{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1495","title":"\"Strategic Plan Follow Up,\" 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":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["2003-01-29"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Education--Standards","Educational innovations","Educational law and legislation","School enrollment","School management and organization","School improvement programs","School integration","Student activities","Student assistance programs","Parents","School administrators"],"dcterms_title":["\"Strategic Plan Follow Up,\" 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/1495"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["46 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1489","title":"\"Strategic Planning 2nd Session,\" 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":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["2003/2008"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Education--Standards","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational innovations","School enrollment","School management and organization","School improvement programs","School integration","Student activities","Student assistance programs","Parents","School employees"],"dcterms_title":["\"Strategic Planning 2nd Session,\" 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/1489"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["121 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1563","title":"\"Third-Party Evaluation of the Elementary Level Summer School Program,'' Quality Education and Management Associates, Inc., 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":["Quality Education and Management Associates"],"dc_date":["2003-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Education, Elementary","Educational statistics","Educational innovations","School management and organization","Summer schools","Student assistance programs","School improvement programs","Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_title":["\"Third-Party Evaluation of the Elementary Level Summer School Program,'' Quality Education and Management Associates, Inc., 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/1563"],"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":["44 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1538","title":"\"Third-Party Evaluation of the Lyceum Scholars Program,'' Quality Education and Management Associates, Inc., 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":["Quality Education and Management Associates"],"dc_date":["2003-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Educational innovations","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","School management and organization","School integration","Student assistance programs","Philander Smith College","Education, Secondary","Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_title":["\"Third-Party Evaluation of the Lyceum Scholars Program,'' Quality Education and Management Associates, Inc., 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/1538"],"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":["66 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1565","title":"\"Third-Party Review of the Campus Leadership Teams Evaluation in 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":["Ross, Steven M."],"dc_date":["2003-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational innovations","Educational statistics","Little Rock School District","School management and organization","School employees","School improvement programs","School integration","Student assistance programs","Student activities"],"dcterms_title":["\"Third-Party Review of the Campus Leadership Teams Evaluation in 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/1565"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["45 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1432","title":"Program correspondence and reports","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":["2002-10/2004-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Educational planning","School enrollment","School improvement programs","School integration","School management and organization","Student assistance programs","Educational innovations"],"dcterms_title":["Program correspondence and reports"],"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/1432"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["54 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1723","title":"Court filings: District Court, memorandum brief in support of motion for an immediate declaration of unitary status; District Court, exhibits one through three from memorandum brief","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":["2002-03-15"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Joshua Intervenors","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Knight Intervenors","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education and state","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School districts","School management and organization","School integration","Educational statistics","School employees","Student assistance programs","Universities and colleges","School improvement programs","Education--Curricula","Education--Finance"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, memorandum brief in support of motion for an immediate declaration of unitary status; District Court, exhibits one through three from memorandum brief"],"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/1723"],"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":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["20 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Wright, Susan Webber, 1948-"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. LR-C-82-866 RECEIVED PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MAR 1 5 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN IMMEDIATE DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS I. Introduction. On April 10, 1998, this Court granted the joint motion of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") and the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") and approved the LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"). See Docket Nos. 3107, 3136 and 3144. The Revised Plan expired by its own terms on May 31, 2001, the last day of classes for the 2000- 01 school year. See Revised Plan 9. The LRSD moves for an immediate declaration of unitary status and an end to court supervision based on its substantial compliance with the Revised Plan in accordance with Revised Plan  11. Section 11 of the Revised Plan provided: At the conclusion of the 2000-01 school year, the district court shall enter an order releasing LRSD from court supervision and finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations provided that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in this Revised Plan. In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a report on March 15, 2001 indicating the state ofLRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. Any party challenging LRSD's compliance bears the burden of proof. Ifno party challenges LRSD's compliance, the abovedescribed order shall be entered without further proceedings. The LRSD reported on March 15, 2001, that it had substantially complied with the Revised Plan. See Docket No. 3410. Joshua challenged the LRSD's compliance with a limited number of Revised Plan sections. See Docket No. 3447. Joshua bears the burden of proving that the LRSD I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I failed to substantially comply with those Revised Plan sections. See Revised Plan  11. Unitary status should be granted if the Court finds either that the LRSD complied with those Revised Plan sections challenged by Joshua or that the LRSD's noncompliance does not cast doubt on the District's intent to comply with the Constitution absent court supervision. See Cody v. Hillard, 139 F.3d 1197, 1199 (8th Cir. 1998). In proceedings before the Honorable Susan Webber Wright, the Court heard five and onehalf days of testimony and received 201 exhibits on the Revised Plan sections covering academic achievement( 2.7), program assessment( 2.7.1) and student discipline( 2.5 - 2.5.4). The LRSD should be granted unitary status with regard to these Revised Plan sections based on the record of those proceedings. Joshua failed to come forward with any evidence that the LRSD failed to comply with those sections or that would cast doubt on the LRSD's intent to comply with the Constitution absent court supervision. Additionally, the LRSD should be granted summary judgment as to all remaining Revised Plan sections with respect to which Joshua challenged the LRSD's compliance. The discovery process revealed that Joshua has no evidence that would cast doubt on the LRSD's intent to comply with the Constitution in the future absent court supervision. As a result, there are no material factual disputes, and additional hearings are unnecessary. Cody. 139 F.3d at 1200 (\"They do not cite any cases stating that a hearing is a necessary prerequisite to terminating supervision of a decree . . . . At any rate, the necessity of a hearing depends on whether there are disputed factual issues.\"). Finally, the LRSD should be granted unitary status with regard to those Revised Plan sections to which no party filed a timely challenge to the LRSD's compliance. See Revised Plan 11. 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II. Discussion. A. Background. 1. 1954 Through 1972. On May 20, 1954, three days after the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), the LRSD released a public statement declaring its intent to comply with the Constitution and to integrate the LRSD. See Aaron v. Cooper, 156 F. Supp. 220, 222-23 (E.D. Ark. 1957). The first LRSD desegregation plan was adopted in 1956 and was approved by the Eighth Circuit in 1957. See Cooper v. Aaron, 243 F.2d 361 (8th Cir. 1957). That plan called for gradual desegregation based on geographic attendance zones and was to be fully implemented by 1963. Id. Governor Orval Faubus' attempt to block implementation of this plan resulted in the infamous \"crisis\" at Central High School in 1957. However, as noted by the Supreme Court in Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 9 (1958), \"the Governor's action had not been requested by the school authorities, and was entirely unheralded.\" In 1966, the Eighth Circuit approved, with two minor modifications, a \"freedom of choice\" desegregation plan for the LRSD. See Clark v. Little Rock School District, 369 F.2d 661 (8th Cir. 1966). The Eighth Circuit noted the LRSD's good faith commitment to desegregation: Many of the problems encountered are not of the Board's making or choosing and, we believe, the Board has evidenced a genuine desire to follow the commands of the Brown case to ultimately place into effect a non-racially operated school system. Id., at 666. The freedom of choice plan was in effect through the 1968-69 school year. In 1968, the Supreme Court held that \"freedom of choice\" plans, standing alone, failed to satisfy the constitutional obligation of school districts formerly segregated by law. See Green v. County Sch. Bd. ofNew Kent County. 391 U.S. 430, 439-440 (1968). Accordingly, the LRSD developed a new desegregation plan based on geographic attendance zones for the 1969-70 school year. See Clark v. Little Rock School District, 426 F.2d 1035 (8th Cir. 1970). Due to segregated housing patterns which existed in Little Rock at that time, however, a number 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I of racially identifiable schools remained under this plan, and the Eighth Circuit found this plan to be \"constitutionally infirm.\" Clark, 426 F.2d at 1044. The LRSD began massive crosstown busing of students to achieve racial balance in grades 6 through 12 in the 1971-72 school year. See Clark v. Little Rock School District, 328 F. Supp. 1205, 1209 and 1214 (E.D. Ark. 1971). Racial balance was achieved in grades 4 and 5 by means of crosstown busing in the 1972-73 school year. See Clark v. Little Rock School District, 465 F.2d. 1044, 1046 (8th Cir. 1972). By the 1973-74 school year, all LRSD schools and all LRSD grade levels were racially balanced. See Exhibit 1 attached, Memorandum and Order filed July 9, 1982, p. 16. 2. 1973 Through 1982. The LRSD maintained almost perfect racial balance in its schools from 1973 through 1982 with voluntary periodic adjustment of attendance zones. The district court in Clark noted that \"the Little Rock School District has operated in compliance with court decrees for nine years as a completely unitary desegregated school system . . . . \" See Exhibit 1, p. 16. Despite nine years of successful desegregation, however, the LRSD was on its way to becoming a one race school district. In the fall of 1971, the LRSD was 42% black. In each year from 1971 through 1981, the number of black students increased while the number of white students decreased. See Exhibit 2 attached, Austin Study, p. 17. In the fall of 1981, 76% of elementary students were black and 55% of high school students were black. See Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 584 F. Supp. 328,335 (E.D. Ark. 1984)(\"LRSD v. PCSSD\"). If existing trends continued, it was expected that 90% of the students entering the first grade in the LRSD in the fall of 1989 would be black. See Exhibit 2, p. 19; see also LRSD v. PCSSD, 584 F. Supp. 328, 351 (E.D. Ark. 1984)(\"The Little Rock School District in spite of its good faith efforts to comply with orders of this court and to establish a unitary school system will become a segregated all-black district in a few years if present trends continue, which appears highly likely.\"). 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I In early 1981, the LRSD commissioned a study of desegregation in the LRSD by the Desegregation Assistance Team from Stephen F. Austin University (the \"Austin Study\"). The Austin Study concluded that the demographic trends which accounted for the decrease in white enrollment in the LRSD were \"long-term\" and \"deeply rooted,\" and as a result, \"[t]hey are not likely to be fundamentally altered by any change in the desegregation plan within the city .... The changes are rooted in migration patterns, housing segregation practices, changing birth rates, factors that determine the location of new private market housing, and decisions on the location of new subsidized housing.\" Exhibit 2, p. 28. The \"fundamental\" problem, according to the study, \"has been the school board's inability to expand its boundaries in pace with a very rapidly expanding urban area.\" Exhibit 2, p. 28. Thus, the Austin Study concluded that the LRSD had done all it could do within its borders to desegregate its schools and that, if the LRSD's accomplishments were not to be undone by the \"vast forces of demographic change,\" the LRSD would have to seek an interdistrict remedy. See Exhibit 2, p. 28. As an initial step to stem the tide of white flight, the LRSD adopted the Partial K-6 Plan on April 26, 1982. Under this plan, the LRSD created twelve K-6 neighborhood schools and retained fourteen paired schools with grades K-3 at one site and grades 4-6 at another. Eight of the 12 neighborhood schools were racially balanced and four were virtually all black. The plan converted Booker from a junior high school to an intermediate school. Finally, the Partial K-6 Plan provided for the creation of a magnet school west of University Avenue and required that a committee be appointed to ensure that the four virtually all black schools would be treated equally. See Clark v. Little Rock School District, 705 F.2d 265 (8th Cir. 1983). The Partial K-6 Plan was approved by the Eighth Circuit in 1983. Clark, 705 F.2d at 272. 3. Interdistrict Relief. In late 1982, the LRSD filed the present case against the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\"), the North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") and the State of Arkansas seeking consolidation of the three school districts into one metropolitan school district and state 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I funding to assist in eliminating any remaining vestiges of segregation in the three school districts. On April 13, 1984, the Honorable Henry Woods found the PCSSD, the NLRSD and the State of Arkansas liable for interdistrict constitutional violations. LRSD v. PCSSD, 584 F. Supp. at 328. Judge Woods ordered consolidation of the three districts in a memorandum opinion dated November 19, 1984. LRSD v. PCSSD, 597 F. Supp. 1220 (E.D. Ark. 1984). The Eighth Circuit reversed Judge Woods' consolidation order a year later, finding consolidation too drastic a remedy. LRSD v. PCSSD, 778 F.2d 404 (8th Cir. 1985). In reversing, the Eighth Circuit ordered as part of a comprehensive interdistrict remedy that each district \"revise its attendance zones so that each school will reasonably reflect the racial composition of its district\" and permitted a variance of plus or minus 25% of the minority race. Id., 778 F.2d at 435. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 839 F.2d 1296, 1305 (8th Cir. 1988). The Eighth Circuit also ordered the adjustment of district boundaries, making the LRSD coterminous with the City of Little Rock. LRSD v. PCSSD, 778 F.2d at 435. Recognizing the need for the LRSD to grow with the City of Little Rock, Judge Woods interpreted the Eighth Circuit's order to require the automatic expansion of the LRSD upon expansion of the City of Little Rock. Unfortunately, the Eighth Circuit disagreed with Judge Woods' interpretation and effectively eliminated further boundary changes as a means to desegregating the LRSD. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 805 F.2d 815, 816 (8th Cir. 1986). The LRSD's \"controlled choice\" desegregation plan was approved by Judge Woods on February 27, 1987. Docket No. 739. Under this plan, the LRSD was divided into two attendance zones of approximately equal racial balance. Students were assigned to schools so that each grade at each school reflected the racial balance within that attendance zone. After a student was assigned to a particular school, the student's parents could request reassignment to another school within their attendance zone. That request would be granted so long as each school would remain within a range of plus or minus one-eighth of the black student population at the school. Additionally, the plan provided for eight magnet schools (four elementary, two 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I junior high and two high schools) with seats reserved for students of each of the three Pulaski County school districts. The target racial composition of the magnet schools was 50%-50%. A Magnet Review Committee was established with representatives of each of the three districts. Joshua and the Knight Intervenors were each granted a non-voting member on the committee. This plan was implemented beginning with the 1987-88 school year. See Docket No. 670. The controlled choice plan resulted in many central and east Little Rock schools having fewer than fifty white students. The LRSD submitted a new desegregation plan for the 1988-89 year which was approved by Judge Woods. The 1988-89 school year was to be a \"stabilizing year\" to allow the LRSD to carefully plan for the 1989-90 school year and beyond. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 716 F. Supp. 1162, 1188 (E.D. Ark. 1989). Negotiations related to the development of a long-term desegregation plan for the LRSD culminated in a settlement agreement in March of 1989 (the \"Settlement Agreement\").1 The Settlement Agreement also included desegregation plans for the PCSSD and the NLRSD, as well as an interdistrict desegregation plan. 4. 1989 Settlement Agreement. The LRSD's 1989 desegregation plan reflected the fact that the LRSD was, and had been for some time, unitary with regard to student assignments, faculty and staff. See Exhibit 1, p. 18. While these areas had been the focus of past desegregation plans, the 227-page 1989 plan contained only a six-page section on student assignments and no separate section specifically dedicated to the hiring and assignment of faculty and staff. The 1989 desegregation plan focused instead on secondary desegregation issues, such as improving African-American academic achievement. The Settlement Agreement was initially rejected by Judge Woods who ordered implementation of a more comprehensive plan known as the Tri-District Plan. The parties appealed, and the Settlement Agreement as originally written was approved by the Eighth Circuit 1 A revised Settlement Agreement was agreed to by the parties on September 28, 1989. None of the revisions are relevant to this motion. \"Settlement Agreement\" as used hereinafter shall refer to the agreement as revised September 28, 1989. 7 I I in December of 1990. LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1374 (8th Cir. 1990). In approving the Settlement Agreement, the Eighth Circuit recognized that, \"It may be necessary, in order to make I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I a smooth transition, for the details of the settlement plans to be adjusted to produce an appropriate fit between their future application and existing circumstances.\" Id., at 1394. Judge Woods recused following the Eighth Circuit's December 1990 decision, and the case was reassigned to the Honorable Susan Webber Wright. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 740 F.Supp. 632 (E.D. Ark. 1990). The parties agreed to modifications to the desegregation plans and submitted them to Judge Wright for approval. On June 21, 1991, Judge Wright rejected the modifications, finding that they exceeded the authority granted by the Eighth Circuit. LRSD v. PCSSD, 769 F. Supp. 1483 (E.D. Ark. 1991). The parties appealed, and on November 14, 1991, the Eighth Circuit vacated Judge Wright's opinion and remanded for consideration of the proposed modifications based on the analysis set forth in its opinion. Appeal ofLRSD, 949 F.2d 253 (8th Cir. 1991). On May 1, 1992, Judge Wright issued an order approving in part and rejecting in part the revised desegregation plans. No appeal was taken. 5. Implementation of the 1989 Plan. The Settlement Agreement required the LRSD to implement its 1989 desegregation plan for six years.2 The parties agreed, in effect, that implementation of the plan would eliminate to the extent practicable any remaining vestiges of discrimination resulting from the interdistrict constitutional violations by the defendants. See Settlement Agreement, p. 1. Because the Tri-District Plan was substantially similar to, but more comprehensive than, the LRSD's 1989 desegregation plan, the LRSD considered implementation of the Tri-District Plan during the 2The six-year term of the plan was one of the primary reasons that the Settlement Agreement was rejected by Judge Woods. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 716 F. Supp. at 1167 (\"LRSD admits that the double funding is guaranteed for only six years, but contends that it 'retains its commitment to provide compensatory and enhancement funding to any school which might remain racially identifiable.' That commitment does not appear in the plan.\"). The LRSD argued to Judge Woods that its six-year plan could be successful: \"We think a six-year plan can succeed where a one-year plan has failed. There are several components in place to help us assure the Court that a six-year plan can succeed.\" Tr. May 30, 1989, p. 13. 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1990-91 school year as the first year of implementation of its six-year desegregation plan. During the 1995-96 school year, the LRSD conducted an audit of its desegregation obligations and found that it had substantially and in good faith complied with 96% of its desegregation obligations. See Exhibit 3 attached, p. 1. Accordingly, on May 17, 1996, the LRSD moved for a declaration of unitary status and an end to federal court supervision. See Docket Nos. 2665 and 2666. Without a hearing, Judge Wright denied the LRSD's Motion to End Federal Court Supervision, finding \"nothing in the settlement plans which would release the LRSD from the Court's jurisdiction after six years of implementation of the plans.\" See Docket No. 2821, p. 10. Although Judge Wright recognized that the LRSD compared favorably to other urban school districts already declared unitary, Judge Wright focused on the ambitious \"goals\" of the 1989 plan. See Docket No. 2821 , p. 12. Judge Wright stated, \"Reports of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and other evidence received in hearings in this matter reflect that the LRSD has fallen short of its goals with respect to many aspects of the plan.\" Id. In conclusion, Judge Wright invited the parties to niodify those parts of the LRSD desegregation plan which had proved \"ineffective and unworkable.\" Id. 6. The Revised Plan. Rather than appeal Judge Wright's denial of unitary status, the LRSD decided to work with Joshua to reach an agreement for ending more than 40 years of federal court control of the LRSD. On January 21, 1998, the LRSD and Joshua filed a joint motion seeking approval of the LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. See Docket No. 3107. The Revised Plan addressed numerous deficiencies in the 1989 desegregation plan. First, to prevent the plan's express or implied goals from being construed as obligations, the Revised Plan included a footnote which stated: The identification of specific goals in this Revised Plan is not intended to create an obligation that LRSD shall have fully met the goal by the end of the plan's term. LRSD's failure to obtain any of the goals of this Revised Plan will not be considered a failure to comply with the plan ifLRSD followed the strategies 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I described in the plan and the policies, practices and procedures developed in accordance with the plan. Revised Plan, p. 14 n.2. Second, the 277-page 1989 plan included too much detail and provided too little flexibility. The Revised Plan simply obligated the LRSD to implement \"programs, policies and/or procedures\" in 13 different areas. See Revised Plan 2. With some exceptions, the LRSD had discretion to determine the \"programs, policies and/or procedures\" to be implemented. The Revised Plan included a process by which Joshua or any other party could raise compliance issues, including a failure by the LRSD to adopt or implement the required programs, policies and/or procedures. See Revised Plan  8.2 and 8.3. The LRSD also agreed in advance to pay Joshua to monitor the LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan, and Joshua billed the LRSD for monitoring the LRSD's Compliance. See Exhibits 7 and 8 attached. Even so, Joshua raised no objection to the programs, policies or procedures implemented by the LRSD during the term of the Revised Plan. Finally, the Revised Plan included a definite term and a process for terminating federal court supervision at the conclusion of that term. The term of the Revised Plan was \"three (3) years beginning the 1998-99 school year and ending the last day of classes of the 2000-01 school year.\" See Revised Plan, 9. The last day of classes for the 2000-01 school year was May 31, 2001. Section 11 of the Revised Plan provided: At the conclusion of the 2000-01 school year, the district court shall enter an order releasing LRSD from court supervision and finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations provided that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in this Revised Plan. In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a report on March 15, 2001 indicating the state of LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. Any party challenging LRSD's compliance bears the burden of proof. If no party challenges LRSD's compliance, the abovedescribed order shall be entered without further proceedings. See Revised Plan,  11. 7. Status of Current Proceedings. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The LRSD provided the Court and the parties with an Interim Compliance Report on March 15, 2000 (\"Interim Report\") \"to help the District assess its progress toward full compliance and to reassure the court, the parties, and the community of the District's good faith efforts to be in total compliance with the Revised Plan.\" See Docket No. 3344, Interim Report, p. 1. The Interim Report expressly requested that the parties and other interested persons submit comments on the content or format of the report. Id. No party commented on the Interim Report or otherwise challenged the District's \"progress toward full compliance.\" See Docket No. 3410, Final Report, p. iv. One year later, on March 15, 2001, the LRSD reported that it had substantially complied with all provisions of the Revised Plan (\"Final Report\"). See Docket No. 3410. On June 25, 2001, and after being granted two extensions of time, Joshua filed a pleading challenging the LRSD's compliance with some, but not all, sections of the Revised Plan. Joshua's challenge included little more than general allegations of noncompliance. Hearings were held on July 5-6, August 1-2 and November 19-20, 2001, on the issues of academic achievement( 2.7), program assessment( 2.7.1) and discipline( 2.5 - 2.5.4).3 B. Substantial Compliance. The Revised Plan does not define \"substantial compliance.\" In Cody v. Hillard, supra, the Eighth Circuit discussed the meaning of the term \"substantial\" as it related to compliance with and termination of a consent decree. The consent decree in that case arose out of prison reform litigation in the State of South Dakota. Prison officials moved to terminate the consent decree after operating under the decree for nearly 11 years. The plaintiffs opposed the motion 3Judge Wright stated at the conclusion of the November 20, 2001, hearing that Joshua could have 25 minutes to present true rebuttal evidence, even though Joshua had used all of their allotted time. Tr. Nov. 20, 2001, 399 and 575. Judge Wright defined rebuttal evidence as evidence necessary to respond to evidence presented by the other side which could not have been anticipated. Tr. Nov. 20, 2001, 399. The LRSD submits that it presented no evidence which could not have been anticipated by Joshua, rendering Joshua's request for rebuttal time moot. The Court could resolve this matter by requiring Joshua to proffer their purported rebuttal evidence as a part of their response to this Motion. 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I and requested a hearing. The district court refused to order a hearing, but ordered the plaintiffs to submit evidence supporting their allegations of noncompliance. Id. at 1198. The plaintiffs filed a report from their expert, Robert Powitz, which stated that he inspected the prison and found \"a number of conditions that pose serious health or safety risks,\" but he failed to specify how those conditions violated the consent decree. The plaintiffs then filed a supplemental brief linking those conditions to provisions of the consent decree. Without a hearing, the district court entered a two-paragraph order terminating the consent decree but making no findings of fact with regard to the conditions identified by Powitz. Id. at 1199. stating: The plaintiffs appealed, and the Eighth Circuit remanded the case for factual findings We cannot determine the basis for the district court's decision from this brief order. The record indicates that there have been failures in the past to comply with the decree and supplemental orders, and that there are at least some violations of the decree. The district judge's order does not give us enough information to determine whether he ignored the evidence of past and present violations or whether he considered any violations inconsequential in the context of substantial compliance. If the conditions Powitz complained of constitute violations of the consent decree, the district court must exercise its discretion in determining whether those violations were serious enough to constitute substantial noncompliance and to cast doubt on defendants' future compliance with the Constitution. See McDonald [v. Carnahan]. 109 F.3d [1319,] 1322-23 [(8th Cir. 1997)]. Moreover, the ultimate question of whether the defendants are likely to comply with the Constitution in the absence of court supervision is a question of fact, see [Board of Educ. v.] Dowell, 498 U.S. [237,] 247, 111 S.Ct. [630,] 636-37 [(1991)], for which the district court made no finding. Id. at 1199-1200 (emphasis supplied). Therefore, a party to a consent decree substantially complies with the decree so long as the party's noncompliance does not \"cast doubt on [the party's] future compliance with the Constitution.\" Id. See Manning v. The School Bd. of Hillsborough County. 244 F.3d 927, 946 (11 th Cir. 2001)(\"[I]n determining whether a school board has acted in good faith, a court should not dwell on isolated discrepancies, but rather should 'consider whether the school board's policies form a consistent pattern of lawful conduct directed at eliminating earlier violations,\"' quoting Lockett v. Bd. of Educ. of Muscogee County. 111 F.3d 839, 843 (11 th Cir. 1997)). 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Both the past and recent conduct of the LRSD Board of Directors confirms the District's commitment to complying with the Constitution. Three days after the Supreme Court's 1954 decision in Brown, the LRSD released a public statement declaring its intent to comply with the Constitution and integrate the LRSD. In 1982, the district court in Clark stated that \"the Little Rock School District has operated in compliance with court decrees for nine years as a completely unitary desegregated school system . . . . \" See Exhibit 1, p. 16. Having done all that it could do on its own, the LRSD filed the present case that same year, seeking and obtaining interdistrict relief. During the term of the Revised Plan, the LRSD Board of Directors (\"Board\") conducted a comprehensive review of all District policies. See CX 719. Fifteen of the 21 policies making up the District's \"Foundation and Basic Commitments\" express the District's commitment to fighting discrimination of all types. See CX 719, Section A. Among those were regulations setting forth the District's commitment to comply with the Revised Plan and to establish procedures for employees and patrons to raise compliance issues. See CX 719, Policy ACG-Rl, R2 and R3. The Board institutionalized numerous provisions of the Revised Plan by making them official Board policy. See CX 719.4 Finally, in anticipation of being released from court supervision, the Board adopted the \"Covenant for the Future\" (\"Covenant\") on January 11, 2001. In the Covenant, the Board promised to continue to exercise its best efforts to: (1) improve the academic achievement of all students, (2) comply with the Constitution and ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis or race, color or ethnicity in the operation of the District, and (3) provide equitable educational resources, programs and opportunity in a nondiscriminatory environment for all students attending LRSD schools. See Final Report, p. 1, CX 739, and CX 719, Policy AB. 4The following Board policies and regulations come directly from the Revised Plan: ACBB, ACBE, ACG, ACG-Rl, ACG-R2, ACG-R3, GCE, GCE-R, IHBH, JB, IBA, JBA-R, JC, JCA, n, JJ, JJ-R, JllA, JnB, JnB-Rl, JnB-R2, JLD, JMA, JMA-R, JRAA, and JRAA-R. See ex 719. 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I To be sure, the LRSD is not a perfect school system, but the Constitution does not require perfection. See Belle v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 269 F.3d 305, 335 (4th Cir. 2001) (Traxler, J.)(\"This is not to say that CMS is a perfect school system- it is not.\"). The ultimate question is whether the Board can be trusted to comply with the Constitution absent court supervision. In the five and one-half days of hearings held to date, Joshua presented no evidence indicating that it could not. C. Revised Plan Sections Already Litigated. 1. Revised Plan 2.7: Academic Achievement. