{"response":{"docs":[{"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},{"id":"fda_jtp_539488","title":"How Photos Became Icon of Civil Rights Movement","collection_id":"fda_jtp","collection_title":"Joseph Tobias Papers","dcterms_contributor":["Tobias, Joseph","Dewan, Shaila"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2005"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Joseph Tobias Papers, 1955-1960, 1990-2005--http://purl.fcla.edu/fsu/MSS_2017-002"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African Americans--Civil rights--History--20th century","African Americans--Crimes against","Civil rights"],"dcterms_title":["How Photos Became Icon of Civil Rights Movement"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Florida State University Libraries. Special Collections"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://purl.flvc.org/fsu/fd/FSU_MSS2017_002_MC5_F05_10"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Use of this item is provided for non-commercial, personal, educational, and research use only. Florida State University Libraries is providing access to these materials for educational and research purposes and makes no warranty with regard to their use for other purposes. The written permission of the copyright owners and/or other rights holders (such as holders of publicity and/or privacy rights) is required for distribution, reproduction, or other use of protected items beyond that allowed by fair use or other statutory exemptions (see Title 17, U.S.C.). For information about the copyright and reproduction rights for this item, please contact Special Collections \u0026 Archives, Florida State University Libraries, Tallahassee, Florida: https://www.lib.fsu.edu/department/special-collections-archives."],"dcterms_medium":["clippings (information artifacts)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Till, Emmett, 1941-1955"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"hbcula_becu_286","title":"Interview with Albert Bethune, Jr., circa 2006","collection_id":"hbcula_becu","collection_title":"Bethune-Cookman University Digital Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Florida, Volusia County, Panama Beach, 28.86832, -81.22778"],"dcterms_creator":["Bethune-Cookman University"],"dc_date":["2005-2007"],"dcterms_description":["This audio recording features an interview with Albert Bethune, Jr., the grandson of Dr. Mary McLeod Bethune. This interview opens with Mr. Bethune reflecting on the traditions and customs of the early years of Bethune-Cookman College and Dr. Mary McLeod Bethune's marriage. At 00:20:36, Bethune-Cookman University students introduce themselves and interview Mr. Bethune on Dr. Mary McLeod Bethune's disciplinary methods and parenting (32:56), leadership as a \"Christian Scientist\" (52:41), and his thoughts on the new leadership of Bethune-Cookman University. Ay 01:02:20, Mr. Bethune talks about the development of the Mary McLeod Bethune beach. This audio recording concludes with Mr. Bethune sharing stories about his education."],"dc_format":["audio/mp3"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African American universities and colleges","College presidents","Interviews","Oral history","African American women"],"dcterms_title":["Interview with Albert Bethune, Jr., circa 2006"],"dcterms_type":["Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Library Alliance"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://hbcudigitallibrary.auctr.edu/digital/collection/becu/id/286"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["All rights to images are held by the respective holding institution. This image is posted publicly for non-profit educational uses, excluding printed publication. For permission to reproduce images and/or for copyright information contact University Archives, Bethune-Cookman University, Daytona Beach, FL 32114 (386) 481-2186. http://www.cookman.edu/academics/library/index.html"],"dcterms_medium":["audiocassettes"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"tmll_hpcrc_69116717","title":"Language and access to health care [electronic resource] : easing barriers in New Hampshire","collection_id":"tmll_hpcrc","collection_title":"Historical Publications of the United States Commission on Civil Rights","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, New Hampshire, 43.66702, -71.4998"],"dcterms_creator":["United States Commission on Civil Rights. New Hampshire Advisory Committee"],"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":["Linguistic minorities--Medical care--New Hampshire","Health services accessibility--New Hampshire"],"dcterms_title":["Language and access to health care [electronic resource] : easing barriers in New Hampshire"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Thurgood Marshall Law Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS69631"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports","records"],"dcterms_extent":["vi, 29 p. : digital, PDF file."],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1067","title":"\"Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting\" agenda","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":["2005-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School board members","School boards","School improvement programs","School superintendents"],"dcterms_title":["\"Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting\" agenda"],"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/1067"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nJA JAN 2 2005 TORING Agenda F NITORING Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting :- n \u0026gt;-c ~ ~ -\u0026lt;O: I: oz ::o\u0026gt; ~~ ::o-,, -c:: ::oz o.....n... .-5 nz )\u0026gt;(J) .......... ::e\n= rm-: :-oc no On l:m mo -c:: ~~ ~ ..... 0~ ::0 =1 ~m z::o n\u0026lt;J\u0026gt; m-fD n n =l ,....mN\noz n\u0026lt;J\u0026gt; ..,.::o m ~ ::0\nJI\ntJ\u0026gt; :\u0026lt; ::0 \u0026gt; qi  0 CD ::0 o-\u0026lt; )\u0026gt;\u0026lt;J\u0026gt; :o:on\ni:O m:I:\ni: 3: CD C:: :m:o~n \u0026lt;J\u0026gt;.).\u0026gt;. 0 z tJ\u0026gt; I. 11. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING January 27, 2005 5:30 o.m. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS A. Call to Order B. Roll Call PROCEDURAL MATTERS A. Welcome to Guests B. Student Performance - M. L. King Elementary School Choir Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS: A. Superintendent's Citations B. Remarks from Citizens (persons who have signed up to speak) C. Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association IV. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS: V. A. Remarks from Board Members B. Entry Plan Executive Summary Report to the Board C. Report on Superintendent's Aspiring Principals Institute D. Student Assignment Report E. Budget Update F. Construction Report: Proposed Bond Projects G. Internal Auditors Report H. Technology Update APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MATTERS: A. Minutes: Special Meeting - 12-08-04 Regular Meeting - 12-16-04 Special Meeting - 01-13-05 ,... n )\u0026gt;\"D ~~ -\u0026lt;- 031: oz\no\u0026gt; ~~\no.., -c:\noz ,o-n... ,- 0 nz ,\u0026gt;-en ,- :E\n= ,m- -\nco gg 3C m mo -c:\n:g~ il:l ,- 0 ~\no =I ~m z\no n en m- :\u0026lt;\no ,,.qi  o CD\no o-\u0026lt; ,..cn\noon ~~ 3C 3C ~~\non en\u0026gt;... 0 z en Regular Board Meeting January 27, 2005 Page 2 VI. HUMAN RESOURCES A. Personnel Changes VII. BUSINESS SERVICES DIVISION: A. Donations of Property B. Financial Report VIII. CLOSING REMARKS: Superintendent's Report: 1. Dates to Remember IX. ADJOURNMENT ~ n )\u0026gt; \"'0 ,\n---,~- -e\u0026lt;ll-: oz\n0 )\u0026gt; ~~\n0.., - C:\n0 z o....n... ,- 0 nz ,)\u0026gt;- Cf\u0026gt; ,- ~ := m\"'O h\na 00\ni:~ me -c: c~l:1~,- 0~\n0 =1 ~m z\n0 OCf\u0026gt; m- :\u0026lt;\n0 m )\u0026gt; \"'0  0 a,\n0 o-\u0026lt; )\u0026gt; Cf\u0026gt; ~c=\n~~\ni: 3: ~~\na n Cf\u0026gt; .).\u0026gt;.. 0z Cf\u0026gt; I. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS CA.LL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL II. PROCEDURAL MATTERS/ WELCOME/PERFORMANCE Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS A. SUPT. CITATIONS B. CITIZENS REMARKS C. LR CTA IV. REPORTS / COMMUNICATIONS A. BOARD MEMBERS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: January 27, 2004 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Entry Plan Executive Summary Report to the Board of Education BACKGROUND: The Superintendent's Entry Plan: A New Beginning provided a step-by-step guide to the First 100 Days of my Superintendency. The attached executive summary provides a brief overview of progress made in implementing the plan and establishing a means to communicate effectively with LRSD staff and community. RATIONALE: To provide a clear direction for implementation of necessary change as identified by the Board of Directors, teachers, building administrators and others in the community who are supportive of significant progress toward reaching the established goals and improving student achievement in the Little Rock School District. FUNDING: N/A RECOMMENDATION: I ask the Board to accept the report as presented. In addition, I would ask that you provide feedback for progressing beyond the First 100 Days in order to establish guidelines for future positive Board-Superintendent relationship. PREPARED BY: Roy G. Brooks, Superintendent of Schools\n:,o ~ ~ .~ m\n:,o z ,\u0026gt;- \u0026gt; C 0 3 !=' \"....'. C 0 mz ..... \u0026gt; !:l c'i z 31: m ~ !'\" a, C 0 C') m..... C\ng .\u0026gt;.... m =\"' a:,O oo zZ o\"' \"C :-'\n:,o\n:,o om 'm- \"oC .O...