensuring the program meets its objectives, coordinating the required activities or LRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 13 strategies, and the preparation and submission of regular reports. 3. outcome - A program budget document will be developed that will become the basis for monitoring and reporting, and will become a guide for interim decision-making. (See Attachment 5) 4. Timeframe - Development of the document will begin in December and be completed in conjunction with the completion of the tentative budget in April. H. Monitoring and Reporting 1. Key Players - The Board and Superintendent will be the recipients of the reporting for oversight and decisionmaking. The lead planning person will coordinate the process and prepare a composite report. The Manager for Resources and School Support will provide matching financial information by program. The Cabinet and Staff will prepare all reporting documents falling within their area of responsibility. 2. Description - The program budget document will be the basis for monitoring and reporting, and will establish the format and design. The document would merge both program performance and expenditure reporting on a quarterly basis. Programs with poor performance or expenditure problems could be addressed with corrective action during the year rather than after the year is completed. LRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 14 3. outcome - The result would be a quarterly composite progress report on identified programs within the district, supported with expenditure information. The quarterly report would be an extension of the program budget document. 4. Timeframe - The first report would be generated by the end of October for the period July, August, and September. Subsequent quarterly reports would be due by the end of January, April, and July. I. Program Evaluation Program evaluation will provide an assessment of performance for decision-making purposes. 1. Key Players - The Board and Superintendent are recipients of the evaluations, and will use the information to determine direction and resource allocation. The lead planning person will coordinate the program evaluation process. The Manager of Resources and School Support will provide supporting financial information. The Cabinet and staff will prepare all reporting documents falling within their area of responsibility. 2. Description - During the first year of the planning and budgeting process only, there will be two concurrent and parallel program evaluation components. A regular evaluation and a \"fast-track\" evaluation. A \"fasttrack\" evaluation does not have the details or LRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 15 dimension of a regular evaluation, since the evaluative process is conducted in a reduced time frame. After the first year, \"fast-track\" evaluations will be utilized as necessary. Each program will be evaluated through the district's regular program evaluation component. As programs are developed and implemented, they will contain program objectives and evaluation criteria. Special evaluations might be directed by the Superintendent. Programs may be identified for \"fasttrack\" evaluation if they have high impact on the goals and direction of the district. 3. Outcome - Program evaluation information will enable the district to make programmatic decisions in the areas of program modification, program development, program elimination and resource allocation which are the result of careful planning and thoughtful analysis. 4. Timeframe - The initial evaluation period will begin in August 1993 and continue until the initial decision point in the budgeting phase in January 1994. J. Broad-Based Feedback Broad-based feedback is designed to provide feedback to the various groups who participated in the community forum and district dialogues. Every effort will be made to include other interested groups, if needed. 1. Key Players - The Board and the Superintendent will provide direction for the broad-based feedback. The I,RSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING page 16 Director of Communications, with the assistance from the lead planning person, will develop a plan for disseminating information. 2. Description - Seven broad-based feedback sessions will be conducted to provide information relative to the planning and budgeting process to the community and our employees. The target populations will be the same as the broad-based input sessions conducted in October 1993 and November 1993. 3. Outcome - Positive community support in recognition of the thoughtfully planned budgeting process may be generated. 4. Timeframe - Broad-based feedback sessions will be conducted in March 1994. K. summary - A strategy to Address Shortfall of Funding One of the primary goals of the long-range planning and budget process is to instill in the minds of the patrons and others interested in the affairs of the District a new sense of fiscal respo~sibility, accountability and internal program evaluation by the District. Such tools as the program inventory, needs assessment strategies and quarterly reporting will serve to not only strengthen the process, as outlined in the monthly calendar of critical events, but to increase the community's awareness of the Desegregation Plan, the commitments it contains and the District's carefully thought-out process designed to live up to those LRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING page 17 commitments. With commitment comes the responsibility of providing funds and ensuring that the funding levels are sufficient to support those programs that are determined by the planning and evaluation process to be effective toward achieving the desired goals. Increased use and refinement of the District's new Position Control Inventory System software should yield valuable data for program evaluation and budget decision making. Internal monthly reporting will be structured to provide more historical data for additional analysis and on-going monitoring. Quarterly monitoring reports, by way of the Program Budget Document, will also be provided. This process, plus the program linkages will serve as the basis for future funding decisions by the Board and the administration. Once these steps and procedures become fully operational, the District will be able to identify those operations which can either be modified or eliminated, thereby serving to demonstrate the level of fiscal responsibility needed to garner community support for future requests for funding. Further, by achieving greater staffing efficiency, reducing over-use of materials and supplies (i.e., through proportional allocations, etc.) and by directing the District's resources toward those programs with demonstrated track records of success, the District will be able to reduce or, hopefully, eliminate its reliance on non-recurring revenue sources. Accordingly, the longrange planning and budget process will be the key component LRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING page 18 of the District's strategy to address anticipated funding shortfalls. The continuing Process - Planning and budgeting is a continuing process. As such, the needs assessment and program inventory for FY 1994-95 will begin in May 1994. The lead planning person will review the process and make recommendations for changes to the Superintendent, if necessary. The lead planning person will ensure that the planning process is implemented as designed and coordinate the activities. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Planning, Research and Evaluation Specialist Job Description Attachment 2 Organizational chart Attachment 3 Planning and Budget Cycle Attachment 4 Planning and Budget Calendar Attachment 5 Budget Format LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 July 14, 1993 Attachment 1 PLEASE POST The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications for the following position for the 1993-94 school year: FQSITION: Planning, Research and Evaluation Specialist Q!JALIFICATIONS: 1. A master's degree or higher in psychology, counseling or education. 2. Eligibility for an Arkansas teacher or administrator certificate. 3. At least five (5) years of successful public school or higher education experience as a teacher, counselor, psychologist, or administrator. Additional related experience may be substituted for public school experience. 4. Evidence of strong organizational and interpersonal skills. 5. Knowledge of planning concepts and techniques. 6. Demonstrates the conviction that all children can learn and will learn in the Little Rock School District. 7. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality desegregated education. NOTE: APPLICANTS SHOULD BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW. REPORTS TO: Director of Planning, Research and Evaluation JOB GOAL: To provide technical support in the area of strategic planning to the Director of Planning, Research and Evaluation so that he/she is able to provide the Superintendent and Board of Directors with pertinent evaluative data on all programs and services (both educational and supportive) being provided by the school district. BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: Provides technical support to the Director of Planning, Research and Evaluation in the following ways: 1. Coordinates and provides assistance and technical support for the districtwide planning process. 1anning, Research and Evaluation Specialist Attachment 1 age 2 3. 6. 7. a. 9. 10. 11. Assists in preparing and implementing the planning document. Assists with the collection of reports and other documents related to the planning process. Ensures that all requirements from the desegregation plans and court orders are integrated into the planning process. Keeps continually informed regarding research in educational testing and the development of useful information and improved tests for use in educational and supportive programs. Develops system-wide evaluation designs and develops schedules for implementing the evaluation designs. Administers and/or supervises the administration of group tests. Monitors, on an ongoing basis, the programs being evaluated by the Planning, Research and Evaluation Department. Assists with the supervision and scoring of tests and conducts statistical analysis of test results for all schools and areas of group testing conducted. Prepares informative reports and instructional materials for the guidance of counselors, teachers, and other professionals who use evaluation results and/or test data in performing their own duties. Provides leadership in the development of improved instruments and procedures for evaluating programs and services. 12. Designs and/or administers studies to identify community, fiscal, staff, and other factors which can account for variations in quality within the school system, and suggests ways to improve level of student achievement. 13. Assists with the implementation of data processing programs in the area of student testing and evaluation. 14. Serves as a resource person in planning and conducting inservice educational activities for the improvement of teaching practices in the areas of test construction, test administration, and test results evaluation. 15. Prepares various reports as designated by the Director of Planning, Research and Evaluation. 16. Assumes other duties as assigned by the Director of Planning, Research and Evaluation. 'ERMS OF EMPLOYMENT: Twelve month annual contract plus Educational Stipend, Car Allowance and Benefits Package. planning, Research and Evaluation Specialist page 3 ~LINE FOR RECEIPT OF APPLICATION: ~ WRITTEN LETTERS OF INQUIRY TO: oirector of Human Resources Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ~: Attachment 1 INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS. THEREFORE, BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR A POSITION DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT AN INTERVIEW WILL BE CONDUCTED. BOARD OF DIRECTORS Parwnt Coordinator Comm,i,icationl Plannlna Researdl \u0026amp; Evaluation - . s...,r .. EJom. 18Schoolo _ _ S...,r.,Elem. 14Sc:molo _ _ s...,r .. s.c. 13Schooll Principu Teachera 1. *lncrtive Schoolo (7) Principalo Teachera Principu Teachera New FuturH 0 Alhletica Altemaliw l.esning Responsibilily of Appropriate Assocwe Superinlmdmt **Revisions will be made in accordance with district procedures. Readire Lang-- Foreignur,g\"- Scienc,- Malhemalica Social SludiN Labor Relalio,. ~ - F.,. Ma 0 1natrudional Tedmology phyaical Education Drug Education Ea,tyChildhood 1. Tentative placement in recognition of LRSD Curriculum Audit, 12/21/90, p.102. ATTACHMENT 2 Little Rock School District Organizational Structure JULY 1993 HumanResourooa Vocalional -ralP,ogni,nol  ~~:: Ad..Ed.-n l..ibniry S.rvicaa Controller Facil~ioa S.MON Tranoportation FoodS.rvioe Proc:ursnenl Security/Rial\u0026lt; ~enl lrlonnationSorti:ft Attachment 3 Pl.ANNING /\\ND BUDGETING CYCLE --------------------------,,------ ---------------- l 9 9 3 l 9 9 4 l 9 9 5 /\\CT IV lTI ES July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar . Apr. May June July Aug . Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. - -- ----- ---------+--+--+---l--+--+---1 ..... -~.--+---+---l--+--+---1 ..... --+--+--l fJc~ds Ass~ss1ncnt Regins l===t===l===+===l==\u0026gt; -----------------1---t--- ---t----+---+---1---1-------,---+------1--- - ---+--- PrcHJrc\\m Inventory Degins t12y=I===!===\u0026gt; p===l=-==t~~=et==\u0026gt; . -- - - -----------l---+--+---l ..... --+--+--+---l--+---+---l ..... --+----1---+---1--+--+---l---+--+--+---l--+--+---1 ..... --+---l c\no,, l s/Cbjectives Development l===I==\u0026gt; l===!=== l===l0=\u0026gt; -- - --.. -------- --t---~---t---t-----t---+--+---1---t ---+--+---\u0026gt;----1---t----+--- 1--- ---+----t---t----+---+---+------+---+--- l1roqram Development Mn11 it or i11g and Reportinq (('r i o r quarterly reports) l'royro1m 1::vdluation ==-=l===t===p==-~ =\u0026gt; ==-1=-===1==4==,,!===l=== l==f=\u0026gt;   J===t==,== l===!a==,,!======l===t,==p==I=\u0026gt;     ATTACHMENT 4 PROPOSED PLANNING BUDGET CALENDAR 1993-94 JULY 1993 ACTIVITY Designate lead planning person Develop proposed budget calendar for budget year 1994-95 Begin Desegregation Program Inventory using desegregation audit as baseline Identify tentative list of various types of districtwide objectives and perceptual data to be collected for the needs assessment AUGUST 1993 ACTIVITY Establish final Budget Calendar for 1994-95 that will allow the Board to monitor progress of the planning and budgeting process Begin to develop monitoring and reporting procedures and issue instructions, as needed. Begin development of proportional allocation formulas Begin data collection Begin to identify programs for \"fast-track\" evaluation Complete Desegregation Program Inventory RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) Superintendent Superintendent and Cabinet Superintendent and Cabinet Superintendent and Cabinet RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) Superintendent Superintendent and Cabinet Superintendent and Cabinet Lead Planning Person Superintendent and Cabinet Superintendent and Cabinet PROPOSED BUDGET CALENDAR 1993-94 ATTACHMENT 4 - P. 2 SEPTEMBER 1993 ACTIVITY RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) conduct work session for analysis of collected data * Develop preliminary list of issues for needs assessment * Identify the need for program modification or development conduct Board work session * Review preliminary list of issues for needs assessment * Review Desegregation Program Inventory Report * Review and revise, if necessary, the mission statement. * Establish tentative written goals/objectives. * Establish written priorities. * Review and provide guidance related to proportional allocation formulas * Consider strategies for funding shortfall * Identify any additional programs for \"fast-track\" evaluation (End of first quarter reporting period.) Superintendent and Cabinet Board and Superintendent ATTACHMENT 4 - P. 3 PROPOSED BUDGET CALENDAR 1993-94 OCTOBER 1993 ACTIVITY Begin necessary program modification or development Begin to generate broad-based input for budget process Issue first quarter FY 1993-94 cycle monitoring and evaluation report (Program Budget Document) NOVEMBER 1993 ACTIVITY complete the gathering of broad-based input for budget process complete identification of proportional allocation formulas and exceptions complete Needs Assessment listing using information gathered from broad-based input sessions. Finalize program objectives and evaluation criteria for each desegregation program. complete inventory list of non-desegregation programs Status report to Board on Budget Process RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) Cabinet and Program Manager Superintendent and Director of Communications Controller Lead Planning Person RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) Superintendent and Director of Communications Superintendent Superintendent and Cabinet Superintendent and Cabinet Superintendent and Cabinet Superintendent and Lead Planning Person ATTACHMENT 4 - P. 4 PROPOSED BUDGET CALENDAR 1993-94 DECEMBER 1993 ACTIVITY prepare initial financial forecast for next and out years rssue directions for budget preparation Budget managers submit request for 1994-95 school year Begin developing program budget document (End of second quarter reporting period.) JANUARY 1994 ACTIVITY Complete fast-track evaluations Begin Budget Development complete modifications or program development for submission to Superintendent and Cabinet Submit program modifications and development to Board Issue second quarter FY 1993-94 cycle monitoring and evaluation report (Program Budget Document) RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) Controller Superintendent Manager Resources and School Support Controller Manager Resources and School Support Controller Controller RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) Lead Planning Person Cabinet Manager of Resources and School Support Controller Program Managers in Curriculum, Desegregation, and Resources and School Support Superintendent Controller and Lead Planning Person ATTACHMENT 4 - P. 5 PROPOSED BUDGET CALENDAR 1993-94 FEBRUARY 1994 ACTIVITY continue Budget Development continue developing the program budget document MARCH 1994 ACTIVITY Revise financial forecast Revise the program budget document Provide feedback to input participants (End of third quarter reporting period.) RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) Controller Controller RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) Controller Controller Superintendent and Director of Communications APRIL 1994 PROPOSED BUDGET CALENDAR 1993-94 ATTACHMENT 4 - P. 6 ACTIVITY RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) complete program budget document submit proposed budget to Board conduct Board work session on budget Revise budget as needed certified personnel reduction deadline Issue third quarter FY 1993-94 cycle monitoring and evaluation report (Program Budget Document) MAY 1994 ACTIVITY Revise budget as needed Board work session on budget, if needed Approval of tentative budget Classified personnel reduction deadline Reassess planning organization for FY 1994-95 cycle Begin FY 1994-95 cycle needs assessment Begin program inventory for FY 1994-95 Controller Superintendent Superintendent and Board Superintendent and Cabinet Superintendent Controller and Lead Planning Person RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) Superintendent and Cabinet Superintendent and Cabinet Board and Superintendent Superintendent Superintendent and Cabinet Lead planning person Lead planning person ATTACHMENT 4 - P. 7 PROPOSED BUDGET CALENDAR 1993-94 JUNE 1994 ACTIVITY Revise budget as needed continue FY 1994-95 cycle needs assessment continue FY 1994-95 cycle program inventory (End fourth quarter reporting period.) JULY 1994 ACTIVITY Adopt Budget Conduct Board work session on planning and budgeting to include: * defining tentative goals * defining guidelines on broad-based input * designing tentative planning and budget development calendar * defining any \"fast-track\" evaluations Continue FY 1994-95 cycle needs assessment Continue FY 1994-95 cycle program inventory Issue fourth quarter FY 1993-94 cycle monitoring and evaluation report RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) Superintendent and Cabinet Lead planning person Lead planning person RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) Board Board and Superintendent Lead planning person Lead planning person Controller and Lead Planning Person AUGUST 1994 PROPOSED BUDGET CALENDAR 1993-94 ATTACHMENT 4 - P. 8 ACTIVITY RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) submit 1994-95 budget to Arkansas Department of Education Establish final Budget Calendar for FY 1994-95 cycle continue FY 1994-95 cycle needs assessment complete FY 1994-95 cycle program inventory (Program Budget Document) Superintendent Superintendent Lead planning person Lead planning person I\\TT I\\CI-IMHH 5 LRSD FY 93-94 TENTATIVE PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Program Seq II : Page: Revision Date: Program Name: Program Code: Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Program Description: District Goal Support: Program Objective: II Pl\"n References: J FY Program Budget: 1 at Otr E\u0026gt;cpend: 3rd Qt, Expend: YTO Expenditures: 2nd Otr Expend: 4th Otr Expend: LRSD FY 93-94 TENTATIVE PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Page: 2 Program Seq II : Revialo n Dale: Program Nome: Program Code: Primary leader: Secondary LI!  der: Program Objective: Plan Reference Ob)ectivea S!Tateglc  Beginning Completion Responsibility Evaluation Criteria Page Number Date Date -\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_346","title":"''Program Planning and Budgeting''","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":["1993-07-30"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["''Program Planning and Budgeting''"],"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/346"],"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\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 I COURT SUBMISSION JULY 30, 1993 RECEIVED JUL 3 0 1993 Office of Desegregation Monilonng LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING July 30, 1993 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING GENERAL CONCEPT A comprehensive program planning and budgeting process will improve the district's ability to allocate its revenue rationally and, therefore, have maximum impact on achieving the goals of the district. By linking program objectives and program expenditures we can see more clearly if our money is being spent appropriately. During the planning and budgeting process, we will do the following: 1. Determine the needs of the district, particularly legal obligations under the desegregation and settlement plans. 2. Define goals and objectives. 3. Define programs to achieve those objectives. particularly those reguired by the desegregation plans. 4. Measure performance and expenditures. 5. Prepare information for corrective decision-making. A. Organizational structure for Planning and Budgeting Process 1. Key Players - The Superintendent shall lead the planning and budgeting process with direct support from his/her cabinet. The Board is the ultimate decision- maker for the planning and budgeting process. 2. Description - The planning and budgeting process shall be under the leadership of the Superintendent withLRSD - Page 2 PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING direct support from the Superintendent's Cabinet. The planning and budgeting process will be coordinated by the Director of Planning, Research and Evaluation (PRE) and the Manager of Resources and School Support who both serve on the Superintendent's Cabinet. The Board will provide guidance for developing a planning and budgeting calendar. The calendar will allow the Board to continuously monitor progress of the planning and budgeting process. The Director of Planning, Research and Evaluation will be the lead planning person. He/She will ensure that the planning process is conducted according to established timeframes, provide technical assistance. coordinate the planning process, collect appropriate reports, coordinate the preparation of related documents and advise the Superintendent and Board relative to the planning process. In addition, the lead planning person will be responsible for ensuring all requirements from the desegregation plans and court orders are integrated into the planning process. The Director of PRE will be assisted by a Planning, Research and Evaluation Specialist whose major responsibility will be district-wide planning. The PRE Specialist will be housed in the PRE office. The job description for the PRE Specialist details the necessary qualifications and job responsibilities (See Attachment 1).LRSD - Page 3 PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING 3. Outcome - An organizational chart that displays the current lines of authority and responsibility is attached (Attachment 2), as well as the proposed Planning and Budget Development Calendar (Attachment 4). 4. Timeframe - The lead planning person will be named in July 1993. The Planning and Budget Development Calendar will be finalized in August 1993. The organizational structure will be reviewed in May 1994 to ensure that the July 1993 configuration is the most effective and efficient arrangement. Necessary revisions and adjustments will be made by the district at that time. B. Needs Assessment A needs assessment is a process of comparing the current situation with the desired conditions. 1. Key Players - The Superintendent will provide leadership and direction for the needs assessment process. The lead planning person will coordinate the process. The Superintendent's Cabinet will be responsible for directing the staff in the collection of assessment information. The Superintendent and the Cabinet will be the decision-makers for identifying the needs. 2. Description - Utilizing a combination of district-wide perceptual, empirical and objective instruments, dataLRSD - Page 4 PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING will be collected and analyzed to determine the needs of the students, parents, teachers, and administrators. Perceptual information will be collected through broadbased input sessions such as community forums and district dialogue sessions. Three community forums will be conducted. One forum each for area schools, magnet schools and incentive schools will be scheduled. Every effort will be made to strategically locate the sessions to accommodate maximum participation. Additional sessions may be scheduled with other focus groups, when necessary. One district dialogue will be conducted with principals, teachers, classified staff, and central office administrators. An administrative work session will be conducted to review and analyze various districtwide reports and objective data. The following data will be reviewed: Arkansas Minimum Performance Test Results Stanford Achievement Test Results Desegregation Monitoring Reports Desegregation Plan Audit LRSD Desegregation Plans and Court Orders Curriculum Audit School Climate/Human Relations Survey ResultsLRSD - Page 5 PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Facilities Study Proportional Allocation Formulas Program Inventory A comparison between identified needs and the program inventory will be conducted to determine if there are programmatic gaps and areas of need. 3. Outcome The outcome of the administrative work sessions, community forums and district dialogue sessions will be a list of needs in the curriculum, desegregation, and support areas that will be rank ordered based on supporting data. The Superintendent and Cabinet will begin to identify programs in need of \"fast-track\" evaluations. 4. Timeframe - The needs assessment for the 1994-95 budget process begins in August 1993 with data collection. An C. initial list will be developed in September 1993. The final list will be developed in November 1993 after the community forums and district dialogues are completed. Progreun Inventory During the needs assessment period which starts in August 1993 for the 1994-95 budget year, current desegregation programs will be identified. 1. Key Players - The Superintendent will provide overall direction, and the Board will review the findings. The lead planning person will coordinate the collection of basic data and prepare the data into appropriateLRSD - Page 6 PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING documents for use in goal setting and program modification and/or development. The Cabinet and staff 2. 3. 4. will collect the necessary data. Description - All current programs and services will be identified. Using the desegregation Audit, desegregation programs will be identified and defined first. Non-desegregation programs will be identified, defined and merged with the list of desegregation programs to formulate a composite list of all programs. The desegregation plan and court orders will be reviewed to ensure all obligations related to compliance are operative. Primary and secondary responsible persons will be identified for each program or service. Outcome - A Program Inventory Report will be generated and used during the goals and objectives development process, program modification and/or development process, and the budgeting process. Timeframe - The program inventory will be conducted during the needs assessment period. All desegregation programs will be identified in August 1993. The non-desegregation programs should be identified by the completion of the needs assessment period in November 1993.LRSD - Page 7 PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING D. Planning and Budget Goals The goal setting process helps guide all actions of the administration. The process defines the expected outcomes for a specified period of time. 1. Key Players - The Board and Superintendent will provide leadership for identifying the mission and goals of the district. 'The Cabinet will provide assistance and support by defining objectives for programs which will satisfy the accepted goals. The goal setting process 2. will be coordinated by the lead planning person. Description - The Board will conduct a work session. After reviewing the preliminary list of issues for the needs assessment and the Program Inventory Report, the Board will: * Review and revise, if necessary, the mission statement. * Establish tentative written goals/objectives. The goals and objectives will define what the district expects to realistically accomplish for the year. Goals and objectives that conflict with the desegregation plan will not be adopted. * Review and provide guidance related to proportional allocation formulas (materials and supplies. staffing, etc.). * Establish written priorities. These priorities will guide staff in program modification and programLRSD - Page 8 PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING development, as well as to help allocate funding and resources during the budgeting process. * Identify any additional programs for \"fast-track\" evaluation. * Consider strategies for funding shortfalls. The Cabinet will work to ensure that program goals and evaluation criteria are linked to the established goals. 3. Outcome - At the conclusion of the goal setting session(s), the Board will publish: * a written mission statement * written goals * a list of priorities The staff will revise program objectives and evaluation criteria as needed for each program, and these will be incorporated into the Program Budget Document. 4. Timeframe - Although the goal setting process is dependent on the needs assessment and program inventory, it will operate concurrently with them. The E. work session will be conducted in September 1993. Program objectives and evaluation criteria will be established by November 1993. A status report will also be provided to the Board in November 1993. Prograun Development If a service or program does not exist to support needs addressed by the defined goals, it may be necessary to develop a program or modify an existing program.LRSD - Page 9 PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING 1. Key Players - The Superintendent will provide leadership and guidance to ensure that goals are achieved by offering the best possible programs. The Cabinet will provide direction to staff in developing, modifying, and implementing effective and efficient programs. The lead planning person will monitor and advise the Superintendent throughout the program modification and development phase. 2. Description - Programs may need to be developed to address newly identified needs or fill gaps. Current programs may have to be modified to successfully meet objectives. Some programs may have to be eliminated. The District will establish a framework for program development. The framework will include: * Overview/Program Description * Program Goals/Objectives * Identified Needs * Target Population * Organizational Management/Personnel * Staff Development * Parental Involvement, if any * Physical Facilities, if any * Identification of possible funding sources * Proposed Budget (start-up costs/recurring costs) Impact on Desegregation Plan * Evaluation Criteria * Program Budget Document (See Attachment 5, p. 2)LRSD - Page 10 PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Program development and modification will be conducted by staff with the appropriate cabinet level official providing oversight to ensure that all tasks are completed in a timely manner. The Superintendent and the Cabinet will review all program development and modification to ensure that commitments in the desegregation plan are not hindered by such program development or modification. 3. Outcome - Existing programs and programs that are developed to satisfy a need will include all of the elements for budget development and can be directly placed into the Program Budget Document. 4. Timeframe - The program development process will begin in October 1993, if necessary, and conclude in January 1994. F. Budget Priorities - Budgeting 1. Key Players - The Board is the ultimate decision-making authority on the budget. However, the Superintendent will ensure that a balanced budget is developed that meets the needs and goals of the school district. The Manager for Resources and School Support will coordinate the budget preparation process and the lead planning person will ensure that the planning and budgeting components are linked appropriately. Budget managers will provide input relative to his/her area ofLRSD - Page 11 PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING responsibility. The Controller will produce the budget 2. 3. 4. information. Description - Funds, personnel and facilities will be allocated based on the goals and objectives of the district. Directions for budget preparation will be issued by the Superintendent. These directions will include the identification of all proportional formulas and exceptions. Outcome - A budget document will be developed that satisfies traditional budgeting and accounting requirements with a program planning and budgeting component which links the program and budget allocations. Funding of desegregation requirements will be a priority. Timefreune December - Prepare initial financial forecast for next and out years. - Issue directions for budget preparation. - Budget managers submit requests for 1994-95 school year. - Begin developing program budget document. January - Begin budget development February - Continue budget development. - Continue developing program budget document March - Revise financial forecast. - Revise program budget document April - Complete program budget documentLRSD - Page 12 PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING May-June - Revise budget as needed G. July August - Adopt Budget - Submit 1994-95 budget to Arkansas Department of Education Budget-Planning Document (Program Budget Document) The document will provide the means for monitoring program performance and expenditures throughout the fiscal year. 1. Key Players - The Superintendent will provide guidance for the development of the document. The Cabinet members will provide program information for their respective areas. The Controller will provide financial information for each program. The lead planning person will coordinate the document into the final product. 2. Description - The Desegregation Audit and Program Inventory will provide the information necessary to develop the initial budget document. Programs will be developed or modified in such a manner that the Program Budget Document (Attachment 5, p. 2) will be a necessary component of the submission. A Cabinet member will be assigned as the responsible primary leader for each identified program. A secondary leader will also be assigned. The primary leader is tasked with ensuring the program meets its objectives, coordinating the required activities or IPROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING LRSD - Page 13 strategies, and the preparation and submission of regular reports. 3. Outcome - A program budget document will be developed that will become the basis for monitoring and reporting, and will become a guide for interim decision-making. (See Attachment 5) 4. Timeframe - Development of the document will begin in December and be completed in conjunction with the completion of the tentative budget in April. H. Monitoring and Reporting 1. Key Players - The Board and Superintendent will be the recipients of the reporting for oversight and decision- making. The lead planning person will coordinate the process and prepare a composite report. The Manager for Resources and School Support will provide matching financial information by program. The Cabinet and Staff will prepare all reporting documents falling within their area of responsibility. 2. Description - The program budget document will be the basis for monitoring and reporting, and will establish the format and design. The document would merge both program performance and expenditure reporting on a quarterly basis. Programs with poor performance or expenditure problems could be addressed with corrective action during the year rather than after the year is completed.LRSD - Page 14 PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING 3. Outcome - The result would be a quarterly composite progress report on identified programs within the district, supported with expenditure information. The quarterly report would be an extension of the program 4. budget document. Timeframe - The first report would be generated by the end of October for the period July, August, and September. Subsequent quarterly reports would be due by the end of January, April, and July. I. Program Evaluation Program evaluation will provide an assessment of performance for decision-making purposes. 1. Key Players - The Board and Superintendent are recipients of the evaluations, and will use the information to determine direction and resource allocation. The lead planning person will coordinate the program evaluation process. The Manager of Resources and School Support will provide supporting financial information. The Cabinet and staff will 2. prepare all reporting documents falling within their area of responsibility. Description - During the first year of the planning and budgeting process only, there will be two concurrent and parallel program evaluation components, evaluation and a \"fast-track\" evaluation. A regular II fast- A track\" evaluation does not have the details orLRSD - Page 15 PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING dimension of a regular evaluation, since the evaluative process is conducted in a reduced time frame. After the first year, \"fast-track\" evaluations will be utilized as necessary. Each program will be evaluated through the district's regular program evaluation component. As 3. 4. J. programs are developed and implemented, they will contain program objectives and evaluation criteria. Special evaluations might be directed by the Superintendent. Programs may be identified for \"fast- track\" evaluation if they have high impact on the goals and direction of the district. Outcome - Program evaluation information will enable the district to make programmatic decisions in the areas of program modification, program development. program elimination and resource allocation which are the result of careful planning and thoughtful analysis. Timeframe - The initial evaluation period will begin in August 1993 and continue until the initial decision point in the budgeting phase in January 1994. Broad-Based Feedback Broad-based feedback is designed to provide feedback to the various groups who participated in the community forum and district dialogues. Every effort will be made to include other interested groups, if needed. 1. Key Players - The Board and the Superintendent will provide direction for the broad-based feedback. TheLRSD - Page 16 PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Director of Communications, with the assistance from the lead planning person, will develop a plan for disseminating information. 2. Description - Seven broad-based feedback sessions will be conducted to provide information relative to the planning and budgeting process to the community and our employees. The target populations will be the same as the broad-based input sessions conducted in October 1993 and November 1993. 3. Outcome - Positive community support in recognition of the thoughtfully planned budgeting process may be generated. 4. Timeframe - Broad-based feedback sessions will be conducted in March 1994. K. Summary - A Strategy to Address shortfall of Funding One of the primary goals of the long-range planning and budget process is to instill in the minds of the patrons and others interested in the affairs of the District a new sense of fiscal responsibility, accountability and internal program evaluation by the District. Such tools as the program inventory, needs assessment strategies and quarterly reporting will serve to not only strengthen the process, as outlined in the monthly calendar of critical events, but to increase the community's awareness of the Desegregation Plan, the commitments it contains and the District's carefully thought-out process designed to live up to thoseLRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 17 commitments. with commitment comes the responsibility of providing funds and ensuring that the funding levels are sufficient to support those programs that are determined by the planning and evaluation process to be effective toward achieving the desired goals. Increased use and refinement of the District's new Position Control Inventory System software should yield valuable data for program evaluation and budget decision making. Internal monthly reporting will be structured to provide more historical data for additional analysis and on-going monitoring. Quarterly monitoring reports, by way of the Program Budget Document, will also be provided. serve as This process, plus the program linkages will the basis for future funding decisions by the Board and the administration. Once these steps and procedures become fully operational, the District will be able to identify those operations which can either be modified or eliminated, thereby serving to demonstrate the level of fiscal responsibility needed to garner community support for future requests for funding. Further, by achieving greater staffing efficiency, reducing over-use of materials and supplies (i.e., through proportional allocations, etc.) and by directing the District's resources toward those programs with demonstrated track records of success, the District will be able to reduce or, hopefully, eliminate its reliance on non-recurring revenue sources. Accordingly, the long- range planning and budget process will be the key componentLRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 18 of the District's strategy to address anticipated funding shortfalls. The Continuing Process - Planning and budgeting is a continuing process. As such, the needs assessment and program inventory for FY 1994-95 will begin in May 1994. The lead planning person will review the process and make recommendations for changes to the Superintendent, if necessary. The lead planning person will ensure that the planning process is implemented as designed and coordinate the activities.ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Planning, Research and Evaluation Specialist Job Description Attachment 2 Organizational chart Attachment 3 Attachment 4 Planning and Budget Cycle Planning and Budget Calendar Attachment 5 Budget FoirmatAttachment 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 please post July 14, 1993 PLEASE POST The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications for the following position for the 1993-94 school year: POSITION: Planning, Research and Evaluation Specialist qualifications\n1. A master's degree or higher in psychology, counseling education. or 2. Eligibility for an Arkansas teacher or administrator certificate. 3. At least five (5) years of successful public school or higher 4. 5. 6. 7. NOTE: counselor, psychologist. education experience as a teacher, psychologist, or Additional related experience may be substituted administrator. for public school experience. Evidence of strong organizational and interpersonal skills. Knowledge of planning concepts and techniques. Demonstrates the conviction that all children can learn and will learn in the Little Rock School District. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality desegregated education. APPLICANTS SHOULD BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW. reports TO: Director of Planning, Research and Evaluation JOB GOAL: To provide technical support in the area of strategic planning to the Director of Planning, Research and Evaluation so that he/she is able to provide the Superintendent and Board of Directors with pertinent evaluative data on all programs and services (both educational and supportive) being provided by the school district. BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: Provides technical support to the Director of Planning, Research and Evaluation in the following ways: 1. Coordinates and provides assistance and technical support for the districtwide planning process.planning. Research and Evaluation Specialist page 2 Attachment 1 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Assists in preparing and implementing the planning document. Assists with the collection of reports and other documents related to the planning process. Ensures that all requirements from the desegregation plans and court orders are integrated into the planning process. Keeps continually informed regarding research in educational testing and the development of useful information and improved tests for use in educational and supportive programs. Develops system-wide evaluation designs and develops schedules for implementing the evaluation designs. Administers and/or supervises the administration of group tests. Monitors, on an ongoing basis, the programs being evaluated by the Planning, Research and Evaluation Department. Assists with the supervision and scoring of tests and conducts statistical analysis of test results for all schools and areas of group testing conducted. Prepares informative reports and instructional materials for the guidance of counselors, teachers, and other professionals who use evaluation results and/or test data in performing their own duties. Provides leadership in the development of improved instruments and procedures for evaluating programs and services. Designs and/or administers studies to identify community, fiscal, staff, and other factors which can account for variations in quality within the school system, and suggests ways to improve level of student achievement. Assists with the implementation of data processing programs in the area of student testing and evaluation. Serves as a resource person in planning and conducting inservice educational activities for the improvement of teaching practices in the areas of test construction, test administration, and test results evaluation. Prepares various reports as designated by the Director of Planning, Research and Evaluation. Assumes other duties as assigned by the Director of Planning, Research and Evaluation. TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT: Twelve month annual contract plus Educational Stipend, Car Allowance and Benefits Package.planning. Research and Evaluation Specialist page 3 Attachment 1 gBADLINE FOR RECEIPT OF APPLICATION* pBNP WRITTEN LETTERS OF INQUIRY TO- Director of Human Resources Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 IIOTE: INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS. ___ THEREFORE, BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL applies for a position does not NECESSARILY MEAN THAT AN INTERVIEW WILL BE CONDUCTED.ATTACHMENT 2 I I Communicationa Planning Rasaarchl i Equation | I Assoc. Sqpl. Desagretabon I Assoc. Stet. School OperaL I \"Student Aaaignment Hearing Officar I _ Daaegregtfion Fadlitalor Volunleera in Public Sd^b ] I 1 Before- A After- SchoofCARE - Parent RecruHment Crwrdinalor ] ) Parent Coordinator Aaai. Supt., Elem. 16 Schoola . Sipt., Elem. 14 Schoola PrindpEela Teaehera 1. *lncentive Schoola (7) Principe Teachera BOARD OF DIRECTORS Little Rock School District Organizational Structure JULY 1993 Interim Superintendent Reading Aaat. Supt., SSae c. 13Scho^ - Language ArW J Principato 1 Teadwra New Futurea *Athletica Alternative Leamirig 1 *RespoDsibiUty of Appropriate Associate Superinteadail Revisions will be made in accordance with district procedures. 