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan. The LRSD identified and described the programs, policies and procedures implemented pursuant to Revised Plan 2.7 in the Interim Report (pp. 41-69 and 93-127) and the Final Report (pp. 51-148). Although Joshua monitored the LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan and received fees for doing so, Joshua did not raise any objection during the term of the Revised Plan to the programs, policies and procedures pertaining to academic achievement which were outlined in the Interim Report and the Final Report. Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 370-71. Joshua's belated challenge to the LRSD's compliance with 2.7 is based on the long-standing achievement gap between African-American and non-African-American students on standardized tests (hereinafter \"achievement gap\"). See Docket No. 3447, pp. 28-30. Joshua's challenge fails because the Revised Plan contained no requirement that the LRSD eliminate or reduce the achievement gap. The Revised Plan simply required the LRSD to implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve African-American achievement. See Revised Plan,  2. 7. To that end, the LRSD began in the Spring of 1998 what has been perhaps the most comprehensive curriculum reform in the history of the District. As a part of the reform effort, the District adopted research-based teaching strategies that have been proven to be effective in improving 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I African-American achievement. Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 195-210. The District provided its teachers with comprehensive, in-depth professional development. See Final Report, pp. 32-33 (Gifted and Talented), 60-61 (K-12 Social Studies), 67-68 (middle schools), 73 (PreK), 81-90 (early childhood and primary grade literacy), 96-102 (intermediate grade literacy), 109-111 (secondary literacy), 117-123 (math and science) and 138-143 (technology). New instructional materials, including technological applications, were adopted in all curriculum areas. See Interim Report, pp. 41-51 (generally), 96 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1046","title":"\"Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in the 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, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Ross, Steven M."],"dc_date":["2002"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational planning","School improvement programs","Student assistance programs","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["\"Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in the 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/1046"],"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\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nUSCHEL H FR10AY(lt22-1'94) JLLIAM H SUTTON, P.A iON M EISEMAN. JR, P.A  O BELL, PA JAMES A BUTTRY, PA FREDERICK. S URSERY,,. A. ,..SCARE DAVIS, JR, P.A MES C. CLARJC, JR , PA. OMAS p LEGGETT, P.A t{N DEWEY WATSON, PA PAUL B BENHAM Ill.PA LARRY W BUJlK.S, P A  WYCK.LIFP NISBET, JR..., P.A MES EDWARD HARRJS, P.A PHILLIP MALCOM, PA MES M SIMPSON, P A JAJllfES M SAXTON, PA J SHEPHERD RUSSELL Ill, PA DONALD H BACON. P.A ILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P A (HARD D TAYLOR.PA SEPH B HURST, JR.., PA ELIZABETH ROBBEN MUR.llAY, PA CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A LAUR.A HENSLEY SMITH, PA ROBERT S. SHAPER. P A WILLIAM M GRIFFIN Ill, P.A MICHAELS MOORE, P.A DIANE S MACKEY, PA WALTER M EBEL 111, P A KEVIN A CRASS, PA WILLIAM A WADDELL, JR., PA SCOTT J LANCASTER. P.A ROBERT 8 BEACH, JR . P A J LEE BROWN, P.A JAMES C. BAKER, JR.PA HAR.AV A LIGHT, PA SCOTT H TUCKER. PA GUY ALTON WADE, PA PRICE C. GARDNER.PA TONIA P JONES, P A DAVID D WILSON, PA JEFFREY H MOORE, P A DAVID M GRAF. P .A RECEIVED 1/'11/M DEC - 4 2002 j-/?Vid - Oc /,vu e cL OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ( By Hand Delivery) Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 FRlDA Y ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.fridayfirm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 3'25 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE, SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703-41!111 TELEPHONE 479-l!llil5-2011 FAX 479-l!llil5-2147 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 1!170-7\u0026amp;2-2898 FAX 870-7152-2911!1 December 4, 2002 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ( By Hand Delivery) Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: Compliance Remedy Dear Counsel \u0026amp; Ms. Marshall: CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P A JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR, PA JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO, P A R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON, P A FRAN C. HICK.MAN, P A BETTY J DEMORY, P.A LYNDA M JOHNSON, P A JAMES W SMITH, PA CLIFFORD W PLUNKETT, PA DANIEL L. HERRJNGTON, P A MARVIN L. CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK, JR ALLISON J_ CORNWELL ELLEN M OWENS JASON B HENDREN BRUCE B TIDWELL MICHAEL E KARNEY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P MCKAY ALEXANDRA A IFRAH JAY T TAYLOR MARTIN A KASTEN Mr. Steve Jones BRYAN W DUKE JOSEPH G NICHOLS ROBERT T SMITH RYAN A BOWMAN TIMOTKY C. EZELl T MICHELLE ATOR KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M COTTON PHILIP B MONTGOMERY KJUSTEN S RIGGINS ALAN G. BRYAN LINDSEY MITCHAM SLOAN KHAYYAM M EDDINGS JOHN F PEISERICH AMANDA CAP'PS ROSE BRANDON 1. HARRISON OFCOUNS[L BS CLARK. WILLIAM L TERJt.Y WILLIAM L PATTON, JR H T LARZELERE, P A JOHN C. ECHOLS, P A A O MCALLISTER JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL 501-l70ll23 FAX 5D1244-5341 f  ndl  yOftc.n  t Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Dennis Hansen Ofc of the Attorney qeneral 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Enclosed please find, \"Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in the Little Rock School District\" prepared by Dr. Steven M. Ross. The Little Rock School District intends to retain Dr. Ross, Dr. Larry McNeal and Dr. William Moore to complete the eight evaluations identified on page 148 of the Little Rock School District's March 15, 2001 compliance report that were not completed with the assistance of an outside expert. These were identified on page 12 of the Compliance Committee's proposed compliance plan previously provided to you. F \\HOME\\BBrown\\Fmdley\\LRSD\\dcseg\\counsel2 It. wpd n :o ro 0::, ~rt n\"\"\" ' ro l\"1 \u0026lt;  H'I tn 0 l\"1 l\"1 ro ~ en ro g~ ::, Cl C/l l\"1 ro n ::,' ,... = rt,, (I \u0026gt; Cl ~::r 00 n::, I\"\" Cl Qt All Counsel December 4, 2002 Page2 Little Rock School District hopes that its decision to follow the guidelines prepared by Dr. Ross will eleviate the Joshua Intervenors concerns about the preparation of these evaluations. If not, we respectfully request that ODM schedule facilitation related to the preparation of these evaluations as soon as possible so that the District may meet the court's March 15, 2003, deadline for Board approval and submission of the evaluations to the Court. Also enclosed for your reference are the responses to the RFQ submitted by the experts identified above. JCF/bgb enclosure(s) cc: Dr. Ken J arnes F:IHOME\\BBrownlfendleyll.RSDldcseg\\counscl2 h wpd Sincerely, John C. Fendley, Jr. () \"\"'1) 0 :, 1--' rt ~-Cl) n l'\"1 \u0026lt;  HI en o l'\"1 l'\"1 '1) ,:j en ro \"'Cl en 0 '1) :, Ill en l'\"1 ro n ::r Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in Little Rock School District Prepared by Steven M. Ross, Ph.D. The present guidelines are based on my review of the Revised Compliance Plan, the LRSD standards for program evaluation, and evaluation report drafts and associated materials related to the eight programs identified as requiring \"final\" evaluation reports. My analysis of this material, combined with my experiences as an educational researcher and familiarity with the Joshua case as it affected LRSD, was influenced by the following assumptions:  Invalid or questionable evaluation results can be much more detrimental than helpful to efforts to improve educational practices, and should not be disseminated without strong cautions and qualifications. Accordingly, studies that lack proper controls against bias or contamination from extraneous factors (e.g., differential sampling, history, diffusion of treatments) have limited value for guiding policies.  Program evaluations that focus predominately on student achievement outcomes while lacking sufficient implementation data have reduced value due to inability to determine the nature of the \"treatment.\" The study will also fail to inform policymakers about the practicality of the program, how it was used and reacted to by stakeholders, or whether and/or how it needs to be improved to impact atrisk learners.  Evaluations of programs that have been discontinued in the district are of much less interest relative to ones that are presently being implemented or informing ongoing practices.  To raise the achievement of African American students in LRSD, attempting to resuscitate existing studies that have insufficient data available, limited relevance to current practices, or require substantial time and resources with little promise of yielding useful information for policy decisions would be less productive than employing the \"lessons learned\n' from the prior evaluation work to support high quality and informative future studies. One such lesson is that the LRSD research department (formerly PRE) was understaffed to perform evaluations of the quality and quantity needed. Based on the above assumptions, I will recommend below a basic strategy for the third-party evaluators to use in preparing the eight identified evaluations for approval by the school board. Four of the evaluations concern programs that are no longer in use by LRSD and have limited or no relevance to programmatic decisions (Lyceum Scholars, Elementary Level Summer Schools, Vital Link, and Onward to Excellence). Of the remaining four evaluations, two have limited available data (Middle School Transition and Campus Leadership Teams) that, even with supplementary analyses, would not permit confident (valid) decisions to be made about program effectiveness (') \"ti (I) 0:::, ~rt ~-(I) 0 l\"1 \u0026lt;  HI en o l\"1 l\"1 (I) !:C en ro -c, en 0 (I) :::, Ill en l\"1 (I) 0 ::r 2 in general or about African American student achievement resulting from program participation. A seventh evaluation (Extended Year Education) could possibly yield informative evidence about an ongoing program, but to be sufficiently refined would require time and resources extending significantly beyond the current conditions for project completion. An eighth evaluation (HIPPY) also deals with an ongoing program, but unlike the others could possibly provide useful evidence through revisions completed within the available time frame. Accordingly, the HIPPY report is currently being rewritten by Dr. Ed Williams from LRSD. The suggested plan for the third-party evaluators is presented below followed by a brief review of each evaluation. A. Submit the current evaluation report as an attachment to a supplemental document as described in B-D. B. The supplement should begin with an expanded description of the program, its goals, and its history in LRSD. It should then describe the evaluation methodology and summarize and interpret the key findings. C. Most importantly, the supplement should discuss the limitations (and any strengths where indicated) of the evaluation with regard to: (a) informing current practices in LRSD\n(b) using appropriate methodology\nand (c) addressing student achievement effects, especially in reference to African American students. D. Finally, the supplement should present suggestions for conducting stronger studies of similar programs in future evaluation studies. 1. Middle School Transition (Moore) Thi/evaluation is in near-completed form and needs mostly editing and expansion. Because the middle school program is current and continuing, this evaluation study can be useful (mostly for guiding professional development and implementation improvement) for informing district strategies. The achievement results are fairly minimal and uninformative, but at the time of the evaluation (1999-2000), only baseline data existed. Thus, aside from providing additional description of the results (the tables and the narrative are sparse) and a more meaningful interpretation of trends (especially with regard to African American vs. Caucasian students), there is probably little more that needs to be done for this essentially baseline time period. The survey data appear to be reasonably analyzed and reported, but the interpretation and discussion should be extended to provide more meaningful conclusions and recommendations. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. (') \"O Cl) 0::, .... rt\" I-'('!) n ~ '\u0026lt; t-'11 en o ~ ~ Cl)?:-' en m \"Cl en 0 Cl) ::, Ill en ~ m n ::r )\" en en 0 n I- Ill Q rt Cl) 3 2. Lyceum Scholars (McNeal) The Lyceum Scholars' High School Program, which was evaluated in 1998-99 and 1999- 2000, is no longer being implemented in LRSD. The latter consideration, coupled with the obvious limitations of the evaluation design with regard to rigor, depth, and meaningfulness of the data, substantially reduce the value of the study and the need for devoting more than minimal resources to it, beyond perhaps a supplemental summary and explanation. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 3. Elementary Level Summer School (McNeal) Similar to the Lyceum Scholars' High School Program (#2 above), the Elementary Level Summer School program is no longer being implemented in LRSD. In addition, the evaluation study conducted in the summer of 2001 is limited in its design and methodology. Among the major concerns are the lack of: (a) implementation data to describe the program strategies and the degree to which they were actually used by teachers, (b) an adequate control group or norms to which the achievement scores of summer school students could be compared, and (c) qualitative data to describe the experiences of students and teachers in the program. Due to \"differential sampling\" the multiple tables provided are neither overly meaningful nor informative regarding the progress of summer school students in general and African American summer school students in particular. Seemingly, there is little useful information to be gained for informing future policies by. investing substantive resources in revamping the study. While more suitable control samples might be established using archival data, the absence of implementation assessments would still make the \"treatment\" essentially unknown. Therefore, suggestiJns similar to those made for the Lyceum Scholars program are also offered here. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 4. Vital Link (Ross) The Vital Link program, designed to provide students with on-the-job experiences, was offered to 394 middle school students in the summer of 1999. Because the program was of very limited duration (only one week) and is not focused on either academic curriculum or learning strategies, it is highly unlikely to have affected students' academic achievement. Although such a program would still potentially serve a useful purpose for fostering student motivation to achieve and complete school, it is no longer being implemented in LRSD. Further, the evaluation study conducted was so limited (a brief post-test only, closed-ended survey) that the policy implications of the results are minimal and even potentially misleading if derived. Therefore, suggestions similar to (\") \"Cl ro 0 ::, ~M' n'\"'' lr'oi -\u0026lt;  1'11 en o l'i l'i ro ~ en ro ~ en o ro ::, QI en l'i ro n ::,' 4 those made for the Lyceum Scholars Program and the Elementary Level Summer School Program (#'s 2 and 3 above) are again offered here. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 5. Onward to ExceIJence CSRD Program (Ross) The OTE model was implemented at Watson Elementary School for several years, starting in 1999. It has since been discontinued and was never formally evaluated, except for achievement data reports sent by the principal to ADE. Thus, in essence, there is no longer any program in LRSD to evaluate and no evaluation report to revise, expand, or redraft. It would seem wasteful of resources to reexamine historical data from this program, especially since implementation data are lacking. That is, if positive or negative results were found, it would be impossible to determine whether OTE or numerous others factors were the main cause. Suggestions, therefore, are similar to those for #'s 2-4 above. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 6. HIPPY (Ross) Because HIPPY is a continuing program, this evaluation can be potentially useful to LRSD by providing initial program results on student achievement and benefits to African American children. A limitation of the study, which unfortunately cannot be remedied retroactively, is the lack of implementation data to describe the fidelity with which HIPPY program components were actually used. The quantitative achievement results must therefore be viewed cautiously, but should sti11 be at least suggestive regarding program influences. Substantive expansion and revision, however, are needed to increase the readability and meaningfulness of the report. For example, there is inadequate description of the program, context, methodology, and analysis design. Tables and findings need to be presented in a more readable (\"user-friendly\") manner. Suggestions: A. Reorganize and expand the introduction and methodology to be in line with district evaluation standards (i.e., more context, more detailed methodology, clearer questions and organization). B. Ed Williams needs to run the revised analysis and write up results by January 31, 2003. A program description needs to be provided. Results need to be disaggregated, if possible, for African American and Caucasian students. Expand the Results sections to provide more informative reporting of outcomes, clearer tabular presentations, etc. C\"l \"O Cl) 0::, ~ rt' ~-Cl) n l'1 ~ - H'I en o l'1 l'1 Cl) ,:I en m \"O en 0 Cl) ::, llJ en l'1 m n ::,' ~- ::, t:l .0, C. Expand the Conclusions section to: (a) directly address whether there are implications for the achievement of African American and other disadvantaged groups (there probably are not at this stage), (b) more fully discuss implications and recommendations associated with the findings, and ( c) propose further evaluation research that will validly determine both implementation quality and influences of HIPPY on student achievement. D. The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy in expanding this report. 7. Extended Year Education (EYE) Report (Moore) 5 The EYE program is relevant to LRSD's current interests in improving academic achievement of its students. Unfortunately, the present evaluation design does not seem sufficiently sensitive to detect effects that might be attributable to EYE. Specifically, usage of whole-school data compared descriptively to district norms gives only a very surface examination of the schools' progress, with susceptibility to contamination by student mobility, differences in SES, etc. A more precise analysis would match students at the three schools to similar students at comparable schools not using EYE, and then examine progress using a multivariate-type (regression or MANOV A) analysis. It is questionable, however, that such analyses could be completed in the time remaining for the required submission of the final report. Also, the findings would be limited by having only two years of post-program data. Aside from the design limitations, the organization of the report is difficult to follow due to the many tables and brief but not very informative narrative descriptions. The survey data might be interpretable, but also need a much clearer and better organized presentation. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. , 8. Campus Leadership Teams (Ross) This initiative seems highly relevant to current and future goals of LRSD. However, the \"evaluation data\" collected to date consist of only results from two district-wide surveys that assessed team members' reactions to various activities. No information exists to verify the representativeness of the samples, the validity of the data collection in general, or the implementation of the CL Ts at the various schools. The aggregate survey results on the 24 combined items (14 in the team member survey\n10 in the certified/noncertified staff member survey) do not appear overly interesting or meaningful with regard to informing practice. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. C\"'l \"d Cl) 0::, r-' rt\" .... Cl) n l\"1 \u0026lt; - Hi tll 0 l\"1 l\"1 Cl) ~ Ill Cl) 'Cl Ill 0 Cl) ::, 0J Ill l\"1 ro n ::,\" .... ::, t'l .Q , ~The University of Memphis Memphis, Tennessee 38152-3340 A State of Tennessee Center of Excellence Center for Research in Educational Policy 325 Browning Hall October 28, 2002 Director of Procurement Little Rock School District 1800 East Sixth Street Little Rock, AR. 72202 Dear Mr. Paradis, RECEIVED 'j : I 2p rvJ DEC - 4 2002 I f.t,i,,J . /)C'l1 ~ ~~ c J., OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Local 901/678-2310 Toll 866/670-6147 FAX 901/678-4257 Enclosed are five copies of the Center for Research in Educational Policy's response to RFQ #23-010: Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Program Evaluation Consultant. If additional information is needed or ifl can be of further assistance, please contact the Center toll free at 1-866-670-6147. il~ Steven M. Ross Director A Tennessee Board of Regents Institution An Equal Opponunity/Afflrrnsliw Action University Response from the Center for Research in Educational Policy at the University of Memphis to: RFQ Number: 23-010 Title: Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Program Evaluation Consultant Opening date/time: ovember 6, 2002 (2:00 p.m.) CREP Response to RFQ23-010 1. Curriculum vitae with specific documentation of successful experience in education program evaluation. PERSONAL DATA Steven M. Ross 224 Eagle Spring Cove Cordova, TN 38018 Institution Pennsylvania State University Undergraduate Major: EDUCATION Psychology Home (901) 755-6654 Office (901) 678-3413 Degree-Year B.A. 1969 M.S. 1972 Ph.D. 1974 Graduate Major: Educational Psychology PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS American Psychological Association, Fellow American Educational Research Association, Member Mid-South Educational Research Association, Member Association for Educational Communications \u0026amp; Technology, Member International Congress for School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Member EXPERIENCE Instructor, Continuing Education, 1973-74, Pennsylvania State University Instructor, Psychology, Spring Semester, 1974, Lock Haven State College, Lock Haven, Pennsylvania Evaluator, Summer, 1974, Mitre Corporation, McLean, Virginia Assistant Professor, Educational Psychology, 197 4-79, University of Memphis Associate Professor, Educational Psychology, 1980-1985 Professor, Educational Psychology, 1985 - Present Senior Researcher, Center for Research in Education Policy, University of Memphis, 1995-2001 Director, Center for Research in Educational Policy, University of Memphis, 2001 - present COURSES RECENTLY TAUGHT Theories of Learning (undergraduate) Individual Differences and Learning (Graduate) Educational Statistics (Undergraduate and Graduate) Educational Research (Graduate) Computers in Education (Graduate and Undergraduate) Thesis Writing (Graduate) Educational Assessment (Graduate) CREP Response to RFQ23-010 2 HONORS AND DISTINCTIONS 1. NDEA Fellowship for graduate study at the Pennsylvania State University, 1971-1973. 2. Graduate Student Associate, Southwest Regional Laboratory, Summer, 1971. 3. Distinguished Teaching Service Award, University of Memphis, 1980. 4. Phi Delta Kappa Professional Research Award, Memphis Chapter, 1983. 5. Elected Fellow, Division 15, American Psychological Association, 1986. 6. Visiting Scholar, National Center for Research on Improving Postsecondary Teaching and Learning. University of Michigan, Summer 1987. 7. Distinguished Research Award, University of Memphis, 1987. 8. Distinguished Teacher Service Award, University of Memphis, 1988. (First eligibility since 1980\nno longer eligible) 9. Memphis State University nominee, CASE Professor of the Year Award, 1989 10. Superior Performance in University Research (SPUR) Award, University of Memphis, 1990, 1991, 1992 11. Distinguished Research Award, University of Memphis, 1993. 12. Board of Visitors Eminent Faculty Award, University of Memphis (first recipient), 1993 13. Editor, Educational Technology Research and Development, 1993-present 14. Editorial Board, Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk. 1995-present 15. Editorial Board, Computers and Human Behavior, 1994-present 16. Invited testimony, U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth, and Families, Committee on Education and the Workforce, June 26, 1998. 17. Invited panelist on comprehensive school reform, discussion with Secretary of Education Richard Riley, March 16. 1999. 18. Lillian and Morrie Moss Chair of Excellence in Urban Education, 2001 Publications in Refereed Journals Books Book Chapters SCHOLARSHIP Papers Presented at Professional Meetings 122 7 28 224 SELECTED RECENT PUBLICATIONS Ross, S. M., Henry, D., Phillipsen, L., Evans, K., Smith L., \u0026amp; Buggey, T. (1997). Matching restructuring programs to schools: Selection, negotiation, and preparation. School Effectiveness and School Improvement,~' 45-71. Ross, S. M., Troutman, A., Horgan, D., Maxwell, S., Laitinen, R., \u0026amp; Lowther, D. (1997). The success of schools in implementing eight restructuring designs: A synthesis of first-year evaluation outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 8_, 95-124. Ross, S.M., Smith, L. J., \u0026amp; Casey, J. (1997). Preventing early school failure: Impacts of Success For All on standardized test outcomes, minority group performance, and school effectiveness. Journal for Research on Students Placed At Risk, i, 29-54. CREP Response to RFQ23-010 3 Stringfield, S., \u0026amp; Ross, S. M. (1997). A \"reflection\" at mile three of marathon: The Memphis restructuring initiative in mid-stride. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 8, 151-161. Ross, S., \u0026amp; Smith, L. J. (1997). Improving the academic success of disadvantaged children: An examination of Success For All. Psychology in the Schools, ~..1, 171-180. Jayasinghe, M. G., Morrison, G. R., \u0026amp; Ross, S. M. (1997). The effect of distance learning classroom design on student perceptions. Educational Technology Research and Development,~ 5-20. Ross, S. M., \u0026amp; Smith, L. J. (1998). Improving school achievement and inter-group relations for children placed at risk. European Journal oflntercultural education, 9_(2), 141-154. Smith, L. J., Ross, S. M., McNelis, M, Squires, M., and others (1998), The Memphis restructuring initiative: Analysis of activities and outcomes that impact implementation success. Education and Urban Society, 30(3), 296-325. Stringfield, S., Datnow, A., Ross, S., \u0026amp; Snively, F. (1998). Scaling up school restructuring in multicultural multilingual contexts: Early observations from Sunland County. Education and Urban Society, 30(3), 326-357. Ross, S. M., Smith, L. J., \u0026amp; Casey, J.P. (1999). \"Bridging the gap\": The effects of the Success For All Program on elementary school reading achievement as a function of student ethnicity and ability level. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, lQ(2), 129-150. Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., \u0026amp; Kemp, J.E. (2000). Designing effective instruction (3'd ed.). New York, tN: Macmillan College Publishing. Ross, S. M., Alberg, M., Smith. L., Anderson, R., Bol, L., Dietrich, A., Lowther, D., \u0026amp; Phillipsen, L. (2000). Using whole-school restructuring to improve educational outcomes: The Memphis story at year 3. Teaching and Change, 1(2), 111-126. Ross, S. M., \u0026amp; Seidel, S. (2000). The introduction to the NEA Teacher Education Initiative. Teaching and Change,~' 5-9. Nath, L.R., \u0026amp; Ross, S.M. (2001). The influence of a peer tutoring training model for implementing cooperative groupings with elementarJ students. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 49(2), 41-56. Ross, S. M., Sanders, W. L., Wright, S. P., Stringfield, S., Wang, L. W., \u0026amp; Alberg, M. (September 2001). Two- and three-year achievement results from the Memphis Restructuring Initiative. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 1]_, 323-346. CREP Response to RFQ23-010 4 Summary of Interests During the past ten years, I have worked extensively with school districts, both regionally and locally, to develop and evaluate programs for improving student achievement. The primary focus of these studies bas been schools predominantly serving disadvantaged inner-city minority children. Currently, I am working on the formative and sumrnative evaluation of Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) projects at schools in various states. Additional ongoing research projects are studies of school restructuring designs as they are implemented in Memphis City Schools and other school districts and of professional development schools in seven national sites as part of the NEA Teacher Education Initiative (NEA-TEI). 2. Capacity and capability to perform education program evaluations including a writing sample (see appendix for writing sample). The Center for Research in Educational Policy (referred to in this document as the Center or CREP) is funded by the State of Tennessee as one of five Centers of Excellence located at The University of Memphis. The mission of the Center is to implement a research agenda associated with educational policies and practices in the preK-12 public schools of Tennessee and the nation, and to disseminate research findings so that they inform decisions made by educational practitioners and policymakers. Since 19.89, the Center bas served as a mechanism for mobilizing community and university resources to address educational problems and to meet the I University's commitment to primary and secondary schools. Functioning as a part of the College of Education, the Center seeks to accomplish its mission through a series of investigations conducted by Center personnel, College and University faculty, and graduate students. The Center's research agenda is developed through analysis of persistent or emerging issues in schools and their communities, changes occurring in teacher education programs, and recommendations from educational authorities. In order to plan and conduct inquiries relevant to issues associated with public schools, the Center supports research reflecting the following characteristics: potential for contributing to the solution of educational policy and practice issues\nan applied research and development focus\ncollaborations and partnerships with schools and other external organizations\ninterdisciplinary research teams\nmultiple modes of inquiry\nCREP Response to RFQ23-010 5 immediate and long-range planning\nand creation of databases to foster secondary analyses. Research outcomes are intended to provide a knowledge base for use by educational practitioners and policymakers by providing insight into the complexities of educational phenomena and offering recommendations for action. Through work in schools for over a decade, the Center has contributed to Tennessee policy decisions regarding teacher preparation and licensure, school governance and site-based decision making, and public school reforms. Additionally, the Center has gained national recognition for its contribution to discussions of issues such as reform of teacher education, educational equity, educational technology, school reform and restructuring, urban and multicultural education, interventions for at-risk students, and using formative evaluation methods for school improvement decision-making. In summary, the Center for Research in Educational Policy has extensive experience in evaluating diverse educational programs. The Center has developed numerous valid and reliable evaluation tools that have been effectively used by hundreds of schools and districts to examine the extent to which programmatic goals are being realized, and also fotmaking data-based improvement decisions. The Center's professional expertise, available evaluation resources, and proximity to the Little Rock School District all make it likely that CREP can assist the District in complying with the court order related to its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 3. Indication of the amount of available time between November 11, 2002 and March 1, 2003 for consulting and active work on this project. Dr. Steven Ross and staff from the Center for Research in Educational Policy can initially commit to ten hours per week for this project. This commitment is flexible, however, and can be negotiated based on the needs of the Little Rock School District. CREP Response to RFQ23-010 6 4. Two professional references who can attest to quality of work and ability to meet schedules and deadlines. RickBasoin Deputy Executive Director of Planning and Development SERVE 915 Northridge St., 2nd floor Greensboro, NC. 27403-2112 (800) 755-3277 RBASOM@serve.org Doris Redfield Director of Research AEL P.O. Box 1348 Charleston, WV. 25325-1348 (800) 624-9120 redfield@ael.org 5. Pending Lawsuits. None. IC !3: C Ill ll ::, ~ Ill., ..a r ro ~ 5ro1 c, ::, C: rt i: r. I \u0026gt;en lrl en., 0 C n....: : Ill Q 1\nCREP Response to RFQ23-010 7 Appendix Writing Sample 1 1 The writing sample is an executive summary. The full report will be provided upon request. PROGRESS AND OPTIONS REGARDING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DIRECT INSTRUCTION AND SUCCESS FOR ALL IN TOLEDO PUBLIC SCHOOLS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Prepared by: Center for Research in Educational Policy (CREP) at the University of Memphis www .memphis.edu/crep July 30, 2002 :J:\u0026gt;'lll t/l rl t/l 0 C (l ::i I ~- Ill Q rt 1m Progress and Options Regarding the Implementation of Direct Instruction and Success for All in Toledo Public Schools EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Purpose and Background The major goals of this research study were to evaluate the outcomes and provide recommendations on the implementation of two improvement models being used by multiple schools in the Toledo Public School (TPS) district. The district has taken bold steps to turn around some of its lowest performing schools, including the investment of about $2 million over the past four years to adopt two research-based comprehensive school reform models with solid national track records of effectiveness. These models, Direct Instruction (DI) and Success for All (SF A), have been implemented in a total of nine Toledo elementary schools. The design and methodology of the study, to be described below, was oriented towards answering the following research questions.  How do \"program\" (i.e., DI and SFA) schools compare to \"control\" (i.e., similar) schools in student achievement outcomes over time?  How well are program schools implementing their chosen models?  How do program schools compare to control schools in measures of school climate that make a difference in program implementation or student achievement?  What are key stakeholder reactions (e.g., district leaders, principals and teachers) to the effectiveness of the programs and their schools' ability to fully implement the programs?  Which factors appear to differentiate between program schools that are most and least successful in raising student achievement? Study Design The design of this project relies on a number of different approaches to determine program implementation. The findings and options for action reported here draw on multiple data sources consisting of:  Comparisons of student achievement results at program schools against similar TPS schools\n Targeted observations of the extent and quality of DI and SPA implementation\no Interviews of district and union leadership\n School climate inventories administered to teachers at program and control schools\n Teacher questionnaires administered to teachers teaching reading at program and control schools\n Focus groups comprised of program teachers that explored issues related to program implementation\nand  Interviews of principal and building representative. Nine schools participated in the evaluation, including three DI schools that began implementation in 1997-1998\nthree DI schools that began implementation in 1999-2000, one that began in 2001-2002\nand two SFA schools that began implementation in 1999-2000. (Note: As data was not yet available, the DI school that began implementation this year was not considered in the analysis of student achievement.)  