{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"aar_alabamaphoto_34855","title":"Cleveland Avenue bus from the 1955 Montgomery City Lines fleet, parked in front of Union Station in Montgomery, Alabama.","collection_id":"aar_alabamaphoto","collection_title":"Alabama Photographs and Pictures Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2005"],"dcterms_description":["The vehicle was restored to resemble the bus Rosa Parks was riding when she was arrested on December 1, 1955."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Alabama Department of Archives and History, 624 Washington Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36130"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Cleveland Avenue bus photographs","SPP151"],"dcterms_subject":["African Americans--Civil rights","Montgomery Bus Boycott, Montgomery, Ala., 1955-1956","Buses","Transportation","Montgomery (Ala.)","Montgomery County (Ala.)"],"dcterms_title":["Cleveland Avenue bus from the 1955 Montgomery City Lines fleet, parked in front of Union Station in Montgomery, Alabama."],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Alabama. Department of Archives and History"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digital.archives.alabama.gov/cdm/ref/collection/photo/id/34855"],"dcterms_temporal":["2000/2010"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["This material may be protected under U. S. Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S. Code) which governs the making of photocopies or reproductions of copyrighted materials. You may use the digitized material for private study, scholarship, or research. Though ADAH h"],"dcterms_medium":["photographs"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"aar_alabamaphoto_34858","title":"Cleveland Avenue bus from the 1955 Montgomery City Lines fleet, parked in front of Union Station in Montgomery, Alabama.","collection_id":"aar_alabamaphoto","collection_title":"Alabama Photographs and Pictures Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2005"],"dcterms_description":["The vehicle was restored to resemble the bus Rosa Parks was riding when she was arrested on December 1, 1955."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Alabama Department of Archives and History, 624 Washington Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36130"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Cleveland Avenue bus photographs","SPP151"],"dcterms_subject":["African Americans--Civil rights","Montgomery Bus Boycott, Montgomery, Ala., 1955-1956","Buses","Transportation","Montgomery (Ala.)","Montgomery County (Ala.)"],"dcterms_title":["Cleveland Avenue bus from the 1955 Montgomery City Lines fleet, parked in front of Union Station in Montgomery, Alabama."],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Alabama. Department of Archives and History"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digital.archives.alabama.gov/cdm/ref/collection/photo/id/34858"],"dcterms_temporal":["2000/2009"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["This material may be protected under U. S. Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S. Code) which governs the making of photocopies or reproductions of copyrighted materials. You may use the digitized material for private study, scholarship, or research. Though ADAH h"],"dcterms_medium":["photographs"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"loc_rosaparks_49332","title":"[Collage commemorating Rosa Parks for her actions leading to the Montgomery bus boycott, 1955-56] [graphic] /","collection_id":"loc_rosaparks","collection_title":"Rosa Parks Papers","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2005-02-015"],"dcterms_description":["Title devised by Library staff.","Collage clipping, bottom right reads: The year was 1955 and I was 42 years old. I was sitting in the colored section of the bus as usual, feeling tired after a long workday. When the bus got crowded the driver ordered the African-American passengers to give up their seats to the whites. I refused, and I was arrested. This was the start of a 381-day bus boycott by African Americans in Montgomery, Alabama. I had always worked for civil rights, but because of this famous action, I'm called \"mother of the movement\".","With 1 pg. report on the bus boycott signed by the student: Ikechukwu Nnaji, Feb. 15, 2005."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":null,"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Children's art","Montgomery Bus Boycott, Montgomery, Ala., 1955-1956"],"dcterms_title":["[Collage commemorating Rosa Parks for her actions leading to the Montgomery bus boycott, 1955-56] [graphic] /"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Library of Congress"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.49332"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Please contact holding institution for information regarding use and copyright status."],"dcterms_medium":["collagescolor2000-2010.gmgpc","children's art2000-2010.gmgpc"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"nug_guilford-clippings_13327","title":"Contribution","collection_id":"nug_guilford-clippings","collection_title":"Civil Rights Clippings from Guilford College Publications","dcterms_contributor":["Wilson, Jeanette"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, North Carolina, Guilford County, Greensboro, 36.07264, -79.79198"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2005"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Greensboro, N.C. : Guilford College"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["The Southern Friend"],"dcterms_subject":["Greensboro Sit-ins, Greensboro, N.C., 1960","Segregation in education--United States"],"dcterms_title":["Contribution"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Guilford College. Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://gateway.uncg.edu/islandora/object/guilford:13327"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Quaker Archive, Hege Library, Guilford College"],"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"nug_guilford-clippings_13321","title":"Contribution","collection_id":"nug_guilford-clippings","collection_title":"Civil Rights Clippings from Guilford College Publications","dcterms_contributor":["Passmore, Carol"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, North Carolina, Guilford County, Greensboro, 36.07264, -79.79198"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2005"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Greensboro, N.C. : Guilford College"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["The Southern Friend"],"dcterms_subject":["Greensboro Sit-ins, Greensboro, N.C., 1960","University of North Carolina at Greensboro"],"dcterms_title":["Contribution"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Guilford College. Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://gateway.uncg.edu/islandora/object/guilford:13321"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Quaker Archive, Hege Library, Guilford College"],"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1767","title":"Court filings regarding Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tools, Little Rock School District (LRSD) filing quarterly update, and Office of Desegregation Management (ODM) report.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2005-01/2005-03"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","Little Rock School District","School districts","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Evaluation","African Americans--Education","Joshua intervenors","Education--Curricula"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tools, Little Rock School District (LRSD) filing quarterly update, and Office of Desegregation Management (ODM) report."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1767"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["58 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, two notices of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tools; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) notice of filing quarterly update; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, \"\"Update of Discipline Sanctions and Compensatory Programs Aimed at Dropout Prevention in the NLRSD\"\"; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    ,. Arkansas DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MAU.  UTTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475  http://arkedu.state.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Director of Education Jan~ary 28, 2005 Mr.M. SamuelJones,ill Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 JAN 2005 OFFIC[ OF DESEGREGMlOil ;110NITORING Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 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 January 2005 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sie7~o. ~~-rk General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - JoNell Caldwell, Little Rock Vice Chair - Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Shelby Hillman, Carlisle  Calvin King, Marianna  Randy Lawson, Bentonville MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Naccaman Williams, Johnson 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 January 2005. Respectfully Submitted, tt Smith, Bar # 92251 General Counsel, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 1501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on January 28, 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. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0 . Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Arkansas  DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MAU  UTILE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475  http://arkedu.state.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Director of Education February 28, 2005 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 I/ ' ,') 1 - ~ 05 I . . l. 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 February 2005 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. ~3~~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier -ATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair -JoNell Caldwell, Little Rock  Vice Chair -Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Shelby Hillman, Carlisle  Calvin King, Marianna  Randy Lawson, Bentonville MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Naccaman Williams, Johnson 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 February 2005. Scott Smith, Bar # 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 February 28, 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. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 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 INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS 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 February 28, 2005 Based on the information availabl~ at January 31, 2005, the .ADE .calculated the State Foundation Funding for F,Y 04/05, subject to periodic adjustments. 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. IN THE UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURi: (, '. ?ii7-j EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKA:t-f,~ ~-\u0026lt; - __ ,..,,  WESTERN DIVISION  C .t,._   ' \u0026lt;\u0026gt; LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MAR ? 2005 MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS OFFI F KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DES GREGATIO!l [,,ONITORING LRSD'S NOTICE OF FILING OUARTERL Y UPDATE INTER VEN ORS Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Notice ofFiling Quarterly Update dated March 1, 2005 states: 1. The attached document is the second quarterly written update by the Little Rock School District and its Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department. It has been provided to the Joshua Intervenors and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring in accordance with the District Court's 2004 Compliance Remedy (Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004). 2. LRSD is filing this Quarterly Update so that the Court may be aware of the compliance work done by LRSD to comply with the Court's Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004. WHEREFORE, the LRSD submits its Quarterly Update as required by the Court. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY:~k CopherHcler CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on the 1st day of March, 2005 : Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 2 Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Tim Gauger Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 istopherHeller Little Rock School District (LRSD) QUARTERLY UPDATE to Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and Joshua March 1, 2005 MAR 2 2005 OFFICtOF DESEGREGAT/Oi'J ;,:ONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT, PLAINTIFF V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRJCT NO.1 ET AL., DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., INTERVENORS KATHERJNE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 Page I of 18 Introduction This is the second quarterly written update by the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and its Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Department, submitted in accordance with the District Court's 2004 Compliance Remedy (Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004, pp. 61-67). The organization of this report is that of the Compliance Remedy: A. \"LRSD must promptly hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE.\" B. \"The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process\". which \"must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program.\" C. \"During each of the next two academic school years (2004-05 and 2005-06), LRSD must hire one or more outside consultants to prepare four ( 4) formal step 2 evaluations.\" D. \"PRE must (1) oversee the preparation of all eight of these step 2 evaluations; (2) work closely with Dr. Ross and any other outside consultants ... and (3) provide the outside consultants with any and all requested assistance and support ... \" E. Evaluations will contain numbers and grade levels of teachers and administrators who contributed data, recommended program changes necessary for improved academic achievement by African-American students, and brief explanations of how each change will increase a program's effectiveness. F. \" . .. PRE must notify the ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of those eight programs. In addition, after PRE and Dr. Ross have formulated a comprehensive program assessment process and reduced it to a final draft, PRE must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua at least thirty days before it is presented to the Board for approval . . . by December 31, 2004.\" G. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of the . . . four step 2 program evaluations . .. during the 2004-05 school year and the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2005-06 school year . . . to ODM and Joshua on December 1, March 1, June 1, and September 1. .. \" H. (ODM's responsibilities.] I. [Joshua's responsibilities.] J. Four step 2 program evaluations due to the Court October 1, 2005 and four more due October 1, 2006. K. Compliance Report due October 15, 2006. L. [This Compliance Remedy supersedes earlier one.] Page 2 of 18 Status as of March 1, 2005 A. Hire a highly trained team of professionals. LRSD hired a highly trained team of professionals in 2004 and reported its action in the first quarterly written update, December 1, 2004. This team has continued its duties as described below, in this second quarterly written update. B. Devise and embed a comprehensive program assessment process. At its December 16, 2004 session, LRSD Board of Directors approved the comprehensive program assessment process devised by PRE. The final draft was in Appendix B of the first quarterly written update. C. Hire outside consultant(s) to prepare four formal step 2 evaluations. Credentials of Drs. Catterall and Ross were in this section and Appendix C of the first quarterly written update. Both agreed to prepare step 2 evaluations of LRSD programs. Their progress is described below in Section D. D. PRE (1) oversees the preparation of the step 2 evaluations, (2) works closely with Drs. Ross and Catterall, and (3) assists them. PRE continued discussions with Dr. Steven Ross of step 2 evaluation designs for thethree LRSD programs which he will conduct, reported December 1, 2004-Compass Learning (CL), Reading Recovery (RR), and Smart/Thrive (S/f). By January 14, PRE and Dr. Ross agreed on evaluation designs, whose descriptions are in the appendix of this second quarterly written update. Negotiations also continued in Janua,ry with Dr. James Catterall regarding evaluation of YearRound Education (YRE), the fourth step 2 evaluation for 2004-2005. Its design, too, is in the appendix of this second quarterly written update. At the monthly Leadership Team (school principals) meeting, on January 19, PRE staff alerted LRSD principals about the four evaluations and answered their questions. At the February 16 Leadership Team session, Dr. Ross and his team described designs of his three evaluations and answered questions. After his presentation to the principals on February 16, Dr. Ross and his team met with PRE, each program director, and two other outside experts (Drs. Linda Dorn and Gail Weems, both of UALR's College of Education). During these discussions, ODM officials and counsel for Joshua Intervenors provided feedback and assisted with the final design of data collection instruments. Page 3 of 18 PRE has established four evaluation teams, led by PRE members and composed of people with skills and experiences appropriate to their respective evaluations. Parent and teacher representatives are also members of these teams, whose first formal meeting was arranged for February 24. Dr. DeJarnette will lead the evaluation of Compass Learning; Ms. Malcolm, Smart/Thrive; Dr. Williams, Year-Round Education; and Mr. Wohlleb, Reading Recovery. Members' names and results of that meeting will appear in the third written quarterly update, due June I. E. Evaluation will have (1) numbers and grade levels of teachers and administrators who submit data for evaluations, (2) recommended program changes necessary for improved achievement by African-American students, and (3) succinct explanations of how each change will increase its respective program's effectiveness. Designs of the evaluations, furnished in the appendix to this report, will include 1) records of the teachers and administrators who furnish data, opinions and guidance, and their grade levels and positions; 2) data in addition to race/ethnicity and test scores that will enable the evaluators to find reasons for differences in academic achievement and recommend changes; 3) bases for explanations of how these other factors impact on academic achievement and how program changes will bring about improved academic achievement. F. Delivery of names of programs to be evaluated and the comprehensive program assessment process to ODM and Joshua. Names of the four programs evaluated during 2004-2005 and the process were delivered before they were due last year and so reported in the first written quarterly update. G. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of step 2 evaluations. PRE submitted its first written quarterly update on December I, 2004. PRE submits this one on or before March 1, 2005 and will submit its third by June 1, 2005. Page 4 of 18 Appendix C. Designs of Step 2 Evaluations of2004-2005 Reading Recovery (RR) Compass Leaming (CL) Smart/Thrive (SIT) Year-Round Education (YRE) Evaluation Schedule 2004-2005 Page 5 of 18 Reading Recovery Program Description RR is one of the eight literacy programs, interventions, and/or models used by various LRSD schools. Restricted to the first grade, it provides systematically designed, individual tutoring to students identified as having the highest need for supplemental support. LRSD funds are used to support the RR Program. Currently, 17 elementary schools are implementing RR: Number of Reading Percent African- Percent Recovery Number of Number of American Free/Reduced School Teachers Teachers Students Students Lunch Students Booker 4 55 496 53 63 Carver 2 43 496 52 53 Chicot 3 44 536 73 86 Dodd I 27 261 54 69 Franklin 2 35 387 96 94 Geyer Springs I 23 299 88 81 Gibbs 2 30 310 53 44 Meadowcliff I 24 349 78 85 Mitchell I 22 156 96 92 Otter Creek 1 31 511 60 56 Rightsell 1 25 262 100 88 Wakefield 2 29 451 78 92 Watson 1 34 456 96 93 Williams 2 36 461 52 34 Wilson 1 27 285 89 92 RR Evaluation Questions and Design A mixed-methods design will address the research questions as follows: Primary Evaluation Question: 1. Has the RR program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American (AA) students? A. Whole School Sample: A treatment-control school, pretest-posttest design will be employed in Grades 1-3. The analysis will control for pretest, gender, ethnicity, and SES. The analysis will possibly examine (a) all 17 schools relative to the entire district elementary-school database or (b) a stratified random sample of RR schools relative to matched control schools. Pretests: DRA or DIBELS (whichever has the more usable database), adm inistered in Kindergarten. Page 6 of 18 Posttests: 2004-05 Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) Reading and Math Subtests. B. RR Subsample: Within each of the RR schools, first- to third-grade students who participated in RR as first graders will be identified and their achievement gains compared to predicted scores based on school status (RR vs. non-RR), and student pretest, gender, ethnicity, and SES. Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What are the quality and level of implementation of RR at the 17 schools implementing it in 2004-05? RR teachers will be interviewed by phone. First-grade teachers and other grade-level teachers will be surveyed. Observations of RR sessions will be at a sample of schools. A minimum of IO observations will be conducted. To the extent resources are available, an attempt will be made to observe at all 17 sites. 2. What is the level of participation in RR by AA students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? Student records/archival data for 2003-04 and 2004-05 will be analyzed. 3. What is the progress demonstrated by AA and other student participants in RR in improving achievement, as demonstrated on program-specific measures? What percent of students are \"discontinued\" or \"not discontinued\"? RR teachers will be asked to complete \"Achievement Profiles\" (to be developed) for each 2004-05 RR student. The Achievement Profiles will be one-page forms designed to require only a few minutes to complete. Procedures will be written through consultation with PRE and RR experts in LRSD. 4. What are the perceptions of RR teachers regarding RR program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? The RR teacher interview will directly address this question. 5. What are the perceptions of non-RR first-grade teachers and other teachers in the schools regarding RR program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? The RR School Teacher survey will address this question via closed-ended and open-ended items. Respondents will identify their status by grade and role. 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of RR students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A RR Parent survey will be conducted via a questionnaire including closed- and open-ended items. Page 7 of 18 Summary of RR Data Sources and Participants by Evaluation Question Evaluation Question I Participants Data Sources Primarv Question I . What are the effects of  All grades 1-3 students  DRA or DIBELS (pretest participation in RR on AA at 17 RR schools and in K) student achievement? other elementary  2004-05 !TBS Reading schools and Math subtests  RR student participants (posttest in grades 1-3) within above samples Step 2 Questions 1. What is the quality and level  All RR teachers  RR Teacher Phone of implementation of RR at the  All teachers at RR Interview 17 schools implementing it in schools  RR School Teacher 2004-05? Survey (faculty meeting)  RR Achievement Profiles  One-hour RR Tutoring Observation (min. of 10 schools) 2. What is the level of  All RR schools  School records/archival participation in RR by AA data students relative to other ethnic groups by school? 3. What is the progress  All RR teachers  RR Achievement Profile demonstrated by RR students in improving achievement, as demonstrated on program-specific measures? What percentage of students are \"discontinued\" or \"not discontinued\"? 4. What are the perceptions of  All RR teachers  RR Teacher Interview RR teachers re: RR program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of  All RR school teachers  RR School Teacher regular first-grade teachers and Survey (disaggregated by other teachers re: RR program I st grade vs. other grades) implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 6. What are the perceptions of  Parents of RR students  RR Parent Survey parents/guardians of RR students re: program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Page 8 of 18 Compass Learning Program Description Compass Learning (CL) is a computer-based program designed to develop students' skills in reading, writing, and spelling. Additional purposes are to support teacher management of student performance, personalize instruction, and connect communities of learners. The themebased lessons and activities provided by CL take a cross-curricular approach and offer a \"real world\" context for learning. The Compass Management system assessment is either automatic or customizable. Technology Specialists assist classroom teachers with any technology question or need. In the 2004-05 school year, 21 LRSD elementary schools, two middle schools, and the Accelerated Learning Center (high school) utilize CL programs: Percent Percent Number Number African- Free/Reduced of of American Lunch Schools Teachers Students Students Students Bale Elementary 27 319 82 88 Booker Elementary 55 605 53 63 Brady Elementary 28 318 78 80 Carver Elementarv 43 496 52 53 Chicot Elementary 44 536 73 86 Fair Park Elementarv 19 187 75 73 Forrest Park Elementary 25 361 20 14 Franklin Elementary 35 387 96 94 Fulbright Elementary 38 554 26 17 Geyer Springs Elementary . 23 299 88 81 Gibbs Elementary 30 310 53 44 Mabelvale Elementary 25 257 80 88 McDermott Elementary 26 406 62 88 Mitchell Elementary 22 156 96 92 Otter Creek Elementary 31 511 60 56 Rightsell Elementary 25 262 100 88 Rockefeller Elementary 35 453 67 66 Stephens Elementary 39 499 95 91 Wakefield Elementary 29 451 78 92 Williams Elementary 36 461 52 34 Cloverdale Middle School 59 682 82 66 Henderson Middle School 60 630 82 70 Accelerated Leaming Center 14 178 92 15 Page 9 of 18 CL Evaluation Questions and Design A mixed-methods design will be employed to address the research questions as follows: Primary Evaluation Question: 1. What are the effects of participation in CL on the achievement of African-American (AA) students? A. Quasi-experimental design: Due to the insufficient sample size and unique nature of the high school (n = 1), the quasi-experimental analysis will be conducted with the elementary (n = 21 schools) and middle (n = 2) school samples only. A descriptive examination (see below) of test scores for the high school will also be conducted to determine trends and patterns at that site. Specifically, the quasi-experimental design will compare CL elementary and middle schools to other schools in the district, most likely by multiple-regression analyses in which the dependent variable is posttest (2004-05) scores (Arkansas Benchmarks in grades 3-8, and Iowa Test of Basic Skills in grades K-8) and covariates are pretest (pre-program) test scores, gender, ethnicity, and SES. Pretests: Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) (for grades K-8), Arkansas Benchmarks (for grades 4-8) Posttests: 2004-05 ITBS Reading and Math Subtests (for grades 1-8); Arkansas Benchmarks (for grades 3-8). B. Descriptive design: For the one high school using CL,. whole-grade pretest and posttest means on Arkansas Benchmarks, ITBS, Grade 11 Literacy Exam, and Algebra I and Geometry End-of-Course (EoC) exams will be compared to district norms. The purpose will be to assess absolute and relative performance as possible correlates of CL implementation. Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What are the quality, nature, and level of implementation of CL at the 24 schools implementing the program in 2004-05? Phone interviews will be conducted with (a) the LRSD CL Coordinator and (b) a sample of IO school Technology Specialists (the I high school, the 2 middle schools, and a random sample of 7/21 elementary schools). All teachers at the 24 schools will be surveyed so that site-specific data regarding implementation will be available. Observations of CL laboratory sessions will be conducted at a sample of JO schools (the I high school, the 2 middle schools, and 7 of 21 elementary schools). At half of the observed schools (n = 5), a brief (20-minute) student focus group (n = 5 to 7 students) will be conducted to ascertain students' perspectives on their experiences in using CL (nature of activities, usefulness, enjoyment, etc. ). 2. What is the level of participation in CL by AA students relative to other ethnic groups at the schools involved? Page 10 of 18 Student records/archival data for 2003-04 and 2004-05 will be analyzed. 3. What are the perceptions of teachers and Technology Specialists regarding CL program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? This question will be addressed via the Technology Specialist Interview and closed-ended and open-ended items on the CL Teacher Survey. 4. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of CL students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A CL Parent survey will be conducted to address this question via a questionnaire including closed- and open-ended items. Page 11 of 18 Summary of CL Instruments and Participants by Evaluation Question Evaluation Question Particioants Data Sources Primarv Question 1. What are the effects of  Students at 23 CL  ITBS as pretest for Grades K-9 participation in CL on the elementary and middle  Arkansas Benchmarks as posttest achievement of AA students? schools and comparison for 3-8) schools  2004-05 ITBS Reading and Math  Whole grade-level means subtests (grades 1-9 posttests) at the CL high school.  2004-05 Grade 11 Literacy Exam ( as posttest)  2004-05 Algebra I and Geometry EoC Exams (as posttest) Steo 2 Questions 1. What are the quality,  All CL school teachers  CL Teacher Survey (faculty nature, and level of  10 Technology Specialists meeting) implementation of CL at the (1 high school, 2 middle  Technology Specialist Phone 21 schools implementing the schools, and 7 randomly Interview program in 2004-05? selected elementary  District CL Program Coordinator schools) Phone Interview  District CL Program  Two-hour CL Laboratory Coordinator Observations (10 schools: 1 high  5 student focus groups ( 1 school, 2 middle schools, 7 high school, 1 middle randomly selected elementary school, 3 elementary schools) schools)  20-min. Student Focus Groups (n = 5-7 students), one each at 5 of the IO observation schools 2. Whatisthelevelof  All CL schools  School records/archival data participation in CL by AA students relative to other ethnic groups at the schools concerned? 3. What are the perceptions of  All CL school teachers  CL Teacher Survey teachers and Technology  10 Technology Specialists  Technology Specialist Interview Specialists regarding CL program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 4. What are the perceptions of  Parents of CL students  CL Parent Survey parents/guardians of CL students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Page 12 of 18 Smart/Thrive Programs Program Description The Smart/Thrive (Sff) program was designed as an intervention for 8th - and 9th -grade AfricanAmerican students who are lacking the knowledge, skills, and/or confidence required for success in Algebra I. S/T currently (2004-2005) engages approximately 10 percent of the total AfricanAmerican student population enrolled in Algebra I classes. During the 2003-2004 academic year, 264 students participated, studying pre-algebra for two weeks during the summer (Smart Program) and 10 Saturdays across the school year (Thrive Program). Various local grants have funded this program since 1999. Currently, SIT serves students from all eight LRSD middle schools: Percent Percent African- Free/Reduced Number of Number of American Lunch Middle Schools Teachers Students Students Students Cloverdale 59 682 82 86 Dunbar 58 747 61 57 Forest Heights 59 688 77 62 Henderson 60 630 82 70 Mablevale 57 634 81 75 Mann 64 873 52 37 Pulaski Heights 57 708 57 47 Southwest 55 493 94 87 srr Evaluation Questions and Design A mixed-methods design will be employed to address the research questions as follows: Primary Evaluation Question: 1. Have the srr programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American (AA) students?  A treatment (2 levels)-control student, pretest-posttest design will control for pretest, gender, ethnicity, and SES. Three types of Algebra I students will be compared depending on their program enrollment: 1. No program 11. Smart program only 111. Both Smart and Thrive programs  Pretests: 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 6th and 8th grade Benchmark tests. Page 13 of 18  Posttests: 2004-05 (ITBS) Math Subtests; Algebra I EoC Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What is the level of participation in Smart and Thrive by AA students? Student records/archival data of 2003-04 and 2004-05 will be analyzed. In addition to descriptive information, levels of participation will be gathered as a potential variable for the student achievement analyses. 2. What instructional strategies are used during the tutoring sessions? Approximately five random observation visits will be conducted during the Saturday Thrive Program sessions in 2005. 3. What are the perceptions of SIT Tutors regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A questionnaire will be administered to SIT Tutors. 4. What are the perceptions of Algebra I teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A questionnaire will be administered to Algebra I teachers. 5. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses of SIT? A questionnaire will be administered to student participants. A sample of them will also be selected to participate in approximately 3 - 5 student focus groups, each comprised of approximately 5 students. 6. What are the perceptions of parents/ guardians of SIT students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? An SIT parent survey will be conducted to address this question via a questionnaire including closed- and open-ended items. Page 14 of 18 Summary of Sff Data Sources and Participants by Evaluation Question Evaluation Question Participants Data Sources Primary Question 1. What are the effects of  All 8th and 9th grade  2003-2004 benchmark participation in the Smart Algebra I students  2004-05 ITBS Math and/or Thrive Programs on subtests; Algebra I EoC AA student achievement? Suoolemental Questions I. What is the level of  All program participants  School records/archival participation in Smart and data Thrive bv AA students? 2. What instructional  SIT teachers and students  Observations of tutoring strategies are used during the sessions tutoring sessions? 3. What are the perceptions of  All SIT Tutors  SIT Tutor Questionnaire SIT Tutors regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 4. What are the perceptions of  All Algebra I teachers  Algebra I Teacher Algebra I teachers regarding Questionnaire program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of  Program participants  SIT Student Questionnaire participating students  Focus Groups regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 6. What are the perceptions of  Parents of SIT students  SIT Parent Questionnaire parents/guardians of SIT students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Page 15 of 18 Year-Round Education Programs Program Description Year-Round Education (YRE) rearranges instruction and vacations so that they occur throughout the year, for more continuous learning and frequent breaks. YRE has emerged nationally as a way to educate all students better, regardless of ethnic backgrounds, social strata, or academic performance. LRSD's design is a single-track, 45-10 calendar where all students and teachers in the school are in class or on vacation at the same time. (The \"45-1 O\" means 45 days in a quarter, then IO days of intersession/vacation. Intersession is a five-day program and attendance 1s voluntary.) Currently, five elementary schools are implementing YRE: Percent of Percent Students Eligible for Elementary Number of Number of African- Free/Reduced Schools Teachers Students American Lunches Cloverdale 26 360 77 89 Mablevale 25 257 80 88 Mitchell 22 156 96 92 Stephens 39 499 95 90 Woodruff 21 235 91 86 YRE Evaluation Questions and Design Primary Evaluation Question: I. Has the Year-Round Education (YRE) Program effectively improved and remediated the academic achievement of African-American (AA) students? Whole-school sample: In a treatment vs. control school, pretest vs. posttest design, the analysis will control for pretest scores, gender, ethnicity, and family income (eligibility for free or reduced lunch program). Subsample: Within each YRE school, evaluators will compare achievement gains of students who participate in intersession to predicted gains (based on category of school, pretest scores, gender, ethnicity, and family income). Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What are the quality and level of implementation of intersession instructional strategies? 2. What are the quality and level of implementation of instructional strategies during regular session? Page 16 of 18 I  Evaluators will interview YRE teachers by phone and observe YRE classrooms (during both the regular session and intersession). 3. What is the level of participation in YRE Programs by AA students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? Student records/archival data for 2003-04 and 2004-05 will be analyzed. 4. What are the perceptions of YRE teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? The YRE teacher interview and the YRE teacher survey will address this question via both closed- and open-ended items. 5. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Evaluators will administer a survey to YRE program participants. 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of YRE students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A Parent survey will address this question via a questionnaire including both closed- and open-ended items. Page 17 of 18 ... Summary of YRE Data Sources and Participants by Evaluation Question Evaluation Question Participants Data Sources Primary Question: 1. What are the effects of YRE All grades at YRE schools and other Benchmark and ITBS participation on achievement of AA elementary schools. Year Round students? Education intersession student participants within above samples. Suoo/emental (Step 2) Questions: 1. What are the quality and level All YRE teachers Teacher phone of implementation of intersession interview instructional strategies? 2. What are the quality and level of Selected teachers and students Classroom observations implementation of instructional strategies during regular session? 3. What is the level of All YRE schools School records/archival participation in YRE Programs by data AA students relative to other ethnic groups? 4. What are the perceptions of All YRE teachers YRE teacher interview Year Round Education teachers and survey regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of YRE students grades 4 and 5 YRE student survey participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 6. What are the perceptions of Parents of YRE students YRE parent survey parents/guardians of YRE students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Page 18 of 18 I  I I I I I I I I I I I I I FILED U.S. O!ST'\u0026lt;iCT COURT EASTERN DiSTi'\u0026lt;1CT ARKANSAS MAR 1 8 2005 UPDATE OF DISCIPLINE SANCTIONS AND J~~ES W. McC8KMACK, CLERK COMPENSATORY PROGRAMS AIMED AT DROPO~ PREVENTION '.)::? c~::R.t\u0026lt; IN THE NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT March 18, 2005 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Little Rock, Arkansas Margie L. Powell Monitor Arkansas DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL , unu: ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071 , (501) 682-4475  http://arkedu.state.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Director of Education March 31, 2005 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72?03-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. US. 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 March 2005 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, _g~~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier ATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - JoNell Caldwell, Little Rock  Vice Chair - Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Shelby Hillman, Carlisle  Calvin King, Marianna  Randy Lawson, Bentonville MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Naccaman Williams, Johnson An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 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 March 2005. Respectfully Submitted, ScottSmitir,13ar # 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 March 31 , 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. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner? Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-15 l 0 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Scott Smith     This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_981","title":"Discipline: ''Analysis of Disciplinary Actions, District Level,'' North Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2005/2006"],"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","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School discipline"],"dcterms_title":["Discipline: ''Analysis of Disciplinary Actions, District Level,'' North Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/981"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nNORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ANALYSIS OF DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS District Level FRANCICAL J. JACKSON Director of Student Affairs RECEIVED APR2 3 2007 OFFICEOF DESEGREGMAOTNIOITNO RING IJ I I I I I I I I i i 1 1 I RECEIVED Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Summary APR2 3 2007 OFFIOCFE Presented by Fran Jackson, Director of Student Affairs DESEGREGMAOTNIOITNO RING The Analysis of Disciplinary Actions is analyses of data showing numbers by school, race, and gender in relation to enrollment in each school and the district as a whole. This report compares the data with that of the previous years. The actions are categorized as Black Males, Black Females, Non-Black Males and Non-Black Females. They are shown in the following categories: Actions 09 SAC (Student Assignment Class) 10 Home Suspensions 11 Boys Club / ASAC (Off Campus Suspension-Argenta Student Assignment Class) 12 E.I.C. (Intervention Classroom) 17 Expulsion A ten year comparison is provided at the end of the report to give a wide view of the discipline actions over a longer period. An analysis at the District level shows a decrease in actions in the following areas: Black Males E.I.C 23.6% Expulsion 63.6% Non-Black Males Expulsion 38.5% All other areas show an increase in actions. The elementary level shows a decrease in actions in the following areas: Black Males Black Females Home Suspensions 8.9% Home Suspensions 11.5% E.I.C. 23.6% Non-Black Males Non-Black Females Home Suspensions 11.8% Home Suspensions 76.9% E.I.C. 200% All other areas show an increase in actions. J I The middle school level shows a decrease in action in the following area: Black Males Expulsion 50% All other areas show an increase in actions. The high school level shows a decrease in actions in the following areas: Black Males Non-Black Males SAC Expulsion 50.2% 27.3% SAC 5.1% All other areas show an increase in actions. The ten year comparison shows an increase in home suspensions during the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 school year when the off campus suspension class was not available. However, this program was reinstated at the beginning of the 2006-2007 school year. A major effort by the total District has been made to keep our students in school. This is reflected in the total number of expulsions at the District level. This analysis also reflects a decrease in the number of actions for Black males. The staff is commended for the various programs provided to increase student achievement. Research shows high achievement - lower discipline. March 22, 2007 llJ ] I J IJ I J IJ I J I J I l I J I I J I I I I I J I I North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Discipline Actions Schoo1Year2005-2006 District Level Elementary Middle Schools High Schools 9 Year Comparison Ref: DIS032 Date: 6/12/06 rime : 18 : o 5 : 5 3 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions DISTRICT LEVEL From AUGUST Through MAY 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU ======================--====--=-------------------------------=-----===-------~= 09 S.A.C. 1560 52.3% 860 28.8% 390 13.1% 172 5.8% 2982 626 421 211 117 1375 10 HOME SUSP. 753 61.2% 325 26.4% 110 8.9% 43 3.5% 1231 438 200 72 30 740 11 BOYS CLUB 3 75.0% 1 25.0% 0 0 5l-  0 0 O!l-  0 4 3 1 0 0 4 12 E. I.C. ll0 72. 4% 30 19.7% 11 7.2% 1 7 5l-  0 152 70 17 9 1 97 17 EXPULSION ll 52.4% 0 O!l-  0 9 42.9% 1 4.8% 21 11 0 9 1 21 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 1843 50.3% 1189 32.5% 471 12.9% 158 4.3% 3661 722 515 257 107 1601 10 HOME SUSP. ll66 58.5% 565 28.3% 208 10.4% 54 2.7% 1993 566 288 134 37 1025 11 BOYS CLUB 40 58.0% 15 21.7% 9 13. 0% 5 7.2% 69 20 8 5 3 36 12 E.I.C. 84 60.9% 38 27.5% 13 9. 4 % 3 2.2% 138 60 26 11 3 100 17 EXPULSION 4 30.8% 2 15.4% 5 38.5% 2 15.4% 13 4 2 5 2 13 ----=========------------======================================================= COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ---==============--------------=-==============-=--------=======-=============== 09 S.A.C. 283 18.1 % 329 38.3 % 81 20.8 % 14- 8.1-% 679 96 94 46 10- 226 10 HOME SUSP. 413 54.8 % 240 73.8 % 98 89.1 0 'o 11 25.6 % 762 . 128 88 62 7 285 ll BOYS CLUB 37 1233.3 % 14 1400.0 % 9 900.0 % 5 500.0 % 65 17 7 5 3 32 12 E. I.C. 26- 23.6-% 8 26.7 % 2 18.2 % 2 200.0 % 14- 10- 9 2 2 3 17 EXPULSION 7- 63.6-% 2 200.0 % 4- 44.4-% 1 100.0 % 8- 7- 2 4- 1 8- Ref: DIS032 Date: 6/12/06 Time: 18:05:53 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E. I.C. 17 EXPULSION _Analysis of Disciplinary Actions ELEMENTARY K-5 From AUGUST Through MAY 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM-----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 0 !l.  0 0 224 69.3% 129 0 O!l.  0 0 110 72.4% 70 0 O!l.  0 0 -----BF-----# REF PCT /TOT # STU 0 .0% 0 52 16.1% 34 0 O!l.  0 0 30 19.7% 17 0 O!l.  0 0 -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 O!l.  0 0 34 10.5% 20 0 0 !l.  0 0 11 7.2% 9 0 O!l.  0 0 -----NBF----# REF PCT /TOT # STU 0 O!l.  0 0 13 4.0% 6 0 O!l.  0 0 1 79.  0 1 0 O!l.  0 0 0 0 323 189 0 0 152 97 0 0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2, 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT /TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ------==-===-=----------======================================================== 09 S.A.C. 0 Og.  0 0 .0% 0 O!l.  0 0 O!l.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 204 69.2% 58 19.7% 30 10.2% 3 1.0% 295 143 43 22 3 211 11 BOYS CLUB 0 Og.  0 0 .0% 0 O!l.  0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 84 60.9% 38 27.5% 13 9.4% 3 2.2% 138 60 26 11 3 100 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 O!l.  0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 -=============================================================================== COMPARISON ---============----------======================================================= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT( /-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ----============-------------------============================================= 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 20- 8.9-% 6 11. 5 % 4- 11. 8-% 10- 76.9-% 28- 14 9 2 3- 22 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 g. 0 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 26- 23.6-% 8 26.7 % 2 18.2 % 2 200.0 % 14- 10- 9 2 2 3 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 J ] ] J ] Ref:. DIS032 Date: 6/12/06 Time : 18 : 0 5 : 5 3 Art~lysis of Disciplinary A~tions MIDDLE SCHOOLS From AUGUST Through MAY 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 839 52.0% 434 26. 9% 254 15.8% 85 5.3% 1612 328 224 131 54 737 10 HOME SUSP. 199 53.4% llO 29.5% 52 13. 9% 12 3.2% 373 122 74 29 8 233 11 BOYS CLUB 3 75.0% 1 25.0% 0 .0% 0 09-  0 4 3 1 0 0 4 12 E. I.C. 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 09-  0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 5 55.6% 0 0 9-  0 4 44.4% 0 0 9-  0 9 5 0 4 0 9 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BE'------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT /TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 1138 50.4% 747 33.1% 286 12.7% 87 3.9% 2258 414 298 14 3 55 910 10 HOME SUSP. 568 55.0% 315 30.5% ll9 11. 5% 31 3.0% 1033 221 134 70 22 447 ll BOYS CLUB 40 58.0% 15 21.7% 9 13. 0% 5 7.2% 69 20 8 5 3 36 12 E. I.C. 0 .0% 0 0 9-  0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1 50.0% 0 09-  0 0 .0% 1 50.0% 2 1 0 0 1 2 =------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BE'------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ---------=---------------------------------------------------------============= 09 S.A.C. 299 35.6 % 313 72 .1 % 32 12.6 % 2 2.4 % 646 86 74 12 1 173 10 HOME SUSP. 369 185.4 % 205 186.4 % 67 128.8 % 19 158.3 % 660 99 60 41 14 214 ll BOYS CLUB 37 1233.3 9- 0 14 1400.0 % 9 900.0 % 5 500.0 % 65 17 7 5 3 32 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 9- 0 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 4- 80.0-% 0 . 0 % 4- 100.0-% 1 100.0 0 'o 7- 4- 0 4- 1 7- Ref: DIS032 Date: 6/12/06 Time: 18:05:53 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions HIGH SCHOOLS From AUGUST Through MAY 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 721 52.6% 426 31.1% 136 9.9% 87 6.4% 1370 298 197 80 63 638 10 HOME SUSP. 327 61. 5% 163 30.6% 24 4.5% 18 3.4% 532 185 92 23 16 316 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 6 50.0% 0 Og_  0 5 41. 7% 1 8.3% 12 6 0 5 1 12 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E. I.C. 17 EXPULSION 705 50.2% 442 31. 5% 185 13. 2% 71 5.1% 308 217 114 52 394 59.2% 192 28.9% 59 8.9% 20 3.0% 202 111 42 12 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 3 27.3% 2 18.2% 5 45.5% 1 9.1% 3 2 5 1 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU 1403 691 665 367 0 0 0 0 11 11 ------------------------ ------------------------------------ ------------------ 09 S.A.C. 16- 2.2-% 16 3.8 % 49 36.0 % 16- 18.4-% 33 10 20 34 11- 53 10 HOME SUSP. 67 20.5 % 29 17. 8 % 35 145.8 % 2 11.1 % 133 17 19 19 4- 51 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I. C. 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 3- 50.0-% 2 200.0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 1- 3- 2 0 0 1- ] Ref: DIS032S Date: 6/12/06 Time : 18 : 0 5 : 5 3 School: 012 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY NORTH LITTLE ROCK HIGH SCHOOL - 11/12 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 142 42.5% 101 30.2% 67 20.1% 24 7.2% 334 88 69 41 17 215 10 HOME SUSP. 59 60.8% 21 21.6% 6 6.2% 11 11. 3% 97 52 18 6 10 86 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 O!l-  0 0 .0% 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 O!l-  0 0 .0% 0 O!l-  0 1 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 0 !l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 1 100.0% 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 234 49.2% 118 24.8% 91 19.1% 33 6.9% 476 126 81 59 23 289 10 HOME SUSP. 67 60.4% 26 23. 4 % 15 13.5% 3 2.7% 111 53 25 14 3 95 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 0 O!l-  0 0 .0% 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1 25.0% 2 50.0% 1 25.0% 0 O!l-  0 4 1 2 1 0 4 =---------------------------------=======-==============================--=====- COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ------------------------------------------------------------------------------== 09 S.A.C. 92 64.8 % 17 16.8 % 24 35.8 % 9 37.5 % 142 38 12 18 6 74 10 HOME SUSP. 8 13.6 % 5 23.8 % 9 150.0 % 8- 72. 7-% 14 1 7 8 7- 9 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I. C. 0 . 0 g. 0 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1 100.0 % 2 200.0 % 1 100.0 % 1- 100.0-% 3 1 2 1 1- 3 l l I I I I I l I I ' I I I J I J I J I J Ref: Date: Time: DIS032S 6/12/06 18:05:53 School: 013 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY NORTH LITTLE ROCK HIGH SCHOOL - 09/10 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 57 9 55.9% 324 31. 3% 69 6.7% 63 6.1% 1035 210 127 39 46 422 10 HOME SUSP. 167 56.2% 106 35.7% 17 5.7% 7 2.4% 297 94 57 16 6 173 11 BOYS CLUB 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 5 051-  0 0 051-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 6 54.5% 0 0 51-  0 5 45.5% 0 Og_  0 11 6 0 5 0 11 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -----=====----------------=-============----==================================== 09 S.A.C. 470 50.8% 324 35.0% 93 10.1% 38 4. 1% 925 182 136 54 29 401 10 HOME SUSP. 184 53.8% 119 34.8% 33 9.6% 6 1.8% 342 97 67 25 6 195 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 g_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 Og_  0 0 0 g_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 2 28.6% 0 .0% 4 57.1% 1 14.3% 7 2 0 4 1 7 ----=====-=--------------======================================================= COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU --=================---------------=========-===-==-----========================= 09 S.A.C. 109- 18.8-% 0 . 0 % 24 34.8 % 25- 39.7-% 110- 28- 9 15 17- 21- 10 HOME SUSP. 17 10.2 % 13 12.3 % 16 94.1 % 1- 14.3-% 45 3 10 9 0 22 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I. C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 4- 66.7-% 0 . 0 % 1- 20.0-% 1 100.0 % 4- 4- 0 1- 1 4- Ref: DIS032S Date: 6/12/06 Time: 18:05:53 School: 020 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY ARGENTA ACADEMY 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 O!l,  0 0 O!l,  0 0 O!l,  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 102 71. 3% 40 28.0% 1 7!,,  0 0 O!l,  0 143 46 23 1 0 70 11 BOYS CLUB 0 O!l,  0 0 02-  0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 .0% 0 02-  0 0 02-  0 0 . 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 02-  0 0 02-  0 0 0 2-  0 0 02-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 1 50.0% 0 02-  0 1 50.0% 0 0 2-  0 2 1 0 1 0 2 10 HOME SUSP. 14 3 67.8% 48 22.7% 11 5.2% 9 4.3% 211 64 24 4 2 94 11 BOYS CLUB 0 0 2-  0 0 0 2-  0 0 02-  0 0 02-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I. C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 2-  0 0 02-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 0 2-  0 0 0 2-  0 0 02-  0 0 02-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -----------------------------------======-================-=-----------------=== COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -------======-=------------------------------------------------------=========-- 09 S.A.C. 1 100.0 % 0 . 0 % 1 100.0 % 0 . 0 % 2 1 0 1 0 2 10 HOME SUSP. 41 40.2 % 8 20.0 % 10 1000.0 2- 0 9 900.0 % 68 18 1 3 2 24 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 0 'o 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 I DIS032S Date: 6/12/06 T irne : 18 : 0 5 : 5 3 School: 024 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY RIDGEROAD MIDDLE CHARTER SCHOOL 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 337 54.5% 193 31. 2% 67 10.8% 21 3.4% 618 124 86 32 15 257 10 HOME SUSP. 52 57.8% 27 30.0% 10 11. 1% 1 1.1% 90 37 15 6 1 59 11 BOYS CLUB 0 05).  0 0 05).  0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 05).  0 0 0 5).  0 1 05).  0 0 0 5).  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 5 83.3% 0 05).  0 1 16.7% 0 0 5).  0 6 5 0 1 0 6 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 457 46.5% 414 42.2% 81 8.2% 30 3.1% 982 150 150 38 18 356 10 HOME SUSP. 242 53.2% 158 34. 7% 45 9.9% 10 2.2% 455 89 66 24 7 186 11 BOYS CLUB 1 50.0% 1 50.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 2 1 1 0 0 2 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 0 05).  0 0 05).  0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1 100.0% 0 05).  0 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 1 0 0 0 1 =------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPARISON =---------------------------------===============================-=----========- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU 09 S.A.C. 120 35.6 % 221 114. 5 % 14 20.9 % 9 42.9 0 15 364 26 64 6 3 99 10 HOME SUSP. 190 365.4 % 131 485.2 % 35 350.0 % 9 900.0 % 365 52 51 18 6 127 11 BOYS CLUB 1 100.0 % 1 100.0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 2 1 1 0 0 2 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 5). 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 4- 80.0-% 0 . 0 % 1- 100.0-% 0 .0 % 5- 4- 0 1- 0 5- Ref: DIS032S Date: 6/12/06 Time : 18 : 0 5 : 5 3 School: 025 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY LAKEWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU =======================================--------==-----=-----=------------------- 09 S.A.C. 127 39.4% 61 18.9% 103 32.0% 31 9.6% 322 57 35 59 25 176 10 HOME SUSP. 29 35.8% 19 23.5% 31 38.3% 2 2.5% 81 21 14 15 2 52 11 BOYS CLUB 0 0 9-  0 0 .0% 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 0 9-  0 0 .0% 3 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 3 100.0% 0 09-  0 3 0 0 3 0 3 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 146 42.3% 66 19.1% 109 31.6% 24 7.0% 345 69 31 63 18 181 10 HOME SUSP. 68 47.6% 17 11. 9% 48 33.6% 10 7.0% 143 30 11 32 10 83 11 BOYS CLUB 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 .0% 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 0 9-  0 0 .0% 0 09-  0 1 100.0% 1 0 0 0 1 1 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ======================------------------------------------------------------==== 09 S.A.C. 19 15.0 % 5 8.2 % 6 5.8 % 7- 22.6-% 23 12 4- 4 7- 5 10 HOME SUSP. 39 134. 5 % 2- 10.5-% 17 54.8 % 8 400.0 % 62 9 3- 17 8 31 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 3- 100.0-% 1 100.0 % 2- 0 0 3- 1 2- Ref: DIS032S Date: 6/12/06 Time: 18:05:53 School: 026 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY ROSE CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 105 59.7% 35 19.9% 26 14.8% 10 5.7% 176 44 22 10 4 80 10 HOME SUSP. 42 50.6% 35 42.2% 4 4.8% 2 2. 4% 83 25 26 4 2 57 11 BOYS CLUB 3 100.0% 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 3 3 0 0 0 3 12 E. I.C. 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 0 g_  0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 0 g_  0 0 0 g_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NSF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 225 60.5% 97 26.1% 37 9.9% 13 3.5% 372 68 42 11 6 127 10 HOME SUSP. 14 9 60.8% 71 29.0% 17 6.9% 8 3.3% 245 53 32 8 4 97 11 BOYS CLUB 39 58.2% 14 20.9% 9 13. 4% 5 7.5% 67 19 7 5 3 34 12 E. I.C 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 0 g_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NSF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -========================----=--==============-------------------==-=========== 09 S.A.C. 120 114. 3 % 62 177.1 % 11 42.3 % 3 30.0 % 196 24 20 1 2 47 10 HOME SUSP. 107 254.8 % 36 102.9 % 13 325.0 % 6 300.0 % 162 28 6 4 2 40 11 BOYS CLUB 36 1200.0 % 14 1400.0 % 9 900.0 % 5 500.0 % 64 16 7 5 3 31 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S 6/12/06 18:05:54 030 Date: Time: School: 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E. I.C. 17 EXPULSION Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY POPLAR STREET MIDDLE SCHOOL 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM-----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 270 54.3% 113 76 65.0% 40 0 Og_  0 0 0 Og_  0 0 0 09-  0 0 -----BF-----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 146 29. 4 % 84 27 23.1% 18 1 100.0% 1 0 .0% 0 0 Og_  0 0 -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 58 11. 7% 31 7 6.0% 4 0 Og_  0 0 0 Og_  0 0 0 Og_  0 0 -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 23 4.6% 12 7 6.0% 3 0 Og_  0 0 0 Og_  0 0 0 Og_  0 0 4 97 240 117 65 1 1 0 0 0 0 ---------=---------------------=---==-----------================================ 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT /TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 310 55.5% 170 30.4% 59 10.6% 20 3.6% 559 136 79 32 13 260 10 HOME SUSP. 109 57.1% 68 35.6% 9 4.7% 5 2.6% 191 52 28 7 2 89 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 0 g_  0 0 .0% 0 Og_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C 0 Og_  0 0 0 g_  0 0 .0% 0 Og_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 0 9-  0 0 0 g_ . 0 0 .0% 0 Og_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---==========--------------=================================-----------========= COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 40 14.8 % 24 16.4 % 1 1. 7 % 3- 13.0-% 62 23 5- 1 1 20 10 HOME SUSP. 33 43.4 % 41 151. 9 % 2 28.6 % 2- 28.6-% 74 12 10 3 1- 24 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 1- 100.0-% 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 1- 0 1- 0 0 1- 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 6/12/06 Time : 18 : 0 5 : 5 4 School: 031 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY AMBOY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU =============-==---------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 19 67.9% 1 3.6% 3 10.7% 5 17.9% 28 7 1 2 2 12 11 BOYS CLUB 0 09-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 . 0 9- 0 0 9- 0  0  0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -==============-----------=-===========----------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 7 77.8% 1 11.1% 1 11.1% 0 0 9-  0 9 4 1 1 0 6 11 BOYS CLUB 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 1 100.0% 0 0 9-  0 0 .0% 0 0 9-  0 1 1 0 0 0 1 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 0 9-  0 0 .0% 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------ COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 12- 63.2-% 0 . 0 % 2- 66.7-% 5- 100.0-% 19- 3- 0 1- 2- 6- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 1 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 1 1 0 0 0 1 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 J I J ] Ref: DIS032S Date: 6/12/06 Time: 18:05:54 School: 032 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 09-  0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 4 57.1% 1 14.3% 2 28.6% 0 0 9-  0 7 3 1 2 0 6 11 BOYS CLUB 0 0 9-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I. C. 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 9,.  0 0 0 9,.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 09-  0 0 0 9,.  0 0 0 9,.  0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 0 9,.  0 0 09,.  0 0 09,.  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 5 62.5% 2 25.0% 1 12.5% 0 .0% 8 5 2 1 0 8 11 BOYS CLUB 0 09,.  0 0 09,.  0 0 09,.  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9,.  0 1 1 0 0 0 1 17 EXPULSION 0 0 9-  0 0 09-  0 0 09,.  0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 1 25.0 % 1 100.0 9- 0 1- 50.0-% 0 . 0 % 1 2 1 1- 0 2 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 1 . 0 % 0 . 0 0 15 0 . 0 0 15 0 .0 % 1 1 0 0 0 1 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 ] ] ] I J J J j Ref: DIS032S 6/12/06 18:05:54 033 Date: Time: School: 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E. I.C. 17 EXPULSION Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY BOONE PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM-----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 O!l-  0 0 7 87.5% 5 0 O!l-  0 0 30 76.9% 17 0 0 !l-  0 0 -----BF------ # REF PCT /TOT # STU 0 O!l-  0 0 1 12.5% 1 0 O!l-  0 0 9 23.1% 2 0 O!l-  0 0 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 O!l-  0 0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 .0% 0 -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT /TOT # STU 0 .0% 0 0 0 !l-  0 0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 !l-  0 0 0 O!l-  0 0 -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 0 8 6 0 0 39 19 0 0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 11 78.6% 3 21. 4 % 0 .0% 0 O!l-  0 14 8 3 0 0 11 11 BOYS CLUB 0 O!l-  0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 33 68.8% 13 27.1% 2 4.2% 0 O!l-  0 48 17 10 2 0 29 17 EXPULSION 0 O!l-  0 0 .0% 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -------========-=-----------------------------------------------------========== 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 4 57 .1 % 2 200.0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 6 3 2 0 0 5 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 3 .0 % 4 . 0 % 2 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 9 0 0 2 0 10 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 I J I I I I I J I I I I I J I J I I I J I J I J Ref: DIS032S Date: 6/12/06 T irne : 18 : 0 5 : 5 4 School: 035 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY SEVENTH STREET ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 0 g.  0 0 .0% 0 Og.  0 0 Og.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 67 84.8% 12 15.2% 0 Og.  0 0 Og.  0 79 42 10 0 0 52 11 BOYS CLUB 0 Og.  0 0 0 g.  0 0 Og.  0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 54 80.6% 13 19.4% 0 Og.  0 0 Og.  0 67 34 9 0 0 43 17 EXPULSION 0 0 g.  0 0 Og.  0 0 Og.  0 0 Og.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT /TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 0 g.  0 0 .0% 0 Og.  0 0 0 g.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 40 75.5% 11 20.8% 2 3.8% 0 Og.  0 53 29 9 1 0 39 11 BOYS CLUB 0 0 g.  0 0 Og.  0 0 .0% 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 0 Og.  0 0 Og.  0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 Og. . 0 0 .0% 0 Og.  0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 27- 40.3-% 1- 8.3-% 2 200.0 % 0 .0 % 26- 13- 1- 1 0 13- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 54- .0 % 13- .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 67- 1- 1- 0 0 43- 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 6/12/06 Time: 18:05:54 School: 037 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY LYNCH DRIVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT /TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 09-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 4 40.0% 6 60.0% 0 0 9-  0 0 0 g_  0 10 4 4 0 0 8 11 BOYS CLUB 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 10 71. 4% 3 21. 4 % 0 7.1% 0 0 9-  0 14 7 2 1 0 10 17 EXPULSION 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 21 91. 3% 1 4.3% 1 4.3% 0 0 9-  0 23 15 1 1 0 17 11 BOYS CLUB 0 09-  0 0 .0% 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 5 83.3% 1 16.7% 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 6 4 1 0 0 5 17 EXPULSION 0 0 9-  0 0 .0% 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU --------=-===-==-----------------------=------------------------------========== 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 17 425.0 % 5- 83.3-% 1 100.0 % 0 .0 % 13 11 3- 1 0 9 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 5- . 0 % 2- . 0 % 1- . 0 % 0 .0 % 8- 1- 1- 1- 0 5- 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 6/12/06 Time: 18:05:54 School: 040 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY MEADOW PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NSF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 55 64.7% 23 27.1% 2 2.4% 5 5.9% 85 23 11 2 1 37 11 BOYS CLUB 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 .0% 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 09-  0 0 .0% 0 Og_  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 09-  0 0 .0% 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 34 66.7% 16 31. 4 % 1 2.0% 0 .0% 51 19 12 1 0 32 11 BOYS CLUB 0 Og_  0 0 09-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 0 09-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NSF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 21- 38.2-% 7- 30.4-% 1- 50.0-% 5- 100.0-% 34- 4- 1 1- 1- 5- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,J Ref: DIS032S 6/12/06 18:05:54 041 Date: Time: School: 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E. I.C. 17 EXPULSION Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY NORTH HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM-----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 Og.  0 0 2 20.0% 2 0 Og.  0 0 4 30.8% 4 0 Og.  0 0 -----BF-----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 Og.  0 0 0 0 g.  0 0 0 Og. . 0 0 3 23 .1% 3 0 Og.  0 0 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 .0% 0 8 80.0% 3 0 Og.  0 0 0 38.5% 3 0 Og.  0 0 -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 09-  0 0 0 Og.  0 0 0 0 g.  0 0 0 7.7% 1 0 Og.  0 0 -----NSF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 0 10 5 0 0 13 11 0 0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 Og.  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 10 76.9% 1 7.7% 2 15.4% 0 0 g.  0 13 7 1 2 0 10 11 BOYS CLUB 0 09-  0 0 Og.  0 0 .0% 0 Og.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C 6 50.0% 2 16.7% 3 25.0% 1 8.3% 12 5 2 3 1 11 17 EXPULSION 0 Og.  0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 g.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NSF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ---===================--------------=====-~=~=---------------=================== 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 8 400.0 % 1 100.0 % 6- 75.0-% 0 .0 % 3 5 1 1- 0 5 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I. C. 2 . 0 % 1- .0 % 2- . 0 % 0 . 0 % 1- 1 0 2- 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 6/12/06 Time : 18 : 0 5 : 5 4 School: 042 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT /TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 Og.  0 0 Og.  0 0 Og.  0 0 Og.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 19 61. 3% 1 3.2% 11 35.5% 0 .0% 31 15 1 7 0 23 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 g.  0 0 Og.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 Og.  0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 Og.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 Og.  0 0 Og.  0 0 0 g.  0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 Og.  0 0 .0% 0 0 g.  0 0 Og.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 6 35.3% 7 41. 2% 2 11. 8% 2 11. 8% 17 5 3 2 2 12 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 Og.  0 0 Og.  0 0 Og.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 1 100.0% 0 0 g.  0 0 .0% 0 0 g.  0 1 1 0 0 0 1 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 Og.  0 0 .0% 0 0 g.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 0 '\u0026lt;5 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 13- 68.4-% 6 600.0 % 9- 81.8-% 2 200.0 % 14- 10- 2 5- 2 11- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 1 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 1 1 0 0 0 1 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 g. 0 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I I I IJ I I II I ] I I I J I I I I I I Ref: DIS032S Date: 6/12/06 Time: 18:05:54 School: 04 3 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E. I.C. 17 EXPULSION Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY PARK HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM-----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 Og.  0 0 20 62.5% 11 0 Og.  0 0 0 Og.  0 0 0 Og.  0 0 -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 Og.  0 0 4 12.5% 3 0 0 g.  0 0 0 0 g.  0 0 0 Og.  0 0 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 Og.  0 0 6 18.8% 3 0 Og.  0 0 0 100.0% 1 0 0 g.  0 0 -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NSF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 Og.  0 0 2 6.3% 2 0 0 g.  0 0 0 Og.  0 0 0 0 g.  0 0 -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 0 32 19 0 0 1 1 0 0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 g.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 15 60.0% 1 4.0% 9 36.0% 0 0 g.  0 25 10 1 6 0 17 11 BOYS CLUB 0 Og.  0 0 .0% 0 0 g.  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 1 16.7% 1 16. 7% 4 66.7% 0 Og.  0 6 1 1 3 0 5 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 g.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- ff REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU n STU # STU n STU ------===========-----------------------------------------------------------===- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 5- 25.0-% 3- 75.0-% 3 50.0 % 2- 100.0-% 7- 1- 2- 3 2- 2- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 1 . 0 % 1 .0 % 3 . 0 % 0 .0 % 5 1 1 3 0 4 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 J I J J I I I I I I I I J I I I J I J I J I l Ref: DIS032S Date: 6/12 /06 Time: 18:05:54 School: 044 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT /TOT # REF PCT /TO.T # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 Og_  0 0 .0% 0 Og_  0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 8 100.0% 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 0 g_  0 8 7 0 0 0 7 11 BOYS CLUB 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 0 g_  0 0 0 g_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 3 75.0% 0 .0% 0 25.0% 0 Og_  0 4 1 0 1 0 2 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 . 0% 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ------------------------------=========------------===========================-- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 23 63.9% 11 30.6% 2 5.6% 0 Og_  0 36 16 6 1 0 23 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 33 55.9% 21 35.6% 3 5.1% 2 3. 4 % 59 27 12 2 2 43 17 EXPULSION 0 Og_  0 0 . 0% 0 0 g_  0 0 Og_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ==-----------------------------------------------------------------------------= COMPARISON ==----============-----=-======================================================- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ===---==============--------------=============-=-=-=--------===============---- 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 15 187.5 % 11 1100.0 % 2 200.0 % 0 . 0 % 28 9 6 1 0 16 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 30 .0 g, 0 21 .0 % 2 . 0 % 2 . 0 % 55 10 21 2 2 41 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I - [_ I I Ref: DIS032S Date: 6/12/06 Time: 18:05:54 School: 045 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY BELWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT /TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 7 100.0% 0 .0% 0 0 9-  0 0 .0% 7 5 0 0 0 5 11 BOYS CLUB 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 .0% 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 0 9-  0 0 .0% 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT /TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 9 100.0% 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 9 8 0 0 0 8 11 BOYS CLUB 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I. C 0 .0% 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 0 9-  0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 2 28.6 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 2 3 0 0 0 3 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 l I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I l Ref: DIS032S Date: 6/12/06 Time: 18:05:54 School: 04 6 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 .0% 0 Og_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 7 87.5% 1 12.5% 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 8 5 1 0 0 6 11 BOYS CLUB 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 .0% 0 Og_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 Og_  0 0 .0% 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBE\"'----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REE\"' PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 15 62. 5% 4 16.7% 5 20.8% 0 Og_  0 24 13 4 4 0 21 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 Og_  0 0 .0% 0 Og_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 Og_  0 0 .0% 0 Og_  0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBE\"'----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REE\"' PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 8 114. 3 % 3 300.0 % 5 500.0 % 0 .0 % 16 8 3 4 0 15 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I I I I I I I 11 I I I I 1  1 I I 1 I l I l Ref: DIS032S Date : 6 / 12 / 0 6 Time: 18:05:54 School: 048 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY INDIAN HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 0 g_  0 0 .0% 0 0 g_  0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 7 70.0% 0 Og_  0 2 20.0% 1 10.0% 10 4 0 1 1 6 11 BOYS CLUB 0 Og_  0 0 0 g_  0 0 Og_  0 0 0 g_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 9 64.3% 2 14.3% 0 21. 4% 0 Og_  0 14 7 1 3 0 11 17 EXPULSION 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 Og_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 8 61.5% 0 .0% 4 30.8% 1 7.7% 13 6 0 2 1 9 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 0 9.-  0 0 .0% 0 09.-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 3 75.0% 0 .0% 1 25.0% 0 .0% 4 3 0 1 0 4 17 EXPULSION 0 Og_  0 0 .0% 0 Og_  0 0 Og_ . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 1 14.3 % 0 .0 % 2 100.0 % 0 .o % 3 2 0 1 0 3 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 6- .0 % 2- . 0 % 2- . 0 % 0 . 0 % 10- 1- 1- 2- 0 7- 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I I I I I I North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 BM D \"04-05 1560  05.09 1843 Action 09: SAC BF NBM 860 390 1189 471 NSF 172 158  '04-05  '05-06 1200 1000 800 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Action 10: Home Suspension 600 D 04-05  os-o\u0026amp; 400 200 BM BF NBM NBF D 04-05 753 325 111 43  '05-08 1188 585 208 54 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 D 04-05  \"05-06 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Action 11: Boys Club BM BF NBM NBF 3 1 0 0 40 15 9 5  04-05  '05-06 120 100 80 40 I_] 20 I I 0 D 04-05 I  '05-08 I I North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Action 12: E. I. C. K-5 BM BF NBM NBF 110 30 11 1 14 38 13 3 12 10 8 6 4 1 2 I I 0 D 04-05 1  '05-08 I 1 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Action 17: Expulsion BM BF NBM NBF 11 0 9 1 4 2 5 2  04-05  '05-06 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Action 09: SAC 1 _/ 0.9 _/ o.a--- 0.7-\" 0.6 _/ 0.5-v 0  4-v 0  3-V 0.2 _/ 0.1 _/ 0 BM BF NBM NBF D 04-05 0 0 0 0  '05-08 0 0 0 0 D 04-05  '05-08 J J IJ J IJ IJ 250 200 150 100 50 0 D 04-05 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Action 10: Home Suspension BM BF NBM NBF 224 52 34 13  '05-06 204 58 30 3  04-05  '05-06 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Action 11: Boys Club 1 _/ 0.9-  o.a-  0.7-  0  6 V 0.5_v 0.4-v 0.3-v 0.2-v 0.1 _v 0 BM BF NBM NBF D 04-05 0 0 0 0  os-o\u0026amp; 0 0 0 0  04-05  '05-06 ] J I l J J J i 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 D 04-05 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Action 12: E. I. C. K-5 BM BF NBM NBF 110 30 11 1  \"05-08 84 38 13 3  04-05  '05-06 .. North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Action 17: Expulsion 1_/ 0.9-\" 0.8- 0.7_v 0  6-V 0.5-L-' 0  4-v 0.3.v 0  2-v 0.1 _v 0 BM BF NBM NBF D 04-05 0 0 0 0  os-o\u0026amp; 0 0 0 0  04-05  '05-06 ] I J I J J I J I l 1 i 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 004-05 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools Action 09: SAC BM BF NBM NBF 839 434 254 85  '05-08 1138 747 288 87 D 04-05  '05-06 ] I J ] J J J ] 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 D 04-05  '05-08 I I North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools Action 10: Home Suspension BM BF NBM NBF 199 110 53 12 581 315 119 31  04-05  05.0\u0026amp; ] 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0  04-05 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools Action 11: Boys Club BM BF NBM NBF 3 1 0 0  '05-08 40 15 9 5  04-05  '05-06 I North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools Action 12: E. I. C. K-5 1_/ 0.9-v 0  8 _v 0.7y 0.6-v 0  5Y 0.4-L-' 0.3_v 0.2_v 0.1 _v 0 BM BF NBM NBF D 04-05 0 0 0 0  \"05-06 0 0 0 0  04-05  '05-06 I J I J I J I J I J IJ IJ IJ IJ I I I I I I I I I 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0  04-05  '05-08 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools Action 17: Expulsion BM BF NBM NBF 5 0 4 0 1 0 0 1  04-05  05.oe 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 D 04-05  os-06 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 09: SAC BM BF NBM NBF 721 426 136 87 705 442 185 71  04-05  05.0\u0026amp; 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 D 04-05  '05-08 ~ I North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 10: Home Suspension BM BF NBM NBF 327 183 24 18 394 192 59 20  04-05  05.0\u0026amp; I I I_ I I I I I ,I North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 11: Boys Club 1 _,, 0.9_v 0.8-\" 0.7_v 0  6-V 0.5_v 0.4-v 0.3.v 0  2-v 0.1-\"' 0 BM BF NBM NBF 0 04-05 0 0 0 0  \"05-08 0 0 0 0  04-05  '05-06 IJ IJ 1:] IJ I I I I II I I I I North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 12: E. I. C. K-5 1 - 0.9-  o.a ,, 0.7-  0.6-V 0.5_v 0.4-v 0.3_v 0.2- 0.1 _,, 0 BM BF NBM NBF D 04-05 0 0 0 0  '05-08 0 0 0 0  04-05  '05-06 6 5 4 3 I 2 I 1 I I 0 D 04-05 I  '05-08 I North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 17: Expulsion BM BF NBM NBF 8 0 5 1 3 2 5 1   04-05  os-o\u0026amp; I I I I I I I North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 10 Year Comparison Action 09: SAC 2000-r------------~ 1800-,......._,r----------~ 1800__......,......__, ________ ~ 1400 1200 1000 800 800 400 200 0 BM BF NBM  98-97 1284 55 489  97-98 1801 882 547  98-99 1443 718 458  99-00 1488 882 401 D 00-01 1092 558 287  01-02 1278 574 354 D 02-03 1903 1050 512  03-04 1981 980 394 D '04-05 1580 880 390  '05-08 1843 1189 471 NBF 142 132 138 139 89 107 172 220 172 158  98-97  97-98  98-99  99-00 D 00-01  01-02 D 02-03  03-04 D \"04-05  \"05-08 I I North Little Rock Public Schools II Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 10 Year Comparison I Action 10: Home Suspension I I 1200 I 1000 I 800 I 800 I  98-97 400  97-91  98-99 I 200  99-00  00-01 I 0  01-02 BM BF NBM NBF D 02-03 I  98-97 591 208 125 17  03-04  97-98 511 125 104 13  '04-05 I  91-99 588 141 125 22  '05-08  99-00 408 113 102 18 I  00-01 315 92 84 7  01-02 892 234 92 21 I 002-03 522 193 83 13  03-04 489 157 88 18  '04-05 753 325 111 43 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 10 Year Comparison Action 11: Boys Club 600--------------, 500--------------- 400...Jl-tl------------ 300 200 100 0 BM BF NBM NBF  96-97 357 146 85 20  97-98 515 148 112 8  98-99 359 148 88 22  99-00 351 129 90 27 D 00-01 325 136 56 12  01-02 210 83 52 11 002-03 244 86 83 25  03-04 316 155 51 16  04.05 3 1 0 0  os-o\u0026amp; 40 15 9 5 1196-97  97-98  98-99  99-00 D 00-01  01-02 D 02-03  03-04  04.05 o o5-o6 I I I I I I I I I North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 10 Year Comparison Action 12: E. I. C. K-5 350 300- 250 200- \u0026gt;- 150- 100- 0- 0- I ~Jj .. _A. BM BF NBM NBF  98-97 154 30 32 3  97-98 0 0 0 0  98-99 211 108 27 8  99-00 248 83 75 18  00-01 182 55 40 21  01-02 342 184 87 29 002-03 252 97 52 11  03-04 195 70 18 11  '04-05 110 30 11 1  '05-08 84 38 13 3  98-97  97-98  98-99  99-00 D 00-01  01-02 D 02-03  03-04  '04-05  '05-08 IJ ~] I I I I I I I I I I I I North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 10 Year Comparison Action 17: Expulsion 12- 10- 8- 8- 4- - 2-a I ~ - - 0- J I II BM BF NBM NBF  98-97 3 7 0 0  97-98 8 5 0 0  98-99 7 2 1 1  99-00 3 0 2 0 D 00-01 3 0 5 3  01-02 1 0 2 1 D 02-03 2 0 2 0  03-04 2 0 2 0  '04-05 11 0 9 1 In n ,. .. 