{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_295","title":"Compliance hearing exhibits, 23-24","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1999/2001"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance hearing exhibits, 23-24"],"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/295"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\ns * LR5D Quartef'y Status Repof\n5cho' gervfces -4th Quartef Ihursiiay, Juu 12000 *T*Tf'*^ w ' - - ' i 'Z a *' ?**' !**** 9 M WB \u0026lt; \u0026lt;4 y. I'' MS' *x '!\u0026lt; I -I i 4^ * -J ', .' \\' -w ''\"jWWHTable of Contents Pre-AP and/or AP Course Enrollment John Ruffins Pre-AP and/or AP Grades - C or better John Ruffins Pre-AP and/or AP Course Drops John Ruffins Absent Teachers without Subs Richard Hurley Teacher Absences Richard Hurley Drop-Out Data Everett Hawks John Ruffins Disciplinary Data Linda Watson John Ruffins Assessment Data Kathy Lease Grade Distribution John Ruffins Academic High Risk Everett Hawks John Ruffins Average Daily Attendance (ADA) John Ruffins Volunteer Hours Debbie Milam 1 Annual K-8 Retention Rate John Ruffins JIn,I,.... Ar......I.. 1.1 .... Student's Enrolled in at Least One AP, PL.-iP Course for 1999-2000 by Schom, 1st Quarter Monday, April 17, 2000 __________________ School CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL ' Grade Total Gender i 09 I 525 I 10 505 11 I ! 499 t- 1 rI I 12 473 CLOVERDALE MIDDLE SCHOOL 06 264 07 231 08 I I 228 DUNBAR INT'L STUDIES MAGNET MIDDLE SC 1 06 i 1 233 FAIR HIGH SCHOOL FOREST HEIGHTS MIDDLE SCHOOL HALL HIGH SCHOOL LRSD Information Service Dept. I 07 08 09 10 11 12 06 07 08 09 I I 1 I I 238 252 262 264 222 186 244 245 257 413 I I I F M _F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M _F_ M F M F M F M F M F M _F M F M F I I 1 Rlaek %lilack IVhite %White Other %OtheL: 52 10% ..16%_____ 1%_______________ 30 32 48 17 67 29 45 32 44 30 I i 10% 6% 13% 6% 10% 3% 14% 6% 17% 12% 19% 13% 1 30 13% 22 19 21 28 26 40. 42 22 17 30 23 38 15 34 28 37 27 43 21 52 45 39 I 1 10% 8% 9% 12% 11% 16% 17% 8% 6% 11% 9% 17% 7% 18% 15% 15% li% 18% 9% 20% 18% 9% I i 86 71 87 71 101 75 71 53 21 _6 1 1 1 15 16 28 42 35 I ( 4. I + 16% 1'4% 17% 14% 20% 15% 15% 11% 1% 0% I 11 i 3%i J 1 0% 14 6 34 4 4 42 0 3_ 0 2 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% i 0% 6% 7% 12% 18% I i ! 35 I 10__ I 14%_ 0 53 96 11 14% X 1% 0% 1% 0% 2% 1% 4% 3% 4% 2% I 1 i 8 5 11 8 9 46 31 28 29 21 31 33 21 1 1 4% 3% 2% 4% 4% 4% 2% 3% 13% I ! ._LI _ 11% i 12% i 11% ' 12% ' 13% i _t___ 5% I 1031210 012 0 2 674 I I ... j. . .. I I i1 I 0%_.^ 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1 0%. . 0% , _1% _0% 1% 2% 3% 1% Pafje f of 3 HALL HIGH SCHOOL 09 10 ' T tai i 413 i 389 i 11 272 12 221 I HENDERSON MIDDLE SCHOOL 06 180 07 1 189 08 I 183 MABELVALE MIDDLE SCHOOL I 1 06 168 I 07 i 152 08 I 148 MANN ARTS/SCIENCES MAGNET I 06 I 266 07 281 08 1 276 MC CLELLAN HIGH SCHOOL 09 I 309 I 10 I 356 11 I 216 t- 12 I 220 PARKVIEW ARTS/SCIENCE MAGNET [ 09 I 291 I 10 i 289 11 I 287 12 I 265 I M F M_ F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F _F M F M F M FM F M F T I 1 i I 4. 25 41 17 20 11 28 17 34 37 36 30 30 21 26 14 26 18 32 16 43 24 35 51 36 41 25 48 30 45 30 39 21 63 42 59 47 56 35 38 t I I I I T4 %lilac Q% 11% 4% 7% __4% 13% 8% 19% 21% 19% __16%. 16% _JL1% 15% 8% 17% 12% 22% 11% 16% _9%_ i o\u0026gt; I 91 I I I 14 23 18 15 6_ 19 7 1 9 1 i I 3% i 1 6%I 5_ 5 0%___j .1%___ 1 5% I 1% I 1 19 ' J. I 13 11 15 13 1 9 54 1 i J_ 44\n48 17% 70 12% 18% 13% 13% 8% 42 65 45 24 13% 10 8% 1 21% 14% 18% 10% 22% 14% 20% 16% 20% 12% 10 L 12 6 I 14% I 1 i 6%__ _ 2-/^ 9% 3% 4% 5% 10% 1 7% ' 6%_ : 4% _ 9% : 8% 5% 6% i 3% ! i I _3%_ : _ 17%__,i 4------- I rl\" I 53 54 63 43 61 37 57 -I 18% 25% _ 15% 24% 16% 1% 1% 3% 0% 5% 0% 5% 3% 18% 19% 22% 15% 21% i 13% I 22/^ 4 6 8 11 2 52 5 ! - - i 1 2/^ _ 4% 5% 1% 3% 1% , 3% I 6___ ^___3%___\n44 00 3018 6 5 6 92 0 04 0 021 19 3 11 5 8 5 5 ) ._2%__\n2% 0% 0% 2% 0% I I I 1% _ 3% . 2% 7.% 3% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 3% 1% 4% I I i _ 2% 3% _ 2% _ 2% ____ u PARI^EVLARIS/SCLENCEJ^AGNEL PULASKI HEIGHTS MIDDLE SCHOOL !I 12 06 265 : 255 ! I 07 I 247 i. i a I 0/ 08 230 SOUTHWEST MIDDLE SCHOOL 06 155 07 177 i I 08 112 M F M FM F M F M F MF M I X i ( 4- I I I Grand Totals: I 24 18 16 33 27_ 28 35 27 20 31 23 19 14 2838 i _9% 7% 6% 13% i i 11% i 12% 15% 17% 13% 18% I i 13% i 17% 13% 0 I 25 54 48 44 41 32 24 2 0 3 5 _1_ 1 4- I 9% 21% I 2288 I ! I 5 H------------------------- f- 19% I 18% 4- i 2% 42 I -I- 2% 17% 14% 10% 1% 0% 2% : 3%_\n1% j____ 1% 0 1 1 1 013 ' __1% ' _0% 0% 0% 0% , 1% , 2^^ __ 0_______ Q%_J 10 301 1% 0% 0 1 Pnte ? of Stuaent's that passed AP arPee-AP Courses for 1999-2000 by School, 2nd Quurter Tuesdayt April 18, 2000 CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL 09 525 I r 10 I 505 CLOVERDALE MIDDLE SCHOOL I I i II 11 12 06 07 08 DUNBAR INT'L STUDIES MAGNET MIDDLE SC J 06 1 1 07 1 08 499 473 264 231 228 233 238 L _252 I I h L. ( FAIR HIGH SCHOOL I 09 ! 