For the student achievement study, the comparison sample consisted of all other (not SF A and DI) schools in the District, the scores for which (as explained below) were adjusted for school and student characteristics.  For the implementation analyses, experts in the school district selected matched control schools for DI and SF A sites based on prior achievement, SES factors, and ethnicity. There were six DI control schools and two SF A control schools. Again, the DI school that began implementation this year did not have a control school. Results Achievement Analysis Student achievement data was gathered from all available sources, including the Ohio proficiency test and the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT-9). Student results on these standardized tests in schools implementing DI and SF A were examined as well as results for all other (not DI and SFA) district schools. Results were compared for program and control schools and the analysis revealed the following. Overall Results. DI and SF A program schools included in the evaluation posted student achievement gains nearly equal to what would be expected of other Toledo schools serving similar student populations. DI Results.  Achievement gains tended to improve in DI schools from 1999 to 2001 in 2nd and 6th grade, but were still slightly below what would be expected given the pf)verty rate and pretest levels of the schools.  In 2001, DI schools as a whole produced a statistically significant negative effect for fourth grade.  Among the schools that implemented DI in 1997-1998, Mt. Vernon second grade students tended to post higher achievement gains than would be expected. Fourth and sixth grade achievement gains improved at Mt. Vernon from moderately below to roughly equal to the district average. Among 1999-2000 DI schools, student achievement improved substantially at King, particularly in 2nd and 6th grade. Second grade student performance declined precipitously at Warren from 1999 to 2001. 2 3: Ill ::, Ill IQ m 5l m ::, rt- ,~\u0026gt; 0 (') ~- Ill rtm SF A Results.  In both SF A schools, students at each grade level made achievement gains at a rate nearly equal to the district average for each year considered. School Climate Inventory (SCI) The main purpose of the School Climate Inventory (SCI) is to assess impacts of reform initiatives in relation to seven dimensions logically and empirically linked with factors associated with effective school organizational climates. 1 The inventory contains 49 items and responses are scored using a five-point scale ranging from strong disagreement (1) to strong agreement (5). Overall Results. SCI results showed no unusual positive or negative trends for any of the program or control groups, with the exception of one of the two SF A sites that had negative school climate results. DI Results. DI teachers reacted comparably to their control counterparts. SF A Results. SF A teachers reacted significantly more negatively than did the control teachers on three out of the seven dimensions (Environment, Leadership, and Order). One of the SF A schools bad very positive school climate results, while the other SF A site bad negative school climate results compared to both the controls and to national norms. Reading Teacher Survey (RTS) All teachers of reading at each DI, SF A, and control school were asked to complete the RTS, which contains 20 items teachers respond to using a five-point scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree ~). Items identified the specific program in the case of DI and SF A, but referred generically to the \"reading program\" for the control schools. Among the areas assessed were professional development, impacts on students, changes in teaching, support for the program, effects on technology use, and involvement of parents and the community. Overall Results. Findings for both DI and SF A sites indicated significant favorable teacher attitudes toward the DI and SF A reading programs relative to control group impressions of the district's general reading program. DI Results. DI teachers expressed more positive attitudes toward their reading program than did control teachers of their schools' approaches. Significant differences were obtained on 12 out of 20 items, with the largest effects indicated for: (1) external guidance and support\n(2) 1 The dimension on the Environment addresses pride in the school and caring about others\nthe Order dimension focuses on student behavior, discipline, and attendance\nthe Leadership dimension deals with the degree to which the administration is supportive, communicative, and effective\nInvolvement concerns the extent to which parents and the community are involved in the school\nthe dimension on Instruction considers the extent to which the instructional program is well developed and implemented\nthe Expectations dimension is the extent to which students are expected to learn and be responsible\nand the Collaboration dimension is the extent to which the administration, faculty, and students cooperate and participate in problem solving. 3 the reading program changing classroom learning activities a great deal\n(3) external professional development being valuable\nand, ( 4) student achievement being positively impacted. SF A Results. SF A teachers were significantly more positive than their control counterparts on 13 of the 20 items. The largest effects were obtained for items indicating a more positive teacher evaluation of: (1) the guidance provided by the school facilitator, support team, or others\n(2) changes in learning activities due to the reading program\n(3) the school's plan for evaluating the reading program\n( 4) the value of the professional development\nand, the involvement of parents. Interviews and Focus Groups Interviews were conducted with key stakeholders ( district leadership, union leadership, and a school board member), principals of schools implementing DI and SF A as well as Control schools, building level union representatives, and DI and SFA school facilitators. Teacher focus groups of about one-hour in length were held to provide background information about schools' usage of their selected programs to support more informed interpretations of outcome measures such as student achievement. Questions addressed teachers' experiences with and reactions to program implementation with regard to such areas as program appropriateness, resources, professional development, and outcomes. The principal at each of the nine schools participated in a one-hour, on-site interview. Interview questions addressed the principal's experiences and reactions to the program implementation and the associated outcomes for the school, students, faculty, and parents/community. Interviews with control school principals were conducted via telephone, using the same instruments. Results from DI Interviews and Focus Groups According to respondents (principals, teachers, and teacher union building representatives), the strengths of DI appear to be in the primary grades, especially with regard to phonics. The model also appears to them to be highly positive for special needs children, attributed to DI's structure, repetition, and appropriate ability grouping. Weaknesses in DI were perceived in the intermediate grades, including a lack of instruction in comprehension and higher-order thinking skills. Implementation, according to one teacher focus group, has gone well in the lower grades, but as reported by one building representative, the program lacks support among intermediate grade teachers. Almost all principals, building representatives, and teacher focus groups perceived a positive impact of DI on reading and interest in reading. High student mobility was identified as one of the biggest obstacles to DI implementation, since new students enter the school with no DI experience. Large class size was mentioned as another perceived impediment to implementation. A third impediment reported at some schools was high teacher turnover. In some schools, boredom and lack of interest during DI was identified as an issue, although others report increases in student motivation and enthusiasm about reading. 4 3: Ill ::, ill \"\" IQ (D s ~ g rt ~ :t\u0026gt;'P. tll \" ~ a n  I-' Ill ,~ Most respondents viewed initial DI training as positive. Several noted that training was inadequate for new/transfer teachers. Model developers appeared to have inconsistent contact with the schools. Across all schools, there appeared to be a need for improved district training and support, which was reported to be minimal and unspecific. In summary, teachers and principals in DI schools perceive the program to be very effective, especially in grades K-3, at teaching larger numbers of students to read. Teachers and principals indicate that students are more motivated and interested in reading and that they see progress in their classrooms on a regular basis. There appears to be a weakness in the training provided by model consultants and the district, particularly for new teachers entering the program buildings. Results from SFA Interviews and Focus Groups According to respondents, SF A implementation has been improving, but has been highly dependent on the rate of teacher turnover. The most effective elements of the SF A model were perceived to be the 90-minute block of reading time, ability grouping for reading, the use of phonics and tutoring at the primary levels, and program consistency from grade to grade. The least effective SFA elements were reported as the lack of nonfiction materials (an issue identified at both \"program\" and \"control\" schools), limited writing emphasis, time constraints, large class sizes, the scripted lessons, and the lack of alignment to Ohio standards. Focus groups in both schools perceived that SFA supports cooperative and team-based approaches. Other SF A classroom changes identified include smaller reading groups, flexible levels, individualized learning, interdisciplinary and project-based instruction, improved partnering, and more student enthusiasm for learning. Staff reported that special\"needs SF A students are ability-grouped according to reading level, and are given extra tutoring if necessary. I In summary, staff observed that students in both SF A schools appear to be more motivated to read. SF A schools reported that, according to SF A assessments, more students are reading on level, and students are reading more often. SF A principals reported increasing proficiency scores, although teachers in one school reported that test scores are down: One SF A school also noted improved communication, stronger student relationships, and fewer discipline problems during SF A implementation. In both SF A schools, teacher collaboration and teacher collegiality has reportedly improved, despite high teacher turnover in one of the schools. According to the focus groups, professional development and SF A training have been helpful overall at both schools. However, follow-up training and training for new teachers were viewed to be inadequate. Targeted Observations Independent, out-of-state consultants with expertise in the implementation of DI and SF A conducted site visits to the Toledo schools implementing these models. Targeted observations for each model follow. 5 IQ xi::: 0J 0J ::, 0J 1- -0 ro~I s ('I) ::, Cl rt C: 0 :x:,. 0J en rt en .... 00 0 ::i I-' 0J QI rt ('I) DI Targeted Observations In-depth observations of Toledo's DI schools by outside experts in the program indicate a rather inconsistent and incomplete level of implementation of the components of the DI model that are critical for accelerating student progress to reach grade-level performance. These expert observers noted that implementation is not yet geared to produce significantly more than a year's progress each year so that children can close the \"academic gap.\" On an encouraging note, the observers reported that school staff nearly unanimously identified a significant reduction in the number of children who are nonreaders, and a significant increase in the number of children who are encountering success during reading instruction. Specific recommendations to improve DI implementations are as follows: 1. Place more emphasis on accelerating student performance in kindergarten and first grade. 2. Increase reading instructional time to accelerate and expand student reading proficiency. 3. Provide children who are functioning below grade level with daily extra DI reading instruction. 4. Provide for structured reading in a wide variety of materials. 5. Place more emphasis on implementation of the DI language curricula. 6. Provide professional development to enable all teachers to reach high levels of proficiency in teaching DI. 7. Provide training and support for building principals to take a more active role in supporting implementation of DI model. 8. Provide more of a sense of urgency from the district level to ensure implementations are producing desired levels of student learning. This recommendation further stres,ses the need to establish a district-wide DI coordinator to monitor implementation and 'ensure consistency and quality in uses of DI across schools. 1 SF A Targeted Observations According to the SF A expert who visited the program schools, implementation in Toledo is uneven. While observations revealed that implementation of the SF A program is generally above average in curricular areas and both schools provided the requisite 90-minutes of reading instruction each day, several concerns exist. Implementation of the \"Reading Wings\" reading component in one school was below average. Both schools are below average in family support implementation and one school needs to improve in the area of teacher training. 6 ' tO 3:C:: Ill Ill ::, Ill 1- IO (I) I\u0026lt; El (I)~ ::, c:1 rt Cl \u0026gt;en r en 0 (\"l I-' Ill rt I (I) In terms of student performance, based on their analysis of SF A-provided student assessments, both schools report approximately 90% of first graders reading at or above grade level and close to 70% at or above grade in most second through sixth grades.2 According to the expert observer, teachers at each school appear to be working together to successfully implement the program in the face of implementation challenges. For instance, one site has been without a permanent facilitator for most of the 2001-2002 school year. The other SF A site has two facilitators, however, program implementation is challenging there as well due to the large student population and other conditions. The observer noted that the district appears to lack attention and focus to ensure that high quality program implementation is o.ccurring at each SF A site. Specific recommendations to improve SF A implementation are as follows: 1. Improve the alignment of SFA with the Ohio Proficiency Standards. 2. Ensure that adequate program facilitation is provided. 3. Improve the quality of professional training that SFA teachers receive. 4. Strengthen the implementation of SF A's writing component. 5. Implement fully the family support program component of the SFA model. Options for Action Our research team's goal in conducting this analysis was to support the ongoing efforts of all stakeholders in Toledo to engage in effective, evidence-based action to improve student achievement. We hope this report will provide the District the information it needs to weigh its options regarding the future implementation of two research-based, research-proven reading/school improvement programs. This report does not seek to promote or discredit either program or any alternative approach, or to call into question the well-intended and hard work of many district administrators and school staff. Rather, it lays out the available faqts, analyzes them and, on that basis, provides the following, forward-looking options. The District has several options regarding the future of Direct Instruction and Success for All in these schools. They range from the abandonment of the models entirely to their full, sustained, and potentially expanded implementation. At one end of this spectrum, before abandoning the models completely, the District would have to answer two key questions: 2 This statement on grade level performance refers to an SF A student assessment. This information contradicts other student assessment data provided by the Toledo Public Schools Office of Research showing that on the district assessment one SFA site has about 50% of its first graders and 60% of second graders performing on grade level while the other site has about 80% of first and second graders performing at grade level. 7 1. Have we done all that we could at the district and school level to fully implement these two programs in order to achieve successful student outcomes? 2. If we do decide to drop these programs, what do we have in hand, ready to go, that will produce better results? Given the observations detailed in our report, it would appear that the District could talce several more steps to assure high-quality implementations of these models. Furthermore, while the district may develop equally, or more effective, alternative approaches for raising reading achievement in these program schools, and perhaps across the entire district, no such option currently exists. Therefore, the district may wish to explore ways in which these programs could continue to operate-for a limited period of time, and with increased support and monitoring. The programs that the District has adopted have demonstrated success in many similar settings across the country. Therefore, given the right circumstances they may yet yield the desired-but as yet unattained---outcomes in Toledo. Based on the results of this study and our experiences as consultants and researchers in the area of comprehensive school reform, the following recommendations are offered for consideration by the TPS School Board and Superintendent. Improving Model Implementation this School Year. In the event the District decides to continue to operate these two models, for the 2002-2003 school year, there are a number of actions that should be considered in order to improve implementation. The District should:  Carefully review the detailed findings of the targeted observations provided in this report and make every possible suggested change in implementation. In the future, the district should monitor and act on the information provided by DI and SF A ongoing implementation checks and consider supplementing this data with other formative evaluation tools.  Establish a support, accountability and monitoring structure at the district level with one administrator charged with oversight of these models. This would ensure an ongoing focus on providing the support required for success. This individual-knowledgeable in the research-based programs and, preferably, about literacy instruction as well.-would oversee the quality of implementation across sites. The administrator would work closely with principals and school staff to meet their needs, and should have the authority and budgetary power to: a. Identify and oversee high quality providers of technical assistance, professional development, and supplies and materials\nb. Help identify and support school-based facilitators of the model\nc. Malce certain that materials and supplies are provided in a timely fashion to appropriate school staff\nd. Set and keep a master schedule for training new teachers, current teachers, and school-based program facilitators that complements District-provided training\nand 8 I-' 0J rt Cl) e. Increase principal involvement in and preparation for implementing models.  Negotiate and hold models and consultants to clear, transparent, performance-based agreements that specify what it is the District expects of the model provider(s), and consequences for success and failure. Improving Medium and Long Term Model Implementation. At the other end of the spectrum, indefinitely continuing and/or expanding implementation, would not appear to be a wise option given the limited academic success so far experienced, and the program implementation improvement needs noted in this report. Despite a national track record of success, unless a program can demonstrate substantial, long-term success in raising student achievement for Toledo's children, the program may not be the best option for meeting student needs. The District, and program advocates, must answer some tough questions before the programs are deemed worthy of long term support, including: 1. Why are we seeing less than adequate student progress in some of the program schools implementing these models? How can we track student achievement more accurately? 2. What is our capacity, interest, and commitment to fully implementing these models? Does the continuation of these models best serve the interest of Toledo's children? 3. How can we better monitor and assess the implementation of the models at the District level? 4. In the long term, what are the better solutions to meet the educational needs of Toledo's children? Other, intermediate and perhaps more viable choices exist for the District. For example, it might decide to choose a path of cautious optimism and allow the implementation of these models to continue for one or two more years-pending more results, and with additional supports. In our view, all schools wanting to continue their selected models should be given at least one year to show tangible progress. Presently, teacher support for the models being used is fairly strong at most schools. There are also community stakeholders who are both active and vocal in their advocacy of their chosen model. Using the present, third-party evaluation as a starting point for requiring tangible progress to be demonstrated within the next school year should present ostensibly a fair and reasonable plan to all stakeholder groups. The District should consider making subsequent policy decisions about model continuance on a case-by-case (school specific) basis. Even if, for example, the District chose to install a research-based, districtwide reading curriculum and approach, a decision could be made at that time whether the results at any given school were sufficient to justify allowing the particular school to continue with its current program. Some districts have chosen to allow schools to pursue individual program options, as long as they can demonstrate performance success, and prepare their students for further success in case they transfer, or when they graduate to their next grade level. 9 3: Ill ::, Ill IQ Cl) s Cl) ::, rt :i,,i tll tll .. 0 C C'l::, I-' Ill Ir 1~ Specific Options for DI Implementation. Although some DI schools have had sufficient time to achieve full implementation and raise student achievement, applications of DI still appear to be weak in many critical areas. Schools and the District need to show in the coming year that they are able and willing to achieve the effective program implementation required to significantly improve student achievement. Otherwise, there is little reason to believe that results will be more successful than shown in the present analysis. Over time the District might consider reducing the number of DI sites based on the different schools' performance and the quantity of teachers willing to make a long-term commitment to implementing the program. Creating more structures like the magnet schools reviewed in this study may be desirable both to promote greater teacher \"buy-in\" and reduce student mobility. Also, the District might consider whether to limit DI to the lower (preK-3) grades and phase out implementation in the intermediate grades ( 4-6). Alternatively, the District should provide substantially better and more consistent training to teachers working with the older primary students. The DI model has a track record of effectiveness in the intermediate grades, but only when proper, regular teacher training is conducted and a literature-rich student environment is cultivated. Specific Options for SF A Implementation. In the case of SF A, more time is needed for schools to gain experience in implementing the model. On the whole, SF A implementation is uneven and the district must pay more attention to implementing the model with fidelity. Before scaling up with any further SF A sites, the district should ensure full program implementation at both current sites. Particular attention must be paid to placing a trained SFA facilitator at each site, providi~g adequate professional development for all staff, and fully implementing the family support component of the model. Creating more structures like the magnet schools reviewed in this study may be desirable both to promote greater teacher \"buy-in\" and reduce student mobili~ The district should expect mixed student achievement results across SF A sites if implementation is not improved. Conclusion. Several years ago, the Toledo Public Schools initiated an exemplary pilot effort to implement two reading improvement programs that have among country's best track records of effectiveness in raising student achievement. The leadership of the District was to be commended then, for making the commitment to take on \"evidence-based\" reform. It has continued that commitment by commissioning this impartial, rigorous, and thorough examination of the results to date of those decisions. While there is room for disappointment that student outcomes are less than anticipated, and concern that program implementation needs to be improved, the District's reliance on following the trail of evidence to appropriate conclusions should provide hope that-whichever options are taken in the coming months and years-the result will be a better education for Toledo's children. 10 Quality Education and Management Associates A CONSULTANT COMPANY P.O. Box 26166 Little Rock, Arkansas 72221-6166 (501) 221-1178 or lxmcneal@netscape.net Dr. Kathy K. Franklin, Principal Consultant Dr. Larry McNeal, Principal Consultant Dr. Tom E. C. Smith, Principal Consultant Dr. Gordon E. Watts, Principal Consultant RECE:VED ./'/2pn7 DEC - 4 2002 / /,\n11/- /).:..I, 'v ( v, .f. OfACEOf DESEGREGATION IIONiTORJNG I \"For every complex problem there is a simple solution that is one hundred percent wrong. QEMA knows the right solution.\" cfQ...uahut cgdcawuv QM\n~ ~~ A CONSULTANT FIRM P. 0. Box 26166 Little Rock, Arkansas 72221-6166 (501) 221-1178 or lxmcneal@netscape.net November 4, 2002 Darral Paradis, CPPB, C.P.M. Director, Procurement and Materials Management Department Little Rock School District 1800 East 6th Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Dear Mr. Paradis: 1bis letter is to introduce the consulting finn of Quality Education \u0026amp; Management Associates (QEMA) of Little Rock, Arkansas. Members of the firm are university faculty with specialized expertise in educational issues, P-12, as well as postsecondary. Firm members have actively consulted with public school districts, private businesses, and institutions of higher education in a variety of areas. Members of the firm are offering their services to the Little Rock School District in the area of program evaluation. In particular, members of the firm are able and prepared to assist Little Rock School District personnel in evaluating the various programs outlined in the recent school desegregation court ruling. We are looking forward to assisting the Little Rock School District as it moves forward to address the program evaluation issue. Sincerely, r'..__ 'L~\\ ~ Dr. Larry McNeal Principal Consultant 2 1. Curriculum Vitae Quality Education and Management Associates (QEMA) Vitae A summary of Quality Education and Management Associates (QEMA) members' evaluation activities are listed below. Dr. Kathy K Franklin 2001 to 2004, Evaluator, Alternative Classroom Experience Project (Joseph Pfeifer Kiwanis Camp) 1998 to 2000, Evaluator, Freshman Year Experience program (University of Arkansas at Little Rock) 1998 to 1999, Evaluator, Adult First Year Experience course (University of Arkansas at Little Rock) 1998 to 1999, Evaluator, Learning Communities Program (University of Arkansas at Little Rock) 1997, Evaluator, Learning Community Experiment (University of Arkansas at Little Rock) Dr. Larry McN eal 2001 to 2004, Evaluator, Alternative Classroom Experience Project (Joseph Pfeifer Kiwanis Camp) 2000 to 2001, Evaluator, Little Rock Scliool District Charter Elementary School (Little Rock School District) 2001 to 2002, Evaluator, Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School 1998 to 2000, Chair, College of Education Assessment Committee (University of Arkansas at Little Rock) 1997 to 1998 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Elementary School, Gales Public School District (Galesburg, Illinois) 1997, Evaluator, Title 1: Summer School Evaluation - Peoria Public School District (Peoria, Illinois) 3 1995 to 1996, Evaluator, Illinois School for the Visually (Illinois Department of Rehabilitation Services) 1995 to 1996, Evaluator, Illinois Center for Rehabilitation and Education (Illinois Department of Rehabilitation Services) 1995 to 1996, Evaluator, Illinois School for the Deaf (Illinois Department of Rehabilitation Services) Dr. Tom E. C. Smith 2001 to 2004, Evaluator, Alternative Classroom Experience Project -Joseph Pfeifer Kiwanis Camp 1999 to Present, National Evaluation System 2001, Charlotte-Mecklenburg School District Dr. Gordon E. Watts 2002 to 2004, Evaluator, Alternative Classroom Experience Project (Joseph Pfeifer Kiwanis Camp) 2002, Program Evaluator, Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant (Delta Teacher Education Consortium) 2000, Program Evaluator, Higher Education Consortium for Careers in Early Childhood (University of Arkansas at Little Rock) 1992 to present, Consultant/Evaluator, Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools 1998 Program Reviewer (Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education) The curriculum vitae for individual QEMA members are in Appendix A 4 2. Capacity And Capability To Perform Program Evaluations. QEMA has both the capacity and capability to perform program evaluation within the timelines identified in the recent school desegregation court ruling. The capacity and capability of QEMA is imbedded in its structure as a research based consulting firm with specialized expertise in educational issues, P-12, as well as postsecondary. Principal Consultants of QEMA have conducted a variety of types of program evaluations at the public school, community college, and university levels. The unique backgrounds and experiences of the principals enable them to bring together a wide spectrum of program evaluation models and statistical methodologies in order to create a program evaluation that is specifically tailored to their client's needs. - Currently, firm members are engaged in conducting a multi-year evaluation of the Alternative Classroom Experience Project for the Joseph Pfeifer Kiwanis Camp in Little Rock, Arkansas. The project provides educational services to at-risk elementary children from the Little Rock School and the Pulaski County Special School Districts. The experience acquired from this venture enhances QEMA's understanding and ability to provide program evaluation services to public school districts in Central Arkansas. A copy of a program evaluation completed by a QEMA principal consultant in Appendix B 5 3. Time Available For Consultation In response to the timeline requirements, QEMA consultant principals can be available between November 11, 2002 and March 1, 2003 on the following dates. The actual dates are subjected to mutual agreement between Little Rock School District personnel and QEMA personnel. Dates after March 1, 2003 are also available upon request. November 11-15: November 18-22 November 25-29 Pecember 2-6 December 9-13 December 16-20 January 6-10 January 13-17 January 20-24 January 27-31 February 3-7 February 10-14 February 17-21 February 24-28 4. Professional References A. QEMAGroup: Sanford Tollette Director Joseph Pfeifer Camp 5512 Ferndale Co I Little Rock, AR 72208 501.821.3714 Sanford@pfeifercamp.com B. Dr. Kathy Franklin Dr. Thea Zidonowitz Hoeft Division Chief for University College Director of Academic Advising Coordinator of First Year Experience University of Arkansas at Little Rock 501.569.3386 tmhoeft@ualr.edu 6 C. Dr. Larry McNeal Dr. Jean Brown Principal Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Elementary School Galesburg, Illinois 309. 691.8023 343.0409 D. Dr. Tom Smith 5. Pending Lawsuits There are no lawsuits or any other legal actions pending on Quality Education and Management Associates as a.consulting company or any of its principal consultants as individuals. I 7 Appendix A Curriculum Vitaes For Dr. Kathy K. Franklin Dr. Larry McNeal Dr. Tom E.C. Smith Dr. Gordon E. Watts 8 I EDUCATION KATHY K. FRANKLIN, Ed.D. Department of Educational Leadership, Policy, and Technology Studies The University of Alabama Box 870302 Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0302 kfranldi@bamaed.ua.edu 205-348-2470 Kathy K. Franklin 1 Ed.D. Educational Leadership with a concentration in higher education. Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, Tennessee, 1996. Dissertation: Exploring the Congruency Between Student Satisfaction and Institutional Effectiveness in Higher Education. Utilized a qualitative research design with a focus group method of inquiry to explore the congruency between criteria used by students to determine satisfaction with the higher education experience and criteria used by administrators to evaluate institutional effectiveness. The purpose of this research was to investigate the validity of using student satisfaction assessment as a definition of institutional effectiveness. M.B.A. Concentration in marketing and economics. Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, 1991.  B.S. Commerce and Business Administration with a concentration in marketing. University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, 1977. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Associate Professor of Higher Education Administration, Department of Educational Leadership, Policy\nand Technology Studies, The University of Alabama, 2002 to present. Associate Professor of Higher Education Administration, Department of Educational Leadership, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, 1999 to 2002. Taught courses on the following topics: history and philosophy of higher education, governance and public policy in higher education, finance of higher education, leadership theories in higher education, and qualitative research methods. Chair, Department of Educational Leadership, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, 1999 to 2001. I Assistant Professor of Higher Education, Department of Educational Leadership, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, 1996 to 1999. Taught courses on the following topics: history and philosophy of higher education, overview of higher education in the United States, college teaching problems and issues, designing a college curricula, qualitative research methods, dissertation seminar\nand advanced research methods. Team Instructor, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis, East Tennessee State University, Spring 1996 and Summer 1996. Taught the following courses in collaboration with senior faculty from the ELP A department: Professional Needs of Individuals and Groups\nGraduate Internship Program\nand Theories of Educational Administration. Instructor, Kathy K. Franklin 2  East Tennessee State University, College of Business, Department of Management and Marketing, Johnson City, Tennessee\n1992 to 1996. Full-time Temporary faculty status -Taught Principles of Marketing, Sales Force Management, Retail Management, Introduction to Business, and Organizational Behavior to undergraduate students.  Milligan College, Adult Education Program, Johnson City, Tennessee\n1994 to 1996. Adjunct faculty status -- Taught Marketing Communications in the adult accelerated M.B.A. program.  Northeast State Technical Community College, Blountville, Tennessee\nJanuary 1992 to August 1992. Adjunct faculty status -- Taught courses in business economics, finance, and marketing.  