{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_374","title":"Compliance hearing exhibits, ''Writings on Program Evaluation-School District Improvement''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1999/2001"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance hearing exhibits, ''Writings on Program Evaluation-School District Improvement''"],"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/374"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\"WRITINGS\" ON PROGRAM EVALUATION SCHOOL/DISTRICT IMPROVEMENTWritings on Program EvaluationSchool/District Improvement School Improvement 1. Document: Guidelines to School Improvement Planning. August 1999 (distributed to participants of summer 1999 Campus Leadership Team Institute)\nsee pp. 1-16 of using data for decision making and prioritizing\npp. 29-30 on Plan Evaluation.) 2. Memorandum in Feb. 9, 2000, Learning Links from Bonnie Lesley on conducting a formative evaluation of the progress on the School Improvement Plan with attached ERS research article: School Improvement\nFactors Leading to Success or Failure 3. Document of notes made by Bonnie Lesley in efforts to analyze the first ALT results in spring 2000, by school 4. Memorandum in Dec. 16, 1998, Learning Links to principals from Bonnie Lesley establishing the waiver process, with attached application form, including a required evaluation design. Title I 5. Memorandum to Cabinet from Bonnie Lesley, Jan. 4, 1999, requesting feedback on a draft plan to restructure the Districts Title I program in order to align it with new literacy and mathematics curricula and Smart Start, as well as with the Strategic Plan and the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ^7 6. Memorandum to elementary principals from Bonnie Lesley, June 9, 1999, clarifying Title I program issues and the importance of aligning Title I programs with efforts to improve achievement. 7. Memorandum to Board of Education from Bonnie Lesley, Aug. 12, 1999, on issues relating to changes in the Districts Title I Plan for 1999-2000. ^7 8. Memorandum to John Walker, et al, from Bonnie Lesley, Sept. 1, 1999, relating to changes in the LRSD Title I Plan for 1999-2000\nattaching copy of the plan. Arkansas Quality Award 9. Feedback from Arkansas Quality Award to 1999 application for Level I Award, September 8, 1999 37 10. Planning document to write the application for the Arkansas Quality Award, prepared by Bonnie Lesley in April 200011. E-mail to selected staff from Bonnie Lesley, Apr. 26, 2000, thanking them for contributions to the writing of the application for the Arkansas Quality Award i3 12. E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to selected staff. May 4, 2000, with attached copy of application to Arkansas Quality Award program 13. Application for the Arkansas Quality Award: Little Rock School District: Dedicated to Excellence, May 5, 2000 14. Agenda for planning meeting for Arkansas Quality Award site visit. August 14, 2000, with attachment, Arkansas Quality Award Application Procedure 15. Agenda for Arkansas Quality Award Site Visit, August 16-18, 2000 30 16. Feedback from Arkansas Quality Award after site visit on August 16-18, 2000. Evaluation Reports from ODM 17. Memorandum to Ann Brown and ODM Staff from Bonnie Lesley, Aug. 4, 1999, in response to draft of their report. ^0 18. Memorandum from Ann Brown to Bonnie Lesley, Oct. 15, 1999, in response to Aug. 4 memorandum. 19. Letter from Kathy Lease to N.W. Marshall at ODM, Oct. 11, 1999, stating concern that NCEs were used to make judgments in Achievement Disparity report. 20. Letter from N.W. Marshall to Kathy Lease, Oct. 22, 1999, in response to her concerns. 21. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley to curriculum staff. May 10, 2000, with copy of feedback from ODM on curriculum documents. 22. E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to curriculum staff. May 16, 2001, with assignment to rewrite the grade-level and course benchmarks for the parent publications\nexample attached. (Reference feedback from ODM evaluation of curriculum documents, April 25, 2000). Guidelines for School Improvement Planning Supplement to the Handbook for Campus Leadership Team Developed by the Division of Instruction Little Rock School District August 1999 1School Improvement Planning This draft of the guidelines for School Improvement Planning is the result of a commitment made by the Little Rock School District to consolidate all the planning requirements at the school level so that when a school designs its annual and long-range School Improvement Plan, it is satisfying district requirements, Title I requirements, and ACSIP requirements. To the extent possible, the LRSD uses the language and definitions of ACSIP and ACTAAP to reduce confusion. The School Improvement Plan that you produce will serve also as the Title I plan for the schools involved in that program. In some cases, to satisfy federal and state requirements. Title I schools will also submit some supplemental information to the School Improvement Plan. See p. 68 in the Handbook for Campus Leadership Team for the LRSD planning calendar. Page 65 is a glossary of planning terms that may also be helpful. School Performance Report If you study the ACTAAP document that is included in the back of your Handbook for Campus Leadership Team, you will see references in that paper (p. 10) to the School Performance Report or, as we may call it, the Building-Level Report Card. See also pp. 16-17 in the Handbook in the local section on Collective Responsibility. The School Performance Report, mandated in law in the last legislative session, will be published annually by the ADE, mailed to all parents, and included on the ADE web pages. This report is a part of the overall ACTAAP system and is included in what is required under Public Reporting of results. The indicators on the School Performance Report are the same, in many cases, as the Performance Indicators in ACTAAP, but they include some additional ones as well. It is important for everyone to understand that we have both this Public Reporting document or School Performance Report and the ACTAAP accountability system that includes a separate set of indicators, a reward system, and a sanction system. They are two different things, but there are overlaps in the indicators in some cases. The challenge, then, of the Campus Leadership Team is to develop your School Improvement Plan in ways that will impact not only the Performance Indicators under ACTAPP and the LRSD Quality Indicators, but also the indicators that will be reported on the School Performance Report. The first School Improvement Reports will be published based on the 1999-2000 data, and they are to be available no later than September 15, 2000. You are going to want to show growth in as many of the indicators as possible, of course, so your School Improvement Plan is a vehicle to achieve those improvements. A list of the indicators that ADE will be required by law to report follows: 1Elementary Schools The report for elementary schools shall include three-year trend data and allow parents or guardians to compare the schools performance with state and national averages in areas and shall include, but not be limited to, the following measures: A. B. C. D. School safety Discipline Norm-referenced test results Criterion-referenced test results E. Percentage of students promoted to the next grade level F. Certified staff qualifications G. Total per-pupil spending H. Assessment of the local taxpayer investment in the school district I. Percentage of students eligible to receive free or reduced price meals J. Average salary of staff K. Average attendance rates for students Middle and High Schools The report for middle and high schools shall include three-year trend data and allow parents and guardians to compare the schools performance with state and national averages in areas which include, but not be limited to, the following: A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. M. N. O. School safety Discipline Norm-referenced test results Criterion-referenced test results Percentage of students promoted to the next grade level Certified staff qualifications Per-pupil spending Assessment of the local taxpayer investment in the school district Percentage of students eligible to receive free or reduced price meals Average salary of the staff Average attendance rates of students Drop-out rate Graduation or completion rates College remediation rate (for high schools only)\nand Collegiate admission test results 2School districts may prepare and distribute supplemental materials concerning the information contained in the school performance reports, and the LRSD will do so. step 1: Review/Revise the School Mission Statement Mission statements are dynamic and should periodically be reviewed to determine whether changes should occur and to keep the school mission aligned with the LRSD Mission. Step 2: Baseline Data\nTaking Stock Collecting, Profiling, and Analyzing Data Conduct a comprehensive data collection and analysis of the baseline data for each of the ACTAAP and Quality Indicators for your school. (See reprints of pages for elementary schools, middle schools, or high schools at the end of this document.) Fill in the Your Results column with the baseline data as a first step in this process. You may wish to add pages to include other data, including data to address from the School Performance Report. Your analysis must include a careful disaggregation of the trend and baseline data (by race, gender, socio-economic status, LEP/non-LEP, Sped/non-Sped, etc.) You may wish to group the indicators by subject, program, or grade level to determine the preponderance of evidence about your schools performance for each sub-group. Think of yourselves as detectives at this step of the work. Gather evidence, including evidence revealed from other data you may have availablesuch as grades, portfolio assessments, survey information, other program assessments (i.e., computer lab test results), etc. You should also examine data related to indicators that are not listed in the Quality Indexparent involvement data, for instance, or teacher attendance rates, or percent of students participating in co-/extra-curricula activities, or how high school students are using their electives, etc. These other indicators undoubtedly have implications for some of the broader areas of achievement. Do not indulge in finger-pointing or blaming. Your business is to improve, not to dwell on the past. Stay focused on the kinds of discussions that make a difference in student achievement: curriculum, staff development, supervision, instructional programs, student assessment, action research, program evaluation, instructional budget. 3School School Improvement Plan Year Priority 1 Supporting Data\n. Goal(s): One-Year Benchmark(s): 4 School School Improvement Plan Year Intervention: Actions Person(s) Responsible Timeline Resources District Budget Title I Budget APIG/Other Budget i 1 5 step 3: Selecting Priorities Using your data analysis, make decisions about 3-5 priority areas for your School Improvement Plan. You must include the following two priorities until your school has 100 percent of the students performing at the proficient level or above on the State Benchmark or End-of-Level tests\nImprove student achievement in reading and writing literacy. Improve student achievement in mathematics. One priority area may include all the measurements in the ACTAAP and Quality Indicators related to a program area-mathematics, for instance. Some examples of middle school mathematics performance indicators are as follows: Performance on State-Mandated Criterion-Referenced Tests Performance on SAT9 Performance on District-adopted CRT Enrollment in Pre-AP courses Enrollment in Algebra I by grade 8 Hints You may want to consider as an action an activity related to other Quality Indicatorsespecially those relating to ensuring appropriately licensed teachers or ensuring that all staff participate in 60 hours or more of professional development, as those hours relate to the planned interventions. If your priority area is mathematics, for instance, student learning would undoubtedly be impacted with better trained teachers in mathematics content, instructional strategies, and assessment strategies. In other words, you can address some of the ACTAAP and Quality Indicators without selecting them among your priorities. Be aware that you may also have a priority area that is not explicitly addressed in the Quality Indicatorssuch as Improving parental involvement Improving the teacher attendance rate. Remember, however, to make decisions about priorities based on data, and remember that success has to be determined with data, so start at this step with building an understanding of how success will be measured if there are no stated Quality Indicators that match the selected priority area. 6step 4: Supporting Data Record the data that your have identified as your rationale for selecting each priority area. In other words, show your schools performance in two or more Quality Indicators that indicate your need to focus on that area as your priority. You may (and are encouraged to do so) include disaggregated data in listed your Supporting Data. Examples for a middle school follow: State Benchmark ExamGrade 6 Mathematics: 32% performing at or above the proficient level\n80% of those not performing at the proficient level or above are African- Americans, and 70% of those are male. SAT9 Grade 7 Total Mathematics: 23% at or above the SO** percentile\n65% of African American males are in the lowest quartile. % enrolled in Algebra I by grade 8: 12%\nonly 3% are African American males. Note 1\nThe examples above indicate that the school must include one or more interventions designed to be effective with African American males. The interventions might include some actions related to program enhancements, to special tutoring programs, to more use of cooperative learning instructional strategies, to recruitment of African American male mentors, to an emphasis on parent involvement, or, perhaps, a special professional development program for the staff that would enable you better to understand what the root problems are and what the school can do to impact those problems. Note 2: Title I schools can also use this step to begin identifying students who require targeted assistance to support their achievement of the curriculum standards/benchmarks. Disaggregation of data and then an analysis of those data will enable the school to design more effective interventions. Remember that even if a Title I school decides to be a schoolwide project, the school still has the responsibility to target the lowest achievers for special assistance or programming. Step 5: Setting Goals See the pages above with the tables for elementary, middle, and high schools. In the fourth column of those tables you will see a series of goal definitions from which to select for this section of your plan. Remember that there are three kinds of goals: 7absolute perfoimance goals that include a specific percent of students who are expected within a given period of time to perform at a specific level\ntrend goals that establish an expected improvement of one cohort of students performance compared to last years cohort at that level (this years fourth grade compared to last years fourth grade, for instance): and improvement goals that establish an expected improvement of the same cohort from a pre-test to a post-test (this years sixth grade as compared to those same students in grade 4). You might also think about these three kinds of goals in this way: Performance goals are long-term goalswhere students are expected to be within five or ten years, for instance. Trend goals are one-year goalsthe typical way that we look at achievement datahow we did this year as compared to how a different cohort did last year. Trend goals set one year at a time become your Benchmarks (see Step 6 below). If you achieve your trend goals consistently over a ten-year period according to the State Indicators, you would achieve the performance goal for those indicators. Again using middle school mathematics as an example, you might choose the following goals: 100% of our schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in grade 8 mathematics on the State Benchmark Examination. 65% of our schools students in every sub-group of race and gender shall perform at or above the 50*^ percentile in mathematics on the SAT9. At least 30% of our schools students will perform at the highest quartile in mathematics on the SAT9. 90% of our schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in mathematics each semester on the District-adopted CRT. 890% of our schools students will be enrolled in Algebra I by grade 8. Note: The examples above do not include every possible mathematics goal from the Quality Indicators. Your team will choose those which it sees as most important orthose that you believe you can impact in this particular year. Again, if there is an achievement gap that needs to be addressed, then the school may wish to state its goal statements in terms of improvement of achievement for African American males, for instance: At least 50% of African American males who performed at Below Basic and Basic levels in grade 4 shall perform at or above the proficient level in grade 6 mathematics on the State Benchmark Exam. The percent of African American males enrolled in Algebra I by grade 8 shall improve from 3% to 20% in 1999-2000. ACSIP Advice in Goal Setting: Critical Questions According to the ACSIP documents, the following are important in the goalsetting process: A goal is directly linked to a priority. A goal narrows the scope of the priority. Two or three goals per priority would be advisable. Goal selection should be guided by the critical questions for Federal Programs, Special Education, and Equity. (See below, plus two additional categories: LEP Students and Parent Involvement) Goals are achievement-driven. The ACSIP Critical Questions follow: Federal Programs Will Title VI be used to support the plan in ways that...  Promote equitable quality education for all students?  Provide training in support of local school reform efforts?  Provide leadership in support of local school reform efforts?  Provide for technical assistance of local school reform efforts?  Involve parents, teachers, administrators and private schools in the decision-making process? 9Does the plan allow for one or more of the following areas?  Supplemental (not required by the State) technology related to the professional development to assist school personnel regarding how to effectively use equipment and software for instructional purposes?  Instructional materials programs for the acquisition and use of instructional materials?  Programs that include promising education reform components (Effective Schools Research, etc.)?  Programs to improve the higher order thinking skills of disadvantaged students and to prevent students from dropping out of school?  Provisions for gifted and talented children?  Provisions that are consistent with the Goals 2000: Education America Act?  Activities authorized under Title I, Sections 1116 and 1117, to give all children the opportunity for high performance, to establish needs assessments to perceive deficient areas, and to implement research-based actions that address deficient areas? Special Education Does the plan provide children with disabilities the appropriate modifications, adaptations, and supplementary aids and services to ensure that they have equitable access to the same curricula content as their nondisabled peers? Will the plan facilitate the improvement of the academic performance of children with disabilities? Does the plan hold an expectation of high achievement based on high standards, and does it hold students, the school, and the district accountable for learning and teaching? Does the plan guarantee educational equity for all children? Does the plan allow for flexibility in providing meaningful instruction closely linked to the general curriculum/ appropriate activities enabling all students to be successful in the real world? Does the plan ensure accountability by providing a mechanism for monitoring lEP modifications within the regular classroom? Does the plan evidence issues and ideas presented in Enhancing Student Success Through Accountability and Leadership, published by the Accountability Task Force on the Individualized Education Program and Program 10Effectiveness Evaluation, Arkansas Department of Education, Special Education (October 1998)? Does the plan address the professional development needs of all district personnel relative to meeting the needs of children with disabilities? Does the plan address the use of technology to assist children with disabilities access to the general curriculum/ appropriate activities enabling all students to be successful in the real world? Equity Are students who are educationally disadvantaged achieving at the same level as the advantaged students? Will there be evidence that teachers have high expectations for every student as a result of the plan? Are resources being provided to assist all students in attaining high levels of achievement? Are all students being challenged? Are all groups of students given opportunities and encouragement to be involved in all school programs? What evidence is there that teachers have high expectations for all students? Are resources provided to assist educationally disadvantaged students in overcoming environmental and other handicaps? What evidence is there that learning deficits of certain groups of students are overcome? Are students enrolled in all programs at the same proportions as their representation in the school population? Are academic goals the same for all groups of students? Are all student groups represented in advanced and intermediate courses? Are all constituencies of the school (teachers, administrators, parents, students, and community representatives) involved in developing school procedures that ensure equity? Parent InvolvementTitle I The Districts application for Title I funds requires us to assure the state that all of our Title I schools have complied with the following mandates for parent involvement. Be sure that you have addressed each obligation. If you are currently out of compliance, then Parent Involvement may necessarily become one of your priorities. 1. The District assures that each Title I school shall jointly develop with and distribute to parents of participating children a written parental involvement policy, agreed upon by the parents that described the means of carrying 11 out the requirements of parent involvement and the shared responsibilities for high student performance. 2. If the parent involvement policy is not agreed upon, the comments of those in disagreement are attached to the District plan. 3. Did each Title I school in the District convene an annual meeting, at a convenient time, to which all parents were invited and encouraged to attend, to inform parents of their schools participation in the Title I program and their right to be involved prior to submitting the District plan? 4. Did each Title I school in the District offer a flexible number of meetings in the development of the plan, such as morning or evening and provide (if funds are available) transportation, child care, or home visits, as such services relate to parental involvement? 5. Did each Title I school in the LEA involve parents in an organized, ongoing, and timely way, in the planning, review, and improvement of programs under this part, including the school parental involvement policy and the join development of the school wide plan for their school? 6. The District assures each Title I school will provide parents of participating children the following:  Timely information about programs\n School performance profiles and their childs individual student assessment results, including an interpretation of such results\n A description and explanation used to measure student progress and proficiency levels that students are expected to meet\n Offer opportunities for regular meetings to formulate suggestions, share experiences with other parents, and participate in decisions relating to the education of their children\nand  Offer timely responses to suggestions made by parents. 7. The District assures that if a schoolwide plan is not satisfactory to the parents of participating children that those parents' comments on the plan will be made available to the Department of Education. School-Parent Compact 8. The District assures that each participating schools has jointly developed with parents of all participating children a school-parent compact as part of its parent involvement policy that outlines how parents, school staff, and students will share responsibility for improving student achievement. 129. The Compact will: Describe responsibilities of schools and parents that enable participating children to meet the states student performance standards. Describe the parents responsibilities for supporting learning such as monitoring attendance, homework completion, TV watching, volunteering in their childs classroom, and positive use of extracurricular time. 9. The District assures that parents will be provided assistance to participating parents in the areas of: Understanding the National Education Goals, State Content and Student Performance Standards, State technical assistance for schoolwide and targeted assistance school components, state and local assessment. Title I parent involvlement requirements, how to monitor student progress, and how to work with educators to improve the childs performance. 10. The District assures that parents will be provided with materials and training and coordinate literacy training to help parents work with their children to improve achievement. 11.The District assures that teachers, pupil service personnel, principals and other staff persons will be educated in the value and use of parent contributions, how to work with parents as equal partners, implement parent programs, and build ties between home and school. 12.The District assures that it will integrate parent involvement programs and activities with other pre-school programs. 13. The District assures that community-based organizations and businesses will be encouraged to form partnerships between schools at all levels. 14. The District will conduct other activities such as a parent resource center and provide opportunities for parents to hear child development and child rearing issues that are designed to help parents become full partners in the education of their children. Limited-English-Proficient Students The Office of Civil Rights will expect to see components such as the following in your school plan: Are the needs of LEP students considered in your schools plan (not just in the Newcomer Centers, but in every school where there are LEP students enrolled)? 13Wiaf is.tftaemscimsi' is. teaching English language skite arid itnssdSuiction for LEP students? Are LEP studsints is aligned with the curriculum framewor'^s and iShe,.a^j^jpriate grade-level or course benchmarks? Are critical documents translated i.ritelhe'language of students homes? When \"educationally disadvantaged children are discussed and plans made to meet their needs, are LEP students included? What is the professional development plan so that all teachers who serve LEP students participate in training in ESL methodologies, assessment strategies, and cultural sensitivity? step 6: Establishing Benchmarks State Benchmark Examinations For each of your goal statements, you must establish the amount of growth that you intend to achieve this school year. According to the ACTAAP document (in reference to performance on the State Benchmark Examinations or End-of-Level Tests), p. 15, On average, each schools trend goal for annual rate of reduction in the number of students below proficient will be determined by dividing the total percent of students below the proficient level by 10. Remember that a trend goal compares the performance of one cohort of students with anotherthis year's grade 8 students as compared to last years grade 8. Therefore, at least for 1999-2000, you can compute your benchmarks for the State Benchmark Examinations according to the following formula: 100% minus % of your students currently performing at or above the proficient level divided by 10 equals the number of required percentage points to meet your trend goal Assuming that you had in 1998-99 32% of the students performing at or above the proficient level: 100 minus 32 equals 68. 68 divided by 10 equals 7 points of required improvement. Your 1999-2000 benchmarks would, therefore, be as follows: 1432 (1998-99 performance) + 7 points of required improvement = 39% at or above the proficient level Note: It is important here as a part of your work to calculate exactly how many students you are required to move up to get the 7 points of improvement. Look to see how many students are at grade level and calculate how many of them would equal 7 percentage points. State your benchmark in a measurable statement that includes who, what, when, and how much. In 1999-2000, the LRSD school shall improve 7 points so that at least 39% of the students will perform at or above the proficient level on the State Benchmark Examination in grade 8 mathematics. Who\nWhat: When: grade 8 students in the LRSD school State Benchmark Examination in mathematics In 1999-2000 How Much: 7 points improvement (from 32 to 39% at or above proficient level) Then the 2000-01 benchmark would be 39% +7 = 46%. Etc. In 2000-01, at least 46% of the grade 8 students will perform at or above the proficient level on the State Benchmark Examination in mathematics. To Consider: A divisor of 10 indicates that to stay off the States identified list of schools requiring improvement, a school would have 10 years to meet the state goal of 100% of the students performing at or above the proficient level, assuming the school meets the required improvement goal each year. We in Little Rock cannot be satisfied with that time frame since our average performance is at an unacceptable level in many schools. We cannot wait 3-4 years, for instance, for a minimum of 50 percent of our students to meet the state standards. We have to accelerate our grovizth a lot if we are to catch up with other districts and if our kids are to be competitive with their peers not just in Arkansas, but also nationally and globally. Research on restructuring that works in terms of improved student achievement indicates that two variables that are the most powerful are as follows:  every students access to a rigorous curriculum (teaching the tested curriculum, in other words, the curriculum standards/benchmarks\nalignment of teachers lesson plans with the state curriculum frameworks and district benchmarks) 15developing a true sense of collective responsibility everybody doing whatever it takes in terms of commitment to improve teaching and learning. This variable includes a strong emphasis on professional development and ongoing learning. SAT9 Benchmarks Computing the benchmarks for performance on the SAT9 is done a little differently. If the Quality Indicator you are considering is the one relating to at lOact Rk norAanI __ i_ _ .1 .-^th oc X f -------------------------------------72'-'^'\" ly i'j M WI ik\n? I c\niain lu lu CJI L performing at or above the 50 percentile, then the calculation is as follows\n65/o minus % of your students currently performing at or above the 50 percentile ^ided by 10 equals the required percentage-point increase in the number of students performing at or above the 50*^ percentile. Assuring that you had in 1998-99 only 22% performing at or above the 50 percentile: 65 minus 22 equals 43 43 divided by 10 equals 5 points of required improvement. (That is not five percentile points, but 5 percent more of the students tested performing at or above the 50* percentile.) Your benchmark statement: In 1999-2000, the LRSD school shall improve by 5 percentage points (from 22% to 27%) the percentage of students performing or above the 50 percentile on the grade 10 SAT9 mathematics test. at it is important for you to calculate exactly how many students would constitute 5 percentage points. If you are working on improving the percentage of students in the highest niiartUo thAn _____i_ . . . _ a quartile, then you compute your benchmark as follows: 30% giinus % of your students currently performing in the highest quartile divided by 10 equals the required percentage-point increase in the number of students performing in the highest quartile. Assuming that you had in 1998-99 only 4% performing in the highest quartile: 30 minus 4 equals 26. 26 divided by 10 equals 3 points of required improvement in the percent of students performing in the highest quartile. 16Calclulate how many students that would be. Benchmark statement: In 1999-2000, the LRSD school shall improve at least 3 percentage points (from 4% to 7%) in the percent of students performing at the highest quartile on the grade 5 SAT9 reading test. Most schools badly need to work on moving students from the lowest quartile to the higher levels of performance. The formula for computing the benchmark is as follows: 90% minus % of your students currently performing in quartiles 2, 3, and 4 (above the lowest quartile) divided by 10 equals the required percentage-point increase in the number of students performing above the lowest quartile. Assuming that you had in 1998-99 57% performing in the lowest quartile and only 43% above the lowest quartile: 90% minus 43% equals 47 47 divided by 10 equals 5 points of required improvement in the percent of students performing above the lowest quartile. Calculate how many students that would be. Benchmark statement: In 1999-2000, the LRSD will improve at least 5 percentage points (from 43% to 48% in the percent of students performing above the lowest quartile on the grade 7 SATO mathematics test. In General To compute your benchmark, you have to know two things to start with:  The performance goal for the performance indicatorsthe percent expected (i.e., 100% will be proficient\n65% will be above the 50th percentile\n65% will enroll in Pre-AP and AP courses, etc.)  Your schools performance last year. Step?: Designing Interventions Now that you have your data analyzed, your priorities determined, your goals selected, and your benchmarks established, you are ready to do the real work of developing the plan for improvement. An intervention is a significant strategy, research-based program, or major initiative designed to solve the problem defined by your selected priority (definition from ACSIP document). 17a Your first School Improvement Plan is both a long-term plan (3-5 years) and a short-term plan (one year). After you have thought through the long-term plan, and if you stay with it, then updating the plan one year at a time is not that difficult. Your annual plan simply deletes what is already accomplished and adds any new action steps required to implement the next years plan or adds some new interventions. Good Campus Leadership Teams are always thinking ahead two to five years, knowing that everything cannot be accomplished in one year, but getting clear about what needs to happen this year in order to take the next steps to reform during the following year. If your school does not have a long-term plan in place with which you are comfortable, then your work must be to design as quickly as possible your 1999- 2000 plan for improvement in spring 2000. There is much that you can do to align your lesson plans with the State Curriculum Frameworks and the District Benchmarks so that all students are exposed to the tested curriculum. There are programs that you can put into place early in the year for maximum impact on student achievement. There are effective teaching strategies that you can use that will enable more students to be effective learners. There are assessment strategies that you can use to check student progress frequently and then to modify and adjust your teaching so that more students are successful. All the faculty can make a commitment to form a professional community now that supports an attitude of collective responsibility for results. But begin now as well to start thinking ahead to your 2000-01 plan. Ideally, the design of effective interventions needs to begin in summer 1999 to include in the 2000-01 plan in order for there to be time for the team to do research, to visit schools where the intervention is being successfully implemented, and to involve staff and parents in ways that ensure buy-in. A part of every schools plan realistically includes a plan to plan for the next year and down the road, always looking ahead to what steps should be phased in for total restructuring. Schools that wait until the plan is almost due to begin the process are not likely to get desired improvements. Planning is ongoing, not an event. An intervention, in general, is something new that your school decides to do that enhances, supplements, or goes beyond the District-established programs so that the performance of targeted students improves. The implementation of ELLA, for instance, is not a school-level intervention. Neither would be the implementation of the new TERCS mathematics programs. Both are already established. You may find the following research-based criteria helpful in selecting appropriate program interventions for your school: f i 1 18What Factors Contribute to Program Effectiveness? (from Show Me the Evidence! By Robert Slavin and Olatokunbo Fashola, Corwin Press, 1998) 1. 2. 3. Effective programs have clear goals, emphasize methods and materials linked to those goals, and constantly assess students' progress toward the goals. There is no magic in educational innovation. Programs that work invariably have a small set of very well-specified goals ..., a clear set of procedures and materials linked to those goals, and frequent assessments that indicate whether or not the students are reaching the goals. Effective programs leave little to chance. They incorporate many elements, such as research-based curricula, instructional methods, classroom management methods, assessments, and means of helping students who are struggling, all of which are tied in a coordinated fashion to the instructional goals. Programs almost always have their strongest impacts on the objectives they emphasize. Effective and replicable programs have well-specified components, materials, and professional development procedures. There is a belief in many quarters that each school staff must develop or codevelop their own reform model, that externally developed programs cannot be successfully replicated in schools that had no hand in developing them. ... In fact, over time evidence has mounted that reform models that ask teachers to develop their own materials and approaches are rarely implemented at all. Studies of alternative programs implemented under similar conditions find that the more highly structured and focused programs that provide specific materials and training are more likely to be implemented and effective than are less-well-specified models. ... Although there are examples of success in models lacking clear structure, the programs with the most consistent positive effects with at-risk students are those that have definite procedures and materials used in all participating schools. Effective programs provide extensive professional development. A characteristic shared by almost all of the effective programs we identified is the provision of extensive professional development and follow-up technical assistance. Few, if any, provide the classic half-day, one-time workshops that constitute the great majority of inservice programs, especially those usually provided with textbook adoptions. On the contrary, most of the successful programs we identified provide many days of inservice followed by in-class technical assistance to give teachers detailed feedback on their program implementations. Typically, teachers work with each other and with peer or expert coaches to discuss, assess, and refine their implementations. The training provided is rarely on generic strategies from which teachers pick a few ideas to add to their bags of tricks. Instead, training focuses on comprehensive strategies that replace, not just supplement, teachers' current strategies. Effective programs are disseminated by organizations that focus on the gualitv of implementation. The programs identified in their review that have been associated with consistent positive effects in many settings tend to be ones that are developed and disseminated by active, well-structured organizations that concentrate efforts on ensuring the gualitv of program implementation in all schools. These organizations, often based in universities, provide training and materials and typically create support networks among program users. 19Some examples of interveritk\u0026gt;.asbs^ffimnitaTj( iisrrgusojea^ no school is limited to these) might include the fclfeKwbg,:  Reading Recovery  After-School Resfeg Cfejfc tutoring)  Accelerated Reader  Reading Across the Curriculum  Professional development for teachers in one or more of the following areas: reader-response strategies, reciprocal teaching, the writing process, McRat, assessment strategies, ESL methodologies, adaptive strategies for inclusion, etc.  Extended-Year Program  HOSTS (Helping One Student to Succeed)  Junior Great Books  Family Literacy program  Schoolwide Independent Reading Program  Reading Is Fundamental Some examples of interventions in secondary language arts (again, no school is limited to these) are as follows:  Project AVID (to improve enrollment and success in Pre-AP and AP courses)  Reading Clinic (one-on-one tutoring)  Summer enrichment program for rising freshmen  Reading in the Content Areas  Writing Across the Curriculum  Development of a schoolwide language policy  Professional development for teachers in one or more of the following areas: reader-response strategies, reciprocal teaching, the writing process, use of learning logs, assessment strategies, ESL methodologies, adaptive strategies for inclusion, etc.  Great Books  Schoolwide Independent Reading Program Waivers An intervention may also be something that the school decides to do instead of the District program. In that case, however, the Campus Leadership Team must submit and obtain approval of a waiver. See pp. 8-9 in your Handbook for Campus Leadership Team for a copy of the regulations on waivers and pp. 57-60 for a copy of the waiver application. (Call Bonnie Lesleys office for an e-mailed template for convenience.) A waiver application must include research that will predict more success for your students than the District-established program. Examples of when a waiver is required follows: the Districts instructional language arts programs for elementary schools are ELLA and Effective 20Literacyor Success for All. If you wish to do anything else, you must secure a waiver. The districts phonemic awareness program is Animated Literacy at the kindergarten level. If you wish to do anything else, you must secure a waiver. The Districts grades 6-8 program for regular-level students is a two-period block of the Reading and Writing Workshop. If you wish to do anything else, you must secure a waiver. Schoolwide Restructuring or Reform An intervention may include a series of steps to implement a schoolwide project, such as the ones described by Dr. Steve Ross in the July 23 inservice for principals. Some examples of schoolwide change models include Boyer's The Basic School, Slavins Roots and Wings, or Great Expectations for the elementary level. Middle school schoolwide reforms include those outlined in Turning Points, SREBs Middle Grades Initiative, or Levins Accelerated Schools. Some examples of high school reforms include Sizers Coalition of Essential Schools, SREBs High Schools that Work, and the Johns Hopkins models for Talent Development High Schools. These examples are examples only, i ot recommendations for adoption. Each school should consider carefully wliich model for change would be most appropriate forthat school, whether resources are available for implementation, and whether staff and parent support can be built. More information will be provided on the options available for schoolwide change for 2000-01 planning. Title I schoolwide projects are expected to adopt such a model or to design their own, using the CSRD criteria established from research on the variables that are necessary to impact student achievement. Components of Comprehensive School Reform Programs (Obev-Porter) A comprehensive school reform program is one that integrates, in a coherent manner, all nine of the following components: 1. 2. 3. 4. Effective, research-based methods and strategies. A comprehensive school reform program employs innovative strategies and proven methods for student learning, teaching, and school management that are based on reliable research and effective practices, and have been replicated successfully in schools with diverse characteristics. Comprehensive design with aligned components. The program has a comprehensive design for effective school functioning, including instruction, assessment, classroom management, professional development, parental involvement, and school management, that aligns the schools curriculum, technology, and professional development into a schoolwide reform plan designed to enable all studentsincluding children from low-income families, children with limited-English proficiency, and children with disabilitiesto meet challenging State content and performance standards and addresses needs identified through a school needs assessment. Professional development. The program provides high quality and continuous teacher and staff professional development and training. Measurable coals and benchmarks. A comprehensive school reform program has measurable goals for student performance tied to the States challenging content and student performance standards, as those standards are implemented, and benchmarks for meeting the goals. 215. 6. 7, 8. 9. Support within the school. The program is supported by school faculty, administrators, and staff. Parental and community involvement. The program provides for the meaningful involvement of parents and the local community in planning and implementing school improvement activities. External technical support and assistance. A comprehensive reform program utilizes high-quality external support and assistance from a comprehensive school reform entity (which may be a university) with experience or expertise in schoolwide reform and improvement. Evaluation strategies. The program includes a plan for the evaluation of the implementation of school reforms and the student results achieved. Coordination of resources. The program identifies how other resources (federal, state, local, and private) available to the school will be utilized to coordinate services to support and sustain the school reform. Curriculum Mapping An intervention in 1999-2000 (but a part of your data collection and analysis after this first year) that every school should do early in the school year is the curriculum mapping required as a part of the ACSIP process:  Calendar-based curriculum mapping is a procedure for collecting a data base of the operational curriculum in a school and/or a district.  Each teacher in this initial step completes a map.  The format is consistent for each teacher but reflects the individual nature of each classroom.  Each teacher reads the entire school map as an editor when all the maps are completed.  Places where new information was gained are underlined.  Places requiring potential revision are circled.  The maps are next used in a planned alignment of the operational curriculum with the Frameworks and criterion- referenced tests. Note: Mona Briggs and Eddie McCoy are members of a team in the new School Improvement Department who will be trained and available to help you train key people in your school to conduct the required curriculum mapping. This activity very important in aligning what it is that is taught with what it is that is tested. Some of the mapping has already been done at the District level. Teachers have received copies (or will in the August Preschool Inservice) of documents that display the relationship of the District grade-level and course benchmarks to the State Curriculum Frameworks, the SAT9 objectives, and to adopted text rnaterials. The step for schools to complete includes mapping teachers lesson plans against these areas and to identify whether critical elements likely to be tested on the benchmark examinations are indeed taught before the dates of the examinations. 22Curriculum Map Content Area/Course Grade Level Page___ of Month Unit Topics/Skills Strand/Content Standard (Framework) Student Learning Expectation Standard (Framework) LRSD Benchmark 23 Alignment (from the ACSIP process): Step 1: All the teachers in the school map the subjects and courses they teach. Step 2: The Curriculum Alignment Document is used to categorize the results of the maps. Step 3: The findings of the Curriculum Alignment Document are summarized (e.g., 4 teachers are introducing\n0 teachers are teaching/assessing\n0 teachers are reviewing/maintaining\nStrand: Patterns, Algebra and Functions, Content Standard 2, Student Learning Expectation: Grades 9-12, PAF.2.1. Use equations, absolute value equations, inequalities, absolute value inequalities, and systems of equations and inequalities to solve mathematical and real-world problems. Step 4: Committees of the faculty organize curricula so that concepts in the frameworks are thoughtfully and systematically introduced, taught and assessed, and reviewed and maintained. This step is part of the schools improvement plan because it is a complex process that requires extensive committee work and faculty consensus. 24Compiling Mapping Results ... Lang. Arts Framework List all strands and student learning expectations for the appropriate grade levels in this column. Not Covered Introduced Taught \u0026amp; Assessed Reviewed/Maintained 25 The ACSIP documents outline the following actions to take in Editing, Auditing, Validating, and Creative Development Tasks: Gain information Avoid repetition Identify gaps Identify potential areas for curriculum integration Match with learner standards/benchmarks Examine for timeliness (taught before the test administration?) Edit for coherence Teachers are further encouraged to Edit for Repetitions:  Recognize the difference between repetitions and redundancy.  Adopt curriculum spiraling as a goal. To find possible areas for curriculum integration, teachers are encouraged to:  Peruse the map and circle areas for integration of content, skills, and assessment.  These areas can serve as the springboard for curriculum planning at the teacher/team/school levels. 26Step 8: Actions For each intervention, you need to outline the major steps that the school will take to implement the selected intervention. Remember to include: Steps to provide necessary professional development for successful implementation of the intervention. Include both the initial training, plus the follow-up or peer coaching or networking that are necessary to provide ongoing support of teachers. The plan must clearly show the relationship of any planned professional development to the successful implementation of a selected intervention. Steps to purchase or otherwise secure necessary resources, such as buying instructional materials, recruiting mentors, or soliciting used books appropriate for classroom libraries. Steps to put the intervention in place, such as identifying students to be targeted for special tutoring, consultations with parents, designing necessary forms, planning communications, collaborating with other staff, etc., etc. Steps to conduct formative evaluations (such as action research projects) so that you can modify or adjust quickly, if necessary, the implementation of the plan to ensure greater success. Steps to conduct a summative evaluation to determine the impact of your intervention on your goal(s). The continuous planning cycle includes four basic phases: plan, do, study, act. Then the cycle begins again. Taking a new look at the baseline data (see Step 1 in this planning guide) should be an outgrowth of your summative evaluation of the previous year's plan. complete sentences for each action statement. Begin each sentence with a verb. Some examples follow: 1. 2. 3. Enroll Ms. Jones in training to implement Reading Recovery. Conduct schoolwide parent meeting to update them on progress of implementation. Apply for a grant to purchase Accelerated Reader and ample books for program implementation. 274. Invite Pat Busbea to lirain, oz\u0026gt;wa\\7s ttfGttfhe w'hole school can support Reading Recovery, 5. Set up an action research to .Kieasure (eftectv eness of the new Animated Literacy program at the itexe'. Step 9: Person(s) RespomiWe Assign someone at your school the responsib'ifity for each action to ensure that the action step is actually implemented. Distribute leadership responsibilities, and do not assume that the only people involved are those listed. Some action steps will require committees or teams or task forces. The person listed is responsible for convening that group. Remember to include parents, as appropriate, in these groups. Step 10: Timeline Indicate the approximate time that the action is to start and when it should be fully implemented. An agenda item for the Campus Leadership Team is to monitor implementation of the plan and to conduct formative evaluations of the quality of the implementation. Interventions designed to impact the spring test results should, obviously, be in place when school starts for maximum impact. Step 11: Resources Identify the necessary new resources required to implement your intervention. Some examples follow: $14,000 for professional development $10,000 for purchase of classroom libraries 8 volunteers to assist with independent reading program 40 mentors for at-risk students Reassignment of Title I aide to parent liaison responsibilities $3000 for teacher pay to run the after-school Reading Clinic Step 12: Budget Indicate how you plan to pay for any required costs under the appropriate column. You can mix and match your funds as necessary. Examples of a budget to purchase classroom libraries follow: District $500 Title I $8000 APIG $1500 Note 1. The school must total all the entries of the three columns when the plan in complete. 28The District column cannot exceed the amount of money in your school budget for the specified categories of expenditures. The total of all the Title I expenditures must be no greater than your schools Title I allocation. The total of all the entries under APIG must not exceed your APIG grant. If a school has other sources of money to fund its interventions, then a note should be made on the form to indicate the source of the other funds, such as PTA, CSRD grant, etc. Note 2: Title I schools specifically (but recommended for all schools as well) are required to include the following minimums in their budgets:  1 % of the total Title I allocation must be spent on parent involvement  10% of the total Title I allocation must be spent on professional development that is clearly related to the achievement of your school goals and to the planned interventions. step 13: Plan Evaluation Planning how you will evaluate your plan is a critically important step in the planning cycle. You must plan for both formative and summative evaluations. Formative Evaluations Formative evaluations of the quality of your plans implementation should be conducted as a regular part of the business of the Campus Leadership Team.  Is implementation occurring according to the planned timelines?  Are the people assigned responsibility carrying through?  What evidence (surveys, observations, anecdotes, action research, interim student achievement data such as grades, CRT scores, etc.) is there that the intervention is working?  Are resources adequate?  Do formative data indicate a need for modifications or adjustments to the plan?  How well does everyone (teachers, parents, community, students, etc.) understand the intervention? How well are you communicating?  What next steps are suggested?  What are you learning about change and implementation of other interventions?  What additional professional development do you need to be more effective? 29What is the evidence that you will achieve your benchmark goal? Are you doing whatever it takes to get the desired results? (Remember Dr.Terrence Roberts levels of commitment? We cant just think about it, or try, or do what we can. We must do whatever it takes.) Summative Evaluation Summarize your implementation process of each intervention. Outline what concluded to be strengths and weaknesses in the implementation. Give recommendations for next year. you Summarize the impact of each intervention on student achievement. Did you achieve your benchmarks? Is there a preponderance of evidence that you made a difference with your intervention? 30Quality Indicators for Elementary Schools Baseline Year 1998-99 1998-99 1999-00 1999-00 1999-00 1990-00 1998-99 1998-99 Grade Levels 4 4 K-5 K-5 K-5 K-5 4 4 State Indicators Tier I Performance on State Mandated Criterion- Referenced Grade 4 Literacy Test Performance on State Mandated Criterion- Referenced Grade 4 Mathematics Test Average Daily Attendance Classes Taught by an Appropriately Licensed Teacher Professional Development School Safety Performance on State- Mandated Criterion Referenced Grade 4 Literacy Test Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Grade 4 Mathematics Test Goal (Definition) 100% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in reading and writing literacy. 100% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in mathematics. Average daily attendance rate will be at least 95%.__________________________________ 100% of a schools classes will be taught by an appropriately licensed teacher. 100% of a schools certified staff will complete at least 30 hours of approved professional development annually._______ Schools will be free of drugs, weapons, and violent acts.___________________________ The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in reading and writing literacy on the criterion-referenced test will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year.________ The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in mathematics on the criterion-referenced test will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 32 Baseline Year Grade Levels 1999-00 K-5 School-Selected Indicators Tier II (Select five.) Average Daily Attendance Goal (Definition) Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 1999-00 K-5 1999-00 K-5 Classes Taught by an Appropriately Licensed Teacher____________ Professional Development Schools will improve their average daily attendance rate. ___________________ Schools will improve the percent of classes taught by an appropriately licensed teacher. 1999-00 K-5 School Safety 1999-00 K-5 Other School Selected Indicators Schools will increase the percent of certified staff who complete 60 or more hours of approved professional development annually.______________________ Schools will be free of drugs, weapons, and violent acts. _________ Schools will select trend or improvement goals directed to student achievement in specific sub-populations or sub-test areas. These must have prior approval of ADE. LRSD Elementary School Quality indicators Baseline Year Grade Levels LRSD Indicators Goal (Definition) 1999-00 K Performance on District- Adopted Kindergarten Literacy Test 90% of a schools kindergarten students shall perform at or above the proficient level in literacy. Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 1999-00 K Performance on District- Adopted Kindergarten Literacy Test 1999-00 1 Performance on District- Adopted Grade 1 Literacy Test The percent of kindergarten students demonstrating gains from the pre-test to the post-test will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. _________ ____________ 90% of a schools grade 1 students shall perform at or above the proficient level in literacy._______________ 33 Baseline Year 1999-00 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 Grade Levels 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 LRSD Indicators Goal (Definition) Performance on District- Adopted Grade 1 Literacy Test Performance on SAT9, the Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9, the Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9, the Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9, the Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9, the Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9, the Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9, the Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test The percent of grade 1 students demonstrating gains from the pre-test to the post-test will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year.___________ 65% of a schools students in every subgroup of race and gender will perform at or above the 50'^ percentile in reading._______ The percent of a schools students in every sub-group of race and gender performing at or above the 50' percentile will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year.____________________________ At least 30% of a schools students will perform at the highest quartile in reading. The percent of a schools students performing at the highest quartile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year.____________ At least 90% of a schools students will perform above the lowest quartile in reading. The percent of a schools students performing above the lowest quartile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year.___________ 65% of a schools students shall perform at or above the SO' percentile in grade 5 mathematics. Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 34 Baseline Year 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1999-00 1999-00 1999-00 Grade Levels 5 5 5 5 5 2-5 2-5 2-5 LRSD Indicators Goal (Definition) Performance on SAT9, the Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on SAT9. the Norm-Referenced Ma^ematics Test Performance on SAT9, the Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on SATO, the Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on SAT9, the Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Reading Test Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Reading Test Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Reading Test The percent of students performing at or above the 50**' percentile in grade 5 mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year.________ At least 30% of a schools students will perform at the highest quartile in mathematics.__________________________ The percent of a schools students performing at the highest quartile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year.________ At least 90% of a schools students will perform above the lowest quartile in mathematics.__________________________ The percent of a schools students performing above the lowest quartile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year.________ 90% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in grades 2-5 reading each semester._________________ The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in grades 2-5 reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each semester.________ The percent of students demonstrating gains from the grades 2-5 reading pre-test to the post-test will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year._____________ Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 35 Baseline Year Grade Levels LRSD Indicators Goal (Definition) 1999-00 2-5 1999-00 2-5 1999-00 2-5 Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test 90% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in grades 2-5 mathematics each semester. The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in grades 2-5 mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each semester. The percent of students demonstrating gains from the grades 2-5 mathematics pre-test to the post-test will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year. Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 36 Quality Indicators for Middle Schools Baseline Year Grade Levels 2001-02 6 1999-00 8 2001-02 6 1999-00 8 2001-02 7 (Dunbar) or 8 2001-02 8 (Dunbar) 1999-00 7-8 State Indicators Tier I Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Literacy Test Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Literacy Test Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test_________ _______ School Dropout Goal (Definition) 100% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficienf level in grade 6 reading and writing literacy. 100% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in grade 8 reading and writing literacy. 100% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in grade 6 mathematics. 100% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in grade 8 mathematics. 100% of a schools grade 7 or 8 students who complete Algebra I shall perform at or above the proficient level. 100% of a schools grade 8 students who complete Geometry shall perform at or above the proficient level. 1999-00 6-8 1999-00 6-8 Average Daily Attendance________ Classes Taught by an Appropriately Licensed Teacher At least 99% of secondary students will remain in school to complete the 12*^ grade. Average daily attendance rate will be at least 95%._____________ 100% of a schools classes will be taught by an appropriately licensed teacher. Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 37 Baseline Year Grade Levels 1999-00 6-8 State Indicators Tier I Professional Development Goal (Definition) Your Results 1999-00 6-8 School Safety 100% of a schools certified staff will complete at least 30 hours of approved professional development.______________ Schools will be free of drugs, weapons, and violent acts. Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score Baseline Year Grade Levels 2001-02 6 State-Mandated Indicators Tier II Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Literacy Test. Goal (Definition) Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 1999-00 8 Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Literacy Test. 2001-02 6 Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test. 1999-00 8 Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test. The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in reading and writing literacy on the criterion-referenced tests will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year.___________ The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in reading and writing literacy on the criterion-referenced tests will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year.___________ The percent of students performing at or above the proficienf level in mathematics on the criterion-referenced tests will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in mathematics on the criterion-referenced tests will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 38 Baseline Year Grade Levels 2001-02 7 (Dunbar) or 8 2001-02 8 (Dunbar) State-Mandated Indicators Tier II ___________ Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test. Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test. Goal (Definition) Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score Baseline Year Grade Levels 1999-00 6-8 School-Selected Indicators Tier II (Select five.) Drop-outs 1999-00 6-8 1999-00 6-8 1999-00 6-8 Average Daily Attendance Classes Taught by an Appropriately Licensed Teacher____________ Professional Development 1999-00 6-8 School Safety 6-8 Other School Selected Indicators The percent of students completing Algebra I performing at or above the proficient' level will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. The percent of students completing Geometry performing at or above the \"proficient level will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. Goal (Definition) Secondary schools will improve the percentage of students who stay in school to complete the 12**^ grade._________________ Schools will improve their average daily attendance rate. Schools will improve the percent of classes taught by an appropriately licensed teacher. Schools will increase the percent of certified staff who complete 60 or more hours of .\"noroved professional development annually. Schools will be free of drugs, weapons, and jyiolent acts. Schools will select trend or improvement goals directed to student achievement in specific sub-populations or sub-test areas. These must have prior approval of ADE. Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 39 LRSD Middle School Quality Indicators Baseline Year 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 Grade Levels 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 LRSD Indicators Goal (Definition) Your Results Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9. a Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9. a Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9. a Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9. a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test 65% of a schools students in every subgroup of race and gender shall perform at or above the 50**' percentile in reading._______ The percent of students in every sub-group of race and gender performing at or above the SO* percentile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. At least 30% of a schools students will perform at the highest quartile in reading. The percent of a school's students performing at the highest quartile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year.____________ At least 90% of a schools students will perform above the lowest quartile in reading. The percent of a schools students performing above the lowest quartile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 65% of a schools students in every subgroup of race and gender shall perform at or above the 50'*' percentile in mathematics. Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 40 Baseline Year 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1999-00 1999-00 1999-00 Grade Levels 7 7 7 7 7 6-8 6-8 6-8 LRSD Indicators Goal (Definition) Performance on SATO, a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on SATO, a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on SATO, a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on SATO, Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test a Performance on SATO, a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on District- Adopted Criterion Referenced Reading Test Performance on District- Adopted Criterion Referenced Reading Test Performance on District- Adopted Criterion Referenced Reading Test The percent of students in every sub-group of race and gender performing at or above the 50^ percentile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year.____________________________ At least 30% of a school's students will perform at the highest quartile in mathematics.________________________ The percent of a schools students performing at the highest quartile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year.________ At least 90% of a school's students will perform above the lowest quartile in mathematics. The percent of a school's students performing above the lowest quartile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year.________ 90% of a schools students shall perform at or above the \"proficient level in reading each semester.________________________ The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each semester._________ The percent of students demonstrating gains from the reading pre-test to the post-test will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year.___________ Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 1 41 Baseline Year 1999-00 1999-00 1999-00 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 Grade Levels 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 LRSD Indicators Goal (Definition) Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test Enrollment in Pre-AP Courses Enrollment in Pre-AP Courses Enrollment in Algebra I by Grade 8 Enrollment in Algebra I by Grade 8 90% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in mathematics each semester. The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each semester.________ The percent of students demonstrating gains from the mathematics pre-test to the posttest will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year._________________________ 65% of a middle schools students will be enrolled in at least one Pre-AP course each year.________________________________ _ The percent of students enrolled in at least one Pre-AP course will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 90% of a middle schools students will be enrolled in Algebra I by grade 8.___________ The percent of students enrolled in Algebra I by grade 8 will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 42 Quality Indicators for High Schools Baseline Year 2001-02 2001-02 2001-02 1999-00 1999-00 1999-00 1999-00 1999-00 Grade Levels 9-12 9-12 11 9-12 9-12 9-12 9-12 9-12 State Indicators Tier I Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Algebra I Test Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Geometry Test Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Algebra I Test_______ ________ School Drop Out Average Daily Attendance Classes Taught by an Appropriately Licensed Teacher_________ Professional Development School Safety Goal (Definition) 'P-' 100% of a high schools students shall perform at or above the proficienf level in Algebra I. 100% of a high schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in Geometry. 100% of a high schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in Reading and Writing Literacy. At least 99% of secondary students will remain in school to complete the 12** grade. Average daily attendance rate will be at least 95%._________________________________ 100% of a schools classes will be taught by an appropriately licensed teacher. 100% of a schools certified staff will complete at least 30 hours of approved professional development annually._______ Schools will be free of drugs, weapons, and violent acts. Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 43 Baseline Year Grade Levels 2001-02 9-12 2001-02 9-12 2001-02 11 State-Mandated Indicators Tier II________________ Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Algebra I Test Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Geometry Test_________________ Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Literacy Test Goal (Definition) The percent of students performing at or above the proficienf level in Algebra I will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in Geometry will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. The percent of students performing at or above the proficient\" level in Literacy will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. Baseline Year Grade Levels 2001-02 9-12 School-Selected Indicators Tier II (Select five.) Drop-outs Goal (Definition) 2001-02 9-12 2001-02 9-12 2001-02 9-12 Average Daily Attendance Classes Taught by an Appropriately Licensed Teacher Professional Development High schools will improve the percentage of students who stay in school to complete the 12* grade.________________ Schools will improve their average daily attendance rate.___________________ ____ Schools will improve the percent of classes taught by an appropriately licensed teacher. Schools will increase the percent of certified staff who complete 60 or more hours of approved professional development annually. Your Results Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 44 Baseline Year Grade Levels 2001-02 9-12 9-12 I__ . School-Selected Indicators Tier II (Select five.) School Safety Other School Selected Indicators L-RSD High School Quality Indicators Baseline Year Grade Levels LRSD Indicators 1998-99 10 1998-99 10 Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Reading Test 1998-99 10 1998-99 10 Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Reading Test 1998-99 10 Performance on SATO, a Norm-Referenced Reading Test Goal (Definition) Schools will be free of drugs, weapons, and violent acts.___________________________ Schools will select trend or improvement goals directed to student achievement in specific sub-populations or sub-test areas. These must have prior approval of ADE. Goal (Definition) 65% of a schools students in every subgroup of race and gender shall perform at or above the 50**^ percentile in reading._______ The percent of students performing at or above the 50' percentile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year._____________________________ At least 30% of a schools students will perform at the highest quartile in reading. The percent of a schools students performing at the highest quartile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year.___________ At least 90% of a schools students will perform above the lowest quartile in reading Your Results Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 45 Baseline Year 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1999-00 Grade Levels 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 9-11 LRSD Indicators Goal (Definition) Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Reading Test The percent of a schools students performing above the lowest quartile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year.____________ 65% of a schools students in every subgroup of race and gender shall perform at or above the 50*^ percentile in mathematics. The percent of students performing at or above the 50**' percentile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year.________________________ At least 30% of a schools students will perform at the highest quartile in mathematics.___________________________ The percent of a schools students performing at the highest quartile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year._________ At least 90% of a schools students will perform above the lowest quartile in mathematics.___________________________ The percent of a schools students performing above the lowest quartile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year._________ 90% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient\" level in reading each semester. Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 46 Baseline Year 1999-00 1999-00 1999-00 1999-00 1999-00 1998-99 1998-99 2002-03 2002-03 Grade Levels 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-12 9-12 12 12 LRSD Indicators Goal (Definition) Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Reading Test Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Reading Test Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test_________________ Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test______________ Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test Enrollment in Pre-AP and/or AP Courses Enrollment in Pre-AP and/or AP Courses Honors Seal on High School Diploma Honors Seal on High School Diploma Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each semester.____________________ The percent of students demonstrating gains from the reading pre-test to the post-test will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year. _______________________________ 90% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in mathematics each semester. The percent of students performing at or above the \"proficient level in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each semester.________ The percent of students demonstrating gains from the mathematics pre-test to the posttest will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year._________________________ 65% of a high schools students will be enrolled in at least one Pre-AP or AP course each year._____________________________ The percent of students enrolled in at least one Pre-AP or AP course will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 65% of a high schools students will complete the requirements to earn the Honors Seal on their diplomas.__________________________ The percent of students completing the requirements for the Honors Seal will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. 47 Baseline Year 1998-99 Grade Levels 11-12 LRSD Indicators Goal (Definition) Your Results Growth Goal Taking the ACT 1998-99 1998-99 11-12 11-12 Taking the ACT Performance on the ACT Performance on the ACT 1998-99 11-12 1998-99 11-12 1998-99 11-12 Taking Advanced Placement Examinations Taking Advanced Placement Examinations 1998-99 11-12 1998-99 11-12 Performance on Advanced Placement Examinations Performance on Advanced Placement Examinations 65% of a high schools students will take the ACT. The percent of students taking the ACT will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. 90% of a high schools students who take the ACT will earn a score of at least 19. The percent of students earning a score of 19 or above on the ACT will meet or exceed the trend goal each year._________________ 65% of a high schools graduates will take at least one AP examination. The percent of students taking at least one AP examination will meet or exceed the trend goal each year._________________________ 90% of a high schools students taking AP examinations will score a 3 or above. Your Growth Your Score 1998-99 12 Completion of Graduation Requirements 1998-99 12 Completion of Graduation Requirements The percent of a high school's students earning a score of 3 or above on AP examinations will meet or exceed the trend goal each year._________________________ 100% of a high schools seniors will complete all the graduation requirements prior to participation in the graduation ceremony. The percent of seniors meeting all graduation requirements prior to participation in the graduation ceremony will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. 48 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 (501) 324-2131 February 7, 2000 TO FROM: Everyone r. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT\nSchool Improvement If you are on track with your School Improvement Plan, you have gathered all 5?? available data from the first semester to conduct a formative evaluation of your progress. (See Chapter 13 in Guidelines to School Improvement Planning). Its also time to start making decisions about next years plan. The attached ERS publication on School Improvement is a good one to share with your CLT and even the whole faculty. You can use it to measure where you are - and to determine what you may need to do next. r Attachment BAL/rcm 1I   School Improvement: Factors Leading to Success or Failure I  ss Education leaders in schools across the country are asking: How can we increase the levels of learning for all our students? Many of them are considering externally developed, comprehensive models of school improvement. Others are developing their own schoolwide improvement models. Still others are identifying and addressing needs for improvement in specific subjects or skills. Whatever the approach, and despite the hard work of those involved, school improvement efforts do not always succeed. But research and experience from schools and districts engaged in school improvement provide valuable guidance that can increase the chances of success. f^C^I This ERS Informed Educator discusses the importance of planning and selfstudy in implementing school improvement efforts. It describes several major studies that provide valuable information about what factors lead to the success or failure of school improvement efforts. Knowing about these factors can help you ensure that your school or school districts school improvement efforts achieve their goalhigher student achievement. Developing a Roadmap Stories of successfill school improvement sound a common themi the importance of using data during both planning and implementation. The Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory recommends:  collecting, analyzing, and using data to Inform decision making throughout the improvement process\n using a variety of research tools and a flexible approach to accommodate different situations and research questions\n looking at baseline data, monitoring the improvement process, and studying impacts\nand  forming a small research team comprising staff, community members, and students, which regularly collects data (Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory 1999). Participants in the school improvement process should use data and information to discuss progress on a regular basis, and should make changes to the original plan as needed. In its report Turning Around Low-Performing Schools, the U.S. Department of Education talks about why it is so important to use data to support school improvement efforts. Specifically, Measuring progress and setting standards and analyzing the information to identify patterns of failure and their causes enables schools and districts to diagnose low performance and attack specific problems with concrete solutions (1998,30). School Readiness for Change Robert Slavin, a long-time researcher on school improvement, cautions schools and districts to consider seriously another element that can have a profound impact on school improvement efforts school readiness for change. Although the staff in some schools maybe ready to effectively engage in their own school improvement efforts -with little assistance, other schools may need substantial and ongoing support to develop and implement their plans successfully. Slavin also identifies a third category of schools those in which even the most heroic attempts at reform are doomed to failure. Schools of this type may have recently lost key staff, may suffer from poor relationships among staff, or may have lost funding. Improvement efforts in these schools 2000 Clarendon Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22201 Phone: (703) 243-2100  Fax: (703) 243-5971  www.ers.org Copyright 1999 Educational Research Service. Reproduced with permission. ILGUCiLiUiicLi ikCiCd-ivix uctviuc S^faddressing the basic problems (1997, ^ftom lini -while a school may need ^Ossendal to take a realistic view of as need. feat Affect the Success of B Implementation ffiy,. major studies conducted in recent a rich source of information about the ^at lead to the success or failure of school efforts. In this section, we summarize jof several of these studies. Many of the blap and reinforce each other. pof the Special Strategies Studies Eand Stringfield, in Ten Promising Pra- ^'Jucating Ail Children, observed that imple- Bbf reform programs varied greatly among ae'fent sites studied in the federally con- peial Strati jies studies. The researchers i^ftat many of these programs can work is jiffice that one or more will work at a speafic i\u0026amp;jrtce Ba particular team of teachers and adminis- ^\nNone of these programs can be made ^?proof, school-proof, or district-proof The which the program was implemented had aeiil of power to facilitate or impede its Mutation (1997,127-128). on the experiences of the research teams S$tudied, the researchers identified the foists that were key in most successfill school Kht efforts: ffs^c perception of local strengths and areas ^of improvement, combined with clear at were understood and embraced by fpn of persons who would be affected by gsion in selecting the program and mj iout the whole process of implementation, jhess of members of the school, district. immunity to undertake the reforms. ^g access to long-term, program-specific Kal assistance and support from beyond the (that is, from external program developers ^yersity collaborators). act and state commitment to ongoing staff ropment supporting the school Improvement The context in which the program was implemented had a great deal of power to facilitate or impede its implementation. Rebecca Herman and Sam Stringfield, 1997  The schools and districts ability to obtain and maintain sufficient fiscal support.  A commitment by district and school administrators to maintain the program through a sometimes turbulent implementation stage and to give the program time to have an impact. This last point was especially critical. The researchers concluded that, while it is important to consider accountability, the focus on outcomes must be balanced with patience for process. When a school or system discontinued one program and substituted another without providing strong evidence of cost savings or program effectiveness, teachers tended to become cynical about investing their energy in new programs (Herman and Stringfield 1997,127-130). Findings of the Study of Effective Schools Programs A 1995 report generated as part of a Congressionally mandated study of Effective Schools programs and other school-based reforms identified features common to schools successfriUy engaged in reform. As part of the study, administrators in a sample of 1,550 districts were asked to respond to a mail survey containing questions about the status of comprehensive school-level improvement efforts. The study design also included Intensive site visits to 32 schools, in which the researchers observed what was really happening in schools that considered themselves involved with comprehensive reform (QueUmalz et al. 1995). The research team used their observations in the 32 schools to develop what they termed key features of successfrd reform strategies. These features provide valuable direction for schools beginning their comprehensive reform efforts, no matter what model they decide to adopt. In general, the successful school-based reforms had three key features\n-2-ft: i  Challenging learning experiences for all I students. This feature tended to emerge from I four coordinated elements: high teacher I expectations\nchallenging curricula\nexploration of \\ a variety of alternative configurations of students L and teachers\nand exploration of alternative 5 assessment methods.  A school culture that nurtured staff collaboration and participation in decision making. The most successfill school-based reforms took place in schools that created cultures of collegiality by finding ways for staff and the community to work together on significant changes needed in their schools. Equally important to shared decision making was the reformulation of the roles and authority exercised by teachers and administrators.  Meaningful opportunities for professional growth. In the successfill schools, teachers set staff development priorities keyed to their vision of the reform goals in their schools. Typically, staff development topics related to technical areas such as curriculum, instruction, and assessment, or to managerial areas such as schoolwide planning or collaborative decision making. In some instances, teacher teams developed strategic plans that allowed sustained, coherent immersion in an area. Forsaking a grab bag of one-session workshops, teachers sought the expertise and time necessary to acquire, implement, and reflect on innovations on an ongoing basis. Study of Six Benchmark Schools In a recent study reporting his observations of six schools that were demonstrating success -with their . school improvement efforts, Gordon Cawelti found that each of the six schools follows a different path: \u0026amp;fheir educational programs and approaches vary greatly. But aU focus on student achievement as an sVend goal (1999, 3). Cawelti identified six additional chaA racteristicz*sf* that provizdn e Tvroa 1l1u1 ao brliel icnsii zgrhritT rftoTr* cscz*hooz\"ol leaders involved with school improvement efforts:  There is a focus on clear standards and improving results.  Teamwork is a way of life and helps ensure ac-u countability. People in these teams meet reguand solve problems. larly to examine assessment results and plan instruction based on these results, to plan cooperative instructional activities, and to communicate n  The principal is a strong educational leader. These six schools are led by principals who know that they must focus on the whole system, that they must facilitate the work of others, and that they must solve many problems every day.  Staff members are committed to helping all students achieve. These teachers spend e?rtra time working with students and planning to make the school better.n  Multiple changes are made to improve the instructional life of students, and these changes are sustained over time. These six schools have not raised achievement by changing just one factor, such as schedule, teaching methods, or technology. Substantial improvement comes when a school is able to undertake several changes in an organized fashion and sustain and perfect them n over a period of at least three to five years (Cawelti 1999,63-65). Suggestions from the Education C ommis-sion of the States: Clear and Continuous Communication Is a Key The Education Commission of the States, in its publication Listen, Discuss, and Act: Parents and Teachers' Views on Education Reform, provides suggestions for schools and districts interested in engaging the entire school community in their efforts to improve student achievement. Three key suggestions include:  Communicate well with teachers. The experience of schools and districts across the country clearly shows that if teachers, are not informed and active participants in the process, reform efforts win fail. Teachers who are satisfied with the basic ideas of a reform effort may have enormous frustrations with the way the effort is implemented. Give teachers a voice in the process treat them as partners with the school and district in the reform. Also, let them know up front how much time any changes will involve, what the effect on their work will be, and what they can expect to happen.  Be clear about what it means to set high standards for aU students, and what it will take to meet them. Survey and focus group results strongly suggest that parents and teachers are more inclined to support a goal of improving success for all students rather than buying into the notion that all children can learn at high -3- Lducationai Kesearcn dervice Ilevels. They believe the goal of having all stu- ^dents achieve at stellar levels is counterproductive Sand unrealistic. In other words, higher standards Kfor all receive more support than high standards K\u0026amp;r all. Agendas that include setting high stan- fedards also need to spell out clearly who set the Bistandards and what resources (including instruc- Etion, materials, and time) wiU be provided to help c*' 'children meet them. Show how new ideas enhance, rather than re- 1 place, the old ones. This research shows that ^parents and educators are primed for school re- sform, but they worry that the innovations are not B feasible or wiU go too far. They recognize the K peed for students to go beyond the basics and Rjeam more complex skUls, but fear that basics are fe hot being taught adequately. When you are intro- fc during something new, show how it works with ^'what is already there. For instance, There will  be portfolios and other demonstrations of stu- fedent work, along with more traditional standard- ^tzed tests. Bridge the gap between peoples expeFA riences and expectations and the changes being ^implemented, then show how the changes im- prove learning for students. ^Applying these guideUnes for communication iSfifig the complex processes of selecting and imple- 's [enbng a comprehensive model for school improveJ I ^t, one that wiU affect teachers, students, and the ^^rnunity at large, should be considered as impor- ^mas what goes on day-to-day at the school site. K -4 f t^-Performing Texas Schools Kh summarizing his observations of schools that ive/experienced success with school improvement, \u0026gt;nnson identifies three broad groups of factors that Khlve a profound impact on a schools efforts, ^e are: ^^ttitudes, expectations, and reasons. Successful - ^programs are characterized by a wiUingness to ^question current practices, chaUenge conven- ^tional wisdom, and explore every opportunity for improving teaching and learning...the focus is on ^improving instruction in every aspect of each ^students school experience. ^Comprehensive, focused, meaningful planning. g^This must include an in-depth assessment of i^sgengths and needs, the estabUshment of chal- ^fenging and measurable goals, and an intensive ^Kearch for options that might lead the school from current levels of performance to the challenging goals articulated in the planning process.  Commitment to continuous improvement. This must include a sense of ownership by aU staff in every aspect of the plan, the development of systems for regularly gauging progress, and systems for celebrating success. Successful programs are characterized by a willingness to question current practices, challenge conventional wisdom, and explore every opportunity for improving teaching and learning. Joseph F. Johnson, 1997 In Johnsons view, the manner in which principals, teachers, parents, and other school leaders address these factors may substantially influence whether their schoolwide program wiU bring focus and power to academic reform efforts (1997, online). Examples of Promising School Improvement Efforts The Memphis City Schools Experience Memphis City Schools has, for the past few years, provided a case study of schools in the midst of reform. As of spring 1995,45 of the Memphis schools had begun implementation of New American Schools designs, with six different designs represented. Researchers studying first-year implementation of the programs in these schools concluded that:  AU of the restructuring efforts required a great deal of energy, time, and commitment from the teachers, administrators, and school community.  Restructuring initiatives that provided classroom materials and guideUnes for instruction generaUy started faster than designs emphasizing teacher- developed materials.  Issues of focused leadership and ongoing, focused professional development appeared Ukely to determine substantial parts of the long-term successes of the schools. However, relative to what -4-it 1 t: V, Educational Research Service L might be called reasonable progress, the re- L searchers concluded that the Memphis start-up were successful, with no t, implementations J unresolvable problems (CRESPAR 1997). She Clover Park Experience r The Clover Park School District outside Tacoma, Washington began its journey of change in 1995. \"pie district took a careful and comprehensive look at fwhat factors contributed to the success of the effort, information about the role of the school board and lientral office in encouraging, promoting, and sup- ^^orting change at the school level provides valuable ^^guidance to other school districts. These were the guidelines used to direct district-level involvement SB.3 ^and activity: at W' W\nI B ?* '^J:-  -sj?\n' Board members set initial goals and had frequent and significant opportunities to remain informed about the process of implementation and school reform. All staff understood and were committed to beliefs driving the comprehensive reform effort first and foremost that all children can and will learn. Decisions were required to be based on data and research. ' District money was reallocated to support comprehensive reform.  A comprehensive needs assessment process that promoted collaboration, focused on data and research, and worked well with district priorities was designed and supported.  District structures responsive to the needs of schools were put in place.  Hiring and transfer procedures ensured a good match between schools and staff.  During the change planning process, district staff got to know principals well and supported them as they helped them to provide strong leadership at their schools.  District staff learned to talk the talk of the individual school. Staff development was tailored to individual school needs and the requirements of would not have been as pervasive or as positive (Davis, Sagmiller, and Hagans undated). Hugh Burkette, Clover Park superintendent, talks about some lessons he has learned from the process of supporting implementation of schoolwide improvement in the districts schools. He says:  Comprehensive school reform has to be approached in a thoughtful way. We had to use a process that passed the teacher-test of work worth doing. The self-study process they embraced took timeall yearbut it gave us powerful results. Our staffs collected so much data about their schools. They looked at it hard\nthey identified needs\nthey did the research about what works, what met the needs of their kids. They didnt skip steps. And when they were done with their process, each staff was ready... to make an organized change.  A national model cannot be your whole school reform...You get different parts and have to backfill where the model doesnt address significant school needs. Models dont answer all of the questions, or address all of the needs. They dont fix everything.  Our teachers and staff taught me that every school is unique. At the same time, we insist that the models be Implemented as designed. Their success is based on all of the component parts being implemented.  Establish structures at the district level that help schools stay focused. All of our schools... have developed comprehensive school plans....Because each goal is followed by a series of concrete strategies with timelines and assessment measures, there is no such thing as the failure of a plan. If one or the other strategy doesnt work, our schools go back and revise the strategies. They try again (1998, 7-11). i the specific reform model. In the view of observers of the Clover Park pro- 1 cess, without clear direction from the board and superintendent, and active support of district staff. W these changes (in student achievement) most likely Anticipating and Dealing with the Impact of Change Change is not easy, even when those involved are committed to making the effort. In Implementing Schoolwide Projects: An Idea Book for Educators, the authors talk of the challenges of change and note: Practitioners confront considerable obstacles as they design and implement more coherent educational services... Success stories do not unfold without false starts, and the routes to improvement are -5-\\s/  circuitous (Pechman and Fiester 1994). They go on to identify challenges that persistently confronted schools involved in implementation of schoolwide improvement:  Adequate Time to Learn New Roles. The transition to a schoolwide project involves introducing new and expanded roles, academic expectations, and management structures. Even new resources require that long-standing practices be adjusted. These changes can be disconcerting or overwhelming to some members of the school community. Even with broad support, new initiatives can be tricky to coordinate smoothly.  Communication and Involvement. Without exception, schoolwide project planners said that project success is direcdy related to the quality of communication among planners and the degree to which teachers are partners in planning and implementation. The biggest pitfail is lack of communication, remarked a principal whose school is in its second project cycle.  Adequate Preparation for New Resources. Successfill school-wide projects require extensive training of all teachers in uses of technology, new content and methods, and teaching styles.  Including Parents and the Community. Organizers of schoolwdde projects find that it is not enough to improve instruction, curricula, or materials. Success for the project depends on support from parents, businesses, special-interest groups, and fraternal organizations.  Awareness of Achievement Variability. Despite the strong academic programs and comprehensive assistance that schoolwide projects offer children, student performance on standardized tests can fluctuate from year to year. Dips in achieve- ment in schoolwide projects that are working well are rarely unexpected. Teachers know when a group of students have confronted difficulties, and the teachers anticipate performance below their goals. However, it is significant that these schools have structures that allow staff to adjust the program as needed.  Stabilizing Change. The most consistent threat to schoolwide project success is the change in leadership that occurs all too often and too early in the life of many projects. It is not uncommon for enthusiastic district managers, seeing the success of a creative leader in initiating a schoolwide project, to move that leader into a new administrative slot well before the new initiatives stabilize, sometimes as soon as only one or two years after a project gets under way. (Pechman and Fiester 1994). The Importance of Leadership No discussion of factors that affect school change efforts would be complete wdthout attention to the crucial, yet difficult role that leadership plays. Tony Trujillo, superintendent of the Ysleta School District in Texas, highlights a key component of this role in supporting school improvement: My job is to get ordinary people to do extraordinary things (Ragland et al. 1999,18). How do leaders accomplish this role? In her discussion of leadership characteristics that facilitate school change, Mendez-Morse identifies six characteristics of successful leaders of educational change:  vision, specifically that students learning is of primary importance\n believing schools are for learning\n valuing the professional contributions of staff, relating well to people, and able to foster collaborative relationships\n being a skilled communicator and listener, someone who can articulate a vision and communicate that shared vision to all in the school community\n acting proactively. Initiating action as well as anticipating and recognizing aspects of the environment that might interfere with efforts to carry out the mission\n_  taking risks but not carelessly or thoughtlessly\nencouraging others to be risk takers by providing a safe environment (1999). Participants in several U.S. Department of Education focus groups agreed with the importance of vision and v^ues, and identified the school leader as key to maintaining the vision during the often difficult process of school change: These leaders seldom claim to have invented the vision or the underlying values and beliefs\ninstead, they perceive themselves to be keepers of the dream. They embrace it wholeheartedly and make sure that everyone else does too...Developing and  maintaining the vision challenges a leaders ability to determine how well what is happening matches reasonable expectations at a given stage of implementation. In addition, when faced with problems, effective leaders see multiple solutions that preserve the spirit of the vision. They find it important to -6-Lducaiionai x\\esearcn Service   T study the nature of vision and recognize the stages of its development...Although the details of participants visions varied, each put students squarely in the center (U.S. Department of Education 1996). Hugh Burkette, the Clover Park superintendent, adds one additional responsibility for a leader of change: Leadership means being relentless. Being relentless means being single-minded and purposeful... Of every action and every decision we ask a single question: how does this act support increased student achievement?...! cant emphasize to you enough the power of beUef in providing leadership (1998). Summary In the current climate of change and reform, schools and districts across the nation are engaged in school Improvement efforts. These efforts may be comprehensive and school-wide, or they may be more narrowly aimed at specific areas. It is important to recognize that school improvement is a complex process, and that even a well-designed approach can fail unless school leaders put in place the conditions that support its success. This ERS Informed Educator has provided an overview of factors that can contribute to the success or failure of school improvement, based on research and experience. By incorporating an understanding of these factors into their planning, educators can focus their efforts so that their hard work and collaboration result in significant progress towards the goal of increased learning for aU students. Sources Burkette, Hugh E. 1998. Making Comprehensive School Reform Work. Presentation at Improving Americas Schools Regional Conference (Portland, OR): October 21, 1998. Cawelti, Gordon. 1999. Portraits of Six Benchmark Schools: Diverse Approaches to Improving Student Achievement. Arlington, VA\nEducational Research Service. CRESPAR. 1997. Scaling Up: The New American Schools in Memphis. Johns Hopkins University and Howard University: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk. Online. (September 1997). http\n//scov.csos.jhu.edu/crespar/septl997page07.html. Davis, Deborah, Kay SagmiUer, and Rex Hagans. Undated. Implementing School Reform Models: The Clover Park Experience. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Online, -www.nwrel.org/csrdp/ clover.html. Education Commission of the States. 1996. Listen, Discuss, and Act: Parents and Teachers Views on Education Reform. Denver, CO: Author. Hetman, Rebecca, and Sam Stringfield. 1997. Ten Promising Programs for EducatingAl! Children: Evidence of Impact. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service. Johnson, Joseph. E, Jr. Promising Practices: Creating School-wide Programs that Make a Difference. 1997. Austin, TX: Charles A. Dana Center, The University of Texas at Austin. Online, http://www.starcenter.org/ptomise/ schppromise.htm. Lake, Robin J., et al. 1999. Making Standards Work: Active Voices, Focused Learning. Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education. New American Schools. 1998. Blueprints for School Success: A Guide to New American Schools Designs. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. 1999. Self- Study. Portland, OR\nAuthor. Online, http:// www.nwrel.org/ scpd/natspec/self. html. Mendez-Morse, Sylvia. 1999. Leadership Characteristics that Facilitate School Change. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational development Laboratory. Online, http:// www.sedl.org/change/leadership/welcome.html. Ohio Department of Education. 1999. Transforming Learning Communities: A Research Project on School Change. Columbus, OH: Author. Online, http\n// schoolimptovement.ode.ohio.gov/ tic/ default.html. Pechman, E., and L. Fiestet 1994. Implementing Schoolwide Projects: An Idea Book for Educators. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service. Online, http:// www.ed.gov/pubs/SchlProj. Quellmalz, Edys, et al. 1995. School-Based Reform. Lessons from a National Study: A Guide for School Reform Teams. Menlo Park, CA\nSRI International. Online. http://'www.ed.gov/pubs/Reform/pt2a.html. Ragland, Mary A. et al. 1999. Urgency, Responsibility, Efficiency: Preliminary Findings of a Study of High-Performing Texas School Districts. Austin, TX: Charles A. Dana - Center, The University of Texas at Austin. Richardson, Joan. 1998. Data Provides Answers for Student Learning. Results (October 1998): 1,6-7. Schaffer, Eugene C., Pamela S. Nesselrodt, and Samuel C. Stringfield. 1997. Impediments to Reform: An Analysis of Destabilizing Issues in Ten Promising Programs. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service. Slavin, Robert E. Undated. Sand, Bricks, and Seeds: School Change Strategies and Readiness for Reform. Baltimore, MD\nCenter for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk. Online. www.successforaU/ sandbrickhtm. Talley, Susan. 1999. Perpectives: What Does It Take to Reform a Low-Performing School? From At-Risk to Excellence (Spring 1999): 2-3. U.S. Department of Education. 1996. The Role of Leadership in Sustaining School Reform: Voices from the Field. Online. (July 1996). http://'www.ed.gov/pubs/ Leadership. U.S. Department of Education. 1998. Turning Around Low-Performing schools: A Guide for State and Local Leaders. Washington, DC: Author, 1998. I L -7- to Educational Research Service IO' oi More Information on Factors that Contribute to the Access of School Improvement Efforts info-Files on related topics. The following are just a few of the ER5 Info-Files on topics related to change Wschool improvement. Each ERS Info-File contains 70-100 pages of articles from professional journals. i ^maries of research studies, and related literature concerning th^topic, plus an annotared bibliography that deludes an ERIC-CIJE search. Base price per Info-File: $32.00. ERS Comprehensive subscriber price: $16.00. fo Individual subscriber price\n$24.00. To order, contact Educational Research Service, 2000 Clarendon ^iilevard, Arlington, VA 22201. Phone: (800) 791-9308. Fax\n(800) 791-9309. Or order online through the ERS ^eb site, wvw.ers.org. Add the greater of $3.50 or 10% of total purchase price for postage and handling. Phone Visa, MasterCard, or American Express. f A ^d Web site orders accepted with purchase order number or School Restructuring (#IE-194). Provides various perspectives on efforts to change education, including examinations of successes and failures in school reform, why reform efforts succeed or fail, school staff opinion about change efforts, and how to facilitate reform. . Strategies for Educational Change (#IE-244). Reviews models for creating change in schools\nbarriers to change\nfostering a culture/climate that facilitates change\nroles for school administrators in bringing change to their schools\nand sustaining changes in schools. 'About ERS Educational Research Service (ERS) is the nonprofit foundation serving the research and information needs of education leaders and the public. ERS ^^Eprovides objective, accurate, and up-to-date research ' and information for local school and school district decisions. .^ ERS, established in 1973, is sponsored by seven ACnational associations of school administrators: ft  American Association of School Administrators  American Association of School Personnel Administrators  Association of School Business Officials  Council of Chief State School Officers  National Association of Elementary School Principals National Association of Secondary School Principals National School Public Relations Association. The Informed Educator Series 4^-. Educational Research Serrdee prepares the publica- tions in The Informed Educator series to provide busy education leaders with concise, yet comprehensive overviews of the most current research and informa- V tion on topics of priority concern in education. Each publication in this series is designed to keep education leadersincluding central-office administrators, principals, curriculum specialists, teachers, and othersup to date on a leading or emerging issue in education, enabling them to make the best decisions for the children and youth they serve. Prepared by the ERS staff, publications in The Informed Educator series are intended to provide an objective, comprehensive summary of research and opinion appearing in the current literature. The inclusion of any specific assertion or opinion here is not intended to imply approval or endorsement by Educational Research Service or any ERS sponsoring organization. Other topics in The Informed Educator series include\n Helping Students Deal with Conflict and Anger  Curriculum Integration  Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice  Productive Communication with Parents  Ability Grouping: Ejfects and Alternatives  Integrating Technology into the Curriculum  and more! Ordering Information\nStock No. IE-348. Base price per copy\n$9.60. Comprehensive subscriber price: $4.80. --------- available.Schooldistrictsmayalsopurchaseacamera- ready reproducible, which includes unlimited reproduction rights within the district. In addition, Individu^ suD- scriptions for standing orders for each new publication in The Informed Educator series are available. For infor- Individual subscriber price: $7.20. Quantity discounts are mation, contact ERS Member Services Information Center, 2000 Clarendon Boulevard, Arlington, VA 222U1. Phone:(800) 791-9308. Fax: (800) 791-9309. E-mail: msic@ers.org. Web site: www.ers.org -8-Analysis of Achievement Level Tests, Spring 2000 Little Rock School District School Badgett Interpretations _____________________________________ Growth from grade 2 to 3 higher than District average in all three test areas Growth from grade 3 to 4 Math higher than District average Grade 3 seems strongest: higher than average gains in all three tests from grade 2 Grade 5 seems weakest: declines in all three tests from grade 4 Scores below LRSD average in all areas #35 in LRSD in Grade 2 Reading, Language, and Math #35 in LRSD in Grade 5 Reading, Language, and Math Average total growth points (76) Grade 2 to 5 Reading = 26 points Grade 2 to 5 Language = 22 points Grade 2 to 5 Math = 28 points Mathematics: Grade 223 points below the national median Grade 310 points below Grade 47 points below Grade 517 points below Language: Grade 220 points below national median Grade 32 points below Grade 47 points below Grade 514 points below Reading: Grade 233 points below national median Grade 32 points below Grade 47 points below Grade 518 points below 1 School Bale Interpretations_________________________________________ Growth from grade 2 to 3 higher than District average in all three test areas Growth from grade 4 to 5 Math higher than District average Grade 4 seems weakest: less than average growth in all three areas Scores higher than LRSD averages in Grades 2 and 3 Language and in Grades 2-3 Reading #33 in LRSD in Grade 5 Reading Way below average (62) in total growth points Grade 2 to 5 Reading = 17 points Grade 2 to 5 Language = 18 points Grade 2 to 5 Math = 27 points Mathematics: Grade 212 points below national median Grade 37 points below Grade 410 points below Grade 510 points below Language: Grade 25 points below national median Grade 3AT the national median Grade 48 points below Grade 511 points below Reading: Grade 211 points below national median Grade 36 points below Grade 49 points below Grade 514 points below 2 School Baseline Success for All Interpretations_________________________________________ Growth from grade 2 to 3 higher than District average in all three test areas Growth from grade 4 to 5 Math and Reading above District average growth Scores lower than LRSD in all test areas Grade 3 appears to be strongest. #33 in Grade 4 Reading, #34 in Grade 4 Language, and #33 in Grade 4 Math Below LRSD average in total growth points (73) Grade 2 to 5 Reading = 25 points Grade 2 to 5 Language = 23 points Grade 2 to 5 Math = 25 points Mathematics: Grade 216 points below national median Grade 38 points below Grade 413 points below Grade 514 points below Language: Grade 212 points below national median Grade 35 points below Grade 47 points below Grade 59 points below Reading: Grade 217 points below national median Grade 38 points below Grade 413 points below Grade 512 points below 3 School Booker Arts Magnet Interpretations_______________________________________ Growth from grade 4 to 5 higher than District average in all three test areas Scores higher than District averages in all test areas #10 in Grade 2 Reading, #7 in Math #9 in Grade 3 Reading #9 in Grade 5 Reading, #10 in Math Above District average in total growth points (78) Grade 2 to 5 Reading = 24 points Grade 2 to 5 Language = 27 points Grade 2 to 5 Math = 27 points Mathematics: Grade 27 points below national median Grade 33 points below Grade 43 points below Grade 52 points below Language: Grade 26 points below national median Grade 31 point below Grade 4-AT national median Grade 51 point above national median Reading: Grade 28 points below national median Grade 34 points below Grade 42 points below Grade 54 points below 4 School Brady Success for All Newcomer Center Interpretations___________________________________________ Growth from grade 2 to 3 Math, Language, and Reading higher than average District growth Growth from grade 3 to 4 Language and Reading higher than average District growth Grade 3 seems strong Grade 5 seems weak\ngrowth lower than District averages Score in Grade 3 Math equal to District average #33 in Grade 2 Reading, #31 in Math Above District average in total growth points (84) Grade 2 to 3 Reading = 29 points Grade 2 to 5 Language = 26 points Grade 2 to 5 Math = 29 points Mathematics: Grade 218 points below national median Grade 35 points below Grade 44 points below Grade 511 points below Language: Grade 215 points below national median Grade 34 points below Grade 43 points below Grade 59 points below Reading: Grade 220 points below national median Grade 39 points below Grade 44 points below Grade 513 points below 5 School Carver Science Magnet Interpretations__________________________________________ Growth from grade 3 to 4 in all three test areas higher than District average, Growth from grade 4 to 5 Reading higher than District average Grade 3 seems weak\nlower than average growth #3 in Grade 2 Reading, #2 in Language, #3 in Math #6 in Grade 3 Reading, #6 in Language, #6\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"umc_awr_50587","title":"Correspondence and General National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, 1999","collection_id":"umc_awr","collection_title":"Advancing Workers’ Rights in the American South","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1999"],"dcterms_description":["Folder of materials from the \"National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, 1956-1999\" series from the AFL-CIO Civil Rights Department records"],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights","Labor movement"],"dcterms_title":["Correspondence and General National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, 1999"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of Maryland, College Park. Libraries"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://hdl.handle.net/1903.1/50587"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["records (documents)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1690","title":"Court filings concerning teacher retirement and health insurance remedy","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":["1999-01"],"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--20th century","Joshua Intervenors","Little Rock School District","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School employees","Teachers","Teachers--Salaries, etc.","Retirement"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning teacher retirement and health insurance remedy"],"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/1690"],"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":["37 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, advisory letter from Joshua intervenors; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) prehearing brief on the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) pre-trial brief re: teacher retirement and health insurance remedy; District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) post-trial submission; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) post-hearing brief on the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) post-hearing brief concerning remedies on the issues of teacher retirement and health insurance; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) supplemental response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's), Little Rock School District's (LRSD's), and North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) motions for attorneys' fees and costs; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER. JR. JQHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATTORNEY Ar LAw 1723 BROAl)WAV l,JTTl.E ROCK, Alu\u003c..~NSAS 72206 , TEU:Pl!0:-IE (501) 374-3758   FA.\\ (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile - 324-6096 1 anuary 4, 1999 Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright United States District Judge  United States District Court 600 West Capitol Llittle Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD Dear Judge Wright: 315 P02 '02 JAN OJ ' 99 17:02 This is to advise that the Joshua Intervenors hereby adopt by reference the Little Rock School Dsitrict's Prehearing Brief On The Teacher Retirement and Health Insurance Remedy. JWW:js cc: Mrs. Ann Brown All Counsel of Record  IN TIIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LI'ITLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTERVENERS INTERVENERS :MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S PREHEARING BRIEF ON THE TEACHER RETIREMENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE REJMEDY I. Introduction. This hearing concerns the method for calculating the three Pulaski County school districts' damages for the State of Arkansas' violation of the 1989 Settlement Agreement with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance programs. On July 1, 1998, the Eighth Circuit affirmed this Court's finding of liability and remanded for a detennination of the districts' damages. LRSD v. PCSSD, 148 F.3d 956 (8th Cir. 1998). In making that detennination, the Eighth Circuit offered the following guidance: On remand, it will be up to the District Court, in the first instance, to decide exactly what relief is appropriate. The three Pulaski County districts should be placed in a position no worse than they would have occupied if the previous system of funding for teacher retirement and health insurance had not been changed This does not mean that these districts are entitled to receive both an amount equivalent to what the old system would have produced for teacher retirement and health insurance, and the whole amount now paid to them as Equalization Funding. Such a result would be double recovery, a windfall. But the districts are entitled to be held hannless against any adverse effect of the funding change. This means that it will be up to the District Court, after appropriate submissions from the parties, to calculate, as near as may be, the difference between what the old system - MFP A plus teacher retirement plus health insurance - would have produced, and what the new system - Equalization Funding in one lump sum - is producing. The appellants suggest that this effort will necessarily involve speculation. Admittedly it cannot be exact, but we believe that the District Court can make a reasonable and informed estimate. LRSD v. PCSSD, 148 F.3d 956, 968 (8* Cir. 1998). As the State, LRSD, NLRSD md Joshua interpret the Eighth Circuit's opinion, the districts' damages should be calculated as follows: (1) determine the amount the districts would have received for teacher retirement and health insurance under the old Act 34 funding system; (2) determine the amount the districts actually received for teacher retirement and health insurance under the new Act 917 funding system; and (3) subtract (2) from (1). II. Discussion. A PCSSD's overall remedy argument. Although PCSSD originally agreed with the other parties' interpretation of the Eighth Circuit's decision, PCSSD now argues that the districts' damages should be based on an overall comparison between the old Act 34 funding system and the new Act 917 funding system. Compare Docket Nos. 3174 and 3187 to 3227. This argument ignores the previous findings of this Court and the opinion of the Eighth Circuit and should be rejected as a matter oflaw. First, the argument ignores the previous findings of this Court. This Court rejected this same argument when it was made by the State. The Court stated: While the state may contend that the settling districts will receive more formula money under the new funding scheme, the Court finds that because the new funding scheme does not consider the number of eligible employees but instead is based upon ADM, equalized by the wealth of the district, requiring the settling districts to pay health insurance matching from equali1,lllion or local funds is not a \"fair and rational\" adjustment to the funding formula. 