{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_703","title":"\"Research Brief: SMART/THRIVE in the Little Rock School District\"","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2006-01"],"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","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School improvement programs","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["\"Research Brief: SMART/THRIVE in the Little Rock School District\""],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/703"],"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\nUniversity of Memphis. Center for Research in Educational Policy\nCREP ' Center for Research itt Educational Policy Center for Research in Educational Policy Research Brief The University of Memphis 325 Browning Hall Memphis, Tennessee 38152 Toll Free\n1-866-670-6147 SMART/THRIVE in the Little Rock School DistrictII II II CREP ' Caiierftr Research in Educational Policy II II Center for Research in Educational Policy The Unwersity of Memphis 325 Browning Hall Memphis, Tennessee 38152 Toll Free: 1-866-670-6147 Research Brief II SMART/THRIVE in the Little Rock School District II II II II II II January 2006 n II IB Lyle Hull Davis, Ph.D. Ying Huang Center for Research in Educational Policy n John Nunnery, Ph.D. Old Dominion University Gail Weems, Ph.D. University of Arkansas at Little RockII II RESEARCH BRIEF: SMART/THRIVE IN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT II II II M M Background SMART and THRIVE are programs designed by two veteran Little Rock School District (LRSD) teachers. In 1999, the programs were implemented in LRSD, designed to serve at-risk students. These programs have been funded in part by the Little Rock Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement Program and the National Science Foundation. The overall purposes of the SMART and THRIVE programs are to provide supplemental pre-algebra support to students entering Algebra I and to prepare students to meet state standards in Algebra I, respectively. The programs intentions/goals are to: a) provide a solid foundation for Algebra, b) encourage mathematical exploration\nc) make mathematics fun\nd) enable students to achieve academic success in mathematics\nand e) create the confidence necessary to pursue higher level mathematics courses. The SMART program meets for two consecutive weeks during the summer. The THRIVE program meets every other Saturday during the Spring semester. SMART uses a co-teaching model with one teacher and one high school student mentor while THRIVE uses a co-teaching model with two certified teachers. Purpose, Plan and Participants M HI ni Purpose This report summarizes the 2004-2005 evaluation study of the SMART and THRIVE programs. The global purpose of the evaluation was to: a) examine the extent to which the programs have been effective in improving and remediating academic achievement of African-American students\nb) provide cumulative evidence of SMART/THRIVE implementation practices and c) document perceptions of participants, parents and teachers as well as the level of student participation in SMART and THRIVE. Research Questions IH IH Seven research questions provided the focus of the evaluation. The primary research question focused on the extent to which SMART/THRIVE programs improved and/or remediated math achievement among African American students. Evaluation questions were\n1. Have the SMART/THRIVE programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? IH 2. What is the level of participation in SMART and THRIVE by African American students? 3. What instructional strategies are used during the tutoring sessions? IH 4. What are the perceptions of SMART/THRIVE Teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? IH 5. 6. IH What are the perceptions of Algebra I teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 7. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of SMART/THRIVE students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 1n n Plan n The evaluation was conducted during the spring of 2005. To determine how effectively SMART and THRIVE were meeting the needs of African American students, a cadre of qualitative and quantitative measures were used. II Evaluation Measures II Five measurement strategies were used to collect the evaluation data: standardized achievement test scores, classroom observations, surveys, focus groups, and program-developed achievement benchmarks. Administration procedures and descriptions of instrumentation are provided below. IB Direct Classroom Observation Measures  School Observation Measure (SOtvf'): Examines frequency of usage of 24 instructional strategies. IB  Rubric for Student-Centered Activities (RSCA)-. Provides measurement of the degree of learner engagement in cooperative learning, project-based learning, higher-level questioning, IB experiential/hands-on learning, student independent inquiry/research, student discussion and students as producers of knowledge using technology.  Math Addendum: Rates teachers actions in emphasizing conceptual understanding, connecting the content to daily life, and promoting students confidence in mathematics. IB Surveys Student Survey. Collects participant impressions and perceptions regarding the satisfaction, shortcomings, strengths and influence of SMART and THRIVE programs. IB  Parent Survey. Collects parent perceptions and impressions regarding availability (access), influence, transportation and opinions of SMART and THRIVE. IB  Algebra I Teacher Survey. Collects Algebra I teacher perceptions and impressions of influence of program on student performance as well as global awareness and opinions of SMART and THRIVE. IB  SMART/THRIVE Teacher Survey. Collects SMARTfTHRIVE teacher perceptions and impressions regarding professional development, influence of technology, influence of program on student performance and overall opinions of the program. Focus Groups II  Student Focus Groups: Collects program participant impressions and perceptions regarding the influence of each program on Algebra I achievement, test scores, and self-confidence about math. Also collects information about SMART and THRIVE program weaknesses, strengths and needs. IB  Mentor Focus Group: Collects high school SMART mentor impressions and perceptions of SMART program strengths, weaknesses, needs, and influence on students. n student Records  Attendance records from the 2004 SMART program and 2005 THRIVE program were examined in light of achievement data. Participation rates are reported as well. 2n V student Academic Performance n Math Benchmark Test (2003 - 2004): The Benchmark Test is a state-mandated criterion-referenced test aligned with state math standards and developed by Arkansas teachers and the Arkansas Department of Education. Benchmark scores are reported as Advanced, Proficient, Basic, and Below Basic. The mathematics portion of the exam is comprised of multiple-choice and open response items. fl fl End of Course Exams (EOC) 2004-2005: The Algebra I End of Course Examination is a criterion- referenced test with questions that align with the goals and subject-specific competencies described by the Arkansas Mathematics Curriculum Framework and Algebra I Course Goals. The purpose of the test is to assess student mastery of Algebra I knowledge and skills. Students take the exam at the completion of Algebra I. Scores are reported as Advanced, Proficient, Basic, and Below Basic. fl  ITBS Math Subtests: The Iowa Test of Basic Skills (Math) assesses students ability to compute, deal with math concepts and solve problems dealing with numeration, graph/table interpretation, and computation. This test is norm-referenced. fl  SMART and THRIVE Pre/Post Tests: The curriculum-based tests are measures of student ability to utilize algebraic concepts to solve equations, judge inequalities, evaluate and simplify basic problems, graph equations, plot data, and solve applied problems. The THRIVE program tests were comprised of content more advanced than that of SMART program tests. Pre-test problems were identical to post-test problems in both programs. fl Procedure fl fl To examine the quality of teaching and extent to which students were engaged in learning, CREP researchers conducted a series of random observations during the THRIVE program. Targeted observations were conducted in February and March of 2005 using the SOM, Math-addendum, and RSCA instruments. Observations were scheduled for random classrooms participating in the THRIVE program on three different days. fl To examine teacher, student, and parent perceptions, surveys and focus groups were designed and lead by CREP researchers. fl To examine effects of SMART and THRIVE on achievement, data from a variety of norm-referenced, criterion-referenced and informal tests were collected. District and state student performance measures were administered in late spring. Historical records of prior student Benchmark performance were collected through the district database. fl Table 1 summarizes the data collection procedure. fl  fl 3d fl Table 1. Data Collection Summary fl Type of Measure Instrument Number Completed/Data Source Total Description fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl Targeted Classroom Observations Surveys Focus Groups Achievement T ests Attendance Data SOM  RSCA Math AdderxJum SMART/THRIVE Teacher Parent Algebra I Teacher Student student Focus Group Mentor Focus Group Math Benchmark Test 2003 - 2004 and 2004 -2005 End of Course Exams (Spring, 2005) ITBS Informal curriculumbased measures (specific to SMART/THRIVE) SMART 2004 Atterxiance THRIVE 2005 Attendance 5 19 5 10 SMART/18 THRIVE 21 SMART/35 THRIVE 25 SMART/33 THRIVE 70 SMART/142 THRIVE 21 Participants 2 Participants See Table 2 210 students (88% African American) 143 students (84% African American) *A series of observation sessions in which random THRIVE classes were observed. During a one hour period, one* RSCA form was completed every 15 minutes. Completed during Spring, 2005 THRIVE sessions. Items specific to SMART and THRIVE were included in the surveys and administered to all groups in Spring, 2005. THRIVE student surveys were distributed in class and collected by researchers. THRIVE teacher surveys were distributed during a faculty meeting and administered by researchers. THRIVE parent sun/eys were distributed by teachers via students, returned to the school and sent to researchers. Algebra I teacher surveys were distributed through the district, returned to the school and sent to researchers or sent directly to researchers. During spring 2005, student and mentor focus groups were conducted at the THRIVE site by researchers. All students returning parental pennission slips were included in the focus groups. Each focus group inten/iew lasted approximately 45 minutes. Mentors from the SMART 2004 program were contacted by researchers. Researchers used the Student Focus Group protocol modified to capture mentor perceptions to conduct an onsite, 45-minute focus group with 2 of the 7 mentors. Researchers used data collected from three major math measures designed by indeperxJent entities and distributed throughout the LRSD for achievement data analysis. Researchers used the attendance and demographic data from SMART, 2004 and THRIVE, 2005 to examine level of participation among African American students One observation session was comprised of three rather than four observation segments due to scheduling constraints. 4IB n Participants KM HR The primary context of observations, focus groups and surveys was the 2005 THRIVE program. Additional attendance data were collected from the 2004 SMART program. Survey and focus group responses concerning both programs also were collected. Both programs served students from the following middle schools: Cloverdale, Dunbar, Forest Heights, Henderson, Mablevale, Mann, Pulaski Heights, and Southwest. Students from the following high schools were also served: Central, Fair, Hall, McClellan, and Parkview. Table 1 provides a breakdown of students, mentors, teachers and parents who participated in surveys and focus groups. Table 2 provides a breakdown of the student achievement samples. n The sample sizes used for achievement comparisons varied depending upon the availability of achievement data. The following table illustrates the student populations as they relate to comparison or SMART/THRIVE programs. Due to the relative small total number of 8* grade, non-African American students participating in SMART/THRIVE (n=11), eighth grade comparisons were only made for African American students. I Table 2. Description of Subject Pool H s* grade ECX) Comparison 82 Thrive SMART SMARTS THRIVE 15 48 African- American 32 M 9^ grade EOC aggrade ITBS 581 790 NonAfrican- American 150 356 African- American 70 72 NonAfrican- American 14 12 African- American 13 17 NonAfrican- American 0 0 African- American 23 23 NonAfrican- American 3 2 n Findings M Direct Classroom Observation Results Targeted Observations II n 11 Analysis of data collected using SOM, the Math Addendum and RSCA during the five observation sessions revealed that THRIVE teachers are using a variety of instructional strategies aligned with Arkansas state-designed Student Learner Expectations (SLE). Team teaching and collaborative/cooperative learning dominated the curriculum. Additionally, notable use of higher level questioning strategies and teachers acting as coaches rather than lecturers was observed during the sessions. The Math Addendum items revealed that teachers were frequently emphasizing conceptual understanding over rote learning during the observation sessions. Teachers were also noted promoting students confidence and flexibility in doing mathematics. Overall, students in the THRIVE program had a high level of interest and were observed being engaged in instruction that emphasized practical and conceptual learning in a comfortable, student-centered setting. The RSCA results suggest that the THRIVE program integrated technology into the curriculum. Average or above average implementation (e.g., level of intensity, meaningfulness, quality) was noted for activities associated with higher level thinking strategies, teamwork and independent technology use. Survey Results I Student Survey The overall trend in response types was positive for survey items pertaining to THRIVE and SMART. Regarding THRIVE, students demonstrated high levels of agreement for items probing self-confidence, comfort level, growth related to problem solving skills, and overall satisfaction with the program. Two areas in 5 h H u n which some students showed some disagreement were related to generalization and application. Students indicated an overall satisfaction with the program on the open ended portion of the student survey, but did not feel that the program changed their study habits or helped them apply information to real life situations. Responses to items pertaining to SMART indicated agreement among students for items pertaining to preparedness, motivation, and application. Open-ended items also suggest overall satisfaction with SMART\nhowever, a number of student suggestions were made about changing the time during which the summer program met. Parent Survey H U H Responses from the 35 parents who responded to the THRIVE parent survey suggest that they have positive feelings towards the program. Agreement or strong agreement was consistently noted across all survey items. No negative responses to the items were reported. The 21 SMART parent respondents provided similar information, particularly for those items reflecting their satisfaction with the teachers, their childrens preparedness for Algebra I. and their comfort level with the program meeting time. None of the respondents indicated disagreement or strong disagreement with any of the items. Neutral responses were noted for one item pertaining to whether SMART had improved attitudes about math. Parent perceptions measured with analysis of open-ended responses reflected an overall satisfaction with both programs. When asked specifically about transportation, the majority of parents did not cite it as an issue\nhowever, some parents reported access to transportation being inconsistent. Algebra I Teacher Survey  11 Algebra I teachers responses to SMART items showed slightly more varied distribution across the survey scale (Strongly Agree/Agree-Neutral-Strongly Disagree/Disagree-Dont Know). Responses from the 33 Algebra I teachers responding to THRIVE items and the 25 Algebra I teachers responding to SMART items were globally positive. These teachers agreed that both programs had improved students self-confidence and positively impacted student achievement\nhowever, they responded more neutrally to items probing the programs influence on childrens problem solving ability and influence on general Algebra I instruction. When asked specifically about whether they felt SMART and THRIVE had had an impact on achievement differences among races, a small percentage disagreed, approximately one third responded neutrally or did not know, and the remaining 48% agreed. Ml SMART/THRIVE Teacher Survey Ml Ml SMART/THRIVE Teachers responses overwhelmingly favored agreement or strong agreement with items pertaining to positive attributes among professional development, resources/materials, methodology and instructional delivery within the THRIVE and SMART programs. Two items for which some teachers responded neutrally were related to the extent to which they felt the program had improved their own ability or their students ability to use calculators. No negative responses were noted among the items\nhowever, some teachers indicated that the limited time available for teaching was considered a shortcoming for both SMART and THRIVE. Focus Groups Ml Student Focus Group  w Students perceptions of both programs suggest that there is a generally positive feeling towards SMART and THRIVE. Specifically, the consensus among the twenty-one students who participated in the focus groups was that SMART and THRIVE bolstered math skills and boosted confidence. Despite some mild distaste for required meeting times (Saturdays and during the summer), most student participants indicated that both SMART and THRIVE had reinforced Algebra I skills and provided a fun. relaxing context for learning. Many students noted that the programs had provided new strategies for problem solving and made Algebra I less daunting. There were no outwardly negative comments made. 6 I Il II Mentor Focus Group II II Two high school student mentors who had participated in SMART, 2004 provided input about the SMART program primarily. The mentors viewed SMART as a preparatory program focused on reviewing prealgebra principles. Both mentors, however, also noted that SMART provided a unique environment in which competition helped motivate students and make math more enjoyable. The mentors global perception of the program was that SMART allowed students to get a head start on Algebra 1 principles with a simultaneous boost in confidence. II Attendance II II Collectively, the 2004 SMART program served 210 students for which attendance data were available and the 2005 THRIVE program served 143 students for which data were available. Compared to the general population served by the district (69.0% African American), SMART and Thrive programs served a higher percentage of African American students (88.0% SMART\n84.8% Thrive\n89.6% Both). The attendance rates for SMART yielded an average rate of 97% (range: 94%-100%) and the attendance rates for Thrive yielded an average rate of 90% (range\n81%-100%). Achievement I II II The results provide evidence that, in 9** grade, the SMART program, the Thrive program, or the combination of the two programs were associated with substantial improvements in the achievement on the Algebra I EOC exam. The strongest evidence was noted among students who participated in both programs. Eighth grade students participating in any combination of the programs were less likely than their non-parficipant peers to perform at basic or below basic proficiency levels on the Algebra I EOC exam. More specifically, African American students in both eighth and ninth grade who were enrolled in any of the three program configurations were more likely to perform at proficient or advanced levels of proficiency than the nonparticipant comparison group. Gains were also noted on the program-specific assessments for the SMART and Thrive programs. No significant differences between comparison and SMART/THRIVE students nor racial differences were noted among scores from the ITBS. n Conclusions n Each of the major research questions will provide a framework around which the conclusions for the present study will be structured. II Have the SMART/THRIVE programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? n Student-level achievement analyses show that participation in SMART. Thrive and a combination of programs is associated with improvements in achievement when compared to non-participating students. Specifically, our interpretation of these outcomes focuses on the extent to which these differences in achievement relate to growth among African American students. II n Findings suggest that participation in any of the program configurations was associated with a major reduction in the achievement gap between African American students and students of other races, from a one standard deviation deficit on 2003-04 Benchmark scores to virtually no difference on 2004-5 Algebra I EOC scores. For 2004-05 S' graders, the results suggest a positive effect of the programAfrican American students attending any program configuration were more likely to achieve at Proficient or Advanced levels than peers who did not attend. Although results were favorable for African American students enrolled in both programs, no statistically significant effects were noted from ITBS scores for race or program, demonstrating that although SMART and Thrive have a direct and significant impact on curriculum-based performance measures, they have a lesser influence on standardized, norm-referenced math achievement performance. In light of the current goal in increasing achievement among African American students, particularly in the domain of mathematics, the results from EOC and Benchmark exams are highly important. These results 7 are encouraging as implementation of the SMART and THRIVE programs seems to have had a positive impact on African American student achievement. What is the level of participation in SMART and THRIVE by African American students? Il a Overall, the level of participation for both programs was high. The majority of students enrolled in SMART, THRIVE or both programs missed no sessions, yielding average attendance rates of 90% or above. Additionally, data from classroom observations suggested a high degree of student engagement and participation across classrooms within the THRIVE program. Given the demographic characteristics of the participants, the significant quantitative relationship between participation and student achievement gains, and the high participation rates among participants, the results provide evidence that SMART and THRIVE have a positive impact on participation among African American students and that participation has had significant influence on achievement. II What instructional strategies are used during the tutoring sessions? If During classroom visits, the majority of observed instructional strategies were couched in a collaborative teaching model focused on higher level thinking skills and student grouping. Students were observed utilizing technology throughout their lessons and were highly engaged during observation sessions. Teachers frequently posed hypothetical questions to groups to accommodate use of higher-level thinking skills and generate more varied student responses. Even when students were engaged in independent seatwork, which was rare, teachers were observed circulating among various student groups, requesting more in-depth questioning strategies in their problem solving approaches. Additionally, students were frequently observed encouraging fellow students in preparation for competition while working in collaborative groups. What are the perceptions of SMART/THRIVE Teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? M U U SMARTfTHRIVE teachers responded positively to survey items for both programs. Teachers generally believed that the core components of both programs supported student learning, particularly among students who were struggling to perform well in Algebra I classes. Additionally, they reported feeling comfortable with expectations and resources, noting that having opportunities to collaborate with other teachers and utilize competition to motivate students were essential to success. Teachers cited time constraints as a recognized weakness across both programs. The general consensus was that they wanted more time to develop deeper skills among students and to reinforce concepts taught in Algebra I classrooms. None of the respondents expressed feelings of dissatisfaction with either program and demonstrated the highest percentage of positive responses when compared to other groups (students, parents, Algebra I teachers). What are the perceptions of Algebra I teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? ai Algebra I teachers were generally positive in their reaction to both SMART and THRIVE programs, representative of an overall feeling that SMART and THRIVE facilitated student learning and generalized to the K Algebra 1 classroom. Algebra I teachers noted observed improvements among students participating in SMART/THRIVE and globally agreed that the programs effectively enabled students to use technology in the Algebra I classrooms. A number of Algebra I teachers indicated that both programs needed to reach a larger and broader group of students. There were no indications that Algebra I teachers disliked SMART or THRIVE\nhowever, there was some evidence that some respondents felt that the programs did more to supplement what was being taught in Algebra I classrooms than cultivate more meaningful understanding of algebraic concepts. I 8 h sa am What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? n Students were somewhat mixed in their reactions to SMART and THRIVE, although they were generally positive. While most of the students believed that SMART and/or THRIVE helped them with Algebra I class, others indicated mild dislike for time spent doing academics during summer and/or Saturdays. Students perceived the programs as motivating, fun, and globally helpful. It was rewarding to note that despite some dislike of the programs scheduled meeting times, most students indicated a desire to continue with the programs modifying very little about the actual instructional delivery. These comments were corroborated by comments students made during focus group sessions. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of SMART/THRIVE students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? n Parents' reactions to both programs were globally positive. Specifically, parents commented that the motivational, fun nature of the programs was fostering an interest in math among students. H M M The change that parents requested most was that the program be expanded both in breath/scope and duration. None of the parents cited negative features\nhowever, some parents requested more rigor within the curriculum. When asked specifically about transportation, a concern of SMART/THRIVE program heads, the majority (84%) of parents indicated that it was not a problem. Of the parents who did indicate that transportation was a problem, inconsistency of service was cited as the primary issue. The majority of parents felt comfortable sending their children to the programs during the summer and/or on Saturdays, particularly because transportation on those days/during that time did not conflict with work or other activities that typically dominated school days. II Compliance Remedy Questions Recommendations M n A series of recommendations have been designed to provide guidance for future implementation of SMART and THRIVE programs. The recommendations primarily focus upon two broad areas in which the Little Rock School District could take additional action to ensure proper implementation of SMART/THRIVE as they relate to academic improvement among African American children: 1. Expansion 2. Accountability n Program Expansion II M  A recurring theme among surveys collected during this evaluation related to a general desire to expand both programs. Specifically, teachers and parents generally called to extend the duration and frequency of the programs as well as expand the programs to meet the needs of larger and broader groups of students. Before expanding the frequency and duration of each program, the district would be well-served to explore effective ways to recruit students and teachers to expand the programs.  