Tusculum College, Greeneville, Tennessee\nJune 1992 to October 1992. Adjunct faculty status -Taught graduate courses in strategic marketing management to adult students in the accelerated M.B.A. program. Graduate Assistant, Office of the Dean, College of Education, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, Tennessee\nMay 1995 to August 1995. Worked with the Associate Dean to prepare for the 1995 NCATE visit. Assistant Director, Bell South Exemplary Superintendent Training (BEST) Program, East Tennessee State University, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis, Johnson City, Tennessee\nAugust 1994 to May 1995. Coordinated all activities related to the professional development of forty Tennessee educational leaders in preparation for a future superintendency position. The BEST program was a collaborative effort with the Bell South Foundation and East Tennessee State University. PUBLICATIONS Journal and Newsletter Publications Franklin, K.K. (2002). Qualitative coding: The allegory of the quilt. Research in the Schools 9(1 ), 65-71. Franklin, K.K. (2001, winter). The \"Mikey\" phenomenon: Reflections of a first year chair. The Department Chair 11(3), 26-28. Franklin, K.K., Chesser, J.S., Edleston, R.J., Edwards-Schafer, P., Marvin, S.R., \u0026amp; Satkowski, T. (2001). Faculty attitudes about instructional technology in a metropolitan university classroom. _Metropolitan Universities: An International Forum 12(1), 50-61. Franklin, K.K. \u0026amp; Lowry, C. (2001). Computer-mediated focus group sessions: Naturalistic inquiry in a networked environment. Qualitative Research 1 (2), i 169-184. Franklin, K.K. (2000). Shared and connected learning in a freshman learning community. Journal of the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition 12(2), 33-60. Conners, N.A. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (Spring, 2000). Using focus groups to evaluate client satisfaction in an alcohol and drug treatment program. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 18, 313-3\nW. Franklin, K.K. (1999). A theoretical framework for metropolitan student satisfaction. Metropolitan Universities: An International Forum 10(3), 81-88. Franklin, K.K. (1999). Forging the bonds: learning communities on an urban campus. The First-Year Experience Newsletter 11(3), 8.  Franklin, K.K. (1998). Looking in the looking glass: How administrators describe the effectiveness of the metropolitan university. Metropolitan Universities: An International Forum 9(3), 9-18. Manuscripts in Press Kathy K. Franklin 3 Franklin, K.K., Cranston, V., Perry, S.N., Purtle, D.K., \u0026amp; Robertson, B.E. (in press). Conversations with mTreatnrosiptioolnit.a n university freshmen. Journal of the Freshman Year Experience and Students in Manuscripts in Blind Review Perry, S.N. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (2002). I am not the Gingerbread Man! Exploring the Experiences 'of College Students Diagnosed with AD/HD. The Journal of Research on Learning Diabilities. Manuscripts in Progress Franklin, K.K. A Tale of Four Freshman Friends: The Urban University Experience. Trawick, K. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. Responsibilities for the Effective Metropolitan University Department Chair. Franklin, K.K. Assessing a Freshman Year Experience Program. Franklin, K.K. The Freshman Year Experience: Increasing Confidence in the Ability to Succeed Crum, C. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. Mentoring Female Graduate Students. Kondrick, L. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. Predicting Success for Female Graduate Students Enrolled in Math, Science, and Engineering Programs. Marvin, USn. i\u0026amp;ve rFsritayn. klin, K.K. Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences: Students in Transition at an Urban Franklin, K.K., Conners, N.A., \u0026amp; Perry, S.N. Teaching Naturalistic Inquiry: A Constructivist Approach. ERIC Publications Perry, S.N. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. An Analysis of College Students with AD/HD at a Private and Public Institution in Arkansas using a Grounded Theory Approach. (submitted, November 2002) Conners, N.A. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (November, 1999). Fostering research by female graduate students through mentoring. Washington, D.C.: Educational Resources Information Center (ERJC) Clearinghouse on Higher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 435 757). Lowry, C. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (November, 1999). Utilizing networked computer workstations to conduct electronic focus group sessions. Washington, D.C.: Educational Resources Information Center E(EDR I4C3)5 C7l6e2a)ri.n ghouse on Assessment and Evaluation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. Marvin, S., Franklin, K.K., Edleston, R., Oberste, C., Routen, I.J., \u0026amp; Satkowsk.i-Harper, T. (November, 1999). Faculty attitudes about the use of technology in the college classroom. Washington, D.C.: Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) Clearinghouse on Higher Education. Reference number IRO 19901. Franklin, K.K., Boggs, K.J., Conners, N.A., Crum, C.B., Nawarat, P., Ramirez, C.T., \u0026amp; Trawick, K.C. (1997). Defining institutional effectiveness for a metropolitan university. (Report No. HE 030 940). Washington, D.C.: Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) Clearinghouse on Higher Education. (ERJC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 416 747). Kathy K. Franklin 4 Chamberlin, G.D. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (November, 1997). Implications of the baby boom echo in arkansas. (Report No. HE 030 872). Washington, D.C.: Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) Clearinghouse on Higher Education, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 418 610). Franklin, K.K. \u0026amp; Shemwell, D.W. {1995). Disconfirmation theory: An approach to student satisfaction assessment in higher education. Washington, D.C.: Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) Clearinghouse on Higher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 388 199). Franklin, K.K. \u0026amp; Knight, W.H. (1995). Using focus groups to explore student opinion. Washington, D.C.: Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) Clearinghouse on Higher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 388 200). Franklin, K.K., Shemwell, D.W., \u0026amp; Witta, E.L. (1994). Hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis of a student satisfaction survey. Washington, D.C.: Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 388 694). Franklin, K.K. (1994). Multivariate correlation analysis of a student satisfaction survey. Washington, D.C.: Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 388 695). Workbooks Published for Conference Workshops Franklin, K.K., (1999). The search for a needle in a haystack, Part II: The art of coding. Workbook published for the annual meeting of Mid-South Educational Research Association, Point Clear, AL. Franklin, K.K., Donaldson, C.W., Hoeft, T.M., \u0026amp; Chapman, C.A. (1999). Assessing the service-learning component in a freshman year experience course. Workbook published for the American Association for Higher Education Assessment Conference. Denver, CO. Franklin, K.K., Donaldson, C.W., \u0026amp; Hoeft, T.M. (1999). Inspiration and perspiration: Combining service-\nlearning with the freshman year experience. Workbook published for the annual meeting of the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. New Orleans, LA. Franklin, K.K., \u0026amp; Nawarat, P. (1998). The search for a needle in a haystack: Qualitative data analysis. Workbook published for the annual meetipg of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA. i Franklin, K.K. \u0026amp; Hoeft, T.M. (1998) Assessing the learning community: A survival kit. Workbook pSupbrilnisghse, dA Rfo. r the annual meeting of the South Central Freshman Success Initiatives Association. Hot Franklin, K. K. \u0026amp; Donaldson, C.W. (June, 1998). Assessing the learning community: A survival kit. Workbook published for the American Association for Higher Education Assessment Conference. Cincinnati, OH. PRESENTATIONS International Kathy K. Franklin 5 Franklin, K.K. \u0026amp; Donaldson, C.W. (1999, April). An analysis of two postsecondary learning environments: Learning communities and freshmen year experience courses. Poster session at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada. Franklin, K.K. \u0026amp; Conners, N.A. (1999, April). Mentoring female graduate students in a qualitative research methods course. Roundtable discussion at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada. National Marvin, S., Franklin, K.K., Chesser, J.S., Edleston, R., Edwards-Sharer, P., Oberste, C., Routen, I.J., \u0026amp;  Satkowski-Harper, T. (2001, October), Traveling through the Land of Oz: Teaching Qualitative Research. Poster Session at the Nursing Research Conference sponsored by Gamma Xi Chapter, Beta Chi Chapter, Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing, the University of Arkansas for Medical Services College ofNursing, and the Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System. Nursing Service. Little Rock, AR. Franklin, K.K, Donaldson, C.W., Hoeft, T.M., \u0026amp; Chapman, C.A. (1999, October). Assessing the servicelearning component in a freshman year experience course. Presentation at the annual meeting of the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities. Boise, ID. Franklin, K.K., Donaldson, C.W., Hoeft, T.M., \u0026amp; Chapman, C.A. (1999, June). Assessing the servicelearning component in a freshman year experience course. Workshop presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Higher Education Conference on Assessment. Denver, CO. Franklin, K.K., Hoeft, T.M., \u0026amp; Donaldson, C.W. (1999, March). Inspiration and perspiration: _ Combining service-learning and the freshmen year experience. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. New Orleans, LA. Franklin, K.K. \u0026amp; Donaldson, C.W. (1998, November). Developing the assessment strategy for a linked course learning corf-zmunity. Poster session at the Assessment Institute Best Practices Fair, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis. Indianapolis, IN. Conners, N.A. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (1998, November). Using focus groups to evaluate client satisfaction in an alcohol and drug treatment program. Poster session at the annual meeting of the American Evaluation Association. Chicago, IL. Franklin, K.K. (1998, June). Assessing the learning community: A survival kit. Workshop conducted at the 1998 American Association for Higher Education Assessment Conference. Cincinnati, OH. Franklin, K.K. (1998, February). Explaining student satisfaction with a metropolitan university.  Grant funded research presented at the annual meeting of the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities. San Antonio, TX. Franklin, K.K. (1996, April). Exploring the congruency between student satisfaction and institutional effectiveness in higher education. Dissertation research presented at the 17th annual National Graduate Student Research Seminar in Educational Administration sponsored by the University Council for Educational Administration. New York City, NY. Re~ional Perry, S.N. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (2002, November) .. College Students with AD/HD. Presentation made at the 2002 annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Chattanooga, TN. Kathy K. Franklin 6 Trawick, K. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (2002, November). Exploring Department Chair Roles in Metropolitan Universities. Presentation made at the 2002 annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Chattanooga, TN. Hoeft, T.M., Franklin, K.K., \u0026amp; Donaldson, C.W. (2002, April). Conversations with First Year Students: Implications for Teaching and Learning. Presentation made at the 2002 annual meeting of the Arkansas Academic Advising Network. Jonesboro, AR. Franklin, K.K., Cranston, V., Peny, S.N., Purtle, D.K., Roberston, B.E. (2001, November). Conversations with metropolitan freshmen. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Little Rock, AR. Franklin, K.K. (1999, November). The search for a needle-in-a-haystack, Part II: The art of coding. PWooinrkt sCholepa rp, rAesLe.n ted at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Conners, N. A. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (1999, November). Fostering research by female graduate students through mentoring. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Point Clear, AL. Lowry, C. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (1999, November). Utilizing networked computer workstations to conduct electronic focus group sessions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Point Clear, AL. Marvin, S., Franklin, K.K., Edleston, R., Oberste, C., Routen, I.J., \u0026amp; .Satkowski-Harper, T. (1999, November). Faculty attitudes about the use of technology in the college classroom. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Point Clear, AL. Franklin, K.K., Conners, N. A., Edleston, R., Marvin, S., Oberste, C., Routen, I.I., \u0026amp; Satkowski-Harper (1999, November). Traveling through the Land of Oz: Teaching qualitative research. Poster pArLes. ented at the annual meeting of the Mid-Sotith Educational Research Association. Point Clear, Franklin, K.K. \u0026amp; Hoeft, T.M. (1998, October). Assessing a learning community: A survival kit. Workshop conducted at the South Central Freshman Success Initiatives Association. Hot Springs, AR. Franklin, K.K., Nawarat, P., \u0026amp; Ramirez, C. (1998,\nNovember). The search for a needle-in-a-haystack: Qualitative data analysis. Workshop conducted at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA. Franklin, K.K., Chamberlin, G.D., Kennedy, R.L., \u0026amp; Sewall, AM. (1997, November). A dissertation survival Mkite. mPpahpise,r TprNe.s ented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Franklin, K.K., Boggs, K.J., Conners, N.A., Crum, C.B., Nawarat, P., Ramirez, C.T., \u0026amp; Trawick, K.C. (1997, November). Defining institutional effectiveness for a metropolitan university. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Memphis, TN. Franklin, K.K., \u0026amp; Chamberlin, G.D. (1997, November). Implications of the baby boom echo in the midMsouemth. p hiPsa, pTeNr p. resented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Kathy K. Franklin 7 Chamberlin, G.D., \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (1997, November). The baby boom echo: Implications for two-year colleges in Arkansas. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Arkansas Association of Two- Y ear Colleges. Little Rock, AR. Franklin, K.K., \u0026amp; Knight, W.H. (1997, February). Exploring the congruency between student satisfaction and institutional effectiveness in higher education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Educational Research Association. Hilton Head, SC. Franklin, K.K., \u0026amp; Knight, W.H. (1996, November). Exploring the definition of institutional effectiveness in higher education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Tuscaloosa, AL. Franklin, K.K., \u0026amp; Bartell, N.O. (1996, November). How to survive a qualitative dissertation. Training session- for graduate students at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Tuscaloosa, AL. Franklin, K.K., \u0026amp; Shemwell, D.W. (1995, November). Disconfirmation theory: An approach to student satisfaction assessment in higher education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Biloxi, MS. Franklin, K.K. \u0026amp; Knight, W.H. (1995, November). Using focus groups to explore student opinion. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Biloxi, MS. Franklin, K.K., Shemwell, D.W., \u0026amp; Witta, E.L. (1995, March). Hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis of a student satisfaction survey. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Education Research Association. Hilton Head, SC. Franklin, K.K. (1995, March). Relationship between student satisfaction and assessing program effectiveness. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Education Research Association. Hilton Head, SC. I Franklin, K.K. (1994, November). Multivariate correlation analysis of a student satisfaction survey administered at East Tennessee State University. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the MidSouth Education Research Association. Nashville, TN. Local Franklin, K.K. (2000, January). Faculty attitudes about the use of instructional technology in the metropolitan. university classroom. Presentation of research findings to the University of Arkansas AatR L. ittle Rock (UALR) Strategic Planning Committee on Instructional Technology. Little Rock, Franklin, K.K. (1999, January). Explaining student satisfaction with a metropolitan university.\nPresentation of research findings to the UALR Retention Committee. Little Rock, AR. Conners, N.A. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (1999, January). Using focus groups to evaluate client satisfaction in an alcohol and drug treatment program. Poster session at the University of Arkansas Medical School, Department of Psychiatry, Grand Rounds. Little Rock, AR. Franklin, K.K. (1998, August). Assessing learning communities. Faculty development workshop at UALR. Little Rock, AR. Franklin, K.K. (1998, April). Explaining student satisfaction with a metropolitan university. Presentation of research findings to the UALR Faculty Senate. Little Rock, AR. Kathy K. Franklin 8 Franklin, K.K. (1998, April). Explaining student satisfaction with a metropolitan university. Presentation of research findings to the staff of the UALR Office of Educational and Student Services. Little Rock, AR. SPONSORED RESEARCH Evaluator for the Freshman Year Experience program sponsored by a grant from the Office of Educational and Student Services at UALR. Completed a two-year student learning assessment for the PEA W 1300 courses based on the six learning objectives identified for the course by the PEAW 1300 Curriculum Committee. The assessment included a freshmen profile survey administered to approximately 1100 students, a freshman attitude survey administered to approximately 900 students, a service-learning evaluation, and course portfolio evaluation (n = 161). Data provided evidence to support that the six learning objectives were accomplished. 1998 to 2000. Evaluator for the Adult First Year Experience course sponsored by a UALR Curriculum Development Grant. 1998 to 1999.   Evaluator for the fall and spring, 1998-1999 learning communities sponsored by a UALR Curriculum Development Grant.. 1998 to 1999. Conducted four focus group sessions with administrators and four focus group sessions with students on the University of North Texas campus to explore student perception of educational satisfaction and administrator perception of institutional effectiveness. Purpose of research was to explore the congruency between the criteria used by students to determine student satisfaction and the criteria used by administrators to evaluate institutional effectiveness. Research sponsored by a Coalition of Metropolitan and Urban Universities. 1997. Conducted four focus group sessions with administrators and seven focus group sessions with students on the. University of Arkansas at Little Rock campus to explore student perception of educational satisfaction and administrator perception of institutional effectiveness. Purpose of research was to explore the congruency between the criteria used by students to determine student satisfaction ai\nid , the criteria used by administrators to evaluate institutional effectiveness. Research sponsored by a UALR Faculty Development Grant. 1997. Evaluator for a learning community experiment, conducted during the 1997 fall semester, linking three freshmen core courses: speech communication, rhetoric and writing, and anthropology sponsored by an UALR Assessment Grant. 1997. ' PROFESSIONAL SERVICE Service to the Profession Continuous Service Member, Editorial Board, Research in the Schools, Mid-Sou.th Educational Research Association. 2002 to present. Member, Editorial Board, Journal of the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition, University of South Carolina Press. 1999 to present Member, Editorial Board, The Qualitative Report. http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QRJindex.html. 2001 to present. Referee, Qualitative Research, Sage Publications. 2001 to present. Research Coordinator, Coalition for Urban and Metropolitan Universities. Responsible for managing the Ernest Lynton Research Grant Program and Paige E. Mulhollan Dissertation Award Program. 1999 to 2002 2001 Kathy K. Franklin 9 Panel Member, Plenary Session, Developmental Education - Issues and Expectations, Arkansas Association for Developmental Education 2001 Fall Conference. Hot Springs, AR: October, 2001. 2000 Accepted an invitation to serve on the Strategic Study Committee for Roanoke College, Roanoke Virginia as a member of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) Visiting Team. November, 2000 . Mid-South Educational Research Association - 2003 President Mid-South Educational Research Association - 2002 Vice-President and President-Elect, 2002 Chair, Outstanding Paper and Dissertation Awards Committee Mid-South Educational Research Association - 2001 Site Coordinator, 2001 Annual Meeting, Little Rock Arkansas Member, Program Review Committee for the 2001 annual meeting Representative-at-Large, Board of Directors Mid-South Educational Research Association - 2000 Nominated by Board of Directors to serve as Secretary/Treasurer for MSERA. 2000 Site coordinator for the 2001 annual meeting to be held in Little Rock, Arkansas. Member, Program Review Committee for the 2000 annual meeting. Mid-South Educational Research Association - 1999 Elected by members of the Board of Directors to serve as a Representative-at-Large for MSERA. Member, Program Review Committee for the 1999 annual meeting. Mid-South Educational Research Association - 1998 Chair, Graduate Student Advisory Committee. Member, Program Review Committee for the 1998 annual meeting. Discussant, Mid-South Educational Research Association Conference, Discussion on Teaching and Learning. November, 1998. Session chair, Mid-South Educational Research Association Conference. Discussion on Early Childhood Education. November 1998. Session chair, Mid-South Educational Research Association Conference. Discussion on Teaching and Leaming. November, 1998. Mid-South Educational Research Association - 1997 Chair, Graduate Student Advisory Committee. .. Member, Program Review Committee for the 1997 annual meeting. Panel member, Mid-South Educational Research Association. Training session for graduate students titled: Life After Graduation: More Things You Need to Know About the Job Market. November 1997. Panel member, Mid-South Educational Research Association Conference. Training session for doctoral candidates titled: Dissertation Survival Kit. November 1997. g r. i ~ rt 01 .r.t. g Kathy K. Franklin I 0 Session chair, Mid-South Educational Research Association Conference, presentation of the 1997 Outstanding Paper awards. November 1997. Mid-South Educational Research Association - 1995 to 1996 Member, Graduate Student Advisory Committee. Session chair, Mid-South Educational Research Association Conference. Discussion on Higher Education. November, 1996. Session chair, Mid-South Educational Research Association Conference. Discussion on Test-Ta.long. November, 1996. Session chair, Mid-South Educational Research Association Conference. November, 1995. Service to The University of Alabama Member, Department of Educational Leadership, Technology, and Policy Studies Assessment Committee. 2002 to present. Service to the University of Arkansas at Little Rock Service to 2002 Member, UALR Department of Excellence Selection Committee. Jan. 2002 to April 2002 Service to 2001 Completed a two-year assessment of the PEA W 1300 courses at UALR for the Office of Educational and Student Services. The final assessment report included a detailed profile of approximately 1100 UALR freshmen emolled from the fall 1998 to spring 2000. The report also included the findings from a pre- and post-administered attitude survey, evaluation of course portfolios, and evaluation of service-learning activities. Data were analyzed using SPSS-PC v.9. Vice-Chair, UALR Graduate Council. 2000 to 2001 Chair, UALR Graduate Council Personnel Advisory Committee. 2000 to 2001 Evaluator, Freshman Year Experience Program at UALR. Responsible for developing and implementing an assessment strategy for all PEA W 1300 courses taught as a component of the Freshman Year Experience Program at UALR. 1998 to 2001 Member, Advisory Committee to the UALR Chancellor.  Serving on a committee of approximately 25 UALR faculty and administrators providing the Chancellor with feedback on proposed policies designed to enhance the metropolitan mission of the university. 1997 to 2001 Member, UALR Graduate Council. 1996 to 2001 Service to 2000 Member, elected by the Faculty Senate to serve 3$ a member of the UALR Research Committee. Responsibilities of the committee include  reviewing grant proposals written by UALR faculty for funding by the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs. 1998 to 2000. Chair, UALR Graduate Council Curriculum Subcommittee. 1998 to 2000. Evaluator, Service-Learning component of the Freshman Year Experience Program at UALR. Responsible for developing and implementing an assessment strategy for the service-learning component of PEAW 1300 courses. Member, UALR Faculty Appeals Committee. 1998 to 2000. Member, UALR Retention Committee. 1998 to 2000. Member, UALR Graduate Council Subcommittee on Graduate Curriculum. 1996 to 2000. Service to 1999 Member, Freshman Year Experience Brochure Development Committee. Spring, 1999. Member, First-Year Experience Curriculum Committee. 1998 to 1999. Member, UALR Academic Appeals Committee. September 1997 to 1999. Service to 1998 Member, Grant writing team to develop a grant proposal for the Kellogg Foundation visit. April 1998. Kathy K. Franklin 11 Member, UALR World Humanities Core Assessment Group. Served as the Core Assessment Committee liaison on this committee. Responsibility of the committee was to develop a core assessment strategy. March 1997 to 1998. Member, Advisory Subcommittee to the UALR Chancellor. Purpose of subcommittee was to provide s1u9p9p8o. rt for the development of a grant proposal for a 1997 Kellogg Foundation grant. 1997 to Member, UALR Core Assessment Committee. 1996 to 1998. Member, UALR Core Assessment Subcommittee on Implementing the University Core Assessment Plan. 1996 to 1998.  Co-authored the nomination packet for the John Templeton Award for the Freshman Year Experience Program at UALR. December, 1998. Attended the First-Year Experience Seminar hosted by the National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition and the University of South Carolina held in Little Rock, AR. April 6 - 7, 1998 Attended the Developing Larning Communities conference sponsored by the University of Miami in Miami, Florida. January 1998. Service to 1997 Developed and implemented an assessment strategy for a learning community experience at UALR at the request of the Office of the Provost and sponsored by a UALR assessment grant. The learning community linked three freshmen courses: Anthropology, Rhetoric and Writing, and Speech Communications. This course was designed based on the research of Vincent Tinto. Summer 1997 Conducted a focus group session of student leaders at UALR, analyzed the data, and drafted an executive summary of the findings for UALR administrators at the request' of the Office of the Provost. The purpose of the focus group session was to explore student leader attitudes concerning the strengths and weaknesses of UALR. The information was used to develop a SWOT analysis for the UALR five-year strategic plan. July 1997 Attended the 1997 Service Learning retreat sponsored by the Office of the Chancellor and the Office of the Provost. Invited by the Chancellor to join 65 UALR faculty and administrators in a daylong retreat discussing service-learning strategies for UALR. Attended the Critical Thinking Weekend Workshop, featuring Dr. Stanley Paul, at the request of the Office of the Provost in Seattle, Washington. May 1997. Visited with key change agents at Portland State University at the request of the Chancellor for the purpose of \"bridge-building\" between the two metropolitan campuses. May 1997. Service to 1996 Attended the Indiana University - Purdue University Indianapolis Assessment Conference~ held in Indianapolis, Indiana, at the request of the Office of the Provost. November 1996. Service to the College of Education, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Service to 2002 Chair, Department of Educational Leadership Annual Review Committee. Spring, 2002. Service to 2001 Department Chair. 1999 - 2001 Attended the annual conference for the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education. Dallas, Texas. 2001. Member, Annual Peer Review Committee. 2001 Member2, 0F0a0c.u lty Search Committee to select an Associate Professor of Higher Education Administration. Member, Faculty Search Committee to select an Assistant Professor of Higher Education Administration. 1999 to 2001. a ( E g r: Q Service to 2000 Member, Faculty Search Committee for the Vision Education Program. Spring, 2000. Member, Admissions, Retention, and Exit Committee. 1998 to 2000. Service to 1999 Kathy K. Franklin 12 Discussant, Millennium Forum, Metropolitan Focus Lecture on Instructional Technology, Dr. James In.man, featured speaker. September 30, 1999 Chair, UALR, College of Education Assessment Committee. Responsible for the on-going assessment of ANuCgAuTstE 1 s9t9a7n dtaor d1s9 9a9n.d the implementation of continuous-improvement strategies for the college. Chair, College of Education Assessment Readers Team to critique the college 1999 assessment reports. 1999 Elected by faculty in the Department of Educational Leadership to serve as the faculty reporter for all faculty meetings and to serve as acting chair for the department during the absence of the department chair. 1998 to 1999. Service to 1998 Chair, College of Education NCATE Readers Team. Responsible for reviewing and critiquing the NCATE report for the 1998 spring visit. August 1997 to April 1998. Member, Readers Team for the 1997-98 UALR Annual Assessment Progress Report. May, 1998 Member, College of Education NCATE Steering Committee. Coordination of the preparation for the NCATE 1998 spring visit. August 1997 to April 1998. Guided College of Education faculty through a S.W.O.T. analysis to develop the five-year strategic plan. September 1998. Service to 1997 Chair, Department of Educational Leadership Assessment Coordination Committee. 1996 to 1997. Submitted an application to serve as a Research Mentor for the McNair Scholars Program. FebI1\n1ary 1997. PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS Member, Arkansas Academic Advising Network. 2002 to present. Member, American Association of University Women. 2000 to present. Member, Mid-South Educational Research Association. 1994 to present. Member, The American Educational Research Association. 1999 to present. Member, The American Association of Higher Education. 1997 to 2001. Member, Eastern Educational Research Association. 1995 to 1997. PROFESSIONAL HONORS Kathy K. Franklin 13 Nominated for the 2001 Faculty Excellence Award in Research for the College of Education at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. December, 2001 A warded the 1999 Faculty Excellence Award in Service for the College of Education at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. April, 1999. Nominated by students in the Higher Education Administration program for the 1997-1998 Faculty Excellence Award in Teaching. December 1997. Awarded the East Tennessee State University, College of Education, 1997 Outstanding Dissertation Award. Nominated by Dr. Hal W. Knight, Associate Dean, College of Education. Selected by the University Council for Educational. Administration to attend the 17th annual National Graduate Student Research Seminar in Educational Administration held in New York City, 1996. I CURRICULUM LIST East Tennessee State University Higher Education Administration ELPA 6581 Internship with the Office of Enrollment Management ELPA 7820 Administration in Higher Education ELP A 68 80 Higher Education Finance and Law ELP A 6810 Theory of Educational Admjnistration ELP A 6010 Seminar in Education Administration and Organizations HDAL 5720 Student Personnel Services ELPA 6957 ELPA 6957 ELPA 6957 ELPA 6957 ELPA 6957 Special Topics - \"Leadership in Professional Development Centers.\" Special Topics - \"Program Planning in Continuing Education.\" Special Topics - \"Proposal and Grant Development.\" Special Topics - \"Politics of Higher Education.\" Special Topics - ''Leadership Studies.