{"response":{"docs":[{"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_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_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 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_887","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":["1993-04/1993-06"],"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","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/887"],"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_1519","title":"Court filings: Dictrict Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) academic support program","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":["1993-03-26"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Standards","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School management and organization","School improvement programs","Student assistance programs","School employees","Education--Finance"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: Dictrict Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) academic support program"],"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/1519"],"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":["54 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_586","title":"Organization and learning equity/recruitment","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"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","School integration","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["Organization and learning equity/recruitment"],"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/586"],"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 M Scj  r*Z March 3, 1993 MAR 3 1993 Otfice of Desegregation .MoniLcring Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation and Monitoring West Heritage Building 201 E. Markham St., Suite 510 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Ms. Brown, Attached are several reports that have been requested by your office. The first report is a summary of the activities that will be facilitated by the Office of Organizational and Learning Equity/Recruitment. These activities will contribute toward recruiting for the district as a whole and for the specific types of schools which we seek to promote. The second report is submitted by the Communications Office and summarizes the activities that have been completed during the 1992-93 school year in support of the Office of Organizational and Learning Equity/Recruitment. These activities also support the LRSD recruiting effort for the district and specific schools. In addition, the Communications Office has supplied their Desegregation Plan Implementation Timeline. Information you requested about New Futures For Little Rock Youth is also attached as the third report. Reports which your office requested concerning the 4-Year-Old Program and Academic Support are forthcoming. Sincerely, Marie Parker Associate Superintendent Organizational and Learning Equity 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-20001992/93 RECRUITING ACTIVITIES LRSD COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT January 26, 1993 lA /aca A If' o February 1992 MAR 5 1593 Citica of Desegregation Monito\nJ Realtors Guide providing Realtors, Chamber of Commerce, City of Little Rock, corporate relocation officers and other targeted groups with a comprehensive tool showing all schools and their programs, extracurricular offerings, faculty information and maps showing the areas from which the schools draw their student population. February 1992 Arnold Schwarzenegger visit to Rockefeller to represent the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports. February 1992- International and national press requests came to the Communications Office for coverage concerning the President and Mrs.Clinton's role in education in Arkansas.This opportunity allowed the District to present some of its finest programs and promote severe of our schools. Internationally we worked with journalists from France, Germany, England, Japan, Korea, Switzerland, and Australia to name a few. National coverage included affiliates from ABC, NBC, CBS, the Boston Monitor, National Public Radio and many more. April 1992 Premiere of \"LRSD Today\" a new promotional video produced by the Office of Communications, which uses live video and animation to present the LRSD to parents, new residents and community leaders. The video was deliver^ to the same targeted group as the Realtors Guide. In addition it was delivered to four major video stores to be placed in their community service free rental sections. May 1992 New school brochures were written for four schools, three of which have experienced recruiting problems. The fourth school paid for its own brochure but took advantage of a group printing price because of the volume in printing for four schools at one time.Brochures are being distributed by the Communications Office, Student Assignment and the schools. April 1992- January 1993 Cooperative efforts began with the Arkansas Motion Picture Office to bring Disney Studios to Little Rock to film \"The Ernest Green Story\" at Central High School. The fUm was completely filmed in Little Rock and on January 4,1993, the film premiere was held at Central High. President-elect Clinton, Ernest Green and his family, Benjamin Hooks, NAACP national president, Disney officials and many other city dignitaries attended the event which received national media coverage. June 1992 Incentive school promotional video produced July 1992 An incentive school hotline was set up by the Communications Department for use by the Student Assignment Office. The line assists parents with information about LRSD Incentive Schools. The parents may leave their phone number and receive a call from Student Assignment with further information. July 1992- Sept. 1992 Production and completion of CAT bus ads, bUlboard ads and bus bench advertising for registration and promotion of incentive, interdistrict, 4-year-old and two new magnet schools. July 1992 recruitment Meeting called by LRSD with PCSSD for Crystal HUI MagnetPage 2 Recruiting Report LRSD Communications Department 1-26-93 August 1992 School calendar produced and distributed to all student households. Sept. 1992 Production began on Curriculum Updates via Cable Channel 4. The purpose of the updates was to inform the public of the new curriculum in place for the 1992/93 year. Sept. 1992 - for information Miscellaneous group presentations (3) currently requested by public October 1992 Dr. Bernd began seven Community Forums throughout the community to gather information from the public. October 1992 October 1992 Production of HIPPY brochure Dr. Bernd began his weekly show at KARN allowing the District to talk about school programs, special events, etc. Among the many schools mentioned were Stephens, Garland, Rockefeller and RightseU incentive schools\nRomine and King interdistrict schools. October 1992 Dr. Bernd began the filming of a 4-part public affairs series on LRSD on Fox Channel 16. The programs covered information on the incentive schools, magnets and general information on the District. October 1992 Craig O'Neill (KURB Radio) began doing weekly school announcements from District schools. Each school has announced its special events, awards and programs over the air. Incentive schools taking part in the program are Rockefeller and Franklin. Rightsell is scheduled during February 1993. All schools will be given the opportunity to make their school announcements. November 1992 findings from the seven community forums. Dr. Bemd gave a report over Cable Channel 4 concerning his November 1992 School tours for the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce were arranged by the Communications Office during American Education Week. All (40) participants were surveyed about their perception of the LRSD before and after the visit. The surveys showed that perceptions can be changed if we can get people in to the schools. November 1992 The VIPS Office and the Communications Office surveyed all parents/students who had left the District (those not returning from the 92-93 year) to find out the reasons for leaving. November 1992 Production of registration advertising for Chamber of Commerce publication. The ad featured the Superintendent and the twenty-two 1992 National Merit Scholars from the district. November 1992 Principal cluster meetings training principals on event selection for coverage, proper media reporting and providing them with a comprehensive report of what was covered in the local media month by month.Pages Recruiting Report LRSD Communications Department 1-26-93 December 1992 Groundbreaking ceremony for Martin Luther King Jr. Elementary Interdistrict was organized by the Communications Office. Key constituency invited  PCSSD, ODM, etc.The event was highly visible for the promotion of the location which was the key objective. January 1993 Communication Office assisted in promotion of 1993/94 registration by producing the registration brochure distributed to all LRSD student households and quantities to Student Assignment Office for distribution to private schools, PCSSD, etc.