4 ~ a\n: ~ 98-97  97-98  98-99  99-00  00-01  01-02 D 02-03  03-04  '04-05 D '05-08\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_463","title":"Evaluation of Reading Recovery In the Little Rock School District, 2005 Aggregate Report, Draft","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":["2005"],"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"],"dcterms_title":["Evaluation of Reading Recovery In the Little Rock School District, 2005 Aggregate Report, Draft"],"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/463"],"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\nRECEIVED JAN 5 2006 OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Research in EducalionaJ Pcticy Evaluation of Reading Recovery In the Little Rock School District Ceruer for Researdi in Educational Policy The UniversSy of Memphis 325 Browning Ha# f.temohcs Tennessee 38152 To(Free1-866^7(M147 2005 Aggregate Report DRAFT REPORT FOR REVIEW BY Little Rock School District CREP Center for Research in Educational Policy Center for Rcsea'di in Edixatkinal Potcy The University' of Fvlempliis 325 Browning Mali Memohis Tennessee 38152 Tea Free 1-8I56-67M147 Evaluation of Reading Recovery In the Little Rock School District 2005 Aggregate Report DRAFT REPORT FOR REVIEW BY Little Rock School District December 2005 Anna W. Grehan Steven M. Ross Lynn Harrison Center for Research in Educational Policy John Nunnery Old Dominion UniversityEXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION The Little Rock School District began implementing Reading Recovery during the 1995-1996 school year in two schools. During the first four years of implementation, the Little Rock School District was part of the Pulaski County Reading Recovery Site. By 1998 there were eight trained Reading Recovery teachers in seven schools in the Little Rock School District. In July 1999 the district became a Reading Recovery Site hiring a full-time teacher leader. In 2000-2001 the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) began conducting the Reading Recovery teacher training for the district. Between the 2000-2001 and 2004-2005 school years UALR trained seventeen Reading Recovery teachers for the district. At the end of the 2004-2005 school year the Little Rock School District had 28 trained Reading Recovery teachers serving 18 of the 34 elementary schools in the district. Reading Recovery is one of eight literacy programs, interventions, and/or models used by Little Rock schools. Currently, Little Rock School District funds are used to support the program. The goal of Reading Recovery is to dramatically reduce the number of first grade students who have difficulty learning to read and write and to reduce the cost of these learners to educational systems. Reading Recovery is a short-term intervention program of one-to-one tutoring for the lowest-achieving first graders. The intervention is most effective when it is available to all students who need it and is used as a supplement to good classroom teaching. Individual students receive a half-hour lesson each school day for 12 to 20 weeks with a specially trained Reading Recovery teacher. As soon as students can read within the average range of their class and demonstrate that they can continue to achieve, their lessons are discontinued, and new students begin individual instruction. The evaluation plan for the Reading Recovery program in Little Rock School District included: (1) analyses of Reading Recovery student achievement and program data, (2) principal, teacher, and parent surveys and interviews, and (3) observations of Reading Recovery tutoring sessions. This report is part of a larger district study of four programs evaluating the effectiveness in improving and 1remediating the academic achievement of African-American students. This report includes results from 18 elementary schools participating in the Reading Recovery program. RESEARCH QUESTIONS The major goals of this research study were to evaluate African-American student achievement outcomes, program implementation fidelity, and principal, teacher, and parent perceptions concerning the Reading Recovery tutoring program for first grade students. Student achievement results on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS), Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA), Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS), and An Observation of Early Literacy Achievement were analyzed to compare the progress of first graders enrolled in the Reading Recovery intervention program and comparison students in 2004-2005. Program implementation ratings were obtained from observations of 14 tutoring sessions in nine schools. The survey and interview results are based on the perceptions of 156 classroom teachers in grades K-3,22 experienced Reading Recovery teachers, four teachers in-training, 10 principals, and 95 parents. The Reading Recovery evaluation was structured around the following seven primary and supplemental research questions. Primary evaluation question:  Has the Reading Recovery program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) evaluation questions:  What are the quality and level of implementation of Reading Recovery at the 18 schools implementing it in 2004-2005?  What is the level of participation in Reading Recovery by African American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school?  What is the progress demonstrated by African-American and other student participants in Reading Recovery in improving achievement, as demonstrated on program-specific measures? What percentage of students are discontinued or not discontinued? 2 What are the perceptions of Reading Recovery teachers regarding Reading Recovery program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?  What are the perceptions of principals, regular first-grade teachers, and other teachers in the school regarding Reading Recovery program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?  What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of Reading Recovery students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? DESIGN The evaluation period extended from February 2004 through May 2005. The evaluation design was based on both quantitative and qualitative data collected from Reading Recovery intervention observations, principal and teacher in-training interviews, classroom teachers, Reading Recovery teachers, and parent surveys, and Reading Recovery program data. Reading Recovery student-level achievement data on the ITBS, DRA, DIBELS, and An Observation of Early Literacy Achievement was received in Fall 2005 and incorporated in this report. The primary data collectors in this study were Center for Research in Educational Policy (CREP) trained site researchers. Site researchers: (1) conducted Reading Recovery intervention observations, (2) administered the Reading Recovery teacher survey, (3) conducted principal and teacher in-training interviews, and (4) collected program data. Principals at Reading Recovery schools were responsible for administering the classroom teacher and Reading Recovery parent surveys. Participants Little Rock School District is located in Central Arkansas and serves approximately 26,500 students, with African-Americans representing approximately 67% of the district student population, in 49 schools in an urban area with a population of 184,000. In the 2004-2005 school year 18 elementary schools and 230 first grade students, of which 173 are African American, 27 are white, 22 are Hispanic, and the remaining 8 are other ethnicities, participated in the Reading Recovery program in the district. However, the schools indicated that 365 first grade students needed Reading Recovery services. Three schools were in their first year of program implementation (Bale, Stephens, and 3Terry) and survey and observation data were not collected from these schools. However, randomly selected teachers in-training and principals from these three schools were interviewed for this study. INSTRUMENTATION Six instruments were developed by CREP to collect the evaluation data: a classroom observation tool, a principal interview, a teacher in-training interview, a Reading Recovery teacher questionnaire, a classroom teacher questionnaire, and a parent survey. A detailed description of each instrument follows. Classroom Observation Measures Reading Recovery Implementation Assessment Instrument (RRIAI) The RRIAI was designed for observation in Reading Recovery classrooms and was developed by researchers at CREP and Reading Recovery faculty at ULAR. Ratings are organized around two categories: Reading Recovery Program Components and Reading Recovery Program Strategies. The RRIAI observation tool provides an overall rating for each category based on a rubric that ranges from (1) poor or unacceptable\n(2) below average in comparison to other programs observed\n(3) meets nearly all standards of program quality\nand (4) above average in comparison to other programs. The RRIAI has been aligned to the essential components of the Reading Recovery program. Sub-categories of the program components include: reading familiar stories, reading a story that was read for the first time the day before, working with letters, writing a story, assembling a cut-up story, and introducing and reading a new book. The tool was designed to be utilized by experienced Reading Recovery trainers during the 30-minute tutoring session with additional time allocated for observer questions and examination of student records after the session. Interviews Reading Recovery Principal Interview Randomly selected principals from 10 Reading Recovery schools participated in approximately 45-minute phone interviews with CREP researchers. Interview questions addressed 4the principals general experiences and reactions to the Reading Recovery implementation and the associated outcomes for the school, students, teachers, and parents. Reading Recovery Teacher in Training Interview In the 2004-2005 school year, six teachers were beginning their first year as a Reading Recovery teacher and considered as teachers in-training. Three were located in experienced schools and three were located in the schools beginning their first year of implementation: Bale, Stephens, and Terry. Four randomly selected teachers in-training participated in an approximately 45-minute phone interview with CREP researchers. Interview questions addressed the teacher's in-training experiences with and perceptions of the Reading Recovery program implementation with regard to such areas as resources, professional development, parent involvement, support, and student outcomes. Surveys Reading Recovery Teacher Questionnaire (RRTQ) Reading Recovery teachers in the 15 experienced Reading Recovery schools were asked to complete the RRTQ, which includes four sections. Section I contains 20 items to which teachers respond using a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from (1) Strongly Disagree to (5) Strongly Agree. Items assessed the general impressions of the Reading Recovery program, professional development, support for the program, impacts on student achievement, and alignment of state and district reading and language arts standards. In a second section, teachers were asked to indicate to what degree the listed items occurred. The focus of the 4 items were (1) administration support of Reading Recovery teacher efforts\n(2) Reading Coach support of Reading Recovery teacher efforts\n(3) district support of Reading Recovery teacher efforts\nand (4) the time to routinely monitor first grade students progress after they were discontinued from tutoring. Open-ended questions asked Reading Recovery teachers to respond to the statements: What are the strongest aspects of the Reading Recovery program? What are the weakest aspects of the Reading Recovery program? Do you think your school should continue the Reading Recovery program? A final section of the RRTQ contained general questions regarding years of teaching experience, race, and level of education. 5Reading Recovery Classroom Teacher Questionnaire (RRCTQ) All K-3 teacher who taught in experienced Reading Recovery schools were asked to complete the RRCTQ, which contains 13 items to which teachers respond using a five-point Likert- type scale that ranges from (1) Strongly Disagree to (5) Strongly Agree. Items assessed the specific program elements of Reading Recovery such as: understanding of the program, impacts on student achievement, teacher support for the program, and parent involvement. Open-ended questions asked classroom teachers to respond to the statements: Please describe your understanding of the Reading Recovery program In your school. What are the strongest aspects of the Reading Recovery program? Do you think your school should continue the Reading Recovery program? A final section of the RRCTQ contained general questions regarding years of teaching experience, race, and level of education. Reading Recovery Parent Survey (RRPS) Parents whose first grade children were currently receiving Reading Recovery tutoring services were asked to complete the RRPS, that contains 6 items to which parents respond using a five-point Likert-type scale that ranges from (1) Strongly Disagree to (5) Strongly Agree. Items assessed general impressions of the program such as: improvement in childs reading skills, child's enjoyment of tutoring sessions, and opportunities to communicate with the Reading Recovery teacher. Open-ended questions asked parents to respond to the statements: Please describe your understanding of the Reading Recovery tutoring program at your child's school. What is the BEST thing about your childs involvement with the Reading Recovery tutoring program? What CHANGES would you like to see in the Reading Recovery tutoring program? A final section of the RRPS asked parents to indicate the race, grade, and age of their child. Program Data Reading Recovery program information was obtained from data submitted to the National Data Evaluation Center at The Ohio State University in 2004-2005. Each year the schools and district submit data and receive a site report. The report represents an examination of Reading Recovery student outcomes for Little Rock and accounts for all children served by Reading Recovery within the 6site during the 2004-2005 school year. In addition, attention is given to implementation factors that may be supporting or hindering the success of the intervention with the site. Student Achievement Results In addition to the program data, interviews, survey, and observation tools cited above, reading achievement data is derived from scores on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS), Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA), Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) and An Observation of Early Literacy Achievement. A description of each assessment follows. Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS). The ITBS Form A is a norm-referenced group administered test that measures the skills and achievement of students in grades K-8 and was developed at The University of Iowa. The ITBS provides an in-depth assessment of students achievement of important educational objectives. Tests in Reading, Language Arts, Mathematics, Social Studies, Science, and Source of Information yield reliable and comprehensive information both about the development of students skills and about their ability to think critically. The emphasis of the K-1 assessment is on academic skills found in the early childhood curriculum. These tests are neither measures of readiness for school nor readiness to read. Rather, they assess the extent to which a child is cognitively prepared to begin work in the academic aspects of the curriculum. Test materials have been extensively field tested for psychometric soundness and evaluated for fairness to gender. racial, ethnic, and cultural groups. Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA). The Developmental Reading Assessment provides teachers with a method for assessing and documenting primary students development as readers over time with a literature-based instructional reading program. The DRA is designed to be used in K-3 classrooms with rich literate environments. The assessments are conducted during one- on-one reading conferences as children read specially selected assessment texts. A set of 20 stories. which increase in difficulty, are used for the assessment. The DRA evaluates two major aspects of reading: accuracy of oral reading and comprehension through reading and retelling of narrative stories. Questions pertaining to concepts about print are also included in the assessment with lower leveled texts. 7Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS). DIBELS is a tool for early identification of children with potential literacy problems and an assessment of response to instruction. The assessment is individually administered to K-3 children at least three times per year. The DIBELS assessment is designed to enable educators to modify their approach if a student is not on course to achieve reading goals. The Early Childhood Research Institute on Measuring Growth and Development at the University of Oregon constructed DIBELS (2000). The Institute reports it has validated the instruments ability to predict outcomes and has tested its reliability with young children across the country. Reading Recovery schools that have received Reading Excellence Act or Reading First grant funding use the DIBELS assessment in Little Rock. An Observation of Early Literacy Achievement: Reading Recovery Subtests. Six tasks in Marie Clays (2002) An Observation of Early Literacy Achievement (Observation Survey) were used as pretest and posttest measures. The Survey tasks have the qualities of sound assessment instruments with reliabilities and validities. The purpose of the assessment is to determine an appropriate level of text difficulty and to record, using a running record, what the child does when reading continuous text. All six tasks of the Observation Survey were administered to Reading Recovery students in the fall (start of the school year) and/or at entry to the intervention. These scores serve as pretest measure in the evaluation design. The six tasks were also administered to Reading Recovery students upon discontinuing or exiting from the program. In the spring (end of school year), the six tasks were again administered to all students who received Reading Recovery services during the year. Year-end scores served as the posttest measures in comparing the progress made by Reading Recovery children in the various end-of-program status groups. PROCEDURE Data for the evaluation were collected March-May for the 2004-2005 school year. On February 16, 2005 principals were given an overview of the evaluation and timelines for collecting data. On March 3-4 and April 14-15,14 tutoring observations were conducted in nine randomly selected experienced Reading Recovery schools by two Reading Recovery content experts from Georgia State and The Ohio State Universities. Only experienced Reading Recovery teachers were observed. On March 23 a CREP trained site researcher administered the Reading Recovery teacher 8survey to experienced teachers at a regularly scheduled monthly meeting at ULAR. In April and May principals in experienced Reading Recovery schools administered the classroom teacher questionnaire to K-3 grade teachers. Principals also administered the parent survey to parents whose children were currently receiving first grade intervention services in the 15 experienced Reading Recovery schools. Four teachers in-training and ten principals were randomly selected from the 18 Reading Recovery schools to participate in a phone interview in April and May conducted by CREP researchers. Reading Recovery program data was received in summer 2005 from the National Data Evaluation Center at The Ohio State University. Student achievement data was received from the district in fall 2005. METHODS - STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT Sample. The sample included 1,094 first grade students who attended one of 18 schools that implemented the Reading Recovery program during the 2004-2005 school year. Of these, 230 were referred to the Reading Recovery program, and 864 were in the comparison group. The percentages of students who were African American or of Limited English Proficiency were similar between the comparison and Reading Recovery groups (73.6% versus 75.6% and 7.3% versus 8.7%, respectively). However, Reading Recovery students were more likely to be eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (84.3% versus 73.1%), to receive special education services (15.7% versus 8.6%), and to be male (58.1 % versus 48.0%). A random sample of about 11 comparison students was selected from each school (total n = 189) for administration of the DIBELS and Observation Survey: Reading Recovery test batteries. Reading Recovery Treatment Level. In the Reading Recovery program, students who are deemed to have attained a reading level equivalent to their peers are assigned an end-of-program status of discontinued. Children who received 20 or more weeks of Reading Recovery services, but who do not attain a reading level equivalent to their peers are assigned a status of recommended action. Children who have received fewer than 20 weeks were assigned incomplete program status. Children designated as unknown status were removed from the program in fewer than 20 weeks due to reasons other than the school year ending. Other children were designated as having moved during the school year. The median number of sessions of recommended action {Md = 968.50\nn = 68) children was actually higher than the median for discontinued students (Md = 57.00\nn = 90). The medians for incomplete students (n = 46) and unknown students (n = 12) were very similar (Md = 44.63 versus 46.08, respectively). For the purposes of this study, recommended action and discontinued students were categorized as complete program\n incomplete and unknown students were categorized as incomplete program\n and students who moved were eliminated from the analyses. This left a total of 216 Reading Recovery students: 158 with a complete program, and 58 with an incomplete program. Measures. Pretest (covariate) measures included: (a) Spring. 2004 Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) subtests in Letter Recognition, Word Recognition, Capitatization, Writing, Dictation, and a DRA Test score, (b) Fall 2005 Observation Survey: Reading Recovery program subtests that included Letter Identification, Word Test, Concepts About Print, Writing Vocabulary, Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words, and Text Reading, and (c) the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) subtests in Letter Naming Fluency, Phoneme Segmentation Fluency, Nonsense Word Fluency, and Word Use Fluency. Outcome measures included Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) Reading Normal Curve Equivalent Scores. DRA subtests. Observation Survey: Reading Recovery subtests, and DIBELS subtests administered in Spring 2005. To achieve some parsimony in the analyses, pretest measures were subjected to a principal components analysis, and regressionbased factors scores were constructed for pretest DRA. Observation Survey: Reading Recovery, and DIBELS subtests. A single factor accounted for 60.1 %. 60.5%. and 43.8% of the variance in the DRA. Observation Survey: Reading Recovery, and DIBELS subtests, respectively. Outcome measures included the DRA. Observation Survey: Reading Recovery, and DIBELS subtests, as well as ITBS. The DRA Letter Recognition, DRA Capitalization, and DIBELS Letter Naming Fluency subtests were not administered in Spring 2005. DIBELS and Observation Survey: Reading Recovery tests were administered to a small random sample of comparison students within each school. Student achievement analyses. A 3 (Program Status) X 2 (African American versus other) multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) using student gender, the pertinent pretest factor score, free lunch status, special education status, and LEP status was performed with the various subtests as outcomes for the DRA. Observation Survey: Reading Recovery, and DIBELS test 10batteries. A similar 3X2 analysis of covariance was performed on ITBS Reading NCE scores using the 2003-2004 DRA factor score as a pretest covariate. For the multivariate analyses, Wilks lambda was used as the criterion of multivariate significance. Where Wilks lambda indicated a significant multivariate effect, follow-up univariate analyses were performed on each outcome variable using the Bonferroni procedure to control for experimentwise alpha. When significant univariate results were found, post hoc analyses were performed using Scheffes procedure. Effect size estimates were computed for all posttests by subtracting the adjusted mean for the comparison group from the adjusted mean from the Reading Recovery group within levels of race, then dividing by the total standard deviation of the posttest. For ITBS Reading NCE effect size estimates, the population standard deviation of 21.06 was used. Exploratory and supplementary analyses. Impact of teacher experience and number of sessions. The number of years experience with Reading Recovery was recorded for each teacher. Years experience ranged from 1 to 10 years. ITBS Reading NCE scores and DRA test scores for 2004-2005 were regressed on 2003-2004 DRA factor scores and dummy-coded variables representing student ethnicity, free lunch status, gender, special education status, and LEP status. Standardized residuals were saved from each of these analyses, and plotted against teacher years of experience to graphically assess the nature of the relationship between teacher experience and teacher effectiveness in Reading Recovery for students who received a Complete program. Standardized residuals for each of these 2004-2005 tests were also plotted against number of Reading Recovery sessions received for all students (i.e., those who received either a Complete or Incomplete program). Finally, effect size boxplots were constructed for African American students who had Complete and Incomplete Reading Recovery programs. 11RESULTS Classroom Observation Results Reading Recovery Implementation Assessment Instrument (RRIAI) As indicated in the description of the RRIAI, the observation procedure primarily focuses on Reading Recovery Program Components and Program Strategies. The site observers used a four- point rubric (1 = poor or unacceptable, 2 = below average in comparison to other programs observed, 3 = meets nearly all standards of program quality, and 4 = above average in comparison to other programs) to rate the frequency and application of components and strategies of Reading Recovery instruction. More precise data regarding observed Reading Recovery instructional practices measured by the four-point rubric for the 14 observations. Reading Recovery Program Components The overall mean rating for the Reading Recovery Program Components was 3.46 which suggest a high level of program implementation. Of the six subcategories the highest observed ratings were\nassembling a cut-up story and introducing and reading a new book observed to be above average in 85.71 % of tutoring sessions. The program component subcategory with the lowest observed rating was working with letters and/or words using magnetic letters observed to be above average in only 35.71% of tutoring sessions. The six program components were observed in at least 92.86% of 14 tutoring sessions. Reading Recovery Program Strategies The overall mean rating for the Reading Recovery Program Strategies was 3.61 which also indicate a high level of instructional effectiveness. Of the eight During Tutoring Lesson subcategories the highest observed rating was for appropriate text selected throughout the lesson observed to above average in 85.71% of tutoring sessions. The During Tutoring Lesson subcategory with the lowest observed rating was echo of focus throughout the lesson observed to be above average in just 42.86% of tutoring sessions. For the After Tutoring Lesson, has high expectations for the child and articulates childs strengths and needs were observed to be above average in 78.57% of tutoring sessions and accurate and up-to-date records were observed to be above average in 71.43% of 12tutoring sessions. The Reading Recovery Program Strategies were observed in at least 85.71 of tutoring sessions. Observer Perceptions of Reading Recovery Program Impiementation Site observers reported being impressed with the dedication and commitment of the Reading Recovery teachers to the fidelity of the teaching procedures and the integrity of the implementation of the program. Almost all teachers observed were meeting all the standards, guidelines, and expectations of the Reading Recovery Council of North America and the North American Trainers Group. Since observations occurred in March and April, most of the students observed were second- round students, since teachers had discontinued their first-round students. Teachers reported that students who did not discontinue from Reading Recovery during the first-round were being considered for further intervention services. Site observers also reported that the Reading Recovery program in the Little Rock district receives an adequate allocation of time, materials, and other resources. However, several teachers and principals expressed the need for additional Reading Recovery teachers in their schools. Reading Recovery teachers also reported teaching literacy small groups the rest of the day which enables them to give their Reading Recovery students more attention during the instructional day. By teaching these literacy groups, site observers suggested that the Reading Recovery teachers expertise and knowledge gained from their training and practice benefits children across several grade levels. During visits site observers did suggest areas in which some Reading Recovery teachers need improvement. These instructional areas include: (1) hearing and recording sounds in words\n(2) making and breaking\n(3) do away with the helping hand\nand (4) maintaining up-to-date records on each child as a basis for instruction. 13INTERVIEW RESULTS Reading Recovery Principal Interview Principals at ten of the Reading Recovery schools were randomly selected to participate in a 45 minute phone interview. Principals were asked a series of questions regarding general program implementation, classroom level changes, program results, professional development opportunities and parental and community involvement. Overall, principals were positive about the Reading Recovery program and the impact it has had on their schools. Most of the schools have been utilizing Reading Recovery for several years and faculty and staff are very comfortable with the program. Nearly all of the principals interviewed were instrumental in bringing Reading Recovery to their schools, and the decision to utilize Reading Recovery was made after considerable research and thoughtful consideration. Principals reported that Reading Recovery is a wonderful compliment to the school's balanced literacy programs. The one-on-one attention the reading Recovery students receive is overwhelmingly the most effective of the strategies that the program employs. Other effective strategies mentioned included push-ins, literacy groups, running records, and the writing component. Principals reported being active advocates in their Reading Recovery programs. They described their roles as one of support and involvement, ranging from oversight of the program to more direct involvement including student selection for the program, review of student progress, and ongoing meetings and collaboration with the Reading Recovery specialists. All principals noted that teachers were very supportive of the Reading Recovery program and appreciated the impact it has had on overall student achievement. Most of the resources needed for effective program implementation are available\nhowever principals reported an ongoing need for books, additional teachers and tutors, and more planning time. Principals described the African American population as being well-served by Reading Recovery, and most agree that through Reading Recovery the achievement gap is being bridged for their African American students. In most of the schools, African American students are a large percentage of the Reading Recovery program, 14and the early intervention provided by Reading Recovery allov/s the student to be encouraged by being successful at a younger age. Teacher in-Training Interview In the spring 2005, four teachers in their first year in the Reading Recovery program were contacted by phone for a 30 to 45 minute phone interview. The teachers in-raining were attending classes concerning Reading Recovery instruction, as well as working in their schools implementing the Reading Recovery strategies. Feedback from the teachers was solicited regarding general program information, classroom level changes, results, professional development, and parental involvement and support. All teachers described the process of integrating Reading Recovery into the school's literacy program as well planned and organized. Reading Recovery teachers work individually with the lowest performing students and then follow up individual instruction with literacy groups. Reading Recovery teachers reported a thorough selection process that involved collaboration with the classroom teacher and comprehensive testing and assessment. In general, the Reading Recovery teachers reported strong support from the classroom teachers, that classroom teachers appreciate the effectiveness of the one-on-one approach, and the fact that the Reading Recovery is able to provide this type of support, freeing the classroom teacher to work more effectively with the other students. The Reading Recovery teachers in training strongly felt that Reading Recovery helped to equalize learning and achievement opportunities for African American students at their schools. Most of the students in Reading Recovery are African American, and these teachers were able to see positive gains. Reading Recovery helps all struggling readers by actively engaging them in reading and allowing them to feel successful at reading. The Reading Recovery teachers in training report a significant increase in self-confidence and improvement in overall attitude among the Reading Recovery students. As the students begin to experience success, they are less frustrated and angry. This improvement in attitude improves their classroom behavior and relationships with other teachers and students. Some of these teachers have seen dramatic increases in test scores and other achievement data, while others have not yet been able to see these gains. 15Reading Recovery teachers in- training reported professional training that ranged from adequate to thorough. Changes in Reading Recovery course instructors led to some confusion for some of the teachers in training, and some reported the need for increased classroom hours. However, overall, these teachers reported feeling well-prepared to work with the students. The strategies they have learned have been very helpful. Although the teachers in training reported having significant classroom experience, they are learning unique techniques that have been very beneficial. Survey Results Reading Recovery Teacher Questionnaire (RRTQ) Descriptive results. Reading Recovery teachers had extremely favorable attitudes toward the program at their schools. All of the teachers strongly agreed or agreed that they have a thorough understanding of the program, teachers in their school are generally supportive of the program. ongoing communication exists between Reading Recovery tutors and classroom reading teachers. Reading Recovery monthly meetings are effective and useful, instructional materials needed to implement our Reading Recovery program are readily available, and the Reading Recovery program is aligned with state and district reading and language arts standards. There was also strong agreement that Reading Recovery teachers received support, with 86.36% of the teachers reporting that the school administration and Reading Coach supported their efforts as a Reading Recovery teacher. Almost 75% (72.73%) of teachers reported receiving extensive district support. The items with the highest level of disagreement (disagree and strongly disagree) concerned Reading Recovery teachers having sufficient planning time (36.36%) and enough tutors to fully implement the Reading Recovery program (18.18%). Demographic data. All Reading Recovery teachers (100%) reported having at least six years of teaching experience and 31.82% reported at least six years experience as a Reading Recovery teacher. Approximately 85% (86.36%) of Reading Recovery teachers reported having a Masters Degree and beyond. The majority of Reading Recovery teachers were white (72.73%) and 13.64% reported their ethnicity as African-American. 16Open-ended responses. Reading Recovery teachers were asked to respond to three open- ended questions in addition to the 24 items on the questionnaire. Respondents were instructed to list the strongest aspects of the Reading Recovery program, the weakest aspects of the Reading Recovery program, and reasons for continuing or discontinuing Reading Recovery their school. There were twenty-two Reading Recovery teachers who filled out the questionnaire, and twenty-one of those also answered the open-ended questions. Of the 21 who listed strong aspects of the Reading Recovery program, the two most popular answers were individualized, one-on-one instruction, 57.1%, and the ability to reach the lowest performing students and bridge the achievement gap for these students, 47.6%. Reading Recovery teaching strategies and components were listed in 19% of the responses, and both the early intervention element and the support from the other teachers were listed in 14.3% of the responses. Respondents were also asked to list what they considered the weakest elements of the Reading Recovery program. Time was a factor in many of the responses with lack of planning time most frequently mentioned at 33.3%. Lack of time to complete the lesson was mentioned in 19.0% of the responses. Teachers inability to help all the students who need help was also mentioned in 19.0% of the responses. All of the 21 teachers responded positively to the question Do you think your school should continue the Reading Recovery program? Why?-, and 20 teachers elaborated on their positive response listing reasons for continuing Reading Recovery. The ability of Reading Recovery to help struggling readers was listed in half of the responses (50.0%), and strong progress and results were mentioned in 40.0% of the responses. The fact that Reading Recovery decreases the number of special education referrals was listed in 15.0% of the responses. There was one respondent who pointed out that although he/she felt Reading Recovery should be continued at the school, there needed to be better implementation to make it effective. Reading Recovery Classroom Teacher Questionnaire (RRCTQ) Descriptive results. For the classroom teachers, the three items on which there was 80% or higher agreement included: teacher support of the program (93.59%), positive impact on student achievement (87.82%), and improving achievement of African-American students (82.05%). The two 17items on which classroom teachers expressed the strongest disagreement or disagreement included\nsufficient faculty and staff to fully implement the program (23.08%) and because of Reading Recovery, parents are more involved in the literacy program (14.74%). Demographic data. K-3 classroom teachers reported less teaching experience and education attainment than Reading Recovery teachers. Close to 30% (28.85%) reported less than one year to five years teaching experience in any school and 57.69% reported having a Bachelors degree. However, more classroom teachers reported their ethnicity as African-American (28.85%) than Reading Recovery teachers with the majority (68.59%) reporting ethnicity as white. Open-ended responses. In addition to the 13 items the teachers were asked to rate on the questionnaire, several open-ended questions were also asked of the classroom teachers. Teachers were asked to describe their understanding of the Reading Recovery program, relate the strongest aspects of the program, and discuss whether or not Reading Recovery should be continued at their school. There were 151 teachers who described their understanding of the Reading Recovery program. Classroom teachers at Reading Recovery schools have a very good understanding of the program, which corresponds with the almost 80% (78.2%) who agreed with the item on the questionnaire concerning their understanding of the program. Nearly all of the respondents were able to articulate the main elements of Reading Recovery. A total of 136 teachers responded to the question regarding the strongest aspect of the Reading Recovery program. Many of the teachers listed more than one component as being a strong aspect of Reading Recovery. One-on-one or individualized instruction was listed in 56.6% of the responses as being the strongest aspect of the program. Working with students in small groups was mentioned in 24.2% of the responses and the ability of Reading Recovery to help those students who are most in need was listed in 14.7% of the responses. For the open-ended responses, over half (53.4%) listed the fact that Reading Recovery helps students achieve as a significant reason for keeping the program, and 22.4% stated Reading Recovery should be continued because it helps those in greatest need. Nearly twenty percent (19.8%) listed individualized instruction. Although all of the respondents to the question replied that 18Reading Recovery should continue at their schools, six percent (6.0%) stated the need for more Reading Recovery teachers at the school, and 6.0% felt greater implementation was needed. Reading Recovery Parent Survey (RRPS) Descriptive results. Generally, parents had favorable attitudes toward the Reading Recovery program. A majority of the parents (90.53%) reported that, because of Reading Recovery tutoring, they believed that their child would be successful in school and 86.32% reported that Reading Recovery had improved their child's reading skills. However, less than 75% (66.32%) of parents strongly agreed or agreed that they have many opportunities to talk with the Reading Recovery teacher about their childs progress. Demographic data. Almost 70% (68.42%) of parents reported the ethnicity of their child as African-American and 13.68% reported their childs ethnicity as Hispanic and 7.37% reported the ethnicity of their child as Caucasian. Open-ended responses. In addition to the six scaled items parents of Reading Recovery students were asked to answer, parents were also asked three open-ended questions regarding the program. There were 80 parents who responded to the first open-ended question, which asked them to describe their understanding of the Reading Recovery tutoring program at their childs school. Overall, parents seemed to have a very good understanding of the Reading Recovery program, and many listed several components that are instrumental in Reading Recovery. Over 80% (83.8%) responded that Reading Recovery helps children read better and improve their reading skills, and 21.3% listed the one-on-one help and individualized attention that the program provides. Children bringing books home and reading at home was mentioned in 13.8% of the responses and improvement in writing skills was listed in 8.8% of the responses. Only 2.5% of those who responded indicated that they did not know or understand Reading Recovery. Reading Recovery Level of Participation and Program Measures African American students were in the majority in all of the 18 schools in the study. Not surprisingly, at 75.2% of the total student population, African American students were also a majority of the Reading Recovery students in the schools. In 11 of the 18 schools, the percentage of African American students in Reading Recovery exceeded their percentage of the school wide population. 