\" Education Foundations ELPA 6730 History and Philosophical Foundations of Education ELP A 6906 History and Philosophical Issues in Higher Education HDAL 5200 Human Relations and Group Processes Education Statistics Advanced Research and Analysis Kathy K. Franklin 14 Research ELPA 7810 ELPA 6950 ELPA 6901 MKTG5900 MKTG 5900 Independent Study - \"Multivariate Correlation Analysis\" Independent Study - \"Hierarchical Confirmatory Factor Analysis using LISREL 7.0\" Independent Study - \"Investigating the Use of Disconfirmation Theory to Measure College Student Satisfaction\" Middle-Tennessee State University Management and Marketing MGMT0660 Study of Organizations MGMT0665 Seminar in Operations Management BAD 0698 Business Policy MKT MKT MKT MKT 0680 0683 0685 0682 . Marketing Strategy Marketing Systems International Marketing Seminar Marketing Behavior General Business Theory ECON 5110 Economics and Business Decisions (East Tennessee State University) ECON 5240 Applied Macro Economic Theory (East Tennessee State University) FIN 0671 Advanced Financial Analysis lNFS 0671 Systems Analysis ACTG 0691 Accounting and Business Decisions REFERENCES Dr. Candace W. Burns, Chair Department of Educational Leadership University of Arkansas at Little Rock 2801 South University Ave. Little Rock, Arkansas 72204-1099 Phone: 501-569-3367 E-mail: cwbums@ualr edu Dr. Larry McNeal, Professor Department of Educational Leadership University of Arkansas at Little Rock 2801 South University Ave. Little Rock, Arkansas 72204-1099 Phone: 501-569-3552 E-mail: lxmcneal@ualr.edu Dr. Gordon E. Watts, Professor Department of Educational Leadership University of Arkansas at Little Rock 2801 South University Ave. Little Rock, Arkansas 72204-1099 Phone: 501-569-3267 E-mail: gewatts@ualr.edu Kathy K. Franklin 15 DR. LARRY MCNEAL BUSINESS ADDRESS University of Arkansas at Little Rock 2801 S. University Avenue Department of Educational Leadership Little Rock, Arkansas 72204-1099 Office 501-569-3552 Fax 501-569-3547 lxmcneal@ualr.edu HOME ADDRESS 15806 Patriot Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72212-2606 501-221-1178 lxmcneal@netscape.net or 1.mcneal59@hotmail.com PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION Ph.D. Educational Administration, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (1990) Emphasis: Fiscal and Community Support for Public Education Concentrations: Educational Finance, School-Co=nity Relations, and Public School\\ Administration M. S. Educational Administration, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (1989) Emphasis: Administration and Organization of Public Education Concentration: Educational Administration (Public School) M. A. Public Affairs. University oflowa, Iowa City (1976) Emphasis: Public Administration Concentration: Urban Administration B. A. Business Administration and Political Science, Dakota Wesleyan University, Mitchell, SD {1975) Emphasis: Political Economics Concentrations: Business Administration, Political Science and Economics Licensure: School Business Management (No longer active) Insurance Agent (No longer active) Entrepreneurship: Quality Education and Management Associates, President PROFESSIONAL WORK EXPERIENCE Professor, Department of Educational Leadership, Graduate School of Education, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, Arkansas, 1998 to the present Visiting Professor, Department of Educational Management \u0026amp; Development, Graduate School of  Education, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, Summer 2000 Educational Administration and Supervision Program Coordinator, Department of Educational Leadership, Graduate School of Education, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, Arkansas, 1998 to 2001 Visiting Professor, Department of Educational Management \u0026amp; Development, Graduate School of Education, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, Summer 1998 Associate Professor, Department of Educational Administration and Foundations, Graduate School of Education, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, 1995 to 1998 Visiting Professor, Bellver International College, Trenton State College (now College of New Jersey), Graduate School of Education, Palma de Mallorca, Baleares, Spain, Summer 1996 Associate Director, Office of Educational Finance, Center For Higher Education and Educational Finance, qraduate School of.Education, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, 1995-1997 State Coordinator, Illinois Education Policy Fellow Program, Institute for Educatio~ Leadership, Graduate School of Education, lliinois State University, Normal, lliinois 1994-1996 Research Associate, Center for the Study of Educational Finance, Graduate School of Education, lliinois State University, Normal, lliinois, 1993-1995 Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Administration and Foundations, Graduate School of Education, lliinois State University, Normal, Illinois, 1993-1995- Visiting Professor, Department of Educational Administration and Foundations, Graduate School of Education, University ofNorthern Iowa, Cedar Falls, Iowa, Summer 1993 Research Associate, Center for the Study of Small/Rural Schools, Graduate School of Education, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, 1992-1994 Adjunct Fellow, Center for Research on Multi-Ethnic Education, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, 1991-1992 Danforth Principal Preparation Program Co-Facilitator, Graduate School of Education, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, 1991-1993 Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, Graduate School of Education, University of Oklahoma, Normal, Oklahoma, 1991-1993 Coordinator of Multicultural Affairs, Wisconsin Alumni Association, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, 1990-1991 Budget Analyst Intern, University of Wisconsin System Administration, Madison, Wisconsin, 1989-90 Equal Rights Officer, Division of Care and Treatment Facilities, Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services, Madison, Wisconsin, Fall/Spring, 1988/1989 Budget and Management Analyst Intern, Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, Madison, Wisconsin, Summer, 1988 Marketing Manager, WarBuc Educultural Publications, Madison, Wisconsin, 1985-1987 Business Mathematics Instructor, Business Department, Madison Area Technical College, Madison, Wisconsin, Fall 1985 and Spring 1987 Finance Marketing Representative, John Deere \u0026amp; Company, Moline, lliinois, based in Madison, Wisconsin, 1978-1984 Commercial Service Representative, Honeywell, Incorporated, Minneapolis, Minnesota, based in Des Moines, Iowa, 1977-1978 Public Administration Intern, Mayor's Office, City of Davenport, Davenport, Iowa, 1976 2 DISSERTATION McNeal, L. (1990). The role of education for employment councils in education for employment programs. University of Wisconsin-Madison. RESEARCH INTERESTS School Cornrnunitarianism (the fundamental relationship between schools and their co=unities) Organizational Change (change processes and organizational effectiveness) Educational Finance ( adequacy and equity of funding for public education) Program Assessment and Evaluation GRADUATE COURSES TAUGHT Administration and Organization of Schools Advanced Administrative Theory and Behavior Administrative Problem Solving Organizational Change Educational Politics and Policy Dissertation Proposal Development Educational Finance School Business Administration Human and Fiscal Resources Management Educational Public Relations Introduction to Doctoral Studies Organizational Development PUBLICATIONS: REFERRED McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Christy, W.K. (In Press, 2003). The locus of control issue in standard-based accountability. Educational Considerations. Christy, W .K. \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (2002). Influence of school board members on state legislation in Arkansas. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EA 031517. McNeal, L. (2002). The school-community relations profile model: Combining school district and community-based data. In J. Thomas Owens and Jan C. Simmons (Eds.), In creating quality reform: Programs, communities, and governance (67-81). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Chesser, J.S., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (2001). Educational community study circles: How superintendents can enhance school improvement through community dialogue. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 446 370. Christy, W.K., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (2000). Implications oflegislative policy development for public school districts. F. Kochan (Ed~). Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Yearbook Chesser, J.S., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (1999). School improvement through community dialogue: The first community study circles on education in Arkansas and Oklahoma. ERIC Document Re:production Service No. ED 436 694..  Mogilka, J, Ashby, D.E, \u0026amp; McNeal, L., (Eds.). (1996). Planning \u0026amp; Changing, 27(1\u0026amp;2). McNeal, L. (1995). Fulfilling promises in the land of Will Rogers: A look at performance indicators in selected school districts since the enactment of Oklahoma house bill 1017. School Finance Policy Issues in the States and Provinces: Annual Update 1995 (135-138), C. Edlefson (Ed). The Ohio State University: Policy Research for Ohio-Based Education. McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Reed, R. (1995). Building a school-community relations profile through sociological inventorying. People \u0026amp; Education: The Human Side of Schools, 3(3), 371-386. 3 McNeal L., et al. (1994). National Sallie Mae winners and their principals. National Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision Journal, 11(3), 3-10. McNeal, L. (1994). Focusing on at-risk students: Case study of John Wilkinson Elementary School. Illinois School Research and Development Journal, 31(1), 7-10. McNeal L., \u0026amp; Ashby, D. (1993). Site-based management and changing relationships. Illinois School Research and Development Journal, 31(1), 7-10. McNeal L., \u0026amp; Lehman, B. J. (1993). A vision of the future: The full-service school. Planning and Changing, 24(3/4), 140-154. BOOK PROPOSAL IN PROGRESS Christy, W.K., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (2001). Working Title: The Superintendency: Theory to reflective practice. To be submitted to Wadsworth. Belmont, CA. MANUSCRIPTS IN PROGRESS McNeal, L. (2001). The contextual world of education for children and the school-co=unity: James coleman and the effective schools movement. To be submitted to Humanistic Counseling, Education and Development. McNeal, L., \u0026amp; Christy, W.K. (2001). Rethinking the school district model of funding for individual schools: Co=ents about site-based management of resources. To be submitted to Planning and Change. Christy, W.K., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (2001). Implications of charter schools and home schooling for the funding of public schools. To be submitted to Journal of School Leadership. PUBLICATIONS: MONOGRAPHS , McNeal, L., et al. (1993). Common sense: Plain talk to legislators about school finance. Center For the Study of Educational Finance. Illinois State University. PUBLICATIONS: NON-REFERRED McNeal, L. (December, 1990). The role of education for employment councils in education for employment programs. Dissertation. McNeal L. (1993). The education of African-American children in Oklahoma. State of Oklahoma: Annual Report. Urban League of Greater Oklahoma City, Inc., 36-45. McNeal, L., First, P. F., \u0026amp; Knudson, D. P. (1993). Evaluating the University of Oklahoma Danforth Principal Preparation Program. Connections. 1 (2), 3. McNeal, L. (1992). University of Oklahoma report. Danforth Programs for the Preparation of School Principals Newsletter, 1 (2). 3.  McNeal, L. (1987). From the desk of. National Multicultural Banner, 5 (6), 2. McNeal, L. (1986). From the desk of: Literacy, who's problem is it anyway? National Multicultural Banner, 5 (3), 2. 4 McNeal, L. (1986). The Black collegians guide to graduate fellowships for minority students. National Multicultural Banner, 5 (2), 9. CITED IN EDUCATION WEEK In the area of educational finance, Education Week has quoted me on several occasions. I have been quoted in the following articles: 11/26/97 in News ILL. Lawmakers Get One More Try To Pass School Funding Reforms 6/11/97 in News ILL. Lawmakers Duck Vow To Revamp Funding 3/26/97 in News ILL. Audit Questions Oversight of ILL. Education Agency 2/5/97 in News ILL. Odds Seen Better for F1.lllding Reform in ILL. REPORTS McNeal, L. Little Rock school district charter elementary school evaluation report for the 2001- 2002 school year. Prepared for the Little Rock School District, November, 2002. McNeal, L., et. al. The college of education assessment report: 2000-2001: University. of Arkansas at Little Rock. Prepared for the Provost's Advisory Group on Assessment, June, 2001.  McNeal, L. Little Rock school district charter elementary school evaluation report for the 2000- 2001 school year. Prepared for the Little Rock School District, June, 2001. McNeal, L. Projected student enrollment for the 2000-2001 school year: 6th and 7th grade student racial make up report. Prepared for Pulaski County Charter School Inc., April, 2001. McNeal, L. Enrollment trends in the Little Rock, North Little, and Pulaski County Special school districts: 1995-1996 to 1999-2000. Prepared for Pulaski County Charter School Inc., November, 2000. Coleen, B.C., Driskill, G., Leslie, S., McNeal, L., Mitchell, W., Taylor, C., \u0026amp; Webb, R. Provost's advisory group on assessment: University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Summer 2000 report, July, 2000. I McNeal, L., et. al. The college of education assessment report: 1999-2000: University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Prepared for the Provost's Advisory Group on Assessment, June, 2000. McNeal, L. Student enrollment needs assessment study of the Illinois school for the visually impaired, Illinois Center for Rehabilitation and Education and Illinois School for the Deaf. Prepared for the Illinois Department of Rehabilitation Services, Odober, 1995. McNeal, L, First, P., Walker, V., \u0026amp; Hobson, B. An inquiry into alleged cultural insensitivity at Capitol Hill High School. Prepared for Oklahoma City Public School District, March, 1993. McNeal, L, et al. School choice: Open enrollment and post secondary options. Prepared for the Association of Wisconsin School Administrators, March, 1990. McNeal, L. County veterans service officer training manual. Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs, June, 1990. McNeal, L. A Review of health care and medical services provided by the United States department of veterans affairs. Prepared for the Division of Veterans Programs, Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs, August, 1989. McNeal, L. A review of health care grants and the Wisconsin Veterans Home in King, Wisconsin. Prepared for the Division of Veterans Programs, Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs, August, 1989. 5 McNeal, L. Mendota mental health institute: An analysis of an organization in crisis. Prepared for the Division of Care and Treatment Facilities of the Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services, December 1988. PRESENTATIONS: REFERRED McNeal, L., Christy, W.K., \u0026amp; Lewis, R. (2002). New leaders and new implications for educational administration. Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Kansas City, MO. Christy, W.K., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (November, 2001). Mid-South Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Little Rock, AR. McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Christy, W .K. (November, 2001 ). A discussion of change theory, systems theory, and state designed standards and accountability initiatives. Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Jackspnville, FL. McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Christy, W.K. (November, 2001). State designed standards and accountability initiatives in the southwestern regional educational development laboratory service area. Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Jacksonville, FL. McNeal, L. (2001, July). The institutionalization of the assessment process: One story in one college of education. The Consortium for Assessment \u0026amp; Planning Support. San Juan, PR. MeNeal, L. (2001, July). Faculty perceptions of their involvement in the assessment (evaluation) process. The Consortium for Assessment \u0026amp; Planning Support. San Juan, PR. Chesser, J., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (November, 2000). The use of the study circle in school reform: Bringing all the voices to the table. Mid-South Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Bowling Green, KY. McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Christy, W.K. (November, 2000). Charter schools under construction: An analysis of a charter school evaluation plan. Southern- Regionaf Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Nashville, TN. Christy, W.K., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (November, 2000). Implications of charter schools and home schooling. Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Nashville, TN. I Christy, W.K. \u0026amp; McNeal. L. (November, 2000). The process of making sausage in the factory of program reform. Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Nashville, TN. Michaelis, K, \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (April, 2000). From indifference to injustice: The politics of teen violence. American Educational Research Association for the Spring 2000 Conference in New Orleans, LA.  Caram, C. A., Christy, W. K., Altom, B, \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (April, 2000). The sausage factory: The process of planning for accountability. Arkansas Association of Colleges of Teacher Education, Little Rock, AR. Caram, C. A., Christy, W. K., Altom, B., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (April, 2000). Responding to the call for accountability of a school leader preparation program Arkansas Association of Colleges of Teacher Education, Little Rock, AR. Chesser, J. S., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (March, 2000). Educational community study circles in Arkansas: How superintendents can enhance school improvement through community dialogue. American Association of School Administrators 11 th Annual Conference Within A Conference, San Francisco, CA. 6 Chesser, J. S., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. {November, 1999). School improvement through connnunity dialogue: The first community study circles on education in Arkansas and Oklahoma. Mid-South Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Clear Point, AL. McNeal, L., \u0026amp; Christy, W. K. (November, 1999). From preparation to practice in Arkansas: The relationship between program preparation standards and entry-level administrators' success. Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Charlotte, NC.  Christy, W. K., McNeal, L. (November, 1999). Implications oflegislative policy development for public school districts. Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Charlotte, NC. McNeal, L., Gonzalez, M. L., \u0026amp; Noley, Grayson. (October, 1999). The ethics of silencing in school accountability: Listening to the voices of Hispanic, Native American, and African-American Researchers. University Council for Educational Administration Convention, Minneapolis, MN. Christy, W. K. \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (March, 1999). Future policy implications of an Arkansas referendum initiative. American Education Finance Association, Seattle, WA. McNeal, L. (March, 1998). The link between quality and school cormnunitarianism. Creating the Quality School: 7th Annual National Conference, Arlington, VA. McNeal, L., Place, A. W., Tilbnan, L.C., Beaumont, J. J. \u0026amp; Sanders, E. T. W. (October, 1997). A cross-cultural discussion of the 1997 UCEA conference theme. University Council for Educational Administration Convention, Orlando, FL. McNeal, L. (October, 1997). The contextual world of education for children and the schoolconnnunity: James Coleman and the effective schools movement. MidW estem Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL. McNeal, L. (March, 1997). Influencing instructional strategies. to enhance leartti.ng by using the school-connnunity relations profile model. Creating the Quality School: 6th Annual National Conference, Oklahoma City, OK. McNeai L. (1996, March). The implications of community based information for caring schools: SCRPING along. Creating the Quality School: 5$ Annual National Conference, Oklahoma City, OK. McNe~ L. \u0026amp; Chi, J. (1996, March). Performance indicators and curriculum offerings: Is there a connection in Oklahoma? American Education Finance Association Conference, Salt Lake City, UT. McNeai L., Parks, J., Watson, L., Jackson, D., Midgette, T., \u0026amp; Glenn, E. (1996, March). Our pedagogy: Culture as a major variable. Pedagogy of the Oppressed Conference, Omaha, NE. McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Ashby, D. (1995, October). School-community relations profiling: Re examining leadership for community. University Council for Educational Administration, Salt Lake City, UT. McNeal, L. (1995, April). Fulfilling promises in the land of Will togers: A look at performance indicators in selected school districts since the enactment of Oklahoma house bill IO 17. Sponsored by the Special Interest Group on Fiscal Issues, Policy, and Educational Finance (FIPEF). American Educational Research Association Conference, San Francisco, CA. McNeal, L. (1995, March). Promoting quality in education through the SCRPING of schools. Creating the Quality School: 4th Annual National Conference, Oklahoma City, OK. 7 McNeal, L., Higham, R, \u0026amp; Boyd, M.A. (1994, October). Establishing community between higher education, public education, and self:. An effort of compromise in infusing multiculturalism. Midwestern Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. McNeal, L. (1994, April). The state of educational finance in Oklahoma. American Educational Research Association Conference, New Orleans, LA. McNeal, L. (1994, March). Governance structures in decentralized schools and school improvement: Lessons from Chicago school reform. Creating the Quality School: 3rd Annual National Conference, Oklahoma City, OK. McNeal, L. (1994, March).\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eRoss, Steven M.\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1318","title":"Proceedings: ''Joshua: Objection to Little Rock School District's Motion for Unitary Status''","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":["2001-11-20"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","Educational innovations","School facilities","School improvement programs","School integration","School management and organization","Student assistance programs","Court records","Meetings"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Joshua: Objection to Little Rock School District's Motion for Unitary Status''"],"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/1318"],"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":["158 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1552","title":"\"Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001''","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":["2001-10"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Educational innovations","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","School management and organization","Student assistance programs","Education, Elementary"],"dcterms_title":["\"Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001''"],"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/1552"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["101 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1568","title":"\"Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001''","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":["2001-08-31"],"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--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Educational innovations","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","School management and organization","Student assistance programs","Education, Elementary"],"dcterms_title":["\"Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001''"],"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/1568"],"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":["105 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1112","title":"Little Rock School District Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Compliance Report","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["2001-03-15"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics","School discipline","School employees","School improvement programs","School integration","Student activities","Student assistance programs","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Compliance Report"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1112"],"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.\nPROPERTY OF O0M LIBRARY RECEIVED M.4R 1 ~ 200! OriiGEGF Little Rock School District Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Compliance Report March 15, 2001 TABLE OF CONTE:\\'TS INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... I\\\" C0:\\1PLIANCE REPORT .................................................................................. 1 I. Good Faith Section 2.1 ............................................................................... 1 Section2.l.l ............................................................................... 3 II. Facultv and Staff III. IV. V. Section 2.2 ................................................................................ 5 Section 2.2.1 ........................................................................... 5 Section 2.2.2 .............................................................................. 7 Section 2.2.3 .............................................................................. 8 Section 2.2.4 ............................................................................... 9 Section 2.2.5 ............................................................................ 9 Section 2.2.6 ............................................................................ 9 Section2.2.7 ........................................................................... 14 Student Assignment Section 2.3 ......................................................................... 15 Section 3.6 ......................................................................... 18 Special Education and Related Programs Section 2.4 ............................... .-.......................................... 20 Discipline Section 2.5 ........................................................................... 24 Section 2.5 .1 ............................................................................ 25 Section 2.5.2 ........................................................................ 25 Section 2.5.3 ......................................................................... 25 Section 2.5.4 .......................................................................... 26 VI. Extracurricular Activities Section 2.6 ......................................................................... 27 Section 2.6.3 ............................................................................... 29 VII. Advanced Placement Courses and the Gifted and Talented Program Section 2.6.1 ........................................................................ 30 Section 2.6.2 ........................................................................ 30 VII. Academic Achievement A. Generally Section 2. 7 ...................................................................... 51 B. Transition to Middle Schools Section 3.4 .................................................................... 66 C. Early Childhood Education Section 5.1 ........................................................................ 72 D. Reading and Language Arts Section 5.2 ...................................................................... 75 Primary Grades Section 5.2.1 ...................................................................... 75 Section 5.2.l(a) ......................................................... 77 Section 5.2.l(b) ......................................................... 77 Section 5.2.l(c) ......................................................... 77 --------------~- Section 5.2.l(d) ........................................ ................. 78 Section 5.2.l(e) ......................................................... 78 Section 5.2.l(f) ................... . ....................... . .............. 79 Section 5 .2.1 (g) ....................... .................................. 79 Section 5.2.1 (h) .................................... : .................... 80 Section 5 .2.1 (i) .......................................................... 80 Section 5.2.l(j) .......................................................... 81 Section 5 .2.1 (k) ......................................................... 90 Section 5 .2.1 (I) .......................................................... 90 Intermediate Grades Section 5.2.2 ..................................................................... 93 Section 5.2.2(a) ......................................................... 94 Section 5.2.2(b) ......................................................... 94 Section 5.2.2(c) .......................................................... 95 Section 5.2.2(d) .......................................................... 95 Section 5.2.2(e) .......................................................... 95 Section 5.2.2() .......................................................... 96 Section 5.2.2(g) ......................................................... 96 Section 5.2.2(h) ........................................................ 102 Secondary Schools E. Section5.2.3 ..................................................................... 105 Section 5.2.3(a) ........................................................ 107 Section 5.2.3(b) ........................................................ 108 Section 5 .2.3( c) ........................................................ 108 Section 5.2.3(d) ........................................................ 109 Section 5.2.3(e) ........................................................ 109 Section 5.2.3() ............................................... ...... : ... 111 Mathematics F. Section 5.3 ...................................................................... 115 Section 5.3.1 ..................................................................... 115 Section 5.3.2 ..................................................................... 125 Section 5.3.3 ..................................................................... 125 Section 5.3.4 ..................................................................... 126 Section 5.3.5 ..................................................................... 129 Computer Literacy G. H. Section 5.4 ....................................................................... 136 Alternative Educational Opportunities Section5.6.l ..................................................................... 145 Program Evaluation IX. Section2.7.l ...................................................................... 148 Parental Involvement Section 2.8 ................................................................................ 149 ii I ~ I I I I I I I I I I X. Equitable Allocation of Resources Section.2.9 ............................................................................ 158 Section 2.10 .......................................................................... 158 XI. Guidance and Counseling Section 2.11 ............................................................................... 160 Section 2.11.1 ......................................................................... 160 Section 5.8 ........................................................................... 162 XII. Cultural Sensitivity Section 2.12 .............................................................................. 163 Section 2.12.1 ............................................................................ 163 Section 2.12.2 ......................................................................... 165 XIII. Compliance Section 2.13 ............................................................................ 166 APPENDIX Resource Allocation Review (Three-year Comparison and 2000-01 Correlation Analysis) Dedicated Millage Projects Proposed Bond Projects iii INTRODUCTIO'.\\' The Little Rock School District (hereinafter \"LRSD\" or \"'District\") submits this Compliance Report in accordance with Section 11 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"). On March 15, 2000, the District filed with the Court an Interim Compliance Report. The purpose of the Interim Compliance Report was to advise the Court, the other parties to this case, and interested persons of the status of the District's efforts to meet its obligations under the Revised Plan and to develop a format for this report. The District asked the parties and other interested persons to provide comments or suggestions with regard to the substance and format of the Interim Compliance Report. It received none. Accordingly, this report will follow a similar format as the Interim Compliance Report. The Interim Compliance Report cataloged the programs, policies and procedures implemented by the District in an effort to comply with the Revised Plan. To avoid duplication, the Interim Compliance Report is hereby incorporated by reference. The programs, policies and procedures implemented by the District and identified in the Interim Compliance Report will not be repeated in this report. Where there is nothing new to report, this report will simply refer the reader to the Interim Compliance Report. This report assumes that the reader is familiar with the Interim Compliance Report. This report will vary in one significant respect from the Interim Compliance Report. The Interim Compliance Report included information related to every substantive section of the Revised Plan. This resulted in some redundancy within that report. This report attempts to avoid this redundancy by focusing on the core obligations contained in Section 2 of the Revised Plan. This report is divided into thirteen sections, each of which correlates to a Section 2 obligation. Other sections of the Revised Plan are discussed along with the underlying Section 2 obligation. Effort has been made to refer the reader to other related sections of the report rather than iv repeating information in multiple sections. A table of contents also has been added to assist readers in finding information based on either subject area or section number. Finally, this report was prepared for the Board of Directors (\"Board\") by the District's Compliance Committee. However, it reflects the hard work of a large group of dedicated District employees, including administrators, principals, teachers, counselors and other staff members. While that group is too large for individual acknowledgement, their efforts are greatly appreciated and should not go without mention. Thank you. Compliance Committee V COMPLIANCE REPORT I. Good Faith. Section 2.1 LRSD shall in good faith exercise its best efforts to comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against African-American students, to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color or ethnicity in the operation of LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools. The Covenant During the term of this Revised Plan, the District attempted to demonstrate its good faith by meeting its plan obligations. As the term of the Revised Plan nears its end, the District sought a means to manifest its good faith commitment for the future. On January 11, 2001, the Board adopted a \"Covenant for the Future\" (hereinafter \"Covenant\"). In the Covenant, the Board promised to continue to exercise its best efforts to:  improve the academic achievement of all students,  comply with the Constitution, and ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color or ethnicity in the operation of the District, and  provide equitable educational resources, programs and opportunity in a nondiscriminatory environment for all students attending District schools. On January 12, 2001, the District brought together administrators from every school in the District to affirm the Covenant. Participants were presented with the Covenant and then asked to outline strategies to be implemented at their respective schools to fulfill the promises made in the Covenant. Participants were later required to share the Covenant with their Campus Leadership Teams (\"CL Ts\"). Campus Leadership Teams and Total Quality Management The District's success in fulfilling the promises set forth in the Covenant will in large measure depend on the continued success of the CLTs. The CLT program was at the heart of the District's efforts to meet its obligations under the Revised Plan. Since their formation in 1998, the CL Ts have provided the horsepower driving the District's efforts to improve student achievement. They derive their power from the philosophy of Total Quality Management (\"TQM\"). TQM stresses four basic principals: continuous improvement, continuous education, customer satisfaction and data-driven decisions. Training in TQM has been a top priority for the District. Training began during the 1998-99 school year. Principals meet monthly for TQM group study sessions. The CL Ts, including principals, and the Cluster Coordinating Committees conduct a monthly-\"leadership\" meeting. The Cluster Coordinating Committees also meet quarterly. Dr. Terrence Roberts has provided additional professional development to school principals and the CLTs. In October 2000, high school principals and some administrators involved in the TQM initiative attended the National Quality Conference in Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina. All principals have had an opportunity to receive additional TQ\n,.,.1 training thro ugh a series of four-day intensive training sessions conducted by the Arkansas Leadership Academy in the summer of 2000. This training has continued during the 2000-01 school year with two-day training sessions in November 2000 and February 2001 and with rigorous \"homework\" assignments in the interim. During the 1998-99 school year, the District sought to be formally recognized as a quality school district by the Arkansas Quality Award (\"AQA\"), a non-profit agency formed to provide opportunities for interested organizations in the state to measure their progress toward quality. AQA's team of examiners scrutinized the District using the nationally recognized Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Program criteria. These criteria are considered to be organizational best practices and are the foundation for developing and integrating all processes in an organization's operation. The award criteria are divided into seven categories that reflect the major areas for organizations to develop and improve: Leadership, Strategic Planning, Customer and Market Focus, Information and Analysis, Human Resource Focus, Process Management, and Business Results. There are four quality award levels: Level 1 -- Quality Interest Award: For an organization expressing an interest in adopting and applying quality principles. Recognition is given to any organization completing the basic elements associated with quality awareness and understanding. Level 2 -- Quality Commitment Award: For an organization that has advanced from the knowledge and skills gained from initial steps and has a plan to move the organization toward total quality improvement and has progressed to a point of potential serious commitment. Level 3 -- Quality Achievement Award: For an organization that has demonstrated significant progress in building sound and notable processes through its cornmitme~t and practice of quality principles. Level 4 -- Governor's Quality Award: For an organization which is an outstanding example of a quality organization in the state of Arkansas exhibiting \"World Class\" processes which serve as a role model for others. In the fall of 1999, the District received the \"Quality Interest Award.