1. I 1 Labor RaMiona Human Ftesoums Foreign Language Sdanoe Mathemalica Social Sludiea I 1 Assoc. SL0. CurricUum I Rne Aria Vocadiortal Manager Resourees and \u0026amp;hool Support ControNer I *lnatnxhor^ Technology *Phyaical Education Drug Education - Early Childhood  Staff Development Tentative placement in recognition of LRSD Curriculum Audit, 12/21/90, p.l02. - Federal Programed x!ti EaceptiorMrf Children Adu* Education 1 FadMiea Servioee 1 Procuramanl Library Servioea Tranaportalion FoodSarvioea 1 4 Security/Riok Manag^enl 1 Mormaiien Sarvicea1 PLANNING AND BUDGETING CYCLE Attachment 3 I -- I ACTIVITIES July Aug. 19 9 3 Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May 3 9 9 4 June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. 19 9 5 Apr. May June July Aug. I Needs Assessment Begins Program Inventory Degins May= Goa 1s/Object ives Development Program Development i Budgeting Budget Document Monitoring and Reporting '(prior qnaiterly reports) Progr-jm EvaluationATTACHMENT 4 PROPOSED PLANNING BUDGET CALENDAR 1993-94 JULY 1993 ACTIVITY RESPONSIBLE PERSONfS) Designate lead planning person Superintendent Develop proposed budget calendar for budget year 1994-95 Superintendent and Cabinet Begin Desegregation Program Inventory using desegregation audit as baseline Superintendent and Cabinet Identify tentative list of various types of districtwide objectives and perceptual data to be collected for the needs assessment Superintendent and Cabinet AUGUST 1993 ACTIVITY RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) Establish final Budget Calendar for 1994-95 that will allow the Board to monitor progress of the planning and budgeting process Superintendent Begin to develop monitoring and reporting procedures and issue instructions, as needed. Superintendent and Cabinet Begin development of proportional allocation formulas Superintendent and Cabinet Begin data collection Lead Planning Person Begin to identify programs for \"fast-track\" evaluation Complete Desegregation Program Inventory Superintendent and Cabinet Superintendent and CabinetATTACHMENT 4 P. 2 PROPOSED BUDGET CALENDAR 1993-94 SEPTEMBER 1993 ACTIVITY RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) Conduct work session for analysis of collected data Superintendent and Cabinet * Develop preliminary list of issues for needs assessment * Identify the need for program modification or development Conduct Board work session Board and Superintendent * Review preliminary list of issues for needs assessment * Review Desegregation Program Inventory Report * Review and revise, if necessary, the mission statement. * Establish tentative written goals/obj ectives. * Establish written priorities. * Review and provide guidance related to proportional allocation formulas * Consider strategies for funding shortfall * Identify any additional programs for \"fast-track\" evaluation (End of first quarter reporting period.)ATTACHMENT 4 P. 3 PROPOSED BUDGET CALENDAR 1993-94 OCTOBER 1993 ACTIVITY RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) Begin necessary program modification or development Cabinet and Program Manager Begin to generate broad-based input for budget process Superintendent and Director of Communications Issue first quarter FY 1993-94 cycle monitoring and evaluation report (Program Budget Document) Controller Lead Planning Person NOVEMBER 1993 ACTIVITY RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) Complete the gathering of broad-based input for budget process Superintendent and Director of Communications Complete identification of proportional allocation formulas and exceptions Superintendent Complete Needs Assessment listing using infoirmation gathered from broad-based input sessions. Superintendent and Cabinet Finalize program objectives and evaluation criteria for each desegregation program. Superintendent and Cabinet Complete inventory list of non-desegregation programs Superintendent and Cabinet Status report to Board on Budget Process Superintendent and Lead Planning PersonATTACHMENT 4 P. 4 PROPOSED BUDGET CALENDAR 1993-94 DECEMBER 1993 ACTIVITY RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) Prepare initial financial forecast for next and out years Controller Issue directions for budget preparation Superintendent Manager Resources and School Support Controller Budget managers submit request for 1994-95 school year Manager Resources and School Support Controller Begin developing program budget document Controller (End of second quarter reporting period.) JANUARY 1994 ACTIVITY RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) Complete fast-track evaluations Lead Planning Person Cabinet Begin Budget Development Manager of Resources and School Support Controller Complete modifications or program development for submission to Superintendent and Cabinet Program Managers in Curriculum, Desegregation, and Resources and School Support Submit program modifications and development to Board Superintendent Issue second quarter FY 1993-94 cycle monitoring and evaluation report (Program Budget Document) Controller and Lead Planning PersonATTACHMENT 4 P. 5 FEBRUARY 1994 PROPOSED BUDGET CALENDAR 1993-94 ACTIVITY RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) Continue Budget Development Controller Continue developing the program budget document Controller MARCH 1994 ACTIVITY RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) Revise financial forecast Controller Revise the program budget document Controller Provide feedback to input participants Superintendent and Director of Communications (End of third quarter reporting period.)ATTACHMENT 4 P. 6 APRIL 1994 ACTIVITY PROPOSED BUDGET CALENDAR 1993-94 RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) Complete program budget document Controller Submit proposed budget to Board Superintendent Conduct Board work session on budget Superintendent and Board Revise budget as needed Superintendent and Cabinet Certified personnel reduction deadline Superintendent Issue third guarter FY 1993-94 cycle monitoring and evaluation report (Program Budget Document) Controller and Lead Planning Person MAY 1994 ACTIVITY Revise budget as needed RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) Superintendent and Cabinet Board work session on budget, if needed Superintendent and Cabinet Approval of tentative budget Board and Superintendent Classified personnel reduction deadline Superintendent Reassess planning organization for FY 1994-95 cycle Superintendent and Cabinet Begin FY 1994-95 cycle needs assessment Lead planning person Begin program inventory for FY 1994-95 Lead planning personATTACHMENT 4 P. 7 PROPOSED BUDGET CALENDAR 1993-94 JUNE 1994 ACTIVITY RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) Revise budget as needed Superintendent and Cabinet Continue FY 1994-95 cycle needs assessment Lead planning person Continue FY 1994-95 cycle program inventory Lead planning person (End fourth quarter reporting period.) JULY 1994 ACTIVITY RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) Adopt Budget Board Conduct Board work session on planning and budgeting to include: Board and Superintendent * defining tentative goals A A A defining guidelines on broad-based input designing tentative planning and budget development calendar defining any \"fast-track\" evaluations Continue FY 1994-95 cycle needs assessment Lead planning person Continue FY 1994-95 cycle program inventory Lead planning person Issue fourth quarter FY 1993-94 cycle monitoring and evaluation report Controller and Lead Planning PersonATTACHMENT 4 P. 8 PROPOSED BUDGET CALENDAR 1993-94 AUGUST 1994 ACTIVITY RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) Submit 1994-95 budget to Arkansas Department of Education Superintendent Establish final Budget Calendar for FY 1994-95 cycle Superintendent Continue FY 1994-95 cycle needs assessment Lead planning person Complete FY 1994-95 cycle program inventory (Program Budget Document) Lead planning personProgram Seq H: Program Name\nProgram Code\nProgram Description: District Goal Support: Program Ob|eclive\nPlfln References: FY Program Budget: YTD Expenditures: ATTACHMENT 5 LRSD FY 93-94 TENTATIVE PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Primary Leader Secondary Leader Page: 1 Revision Data\n] l6t Qlr Expend: 2nd Qtr Expend: 3rd Qtr Expend: 4th Qtr Expend:ATTACHMENT 5 p.2 Program Seq H: Program Nome\nProgram Code\nProgram Ob|eclive\nPlan Reference Page Number Objectives LRSD FY 93-94 TENTATIVE PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Primary Leaden Secondary Leader\nPage\n2 Revision Date\nStrategics Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibi 1ity Evaluation Criteria 1J LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 HI r I\" COURT SUBMISSION JULY 30, 1993 I I I iLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING July 30, 1993 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING GENERAL CONCEPT A comprehensive program planning and budgeting process will improve the district's ability to allocate its revenue rationally and, therefore, have maximum impact on achieving the goals of the district. By linking program objectives and program expenditures we can see more clearly if our money is being spent appropriately During the planning and budgeting process, we will do the following: 1. Determine the needs of the district, particularly legal obligations under the desegregation and settlement plans. 2 . Define goals and objectives. 3. Define programs to achieve those objectives, particularly those required by the desegregation plans. 4. Measure performance and expenditures. 5. Prepare information for corrective decision-making. A. Organizational Structure for Planning and Budgeting Process 1. Key Players - The Superintendent shall lead the planning and budgeting process with direct support from his/her cabinet. The Board is the ultimate decision- maker for the planning and budgeting process. 2. Description - The planning and budgeting process shall be under the leadership of the Superintendent withLRSD - Page 2 PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING direct support from the Superintendent's Cabinet. The planning and budgeting process will be coordinated by the Director of Planning, Research and Evaluation (PRE) and the Manager of Resources and School Support who both serve on the Superintendent's Cabinet. The Board will provide guidance for developing a planning and budgeting calendar. The calendar will allow the Board to continuously monitor progress of the planning and budgeting process. The Director of Planning, Research and Evaluation will be the lead planning person. He/She will ensure that the planning process is conducted according to established timeframes, provide technical assistance. coordinate the planning process, collect appropriate reports, coordinate the preparation of related documents and advise the Superintendent and Board relative to the planning process. In addition, the lead planning person will be responsible for ensuring all requirements from the desegregation plans and court orders are integrated into the planning process. The Director of PRE will be assisted by a Planning, Research and Evaluation Specialist whose major responsibility will be district-wide planning. The PRE Specialist will be housed in the PRE office. The job description for the PRE Specialist details the necessary qualifications and job responsibilities (See Attachment 1).LRSD - Page 3 PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING 3. Outcome - An organizational chart that displays the current lines of authority and responsibility is attached (Attachment 2), as well as the proposed Planning and Budget Development Calendar (Attachment 4). 4. Timeframe - The lead planning person will be named in July 1993. The Planning and Budget Development Calendar will be finalized in August 1993. The organizational structure will be reviewed in May 1994 to ensure that the July 1993 configuration is the most effective and efficient arrangement. Necessary revisions and adjustments will be made by the district at that time. B. Needs Assessment A needs assessment is a process of comparing the current situation with the desired conditions. 1. Key Players - The Superintendent will provide leadership and direction for the needs assessment process. The lead planning person will coordinate the process. The Superintendent's Cabinet will be responsible for directing the staff in the collection of assessment information. The Superintendent and the Cabinet will be the decision-makers for identifying the needs. 2. Description - Utilizing a combination of district-wide perceptual, empirical and objective instruments, dataLRSD - Page 4 PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING will be collected and analyzed to determine the needs of the students, parents, teachers, and administrators. Perceptual infoirmation will be collected through broadbased input sessions such as community forums and district dialogue sessions. Three community forums will be conducted. One forum each for area schools, magnet schools and incentive schools will be scheduled. Every effort will be made to strategically locate the sessions to accommodate maximum participation. Additional sessions may be scheduled with other focus groups, when necessary. One district dialogue will be conducted with principals, teachers, classified staff, and central office administrators. An administrative work session will be conducted to review and analyze various districtwide reports and objective data. The following data will be reviewed: Arkansas Minimum Performance Test Results Stanford Achievement Test Results Desegregation Monitoring Reports Desegregation Plan Audit LRSD Desegregation Plans and Court Orders Curriculum Audit School Climate/Human Relations Survey ResultsLRSD - Page 5 PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Facilities Study Proportional Allocation Formulas Program Inventory A comparison between identified needs and the program inventory will be conducted to determine if there are programmatic gaps and areas of need. 3. Outcome - The outcome of the administrative work sessions, community forums and district dialogue sessions will be a list of needs in the curriculum, desegregation, and support areas that will be rank ordered based on supporting data. The Superintendent and Cabinet will begin to identify programs in need of \"fast-track\" evaluations. 4. Timeframe - The needs assessment for the 1994-95 budget process begins in August 1993 with data collection. An C. initial list will be developed in September 1993. The final list will be developed in November 1993 after the community forums and district dialogues are completed. Program Inventory During the needs assessment period which starts in August 19 for the 1994-95 budget year, current desegregation programs will be identified. 1. Key Players - The ferintendent will provide overall direction, and the Board will review the findings. The lead planning person will coordinate the collection of basic data and prepare the data into appropriateLRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 6 documents for use in goal setting and program modification and/or development. The Cabinet and staff 2. 3. 4. will collect the necessary data. Description - All current programs and services will be identified. Using the desegregation Audit, desegregation programs will be identified and defined first. Non-desegregation programs will be identified. defined and merged with the list of desegregation programs to formulate a composite list of all programs. The desegregation plan and court orders will be reviewed to ensure all obligations related to compliance are operative. Primary and secondary responsible persons will be identified for each program or service. Outcome - A Program Inventory Report will be generated and used during the goals and objectives development process, program modification and/or development process, and the budgeting process. Timeframe - The program inventory will be conducted during the needs assessment period. All desegregation programs will be identified in August 1993. The non-desegregation programs should be identified by the completion of the needs assessment period in November 1993.LRSD - Page 7 PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING D. Planning and Budget Goals The goal setting process helps guide all actions of the administration. The process defines the expected outcomes for a specified period of time. 1. Key Players - The Board and Superintendent will provide leadership for identifying the mission and goals of the district. 'The Cabinet will provide assistance and support by defining objectives for programs which will satisfy the accepted goals. The goal setting process will be coordinated by the lead planning person. Description - The Board will conduct a work session. After reviewing the preliminary list of issues for the needs assessment and the Program Inventory Report, the Board will: * Review and revise, if necessary, the mission statement. * Establish tentative written goals/objectives. The goals and objectives will define what the district expects to realistically accomplish for the year. Goals and objectives that conflict with the desegregation plan will not be adopted. * Review and provide guidance related to proportional allocation foirmulas (materials and supplies, staffing, etc.). * Establish written priorities. These priorities will guide staff in program modification and program LRSD - Page 8 PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING development, as well as to help allocate funding and resources during the budgeting process. * Identify any additional programs for \"fast-track\" evaluation. * Consider strategies for funding shortfalls. The Cabinet will work to ensure that program goals and evaluation criteria are linked to the established goals. 3. Outcome - At the conclusion of the goal setting session(s), the Board will publish: * a written mission statement * written goals * a list of priorities The staff will revise program objectives and evaluation criteria as needed for each program, and these will be incorporated into the Program Budget Document. 4. Timeframe - Although the goal setting process is dependent on the needs assessment and program inventory, it will operate concurrently with them. The E. work session will be conducted in September 1993. Program objectives and evaluation criteria will be established by November 1993. A status report will also be provided to the Board in November 1993. Prograun Development 3 service or program does not exist to support needs addressed by the defined goals, it may be necessary to develop a program or modify an existing program.LRSD - Page 9 PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING 1. Key Players - The Superintendent will provide leadership and guidance to ensure that goals are I 2. achieved by offering the best possible programs. The Cabinet will provide direction to staff in developing, j modifying, and implementing effective and efficient programs. The lead planning person will monitor and^ advise the Superintendent throughout the program modification and development phase. Description - Programs may need to be developed to address newly identified needs or fill gaps. Current  programs may have to be modified to successfully meet objectives. Some programs may have to be eliminated. The District will establish a framework for program development. The framework will include: * Overview/Program Description * Program Goals/Objectives * Identified Needs A A Target Population Organizational Management/Personnel * Staff Development * Parental Involvement, if any A Physical Facilities, if any Identification of possible funding sources A  Proposed Budget (start-up costs/recurring costs) Impact on Desegregation Plan * Evaluation Criteria A Program Budget Document (See Attachment 5, p. 2)LRSD - Page 10 PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Program development and modification will be conducted by staff with the appropriate cabinet level official providing oversight to ensure that all tasks are completed in a timely manner. The Superintendent and the Cabinet will review all program development and modification to ensure that commitments in the desegregation plan are not hindered by such program development or modification. 3. Outcome - Existing programs and programs that are developed to satisfy a need will include all of the elements for budget development and can be directly 4. placed into the Program Budget Document. Timeframe - The program development process will begin in October 1993, if necessary, and conclude in January 1994. F. Budget Priorities - Budgeting 1. Key Players - The Board is the ultimate decision-making authority on the budget. However, the Superintendent will ensure that a balanced budget is developed that meets the needs and goals of the school district. The Manager for Resources and School Support will coordinate the budget preparation process and the lead planning person will ensure that the planning and budgeting components are linked appropriately. Budget managers will provide input relative to his/her area ofLRSD - Page 11 PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING responsibility. The Controller will produce the budget 2. 3. 4. information. Description - Funds, personnel and facilities will be allocated based on the goals and objectives of the district. Directions for budget preparation will be issued by the Superintendent. These directions will include the identification of all proportional formulas and exceptions. Outcome - A budget document will be developed that satisfies traditional budgeting and accounting requirements with a program planning and budgeting component which links the program and budget allocations. Funding of desegregation requirements will be a priority. Timeframe - December - Prepare initial financial forecast for next and out years. - Issue directions for budget preparation. - Budget managers submit requests for 1994-95 school year. - Begin developing program budget document. January - Begin budget development February - Continue budget development. - Continue developing program budget document March - Revise financial forecast. - Revise program budget document April - Complete program budget documentPROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING LRSD - Page 12 May-June - Revise budget as needed G. July August - Adopt Budget - Submit 1994-95 budget to Arkansas Department of Education Budget-Planning Document (Program Budget Document) The document will provide the means for monitoring program performance and expenditures throughout the fiscal year. 1. Key Players - The Superintendent will provide guidance for the development of the document. The Cabinet members will provide program information for their respective areas. The Controller will provide financial infonnation for each program. The lead planning person will coordinate the document into the final product. 2. Description - The Desegregation Audit and Program Inventory will provide the information necessary to develop the initial budget document. Programs will be developed or modified in such a manner that the Program Budget Document (Attachment 5, p. 2) will be a necessary component of the submission. A Cabinet member will be assigned as the responsible primary leader for each identified program. A secondary leader will also be assigned. The primary leader is tasked with ensuring the program meets its objectives, coordinating the required activities orPROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING LRSD - Page 13 strategies, and the preparation and submission of regular reports. 3. Outcome - A program budget document will be developed that will become the basis for monitoring and reporting, and will become a guide for interim decision-making. (See Attachment 5) 4. Timeframe - Development of the document will begin in December and be completed in conjunction with the completion of the tentative budget in April. H. Monitoring and Reporting 1. Key Players - The Board and Superintendent will be the recipients of the reporting for oversight and decision- making. The lead planning person will coordinate the process and prepare a composite report. The Manager for Resources and School Support will provide matching financial information by program. The Cabinet and Staff will prepare all reporting documents falling within their area of responsibility. 2. Description - The program budget document will be the basis for monitoring and reporting, and will establish the format and design. The document would merge both program performance and expenditure reporting on a quarterly basis. Programs with poor performance or expenditure problems could be addressed with corrective action during the year rather than after the year is completed.LRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 14 3. Outcome - The result would be a quarterly composite progress report on identified programs within the district, supported with expenditure information. The quarterly report would be an extension of the program 4. budget document. Timeframe - The first report would be generated by the end of October for the period July, August, and September. Subsequent quarterly reports would be due by the end of January, April, and July. I. Program Evaluation Program evaluation will provide an assessment of performance for decision-making purposes. 1. Players  The Board and Superintendent are recipients of the evaluations, and will use the information to determine direction and resource allocation. The lead planning person will coordinate the program evaluation process. The Manager of Resources and School Support will provide supporting financial information. The Cabinet and staff will prepare all reporting documents falling within their area of responsibility. 2. Description - During the first year of the planning and budgeting process only, there will be two concurrent and parallel program evaluation components. A regular evaluation and a \"fast-track\" evaluation. A \"fast- track\" evaluation does not have the details orLRSD - Page 15 PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING dimension of a regular evaluation, since the evaluative process is conducted in a reduced time frame. After the first year, \"fast-track\" evaluations will be utilized as necessary. Each program will be evaluated through the district's regular program evaluation component. As programs are developed and implemented, they will contain program objectives and evaluation criteria. Special evaluations might be directed by the Superintendent . Programs may be identified for \"fast- track\" evaluation if they have high impact on the goals and direction of the district. 3. Outcome - Program evaluation information will enable the district to make programmatic decisions in the areas of program modification, program development. program elimination and resource allocation which are the result of careful planning and thoughtful analysis. 4. Timeframe - The initial evaluation period will begin in August 1993 and continue until the initial decision point in the budgeting phase in January 1994. J. Broad-Based Feedback Broad-based feedback is designed to provide feedback to the various groups who participated in the community forum and district dialogues. Every effort will be made to include other interested groups, if needed. 1. Key Players - The Board and the Superintendent will provide direction for the broad-based feedback. TheLRSD - Page 16 PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Director of Communications, with the assistance from the lead planning person, will develop a plan for 2. disseminating information. Description - Seven broad-based feedback sessions will be conducted to provide information relative to the planning and budgeting process to the community and our employees. The target populations will be the same as the broad-based input sessions conducted in October 1993 and November 1993. 3. Outcome - Positive community support in recognition of the thoughtfully planned budgeting process may be 4. generated. Timefrzune - Broad-based feedback sessions will be conducted in March 1994. K. Sxunmary - A Strategy to Address Shortfall of Funding One of the primary goals of the long-range planning and budget process is to instill in the minds of the patrons and others interested in the affairs of the District a new sense of fiscal responsibility, accountability and internal program evaluation by the District. Such tools as the program inventory, needs assessment strategies and quarterly reporting will serve to not only strengthen the process. as outlined in the monthly calendar of critical events, but to increase the community's awareness of the Desegregation Plan, the commitments it contains and the District's carefully thought-out process designed to live up to thoseLRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 17 commitments. with commitment comes the responsibility of providing funds and ensuring that the funding levels are sufficient to support those programs the planning and evaluation process that are determined by to be effective toward achieving the desired goals. Increased use and refinement of the District's new Position Control Inventory System software should yield valuable data for program evaluation and budget decision making. Internal monthly reporting will be structured to provide more historical data for additional analysis and on-going monitoring. Quarterly monitoring reports, by way of the Program Budget Document, will also be provided. This process, plus the program linkages will serve as the basis for future funding decisions by the Board and the administration. Once these steps and procedures become fully operational, the District will be able to identify those operations which can either be modified or eliminated, thereby serving to demonstrate the level of fiscal responsibility needed to garner community support for future requests for funding. Further, by achieving greater staffing efficiency, reducing over-use of materials and supplies (i.e., through proportional allocations, etc.) and by directing the District's resources toward those programs with demonstrated track records of success, the District will be able to reduce or, hopefully, eliminate its reliance on non-recurring revenue sources. Accordingly, the long- range planning and budget process will be the key componentLRSD - Page 18 PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING of the District's strategy to address anticipated funding shortfalls. The Continuing Process - Planning and budgeting is a continuing process. As such, the needs assessment and program inventory for FY 1994-95 will begin in May 1994. The lead planning person will review the process and make recommendations for changes to the Superintendent, if necessary. The lead planning person will ensure that the planning process is implemented as designed and coordinate the activities.ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Planning, Research and Evaluation Specialist Job Description Attachment 2 Organizational chart Attachment 3 Planning and Budget Cycle Attachment 4 Planning and Budget Calendar Attachment 5 Budget FoirmatAttachment 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 PLEASE POST July 14, 1993 PLEASE POST The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications for the following position for the 1993-94 school year\nPOSITION\nPlanning, Research and Evaluation Specialist QOALIFICATIONS\n1. A master's degree or higher in psychology, counseling or education. 2. Eligibility for an Arkansas teacher or administrator certificate. 3. At least five (5) years of successful public school or higher education experience as a teacher, counselor, psychologist, or Additional related experience may be substituted or 4. 5. 6. 7. NOTE\nadministrator. for public school experience. Evidence of strong organizational and interpersonal skills. Knowledge of planning concepts and techniques the conviction that all children can learn and will Demonstrates -- learn in the Little Rock School District. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality desegregated education. SHOULD BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QPALIFI- APPLICANTS _________________ CATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW,. REPORTS TO\nDirector of Planning, Research and Evaluation JOB GOAL\ntechnical support in the area of strategic planning to the To provide Director of Planning, Research and Evaluation so that he/she is able to provide the Superintendent and Board of Directors with pertinent evaluative data on all programs and services (both educational and supportive) being provided by the school district. basic performance RESPONSIBILITIES\ntechnical support to the Director of Planning, Research and Provides ----- Evaluation in the following ways\n1. Coordinates and provides assistance and technical support for the districtwide planning process.Planning, Research and Evaluation Specialist Page 2 Attachment 1 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13 . 14. 15. 16. Assists in preparing and implementing the planning document. Assists with the collection of reports and other documents related to the planning process. Ensures that all requirements from the desegregation plans and court orders are integrated into the planning process. Keeps continually informed regarding research in educational testing and the development of useful information and improved tests for use in educational and supportive programs. Develops system-wide evaluation designs and develops schedules for implementing the evaluation designs. Administers and/or supervises the administration of group tests. Monitors, on an ongoing basis, the programs being evaluated by the Planning, Research and Evaluation Department. Assists with the supervision and scoring of tests and conducts statistical analysis of test results for all schools and areas of group testing conducted. Prepares informative reports and instructional materials for the guidance of counselors, teachers, and other professionals who use evaluation results and/or test data in performing their own duties. Provides leadership in the development of improved instruments and procedures for evaluating programs and services. Designs and/or administers studies to identify community, fiscal, staff, and other factors which can account for variations in quality within the school system, and suggests ways to improve level of student achievement. Assists with the implementation of data processing programs in the area of student testing and evaluation. Serves as a resource person in planning and conducting inservice educational activities for the improvement of teaching practices in the areas of test construction, test administration, and test results evaluation. Prepares various reports as designated by the Director of Planning, Research and Evaluation. Assumes other duties as assigned by the Director of Planning, Research and Evaluation. ?BRM5 of EMPLOYMENT\nTwelve month annual contract plus Educational Stipend, Car Allowance and Benefits Package.Planning, Research and Evaluation Specialist Page 3 Attachment 1 DEADLINE FOR RECEIPT OF APPLICATION\nSEND WRITTEN LETTERS OF INQUIRY TO\nDirector of Human Resources Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 MOTE\nINDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS. THEREFORE, BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR A POSITION DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT AN INTERVIEW WILL BE CONDUCTED. ATTACHMENT 2  CommuncatiorwIPIannbg Retearchl A Evaluation | I Aaaoc. Supt. Deeegretabon Assoc. Sum. Schod Opera*. *Studam Aaaignmam Hearing Officar } I Oaaagragmion FaoMator Aaat. SupI. Etom. leSchooto . S^)(., Etom. MSdwoto Volumaara in Public Schooli I Principato I Prwvipato Balora- A Aftar- SdwolCARE I - Param Racruttmant CMrdinator Param Coordinator Taactwra Taadwra 1. *lncemM Schools (7) BOARD OF DIRECTORS Little Rock School District Organizational Structure JULY 1993 Interim Superintendent AMt Suol .S*:. I Schoola I 13 T Prkcipada Taachara Naw RAuraa *Athlatics ANamativa Laammg *RespoosibiUty of Approprlale Attociate SuperatteodeDl Revisions will be made in accordance with district procedures. 1. Raading - Languaga ArW I 1 Labor Ralitior* HumanRMOurcas Foratgn Lartguaga Scianca Mathamalica Sedai Studiaa I 1 Assoc. Sqpl. Currtculum I Rna Arts Vocational Manager Rc avl^iool Resources SuRWt ControNar I Inatructional Technology *Physicat Edu^ion - Drug Education - Early Childhood -* Staff Davaloprrtam Tentative placement in recognition of LRSD Curriculum Audit, 12/21/90, p.l02. - Fadar,al aP2mxi,yvnaf Exceptional Chibran Achi Education * Library Sarvioaa F^diitiaa Sarvioaa \" Tranaportaiion Food Sarvioaa Procuramant Saily/Ri\u0026gt;k Managmarn - Mormation Sarvicaa I Attachment 3 ACTIVITIES July Aug. 19 9 3 Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. PIANNING AND BUDGETING CYCLE Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May 3 9 9 4 June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. 19 9 5 Apr. May June July Aug. Needs Assessment Begins Program Inventory Degins JJay- Goals/CbjectIves Development Program Development Budget i ng Budget Document Monitoring and Reporting i (prior quazterly reports) Program Evaluation ATTACHMENT 4 PROPOSED PLANNING BUDGET CALENDAR 1993-94 JULY 1993 ACTIVITY RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) Designate lead planning person Superintendent Develop proposed budget calendar for budget year 1994-95 Superintendent and Cabinet Begin Desegregation Program Inventory using desegregation audit as baseline Superintendent and Cabinet Identify tentative list of various types of districtwide objectives and perceptual data to be collected for the needs assessment Superintendent and Cabinet AUGUST 1993 ACTIVITY RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) Establish final Budget Calendar for 1994-95 that will allow the Board to monitor progress of the planning and budgeting process Superintendent Begin to develop monitoring and reporting procedures and issue instructions, as needed. Superintendent and Cabinet Begin development of proportional allocation fojrmulas Superintendent and Cabinet Begin data collection Lead Planning Person Begin to identify programs for \"fast-track\" evaluation Complete Desegregation Program Inventory Superintendent and Cabinet Superintendent and Cabinet kATTACHMENT 4 P. 2 PROPOSED BUDGET CALENDAR 1993-94 SEPTEMBER 1993 ACTIVITY RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) Conduct work session for analysis of collected data * Develop preliminary list of issues for needs assessment * Identify the need for program modification or development Conduct Board work session * Review preliminary list of issues for needs assessment * Review Desegregation Program Inventory Report * Review and revise, if necessary, the mission statement. * Establish tentative written goals/obj ectives. * Establish written priorities. * Review and provide guidance related to proportional allocation formulas * Consider strategies for funding shortfall * Identify any additional programs for \"fast-track\" evaluation (End of first quarter reporting period.) Superintendent and Cabinet Board and Superintendent ATTACHMENT 4 P. 3 PROPOSED BUDGET CALENDAR 1993-94 OCTOBER 1993 ACTIVITY RESPONSIBLE PERSONfS) Begin necessary program modification or development Cabinet and Program Manager Begin to generate broad-based input for budget process Superintendent and Director of Communications Issue first quarter FY 1993-94 cycle monitoring and evaluation report (Program Budget Document) Controller Lead Planning Person NOVEMBER 1993 ACTIVITY RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) Complete the gathering of broad-based input for budget process Complete identification of proportional allocation formulas and exceptions Complete Needs Assessment listing using information gathered from broad-based input sessions. Finalize program objectives and evaluation criteria for each desegregation program. Complete inventory list of non-desegregation programs Status report to Board on Budget Process Superintendent and Director of Communications Superintendent Superintendent and Cabinet Superintendent and Cabinet Superintendent and Cabinet Superintendent and Lead Planning Person ATTACHMENT 4 P. 4 PROPOSED BUDGET CALENDAR 1993-94 I DECEMBER 1993 ACTIVITY RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) Prepare initial financial forecast for next and out years Controller Issue directions for budget preparation Superintendent Manager Resources and School Support Controller Budget managers submit request for 1994-95 school year Manager Resources and School Support Controller Begin developing program budget document Controller (End of second quarter reporting period.) JANUARY 1994 ACTIVITY RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) Complete fast-track evaluations Lead Planning Person Cabinet Begin Budget Development Manager of Resources and School Support Controller Complete modifications or program development for submission to Superintendent and Cabinet Submit program modifications and development to Board Issue second quarter FY 1993-94 cycle monitoring and evaluation report (Program Budget Document) Program Managers in Curriculum, Desegregation, and Resources and School Support Superintendent Controller and Lead Planning Person ATTACHMENT 4 P. 5 FEBRUARY 1994 PROPOSED BUDGET CALENDAR 1993-94 ACTIVITY RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) Continue Budget Development Controller Continue developing the program budget document Controller MARCH 1994 ACTIVITY RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) Revise financial forecast Controller Revise the program budget document Controller Provide feedback to input participants Superintendent and Director of Communications (End of third quarter reporting period.) ATTACHMENT 4 P. 6 APRIL 1994 ACTIVITY PROPOSED BUDGET CALENDAR 1993-94 RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) Complete program budget document Controller Submit proposed budget to Board Superintendent Conduct Board work session on budget Superintendent and Board Revise budget as needed Superintendent and Cabinet Certified personnel reduction deadline Superintendent Issue third quarter FY 1993-94 cycle monitoring and evaluation report (Program Budget Document) Controller and Lead Planning Person MAY 1994 ACTIVITY Revise budget as needed RESPONSIBLE PERSONfS) Superintendent and Cabinet Board work session on budget, if needed Approval of tentative budget Classified personnel reduction deadline Reassess planning organization for FY 1994-95 cycle Begin FY 1994-95 cycle needs assessment Begin program inventory for FY 1994-95 Superintendent and Cabinet Board and Superintendent Superintendent Superintendent and Cabinet Lead planning person Lead planning person ATTACHMENT 4 P. 7 PROPOSED BUDGET CALENDAR 1993-94 JUNE 1994 ACTIVITY RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) Revise budget as needed Superintendent and Cabinet Continue FY 1994-95 cycle needs assessment Lead planning person Continue FY 1994-95 cycle program inventory Lead planning person (End fourth quarter reporting period.) JULY 1994 ACTIVITY RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) Adopt Budget Board Conduct Board work session on planning and budgeting to include: Board and Superintendent A A A A defining tentative goals defining guidelines on broad-based input designing tentative planning and budget development calendar defining any \"fast-track\" evaluations Continue FY 1994-95 cycle needs assessment Lead planning person Continue FY 1994-95 cycle program inventory Lead planning person Issue fourth quarter FY 1993-94 cycle monitoring and evaluation report Controller and Lead Planning Person ATTACHMENT 4 P. 8 PROPOSED BUDGET CALENDAR 1993-94 AUGUST 1994 ACTIVITY RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) Submit 1994-95 budget to Arkansas Department of Education Superintendent Establish final Budget Calendar for FY 1994-95 cycle Superintendent Continue FY 1994-95 cycle needs assessment Lead planning person Complete FY 1994-95 cycle program inventory (Program Budget Document) Lead planning person Program Seq #: Program Name: Program Code\nProgram DeacrlpUon: District Goal Support: Program Ob(ecllve: Plan Relerencea: FY Program Budget: YTD Expcndlturea\nATTACHMENT 5 LRSD FY 93-94 TENTATIVE PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Primary Leader\nSecondary Leader Page: 1 Revision Date:  tat Qtr Expend: 2nd Qtr Expend\n3rd Qtr Expend: 4th Qtr Expend\nProgram Seq #: Program Nome: Program Code: Program Ob)ecllve: Plan Reference Page Number Oblectives LRSD FY 93-94 TENTATIVE PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date ATTACHMENT 5 p.2 Page\n2 Revision Date: Responsibil ity Evaluation CriteriaI 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 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_1553","title":"Court filings concerning legal fees, Ish Incentive School closure, North Little Rock School District planning and integration, and Little Rock School District planning","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1993-07"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT)","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","North Little Rock High School (North Little Rock, Ark.)","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Education--Economic aspects","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School facilities","School integration","School improvement programs","School enrollment","Ish Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning legal fees, Ish Incentive School closure, North Little Rock School District planning and integration, and Little Rock School District planning"],"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/1553"],"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":["legal documents"],"dcterms_extent":["80 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_926","title":"''Status Report,'' North Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1993-07/1993-09"],"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","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","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"],"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/926"],"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\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_1182","title":"Little Rock School District Court Submission","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":["1993-06-28"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","School employees"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District Court Submission"],"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/1182"],"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\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 COURT SUBMISSION JUNE 28, 1993 Little Rock School District June 28, 1993 Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge and Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Chris: JUN 2 8 1993 Ollice of Des gregation Monitoring As a prerequisite to the July 7 and 8 court hearings to review budget matters, I submit the following exhibits as required by Judge Wright's order dated June 15, 1993: 1-A Budget Changes Supported by \"Business Cases\" 1-B Major Deficit Reduction Actions 1-C 1993-94 Certified Teacher Salary Increases Matrix 1-D Budget Revision (Draft 4) 1-E Action Plan Based upon my interpretation of the order, the attached exhibits should complete our required filings for the June 28, 1993 court submission date.