An expanded program would have to include more SMART/THRIVE teachers directly proportionate to the number of students added to the program. The success of the program is in part dependent upon the amount of flexibility afforded to each teaching team as well as the ratio of teachers to students. If more students are added without adding more teachers, the design of the SMART/THRIVE model will be compromised. u  Given the unique cooperative teaching model used in the program, pre-program professional development and staff training of new SMART/THRIVE teachers would be paramount to successful expansion. Specific focus on technology use and development of higher level 9 b a If If thinking skills would help further develop the current model. Additionally, the level of problem solving and critical thinking used in SMART/THRIVE classrooms would require new SMART/THRIVE teachers to receive training aimed at fostering these skills in the context of Algebra. Current and new SMART/THRIVE teachers would benefit from professional development aimed at applying algebraic concepts in authentic contexts (i.e.. real world application) and/or simulations. If If If  Currently, THRIVE meets every other week during the Spring semester. The district should consider expanding the number of participating students and teachers by using alternating Saturdays to accommodate the same numbers of students per THRIVE session rather than simply making each session bigger. For example, if the district were to add 100 additional THRIVE students and proportional numbers of teachers, they would be less likely to disrupt the current model by creating two groups of THRIVE students meeting on different Saturdays during each month. The numbers, therefore would remain more manageable and the staff more effective in delivering instruction and fostering learning rather than discipline during competition and class time. SMART could potentially integrate two, two-week summer sessions to serve more students. al If If  In light of budgetary constraints, the prospects of expanding SMART/THRIVE programs could be limited potentially\nhowever, LRSD should examine alternative funding opportunities to bolster prospects for expansion. The following list, although not exhaustive, provides examples of alternative funding sources that potentially match the goals and purposes of SMART/THRIVE: American Society of Engineering Education, The National Science Foundation, Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, the Spencer Foundation and the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. Some grant opportunities could foster potential secondary opportunities for qualified African American students to participate in further research and competition. The purpose in seeking these grants is bifurcate in nature: to obtain funding for expansion\nto explore further opportunities aimed at enriching mathematics and fostering motivation among African American children If If  Transportation costs and availability must be considered if the programs are expanded. Although evidence of negative experiences with transportation was minimal among respondents within the 2004-2005 subject pool, the district will need to determine the extent to which access to transportation limits participation. Appropriate measures should be taken during recruitment to disclose availability of transportation and ensure that availability is viable. II Accountability II  Attendance rates among SMART and THRIVE participants were extraordinarily high\nhowever, for the purposes of longitudinal studies, it would be instrumental to follow participants through graduation to examine longitudinal effects of the programs on math achievement. Future studies might examine indepth analyses of participants to determine what factors impacted their achievement significantly. n  Additional data such as graduation rates, enrollment in advanced math courses and school attendance should be examined longitudinally once students complete SMART and THRIVE programs. A Efforts to recruit former SMART/THRIVE students as high school mentors should be made to foster continuity within the program and make students gainfully aware of future effects. n  Future comparisons of SMART/THRIVE students should continue to disaggregate assessment results by race and ethnicity to effectively examine the progress of African American students in SMART/THRIVE relative to their peers. A 10 I 0 a II  Given the limited research on proven programs, intensification on research of this program through long-term studies is recommended. If positive. SMART/THRIVE may have potential to serve as a leader in developing effective Algebra programs for African American children. Expectations of Program Modifications II II II Findings from the recent evaluation were globally positive. In light of these findings, SMART/THRIVE has value in raising student achievement among African American students in LRSD. With regard to change in the instructional design of the programs, little guidance is provided and change is not recommended. However, future modifications would include programmatic expansion to serve a larger, broader group of students. Offerings to African American students should remain paramount. Additionally, given the limited amount of research on successful programs with at-risk populations across the country, further, more intensive research of SMART/THRIVE programs would provide the district not only with a model that can be easily replicated, but also information about factors that set SMART/THRIVE apart from classroom Algebra and pre- Algebra classes. Finally, the district will need to examine the sustained achievement, retention and Il coursework decisions of SMART/THRIVE participants to determine whether the growth noted among participants during the program is sustainable. I II n II II I II II n I 11 a 11 M CREP ' CtHter for Reteareh in Educational foUcy n Center for Research in Educational Policy Evaluation of SMART/THRIVE a The University of Memphis 325 Browning Hall Memphis, Tennessee 38152 Toll Free: 1-86\u0026amp;67\u0026amp;6147 In the Little Rock School District a TECHNICAL REPORT a a a CREP Ce/iU/ for Research in E^ueaiional Policy Center for Research in Educational Policy The University of Memphis 325 Browning Hall Memphis, Tennessee 38152 Toll Free\n1-866-670-6147 Evaluation of SMART/THRIVE In the Little Rock School District TECHNICAL REPORT January 2006 Lyle Hull Davis, Ph.D. Ying Huang Center for Research in Educational Policy John Nunnery, Ph.D. Old Dominion University Gail Weems, Ph.D. University of Arkansas at Little Rockp EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background SMART and THRIVE are programs designed by two, veteran LRSD teachers. In 1999, the programs were implemented in LRSD, designed to serve at-risk students. These programs have been funded in part by the Little Rock Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement Program and the National Science Foundation. The overall purposes of the SMART and THRIVE programs are to provide supplemental pre-algebra support to students entering Algebra I and to prepare students to meet state standards in Algebra I, respectively. The programs intentions/goals are to: a) provide a solid foundation for Algebra, b) encourage exploration\nc) make mathematics fun\nd) enable students to achieve academic success in mathematics\nand e) create the confidence necessary to pursue higher level courses. The SMART program meets for two consecutive weeks during the summer. The THRIVE program meets every other Saturday during the Spring semester. SMART uses a co-teaching model with one teacher and one high school student mentor while THRIVE uses a co-teaching model with two certified teachers. Purpose, Plan and Participants Purpose This report summarizes the 2004-2005 evaluation study of the SMART and THRIVE programs. The global purpose of the evaluation was to: a) provide cumulative evidence of SMART/THRIVE implementation practices\nb) examine the extent to which the programs have been effective in improving and remediating academic achievement of African-American students\nand c) explore perceptions of participants, parents and teachers as well as level of student participation in SMART and THRIVE. Research Questions Seven research questions provided the focus of the evaluation. The primary research question focused on the extent to w4iich SMART/THRIVE programs improved and/or remediated math achievement among African American students. Evaluation questions were: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Have the SMART/THRIVE programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? What is the level of participation in SMART and THRIVE by African American students? What instructional strategies are used during the tutoring sessions? What are the perceptions of SMART/THRIVE Teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? What are the perceptions of Algebra I teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of SMART/THRIVE students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 1Plan The evaluation was conducted during the spring of 2005. To determine how effectively SMART and THRIVE were effectively meeting the needs of African American students, a cadre of qualitative and quantitative measures were used. Evaluation Measures Six measurement strategies were used to collect the evaluation data: standardized achievement test scores, classroom observations, surveys, focus groups, and program-developed achievement benchmarks. Administration procedures and descriptions of instrumentation are provided below. Direct Classroom Observation Measures  School Observation Measure (SOM^)'. Examines frequency of usage of 26 instructional strategies.  Rubric for Student-Centered Activities (RSCA)'. Provides measurement of the degree of learner engagement in cooperative learning, project-based learning, higher-level questioning. experiential/hands-on learning, student independent inquiry/research, student discussion and students as producers of knowledge.  Math Addendum'. Rates teachers actions in emphasizing conceptual understanding, connecting the content to daily life, and promoting students confidence in mathematics. Surveys  Student Survey. Collects participant impressions and perceptions regarding the satisfaction, shortcomings, strengths and influence of SMART and THRIVE programs.  Parent Survey. Collects parent perceptions and impressions regarding availability (access), influence, transportation and opinions of SMART and THRIVE.  Algebra I Teacher Survey. Collects Algebra I teacher perceptions and impressions of influence of program on student performance as well as global awareness and opinions of SMART and THRIVE.  SMART/THRIVE Teacher Survey. Collects THRIVE teacher perceptions and impressions regarding professional development, influence of technology, influence of program on student performance and overall opinions of the program. Focus Groups  Student Focus Groups: Collects program participant impressions and perceptions regarding the influence of each program on Algebra I achievement, test scores, and self-confidence about math. Also collects information about SMART and THRIVE program weaknesses, strengths and needs.  Mentor Focus Group: Collects high school SMART mentor impressions and perceptions of SMART program strengths, weaknesses, needs, and influence on students. Student Records  Attendance records from the 2004 SMART program and 2005 THRIVE program were examined in light of achievement data. Participation rates are reported as well. Student Academic Performance  Math Benchmark Test (2003 - 2004) scores were analyzed. The Benchmark Test is a state- mandated criterion-referenced test aligned with state math standards and developed by Arkansas teachers and the Arkansas Department of Education. Benchmark scores are reported as Advanced, Proficient, Basic, and Below Basic. The mathematics portion of the exam is comprised of multiplechoice and open response items. 2if  End of Course Exams (EOC) 2004-2005 scores were analyzed. The Algebra I End of Course Examination is a criterion-referenced test with questions that align with the goals and subject-specific competencies described by the Arkansas Mathematics Curriculum Framework and Algebra I Course Goals. The purpose of the test is to assess student mastery of Algebra I knowledge and skills. Students take the exam at the completion of Algebra I. Scores are reported as Advanced, Proficient, Basic, and Below Basic.  ITBS Math Subtests scores were analyzed. The Iowa Test of Basic Skills (Math) assesses students ability to compute, deal with math concepts and solve problems dealing with numeration, graph/table interpretation, and computation. This test is norm-referenced.  SMART and THRIVE Pre/Post Tests: The curriculum-based tests are measures of student ability to utilize algebraic concepts to solve equations, judge inequalities, evaluate and simplify basic problems, graph equations, plot data, and solve applied problems. The THRIVE program tests were comprised of content more advanced than that of SMART program tests. Pre-test problems were identical to post-test problems in both programs. Procedure To examine the quality of teaching and extent to which students were engaged in learning, CREP researchers conducted a series of random observations during the THRIVE program. Targeted observations were conducted in February and March of 2005 using the SOM, Math-addendum, and RSCA instruments. Observations were scheduled for random classrooms participating in the THRIVE program on three different days. To examine teacher, student, and parent perceptions, surveys and focus groups were designed and lead by CREP researchers. To examine effects of SMART and THRIVE on achievement, data from a variety of normed, criterion-referenced and informal tests were collected. District and state student performance measures were administered in late spring. Historical records of prior student Benchmark performance were collected through the district database. Table 1 summarizes the data collection procedure. i 3 I 0 a Table 1. Data Collection Summary I Type of Measure Targeted Classroom Observations SOM Instrument TC---------------------- Number Completed/Data Source Total fl RSCA Math Addendum 5 19 5 Description A series of observation sessions in which random THRIVE classes were observed. During a one hour period, four* note forms were completed every 15 minutes. Completed during Spring, 2005 THRIVE sessions. Surveys SMART/THRIVE Teacher Parent Algebra I Teacher Student 10 SMART/18 THRIVE 21 SMART/35 THRIVE 25 SMART/33 THRIVE 70 SMART/142 THRIVE Items specific to SMART and THRIVE were included in the surveys and administered to all groups in Spring, 2005. THRIVE student surveys were distributed in class and collected by researchers. THRIVE teacher surveys were distributed during a faculty meeting and administered by researchers THRIVE parent surveys were distributed by teachers via students, returned to the school and sent to researchers Algebra I teacher surveys were distributed through the district, returned to the school and sent to researchers or sent directly to researchers. Focus Groups Student Focus Group Mentor Focus Group 21 Participants 2 Participants During spring 2005, student and mentor focus groups were conducted at the THRIVE site by researchers. All students returning parental permission slips were included in the focus groups. Each focus group interview lasted approximately 45 minutes. Mentors from the SMART 2004 program were contacted by researchers. Researchers used the Student Focus Group protocol to conduct an on-site, 45-minute focus group with 2 of the 7 mentors. Achievem ent T ests Math Benchmark Test 2003-2004 and 2004 -2005 End of Course Exams ITBS See Table 2 Researchers used data collected from three major math measures designed by independent entities and distribute throughout the LRSD for achievement data analysis. Exams were taken during the Spring of 2005. Attendance Data SMART 2004 Attendance THRIVE 2005 Attendance 210 students (88% African American) 143 students (84% African American) Researchers used the attendance and demographic data from SMART, 2004 and THRIVE, 2005 to examine level of participation among African American students i H *One observation session was comprised of three rather than four observation segments due to scheduiing constraints. Participants The primary context of observations, focus groups and surveys was the 2005 THRIVE program. Additional attendance data were collected from the 2004 SMART program. Survey and focus group responses concerning both programs also were collected. Both programs served students from the following middle schools: Cloverdale, Dunbar, Forest Heights, Henderson, Mablevale, Mann, Pulaski Heights, and Southwest. Students from the following high schools were also served: Central, Fair, Hall, McClellan, and Parkview. Table 1 provides a breakdown of students, mentors, teachers and parents who participated surveys and focus groups. Table 2 provides a breakdown of the student achievement samples. in The sample sizes used for achievement comparisons varied depending upon the availability achievement data. The following table illustrates the student populations as they relate to comparison of or 4- I SMART/THRIVE programs. Due to the relative small total number of 8* grade, non-African American students participating in SMART/THRIVE (n=11), eighth grade comparisons were only made for African American students. Table 2. Student Populations 8'*' grade EOC 9\" grade EOC S'\" grade ITBS Findings Comparison 82 African- American 581 790 NonAfrican- American 150 356 Thrive SMART SMART \u0026amp; THRIVE 15 48 32 African- American 70 72 NonAfrican- American 14 12 African- American 13 17 NonAfrican- American 0 0 African- American 23 23 NonAfrican- American 3 2 Direct Classroom Observation Results Targeted Observations Analysis of data collected using SOM, the Math Addendum and RSCA during the five observation sessions revealed that THRIVE teachers are using a variety of instructional strategies aligned with Arkansas state-designed Student Learner Expectations (SLE). The most striking result was the extent to which team teaching and collaborative/cooperative learning dominated the curriculum. Additionally, notable use of higher level questioning strategies and teachers acting as coaches rather than lecturers was noted among observed sessions. The Math Addendum items revealed that teachers were frequently emphasizing conceptual understanding over rote learning during the observation sessions. Teachers were also noted promoting students confidence and flexibility in doing mathematics. Overall, students in the THRIVE program had a high level of interest and were observed being engaged in instruction that emphasized practical and conceptual learning in a comfortable, student-centered setting. The RSCA results suggest that the THRIVE program integrated technology into the curriculum. Average or above average implementation (e.g., level of intensity, meaningfulness, quality) was noted for activities associated with higher level thinking strategies, teamwork and independent technology use. Survey Results Student Survey The overall trend in response types was positive for survey items pertaining to THRIVE and SMART. Regarding THRIVE, students demonstrated high levels of agreement for items probing setf-confidence, comfort level, growth among problem solving skills, and overall satisfaction with the program. Two areas in which some students showed some disagreement were related to generalization and application. Students indicated an overall satisfaction with the program on the open ended portion of the student survey, but did not feel that the program changed their study habits or helped them apply information to real life situations. Responses to items pertaining to SMART indicated agreement among students for items pertaining to preparedness, motivation, and application. Open-ended items also suggest overall satisfaction with SMART\nhowever, a number of student suggestions were made about changing the time during which the summer program met. Parent Survey Responses from the 35 parents who responded to the THRIVE parent survey suggest that they have positive feelings towards the program. Agreement or strong agreement was consistently noted across ail survey items. No negative responses to the items were reported. The 21 parent respondents provided 5 I at similar information, particularly for those items reflecting their satisfaction with the teachers, their childrens preparedness for Algebra I, and their comfort level with the program meeting time. None of the respondents indicated disagreement or strong disagreement with any of the items. Neutral responses were noted for one item pertaining to whether SMART had improved attitudes about math. Parent perceptions measured with analysis of open-ended responses reflected an overall satisfaction with both programs. When asked specifically about transportation, the majority of parents did not cite it as an issue\nhowever, some parents reported access to transportation being inconsistent. Algebra I Teacher Survey I n I Algebra I teachers responses to SMART items showed slightly more varied distribution across the survey scale (Strongly Agree/Agree-Neutral-Strongly Disagree/Disagree-Dont Know). Responses from the 33 Algebra I teachers responding to THRIVE items and the 25 Algebra I teachers responding to SMART items were positive. These teachers agreed that both programs had improved students self-confidence and positively impacted student achievement\nhowever, they responded more neutrally to items probing the programs influence on childrens problem solving ability and influence on general Algebra I instruction. When asked specifically about whether they felt SMART and THRIVE had had an impact on achievement differences among races, a small percentage disagreed, approximately one third responded neutrally or did not know, and the remaining 48% agreed. SMART/THRIVE Teacher Survey SMART/THRIVE Teachers responses overwhelmingly favored agreement or strong agreement with items pertaining to positive attributes among professional development, resources/materials, methodology and instructional delivery within the THRIVE and SMART programs. Two items for which some teachers responded neutrally were related to the extent to which they felt the program had improved their own ability or their students ability to use calculators. No negative responses were noted among the items\nhowever, some teachers indicated that the limited time available for teaching was considered a shortcoming for both SMART and THRIVE.  Focus Groups student Focus Group Students perceptions of both programs suggest that there is a generally positive feeling towards SMART and THRIVE. Specifically, the consensus among the twenty-one students who participated in the focus groups was that SMART and THRIVE bolstered math skills and boosted confidence. Despite some mild distaste for required meeting times (Saturdays and during the summer), most student participants indicated that both SMART and THRIVE had reinforced Algebra I skills and provided a fun, relaxing context for learning. Many students noted that the programs had provided new strategies for problem solving and made Algebra I less daunting. There were no outwardly negative comments made. Mentor Focus Group Two high school student mentors who had participated in SMART, 2004 provided input about the SMART program primarily. The mentors viewed SMART as a preparatory program focused on reviewing pre-algebra principles. Both mentors, however, also noted that SMART provided a unique environment in which competition helped motivate students and make math more enjoyable. The mentors global perception of the program was that SMART allowed students to get a head start on Algebra I principals with a simultaneous boost in confidence. Attendance Collectively, the 2004 SMART program served 210 students for which attendance data was available and the 2005 THRIVE program served 143 students for which data was available. Compared to the general population served by the district (69.0% African American), SMART and Thrive programs served a higher 6percentage of African American students (88.0% SMART\n84.8% Thrive\n89.6% Both). The attendance rates for SMART yielded an average rate of 97% (range: 94%-100%) and the attendance rates for Thrive yielded an average rate of 90% (range: 81%-100%). Achievement The results provide evidence that, in 9* grade, the SMART program, the Thrive program, or the combination of the two programs were associated with substantial improvements in the achievement on the Algebra I EOC exam. The strongest evidence was noted among students who participated in both programs. Eighth grade students participating in any combination of the programs were less likely than their nonparticipant peers to perform at basic or below basic proficiency levels on the Algebra I EOC exam. More specifically. African American students in both eighth and ninth grade who were enrolled in any of the three program configurations were more likely to perform at proficient or advanced levels of proficiency than the non-participant comparison group. Gains were also noted on the program-specific assessments for the SMART and Thrive programs. No significant differences between comparison and SMART/THRIVE students nor racial differences were noted among scores from the ITBS. I Conclusions Each of the major research questions will provide a framework around which the conclusions for the present study will be structured. Have the SMART/THRIVE programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? Student-level achievement analyses show that participation in SMART. Thrive and a combination of programs is associated with comparative improvements in achievement when compared to non-participating students. Specifically, our interpretation of these outcomes focuses on the extent to which these differences in achievement relate to growth among African American students. II Findings suggest that participation in any of the program configurations was associated with a major reduction in the achievement gap between African American students and students of other races, from a one standard deviation deficit on 2003-04 Benchmark scores to virtually no difference on 2004-5 Algebra I EOC scores. For 2004-05 8** graders, the results suggest a positive effect of the program^African American students attending any program configuration were more likely to achieve at Proficient or Advanced levels than peers who did not attend. Since 8* graders do not comprise the majority of SMART/THRIVE participants, further analysis of these students sustained achievement would be interesting. Although results were favorable for African American students enrolled in both programs, no statistically significant effects were noted from ITBS scores for race or program, demonstrating that although SMART and Thrive have a direct and significant impact on curriculum-based performance measures, they have a lesser influence on standardized, norm-referenced math achievement performance. fl In light of the current goal in increasing achievement among African American students, particularly in the domain of mathematics, the results from EOC and Benchmark exams are highly significant. These results are encouraging as implementation of the SMART and Thrive programs seems to have had a positive impact on African American student achievement. What is the level of participation in SMART and THRIVE by African American students? Overall, the level of participation for both programs was high. The majority of students enrolled in SMART. Thrive or both programs missed no sessions, yielding average attendance rates of 90% or above. Additionally, data from classroom observations suggested a high degree of student engagement and participation across classrooms within the Thrive program. Given the demographic characteristics of the participants, the significant quantitative relationship between participation and student achievement gains, and the high participation rates among participants, the results provide evidence that SMART and Thrive 79 have a positive impact on participation among African American students and that participation has had significant influence on achievement. What instructional strategies are used during the tutoring sessions? n During classroom visits, the majority of observed instructional strategies were couched in a collaborative teaching model focused on higher level thinking skills and student grouping. Students were observed utilizing technology throughout their lessons and were highly engaged during observation sessions. Teachers frequently posed hypothetical questions to groups to accommodate use of higher-level thinking skills and generate more varied student responses. Even when students were engaged in independent seatwork, which was rare, teachers were observed circulating among various student groups, requesting more in-depth questioning strategies in their problem solving approaches. Additionally, students were frequently cited encouraging fellow students in preparation for competition while working in collaborative groups. What are the perceptions of SMART/THRIVE Teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? SMART/THRIVE teachers responded positively to survey items for both programs. Teachers generally believed that the core components of both programs supported student learning, particularly among students who were struggling to perform well in Algebra I classes. Additionally, they reported feeling comfortable with expectations and resources, noting that having opportunities to collaborate with other teachers and utilize competition to motivate students were essential to success. Teachers cited time constraints as a recognized weakness across both programs. The general consensus was that they wanted more time to develop deeper skills among students and to reinforce concepts taught in Algebra I classrooms. None of the respondents expressed feelings of dissatisfaction with either program and demonstrated the highest percentage of positive responses when compared to other groups (students, parents. Algebra I teachers). What are the perceptions of Algebra I teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Algebra I teachers were generally positive in their reaction to both SMART and THRIVE programs, representative of an overall feeling that SMART and THRIVE facilitated student learning and generalized to the Algebra I classroom. Algebra I teachers noted observed improvements among students participating in SMART/THRIVE and globally agreed that the programs effectively enabled students to use technology in the Algebra 1 classrooms. A number of Algebra I teachers indicated that both programs needed to reach a larger and broader group of students. There were no indications that Algebra I teachers disliked SMART or THRIVE\nhowever, there was some evidence that some respondents felt that the programs did more to supplement what was being taught in Algebra I classrooms than cultivate more meaningful understanding of algebraic concepts. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Students were somewhat mixed in their reactions to SMART and THRIVE, although they were generally positive. While most of the students believed that SMART and/or THRIVE helped them with Algebra I class, others indicated mild dislike for time spent doing academics during summer and/or Saturdays. Students perceived the programs as motivating, fun, and globally helpful. It was rewarding to note that despite some dislike of the programs scheduled meeting times, most students indicated a desire to continue with the programs modifying very little about the actual instructional delivery. These comments were corroborated by comments students made during focus group sessions. 8What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of SMART/THRIVE students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Parents reactions to both programs were globally positive. Specifically, parents commented that the motivational, fun nature of the programs was fostering an interest in math among students. The change that parents requested most was that the program be expanded both in breath/scope and duration. None of the parents cited negative features\nhowever, some parents requested more rigor within the curriculum. When asked specifically about transportation, a concern of SMART/THRIVE program heads, the majority (84%) of parents indicated that it was not a problem. Of the parents who did indicate that transportation was a problem, inconsistency of service was cited as the primary issue. The majority of parents felt comfortable sending their children to the programs during the summer and/or on Saturdays, particularly because transportation on those days/during that time did not conflict with work or other activities that typically dominated school days. Compliance Remedy Questions Recommendations A series of recommendations have been designed to provide guidance for future implementation of SMART and THRIVE programs. The recommendations primarily focus upon two broad areas in which the Little Rock School District could take additional action to ensure proper implementation of SMART/THRIVE as they relate to academic improvement among African American children: 1. Expansion 2. Accountability Program Expansion A recurring theme among surveys collected during this evaluation related to a general desire to expand both programs. Specifically, teachers and parents generally called to extend the duration and frequency of the programs as well as expand the programs to meet the needs of larger and broader groups of students. Before expanding the frequency and duration of each program, the district would be well- served to explore effective ways to recruit students and teachers to expand the programs.  An expanded program would have to include more SMART/THRIVE teachers directly proportionate to the number of students added to the program. The success of the program is in part dependent upon the amount of flexibility afforded to each teaching team as well as the ratio of teachers to students. If more students are added without adding more teachers, the design of the SMART/THRIVE model will be compromised. Given the unique cooperative teaching model used in the program, pre-program professional development and staff training of new SMART/THRIVE teachers would be paramount to successful expansion. Specific focus on technology use and development of higher level thinking skills would help further develop the current model. Additionally, the level of problem solving and critical thinking used in SMART/THRIVE classrooms would require new SMART/THRIVE teachers to receive training aimed at fostering these skills in the context of Algebra. Current and new SMART/THRIVE teachers would benefit from professional development aimed at applying algebraic concepts in authentic contexts (i.e., real world\" application) and/or simulations.  Currently, THRIVE meets every other week during Spring semester. The district would be well- advised to expand the number of participating students and teachers by using alternating Saturdays to accommodate the same numbers of students per THRIVE session rather than simply making each session bigger. For example, if the district were to add 100 additional 9THRIVE students and proportional numbers of teachers, they would be less likely to disrupt the current model by creating two groups of THRIVE students meeting on different Saturdays during each month. The numbers, therefore would remain more manageable and the staff more effective in delivering instruction and fostering learning rather than discipline during competition and class time. SMART could potentially integrate two, two-week summer sessions to serve more students. In light of budgetary constraints, the prospects of expanding SMART/THRIVE programs could be limited potentially\nhowever, LRSD should examine alternative funding opportunities to bolster prospects for expansion. The following list, although not exhaustive, provides examples of alternative funding sources that potentially match the goals and purposes of SMART/THRIVE: American Society of Engineering Education. The National Science Foundation. Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, the Spencer Foundation and the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. Some grant opportunities could foster potential secondary opportunities for qualified African American students to participant in further research and competition. The purpose in seeking these grants is bifurcate in nature: to obtain funding for expansion\nto explore further opportunities aimed at enriching mathematics and fostering motivation among African American children Transportation costs and availability must be considered if the programs are expanded. Although evidence of negative experiences with transportation was minimal among respondents within the 2004-2005 subject pool, the district will need to determine the extent to which access to transportation limits participation. Appropriate measures should be taken during recruitment to disclose availability of transportation and ensure that availability is viable. Accountability  Attendance rates among SMART and THRIVE participants were extraordinarily high\nhowever, for the purposes of tracking, it would be instrumental to follow past participants to examine longitudinal effects of the programs on math achievement. Future studies might examine in-depth analyses of participants to determine what factors impacted their achievement significantly. Additional data such as graduation rates, enrollment in advanced math courses and school attendance should be examined longitudinally once students complete SMART and THRIVE programs. Efforts to recruit former SMARTfTHRIVE students as high school mentors should be made to foster continuity within the program and make students gainfully aware of future effects. Future comparisons of SMART/THRIVE students should continue to disaggregate assessment results by race and ethnicity to effectively examine the progress of African American students in SMART/THRIVE relative to their peers. Given the limited research on proven programs, instensification on research of this program through long-term studies is recommended. If positive, SMART/THRIVE may have potential to serve as a leader in developing effective Algebra programs for African American children in failing schools. Expectations of Program Modifications Findings from the recent evaluation were globally positive. In light of these findings. SMART/THRIVE has value in raising student achievement among African American students in LRSD. With regard to change in the instructional design of the programs, little guidance is provided and change is not recommended. However, future modifications would include programmatic expansion to serve a larger, broader group of students. Offerings to African American students should remain paramount. Additionally, given the limited amount of research on successful programs in failing schools across the country, further, more intensive research of SMART/THRIVE programs would provide the district not only with a model that can be easily 10replicated, but also information about factors that set SMART/THRIVE apart from classroom Algebra and preAlgebra classes. Finally, the district will need to examine the sustained achievement, retention and coursework decisions of SMART/THRIVE participants to determine whether the growth noted among participants during the program is sustainable. 11Evaluation of SMART/THRIVE In the Little Rock School District Research Report: 2004-2005 INTRODUCTION The Little Rock School District contracted with the Center for Research in Educational Policy (CREP) 'J at The University of Memphis to collect formative evaluation data in schools implementing SMART/THRIVE. This report summarizes the 2004-2005 evaluation study of the SMART and THRIVE programs. The global purpose of the evaluation was to examine the extent to which the SMART/THRIVE programs have been effective in improving and remediating academic achievement of African American students. Additionally, the evaluation explores perceptions of participants, parents and teachers as well as level of student participation in SMART and THRIVE. The overall purposes of the SMART and THRIVE programs are to provide supplemental pre-algebra support to students entering Algebra I and to prepare students to meet state standards in Algebra I. It was designed as an intervention for rising and current S- and 9*'-grade students who are entering or will be enrolled in Algebra I. Applications for SMART are disseminated through the Sth grade teachers for any rising 9th grade student who has not taken Algebra I. Eligible rising 9th grade students who are registered to attend high school in the LRSD and will take algebra are selected on a first come-first served basis. Seventh-grade math teachers are asked to recommend students, particularly African American or Hispanic students, who have the potential to be successful in Algebra I in the Sth grade. Students who participated in SMART are invited to participate in THRIVE. After a designated enrollment period, remaining seats are opened to any student taking Algebra I. Applications for these remaining seats are disseminated by the Algebra 1 teachers. The programs intentions/goals are to: Provide a solid foundation for algebra, encourage exploration Make mathematics fun Enable students to achieve academic success in mathematics Create the confidence necessary to pursue higher-level math courses The goals encompass two components: pre-algebra instruction for two weeks during the summer (SMART Program) and 10 Saturdays across the school year (THRIVE Program). Instruction in both 12programs utilizes small class sizes (fewer than 18) with two teachers per class. Each program currently (2004-2005) engages approximately 10 percent of the total African American student population enrolled in Algebra I classes. Various local grants have funded both programs since 1999. Summer Mathematics Advanced Readiness Training (SMART) provides opportunities for students to gain the knowledge, skills, and confidence needed for success in Algebra 1. SMART is a two-week half-day summer institute for eligible rising S' and 9* grade students who will be enrolled in Algebra 1. SMART serves approximately 200 students each year. Each SMART classroom consists of a qualified mathematics teacher. one high school mentor who demonstrates outstanding mathematical skills and a positive attitude, and no more than seventeen SMART students. Each teacher uses a variety of strategies and tools to enhance their instructional delivery. Activities include real-life situations requiring the use of math skills. SMART students are exposed to and become familiar with a range of technological tools. The most popular tool used is the Tl- 84 Plus graphing calculator. SMART students learn how to use the calculator to further and deepen their knowledge of mathematics. In addition to the TI-84 Plus calculator, students use the Calculator-Based Laboratory (CBL) and the Calculator-Based Ranger (CBR) to solve problems and perform experiments. Students who successfully complete the SMART program receive a free TI-84 Plus graphing calculator, a SMART T-shirt, and a certificate. Instructional delivery and structure within the THRIVE program is virtually identical to that noted within SMART sessions\nhowever, students do not have a high school mentor acting as a facilitator. THRIVE serves approximately 150 students, many of whom generally have been enrolled in SMART during the previous summer. Students currently enrolled in Algebra I meet bi-monthly on Saturdays during the spring semester from 8:45 a.m. - 12:25 p.m. The sessions are divided into 45-minute instructional blocks with learning activities prescribed for each block. The last block consists of two classes competing in a mathematics game/competition featuring the material covered that day. Teaching methods mirror those used in SMART, but integrate more advanced content and focus on material covered in Algebra I classrooms across the district. RESEARCH QUESTIONS Seven research questions provided the structure around which the evaluation was developed. The primary research question focused on the extent to which SMARTfTHRIVE programs improved and/or 13remediated math achievement among African American students. A substantive supplemental question addressed the level of participation in SMART and THRIVE by African American students. Additional attention was focused upon academically focused time and student engagement as well as parent, student, teacher and Algebra I teacher perceptions of the programs. The questions are listed below and are followed by a brief explanation of the areas addressed in the present evaluation. PRIMARY EVALUATION QUESTION Have the SMART/THRIVE programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students? A treatment-control student pre-test/post-test designed was employed for this evaluation. The analysis controlled for pretest, ethnicity and population free lunch status. Four types of Algebra I students were compared: a) no program/comparison, b) SMART program only, c) THRIVE program only and d) both SMART and THRIVE programs. The pretest data was collected from the 2003-2004 Math Benchmark Test and the posttest data was collected from the 2004-2005 Math Benchmark Test. Additional test information gathered for treatment-control comparison includes the 2004-2005 ITBS Math subtests and Algebra I End of Course Exams (EOC). Descriptive data from SMART and THRIVE participants were derived from pre- and post-test program exams. All standardized tests were administered by and throughout the Little Rock School District. Pre- and post- test program exams were administered through SMART and/or THRIVE and should be considered supplemental. SUPPLEMENTAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 1. What is the level of participation in SMART and THRIVE by African American students? Attendance data from the SMART program of 2004 and the THRIVE program of 2005 were examined. In addition to descriptive information, the levels of participation were analyzed in light of student achievement. 2. What instructional strategies are used during the tutoring sessions? This question was addressed through classroom observations using an instrument focused on 26 research-based teaching strategies associated with increased academically focused instructional time and technology use within the classroom. Three additional math-specific items were designed to gather 14observation data about math-specific instructional practice. Five random observation visits were conducted during the THRIVE program sessions. 3. What are the perceptions of SMART/THRIVE Teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 4. What are the perceptions of Algebra I teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of SMART/THRIVE students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Questions 3, 4, 5 and 6 were addressed through use of self-report surveys, including objective and open-ended items. Demographic data was also collected and analyzed. In addition, three student focus groups were created during which students perceptions of program strengths\nweaknesses and overall satisfaction were collected, and then analyzed. PARTICIPANTS Currently, SMART/THRIVE serves students from the following eight Little Rock School District middle schools: Cloverdale: 82% African American student population\nDunbar: 61% African American student population\nForest Heights: 77% African American student population\nHenderson: 82% African American student population\nMablevale: 81% African American student population\nMann: 52% African American student population\nPulaski Heights: 57% African American student population\nSouthwest: 94% African American student population. Students from the following high schools also were sen/ed: Central: 51 %, Fair: 81%, Hall: 75%, McClellan: 91%, and Parkview: 51%. Of 274 eighth- and ninth-grade students who participated in SMART, THRIVE, or both programs, matching district demographic data were available for 258 (94.2%). Tables 1 and 2 provide summaries of demographic and grade-level data for the various subsamples of SMART, THRIVE, and Comparison students in the study. These programs served a higher percentage of African American students than existed in the student population at large (69.0%): 88.0% of SMART students. 84.8% of THRIVE students, and 89.6% of students attending both programs were African American. Of the 258 students with matching data, 125 attended SMART only, 66 attended THRIVE only, and 67 attended both 15 \\programs. Most students attending SMART only were ninth graders (83.2%), while the majority attending THRIVE only were eighth graders (66.7%). About equal percentages of eighth graders (53.7%) and ninth graders (46.3%) attended both programs. Whereas the district percentage of female students in eighth and ninth grades was 50.1%, the programs served a much larger proportion of females: 63.2%, 66.7%, and 59.7% for SMART, THRIVE, and both programs, respectively. Table 1 Percentage of Students Served by Race: SMART/THRIVE and Comparison PROGRAM Total Am Indian Comparison 0.2 SMART 0.0 THRIVE 0.0 BOTH 1.5 0.3 Asian 1.7 0.0 6.1 1.5 1.7 African American Hispanic Other 69.0 88.0 84.8 89.6 70.2 4.8 0.8 3.0 4.5 4.6 1.4 4.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 White 22.9 7.2 6.1 3.0 21.8 Total n 3726 125 66 67 3984 Note. Comparison group is all eighth and ninth grade students not served by either the SMART or THRIVE programs. Table 2 Program Attended by Grade Level PROGRAM Total GRADE 08 09 Total Count % within PROGRAM Count % within PROGRAM Count % within PROGRAM Comparison 1727 46.3% 1999 53.7% 3726 100.0% SMART 21 16.8% 104 83.2% 125 100.0% THRIVE 44 66.7% 22 33.3% 66 100.0% BOTH 36 53.7% 31 46.3% 67 100.0% 1828 45.9% 2156 54.1% 3984 100.0% EVALUATION DESIGN The evaluation was conducted during the spring of 2005. A mixed-methods design was employed to address the research questions. Results are primarily descriptive in nature\ninferential statistics from 16achievement analyses are discussed. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected by trained observers. The observers administered and collected surveys to THRIVE teachers and students and conducted focus groups with students and SMART mentors. The majority of the time was spent observing classrooms using the School Observation Measure (SOM) described below. Observers also conducted focus groups with students and SMART mentors and administered or distributed surveys to students. teachers, Algebra I teachers and parents. Additionally, achievement data from students participating in SMART, 2004 and THRIVE, 2005 was collected and analyzed by CREP. Details about all of the instruments and evaluation procedures are provided in subsequent sections INSTRUMENTATION To address the questions proposed in this mixed-methods evaluation, data from achievement tests. student records, classroom observations, surveys, and focus groups were collected. Six measurement strategies were used to collect the evaluation data: standardized achievement test scores, classroom observations, surveys, focus groups, and program-developed achievement benchmarks. ACHIEVEMENT TEST SCORES Math Benchmark Test 2003 - 2004 and 2004 - 2005: The Benchmark Test is a state-mandated criterion-referenced test aligned with state math standards and developed by Arkansas teachers and the Arkansas Department of Education. Benchmark scores are reported as advanced, proficient. basic, and below basic. The mathematics portion of the exam is comprised of multiple-choice and open response items. Internal consistency reliability estimates, from the 2002-2004 administrations ranged from Cronbachs Alpha of .84 - .87.  End of Course Exams (EOC) 2005: The Algebra I End of Course Examination is a criterion- referenced test with questions that align with the goals and subject-specific competencies described by the Arkansas Mathematics Curriculum Framework and Algebra I Course Goals. The purpose of the test is to assess student mastery of Algebra I knowledge and skills. Students take the exam at the completion of Algebra I. Scores are reported as advanced, proficient, basic, and below basic. Internal consistency reliability estimates, from the 2001-2004 administrations ranged from Cronbachs Alpha of .81 - .88. 17 ITBS Math Subtests\nThe Iowa Test of Basic Skills (Math) assesses students ability to compute, deal with math concepts and solve problems dealing with numeration, graph/table interpretation, and computation. The ITBS test is a norm-referenced. The ITBS information is proprietary and, therefore. estimates of reliability and validity could not be obtained. SMART and THRIVE Pre/Post Tests: These curriculum-based tests measured students ability to utilize algebraic concepts to solve equations, judge inequalities, evaluate and simplify basic problems. graph equations, plot data, and solve applied problems. The THRIVE program tests were comprised of content more advanced than that of SMART program tests. Pre-test problems were identical to post-test problems in both programs. STUDENT RECORDS  Attendance records from the 2004 SMART program and 2005 THRIVE program were examined in comparison to achievement measures. CLASSROOM OBSERVATION MEASURES The data collection instruments for classroom observations were the School Observation Measure (SOM), including three math-specific items designed to better tailor the instrument, and the Rubric for Student-Centered Activities (RSCA). The SOM and addendum items were designed to gather information about instructional practices and classroom activities. The RSCA was used to gather more detailed information about the level of student engagement during target activities throughout target observations. The instruments used for classroom observation are described below. School Observation Measure (SOM): School Observation Measure (SOM\"). The SOM was developed to determine the extent to which different common and alternative teaching practices (e.g., direct instruction, cooperative learning, student inquiry, experiential learning) are used by teachers (Ross, Smith \u0026amp; Alberg, 1999) in typical (non-evaluative) classroom contexts. During each recording session, notes were completed every 15 minutes in different classrooms for a total of four at the end of one, 60-minute observation period. Researchers objectively recorded the relative use, non-use and frequency of 26 observation items covering a variety of classroom practices. Additionally, researchers recorded the extent to which high academically focused instructional time and high student attention/interest were observed. At the conclusion 18of a one-hour targeted visit, a trained observer summarizes the frequency with which each of the strategies was observed, yielding one SOM Data Summary Form. The frequency is recorded via a 5-point rubric that ranges from (0) Not Observed to (4) Extensively Observed. Two global items rate, respectively, the academically-focused instructional time and degree of student attention and interest. A reliability study by Lewis, Ross, and Alberg (1999) found that pairs of trained observers selected identical SOM categories 67% of the time and rated within one category 95% of the time. Math Addendum: Because the program under evaluation was specifically a mathematics program. three additional observations items unique to mathematics were developed. The items were written by a member of the research team with an Arkansas teaching certificate in mathematics based on the standards of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). The three items addressed the teachers actions in emphasizing conceptual understanding, connecting the content to daily life, and promoting students confidence in mathematics. Each item was rated as 1 indicating not observed to 5 reflecting strong application. Rubric for Student-Centered Activities (RSCA): This Rubric (Ross \u0026amp; Lowther, 2002) is applied in conjunction with SOM visits to determine the quality and depth of teacher applications of selected strategies (e.g., cooperative learning, higher-order questioning, project-based learning, and technology as a learning tool). These strategies reflect emphasis on higher-order learning and attainment of deep understanding of content. Such learning outcomes seem consistent with those likely to be engendered by well designed, real-world linked exercises, projects, or problems utilizing technology as a learning tool. Each item includes a two-part rating scale. The first is a four-point scale, with 1 indicating a very low level of application, and 4 representing a high level of application. The second is a Yes/No option to the question: Was technology used? with space provided to write a brief description of the technology use. The RSCA was completed as part of SOM observation periods. The RSCA reliability results indicate that observer ratings were within one category for 97% of the whole-school observations and for 90% of the targeted observations (Sterbinsky \u0026amp; Burke, 2004). A RSCA was completed at the end of each targeted classroom observation. 