2 Docket No. 2968, Memorandum Opinion and Order, p. 5 ( emphasis supplied). Assuming PCS SD' s calculations are correct, LRSD would recover nothing under an overall remedy. Docket No. 3227, Exhibit A Consequently, LRSD would be forced to use equalization funding or local funds to pay its teacher retirement and health insurance costs. As quoted above, that is exactly why this Court found that the Act 917 funding system violated the Settlement Agreement with regard to teacher retirement and health insurance. It would be absurd to now adopt a \"remedy'' that brings about the same result. Not surprisingly, an overall remedy results in a windfall to PCSSD. PCSSD claims that the overall change from Act 34 to Act 917 decreased PCSSD's total state funding by $3,794,039 in 1996-97 and $2,781,691 in 1997-98. Docket No. 3227, Exhibit A, p. 3. PCSSD seeks to recover these amounts as its remedy for the State's liability with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance programs. However, according to PCSSD's own calculations, its loss for teacher retirement and health insurance totaled only $1,830,003 in 1996-97 and $1,679,881 in 1997-98. Docket No. 3186, Exhibit A and B. Thus, an overall remedy results in PCSSD being awarded damages more than three million dollars in excess of its actual loss in teacher retirement and health insurance funding. The difference between PCS SD' s teacher retirement and health insurance loss and its overall loss results, at least in part, from the adverse impact on PCS SD of the change in the funding formula for distributing general state aid, what was called MFP A under Act 34 and what is now called equalization funding under Act 917. PCSSD seeks to recover this amount despite the fact that no court has found that the Act 917 funding formula per se violates the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement permits the State to make \"[f]air and rational adjustments to the funding 3 formula which have general applicability blltwl,ich nd,,ce tire proportion of State aid to any of the Districts .... \" Settlement Agreement ,U.L (emphasis supplied). Therefore, even if PCSSD is correct in its assertion that it received less general state aid under the Act 917 funding system compared to what it would have received under the Act 34 funding system, this does not establish that Act 917 funding formula violates the Settlement Agreement. PCSSD bears the burden of proving that Act 917 was not a fair and rational adjustment to the funding formulcl. PCSSD moved for summary judgment on this issue on September 2, 1997, while the teacher retirement and health insurance appeals were pending before the Eighth Circuit. Docket No. 3042 and 3043. This Court denied that motion on January 12, 1998 \"[b ]ecause there are genuine issues of material fact in dispute regarding the state funding formula.\" Docket No. 3104, p. 2. Those issues of material fact remain unresolved. Second, PCSSD's argument ignores the precise issue before the Eighth Circuit. The Eighth Circuit clearly limited its opinion to the teacher retirement and health insurance programs. In the opening paragraph ofits opinion, the Eighth Circuit stated that \"[t]he question presented is whether changes made by the State of Arkansas in the funmng of retirement and health insurance for teachers violated [the Settlement Agreement].\" Id. at 963 ( emphasis supplied). The Eighth Circuit began its discussion stating, \"This case has to do with two important categories of school operating expenses: contributions for teacher retirement and employees' health insurance.\" Id. ( emphasis supplied). Nothing in the Eighth Circuit's discussion indicates that the court went beyond the question presented to find that the Act 917 funding formula violated the Settlement Agreement. Third, PCSSD's argument ignores the whole of the Eighth Circuit's opinion. Taken in the context of the question presented, the remedy contemplated by the Eighth Circuit was clearly limited 4 to the districts' loss in teacher retirement and health insurance funding. the Eighth Circuit began its description of the remedy by stating that \"[t]he three Pulaski County districts should be placed in a position no worse than they would have occupied if the previous system of funding for teacher retirement and health insurance had not been changed \" Id. at 968 ( emphasis supplied). The Eighth Circuit recognized, however, that the districts' equalization funding included some amount for teacher retirement and health insurance. lg. at 965. Accordingly, it directed this Court to reduce the districts' damages by this amount in order to prevent a double recovery. The Eighth Circuit stated: The three Pulaski County districts should be placed in a position no worse than they would have occupied if the previous system of funding/or teacher retirement and health insurance had not been changed This does not mean that these districts are entitled to receive both an amount equivalent to what the old system would have  produced/or teacher retirement and health insurance, and the whole amount now paid to them as Equalization Funding. Such a result would be double recovery, a windfall. Id. (emphasis supplied). Thus, the first step in determining the districts' damages is to calculate \"what the old system would have produced/or teacher retirement and health insurance.\" Id. What the old Act 34 system produced for teacher retirement and health insurance was the districts' actual costs for those programs. Summarizing its explanation of the remedy, the Eighth Circuit concluded: Id. But the districts are entitled to be held harmless against any adverse effect of the funding change. This means that it will be up to the District Court, after appropriate submissions from the parties, to calculate, as near as may be, the difference between what the old system - MFP A plus teacher retirement plus health insurance - would have produced, and what the new system - Equalization Funding in one lump sum - is producing. 5 Reading these final two sentences in isolation, PCSSD contends that the Eighth Circuit's opinion calls for an overall remedy. However, the failure of the Eighth Circuit to repeat for the third time \"for teacher retirement and health insurance\" after the words \"produced\" and \"producing\" in no way indicates that the Eighth Circuit intended to completely depart from the rest of the opinion and the preceding sentences in the same paragraph. These final two sentences may properly be read as follows: This means that it will be up to the District Court, after appropriate submissions from the parties, to calculate, as near as may be, the difference between what the old system - MFP A plus teacher retirement plus health insurance- would have produced [for teacher retirement and health insurance], and what the new system - Equalization Funding in one lump sum - is producing [for teacher retirement and health insurance]. The Eighth Circuit most certainly would have expressly stated and explained the basis for an overall remedy if such was its intention. This it did not do. Rather, it described the logical course this Court should follow in determining the districts' damages \"for teacher retirement and health insurance.\" The Eighth Circuit's use of the phrase ''MFP A plus teacher retirement plus health insurance\" should not be construed as a mathematical equation, but rather as a general description of the old Act 34 funding system. Even if construed as a mathematical equation, however, the phrase in no way dictates an overall remedy. As discussed above, the preceding sentences make it clear that the Eighth Circuit was concerned with \"what the old system would have produced for teacher retirement and health insurance.\" Id. Both this Court and the Eighth Circuit have recognized that, under the old Act 34 funding system, the State paid the districts' teacher retirement and health insurance costs outside of the funding formula used to distribute MFPA. See LRSD v. PCSSD,'148 F.3d at 963. 6 Thus, the tenn MFP A essentially means zero in this context. In accord with this understanding, all of the parties, including PCSSD, originally submitted a proposed remedy based on the districts' actual costs. Docket Nos. 317 4-77. Finally, the Eighth Circuit's rationale for finding that the Act 917 funding system violated the Settlement Agreement with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance programs cannot be extended to the entire Act 917 funding system or the entire Act 917 funding fonnula. Quoting this Court's teacher retirement opinion, the Eighth Circuit explained: [I]nstead of directly funding each district based on the number of employees, the State has included funds for teacher retirement in the new funding scheme which distributes funds on a per ADM basis equalized by the wealth of the district. Just as the workers' compensation \"seed money'' fonnula worked to the detriment of the employee-heavy Pulaski County districts, so too does the distribution of teacher retirement contributions though the new funding formula give the districts less money to fund teacher retirement. While the three Pulaski County school districts may fare better under the new funding scheme from a state aid perspective, there is no question that the amount of their teacher retirement funding, previously directly funded by the State based upon the eligible salaries paid to their employees, will be reduced and result in unequal state funding. Id. at 967. The change from the Act 34 funding formula to the Act 917 funding fonnula does not suffer from this same defect. While teacher retirement and health insurance funding were based on the number of employees, the Act 34 funding formula was not. To summarize, the districts' remedy must, at a minimum, place them in a position which will not require them to use equalization funding or local funds to pay their teacher retirement and health insurance costs. An overall remedy would not achieve this because LRSD would be denied any recovery, notwithstanding an obvious loss of funding under Act 917 to pay these costs. Moreover, the Eighth Circuit's opinion cannot be fairly read as calling for an overall remedy. In discussing the issue and in outlining the remedy, the opinion clearly addresses only the districts' claims as to the 7 teacher retirement and health insurance programs. The Eighth Circuit's opinion should not be read to grant relief beyond the issues before the court. Bailey v. Henslee, 309 F.2d 840 (8* Cir. 1962) Therefore, an overall remedy should be rejected, and the districts' damages should be based on their loss of teacher retirement and health insurance funding. B. Damages based on the districts' loss of teacher retirement and health insurance funding. 1. Actual costs vs. equal funding. To award the districts damages based on their loss of teacher retirement and health insurance funding, this Court must resolve three additional issues. First, the State disagrees with the districts and Joshua on the starting point for calculating the districts' damages. The State argues that the districts' damages should be based on their actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs. The districts and Joshua contend that the State should be required to pay the districts the same percentage of teacher retirement and health insurance costs paid by the State to all other school districts in Arkansas. In both the 1995-96 and 1996-97 school year, the State paid school districts outside Pulaski County 107% of their actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs.1 In order to provide equal funding to the three Pulaski County districts, the starting point for their damages should be 107% of their actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs. Docket No. 3187, Exhibit 1. 1Using Exhibit A to the Declaration of Tristan D. Greene (Docket No. 3176), this percentage may be calculated by first subtracting the actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs of the three Pulaski County districts from the statewide total to obtain the actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs of other districts in the state. The amount other districts received in excess of their actual costs is equal to the total desegregation adjustment shown in column 4. The total desegregation adjustment is then added to the actual teacher retirement costs of other districts. This equals the actual amount received by other districts in the state for their teacher retirement and health insurance costs. The percentage of costs received by other districts in the state is determined by dividing the actual amount received by other districts in the state by the actual costs of other districts in the state. In both 1996-97 and 1997-98, this percentage is 107%. 8 In the Eighth Circuit's workers' compensation opinion, the court defined the workers' compensation \"program\" as \"equal State funding of workers' compensation for all school districts.\" LRSD v. PCS SD, 83 F.3d at 1018. Accordingly, the Eighth Circuit found that this Court \"correctly held that the State must disburse seed money to the Pulaski County districts in the same percentage as it does statewide.\" Id. ( emphasis supplied). 2 Likewise, the State must disburse teacher retirement and health insurance funding to the districts \"in the same percentage as it does statewide.\" Therefore, the starting point for determining the districts' damages should be the percentage of teacher retirement and health insurance costs paid by the State to other districts in Arkansas rather than the three Pulaski County districts' actual costs. See Docket No. 3187, Districts' Brief, for a more complete discussion of this issue. 2. The amount of equalization funding received for teacher retirement and health insurance. The second issue concerns the amount of equalization funding received by the districts to pay their teacher retirement and health insurance costs. The State, LRSD, NLRSD and Joshua disagree with PCSSD as to the appropriate method for calculating this amount. The State proposes a methodology which takes into account the equalizing effect of the Act 917 funding formula. On August 19, 1998, all three districts agreed that the State's method was appropriate. See Docket No. 2Specifically, this Court stated: [T]he Court does find that the State must assist the three Pulaski County school districts to the same degree that it is assisting the other districts in the state. Thus, the state must fund the same proportion of the cost of each of the three Pulaski County school district' workers' compensation insurance as it pays for all the other school districts in the state beginning with the 1994-95 school year. Docket No. 2337, Memorandum Opinion and Order filed Jan. 13, 1995, p. 6-7. 9 3187. However, it appears PCSSD now intends to pursue its alternative methodology, which assumes that the Act 917 funding formula distributed equalization funding based only on a district's Average Daily Membership (''ADM''). PCS SD' s methodology should be rejected because it conflicts with the findings of this Court which were affirmed by the Eighth Circuit and because it fails to take into account the equalization effect of the Act 917 funding formula. (a) The State's methodology. The State proposes that the amount of equalization funding received by the districts for teacher retirement and health insurance be determined by a simple two-step calculation. First, the total teacher retirement and health insurance costs for all school districts in the state is divided by the total amount of state aid distributed through the Act 917 funding formula to get a percentage. Next, this percentage is multiplied by the total amount of Act 917 funding received by a district, with the  result being the amount of Act 917 funding the district received for teacher retirement and health insurance. The State's methodology recognizes that there is no way to trace funding for teacher retirement and health insurance through the Act 917 funding formula. As this Eighth Circuit noted, teacher retirement and health insurance funding \"has been folded into the over-all Equalization Funding system .... \" Id. at 965. Because money is fungible, the only reasonable assumption that can be made is that the funding for teacher retirement and health insurance was equally distributed among school districts. Therefore, the State's methodology assumes that, if 15% of equalization funding for all districts was for teacher retirement and health insurance, then 15% of LRSD's equalization funding was for teacher retirement and health insurance. 10 The present case is similar to trust cases involving the commingling of trust assets with other assets. In effect, the State has commingled the teacher retirement and health insurance funding with equalization funding. Where a trustee commingles trust assets with other assets, the trust maintains a right to the trust assets based on their proportion to the whole. See, e.:\u0026., Restatement (Second) of Trusts,  202, comment n. Similarly, the amount of teacher retirement and health insurance funding the districts received should be based on the proportion of teacher retirement and health insurance funding to the whole of equalization funding. This is the result achieved by the State's methodology. The State currently uses this proposed methodology to detennine the amount of equalization funding school districts receive from the Education Excellence Trust Fund (\"Trust Fund\"). Ark. Code. Ann.  6-5-307 (Michie Supp. 1997) requires school districts to spend funding from the Trust  Fund on teachers' salaries. Ark . . Code. Ann.  6-5-307 (Michie Supp. 1997). Like the teacher retirement and health insurance programs, funding from the Trust Fund was once distributed outside the funding formula. When the State began distributing the Trust Fund as a part of equalization funding, school districts still needed to know the amount of funding they received from the Trust Fund in order to determine their compliance with Ark. Code Ann.  6-5-307. The State developed the methodology it now proposes in the present case to detennine the amount of equalization funding a district received from the Trust Fund. This methodology has already been subjected to public comment and adopted by the State Board of Education. The State's regulations setting forth this methodology are attached hereto as Exhibit 1. Most importantly, the State's methodology provides the greatest benefit to desegregation in that it results in the greatest monetary award for each school district, including PCS SD. See Docket 11 No. 3187, Districts' Response, Exhibit 1. Under PCSSD's own methodology (which assumes the districts recover more than their actual costs), PCS SD damages total $3,509,884 for the 1996-97 and 1997-98 school year. Docket No. 3186, Exhibit A and B. However, using the State's methodology ( and also assuming the districts recover more than their actual costs), PCS SD' s damages total $4,142, 571. See Docket No. 3187, Districts' Response, Exhibit 1. PCSSD's method had a much more significant impact on LRSD. Under PCSSD's methodology, LRSD's damages total $10,726,693. ill Exhibit 2 attached. The State's methodology results in a damage award to LRSD of Sl 7,819,759. See Docket No. 3187, Districts' Response, Exhibit 1. (b) PCSSD Methodology. PCS SD proposes calculating the amount of equalization funding received by the districts for teacher retirement and health insurance based on the assumption that each school district received the same amount per ADM. PCS SD takes the total teacher retirement and health insurance costs for all districts and the State and divides that amount by the total state ADM. The resulting per ADM amount is then multiplied by a district's ADM to determine the amount of equalization funding received by the district for teacher retirement and health insurance. PCSSD's methodology should be rejected for several reasons. First, it assumes that all districts received the same amount per ADM and thereby fails to take into account the equalizing effect of the Act 917 funding formula. As this Court has found, \"the State has included funds for teacher retirement in the new funding scheme which distributes funds on a perADM basis equalized by the wealth of the district.\" Docket No. 2930, Memorandum Opinion and Order, p. 9 (emphasis supplied). The equalizing effect of the Act 917 funding formula means that districts with greater local resources receive less equalization funding. For example, due to 12 differences in local resources, LRSD received $1,858.73 per ADM in equalization funding in 1997-98 and PCS SD received $2,815.47 per ADM in equaliz.ationfunding in 1997-98. See Exhibit 3 attached. PCS SD contends, however, that both districts received $428.18 per ADM for teacher retirement and health insurance. ~ Exhibit 2 attached. Thus, according to PCS SD, 23% ofLRSD' s equalization funding was for teacher retirement and health insurance while only 15% ofPCSSD's equalization funding was for teacher retirement and health insurance. No rational basis supports the assumption that a greater proportion of LRSD' s equalization funding was for teacher retirement and health insurance. PCS SD' s method would result in LRSD being forced to use equaliz.ation funding or local funds to pay its teacher retirement and health insurance costs, but this is why the change to Act 917 violated the Settlement Agreement with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance programs in the first place. As this Court stated, \"requiring the settling districts to pay health - insurance matching from equaliz.ation or local funds is not a 'fair and rational' adjustment to the funding formula.\" Docket No. 2968, Memorandum Opinion and Order, p. 5. PCS SD attempts to justify the use of a pure ADM calculation by making the assumption that the money for teacher retirement and health insurance was removed from the Act 917 funding formula after equalization and distributed separately. However, there is no factual basis for making this assumption. Teacher retirement and health insurance funding was not removed from equalization funding, and it was not distributed separately after distribution of equaliz.ation funding. Rather, teacher retirement and health insurance funding was commingled with equalization funding. Therefore, the State's methodology provides the only reasonable means for determining the amount of equalization funding the districts received for teacher retirement and health insurance. 13 3. PCSSD's cap argument. Finally, PCS SD argues that the Eighth Circuit's opinion requires a comparison of the overall impact of the change from Act 34 to Act 917 for the purpose of establishing a limit or cap on the districts' damages. While this would not affect PCSSD, calculations submitted by PCS SD indicate that it would bar any recovery by LRSD. Docket No. 3227. PCSSD's motive in making this argument results from a concern about the disparity in teachers' salaries betweenPCSSD and LRSD. PCSSD apparently hopes to prevent LRSD from following through on a promised pay increase contingent upon its recovery in this case. The best indicator of the lack of merit in this argument is the fact that the State itself does not make it, despite the fact that the State would be the real beneficiary if the argument prevailed. As the State concedes, however, a cap on the districts' damages in the manner suggested by PCSSD would violate the Settlement Agreement. - First, capping the districts' damages based on an overall comparison between Act 34 and Act 917 would violate Paragraphs II.E. and II.L. of the Settlement Agreement by depriving the districts of the benefit of the change in the funding formula. The final sentence of Paragraph II.E. prevents the State from using general state aid (now equalization funding) to supplant its funding obligations under the Settlement Agreement. It provides, \"The funds paid by the State under this agreement are not intended to supplant any existing or future funding which is ordinarily the responsibility of the State of Arkansas.\" Settlement Agreement, ,i II.E. Therefore, assuming for the purpose of argument that LRSD benefitted overall from the change to the Act 917 funding system, the fact remains that the State failed to pay the same percentage ofLRSD's teacher retirement and health insurance costs as it paid to other school districts in the state, and this violates the Settlement Agreement. 14 A cap on the districts' damages as suggested by PCSSD would also violate Paragraph II.L. of the Settlement Agreement. The Eighth Circuit described this paragraph as an \"anti-retaliation clause.\" Id. at 966, quoting LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d 1013, 1018 (8* Cir. 1996). Discussing Paragraph II.L. in the workers' compensation decision, the Eighth Circuit explained: Id. Its purpose, by its very words, is to prevent the State from cutting other programs in order to pay for its desegregation commitments. U: for example, the State had passed a statute decreasing or eliminating workers' compensation payments for the settling districts only, while maintaining its system of paying the costs to other school districts, this portion of the Settlement Agreement would have clearly been offended. The flaw in PCSSD's cap argument can also be demonstrated by consideration of a hypothetical statute. Assume the State passed a statute adopting the Act 917 funding system but continuing to directly pay school districts' teacher retirement and health insurance costs. Assume e next that the statute provided that the State would not pay the three Pulaski County districts' teacher retirement and health insurance costs to the extent they benefitted from the overall change in the funding formula. Such a statute would clearly violate the Settlement Agreement. In this hypothetical, numerous school districts in the state would receive increased state aid as a result of the change in the funding formula, but only the three Pulaski County districts would be required to use any increase in state aid to pay their teacher retirement and health insurance costs. PCS SD' s cap argument brings about the same result as the hypothetical statute. Therefore, a cap on the districts' damages would, in and of itself, violate the Settlement Agreement and should be rejected. The Eighth Circuit stated in its teacher retirement and health insurance opinion that its decision in the workers' compensation case \"points the way towards a proper solution of the present appeal.\" The Eighth Circuit's opinion in the workers' compensation case in no way indicates that the 15 districts may only recover damages to the extent that they lost money overall due to the change in the funding system. The court simply held that \"the State must disburse seed money to the Pulaski County districts in the same percentage as it does statewide.\" LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d at 1018. The court imposed no requirement that the districts must lost out overall as a result of the overall funding changes, and this Court should not interpret "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1017","title":"\"Critical Performance Priorities, End of Year Report,\" 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":null,"dc_date":["1999/2000"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","School employees","School facilities","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["\"Critical Performance Priorities, End of Year Report,\" 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/1017"],"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\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_907","title":"Discipline: ''Analysis of Disciplinary Actions, District Level,'' North Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1999/2000"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School discipline"],"dcterms_title":["Discipline: ''Analysis of Disciplinary Actions, District Level,'' North Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/907"],"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\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nNORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ANALYSIS Of DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS District Level FRANC/CAL J JACKSON Director of Student Afjairs DIS0 .. 6/ _/00 ime: 10: ': 35 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions DISTRICT LEVEL From AUGUST Through JUNE 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 -----BM-----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF-----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU --------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 S.A.C. 1443 52.3% 718 26.0% 458 16.6% 138 5.0% 2757 604 356 257 95 1312 0 HOME SC' P. 566 66.3% 141 16.5% 125 14.6% 22 2.6% 854 293 90 71 14 468 BOYS CI fB 359 58.2% 148 24.0% 88 14.3% 22 3.6% 617 207 97 68 16 388 2 E. I.C. 211 60.3% 106 30.3% 27 7. 7% 6 1. 7% 350 118 52 24 6 200 EXPULSION 7 63.6% 2 18.2% 1 9.1% 1 9 .1% 11 7 2 1 1 11 ==========================================================================------ 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 -=======================================================================-------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU =========================================================================------- S.A.C. 1468 55.0% 662 24.8% 401 15.0% 139 5.2% 2670 615 379 234 85 1313 0 HOME SUSP. 406 63.5% 113 17.7% 102 16.0% 18 2.8% 639 247 75 69 15 406 1 BOYS CLUB 351 58.8% 129 21.6% 90 15 .1% 27 4.5% 597 218 92 67 17 394 E. I. C. 246 61.5% 63 15.8% 75 18.8% 16 4.0% 400 120 40 36 8 204 7 EXPULSION 3 60.0% 0 O!l,.  0 2 40.0% 0 O!l,.  0 5 3 0 2 0 5 ====================================================================---------== COMPARISON -=-==================================================================-------=-== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ===================================================================------------- 9 S.A.C. 25 1.7 % 56- 7.8-% 57- 12.4-% 1 .7 % 87- 11 23 23- 10- 1 HOME SUSP. 160- 28.3-% 28- 19.9-% 23- 18.4-% 4- 18.2-% 215- 46- 15- 2- 1 62- 1 BOYS CLUB 8- 2.2-% 19- 12.8-% 2 2.3 !!,. 0 5 22.7 !!,. 0 20- 11 5- 1- 1 6 2 E. I.C. 35 16.6 % 43- 40.6-% 48 177.8 % 10 166.7 % 50 2 12- 12 2 4 7 EXPULSION 4- 57.1-% 2- 100.0-% 1 100.0 % 1- 100.0-% 6- 4- 2- 1 1- 6- DIS032 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions ~Date: 6/21/00 ELEMENTARY K-5  Time: 10:04:35 From AUGUST Through JUNE --=--===-----------------======================================----============= 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 ===============-----BM------==-----BF------==-----NBM-----==-----NBF-----======= # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU \n=\n~~~~~=========\n~====:\n~\n====~~====\n:~\n====~\n====\n~~\n=====\n======~\n====\nHOME SlSP. 11 BOYS c- :.JB E. I.C. EXPULE ON 24 13 12 0 49 374 66.9% 101 18.1% 68 12.2% 16 2.9% 559 202 69 45 12 328 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 211 60.3% 106 30.3% 27 7.7% 6 1.7% 350 118 52 24 6 200 0 Og.. 0 Og.. 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0  0  0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 -----BM-----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ---------- -----------------===================================================- 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME Sl '11 BOYS Cl 12 E. I.C. 17 EXPULS: HOME SU BOYS CL 1112 E.I.C. 17 EXPULSI I I ? 3 113 58.5% 58 30.1% 19 9.8% 3 1.6% 54 39 17 2 263 62.9% 80 19.1% 62 14.8% 13 3.1% 171 54 42 11 ... 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 246 61.5% 63 15.8% 75 18.8% 16 4.0% 120 40 36 8 0 .0% 0 Og..  0 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 0 1 0 COMPARISON -----BM-----# REF PCT ( + / - ) # STU -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU 193 112 418 278 0 0 400 204 1 1 ===========================================================--------- 77 213. 9 % 40 222.2 % 0 .0 % 3 300.0 % 120 30 26 5 2 63 111- 29.7-% 21- 20.8-% 6- 8.8-% 3- 18.8-% 141- 31- 15- 3- 1- so- 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .o % 0 .o % 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 16.6 % 43- 40.6-% 48 177.8 % 10 166.7 % 50 2 12- 12 2 4 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 1 100.0 % 0 .0 % 1 0 0 1 0 1 ef: DIS032 ate: 6/21/00 'ime: 10:04:36 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions MIDDLE SCHOOLS From AUGUST Through JUNE --------------------------===================================================== 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 ------------------------------================================================= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -----------------------------=--===========================================---= 9 S.A.C. 744 54.3% 353 25.7% 224 16.3% 50 3.6% 1371 316 180 130 35 661 .0 HOME SC.SP. 100 64.5% 23 14.8% 29 18. 7% 3 1. 9% 155 43 10 12 1 66 BOYS C:JB 238 58.2% 107 26.2% 54 13.2% 10 2.4% 409 120 64 37 5 226 2 E. I.C. 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 2 50.0% 1 25.0% 0 09-  0 1 25.0% 4 2 1 0 1 4 ---=======-=-===----------===================================================-=- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----====------------------===============================================------ S.A.C. 652 52.7% 329 26.6% 186 15.0% 71 5.7% 1238 295 185 107 43 630 _o HOME SUSP. 47 52.2% 14 15.6% 28 31.1% 1 1.1% 90 21 9 16 1 47 1 BOYS CLUB 203 54 .1% 98 26 .1% 58 15.5% 16 4.3% 375 116 66 40 9 231 E.I.C. 0 09-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 1 100.0% 0 0 9-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 1 1 0 0 0 1 -----===---=====---------==============================================-------- COMPARISON -----==============---=-=================================================------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -----=================================================================---------- 9 S.A.C. 92- 12.4-% 24- 6.8-% 38- 17.0-% 21 42.0 % 133- 21- 5 23- 8 31- HOME SUSP. 53- 53.0-% 9- 39.1-% 1- 3.4-% 2- 66.7-% 65- 22- 1- 4 0 19- 1 BOYS CLUB 35- 14.7-% 9- 8.4-% 4 7.4 9- 0 6 60.0 % 34- 4- 2 3 4 5 2 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 1- 50.0-% 1- 100.0-% 0 . 0 % 1- 100.0-% 3- 1- 1- 0 1- 3- Ref: DIS032 ate: 6/21/00 ime: 10:04:36 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions HIGH SCHOOLS From AUGUST Through JUNE 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU --====-==-----------------------------=========-------================--------- 9 S.A.C. 663 50.5% 347 26.4% 215 16.4% 88 6. 7%- 1313 265 163 115 60 603 0 HOME SUSP. 90 65.2% 17 12.3% 28 20.3% 3 2 . 2 %- 138 47 11 14 1 73 11 BOYS CLUB 121 58.2% 41 19.7% 34 16.3% 12 5.8% 208 87 33 31 11 162 2 E. I.C. 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 5 71.4% 1 14.3% 1 14.3% 0 0 !1--  0 7 5 1 1 0 7 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 -==============-----------===============================================------ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ---=======-=====-=----------======================-----==================------- S.A.C. 703 56. 7%- 275 22.2% 196 15.8% 65 5.2% 1239 266 155 110 40 571 0 HOME SUSP. 94 72.9% 19 14 . 7%- 12 9 . 3 %- 4 3 .1%- 129 54 12 11 3 80 1 BOYS CLUB 148 66. 7%- 31 14.0% 32 14.4% 11 5.0% 222 102 26 27 8 163 E. I.C. 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 2 66. 7%- 0 Og..  0 1 33.3% 0 0!1--  0 3 2 0 1 0 3 -======================================================================-------- COMPARISON ---====================================================================--------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU =========================================================================------- 9 S.A.C. 40 6.0 %- 72- 20.7-%- 19- 8.8-%- 23- 26.1-%- 74- 1 8- 5- 20- 32- HOME SUSP. 4 4.4 %- 2 11.8 %- 16- 57.1-%- 1 33.3 %- 9- 7 1 3- 2 7 1 BOYS CLL 27 22.3 %- 10- 24.4-%- 2- 5.9-%- 1- 8 .3-% 14 15 7- 4- 3- 1 2 E. I.C. 0 . 0 %- 0 .0 %- 0 .0 %- 0 .0 %- 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSIC 3- 60.0-%- 1- 100.0-%- 0 .0 %- 0 .0 %- 4- 3- 1- 0 0 4- ef: DIS0 ate: 6/ ime: 10: chool: 3 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 100 by School :36 From AUGUST Through JUNE 2 NORTH LITTLE ROCK HIGH SCHOOL - 11/12 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 ------------------================================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ---------- ---------------===============================================----=- 09 S.A.C. 138 49.6% 66 23.7% 63 22.7% 11 4.0% 278 92 49 42 10 193 0 HOME Sl. :i 4 36.4% 3 27.3% 4 36.4% 0 0~  0 11 4 2 4 0 10 1 BOYS c 3 33 58.9% 13 23.2% 9 16.1% 1 1.8% 56 24 11 9 1 45 12 E. I.C. 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 1 0~  0 0 0~  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSI N 1 50.0% 0 0~  0 1 50.0% 0 0~  0 2 1 0 1 0 2 ---======-------=----------===============================================------ 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 -----==--------------------===============================================------ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ---------------------------==============================================------- S.A.C. 160 47.5% 90 26.7% 63 18.7% 24 7 .1% 337 94 65 44 17 220 HOME SUSP. 7 63.6% 0 0~  0 2 18.2% 2 18.2% 11 5 0 2 2 9 1 BOYS CLUB 44 56.4% 12 15.4% 16 20.5% 6 7.7% 78 34 11 14 4 63 E. I. C 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 1 50.0% 0 0~  0 1 50.0% 0 0~  0 2 1 0 1 0 2 --------------===----------===========================================---------- COMPARISON =---====================================================================-------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ---================================================================------------ 9 S.A.C. 22 15.9 % 24 36.4 % 0 . 0 % 13 118.2 % 59 2 16 2 7 27 0 HOME SUSP. 3 75.0 % 3- 100.0-% 2- 50.0-% 2 200.0 % 0 1 2- 2- 2 1- BOYS CLUB 11 33.3 % 1- 7.7-% 7 77.8 % 5 500.0 % 22 10 0 5 3 18 2 E.I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 ef: DIS032S Date: 6/21/00 ime: 10:04:37 chool: 013 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE NORTH LITTLE ROCK HIGH SCHOOL - 09/10 ================-==---------------============================================== 1998-.:!9 -----BM------ -BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # EF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # .u # STU # STU ===================-------------- ---------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 505 50.8% 72 27.4% 140 14.1% 77 7.7% 994 166 12 67 51 396 10 HOME SUSP. 4 100.0% 0 OS--  0 0 OS--  0 0 OS--  0 4 2 0 0 0 2 1 BOYS CLUB 88 57.9% 8 18.4% 25 16.4% 11 7.2% 152 64 -'-2 22 10 118 12 E. I.C. 0 OS--  0 0 OS--  0 0 OS--  0 0 OS--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 3 75.0% 1 25.0% 0 OS--  0 0 OS--  0 4 3 1 0 0 4 1999-L.0 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ----------------=-----------------=========================================----- S.A.C. 538 60.2% 184 20.6% 132 14.8% 40 4.5% 894 170 92 66 23 351 HOME SUSP. 7 58.3% 2 16.7% 3 25.0% 0 OS--  0 12 7 2 3 0 12 1 BOYS CLUB 104 72.2% 19 13. 2% 16 11.1% 5 3.5% 144 68 15 14 5 102 E. I.C 0 OS--  0 0 OS--  0 0 OS--  0 0 OS--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 1 100.0% 0 O!l--  0 0 O!l--  0 0 OS--  0 1 1 0 0 0 1 -----=====-==========-====-=====-=======================================-------- 9 S.A.C. 0 HOME SUSP. BOYS CLUB 2 E. I.C. EXPULSION COMPARISON -----BM------ # REF PCT(+/-) # # STU # 33 6.5 % 4 3 75.0 S-- 0 5 16 18.2 % 4 0 .0 % 0 2- 66.7-% 2- ======================================--------- --BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----~ F PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) ..,U # STU # STU =================================------------- 32.4-% 8- 5.7-% 37- 48.1-% 100- 1- 28- 45- 200.0 % 3 300.0 % 0 .0 % 8 3 0 10 32.1-% 9- 36.0-% 6- 54.5-% 8- 8- 5- 16- .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 100.0-% 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 3- 0 0 3- ef: DIS032S pate: 6/21/00 i me : 10 : 0 4 : 3 7 chool: 020 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE ARGENTA ACADEMY -----------------------------------=================--==================--====== 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 ----------------------------------================---=================---===-== -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -======---------=-----------==================================================== S.A.C. 47 59.5% 14 17. 7% 18 22.8% 0 0 9-  0 79 25 9 11 0 45 0 HOME SUSP. 176 65.2% 35 13.0% 53 19.6% 6 2.2% 270 79 17 22 2 120 1 BOYS CLUB 0 09-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I.C. 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 1 100.0% 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 9-  0 1 1 0 0 0 1 ---==----------=-----------==================================================== 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 ----------------=------------=-----==============------==================-===--- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ----------------=------------=-----===============-----======================--= 9 S.A.C. 7 58.3% 3 25.0% 1 8.3% 1 8.3% 12 7 3 1 1 12 HOME SUSP. 126 65.3% 32 16.6% 33 17.1% 2 1.0% 193 62 21 20 1 104 1 BOYS CLUB 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I.C 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -=--------------=------------==========================-============------------ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ---------------=====------=====================================---------------- 9 S.A.C. 40- 85.1-% 11- 78.6-% 17- 94.4-% 1 100.0 % 67- 18- 6- 10- 1 33- 0 HOME SUSP. 50- 28.4-% 3- 8.6-% 20- 37.7-% 4- 66.7-% 77- 17- 4 2- 1- 16- BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I.C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 1- 100.0-% 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 1- 1- 0 0 0 1- DIS032S ate: 6/21/00 ime: 10:04:37 School: 024 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE RIDGEROAD MIDDLE SCHOOL 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU =====================-==------===========================================------- S.A.C. 228 56.7% 108 26.9% 57 14.2% 9 2.2% 402 98 56 35 8 197 HOME SUSP. 3 75.0% 1 25.0% 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 4 3 1 0 0 4 11 BOYS CLUB 121 63.4% 46 24.1% 19 9. 9% 5 2.6% 191 54 28 15 3 100 12 E. I.C. 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 2 66. 7% 1 33.3% 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 3 2 1 0 0 3 =========================================================================------- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ======================================================================---------- 09 S.A.C. 220 55. 7% 82 20.8% 52 13.2% 41 10.4% 395 103 48 31 21 203 10 HOME SUSP. 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 1 100.0% 1 0 0 0 1 1 11 BOYS CLUB 119 64.0% 33 17.7% 21 11. 3% 13 7.0% 186 66 23 19 6 114 12 E. I.C 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 1 100.0% 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 1 1 0 0 0 1 -======================================================================----====== COMPARISON ========================================================================-======- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ==================================================================-------------- '09 S.A.C. 8- 3.5-% 26- 24.1-% 5- 8.8-% 32 355.6 g.. 0 7- lf10 5 8- 4- 13 6 HOME SUSP. 3- 100.0-% 1- 100.0-% 0 .0 % 1 100.0 % 3- 3- 1- 0 1 3- 11 BOYS CLUB 2- 1.7-% 13- 28.3-% 2 10.5 % 8 160.0 % 5- 11112 12 5- 4 3 14 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .o % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1- 50.0-% 1- 100.0-% 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 2- 1- 1- 0 0 2-  DIS032S ate: 6/21/00 ime: 10:04:37 chool: 025 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE LAKEWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -===========----------------------==--========-==-------=============----------- 9 S.A.C. 129 54.0% 61 25.5% 27 11. 3% 22 9.2% 239 64 32 21 11 128 0 HOME SUSP. 3 100.0% 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 3 3 0 0 0 3 1 BOYS CLUB 42 72 .4% 16 27.6% 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 58 22 9 0 0 31 E. I.C. 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 ==========================================================================------ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -=======================================================================-------- 9 S.A.C. 96 45.7% 66 31.4% 41 19.5% 7 3.3% 210 48 37 28 5 118 HOME SUSP. 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 BOYS CLUB 13 35.1% 17 45.9% 6 16.2% 1 2.7% 37 9 12 5 1 27 2 E. I.C 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -======================================================================---====== COMPARISON ==================================================================------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ================================================================--------------- S.A.C. 33- 25.6-% 5 8.2 % 14 51.9 % 15- 68.2-% 29- 16- 5 7 6- 10- 0 HOME SUSP. 3- 100.0-% 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 3- 3- 0 0 0 3- BOYS CLUB 29- 69.0-% 1 6.3 % 6 600.0 % 1 100.0 % 21- 13 - 3 5 1 4- 2 E. I.C. 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .o % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIS03 ., 6/2 , 00 Time: 10: 0 37 School: C 6 ROSE Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU ----------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 134 49.6% 73 27.0% 55 20.4% 8 3.0% 270 62 42 30 6 140 10 HOME sm:?. 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 BOYS CL 3 54 43.2% 38 30.4% 28 22.4% 5 4.0% 125 30 21 17 2 70 12 E. I. C. 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ==========================================================================------ 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 --==========-======--------=============================================-------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------=---=-=-===---------===========================-===============---------- 09 S.A.C. 119 48.4% 62 25.2% 49 19.9% 16 6.5% 246 64 39 20 12 135 10 HOME SUSP. 1 33.3% 0 Og..  0 2 66. 7% 0 Og..  0 3 1 0 2 0 3 11 BOYS CLUB 41 41.8% 30 30.6% 26 26.5% 1 1.0% 98 22 17 13 1 53 12 E. I.C 0 09,  0 0 09,  0 0 09,  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---================================================================-------====== COMPARISON ===================================================================------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # sru #Sru #sru #Sru ==============================================================------------------ 09 S.A.C. 15- 11.2-% 11- 15.1-% 6- 10.9-% 8 100.0 % 24- 2 3- 10- 6 5- 10 HOME SUSP. 1 100.0 % 0 . 0 % 2 200.0 % 0 .0 % 3 1 0 2 0 3 11 BOYS CLUB 13- 24.1-% 8- 21.1-% 2- 7.1-% 4- 80.0-% 27- 8- 4- 4- 1- 17- 12 E. I. C. 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 g.. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 g.. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIS032S ate: 6/21/00 ime: 10:04:38 chool: 030 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE POPLAR STREET MIDDLE SCHOOL =======--------===============================================------ 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ----------- ====-------------=====================-----===============---------- 9 S.A.C. 226 53.6% 106 25.1% 79 18.7% 11 2.6% 422 88 50 42 10 190 0 HOME SUE 0 O!l,-  0 1 100.0% 0 O!l,-  0 0 O!l,-  0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 BOYS CLl, 21 60.0% 7 20.0% 7 20.0% 0 O!l,-  0 35 16 7 5 0 28 E. I.C. 0 O!l,-  0 0 O!l,-  0 0 O!l,-  0 1 O!l,-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSIO 0 O!l,-  0 0 O!l,-  0 0 O!l,-  0 1 100.0% 1 0 0 0 1 1 =============================================================------ 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ----------- -=======================================-==================--------- 9 S.A.C. 215 56.1% 117 30.5% 44 11. 5% 7 1.8% 383 84 60 28 6 178 HOME susr. 0 O!l,-  0 0 O!l,-  0 0 O!l,-  0 0 O!l,-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 BOYS CLU::., 30 55.6% 18 33.3% 5 9.3% 1 1.9% 54 21 14 3 1 39 2 E. I.C 0 O!l,-  0 0 O!l,-  0 0 O!l,-  0 0 O!l,-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSIO, 0 O!l,-  0 0 O!l,-  0 0 O!l,-  0 0 O!l,-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --=================================================================-----======= COMPARISON ===================================================================------------ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ===============================================================---------------- 9 S.A.C. 11- 4.9-% 11 10.4 % 35- 44.3-% 4- 36.4-% 39- 4- 10 14- 4- 12- 0 HOME SUSP. 0 .0 % 1- 100.0-% 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 1- 0 1- 0 0 1- BOYS CLUB 9 42.9 % 11 157.1 % 2- 28.6-% 1 100.0 % 19 5 7 2- 1 11 2 E.I.C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 1- 100.0-% 1- 0 0 0 1- 1- DIS032S ate: 6/21/00 ime: 10:04:38 chool: 031 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE AMBOY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----=-=-------------------------------=---------------------=======------------ 9 S.A.C. 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 31 86.1% 3 8.3% 2 5.6% 0 0!1--  0 36 16 3 2 0 21 1 BOYS CLUB 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I.C. 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -=====================-===============================================---------- 9 S.A.C. 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 42 75.0% 5 8.9% 7 12.5% 2 3.6% 56 20 5 6 2 33 1 BOYS CLUB 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I.C 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ----===============================================================------------- COMPARISON ---==========================================================--=--------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # ~TU # STU # STU --=============================-========================----------------------- S.A.C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 11 35.5 % 2 66.7 % 5 250.0 % 2 200.0 % 20 4 2 4 2 12 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I.C. 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 !1-- 0 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S ate: 6/21/00 ime: 10:04:38 ::\nchool: 032 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 S.A.C. 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 3 42.9% 0 09--  0 4 57.1% 0 0 9-  0 7 2 0 1 0 3 1 BOYS CLUB 0 09-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 09--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I.C. 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 09,  0 0 0 9-  0 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ==================-=--=================================================-------- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 =========================================================================----=== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU --=======================================================================----==== 9 S.A.C. 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 0 9,  0 0 09--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 1 16.7% 4 66. 7% 1 16. 7% 0 09--  0 6 1 3 1 0 5 1 BOYS CLUB 0 09,  0 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I.C 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -===================================================================------------ COMPARISON ==============================================================----------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU =========================================================---------------------- 9 S.A.C. 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 2- 66.7-% 4 400.0 % 3- 75.0-% 0 . 0 % 1- 1- 3 0 0 2 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 6/21/00 by School ime: 10:04:38 chool: 033 From AUGUST Through JUNE BOONE PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ----------- 9 S.A.C. 0 HOME SUS 1 BOYS CLl E. I.C. 7 EXPULSI 9 S.A.C. HOME SUS 1 BOYS CLC 2 E.I.C EXPULSIO ---------- 9 S.A.C. 0 HOME SUS BOYS CLU 2 E.I.C. 7 EXPULSIO 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ========------=-===========================================--------- 3 60.0% 1 20.0% 1 20.0% 0 Og..  0 5 3 1 1 0 5 104 82.5% 20 15.9% 0 Og..  0 2 1. 6% 126 57 12 0 1 70 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 09-,  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ===========-===========================-----=-=-=========----------- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 =======================================--=-=--=========-=---------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ======================================================------------- 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 051-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 73.4% 17 26.6% 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 64 31 9 0 0 40 0 Og..  0 0 051-  0 0 Og..  0 0 051-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 82.5% 20 16. 7% 0 Og..  0 1 851-  0 120 53 11 0 1 65 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ===================================================---------------- COMPARISON =================================================------------------ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU =======================================---===---------------------- 3- 100.0-% 1- 100.0-% 1- 100.0-% 0 . 0 % 5- 3- 1- 1- 0 5- 57- 54.8-% 3- 15.0-% 0 .0 % 2- 100.0-% 62- 26- 3- 0 1- 30- 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 . 0 % 20 .0 % 0 .0 % 1 . 0 % 120 99 20 0 1 65 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIS032S 6/21/00 10:04:38 035 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE SEVENTH STREET ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 '------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF-----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU =================---------------==============----====================---------- S.A.C. 1 100.0% 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 1 1 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 23 65.7% 12 34.3% 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 13 11 0 0 BOYS CLUB 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 0 0 0 0 E. I.C. 115 57.5% 82 41.0% o1 1. 5% 0 0~  0 51 33 3 . 0 EXPULSION 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 0 0 g.  0 0 0 g.  0 0 0 0 0 ~=====================---===-===================-=====================---------- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 -==================-----------================----===================----------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU --=================------------==============----------=--========----------==== S.A.C. 93 66.4% 41 29.3% 6 4.3% 0 Og.  0 140 42 26 5 0 73 HOME SUSP. 21 70.0% 5 16.7% 4 13.3% 0 0 g.  0 30 17 3 2 0 22 BOYS CLUB 0 0 g.  0 0 0 g.  0 0 0 g.  0 0 0 g.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I. C 4 100.0% 0 Og.  0 0 0 g.  0 0 Og.  0 4 4 0 0 0 4 EXPULSION 0 0 g.  0 0 Og.  0 0 0 g.  0 0 Og.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---=============================~= ==========================------------------- COMPARISO ==-============================ -----BM------ # REF PCT(+/-) # # STU # ==--=========================== S.A.C. 92 9200.0 % 41 HOME SUSP. 2- 8.7-% 4 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 E. I. C. 111- .0 % 1- EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 =============================------------------ --BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----SF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) TU # STU # STU =========-------------------------------------- 1 4100.0 % 6 600.0 % 0 .0 % 139 5 0 72 7- 58.3-% 4 400.0 % 0 .0 % 5- 3- 2 0 2- J . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 2- .0 % 3- .0 % 0 .0 % 196- 3- 0 83- 1 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 ) 0 0 0 DIS0 6/ Time: 10: School: S Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Joo by School :38 From AUGUST Through JUNE 7 LYNCH DRIVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU ----------- =====----------=============================================-------- 09 S.A.C. 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUS 36 80.0% 6 13.3% 2 4.4% 1 2.2% 45 27 5 2 1 35 11 BOYS CLU 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 62 72.1% 15 17.4% 0 5.8% 0 4.7% 86 39 11 5 4 59 17 EXPULSION 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 =========================================================================------- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 -==================-==================================-=================-------- -----BM-----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ---================------=============================--=-============---------- 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E.I.C 17 EXPULSION 0 0 16 11 0 0 38 24 0 0 09-  0 66.7% 09-  0 73.1% 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 6 25.0% 6 0 0 9-  0 0 11 21. 2% 11 0 09-  0 0 0 0 9-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 1 4.2% 1 4.2% 24 1 1 19 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 3 5.8% 0 09-  0 52 2 0 37 0 0 9-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 ---========= =====------=====================================-----------======-- COMPARISON ---========= =====-=----=================================----------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU =--=========== ===================================-=---------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 9- 0 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSI 20- 55.6-% 0 .0 % 1- 50.0-% 0 .0 % 21- 16- 1 1- 0 16- 11 BOYS CLUF 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 24- .0 % 4- .0 % 2- . 0 % 4- .0 % 34- 0 0 2- 4- 22- EXPDLSIO. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIS032S ate: 6/21/00 ime: 10: 04: 38 chool: 040 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE MEADOW PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL =============-------------------================================================ 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 ===========----------------------=========================================----- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ---------------------------------------=======--------===================------- 9 S.A.C. 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 47 73.4% 6 9.4% 5 7.8% 6 9.4% 64 23 6 4 3 36 1 BOYS CLUB 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E.I.C. 0 O!?-  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 O!?-  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 ---==============---------====--=======================================--------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ----===========-------------=-====================-----------=====------------- 9 S.A.C. 2 50.0% 1 25.0% 0 Og..  0 1 25.0% 4 2 1 0 1 4 HOME SUSP. 51 59.3% 14 16.3% 18 20.9% 3 3.5% 86 28 7 7 2 44 1 BOYS CLUB 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I.C 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 0 O!?-  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -----==============-----===========================================------------- COMPARISON -----============-----========================================------------=---- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU --===========================================================------------------ 9 S.A.C. 2 200.0 % 1 100.0 % 0 .0 % 1 100.0 % 4 2 1 0 1 4 0 HOME SUSP. 4 8.5 % 8 133.3 % 13 260.0 % 3- 50.0-% 22 5 1 3 1- 8 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I.C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 !?- 0 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIS032S ate: 6/21/00 ime: 10:04:38 chool: 041 Analysis o by School From Al NORTH HEIGHTS EL} -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # F # STU # s 8isciplinary Actions DST Through JUNE ENTARY SCHOOL -BF------ -----NBM----- ~ PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT J # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU --------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- 9 S.A.C. 0 Og..  0 J Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 CJ 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 28 50.9% 2 3.6% 24 43.6% 1 1.8% 55 16 2 18 1 37 1 BOYS CLUB 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I.C. 10 37.0% 3 11.1% 0 48.1% 0 3.7% 27 9 2 10 1 22 7 EXPULSION 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---==============---------------==============--=========================------ 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ====================----===---==========================================------- 9 S.A.C. 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 22 52.4% 1 2.4% 13 31.0% 6 14.3% 42 16 1 12 5 34 1 BOYS CLUB 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I.C 105 46.9% 32 14.3% 72 32.1% 15 6.7% 224 40 18 34 7 99 EXPULSION 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ----===============================================================------------- COMPARISON ---=========================================================------------===-=-= -----BM------ --- -BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # R-F PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # s~u # STU # STU -===============================-========================---------------------- S.A.C. 0 . 0 % . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 6- 21.4-% , 50.0-% 11- 45.8-% 5 500.0 % 13- ~ 0 . 6- 4 3- ~ BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % C .0 % 0 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I.C. 95 .0 g.. 0 29 .0 % 59 . 0 % 14 .0 % 197 10 1 , 59 14 77 7 EXPULSION 0 .0 % . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 DIS03 S ate: 6/2 _/00 i me : 10 : 0 . 3 8 chool: 0%2 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU --============-==----------======================---=====================-==---- 9 S.A.C. 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 23 67.6% 7 20.6% 2 5.9% 2 5.9% 34 16 5 2 2 25 1 BOYS CLUB 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 05!,,  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I.C. 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 -------------=---------------=-=================-===----=================------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ---=======================================================================------ 9 S.A.C. 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 15 55.6% 9 33.3% 3 11.1% 0 Og..  0 27 11 4 2 0 17 1 BOYS CLUB 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I.C 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 05!,,  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -=----------=======-------=====================================-==----------=--- COMPARISON ----===============================================================------------ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU =----====================================================---------------------- 9 S.A.C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 8- 34.8-% 2 28.6 % 1 50.0 % 2- 100.0-% 7- 5- 1- 0 2- 8- BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I.C. 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIS032S ate: 6/21/00 ime: 10:04:38 chool: 043 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE PARK HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ---===-====--==-------------===================================================- 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 ----=-=====--=-------------==================================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ---------=----------------------==============================================-- 9 S.A.C. 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 48 44.4% 33 30.6% 23 21.3% 4 3.7% 108 24 15 12 4 55 1 BOYS CLUB 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I.C. 19 59.4% 6 18.8% 0 18.8% 0 3.1% 32 15 6 6 1 28 7 EXPULSION 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------===----=------------========================-=======================-=--- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 -------=====-==-=----------========================-=======================----- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ----------======---------=========================--====-===============------- 9 S.A.C. 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 20 54 .1% 10 27.0% 7 18.9% 0 O!,.-  0 37 13 9 6 0 28 1 BOYS CLUB 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I.C 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -=----=================================================================--------- COMPARISON -=-------==========----=-========================================--------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) #SW # SW #SW #SW ---======= ==========--=--==========================---------------------------- S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SU 28- 58.3-% 23- 69.7-% 16- 69.6-% 4- 100.0-% 71- 11- 6- 6- 4- 27- BOYS CL 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I.C. 19- . 