19How meaningful this difference is may be debatable given instances where 100% of the Reading Recovery students are African American in a school which is 99% African American (Rightsell Incentive Elementary) or where there are just 8 Reading Recovery students in a school with more than 100 first grade students (Terry Elementary School). Reading Recovery End of Program Status by Race A comparison of the total African American Reading Recovery student population to the total other students involved in Reading Recovery indicates that the students were nearly equally represented in two of the three program specific measures. The percentage of African American students Discontinued (43.3%) was not significantly different from the percent of other students Discontinued (46.3%). In addition, in the Incomplete status, the percentage of African American students (21.3%) was not very much different than that of the other students (25.9%). Only in the Recommended status did the percentage of African American students considerably exceed the percentage of other students (34.5% vs. 27.8%). Reading Recovery Year End Reading Group by Race With-in school comparisons are again difficult due to the unequal number of African American students compared to others student participating in the program. On an overall basis however, the percentage of African American students placed in the high/upper-middle group at 25.7% was significantly lower than the percent of other students placed in this group (38.2%). In addition. almost three quarters of the African American students were placed in the low/lower-middle group compared to less than two thirds of other students. STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT RESULTS DRA Subtests. A. total of 142 Reading Recovery students (66% pretest-posttest match rate) and 562 comparison students (65% rate) had matching 2005 DRA subtest scores, demographic information, and 2004 DRA factor scores. Wilks lambda indicated significant multivariate effects for Reading Recovery status (Fejaso = 6.83, p \u0026lt; .001), special education status (F^^so = 3.93, p \u0026lt;.01), and 2003-2004 DRA factor scores (= 111 -32, p \u0026lt;.001). Follow-up univariate tests indicated 20significant Reading Recovery status effects on Dictation (F2,693 = 6.34, p \u0026lt;.01) and Test scores (^2,693 = 9.99, p \u0026lt; .001). Post hoc analyses revealed that: (a) Reading Recovery students in both the Incomplete Program {M = 36.32\nES =+0.43) and the Complete Program (W = 35.96\nS =+0.37) had a significantly higher adjusted mean Dictation score than students in the comparison condition (M = 33.82)\nand (b) students in the comparison condition (M = 17.64) and the Complete program {M= 16.42\nS = -0.18) had a higher mean Test score than students receiving the Incomplete Program (W = 13.02\nES = -0.68). No program X race interaction effect occurred, indicating that African American and other students were equally affected by participation in Reading Recovery. DIBELS Subtests. total of 67 Reading Recovery students (31 %) and 53 comparison students (28%) had matching 2005 DIBELS subtest scores, demographic information, and 2003-2004 DIBELS factor scores. Wilks lambda indicated significant multivariate effects for Reading Recovery status (Eg,212 = 4.12, p \u0026lt; .001), special education status ( E4JO6 = 3.50, p \u0026lt;.01), and 2003-2004 DRA factor scores ( F4JO6 = 3.69, p \u0026lt;.01). Follow-up univariate tests indicated significant Reading Recovery status effects on Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (F2,io9 = 3.39, p \u0026lt;.O5) and Oral Reading Fluency (F2.109 = 6.59, p \u0026lt; .01). Post hoc analyses revealed that: (a) Reading Recovery students in both the Incomplete Program {M = 54.81\nES = +0.65) and the Complete Program (M = 54.02\nES = +0.58) had a significantly higher adjusted mean Phoneme Segmentation Fluency score than students in the comparison condition {M = 47.23)\n(b) students in the comparison condition {Ivf = 40.35) and the Complete program (1^= 33.45) had a higher mean Oral Reading Fluency score than students receiving the Incomplete Program (M = 21.62\nES = -0.91)\nand (c) students in the comparison condition had a higher adjusted mean Oral Reading Fluency score (M = 40.35) than students receiving the Complete program (M = 33.45\nES =-0.33). No program X race interaction effect occurred, indicating that African American and other students were equally affected by participation in Reading Recovery. Observation Survey: Reading Recovery Subtests. A total of 161 Reading Recovery students (75%%) and 90 comparison students (47%) had matching 2004-2005 Reading Recovery subtest scores, demographic information, and 2003-2004 Reading Recovery factor scores. Wilks lambda indicated significant multivariate effects for Reading Recovery status (Fio,474 = 4.85, p \u0026lt; .001), 21special education status (Fs ^s? = 3.09, p \u0026lt;.01), 2003-2004 Reading Recovery factor scores (Fs^s? = 22.02, p \u0026lt;.001), and gender {F5,237 = 4.92, p \u0026lt;.01). No program X race interaction effect occurred. indicating that African American and other students were equally affected by participation in Reading Recovery. Follow-up univariate tests indicated significant Reading Recovery status effects on Concepts About Print (F2,241 = 11.87, p \u0026lt;.001), Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words {F2,24-1 = 3.19, p \u0026lt; .05), and Text Reading Levei (F2,24i = 5.38, p \u0026lt; .01). Post hoc analyses revealed that: (a) Reading Recovery students in the Complete Program {M = 20.00\nES = +0.83 ) had a significantly higher adjusted mean Concepts About Print score than student in the comparison condition {M = 17.08) or the Incomplete Program {M = 18.52\nES = +0.41)\n(b) students in the Complete program (M = 34.79\nES = +0.36) had a higher mean Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words score than students in the comparison condition (M = 32.77)\nand (c) students in the comparison condition {M = 13.67) and the Complete program (M= 13.73) had a higher mean Text Reading score than students receiving the Incomplete Program (M = 10.28\nES = -0.53). ITBS Reading NCE. A total of 140 Reading Recovery students (65%) and 562 comparison students (65%) had matching 2004-2005 Reading Recovery subtest scores, demographic information, and 2003-2004 DRA factor scores. The ANCOVA indicated statistically significant effects for Reading Recovery status (F2,69i = 6.62, p \u0026lt;.001), free lunch status (Fi gg, = 7.83, p \u0026lt;.01), and 2003-2004 DRA factor scores (Fi.esi = 195.81, p \u0026lt;.001). No program X race interaction effect occurred, indicating that African American and other students were equally affected by participation in Reading Recovery. Post hoc analyses showed that comparison students (M = 53.82) had a significantly higher adjusted mean ITBS Reading NCE score than students receiving the Complete program (W = 46.65\nES = -0.34). The effect size for African American students receiving a complete program was -0.46, versus -0.09 for those receiving an incomplete program. Exploratory and supplemental results. Exploratory analyses of second and third grade results showed no effects on 2004-2005 DRA and negative effects on ITBS. These results need to be viewed with caution, however, due to low matching rates in second grade and the lack of a true pretest measure. There was no relationship between number of teacher years of experience with Reading Recovery and ITBS standardized residuals or DRA standardized residuals for students 22receiving a complete program, after controlling for 2003-2004 DRA factor scores and student ethnicity. gender, free lunch status, special education status, and LEP status. Likewise, there was no relationship between number of sessions attended and ITBS residuals. A statistically significant, small positive relationship was observed between total number of sessions attended and DRA residuals (r = 0.21, p \u0026lt;.O5). The median effect size estimate across all posttests for African American students with a complete program was Md = +0.17, with a range from -0.25 to +0.52. For African American students receiving an incomplete program, effect size estimates ranged from -0.78 to +0.50, with a median of -0.23. Thus, receiving a complete program yielded a directional advantage for African American students, whereas the reverse occurred for receiving an incomplete program. CONCLUSIONS Has the Reading Recovery program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students?  The Reading Recovery program had equal effects on African American and other students. Students receiving the complete program had significantly higher adjusted means than comparison students on Dictation {ES = +0.37), Phoneme Segmentation {ES = +0.58), Concepts About Print (ES = +0.83), and Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words (ES = +0.36)  Students receiving an incomplete program had significantly higher adjusted means than comparison students on Dictation (ES = +0.43) and Phoneme Segmentation (ES = +0.65).  Students in the comparison condition had significantly higher adjusted means than students receiving a complete program on Oral Reading Fluency (ES = -0.33) and on ITBS Reading NCE scores (ES = -0.34).  Students in the comparison condition had significantly higher adjusted means than students receiving an incomplete program on DRA test scores (ES = -0.68), Oral Reading Fluency (ES = -0.91), and Text Reading (ES = -0.53). 23No relationship was observed between teacher experience with Reading Recovery and 2004- 2005 student achievement outcomes after controlling for 2003-2004 achievement, student ethnicity, gender, free lunch status, special education status, and LEP status.  No relationship was observed between number of Reading Recovery sessions and 2004- 2005 ITBS Reading NCE scores, after controlling for 2003-2004 achievement, student ethnicity, gender, free lunch status, special education status, and LEP status.  A small but statistically significant positive relationship was observed between number of Reading Recovery sessions and 2004-2005 DRA test scores, after controlling for 2003-2004 achievement, student ethnicity, gender, free lunch status, special education status, and LEP status.  The median effect size estimate across all posttests for African American students receiving a complete program was +0.17\nfor students receiving an incomplete program, the median effect size estimate was -0.22. Positive effects of Reading Recovery tended to be associated with lower-order or beginning reading skills like dictation, phoneme segmentation, and concepts about print while negative effects tended to be associated with more complex, higher-order skills like Oral Reading Fluency and Text Reading. What are the quality and level of implementation of Reading Recovery at the 18 schools implementing it in 2004-2005. Classroom observations indicate that Reading Recovery teachers instructional practices conform to the recommendations and requirements of the program throughout the district. Given that there are no national comparisons or benchmarks for the RRIAI, a mean of approximately 3.50 on a 4.00 scale suggests a high level of Reading Recovery implementation in the district. Site researchers noted only three areas in which some teachers were observed below average to some degree, reading familiar stories, appropriate pacing of the lesson components, and working with letters and or/words. However, the observed lack of quality implementation in some classrooms in reading familiar stories and appropriate pacing of the lesson components might 24begin to explain the lack of oral reading fluency, text reading, and ITBS effects for Reading Recovery students. There appears to be a high level of consistency of program delivery across the district. The analysis of student achievement data supports this observation that there is consistency in program delivery. The student achievement analysis found that there was no relationship between teacher experience with Reading Recovery and 2005 achievement scores after controlling for 2004 achievement and other variables. This suggests that generally teachers have a high degree of fidelity to the model. What is the level of participation in Reading Recovery by African American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? The data indicate that African American students made up a majority of the students participating in Reading Recovery in the 18 schools included in this study. This finding shouldnt be surprising since African Americans are the majority of the students in each of the participating schools. Information compiled from the student achievement analyses also indicates the percentage of African American students receiving Reading Recovery services (75.2%) is very similar to the ethnic makeup of the students used for comparison purposes (73.6%). However, Reading Recovery students were more likely to receive free or reduced-price lunch (84.3% vs. 73.1%) and special education services (15.7% vs. 8.6%) than comparison students, and were more likely to be male (58.1% vs. 48.0%). What is the progress demonstrated by African-American and other student participants in Reading Recovery in improving achievement, as demonstrated on program-specific measures? What percentage of students are discontinued or not discontinued? What proportion of scheduled sessions are actually held, and what are the reasons for missed sessions? Table 11 indicates that African American students, when compared with Reading Recovery students of other ethnicities, were nearly equally represented in two of the three program specific measures examined. The percentage of African American students Discontinued\", at 43.3%, 25was not considerably different than the percentage of students Discontinued of other ethnic backgrounds, 46.3%. In addition, in the Incomplete status, the percentage of African Americans (21.3%) was, again, not much different than students from other ethnicities (25.9%). African American students, at 34.5%, were more likely to be Recommended\" for further actions than other students (27.8%). African American students were, however, more likely to be placed in the Low/Lower Middle reading group by their classroom teachers at the end of the school year than other students (74.3% vs. 61.8%). This finding may present a dilemma for the program and the district. While African American students are generally progressing similarly to other students on program specific measures, their classroom teachers appear to consider that, at the end of the school year, the majority of African American students are still struggling to maintain or falling below grade level in reading. About 22% of scheduled sessions were missed due to the teacher being unavailable (7%), student absence (6%), teacher absence (5%), or the student being unavailable. These missed sessions could contribute to the mean number of sessions per week being just 3.5. What are the perceptions of Reading Recovery teachers regarding Reading Recovery program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Reading Recovery teachers had extremely favorable attitudes toward the Reading Recovery program. Teachers reported a thorough understanding of the program, that they received adequate professional development which was valuable for improving the achievement of African- American students, and that they had the support from teachers in the school. The majority of Reading Recovery teachers also reported receiving extensive administrative, Reading Coach, and district support. The items and areas of the most concern was sufficient planning time. enough tutors to fully implement the program, and time to routinely monitor first grade students progress after they were discontinued from Reading Recovery tutoring. Additionally, Reading Recovery teachers were concerned that only 63.64% of faculty, staff, and administration believe that all children can read at grade level or above by the end of third grade thanks to the Reading Recovery, and that parents are more involved in the literacy program of this school. 26Reading Recovery teachers, on average, appear to be more experienced and better educated. Eighty percent had a Masters degree or beyond in educational attainment and 100% reported at least six year or more years of teaching experience. In addition, the majority (68.18%) reported one to five years of experience as a Reading Recovery teacher. The four teachers in-training were equally committed and positive about the program and overall, felt they were well prepared to work with students. The teachers in-training also felt strongly that Reading Recovery helped to equalize learning and achievement opportunities for African American students. Teachers in-training emphasized the importance of using data to monitor the progress of the students to develop effective teaching strategies based on the individual needs of each student. Finally, teachers in training also reported the need for more time to plan and implement as well as for continuing support to understand Reading Recovery components more thoroughly. What are the perceptions of principals, regular first-grade teachers, and other teachers in the school regarding Reading Recovery program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A review of Reading Recovery principal interview responses indicates that principals are very supportive and actively involved in the program. All of the principals interviewed reported that they understood the program and were advocates of their program having a positive impact on overall student achievement. Principals indicated that the one-on-one tutoring program supplements and enhances the schools balanced literacy program. Most principals agreed that. through Reading Recovery, the achievement gap is being bridged for their African American students. Principals also noted that teachers were very supportive of the program. K-3 classroom teachers shared the principals enthusiasm for the Reading Recovery program, as evidenced by responses on the RRCTQ. A majority of the classroom teachers reported that they had an understanding of the program, were generally supportive, and that student achievement had been positively impacted. Principals and teachers also agreed that most of the resources and support needed for effective program implementation was available\nhowever they also reported an ongoing need for additional teachers and tutors to support more 27students and time to plan, review student progress, and collaborate together. All (102) of the teachers responding agreed that their school should continue the Reading Recovery program. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of Reading Recovery students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Parents were generally very pleased with the results of the Reading Recovery program. Approximately 90% of the parents responding to the parent survey agreed that\nReading Recovery tutoring has improved my childs reading skills and because of Reading Recovery their child will be successful in school. Less than three percent of those who responded reported that they did not know or understand the program. In the three open-ended responses parents indicated a very good understanding of the program, appreciation of one-on-one tutoring sessions, and the improvement in their childs reading skills. However, a few parents did express the need for longer and more frequent tutoring sessions and more opportunities to talk with the Reading Recovery teacher about their childs progress. In summary, the Little Rock School District has a strong Reading Recovery program. Teachers, principals, and parents appear to be actively engaged in the program and the district tries to provide adequate levels of resources and support. However, the lack of clear program effects may be the result of factors that have been identified in prior studies of Reading Recovery. These factors include:  It would be expected that Reading Recovery students would perform better on assessments more closely aligned with the instructional program (DRA, DIBELS, Observation Survey) than the norm-referenced group administered ITBS. In particular, Reading Recovery enhanced learning for complete program students tests involving Dictation, Phoneme Segmentation, Concepts About Print, and Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words. However, it had no effects on tests assessing Oral Reading Fluency and ITBS Reading NCE scores.  The district should examine the feasibility of providing tutoring support to all incoming first grade students who need services. In the 2004-2005 school year, the 18 Reading Recovery schools indicated that 365 students needed tutoring services and 28approximately half of this number were discontinued and received a complete round of lessons. The Reading Recovery program guidelines state that if a school has more children who need services than one teacher can provide then it will never realize the full benefit of Reading Recovery for later school achievement. It is especially difficult for teachers to continue to scaffold discontinued students learning while supporting a large number of other at-risk students reading below grade level. This may explain why so many Reading Recovery students are placed in the low/lower middle reading groups by their classroom teachers.  The data suggest that after Reading Recovery students are discontinued and return to the classroom at the same reading level as their peers, it appears that they do not maintain the same growth rate and achievement does not keep pace with their peers. Although research indicates that former Reading Recovery students perfomi well in their classes, some slippage in achievement can occur (Clay, 1993). Although Clay (1993) provides guidelines for transition back to the classroom after the student is discontinued\nit is possible that students were returned to the classroom without benefit of a transition plan. As noted by Reading Recovery teachers, few teachers have the opportunity to routinely monitor discontinued students progress. Also in tutoring sessions, children have opportunities to read texts at their instruction level on a daily basis, but they may not have adequate time for daily reading in the regular classroom.  The quality of instruction that Reading Recovery students receive once they return to the classroom is an important factor that was not examined in this study. Additional research could provide critical insight into the optimum classroom environment for discontinued, recommended, and incomplete Reading Recovery students. 29EVALUATION OF READING RECOVERY IN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT: 2005 AGGREGATE REPORT INTRODUCTION The Little Rock School District began implementing Reading Recovery during the 1995-1996 school year in two schools. During the first four years of implementation, the Little Rock School District was part of the Pulaski County Reading Recovery Site. By 1998 there were eight trained Reading Recovery teachers in seven schools in the Little Rock School District. In July 1999 the district became a Reading Recovery Site hiring a full-time teacher leader. In 2000-2001 the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) began conducting the Reading Recovery teacher training for the district. Between the 2000-2001 and 2004-2005 school years UALR trained seventeen Reading Recovery teachers for the district. At the end of the 2004-2005 school year the Little Rock School District had 28 trained Reading Recovery teachers serving 18 of the 34 elementary schools in the district. Reading Recovery is one of eight literacy programs, interventions, and/or models used by Little Rock schools. Currently, Little Rock School District funds are used to support the program. The goal of Reading Recovery is to dramatically reduce the number of first grade students who have difficulty learning to read and write and to reduce the cost of these learners to educational systems. Reading Recovery is a short-tenn intervention program of one-to-one tutoring for the lowest-achieving first graders. The intervention is most effective when it is available to all students who need it and is used as a supplement to good classroom teaching. Individual students receive a half-hour lesson each school day for 12 to 20 weeks with a specially trained Reading Recovery teacher. As soon as students can read within the average range of their class and demonstrate that they can continue to achieve, their lessons are discontinued, and new students begin individual instruction. Reading Recovery was developed by New Zealand educator and researcher. Dr. Marie M. Clay over 20 years ago. More than one million first graders have been served in 49 states since Reading Recovery was introduced in the United States in 1984. Professional development is an 30essential component of the Reading Recovery program. Training utilizes a three-tiered approach that includes teachers, teacher leaders, and university trainers. In schools, special trained teachers work with children. At the site level, teacher leaders work with children, train teachers, and assist and monitor implementation with the help of a site coordinator. In university training centers, trainers work with children, train teacher leaders, engage in research, and support program implementation at affiliated sites. Professional development for teachers and teacher leaders begins with year-long graduate level study and is followed by ongoing training in succeeding years. Since 1984, the program reports that 80% of students who completed the full 12 to 20 week series of lessons, and 59% all students who have any lessons in Reading Recovery, can read and write with the average range of performance of their class. Program follow-up studies also indicate that most Reading Recovery students also do well on standardized tests and maintain their gains in later years. The evaluation plan for the Reading Recovery program in Little Rock School District included: (1) analyses of Reading Recovery student achievement and program data, (2) principal, teacher, and parent surveys and interviews, and (3) observations of Reading Recovery tutoring sessions. This report is part of a larger district study of four programs evaluating the effectiveness in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students. This report includes results from 18 elementary schools participating in the Reading Recovery program. RESEACH QUESTIONS The major goals of this research study were to evaluate African-American student achievement outcomes, program implementation fidelity, and principal, teacher, and parent perceptions concerning the Reading Recovery tutoring program for first grade students. Student achievement results on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS), Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA), Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS), and An Observation of Early Literacy Achievement were analyzed to compare the progress of first graders enrolled in the Reading Recovery intervention program and comparison students in 2004-2005. Program implementation ratings were obtained from observations of 14 tutoring sessions in nine schools. The survey and 31interview results are based on the perceptions of 156 classroom teachers in grades K-3,22 experienced Reading Recovery teachers, four teachers in-training, 10 principals, and 95 parents. The Reading Recovery evaluation was structured around the following seven primary and supplemental research questions: Primary evaluation question: Has the Reading Recovery program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) evaluation questions:  What are the quality and level of implementation of Reading Recovery at the 18 schools implementing it in 2004-2005?  What is the level of participation in Reading Recovery by African American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school?  What is the progress demonstrated by African-American and other student participants in Reading Recovery in improving achievement, as demonstrated on program-specific measures? What percentage of students are discontinued or not discontinued? What proportion of scheduled sessions are actually held, and what are the reasons for missed sessions?  What are the perceptions of Reading Recovery teachers regarding Reading Recovery program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?  What are the perceptions of principals, regular first-grade teachers, and other teachers in the school regarding Reading Recovery program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?  What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of Reading Recovery students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 32EVALUATION DESIGN AND MEASURES The evaluation period extended from February 2004 through May 2005. The evaluation design was based on both quantitative and qualitative data collected from Reading Recovery intervention observations, principal and teacher in-training interviews, classroom teachers, Reading Recovery teachers, and parent surveys, and Reading Recovery program data. Reading Recovery student-level achievement data on the ITBS, DRA, DIBELS, and An Observation of Early Literacy Achievement was received in Fall 2005 and incorporated in this report. The primary data collectors in this study were Center for Research in Educational Policy (CREP) trained site researchers. Site researchers: (1) conducted Reading Recovery intervention observations, (2) administered the Reading Recovery teacher survey, (3) conducted principal and teacher in-training interviews, and (4) collected program data. Principals at Reading Recovery schools were responsible for administering the classroom teacher and Reading Recovery parent surveys. Participants Little Rock School District is located in Central Arkansas and serves approximately 26,500 students, with African-Americans representing approximately 67% of the district student population, in 49 schools in an urban area with a population of 184,000. In the 2004-2005 school year 18 elementary schools and 230 first grade students, of which 173 are African American, 27 are white, 22 are Hispanic, and the remaining 8 are other ethnicities, participated in the Reading Recovery program in the district. However, the schools indicated that 365 first grade students needed Reading Recovery services. Three schools were in their first year of program implementation (Bale, Stephens, and Terry) and survey and observation data were not collected from these schools. However, randomly selected teachers in-training and principals from these three schools were interviewed for this study. A profile of the Reading Recovery schools and participants included in this study is shown in Table 1. The profile data were obtained from either the 2003-2004 Common Core of Data from the National Center for Education Statistics, the 2004-2005 Reading Recovery Site Report for Little Rock from the National Data Evaluation Center at The Ohio State University, or provided by the district. As indicated in Table 1 the number of years schools have implemented the Reading Recovery program ranged 33from one to 10. The Reading Recovery schools were predominately African-American, ranging from 50% of the student population to 99%. The district reported that four Reading Recovery schools did not receive Title I funding and the percentage of students eligible for free and reduced price lunch ranged from a low of 33% to a high of 94% at all Reading Recovery schools. Table 1 Reading Recovery Participating Schools: 2004-2005 School Name Bale Elementary School Booker Aris Magn^ES Carver Magnet Elem School Chicot Eiem^ool David O'Dodd Elem School Franklin Incentive Elem School C^er Springs ElemSctwol Gibbs Magnet Elem School tvie^cwcliff Elem School Mitohell Incentive Elem School Otter Creek Elem School Rights^ Incentive Bern School Stephens Elem School terry Elem School Wakefield Elem School Watson Elem School VWIiams Magnet Elem School Wilson Elem School School Wide Population Students Teacheis Asian 319 605 496 536 261 387 299 310 349 156 511 262 499 577 451 456 461 285 27 55 43 44 27 35 23 30 24 22 31 25 39 36 29 34 36 27 0% 1% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 7% 0% 0% 9% 1% School Wide Student Population African American 87% 55% 54% 75% 58% 97% 89% 52% 77% 96% 56% 99% 95% 51% 83% 95% 52% 89% Hispanic White 7% 5% 4% 3% 15% 10% 0% 4% 3% 9% 0% 6% 0% 3% 5% 15% 3% 1% 4% 40% 40% 10% 32% 2% 7% 41% 13% 2% 36% 1% 2% 36% 2% 2% 38% 6% % Free and Reduced Lunch 88.4% 63.3% 53.0% 85.6% 68.9% 943% 80.6% 43.9% 85.1% 91.7% 55.7% 87.8% 90.6% 47.5% 920% 932% 33.6% 91.9% Reading Recowiy Participant tifonnation % Below Pralicienr Number of RR Teachers Number of K-3 Number of RR Years in RR Teachets Students Program 45% 22% 18% 38% 30% 51% 48% 11% 44% 59% 19% 49% 59% 12% 33% 64% 10% 35% 10 20 32 16 17 12 14 18 18 13 15 13 16 26 10 18 14 18 10 13 10 1 8 1 4 7 2 3 3 5 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 8 9 7 8 8 7 8 6 9 8 3 5 8 2 8 8 8 9 9 8 8 3 1 1 3 3 9 5  Proficiency levels are based on 2003-2004 school year ACTAAP Grade 4 Reading, Language, and Writing data. 34Instrumentation Six instruments were developed by CREP to collect the evaluation data: a classroom observation tool, a principal interview, a teacher in-training interview, a Reading Recovery teacher questionnaire, a classroom teacher questionnaire, and a parent survey. A detailed description of each instrument follows. Classroom Observation Measure Reading Recovery Implementation Assessment Instrument (RRIAI) The RRIAI was designed for observation in Reading Recovery classrooms and was developed by researchers at CREP and Reading Recovery faculty at ULAR. Ratings are organized around two categories: Reading Recovery Program Components and Reading Recovery Program Strategies. The RRIAI observation tool provides an overall rating for each category based on a rubric that ranges from (1) poor or unacceptable\n(2) below average in comparison to other programs observed\n(3) meets nearly all standards of program quality\nand (4) above average in comparison to other programs. The RRIAI has been aligned to the essential components of the Reading Recovery program. Sub-categories of the program components include: reading familiar stories, reading a story that was read for the first time the day before, working with letters, writing a story, assembling a cut-up story, and introducing and reading a new book. The tool was designed to be utilized by experienced Reading Recovery trainers during the 30-minute tutoring session with additional time allocated for observer questions and examination of student records after the session. Site observers received observation protocol training in February 2005 and a copy of the observation guidelines are included in Appendix A. Site observers were also asked to provide overall perceptions of Reading Recovery program implementation in the Little Rock schools. Interviews Reading Recovery Principal Interview Randomly selected principals from 10 Reading Recovery schools participated in approximately 45-minute phone interviews with CREP researchers. Interview questions addressed 35the principals general experiences and reactions to the Reading Recovery implementation and the associated outcomes for the school, students, teachers, and parents. A copy of the principal interview protocol with summary responses is included in Appendix B. Reading Recovery Teacher in Training Interview In the 2004-2005 school year, six teachers were beginning their first year as a Reading Recovery teacher and considered as teachers in-training. Three were located in experienced schools and three were located in the schools beginning their first year of implementation: Bale, Stephens, and Terry. Four randomly selected teachers in-training participated in an approximately 45-minute phone interview with CREP researchers. Interview questions addressed the teachers in-training experiences with and perceptions of the Reading Recovery program implementation with regard to such areas as resources, professional development, parent involvement, support, and student outcomes. A copy of the teacher in-training interview protocol with summary responses is included in Appendix C. Surveys Reading Recovery Teacher Questionnaire (RRTQ) Reading Recovery teachers in the 15 experienced Reading Recovery schools were asked to complete the RRTQ, which includes four sections. Section I contains 20 items to which teachers respond using a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from (1) Strongly Disagree to (5) Strongly Agree. Items assessed the general impressions of the Reading Recovery program, professional development, support for the program, impacts on student achievement, and alignment of state and district reading and language arts standards. In a second section, teachers were asked to indicate to what degree the listed items occurred. The focus of the 4 items were (1) administration support of Reading Recovery teacher efforts\n(2) Reading Coach support of Reading Recovery teacher efforts\n(3) district support of Reading Recovery teacher efforts\nand (4) the time to routinely monitor first grade students progress after they were discontinued from tutoring. Open-ended questions asked Reading Recovery teachers to respond to the statements: What are the strongest aspects of the Reading Recovery program? What are the weakest aspects of the Reading Recovery program? Do 36you think your school should continue the Reading Recovery program ? A final section of the RRTQ contained general questions regarding years of teaching experience, race, and level of education. Reading Recovery Classroom Teacher Questionnaire (RRCTQ) All K-3 teacher who taught in experienced Reading Recovery schools were asked to complete the RRCTQ, which contains 13 items to which teachers respond using a five-point Likert- type scale that ranges from (1) Strongly Disagree to (5) Strongly Agree. Items assessed the specific program elements of Reading Recovery such as: understanding of the program, impacts on student achievement, teacher support for the program, and parent involvement. Open-ended questions asked classroom teachers to respond to the statements: Please describe your understanding of the Reading Recovery program in your school. What are the strongest aspects of the Reading Recovery program? Do you think your school should continue the Reading Recovery program? /\\ final section of the RRCTQ contained general questions regarding years of teaching experience, race, and level of education. Reading Recovery Parent Survey (RRPS) Parents whose first grade children were currently receiving Reading Recovery tutoring services were asked to complete the RRPS, that contains 6 items to which parents respond using a five-point Likert-type scale that ranges from (1) Strongly Disagree to (5) Strongly Agree. Items assessed general impressions of the program such as: improvement in childs reading skills, childs enjoyment of tutoring sessions, and opportunities to communicate with the Reading Recovery teacher. Both English and Spanish versions were made available to schools. Open-ended questions asked parents to respond to the statements: Please describe your understanding of the Reading Recovery tutoring program at your childs school. What is the BEST thing about your child's involvement with the Reading Recovery tutoring program? What CHANGES would you like to see in the Reading Recovery tutoring program? A final section of the RRPS asked parents to indicate the race, grade, and age of their child. 37Program Data Reading Recovery program information was obtained from data submitted to the National Data Evaluation Center at The Ohio State University in 2004-2005. Each year the schools and district submit data and receive a site report. The report represents an examination of Reading Recovery student outcomes for Little Rock and accounts for all children served by Reading Recovery within the site during the 2004-2005 school year. In addition, attention is given to implementation factors that may be supporting or hindering the success of the intervention with the site. Student Achievement Results In addition to the program data, interviews, survey, and observation tools cited above, reading achievement data is derived from scores on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS), Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA), Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) and An Observation of Early Literacy Achievement. A description of each assessment follows. Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS). The ITBS Form A is a norm-referenced group administered test that measures the skills and achievement of students in grades K-8 and was developed at The University of Iowa. The ITBS provides an in-depth assessment of students achievement of important educational objectives. Tests in Reading, Language Arts, Mathematics, Social Studies, Science, and Source of Information yield reliable and comprehensive information both about the development of students skills and about their ability to think critically. The emphasis of the K-1 assessment is on academic skills found in the early childhood curriculum. These tests are neither measures of readiness for school nor readiness to read. Rather, they assess the extent to which a child is cognitively prepared to begin work in the academic aspects of the curriculum. Test materials have been extensively field tested for psychometric soundness and evaluated for fairness to gender. racial, ethnic, and cultural groups. Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA). The Developmental Reading Assessment provides teachers with a method for assessing and documenting primary students development as readers over time with a literature-based instructional reading program. The DRA is designed to be used in K-3 classrooms with rich literate environments. The assessments are conducted during one- 38on-one reading conferences as children read specially selected assessment texts. A set of 20 stories. which increase in difficulty, are used for the assessment. The DRA evaluates two major aspects of reading: accuracy of oral reading and comprehension through reading and retelling of narrative stories. Questions pertaining to concepts about print are also included in the assessment with lower leveled texts. Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS). DIBELS is a tool for early identification of children with potential literacy problems and an assessment of response to instruction. The assessment is individually administered to K-3 children at least three times per year. The DIBELS assessment is designed to enable educators to modify their approach if a student is not on course to achieve reading goals. The Early Childhood Research Institute on Measuring Growth and Development at the University of Oregon constructed DIBELS (2000). The Institute reports it has validated the instruments ability to predict outcomes and has tested its reliability with young children across the country. Reading Recovery schools that have received Reading Excellence Act or Reading First grant funding use the DIBELS assessment in Little Rock. An Observation of Early Literacy Achievement: Reading Recovery Subtests. Six tasks in Marie Clays (2002) An Observation of Early Literacy Achievement (Observation Survey) were used as pretest and posttest measures. The Survey tasks have the qualities of sound assessment instruments with reliabilities and validities. The purpose of the assessment is to determine an appropriate level of text difficulty and to record, using a running record, what the child does when reading continuous text. All six tasks of the Observation Survey were administered to Reading Recovery students in the fall (start of the school year) and/or at entry to the intervention. These scores serve as pretest measure in the evaluation design. The six tasks were also administered to Reading Recovery students upon discontinuing or exiting from the program. In the spring (end of school year), the six tasks were again administered to all students who received Reading Recovery services during the year. Year-end scores served as the posttest measures in comparing the progress made by Reading Recovery children in the various end-of-program status groups. 