\nproducing a 30-second Public Service Announcement video for television, placing PSAs on nine local radio stations, placing registration information on all television community calendars, and taping a new registration message to be played on the District phone when callers are placed on hold. January 1993 media coverage resulted. Hillary Clinton visit to Rockefeller. Local, national, internationalA RSCEi 'U {i ijcT- MAR 3 1993 Oifica of Desegregation Moniionng Little Rock School District Organizational and Learning Equity Office February 26, 1993 TO\nAnn Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation and Monitoring FROM\nMarie Parker, Associate Superintendent for Organizational and Learning Equity SUBJECT\nRecruiting Report The attached report summarizes activities that will be facilitated by the Organizational and Learning Equity/Recruitment Office that will contribute toward recruiting for the district as a whole, and for the specific types of schools which we seek to promote.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ORGANIZATIONAL AND LEARNING EQUITY RECRUITMENT OFFICE BUDGET/EXPENDITURES ANALYSIS 1991-92 During the 1991-92 school year records for the Office of Desegregation indicated that a total of $45,254 was spent for recruitment activities. Housed in the Student Assignment Office are two recruiters. The salaries are not included as part of these monies. The major recruitment focus, as evidenced by dollars spent, is reflected in the categories listed below: ACTIVITY AMOUNT SPENT Incentive school advertising and equipment Registration brochures Incentive school brochures Arkansas Democrat advertising Retail display Incentive School booth (Park Plaza) Advertising via helium balloons Production for Incentive Schools Woodruff brochures Romine brochures Rockefeller brochures/Four-Year-Old Program Postage for mailing brochures Henderson/McCellan Plan Bumper stickers for Cloverdale Travel - Recruiter Bale recruitment 18,000 3,450 1,800 1,300 1,322 900 139 3,724 1,046 3,631 6,134 1,007 1,507 551 500 153 $ 1992-93 During the 1992-93 school year records for the Office of Organizational and Learning Equity (OLE) formerly, the office of Desegregation, indicated that salaries for two Parent Recruiters have been allocated within the OLE office. The 1992-93 budgeting process indicate the funds previously allocated to the Office of Desegregation are now reflected as Recruitment in the Office of Communications or other program managers budget allocations. The report submitted by the LRSD Communications Office will reflect recruitment activities/expenditures for the 1992-93 school year.Conclusion The LRSD administration recognizes and is in total agreement that a more efficient, effective, and an accountable job can be done with recruiting. To accomplish this will require a more concentrated and coordinated effort of the various umbrella groups and individuals described in the Desegregation Plan. It will also require revisiting, rethinking, and restructuring our current recruitment strategies. We must develop a strategic plan that shows, 1) where we are\n2) where we want to be\nand, 3) how we will get there. To that end, the Recruitment Section of the Organization and Learning Equity Office is recommending to the LRSD Cabinet that the following steps be adopted and implemented immediately. This renewed effort would require us to: 1. 2. 3. 4. Designate a recruitment coordinator to coordinate all recruitment efforts. Develop a strategic plan to ensure the different individuals, groups, and/or activities function in a coordinated and collaborated manner. Develop specific strategies to ensure the most effective and efficient use of all human and financial resources. Develop strategies for tracking and documentation of all recruitment efforts.LRSD DESGREGATION PLAN Implementation Timeline Area: Parent Recruitment (Private Schoois, incentive Schoois, Area Schools) Goal: To develop a comprehensive plan to ensure coordination of all parent recruitment activities described in the plan. Page Objective Strategy 135 216 To promote the effective and efficient use of Interdistrict and intradistrict recruitment strategies. Designate a parent recruitment coordinator. Establish a planning/impiementation recruitment team representing the various groups described in the plan. Convene recruitment teams to share and discuss LRSD vision, goals, roles, responsibilities, timelines, and expectations for each group, in order to determine each group's commonalities and uniqueness. Designate a contact person at each school to report to an established information center (Parent Recruitment coordinator). Clearly define the role of existing parent recruiters. Conduct a formal and informal survey to assess status of recruitment activities, and collect evidence of those activities which may or may not be working. Meet bi-monthly with representatives from various groups to monitor recruitment activities. Assess the effectiveness of recruitment strategies on an annual basis. Develop strategies for tracking and documentation of all recruitment efforts. Seek court approval of alternative strategies. Beginning Date March 93 Comp. Date April 93 Cost Responsibility Assoc. Supt., Deseg. Feb. 93 March 93 April 93 Jan 93 Aug 92 March 93 June 93 July 93 March 93 Ongoing Ongoing April 93 May 93 Ongoing Ongoing Annually Evaluation PRC appointed PRC/Assoc. Supt., Deseg. PRC Bldg, prin./ local PTA/PRC Assoc. Supt., Deseg. Assoc. Supt., Deseg.\nPRT\nTeam appointed Minutes of meeting Designated Job description Surveys Completed/ Analyzed PRCZ Biracial Team/Assoc. Supt., Deseg. Daily, weekly documentation PRE/Biracial/ PRT Assoc. Supt., Deseg. Annual reportLRSD DESGREGATION PLAN Implementation Timeline Area: Parent Recruitment (Private Schools, Incentive Schools, Area Schools) Goal: To coordinate all private school recruitment activities and provide necessary suuport via the parent recruitment coordinator. Page Objective Strategy Beginning Date Comp. Date Cost Responsibility Evaluation To actively recruit private school students to the Little Rock School District. 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 Share and network recruitment strategies with PTAs. Provide direct assistance to the PTAs. Meet bi-monthly with PTA Council and or various PTA representatives to monitor recruitment activities. Obtain and forward to each school, computer printouts of students on the data base you are not presently enrolled in the district. Contact these parents and encourage them to reconsider their public school option. Continue to foster relationships with area realtors to access those families with school-age children who are relocating to the Little Rock area. Assess the effectiveness of recruitment strategies on an annual basis. Share and discuss the assessment with all parties. Seek court approval of alternate strategies. Jan 93 March 93 March 93 Jan 93 Jan 93 Jan 93 July 93 July 93 March 93 Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Annually Ongoing Annually PRTs/PC PRC/PR Biracial/PRC/PRT PRC/PR PRT/PRC/PR PRC/PR PRTs/Biracial/ Assoc. Supt., Deseg. PRTs/ Biracial/ PR/PC Assoc. Supt., Deseg. Doc. of activites Doc. of assistance Doc. of activities Doc. of activities Daily/wkly documentation Daily/wkly documentation Comp, doc./critical analysis Doc. shared information Report filedArea: Parent Recruitment (Private Schools, Incentive Schools, Area Schools) P. 2 Goal: To coordinate all private school recruitment activities, provide necessary suuport via the parent recruitment coordinator. Page Objective Strategy Beginning Date Comp. Date Cost Responsibility Evaluation 135 135 135 142 Utilize parents in marketing of educational programs and benefits that will result from desegregation of all three districts. Develop a resource list of all parents who are willing to talk with potential patrons. Establish a parent recruitment team in each school to encourage families to enroll in the public schools. Work through local parent/teacher organizations to encourage media coverage. Conduct recruitment via Student Assignment Office (SAO). March 93 March 93 March 93 March 93 March 93 Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing PRTs/PRC/PR PTA Councils/ PRs/PRC PTA Councils/ PR/PRC Local PTAs PR/SAO Staff Doc. of activites Available resource list List on fiie Doc. of assist./ Public survey Daily/wkly doc. of activitiesLRSD DESGREGATION PLAN Implementation Timeline Area: Parent Recruitment (Private Schools, Incentive Schools, Area Schools) Goal: To encourage voluntary assignments of white students to the incentive schools that will enable the schools to comply with the desegregation requirements. Page Objective Strategy Beginning Date 218 218 218 220 223 223 223 223 223 To provide general Information to the community about the incentive program. To monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the recruitment programs in the incentive schools. Actively seek out special interest groups and seek their assistance in disseminating information to the general public. Conduct special information campaign in the black community. Distribute information to parents and community. Utilize a variety of marketing strategies to recruit white students to