19  SURVEYS H Four surveys were developed by the evaluation team to collect data pertaining to the effectiveness of the SMART/THRIVE Program. The specific audiences around which the current evaluation focused were parents, Algebra I teachers currently teaching in Little Rock schools, SMART/THRIVE teachers, and students currently enrolled in THRIVE. Items were designed to address both the primary and secondary research questions of the study and to glean open-ended perceptions from the four data collection groups. Items specific to SMART and THRIVE were included as were open-ended questions about both programs. Program-specific items were presented to gain general and specific knowledge about both programs as separate entities. This also eliminated the need for respondents to complete two separate surveys. Each survey was divided into three sections. The first section was used to collect demographic information specific to each group. The second section was comprised of objective items specific to the research questions and each program (SMART and THRIVE). In the final section, the respondents were presented with four, open-ended questions which probed strategies, strengths, weaknesses and general additional comments for each program. Responses across all surveys were scored through the use of Likert-type ratings ranging from strong disagreement (1) to strong agreement (5). Demographic information was also collected. Drafts of all surveys were presented at the evaluation team meetings in Little Rock and revisions were made from team participants suggestions. Surveys are found in Appendix A. FOCUS GROUPS m Two sets of focus group protocols were developed by the evaluation team. Students were asked their perceptions of the effectiveness of the SMART/THRIVE program. SMART mentors also were asked their impressions of program effectiveness. Additionally, participants were also asked to report their perceptions of program impact. Student and Mentor protocols were similar, but tailored to their specific audience. Question drafts were presented at an evaluation team meeting in Little Rock and revisions were made from team participants suggestions. PROCEDURES Data for this evaluation were collected during the spring of 2005. Targeted observations were conducted during late spring, 2005 using the SOM (including 3 math-specific addendum items) and RSCA 20 - instruments. Surveys, focus groups and program-designed achievement tests were also administered during this time period. The classroom observations were conducted during February and March, 2005. Observations were scheduled for random classrooms participating in the THRIVE program on three different ri days. Student performance measures were administered in late spring. Table 3 summarizes the data collection procedure. Table 3 Data Collection Summary Type of Measure Instrument Targeted Classroom SOM Observations RSCA Number Completed/Data Source Total 5 19 Surveys SMART/THRIVE Teacher Parent Algebra I Teacher Student 10 SMART/18 THRIVE 21 SMART/35 THRIVE 25 SMART/33 THRIVE 70 SMART/142 THRIVE Focus Groups Student Focus Group Mentor Focus Group 21 Participants 2 Participants Achievement fests MaSi Benchmark Test Attendance Data 2003 - 2004 and 2004 -2005 End of Course Exams ITBS ......SMART 2004 Attendance THRIVE 2005 Attendance 210 students 143 students Description Observation sessions in which random THRIVE classes were observed. During the observation period, note forms were completed every 15 minutes. Four^ sets of observation notes were completed for each SOM. Completed during Spring, 2005 THRIVE sessions. Four RSCAs were completed for each SOM. ItOTS specific to SMART and THRIVE were included in the surveys and administered to all groups in Spring, 2005. THRIVE student surveys were distributed in class and collected by researchers. THRIVE teacher sun/eys were distributed during a faculty meeting and administered by researchers. THRIVE parent surveys were distributed by teachers via students, returned to the school and sent to researchers. Algebra 1 teacher surveys were distributed through the district, returned to the school and sent to researchers or sent directly to researchers. During spring 2005, student and mentor focus groups were conducted at the THRIVE site by researchers. All students returning parental permission slips were included in the focus groups. Each focus group interview lasted approximately 45 minutes.  Researchers used the Student Focus Group protocol to conduct an on-site, 45-minute focus group with 2 of the 7 mentors^_____ ___________ Researchers used data collected from three major math measures designed by independent entities and distributed throughout the LRSD for achievement data analysis. Exams were taken during the Spring of 2005. Researchers used the attendance and demographic data from SMART, 2004 and THRIVE, 2005 to examine level of participation among African American students. Data were collected from program heads and sent to researchers. Note: One SOM session was cut short due to scheduling, yielding 3 observations sheets and 3 RSCAs. ACHIEVEMENT TESTS End-of-course (EOC) Algebra I test scores were used as 2004-05 outcomes for 9* grade students. with 2003-04 Benchmark Mathematics scale scores used as a covariate. No covariate was available for 8* grade students, because no comparable district or state tests were administered to 7* graders in 2003-04. 21  The End of Course Exams were administered at the end of the academic year to all students enrolled in Algebra I during the 2004-2005 school year. The ITBS exam was administered only to 9* grade students, thus outcomes for this exam were available only for 9*^ graders. With no 8* grade scores available, 2003-2004 Benchmark scores were used for covariate comparisons. Additionally, curriculum-based pre- and postprogram exams were administered on the first and last day of both programs. Both pre- and post-program-designed exams were comprised of 20 items, asking students to simplify, evaluate, graph, and solve equations. The SMART exams were geared to test pre-algebra and early algebra content and the THRIVE exams were designed to examine content expected of students completing Algebra I. The pre-program exams and post-program exams were identical. These exams are provided in Appendix B. CLASSROOM OBSERVATIONS Trained observers completed a series of classroom visits to collect frequency data regarding observed instructional practices, use of technology and level of student engagement. Classroom teachers were advised that the observers would be present throughout the semester, but were instructed to deliver lessons as usual. A targeted procedure was used for the present study given that the observations were of the THRIVE sessions rather than of a school-wide, cross-categorical program. The majority of the observations were conducted by one researcher, with the second researcher observing for one SOM to examine inter-rater reliability. The inter-rater reliability for the joint observation was high\nobservers selected identical SOM categories 88% of the time and rated within one category 100% of the time. The standard SOM procedure involves evaluation of an entire school by visiting 10-12 randomly selected classrooms for 15 minutes each. However, the goal of this evaluation was to examine the practices within a single program, where all classrooms were participating in the same activities at the same times, not assess an entire school. Therefore, procedures were modeled from those used by Lowther, Ross, and Morrison (2003) in their examination a school laptop computer program. A total of five SOM observations were conducted. Both the RSCA and the Math Addendum items were completed at the same time. A total of 19 RSCAs were completed because one observation session was interrupted by a scheduled class dismissal. 22 I d M SURVEYS d E The program teacher surveys were administered and collected by researchers on March 5, 2005 during a faculty meeting. Student surveys were administered and collected by researchers during a March 5 class. Algebra I teacher surveys were distributed via district mail. Parent surveys were distributed through students and collected by teachers before being sent to CREP for analysis. Additional parent surveys were administered and collected by a member of the research team at the student Math Fair. FOCUS GROUPS During spring 2005, student and mentor focus groups were conducted at the THRIVE site by researchers. All students returning parental permission slips were included in the focus groups, each of which lasted 45 minutes. The mentors were contacted individually by researchers via phone, mail and email. Two of the seven mentors responded and attended. The mentor focus group interview lasted approximately 45 minutes. RESULTS The results of this evaluation are presented below and synthesized to address each research question in the Discussion section. These results are presented by measurement strategy\nhowever, the findings are synthesized across instruments to reflect each research question in the Discussion section of this report. SCHOOL OBSERVATION MEASURE (SOM) As noted previously, observers focused on the 26 instructional strategies provided in the SOM using a standard five-point rubric (0 =not observed, 1 = rarely, 2 = occasionally, 3 = frequently, and 4 = extensively). The results are presented with a full, categorical breakdown in Table 4. Four strategies were observed occasionally to extensively at a frequency level of at least 75% or higher. These strategies include team teaching (100%), cooperative/collaborative learning (100%), use of higher-level questioning strategies (80%), and teacher acting as a coach/facilitator (100%). The data indicates that students were engaged in collaborative learning situations with high teacher support where they were asked to use problem solving and critical thinking skills to solve problems. Strategies that were observed occasionally to extensively during 40-60% of the sessions included direct instruction (lecture), higher level instructional feedback (40%), experiential hands-on learning (40%), independent inquiry or research (40%) and student 23M discussion (60%). Student discussion heavily dominated the instructional context (60% observed frequency) M with teams of students working together to solve problems and propose new ideas. Some individual seat work and independent research was observed (40% each respectively), however, these frequently were noted to lead into a group-based activity in which individuals proposed ideas to a team that was used to create a corporate answer to problems proposed by the teachers. Sustained reading was observed in one classroom. fl Technology was heavily used (80%) as teachers relied upon graphing calculators and problem solving with H technology as an integral part of the curriculum. Teachers demonstrated different ways to solve problems and/or work towards solutions via calculator and multi-media use. High academically focused time was fl observed extensively (80% of the time) as was high student engagement (in 60% of the observation sessions). Since the evaluation context was an Algebra I Saturday supplementary program with specific model parameters, some instructional strategies within the SOM were not observed. These strategies included individual tutoring, ability and multi-age groupings, work centers, integration of subject areas, project-based learning, independent seatwork, sustained wzriting/composition and systematic individual instruction. Generally, the aggregated data reflect efficient use of class time with teachers using a team teaching approach to deliver instruction to collaborative teams of students. The aforementioned math addendum items served to capture specific strategies used frequently among math teachers. Results from observations showed that THRIVE teachers frequently emphasized conceptual understanding over rote learning 60% of the time observed. Teachers also demonstrated connections between math and daily life frequently in at least 60% of the observations. One additional strategy of high interest was teachers cultivation of students confidence, flexibility and inventiveness in doing mathematics. This was observed frequently among 80% of the observations. None of the math-specific strategies were observed extensively. 24 n Table 4 II School Observation Measure (SOM) Data Summary for Little Rock-SMART/THRIVE Project N = 5 H II II II n n The extent to which each of the following was used or present in the school...________ Instructional Orientation Direct instruction (lecture) Team teaching Cooperative/collaborative learning Individual tutoring (teacher, peer, aide, adult volunteer) Classroom Organization Ability groups Multi-age grouping Work centers (for individuals or groups) Instructional Strategies Higher-level instructional feedback (written or verbal) to enhance student learning Integration of subject areas (interdisciplinary/thematic units) Project-based learning Use of higher-level questioning strategies Teacher acting as a coach/tacilitator Parent/community involvement in learning activities Student Activities Independent seatwork (self-paced worksheets, individual assignments) Experiential, hands-on learning Systematic individual instruction (differential assignments geared to individual needs) Sustained writing/composition (self-selected or teacher-generated topics) Sustained reading Independent inquiry/research on the part of students Student discussion Technology Use Computer for instructional delivery (e.g. CAI, drill \u0026amp; practice) Technology as a learning tool or resource (e.g., Internet research, spreadsheet or database creation, multi-media, CD Rom, Laser disk) Assessment Performance assessment strategies Student self-assessment (portfolios, individual record books) Summary Items High academically focused class time High level of student Percent None Percent Rarely Percent Occasionally Percent Percent Frequently Extensively 20.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 60.0 100.0 100.0 20.0 0.0 80.0 100.0 20.0 100.0 100.0 80.0 40.0 40.0 80.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 attention/interest/engagement________________________ Note: One SOM is comprised of approximately 8 classroom visits. 20.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 40.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 60.0 80.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 60.0 60.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 80.0 60.0 25 n RUBRIC FOR STUDENT-CENTERED ACTIVITIES (RSCA) IB The RSCA results reflect the percentage of observed sessions in which selected strategies are II observed at least once. The quality of the application and the percentage of sessions in which technology was used with the observed strategy are also recorded. A descriptive summary of the RSCA results is presented in Table 5. IB The RSCA results suggest that the level of application with which THRIVE program teachers applied certain instructional practices, particularly with regard to cooperative learning and higher-level questioning strategies was high. Additionally, students evidenced appropriate use of technology (calculators, multimedia. and spreadsheets) in self-directed activities to create new knowledge. The most notable area of technology use was among cooperative learning groups, where students collaboratively utilized multimedia, calculators and graphing applications to solve problems\nteachers often helped direct collaborative groups. Project-based learning was not observed and although student discussion, experiential hands on learning, and independent research were applied, the level of application was limited or somewhat limited without technology use. Additionally, aggregate results suggest that technology was used in more than a third of the instances during which 5/7 remaining student-centered activities were observed and in over 25% of the instances during which 6/7 remaining activities or strategies were applied. 26 II Table 5  Rubric for Student-Centered Activities (RSCA) N = 19 Student-Centered Activities Not Limited Observed Application Somewhat Limited Somewhat Strong Application Application Strong Application Technology In Use * Cooperative Learning 8.7 13.0 8.7 21.7 47.8 60.9 II Project-Based Learning 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Higher-Level Questioning Strategies Experiential Hands-on Learning Independent Inquiry/Research Student Discussion 26.1 56.5 56.5 56.5 0.0 4.3 8.7 17.4 30.4 39.1 4.3 26.1 4.3 0.0 8.7 21.7 30.4 17.4 13.0 39.1 4.3 0.0 39.1 30.4 Students as Producers of Knowledge Using 30.4 8.7 21.7 39.1 0.0 Technology 'Percentages Indicating Observed Levels of Application 'Rating Scale: 1= limited application: 4=strong application * See addendum description of technology use  SCHOOL OBSERVATION SUMMARY Analysis of data collected using SOM, the Math Addendum and RSCA during the observations revealed that THRIVE teachers are using a variety of instructional strategies aligned with Arkansas state-designed SLEs. The most striking result was the extent to which team teaching and collaborative/cooperative learning dominated the curriculum. Additionally, notable use of higher level questioning strategies and teachers acting as coaches rather than lecturers was noted among observed sessions. During the teaching sessions that were observed, the Math Addendum items revealed that teachers were frequently emphasizing conceptual understanding over rote learning. Furthermore, this practice facilitated frequent instances of promoting students confidence and flexibility in doing mathematics. Overall, students in the THRIVE program had a high level of interest and were observed being engaged in instruction that emphasized practical and conceptual learning in a comfortable, student-centered setting. 27 SURVEY RESULTS  Four surveys (Algebra I Teacher, Student, Parent, SMART/THRIVE Teacher) were administered in late March, 2005. Results for each of the four instruments were examined independently. Demographic  characteristics of the respondents are representative: however, not all respondents completed the demographic section of the surveys. Additionally, the total number of respondents to THRIVE items varied from the total number of SMART respondents across questionnaires. Demographic differences are described n for each group. Finally, item percentages across surveys did not always total 100% because of missing input from some of the respondents (i.e., there were questions to which some people did not respond). PROGRAM PARTICIPANT SURVEY THRIVE total of 142 students responded to items pertaining to THRIVE and 70 students responded to items pertaining to SMART\\ Of the 138 THRIVE respondents who reported their ethnicity, 77% specified African American, 7% specified Multi-Ethnic, and 4.2% specified Asian. The remaining categories of Caucasian (3.5%), Hispanic (2.8%), and Other (2.1%) were specified less frequently. A total of 63.4% of the respondents were female\n35.9% of the respondents were male. Of the 70 students responding to SMART questionnaire items and specifying demographic information, 38.6% were female and 61.4% were male. Regarding ethnicity, 82.9% of the SMART respondents specified African American, 4.3% specified Caucasian or Hispanic respectively, 2.9% specified Multi-Ethnic and 1.4% specified Other or Asian. Table 6 contains the results for THRIVE and SMART objective survey items. These results are summarized in text below. Summaries of the open ended questions are shown in subsequent Tables. The overall trend in response types was positive\nfifty percent or more students indicated agreement or strong agreement across all items. Well over eighty percent of students responding to the survey reported that team competitions made THRIVE classes more fun. Over seventy-five percent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that THRIVE made algebra more enjoyable and instilled confidence in doing well on the algebra Benchmark Exam. Over sixty percent of student respondents agreed or strongly agreed that THRIVE improved their self-confidence about math, helped them feel comfortable asking questions in THRIVE class.  Because some students participating in the THRIVE program did not participate in SMART during the previous summer, differences between respondent numbers were expected. 28 n II and facilitated problem solving through calculator use. A total of 66.6% of respondents indicated that THRIVE IB teachers helped them with problems they were having in their regular algebra class. At least one half (50.0%) of the students responding to the survey indicated that THRIVE helped improve their algebra grades and II helped them understand how to apply algebra concepts in real life. In contrast to the positive trend in responses across items, two areas in which some students showed disagreement were related to n generalization and application. This is somewhat consistent with responses noted within the open ended II portion of the student survey where students indicated an overall satisfaction with the program but did not feel that the program changed their study habits or helped them apply information to real life situations. II Additionally, more students responded neutrally to items pertaining to content, grades and application when compared to responses for items related to motivation, fun and self-confidence. II Table 6 II Student Survey - THRIVE N = 142 THRIVE items II 1. Because of THRIVE, I have learned how to use a calculator to help solve algebra problems. Percent Strongly Agree/ Agree 67.6 Percent Neutral 23.9 Percent Strongly Disagree/ Disagree 8.5 II 2. THRIVE makes algebra more enjoyable. 77.5 20.4 2.1 3. II 4. II 5. 6. II 7. 8. THRIVE has helped me get good grades in algebra. I think I will do well on the algebra Benchmark Exam because of THRIVE. In THRIVE, I have learned how algebra can be used in real life. THRIVE has made me more confident about math. My THRIVE teacher helps me with problems I am having in my algebra class. I feel comfortable asking questions in THRIVE class. 50.0 78.9 55.6 66.2 66.2 74.7 40.9 16.2 33.8 24.7 25.4 21.1 8.5 4.2 10.6 7.8 8.5 4.2 9. Team competitions make THRIVE classes fun. 87.3 6.3 2.8 29 a n II SMART II Responses indicating agreement or strong agreement for items pertaining to the SMART portion of survey were consistently above 75%. Of the 70 respondents, over 85% agreed or strongly agreed that II SMART helped prepare them for Algebra I in the fall, and 80% agreed or strongly agreed that SMART made algebra more fun. Seventy-eight percent agreed or strongly agreed that the SMART program helped them II remember math skills from the previous year. Students agreed or strongly agreed that they were motivated to II go to their SMART classes and that the program helped them apply math to solve real-life problems across 75% of the surveys. Fewer students indicated neutral or negative responses for the SMART survey items II than noted among THRIVE survey responses. Of those that indicated disagreement or strong disagreement, the item noted most frequently (4.3%) was related to application (We learned how to use math to solve real- II life problems.). Overall, the trend towards agreement with items probing the attributes of the programs was positive. Table 7 presents detailed results for the SMART student survey. II Table 7 II Student Survey - SMART N = 70 II SMART Items 1. II 2. II 3. 4. II 5. SMART helped me remember the math skills I learned last school year. SMART made algebra more fun. In SMART, we learned how to use math to solve real-life problems. I was motivated to go to my SMART class during the summer. Because of SMART, I was prepared to begin Algebra I in the fall. Percent Strongly Agree/ Agree 78.6 Percent Neutral 18.6 Percent Strongly Disagree/ Disagree 2.9 81.4 75.7 75.7 88.6 14.3 15.7 18.6 5.7 1.4 4.3 1.4 1.4 il OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES THRIVE students had an opportunity to respond to four, open-ended questions as part of the survey. Student impressions of the SMART program were polled across all students even though SMART was not in session and not all students participated in it during the previous summer. SMART and THRIVE were evaluated separately using the same questions to preserve the integrity of their differences. Student responses are summarized below. 30I H 11 Question 1: Students were asked to comment on what they liked about the THRIVE program. The II majority of responses reflected an appreciation of the programs use of competition and a sense that the program made math more fun/enjoyable. Additional comments suggested that students enjoyed having a II program that allowed for review and expansion of concepts taught in the regular Algebra I classroom. Students also noted that they enjoyed the teachers and felt comfortable asking for clarification when II necessary. Additionally, snacks and rewards were notably cited as positive influences of THRIVE. Table 8 II summarizes what students liked about THRIVE. TABLE 8 II What do you like about THRIVE? II Description II II II II II Makes math fun Uses competition/games in Provides expansion/review of math concepts Clarifies/Remediates confusing concepts Teachers are good/likeable Snacks People/friends in THRIVE classes Class size/Format Money/Rewards NA - responses did not pertain to question Enjoy using a calculator Provides a head start for following week in class Improves self-confidence/provides comfortable place to learn Class Time/Format TOTAL Frequency 42 37 18 17 17 14 11 8 7 7 4 3 3 2 190 Percentage 22% 19% 9% 9% 9% 7% 6% 4% 4% 4% 2% 2% 2% 1% 100% II Question 2: When asked what they would change about the THRIVE program, the ovenwhelming majority of students responded that they would make no changes. Students who did comment on needed II changes mostly cited a later start time or a more compressed time period (e.g., two hours rather than four hours) as potential prospects. Non-specific time changes (e.g., change time, time, different time) were also H noted among open-ended comments but coded separately due to the large number of students commenting on previously cited specifics about THRIVE hours. Table 9 provides an illustration of student comments. The Hi miscellaneous category captured unique comments made by individual students (e.g., field trips, guest speakers. Physical Education). 