0 % 6- .0 % 6- .0 % 1- .0 % 32- 1- 1- 6- 1- 28- EXPULSI 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIS032S ate: 6/21/00 i me : l O : O 4 : 3 8 :::\nchool: 044 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL -----=--------=--==--------===================================================-= l 9 9 8 - 9 9 ---------------------------------=============-=============================--= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ---------=------------------==================================================== 9 S.A.C. 0 Os-  0 0 Os-  0 0 0 s-  0 0 Os-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 17 77.3% 2 9 .1% 3 13. 6% 0 Os-  0 22 12 2 2 0 16 1 BOYS CLJB 0 0 s-  0 0 Os-  0 0 0 s-  0 0 Os-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I.C. 4 100.0% 0 Os-  0 0 Os-  0 0 Os-  0 4 4 0 0 0 4 7 EXPULSION 0 Os-  0 0 Os-  0 0 0 s-  0 0 0 s-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ----=---=-----=-----------==============================================------- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 ------=------=====--------===========================-===================------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ----=====-=======------==================================================------ 9 S.A.C. 0 0 s-  0 0 0 s-  0 0 0 s-  0 0 Os-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 9 100.0% 0 Os-  0 0 Os-  0 0 Os-  0 9 7 0 0 0 7 1 BOYS CLUB 0 0 s-  0 0 Os-  0 0 Os-  0 0 Os-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I.C 0 0 s-  0 0 Os-  0 0 Os-  0 0 Os-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 0 0 s-  0 0 Os-  0 0 0 s-  0 0 0 s-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------===============-==============================================------------ COMPARISON -----=============================================================------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU =---=======================================================-------============= S.A.C. 0 .0 s- 0 0 . 0 s- 0 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 8- 47.1-% 2- 100.0-% 3- 100.0-% 0 .0 % 13- 5- 2- 2- 0 9- BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I.C. 4- .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 4- 1- 0 0 0 4- 7 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIS032S ate: 6/21/00 i me : 10 : 0 4 : 3 8 chool: 045 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE BELWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU ---============-=----------===================================================== 9 S.A.C. 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 4 50.0% 3 37.5% 1 12.5% 0 O!l-  0 8 1 2 1 0 4 1 BOYS CLUB 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I.C. 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 O!l-  0 0 02,,  0 0 02,,  0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 ---================--------==============================================------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ----====-=======----------==========================--===============-------=-- 9 S.A.C. 0 02,,  0 0 02,,  0 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 5 62.5% 1 12.5% 2 25.0% 0 02,,  0 8 5 1 2 0 8 1 BOYS CLUB 0 02,,  0 0 02,,  0 0 Og,.  0 0 Og,.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I.C 0 O!l-  0 0 02,,  0 0 Og,.  0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 1 100.0% 0 02,,  0 1 0 0 1 0 1 -----=============-----==========================================--------====--- COMPARISON ---==============================================================--------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) #SW #Sru #Sru #Sru =-=========================================================---------============ S.A.C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 1 25.0 % 2- 66.7-% 1 100.0 % 0 .0 % 0 4 1- 1 0 4 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I. C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 1 100.0 % 0 .0 % 1 0 0 1 0 1 Disors ate: 6/2\" loo 'ime: 10:04.38 chool: 046 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL -----------~-----------------------==============------==================-====== 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 ---------------=------------========================-========================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -----====-=-----==-=--------=======================---========================== S.A.C. 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 3 60.0% 2 40.0% 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 5 3 2 0 0 5 1 BOYS CLUB 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I.C. 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---------------==----------======================----===================-=----- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 -----==---=-----====-------=========================--===================-=-=--- -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ---------------==----------======================----=================--------- 9 S.A.C. HOME SUS 1 BOYS CLU- 2 E.I.C EXPULSIC ---======= 9 S.A.C. 0 HOME SUS BOYS CLU_ E. I.C. 7 EXPULSIO! 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100.0% 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0% 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -=====--------=======================================-------------- COMPARISON ========---========================================---------=------ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT ( +/-) # REF PCT ( +/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT ( +/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU =============================================-----------====------ 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 !!- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2- 66.7-% 2- 100.0-% 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 4- 2- 2- 0 0 4- 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 !!- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 % 0 .0 %- 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 !!- 0 0 .0 !!- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIS032S 6/21/00 ime: 10: 04: 38 School: 048 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE INDIAN HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU ====================----===========================-================------------ S.A.C. 32 47.8%- 17 25.4%- 18 26. 9%- 0 0 2--  0 67 21 12 11 0 44 HOME SUSP. 7 50.0%- 5 35.7%- 2 14.3%- 0 02--  0 14 5 4 2 0 11 BOYS CLUB 0 0 2--  0 0 02--  0 0 02--  0 0 0 2--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I.C. 1 100.0%- 0 0 2--  0 0 02--  0 0 0 2--  0 1 1 0 0 0 1 EXPULSION 0 0 2--  0 0 02--  0 0 0 2--  0 0 0 2--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ========================================================================-------- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 -===================--==================================================---===== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -===================--================================================----====== S.A.C. 18 36.7%- 16 32.7%- 13 26.5%- 2 4 . 1%- 49 10 12 12 1 35 HOME SUSP. 12 46.2%- 7 26.9%- 6 23.1%- 1 3 . 8%- 26 10 7 5 1 23 BOYS CLUB 0 0 2--  0 0 0 2--  0 0 02--  0 0 02--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E.I.C 0 0 2--  0 0 0 2--  0 0 02--  0 0 02--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 0 0 2--  0 0 0 2--  0 0 O!l,.  0 0 02--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---========================================================--------------------- COMPARISON --==========================================================--==---------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ---======================================================----------------------- S.A.C. 14- 43.8-%- 1- 5.9-%- 5- 27.8-%- 2 200.0 %- 18- 11- 0 1 1 9- HOME SUSP. 5 71.4 %- 2 40.0 %- 4 200.0 %- 1 100.0 %- 12 5 3 3 1 12 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 %- 0 .0 %- 0 . 0 %- 0 .0 %- 0 0 0 0 0 0 E.I.C. 1- . 0 %- 0 .0 %- 0 . 0 %- 0 .0 %- 1- 1- 0 0 0 1- EXPULSION 0 .0 %- 0 .0 %- 0 . 0 %- 0 .0 %- 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIS032S 6/21/00 ime: 10:04:38 chool: 049 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE REDWOOD PRE-SCHOOL 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT #\" REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -===============-==--------------========================================------- S.A.C. 0 09,.  0 0 0 g..  0 0 09,.  0 0 09,.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 2 100.0% 0 09,.  0 0 09,.  0 0 09,.  0 2 2 0 0 0 2 BOYS CLUB 0 09,.  0 0 09,.  0 0 09,.  0 0 09,.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I.C. 0 09,.  0 0 09,.  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 09,.  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 -========================================================================------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU --=================-----=====--========================================--------- S.A.C. 0 09,.  0 0 09,.  0 0 09,.  0 0 O!e-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 3 100.0% 0 O!e-  0 0 O!e-  0 0 O!e-  0 3 2 0 0 0 2 BOYS CLUB 0 09,.  0 0 09,.  0 0 09,.  0 0 09,.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I.C 0 Og..  0 0 09,.  0 0 Og..  0 0 09,.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 0 09,.  0 0 Og..  0 0 09,.  0 0 09,.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --==================================================================------------ COMPARISON ---=============================================================---------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # R3F PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-} # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # S :'U # STU # STU =-=============================================================-=-============== S.A.C. 0 .0 % .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 1 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 1 50.0 % .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 1 0 0 0 0 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 NCJrth Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions School Year 1999-2000 District Level Elementary Middle Schools High Schools 7 year Comparison Graphs 1 1 1 1 N4t\u0026gt;rth Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level 600-/ .--. 400- v,_ ,c.._ 200- ~- 000- V\"\u0026gt;- 800- v ..... 600- i.-- 400- i.-- 200- vi- 0 - BM D 98-99 1443 D 99-00 1468 Action 09: SAC ~ ~. I!:.-- ,____ - u BF NBM 718 458 662 401 I I NBF 138 139 IL 98-99  99-00 Ne\u0026gt;rth Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level ,Action 10: Home Suspension 600 _,, ,.c:\n500- i,,t- - 400- --~ - 300- v- 98-99  99-00 200 _,,c- FL ~ 100~,,--- ~ I - -:.a 0-. - - ---- I I --.. BM BF NBM NBF 11198-99 566 141 125 22 I  99-00 I 406 113 102 18 Nce\u0026gt;rth Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Action 11: Boys Club 400-~ - 350-\" L..... 300- 1,- 250- L, '-- 200- 1,/-- 98-99 150- I,~ ~ b  99-00 100- i..,'- ~ 50- 1.,'-- ~ 0 - fl L BM BF NBM NBF ltil 98-99 359 148 88 22 D 99-00 351 129 90 27 Nt:\u0026gt;rth Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Alction 12: Alt School Susp K-5 250- ,.c::::\ne::. 200- 1,1\u0026gt;- 150- ,..~ - ..:::::::.j 98-99 100- i..,t-  99-00 ~ -'-- 50- i,,- ~ ,,c=\n. 0 - ---- - ~ BM BF NBM NBF !D 98-99 211 106 27 6  99-00 246 63 75 16 N,orth Little Rock Public Schools A.nalysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Action 17: Expulsion 7- ,,c,\n...:.\n:. 6- I\n',- 5- 1,t- 4- .,,- .,,,- - 98-99 3-  99-00 2- 1,,- L- - 1 -1,t- F-- - 0- - - - - - BM BF NBM NBF a 98-99 7 2 1 1 D 99-00 3 0 2 0 N:\u0026gt;rth Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Action 09: SAC 120-\" ~ 100- so-~ 60-\"' - ~ 98-99  99-00 40_L, - c.::::. 20- L,~ .c=. - I L::::::.i!ll 0 - - - BM BF NBM NBF l'!l 98-99 36 18 19 0 D 99-00 113 58 19 3  II N4:\u0026gt;rth Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 J\"ction 10: Home Suspension 400-\" c::: 350- 1,,I- 300- I,,~ - - 250- ,..,- 200- ~,- 98-99 150- 1,,I-  99-00 100- ~,- ,._ '=- ~ ~ 50- i,t- ,...__ - -- ~ 0 - I ~ BM BF NBM NBF .198-99 374 101 68 16 0 99-00 263 80 62 13 Ne\u0026gt;rth Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 q Action 11: Boys Club II 1 _,, 0.9 _v 0.8 _v 0.7-.., 0.6 _v 0.5 _v 98-99 0.4-,,  99-00 0.3-\" 0.2--- 0.1 _,, 0 BM BF NBM NBF ID 98-99 0 0 0 0 a 99-00 0 0 0 0 II N:\u0026gt;rth Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Alction 12: Alt School Susp K-5 250_/ c::::: C: 200- ,,._ 150- v- 100- i,,- 50- L,- 0- - ..___,_,_ BM la 98-99 211 D 99-00 246 ,.c::::\n- ~ -= BF 106 63 .t::::i .t:=. NBM 27 75 Ff1 NBF 6 16 98-99  99-00 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Action 17: Expulsion 1 - ,L.._ 0.9-\" 0.8 _,, 0.7--- 0.6 _v 0.5 _v 98-99 0.4-v  99-00 0.3 _,, 0.2-\"' 0.1-  0 - - - - BM BF NBM NBF I  98-99 0 0 0 0 D 99-00 0 0 1 0 N,orth Little Rock Public Schools A.nalysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools Action 09: SAC 800-\" ::: 700- I,,'- - - 600- i,'- 500- i,'- 400-1,, ~ 98-99 ~ 300- i,,'- ~  99-00 200-L, ~ ,___ ~ \u0026gt;--- s-:-: ,__ ,____ \u0026gt;--- 100- i.,'- 0 ._ - Lr=fll. BM BF NBM NBF ID 98-99 744 353 224 50 D 99-00 652 329 186 71 q II N4t\u0026gt;rth Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools ~\"ction 10: Home Suspension 100 _,, ,,c..- 90- v- 80- ..-. 70- v- 60- - I,,,- 50- - - 98-99 40- i,,\u0026gt;-  99-00 30- i,, .... ~ ~ ,.:=\n20- 1,, .... ,___ -.-- 10- .,- - 0 - - --- - - BM BF NBM NBF Im 98-99 100 23 29 3 D 99-00 47 14 28 1 NDrth Little Rock Public Schools A.nalysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools 250-\n200- ,.~ 150- i..,'- 100- ,-'- 50- i..,'- 0 - ID 98-99  99-00 Action 11: Boys Club .::.::: '-- ,_ ..c:::\njl E:,_ - ,_ ~ L\"\"\"\"\"\".:ll - ---- F1 L,. BM BF NBM NBF 238 107 54 10 203 98 58 16 98-99  99-00 Ni\u0026gt;rth Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools A~ction 12: Alt School Susp K-5 1 _,, 0.9 _,, 0.8- 0.7 _,, 0.6 _,, 0.5-\" 98-99 0.4 _v  99-00 0.3 _v 0.2 _v 0.1 - 0 - BM BF NBM NBF ID 98-99 0 0 0 0 D 99-00 0 0 0 0 II N\u0026gt;rth Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools 2-' 1.8- 1\n1- 1.6- 1.,t- 1.4- i,,- 1.2- v\u0026gt;- 1 -1,,\u0026gt;- 0.8- ..-. 0.6- I, 1-- 0.4- ..-. 0.2- ,,- 0 ...., CJ 98-99 D 99-00 Action 17: Expulsion rL- '-- ~ ~ .,__ - - - BM BF NBM NBF 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 - -  98-99 D 99-00 -IIJ II Nc,rth Little Rock Public Schools A1nalysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 09: SAC 800-\" 700 _,, - ~ 600-\n\u0026gt;- 500- v\u0026gt;- 400- v,_ ~ 98-99 300- v- ---  99-00 - 200- v- ~ 100- i,,- 11.. 0- ... BM BF NBM NBF ID 98-99 663 347 215 88 D 99-00 703 275 196 65 Nctrth Little Rock Public Schools A1r1alysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Jlction 10: Home Suspension 1ool ..c:::: 90-\" ~ 80- ...... 70- v- 60- ,,- 50- ...- 40- .,,- 30- i.,\u0026gt;- ,.t::::: 20- ..-. ,, ~ - 10- 1,,- - ..__ .. ..__ A -..., 0- -- BM BF NBM NBF  98-99 90 17 28 3  99-00 94 19 12 4 98-99  99-00 North Little Rock Public Schools Araalysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 11: Boys Club ,\n' ~ ~ -- 160- 140- 120- .,,-z:::: 100- 1, 1-- _.,-- 60- 40- 20 0- - 1,\n'- L,'- ... BM 121 148 -b -- ~ ' I BF NBM NBF 41 34 12 31 32 11 -- L . 98-99 099-00 NCJrth Little Rock Public Schools A11alysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 12: Alt School Susp K-5 1T 0.9j 0.8 _v 0.7 _v 0.6 _v 0.5 _v 98-99 0.4-v  99-00 0.3\" 0.2- 0.1 _,, 0 - - - - BM BF NBM NBF D 98-99 0 0 0 0 D 99-00 0 0 0 0 Ncrth Little Rock Public Schools A1r1alysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 17: Expulsion -r -- _\n-- _..,..- _ 1,1.. ...\n- _v- . ,,-,\n__.\n\u0026gt;- _,-,, '-- - _,\u0026gt;.- - - -- 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 BM BF NBM NBF 5 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 98-99 099-00 North Little Rock Public Schools Aa,1alysis of Disciplinary Actions 7 Year Comparison Action 09: SAC 21000 _________ ___, 1500 93-94 1000  94-95  95-96 500  96-97  97-98 0 BM BF NBM NBF  98-99 1 93-94 977 529 449 156  99-00  94-95 869 460 411 126  95-96 1052 446 410 140  96-97 1264 55 469 142  97-98 1801 862 547 132  98-99 1443 718 458 138  99-00 1468 662 401 139 Nctrth Little Rock Public Schools A1r1alysis of Disciplinary Actions 7 Year Comparison ~lction 10: Home Suspension tSOO !500 ,400 93-94 300  94-95 200  95-96  96-97 100  97-98 0 BM BF NBM NBF  98-99 93-94 231 60 76 22  99-00 D 94-95 236 106 103 20  95-96 162 46 47 3  96-97 591 208 125 17  97-98 511 125 104 13  98-99 566 141 125 22  99-00 406 113 102 18 North Little Rock Public Schools Ar1alysis of Disciplinary Actions 7 Year Comparison Action 11: Boys Club EiOO !iOO ~,oo 93-94 :JOO  94-95 !ZOO  95-96  96-97 100  97-98 0 BM BF NBM NBF  98-99 1J 93-94 119 39 39 9  99-00 [] 94-95 133 44 31 a 1195-96 334 82 72 12 1196-97 357 146 85 20 1197-98 515 148 112 a 1198-99 359 148 88 22 1199-00 351 129 90 27 No,rth Little Rock Public Schools A11alysis of Disciplinary Actions 7 Year Comparison Acction 12: Alt School Susp K-5 2000~------~ 1500 93-94 1000  94-95  95-96 500  96-97  97-98 0 BM BF NBM NBF  98-99 93-94 168 54 45 8  99-00 a 94-95 178 68 58 5  95-96 1563 492 510 71  96-97 154 30 32 3  97-98 0 0 0 0  98-99 211 106 27 6  99-00 246 63 75 16 Nc,rth Little Rock Public Schools A1nalysis of Disciplinary Actions 7 Year Comparison Action 17: Expulsion 8 .....-----------, 6 93-94 4  94-95  95-96 2  96-97  97-98 0 BM BF NBM NBF  98-99 1193-94 6 4 3 0  99-00 ,:J 94-95 7 0 1 0  95-96 2 1 0 2  96-97 3 7 0 0  97-98 6 5 0 0  98-99 7 2 1 1  99-00 3 0 2 0\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_420","title":"Discipline, management 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":["1999/2000"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School discipline","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Discipline, management 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/420"],"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\ne, Recidivism Report - Black/White Year: Quarter: Quarter:  Counts Each Student Once I LEVEL SCHQQL BM BF fYM WF QM QF Total Senior High ACC LEARN 3 0 3 1 0 0 7 agencies 10 1 1 0 0 0 12 1 received CENTRAL FAIR 85 31 24 2 0 0 142 112 72 22 14 5 1 226 JUN 212001 HALL 207 93 24 13 16 6 3S9 MCCLELLA 148 99 S 7 4 2 26S OfflCEOF desegregation MONITORING METRO PARKVIEW 25 29 6 9 7 3 0 0 43 8 3 1 0 55 Middle Schoo ALT LEARN 64 24 2 4 CLOVR JR 171 87 11 6 DUNBAR 85 42 16 2 FORST HT 119 64 28 3 HENDERSN 67 42 12 4 Elementary MABELJR MANN M/S PULHTJ SOUTHWST BALE BASELINE BOOKER BRADY CARVER CHICOT DODD FAIR PRK FORST PK FRANKUN Tuesday, May OS, 2001 68 29 19 6 54 19 22 3 31 88 6 3 8 1 15 11 7 3 7 44 57 22 4 59 2 2 1 3 2 4 1 0 1 17 6 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Senior High 1112 1 0 95 10 4 269 0 5 2 2 0 0 2 3 3 1 2 0 0 0 Middle Schoo 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 148 222 128 126 98 164 159 1409 8 5 14 4 17 19 11 4 8 61 Fage I of 2 I I asm SOAS ojni TTOZTZC rvd iT:60 T0/80/S0Recidivism Report - Black/White Year\n Quarter: 1 Quarter\n4 Counts Each Student Once LEVEL SCHQQL BM BF WM WF OM QF Totai Elementary FULBRIGH GEYER SP 13 18 GIBBS 12 18 3 3 1 0 0 0 7 1 4 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 JEFFRSN 9 5 2 0 0 0 16 M U KING 12 0 0 S 2 S 0 MABEL EL 29 10 47 MCDERMOT 19 24 MEADCLIF 13 14 MITCHELL 22 30 5 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 2 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 OTTER CR 0 2 0 1 0 0 3 PULHTE 7 2 0 0 0 0 9 RIGHTSEL 2 2 0 0 0 0 4 ROCKFELR 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 ROMINE 6 4 1 1 0 0 12 0 TERRY 13 23 WAKEFIEL 21 26 1 9 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 WASHNGTN a 0 0 2 0 1 5 0 WATSON 12 17 5 0 0 0 WESTHIL 13 1 0 0 0 3 9 4 0 WILLIAMS 11 17 2 0 0 WILSON 2 3 0 0 0 0 5 WOODRUFF 0 7 4 3 0 0 0 Elementary 487 Tuesday, May OS, 2001 CO asl SOAS OJMI Grand Total 3008 Page 2 af 2 TtOZfZC IVd il-:80 T0/80/S0RECEiVEC APR 6 JffW mwmniiie: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1999-2000 ANNUAL DISCIPLINARY MANAGEMENT REPORT TO: FROM: SLTBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 June 28,2000 Dr. Leslie Carnine, Superintendent Linda Watson, Assistant Superintendent Student Discipline 1999-2000 Annual Disciplinary Management Report The following data represents the Annual Disciplinary Management Report for the 1999-2000 school year. A comparative summary of the 1998-99 and 1999-2000 school years is presented. The Discipline Sanctions by Reason Codes and Recidivism Reports for the 1999-2000 school year are also included.1999-2000 ANNUAL DISCIPLINARY MANAGEMENT REPORT SUMMARY During the 1999-2000 school year, the Little Rock School District experienced a decrease in the number of disciplinary sanctions issued to students when compared to the 1998- 1999 school year. The data indicates that during the 1998-1999 school year 5312 suspensions were issued when compared to 4926 suspensions during the 1999-2000 school year, which represents a decrease of 386 suspensions. When the 1999-2000 school year was compared to the 1997-1998 school year, there was a noticeable decrease of 1321 suspensions. There were 25,190 students enrolled in the LRSD according to the October 1, 1999, enrollment figure. The recidivism report indicates that only 11.9 percent of the students enrolled in the District received suspensions during the 1999-2000 school year when compared to 12.9 percent during the 1998-1999 school year and 14.5 percent during the 1997-98 school year. 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 Short-term suspensions 5664 4865 4588 Long-term suspensions 474 446 335 Expulsions 109 1 3 TOTALS 6247 5312 4926 Number of students committing offenses 3585(6247) 3237(5312) 3011(4926) The disciplinary report also indicates that fewer than two 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, staff assaults, knives with two and one-half inch blades, handguns, rifles, shotguns, explosives, clubs and gang activity. The District can contribute this success to the establishment of middle schools, which moved the 9* grade students to the high school level and the 6* grade students to the middle school level. The success can also be contributed to the revamping of the Districts Alternative Learning Environments coupled with the implementation of the Accelerated Learning Program at Metropolitan Career and Technical Education Center. The Disciplinary Management Report indicates that the number of students receiving suspensions at the high school level increased. However, the number of studentsreceiving suspension at the middle school and elementary levels decreased, information below represents the nrunber of suspensions for a three-year period: The 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 High Schools 1311 1226 1762 Middle Schools 3455 2976 2505 Elementary Schools 1481 1110 659 TOTALS 6247 5312 4926Name /\\CC LEARN AGENCIES CENTRAL FAIR HALL MCCLELLA METRO PARKVIEW Totals ALT LEARN CLOVR JR DUNBAR FORST HT HENDERSN MABEL JR MANN M/S PULHTJ SOUTHWST Totals BALE BASELINE BOOKER BRADY CARVER CHICOT DODD FAIR PRK FORST PK FRANKLIN School Enrolled 205 118 2045 955 1391 1192 0 1157 7063 63 705 739 785 551 494 842 760 447 5386 312 296 534 348 525 510 203 221 318 485 ITednesday, June 2S, 2000 %Blk 77% 49% 57% 80% 71% 89% 0% 50% 68% 90% 88% 60% 65% 77% 73% 52% 60% 91% 69% 74% 85% 51% 71% 52% 67% 65% 72% 44% 96% LRSD Discipline Management Report 1999/2000 Year Short Term Suspension BM BF IFM T otal 1 0 3 1 5 14 1 1 0 16 136 170 362 218 22 34 957 101 364 144 229 110 97 73 156 169 1443 9 2 7 1 14 10 7 3 12 63 43 103 162 142 8 8 467 37 118 72 105 60 41 31 74 95 633 2 3 1 3 2 4 1 0 1 25 27 33 62 13 3 7 149 7 38 28 55 18 31 25 32 16 250 0 0 5 0 0 3 3 1 0 0 2 20 23 14 0 7 67 9 11 11 6 6 6 3 4 7 63 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 208 326 609 387 33 56 1640 154 531 255 395 194 175 132 266 287 2389 11 5 14 4 16 18 11 4 13 88 Long Term Suspension ! ' ' \"' BM \\bP i lEM I WF Total 2 1 5 14 37 17 1 4 81 14 14 5 7 4 8 5 4 5 66 0 1 1 0 4 3 1 0 0 10 0 1 1 5 3 2 1 1 14 5 5 0 9 1 1 3 3 5 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 0 0 2 1 1 8 7 8 3 0 2 22 0 0 3 2 4 0 1 0 2 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 5 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d 0 0 27 49 22 2 9 Expulsion Recommendation BM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 122 0 20 19 8 18 9 11 9 7 12 113 0 1 1 0 4 3 2 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BF IFM fVF Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total HSiisp 8 18 216 353 658 409 35 65 1762 174 550 263 413 203 186 141 273 302 2505 11 6 15 4 20 21 13 4 13 99 %Blk 38% 94% 86% 83% 86% 93% 91% 72% 86% 90% 91% 84% 85% 86% 79% 79% 87% 92% 87% 100% 100% 60% 100% 100% 81% 69% 75% 100% 100% Page 1 of 2Name FULBRIGH GARLAND GEYER SP GIBBS JEFFRSN M L KING MABEL EL MCDERMOT MEADCLIF MITCHELL OTTER CR PUL HT E RIGHTSEL ROCKFELR ROMINE TERRY WAKEFIEL School Enrolled %Blk 410 267 324 285 370 612 378 373 251 247 349 306 269 401 322 515 334 41% 94% 82% 52% 39% 55% 74% 57% 79% 97% 47% 57% 97% 61% 66% 46% 84% WASHNGTN 543 61% WATSON 445 WEST HIL 255 WILLIAMS 458 WILSON 313 WOODRUFF Totals GTotal 99/00 282 12061 24510 Wednesday, June 28, 2000 LRSD Discipline Management Report 1999/2000 Year Short Term Suspension Long Term Suspension 94% 75% 51% 89% 80% BM 2 0 15 15 11 4 39 66% 67% BF ITM WF j T oial BM T BF IVM IFF Total 3 0 1 4 7 2 4 1 0 6 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0! 0 0 1 4 0 20 1 0 0 0 1 2 2 2 15 30 2 4 0 0 0 2 0 19 22 0 7 1 4 6 23 22 2 10 9 11 4 6 390 2790 1 8 2 1 0 0 4 2 12 1 2 3 0 3 5 109 1209 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 53 452 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 137 21 20 8 60 36 20 31 3 8 1 4 12 31 34 6 12 13 11 7 11 559 4588 4 0 2 7 1 1 7 0 1 1 0 0 2 5 4 2 0 4 1 1 67 214 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 0 0 12 58 1 0 5 0 0 0 3 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 21 55l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 14 1 1 7 0 2 3 0 0 8 5 5 5 1 10 1 1 Expulsion Recommendation BM 100 335 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3| 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total WM \\wF j Total itSusp %Blk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T 0 0 8 88% I 0 i -+ 0 ! 0 0 0 0 1 21 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 h 0 i 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 74 37 100% 81% 88% 90% 62% 70% 89% T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 21 38 3 10 4 4 12 39 39 11 17 14 21 8 12 659 4926 100% 97% 67% 100% 100% 100% 83% 69% 100% 64% 100% 93% 81% 100% 100% 88% 87% Page 2 of 2Discipline Sanctions by Reason Code Year: 2000 Quarter: 1 to Quarter: 4 27-Jun-OO Level School Lvl Code Offense BM WM OM BF WF OF Total Senior High ACC LEARN 2 2 2 3 3 3 080 090 115 000 090 091 Malicious Mischief / Vandalis Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Repeat Violation USE RAP RINGS,CHEMICA Possession of Weapon Possession Weapon/Knife 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 1 1 1 8 Senior High AGENCIES 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 050 062 040 no 115 121 072 Left School w/o Permission Reftised to obey Rule/Directi Fighting Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Repeated Violation-Smoking Verbal Assault on Staff 1 0 4 7 I 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 7 1 2 2 18 Senior High CENTRAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 030 050 060 090 no 131 132 133 010 020 030 040 080 090 100 105 no 115 121 122 150 010 072 091 092 120 121 140 Minor Altercation Left School w/o Permission Failure to Follow Rui. or Dir. Refused to Serve Detention Using Foul or Abusive Langu First Offense Use/Poss Alcoh Use/Poss. Drugs (1st) Repeated School/Class Tardie Assault Battery Theft Fighting Malicious Mischief / Vandalis Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Indecent Exposure Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Repeated Violation-Smoking Forgery/Failure to Provide ID Poss, or Use Alcohol/Drugs Sale/Distribution of Alcohol Verbal Assault on Staff Possession Weapon/Knife Possession Weapon/Club Inciting to Riot Use of Weapon TERRORISTIC THREATENI 1 0 2 1 0 1 5 0 2 4 4 22 2 5 1 2 8 72 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 8 8 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 15 0 0 1 4 4 14 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 1 1 1 7 1 4 4 4 38 3 6 3 6 21 94 2 4 3 1 I 1 1 2 1 1 216 Senior High FAIR 1 1 1 2 2 060 062 110 010 020 Failure to Follow Rui. or Dir. Refused to obey Rule/Directi Using Foul or Abusive Langu Assault Battery 1 1 1 6 9 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 2 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 23 14 LRSD Information Services 1Level School Lvl Code Offense BM WM OM BF WF OF Total Senior High FAIR 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 030 040 070 080 090 100 no 115 120 121 122 150 000 010 060 071 072 090 100 121 140 Theft Fighting Loitering / Criminal Tresspas Malicious Mischief! Vandalis Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Indecent Exposure Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Repeated Violation-Smoking Forgery/Failure to Provide ID Poss, or Use Alcohol/Drugs USE RAP RINGS.CHEMICA Sale/Distribution of Alcohol Arson Physical Assault of Staff Verbal Assault on Staff Possession ofWeapon Poss Fireworks or Explosives Use ofWeapon TERRORISTIC THREATEN! 1 24 4 4 12 2 3 76 1 5 2 18 0 4 1 1 3 0 1 0 4 0 5 5 1 2 0 I 7 1 3 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 , 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 21 0 1 8 0 5 38 0 9 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 2 0 3 0 2 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 52 11 7 26 2 II 128 2 19 5 20 2 4 1 2 5 2 1 2 8 353 Senior High HALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 030 040 050 060 062 090 no 131 132 133 010 020 030 040 070 080 090 100 105 110 115 120 121 122 140 150 000 010 071 072 090 091 120 121 Minor Altercation Harrassment Left School w/o Permission Failure to Follow Rui. or Dir. Refused to obey Rule/Directi Refused to Serve Detention Using Foul or Abusive Langu First Offense Use/Poss Alcoh Use/Poss. Drugs (1st) Repeated School/Class Tardie Assault Battery Theft Fighting Loitering / Criminal Tresspas Malicious Mischief / Vandalis Non-threaten, Profanity/Staff Indecent Exposure Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Repeated Violation-Smoking Forgeiy/Failure to Provide ID Possession of Fireworks Poss, or Use Alcohol/Drugs USE RAP RINGS.CHEMICA Sale/Distribution of Alcohol Physical Assault of Staff Verbal Assault on Staff Possession ofWeapon Possession Weapon/Knife Inciting to Riot Use ofWeapon 1 3 7 1 5 1 4 0 1 33 2 7 2 16 14 1 35 4 43 39 130 I 3 2 2 5 1 3 4 6 1 0 21 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 2 0 2 0 0 5 0 3 2 16 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 I 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 2 0 10 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 4 0 0 1 3 1 2 1 0 13 0 3 3 14 II 0 14 0 7 19 56 0 2 6 0 2 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 5 1 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 3 7 2 11 3 6 2 1 53 2 12 6 35 27 1 56 5 60 61 219 2 5 12 2 10 2 3 5 9 1 1 27 1 LRSD Information Services 2Level School Lvl Code Offense BM WM OM BF WF OF Total 658 Senior High MCCLELLA 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 030 040 050 060 062 100 110 132 133 140 010 020 030 040 070 080 090 100 105 no 115 120 150 000 071 072 091 092 120 140 Minor Altercation Harrassment Left School w/o Permission Failure to Follow Rul. or Dir. Refused to obey Rule/Directi Smoking Using Foul or Abusive Langu Use/Poss. Drugs (1st) Repeated School/Class Tardie Fais, of Info/Records (Elem) Assault Battery Theft Fighting Loitering / Criminal Tresspas Malicious Mischief / Vandalis Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Indecent Exposure Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Poss, or Use Alcohol/Drugs USE RAP RINGS,CHEMICA Physical Assault of Staff Verbal Assault on Staff Possession Weapon/Knife Possession Weapon/Club Inciting to Riot TERRORISTIC THREATENI 2 1 23 28 5 2 5 2 17 1 2 6 2 27 6 0 20 1 9 12 42 1 4 1 1 4 3 1 6 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 12 17 3 0 3 0 25 0 4 3 1 31 4 1 10 0 3 1 23 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 40 48 8 2 8 2 43 1 8 9 3 60 II 2 33 2 13 14 71 1 4 1 1 6 5 1 6 2 409 Senior High METRO 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 050 060 062 070 no 010 040 080 090 100 115 120 123 072 140 Left School w/o Permission Failure to Follow Rui. or Dir. Refused to obey Rule/Directi Refused to obey Bus Rules\u0026amp; Using Foul or Abusive Langu Assault Fighting Malicious Mischief / Vandalis Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Indecent Exposure Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Use of Paging Devices Verbal Assault on Staff TERRORISTIC THREATENI 4 3 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 2 1 4 1 5 1 4 1 1 1 2 1 1 35 Senior High PARKVIEW 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 030 040 090 105 no 115 120 Theft Fighting Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Harassing Communications 3 8 2 3 6 10 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 11 8 3 8 12 2 LRSD Information Services 3Level School LvI Code Offense BM WM OM BF WF OF Total Senior High PARKVIEW 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 121 122 150 072 090 091 140 Repeated Violation-Smoking Forgery/Failure to Provide ID Poss, or Use Alcohol/Drugs Verbal Assault on Staff Possession of Weapon Possession Weapon/Knife TERRORISTIC THREATENI 2 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 4 2 1 2 4 65 Middle School ALT LEARN 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 030 040 060 062 070 080 090 no 010 020 030 040 070 080 090 100 105 no 115 120 121 123 150 000 071 072 090 091 140 Minor Altercation Harrassment Failure to Follow Rui. or Dir. Refused to obey Rule/Directi Refused to obey Bus Rules\u0026amp; Failure to Serve Detention Refused to Serve Detention Using Foul or Abusive Langu Assault Battery Theft Fighting Loitering / Criminal Tresspas Malicious Mischief / Vandalis Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Indecent Exposure Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Repeated Violation-Smoking Use of Paging Devices Poss, or Use Alcohol/Drugs USE RAP RINGS,CHEMICA Physical Assault of Staff Verbal Assault on Staff Possession of Weapon Possession Weapon/Knife TERRORISTIC THREATENI 3 0 1 4 1 4 0 3 3 1 1 29 3 2 17 1 9 7 4 5 1 0 2 1 3 3 1 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 1 1 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 7 1 8 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 Middle School CLOVRJR 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 030 040 050 060 062 070 080 090 no 133 010 020 030 040 050 Minor Altercation Harrassment Left School w/o Permission Failure to Follow Rui. or Dir. Refused to obey Rule/Directi Refused to obey Bus Rules\u0026amp; Failure to Serve Detention Refused to Serve Detention Using Foul or Abusive Langu Repeated School/Class Tardie Assault Battery Theft Fighting Gambling 16 9 13 17 20 1 7 11 5 7 3 3 3 64 1 0 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 LRSD Information Services Senior High 1762 3 1 5 2 4 0 0 2 4 0 1 1 3 26 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 1 7 3 7 2 7 3 1 1 36 3 2 27 2 20 12 5 5 I 1 3 2 6 3 1 3 5 174 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 10 20 21 26 1 7 14 13 7 4 5 7 105 1 4Level School Lvl Code Offense BM WM OM BF WF OF Total Middle School CLOVRJR 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 080 090 100 105 no 115 120 121 122 150 071 072 090 091 092 140 Malicious Mischief / Vandalis Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Indecent Exposure Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Repeated Violation-Smoking Forgery/Failure to Provide ID Poss, or Use Alcohol/Drugs Physical Assault of Staff Verbal Assault on Staff Possession of Weapon Possession Weapon/Knife Possession Weapon/Club TERRORISTIC THREATENI 2 18 5 55 23 62 2 16 1 0 2 4 1 2 1 4 1 1 0 3 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 26 8 14 1 8 2 0 1 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 27 5 89 32 83 3 24 3 1 3 7 1 2 1 5 550 Middle School DUNBAR 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 030 080 010 020 030 040 060 080 090 100 105 no 115 120 121 122 123 150 000 071 091 100 140 Minor Altercation Failure to Serve Detention Assault Battery Theft Fighting False Alarm Malicious Mischief / Vandalis Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Indecent Exposure Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Repeated Violation-Smoking Forgery/Failure to Provide ID Use of Paging Devices Poss, or Use Alcohol/Drugs . USE RAP RINGS,CHEMICA Physical Assault of Staff Possession Weapon/Knife Poss Fireworks or Explosives TERRORISTIC THREATENI 1 3 8 4 5 47 1 7 7 8 6 4 32 7 2 1 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 0 2 1 2 1 1 8 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 0 29 2 2 5 3 2 3 17 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 I 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 12 10 6 81 3 12 13 13 11 8 63 11 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 263 Middle School FORST HT 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 040 060 062 100 no 132 010 020 030 040 060 080 090 100 105 Harrassment Failure to Follow Rui. or Dir. Refused to obey Rule/Directi Smoking Using Foul or Abusive Langu Use/Poss. Drugs (1st) Assault Battery Theft Fighting False Alarm Malicious Mischief / Vandalis Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Indecent Exposure Refusing to Follow Directives 0 2 20 0 1 1 10 14 10 70 1 1 8 8 3 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 3 1 13 0 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 15 0 1 0 2 2 4 25 0 0 5 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 36 1 2 1 13 20 15 114 1 1 19 11 5 LRSD Information Services 5 ILevel School Lvl Code Offense BM WM OM BF WF OF Total Middle School FORST HT 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 no 115 120 121 122 140 150 071 090 091 121 140 Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Repeated Violation-Smoking Forgery/Failure to Provide ID Possession of Fireworks Poss, or Use Alcohol/Drugs Physical Assault of Staff Possession ofWeapon Possession Weapon/Knife Use ofWeapon TERRORISTIC THREATENI 44 31 2 2 0 1 0 3 0 1 1 2 6 11 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 5 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 3 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 47 3 2 1 1 4 4 1 4 2 7 413 Middle School HENDERSN 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 030 062 020 030 040 080 090 100 no 115 120 121 150 010 071 072 140 Minor Altercation Refused to obey Rule/Directi Battery Theft Fighting Malicious Mischief / Vandalis Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Indecent Exposure Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Repeated Violation-Smoking Poss, or Use Alcohol/Drugs Sale/Distribution of Alcohol Physical Assault of Staff Verbal Assault on Staff TERRORISTIC THREATENI 0 0 6 4 40 1 10 1 2 45 0 1 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 5 0 2 0 0 8 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 24 0 1 0 0 30 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 7 5 73 1 13 1 2 86 2 1 1 2 I 2 4 203 Middle School MABEL JR 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 030 040 050 060 062 070 no 133 010 020 030 040 080 090 100 105 no 115 121 150 071 072 091 092 140 Minor Altercation Harrassment Left School w/o Permission Failure to Follow Rui. or Dir. Refused to obey Rule/Directi Refused to obey Bus Rules\u0026amp; Using Foul or Abusive Langu Repeated School/Class Tardie Assault Battery Theft Fighting Malicious Mischief / Vandalis Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Indecent Exposure Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Repeated Violation-Smoking Poss, or Use Alcohol/Drugs Physical Assault of Staff Verbal Assault on Staff Possession Weapon/Knife Possession Weapon/Club TERRORISTIC THREATENI 2 1 1 2 3 2 1 1 1 3 4 39 1 6 7 1 3 14 2 3 1 2 1 1 3 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 11 0 0 0 0 2 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 15 0 2 0 0 8 8 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 1 6 4 2 1 1 1 6 6 73 1 8 7 1 13 30 2 3 1 3 3 1 3 LRSD Information Services 6Level School Lvl Code Offense BM WM OM BF WF OF Total 186 Middle School MANN M/S 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 010 020 030 040 050 090 100 no 115 120 121 000 072 091 140 Assault Battery Theft Fighting Gambling Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Indecent Exposure Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Repeated Violation-Smoking USE RAP RINGS,CHEMICA Verbal Assault on Staff Possession Weapon/Knife TERRORISTIC THREATENI 1 2 1 23 2 1 6 0 34 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 0 1 15 0 1 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 1 1 20 1 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 46 2 2 7 1 63 2 4 2 2 2 3 141 Middle School PUL HT J 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 030 040 050 060 062 070 080 090 110 132 133 010 020 030 040 080 090 100 105 110 115 120 121 122 123 150 071 072 091 092 140 Minor Altercation Harrassment Left School w/o Permission Failure to Follow Rui. or Dir. Refused to obey Rule/Directi Refused to obey Bus Rules\u0026amp; Failure to Serve Detention Refused to Serve Detention Using Foul or Abusive Langu Use/Poss. Drugs (1st) Repeated School/Class Tardie Assault Battery Theft Fighting Malicious Mischief / Vandalis Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Indecent Exposure Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Repeated Violation-Smoking Forgery/Failure to Provide ID Use of Paging Devices Poss, or Use Alcohol/Drugs Physical Assault of Staff Verbal Assault on Staff Possession Weapon/Knife Possession Weapon/Club TERRORISTIC THREATENI 11 0 0 2 2 1 6 1 3 0 2 4 4 8 58 2 4 1 2 1 36 1 6 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 2 15 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 5 35 0 3 0 1 6 15 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 I 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 1 1 2 2 1 7 1 5 1 2 6 4 16 109 2 8 2 3 7 57 3 7 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 273 Middle School SOUTHWST 1 2 2 2 2 2 132 010 020 030 040 080 Use/Poss. Drugs (1st) Assault Battery Theft Fighting Malicious Mischief / Vandalis 1 5 9 4 67 2 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 2 0 51 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 11 4 130 3 LRSD Information Services 7Level School Lvl Code Offense BM WM OM BF WF OF Total Middle School SOUTHWST 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 090 100 105 no 115 120 123 071 . 072 081 091 no 140 Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Indecent Exposure Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Use of Paging Devices Physical Assault of Staff Verbal Assault on Staff Possession of Firearm/Pistol Possession Weapon/Knife Extortion, Blackmail, Coercio TERRORISTIC THREATENI 11 10 2 6 50 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 4 16 18 I 0 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 10 8 22 76 2 1 3 2 3 4 1 2 302 Elementary BALE 1 2 2 060 110 115 Failure to Follow Rui. or Dir. Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation 3 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Elementary BASELINE 2 2 3 010 115 071 Assault Repeat Violation Physical Assault of Staff 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Elementary BOOKER 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 060 010 040 100 no 122 072 Failure to Follow Rul. or Dir. Assault Fighting Indecent Exposure Disorderly Conduct Forgeiy/Failure to Provide ID Verbal Assault on Staff 4 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Elementary BRADY 2 2 010 no Assault Disorderly Conduct 1 0 0 0 0 0 Elementary CARVER 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 030 030 040 115 060 071 140 Minor Altercation Theft Fighting Repeat Violation Arson Physical Assault of Staff TERRORISTIC THREATENI 1 3 8 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Elementary CHICOT 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 040 060 062 030 040 050 no Harrassment Failure to Follow Rul. or Dir. Refused to obey Rule/Directi Theft Fighting Gambling Disorderly Conduct 1 0 2 I 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Middle School 2505 LRSD Information Services 1 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 5 2 11 2 3 1 6 5 3 3 1 1 1 1 15 2 2 4 1 3 10 2 1 I 2 20 1 1 2 1 3 1 3 8Level School Lvl Code Offense BM WM OM BF WF OF Total Elementary CHICOT 2 2 3 3 3 115 120 071 091 092 Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Physical Assault of Staff Possession Weapon/Knife Possession Weapon/Club 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 3 1 1 1 21 Elementary DODD 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 no 010 020 090 105 no 115 121 071 140 Using Foul or Abusive Langu Assault Battery Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Repeated Violation-Smoking Physical Assault of Staff TERRORISTIC THREATENI 0 2 0 1 1 I 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 2 I 1 1 1 1 1 13 Elementary FAIRPRK 2 2 110 115 Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 4 Elementary FORST PK 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 040 no 010 030 040 100 115 121 Harrassment Using Foul or Abusive Langu Assault Theft Fighting Indecent Exposure Repeat Violation Repeated Violation-Smoking 1 2 1 1 3 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 4 1 2 I 13 Elementary FRANKLIN 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 050 060 062 070 no 010 030 090 100 105 no 115 120 121 071 091 140 Left School w/o Permission Failure to Follow Rui. or Dir. Refused to obey Rule/Directi Refused to obey Bus Rules\u0026amp; Using Foul or Abusive Langu Assault Theft Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Indecent Exposure Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Repeated Violation-Smoking Physical Assault of Staff Possession Weapon/Knife TERRORISTIC THREATENI 1 I 1 1 1 6 3 1 1 1 12 22 10 2 4 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 8 9 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 I 7 3 2 1 3 20 31 11 4 4 3 4 99 Elementary FULBRIGH 1 2 2 2 2 060 020 030 040 115 Failure to Follow Rui. or Dir. Battery Theft Fighting Repeat Violation 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 1 LRSD Information Services 9Level School Lvl Code Offense BM WM OM BF WF OF Total Elementary FULBRIGH 3 091 Possession Weapon/Knife 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 8 Elementary GARLAND 3 140 TERRORISTIC THREATENI 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Elementary GEYER SP 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 010 020 105 110 115 121 071 Assault Battery Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Repeated Violation-Smoking Physical Assault of Staff 0 1 1 4 7 2 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 4 10 2 1 21 Elementary GIBBS 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 030 070 110 040 115 150 000 071 140 Minor Altercation Refused to obey Bus Rules\u0026amp; Using Foul or Abusive Langu Fighting Repeat Violation Poss, or Use Alcohol/Drugs USE RAP RINGS.CHEMICA Physical Assault of Staff TERRORISTIC THREATENI 5 1 0 7 2 0 0 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 1 1 7 2 1 1 2 2 26 Elementary lEFFRSN 1 1 2 2 2 2 030 062 010 040 115 120 Minor Altercation Refused to obey Rule/Directi Assault Fighting Repeat Violation Harassing Communications 0 1 0 5 4 I 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 10 5 1 20 Elementary ML KING 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 060 020 030 040 115 091 140 Failure to Follow Rui. or Dir. Battery Theft Fighting Repeat Violation Possession Weapon/Knife TERRORISTIC THREATENI 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 3 3 2 13 Elementary MABEL EL 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 030 040 050 060 062 110 010 020 030 040 090 no 115 120 Minor Altercation Harrassment Left School w/o Permission Failure to Follow Rui. or Dir. Refused to obey Rule/Direcb Using Foul or Abusive Langu Assault Battery Theft Fighting Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Harassing Communications 0 3 1 11 6 0 2 1 3 1 2 1 6 1 0 1 0 3 1 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 14 7 1 9 1 4 2 2 2 9 1 LRSD Information Services 10Level School Lvl Code Offense BM WM OM BF WF OF Total Elementary MABEL EL 2 3 3 3 3 3 121 072 090 091 092 140 Repeated Violation-Smoking Verbal Assault on Staff Possession of Weapon Possession Weapon/Knife Possession Weapon/Club TERRORISTIC THREATENI 1 2 0 1 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 2 2 2 5 74 Elementary MCDERMOT 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 060 062 040 080 100 115 120 091 Failure to Follow Rui. or Dir. Refused to obey Rule/Directi Fighting Malicious Mischief/Vandalis Indecent Exposure Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Possession Weapon/Knife 1 0 3 2 2 20 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 5 3 2 22 2 1 37 Elementary MEADCLIF 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 010 040 090 105 no 115 092 Assault Fighting Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Possession Weapon/Club 1 2 1 4 10 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 4 11 1 1 21 Elementary MITCHELL 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 030 040 060 010 030 040 100 105 no 115 120 071 091 140 Minor Altercation Harrassment Failure to Follow Rui. or Dir. Assault Theft Fighting Indecent Exposure Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Physical Assault of Staff Possession Weapon/Knife TERRORISTIC THREATENI 1 1 0 8 1 1 4 1 3 2 0 1 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 13 1 1 5 1 3 2 1 1 1 5 38 Elementary OTTER CR 1 2 2 062 010 090 Refused to obey Rule/Directi Assault Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 Elementary PULHTE 1 2 2 2 2 3 040 040 100 105 no 140 Harrassment Fighting Indecent Exposure Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct TERRORISTIC THREATENI 1 2 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 2 2 10 Elementary RIGHTSEL 2 115 Repeat Violation 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 LRSD Information Services 11Level School Lvl Code Offense BM WM OM BF WF OF Total Elementary RIGHTSEL 3 3 071 140 Physical Assault of Staff TERRORISTIC THREATENI 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 4 Elementary ROCKFELR 1 2 2 040 010 020 Harrassment Assault Battery 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 4 Elementary ROMINE 1 1 2 2 060 062 010 020 Failure to Follow Rul. or Dir, Refused to obey Rule/Directi Assault Battery 1 1 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 8 1 12 Elementary TERRY 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 030 060 062 070 010 030 040 080 100 115 120 121 071 092 140 Minor Altercation Failure to Follow Rul. or Dir. Refused to obey Rule/Directi Refused to obey Bus Rules\u0026amp; Assault Theft Fighting Malicious Mischief / Vandalis Indecent Exposure Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Repeated Violation-Smoking Physical Assault of Staff Possession Weapon/Club TERRORISTIC THREATENI 5 1 0 1 5 1 1 0 2 6 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 I 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 1 1 6 1 1 2 2 7 2 1 1 1 6 39 Elementary WAKEFIEL 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 no 010 020 040 no 115 121 071 140 Using Foul or Abusive Langu Assault Battery Fighting Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Repeated Violation-Smoking Physical Assault of Staff TERRORISTIC THREATENI 1 1 1 10 4 5 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 4 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 I 12 8 9 I 3 2 39 Elementary WASHNGTN 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 010 020 no 091 092 121 140 Assault Battery Disorderly Conduct Possession Weapon/Knife Possession Weapon/Club Use of Weapon TERRORISTIC THREATENI 1 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 11 Elementary WATSON 1 1 2 2 2 060 062 020 030 040 Failure to Follow Rul. or Dir. Refused to obey Rule/Directi Battery Theft Fighting 1 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 I 2 1 LRSD Information Services 12Level School Lvl Code Offense BM WM OM BF WF OF Total Elementary WATSON 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 100 no 120 071 091 121 140 Indecent Exposure Disorderly Conduct Harassing Communications Physical Assault of Staff Possession Weapon/Knife Use of Weapon TERRORISTIC THREATENI 1 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 2 1 1 1 2 1 17 Elementary WESTHIL 2 2 2 3 010 105 115 091 Assault Refusing to Follow Directives Repeat Violation Possession Weapon/Knife 1 1 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 9 1 14 Elementary WILLIAMS 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 030 060 062 030 040 115 140 Minor Altercation Failure to Follow Rui. or Dir. Refused to obey Rule/Directi Theft Fighting Repeat Violation TERRORISTIC THREATENI 4 1 2 2 1 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 2 2 1 1 10 21 Elementary WILSON 1 1 1 2 2 3 030 040 060 no 115 091 Minor Altercation Harrassment Failure to Follow Rui. or Dir. Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Possession Weapon/Knife 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 1 1 8 Elementary WOODRUFF 2 2 2 2 3 020 040 no 121 091 Battery Fighting Disorderly Conduct Repeated Violation-Smoking Possession Weapon/Knife 1 0 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 7 1 1 12 LRSD Information Services Elementary Grand Total: 659 4926 13Recidivism Report Counts each student once per total Year: 2000 Quarter: 1 to Quarter: 4 27-Jun-00 Level School Total Senior High ACC LEARN AGENCIES 7 12 CENTRAL 142 FAIR HALL MCCLELLA METRO 226 359 269 44 PARKVIEW 55 Middle School Elementary Senior High ALT LEARN CLOVR JR DUNBAR FORST HT HENDERSN MABEL JR MANN M/S PULHTJ SOUTHWST Middle School BALE BASELINE BOOKER BRADY CARVER CHICOT DODD FAIR PRK FORST PK FRANKLIN FULBRIGH GARLAND GEYER SP GIBBS JEFFRSN M LKING MABEL EL MCDERMOT MEADCLIF MITCHELL OTTER CR PUL HT E RIGHTSEL ROCKFELR ROMINE TERRY WAKEFIEL WASHNGTN WATSON WESTHIL WILLIAMS LRSD Information Services 1114 94 269 148 222 128 126 98 164 159 1408 8 5 14 4 17 19 II 4 8 61 7 1 18 18 16 12 47 24 14 30 3 9 4 4 12 24 28 8 17 13 17 1Level School Total Elementary WILSON WOODRUFF 5 7 Elementary 489 Grand Total: 3011 LRSD Information Services 2\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\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"hbcula_rwwl_1650","title":"Evelyn G. Lowery: Activist/Advocate, circa 2004","collection_id":"hbcula_rwwl","collection_title":"Digital Collection of Robert W. Wooodruff Library (AUC)","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1999/2009"],"dcterms_description":["This video features a tribute highlighting the many accomplishments of Evelyn G. Lowery as a civil rights activist and as the founder and convener of the SCLC/Women's Organizational Movement for Equality Now (SCLC/W.O.M.E.N.)."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African Americans--Civil rights","Civil rights movements","African American women social reformers"],"dcterms_title":["Evelyn G. Lowery: Activist/Advocate, circa 2004"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Library Alliance"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://hbcudigitallibrary.auctr.edu/digital/collection/rwwl/id/1650"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["All works in this collection either are protected by copyright and/or are the property of the Robert W. Woodruff Library, and/or the copyright holder as appropriate. To order a reproduction or to inquire about permission to publish, please contact the Archives Research Center at: archives@auctr.edu with the web URL or handle identification number."],"dcterms_medium":["born digital"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"tmll_hpcrc_69254100","title":"Followup to the report Police-community relations in Reno, Nevada (May 1992)","collection_id":"tmll_hpcrc","collection_title":"Historical Publications of the United States Commission on Civil Rights","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Nevada, Washoe County, Reno, 39.52963, -119.8138"],"dcterms_creator":["United States Commission on Civil Rights. Nevada Advisory Committee"],"dc_date":["1999"],"dcterms_description":["A digital version of the report published by the United States Commission on Civil Rights.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of online collection: Historical Publications of the United States Commission on Civil Rights.","Requires Acrobat plug-in to view files."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Police-community relations--Nevada--Reno","Police--Nevada--Reno"],"dcterms_title":["Followup to the report Police-community relations in Reno, Nevada (May 1992)"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Thurgood Marshall Law Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":["http://www2.law.umaryland.edu/Marshall/usccr/documents/cr12p7527z.pdf"],"edm_is_shown_at":["http://crdl.usg.edu/id:tmll_hpcrc_69254100"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports","records"],"dcterms_extent":["6 p. ; 28 cm."],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"htxo_htxo","title":"Handbook of Texas online","collection_id":null,"collection_title":null,"dcterms_contributor":["Texas State Historical Association","University of Texas at Austin. General Libraries"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Texas, 31.25044, -99.25061"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1999/9999"],"dcterms_description":["Online encyclopedia with articles about the presence and influence of various ethnic groups in Texas, including African Americans, Mexican Americans, American Indians, Koreans, and Germans. The handbook includes articles on segregation, bilingual education, and Civil Rights, which focuses on the efforts of African Americans and Mexican Americans, and biographies of prominent individuals.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":null,"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African Americans--Civil rights--Texas","Mexican Americans--Civil rights--Texas","Civil rights movements--Texas","Texas--Race relations--History--20th century","African American civil rights workers--Texas","Civil rights workers--Texas","Discrimination--Texas","African Americans--Politics and government","Mexican Americans--Politics and government","Political activists--Texas","Segregation--Texas"],"dcterms_title":["Handbook of Texas online"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Handbook of Texas Online"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["Texas State Historical Association"],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["encyclopedias","articles"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"tmll_hpcrc_42786532","title":"The health care challenge : acknowledging disparity, confronting discrimination, and ensuring equality : a report of the United States Commission on Civil Rights","collection_id":"tmll_hpcrc","collection_title":"Historical Publications of the United States Commission on Civil Rights","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1999"],"dcterms_description":["A digital version of the report published by the United States Commission on Civil Rights.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of online collection: Historical Publications of the United States Commission on Civil Rights.","Requires Acrobat plug-in to view files."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Health Services Accessibility--United States","Civil rights--United States","Minority Groups--United States","Prejudices--United States"],"dcterms_title":["The health care challenge : acknowledging disparity, confronting discrimination, and ensuring equality : a report of the United States Commission on Civil Rights"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Thurgood Marshall Law Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":["http://www2.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/usccr/documents/cr12h34z.pdf"],"edm_is_shown_at":["http://crdl.usg.edu/id:tmll_hpcrc_42786532"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports","records"],"dcterms_extent":["2 v. : ill. ; 28 cm."],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1080","title":"\"High School (Grade 9-12) Curriculum Catalog,\" Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1999/2000"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Curricula","Educational planning"],"dcterms_title":["\"High School (Grade 9-12) Curriculum Catalog,\" 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/1080"],"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\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nHIGH SCHOOL {Grade 9 - 12) CURRICULUM CATALOG 1999-2000 Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 501/324-2000 Table of Contents Mission for the Division of Instruction Graduation Requirements 1. LRSD Graduation Requirements (for students who were freshmen prior to fall 1998) 2. Summary of Graduation Requirements Classes of 2001 and Prior Accelerated Learning Center, Effective Fall 1998 Class of 2002 and After Recommended Common Core and Career Focus, Class of 2003 2 3 3. Board Policy IKF: General Education Graduation Requirements, 7 Effective for the Graduating Class of 2002 4. Administrative Regulation IKF-R: General Graduation Requirements, 9 Effective for the Graduating Class of 2002 Credit-Earning Options Credit Earning Options for LRSD Students 16 1. Credit for Courses Taken in Middle School 17 Middle School Curriculum Area Schools 17 Dunbar Magnet Middle School 18 Henderson Middle School 19 Mann Magnet Middle School-Arts 20 Mann Magnet Middle School-Sciences 21 Parameters for Middle Schools 22 2. Credit for Courses Taken in Summer High School 23 3. Credit for Courses Taken in Evening High School 23 4. Dual-Enrollment for High School and College Credit for Designated Courses Taken at Hall High 23 5. Dual-Credit for College Courses 23 6. Credit through Correspondence Courses, University of Arkansas 24 7. Approved Dual-Credit Correspondence Courses 25 8. Early College Correspondence Enrollment 25 9. Accelerated Learning Program 26 10. Advanced Standing/Credit Agreements 27 Pulaski Technical College 27 ITT Technical Institute 29 Arkansas State University-Beebe 29 11 . Credit Earned for Success on Advanced Placement Examinations 30 LRSD Strategic Plan Objectives 30 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan 30 Determining Placement in Pre-AP and AP Courses 30 National Science Foundation Cooperative Agreement 31 12. Credit Earned through University/College Summer Programs 32 13. Credit Earned through Distance Learning 32 14. Credit Earned through Credit by Examination 32 Miscellaneous Policies and Regulations Relating to Instruction Minimum Class Size 33 Early Graduation 33 Regulation for Early Graduation 33 Selection of Honor Graduates (for the Class of 2002 and prior) 33 Course Numbers Course Numbering Code 34 Course Descriptions Art 35 Art-Parkview Magnet 38 Business Education 40 Business Education-McClellan High 48 Communications 50 Dance-Parkview Magnet 53 Drama 55 Drama-Parkview Magnet 57 English 58 English-as-a-Second Language-Hall High 64 Family and Consumer Science 67 Foreign Languages 72 Health and Physical Education 78 Journalism 80 JROTC 83 Marketing Education 86 Marketing Education-McClellan High 88 Mathematics 89 Music 93 Music-Parkview Magnet 96 Science 100 Science (ESL)-Hall High 104 Science-Parkview Magnet 105 Social Studies 107 Social Studies (ESL)-Hall High 113 Social Studies-Central High 113 Trades and Industry 115 Metropolitan Vocational-Technical Education Center 120 Special Education-Resource Room 130 Special Education-Self-Contained 131 Non-Credit Numbers 132 Mission for the Division of Instruction Little Rock School District The mission of the Division of Instruction is to improve the academic achievement of all students, enabling them to realize their aspirations. This mission is accomplished by providing leadership, instructional resources, technical assistance, professional development, and advocacy for all students. LRSD Graduation Requirements (for students who were freshmen prior to fall 1998) English 4 units Foreign Language 2 units in one foreign language-required only for college Admission and to qualify for Academic Challenge Scholarship Program. Social Studies 3 units-must include one unit of U.S. History, one unit of World History or AP European History, and one unit of Civics or U.S. Government. Science 3 units-two of the units must be Biology and Physical Science. Mathematics 3 units-must include Algebra I or equivalent. Oral Communications 1 unit Physical Education  unit-One unit of PE may count towards graduation. Must earn  unit of PE and  unit of Health. (Students excused from PE for medical reasons must take  unit of Human Physiology.) Health  unit Fine Arts  unit Required Units 15  units Electives 5  units Total Units 21 Academic Challenge Scholarship Program: World History, two units of one foreign language, Geometry, Algebra II and either Chemistry or Physics must be taken to be eligible for Academic Challenge Scholarship Program. (These requirements apply to those students who will graduate in 1999, 2000, and 2001.) 