the incentive schools. Provide a special inservice for the LRSD Biracial advisory committee on the incentive school program and the longterm desegregation plan. Utilize the volunteer services of individuals with expertise in marketing/advertising. Develop procedures for monitoring implementation of the recruitment program. Recommend any changes needed in recru itme nt st rateg ies/act ivifies. Evaluate the incentive school recruitment program. Prepare quarterly reports and submit to the Board of Directors. March 93 Jan 93 Jan 93 July 93 April 93 April 93 April 93 March 93 March 93 Jan 93 Comp. Date Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Annually June 93 Ongoing July 93 Ongoing Ongoing Quarterly Cost Responsibility Assoc. Supt., Deseg./attnys./ PRC/PR/SAO Assoc. Supt., Deseg./PRC/PR Assoc. Supt., Deseg./PRC/PR PRC/Relev. admin, staff/PRC Assoc. Supt., Deseg./Principals./ Coordinators Assoc. Supt./ Biracial Assoc. Supt., Deseg./PRE/ Biracial/PRC PRC/PRT/Biracial Assoc. Supt., Deseg./Biracial/ PRC/PRT Assoc. Supt., Deseg./Biracial/ PRC/PRT Evaluation Doc. of activites Doc. activities Doc. of activities Comprehensive documentation/ critical analysis Doc. of inservice Doc. of activities Procedures developed Doc. of recs./ implementation of Monitoring report Report of progress x  rec'S i MAR 3 1993 New Futures For Little Rock Youth Office of Dessgregaiion Woniioring New Futures for Little Rock Youth is an initiative that creates new citywide systems that enhance the ability of all youth to become successful, productive adults. New Futures envisions institutions working together to create a powerful community commitment to help young people achieve success and move beyond the poverty and frustrations that so often constrict their dreeuns. New Futures also seeks change within institutions as well. It is a vehicle for reviewing and revamping practices and policies that have not previously worked well with our young people. New Futures is based on the premise that it institutions simply become stronger collaborators. is not enough that It is also necessary that each Institution become stronger and better at working with youth and that organizations themselves and make the changes necessary to effectiveness with young people. look deep increase inside their New Futures is guided by the following principles: Every youth must have a supportive, encouraging adult help guide him/her through adolescence. Every youth must have solid academic skills. Every youth must have access to basic health and social services. Every youth must have opportunities to experience success. Working from these guiding principles, comprehensive methods for developing implementation strategies to attain these goals are based on: Developing collaborative efforts between schools, social service agencies, government, businesses, churches, civic groups, parents, and other concerned community members.  Promoting responsive, youth-focused public policy. Creating public awareness of youth issues. Developing model programs for direct service to youth.  Researching and evaluating data about youth. New Futures has developed programmatic strategies within each component area that seek to provide solutions to the complex problems that face many Little Rock Youth. The Little Rock SchoolNew Futures District is by far the largest youth serving institution in the city and has worked in full partnership with New Futures to achieve effective collaboration with a range of organizations that can bring the full array of the city's resources to bear on youth problems. The programmatic strategies currently being implemented in the component areas of health, youth-violence prevention, and youth employability are listed below. SCHOOL-BASED EFFORTS (See narrative pages 3-11) HEALTH School-based health care.  Mentoring for pregnant teens. Student forums and performance groups. School-based health committees with parents, teachers, and nurses. Family-life education curriculum. School-based Early Periodic Screening Diagnosis and Treatment. YOUTH-VIOLENCE PREVENTION Gang-alternative programs. Youth development and adult mentoring. Establishment of youth centers city-wide.  Team problem-solving by city government, law enforcement, and social services agencies. Team efforts with established drug and alcohol-abuse programs. YOUTH EMPLOYABILITY  Building relationships between business community and youth. Summer youth-employment programs. Job fairs. 2New Futures Pre-employment training. Career mentoring. School-to-career linkage.  Mini-grant to youth-enrichment programs. student Schools must believe in their ability to ensure that every succeeds in productive adulthood. learning the basic skills needed for a Given the complexity of the problems facing youth today, it is also necessary for schools to utilize the range of resources available in the community to develop intricate approaches that are comprehensive and creative yet still have a connection to concrete problems. The LRSD New Futures approach to restructuring for effective schools has developed with these ideas in mind. Four junior high schools, Cloverdale, Forest Heights, Pulaski Heights, and Southwest have been involved in this process. in a long-term process that will The focus has been to engage enhance entire schools and maximize their effectiveness for all students not just those immediately identified as at-risk. Through restructuring, teachers and administrators have had the opportunity to expand their thinking and engage in basic and fundeunental changes around issues that affect how they teach and support all students. Specifically, the purpose of the junior high school restructuring initiative is to establish a school climate, culture, and curriculum that is responsive to the developmental needs of early adolescent youth and the particular needs of at-risk students. These schools are committed to supporting students' development by honoring achievement through the united efforts of parents, teachers, students, and administrators. Restructuring schools create cultures whereby all individuals shall experience a sense of belonging and community through team leadership and open communication conducive to innovative interventions which ensure student success. A more effective transition in the school experience is needed between elementary and high schools. Students in junior high schools are young adolescents facing significant turning points in their lives. Early adolescence is characterized by significant change and growth complicated by unprecedented societal pressures and choices. Schools which serve these students can and should be organized in such a way to be developmentally supportive to ensure academic success as emotional growth. well as positive physical. social. and 3New Futures These needs are addressed through the process of whole school restructuring which includes organizational changes such as teaming, flexible scheduling, emphasis on cross curriculum and interdisciplinary planning, attention to relationships of academic units to real experiences, increased use of cooperative learning techniques, reduction of frontal teaching practices, student team projects and class discussion. students actively in the learning process. Teachers are encouraged to engage Listed below are key structural, programmatic changes that have been implemented. organizational, and  Teachers are organized into interdisciplinary teaching teams. Each grade level is composed of two heterogeneous teams of 120-150 students served by a core team of teachers. A common group of students will share a common group of teachers, common space, and common blocks of instructional time.  Bells are used only to indicate the beginning and ending of the school day. Some schools do utilize a lunch bell. This strategy creates conditions that allow for teaching teams to utilize flexible scheduling when appropriate for effective instruction. An academic day consisting of seven blocks of instructional time allowing for flexible scheduling techniques was developed. Seventh and eighth grade student schedules are composed of five core subjects, (English, math, science, social studies, and Learning Foundations) and two related arts courses (in some specific cases, Reading). Ninth grade student schedules are composed of English, math, science, social studies and either health/FE or Computer technology and two related arts courses (in some specific cases, Reading).  Two planning periods daily (one team planning period and one personal planning period) were provided for all teaching staff. The daily team-planning period provides teachers the opportunity to plan together as a group, develop interdisciplinary units, plan incentive programs, discuss individual student needs, hold joint parent conferences, discuss instructional issues, establish cross curricular connections between sxibject areas, and provide collegial support opportunities.  Writing skills, thinking and reasoning strategies. 