\" In the feedback report, the examiners wrote: Overall, this applicant has established a strong initial process to achieve performance excellence . . .. Substantial planning and training have taken place and the organization is clearly committed to the process .... Significantly, the success of this particular organization will be applauded as a success for the organization and for the State as a whole. 2 Motivated by this positive feedback, the District submitted its second application to AQA in the spring of 2000. Last fall, AQA awarded the District the Quality Commitment A\\\\'ard. The A.QA. provided the following feedback: [T]he applicant has a systematic approach that is responsive to the basic purposes of Leadership, Strategic Planning, Customer and Market Focus, Information and Analysis, Human Resource Focus, Process Management, and Business Results: The early stages of developing trends and obtaining comparative information are evident from the data that are presented .... Work systems are designed to promote cooperation and collaboration by the use of work teams, teacher teams, cluster teams, and Campus Leadership Teams. This applicant's approach to education and training balances both short and longer term goals by providing professional development for certified personnel geared toward successful implementation of new initiatives .... Currently, the District is reviewing AQA's feedback and compiling data in preparation for submitting its application for the \"Quality Achievement Award.\" A quality school district meets the needs of all students. In adopting the CLT program, the District committed itself to providing each school the leadership and autonomy necessary to meet the needs of each school's unique student population. With that autonomy comes a responsibility to ensure the success of each student. The TQM training provided by the District to principals and CL Ts represents an effort to ensure that they are equipped to meet that responsibility. Section 2.1.1 LRSD shall retain a desegregation and/or education expert approved by the JoshuaIntervenors to work with LRSD in the development of the programs, policies and procedures to be implemented in accordance with this Revised Plan and to assist LRSD in devising remedies to problems concerning desegregation or racial discrimination which adversely affect African-American students. Dr. Terrence Roberts continues to assist the District in meeting its plan obligations by:  Consulting with teachers, counselors, and administrators\n Reviewing programs, policies and/or procedures\n Identifying areas in need of reshaping and problem solving\n Providing methods for maintaining District goals and focus\n Aiding in future projections to address the District needs and strategies for improvement\n Developing the \"Leaming to Cope With Difference\" employee training program\n Meeting with individuals and groups to rethink and/or affirm their commitment and personal development plan\n Working to establish a level of enthusiasm toward personal commitment, growth, and development\nand 3  Seeking to formulate the concept that each individual \\\\ ould be so committed to personal growth that results would be seen District-wide, resulting in the District becoming a positive model for our nation. Likewise, Dr. Steven Ross continues to assist the District in meeting its plan obligations by:  Consulting with Department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (\"PRE\") and the Director of Federal Programs on the evaluation of Title I programs\n Advising PRE staff on school profiles\n Planning with PRE regarding program evaluation models\n Assisting the Superintendent and PRE in determining appropriate categories of data to present in order to determine whether there has been improvement in student achievement\n Reviewing drafts of data reports for program evaluation\n Discussing data reports with PRE staff and making suggestions for improvement\n Meeting with the Compliance Committee to discuss program evaluation issues\n Providing assistance in securing a consultant for outsourcing some program evaluation responsibilities\nand  Making a presentation to the Board on program evaluation and the formation of a research committee. 4 II. Facultv and Staff. Section 2.2 LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that LRSD hires, assigns, utilizes and promotes qualified African-Americans in a fair and equitable manner. Total Administrative Staff The overall percentage of African-American administrative staff increased from 48.86 percent to 50.29 percent from 1998-99 through 2000-01. While the number of African-American administrators has remained relatively constant (86, 84, 86), the number of white administrators has decreased slightly each year (90, 89, 85). There has been no change in the racial composition of assistant and associate superintendents (three African-American and four white/other). Total Administrative Staff Year African-American White/Other Percent A-A* 1998-1999 86 90 48.86% 1999-2000 84 89 48.55% 2000-2001 86 85 50.29% * African-Arnencan will be abbreviated \"A-A\" where necessary because of space Iurutat1ons. Building Level Administrators The majority of building level administrators continues to be African-American with a slight increase in the percentage of African-American administrators in the 2000-01 school year. In schools with more than one administrator, the District attempts to maintain racial diversity among administrators where practicable and consistent with other legal requirements. Building Level Administrators Year African-American White/Other Percent A-A 1998-1999 55 46 54.5% 1999-2000 55 46 54.5% 2000-2001 57 42 57.6% Section 2.2.1 LRSD shall maintain in place its current policies and practices relating to the recruitment of African-American teachers which have allowed LRSD to maintain a teaching staff which is approximately one-third African-American. The District continues to aggressively and successfully recruit qualified African-American teachers. From July 1, 2000, through September 1, 2000, there were 198 full-time teachers hired, 42 percent of whom were African-American. As the table below demonstrates, this raised 5 the District 's percentage of African-American teachers to 3 percent, up from 37 percent in the 1997-98 school year. Total District Teachers Year African-American White/Other Percent A-A 1997-1998 704 1205 37% 1998-1999 728 1192 38% 1999-2000 719 1218 37% 2000-2001 757 1208 39% Recruiting and Retaining Teachers The District's success in recruiting and retaining African-American teachers has not been matched by the other school districts in Pulaski County. Twenty-one percent of the Pulaski County Special School District's certfied staff and 18 percent of the North Little Rock School District's certified staff are African-American. Even so, all of the districts are doing a good job in this regard considering that only 8 percent of college graduates in Arkansas are AfricanAmerican. During the 2000-2001 school year, 84 percent of District recruitment binders were issued to African-Americans. Recruitment binders are advanced commitment agreements enabling applicants to be assured of employment. New recruitment and retention strategies being implemented or developed include:  Tuition assistance programs for full-time students to complete their undergraduate degree, for full-time students to complete a master's degree and for non-certified employees to obtain an undergraduate degree\n The Teachers of Tomorrow Program which provides scholarships to District high school graduates interested in becoming teachers\n Waiver of the tenure requirement for tuition reimbursement for African-American teachers willing to complete an additional certification in a critical supply area\nand  Arkansas New Teacher Mentor Program which partners first year teachers with master teachers. Desegregation of Teaching Staffs The District has also sought to ensure desegregation of the teaching staff at each school. It has measured success in this regard by looking at the number of schools whose percentage of African-American teachers is within plus or minus 15 percentage points (+/-15%) of the overall percentage of African-American teachers at that grade level. As the table below demonstrates, three schools fall outside +/- 15% measure at the elementary level. This is down from seven in 1998-99 school year. At the secondary level, only one school, Metropolitan Career Technical Center, remains outside the +/-15% measure, compared to four schools in the 1998-99 school year. 6 Year 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 Year 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 Section 2.2.2 Percentage Of Elementary Schools Within+ / -15% Of Overall ElementanRacial Composition Total Schools Schools Inside Range 36 29 36 29 36 31 36 33 % Of Secondary Schools Within+ / -15% Of Overall Elementary Racial Composition Total Schools Schools Inside Range 15 12 15 11 15 13 15 14 Percent Inside Range 81% 81% 86% 92% Percent Inside Range 80% 73% 87% 93% LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to increase the number of African-American media specialists, guidance counselors, early childhood teachers, primary grade teachers and secondary core subject teachers, including offering incentives for African-American teachers to obtain certification in these areas, and to assign those teachers to the LRSD schools where the greatest disparity exists. The District's efforts at increasing the number of African-American media specialists, guidance counselors, early childhood teachers, primary grade teachers and secondary core subject teachers have met with modest success. While the percentage of African-Americans in these areas has increased, the increase has been small, as shown in the tables below. Media Specialists Year African-American White/Other Percent A-A 1997 8 44 14% 1998 8 I 43 16% 1999 8 43 16% 2000 9 43 17% 7 Counselors Year African-American White/Other Percent A-A 1997 36 48 43% 1998 39 49 44% 1999 39 49 44% 2000 40 49 45% Core Secondary Year African-American White/Other Percent A-A 1997 156 230 40% 1998 179 227 44% 1999 189 249 43% 2000 206 259 44% Earlv Childhood Year African-American White/Other Percent A-A 1997 40 104 28% 1998 47 116 29% 1999 47 109 30% 2000 46 107 30% Primary Grade Teachers Year African-American White/Other Percent A-A 1997 94 186 34% 1998 92 180 34% 1999 92 198 32% 2000 105 197 35% Section 2.2.3 LRSD shall establish a uniform salary schedule for all positions within the District, including a salary range for director and associate and assistant superintendent positions, designed to provide compensation in accordance with qualifications and to minimize complaints of favoritism. See Interim Compliance Report filed March 15, 2000. 8 L Section 2.2.4 LRSD shall implement a policy for the centralized hidng and assignment of teachers b) the LRSD Human Resources Department designed to provide an equitable distribution of teaching resources and to prevent nepotism and pre-selection by a school principal. See Interim Compliance Report filed March 15, 2000. Section 2.2.5 LRSD shall implement a policy of promotion from within which shall include procedures for notifying District employees of open positions. Over the last three years, between 62 percent and 71 percent of administrative positions have been filled by promoting existing District employees. The percentage of African-Americans promoted has roughly mirrored the percentage of African-Americans in the District as a whole. Administrative Positions Filled Via Promotion Year Vacancies Promotions Percent Promotions 1998-99 15 10 67% 1999-00 1.7 12 71% 2000-01 13 8 62% Section 2.2.6 LRSD shall implement programs, policies and /or procedures designed to ensure that the teaching staffs at all LRSD schools are substantially similar with regard to average years of experience and percentage of teachers with advanced degrees. The District decided not to require involuntary transfers in order to meet this obligation. Rather, the District compiled data on each school's average years of teaching experience, percentage of teachers with advanced degrees and percentage of teachers with a master's degree and nine or more years of experience. These data are provided in the tables below. Principals were expected to take this information into account when making hiring recommendations. Average Years of Experience The average length of service of teachers by school ranges from 6.65 years (Baseline) to 16.74 (McDermott) in the elementary schools\n6.95 years (Mabelvale) to 12.96 years (Henderson) in the middle schools\nand 7.9 years (McClellan) to 13.96 years (Parkview) in the high schools. 9 Average Years of Experience Elementarv School 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 Badgett 11.63 10.26 8.29 Bale 11.88 12.24 10.81 Baseline 10.52 9.29 6.65 Booker 14.29 13.04 12.62 Brady 11.38 11.54 12. 71 Carver 10.85 10.10 10.12 Cloverdale 12.96 12.70 12.32 Charter NIA NIA 3.00 Chicot 11.69 10.00 9.07 Dodd 8.77 8.94 8.05 Fair Park 16.00 17.16 14.89 Franklin 10.30 8.73 10.00 Forest Park 12.44 10.95 9.95 Fulbright 15.51 13.60 13.64 Garland 9.50 Closed Closed Geyer Springs 10.60 10.47 11.36 Gibbs 12.25 12.45 12.52 Jefferson 15.06 15.42 14.08 King 11.40 11.97 10.95 McDermott 16.25 17.32 16.74 Meadowc!iff 14.80 12.95 14.68 Mitchell 7.63 6.77 7.38 Mabel vale 11.06 11.25 11 .23 Otter Creek 12.28 11.44 9.21 Pulaski Heights 10.72 11.35 9.41 Rightsell 11.33 11.04 7.38 Rockefeller 9.86 9.76 10.19 Romine 15.29 14.37 15.92 Stephens Closed Closed 6.85 Terry 13.23 11.71 12.79 Wakefield 15.80 15.17 15.61 Washington 10.47 9.32 9.31 Watson 10.39 9.95 9.45 Western Hills 14.77 13.35 12.50 Williams 16.51 16.09 14.79 Wilson 13.70 12.72 13.67 Woodruff 9.18 7.00 7.38 Secondary School 1998-99 1999-::?000 ! 2000-01 Middle Schools Cloverdale Middle 9.84 8.62 -8.36 Dunbar 10.02 8.54 7.42 Forest Heights 12.78 10.50 10.16 Henderson 12.88 13.27 12.96 Mann 12.92 12.38 12.19 Mabelvale Middle 7.90 8.55 6.95 Pulaski Heights 14.84 10.23 9.73 Southwest 10.16 10.22 10.40 High Schools Central 14.54 11.66 12.04 Fair 12.17 9.03 8.84 Hall 14.48 11.94 11.37 McClellan 9.67 8.59 7.90 Metro 14.26 13.81 14.72 Parkview 15.36 14.38 13.96 Percentage of Teachers with Advanced Degrees The table below provides the percentage of teachers with advanced degrees at each District school for the last three school years. Elementary schools have so few teachers that looking only at the percentage of teachers with advanced degrees can be misleading. A school's percentage can change substantially with the change of only a few teachers. At the middle and high school levels, the alternative schools and Metropolitan High School have the lowest percentage of teachers with advanced degrees. The alternative schools' percentages may be explained by the relative newness of those staffs. Metropolitan's percentage is low due to the nature of the vocational subjects being taught. There simply are not many advanced degrees in those areas. Percentage of Teachers with Advanced Degrees Elementary School 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 Badgett 57% 47% 60% Bale 56% 40% 58% Baseline 61% 52% 38% Booker 63% 54% 56% Brady 63o/cl 58% 50% Carver 55% 50% 50% Cloverdale Elem. 54% 52% 52% Chicot 49% 50% 48% 11 Dodd 50% -1-t 52% Fair Park 62% 5S 0 0 I 50~-o I Franklin 36% 36% I 41% Forest Park 47% 50% 50% Fulbright 56% 54% i 58% Garland 29% 42% Closed Geyer Springs 62% 40% 33% Gibbs 65% 59% 63% Jefferson 74% 74% 74% King 52% 41% 42% McDermott 50% 44% 48% Meadowcliff 46% 42% 40% Mitchell 57% 40% 38% Mabel vale 42% 24% 23% Otter Creek 64% 54% 64% Pulaski Heights Elem. 56% 71% 55% Rightsell 65% 54% 32% Rockefeller 49% 41% 45% Romine 41% 45% 48% Stephens Closed Closed 40% Teny 45% 50% 50% Wakefield 71% 67% 71% Washington 47% 38% 37% Watson 53% 55% 52% Wes tern Hills 52% 55% 60% Williams 80% 76% 57% Wilson 75% 70% 68% Woodruff 44% 45% 48%, Secondary School 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 Middle Schools Cloverdale Middle 48% 38% 32% Dunbar 69% 56% 50% Forest Heights 55% 48% 40% Henderson 41% 48% 40% Mann 54% 54% 59% Mabelvale Middle 47% 51% 50% Pulaski Heights Middle 56% 45% 47% Southwest 56% 51% 50% ACC- Metro 67% 59% 67% ALT Agency 25% 40% 25% ALC 62% 53% 47% High Schools 12 Central 69% 62% 63% Fair 61% . 60% 5 -o , ) / 0 Hall 60% 54% 56% McClellan 50% 44% 49% Metropolitan 37% 28% 23% Parkview 75% 67% 71% Master's Plus Nine The District also compiled data on the percentage of teachers with a master's degree and nine or more years of experience since this was the measure used in the District's resource allocation review. See Section 2.9. The percentage of teachers with a master's degree and nine or more years of experience ranges from 19 percent (Mabelvale) to 67 percent (Wakefield) in the elementary schools\n27 percent (Cloverdale and Forest Heights) to 52 percent (Mann) in the middle schools\nand 35 percent (McClellan) to 55 percent (Parkview) in the high schools. Overall, there are 40 schools where more than 33 percent of the teachers have a master's degree and nine or more years of experience . . Master's Degree Plus Nine or More Years of Experience Elementary School 1998-99 ..  1999-2000 2000-01 Badgett 10/28 36% 8/17 47% 8/15 53% Bale 15/36 42% 12/35 34% 11/26 42% Baseline 13/36 36% 12/27 44% 10/26 38% Booker 23/59 39% 20/52 38% 24/55 44% Brady 14/30 47% 10/26 38% 10/26 38% Carver 19/47 40% 14/44 32% 15/42 36% Cloverdale Elem. 12/37 32% 10/29 34% 9/27 33% Chicot 14/43 33% 13/42 31% 14/42 33% Dodd 9/28 32% 8/20 40% 9/21 43% Fair Park 11/26 42% 10/19 53% 10/20 50% Franklin 11/45 24% 11/45 24% 13/41 32% Forest Park 9/64 14% 7/26 27% 8/22 36% Fulbright 16/41 39% 15/35 43% 14/31 45% Garland 4/25 16% 6/26 24% Closed Geyer Springs 13/34 38% 10/25 40% 6/21 29% Gibbs 12/31 39% 14/29 48% 15/27 56% Jefferson 22/39 56% 17/27 63% 17/27 63% King 19/52 ,37% 17/46 37% 18/45 40% McDermott 12/38 32% 10/27 37% 10/27 37% Meadowcliff 11/26 42% 7/19 37% 9/25 36% Mitchell 9/28 32% 7/25 28% 7/24 29% Mabelvale 7/36 19% 5/29 17% 5/26 19% 13 Otter Creek 11/28 39% 11 26 42% 12/25 48% Pulaski Heights Elem. 13/36 36% 12 23 52~0 I I 10 22 -+) ~o Rightsell 10/23 43% 11 '2-+ 46% 5/28 18% Rockefeller 11 /43 28% 11/39 28% 12/38 32% Romine 11 /32 34% 11 /29 38% 11 /27 41% Stephens Closed Closed 9/30 30% Terry 12/31 39% 13/40 33% 14/36 39% Wakefield 17/28 61% 14/27 52% 16/24 67% Washington 18/34 53% 17/55 31% 17/51 33% Watson 12/60 20% 12/13 92% 13/31 42% W estem Hills 10/23 43% 10/20 50% 9/20 45% Williams 25/41 61% 23/34 68% 23/35 66% Wilson 17/32 53% 14/23 61% 15/25 60% Woodruff 5/27 19% 7/22 32% 8/21 38% Secondary School 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 Middle Schools Cloverdale Middle 16/54 30% 15/56 27% 16/60 27% Dunbar 28/68 41% 22/63 35% 19/62 31% Forest Heights 22/64 34% 18/65 28% 17/63 27% Henderson 18/63 29% 21/61 34% 19/60 32% Mann 30/59 51% 29/61 48% 34/66 52% Mabelvale Middle 17/53 32% 18/47 38% 18/48 38% Pulaski Heights Middle 30/61 49% 25/62 40% 23/58 40% Southwest 18/54 33% 20/55 36% 21/56 38% ACC- Metro 7/12 59% 8/16 50% 10/21 48% ALT Agency 0/4 0% 1/5 20% 1/17 1% ALC NIA 4/15 27% 3/17 18% High Schools . Central 60/108 56% 60/135 44% 64/125 51% Fair 27/67 40% 28/75 37% 27/75 36% Hall 36/70 51% 39/102 38% 44/102 43% McClellan 30/78 38% 31/91 34% 32/91 35% Metropolitan 7/19 37% 5/18 28% 5/22 23% Parkview 37/67 55% 43/87 49% 45/82 55% Section 2.2. 7 LRSD shall negotiate with the Knight lntervenors to establish a procedure for the mandatory reassignment of teachers as necessary to enable LRSD to meet its obligations under Section 2.2 of this Revised Plan. See Interim Compliance Report filed March 15, 2000. III. Student Assignment. 14 I I I Section 2.3 LRSD shall implement student assignment programs, policies and /or procedures designed to ensure the desegregation of LRSD schools to the extent practicable, including but not limited to Sections 3 and 4 of this Revised Plan. Policies Policy JC, School Attendance Zones, and JCA, Student Assignment, were approved and adopted by the Board on May 25, 2000. Overall Enrollment From the 1998-99 school year through the 2000-01 school year, the District's enrollment increased a total of 627 students, and the overall racial composition moved from 67 percent African-~erican to 68 percent African-American. Total Enrollment Year Total Enrollment Percent African-American 1998-99 24,898 67% 1999-2000 25,159 68% 2000-01 25,525 68% Enrollment by School The table on the following page shows the percentage of African-American students attending the District's schools for the years 1996-97 through the current school year. The District has used two measures to assess the degree of desegregation within the District. First, it has looked at the number ofracially isolated schools, defined as schools that are 90 percent or more AfricanAmerican. These schools are shaded in the table. While the number of racially isolated schools has increased from four to nine, this occurred with very little change in the racial composition at the affected schools. 15 Percentage African-American B, School Elementarv Schools School 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 Badgett 84 92 94 91 93 Bale 71 73 73 74 76 Baseline 80 83 84 85 84 Booker 52 52 49 51 55 Brady 64 63 65 71 75 Carver 51 52 51 52 53 Chicot 70 69 71 67 68 Cloverdale 88 92 93 89 89 Dodd 64 65 66 64 65 Fair Park 76 76 73 72 73 Forest Park 48 48 53 44 38 Franklin 91 92 94 96 97 Fulbright 53 48 57 41 40 Garland 92 93 93 94 closed Geyer Springs 75 75 78 82 86 Gibbs 51 52 50 52 52 Jefferson 42 44 45 39 42 King 53 54 52 55 54 Mabelvale 74 73 69 73 75 McDermott 57 57 59 57 53 Meadowcliff 76 79 78 79 74 Mitchell 95 92 95 98 97 Otter Creek 42 46 46 47 51 Pulaski Heights 54 55 55 57 53 Rightsell 96 94 96 97 99 Rockefeller 61 59 56 61 61 Romine 66 63 62 65 66 Stephens closed closed closed closed 94 Terry 45 46 52 46 46 Wakefield 88 86 87 84 81 Washington 55 53 52 61 60 Watson 82 89 94 94 95 Western Hills 70 70 73 75 74 Williams 52 52 52 51 52 Wilson 81 82 85 89 90 Woodruff 69 71 78 80 85 Total Elem. 65 65 67 68 68 16 Middle Schools - Middle Schools 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 Cloverdale 86 89 89 88 -- 86 Dunbar 58 57 59 60 59 Forest Heights 77 70 64 65 65 Henderson 82 86 88 76 76 Mabelvale 74 75 76 73 79 Mann 52 52 51 52 53 Pulaski Heights 59 57 62 60 56 Southwest 78 83 85  -.,:. --~--. , ...... 91 -\"J:v/ -~v\n: :. 92 Total Middle 69 69 70 69 69 High Schools High Schools 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 Central 62 59 59 57 55 Fair 79 81 82 80 80 Hall 72 71 70 71 72 McClellan 83 84 86 89 ...... _ -t ....\nf.\"l~~l:~..,--~o Parkview 52 51 51 50 51 Total H.S. 68 67 66 68 68 The District also looked at the number of schools within plus or minus 20 percentage points(+/- 20%) from the district-wide percentage African-American by organizational level. Twenty-three of the 35 elementary schools (66 percent) fall within the+/- 20%. Of the 12 remaining elementary schools, eight have an African-American population more than 20 percent above overall African-American percentage at the elementary level. The racial population at 11 of the 13 secondary schools (85 percent) remains within+/- 20% of the overall African-American percentage at the secondary level. While the number of schools outside the+/- 20% range increased under the Revised Plan, the increase occurred with very little change in the racial balance at the affected schools. Schools Outside +/- 20% Range Year Schools Outside Range 1996-97 9 1997-98 9 1998-99 I 11 1999-2000 15 2000-01 14 17 Assignment Options A significant number of the District 's students continue to take adrnntage of altcmati\\e assignment options provided by the District. In the current school year. 70 percent of high school students are attending their zone schools (80 percent if Parkview students are removed) and 75 percent of middle school students are attending their zone schools (83 percent if Mann students are removed). At the elementary level 62 percent of the students are attending their zone schools (68 percent if stipulation magnet students are removed). Not including students attending a Stipulation Magnet or attending school in another district based on an M-to-M transfer, 731 students are attending a school other than their zone school pursuant to the Revised Plan. In total, 20 percent of the District's students take advantage of an alternative assignment option available under the Revised Plan. The District's Stipulation Magnets remain a very attractive option. Enrollment has increased under the Revised Plan, as shown on the table below. Student numbers for the six Stipulation Magnets show growth and reflect a 2 percent increase over the past three years. Stipulation Magnet School Enrollment 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 3763 3787 3837 Similarly, students in Pulaski County continue to take advantage of the M-to-M Transfer program in large numbers, as shown in the table below. Although the number of incoming PCSSD students to elementary interdistrict magnets dropped, this was partly due in part to the middle school transition and grade restructuring. Summary of M-To-M Transfer Students NLR 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01. Sending 8 0 Receiving 65 27 PCSSD 0 21 Sending 482 399 366 Receiving 1310 1122 1128 LRSD Sending 1375 1149 1149 Receiving 490 399 366 Section 3.6 LRSD-shall construct at least two new area elementary schools, one in west Little Rock and one at the site of the former Stephens school. When the new Stephens Elementary opens, it shall receive additional funding as described in Section 5.5 of this Revised Plan and one or more of the schools identified in Section 5.5 will be closed. When a school identified in 18 Section 5.5 is closed, LRSD shall exercise its best efforts to find a community or educational use for the property. Otherwise, LRSD shall not seek-to close schools in African-American neighborhoods solely because of age or poor maintenance except when a new school will be located in the same general area. The new Stephens Elementary School held its first classes on January 8, 2001. It receives double funding in accordance with the current formula as described in the August 16, 1995, report of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Plans for construction of an elementary school in west Little Rock are being developed. A site selection committee is currently investigating potential school sites. The first meeting of the West Little Rock School Site Selection Committee was held on February 5, 2001. 19 IV. Special Education and Related Programs. Section 2.4 LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination in the referral and placement of students in special education or in other programs designed to meet special student needs. Policies The Board of Education revised Policy IKF, General Education Graduation Requirements, in December 2000. The revision included among the diploma-earning options, \"Diploma with waived or altered requirements established by an Individual Education Program (\"IEP\") team for a student identified with disabilities.\" Procedures A new \"504\" Handbook was distributed in fall 2000 to campus \"504\" coordinators and to selected central office staff to ensure greater consistency and equity in administering the \"504\" program. A group of secondary Advanced Placement (\"AP\") teachers was convened in fall 2000 to meet with the District's \"504\" supervisor in order to define reasonable accommodations for teachers of AP classes to employ in order to open access to the courses for \"504\" students. They agreed on a set of accommodations to pennit students with disabilities to participate in AP courses. A fonn was developed for the \"504\" committee to use in meeting with parents to establish agreedupon accommodations. The list of available accommodations was published in both the 2001-02 Middle School Curriculum Catalog and the 2001-02 High School Curriculum Catalog. Department staff worked throughout spring 2000 and fall 2000 with the English-as-a-Second Language (\"ESL\") Supervisor and consultant in establishing procedures for the screening/identification of limited-English proficient students who are referred for special education testing.  Programs School-Based Day Treatment Program The Division of Exceptional Children has instituted a school-based day treatment program consisting of two elementary classrooms at Romine Elementary staffed by two certified teachers and two paraprofessionals. The program is coordinated by a school psychology specialist and receives support services from a clinical therapist and psychiatrist provided by The Centers for Youth and Family. The purpose of the program is to provide a school-based placement option that is less restrictive than an off-campus day treatment program. The program addresses academic and social skills individually identified for each student. Students obtain the skills necessary to return to their home campuses and are afforded the opportunity to strengthen those skills by participating in regular classrooms at Romine. Language Arts In order to assure linkage of curriculum with specialized programs and to provide consistent and balanced literacy instruction for special education students, District reading materials and 20 curriculum implementation training were provided to all elementary special education teachers. along with general education teachers. Additionally, special education teachers have participated in the middle and high school teacher training on the implementation of the Reading and Writing Workshop in grades 6-9. Mathematics and Science All special education teachers have been trained in the implementation of both the mathematics and science curricula. Special education teachers share materials with the general education teachers in their building. Inclusion The Director for Exceptional Children was on the agenda for all three of the curriculum orientation workshops for counselors in January 2001. In his presentation he emphasized the importance of reducing the number of hours in which middle school special education students are served in the resource room to assure equitable exposure to the general education curriculum. He advised counselors to be prepared to place virtually all students who might formerly have been placed in resource room programs in the regular levels of Reading/Writing Workshop based on the IEP team's recommendations during annual reviews. He and the Director of Secondary Language Arts collaborated on the design of that curriculum and on professional development and determined that appropriate modifications could be made in the regular classroom for most special education students. Special education teachers have been informed of the curricular modifications and have been strongly encouraged to have IEP teams place students in regular Reading/Writing Workshop. School Psychology Specialists In 2000-01 the Department of Exceptional Children relocated to school sites the school psychology specialists. By placing school psychology specialists at school sites, they now:  participate on individual schools' Pupil Service Teams to provide technical assistance in pre-referral interventions to the general classroom teachers\n participate in pre-referral and referral conferences to assure students are not inappropriately referred for consideration of special education services\nand  are available to meet and confer with parents and staff regarding behavioral interventions for all students. In addition, the Department redistributed school assignments to school psychology specialists, assuring that no school psychology specialist serves more than three school sites. During fall 2000 the Department assigned three school psychology specialists specifically to middle schools to conduct activities outlined in the Safe School/Healthy Students grant proposal. Compliance Staff The Department recruited and hired compliance personnel to ensure that due process documentation is monitored and corrected for compliance and equity. 21 \"504\" Coordination A new District-level \"504\" supervisor was designated to provide technical assistance and training to school-based \"504\" coordinators, principals, and teachers to ensure that students are not inappropriately referred for consideration of special education services. Identified Students The following three tables are reports of ( 1) the numbers of identified students with disabilities for 1998-99, 1999-2000, and 2000-01 by race and gender\n(2) the numbers of identified students with mental retardation and learning disabilities, again by race and gender, for the same three years\nand (3) the numbers of special education students according to free/reduced lunch eligibility in 2000-01. Numbers ofldentified Students with Disabilities School Year A-A A-A White White Other Other Total Males Females Males Females Males Females 1998-99 1239 547 383 220 28 13 2430 Percents 51% 23% 16% 9% 1% 1% 1999-2000 1233 536 362 199 30 13 2373 Percents 52% 23% 15% 8% 1% 1% 2000-01 1257 584 379 193 39 22 2474 Percents 51% 24% 15% 8% 2% 1% Percents add up to more than I 00% due to roundmg. Numbers ofldentified Students with Mental Retardation and Learning Disabilities School Year A-A A-A White White Other Other Totals Males Females Males Females Males Females 1998-99 842 360 165 96 14 7 1484 Percents 57% 24% 11% 7% 1% 1% 1999-2000 839 369 160 87 14 7 1476 Percents 57% 25% 11% 6% 1% 1% 2000-01 873 399 144 74 21 12 1523 Percents 57% 26% 10% 5% 1% 1% Percents add up to more than JOO% due to rounding. Students Identified with Disabilities A-A A-A White White Other Other Totals Percents Status Males Females Males Females Males Females Free 855 399 63 33 15 12 1377 61% Reduced 79 32 23 15 0 2 151 1% Total ldent. 1257 584 379 193 39 22 2474 100% Free/Reduced 74% 74% 23% 25% 38% 64% Percent of Total Interpretations of this data are difficult since African-American students with disabilities are more likely to be enrolled in public education than are their white peers with disabilities. For instance, according to the December 2000 Child Count, there were 44 white students identified 22 with disabilities who were being educated either in private or home schools as compared to zero African-American children. Other factors impacting the relative percentage of AfricanAmerican students with disabilities are the disproportionate percentage of African-Americans who live in poverty and lower levels of pre-natal care among African-Americans. 