262 FOREST HEIGHTS MIDDLE SCHOOL HALL HIGKSCHOOL Ct ._ ,1 10 ! 264 1 11 12 06 07 I 222 186 244 I k 245 t I I I I 08 257 ! 09 i 413 F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M JL M F M F M F M F M F M F M F MF ) I 1 I 65 26_ 93 51 \u0026lt;d7 39 116 43 185 121 162 84 .83 47 43 32 52 47 _55. 54 38 25 53 32 63 10 51 1 % Blacks 12% 5% _18%__ 10% 19% 8% 25% 9% ^0%__ 46% __ 70%. 1 36% 36% 21% 18% 14% 22% 20% 22% 21% 15% 10% 20% 12% 28% 5% 27% 231 + 44% i 177 I 34%. 278\n' 218 I 402 I i I i r i I I 247 179 168 9 5 20 1 4_ 3 29 39 43 68 52 57 26 17 5 19 22 20 9 I I i I 55% 43% 81% 49% 38% 36% 3% I 1 I 9% 1 0%. 43___: 43 20 ' 13 12 22 18 ?' 0 9 i %Other J 8%_ 4%___ i 3% , 2% 4% 4% 3% _3%_ 0% 4%. I 1 i ! I 4- I t i TiI i 49 26% 107 68 113 44 94 70 66 + 1 44% 28% 46% 18% 27% 16% E126_ 107 115 , I 95 92 96 41 I i I 2%_ 1% 12% 17% 18% 29% 21% 23% 10% 6% 2% 7% 10% 9% I 5%_ , _4% 52% _ 44% , 47% . 39% 36% 37% 10% 10 06 10 8 9 13 6 0 41410 04 8 01 14 22 6 I T I i I I __4%__ 0% 3% 4% 3% 4% _ 5%.. 12.%^ 1 I i I I i 1% _ 0% 2% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% _: 2% 3% _ 0% 3% 5% 9% 1% _________ ______ School HALL HIGH SCHOOL Grade TotaL iender i gZflrA: ! %Black ! fV/nte %fr/ute i OL %Otlier I HENDERSON MIDDLE SCHOOL II MABELVALE MIDDLE SCHOOL MANN ARTS/SCIENCES MAGNET MC CLELLAN HIGH SCHOOL PARKVIEW ARTS/SCIENCE MAGNET LRSD Information Service Dept. 09 10 11 12 06 07 08 06 07 08 06 07 08 1 09 I I 1 I I 10 11 12 09 10 11 12 I I I I I ! I I I I 413 389 272 221 180 189 183 168 152 148 266 281 276 309 356 216 220 291 289 287 265 - 1 1 I I I i I ri M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M JF M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F t i I ! I I I I i + I 34 66 16 27 15 41 20 125 120 94 59 75 51 104 35 87 42 106 50 137 _80_ 115 70 133 86 71 39 104 51 81 53 52 26 138 71 101 I+ 8%___ 41 17^ 4% 10% 6% 19% 9% 69% 67% 50% 31% j___41% I I I I 1 I 28% 62% 21% 57% 28% 72% 34% 52% 30% _ 62 45 24 12 30 20 33 17 61 25 42 22 55 49 31 41 21 8 t I I I 10% 1^ 12% 9% 4% 14% 9% 18% 9% 32% 13% ,__ 23% 157 . 192 J 41% I 265 25% 48% 31% 23% 13% 29% 14% 38% 25% 24% 12% 47% 24% 35% I I L I I I I I 85 I 29% 134 56 60 I 4- I 47% 20% 23% i 125 235 144 4 5 29 1 29 3 20 10 136 140 149 95 167 7Q 134 I I 12% 33% 29% 20% 27% 14% 5% 59% 72% 94% _ 44% 85% 52% 1% : 2% i i 8% 0% 13% 1%_ 9% 5% 47% 48% 52% 33% 58% 26% 51% I I I _) J 10 11 1 11 16 8 22 9 15 22 16 13 0 0 10 0 5 28 17 21 20 37~ 1 0 0 11 0 0 8 51 i I I I i 1 I I 0% 3% 3% 3%___ 3% 5% 7% 4% 12% 5% I I 8% _ 12%-. _ 22 10 42 15 37 __ 18 _ 13 9% 8% 0% 0% 7% 0% 3% 11% 6% 7% 7% 13% 3% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 4% 2% 0% 8% 3% 15% I I 1 5%-, 13% 6% 5% Pare 2 tif I 0/ 0. parkview ARTS/SCIENCE magnet PULASKI HEIGHTS MIDDLE SCHOOL I 12 06 ! 265 _ j 255 t- Q7 2^7 08 230 SOUTHWEST MIDDLE SCHOOL I 06 155 07 177 08 112 M F M F M F M F M F MF M T 33 59 39 91 59 75 106 93 64 67 46 51 30 I 12% 23% 15% 37%_ 24% 33% 46% 60% 41% 38% 26% 46% 27% i 49 r 234 I I 173 204 168 120 87 6 0 8 _8_ 0 4 1 1 Wil___IQ 92% 68% 83% 68% j 52% 38% 4% 0% 5% 1 i I i 5% 0%_ 1 4% 0 15 8 34 5 0 2 4 _4 0 + I 4% ! 0% 6% 3% 1% 2% 2% 0% 1% 2% 0% 4% 0% J ! i i I i Iage I Student's that passed AP at Pre-AP Cou, .esfor 1999-2000 by Sehool, 3rd Quarter Tuesday, April IS, 2000 __________________ SdianL CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL I 09 I 525 10 I 505 ____ F_ ____M_ LZX 11 I 499 12 i 473 CLOVERDALE MIDDLE SCHOOL 1 06 1 264 L 07 1 231 I 08 ! 228 IdUNBAR INT'L studies magnet middle sc 1 06 1 233 L 07 J 238 08 252 FAIR HIGH SCHOOL I 09 1 262 10 264 11 i 222 12 186 FOREST HEIGHTS MIDDLE SCHOOL I 06 1 244 HALL HIGH SCHOOL 1 1 07 1 08 I 09 1 245 257 413 I M F M F MF M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M FM F M F M F M F ! 1 j i i 82 3Z_ 88 47 89 38 106 43 181 126 144 69 101 66 50 35 59 55 _61_ 63 43 32 59 32 65 13 48 44 ^7 QI 111 49 93 63 65 1 1 %Rlacl\\ 16% 7% 17% 9% 18% 8% 22% 9% 69%. 48% 62% 30% 44% 29% 21% 15% 25% 23% 24% _ 25% 16% 12% 22% 12% 29% 6% __ 26% 24% 40% __ 2Z% 45% 20% 36% 25% 16% I I tb j 280 ! i 211 ^J62_4 I 219\nI 395 i 249 i 170 ' 159 i I iI I T -L 9 3 19 1 5_ 4 32 44 2,7 7Q 59 64 21 12 8 18 23 15 8 53% 40%. J 52% _ i 43% 50% 36% 34% I J7_ 46 21 13 11 23 16 11 I i i i 3%___ i 8 124 J 105 115 105 91 103 40 Jl%___ 8%_ 0% 2%__ 14% 19% 16% 32% 23%_ 25% 8% 5% 3% 7% 10% 7% 4% _4%_ 51 %_ 43% _ 47% 43% 35% 40% 10% T1 I I 2% _J _9'%___ 10 U _5___ 0___ 10 _ 0 68 10 i 15 ! 13___i I 6___ i. 4 __ 0 3151 0_ 0 _4 8 0__ 7 14 24 3 ! 4% 3% 2% 5% 3% 2% 4% I I i 0% _ 2%___ 0% 4% 0% 3% 3% 4% 6% 5% 2% _____ 0% 1% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% ...J I I 2% '3%__ J t 0% J r 3% 5% 9% 1% i I _____________ Sehaal HALL HIGH SCHOOL i Grade TotaL I 09 10 i 413 i 389 11 I 272 lender.