2 Summary of Graduation Requirements Classes of 2001 and Prior Accelerated Learning Center Class of 2002 and After Recommended Common Core Requirements, Effective Fall 1998 (freshmen in fall 1998) and Career Focus, Class of 2003 English-4 units English-4 units English Language Arts-4 units English Language Arts-4 units ESL English I, English I or ESL English I, English I or English I English I Pre-AP\nand Pre-AP\nand ESL English II, English II or ESL English II, English II or English English II Pre-AP\nand II Pre-AP\nand ESL English Ill, English Ill, ESL English Ill, English Ill, English English Ill Pre-AP, or Ill Pre-AP, or English Ill AP\nand English Ill AP\nand ESL English IV, English IV, or ESL English IV, English IV, or English IV AP English IV AP Oral Communication-1 unit Oral Communication-1/2 unit Oral Communication-1 unit Oral Communication-1 unit Communications I Communications I Social Studies-3 units or 2 units Social Studies-3 units Social Studies-3 units Social Studies-4 units of Social Studies and 1 unit of (1 unit of World History, 1 unit of Civics and Civics and vocational/technical studies: U.S. History,  unit of Civics or World History and World History and (1 unit of Civics or American Government) United States History United States History and Government and 1 unit of One additional unit from: African/ American History. If a third unit of African-American History (1 ), social studies is taken, it must be European History AP ( 1 ), a world focus course. World U.S. Government and Politics AP History must be taken to be ( 1 /2), eligible for Academic Challenge Comparative Government AP (1/2) Scholarship Program.) Economics (1/2) Sociology ( 1 /2) 3 Classes of 2001 and Prior Accelerated Learning Center Class of 2002 and After ' Recommended Common Core Requirements, Effective Fall 1998 (freshmen in fall 1998) and Career Focus, Class of 2003 Mathematics-3 units Mathematics-3 units Mathematics-3 units Mathematics-4 units (3 units to include Algebra I) (1 unit of Algebra or its equivalent Algebra I and Algebra I and and 1 unit of geometry or its Geometry or Concepts of Geometry and equivalent) Geometry and Algebra II and One additional unit based on One advanced unit. Students are algebra and geometry knowledge strongly encouraged to take a and skills. mathematics course during their senior year. Science-3 units Science-3 units Science-3 units Science-4 units (At least one unit shall be in life (at least 1 unit of Biology or its Physics I and Physics I and science and one unit in physical equivalent and 1 unit of a physical Biology I and Biology I and science. All required science science) Chemistry I Chemistry I and units must provide hands-on One additional unit laboratory experience for students a minimum of 20 percent of instructional time.) Foreign Languages-2 units Physical Education-1/2 unit Physical Education-1/2 unit Physical Education-1/2 unit Physical Education-1/2 unit Physical Education A Physical Education A Health and Safety-1/2 unit Health and Safety-1/2 unit Health and Safety-1/2 unit Health and Safety-1/2 unit Health and Safety Health and Safety 4 Classes of 2001 and Prior Accelerated Learning Center Class of 2002 and After Recommended Common Core Requirements, Effective Fall 1998 (freshmen in fall 1998) and Career Focus, Class of 2003 Fine Arts-1/2 unit Fine Arts-1/2 unit Fine Arts-1 unit Fine Arts-1 unit One unit from art, dance, drama, One unit from art, dance, drama, or or music music Vocational/Technical Education- Technology Applications-1 Technology Applications-2 units 1 unit may substitute for 1 unit of unit Two units from Keyboarding social studies One unit from Keyboarding Applications (1/2), Word Processing Applications (1/2), Word A (1/2), Word Processing B (1/2), Processing A (1/2), Word Database Management (1/2) Processing B (1/2), Database Desktop Publishing A (1/2), Desktop Management (1/2) Desktop Publishing B (1/2), Programming A Publishing A (1/2), Desktop (1/2), Programming B (1/2), Publishing B (1/2), Programming Computerized Business A (1/2), Programming B (1/2), Applications (1 ), Computerized Computerized Business Accounting II (1 ). Applications (1 ), Computerized Accounting II (1 ). 5 Classes of 2001 and Prior Accelerated Learning Center Class of 2002 and After Recommended Common Core Requirements, Effective Fall 1998 (freshmen in fall 1998) and Career Focus, Class of 2003 Career Focus-3 units Career Focus-3 units Career Focus-4 units Three specified units from one of At least three specified units from At least four units from one of the the following areas: one of the following areas: following areas: Humanities Humanities Humanities Sciences Sciences Sciences Fine Arts Fine Arts Fine Arts Administrative Services Administrative Services Parkview Magnet-Arts-8 units Business Management Business Management Parkview Magnet-Sciences-5 Finance Finance units, plus yearly project Marketing Marketing McClellan High-5  specified Coordinated Career Education Coordinated Career Education units. Child Care and Guidance Child Care and Guidance Management and Services Management and Services Food Production, Management, and Food Production, Management, Services and Services Family and Consumer Sciences Family and Consumer Sciences General Cooperative Education General Cooperative Education JROTC JROTC Trades and Industry Trades and Industry Electives-5  units Electives-3 units Electives-4 units Total: 21 units (15 of the units Total: 21 units Total: 24 units Total: 27 units must be taken in high school) 6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IKF GENERAL EDUCATION GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS, EFFECTIVE FOR THE GRADUATING CLASS OF 2002 The Little Rock School District Board of Education believes that students should graduate from high school possessing the skills, knowledge, and attitudes needed for responsible citizenship, life-long learning, and productive employment in our modern economy. Programs for post-secondary preparation will be available to equip students for the advanced training that will be needed for the work of the 21 st century. The Little Rock School District will be responsible for providing the educational opportunities and experiences that will enable our students to take full advantage of postsecondary education and employment opportunities available to them after graduation. Diploma A student may earn a Little Rock School District diploma in one of two ways. Each has different requirements and different numbers of required credits. 1. LRSD Diploma from the Accelerated Learning Center for completion of the 21 units required by the State of Arkansas (15 Common Core units, 3 Career Focus units, and 3 elective units). 2. LRSD Diploma from any of the five high schools for completion of the required seventeen (17) units in the LRSD Common Core, plus a minimum of three (3) units in a Career Focus area, plus four (4) electives for a total of 24 units. LRSD Common Core, Effective for the Graduating Class of 2002 and After It is the policy of the Board of Education that satisfactory completion of the following seventeen (17) specified LRSD Common Core units is required for a student to graduate. These requirements shall not be waived or altered except by an Individual Education Program (IEP) team for a student identified with disabilities. English Language Arts-4 units Oral Communication-1 unit Mathematics-3 units Science-3 units Social Studies-3 units Fine Arts-1 unit Health and Physical Education-1 unit Technology-1 unit Career Focus-3 units In addition to the LRSD Common Core, each student must complete a minimum of three units from one area of Career Focus. Electives-4 units Total Required-24 units 7 Recommended Common Core and Career Focus-27 units Effective for the Graduating Class of 2003 In addition to the LRSD Common Core requ irements outlined above for students graduating in 2002 or later, the Board of Education recommends, effective for the Graduating Class of 2003, the following enhanced and \"Recommended Common Core and Career Focus,\" which includes, but goes beyond those units required in Arkansas for unconditional admission to public colleges and universities and for eligibility for the Arkansas Challenge Scholarship. The \"Recommended Common Core and Career Focus\" includes the admission requirements of the most competitive universities in the United States of America. LRSD Common Core-17 units AND Social Studies-1 additional unit Mathematics-1 additional unit Science-1 additional unit Foreign Language-2 additional units Technology-1 additional unit Career Focus-1 additional unit Total Recommended Common Core and Career Focus-27 units 8 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IKF-R GENERAL EDUCATION GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS, EFFECTIVE FOR THE GRADUATING CLASS OF 2002 Honors Diploma Seal A special seal shall be affixed to the diploma and transcript of a student who meets the following standards: a. Completes the 27 units of the \"Recommended Common Core and Career Focus,\" which includes, but goes beyond, the requirements of the Arkansas Higher Education Coordinating Board for unconditional admission to any public two-year or four-year institution of higher education in Arkansas and which includes, but goes beyond, the requirements for eligibility for the Arkansas Challenge Scholarship. The \"Recommended Common Core\" reflects the admission requirements of the most competitive universities in the United States of America. b. Successfully completes a minimum of six Pre-Advanced Placement courses and two Advanced Placement courses over a four-year period\nc. Earns a grade-point-average of at least 3.5. Credit-Earning Options The units for graduation will generally be earned in grades nine through twelve, except that one unit of Algebra I (or higher-level mathematics) and Level I of foreign language (or higher-level foreign language) may be earned in grade eight. High-school courses taken before grade eight will not satisfy a unit of credit toward graduation. All courses taken in grades 9-12 shall be counted toward graduation. In addition to credits that students may earn in the daily high school schedule, the District shall make accessible a variety of other credit-earning options, including, but not limited to, correspondence courses, credit-by-examination, evening high school, summer high school to make up failed credits, dual-enrollment with colleges/ universities, and advanced standing/credit programs. All such alternatives shall be aligned with the Arkansas and LRSD curriculum standards and be approved by the Associate Superintendent for Curriculum. Senior Enrollment Requirements Effective fall 1999, each high school senior shall take at least four academic courses. Courses taken at post-secondary institutions by qualified seniors shall count as one or more of these required courses. Students are strongly encouraged to take a full schedule of challenging courses each year, including the senior year. Courses Required for Graduation Students shall satisfy the graduation requirements established in Policy IKFC through enrollment in and successful completion of the following specific courses. English Language Arts-4 units ESL English I, English I, or English I Pre-AP (1 )\nand ESL English II , English II, or English II Pre-AP (1 )\nand ESL English Ill, English Ill, English Ill Pre-AP, or English Ill AP (1 )\nand ESL English IV, English IV, or English IV AP (1 ). Each level of required English is a prerequisite for the next level. Students are not allowed, therefore, to take two required English courses concurrently. 9 Oral Communication-1 unit Communications I (1) Mathematics-3 units Algebra I or Algebra I Pre-AP ( 1 )\nand Concepts of Geometry or Geometry or Geometry Pre-AP (1 )\nand Algebra II or Algebra II Pre-AP or Statistics or Statistics AP (1). Algebra I Pre-AP or Geometry Pre-AP taken in grade 8 will satisfy one of the required units. Science-3 units Physics I or Physics I Pre-AP (1 )\nand Biology I or Biology I Pre-AP (1 )\nand Chemistry I or Chemistry I Pre-AP (1 ). Social Studies-3 units Civics or Civics Pre-AP (1) World History or World History Pre-AP (1) United States History or United States History AP (1) Fine Arts-1 unit One unit from art, dance, drama, or music. Health and Physical Education-1 unit Health and Safety (1/2) Physical Education (1/2) The one unit of physical education required may be waived (1) upon receipt of a statement by a licensed physician that a student is mentally or physically incapable of participating in a regular or modified physical education program\nor (2) when the requirement is contrary to the religious teachings of the student, as indicated in a written statement, signed by a lawful custodian of the student. Athletic practice for competition, whether scheduled during the school day or fter school hours, does not earn credit. Technology-1 unit One unit from the following technology application courses: Keyboarding Applications (1/2), Word Processing A (1/2), Word Processing B (1/2), Database Management (1/2), Desktop Publishing A (1/2), Desktop Publishing B (1/2), Programming A (1/2), Programming B (1/2), Computerized Business Applications (1 ), Computerized Accounting I or II. In no case can the same course(s) satisfy technology applications requirements and/or the technology applications requirements in one of the areas for Career Focus. Career Focus-3 units In addition to the LRSD Common Core, each graduate shall complete successfully a minimum of three units from one area of Career Focus, as follows: 10 Humanities Three units of one foreign language\nor Two units of one foreign language and One unit beyond the Common Core requirements from English or Social Studies (1 )\nor Three units beyond Common Core requirements in communications, English, and/or journalism\nor Three units beyond Common Core requirements in social studies. Sciences Two units of one foreign language (2) and One additional unit beyond Common Core requirements in science or mathematics (1 )\nor Three units beyond the Common Core requirements from upper-level mathematics and/or science courses (3). Sciences-Parkview Magnet-5 units Two units of biology beyond Biology I\nand One semester of chemistry beyond Chemistry I\nand Two units of German or Latin\nand One semester of Applied Statistics and Technical Writing\nand Yearly Project. Fine Arts Three units beyond the Common Core requirement in one of the following areas: art, dance, drama, or music. Students are also strongly encouraged to complete a minimum of two units of one foreign language. Fine Arts-Parkview Magnet-8 units Eight units in one of the following specialty areas: dance, drama, art, or music. Students are also strongly encouraged to complete a minimum of two units of one foreign language. Administrative Services Three units to include Word Processing A and B (1 ), Office Management or Cooperative Office Education (1 )\nand one unit from the following: Computerized Accounting 1-11 (1 ), Computerized Business Applications (1 ), Desktop Publishing A/B (1 ), Multimedia Applications (1/2), Rapid Writing A/B (1 ), Workplace Readiness (1/2). Written Communication-McClellan High-5  units Journalism I (1 )\nand Journalism II (1 )\nand Technical Writing (1/2) or Creative Writing (1/2)\nand Word Processing A (1/2) and Word Processing B (1/2)\nand 2 units of school-approved electives Oral Communication-McClellan High-5  units Communications (1 )\nand Drama I (1 )\nand Mass Media A (1/2) and Mass Media B (1/2)\nand Public Speaking/Business Communications (1/2)\nand 2 units of school-approved electives. II Visual/Product Communications-McClellan High-5  units Advertising (1/2)\nand Art Design/Graphic Design (1 )\nand Introduction to Art (1 )\nand Painting (1 )\nand Mass Media A (1/2)\nand 1  units of school-approved electives. Business Management Three units to include Computerized Accounting I or II* (1 ), Management (1) and one unit from the following: Business Law (1 ), Computerized Business Applications (1 ), Multimedia Applications (1/2), Word Processing A/B (1 ), Workplace Readiness (1/2) *The student must take Computerized Accounting II to satisfy this requirement if Computerized Accounting I was selected to fulfill the technology applications requirement. Business Principles and Management-McClellan High-5  units Computerized Business Applications (1) or two of the following: Word Processing A (1/2), Desktop Publishing (1/2), Database Management (1/2), Spreadsheet Applications (1/2)\nand Computerized Accounting I (1 )\nand Junior Executive Training (1 )\nand 2  units of school-approved electives. Finance Three units to include Banking and Finance Marketing (1/2), Banking and Finance Principles (1/2), Banking and Finance Operations (1/2), Banking and Finance Law (1/2) and Computerized Accounting I (1 )\nor Three units to include Computerized Accounting 1-11 and one unit from the following: Computerized Business Applications (1 ), Database Management (1/2), Spreadsheet Applications (1/2), Word Processing A (1/2), Word Processing B (1/2), Workplace Readiness (1/2). Economics and Finance-McClellan High-5  units Computerized Business Applications (1) or two of the following: Word Processing A (1/2), Desktop Publishing (1/2) Database Management (1/2), Spreadsheet Applications (1/2)\nand Economics (1) or Banking and Finance Principles (1/2) and Banking and Finance Operations (1/2)\nand Junior Executive Training (1 )\nand 2  units of school-approved electives. Marketing Three units to include Marketing (1 ), Marketing Management (1) and one from the following: Advertising (1/2), Computerized Business Applications (1 ), Fashion Merchandising (1/2) Entrepreneurship (1/2), Multimedia Applications (1/2), Retailing (1/2), Salesmanship (1/2), Workplace Readiness (1/2). Marketing and Advertising-McClellan High-5  units Advertising (1/2)\nand Fashion Merchandising (1/2)\nand Marketing (1 )\nand Marketing Management(1 )\nand 2  units of school-approved electives 12 Coordinated Career Education Three units to include CCE I-Related (1 ), CCE-OJT (1 ), and one unit from the following: Business Education, Marketing Education, Family and Consumer Science, Medical Professions Education, Trades and Industry, Workplace Readiness (1/2). Child Care and Guidance Management and Services Three units to include Child Care and Guidance Management and Services (1 }, Child Development (1 /2), Family and Consumer Science (1 ), and Parenting (1/2). Food Production, Management, and Services Three units to include Family and Consumer Science (1 }, Food and Nutrition (1/2), Food Production, Management, and Services I (1) and one-half unit from Family Dynamics (1 ), Food Science (1/2), Human Relations (1/2), Managing Resources (1/2), Workplace Readiness (1/2). Family and Consumer Sciences Education Three units to include Family and Consumer Science (1) and two units from the following: Child Development (1/2), Clothing Management (1/2), Family Dynamics (1), Food Science (1/2), Food and Nutrition (1/2), Housing and Interior Design (1/2), Human Relations (1/2), Managing Resources (1/2), Parenting (1/2), and Workplace Readiness (1/2). General Cooperative Education Three units to include GCE I-Related (1 ), GCE-OJT (1) and one unit from Business, Marketing, Family and Consumer Sciences, Medical Professions Education, or Trade and Industrial Education. Industrial Cooperative Education Three units from the following: Industrial Cooperative Training !--Related (1 ), Industrial Cooperative Training I (1 ), Industrial Cooperative Training II Related (1 }, Industrial Cooperative Training II (1 )\nJROTC Three units to include JROTC I, II, Ill. Trades and Industry Three units from any one of the following programs: Basic Mechanical Drawing (1 ), Advanced Mechanical Drawing (1 ), Architectural Drafting (1 ), Engineering Drafting (1 )\nComputerized Commercial Art I, II, Ill\nAuto Body/Paint Technology I, II, Ill\nAutomotive Technology I, II, Ill\nCulinary Arts I, II, Ill\nComputer-Aided Drafting I, 11, Ill\nComputer Graphics/Printing Technology I, 11, Ill\nCosmetology I, II, Ill\nElectronics I, II, Ill\nMedical Professions I, II, Ill\nMetal Fabrication (Welding) I, II, Ill\nRadio Broadcasting I, 11, Ill\nResidential Construction I, II, Ill\nTV Production I, II, Ill\nDiesel Technology Services I, II, Ill. Electives-4 units Total Required-24 units 13 Recommended Common Core and Career Focus-27 units Effective for the Graduating Class of 2003 In addition to the LRSD Common Core requirements outlined above for students graduating in 2002 or later, the Board of Education recommends, effective for the Graduating Class of 2003, the following enhanced and \"Recommended Common Core,\" which includes, but goes beyond those units required in Arkansas for unconditional admission to public colleges and universities and for eligibility for the Arkansas Challenge Scholarship. The \"Recommended Common Core\" includes the admission requirements of the most competitive universities in the United States of America. Students who choose a Career Focus in the Humanities or Sciences may already have satisfied some of the \"Recommended Common Core.\" Students are, of course, strongly encouraged to enroll in as many Pre-AP and AP courses as possible. LRSD Common Core-17 units AND: Social Studies-1 additional unit One additional unit from African/African-American History (1 }, European History AP (1 ), U.S. Government and Politics AP (1/2), Comparative Government (1/2), Economics (1/2), Sociology (1/2). Mathematics-1 additional unit One additional unit in advanced mathematics. The three units required for the LRSD Common Core must include Algebra I, Geometry, and Algebra. Seniors are strongly encouraged to take a mathematics course during their senior year. Science-1 additional unit One additional unit. Foreign Language-2 additional units Two units of one foreign language, one unit of which may be completed in grade 8. Technology-1 additional unit One additional unit. Career Focus-1 additional unit One additional unit beyond the three units required for graduation. Total Recommended Common Core and Career Focus-27 units Remedial Courses The high school may offer and students may, with parent/guardian permIssIon, be placed in appropriate below-grade-level or remedial courses in English, reading, writing, and/or mathematics. Such courses, however, shall not count toward satisfaction of the specified courses in the core curriculum required for graduation. They may count as electives beyond the required Common Core. Transfer Students A student who transfers into an LRSD high school from another accredited high school shall immediately have his or her transcript evaluated and a graduation plan established that is developed in collaboration with the student and his/her parents/guardians. Transfer students shall be expected to complete the graduation requirements established for their graduation class. 14 The LRSD high school shall accept transfer credits and grades for students who previously attended accredited high schools, with the following exceptions: a. No credit shall be accepted for a course under the general classification of \"religion.\" b. No credit shall be accepted for remedial or below-level courses toward satisfaction of the LRSD Common Core requirements, although such credits may be counted as electives beyond the Common Core. c. Weights assigned to grades from other districts or schools shall not be honored by any LRSD high school. Rather, weights shall be assigned consistently for all students, including transfer students, to ensure fairness. rticipation in the Graduation eremony and Award of Diplo a In der to be a participant in th graduation ceremony, the s tlent must be within one-half unit of comp ng the graduation requ ire ents. All high school stu nts and their parents shall be informed in writing nually of this expect ion when course lists d graduation requirements are published for the sprin gistration process. Principals sha igible participants at the end of the junior year and each quarter orm students and their parents immediately if it is determined that the ng or has lost his/her el igibility to participate in the graduation ceremony. Such students shall b to, night high school, Learning Center. met. the appropriate credit-earning options, including, but not limited o, correspondence courses, and placement .at the Accelerated made until all graduation requirements have been The expect ons of th is section sh II be phased in as folio duation 1999-2000-200 Students may particip e if they are within one unit of completing the graduatio equirements. Graduation 2002 and 2003 Students may participate i ey are within one-half unit of completing the graduation requI ents. 15 Credit-Earning Options for LRSD Students In addition to the credits that students may earn in the traditional high school day at each of the LRSD high schools, students may alternatively earn high school and/or college credits in all of the following fourteen ways: 1. High school credits may be earned for courses taken in grade 8: Algebra I or Geometry taken in grade 8 Foreign Language-Level I or II taken in grade 8. 2. One unit may be earned each summer in the district's Summer High School program. 3. Credits may be earned in the LRSD Evening High School. 4. Concurrent high school and college credit may be earned in designated courses at Hall High School. 5. Dual-enrollment for high school and college credit is available at all high schools. 6. Two units of credit may be earned through approved correspondence courses. 7. Concurrent high school and college credit may be earned for approved correspondence courses. 8. College credit may be earned for certain correspondence courses taken while in high school. 9. Preparation courses for the GED or high school credits and a high school diploma may be earned by selected students at the Accelerated Learning Center. 10. Advanced standing/credit at Pulaski Tech, ITT, and Arkansas State University at Beebe may be earned for successful completion of certain LRSD high school and/or Metropolitan courses. 11 . College credit may be earned by attaining a minimum score of \"3\" on Advanced Placement Examinations. 12. High school credit may be earned during pre-approved summer institutes sponsored by colleges and universities. 13. High school credit may potentially be earned through approved online courses. Approval of one or more programs is pending. 14. High school credit may potentially be earned through earning a minimum grade on an end-of-course examination (credit by examination). Approval of this option is pending. 16 I. Credit for Courses Taken in Middle Schools Middle School Curriculum-Area Schools Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Reading/Writing Workshop 6 (2 periods) or Reading/Writing Workshop 7 (2 periods) or Reading/Writing Workshop 8 (2 periods) or Reading/Writing Workshop 6 Pre-AP (1 period) Reading/Writing Workshop 7 Pre-AP (1 period) Reading/Writing Workshop 8 Pre-AP (1 period) Mathematics 6 or Mathematics 7 or Mathematics 8 or Mathematics 6 Pre-AP Mathematics 7 Pre-AP Mathematics 8 Pre-AP or Algebra I Pre-AP for high school credit Science 6 or Science 7 or Science 8 or Science 6 Pre-AP Science 7 Pre-AP Science 8 Pre-AP (Both include Family Life Education and Drug Education.) (Both include Drug Education.) Social Studies 6 or Social Studies 7 or Social Studies 8 or Social Studies 6 Pre-AP Social Studies 7 Pre-AP Social Studies 8 Pre-AP Physical Education and Health (full year integrated course: Career Orientation (semester\nrequired for all grade 7 The school will offer choices from the list below, and includes Drug Education) students) and Arkansas History (semester\nrequired by the students will select, based on the school's schedule, State of Arkansas) one or more semesters of electives: Keyboarding (semester) (required in either grade 6 or 7) Keyboarding (semester\nrequired for all students who did Band 8, Choir 8, or Orchestra 8 (full year) not complete this course in grade 6) Art 8 (full year) The school will offer choices from the list below, and The school will offer choices from the list below, and Research and Writing 8 Pre-AP (full year) students will select, based on the school's schedule, students will select, based on the school's schedule, Foreign Language I (Level I for high school credit) one or more semesters of electives: one or more semesters of electives: Foreign Language II (Level II for high school credit for Band 6, Choir 6, or Orchestra 6 (full year) Band 7, Choir 7, or Orchestra 7 (full year) students who completed Level I in grade 7) Art 6 (full year) Art 7 (full year) Write On! 8 (full year) Research and Writing 6 Pre-AP (full year\nstrongly Research and Writing 7 Pre-AP (full year) TV Writing and Production (full year) recommended for grade 6 students) Foreign Language I (full year of Level I) Family and Consumer Science 8 (full year) Exploratory Foreign Language and Culture 6 (full year\ntwo Write On! 7 (full year) or three languages, depending upon the school) Exploratory Art 7-8 (semester) Exploratory Art 7-8 (semester) Expressions! 7-8 (semester) Exploratory Art 6 (semester) Expressions! 7-8 (semester) Family and Work Connections 7-8 (semester) Exploratory Music 6 (semester) Family and Work Connections 7-8 (semester) Exploratory Music 7-8 (semester) Expressions! 6 (semester) Exploratory Music 7-8 (semester) Physical Education 7-8 (semester) Physical Education 7 -8 (semester) Computer Technology 7-8 (semester) Computer Technology 7-8 (semester) Keyboarding Applications 7-8 (semester) Keyboarding Applications 7-8 (semester) Industrial Technology 7-8 (semester) Industrial Technology 7-8 (semester) *The Pre-AP (Advanced Placement) series of courses offered m the core areas are the same as the previously designated honors, advanced, enriched, and/or 91fted/talented courses. Titles have simply been standardized for grades 6-12. 17 Grade 6 Reading/Writing Workshop 6 (2 periods) or Reading/Writing Workshop 6 Pre-AP (1 period) or Reading/Writing Workshop 6 GT (1 period) Mathematics 6 or Mathematics 6 Pre-AP or Mathematics 6 GT (Pre-Algebra) Science 6 or Science 6 Pre-AP or Science 6 GT Social Studies 6 or Social Studies 6 Pre-AP or Social Studies 6 GT Physical Education and Health (full year integrated course\nincludes Drug Education) IS Magnet Courses: Dunbar magnet students must take either a Foreign Language or International Studies course in each grade. Exploratory Foreign Language and Culture 6 (full year\nincludes French, German, Spanish, and Latin) and/or one of the following: Planet Earth 6-7 (full year) Seminar 6 (full year) Global Expressions 6-7 (full year) The school will offer choices from the list below, and students will select, based on the school's schedule, one or more semesters of electives. Band 6, Choir 6, or Orchestra 6 (full year) Art 6 (full year) Research and Writing 6 Pre-AP (full year\nstrongly recommended) Research and Writing 6 GT (full year) Keyboarding (semester) and Exploratory Art/Music (semester). Dunbar Middle School Curriculum Little Rock School District Grade 7 Grade 8 Reading/Writing Workshop 7 (2 periods) or Reading/Writing Workshop 8 (2 periods) or Reading/Writing Workshop 7 Pre-AP (1 period) or Reading/Writing Workshop 8 Pre-AP (1 period) or Reading/Writing Workshop 7 GT (1 period) Reading/Writing Workshop 8 GT (1 period) Mathematics 7 or Mathematics 8 or Mathematics 7 Pre-AP (Pre-Algebra) or Mathematics 8 Pre-AP or Algebra I Pre-AP (GT) Algebra I Pre-AP for high school credit or Geometry for high school credit Science 7 or Science 8 or Science 7 Pre-AP Science 8 Pre-AP or Science 7 GT Science 8 GT (Both include Family Life Education and Drug Education.) (Both include Drug Education.) Social Studies 7 or Social Studies 8 or Social Studies 7 Pre-AP or Social Studies 8 Pre-AP Social Studies 7 GT Social Studies 8 GT Career Orientation (semester\nrequired for all grade 7 IS Magnet Courses: Dunbar magnet students must take students) and Arkansas History (semester\nrequired by either a Foreign Language or International Studies course State of Arkansas) in each grade. Keyboarding (semester\nrequired for all students who did Foreign Language 1-11 (Level II for high school credit for not complete this course in grade 6) students who completed Level I in grade 7) IS Magnet Courses: Dunbar magnet students must take and/or one of the following: either a Foreign Language or International Studies course Arkansas' World Connections (full year) in each grade. Seminar 8 (full year) Foreign Language I (full year of Level I) International Money 7-8 (full year) and/or one of the following: Leaders of the 21 st Century 8 (full year) Planet Earth 6-7 (full year) African Studies 7-8 (full year) Seminar 7 (full year) African Studies 7-8 (full year) The school will offer choices from the list below, and Global Expressions 6-7 (full year) students will select, based on the school's schedule, International Money 7-8 (full year) one or more semesters of electives. Band 8, Choir 8, or Orchestra 8 (full year) The school will offer choices from the list below, and Art 8 (full year) students will select, based on the school's schedule, Research and Writing 8 Pre-AP (full year) one or more semesters of electives. Research and Writing 8 GT (full year) Band 7, Choir 7, or Orchestra 7 (full year) Foreign Language I (Level I for high school credit) Art 7 (full year) Write On! 8 (full year) Research and Writing 7 Pre-AP (full year) Family and Consumer Science 8 (full year) Research and Writing 7 GT (full year) Write On! 7 (full year) Exploratory Art 7-8 (semester) Expressions! 7-8 (semester) Exploratory Art 7-8 (semester) Family and Work Connections 7-8 (semester) Expressions! 7-8 (semester) Exploratory Music 7-8 (semester) Family and Work Connections 7-8 (semester) Physical Education 7-8 (semester) Exploratory Music 7-8 (semester) Industrial Technology 7-8 (semester) Physical Education 7-8 (semester) . Industrial Technology 7-8 (semester) The Pre-AP (Advanced Placement) series of courses offered m the core areas are the same as the previously designated honors, advanced, and/or enriched courses. Titles have simply been standardized for grades 6-12. Since Dunbar is a gifted/talented magnet, this school also offers GT-level courses in the core curriculum areas. 18 Grade 6 Reading/Writing Workshop 6 (2 periods) or Reading/Writing Workshop 6 Pre-AP* (1 period) Mathematics 6 or Mathematics 6 Pre-AP* Science 6 or Science 6 Pre-AP* (1 period for area students) or Science 6 and Health Science 6 (2 periods for magnet students) or Science 6 Pre-AP* and Health Science 6* Pre-AP (2 periods for magnet students) Social Studies 6 or Social Studies 6 Pre-AP* Physical Education and Health (full year integrated course\nincludes Drug Education) Keyboarding (semester) (required in either grade 6 or 7) The school will offer choices from the list below, and students will select, based on the school's schedule, one or more semesters of electives: Band 6, Choir 6, or Orchestra 6 (full year) Art 6 (full year) Research and Writing 6 Pre-AP (full year\nstrongly recommended) Exploratory Foreign Language and Culture 6 (full year\ntwo or three languages depending on the school) Exploratory Art 6 (semester) Exploratory Music 6 (semester) Expressions! 6 (semester) Henderson Middle School Curriculum Little Rock School District Grade 7 Grade 8 Reading/Writing Workshop 7 (2 periods) or Reading/Writing Workshop 8 (2 periods) or Reading/Writing Workshop 7 Pre-AP* (1 period) Reading/Writing Workshop 8 Pre-AP* (1 period) Mathematics 7 or Mathematics 8 or Mathematics 7 Pre-AP* Mathematics 8 Pre-AP* or Algebra I Pre-AP for high school credit Science 7 or Science 7 Pre-AP* (1 period for area Science 8 or Science 8 Pre-AP* (1 period for area students) or students) or Science 7 and Health Science 7 (2 periods for magnet Science 8 and Health Science 8 (2 periods for magnet students) or students) or Science 7 Pre-AP* and Health Science 7 Pre-AP* (2 Science 8 Pre-AP* and Health Science 8 Pre-AP* (2 periods for magnet students) periods for magnet students) (All include Family Life Education and Drug Education.) (All include Drug Education.) Social Studies 7 or Social Studies 8 or Social Studies 7 Pre-AP Social Studies 8 Pre-AP* Career Orientation (semester\nrequired for all grade 7 The school will offer choices from the list below, and students) and Arkansas History (semester\nrequired by the students will select, based on the school's schedule, State of Arkansas) one or more semesters of electives: Keyboarding (semester\nrequired for all students who did Band 8, Choir 8, or Orchestra 8 (full year) not complete this course in grade 6) Art 8 (full year) The school will offer choices from the list below, and Research and Writing 6 Pre-AP (full year) students will select, based on the school's schedule, Foreign Language I (Level I for high school credit) one or more semesters of electives: Foreign Language II (Level II for high school credit for Band 7, Choir 7, or Orchestra 7 (full year) students who completed Level I in grade 7) Art 7 (full year) Write On! 8 (full year) Research and Writing 7 Pre-AP (full year) Family and Consumer Science 8 (full year) Foreign Language I (full year of Level I) Write On! 7 (full year) Exploratory Art 7-8 (semester) Expressions! 7-8 (semester) Exploratory Art 7-8 (semester) Expressions! 7-8 (semester) Family and Work Connections 7-8 (semester) Family and Work Connections 7-8 (semester) Exploratory Music 7-8 (semester) Exploratory Music 7-8 (semester) Physical Education 7-8 (semester) Physical Education 7-8 (semester) Computer Technology 7-8 (semester) Computer Technology 7-8 (semester) Keyboarding Applications 7-8 (semester) Keyboarding Applications 7-8 (semester) Industrial Technology 7-8 (semester) Industrial Technology 7-8 (semester) Henderson Health Science Magnet: Henderson Health Science Magnet: Seminar in Health Science (semester\nrecommended) Scientific Illustration (semester\nrecommended) Seminar in Health Science (full year\nrecommended) Technical Writing (semester\nrecommended) Scientific Illustration (semester\nrecommended) Technical Writing (semester\nrecommended) * . . The Pre-AP (Advanced Placement) series of courses offered m the core areas are the same as the previously designated honors, advanced, enriched, and/or gifted/talented courses. Titles have simply been standardized for grades 6-12. 19 Arts Grade 6 Reading/Writing Workshop 6 (2 periods) or Reading/Writing Workshop 6 Pre-AP* (1 period) and French/Spanish/German/Study Skills (1 period) Mathematics 6 or Mathematics 6 Pre-AP* Science/Health 6 or Science/Health 6 Pre-AP' Social Studies 6 or Social Studies 6 Pre-AP' Choose one of the following: Band I, Orchestra I, Choir I, Art I, Dance I, or Speech and Communications The school will offer choices from the list below, and students will select, based on the school's schedule, one or more semesters of electives: Band I, Choir II, or Orchestra Ill (full year) Art I (full year) Research and Writing 6 Pre-AP (full year) Physical Education 6 (full year) Speech and Communications (full year) Dance I (full year) Piano I (full year) Physical Education 6 (semester) Keyboarding (semester) *The Pre-AP (Advanced Placement) series of courses offered in the core areas are the same as the previously designated honors, advanced, enriched, and/or gifted/talented courses. Titles have simply been standardized for grades 6-12. Mann Magnet Middle School Curriculum Little Rock School District Grade 7 Grade 8 Reading/Writing Workshop 7 (2 periods) or Reading/Writing Workshop 8 (2 periods) or Reading/Writing Workshop 7 Pre-AP* (1 period) Reading/Writing Workshop 8 Pre-AP* (1 period) Mathematics 7 or Mathematics 8 or Mathematics 7 Pre-AP' Mathematics 8 Pre-AP* or Algebra I Pre-AP* for high school credit Science 7 or Science 8 or Science 7 Pre-AP' Science 8 Pre-AP* (Both include Family Life Education and Drug Education.) (Both include Drug Education.) Social Studies 7 or Social Studies 8 or Social Studies 7 Pre-AP' Social Studies 8 Pre-AP' Choose one of the following in area of concentration: Keyboarding (semester\nrequired if not taken in grade 6 Band 1-11, Orchestra 1-11, Choir 1-11, Art 1-11, Dance 1-11, or 7) Speech and Communications, or Drama Career Orientation (semester) and Arkansas History Choose one of the following in area of concentration: (semester\nrequired by State of Arkansas) Band 1-11-111, Orchestra 1-11-111, Choir 1-11-111, Art 1-11-111, Dance 1-11-111, Speech and Communications, Drama, or Theatre The school will offer choices from the list below, and The school will offer choices from the list below, and students will select, based on the school's schedule, students will select, based on the school's schedule, one or more semesters of electives: one or more semesters of electives: Band 1-11, Choir 1-11, or Orchestra I- 11 (full year) Band 1-11-111, Choir 1-11-111, or Orchestra 1-11-111 (full year) Art 1-11 (full year) Art 1-11-111 (full year) Research and Writing 7 Pre-AP (full year) Research and Writing 8 Pre-AP (full year) French I, German I, or Spanish I (full year) French I, II, German I, II, or Spanish I, II (for one year of Speech and Communications (full year) high school credit) Drama (full year) Speech and Communications (full year) Dance 1-11 (full year) Drama (full year) Piano 1-11 (full year) Theatre (full year) Physical Education 7-8 (full year) Dance 1-11-111 (full year) Piano 1-11-111 (full year) Family and Work Connections 7-8 (semester) Physical Education 7-8 (full year) Physical Education 7-8 (semester) Keyboarding (semester) Family and Work Connections 7-8 (semester) Keyboarding Applications (semester) Physical Education 7-8 (semester) Computer Technology 7-8 (semester) Keyboarding Applications (semester) Industrial Technology 7-8 (semester) Computer Technology 7-8 (semester) Industrial Technology 7-8 (semester 20 Science Grade 6 Reading/Writing Workshop 6 (2 periods) or Reading/Writing Workshop 6 Pre-AP (1 period) and French/Spanish/German/Study Skills (1 period) Mathematics 6 or Mathematics 6 Pre-AP Science/Health 6 or Science/Health 6 Pre-AP Lab Science 6 or Lab Science 6 Pre-AP Social Studies 6 or Social Studies 6 Pre-AP The school will offer choices from the list below, and students will select, based on the school's schedule, one or more semesters of electives: Band I, Choir I, or Orchestra I (full year) Art I (full year) Research and Writing 6 Pre-AP (full year) Physical Education 6 (full year) Speech and Communications (full year) Dance I (full year) Piano I (full year) Keyboarding (semester) Exploratory Art/Music/German (semester) Physical Education 6 (semester) The Pre-AP (Advanced Placement) series of courses offered in the core areas are the same as the previously designated honors, advanced, enriched, and/or gifted/talented courses. Titles have simply been standardized for grades 6-12. Mann Magnet Middle School Curriculum Little Rock School District Grade 7 Grade 8 Reading/Writing Workshop (2 periods) or Reading/Writing Workshop 8 (2 periods) or Reading/Writing Workshop 7 Pre-AP (1 period) Reading/Writing Workshop 8 Pre-AP (1 period) Mathematics 7 or Mathematics 8 or Mathematics 7 Pre-AP Mathematics 8 Pre-AP or Algebra I Pre-AP for high school credit Science 7 or Science 8 or Science 7 Pre-AP Science 8 Pre-AP (Both include Family Life Education and Drug Education.) (Both include Drug Education.) Lab Science 7 or Lab Science 8 or Lab Science 7 Pre-AP Lab Science 8 Pre-AP Social Studies 7 or Social Studies 8 or Social Studies 7 Pre-AP Social Studies 8 Pre-AP Career Orientation (semester) and Arkansas History Keyboarding (semester\nrequired if not taken in grade 6 (semester\nrequired by the State of Arkansas) or7) The school will offer choices from the list below, and The school will offer choices from the list below, and students will select, based on the school's schedule, students will select, based on the school's schedule, one or more semesters of electives: one or more semesters of electives: Band 1-11, Choir 1-11, or Orchestra 1-11 (full year) Band 1-11-111, Choir 1-11-111, or 1-11-111 (full year) Art 1-11 (full year) Art 1-11-111 (full year) Research and Writing 7 Pre-AP (full year) Research and Writing 8 Pre-AP (full year) French I, German I, or Spanish I (full year) French I, II, German I, II, or Spanish I, II (for one year of Speech and Communications (full year) high school credit) Drama (full year) Speech and Communications (full year) Dance 1-11 (full year) Drama (full year) Piano 1-11 (full year) Theatre (full year) Physical Education 7-8 (full year) Dance 1-11-111 (full year) Piano 1-11-111 (full year) Family and Work Connections 7-8 (semester) Physical Education 7-8 (full year) Physical Education 7-8 (semester) Keyboarding (semester) Family and Work Connections 7-8 (semester) Keyboarding Applications (semester) Physical Education 7-8 (semester) Computer Technology 7-8 (semester) Keyboarding Applications (semester) Industrial Technology 7-8 (semester) Computer Technology 7-8 (semester) Industrial Technology 7-8 (semester) 21 Parameters for Middle Schools: 1. Campus Leadership Teams are charged with the responsibility of designing the elective program in each middle school from the list of approved courses above. Teams are encouraged to build on the school community's strengths, interests, and needs. 2. Each school must offer the option of a full-year music, art, and foreign language program at each grade, 6-8. 3. Schools may design seven-period daily schedules, seven- or eight-period A/8 schedules, but not eight-period daily schedules. 4. The two-period Reading/Writing Workshop in grades 6-8 for regular-level students is to be taught by the same teacher, and schools are strongly encouraged to schedule those two periods back to back. 5. Teacher teams must have at least one planning period in common for collaborative planning and assessment of student work, discussion of student progress toward achievement of rigorous curriculum standards, parent communication, and professional development. 6. Both Mathematics 8 Pre-AP and Algebra I Pre-AP will be offered in 1999-2000 and 2000-01 in all middle schools, and then one or the other courses will be dropped from the curriculum since by then the new middle school mathematics curriculum will be fully implemented. 7. Cloverdale and Dunbar will continue to offer the appropriate ESL classes for second-language students. 8. Students can earn high school credit for Algebra I Pre-AP and/or Level I or Level II of a foreign language taken in grade 8. These courses taken at grade 7 do not earn high school credit. 9. Individual schools shall offer additional support/special classes, with the approval of the Associate Superintendent for Instruction, to meet their goal of providing appropriate personalized educational programs and services to meet specific student needs. Examples of such classes are special assistance classes in reading, writing, and/or mathematics\nspecial classes, for instance, for dyslexic students\nprograms to prevent drop-outs\ninschool suspension programs\nspecial sections of classes for second-language students\nand, of course, special education classes. 22 II. Credit for Courses Taken in Summer High School The 1999 Summer School Plan was under construction when this Catalog was compiled. Schools will receive information about Summer School as soon as it is ready. High school students will be able to earn one credit during summer school. Ill. Credit for Courses Taken in Evening High School Information about the Evening High School Program is available through Ms. Jo Evelyn Elston, Director. IV. Dual-Enrollment for High School and College Credit for Designated Courses Taken at Hall High Effective fall 1999, students may earn dual credit for designated courses at Hall High School. V. Dual-Credit for College Courses Board Policy IHCD It is the policy of the Board of Education that any Little Rock School District student who has successfully completed the eighth grade shall be eligible to enroll in a publicly-supported community college or four-year college or university in accordance with rules and regulations adopted by each institution in consultation with the State Board of Higher Education. A student who enrolls in and successfully completes a course or courses offered by an institution of higher education shall be entitled to receive appropriate academic credit in both the institution of higher education and the district school in which such student is enrolled, which credit shall be applicable to graduation requirements. Administrative Regulation IHCD R-1 The Little Rock School District will grant credit for college courses as detailed in LRSD Policy IHCD. The District establishes conditions that must be met if the college course is to be substituted for a specific course that is required for graduation. Otherwise, the course will be counted as elective credit and will be applied to the electives required for graduation. 1. Any college course or college summer enrichment program that is to be substituted for a specific LRSD graduation requirement must be submitted to the Principal for approval prior to enrollment in the course or program. 2. A one-semester college course of three (3) hours' length will equal one-half unit of high school credit. Summer enrichment experiences must include a minimum of sixty (60) hours of instruction to equal one-half unit of high school credit. 3. A transcript of a successfully completed college course or documentation of successful completion of a college summer enrichment program must be presented to the school registrar before credit will be awarded. 4. If a student requests to receive high school credit for college summer enrichment program that is substituted for a specific course that is required for graduation, he/she must successfully complete an examination administered by an LRSD curriculum supervisor. 5. Both the Principal of the affected school and the Associate Superintendent for Instruction must approve any exception to these conditions. 23 VI. Credit through Correspondence Courses University of Arkansas Regulations for Correspondence Courses-lKEC-R-2 In order to provide consistent guidelines and procedures for correspondence courses in senior high schools within the Little Rock School District, the following regulations have been established: 1. Only two (2) units of credit earned through correspondence may count toward graduation. 2. Students may not receive credit for \"advancement\" without prior approval of the principal and/or designee. 3. The principal and/or designee must approve all requests for students to take correspondence courses. 4. A record of the course approval with time constraints, e.g., course beginning and ending, will be monitored and retained by the guidance department. Options . LRSD students may take correspondence courses for high school credit under the parameters of the Board's policy. This option may meet the needs of the following students: (1) students who wish to accelerate graduation\n(2) students who wish to make up a failed course\n(3) students who lose credit in a course due to excessive absence\n(4) students who wish to earn concurrent college and high school credit for certain courses\n(5) students who wish to get started in earning college credit while in high school\n(6) students who prefer independent study to classroom study\n(7) students who do not have time in the school day to take everything they wish\n(8) ESL students who may be able to read and write in English better than they can speak and listen at this stage of their development. Costs Costs to the student for correspondence courses taken with the University of Arkansas include the following: (1) tuition\n(2) textbook rental or purchase\n(3) course outline and supplies\n(4) postage and handling\nand (5) examination fee. All fees are payable at the time of enrollment. Students should see their counselors for the current total costs of each course. LRSD Approved High School Courses University of Arkansas Course Little Rock School District Equivalent ENGL 9A English 9A (first semester) English I ENGL 9B English 9B (second semester) ENGL 10A English 10A (first semester) English II ENGL 1 0A English 1 OB (second semester) ENGL 11A English 11A (first semester) English Ill ENGL 11 B English 11 B (second semester) ENGL 12A English 12A (first semester) English IV ENGL 12B English 12B (second semester) LA TN IA Latin IA (first semester) Latin I LATN IB Latin IB (second semester) SPAN IA Spanish IA (first semester) Spanish I SPAN IB Spanish IB (second semester) SPAN IIA Spanish IIA (first semester) Spanish II SPAN IIB Spanish IIB (second semester) FREN IA French IA (first semester) French I FREN IB French IB (second semester) ALGB 9A Algebra 9A (first semester) Algebra I ALGB 9B Algebra 9B (second semester) 24 GEOM 10A Geometry 10A (first semester) Geometry GEOM 1 OB Geometry 1 OB (second semester) CIVI 9A Civics 9A (first semester) Civics CIVI 9B Civics 9B (second semester) HIST 1 0A World History 1 0A (first semester) World History HIST 10B World History 10B (second semester) GEOG 1A World Geography IA (first World Geography semester) GEOG 1 B World Geography IB (second semester) HIST 11 A United States History 11 A (first United States History semester) HIST 11 B United States History 11 B (second semester) GLOB I Global Studies (first semester) Global Studies GLOB II Global Studies (second semester) GOVT A American Government A (first American Government semester) GOVT B American Government B (second semester) SOCI I Sociology (one semester) Sociology (one semester) VII. LRSD Approved Dual-Credit Correspondence Courses The University of Arkansas allows high school students, with the approval of the principal, to take freshmen-level college courses and receive both college and high school credit. The following college-level courses are approved for high school academic credit in LRSD. UA College-Level Course LRSD Equivalent Course ENSC 1003 Environmental Science Environmental Science (one semester) FREN 1003 Elementary French I French I FREN 1013 Elementary French II GERM 1003 Elementary German I German I GERM 1013 Elementary German II SPAN 1003 Elementary Spanish I Spanish I SPAN 1013 Elementary Spanish II VIII. Early College Correspondence Enrollment LRSD students may take any other college-level correspondence course approved by the University of Arkansas for college credit and for elective credit in any LRSD high school. (See Policy IHCD and regulations above.) In other words, college freshman-level correspondence courses not listed above may be taken for college credit and for elective credit in LRSD. 25 IX. Accelerated Learning Program (ACC) The Accelerated Learning Program (ACC) is a unique approach to providing effective education for those students in the Little Rock School District who have been identified as needing a flexible, nontraditional learning environment. This program offers the student an opportunity to accelerate and complete required course work needed for a GED or a high school diploma. Because of the Accelerated Learning Center's approach, no extracurricular activities are offered. The criteria for admission follow:  Student is not age-appropriate for current grade level (18 or older).  Student has no category 2 or 3 offenses within one year of application for entry.  Student must have attained a minimum of five credits.  Student eligibility must include one or more of the following: Poor school attendance Failure of two or more courses Currently pregnant or a parent Qualifies for services under IDEA or 504 Record of retention for two or more school years.  Student must complete screening process, including student and parent/guardian interview. 26 X. Advanced Standing/Credit Agreements Articulation Agreements: Pulaski Technical College LRSD has an agreement with Pulaski Technical College, which authorizes the award of Advanced Standing Credit through articulation for the course and areas designated below. College credit for the approved articulated high school courses will only be granted upon completion of an Associate of Applied Science Degree in the designated area of study. Students may receive Advanced Standing at Pulaski Technical College by enrolling in and earning at least a \"B\" in the following LRSD courses: I. Office Technology: Applied Associate Degree LRSD High School Course Pulaski Technical Course Credit Hours Keyboarding Applications Keyboarding 3 Word Processing I Word Processing 4 Word Processing II Advanced Word Processing 4 Computerized Accounting I Accounting I 3 Computer Technology: Computer Fundamentals 3 Business Applications Rapid Writing I and II Speed Writing/Super Write 3 Total: 20 II. Computer Information Systems: Applied Associate Degree The student must apply for articulated course credit, submitting the high school transcript, instructor's recommendation, and any required competency attainment documentation. LRSD High School Course Pulaski Technical Course Credit Hours Computer Technology: Computer Concepts 3 Business Applications Computerized Accounting I Accounting I 3 2 of the following may be used for elective courses: Word Processing I Word Processing 4 Word Processing II Advanced Word Processing 4 Rapid Writing I and 11 Superwrite 3 Total: 13/14 Ill. Transportation Technologies: Applied Associate Degree *It is strongly recommended that students complete ASE examinations prior to enrollment at Pulaski Technical College. Metropolitan Course Pulaski Technical Course Credit Hours Engine Repair AST 2306 Engine Repair 6 Engine Performance* AST 2210 Engine 10 Performance Brakes* AST 1405 Automotive Brake 5 System Automotive Electric AST 2409 Electrical 9 Fundamentals Automotive Suspension* AST 2105 Chassis and 5 Steering Total: 35 27 IV. Electronics Technology *Courses will be taken at the home high school. Metropolitan Course Pulaski Technical Course Electronics Technology I DC Circuits Electronic Technology II AC Circuits *Unified Physics I or Applied Physics Principles of Technology 1-11 *Computer Technology: Computer Fundamentals Business Applications Credit Hours 4 4 3 3 Total: 14 28 Articulation Agreements: ITT Technical Institute ITT will authorize advanced credit through articulation specific skills offered at both institutions. After mastery of the required skill, the high school faculty will submit a signed competency record to the Director of Recruitment and Education at ITT Technical Institute. The college will grant advanced standing to high school students. Credit will be granted upon completion of an Associate of Applied Science degree in their designated area of study. Students must enroll in ITT within two years after graduating from high school. I. Computer-Aided Drafting/Design Technology Metropolitan Course ITT Course Credit Hours Drafting and Design/GADD Principles of Drafting 5 Engineering Drafting and Drafting/CAD Laboratory 4 Design/ CADD-CAM-CNC College Mathematics Mathematics 1 Computer Literacy Computer Literacy I 2 Psychology Success Orientation NC Total: 12 II. Electronics Engineering Technology Metropolitan Course ITT Course Credit Hours Electronics Technology I Principles of Electronics I 5 Electronics Technology II Electronics Laboratory I 2 Mathematics Mathematics 4 Computer Literacy Computer Literacy 2 Psychology Success Orientation NC Total: 12 Articulation Agreements: Arkansas State University-Beebe Articulation with Arkansas State University-Beebe will be via process of course credit. The college will grant \"Advanced Standing through Articulated Programs Credit.\" Upon completion of the indicated vocational course at Metropolitan, students whose names appear on a signed Application for Articulated Credit will be eligible for articulated credit. The student will not have to pay tuition earned by articulation. I. Electronics Metropolitan Course ASU Course Credit Hours Introduction to CAD (year 1) EGT 11024 Introduction to 4 CAD Mechanical Drafting EGT 11014 Intermediate 4 Drafting OR Architectural Drafting EGT 21084 Architectural 4 Drafting Total: 8 29 XI. Credit Earned for Success on Advanced Placement Examinations Placement Criteria for Pre-Advanced Placement (Pre-AP) and Advanced Placement (AP) Courses The Little Rock School District offers Pre-AP and AP courses in several content areas: English language arts, mathematics, science, social studies, foreign language, computer science, art, and music. Students are placed in these courses based on established criteria. Pre-AP and AP courses are designed to give students experiences in college-preparatory and college-level courses. Each secondary school must identify as many students as possible for these courses if the school and the district are to meet the challenging goals established in three critical planning documents: the LRSD Strategic Plan, the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, and the National Science Foundation project in mathematics and science: LRSD Strategic Plan Objectives  No later than the year 2003, no fewer than 9 out of 10 sfudents will meet or exceed LRSD standards of performance identified in the core curriculum.  By 2003, the percentage of students in every identified sub-group of race and gender ... performing at the highest quartile in reading and mathematics on standardized tests shall be at least 30%. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Three important sections of the LRSD Revised Desegregation and Education Plan follow: Section 2/5. 2.6 LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified African-Americans in extracurricular activities, advanced placement courses, honors and enriched courses and the gifted and talented program. Section 2/5. 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 AfricanAmerican students to participate in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement courses. Section 2/5. 2.6.2 LRSD shall implement programs to assist African-Americans in being successful in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement courses. Determining Placement in Pre-AP and AP Courses In determining placement in Pre-AP and AP courses, the following criteria are considered: 1. High-level reading comprehension and writing skills as evidenced by standardized test data and classroom performance. 2. Critical and creative thinking skills. 3. Self-motivation. 4. B average or above. 5. High interest in content area. 6. Ability to perform independent study with high degree of motivation. 7. High level of task commitment. 8. Placement in mathematics determined by interest and path that began in seventh grade. A student does not have to have all of these characteristics\nhowever, these abilities and/or behaviors are considered in placement of students in the core subjects. This process helps to ensure success and proper placement of students. Important Note: A student does not have to be identified for the gifted program in order to enroll in a Pre-AP or AP course at any level. 30 National Science Foundation Cooperative Agreement One of the most important needs identified in the LRSD grant proposal to NSF was as follows: \"A need exists for students to begin preparation to enter high school Advanced Placement mathematics and science courses and other upper level mathematics and science courses while they are still in elementary and junior high school. Many students, even if they meet the course prerequisites for upper level courses, have not acquired the type of skills and content knowledge that is required to be confident about their ability to succeed in these courses. The pre-requisite skills and the confidence they engender are both critical elements in increasing the number of students in AP and other upper level mathematics and science courses. This is particularly true for some minorities who may not be well represented among upper classmen who are currently enrolled in these courses.