23 V. Discipline. Section 2.5 LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline. Overall, the number of disciplinary sanctions issued decreased by 21 percent from the 1997-98 school year through the 1999-2000 school year, as shown in the table below. For that same time period, the number of students committing offenses decreased 16 percent. Thus, fewer students are committing offenses, and those that do commit an offense are less likely to commit a second offense. Moreover, fewer than 2 percent of the students enrolled in the District were involved in violent offenses. Violent offenses are considered by the Arkansas Department of Education as incidents involving drugs, alcohol, student assaults, knives, handguns, rifles, shotguns, explosives, clubs, and gang activity. Overall Disciplinary Sanctions 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 Short Term 5486 5664 4865 4588 Suspensions Long Term 453 474 446 335 Suspensions Expulsions 82 109 1 3 TOTALS 6021 6247 5312 4926 Number of Students 3585 3672 3237 3011 Committing Offenses The number of African-American students suspended decreased 20 percent consistent with the overall reduction in disciplinary sanctions. The proportion of suspensions issued to AfricanAmerican students remained in the neighborhood of 85 percent. Suspensions By Race 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 Suspensions issued to African-American 5341 4470 4274 students Suspensions issued to White/ Other 906 842 652 students Total Suspensions 6247 5312 4926 The decrease in discipline sanctions has had a positive impact on parents' and teachers' perceptions of District schools. A survey of parents and teachers conducted during the 1999- 2000 school year revealed that 93 percent of African-American parents and 95 percent of white/other parents that expressed on opinion agreed that their child was safe at school. Ninetyone percent of both African-American and white/other parents that expressed an opinion agreed 24 that their child has a feeling of belonging at schools. Ninety-seven percent of African-American teachers and 96 percent of white/other teachers that expressed an opinion indicated that they felt safe at school. Section 2.5.1 LRSD shall strictly adhere to the policies set forth in the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook to ensure that all students are disciplined in a fair and equitable manner. Policy JBA, Nondiscrimination in Programs and Activities, and Regulation JI, Student Rights and Responsibilities, were approved and adopted by the Board on May 25, 2000. The policy and related regulations affirmed the District's ongoing commitment to make decisions involving students based on individual merit and free from discrimination in all its forms. Section 2.5.2 LRSD shall purge students' discipline records after the fifth grade and eighth grade of all offenses, except weapons offenses, arson and robbery, unless LRSD finds that to do so would not be in the best interest of the student. Building administrators purge students' discipline records at the end of each school year unless the student has been disciplined for an identified offense. In that case, the Student Hearing Office determines if it is in the best interest of the student for the records to be purged. Section 2.5.3 LRSD shall establish the position of \"ombudsman\" the job description for which shall include the following responsibilities: ensuring that students are aware of their rights pursuant to the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook, acting as an advocate on behalf of students involved in the discipline process, investigating parent and student complaints of race-based mistreatment and attempting to achieve equitable solutions. As a new position for the District, the ombudsman needed substantial training in order to fulfill his responsibilities. Since the position was established, the ombudsman has received training in conflict resolution (Fred Pryor Seminars), mediation (Center for Dispute Resolution, Austin, Texas), the role of an ombudsman (United States Ombudsman Association) and racial diversity (Dr. Terrence Roberts, \"Learning to Cope with Differences\"). In order to increase public awareness of the services available through the ombudsman, information about the ombudsman was disseminated by way of the District's cable network and printed publications. The ombudsman's rple in the discipline process has been included in the Student Rights and Responsibility Handbook, and the ombudsman made presentations at local churches, PT A, civic, and community meetings and participated in school/community activities, e.g., the Wright Avenue Neighborhood Association's Annual Fall Fest and the Magnet School Fair. 25 Efforts to raise public awareness of the ombudsman appear to h::iYe been successful. In the last year, the ombudsman has been contacted by over 358 parents and/or students. In addition, the ombudsman has implemented intervention activities at Badgett Elementary and McClellan High School designed to assist African-American males who demonstrate unacceptable behavior. Efforts are in place to expand these activities to include other schools. Section 2.5.4 LRSD shall work with students and their parents to develop behavior modification plans for students who exhibit frequent misbehavior. Behavior modification plans are developed by the Pupil Services Team or Educational Management Team. The Team typically includes the student, his or her parent, a building administrator, a counselor and one or more of the student's teachers. Others, such as the \"504\" Coordinator or a Special Education Supervisor, may be included depending on the student's individual needs. All members of the Team share responsibility for monitoring implementation of the behavior modification plan. 26 VI. Extracurricular Activities. Section 2.6 LRSD shaH implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified AfricanAmericans in extracurricular activities, advanced placement courses, honors and enriched courses, and the gifted and talented program.  Extracurricular Activities Participation of African-Americans in extracurricular and co-curricular activities showed a significant increase through the 1999-2000 school year. Extracurricular activities are activities designed to provide opportunities for students to explore areas of interest that compliment and enrich the curriculum. These activities include athletics, clubs and organizations such as Student Council, Y-Teens, and Beta Club. As the table below demonstrates, the number of AfricanAmerican students participating in extracurricular activities increased 76 percent in the 1998-99 school year and an additional 26 percent in the 1999-2000 school year. Sixty-two percent of the District's African-American students participated in an extracurricular activity during the 1999- 2000 school year. Data for the 2000-01 school year are not yet available. Extracurricular Activity Participation A-A I W/O I A-A I W/O I A-A I 2335 I 393 I 4121 I 803 I 5203 I Co-Curricular Activities Extracurriclar Participation (Secondary) 4000 2000 0 African-American Participation a91.9s  98-99  99~0 W/O I 902 I African-American participation in co-curricular activities also showed an increase through the 1999-2000 school year. Co-curricular activities are activities designed to extend learning experiences through group or individual activities at school or public events, including band, orchestra, choir, or debate. As the table below demonstrates, the number of African-American students participating in co-curricular activities increased 9 percent in the 1998-99 school year and an additional 30 percent in the 1999-200 school year. Sixty-six percent of the District's African-American students participated in a co-curricular activity during the 1999-2000 school year. Data for the 2000-01 school year are not yet available. 27 Co-Curricular Activity Participation A-A I W/O I A-A I W/O I 2579 I 1222 I 2806 I u 15 I CO-CURRICULAR PARTICIPATION (SECONDARY) 2000 African-American Participation 11:198-99   99-00 -  00-01 A-A 3988 I W/O I I 1864 I The increased participation in extracurricular and co-curricular activities is likely the result of active recruitment by activity sponsors, coaches, principals, and the athletic director. School incentives and community involvement also played a role in increasing student interest and participation in activities. Specifically in terms of athletics, implementation by the District of a \"no cut\" policy for the new middle school sixth graders has been responsible for the tremendous escalation of numbers of young African-American athletes. Finally, the adherence of the District to the Supplemental Instruction Plan (\"SIP\") has had a positive effect on growth of student participants. The SIP program allows athletes to continue to participate in sports while they attend tutoring to improve their grades. Parent and Teacher Survey The 1999-2000 survey of parents and teachers reflects the District's success in the area of ' extracurricular activities. Ninety percent of African-American parents and 93 percent of white/other parents that expressed an opinion agreed that activities were open to students. Ninety-three percent of African-American teachers and 95 percent of white/other teachers that expressed an opinion agreed that students have opportunities for activities. Activities Advisory Board At the time of the District's Interim Compliance Report, a steering committee had been formed to organize an Activities Advisory Board (\"AAB\") for the purpose of promoting, supporting, and enhancing extracurricular and co-curricular activities at all schools. The AAB, comprised of District staff, parents, students, and community representatives, began monthly meetings in April of 2000. Specific areas related to activities have been targeted for discussion and implementation. The focus of these discussions has been on a disproportionate number of African-American students who do not have the financial resources to participate in activities. Other areas of discussion and implementation include marketing, facilities, funding, accessibility, procedural process, and 28 scheduling. Each area has been discussed in connection with increasing student participation. with emphasis on assuring African-American participation. Fine Arts Director The Board has approved the position of Fine Arts Director. One of the basic responsibili.Hes of the Fine Arts Director is to provide leadership in improving student participation and success in fine arts courses, perfonnances, and competitions. In addition, the Fine Arts Director will be responsible for ensuring equitable opportunities are available to qualified African-American students. Section 2.6.3 LRSD shall provide transportation to students otherwise eligible for transportation to school to allow those students to participate in after-school activities required for participation in an extracurricular activity. The District provides transportation to students otherwise eligible for transportation to allow those students to participate in after-school extracurricular activities. Through December 7, 2000, the District averaged 74.3 extracurricular activity runs per day, 29.1 for high schools and 45.2 for the middle schools. No records are kept of the students taking advantage of this service because the number and type of activities vary so greatly day to day. However, no extracurricular activity transportation request made by an eligible student has been denied. 29 VII. Advanced Placement Courses and the Gifted and Talented Program. Section 2.6.1 LRSD shall implement a training program during each of the next three years designed to assist teachers and counselors in identifying and encouraging African-American students to participate in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement courses. Section 2.6.2 LRSD shall implement programs to assist African-American students in being successful in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement courses. Policies The Board approved the revision of Policy IKF, General Education Graduation Requirements, in December 2000. This revision included enhancements of the recommended curriculum. Effective for the class of 2004, students taking the recommended Curriculum must complete a total of 28 units, including at least eight Pre-AP or AP courses. The University Studies courses offered at Hall High School may substitute, as well as any other approved dual-credit courses taken by District students. To receive an Honors Seal on their diploma, students must complete the recommended curriculum and earn a grade-point average of at least 3.5. Criteria for earning the new Arkansas Scholars Seal and a Magnet Program Seal were also included. These changes provide incentives and recognition for more students to take the most challenging courses. Procedures With the revision of Policy IKF, the Board also revised the related regulations. The new regulations include new career focus areas for Teachers of Tomorrow, Computer Technology, and International Studies at Central High School, as well as new programs in Career and Technical Education, such as the new Aviation Technology courses. New courses were also added to the list of courses that will satisfy the Technology Applications requirement. See Section 2.4 for a discussion of procedures for participation of students with disabiliti~s in AP courses. The 2001-02 Middle School Curriculum Catalog and the 2001-02 High School Curriculum Catalog included the following language in bold print: \"Schools are encouraged to allow open admission to all Pre-AP and AP courses and then to require attendance, good behavior, and acceptable performance (including effort, not just a minimum grade) to stay in the course, rather than to deny admission to any motivated student who wishes to try a more challenging curriculum.\" The curriculum catalogs also contained language making it clear that ESL students must have access to AP courses. All this information was presented to counselors, registrars, and principals during the January 2001 curriculum orientation workshops conducted by the Associate Superintendent for Instruction. She emphasized the importance of increasing the participation and performance of African-American students in advanced programs and in extracurricular activities. 30 The middle school and high school Student/Parent Guides to Course Selection for 2001-02 also included extensive information about Pre-AP and AP courses. as well as strong encouragement to students to take the courses. The District's Quality Index continues to include indicators that the District is achieving_!he goals of improved access and success in AP courses among all students, especially AfricanAmerican students. These indicators include the enrollment and completion rates in advanced courses, including Pre-AP and AP, as well as University Studies courses at Hall High School\nthe percent of seniors who graduate earning the Honors Seal\nthe percent of grade 8 students who have completed Algebra I\nand the percent of students scoring at a \"3\" or above on the Advanced Placement examinations. Data with regard to some of these indicators are presented below. Programs Gifted and Talented Program The Gifted and Talented (\"GT\") Program specialists and facilitators (teachers) are responsible for being resources in their respective schools to aid in the academic achievement of identified gifted students as well as aiding teachers in providing enrichment for all students. The teachers are, therefore, encouraged to participate in all professional activities that would help them to be more effective in their jobs. The teachers are provided opportunities for professional growth through various inservice sessions and conferences. GT facilitators representing each secondary school (middle and high) meet each month to share ideas, develop materials, receive new information regarding gifted programs, and learn new ideas to enhance their schools. Facilitators share curricular and co-curricular activities at their respective schools through a publication called \"Sharing the Good News.\" This publication is published six times per year. GT specialists provide a connection between the regular curriculum and the gifted curriculum\ntherefore, they must be well informed of both curricula. The professional development activities that they receive must connect to all of the curriculum departments because they are the advocates and resources in their schools for high achievement. They in turn become resources to the various departments because of their expertise. The table on the following page outlines the professional development growth opportunities for and by the GT Department. 31 Gifted and Talented Program Professional Development Date Title I Number Participating 1/30/98 Tn-District GT Specialists lnserv1ce (Pulaski Co, NLR and 66 LRSD) 3/19/98 Kingore Observauon Inventory Traimng (Designed to 32 observe gifted behaviors of students in grades K-2 whole group enrichment) 9/3/99 GT Student Achievement and Assessment (Rubrics and 16 Ponfolios) Cluster B 9/10/98 GT Student Achievement and Assessment (Rubrics and 17 Ponfolios) Cluster C 9/28/98 Office for Civil Rights Visit - Identification of Gifted 7 Students 10/15/98 AVID Awareness (Advancement Via Individual 24 Determination - Program designed to help underachieving and underrepresented students in advanced classes/programs)(lncluded principals, community persons, counselors and teachers) 10/9/98 GT Curriculum Writing Workshop 5 11/17/98 GT Student Achievement and Assessment - Cluster A 10 11 / 18/98 GT Student Achievement and Assessment - Cluster B 7 11 /19/98 GT Student Achievement and Assessment - Cluster C II 12/4/98 Testing Procedures and Research Development 35 515-5/7/99 Implementation of the Research Guide 35 6/2/99 Curriculum Development 32 6/3/99 Curriculum Development 32 6/4/99 Curriculum Development 33 9/29/99 Introduction to Windows 95 (Technology Course- This 3 course was provided according to the skills and needs of the specialists) I 0/1/99 Introduction to Word Processing (Technology Course) 8 10/5/99 Curriculum Mapping and Content Standards/Performance 10 Assessment- Cluster A 10/6199 Curriculum Mapping and Content Standards/Performance 11 Assessment- Cluster B 10/7/99 Curriculum Mapping and Content Standards/Performance 11 Assessment - Cluster C 10/8/99 Introduction to Word Processing (Technology Course) JO 10/ 14/99 Senior High Counselors- Recruiting and Preparing Students for a Rigorous Academic Curriculum 11 /9/11 Using E-Mail and the Internet (Technology Course) 12 32 Date Title - Number Participating 12/3/99 Curriculum Mappmg and Portfolios, ESL Students and 33 Refrigerator Curriculum 2/22/00 PowerPoint Productions 8 2/24/00 PowerPoint Productions 7 3/9/00 PowerPoint Productions 10 3/6/00 ESL Training/Curriculum Issues - Cluster A 11 3/21/00 ESL Training/Curriculum Issues - Cluster B 7 3/23/00 ESL Training/Curriculum Issues - Cluster C 13 3/16/00 PowerPoint Productions 12 4/6/00 Marco Polo Training (Technology Course) l* 4/7/00 Marco Polo Training (Technology Course) 2* 4/10/00 Effective Literacy Training 35 4/11/00 Marco Polo Training (Technology Course) 17 4/17/00 ELLA Training 33 4/18/00 Graphic Organizers in the Classroom (Technology Course) 11 4/20/00 Graphic Organizers in the Classroom (Technology Course) 10 4/25/00 ESL Students (LEP) in Gifted Programs and Pre-AP and AP 10 Programs (GT Facilitators) 4/27/00 Science Program - Hands On 32 5/30/00 Math Program - Hands On 32 9/11/00 Middle School Research - 6w Grade Teachers  24 9/11/00 Teaching Thinking Using CoRT and the Six Thinking Hats 19 9/12/00 Middle School Research- 7w Grade Teachers** 23 9/13/00 Middle School Research- 8w Grade Teachers 25 9/18/00 Teaching Thinking Using CoRT and the Six Thinking Hats 17 10/3 and Instructional Strategics of GIT Unit Design 31 10/5/00 10/27/00 ESL Strategies for GT Specialists (ESL Designated Schools) 6 11/10/00 ESL Strategics for GT Specialists 8 12/09/00 GT Instructional Strategies and Assessment 31  Teachers mcluded ma larger group  GT Staff Provided Instruction for Classroom Teachers New AP and Pre-AP Courses Two new AP courses, Human Geography and Economics, were added to the curriculum for 2000-2001. An additional two new AP courses, World History and Physics II, were added to the curriculum for 2001-2002. One new science Pre-AP course, Advanced Science/Theoretical Research II, was added to the curriculum for 2001-02. Proposed International Baccalaureate Programme at Cloverdale Middle School and McClellan High School The magnet school grant proposal submitted by the District to the U.S. Department of Education in December 2000 included the proposed implementation of the International Baccalaureate Programme at Cloverdale Middle School and McClellan High School. This plan includes the introduction of the International Baccalaureate Middle Years Programme in grades 6-8, integrated with three other curricula themes: Economics, Multimedia, and Engineering. The planning team stated that they see this approach as necessary to ensure academic rigor at their 33 school. The Middle Years Programme will continue at McClel lan High School in grades 9-1 0. and then the International Baccalaureate Diploma program \\\\ill be implemented in grades 11 -12. At McClellan the International Baccalaureate courses will be integrated with that school 's themes -- Business and Finance, Multimedia and Graphic Design, and Engineering Design and Fabrication -- creating a continuity of curricula purpose throughout the high school and from its feeder middle school. If this grant is funded (notification is expected in April 2001), then the International Baccalaureate Programme courses will be another category of advanced and challenging courses available to students, and their enrollment will be tracked and analyzed, along with the AP, PreAP, and University Studies courses. Middle School Research and Writing Pre-AP The English department for secondary schools worked with teachers, librarians/media specialists, and gifted/talented teachers during summer 2000 to write a new curriculum guide for Research and Writing 6 Pre-AP, 7 Pre-AP, and 8 Pre-AP. Then teachers were trained in how to use the guide in fall 2000. This work grew out of the Middle School Curriculum Refinement Plan that was developed in summer 2000 and included an activity to create qualitatively differentiated courses at the Pre-AP level. High School Reading and Writing Workshop I Three high schools (Fair, Hall, and McClellan) opted to include the two-period English I Workshop and English I Workshop Pre-AP in their master schedules for 2000-01. As of January 2001, all three of those schools plan to continue the program in 2001-02, plus Parkview High School and, perhaps, Central High School. Additionally, effective fall 2001, the Fair, Hall and McClellan have plans to implement the two-period English II Workshop and English II Workshop Pre-AP. This program incorporates some of the characteristics of the Project A YID support class for students so that they can be more successful in their advanced courses. The course was also created to improve student performance on the End-of-Level Literacy test. that all students must take in grade 11 as a part of the State Benchmark examinations, as well as performance on the SAT/ACT necessary for college admission. Teacher and Counselor Training The District has committed to providing teachers with the appropriate training to ensure that all students are successful in upper-level courses. Teachers are involved in the training offered through the College Board. The District has provided the funds to participate though a reimbursement program provided by the State. During summer 2000, 28 teachers participated in Advanced Placement Summer Institutes in Hot Springs and Fayetteville. The subject areas were science, mathematics, social studies, art, and foreign language. During fall 2000, 53 teachers in English, social studies and foreign language attended an AP workshop. The number of teachers attending is lower this fall because Pre-AP training in social studies was not available. 34 Forty-four teachers participated in the Gifted Programs Secondary Content Workshop on August 4, 2000. This training is designed to help teachers work more effectively with identified students in their classes. All counselors and registrars participated in training on January 9-11, 2001, during the ammal curriculum orientations conducted by the Division oflnstruction on the importance of student access to and success in Pre-AP and AP courses. Results of Policies/Procedures/Programs Implementation Identified GT Students The following table displays the number of identified GT students at the elementary school level for school years 1998-99, 1999-2000, and 2000-01 ( as of January 2001 ). There was a significant reduction in elementary school numbers in 1999-2000 when grade 6 students moved from the elementary schools to the middle schools. Then there was an increase of 131 students identified and served from 1999-2000 to 2000-01. Eighty-nine of those were African-American (or 68 percent of the increase). The percentage of African-American students in the elementary program has remained steady at 45 percent. White student participation has declined slightly over three years from 50 percent to 48 percent, with \"other\" students improving from 5 percent to 7 percent. The total number of identified students at the elementary level in 2000-01 was 1516. A-A White Other Total Little Rock School District Gifted Program Elementary Participants 1998-99 Percent 1999-2000 Percent 2000-2001 883 45% 599 43% 688 986 50% 708 51% 723 106 5% 78 6% 105 1975 1385 1516 Percent 45% 48% 7% Secondary students include those in middle schools (grades 6-8) and in high schools (grades 9- 12). At the secondary level GT students are served primarily through the Pre-AP and AP courses. The only school that serves GT students in courses separate from Pre-AP and AP courses is Dunbar Magnet Middle Schoolj which is a GT magnet. GT courses are offered at Dunbar in all three grade levels and in all the core subject areas. In addition, a GT Seminar course is available to students at all three grade levels. The following table displays secondary student enrollment over three school years: 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-01. Although the numbers of African-American students participating in the gifted/talented program have increased from 1224 to 1333 (an increase of 109), the percentage of the total enrollment has declined slightly from 50 percent to 48 percent. White student enrollment went up only one percentage point over the three-year period, as did \"other\" student enrollment. The total number of identified students at the secondary level in 2000-01 was 2758. 35 1998-99 A-A 1224 Whne 1136 Other 93 Total 2453 Little Rock School District Gifted Program Secondary Participants Percent 1999-2000 Percent 2000-2001 50% 1468 49% 1333 46% 1404 47% 1298 4% 124 4% 127 2996 2758 Advanced Placement Courses Percent 48% 47% 5% Great effort has been expended in improving student, especially African-American student, access to AP courses. In summary, the following strategies were implemented:  Improved recruitment of students by teachers and counselors for AP course enrollment\n Added several new AP courses to the curriculum in 1999-2000 and again in 2000- 01\n Authorized all AP courses to be available in all five high schools\n Included enrollment in AP courses as one of the Quality Index indicators\n Changed regulations so that students may now enroll in a Pre-AP or AP course if they earned at least a \"C\" in the previous course\n Increased awareness of goals through the Revised Plan, the National Science Foundation Project, policies and regulations adoption, and professional development for teachers, counselors, and principals\n Published in the curriculum catalogs the guidelines for ensuring access of students to the AP and Pre-AP courses, including those with disabilities, those identified as \"504,\" ESL students, and those who are non-traditional students\n Ensured equal access to the professional development courses for teachers oy advancing the funds so that teachers could participate in the AP and Pre-AP conferences and Institute, thereby ensuring more equity for students at all schools\n Conducted parent night meetings at secondary schools to provide infonnation to parents about AP and Pre-AP programs, the importance of enrollment in courses, and the need for parental support in keeping students in courses\nand  Increased communication with parents through direct conferences and through the High School Student/Parent Guide to Course Selection and Graduation Requirements. 36 Enrollment in AP Courses The table on the following page displays enrollment in each of the AP courses offered by the College Board for African-American students as compared to .. other\" students for school years 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000, and 2000-01. Important findings are as follows: Improvements in Total Enrollments in AP Courses  The total enrollment of African-American students in AP courses increased from 4 71 in 1997-98 to 797 in 2000-0 I-an increase of 326 students or 69 percent.  The total enrollment of \"other\" students in AP courses increased from 964 in 1997-98 to 1495 in 2000-01-an increase of 53 I students or 55 percent.  The total enrollment of all students in AP courses increased from 1435 in 1997-98 to 2292 in 2000-01-an increase of 857 students or 60 percent. Changes in Enrollments in Specific AP Courses  In 1997-98 the District had students enrolled in 16 AP courses. The number of courses taught in 1998-99 increased to 18, in 1999-2000 to 20, and remained at 20 in 2000-01. According to the College Board's 1998 Advanced Placement Yearbook, \"the average participating high school offers six AP courses.\" A greater variety of courses in the District contributed to the attraction of more diverse students to the program. (Note: Spanish IV-VI was counted as one course, as were the multiple levels of French, German, and Latin, so the total number of courses may be higher than the numbers provided.)  The most popular AP course in 1997-98 was American History, with 284 students enrolled, followed closely by English IV with 277 students. These two AP courses substituted for graduation requirements, which, no doubt, contributed to the high enrollment. A similar pattern in course taking occurred in 1998-99, with 287 students enrolled in English IV and 260 in American History. With the addition of AP English ill in fall 1999, the enrollment shifted somewhat: 320 students enrolled in American History, 246 in English IV, and 186 in English III. English IV was the most popular course in 2000-01, with 359 students enrolled. American History had 299 students, and English III had 261.  Over the three-year period the biggest enrollment increases among AfricanAmerican students were in American History-an increase of 60 students\nEnvironmental Science-an increase of 57 students\nEnglish IV--an increase of 49 students\nand Statistics-an increase of 42 students. Also, 75 African-American students were enrolled in AP English ill in 2000-01 (that course was not offered in 1997-98).  The biggest improvements over the three-year period in AP enrollment were in English III (increase of 261), Environmental Science (increase of 174), in English IV (increase of 82)\nPsychology (increase of 63)\nin Art History (increase of 58)\nand Statistics (increase of 53). Some of the improvement in English III AP comes from a reduced number of students taking English ill Pre-AP\nand some of the improvement in Statistics AP is the result of fewer students taking Algebra II PreAP. 37 Enrollment in Advanced Placement Courses APCoune 1997-98 19~8-99 1999-2000 2 Yr. Change 2000--01 3 Yr. Change A-A Other Total A-A Other Total A-A Other Total A-A Other Total A-A Other Total A-A Other Total English Ill 0 0 0 22 13 3S 70 116 186 +70 +116 186 7S 186 261 +7S +186 261 English IV 93 184 277 98 189 287 I0S 141 246 +12 -43 -31 142 217 3S9 +49 +33 82 Caltulus AB 55 96 ISi 53 79 132 50 66 116 -5 -30 -35 58 122 180 +3 +26 29 Caltulus BC 2 IS 17 4 10 14 0 8 8 -2 -7 -9 0 10 10 -2 -5 -7 Slalislits 8 46 54 10 40 50 36 36 72 +28 -10 18 so S7 107 +42 +II 53 Biology JI 42 52 94 31 59 90 58 66 124 +16 +14 30 42 116 128 0 +34 34 Chemistry II s 27 32 13 43 56 20 42 62 +IS +15 30 2S 311 63 +20 +II 31 Physits II 2 25 27 0 14 14 8 25 33 +6 0 6 3 30 33 +I +5 6 Env. Stitncr 2 s 7 16 42 58 41 42 83 +39 +37 76 59 122 181 +57 +117 174 Eur. History 88 114 202 90 90 180 so 79 129 -38 -35 -73 54 90 144 -34 -24 -SIi Amtr. llislory 107 177 284 115 145 260 127 193 320 +20 +16 36 167 132 299 +60 -45 15 Psythology 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 26 36 +10 +26 36 18 4S 63 +18 +45 63 Gov. \u0026amp; Polilits 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 7 +4 +3 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 Etonomits 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Human Geog. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s 9 14 +5 +9 14 Frtnth IV-VI 12 56 68 10 24 34 18 31 49 +6 -25 -19 16 56 72 +4 0 4 Gtrman IV-VI I 27 28 0 15 IS 0 16 16 -I -II -12 0 17 17 -I -10 -11 Spanish IV-VI 32 96 128 27 57 84 so 74 124 +18 -22 -4 38 128 166 +6 +32 311 Lalin 111-V I 3 4 0 2 2 0 2 2 -1 -I -2 2 32 34 +I +29 30 Art llislory 0 0 0 29 70 99 18 67 85 +18 +67 85 6 52 58 +6 +52 58 Studio Art 9 16 25 14 21 3S 12 30 42 +3 +14 17 18 37 ss +9 +21 ~o Mus. Theory 12 2S 37 9 23 32 18 33 51 +6 +8 14 19 29 48 +7 +4 ~ Comp. Stitnte 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 471 964 1435 541 936 1477 695 1096 1791 +224 +132 356 797 1495 2292 +326 +531 857 Ptrttnt or Total 33 67 100 37 63 100 39 61 .,,. 100% 35% 65% 100%  I Yr.lncreast IS -3 3% 28 17% 21% IS 36% 28%  2 Yr.lntrtan 48 14 25% 47% 60% 55%  3 Yr. Increase 69% 5S - 60% The ltst of co11rses above mc/11des all AP courses ava,lable through Jhe College Board.  The greatest decline in enrollment over the three-year period has been in AP European History. Enrollment has declined 58 students-from 202 to 144. The major reason for this decline is that under the former graduation policy, students could substitute this course for the requirement of World History. Effectiye fall 1998, the State Board of Education changed their rules and stated that European History could no longer substitute for World History-thus reducing student interest in the course, especially among African-American students who accounted for 34 of the 58-student decline.  The District also experienced a drop in German IV-V-VI enrollment over the three-year period-from 28 students in 1997-98 to only 17 in 2000-01, a decrease of 11 students. Ten of the I I-student decrease in enrollment were \"other\" students. The District sees increased student interest in Spanish and the difficulty of staffing German classes as contributing to the change in this area. Pre-Advanced Placement Courses In December 1998 the Board approved a major revision of the high school curriculum. Among the changes were the elimination of all former courses labeled \"honors,\" \"advanced,\" or \"enriched.\" The District made a decision to label all such courses as Pre-AP so that the alignment behind the AP courses was more evident for everyone and for greater consistency and ease of communication. Another change was the establishment of Pre-AP courses in the core subject areas, beginning in grade 6, with the transition to middle school. Data were collected in 1999-2000 and again in 2000-01 on the enrollment in the Pre-AP program since this is the pipeline through which the District plans to develop the talent already in the District. Through these courses teachers can build the students' capacity to perform at higher and higher levels and, thus, to succeed in the AP courses in grades 11 and 12. Improvements in Enrollments in High School Pre-AP Courses The table on the following page displays enrollment in all Pre-AP courses at the high school level for both school years of implementation, 1999-2000 and 2000-01. 39 Enrollment in High School Pre-AP Courses Course 1999-2000 2000-2001 One-Year Change A-A Other Total A-A Other Total A-A Other English I 267 293 560 340 346 686 73 53 English II 253 284 537 298 316 614 45 32 English III 149 187 336 208 155 363 59 -32 Algebra II 169 330 499 168 257 425 -1 -73 Geometry 152 184 336 200 291 491 48 107 Trig/Adv. 92 168 260 79 222 301 -13 54 Biology I 280 277 557 289 332 621 9 55 Chemistry I 189 234 423 247 269 516 58 35 Physics I 171 191 362 177 274 451 6 83 Sci. Rsrch. 10 10 20 2 14 16 -8 4 Civics 283 282 565 333 347 680 50 65 World Hist. 326 284 610 374 415 789 48 131 World Geog. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 2341 2724 5065 2715 3238 5953 374 514 Percents 46% 54% 100% 46% 54% 100% 1-Yr. Growth 16% 15% 15% Key findings are as follows:  The total number of high school students who enrolled in Pre-AP courses improved in 2000-2001 from 5065 to 5953-an increase of 888 students or a 15 percent improvement.  African-American student enrollment improved at a slightly higher rate-from 2341 in 1999-2000 to 2715 in 2000-01, an increase of 374 students or 16 percent. \"Other\" student enrollment also improved-from 2724 in 1999-2000 to 3238 in 2000-01 for an increase of 514 students or 15 percent.  The percentage of African-American students in the total high school Pre-AP enrollment remained the same- 46 percent in 1999-2000 and in 2000-2001.  The most popular high school Pre-AP course in 1999-2000 was World History . Pre-AP with 610 students enrolled and the only course with more than 600 students. In 2000-01 five courses surpassed 600, but World History remained the favorite: English II Pre-AP with 614, Biology I Pre-AP with 621, Civics Pre-AP with 680, English I Pre-AP with 686, and World History Pre-AP with 789.  