-, M i F___ M____ F____ M __ 38 L I %Blnck White i %White i Ol 12 221 t i HENDERSON MIDDLE SCHOOL 06 180 07 I 189 08 183 MABELVALE MIDDLE SCHOOL 06 168 MANN ARTS/SCIENCES MAGNET MC CLELLAN HIGH SCHOOL PARKVIEW ARTS/SCIENCE MAGNET _ i I /n/e Sc 1 ( 07 08 06 07 i _ 08 09 10 11 12 09 10 11 12 I i ! 1 152 148 266 281 276 309 356 ' 216 I 220 291 289 ! 237 1 265 I t F M F M F M_ F M F M F M F M F _F_ M F M F M F M F M F M F MF M F M F I I 1 t + i t -i 67 18 31 16 44 21 127 126 94 52 84 45 Q7 36 86 42 100 54 131 _94_ 114 71 132 37 82 48 112 54 83 51 54 24 133 74 116 91 143 61 56 i I 1 i I i 9% 17% 5% 11% 6% 20% 10% 71% 70% 50% 28%_ 46% 25% 58% 21% 37% 28% 68% 36% 49%_ 35% 41% 25% 48% 32% 27% 16% 31% 15% 38% 24% 23% 11% 46% 25% 40% 31% 50% _21% 21% 1 I I 1 I I I iI 42__\n69__ I 36__ L 10% 2 ' %Other : I 0% 1 20 12 32 18 40 20 58 31 4 21 53 51 28 41 20 9 163 I I I iI 18% J% 7%_^ 4% 14% 8% 22^^ 11% 31% 16% 24% 11% 1 -L I ! 2Q1_^_ 255 i ' J 28 239 143 4 8 30 4- i 32% 30% 18% 27% 14% 6% 61%_ 76% 91% 46% 87% 52% I ._jt. _t_-J'_-_ i 1% 3%_ 8% _ I ' 0 0% 31 14%,_.. 3 21 8 141 131 150 93 162 73 121 II J_% 10% 4% 48% 45% 52% 32% 56% 25% 46% I- 4- 8_ il_ 9 11 10 15 15 19 9 12 22 16 13 0 0 7 0 5 28 20 ___2% %-___I T 1 iT i I I ! 21 _ 2Q_._,t 2,7 8 0 0 11 00 841 22 10 43 13 34 15 12 _3%___i 3% i 4% 5%^ 7% 8% 11% 5% JB% , 12% _ _9%___' 8% 0% 0% 5% 0% I 3%__ 4 _ 11J%-ZO. .------ 1\n_____8%_ _j I I 7% J 7%l_ -J 13% 3% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 4% I i 2% 0% I 8%\n3% 15% : _4% J2%__ _ 5% 5% X School PARKVIEW ARTS/SCIENCE MAGNET PULASKI HEIGHTS MIDDLE SCHOOL SOUTHWEST MIDDLE SCHOOL 1 I LRSD hiformafion Service Dent. Grade Total 12 06 Q7 08 06 07 08 I 265 255 2A,1 230 155 177 112 I Gender M F ___M F M F M F M F M F___ M Black I 31 54 44 37 60 79 110 92 66 67 4^ 47 28 1 %Black j White ! %White \\ Oh 12% } 48 i 18% 1 Oy I %Otlter, 21% 17% 35% 24% 34% 48% 59% 43% 38% 27% 42% 25% X i i i t 10 235 180 ' 207 165 119 84 4 0 1 1 0 4 I I ^2% 71% 84% 67% 52% 37% 3% 0% 4% 4% 0% 4% I 0 16 8 3 4 5 0 2 4 0 jL 0 4% 0% 6% 3%___ 1% 2% 0% 1% 0% ' I I 0% I IStudent's Enrolled in at Least One AP, PRr^-AP Course for 1999-2000 by Schoo., 4th Quarter Monday, April /7, 2000 1 CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL 09 I 525 h----- I 10 I 505 I 11 499 12 I 473 CLOVERDALE MIDDLE SCHOOL 1 06 j 264 I 1 07 I 231 08 [ I 228 DUNBAR INT'L STUDIES MAGNET MIDDLE SC 1 06 I 233 07 1 238 08 1 252 FAIR HIGH SCHOOL 09 I 262 FOREST HEIGHTS MIDDLE SCHOOL HALL HIGii^CHOOL 1 10 264 I I I 11 12 06 07 08 09 I I I I 222 186 244 245 257 413 1 I I F M F M F M F M F M F M F_ M F M F M F 1^ F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F I I -L i I 49 24 56_ 21 44 17 60 26 45 33 45 30 JO. 22 24 20 30 27 41 42 25 21 32 23 37 13 _31. 28 2,1 _25 42 21 52 45 42 %Rla 5% 11% I ,--------i I I I I I 5% 9% 3% 13% 5% 1 86_ 73 8^ 70 ! 0/ ! 1 I 102 : ' 80 ! 17% i 13%___L 19%_ i 13% I 13%J 10% 10% 9% 13% 11% _JI6% _ _17% _ I I ! 69 52 2^ 1 61 12 16 .17 29 43 36 35 16%_ 14% 17% 14% 20% 16% 15% 11% J% 0%_ _ 5_ ..15__ I T 0/ 1 I I I 3%__.. I I I i 0%_ 0% 1% 7% 7% 12% 18% I i I 14%. i 7 3 4 54 4 2 0 2 o 2 05 3 9 9 11 I I I I J%__j 3% 1%__ 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% I __1%_ - J 0% 1% 0% 2% 1% 4% 4% 4% I 4- -4- ! T I i 10% 8% 1 12% . 9% ' 17% , 6% i 17%_ J5% _ 15%__ 10%__ 17% 9% 21% 18% 10% I i io_4._ 8 6 11 8 84 1 32_ 29 28 29 31 32 22 I i II 14% 4% 3% 2/o 4% 4% 4% 2% 4% 13% 12% 11_% 12% ! 12% 12% 5% I___5_.t --'1 1 I 1 0 3 12 10 012 02 6 7 4 I -i I .2% J 0% ' 0% 1% 0% i 1% 0% ! 0% __ 0% I I _o%___\n1% 0% 1% 2/o 3% 1% % I ___________________School HALL HIGH SCHOOL Grade ' TotaL 10 I 413 389 i 11 I I 272 12 I 221 HENDERSON MIDDLE SCHOOL 06 1 I 180 07 189 08 I 183 MABELVALE MIDDLE SCHOOL 06 I 168 1 07 152 08 I I 148 MANN ARTS/SCIENCES MAGNET 06 266 I 07 I 281 i 08 276 MC CLELLAN HIGH SCHOOL I 09 309 10 I 356 11 216 12 220 PARKVIEW ARTS/SCIENCE MAGNET 09 I 291 LRSD Information Ser\\'ice Dept. 10 11 12 I I 289 287 265 tender F F___ _M___ F M F M F _ M___ _F___ _M_ - F M F M F _M___ F M F M F M F M F M __F__ M F M F M F M F M F Blak. 26 42 1L_ ' %RIack ! IVhite %n hite ' Oh. %Other j I 6% L 14 L 0% ! ! 11% 4^ 26 20 I 7% I i i I I I t I j 23__J__8%_ _____14_ 5% _\n5%__ 5 6 1% '4_n 11 27 19 35 40 35 33_ ^2 24 26 14 29 18 32 18 43 27 47 35 52 36 41 24 54 34 43 28 36 20 63 40 58 47 55 34 30 1 I i I 4% 12% 9% 19% 22% 19% 17% 17% J 3% 15% 8% 19% 12% 22% 12% I I I I t I 8 19 8 10 10 20 16 \u0026lt;4 8^ 15 15 7 10 5 5 I I I I 1 16% 46 10% 17% 12% 19% 13% 13% 8% 15% 10% 20% I i i 1 T I 13% I 16% 9% 22% 14% 20% 16% 19% I i I ( I 50 70 40 64 45 2 4 11 1 10 1 13 6 58 56 63 40 61 I I t I t t 1 I 3% 9% 4% 6% ----4---- i 6% 11% 8% 8% 4%_ 9% 9% 5% 7% 3% 3% I i 8_ 8 10 3 5 2 5 _ 6_ 4 4 0 0 3 0 1 2% J% 3% 4% 5% 2% 3% 1% 3% 3% 2% 2% 0% 0% 2% 0% I I 17% : 8 25% I , I\" 14%__! 