\n~ly, Mark D. Milhollen Controller MDM/cfh Attachments 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361 Exhibit 1-A BUDGET CHANGES SUPPORTED BY \"BUSINESS CASES\" A list of the business cases which relate to the 1993-94 Board approved budget changes are as follows: Four full time social workers at Incentive Schools One Spanish teacher for Incentive Schools A police resource officer at each secondary school Extended contracts for King staff, ABACUS expansion One secretary for desegregation facilitator One half-time communications assistant Director of Human Resources One additional assistant principal at Central High Discontinue KLRE/KUAR funding after 2 year notice One secretary in Human Resources Communications Assistant Curriculum and Learning Improvement Department One secretary in School Operations Plant Services Department Transportation Department One position in VIPS Department Total Additions Total Reductions * Savings will not accrue for two years, so they are not included in the total. $132,000 33,000 203,000 339,137 21,500 10,000 55,000 40,000 $ 833,637 $ 86,000* 21,800 40,040 897,098 23,000 178,031 62,962 20,937 $ 1,243,868 J / / \\/ t/ \\/' t/  V / v  v Exhibit 1-A Page Two Gifted and Talented Counseling Music Teachers IRC Aides Community Schools Parent Recruiting Seventh Period at Henderson $ 242,000 260,000 551,000 38,500 100,000 75,000 303,000 Total Reinstatements $ 1,569,500 A~TIO/J S ti/Toi,) ldfftd-ff T~ 15 /Jo SvS,-l.le.55 ~\"\"\" -- ~~--.. A~f-~V2 ~' ~ - ~J~. I,\u0026lt;'e- ~ - ~~P, ~o/ ~~ - b~~~. ~./ ~ -~/:, .. ~ ~ - ~~-- ~ - t:Jy~_,, \u0026amp;P~ - ~~ t.e~,.. JJ\u0026amp;~~ k~~d:i - ~ ~-- kd~~ ~ t::-~ - :l\n,a---~-- Q',4 ~ - ~ ~,., \u0026amp;~~~ ~7 /.A:~ _ ~ ad-- ~ 4 ~/~-~ 4,..t!- /:\u0026amp;?Y ~-~ ~7~--~ PROGRAM ANALYSIS for STAFFING THE INCENTIVE SCHOOLS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Desegregation Plan identifies twenty different positions to be considered for staffing at each Incentive School. Over the past several years the District has made a good faith effort to hire most of the recommended positions. The remaining unfilled positions are being considered at this time to further meet the needs of students and the school community. These positions are: assistant principals, social workers, a Spanish teacher(s), and alternative classroom specialists. A. Background These positions identified in the Desegregation Plan have already been placed at the Incentive Schools. The positions include: o Assistant principals for Rockefeller \u0026amp; Franklin o Classroom Teachers o Counselor o Media Specialist o Music Teacher o Art Teacher o P.E. Teacher o Auxiliary Teacher {permanent substitute) o Reading Teacher (remediation) o Math Teacher (remediation) o Computer Lab Attendant o Resource Teacher o Speech Teacher o Media Clerk o Instructional Aide (classroom) o Theme Specialist o Principal o Supervision Aides (cafeteria and playground) The plan clearly states that a needs assessment should be conducted to determine the basis for adding any unfilled positions. A needs assessment was conducted by the Staffing Committee at each Incentive School in February of 1993, to consider the positions of assistant principals, social workers, Spanish teachers, and alternative classroom specialists added to each Incentive School staff. B. C. D. Problem Definition The data received from the needs assessment conducted at each school indicated a need for the following positions: 1) Four assistant principals 2) Four full-time social workers 3) A Spanish teacher 4) Two alternative classroom specialists The staffing committees held lengthy discussions on these positions to determine whether or not these were absolute needs. Adding a full-time social worker at Franklin and Rockefeller will eliminate the need for an alternative classroom specialist. The Board did not approve additional assistant principals for incentive schools in the 1993-94 budget. Rather than add a Spanish teacher at every incentive school for the 1993-94 school year, the Board supported phasing in a pilot program at two (2) incentive schools as recommended by the Staffing Committee. The budget impact of adding four (4) social workers and one (l) Spanish teacher will cost the District approximately $165,000 for the 1993-94 school year. Analysis of Alternatives After compiling and analyzing the data of the needs assessments, each Incentive Schools' Staffing Committee was responsible for writing a statement of rationale to support their findings and recommendations. The staffing recommendations were then prioritized according to the most dire needs at each school. Any other alternative to form a basis for adding unfilled positions would be contrary to the process identified in the Desegregation Plan. Recommendation The specific placement of the recommended positions are as follows: Rockefeller: Full-time Social Worker Half-time Spanish Teacher Garland: Franklin: Full-time Social Worker Full-time Social Worker E. F. Rightsell: Mitchell: Half-time Social Worker Half-time Spanish Teacher Half-time Social Worker* * We already have one (1) full time social worker for incentive schools. We propose to use this person one-half (1/2) time at Ish and Stephens, which will give all incentive schools at least a one-half (1/2) time social worker. Objectives The objective of the recommendation is to meet the needs of each Incentive School community and to further implement our Desegregation Plan. Because school community needs are constantly changing, a needs assessment should be conducted yearly to determine the basis for continuing staffed positions. The specific duties, responsibilities and activities of each position should be analyzed to evaluate program need and position effectiveness. Impact Analysis The expected positive impact of adding additional positions to the Incentive Schools hopefully is an increase in student achievement and success. The possible negative impact of adding additional positions to the Incentive Schools might be that the comparatively low student enrollments at the Incentive Schools may cause duties and responsibilities of various positions to overlap and be perceived as a non-essential staff position. However, a recent court order does state that the addition of staff positions should not be based on enrollment, rather the need for such positions. Resources Analysis The desegregation budget will be impacted by an additional salary expenditure of $162,000 for the 1993-94 school year. Instructional materials, training, and other program costs are estimated to be an additional $3,000. BUSINESS CASE SAFETY AND SECURITY DEPARTMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 1989, after the unfortunate shooting of a student at a Little Rock Junior High School, the Board of Directors authorized the Administration to conduct a safety and security study. This study was to address the security issue on campuses, on buses, and in the neighborhoods surrounding the schools. The Board of Directors made the decision to have a committee from each school study the various safety and security issues in the LRSD. A Task Force was formed that 1. Held public hearings 2. Met with Parent-Teacher groups and/or their designated leaders 3. Interviewed city and community leaders 4. Reviewed secondary school safety and security issues in other urban school districts The Task Force enlisted the expertise of the National School Safety Center who sent its Deputy Director to Little Rock for one week and on later follow-up visits. The Task Force report was dealt with by issuing twenty (20) major recommendations to use as an outline to build a strong, effective safety and security program for the Little Rock School District. Recommendation No. 18 in this report was to establish a school district office of Safety and Security. A. Background 1. At present, the Safety and Security Department is composed of a Director of Safety and Security, two supervisors, and one person who answers all alarm calls to the various sights, meets the police that have been dispatched, and secures the buildings upon completion of his report. There are thirty-six (36) School Based Security Officers assigned to the secondary schools in the LRSD. A recommended addition is the addition of fourteen (14) School Resource Officers. School Resource Officers (SRO) will be assigned to the current secondary schools. A School Resource Officer is a commissioned law enforcement officer that is assigned to the local school district. Safety and Security Page Two B. C. 2. School security is a problem that is currently concerning both school district employees and members of the community throughout the nation. The idea of School Resource Officers and security forces is certainly not a new idea. It is, however, fairly new to the State of Arkansas. The problem of dealing effectively with unruly students and community members has been an ongoing problem through the country for many years. Districts across the country are having to develop plans, policies, and strategies for coping with these issues and the resulting increase of fights, assaults, homicides, drive-by shootings, weapons, and general disruption to previously \"quiet\" schools. Problem Definition 1. Various approaches to better safety and security in the schools have been attempted. It must be recognized that there is no one single approach that will solve the multitude of problems. The School Resource Officer approach is, however, one that has been successful throughout the country in dealing with the various acting out behaviors and in helping create a bridge between local law enforcement and troubled youth in the community. Analysis of Alternatives 1. Many alternatives have been approached in solving the problems. The LRSD has not discarded any of our approaches only attempted to bring new answers to the problem. The National School Safety Center, an advocate of School Resource Officers, supplied this office with information on these programs throughout the country. Visits were made to programs in California and Florida. Numerous telephone conferences were held with Resource Officers on duty in different schools. The Little Rock School District looked at these different options: a. b. Do nothing: A number of school districts do not need a formal security program that involves Resource Officers. With the problems facing the City of Little Rock and the schools in the Little Rock District this option was not chosen. ~ with a guard service. Two private guard services were contacted. Neither of these services had any experience in providing a security force that had expertise in dealing with the diverse student population in our community. Few training programs were available through these groups. Additionally, these groups seemed to have a lack of commitment to and understanding of our educational philosophy. Safety and Security Page Three c. Employ School Resource Officers. Historically, police have played a significant role in public education. They have been involved in handling truancy, juvenile crime, and major collective disturbances. Personnel are trained. The size of the force can be down-sized when needed. A pre-employment background check is always completed and support personnel is available. A formal agreement is prepared that identifies duties and responsibilities of both the police department and the school district. D. Recommendations E. 1. The Little Rock School District recommends that alternative number 3 be employed. It is our belief that School Resource Officers will help provide a balance between crime prevention, education, enforcement, and informed positive contacts. A School Resource Officer will help develop relationships with students. The School Resource Officer will lay a foundation for student confidence and trust by demonstrating both a knowledge and an interest in matters of child advocacy. Objectives 1. Objectives to the recommendation. Program objectives are: a. To prevent students from becoming involved in behaviors that violate state statutes, city codes, and District policy b. To establish an improved rapport between law enforcement officers and youth c. To assist the building staff and administration in providing security for students d. To act as a resource to staff and students in legal matters and violence prevention intervention e. To help to provide an educational environment that offers prevention programs in determining youth involvement in gang activities, crime, alcohol, and drug abuse f. To assist in the coordination of community resources in promoting interagency approaches to the solution of community youth problems Safety and Security Page Four F. 2. Good Support. One of the prerequisites for students to have a chance to learn is to have a safe, secure environment in which to learn. District level goals that would increase educational achievement with emphasis on closing disparities certainly fall within this area. A safe, secure environment is also necessary for students and staff if the following goals are to be reached: a. Providing equitable educational opportunities for all students in a desegregated learning environment b. Enabling all students to develop a lifelong capacity and love for learning c. Teaching all students to be productive contributors in the school, the community, and the work place d. Providing a disciplined, structured learning environment for all students 3. Evaluation Criteria. Evaluation criteria for the School Resource Officer Program include: a. Written evaluation by principals, including suggested improvements b. Written evaluation by school resource officer, including suggested improvements c. Survey of all staff members of schools d. Survey 10% of students, including high school and junior high school students e. Survey 10% of parents of high school and junior high school students f. Compare pre and post data for suspension, attendance, and dropout incidents involving unauthorized non-students on campus and juveniles processed into the juvenile justice system Impact Analysis 1. Program. It is expected that this program will have a positive effect on both the schools and the community. Additional role models, both male and female, will be visible to all children. These officers will be able to provide Safety and Security Page Five G. assistance to students and staff in legal matters. Various crime prevention, drug and alcohol programs will be presented to students. It is expected that the relationship between students and their respect for the law will be a positive move for our community. Some of the built-in mistrust of \"police types\" will be affected. The added protection of a qualified law enforcement officer that is available at all times will also present a positive impact. 2. Desegregation Plan. There will be no negative impact upon the Desegregation Plan. All employees are expected to work together to promote adherence to the Plan. 3. Court Orders. No impact is known. 4. Political Factors. No political factors will have impact upon this program. 5. Risks. Any new program has risks that accompany the program. Schools face the risk of becoming overly dependant on police personnel to solve problems. Police officers generally have not been schooled in educational philosophy. Police lack the flexibility that school administrators have in dealing with student off enders. A special inservice program will be given to all involved before the program will be implemented. After three years of program planning, the administration believes that the community is ready for this program. 6. Timing. The major issues are the extensive training required to replace officers that join this program. The City of Little Rock must take that into account before accepting the program. The Little Rock School District must plan inservice activities before placing the program in action. These programs will be completed prior to program implementation. Resource Analysis 1. Personnel Analysis. Fourteen School Resource Officers will be added to the district staff. One support person, a LRPD supervisor, will perform support duties to the program. Personnel will be recruited from the ranks of the Little Rock Police Department. 2. Financial Analysis. Operating costs have been prepared and submitted by the City of Little Rock. Under the proposed plan, costs will be shared between the city and the Little Rock School District on a 50/50 basis. The Little Rock School District's expense for the first year of operation will be $203,000. This cost will fund fourteen (14) police resource officer positions. Safety and Security Page Six H. These costs are valid for the 1993 school year. A 5% cost of living type of increase in overall personnel costs should be planned for 1994. Additionally, the second year personnel costs should include an additional $34,079 for employee step increases plus $20,000 to pay for benefit increases such as educational pay and longevity. Force Field Analysis 1. Forces For. The primary support of this recommendation will likely be the principals in the affected schools. In addition, teachers in the schools affected will likely form a group that will support this move. It is my opinion that all Board members will support this recommendation. Support will come from these groups because each of the groups has studied this option for approximately three years. They have been presented with both pros and cons of the program. Parents will be a support of this recommendation. All calls to my office have been supportive. 2. Forces Against. The only persons to have voiced concerns in the past have seemed to have the feeling that the policeman may use his authority in an abusive manner. The success of the program for a one semester trial at McClellan High School was discussed at a recent meeting. Board members who had voted in a negative manner in the past seemed to have changed their minds and talked in a positive manner. I. Implementation begins with approval by the governing bodies of both the City of Little Rock and the Little Rock School District. Following approval, meetings will be held with Little Rock Police Department officials to determine starting dates for training newly hired officers to supplement the officers that are selected to become School Resource Officers. Additionally, both the LRSD and LRPD will offer training sessions for officers selected to begin the Resource Officer program. Bill Barnhouse, Director of Safety and Security, will assume the task of scheduling all events that will ensure a successful program implementation. All status reports for program implementation will be submitted to the Manager of Resources and School Support, Little Rock School District. ADDITIONAL BUDGET EXPENDITURES ABACUS - INSTRUCTIONAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Little Rock School District is committed to a comprehensive desegregation plan which focuses on the total learning environment for all students. The method of assigning these students is the first step in creating school and classroom environments that foster academic achievement and improve race relations between students and staff members. The next step involves a commitment to quality desegregated education by the District, the parents, and the community. The commitment requires a plan of action predicated upon the District's commitment to remaining solvent, while providing quality desegregated education for its students. The Educational Audit pointed out the curriculum must be reviewed, revised as necessary, developed in an appropriate scope and sequence, and capable of supporting carefully-written objectives. Not until this was done could we move forward to address in a meaningful way the evaluation of effective teaching and the assessment of student learning. Instructional management systems are very effective and helpful in tracking the progress of individual students and providing corrective prescriptions to improve learning. A. BACKGROUND The Little Rock School District remains committed to providing teachers and principals with the training and technical support necessary to ensure that the Abacus system is used by teachers as a viable instructional management tool. In order to fulfill this commitment using District resources currently available, all principals were trained during the first semester, but the original plan for training all K-12 core-area teachers during the 1992-93 school year was modified and, thus, the initial schedule for training was revised. During the 1992-93 school year, the Abacus system is being implemented in a limited number of schools. All K-9 core-area teachers, specialists, and administrators in these schools were trained to use the system for management instruction in core content areas of the revised curriculum. Because of the large number of schools applying for the limited spaced available in the pilot project, the District decided to conduct two (2) cycles of the pilot training in order to include more schools in the project. The schools chosen to participate in each cycle were as follows: Cycle I Mabelvale Jr. High Southwest Jr. High Baseline Carver Dodd Geyer Springs Gibbs Mitchell Rightsell Romine Terry Cycle II Badgett Booker Chicot Forest Park Ish Jefferson Meadowcliff Otter Creek Pulaski Heights El. Watson Woodruff Each cycle was divided into two phases of training: the first phase consisted of K-9 corearea teachers in each pilot school attending two half-day training sessions\nthe second phase consisted of individual technical assistance conducted by the Staff Development Specialists at the local pilot schools. Additional training for the teachers trained this past summer was also provided. After teachers had completed two training sessions, the Staff Development Specialists spent four to six ( 4-6) days in each school providing Phase II training, which consisted of individual technical assistance to the teachers as they used the Abacus system. This assistance was provided according to a schedule developed cooperatively by each teacher and the Staff Development Specialists. Following completion of the in-school technical assistance, additional class sessions and/or further in-school training will be scheduled and conducted according to the needs of the participants. Several optional Abacus review /refresher workshops were scheduled for those teachers who were originally trained this past summer at the IBM center. These workshops were conducted at Metropolitan during the AEA Convention. Session 1 - November 5, 1992 -- 8:30 - 11:30 a.m. Session 2 - November 5, 1992 -- 12:30 - 3:30 p.m. Session 3 - November 6, 1992 -- 8:30 - 11:30 a.m. Each session was limited to 20 participants per session. The remaining schools are targeted for initial training this summer and during the 1993- 94 school year. B. PROBLEM DEFINITION The District must determine the most appropriate way to complete the training for the remaining schools and how to provide additional technical assistance and support to all schools. The new curriculum offers core content area teachers flexibility in making the best uses of an almost infinite number of assessment possibilities. Teachers realize that assessing student progress is an ongoing part of the instructional process, and most teachers incorporate a variety of assessment strategies into the daily teaching/learning routine. With the new core curriculum, teachers can ensure that students are mastering the grade level objectives by correlating their assessment methods, along with their instructional strategies, to the identified objectives. Since teachers have the freedom to arrange the objectives so that they fit the learner's needs and the teacher's style, they must also choose how to assess. Teachers will continue to use standardized chapter tests and other similar mass-produced assessment with caution. The new curriculum has been designed by LR teachers for LR teachers. The objectives in all core areas are linked to specific learner outcomes, and any assessment must reflect individual student progress consistent with the aims of those outcomes. To assist teachers in the assessment process, a test item bank that is aligned with the District's curriculum is available through the Instructional Management System. The test item bank will be expanded to include more test items by the beginning of the 1993-94 school year. Remaining teachers need to be trained in order to access the test items. C. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES The District needs to determine the most efficient and user-friendly method of completing this needed training. We have given a great deal of thought and discussion as to the most cost-effective means of providing this training. Feedback from staff in pilot schools was secured in determining what worked and what did not work in Cycle I and II training sessions this school year. A District-wide instructional management system is needed to help us track the progress of individual students and to provide corrective prescriptions to improve teaching and learning. We can no longer wait until spring each year to know whether or not our students have mastered the objectives in our curriculum. D. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the District fully implement the Abacus Instructional Management System during the 1993-94 school year. During the 1992-93 school year, 22 schools participated in the piloting of the Instructional Management System. The pilot schools assisted us in learning to effectively train staff and to work out expected \"glitches\" in the System. The rationale for this recommendation is that the management system, fully operational, can provide: Parents Continuous monitoring of individual student progress. Detailed reports for conferences, Board of Directors, and the Office of Desegregation and Monitoring. Immediate feedback on test results with diagnostic information. Comprehensive library of learning resources. Capability to create, store, and print tests. The Abacus Instructional Management System provides ways to help make the parent an integral part of their student's learning process. It will: Provide reports showing the learning objectives and instructional goals to be mastered. Provide regular and timely update reports showing current progress toward those instructional goals. Clearly show parents which learning objectives have not been mastered or not attempted. Provide suggested instructional resource listings which the parent can use to supplement classroom instruction in areas where the student needs help. Enhance parent/teacher cooperation. E. OBJECTIVE The objective of this recommendation is to fully utilize technology to uniformly manage and monitor instruction as indicated in the desegregation plan. The District needs this technology to help it evaluate programs that are working and to secure the necessary data to assist us in eliminating programs that are not working. Technology, used appropriately, can save staff many hours of manual labor and can provide uniform and consistent reporting of student learning and student mastery of the curriculum. Evaluation Criteria  Continuous monitoring of student progress. Timely, detailed reports for conferences, administration, Board of Directors, and the Office of Desegregation and Monitoring. Increased teacher use of test item bank. Increased use of mastery reports by teachers and principals to intervene in student learning. Increased use of the System by reluctant users. Increased use of mastery reports to parents regarding student learning. F. IMPACT A AL YSIS The Instructional Management System has the potential for assisting the District in gathering data for reports, monitoring and evaluating teaching and learning, and tracking student progress. Reliable data are needed to make professional judgements regarding the effectiveness of District programs. It is important to provide student, class, school, and District Objective Mastery Analysis and Summary. The System can provide a rich and stimulating instructional resource bank that will assist teachers, librarians, media clerks, and parents. Desegregation Plan District-wide implementation of the Instructional Management System will allow us to achieve another objective in our desegregation plan: the use of an instructional management system that will track student progress. Court Orders The District has committed to the utilization of an instructional management system, and this commitment has been noted by the Court. Political Factors The District can receive favorable responses from the community and schools if it commits the necessary resources to correctly implement the System. Risks The quality of support and services provided by the schools and patrons can be positive if implemented correctly. The additional funds requested will be viewed as a wise investment. Should the District decide not to support this system, the results can be very negative and regarded as \"just another gimmick.\" Timing Decisions regarding full implementation should be made prior to teachers and principals going off contract. It will be necessary to begin training the remaining elementary teachers prior to the beginning of school. G. RESOURCES ANALYSIS Provided is a listing of personnel that must be trained to use the Instructional Management System. Included is the projected budget for staff development of teachers. We have developed several implementation plans for your consideration. They are included in this Business Case. The Administration recommends the Board of Directors consider Plan 2 for implementation for the 1993-94 school year. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 1 PROJECTED BUDGET FOR 1993-94 ABACUS TRAINING I. Secondary 45 teachers ( 4 per each of 11 secondary schools and 1 from Alternative Leaming Center) A. One day of training @ $100 per teacher B. Yearly stipends @ $1,000 per teacher II. Elementary A. One day of training for 440 teachers including G/T, Special Education, Math, and Reading Specialists @ $100 per teachers OR One day of training for 344 teachers including ONLY regular classroom teachers @ $100 per teacher B. One-half day training for 37 designated teachers providing technical support @ $50 per teacher C. Yearly stipends for 37 teachers providing technical support @ $500 per teacher $4,500.00 $45,000.00 $44,000.00 OR $34,000.00 $1,850.00 $18,500.00 TOT AL WITH 440 ELEMENTARY TEACHERS $113,850.00 TOTAL WITH 344 ELEMENTARY TEACHERS $104,250.00 NOTE: If a 10 station lab is used, a total of 51 days will be needed for the above training if 440 elementary teachers are trained, or a total of 42 days will be needed if 344 elementary teachers are trained. If a 15 station lab is used, a total of 35 days will be needed for the above training if 440 elementary teachers are trained, or a total of 28 days will be needed if 344 elementary teachers are trained. The following budget assumes full implementation of all schools except Metropolitan during the 1993-94 school year. It uses current enrollment numbers with the addition of King School's projected enrollment. It does not include any additional personnel costs. Additional equipment numbers are based on having four stations at school with enrollment \u0026gt; 1000 students, three stations at schools with \u0026gt; 800 students, and two stations at schools with enrollments \u0026gt; 600 students. Those schools with less than 600 students would have only one (1) work station. We would have two printers and two scanners only at those locations with four PC's. All other locations would share one printer and one scanner. 52 PC's 7 Laser Printers 13 Sentry 3000 Scanners Total Forms Printer Cartridges In-district Printing Total $1,676.00 3,995.00 3,520.00 Grand Total Equipment/Supplies TOTAL ABACUS BUDGET 1993-94: Equipment/Supplies Inservice for 440 Elementary Teachers Inservice for Secondary Teachers Total OR Equipment/Supplies Inservice for 344 Elementary Teachers Inservice for Secondary Teachers Total $ 87,152.00 27,965.00 45,760.00 $160,877.00 $ 40,000.00 ~ ~ ~ 10,540.00 3,520.00 $ 54,060.00 $214,937.00 $214,937.00 113,850.00 49,500.00 $214,937.00 104,250.00 49,500.00 $378,287.00 $368,687.00 ABACUS TRAINING FOR 1993-94 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 2 1. Train only the remaining elementary and secondary schools and provide maintenance for the original pilot schools. .,(A,,/, 1)f11\u0026gt;1.,.Ta?e 2. Add five (5) technicians~ Data Processin~ provide district-wide technical assistance. 3. Designate one (1) teacher in each elementary school to provide technical assistance within the school\neach person will receive a $500 stipend. Training Costs for Plan 2 a. Training July 26 - August 13 Participants: Four (4) remaining incentive schools and King Review Session 3 pilot incentive schools Training for in-school technical person If the above staff members are not on contract, stipends of approximately $50 per day per teacher for approximately 240 teachers $12,000.00 b. Training August 30 - October 4 Participants: Twelve (12) remaining elementary schools Training for in-school technical person One (1) day substitute for approximately 340 teachers @ approximately $30 per day per substitute 10,200.00 c. Remaining eleven (11) secondary schools of approximately 400 teachers added to this plan - $30 per one day substitute for each of the 400 teachers 12,000.00 d. Stipends (approx. $500 per school) 25,000.00 e. Five (5) technicians @ $13,000 each 65,000.00 TOTAL $124,200.00 Training Schedule for Plan 2 Note: the following schedule is based on a 15 station Abacus lab. July 26 - August 13: Remaining incentive schools, King, and Review Sessions for 3 pilot incentive schools (240 teachers\none (1) full day per teacher and one additional full day for technical persons\nif not on contract, a stipend of approximately $50 per day) July 26 - Franklin July 27 - Franklin July 28 - Garland July 29 - Garland and Rockefeller July 30 - Rockefeller August 2 - Stephens August 3 - King August 4 - King August 5 - Review for Ish August 6 - Review for Mitchell August 9 - Review for Mitchell and Rightsell August 10 - Review for Rightsell August 11 - In-school Technical Person (12 schools) August 12 - In-school Technical Person (12 schools) August 13 - In-school Technical Person (13 schools) August 30 - October 4: Tuelve (12) remaining elementary schools and 37 technical persons (340 teachers\ntwo (2) half-day sessions per teacher\none full day for technical person\nuse substitutes) August 30 and September 15 August 31 and September 16 Bale (8) Brady (8) Cloverdale El. (6) Fair Park (4) Fulbright (4) Bale (8) Brady (8) Cloverdale El. ( 6) Fair Park (4) Fulbright (4) September 1 and September 17 September 2 and September 20 September 3 and September 21 September 6 and September 23 September 9 and September 24 September 10 and September 27 September 13 and September 28 September 14 and September 29 Bale (4) Brady (6) Fair Park (4) Fulbright (8) Mabelvale El. (6) Fair Park (8) Fulbright (8) Mabelvale El. (8) McDermott (6) Fulbright (2) Mabelvale El. (6) McDermott (8) Wakefield (8) Washington (6) Mabelvale El. ( 6) McDermott (8) Wakefield (8) Washington (10) McDermott (6) Wakefield (8) Washington (10) Western Hills (6) Wakefield (2) Washington (10) Western Hills (8) Williams (10) Washington (4) Western Hills (6) Williams (10) Wilson (10) Washington (8) Williams (8) Wilson ( 10) September 30 - In-school Technical Person (12 schools) October 1 October 4 - In-school Technical Person (12 schools) - In-school Technical Person (13 schools) October 14 - January 7: Eleven (11) remaining secondary schools ( 408 teachers @ 20 per day\ntwo half-day sessions per teacher) October 14 and November 19 October 15 and November 22 October 18 and November 23 October 19 and November 29 October 20 and November 30 October 21 and December 1 October 26 and December 2 October 27 and December 3 October 28 and December 6 October 29 and December 7 November 1 and December 8 November 2 and December 9 November 8 and December 10 Cloverdale Jr. ( 10) Dunbar (10) Cloverdale Jr. (10) Dunbar (10) Cloverdale Jr. (10) Dunbar (10) Forest Heights ( 10) Henderson (10) Forest Heights (10) Henderson (10) Forest Heights ( 10) Henderson (10) Henderson (8) Mann (6) Pulaski Heights Jr. (6) Mann (10) Pulaski Heights Jr. ( 10) Mann (10) Pulaski Heights Jr. (10) Mann (14) Pulaski Heights Jr. (4) Central (12) Fair (4) Hall (4) Central (12) Fair (4) Hall (4) Central (12) Fair (4) Hall (4) November 9 and December 13 Central ( 12) Fair (4) Hall (4) November 10 and December 14 Central (8) Fair (8) Hall (4) November 11 and December 15 Central (4) Fair (6) Hall (10) November 12 and December 16 Fair (4) Hall (10) McClellan (6) November 15 and January 4 Fair (2) McClellan (9) Parkview (9) November 16 and January 5 McClellan (10) Parkview (10) November 17 and January 6 McClellan (10) Parkview (10) November 18 and January 7 McClellan (2) Parkview (8) BUDGET- ABACUS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 2 The following budget assumes full implementation of all schools except Metropolitan during the 1993- 94 school year. It uses current enrollment numbers with the addition of King School's projected enrollment. Additional equipment numbers are based on having four stations at school with enrollment \u0026gt; 1000 students, three stations at schools with \u0026gt; 800 students, and two stations at schools with enrollments \u0026gt;600 students. Those schools with less than 600 students would have only one (1) work station. We would have two printers and two scanners only at those locations with four PC's. All other locations would share one printer and one scanner. 52 PC's 7 Laser Printers 13 Sentry 3000 Scanners Total Forms Printer Cartridges In-district Printing Total $1,676.00 3,995.00 3,520.00 Grand Total Equipment/Supplies .GRAND TQTALA.BACUS BUDGET 1993-94 Equipment/Supplies Stipends for 580 Elementary Teachers Stipends for 400 Secondary Teachers Stipends for one (1) teacher tech. asst. per school (50) Stipends for five (5) computer technicians Total $ 87,152.00 27,965.00 45,760.00 $160,877.00 $ 40,000.00 10,540.00 3,520.00 $ 54,060.00 $214,937.00 $214,937.00 22,200.00 12,000.00 ,1 .. ,o 1-i-\"'11., 25,000.00 65.000.00 $339,137.00 ABACUS TRAINING FOR 1993-94 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 3 1. Train only the remainder of the elementary schools and provide maintenance for the original pilot schools. 2. Add five (5) technicians in Data Processing to providfe district-wide technical assistance. 3. Designate one (1) teacher in each elementary school to provide technical assistance within the school\neach person will receive a $500 stipend. Training Costs for Plan 3 a. Training July 26 - August 13 Participants: Four (4) remaining incentive schools and King Review Session 3 pilot incentive schools Training for in-school technical person If the above staff members are not on contract, stipends of approximately $50 per day per teacher for approximately 240 teachers $12,000.00 b. Training August 30 - October 4 Participants: C. Twelve (12) remaining elementary schools Training for in-school technical person One (1) day substitute for approximately 340 teachers @ approximately $30 per day per substitute $10,200.00 Stipends (approx. $500 per school) $19,000.00 $41,200.00 Training Schedule for Plan 3 Note: the following schedule is based on a 15 station Abacus lab. July 26 - August 13: Remaining incentive schools, King, and Review Sessions for all pilot incentive schools (240 teachers\none (1) full day per teacher and one additional full day for technical persons\nif not on contract, a stipend of approximately $50 per day) July 26 - Franklin July 27 - Franklin July 28 - Garland July 29 - Garland and Rockefeller July 30 - Rockefeller August 2 - Stephens August 3 - Kfog August 4 - King August 5 - Review for Ish August 6 - Review for Mitchell August 9 - Review for Mitchell and Rightsell August 10 - Review for Rightsell August 11 - In-school Technical Person (12 schools) August 12 - In-school Technical Person (12 schools) August 13 - In-school Technical Person (13 schools) August 30 - October 4: Tuelve (12) remaining elementary schools and 37 technical persons (340 teachers\ntwo (2) half-day sessions per teacher\none full day for technical person\nuse substitutes) August 30 and September 15 August 31 and September 16 Bale (8) Brady (8) Cloverdale El. (6) Fair Park (4) Fulbright (4) Bale (8) Brady (8) Cloverdale El. (6) Fair Park ( 4) Fulbright (4) September 1 and September 17 September 2 and September 20 September 3 and September 21 September 8 and September 23 September 9 and September 24 September 10 and September 27 September 13 and September 28 September 14 and September 29 Bale (4) Brady (6) Fair Park (4) Fulbright (8) Mabelvale El. (6) Fair Park (8) Fulbright (8) Mabelvale El. (8) McDermott (6) Fulbright (2) Mabelvale El. (6) McDermott (8) Wakefield (8) Washington (6) Mabelvale El. (6) McDermott (8) Wakefield (8) Washington (10) McDermott (6) Wakefield (8) Washington (10) Western Hills (6) Wakefield (2) Washington (10) Western Hills (8) Williams (10) Washington (4) Western Hills (6) Williams (10) Wilson (10) Washington (8) Williams (8) Wilson (10) September 30 - In-school Technical Person (12 schools) October 1 October 4 - In-school Technical Person ( 12 schools) - In-school Technical Person (13 schools) BUDGET - ABACUS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 3 The following budget assumes full implementation of all elementary schools during the 1993-94 school year. It uses current enrollment numbers with the addition of King School's projected enrollment. Additional equipment numbers are based on having four stations at school with enrollment \u0026gt; 1000 students, three stations at schools with \u0026gt; 800 students, and two stations at schools with enrollments \u0026gt;600 students. Those schools with less than 600 students would have only one (1) work station. We would have two printers and two scanners only at those locations with four PC's. All other locations would share one printer and one scanner. 27 PC's 9 Laser Printers 13 Sentry 3000 Scanners Total Forms $1,676.00 3,995.00 3,520.00 Printer Cartridges (56) 170.00 In-district Printing Total Grand Total Equipment/Supplies Equipment/Supplies Stipends for 580 Elementary Teachers Stipends for one (1) teacher technical asst. per school (38) Stipends for five (5) computer technicians Total $ 45,252.00 35,955.00 45.760.00 $126,967.00 $ 21,000.00 9,520.00 3.520.00 $ 34,040.00 $161.007.00 $161,007.00 22,200.00 19,000.00 65.000.00 $267,207.00 A. Background Decision Analysis of Secretarial Position for Desegregation Office Submitted by Arma J. Hart Executive Summary The position of Desegregation Facilitator is a requirement of the desegregation plan and was, therefore, newly instituted at the beginning of the 1991-92 school year. A new office had to be set up and a secretary was moved from the Business Office to assist in carrying out the technical and clerical responsibilities required by the position. Several weeks later, a Federal Programs Director was hired and the same secretary was assigned to assist both administrators on a half-time basis. The responsibility of the positions for the Desegregation Facilitator and the Federal ~ ~ Programs Director is monumental. The Desegregation Facilitator generated monthly ~ ~--  ./ desegregation reports for the Desegregation Associate Superintendent and the School ~ ~ Board\nplanned, gathered materials, organized and conducted monthly meetings in order to inform, clarify, interpret and assist Incentive School principals with a new desegregation plan. The superintendent and other administrators were to be kept informed when the district was not in compliance. Materials and equipment were ordered and resources were recommended in order to supplement the comprehensive programs during the regular school day, extended day, and on Saturdays. Meetings were held with all teachers and parents to explain the Incentive School program, expectations, and specific roles as they related to ensuring student academic, social, and emotional needs. Recruitment efforts were planned and a Speakers Bureau consisting of teachers and parents was formed in Incentive Schools and at Romine Interdistrict School for desegregation purposes. Training was held for this committee as well as other newly formed parent groups. Night recruitment meetings were held in the Little Rock and Pulaski County Special School Districts to assist with desegregation in both districts. Recruitment meetings were planned by the desegregation facilitator and held every Wednesday at 9:00 a.m. to make sure a recruitment plan was being carried out in the district. Decision Analysis - Executive Summary Desegregation Office Page 2 This office was also responsible for canvassing neighborhoods\nsetting up luncheon meetings with community people\nassisting with the development of a recruitment plan for Martin Luther King School\nmeeting with the City Board of Directors\nplanning programs and scheduling quality extended year summer school programs based -on the needs of children. Checklists were developed for monitoring purposes, test data and student and parent surveys were reviewed. The results were then interpreted, and the impact on integration and desegregation was reported to principals. I attended monthly biracial committee and parent council meetings and presented information as needed on Incentive Schools\nheld parent meetings, responded to parent complaints, and set up criteria for a Parent Night meeting in all Incentive Schools. The job description encompasses that of both an Assistant Superintendent and a Desegregation Facilitator. Therefore, because of the enormous responsibility of providing technical assistance to the schools, monitoring and evaluating programs and staff, addressing facility needs, and other problems that impede desegregation, a substitute secretarial position was approved by the Superintendent during the 1991-92 school year. The substitute was hired to assist the Desegregation Facilitator with typing, filing, answering the phone, scheduling meetings, answering questions about the plan, distributing information to principals and the school communities, responding to principal, parent, and teacher complaints and requests, ordering equipment and supplies, etc. To read the job description of the Desegregation Facilitator and to know what is required in the Incentive Schools is to know that a secretary is needed (see attached job description). The new Federal Programs Director's responsibilities increased as federal and state requirements increased and has continued to do so during the 1992-93 school year. Among the many responsibilities of this administrator is to prepare and submit applications for ongoing federal funding, to supervise all activities paid by these funds, to write and approve all federal project proposals, to compile and maintain written records and reports on results of all federal projects and disseminate this information throughout the district (see job description). With the monumental responsibilities of this position, the State Department personnel noted that in districts with student enrollments that are less than those of the LRSD, at least three clerical persons are needed to do an effective job. Additionally, there are ten private schools that are under the supervision of this office and many state and federal deadlines to meet. Decision Analysis - Executive Summary Desegregation Office Page 3 B. Problem Definition A permanent secretarial position is needed for the Office of the Desegregation Facilitator to provide stability and effective and efficient service. Three very good substitute secretaries left the office after they were trained and understood the functions of the Desegregation Office and its importance. Each of these persons left to obtain permanent positions so they could accrue medical benefits, seniority, etc. This problem is acute and is not cost effective to the district because of the many hours lost in interviewing and training new substitutes rather than hiring a permanent, but efficient, secretary who can meet the needs of the office. C. Analysis of Alternatives '}I, ~......#4 __,/) A need is a gap between current results and required results, as a gap m results between \"what is\" and \"what should be.\" The process that I used in analyzing alternatives for a permanent secretarial position, was to compare the effectiveness of the Desegregation 11.b~ Office with a half-time secretary that is also shared by a Federal Programs Director f..J ~ compared with a full-time substitute that works only for the Desegregation Office. When 'J0 ,J:r~~.:, using a shared secretary, additional secretarial help is often requested from at least two or rr,---.-... three other secretaries on the second floor of the building. Often they are busy with their own assignments. When they are, reports or mail outs are not produced in a timely manner. When some of the reports are confidential, there is a degree of concern regarding public disclosure. A negative impact is hiring a full-time substitute who leaves her employment in my office in the middle of an assignment after finding a permanent position. D. Recommendations Based on the defined problem of not having a secretary, and after carefully analyzing the facts, I am recommending that a full-time secretary be hired immediately. This information was shared with the superintendent and approved over two months ago. Decision Analysis - Executive Summary Desegregation Office Page 4 E. Objectives 1. Objective of the Recommendation To hire an office secretary for the Desegregation Facilitator who will provide effective and efficient service and support so that the maximum positive impact of that office can be realized. 