4New Futures study and learning skills, test-taking strategies, special reading strategies, communication skills and technological applications, the reading/writing process, and team learning are stressed through an interdisciplinary approach that characterizes Learning Foundations, a core course at the 7th and Sth grade levels. I School management system functions in an organizational style that utilizes school-based leadership/improvement and shared-decision making techniques.  The guidance and counseling function of each staff member is emphasized. An on-going process of school-based self-assessment continues at each school.  An extended day program is operational three days each week. It includes a component to enhance academic achievement, reduce disparities among subgroups, improve student attendance, and promote social development. Activities include homework and tutorial assistance, career explorations, club activities, and health/fitness/nutrition programs. Transportation and a nutritious snack are provided. In-school suspension programs are operational in all four schools. Initiated planning has taken place toward development of an outcome-based process for assessment of student achievement.  A review of existing accelerated learning programs for at-risk youth and development of appropriate recommended strategies for local accelerated programming was conducted. There is frequent monitoring of total school environment and programming by school staff regularly making adjustments and changes to meet student needs through various methods including school improvement teams, faculty study committees, school management teeuns, and school-based assessment processes. Parent to parent support groups called TOUCH, 5New Futures (Together Our Understanding Can Help), have been developed, training has been provided for parents who serve as the facilitator of the groups has occurred, and the groups are meeting regularly at a local church. This is open to all parents in these schools.  The Feunily \"Support Net\" System has been developed and is functioning. This system is an intervention strategy developed to provide families of chronically truant students with the skills necessary to become independent problem solvers. It has three levels of operation ranging from an intensive all-day retreat and weekly support groups to a seminar series designed to address the special needs of students and parents. It is part of the Truancy Review Committee process (TRC) which is a collaborative community program to address chronic truancy.  A simple guide to understanding the attendance policy of the LRSD was developed and shared with parents at registration. A video was also produced and shown to parents at registration.  All schools hold special 7th grade orientation programs for students and parents at each school.  At each school a steering committee composed of team leaders, administrators, parents, and students. meet on a weekly basis to discuss issues and make decisions that guide many school activities and the annual school plan. Each team has a unique team name, logo, goals, and objectives.  The consulting teacher model is utilized to mainstream resource students onto interdisciplinary teams, students belong to a team. All Cloverdale, Forest Heights, and Pulaski Heights applied to the Arkansas State Department for status as official restructuring schools and were accepted. Southwest is currently completing the process. Restructuring schools have common characteristics. The following characteristics provide a focus for the restructuring initiative in the LRSD/New Futures schools. Each school: (1) Features a program designed to ease student 6New Futures transition from elementary to junior high school including building on the successes of elementary education and preparing students for a successful experience in the high school. (2) Utilizes educational programming techniques that respond to the physical, intellectual, and social- emotional needs of the early adolescent learner. (3) Organizes teachers into interdisciplinary teaching teams using block time or flexible scheduling techniques to best deliver the instructional program. (4) Employs teachers and staff members who focus on the learning needs of students by using a variety of teaching techniques that actively involve students in the learning process and emphasize the development of students higher order thinking skills. (5) Emphasizes the guidance and counseling function of each staff member. (6) Recognizes the importance of affective education by providing for a home-base of teacher/advisory program stressing the importance of self-concept in the curriculxim and working as a staff to foster a positive climate for learning. (7) Utilizes a curriculum plan that includes factual information or organized knowledge, skills, and personal development activities that can be correlated with each other and related to real life experiences. (8) Provides access to increased support services that are available for at-risk youth. (9) Functions in an organizational style that utilizes school-based leadership/improvement and shared- decision making techniques. (10) Evaluates total school environment and programming, regularly making adjustment and changes to meet student needs through various methods including school improvement teams and school based assessment processes. (11) Involves parents actively in program planning and implementation. 7New Futures The restructuring process is an evolving process that continues to develop and grow while continually improving program strategies and making needed adjustments according to student needs. Restructuring is not \"quiclc fix\" solution educational challenges that face our school district. to the It is. however, an effective and well substantiated process to be used in creating school enviroiunents that ensure student success. Recognizing that restructuring is a process that is ongoing, the most critical factor in the process is that everyone at every level must understand the direction in which they are moving and be committed to the process. on the vision for This requires a constant sense of focus each individual school. Discussions and decisions must be based on the established vision of the school. Local schools must be empowered and supported as they proceed through this process. a To provide a guide for the restructuring initiative, these schools have \"bought into\" certain strategic imperatives that were developed by the Center for Leadership in School Reform. These imperatives provide a framework for schools to undertake the process of self-examination and self-direction. They help provide a sound philosophical base from which schools can begin the restructuring process. The strategic imperatives are listed below with specific activities and programs that have been developed and implemented in these schools that address these imperatives. SHARED VISION  Participation in the CLSR self-assessment process. Development of a shared vision at each school. Staff development activities which have served to create a common understanding of the issues and practices for effective junior high instruction. PARTICIPATORY LEADERSHIP Steering committee composed of teeun leaders, students, parents, and principals. This committee provides the process for collaborative decision making at the local level. 8New Futures Leadership training for principals.  Principals' collegial support group.  Leadership training for assistant principals.  Assistant Principals' collegial support group.  Leadership training for Teacher Team Leaders. The organization of teaching staff into teams, teams provide the structure for collaborative decision making for student-based teams. The Principal's encouragement of staff to have major decision making authority in the hiring of new staff members. MANAGEMENT BY RESULTS Participation in the Glendale Effective School Assessment Instrument. Student-centered learning focus. Staff development to support creation of teaching strategies that engage students in the learning process.  Team planning and discussions in which individual student needs are identified and addressed by the team. Exploration and implementation of alternative methods of discipline to reduce suspensions and expulsions (e.g. in-school suspension, lunch detention, student contracts, peer mediation). Increased parental involvement through tezun parent conferences, often adjusted to times that accommodate working parents. Specific staff development focused on increased teacher understanding of the student population. Incentive programs to reward student success. 9New Futures Staff development opportunities for teachers to listen to \"student perceptions\" of schools and teaching practices. Staff development opportunities for teachers to understand the high-risk student population. INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT Staff development activities in which teachers are provided information on new ideas and practices that have proven to bring about student success and are encouraged to try innovative techniques and strategies and evaluate them based on the results they produce for students. Development and training on authentic assessment strategies. Staff development on cross-curricular and interdisciplinary instructional strategies. CONTINUITY AND INSTITUTIONALIZATION  Continual reassessment toward established goals. CTA/LRSD/NF Joint Committee on School Restructuring. Collaboration between LRSD Board of Directors and New Futures Board of Directors.  