26% 16% 1% 1% 3% O7o 5% 0% 6% 3% 20% 19% 22% i 14% i 12%__t 38 11% I 54 ! 21% 13% 20% _J% __3%._^ I I I r t 6 5 6 9 2 0 0 4 0 0 2 1 1 9 3 12 5 9^ 5 4 I i 2% 2% 2% 3% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0%_ 0% i I I _1%_ - 0% 0% 3% 1% 4% 2%_ _ 3% . 2% 2% Pane 2 of 3Schaal Grade. TotaL PARKVIEW ARTS/SCJENCE MAGNEL PULASKI HEIGHTS MIDDLE SCHOOL 12 06 07 08 I SOUTHWEST MIDDLE SCHOOL I 06 I 07 I 08 M5 255 247 230 155 177 [ 112 jGrand Totals: t 1 tender M___ F MF F MF MF M __ F M_ RIark \\ %Black White \\ %White \\ OL 21 17 17 30 27 28 36 26 21 31 23 19 16 2827 I i 8% 1% 7% 12% 11% 12% 16% 17% 14% 18% 13% 17% 14% 0 24__ L-9% 54 49 46 42 33 25 2 03 5 1 1 5 I %Other I I ! ! 2333 I 21%i 19% 19% 17% 14% 11% 1% 0% 2% 3% 1% I t I I i -t 04 _ 2 i 11013 01 0_ 311 I ___ 1_____ 2% 0% 2E/0 1% 0%. 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% I 1%\n0 - -L o%_ 1%__ 0%___ 0 I s i Student's that passed AP or Pre-AP Courses for 1999-2000 by School, 4th Qi^ter Monday, June 26, 2000 __________________School .CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL 09_ 525 87 I 10__ 505 I t 11 T 499 .. J___ 12 473 CLOVERDALE MIDDLE SCHOOL 06 264 DUNBAR INT'L STUDIES MAGNET MIDDLE SC FAIR HIGH SCHOOL FOREST HEIGHTS MIDDLE SCHOOL HALL HIGH SCHOOL LRSD Information Service Dept. L 07 1 231 [ 08 1 -228 06 ? 233 t L .07 238 I r r I 08 09 10 11 12 06 07 08 09 I 252 262 M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M . u. _264 222 186 244 245 1.^257 413 4 F.,..l. ! F M F M F M F M F M F ! 93 48 92 .1 33? / J 114 37 180 127 146 71 96 61 48 35 67 51 64 50 44 32 55 37 59 15 46 42 99 70 113 48 98 64 61 I. 7% 18% 10% 18% 7% 24% 8% 68% 48% 63% 31% 42% 27% 21% 15% 28% 21% 25% 20% 17% 12% 21% 14% 27% 7% 25% 23% 41% 29% 46% 20% 38% 25% 15% 222 i 264\nI. 214.4.... ! 381 ' L234\nI 168 j 159 9____ 4___, 14__, 0___ 5___ I j 4 - - I 3-4- 32 .4 42 37 77 60 37 20 13 9 17 24 17 9 7 128 103 116 101 Q7 37 38 I 42% 52% 42% 76% 47% 36% 34% 3% 2% 6% 0% 2% 1% 14% 18% 16% 32% 24% 27% 8% 5% 3% 6% 11% 8% 5% 4% 52% 42% 47% 41% 38% 38% 9% I I I J I 49 21 13 12 22 17 11 9 0 5 0 9 0 6 8 9 15 14 5 4 0 3 1 5 1 0 0 4 7 0 7 14 24 5 9% 4% 3% 2% 4% 4% 2% 3% 0% 2'^/0 0% 4% 0% 3% 3% 4% 6% 6% 2% 2% 0% 1% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 2% 3% 0% 3% 5% 9% 1% I 1 t -I I I I Page I of 30/ 0/ O' HALL HIGH SCHOOL 09 10 413 389 HENDERSON MIDDLE SCHOOL MABELVALE MIDDLE SCHOOL MANN ARTS/SCIENCES MAGNET MC CLELLAN HIGH SCHOOL PARKVIEW ARTS/SCIENCE MAGNET InfojWi 'Service Dept. JI L 272 [.-,7i2'J 221 I 06 07 08 06 I 180 189 183 168 07 J_152\n_ 08 _ 148 1 ZJJoeZL 266 I 07 I 281 Cos^Z ------------------ ------------------ i--------- 09 _ - 309 i 10 356 j2Z2 09 i '10 -11 L -12 216 220- i 291 289 231 Z 265 M F M F M F M F M F M F M F MF M F M F M F M F M J__ M F M F M t- --I-I -j. t F-.ZT M F M F M _F M F 38 72 23 33 17 47 20 124 121 Q7 58 72 ^7 103 38 88 45 101 59 129 91 107 64 134 84_ 78 45 110 52 Q7 46 53 22 133 76 99 78 145 59 60 .f... I L ! 9% 19% 6% 12% 6% 21% 9% 69% 67% 51% 31% 43% 26% 61% _ 23% 58% 30% 68% 40% 48% 34% 38% 23% 49% 30% 25% 15% 31% 15% 31% 21% 24% 10% 46% 26% 34% 27% 51% 21% i I 44 73 44 28 15 32 19 36 18 53 18 45 21 50 55 30 37 19 13 I -1- I ! i 167 j : 199 : 235 110 233 ! 142 : -i i 4 6 30 0 29 3 22 8 138 141 140 91 169 74 I I I 11% 19% 11% 10% 6% 14% 9% 20% 10% 28% 10% 25% 11% 30% 33% 20% 24% 13% 9% 63% 75% 84% 39% 84% 51% 1% 2% 8% 0% 13% 1% 10% 4% 47% f I 1 10 10 9 11 10 12 13 17 8 14 22 16 13 00 8 0 5 28 20 20 19 38 -i ? t 23% _^_121 _ 48% 48% 31% 59% 26% 46% I 0 0 11 0 0 6 4 1 22 11 43 14 38 18 0% 3% 3% 3% 4% 5% 5% 7% 9% 4% 7% 12% 9% 8% 0% 0% 5% 0% 3% 11% 8% 7% 7% 14% 3% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% I i 3% _ 2% 0% i 8% 4% 15% 5% 13% 6% 5% ' Page 2 of 3 ___ _______________ School-------------- PARKVIEW ARTS/SCIENCE MAGNET PULASKI HEIGHTS MIDDLE SCHOOL Grade TotalGendeL 12 06 265 255 I 0.7 L 247 1 I\"' 08 I 230Z J - J SOUTHWEST MIDDLE SCHOOL 06 155 I 07 177 r' 08 112 M F M F M F M F M F M F M Black. 30 52 41 85 61 81 106 93 69 64 41 47 32 %Rlack White %White 11% 52 20% ' 20% 16% 34% 25% 35% 46% 60% 45% 36% 23% 42% 29% 52 236 183 205 ! : 169 , I , t 89 3 0 7 9 0 4 ! 93% 17.^/o 68% 51% 39% 2% 0% 4% 5% 0% 4% I 'I ot^ 10 0 16 8 3 4 5 0 2 4 0 ___ 4 0 t %Other 4% 0% I 6% 3% 1% 2% 2% 0% 1% 2% 0% 4% 0% LRSD Information Service Dept. Page 3 of 3 DATA NOT AVAILABLE 3 JApril. 2000 1 LOCATION/DATE BOOKER___ BALE ____ BRADY ______ BADGETT______ MCDERMOTT _ CARVER BASELINE FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FRANKLIN GARLAND GIBBS CHICOT __ W^. HILLS JEFFERSON __ CLOVERDALE DODD_____ MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL _ KING____ ROCKEFELLER G. SPRINGS _ PUL. HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL ROMINE WASHINGTON WILLIAMS WILSON WOODRUFF MABELVALE TERRY FULBRIGHT WAXEFIELD WATSON ^NN____ DUNBAR FOR. HGTS. JR. PUL. HGTS. JR. SOUTHWEST HENDERSON 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 17 18 19 20 21 24 25 26 27 28 2 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 1 TOTALS 1 ______2 f 2' 3'1 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 113 12 2 2 2 1 f \u0026lt; 1 2 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 3 111 ~ ll 1 1 2 2 fl 3''l 1 1 fl '1 2 1 1 o, 1 11 1 1 5 1 2 1 1 X I 4,-' 2 . .. 