2. Goal Support Having an effective Desegregation Office secretary will indirectly support the desegregation plan and the district's goals of (a) establishing climates of educational excellence and equity in all schools and (b) enhancing human relation skills for principals, teachers, and central office administration. These goals can be achieved through support by the Desegregation Facilitator by having efficient and effective office personnel. 3. Evaluation Criteria The effectiveness of this position can be measured by product outcomes, efficiency of service, comments from principals, parents, district personnel, visitors, etc. 4. Expected Benefits Typing, filing, reports, etc. are expected to be completed in a timely manner. A well- run office will allow information related to the desegregation plan to flow to the parents, students, and district administrators from the Desegregation Facilitator in timely manner. This positive impact will enhance the entire district as an organization and the community it serves. F. Impact Analysis 1. Program If information is not disseminated to the schools and or community in an efficient and effective manner, it will have an adverse effect on the programs in the schools. 2. Desegregation Plan If there is ineffective written and/or oral communication due to the lack of adequate office personnel, the desegregation plan will definitely be negatively impacted. 3. Court Orders Information not submitted to principals by the secretary in a timely manner and interpreted by the Desegregation Facilitator will have an adverse effect on the district. Decision Analysis - Executive Summary Desegregation Office Page 5 4. Political Factors Due to the district's present position on hiring, other persons in the district, unless informed, will perceive this addition of staff as inconsistent with the budget reductions. 5. Risks The risks are to hear complaints from other secretaries in the district who want to fill the vacant position, or from other secretaries who were cut. The risks of not hiring a full-time, competent secretary to run the Desegregation Office is to not assume the responsibility of supporting the desegregation plan as effectively as it should be. Because of the workload and number of reports to be generated, the position requires a secretary who has good organizational skills, maturity, types accurately, is skilled on the computer, has good written and oral communication skills, and has a knowledge and understanding of the desegregation plan. 6. Timing This position needs to be filled as soon as the interview process is completed. The secretary should be hired no later than June 1, 1993. G. Resource Analysis 1. Personnel Analysis The position of Desegregation Facilitator is equivalent to that of the Assistant Superintendent. The workload as evidenced by the job description and the many elements in the desegregation plan requires a high level secretary that can run the office effectively at all times. A recruiting pool by which a secretary is merely placed based on seniority in the district will not suffice. 2. Financial Analysis The salary cost of this position is $21,500. The cost to the district can only be measured by the time lost running around the building to solicit other secretarial help and the loss of commitment to the desegregation plan. Time is money. Decision Analysis - Executive Summary Desegregation Office Page 6 H. Force Field Analysis 1. Forces For Principals Parent and teacher committees Parents in school communities Federal Programs secretary and director Desegregation Facilitator Some district secretaries who are favorable toward the the recommendation of hiring a full-time secretary. a. Principals, parents, and teachers can always call my office and get information from my secretary if I am attending a meeting or doing a school visit. b. My office secretary can type information for parent groups\nsend mail-outs to members of the Staffing Committee, etc.\nsummer school surveys\nand, other information to parents in the school community. c. The Federal Programs Director will be able to use his secretary on full-time basis. In addition to schools in the LRSD, the Federal Programs Office will be able to meet the needs of more than ten private schools and adhere to specific state and federal deadlines. d. The Desegregation Facilitator will not have to interrupt other district secretaries except in emergencies. At least one of the secretaries in another office have missed scheduled breaks and lunch to complete a task for me. This report today is no exception. 2. Focus Against Other secretaries who experienced budget cuts and want the position. Their confidence can be gained by allowing them to interview for the position and hire them if they meet the qualifications. BUSINESS CASE LRSD OFFICE OF COMMUNICATIONS MAY1993 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Little Rocle School District is faced with budget cuts for the 1993/94 year totaling more than 5 million. When given the choice, reducing positions rather than laying off has less adverse effect on employees. The maJor impact of cutting the position of Communications Assistant to part-time will be the necessity to transfer or delete some services that were in place with two full-time professionals in the office. Savings to the District will be $25,000 in salary, $600 travel stipend and $4,440 in benefits (Total $30,040.00) Current Situation Currently the LRSD Office of Communications is operating with one professional staff member and one secretary. The professional staff member, formerly the Communications Assistant for 1 1/2 years, is now functioning as Acting Director of Communications. The budget cut recommendation is to hire a part-time Communications Assistant at a salary of $10,000 with no travel stipend or benefits package. Background Information Prior to the Director's departure in February 1993, the office operated with the Director of Communications, a Communications Assistant, and a secretary. The Director was responsible for seeing that the office executed communications/marketing/public information strategies and supported the District's overall mission through improved community awareness, understanding and confidence. As part of those duties, the Director functioned as one of the two district spokespersons, was a member of the superintendent's cabinet, represented the District on two major boards, maintained a budget and directed the two other staff members in assigned tasks. As part of these tasks and supportive activities, the Communications Office has obligations it must meet pursuant to the \"Settlement Plan\" generally and specifically in the areas of public relations, incentive schools, focused activities, parent and community involvement and staff. Task areas include media relations, communications planning, crisis communication planning/ training, community /business relations, marketing and recruiting support for various schools detailed by the desegregation plan, development of support materials, such as brochures, videos, etc.\nmanaging the District's cable public access channel (Cable Channel 4), providing information to student households, school-community communications and staff communications. Business Case Office of Communications Page2 The Communications Assistant developed and executed programs for internal and external constituencies. The assistant kept records and developed various reports for the communications office, as well as the superintendent's office. Many of these reports supported items addressed in the desegregation plan. The assistant also planned and executed special events, developed written and video materials, directed school-community communications arid prepared various scripts for the superintendent. The secretary assisted in addressing external/internal requests that average more than 90 per month, media requests averaging more than 30 per month, internal requests for computer support, event planning, bulk mailings, preparation of superintendent citations, and general secretarial duties. College level interns have been used in the past when available. This practice will be continued. Problem Definition and Considerations The current financial status in which the LRSD finds itself, has forced the District to carefully consider budget cuts of all kinds. Everyone understands that the District cannot, by law, operate with a deficit. More than 7.5 million dollars must be cut from the budget. However, the community, as well as the administration, believes that those cuts should be made as far away from the students as possible, affecting the desegregation plan as little as possible. The reduction of professional staff has been considered whenever possible, hence, the recommendation to fill the position of Communications Assistant on a part-time basis. Alternatives As in all budget decisions, management has been sensitive to employees and the loss of their jobs, but cuts must be made. Alternatives for making the decision to make the Communications Assistant's position part-time include: 1. Restructure the department duties and hire an assistant with less experience at almost half the current salary. The assistant could be trained to assume many of the duties that have been returned to the school level, been assumed by the acting director or fallen by the wayside. 2. Leave the position at its current salary and hire a more experienced professional. 3. Do nothing-- do not rehire or restructure. Business Case Office of Communications Page3 4. Do not rehire and begin restructuring the office duties. 5. Hire a part-time Communications Assistant. Analysis of Alternatives 1. Restructuring the department and hiring an assistant at less salary would allow programs and activities that have been put in place to continue. Many of the programs and activities are directly and indirectly mentioned in the desegregation plan. Others duties that have been done by the assistant in the past but have been put on \"hold\" due to the lack of manpower, address the issue of record keeping and reporting which are important in providing materials for monitoring. The impact of the staff reduction has greatly reduced the productivity of the two staff members that remain. Basically the work load of the one vacated staff member has been divided as following: 85% to the remaining professional and 15% to the secretary. There has been minimal restructuring at this time. By hiring another assistant with less experience the restructured work load could be more evenly distributed among the three staff members. The hiring would also more closely align the Communications Office with the recommendations of the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan where it states that all three districts should \"augment\" the communications staffs. The financial savings would be approximately one-half the salary or $18,000. This alternative was rejected because it did not save the District sufficient money. 2. Leaving the position as it is would provide two staff members of a professional level to continue programs and supportive activities as obligated in the desegregation plan. With this alternative there would be no financial savings to the District (loss of $40,040). This alternative was rejected because it was a continuing level budget and would not meet the reduction requirements. 3. The decision to not rehire or restructre would make the office almost impossible to run. Minimal restructuring has begun in order to make the office duties somewhat manageable for the two remaining staff members. The financial savings would be that of $40,040). This alternative was rejected because although the District would save money, the chances of the desegregation plan being implemented would be slim. 4. The decision to not rehire, but instead restructure the office duties to reduce the work load would allow the staff to continue some of the programs and activities. Many of the programs developed and executed by the Communications Office in the past will be managed at the school level as a way Business Case Office of Communications Page4 of addressing the requirements of the desegregation plan. Others will be evaluated and restructured or dropped. The restructuring of the office will allow the staff to realign their duties to compensate for the reduction by placing the duties at the school level. The restructuring will be accomplished in such a way as to avoid an adverse effect on the implementation of the desegregation plan. This alternative is recommended. 5. Hire a part-time Communications Assistant to releive some of the work load and still save the District money. In addition, the Office of Communications will need to enter into a support services contract for services that may no longer be produced internally. These services may include copy writing, typesetting and printing production of written materials, graphic computer support, marketing and recruiting support and event planning. Suggested salary would be $10,000 without benefits. Recommendation The decision to hire a part-time Communications Assistant would allow many of the projects in place to be continued. It would help take the pressure off of the schools to be responsible fo thier own promotion. It would also allow the Communications Office to be more in line with the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan recommendations. This decision would save the District more than $30,000. The alternative is recommended. Objective The objective/ goal is to make budget cuts with as little direct effect on the children/ students of the District without affecting programs and the desegregation plan. This recommendation supports the goal listed above and would be a budget cut that is rather far from students. It cuts the salary and benefits of one position saving the District $30,040. It does not directly affect the education of children. Evaluation of the budget cut will be made by the superintendent, ODM and the Court. The superintendent will assess the office on its capability to support communications/marketing/public relations aspects of education and the ability to support the District in its overall mission through improved community awareness, understanding and confidence. ODM and the Court will monitor the effectiveness of the office in fulfilling the implementation of the desegregation plan. Business Case Office of Communications Pages Expected Benefits Expected benefits are a budget reduction of $30,040. The community will benefit if the District can balance the budget and not be forced to depend on additional taxation. The District will gain public support and confidence in their word by becoming fiscally responsible.  Impact Analysis Desegregation Plan Impact The effects of reduction in personnel will be most noticeable in reduced services to schools, internal staff and the community. Services may no longer be feasible at the level they have been offered, may need to be restructured and moved to another area of responsibility, or may be deleted. Services that are currently being offered that are ex ected to continue are listed below with references to the public relations and incentive school promotion section of the desegregation plan. 1. Innovative ways to disseminate public information (Pg. 62, 63) 2. Brochures (externally produced,) fliers, annual school calendar, PSAs, weekly news releases, and news conferences when appropriate. (Pg 62) 3. School/ administration network to assure accurate and ongoing flow of information. (Pg. 63) 4. Outreach to community - Realtors, key community leaders, Chamber of Commerce, opinion makers, business leaders and others. (Pg. 63, 64) 5. Recognition and reward of achievement for employees, students and parents. (Pg. 64, 7) 6. Continuation of community and internal forums with the Superintendent and administration to gain input for future planning. (Pg. 65, 66, 67) 7. Strengthening the link with business community by promoting the activities of VIPS, the Chamber of Commerce and others who assist us in helping the community to understand the desegregation plan. (Pg. 67) Business Case Office of Communications Page6 8. Assist the SAO in recruiting for all schools as well as aggressive marketing efforts for specific schools such as King and Stephens schools. 9. Continue to assist in recruitment for incentive schools. (Pg. 215, 216) In addition to the services listed above, day to day office operation requires addressing external/internal inquires averaging 90 per month, media requests averaging 30 per month, superintendent's office support in gathering information for script/ citation preparation, internal requests for computer support, event planning such as the District retirement party, National Merit Scholar reception and teacher/ staff appreciation and many more unexpected requests. In addition there are several unknowns that must be factored into the workload for recruiting support for King and Stephens Interdistrict Schools in 1993/94. The following areas are expected to feel the cuts more intensely, be moved to another area of responsibility, or be deleted: School level 1. Management, execution and evaluation of external media requests and programs to present LRSD schools and students in a positive tone (Pg. 62, 2) 2. Training of secretarial and other staff to be ambassadors on behalf of the schools and the desegregation plan (Pg. 64, 8) 3. Preparation of a public relations resource handbook (Pg. 65, d) 4. Internal production of recruitment brochures and other promotional literature (Pg. 62, 3) 5. Internal production of a LRSD newsletter for all staff (Pg. 63, Sd) Community level 1. External production of a LRSD newsletter for the community (Pg. 62, 3, pg. 67, 12) 2. Further development of forms of communication with public who are hard to reach through routine methods (Pg. 63, 4) Business Case Office of Communications Page7 3. Further development of ways to insure that business leaders understand the desegregation plan terminology and programs. (Pg. 67, 11 c) 4. Development of a business-community based speakers bureau (Pg. 67, 11 c) 5. Development of programming for LRSD's Cable Channel 4. (Pg. 62, 63) Court Orders The effect this reduction would have on court orders is unknown at this time. However, concerns about the District's recruiting and support for that effort have been expressed in recent court hearings. Concerns about internal and external communications in providing staff and the public with educational information about the desegregation plan have also been expressed. Political Factors Politically the District would benefit from a balanced budget, public support and confidence gained by becoming fiscally responsible and meeting one of the goals in making cuts as far away from children as possible. Risks Risks in making this cut include the problems that may arise if one or both staff members become ill or are on leave for an extended period, or find other employment. Risks might also occur in not being able to implement all items in the desegregation plan even with the restructuring of the department. Dispersing the duties to others who may or may not be trained properly may be risky. Education is most important at the school level, as it should be. When given the choice, schools may set priorities that do not include requests for good public relations in their schools at the top of their list. These actions, when monitored by the court, could place the District at risk. Timing Budget cuts IDYS.t be made for the coming year. The position is unfilled at this point and presents an opportunity to make a cut without the loss of an employee's job. Business Case Office of Communications Page8 General Implementation Plan Task Responsibility When Identification of Communications Ongoing responsibilities to be restructured Recommendations for Communications Ongoing/ restructuring of as needed responsibilities Identification of Communications/ June 1993/ print projects to be done externally Student Assignment Ongoing Recommendation for Communications July 1993 who will do staff training and resource book Recommendation for who Communications August 1993 will produce newsletters Development of forms of Communications August 1993 communication/ restructure Development of community Communications August 1993 understanding/restructure Development of community- Communications Sept. 1993 based speakers bureau/ restructure Development of programming Communications Oct. 1993 for Cable 4 HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR Executive Summary The Human Resources Department was combined with the Labor Relations Department during the 1992-93 school year, and the position of Human Resources Director was eliminated. The consolidation of these two departments has been unsuccessful, causing departmental operations to further deteriorate and impact school operations. Therefore, it is essential that the position of Human Resources Director be filled immediately. A. B. C. D. E. Background The merger of Human Resources and Labor Relations resulted in the elimination of one cabinet level administrative position. The consolidation of these two departments has been unsuccessful. Problem Definition fe,2\n1411-uA ~r f'~_? The Human Resources Department continues to have difficulty accomplishing the department's organizational objectives. The result of this department's inability to operate in an efficient manner is impacting school operations. Analysis of Alternatives ~~~~1 There appears to be only two viable alternatives, namely\n(1) hire a Human Resources Director, or (2) subcontract this department's operations to a private company. The alternative to recruit a professional Human Resources Director appears to be the best short-run alternative. Recommendation Recruit and hire a Human Resources Director. The total cost including salary and benefits is $55,000. Objective -7~, The objective of this recommendation is to improve the Human Resources Department operations as well as improve school support. PROGRAM ANALYSIS for the ADDITION OF THE ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The five high schools within the Little Rock School District are faced with a multitude of challenges each day to keep teaching and learning a top- priority. The administrative teams have tremendous responsibilities in trying to meet the needs of all students, staff, and parents. A B. Background The current number of teachers, administrative teams, and each school are as follows: studentenrollo/ SCHOOL TEACHERS ADMINISTRATORS ,/It SIUDENT ENROILMENT T Parkview 73 4 18,'Z.S 10-1-92 871 ,,., 4-13-93 823 11.3 McClellan 78 4 l'I,~ 10-1-92 985 ,z., 4-13-93 916 ,,.1 Hall 83 4 z~.7~ 10-1-92 994 //, 1 4-13-93 978 ,,.g Fair 67 4 ,~.7~ 10-1-92 905 ,r .c 4-13-93 855 Central 115 4 7.g,11 10-1-92 1,991 \" 4-13-93 1,867 \" Problem DefinitiQn Central High, with a student population of close to 2,000, needs an additional assistant principal to meet the demands of the daily school operation. The school has been able to function with the number of administrators currently assigned there, but it has been most stressful and difficult. ~ RRnt\u0026gt;S -.4 z,7.8 zoG z#.,3 zz, Z,l'J.5 t.'l'I-'\u0026gt; iZL.3 C. Alternatives ,fJ . I. VU~~ tH\"d ~ ~- ~!'~~ F~: The alternatives are limited in this situation. The decision fo add one additional administrator should be based on an appropriate justification for the need at Central High School. Business Case Addition of the Assistant Principal Page 2 D. E. F. G. H. Recommendation It is recommended that one additional assistant principal be added to the Central High administrative team for the 1993-94 school year. Objective The addition of this position will greatly reduce the individual workload on all the administrators. With over 115 teachers to supervise and evaluate, an additional administrator will significantly make a difference. Students will benefit from this recommendation because one additional administrator will be available to assist with campus supervision, discipline issues, and the coordination of student activities. In addition, parents wuld have one more administrator available to them to address issues and concerns. Impact This recommendation will undoubtedly help the Central High staff to implement the Desegregation Plan more effectively and efficiently. Resources Analysis The addition of one assistant principal to Central High School will cost approximately $40,000. Force Field Analysis The Central High School staff and community will most likely support this recommendation. Forces against the recommendation would include individuals who are opposed to administrative positions being added, while other non-administrative positions have been eliminated or reduced. BUSINESS CASE: KUAR/KLRE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Little Rock School District currently supports a local public radio station. The amount expended for this support is approximately $86,000 per year. The District has come to question this support because of the financial crisis it currently finds itself in. In order to discontinue the support the District must give the radio station two years notice. The following information discusses the radio station situation in greater detail. It is recommended that the School District give the radio station the required two years notice so that resources may be more directly focused on District goals in the future. BACKGROUND: 1. Current Situation: The Little Rock School District has had an agreement with KUAR/KLRE, the local public radio station. This agreement has resulted in the station running public service announcements and giving other forms of support to the District. The station was helpful during the last millage and has provided some opportunities for students to experience radio production over the years. The District is currently paying $86,000 per year to support the station and must give two years notice if the agreement between it and the station is to be severed. This means that the station will have two years to find a source of funds to replace those furnished by the District. 2. Background Information: The District has supported the radio station over the years but has now reached a financial situation that has made continued support subject to question because of the necessity of the District to focus funds on teaching and learning activities and implementation of the Desegregation Plan. PROBLEM DEFINITION: 1. Problem Statement: The District is currently spending $86,000 per year to support the station. It can no longer afford to do this because the money could be spent on activities which are more closely aligned with District goals. 2. Considerations: The radio station has a large number of listeners who feel that the District should continue to support the station for a variety of reasons including enhanced public relations, assistance with recruiting and help with future millages. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES: 1. Process: Discussions have been held with personnel from the radio station but the station has not yet reported alternatives to replace the funds if the District withdraws its support. 2. Identification: Alternatives to the severing of the contract could include the furnishing of support at a reduced level or the station finding funds from another source. 3. Analysis: Reduced levels of support from the District could lend some assistance to the station, but the question of whether the District really has any business supporting a public radio station would remain. The option of reduced levels of support is rejected at this time because the action contemplated is simply that of giving two years notice on the agreement with the station. This time span will give personnel from the station two years to find alternatives. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Action Recommended: It is recommended that the District give notice to KUAR/KLRE so that the contract with the station will be severed after two years. 2. Rationale: Support for a public radio station is inconsistent with the primary purposes of the District. Resources must be focused on activities that directly impact the classroom. This need is increasingly acute as resources continue to decline. OBJECTIVE: 1. Objective of the Recommendation: The District will begin to save over $86,000 per year at the end of the two year notice period. 2. Goal Support: The most important two goals of the District are to increase student learning and to implement the Desegregation Plan. The funds realized from withdrawing of support from the station will be used to support these two goals. IMPACT ANALYSIS: 1 . Program: Little impact on other programs is expected. 2. Desegregation Plan: Little impact on the Desegregation Plan is expected. 3. Court Orders: No Court Orders will be affected by this recommendation. 4. Political Factors: The radio station has a great deal of support from various segments of the community. These persons will exert pressure to maintain funding for the station. Other members of the community, and parents question why the District is spending money on a radio station. 5. Risks: The School District could lose support for future millages or other programs because supporters of the station are criticial of the withdrawal of funding. The District could also be accused by parents and non listeners of wasting money on activities which take money away from the classroom if the two years notice required by the contract is not given. 6. Timing: Timing for this decision is very good because the District is currently in a financial crisis which may worsen. This makes the giving of two years notice very important if future budget flexibility is to be maintained. BUSINESS CASE FOR PERSONNEL REDUCTIONS HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Reductions in personnel are necessary for the District to balance the budget for the 1993-94 school year. Each cabinet level administrator has been asked to make recommendations to reduce personnel in areas they supervise. The Human Resources Department (HR) has been asked to explore the possibility of reducing one secretarial position to assist in the effort to balance the budget. The secretarial duties of the position can be absorbed by the remaining secretarial staff with minimal impact to the District. The recommended reduction would save the District approximately $21,800 for the 1993-94 school year. However, the action by the Board of Directors must occur in time to notify the employee before June 1, 1993. Although restructuring of duties must take place with the remaining staff, it is possible to implement the recommendations. A BACKGROUND: Currently, the Human Resources Department (HR) has a staff consisting of a Director, a Recruiting Specialist, an Administrative Assistant and ten (10) secretaries. This staffing level is the result of the consolidation of the Labor Relations Department and Human Resources beginning in the 1992-93 school Year. The merger of the two departments was a budget reduction decision and allowed the elimination of one cabinet level administrative position (Director of Labor Relations). Additional needs for budget reductions to balance the 1993-94 budget have caused the District to further examine possible staff reductions for budgetary reasons. To meet that end, HR has been asked to reduce one secretarial position. B. PROBLEM DEFINITION: Given that additional budget reductions must be made in HR, the Problem is to decide which personnel cuts can be made and minimize the impact on the department's ability to accomplish its essential functions. C. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES: The alternatives were limited by the actual staff size, administrative and secretarial, and by the seniority of the respective members of the staff assigned to HR. In determining if it could be possible to make cuts .other than personnel from the HR budget as an alternative recommendation to staff cuts, it must be understood that the entire operating budget for HR is currently $37,120 excluding salaries. For the 1993-94 school year, the budgeted amount has been reduced by 2 7 % to $27,120. The total non-salary budget for 1993-94 is almost the same as the salary of one secretarial position\ntherefore, a significant reduction in the HR non-salary budget would not be feasible. Since there are only two administrative positions in HR (Director and Recruiting Specialist) the only logical alternative has to be the Recruiting Specialist position. A school district with approximately 4000 employees cannot be expected to function with no director of HR for an extended period. After careful consideration, it has been determined that the recruiting function must remain a high priority with the District, and it is highly desirable for those functions to be coordinated by the Recruiting Specialist. On the secretarial reduction for HR, the selection of the person to be reduced will be decided by seniority with the duties assigned to that position to be distributed between the remaining secretarial staff. D. RECOMMENDATIONS: Based on the analysis of the available alternatives, the following recommendations are made: 1. One secretarial position assigned to HR should be eliminated. The rationale for the recommendation which has been presented is based solely on the analysis of the very limited alternatives. Reductions of personnel in HR represent the only significant monetary savings. The one position being recommended represents the least impact on HR's ability to complete its essential functions. E. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this recommendation is to reduce administrative expenses of the District to aid in the development of a balanced budget for the 1993-94 school year. The reduction of the secretarial position will assist in that effort by approximately $21,800. F. IMPACT ANALYSIS: secretary Program: The responsibilities of one of the s.ecretaries in HR will be absorbed by the remaining secretarial staff. Restructuring of responsibilities of the staff will be implemented to ensure minimal negative impact. Desegregation Plan: This reduction will not impact the plan. Court Orders: This reduction will not impact any court orders. Political Factors: There do not appear to be any political factors associated with this recommendation. Risks: The risk is that the remaining clerical staff will be stretched too thin and the delivery of services could be slowed. Timing: There are no timing problems associated with this recommendation. G. RESOURCES ANALYSIS: PERSONNEL ANALYSIS: This recommendation eliminates one position. The secretarial reduction would result in the transfer of one secretary unless a vacancy occurs as the result of a resignation or retirement. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS: The recommendation will have a first year savings of approximately $21,800. Assuming only an increment increase (approximately 3%) for the next five years, the savings to the District would be as follows: 1993-94 - $21,800 1994-95 - $22,454 1995-96 - $23,128 1996-97 - $23,821 1997-98 - $24,536 H. GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: If the recommended personnel reduction is approved by the Board of Directors, the secretary will be transferred effective July 1, 1993. This notification will be made by the Director of Human Resources. BUSINESS CASE LRSD OFFICE OF COMMUNICATIONS MAY1993 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Little Rock School District is faced with budget cuts for the 1993/94 year totaling more than 5 million. Reducing positions has less adverse effect on employees. The major impact of cutting the position of Communications Assistant will be the necessity to transfer or delete services. Savings to the District will be $35,000 in salary, $600 travel stipend and $4,440 in benefits (Total $40,040.00) Current Situation Currently the LRSD Office of Communications is operating with one professional staff member and one secretary. The professional staff member, formerly the Communications Assistant for 11/2 years, is now functioning as Acting Director of Communications. The budget cut recommendation is to continue running the department with the reduced staff of two. Background Information Prior to the Director's departure in February 1993, the office operated with the Director of Communications, a Communications Assistant, and a secretary. The Director was responsible for seeing that the office executed communications/marketing/public information strategies and supported the District's overall mission through improved community awareness, understanding and confidence. As part of those duties, the Director functioned as one of the two district spokespersons, was a member of the superintendent's cabinet, represented the District on two major boards, maintained a budget and directed the two other staff members in assigned tasks. As part of these tasks and supportive activities, the Communications Office has obligations it must meet pursuant to the \"Settlement Plan\" generally and specifically in the areas of public relations, incentive schools, focused activities, parent and community involvement and staff. Task areas include media relations, communications planning, crisis communication planning/ training, community /business relations, marketing and recruiting support for various schools detailed by the desegregation plan, development of support materials, such as brochures, videos, etc.\nmanaging the District's cable public access channel (Cable Channel 4), providing information to student households, school-community communications and staff communications. The Communications Assistant developed and executed programs for internal and external constituencies. The assistant kept records and developed various reports for the communications office, as well as the superintendent's Business Case Office of Communications office. Many of these reports supported items addressed in the desegregation plan. The assistant also planned and executed special events, developed written and video materials, directed school-community communications and prepared various scripts for the superintendent. The secretary assisted in addressing external/internal requests that average more than 90 per month, media requests averaging more than 30 per month, internal requests for computer support, event planning, bulk mailings, preparation of superintendent citations, and general secretarial duties. College level interns have been used in the past when available. This practice will be continued. Problem Definition and Considerations The current financial status in which the LRSD finds itself, has forced the District to carefully consider budget cuts of all kinds. Everyone understands that the District cannot, by law, operate with a deficit. More than 7.5 million dollars must be cut from the budget. However, the community, as well as the administration, believes that those cuts should be made as far away from the students as possible, affecting the desegregation plan as little as possible. The reduction of professional staff has been considered whenever possible, hence, the recommendation not to fill the position of Communications Assistant. ..Alternatives As in all budget decisions, management has been sensitive to employees and the loss of their jobs but cuts must be made. Alternatives for making the decision to cut the Communications Assistant's position include: 1. Restructure the department duties and hire an assistant with less experience at almost half the current salary. The assistant could be trained to assume many of the duties that have been returned to the school level, been assumed by the acting director or fallen by the wayside. 2. Leave the position at its current salary and hire a more experienced professional. 3. Do nothing -- do not rehire or restructure. 4. Do not rehire and begin restructuring the office duties. Business Case Office of Communications Analysis of Alternatives 1. Restructuring the department and hiring an assistant at less salary would allow programs and activities that have been put in place to continue. Many of the programs and activities are directly and indirectly mentioned in the desegregation plan. Others duties that have been done by the assistant in the past but have been put on \"hold\" due to the lack of manpower, address the issue of record keeping and reporting which are important in providing materials for monitoring. The impact of the staff reduction has greatly reduced the productivity of the two staff members that remain. Basically the work load of the one vacated staff member has been divided as following: 85% to the remaining professional and 15% to the secretary. There has been minimal restructuring at this time. By hiring another assistant with less experience the restructured work load could be more evenly distributed among the three staff members. The financial savings would be approximately one-half the salary or $18,000. This alternative was rejected because it did not save the District sufficient money. 2. Leaving the position as it is would provide two staff members of a professional level to continue programs and supportive activities as obligated in the desegregation plan. With this alternative there would be no financial savings to the District (loss of $40,040). This alternative was rejected because it was a continuing level budget and would not meet the reduction requirements. 3. The decision to not rehire or restructure would make the office almost impossible to run. Minimal restructuring has begun in order to make the office duties somewhat manageable for the two remaining staff members. The financial savings would be that of $40,040). This alternative was rejected because although the District would save money, the chances of the desegregation plan being implemented would be slim. Recommendation 4. The decision to not rehire, but instead restructure the office duties to reduce the work load would allow the staff to continue some of the programs and activities. Many of the programs developed and executed by the Communications Office in the past will be managed at the school level as a way of addressing the requirements of the desegregation plan. Others will be evaluated and restructured or dropped. The restructuring of the office will allow the staff to realign their duties to compensate for the reduction by placing the duties at the school level. The restructuring will be accomplished in such a way Business Case Office of Communications as to avoid an adverse effect on the implementation of the desegregation plan. This alternative is recommended. Objective The objective/ goal is to make budget cuts with as little direct effect on the children/ students of the District without affecting programs and the desegregation plan. This recommendation supports the goal listed above and would be a budget cut that is rather far from students. It cuts the salary and benefits of one position saving the District $40,040. It does not directly affect the education of children. Evaluation of the budget cut will be made by the superintendent, ODM and the Court. The superintendent will assess the office on its capability to support communications/marketing/public relations aspects of education and the ability to support the District in its overall mission through improved community awareness, understanding and confidence. ODM and the Court will monitor the effectiveness of the office in fulfilling the implementation of the desegregation plan. Expected Benefits Expected benefits are a budget reduction of $40,040. The community will benefit if the District can balance the budget and not be forced to depend on additional taxation. The District will gain public support and confidence in their word by becoming fiscally responsible. Impact Analysis Desegregation Plan Impact The effects of reduction in personnel will be most noticeable in reduced services to schools, internal staff and the community. Services may no longer be feasible at the level they have been offered, may need to be restructured and moved to another area of responsibility, or may be deleted. Services that are currently being offered that are expected to continue are listed below with references to the public relations and incentive school promotion section of the desegregation plan. Business Case Office of Communications 1. Innovative ways to disseminate public information (Pg. 62, 63) 2. Brochures (externally produced,) fliers, annual school calendar, PSAs, weekly news releases, and news conferences when appropriate. (Pg 62) 3. School/ administration network to assure accurate and ongoing flow of information. (Pg. 63) 4. Outreach to community - Realtors, key community leaders, Chamber of Commerce, opinion makers, business leaders and others. (Pg. 63, 64) 5. Recognition and reward of achievement for employees, students and parents. (Pg. 64, 7) 6. Continuation of community and internal forums with the Superintendent and administration to gain input for future planning. (Pg. 65, 66, 67) 7. Strengthening the link with business community by promoting the activities of VIPS, the Chamber of Commerce and others who assist us in helping the community to understand the desegregation plan. (Pg. 67) 8. Assist the SAO in recruiting for all schools as well as aggressive marketing efforts for specific schools such as King and Stephens schools. 9. Continue to assist in recruitment for incentive schools. (Pg. 215, 216) In addition to the services listed above, day to day office operation requires addressing external/internal inquires averaging 90 per month, media requests averaging 30 per month, superintendent's office support in gathering information for script/ citation preparation, internal requests for computer support, event planning such as the District retirement party, National Merit Scholar reception and teacher/ staff appreciation and many more unexpected requests. In addition there are several unknowns that must be factored into the workload for recruiting support for King and Stephens Interdistrict Schools in 1993/94. The following areas are expected to feel the cuts more intensely, be moved to another area of responsibility, or be deleted: Business Case Office of Communications School level 1. Management, execution and evaluation of external media requests and programs to present LRSD schools and students in a positive tone (Pg. 62, 2) 2. Training of secretarial and other staff to be ambassadors on behalf of the schools and the desegregation plan (Pg. 64, 8) 3. Preparation of a public relations resource handbook (Pg. 65, d) 4. Internal production of recruitment brochures and other promotional literature (Pg. 62, 3) 5. Internal production of a LRSD newsletter for all staff (Pg. 63, 5d) Community level 1. External production of a LRSD newsletter for the community (Pg. 62, 3, pg. 67, 12) 2. Further development of forms of communication with public who are hard to reach through routine methods (Pg. 63, 4) 3. Further development of ways to insure that business leaders understand the desegregation plan terminology and programs. (Pg. 67, 11 c) 4. Development of a business-community based speakers bureau (Pg. 67, 11 c) 5. Development of programming for LRSD's Cable Channel 4. (Pg. 62, 63) Court Orders The effect this reduction would have on court orders is unknown at this time. However, concerns about the District's recruiting and support for that effort have been expressed in recent court hearings. Concerns about internal and external communications in providing staff and the public with educational information about the desegregation plan have also been expressed. Business Case Office of Communications Political Factors Politically the District would benefit from a balanced budget, public support and confidence gained by becoming fiscally responsible and meeting one of the goals in making cuts as far away from children as possible. Risks in making this cut include the problems that may arise if one or both staff members become ill or are on leave for an extended period, or find other employment. Risks might also occur in not being able to implement all items in the desegregation plan even with the restructuring of the department. Dispersing the duties to others who may or may not be trained properly may be risky. Education is most important at the school level, as it should be. When given the choice, schools may set priorities that do not include requests for good public relations in their schools at the top of their list. These actions, when monitored by the court, could place the District at risk. Timing Budget cuts nms1 be made for the coming year. The position is unfilled at this point and presents an opportunity to make a cut without the loss of an employee's job . .General Implementation Plan Task Identification of responsibilities to be restructured Recommendations for restructuring of responsibilities Identification of print projects to be done externally Responsibility Communications Communications Communications/ Student Assignment When Ongoing Ongoing/ as needed June 1993 Business Case Office of Communications Recommendation for Communications June 1993 who will do staff training and resource book Recommendation for who Communications July 1993 will produce newsletters Development of forms of Communications July 1993 communication/ restructure Development of community Communications August 1993 understanding/ restructure Development of community- Communications August 1993 based speakers bureau/ restructure Development of programming Communications Sept. 1993 for Cable 4 BUSINESS CASE CURRICULUM AND LEARNING IMPROVEMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Little Rock School District is committed to a comprehensive desegregation plan which focuses on the total learning environment for all students. The method of assigning these students is the first step in creating school and classroom environments that foster academic achievement and improve race relations between students and staff members. The next step involves a commitment to quality desegregated education by the District, the parents, and the community. The commitment requires a plan of action predicated upon the District's commitment to remaining solvent, while providing quality desegregated education for its students. To remain solvent requires the District to reduce its budget by nine million dollars and to begin operating effective schools with the funds that are generated on an annual basis. In an effort to contribute to the necessary budget reductions, Curriculum and Learning Improvement proposes reductions in the areas of computer lab attendants, media clerks, secretaries, and academic support math teachers. As a result of these reductions, the District will need to equitably distribute staff through restructuring of computer labs, media and secretarial services, and the Academic Support Program. A BACKGROUND Little Rock School District continues to cope with many of the problems that are unique ~o urban school districts, including safety and security, urban flight, racial issues, financial ~ssues, aging buildings, and political interest groups. It has also been involved in implementing an extremely comprehensive and detailed desegregation plan and initiating major construction projects. The severity of the financial problems has caused the District to focus primarily on \"keeping the doors open rather than teaching and learning.