\n.:..,.o.. \"' Executive Summary Report to the Board of Education Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. January, 2005 Superintendent's Entry Plan A New Beginning EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SUPERINTENDENT'S ENTRY PLAN FIRST 100 DAYS As we begin the 2005 calendar year, I wanted to provide you with an executive summary of the Superintendent's Entry Plan which encompassed my first 100 days as superintendent of the Little Rock School District. Every School Board member had significant involvement in the successful implementation of the Entry Plan, and for that I thank you. As you know, I made a commitment to visit every school in the district during my first 100 days, and I accomplished that goal. I visited some schools as many as ten times, while I visited other schools just once or twice. The school and department site visits allowed me to hear  directly from staff members about their concerns, challenges and hopes for the district. The interaction was very positive, and some employees told me they were surprised to see me, and were pleased to have an opportunity to express their opinions and advice. The breakfast and lunch meetings at four schools and four administrative sites allowed me to visit in person with more than 300 staff members. Additionally, the community forums, neighborhood coffees, and meetings with teachers, ministers, business leaders, PT A Council and Superintendent's Student Cabinet enabled me to hear from another 900 interested citizens. I have compiled the comments and suggestions provided at all of these meetings and will consider them carefully as we continue our efforts to improve our schools. Some of the issues that were repeated most often related to accountability\nstudent achievement\ncurriculum\nleadership stability\nparent and community involvement\nschool choice options\nWest Little Rock school\nstudent discipline and attendance\nequitable funding\nteacher attendance\nclass size\nlack of materials, books and other resources\nneighborhood issues such as boarded-up houses near schools\ncustomer service\nextended year education\nalternative schools\nportable classrooms\nsite-based management\nschool renovation and maintenance needs\ntechnology assistance\nESL resources\nand lack of adequate professional development. Additionally, I asked the Superintendent's Student Cabinet, PTA Council and Teachers of the Year to complete a brief survey. This input was helpful to me and will be incorporated with notes from the public meetings, and taken into consideration during the development of the organizational audit recommendations. The time and energy invested in the Superintendent's Entry Plan has paid greater dividends than I anticipated. Not only did I receive extremely valuable input during the process, but I also came away with a better understanding of the perceptions of parents, employees and community residents toward our schools. I heard overwhelming support and countless endorsements of the work that our teachers are doing in the classroom. I have great respect for our teachers and for their professionalism and dedication to providing the very best for all our students. I learned that there is a broad base of community support for our schools, and that people are willing to help us address our problems and work with us to develop solutions. I trust that you will agree with me that the Entry Plan has been helpful as a communications tool and that the comments we have gathered will guide us toward achieving the goal of increasing student achievement and improving the climate and academic culture of our schools. !=' !!l C: 0 .zm.. . \u0026gt; en en 1z5\ni:: .zm.. . !TI a, C: 0 C\u0026gt; .m... C: \"C 0 ~ m :\"' a, n oo zZ o en \"C ~ :o:0m::0 'm- \"oC n::o\nl-\u0026lt; DATE: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 January 27, 2005 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Superintendent's Aspiring Principals' Institute BACKGROUND: District data reveals that 26% of the current building principals have between 26-30 years of experience\nanother 26% have 31 years of experience or more, resulting in 52% of the current principals who are eligible to retire. With such possibility of employee retirements ahead, it has become necessary and critical to begin training aspiring principals to fill forthcoming vacancies. To this end, the Superintendent's Aspiring Principals' Institute has been revitalized with significant and improved changes. Efforts have begun to identify candidates who will participate in the Institute over the next year. RATIONALE: The Superintendent's Aspiring Principals' Institute has been specifically designed to prepare, train, and hire individuals who will serve our schools with a paradigm of new leadership. The lnstitute's purpose will be to prepare an in-house cadre of emerging leaders who can provide a seamless transition into building leadership with necessary confidence and skills. Through the Institute, these leaders will acquire extensive knowledge concerning research-based and common sense practices to facilitate school improvement, develop an understanding of building culture and enhance student achievement. FUNDING: The cost for the Institute has been shared between School Services and Title II funds. RECOMMENDATION: A presentation will be made at the January Board meeting in order to share with you the lnstitute's process, intended program, and the identified candidates who will be participating. PREPARED BY: Dr. Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent Dr. Lloyd Sain, Coordinator of Leadership Development\ni: .... m C') C:J: -.iz 00 ~8 -\u0026lt; !=' !!l C 0 m .z.. . \u0026gt; ~ C) z\ni: m .z.. . =\" CD C'l oO zZ o en .,,:-\u0026lt;\no\no om '- .,, mo .C.'.). .\n.o.. en The Superintendent's Aspiring Principals' Institute - Board Report \"Transforming Schools Through Instructional Leadership and Preparation\" Prepared by Dr. Lloyd Sain, Coordinator of Leadership Development Submitted to Dr. Roy G. Brooks, Superintendent Dr. Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent - School Services Steering Committee Members Dr. Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent - School Services Dr. Marian Lacey, Assistant Superintendent - School Services Dr. Linda Watson, Assistant Superintendent - Student Discipline Dr. Olivine Roberts, Associate Superintendent - Curriculum Division Frances Jones, Assistant Superintendent - School Services Dr. Deborah Price, Director - Magnet School Assistance Planning Grant Leon Adams, Director of Federal Programs Marion Woods, Coordinator of Staff Development Mr. Dennis Glasgow, Director of Math and Science RATIONALE In addressing proactively the potential turnover and retirement forecast, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) has specifically developed the Superintendent's Aspiring Principals' Institute to meet the supply and demand for identifying, training, and hiring highly qualified building administrators for our schools. District data reveals that our present staff of principals brings 474.5 years of combined experience as building administrators and 1,214 years of combined experience in education. Such impressive years of service and experience suggest that many of our veteran administrators are at the height of their careers and could exit educational administration at any juncture. A closer examination of the administrators' total years of service further reveals the following results with regard to the impact of retirement for the category of building principals (see Table 1): Table 1 Total Years of Service in Education for LRSD Principals Years 0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31+ 0 2 2 7 6 8 9 Elementary Middle 0 1 0 4 0 3 0 School High 0 0 0 1 1 2 4 School Total 0 3 2 12 7 13 13 Percentage 0% 6% 4% 24% 14% 26% 26%\n:c .... m C') C: ::c -oz co ?.5 me, -\u0026lt; !=' !!l C: C .zm.. . \u0026gt; ~ czi ll: m .z.. . !TI c:, C: C C) .m... C: \"ti C ?\nm :,, c:,n oO zZ ~~\no\no om ~\"ti mo n\no ~ .... The data strongly reveals that 52% of our present building administrators are reaching or have exceeded the appropriate years of service for retirement, which is recognized in Arkansas as 28 years of service. While this high percentage warns us that this district could face a sudden turnover in school leadership in upcoming years, it also suggests that the district has a high level of committed school administrators who have devoted a significant portion of their lives to the Little Rock School District. Nevertheless, the District must enact a preparation and training program that will begin to train and equip emergent leaders to assume the forthcoming leadership roles in schools. To this end, the Little Rock School District has created the Superintendent's Aspiring Principals' Institute, which will prepare an in-house cadre of emerging leaders who:  will provide a seamless transition into building leadership with the necessary confidence and skills.  will acquire extensive knowledge concerning research-based and common sense practices to facilitate school improvement.  develop an understanding of building culture and enhance student achievement. Initial Selection Process Each interested applicant submitted: o a completed application. o a letter of recommendation from their past or present supervisor. o a 1-2 page narrative that explained their professional goals to aspire as a principal and their accomplishments in their present position. A screening committee composed of central office personnel, current principals, and other professionals with expertise and experience in school leadership reviewed the initial applicants' qualifications and selected the applicants who progressed to Phase II. Second Phase of the Selection Process Of the 63 applicants who initially applied, 32 applicants ., ~re selected to participate in Phase II. Throughout the selection process, a total of four candidates withdrew from the process because of personal or professional reasons. Phase II required the participant to: 1) complete an online, timed profile assessment that highlighted certain leadership aspects. 2) complete an on-site case scenario assessment that measured their abilities to problem-solve a school issue, to write coherently, and to organize their thoughts and ideas under a timed environment. 3) submit two additional reference letters that spotlighted their abilities to be a leader. The Final Phase of the Selection Process From these pieces of data, the third and final round of applicants was chosen for an interview. Twenty-five (25) of the 31 applicants were invited to interview with the Selection Committee. A list of the participants who have met the selection process criteria is included with this report. These educators, who will be our first cadre of emerging leaders to participate in the Aspiring Principals' Institute, will be introduced to the Board at the January 27, 2005 meeting. We anticipate that classes will begin on Saturday, February 51\\ they will meet on two Mondays and one Saturday per month over the next year. The candidates will receive training and on-hands experience with instructional leadership as outlined on the timeline and schedule attached.