12 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 112 14 2 4 1' T 3' 2 \u0026lt; 1 1 i 2 - 2 1 si ~ 2 I 1 1 1 1 1 4 2 1 3 3 3 2 2 4 2 1 r ' 1 2 1 1 3 2 12 I'f I _i_U 27 ' 2 4 1 1 3' 2 4 f 1 ' f 1 1 '5^ f 1 272 3 3 1 1 1 1^ '2 1 2 1 I T 4 1 1 3 1 2 3 1 1 3' f 1 1 3 21 i 3: 2 i___I 1'1 1 1 1, I i 2. I 21 T T 1 1 1 f l 3/li 4 1 273 3\"~3 ~2 Ti 1 2 1 2 4 1 2...... 2 2: T ! I 1^ 3 1 V\" 7 l'\" l\" 11^1 l' 2 2 1 1.^.. 7 , i f f . Ir ' 1: 1' i\n1 2j___ 3 i 2 1 i 1' 1 4 1 _f___ : 1 1 I 1 i 1 ' I , 2J 1 11 1_i Infill ' I ?.__ 2 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1- i 1i 1. II 1' 1 I. f I ' f r 2 I T + T I I I 1 7 2: ' 2 1 'f u T + I I 1 I II 1' 1: I I I li 31 I r 1 r r i' r 4' 1\n4| 3 1 3 1 3 10 3 1 3 5 4 4 2 1' f 7\"-7' 4 9'' 3^ i 112 1 2\\ f 2 3' 2:^^ f^2 1 2 6 2\" ' 51 2 6' 71 3' 3' 4i 4 2\\ i 1 2 1 ' 5 2 1 1 2 ! 1 3 , 2 2^ I 11 2 2 4 4- 2^ 1 3 ' 2 jr 3 31_I ~\"2~ f 1\" i 'll 3: 2i 1 6' 9, 3I 9^ 5f3T 3i f I I i .6 3 5 1 3 3i 1 3\nAL.C.___ CLOVERDALE JR. 1 MABELVALE JR. CENTRAL ____ HALL _ METRO PARKVJEW J. A. FAIR McClellan -t + T I T 4 T I I T T 20 1 1 17 1 15 17 _3 28 25 2 36 73 1 4 6 6 17 8 32 4 15 20 8 31 ' 1 IQ 11 \u0026lt;2 1 5 5 i is 75 _4Q 58 21 30 Z46 6 58 48 70 42 3^ 43 5~5 99 i 6| 4: I ! 2 4j I i l! ! I + I _ ! f ___ 3 2 7 7i 31 1 2 2 2 1, 71 I 21 6i 3\n12 11 f 4 2 3 3 4' f 3' 4 4 4 3. J 2 4. 1 1 i I I I 3 31 7' 31 I 1 1 1 4 11 4 3 2 16 3 1 4 2 4 2 2 2 2 3' 8' 5 1 ~1 3 1 1 , 21111 41 I ' 3 2\\ I i 1 r 1 \"r'TT 51 1,' 2'^1 1^^3 1 1 2' 1: I 3 I T 7li3'8\"5 l\"f ' ' 2* 9 2 1 2 ' 2i 2! I 51 4 2^ *' 372' I i 2 2 ^^5 J. I I t T 6 10 3 2 1' 4 6 6' T' 7\n8' 4,8? 61 3111112 Page 1MAY, 2000 LOCATION/DATE BOOKER 1 2 2 2 4 BALE BRADY_______ BADGETT MCDERMOTT CARVER BASELINE FAIR PARK FOREST PARK 1 1 2 FRANKLIN garland GIBBS_______ CHICOT W. HILLS JEFFERSON CLOVERDALE DODD MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL KING_________ ROCKEFELLER G. SPRINGS PUL. HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL ROMINE WASHINGTON WILLIAMS WILSON WOODRUFF MABELVALE JERRY_______ FULBRIGHT OTTER CREEK WAKEFIELD WATSON MANN_________ DUNBAR______ FOR. HGTS. JR. PUL. HGTS. JR. SOUTHWEST HENDERSON A.L.C.___________ CLOVERDALE JR. MABELVALE JR. CENTRAL HALL METRO PARKVIEW J. A. FAIR McClellan 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 5 2 1 2 4 2 1 2 2 2 4 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 4 7 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 4 2 2 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 1 6 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 6 2 2 2 5 4 7 12 i 8 9 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 4 1 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 5 10 11 1 12 2 1 2 15 16 17 18 19 2 1 2 1 22 1 2 23 24 25 26 1 30 31 TOTALS 2 2 2 2 2 2^ 2 2 1 1 4 2 2 2 2 1 4 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 4 2 1 4 1 1 4 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 1 1 2 4 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 3 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 3 2 2 2 1 8 2 1 3 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 4 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 4 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 4 1 1 1 2 T 2 4 1 1 2 3 2 2 4 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 5 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 5 2 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 5 4 4 3 2 4 6 2 2 5 1 2 2 1 1 1 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 2 2 9 1 4 2 4 3 4 Page 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 5 1 1 1 1 T 1 4 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 6 2 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 1 5 1 2 3 2 2 2 5 4 1 4 2 2 1 1 4 1 1 1 7 7 13 2 11 9 6 1 9 22 19 6 19 13 10 13 11 4 17 25 34 5 14 10 11 52 5 28 14 13 4 17 5 9 9 45 33 54 25 46 50 4 54 52 38 26 12 24 42 90 i 1 TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM APRIL 1, 2000 THRU JUNE 5, 2000 MONTH TOTAL 1 SCHOOL: MARCH APRIL MAY TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: LOO 6.50 1 50 9.00 SCHOOL: ACCELERATED LEARNING PROGRAMS MARCH APRIL MAY TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 0.50 4.00 5.00 9.50 SCHOOL: ADULT EDUCATION MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 12.00 43.00 57.00 7.50 119.50 SCHOOL: ALTERNATIVE AGENCIES J 1 APRIL TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 1.00 LOO SCHOOL: ALTERNATIVE LEARNING CENTER MARCH APRIl^ MAY JUNE TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: H.50 15^0 23 00 2.0^ 52.00 SCHOOL: BADGETT MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE 11.50 20.00 28.50 2.00 Thursday, June 29, 2000 Page 1 of 13R TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM APRIL I, 2000 THRU JUNE 5, 2000 MONTH TOTAL TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES\n62,00 JI SCHOOL: BALE MARCH 14.50 APRIL 24.00 MAY 35.