\" The contract that the district signed with NSF includes the following commitments: The overall mission of the program is to develop systemic approaches that will substantially increase the number of students enrolling in and successfully completing precollege science, engineering, and math courses. This increased enrollment should result in a quantifiable and long-term increase in the number of participating students who complete the \"college preparatory sequence of courses\" in secondary school, graduate, and pursue undergraduate majors in science, engineering, or mathematics. The increase in the number of well-prepared high school graduates will contribute to the national agenda to increase the number of students receiving B.S. degrees in natural sciences, engineering, and academic disciplines by the year 2003. In order to achieve these goals, the current graduation rate of wellprepared high school \"college preparatory tract\" graduates must be substantially increased and, at a minimum, doubled in the next five years. In addition, all high school students must, by the end of the five-year period, be positioned to enroll in Algebra I, the primary gatekeeping course for all college preparatory science and mathematics courses by the year 2003. The specific goals of the project are as follows:  Increase by 2% after Year I of the agreement the composite scores of underrepresented minority students in grades 2-11 on the SAT9. For each subsequent year of the agree, increase by 5%.  Enroll all district eighth and/or ninth grade students in Algebra I by the Year 2003.  Increase the algebra success rates for all district students by 2% after Year I of the agreement\n5% after Year II\n5% after Year Ill\n5% after year IV\nand 5% after Year V.  Increase the numbers of students who enroll in geometry and trigonometry by 2% in Year I of the agreement\n5% in Year II and each year thereafter.  Increase the student success rates in geometry and trigonometry by 2% after Year I and 5% each year thereafter.  Increase the student enrollment rates and student success rates in biology by 2% in Year 1 and 5% each year thereafter.  Increase the student success rates in biology by 2% in Year I\n5% each year thereafter.  Increase the student success rates in chemistry from 62% in Year I of the agreement to 75% in Year V.  Increase the student enrollment in physics from 17% to 30% by Year V of the agreement.  Increase the numbers of students who graduate with proficiency in science and mathematics from 40% to 70% by Year V of the agreement. 31 XI I. Credit Earned through University/College Summer Programs Students may receive high school credit for certain college/university sponsored summer programs if the programs are pre-approved by the Associate Superintendent for Instruction. The courses will be approved if they are aligned with the appropriate Arkansas Curriculum Framework and if they include adequate numbers of clock hours to meet the State's accreditation requirements. XI 11. Credit Earned through Distance Learning District officials are investigating potential opportunities for students to earn high school credit through online courses. If and when a program is approved, high school principals and counselors will be notified. XIV. Credit by Examination District officials are investigating potential opportunities for students to earn high school credit through examination. If and when a program is approved, high school principals and counselors will be notified. 32 .. Miscellaneous Policies and Regulations Relating to Instruction Administrative Directive EPS: 118-Minimum Class Size A class must have at least fifteen (15) students enrolled before it may be scheduled for a course offering. Resource classes are the exception to this rule. Any modification in this directive must be approved by the Assistant Superintendent for Secondary Schools. Policy IKFA: Early Graduation The Little Rock School District Board of Directors believes that with rare exception the many benefits of a high school education cannot be fully real ized in less than four years. Further, it views the entire senior year as an important period during which the student should be able to enjoy many experiences providing academic growth and enrichment. Only in unusual or extenuating circumstances should a student forego the opportunities available during the senior year. But for those who may have special needs or goals and who would benefit from early graduation, procedures are established through regulations. Regulation IKFA-R: Regulation for Early Graduation If the applicant meets the above requirements, the student will submit a written request for early graduation to the high school principal prior to the beginning of the fifth (5th ) semester. If the student requests to graduate at the end of the seventh (7) semester, the request must be made prior to the beginning of the sixth (6th ) semester. A plan for early graduation will be reviewed in a conference to include the student, counselor, parents, and the high school principal. After a complete evaluation of the request, the principal will make a final decision on the request and forward that decision to the Associate Superintendent for Educational Programs and Staff Development. Graduation If early graduation is approved, the student may participate in commencement exercises on the same basis as regular graduates. Students who do not wish to participate in commencement exercises will receive their diploma as soon as practical after the exercises. Administrative Directive IKA: Selection of Honor Graduates (for the Class of 2002 and prior\nthe new regulations on the Honors Seal are effective for the Class of 2003) An honor graduate must have attained a 3.5 GPA in grades 9-12 in regular, enriched, or honors courses. Grades for ALL EIGHT SEMESTERS must be used. PLEASE NOTE: New Board Policies, Regulations, and Administrative Directives Coming! The \"Instruction\" section of the Board's policy book, as well as the related Administrative Directives and Regulations, will be revised and updated during spring 1999. Many changes and additions are anticipated. It is important that all staff refer to these documents frequently in the transition of implementation. 33 Course Numbering Code All secondary courses, grades 6-12, are numbered and maintained in the office of the Associate Superintendent for Instruction. Any requests for additional numbers to facilitate scheduling must be directly to that office. No school is authorized to add numbers on its own. All courses must be approved by the Board of Education, and all course numbers have to be approved by the Associate Superintendent for Instruction and be in the centrally maintained file. Any requests for new courses must be made through the fall process established for adding or modifying courses. All LRSD courses have six digits. The code used to number courses follows: The first two digits designate the subject area. 02xxxx = Art 03xxxx = Business Education 05xxxx = Communications, Drama, English, ESL, Journalism 06xxxx = Foreign Languages 08xxxx = Driver Education, Health, Physical Education 09xxxx = Family and Consumer Science 11 xxxx = Mathematics 12xxxx = Dance, Music 13xxxx = Science 15xxxx = 16xxxx = 17xxxx = 19xxxx = 20xxxx = 26xxxx = Social Studies Metropolitan Marketing Education, Trades and Industry Special Education Non-Credit JROTC The third digit designates the grade level at which a course may first be taught. Xx6xxx = Grade 6 Xx?xxx = Grade 7 Xx8xxx = Grade 8 Xx1 xxx = Grade 9 Xx2xxx = Grade 1 0 Xx3xxx = Grade 11 Xx4xxx = Grade 12 Xx5xxx = Advanced Placement or University Credit Course at Hall High The sixth digit designates whether the course is taught one semester or full year. Odd numbers (1, 3, 5, 7, 9) = Semester courses Even numbers (0, 2, 4, 6, 8) = Full-year courses 34 Effective for 1998-99 freshmen, all students must complete one unit from art, music, dance, or drama to meet the graduation requirements in Fine Arts. Students choosing Fine Arts for a Career Focus must complete a minimum of three units beyond the Common Core requirement in art, dance, drama, or music. Students are also strongly encouraged to complete two units in one foreign language. Students who were freshmen prior to fall 1998 must complete one-half unit from the Fine Arts. '99-2000 Abbrev. Description Grades Prerequisites Credit Course Title No. 021000 INTRO TO ART Introduction to Art 9 None 1 022000 ART-DESIGN Art-Design 10-12 Introduction to Art 1 022002 GRPHC DSGN Graphic Design 10-12 Introduction to Art 1 022004 PAINTING Painting 10-12 Drawing I 1 022006 WATERCOLOR Watercolor 10-12 Introduction to Art 1 024000 CREAT ART Creative Art 12 Introduction to Art, Painting, and 1 Watercolor 022001 SURVEY ART Survey of Fine Arts 9-12 None  021008 DRAWING 1 Drawing I 9-12 None 1 022008 DRAWING2 Drawing II 10-12 Drawing I 1 025000 STUDIO ART AP Studio Art AP 11-12 Painting or Drawing II and 1 Teacher Recommendation 025002 ART HIST AP Art History AP 11-12 English II Pre-AP 1 Introduction to Art Students in Introduction to Art will expand on their previous experience with the elements of art and principles of design. Original compositions and expanded media will be emphasized. This course examines the elements of design with students creating individual designs utilizing the principles of graphic art, color, and texture. Design concepts are applied to projects in photography, crafts, ceramics, and sculpture. Art appreciation and a study of career opportunities are integrated into the course. Grade: 9 Prerequisite: None Credit: 1 Art- Design Art-Design is designed for students with previous art training and provides in-depth study of the principles of design. Students will be introduced to critical analysis and art appreciation. Grade: 10-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Graphic Design Introduction to Art 1 This course introduces advertising layout with units of study in illustration, lettering, and printmaking. Practical applications of commercial art and careers are explored. Grade: 10-12 Prerequisite: Introduction to Art Credit: 1 35 Painting Painting is a course designed to provide basic instruction and opportunities to experiment with different mediums, subjects, and techniques. Units of art appreciation and history are included. Grade: 10-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Watercolor Drawing I 1 This course is an introduction to watercolor techniques and an exploration of mediums. Grade: 10-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Creative Art Introduction to Art 1 This individualized and advanced art course is designed to encourage a student to pursue his/her particular painting interest. Watercolor is basic to this course in addition to the following: oil, acrylic, tempera paints, pencils, crayons, markers, inks, woods, glue, plaster, and canvas available. Individual study and portfolio preparation is an integral part of the course. Grade: 12 Prerequisite: Credit: Introduction to Art, Painting, and Watercolor 1 Survey of Fine Arts: Art This course provides an opportunity for students, not enrolled in art performance courses, to fulfill the fine arts graduation requirement. The content is structured to illustrate the interrelationship of parallel arts forms (music, visual arts, dance, and drama). Grade: 9-12 Prerequisite: None Credit: 1/2 Drawing I This course is an introduction to basic drawing units of study in the following areas: line, composition, forms, tonal scale, texture, color theory, enlargement, perspective, pen and ink, portraits, and lettering. Grade: 9-12 Prerequisite: None Credit: 1 Drawing II This course is structured as an in-depth study of visual perception. Skills development include proportion, perspective, and shading of the human face, features and body. The student is required to exhibit selected works. Grade: 10-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Studio Art AP Drawing I 1 Advanced Placement Studio Art is intended for the highly motivated student interested in the serious study of art. Assignments are individually arranged with the instructor and based on portfolio needs\nleading to the compiling of a portfolio to submit for the AP College Board. Grade: 11-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Painting or Drawing II and Teacher Recommendation 1 36 Art History AP Advanced Placement Art History is an introductory survey of the history of visual art from pre-historic to modern art. The purpose of this course is to provide the student with a foundation in art appreciation. Art History AP provides a broad overview of the history of art, beginning with Prehistoric art and ending with art of the Modern Era. This course is intended to provide a familiarity with the d~velopment of art, its major movements and figures, and its relationship to the historical period in which it was created. The curriculum is designed to develop skills and mastery of content needed for success on the AP examination. Grade: 11-12 Prerequisite: Credit: English II Pre-AP for non-art students\nA or 8 average in Art History for visual art students 1 37 Art-Parkview Magnet Parkview Arts Magnet students must complete eight units in one of the following speciality areas: dance, drama, art, or music. Students are also strongly encouraged to complete at least two units in one foreign language. '99-2000 Abbrev. Description Grades Prerequisites Credit Course Title No. 022003 POTTERY A Pottery A 10-12 Drawing I\nParkview only  023003 POTTERY B Pottery B 10-12 Pottery A\nParkview only  022010 POTTERY Pottery 10-12 Drawing I\nParkview only 1 022012 JEWELRY Jewelry 10-12 Drawing I and teacher 1 recommendation\nParkview only 024008 DRAWING 3 Drawing Ill 11-12 Drawing II\nParkview only 1 023002 OILS Oils 11-12 Painting\nParkview only 1 022014 CRAFTS FIBER Crafts-Fiber 10-12 Drawing I\nParkview only 1 023004 3-0 DESIGN Three-Dimensional 11-12 Pottery I\nParkview only 1 Design 022005 PRINTMAKING Printmaking 10-12 Drawing I\nParkview only  021010 ART HIST Art History 9-12 None\nParkview only 1 Pottery A (Parkview Magnet only) Students will study clay, glazes, and kiln. Handbuilding methods will include pinch, slab, and coil construction. Study will include kiln stacking and wheel throwing techniques. Grade: 10-12 Prerequisite: Drawing I Credit: 1/2 Pottery B (Parkview Magnet only) Students will learn more advanced pottery skills emphasizing wheel techniques, kiln operation and decoration techniques. Pottery I and II are combined courses with both beginning and advanced students. Grade: 10-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Pottery A 1/2 Jewelry (Parkview Magnet only) This course includes jewelry construction fundamentals, design composition, sawing, scrolling, piercing, soldering, bezel setting, and buffing. Different forms of jewelry, metals, and stones will be studied. Grade: 10-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Drawing I and Teacher Recommendation 1 Drawing Ill (Parkview Magnet only) This course is structured for advanced students to work independently on drawing techniques. The student is required to give written critiques of their work and exhibit selected works. Grade: 11-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Drawing II 1 38 Oils (Parkview Magnet only) This course is designed for students who have had experience with basic painting techniques and wish to work with oils. Emphasis is on developing a personal style. Composition and color problems will be examined. Grade: 11-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Painting 1 Crafts - Fibers (Parkview Magnet only) This course is designed for students interested in the study of fibers and the variety of crafts which incorporate these materials and will include fabric design, fabric embellishment, spinning, weaving, and silk painting. Grade: 10-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Drawing I 1 Three-Dimensional Design (Parkview Magnet only) This course is designed for advanced students interested in continuing the study of sculptural and three-dimensional design. The course will include a variety of sculptural and design techniques. Grades: 11-12 Prerequisite: Pottery I Credit: 1 Printmaking (Parkview Magnet only) Printmaking is a course which offers studies in various methods of reproducing original art work. Screen process printing, relief printing, etching, and lithography techniques will be covered. Vocabulary and history will be taught along with printing procedures and the proper use of materials. The student will also be expected to master the ability to create appropriate designs and proper exhibition techniques. Grades: 10-12 Prerequisites: Credit: Drawing I  Art History (Parkview Magnet only) Grades: 9-12 Prerequisite: None Credit: 1 39 Business Education Note: All completers of a Workforce Education career focus/major must complete the Foundation Core courses consisting of:  Career Orientation (required in grade 7)  Keyboarding (required in grade 6 or 7, effective fall 1999)  Computer Technology: Introduction or Word Processing A or Computerized Business Applications Effective for 1998-99 freshmen, all students must complete at least one unit in Technology Applications in order to meet graduation requirements. This requirement may be satisfied through completion of one unit from the following:  Keyboarding Applications (1/2)  Word Processing A (1/2)  Word Processing B (1/2)  Database Management (1/2)  Desktop Publishing A (1 /2)  Desktop Publishing B (1 /2)  Programming A (1/2)  Programming B (1/2)  Computerized Business Applications (1)  Computerized Accounting (1) Students who are interested in completing the Recommended Common Core and Career Focus must complete one additional unit from the list of Technology Applications courses. Students who choose Administrative Services as a Career Focus must complete a minimum of three units from the following courses:  Word Processing A and B (1)  Office Management or Cooperative Office Education (1) And one from the following:  Computerized Accounting I or II ( 1)  Computerized Business Applications (1)  Desktop Publishing A and B (1)  Multimedia Applications (1/2)  Rapid Writing A and B (1)  Workplace Readiness (1/2) Students who choose Business Management as a Career Focus must complete a minimum of three units from the following courses:  Computerized Accounting I or II (1 )*  Management (1) And one from the following:  Business Law (1)  Computerized Business Applications (1)  Multimedia Applications (1/2)  Word Processing A and B (1)  Workplace Readiness (1/2) *The student must take Computerized Accounting II to satisfy this requirement if Computerized Accounting I was selected to fulfill the technology applications requirement. 40 Students who choose Finance as a Career Focus must complete a minimum of three units from the following courses:  Banking and Finance Marketing (1/2)  Banking and Finance Principles (1/2)  Banking and Finance Operations (1/2)  Banking and Finance Law (1/2)  Computerized Accounting I (1) Or three units to include Computerized Accounting 1-11 and one unit from the following:  Computerized Business Applications (1)  Database Management (1/2)  Spreadsheet Applications (1 /2)  Word Processing A (1/2)  Word Processing B (1/2)  Workplace Readiness (1/2) McClellan High School magnet students who choose Business Prinicples and Management must complete a minimum of five and one-half units from the following:  Computerized Business Applications (1) Or two of the following:  Word Processing A (1/2)  Desktop Publishing (1/2)  Database Management (1/2)  Spreadsheet Applications (1 /2) And:  Computerized Accounting I (1)  Junior Executive Training (1)  2  units of school-approved electives McClellan High School magnet students who choose Economics and Finance as a Career Focus must complete a minimum of five and one-half units from the following :  Computerized Business Applications (1) or Two of the following:  Word Processing A (1/2)  Desktop Publishing (1/2)  Database Management (1/2)  Spreadsheet Applications (1/2) And:  Economics (1) or Banking and Finance Principles (1/2) and Banking and Finance Operations (1/2) and  Junior Executive Training (1) and  2  units of school-approved electives 41 Business Education '99-2000 Abbrev. Description Grades Prerequisites Credit Course Title No. 031001 KEYBOARDING Keyboarding 9-12 None  031003 KEYBDAPPLS Keyboarding 9-12 Keyboarding  Applications 031004  KEYBD/APPL Keyboarding and 9-12 None 1 Keyboarding Applications (full year) 031019 COMPTECH INT Computer 9-12 Keyboarding  Technology: Introduction 031005 WORD PROCA Word Processing A 9-12 Keyboarding  032005 WORD PROCB Word Processing B 10-12 Word Processing A  032002 WORD PROA/B Word Processing I 10-12 Keyboarding 1 032004 COMP ACCT 1 Computerized 10-12 Overall \"C\" average\n1 Accounting I Keyboarding 033004 COMPACCT2 Computerized 11-12 Computerized Accounting I 1 Accounting II 032007 DATABASE MGT Database 10-12 Keyboarding  Management 032009 SPREADSHEETS Spreadsheet 10-12 Keyboarding  Applications 033002 OFFICE MGT Office Management 11-12 Word Processing B 1 032011 RAPIDWRTGA Rapid Writing A 10-12 Keyboarding  032013 RAPIDWRTG B Rapid Writing B 10-12 Rapid Writing A  033016 BUSINESS LAW Business Law 11-12 Foundation Core 1 033006 JR EXECTRNG Junior Executive 11-12 Computerized Accounting I 1 Training 033008 COE--RELATED Cooperative Office 11-12 Keyboarding\nplus one 1 Education-- Related additional unit in Bus. Ed. 033010 COE--RELATED Cooperative Office 11-12 Keyboarding\nplus one 1 Education-Related additional unit in Bus. Ed. (Early Bird) 033012 COE-COOP OJT Cooperative Office Concurrent enrollment in Coop. 1 Education -OJT Education--Related 031015 PROGAMMING A Programming A 9-12 Keyboarding  032015 PROGRAMMING B Programming B 10-12 Keyboarding and Programming  A 032006 COMP BUS APPL Computerized 10-12 Keyboarding, Word Processing 1 Business A and Word Processing B Applications 031017 DESKTOP PUB A Desktop Publishing 10-12 Keyboarding and Word  A Processing A 032017 DESKTOP PUB B Desktop Publishing 10-12 Keyboarding and Desktop  B Publishing A 033001 MULTIMEDIA Multimedia 11-12 Word Processing A and B  Applications in Business 033003 BANK/FIN PRIN Banking and 11-12 Computerized Accounting I  Finance Principles (Suggested) 033005 BANK/FIN OPR Banking and 11-12 Banking and Finance Principles  Finance Operations 033007 BANK/FIN MKG Banking and 11-12 Banking and Finance Principles  Finance Marketing 033009 BANK/FIN LAW Banking and 11-12 Banking and Finance Principles  Finance Law 42 Keyboarding Keyboarding is a one-semester course designed to help students develop speed and accuracy by learning the touch operation of alphanumeric/keyboard characters. Emphasis is placed on the following: mastery of the keyboard with desirable keyboarding techniques\ndevelopment of speed and accuracy\nbasic problem-solving applications of centering and arranging reports, letters, and tables\nproofreading\nformatting\nand proper care of the equipment. Keyboarding is the foundation for developing entry-level skills for business and other careers where computers are used. Grades: 9-12 Prerequisite: None Credit:  Keyboarding Applications Keyboarding Applications is a one-semester course designed to further develop keyboarding skills. Emphasis is placed on the following: speed and accuracy\nproofreading\nproducing mailable copy from rough draft\nhandwritten and statistical documents\nand improving production of various types of business communications. Keyboarding Applications provides the skills and knowledge necessary for entry-level employment for business careers. Grades: 9-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Keyboarding  Keyboarding and Keyboarding Applications This one-year course is a combination of the two one-semester courses listed above. Grades: 9-12 Prerequisite: None Credit: 1 Computer Technology: Introduction Computer Technology: Introduction is a one-semester course designed to prepare students with an introduction to computers and business applications which are necessary to live and work in a technological society. Emphasis is given to data entry, computer concepts and operations, programming and design, computer software, implications of technology in society, and ethics. The course is designed to provide students with an understanding of the business, industrial and scientific area in which the computer is used. Grades: 9-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Keyboarding 1/2 Word Processing A Word Processing A is a one-semester course designed to provide students with entry-level skills in word-processing concepts, operations, text manipulations, and production of business documents using an intermediate or advanced-level software program. In addition, training in basic word vocabulary skills\nmechanics of punctuation and grammar\nformat and style\nand proofreading, editing, and reviewing business documents are included in the course. Grades: 9-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Keyboarding  Word Processing B Word Processing B is a one-semester course designed to provide students with competencies in word-processing concepts. Emphasis is on production of business documents and applications, including formats, creating and maintaining files, repetitive documents, revising, and printing. Grades: 10-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Word Processing A  43 Computerized Accounting I Computerized Accounting I is a full-year course with emphasis on basic accounting principles as they relate to both manual and computerized systems. Instruction is on an integrated basis using computers and electronic calculators as the relationships and processes of manual and computerized accounting are presented. A knowledge of programming is not necessary for enrollment. Entry-level skills in the .accounting occupations can be attained. Grades: 10-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Overall \"C\" average and Keyboarding 1 Computerized Accounting II Computerized Accounting II is a full-year course designed to provide students with the knowledge, understanding, and skill necessary for successful careers in accounting. Partnership as well as departmental, corporate, and cost-accounting systems are components of the course. Emphasis is given to the computerized/automated functions in accounting. Grades: 11-12 Prerequisite: Computerized Accounting I Credit: 1 Database Management Database Management is a one-semester course where students learn to organize data\ncreate, search, and query databases\nand use integrated software to combine databases with wordprocessing and main merge. Grades: 10-12 Prerequisite: Keyboarding Credit:  Spreadsheet Applications Spreadsheet Applications is a one-semester course in which students use computer programs to analyze quantitative data. Emphasis is placed on the role and value of spreadsheets, financial reporting, budgeting, planning, and forecasting. Grades: 10-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Keyboarding  Office Management Office Management is a full-year course focusing on management and supervision in the office environment. The course covers basic skills such as word processing, records management, and communications, as well as decision-making, critical thinking, teamwork, and ethics. Grades: 11-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Rapid Writing A Word Processing B 1 Rapid Writing A is a one-semester course in any alphabetic writing or symbolic shorthand system designed to make note-taking easier, faster, and efficient. Emphasis is placed on theory, speed, reinforcement, transcription skills, spelling, punctuation, and vocabulary. The course is designed for any student wishing to make notes for educational, business, and personal use. Grades: 10-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Keyboarding  44 Rapid Writing B Rapid Writing B is designed for the student who wishes to become more proficient in the use of the art of note-taking. It is a continuation of Rapid Writing A and emphasizes speed, transcription, skills, effective listening skills, spelling, vocabulary, mechanics of grammar, and note-taking applications. Grades: 10-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Business Law Rapid Writing A  Business Law is a two-semester course designed to acquaint the student with some of the legal problems and rights encountered in business transactions. This course will include law and the judicial systems\nlaws relating to minors, consumers, and the business firm\nelements of contracts, credit\nsales contracts\nemployment laws\ncommercial paper\ninsurance and property rights. Grades: 11-12 Prerequisite: Foundation Core Credit: 1 Junior Executive Training Junior Executive Training (JET) is a two-semester course designed to focus on small business ownership and management. Units of instruction include business and its environment, social and economic implications of business, business decision-making, business planning, legal aspects of business ownership, legal issues of small businesses, obtaining initial capital and credit, protecting assets, management functions, controlling, personnel management, business taxes and government regulations, and community relations. The student will be introduced to the use of microcomputer software as a tool for business decision-making and business communications. Software will include database management, spreadsheet applications, and word processing. The Business Executive Game, with emphasis on managerial decision-making, is an integral part of the course. Grades: 11-12 Prerequisite: Computerized Accounting I Credit: 1 Cooperative Office Education--Related Cooperative Office Education (COE) is a two-semester course designed for junior and senior business students. This course is a supervised learning experience where advanced business education students attend school on half-day and work in a business office a minimum of 270 hours per semester. A related class is required as part of the one-half day of school work. One unit of credit is given for the related class and one or two credits for on-the-job training. Grades: 11-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Keyboarding, plus one additional credit in Business Education 1 Cooperative Office Education-OJT Students who have completed advanced training in related business education classes will be employed and compensated in an approved training station related to their learning experiences, skills, and career focus. A minimum of 270 clock hours of on-the-job training per semester is required. Grades: 11-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Concurrent enrollment in Cooperative Office Education-Related 1 45 Programming A Programming A is a one-semester course with emphasis on programming business and general applications. Students learn planning and coding techniques through the use of practical applications. Design and use of structure as well as decision-making in programs are integrated throughout the course. Grades: 9-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Programming B Keyboarding  Programming B is a one-semester course designed to teach the basic language in a structured fashion using programming concepts and techniques for practical business applications. A strong emphasis is placed on developing a level of skill with which production programs for business use may be planned and coded. The course is designed to provide students with the necessary skills to document, code, enter, and execute a well-designed basic program, and the student will be able to recognize a well-designed and well-written program. Grades: 10-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Keyboarding and Programming A  Computerized Business Applications Computerized Business Applications is a two-semester course designed to prepare students with an introduction to business applications which are necessary to live and work in a technological society. Emphasis is given to hardware, concepts, and business uses of applications. The business applications covered are word processing, database, spreadsheet, graphics, integrated software, electronic mail, management-support software, and image processing. Grades: 10-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Keyboarding, Word Processing A and Word Processing B 1 Desktop Publishing A Desktop Publishing A is a one-semester course that combines the versatility of the microcomputer with page design software enabling students to produce materials of near photo-typed quality. This course includes page composition , layout, design, editing functions, and a variety of printing options. Grades: 10-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Keyboarding and Word Processing A  Desktop Publishing B Desktop Publishing B is a one-semester course designed to study the process of analyzing information and audience and choosing the appropriate visual signals to communicate the desired message effectively. Applied principles are used to analyze and organize information, set up a design structure, and produce special visual expressions. Grades: 10-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Keyboarding and Desktop Publishing A  Multimedia Applications in Business Students will use multimedia to merge text, graphics, video, and sound. Applied principles are used to analyze and organize information, set up design structures, and produce special visual expressions. State-developed curriculum materials and multimedia software applications will be used. Grades: Prerequisite: Credit: 11-12 Word Processing A and B 1/2 46 Banking and Finance Principles Banking and Finance Principles is a one-semester course that assists the students in understanding the American banking system. Students study the Federal Reserve System, banking and the economy, functions of depository institutions, and daily transactions of depository institutions. This curriculum is adapted from Wisconsin Finance Youth Apprenticeship, Wisconsin Department of Industry, Labor, and Human Relations, Bureau of Apprenticeship Standards, Office for Workforce Excellence. Grades: 11-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Computerized Accounting I (Suggested)  Banking and Finance Operations Banking and Finance Operations is a one-semester course that assists the student in understanding the United States payment system and daily operations of depository institutions. Students study regulatory framework, the U.S. Payment system, the check collection system, money creation, internal controls, financial statements, and risks . This curriculum is adapted from Wisconsin Finance Youth Apprenticeship, Wisconsin Department of Industry, Labor, and Human Relations, Bureau of Apprenticeship Standards, Office of Workforce Excellence. Grades: 11-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Banking and Finance Principles  Banking and Finance Marketing Banking and Finance Marketing is a one-semester course that focuses on marketing in the banking industry. Emphasis is placed on customer satisfaction and service quality, implementation of marketing plans, and the future of bank marketing. Grades: 11-12 Prerequisite: Banking and Finance Principles Credit:  Banking and Finance Law Banking and Finance Law is a one-semester course that assists the student in understanding the legal environment in which depository institutions exist. Students study basic concepts in business law in the areas of contract law, agency law, property law, commercial paper law, and credit law. This curriculum is adapted from Wisconsin Finance Youth Apprenticeship, Wisconsin Department of Industry, Labor, and Human Relations, Bureau of Apprenticeship Standards, Office for Workforce Excellence. Grades: 11-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Banking and Finance Principles  47 ~ I Business Education-McClellan High Business Education-McClellan High only Business 033014 ECONOMICS Economics 11-12 None\nMcClellan High only 034002 BUS FINANCE Business Finance 12 Economics\nMcClellan High only 033011 INTRN BUS International 11-12 Foundation Core\nMcClellan  Business High only 032023 ENTREPRNSHP Entrepreneurship 10-12 Foundation Core\nMcClellan  High only Business Etiquette/Leadership (McClellan High only) Business Etiquette/Leadership is a one-semester course which teaches students how to refine their manners for the world-of-work. Proper etiquette, personality development, proper speaking, and dress for success will be discussed. The course is designed to build self-esteem and to motivate students as potential leaders. The \"I Can\" program will be used. Grades: 10-12 Prerequisite: None Credit:  Introduction to Business (McClellan High only) A major purpose of Introduction to Business is to contribute to improved economic citizenship through a study of the business and economic environment in which we all live. Economic citizenship means the development of individuals who are knowledgeable and appreciative of the American business system and its integral role in our total economic society, are competent and efficient in managing their own personal business and financial affairs, and are wise and skillful in selecting and using the goods and services of business. Grades: 10-12 Prerequisite: None Credit:  Economics (McClellan High only\nsee also under Social Studies) Economics is a two-semester course designed to teach students about economic problems and situations of consumers, business, and government. The monetary system, employment, price level, business fluctuations, and international trade are also discussed. Grades: 11-12 Prerequisite: None Credit: 1 Business Finance (McClellan High only) Business Finance is a two-semester course which places emphasis on the modern corporation, methods of securing and managing assets, problems of bankruptcy, insurance, and investment in stocks and bonds. Grade: 12 Prerequisite: Credit: Economics 1 48 International Business (McClellan High only) International Business and Banking is a one-semester course pursuing the study of economics, competition, politics, and social activities across national boundaries. Students are taught to think in global terms concerning their legal, cultural, economic, and political environments. Grade: 11-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Foundation Core  Entrepreneurship (McClellan High only) Entrepreneurship is a one-semester course designed to offer an overview of the American business enterprise system. A study is made of various forms of ownership, internal organization, management functions, and financing as they relate to business. The course content focuses on the concepts and practices of small business ownership and management. The student should be introduced to microcomputer software that is used as a tool for management functions. It is recommended that Economics at Work, developed by the Agency for Instructional Technology, the National Council on Economic Education, and a consortium of state education agencies, be utilized in the second semester as a contextual, multimedia approach designed around five major economic activities, including producing, exchanging, consuming, saving, and investing. Grades: 10-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Foundation Core 1/2 49 Communications Effective for 1998-99 freshmen , students must complete Communication I to satisfy graduation requirements. Students who choose Humanities as a Career Focus may complete the minimum of three required units beyond the Common Core from Communications. McClellan High School magnet students who choose Oral Communication as a Career Focus must complete a minimum of five and one-half units from the following courses:  Communications I (1)  Dramal(1)  Mass Media A and 8 (1)  Public Speaking/Business Communications (1/2)  2 units of school-approved electives. Communications Communication I Hall High only\nUniversity course ESL Communication I Concurrent enrollment in ESL English\nHall High only 052100 COMMUNICA2 Communication II 10-12 Communication I 053100 COMMUNICA3 Communication Ill 11-12 Communication II 052102 DEBATE 1 Debate I 10-12 Communication I 053102 DEBATE 2 Debate II 11-12 Debate I 054102 DEBATE 3 Debate Ill 12 Debate II 052104 PUB SPKG Public Speaking 10-12 Communication I 052106 GRP DYNAMICS Interpersonal Skills 10-12 Communication 1 and Group Dynamics Communication I Communication I is designed to improve communication skills, especially organization of ideas, use of body and voice, articulation, fluency, and poise. The course consists of oral interpretation, group discussion, and parliamentary procedure. Grade: 9-10 Prerequisite: Credit: None 1 ESL Communication I (Hall High only\nsee also in English-as-a-Second Language) This course is offered to identified ESL students to strengthen their oral language proficiency and at the same time satisfy the one-year requirement of Communication I. Grades: 9-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Identification for ESL 1 50 Communication II This course is designed for those students who wish to develop further their communication competencies, especially before audiences of various types and sizes. Students present five and ten minute speeches on issues of concern in fields of current social, political, and economic problems. Also included are one or two rounds of research discussion\nbilateral communication assignments beginning with direct-clash or two-person debates\nstandard four-person debates using comparative advantages case structure\njudicial debate using the format of a mock trial\na simple informative speech\nan informative speech on community resources and developments using visual aids to enhance clarity and effectiveness\nthe idea-scope which is developed out of an idea and then adapted to a given audience\nthe speech to convince\nthe speech to actuate\nthe speech to stimulate\nand a media presentation on the format of a 30-minute newscast using videotape for the unit. Grade: 10-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Communication I 1 Communication Ill Designed for those students who reach their junior year with no training in improving communication competencies, this course is organized around an inter-personal approach to communication. Though emphasis is on effective verbal and non-verbal communication throughout the course, each individual unit has at least one additional point of focus: an analysis of student communication behaviors, informal group discussion, research group discussion, queries and comments in the form of a panel interview, informational and job interviews using resource people within the community, bilateral communication assignments in the form of two-person debates, various types of speeches to inform, effective use of visual aids to increase understanding of messages, speeches to change attitudes, legislative debating and the use of parliamentary procedure through the form of a student congress, and a study of the limitations and influences of media. Grade: 11 -12 Prerequisite Credit: Debate I Communication II 1 This course is designed to provide opportunities and experience for the students who desire to participate in intensive and extensive debate activities. After the students have learned the basic concepts and skills related to debate, they work independently and cooperatively with other students to master these concepts and skills through actual application in speech tournaments and the Arkansas Student Congress. Grade: 10-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Debate II Communication I 1 This course is designed to provide opportunities and experience for the student who desires to participate in intensive and extensive debate activities. After the student has learned the basic concepts and skills related to debate, he/she works independently and cooperatively with other students to master these concepts and skills through actual application in speech tournaments and the Arkansas Student Congress. Grade: 11-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Debate I 1 51 Debate Ill This course is designed to provide opportunities and experience for the student who desires to participate in intensive and extensive debate activities. After the student has learned the basic concepts and skills related to debate, he/she works independently and cooperatively with other students to master these concepts and skills through actual application in speech tournaments and the Arkansas Student Congress. Grade: 12 Prerequisite: Credit: Public Speaking Grades: Prerequisite: Credit: Debate II 1 10-12 Communication I 1 Interpersonal Skills and Group Dynamics Grades: 10-12 Prerequisite: Communication I Credit: 1 52 Dance-Parkview Magnet Parkview Arts Magnet students must complete eight units in one of the following speciality areas: dance, drama, art, or music. Studen_ts are also strongly encouraged to complete two units in one foreign language. Parkview only Dance Techniques I\nParkview only 123000 DANCE TECH 3 Dance Techniques Ill 11-12 Dance Techniques II\nParkview only 124000 DANCE TECH 4 Dance Techniques IV 12 Dance Techniques Ill\nParkview only 123004 DANCE ENSBLE Dance Ensemble 10-12 Parkview only 122004 HIST DANCE History of Dance 10-12 Parkview only 121004 MEN'S DANCE Young Men's Dance 9-12 Parkview only Dance Techniques I (Parkview Magnet only) This is a beginning course of techniques in ballet, modern dance, and jazz. Grade: 9-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Permission of Instructor 1 Dance Techniques II (Parkview Magnet only) This intermediate level course establishes skill development in ballet, modern dance, jazz and provides for solo and ensemble performance. Grade: 10-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Dance Techniques I or Permission of Instructor 1 Dance Techniques Ill (Parkview Magnet only) This advanced level course of ballet, modern dance and jazz is designed for mature skills development leading to independent choreography and solo and ensemble performance. Grade: 11 -12 Prerequisite: Credit: Dance Techniques II or Permission of Instructor 1 Dance Techniques IV (Parkview Magnet only) This advanced level course of ballet, modern dance and jazz is designed for mature skills developmentleading to independent choreography and solo and ensemble performance. Grade: 12 Prerequisite: Credit: Dance Techniques Ill or Permission of Instructor 1 Dance Ensemble (Parkview Magnet only) Performance group for advanced dance students. Grade: 11-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Dance Techniques I or Comparable Course and Audition 1 53 History of Dance (Parkview Magnet only) Presents history and the development of dance as an art form . Course required for students who choose the study of dance as an arts area of concentration. Grade: 10-11 Prerequisite: None Credit: 1 Young Men's Dance (Parkview Magnet only) Students in this class will study the intermediate techniques of classical ballet with intermediate barre, adagio, allegro combinations and pirouettes, and development of a working knowledge of ballet terminology. The goal of the class is to enhance the student's skills and appreciation of dance as a theater art. A central emphasis of the course is the development of movement skills requ ired of male dancers as performing artists. This training entails regular practice in ballet and jazz techniques, based respectively on the trad itional, ballet syllabus, kinesiological principles, and selected popular and theatrical dance idioms. This course will cultivate an appreciation of dance aesthetics through viewing live, taped, and filed dance performances as well as through the study of other art forms. Students will have regular opportunities to develop performance skills in classroom and \"brown bag\" presentations. Proper dance attire is required. Grades: 9-12 Prerequisite: Credit: 1-2 years of dance training 1 54 Drama Effective for freshmen 1998-99, all students must complete one unit from art, music, drama, or dance to satisfy the graduation requirement for Fine Arts. Students who choose Fine Arts as a Career Focus must complete a minimum of three units beyond the Common Core in either art, music, dance, or drama. Students are also strongly encouraged to complete a minimum of two units of one foreign language. Drama '99-2000 Abbrev. Description Grades Prerequisites Credit Course Title No. 051200 DRAMA 1 Drama I 9-12 None 1 051202 DRAMA 1 IS Drama I International 9-12 None 1 Studies Central High only. 052200 DRAMA2 Drama II 10-12 Drama I 1 053200 DRAMA3 Drama Ill 11-12 Drama II 1 052202 STAGE CRAFT Stage Craft 10-12 None 1 052204 INTERPCOMM Interpretative 10-12 Communication I 1 Communication Drama I This course is designed for those students who are interested in further study in the field of dramatic art. Building on basic speech skills, the drama course is structured to channel these skills into dramatic presentations. This is done through classroom activities of pantomime, dramatic reading, readers theatre, and solo/duet acting. These activities are integrated with the study of the history of drama from the ancient Greek civilization to modern society. The drama course also serves as the working class for dramatic productions presented each year. Involvement in a play teaches stage production techniques, such as lighting, set design, makeup, costuming, publicity, etc., as well as allowing those students who are interested in the performing aspects to exhibit their dramatic talents before a live audience. Grade: 9-12 Prerequisite: None Credit: 1 Drama I International Studies (Central High only) Grade: 9-12 Prerequisite: None Credit: 1 Drama II This course is designed to continue skills development begun in Drama I. Grade: 10-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Drama Ill Drama I or Permission of Instructor 1 This course is an in-depth study in acting, directing, and theatre production. Grade: 11-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Drama II 1 55 Stagecraft This course is designed to acquaint the students with all aspects of the technical theatre: set design, management, construction, setting the stage, operating the equipment, and safety. Units include Introduction to the Theater, History of the Stage, The Stage Area, The Operation of Equipment, The Stage Scenery, Stage Management, and Production. Grade: 10-12 Prerequisite: None Credit: 1 Interpretative Communication The major objectives of this course are to teach the student to interpret the materials of others to an audience, expressing the intellectual, emotional, and aesthetic entirety of the literature. The course includes the study of individual interpretation of poetry, prose, and dramatic literature through reading and acting\nthe communication of ideas through the study of pantomime and mime\nthe presentation of dramatic literature through exercises of solo-acting, duet-acting, and readers theatre productions\nand the study of group interpretive presentations focusing on the communication process, the performer as a communicator, responsive listening, and the selection and adaptation of materials for interpretation. Grade: 10-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Communication I 1 56 Drama-Parkview Magnet Parkview Arts Magnet students must complete eight units in one of the following areas: dance, drama, art, or music. Students are also strongly encouraged to complete a minimum of two units of one foreign language. Drama-Parkview Magnet 052206 MIME Mime 10-12 Drama I and teacher permission\nParkview only 052208 CLASSIC STOY Classic Scene Study 10-12 Drama I\nParkview only 052210 ACTING Acting 10-12 Drama I\nParkview only 052212 CHILDTHTR Children's Theater 10-12 Drama I\nParkview only 052214 THTR HISTORY Theater History 10-12 None\nParkview only Mime (Parkview Magnet only) This course will explore fundamental techniques of concentration, relaxation, transformation, and isolation. Communication without words through body movement and expression will be studied. Grade: 10-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Drama I and permission of instructor 1 Classic Scene Study (Parkview Magnet only) Classic Scene Study will emphasize form, language, meter, and meaning in scenes from Greek, Roman, Shakespearean, and Restoration playwrights and their works. Grade: 10-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Drama I 1 Acting (Parkview Magnet only) This course is designed for intensive study in acting techniques, character development, and movement. Grade: 10-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Drama I 1 Children's Theatre (Parkview Magnet only) Children's Theatre is a course designed for study of presentations to young audiencescharacterization, movement, and costuming. Grade: 10-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Drama I 1 History of the Theatre (Parkview Magnet only) This course is designed to focus on the progression of dramatic performance from pre-historic man to contemporary society. This activity-centered course includes types of dramatic literature, styles of performance, and techniques of staging. Grade: 10-12 Prerequisite: None Credit: 1 57 English Note: Schools may, but are not required to, provide Language Arts Plus I, II, Ill, IV. Effective fall 1998-99, students must complete at least four units of English to satisfy graduation requirements. Students who choose the Humanities as a Career Focus must complete at least three units beyond the Common Core as follows: English '99-2000 Course No. 051000 052000 053000 054000 051002 051004 052002 052004 053002 053004 055004 055006 054002 054004 055008 055014 055010 054006 055012 054008 053001 053006  Three units in one foreign language\nor  Two units of one foreign language and one unit beyond the Common Core from English or Social Studies\nor  Three units beyond the Common Core in communications, English, and/or journalism\nor  Three units beyond the Common Core in social studies. Abbrev. Description Grades Prerequisites Credit Title LANG ARTS 1+ Language Arts Plus I 9-12 None 1 LANGARTS2+ Language Arts Plus II 10-12 None 1 LANG ARTS 3+ Language Arts Plus Ill 11-12 None 1 LANGARTS4+ Language Arts Plus IV 12 None 1 ENG 1 English I 9-12 None 1 ENG 1 PRE-AP English I Pre-AP 9-12 Teacher 1 recommendation ENG 2 English II 10-12 English I 1 ENG 2 PRE-AP English II Pre-AP 10-12 English I or I Pre-AP\n1 teacher recommendation ENG 3 English Ill 11-12 English II 1 ENG 3 PRE-AP English Ill Pre-AP 11-12 English II or II Pre-AP\n1 teacher recommendation ENG 3AP English Ill AP 11-12 English II or II Pre-AP\n1 teacher recommendation ENG 3 APU English Ill APU 11-12 English II or II Pre-AP\n1 teacher recommendation\nHall High only ENG4 English IV 12 English Ill 1 ENG4 English IV (Early Bird) 12 English Ill 1 ENG4AP English IV AP 12 English 111 or Ill Pre-AP 1 ENG 4APU English IV APU 12 English Ill or Ill Pre-AP 1 or 111 AP\nHall High only\nUniversity course ENG4AP English IV AP (Early Bird) 12 English Ill or Ill Pre-AP 1 ENG 4 IS English IV International 12 English Ill 1 Studies ENG4 ISAP English IV International 12 English Ill or Ill Pre-AP 1 Studies AP CRT WRTG/MAG Creative Writing and 12 Parkview: Grade of \"B\" 1 Magazine Production in regular English Ill or \"C\" in English Ill Pre- AP\nOther schools: Eng. Ill TECH WRTG Technical Writing 11-12 English II or II Pre-AP 1/2 RESEARCH Research for the 21\" Century 11-12 English 11 or II Pre-AP 1 58 053008 MUL TICUL LIT Multicultural Literature 11-12 English II or II Pre-AP 1 052001 BIBLE AS/IN LIT The Bible as/in Literature 10-12 English I or I Pre-AP\n1/2 Hall High only 052003 ACT PREP ENG ACT Preparation: English 10-12 English I 1/2 Language Arts Plus I Language Arts Plus is designed to assist English students who are performing below grade level according to multiple criteria. The course emphasis is on strengthening reading skills through an integrated teaching/learning approach that parallels the learning activities in the students' regular English classes. Students must be assigned to Language Arts Plus classes taught by their regular English teachers to ensure learning continuity. Grades 9-12 Prerequisite: None Credit: 1 Language Arts Plus II Language Arts Plus is designed to assist English students who are performing below grade level according to multiple criteria. The course emphasis is on strengthening reading skills through an integrated teaching/learning approach that parallels the learning activities in the students' regular English classes. Students must be assigned to Language Arts Plus classes taught by their regular English teachers to ensure learning continuity. Grades 10-12 Prerequisite: None Credit: 1 Language Arts Plus Ill Language Arts Plus is designed to assist English students who are performing below grade level according to multiple criteria. The course emphasis is on strengthening reading skills through an integrated teaching\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_525","title":"Literacy plan","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1999/2004"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","Literacy","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Literacy plan"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/525"],"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\nJune 2 9, 2 0 0 1 ! Literacy plan Literacy for LR pupils raises scores Reading assessment shows improvement BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE I Two years into a new literacy ' program. Little Rock School District officials said Thursday that student achievement appears to be improving as shown by results from a reading assessment given to pupils in kindergarten through second grades. I About three-fourths of last years kindergartners and second-graders and almost two- thirds of first-graders had the necessary skills and knowledge to succeed at the next grade level, according to the results from the Developmental Reading Assessment Im happy to report that the little children in our district are learning to read, Bonnie Lesley, associate superintendent for cim- riculum, told the School Board on Thursday. More than 80 percent of kindergartners scored at or above a satisfactory level this past spring, up 8.5 percentage points from spring 2000. Similarly, 75.4 percent of sec- ond-graders showed they are ready for the third grade, up from 67.5 percent in ^e preceding  Continued from Page 1B by each teacher in individual observation sessions with pupils, is one component of the districts literacy program. District officials revamped the literacy program in 1999 to better prepare ^1 pupils to read independently by the time they finish third grade. When the program was started, about 30 percent of children were reading at a proficient or better level. The state goal for reading proficiency at the end of fourth grade is 100 percent. The revised literacy program was designed to create more uniformity in the instruction given in the districts 36 elementary schools, A moratorium was placed on any new supplemental reading programs, and other programs were abandoned. Each school set aside a 2 172 hour daily block of time for language arts and reading. In addition, curriculum standards, teacher training, classroom instruction and student testing were more tightly aligned as a result of the new literacy program. Most primary-grade teachers went through at least one week of the states Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas training program, Lesley said. The district purchased more than $350,000 in readii^ supplies over two years, and Animated Literacy, a phonics awareness program, was expanded to all kindergartens and will be added to the first grades in coming years. Lesley said the reading results are preliminary. The true measure Little Rock School District Developmental Reading Assessment results Developmental Reading Assessment scores are reported as the percent of students by grade who scored at or above the readiness\" level. \"Readiness'is defined as the necessary knowledge and skills for success at the next grade level. SPRING SPRING 2000 2001 CHANGE of the reading skills will be when year. A total of 63.8 percent of I children who have gone through first-graders scored at the readi- ness level, up from 53.6 percent in spring 2000. \"file reading assessment, done See UTERACY, Page 4B the new program take the state- mandated Primary Benchmark Exam at the end of fourth grade. When last springs assessment scores are broken down by race, both black and white children showed gains, but the gains made by black pupils were greater, Lesley said. That means there was a reduction in the achievement disparity between black and white pupils. Kindergarten 72.2% 80.7% 8.5% Grade 2 67.5% 75.4% 7.9% SOURCE\nLittle Rock School District Arkansas Democrat-Gazette which is a long-standing goal of the district Black pupils averaged gains of 6 percentage points to 9 percentage points over results from 2000, while whites  who traditionally score higher on standardized exams  averaged gains of 4.1 percentage points to 6.1 percentage points. Stephens, McDermott, Badgett and Baseline elementaries were cited by Lesley and by School Board members for dramatic improvements. At some grades in some schools, results improved by more than 40 percentage points. In some schools, more than 90 percent of children scored at a proficient level The highest performing schools in kindergarten were McDermott, Baseline, Fulbright, Gibbs and Brady schools. The highest performing schools in first grade were Williams, Carver, McDermott, Booker and Forest Park. The highest performing schools in second grade were Carver, Williams, Western Hills, Otter Creek and McDermott 'The district has not prepared parent reports on their childrens assessment results. Lesley said parents can get the school and student results from their childs elementary school. THURSDAY, MAY 8, 2003  LR literacy coach is teacher of year ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE hosted the Teacher of the Year Debbie Sabo, a literacy coach Recognition Banquet for five at Chicot Elementary School, was years. Staff at each of the dis- named Teacher of the Year for tricts SO schools nominate their the Little Rock School District at colleagues for school and dis- a Tuesday evening ceremony at trict awards. This year, 67 teach- Stephens Elementary School. ers were honored\none from each Sabo, who previously taught elementary school, two each kindergarten for 18 years, was from the middle schools and as presented with numerous gift many as certificates and prizes including schools, airline passes, a computer, print- er, tickets to an athletic event and an athletic club membership. The gifts were donated by companies doing business in Little Rock. The Little Rock district has four from the highKtCBBSa Little Rock School District June 2,1999 The main thing is to keep the main thing the main THING! Dear Colleagues: What a yeai! I hope all of you have the sense of accomplishment that I do! The positive opportunities for the school district continue to develop. We have had great individual and collective accomplishments, but the most exciting aspect of the year has been that the instructional indicators are pointing to very positive future results. A parent and a teacher asked me how that could be true. Hadnt I seen the newspaper story showing results of the 4* grade literacy and math exam? Yes, but when we looked at those we noticed the schools that were pilots of the ELLA program K-3 and math, all had strong gains. Staff development has not been universally accepted or appreciated, primarily because of the many failed promises of programs and quick fix elixirs of the past! But this time this very basic and focused approach appears to be just what the doctor ordered. Most educational reformers who have produced results over time have agreed it is a matter of focuSgetting everyone on the same page with a standard or basic program. All the efforts of parents, students and teachers, regardless of the specialty, are focused to produce progress on a limited set of goals. ELLA training and the focused math training will continue to produce results on basic reading and math achievement goals. And let us not forget district graduates really had no peers when it came to top student awards in a number of state and national academic categories. Student activities have been a very pleasant surprise. The numbers of students participating grew impressively, and I know this helped to produce an improved year in student behavior. Many of you remember when state winners were most often decided within the schools of Little Rock, and Im talking about a variety of co-curricular activities. The district again has asserted itself with impressive performances in music, art, drama speech, debate and athletics. With the implementation of the middle schools and neighborhood schools our students and programs will only become stronger. Without question, the academic reasoning for middle schools and 9-12 high schools will provide academic strength, and it will have a positive impact with increased student participation in career/technical programs and co-curricular activities. (continued) 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000A^eh'ti1 I t-ren LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 I I June 24. 