African-American student enrollment improved in English III Pre-AP by 59 students\n\"other\" student enrollment, however, declined by 32. Seventy AfricanAmerican students chose English III AP at this level, rather than the Pre-AP option, and 116 \"other\" students made this decision, which most likely accounts for the decline in \"other\" enrollment in the Pre-AP course.  African-American enrollment in Pre-AP Algebra II declined by one student, and \"other\" student enrollment declined by 73. A partial explanation for this situation is that Statistics AP, which is an alternative course to Algebra II Pre-AP, increased by 22 students in 2000-01.  The largest one-year improvement in enrollment was in World History Pre-AP with 179. Close behind were Geometry with a 155 improvement, English I with 40 Total 126 77 27 -74 155 41 64 93 89 -4 115 179 0 888 126, and Civics with 115. The largest grm~'th for African-American students was in English I Pre-AP (73), and the largest gtowth for \"other\" students was in \\\\'orld History Pre-AP ( 131).  Freshman and sophomore-level course enrollments were generally much higher than those at the junior level. Just as in middle school, it is important to keep these students in the pipeline toward talcing the AP courses. If the District is successful in doing so, AP English enrollment, as an example, could potentially increase a great deal in just two years. Improvements in Enrollments in Middle School Pre-AP Courses The table on the following page displays enrollment in all Pre-AP courses at the middle school level for both years of implementation, 1999-2000 and 2000-0 I. Key findings are as follows:  Even though some feared that students were over-enrolled in the Pre-AP courses at the middle school level in 1999-2000, even more students stepped up to the challenge in 2000-01. The African-American student enrollment grew 937 in one year for an improvement of 19 percent\n\"other\" students grew by 1076 for an improvement of 24 percent. The District as a whole grew by 2013 students or 22 percent.  In contrast to enrollment in the high school AP courses, where African-American enrollment was 35 percent of the total in 2000-01, the African-American enrollment in middle school Pre-AP courses was 51 percent of the total.  If students currently in the middle school pipeline continue through high school in the Pre-AP courses and then take AP courses in grades 11-12, the District can project significant improvements in the AP course enrollments as the current middle school students move into grade 11. As an example, there are currently 828 students enrolled in English 6 Pre-AP and 80 additional students enrolled in English 6 GT for a total of 908 students taking an advanced English course in grade 6 during 2000-01. At the high school level there are only 261 students talcing AP English III in 2000-01. If AP English III enrollment increased to 908, the District would have almost a 250 percent improvement. Enrollment in Specific Middle School Pre-AP Courses   The most popular Pre-AP courses at any grade level in middle schools are the English courses. For example, 908 grade 6 students are enrolled in a Pre-AP or GT English course. Enrollment in other core areas is less: 742 in Pre-AP/GT mathematics\n792 in Pre-AP/GT science\nand 754 in Pre-AP/GT social studies. Algebra I enrollment in middle school made a big jump in 2000-01-from 300 students in 1999-2000 to 426 in 2000-01, a 42 percent increase. In addition, four students were enrolled in 2000-01 in Algebra II and another 19 in Geometry for a total of 449 students enrolled in high school mathematics courses in 2000-01 , as compared to 308 in 1999-2000. That is an increase of 46 percent in one year. 41 - - II - \n1 I I I 111 I Enrollment in Middle School Pre-AP Courses I Course 1999-2000 2000-2001 One-Year Change 1~ 1 A-A Other Total A-A Other Total A-A Other Total i- Read/Write 6 Pre-AP 370 299 669 438 390 828 68 91 159 Read/Write 7 Pre-AP 391 305 696 411 318 729 20 13 33 Read/Write 8 Pre-AP 321 241 562 365 322 687 44 81 125 Read/Write 6 GT 14 37 51 21 59 80 7 22 29 Read/Wnte 7 GT 17 58 75 14 48 62 -3 -10 -13 I-Read/ Write 8 GT 18 41 59 15 59 74 -3 18 15 Rsrch/Write 6 Pre-AP 187 152 339 302 208 510 115 56 171 Rsrch/Write 7 Pre-AP 156 107 263 309 196 505 153 89 242  Rsrch/Write 8 Pre-AP 118 65 183 243 132 375 125 67 192 Rsrch/Write 6 GT 2 14 16 21 59 80 19 45 64 Rsrch/Write 7 GT 7 22 29 14 48 62 7 26 33  Rsrch/Write 8 GT 4 6 10 15 59 74 11 53 64 Mathematics 6 Pre-AP 313 266 579 363 314 677 50 48 98 Mathematics 7 Pre-AP 287 322 609 345 290 635 58 -32 26 - '\\ Mathematics 8 Pre-AP 261 142 403 233 104 337 -28 -38 -66 Algebra I Pre-AP 124 176 300 130 296 426 6 120 126 Algebra II Pre-AP 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 4 4 Geometry Pre-AP 0 8 8 I 18 19 I 10 11 II Mathematics 6 GT 13 32 45 12 53 65 -1 21 20 Mathematics 7 GT 9 28 37 9 28 37 Science 6 Pre-AP 330 291 621 381 339 720 51 48 99 II I! Science 7 Pre-AP 365 320 685 399 339 738 34 19 53 Science 8 Pre-AP 299 256 555 379 341 720 80 85 165 Science 6 GT 19 39 58 19 53 72 0 14 14 I 11 Science 7 GT 15 54 69 16 48 64 1 -6 -5 Science 8 GT 15 43 58 14 61 75 -1 18 17 Health Sci. 6 Pre-AP 31 17 48 30 24 54 -1 7 6 Health Sci. 7 Pre-AP 18 30 48 32 22 54 14 -8 6 - Health Sci. 8 Pre-AP 12 17 29 18 30 48 6 13 19 Lab Science 6 Pre-AP 22 28 50 25 37 62 3 9 12 Lab Science 7 Pre-AP 23 32 55 27 31 58 4 -1 3 II Lab Science 8 Pre-AP 24 26 50 28 39 67 4 13 17 Soc. Studies 6 Pre-AP 337 291 628 359 323 682 22 32 54 Soc. Studies 7 Pre-AP 344 303 647 374 324 698 30 21 51 Soc. Studies 8 Pre-AP 322 241 563 347 316 663 25 75 100 I Soc. Studies 6 GT 11 36 47 19 53 72 8 17 25 Soc. Studies 7 GT 16 56 72 16 45 61 0 -11 -11 Soc. Studies 8 GT 14 44 58 13 63 76 -1 19 18 II Totals 4820 4417 9237 5757 5493 11,250 937 1076 2013 Percents 52% 48% 100% 51% 49% 100% One-Year Change 19% 24% 22% I 11 I\\ I II 42  -  Enrollment in Pre-AP courses predictably declines at each grade level as students drop out of the program. Interestingly, ho\\vever, in 1999-2000 there were 720 students enrolled in grade 6 Pre-AP/GT English. In 2000-01 those students enrolled in Pre-AP/GT English 7 in even greater numbers: 791-an increase of 71 students in one grade level and a trend that runs counter to what usually h_appens.  There were large increases of enrollment in 2000-01 in the Research and Writing Pre-AP/GT course -- 171 in grade 6,242 in grade 7, and 192 in grade 8. This change reflects a change in the schools' policy. In 1999-2000 Pre-AP/GT students were enrolled in only one period of the Reading/Writing Workshop, and they were free to choose the second period as an elective-Research and Writing. Given the importance of this course, most schools decided to register all PreAP/ GT students into both periods in 2000-01. AP Examination The District's major emphasis in 1999-2000 and 2000-01 has been on encouraging enrollment in the advanced courses so that increasing numbers of students experience a more rigorous curriculum and begin to see themselves as college-bound. College Board research shows that students talcing an AP course and earning even a \"2\" on the test (\"3\" is the minimum score required to earn college credit) do better in college courses than those who did not talce the course. Although the District's priority during 1999-2000 and 2000-01 was not in increasing the number of students talcing AP examinations or in improving the percent who earned college credit on the examinations (but rather on improvements in enrollment), some notable improvements did occur in the number of examinations talcen. AP Examination Participation 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 Change Number of candidates 249 298 251 1% Number of exams 427 508 489 15% The District also recognized that when the numbers of students talcing any test increase, average scores generally decline since the test was formerly reserved for a more select group of students. The trade-off is worthwhile, since in the long run greater participation in the AP program will reap more benefits for greater numbers of students than simply meeting the goal of raising the average scores of a small group. The following table displays the percentage of District students earning a score of \"3\" or above on AP examinations over the past three years, 1997-98, 1998-99, and 1999-2000. The District anticipates that the percentage of students earning college credit will continue to be stagnant until the increased numbers of students talcing the AP examinations are those who have been in the Pre-AP courses for several years. Many of the new students currently talcing the tests are in their first advanced course and have simply not had enough years of preparation to do well. For now, the celebration is that more students took the examination in 1998-99 and 1999-2000 than in the baseline year, 1997-98, and more students are earning a \"3\" or more on the examinations than in 43 the baseline year. Fifty-five percent of 489 (or 268) is, therefore, better than 59 percent of 427 (or252). Number and Percent of Students Earning a '3\" or More on AP Examinations 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 252 (59%) 273 (54%) 268 (55%) Grades in Advanced Placement Courses The table on the following page displays the percentage of students, by race, earning a grade of \"C\" or above in AP courses in 1999-2000, spring semester. Data for earlier years could not be retrieved for comparison purposes due to changes in the course numbers and titles that occurred in fall 1999. Final grades for 2000-01 will not be available until June 2001. Percentage of Students Earning a \"C\" or Above in AP, 1999-2000 Spring Semester AP Course A-A White Other Total English III 87 96 95 93 English IV 82 93 93 89 Calculus AB 77 87 100 85 Calculus BC -- 88 100 89 Statistics 89 83 92 87 Biology II 80 97 86 89 Chemistry II 85 90 100 91 Physics II 88 95 91 92 Env. Science 91 90 100 90 Eur. History 86 88 90 88 Amer. History 72 88 81 81 Psychology 80 96 100 92 Gov. \u0026amp; Politics -- -- -- -- Economics -- - -- -- Human Geog. -- -- -- -- French IV 73 85 100 81 French V 75 100 -- 91 French VI -- 100 -- 100 German IV -- 100 -- 100 German V -- 100 -- 100 German VI -- 100 -- 100 Spanish IV 75 96 92 88 Spanish V 100 86 86 91 Spamsh VI 89 92 100 92 Laun III 100 96 100 97 Latin IV -- -- -- -- Latin V -- -- -- -- Art History 83 90 89 89 Studio Art 91 82 100 86 Mus. Theory 100 97 100 98 Comp. Science -- -- -- -- -- denotes no enrollment m course m spnng 2000. 44 Grades in High School Pre-AP Courses, Spring 1999-2000 The following table provides information relating to the p-ercentage of students, by race, who earned a \"C\" or above in Pre-AP courses at the high school level in spring 2000. Percentage of Students Earning a \"C\" or Above in High School Pre-AP Courses, 1999-2000 Spring Semester Pre-AP Course A-A White Other Total English I 74 90 97 83 English II 64 81 91 74 English III 74 77 90 76 Algebra II 77 89 96 85 Geometry 68 87 89 79 Trig/Adv. 78 90 93 86 Biology I 73 85 79 79 Chemistry I 67 81 87 76 Physics I 71 84 93 80 Sci. Research 70 100 - 85 Civics 90 94 93 92 World History 81 88 87 85 Grades in Middle School Pre-AP Courses, Spring 1999-2000 The following table displays the percent of students, by race, who earned a \"C\" or above in middle school Pre-AP courses in spring, 1999-2000. Percentage of Students Earning a \"C\" or Above in Middle School Pre-AP Courses, 1999-2000 Spring Semester Pre-AP Course A-A White Other Total Read/Write 6 Pre-AP 92 96 100 94 Read/Write 7 Pre-AP 80 89 92 85 Read/Write 8 Pre-AP 83 91 94 87 Read/Write 6 GT 100 100 100 100 Read/Write 7 GT 88 98 88 95 Read/Write 8 GT 39 78 100 70 Rsrch/Write 6 Pre-AP 93 95 100 94 Rsrch/Write 7 Pre-AP 89 97 100 92 Rsrch/Write 8 Pre-AP 82 92 100 87 Rsrch/Write 6 GT 100 100 100 100 Rsrch/Write 7 GT 100 100 100 100 Rsrch/Write 8 GT 75 83 100 83 Mathematics 6 Pre-AP 88 95 100 92 Mathematics 7 Pre-AP 74 90 86 83 Mathematics 8 Pre-AP 67 75 69 70 Algebra I Pre-AP 76 85 81 81 Algebra II Pre-AP - -- 100 100 Geometry Pre-AP .. 100 100 100 Mathematics 6 GT 100 94 100 96 Science 6 Pre-AP 96 99 100 97 Science 7 Pre-AP 79 91 89 85 Science 8 Pre-AP 91 91 94 91 45 Science 6 GT 95 100 100 : 98 I Science 7 GT 80 100 - 89 95 I Science 8 GT 67 82 I 100 I Sl Health Sci. 6 Pre-AP 84 77 S.3 s::: I Health Sci. 7 Pre-AP 63 46 100 57 Health Sci. 8 Pre-AP 92 88 88 89 ' Lab Science 6 Pre-AP 95 100 100 98 Lab Science 7 Pre-AP 83 90 100 88 Lab Science 8 Pre-AP 78 85 86 82 Soc. Studies 6 Pre-AP 89 96 96 92 Soc. Studies 7 Pre-AP 87 94 100 91 Soc. Studies 8 Pre-AP 87 92 94 89 Soc. Studies 6 GT 100 100 100 100 Soc. Studies 7 GT 94 100 100 99 Soc. Studies 8 GT 79 90 100 89 -- denotes no enrollment m course dunng spnng 2000. Enrollment in University Studies Courses at Hall High School Another category of advanced-level courses is the University Studies program at Hall High School, made available through a collaboration with UALR. The program began in 1999-2000 and continued in 2000-01. The following table displays the enrollment of students by race in these courses, where students earn concurrently both high school and university credit. Each course listed is a one-semester course, earning the student one-half high school credit and three semester hours of university credit. Course A-A Composition I 23 Composition II 19 Communications 6 Biology 8 Inrroduction to 14 Sociology Introduction to 9 Psychology Physics I Physics II College Algebra U.S. History I U. S. History II Totals 79 Percents 58% Enrollment in Universitv Studies Courses Hall High School, 1999-2000, 2000-01 1999-2000 2000-01 Other Total A-A Other 16 39 7 9 13 32 7 7 7 13 2 3 5 13 2 9 10 24 8 12 6 15 9 10 4 7 2 6 4 6 6 18 6 18 57 136 57 105 42% 100% 35% 65% Key observations are as follows: Total 16 14 5 11 20 19 11 8 10 24 24 162 100%  Enrollment in University Studies courses increased 26 students in 2000-01 over the initial year enrollment in 1999-2000 (from 136 to 162), representing an increase of 19 percent. 46  African-American student enrollment declined in 2000-01 from 79 the first year to 57-a decrease of22 students. \"Other\"srudent enrollment increased from 57 to 105 for an increase of 48. Numbers of Students Earning a \"C\" or Above in University Studies The following table shows the number and percent of students earning a grade of \"C\" or above in the University Studies courses at Hall High School. ACT Results Students Earning a Grade of \"C\" or Above University Studies, Hall High School, 1999-2000, 2000-01 Course 1999-2000 A-A Other Total Composition I 22/23 12/ 16 34/39 96% 75% 87% Composition II 16/19 12/13 28/32 84% 92% 88% Communications 5/6 7/7 12/13 83% 100% 92% Biology 6/8 4/5 10/13 75% 80% 77% Introduction to 10/14 519 15/23 Sociology 71% 56% 65% Introduction to 6/9 4/6 10/15 Psychology 67% 67% 67% Totals 65/79 44/56 109/122 82% 79% 89% The District has two quality indicators in its accountability system that relate to performance on the ACT, the college admission examination that most District students take. The first goal is to improve the numbers of students who take the ACT, and the second goal is to improve the performance of students on the ACT. Just as with the Advanced Placement examinations, the emphasis during the first few years is on encouraging students to take the test, to see themselves as college-bound, and to use the results for post-secondary planning. At the same time, a number of initiatives has been undertaken to improve student performance. They include:  Enhancing graduation requirements so that all students take the courses that are recommended in ACT preparation materials\n Including at least eight advanced courses to the recommended curriculum so that students are encouraged to take the most rigorous curriculum possible\n Revising ACT preparation courses for both English and mathematics and offering these courses in all five high schools\n Providing comprehensive Pre-AP and AP courses for students who see themselves going to college\n Aligning the Pre-AP curriculum, not only with the AP course requirements, but also with the ACT expectations\n47  Providing a series of pre-test workshops in each of the subject areas through the Community Education Department\nand. -  Better communicating with students and parents about ACT test dates, advantages of taking the test, financial aid, how to make scholarship applications, and how to apply to college. The following table includes the ACT results for school years 1997-98 through 1999-2000, disaggregated by race. The results are provided for each sub-test, as well as the composite (average) score. Students are required to earn a composite score ofat least a \"19\" to qualify for an Arkansas Challenge Scholarship. Year Total 1997-98 ' No:_ofTest\"s ~~-91 ~ ,-..:~~ akers.,,_'!i~ -~ - English Math Reading Sci. Reasoning Composite 1998-99 l\n\\~~2,.,.0~st~ ,.,. 929  .\n~alcers~ ~ English Math Reading Sci. Reasoning Composite 1999-00 ~ 9\n-ofJpt?f. e~- ,,_:_'Takers.~ ~ --- ~ English Math Reading Sci. Reasoning Composite ACT Results by Race and Gender 1997-98, 1998-99, and 1999-2000 Male Female A-A All White Mex./ Alsk. Chicano Ntv.\nJ:-,  ,1 .5,.\" '_ \"'=4.1ll\n-,,410~ -,,. -. 6- ---~-. -?268irj il~~JJ:~ ~ , ~ -a!:\",g~ : - ~ - .! it. -~ ~~'l-R )~i,..--.W. '- ,~. ~~~- 18.8 19.9 17.2 25.2 22.5 17 19.2 18 16.5 23 20.7 16.5 19.5 20.4 17.4 26.2 23.4 18.3 19.8 18.9 17.2 23.2 21.8 17.3 19.4 19.4 17.2 24.7 22.2 17.5 ~ ~5fb\"\"' ,~_ 55~4 \n\u0026gt;480 '.t? ,  .r1, ,. ' ' 3414 1\n'\n\".t: _~6\n\"l ~ ~ ' ,,_ ~ ~ :.\u0026lt;, - ~ .. ,\nl~ ~ t ... ~. ~ - ~~.: :?i! '_\n,..\",\"~'~ ~ -''. ''ii.-_ C .. ~- ., 19 20.3 17.1 20 23.2 16 18.6 18.3 16.5 20 20.6 15.5 19.6 20.2 17.2 24 23 .6 14.8 19.3 19.4 17.3 26 22 17 19.2 19.7 17.2 23 22.5 16.2 ~ .4.1'1.~- ~,.609,~ - ,, 111,,., 3 ... l,\nl t'.:-3~5t' rf6'1\u0026lt;,.~l? m~ ~~ -~1~$,.f~ \u0026amp;'ttil ~it ~ !) .. ~ :-..-, . .. ~~ 18.2 20 17.4 12.3 22.2 18.3 18.l 17.6 16.4 13.7 19.6 16.8 18.6 19.9 17.4 14 22.2 21.5 19.l 19 17.4 15.7 21.4 17.7 18.6 19.2 17.3 14 21.5 18.7 Asian/ P.R./ Mean PL Hispanic ~ 24,\n.\n,-~.:. s irs ' :~- ~~ -~:~~-1~~~tl ~. ~~ ~ .. ~- e ,,, .. l( 23.4 24.3 19.4 24.4 21.6 18.3 24.2 24.8 20.3 23 .6 21.1 19.5 24 23 19.5\n.i:.19~\n~ {,.\n~ ~:-ti... * ~\n,\n,.,..'lj ~-:f~::.8 .\ni: )~].,: cl'\"'.}, ~'\\IF,~~\n,.., .. - ~. 20.1 24.3 19.8 21.8 21.6 18.4 20.2 24.8 19.9 20.7 21.1 19.3 20.8 23 19.5 ., 20 \" ' ~:If ' 6 \\#1, 1 ..\n.~f~ ~j}\n. ff::i~ft ~.i'-'i~ l1,i1, . ,1::\"\n.'.,,c,\n~ .\n-'if.. . \u0026amp;i 21.6 16 19.3 23 .3 16.3 17.8 21.3 18.8 19.3 21.8 19.2 19 22.1 17.7 19 Key observations are as follows:  The number oftest-takers improved from 786 in 1997-98 to 1026 in 1999-2000 for an increase of 240 or a 31 percent improvement. The number of AfricanAmerican test-takers improved from 410 to 570--an increase of 160 students or a 39 percent improvement. The number of white test-takers also increased-from 268 in 1997-98 to 345 in 1999-2000--an improvement of77 students or a 29 percent improvement. 48  Only 40 percent of the test-takers in 1997-98 were male. This percentage remained at 40 percent in 1998-99 and went up slightly to 41 percent in 1999- 2000. These figures suggest the need for initiatives to increase the percentage of male test-takers.  African-American students improved their English scores from 17.2 in 1997-98 to 17.4 in 1999-2000. White students' scores declined from 22.5 to 22.2 in the same period. The District's average scores in English went down from 19 .4 to 19 .3.  African-American students' mathematics scores over the three years declined from 16.5 to 16.4, and white students' scores went down from 20.7 to 19.6. The average for the District went down from 18.3 to 17.8 between 1997-98 and 1999- 2000.  Reading scores for African-American students stayed at 17.4 from 1997-98 to 1999-2000, even though many more students were taking the test in 1999-2000. White students' scores went down from 23.4 to 22.2, and the District average declined in reading from 20.3 to 19.3.  African-American students improved their Science Reasoning scores from 17.2 in 1997-98 to 17.4 in 1999-2000-again with many more students taking the test. During the same period white students' scores declined from 21.8 to 21.4. The District's average score declined from 19.5 to 19.  African-American students improved their average composite score from 17.2 in 1997-98 to 17 .3 in 1999-2000, again with many more students taking the test. During the same period, white students' composite scores declined from 22.2 to 21.5. The District average declined from 19.5 to 19. That African-American participation in taking the ACT has improved so dramatically over three years (39 percent) while at the same time achievement has generally gone up is evidence that the initiatives to enroll these students in advanced courses are paying off already. It is very difficult for any group to increase its numbers and at the same time to improve their average scores. Parent Survey African-American students' willingness to move into more rigorous academic courses may reflect their belief that they will get the support they need to succeed. In the 1999-2000 parent survey, 88 percent of African-American parents who expressed on opinion agreed that their child received academic support. Eighty-six percent of white/other parents who expressed an opinion agreed with this statement. Summary and Next Steps Continued improvements are necessary for full equity of access to Pre-AP, AP, and other advanced courses, but the District is clearly on the right track in making these improvements, with large percentages of African-American students now taking advantage of the opportunity to participate. District and school-level staff members will continue to seek additional funding to 49 improve the program, especially for enhancements in student recruitment, parent involvement, and student support systems, as well as for curriculum development and staff development. 50 VIII. Academic Achievement. A. Generally. Section 2.7 LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan. Policies On August 24, 2000, the Board approved a new policy on Home Schooling (IKED). This policy reflects state law and State Board of Education regulations, as well as District views. In December 2000 the Board approved a revision to Policy IKF, General Education Graduation Requirements. The new policy moved much of the detail about required courses that was formerly in regulations into policy. Changes included the following:  Increasing for the Class of 2004 the number of required units from 24 to 26 and the number of units in the recommended curriculum from 27 to 28\n Modifying the recommended curriculum to include eight Pre-AP/AP or University Studies courses\n Establishing criteria for the Magnet Program Seal\n Establishing criteria for the Arkansas Scholars Seal\n Modifying slightly the requirements for the Honors Diploma Seal\nand  Changing the one unit requirement in oral communications to one-half unit in oral communications and an additional one-half unit in any English, communications, or journalism course. A new course in Modem Grammar is recommended. The Board adopted in February 2001 Policy lAA on Professional Development. This new policy states that the Board will \"commit the necessary time and other resources to a comprehensive professional development program that will be driven primarily by student performance data and result in improved educational achievement and equity of outcomes for all students.\" Procedures The regulations for Policy ID on the School Day were revised on May 25, 2000. Formerly, grade 12 students were not required to take more than four units of credit if that was all they needed to complete graduation requirements. The regulations were changed to require seniors to take eight courses, one of which could be a study hall or enrollment as a student monitor/assistant. The principal is authorized to modify this requirement if there are extenuating circumstances, which are defined. The Board reviewed on August 24, 2000, the new regulations for the policy on Remedial Instruction, 1HBDA-R2. These regulations establish the Student Academic Improvement Plan (\"SAIP\"). Effective fall 2000, a SAIP is to be developed for all students who are (1) not performing on grade level (K-4)\n(2) not proficient on any part of the state's Benchmark examinations -primary (grade 4), intermediate (grade 51 6), middle (grade 8)\nand (3) not scoring \"proficient\" on End-of-Course examinations in literacy, geometry, and/or algebra. An electronic form was de\\eloped for teacher use, and all schools received a reference text and software to use in writing the SAIPs. During fall 2000 the Board amended regulations IK.f--R. They eliminated the former procedures that had been established to provide for semester test exemptions for students with good grades, attendance, and behavior I This change was in response to the expressed concerns of many parents and teachers that such exemptions were not in the best interests of students. The exception was reinstated in February 2001 for seniors only. The Board reviewed on October 21, 1999, and then reviewed proposed revisions on May 25, 2000, the regulations on Class Rankings/Grade-Point Averages, IKC-R. These regulations delineate the kinds of grades that will be included in the calculations for class rankings/grade-point averages\nthe kinds of grades that will not be included\nprocedures to be used when students re-enroll for a course to make up a failing grade or to improve a low grade\nhow to calculate transfer grades\nthe grade points of regular-level and AP course grades\nprocedures for determining rank-inclass\nprocedures to be used in determining senior honors\nand definitions of key terms. The May revisions included a new provision that allows a student who earns a grade of \"C\" or \"D\" to retake a course to improve the grade. Both the first and second grades will be included in the calculation of the grade-point average. A new set of regulations, IKEC-R, Credit for Courses Taken Through Distance Learning, was reviewed by the Board on September 14, 2000. These regulations allow District students to take certain high school courses through the Arkansas Virtual High School. Such opportunities open doors to meet more students' needs. The regulations note that these courses might especially be appropriate for \"students who need to make up failed courses, for the resolution of scheduling conflicts, for students transferring in from other high schools, to provide courses where there is a lack of certified teachers available, for home-bound students, for returning home school students who lack credits, for pregnant teens and teen parents, and others with extenuating circumstances.\" The Board reviewed on August 24, 2000, the proposed regulations IKED-R on Home Schooling. The procedures that were established include how to place home school students in grade levels or courses upon their entry or re-entry into the District. The Board reviewed in December 2000 new regulations for General Education Graduation Requirements, IKF-R. The new regulations delineate the procedures for placing students in English and social studies courses\nadded new technology courses that c.an satisfy the requirements for Technology Applications\nand added new Career Focus areas, including one for Teachers of Tomorrow, one in Aviation Technology, and another for the out-of-zone students transferring into Central High School. 52 The Board reviewed on January 11, 2001, proposed new Professional Development regulations, IAA-R. These regulations defined the required professional development hours\nthe necessity of a professional development individual improvement plan\nthe use of the school day for professional development\nprocedures for awarding salary credit\nprocedures for paying stipends\nprocedures for tuition reimbursement\nprocedures for earning time off on Turkey Day (the Wednesday before Thanksgiving)\nencouragement to teachers to become National Board certified\nthe status of AEA Days\na definition of the District's induction program for beginning teachers\nthe importance of professional development in school improvement plans\nand the requirement for program evaluation. On May 1, 2000, a new Administrative Directive ID was issued on the Length of the Instructional Day. Administrative Directive IIB on Minimum Class Enrollment was issued on May 1, 2000. Administrative Directive IKA(2) on Grading Procedures was issued on January 21, 2000. Administrative Directive IKAB on Reporting Pupil Progress was issued on May 1, 2000. Administrative Directive IKC on Implementation of Policy IKC was issued on May 1,2000. Administrative Directive IKF A on Scheduling High School Students was issued on May5,2000. The Middle School Curriculum Catalog, 2001-02, was published and distributed during January 2001. The High School Curriculum Catalog, 2001-02, was published and distributed during January 2001. The Middle School Parent/Student Guide to Course Selection, 2001-02, was published and distributed to schools during January 2001. The High School Parent/Student Guide to Course Selection and Graduation Requirements, 2001-02, was published and distributed to schools during January 2001. Priority Intervention Procedures In early September 2000 the District adopted a set of Priority Intervention Procedures (\"PIP\"). PIP is the system for providing support, corrective actions, and sanctions for schools identified by the Arkansas Department of Education for improvement. This 53 system includes both a set of supportive interventions to help schools improve and a set of corrective actions if schools fail to improve. The procedures include a variety of interventions for schools identified for improvement: I  Accessible data for principals, Campus Leadership Teams, and others involved in school improvement\n Professional development for teachers, principals, and instructional support personnel\n School Improvement Plan coaching for principals and Campus Leadership Teams\n School Improvement Audits and/or Curriculum Audits conducted by District staff and then shared with the principal, Campus Leadership Team, and the faculty\n Technical assistance, on demand, for all schools.  Equitable resources to all schools\nprovision for extra resources for schools in need\nand  Principal evaluation system that is aligned with the accountability system. The PIP also includes a list of possible corrective actions for schools that are identified for improvement:  Diminished autonomy\n Required professional development for the principal and/or other staff.  Negative impact on evaluations for the principal and/or other staff\n Removal of the principal after two consecutive years of a school being identified for improvement\nand  Removal of 50 percent of more of a school's teachers after three consecutive years of a school being identified for improvement. At the September 2000 Leadership Team meeting (principals and central office brokers), the PIP was presented, and a meeting schedule with clusters of principals was distributed. During early October representatives of the School Services and the Instruction Divisions met with each group of four to five principals to talk with them about what is available to support school improvement, to listen to a presentation on their School Improvement Plans, and to listen to their needs for assistance and support. Staff members took notes at these meetings so that follow-up could occur. Subsequent meetings with the same groups of principals were conducted to discuss the results of assessments as they became available. Additionally, the School Services staff conducted monthly follow-up meetings with principals, and two of the PIP gr_oups of principals are meeting to plan together for improvement. Mid-year conferences have been scheduled to follow up on recommendations made as a result of the group pre-conferences conducted in October. 54 Another planned follow-up is to provide training for the Di,ision oflnstruction staff, as well as principals and assistant principals, in the use of the School Observation Measure developed by Dr. Steve Ross and his associates at the University of Memphis. This instrument allows observers to visit classrooms and then to construct a school profile of the instructional program. These data will be used as a part of the Curriculum Audits proposed as a possible intervention in the PIP. The training will be conducted for fall 2001 implementation. Programs Assessments Achievement Level Tests The District's Achievement Level Tests (\"ALTs\") in reading, language, and mathematics are administered in grades 3-11. The ALT is administered early each fall and again in late spring so that the year's growth can be measured. These tests are criterion-referenced in that they are closely aligned with the District's curriculum content standards and grade-level benchmarks. The scores are on a continuum that allows parents, teachers, students, and others to determine a student's growth during a given year, as well as over time. Also, the scoring software allows the staff to compare a student's performance with that of all the students in the nation who also take the ALTs, and a percentile score is derived. This percentile is not the same as the one used to score the SAT9 tests. The ALT national sample is inclusive of all students who take the test, and there has been no attempt to establish a norm based on representative students acc'0rding to region, poverty, race/ethnicity, gender, and so forth. Criterion-Referenced Tests-Literacy, Grades 3-5 Also, second and third quarter criterion referenced tests are administered to third, fourth and fifth grade students. These tests are designed by the District's teacher leaders with input from classroom teachers. They are closely aligned with the District's elementary curriculum content standards and grade-level benchmarks so that they give the school and parents good information about the status of a student's performance in terms of achieving the standards. They are also intended to be predictive of how a student will perfonn on more formal measures unless appropriate interventions are made to improve perfonnance. Criterion-Referenced Tests-Literacy, Grades 6-12 To measure students' growth against the District and State benchmarks, criterion referenced tests (\"CRTs\") were developed by the English curriculum staff in the areas ofreading, writing, and grammar. These tests are used by each classroom teacher to measure students' growth and to plan instruction. Tests were carefully written to model form and procedure of the SAT9, the State Benchmark Exam, End of Course Literacy Test, and the AL Ts. Items are annotated to reflect benchmark(s) tested. The CRT's are designed to be given during the second and third quarters, but teachers have the prerogative1to administer tests during a period of several weeks for maximum value and individual needs. 55 Criterion Referenced Test (End ofUnit/Module Exams), Mathematics and Science CRTs were also developed by the District's Mathematics-and Science Departments in collaboration with PRE. This CRT measures performance at critical junctures in the new math and science curricula: specifically at the end of each mathematics \"module\" and each science \"unit.\" The test directly assesses student performance on District benchmarks in math and science. Each benchmark includes 4 test items. Stu~ents are expected to answer at least 3 of those items correctly to be proficient on the benchmark. In addition the test includes openended, free-response items that are formatted like the open-ended items on the Siate Benchmark Exam. Results on the CRT inform teachers, principals, and the District about how students are achieving the District benchmarks. A process is being implemented to efficiently convey test results to teachers, parents, and principals in order to achieve the CRT goal of identifying student performance in relation to our own curriculum and to identify students in need of additional instruction. To facilitate administration of the math and science multi-module CRTs, a systematic approach is being used for scanning, scoring, and the generation of reports for teacher, parents, and principals. The reports will include an \"item analysis\" that reveals how students performed on the test question by question. This will give the teacher detailed information about the content and skil\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 "}],"pages":{"current_page":2,"next_page":3,"prev_page":1,"total_pages":15,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":12,"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}}]}}