\nr .... m n C: :c -.::,z co ~5 me, -\u0026lt; !=' ~ C: C .zm.. . \u0026gt; \"\"'' czi 31: .zm.. . !'Tl a, C: 8 !!l C: -.::, ~ m :\"' a,n oo zZ o\"' -.::,~ :o:cm::c \u0026lt;...\"tl mo .n..:..:.c.. \"' SELECTED PARTICIPANTS SUPERINTENDENT'S ASPIRING PRINCIPALS' INSTITUTE CANDIDATES Leticia Miller, Ed.D Ericka Mccarroll. Ed.S Diane Smith Katherine Snyder Nancy Swaty Judge Evans Cynthia Collins Monica Norwood Stephen Ewings M' Shay Callicott Jane M. Sharp, Ed.D Steven Wise Shoutell Richardson Teresa Richardson, EdS Barbara Strickland Alma Dawson CURRENT SCHOOL SITE / POSITION Dunbar - CUR. SPEC. Wilson - LITER. COACH Fulbright - K Washington -ASST. PRIN. McDermott - MEDIA SPECIAL! Mabevale Middle - Asst. Principal Jefferson, GT Spec Rightsell, First Grade Tchr Cloverdale El - 4th TCHR Parkview - T chr Forest Heights - TEACHER J. A. Fair, 7th ASST PRIN Wilson - FOCUS LRNG PR Gibbs - LITERACY COACH Williams - TCHR Reading Spec. - IRC Superintendent's Aspiring Principals Institute Timeline 2004-05 (rev. 12/1/04) DATE ACTIVITY PERSON RESPONSIBLE September 9-10 Meet with Communication Dr. Lloyd Sain Department to devise a Suellen Vann communication rollout plan September 9-14 Develop and complete the Dr. Lloyd Sain brochure for printing Suellen Vann Shea Cochran September 20-23 Review and prepare Dr. Lloyd Sain application, writing prompt, Dr. Linda Watson and rubric October 13-25, 2004 Introduce the Aspiring Dr. Lloyd Sain Principals' Rollout Suellen Vann Advertisement and Application Period October 29, 2004 Final day for applications to be Dr. Lloyd Sain submitted November 15-29, 2004 Review applications to identify Selected Panelist of Reviewers potential candidates for Phase II December 1-2, 2004 Notify and Implement Phase II Dr. L. Sain Location: TBD selection process M. Woods Lionel Ward December 6-9, 2004 Phase II On-site Dr. L. Sain 4:00- 7:00 PM/IRC Demonstration: Profile, Dr. L. Watson Letters, and Writing Dr. Debbie Price Marion Woods December 14-15, 2004 Phase II Scoring: Pick up Selection Committee Packets Dr. L. Sain January 4, 2005 Identify Final Phase candidates Selection Committee l:30P.M. and schedule interviews January 5-6, 2005 Notify Participants of Phase III Dr. L. Sain Progression January 7-21, 2005 Fine tune program needs, Steering Committee faculty, curriculum, etc. January 13-14, 2005 Hold interviews with the Phase Selection Committee III finalists January 18-21, 2005 Notify all Phase III applicants Dr. L. Sain of the final results January 18-28, 2005 Send information packets to Dr. L. Sain the participants/faculty January 27, 2005 Hold SAP! Reception Steering Committee 4:30 P.M. February 5, 2005 Aspiring Principals ' Institute Faculty classes begin\n:c .... ~ c::c \"DZ co \u0026gt;r--\u0026lt; O me, -\u0026lt; !=' !!l C C .zm.. . \u0026gt; V) V) iz5\ni: .zm.. . !\" a, C g .m... C \"D C ~ m :\" a, C') oO zZ ~~\n,:,\n,:, om c.... \"D mo .n..\n..,.\n.,. V) Aspiring Principals' Institute Class Schedule 2005 Primary MODULE TITLE/PRESENTER Faculty DATE TIME LOCATION Module I Understanding Self and Others: Organizational Value System Creating a Visionary Leadership Portfolio Module II Creating a High Performance Leaming Culture Module III LRSD Curriculum Overview Module IV Leadmg Assessment and Instruction Module V Relating Teacher Assignment and Student Work Module VI Using Data to Lead Change Module VII Federal State Statutes \u0026amp; LRSD Board Policies and Administrative Directives Module Fiscal Management and VIII Master Schedules Module IX Building and Leading Effective Team ModuleX Parental Involvement Module XI Providing Focused \u0026amp; Sustained Professional Development Module XII Communicating Effectively in a High-performing School Module Interview Techniques XIII Module Special Education XIV Steering Committee Members Dr. Lloyd Sain, Coordinator, Leadership Development Dr. Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent - School Services Dr. Marian Lacey, Assistant Superintendent - School Services Dr. Linda Watson, Assistant Superintendent - Student Discipline Dr. Olivine Roberts, Associate Superintendent - Curriculum Division Frances Jones, Assistant Superintendent - School Services Dr. Deborah Price - Director, Magnet Schools Assistance Planning Grant Leon Adams, Director of Federal Programs Marion Woods, Coordinator of Staff Development Dennis Glasgow, Director of Math and Science In addition to the Steering Committee Members who served as members of the Selection Committee, we also had the participation of our principals who readily understand and recognize the role of today's principal and the needed behaviors and skills to do this job: Frederick Fields, Principal Theresa Ketcher, Principal Ann Blaylock, Principal :,0 m ~ ~ ~ m :,0 z \u0026gt;,... \u0026gt; C: 0 ~\ni: ..... ~ C: :r \"Dz 00 \u0026gt;r- m-\u0026lt; cO, -\u0026lt; !==' !!l C: 0 zm ..... \u0026gt; ~ cz i l!C zm ..... !T1 Dl C: 0 C) ~ C: \"D ~ m :\" Dl n oO zZ o en \"D :--1 :,0:,0 om \u0026lt;m- \"oD .n...:..,..o.. en DATE: TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 January 27, 2005 Board of Directors Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: January 2005 Construction Report - Bond Projects BACKGROUND: Eighty-five percent (85%) of the money from the bond issues approved by the voters in May of 2000 has been spent or obligated for construction and technology upgrades for LRSD school buildings. The list of completed projects contained in my report is a testament to the extent of improvements that have been made to our schools. Possible changes to the architectural drawings for the Forest Heights project may cause some delay in start-up. RATIONALE: Monthly reports are submitted to the Board to keep members up-to-date on construction projects in the District. FUNDING: Bond Funds RECOMMENDATION: Report item\nno action necessary.\n,o m c3 ~ ~ m\n,o z ,\u0026gt;- \u0026gt; C C \n:c -\u0026lt; ~ ex \"tlZ co ~5 me, -\u0026lt; \u0026gt;~  ::c \"tlC ~ ~ fS z z::0 zm ,m- \"0 ' nc:: ::c\n,o c,n \". 'mCJ) ~ CD \u0026gt;c::  CJ) 8~ ZC/l ),,CJ) ::!CJ) om z\n,o Cll\u0026lt; n m CJ) Facility Name Central Fair Park Scott Field Wilson CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JANUARY 27, 2005 BOND PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION Project Description I Cost I t:st. compIe11on Date Renovation - Interior $10,200,266 Aug-05 Roof ! $245,784 I Mar-05 Track Renovations I $289,056 I Jan-05 HVAC for Cafeteria I $56,000 Feb-05 BOND PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION - WINTER/ SPRING 2004-05 Facility Name Project Description I Cost I Est. Completion Date Carver 1 Media Center Expansion $167,490 Unknown Gibbs Addition I $705,670 I Dec-05 Meadowcliff Remodel I $164,150 I Jun-05 Oakhurst (Adult Education) New Windows $215,000 Jun-05 BOND PROJECTS PLANNING STARTED CONST. DATE TO BE DETERMINED Facility Name Project Description I Cost I t:.st. compIe11on Date Booker 1 Electrical Upgrade Unknown Unknown - Chicot Electrical Upgrade I Unknown Unknown Cloverdale Elementary Addition I $520,750 I Unknown Fair Park Remodel I $799,000 Unknown Forest Heights Remodel I $1,547,000 Unknown Garland Remodel I Unknown Unknown Mitchell I Renovation I $2,212,493 I Unknown Pulaski Hgts. MS Energy monitoring system installation Unknown Unknown Rightsell Renovation I $2,494,000 Unknown Western Hills Electrical Upgrade \u0026amp; HVAC i $640,QQQ I Aug-05 Woodruff Parking addition $193,777 Unknown BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name Project Description I Cost I Est. Completion Date Administration Asbestos abatement - I $380,495 Mar-03 Administration Fresh air system - - $55,000 Aug-03 Adm-inis-tration- - Fire alarm $32,350 ~g-03 Administration HVAC I $70,000 I Nov-04 - Administration Annex Energy monitoring system installation May-02 Alternative Learning Ctr. Energy monitoring system installation $15,160 I Oct-01 I Energy efficient lighting + Alternative Learning Ctr. I $82,000 Dec-01 Badgett Partial asbestos abatement $237,237 Jul-01 Badgett Fire alarm $18,250 Aug-02 - -- - ~244,524 --- Bale Classroom addition/renovation Dec-02 - - -.--- - Bale Energy monitoring system Mar-02 - - - ~- Bale Partial _i:_oof replacement $269,587 - Dec-01 Bale HVAC $664,587 Aug-01 Baseline Renovation $953,520 Aug-04 Booker Gym Roof $48,525 Oct-04 Booker ADA Rest rooms $25,000 Aug-04 Booker Energy efficient lighting $170,295 Apr-01 Booker Energy monitoring system installation $23,710 Oct-01 Booker Asbestos abatement $10,900 Feb-02 Booker Fire alarm $34,501 Mar-02 Brady Addition/renovation $973,621 Nov-04 Brady Energy efficient lighting $80,593 Sep-02 Brady Asbestos abatement $345,072 Aug-02 CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JANUARY 27, 2005 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Est. Completion Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Carver , Energy monitoring system installation $14,480 May-01 Carver Parking lot $111 ,742 Aug-03 Central HVAC Renovation - Band Area $225,000 Dec-04 Central Reflecting Pond $57,561 Sep-04 Central Parking Student parking $174,000 Aug-03 Central/Quigley Stadium light repair \u0026amp; electrical repair $265,000 Aug-03 Central/Quigley Athletic Field Improvement I $38,000 Aug-03 Central/Quigley Irrigation System $14,500 - - Aug-03 Central Purchase land for school I Unknown Dec-02 Central Roof \u0026amp; exterior renovations $2,000,000 Dec-02 Central Ceiling and wall repair I $24,000 Oct-01 Central Fire Alarm System Design/Installation $80,876 Aug-01 Central Front landing tile repair I $22,470 Aug-01 Chicot Drainage $64,700 I Aug-04 Chicot Sound Attenuation $43,134 Jul-04 Cloverdale Elem. Energy efficient lighting $132,678 Jul-01 Cloverdale MS Energy efficient lighting I $189,743 Jul-01 Cloverdale MS Major renovation \u0026amp; addition I $1,393,822 Nov-02 Dodd Fire Alarm Upgrade I $9,200 Oct-04 Dodd i Energy efficient lighting $90,665 I Aug-01 Dodd Asbestos abatement-ceiling tile I $156,299 Jul-01 Dodd Replace roof top HVAC I $215,570 Aug-02 Dunbar Renovation/addition $6,149,023 Nov-04 Facilities Service ' Interior renovation I $84,672 . Mar-01 Facility Services !Fire alarm I $12,QQQ I Aug-03 Fair Park HVAC renovation/fire alarm $315,956 I Apr-02 Fair Park Energy efficient lighting $90,162 I Aug-OJ_ Fair Park !Asbestos abatement-ceiling $59,310 Aug-01 