Training for LRSD Board of Directors on restructuring issues.  New teacher orientation and team mentoring programs. FLEXIBILITY Stated commitment by building principals to permit changes in the rules, roles and relationships that govern the local schools to allow for growth, build capacity, and encourage innovation. 10New Futures SUPPORT  Local business support through mentoring prograuns. Use of the New Futures grant to obtain resources to support innovative teaching.  High quality staff development opportunities that are shaped in response to teacher requests. Case management service teams at each school which provide school-based, collaborative social service efforts for at-risk students.  Homework hot-line for homework assignments at Forest Heights Junior High. Community Outreach Program to increase public awareness of local school programs. Enhanced health services at each school. Specific programming for at-risk youth: - Teacher Advisor Program - After school programming - Summer Experiential Program - Truancy Review Committee - Mentoring programs - \"Family Net\" Support System - Community Study Center for students on long-term suspension Day-care for children of students. Emphasis on increased parental involvement. - TOUCH program for parents - Parent meetings with school staff held at community locations. - Flexible hours utilized on district parent conference days to accommodate working parents (e.g. FHJH parent conference schedule 12:00 - 7:00 p.m.)  Advisor/Advisee programming. dcMgre 11Page 56 - 68 Page 59 - 68 Page 95 Parent Involvement Public Relations Recruitment Private School received Page 131 -138 Parent Involvement Page 149-223 Incentive School LRSD Desegregation Plan Implementation Timeline MAR 3 1993 1 Area: Public Relations Office of Desegrsgaiion Monitoring Goal: Support the education mission and all of the goals and objectives of the Little Rock School District through improved community awareness, understanding and confidence in order to undergird the desegregation process. Plan Reference/Page Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Costs Responsibility Evaluation Page 59 Page 62 Page 59 Page 62 Page 67 Page 60 Page 67-11 Page 59 Page 62-2 Page 63 Page 215,1 Page 216, K Page 132,3b * *** Augument professional staff in Communications Department Use public relations programs to educate all publics to all aspects of the desegregation plan Bold type refers to wording in Desegregation Plan 1. Recruit volunteers/two interns from UALR, etc., journalism/radio-TV/public relations program for 1991-92 school year. Vicki Taylor (June-August. 1992) intern 2. Contract for consultant/outside services on project-by-project basis where feasible. Bromberg \u0026amp; Associates, etc., for calendar, brochures, etc. 3. Promote relationship with other public relations professionals for volunteer services and in-kind support to Department for overall planning and project-by-project needs. Chamber visits lABC-VIPS 4. Create public relations advisory council for Communications Department 1. Stress special features and District achievements of magnet, area, incentive, early childhood, community school, etc., programs. \"LRSD-Today\" video, premiere Incentive school video* Districtwide marketing brochure Incentive school brochure* Romine brochure Brochures for Bale, Cloverdale, Geyer Springs, Bale, Terry, Sept. '91 Ongoing Ongoing Oct. '92 Spring '92 Oct. '91 April '92 June '92 Feb. '92 Feb. '92 Fall '92 May '92 Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Oct. '92 Ongoing Ongoing -0- -0- Commun. Dept. Commun. Dept. Commun. Dept. Commun. Dept. Interns at LRSD Quality/Quantity of projects delivered, cost Active support Results from advice receivedArea: Public Relations LRSD Desegregation Plan Implementation Timeline 2 Goal: Support the education mission and all of the goals and objectives of the Little Rock School standing and confidence in order to undergird the desegregation process. District through improved community awareness, under- Plan Reference/Page Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Costs Responsibility Evaluation Page 62, 3a Page 215, II A Page 215,1 B Page 215,1 C Early childhood magnet brochure HIPPY program brochure Henderson brochure McClellan brochure Early registration brochure New curriculum brochure LRSD Cable 4 programming (Curriculum updates Forum report) Arnold Schwarizenneger visit to Rockefeller incentive Hillary Clinton visit to Rockefeller incentive school Ernst Green movie assistance PSAs Pat Lynch radio show weekly news items Weekly news release to local news media on upcoming school activities coverage Weekly school announcements on KURB radio by Craig O'Niell KEZQ/Coleman Dairy 30-second highlights of SO LRSD schools Public presentations Realtor's Guide Fall '91 June '92 Feb. '92 Feb. '92 Annually Jan. July '92 Fall '92 Nov. '92 Feb. '92 Spring '92 Dec. '92 March '92 March '92 for a. General information brochure on each of above programs Districtwide marketing brochure Incentive school brochure Romine brochure Brochures for Bale, Cloverdale, Geyer Springs, Bale, Terry, Woodruff HIPPY program brochure Henderson brochure Jan '93 Spring '92 Ongoing Sept. '92 Ongoing Oct. '92 Spring '92 Ongoing March '92 Aug. '91 Jan. '93 Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing June '92 Jan. '91 Commun. Dept CompletionArea\nPublic Relations LRSD Desegregation Plan Implementation Timeline 3 Goal\nSupport the education mission and all of the goals and objectives of the Little Rock School standing and confidence in order to undergird the desegregation process. District through improved community awareness, under- Plan Reference/Page Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Costs Responsibility Evaluation Page 132,3d Page 62, 3b Page 57, B3 Page 59 Page 62 Page 63-4 Page 215,1 E Page 57, B 3 Page 59 Page 62-3 Page 132,3b, c Page 215,1, E Page 57, B3 Page 62,3 ^McClellan brochure Early childhood magnet brochure New curriculum brochure b. General promotion printed piece about LRSD, including reasons for positive support \"LRSD-Today\" video, premiere c. Newsletter to parents d. Production of television news and feature programming on LRSD-TV, Cable 4 LRSD Cable 4 programming (Curricu lum updates, Forum report) e. Positive media coverage Pat Lynch radio show weekly news items Weekly news release to local news media on upcoming school activities for 'coverage Weekly school announcements on KURB radio by Craig O'Niel KEZQ/Coleman Dairy 30-second highlights of 50 LRSD schools Channel 11 Education Report feature stories f. General information (positive tone) statistical fact sheet about LRSD June '91 Oct. '91 May '92 Oct. '91 July '91 Aug. '91 Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Nov. '91 -0- Commun. Dept. Commun. Dept. Commun. Dept. Commun. Dept. Distribution Year-end survey Year-end survey Compile positive/ negative/neutral listing coverageLRSD Desegregation Plan Implementation Timeline 4 Area: Public Relations Goal: Support the education mission and all of the goals and objectives of the Little Rock School District through improved community awareness, understanding and confidence in order to undergird the desegregation process. Plan Reference/Page Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Costs Responsibility Evaluation Districtwide marketing brochure/ highlight fact sheet Page 62, 2 \u0026amp; 3 Page 216, G Page 62. 2 \u0026amp; 3 Page 216, F g. Promote registration open houses through various media for dissemination to Key Community People Television PSAs Radio PSAs Registration brochure to all student households, private school lists, PCSSD distribution, etc. District telephone hold message Fliers, posters Newspaper ads LRSD Cable 4 TV Pat Lynch weekly radio news Weekly news release to all news media Jan/Feb '92 Commun. Dept. \u0026amp; Student Assign. Attendance Numbers h. Produce a special issue of FOCUS for registration covering all pertinent programs and options. (Registration/ Marketing Brochures replaced FOCUS) Jan/Feb '92 Commun. Dept. \u0026amp; Student Assign. Distribution response numbers Page 62, 2 \u0026amp; 3 a Page 215, HA Registration brochure to ail student households, private school lists, PCSSD distribution, etc. 1. M-M, Act 609, deseg. transfers 2. 