1999 To\nBoard of Education From\nDr. Bonnie Lesley,, AAss!sociate Superintendent for Instruction Through\nSubject\nAttached Dr. Leslie V. Gamine, Superintendent of Schools Review of PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan for the Board's information is a copy of the final draft of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan. The draft presented earlier to the Board of Education has been extensively reviewed over a three-month period. Every elementary principal and PreK-3 teacher received his or her own copy, and there have been multiple opportunities for all to provide input, including during the June 2-3-4 inservice. In addition, the plan has been reviewed by representatives of ODM, UALR, ADE, and other education colleagues, as well as by parent representatives. As a result of all this feedback, we confidently present thi'final draft/ Responses have been nearly unanimously supportive. They applaud a well-designed, coherent District plan that is clearly aligned with the Arkansas literacy curriculum framework. Smart Start, and Title I regulations and that includes professional development and program evaluation components. All are supportive of doing whatever it takes to improve student achievement. Early implementors of the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA), the centerpiece of the K-2 design, and Effective Literacy, the program for grades 3-4, were Dodd Elementary and Gibbs Elementary. The results of the spring 1999 Grade 4 Literacy Benchmark Examination for these two schools are extremely encouraging and predict what we as a District can do if we implement well the components of our plan. In 1997-98 only 22 percent of Dodd grade 4 students scored at the Proficient or Advanced levels. This year, 1998-99, 35 percent scored at those levelsan improvement of 13 percentage points! Review of PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan - Memo June 24, 1999 Page Two Gibbs posted even greater gains. In 1997-98 they had 28 percent scoring at the Proficient or Advanced levels. Their score jumped to 49 percent in 1998-99an improvement of 21 percentage points! The PreK-3 Literacy Plan also allows for the continuation of Success for All, provided that those schools are posting improved performance. Romine Elementary has been a leader in Success for All implementation. Their performance jumped from 13 percent at Proficient or Advanced levels in 1997-98 to 48 percent in 1998-99an improvement of a very impressive 35 percentage points! 1 Notable also is that Dodd decreased the percentage of students performing at the Below Basic level from 50 percent in 1997-98 to 30 percent in 1998-99an improvement of 20 percentage points. Gibbs reduced their percentage of Below Basic\" performers from 52 percent in 1997-98 to 22 percent in 1998-99an improvement of 30 percentage points. And Romine reduced the percentage of students at the Below Basic level from 58 percent in 1997-98 to 32 percent in 1998-99an improvement of 26 percentage points. f I I t These very dramatic gains are indicators of the soundness of the LRSD PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan design. To achieve these kinds of results at the District level will require our commitment, focus, and determination, as well as an alignment of our energy and resources behind the implementation. i This final draft includes only a few changes from the earlier one reviewed by the Board of Education in March. The following are most significant: Update of section on Involvement and Communication to include March, April, May, and June activities (p. 11)\nUpdate of section on Arkansas Criterion-Referenced Tests to include spring 1999 results (p. 12)\nAddition of paragraph on schools identified for school improvement for Title I (P. 13)\nAddition of suggested performance indicators under Plan Goals (p. 26)\nAddition of section on Technology in PreK-3 in response to questions regarding role of computer labs in current use (p. 37)\nAddition of section on Effective Literacy for Grades 2-4 to show its place in the overall plan (p. 40)\nAddition of section on Role of the Library/Media Center to clarify expectations and involvement (p. 42)\nAddition of more specific information on plans for ELLA training (p. 44)\nAddition of a paragraph clarifying need for waiver to implement Direct Instruction (p. 47). I f j tReview of PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan - Memo June 24,1999 Page Three Remaining changes were those relating to format, editing, and clarifying the original language. Implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Plan is already in progress and will continue intensely throughout the summer in preparation for next fall. BAL/adgi ^n Individual Approach to a World of Yjiowledge RECSVEd August 28, 2001 AUG 3 J 20Q1 DKEGflEGAT(0NM0N(T0fl/N6 Ms. Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: Enclosed in this package are three draft copies of our PreK-2 Literacy Program Evaluation, which is scheduled to go to the Board of Education in October. ( At your convenience I would like to schedule a meeting with you, Gene Jones, and Melissa Guilden to discuss the report and to hear your feedback and suggestions. Thanks so much for assisting us with this work. Yours truly, Bonnie A. Lesley, Ed.D Associate Superintendent of Instruction BAL/adg cc: Dr. Kenneth James Chris Heller 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 ^4 7^ -J October 12, 2001 'iViS^ fb, A.n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" Ms. Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring One National Plaza 124 W. Capital, Ste. 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 RECEIVED OCT 1 8 2901 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Dear Ms. Marshall: You will find enclosed a copy of our program evaluation for K-2 literacy: Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. The report is on the Boards October 25 agenda. As you will recall, Melissa Guilden participated on the design team for the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan, so we hope that you will share this study with her so that she can see some of the fruits of her labor. Also, Gene Jones read drafts in 1999-2000 of the early literacy program evaluation, so he will probably be interested in this product as well. Although we know that two years is not nearly enough to draw summative conclusions about the effectiveness of our literacy program in the early grades, we are certainly pleased with these early, very positive results. With the careful review that we have conducted not only of the results of the eight different assessments, but also of our program strengths and weaknesses, we feel that we have more direction now for program improvement in 2001-2002. Please let me or Ms. Pat Price know if you have questions. Yours truly, Bonnie A. Lesley, Ed.D Associate Superintendent for Instruction BAL/adg Enclosure cc: Patricia Price Dr. Kenneth James 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 F John W. Walker, pa. Attorket AiLiW 112Z Bsoadway Rook, akkansas 72206 Tp.T.FtpgnNE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W, WALSER SHAWN CHILDS OF COUNSEL donna J. MeHENK? 6210 HaffiiaaoN Hoad LMTiE Sock, Tboke: (BOI) rra-was  Fax (SOl) 37^8 October 31,2002 Dr. T. Kenneth James SuperinteodJt of Schods Little Rock School Kstrict 810 West Markham little Rode. AR. 72201 Dear Dr. James: I am renewing my request for the infcnnation in my letter dated October 29, ^02. If I ation that the District has not utilized any understand your response correctly, it is your po^on that the (during each of the past three ye^) \u0026lt; \" documents in existence wherry the Kstnct has co^ad and paid for such. your po^on, it seems contrary to your nqxjits to the Court. are no services. Ifthis is if you are not aware who has this information. of such documents, please forward my request to the proper person iiacerety, Joy C. Springer' JCS/ cc: Ms. Ann MarshallLittle Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT November 1,2002 Ms. Joy Springer Walker Law Firm 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Ms. Springer: In response to your most recent request, you did not understand our response. It is not our position that we have not utilized consultants. Hovi/ever, our response remains the same. We do not have a document or documents to provide in response to your FOIA request, and we are not required to compile information or create a record in response to a FOIA request. Sincerely, T. Kenneth James, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools TKJ/bjg cc\nChris Heller Clay Fendley Ann Marshall 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 447-1002 0 : John W. Walker, PA. Attorney AT Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (601) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 I I JOHN W. WALkEB SHaWK CH-IlDS OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHenry, PA DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 HknuEBSON Road LmLe Rxxac, ASKANB-vs 72210 Prone: (SOI) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 T.X(An.-. mehc2ii7d^ewbeU.nt I Dr. T. Kenneth James Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Via Facsimile  447-1159 November 4,2002 I I I I I Dear Dr. James\nlet me know the names, addresses and telephone of all persons (from January 1, 1998 throng October 31,2002) that the District has consulted with respect to literacy training (in-service and staff devdopment). Also please let me have copies of their contracts and the pay invoices that they have submitted along evidence of payment to them. Sincerely, JCS/ cc\nMr. John W, Walker Ms. Ann Marshall Mr. ClayFendley Mr. Chris Heller I I e- JOHN w. Walker, p.a. Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 PAX (501) 3744187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile - 376-2147 November 6, 2002 OP COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, PA. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 PHONE\n(501) 372-3425  Fax (SOI) 372-3426 Email: mehcaiyd^vbclLnet Mr. ClayFendley Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Redons Center 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 RECEIVED NOV -6 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING I . XOM Dear Clay: I am in receipt of your letter dated November 5,2002. My request for information relates directly to the LRSDs proposed compliance plan, item 4\nPrepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2,7. It is my understanding that literacy programs are being utilized to improve African American academic achievement and that the District commits to evaluating these programs I would like to have a better understanding of the literacy programs being implemented including who provided the training, amount paid by the District and the substance of the training provided. I also intend to inquire regarding the other programs identified in  2.7 in the future. Thank you for your attention to this request. mcerely, Joy C. Spring! JCS/ cc: Mr. John W. Walker Dr. Ken James Ms. Ann MarshallI received JAN 1 3 2004 CREP OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Center for Research in Educational Policy \u0026gt; Little Rock School District Literacy Program Evaluation Steven M, Ross John Nunnery Lana Smith Aaron McDonald Allan Sterbinsky Center tor Research in Educational Policy University of Memphis 325 Browning Hail Memphis, TN 38152 Toll Free\n1-866-670-6147 November 2003Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1922-1994) WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR.. P.A. JOE D. BELL. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY. P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR.. P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM III, P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL HI. P.A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR. P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN HI. P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III. P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS, P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR.. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER, P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR.. P.A. J. LEE BROWN, P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR., P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER, P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER. P.A. TONIA P. JONES. P.A. DAVID D. WILSON. P.A. JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A. DAVID M. GRAF. P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P.A. JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO. P.A. R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON. P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.ffidayfirm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 3425 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE. SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72703-4811 TELEPHONE \u0026lt;79-685-2011 FAX 479-685-2147 FRAN C. HICKMAN. P.A. BETTY J. DEMORY, P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A. JAMES W. SMITH. P.A. CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT. P.A. DANIEL L. HERRINGTON. P.A. MARVIN L. CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR.. P.A. ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS. P.A. JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN A. KASTEN BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH RYAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M. COTTON KRISTEN S. ROWLANDS ALAN G. BRYAN LINDSEY MITCHAM KHAYYAM M. EDDINGS JOHN F. PEISERICH AMANDA CAPPS ROSE BRANDON J. HARRISON STEVEN L. BROOKS H. WAYNE YOUNG. JR. JAMIE HUFFMAN JONES KIMBERLY A. DICKERSON OFCOUNSEL B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-762-2896 FAX 870.762-2918 CHRISTOPHER HELLER LITTLE ROCK TEL 501-370-1506 PAX 501-244-S344 hllrOfc.nt January 12, 2004 ONtHOllNO W N0li33a3aS3a dOlOHdO Mr. John Walker *1002 s I Nvr JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 aaABoaa Re: Little Rock School District Dear John: Two recent evaluations which were done in compliance with Judge Wilsons Order are enclosed. They are: Little Rock School District Literacy Program Evaluation, November 2003 and An Evaluation of Mathematics and Science Programs in the Little Rock School District from 1998 to December 2003. Please call me if you have any questions or concerns about these evaluations. Yours very truly, CJH/bk ist6pher Heller cc w/enc.: Ms. Ann Marshal Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dr. Morris Holmes* Position Paper PreK-3 Literacy Program-Draft Little Rock School District Division of Instruction March 1999 In short, literacy is key to success in school and beyond, for effective participation in the workforce, the community, and the body politic. This was true in the past- ven more true in the future, (p. 1, Building a Knowledge Base in Reading. NREL, 1998) ( t- Table of Contents Introduction 1 Background The Strategic Plan The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan The Campus Leadership Plan The Arkansas Smart Start Initiative Title I Other Special Populations Summary 1 1 2 4 4 5 5 6 Methodology Core Committee Members 6 8 Involvement and Communication 8 Needs Assessment Data Analysis (Effectiveness) Implications for Social Promotion Alignment and Coherence (Efficiency) Professional Community Support for Students Conclusions 8 8 10 11 16 16 17 Review of Research 17 Plan Goals 20 PreK-3 Literacy Program Design Organizational Changes HIPPY Title I Lower Student-to-Adult Ratios Minimized/Eliminated Pullouts No New Programs Program Abandonment Flexible Schedules for Some Teachers Waiver Application Requirements Curriculum and Instruction Alignment Daily Schedule Limited-English Proficient Students Special Education and 504 Students Gifted/Talented Students 21 22 22 22 23 24 24 24 24 24 25 25 25 27 27 28Frequent Assessment and Regrouping Phonemic Awareness Early Literacy Learning (ELLA) Thematic Instruction The Social Nature of Learning Role of the Library/Media Center Supplemental Reading Materials Assessment/Grading/Program Evaluation Frequent, Systematic Assessment New Elementary Report Card PreK-3 Literacy Program Evaluation Professional Development Effective Literacy Smart Start Professional Development School-Level Professional Development Principal Development Interventions Success for All Reading Recovery English-as-a-Second Language Reading Clinic Summer School Parent Education/Involvement Parent-School Compacts Parent Education Conclusions Timelines 28 28 29 29 29 30 30 30 30 31 31 31 32 32 32 33 33 33 33 34 34 34 34 34 35 35 37Position Paper PreK-3 Literacy ProgramDraft Little Rock School District March 1999 Introduction Beginning of PreK-3 Literacy Plan The proposed PreK-3 Literacy Plan outlined in this document is the culmination of extensive discussion and debate among district staff, interested parents, and concerned citizens. The discussion began with the launching of a major effort involving more than 500 community volunteers to plan strategically to make a significant difference in the learning lives of all Little Rock School District students. This 1996 undertaking became the first of an array of important planning efforts that, collectively, have charted for the District an exciting and ambitious journey into the 2L century. The Strategic Plan outlined a series of thoughtful actions that have already produced major new initiatives, while impacting almost every realm of current District practice, including the Districts desegregation efforts. One major issue confronting the strategic planners, as well as those involved in framing the subsequent initiatives, is literacy. Too many LRSD students enter school at risk of never learning to read and, alarmingly, the number of these students continues to increase. Illiteracy is a societal issue which has become an educational challenge that cannot be ignored or underestimated. The LRSD is committed to meeting this challenge and through research, analysis, hands-on involvement, professional development, and relentless tenacity, the District is developing an aggressive and very specific course of action, beginning with the PreK-3 Literacy Plan offered here. The plan draws on the work and scope of many initiatives, programs, and practices that are outlined below. Background The Strategic Plan The Little Rock School District Board of Education adopted in 1996 a new Strategic Plan, which was subsequently updated in 1998. Two of the eleven strategies directly address issues relating to student literacy. Strategy 2 of that plan is as follows\nIn partnership with our community, we will establish standards in the core curriculum (reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies) at each appropriate level, as well as develop the means of assessing whether students have met these standards. 1Draft The Action Plan designed to achieve Strategy 2 delineates the objectives and processes to define, develop, and adopt content standards, performance standards, and delivery standards and then to develop and implement professional development programs for district staff, along with strategies for parent understanding of the standards and assessments. Strategy 3 speaks to the importance of improved student achievement: We will develop and implement a broad range of alternatives and interventions for students scoring below the SO'** percentile on standardized tests or who are at serious risk of not achieving District standards in the core curriculum. The Strategy 3 Action Plans call for implementation of action steps relating to literacy development in grades PreK-3:  a policy statement providing for intervention as an operative and vital part of elementary school instruction\n expansion of Reading Recovery/Literacy Support early intervention services for K-3 students who are at risk of not developing literacy skills\n the development of an intervention team at each school which provides systemic support including professional development for teachers which enables all children to sustain adequate yearly progress through grade 3\nand  promotion of school-wide reform and ensuring access of children (from the earliest grades) to effective instructional strategies and challenging academic content. Content will include intensive complex thinking and problem-solving experiences through an integrated literature-based program. The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan In April 1998 the federal district court in Little Rock approved the Districts Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Implementation of this plan is a requisite step toward the Districts attainment of Unitary Status, with the hearing on that petition anticipated in spring 2001. The Plan contains a series of commitments or obligations for the District. Sections 5.2.1 relates specifically to reading/language arts at the primary level: LRSD shall implement at least the following strategies to improve the academic achievement of students in kindergarten through the third grade: a. Establish as a goal that by the completion of the third grade all students will be reading independently and show understanding of words on a page\nb. Focus teaching efforts on reading/language arts instruction by teaching science and social studies content through reading/language arts and mathematics experiences\n2Draft c. d. e. f. g-  h. 1. J- k. 1. Promote thematic instruction\nIdentify clear objectives for student mastery of all three reading cueing systems (phonics, semantics, and syntax) and of knowing-how-to-leam skills\nMonitor the appropriateness of teaching/leaming materials to achieving curricular objectives and the availability of such materials in all classrooms\nEstablish uninterrupted blocks of time for feading/language arts and mathematics instruction\nMonitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices\nProvide parents/guardians with better information about their childs academic achievement in order to help facilitate the academic development of the students\nProvide pre-kindergarten, kindergarten, and first-grade learning readiness experiences for students who come to school without such experiences\nTrain teachers to manage successful learning for all students in diverse, mainstreamed classrooms\nUse the third and/or fourth grade as a transition year from focused reading/language arts and mathematics instruction to a more traditional school day\nand Provide opportunities for students to perform and display their academic training in a public setting. I Other relevant sections of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan to the PreK-3 Literacy Plan are as follows: 2.7 LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students. 2.7.1 LRSD shall assess the academic programs ... after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving Afncan-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve Afiican- American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. 2.8 LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures during each of the next three years designed to promote and encourage parental and community involvement and support in the operation of LRSD and the education of LRSD students. 32.12.2 LRSD shall implement policies and procedures for investigating the cause of racial disparities in programs and activities and developing remedies where appropriate. The Campus Leadership Plan The Board of Education adopted the Districts Campus Leadership Plan in July 1998, providing for decentralized, school-based decision-making in some cases and shared decision-making in others. That plan includes a Quality Index based in part on indicators of academic achievement for each level of school. The Quality Index will be the accountability (collective responsibility) system for the Little Rock School District, and it will include, but go beyond, the academic indicators established by the State of Arkansas. The Arkansas Smart Start Initiative In fall 1998 the Arkansas Department of Education launched a major new reform entitled Smart Start. The aim of the K-4 component of Smart Start is to improve reading and mathematics achievement for all students in grades K-4 so that all students meet or exceed grade level requirements by grade 4. The implementation of Smart Start necessitates the coordination of the following four areas: 1. 2. 3. 4. Standards - At grades K-4, they will serve as the basis for the expected levels of proficiency demanded in reading and mathematics. Staff Development - Focused on both teachers and administrators, all activities will promote the mission of Smart Start and emphasize topics related to subject matter content, curriculum alignment with the Frameworks, analysis of assessment results, and the utilization of technology and distance learning. Student Assessment - Will be clearly aligned with the Frameworks and classroom instruction. Accountabilit)' - After standards are clearly communicated, staff development activities have been made available and reliable, valid assessments have been developed and administered, schools will be held accountable for student achievement. Specific staff development programs will be conducted during 1998-99 to include training in the use of a balanced literacy approach, utilizing the states Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA), Effective Literacy for Grades 2-4. and Multicultural Reading and Thinking (McRat). The Arkansas Academy for Leadership Training and School-Based Management will begin a series of training sessions for principals, emphasizing proper techniques for aligning their local curriculum to state frameworks and for analyzing student assessment results. 4Draft Grade 4 and Grade 8 Benchmark Exams will be continued during 1998-99 and all school districts have been advised to implement additional assessment components to check student progress prior to Grade 4. Title I Another source for this K-3 Literacy Plan is the Districts Title I program. This federally funded program allocates major resources to the Districts elementary and middle schools for the improvement of reading and mathematics achievement so that all students acquire the knowledge and skills contained in the challenging State content standards and meet the challenging State performance standards developed for all children. The federal Title I regulations include the following related purposes: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. Ensuring high standards for all children and aligning the efforts of States, local education agencies, and schools to help children served under this title to teach such standards\nProviding children an enriched and accelerated educational program, including, when appropriate, the use of the arts, through school-wide programs or through additional services that increase the amount and quality of instructional time so that children served under this title receive at least the classroom instruction that other children receive. Promoting school-wide reform and ensuring access of children (from the earliest grades) to effective instructional strategies and challenging academic content that includes intensive complex thinking and problem-solving experiences\nSignificantly upgrading the quality of instruction by providing staff in participating schools with substantial opportunities for professional development\nCoordinating services under all parts of this title with each other, with other educational services, and, to the extent feasible, with health and social service programs funded from other sources\nAffording parents meaningful opportunities to participate in the education of their children at home and at school\nImproving accountability, as well as teaching and learning, by using State assessment systems designed to measure how well children served under this title are achieving challenging State student performance standards expected of all children\nand Providing greater decision-making authority and flexibility to schools and teachers in exchange for greater responsibility for student performance. Other Special Populations The needs of students from special populations (special education, 504, limited-English proficient, gifted/talented, and all categories of so-called at-risk students) also informed the design of this K-3 Literacy Plan. Quality early literacy programs can do much to prevent the referral and labeling of students of students for special programs and services. 5Draft Summary Sources, then, for the contents and components of the LRSD PreK-3 Literacy Plan include Strategy 2 and Strategy 3 of the LRSD Strategic Plan\nSection 5.2.1 and other relevant sections of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan\nacademic indicators in the Quality Index of the Campus Leadership Plan\nSmart Start standards, assessments, professional development, and accountability\nTitle I regulations, especially those sections addressing the purposes of Title I\nand the needs of students from various special populations. The LRSD PreK-3 Literacy Plan is carefully aligned with and in compliance with all the local, state, and federal mandates, as well as the general philosophy of these planning documents, all of which emphasize the academic success of all children. Methodology In accordance with the goals and strategies of the Districts Strategic Plan, the subsequent recommendations of a Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Work Team, and the court- approved Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, the Little Rock School District has established as a goal that by the completion of the third grade all students will be reading independently and will show understanding of words on a page. District personnel recognize that to accomplish this goal an aggressive approach to quality and comprehensive early literacy education in grades PreK-3 is essential. This recognition of a need to focus on literacy as a central component of early childhood/primary level education is referenced in the LRSD 1998-99 Priorities within the following subsections of the specific work plan for the Division of Instruction: 11. Align school schedules, prek-12 reading curriculum, instructional strategies, materials, assessment, professional development, monitoring/coaching, and parent information/education with Strategic Plan, Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, and Smart Start. 18. Review Title I programs and services to align with the CCOE, Smart Start, Campus Leadership Plan, NSF, Strategic Plan, and Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 21. Assess ESL program and services and develop program improvement plan with estimated budget. 22. Begin needs assessment and initial planning for implementation of Smart Start program from ADE. The apparent logical starting point for accomplishing the ambitious goal of providing, without exception, independent readers in every mainstreamed classroom by the end of 6Draft the third grade was to establish a committee to study District data and practices and to make specific recommendations for a new comprehensive, systemic reform of the prekindergarten through grade 3 language arts program. This committee has been engaged since September 1998 and has undertaken the tasks of reviewing current practices and programs, researching best practices within the reading education arena nation-wide, and recommending a broad course of actions that it believes will best facilitate the Division of Instruction Work Plan in the context of the District 1998-99 Priorities. To accomplish the tasks described above\nthe committee first identified and then completed the following action steps: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Reviewed current District curriculum and assessment practices and determined current level of implementation and overall appropriateness for achieving goal. Completed the development of the PreK-3 standards and benchmarks for reading/language arts and constructed a curriculum map to ensure alignment with the Arkansas curriculum frameworks and assessments. Reviewed the Arkansas State mandated Smart Start Initiative and identified possible gaps or discrepancies between the Initiative components and the District curricular focus. Identified all supplemental reading programs currently in use in the Districts primary-level classrooms and noted compatibility with the goal, the District curriculum, and the Smart Start Initiative\nalso determined whether supplemental efforts strengthened or hindered continuity of effort in relation to achievement of the goal. Compared District student performance to statewide student performance for the purpose of creating a context for District benchmarking. K-3 curriculum maps were reviewed to ensure close alignment of District curriculum and the Arkansas curriculum frameworks. Drew conclusions about effectiveness of current District efforts and summarized key components of best practice efforts in early reading education nationwide. Identified and mapped literacy components of all related initiatives, programs, and practices to ensure PreK-3 reading/language arts programming congruence and coherence. 7Draft 8. Recommended key programmatic components essential to timely realization of the initial goal that by the completion of the third grade all students will be reading independently and will show understanding of words on a page. 9. Recommended key resources and necessary collaborations. Early Literacy Core Committee Members: Pat Price, Early Childhood Gene Parker, Reading Judy Milam, Reading Kris Huffman, Reading Judy Teeter, Reading Tish Henslee, Early Childhood - University of Arkansas at Little Rock Melissa Guldin, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Ann Freeman, Smart Start Patty Kohler, Division of Exceptional Children Involvement and Communication Significant levels of staff, parent, and community involvement have already occurred during the past three years on the issue of PreK-3 literacy. The development of the Strategic Plan, the Reading Summit involving about 150 people two years ago, and the involvement on the Work Team that wrote the initial recommendations for Section 5.2 in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan all informed the design of this PreK-3 Literacy Plan. The public was kept informed of these planning initiatives through public information sessions and the cable television channel. Additional activities will occur to update everyone. Following administrative review of the committee recommendations and proposed budget, the committee shall begin a series of information sessions further to inform principals, teachers, other staff, parents, and community about the proposed changes and to solicit their input on the final design. Once the review and input process has been completed and the committee has had an opportunity to revise their original draft, then the full proposal will be presented to the Board of Education for their review and for approval of the proposed budget. Needs Assessment Data Analysis (Effectiveness) According to an analysis of data conducted by the Department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, unacceptable percentages of students across the District are performing at the 8Draft Below Basic level on the Arkansas criterion-referenced tests, and far too few students are performing at the Proficient or Advanced levels. These data are one indication that current practices are not as effective as they must be to achieve District goals relating to student achievement. Arkansas Criterion-Referenced Tests Grade 4 Benchmark Examination Literacy Summary Report, Spring 1998 LRSD District 42% Below Basic 28% Basic 28% Proficient 2% Advanced Region 34% Below Basic 29% Basic 34% Proficient 2% Advanced State 33% Below Basic 30% Basic 35% Proficient 2% Advanced An area of concern is that 48 percent of grade 4 males performed at the Below Basic level, compared to 35 percent of females. Fifty-three percent of Aftican American grade 4 students performed at the Below Basic level, compared to 20 percent of white students. These gaps are, of course, unacceptable and are indicators that current practice is not effective. SAT9, Grade 3 Reading (Stanford Achievement Test) Data from the Fall 1998 administration of the grade 3 SAT9 confirm that too many students are not learning how to read well by grade 3. SAT9 reports student performance in four categories or levels:  Level 1 indicates little or no mastery of fundamental knowledge and skills (roughly equating to the Below Basic level on the state tests).  Level 2 denotes partial mastery of the knowledge and skills that are fundamental for satisfactory work (roughly equating to Basic level on the state tests).  Level 3 represents solid academic performance, indicating that students are prepared for the next grade (roughly equating to Proficient level on the state tests).  Level 4 signifies performance beyond grade level mastery (roughly equating to Advanced level on the state tests). LRSD posted the following percentages at each level of performance on the grade 3 reading subtest of the SAT9 in fall 1998: 9Draft Subtests Total Reading Word Study Skills_____ Reading Vocabulary Reading Comprehension Language Spelling Listening % in Level 1 23 19 20 31 22 15 13 % in Level 2 43 46 38 39 40 39 45 % in Level 3 28 22 31 23 30 28 il % in Level 4 7 13 11 7 8 18 10 The grade 3 Reading Comprehension subtest of SAT9 is most like the Arkansas reading test in terms of difficulty. In both cases only approximately 30 percent of LRSD students performed at the Proficient or Advanced levels, again indicating that far too few students are becoming good readers by grade 3. Implications for Social Promotion The issue of social promotion is a concern throughout the country and in Arkansas. Social promotion is the long-standing practice of administrative placement of overage students at the next grade level even though the student is most likely not academically prepared to be successful at that next grade level. Citizens all over the country are calling for an end to this practice, and LRSD must respond to that call. To do so, however, without changes in programs, practices, and opportunities to learn, the District would simply be punishing the under-prepared, overage student. In the early grades, failure to achieve grade-level expectations in reading is the primary reason for retention, (p. 267, Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children, National Research Council, 1998) This PreK-3 Literacy Plan, therefore, includes provisions for the following:  Changes in curriculum through the newly developed local academic content standards and grade-level benchmarks\n Changes in instruction through the adoption of research-based instructional strategies and professional development programs\n Changes in assessment through the addition of research-based assessment strategies af kindergarten and grade 1 designed to both diagnose reading difficulties and to assess progress at the student, school, and District levels\n Early interventions for students at risk of not learning to read through the HIPPY program changes, pre-kindergarten program, ESL program, and an emphasis on the reading clinic at grade 1, followed by summer school for K-1 students who are not performing at grade level.  Changes in the Districts promotion and retention policy that would end social promotion for LRSD students, starting with grade 1 in 1999-2000. 10Draft Alignment and Coherence (Efficiency) There are several quality management needs that are addressed in this plan. The first relates to what W. Edward Deming called constancy of purpose. For instance, it is difficult to describe or to assess the effectiveness of the current LRSD prek-3 curriculum since what is taught differs not only from school to school, but from teacher to teacher in the same school teaching the same grade level. Such fragmentation and lack of defined curriculum are especially harmful to low-performing, mobile children. Every time the family moves, the young child not only has to adjust to a new enviroiunent, a new school, a new teacher or teachers, and new peers, but also, in many cases, a totally different curriculum and approach to instruction. About the time he/she begins to be comfortable, the family may move again, and the confusion returns to the extent that the child may feel that school and confusion are one and the same. These events tend to de-motivate the student to learn and to lessen his/her sense of efficacy-belief that he/she can learn. The LRSD Board of Directors approved new Reading/Language Arts Standards for grades kindergarten through grade six in April 1998. Additional work has been done on these standards to ensure that they are precisely aligned with the revised Arkansas Curriculum Frameworks and with the intent of the new statewide Smart Start Initiative. Also, specific grade-level benchmarks have been developed in reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies so that teachers, students, and parents may be as clear as possible about what it is that students are expected to know and be able to do. These grade level benchmarks will serve as the basis for designing quarterly criterion- referenced tests to be used to check individual student progress in relation to achievement of each grade level standard. Secondly, there is in several schools a proliferation of disparate programs, and both reviews of those lists and interviews with the principal and teachers of those schools reveal many times a lack of understanding of how the many programs fit together (lack of coherence) and/or what problems they are intended to solve (lack of alignment). The LRSD Title I plan filed with the Arkansas Department of Education, for example, reveals this problem of lack of constancy of purpose with its long list of Title I programs by school. Many different supplemental programs/philosophies are being used in the elementary schools. Three of these are technology programs: Jostens, New Century, and the Computer Curriculum Corporation Program. The remaining reading and/or language arts programs/methods include the following: Reading Recovery, ELLA, Success for All, Accelerated Reader, Open Court, Shurley Method, Metra Phonics Program, Carbo Reading Styles, McRat,, Writing to Read, Companion Reading, Writing to Write, SRA Labs, High Action Reading Program, Discovery Phonics, Junior Great Books, Reading Is Fundamental, DISTAR, and HOSTS. The duration of implementation of these programs varies from one semester to one to four years per school. 11Draft As many as eight supplemental reading/language arts programs have been implemented at the same time in some schools. For example, four elementary schools are implementing one program, ten schools are implementing two programs, ten schools are implementing three programs, three schools are implementing four programs, four schools are implementing five programs, three schools are implementing six programs, and one school is implementing eight. The program descriptions for the most popular programs are as follows: Jostens, New Century, and Computer Curriculum Corporation fCCC). These systems are computer-based instruction programs. All three are integrated learning systems that provide lessons, practice, and assessment in reading, language arts, and mathematics. A management system for each one provides individualized instruction for students along with a reporting system on student progress. Jostens and CCC include lessons for grades K-6. New Century is appropriate for grades 3-6. Reading Recovery. This intensive early-intervention literacy program features the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. One to one tutoring program Individualized instruction Specially trained teachers. Literacy support groups Home/school reading connection Ongoing assessment. Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA). This is a three-year staff development process designed to assist teachers in grades K-2 in implementing instructional techniques which support emergent learners. The content of the staff development consists of the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. A balanced literacy program Planning appropriate reading/writing instruction Reading process Writing development and instruction Writing/encoding Phonemic awareness Letter discrimination/recognition Letter/sound relationship Recognizing high frequency words 10. Decoding/word attack skills/word analysis 11. Vocabulary development 12. Comprehension strategies 13. Classroom management and organization 14. Parent involvement 15. Authentic assessment/standardized test. 12Draft Success for All. This program restructures elementary schools to make certain every child learns to read in the early grades. It provides specific curricula and instructional strategies for teaching reading. Primary features are as follows\n1. 2. 3. 4. 5. School-wide reading curriculum Cooperative learning Grouping by reading level (reviewed by assessment every 8 weeks) Tutoring for students in need of extra assistance Family support team Accelerated Reader. This individualized program allows each student to move at his or her own pace and level of ability. This programs strength is the development of fluency/automaticity and the improvement of comprehension skills. Parental involvement is crucial to the success of this program. Primary features are as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. Students choice of books from a list of carefully selected books Individualized reading that allow students to move at his or her own pace Computerized tests that measures student comprehension Parental Involvement. Open Court. This phonics program centers on student drill, using a wall sound card chart. Shurlev Method. This program is a way of teaching grammar that gives students a chance to remember rules and definitions through jingles. Metra Phonics Program. This phonics program uses student drills and worksheets and reading exercises. Direct Instruction. This program includes teacher development and carefully organized reading sequences. Through teacher training and in- class coaching, teachers in the lower grades learn to present highly interactive lessons to small groups. Primary features are as follows: 1. Field-tested reading, language arts, and mathematics curricula 2. Highly scripted instructional strategies 3. Extensive training. 13Draft Carbo Reading Styles. This program is designed to increase literacy by matching reading instruction to the students preferred style of reading. Primary features include the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. Teachers diagnosing students strengths and accommodating them with a range of effective reading strategies Carbo Recorded - Book method Comfortable, relaxed settings Individual and small group work. HOSTS (Help One Student to Succeed). This structured mentoring program in language arts/reading, mathematics, and Spanish language arts ' is an instructional strategy that is tailored to a states, districts, and schools language arts/reading objectives and philosophies. Primary features are as follows: 1. 2. 3. Database and software programs aligned with the school and districts curriculum Students matched with trained parents, businesses, community volunteer mentors, who work to strengthen students reading, writing, vocabulary development, study skills, and higher- order thinking skills Mentors provide role models of successful people who motivate, support, and provide individual student attention. McRat. This two-year staff development process helps teachers infuse higher-order thinking, multicultural concepts, and performance-based assessment into the existing curriculum. The content of the staff development consists of the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. Instruction focused on four higher-order thinking skills analysis, comparison, inference, and evaluation that students can use in all academic subjects and transfer to practical life situations, Reading and writing skills and strategies that are taught through real reading and writing experiences. Assessment involving performance-based techniques with emphasis on pre- and post-writing assignments. Portfolios used as systematic organized collections of evidence to monitor student growth in skill development. 14Draft Effective Literacy for Grades 2-4. This program is an additional program/philosophy connected with Smart Start and is being pursued by some elementary schools. This program features a two-year staff development process designed to train teachers in instructional techniques which help students become fluent readers and writers. The content of the staff development consists of the following components: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. A balanced literacy program Planning appropriate reading/writing instruction based on assessment and evaluation Reading process Phonetic skills and strategies Recognizing high frequency words Decoding/word attack skills/word analysis Vocabulary development Comprehension skills and strategies Independent reading and writing Classroom management and organization Assessment Parental involvement. Thirdly, there is currently a lack of alignment in the design of the general education and Title I programs with each other or with the States curriculum frameworks and its new Smart Start initiative or with what is tested. In a curriculum mapping activity early in 1998-99, the staff found major gaps in what had previously been established as the Districts curriculum standards and what was actually being tested on the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT9) or the States criterion-referenced tests that are aligned with State academic standards. An obvious conclusion is that it is entirely possible that a major reason for some schools low performance is that they are not exposing the children to the curriculum on which tests are based. Past implementation of District curriculum, in summary, has been inconsistent from school to school due to a variety of factors. These include time allotted to reading/language arts instruction, pull-out programs, lack of comprehensive teacher training, lack of staff to monitor and assist all schools, incompatible supplemental programs, lack of consistent use of district-adopted reading program, lack of cohesive ongoing assessment, and lack of sufficient funding aimed at achieving continuity of effort from grade level to grade level within each school and from school to school within the district. Additional curriculum coordination is needed to ensure continuity of effort and appropriate transition from experiential learning to skill acquisition among pre-k, k, and primary level literacy education efforts across the District. 15Draft Professional Community Research on what works in school restructuring finds that successful and effective schools are those with several identifiable characteristics, including strong professional learning communities. Such schools have a staff who, due to their shared beliefs about student learning and their shared commitment to improvement, engage in ongoing professional development. Their learning is embedded in their work and is totally focused on improvement of every childs academic performance. It will take the form of team meetings where teachers collaboratively plan lessons and thematic units, where they learn and practice effective teaching strategies, and where they collaboratively write and administer assessments and then evaluate student work in the team, not privately. If observing a professional community, one would expect to see ongoing action research, data analysis, discussions of individual and group performance of students, inquiry, reflection, and rich dialogue. In speaking with LRSD principals and teachers, one would find inconsistent evidence of these activities. It is not surprising, therefore, to learn that at least some of the staff do not understand why the school has in place the programs that it has. There is in those schools a lack of opportunities for professional development, lack of research on what works, lack of a theory base, lack of data analysis and program evaluation, and lack of structures and organization that facilitate and make the time for teachers to engage in the very activities that would enhance student achievement. Support for Students Quality management principles insist that processes and procedures should be examined on an ongoing basis so that if students are failing to learn at an acceptable level, then adjustments and modifications must be made immediately to prevent as much failure at the end of the year as possible. End-of-year inspectionstest administrationsare too expensive and too late to modify the practices that led to the failure to start with, and so the cycle begins again with another group of children, many of whom will also fail. Although teachers currently assess on an ongoing basis as a part of their day-to-day work, these assessments do not necessarily lead to changes in school or teacher practices at all or in any change in what the student is experiencing. In other words, those frequent assessments are used more frequently to label students than they are to inform teacher practice, and then at the end of the school year, the school declares many students to be failures. The Arkansas criterion-referenced examinations are administered near the end of the year and only to grade 4 at the elementary level. If schools wait until grade 4 to identify a low-performing student, then the problem is almost beyond solution. SAT9 examinations are administered in the fall, but by the time teachers receive the data and have opportunities to conduct analyses, they are well into the school year and routines/ programs are already set. Students may have already failed one or two quarters, and the results at this point are not very helpful in diagnosing individual student needs. 16Draft At the end of the year there are cunently only three options for a failing K-3 student: to be retained in grade\nto attend summer school to earn promotion\nor to be promoted to the next grade without requisite knowledge and skills to be successful at that level. Only a few elementary schools are currently using their funds for extended day programs, and there does not appear even in some of these a well-designed or articulated program. Clearly, then, the District must put into place the structures and practices that predict student success and prevent failure to every extent possible. In addition, there must be processes in every school to identify as early as possible any learning difficulties, to make immediate adjustments and modifications in instruction, and to provide extended time to learn through pre-school programs and during the school year. Conclusions In terms of quality management, then, the District has reviewed its processes and identified several challenging needs:  improve student achievement and end the practice of social promotion  ensure curriculum/instruction alignment and coherence  provide research-based curriculum and instruction  provide professional development for administrators, teachers, and other staff and create professional learning communities in each school  improve assessment practices and the use of data  provide appropriate prevention and intervention programs to support student success  improve communication with and involvement of parents/guardians. Review of Research This plan reflects the very latest research available on early childhood education, emergent literacy, and the prevention of reading difficulties. Academic success, as defined by high school graduation, can be predicted with reasonable accuracy by knowing someones reading skill at the end of grade 3. (p. 31, National Research Council, 1998) The following are common characteristics that make a practice a best practice (from Best Practice: New Standards for Teaching and Learning in Americas Schools by Steven Zemelman, Harvey Daniels, and Arthur Hyde, 1998, Heinemann). These are the underlying threads that tie together any successful effort in teaching reading and language arts, and the committee endeavored to ensure that each was included in the program design for the PreK-3 Literacy Program. 17Draft 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Reading means getting meaning from print. Reading is a process. Hearing books read aloud is the beginning of learning to read. Beginning reading instruction should provide children with many opportunities to interact with print. Reading is the best practice for learning to read. An effective reading program exposes students to a wide and rich array of print and goes beyond the use of the basal. Choice is an integral part of literate behavior. Teachers should model reading. Effective teachers of reading help children actively use reading and writing as tools for learning. 10. Children learn reading best in a low-risk environment. 11. Young children should have well-structured instruction in phonics. However, phonics is not a subject in itself, but rather a tool. 12. Teachers should provide daily opportunities for children to share and discuss what they have been reading and writing. 13. In an effective reading program, students spend less time completing workbooks and skill sheets. 14. Writing experiences are provided at all grade levels. 15. Reading assessment should match classroom practice. 16. Schools that are effective in teaching reading have an ethos that supports readini g- .. .the performance of kindergartners on tests of phonological awareness is a strong predictor of their future reading achievement, (p. 54, Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. National Research Council, 1998) ... the arguments for including spelling instruction as a major component of the reading program are strong. Learning about spelling reinforces childrens knowledge about common letter sequences. It also reinforces their knowledge about spelling-sound relationships and may help children become aware of word parts. Because of this, spelling practice enhances reading proficiency, (p. 103, Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning About Print by Marilyn Jager Adams) 18Draft According to research and analysis of the 1994 National Assessment of Education Progress results on the grade 4 reading examination (Teaching for High Standards: What Policymakers Need to Know and Be Able To Do by Linda Darling Hammond and Deborah Loewenberg Ball, 1997, in Implementing Academic Standards, p. D-7), there are several teacher characteristics that are highly correlated with student success in reading: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Teachers having coursework in literature-based instruction Teachers having coursework in integrated approaches to teaching language arts and reading Teachers having coursework in phonics Teachers having coursework in study strategies Teachers having coursework in motivational strategies. Zemelman, Daniels, and Hyde also have synthesized the research on best practice in teaching writing. The exemplary writing activities are as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. All children can and should write. Teachers must help students find real purposes to write. Students need to take ownership and responsibility. Effective writing programs involve the complete writing process. Teachers can help students get started. Teachers help students draft and revise. Grammar and mechanics are best learned in the context of actual writing. Students need real audiences and a classroom context of shared learning. Writing should extend throughout the curriculum. 10. Effective teachers use evaluation constructively and efficiently. ... for young or uncertain readers, the potential contribution of writing to reading runs deeper than any concern of form or style. In particular, as children become authors, as they struggle to express, refine, and reach audiences through their own writing, they actively come to grips with the most important reading insights of all. (p. 104. Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning About Print by Marilyn Jager Adams) 19Plan Goals Draft The Superintendent and the staff of the Little Rock School District propose this PreK-3 Literacy Plan to achieve the following goals: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. To end the practice of social promotion (administrative placement of students to the next grade) in the Little Rock School District. To put into place at grades prek-3 (and then to phase in at higher grades) the curriculum, instruction, and assessments, plus necessary supports for students so that increasing percentages of children meet the rigorous academic standards established by the State of Arkansas and the Little Rock School District. To ensure that by the completion of the third grade all students will be reading independently and will show understanding of words on a page. To improve student achievement in reading, writing, speaking, listening, and thinking as measured by norm- and criterion-referenced tests determined by the State of Arkansas and the Little Rock School District. To prevent, to the extent possible, the need for special education and 504 referrals and services for reading disabilities. To improve communication with and the involvement of parents of PreK-3 children, including those who speak a language other than English. 1. To meet the obligations and commitments made to the community in the Districts Strategic Plan and Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and to align with the States Smart Start Initiative. 