J. A. Fair 6 classroom addition \u0026amp; cafeteria/music room addition $3,155,640 Aug-04 J. A. Fair Tnergy efficient lighting $277,594 1 Apr-01 J. A. Fair Press box I $10,784 Nov-00 J. A. Fair Security cameras $12,500 Jun-01 J. A. Fair Athletic Field Improvement I $38,000 I Jul-03 J. A. Fair Irrigation System I I - $14,000 - - Jul-03 J. A. Fair Roof repairs I $391 ,871 Aug-03 ----- Forest Park Replace window units w/central HVAC $485,258 Nov-03 - j. ~~- Forest Park - --- Diagonal parking --- $111 ,742 ,-- Aug-03 Forest Park -- - Energy efficient lighting $119,788 May-01 - Energy efficient lighting -+-- - $134,463 - Fulbright Jun-01 -- + - Fulbright Energy monitoring system installation - $11,950 Aug-01 Fulbright Replace roof top HVAC units $107,835 Aug-02 Fulbright Parking lot $140,000 Sep-02 Fulbright Roof repairs $200,000 Oct-02 Franklin Renovation $2,511 ,736 Mar-03 Geyer Springs Roof Repair $161,752 Jun-04 Gibbs Energy efficient lighting $76,447 Apr-01 Gibbs Energy monitoring system installation $11,770 Jul-01 Hall Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $8,637,709 Sep-03 Hall Asbestos abatement $168,222 Aug-01 Hall Energy efficient lighting $42,931 Jul-01 - Hall Energy efficient lighting $296,707 Apr-01 2\n:c .... ~ \u0026lt;= ::c -,:,z co \u0026gt;r--\u0026lt; O m c, -\u0026lt; s  '  ::c .,, \u0026lt;= gi~ ~z z:\u0026gt;l zm mCJ\u0026gt; ,-0 n\u0026lt;= ::c:\u0026gt;l c,n ~~ ~ CD \u0026gt;\u0026lt;=  CJ) 8~ ZCJ\u0026gt; \u0026gt;CJ\u0026gt; :::!v, om z:\u0026gt;J v,S n m CJ) Facility Name Hall Hall Hall Henderson Henderson Henderson Henderson Henderson IRC Jefferson Jefferson Laidlaw Mablevale Elem Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale MS Mabelvale MS Mann Mann Mann Mann Mann Mann McClellan -- McClellan McClellan McClellan McClellan McClellan McClellan McDermott McDermott McDermott Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Metropolitan Metropolitan Metropolitan Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Oakhurst Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JANUARY 27, 2005 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Est. Completion Project Description Cost Date Infrastructure improvements $93,657 Aug-01 Intercom I Feb-01 Security cameras $10,'6o0 Jun-01 Lockers i $43,854 Dec-04 'Energy efficient lighting I $193,679 Jul-01 Roof replacement gym $107,835 May-01 Asbestos abatement Phase I $5QQ,QQQ I Aug-01 Asbestos abatement Phase 2 $250,000 Aug-02 Energy efficient lighting $109,136 Jul-02 Asbestos abatement $43,639 I Oct-01 Renovation \u0026amp; fire alarm $1,630,000 Nov-02 Parking lot $269,588 Jul-01 Fire Alarm Upgrade $12,000 I Oct-04 Energy monitoring system installation $12,150 I Aug-01 Replace HVAC units I $300,000 Aug-02 Asbestos Abatement $107,000 Aug-02 Energy efficient lighting $106,598  Dec-02 Renovate bleachers $134,793 Aug-01 Renovation $6,851,621 Mar-04 Partial Replacement $11,500,000 Apr-04 Asphalt walks I Dec-01 Walkway canopies 1 The total $1.8 million Dec-01 Boiler replacement j is what has been used so far on the Oct-01 Fencing r--- projects listed I Sep-01 , Partial demolition/portable classrooms completed for Mann. , Aug-01 Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 Jul-03 Irrigation System $14,750 Jul-03 Security cameras .i _ $36,300 - Jun-01 Energy efficient lighting I $303,614 May-01 . Stadium stands repair $235,000 Aug-01 Intercom .. $46,000 Feb-02 Classroom Addition $2,155,622 Jul-04 1 Fire Alarm Upgrade I $7,?QQ 1 Sep-04 Energy efficient lighting I $79,411 . Feb-01 Replace roof top HVAC units $476,000 I Aug-02 - Fire alarm $16,175 Jul-01 -- Asbestos abatement $253,412  Aug-02 Engergy efficient lighting -+-- $88,297 -- Dec-02 -- ---+---- - Replace cooling tower $37,203 Dec-00 -- Replace shop vent system $20,000 May-01 Energy monitoring system installation $17,145 Aug-01 Building Remediation $165,000 Jul-04 Energy efficient lighting $103,642 Apr-01 Energy monitoring system installation $16,695 Jul-01 Asbestos abatement $13,000 Jul-01 HVAC renovation $237,237 Aug-01 Energy monitoring system installation $10 ,695 May-01 Energy efficient lighting $81,828 Apr-01 Asbestos abatement $10,000 Aug-02 Parking lot $138,029 Aug-02 6 classroom addition $888,778 Oct-02 Parkinq Improvements $142,541 Auq-03 3 CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JANUARY 27, 2005 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name Proiect Descriotion I Cost l Est. Completion Date Parkview !Addition I $2,121,226 I Dec-04 Parkview HVAC controls $210,000 I Jun-02 Parkview I Roof replacement I $273,877 I Sep-01 Parkview Exterior lights I $10,784 I Nov-00 Parkview HVAC renovation \u0026amp; 700 area controls I $301,938 Aug-01 I Parkview Locker replacement I $120,000 I Aug-01 Parkview Energy efficient lighting I $315,ooo I Jun-01 Procurement Energy monitoring system installation I $5,290 I Jun-02 Procurement Fire alarm I $25,000 I Aug-03 Pulaski Hgts. Elem Renovation $1,193,2591 Nov-04 Pulaski Hgts. Elem Move playground $17,000 Dec-02 Pulaski Hgts. MS Renovation I $3,755,041 I Nov-04 Rightsell Energy efficient lighting $84,898 I Apr-01 Rockefeller Energy efficient lighting $137,004 Mar-01 Rockefeller Replace roof top HVAC $539,175 T Aug-01 Rockefeller Parking addition I $111 ,742 Aug-02 Romine  Asbestos abatement $10,000 I Apr-02 Romine Major renovation \u0026amp; addition I $3,534,675 I Mar-03 Securityfrransportation Bus cameras $22,500 I Jun-01 Southwest Addition $2 ,000,000 I Nov-04 Southwest Asbestos abatement $28,138 Aug-00 Southwest New roof $690,000 Oct-03 Southwest Energy efficient lighting $168,719 Jan-02 Southwest Drainage I street widening __ $_250,000 Aug-03 Student Assignment Energy monitoring system installation 0- - $4,830 Aug-02 Student Assignment Fire alarm $9,000 Aug-03 Tech Center Phase 1 Renovation -- - $275.~ - Dec-01 -- Tech Ctr/ Metro Renovation 1Addition/Renovation - Phase II $3,679,000 Jun-04 -- - Technology Upgrade Upgrade phone system \u0026amp; data Nov-02 Terry 1 Energy efficient lighting $73,850 Feb-01 -- Terry Driveway \u0026amp; Parking $83,484 Aug-02 Terry Media Center addition $704,932 Sep-02 Wakefield Rebuild $5,300,000 -- Dec-04 Wakefield Security cameras $8,000 Jun-01 Wakefield Energy efficient lighting _!74,776 Feb-01 ---+-- - Wakefield Demolition/ Asbestos Abatement - -- $200,000 - Nov-02 Washington Fire Alarm Upgrade $11,600 Oct-04 -- -- - Washington Security cameras $7,900 Jun-01 --  Washington Energy efficient lighting $165,281 Apr-01 Watson Energy monitoring system installation $8,530 Jul-01 --- Watson Asbestos abatement $182,241 Aug-01 - - . Watson Energy efficient lighting $106,868 Aug-01 - Watson Asbestos abatement $10,000 Aug-02 Watson Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $800,000 Aug-02 Western Hills Fire Alarm Upgrade $8,400 Oct-04 - Western Hills ADA Rest rooms $25,000 Aug-04 Western Hills Asbestos abatement $191 ,946 Aug-02 Western Hills Intercom $7,100 Dec-01 Western Hills Energy efficient lighting $106,000 Jul-01 Williams Renovation $2 ,106,492 Mar-04 Williams Parking expansions $183,717 Dec-03 -- -- - Williams Energy efficient lighting - $122,719 Jun-01 Wilson Renovation/expansion $1,263,876 Feb-04 --- r Wilson Parking Expansion -- $110,000 Aug-03 - Renovation -- --- - Woodruff $246,419 Aua-02 4\ni: -m\u0026lt; (\") C: ::J: -CZ 00 \u0026gt;r-\u0026lt; O me, -\u0026lt; s \u0026gt;   ::J: ..., C: !B~ ~z z\nJJ zm m\u0026lt;J\u0026gt; ,-0 (\") C: ::J:\nJJ C) (\") ~rn ~ a, \u0026gt;c:  \u0026lt;J\u0026gt; 8~ Z\u0026lt;J\u0026gt; \u0026gt;\u0026lt;J\u0026gt; :::!\u0026lt;J\u0026gt; om z\n,:, \u0026lt;J\u0026gt;\u0026lt; n m \u0026lt;J\u0026gt; LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: January 27, 2005 TO: FROM: Board of Directors Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Board Auditor Report BACKGROUND: Monthly report to School Board. RATIONALE: Summary report of activities. FUNDING: No changes. RECOMMENDATION: None. PREPARED BY: Sandy Becker .!X.,' z )\u0026gt; z n ,\u0026gt;....\nJJ m c3 ~ (J) s )\u0026gt;   :x: -.:,c ~~ isz z\n,\n:, zm m\u0026lt;J\u0026gt; ,-0 nC :x:\nJJ Cl n \u0026lt;J\u0026gt;m  (J) ~ a, )\u0026gt; C  (J) g~ Z\u0026lt;J\u0026gt; )\u0026gt; (J) :::! (J) om z\n,, \u0026lt;J\u0026gt;S n m (J) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Date: January 27, 2005 To: Board of Directors From~ Sandy Becker, Internal Auditor Re: Audit Report - January This is the sixty-third communication regarding status of the current year projects and reviews. Activity Funds a) Working with one high school, one middle schools and three elementary schools to resolve financial issues in their activity funds. b) Reviewing monthly financial information for all schools and assisting in resolving balance issues. c) Training school staff at schools on financial processes by request. Activities Advisory Board (AAB) a) Assist the Activities Advisory Board in its mission to strengthen the effectiveness and viability of activities in the District. b) Working with the Activities Advisory Board to provide ways to assist the different Booster groups in our schools. Board Policy and Regulation a) Coordinating development of payroll guidelines with Financial Services as part of Financial Services Section of the District Operations Manual. Technology Training a) Monitoring technology plans and technology meetings to determine how use of technology will improve and streamline the workflow for staff persons. b) Facilitating technology upgrade in cooperation with the English Department for Yearbook and Newspaper production staff in LRSD high schools to improve access to tools needed for students and staff. a) Served as a trainer for financial portion of uts \u0026amp; Bolts, Bookkeeper \u0026amp; Secretaries Training, Security Guard Training, individual school in-service meetings, and others as needed. Working to facilitate best means to improve financial processes and increase accountability for resources. Training new bookkeepers on bookkeeping procedures as requested. Audit Report - January 2005 Page 2 of2 b) Placed training material, smart worksheets, and other helpful items on the Teachers Lounge section of the Little Rock School District web page. c) Coordinated guidelines and aids to inform and assist new activity sponsors of specific tasks relating to each activity. Added new checklist for spirit sponsors and smart spreadsheet for fundraiser reconciliation. This