4-Yearold applications Jan/Feb '92 Jan/Feb 92 Commun. Dept. \u0026amp; Student Assign. Commun. Dept. \u0026amp; Student Assign. Response numbers Response numbersArea: Public Relations LRSD Desegregation Plan Implementation Timeline 5 Goal: Support the education mission and all of the goals and objectives of the Little Rock School District through improved community awareness understanding and confidence in order to undergird the desegregation process. Plan Reference/Page Objectives Strategies 3. Kindergarten registration 4. Open house dates Page 216K Page 62,2 \u0026amp; 3a Page 216 8, C, F, K, N, E Page 62,2 \u0026amp; 3 Page 62,3 \u0026amp; 3a Page 95 Page 216, M Page 132, B Page 132, d Beginning Date May/June '92 Completion Date Costs Responsibility Evaluation Jan/Feb '92 Commun. Dept \u0026amp; Student Assign. Response numbers i. Use various media to promote and distribute school-based registration information Television PSAs Radio PSAs Registration brochure to all student households, private school lists, PCSSD distribution, etc. District telephone hold message Fliers, posters Newspaper ads Bus ads Bus bench ads Billboards LRSD Cable 4 Pat Lynch weekly radio news Weekly news release on positive events to all news media j. Promote HIPPY HIPPY (Early Childhood) brochure k. Use various media to promote parent recruiter services \"LRSDToday\" video Incentive school video Districtwide marketing brochure PSAs (radio and TV) Registration brochure Public presentations Realtor's Guide July/Aug '91 Ongoing Ongoing Commun. Dept HIPPY Coord. Commun. Dept. Student Assign.LRSD Desegregation Plan Implementation Timeline 6 Area: Public Relations Goal: Support the education mission and all of the goals and objectives of the Little Rock School District through improved community awareness under- CtanHin/l on/i AAnfirlAnAA in _______  standing and confidence in order to undergird the desegregation process. Plan Reference/Page Objectives Strategies Page 62,3 \u0026amp; 3a Page 62, 3a Page 216 G Page 215 I, D, E, I Page 62, 3a Page 215,1, HA Page 62,3a Page 63, 4 \u0026amp; 4a Page 215 G I. Inform all students and patrons of co-curricular, extracurricular activities available ????????? m. Disseminate info, on and promote focused activities Weekly news release to media Media tog Coverage tracking sytstem/reports Promotion of each Mall events Workshops Open houses n. Brochure on each incentive school Brochure general information on entire incentive program p. Incentive school information hotline Set up with SAO Beginning Date Ongoing Ongoing Dec. '91 Dec. '91 Completion Date Jan. '91 Ongoing Costs Responsibility Commun. Dept. Principals, staff, PTA, Board, Educ. Programs, Schoolbased Director of extra-curricular activities Commun. Dept Staff Development Assoc. Supt., Deseg., Commun. Dept. Parent Recrurter, Commun. Dept. Evaluation Complete Number of calls Page 63, 6a \u0026amp; c Page 66, 9b, c, d 2. Address concerns over security and safety to reassure parents, public, staff and students over desirability of LRSD Pat Lynch Show Rotary Public presentations Supt. update Community forums District Dialogue with staff Speakers Bureau Evidence of improved confidence levelArea: Public Relations LRSD Desegregation Plan Implementation Timeline 7 Goal: Support the education mission and all of the goals and objectives of the Little Rock School District through improved community awareness, understanding and confidence in order to undergird the desegregation process. Plan Reference/Page Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Costs Responsibility Evaluation Page 66, 9 and 9d Page 66,10 Page 67,12 Page 65, e, f Page 66, 9 Page 66, 9d Page 65. e, f Page 66, 9 Page 65, e, f Page 66, 9 Page 65, e, f Page 66, 9 Page 65, e, f Page 66, 9 a. Public opinion/input survey on attitudes, expectations and values ExiX survey of former student's parents Community Forums Chamber Leadership Institute survey b. Provide communications support to LRSD Security Task Force Working plan Notify public Member of Task Force Supt. update News release Statements Position papers c. Conduct crisis communications train ing to key District personnel Crisis Plan Principal cluster training d. Update District written crisis communication plan e. Clarify media/communications dept, roles and procedures f. Update list of District and building level personnel who have roles in crisis procedure g. Obtain input from LRPD and Pulaski County Prosecuting Atty on appropriate comments, procedures, in event of inci dents, accidents, crisis July '91 Ongoing Oct. '91 July '91 July '91 Sept. '91 July91 Aug. '91 -0- 0- -0- -0- 0- -O- -O- Commun. Dept Commun. Dept. Commun. Dept. Commun. Dept. Commun. Dept. Commun. Dept. Security Evidence of improved confidence level Evidence of improved confidence level Workshop held Procedure written Procedure written List prepared Meet information obtainedLRSD Desegregation Plan Implementation Timeline 8 Area: Public Relations Goal: Support the education mission and all of the goals and objectives of the Little Rock School District through improved community awareness under- efanrISnzi onH in _x:______ standing and confidence in order to undergird the desegregation process. Plan Reference/Page Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Costs Responsibility Evaluation h. Develop news articles periodically on security/safety status News releases Statements Promote broad contact with staff and parents to highlight accomplishment i of students, staff and volunteers 1. Superintendent breakfast meetings monthly with community leaders and patrons Rotary 2. Superintendent/executive staff 30-min weekly news briefing on LRSD-TV, Executive Staff Cable 4 to general public Page 65, 8a-8f, Page 66, 9d 3. Employee briefing and Q \u0026amp; A call-in program monthly on Cable 4, LRSD-TV Survey results Page 62, 3 \u0026amp; 3a Page 63, 6a Page 215 I Page 67,12 4. Operation Involvement program Superintendent monthly employee meeting with administrative/executive staff District Dialogue Principal Roundtable 5. Provide annual calendar information folder to each student household 6. Present citations to reward staff, students and community for achievements during monthly televised board meetings Superintendent's citations Nov. '91 Aug. 91 Ongoing Ongoing Annually -0- Superintendent Commun. Dept. Commun. Dept. Commun. Dept. Oelivered Number presentedLRSD Desegregation Plan Implementation Timeline 5 Area: Public Relations Goal: Support the education mission and all of the goals and objectives of the Little Rock School District through improved community awareness, understanding and confidence in order to undergird the desegregation process. Plan Reference/Page Objectives Strategies Page 59 Page 62, 3 \u0026amp; 3a 7. Provide community and patrons an annual report update on the state of LRSD Beginning Date Aug. 91 Completion Date Annually Costs Responsibility Evaluation Commun. Dept. Distributed Annual report Page 215,1 Page 216, K Page 215 I Devise innovative ways to to communicate with hard-to-reach publics 1. Make better use of non-traditional communications media and target audiences more specifically on topics such as incentive schools, magnets, safety issues, etc. LRSD Today\" Mortimer Swartzenager Hillary Clinton Craig ONeill weekly school feature Page 63 - 4 a. Develop monthly articles for minority media Oct. '91 Monthly $2,000 Commun. Dept. Executive Staff Articles published Weekly release to State Press PSAs to minority stations Black access channel b. Develop a series of 2-minute information modules for use on radio stations, especially KLRE Sept. '91 Commun. Dept. Page 63 - 4 c. Develop and promote programming on LRSD-TV, Cable 4 Oct. '91 Ongoing Commun. Dept. Increased viewership Curriculum update, 4-part seriesArea: Public Relations LRSD Desegregation Plan Implementation Timeline 10 Goal: Support the education mission and all of the goals and objectives of the Little Rock School District through improved community awareness, understanding and confidence in order to undergird the desegregation process.  Plan Reference/Page Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Page 63, 4,4a Page 215 I Page 63 - 4 Page 216 N Page 63-4 Page215 1, C\u0026amp;D Page 216, B, C d. Record and periodically update taped information to play on District telephone system when caller must be placed on hold Special incentive message tape, registration message tape e. Implement speakers bureau of LRSD executive staff for Central Arkansas circuit Make public presentations f. Develop parent involvement calendar to distribute to community agencies g. Information booths at malls Incentive mall booth h. Place highlight sheets/flyers on incentive programs at local businesses i. Information \"hotline for incentive schools j. Use billboards \u0026amp; bus bench ads to promote incentive schools (strategically placed) Advertisement on billboards, bus, bench '92 LRSD Calendar Show \"LRSD Today\" Show Incentive video June '91 Sept. '91 Oct. 91 Jan. '92 March '91 March '91 Oct. '91 Completion Date Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Annually Annually Ongoing Costs $100 -0- -0- $700 Responsibility Commun. Dept. Commun. Dept. VIPS, HIPPY. PTA Commun. Dept. Parent Recruiters, Commun. Dept. Parent Recruiters, Commun. Dept. Parent Recruiters, Commun. Dept. Commun. Dept. Evaluation Caller response survey # speeches requested, delivered Distributed Completed Enrollment figuresLRSD Desegregation Plan Implementation Timeline 11 Area: Public Relations Goal: Support the education mission and all of the goals and objectives of the Little Rock School District through improved community av/areness, understanding and confidence in order to undergird the desegregation process. Plan Reference/Page Objectives Strategies Beginning Date k. Use LRSD-TV to promote incentive schools Cable 4 calendar 2. Establish a systematic approach to effective communications between home and school to teach parents system for advancing support and concern for schools a. Teach parents the system