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 73.50 SCHOOL: BASELINE OCTOBER 1.00 NOVEMBER 0.00 MARCH 19.00 APRIL 38.00 MAY 42.50 JUNE 1.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 102.00 SCHOOL: BOOKER FEBRUARY -0.50 MARCH 41 00 APRIL 69.50 MAY 107.50 JUNE 8.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 225.50 SCHOOL: BRADY MARCH 23.50 APRIL 33.50 MAY 35.50 JUNE 6.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 98.50 SCHOOL: CARVER MARCH 31.50 APRIL 80.00 MAY 69.50 JUNE 4.50 Thursday, June 29, 2000 Page 2 of 1311 TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM APRIL 1,2000 THRU JUNE 5,2000 MONTH TOTAL 1 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 185.50 SCHOOL: CENTRAL MARCH 81.00 APRIL 214.00 MAY 145.50 JUNE 10.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 450.50 SCHOOL: CHICOT MARCH 5200 APRIL MAY JUNE TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: SCHOOL: CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: SCHOOL: CLOVERDALE JR HIGH MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 82.00 80.50 9.00 223.50 34.50 63.00 79.50 12.00 189.00 50.50 65.00 107.00 1.50 224.00 I 1 1 1 SCHOOL: DODD t ( SEPTEMBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER 0.00 -1.00 0.50 MARCH 19.50 APRIL 29.50 MAY 31.50 Thursday, June 29, 2000 Page 3 of 13 TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM APRIL 1,2000 THRU JUNE 5,2000 MONTH JUNE TOTAL 2.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 82.00 SCHOOL: DUNBAR MARCH 56.50 APRIL 147.00 MAY 162.00 JUNE 8.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 373.50 SCHOOL: FAIR MARCH 52.00 APRIL 150 50 MAY 116.00 JUNE 12.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 330.50 SCHOOL: FAIR PARK MARCH 12.00 APRIL 27.00 MAY 29.50 JUNE 3.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 71.50 SCHOOL: FEDERAL PROGRAMS APRIL 5.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 5.00 SCHOOL: FOREST HEIGHTS NOVEMBER 0.00 DECEMBER 0.00 JANUARY 0.00 MARCH 54.00 APRIL 101.50 MAY 139.00 JUNE 18.00 Thursday, June 29, 2000 Page 4 of 13 TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM APRIL 1,2000 THRU JUNE 5,2000 MONTH TOTAL j r J TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 312.50 SCHOOL: FOREST PARK MARCH APRIL 23.00 34.00 MAY 68.50 JUNE 9.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 134.50 SCHOOL: FRANKLIN SEPTEMBER 1.00 MARCH APRIL 40.50 64.00 MAY 4900 JUNE 4.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 158.50 SCHOOL: FULBRIGHT MARCH 13.50 APRIL 36.50 MAY 58.00 JUNE 2.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 110.00 SCHOOL: GARLAND MARCH 22.00 APRIL 47.00 MAY 25.50 JUNE 2.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 97.00 SCHOOL: GEYER SPRINGS AUGUST MARCH 2.00 7.00 APRIL 31.00 MAY JUNE 36.50 1.00 Thursday, June 29, 2000 Page 5 of 13raACHER AVE ACCOimTABIUTV REPORT from APRIL 1,2000 THwIJne MONTH 5,2000 total teacher ABSENCES: total 73.50 I I i I I I I t SCHOOL: GIBBS FEBRUARY march APRIL May JUNE total teacher ABSENCES: 0.00 64.00 4_4.00 _ 1^0 156.00 SCHOOL: HALL march APRIL MAY JUNE total teacher ABSENCES: _^50 194.00 148.00 6.00 413.50 SCHOOL: HENDERSON march APRIL MAY JUNE total teacher ABSENCES: __21'50 94.50 11.50 240.00 SCHOOL: INSTRUCTIONAL MAY materials center total teacher ABSENCES: ^0 8.50 I I i SCHOOL: IRC march APRIL MAY J total teacher ABSENCES: 0.50 IP' 1.00 3.50 SCHOOL: JEFFERSON Thursday, June 29, 2000 Page 6 of 131 TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM APRIL 1,2000 THRU JUNE 5,2000 MONTH TOTAL MARCH 15.00 APRIL 25.50 MAY 20.50 JUNE 3.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 64.00 SCHOOL: M.L. KING JANUARY 1.00 MARCH 22.50 APRIL 33.00 MAY 68.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 125.00 SCHOOL: MABELVALE ELEMENTARY MARCH APRIL MAY 16.50 30.00 38.00 JUNE 6.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 90.50 SCHOOL: MABELVALE JR HIGH OCTOBER 0.00 FEBRUARY 0.00 MARCH 54.50 APRIL 90.00 MAY 101.00 JUNE 2.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 248.00 SCHOOL: MANN MARCH APRIL 50.00 121.50 MAY JUNE TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 135.50 8 50 315.50 SCHOOL: MATH Thursday, June 29, 2000 Page 7 of 13 TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM APRIL 1, 2000 THRU JUNE 5,2000 MONTH TOTAL APRIL MAY JUNE 6.00 1.