31 I TABLE 9 What would you change about THRIVE? Description No change Less time Later start time Miscellaneous Class format/more varied activities Longer breaks Non-specific time change Snacks/lunch Enhance competition More time More peers/neighborhood school Rewards Earlier time Teacher changes TOTAL Frequency 57 17 14 11 10 8 8 8 5 4 3 3 2 2 152 Percentage 38% 11% 9% 7% 7% 5% 5% 5% 3% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 100% Question 3: Students were asked to comment on how THRIVE has helped them over the course of the semester. Most comments suggested that THRIVE helped students enhance comprehension of general algebraic concepts. Many students also indicated that THRIVE helped improve their grades and improved their understanding of how to use a calculator to solve and graph equations. Additionally, students' comments suggested that THRIVE reinforced specific concepts (e.g., graphing equations with polynomials) and made the students feel that they were staying ahead in weekly algebra classes. Of 150 responses, three indicated that THRIVE was not helpful\nnone indicated that it was detrimental. Table 10 summarizes the results. TABLE 10 If THRIVE has helped you, how has it helped you? Description Enhanced comprehension of algebra Improved grades Use of calculator Reinforced specific concepts in algebra Helps stay ahead in math Builds confidence/makes math more positive Miscellaneous (individual answers) Negative-Did not help TOTAL Frequency 63 20 18 16 14 8 8 3 150 Percentage 42% 13% 12% 11% 9% 5% 5% 2% 100% 32 II l\u0026lt; Questions about SMART were analyzed. Response rates across SMART questions, although Il somewhat different, do not vary significantly. Question 4: When asked to identify the most appealing aspects of SMART, most comments were If positive, yet nonspecific in nature. Examples included responses that alluded to liking everything about the program or how the program helped me (in general)\". A number of students (13%) noted that SMART II prepared them for math in the fall and reduced anxiety when entering first year algebra. Calculator use and II team competition garnered notably high response rates (13% and 12% respectively). Some students made specific comments about the positive influence of the SMART teachers and others made comments about rewards delivered through the program. Response categories are provided in Table 11. TABLE 11 What do you like about SMART? Description Nonspecific positive responses (e.g.. Everything\nHow it helped me) More prepared for math/ reduced anxiety Using the calculator Team competitions The teachers Reinforcement and rewards Social aspects/visiting with peers from other schools The snacks Games and content delivery NA (e.g., I did not go to SMART\nI do not know) Format/time/class size TOTAL Frequency 31 11 11 10 5 5 5 3 2 2 1 86 Percentage 36% 13% 13% 12% 6% 6% 6% 3% 2% 2% 1% 100% Question 5: Students also provided information about what aspects of the SMART program they would change. Over sixty percent of the responses favored no change. Of the remaining responses, 23% indicated a time change as appropriate. Of those, the large majority of comments suggested a later starting time rather than a reduced time period. One student noted a desire to reduce the amount of time spent at SMART. A few students who did not participate in SMART simply indicated such\nno additional comments were recorded among these respondents. The remaining responses indicated a desire to enhance the program by adding team competitions, extending the time during which SMART was available, and providing more applied skills for use in everyday situations. Data are summarized in Table 12. 33 TABLE 12 IVhaf would you change about the SMART program? Response No change Time Snacks NA (I did not go to SMART\n1 like Math) More team competitions More applied skills Extend time/day and/or hours________ TOTAL Frequency Percentage 41 15 3 3 2 1 1 66 62% 23% 5% 5% 3% 1% 1% 100% Question 6: When asked about how SMART helped students, the overwhelming majority of comments identified the programs purpose in preparing students for Algebra I as most important. Many responses also indicated the use of a calculator as instrumental in helping students solve algebra problems. Additionally, students noted that SMART helped improve their grades and built confidence in math. TABLE 13 If SMART helped you, describe how. Response Made me feel prepared Use of calculator Built confidence in math Improved grades NA(I did not go to SMART\n1 liked THRIVE) Reinforced specific concepts Miscellaneous (I would like field trips) Increased engagement/interest TOTAL PARENT SURVEY THRIVE Frequency Percentage 41 11 6 6 3 1 1 1 70 59% 16% 9% 9% 4% 1% 1% 1% 100% A total of 35 parents responded to survey items pertaining to THRIVE. Of those, 57% were female and 40% were male. A total of 80% of parent respondents indicated that their child was African American, 8.6% specified Asian and 2.9% specified Caucasian, Hispanic and Other respectively. No parental respondents specified Multi-Ethnic as the ethnicity of their child. 34 n II Responses indicating agreement or strong agreement were consistently above 80% across all survey il items. Overall, parents agreed or strongly agreed that THRIVE was a good program (94%), that they felt comfortable having their child attend classes on Saturdays (91.4%) and that they felt teachers in the program II helped their children feel successful in math (91.4%). The neutral responses that were noted were made in response to items pertaining to childrens attitudes about math and improvement in grades. No negative II responses to the items were reported. Table 14 provides a summary of the responses. H Table 14 11 Parent Survey - THRIVE N = 35 THRIVE items 11 Percent Strongly Agree/Agree Percent Percent Strongly Neutral Disagree/ 1. II 2. 3. II 4. 5. II 6. II II II II n The teachers in this program make my child feel that he/she can succeed. Because of this program, my child is more motivated to complete algebra homework. This program has helped improve my childs attitude about math. I am comfortable having my child attend classes on Saturdays. Because of this program, I have seen an improvement in my childs Algebra I grades. Overall, I think this is a good program. SMART 91.4 88.6 82.9 91.4 80.0 94.3 5.7 8.6 17.1 5.7 14.3 2.9 Disagree 0.0 Percent Don't Know 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 A smaller number of parents (21) responded to the five survey items pertaining to SMART. Of those, 61.9% were female and 33.3% were male. Eighty-five percent of parental respondents cited their childs ethnicity as African American. The remaining respondents indicated Asian (4.8%) or Other (4.8%) as their childs ethnicity. Ninety percent of parent respondents indicated agreement or strong agreement when asked whether SMART did a good job of preparing children for Algebra I in the fall and improving childrens perception that they could succeed in math. Results are noted in tables 15 and 16. Slightly over 85% of respondents indicated agreement or strong agreement with items related to whether SMART improved their childs attitude about math and whether they felt comfortable sending their children to classes during the summer. A total of 35 h II n 76% of parents agreed or strongly agreed that the program classes were easy for their children to attend. n None of the respondents indicated disagreement or strong disagreement with any of the items. Of those that responded neutrally, the highest number (14.3%) were noted for the item pertaining to whether SMART had II improved attitudes about math. No parents indicated negative responses for any of the items. II Table 15 II Parent Survey- SMART N=21 SMART Items II 1. II 2. 3. II 4. 5. II Because of this program, my child felt like he/she could succeed in Math. The summer classes were easy for my child to attend. This program helped improve my childs attitude about Math. I am comfortable having my child attend classes during the summer. This program did a good job of preparing my child for beginning Algebra I in the fall. Percent Strongly Agree/ Agree 90.5 Percent Neutral 4.8 Percent Strongly Disagree/ Disagree 0.0 Percent Dont Know 0.0 76.2 85.7 85.7 90.5 4.8 0.0 4.8 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 4.8 0.0 0.0 OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES II Question 1: When asked to provide their impressions of THRIVE, many parents responses described II it as a motivating math program (19%) targeting childrens math skills. Numerous comments suggested that parents characterize THRIVE as a program that improves general math skills (19%) and/or focuses on II problem solving and/or critical thinking (15%). A number of parents comments also reflected an awareness of the programs use of motivating games and competition to foster interest in math (15%). The balance of the II comments were positive and reflected an awareness of THRIVE as a supplemental alternative to the weekly Algebra I curriculum. II II 36 H bII II TABLE 16 II Please tell us your impression of the THRIVE program. What do you see as taking place during the sessions? II II II II Description Helps child feel fulfilled/motivated about math Helps child improve math skills Focuses critical thinking and problem solving Integrates games and fun into math Non-specific positive commendation Practical application Provides individualized tutoring provides review of school curriculum Class format: small groups and team competition TOTAL Frequency 5 5 4 4 2 2 2 21 27 Percentage 19% 19% 15% 15% 7% 7% 7% 7% 4% 100% II Question 2 and Question 3: Questions 2 and 3 addressed parents opinions of THRIVE. One third of the comments made about parents positive opinions indicated that it was motivating. Parents also noted that II they liked how THRIVE provided additional help (17%) and made efforts to improve specific math skills (12%). n Some parents reported global positive experiences and satisfaction with THRIVE (14%). Table 17 provides additional data regarding what parents liked about the program. II Regarding parents opinions about whether aspects of THRIVE should be changed, 29% recommended no change and/or responded positively about the program. Of the comments requesting n change, one third recommended expanding the breadth and length of the program. Specifically, these parents made note that more time (23%) should be allocated for THRIVE and that more students (10%) should be II involved. Table 18 provides additional information about isolated comments for changing THRIVE. II II n 37 II II TABLE 17 II What did you like about the THRIVE program? Description Frequency Percentage II II II II Motivating Provides additional help Non-specific positive commendation Improve math skills Class size, time, format Learning new strategies Games Parent gatherings Prepares for benchmark exam Teaches calculator skills TOTAL 14 7 6 5 3 3 1 1 1 1 42 33% 17% 14% 12% 7% 7% 2% 2% 2% 2% 100% II II TABLE 18 If anything, what would you change about the THRIVE program? II Description Frequency Percentage II II II II II No change Extend time/meet more frequently Expand program to more students More challenge Expand into summer Expand program to after school Get credit Later start Measurement of progress More communication between parents and teachers More funding More hands on learning More structure Transportation\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":"aru_unequal_23","title":"Stony Point Community Church Anti-Gay Marriage Sign","collection_id":"aru_unequal","collection_title":"Land of (Unequal) Opportunity: Documenting the Civil Rights Struggle in Arkansas","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044"],"dcterms_creator":["Timothy G. Nutt"],"dc_date":["2006"],"dcterms_description":["A sign erected by the Stony Point Community Church near Bigelow, Perry County, Arkansas, urging community members to support Amendment 83 (2004) to the Arkansas constitution, which specifically prohibits same-sex marriages.","Gays and Lesbians -- Homosexuality -- Gay Rights -- Bigelow -- Perry County"],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["Fayetteville, Ark. : University of Arkansas Libraries"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Timothy G. Nutt"],"dcterms_subject":["African Americans--Arkansas","Civil rights--Arkansas","Race discrimination--Arkansas","Segregation--Arkansas"],"dcterms_title":["Stony Point Community Church Anti-Gay Marriage Sign"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Libraries"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digitalcollections.uark.edu/cdm/ref/collection/Civilrights/id/23"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Please contact Special Collections for information on copyright."],"dcterms_medium":["photographs"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"suc_tomcrosbystr","title":"Tom Crosby’s Rosenwald School oral history collection, 2006-2011","collection_id":null,"collection_title":null,"dcterms_contributor":["South Caroliniana Library. Office of Oral History","Crosby, Tom, 1940-","L'Hommedieu, Andrea,"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, South Carolina, Richland County, 34.0218, -80.90304","United States, South Carolina, Richland County, Columbia, Allen University, 34.01071, -81.02037","United States, South Carolina, Union County, 34.68928, -81.61942","United States, South Carolina, Union County, Union, Sims High School, 34.70097, -81.6101"],"dcterms_creator":["Crosby, Tom, 1940-","Dorrah-Evans, Dorothy Mae Lomax, 1906-2012","Floyd, James, 1935-","Gamble, Dill, Jr., 1934-","Alston, Kenneth, 1951-","Bates, John H., 1938-","Boyd, Telicious Kenly, 1919-2009","Brown, Joe E. (Joe Ellis), 1933-","Burgess, Agnes, 1914-2012,","Cannon, William, 1928-","Carter, Durham, 1928-","Dillard, Mary Gregory, 1938-","Felder, Rosana, 1909-2012,"],"dc_date":["2006/2011"],"dcterms_description":["The Rosenwald Schools of South Carolina exhibit features as its center the forty-three oral history interviews forming the Tom Crosby Oral History Collection that describe the educational experiences of African Americans in South Carolina 1910s-1970s, most of whom attended Rosenwald schools and/or Allen University. Accessible from the Interviews tab, all interviews are available as transcripts and sound recordings. Interview synopses, with biographical data, precede each transcript link.","","What is a Rosenwald school? In 1917, Julius Rosenwald (1862-1932), President of Sears, Roebuck and Company, initiated the Julius Rosenwald Foundation which built more than 5000 schools, shop buildings and teachers’ houses for African Americans across the South. African Americans participated in the building of schools in their communities including land acquisition, fund raising, school management and curriculum. About 500 schools were built in South Carolina. The program ended in 1932, but many of the schools continued operating until desegregation in the early 1970s."],"dc_format":["audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Columbia, S.C. : University of South Carolina. South Caroliniana Library"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African Americans--Education--South Carolina--History--20th century","African Americans--Social life and customs--20th century","African Americans--South Carolina--Interviews","African American schools--South Carolina--Union County--History--20th century","Allen University--Alumni and alumnae--Interviews","African American schools--South Carolina--Richland County--History--20th century","Sims High School (Union, S.C.)--Alumni and alumnae--Interviews","African American school administrators--South Carolina--Interviews","African American teachers--South Carolina--Interviews","Booker T. Washington High School (Columbia, S.C.)--Alumni and alumnae--Interviews","High school athletes--South Carolina--Union County--History","African American schools--South Carolina--Newberry County--History--20th century","Allen University--Alumni and alumnae","African American schools--South Carolina--Clarendon County--History--20th century","African American schools--South Carolina--Laurens County--History--20th century","African American schools--South Carolina--Sumter County--History--20th century","African American teachers--South Carolina","Benedict College--Alumni and alumnae--Interviews","Booker T. Washington High School (Columbia, S.C.)--Faculty--Interviews","Crosby, Tom, 1940---Interviews","Dorrah-Evans, Dorothy Mae Lomax, 1906-2012--Interviews","Floyd, James, 1935---Interviews","Gamble, Dill, Jr., 1934---Interviews","Julius Rosenwald Fund","Negro Rural School Fund, Inc.","Sims High School (Union, S.C.)--Football--History--20th century","South Carolina State College--Alumni and alumnae--Interviews","South Carolina State University--Alumni and alumnae--Interviews"],"dcterms_title":["Tom Crosby’s Rosenwald School oral history collection, 2006-2011"],"dcterms_type":["Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["South Caroliniana Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://digital.library.sc.edu/collections/tom-crosby-oral-history-collection-2006-2011/"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Copyright: University of South Carolina. The transcript and audio are provided for individual Research Purposes Only; for all other uses, including publication, reproduction, and quotation beyond fair use, permission must be obtained in writing from: The South Caroliniana Library, University of South Carolina, 910 Sumter Street, Columbia, SC 29208"],"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Long, Lawrence W. -1985"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"ugafs_fsp","title":"Unsung foot soldiers : The Foot Soldier Project for Civil Rights Studies at the University of Georgia","collection_id":null,"collection_title":null,"dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2006"],"dcterms_description":["Web site with information about the Unsung Foot Soldier Project at the University of Georgia. The project researches and documents the lives and work of significant, but less-well-known players in the Civil Rights movement, particularly those from Georgia. The project has produced books and films about Horace Ward and Hamilton Holmes. Portions of those films are available on the site as well as biographies of other influential activists. The site also contains curriculum guides about Hamilton Holmes, Emmett Till, and working with oral histories.","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":["Civil rights workers--United States","African American civil rights workers","African Americans--Civil rights","Civil rights movements--United States","United States--Race relations","Oral history--Study and teaching"],"dcterms_title":["Unsung foot soldiers : The Foot Soldier Project for Civil Rights Studies at the University of Georgia"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Foot Soldier Project for Civil Rights Studies at the University of Georgia"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://www.footsoldier.uga.edu/"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["instructional materials","articles","lesson plans","biographies"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Bootle, William A., 1902-2005","Hollowell, Donald","Motley, Constance Baker, 1921-","Ward, Horace T. (Horace Taliaferro), 1927-","Holmes, Hamilton, 1941-","Early, Mary Frances","Till, Emmett, 1941-1955--Assassination"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"valdosta_vscintegration","title":"Valdosta State College Integration","collection_id":null,"collection_title":null,"dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, Lowndes County, Valdosta, 30.83334, -83.28032"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2006"],"dcterms_description":["This online exhibit summarizes the history of integration at Valdosta State College, and the challenges met by African Americans to integrate Georgia educational institutions. Materials include photographs, newspaper clippings, documents, and links to related resources.","Taken from items held in the Archives and Special Collections, Valdosta State University"],"dc_format":["image/jpeg","text/html"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Valdosta State College","Valdosta State College--History--20th century","Civil rights--Georgia--Valdosta","Segregation in education--Georgia--Valdosta","Segregation in higher education--Georgia--Valdosta","African Americans--Education--Georgia--Valdosta","African Americans--Education (Higher)--Georgia--Valdosta","College students--Georgia--Valdosta","African American college students--Georgia--Valdosta"],"dcterms_title":["Valdosta State College Integration"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage","Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Valdosta State University. Odum Library. Archives and Special Collections"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://www.valdosta.edu/academics/library/depts/archives-and-special-collections/vsu-history/100-years/integration.php"],"dcterms_temporal":["1924/1974"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["photographs","online exhibitions","clippings (information artifacts)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"tmll_hpcrc_69126080","title":"Voting rights enforcement and reauthorization [electronic resource] : the Department of Justice's record of enforcing the temporary Voting Rights Act provisions","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":["2006"],"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":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of online collection: Historical Publications of the United States Commission on Civil Rights."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["United States. Voting Rights Act of 1965","Election law--United States","African Americans--Suffrage--Government policy","Elections--Government policy--United States"],"dcterms_title":["Voting rights enforcement and reauthorization [electronic resource] : the Department of Justice's record of enforcing the temporary Voting Rights Act provisions"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Thurgood Marshall Law Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS70103"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports","records"],"dcterms_extent":["1 v. (various pagings) : digital, PDF file."],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"txh_wims","title":"Wednesdays in Mississippi : Civil rights as women's work : Breaking down barriers and mobilizing women, an exhibit Website","collection_id":null,"collection_title":null,"dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Illinois, 40.00032, -89.25037","United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036","United States, New York, 43.00035, -75.4999","United States, Southern States, 33.346678, -84.119434"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2006/2020"],"dcterms_description":["Wednesdays in Missisisppi is an online exhibit documenting the 1964 and 1965 program which brought Northern women into Mississippi to work with Freedom Summer and the Freedom Schools. Interracial and interfaith teams traveled to Mississippi on Tuesdays and returned on Thursdays. The program was organized by Dorothy Height and Polly Cowan under the umbrella of the National Council of Negro Women with the assistance of Susie Goodwillie and Doris Wilson. The exhibit includes newspaper articles, black-and-white photographs, pamphlets, biographies, interviews, letters, and a summary of experiences written by Polly Cowan after the first summer. The exhibit also includes a glossary listing and defining individuals, places, organziations, and terms used in the exhibit. In addition to describing and documenting race relations in the Northern states of New York and Illinois during the 1960s.","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":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["National Council of Negro Women","Civil rights workers--Mississippi","Women civil rights workers--Mississippi","Women social reformers--Mississippi","Civil rights workers--United States","Women civil rights workers--United States","Women social reformers--United States","Segregation--Mississippi","Mississippi--Race relations--History--20th century","Race relations","Race discrimination--Mississippi","United States--Race relations--History--20th century","Southern States--Race relations--History--20th century","Segregation--Southern States","Race discrimination--Southern States","Race discrimination--United States","Racism--Mississippi","Racism--Southern States","Racism--United States","Discrimination in housing--United States","Discrimination in housing--Illinois","School integration--Massive resistance movement--Mississippi","African Americans--Violence against--Mississippi","School integration--United States","School integration--New York (State)--New York"],"dcterms_title":["Wednesdays in Mississippi : Civil rights as women's work : Breaking down barriers and mobilizing women, an exhibit Website"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage","Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of Houston"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://classweb.uh.edu/wims/"],"dcterms_temporal":["1964/1965"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["letters (correspondence)","articles","black-and-white photographs","pamphlets","reports","online exhibitions"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Height, Dorothy I. (Dorothy Irene), 1912-","Goodwillie, Susan, 1941-","Cowan, Polly, 1913-1976","Wilson, Doris, 1920-"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"txh_wims_wimscr","title":"Wednesdays in Mississippi : Civil rights as women's work : Breaking down barriers and mobilizing women, an exhibit Website","collection_id":"txh_wims","collection_title":"Wednesdays in Mississippi : Civil rights as women's work : Breaking down barriers and mobilizing women, an exhibit Website","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Illinois, 40.00032, -89.25037","United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036","United States, New York, 43.00035, -75.4999","United States, Southern States, 33.346678, -84.119434"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2006/2020"],"dcterms_description":["Wednesdays in Missisisppi is an online exhibit documenting the 1964 and 1965 program which brought Northern women into Mississippi to work with Freedom Summer and the Freedom Schools. Interracial and interfaith teams traveled to Mississippi on Tuesdays and returned on Thursdays. The program was organized by Dorothy Height and Polly Cowan under the umbrella of the National Council of Negro Women with the assistance of Susie Goodwillie and Doris Wilson. The exhibit includes newspaper articles, black-and-white photographs, pamphlets, biographies, interviews, letters, and a summary of experiences written by Polly Cowan after the first summer. The exhibit also includes a glossary listing and defining individuals, places, organizations, and terms used in the exhibit. In addition to describing and documenting race relations in the Northern states of New York and Illinois during the 1960s.","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":["National Council of Negro Women","Civil rights workers--Mississippi","Women civil rights workers--Mississippi","Women social reformers--Mississippi","Civil rights workers--United States","Women civil rights workers--United States","Women social reformers--United States","Segregation--Mississippi","Mississippi--Race relations--History--20th century","Race relations","Race discrimination--Mississippi","United States--Race relations--History--20th century","Southern States--Race relations--History--20th century","Segregation--Southern States","Race discrimination--Southern States","Race discrimination--United States","Racism--Mississippi","Racism--Southern States","Racism--United States","Discrimination in housing--United States","Discrimination in housing--Illinois","School integration--Massive resistance movement--Mississippi","African Americans--Violence against--Mississippi","School integration--United States","School integration--New York (State)--New York"],"dcterms_title":["Wednesdays in Mississippi : Civil rights as women's work : Breaking down barriers and mobilizing women, an exhibit Website"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage","Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of Houston"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://classweb.uh.edu/wims/"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["letters (correspondence)","articles","black-and-white photographs","pamphlets","reports","online exhibitions"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Height, Dorothy I. (Dorothy Irene), 1912-","Goodwillie, Susan, 1941-","Cowan, Polly, 1913-1976","Wilson, Doris, 1920-"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"ncpl_ncpedia_wilmington","title":"Wilmington Ten","collection_id":"ncpl_ncpedia","collection_title":"NCpedia","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, North Carolina, New Hanover County, Wilmington, 34.22573, -77.94471"],"dcterms_creator":["Graham, Nicholas"],"dc_date":["2006"],"dcterms_description":["Entry about African American civil rights in North Carolina."],"dc_format":null,"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African American civil rights workers--North Carolina","Civil rights movements--North Carolina","African Americans--Civil rights--North Carolina"],"dcterms_title":["Wilmington Ten"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["North Carolina. Division of State Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://ncpedia.org/wilmington-ten"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["articles"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"nge_ngen_lena-baker-case","title":"Lena Baker case","collection_id":"nge_ngen","collection_title":"New Georgia Encyclopedia","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, Tattnall County, Reidsville, 32.08686, -82.1179"],"dcterms_creator":["Phillips, Lela B., 1944-"],"dc_date":["2005-12-09"],"dcterms_description":["Encyclopedia article about the Lena Baker case. Lena Baker was the first and only woman to be executed in Georgia's electric chair. She was executed in 1945, after she was convicted of murdering a man who had imprisoned her. At the time of Baker's execution, the Georgia prison system was under scrutiny for reform. In August 2005 Baker was pardoned posthumously by the state Board of Pardons and Paroles. The board acknowledged that the 1945 decision to deny Baker clemency was \"a grievous error\" and that Baker could have been charged with the lesser crime of voluntary manslaughter, which would have prevented the sentence of capital punishment.","GSE identifier: SS8H10"],"dc_format":["text/html"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of the New Georgia Encyclopedia."