information is now in the Teachers Lounge section of the District web page. d) Developed skills test for financial positions. Implementing in coordination with Human Resources. Audit Area Sampling and Review of Financial Procedures a) Pulling samples of district expenditures to test for accuracy, accountability, and compliance with District policies. Reviewing district payroll processes for compliance, economy and efficiency, internal controls, and cost control. Working with Financial Services Payroll on internal control and processing b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) Other a) b) c) issues. Working with Financial Services on internal controls and rules for payroll processes and implementation of a new interface system. Monitoring other selected risk areas for efficiency, cost effectiveness, and compliance with District policies. Reviewing grant programs. Working with Child Nutrition on implementation of streamlined information processing system with Information Services and Child Nutrition Staff. Monitoring cost reduction efforts in the District. Monitoring combined payroll and human resources issues for compliance with board direction and internal controls. Reviewing leave accountability system. Reviewing Teacher School Supply Fund Records for recommendations. Assisting in travel regulation modifications for submission to the Board. Provided technical assistance to school staff on grant writing. Served as co-chair of Strategic Team One - Financial Resources. Served as District coordinator of United Way's Day of Caring (April 17, 2004) and on planning committee for 2005. Problem Resolution a) I have made myself available to help resolve financial issues, assist in improving processes, and help find solutions to questions that arise. Please let me know if you need further information. My telephone number is 501-447-1115. My e-mail is sandy.becker@lrsd.org.\nz: .... ~ c::::c -oz 00 ?.5 me, -\u0026lt; \u0026gt;,\u0026lt; ::c -0 c:: ~~ igz z\n,:, zm m.-o\"' nc:: ::c\n,:, on ?\u0026gt; rn ~ CXl \u0026gt;c::  V, g~ z V, \u0026gt; V, ::! V, om z\n,:, enn\u0026lt; m V, DATE: TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 January 27, 2005 Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Technology Report BACKGROUND: Since the last Board meeting the following technology activities took place:  The computer replacement cycle begins this month. Over the next few weeks Windows 95 computers will be replaced at 14 schools. Approximately 900 machines will be purchased in this phase of upgrades. For the first time the District will be offering teachers at the schools being upgraded an opportunity to purchase the replaced machines for a nominal fee.  Training for teachers at Parkview in using Edline for parent access to grades began in January.  E-rate filing season opened on December 15 and closes on February 17. We are filing for telecommunications costs, switches, and telephone system maintenance. RATIONALE: To implement the LRSD Technology Plan 2003 - 2006 FUNDING: N/A RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board accept this report. PREPARED BY: Lucy Neal, Director, Technology and Media Services John Ruffins, Director, Computer Information Services .!E.,l z \u0026gt;z n .:\n-\nI IJ) ,,.~\u0026lt;  :::c .., C: ~f\n~z z\n zm m!Jl r- 0 nc: :::c\n,, G) n ~rn ~ a, \u0026gt; C:  IJ) g~ ZIJl )\u0026gt;,IJ) ::!IJl om z\no IJ)\u0026lt; \u0026lt;'\u0026gt; m IJ) DATE: January 27, 2005 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Personnel Changes BACKGROUND: None RATIONALE: To staff allocated positions within the District FUNDING: Operating Fund RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the following personnel changes be approved at the indicated positions, salaries and classifications. In accordance with A.C.A. 6-17-1502, it is recommended that one additional year of probationary status is provided for all teachers who have been employed in a school district in this state for three (3) consecutive years. Teachers with an effective date of employment after August 19, 2004 for regular schools are considered intern teachers. Teachers with an effective date of employment after August 9, 2004 for EYE are consid~r,j intern teachers. PREPARED BY: Beverly Williamfo~ector of Human Resources ~ CD \u0026gt; C:  \u0026lt;J) g~ Z\u0026lt;J\u0026gt;  \u0026lt;J\u0026gt; ::! \u0026lt;J) oz m\no \u0026lt;J)~ m \u0026lt;J) Personnel Changes Page2 January 27, 2005 NAME ---- START DATE/ SALARY ANNUAL POSITION / SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY Resignations/Terminations Certified Employees Allan, Ashley Reason: Personal Allen, Sarah Reason: Accepted another position East, Pamela Reason: Accepted another position Hays, Linda Reason: Retirement Izard, Rhonda Reason: Personal McQueen, Kay Reason: Personal Moorehead, Kenneth Reason: None Given Pannell, Erin Reason: Leaving city Roland, Ronald Reason: Certification Expiration Samuels, Lori Reason : Personal Agnew, April Elementary V/ FRANKLIN Speech Pathologists/ BRADY Reading/ EARLY CHILDHOOD Learning Skills/ ACC-METRO Gifted and Talented/ DUNBAR Biology/ CENTRAL Instrumental Music/ PARKVIEW Elementary IV/ WAKEFIELD Electronics/ ACC-METRO Elementary I/ MCDERMOTT New Certified Employees Tutor/ WILSON 8-16-04 12-7-04 8-11-04 1-4-05 9-2-03 12-17-04 1-25-82 1-18-05 8-16-93 1-13-05 8-11-04 1-14-05 8-13-01 1-17-05 8-11-04 1-13-05 8-28-89 1-07-05 8-11-04 1-05-05 1-03-05 6-18 56209.00 TCH925 62-9 46572.00 SPE925 6-21 60020.00 TCH11 6-21 53213.00 TCH925 6-12 49277.00 TCH925 6-08 44655.00 TCH925 1-17 47715.00 TCH925 1-01 30040.00 TCH925 1-10 39283.00 VOC10 1-03 31195.00 TCH925 1-01 30040.00 TCH925 annual 16115.21 prorated Personnel Changes Page 3 January 27, 2005 START DATE/ NAME POSITION/ SCHOOL END DATE Brown, Lori Elementary V/ 1-03-05 FRANKLIN Butcher, Angee Elementary Ill/ 1-3-05 CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY Smith, Donald Journalism/ 10-19-04 MCCLELLAN Smith, Tunza ESL/ 1-03-05 CLOVERDALE MIDDLE Spaulding, Robert Physics/ 12-14-04 MCCLELLAN Spears, Marsha Elementary I/ 1-3-05 CARVER Certified Promotion NONE Certified Transfer NONE SALARY CLASS 4-13 TCH925 4-18 TCH925 1-03 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 4-14 TCH925 1-02 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 47284.00 annual 25365.90 prorated 53061 .00 annual 29071 .73 prorated 31195.00 annual 24692.24 prorated 30040.00 annual 16428.13 prorated 48439.00 annual 26994.65 prorated 30617.00 annual 16424.74 prorated .!J,,I z \u0026gt;z C') \u0026gt;r-\no m c3 .\n.\n.o. \"' s \u0026gt;\u0026lt;\n=  C') \u0026gt;r-cO 5!!! !6 ~ z~ ~~ ~~ \"' ~ a, \u0026gt;c::  \"' 8~ ZU\u0026gt; \u0026gt;\u0026lt;n ::::!u, oz m\no \"'s C') m \"' Personnel Changes Page4 January 27, 2005 NAME POSITION / SCHOOL START DATE/ SALARY END DATE CLASS Resignations/Terminations Non-Certified Employees Brewington, Kimberly Bus Driver/ 11-18-04 2-01 Reason: None Given TRANSPORTION 1-13-05 BUSDRV Buford, Kamirah Instructional Aide/ 8-11-04 33-13 Reason: Personal JEFFERSON 12-17-04 INA925 Coakley, Kevin Instructional Aide/ 11-11-04 33-03 Reason: Resigned without CHICOT 12-14-04 INA925 Notice Dedmon, Nancy Custodian/ 7-01-01 31-15 Reason: Retirement CLOVERDALE 1-07-05 CUS12 ELEMENTARY Gibbons, William Maintenance/ 11-9-01  51-10 Reason: Personal Reasons FACILITY SERVICES 12-9-04 MAINT Gregory, Regena Nurse/ 9-20-04 38-03 Reason: None Given STEPHENS 11-30-04 NURSES Hackney, Jon Maintenance/ 11-19-01 49-10 Reason: Termination-No FACILITY SERVICES 12-9-04 MAINT Appeal Pending Hubbard, Myia Instructional Aide/ 10-20-03 33-13 Reason: Personal Reasons WILSON 1-10-05 INA925 Jackson, Lamond Maintenance/ 8-9-99 40-8 Reason: Termination-No FACILITY SERVICES 12-30-04 MAINT Appeal Pending Johnson, Linda Custodian/ 1-19-04 31-03 Reason: Personal Reasons FULBRIGHT 12-22-04 CUS925 Jones, Deborah Care/ 8-30-04 1-06 Reason: None Given CARE 12-18-04 CARE Joseph, Fred Maintenance/ 6-12-89 52-20 Reason: Retirement FACILITY SERVICES 1-14-05 MAINT ANNUAL SALARY 9481.00 14732.00 10934.00 22080.00 34548.00 19020.00 32544.00 14735.00 23436.00 12085.00 7.64 per hour 47976.00 Personnel Changes Page 5 January 27, 2005 .!X.,' z \u0026gt; z START DATE/ SALARY ANNUAL n \u0026gt; CLASS SALARY r- NAME POSITION / SCHOOL END DATE\na .m., 0 .\n.a. \"' Marsh, Janice Child Nutrition/ 9-23-04 3-01 9350.00 Reason: Personal Reasons CHILD NUTRITION 1-27-05 FSH550 McDonald, Gladys Care/ 11-20-02 3-06 8.54 s x\n= Reason: None Given CARE 12-18-04 CARE per hour  n \u0026gt; r- .o.. O\"' Mercado, Maria Instructional Aide/ 4-01-04 33-17 16595.00 gz\na C) Reason: Leaving City BRADY 12-15-04 INA925 z~ ~J: ~~ Mullins, Michael Child Nutrition/ 8-23-04 42-01 20184.00 \"' Reason: None Given CHILD NUTRITION 1-04-05 AN12 Osorio, Rosa Custodian/ 11-15-01 31-01 11379.00 Reason: Health Reasons ROMINE 12-6-04 CUS925 Patterson, Gary Instructional Aide/ 2-2-04 33-15 19863.00 Reason: Health Reasons ROCKEFELLER 1-4-05 INA925 Samples, Karen Child Nutrition/ 8-26-91 3-13 9892.00 Reason: Retirement CHILD NUTRITION 1-3-05 FSH550 Scaife, James Custodian/ 11-15-04 34-03 17388.00 Reason: Resignation without FRANKLIN 11-16-04 CUS12 Notice Senter, Amelia Care/ 8-19-04 1-05 7.56 Reason: None Given CARE 12-18-04 CARE per hour Whitfield, Charles Maintenance/ 3-12-01 51-10 34548.00 Reason: Termination-No FACILITY SERVICES 12-9-04 MAINT Appeal Pending Yeargin, Julius Custodian/ 10-9-00 34-10 20796.00 Reason: Leaving City BALE 11-11-04 CUS12 New Non-Certified Employees ~ Allen, Sherion Parent Coordinator/ 12-7-04 50-7 30660.00 a, \u0026gt;c  \"' ALC AN10 annual g~ 17782.80 z \"' \u0026gt; \"' :::! \"' prorated om z::a \"' ns m \"' Personnel Changes Page 6 January 27, 2005 NAME Allmon, Shikara Baggett, Ruth Broadway, Axie Clingham, Warnetta Evans, Kim Glover, Bruce Lasker, Devon Moreland-Adams, Robbie Obi, Talisa START DATE/ POSITION / SCHOOL END DATE Instructional Aide/ 1-10-05 MABEL VALE ELEMENTARY Instructional Aide/ 11-29-04 CENTRAL Custodian/ 11-15-04 CENTRAL Child Nutrition/ 11-16-04 CHILD NUTRITION Instructional Aide/ 12-6-04 CHICOT Maintenance/ 12-20-04 FACILITY SERIVES Instructional Aide/ 1-3-05 CHICOT Nurse/ 11-11-04 ALC Custodian/ 12-9-04 SOUTHWEST SALARY ANNUAL CLASS SALARY 33-04 11253.00 INA925 annual 5839.39 prorated 33-09 13070.00 INA925 annual 8195.24 prorated 31-01 14532.00 CUS12 annual 8842.88 prorated 3-01 9350.00 FSH550 