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 0.50 8.00 I** SCHOOL: MCCLELLAN COMMUNITY HIGH SCH JANUARY MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES\n-7.00 74.50 153.00 185.50 19.00 425.00 SCHOOL: MCDERMOTT MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: J6.50 55.50 67.50 2.00 141.50 SCHOOL: MEADOWCLIFF MARCH 12.50 APRIL MAY TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 23.00 19.50 55.00 SCHOOL: METROPOLITAN MARCH APRIL 7.50 18.50 MAY JUNE TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 16.50 J?2_ 44.00 SCHOOL: MITCHELL MARCH APRIL MAY Thursday, June 29, 2000 29.00 33.00 36.50 Page 8 of 131 TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM APRIL 1,2000 THRU JUNE 5,2000 MONTH JUNE TOTAL 2.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 100.50 SCHOOL: OTTER CREEK MARCH 14.00 APRIL 47.00 MAY 68.00 JUNE 3.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 132.00 SCHOOL: PARKVIEW MARCH 87.00 APRIL 160.00 MAY 143.00 JUNE 20.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 410.00 SCHOOL: PULASKI HEIGHTS INT FEBRUARY 0.00 MARCH 13.50 APRIL MAY 35.00 29.00 JUNE 1.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 79.00 SCHOOL: PULASKI HEIGHTS JR HIGH FEBRUARY 0.00 MARCH 44.50 APRIL 72.00 MAY 102.50 JUNE 5.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 224.00 SCHOOL: PUPIL PERSONNEL MARCH 13.00 APRIL MAY 21.00 30.50 Thursday, June 29, 2000 Page 9 of 13TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM APRIL 1,2000 THRU JUNE 5, 2000 MONTH JUNE TOTAL 3.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 67.50 SCHOOL: READING MARCH MAY 0 50 2.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 3.00 SCHOOL: RIGHTSELL MARCH APRIL 20.50 39.50 MAY TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 20.50 80.50 SCHOOL: ROCKEFELLER MARCH 37.50 APRIL 42.50 MAY 49.50 JUNE 700 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 136.50 SCHOOL: ROMINE MARCH 48.50 APRIL MAY 46.50 31.50 JUNE 4.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 130.50 SCHOOL: SCIENCE/ENV ED MARCH 3.00 APRIL 24.00 MAY 2.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 29.00 SCHOOL: SOUTHWEST Thursday, June 29, 2000 Page 10 of 133 1 TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM APRIL 1, 2000 THRU JUNE 5, 2000 MONTH TOTAL MARCH 35.50 APRIL 44.00 MAY 82.50 JUNE 5.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 167.00 SCHOOL: SPECIAL EDUCATION MARCH 20.50 APRIL 31.00 MAY 41.00 JUNE 7.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 100.00 SCHOOL: TERRY MARCH 20.00 APRIL 35.50 MAY 51.50 JUNE 4.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 111.00 SCHOOL: VOCATIONAL EDUCATION MARCH 10.00 APRIL 27.00 MAY 11.00 JUNE 0.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 48.50 SCHOOL: WAKEFIELD OCTOBER 0.50 MARCH 15.00 APRIL 31.00 MAY 27.50 JUNE 1.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 75.00 SCHOOL: WASHINGTON MARCH Thursday, June 29, 2000 45.50 Page 11 of 13. .2 TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM APRIL I, 2000 THRU JUNE 5, 2000 MONTH TOTAL -J* APRIL 51.50 MAY JUNE 65.00 5.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 167.00 SCHOOL: WATSON MARCH 19.50 APRIL 19.00 MAY 37.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 76.00 SCHOOL: WESTERN HILLS MARCH 12.00 APRIL 19.00 MAY 27.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 5800 SCHOOL: WILLIAMS MARCH APRIL 36.50 66.00 MAY 42.50 JUNE 4.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 149.00 SCHOOL: WILSON MARCH 23.50 APRIL 27.00 MAY 33.00 JUNE 4.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 87.50 n ti SCHOOL: WOODRUFF MARCH 10.00 APRIL 25.50 MAY 35.00 Thursday, June 29, 2000 Page 12 of 13 TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM APRIL 1,2000 THRU JUNE 5,2000 MONTH TOTAL TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 70.50 GRAND TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 8,613 50 Thursday, June 29, 2000 Page 13 of 13Little Rock School District Pupil Services Department July 18, 2000 JUL 1 fe MEMO TO Selected Central ^Office Administrators FROM: Jo Evelyn El! ifbirector of Pupil Services SUBJECT: 1999-2000 Dropout Report Attached is the revised and final dropout report for the 1999-2000 school year. As you will note, there has been a measurable decrease in the annual dropout rate over the last three years. Our greatest challenge is to put in place accounting procedures and trained staff that can insure the integrity of the data. We will be working toward that end this school year. L1ST QUARTER DROPOUT REPORT 1999 - 2000 SCHOOLS ACC LEARN 8th Grade 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade % lENROLLMENT | BM | BF | WM | WF | HM 1 HF | OM | OF [TOTAL DROPOUTSi 205 1 10 61 53 80 -GENTRALj 1 2\u0026lt; 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 2 ' 0 0 1 1 0 y 1^?? 