for advancing support and concern for the school through programming on LRSD-TV Oct. '91 March '92 Page 132 B, 3, b Page 63,5 Page 133, 111 A Develop a school communication network to assure accurate, ongoing information flow 1. Design a process to assist the building leader in each school to monitor and address public needs at each building. Oct. '91 Completion Date Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Annually Costs -0- $5000 $12,500 Responsibility Commun. Dept. VIPS Commun. Dept. Commun. Dept. Evaluation Enrollment figures Survey Established and functioning Event Notification Form Weekly Release Pat Lynch Page 63 * 5a ,b, c, d, e a. Conduct public relations training Principal cluster meetings Oct. '91 Oct. '91 Ongoing Ongoing Commun. Dept. Commun. Dept. Established and functioning Established and functioning b. Conduct crisis communications training Principal cluster meetings Oct. '91 Ongoing Commun. Dept. Established and functioning c. Conduct media relations training principal cluster meetingsLRSD Desegregation Plan Implementation Timeline 12 Area: Public Relations Goal: Support the education mission and all of the goals and objectives of the Little Rock School District through improved community awareness, understanding and confidence in order to undergird the desegregation process. Plan Reference/Page Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Costs Responsibility Evaluation Page 133 III, A d. Establish and maintain regular, routine two-way communications between the school communication coordinators and the Communications Department on District activities , goals and school concerns Sept. '91 Ongoing Commun. Dept Established and functioning district dialogues e. Develop articles from schools for use in various media (radio, TV and print) for broad community outreach. Ongoing Ongoing Commun. Dept. Established and functioning Weekly Releases Pat Lynch Channel 11 TV spots feature stories Page 95 Page 215 I, II Page 132, B, 3a f. Work with representatives of PTA and staff in each building to help them improve image and produce necessary support materials for communication network Sept. '91 Ongoing Commun. Dept. Established and functioning School brochures, i.e, Terry, etc. Event notification form Page 57 Ensure that outreach to the community is broad and consistent 1. Use various, appropriate media to reach specific audiences on programs general District information Ongoing Established and functioning a. District-wide video presentation \"LRSD Today\" Incentive Video Dec. '91 $5000 Commun. DeptArea: Public Relations LRSD Desegregation Plan Implementation Timeline 13 Goal: Support the education mission and all of the goals and objectives of the Little Rock School District through improved community awareness, understanding and confidence in order to undergird the desegregation process. Plan Reference/Page Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Page 63, 6a Page 64, 6b Page 215 I Page 63, 6a Page 62, 3 Page 63, 6a Page 64,7 Page 215, E Page 63, 6a Page 216, C Page 65 Page 216, N Page 67,11 a Page 133, II, 3 Page 132, D b. Catalog profiling every school and their boundaries for use by Realtors, and business recruiters Realtors Guide c. Evening meetings by superintendent with community representatives Community Forums d. Minority media articles/radio coverage Weekly release to media Pat Lynch radio show Craig O'Neill Radio PSAs e. Radio information segments to targeted audiences Craig O'Neill KEZQ features Pat Lynch Radio PSAs f. Strategically placed bus bench and billboard messages g. Use of District speakers bureau including staff and parent members speaking engagements 2. Support organization of an independent non-profit Positive Parents of Little Rock organization supported by PTA, Chamber of Commerce, business interest to promote the successes in the district Nov. '91 Sept. '91 Monthly Sept '91 Aug. '91 Fall '91 Fall '91 Completion Date Nov. '91 Monthly Ongoing Ongoing Costs -0- $700 -0- Responsibility Commun. Dept. Commun. Dept. Superintendent Commun. Dept. Executive Staff Commun. Dept. Commun. Dept. Parent Recruiters Student Assign. Commun. Dept. Parent Recruiters, PTA Superintendent, PTA, Chamber of Commerce, Evaluation Established and functioningLRSD Desegregation Plan Implementation Timeline 14 Area: Public Relations Goal: Support the education mission and all of the goals and objectives of the Little Rock School District through improved community awareness, understanding and confidence in order to undergird the desegregation process. Plan Reference/Page Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Costs Responsibility Evaluation Page 64-7 Page 67 - 2 Page 64 - 7 Page 67-12 a. Recognize staff through appreciation days so they will know they are valued by District Teacher/Staff Appreciation Day during National Education Week Superintendent's Citation March '92 Annually PPLR b. Recognize student achievement Pat Lynch Show Weekly news releases Superintendent's Citations March '92 Annually PPLR 1. Letter sweater program 2. Honor former graduates Page 64 - 6b 3. Provide accurate, factual information about LRSD to patrons, persons inquiring about enrollments Ongoing Ongoing PPLR Registration brochure Marketing brochure Ad in Arkansas Times Newcomers Guide Bus, Bus Bench, billboards Page 64, 6b Page 95 4. Provide minigrants to schools for public image improvement programs 5. Develop school profile book for Realtors Realtor's Guide Marketing brochure \"LRSD Today\" Fall '92 Nov. '92 Annually Annually PPLR PPLRLRSD Desegregation Plan Implementation Timeline 15 Area: Public Relations Goal: Support the education mission and all of the goals and objectives of the Little Rock School District through improved community awareness, understanding and confidence in order to undergird the desegregation process. Plan Reference/Page Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Costs Responsibility Evaluation Page 65 a Ensure that staff has adequate information with which it can support District-wide goals and objectives, priority issues. 1. Formalize an internal communications program using various media and recognition activities to assure staff they are all team members Fall '91 Commun. Dept. District Dialogue Page 64 - 8 Page 66, 9d a. Newsletter b. Monthly LRSD-TV, Cable 4, briefing and call-in program 0. Implementation of Operation Involvement program to provide mechanism for ongoing face-to-face flow and feedback/ staff and community input Fall '91 Fall '91 Fall '91 Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Commun, Dept. Commun. Dept. Superintendent Executive Staff Commun. Dept. Survey Survey Survey District Dialogue Community Forum Budget Committee Page 60 Page 67-11 Strengthen the link with the business community 1. See P.6 Positive Parents Organization Fall '91 Ongoing -0- Commun. Dept. Page 57D Page 67 -11 a Page 132, D Pago 216 I Page 64-7 2. Work with Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce Education Committee to maintain link with it and interests of NLRSD and PCSSD. Chamber of Commerce Leadership Institute Visits A. Teacher Appreciation National Education Week Superintendents Citation Fall '91 Annually 0- Commun. Dept. CompletedLRSD Desegregation Plan Implementation Timeline 16 Area: Public Relations Goal: Support the education mission and all of the goals and objectives of the Little Rock School District through improved community awareness, understanding and confidence in order to undergird the desegregation process. Plan Reference/Page Objectives Strategies B. Excellence in Education Awards Beginning Date Spring '92 Completion Date Annually -0- Costs Responsibility Evaluation Page 67-12 Maintain ongoing awareness of public, student and staff needs and values to provide needed services and information 1. Conduct periodic community surveys and focus groups \"dose of reality\" on general and specific issues (i.e., incentive and safety) Ongoing 0- Commun. Dept. Commun. Dept. Eval. \u0026amp; Planning Completed Survey, focus group completed Chamber of Commerce Tour Survey Community Forums Superintendent Update Exit Survey Page 64 - 8 Page 66. 