\" The District desperately needs to reduce expenditures significantly in order to have a balanced budget for the 1993-94 school year and to discontinue deficit spending. The Di trict must operate an efficient school district within the boundaries of the revenues it receives on an annual basis. Prior to the 1989-90 school year, the previous administration and Board of Directors had developed desegregation plans and negotiated a financial settlement with the State of Arkansas. Two essential issues regarding the settlement must be understood. First, all ?long, the parties knew that the financial settlement would not be sufficient to implement the desegregation plan and that local dollars would be required to fully fund the plan. No one knew how many local dollars would be required to support the settlement money to pay for this plan. The second issue is the commitment to \"double fund\" the original six racially identifiable incentive schools. At the time the settlement was reached, \"double funding\" was not clearly defined nor had the cost for implementing the plan been determined. Over the years the District has negotiated salaries and benefits with several employee groups and obligated funds without knowing the exact amount it could expect to receive from its tax supported resources The student enrollment has declined for a period of years, yet the number of District employees has increased on a regular basis. The District has continued to add programs, such as computer-assisted instruction and media clerks, but has not deleted any programs. The District usually fully implements programs rather than \"piloting or phasing-in\" programs in an orderly and financially responsible manner. Until recently it has been unsuccessful in passing a millage. The District has attempted to resolve or reduce the financial problems through a process called budget recovery, passage of an eight-mill tax increase, budget reduction of 5.5 million dollars in July, 1990, busing settlement proceeds, and an approximately ten million dollar budget reduction in July, 1992. These short-term resolutions only delayed the financial crisis that we now face. B. PROBLEM DEFINITION The Department of Curriculum and Learning Improvement must assist the District in resolving its financial problems. Over the years major cuts--personnel and materials/supplies--have been made in this department. The budget reduction process escalated our timeline as we evaluated how we use time and other resources, such as technology and staff, differently and more meaningfully. Given these circumstances, it appears that we can reduce the number of computer lab attendants and media clerks in :he District as technology, used appropriately, has the potential for facilitating a decrease in staff. All schools and the community will be impacted by various degrees. The computer labs are used as a recruitment tool by the area schools, and computer attendants provide computer assisted instruction to all students. The computer attendants have been trained to provide these services, while some classroom teachers are not trained and may not be comfortable providing this instruction. The community, however, values these computer !abs. Issues, such as these, can cause the community to view the District as unstable and insensitive to its needs. !ime spent seeking additional revenues through budget reductions is negatively 1~pacting teaching and learning. Media clerks assist the librarians by keeping the libraries open and supervising students doing independent research and checking out books while the librarian is teaching. They also provide clerical assistance in ordering and processing materials. Library clerks will continue to perform these duties, but time can be more effectively used with the development and use of curriculum resource guides. C. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES The Department of Curriculum and Learning Improvement has been impacted by every budget cut down through the years. Very few options remain if we are to continue to support the schools. Now the Department must determine the most effective means of implementing the newly-proposed budget cuts. Consideration was first given to eliminating all of the computer attendants and to reducing the number of hours that our media clerks work. Consideration was also given to using more of the Desegregation Loan. Concerns were raised regarding the impact this action would have on the community and the schools. Discussions were held with curriculum supervisors, cabinet members, some principals, and representatives from the Arkansas Department of Education. Support was evident. There is a strong commitment to recruit white students to desegregate our schools. Other alternatives were also reviewed, such as cutting teacher positions, closing several small schools, shortening the school year, asking for another millage increase, imposing a five percent (5%) cut across the board, or eliminating library clerks. Student registration for the 1993-94 school year has not been completed, and it would be premature to consider reducing the number of teachers. Presently, there is not enough community support to pass another millage. The process for closing schools is very detailed and it is too late to begin the process for the 1993-94 school year. The reduction of school days would cause the District an accreditation violation or loss of accreditation. A five percent (5%) reduction across the board for all departments may not provide enough revenue to cover our projected deficits. D. RECOMMENDATIONS Following several meetings with curriculum supervisors and central office staff, recommendations are listed below for your consideration. 1. Computer Lab Attendants and Media Clerks: It is recommended that the District eliminate twenty (20) computer lab attendants and twenty-one (21) media clerks in order to reduce the budget deficit. 2. Curriculum Secretaries: It is recommended that through secretarial pooling, the District eliminate four ( 4) positions. 3. Instructional Resource Center: It is recommended that the District reinstate one position in Instructional Technology. One secretary has been eliminated from this department. The technologist will assume some of these duties and assist other supervisors who are located at the IRC. 4. Academic Support Math Teachers: It is recommended that the District eliminate the pull-out program for math in grades 1-3. This action would allow the District to reassign eight (8) teachers. Staff training would be provided to regular teachers to enhance their skills and to provide alternative instructional strategies. It is recommended that the District eliminate twenty (20) computer lab attendants and twenty-one (21) media clerks for the 1993-94 school year. Remaining computer attendants and media clerks will be scheduled into schools on an equitable basis as are music, art, and physical education teachers. (See attachment) The revised curriculum centers on student learning outcomes and is implemented District-wide. We are now able to make decisions that require us to use time and resources, such as technology and staff, differently and more meaningfully. The restructuring of computer-assisted instruction and media clerks will allow us to make the needed budget cuts and, at the same time, allow trained computer lab attendants to provide computer-assisted instruction. The number of library clerks will be reduced, but the remaining clerks will be able to provide services to librarians and the schools. A review of staffing for the computer labs and library clerks was beneficial. All schools except Washington were originally staffed with one (1) lab attendant. Little or no consideration was given to the student enrollment and staff assignments. This recommendation allows the District to continue to provide two 30-minute periods of computer instruction each week for students in grades 1-6. The computer labs will be staffed by trained computer lab attendants. Lab attendants may be assigned to provide services to more than one school. Computer labs will also be available to regular teachers, gifted specialists, etc., to further enhance learning for students, as well as to help them become more comfortable using the computers. Library clerks will be assigned to schools based on student enrollment and identifiable school needs. E. OBJECTIVE The objective of this recommendation is to allow the District to reduce the budget deficit a:s well as to minimally impact the integrity of the District's mission and desegregation plan. We can provide for more equitable distribution of staff. Consideration was given to providing quality computer services to our schools. Maintenance of this service by trained lab attendants will allow the schools to continue to use the computer labs as a recruitment tool. Additionally, this restructuring will allow wider and more comprehensive use of computers, with a greater focus and connection within and across school sites. The more computer-assisted instruction is aligned with the curriculum and used by all staff, the greater is our likelihood of increasing academic achievement for all students. We can, over a period of time, eliminate the need for teachers to stop teaching the curriculum in order to prepare students to pass a particular test. The revised curriculum contains resource guides which identify materials needed to support the teaching of the curriculum. This resource will assist in a more efficient use of media clerks' time. Evaluation Criteria Students in grades 1-6 will be scheduled for the same amount of time in the computer labs as in the 1992-93 school year. Staffing of computer labs will be based on need rather than across the board allocations. Teaching and learning will show greater focus and connection rather than teaching for the test. Increased student achievement should be noted. Increased use of computer labs and libraries by regular teachers should be noted. Media clerks will become more efficient in providing support. Student recruitment will not be negatively impacted by the modified scheduling of computer lab attendants. Students will continue to use the library but in a more meaningful way. Expected Benefits The District will be able to meet its commitment of increasing achievement for all students which will result in a reduction of the disparity between white and black students. As students matriculate through school, there will be positive gains over a three- to five-year period of time. There will be a closer connection between teaching in the classroom and the support provided by the media center. Staff will become less hesitant to use technology to assist in the delivery of daily instruction. The District will expend its funds in a more cost-saving manner which can result in the elimination of deficit spending. F. IMPACT ANALYSIS Basic computer-assisted instruction can be maintained for each school. Fewer lab attendants will be displaced. Staffing will be more equitable in all schools. The school year will not be reduced. Regular teachers will have options and time to become comfortable using computers. Schools will be able to use computer labs as a recruitment tool. Teaching and learning will be more meaningful and connected. All lab attendants will not have jobs. Some lab attendants will have to travel. Additional activities, such as assisting students attending the labs at times other than their prescribed times, will not be performed by lab attendants. Media services will be impacted, but with limited staff, most duties can be performed in a more meaningful manner. The desegregation plan will not be negatively impacted. This recommendation should have a positive impact on the plan. Court orders will be preserved as we have been ordered to make good use of all equipment and supplies that were purchased with desegregation funds. The restoration of most computer lab attendants and their services will provide for the community's needs. Failure to approve this recommendation will result in a need for the District to find $700,000 from some other source. It also prevents the District from dealing with the issue of \"overstaffing\" our schools. The risk of implementing the recommendation is minimal as the labs and media centers will be available for greater usage. It is possible that regular teachers may not take advantage of using the computer labs. Computer lab attendants and media clerks should be notified of their lack of employment thirty (30) days prior to the beginning of their 1993-94 reporting-to-work date. G. RESOURCES ANALYSIS The staffing for computer labs for the 1993-94 school year as compared to the 1992-93 school year is indicated (see attached chart). Training will be needed for regular teachers. This training will be ongoing and can be provided during the school day by using time allocated for faculty meetings. Additional training can be provided during the evenings at the new Instructional Resource Center (IRC) on a volunteer basis.  The District needs to develop a technology plan to determine its equipment needs. Such a plan will include library media equipment costs and proposals for assuming such costs. The existing hardware will be outmoded within the next two to three years. Most new and high-quality software cannot be used by the District due to the type of hardware we are currently using. Such hardware can be purchased from our bond account using a lease-purchase arrangement. Federal funds may also be used to purchase the needed software and limited hardware. Technology is currently available that will eliminate a number of services provided by media clerks. H. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS The primary supporters of this recommendation will be central office staff, principals, some teachers, and community persons. This recommendation provides for the needs of students, teachers, some computer attendants/media clerks, and the community. Providing information to these forces will assist the District in reassuring patrons and others of our commitment. The primary detractors will be computer lab attendants and media clerks who will be displaced. We will need to assist the displaced persons in securing other employment. They should be dealt with in a very caring and professional manner. I. GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Date Activity Person(s) Responsible 5/93 Plan presented to Board Superintendent and of Directors for Assoc. Supt. for discussion Curriculum 5/27/93 Plan presented to Board Superintendent of Directors for approval 6/93 Staffing needs are Director of Human finalized Resources, Assoc. Supt. and Curr. Supervisors 6/93 Staff notified of Director of Human employment status Resources 6/93 Principals notified of Director of Human 1993-94 staffing Resources 8/93 Develop plans for use of Principals computers by other staff 8/93 Pre-school inservice\nCurriculum Supervisors media clerks/computer lab attendants report to work 8/93 Services provided to Computer lab schools attendants/media clerks 9/93 - 6/94 On-going monitoring of Principals and Curr. computer labs Supervisors 9/93 - 6/94 Quarterly status reports Principals and Curr. Supervisors 5/94 Annual evaluation of Principals, Teachers, computer-assisted and Curr. Supvs. instruction 6/94 Feedback used to Principals, Teachers, improve services and Curr. Supvs. It is recommended that the Department of Curriculum and Learning Improvement eliminate four ( 4) secretarial positions and that a secretarial pool be established at the IRC and Metropolitan Vocational-Technical Education Center to perform the needed services. It is recommended that the Department of Curriculum and Learning Improvement reinstate one position in Instructional Technology. The technologist will assume some of the responsibilities that were performed by the secretaries as well as assist other supervisors at the IRC. The rationale for these recommendations is that given our new location, we can now use remaining staff in a more responsive manner. The existing structure lends itself to make these changes with minimum impact on the schools and our departments. Reduction of the budget is the reason for making such cuts. E. OBJECTIVE The objective of these recommendations is to save money in the area of Curriculum and Learning Improvement. The reduction of the positions will help the District in stopping deficit spending, as well as beginning to staff departments in accordance with their delegated responsibilities. Responsibilities assigned to these staff members will allow the District to provide the needed support to the schools and curriculum departments. It will be necessary for staff to examine how time and responsibilities can become more efficient and effective. Technology such as computers and automated requisitioning should facilitate the smooth operation of these offices. Evaluation Criteria Ongoing monitoring of services to the schools and supervisors will indicate that quality services are being provided to staff.  Customer Satisfaction Surveys will be used near the end of the 1993-94 school year to determine our customer reactions to the reduction of staff. Information gathered through surveys and monitoring of programs will be used to improve services and/ or to recommend that the District consider restoring these positions. F. IMPACT ANALYSIS Each position has been reviewed in terms of assigned responsibilities, the impact on services to the schools, the desegregation plan, and political factors and risks for the District and the Department. The relocation of the IRC may allow the District to utilize a secretarial po_ol to provide the needed services for curriculum supervisors and our 52 schools (including King). All supervisors relocated are housed on one floor and the use of a secretarial pool could be effective and efficient. Prior to this spring, the technology department personnel were not housed with other curriculum supervisors. It is recommended that some of their duties be reassigned to other IRC staff. The remaining two secretaries at Metropolitan will assume the responsibilities and duties that are now performed by three secretaries. The physical location of the site as well as the reduction of grants will help this proposal to work. Desegregation Plan These positions are not identified in the desegregation plan. Some basic secretarial and technology responsibilities are in the plan. The plan does not indicate who will perform such services. The remaining staff will assume responsibilities. Court Orders No existing court orders should have a bearing on these recommendations. Political Factors The administration will be viewed as insensitive by some staff and community members when we discontinue the services of employees. The District should take measures to ensure a supportive and smooth transition for such employees. Risks The quality and level of services to schools and staff could be negatively impacted. Presently, staff is able to respond in a timely manner. The District must look for other alternatives in securing needed funding. Timing It is extremely important that affected staff know as soon as possible their employment status for the 1993-94 school year. G. RESOURCES ANALYSIS Provided is a chart that shows the existing staff and the proposed staffing assignments for the 1993-94 school year. Existing Curriculum Staff 1992-93 Content Area No. of Secretaries English/For. Lang./ESL Instruc. Tech/ Library Services Mathematics Reading Science Social Studies Staff Development Parent Advisory Comm. Early Childhood Educ. Vocational Education TOTAL Content Area Instructional Technology: Supervisor Technologists Total 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 .1--- 1* 0 3 13 1 3 4 Projected Curriculum Staff 1993-94 Content Area No. of Secretaries English/For. Lang./ESL Instruc. Tech/ Library Services Mathematics Reading Science Social Studies Staff Development Parent Advisory Comm. Early Childhood Educ. Vocational Education Content Area Instructional Technology: Supervisor Technologists POOL II II II II II 1* POOL 2 9 1 3 4 * The District assumes financial responsibility for all positions except the secretary for our Parent Advisory Committee which is funded by Chapters 1 and 2. Cost savings should be maintained each year after this budget reduction . H. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS The primary supporters of this recommendation will be the administration, some schools, staff, and various facets of our community. These persons recognize that the District must make these budget reductions. The cuts will be made without significantly impacting the schools. Providing information and keeping the lines of communication open will help us to gain additional support. The primary detractors will be the displaced staff and some facets of our schools and community. We will be viewed as insensitive and non-caring for our employees who have worked for us over a period of years. We can provide information to our detractors and try to reassure them that efforts will be made to assist displaced staff in securing employment and/or retirement. I. GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Curriculum supervisors will review all responsibilities associated with the operation of their departments and make the necessary adjustments with their remaining staff. These assignment changes will be monitored by the supervisors to ensure that services to the schools are satisfactory. The District proposes to reassign eight (8) academic support math teachers by eliminating the pull-out program for math in grades 1-3. Math support will be provided by the regular teachers. E. OBJECTIVE The objective of this recommendation is to provide appropriate math instruction for primary students in the regular classroom and to reduce the number of elementary academic support math teachers. This proposal will assist the District in the budget reduction process while supporting its overall goal to increase achievement for all students. Math specialists will assist regular teachers by equipping them with useful teaching methods, providing alternatives such as flexible use of time, creating betweenclass grouping plans, developing menus of effective alternative instruction approaches, etc. Extended Day services will also be an option for schools. Evaluation Criteria The revised instructional delivery of math services for students in grades 1-3 will be successfully operating in all schools as evidenced by: Increased student achievement. Improvement on standardized test scores. Increased number of students moving from bottom quartile to the next quartile. Increased number of students moving above the 50th percentile. Improved attendance for targeted students. Improved quality of math instruction provided by regular teachers. Over a period of several years of enhancing the teaching skills of regular teachers, the need for remediation should be reduced and these funds can be used to provide other types of support for students. F. IMP ACT ANALYSIS The implementation of this proposal will allow the District to focus on teaching and learning and, at the same time, reduce its budget. These displaced teachers will be reassigned to other positions in the District. We anticipate the availability of a number of teaching vacancies. Teachers will feel more comfortable in providing math instruction for their students. There will be more time for instruction by classroom teachers . .Desegregation Plan This proposal, implemented c\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_1561","title":"Court filings concerning district finances, Joshua Intervenors legal fees, King Interdistrict Magnet School's denomination, and the construction of new schools including Stephens Interdistrict School","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1993-06-22/1993-06-30"],"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--Pulaski County","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational planning","King Interdistrict Magnet Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Stephens Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Magnet schools","School management and organization","School improvement programs","School enrollment","Education--Economic aspects","School buildings"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning district finances, Joshua Intervenors legal fees, King Interdistrict Magnet School's denomination, and the construction of new schools including Stephens Interdistrict School"],"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/1561"],"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":["legal documents"],"dcterms_extent":["22 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1255","title":"Proceedings: ''Hearing''","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":["1993-06-09"],"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","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Court records","King Interdistrict Magnet Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","School improvement programs","Educational innovations"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Hearing''"],"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/1255"],"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":["legal documents"],"dcterms_extent":["202 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1047","title":"\"Little Rock New Futures Initiative: The First Four Years, Selected Findings,\" Metis Associates, Incorporation","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":["Metis Associates, Incorporation"],"dc_date":["1993-06"],"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","Metis Associates, Inc.","Education--Evaluation","Educational innovations","School improvement programs","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["\"Little Rock New Futures Initiative: The First Four Years, Selected Findings,\" Metis Associates, Incorporation"],"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/1047"],"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\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nLittle Rock New Futures Initiative: The First Four Years Selected Findings  Little Rock Prepared by: Metis Associates, Inc. 80 Broad Street, Suite 1600 New York, New York 10004 (212) 425-8833 June 1993 St!f- 18, 9J /~DO t.K o This report was prepared in partial fulfillment of a contract between Metis Associates, Inc. and the Center for the Study of Social Policy, Washington, D.C. I. Introduction Little Rock ew Futures Initiative: The First Four Years Selected Findings The ew Futures Initiative. sponsored by the Annie E. Casey Foundation. is a fourcity (Dayton. Ohio\nLittle Rock, Arkansas\nPittsburgh, Pennsylvania\nand Savannah, Georgia), five-year project designed to respond to disadvantaged populations through comprehensive community partnerships. The project aims to increase academic achievement, reduce dropout and teen pregnancy rates, and increase the employability of at-risk middle and high school tudents. One of the unique features of the initiative is the creation of a rich data base containing student characteristics and outcomes. The information included in this data base will be a valuable tool, not only for the collaboratives and individuals who are directly involved with the ew Futures initiatives, but for all those in the community who have an interest in our children. Beginning with the 1988-1989 school year, each ew Futures city was asked to prepare and transmit a computer file containing, for each student enrolled in grades six (or seven) through twelve at any time during the school year', basic demographic information (school, grade, gender, ethnicitv, date of birth and free lunch eligibility2). and outcomes (reading and mathematics achievement test data, annual attendance rates, course failure information, suspensions and/or expulsions, grade retention and dropout data). Additionally, samples of students were surveyed annually on such non-school topics as home structure, parents' education, academic aspirations, work experiences, and sexual and parenting experiences. Each of these data sources can be used to:  describe the status of children during a given year (what we refer to as \"within-year analyses\")\n compare the status of children in a given year to the status of children in other years (what we refer to as \"over-years analyses\")\nand  follow the status of identified groups of children who remain in the school system over time (what we refer to as \"longitudinal analyses\"). Each city maintains a confidential student identification numbering system which protects students' privacy, permits us to track students over time, and enables us to merge information from the school computer files with information from the student surveys. While many school departments around the country maintain student information systems for such 1 Also available, but not generally referenced in this report are Year 3 and Year 4 data for kindergarten through sixth-graders. 2 Free lunch data were available in two cities beginning with the 1989-1990 school year. 1 discrete applications as class scheduling, transportation routes, grade reporting, attendance/enrollments and academic achievement, the New Futures data base is unique for its comprehensive and continuous collection of data. Further, the application of common definitions over several years and across everal different middle-sized cities creates an information base that is unparalleled in the field for its potential as a research and management tool. We have now created four reasonably complete files of reliable data for each participating city - a file for the 1988-1989 school year, a file for the 1989-1990 school year, a file for the 1990-1991 school year, and a file for the 1991-1992 school year. 3 After the 1992-1993 school year there will be five such files. Given the high quality, comprehensiveness and continuity of the data collections, the ew Futures data base offers enormous potential for assessing needs, evaluating outcomes and developing sound educational policy . In this condensed report we strive to meet two goals: to share selected findings from our first four years of data collection and analysis and to demonstrate the scope and breadth of the data. Our hope is to encourage others to explore and utilize this valuable resource. Report Organization In this summary report we present findings regarding:  enrollment trends\n within-year and over-years outcomes for students on several key measures\n the changing status of those students who have remained in the school system for the four years of our study\n longitudinal enrollments and graduation rates for Year l's 9th graders\nand  the results of the most recent student survey. Taken together, these findings constitute a fairly succinct overview of the results of our statistical analyses to date. Additional details may be found in the appendices to this report4 and in the full four-year Cohorts and Comparative Data Report. 3 Throughout this report we refer to the 1988-1989 school year as Year l, the 1989-1990 school year as Year 2, the 1990-1991 school year as Year 3 , and the 1991-92 school year as Year 4. 4 Appendi\nTable A-1 shows longitudinal enrollment, Table A-2 shows the status change on key variables for all New Futures cities, and Table A-3 examines the relationship between two survey responses and school outcomes. 2 II. Findings A. Enrollment Trends Enrollment data provide a valuable overview of the students in the Little Rock schools. Table 1 shows, over years, enrollment data for junior high school (grades 7-9) and high school (grades 10-12) students in the Little Rock school system during each of the past four school years. Shown are enrollments in each year, the percentage change in enrollments over the four-year period, and the percentage of students in each year who were black or white. Total enrollments decreased by 6.9 percent, from 13,203 students in Year 1 to 12,294 students in Year 4, with decreases in both the junior high and high schools. In Year 1, 57. 7 percent of all enrollees were black, with 62.4 percent black students in the junior high school grades and 53.0 percent black students in the high school grades. By Year 4, 62.7 percent of the students were black, with 66.8 percent black students in the junior high schools, and 58 .2 percent black students in the high schools. Little Rock Table l Over Years Enrollment Data I I Junior High High School Total School Totals Year l 6,590 6,613 13,203 Totals Year 2 6,344 6,156 12,500 Totals Year 3 6,421 5,790 12,211 Totals Year 4 6,507 5,787 12,294 Change Yrs 1-4 -l.3% -12.5% -6.9% RACE Black Year l 62 .4% 53.0% 57 .7% Black Year 2 64.9% 55.7% 60.3% Black Year 3 66.l % 57.7% 62.l % Black Year 4 66.8% 58.2% 62.7% White Year l 36.0% 45.6% 40.8% White Year 2 33.5% 42.9% 38.l % White Year 3 32.5% 40.6% 36.4% White Year 4 32.0% 39.4% 35.5% 3 Table 2 summarizes, by race and school level, the post-Year 4 enrollment status of all of the students who were enrolled in Year 1. How many are still in the Little Rock schools? How many have transferred to another school system? How many have graduated? How many have dropped out of school or been expelled from school? The table shows cumulative enrollments for junior high and high school students. Little Rock Table 2 Cumulative Enrollment Summary Status Year 1 Status Year 4 Level in Race N Still In Transferred Graduated Presumed Unaccounted Expelled Year 1 Year 1 System Out of High Dropout5 For6 Schools System School Jr. High All 6,590 42 .9% 18 .5% 18 .3% 5.0% 13 .3% 2.0% School Black 4,110 46.5% 14.4% 18 .0% 5.3% 13 .0% 2.8% White 2,374 36.l % 25 .4% 19.2% 4.7% 13 .9% 0.7% High All 6,613 0.9% 6.1 % 72 .3% 11.6% 8.3% 0.8% School Black 3,506 1.2% 5.5% 69 .7% 12.7% 9.8% 1.1 % White 3,018 0.6% 6.7% 75 .3% 10.5% 6.5% 0.4% Of the 6,590 students who were in the junior high schools during Year 1 (grades 7 through 9) , 42.9 percent were still in the Little Rock schools by the end of Year 4, 18.5 percent had transferred out of the Little Rock schools, 18.3 percent graduated high school , and a total of 20.3 percent were either presumed dropouts , unaccounted for or expelled . Of the 6,613 students who were in the high schools during Year 1 (grades 10 through 12), by the end of Year 4, less than 1 percent (0 .9%) were still in the Little Rock schools, 6.1 percent had transferred out of the Little Rock schools, 72.3 percent graduated, and a total of 20.7 percent were either presumed dropouts, unaccounted for or expelled. 5 Presumed dropouts are those students who were enrolled in school and then quit, or who had more than 15 days of consecutive unexcused absences. d did nor n turn c. 11 , I u 6 Unaccounted for students were those students who were enrolled in school one year , but unexpectedly did not return to school by October of the following year. Some of these students may have moved from the district without officially transferring. 4 B. Within-Years and Over-Years Analyses Figures 1 through 7 graphically depict, by grade, Year 4 outcomes on key variables. The graphs clearly illustrate differences across grades and between school levels.  Figure 1 shows enrollment across grades for kindergarten through 12th grade students. Between 2,000 and 2,500 students were enrolled in each elementary school grade. Junior high school enrollments were between 2,000 and 2,300 at each grade level. High school enrollments were about 2,100 at the 10th grade, but between 1,700 and 1,900 at the other grades. The graph depicts the inflated enrollments at each transitional grade (1st [primary], 7th [junior high school], and 10th [high school]) . Inflated enrollments result from students being retained in grade and from transfers into the system.  Figure 2 depicts attendance across grades for junior high school and high school students. It can be seen in the figure that attendance decreases across junior high school grades and increases across high school grades. Students in all grades attended between 85 and about 91 percent of the possible days in Year 4. Tenth grade attendance (86.7%) was the lowest and 7th grade attendance (90.8%) was the highest.  Figure 3 shows, for each grade, the percentage of students suspended out of school at least once in Year 4. Suspension rates were considerably higher in the junior high schools than at any other school level. High school rates were much lower than junior high school rates, but were largely consistent across grade levels (about as many seniors as sophomores were suspended out of school.) Less than five percent of elementary school students were suspended from grades kindergarten through five . The 6th grade rate was 6.2 percent.  Figure 4 shows the percentage of students retained in each grade. Overall, retention rates are fairly low, but there are important grade level differences within each school level. Retention rates are the highest at the elementary school level in kindergarten, 1st and 2nd grades (almost no students are retained in 3rd through 6th grades). In junior high school the rates are highest at the 8th grade, and in high school rates are highest at the 10th grade.  Figure 5 shows the percentage of students over age in each grade. The percentage of students over age is higher in each successive grade from kindergarten to 8th. There is a slight decline at 9th grade, an increase at 10th grade, and lower percentages in 11th and 12th grades than for any other secondary grades . 5  Figure 6 shows the percentage of courses failed in each grade. Junior high school course failure rates were within 2 percentage points of each other, across grades. In the high schools, a course failure rate of 38 percent in the 10th grade, is substantially higher than either the 11th or 12th grade rates (27.9% and 25.0%).  Figure 7 shows the percentage of students dropping out in grades 7 to 12. The data are presented in the form of a stacked bar. Each bar combines the percent of students unaccounted for with the percent of presumed dropouts to show the total dropout rate. It can be seen that the dropout rate was fairly similar for 7th and 8th grades, but higher for 9th graders. The dropout rate was at its highest in the 10th grade, and was lower in each successive high school grade. The dropout rate was lowest in the 12th grade. Interestingly, at the high schools, about half of the dropout rate can be accounted for by the percentage of students who are presumed dropouts (3.4 % presumed, 4.1 % unaccounted for, 7.5 % total), at the junior high school level, most of the dropouts are unaccounted for students (0.3% presumed, 4.5% unaccounted for, 4.8% total). The figures graphically depict important patterns in student outcomes. For instance, it can be seen that high school and junior high school rates are different and 10th grade (Little Rock's high school transition grade) is where many problems appear to accumulate. Tenth graders have the highest course failure rates and are the most likely to drop out of school. Negative outcomes in the transition grade to high school are a phenomenon that we have seen in other New Futures cities. 2500 2000 \"C Q) 0... . C LU en 1500 c Q) \"C -::J Cl) - 0 1000 .... Q) .0 E ::J z 500 Figure 1: Little Rock Enrollment Comparisons, Year 4 K 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Grade 6 100% Q) 95% () C Ctl -c, C 2 =i \u0026gt;, 90% ro 0 Q) Ol .C..t.l Q) \u0026gt; \u0026lt;( 85% -c, Q) -c, 20% C Q) Q. en :::, Cl) -en 15% C Q) -c, :::, u5 0 10% Q) Ol Ctl c Q) (...). Q) 5% a.. 7 Figure 2: Little Rock Attendance Comparisons, Year 4 JHS HS 8 9 10 11 Grade Figure 3: Little Rock 12 Percentage of Students Suspended Out-of-School, Year 4 K 23456 789 10 11 12 Grade 7 -0 QJ 8% 7% '-Ciii 6% QJ a: -fJ) 5% C QJ -0 ::, 4% ii5 0 ~ 3% (13 c QJ ~ 2% QJ Cl.. 0%-!=== K Figure 4: Little Rock Percentage of Students Retained 1n Grade. Year 4 K-6 JHS HS 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Grade Figure 5: Little Rock Percentage of Students Over Age, Year 4 20%......r-------------,-------..----------, QJ Cl 15% \u0026lt;( ai \u0026gt; 0 Cl) c QJ -0 10% -::J Cl) -0 c QJ .(...). QJ 5% Cl.. K K-6 JHS HS 23456 789 10 11 12 Grade 8 \"O (1) 30% ro u.. VI (1) VI '-- :J 0 () 20% 0 (1) Ol -l1l C (1) (.) '-- (1) 10% a.. 0% 7 12% -VI 10% :J 0 a. 2 0 8% a 0 .c (.) (/) 6% 0 (1) Ol l1l 4% c (1) (.) '-- (1) a.. 2% 0% 7 Figure 6: Little Rock Percentage of Courses Failed, Year 4 8 9 10 11 Grade Figure 7: Little Rock Dropout Comparisons, Year 4 JHS HS 8 9 10 11 Grade I  Unaccounted ~ Presumed 9 12 12 Table 3 and Table 4 examine the quartile distributions of junior high and high school reading and mathematics achievement scores for all of the tested students who were enrolled in the Little Rock school system during Year 4. By comparing the scores of Little Rock's students to national norms, we can compute the percentages of Little Rock's students whose scores fall in each quartile . In general, Little Rock's scores were somewhat lower than national norms. In both reading and mathematics, less than 25 percent of the tested students scored in the highest quartile (16 % reading and 17 % mathematics for junior high students\n21 % reading and 22% mathematics for high school students) . However, fewer than 25 percent scored in the lowest quartile in junior high school reading (21 % ) , and high school reading and mathematics (17% and 18%). For junior high school mathematics, 34 percent of the tested population scored in the lowest quartile . Additionally, when we analyze the data by race, we find wide discrepancies. Less than 10 percent of the tested white junior high and high school students scored in the lowest reading quartile, versus 28 percent of the black junior high school students and 25 percent of the black high school students. Similarly, only 15 percent of the tested white junior high school students and 7 percent of the tested white high school students scored in the lowest mathematics quartile, compared to 43 percent of the black junior high school students and 26 percent of the black high school students . The racial discrepancies in these data are illustrated in Figure 8 and Figure 9. Also shown in Tables 3 and 4 are the median percentile scores for each racial group. By definition, 50 percent of the tested population receive a score equal to or less than the median. It can be seen that, for junior high school students, while the median score in reading was equivalent to the 44th national percentile, the median score for black students was at the 37th national percentile and the median score for white students was at the 67th national percentile. For high school students, the median score in reading was equivalent to the 48th national percentile\nfor black high school students the score was equivalent to the 38th percentile and for white students it was at the 67th. Similarly, the median score in mathematics for junior high school students was equivalent to the 38th national percentile, while black students scored at the 31st percentile and white students scored at the 59th percentile. For high school mathematics, the overall median was at the 46th national percentile, while the score for black high school students was at the 36th national percentile and the score for white high school students was at the 66th national percentile. Little Rock Table 3 Reading and Mathematics Achievement Comparisons -- Year 4 Junior High School I Reading I Quartile I (Lowest) 21 % 34% Black 28% White 7% Quartile TI 37% 30% Black 45% White 22% Quartile III 26% 20% Black 21 % White 34% Quartile IV (Highest) 16% 17% Black 6% White 37% Median (Expressed as a Percentile) 44th 38th Black 37th White 67th Junior High School Students Scoring in the Lowest and Highest Quartiles Reading Mathematics 100% \"O -Q) 75% en Q) f-- en C Q) \"O :::, 50% u-5 0 -C Q) .(...J. Q) a.. 25% All Black White All Black White I  Lowest Quartile ~ Highest Quartile 11 Math I 43% 15% 33% 24% 17% 26% 7% 34% 31st 59th Little Rock Table 4 Reading and Mathematics Achievement Comparisons -- Year 4 High School I Reading I Quartile I (Lowest) 17% 18% Black 25%  White 6% Quartile II 35% 33% Black 45% White 20% Quartile III 28% 27% Black 23% White 34% Quartile IV (Highest) 21 % 22% Black 7% White 40% Median (Expressed as a Percentile) 48th 46th Black 38th White 67th High School Students Scoring in the Lowest and Highest Quartiles Reading Mathematics 100% \"C Q) 75% in Q) I- -(/) C (I) \"C ::::, en 50% 0 c Q) .C..) aQ..) 25% All Black White All Black White I  Lowest Quartile ~ Highest Quartile 12 Math I 26% 7% 40% 23% 24% 30% 9% 41 % 36th 66th In this section we examine the status of children on several key outcome measures in Years 1, 2, 3 and 4. This analysis not only provides us with information about how students are doing within each of these years, but also allows us to compare how the student body has performed over the years. It is important to note that these comparisons are not of matched groups of students. The junior high school students in Year 1 are, for the most part, different students than the junior high school students in Year 4. Thus, while over-years comparisons can help to point out status changes over time, it is difficult to ascertain which of these changes to attribute to the system and which to differing populations. Table 5 examines eight school measures for the Little Rock student body. Shown for each year are: average daily attendance rates, the percent of students whose Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6) total reading or mathematics scores7 placed them into the lowest quartile (i.e., at or below the 25th national percentile), the percent of students who were at least one-and-one-half years over age for their grades, the percent of students who were suspended out-of-school at least once during the year shown, the percent of students who were retained in grade during the year shown, the percent of courses failed in each year, and the percent of students who were counted as having dropped out. The last column in the table shows, for each factor, the percentage point change from Year 1 to Year 4 (Little Rock suspension data shown are for Years 2 through 4 and the change shown is between Year 2 and Year 4). We have included the words \"better\" or \"worse\" to indicate whether the change constitutes an improvement or a decline. It can be seen in Table 5 that:  Little Rock's junior high school students show some improvements in dropout rates, but worsening or no change in all other variables.  