39PROCEDURE Data for the evaluation were collected March-May for the 2004-2005 school year. On February 16, 2005 principals were given an overview of the evaluation and timelines for collecting data. On March 3-4 and April 14-15,14 tutoring observations were conducted in nine randomly selected experienced Reading Recovery schools by two Reading Recovery content experts from Georgia State and The Ohio State Universities. Only experienced Reading Recovery teachers were observed. On March 23 a CREP trained site researcher administered the Reading Recovery teacher survey to experienced teachers at a regularly scheduled monthly meeting at ULAR. In April and May principals in experienced Reading Recovery schools administered the classroom teacher questionnaire to K-3 grade teachers. Principals also administered the parent survey to parents whose children were currently receiving first grade intervention services in the 15 experienced Reading Recovery schools. Four teachers in-training and ten principals were randomly selected from the 18 Reading Recovery schools to participate in a phone interview in April and May conducted by CREP researchers. Reading Recovery program data was received in summer 2005 from the National Data Evaluation Center at The Ohio State University. Student achievement data was received from the district in fall 2005. METHODS - STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT Sample. The sample included 1,094 first grade students who attended one of 18 schools that implemented the Reading Recovery program during the 2004-2005 school year. Of these, 230 were referred to the Reading Recovery program, and 864 were in the comparison group. The percentages of students who were African American or of Limited English Proficiency were similar between the comparison and Reading Recovery groups (73.6% versus 75.6% and 7.3% versus 8.7%, respectively\nsee Figure 1). However, Reading Recovery students were more likely to be eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (84.3% versus 73.1%), to receive special education services (15.7% versus 8.6%), and to be male (58.1 % versus 48.0%\nsee Figure 1). A random sample of about 11 comparison students was selected from each school (total n = 189) for administration of the DIBELS and Observation Survey: Reading Recovery test batteries. 40Figure 1. Percentage of Students with Selected Demographic Characteristics by Reading Recovery Status 100.0 -I 90.0 - 84.3 -i 80.0 - 73.6 75.6 \" 73.1 70.0 - 60.0 - 40.0 - 48.0 58.1 50.0 -  30.0 - 20.0  10.0 - 7.3 15.7 8.6 0.0 African American Free lunch LEP Special Education Male J j  Comparison  Reading Recovery Reading Recovery Treatment Level. In the Reading Recovery program, students who are deemed to have attained a reading level equivalent to their peers are assigned an end-of-program status of discontinued.\" Children who received 20 or more weeks of Reading Recovery services, but who do not attain a reading level equivalent to their peers are assigned a status of recommended action. Children who have received fewer than 20 weeks were assigned incomplete program status. Children designated as unknown status were removed from the program in fewer than 20 weeks due to reasons other than the school year ending. Other children were designated as having moved during the school year. As shown in Figure 2, the median number of sessions of recommended action {Md = 68.50\nn = 68) children was actually higher than the median for discontinued students {Md = 57.00\nn = 90). The medians for incomplete students {n = 46) and unknown students {n = 12) were very similar {Md = 44.63 versus 46.08, respectively\nsee Figure 2). For the purposes of this study, recommended action and discontinued students were categorized as complete program\n incomplete and unknown students were categorized as incomplete 41program\n and students who moved were eliminated from the analyses. This left a total of 216 Reading Recovery students: 158 with a complete program, and 58 with an incomplete program. Figure 2. Boxplot of Number of Reading Recovery Sessions by Student Status Upon Exiting the Program 80 c o w 00- V) V) a 2 cr O  40- o o 20- O O o * DisiJuntinueiJ HovhU I I )nl nown Pricominrjndrid a\u0026lt;\ntion T T T T lni\nuin|:'He Status Note. Heavy dark lines indicate median. Gray boxes indicate interquartile range. Whiskers indicate range, excepting extreme values. Extreme values denoted by circles or asterisks. 42Measures. Pretest (covariate) measures included: (a) Spring, 2004 Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) subtests in Letter Recognition, Word Recognition, Capitalization, Writing, Dictation, and a DRA Test score, (b) Fall 2005 Observation Survey: Reading Recovery program subtests that included Letter Identification, Word Test, Concepts About Print, Writing Vocabulary, Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words, and Text Reading\nand (c) the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) subtests in Letter Naming Fluency, Phoneme Segmentation Fluency, Nonsense Word Fluency, and Word Use Fluency. Outcome measures included Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) Reading Normal Curve Equivalent Scores, DRA subtests. Observation Survey: Reading Recovery subtests, and DIBELS subtests administered in Spring 2005. To achieve some parsimony in the analyses, pretest measures were subjected to a principal components analysis, and regressionbased factors scores were constructed for pretest DRA, Observation Survey: Reading Recovery, DIBELS subtests. A single factor accounted for 60.1%, 60.5%, and 43.8% of the variance in the DRA, Observation Survey: Reading Recovery, and DIBELS subtests, respectively. Outcome measures included the DRA, Observation Survey: Reading Recovery, and DIBELS subtests, as well as ITBS. The DRA Letter Recognition, DRA Capitalization, and DIBELS Letter Naming Fluency subtests were not administered in Spring 2005. DIBELS and Observation Survey: Reading Recovery tests were administered to a small random sample of comparison students within each school. Student achievement analyses. A 3 (Program Status) X 2 (African American versus other) multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) using student gender, the pertinent pretest factor score, free lunch status, special education status, and LEP status was performed with the various subtests as outcomes for the DRA, Observation Survey: Reading Recovey, and DIBELS test batteries. A similar 3X2 analysis of covariance was performed on ITBS Reading NCE scores using the 2003-2004 DRA factor score as a pretest covariate. For the multivariate analyses, Wilk's lambda was used as the criterion of multivariate significance. Where Wilks lambda indicated a significant multivariate effect, follow-up univariate analyses were performed on each outcome variable using the Bonferroni procedure to control for experimentwise alpha. When significant univariate results were found, post hoc analyses were performed using Scheffes procedure. Effect size estimates were computed for all posttests by subtracting the adjusted mean for the comparison group from the 43adjusted mean from the Reading Recovery group within levels of race, then dividing by the total standard deviation of the posttest. For ITBS Reading NCE effect size estimates, the population standard deviation of 21.06 was used. Exploratory and supplementary analyses: Impact of teacher experience and number of sessions. The number of years experience with Reading Recovery was recorded for each teacher. Years experience ranged from 1 to 10 years. ITBS Reading NCE scores and DRA test scores for 2004-2005 were regressed on 2003-2004 DRA factor scores and dummy-coded variables representing student ethnicity, free lunch status, gender, special education status, and LEP status. Standardized residuals were saved from each of these analyses, and plotted against teacher years of experience to graphically assess the nature of the relationship between teacher experience and teacher effectiveness in Reading Recovery for students who received a Complete program. Standardized residuals for each of these 2004-2005 tests were also plotted against number of Reading Recovery sessions received for all students (i.e., those who received either a Complete or Incomplete program). Finally, effect size boxplots were constructed for African American students who had Complete and Incomplete Reading Recovery programs. DATA COLLECTION Table 2 provides the type of measures, instrument names, administration timeline, and a brief data collection description for each of the instruments. 44Table 2 Data Collection Summary Type of Measure Site Visits Instrument Timeline RR Implementation Assessment Instrument Spring 2005 Description/ Response rate  14 conducted Surveys RR Teacher Questionnaire RR Classroom Teacher Questionnaire RR Parent Survey Spring 2005 Spring 2005 Spring 2005  22 respondents/100%  156 respondents/  approximately 90% Interviews Principal Interviews Teacher In-Training Interviews Spring 2005 Spring 2005  95 respondents/9 Spanish  approximately 86%  10 conducted  4 conducted Data Analysis and Reporting ITBS, DRA, DIBELS, \u0026amp; Observation Survey: RR Fall 2005 Little Rock School District Reading Recovery Aggregate Report  1,094 first grade students . 230 RR  864 comparison group  1 Final Report RESULTS The results of the Pleading Recovery evaluation are presented below by instrument. In the Conclusion section, findings are synthesized across instruments to address each research question. Reading Recovery Implementation Assessment Instrument (RRIAI) As indicated in the description of the RRIAI, the observation procedure primarily focuses on Reading Recovery Program Components and Program Strategies. The site observers used a four- point rubric (1 = poor or unacceptable, 2 = below average in comparison to other programs observed. 3 = meets nearly all standards of program quality, and 4 = above average in comparison to other programs) to rate the frequency and application of components and strategies of Reading Recovery instruction. More precise data regarding observed Reading Recovery instructional practices measured by the four-point rubric for the 14 observations are presented in Table 3. 45Reading Recovery Program Components The overall mean rating for the Reading Recovery Program Components was 3.46 which suggest a high level of program implementation. Of the six subcategories the highest observed ratings were\nassembling a cut-up story and introducing and reading a new book observed to be above average in 85.71 % of tutoring sessions. The program component subcategory with the lowest observed rating was working with letters and/or words using magnetic letters observed to be above average in only 35.71% of tutoring sessions. Reading a familiar story and reading a story that was read for the first time the day before was observed to above average in 64.29% of visits. The six program components were observed in at least 92.86% of 14 tutoring sessions. Reading Recovery Program Strategies The overall mean rating for the Reading Recovery Program Strategies was 3.61 which also indicate a high level of instructional effectiveness. Of the eight During Tutoring Lesson subcategories the highest observed rating was for appropriate text selected throughout the lesson observed to above average in 85.71% of tutoring sessions. The During Tutoring Lesson subcategory with the lowest observed rating was echo of focus throughout the lesson observed to be above average in just 42.86% of tutoring sessions. For the After Tutoring Lesson, has high expectations for the child and articulates child's strengths and needs were observed to be above average in 78.57% of tutoring sessions and accurate and up-to-date records were observed to be above average in 71.43% of tutoring sessions. The Reading Recovery Program Strategies were observed in at least 85.71 of tutoring sessions. Observer Perceptions of Reading Recovery Program Implementation Site observers reported being impressed with the dedication and commitment of the Reading Recovery teachers to the fidelity of the teaching procedures and the integrity of the implementation of the program. Almost all teachers observed were meeting all the standards, guidelines, and expectations of the Reading Recovery Council of North America and the North American Trainers Group. Since observations occurred in March and April, most of the students observed were second- round students, since teachers had discontinued their first-round students. Teachers reported that students who did not discontinue from Reading Recovery during the first-round were being considered 46for further intervention services. Site observers also reported that the Reading Recovery program in the Little Rock district receives an adequate allocation of time, materials, and other resources. However, several teachers and principals expressed the need for additional Reading Recovery teachers in their schools. Reading Recovery teachers also reported teaching literacy small groups the rest of the day which enables them to give their Reading Recovery students more attention during the instructional day. By teaching these literacy groups, site observers suggested that the Reading Recovery teachers' expertise and knowledge gained from their training and practice benefits children across several grade levels. During visits site observers did suggest areas in which some Reading Recovery teachers need improvement. These instructional areas include: (1) hearing and recording sounds in words\n(2) making and breaking\n(3) do away with the helping hand\nand (4) maintaining up-to-date records on each child as a basis for instruction. A summary of observers general findings for each classroom observation is included in Appendix D. 47Table 3 Reading Recovery Implementation Assessment Instrument: Spring 2005 N=14 Please check: Observed: 0 Not Observed: N Please rate each of the following items in terms of the quality of implementation by using the appropriate number according to the following scales: I. II. Quality 1 = Poor or unacceptable 2 = Below average in comparison to other programs observed 3 = Meets nearly all standards of program quality 4 = Above average in comparison to other programs Observed Not Obsented Reading Recovery Program Components Poor 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 92.86 7.14 Reading familiar stories Reading a story that was read for the first time the day before - incorporates ronning record Working with letters and /or words using magnetic letters 0.0 0.0 0.0 92.86 7.14 Writing a story 0.0 92.86 7.14 Assembling a cut-up story 0.0 92.86 7.14 Introducing and reading a new book 0.0 Below Average 14.29 7.14 42.86 0.0 0.0 0.0 Quality Meets 21.43 28.57 14.29 21.43 7.14 7.14 Above Average 64.29 64.29 35.71 71.43 85.71 85.71 Overall rating: Folkws the Reading Recovery lesson frameworks Mean:3.46 SD:0.54 Observed Not Observed Reading Recovery Program Strategies Poor 92.86 7.14 Appropriate pacing of lesson components 0.0 Below Average 21.43 Quaflty Meets 7.14 Above Average 64.29 92.86 7.14 100.0 0.0 Appropriate text selected throughout the lesson Appropriate prompts are used for scaffolding the child to problem s\u0026lt;3lve 0.0 0.0 7.14 7.14 0.0 85.71 14.29 78.57 100.0 0.0 Child is engaged in constructive problem solving 7.14 0.0 21.43 71.43 92.86 7.14 Echo of focus throughout the lesson 0.0 7.14 42.86 42.86 92.86 7.14 Procedures ate adjusted according to child's needs 0.0 0.0 14.29 78.57 92.86 7.14 Balance of fluency phrasing practice and problem solving 0.0 7.14 7.14 78.57 85.71 7.14 Opportunities to develop phonological awareness within the lesson 0.0 7.14 21.43 64.29 85.71 7.14 Accurate up-tobate records 0.0 7.14 14.29 71.43 85.71 7.14 Articulates child's strengths and needs 0.0 0.0 14.29 78.57 85.71 7.14 Has high expectations for the child 0.0 0.0 14.29 78.57 Overall Rating: 'NOTE: Item percentages may not total 100% because of missing input from observers. Mean: 3.61 SD:0.66 48INTERVIEW RESULTS Reading Recovery Principal Interview Principals at ten of the Reading Recovery schools were randomly selected to participate in a 45 minute phone interview. Principals were asked a series of questions regarding general program implementation, classroom level changes, program results, professional development opportunities and parental and community involvement. A summary of the principal responses can be found in Appendix B. Overall, principals were positive about the Reading Recovery program and the impact it has had on their schools. Most of the schools have been utilizing Reading Recovery for several years and faculty and staff are very comfortable with the program. Nearly all of the principals interviewed were instrumental in bringing Reading Recovery to their schools, and the decision to utilize Reading Recovery was made after considerable research and thoughtful consideration. Principals reported that Reading Recovery is a wonderful compliment to the schools balanced literacy programs. The one-on-one attention the reading Recovery students receive is overwhelmingly the most effective of the strategies that the program employs. Other effective strategies mentioned included push-ins\", literacy groups, running records, and the writing component. Principals reported being active advocates in their Reading Recovery programs. They described their roles as one of support and involvement, ranging from oversight of the program to more direct involvement including student selection for the program, review of student progress, and ongoing meetings and collaboration with the Reading Recovery specialists. All principals noted that teachers were very supportive of the Reading Recovery program and appreciated the impact it has had on overall student achievement. Most of the resources needed for effective program implementation are available\nhowever principals reported an ongoing need for books, additional teachers and tutors, and more planning time. Principals described the African American population as being well-served by Reading Recovery, and most agree that through Reading Recovery the achievement gap is being bridged for their African American students. In most of the schools, African American students are a large percentage of the Reading Recovery program. 49and the early intervention provided by Reading Recovery allows the student to be encouraged by being successful at a younger age. Teacher in-Training Interview In the spring 2005, four teachers in their first year in the Reading Recovery program were contacted by phone for a 30 to 45 minute phone interview. The teachers in-raining were attending classes concerning Reading Recovery instruction, as well as working in their schools implementing the Reading Recovery strategies. Feedback from the teachers was solicited regarding general program information, classroom level changes, results, professional development, and parental involvement and support. A summary of the teacher in training responses can be found in Appendix C. All teachers described the process of integrating Reading Recovery into the schools literacy program as well planned and organized. Reading Recovery teachers work individually with the lowest performing students and then follow up individual instruction with literacy groups. Reading Recovery teachers reported a thorough selection process that involved collaboration with the classroom teacher and comprehensive testing and assessment. In general, the Reading Recovery teachers reported strong support from the classroom teachers, that classroom teachers appreciate the effectiveness of the one-on-one approach, and the fact that the Reading Recovery is able to provide this type of support, freeing the classroom teacher to work more effectively with the other students. The Reading Recovery teachers in training strongly felt that Reading Recovery helped to equalize learning and achievement opportunities for African American students at their schools. Most of the students in Reading Recovery are African American, and these teachers were able to see positive gains. Reading Recovery helps all struggling readers by actively engaging them in reading and allowing them to feel successful at reading. Through detailed daily records and periodic testing all inherent in the Reading Recovery programstudent progress is effectively monitored and lessons can be planned that are tailor made for each individual child. Additionally, the Reading Recovery program often serves as a first line of defense in determining special education needs. Often Reading Recovery will be used prior to special education referral. Teachers in training emphasized the importance of the daily data reports they collect and view them as essential to the success of the program. Reading Recovery teachers collect and use 50data to monitor the progress of the students and to help develop appropriate, effective teaching strategies based on the individual needs of the student. Data are often shared with the classroom teacher and the principal so a collaborative team develops to help plan and implement instruction for the student. The Reading Recovery teachers in training report a significant increase in self-confidence and improvement in overall attitude among the Reading Recovery students. As the students begin to experience success, they are less frustrated and angry. This improvement in attitude improves their classroom behavior and relationships with other teachers and students. Some of these teachers have seen dramatic increases in test scores and other achievement data, while others have not yet been able to see these gains. Again, from the perspective of the teachers in training, the Reading Recovery program is helping to closing the achievement gap of African American students. Reading Recovery teachers in- training reported professional training that ranged from adequate to thorough. Changes in Reading Recovery course instructors led to some confusion for some of the teachers in training. and some reported the need for increased classroom hours. However, overall, these teachers reported feeling well-prepared to work with the students. The strategies they have learned have been very helpful. Although the teachers in training reported having significant classroom experience, they are learning unique techniques that have been very beneficial. There is considerable support from the district teacher, and all teachers expressed a desire and need for continuing support in the upcoming school year. Parental support has been mixed. although all the teachers reported active attempts at engaging the parents in the Reading Recovery program. Reading Recovery teachers in-training concurred that the exposure to print and the one-on- one attention were the most critical elements of the Reading Recovery program. Teachers reported the need to understand several components better, including the make and break lesson and the writing component\nand the need for time to plan and implement the program is always a factor. Overall, the components of Reading Recovery were well understood and effective. 51SURVEY RESULTS Reading Recovery Teacher Questionnaire (RRTQ) Descriptive results. The results of the RRTQ are summarized in Table 4. Reading Recovery teachers had extremely favorable attitudes toward the program at their schools. As illustrated in Table 4,100% of teachers strongly agreed or agreed that they have a thorough understanding of the program, teachers in their school are generally supportive of the program. ongoing communication exists between Reading Recovery tutors and classroom reading teachers. Reading Recovery monthly meetings are effective and useful, instructional materials needed to implement our Reading Recovery program are readily available, and the Reading Recovery program is aligned with state and district reading and language arts standards. There was also strong agreement that Reading Recovery teachers received support, with 86.36% of the teachers reporting that the school administration and Reading Coach supported their efforts as a Reading Recovery teacher. Almost 75% (72.73%) of teachers reported receiving extensive district support. The items with the highest level of disagreement (disagree and strongly disagree) concerned Reading Recovery teachers having sufficient planning time (36.36%), enough tutors to fully implement the Reading Recovery program (18.18%), and time to routinely monitor first grade students' progress after they were discontinued from Reading Recovery (9.09% not at all and 72.73% somewhat). Demographic data. All Reading Recovery teachers (100%) reported having at least six years of teaching experience and 31.82% reported at least six years experience as a Reading Recovery teacher. Approximately 85% (86.36%) of Reading Recovery teachers reported having a Masters Degree and beyond. The majority of Reading Recovery teachers were white (72.73%) and 13.64% reported their ethnicity as African-American. Open-ended responses. Reading Recovery teachers were asked to respond to three open- ended questions in addition to the 24 items on the questionnaire. Respondents were instructed to list the strongest aspects of the Reading Recovery program, the weakest aspects of the Reading Recovery program, and reasons for continuing or discontinuing Reading Recovery their school. There were 22 Reading Recovery teachers who filled out the questionnaire, and 21 of those also answered the open-ended questions. Many of the Reading Recovery teachers answered in detail, listing multiple 52responses for each of the questions. The open-ended responses are summarized in Table 5, and a verbatim listing of teacher responses can be found in Appendix E. Of the 21 who listed strong aspects of the Reading Recovery program, the two most popular answers were individualized, one-on-one instruction, 57.1%, and the ability to reach the lowest performing students and bridge the achievement gap for these students, 47.6%. Reading Recovery teaching strategies and components were listed in 19% of the responses, and both the early intervention element and the support from the other teachers were listed in 14.3% of the responses. Respondents were also asked to list what they considered the weakest elements of the Reading Recovery program. Time was a factor in many of the responses with lack of planning time most frequently mentioned at 33.3%. Lack of time to complete the lesson was mentioned in 19.0% of the responses. Teachers inability to help all the students who need help was also mentioned in 19.0% of the responses. All of the 21 teachers responded positively to the question Do you think your school should continue the Reading Recovery program? Why?\"-, and 20 teachers elaborated on their positive response listing reasons for continuing Reading Recovery. The ability of Reading Recovery to help struggling readers was listed in half of the responses (50.0%), and strong progress and results were mentioned in 40.0% of the responses. The fact that Reading Recovery decreases the number of special education referrals was listed in 15.0% of the responses. There was one respondent who pointed out that although he/she felt Reading Recovery should be continued at the school, there needed to be better implementation to make it effective. Overall, as reflected in the other items on the questionnaire, the open-ended responses were very positive. Reading Recovery teachers appear knowledgeable and committed to their roles as Reading Recovery teachers and believe strongly in the positive impact the program is having at their schools. Based on survey response and comments provided through the open-ended questions. Reading Recovery teachers are able to see a strong impact from the individualized instruction they provide. 53Table 4 Reading Recovery Teacher Questionnaire (RRTQ): 2004-2005 N = 22 RRTQ Items 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. I have a thorough understanding of the schoofs Reading Recovery program. I have received adequate initial and ongoing professional development/lraining for implementation of the Reading Recovery program. Our Reading Recovery program has positively impacted student achievement Because of Reading Recovery, Literacy Group interventions occur for students in grades K-3. Overall, this program seems valuable for improving the achievement of African-American students. Reading Recovery teachers are given sufficient planning lime to implement the program. Our school has enough tutors to fully implement its Reading Recovery program. The administration protects the time for daily unintenupled Reading Recovery tutoring and Literacy Small Group interventions. Because of our Reading Recovery program, parents are more involved In the literacy program of this school. This school has a plan for evaluating all elements of our Reading Recovery program. Teachers in this school are generally supportive of the Reading Recovery program. Ongoing communication exists between Reading Recovery tutors and dasstoom reading teachers. Reading Recovery teachers are encouraged to communicate concerns, questions, and constnrctive Ideas regarding the program. Our Reading Recovery program adequately addresses the requirements of children with special needs. Reading Recovery teachers participate in the special education referral process to provide early literacy intervention. Because of Reading Recovery, teachers in this school spend more time working together to plan instruction and review student progress. Reading Recovery monthly meetings (continuing contact) are effective and useful. Instructional materials (books, assessments, and other resources) needed to Implement our Reading Recovery program ate readily available. The faculty, staff, and administration believe that aH children can read at grade lev^ or above by the end of third grade. The Reading Recovery program is aligned with state and district reading and language arts standards. Percent Strongly Agree And Agree 100.00 95.45 95.45 95.45 86.36 54.55 59.09 77.27 63.64 86.36 100.00 100.00 81.82 77.27 86.36 81.82 100.00 100.00 63.64 100.00 1. 2. 3. 4. RRTQ Items To what degree did your school administration support your efforts as a Reading Recovery teacher? To what degree did your school Reading Coach support your efforts as a Reading Recovery teacher? Towhat degree (toes the district support your efforts asaReading Recovery teacher? To what degree did your schedule allow the time to routinely monitor first grade students' progress after they were discontinued from Reading Recovery tutoring? Percent Extensively 86.36 86.36 72.73 18.18 Percent Neutral 0.00 4.55 0.00 0.00 4.55 9.09 18.18 22.73 18.18 13.64 0.00 0.00 18.18 13.64 9.09 18.18 0.00 0.00 31.82 0.00 Percent Somewhat 13.64 4.55 27.27 72.73 Percent Disagree and Strongly Disagree 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.55 0.00 36.36 18.18 0.00 13.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.09 4.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.55 0.00 Percent Not at all 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.09 NOTE: Item percentages may not total 100% because of missing input from some respondents. 54Table 4, continued Reading Recovery Teacher Questionnaire (RRTQ): 2004-2005 N =22 Total Years of Experience in this School Less than 1 year 1-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years More than 15 years Number of Respondents__________ Total Years of Experience in any School Less than 1 year 1 - 5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years More than 15 years Number of Respondents 0.00 36.36 31.82 18.18 9.09 22 0.00 0.00 18.18 13.64 68.18 22 How many years experiences have you had as a Reading Recovery teacher? Less than one year 1-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years More than 15 years ________Number of Respondents ____________Educational Attainment Bachelors degree Masters degree Masters plus 20 hrs Education Specialists Doctoral ________Number of Respondents _______________Ethnicity/Race Asian or Pacific Islander American Indian or Alaskan Native Black, not of Hispanic origin Hispanic, regardless of race White, not of Hispanic origin Multi-racial / Other Number of Respondents 0.00 68.18 31.82 0.00 0.00 22 13.64 36.36 40.91 9.09 0.00 22 0.00 0.00 13.64 0.00 72.73 9.09 22 NOTE: Item percentages may not total 100% because of missing Input from some respondents. 55Table 5 Open-Ended Responses on the RRTQ Question Positive Comments 1. What are the strongest aspects of the Reading Recovery Program? 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Teacher Selection____________ __________Responses________________ One-on-one intervention/ Individualized lessons Bridging Achievement Gap by reaching lowest performing students Reading Recovery Teaching Strategies and Components of Instruction Early intervention Support from other RR teachers Continuing contact with students Professional training and development Addresses both reading and writing Increases students' confidence Collaboration with classroom teacher Close contact with parents Frequency Percent 12 10 4 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 57.1 47.6 19.0 14.3 14.3 9.5 9.5 9.5 4.8 4.8 4.8 Total Responses N = 21 Sample responses  Working one-on-one with an at-risk child.  Reading Recovery is an early intervention. The ability to identify and provide one-to-one instruction for a child is the strongest aspect. The child can be helped before bad habits are in place and self-esteem is an issue. Because it takes place in first grade the children are usually able to get on track with their classmates instead of falling behind more each day. Question Neutral or Neuative Comments What are the weakest aspects of the Reading Recovery Program? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Teacher Selection __________Responses____________ Planning time Time for Lesson Cant offer RR to All who need it Too much Paperwork Doesnt work for all children Continuing Contact Need more training and professional development support Need more RR teachers at the school More phonological approach in reading instruction Special Education screening No weak aspects Frequency Percent 7 4 4 2 2 2 33.3 19.0 19.0 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 1.48 1.48 1.48 Total Responses N= 21 2 2 1 1 1 Sample responses  Not any planning time.  Need more ongoing training fro teachers, especially those who may be in their second or third year of Reading Recovery. 56Table 5, continued Open-Ended Responses on the RRTQ Teacher Selection Question Continuation Comments Do you think your school should continue the Reading Recovery Program? Responses Why? 1. Yes: Why? Helps struggling readers Can see the results in achievement Decreased the number of students in special ed. Increases parental support Boosts self-confidence of student See continued gains as children advance Frequency Percent 19 10 8 3 2 1 1 90.5 2. Yes, but.... Need better implementation 3. Yes, with no elaboration 4. No_____________________ Total Responses N= 21 1 1 4.8 4.8 0 Sample responses  Yes. It has made a major difference in the number of children not on grade level and even the number of children referred for special education testing at my school.  Yes: I believe that Reading Recovery has enabled many children to get a great foundation for reading on grade level or near grade level by the end of 2\"^ or 3\" grade. Reading Recovery Classroom Teacher Questionnaire (RRCTQ) Descriptive results. The results of the RRCTQ administered to K-3 teachers in the 15 experienced Reading Recovery schools are summarized in Table 6. For the classroom teachers, the three items on which there was 80% or higher agreement included: teacher support of the program (93.59%), positive impact on student achievement (87.82%), and improving achievement of African- American students (82.05%). The two items on which classroom teachers expressed the strongest disagreement or disagreement included: sufficient faculty and staff to fully implement the program (23.08%) and because of Reading Recovery, parents are more involved in the literacy program (14.74%). Demographic data. K-3 classroom teachers reported less teaching experience and education attainment than Reading Recovery teachers. Close to 30% (28.85%) reported less than one year to five years teaching experience in any school and 57.69% reported having a Bachelors degree. However, more classroom teachers reported their ethnicity as African-American (28.85%) than Reading Recovery teachers with the majority (68.59%) reporting ethnicity as white. 57Open-ended responses. In addition to the 13 items the teachers were asked to rate on the questionnaire, several open-ended questions were also asked of the classroom teachers. Teachers were asked to describe their understanding of the Reading Recovery program, relate the strongest aspects of the program, and discuss whether or not Reading Recovery should be continued at their school. Teachers responses were very informative and many listed multiple responses for each of the questions. A complete summary of responses can be found in Table 7, and a verbatim listing of teacher responses can be found in Appendix F. There were 151 teachers who described their understandin\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_439","title":"Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program, Final Report","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Center for Research in Educational Policy, University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee"],"dc_date":["2005/2006"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","Literacy"],"dcterms_title":["Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program, Final Report"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/439"],"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\nas CREP Little Rock School District Center far Research in Educational Policy Center for Research in Educational Policy The University of Memphis 325 Browning Hall Memphis, Tennessee 38152 Toll Free: 1-866-670-6147 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 2005 - 2006 RECEIVED Final Report DEC 1 3 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING CREP Little Rock School District Center for Research in Educational Policy Center for Research in Educational Policy The University of Memphis 325 Browning Hall Memphis, Tennessee 38152 Toll Free: 1-866-670-6147 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 2005 - 2006 December 2006 Anna Grehan Lynn Harrison Deborah Slawson Center for Research in Educational Policy Shana Pribesh John Nunnery Old Dominion UniversityEXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to summarize and present the results of the Little Rock School Districts (LRSD) Prekindergarten Literacy Program. The primary goal of this evaluation was to determine the impact the Prekindergarten Literacy program had on improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students. Additionally, this study was designed to determine program implementation, perceptions of strengths and weaknesses of the program by the relevant stakeholders, effectiveness of the program in screening and monitoring students progress, and the level of participation of African Americans in the preschool program. RESEARCH QUESTIONS This evaluation was structured around the following primary and supplementary research questions: Primary Evaluation Question  Has the prekindergarten program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students? Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions  What are the quality of instruction and level of implementation of prekindergarten programs in classroom environments at the 28 schools implementing in 2005-2006?  What is the level of participation in the prekindergarten program by African American children relative to other ethnic groups at the school?  To what extent does the prekindergarten program provide screening assessments and other appropriate measures to help identify and monitor the progress of African American children who may be at-risk for academic failure?  What are the perceptions of prekindergarten teachers and paraprofessionals regarding the prekindergarten program implementation, impacts, strengths and weaknesses?  What are the perceptions of the principal, kindergarten teachers, and first grade teachers regarding prekindergarten program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?  What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of prekindergarten children regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 1EVALUATION DESIGN AND MEASURES Participants. The LRSD identified 28 preschool sites to he included in this study. From those 28 sites, there were 1,316 four-year old children in 69 preschool classrooms. Demographic data indicated 69.0% were African American, 19.0% were Caucasian, and 6% were Hispanic\napproximately two-thirds (66.0%) qualified for free or reduced price lunch. There were 69 prekindergarten teachers and 69 paraprofessionals at the 28 sites, and 214 kindergarten or first grade teachers. Design. A mixed methods design was employed to address all of the research questions. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected either by trained CREP researchers or through the acquisition and analyses of student achievement results provided by LRSD. Instrumentation. Student achievement results for 2005-2006 prekindergarten students were analyzed to determine gains throughout the school year, and achievement results for kindergarten students in 2005-2006 were used with comparisons made between those that attended LRSD prekindergarten programs versus those that had not. In addition, a ten year longitudinal analysis was conducted in which achievement data were compared between cohorts that had attended LRSD prekindergarten classrooms with those that had not. In addition to the student achievement results, two classroom observation tools were utilized, four survey questionnaires were administered, and a phone interview was conducted. Following are descriptions of the instruments and achievement measures used in this study. Early Literacy Observation Tool (E-LOT^). The E-LOT is the preschool version of the Literacy Observation Tool (LOT) both of which were developed by researchers at CREP as an instrument for observing literacy instruction. (Smith, Ross, \u0026amp;Grehan, 2002). The LOT has been aligned to the National Reading Panel and National Research Council findings and captures all five essential components of the Reading First program. The E-LOT has been customized to accurately reflect pre-school activities, especially as they relate to literacy activities. Early Language \u0026amp; Literacy Classroom Observation (ELLCO). The ELLCO is a toolkit that provides researchers and practitioners with guidelines for describing the degree to which a classroom supports literacy activities. Primarily an environmental checklist, the ELLCO contains three assessment tools: a Literacy Environment Checklist, protocols to conduct classroom observations and administer teacher interviews, and a Literacy Activities Rating Scale. The total time to complete the observation is approximately one to one and one-half hours. The ELLCO is used for research purposes in over 150 preschool classrooms and has a reported statistical reliability of 90% or better. Principal Phone Interview. Ten randomly selected principals from schools with prekindergarten programs participated in a 30-45 minute phone interview with CREP researchers. An interview protocol was developed for this study that included questions regarding the principals perceptions of the prekindergarten program at their school and the impact of the prekindergarten program on student achievement, with special note of the perceived impact on African American achievement. 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 2Prekindergarten Teacher Questionnaire (PKTQ). Prekindergarten teachers in all 28 schools with prekindergarten programs were asked to complete the PKTQ. The PKTQ was designed to capture prekindergarten teachers attitudes and perceptions of their schools prekindergarten program and their experiences as a prekindergarten teacher. Prekindergarten Paraprofessional Teacher Questionnaire (PKPTQ). Prekindergarten paraprofessional teachers in all 28 schools with prekindergarten programs were asked to complete the PKPTQ. The PKPTQ was designed to capture paraprofessional teachers attitudes and perceptions of their schools prekindergarten program and their experiences as a paraprofessional teacher. Classroom Teacher Questionnaire (CTQ). Kindergarten and first grade teachers in all schools with prekindergarten programs were asked to complete the CTQ. The CTQ was designed to capture these teachers attitudes and perceptions of their schools prekindergarten program. Parent/Guardian Questionnaire (PQ). All parents/guardians of prekindergarten students were asked to complete the PQ. The PQ was designed to capture attitudes and perceptions of their childs prekindergarten program. Early Screening Inventory (ESI). The Early Screening Inventory is a developmental screening instrument that was revised and standardized in 1997. Published by Pearson Early Learning, ESI allows the childs prekindergarten teacher to quickly screen and assess children in the areas of motor development, language development, and cognition. In this evaluation, the ESI database for 2005-2006 was analyzed. Work Sampling System (WSS). Developed in 1995, WSS is a performance assessment system, rather than a battery of tests, that assesses and documents childrens skills, knowledge, behavior, and accomplishments over a spectrum of educational areas and throughout a variety of occasions. WSS is a method in which teacher observations are organized around a set of criteria and procedures. For the purposes of this study, WSS fall 2005 prekindergarten student results were collected and compared with WSS spring 2006 prekindergarten students results as a measure of student growth throughout the year. Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS). DIBELS is a tool for early identification of children with potential literacy problems and an assessment of response to instruction. The DIBELS assessment is designed to enable educators to modify their approach if a student is not on course to achieve reading goals. The Early Childhood Research Institute on Measuring Growth and Development at the University of Oregon constructed DIBELS. The measures were developed upon the essential early literacy domains discussed in both the National Reading Panel (2000) and National Research Council (1998) reports to assess student development of phonological awareness, alphabetic understanding, and automaticity and fluency with the code. Not all students in the LRSD were assessed with DIBELS. Primarily DIBELS was administered to those kindergarten students in Reading First schools or those students who did not do well on portions of the Qualls Early Learning Inventory. 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 3Qualls Early Learning Inventory (QELI). The QELI is an assessment tool primarily for kindergarten students. The QELI identifies student development as either developed,' developing, or delayed in six areas. Arkansas requires all incoming kindergarten students to be tested with the QELI. For the purposes of this study, fall 2005 QELI results for all incoming kindergarteners were collected for comparisons between those who had prekindergarten the prior year and those who had not. Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS). The ITBS is a norm-referenced group administered test that measures the skills and achievement of students in grades K-8. Developed at the University of Iowa, the ITBS provides an in-depth assessment of students achievement of important educational objectives. PROCEDURES Data for the evaluation were collected April-May 2006 for the 2005-2006 school year. During the week of April 17*, 12 randomly selected preschool sites were visited and observed using the E-LOT and the ELLCO. All observations were conducted by trained CREP researchers. Principals dispersed questiormaires to all teachers in April, and prekindergarten teachers were responsible for disseminating the parent questionnaires. Principal phone interviews were conducted during May. Student achievement data were provided electronically by LRSD throughout the summer and fall of 2006. RESULTS Qualitative: Questionnaires, Interviews, Observations, and Screening Questionnaires. Questionnaires distributed to prekindergarten teachers, paraprofessional teachers, kindergarten and first grade teachers, and parents/guardians of preschool students were instrumental in gathering perceptions of the preschool program.  Prekindergarten Teacher Questionnaire: Teachers were overwhelmingly positive about the prekindergarten program and believed it was having a positive impact on all students and was bridging the achievement gap for Afiican American students. They reported having a strong understanding of the program in general, and the literacy components in particular. Prekindergarten teachers indicated a great deal of support from the principal and the other faculty. The most negative responses were in the areas of parental support and time for teacher collaboration.  Prekindergarten Paraprofessional Questionnaire: Paraprofessionals were also very positive about the preschool program and believed their work as paraprofessionals to be very important. Paraprofessionals felt supported by the teacher, the principal and other faculty and staff. They also indicated the primary strength of the prekindergarten program in improving student achievement and preparing students for kindergarten. Like the prekindergarten teachers, the most negative responses were for questions related to parental support and teacher collaboration.  Classroom Teacher Questionnaire: Kindergarten and first grade teachers were also positive regarding the preschool programs at their schools and most agreed it helped 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 4 prepare the children for kindergarten. Teachers expressed the need for more information about the preschool program and the curriculum.  Parent/guardian Questionnaire: Parents or guardians of all preschool students were asked for their opinion regarding the program and a large majority responded positively. Parents/guardians indicated the prekindergarten program was highly engaging for their children, was preparing them well for kindergarten, and through the literacy program, their child was becoming reading ready. Interviews. Principals responses during phone interviews indicated a high level of support and enthusiasm for the prekindergarten programs. Principals were eager to affirm the positive impacts of the prekindergarten program, the ease with which it complemented broader school initiatives, and the overall positive support the program received from all staff. Principals all strongly agreed that the prekindergarten program was having a positive impact on African American achievement in particular and overall student achievement as well. Observations. Observations with the ELLCO and the E-LOT indicated overall positive preschool classroom environments with knowledgeable teachers and actively engaged students. Although the ELLCO checklists reflected ample literacy curriculum and materials, class libraries, and other varieties of print and writing materi^s throughout the classrooms, observations with the E-LOT suggested literacy activities were not the predominant focus of many prekindergarten classrooms. Instruction that incorporated phonological awareness, emergent writing, oral language and comprehension activities were not fully developed. Screening. Initial results from the ESI data suggested that although African American students scored lower on the ESI than other races, the differences were not statistically significant. Averages were adjusted to accoimt for the influence of gender, socio-economic status, and English language limitations, and no statistically significant differences were found. Quantitative: Student Achievement The impact on student achievement was analyzed at three levels: prekindegarten achievement gains, kindergarten achievement gains, and longitudinal gains realized over students ten year school career. Analysis A: Prekindergarten Achievement Results. Student results based on WSS were positive and suggested the prekindergarten program improved or remediated the academic achievement of African American students. African American students consistently performed higher on the WSS assessments at Time 3 than at Time 1 in all seven domains: Personal and Social Development, Language and literacy. Mathematical Thinking, Scientific Thinking, Social Studies, The Arts and Physical Development and Health. Analysis B: Kindergarten Achievement Results. Students who attended a LRSD preschool program had higher achievement levels on incoming assessments than those who did not attend LRSD preschool program. Achievement results at the end of the kindergarten year were also higher for those who attended LRSD preschool programs than those who had not. In addition, African American students who attended a preschool program in the LRSD consistently out scored African Americans who did not attend preschool on both fall kindergarten assessments and spring kindergarten assessments a 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 5 Analysis C: f through Grade Achievement Results. Results from the longitudinal analysis suggested that African American students who participated in a prekindergarten program were statistically significantly less likely to need special education services as they continued their school careers and were more likely to remain on grade level than those African Americans who did not attend a preschool program. Results from this analysis also indicated that there were long term impacts for students who had attended a prekindergarten program in the district, even ten years after participation. For African American students this, impact was dramatic and more pronounced than for the population in general. FINDINGS 1. Has the prekindergarten program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students? In order to gain a full understanding of the impact of the prekindergarten program on African American student achievement, analyses of both cmrent and former prekindergarten students were conducted. Immediate impacts were gauged according to achievement results during the prekindergarten year and achievement results as students entered kindergarten. Long term impacts of the prekindergarten program were assessed through analyzing student achievement data over a ten year period. Findings from this three-tiered approach are described below, but all suggested the prekindergarten program had immediate and long-range impacts on all students, with long term effects especially dramatic for the African American population. Analysis A: Prekindergarten Achievement For the first analysis, test scores on the Work Sampling System by Pearson were examined for 2005-2006 prekindergarten students. Initial fall 2005 scores were compared with spring 2006 student scores. The database from Pearson had 1,300 student scores and comparisons were made between fall 2005 scores and spring 2006 scores. Results from the WSS data suggested that the prekindergarten program was effective in improving or remediating the academic achievement of AIncan American students. African American students consistently performed higher on the WSS assessments at Time 3 than at Time 1 in all seven domains: Personal and Social Development, Language and literacy. Mathematical Thinking, Scientific Thinking, Social Studies, The Arts and Physical Development and Health. Most students reached proficiency (the child can reliably demonstrate the skills, knowledge, behaviors or accomplishments) by Time 3 on all 55 indicators. The pre/post test design employed to assess prekindergarten effectiveness was not rigorous and was open to multiple threats to internal and external validity. Although all students who participated in the state-funded preschool program in Little Rock, Arkansas in 2005-2006 were assessed in this study and most displayed evidence of skill growth, it can not be stated definitively that other factors, such as enrichment programs or parental intervention, did not contribute to the gains. 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 6Analysis B: Kindergarten Achievement The evidence from this analysis suggested the preschool program had an overall positive impact on kindergarten student achievement and was effectively improving or remediating the academic achievement of African American students. Relative to students who had not attended a LRSD prekindergarten program, kindergarten students who had attended a Little Rock preschool consistently performed higher on QELI, DIBELS and ITBS subtests. Likewise, African American students who were enrolled in the Little Rock preschool program, consistently performed higher on QELI, DIBELS and ITBS subtests than those who did not attend a preschool program. The design employed to assess effectiveness of the prekindergarten program was rigorous, yet prone to threats of internal and external validity. Students were not randomly assigned to treatment (prekindergarten program) and control (no prekindergarten program), thus, the sample is influenced by selection biases with parents of children who volxmtarily selected to participate in prekindergarten programs more likely to be different than those who chose not to participate. Likewise, this study does not capture information regarding other types of preschool services kindergarten students may have received. The students that were not enrolled in a LRSD prekindergarten program may have been enrolled in private preschool programs or involved in high-quality child care that proximated preschool. Therefore, these students may have received an alternate, yet similar, treatment to that being examined in this study. The sample was representative of Little Rock kindergarten students and appropriate for this evaluation. However, attempts to generalize the findings from this study to other school districts must be carefully consideration based on the above mentioned limitations. Notwithstanding, there does appear to be strong evidence supporting the relationship between Little Rock preschool attendance and positive academic performance. The results were positive across all three achievement tests and 15 subtests. The effect sizes were small to moderate, but all were statistically significant. Therefore, there is strong indication that preschool attendance positively impacted kindergarten academic performance. Analysis C: L* through 10*^ Grade Student Achievement For the longitudinal component of the study, ITBS data for the past ten years were analyzed to evaluate potential long-term benefits of LRSDs prekindergarten program. Scores of students who had previously attended a LRSD prekindergarten program were compared with scores of students who had not. The results of this analysis were very positive. Students who had participated in a LRSD prekindergarten program were more likely to remain on grade level throughout their school career and were less likely to received special educational services than those students who had not. For African American students, those that attended a prekindergarten program had significantly higher ITBS scores than all other cohorts. This longitudinal analysis answered these specific items:  What is the relationship between African American students participation in the prekindergarten program and subsequent receipt of special education services? Afncan American students who participated in a prekindergarten program were statistically significantly less likely to need special education services later in their school careers. In fact, African American students who did not attend prekindergarten were almost 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 7twice as likely to need special education services. Overall, 8.9% of African American PK students received special education services in 2006, versus 14.8% of African American comparison students.  Are African American students who participated in prekindergarten more likely to remain on grade level throughout their school career? For nine out of ten cohorts examined, African American students who attended prekindergarten were more likely to remain on grade level than those who did not. Across cohorts, 87% of African American prekindergarten students were enrolled in the appropriate grade for their age versus 79% of African American comparison students.  Is there a relationship between prekindergarten participation and subsequent performance on the ITBS, and does this relationship differ for African American students versus other students? Prekindergarten participation had a statistically significant, positive effect on the performance of all students, even ten years after program participation. However, participation had a much more pronounced positive effect on the achievement of African American students, with typical effect size estimates of about +0.20 across cohorts and subtests. 2. What are the quality of instruction and level of implementation of prekindergarten programs in classroom environments at the 28 schools implementing in 2005-2005? The prekindergarten program appears to be well implemented with positive classroom environments. An overwhelming majority of prekindergarten teachers, both African American and non-African American, indicated a thorough understanding of the program, valuable training and support from the district and the principal, and an adequate supply of materials for program implementation. Prekindergarten teachers agreed children were excited about learning and most indicated the environment was preparing students for kindergarten. Paraprofessional teachers were also positive regarding the program and responded favorably regarding student enthusiasm, teacher and principal support, materials that supported the program, and the degree to which the program was preparing children for kindergarten. Kindergarten and P grade teachers at the 28 sites were generally positive as well, with an overwhelming majority expressing confidence that the prekindergarten program prepared the children for kindergarten and helped insure that they were reading ready. Through phone interviews, principals reflected positively about the prekindergarten program and deemed it an integral part of their elementary schools. Observations indicated well-implemented programs and positive classroom environments. Site researchers found most of the classrooms were well-equipped with print-rich environments\nhowever opportunities to capitalize on the literacy curriculum, books and themed materials were often missed or not fully explored. In addition, although most teachers were effective classroom managers, observations did not reflect a variety of instructional techniques to address all necessary components of literacy instruction. Learning centers were a predominant orientation of instruction, yet they were often not used to complement literacy instruction. 3. What is the level of participation in prekindergarten by African American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? 200S -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 8African American students represented the majority of the preschool population during the 2005-2006 school year. According to demographic information provided by the Little Rock School District, in the 69 preschool classrooms that were part of this study, the African American population was 69.0%. The Caucasian population represented 19%, 6.0% were Hispanic, and 6.0% described their ethnicity as other. 4. To what extent does the prekindergarten program provide screening assessments and other appropriate measures to help identify and monitor the progress of African American children who may be at-risk for academic failure? Analysis of ESI data indicated that preschool teachers had screened all eligible students. The majority of those screened were African American, which is not surprising given the majority of students in the LRSD are African American. Although African American students scored slightly lower on the ESI, the results were not significant from those of other ethnicities. Over 80% of all preschool teachers, African American and others, agreed that the Prekindergarten Literacy program was useful as a screening tool for assessing at-risk African American students. For paraprofessionals, 72.7% of the non-African American paraprofessionals agreed that the prekindergarten program was useful in monitoring progress of African American students\nfor African Americans this percentage fell to 63.4%. All principals agreed that their well-experienced prekindergarten teachers were able to distinguish problems that needed to be addressed and that through screening and appropriate follow-up checks, there were adequate opportunities for early identification of those at-risk of failing to make academic progress. 5. What are the perceptions of prekindergarten teachers and paraprofessional teachers regarding prekindergarten program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Prekindergarten teachers and paraprofessional teachers were very positive regarding the prekindergarten program. For both teachers and paraprofessionals and across ethnic groups, the majority of items on the questionnaires were answered positively by over 80% of the respondents. Most teachers and paraprofessionals understood their programs, felt supported in their work, and agreed that students were being positively impacted, both academically and socially. Questions that allowed teachers and paraprofessionals to respond in their own words were helpful in understanding the perceptions of strengths and weaknesses of the prekindergarten program. For African American teachers and paraprofessionals, the most popular strength listed was the socialization and peer interaction that children experienced in the classroom. While a popular response for non-African American teachers and paraprofessionals, their most popular response was the literacy component. Responses on the questionnaire indicated that the biggest area of concern for prekindergarten teachers and paraprofessionals was the lack of parental involvement. When 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 9 asked to list the least effective components of the prekindergarten program, the most common answer across all ethnic groups was none or n/a, indicating a high level of overall satisfaction. All responding prekindergarten teachers and paraprofessionals agreed that the prekindergarten program should be maintained. The most frequent reason given for keeping the program was the preparation it provided for kindergarten. 6. What are the perceptions of principal, kindergarten, and first grade classroom teachers regarding the prekindergarten program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? All principals who were interviewed were very positive about the preschool program, and most felt it had a significant impact on the long-term achievement of their students. Principals were very complimentary about the prekindergarten teachers and indicated great confidence in their abilities. The literacy aspect of the prekindergarten program was also well thought of by principals, and most understood it to provide the basic foundations of future reading success. Principals reported that the prekindergarten program was well-integrated into the school and enjoyed school-wide support from the rest of the faculty. Principals indicated that the achievement gap historically experienced by African American students was being closed through the prekindergarten program. Concerns articulated by principals included transportation issues and the desire to reach more of the four-year old population. Kindergarten and first grade teachers were also very positive about the prekindergarten program. The majority of both African American and non-African American teachers felt that students were positively impacted because of the program and that the prekindergarten program helped prepare students for kindergarten as well as future reading success. 7. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of prekindergarten children regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Parents who responded to the questionnaire were overwhelmingly supportive of the preschool program. This was true for parents/guardians of African American children, as well as for those who represented other ethnic groups. Of the 14 items respondents were asked to evaluate, over 90% of all parents/guardians responded positively to half of them (7). The childrens excitement for preschool, learning, and teachers was evident to those parents and guardians who completed the questionnaires. The majority of all parents/guardians agreed that preschool was preparing their child for kindergarten. In general, for most items, responses between parents of African American students verses those that were not African American were similar and positivewith two exceptions. Those respondents with non-African American children were more likely to respond positively regarding their childs reading readiness due to the prekindergarten program (82.1% agreed) than those who were parents/guardians of African American children (71% in agreement). Also, when asked about the school their child attended, 93% of the parents/guardians of non-African children responded favorably, compared with 84.7% of the African American parent/guardians. 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 10The most popular prekindergarten strengths listed by parents/guardians, regardless of the childs ethnicity, were: high quality, caring teachers and the socialization and interaction with peers that occurred in the classrooms. When asked to list changes that should be made to the program, the most popular response for both African American and non-Affican parent/guardians was no change. This is further indication of a high level of support from the parents/guardians of students who participated in the prekindergarten program. RECOMMENDED PROGRAM MODIFICATIONS The Little Rock School District has been recognized as having a strong prekindergarten program. In addition to the positive support expressed by all stakeholders, achievement results reflect a program that is having a positive impact on African American student achievement. Recommendations to further capitalize on the programs success are grouped within the four broad categories listed below: I. Instructional Effectiveness  A renewed focus on literacy instruction would strengthen students pre- reading skills and further prepare preschoolers for kindergarten. Preschools in the district benefit from first-rate materials, curriculum, and knowledgeable support staff\nyet many opportunities to connect literacy instruction with other classroom activities were missed in the classrooms observed. Teachers and paraprofessionals would benefit from coaching and modeling that focuses on preschool literacy instruction, especially concepts of print, fluency activities, oral language, early writing skills, and phonemic awareness, with an emphasis on incorporating these instructional techniques in small group instruction, learning center activities, and other hands-on activities. Mentoring and support from district professionals could aid teachers in providing instructional activities that capitalize on students natural enthusiasm for learning.  It is recommended that the district should investigate the feasibility of investing additional resources in the necessary support staff to strengthen the program.  It is recommended that a district wide program monitoring system to assess fidelity of literacy curriculum implementation and instructional effectiveness be implemented. This could be a valuable source of formative data and an effective feedback mechanism for project implementation. IL Use of student assessment data  It is recommended that a member of the district research and evaluation office be identified as a specialist in preschool assessments. This individual would understand assessment results and help teachers interpret assessment data, guide the district in making data driven decisions, monitor and make recommendations on district performance goals and benchmarks to improve student achievement. 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 11 The district should investigate the current mix of assessment tools with an eye toward identifying more user friendly instruments. The district should explore the usage of instruments that provide immediate access to data for analysis and classroom reports for teachers through a web-based interface. III. Expansion of preschool program  Given the demonstrated benefits of preschool to at-risk children, to the school, and to the commimity at large, thefe is clearly a need for more preschool classrooms. The district has made an impressive step in this direction with the dedication of the renovated former elementary school. Fair Park, as a preschool only site. This commitment and concentration of resources should serve as a model for future planning.  Exploring a public transportation system for preschool students would demonstrate a commitment to inclusiveness that would help to reach the children that could benefit most from the preschool program. IV. Parent Involvement  A more concerted, planned effort to communicate with parents and increase their involvement should be undertaken. Because parents must physically bring their children to the classroom and pick them up, preschool teachers have the opportimity to connect with parents on a daily basis. I EXPECTATIONS OF PROGRAM MODIFICATIONS Many of the valuable pieces to an outstanding preschool program are in place in the Little Rock School District. With the incorporation of the recommended program modifications, the district and community could expect:  An increased commitment of teachers to improve their instructional practices and to align the program components with current research.  A coordinated preschool assessment program which would enhance student achievement.  A broadened commitment to inclusiveness that would further enhance and strengthen the program.  Expanded preschool communities committed to reaching and preparing the most at- risk students for kindergarten.  An increased number of students who enter kindergarten with the necessary social skills to thrive in an organized environment.  An increased number of students entering kindergarten who have the skills necessary to learn to read.  A ripple effect with long-term gains on student achievement tests being realized through high school.  Increased parental involvement and better preschool attendance.  More tailored instruction to meet students individual needs. I 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 12 The ability to identify special needs students earlier and provide the help they need.  A decrease in supplemental services needed. 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 13Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District 2005 - 2006 INTRODUCTION Little Rock School Districts (LRSD) Early Childhood program dates back to 1969 with the opening of the Center for Early Development and Education, directed by Dr. Bettye Caldwell at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Originally housed at the Kramer School, the Center was moved to Rockefeller Elementary, and the school was designed as a center for early childhood and for grades 4 through 6. In 1987, Rockefeller became a K-5 elementary school and was renamed Rockefeller Elementary and Early Childhood Magnet School. Currently, Rockefeller serves children as young as six weeks old through 5* grade. In 1991, LRSD received an Arkansas Better Chance (ABC) grant that provided additional funding for preschool education for children in poverty. The original grant provided funding for 78 children in six classrooms in three elementary schools. Over the past years, the preschool program has expanded into every school except three, with funding from poverty index funds, desegregation funds, and district funds. In spring 2004, additional funding for preschool classrooms came from the state of Arkansas through a grant, Arkansas Better Chance for School Success (ABCSS), a successor to the former ABC grant. Initially 25 of the LRSDs elementary schools were approved for ABCSS funding. These funds required a 40% match from the district. During FY 2004-2005, ABCSS and district funds were used to support the preschool program and to expand the number of classrooms to 65. During 2005-2006, Fair Park Early Childhood Center, a renovated elementary school devoted entirely to preschool education, opened and the total number of four-year old preschool classrooms in the LRSD rose to 69. In addition to the increase in the number of preschool classrooms, there were program changes and additions during the 2005-2006 school year to further increase students readiness for kindergarten. The LRSD implemented a comprehensive curriculum system, the Map for Pre- K Literacy, which provided content guides with strategies and resources, concrete monthly benchmarks, and formative assessments for planning. The structure specifically addressed critical early learning skills such as oral language, listening comprehension, vocabulary, phonological awareness, print awareness, and alphabet knowledge and early mathematics skills. 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 14Instructional orientations that included group activities and learning centers with a variety of theme-oriented literature and hands-on activities were promoted. The curriculum also called for formative monthly assessments. In conjunction with the Map for Pre-K Literacy, the Houghton Mifflin PRE-K cuniculum was adopted to provide daily lesson structure that is scientifically-based and would complement and strengthen the curriculum map in addressing the critical areas of early literacy instruction. A complete description of the prekindergarten program was provided by the LRSD Early Education Department and is included in Appendix E. The benefits of a strong preschool program are well-researched and documented. According to most long-term studies, Prekindergarten students have been three times more likely to make better grades and significantly more likely to graduate from high school on time. (Southern Education Foundation, 2006, p.9) Consistently, research indicates that high quality ?9 preschool programs are imperative to childrens academic and cognitive development, especially as such programs address growth in emergent literacy. Emergent literacy refers to a continuous period of young childrens development and includes all of their attempts to interpret or communicate using symbols, regardless of whether the symbols are print, scribbles or pictures (Dixon-Krauss, 1996). Children vary widely in their exposure to print, knowledge of letters, and phonemic awareness, and these differences in emergent literacy skills before kindergarten may continue to impact their success in subsequent years. As children progress through school, initial differences in emergent literacy skills and in reading ability become more pronounced (Butler, Newman \u0026amp; Dickinson, 2006). However, preschool attendance, in and of itself, does not necessarily impact a childs later school successthe quality of the program determines its longterm impacts. Evidence continually shows that for there to be a lasting impact on achievement, programs must focus on oral language, emergent literacy, and social development. (Schweinhart, Barnes, Weikart, Barnett, \u0026amp; Epstein, 1993). Nationwide, Arkansas is ranked highly for its preschool programs. The State of Preschool: 2005 State Preschool Yearbook, the third in a series of works by the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER), states that Arkansas was the only state of the 38 states with preschool programs to meet all 10 of the NIEER recommended benchmarks. These benchmarks include comprehensive early learning standards, teacher degree and professional development requirements, class size and student teacher ratio, support services, and site visits. Although Arkansas was ranked 18'* among the 38 states with preschools in terms of four-year- 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 15 old preschool accessibility, from sy2001-2002 to sy2004-2005, enrollment of four-year-olds throughout the state has risen over 100% (Barnett, Hustedt, Robin, Schulman, 2006). RESEARCH QUESTIONS The primary focus of this research study was to evaluate the effectiveness in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students in the Little Rock School District (LRSD). Additionally, this study addressed other'issues pertinent to understanding the Prekindergarten Literacy program and evaluating its impact on achievement. These other issues included the quality and level of implementation of the prekindergarten literacy programs, the level of participation of African Americans in these prekindergarten programs, the extent to which screening assessments were utilized to determine those at-risk for failure, and the perceptions of prekindergarten teachers, paraprofessionals, and parents/guardians of student attending prekindergarten, as well as kindergarten and first grade teachers and principals in whose schools where the preschool programs were examined. A mixed methods design was employed to address all of the research questions. Student achievement results for 2005-2006 prekindergarten students were analyzed to determine gains throughout the school year, and achievement results for kindergarten students in 2005-2006 were used with comparisons made between those who attended LRSD prekindergarten programs versus those who had not. In addition, a ten year longitudinal analysis was conducted in which achievement data were analyzed between cohorts who had attended LRSD prekindergarten classrooms with those who had not. In addition to the student achievement results, two observation tools were utilized, four survey questionnaires were administered, and a phone interview was conducted. The evaluation of the LRSD Prekindergarten Literacy program was structured around the following research questions: Primary Evaluation Question  Has the prekindergarten program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of Afiican American students? Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions  What are the quality of instruction and level of implementation of prekindergarten programs in classroom environments at the 28 schools implementing in 2005-2006? 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 16 What is the level of participation in the prekindergarten program by African American children relative to other ethnic groups at the school?  To what extent does the prekindergarten program provide screening assessments and other appropriate measures to help identify and monitor the progress of African American children who may be at-risk for academic failure?  What are the perceptions of prekindergarten teachers and paraprofessionals regarding the prekindergarten program implementations, impacts, strengths and weaknesses?  What are the perceptions of the principals, kindergarten teachers, and first grade teachers regarding prekindergarten program implementations, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?  What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of prekindergarten children regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 11 EVALUATION DESIGN AND MEASURES The evaluation period extended from April 2006 through May 2006. The evaluation design was based on both quantitative and qualitative data collected from observations of prekindergarten classrooms and literacy instruction, phone interviews with principals, parent surveys, prekindergarten teacher and paraprofessional surveys, and questionnaires completed by kindergarten and first grade teachers who taught in schools with prekindergarten classrooms. Student level achievement data included Work Sampling System (WSS) results, Qualls Early Learning Inventory (QELI), Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS), and Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS). The results of the Early Screening Inventory (ESI) were also used to provide insight regarding prekindergarten screening measures. The student level achievement data and screening assessment data were received from the district in the summer and fall of 2006. Site researchers from the Center for Research in Educational Policy (CREP) conducted observations of the prekindergarten classrooms and phone interviews with principals. Principals were responsible for dissemination of teacher questionnaires, and prekindergarten teachers for distribution of the parent/guardian questionnaires. Participants The Little Rock School District is the largest school district in the state of Arkansas and served 26, 524 students during the 2005-2006 school year. Approximately 1,316 four-year-old students, roughly 5% of the total student population, attended preschool classes in one of the 28 designated state-funded prekindergarten sites. Of those 28 sites, 27 were elementary (k-5) schools and one site. Fair Park, was an early childhood center comprised entirely of prekindergarten classes. Almost 70 percent (69.0%) of those attending prekindergarten classes were African American, 19.0% were Caucasian, and 6.0% were Hispanic. Approximately two- thirds of the students (66.0%) qualified for free and reduced price lunch. Table 1 summarizes the total school and preschool populations for 2005-2006. 