9d 2. Conduct periodic staff surveys on general and specific issues Ongoing Commun. Dept. Eval. \u0026amp; Planning Survey, focus group completed District Dialogue Page 67-12 Page 95 3. Conduct periodic student surveys and focus groups on general and specific issues. Ongoing Commun. Dept. Eval. \u0026amp; Planning Exit Survey (VIPS assisted) Chamber of Commerce Survey Page 65 f Provide review, consultation and planning services on public relations/ communications activities undertaken by all program areas, departments of work 1. Periodically confer with and review materials from Departments or program directors with reference to their individual public relations/communica tions plans and needs Ongoing Commun. Dept. Number of meetings, results of recommendations usedLRSD Desegregation Plan Implementation Timeline 17 Area: Public Relations Goal. Support the education mission and all of the goals and objectives of the Little Rock School District through improved community awareness, understanding and confidence in order to undergird the desegregation process. Plan Reference/Page Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Costs Responsibility Evaluation Page 56, A2 2. Provide workshops, seminars as needed to assist with improved and coordinated techniques Ongoing Commun. Dept. Number shops/ seminars,results of improved techniques Principal clusters Incentive Workshops Page 62, 2,3a Page 63, 5 Page 63, 6a Page 215 I 3. Schedule into District-wide media apropriate information to promote and communicate about individual programs Ongoing Commun. Dept. Completed PSA Incentive \"hold\" message News releases Incentive workshop bus, bench, billboards HIPPY brochure 4-year old brochure New curriculum brochure\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_969","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":["1993-01/1993-03"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational 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/969"],"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_1435","title":"Report: ''Status Report: Little Rock School District's McClellan High School, Business/Communications Magnet Program,'' Office of Desegregation Monitoring, United States District Court, Little Rock, Arkansas","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dc_date":["1992-10-08"],"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","McClellan Magnet High School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational innovations","Educational statistics","School management and organization","School enrollment","Magnet schools","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["Report: ''Status Report: Little Rock School District's McClellan High School, Business/Communications Magnet Program,'' Office of Desegregation Monitoring, United States District Court, Little Rock, Arkansas"],"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/1435"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":["72 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1543","title":"Court filings concerning Joshua Intervenors legal fees, Stephens Elementary School plan, and court orders","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":["1992-09"],"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--Pulaski County","Little Rock School District","Stephens Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Economic aspects","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School improvement programs","School employees","School facilities","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning Joshua Intervenors legal fees, Stephens Elementary School plan, and court orders"],"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/1543"],"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_913","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":["1992-09/1992-12"],"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","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School discipline","School employees","School enrollment","School facilities","School improvement programs","Student assistance programs","Gifted persons","Student activities"],"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/913"],"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_1564","title":"Court filings concerning Little Rock School District integration and finance, and North Little Rock School District educational law","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":["1992-08"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Finance","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","Student assistance programs","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning Little Rock School District integration and finance, and North Little Rock School District educational law"],"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/1564"],"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":["275 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1394","title":"Report: ''Monitoring Report on the 1991-92 Little Rock School District Four-Year-Old Program,'' Office of Desegregation Monitoring, United States District Court, Little Rock, Ark.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dc_date":["1992-07-31"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","School management and organization","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["Report: ''Monitoring Report on the 1991-92 Little Rock School District Four-Year-Old Program,'' Office of Desegregation Monitoring, United States District Court, Little Rock, Ark."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1394"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":["38 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null}],"pages":{"current_page":11,"next_page":12,"prev_page":10,"total_pages":15,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":120,"total_count":178,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":178}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":36},{"value":"United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)","hits":33},{"value":"Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","hits":11},{"value":"Arkansas Association of Educational Administrators","hits":4},{"value":"Arkansas. Department of Education","hits":4},{"value":"United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit","hits":4},{"value":"North Little Rock School District","hits":3},{"value":"Quality Education and Management Associates","hits":2},{"value":"Ross, Steven M.","hits":2},{"value":"Walker, John W.","hits":2},{"value":"Area School Advisory Committee","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"Student assistance programs","hits":178},{"value":"Education--Arkansas","hits":176},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","hits":144},{"value":"School improvement programs","hits":139},{"value":"Education--Evaluation","hits":125},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":107},{"value":"Educational law and legislation","hits":103},{"value":"School management and organization","hits":98},{"value":"Educational statistics","hits":90},{"value":"Educational planning","hits":85},{"value":"School employees","hits":81}],"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":176},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":176},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":174},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":170},{"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, Missouri, 38.25031, -92.50046","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Arkansas","hits":176},{"value":"Connecticut","hits":1},{"value":"Missouri","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1995","hits":34},{"value":"1994","hits":33},{"value":"1997","hits":31},{"value":"1992","hits":30},{"value":"1996","hits":29},{"value":"1993","hits":28},{"value":"1999","hits":28},{"value":"1998","hits":23},{"value":"2000","hits":22},{"value":"2001","hits":19},{"value":"1989","hits":18},{"value":"1991","hits":17},{"value":"1990","hits":14},{"value":"2003","hits":14},{"value":"2002","hits":10},{"value":"2004","hits":10},{"value":"2005","hits":8},{"value":"2006","hits":8},{"value":"2008","hits":6},{"value":"1984","hits":5},{"value":"1986","hits":4},{"value":"1987","hits":4},{"value":"1988","hits":4},{"value":"2007","hits":4},{"value":"1974","hits":3},{"value":"1975","hits":3},{"value":"1976","hits":3},{"value":"1977","hits":3},{"value":"1978","hits":3},{"value":"1979","hits":3},{"value":"1980","hits":3},{"value":"1981","hits":3},{"value":"1982","hits":3},{"value":"1983","hits":3},{"value":"1985","hits":3},{"value":"2009","hits":3},{"value":"2010","hits":3},{"value":"1950","hits":2},{"value":"1951","hits":2},{"value":"1952","hits":2},{"value":"1953","hits":2},{"value":"1954","hits":2},{"value":"1955","hits":2},{"value":"1956","hits":2},{"value":"1957","hits":2},{"value":"1958","hits":2},{"value":"1959","hits":2},{"value":"1960","hits":2},{"value":"1961","hits":2},{"value":"1962","hits":2},{"value":"1963","hits":2},{"value":"1964","hits":2},{"value":"1965","hits":2},{"value":"1966","hits":2},{"value":"1967","hits":2},{"value":"1968","hits":2},{"value":"1969","hits":2},{"value":"1970","hits":2},{"value":"1971","hits":2},{"value":"1972","hits":2},{"value":"1973","hits":2},{"value":"2011","hits":2},{"value":"2012","hits":2},{"value":"2013","hits":2},{"value":"2014","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"1950","max":"2014","count":498,"missing":0},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":80},{"value":"reports","hits":45},{"value":"legal documents","hits":23},{"value":"judicial records","hits":20},{"value":"handbooks","hits":11},{"value":"prints (visual works)","hits":2},{"value":"agendas (administrative records)","hits":1},{"value":"booklets","hits":1},{"value":"books","hits":1},{"value":"brochures","hits":1},{"value":"budgets","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":178}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Office of Desegregation Management","hits":177}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":178}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":177},{"value":"Collection","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":178}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}