Little Rock's high school students show declining status on attendance and suspension, and improvements on all other indicators. Table 5 also serves as a useful orientation to student performance in the Little Rock school system. 8 Overall, Little Rock's attendance and retention rates and reading and mathematics achievement were relatively good, but there was no improvement over the four year period. Some other measures show comparatively high rates of school problems. Suspension rates were particularly high in the junior high schools, where 18 percent or more of the students were suspended in each of the last three years. Almost one-third of all junior high and high school courses were failed. Total annual dropout rates in Little Rock's junior high schools and high schools improved over the four-year period. 7 Year 4 achievement data are Stanford Achievement Test (SAT) scores which have been converted to Metropolitan Achievement Test scores. 8 Included in the appendix (Table A-2) is a similar table for all New Futures cities combined (Dayton, Savannah, Little Rock and Pittsburgh) . 13 I Little Rock Table 5 Change in Status on Key Variables Percentage Year 1 Versus Percentage Year 4 Variable II Year t I Year 21 Year 31 Year 4 I Change Yr. 1 to Yr. 4 I Attendance (ADA) Junior high school 90.2% 90.7% 90.3% 89.5% -0 .7 worse High School 90.8% 87 .9% 89.3% 87 .9% - 2.9 worse Low Reading Quartile9 Junior high school 21.0% 23.0% 24 .0% 21.0% no change High School 22.0% 22.0% 19.0% 17.0% -5.0 better Low Mathematics Quartile Junior high school 21.0% 21.0% 24.0% 34.0% + 13 .0 worse High School 24.0% 21.0% 19.0% 18.0% -6.0 better Over Age Junior high school 13.4% 13 .6% 15 .9% 15 .0% + 1.6 worse High School 13.4% 13.6% 13.3% 13.2% -0.2 better Out-of-School Suspension Junior high school. NIA 18.6% 21.6% 21.4% +2.8 worse High School NIA 8.1 % 11.3% 9.1 % -ft.0 worse Retention Junior high school 4.1% 4.8% 4.9% 4.6% +0.5 worse High School 4.9% 6.4% 3.6% 4.7% -0.2 better Percent of Courses Failed Junior high school 31.3% 30.7% 31.1% 31.4% +0.1 worse High School 31.8% 31.4% 29.6% 31.4% -0.4 better Dropout Junior high school 9.5% 4.3% 6.9% 4.8% -4.7 better High School 13.8% 10.2% 10.4% 7.5% -6.3 better N for all srudents: Year l = 13,203, Year 2 = 12,500, Year 3 = 12,211, Year 4 = 12,294 N for Junior high school Srudents: Year I = 6,590, Year 2 = 6,344, Year 3 = 6,421, Year 4 = 6,507 N for High School Students: Year I = 6,613, Year 2 = 6,156, Year 3 = 5,790, Year 4 = 5,787 9 Not all high school grades were tested. 14 C. Changing Status Among Children Who Have Remained in the School System (Longitudinal Comparisons) As indicated earlier, the New Futures data base permits us to observe changes in student outcomes over time. Has the academic achievement of students who have remained in the system improved, declined, or remained the same? Table 6 and Table 7 and the accompanying figures illustrate the changes in average reading and math achievement scores for Year 1 's 7th grade (Table 6) and 8th grade (Table 7) students who were tested in Years 1 through 4 and who were not retained in grade. 10 Table 6 shows an overall reading achievement loss of two percentile ranks from Year 1 to 4, and a decline of four percentile ranks in mathematics achievement scores. 11 For both reading and math, the changes are very similar for black and white students. Little Rock Table 6 Longitudinal Reading and Mathematics Achievement Comparisons12 For 7th Grade Students Tested Years 1 through 4 Who Made Normal Grade Progression Percentile Rank Percentile Rank Percentile Rank Percentile Rank Change Srudents N Yr I Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yrs 1 to 4 (7th) (8th) (9th) (10th) Reading: All Srudents 1,011 56th 59th 65th 54th -2 Black 677 44th 48th 54th 42nd -2 White 316 78th 80th 85th 75th -3 Math: All Srudents 1.014 58th 56th 63rd 54th -4 Black 679 48th 44th 52nd 44th -4 White 317 75th 75th 80th 72nd -3 99 90- Reading Math 80- t .. .::J! 70- C a\u0026lt;':II 60- . ~ Q) rl :\n: 50- C Q) .u... 40- Q) a.. 30 20 10 1 I All Black White All Black White I Year 1 0 Year2 a Year3 Effl Year4 I IO Si ne~ retained srudents are generally at an advantage when their data are compared with grade level norms, the longirudinal achievement analyses shown only include srudents who have made normal grade progress. 11 Some of the decline in test scores may be attributable to implementation of a new testing package (from the MAT-6 to the SAT) and the score conversion process. (All Year 4 data were converted from SAT scores to the MAT-6 equivalent.) 12 The table shows the percentile ranks associated with srudents' mean Normal Curve Equivalent (NCE) scores on the Merropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6). For comparability, Year 4 Stanford Achievement Test (SAT-8) scores were convened to MAT-6 scores. 15 Table 7 shows an overall reading achievement loss of nine percentile ranks for Year 1 's 8th graders from Year 1 to 4, and a decline of three percentile ranks in mathematics achievement scores. Reading losses were greater for white students, but mathematics declines are very similar for both black (-4) and white students (-5) . Little Rock Table 7 Longitudinal Reading and Mathematics Achievement Comparisons13 For 8th Grade Students Tested Years 1 through 4 Who Made Normal Grade Progression Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile Change Students N Rank Yr 1 Rank Yr 2 Rank Yr 3 Rank Yr 4 Yrs 1 to 4 (8th) (9th) (10th) (11th) Reading: All Students 1,011 63rd 70th 58th 56th -9 Black 633 50th 58th 44th 44th -6 White 355 83rd 86th 76th 73rd -10 Math: All Students 1,01 I 61st 70th 56th 58th -3 Black 635 50th 59th 44th 46th -4 White 353 78th 85th 75th 73rd -5 99 90 Reading ,. Math 80 ~ 70- . .. C: ac:a 60 Cl) .. 50 C: Q) u... 40 Q) a.. 30- 20 10 1 All Black White ' All Black White I Year1 D Year2 - Year3 -Year4 13 The Table shows the percentile ranks associated with students ' mean Normal Curve Equivalent (NCE) scores on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6) . For comparability , Year 4 Stanford Achievement Test (SAT-8) scores were converted to MAT-6 scores. 16 I ...... I A longitudinal group of particular interest consists of those 4,370 students who have been in the school system for all four years. By definition, none of these students graduated, transferred out of the school system, dropped out, or were expelled before the end of Year 4. How have these students been progressing since the initiative began? Tables 8, 9 and 10 show retention, course failure and suspension histories, respectively, for the 4-YEAR COHORT students. Table 8 shows that approximately 12 percent of these students were retained in at least one of the four years. Table 9 shows that the majority (56.7%) of the 4-YEAR COHORT students failed at least one course over the four year period. About 8 percent of the 4-YEAR COHORT students failed one or more courses each year over the four year period. Table 10 shows that over one-fourth (27. 3 % ) of the 4-YEAR COHORT students were suspended out of school in at least one of the three years for which there are data, (Years 2 through 4), and just over 10 percent were suspended in more than one of the three years. Each of the tables shows disparities between outcomes for black students and white students. For example, 14.6 percent of the black students were retained in grade at least once, compared to 6.0 percent of the white students. Similarly, over the four years, 66.1 percent of the black students experienced course failure, compared to 39.4 percent of the white students, and about a third (33 .5 % ) of the black students experienced suspension, compared to just 16.1 percent of the white students. Little Rock Table 8 Retention Histories For 4-YEAR COHORT Students Status Retentions at the end of All Black White Year 4 N = 4,370 N = 2,920 N = 1,386 Never Retained N 3,860 2,495 1,303 % 88.3% 85.4% 94.0% Retained 1 out N 472 390 80 of 4 Years % 10.8% 13.4% 5.8% Retained 2 out N 38 35 3 of 4 Years % 0.9% 1.2% 0.2% Ever Retained in N 510 425 83 4 Years % 11.7% 14.6% 6.0% 17 I I II Table 9: Course Failure Histories For 4-YEAR COHORT Students Status at the end of I Course Failures Year 4 Never Failed a Course Failed a Course in 1 of 4 Years Failed a Course in 2 of 4 Years Failed a Course in 3 of 4 Years Failed a Course in 4 of 4 Years Ever Failed a Course in 4 Years All Black N = 4,370 N = 2,920 N 1,894 990 % 43.3% 33.9% N 865 637 % 19.8% 21.8% N 704 542 % 16.1 % 18.6% N 565 453 % 12.9% 15.5% N 342 298 % 7.8% 10.2% N 2,476 1,930 % 56.7% 66.1 % Table 10: Suspension Histories For 4-YEAR COHORT Students White N = 1,386 854 61.6% 222 16.0% 158 11.4% 112 8.1% 40 2.9% 532 39.4% Status Out-of-School Suspensions at the end of All Black. i . White Year 4 N = 4,370 N = 2,920 N = 1,386 Never N 3,162 1,941 1,163 Suspended % 72.7% 66.5% 83.9% Suspended in 1 N 763 600 159 out of 3 Years % 17.5% 20.5% 11.5% Suspended in 2 N 322 273 48 out of 3 Years % 7.4% 9.3% 3.5% Suspended in 3 N 123 106 16 out of 3 Years % 2.8% 3.6% 1.2% Ever Suspended N 1,208 979 223 in 3 Years % 27.3% 33.5% 16.1 % 18 I D. The Class of '92 Of special interest are the 2,047 students who were enrolled in the ninth grade in Year 1 and therefore were expected to graduate at the end of Year 4. Through the data base we have been able to follow these students, the High School Class of 1992, throughout their high school careers, from their ninth grade experiences in Year 1 to their expected graduation in June of 1992. How did the Class of '92 do? I I Race I N I Year 1 All 2,047 Black 1,198 White 820 Little Rock Table 11 Cumulative Enrollment 9th Grade -- The Class of '92 Status at the End of Year 4 Still In Transferred Graduated Presumed System Out of High Dropout Schools System School 5.5% 14 .5% 58 .7% 7.4% 6.2% 10 .9% 61.2% 8.1 % 4.4% 19.5% 55.4% 6.7% Unaccounted Expelled For 12.9% 1.0% 12 .3% 1.3% 13 .5% 0.5% It can be seen above that: 5.5 percent of the Year 1 ninth graders (including 6.2 percent of the black students and 4.4 percent of the white students) were still active in the Little Rock schools after Year 4\n14.5 percent had transferred out of the Little Rock schools (10.9 percent of the black students and 19.5 percent of the white students)\n58.7 percent graduated (including 61.2 percent of the black students and 55.4 percent of the white students)\nand a total of 21.3 percent had either dropped out of or been expelled from school ( dropouts and expulsions for black students totaled 21. 7 percent, dropouts and expulsions for white students totaled 20. 7 percent). 19 I E. The Student Survey Table 12 presents selected findings for the 2,462 students who completed student surveys in Year 4. 14 The surveys provide additional data about the students in the cohort file, including information about the status of their families, their own attitudes and behaviors regarding schooling, their employment experiences, and their sexual behavior. Table 12 shows, for all students and by race, the number of students responding to each question and the percent of students exhibiting the characteristic. For example, of the 1,971 surveyed students who responded to the question about their home structures, 3 7. 3 percent reported living in a single parent home (including 44.4 % of the black respondents and 23.5% of the white respondents). Of the respondents, 32.9 percent are free-lunch eligible (including 44.1 % of black respondents and only 10.1 % of white respondents). A total of 36 percent of the respondents indicated that they regularly cut classes, and 4. 7 percent expected not to go on to post-secondary schooling. Close to half of the surveyed students (43.3%) reported that they were working at the time the survey was administered, and 64.1 percent of those who were working reported that they were working 15 or more hours per week (during the school year). More than half of the respondents (58.2%) reported that they have had sex at least once and 32.3 percent of this group did not use birth control the last time they had sex. About 19 percent of the girls who have had sex reported that they have gotten pregnant. More than half (52.4%) of those who were pregnant have had a child. Because the survey responses contain the same identification numbers as are used with the school department's data system, we are able to investigate relationships between student characteristics and school outcomes. For instance, students eligible for free or reduced fee lunch generally perform less well on reading achievement tests than their peers who are not eligible. This association was seen among black students as well as among white students. Further, more poor than non-poor students are low attenders, fail courses, receive out-ofschool suspensions, are not promoted, and are over age for grade. Similarly, students with low academic aspirations performed less well on all of the student outcomes than their peers who do not have low academic aspirations. Once again, these associations were seen among black students as well as among white students. 15 14 The student surveys were administered to a sample of 7th - 12th grade students in each of the Little Rock junior and senior high schools. A total of 2,462 students responded to the Year 4 survey. 15 Appendix Table A-3 examines the relationships between two survey responses (low academic aspirations and freelunch eligibility) and several school outcomes. 20 Table 12 Little Rock Selected Surveyed Characteristics for All Secondary Students16 N = 2,462 Characteristic Students Exhibiting % of White Respondents, Characteristic Students By Item N % Exhibiting Characteristic N=829 N % Single Parent Home 1,971 734 37.3% 150 23.5% Free Lunch Eligibility 1,971 649 32.9% 63 10.1% % of Black Students Exhibiting Characteristic N= 1,596 N % 578 44 .4% 580 44.1% Cut Classes 2,421 871 36 .0% 454 44.4% 1,073 31.5% Low Academic 2,263 106 4.7% 32 Aspirations Working 1,731 749 43.3% 307 Working Full Time 674 432 64.1 % 117 Had Sex 2,253 1,312 58.2% 363 No Birth Control 1,268 409 32.3% 234 Last Time Fathered a Child 724 66 9.1% 15 Pregnant 558 57 10.2% 12 Ever Pregnant 557 105 18.9% 26 Have Child 105 55 52.4% 10 Single Parent Home indicates that the child is living with one parent. step parent. or foster parent. Free Lunch Eligibility includes students who are eligible for free and reduced fee lunch. 4.2% 46.0% 58.2% 47 .6% 34.1 % 7.6% 7.6% 16.4% 38.5% Cut Classes includes srudents who reported that they cut class \"often\" or \"sometimes\" (as opposed to never). 73 428 116 937 619 50 44 79 45 Low Academic Aspirations is defined as expecting not 10 pursue post-secondary schooling (i. e. , completing high school or less). Working is defined as employed at the time of survey administration. Working Full Time is defined as working 15 or more hours per week during the school year. Had sex includes both male and female srudents. 5.0% 41.2% 69.2% 64.4% 30.3% 9.6% 11.1 % 20.2% 57.0 % No Birth Control includes both male and female srudents who have had sexual intercourse and indicated that neither they nor their partner had used birth control the last time they had intercourse. Pregnant and Ever Pregnant items were tabulated for sexually active females and indicate, respectively whether they are currently pregnant or ever have been pregnant. Have Child includes female srudents who have given birth to a child. Fathered a Child was tabulated for sexually active males who indicated that they had fathered a child. 16 Only a few survey variables are considered in these analyses. Complete reports of survey data are available in separate publications. 21 III. Conclusion This report sketches an overview of the status of children attending the Little Rock public schools. It contains broad, over-years and longitudinal analyses which reflect the conditions (inside and outside of the school system) which New Futures is intended to address. W1'jle the analyses presented in this report show some of the trends and outcomes that have taken place during the first four years of the initiative, they do not constitute an evaluation of the initiative, nor of the Little Rock school system. We have presented only a small sample of the analyses that have been performed on the New Futures data base. 17 We hope that the thoughtful presentation of such analyses can engage broad constituencies in valuable discourse leading ultimately to the formulation of improved service-delivery policies and inter-agency collaboration. It is in this spirit that we offer these findings. One of the unique features of the New Futures Initiative is that the powerful data base used to generate the analyses is available to an interagency body. We strongly encourage the interagency group to put this powerful tool to use - to raise community awareness, to set priorities, and to help inform and shape policy. 17 The full four-year Cohorts and Comparative Data Report (Metis Associates, Inc., New York, NY), annual qualitative evaluation reports (Center for the Study of Social Policy, Washington, DC}, separate statistical reports of the survey results (Institute for Survey Research, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA), and other publications may be obtained from New Futures for Little Rock Youth. 22 Appendices Entering Junior High School \"Class of '92\" Entering High School Table A-1: Little Rock Cumulative Enrollment Status After Year 4 for all Students Enrolled in Year I Status Year I Status Year 4 Grade N In System Transferred Graduated Presumed Unaccounted Schools Dropout For 7th 2,226 62.1 % 20.9% 0.0% 1.8% 12.5% Black 1,444 66. l % 16.4% 0.0% 1.7% 11.9% White 741 54 .4% 29 .1% 0.0% 2.0% 13.8% 8th 2,317 57.2% 19.8% 0.3% 6.0% 14.5% Black 1,468 60.1% 15.2% 0.3% 6.7% 14.6% White 813 51.6% 27.8% 0.2% 5.0% 14.5% 9th 2,047 5.5% 14.5% 58.7% 7.4% 12.9% Black 1,198 6.2% 10.9% 61.2% 8.1 % 12.3% White 820 4.4% 19.5% 55.4% 6.7% 13.5% Junior High 6,589 42.9% 18.5% 18.3% 5.0% 13.3% Black 4, 110 46.5% 14.4% 18.0% 5.3% 13.0% White 2,374 36.1% 25.4% 19.2% 4.7% 13 .9% 10th 2,432 1.7% 9.8% 59.9% 15.3% 12.0% Black 1,448 2.1% 8.1 % 59.0% 15.8% 13.3% White 950 1.3% 12.3% 61.0% 14.8% 9.9% 11th 2,210 0.8% 7.2% 68 .0% 12.7% 10.7% Black 1,131 I.I% 6.5% 65.4% 13 .5% 12.4% White 1,055 0.6% 7.9% 70,3% 11.9% 9.1% 12th 1,971 0.0% 0.2% 92 .9% 5.7% 0.1% Black 927 0.0% 0.2% 91.5% 6.8% 1.3% White 1,013 0.0% 0.1 % 94 .2% 4.9% 0.6% High School 6,613 0.9% 6.1% 72.3% 11.6% 8.3% Black 3,506 1.2% 5.5% 69.7% 12.7% 9.8% White 3,018 0.6% 6.7% 75 .3% 10.5% 6.5% Total 13,203 21.8% 12.3% 45.4% 8.3% 10.8% Black 7,616 25.7% 10.3% 41.8% 8.7% 11.5% White 5,392 16.2% 14.9% 50 .7% 7.9% 9.8% Expelled 2.7% 3.9% 0.7% 2.2% 3.1% 0.9% 1.0% 1.3% 0.5% 2.0% 2.8% 0.7% 1.3% 1.7% 0.7% 0.6% 1.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.8% 1.1% 0.4% 1.4% 2.0% 0.5% Table A-2: All New Futures Cities (Dayton, Little Rock, Pittsburgh and Savannah Combined) Change in Status on Six Key Variables Percentage Year 1 Versus Percentage Year 4 Variable Year 1 Year 4 Change Attendance (ADA) Middle School 89.5% 89.3% -0.2 worse High School 86.1% 84.2% -1.9 worse Low Q Membership Middle School 28.4% 25.4% -3.0 better High School 24.7% 24.2% -0.5 better Retention Middle School 8.8% 7.0% -1.8 better High School 13.7% 18.7% 5.0 worse Over Age Middle School 19.3% 15.5% -3.8 better High School 22.3% 22.7% 0.4 worse % of Courses Failed Middle School 11.4% 14.4% 3.0 worse High School 20.7% 22.8% 2.1 worse Total Dropout Middle School 9.5% 7.3% -2.2 better High School 18.1 % 13.1 % -5.0 better N for All Students: Year 1 = 61,977, Year 4 = 60,067 N for Mtcidle School Students: Year l = 26,644, Year 4 = 27,415 N for High School Students: Year l = 35,334, Year 4 = 32,652 I I Table A3-Little Rock Relationships Between Survey Factors and School MIS Outcomes For All Surveyed Students (In Percents) Factor = Free Lunch Eligibility Total Black White Outcomes Yes No Yes No Yes No I N=649 N=l ,321 N=580 N=735 N=63 N=563 Low Achievement 30.0% 12.5% 30.6% 18.5% 25.5% 5.1 % Low Attendance 20.3% 14.8% 20.9% 13.5% 17.5% 16.9% Course Failures 30.2% 24.6% 30.7% 30.5% 28.6% 17.2% Suspension 20.5% 11.l % 21.5% 14.0% 12.7% 7.8% Over Age 17.4% 8.1 % 17.8% 11.3% 14.3% 3.9% Relationships Between Survey Factors and School MIS Outcomes For Surveyed Junior High School Students (In Percents) Factor = Free Lunch Eligibility I Total Black White Outcomes Yes No Yes No Yes No N= 479 N=626 N=429 N=360 N=45 N=260 Low Achievement 28.9% 11 .5% 28.8% 16.0% 29.5% 5.5% Low Attendance 18.8% IO.I% 19.6% 8.4% 13.3% 12.3% Course Failures 26.9% 17.9% 28.2% 21.9% 17.8% 12.3% Suspension 24.6% 14.4% 26.1 % 18 .3% 13.3% 9.2% Over Age 17.3% 7.7% 17.9% 10.3% 13 .3% 4.2% Relationships Between Survey Factors and School MIS Outcomes For Surveyed High School Students (In Percents) Factor = Free Lunch Eligibility Total Black White Outcomes Yes No Yes No Yes No N=l42 N=567 N=125 N=306 N=l6 N=245 Low Achievement 31.8% 13 .9% 35 .7% 21.7% 10.0% 4.7% Low Attendance 23.9% 19.2% 24.0% 18.0% 25.0% 21.6% Course Failures 36.6% 30.7% 34.4% 38.2% 56.3% 22.0% Suspension 7.7% 8.3% 8.0% 9.8% 6.3% 6.9% 0Over Age 16.9% 8.5% 16.0% 12.1 % 18 .8% 3.7% I I Table A3-Little Rock Relationships Between Survey Factors and School MIS Outcomes For All Surveyed Students (In Percents) Factor = Low Aspirations Total Black White Outcomes Yes No Yes 1 No Yes No I N=336 N=l,927 N=229 I N= 1,228 N=l02 N=668 Low Achievement 55.l % 17.l % 60.9% 22.9% 43.5% 6.3% Low Attendance 39.6% 15.8% 39.7% 16.2% 40.6% 15.4% Course Failures 52 .8% 25.0% 56.2% 30.2% 46.9% 15.7% Suspension 33.0% 12.2% 41.l % 15.4% 15.6% 6.8% Over Age 34.9% 9.7% 39.7% 12.6% 21.9% 4.2% Relationships Between Survey Factors and School MIS Outcomes For Surveyed Junior High School Students (In Percents) Factor = Low Aspirations I Total Black White Outcomes Yes No Yes No Yes No N=70 N=l,153 N=51 N=797 N=l9 N=344 Low Achievement 51.8% 17.5% 55.3% 22.4% 44.4% 6.7% Low Attendance 35.7% 12.8% 41.2% 13.2% 21.l % 11.9% Course Failures 50.0% 19.0% 52.9% 23.0% 42.l % 10.2% Suspension 37.l % 16.3% 45 . l % 19.9% 15.8% 8.1 % Over Age 35.7% 10.3% 39.2% 12.9% 26.3% 4.4% Relationships Between Survey Factors and School MIS Outcomes For Surveyed High School Students (In Percents) Factor = Low Aspirations Total Black White Outcomes Yes No Yes No Yes No N=32 N=813 N=l9 N=476 N=l2 N=310 Low Achievement 72.7% 15.8% 85.7% 23.6% 50.0% 5.0% Low Attendance 46.9% 19.8% 31.6% 20.2% 75.0% 19.9% Course Failures 56.3% 32.0% 57.9% 39.3% 58.3% 21.8% Suspension 25.0% 7.1 % 31.6% 8.4% 16.7% 5.7% Over Age 31.3% 9.0% 36.8% 12.2% 16.7% 4.1 %\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eMetis Associates, Incorporation\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_1168","title":"New Futures Initiative Cohorts and Comparative Data Report: 1988-1989 (Year 1), 1989-1990 (Year 2), 1990-1991 (Year 3), and 1991-1992 (Year 4) Metis Associates, Incorporation, New York, New York, , June 1993","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":["1993-06"],"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","Metis Associates, Inc.","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational innovations","Educational statistics","School attendance","School enrollment","School discipline","School improvement programs","Student assistance programs","Student suspension"],"dcterms_title":["New Futures Initiative Cohorts and Comparative Data Report: 1988-1989 (Year 1), 1989-1990 (Year 2), 1990-1991 (Year 3), and 1991-1992 (Year 4) Metis Associates, Incorporation, New York, New York, , June 1993"],"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/1168"],"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\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nNew Futures Initiative Cohorts and Comparative Data Report: 1988-1989 (Year 1), 1989-1990 (Year 2), 1990-1991 (Year 3), and 1991-1992 (Year 4)  Little Rock Prepared by: Metis Associates, Inc. 80 Broad Street, Suite 1600 New York, New York 10004 (212) 425-8833 June 1993 This report was prepared in partial fulfillment of a contract between Metis Associates, Inc. and the Center for the Study of Social Policy, Washington, D.C. Foreword In this report we present a series of city-wide analyses covering a number of the core impact variables specified by the New Futures Initiative (e .g., achievement, dropout, suspension). While the analyses show some of the trends and outcomes that have taken place during the first four years of the initiative, they do not constitute an evaluation of the initiative, nor of the school system. Such evaluations would involve far richer and more comprehensive information. Instead, this report contains broad, over-years and longitudinal analyses which reflect the city-wide conditions (inside and outside of the school system) that New Futures is intended to address. We believe that thoughtful presentation of such analyses can engage broad constituencies in valuable discourse leading ultimately to the formulation of improved service-delivery policies and inter-agency collaboration. It is in this spirit that we offer these findings. Acknowledgements We are indebted to the Little Rock School District for providing us with the data for these analyses. In addition, we gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Anita M. Baker and her staff at the Academy for Educational Development toward the writing and production of this report. Little Rock: Cohorts and Comparative Data Report 1988-1989 (Year 1), 1989-1990 (Year 2), 1990-1991 (Year 3), and 1991-1992 (Year 4) Table of Contents Foreword ....... . Acknowledgements I. Introduction 1 A. Structure and Content of the Cohort Files . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . 3 II. B. Types of Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 C. Report Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Analyses ...................................... . A. Over-Years and Longitudinal Analyses of Cohort Variables .... 1. 2. Enrollment ..... .. ... ... . .. .. ....... . a. Grades 7 through 12 ..... . i. Over-years comparisons ii. Characteristics of the Year 4 Cohort iii. Longitudinal comparisons . . . . . . . . b. Grades Kindergarten through 6 . . . . . i. Over-years comparisons ..... ii. Origins of the Year 4 Students Attendance . . . . . . . . . . a. Over-years comparisons b. Longitudinal comparisons ii 10 10 10 10 10 13 17 19 19 21 25 25 25 3. Academic Achievement (Reading and Mathematics) 28 a. Grades 7 through 12 . . ... . 28 i. Over-years comparisons 28 11. Longitudinal comparisons 42 b. Grades Kindergarten through 6 . 47 i. Over-years comparisons 47 ii. Longitudinal comparisons 53 4. Graduation . ... . .... . 58 a. Over-years comparisons 58 b. Longitudinal comparisons 58 i. Two-year Graduation Rates 58 ii. Four-year Graduation Rates 58 5. Retention . ..... ... 61 a. Grades 7 through 12 61 1. Over-years comparisons 61 ii. Longitudinal comparisons 61 m. Over age students . ... 61 b. Grades Kindergarten through 6 . 65 i. Over-years comparisons 65 ii. Longitudinal comparisons 66 iii . Over age students .... 67 iii III. 6. Course Failure ......... . a. Over-years comparisons b. Longitudinal comparisons 7. Out-of-School Suspensions . 8. a. Grades 7 through 12 i. Over-years comparisons ii. Longitudinal comparisons b. Grades Kindergarten through 6 . i. Over-years comparisons . ii . Longitudinal comparisons Dropouts a. Over-years comparisons b. Longitudinal analyses - returning dropouts B. Special Survey Analyses .. . . ... .. .. . . 1. 2. Survey data for secondary students Relationships between survey factors and cohort variables Summary and Conclusion A. B. C. Cross-Grade Comparisons of Year 4 Data . Change in Status (Over-Years Comparisons) Longitudinal Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . IV 68 68 71 72 72 72 72 75 75 76 77 77 81 83 83 83 87 88 97 101 D. Cumulative Enrollment Statuses 1. The 4-Year Cohort . . . . . 2. Two Consecutive Three-Year Cohorts 3. Three Consecutive Two-Year Cohorts E. Cooc~~on .. .. . . . . . . ........ . Appendices Appendix A: Over Cities, Over-Years Comparisons Appendix B: Four Cities Change in Status Appendix C: Over Cities 4-YEAR COHORT FILE Analyses V 104 104 108 108 115 Cohorts and Comparative Data Report: 1988-1989 (Year 1), 1989-1990 (Year 2), 1990-1991 (Year 3), and 1991-1992 (Year 4) Little Rock I. Introduction The New Futures Initiative, sponsored by the Annie E. Casey Foundation, is a fourcity (Dayton, Ohio\nLittle Rock, Arkansas\nPittsburgh, Pennsylvania\nand Savannah, Georgia), five-year project designed to respond to disadvantaged populations through comprehensive community partnerships. The project aims to increase academic achievement, reduce dropout and teen pregnancy rates, and increase the employability of at-risk middle and high school students. Collaboratives governing the New Futures initiatives agreed to have the impact of their efforts assessed through a common set of indicators. The requirement for consistently defined, standardized, reliable data necessitated the establishment or enhancement of local district capacity for maintaining individualized student information - i.e., a management information system (MIS). Annual unit-record cohort files emanating from each city's MIS have become the centerpiece for the New Futures data collection. Beginning with the 1988-1989 school year, each New Futures city was asked to prepare and transmit an annual cohort file containing, for each student enrolled in grades six (or seven) through twelve at any time during the school year, unique student identification numbers, basic demographic information (school, grade, gender, race/ethnicity, date of birth, free lunch eligibility [available in two cities beginning with the 1989-1990 school year]), and outcomes - standardized, norm-referenced reading and mathematics data, annual attendance rates, course failure information, suspensions and/or expulsions, grade retention, and dropout data. At this point there are four complete cohort files for each participating city - a file for the 1988-1989 school year, a file for the 1989-1990 school year, a file for the 1990-1991 school year, and a file for the 1991-1992 school year. 1 In addition, for the 1991-1992 school years there are complete data for all students in the school systems (kindergarten through twelfth grades)2. 1 Throughout this report we refer to the 1988-1989 school year as Year 1, the 1989-1990 school year as Year 2. the 1990-1991 school year as Year 3, and the 1991-1992 school year as Year 4 . These files are being used for w11hinyt! ar, over-years and matched longitudinal analyses. z Kindergarten through 6th grade data include all basic demographics and available outcome data: norm-referenced achievement test scores, suspension and retention data. In Linle Rock, kindergarten through 6th grade data are also available for the 1990-1991 school year. 1 After the end of the 1992-1993 school year, there will be five consecutive years of reliable data on student demographics and outcomes. Given the high quality, comprehensiveness and continuity of the data collections, the resultant data base offers enormous potential for assessing needs, evaluating outcomes and developing sound educational policy. While many school departments around the country maintain student information systems for a number of discrete applications (e .g., class scheduling, transportation routes , grade reporting, attendance/enrollments, academic achievement) , we know of no other environments in which comprehensive, complete, reliable and continuous files such as the New Futures cities ' files are being maintained, and where common definitions are being consistently applied across several disparate middle-sized cities. When we add to these files the systematic data derived from annually administered individual  student surveys (assessing such non-school indicators as home structure, parents' education, academic aspirations, work experiences and sexual and parenting experiences), we have an information base whose potential as a research tool is unparalleled in the field. In addition, in each city, this rich data base is available to an interagency body. We strongly encourage the interagency groups to continue putting this powerful tool to use: to raise community awareness, to set priorities, and to inform and shape policy. For this report, we have analyzed information contained in Little Rock's four annual data files , in combined cohort files that we have created (e.g. , the 4-YEAR COHORT FILES which contain students who have been in the system for all four years) and in Little Rock's survey files from the past three years. In the next section of this report we describe the structure and content of the Little Rock cohort files . 2 A. Structure and Content of the Cohort Files Little Rock School District's unit-record cohort files each contain, among other variables, each of the core indicators required by the Annie E. Casey Foundation - enrollments (including the last grade level and school attended during the school year and such demographic information as gender, race/ethnicity, date of birth and free or reduced fee lunch eligibility), attendance, achievement (standardized, norm-referenced reading and mathematics scores), graduation, retention, course failures, suspensions (out-of-school suspensions for Years 2 through 4 only) and dropouts. Unless otherwise indicated, all variables can be assumed to match the New Futures definitions being consistently applied in all four cities. In the following paragraphs we describe each of these core indicators. The files for Years 1 and 2 contain data only for students enrolled in grades seven through twelve. As of Year 3, data are also available for children in grades kindergarten through six. l. Enrollments Students who have been physically present for at least one day, regardless of age or type of program, are counted as enrolled. The district includes in its enrollment count all students in special or ungraded programs, students beyond the compulsory school age who have not graduated, and students who are temporarily out of school because of extended illness or suspension. The district does not include in its enrollment count students enrolled in non-public schools and students in public institutions other than elementary and secondary schools. The cohort files contain identifying information for each student which includes the student's last school and grade, as well as his/her gender, race/ethnicity and free or reduced fee lunch eligibility. In this report enrollment is reported by grade, by race (black or white)3 , and by race within gender. 2. Attendance Schools transmit daily attendance reports to the central district office's mainframe computer on an exceptions basis\nthat is, students are assumed present unless otherwise indicated. Students who have been absent three or more periods during the day are counted as absent. Students who have received out-of-school suspensions are reported as \"suspended\" and therefore not counted as present. Religious holidays are counted as absences, unless they are system-wide. 3 Students from racial/ethnic backgrounds other than black or white are not reported independently . but their numbers can be determined by calculating the difference between the sum of black and white students and the total number of students. 3 To calculate average daily attendance (ADA), the district counts the number of days that each student is present in school, and divides that number by the total number of days of possible attendance for that student (i.e., the number of school days from each student's enrollment date). Annual ADA rates from the cohort files were calculated by dividing the sum of all students' days present by the sum of all students' days of possible attendance. The rates for Year 1, however, were under-reported and possibly slightly inflated due to a minor inconsistency in record-keeping which resulted in the duplicate counting of some students' attendance. Those students with obvious duplications (those whose total number of days exceeded the maximum number of days in the school year) were eliminated from attendance estimates, however, students with duplicate counts which did not exceed the maximum number of school days were unidentifiable and therefore contributed to and probably inflated the estimates by a small margin. The record-keeping inconsistency was corrected and no duplicate counts were included in subsequent cohort files4 . 3. Achievement During the spring of Years 1 through 3, the district administered the complete battery of the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6), a national, standardized norm-referenced achievement test, to students in grades one through eleven. The district scored their achievement tests in-house for all grades except four, seven and ten. The tests for those grades were scored by the State Education Department and data tapes were returned to the district for integration into the student data base and cohort files. Each year the school district merged the achievement results into the cohort files using the student identification numbers. During the spring of Year 4, the district administered the Stanford Achievement Test (SA T-8) . Test scores were merged into the student data base and cohort files. Year 4 test data are reported as converted Stanford Achievement Test scores so as to be comparable to the Metropolitan Achievement Test data reported in Years 1 through 3. For each tested student the cohort files contain percentile ranks and normal curve equivalents (NCEs) associated with raw scores (i.e., the number of correct answers) for Total Reading and/or for Total Math. Percentile ranks indicate the percentage of raw scores in a normative group that fall below a particular student's raw score. For example, if a student's raw score converts to a percentile rank of 43, then that student scored higher than approximately forty-three percent of the students in the normative group. Percentile ranks range from 1 to 99. Students scoring at or below the 25th percentile are said to be in the first (lowest) quartile. Similarly, students scoring between the 26th percentile and the median (i.e., 50th percentile) are in the second quartile, students scoring between the 51st and 75th percentiles are in the third quartile, and students scoring above the 75th percentile are in the fourth (highest) quartile. Therefore, in a statistically \"normal\" distribution, approximately twenty-five percent of the population would be included within each of the 4 The Year I errors also impact the differences reported on Tables 2.1. 2 .2 and 2.3. Declines in attendance may be at least partly due 10 the slightly inflated rates reported in Year I. 4 four quartiles. It is important to note that the percentile scale is not composed of equal units. For example, a raw score difference between percentile ranks 5 and 10 is far greater than a raw score difference between percentile ranks 45 and 50. Because these measurement units are unequal, it is not appropriate to use them for statistical analyses, and percentile rank differences ought not be compared. By contrast, normal curve equivalents (NCEs) are based on equal intervals. NCEs are similar to percentiles in that their range is from 1 to 99, and their midpoint also is 50. However, because NCEs are composed of equal intervals, they may be used in statistical analyses, and NCE differences (within and between test instruments) may be directly compared. Since percentile ranks are more familiar (and intuitively more  appealing), we have converted NCE statistics to percentile rank equivalents. 4. Graduation The district counts as graduates all students who receive a certificate of completion or other designation conferred by a district-affiliated public educational institution indicating that the student has completed a program of study. This includes special education students who successfully complete Individual Education Plans (IEPs), and students who complete their graduation requirements after summer school. There are no vocational education diplomas: in order to graduate, all Little Rock students who take courses at the Metropolitan Vocational-Tech Center must be enrolled in Little Rock high schools, and must complete their required Little Rock School District credits. Students who leave the Little Rock School District and complete a GED or other high school equivalency certificate are not counted as graduates. In Years 1 and 4 (after installation of a new computer system), the district was only able to estimate the number of graduates by counting all 12th grade students who had not transferred, dropped out or been retained. In Years 2 and 3, completion of graduation requirements was indicated in the cohort file by addition of a graduation code. Only those students whose records contained that code were counted as graduates during Years 2 and 3. Therefore, data for Years 1 and 4 represent estimates (over counts) of the number of graduates, while data for Years 2 an 3 represent actual counts of students who completed all graduation requirements. 5. Retention In Year l and Year 4, retention counts were determined by comparing student grade level status based on fall enrollment with projected grade level status based on the prior June's enrollment. Students whose actual fall enrollments differed from their projected enrollments were counted as retained. For Years 2 and 3 retention counts were derived by tallying the number of students who had not successfully completed their course requirements at the end of the school year. Students who attend summer school and achieve promotion are excluded from retention counts. Data for Years 1 and 4 also represent estimates of the number of students who were retained. (Retention status could only be determined for students who remained in the system across the two year periods, [Years l to 2, and Years 3 5 to 41 . Some students may have been retained and subsequently transferred out or dropped out of school and therefore not included in Year 1 or Year 4 estimates). Policies regarding grade retention differ according to school level. Grade retention policy for grades seven and eight is that students who fail two or more courses are retained unless they attend summer school and successfully complete the failed courses. For grades nine through twelve, the district's policy is that students ' grade levels are advanced each year unless there is a serious credit deficiency or credit deficiency in core academic subjects. Closely related to retention is the variable over age . (Retention at any time during students ' academic careers generally make them older than their non-retained classmates.) The cohort files contain each student's birth date. Each student's age can be calculated from the birth date contained in the cohort file. Students are considered over age if, by June 30th, they are at least one year and six months above the appropriate grade-level age for students who finished 1st grade at age seven. The over age thresholds for grades kindergarten through twelve are, respectively, 7.5, 8.5 , 9.5, 10.5, 11.5 , 12.5, 13.5 , 14.5 , 15.5 , 16.5, 17 .5, 18.5 and 19.5. 6 6. Course Failures District practices for collecting and reporting course failure data are consistent with the New Futures definition for course failure. Any student who receives one or more course grades of \"F\" for regular or summer school courses is included in cohort counts. In accordance with the New Futures definition, Little Rock keeps separate course failure information for summer school. Courses and, therefore, course failures are defined differently for junior high school and high school students. For junior high school grades seven and eight, courses are graded on an annual basis. For junior high school ninth grade and high school grades ten through twelve, all course grades are for semesters. A grade of \"F\" in either a semester or an annual course is counted as a course failure in the cohort files. Because of variations between high school and junior high school accounting of course failure, we also calculated the percentage of courses failed. Any comparison of junior high school and high school course failure is based on the percentage of courses failed. 7. Suspensions For Years 2 through 4, the numbers of short-term (3 to 10 days), out-of-school suspensions were recorded in a newly activated field in each student's record. (Until Year 2, the only available suspension data were counts of incidents of suspension.) Other types of suspensions (i.e., long-term, in-school) are counted in Little rock, however they are not included in the cohort file. 8. Dropouts Students who enter the military, leave to get married or work, leave school and enter non-state approved school programs, leave school between terms and do not re-enroll elsewhere (\"summer-leavers\"), or leave school between terms but are not identified as transfers (\"no shows\"), are counted as dropouts in the cohort file. Students who leave school to get their GEDs are also counted as dropouts. Students who are deceased, incarcerated. or enroll in another approved school (public or private) after attending Little Rock's schools for at least one day are counted as withdrawals and transfers. Two kinds of dropouts are reported from the cohort file: presumed dropouts, and students who are unaccounted for. \"Presumed dropouts\" are those students who are known to have dropped out of school or who have accumulated more than 15 days of consecutive unexcused absences. Students who are \"unaccounted for\" were enrolled in the previous school year but unexpectedly did not return to school by October of the following school year (\"no shows\" and summer-leavers). It is important to note that the cohort file may slightly overstate the dropout rate because the \"unaccounted for\" category could include some number of students who are actually attending schools outside of the Little Rock public school system but whose records were not updated to reflect such out-of-district transfers. 7 B. Types of Analyses This report contains a series of analyses for each of the main cohort file variables - enrollments, attendance, achievement, graduation, promotion/retention, course failure, suspension and dropout. For each variable we include over-years comparisons (i .e., crosssectional comparisons of the 7th-12th grade students reported in the Year 1 file [1988-89] with the 7th-12th grade students reported in subsequent files) and longitudinal comparisons (e.g., Year 1 to Year 2 comparisons for students appearing in both cohort files). For some variables, we have conducted special longitudinal analyses comparing consecutive cohorts (e.g. , Years 1 - 2 versus Years 2 - 3 and Years 3 - 4), and special analyses for students who appear in each of the four years (i.e., the 4-YEAR COHORT FILE). Over-years comparisons show side-by-side statistics for each of the four years for which we have files. Also noted in the over-years comparisons are changes from Year 1 to Year 4. These changes are computed in one of two ways - as percentage changes or as differences in percentage points.  The following is an example of a percentage change. In Year 1, there were 13,203 students included in Little Rock's 7th-12th grade file. In Year 4, there were 12,294 students in the 7th-12th grade files. This constitutes a 6.9 percent decrease in enrollments at these grades (Year 4 minus Year 1, quantity divided by Year 1).   