annual 6333.87 prorated 33-16 16109.00 INA925 annual 9665.40 prorated 49-07 29760.00 MAINT annual 15323.23 prorated 33-16 16109.00 INA925 annual 8794.64 prorated 52-06 6319.20 NURSES annual 4179.89 prorated 31-01 14532.00 CUS12 annual 7915.30 prorated Personnel Changes Page7 January 27, 2005 START DATE/ SALARY NAME POSITION / SCHOOL END DATE CLASS Pulliam, Shareka Instructional Aide/ 1-3-05 33-04 JEFFERSON INA925 Williams, Donald Instructional Aide/ 1-3-05 33-06 WILSON INA925 Non-Certified Promotion Clark, Gerald - Promoted from Custodian to Head Custodian Collier, Richard - Promoted from Carpenter Trade to Carpenter Trade Specialist Musgrave, Jimmy - Promoted from HVAC Trade Specialist to HVAC Foreman Phelps, Stephanie - Promoted from Work Order Secretary to Warehouse Specialist Approved leave as recommended by the Superintendent Hayley, Leslie- medical leave without pay (effective 1-3-05) ANNUAL SALARY 8214.69 annual 4484.78 prorated 11946.00 annual 6521 .87 prorated .!X,,l z \u0026gt;z n \u0026gt;r- ::0 m \"0 0 .::.0. \"' s x\n::: n \u0026gt;r- oO o\u0026lt;--\"' !5 ~ z~ ~~ ~~ \"' ~ CD \u0026gt;c:  \"' 8* Zf/l  Ul ~om\"' z::o UlS n m \"' DATE: January 27, 2005 TO: Board of Directors LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Donations of Property BACKGROUND: The Little Rock School District receives donations from businesses and individuals on a regular basis. It is the policy of the Little Rock School District that donations are not formally accepted until they are approved by the Board of Directors. RATIONALE: District policy states that, in order to maintain the centralized fixed asset property accounting system, all property donation requests are forwarded to the Director of Procurement. The Procurement Department forwards the requests, along with the appropriate recommendations, to the Board of Directors for acceptance and approval. In order for proper recognition and appreciation to be conveyed to the donor, donor's name and current mailing address should be included in the donation memo. FUNDING: None RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the attached donation requests be approved and accepted in accordance with the policies of the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District. PREPARED BY: ~arral Paradis, Director of Procurement ~ ~ ,Gwen Caraway, Fixed Asset Property Manager .?.\", z \u0026gt;z n \u0026gt; r-\n:o m c3 ~ V\u0026gt; DONATIONS School/Department Item Donor Central High School Assorted office furniture Mr. Gary Stephenson valued at approximately on behalf of State Farm $8,322.44 Insurance Company Central High School $2,000.00 cash to the Mr. Walter C. Coleman baseball team Cloverdale Middle Gift cards, valued at Bank of America School $125.00, and trophies, valued at $95.00, to be used for student rewards and teacher incentives Terry Elementary Piano valued at Ms. Karen Stein, Music School $1,500.00 Specialist at Terry Terry Elementary $958.32 cash to Mr. Robert Jones of School purchase a video the Optimist Club of camera for the Greater Little Rock media center Western Hills Side by side Mr. and Mrs. Richard C. Elementary School refrigerator valued Blaine at $200.00 DATE: Little Rock Central High School 1500 South Park Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Phone 501-447-1400 Fax 501-44 7-1401 JANUARY 4, 2005 TO: DARRAL PARADIS, DIRECTOR OF PROCUREMENT FROM: NANCY ROUSSEAU, PRINCIPAL ~ :],(J,{__Cl.,l,,v SUBJECT: DONATION Gary Stephenson, on behalf of State Farm Insurance Company, 22 State Farm Drive, Monroe, Louisiana 71208, generously donated the following items to Little Rock Central High School: 20 desks, 20 file cabinets, 2 work tables, 2 bookcases, 13 conference room tables, and 72 chairs. The value of the furniture is $8,322.44. It is my recommendation that this be accepted in accordance with the donation policies of the Little Rock School District. \"-, .. r1 r. .,   ... ~ '\n_ .?.,' z \u0026gt;z ,~... :x, .m., 0 e~n s .x\n= (\") \u0026gt;,... .c_O en gz :x,G'\u0026gt; z:x,\ni::m m~ ~~ en DATE: ATTN: FROM: Little Rock Central High School 1500 South Park Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Phone 501-44 7-1400 Fax 501-447-1401 12/17/2004 DARRAL PARADIS NANCY ROUSSEAU, PRINCIPAL ~ SUBJECT: DONATION Walter C. Coleman of 3100 Cole Avenue, Apt. 215, Dallas, Texas 74204, graciously donated $2,000 to our baseball team. It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. December 1, 2004 To: Mr. Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement From: Angela Munns, Principal RE: Donation Please accept the following donations that were given to Cloverdale Magnet Middle School. The trophies will be awarded to six grade students who participate in a \"Spelling B\". The gift cards will be given as incentives to teachers who have perfect attendance, raise student test scores, etc. Bank of America Ms. Carol Murray, Vice President Gift Cards $125.00- Trophies $95.00 Donated Subject Dividers (25) ? Total Value $220.00 !.D., z )\u0026gt; z ~.... ~ \"D 0 ~ U) s .x := (\") )\u0026gt; .... oO c... U) gz\n%le, z:x\u0026gt; ll: m m~ :!:i~ U) TERRY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL \u0026lt;\u0026lt;Home of the Tcny Tfrrcn\" *  (I 4) (I * (I '3- DATE: December 17. 2004 TO: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement FROM: ~ Becky Ramsey. Principal RE: Donation Karen Stein, Music Specialist at Terry Elementary, has generously donated her piano valued at $1,500 to our school . It is my recommendation that this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District. r l r - - ~-1'- r.. 0.... ...'\"\" -t\u0026gt; .. \\.,, TERRY ELEMENTARY S CHOOL ccH01ne of the Terry Tigcd) * (I * (I '1- (I * (I * (I*  DATE: TO: FROM: t3f}__ RE: -- 0.':J 1-4-112 Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement Becky Ramsey, Principal Donation Mr. Robert Jones from the Optimist Club of Greater Little Rock, 9900 Vinson Court, Little Rock, AR, 72205, has generously d~nated $958.32 to Terry Elementary on January 4, 2005. The money was used to purchase a new video camera for the media center. It is my recommendation that this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District. ~ .. - r 1 ~.,.\n:...,\n. t!_, ~'J -. ' .... -- _ : ..... - - ., - WESTERN HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL December 8, 2004 To: Darrel Paradis, Director of Procurement From: Scott Morgan, Principal Subject: Donation Mr. and Mrs. Richard C. Blaine have graciously donated a side by side refrigerator valued at $200.00 to the Western Hills Elementary School. It is recommended that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Little Rock School District. ,. . '. ' 4901 Western Hills  Phone (501) 447-6900  Fax (501) 447 -6901  Little Rock, Arkansas 72204 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 81 0 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: January 27, 2005 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Financial Reports BACKGROUND: Financial reporting is designed to keep the Board of Directors up-to-date regarding the District's current financial condition. Financial reports are submitted monthly to the Board for review and approval. RATIONALE: December 2004 financial reports are submitted for the Board's review and approval. FUNDING: N/A RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board of Directors approve the December 2004 financial reports as submitted. PREPARED BY: Mark D. Milhollen, Manager Financial Services LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2003 AND 2004 APPROVED RECEIPTS % APPROVED RECEIPTS % 2003/04 12/31/03 COLLECTED 2004/05 12/31/04 COLLECTED REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 57,547,800 55,681,497 96.76% 61,436,691 61,324,530 99.82% DELINQUENT TAXES 10,100,000 8,793,799 87.07% 12,135,000 5,821,274 47.97% 40% PULLBACK 29,600,000 31,250,000 EXCESS TREASURER'S FEE 210,000 205,000 DEPOSITORY INTEREST 180,000 155,000 REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 150,000 185,000 MISCELLANEOUS AND RENTS 380,000 225,933 59.46% 485,000 75,378 15.54% INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 200,000 64,666 32.33% 245,000 169,098 69.02% ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 240,000 142,937 59.56% 215,000 148,349 69.00% TOTAL 98,607,800 64,908,833 65.83% 106,311,691 67,538,630 63.53% REVENUE-COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 21,000 11,594 55.21% 22,000 11 ,183 50.83% TOTAL 21,000 11,594 55.21% 22,000 11,183 50.83% REVENUE- STATE SOURCES EQUALIZATION FUNDING 53,226,139 24,1 93,699 45.45% 65,082,694 29,621,016 45.51% ALTERNATIVE LEARNING 1,927,250 963,624 50.00% ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 193,739 NATL SCHL LUNCH STUDENT FUNDING 6,498,240 2,953,745 45.45% PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 1,141,165 1,141,165 100.00% REIMBURSEMENT STRS/HEAL TH 8,300,000 3,373,820 40.65% 8,275,000 3,468,815 41.92% VOCATIONAL 1,400,000 521,646 37.26% 1,350,000 634,461 47.00% HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 1,675,000 271,285 16.20% 2,100,000 470,225 22.39% EARLY CHILDHOOD 273,358 135,094 49.42% 5,542,510 2,593,434 46.79% TRANSPORTATION 3,875,562 1,243,841 32.09% 4,125,000 1,330,714 32.26% INCENTIVE FUNDS - M TO M 3,900,000 1,473,688 37.79% 4,575,000 1,659,652 36.28% ADULT EDUCATION 920,337 311,832 33.88% 934,380 306,122 32.76% POVERTY INDEX FUNDS 560,545 267,486 47.72% TAP PROGRAM 285,245 142,623 50.00% 382,903 7,645 2.00% AT RISK FUNDING 360,000 193,739 53.82% 395,000 9,400 2.38% TOTAL 74,776,187 32,128,752 42.97% 102,522,882 45,160,018 44.05% REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES TRANSFER FROM CAP PROJ FUND 770,000 770,000 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 1,350,000 18,519 1.37% 1,295,000 8,155 0.63% TRANSFER FROM MAGNET FUND 1,632,430 544,143 33.33% 1,849,008 TOTAL 3,752,430 562,662 14.99% 3,914,008 8,155 0.21% TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 177,157,418 97,611,841 55.10% 212,770,581 112,717,987 52.98% REVENUE-OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 24,075,790 7,040,060 29.24% 21,531,929 9,541,314 44.31% DEDICATED M \u0026amp; 0 4,000,000 2,368,924 59.22% 4,500,000 2,441,928 54.27% MAGNET SCHOOLS 24,689,351 9,316,330 27,964,934 6,032,105 21.57% TOTAL 52,765,141 18,725,314 35.49% 53,996,863 18,015,347 33.36% TOTAL REVENUE 229,922,559 