8. To improve, over time, the overall academic success and graduation rates of students in the Little Rock School District. Effective early reading instruction is crucial to all children. All children must learn to read so that they can read to learn. Since all future learning is predicated on the ability to read, every child requires the best possible foundation in reading, (p. 2, Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice, The ERS Informed Educator Series, 1998) 20Draft PreK-3 Literacy Program Design Many of the ingredients for success are already in place at the District level. The new reading/language arts standards and benchmarks are based on the best thinking within the discipline and are aligned with state and national reading education entities. These standards call for rigorous learning experiences for all students that are focused, comprehensive, and designed to result in maximum reader competency by not limiting students to basic skills alone. The multicultural emphasis on learning district-wide affords all students with access to meaningful and relevant learning experiences that lead to learning mastery. Many LRSD schools, as well, have already pieces of a research-based PreK-3 literacy program in place. Others do not, so the pace of full implementation for all schools will differ. Another determiner of pace will be fundinghow quickly a school can align its School Improvement Plan and Title I budgets, for instance. The PreK-3 Literacy Committee believes, after reviewing current practices in the LRSD elementary schools and after identifying the many supplemental reading programs currently in usesome of which are used in place of the District curriculum, that the bold action necessary for improvement requires a thoughtful, deliberate elimination of too much stuff. Teachers and students in PreK-3 classrooms across the District have so much to do that the real focus for learning is in many instances lost entirely or, at best, obscured. The learning goals are clear, but the challenge remains how to clear the learning path of the debris that becomes a daily obstacle for teachers trying to teach and students trying to learn. I Allowing schools to choose how to address district learning goals and district curriculum is difficult. To successfully allow such autonomy requires clear guidelines and thoughtful district/school partnerships, as well as clear understanding and singular vision about desired results. In a district the size of the LRSD, the choice made by one school can and does dramatically impact the entire district. Continuity is essential as students and staff move from school to school. Patrons across the District expect and deserve the same focus and the same quality, regardless of which school their children attend. This committee has studied the final report submitted by the Curriculum Work Group to the District on August 4, 1997, which provided direction for writing the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. We concur with the sixteen recommendations made by that group for K-3 reading education. The following summary of key components of those recommendations conveys what we believe is most critical in PreK through grade 3 reading education to achieving the goal that by completion of grade three all students will be reading independently. An outline of program design components, including those reflected in the Curriculum Work Groups report, follows: 21Draft Organizational Changes HIPPY. The HIPPY program shall change its focus of service from four- and five-year olds to three- and four-year olds, given that almost all five- year-olds now attend kindergarten. The HIPPY program staff shall report to the Coordinator of Early Childhood Education under this plan, effective fall 1999. HIPPY is a home-based program in which parents serve as the childs first teacher. The program provides children with school readiness skills and makes reading one of many activities parents and children do together, (p. 144, Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children, National Research Council, 1998) Title I. The District shall restructure its Title I program and budgets in conformance with federal and state regulations to support the implementation of the PreK-3 literacy program and all childrens success in achieving the academic standards and benchmarks. Components of the restructuring shall include the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Alignment of Title I programs and services with general education and Smart Start in order to support student success in achieving the rigorous academic standards and benchmarks established by the State and LRSD. Decentralization of decision-making relating to Title I plans and budgets to principals and their Campus Leadership Teams. Embedding the Title I accountability requirements in the LRSD Quality Index. Provision for PreK-3 literacy/mathematics program evaluation under the leadership of the department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation. Establishing the following priorities for school-level Title I funding: a. b. c. d. e. f. Professional development^building the capacity of existing staff to ensure that all students learn to read by grade 3 Technology to support student success Supplemental instructional materials and supplies, especially for those at risk of failure to learn to read Extended-day interventions to support students at risk of failure Parent education and involvement Focus of programs and services on grades PreK-3 at the elementary level. 22Draft Schools are expressly discouraged from continuing to use the vast majority of their Title I funding simply to employ extra staffunless such staff are absolutely necessary for the implementation of this program, e.g., Reading Recovery, Success for All, or Direct Instruction teachers\nteachers for extended day Reading Clinics\netc. Principals wishing to transfer current Title I employees to the regular budget and programs must collaborate with the department of Human Resources to ensure compliance with the PN agreement. Montview Elementary eliminated remedial reading teachers as part of its schoolwide Title I program, directing its resources instead to professional learning.. .. Montviews results are noteworthy.. .. As a result of the schools hard work, its language arts scores exceeded those in the districts more prosperous, stable schools, (from Meeting the Reading Challenge in Low-Income Schools by Dennis Sparks, Education Week, Nov. 11, 1998) Schools are further discouraged from including travel to conferences in their Title I budgets since the District will have already provided awareness-level training in all the components of this design. Travel will be approved only for visits to exemplary schools implementing a similar design or for in-depth training and development not available in Little Rock or somewhere within the State. Lower Adult-to-Student Ratios for Reading/Language Arts Instruction. Each school is encouraged to lower adult-student ratio to a maximum of 1:15 through the use of all certified personnel in the school during reading instruction. Further, each school is encouraged to explore and identify effective ways to strengthen teacher-student and teacher-parent relationships and to ensure instructional continuity through such strategies as looping, multiage classrooms, etc. The abilities and opportunities of teachers to closely observe and facilitate the literacy learning of diverse groups of children are certainly influenced by the numbers of children they deal with, (p, 229. Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. National Research Council, 1998) 23Draft Closeness in the teacher-child relationship was associated with better readiness performance. Closeness is an index of warmth and open communication in the teacher-child relationship, (p. 130, Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. National Research Council. 1998) Minimized/Eliminated Pullouts. Schools must minimize or eliminate entirely pullouts from the classroom during instruction in language arts and mathematics, especially, in PreK-3. No New Programs. The District declares a moratorium on additional new  supplemental reading/language arts programs at the PreK-3 levels for at least three years or until the implementation of these changes can be both formatively and summatively evaluated to determine their effectiveness with the diversity of students in the Little Rock School District. Program Abandonment. In order for the District and each school to be successful in the implementation of these program components, many former programs and practices must be abandoned. The mobility of our students requires us to be consistent in our curriculum and instruction. The importance of coherence requires us to have a common research and theory base for the program components. Also, limitations on teacher time and energy require us to abandon some old programs and practices to make room for the new. Finally, in order to fund these new program components, both District budgets and Title I budgets must be reallocated to fund the teacher development, new teaching materials, and interventions now required. Flexible Schedules for Some Teachers. Schools are encouraged to schedule supplemental teachers differently from the traditional school day in order to fund some of the extended-day interventions that will be critical to success. For instance, instead of a Title I teacher working during regular school hours, she/he could come in at 10:00 a.m. and then work two hours at the end of the day with identified students who require extra time to learn. Waiver Application Requirements. The District provides the opportunity for schools to apply for a waiver from State and District policies, regulations, and programs, if they can demonstrate that their plan has the potential to be more effective with the students in their school. Waivers will continue as a possibility for prek-3 literacy programs. Schools must, however, address the student mobility factor in their application since a powerful reason for consistency across all the schools in the district is the importance of this consistency for mobile students. 24Draft Supplemental reading/language arts programs initiated at the school level must meet the criteria of universally accepted characteristics of best practice in reading. Curriculum and Instruction Alignment. The prek-3 LRSD language arts curriculum at each school shall be tightly aligned with the Arkansas and LRSD curriculum frameworks and the LRSD grade-level benchmarks. By combining aspects of phonics and whole language instruction, teachers can explicitly teach students the relationship between letters and sounds while increasing their comprehension skills and enthusiasm for reading by exposing them to interesting stories and real literature. In so doing, educators can actively address the major obstacles to effective readingdifficulty with the alphabetic principle, failure to acquire and use comprehension skills, and lack of motivation, (p. 5, Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice, The ERS Informed Educator Series, 1998) Daily Schedule. All schools shall schedule and keep sacred a minimum of two and one-half hours daily for uninterrupted instruction in reading/ language arts. The following time allocations are not rigid. Rather, they are guidelines for teachers to use in planning how students should spend their timeboth to ensure that all the critical components are included and to ensure adequate time for student engagement in the activities. Twenty minutes - The teacher reads good literature aloud. The single most important activity for building the knowledge and skills eventually required for reading appears to be reading aloud to children regularly and interactively, (p. 124, Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print by Marilyn Jager Adams) Twenty minutes - Students are engaged in phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary-building, and word study (word sorts, word walls, word families, spelling patterns) Letter recognition skills are strong predictors of reading success, (p. 124. Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print by Marilyn Jager Adams) 25Draft Twenty minutes - Students are engaged in shared reading (teacher-guided discussions of reading, including language experience stories, big books, other literature) Children learn a great deal about both the nature and function of print through thoughtful interactions with adults, (p. 124, Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print by Marilyn Jager Adams) Thirty minutes - Students are engaged in independent reading at childs fluency level (wordless books, picture books, chapter books) Children should be given as much opportunity and encouragement as possible to practice their reading. Beyond the basics, childrens reading facility, as well as their vocabulary and conceptual growth, depends strongly on the amount of text they read. (p. 127, Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print by Marilyn Jager Adams) Twenty minutes - Students are engaged in writing (journal keeping, stories, responding to literature\nusing age-appropriate developmental spelling and drawing) Independent writing activities are a means of developing childrens deeper appreciation of the nature of text and its comprehension, (p. 126, Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print by Marilyn Jager Adams) Forty minutes - Students are engaged in guided reading instruction (small group in which teacher provides support for development of reading strategies within students zone of proximal development). The instructional level is the highest level at which the child can do satisfactory reading provided that he or she receives preparation and supervision from a teacher: errors in word recognition are not frequent, and comprehension and recall are satisfactory, (p. 213, Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children, National Research Council, 1998) 26Draft To nudge the children toward new understandings about reading, we want to provide assistance so that children can rehearse the text at a level that is just above where they function on their own. (p. 29, Emerging Readers and Writers by Martha Combs, in Vygotsky in the Classroom, 1996) Throughout the day, everydayStudents are engaged in activities designed to develop and to provide practice in enhancing their communication and social skills in the classroom, in the cafeteria, in before- and after-school activities, and on the playground. Additional time in language arts is also provided in the other content areas. For example, students should read and write within the context of a thematic unit at other times during the day. ... it is not only the time allocated for reading that is important. How that time is spent is also important. Low achievers generally are given less classroom time to read text than their higher achieving peers. When low achievers are asked to read, the reading tends to be oral, round-robin style, with the consequence that they read far fewer words, stories and books, (p. 118, Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print by Marilyn Jager Adams) Limited-English Proficient Students. The District shall restructure its programs and services for limited-English proficient students in grades PreK-3 to align with this program design and to address the recommendations of the Office of Civil Rights as a result of their compliance review in April 1999. Many studies support the notion of a balanced literacy program as appropriate for students whose first language is not English, that is, programs that provide a balance of explicit instruction and student- directed activities that incorporate aspects of both traditional and meaning-based curricula, (p. 25. Building a Knowledge Base in Reading by Jane Braunger and Jan Lewis, 1998) Special Education and 504 Students. The diverse needs of special education and Section 504 children are included in this design, and the successful implementation of this plan is expected to reduce the numbers and percentages of children referred for special education or 504 programs and services relating to reading disabilities. 27Draft Early Literacy Learning (ELLA). The centerpiece of the K-2 literacy program shall be Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA), which includes a balanced literacy program, the reading process, writin\nstrategies, assessment, spelling/phonics deyelopment, classroom management strategies, and word building. g The instruction of the most effectiye teachers included attention to explicit teaching of skills, an emphasis on literature, and much reading and writing. The National Research Council synthesis also confirms that the best method for teaching children to read is coherent instruction that combines a yariety of approaches, (p. 5, Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice, The ERS Informed Educator Series, 1998) Thematic Instruction. Thematic instruction is promoted and encouraged. Schools should proyide for professional deyelopment, materials and supplies, and collaboratiye planning time for teachers to deyelop thematic units and to design assessments. The Social Nature of Learning. Giyen that learning is a social act, each teacher must acquire the skills to facilitate cooperatiye learning and other small group strategies so that student learning is mediated not only by the teacher, but also by peers. Additionally, the school must foster social interactions between and among children and between and among children and adults at eyery reasonable opportunityin classrooms, on the playground, in the cafeteria, and in before- and after-school programs. In this light, the practice of maintaining silent cafeterias is inappropriate. ... the fact that you learn to talk by talking implies that children should simply be allowed to talk far more than they currently do in school. The school norm of silent classrooms must be abolished\nironically, when teachers enforce the standard of silence, they are in a yery real sense making learning illegal, (p. 14, Best Practice: New Standards for Teaching and Learning in Americas Schools by Steyen Zemelman, Harvey Daniels, and Arthur Hyde) 29Draft Gifted/Talented Students. The needs of gifted/talented students are also included in this design. The ongoing assessment of student performance and the regrouping of students for instruction shall enable advanced students to continue their own growth in all areas of the language arts. Each school is expected not only to decrease the percent of students performing at the lower levels, but also dramatically to increase the percent of students performing at the \"Proficient and Advanced levels. Frequent Assessment and Regrouping for Instruction. Each school is encouraged to create a schedule to facilitate necessary changes and to design a grouping/re-grouping strategy, such as the regrouping strategies employed in Success for All or the modified Joplin plan to customize/ personalize guided reading activities. Tracking of students is unacceptable practice in the Little Rock School District, but short-term, flexible grouping based on individual student needs is a research-based, effective instructional strategy. Heterogeneous cooperative learning groups are strongly encouraged in all subject areas. Some research has found that long-term grouping of students by achievement or ability level is less effective than more flexible grouping based on specific, current skills of students. Such flexible grouping arrangements require that problem readers be monitored frequently on critical reading indicators, so that groups and instruction can be adjusted to their current needs, (p. 5, Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice, The ERS Informed Educator Series, 1998) Phonemic Awareness. All kindergarten teachers shall receive professional development to teach Animated Literacy, an effective, research-based phonemic awareness component that is compatible with the planned overall reading/language arts program. Training for teachers and the necessary instructional materials for this intervention may be funded through the schools Title I budget. As schools acquire technology, there are a number of software systems that would also achieve this goal that the Campus Leadership Team may wish to consider. There are basic skills all students must acquire to read effectively. These skills include phonemic awareness, decoding strategies, vocabulary development, and comprehension strategies, (p. 2, Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice, The ERS Informed Educator Series, 1998) 28Draft Young children should engage in reading and writing experiences that integrate language and action in a social context. It is in the social context of literacy activity that children are able to interpret their literacy experiences and internalize knowledge about reading and writing, (p. 26, Emerging Readers and Writers by Martha Combs in Vygotskv in the Classroom. 1996) Role of the Librarv/Media Center. Each school shall ensure students easy and frequent access (no fewer than one to two visits weekly) to the library/media center, and all students shall be encouraged through schoolwide strategies to read as many books as possible for pleasure. Summer, winter-break, and spring break reading lists will be distributed to all LRSD children, beginning summer 1999. Supplementary Reading Materials. Each school shall conduct an inventory of its PreK-3 classroom reading materials. Regular budgets and Title I funds may be used to acquire additional support materials, such as classroom literature sets and other sets of books to help teachers help students meet the curriculum standards and benchmarks in ways that address the needs of individual students, particularly those students functioning below the proficiency level. Comprehensive beginning reading programs are supported by adequate resources, (p. 3, Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice, The ERS Informed Educator Series. 1998) Assessment/Grading/Program Evaluation Frequent, Systematic Assessment. The District, in collaboration with the schools, shall create a systematic assessment system for grades PreK-3 so that student progress can be frequently monitored and aligned with LRSD benchmarks and Arkansas criterion-referenced tests and appropriate modifications made to the instructional program. The assessment components shall include a minimum of the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Running Records, etc., grades K-1 (diagnostic/prescriptive) LRSD Phonemic Awareness Assessment - K- 1 (readiness profile) LRSD CRT - Criterion Reference Test - grades 2-3 Individual Reading Inventory, grades K - 3 (as needed basis) Student portfolios to examine growth over time, grades K-3. 30Draft Adequate progress in learning to read beyond the initial level depends on\nhaving a working understanding of how sounds are represented alphabetically\ngetting sufficient practice in reading to achieve fluency with different kinds of text\nhaving sufficient background knowledge and vocabulary to render written texts meaningful and interesting\nacquiring control over strategies for monitoring comprehension and repairing misunderstandings\nand maintaining interest and motivation to read for a variety of purposes, (p. 4, Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice. The ERS Informed Educator Series, 1998) New Elementary Report Card. The District shall form a representative committee of staff and parents no later than June 1999 to redesign the elementary report card so that it reflects the standards-based approach to teaching and learning and so that it provides more accurate and specific information to parents regarding their childs progress in meeting the academic content standards of LRSD. PreK-3 Literacy Program Evaluation. In keeping with the obligations in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, the District shall employ with Title I funding a program evaluator, who shall annually report on the level of effectiveness of the innovations in this PreK-3 Literacy Plan. Professional Development I Teachers who teach reading must receive better training and engage in ongoing professional development in reading instruction, (p. 4, Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice, The ERS Informed Educator Series, 1998) 31Draft Effective Literacy. Effective Literacy for grades 2-4 features a two-year staff development process designed to train teachers in instructional techniques which help students become fluent readers and writers, building on the skills developed in K-2. The content of the staff development consists of the following components: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. A balanced literacy program Planning appropriate reading/writing instruction based on assessment and evaluation The reading process Phonetic skills and strategies Recognizing high frequency words Decoding/word attack skills/word analysis Vocabulary development Comprehension skills and strategies Independent reading and writing 10. Classroom management and organization 11. Assessment 12. Parent involvement Smart Start Professional Development. The District and each school should leverage as much as possible the professional development opportunities provided by ADE for Smart Start implementation, since the LRSD literacy plan is tightly aligned with Smart Start, which also promotes ELLA and Effective Literacy as recommended language arts programs. School-Level Professional Development. The District and each school shall create a professional development plan that reflects the standards for elementary school professional development (from the National Council for Staff Development) and which reflects the priorities in the School Improvement Plan (including the schools Title I plan), especially the implementation of ELLA. Each schools Campus Leadership Team is charged with the responsibility to create collaborative cultures to support change through activities associated with a professional learning community: (1) collegial plarming/teaming and assessment of student work\n(2) collective responsibility for results\n(3) ongoing, job-embedded learning\n(4) action research and inquiry\n(5) continuous improvement\n(6) empowerment through the activities of the Campus Leadership program. 32Draft A report published by the Consortium on Reading Excellence advocates that inservice professional development should:  include current theory and research  provide training in assessment and instruction for phonemic awareness  convey dynamic methods to teach phonics and make use of connected texts  demonstrate effective ways to teach spelling that will reinforce reading  include a diagnostic tool kit that will enable teachers to teach what children need  include whole language strategies and powerful uses of literature  provide practice with children in a clinical setting with ample opportunity for feedback and support\nand  assist teachers to effectively implement balanced literacy programs, (p. 6, Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice, The ERS Informed Educator Series, 1998) Principal Development. The District shall design and implement a professional development program for elementary principals and other administrators that is aligned with the PreK-3 Literacy Plan components. Interventions Success for All. Schools currently implementing Success for All may continue, provided that the curriculum includes the Arkansas and LRSD academic standards and benchmarks. Student performance data should be thoroughly analyzed to determine the success of current practices, and then, if necessary, the program should be modified for improved results or abandoned. Reading Recovery. Schools implementing Reading Recovery may continue to do so with their Title I funding. Other schools may choose to redirect their Title I funding to this grade 1 intervention if the Campus Leadership Team makes this decision. 33Draft English-as-a-Second Language (ESL). English-as-a-Second Language programs and services will be provided in the four Newcomer Centers for students who are limited-English proficient. These students need similar instruction as that required for other children to learn reading/language arts, but they will also require some extended time to become proficient in English. Reading Clinic Intervention. Each school shall include in its Title I budget the funding for an after-school Reading Clinic or another researchbased intervention to prevent reading failures before the end of the school year. Although volunteer tutors can provide very valuable practice and motivational support for children learning to read, the research does not show that they are effective in providing primary reading instruction or in helping children with serious learning difficulties, (p. 4, Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice, The ERS Informed Educator Series, 1998) Summer School. The District shall prioritize its elementary funding of summer school programs around the needs of grades k-1 students. The District shall design an intensive summer reading program patterned after the Reading Clinic approach. Early identification and intervention are vital. Some children have more difficulty learning to read than others. Therefore, effective methods for preventing and addressing these difficulties must be included in any comprehensive instructional plan. (p. 4, Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice, The ERS Informed Educator Series, 1998) Parent Education/Involvement Parent-School Compacts. Each school is encouraged to identify strategies to embed the Title I mandated parent-school compact in the culture of the school and to use this vehicle as a means of improving school-to-parent communication and parent understanding of the LRSD academic standards and benchmarks and ways they can support their childs success. 34Draft Parent Education. The District shall align its parent education\n' involvement programs, including those involving Title I parents, at the PreK-3 levels with the components of this PreK-3 Literacy Plan and with the PreK-3 provisions for mathematics and science in the National Science Foundation project. Also, this component will include the Strategy 2 Action Plan activities recently approved as amendments to the Strategic Plan. Hess and Holloway (1984) identified five broad areas of family functioning that may influence reading development. They are: 1. Value placed on literacy: by reading themselves and encouraging children to read, parents can demonstrate that they value reading. 2. Press for achievement: by expressing their expectations for achievement by their children, providing reading instruction, and responding to the childrens reading initiations and interest, parents can create a press for achievement. 3. 4. 5. Availability and instrumental use of reading materials: literacy experiences are more likely to occur in homes that contain childrens books and other reading and writing materials. Reading with children: parents can read to preschoolers at bedtime or other times and can listen to schoolchildrens oral reading, providing assistance as needed. Opportunities for verbal interaction: a lower quality of verbal interaction constitutes a risk factor primarily in that it relates closely to lowered child vocabulary scores, (p. 121-122, Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children, National Research Council, 1998) Conclusions These recommendations are the result of extensive study, collaboration, and thoughtful deliberation over more than two years and intensively during the last seven months. They convey a practical, meaningful, and doable framework for action that can and will, if properly sanctioned, lead to realization of the goal that all LRSD students will read independently by the end of the third grade. The committee recognizes that recommendations made by well-meaning people often become unrealized hopes or dreams. We are committed to acting on these recommendations and, therefore, ask for immediate approval to begin their implementation. 35Draft We have agreed to continue to work together as a committee to oversee implementation of the recommendations. We will meet monthly to review progress and to ensure the cohesiveness of each action component. To help manage the tasks that lie ahead, we have developed a timeline which we believe should be immediately incorporated into the Division of Instructions work plan for the remainder of the school year. The timeline is attached for review, along with the proposed budget. In conclusion, to set as a goal that the District will ensure that all students are reading independently by the end of the third grade is ambitious, at the very least. Such a goal, however, is one that must be achieved, if all students are to have equitable access to an education that prepares them for productive adult lives in the twenty-first century. It is, therefore, imperative that the District provide unwavering support for the clearly focused, best-practice based, district-wide PreK-3 reading/language arts curriculum and program we believe our recommendations will provide. Such support requires dedication of all necessary resources to the effort, whether the resources are school-based or district based, district-fimded or Title I supplemental. Campus-based decision making must be based on clear district guidelines and, if necessary, policy so that all schools in the LRSD exemplify best practice in the delivery of this critically important program. 365 Timelines Activities_________________________________________ 1. Plan summer school curriculum, instructional focus, and professional development for summer 1999\nalso complete student selection process._____ 2. Identify timeline for delivery of training modules\nschedule dates, sites.___________________________ 3. Develop criteria matrix for supplemental reading programs._____________________________________ 4. Conduct awareness sessions with elementary principals and teachers on the PreK-3 Literacy Plan. 5. Write guidelines/regulations for schools to follow when scheduling at grades PreK-3._______________ 6. Write guidelines/teacher manual for two and one- half hour language arts block (make grade specific\ninclude how to/what to do/why do it/troubleshooting sections)._____________________________________ 1. Design classroom profile rubrics (make grade specific\nformat status quo to most desirable matrix). 8. Design teacher practice rubrics.________________ 9. Design criteria for materials selection (identify required materials\ndevelopment guidelines for additional materials). ______________________ 10. Complete PreK-3 standards, benchmarks, curriculum maps\npublish for teachers and parents. 11. Develop guidelines for thematic instruction. 12. Develop assessment plan.____________________ 13. Develop training modules for each component part of plan.___________________________________ 14. Write guidelines for school implementation of After-School Reading Clinics.____________________ 15. Begin module-based teacher training. 16. Order and distribute ELLA materials.________ 17. Reorganize HIPPY programs and services to be appropriate for age three and four students.________ 18. Provide to principals their projected Title I budgets, planning requirements, and other information related to the restructuring of Title I programs. Draft Date February 1999 February April April April April May May May May May May April and ongoing May June and ongoing June and July June April 37! I Draft Activities __________________________________ 19. Establish criteria for approval of Title I plans and communicate to principals and Campus Leadership Teams._______________________________________ 20. Compile lists of recommended reading for PreK- 3 students for summer\npost in businesses and libraries around the community and provide to parents._____________________ 21. Review and approve Title I plans._____________ 22. Plan and implement staff development for principals on the administration of the new plan. 23. Design, produce, and publish for fall distribution a parent brochure on the PreK-3 plan, including all components (such as Title I, Smart Start, etc.).______ 24. Redesign the PreK-3 report cards so that communication with parents is improved.__________ 25. Design the program evaluation study and set up data-collection procedures. Date May May June June June July July 381 Ji LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 July 7, 1999 TO: Melissa Guldin, ODM Monitor FROM: Pat Price, Coordinator of Early Childhood Education SUBJECT: Revised PreK-3 Literacy Plan Enclosed please find a copy of the revised PreK-3 Literacy Plan, being printed at the print shop now for distribution to the schools. if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. PP/adg Enclosure received Jill 1999 OfHCEOf deskresaw,MOM,TOffiXS These arePosition Paper PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan Little Rock School District June 1999 Introduction Origins for the PreK-3 Literacy Plan The proposed PreK-3 Literacy Plan outlined in this document is the culmination of extensive discussion and debate among district staff. interested parents, consulting colleagues, and concerned citizens. The discussion began with the launching of a major effort involving more than 500 community volunteers to plan strategically to make a significant difference in the learning lives of all Little Rock School district students. array of important planning This 1996 undertaking became the first of an efforts that, collectively, have charted for the District an exciting and ambitious journey into the 21^^ century. The Strategic Plan outlined a series of thoughtful actions that have already produced major new initiatives, while impacting almost every realm of current District practice, including the Districts desegregation efforts. One major issue confronting the strategic planners, as well as those involved in framing the subsequent initiatives, was literacy. Too many LRSD students enter school at risk of never learning to read and, alarmingly, the number of these students continues to increase. Illiteracy is a societal issue that has become an educational challenge that cannot be ignored or underestimated. The LRSb is committed to meeting this challenge and through research, analysis, hands-on involvement. professional development, and relentless tenacity, the District is developing an aggressive and very specific course of action, beginning with the PreK-3 Literacy Plan offered here. The plan draws on the work and scope of many initiatives, programs, and practices that are outlined below. 1Background The Strategic Plan The Little Rock School District Board of Education adopted in 1996 a new Strategic Plan, which was subsequently updated in 1998. Two of the eleven strategies directly address issues relating to student literacy. \"Strategy 2\" of that plan is as follows\nIn partnership with our community, we will establish standards in the core curriculum (reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies) at each appropriate level, as well as develop the means of assessing whether students have met these standards. The Action Plan designed to achieve \"Strategy 2\" delineates the objectives and processes to define, develop, and adopt content standards, performance standards, and delivery standards and then to develop and implement professional development programs for district staff, along with strategies for parent understanding of the standards and assessments. Strategy 3\" speaks to the importance of improved student achievement: We will develop and implement a broad range of alternatives and interventions for students scoring below the percentile on standardized tests or who are at serious risk of not achieving District standards in the core curriculum. The \"Strategy 3\" Action Plans call for implementation of action steps relating to literacy development in grades PreK-3\na policy statement providing for intervention as an operative and vital part of elementary school instruction\nexpansion of Reading Recovery/Literacy Support early intervention services for K-3 students who are at risk of not developing literacy skills\n2the development of an intervention team at each school which provides systemic support including professional development for teachers which enables all children to sustain adequate yearly progress through grade 3\nand promotion of school-wide reform and ensuring access of children (from the earliest grades) to effective instructional strategies and challenging academic content. Content will include intensive complex thinking and problem-solving experiences through an integrated literature-based program. The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan In April 1998 the federal district court in Little Rock approved the District's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Implementation of this plan is a requisite step toward the District's attainment of Unitary Status, with the hearing on that petition anticipated in spring 2001. The Plan contains a series of commitments or obligations for the District. Section 5.2.1 relates specifically to reading/language arts at the primary level: LRSD shall implement at least the following strategies to improve the academic achievement of students in kindergarten through the third grade: a. Establish as a goal that by the completion of the third grade all students will be reading independently and show understanding of words on a page\nb. Focus teaching efforts on reading/language arts instruction by teaching science and social studies content through reading/language arts and mathematics experiences\nc. Promote thematic instruction\nd. Identify clear objectives for student mastery of all three reading cueing systems (phonics, semantics, and syntax) and of knowing-how-to-learn skills\n3e. Monitor the appropriateness of teaching/learning materials to achieving curricular objectives and the availability of such materials in all classrooms\nf. Establish uninterrupted blocks of time for reading/language arts and mathematics instruction\ng. Monitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices\nh. Provide parents/guardians with better information about their child's academic achievement in order to help facilitate the academic development of the students\ni. Provide pre-kindergarten, kindergarten, and first-grade learning readiness experiences for students who come to school without such experiences\nj. Train teachers to manage successful learning for all students in diverse, mainstreamed classrooms\nk. Use the third and/or fourth grade as a transition year from focused reading/language arts and mathematics instruction to a more traditional school day\nand I. Provide opportunities for students to perform and display their academic training in a public setting. Other relevant sections of the Revised desegregation and Education Plan to the PreK-3 Literacy Plan are as follows: 2.7 LRSd shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students. 42.7.1 LRSD shall assess the academic programs . . . after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. 2.8 LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures during each of the next three years designed to promote and encourage parental and community involvement and support in the operation of LRSD and the education of LRSD students. 2.12.2 LRSD shall implement policies and procedures for investigating the cause of racial disparities in programs and activities and developing remedies where appropriate. The Campus Leadership Plan The Board of Education adopted the District's Campus Leadership Plan in July 1998, providing for decentralized, school-based decision-making in some cases and shared decision-making in others. That plan includes a Quality Index based in part on indicators of academic achievement for each level of school. The Quality Index will be the accountability (collective responsibility) system for the Little Rock School District, and it will include, but go beyond, the academic indicators established by the State of Arkansas. The Arkansas Smart Start Initiative In fall 1998 the Arkansas Department of Education launched a major new reform entitled Smart Start. The aim of the K-4 component of Smart Start is to improve reading and mathematics achievement for all students in grades K-4 so that all students meet or exceed grade level requirements by grade 4. The implementation of Smart Start necessitates the coordination of the following four areas\n51. Standards - At grades K-4, they will serve as the basis for the expected levels of proficiency demanded in reading and mathematics. 2, staff Development - Focused on both teachers and administrators, all activities will promote the mission of Smart Start and emphasize topics related to subject matter content, curriculum alignment with the Frameworks, analysis of assessment results, and the utilization of technology and distance learning. 3. Student Assessment - Will be clearly aligned with the Frameworks and classroom instruction. 4. Accountability - After standards are clearly communicated, staff development activities have been made available and reliable, valid assessments have been developed and administered, schools will be held accountable for student achievement. Specific staff development programs conducted during 1998-99 included training in the use of a balanced literacy approach, utilizing the state's Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA), Effective Literacy for Grades 2-4, and Multicultural Reading and Thinking (McRat). The Arkansas Academy for Leadership Training and School-Based AAanagement will begin a series of training sessions for principals, emphasizing proper techniques for aligning their local curriculum to state frameworks and for analyzing student assessment results. Grade 4 and Grade 8 Benchmark Exams were continued during 1998-99 and all school districts have been advised to implement additional assessment components to check student progress prior to Grade 4. Title I Another source for this K-3 Literacy Plan is the District s Title I program. This federally funded program allocates major resources to the District's elementary and middle schools for the improvement of reading and mathematics achievement so that all students \"acquire the knowledge and skills contained in the challenging State content standards and meet the 6challenging State performance standards developed for all children, federal Title I regulations include the following related purposes: The Q, Ensuring high standards for all children and aligning the efforts of States, local education agencies, and schools to help children served under this title to teach such standards, b. Providing children on enriched end accelerated educational program, including, when appropriate, the use of the arts, through school-wide programs or through additional services that increase the amount and quality of instructional time so that children c. served under this title receive at least the classroom instruction that other children receive. Promoting school-wide reform and ensuring access of children (from the earliest grades) to effective instructional strategies and challenging academic content that includes intensive complex thinking and problem-solving experiences\nd. Significantly upgrading the quality of instruction by providing staff in participating schools with substantial opportunities for professional development\ne, Coordinating services under all parts of this title with each other. with other educational services, and, to the extent feasible, with health and social service programs funded from other sources, f. Affording parents meaningful opportunities to participate in the education of their children at home and at school\ng- Improving accountability, as well as teaching and learning, by using State assessment systems designed to measure how well children served under this title are achieving challenging State student performance standards expected of all children, and h. Providing greater decision-making authority and flexibility to schools and teachers in exchange for greater responsibility for student performance. Other Special Populations The needs of students from special populations (special education, 504, limited-English proficient, gifted/talented, and all categories of so-called at-risk\" students) also informed the design of this K-3 Literacy Plan. Quality early literacy programs can do much to prevent the referral and labeling of students for special programs and services. 7Summary Sources, then, for the contents and components of the LRSd PreK-3 Literacy Plan include Strategy 2 and Strategy 3 of the LRSd Strategic Plan\nSection 5.2.1 and other relevant sections of the Revised desegregation and Education Plan\nacademic indicators in the Quality Index of the Campus Leadership Plan\nSmart Start standards, assessments, professional development, and accountability\nTitle I regulations, especially those sections addressing the purposes of Title I\nand the needs of students from various special populations. The LRSd PreK-3 Literacy Plan is carefully aligned with and in compliance with all the local, state, and federal mandates, as well as the general philosophy of these planning documents, all of which emphasize the academic success of all children. Methodology In accordance with the goals and strategies of the district s Strategic Plan, the subsequent recommendations of a Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Work Team, and the court-approved Revised desegregation and Education Plan, the Little Rock School district has established as a goal that \"by the completion of the third grade all students will be reading independently and will show understanding of words on a page.\" district personnel recognize that to accomplish this goal an aggressive approach to quality and comprehensive early literacy education in grades PreK-3 is essential. This recognition of a need to focus on literacy as a central component of early childhood/primary level education is referenced in the LRSd 1998-99 Priorities within the following subsections of the specific work plan for the division of Instruction: 11. Align school schedules, prek-12 reading curriculum, instructional strategies, materials, assessment, professional development, monitoring/coaching, and parent information/education with Strategic Plan, Revised desegregation and Education Plan, and Smart Start. 18. Review Title I programs and services to align with the CCOE, Smart Start, Campus Leadership Plan, NSF, Strategic Plan, and Revised desegregation and Education Plan. 821, Assess ESL program and services and develop program improvement plan with estimated budget. 22, Begin needs assessment and initial planning for implementation of Smart Start program from ADE. The apparent logical starting point for accomplishing the ambitious goal of providing, without exception, independent readers in every mainstreamed classroom by the end of the third grade was to establish a committee to study District data and practices and to make specific recommendations for a new comprehensive, systemic reform of the pre-kindergarten through grade 3 language arts program. This committee has been engaged since September 1998 and has undertaken the tasks of reviewing current practices and programs, researching best practices\" within the reading education arena nation-wide, and recommending a broad course of actions that it believes will best facilitate the Division of Instruction Work Plan in the context of the District 1998-99 Priorities. To accomplish the tasks described above\nthe committee first identified and then completed the following action steps\n1. Reviewed current District curriculum and assessment practices and determined current level of implementation and overall appropriateness for achieving goal. 2. Completed the development of the PreK-3 standards and benchmarks for reading/language arts and constructed a curriculum map to ensure alignment with the Arkansas curriculum frameworks and assessments. 3. Reviewed the Arkansas State mandated Smart Start Initiative and identified possible gaps or discrepancies between the Initiative components and the District curricular focus. 94. Identified all \"supplemental\" reading programs currently in use in the district's primary-level classrooms and noted compatibility with the goal, the district curriculum, and the Smart Start Initiative\nalso determined whether supplemental efforts strengthened or hindered continuity of effort in relation to achievement of the goal. 5. Compared {District student performance to statewide student performance for the purpose of creating a context for district benchmarking. K-3 curriculum maps were reviewed to ensure close alignment of district curriculum and the Arkansas curriculum frameworks. 6. drew conclusions about effectiveness of current district efforts and summarized key components of best practice efforts in early reading education nationwide. 7. Identified and mapped literacy components of all related initiatives, programs, and practices to ensure PreK-3 reading/language arts programming congruence and coherence. 8. Recommended key programmatic components essential to timely realization of the initial goal that by the completion of the third grade all students will be reading independently and will show understanding of words on a page. 9. Recommended key resources and necessary collaborations. 10Early Literacy Core Committee Members'. Pat Price, Earl'y Childhood Gene Parker, Reading Judy Milam, Reading Kris Huffman, Reading Judy Teeter, Reading Tish Henslee, Early Childhood - University of Arkansas at Little Rock Melissa Guldin, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Ann Freeman, Smart Start Patty Kohler, Division of Exceptional Children Involvement and Communication Significant levels of staff, parent, and community involvement had already occurred during the past three years on the issue of PreK-3 literacy before the work of this specific plan. The development of the Strategic Plan, the Reading Summit involving about 150 people two years ago, and the involvement on the Work Team that wrote the initial recommendations for Section 5.2 in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan all informed the design of this PreK-3 Literacy Plan. The public was kept informed of these planning initiatives through public information sessions and the cable television channel. Additional activities occurred during March, April, May, and early June 1999 to update everyone. Following administrative review of the committee recommendations and proposed budget, the committee began a series of information sessions further to inform principals, teachers, other staff, parents, and community about the proposed changes and to solicit their input on the final design. Copies of the draft plan were sent to every elementary principal and every PreK-3 teacher in the Little Rock School District for their review and discussion, and numerous presentations were made to various groups. The June 2-3-4 inservice focused in large part on discussions of the plan. Once the review and input process was completed and the committee had had an opportunity to revise their original draft, then the full proposal was presented to the Board of Education for their review in June 1999. 11Needs Assessment data Analysis (Effectiveness) According to an analysis of data conducted by the department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, unacceptable percentages of students across the district are performing at the \"Below Basic\" level on the Arkansas\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":153,"next_page":154,"prev_page":152,"total_pages":3369,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":1824,"total_count":40428,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"educator_resource_mediums_sms","items":[{"value":"lesson plans","hits":307},{"value":"online exhibitions","hits":37},{"value":"teaching guides","hits":34},{"value":"timelines (chronologies)","hits":23},{"value":"bibliographies","hits":15},{"value":"worksheets","hits":5},{"value":"annotated bibliographies","hits":4},{"value":"study guides","hits":4},{"value":"learning modules","hits":3},{"value":"slide shows","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":40428},{"value":"Sound","hits":1050},{"value":"StillImage","hits":803},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":213},{"value":"Collection","hits":10},{"value":"InteractiveResource","hits":4}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"Thurmond, Strom, 1902-2003","hits":2076},{"value":"Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission","hits":1425},{"value":"Newman, I. DeQuincey (Isaiah DeQuincey), 1911-1985","hits":1003},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":777},{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":567},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":464},{"value":"South Carolina Council on Human Relations","hits":397},{"value":"AFL-CIO. Civil Rights Department","hits":326},{"value":"Hunter, Charles N., approximately 1851-1931","hits":323},{"value":"United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)","hits":289},{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":244}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"Race relations","hits":4661},{"value":"Civil rights","hits":3223},{"value":"People--Ethnic Groups--Hispanics","hits":2928},{"value":"African Americans--Civil rights","hits":2321},{"value":"African Americans","hits":1792},{"value":"Education--Arkansas","hits":1747},{"value":"Civil rights--South Carolina","hits":1739},{"value":"Civil rights movements--Mississippi","hits":1550},{"value":"League of United Latin American Citizens","hits":1531},{"value":"LULAC","hits":1517},{"value":"Race","hits":1483}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966--Correspondence","hits":1888},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1501},{"value":"Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998","hits":1413},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1312},{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":713},{"value":"Mizell, M. Hayes","hits":639},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":623},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":608},{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":582},{"value":"Snelling, Paula","hits":582},{"value":"McCain, James T.","hits":418}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"name_authoritative_sms","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":2592},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1497},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1331},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":622},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":608},{"value":"Snelling, Paula","hits":580},{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":579},{"value":"Thurmond, Strom, 1902-2003","hits":360},{"value":"De Laine, Joseph A. (Joseph Armstrong), 1898-1974","hits":345},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":315},{"value":"Samet, Seymour, 1919-2014","hits":279}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Ole Miss Integration","hits":1567},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":663},{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":386},{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":299},{"value":"Freedom Summer","hits":188},{"value":"Birmingham Bombing (Sixteenth Street Baptist Church)","hits":125},{"value":"Memphis Sanitation Workers Strike","hits":104},{"value":"University of Georgia Integration","hits":83},{"value":"Freedom Rides","hits":68},{"value":"Brown versus Board of Education","hits":55},{"value":"Civil Rights Act of 1964","hits":43}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":10939},{"value":"United States, South Carolina, 34.00043, -81.00009","hits":4304},{"value":"United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","hits":3804},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":3648},{"value":"United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036","hits":2519},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":2032},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":1863},{"value":"United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898","hits":1801},{"value":"United States, Texas, Harris County, Houston, 29.76328, -95.36327","hits":1564},{"value":"United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798","hits":1236},{"value":"United States, New York, New York County, New York, 40.7142691, -74.0059729","hits":1198}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"South Carolina","hits":6466},{"value":"Georgia","hits":5551},{"value":"Arkansas","hits":3826},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":3452},{"value":"Texas","hits":3432},{"value":"Tennessee","hits":2359},{"value":"Alabama","hits":2352},{"value":"North Carolina","hits":1657},{"value":"New York","hits":1561},{"value":"Florida","hits":1185},{"value":"District of Columbia","hits":1167}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1962","hits":5885},{"value":"1964","hits":5684},{"value":"1963","hits":5401},{"value":"1965","hits":5249},{"value":"1966","hits":5016},{"value":"1961","hits":4941},{"value":"1968","hits":4914},{"value":"1967","hits":4901},{"value":"1969","hits":4708},{"value":"1960","hits":4681},{"value":"1957","hits":4182},{"value":"1958","hits":4010},{"value":"1977","hits":3976},{"value":"1959","hits":3971},{"value":"1971","hits":3904},{"value":"1970","hits":3870},{"value":"1976","hits":3790},{"value":"1955","hits":3718},{"value":"1974","hits":3664},{"value":"1972","hits":3650},{"value":"1975","hits":3649},{"value":"1956","hits":3611},{"value":"1973","hits":3461},{"value":"1994","hits":3357},{"value":"1995","hits":3332},{"value":"1950","hits":3315},{"value":"1978","hits":3266},{"value":"1954","hits":3261},{"value":"1979","hits":3249},{"value":"1996","hits":3225},{"value":"1980","hits":3158},{"value":"1948","hits":3126},{"value":"1953","hits":3050},{"value":"1997","hits":3036},{"value":"1949","hits":3022},{"value":"1998","hits":2990},{"value":"1999","hits":2983},{"value":"1952","hits":2967},{"value":"1947","hits":2958},{"value":"1951","hits":2907},{"value":"1981","hits":2856},{"value":"2000","hits":2833},{"value":"2001","hits":2792},{"value":"2002","hits":2693},{"value":"1982","hits":2691},{"value":"1946","hits":2690},{"value":"2003","hits":2675},{"value":"1983","hits":2652},{"value":"1945","hits":2610},{"value":"1985","hits":2584},{"value":"1943","hits":2578},{"value":"1944","hits":2577},{"value":"1984","hits":2573},{"value":"1942","hits":2499},{"value":"1941","hits":2473},{"value":"1940","hits":2447},{"value":"1986","hits":2438},{"value":"1939","hits":2375},{"value":"1930","hits":2352},{"value":"1938","hits":2341},{"value":"1937","hits":2323},{"value":"1936","hits":2303},{"value":"2004","hits":2296},{"value":"2005","hits":2270},{"value":"1931","hits":2252},{"value":"1990","hits":2186},{"value":"1987","hits":2183},{"value":"1991","hits":2181},{"value":"1935","hits":2174},{"value":"2006","hits":2165},{"value":"1934","hits":2161},{"value":"1933","hits":2160},{"value":"1932","hits":2150},{"value":"1992","hits":2139},{"value":"1993","hits":2123},{"value":"1989","hits":1879},{"value":"1929","hits":1874},{"value":"1988","hits":1753},{"value":"1928","hits":1509},{"value":"1921","hits":1393},{"value":"1925","hits":1275},{"value":"1927","hits":1272},{"value":"1926","hits":1266},{"value":"1924","hits":1263},{"value":"1923","hits":1208},{"value":"1922","hits":1188},{"value":"1920","hits":1187},{"value":"2007","hits":1029},{"value":"2011","hits":1029},{"value":"2008","hits":1017},{"value":"2010","hits":992},{"value":"2009","hits":980},{"value":"2012","hits":967},{"value":"2013","hits":965},{"value":"2014","hits":924},{"value":"2016","hits":876},{"value":"1919","hits":850},{"value":"1918","hits":849},{"value":"1900","hits":831},{"value":"2015","hits":826}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"0193","max":"2035","count":301323,"missing":11},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"correspondence","hits":9610},{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":4200},{"value":"letters (correspondence)","hits":3564},{"value":"newspapers","hits":1925},{"value":"manuscripts (documents)","hits":1690},{"value":"records (documents)","hits":1429},{"value":"oral histories (literary works)","hits":1385},{"value":"reports","hits":1362},{"value":"clippings (information artifacts)","hits":1156},{"value":"articles","hits":903},{"value":"transcripts","hits":816}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":13560},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":9168},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":8110},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":6150},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/","hits":1673},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/","hits":1494},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NKC/1.0/","hits":40},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-NC/1.0/","hits":20},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-RUU/1.0/","hits":12},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-OW-EU/1.0/","hits":2},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"John J. Herrera Papers","hits":3271},{"value":"Strom Thurmond Collection, Mss 100","hits":2068},{"value":"Lillian Eugenia Smith Papers (circa 1920-1980)","hits":1887},{"value":"Office of Desegregation Management","hits":1843},{"value":"Isaiah DeQuincey Newman, (1911-1985), Papers, 1929-2003","hits":1717},{"value":"Augusta Baker papers, 1911-1998","hits":1696},{"value":"Memphis World","hits":1484},{"value":"James W. Silver Collection","hits":1430},{"value":"Sovereignty Commission Online","hits":1423},{"value":"Integration Correspondence","hits":1420},{"value":"Land of (Unequal) Opportunity: Documenting the Civil Rights Struggle in Arkansas","hits":1403}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"John Davis Williams Library. Department of Archives and Special Collections","hits":3821},{"value":"South Caroliniana Library","hits":3419},{"value":"University of North Texas. Libraries","hits":3316},{"value":"Hargrett Library","hits":3287},{"value":"University of South Carolina. Libraries","hits":3250},{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":2174},{"value":"South Carolina Digital Library","hits":2167},{"value":"University of South Carolina. South Carolina Political Collections","hits":1793},{"value":"Atlanta University Center Robert W. Woodruff Library","hits":1663},{"value":"Rhodes College","hits":1641},{"value":"Mississippi. Department of Archives and History","hits":1435}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":40191},{"value":"Collection","hits":237}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":40278},{"value":"true","hits":150}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}