The following is an example of a difference in percentage points. In Little Rock's junior high schools in Year 1, the average daily attendance (ADA) was 90.2 percent. In Year 4, the ADA was 89.5 percent. This constitutes a 0.7 percentage point decline in ADA (Year 4 minus Year 1). Over-years comparisons can be used to show trends from Year 1 through Year 4. However, since over-years comparisons always involve substantially different groups of children (e.g. , the seventh-graders in Year 1 are different students than the seventh graders in Year 4), we advise caution when interpreting these results. By contrast, longitudinal analyses enable us to follow the performance of specific students and groups of students over time. Longitudinal comparisons show data for those students who appear in files for more than one school year. For example, of the 13,203 7th-12th graders appearing in Little Rock's Year 1 file , 9,274 students, or 70.2 percent of the Year 1 group, also appear in Year 2, 6,512 students, or 49.3 percent appear in Year 3, and, 4,370 students, or 33 .1 percent were enrolled all four years. The students no longer appearing in Years 2, 3 and 4 have either graduated, transferred out of the school district, been expelled, or dropped out of school. Longitudinal analyses of enrollments, attendance, achievement, or any of the other variables, study the changing status or performance of those students who attended school 8 during two or more school years. Longitudinal analyses are made possible through the use of the unique student identification numbers. Inter-relationships are demonstrated by combining variables from the cohort files with variables from the survey files. For example, analyses have been conducted to show inter-relationships between dwelling in a single-parent household and low achievement (low achievement is more common among surveyed students from single-parent homes than it is among surveyed students who aren't from single-parent homes). C. Report Organization Sections II and III of this report present results of the cohort file analyses. In Section IIA we report over-years and longitudinal analyses for each of the cohort file variables. In Section IIB we report: survey data for secondary students and relationships between school outcome variables and selected survey variables. Section III summarizes the data presented in the report in graphic and tabular form. Additionally, the cumulative enrollment status for each cohort is examined, by grade level. This report contains a small sample of the analyses which have been conducted to date on the cohort files. Selected statistics focus on differences between grade levels and between . races. The Appendix to this report presents selected over-years and longitudinal analyses for all New Futures cities including combined cities totals. 9 II. Analyses A. Over-Years and Longitudinal Analyses of Cohort Variables The following section presents over-years and longitudinal analyses for students enrolled in grades 7 through 12 for Year 1 through 4, and for students enrolled in grades K through 12 for Years 3 through 4. Because outcomes and trends in the elementary school grades tend to be different from outcomes in the secondary school grades, and because the elementary school data are not available for the first two years of the initiative, elementary school data are presented in separate tables. Since elementary school data are only available for the 1990-91 and 1991-92 school years, over-years and longitudinal analyses can only be conducted for Year 3 and Year 4. 1. Enrollment a. Grades 7 Through 12 i. Over-years comparisons Table 1.1 shows, across grades, by race and by gender, the Little Rock cohort enrollments in each year and the percentage change in enrollments over the four-year period. It can be seen for example, that, overall, 7th to 12th grade enrollments decreased by 6. 9 percent, from 13,203 students in Year 1 to 12,294 students in Year 4. This decrease can be attributed almost entirely to the changes in the numbers of white students enrolled in the system (enrollments for white students decreased by 19.0%, from 5,392 in Year 1 to 4,365 in Year 4). Enrollments for black students, while fluctuating over the four years, increased slightly by 1.2 percent between Year 1 and Year 4 (from 7,616 to 7,714). Grade level data show enrollment decreases between Years 1 and 4 at each grade except 7 and 9. There were substantial decreases in all high school grades between Years and 4 (13.1 % at the 10th grade level, 14.9% at the 11th grade level, and 9.0% at the 12th grade level). At the junior high school level, there were slight increases overall at the 7th and 9th grade levels, and decreases in 8th grade. Between Years 3 and 4, however, the trends were somewhat different. Junior high enrollments increased slightly overall, and high school enrollments decreased by only 0.1 percent. Table 1.2 shows changes in enrollment distributions for each year. It can be seen in the table that the percentage of black students in 7th through 12th grades has been increasing , while the percentage of white students has declined (black students comprised 57. 7 % of the 7th-12th grade population in Year 1 and 62.7% in Year 4, while the percentage of white students declined from 40.8% to 35.5%) . The gender composition has remained fairly constant and racial trends within gender are consistent with racial trends overall (i.e., the percentages of black males and black females are changing relative to the percentages of white males and white females). LITTLE ROCK Table 1.1 ENROLLMENT COMPARISONS Distribution in Enrollment, Across Grades, by Race and Gender: 198889(Yr. 1) to 199192(Yr. 4). Grade Level =========================================zz=========m===============~--sa: 7 8 9 10 11 12 7-9 10-12 Total ===============================================================================2 Totals Year 1 2,226 2,317 2,047 2,432 2,210 1,971 6,590 6,613 13,203 Totals Year 2 2,193 2,173 1,978 2,213 2,055 1,888 6,344 6,156 12,500 Totals Year 3 2,161 2,242 2,018 2,047 1,899 1,844 6,421 5,790 12,211 Totals Year 4 2,234 2,189 2,084 2,113 1,881 1,793 6,507 5,787 12,294 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Change in Enrollment Change Yrs 1-2 -1.5X -6.2X -3.4X -9.0X -7.0X 4.2X -3.7X -6.9X -5.3X Change Yrs 2-3 -1.5X 3.2% 2.01 -7.5X -7.6X 2.3X 1.2X -5.9X 2.3X Change Yrs 3-4 3.4% -2.4X 3.3% 3.2% -0.9X -2.8\" 1.31 0.1X 0.7% Change Yrs 1-4 0.4% 5.5X 1.8% -13.1% -14.9% -9.0X -1 .31 12.5X -6.9\" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RACE Black Year 1 1,444 1,468 1,198 1,448 1, 131 927 4,110 3,506 7,616 Black Year 2 1,442 1,453 1,221 1,318 1,160 949 4,116 3,427 7,543 Black Year 3 1,458 1,499 1,289 1,221 1,074 1,046 4,246 3,341 7,587 Black Year 4 1,488 1,499 1,361 1,292 1,073 1,001 4,348 3,366 7,714 1./hi te Year 1 741 813 820 950 1,055 1,013 2,374 3,018 5,392 White Year 2 n2 680 n1 863 869 909 2,123 2,641 4,764 1./hite Year 3 683 717 689 787 794 771 2,089 2,352 4,441 1./hite Year 4 718 666 699 765 763 754 2,083 2,282 4,365 GENDER BY RACE Males Year 1 1,151 1,179 997 1,218 1,065 955 3,327 3,238 6,565 Males Year 2 1,121 1,115 990 1,078 1,006 867 3,226 2,951 6,177 Males Year 3 1,115 1,110 1,003 971 893 874 3,228 2,738 5,966 Males Year 4 1,137 1,100 1,034 1,007 882 831 3,271 2,no 5,991 Black Year 1 n2 737 603 730 547 467 2,062 1,744 3,806 Black Year 2 740 n6 605 669 573 419 2,071 1,661 3,732 Black Year 3 764 742 629 588 530 493 2,135 1,611 3,746 Black Year 4 761 769 669 625 506 471 2,199 1,602 3,801 White Year 1 411 425 379 473 507 477 1,215 1,457 2,6n White Year 2 361 370 368 389 422 432 1,099 1,243 2,342 White Year 3 343 353 355 367 342 369 1,051 1,078 2,129 White Year 4 361 324 350 361 363 335 1,035 1,059 2,094 Females Year 1 1,075 1,138 1,050 1,214 1,145 1,016 3,263 3,375 6,638 Females Year 2 1,on 1,058 988 1,135 1,049 1,021 3,118 3,205 6,323 Females Year 3 1,046 1,132 1,015 1,076 1,006 970 3,193 3,052 6,245 Females Year 4 1,097 1,089 1,050 1,106 999 962 3,236 3,067 6,303 Black Year 1 n2 731 595 718 584 460 2,048 1,762 3,810 Black Year 2 702 n1 616 649 587 530 2,045 1,766 3,811 Black Year 3 694 757 660 633 544 553 2,111 1,730 3,841 Black Year 4 n1 730 692 667 567 530 2,149 1,764 3,913 1,/h i te Year 1 330 388 441 477 548 536 1,159 1,561 2,no 1,/h i te Year 2 361 310 353 474 447 477 1,024 1,398 2,422 White Year 3 340 364 334 420 452 402 1,038 1,274 2,312 White Year 4 357 342 349 404 400 419 1,048 1,223 2,271 Note: Students from racial/ethnic backgrO\\rlds other than 'Black' or '1./hite' were not included in the 'RACE' categories because their nurcers were minimal. Therefore, grade level totals are greater than the sun of racial categories. Source: Little Rock Cohort Files 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92. 11 LITTLE ROCK Table 1.2 ENROLLMENT CCl4PARISONS Percentage Distribution of Change in Enrollment, Across Grades, by Race and Gender: 198889(Yr. 1) to 199192(Yr. 4). Grade Level ==========zm=============m===rms=~=== ~rmmm::sz:-------=---= 7 8 9 10 11 12 7-9 10-12 Total ==============================================--============================== Totals Year 1 2,226 2,317 2,047 2,432 2,210 1,971 6,590 6,613 13,203 Totals Year 2 2,193 2,173 1,978 2,213 2,055 1,888 6,344 6,156 12,500 Totals Year 3 2,161 2,242 2,018 2,047 1,899 1,844 6,421 5,790 12,211 Totals Year 4 2,234 2,189 2,084 2,113 1,881 1,793 6,507 5,787 12,294 RACE Black Year 1 64.9\" 63.4X 58.SX 59.5X 51.2X 47.0% 62.4X 53.0X 57.7\" Black Year 2 65.8X 66.9\" 61. 7X 59.6X 56.4X 50.3X 64.9\" 55.7\" 60.3X Black Year 3 67.5X 66.9\" 63.9% 59.6X 56.6X 56. 7\" 66.1X 57.7% 62.1X Black Year 4 66.6X 68.5X 65.3X 61.1X 57.0X 55.8% 66.8% 58.2X 62.7% White Year 1 33.3X 35.1X 40.1X 39.1X 47.7% 51.4X 36.0X 45.6X 40.8X White Year 2 32.9\" 31.3X 36.51 39.0X 42.3X 48.1X 33.5X 42.9\" 38.1X White Year 3 31.6X 32.0X 34.11 38.4X 41.8% 41.8% 32.5X 40.6X 36.4X White Year 4 32.1X 30.4X 33.SX 36.2X 40.6X 42.1X 32.0X 39.4X 35.SX GENDER BY RACE Hales Year 1 51.7% so. 9\" 48.7\" 50.1X 48.2\" 48.5X 50.5X 49.0X 49. 7\" Hales Year 2 51. 1X 51.3X 50.1X 48. 7\" 49.0X 45.9\" 50.9\" 47.9\" 49.4% Hales Year 3 51.6% 49.SX 49.7% 47.4% 47.0% 47.4X 50.3% 47.3% 48.9\" Hales Year 4 50.9\" 50.3% 49.61 47.7\" 46.9\" 46.3X 50.3X 47.01 48.7% Black Year 1 32.41 31.8\" 29.51 30.01 24.8% 23. 7\" 31.3X 26.41 28.8% Black Year 2 33. 7\" 33.4% 30.61 30.2\" 27.9\" 22.2\" 32.6% 27.01 29.9\" Black Year 3 35.4X 33.1X 31.2\" 28.7\" 27 .9\" 26. 7\" 33.3X 27.8% 30. 7\" Black Year 4 34.1X 35.1X 32.1X 29.6X 26.9\" 26.3X 33.8% 27.7% 30.9\" White Year 1 18.SX 18.3X 18.51 19.4X 22. 9\" 24.2\" 18.4X 22.0X 20.2% White Year 2 16.SX 17.0X 18.61 17.6% 20.5X 22.9\" 17.3% 20.2% 18. 7\" White Year 3 15.9\" 15. 7\" 17.61 17.9\" 18.0% 20.0% 16.4% 18.6X 17.4X White Year 4 16.2X 14.8% 16.8\" 17.1X 19.3X 18. 7\" 15.9\" 18.3X 17.0X Females Year 1 48.3X 49.1X 51.3X 49.9\" 51.8% 51.5X 49.5% 51.0X 50.3X Females Year 2 48. 9\" 48. 7\" 49.9\" 51.3% 51.0% 54.1X 49.1X 52.1% 50.6X Females Year 3 48.4X 50.SX 50.3X 52.6% 53.0X 52.6% 49.7% 52. 7\" 51.1% Females Year 4 49.1% 49. 7\" 50.41 52.3X 53.1% 53. 7\" 49.7\" 53.0X 51.3% Black Year 1 32.4X 31.5% 29.1X 29.5% 26.4% 23.3% 31.1X 26.6X 28. 9\" Black Year 2 32.0X 33.5% 31.1X 29.3% 28.6% 28.1% 32.2\" 28.7\" 30.5% Black Year 3 32.1X 33.8\" 32.7% 30.9\" 28.6X 30.0% 32.9\" 29.9\" 31.5X Black Year 4 32.SX 33.3% 33.2\" 31.6X 30.1% 29.6X 33.0X 30.5X 31.8% White Year 1 14.8% 16.7\" 21.51 19.6% 24.8% 27.2\" 17.6% 23.61 20.6X White Year 2 16.5% 14.3% 17.8\" 21.41 21.8% 25.3X 16.1% 22. 7\" 19.4X White Year 3 15. 7\" 16.2% 16.61 20.5% 23.8% 21.8% 16.2X 22.0X 18.9\" White Year 4 16.0X 15.6X 16.7% 19.1% 21.3% 23.4% 16.1X 21.1x 18.SX Note: Students from racial/ethnic backgrOl.llds other than 'Black' or 'White' were not included in the 'RACE' categories because their nuicers were minimal. Therefore, grade level totals are greater than the sun of racial categories. Source: Little Rock Cohort Files 198889, 198990, 199091, 199192. 12 ii. Characteristics of the Year 4 Cohort Table 1. 3 and the accompanying figure present, for high school students who appear in the Year 4 cohort, the years of enrollment, by grade in Year 4. It can be seen, for example, that 69.0 percent of Year 4's 10th grade students were enrolled in the Little Rock School District in each of the past four years, 4.4 percent were enrolled in each of the past three years, 7.9 percent were enrolled in Years 3 and 4, and 18.6 percent were enrolled in Year 4 only. Overall, in each succeeding grade, relatively more students were enrolled in all four years, and relatively fewer students were enrolled in Year 4 only. Thus, in Year 4, 7 5. 9 percent of the 12th graders and 69. 0 percent of the 10th graders were enrolled in all four years, and 7.8 percent of the 12th graders and 18.6 percent of the 10th graders were enrolled in Year 4 only. Tables 1.3a and 1.3b show the same data by race . By comparing the two tables it can be seen that greater proportions of black Year 4 students than white Year 4 students were enrolled in all four years. Overall, 80.9 percent of black Year 4 students were enrolled in all four years, compared to 59.6 percent of white Year 4 students. One group of particular interest in Table 1.3 is the 4,147 students were enrolled in all four years. Students in this longitudinal cohort are especially important to us because they are the ones who have been students in Little Rock School District throughout the New Futures Initiative, and for whom we have four years of complete data. We are able to compare their outcomes over time with the assurance that many of their basic experiences are the same (e.g ., the same suspension and retention policies governed their discipline and progress) . Overall, there have been 4,370 students who have been with us for each of the four years of the initiative. 5 5 This includes 223 students who, due to retentions, were still in 7th , 8th or 9th grade in Year 4. 13 Little Rock Table 1.3 Year 4 Students, Years of Enrollment Grade in Year 4 10th 11th 12th Total All 4 Years 1,459 1,3_27 1,361 4,147 69.0% 70.5% 75 .9% 71.8% Years 2 - 4 93 87 162 342 4.4% 4.6% 9.0% 5.9% Years 3 - 4 167 223 130 520 7.9% 11.9% 7.3% 9.0% Year 4 Only 394 244 140 778 18.6% 13.0% 7.8% 13 .3% I Total I 2,113 1,881 1,793 5,779 Figure 1.3: Years of Enrollment For Year 4 Students -- All Students 100% 'U Q) 75% 0 '- C UJ -en C (1) 'U 50% -:::::, Cl) -0 -C Q) () '- 25% Q) a.. 1 0th 11th 1 2th Total \\ ~ All 4 Yrs CJ Yrs 2-4 CJ Yrs 3-4 ~ Yr 4 Only 14 'U Q) .0.. . C: w (/) +-' C: Q) 'U ::::J +-' Cl) -0 +-' C: Q) .C..J. Q) a.. Little Rock Table 1.3a Year 4 Students, Years of Enrollment Black Students D Grade in Year 4 10th 11th 12th Total All 4 Years 1,021 863 840 2,724 79.0% 80.4% 83 .9% 80.9% Years 2 - 4 54 33 47 134 4.2% 3.1 % 4.7% 4.0% Years 3 - 4 68 77 50 195 5.3% 7.2% 5.0% 5.8% Year 4 Only 149 100 64 313 11.5% 9.3% 6.4% 9.3% I Total I 1,292 1,073 1,001 3,366 Figure 1.3a: Years of Enrollment For Year 4 Students -- Black Students 100% 75% 50% 25% 1 0th 11th 1 2th Total I III All 4 Yrs [=:J Yrs 2-4 [=:J Yrs 3-4 L] Yr 4 Only 15 \"C Q) .0.. . C w ..(./.). C Q) \"C ..~... Cl) -0 ..... C Q) .u... Q) a.. Little Rock Table 1.3b Year 4 Students, Years of Enrollment White Students D Grade in Year 4 10th 11th 12th Total All 4 Years 416 439 505 1,360 54.4% 57 .5% 67 .0% 59.6% Years 2 - 4 36 52 109 197 4.7% 6.8% 14.5% 8.6% Years 3 - 4 93 139 78 310 12.2% 18.2% 10.3% 13 .5% Year 4 Only 220 133 62 415 28.8% 17.4% 8.2% 18.1 % I Total I 765 763 754 2,282 Figure 1.3b: Years of Enrollment For Year 4 Students -- White Students 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% 1 0th 11th 1 2th Total I 1111 All 4 Yrs CJ Yrs 2-4 CJ Yrs 3-4 ~ Yr 4 Only 16 iii. Longitudinal comparisons The 4-YEAR COHORT FILE. Table 1.4 shows the number and percentage of students by race and grade in the 4-YEAR COHORT FILE. It can be seen in the table that 4,370 students have been in the cohort files for all four years . Of these students, 2,920 (66 .8%) were black (compared with 57.7% of the Year 1 students) and 1,386 (31.7%) were white ( compared with 40. 8 % in Year 1). This suggests that more black students than white students are staying through the 4-year period. As anticipated, most of the students (94. 9%) in the 4-YEAR COHORT FILE were in grades 10 through 12 in Year 4. I Little Rock Table 1.4 Number and Percentage of Students in the 4-YEAR COHORT FILE By Race/Ethnicity, Grade and Gender Race [:] Grade in Year 4 White Black Other 7 N 0 0 0 0 % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8 N I 19 0 20 % 0.1% 0.7% 0.0% 0.5% 9 N 25 177 I 203 % 1.8% 6.1% 1.6% 4.6% 10 N 416 1,021 22 1,456 % 30.0% 35 .0% 34.4% 33 .4% II N 439 863 25 1,327 % 31.7% 29.6% 39 . l % 30.4% 12 N 505 840 16 1,361 % 36 .4% 28.8% 25 .0% 31.1 % Total I N I 1,386 2,920 64 4,370 % 31.7% 66.8% 1.5 100.0% 17 Three consecutive two-year cohorts. Table 1.5 shows the percent of 7th-11th grade students in each year who also appear in the successive year's cohort files (see footnote six below). Overall, 82.6 percent of the 11,232 Year 1 7th-11th grade students appeared in the Year 2 cohort file. From Year 2 to Year 3, 84.0 percent of the 10,612 7th-11th grade students remained in the cohort file. Similarly, 84.3 percent of Year 3's students remained in the cohort file. Between Years 1 and 2 and Years 2 and 3, a greater proportion of black students than white students remained in the cohort files. Between Years 3 and 4, the proportions of black and white students remaining in the cohort file were nearly equal. Most importantly, Table 1. 5 suggests that enrollment trends over the three two twoyear time segments were fairly constant. Total enrollment, subgroup enrollment and inf.out migration of students appear relatively stable. The two-year period between Years 3 and 4 shows an increase in the proportion of white students remaining in the cohort file, and a slight decline in the proportion of black students remaining. Table 1.5 Percent of 7th to 11th Grade Students in Subsequent Cohort Files, By Race6 I I Total I Black I White Enrollment Grades 7-11, Year l 11,232 6,689 4,379 Percent Enrolled in Year 2 82.6% 85.2% 78.6% Enrollment Grades 7-11, Year 2 10,612 6,594 3,855 Percent Enrolled in Year 3 84.0% 86.5% 79.9% Enrollment Grades 7-11, Year 3 10,367 6,541 3,670 Percent Enrolled in Year 4 84.3% 84.8% 84.l % I 6 Students in the 12th grade are expected to graduate and are not expected to appear in the succeeding year's cohort tile. 18 b. Grades Kindergarten through 6 i. Over-years comparisons Tables 1.6 and 1.6a show the frequency and percentage distribution of enrollment for students enrolled in grades kindergarten through six in Years 3 and 4. Year 4's total enrollment was slightly lower than Year 3's enrollment. Declines were experienced at all elementary grades except the second and sixth. The racial composition at the elementary level was fairly constant. About 65 percent of the students are black and about 35 percent are white. Table 1.6 ENROLLMENT Percent Change in Enrollment, Across Grades, by Race and Gender for 199091(Yr. 3) and 199192(Yr. 4). Grade Level K 2 3 4 5 6 Total Totals Year 3 2,178 2,451 2,167 2,183 2,352 2,255 2,090 15,676 Totals Year 4 2,144 2,389 2,207 2,061 2,213 2,236 2,178 15,428 Change Yrs 34 1.6X 2.5X 1.8X 5.6X 5.9X 0.8X 4.2X 1.6X RACE Black Year 3 1,381 1,573 1,387 1,380 1,521 1,459 1,387 10,088 Black Year 4 1,344 1,529 1,367 1,307 1,415 1,485 1,406 9,853 White Year 3 771 844 756 m 799 m 673 5,393 \\Jhite Year 4 772 826 803 728 768 726 743 5,366 GENDER BY RACE Hales Year 3 1,130 1,257 1,113 1,106 1,206 1,140 1,059 8,011 Hales Year 4 1,105 1,253 1,130 1,045 1,120 1,138 1,097 7,888 Black Year 3 696 799 703 683 778 739 697 5,095 Black Year 4 689 788 690 646 706 749 716 4,984 \\Jhite Year 3 424 441 401 408 411 390 345 2,820 \\Jhite Year 4 405 451 420 385 399 376 365 2,801 Females Year 3 1,048 1,194 1,054 1,077 1,146 1, 115 1,031 7,665 Females Year 4 1,039 1,136 1,077 1,016 1,093 1,098 1,081 7,540 Black Year 3 685 774 684 697 743 720 690 4,993 Blaclc Year 4 655 741 677 661 709 736 690 4,869 \\Jhite Year 3 347 403 355 369 388 383 328 2,573 \\Jhite Year 4 367 375 383 343 369 350 378 2,565 Note: Students from racial/ethnic backgrounds other than 'Black or '\\Jhite were not included in the 'RACE' categories because their nunbers were minimal. Therefore, grade level totals are greater than the sun of racial categories. Source: Li ttle Rocle Cohort Fi les 1990-91, 1991  92. 19 Totals Year 3 Totals Year 4 RACE Black Year 3 Black Year 4 White Year 3 White Year 4 GENOER BY RACE Males Year 3 Males Year 4 Black Year 3 Black Year 4 White Year 3 White Year 4 Females Year 3 Females Year 4 Black Year 3 Black Year 4 White Year 3 White Year 4 LITTLE ROCK Table 1.6a ENROLLMENT Percentage of Change in Enrollment, Across Grades, by Race, 1990-91 (Yr. 3) and 1991-92 (Yr. 4). I( 2,178 2,144 63.4X 62.?X 35.4X 36. 0X 51.9X 51 . SX 32.0X 32.1X 19.SX 18.9X 48.1X 48.SX 31.SX 30 . 6X 15.9X 17.1X 2,451 2,389 64.2X 64.0X 34.4X 34.6X 51.3X 52.4X 32.6X 33.0X 18.0X 18.9X 48.?X 47.6X 31.6X 31.0X 16.4X 15.?X 2 2, 167 2,207 64.0X 61.9X 34.9X 36.4X 51.4X 51.2X 32.4X 31.3X 18 .SX 19.0X 48.6X 48.8X 31 .6X 30.?X 16.4X 17.4X Grade Level 3 2,183 2,061 63.2X 63.4X 35.6X 35.3X 50.?X 50.?X 31.3X 31.3X 18.?X 18.?X 49.3X 49.3X 31.9X 32.1X 16.9X 16.6X 4 2,352 2,213 64.?X 63.9X 34.0X 34.?X 51.3X 50.6X 33.1X 31.9X 17.SX 18.0X 48.?X 49.4X 31.6X 32.0X 16.SX 16.?X 2,255 2,236 64.?X 66.4X 34.3X 32.SX 50.6X 50.9X 32.8X 33.SX 17.3X 16.8X 49.4X 49.1X 31.9X 32.9X 17.0X 15.?X 6 2,090 2,178 66.4X 64.6X 32.2X 34.1X 50.?X 50.4X 33.3X 32.9X 16.SX 16.8X 49.3X 49.6X 33.0X 31.?X 15. 7X 17.4X Total 15,676 15,428 64.4X 63.9X 34.4X 34.8X 51.1X 51.1X 32.SX 32.3% 18.0X 18.2% 48.9X 48.9X 31.9% 31.6% 16 .4% 16.6% Note: Students from racial/ethnic backgrounds other than 'Black' or 'White' were not included in the 'RACE' categories because their nurbers were minimal. Therefore, grade level totals are greater than the sum of racial categories. Source: Little Rock Cohort Files 1990-91, 1991-92. 20 ii. Origins of the Year 4 Students The origins of all Year 4 elementary school students, by race are described in Tables 1. 7 through 1. 7b. Specifically, the tables show, by grade, the number and percent of Year 4 students who were new to the system, and for those who were also enrolled in Year 3, the number and percent who had advanced one grade, remained in the same grade, or advanced more than one grade in Year 4. It can be seen in the tables that (excluding kindergarten students, all of whom were new), about 14 percent of all elementary school students were new to the system in Year 4 (including 9.4% of black students and 21.1 % of white students). Most of the students (82.4%) in the 1st through 6th grades had been in the system during Year 3 and had advanced one grade level (including 85.6% of black students, and 76.9.% of white students). The table also shows that first grade has the greatest proportion of new arrivals, (17.3 percent of the students are new to the system, compared to 14% or less for other grades), and the highest grade retention rate (11. 9 percent had been Little Rock 1st graders the previous year). 21 Table 1. 7: Origins of All Year 4 Elementary School Students7 I I Grade in Year 4 [\nJ Status I 2 3 4 5 6 New to System in Year N 413 315 276 323 271 226 1,824 4 % 17.3% 14.3% 13.4% 14.6% 12.l % 10.4% 13.7% Advanced One Grade N 1,692 1,783 1,742 1,850 1,942 1,931 10,940 From Year 3 % 70.8% 80.8% 84.5% 83.6% 86.9% 88.7% 82.4% Retained In Same N 284 103 34 37 18 8 484 Grade As Year 3 % 11.9% 4.7% 1.6% 1.7% 0.8% 0.4% 3.6% Multi-promoted From N NIA 6 9 3 5 13 36 Year 3 % NIA 0.3% 0.4% 0.1 % 0.2% 0.6% 0.3% I Total I N I 2,389 2,207 2,061 2,213 2,236 2,178 I 13,284 I % Multi-promoted (0.3%) Figure 1.7: Origins of Year 4 Students For All Year 4 Students in Grades 1 Through 6 Based on Year 3 Enrollment 7 Kindergarten students are not included in this analysis because most of the kindergarten students were new to the system in Year 4. 22 I I Table 1. 7a: Origins of Black Year 4 Elementary School Students Status New to System in Year 4 Advanced One Grade From Year 3 Retained In Same Grade As Year 3 Multi-promoted From Year 3 Total I I 1 2 3 4 5 N 182 134 113 143 136 % 11.9% 9.8% 8.6% 10.1 % 9.2% N 1,103 1,152 1,160 1,241 1,332 % 72.1 % 84.3% 88.8% 87.7% 89.7% N 244 79 28 29 13 % 16.0% 5.8% 2.1 % 2.0% 0.9% N NIA 2 6 2 4 % NIA 0.1 % 0.5% 0.1 % 0.3% N I 1,529 1,367 1,307 1,415 1,485 Figure 1.7a: Origins of Year 4 Students For Black Year 4 Students in Grades 1 Through 6 Based on Year 3 Enrollment % Retained (4.7%) % New to System (9.4%) % Multi-promoted (0.3%) 23 6 92 6.5% 1,296 92.2% 8 0.6% 10 0.7% 1,406 GJ 800 9.4% 7,284 85.6% 401 4.7% 24 0.3% 8,509 11 I I Table 1.7b: Origins of White Year 4 Elementary School Students Status New to System in Year 4 Advanced One Grade From Year 3 Retained In Same Grade As Year 3 Multi-promoted From Year 3 Total I .. I I 2. l IC 4 ,... S \\ 6 N 217 172 153 172 131 % 26.3% 21.4% 21.0% 22.4% 18.0% N 569 606 566 588 589 % 68.9% 75.5% 77.7% 76.6% 81.1% N 40 22 6 7 5 % 4.8% 2.7% 0.8% 0.9% 0.7% N NIA 3 3 1 1 % NIA 0.4% 0.4% 0.1 % 0.1 % N I 826 803 728 768 726 Figure 1. 7b: Origins of Year 4 Students For White Year 4 Students in Grades 1 Through 6 Based on Year 3 Enrollment 124 16.7% 616 82.9% 0 0.0% 3 0.4% 743 % New to System (21 .1 %)  1\\ '[otat/ ' 969 21.1% 3,534 77.0% 80 1.7% 11 0.2% I 4,594 I % Normal Progress (77.0%) 24 2. Attendance a. Over-years comparisons Table 2.1 shows, across grades, by race and by gender, each cohort's average daily attendance rate (ADA) in Years 1, 2, 3 and 4, and the percentage point difference in ADA over the four year period. It can be seen that attendance rates are generally quite high but have been declining over the four year period (by 1. 8 percentage points overall) . Attendance patterns are generally consistent over race/ethnicity and gender. b. Longitudinal comparisons Table 2.2 contains longitudinal attendance data for those students who appear in the 4- YEAR COHORT FILE. For each of the four study years, participants have been classified according to the quartile in which their ADA fell in the first year of New Futures. Year 1 students with an ADA less than 79.7 percent were in the lowest quartile (i.e ., their ADA was equal to or less than the ADA of twenty-five percent of the population), students with ADAs between 79 .7 and 91.7 percent fell in the second quartile, students with ADAs between 91.8 percent and 97 .1 percent fell in the third quartile, and students with AD As greater than 97 .1 percent fell in the fourth quartile. The table shows the Year 1 through Year 4 average daily attendance rates, by attendance quartile, for all students and by race. On average, attendance rates are declining for the 4-YEAR COHORT students. This is true across attendance quartiles and across races. For example, for Black 4-YEAR COHORT FILE students whose Year 1 attendance placed them. in the second attendance quartile we see a decline in ADA in each year (from 91.0% in Year 1, to 90.0% in Year 2, to 87.4% in Year 3 and 83 .4% in Year 4). 25 LITTLE ROCK Table 2.' ATTENDANCE COMPARISONS Percentage Point Change in Average Daily Attendance (ADA) Rates, Across Grades, by Race and Gender: 1988-89(Yr. 1) to 1991-92(Yr. 4). Grade Level ======================================================================== Total Total Total 7 8 9 10 11 12 7-9 10-12 7-12 ======================================================================== Totals Year 1 91.1X 88.?X 90.8X 90.3X 90.?X 91.4X 90.2X 90.8X 90.5X Totals Year 2 91.8X 89.3X 90.9X 87.0X 88.3X 88.5X 90.?X 87.9X 89.3X Totals Year 3 91.5X 90.0X 89.3X 89.2X 89.4X 89 . 2X 90.3X 89.3X 89.8X Totals Year 4 90.8X 89.1X 88.4X 86.?X 88.2X 89.1X 89.SX 87.9X 88.?X --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Change in ADA Change Yrs 1-2 0.7 0.6 0.1 -3.3 -2.4 -2.9 0.5 -2.9 -1.2 Change Yrs 2-3 -0.3 0.7 -1.6 2.2 1.1 0.7 -0.4 1.4 0.5 Change Yrs 3-4 -0.7 -0.9 -0.9 -2.5 -1.2 -0.1 -0.8 -1.4 -1.1 Change Yrs 1-4 -0.3 0.4 -2.4 -3.6 -2.5 -2.3 -0.7 -2.9 -1.8 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RACE Black Year 90.?X 88.0X 91.0X 90.0X 90.2X 91.?X 89.8X 90.SX 90.2X Black Year 2 91.SX 88.4X 90.6X 85 .6X 88.0X 88.5X 90.1X 87.3X 88.8X Black Year 3 91.1X 89.0X 88.6X 88.4X 88.8X 89.1X 89.6X 88.?X 89.2X Black Year 4 90.5X 88.6X 87.4X 85.?X 87.9X 88.9X 88.9X 87.4X 88.2X White Year 1 91.8X 89.8X 90.3X 90.?X 91.2X 91.1X 90.6X 91.0X 90.8X White Year 2 92.4X 91.2X 91.2X 88.9X 88.6X 88.3X 91.6X 88.5X 89.9X White Year 3 92.3X 91.8X 90.?X 90.2X 90.2X 89.2X 91.6X 89.9X 90.?X White Year 4 91.4X 90.1X 90.0X 88.1X 88.5X 89.1X 90.SX 88.6X 89.5X GENDER BY RACE Males Year 1 90.5X 88.2X 90.2X 89.6X 90.0X 91.3X 89.6X 90.3X 89.9X Males Year 2 90.SX 88.9X 90.2X 85.9X 87.?X 88.6X 89.8X 87.3X 88.?X Males Year 3 90.5X 88.9X 88.8X 88.5X 88.SX 89.2X 89.4X 88.?X 89.1X Males Year 4 89.8X 88.1X 87.6X 85.4X 87.5X 88.?X 88.6X 87.1X 87.9X Black Year 90.1X 87.SX 90.4X 89.3X 89.2X 91.6X 89.3X 89.9X 89.6X Black Year 2 90.0X 87.?X 89.?X 84.?X 87.3X 88.6X 89.1X 86.?X 88 .0X Black Year 3 89.9X 89.6X 88.0X 87.5X 87.?X 88.5X 88.6X 87.9X 88.3X Black Year 4 89.5X 87.4X 86.3X 84.3X 88.0X 88.3X 87.8X 86.?X 87.3X White Year 1 91.2X 89.SX 89.?X 89.9X 90.?X 91.0X 90.1X 90.5X 90.4X White Year 2 91.4X 90.9X 90.?X 87.6X 88.0X 88.4X 91.0X 88.0X 89.4X White Year 3 91.8X 91.4X 90.0X 89 .9X 89.SX 90.0X 91.1X 89.8X 90.4X White Year 4 90.2X 89.?X 89.8X 87.0X 86.8X 89.0X 89.9X 87.6X 88.?X Females Year 1 91.?X 89.2X 91.3X 91.0X 91.4X 91.6X 90.?X 91.3X 91.1X Females Year 2 93.2X 89.8X 91.6X 88.0X 88.9X 88.4X 91.5X 88.4X 90.0X Females Year 3 92.6X 91.0X 89.8X 89.8X 90.2X 89.2X 91.2X 89.?X 90.5X Females Year 4 91.9X 90.1X 89.1X 87.8X 88.8X 89.5X 90.4X 88.6X 89.5X Black Year 1 91.3X 88.5X 91.6X 90.?X 91.1X 91.8X 90.4X 91.1X 90.?X Black Year 2 93.0X 89.0X 91.4X 86.5X 88.6X 88.4X 91 . 1X 87.8X 89.6X Black Year 3 92.5X 90.4X 89.1X 89.1X 89.8X 89.6X 90.?X 89.5X 90.2X Black Year 4 91.5X 89.9X 88.5X 86.9X 87.8X 89.4X 89.9X 88.0X 89.1X White Year 1 92.6X 90.2X 90.8X 91.5X 91.6X 91.3X 91.1X 91.5X 91.3X White Year 2 93.5X 91.5X 91.6X 89.9X 89.2X 88.2X 92.2X 89.0X 90.4X White Year 3 92.?X 92.2X 91.5X 90 .5X 90.?X 88.5X 92.2X 89.9X 90.9\" White Year 4 92.6X 90.5X 90.3X 89.0X 90.0X 89.3X 91.1X 89. 4X 90.2X Source: Little Rock Cohort Files 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92. 26 Little Rock Table 2.2 Longitudinal ADA Comparisons, By Quartile In Year 1 and Race/Ethnicity, For 4-YEAR COHORT FILE Students Year 1 (1988-89) Through Year 4 (1991 -92) Average Daily Attendance Rates Percentage Average Daily Attendance ADA N Point Difference: Year I Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Years l and 4 All Students 4,240 92 .9% 92.3% 90 .8% 87 .8% -5. l All Quartiles Black 2,831 92 .9% 92.2% in Year I 90.3% 87.1 % -5.8 White 1,347 92 .8% 92.6% 91.5% 89 .2% -3.6 All Students 651 79.0% 81.3% 79.0% 73.3 % -5.7 Lowest Quartile in Year 1 Black 448 78.4% 80 .5% 77.5% 70 .9% -7.5 ( \u0026lt; 79.7 %) White 198 80.4% 82 .8% 82. 1% 79 .0 % -1.4 All Students 1,026 91 .1 % 90.6% 88.4% 84.8% -6 .3 Second Quartile in Year 1 Black 621 91.0% 90 .0% 87 .4% 83.4% -7 .6 (79.7% 2_ 91.7 %) White 392 91.1 % 91.3% 89 .8% 86.9% -4 .2 All Students 1,2 10 95 .4% 94.4% 93 .0% 90 .7% -4.7 Third Quartile in Black 793 95.4% 94 .3% 92 .7% 90 .2% -5.2 Year 1 (91. 8 % 2_ 97 . 1 % ) White 399 95 .3% 94 .6% 93 .5% 91.5% -3.8 All Students 1,353 98 .5% 96 .9% 95 .8% 93 .8% -4 .7 Highest Quartile in Black 969 98 .5% 96.9% 95 .7% 93.7% -4.8 Year 1 (\u0026gt; 97 . l %) White 358 98 .4% 96.7% 96 .1% 94 .1 % -4.3 27 3. Academic Achievement (Reading and Mathematics) a. Grades 7 through 12 i. Over-years comparisons Tables 3.1 and 3.2 compare, across grades, by race and gender, average Year 1, Year 2, Year 3 and Year 4 achievement test scores for 7th through 11th grade students. (Since Year 4 data are converted from SAT-8 test scores, Table 3.la and 3.2a, which show unconverted SA T-8 scores, are also included as a reference.) Data are presented as percentile ranks8 associated with the mean normal curve equivalent (NCE) scores. 9 A verage reading performance among tested seventh graders (Table 3.1) in Year 1 was equivalent to the 48th percentile, the seventh grade average in Year 4 was equivalent to the 54th percentile. Thus, relative to national norms, the seventh grade reading average improved by six percentile ranks from Year 1 to Year 4. In contrast, seventh grade math achievement (Table 3.2) dropped two percentile ranks, from the 50th percentile in Year 1 to the 48th percentile in Year 4. Tables 3.1 and 3.2 also show:  improvement in reading scores at the 7th and 10th grade levels, but declining at the 8th, 9th and 11th grade levels\n10  declines in math scores at all junior high levels, and improvements in 10th and 11th grade scores\nand  rather large disparities between black students and white students. Tables 3.3 through 3.6 and the accompanying figures show, across grades, by race and gender, the achievement quartile distributions for junior high school students, Years 1, 2, 3 and 4. Students scoring at or below the 25th percentile are said to be in the first (lowest) quartile . Similarly, students scoring between the 26th and the 50th percentile (i.e., the median) are in the second quartile, students scoring between the 51st and 75th percentiles are in the third quartile, and students scoring above the 75th percentile are in the fourth (highest) quartile. In a statistically \"normal\" distribution, approximately 25 percent of the 8 Percentile ranks indicate the percentage of raw scores in a normative group that fall below a particular student's raw score. For example, if a student's raw score converts to a percentile rank of 43 then that student scored higher than approximately 43 percent of the students in the normative group. 9 See also the discussion of achievement measures in the Introduction. 10 Year 1. 2 and 3 test scores are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6). Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scores (SAT-8). Some of the decline in test scores may be attributable tu implementauon of a new testing package (from the MAT-6 to the SAT-8) and the score conversion process. (All Year 4 data were converted from SAT-8 scores to the MAT-6 equivalent.) 28 population would be included within each of the four quartiles. By comparing the scores of Little Rock's students to those norms, we can compute the percentages of Little Rock's students who score in each range. Information contained in Tables 3.3 through 3.6 may be used to observe differences in the percentages of students in the lowest or highest quartiles that may not be obvious when looking at overall averages . Reductions in the percentages of students in the first quartile, or increases in the percentages of students in the fourth quartile, constitute improvements. Conversely, increases in the percentages of students in the first quartile, or decreases in the percentages of students in the fourth quartile, constitute declines. For example, it can be seen in Table 3.3 that, in Year 1 and in Year 4, 21 percent of Little Rock's tested junior high school students scored in the first quartile in reading (4 percentage points better than what would be expected in a statistically \"normal\" distribution). Table 3.5 shows that in Year 1, 22 percent of Little Rock's testedhigh school students (10th and 11th graders only) scored in the first quartile in reading, while 17 percent of tested high school students were in the first quartile in Year 4. The figures show most clearly the disparities in achievement results. The comparisons shown in Tables 3.1 through 3.6, like all other over-years comparisons, are not of matched groups of students. For example, the seventh graders in Year 1 are different students than the seventh graders in Years 2, 3 or 4. In addition, some of the students tested in each year may have been retained in their grades while others may have been promoted. This does not mean that comparisons of over-years data cannot be made, or are not useful, but only that those undertaking the assessment be aware which groups of students make up the groups they are reviewing . 29 Table 3.1 ACHIEVEMENT C04PARISONS Distribution in Reading Achievement Scores (Percentile Ranks), Across Grades, by Race and Gender: 198889(Yr. 1) to 199192(Yr.4). asa:.aa.--a ~mrmma:arm 7 8 9 10 11 ms:.as.:s-.-\u0026amp;.a :.::.::aaa:asrmaaarm.a Totals Year 1 48 54 64 50 55 Totals Year 2 50 52 65 54 52 Totals Year 3 48 52 61 54 58 Totals Year 4 54 42 48 54 54 -C--h-a-n-ge- --in- -R--e-a-d-in-g- -A--c-h-ie-v-e-m--e-n-t ------------------------------------- Change Yrs 12 2 -2 1 4 -3 Change Yrs 2-3 -2 0 -4 0 6 Change Yrs 3-4 6 -10 -13 -o -4 Change Yrs 1-4 6 -12 -16 4 -1 ------------------------------------------------------------------- RACE Black Year 1 36 40 51 36 38 Black Year 2 37 39 50 39 39 Black Year 3 35 37 48 39 42 Black Year 4 44 35 37 41 41 White Year 1 n 76 80 68 71 White Year 2 73 76 83 n n \"11ite Year 3 n 78 82 n 73 White Year 4 75 61 67 n 70 GENDER BY RACE MalH Year 1 48 53 64 48 56 Males Year 2 46 50 65 50 52 Males Year 3 44 50 59 54 56 Males Year 4 48 41 46 50 54 Black Year 1 34 38 51 35 38 Black Year 2 33 35 50 37 37 Black Year 3 33 35 46 39 41 Black Year 4 39 33 37 37 41 Whit  Year 1 70 76 80 68 70 White Year 2 n 73 82 73 70 White Year 3 70 75 80 n 73 White Year 4 68 59 65 68 70 Feaaln Year 1 50 55 66 51 55 F-lH Year 2 52 54 65 56 54 F-lH Year 3 50 54 63 54 58 Feaales Year 4 59 46 50 56 54 Black Year 1 38 42 51 38 39 Black Year 2 39 42 52 41 39 Black Year 3 39 39 50 41 42 Black Year 4 48 37 39 42 41 11h I te Year 1 74 77 81 70 71 White Year 2 76 79 84 n n White Year 3 73 79 84 n 73 White Year 4 79 65 70 76 70 Note: Twelfth grade students ere not tested. Note: Years 1, 2 and 3 test scores are baaed on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT6). Year 4 scores are baaed on converted Stanford Achievement Test scores (SAT-8). Scores are reported as percentile rank associated with mean Normal Curve Equivalents (NCEs). Note: Students fr0111 racial/ethnic backgrOW1da other then 'Black' or 'WhiteM were not included in the 'RACE' categories because their rurbers were minimal. Source: Little Rock Cohort Files 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92. 30 Totals RACE Black llhite GENDER BY Males Black llhi te Females Black \\lhi te Table 3.1a READING ACHIEVEMENT Stanford Achievement Test (SAT-8) Reading Scores (Perce~tile Ranks) Across Grade, by Race and Gender for 1991-92(Yr. 4). Grade Level ================================================ 7 8 9 10 11 ================================================ 39 39 41 48 48 25 27 28 32 33 67 65 67 71 68 RACE 30 33 39 42 48 20 24 27 27 33 58 59 63 67 68 46 42 42 52 48 32 30 30 35 33 75 68 70 76 68 Note: Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scores (SAT-8). Scores are reported as percentile ranks associated with mean Normal Curve Equivalents (NCEs). Source: Little Rock Cohort Files for 1991-92. 31 Table 3.2 ACHIEVEMENT C!Jl'ARISONS Distribution in Math Achievement Scores (Percentile Ranks), Across Grades, by Gender and Race: 198889(Yr. 1) to 199192(Yr.4). Grade Level =-==========---~=--===aa==s---===:z===a 7 8 9 10 11 ------------z-:s=rz=m--=---==-.srm--=-----===== Totals Year 1 50 51 64 50 55 Totals Year 2 52 48 65 54 54 Totals Year 3 48 48 59 52 59 Totals Year 4 48 37 42 54 56 -C--h-a-n-g-e --in-- M--a-th- -A--c-h-ie-v-t!-l-ll-el-'l-t ---------------------------------------- Change Yrs 1-2 2 -3 1 4 -1 Change Yrs 2-3 4 -o -6 -2 5 Change Yrs 3-4 0 -11 17 2 -3 Change Yrs 1-4 2 -14 -22 4 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------- RACE Black Year 1 38 39 51 38 40 Black Year 2 41 37 52 41 41 Black Year 3 39 35 48 41 46 Black Year 4 39 28 30 41 42 White Year 1 70 71 79 67 70 White Year 2 73 n 80 n 70 White Year 3 67 70 76 68 75 White Year 4 68 58 65 n 68 GENDER BY RACE Males Year 1 48 49 64 51 59 Males Year 2 48 48 63 54 58 Males Year 3 46 46 58 52 61 Males Year 4 44 35 42 52 56 Black Year 1 35 35 51 38 42 Black Year 2 37 33 50 41 42 Black Year 3 35 35 46 39 48 Black Year 4 33 27 30 39 44 White Year 1 69 71 80 71 73 White Year 2 70 70 79 73 73 White Year 3 65 68 73 68 78 White Year 4 65 54 63 70 70 Femalu Year 1 51 53 63 48 53 Femalu Year 2 54 48 65 54 52 Females Year 3 50 48 59 54 58 F .. lu Year 4 52 41 42 56 54 Black Year 1 42 44 51 36 39 Black Year 2 42 39 54 41 39 Black Year 3 41 35 50 41 44 Black Year 4 42 32 32 42 42 White Year 1 71 71 77 63 66 White Year 2 75 73 80 70 68 White Year 3 68 n 79 68 73 White Year 4 n 59 67 n 68 Note: Tlielfth grade students are not tested. Note: Years 1, 2 and 3 test scores are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT6). Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scores (SAT-8). Scores are reported s percentile ranks associated with 11111an Normal Curve Equivalents (NCEs). Note: Students from racial/ethnic backgrOUlds other than 'Black' or 'White\" were not Included in the 'RACE' categories because their nua\u0026gt;era were 111inimel. Source: Little Rock Cohort Files 1988-89, 198990, 1990-91, 199192. 32 Totals RACE Black llhite GENDER BY Males Black Table 3.2a READING ACHIEVEMENT Stanford Achievement Test (SAT-8) Reading Scores (Percentile Ranks) Across Grade, by Race and Gender for 199192(Yr. 4). Grade Level ==-=====-======-=====--====-==================== 7 8 9 10 11 ==-==================-=====-==================== 39 39 41 48 48 25 27 28 32 33 67 65 67 71 68 RACE 30 33 39 42 48 20 24 27 27 33 llhite 58 59 63 67 68 Females 46 42 42 52 48 Black 32 30 30 35 33 llhite 75 68 70 76 68 Note: Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scores (SAT-8). Scores are reported as percentile ranks associated with mean Normal Curve Equivalents (NCEs). Source: Little Rock Cohort Files for 1991-92. 33 Table 3.3 ACHIEVEMENT COMPARISONS QUARTILE DISTRIBUTION Percentage of Ji.nior High School Students Scoring in Each Achievement Quartile, for Reading, Across Grades, by Race and Gender: 1988-89 (Yr. 1) to 1991-92 (Yr. 4). ======================================================================================================= Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Total JHS YR-1 YR-2 YR-3 YR-4 YR-1 YR-2 YR-3 YR-4 YR-1 YR-2 YR-3 YR-4 YR-1 YR-2 YR-3 YR-4 ------------=-=-===----=-----=----=--=---=--------=====--=z=======----=------=---------------------- Total Quartile I 28X 27X 29X 16X 23X 25X 25X 26X 13X 14X 17X 20X 21X 23% 24X 21% Quartile II 29X 28% 2ax 36% 2ax 29X 28X 39X 25X 23% 25X 37X 2ax 27X 27X 37X Quartile 111 20% 22X 21% 26% 21% 20% 20X 24X 29X 29X 25X 27X 23% 23% 22% 26% Quartile IV 23% 23% 22X 22X 28X 26% 27X 12X 33% 34X 33X 16% 2ax 27X 27X 16% Black Quartile I 37X 37X 38X 21X 31% 33% 35X 34% 18X 20% 24X 28X 30X 31% 33% 2ax Quartile II 35% 33X 34X 45X 35% 34% 34% 44X 32X 31X 32X 46% 34X 33% 33X 4SX Quartile Ill 18X 19X 19X 24% 19X 19X 19X 17X 31% 30X 26X 22% 22% 22% 21X 21% Quartile IV 11X ,ox 9X 10X 14% 14% 12% 4% 18X 20X 19X 4% 14% 14% 13% 6% Black Males Quartile I 40% 41X 41X 29X 34% 36% 39X 39X 20X 21X 26% 30% 32X 34% 36% 33% Quartile II 35X 32% 34X 45X 34% 37X 34% 41X 29X 30% 32% 45X 33X 33% 34% 44% Quartile Ill 16% 17X 17X 20X 1ax 16% 15% 16X 32X 29X 25% 21% 21X 20% 18% 19% Quartile IV 9X 10% BX 7X 14% 11% 12X 4X 19X 20% 17X 4% 14% 14X 12% sx Black Females Quartile I 34% 34X 35% 14% 28% 30% 31% 30X 17X 19X 22X 26% 27X 2ax 30X 23% Quartile II 35X 35X 33% 45% 38X 32X 34X 47X 34X 31% 31% 46% 36X 33% 33% 46X Quartile Ill 19X 21X 22X 28X 20% 22% 23% 19X 31X 31% 27X 23% 23X 24% 24% 24X Quartile IV 12X 10X ,ox 13% 14X 16% 12% 4% ,ax 19X 20% sx 14% 1SX 14% 7X 11h i te Quartile I 9X 8X 9X 7X 7X 8X 6% 9X sx 3X 6% sx 7X 7X 7X 7X Quartile II 18X 17X 18% 18% 19X 20% 17X 27X 14X 12% 12% 22X 17X 16X 16X 22% Quartile 111 25X 28X 23% 30% 23% 20% 22% 37X 26% 27X 23% 37X 2SX 25% 23% 34% Quartile IV 48% 47X SOX 46% S2X 52% S4X 27X ssx sax sax 36% S2X S3X S4X 37X llhite Males Quartile I ,ox ,ox 12% ,ox 8% 11% 8% 12X 6% 4% 7X 8X 8% 8X 9X 10% Quartile 11 18X 16% 16% 22% 19X 21X 19X 29X 16% 12% 13% 23X 18% 16X 16% 2SX Quartile Ill 2SX 29X 26% 29X 21X 19X 21X 3SX 22% 27X 24X 36% 23X 25% 24% 33% Quartile IV 47X 4SX 46% 38X 52% 49X 52X 24% 56X 57X 56X 33% S2X 51X S1X 32% llhite Females Quartile I 9X 6X 7X 4X 7X sx 4% 7X 4X 3% sx 3X 6X SX sx 4% Quartile II 18X 17X 19X 13% 17X 19% 16% 25X 12X 12X 12X 20X 1SX 16X 16% 19X Quartile Ill 24X 28X 21% 30% 2SX 20% 23% 39X 29X 26% 23% 3ax 26X 25% 22X 3SX Quartile IV 49X 49X S3X 53% 51% 56% S?X 30% ssx 59X 60X 39X 52% ssx 57X 4-1% Note: Year 1, 2 and 3 test scores are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test CMAt-6). Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test (SAT-a) scores which are coq,arable to the MAT-6. Source: Little Rock Cohort Files 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92. 34 \"'C -(1) 75% (/) (1) ~ -(/) C (1) \"'C -::J 50% e-n 0 -C (1) u '- (1) 25% a. Figure 3.3: Little Rock Students Scoring in Lowest and Highest Reading Achievement Quartiles For Junior High School Students Enrolled in Years 1 and 4, By Race Year 1 Year4 Year 1 Year 4 Year 1 Year 4 All Black White I  Lowest Quartile ~ Highest Quartile 35 Table 3.4 ACHIEVEMENT COMPARISONS QUARTILE DISTRIBUTION Percentage of Students Scoring in Each Achievement Mathematics Quartile Across Grades and by Race and Gender: 1988-89 (Yr. 1) to 199192 (Yr. 4). ==-=-========================================================-=~======================================= Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Total JHS YR1 YR-2 YR-3 YR4 YR-1 YR2 YR-3 YR-4 YR1 YR-2 YR-3 YR4 YR1 YR2 YR3 YR4 ==========================================================rn~======================================== Total Quartile I 25X 22X 25X 29% 24X 27% 29% 39% 13% 12X 17% 33% 21% 21X 24% 34X Quartile II 29% 32X 33% 29% 30X 30% 31X 30% 27% 30% 29% 31X 30% 31X 31% 30% Quartile 111 26X 25X 24X 23X 21% 22X 20% 1BX 2BX 25X 2BX 19% 25X 24% 24X 20X Quartile IV 20X 21X 1BX 20X 25X 21% 20% 12X 32% 33X 26% 17% 25X 24X 21X 17% Blacl:: Quartile 32X 29% 32X 36X 32% 35X 38% 49% 1BX 16% 22X 44X 2BX 2BX 31X 43X Quartile II 35X 39% 39% 32% 36X 36% 36X 32% 36% 38X 35% 35% 36X 37% 37% 33X Quartile 111 25X 23X 21% 22X 20% 20% 17% 14X 2BX 27% 30% 14% 24% 22X 22% 17% Quartile IV 8X ,ox BX 10X 13X 9X 9X sx 1BX 20% 13X 7X 13X 12X 10X 7X Blacl:: Males Quartile I 37% 32X 35X 45X 37% 39% 41X 53% 1BX 19% 24% 46% 31X 31% 33X 48X Quartile II 34X 40X 39% 2BX 33% 33% 35% 30% 32% 37% 37% 33% 33% 37% 37% 30X Quartile 111 23X 19% 19% 20X 19% 20% 14X 12X 31X 26X 26% 14% 24X 21X 20X 15X Quartile IV 6X 9X 7X BX 11X BX 10X 5% 19% 1BX 13% 7X 12X 11% 10% 6X Blacl:: Females Quartile I 29% 26X 30X 27% 27% 31% 37% 46% 17% 13X 20X 42X 25X 24X 29X .38X Quartile II 35X 38X 39% 36X 38% 39% 36X 33X 40% 38X 34X 37% 3BX 38% 37% 36X Quartile Ill 27% 26X 22X 24X 21X 21X 19% 16% 26% 27% 33% 14% 25X 25X 24X 1BX Quartile IV 9X 10X 9X 13X 14% 9X BX sx 17% 22% 13X 6X 13X 13X ,ox BX White Quartile 9X 7X 10% 15% 10% 10% 11X 1BX 6% 6% 7X 14% BX 8% 9X 15% Quartile II 21X 19% 22X 22X 21X 19% 21% 28% 15X 16X 19X 23% 19X 20% 21X 24X Quartile Ill 2BX 31X 32X 24% 24% 27% 26% 2BX 2BX 23% 25X 27% 26% 26% 28X 26X Quartile IV 42% 43X 36X 39% 46X 44X 42% 26X 51X 55% 49% 36X 47% 45X 43X 34X White Males Quartile I 13X 10X 13X 20X ,ox 13X 11X 20X 6X 7X 10X 17% ,ox ,ox ,,x 19% Quartile II 18X 18% 21X 24X 19% 18X 22X 30X 18% 15X 21X 23X 18X 17% 21X 26X Quartile 111 26X 30X 31% 20X 27% 29% 28% 25% 23X 22X 24X 25X 26X 27% 28X 23X Quartile IV 43X 42% 35X 37% 44% 40% 39% 25% 53X 56% 45X 35X 47% 46% 40X 33X White Females Quartile I sx sx BX 11% 11% 7X 10% 16% 5% 6% 4X 10% 7X 6X BX 12X Quartile II 24X 20X 22% 19% 22% 21% 21% 25X 15X 16X 16X 23X 20X 19% 20X 22X Quartile 111 29% 31% 32% 28% 20% 23X 24X 31% 31% 24X 26% 30% 27% 26X 27% 29% Quartile IV 42X 44X 3BX 42% 47% 49% 45% 2BX 49% 54% 54% 37% 47% 49% 45X 36X Note: Year 1, 2 and 3 test scores are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT6). Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test (SAT-8) scores which are c~rable to MAT6 scores. Source: little Roel:: Cohort Files 198889, 1989-90, 199091, 1991-92. 36 \"'C -Q) 75% (/J Q) r- -(/J C Q) \"'C -::::, 50% e-n 0 -C Q) u '- Q) 25% a.. Figure 3.4: Little Rock Students Scoring in Lowest and Highest Mathematics Achievement Quartiles For Year 1 and 4 Junior High School Students By Race Year 1 Year 4 Year 1 Year 4 Year 1 Year 4 All Black White I  Lowest Quartile ~ Highest Quartile 37 Table 3.5 ACHIEVEMENT COMPARISONS - QUARTILE DISTRIBUTION Percentage of High School Students Scoring in Each Reading Achievement Quartile Across Grades, by Race and Gender: 1988-89CYr. 1) to 1991-92(Yr. 4). ---------------------------------------------------------------------============================= Grade 10 Grade 11 Total HS YR-1 YR-2 YR-3 YR-4 YR-1 YR-2 YR-3 YR-4 YR-1 YR-2 YR-3 YR-4 =======================---=------------===========-===========-=================================== Total Quart le I rn: 21 19X 18 19% 23 18 16 22 22 19X 17 Quart le II 35 31 32 35 26 27 27 35 28 29X 30 35 Quart le Ill 22 23 23 25 28 25 27 30 26 24 25 28 Quart le IV 20 25 26 22 27 25 28 19 24 25 27 21 Black Quartile I 35 31 29X 26 32 36 27 24 34 33 28 25 Quartile II 37 39X 40 44 34 31 35 46 35 35 38 45 Quartile Ill 19X 20 21 21 25 21 26 24 22 21 23 23 Quartile IV 9X 10 10 8 10 12 12 6 10 11 11 7 Black Males Quartile I 37 35 31 32 35 37 29 23 36 36 30 28 Quartile II 36 36 38 43 30 32 32 45 33 34 35 44 Quartile Ill 19X 19X 20 17 24 20 25 26 21 20 22 21 Quartile IV 8 10 11 8 11 11 14 6 10 11 12 7 Black Females Quartile I 33 27 27 20 30 35 25 25 32 31 26 22 Quartile II 37 43 42 45 36 31 37 46 37 37 40 46 Quartile Ill 19% 21 21 25 25 22 27 23 22 22 24 24 Quartile IV 11 9X 10 9X 9 12 11 6 10 10 10 8 llhite Quartile I 9 8 6 6 7 7 6 5 8 7 6 6 Quartile II 23 20 21 20 17 19X 18 21 20 20 20 20 Quartile Ill 30 27 27 30 32 31 28 38 31 29X 27 34 Quartile IV 38 45 46 44 44 43 48 36 41 44 47 40 llhite Males Quartile I 9X 9X 5 10 8 9X 9X 7 9X 9X 7 8 Quartile II 23 19X 22 23 18 16 18 19X 20 18 20 21 Quartile Ill 30 26 29X 32 32 33 22 36 31 29X 26 34 Quartile IV 38 46 44 35 42 42 51 38 40 44 47 37 llhite Females Quartile I 8 7 7 4 5 5 4 4 7 6 5 4 Quartile II 23 20 21 17 18 22 18 22 20 21 19\" 19 Quartile Ill 30 28 24 29X 32 29X 31 40 31 28 28 35 Quartile IV 39X 45 48 50 45 44 47 35 42 45 47 42 Note: Twelfth grade students were not tested. Note: Year 1, 2 and 3 test scores are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6). Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test (SAT-8) scores which are c~rable to MAT-6 scores. Source: Little Rocle Cohort Files 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92. 38 100% \"C -Q) 75% Cl) Q) ~ -Cl) C Q) \"C -::, 50% (/) -0 -C Q) u ~ aQ..) 25% Figure 3.5: Little Rock Students Scoring in Lowest and Highest Reading Achievement Quartiles For Year 1 and 4, High School Students By Race Year 1 Year 4 Year 1 Year 4 Year 1 Year4 All Black White I  Lowest Quartile ~ Highest Quartile 39 Table 3.6 ACHIEVEMENT COMPARISONS - QUARTILE DISTRIBUTION Percentage of Students Scoring in Each Mathematics Achievement Quartile Across Grades and by Race and Gender: 1988-89 (Yr. 1) to 1991-92 (Yr. 4). ====================--============================================================================= Grade 1D Grade 11 Total HS YR-1 YR-2 YR-3 YR-4 YR-1 YR-2 YR-3 YR-4 YR-1 YR-2 YR-3 YR-4 ============================================================:=================================== Total Quartile I 25X 21X 21X 20X 21X 22X 16X 16X 24X 21X 19X ,ax Quartile II 32X 31X 34X 33X 30X 30X 31X 33X 31X 31X 33X 33X Quartile Ill 21X 24X 23X 25X 21X 22X 24X 29X 21X 23X 24X 27'X Quartile IV 22X 24X 22X 22X 28X 26X 29X 22X 25X 24X 25X 22X Black Quartile I 36X 29X 29X 28X 33X 32X 23X 24X 35X 31X 26X 26X Quartile II 36X 38X 41X 40X 36X 36X 40X 40X 36X 37'X 40X 40X Quartile 111 17'X 23X 21X 22X 17X 19X 23X 27X 17'X 21X 22X 24X Quartile IV 10X 10X 9X 9X 14X 13X 14X 9X 12X 11X ,,x 9X Black Malas Quartile I 35X 30X 30X 32X 32X 30X 19X 23X 34X 30X 25X 28X Quartile 11 36X 38X 40X 40X 36X 36X 40X 40X 36X 36X 40X 40X Quartile Ill 18X 22X 21X 19X 16X 21X 26X 28X 17'X 22X 23X 23X Quartile IV 11X 10X 9X 9X 16X 13X 15X 9X 13X 12X 12X 9X Black Females Quartile I 37X 29X 27X 25X 34X 33X 27X 24X 36X 31X 27X 25X Quartile II 36X 39X 42% 40X 37X 37'X 39X 41X 36X 38X 41X 40X Quartile 111 17X 23X 22X 25X 17X 18X 21X 26X 17X 21X 22X 25X Quartile IV 10X 9X 9X 9X 12X 12X 13X 9X 11X 10X 11X 9X llhite Quartile I ,ox 9X 10X 7X ,ox 9X 7X 7X 10X 9X 8X 7'X Quartile II 26X 23X 25X 22X 24X 23X 20X 23X 25X 23X 22X 23X Quartile Ill 26X 27'X 26X 29X 25X 25X 25X 31X 25X 26X 26X 30X Quartile IV 38X 42X 40X 42X 42X 43X 48X 39X 40X 42X 44X 41X llhite Males Quartile I 9X 7X 9X 7X 7X 8X 7X 6X 8X BX BX 7X Quartile II 23X 24X 26X 24X 23X 22X 16X 24X 23X 23X 22X 24X Quartile 111 25X 25X 24X 30X 24X 24X 27X 30X 24X 24X 25X 30X Quartile IV 43X 44X 41X 39X 46X 46X SOX 40X 4SX 45X 46X 39X White Females Quartile I 11X 10X 10X 8X 12X 10X 8X 7X 12X 10X 9X 7X Quartile 11 29X 22X 23X 20X 24X 24X 22X 22X 26X 23X 23X 21X Quartile 111 26X 28X 28X 27X 26X 25X 24X 32X 26X 27X 26X 30X Quartile IV 34X 40X 39X 45X 38X 41X 46X 38X 36X 40X 43X 42X Note: Twelfth grade students were not tested. Note: Year 1, 2 and 3 test score are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6). Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test (SAT-8) scores which are c~rable to MAT-6 scores. Source: Little Rock Cohort Files 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92. 40 100% \"O -Cl) 75% (/) Cl) I- -(/) C Cl) \"O -::::, 50% C/J -0 -C Cl) CJ ~ Cl) 25% a. Figure 3.6: Little Rock Students Scoring in Lowest and Highest Mathematics Achievement Quartiles For Year 1 and 4, High School Students By Race Y .. 1 Year4 Year 1 Year4 Year 1 Year4 All Black White I  Lowest Quartile ~ Highest Quartile 41 ii. Longitudinal comparisons Longitudinal analyses of MAT reading and mathematics achievement were conducted for Year l's 7th graders and 8th graders who were enrolled in Years 1 through 4, and made normal grade level progresstt _ Analyses were prepared for all tested students and separately for those whose spring 1989 test score placed them in the lowest (first) achievement quartile. In the longitudinal design, the performance of student groups is monitored over sequential test administrations, and differences between mean scores are compared. In looking at these data. we expect. unless there is some systematic intervention. that groups of students whose average score is at a particular percentile in Year 1 will have an average score at approximately the same percentile in Year 4. An important exception to this principle is that students in the lowest quartile in Year 1 are likely to increase their scores by Year 4. Table 3.7 ~hows the number of seventh grade students tested in Years 1 through 4, and the percentile rank associated with the average NCE in each year for all students and by race. Table 3. 8 shows the same data for students whose Year 1 test scores placed them in the lowest reading quartile. The tables contain separate information for reading and mathematics tests . The accompanying figures serve to illustrate the change in test scores over time. For seventh grade students tested in Years 1 through 4, we see an overall reading achievement loss of two percentile ranks from Year 1 to Year 4, and a decline of four percentile ranks in mathematics achievement scores. t2 Both black and white students experienced these declines in test scores. For lowest quartile students we see increases in both reading and mathematics achievement scores. The changes are greater for white students. Tables 3.9 and 3.10 show similar data for Year l's 8th graders. It can be seen in the tables that there were losses in both reading and math for Year l's 8th graders (9 percentile ranks for reading and 3 percentile ranks for mathematics). For lowest quartile students there were increases in both reading and math. ll Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scores (SAT-8). t2 Once again. some of the decline in test scores may be attributable to implementation of a new testing package (from the MAT-6 to the SAT-8) and the score conversion process . (All Year 4 data were converted from SAT-8 scores to the MAT-6 t:4u1valent.) 42 ~ C: \u0026lt;tS a: Q) .. C: Q) .(.J.. Q) a.. Little Rock Table 3.7: Longitudinal Reading and Math Achievement Comparisons12 For 7th Grade Students Tested Years 1 through 4 Who Made Normal Grade Progression Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile Change Students N Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in Year 1 to Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 4 (7th) (8th) (9th) (10th) Reading : All Students 1,011 56th 59th 65th 54th -2 Black 677 44th 48th 54th 42nd -2 White 316 78th 80th 85th 75th -3 Math: All Students 1,014 58th 56th 63rd 54th -4 Black 679 48th 44th 52nd 44th -4 White 317 75th 75th 80th 72nd -3 99 90 - Reading Math 80 - .. 70 - 60 - .. L 50 - . l 40 - 30 - 20 - 10 - 1 I I I I I I I All Black White All Black White , .. Year 1 D Year2 ~ Year3 mffl9 Year4 11 Y car I. 2 and 3 test scores are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6). Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scores (SAT-8). Scores shown are percentile ranks associated with students' mean Normal Curve Equivalent (NCE) scores. 43 .:-:: C Little Rock Table 3. 8: Longitudinal Reading and Math Achievement Comparisons13 For 7th Grade Students Tested Years 1 through 4 Who Made Normal Grade Progression Lowest Quartile Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile Change Students N Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in Year l to Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 4 (7th) (8th) (9th) (10th) Reading :All Students 194 16th 24th 25th 25th +9 Black 172 15th 22nd 25th 24th +9 White 21 17th 28th 35th 32nd + 15 Math: All Students 141 17th 21st 25th 27th + 10 Black 124 17th 21st 25th 25th +8 White 17 17th 25th 28th 30th +13 50 - Reading Math 40 - (i 30 - Q) .. C ,,. ,. ,. ~ 20 ~ ,. - ,. \"\" Q) a. I 10 - f :: . :: 1 . I I I I I ' I All Black White All Black White I 1111 Year 2 c=J Year 3 ~ Year 4 13 Year 1, 2 and 3 test scores are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT~). Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scores (SAT-8). Scores shown are percentile ranks associated with students' mean Normal Curve Equivalent (NCE) scores. 44 Little Rock Table 3.9: Longitudinal Reading and Math Achievement Comparisons14 For 8th Grade Students Tested Years l through 4 Who Made Normal Grade Progression Students Reading :All Students Math: All 99 90 80 ,_ ,- ~ 70 ,- C ~ 60 ,- Q) .:: so - C B 40 ~ - Q) a. 30 20 10 1 - - - Black White Students Black White ,. I N 1,01 I 633 355 1,011 635 353 Reading - Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in Year l Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 (8th) (9th) (10th) (11th) 63rd 70th 58th 56th 50th 58th 44th 44th 83rd 86th 76th 73rd 61st 70th 56th 58th 50th 59th 44th 46th 78th 85th 75th 73rd ,. Math ,. ,. ~ ~ . I I I I I All Black White All Black White /Year 1 D Year2 - Year3 - Year4 Change Year 2 to Year 4 -9 -6 :10 -3 -4 -5 I 14 Year I, 2 and 3 test scores are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6). Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scores (SAT-8). Scores shown are percentile ranks associated with students' mean Normal Curve Equivalent (NCE) scores. 45 ~ C ca cc: Q) -~ C Q) (.J ~ Q) a.. Little Rock Table 3.10: Longitudinal Reading and Math Achievement Comparisons15 For 8th Grade Students Tested Years 1 through 4 Who Made Normal Grade Progression Lowest Quartile Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile Change Students N Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in Year l to Year l Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 4 (8th) (9th) (10th) (11th) Reading : All Students 132 16th 25th 22nd 25th +9 Black 120 16th 25th 21st 24th +8 White 12 NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA Math: All Students 134 17th 30th 22nd 22nd +5 Black 118 17th 30th 22nd 22nd +5 White 15 NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA so--------------r----------------. Reading Math 40 30 20 10 1 All Black All Black , .. Year 1 c=] Year 2 m Year 3 Imm! Year 4 15 Year I. 2 and 3 test scores are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6). Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scores (SAT-8). Scores shown are percentile ranks associated with students ' mean Normal Curve Equivalent (NCE) scores. 46 b. Grades Kindergarten through 6 i. Over-years comparisons Tables 3.11 and 3.12 show percentile ranks associated with the mean reading and math NCE scores for students in grades one through six (tables 3. lla and 3.12a show un-converted SAT-8 scores for the 1st through 6th grades). Table 3.11 shows that with the exception of fourth and fifth grades, little or no change was evident in mean achievement scores. At the fourth grade there was a six percentile rank decline, and at the 5th grade there was a six percentile rank improvement. Table 3.12 shows that there were declines in mathematics achievement scores at every grade except 2nd where scores remained the same. Large declines were reported for 6th grade students. For reading, the percentile ranks associated with the mean NCE score for each grade are close to the national average, while for mathematics they are higher than the national average. Large gaps are evident at all grades between the reading and mathematics scores of white and black students. Table 3.11 ACHIEVEMENT Percentage of Change in Reading Achievement Scores (Percentile Ranks), Across Grades, by Race and Gender for 1990-91(Yr. 3) and 1991-92(Yr. 4). Grade Level ==================z======================s============ 2 3 4 5 6 ====================================================== Totals Year 3 48 48 42 50 50 54 Totals Year 4 48 50 44 44 56 54 Change Yrs 3-4 0 2 2 -6 6 0 RACE Black Year 3 39 39 30 39 41 44 Black Year 4 37 37 32 35 44 42 llhite Year 3 68 68 63 72 72 73 llhite Year 4 68 70 67 65 75 72 GENDER BY RACE Males Year 3 44 46 37 46 48 50 Males Year 4 44 46 42 42 52 50 Black Year 3 33 33 25 35 39 39 Black Year 4 32 33 28 32 42 39 llhite Year 3 63 68 61 67 68 72 11h i te Year 4 68 67 65 61 72 70 Femaln Year 3 54 52 46 54 52 58 Females Year 4 52 52 46 48 58 56 Black Year 3 42 42 35 44 41 48 Black Year 4 42 41 35 39 48 46 llhite Year 3 76 70 68 75 73 75 llhite Year 4 70 72 68 67 78 75 Mote: Years 1, 2 and 3 test scores are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6). Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scores (SAT-8). Scores are reported as percentile ranks associated with mean Normal Curve Equivalents (MCEs). Mote: Students from racial/ethnic backgrol.nds other than 'Black' or 'llhi te\" were not included in the 'RACE' categories because their nurt\u0026gt;ers were minimal. Source: Little Rock Cohort Files 1990-91, 1991-92. 47 Totals RACE Black llhi te GENDER BY RACE Males Black llhite Females Black llhite Table 3.11a READING ACHIEVEMENT Stanford Achievement Test (SAT8\u0026gt; Reading Scores (Percentile Ranks) Across Grade, by Race and Gender for 199192(Yr. 4). Grade Level =========================================================== 2 3 4 5 6 =========================================================== 42 37 37 42 35 46 32 25 25 30 24 33 61 61 61 65 59 72 39 33 33 39 32 42 27 22 21 25 21 30 61 58 61 61 56 67 44 42 41 46 39 so 35 30 30 35 27 37 63 63 63 67 65 75 Note: Years 1, 2 and 3 test scores are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test CMAT-6), Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scores (SAT-8). Scores are reported as percentile ranks associated with mean Normal Curve Equivalents (NCEs). Source: Little Rock Cohort Files for 1991-92. 48 Table 3.12 MATHEMATICS ACHIEVEMENT Change in Mathe11111tics Achievement Scores (Percentile Ranks), Across Grades, by Race and Gender for 199091(Yr. 3) and 199192(Yr. 4). Grade Level =======================================z============== 2 3 4 5 6 -===-===--============================================ Totals Year 3 63 67 61 65 61 67 Totals Year 4 59 67 59 59 58 54 Change Yrs 34 4 0 2 6 3 13 RACE Black Year 3 54 58 50 54 52 59 Black Year 4 48 54 46 48 48 42 White Year 3 80 82 78 82 76 82 llhi te Year 4 79 84 82 76 76 70 GENDER BY RACE Males Year 3 61 67 59 63 59 65 Males Year 4 61 67 58 56 56 50 Black Year 3 50 56 48 52 50 54 Black Year 4 46 50 42 44 44 39 White Year 3 79 82 78 80 76 82 White Year 4 80 86 80 73 73 67 Females Year 3 65 67 61 65 63 68 Females Year 4 59 67 63 61 61 58 Black Year 3 56 59 52 56 54 61 Black Year 4 48 56 50 52 50 48 llhite Year 3 82 80 76 82 78 llhite 80 Year 4 76 83 84 79 79 73 Note: Years 1, 2 and 3 test scores are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scores (SAT-8). Scores are reported as percentile ranks associated with mean Normal Curve Equivalents (NCEs). Note: Students from racial/ethnic backgrO\\llds other than 'Black or 11/hite\" were not included in the 'RACE' categories because their nuri\u0026gt;ers were minimal. Source: Little Rock Cohort Files 199091, 199192. 49 Table 3.12a MATH ACHIEVEMENT Stanford Achievement Test (SAT8) Math Scores (Percentile Ranks) Across Grade, by Race and Gender for 1991 92(Yr. 4). Grade Level ========================================================== 2 3 4 5 6 =============-============================================= Totals 48 56 56 56 50 54 RACE Blaclc 35 41 44 46 41 44 llhite 73 83 78 72 85 73 GENDER BY RACE Males 48 54 54 52 48 50 Blaclc 35 39 41 42 39 41 llhi te 72 78 75 68 67 67 Females 46 56 58 58 52 58 Blaclc 37 44 46 50 42 48 llhite 67 73 78 73 72 73 Note: Years 1, 2 and 3 test scores are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT6). Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scores (SAT8). Scores are reported as percentile ranlcs associated with mean Normal Curve Equivalents (NCEs). Source: Little Roclc Cohort Files for 199192. 50 Reading and mathematics quartile distributions for Little Rock students in grades one through six are presented in Tables 3.13 and 3.14. Reading quartile distributions in first, second and third grades are skewed, with many more students than expected in the first (lowest) quartile. In grades 4 through 6. the reading achievement distributions for the total population are better than the national nonn for the first (lowest) quartile (less than 25 % of the 4th-6th grade students are in Quartile I, except in grade 4 during Year 4) . Mathematics data at each grade level (except grade 6. Year 4) have distributions that are better than national nonns . Racial disparities are evident at all grade levels for both reading and mathematics. Table 3.13 ACHIEVEMENT QUARTILE DISTRIBUTION Percentage of Students Scoring in Each Achievement Quartile, for Reading, Across Grades, by Race and Gender for 199091(Yr. 3) and 199192(Yr. 4). -===============-============-==-==--================================================================= Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 YR-3 YR-4 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 YR-3 YR-4 YR-3 YR-4 YR-3 YR-4 YR-3 YR-4 YR-3 YR-4 ---=-==-==--=--=--==--=-==--=------------=-==-==--=--=-==================-=--=-----------=---=--==-=== Total Quartile I 36X 36X 27X 27X 36X 33X 24X 29X Quartile II 25X 23X 28X 30X 26X 28X 30X 31X Quartile Ill 14X 15X 22X 21X 19X 20X 26X 24X Quartile IV 25X 26X 22X 22X 18X 18X 20X 16X Black. Males Quartile I 49X 48X 42X 42X 54X SOX 38X 44X Quartile II 27X 25X 31X 34X 28X 31X 34X 36X Quartile III 11X 14X 17X 16X 13X 14X 19X 17X Quartile IV 13X 13X 10X 8X 6X SX 9X 3X llhite Males Quartile I 26X 23X 16X 16X 20X 13X 12X 16X Quartile II 23X 20X 18X 20X 24X 23X 20X 21X Quartile 11 I 15X 15X 23X 23X 24X 26X 32X 31X Quartile IV 36X 42X 43X 41X 33X 38X 35X 33X Black. Females Quartile I 40X 41X 26X 30X 41X 39X 26X 32X Quartile II 25X 25X 36X 38:X 30X 34X 37X 37X Quartile III 16X 15:X 25:X 22:X 19X 20X 26:X 23:X Quartile IV 19X 19X 13:X 10:X 11:X 7X 11X 8:X llhite Females Quartile I 15X 18X 12:X 9X 12:X 12:X 4:X 9X Quartile II 21:X 20% 20:X 19X 21:X 20:X 18X 21X Quartile III 15X 16X 26X 25:X 26:X 26:X 33X 32:X Quartile JV SOX 45:X 43:X 48:X 41X 43X 45X 37X Note: Years 1, 2 and 3 test scpres are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6). Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scpres CSAT-8). Scores are reported as percentile ranks associated with mean Normal Curve Equivalents CNCEs). Source: Little Rock. Cohort Files 1990-91, 1991-92. 51 23X 17X 19X 19X 31X 31X 32X 34X 26X 30X 28X 27X 21X 22X 21X 20X 33X 28X 31X 29X 35X 37X 40X 42X 22X 25X 23X 21X ,ox ,ox 7X 7X 12X 8X 8X 11X 19X 18X 24X 19X 29X 31X 27X 32X 39X 43X 42X 39X 28X 18X 19X 20X 39X 38:X 37X 43:X 23:X 33:X 31X 27X 10:X 11X 13X 11:X 4X 2X 7X SX 19X 15:X 14X 17X 32:X 31X 33X 35X 4SX 51X 46X 44X Table 3. 14 ACHIEVEMENT  QUARTILE DISTRIBUTION Percentage of Students Scoring in Each Achievement Quartile, for Mathematics, Across Grades, by Race and Gender for 1990-91(Yr. 3) and 199192(Yr. 4). ---======================================================================--------==--------------------= Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 YR-3 YR-4 YR-3 YR-4 YR-3 YR-4 YR-3 YR-4 YR-3 YR-4 YR-3 YR-4 -----------------------------------======--------------------------===================================== Total Quartile 19% 23% 13,: 16% 18% 24 16% 21,: 14% 20,: 10,: 25X Quartile II 22,: 21X 23X 21X 25X 22X 21X 24X 27'X 25X 23X 27'X Quartile Ill 21X 21X 27'X 23 24X 20,: 27'X 24X 28% 26X 33,: 23% Quartile IV 38X 35,: 37'X 40% 33,: 35,: 37'X 31X 31% 29% _ 34,: 25% Black Males Quartile I 29% 32% 19% 26X 28X 38X 23% 30% 21,: 30X 15,: 37'X Quartile II 24% 23X 27'X 26% 28% 23X 25% 29% 31X 28X 33,: 30X Quartile Ill 22,: 23% 27'X 21,: 23% 20,: 27'X 23 30% 23X 32X 20,: Quartile IV 26X 22,: 28X 27'X 22X 20X 25% 18% 18% 19% 20,: 13,: llhite Males Quartile I 9X 10,: 3X S 9,: 12,: 10,: 16% 7'X 13 4X 16X Quartile II 19X 14X 16X 11X 15% 16X 1 o,: 14X 18X 19% 13,: 21X Quartile Ill 16X 16% 2SX 20,: 21X 16X 21X 23% 24% 24X 27'X 24X Quartile IV 57'X 60X 56X 64X 54,: 56% 59% 47'X 51X 4SX 57'X 39% Black Females Quartile I 20,: 28 17'X 18% 20X 25% 1 ?'X 22,: 1SX 21X 10X 27'X Quartile II 2SX 26% 27'X 29% 32X 30X 27'X 28% 33,: 30% 24X 31X Quartile Ill 24% 23% 26% 26X 26X 21X 29% 27'X 30X 29% 38X 23% Quartile IV 30% ' 23% 29% 27'X 22,: 23% 27'X 23% 22,: 20X 28X 19% llhite Females Quartile I 7'X 10,: 6 7'X a,: a,: s,: a,: 4X 6X sx 7'X Quartile II 1SX 17X 12X 11,: 14% 10X 11,: 17'X 18X 14X 11X 20,: Quartile Ill 19,: 20X 29% 22,: 2SX 22,: 26% 23% 27X 28X 32% 26% Quartile IV 59% 54X 53,: 59,: 53X 60% 58% 52 SOX 52% 52X 47'X Note: Years 1, 2 and 3 test scpres are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6). Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scpres (SAT-8). Scores are reported as percentile ranks associated with mean Normal Curve Equivalents (NCEs). Source: Little Rock Cohort Files 1990-91, 1991-92. 52 ii. Longitudinal comparisons Longitudinal achievement analyses are included in this assessment because such analyses focus on the perfonnance of specific groups (cohorts) of students over time. Longitudinal analyses of MA T-6 reading and mathematics achievement have been prepared for all Year 3 2nd through 5th grade students who were tested in Year 3 and Year 4. and who made nonnal grade progress. Since retained students are generally at an advantage over promoted students when their data are compared with grade level nonns, we have conducted longitudinal achievement analyses which include only students who have made nonnal grade level progress (i.e., advanced one grade between Years 3 and 4). In the longitudinal design, the perfonnance of student groups is monitored over sequential test administrations, and differences between mean scores are compared. Unless there is some systematic intervention, we expect that groups of students whose average scores are at a particular percentile in Year 3 will have an average score at approximately the same percentile in Year 4. Tables 3.15 through 3.18 show, for each grade group. the number of students who were tested in Year 3 and Year 4, and the percentile rank associated with the average NCE in each year for all students. The tables contain separate infonnation for reading and mathematics tests. The data in Tables 3 .15 through 3. 18 are illustrated in the accompanying figures. It can be seen in the tables that there were systematic improvements in reading for  all grades except second. Year 3's 3rd, 4th and 5th graders improved their reading scores between 4 and 8 percentiles. For mathematics. there were declines at most grade levels (e.g .. 2nd graders declined by 7 percentiles [Table 3.15]). Third graders showed no change in their math scores (Table 3 .16 ). These patterns were similar among black students and white students although there were very disparate starting scores. For example, black and white Year 3 4th graders show average improvements in their reading scores of 7 and 6 percentile ranks, respectively, however, black students' average Year 3 scores were at the 41st percentile, while white students' Year 3 scores were at the 72nd percentile. 53 Table 3.15: Little Rock Longitudinal Reading and Mathematics Achievement Comparisons For 2nd Grade Students Tested Years 3 and 4 Who Made Nonnal Grade Progression Percentile Rank Percentile Rank Change Students N in Year 3 in Year 4 Year 3 to (2nd) (3rd) Year 4 Reading : All Students 1,526 52nd 44th -8 Black 1,024 41st 33rd -8 White 493 72nd 68th -4 Math: All Students 1,522 68th 61st -7 Black 1,019 61st 48th -13 White 494 83rd 84th +l 99 90 Reading Math 80 ~ 70 C: n, a: 60 Q) :\n::::\n50 C: Q) (J 40 ~ Q) a.. 30 20 10 1 All Black White All Black White I [=1 Year3 .. Year4 54 Table 3.16: Little Rock Longitudinal Reading and Mathematics Achievement Comparisons For 3rd Grade Students Tested Years 3 and 4 Who Made Normal Grade Progression Percentile Rank Percentile Rank Change Students N in Year 3 in Year 4 Year 3 to (3rd) (4th) Year 4 Reading : All Students 1,596 42nd 46th +4 Black 1,076 32nd 37th +5 White 504 65th 67th +2 Math: All Students 1,592 61st 61st 0 Black 1,074 52nd 52nd 0 White 502 79th 79th 0 99 90 Reading Math 80 ..x: 70 C: ca a: 60 Cl) :,.:\n50 C: Cl) () 40 ~ Q,) c.. 30 20 10 1 All Black White All Black White I c=J Year 3 .. Year 4 55 Table 3.17: Little Rock Longitudinal Reading and Mathematics Achievement Comparisons For 4th Grade Students Tested Years 3 and 4 Who Made Normal Grade Progression Percentile Rank Percentile Rank Change Students N in Year 3 in Year 4 Year 3 to (4th) (5th) Year 4 Reading: All Students 1,671 50th 58th +8 Black 1,152 41st 48th +7 White 502 72nd 78th +6 Math: All Students 1,668 65th 61st -4 Black I, 148 56th 52nd -4 White 503 82nd 80th -2 99 90 Reading Math 80 ~ 70 C a\u0026lt;t:l 60 Q) += 50 C Q) ,(.._) 40 Q) a. 30 20 10 1 All Black White All Black White I~ Year 31111 Year 4 56 Table 3.18: Little Rock Longitudinal Reading and Mathematics Achievement Comparisons For 5th Grade Students Tested Years 3 and 4 Who Made Normal Grade Progression Percentile Rank Percentile Rank Change Students N in Year 3 in Year 4 Year 3 to (5th) (6th) Year 4 Reading : All Students 1,657 52nd 56th +4 Black l, 118 41st 46th +5 White 524 72nd 75th +3 Math: All Students 1,654 63rd 58th -5 Black 1,116 54th 48th -6 White 523 78th 75th -3 99 90 Reading Math 80 ::it:. 70 C: n, a: 60 Q) .:. 50 C: Q) .u... 40 Q) Q. 30 20 10 1 All Black White All Black White I CJ Year3 ~ Year4 57 4. Graduation a. Over-years comparisons Table 4.1 shows the percentage of 12th graders graduating each year, by school and by race. Graduation rates for 12th graders were at about 92 percent in Year 1 (91. 7 % ) , but declined in Year 2 to less than 83 percent (82 . 9 % ) . Twelfth grade graduation rates increased in Year 3 (88.8%) , and by Year 4 (91.4%) were back above 90 percent and near the Year 1 level (91.7%). 17 Graduation rates varied across schools (two high schools had rates at 94% while the other three were around 90%). In every year but Year 4, 12th grade graduation rates for black students were lower than the rates for white students. Across gender, a. higher percentage of females graduated than males in all four years. b. Longitudinal comparisons i. Two-year graduation rates Table 4.2 shows, by race, graduation rates for three consecutive two-year cohorts of 11th grade students. The table shows that 70.6 percent of the Year 1 11th graders graduated in Year 2, 79. 3 percent of the Year 2 11th graders graduated in Year 3, and 82. 8 percent of the Year 3 11th graders graduated in Year 4. 18 The two-year graduation rate for black 11th grade students has increased: from 66.9 percent (Years 1 to 2), to 76.9 percent (Years 2 to 3), to 81.8 percent (Years 3 to 4) . The two-year graduation rate for white 11th grade students has also increased in each successive year: from 74.4 percent (Years 1 to 2), to 82 .0 percent (Years 2 to 3), reaching 84.3 percent (Years 3 to 4) . ii. Four-year graduation rates Table 4.3 shows four-year graduation rates for Year 1 's 9th graders . Of the 2,047 9th grade students in Year 1, 58.7 percent graduated in four years. A total of 26.8 percent of Year l ninth graders did not graduate because they dropped out or were retained in grade, expelled, or demoted. The graduation status of 14.5 percent of Year l's ninth graders is not known because they transferred out of the Little Rock public school system. Table 4.3 also illustrates differences in the four-year graduation rates of black students and white students. 17 Only those students whose records contained a graduation code were counted as graduates during Years 2 and 3. Therefore, data for Years I and 4 represent estimates (over counts) of the number of graduates. while data for Years 2 and 3 represent actual counts of students who completed all graduation requirements. 18 The Year I. 2 and 3 11th graders who did not graduate either transferred out of school, dropped out of school or were retained in the I Ith grade (29 .4% of the Year I 11th graders did not graduate in Year 2. 20.7 % of the Year 2 11th graders did not graduate in Year 3, and 17 .2 % of the Year 3 11th graders did not graduate in Year 4). See also the foo rnoce above regarding differences in identifying graduates in the cohort file . 58 LITTLE ROCIC Table 4.1 GRADUATION Numer and Percentage of Twelfth Grade Graduates by Race and Gender: 198889 (Yr. 1) to 1991-92 (Yr. 4). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------=================---=======---===========- Central Fair Hall McClellan Parkview TOTAL -----------------------------------------------------------------------------=================---================----=== TOTALS Year 1 570 92.4X 246 89.5X 373 92.1X 362 91.0X 257 92.8X 1808 91.7X Year 2 471 79.3X 251 88.0X 360 86.7X 274 80.3X 212 82.8X 1568 82.9X Year 3 548 91.3X 255 97.0X 358 84.6X 252 82.1X 224 89.2X 1637 88.8X Year 4 440 90.7X 274 90.4X 363 90.1X 311 92.8X 251 94.0X 1639 91.4X RACE Black Year 1 278 91.4X 99 83.2X 153 88.9X 156 88.1X 143 91.7X 829 89.3X Black Year 2 244 75.5X 129 90.1X 143 81.7X 132 77.6X 117 84.2X 765 80.5X Black Year 3 292 87.2X 137 95.8X 205 81.0X 143 79.4X 122 90.4X 899 85.9X Black Year 4 267 89.9% 149 92.5X 175 89.3X 199 93.0X 128 96.2X 918 91.7X White Year 1 281 93.0X 142 94.0X 215 94.3X 203 93.5X 108 93.9X 949 93.7X White Year 2 215 83.3X 120 86.2X 209 90.1X 138 82.5X 93 80.9X 775 85.0X White Year 3 243 96.4X 115 98.3X 149 89.8X 107 85.6X 97 87.4X 711 92.2X White Year 4 162 92.0X 122 87.8X 180 90.5X 110 92.4X 111 91.7X 685 90.8X GENDER Females Year 1 317 94.6X 112 93.3X 203 95.7X 197 92.1X 128 94.1X 957 94.1X Females Year 2 262 78.9% 130 88.4X 203 90.2X 142 83.0X 125 85.0X 862 84.3X Females Year 3 309 95.1X 129 98.5X 183 87.6X 132 83.5X 136 92.5X 889 91.6X Females Year 4 236 93.7X 137 93.8X 208 93.7X 167 93.3X 157 96.3X 905 94.1X Hales Year 1 253 89.7X 134 86.5X 170 88.1X 165 89.7X 129 91.5X 851 89.1X Hales Year 2 209 79.8X 121 87.6X 157 82.6X 132 77.5X 87 79.8X 706 81.2X Hales Year 3 239 86.9X 126 95.5X 175 81.8X 120 80.5X 88 84.6X 748 85.6X Hales Year 4 204 87.6X 137 87.3X 155 85.6X 144 92.3X 94 90.4X 734 88.3X Note: These figures include surmer graduates. Source: Little Rock Cohort Files 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92. 59 I I I All Students Black Students White Students Little Rock Table 4.2 Comparison of 12th Grade Graduation Rates For Students in 11th Grade Year 1, Year 2 and Year 3 II Year 1 to 2 I Year 2 to 3 I Year 3 to 4 Total N 2,044 1,880 1,747 % Graduated 70.6% 79 .3% 82.8% N Graduated 1,443 1,490 1,447 Total~ 1,054 1,081 995 % Graduated 66.9% 76.9% 81.8% N Graduated 705 831 814 Total N 968 777 724 % Graduated 74.4% 82 .0% 84.3% N Graduated 720 637 610 Little Rock I Difference -297 12.2% 4 -59 14.9% 109 -244 9.9% -110 Table 4.3 4~Year Graduation Rates For Year 1 's Ninth Graders (N = 2,047) II Graduated I Transferred I Did Not Graduate19 All 58.7% 14.5% 26.8% Black 61.3% 10.9% 27 .8% White 55.4% 19.5% 25 . 1 % 19 These srudents dropped out of school or were retained , expelled or demoted. 60 I I 5. Retention a. Grades 7 Through 12 i. Over-years comparisons Table 5.1 shows, across grades, by race and by gender, the percentage of students who were designated to be retained in their grades at the end of each school year, and the percentage point difference between years. 20 As shown in the table, retention rates are relatively low in Little Rock at all grade levels. Between Years 3 and 4, retention rates decreased slightly at the junior high school grades and increased at the 10th and 11th grades. Overall, since Year 1, junior high school retention rates have increased by 0.5 percentage points (4.1 % to 4.6%). High school retention rates fluctuated throughout the period but have improved by 0.2 percentage points (4 .9% to 4.7%). Racial discrepancies in retention rates exist at each grade level and in each year. ii. Longitudinal comparisons Retention histories for students who appear in the 4-YEAR COHORT FILE are contained in Table 5.2. The table shows, by race, 4-YEAR COHORT students distributed by the number of years in which they were retained. Only 11. 7 percent of the 4-YEAR COHORT students were retained over the four year period. Of those ever retained 7.4 percent were retained more than once (0. 9 % of the total 4-YEAR COHORT). There are notable racial disparities (14.6% of the black 4-YEAR COHORT students were retained over the four-year period versus only 6.0% of the white 4-YEAR COHORT students\n35 black and 3 white 4-YEAR COHORT students were retained more than once over the four year period). Double retention within a small grade range over a short period of time, inevitably increases the number of students who are over age for grade. In Little Rock, being over age for grade is associated with dropping out of school. iii. Over age students Table 5.3 shows, across grades, by race and gender the percentage of students who were at least one-and-one-half years over age for their grade during Years 1, 2, 3 and 4. The table shows that about 14 percent of all students were over age during each year. Rates for 8th and 10th grade students were somewhat higher (about 17%). The percentage of over age students increased between Year 1 and Year 4 at each grade level except for 10th and 11th, where there were decreases of 1. 2 and 1. 8 percentage points respectively. 20 Students who attend summer school and achieve promotion are excluded from retention counts. 61 Totals Year 1 Totals Year 2 Totals Year 3 Totals Year 4 Jchange in Student Change Yrs 12 Change Yrs 23 Change Yrs 3-4 Change Yrs 1-4 RACE Black Year Black Year 2 Black Year 3 Black Year 4 llhite Year 1 llhi te Year 2 llhite Year 3 llhite Year 4 GENDER BY RACE Males Year 1 Males Year 2 Males Year 3 Males Year 4 Black Year 1 Black Year 2 Black Year 3 Black Year 4 llhite Year 1 llhite Year 2 llhite Year 3 llhite Year 4 Fe111ales Year 1 F-les Year 2 F-ln Year 3 F-lH Year 4 Black Year 1 Black Year 2 Black Year 3 Black Year 4 llhite Year 1 llhite Year 2 llhite Year 3 llhite Year 4 LITTLE ROCK Table 5.1 RETENTION COMPARISONS Distribution in Student Retentions, Across Grades by Race and Gender: 1988-89 (Yr. 1) to 1991-92 (Yr. 4). Grade Level ----------------------------------------------====================================== 7 8 9 10 11 12 79 1012 Total --------------===-=-======----====-===========-======-=-------===--========--------- 4.3 3.4 4.6 3.8 Retention 0.9 1.2 0.8 0.5 5 .5 4.4 5.6 4.7 2.0X 1.4 2.8 2.2 6.4X 5.5X 6.8X 4.6X 8.6 7.0 8.0 5.4 2.7 2.7 4.4X 3.0X 2.0X 1.1X 2.3X 3.1X 2.4X 1.7 2.9 4.0 1.2X 0.0 1.2X 1.4 6.0X 7.5X 6.1X 6.5X 1.5  1.4 0.4 0.5 8.2X 9.BX 8.0X 8.2X 2.2X 2.6X 2.1X 2.7\" 7.5X 8.6X 6.8X 7.4X 10.6X 11.5X 9.3X 9.2X 2.6X 3.7\" 1.4X 3.1X 4.5X 6.2X 5.4X 5.6X 5.9\" 8.3X 6.7\" 7.1X 1.8X 1.6X 2.7\" 2.3X 1.8X 3.4 3.8 3.4X 1.6 0.4 -0.4 1.6 1.9 4.0 5.3X 3.6X 1.6X 2.6 1.3X 2.7 2.2 4.3 4.9X 5 .1X 2.3 5.2 6.5X 5.7 2.1 2.9 2.3 4.0X 1.3X 2.5X 2.8X 1.6X 1.5X 2.7 4.1X 1.6X 1.1X 2.2X o.ox 1.4X 7.9X 7.3X 2.4X 6.5 0.6 4.9 4. 1 1.4 10.2X 9.5 2.9X a.ox 4.5X 4.3X 1.8X 4.1X 10.7 8.4X 3.3X 8.6X 13.0X 10.0X 3.9X 9.9\" 7.2X 5.9\" 2.5X 6.1X 5.1X 6.2X 1.6X 4.6X 7.2X 1.9\" 1.9X 6.1X 1.9\" 2.9X 1.2X 2.2X 4.2X 5.SX 1.9X 4.1X 1.3 3.6 2.2 0.1 5.2X 6.9X 2.4X 5.6X 3.2X 3.7\" 1.4X 2.2X 6.5X 7.4X 2.5X 6.0X 8.0X 8.7 2.8X 7.5X 4.9\" 5.4X 2.0X 3.9\" 2.1X 3.7 1.5X 2.5X 2.6X 2.0X 2.0X 3.9\" 1.6X 2.0X 0.9\" 0.7 2.1X 6.3X 6.6X 3.1X 4.2 0.3 3.5 1.0 3.1 8.2X 8.3X 3.2X 1.2X 4.5X 4.4X 3.2X 3.0X 8.3X 7.8X 4.8X 4.3X 10.2X 9.SX 4.2X 1.9\" 6.7 5.7 6.0X 1.2X 4.6X 5.5X 1.7 2.0X 7.2X 7.2X 2.3X 0.6X 2.5X 3.2X 1.0X 4.1X 4.8X 4.9\" 4.6X 0.7 0.1 0.3 0.5 5.4X 6.2X 6.4X 5.6X 1.9\" 2.2X 2.1X 2.5X 5.5X 6.2X 6.2X 5.7 7.5X 8.1X 8.0X 6.8X 2.5X 3.1X 2.7 3.4X 2.6X 3.3X 3.6X 3.5X 3.4X 4.3X 4.6X 4.3X 1.4X 1.2X 1.3X 1. 7X 4.9X 6.4X 3.6X 4. 7X 1 .5 -2.8 1. 1 0.2 6.7 8.3X 4.4X 5.8X 2.9\" 4.2X 2.5X 3.2 7.0X a.ox 4.SX 6.6X 9.1 9.6X 5.3X 7.5 4.7 6.0X 3.4X 5.3X 2.9\" 4.9\" 2.8X 3.0X 4.3X 3.5 3.6X 4.3X 1.3 2.5X 1.7 1.3X 4.5 5.6 4.3 4.6 1. 1 1 .3 0.3 0.1 6.0X 7.1 5 .5X 5.7 2.5 3.3 2.3 2.9 6.3 7.1 5.4 6.1X 8.2X 8.7 6.8 7.1 3.7 4.6 3.1 4.3 2.8 4.1 3.2 3.2 3.8X 5.5 4.2 4.3X 1.4 2.0X 1.6 1.5 Source: Little Rock Cohort Files 198889, 1989-90, 199091, 199192. 62 Little Rock Table 5 .2 Retention Histories For 4-YEAR COHORT students21 Status Out-of-School Retentions at the end of Year 4 All Black White N = 4,370 N = 2,920 N = 1,386 Never Retained N 3,860 2,495 1,303 % 88 .3% 85.4% 94.0% Retained 1 out N 472 390 80 of 4 Years % 10.8% 13.4% 5.8% Retained 2 out N 38 35 3 of 4 Years % 0.9% 1.2% 0.2% Ever Retained N 510 425 83 in 4 Years % 11.7% 14.6% 6.0% 11 Because of low retention rate in little Rock. No students are recained in 3 out of 4 and 4 out of 4 years 63 Table 5.3 OVER AGE aJIPARISONS Distribution of over Age Studlnta, Across Grades, by Race and Gender: 198889CYr. 1) to 199192CYr. 4). Grade Level maa ....... aaaaaa:2z:mam----m~=sa.zaa2z- 7 8 9 10 11 12 79 1012 Total -=rmsa-aaa:azaaa2aaaaaa2aasarmaasaaaaa -=mc=== Totals Year 1 12.1X 16.5X 11.3X 17.9X 12.ax 8.6X 13.4X 13.4X 13.4X Totals Year 2 , , . 7X 16.ax 12.4X 17.4X 14.1X 9.3X 13.6X 13.6X 13.6X Totals Year 3 13.ZX 17.ax 16.7X 15.4X 12.7X ,, .5X 15.9X 13.3X 14.7X Totals Year 4 12.2X 17.4X 15.6X 16.7X 11.0X 11 .3X 15,0X 13.2X 14.1X --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Change in over Age Change Yrs 1 2 0.4 0.3 , .1 0.5 1.3 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.2 Change Yrs 23 1.5 1.0 4.3 2.0  1 .4 2.2 2.3 0.3 1.1 Chan\n Yrs 34 1 .0 0.4 . , .1 1.3 1.7 0.2 0.9 O. 1 0.6 Chan\n Yrs 14 o., 0.9 4.3 1 .2 1 .8 2.7 , .6 0.2 0.7 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RACE Black Year 1 14.7X 20.4X 13.3X 21.SX 18.1X 15.1X 16.4X 18.1X 17.2X Black Year 2 14.9X 21.0X 15.8X 22.2X 18.2X 13.1X 17.4X 18.1X 17.7X Black Year 3 16.5X 22.3X 20.3X 20.3X 17.1X 14.7X 19.7X 17.5X 18.7X Black Year 4 14.SX 21.9X 19.9X 21.7X 15.2X 15.2X 18.7X 17.7X 18.3X White Year 1 6.2X 9.2X 8.4X 11.8X 7. ,x 5.1X 8.0X 7.9X 8.0X White Year 2 S.2X 7.4X 6.4X 9.ax 8.7X s.sx 6.3X 7.8X 7.1X White Year 3 6.6X 8.2X 9.4X 8.0X 6.7X 7.1X 8.1X 7.3X 7.7X White Year 4 7.SX 7.7X 7.3X 8.SX S.2X 6.1X 7.5X 6.6X 7.0X GENDER BY RACE Males Year 1 15.3X 19.ax ,s.ox 23.0X 17.6X 11.3X 16.ax 17.9X 17.3X Males Year 2 13.7X 21.SX 15.4X 23.0X 18.6X 13.2X 16.9X 18.3X 17.6X Males Year 3 16.3X 20.SX 22.0X 19.9X 17.9X 15.1X 19.5X 17.7X 18.7X Males Year 4 16.1X 21.0X 17.9X 22.2X 14.7X 15.4X 18.3X 17.7X ,a.ox Black Year 1 19.5X 24.6X 16.3X 27.7X 24.9X 15.SX 20.4X 23.6X 21 .9X Black Year 2 17.SX 27.3X 18.SX 27.4X 24.0X 19.0X 21.3X 23.SX 22.4X Black Year 3 20.0X 25.SX 26.7X 24.8X 21.9X 19.31 23.9X 22.ZX 23.11 Black Year 4 18.9X 26.0X 22.7X 28.5X 19.2X 19.1X 22.6X 22.ax 22.7X White Year 1 8.3X 10.ax 12.7X 15.7X 9.9X 7.ax 10.SX 11. ,x 10.ax White Year 2 5.7X 10.2X 9.9X 15.31 11.2X . 8.0X 8.5X ,, .1X 9.9X White Year 3 8.2X ,o.sx 13.51 11 .7X ,, .7X 9.SX ,a.ax 10.9X 10.9X White Year 4 10.2X 9.3X 8.9X 12.2X 8.5X 10. ,x 9.SX 10.31 9.9X Females Year 1 8.6X 13.1X 7.9X 12.9X 8.3X 5.6X 9.9X 9.1X 9.6X Females Year 2 9.SX ,1 .ax 9.3X 12.1x 9.ax 6.0X 10.3X 9.3X 9.ax Females Year 3 9.9X 15.0X 11 .3X 11.4X 8.2X 8.2X 12.ZX 9.3X 10.8X Females Year 4 8.1X 13.7X 13.3X 11 .6X 7.7X 7.8X 11. 7X 9.1X 10.41 Black Year 1 10.SX 16.3X 10.3X 15.9X ,, .7X 8.SX 12.SX 12.SX 12.SX Black Year 2 ,,.ax 14.ax 13.ZX 16.8X 12.SX 8.SX 13.31 12.8X 13.1X Black Year 3 12.SX 19.2X 14.ZX 16.1X 12.SX 10.7X 15.4X 13.2X 14.4X Black Year 4 9.9X 17.SX 17.2% 15.4X 11.6X 11. 7X 14.8X 13.11 14.1X White Year 1 3.6X 7.5X 5.0X 8.0X 4.6X 2.ax 5.4X 5.0X 5.2X White Year 2 4.7X 4.1X 2.8X 5.4X 6.2X 3.1X 3.9X 4.8X 4.4X White Year 3 5.0X 6.0X 5.1X 4.8X 2.9X 5.0X 5.4X 4.2X 4.7X White Year 4 4.8X 6.1X 5.7X 5.2X 2.3X 2.9X 5.SX 3.4X 4.4X Note: Students froa racial/ethnic backgrounds other than 'Black' or 'White' were not included in the 'RACE' categories bee- their nuabers 11ere 111iniml. Therefore, grade l..,.l totals are greater than the SUI of racial categories. Source: Little Rock Cohort Files 198889, 198990, 199091, 199192. 64 b. Grades Kindergarten through 6 i. Over-years comparisons The percentage of elementary school students being retained in their grades is shown in Table 5. 4 by race and gender. The percentage of students being retained decreased slightly at all elementary grade levels except 6th grade. Racial disparities are evident at all primary grades (kindergarten through 2nd grade) but rates for 3rd through 6th grades are much less disparate. Overall, the percentage of black students being retained in each year is twice as large as the percentage of white students. LITTLE ROCK Table 5.4 RETENTION Change in Student Retentions, by Race and Gender for Across Grades, 199091(Yr. 3) and 1991 92 (Yr. 4). Grade Level ------------------------------=------=--=--================================ I( 2 3 4 5 6 Total ----------------------=---=---=--=--==-==-================================= Totals Year 3 5.6X 11.SX 4.8X 1.6X 1.9X 1.1X 0.4X 4.0X Totals Year 4 4.3X 7.4X 3.0X 1.0X 0.8X 0.6X 0.6X 2.6X Change Yrs 34 1.3 4.4 1.8 0.6  1. 1 0.5 0.2  1.4 RACE Black Year 3 7.0X 15.SX 5.7X 2.1X 2.4X 1.2X 0.7X 5 .1X Black Year 4 5.4X 9.2X 4.0X 1. 1X 1.1X 0.7X 0.6X 3.2X White Year 3 3.3X 4.8X 3.1X 0.7X 0.9X 0.8X o.ox ,2.0X White Year 4 2.6X 4.4X 1.4X 0.5X 0.4X 0.4X 0.5X 1.5X GENDER BY RACE Males Year 3 6.8X 14.4X 5.5X 1.6X 2.3X 1.1X o.sx 4.8X Males Year 4 5.4X 8.2X 2.6X 1.3X 0.9X 0.4X 1.1X 2.9X Black Year 3 8.SX 18.6X 6.8X 1.9X 3.1X 1.1X 0.7X 6.0X Black Year 4 6.SX 10.4X 3.2X 1. 7X 1. 1X 0.5X 1.1X 3.6X White Year 3 4.1X 7.2X 3.3X 1.0X 0.5X 1.0X o.ox 2.6X White Year 4 3.7X 4.?X 1.4X 0.5X 0.5X o.ox 0.8X 1. 7X Females Ye r 3 4.3X 9.1X 4.0X 1.6X 1.SX 1.1X 0.4X 3.2X Females Ye r 4 3.1X 6.5X 3.4X 0.6X 0.7X 0.9X 0.1X 2.2X Black Ye r 3 5.5X 12.9X 4.6X 2.3X 1.6X 1.4X 0.6X 4.2X Black Year 4 4.1X 8.0X 4.7X 0.5X 1.0X 1.0X o.ox 2.8X White Year 3 2.3X 2.3X 2.9X 0.3X 1.3X o.sx a.ox 1.4X White Year 4 1.4X 4.0X 1.3X 0.6X 0.3X 0.9X 0.3X 1.2X Source: Little Rock Cohort Files for 199091, 199192. 65 ii. Longitudinal comparisons Longitudinal retention data for kindergarten through 6th grade students who were retained in Year 3 are contained in Table 5.5. The table shows, by grade, the number and percentage of Year 3's retained students who were retained again in Year 4. Most of the kindergarten through 6th grade students who were retained in Year 3 were not retained twice over the two years. Overall, of the 585 elementary school students who were retained in grade in Year 3, only 6 (1.0%) were retained again in Year 4. I Little Rock Table 5.5 RETENTION Year 4 Retention Status of Elementary Students Who Were Retained in Year 3 (N=585) Status in Grade in Year 4 Total (K-Year 4 K 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 6th) Not 112 275 95 32 39 19 7 579 Retained 97.4% 99.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 95 .0% 87 .5% 99.0% Retained 3 1 0 0 0 1 1 6 2.6% 0.4% 0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% 12.5% 1.0% Total I 115 276 95 32 39 20 8 585 *Note: All srudents reported in this table were retained in Year 3. The table then shows the retention starus of these students in Year 4. 66 iii. Over age students Table 5.6 shows, across grades, by race and gender the percentage of elementary school students who were at least one-and-one-half years over age for their grades during Years 3 and 4. The percentage of elementary students over age for grade decreased from 6.8 percent in Year 3 to 5.5 percent in Year 4. Disparities are evident between black students and white students. Ten percent or more of Year 4's black male 2nd through 6th graders were over age for grade. Table 5.6 OVER AGE Percentage of Change in over Age Students, Across Grades, by Race and Gender for 199091(Yr. 3) and 199192 (Yr. 4). Grade Level ======================================================================== IC 2 3 4 5 6 Total ======================================================================== Totals Year 3 Totals Year 4 Change Yrs 34 RACE Blaclc Year 3 Black Year 4 llhite Year 3 llhite Year 4 GENDER BY RACE Males Year 3 Males Year 4 Black Year 3 Black Year 4 llhite Year 3 llhite Year 4 Females Year 3 Females Year 4 Black Year 3 Black Year 4 llhite Year 3 llhite Year 4 1.1% 0.2% 0.9 1.3% 0.3% 0.9X o.ox 1.2% 0.3% 1.6% 0.4% 0.7X o.ox 1.1% 0.1% 1.0X o.zx 1.ZX o.ox 4.8% 0.4% 4.4 5.7X 0.3% 3.2% 0.5% 5.4% 0.5% 6.6% 0.5% 3.2% 0.4% 4.8% 0.3% 4.8% 0.1% 3.2% 0.5% 6.0X 6.6% 0.6 7.6% 8.4% 3.4% 3.5% 8.0X 7.6% 10.0X 10.1% 4.7X 3.3% 6.0X 5.5% 5.1% 6.6% 2.0X 3.7X 7.7X 6.3%  1.4 9.8% 8.0X 4.2% 3.2% 9.0X 8.3% 11.6% 10.4% 4.7X 4.9% 7.7X 4.1% 8.0X 5.7X 3.8% 1.2% 8.9X 8.0X 0.9 10.9X 10.0X 5.4X 4.7X 10.9X 9.4X 12.SX 11.6X 8.3% 5.8% 8.9X 6.6% 9.3% 8.3% 2.3% 3.5% 9.4% 8.6% 0.8 11.1% 10.7X 6.1% 4.5% 11.2% 10.1% 12.4% 12.4% 9.2% 5.9% 9.4% 7.0X 9.7X 9.0X 2.9X 3.1% 9.4% 9.2% 0.2 10.7X 11.1% 6.8% 5.7X 11.SX 11.1% 13.2% 13.0X 8.1% 7.9X 9.4% 7.2% 8.1% 9.1% 5.5% 3.4% Note: Students from racial/ethnic backgrounds other than 'Black' or 1 llhite' were not included in the 'RACE' categories because their nurbers were minimal. Therefore, grade level totals are greater than the Slffl of racial categories. Source: Little Rocle Cohort Files 199091, 199192. 67 6.8% 5.5% 1 .3 8.2% 7.0X 4.2% 3.1% 8.1% 6.6% 9.7X 8.3% 5.4% 3.9X 6.8% 4.4% 6.6% 5.6% 3.0X 2.2% 6. Course Failure a. Over-years comparisons Table 6.1 shows the percent of courses failed out of all courses taken. It can be seen that students fail about one third of their courses. The percent of courses failed has stayed fairly constant at the junior high school level across the four years. At the high school level, it has fluctuated and declined slightly overall. There were substantial differences between grade levels. Table 6.2 shows, across grades, by school level and by race, the percent of students failing one or more courses. The table shows increases at the junior high school level (2.0 percentage points between Years 1 and 4 for the junior high school grades combined), and decreases at the high school level (a decline of 6.1 percentage points for the high school grades combined) . About one-quarter of all junior high school students and more than one third of all high school students fail courses. 68 Table 6. 1 COURSE FAILURE COMPARISONS Percent of Courses Failed Across Grades by Race and Gender: 198889(Yr. 1) to 199192(Yr. 4). Grade Level s:amm.aaaasz:zza:a--=--==----=-====-z--z-:-:-z:z:--=---z---z=-=--------=----= 7 8 9 10 11 12 79 1012 Total --===am~-================================================================== Totals Year 1 31.9% 38.41 26.7% 35.9% 31.21 24.21 31.31 31.81 31.7% Totals Year 2 34.51 37.11 25.21 36.0l 29.1% 26.8% 30.7% 31.41 31.21 Totals Year 3 33.0X 32.7% 29.21 33.21 31.61 23.3% 31.11 29.6% 30.21 Totals Year 4 31.31 32.21 31.0X 38.0X 27.9% 25.0l 31.4% 31.4% 31.4% ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- Change in Percent of Courses Failed Change Yrs 1 2 2.7 1 .3 1.5 0. 1 2. 1 2.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 Change Yrs 23  1.5 4.3 4.0 2.8 2.5 3.4 0.4 1 .7 1.0 Change Yrs 34 1 .7 0.5 1.8 4.7 3.7 1.7 0.3 1.8 1.2 Change Yrs 1 4 0.6 6.2 4.3 2.0 3.2 0.8 o. 1 0.4 0.3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RACE Black Year 1 31.8% 39.41 25.51 36.41 31.21 24.31 31.11 32.31 31.9% Black Year 2 34.7% 37.3% 25.61 37.11 29.0l 25.8% 31.2% 31.8% 31.61 Black Year 3 33.51 33.9% 30.0l 33.81 32.0l 23.11 32.0l 30.0l 30.81 Black Year 4 31.7% 33.11 32.1% 38.2% 27.9% 24.7% 32.3% 31.61 31.9% llhite Year 1 32.7% 34.41 30.0l 34.81 31.11 24.31 31.81 30.9% 31.11 llhite Year 2 33.41 36.11 24.21 33.31 29.31 28.51 28.7% 30.61 30.11 llhite Year 3 30.7% 26.7% 27.11 31.81 30.BX 24.0l 27.7% 28.9% 28.51 llhite Year 4 28.BX 28.2% 26.9% 38.11 27.61 26.31 27.61 31.31 30.0X GENDER BY RACE Males Year 1 33.2% 37.8% 27.7% 39.61 34.61 24.7% 32.0l 34.81 33.9% Malu Year 2 36.ZX 37.41 27.61 37.7% 30.51 28.11 32.51 33.0l 32.8% Males Year 3 35.ZX 33.61 29.7% 35.11 33.41 23.8% 32.2% 31.11 31.51 Males Year 4 31.51 33.41 31.0l 39.7% 30.51 26.8% 31.BX 33.61 32.8% Black Year 1 33.61 38.9% 26.7% 39.21 35.11 24.8% 32.0l 35.0l 33.9% Black Year 2 35.8% 38.11 27.8% 38.31 29.7% 28.0l 32.BX 33.21 33.0l Black Year 3 35.61 34.7% 31.0X 36.31 34.31 24.2% 33.31 31.9% 32.61 Black Year 4 32.41 34.61 32.51 40.3% 29.31 27.0X 33.0X 33.7% 33.4% White Year 1 32.0X 33.8% 30.31 40.7% 33.BX 24.8% 31.7% 34.51 33.BX White Year 2 37.2% 35.0X 26.BX 36.31 32.31 28.2% 31.0X 32.51 32.11 llhite Year 3 33.31 27.51 26.9% 31.9% 32.ZX 23.0X 28.41 29.11 28.BX White Year 4 27.61 28.9% 26.41 38.61 33.11 27.0X 27.31 33.61 31.31 Females Year 1 29.11 39.41 25.0X 30.81 26.61 23.51 30.11 27.8% 28.41 Females Year 2 30.61 36.51 21.41 33.71 27.11 25.2% 27.51 29.31 28.BX Females Year 3 27.SX 31.ZX 28.31 30.BX 29.11 22.7% 29.11 27.BX 28.21 F-lH Year 4 30.8% 30.2% 30.9% 35.41 24.51 22.71 30.7% 28.51 29.31 Black Year 1 28 .51 40.11 23.51 32.8% 26.31 23.61 29.7% 28.BX 29.1% Black Year 2 32.11 36.2% 22.11 35.41 28.0l 23.61 28.51 30.0X 29.51 Black Year 3 28.51 32.51 28.51 30.61 29.11 21. 7X 29.7% 27.51 28.31 Black Year 4 30.51 30.7% 31.61 35.3% 26.0l 22.0X 31.11 28.9% 29.81 White Year 1 35.0l 36.0l 29.61 24.BX 26.BX 23.71 32.01 25.2% 26.51 11h i te Year 2 24.1% 39.9% 19.41 29.2% 25.3% 29.11 23.61 27.7% 26.BX llhi te Year 3 23.9% 25.2% 27.51 31.61 28.9% 25.51 26.2% 28.7% 28.11 White Year 4 33.11 26.61 27.8% 37.41 19.41 25.0X 28.2% 27.51 27.8% Note: These dat\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":24,"next_page":25,"prev_page":23,"total_pages":35,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":276,"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}}]}}