2005 2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 18Tablet. Total School and Preschool Populations, 2005-2006 School Bale Baseline Brady Carver Chicot Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Geyer Springs Jefferson M.L. King Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rockerfeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Wilson Woodruff Total Students 340 299 378 520 591 309 137 415 446 651 337 451 616 377 453 383 593 334 493 375 576 644 504 641 517 294 288 236 % African American 83.2 72.9 83.3 54.2 71.9 56.0 62.8 21.4 96.2 24.7 88.4 33.3 65.9 78.8 64.0 77.3 65.1 44.9 76.5 81.1 95.7 56.7 75.0 81.6 87.6 76.9 86.1 91.9 % White 4.1 4.7 6.3 36.7 4.6 21.4 29.9 73.5 2.2 66.5 3.0 63.9 25.0 10.6 20.8 9.9 21.4 47.9 17.0 2.4 1.0 25/0 2.6 6.6 1.5 15.3 3.1 5.9 % Hispanic 8.2 19.4 3.4 3.1 21.5 17.8 .7 1.2 .4 2.2 7.4 .4 1.0 7.2 7.5 10.2 7.1 1.8 2.0 11.7 1.6 9.0 21.4 4.5 8.3 6.1 7.3 .8 % other 4.4 3.0 6.9 6.0 2.0 4.9 6.6 3.9 1.1 6.6 1.2 2.4 8.1 3.4 7.7 2.6 6.4 5.4 4.5 4.8 1.7 9.3 1.0 7.3 2.5 1.7 3.5 1.3 % Free \u0026amp; Reduced Lunch 82.9 94.3 86.2 52.9 88.0 70.9 54.0 17.8 96.4 16.9 86.9 28.2 60.2 86.7 67.3 88.0 57.8 44.6 72.4 81.9 91.3 53.4 91.3 80.3 95.2 77.6 90.6 88.1 ^\"Vno.^- Students \" African Piskinderaarten \u0026lt;g American 38 *5 82.0 75.0 70.0 , White . 50 0.0 \" 5.0 s 30.0 Hispanic Other 8.0 18.0 5.0 0.0 3.0 .^18.0 0.0 8: -de. 38 ' 137 39 58 40 37 , -I?'' 70.0 8.0 - - 20.0 55.0 f 4'26.0 _ 11.0 63.0'''' 0-.- 23.0 J\u0026lt;740 100.0 13.0 Sih 0.0 ^'\"40 ' -at 92.0 . ST 18.o 0.0 70.0 3.0 3.0 I! 77 71 , 37 Jf 40 60 38 40 80 38 20 V  34 1316 - . 62.0 70.0 51.0 78.0 62.0  - 26.0 83.0 \u0026lt;,.27.0 14.0 32.0 10.0 23.0 58.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 5.0 130 0,0 1.0 8.0 7.0 3.0 0.0 15.0 0.0 6.0 11.0 0.0 5-0 .ivi- lO-O 0.0 ^160 69.0 87.0 94.0 66.0 73.0 84.0 92.0 70.0 88.0 85.0 69.0 18.0 2.0 0.0 24.0 i 5.0 5.0 0.0 20.0 6.0 6.0 \" 19.0 3.0 - 8.0 3.0 8.0 20.0 0.0 5.0 . 10.0 y 6.0 3.0 6.0 10.0 30 3.0.$^. 3.0 * 3.0 11.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 6.0 Lunch 69.0 92.0' 68.0 ' 55 0'\" 92.0 61.0 54.0 13.0 980 8.0 92.0 J*', 10.0 52.0:^ 83.0 83.0 f 44.0 16.0 54.0 68.0 87.0 . \u0026lt; 50.0 1 90.0 \u0026lt; 79.0 87.0 70.0 if 88.0 88.0 66.0 W w -\u0026lt;? A' % \u0026gt;- 39 \u0026amp; P 39 .M 39 3 - 7\u0026lt; 30.0 /-^-../.O . iX 0.0 J Source: Little Rock School District Each preschool classroom had one preschool teacher and one paraprofessional teacher leading classroom instruction for a total of 69 preschool teachers and 69 paraprofessional teachers. Within the 27 elementary schools that participated in the study, there were 1,966 kindergarten students in 115 kindergarten classrooms, and 1,899 first-grade students in 99 first grade classrooms. Table 2 summarizes the breakdown of early education classes per school. 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 19Table 2. Early Education Classes by School, 2005-2006 No. School Bale Baseline Brady Carver Chicot Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Geyer Springs Jefferson M.L. King Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rockerfeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Wilson Woodruff Total Students 340 299 378 520 591 309 137 415 446 651 337 451 616 377 453 383 593 334 493 375 576 644 504 641 517 294 288 236 No. Prekindergarten XArVl\u0026gt;k'.r ' ' . ^Students/^^*^ Classes/ j -.'Jrekindetgarten'' Teachers .Prekindetgarten' ' s\u0026gt;- Q I' 39 -a -.38 40 39 \u0026gt; 58 - -\u0026gt;'^40 \\^2 40 V 8 . 71 37 \\ 40 39 39 60 70 38 40 - ' 80 38 \u0026gt; 20  17 - 34 1316 Source: Little Rock School District 'a f 5*'' '4e-^ 4 2 2  4 - 2 ' 1 2 69 No. Students, K 62 41 80 76 101 57 N/A 61 84 102 55 61 98 41 76 73 100 60 59 59 98 120 78 99 100 40 46 39 1966 No. K Classes/ Teachers 4 3 5 4 7 4 N/A 3 5 6 3 4 6 3 4 4 5 3 3 4 6 7 4 5 5 2 4 2 115 Students, I** grade 50 * 35 N/A \" A 7V. L . 65 120 50 \" IZ : s 86 54\" 70 73 95 50 64 64\\ 87 115 97 100 92 48 48 , 34 1899 No. I\" Grade Classes/ Teachers? 2 N/A^ \u0026amp;3 o -sr, 3 4 2 3/ 4 6 6 4 - . 6  4 7 2 :f.-4 rl\n2 99. ?' J 2 1 . 1^ r s**^5 137* \u0026gt; WS w: 2 2 3 6 2 2 2 3 4 ,- , a 2  . 3 INSTRUMENTATION A variety of instruments were used to collect qualitative data. Site researchers employed two observation tools for use in viewing literacy instruction in prekindergarten classrooms. A principal protocol was designed to determine principals understanding of the Prekindergarten Literacy program at their school. CREP also developed four questioimaires that were disseminated to: (a) prekindergarten teachers, (b) prekindergarten paraprofessionals, (c) kindergarten and first grade teachers, and (d) parents/guardians of the prekindergarten students. All questionnaires were designed to gather perceptions and attitudes of the Prekindergarten Literacy program. Finally, a data from a prekindergarten screening inventory were analyzed. A detailed description of each follows. Classroom Observation Measures 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 20In April 2006,4 site researchers from CREP visited 17 randomly selected prekindergarten classrooms in 12 different schools. The following tools were used to capture literacy instruction and record observations: Early Literacy Observation Tool (E-LOT^). The E-LOT is the preschool version of the Literacy Observation Tool (LOT) both of which were developed by researchers at CREP as an instrument for observing in elementary classrooms where teachers are engaged in teaching reading and other literacy practices (Smith, Ross, \u0026amp;Grehan, 2002). The LOT has been aligned to the National Reading Panel and National Research Council findings and captures all five essential components of the Reading First program. The E-LOT has been customized to accurately reflect preschool activities, especially as they relate to literacy. Individual observations and the summary are organized around the following categories: Instructional Orientation, Instructional Components, Learning Centers (types and activities). Student Activities and Teacher Interactions during the Learning Centers, Classroom Environment and Climate, and Visible Print Environment. The subcategories of Instructional Components include the five essential components of reading including: Concepts of Print, Alphabetic and Phonological Awareness, Fluency, and Vocabulary and Oral Language Development. The E- LOT captures explicit instruction in these five component areas. Quantitative data yielded by the observations reflect the degree to which targeted components are occurring in classrooms. The rubric ratings range from 0 = Not observed, to 1 = Rarely, 2 = Occasionally, 3 = Frequently, and 4 = Extensively observed. There are two forms for recording observations of literacy instruction on the LOT. The Literacy Observation Tool Notes form is completed for each teacher observed. At the conclusion of the observation period, the individual notes forms are then synthesized and summarized on the Literacy Observation Tool Data Summary form. Whereas the standard LOT procedure involves a trained observer visiting 7-9 randomly selected classrooms, for 10 minutes each, during the typical PA to 2 hour reading/ literacy block, the E-LOT can be structured differently. As in the case of this study, E-LOT observations are typically targeted observations. Rather than observing multiple classrooms for 70 to 90 minutes, targeted observations require the observer to remain in one classroom for this period of time. This type of observation allows the site researcher to view the full spectrum of activities, including both direct instruction and learning center instruction. All observations in this study were targeted E- LOTs. 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 21A recent reliability study using Generalizability Theory (Sterbinsky \u0026amp; Ross, 2003) indicated that LOT observations have a reliability of .75 when at least five LOTs are completed in a school. Additionally, the validity of the LOT was assessed via a content validation process in the development phase, including the use of a panel of subject matter experts, both researchers and practitioners, from areas such as the University of Memphis, the Memphis City Schools, and the state departments of education in Tennessee, Louisiana, and Illinois. To ensure the reliability of data, observers receive a manual that describes and operationally defines reading variables that comprise the E-LOT and participate in formal training to ensure that the identifying and coding of reading variables occurs in a consistent manner to guarantee the reporting of reliable and valid data. After receiving the manual and instruction in a group training session, each observer participates in sufficient practice exercises and an inter-rater reliability consensus rating process to ensure that his/her data are comparable with those of experienced observers. The LOT was piloted in the Memphis City Schools and is used in multiple schools across the United States, including 70 Reading Excellence Act (REA) and 75 Reading First (RF) schools in the state of Tennessee. The REA and RF evaluations and research studies include rigorous matched control quasi-experimental designs for which the LOT is the primary outcome measure. The E-LOT has been used in two Early Reading First projects, in Tennessee and Oklahoma, and will be prominent in a federally funded, longitudinal study of preschools in the Memphis City Schools system. A copy of the E-LOT can be found in Appendix A. Early Language \u0026amp; Literacy Classroom Observation (ELLCO). The ELLCO is a toolkit that provides researchers and practitioners with guidelines for describing the degree to which a classroom supports literacy activities. Primarily an environmental checklist, the ELLCO contains three assessment tools: a Literacy Environment Checklist, protocols to conduct classroom observation and administer teacher interviews, and a Literacy Activities Rating Scale. The total time to complete the observation is approximately one to one and one-half hours. The ELLCO is used for research purposes in over 150 preschool classrooms and has an established statistical reliability of 90% or better. Interviews During May, 2006, 10 randomly selected principals from schools with prekindergarten programs participated in a 30-45 minute phone interview with CREP researchers. An interview I 7  )\ni. 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 22 (' I 1,'^ S'protocol was developed for this study and included questions regarding the principals perceptions of the prekindergarten program at their school and the impact of the program on student achievement, with special note of the impact on African American achievement. Principals were also asked questions regarding the impact the prekindergarten program had on literacy instruction, parental involvement and professional development. Principals were asked to reflect on the perception of other teachers and personnel at the school regarding the program. A copy of the principal interview protocol is included in Appendix B. Surveys Prekindergarten Teacher Questionnaire (PKTQ) Prekindergarten teachers in all 28 schools examined in this study were asked to complete the PKTQ. The PKTQ was designed to capture teachers attitudes and perceptions of their schools prekindergarten program and their experiences as prekindergarten teachers. The PKTQ contained 3 sections. Section 1 consisted of 26 items teachers were asked to evaluate using a 5- point Likert-type scale ranging from (1) Strongly Disagree to (5) Strongly Agree. Items assessed included teachers understanding of the prekindergarten program, principal and staff support of the program, the impact the program had on student achievement and parental involvement, and professional development experiences. The second section contained 7 items which collected demographic information\nand the final section allowed teachers to record their own responses to 4 open-ended discussion questions. These questions were: What are the most effective aspects of the prekindergarten program? What are the least effective? Do you think the prekindergarten program should be continued? Why or Why not? What type of professional development have you received as a preschool teacher? Prekindergarten Paraprofessional Teacher Questionnaire (PKPTQ) Prekindergarten paraprofessional teachers in all 28 schools with prekindergarten programs were asked to complete the PKPTQ. The PKPTQ was designed to capture paraprofessional teachers attitudes and perceptions of their schools preschool program and their experiences as paraprofessional teachers. Like the PKTQ, the questionnaire for paraprofessionals contained 3 sections. Section 1 consisted of 18 items paraprofessional teachers were asked to evaluate using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from (1) Strongly Disagree to (5) Strongly Agree. Items assessed included paraprofessional teachers imderstanding of the prekindergarten program, principal and staff support of the program, collaboration with their prekindergarten 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 23I ,1 teacher, the impact the program had on student achievement and parental involvement, and professional development experiences. The second section contained 7 items which collected demographic information\nand the final section allowed paraprofessionals to record their own responses to 4 open-ended discussion questions. These questions were: What are the most effective aspects of the prekindergarten program? What are the least effective? Do you think the prekindergarten program should be continued? Why or Why not? What type of professional development have you received as a preschool paraprofessional teacher? Classroom Teacher Questionnaire (CTQ) Kindergarten and first grade teachers in all 28 schools with prekindergarten programs were asked to complete the CTQ. The CTQ was designed to capture these teachers attitudes and perceptions of their schools prekindergarten program. This questionnaire also contained 3 sections. Section 1 consisted of 12 items in which teachers were asked to evaluate using a 5- point Likert-type scale ranging from (1) Strongly Disagree to (5) Strongly Agree. Items assessed included teachers understanding of the prekindergarten program, support of the program, effectiveness of the program, and impact of the prekindergarten on student achievement and parental involvement. The second section contained 7 items which collected demographic information\nand the final section allowed teachers to record their own responses to 3 open-ended discussion questions. I 'M tl I These questions were: What are the most effective aspects of the prekindergarten program? What are the least effective? Do you think the prekindergarten program should be continued? Why or Why not? Parent/Guardian Questionnaire (PQ) All parents/guardians of prekindergarten students were asked to complete the PQ. The PQ was designed to capture attitudes and perceptions of their childs prekindergarten program. This questionnaire consisted of 12 items in which parents or guardians were asked to evaluate using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from (1) Strongly Disagree to (5) Strongly Agree. Items assessed included their understanding of the prekindergarten program, the impact the program had on their child, and their overall perceptions of the teacher and the school. Respondents were also asked to indicate their childs ethnicity, age, and gender. The final section allowed parents/guardians to record their own responses to 2 open-ended discussion questions. These questions were: What are the best things about your childs preschool experience? What changes would you like to see in the preschool program at this school? fl p I Jj !! r'i, r r 1 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 24 1A copy of all four surveys: PKTQ, PKPTQ, CTQ, and PQ can be found in Appendix C. 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 257 SCREENING ASSESSMENTS Early Screening Inventory (ESI). The Early Screening Inventory is a developmental screening instrument that was revised and standardized in 1997. Published by Pearson Early Learning, ESI allows the childs teacher to quickly screen and assess children in the areas of motor development, language development, and cognition. ESI is considered highly reliable and valid, with 9 out of 10 children at risk for failure to be adequately identified. ESI is a continuous protocol divided into two sections: ESI-P is for 3-41/2 year olds and ESI-K is for ages 4.5 years to age 6. The 2005-2006 school year was the first year for prekindergarten teachers to use the Early Screening Inventory to assess their students. STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT RESULTS In addition to the screening assessments, interviews, questionnaires, and observation tools, student achievement data were derived from student scores on the Work Sampling System (WSS), the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS), the Qualls Early Learning Inventory (QELI), and the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS). A description of each assessment follows. Work Sampling System (WSS). Developed in 1995, WSS is a performance assessment system, rather than a battery of tests, that assesses and documents childrens skills, knowledge, behavior, and accomplishments over a spectrum of educational areas and throughout a variety of occasions. WSS is a method in which teacher observations are organized around a set of criteria and procedures. There are 3 primary components to WSS: (1) Development Guidelines and Checklists, (2) Portfolios, and (3) Summary Reports. The checklists are designed for teachers to complete without formally testing their students. Each checklist covers seven areas including personal and social development, language and literacy, mathematical thinking, scientific thinking, social studies, the arts, and physical development. Portfolios are used to collect meaningful representations of childrens work\nfinally, summary reports are designed to be completed three times a year and are a way of translating the information from the checklists and portfolios into an easily understood document for parents and teachers. For the purposes of this study, WSS fall 2005 prekindergarten students results were collected and compared with WSS spring 2006 prekindergarten students results as a measure of student growth throughout the year. 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 26 I \nVDynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS/ DIBELS is a tool for early identification of children with potential literacy problems and an assessment of response to instruction. The DIBELS assessment is designed to enable educators to modify their approach if a student is not on course to achieve reading goals. The Early Childhood Research Institute on Measuring Growth and Development at the University of Oregon constructed DIBELS. The measures were developed upon the essential early literacy domains discussed in both the National Reading Panel (2000) and National Research Council (1998) reports to assess student development of phonological awareness, alphabetic understanding, and automaticity and fluency with the code. Each measure has been thoroughly researched and demonstrated to be reliable and valid indicators of early literacy development and predictive of later reading proficiency to aid in the early identification of students who are not progressing as expected. When used as recommended, the results can be used to evaluate individual student development as well as provide grade-level feedback toward validated instructional objectives. The Institute has validated the instruments ability to predict outcomes and has tested its reliability with young children across the country. Not all students in the LRSD were assessed with DIBELS. Primarily DIBELS was administered to those kindergarten students in Reading First schools or those students who did not do well on portions of the QELI. Qualls Early Learning Inventory (QELI). The QELI is an assessment tool primarily for kindergarten students. The QELI identifies student development as either developed,' developing, or delayed in six areas: general knowledge, oral communication, written language, math concepts, work habits, and attentive behavior. The QELI is an inventory, not a test, which teachers complete on each child based on recent observations of the students behavior. In 2000, a national standardization study was conducted and norms were established to allow for a variety of interpretations of the scores. The state of Arkansas requires all incoming kindergarten students to be inventoried with the QELI. For the purposes of this study, fall 2005 QELI results for all incoming kindergarteners were collected for comparisons between those who had attended prekindergarten the prior year and those who had not. Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS). The ITBS is a norm-referenced group administered test that measures the skills and achievement of students in grades K-8 and was developed at the 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 27 I i S! University of Iowa. The ITBS provides an in-depth assessment of students achievement of important educational objectives. Tests in Reading, Language Arts, Mathematics, Social Studies, Science, and Source of Information yield reliable and comprehensive information. For analysis of kindergarten students, spring 2006 ITBS achievement scores were used. For the longitudinal analysis of the prekindergarten program, 10 years of ITBS data were compiled in which comparisons between those cohorts who attended preschool in the LRSD were compared with those students who did not attend preschool in the LRSD. Table 3 sununarizes each evaluation question, the relevant participants, and the measurement used for analyses. I.-\nI I I b' '.i III J 5 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 28 1Table 3. Summary of Data Sources and Participants by Evaluation Question Evaluation Question Participants Data Sources Methodology Primary Question 1. Has the prekindergarten program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students? Xt\n2005-2006 Prekindergarten students in the 28 state-funded LRSD preschool sites Prekindergarten student  program data - Work Sampling System scores (2005-2006 data) Fall scores compared to spring scores for notable gains. B: 2005-2006 LRSD kindergarten students C: Qualls Early Learning Inventory (QELI) or Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Fall 2005 data\nDIBELS in Reading First schools only Spring 2006 ITBS kindergarten scores Kindergarten Fall QELI or DIBELS scores: comparisons of 2004-2005 prekindergarten students vs. non-prekindergarten students. Supplemental Questions 1. What are the quality of instruction and level of implementation of prekindergarten programs in classroom environments at the 28 schools implementing in 2005-2006? 2. What is the level of participation in prekindergarten by African American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? All LRSD students in 1- 10 grade All prekindergarten teachers All prekindergarten paraprofessionals All K and 1 grade classroom teachers at schools with prekindergarten programs Principals at prekindergarten schools Randomly selected pre kindergarten classrooms All prekindergarten schools  ITBS District longitudinal achievement data PKTQ PKPTQ CTQ Phone interviews of 10 randomly selected principals ELLCO and E-LOT School records/archival data ITBS scores compared between previous prekindergarten students vs. non- prekindergarten students. Comparison of those identified as former prekindergarten participants vs. those who did not attend LRSD piekindergarlen All surveys collected participants attitudes and perceptions regarding prekindergarten program. Phone intenriews gathered principals' attitudes and perceptions regarding prekindergarten management. Classroom environments and literacy instruction were evaluated using obsen/ation tools Comparisons of African American prekindergarten population relative to other ethnic groups 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 29Table 3, continued. Evaluation Question Participants Data Sources Methodology 3. To what extent does the prekindergarten program provide screening assessments and other appropriate measures to help identify and monitor the progress of African American children who may be at-risk for academic failure? All prekindergarten teachers and paraprofessionals PKTQ\u0026amp;PKPTQ Teachers attitudes and perceptions regarding screening collected 2005-2006 prekindergarten  student data Early Screening Inventory (ESI)  ' Database analyzed for screening records Principals 4. What are the perceptions of prekindergarten teachers and paraprofessional teachers regarding the prekindergarten program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of principal, K and 1* grade classroom teachers regarding the prekindergarten program Implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of prekindergarten children regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Phone interviews of 10 randomly selected principals Principals knowledge and perception of screening collected All prekindergarten teachers and paraprofessionals PKTQ\u0026amp;PKPTQ Teachers attitudes and perceptions regarding the prekindergarten program collected All K \u0026amp; 1 grade classroom teachers 10 randomly selected principals Parents/guardians of all 2005-2006 LRSD prekindergarten students CTQ Principal phone interview PQ Teachers attitudes and perceptions regarding the prekindergarten program collected Principals attitudes and perceptions regarding the prekindergarten program collected. Parents/guardians attitudes and perceptions regarding the prekindergarten program collected PROCEDURE Data for the evaluation were collected April-May 2006 for the 2005-2006 school year. During the week of April 17^, 12 randomly selected preschool sites were visited and observed using the E-LOT and the ELLCO. All observations were conducted by trained CREP researchers. Also in April, all teacher questionnaires were disseminated during school faculty meetings. Prekindergarten teachers were responsible for distributing parent questionnaires to preschool parents. In May, 10 randomly selected principals were interviewed via phone. Student achievement data were received from the district during the summer and fall of 2006. METHODS - EARLY SCREENING INVENTORY Sample. In 2005-2006, the Little Rock School District reported that the Early Screening Inventory (ESI) was administered to 1,206 preschool students. Due to duplicate records, missing student identification numbers, and missing inventory scores, the final sample consisted of 1,105 students enrolled in the Little Rock preschool program. The sample was drawn from 28 LRSD preschool sites included all eligible students who were enrolled in preschool in 2005-2006. The number of students from each of the schools appeared to be reflective of preschool enrollment. 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 30 IIn the previous year, 1,068 students were enrolled in Little Rock preschool programs. Students per school ranged from 15 to 113 students (See Table 1). Seventy-one percent of the preschool students in the sample were African Americans. Most students were English speaking (95%), eligible for free or reduced price lunch (68%), and did not have a formal lEP (100%). There were slightly more females (51%) than males in the sample. Tables 4 and 5 summarize the sample population. 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 3]Table 4. ESI Sample by School Whole Sample African Americans School Name N Percent N Percent Bale Baseline Brady Carver Chicot Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Geyer Springs Jefferson King Mabelvale McDermott Meadowclitf Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Wilson Woodruff Total 35 30 37 15 50 31 3.2 2.7 3.3 1.4 113 37 50 18 30 20 4.5 2.8 10.2 3.3 30 23 28 12 36 17 71 62 32 40 35 18 31 46 66 35 35 68 32 19 15 34 1105 4.5 1.6 2.7 1.8 6.4 5.6 2.9 3.6 3.2 1.6 2.8 4.2 6.0 3.2 3.2 6.2 2.9 1.7 1.4 3.1 100.0 75 9 50 1 28 4 43 42 16 31 20 5 20 40 62 24 28 56 30 13 13 27 783 3.8 2.9 3.6 1.5 4.6 2.2 9.6 1.1 6.4 0.1 3.6 0.5 5.5 5.4 2.0 4.0 2.6 0.6 2.6 5.1 7.9 3.1 3.6 7.2 3.8 1.7 1.7 3.4 100.0 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 32Table 5. Preschool Demographics Whole Sample African Americans Characteristic Race or Ethnicity White African American Hispanic Asian/Pacitic Islander Native American Other Total Gender Female Male Total Free and Reduced Lunch Eligibility Free Full Pay Reduced Total Limited English Proficiency No Yes N 198 783 63 26 2 33 1105 560 545 1105 645 358 102 1105 1045 60 1105 Percent 17.9 70.9 5.7 2.4 0.2 3.0 100.0 50.7 49.3 100.0 58.4 32.4 9.2 100.0 94.6 5.4 100.0 N 404 379 783 554 151 78 783 779 4 783 Percent 51.6 48.4 100.0 70.8 19.3 10.0 100.0 99.5 0.5 100.0 Special Education No 1105 1105 100.0 100.0 783 783 100.0 100.0 Measures. The early screening analysis utilized demographic data and one standardized achievement measures. The demographic characteristics were used for descriptive statistics and as covariates. The achievement measure served as the dependent variable. Demographics. The following student demographic characteristics were provided by Little Rock School District: Race/Ethnicity. Race/Ethnicity was reported in six categories: White, African American, Hispanic, Asian/pacific islander, Native American, and Other. For purposes of this analysis, which centers on remediation of African American students, dummy variables for African American (1) and all Other Races (0) were created. 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 33Gender. Gender was reported in two categories: Female and male. In this analysis, female was coded as (1) and male as (0). Free and Reduced Lunch Eligibility. Students were coded as being either eligible for free lunch, reduced price lunch or full-pay. Dummy variables were created that condensed free and reduced price lunch eligibility into one category (1) and full-pay into a second (0). This variable served as an imperfect proxy for socioeconomic status. Limited English Proficiency. Students who had limited English proficiency in kindergarten were coded as 1\nthose who were English proficient were coded as 0. Achievement. This report utilized data from the Early Screening Inventory (ESI). The Early Screening Inventory is a developmental screening instrument that was revised and standardized in 1997. Published by Pearson Early Learning, ESI allows the childs pre-k teacher to quickly screen and assess children in the areas of motor development, language development, and cognition. The 2005-2006 school year was the first year for pre-k teachers to use the Early Screening Inventory to assess their students. Design. To describe the extent to which the prekindergarten program used screening assessments and other appropriate measures to identify African-American children at-risk for academic failure, a cross-sectional design that examined one group of students (preschoolers) at one point in time (Fall 2005) was utilized. The reader should note that although this is a common design for social science research, this is not a design suited to draw causal inference. Instead, this design describes who received screening and illustrate conelational relationships between demographics and screening scores. 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 34 bMETHODS - STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT Students achievement was analyzed using a three-tiered approach in which both immediate and long term results were studied. Methodology for Analysis A, Analysis B, and Analysis C is described below. Analysis A\nPrekindergarten Achievement Sample. For this analysis, the sample was restricted to students enrolled in public school programs and were in a center-based preschool program (n=1342). Furthermore, the sample was restricted to those students who were enrolled in ABC State funded preschool programs. This resulted in a final analysis sample of 1,300 students from 28 schools.* Table 6 illustrates the original number of prekindergarten students in the study and the number of students included in Analysis A. Minor changes in population were expected, due to the dynamic nature of student populations. * This analysis includes 136 students originally omitted due to a coding error. All available student scores are now included in the analysis. 200S -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 35 I1 Table 6. Sample Population: Analysis A 1I I School * Number of Students, Bale Baseline Brady Carver Chicot Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Geyer Springs Jefferson M.L. King Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rockerfeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Wilson Woodruff , Prekindergarten 38 \n40 - 2O.'?...i5.. 71: LiS: 40\n37 60 70 38 40 39 J 19 39 37:W'K--Si 40 58S 40 I Si ijts  80 . 38 , 20 -  17 . 34 1,316 Number of Students, Analysis A 39 45 39 20 75 38 132 39 65 39 39 39 73 72 39 40 40 19 40 55 67 1 41 81 37 20 25 41 1,300 Percent of Sample, Analysis A 3.0 3.5 3.0 1.5 5.8 2.9 10.2 3.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 5.6 5.5 3.0 3.1 3.1 1.5 3.1 4.2 5.2 .1 3.2 6.2 2.8 1.5 1.9 3.2 X 100.0 w 39 t  Seventy-five percent of the students in the sample were African American (See Table 7). Most students were English speaking (95%), did not have a formal lEP (99%), and were bom in I 2000 or 2001 (99%). The sample was evenly split between male and female students. I I I 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 36 i Table 7. Demographics of Analysis A sample (n = 1,164) n % Ethnicity American Indian, Alaskan Native Asian Black, African American Hispanic/Latino Other White 2 26 915 72 42 243 .2 2.0 70.4 5.5 3.2 18.7 Gender lEP Language Ages Female Male Yes English Other Spanish Born in 1999 Born in 2000 Born in 2001 Born in 2005 657 643 50.5 49.5 12 1232 17 51 4 429 865 2 .9 94.8 1.3 3.9 .3 33.0 66.5 .2 Measures. The Work Sampling System is a valid, research-based performance assessment that utilizes guidelines and checklists, portfolios, and summary reports. Teachers document childrens skills, knowledge, behavior, and academic accomplishments using age- appropriate instruments. The Work Sampling System (WSS) is published by Pearson Early Learning, has been utilized since 1991 and is purportedly a curriculum-embedded assessment based on national and state standards. Efforts have been made to measure both the validity and reliability of this instrument. In a validity study conducted in 17 urban Title I classrooms, WSS ratings were compared to scores on the nationally-normed, standardized Woodcock Johnson Psychoeducational Battery-Revised and were found to be highly correlated and a stronger predictor variable of test scores than demographic variables (Meisels et al. 2001). Meisels et al. (1995) found high internal and moderately high interrater reliability when they studied the instrument with 100 kindergarten aged children and controlled for gender, maturation, and initial ability. Teachers repeatedly assess childrens growth in the following seven domains: Personal and Social Development 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 31 Language and Literacy Mathematical Thinking Scientific Thinking Social Studies The Arts and Physical Development and Health Students are scored on an ordinal scale with three categories: Not Yet (1) - indicating that the child cannot perform the indicator In Process (2) - the skills, knowledge, behaviors or accomplishments are intermittent or emergent but are not demonstrated reliably or consistently. Proficient (3) - the child can reliably demonstrate the skills, knowledge, behaviors or accomplishments. Design. To determine Afiican American preschool students progress on the domains measured by the WSS, a pre-and post-test design was employed for the sample. In the fall, 2005, teachers used the WSS to determine the baseline status of preschool students in the seven domains, for Time 1 results. Teachers again assessed students midyear. Time 2 results, and again at the end of the year, for Time 3 results. An advantage to this design is that all preschool aged children enrolled in a LRSD public preschool program were assessed. However, this meant there was no comparison group. Therefore, it was problematic to determine if students enrolled in Little Rock preschool programs made better progress (based on the WSS measure) than students who were not enrolled. Additionally, the design was prone to ceiling and floor effects. Students who tested at the highest proficiency stage at Time 1 had no place to move upward - the measurement capped growth for the highest achievers. Likewise, those that scored in the Not Yet category had no option for showing that they regressed. Analysis B\nKindergarten Achievement Sample. For this analysis, achievement results for kindergarten students in the LRSD for 2005-2006 were studied. In 2005-2006, Little Rock School District reported that 2,234 students enrolled in kindergarten\nhowever, 70 students had duplicate records. When the duplicates were removed, a sample size of 2,164 kindergarten students was established Because the purpose of this analysis was to compare students progress in kindergarten for those who attended Little Rock preschool programs with those who did not, a close 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 38 I , I, Jexamination of preschool enrollment was conducted to ensure that students who were counted in the preschool enrollment were fully served. Fully served was defined as enrolling in a LRSD preschool program prior to October 1,2004. Students enrolling by this date were assumed to have received most of a full year of service. Using this definition, we found 83 students identified as having attended preschool programs did not meet the definition of fully served (2 students enrolled in 2006, 19 enrolled in 2005, and 62 enrolled in 2004 but after the cut-off deadline of October These 83 students were reclassified as not having preschool services. Thus, the final analysis sample consisted of 1,098 students who received preschool services from the Little Rock School District and 1,066 kindergarteners who did not. Table 8 summarizes the kindergarten population relative to the prior years prekindergarten attendance. The sample was drawn from 31 Little Rock elementary schools and should include all eligible students who were enrolled in kindergarten in 2005-2006. The number of students from each of the elementary schools was reflective of kindergarten enrollment and ranged from 35 to 108 students per school. Table 9 illustrates the kindergarten population by school. Sixty-six percent of the kindergarten students in the sample were African American. Most students were English speaking (93%), eligible for free or reduced price limch (69%), and did not have a formal lEP (91%). There were slightly more males (52%) than females in the sample. Caucasian students were significantly less likely to have been enrolled in prekindergarten programs than African American students (17 % versus 73%). Students who were determined in kindergarten to have limited English proficiency (LEP) were much less likely to have attended the prekindergarten program. Likewise, kindergarten students who were flagged as needing special education were significantly less likely to have attended a Little Rock preschool program. Table 10 further describes the demographics of the student population. Table 8. Description of PreKindergarten Enrollment Preschool Participants Non-participants N 1098 1066 Whole Percent 50.7 49.3 African Americans N 805 614 Percent 56.7 43.3 N 293 452 Other Races Percent I 39.3 : 60.7 Total 2164 100.0 1419 100.0 745 100.0 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 39Table 9. Description of Enrollment by School Whoie Sample African American other Races School Code 006 017 018 020 021 022 024 025 027 028 029 030 032 033 035 036 037 038 039 040 041 042 043 Preschool Participants Non-participants Preschool Participants Non-participants Preschool Participants Non participants N 43 29 37 42 20 21 37 38 14 53 29 41 34 35 65 34 28 28 20 33 54 65 18 Percent 3.9 2.6 3.4 3.8 1.8 1.9 3.4 3.5 1.3 4.8 2.6 3.7 3.1 3.2 5.9 3.1 2.6 2.6 1.8 3.0 4.9 5.9 1.6 N 54 29 37 34 56 20 25 42 25 48 10 21 22 39 38 24 29 31 17 26 42 36 40 Percent 5.1 2.7 3.5 3.2 5.3 1.9 2.3 3.9 2.3 4.5 0.9 2.0 2.1 3.7 3.6 2.3 2.7 2.9 1.6 2.4 3.9 3.4 3.8 N 31 27 35 29 14 19 3 36 10 42 28 8 20 29 46 26 25 10 18 29 51 57 12 Percent 3.9 3.4 4.3 3.6 1.7 2.4 0.4 4.5 1.2 5.2 3.5 1.0 2.5 3.6 5.7 3.2 3.1 1.2 2.2 3.6 6.3 7.1 1.5 N 24 22 30 21 23 12 1 39 10 31 7 4 15 23 28 20 22 5 15 20 41 30 14 Percent 3.9 3.6 4.9 3.4 3.7 2.0 0.2 6.4 1.6 5.0 1.1 0.7 2.4 3.7 4.6 3.3 3.6 0.8 2.4 3.3 6.7 4.9 2.3 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 40 N 12 2 2 13 6 2 34 2 4 11 1 33 14 6 19 8 3 18 2 4 3 8 6 Percent 4.1 0.7 0.7 4.4 2.0 0.7 11.6 0.7 1.4 3.8 0.3 11.3 4.8 2.0 6.5 2.7 1.0 6.1 0.7 1.4 1.0 2.7 2.0 N 30 7 7 13 33 8 24 3 15 17 3 17 7 16 10 4 7 26 2 6 1 6 26 Percent 6.6 1.5 1.5 2.9 7.3 1.8 5.3 0.7 3.3 3.8 0.7 3.8 1.5 3.5 2.2 0.9 1.5 5.8 0.4 1.3 0.2 1.3 5.8Table 9, continued. Whole Sample Preschool Participants African American Other Races School Code N Percent 044 20 1.8 045 20 1.8 046 20 1.8 047 38 3.5 048 40 3.6 050 50 4.6 051 46 4.2 052 46 4.2 Total 1098 100.0 Non-participants Preschool Participants Non-participants Preschool Participants Non participants N 29 15 19 70 60 49 31 48 1066 Percent 2.7 1.4 1.8 6.6 5.6 4.6 2.9 4.5 100.0 N 18 20 18 25 9 33 34 , 43 805 Percent 2.2 2.5 2.2 3.1 1.1 4.1 4.2 5.3 100.0 N 23 15 12 26 6 18 21 36 614 Percent 3.7 2.4 2.0 4.2 1.0 2.9 3.4 5.9 100.0 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 41 N 2 na 2 13 31 17 12 3 293 Percent 0.7 0.7 4.4 10.6 5.8 4.1 1.0 100.0 N 6 na 7 44 54 31 10 12 452 Percent 1.3 1.5 9.7 11.9 6.9 2.2 2.7 100.0Table 10. Kindergarten Demographics Whoie Sample African Americans other Races Preschool Participants N Percent N Non-participants Percent Preschool Participants Non-participants Preschool Participants N Percent N Percent N Percent N Non-participants Percent Ethnicity White Black Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander Native American Other Total 191 805 56 15 2 29 1098 17.4 73.3 5.1 1.4 0.2 2.6 100.0 282 614 101 17 11 41 1066 26.5 57.6 9.5 1.6 1.0 3.8 100.0 Gender Female Male 533 565 1098 48.5 51.5 100.0 497 569 1066 46.6 53.4 100.0 398 407 805 49.4 50.6 100.0 288 326 614 46.9 53.1 100.0 135 158 293 46.1 53.9 100.0 209 243 452 46.2 53.8 100.0 Free and Reduced Lunch Eligibility Free Full Pay Reduced 662 334 102 1098 60.3 30.4 9.3 100.0 662 339 65 1066 62.1 31.8 6.1 100.0 576 146 83 805 71.6 18.1 10.3 100.0 491 89 34 614 80.0 14.5 5.5 100.0 86 188 19 293 29.4 64.2 6.5 100.0 171 250 31 452 37.8 55.3 6.9 100.0 Limited English Proficiency No Yes 1040 58 1098 94.7 5.3 100.0 973 93 1066 91.3 8.7 100.0 804 1 805 99.9 0.1 100.0 614 614 100.0 100.0 236 57 293 80.5 19.5 100.0 359 93 452 79.4 20.6 100.0 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 42Table 10, continued. Whole Sample African Americans Other Races Preschool Participants N Percent N Non-particIpants Percent Preschool Participants N Percent N Non-particIpants Percent Preschool Participants N Percent N Non-partlcIpants Percent Special Education No Yes 1035 63 1098 94.3 5.7 100.0 945 121 1066 88.6 11.4 100.0 759 46 805 94.3 5.7 100.0 534 80 614 87.0 13.0 100.0 276 17 293 94.2 5.8 100.0 411 41 452 90.9 9.1 100.0 Enrollment in prekindergarten programs was significantly different, Independent samples t test, p\u0026lt;.05 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 43Measures. Analysis B drew upon six demographic and three standardized achievement measures. The demographic characteristics were used for descriptive statistics and as covariates. The achievement measures served as the dependent variable. Demographics. Student demographic characteristics were provided by Little Rock School District and are described below. Prekindergarten Program Enrollment. Each kindergarten student was tagged with an indicator of whether he/she attended a Little Rock prekindergarten program. This field, along with data about the timing of enrollment, was used to construct a variable that defined students as having participated in a full-year of preschool in the Little Rock system (1) or not (0). Race/Ethnicity. Race/Ethnicity was reported in six categories: Caucasian, African American, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, native American, and other. For the purpose of this analysis, which centers on remediation of African American students, a dummy variable was created for African American (1) and all Other Races (0). Gender. Gender was reported in two categories\nFemale (1) and male (2). Free and Reduced Price Lunch Eligibility. Students were coded as being either eligible for free lunch, reduced price lunch or full-pay lunch. Dummy variables were created that condensed free and reduced price lunch eligibility into one category (1) and full-pay into a second (0). This variable served as an imperfect proxy for socioeconomic status. Limited English Proficiency. Students who had limited English proficiency in kindergarten were coded as 1\nthose who were English proficient were coded as 0. Special Education. Students who had an Individual Education Plan (lEP) in kindergarten were identified as needing special education (1). Those who did not have an lEP were coded as 0. Achievement. This report utilized data from three student achievement measures\nQualls Early Learning Inventory, Dynamic Indicators of Early Literary, and Iowa Tests of Basic Skills. Qualls Early Learning Inventory. The Qualls Early Learning Inventory (QELI) (previously known as the Iowa Early Learning Inventory) is designed to measure six behavioral areas and is intended to be administered in conjunction with a measure of achievement such as the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS). The primary purpose of the QELI is to provide observational information for kindergarten and first graders in the following areas: (a) General Knowledge, (b) Oral Communication, (c) Written Language, (d) Math Concepts, (e) Work 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 44 ftHabits, and (f) Attentive Behavior. The instrument is completed by students classroom teachers and takes about 10 minutes to complete. There are 44 items distributed across the six behavioral areas which are scored on a 3 or 4 point scale ranging from never to often. National norms are used to generate a developmental description of each behavioral area. The three developmental levels that are used for reporting are delayed (0), developing (1), or developed (2). For these analyses, two types of scores were reported for each behavioral area: percent correct (0 to 100) and classification (delayed, developing, developed). Total scores were converted into percent correct so that behavioral areas with different numbers of items could be compared with a similar rating rubric. The QELI has been vetted for validity and reliability. The inventory includes behaviors that: (a) are related to achievement, (b) can be further developed as a result of experience, (c) are not considered a disability if delayed in development, and (d) can be observed in the classroom. In April 1999, kindergarten and first grade teachers from various regions of the U.S. reviewed items and used them in their classes. Early childhood specialists reviewed the final form for content relevance, appropriateness of items, and potential bias. The empirical evidence of validity included correlations among the six QELI behavior scores and correlations between six QELI scores and scores from the subtests of the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS). The correlations are fairly high among the six QELI scores ranging in value from a low of .594 to a high of .865. The correlations between the six QELI scores and ITBS subtest scores demonstrate low to moderate correlations ranging in value from .178 to .570. In general, the cognitive skills on the QELI were more highly correlated with the scores on the ITBS than the two behavioral skills. Internal-consistency reliability using coefficient alphas for each domain ranged from .80 to .93, which are adequate. The normative data were collected in the spring of 2000. The 2,108 students in the standardization were from 392 kindergarten classes in 47 states. Roughly, the findings indicated that 7% of students were in the \"Delayed\" category, 30% were in the \"Developing\" category, and 63% were in the \"Developed\" category for each of the six domains. The standardization study was conducted concurrently with the national standardization of the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (Eastman Lukin, 2003). Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills. The Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills, 6* Edition (DIBELS) assessments are designed to identify and monitor the 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 45 progress of students who are unlikely to meet state reading standards in third grade. DIBELS is a teacher administered battery of early literacy tests designed for use as benchmark or monitoring assessments so teachers can tailor instruction to meet students needs. The benchmarks are given three times a year, but the tests are quite brief and can be administered in 1 to 3 minutes. Most of the tests have 20 alternate forms allowing teachers to evaluate a struggling student frequently. In this study, the following DIBELS subtests were examined: Letter Naming Fluency, Phoneme Segmentation Fluency, and Nonsense Word Fluency. Results are reported as total scores. Because each domain has a different possible total score which can change over the three administrations, comparisons can be difficult. Rules are provided to translate scores into At Risk, Some Risk, and Low Risk categories. The intent is that students who are At Risk will be targeted for intensive intervention. For this study, the Risk categorizations were used to determine proportion of students in each category versus the expected proportions. The Little Rock students did not take the full complement of tests (beginning, middle, and end), therefore, growth can not be measured. Instead, analyses concentrated on the end score. The reliability and validity evidence for DIBELS is robust. The Letter Naming Fluency (alternate form: .87) showed the most evidence of reliability. Similarly, these tests had strong predictive and concurrent validity evidence when compared to the Woodcock-Johnson Reading Tests and other measures. The average concurrent validity coefficients (correlations with other measures taken at the same time) were .58 for Nonsense Word Fluency and .44 for Phoneme Segmentation Fluency. The predictive validity coefficients were .47 for Phoneme Segmentation Fluency, and .68 for Nonsense Word Fluency. No data were found concerning the reliability or validity of the instructional risk classifications (Shanahan, 2003\nBrunsman 2003). Iowa Tests of Basic Skills. The Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) is designed to assess basic skills necessary for students to progress through school. The teacher administered tests are available in Levels, roughly corresponding to the ages of children who will take them (Levels 5 and 6 correspond to kindergarten). At this level, the ITBS takes no more than 30-minutes to complete. For this study, six skill areas were examined: Vocabulary, Word Analysis, Listening, Revised Writing, Concepts Problems, and Math Total (with computation). In addition, two summary scores that combined the six core skill areas were used: Core Total (with no computation) and Core Total (with computation). 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 46Domain scores were reported as normal curve equivalents (NCE) on a scale of 1-99. A normal curve equivalent score is a type of norm-referenced score. It differs from percentile rank score in that it allows meaningful comparison between different test sections within a test. For example, if a student receives NCE scores of 53 on the Reading test and 45 on the Mathematics test, you can correctly say that the Reading score is eight points higher than the Mathematics score. Unlike percentile rank scores, the interval between scores is equal. This means that you can average NCE scores to compare groups of students or schools. Normal Curve Equivalent scores can only be used for students who are similar in age or grade to those in the norming sample. The ITBS tests were normed in 2000 and 2005 based on a national sample of over 100,000 students including kindergarteners. The ITBS tests have been scrutinized in terms of validity and reliability. Content for the ITBS was based on the careful studying of texts and other curriculum materials, the recommendations of professional societies, and the practices of school districts. The authors created subtest intercorrelations and correlations with the Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT), a test of problem solving and reasoning\ncorrelations with future grades and future test performance\nstudies of cognitive processes students use for the test, especially for problem solving\nbias studies\nequating studies related to score meaning\nand studies of interpretation and understanding of parents and teachers. The overwhelming evidence is positive, that is, the ITBS scores provide valid measures of basic academic skills, if defined and used in the manner intended. Most subtest reliabilities are in the .80s and .90s across Forms K, L, and M\nin general. Levels 5-8 have lower reliabilities (around .80), Core Total and Composite reliabilities are all above .90. Listening Assessment reliabilities range from .67 to .79 (Brookhart 1996). Design. To determine the impact of participation in a Little Rock prekindergarten program on kindergarten performance, a quasi-experimental, post-test only research design was employed. Students who participated in the Little Rock preschool program were compared to students who did not participate in the preschool program, on performance indicators of student achievement. Demographic characteristics were included as covariates to account for the relative influence of personal characteristics on student achievement. Although this was a robust design for social science research, this was not a design suited to draw causal inference. Instead, the design illustrated correlational relationships between participation and later student achievement. 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 47Analysis C: 1** through 10*** Grade Student Achievement Sample. For this analysis, district enrollment records that contained 19,919 students in first through tenth grades in 2006 were utilized. The analysis sample was limited to students who initially enrolled in Little Rock Public Schools in either prekindergarten or kindergarten. Cohorts were defined by the 2006 grade level the students were expected to attain if they were not retained in grade. For example, cohort nine was comprised of students who initially enrolled in either prekindergarten in 1995 or kindergarten in 1996. Thus, the final sample for analysis included 12,852 students who initially enrolled in a Little Rock school and remained enrolled in Little Rock schools throughout their school career. Of these, a total of 4,664 (36.3%) had been enrolled in a prekindergarten program. Overall, students who had been enrolled in a prekindergarten program were somewhat more likely to be African American (76% versus 72% of comparison students) and less likely to be male (48% versus 51% of comparison students\nsee Table). Prekindergarten and comparison students were equally likely to receive free or reduced- price lunch (64% each). Table 11 provides a summary of these demographic variables by cohort and prekindergarten status. Measures. Special education status and current grade level were extracted from LRSD enrollment records to permit an examination of special education refenal rates and retention in grade for African American prekindergarten versus African American comparison students. Four ITBS normal curve equivalent (NCE) scores from the 2005-2006 school year were used as student achievement outcome variables: Total Reading, Spelling, Revised Writing, and Math Core Total - Computation. These were selected because they were the only subtests for which scores were available for all grade levels considered. Analyses. Mean proportions of African American students who received special education status and who were enrolled at the expected grade level were computed for each cohort. Within each cohort, analyses were performed to determine whether there was a statistically significant relationship between African American students prekindergarten status and their remaining at the appropriate grade level or receiving special education status. To control for the large number of comparisons, a sequential Bonferroni procedure was used, and the critical value of alpha set alp  .005. For ITBS NCE scores, a 2 (PK vs. Comparison) X 2 (African American vs. Other) X 10 (Cohorts) X 4 (ITBS subtests) multivariate analysis of covariance was performed, with free or reduced price lunch serving as a covariate. Wilks 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 48 lambda was employed as the criterion of multivariate significance. Where multivariate results indicated significant main or interaction effects, follow-up univariate analyses of covariance were performed. Effect size estimates were computed by subtracting the comparison group adjusted mean from the prekindergarten adjusted mean, and dividing by 21.06 (the national norm NCE standard deviation). 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 49Table 11. Proportion of Students who were African American, Received Free or Reduced-Price Lunch, or were Male by Cohort and Prekindergarten Participation Status Cohort 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total Prekindergarten Comparison Prekindergarten Comparison Prekindergarten Comparison Prekindergarten Comparison Prekindergarten Comparison Prekindergarten Comparison Prekindergarten Comparison Prekindergarten Comparison Prekindergarten Comparison Prekindergarten Comparison Prekindergarten Comparison Prekindergarten Black .62 .73 .68 .72 .68 .75 .69 .74 .72 .77 .76 .77 .76 .78 .77 .76 .76 .85 .76 .81 .72 .76 Free or Reduced- Price Lunch .66 .69 .68 .70 .70 .63 .69 .66 .66 .68 .66 .63 .62 .60 .63 .60 .57 .61 .51 .50 .64 .64 Male .50 .48 .53 .48 .52 .51 .54 .50 .50 .51 .51 .45 .50 .41 .52 .41 .50 .51 .49 .44 .51 .48 N 920 659 \"922 615 W 616 753 610 528 '875\"\" 405 \"sir 312 788\" 292 311 797 316 4664 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 50DATA COLLECTION Table 12 provides the type of measure, instrument, brief time line, and number and description of collection process. Table 12. Data Collection Summary Type of Measure Site Visits Surveys Interviews Data Analysis and Reporting Instrument ELLCO \u0026amp; E-LOT Timeline April 2006 Number Collected 17 Prekindergarten teacher Paraprofessional K\u0026amp; 1Teacher Parent/Guardian Principal Phone Interview WSS.QELI, ESI DIBELS, ITBS Spring 2006 Spring 2006 Spring 2006 Spring 2006 May 2006 Received in Summer and Fall 2006 64 58 144 686 10 Description Four trained site researchers from CREP observed 17 classrooms at 12 sites\nLiteracy activities including direct instruction and learning centers were observed. Each observation lasted approximately 90 minutes and included a brief teacher interview. Distributed by principals: all prekindergarten teachers were asked to complete\nresponse rate: 92.8% Distributed by principals\nall paraprofessionals were asked to complete\nresponse rate: 84.1% Distributed by principals\nall teachers asked to complete\nresponse rate: 67.3% Distributed by prekindergarten teachers\nall parents/guardians of prekindergarten students asked to complete\nresponse rate: 52.1%_______________________________ Conducted by CREP researcher\nrandomly selected principals were interviewed via phone for 30-45 minutes Data was sent at various times from LRSD. RESULTS When applicable, the results of this study are summarized and presented with distinctions or comparisons between African Americans and those of other races, or of non-African American ethnicity. This format was utilized due to the nature of the study and the primary and supplementary goals of the research to explore distinctions in student achievement results, as well as in program implementations, attitudes, and perceptions of the prekindergarten programs. Prekindergarten Teacher Questionnaire Descriptive results. During the spring of 2006, all 69 prekindergarten teachers in the LRSD were asked to complete a questionnaire regarding their perceptions of the prekindergarten program. The Prekindergarten Teacher Questionnaire (PKTQ) contained 26 items teachers were asked to evaluate using a 5-point Likert scale. Also included in the questionnaire were 7 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 51 demographic items and 4 open-ended questions. There were 64 prekindergarten teachers who completed the questionnaire20 who were African American, 40 who were other ethnicities, and 4 who did not indicate ethnicity. A complete summary of the 26 items can be found in Table 13. Overall responses from both African American teachers and teachers of other ethnicity were very positive regarding the prekindergarten program, with 19 items in which over 80% of all teachers expressed either strong agreement or agreement. These items were:  Teachers had a thorough understanding of the schools Prekindergarten Literacy program\n There was adequate initial and ongoing professional development/training for implementation of Prekindergarten Literacy program\n The professional development provided by the district was valuable\n The principal was an effective instructional leader\n Student achievement was positively impacted by the Prekindergarten Literacy program\n The program was valuable for improving the achievement of African American students\n There were adequate materials to implement the program\n The content areas in the curriculum map were appropriate for the Prekindergarten Literacy program\n The monthly benchmark goals were realistic for Prekindergarten Literacy programs\n The preschool teachers were generally supportive of the Prekindergarten Literacy r .1 program\n The teachers were encouraged to communicate concerns questions, and ideas regarding the Prekindergarten Literacy program\n The Prekindergarten Literacy program was useful as an opportunity for early identification of at-risk African American students\n The program engendered enthusiasm for learning\n The program was valuable in preparing children for kindergarten\n Instructional elements of the program were based on scientifically-based reading research\nI'll I I 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 52 1  Because of the Prekindergarten Literacy program, systematic and explicit instruction in phonemic awareness, oral language, vocabulary, concepts of print, and comprehension occurred daily in the schools classrooms\n The literacy and language components were effective for reading readiness\n Group activities engaged the students and complemented instruction and,  Learning centers engaged the students and complemented instruction There were two items to which African American and other teachers had comparable negative responses: because of the preschool program, more parents were involved in the school\nand that they had time to collaborate with other prekindergarten teachers. For African American teachers, 45.0% responded favorably regarding parental involvement and 70.0% responded favorably regarding collaboration with other prekindergarten teachers. For those who were of other ethnicities, just over half of the respondents (52.5%) agreed that more parents were involved because of the prekindergarten program, and 70.0% responded favorably regarding teacher collaboration. There were 5 items in which there were notable differences between African American and other respondents. These items included the following:  Teachers had sufficient planning time to implement the Prekindergarten Literacy program: 85% of the African American teachers responded favorably to this item, while 72.5% of others responded favorably\n Interim and anchor assessments in the prekindergarten literacy curriculum are useful in assessing growth and progress: 95% of the African American teachers agreed with this item, while only 72.5% of others were in agreement.  Teachers had a thorough understanding of the prekindergarten curriculum map: 80% of the African American teachers agreed, while for others, the percentage was much higher at 95.0%.  Teachers in the school who were not part of the preschool program were supportive of the Prekindergarten Literacy program: for Afncan American teachers, 75% agreed with this statement\nwhereas, 90% of other ethnicity teachers responded favorably.  The Prekindergarten Literacy program was useful in monitoring progress of Afncan American students: 75/o of the African American teachers responded favorably\nthe level of agreement for this item rose to 85% for other ethnicities. 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 53Demographic data. Over half (65.0%) of the African American teachers who responded to the demographic items reported that they had 5 years or fewer experience as a prekindergarten teacher\nfor other teachers, 45% indicated 5 years or fewer experience. Only 5% of the African American teachers indicated prekindergarten teacher experience that was more than 16 years, while 15% of the teachers of other ethnicity had more than 16 years experience. Regarding educational level, 35% of African American respondents had a bachelors degree, 30% indicated they had a masters degree, and 15% reported a degree beyond a masters. For non-African American respondents, half reported they had a bachelors degree, 37.5% a masters degree, and 5% indicated they had a degree beyond a masters. Respondents ages were well distributed among all the age groups. At the two extremes, of those that responded, 20% of both African American teachers and other teachers indicated they were 29 years old or less\nwhile 10% of the African American teachers responded they were 60 years old or older, and 2.5% of the other ethnic groups indicated this age. All teachers who responded said they were female\nand 60.9 indicated they were Caucasian, 31.3% African American, and 1.6% Pacific Islander. Table 14 contains all demographic responses. Open-Ended Responses. Teachers were asked several open-ended questions in order to further understand their perceptions of the prekindergarten program. A verbatim list of all prekindergarten teachers responses to all open-ended questions can be found in Appendix D. Teachers were first asked to list the most effective aspects of the program. There were 15 African Americans teachers who responded to this question, and 34 distinct aspects were named. For those teachers of other ethnicities, 33 responded to the question and 78 responses were given. Table 15 categorizes and compares the responses. For African American teachers, the most often named aspect was socialization and interaction with other children, which was mentioned 5 times and comprised 14.7% of the responses. Teachers who were not African American also listed this item in 6 responses, with a frequency of 7.7%. The most popular aspect of the prekindergarten program for other ethnicity teachers was the literacy curriculum, which appeared 21 times for a frequency of 26.9%. Other popular responses for both groups included kindergarten preparation, oral language development and exposure to classroom settings. Teachers were also asked to list the least effective aspects of the prekindergarten program. There were 7 African American teachers who responded to this question and 8 I 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 54 responses were given. Twenty-five non-African American teachers responded to this question for a total of 28 responses. One-fourth (25%) of the African American teachers responded either none or n/a when asked about least effective aspects\nfor other teachers this appeared in 17.9% of the responses. Another popular response for African American teachers was too much paperwork, which appeared in two of eight responses. For other teachers, the frequency of this response was 7.1%. Table 16 has complete results for this question. Teachers were also asked whether they felt the prekindergarten program should be continued and all responded favorably. When asked to list reasons for its continuance, the most common response for both groups of teachers was that it helped prepare the children for kindergarten. See Table 17 for a complete list. Teachers were also asked to list the professional development they had received and responses varied greatly. The most common responses can be found in Table 18. 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 55Table 13. PREKINDERGARTEN TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE Total Teacher Responses: 64 Responses of African American Teachers\n20 Responses of non African American Teachers: 40 I have a thorough understanding of my schools Prekindergarten literacy program. Teachers, Total African American teachers Non African American teachers I have received adequate initial and ongoing professional development/training for implementation of the Prekindergarten literacy program. Teachers, Total African American teachers Non African American teachers Professional development provided by the district has been valuable. Teachers, Total African American teachers Non Ahican American teachers % Strongly Agree . \u0026amp; Agree 98.4 100.0 100.0 95.3 90.0 100.0 93.8 90.0 97.5 The principal is an effective instructional leader. Teachers, Total African American teachers Non African American teachers Teachers are given sufficient planning time to implement the Prekindergarten literacy program. 79.7 80.0 82.5 % Neutral 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 5.0 0.0 6.3 10.0 2.5 12.5 10.0 12.5 % Strongly Disagree \u0026amp; Disagree 1.6 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.0 5.0 Teachers, Total African American teachers Non African American teachers Student achievement has been positively impacted by the Prekindergarten literacy program. 76.6 85.0 72.5 9.4 10.0 10.0 14.1 5.0 17.5 Teachers, Total African American teachers Non African American teachers Overall, this program is valuable for improving the achievement of African American students. 95.3 90.0 97.5 1.6 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Teachers, Total African American teachers Non African American teachers I have time to collaborate with other Prekindergarten teachers. Teachers, Total African American teachers Non African American teachers I have adequate materials to implement the program. Teachers, Total African American teachers Non African American teachers The content areas presented in the curriculum map are appropriate for the Prekindergarten literacy instruction. 93.8 90.0 95.0 70.3 70.0 70.0 92.2 100.0 90.0 1.6 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.1 15.0 12.5 12.5 5.0 17.5 3.1 0.0 5.0 4.7 0.0 5.0 Teachers, Total African American teachers Non African American teachers The monthly benchmark goals are realistic for Prekindergarten literacy programs. Teachers, Total African American teachers Non African American teachers The interim and anchor assessments in the Prekindergarten literacy curriculum are useful in assessing growth and progress. 922 90.0 92.5 95.3 95.0 95.0 6.3 5.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.7 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Teachers, Total African American teachers Non African American teachers I have a thorough understanding of the Prekindergarten curriculum map. Teachers, Total African American teachers Non African American teachers Because of the Prekindergarten literacy program, more parents are involved in the school. Teachers, Total African American teachers Non African American teachers 79.7 95.0 72.5 89.1 80.0 95.0 50.0 45.0 52.5 15.6 0.0 22.5 4.7 5.0 5.0 4.7 5.0 2.5 1.6 5.0 0.0 31.3 35.0 30.0 15.6 10.0 17.5 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 56Table 13, continued. Total Teacher Responses: 64 Responsesof African American Teachers: 20 Responses of non African American Teachers: 40_____________________________________ Preschool teachers in the school are generally supportive of the Prekindergarten literacy program. % Strongly Agree \u0026amp; Agree % Neutral , Strongly Disagree \u0026amp; Disagree Teachers, Total African American teachers Non African American teachers Teachers in the school (not preschool teachers) are generally supportive of the Prekindergarten literacy program. 90.6 90.0 95.0 7.8 10.0 5.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 Teachers, Total African American teachers Non African American teachers Teachers ate encouraged to communicate concerns, questions, and ideas regarding the Prekindergarten literacy program. 81.3 75.0 90.0 15.6 25.0 10.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 Teachers, Total African American teachers Non African American teachers The Prekindergarten literacy program is useful in monitoring progress of African American students. 90.6 95.0 92.5 7.8 5.0 7.5 1.6 0.0 0.0 Teachers, Total African American teachers Non African American teachers The Prekindergarten literacy program is useful as a screening tool for assessing at-risk African American students. 81.3 75.0 85.0 14.1 20.0 12.5 3.1 o:o 2.5 Teachers, Total African American teachers Non African American teachers With the Prekindergarten literacy program, children are excited about learning. Teachers, Total African American teachers Non African American teachers The Prekindergarten literacy program is valuable in preparing children for kindergarten. Teachers, Total African American teachers Non African American teachers Instructional elements of the Prekindergarten literacy programassessments, programs, materialsare based on scientifically-based reading research. Teachers, Total African American teachers Non African American teachers Because of the Prekindergarten literacy program, systematic and explicit instruction in phonemic awareness, oral language, vocabulary, concepts of print, and comprehension occurs daily in our schools classrooms. 82.8 80.0 87.5 10.9 10.0 10.0 4.7 5.0 2.5 98.4 100.0 100.0 96.9 90.0 100.0 92.2 90.0 92.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 5.0 0.0 4.7 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Teachers, Total African American teachers Non African American teachers The literacy and language components are effective for reading readiness. Teachers, Total African American teachers Non African American teachers Group activities engage the students and complement instruction. Teachers, Total African American teachers Non African American teachers Learning centers engage the students and complement instruction. Teachers, Total African American teachers Non African American teachers 95.3 95.0 95.0 96.9 95.0 97.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 93.8 95.0 95.0 Note: Item percentages may not total 100% because of missing input from some respondents. 3.1 0.0 5.0 1.6 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 2.5 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 57 JTable 14. PREKINDERGARTEN TEACHER QUESTIONNIARE DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 5 years or fewer 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years How many years experience do you have as a Prekindergarten teacher? Teachers, Total African American teachers Non African American teachers 51.6 65.0 45.0 15.6 20.0 15.0 15.6 10.0 20.0 9.4 5.0 12.5 20 or more years 1.6 0.0 2.5 How many years experience do you have as an employee in any school? Tea\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\u003eCenter for Research in Educational Policy, University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"nug_guilford-clippings_13341","title":"Excerpt from \"Reflections on a Convinced Friend: Carroll Spurgeon Feagins\"","collection_id":"nug_guilford-clippings","collection_title":"Civil Rights Clippings from Guilford College Publications","dcterms_contributor":["Feagins, Mary E.B."],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, North Carolina, Guilford County, Greensboro, 36.07264, -79.79198"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2005"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Greensboro, N.C. : Guilford College"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["The Southern Friend"],"dcterms_subject":["Segregation in education--United States","Race relations"],"dcterms_title":["Excerpt from \"Reflections on a Convinced Friend: Carroll Spurgeon Feagins\""],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Guilford College. Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://gateway.uncg.edu/islandora/object/guilford:13341"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Quaker Archive, Hege Library, Guilford College"],"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"tmll_hpcrc_62289398","title":"Federal procurement after Adarand [electronic resource]","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":["2005"],"dcterms_description":["A digital version of the report published by the United States Commission on Civil Rights.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of online collection: Historical Publications of the United States Commission on Civil Rights.","Requires Acrobat plug-in to view files."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Government purchasing--Law and legislation--United States","Government contractors--United States","Affirmative action programs--United States"],"dcterms_title":["Federal procurement after Adarand [electronic resource]"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Thurgood Marshall Law Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS63478"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports","records"],"dcterms_extent":["xiv, 170 p. : digital, PDF file."],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"nug_guilford-clippings_13338","title":"A footnote","collection_id":"nug_guilford-clippings","collection_title":"Civil Rights Clippings from Guilford College Publications","dcterms_contributor":["Poole, Jonn Newlin"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, North Carolina, Guilford County, Greensboro, 36.07264, -79.79198"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2005"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Greensboro, N.C. : Guilford College"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["The Southern Friend"],"dcterms_subject":["Segregation in education--United States","Race relations"],"dcterms_title":["A footnote"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Guilford College. Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://gateway.uncg.edu/islandora/object/guilford:13338"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Quaker Archive, Hege Library, Guilford College"],"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null}],"pages":{"current_page":305,"next_page":306,"prev_page":304,"total_pages":6797,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":3648,"total_count":81557,"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":40428},{"value":"StillImage","hits":35298},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":4529},{"value":"Sound","hits":3226},{"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":9445},{"value":"Civil rights","hits":8328},{"value":"African Americans","hits":5912},{"value":"Mississippi--Race relations","hits":5750},{"value":"Race relations","hits":5604},{"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":4440},{"value":"Civil rights workers","hits":3536}],"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":1815},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1709},{"value":"Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998","hits":1495},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1312},{"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":1915},{"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":440}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":1769},{"value":"Ole Miss Integration","hits":1670},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":969},{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":853},{"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":17987},{"value":"United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798","hits":5437},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Montgomery County, Montgomery, 32.36681, -86.29997","hits":5151},{"value":"United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","hits":4847},{"value":"United States, South Carolina, 34.00043, -81.00009","hits":4599},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":4328},{"value":"United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026","hits":3948},{"value":"United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036","hits":2910},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":2580},{"value":"United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898","hits":2580},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":2536}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Georgia","hits":12823},{"value":"Alabama","hits":11313},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":10220},{"value":"South Carolina","hits":8493},{"value":"Arkansas","hits":4733},{"value":"Texas","hits":4399},{"value":"Tennessee","hits":3786},{"value":"Florida","hits":2602},{"value":"Ohio","hits":2403},{"value":"North Carolina","hits":1875},{"value":"New York","hits":1840}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1966","hits":10632},{"value":"1963","hits":10287},{"value":"1965","hits":10218},{"value":"1956","hits":9840},{"value":"1955","hits":9619},{"value":"1964","hits":9365},{"value":"1968","hits":9345},{"value":"1962","hits":9247},{"value":"1967","hits":8897},{"value":"1957","hits":8523},{"value":"1961","hits":8282},{"value":"1958","hits":8259},{"value":"1959","hits":8061},{"value":"1960","hits":7948},{"value":"1969","hits":7348},{"value":"1954","hits":7240},{"value":"1950","hits":7118},{"value":"1953","hits":6969},{"value":"1970","hits":6835},{"value":"1971","hits":6425},{"value":"1977","hits":6367},{"value":"1972","hits":6254},{"value":"1952","hits":6162},{"value":"1951","hits":6046},{"value":"1975","hits":5894},{"value":"1976","hits":5863},{"value":"1974","hits":5849},{"value":"1973","hits":5689},{"value":"1979","hits":5416},{"value":"1978","hits":5405},{"value":"1980","hits":5366},{"value":"1995","hits":4885},{"value":"1981","hits":4811},{"value":"1994","hits":4704},{"value":"1948","hits":4597},{"value":"1949","hits":4573},{"value":"1996","hits":4542},{"value":"1982","hits":4417},{"value":"1947","hits":4317},{"value":"1985","hits":4313},{"value":"1998","hits":4281},{"value":"1983","hits":4261},{"value":"1997","hits":4258},{"value":"1984","hits":4152},{"value":"1999","hits":4074},{"value":"1946","hits":4047},{"value":"1945","hits":4018},{"value":"1986","hits":4006},{"value":"1990","hits":3988},{"value":"1943","hits":3900},{"value":"1944","hits":3896},{"value":"2000","hits":3894},{"value":"2001","hits":3876},{"value":"1942","hits":3868},{"value":"1940","hits":3765},{"value":"1941","hits":3758},{"value":"1987","hits":3744},{"value":"2002","hits":3624},{"value":"1991","hits":3553},{"value":"1936","hits":3507},{"value":"1939","hits":3501},{"value":"1992","hits":3500},{"value":"2003","hits":3489},{"value":"1993","hits":3478},{"value":"1938","hits":3466},{"value":"1937","hits":3450},{"value":"1989","hits":3441},{"value":"1930","hits":3378},{"value":"1988","hits":3355},{"value":"1935","hits":3307},{"value":"1933","hits":3271},{"value":"1934","hits":3271},{"value":"1932","hits":3255},{"value":"1931","hits":3240},{"value":"2005","hits":3143},{"value":"2004","hits":2995},{"value":"2006","hits":2860},{"value":"1929","hits":2790},{"value":"1928","hits":2272},{"value":"1921","hits":2124},{"value":"1925","hits":2040},{"value":"1927","hits":2026},{"value":"1924","hits":2012},{"value":"2016","hits":2011},{"value":"1926","hits":2010},{"value":"1920","hits":1976},{"value":"1923","hits":1955},{"value":"1922","hits":1929},{"value":"2007","hits":1715},{"value":"2008","hits":1664},{"value":"2011","hits":1661},{"value":"2009","hits":1624},{"value":"2019","hits":1623},{"value":"2015","hits":1613},{"value":"2013","hits":1604},{"value":"2010","hits":1601},{"value":"2014","hits":1567},{"value":"2012","hits":1553},{"value":"1919","hits":1533},{"value":"1918","hits":1531}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"0193","max":"2035","count":506439,"missing":56},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"photographs","hits":10710},{"value":"correspondence","hits":9628},{"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":2771},{"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":41201},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":17721},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":8830},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":7090},{"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":145},{"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":8153},{"value":"South Caroliniana Library","hits":4251},{"value":"Atlanta University Center Robert W. Woodruff Library","hits":4102},{"value":"University of North Texas. Libraries","hits":3854},{"value":"University of South Carolina. Libraries","hits":3438},{"value":"Hargrett Library","hits":3292},{"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":2785},{"value":"Rhodes College","hits":2264}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":81102},{"value":"Collection","hits":455}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":81360},{"value":"true","hits":197}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}