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Forms part of the New Georgia Encyclopedia."],"dcterms_subject":["Capital punishment","Female offenders--Georgia--Reidsville","Women murderers--Georgia--Reidsville","Death row inmates--Georgia--Reidsville","Prisoners--Georgia--Reidsville","Women prisoners--Georgia--Reidsville","Electrocution--Georgia--Reidsville","Women death row inmates--Georgia--Reidsville","Crime and race--Georgia","Criminal justice, Administration of--Georgia","Discrimination in criminal justice administration--Georgia"],"dcterms_title":["Lena Baker case"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["New Georgia Encyclopedia (Project)"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/history-archaeology/lena-baker-case/"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":["Cite as: \"ARTICLE TITLE,\" New Georgia Encyclopedia. Retrieved [date]: http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org."],"dlg_local_right":["If you wish to use content from the NGE site for commercial use, publication, or any purpose other than fair use as defined by law, you must request and receive written permission from the NGE. Such requests may be directed to: Permissions/NGE, University of Georgia Press, 330 Research Drive, Athens, GA 30602."],"dcterms_medium":["articles"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Baker, Lena, 1900-1945"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1408","title":"\"2005-06 Enrollment and Racial Composition of the Pulaski County Special School District,\" Office of Desegregation and Monitoring","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dc_date":["2005-12-07"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School enrollment","School integration","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["\"2005-06 Enrollment and Racial Composition of the Pulaski County Special School District,\" Office of Desegregation and Monitoring"],"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/1408"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["100 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_69","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool","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"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2005-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"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/69"],"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\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant\nArkansas DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 SfATE CAPITOL MALL  LITLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (SOI) 682-4475  http://arkedu.state.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Commissioner of Education December 22, 2005 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III RECEIVED JAN 3 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of December 2005 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, oo'FI O ~ ~~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - Dr. Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia, Vice Chair - Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff Members: *Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro *Shelby Hillman, Carlisle* Dr. Calvin King, Marianna *Randy Lawson, Bentonville *MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock *Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for December 2005. Respectfully Submitted, g'H 2:-h,,_ Scott Smitfi\nBaf'i 92251 General Counsel, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on December 22, 2005, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENOR$ KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENOR$ ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 Based on the information availaole at Novemoer 30, 2005, the' ADE calculated the State Fo~ndation Funding for FY 05/06 sub'ect to eriodic ad'ustments B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 On November 30 2005 aistributions of State Founaation Funding for FY 05/06 were as follows RSD - $23,333,628 NLRSD -$12,150,580 PCSSD - $20 208 384 Jhe allotments of State Foundation Funding calculated for FY 05/06 at November ~O 2005 subject to eriodic adjustments, were as allows~ LRSD - $64,167,477. NLRSD - $33,414,099 PCSSD - $55,573 06 D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at November 30, for fY 05/06 sub\"ect to periodic adjustments. E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal SeNices Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 005 ntly the Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 Based on the information available, the ADE calculatei:I at November 30, 200 for FY 05/06 subject to Qeriodic adjustmentsf G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of December 31 , 2005 Distributions for FY 05/06 at November 30, 2005, totaled $5,082,872. Allotmen ~alcul9ted for FY 05/06 was $13 977,904 subject to eriodic ad\"ustments H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of December 31 , 2005 Calculated for FY 04/05, subject to periodic adjustments. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 istributions ot FY 05/0-6 at ovemoer 30 2005 were RSD - $1,21 ,45 t,ILRSD - $1,209,561 PCSSD - $3 240 288 uhe allotments 05/06 at November 30 2005 sub\"ectto adjustments, w RSD - $4,048,176 NLRSD-$4,031,872 CS_SD,\n_$10,800,964 IC J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing , December of each year. 2. Actual as of December 31 , 2005 In September 2002, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 02/03 were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. K. The Coordinator of School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing , annually. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 In March 2005, General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 04/05 to the Districts. In October 2005, General Finance was notified to pay ttie third one-third payment for FY 04/05 to the Districts. In October 2005, General Finance w~notified to P-aY. the first one-third ~yment fm\nFY 05/06 to the Districts. It should be noted that the Transportation Coordinator is currently performing this function instead of Reginald Wilson as indicated in the Implementation Plan. 4 FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 In March 2005, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 04/05 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At March 2005, the following had been paid for FY 04/05: LRSD - $2,650,087.34 NLRSD - $550,666.66 PCSSD - $1,690,442.44 In Novemoer 2005, General Finance made t e last one-thira payment to the Districts for their FY 04/05 transP.ortation budget. The budget is now P.aid out in three egual installments RSD - $4, 1 3, 06.00 NLRSD -$834,966.13 PCSSD - $2J884,201.56 aia for FY 04/05 In November 2005, General-Finance made the first one-thira payment to the pistricts for their FY 05/06 transportation budget. The budget is now P.aid out in three equal installments At November 2005 tlie following had bee LRSD- $1,415,633.33 ~LRSD -$284,716.52 PCSSD - $974,126.58 M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. In July 1998, each district was asked to submit an estimated budget for the 98/99 school year. In September 1998, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 98/99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998 In July 1999, each district submitted an estimated budget for the 99/00 school year. In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99/00 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2000, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 00/01 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2001, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 01/02 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2002, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 02/03 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2003, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 03/04 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2004, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 04/05 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In October 2005, P._aperwork was generated for tlie f!rst P..ayment i tlie 05/0(! ~ch6Q!..year for the Magnet and M-to-M fransQortation J:Qgram N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) In FY 94/95, the State purchased 52 buses at a cost of $1,799,431 which were added to or replaced existing Magnet and M-to-M buses in the Districts. The buses were distributed to the Districts as follows: LRSD - 32\nNLRSD - 6\nand PCSSD - 14. The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD - 12. In May 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. In July 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $624,879. In July 1998, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $695,235. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD- 6. Specifications for 16 school buses have been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. In July 1999, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $718,355. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD-6. In July 2000, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $724,165. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD -6. The bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was let by State Purchasing on February 22, 2001. The contract was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include two 47 passenger buses for $43,426.00 each and fourteen 65 passenger buses for $44,289.00 each. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 2 of the 47 passenger and 4 of the 65 passenger buses. On August 2, 2001, the ADE took possession of 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $706,898. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued} In June 2002, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include five 47 passenger buses for $42,155.00 each, ten 65 passenger buses for $43,850.00 each, and one 47 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $46,952.00. The total amount was $696,227. In August of 2002, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $696,227. In June 2003, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include 5 - 47 passenger buses for $47,052.00 each, and 11 - 65 passenger buses for $48,895.00 each. The total amount was $773,105. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 5 of the 47 passenger and 1 of the 65 passenger buses. In June 2004, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The price for the buses was $49,380 each for a total cost of $790,080. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8, NLRSD - 2, and PCSSD - 6. In June 2005, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $52,135.00, and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $53,150.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The total amount was $849,385.00. 0. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of December 31 , 2005 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Q . Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 Final payment was distributed July 1994. R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 10, 1998. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,000,000 in loan proceeds. S. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 9 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS {Continued) T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 04/05. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 05/06. 10 1. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 04/05. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 05/06. 11 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 In May 1995, monitors completed the unannounced visits of schools in Pulaski County. The monitoring process involved a qualitative process of document reviews, interviews, and observations. The monitoring focused on progress made since the announced monitoring visits. In June 1995, monitoring data from unannounced visits was included in the July Semiannual Report. Twenty-five per cent of all classrooms were visited, and all of the schools in Pulaski County were monitored. All principals were interviewed to determine any additional progress since the announced visits. The July 1995 Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team, the Arkansas State Board of Education, and the Districts and filed with the Court. The report was formatted in accordance with the Allen Letter. In October 1995, a common terminology was developed by principals from the Districts and the Lead Planning and Desegregation staff to facilitate the monitoring process. The announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995 and were completed on January 26, 1996. Copies of the preliminary Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the ADE administrative team and the State Board of Education in January 1996. A report on the current status of the Cycle 5 schools in the ECOE process and their school improvement plans was filed with the Court on February 1, 1996. The unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1996 and ended on May 10, 1996. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Districts provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a definition for instructional programs. 12 II. MONITORING COMP EN SA TORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and concluded in December 1996. In January 1997, presentations were made to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties to review the draft Semiannual Monitoring Report. The monitoring instrument and process were evaluated for their usefulness in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on achievement disparities. In February 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed. Unannounced monitoring visits began on February 3, 1997 and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data element that was  requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation data collection workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized in June 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available to the Districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97/98. 13 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, technical review recommendations, and consensus building. Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education, the Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process, external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives of all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled. Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. 14 JI. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b) the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment {SAT-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with (1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. 15 11. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCSSD regarding test score analysis and staff Development. Oak Grove is scheduled for January 21, 1999 and Lawson Elementary is also tentatively scheduled in January. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD has been rescheduled for April 2000. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5, 2000 and May 9, 2000 respectively. Staff development regarding classroom management was provided to the Franklin Elementary School in LRSD on November 8, 2000. Staff development regarding ways to improve academic achievement was presented to College Station Elementary in PCSSD on November 22, 2000. On November 1, 2000, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Director for Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and discussed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for February 27, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group meeting that was scheduled for February 27 had to be postponed. It will be rescheduled as soon as possible. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2001. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from June 27. It will take place on July 26, 2001 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 16 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION {Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. {Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 {Continued) On July 26, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 11, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 11, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the ADE's intent to take a proactive role in Desegregation Monitoring. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting that was scheduled for January 10 was postponed. It has been rescheduled for February 14, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On February 12, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 11, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. 17 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION {Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. {Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 {Continued) On July 18, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, talked about section XV in the Project Management Tool {PMT) on Standardized Test Selection to Determine Loan Forgiveness. She said that the goal has been completed, and no additional reporting is required for section XV. Mr. Morris discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. He handed out a Court Order from May 9, 2002, which contained comments from U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., about hearings on the LRSD request for unitary status. Mr. Morris also handed out a document from the Secretary of Education about the No Child Left Behind Act. There was discussion about how this could have an affect on Desegregation issues. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 10, 2002 at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from October 10. It will take place on October 29, 2002 in room 201-A at 1:30 p.m. at the ADE. On October 29, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Meetings with the parties to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan will be postponed by request of the school districts in Pulaski County. Additional meetings could be scheduled afterthe Desegregation ruling is finalized. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 9, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On January 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. No Child Left Behind and the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD were discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201- A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from April 10. It will take place on April 24, 2003 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 18 11. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) On April 24, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Laws passed by the legislature need to be checked to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Ray Lumpkin was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he left, we will discuss the legislation with Clearance Lovell. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2003 at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On August 28, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The LRSD has been instructed to submit evidence showing progress in reducing disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. This is supposed to be done by March of 2004, so that the LRSD can achieve unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 9, 2003 at the ADE. On October 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 8, 2004 at the ADE. On October 16, 2003, ADE staff met with the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee at the State Capitol. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, presented the Chronology of activity by the ADE in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan for the Desegregation Settlement Agreement. They also discussed the role of the ADE Desegregation Monitoring Section. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, reported on legal issues relating to the Pulaski County Desegregation Case. Ann Marshall shared a history of activities by ODM, and their view of the activity of the school districts in Pulaski County. John Kunkel discussed Desegregation funding by the ADE. 19 IL MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) On November 4, 2004, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The ADE is required to check laws that the legislature passes to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Clearence Lovell was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he has retired, the ADE attorney will find out who will be checking the next legislation. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 6, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On May 3, 2005, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The PCSSD has petitioned to be released from some desegregation monitoring. There was discussion in the last legislative session that suggested all three districts in Pulaski County should seek unitary status. Legislators also discussed the possibility of having two school districts in Pulaski County instead of three. An Act was passed by the Legislature to conduct a feasability study of having only a north school district and a south school district in Pulaski County. Removing Jacksonville from the PCSSD is also being studied. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 7, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 20 Ill. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 Ongoing. All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. B. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 21 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 8. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 The information for this item is detailed'under Section IV.E. of this report. C. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 22 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 A committee within the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identified by the parties as impediments to desegregation. The committee researched the Districts' concerns to determine if any of the rules, regulations, or legislation cited impede desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and worker's compensation were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes, acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17- 1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation.  As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 81 st Legislative Session will be reviewed at the close of the legislative session to ensure that they do not impede desegregation. In April 1997, copies of all laws passed during the 1997 Regular Session of the 81st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. 23 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION {Continued} E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. {Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 {Continued) On September 9, 1997, a meeting was held to discuss the review of the statutes passed in the prior legislative session and new ADE regulations. The Districts will be contacted in writing for their input regarding any new laws or regulations that they feel may impede desegregation. Additionally, the Districts will be asked to review their regulations to ensure that they do not impede their desegregation efforts. The committee will convene on December 1, 1997 to reviewtheirfindings and finalize their report to the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. In October 1997, the Districts were asked to review new regulations and statutes for impediments to their desegregation efforts, and advise the ADE, in writing, if they feel a regulation or statute may impede their desegregation efforts. In October 1997, the Districts were requested to advise the ADE, in writing, no later than November 1, 1997 of any new law that might impede their desegregation efforts. As of November 12, 1997, no written responses were received from the Districts. The ADE concludes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation is now reviewing proposed bills and regulations, as well as laws that are being signed in, for the current 1999 legislative session. They will continue to do so until the session is over. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation will meet on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The committee met on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The purpose of the meeting was to identify rules and regulations that might impede desegregation, and review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. This is a standing committee that is ongoing and a report will be submitted to the State Board of Education once the process is completed. 24 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued} E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) The committee met on May 24, 1999 at the ADE. The committee was asked to review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. The committee determined that Mr. Ray Lumpkin would contact the Pulaski County districts to request written response to any rules, regulations or laws that might impede desegregation. The committee would also collect information and data to prepare a report for the State Board. This will be a standing committee. This data gathering will be ongoing until the final report is given to the State Board. On July 26, 1999, the committee met at the ADE. The committee did not report any laws or regulations that they currently thought would impede desegregation, and are still waiting for a response from the three districts in Pulaski County. The committee met on August 30, 1999 at the ADE to review rules and regulations that might impede desegregation. At that time, there were no laws under review that appeared to impede desegregation. In November, the three districts sent letters to the ADE stating that they have reviewed the laws passed by the 82nd legislative session as well as current rules \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts. There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter school proposal in the Maumelle area. The work of the committee is on-going each month depending on the information that comes before the committee. Any rules, laws or regulations that would impede desegregation will be discussed and reported to the State Board of Education. On October 4, 2000, the ADE presented staff development for assistant superintendents in LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD regarding school laws of Arkansas. The ADE is in the process of forming a committee to review all Rules and Regulations from the ADE and State Laws that might impede desegregation. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will review all new laws that might impede desegregation once the 83rd General Assembly has completed this session. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will meet for the first time on June 11, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in room 204-A at the ADE. The committee will review all new laws that might impede desegregation that were passed during the 2001 Legislative Session. 