116,337,155 50.60% 266,767,444 130,733,335 49.01% LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2003 AND 2004 APPROVED EXPENDED % APPROVED EXPENDED % 2003/04 12/31/03 EXPENDED 2004/05 12/31/04 EXPENDED EXPENSES SALARIES 100,684,982 38,826,959 38.56% 117,324,912 44,814,698 38.20% BENEFITS 26,483,772 9,621,831 36.33% 36,185,81 i 12,491,139 34.52% PURCHASED SERVICES 19,719,297 8,107,685 41.12% 20,959,918 8,195,818 39.10% MATERIALS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES 8,185,459 4,165,135 50.88% 8,725,914 4,060,254 46.53% CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,575,580 549,257 34.86% 2,760,600 752,520 27.26% OTHER OBJECTS 8,384,567 2,957,578 35.27% 10,770,418 450,883 4.19% DEBT SERVICE 12,098,342 4,699,176 38.84% 12,474,809 4,590,834 36.80% TOTAL EXPENSES OPERATING 177,131,999 68,927,621 38.91% 209,202,382 75,356.147 36.02% EXPENSES-OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 26,056,193 7,038,023 27.01% 23,853,134 7,615,890 31.93% DEDICATED M \u0026amp; 0 4,000,000 2,157,873 53.95% 5,007,809 1,928,649 38.51% MAGNET SCHOOLS 24,689,351 8,613,259 34.89% 27,964,934 9,306,807 33.28% TOTAL 54,745,544 17,809,155 32.53% 56,825,877 18,851,346 33.17% TOT AL EXPENSES 231,877,543 86,736,m 37.41% 266,028,259 94,207,493 35.41% INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (1,954,984) 29,600,377 739,184 36,525,841 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET \u0026amp; OED M \u0026amp; 0 3,558,580 3,558,580 4,005,957 4,005,957 OPERATING 9,026,855 9,026,855 6,531,706 6,531,706 ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET \u0026amp; OED M \u0026amp; 0 1,578,177 4,474,738 1,176,943 3,169,958 OPERATING 9,052,274 37,711,075 10,099,905 43,893,546 TOTAL 10,630,451 42,185,813 11,276,848 47,063,505 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2004 PROJECT BEG BALANCE INCOME TRANSFERS EXPENDITURES ENCUMBRANCES END BALANCE 07-01-04 2004-05 2004-05 2004-05 2004-05 12-31-04 $6,200,000 BOND ISSUE FAIR 17,956.90 2,900.00 15,056.90 MCCLELLAN 77,519.02 77,519.02 CLOVERDALE MIDDLE 396.12 396.12 CONTINGENCY 0.00 0.00 SUBTOTAL 95,872.04 0.00 0.00 2,900.00 0.00 92,972.04 $136,268,560 BOND ISSUES ADMINISTRATION 11,586.46 80,000.00 48,838.79 8,936.88 33,810.79 NEW WORK PROJECTS 6,090,835.40 2,708,744.24 1,104,364.63 2,277,726.53 SECURITY PROJECTS 14,541.25 14,541.25 LIGHTING PROJECTS 0.00 0.00 MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR 7,569,593.08 618,298.54 113,711.21 6,837,583.33 RENOVATION PROJECTS 12,752,856.34 5,247,940.47 1,528,227.10 5,976,688.77 TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES 1,569,424.27 1,143,377.19 350,547.35 234,696.65 2,127,557.46 SUBTOTAL 28,008,836.80 1,143,377.19 80,000.00 8,974,369.39 2,989,936.47 17,267,908.13 REVENUES PROCEEDS-PROPERTY SALE 445,618.31 181,104.00 626,722.31 DUNBAR PROJECT 5,266.71 5,266.71 PROCEEDS-BOND SALES 14,773,544.18 (80,000.00) 14,693,544.18 PROCEEDS-QZAB SALE 1,293,820.97 1,293,820.97 INTEREST 5,037,437.95 390,654.49 5,428,092.44 SUBTOTAL 21 ,555,688.12 571,758.49 (80,000.00) 0.00 0.00 22,047,446.61 GRAND TOTAL ~l! liliD al!li l!li l Zl:i la:i lia 2Jll2 a,:izz ilil! a:i i :ia:i :iali ~z aMaa aili,za I PROJECT I ALLOCATIONS EXPENSE PROJECT CATEGORIES THRU 12-31-04 2000-01 ADMINISTRATION 760,526.80 889,772.32 NEW WORK PROJECTS 38,788,412.86 443,467.00 SECURITY PROJECTS 265,814.17 113,930.47 LIGHTING PROJECTS 4,862,548.33 2,641,482.13 MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR 18,922,387.50 791,385.63 RENOVATION PROJECTS 51,027,748.84 397,615.34 TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES 12,878,988.97 575,016.53 UNALLOCATED PROCEEDS 15,987,365.15 TOTAL 143,493,792.62 5,852,669.42 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ISSUE PROJECT HISTORY THRU THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2004 EXPENSE EXPENSE EXPENSE 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 (485,325.77) 149,597.63 114,896.16 4,589,606.29 11,671,442.11 15,993,062.06 109,609.73 27,732.73 1,832,392.06 379,661 .38 9,012.76 4,218,294.40 3,455,350.67 2,887,763.72 4,119,045.21 15,666,239.90 18,091,992.05 4,325,201.40 4,500,374.61 765,594.97 18,708,823.32 35,822,666.30 37,890,054.45 EXPENSE ---- ENCUMBERED THRU 12-31-04 --- - THRU 12-31-04 48,838.79 8,936.88 2,708,744.24 1, 104,364fil - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 618,298.54 113,711.21 5,247,940.47 1,528,227.10 350,547.35 234,696.65 -- - - 8,974,369.39 2,989,936.47 1N3111NHnorov xi S\u0026gt;IHVlll3H 9NIS01:l 11111 ENDING ALLOCATION SUBTOTAL - 12-31-04 726,716.01 33,810.79 36,510,686.33 2,277,726.53 251 ,272:-3 14,541.25 4,862,548.33 0.00 12,084,804.17 6,837,583.33 45,051,060.07 5,976,688.77 10,751,431.51 2,127,557.46 15,987,365.15 110,238,519.35 33,255,273.28 Operating Operating Operating Operating Operating Operating Operating Operating Food Service Activity Fund Fund Total Total Total Bond Account Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Total Deseg Plan Scholarship Total Rockefeller Scholarship Total + + i f t Purchase Date 12-30-04 12-10-04 12-16-04 12-16-04 12-16-04 12-16-04 12-16-04 12-16-04 12-30-04 12-21-04 09-06-04 07-14-04 01-30-04 08-17-04 06-10-04 08-02-04 08-02-04 09-15-04 12-17-04 12-09-04 06-10-04 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS BY FUND FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31 _,_~04 - Maturity Date TFN 03-15-05 01-14-05 02-01-05 02-15-05 03-01-05 03-15-05 04-01-05 TFN TFN 03-07-05 01-10-05 01-31-05 08-16-05 01-10-05 02-05-05 08-02-05 03-15-05 TFN 06-24-05 01-10-05 - - - Institution I nterest Rate-_ Type _,_ Principal -f---- --- -1-- - -- -+---- -------\u0026lt; 2.100% ~ 15,125,000.00 2.410% CD _ - 4 ,668,206.83 ~10% --+----C-D 5,700,000.00 Bank of A~rica _ Twin City Bank Twin City Bank Twin City Bank Twin City Bank Twin City Bank __ 2.630%- CCDD _ 11 ,000,000.00 2.670% 9,200,000.00 Twin City Bank _ Twin City Bank Bank of America - Bank of America 2.710% 2.730% 2.750% 1.970% 2.040% 1.843% CD 3,500,000.00 - - CD 3,500,000.00 CD 2,60Q,0OO.O0 55,293,2~.83 Repo 920,000.00 920,000.00_ Repo ~--:\n,235,000.00 ---+-~1,235,000.0Q_ Regions CD Metropolitan Bancorp South Twin City Bank Bank of America Twin City Bank Twin City Bank - - 1.930% -,-- CD 400,000.00 - -----:r]oo.934.31 Bank of the Ozarks Bank of America Bank of America Bank of America 1 850% CD ~ 610% - - CD ___ 2,100,2~.72 .J.1.,000,0QQ.00 - 1.670% 2.580% 3.030% 2.210% 2.040% 2.300% - Treasury Bills - CD 5,385,005.84 4,500,000.00 CD 4,500,000.00 CD Repo - 10,366,251.16 2,460,000.00 -- 41,712,436.03 Treasury Bills ,---7,,..8,....4c'-,9_ 9 _4_.0_4-1 _ 78i,994.04 1.670% _ Treasury ~s 252,468.56 252,468.56\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":"ket_civilrights_teachers","title":"Living the story : the Civil Rights Movement in Kentucky","collection_id":"ket_civilrights","collection_title":"Living the Story: The Civil Rights Movement in Kentucky","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Kentucky, 38.20042, -84.87762"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2005/2018"],"dcterms_description":["Web site with links to lesson plans divided into age-appropriate levels, suggestions for incorporating lesson plans into the classroom, and information on a multi-part webquest for students.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":null,"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of Living the story : the Civil Rights movement in Kentucky"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African Americans--Civil rights--Kentucky","Civil rights movements--Kentucky","Civil rights workers--Kentucky","African American civil rights workers--Kentucky","Segregation--Kentucky","Kentucky--Race relations--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Living the story : the Civil Rights Movement in Kentucky"],"dcterms_type":["Collection"],"dcterms_provenance":["Kentucky Educational Television"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://education.ket.org/resources/living-story-civil-rights-movement-kentucky/"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["instructional materials","learning modules","lesson plans","teaching guides"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"ncpl_ncpedia_lumbee","title":"Lumbee Indians Face the Ku Klux Klan, 1958","collection_id":"ncpl_ncpedia","collection_title":"NCpedia","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, North Carolina, Robeson County, 34.64009, -79.10353"],"dcterms_creator":["Graham, Nicholas"],"dc_date":["2005"],"dcterms_description":["Entry about African American civil rights in North Carolina."],"dc_format":null,"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African American civil rights workers--North Carolina","Civil rights movements--North Carolina","African Americans--Civil rights--North Carolina"],"dcterms_title":["Lumbee Indians Face the Ku Klux Klan, 1958"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["North Carolina. Division of State Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://www.ncpedia.org/history/20th-Century/lumbee-face-klan"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["articles"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null}],"pages":{"current_page":305,"next_page":306,"prev_page":304,"total_pages":6766,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":3648,"total_count":81191,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"educator_resource_mediums_sms","items":[{"value":"lesson plans","hits":319},{"value":"teaching guides","hits":53},{"value":"timelines (chronologies)","hits":43},{"value":"online exhibitions","hits":38},{"value":"bibliographies","hits":15},{"value":"study guides","hits":11},{"value":"annotated bibliographies","hits":9},{"value":"learning modules","hits":6},{"value":"worksheets","hits":6},{"value":"slide shows","hits":4},{"value":"quizzes","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":40200},{"value":"StillImage","hits":35114},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":4552},{"value":"Sound","hits":3248},{"value":"Collection","hits":41},{"value":"InteractiveResource","hits":25}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"Peppler, Jim","hits":4965},{"value":"Phay, John E.","hits":4712},{"value":"University of Mississippi. Bureau of Educational Research","hits":4707},{"value":"Baldowski, Clifford H., 