25 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued} 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued} The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations rescheduled the meeting that was planned for June 11, in order to review new regulations proposed to the State Board of Education. The meeting will take place on July 16, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on July 16, 2001 at the ADE. The following Items were discussed: (1) Review of 2001 state laws which appear to impede desegregation. (2) Review of existing ADE regulations which appear to impede desegregation. (3) Report any laws or regulations found to impede desegregation to the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts. The next meeting will take place on August 27, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on August 27, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on September 10, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on September 10, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on October 24, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on October 24, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. On December 17, 2001, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation composed letters that will be sent to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. Laws to review include those of the 83rd General Assembly, ADE regulations, and regulations of the Districts. 26 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) On January 10, 2002, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to respond by March 8, 2002. On March 5, 2002, A letter was sent from the LRSD which mentioned Act 1748 and Act 1667 passed during the 83rd Legislative Session which may impede desegregation. These laws will be researched to determine if changes need to be made. A letter was sent from the NLRSD on March 19, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation. On April 26, 2002, A letter was sent for the PCSSD to the ADE, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation except the \"deannexation\" legislation which the District opposed before the Senate committee. On October 27, 2003, the ADE sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County asking if there were any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to review laws passed during the 84th Legislative Session, any new ADE rules or regulations, and district policies. 27 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. B. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of December 31 , 2005 Ongoing C. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of December 31 , 2005 Ongoing D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 28 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 At each regular monthly meeting of the State Board of Education, the Board is provided copies of the most recent Project Management Tool (PMT) and an executive summary of the PMT for their review and approval. Only activities that are in addition to the Board's monthly review of the PMT are detailed below. In May 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the total number of schools visited during the monitoring phase and the data collection process. Suggestions were presented to the State Board of Education on how recommendations could be presented in the monitoring reports. In June 1995, an update on the status of the pending Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the State Board of Education. In July 1995, the July Semiannual Monitoring Report was reviewed by the State Board of Education. On August 14, 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the need to increase minority participation in the teacher scholarship program and provided tentative monitoring dates to facilitate reporting requests by the ADE administrative team and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In September 1995, the State Board of Education was advised of a change in the PMT from a table format to a narrative format. The Board was also briefed about a meeting with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the PMT. In October 1995, the State Board of Education was updated on monitoring timelines. The Board was also informed of a meeting with the parties regarding a review of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and the monitoring process, and the progress of the test validation study. In November 1995, a report was made to the State Board of Education regarding the monitoring schedule and a meeting with the parties concerning the development of a common terminology for monitoring purposes. In December 1995, the State Board of Education was updated regarding announced monitoring visits. In January 1996, copies of the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the State Board of Education. 29 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31 , 2005 (Continued) During the months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the ADE's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 30 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regularoversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the ADE's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 31 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31 , 2005 (Continued) In June 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also reviewed how the ADE would report progress in the PMT concerning revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In July 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also received an update on Test Validation, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee Meeting, and revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In August 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the five discussion points regarding the proposed revisions to the monitoring and reporting process. The Board also reviewed the basic goal of the Minority Recruitment Committee. In September 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed the proposed modifications to the Monitoring plans by reviewing the common core of written response received from the districts. The primary commonalities were (1) Staff Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998. The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. In October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII). The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation monitoring Process and the update on Test validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its quarterly meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lntervenors filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 32 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion of the ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD for an order relieving the ADE of filing a February 1999 Monitoring Report. The motion was granted subject to the following three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua intervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement. In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was informed that the three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua lntervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied. The Joshua lntervenors were invited again to attend the meeting of the parties and they attended on January 13, and January 28, 1999. They are also scheduled to attend on February 17, 1998. The report of progress, a collaborative effort from all parties was presented to court on February 1, 1999. The Board was also informed that additional items were received for inclusion in the revised report, after the deadline for the submission of the progress report and the ADE would: (1) check them for feasibility, and fiscal impact if any, and (2) include the items in future drafts of the report. In March, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received and reviewed the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report submitted to Court on February 1, 1999. On April 12, and May 10, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On June 14, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 33 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMTand its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On August 9, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On September 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On October 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was notified that on September 21, 1999 that the Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation Monitoring meet before the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee and presented them with the draft version of the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The State Board was notified that the plan would be submitted for Board review and approval when finalized. On November 8, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 34 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) On May 8, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. 35 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) On July 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 19, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 13, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 10, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 12, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. 36 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regularoversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) On September 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 18, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 14, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 12, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 9, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 11, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 8, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. 37 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES {Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. {Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 {Continued) On January 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 10, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month. of April. On June 14, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 11, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and December. On February 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 11, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 38 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) On May 9, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 13, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 11, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 8, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 12, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. 39 VI. REMEDIATION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 During May 1995, team visits to Cycle 4 schools were conducted, and plans were developed for reviewing the Cycle 5 schools. In June 1995, the current Extended COE packet was reviewed, and enhancements to the Extended COE packet were prepared. In July 1995, year end reports were finalized by the Pulaski County field service specialists, and plans were finalized for reviewing the draft improvement plans of the Cycle 5 schools. In August 1995, Phase I - Cycle 5 school improvement plans were reviewed. Plans were developed for meeting with the Districts to discuss plans for Phase II - Cycle 1 schools of Extended COE, and a school improvement conference was conducted in Hot Springs. The technical review visits for the FY 95/96 year and the documentation process were also discussed. In October 1995, two computer programs, the Effective Schools Planner and the Effective Schools Research Assistant, were ordered for review, and the first draft of a monitoring checklist for Extended COE was developed. Through the Extended COE process, the field service representatives provided technical assistance based on the needs identified within the Districts from the data gathered. In November 1995, ADE personnel discussed and planned for the FY 95/96 monitoring, and onsite visits were conducted to prepare schools for the FY 95/96 team visits. Technical review visits continued in the Districts. In December 1995, announced monitoring and technical assistance visits were conducted in the Districts. At December 31, 1995, approximately 59% of the schools in the Districts had been monitored. Technical review visits were conducted during January 1996. In February 1996, announced monitoring visits and midyear monitoring reports were completed, and the field service specialists prepared for the spring NCA/COE peer team visits. 40 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued} A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) In March 1996, unannounced monitoring visits of Cycle 5 schools commenced, and two-day peer team visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Two-day team visit materials, team lists and reports were prepared. Technical assistance was provided to schools in final preparation for team visits and to schools needing any school improvement information. In April and May 1996, the unannounced monitoring visits were completed. The unannounced monitoring forms were reviewed and included in the July monitoring report. The two-day peer team visits were completed, and annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools were completed, and the data was analyzed. The Districts identified enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996, and copies were distributed to the parties. During August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts to discuss the monitoring requirements. Technical assistance meetings with Cycle 1 schools were planned for 96/97. The Districts were requested to record discipline data in accordance with the Allen Letter. In September 1996, recommendations regarding the ADE monitoring schedule for Cycle 1 schools and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed and schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools. In October 1996, technical assistance needs were identified and addressed to prepare each school for their team visits. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996. In December 1996, the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools were completed, and technical assistance needs were identified from school site visits. In January 1997, the ECOE monitoring section identified technical assistance needs of the Cycle 1 schools, and the data was reviewed when the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, the State Board of Education, and the parties. 41 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) In February 1997, field service specialists prepared for the peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools. NCA accreditation reports were presented to the NCA Committee, and NCA reports were prepared for presentation at the April NCA meeting in Chicago. From March to May 1997, 111 visits were made to schools or central offices to work with principals, ECOE steering committees, and designated district personnel concerning school improvement planning. A workshop was conducted on Learning Styles for Geyer Springs Elementary School. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 15-17, 1997. The conference included information on the process of continuous school improvement, results of the first five years of COE, connecting the mission with the school improvement plan, and improving academic performance. Technical assistance needs were evaluated for the FY 97/98 school year in August 1997. From October 1997 to February 1998, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives. Technical assistance was provided to the Districts through meetings with the ECOE steering committees, assistance in analyzing perceptual surveys, and by providing samples of school improvement plans, Gold File catalogs, and web site addresses to schools visited. Additional technical assistance was provided to the Districts through discussions with the ECOE committees and chairs about the process. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives in conjunction with the announced monitoring visits. Workshops on brainstorming and consensus building and asking strategic questions were held in January and February 1998. In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NCA workshop. Technical assistance was provided in workshops on the ECOE process and team visits. In April 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process and academically distressed schools. In May 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process, and team visits were conducted . 42 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued} 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Learning, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher,  class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 43 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) D. 2. Actual as of December 31 , 2005 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas.   1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of December 31 , 2005 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. E. Solicit, obtain, and use available resources for technical assistance. , 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of December 31 , 2005 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 44 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 From March 1995 through July 1995, technical assistance and resources were obtained from the following sources: the Southwest Regional Cooperative\nUALR regarding training for monitors\nODM on a project management software\nADHE regarding data review and display\nand Phi Delta Kappa, the Desegregation Assistance Center and the Dawson Cooperative regarding perceptual surveys. Technical assistance was received on the Microsoft Project software in November 1995, and a draft of the PMT report using the new software package was presented to the ADE administrative team for review. In December 1995, a data manager was hired permanently to provide technical assistance with computer software and hardware. In October 1996, the field service specialists conducted workshops in the Districts to address their technical assistance needs and provided assistance for upcoming team visits. In November and December 1996, the field service specialists addressed technical assistance needs of the schools in the Districts as they were identified and continued to provide technical assistance for the upcoming team visits. In January 1997, a draft of the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties. The ECOE monitoring section of the report included information that identified technical assistance needs and resources available to the Cycle 1 schools. Technical assistance was provided during the January 29-31, 1997 Title I MidWinter Conference. The conference emphasized creating a learning community by building capacity schools to better serve all children and empowering parents to acquire additional skills and knowledge to better support the education of their children. In February 1997, three ADE employees attended the Southeast Regional Conference on Educating Black Children. Participants received training from national experts who outlined specific steps that promote and improve the education of black children. 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) On March 6-9, 1997, three members of the ADE's Technical Assistance Section attended the National Committee for School Desegregation Conference. The participants received training in strategies for Excellence and Equity: Empowerment and Training for the Future. Specific information was received regarding the current status of court-ordered desegregation, unitary status, and resegregation and distributed to the Districts and ADE personnel. The field service specialists attended workshops in March on ACT testing and school improvement to identify technical assistance resources available to the Districts and the ADE that will facilitate desegregation efforts. ADE personnel attended the Eighth Annual Conference on Middle Level Education in Arkansas presented by the Arkansas Association of Middle Level Education on April 6-8, 1997. The theme of the conference was Sailing Toward New Horizons. In May 1997, the field service specialists attended the NCA annual conference and an inservice session with Mutiu Fagbayi. An Implementation Oversight Committee member participated in the Consolidated COE Plan inservice training. In June and July 1997, field service staff attended an SAT-9 testing workshop and participated in the three-day School Improvement Conference held in Hot Springs. The conference provided the Districts with information on the COE school improvement process, technical assistance on monitoring and assessing achievement, availability of technology for the classroom teacher, and teaching strategies for successful student achievement. In August 1997, field service personnel attended the ASCD Statewide Conference and the AAEA Administrators Conference. On August 18, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held and presentations were made on the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) program and the Schools of the 21st Century program. In September 1997, technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals on data collection for onsite and offsite monitoring. ADE personnel attended the Region VI Desegregation Conference in October 1997. Current desegregation and educational equity cases and unitary status issues were the primary focus of the conference. On October 14, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held in Paragould to enable members to observe a 21st Century school and a school that incorporates traditional and multi-age classes in its curriculum. 46 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) In November 1997, the field service representatives attended the Governor's Partnership Workshop to discuss how to tie the committee's activities with the ECOE process. In March 1998, the field service representatives attended a school improvement conference and conducted workshops on team building and ECOE team visits. Staff development seminars on Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement are scheduled for March 23, 1998 and March 27, 1998 for the Districts. In April 1998, the Districts participated in an ADE seminar to aid them in evaluating and improving student achievement. In August 1998, the Field Service Staff attended inservice to provide further assistance to schools, i.e., Title I Summer Planning Session, ADE session on Smart Start, and the School Improvement Workshops. All schools and districts in Pulaski County were invited to attend the \"Smart Start\" Summit November 9, 10, and 11 to learn more about strategies to increase student performance. \"Smart Start\" is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. Representatives from all three districts attended. On January 21, 1998, the ADE provided staff development for the staff at Oak Grove Elementary School designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement. Using achievement data from Oak Grove, educators reviewed trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. On February 24, 1999, the ADE provided staff development for the administrative staff at Clinton Elementary School regarding analysis of achievement data. On February 15, 1999, staff development was rescheduled for Lawson Elementary School. The staff development program was designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement using achievement data from Lawson, educators reviewed the components of the Arkansas Smart Initiative, trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. Student Achievement Workshops were rescheduled for Southwest Jr. High in the Little Rock School District, and the Oak Grove Elementary School in the Pulaski County School District. 47 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) On April 30, 1999, a Student Achievement Workshop was conducted for Oak Grove Elementary School in PCSSD. The Student Achievement Workshop for Southwest Jr. High in LRSD has been rescheduled. On June 8, 1999, a workshop was presented to representatives from each of the Arkansas Education Service Cooperatives and representatives from each of the three districts in Pulaski County. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On June 18, 1999, a workshop was presented to administrators of the NLRSD. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On August 16, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Learning Center in the LRSD. On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program were presented  to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LRSD personnel through a staff development training class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) On January 10, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for both Dr. Martin Luther King Magnet Elementary School \u0026amp; Little Rock Central High School. The workshops also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. Targeted staffs from the middle and junior high schools in the three districts in Pulaski County attended the Smart Step Summit on May 1 and May 2. Training was provided regarding the overview of the \"Smart Step\" initiative, \"Standard and Accountability in Action,\" and \"Creating Learning Environments Through Leadership Teams.\" The ADE provided training on the development of alternative assessment September 12-13, 2000. Information was provided regarding the assessment of Special Education and LEP students. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate in professional development regarding Integrating Curriculum and Assessment K-12. The professional development activity was directed by the national consultant, Dr. Heidi Hays Jacobs, on September 14 and 15, 2000. The ADE provided professional development workshops from October 2 through October 13, 2000 regarding, \"The Write Stuff: Curriculum Frameworks, Content Standards and Item Development.\" Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems by video conference for Special Education and LEP Teachers on November 17, 2000. Also, Alternative Assessment Portfolio System Training was provided for testing coordinators through teleconference broadcast on November 27, 2000. 49 VJ. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. {Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 {Continued) On December 12, 2000, the ADE provided training for Test Coordinators on end of course assessments in Geometry and Algebra I Pilot examination. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation conducted the professional development at the Arkansas Teacher Retirement Building. The ADE presented a one-day training session with Dr. Cecil Reynolds on the Behavior Assessment for Children {BASC). This took place on December 7, 2000 at the NLRSD Administrative Annex. Dr. Reynolds is a practicing clinical psychologist. He is also a professor at Texas A \u0026amp; M University and a nationally known author. In the training, Dr. Reynolds addressed the following: 1) how to use and interpret information obtained on the direct observation form, 2) how to use this information for programming, 3) when to use the BASC, 4) when to refer for more or additional testing or evaluation, 5) who should complete the forms and when, {i.e., parents, teachers, students), 6) how to correctly interpret scores. This training was intended to especially benefit School Psychology Specialists, psychologists, psychological examiners, educational examiners and counselors. During January 22-26, 2001 the ADE presented the ACTAAP Intermediate {Grade 6) Benchmark Professional Development Workshop on Item Writing. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were invited to attend. On January 12, 2001 the ADE presented test administrators training for mid-year End of Course {Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. On January 13, 2001 the ADE presented SmartScience Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This was shared with eight Master Teachers. The SmartScience Lessons were developed by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association in conjunction with the Wilbur Mills Educational Cooperative under an Eisenhower grant provided by the ADE. The purpose of SmartScience is to provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. The following training has been provided for educators in the three districts in Pulaski County by the Division of Special Education at the ADE since January 2000: On January 6, 2000, training was conducted for the Shannon Hills Pre-school Program, entitled \"Things you can do at home to support your child's learning.\" This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. The school's director and seven parents attended. 