1917-1999","hits":2599},{"value":"Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission","hits":2255},{"value":"Thurmond, Strom, 1902-2003","hits":2077},{"value":"WSB-TV (Television station : Atlanta, Ga.)","hits":1475},{"value":"Newman, I. DeQuincey (Isaiah DeQuincey), 1911-1985","hits":1003},{"value":"The State Media Company (Columbia, S.C.)","hits":926},{"value":"Atlanta Journal-Constitution","hits":844},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":778}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"African Americans--Civil rights","hits":9441},{"value":"Civil rights","hits":8347},{"value":"African Americans","hits":5895},{"value":"Mississippi--Race relations","hits":5750},{"value":"Race relations","hits":5607},{"value":"Education, Secondary","hits":5083},{"value":"Education, Elementary","hits":4729},{"value":"Segregation in education--Mississippi","hits":4727},{"value":"Education--Pictorial works","hits":4707},{"value":"Civil rights demonstrations","hits":4436},{"value":"Civil rights workers","hits":3530}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966--Correspondence","hits":1888},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1809},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1709},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1312},{"value":"Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998","hits":1282},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1071},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":858},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":814},{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":719},{"value":"Mizell, M. Hayes","hits":674},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":626}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"name_authoritative_sms","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":2598},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1909},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1704},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1331},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1070},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":856},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":806},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":625},{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":605},{"value":"Snelling, Paula","hits":580},{"value":"Williams, Hosea, 1926-2000","hits":431}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":1763},{"value":"Ole Miss Integration","hits":1670},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":965},{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":704},{"value":"Memphis Sanitation Workers Strike","hits":366},{"value":"Selma-Montgomery March","hits":337},{"value":"Freedom Summer","hits":306},{"value":"Freedom Rides","hits":214},{"value":"Poor People's Campaign","hits":180},{"value":"University of Georgia Integration","hits":173},{"value":"University of Alabama Integration","hits":140}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":17820},{"value":"United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798","hits":5428},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Montgomery County, Montgomery, 32.36681, -86.29997","hits":5151},{"value":"United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","hits":4862},{"value":"United States, South Carolina, 34.00043, -81.00009","hits":4610},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":4177},{"value":"United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026","hits":3943},{"value":"United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036","hits":2910},{"value":"United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898","hits":2579},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":2430},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":2387}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Georgia","hits":12843},{"value":"Alabama","hits":11307},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":10219},{"value":"South Carolina","hits":8503},{"value":"Arkansas","hits":4583},{"value":"Texas","hits":4399},{"value":"Tennessee","hits":3770},{"value":"Florida","hits":2601},{"value":"Ohio","hits":2391},{"value":"North Carolina","hits":1893},{"value":"New York","hits":1667}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1966","hits":10514},{"value":"1963","hits":10193},{"value":"1965","hits":10119},{"value":"1956","hits":9832},{"value":"1955","hits":9611},{"value":"1964","hits":9268},{"value":"1968","hits":9243},{"value":"1962","hits":9152},{"value":"1967","hits":8771},{"value":"1957","hits":8460},{"value":"1958","hits":8242},{"value":"1961","hits":8241},{"value":"1959","hits":8046},{"value":"1960","hits":7940},{"value":"1954","hits":7239},{"value":"1969","hits":7235},{"value":"1950","hits":7117},{"value":"1953","hits":6968},{"value":"1970","hits":6743},{"value":"1971","hits":6337},{"value":"1977","hits":6280},{"value":"1952","hits":6161},{"value":"1972","hits":6144},{"value":"1951","hits":6045},{"value":"1975","hits":5806},{"value":"1976","hits":5771},{"value":"1974","hits":5729},{"value":"1973","hits":5591},{"value":"1979","hits":5329},{"value":"1978","hits":5318},{"value":"1980","hits":5279},{"value":"1995","hits":4829},{"value":"1981","hits":4724},{"value":"1994","hits":4654},{"value":"1948","hits":4596},{"value":"1949","hits":4571},{"value":"1996","hits":4486},{"value":"1982","hits":4330},{"value":"1947","hits":4316},{"value":"1985","hits":4226},{"value":"1998","hits":4225},{"value":"1997","hits":4202},{"value":"1983","hits":4174},{"value":"1984","hits":4065},{"value":"1946","hits":4046},{"value":"1999","hits":4018},{"value":"1945","hits":4017},{"value":"1990","hits":3937},{"value":"1986","hits":3919},{"value":"1943","hits":3899},{"value":"1944","hits":3895},{"value":"1942","hits":3867},{"value":"2000","hits":3808},{"value":"2001","hits":3790},{"value":"1940","hits":3764},{"value":"1941","hits":3757},{"value":"1987","hits":3657},{"value":"2002","hits":3538},{"value":"1991","hits":3507},{"value":"1936","hits":3506},{"value":"1939","hits":3500},{"value":"1938","hits":3465},{"value":"1937","hits":3449},{"value":"1992","hits":3444},{"value":"1993","hits":3422},{"value":"2003","hits":3403},{"value":"1930","hits":3377},{"value":"1989","hits":3355},{"value":"1935","hits":3306},{"value":"1933","hits":3270},{"value":"1934","hits":3270},{"value":"1988","hits":3269},{"value":"1932","hits":3254},{"value":"1931","hits":3239},{"value":"2005","hits":3057},{"value":"2004","hits":2909},{"value":"1929","hits":2789},{"value":"2006","hits":2774},{"value":"1928","hits":2271},{"value":"1921","hits":2123},{"value":"1925","hits":2039},{"value":"1927","hits":2025},{"value":"1924","hits":2011},{"value":"1926","hits":2009},{"value":"1920","hits":1975},{"value":"1923","hits":1954},{"value":"1922","hits":1928},{"value":"2016","hits":1925},{"value":"2007","hits":1629},{"value":"2008","hits":1578},{"value":"2011","hits":1575},{"value":"2019","hits":1537},{"value":"1919","hits":1532},{"value":"2009","hits":1532},{"value":"1918","hits":1530},{"value":"2015","hits":1527},{"value":"2013","hits":1518},{"value":"2010","hits":1515},{"value":"2014","hits":1481},{"value":"2012","hits":1467}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"0193","max":"2035","count":500952,"missing":56},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"photographs","hits":10708},{"value":"correspondence","hits":9437},{"value":"black-and-white photographs","hits":7678},{"value":"negatives (photographs)","hits":7513},{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":4462},{"value":"letters (correspondence)","hits":3623},{"value":"oral histories (literary works)","hits":3607},{"value":"black-and-white negatives","hits":2740},{"value":"editorial cartoons","hits":2620},{"value":"newspapers","hits":1955},{"value":"manuscripts (documents)","hits":1692}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":41178},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":17554},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":8828},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":6864},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/","hits":2186},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/","hits":1778},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-CR/1.0/","hits":1115},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/","hits":197},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NKC/1.0/","hits":60},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-RUU/1.0/","hits":51},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/","hits":27}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Jim Peppler Southern Courier Photograph Collection","hits":4956},{"value":"John E. Phay Collection ","hits":4706},{"value":"John J. Herrera Papers","hits":3288},{"value":"Baldy Editorial Cartoons, 1946-1982, 1997: Clifford H. Baldowski Editorial Cartoons at the Richard B. Russell Library.","hits":2607},{"value":"Sovereignty Commission Online","hits":2335},{"value":"Strom Thurmond Collection, Mss 100","hits":2068},{"value":"Alabama Media Group Collection","hits":2067},{"value":"Black Trailblazers, Leaders, Activists, and Intellectuals in Cleveland","hits":2033},{"value":"Rosa Parks Papers","hits":1948},{"value":"Isaiah DeQuincey Newman, (1911-1985), Papers, 1929-2003","hits":1904},{"value":"Lillian Eugenia Smith Papers (circa 1920-1980)","hits":1887}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"John Davis Williams Library. Department of Archives and Special Collections","hits":8885},{"value":"Alabama. Department of Archives and History","hits":8146},{"value":"Atlanta University Center Robert W. Woodruff Library","hits":4102},{"value":"South Caroliniana Library","hits":4024},{"value":"University of North Texas. Libraries","hits":3854},{"value":"Hargrett Library","hits":3292},{"value":"University of South Carolina. Libraries","hits":3212},{"value":"Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies","hits":2874},{"value":"Mississippi. Department of Archives and History","hits":2825},{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":2633},{"value":"Rhodes College","hits":2264}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":80736},{"value":"Collection","hits":455}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":80994},{"value":"true","hits":197}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}