50 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. {Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 {Continued) On March 8, 2000, training was conducted for the Southwest Middle School in Little Rock, on ADD. Six people attended the training. There was follow-up training on Learning and Reading Styles on March 26. This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. On September 7, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Chicot Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Karen Sabo, Kindergarten Teacher\nMelissa Gleason, Paraprofessional\nCurtis Mayfield, P.E. Teacher\nLisa Poteet, Speech Language Pathologist\nJane Harkey, Principal\nKathy Penn-Norman, Special Education Coordinator\nAlice Phillips, Occupational Therapist. On September 15, 2000, the Governor's Developmental Disability Coalition Conference presented Assistive Technology Devices \u0026amp; Services. This was held at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On September 19, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Jefferson Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Melissa Chaney, Special Education Teacher\nBarbara Barnes, Special Education Coordinator\na Principal, a Counselor, a Librarian, and a Paraprofessional. On October 6, 2000, Integrating Assistive Technology Into Curriculum was presented at a conference in the Hot Springs Convention Center. Presenters were: Bryan Ayers and Aleecia Starkey. Speech Language Pathologists from LRSD and NLRSD attended. On October 24, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On October 25 and 26, 2000, Alternate Assessment for Students with Severe Disabilities for the LRSD at J. A. Fair High School was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. The participants were: Susan Chapman, Special Education Coordinator\nMary Steele, Special Education Teacher\nDenise Nesbit, Speech Language Pathologist\nand three Paraprofessionals. On November 14, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference atthe ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On November 17, 2000, training was conducted on Autism for the LRSD at the Instructional Resource Center. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. 51 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) On December 5, 2000, Access to the Curriculum Via the use of Assistive Technology Computer Lab was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter of this teleconference. The participants were: Tim Fisk, Speech Language Pathologist from Arch Ford Education Service Cooperative at Plumerville and Patsy Lewis, Special Education Teacher from Mabelvale Middle School in the LRSD. On January 9, 2001, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. Kathy Brown, a vision consultant from the LRSD, was a participant. On January 23, 2001, Autism and Classroom Modifications for the LRSD at Brady Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Beverly Cook, Special Education Teacher\nAmy Littrell, Speech Language Pathologist\nJan Feurig, Occupational Therapist\nCarolyn James, Paraprofessional\nCindy Kackly, Paraprofessional\nand Rita Deloney, Paraprofessional. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcast on February 5, 2001. Presenters were: Charlotte Marvel, ADE\nDr. Gayle Potter, ADE\nMarcia Harding, ADE\nLynn Springfield, ASERC\nMary Steele, J. A. Fair High School, LRSD\nBryan Ayres, Easter Seals Outreach. This was provided for Special Education teachers and supervisors in the morning, and Limited English Proficient teachers and supervisors in the afternoon. The Special Education session was attended by 29 teachers/administrators and provided answers to specific questions about the alternate assessment portfolio system and the scoring rubric and points on the rubric to be used to score the portfolios. The LEP session was attended by 16 teachers/administrators and disseminated the common tasks to be included in the portfolios: one each in mathematics, writing and reading. On February 12-23, 2001, the ADE and Data Recognition Corporation personnel trained Test Coordinators in the administration of the spring Criterion-Referenced Test. This was provided in 20 sessions at 10 regional sites. Testing protocol, released items, and other testing materials were presented and discussed. The sessions provided training for Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Pilot Tests. The LRSD had 2 in attendance for the End of Course session and 2 for the Benchmark session. The NLRSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. The PCSSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. 52 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) On March 15, 2001, there was a meeting at the ADE to plan professional development for staff who work with Limited English Proficiency {LEP) students. A $30,000 grant has been created to provide LEP training at Chicot Elementary for a year, starting in April 2001. A $40,000 grant was created to provide a Summer English as Second Language (ESL) Academy for the LRSD from June 18 through 29, 2001 . Andre Guerrero from the ADE Accountability section met with Karen Broadnax, ESL Coordinator at LRSD, Pat Price, Early Childhood Curriculum Supervisor at LRSD, and Jane Harkey, Prfncipal of Chicot Elementary. On March 1-2 and 8-29, 2001, ADE staff performed the following activities: processed registration for April 2 and 3 Alternate Portfolio Assessment video conference quarterly meeting\nanswered questions about Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) and LEP Alternate Portfolio Assessment by phone from schools and Education Service Cooperatives\nand signed up students for alternate portfolio assessment from sch_ool districts. On March 6, 2001, ADE staff attended a Smart Step Technology Leadership Conference at the State House Convention Center. On March 7, 2001, ADE staff attended a National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Regional Math Framework Meeting about the Consensus Project 2004. On March 8, 2001 , there was a one-on-one conference with Carole Villarreal from Pulaski County at the ADE about the LEP students with portfolios. She was given pertinent data, including all the materials that have been given out at the video conferences. The conference lasted for at least an hour. On March 14, 2001, a Test Administrator's Training Session was presented specifically to LRSD Test Coordinators and Principals. About 60 LRSD personnel attended. The following meetings have been conducted with educators in the three districts in Pulaski County since July 2000. On July 10-13, 2000 the ADE provided Smart Step training. The sessions covered Standards-based classroom practices. 53 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) On July 19-21, 2000 the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were 200 teachers from across the state in attendance. On August 14-31, 2000 the ADE presented Science Smart Start Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This will provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. On September 5, 2000 the ADE held an Eisenhower Informational meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators. The purpose of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program is to prepare teachers, school staff, and administrators to help all students meet challenging standards in the core academic subjects. A summary of the program was presented at the meeting. On November 2-3, 2000 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching. This presented curriculum and activity workshops. More than 1200 attended the conference. On November 6, 2000 there was a review of Science Benchmarks and sample model curriculum. A committee of 6 reviewed and revised a drafted document. The committee was made up of ADE and K-8 teachers. On November 7-10, 2000 the ADE held a meeting of the Benchmark and End of Course Mathematics Content Area Committee. Classroom teachers reviewed items for grades 4, 6, 8 and EOC mathematics assessment. There were 60 participants. On December 4-8, 2000 the ADE conducted grades 4 and 8 Benchmark Scoring for Writing Assessment. This professional development was attended by approximately 750 teachers. On December 8, 2000 the ADE conducted Rubric development for Special Education Portfolio scoring. This was a meeting with special education supervisors to revise rubric and plan for scoring in June. On December 8, 2000 the ADE presented the Transition Mathematics Pilot Training Workshop. This provided follow-up training and activities for fourth-year mathematics professional development. On December 12, 2000 the ADE presented test administrators training for midyear End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. 54 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. {Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 {Continued) The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcasts on April 2-3, 2001. Administration of the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy took place on April 23-27, 2001. Administration of the End of Course Algebra and Geometry Exams took place on May 2-3, 2001. Over 1,100 Arkansas educators attended the Smart Step Growing Smarter Conference on July 10 and 11, 2001, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Step focuses on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The Smart Step effort seeks to provide intense professional development for teachers and administrators at the middle school level, as well as additional materials and assistance to the state's middle school teachers. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the first keynote address on \"The Character-Centered Teacher\". Debra Pickering, an education consultant from Denver, Colorado, presented the second keynote address on \"Characteristics of Middle Level Education\". Throughout the Smart Step conference, educators attended breakout sessions that were grade-specific and curriculum area-specific. Pat Davenport, an education consultant from Houston, Texas, delivered two addresses. She spoke on \"A Blueprint for Raising Student Achievement\". Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. Over 1,200 Arkansas teachers and administrators attended the Smart Start Conference on July 12, 2001, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Start is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the keynote address. The day featured a series of 15 breakout sessions on best classroom practices. Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. On July 18-20, 2001, the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were approximately 300 teachers from across the state in attendance. 55 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) The ADE and Harcourt Educational Measurement conducted Stanford 9 test administrator training from August 1-9, 2001. The training was held at Little Rock, Jonesboro, Fort Smith, Forrest City, Springdale, Mountain Home, Prescott, and Monticello. Another session was held at the ADE on August 30, for those who were unable to attend August 1-9. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by video conference at the Education Service Cooperatives and at the ADE from 9:00 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on September 5, 2001. The ADE released the performance of all schools on the Primary and Middle Level Benchmark Exams on September 5, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Core Teacher In-Service training for Central in the LRSD on September 6, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for Hall in the LRSD on September 7, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for McClellan in the LRSD on September 13, 2001. The ADE conducted Basic Co-teaching training for the LRSD on October 9, 2001. The ADE conducted training on autism spectrum disorder for the PCSSD on October 15, 2001. Professional Development workshops (1 day in length) in scoring End of Course assessments in algebra, geometry and reading were provided for all districts in the state. Each school was invited to send three representatives (one for each of the sessions). LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD participated. Information and training materials pertaining to the Alternate Portfolio Assessment were provided to all districts in the state and were supplied as requested to LRSD, PCSSD and David 0. Dodd Elementary. On November 1-2, 2001 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching at the Excelsior Hotel \u0026amp; Statehouse Convention Center. This presented sessions, workshops and short courses to promote exceptional teaching and learning. Educators could become involved in integrated math, science, English \u0026amp; language arts and social studies learning. The ADE received from the schools selected to participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a list of students who will take the test. 56 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) On December 3-7, 2001 the ADE conducted grade 6 Benchmark scoring training for reading and math. Each school district was invited to send a math and a reading specialist. The training was held at the Holiday Inn Airport in Little Rock. On December 4 and 6, 2001 the ADE conducted Mid-Year Test Administrator Training for Algebra and Geometry. This was held at the Arkansas Activities Association's conference room in North Little Rock. On January 24, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by ADE compressed video with Fred Jones presenting. On January 31, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by NSCI satellite with Fred Jones presenting. On February 7, 2002, the ADE Smart Step co-sponsored the AR Association of Middle Level Principal's/ADE curriculum, assessment and instruction workshop with Bena Kallick presenting. On February 11-21, 2002, the ADE provided training for Test Administrators on the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Exams. The sessions took place at Forrest City, Jonesboro, Mountain Horne, Springdale, Fort Smith, Monticello, Prescott, Arkadelphia and Little Rock. A make-up training broadcast was given at 15 Educational Cooperative Video sites on February 22. During February 2002, the LRSD had two attendees for the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training. The NLRSD and PCSSD each had one attendee at the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by compressed interactive video at the South Central Education Service Cooperative from 9:30 a.rn. until 11 :30 a.rn. on May 2, 2002. Telecast topics included creating a standards-based classroom and a seven-step implementation plan. The principal's role in the process was explained. The ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by compressed interactive video at the South Central Education Service Cooperative from 9:30 a.rn. until 11 :30 a.m. on May 9, 2002. Telecast topics included creating a standards-based classroom and a seven-step implementation plan. The principal's role in the process was explained. 57 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) The Twenty-First Annual Curriculum and Instruction Conference, co-sponsored by the Arkansas Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development and the Arkansas Department of Education, will be held June 24-26, 2002, at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs, Arkansas. \"Ignite Your Enthusiasm for Leaming\" is the theme for this year's conference, which will feature educational consultant, Dr. Debbie Silver, as well as other very knowledgeable presenters. Additionally, there will be small group sessions on Curriculum Alignment, North Central Accreditation, Section 504, Building Level Assessment, Administrator Standards, Data Disaggregation, and National Board. The Educational Accountability Unit of the ADE hosted a workshop entitled \"Strategies for Increasing Achievement on the ACT AAP Benchmark Examination\" on June 13-14, 2002 at the Agora Center in Conway. The workshop was presented for schools in which 100% of students scored below the proficient level on one or more parts of the most recent Benchmark Examination. The agenda included presentations on \"The Plan-Do-Check-Act Instructional Cycle\" by the nationally known speaker Pat Davenport. ADE personnel provided an explanation of the MPH point program. Presentations were made by Math and Literacy Specialists. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, gave a presentation about ACTAAP. Break out sessions were held, in which school districts with high scores on the MPH point program offered strategies and insights into increasing student achievement. The NLRSD, LRSD, and PCSSD were invited to attend. The NLRSD attended the workshop. The Smart Start Summer Conference took place on July 8-9, 2002, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center and Peabody Hotel. The Smart Start Initiative focuses on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event included remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. After comments by the Director, Bena Kallick presented the ke\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\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\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 "}],"pages":{"current_page":278,"next_page":279,"prev_page":277,"total_pages":6766,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":3324,"total_count":81191,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"educator_resource_mediums_sms","items":[{"value":"lesson plans","hits":319},{"value":"teaching guides","hits":53},{"value":"timelines (chronologies)","hits":43},{"value":"online exhibitions","hits":38},{"value":"bibliographies","hits":15},{"value":"study guides","hits":11},{"value":"annotated bibliographies","hits":9},{"value":"learning modules","hits":6},{"value":"worksheets","hits":6},{"value":"slide shows","hits":4},{"value":"quizzes","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":40200},{"value":"StillImage","hits":35114},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":4552},{"value":"Sound","hits":3248},{"value":"Collection","hits":41},{"value":"InteractiveResource","hits":25}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"Peppler, Jim","hits":4965},{"value":"Phay, John E.","hits":4712},{"value":"University of Mississippi. Bureau of Educational Research","hits":4707},{"value":"Baldowski, Clifford H., 1917-1999","hits":2599},{"value":"Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission","hits":2255},{"value":"Thurmond, Strom, 1902-2003","hits":2077},{"value":"WSB-TV (Television station : Atlanta, Ga.)","hits":1475},{"value":"Newman, I. DeQuincey (Isaiah DeQuincey), 1911-1985","hits":1003},{"value":"The State Media Company (Columbia, S.C.)","hits":926},{"value":"Atlanta Journal-Constitution","hits":844},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":778}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"African Americans--Civil rights","hits":9441},{"value":"Civil rights","hits":8347},{"value":"African Americans","hits":5895},{"value":"Mississippi--Race relations","hits":5750},{"value":"Race relations","hits":5607},{"value":"Education, Secondary","hits":5083},{"value":"Education, Elementary","hits":4729},{"value":"Segregation in education--Mississippi","hits":4727},{"value":"Education--Pictorial works","hits":4707},{"value":"Civil rights demonstrations","hits":4436},{"value":"Civil rights workers","hits":3530}],"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":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1809},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1709},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1312},{"value":"Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998","hits":1282},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1071},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":858},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":814},{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":719},{"value":"Mizell, M. Hayes","hits":674},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":626}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"name_authoritative_sms","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":2598},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1909},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1704},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1331},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1070},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":856},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":806},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":625},{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":605},{"value":"Snelling, Paula","hits":580},{"value":"Williams, Hosea, 1926-2000","hits":431}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":1763},{"value":"Ole Miss Integration","hits":1670},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":965},{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":704},{"value":"Memphis Sanitation Workers Strike","hits":366},{"value":"Selma-Montgomery March","hits":337},{"value":"Freedom Summer","hits":306},{"value":"Freedom Rides","hits":214},{"value":"Poor People's Campaign","hits":180},{"value":"University of Georgia Integration","hits":173},{"value":"University of Alabama Integration","hits":140}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":17820},{"value":"United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798","hits":5428},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Montgomery County, Montgomery, 32.36681, -86.29997","hits":5151},{"value":"United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","hits":4862},{"value":"United States, South Carolina, 34.00043, -81.00009","hits":4610},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":4177},{"value":"United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026","hits":3943},{"value":"United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036","hits":2910},{"value":"United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898","hits":2579},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":2430},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":2387}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Georgia","hits":12843},{"value":"Alabama","hits":11307},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":10219},{"value":"South Carolina","hits":8503},{"value":"Arkansas","hits":4583},{"value":"Texas","hits":4399},{"value":"Tennessee","hits":3770},{"value":"Florida","hits":2601},{"value":"Ohio","hits":2391},{"value":"North Carolina","hits":1893},{"value":"New York","hits":1667}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1966","hits":10514},{"value":"1963","hits":10193},{"value":"1965","hits":10119},{"value":"1956","hits":9832},{"value":"1955","hits":9611},{"value":"1964","hits":9268},{"value":"1968","hits":9243},{"value":"1962","hits":9152},{"value":"1967","hits":8771},{"value":"1957","hits":8460},{"value":"1958","hits":8242},{"value":"1961","hits":8241},{"value":"1959","hits":8046},{"value":"1960","hits":7940},{"value":"1954","hits":7239},{"value":"1969","hits":7235},{"value":"1950","hits":7117},{"value":"1953","hits":6968},{"value":"1970","hits":6743},{"value":"1971","hits":6337},{"value":"1977","hits":6280},{"value":"1952","hits":6161},{"value":"1972","hits":6144},{"value":"1951","hits":6045},{"value":"1975","hits":5806},{"value":"1976","hits":5771},{"value":"1974","hits":5729},{"value":"1973","hits":5591},{"value":"1979","hits":5329},{"value":"1978","hits":5318},{"value":"1980","hits":5279},{"value":"1995","hits":4829},{"value":"1981","hits":4724},{"value":"1994","hits":4654},{"value":"1948","hits":4596},{"value":"1949","hits":4571},{"value":"1996","hits":4486},{"value":"1982","hits":4330},{"value":"1947","hits":4316},{"value":"1985","hits":4226},{"value":"1998","hits":4225},{"value":"1997","hits":4202},{"value":"1983","hits":4174},{"value":"1984","hits":4065},{"value":"1946","hits":4046},{"value":"1999","hits":4018},{"value":"1945","hits":4017},{"value":"1990","hits":3937},{"value":"1986","hits":3919},{"value":"1943","hits":3899},{"value":"1944","hits":3895},{"value":"1942","hits":3867},{"value":"2000","hits":3808},{"value":"2001","hits":3790},{"value":"1940","hits":3764},{"value":"1941","hits":3757},{"value":"1987","hits":3657},{"value":"2002","hits":3538},{"value":"1991","hits":3507},{"value":"1936","hits":3506},{"value":"1939","hits":3500},{"value":"1938","hits":3465},{"value":"1937","hits":3449},{"value":"1992","hits":3444},{"value":"1993","hits":3422},{"value":"2003","hits":3403},{"value":"1930","hits":3377},{"value":"1989","hits":3355},{"value":"1935","hits":3306},{"value":"1933","hits":3270},{"value":"1934","hits":3270},{"value":"1988","hits":3269},{"value":"1932","hits":3254},{"value":"1931","hits":3239},{"value":"2005","hits":3057},{"value":"2004","hits":2909},{"value":"1929","hits":2789},{"value":"2006","hits":2774},{"value":"1928","hits":2271},{"value":"1921","hits":2123},{"value":"1925","hits":2039},{"value":"1927","hits":2025},{"value":"1924","hits":2011},{"value":"1926","hits":2009},{"value":"1920","hits":1975},{"value":"1923","hits":1954},{"value":"1922","hits":1928},{"value":"2016","hits":1925},{"value":"2007","hits":1629},{"value":"2008","hits":1578},{"value":"2011","hits":1575},{"value":"2019","hits":1537},{"value":"1919","hits":1532},{"value":"2009","hits":1532},{"value":"1918","hits":1530},{"value":"2015","hits":1527},{"value":"2013","hits":1518},{"value":"2010","hits":1515},{"value":"2014","hits":1481},{"value":"2012","hits":1467}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"0193","max":"2035","count":500952,"missing":56},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"photographs","hits":10708},{"value":"correspondence","hits":9437},{"value":"black-and-white photographs","hits":7678},{"value":"negatives (photographs)","hits":7513},{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":4462},{"value":"letters (correspondence)","hits":3623},{"value":"oral histories (literary works)","hits":3607},{"value":"black-and-white negatives","hits":2740},{"value":"editorial cartoons","hits":2620},{"value":"newspapers","hits":1955},{"value":"manuscripts (documents)","hits":1692}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":41178},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":17554},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":8828},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":6864},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/","hits":2186},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/","hits":1778},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-CR/1.0/","hits":1115},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/","hits":197},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NKC/1.0/","hits":60},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-RUU/1.0/","hits":51},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/","hits":27}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Jim Peppler Southern Courier Photograph Collection","hits":4956},{"value":"John E. Phay Collection ","hits":4706},{"value":"John J. Herrera Papers","hits":3288},{"value":"Baldy Editorial Cartoons, 1946-1982, 1997: Clifford H. Baldowski Editorial Cartoons at the Richard B. Russell Library.","hits":2607},{"value":"Sovereignty Commission Online","hits":2335},{"value":"Strom Thurmond Collection, Mss 100","hits":2068},{"value":"Alabama Media Group Collection","hits":2067},{"value":"Black Trailblazers, Leaders, Activists, and Intellectuals in Cleveland","hits":2033},{"value":"Rosa Parks Papers","hits":1948},{"value":"Isaiah DeQuincey Newman, (1911-1985), Papers, 1929-2003","hits":1904},{"value":"Lillian Eugenia Smith Papers (circa 1920-1980)","hits":1887}],"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":8885},{"value":"Alabama. Department of Archives and History","hits":8146},{"value":"Atlanta University Center Robert W. Woodruff Library","hits":4102},{"value":"South Caroliniana Library","hits":4024},{"value":"University of North Texas. Libraries","hits":3854},{"value":"Hargrett Library","hits":3292},{"value":"University of South Carolina. Libraries","hits":3212},{"value":"Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies","hits":2874},{"value":"Mississippi. Department of Archives and History","hits":2825},{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":2633},{"value":"Rhodes College","hits":2264}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":80736},{"value":"Collection","hits":455}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":80994},{"value":"true","hits":197}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}