0 0 1.6% 1.9% 0 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade % 8th Grade 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade %. HALL- 8th Grade 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade % MCCLELLAN. 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade % PARKVIEW 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade [ 12th Grade % TOTALS, 2045 517 _ 518 536 474 ^55y^y 1 264 270 233 187 .. , 1S.\n\u0026lt;- S-O'-'- yOtj \u0026lt; I - ' OS 2 4 4 5 0.73 3 3 3 6 0.73 5 0 0 3 0.4 1 0 5 1 0.3 6 0 0 0 0 0 1391 2 439 398 315 237 1192 332 384 249 227 T?l57S-\u0026lt;' 287 293 295 282 6945 0 3 18 9 4 3.6 0 8 10 7 12 21 48? 6 18 6 18 4 0 5 8 7 3 2.4 0 3 3 4 1 1.2 0 1 2 2 1 0.6 0 11 6 7 7 2.2 0 5 1 4 4 1 .34\u0026lt; - 12 11 3 8 2.9 --O\"?: .'T 0 0 0 0 0 136 2 1 0 0 0 0.09 104 1.5 1 2 2 1 0.5 1 0 0 0 0.09 40 0.6 0 5 4 2 5 1.2 3 4 1 1 0.8 0 1 1 0 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0.2 0 0 0 1 0.08 0 1 0 0 0 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 o7 1 0 0 0 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 \"o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.07 V 46 11 7 12 16 0 13 32 22 9 0 32 22 20 30 1 1 0 0 0.17 '\u0026lt;''O.S?'rO,\u0026amp;\u0026gt;: :2.2%\n2.1% 1.4% 2.2% 3.4%, 0 5% 12%. 9.4% 4.8%. 0 7.3%, 5.5%. 6.3%, 12.7% t f r I 0 0 0 0 0 38 5.5 0 0 0 0 0 6 0.09 0 0 0 0 0 \u0026lt;: 1 0.01} 0 0 0 0 0 4 0.06 0 1 0 0 0.08 1 0 0 0 0.09 3 0.04 101 7 23_____ 37 12 29 3 0 0 0 332 Revised 7/12/00 Page 1\n8.5%^ 6.9% 9.6% 4.8% 12.8% o\n37K 1% 0 0 0 4.87o i I ! L 1j SCHOOLS ALT LEARN, 7th Grade Sth Grade 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade % L, f- L t L I 1ST QUARTER DROPOUT REPORT 1999 - 2000 lENROLLMENT | BM | BF | WM | WF | HM | hP | OM | OF |TO7AL DROPOUTS\" 63 i 1 0 1 0-0 0 0 '3 J____ 8.' ______ 17 ______ 19 ______ ______ 1_ 1 \"1 I 0 0 01 0 0 1.6 0 0 01 0 0 1.6 0 0 0 00 0 0 i(ai0E8BAt^ Sth Grade 7th Grade Sth Grade % aatiNBAR : 6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade % F^fegStHTS\" Sth Grade 7th Grade Sth Grade %\nhender$oO Sth Grade 7th Grade Sth Grade % .WiBEia/AliS 6th Grade 7th Grade Sth Grade % v'MANN Sth Grade 7th Grade Sth Grade % A*' 6th Grade 7th Grade Sth Grade SOUTHWEST Sth Grade 7th Grade Sth Grade % TOTALS \"ISISTRIST TOTALS- 251 241 213 4 6 6 2.3 2^9? 240 239 260 248 257 280 01 0 0.14 5i: 1 0 4 0.8 j55a?ss.ta-~^ 183 192 176 494y 172 165 157 2 3 1 1.1 laii 0 0 1 0.2 i 32 1 0.85 100 0.14 6e 3 03 0.8 2 0 1 0.54 1 0 0 0.14 000100 1.6 sK-.\n121 0.56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 010 0.14 'Oy-'-t V 'O' ? 0 00 0 1 0 0 0.14 'te. J- 6 03 1.1 2 1 4 0.9 5 .. \u0026lt;\n\u0026lt; 1 3 1 0.9 2 2 0 'W^O: 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 ___S42j3. 270 291 281 -^..76O-. 262 253 245 447 150 179 118 5388 0 z Q 0 00 0 - 12331 0 0 0 0 00 00 0 02 01 1 0.28 'O\n.' 0 0 0 0 O^V 1 0-7 I 0 00 0 .'Qi: 0 00 0 1 0 0 0.13 ',\\G\" 010 0.2 0 \u0026lt; 0 0 0 0 jQ/Si'SSO' 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 1 0 0 0 0 30 0.6 166 1.3\n0 01 0.2 18 0.3 122 10.98 0 000 0 : 0 00 0 IS 0.27 0 0 0 0 ~~y 'r~o~ 0 0 0 0 0 00 :0:. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W\" 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 lO.57r--0 0 0 0 0 18 0.3 0 0 0 0 1 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0\n45\n56 I 0\n45 7 0.06 Revised 7/12/00 0 0 0 0 0 00 jo^ on 0 0 0 Ov 0 0 0 0 0- 0 0 0 0 0| 10 I 0^ 0 3 0.06 4 0.03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000\n0 0 0 0 \"oi 0 00 0 0 00 ^5. 0 01 0.2 0 00 0 0 00 0 00 00 0 00 00 2 0.04 6 0 05 0 00 30 0 301 9 12 9 3\n 21 0 13 1 14 ?'-' 7 93 0 \"o J_____ 2 % 0 00 17.6% 00 42% 3.6% 5% A.-Z'k 0.8% 0.4% 0 OWSfi: 5.2% 0.4% 5% 3i40%v 3,8% 4.7% 1.7% 0 0 0.6% 1.3% 00 0 0 0 0 00 Or-: 0 0 00 0 0 3 0.02 0 0 0 0 0 SQ 0 0 0 0 01 87 419 0 0 0 0.20%.- 0 0 0.8 7l.6% .3.4% L L R SCHOOLS alt learn\" 7th Grade Sth Grade 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade % I r 2ND QUARTER DROPOUT REPORT 1999 - 2000 IENROLLMENT I BM I BF I WM I WF I HM I HF I OM I OF (TOTAL DROPOUTS j --------------------------1/- 7 -7: 0 0 0 0 1 0 1.6 .CLOWERPAUE Sth Grade 7th Grade Sth Grade % rjisailNBAfe 6th Grade* 7th Grade 8th Grade % 7/63- 8 17 19 17 1 1 6th Grade 7th Grade Sth Grade % 705 251 241 213 -73958^.- V- 240 239 260 785^\n248 257 280 jHENBERSQM . -^ '551 6th Grade 7th Grade Sth Grade % 183 192 176 WBELVALE - 6th Grade 7th Grade Sth Grade % SiaWN-S Sth Grade 7th Grade Sth Grade % WLASKI HTS 6th Grade 7th Grade Sth Grade .7 /.494a 172 165 157 ' 642ag^ 270 291 281 760 - 262 253 245 0 0 3 2 0 1 9.5 0 0 0 0 ?4 7 0 0 1 3 0 0 6.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 I 12 0 0 0 1 0 0 1.6 0 c_ 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 /03\n0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 6 1 1 7i 19%: 0 0 21.1% 35.3% 100% 100% 0 __1_ 0 0 vQJS 0 0 0 0 ZE 0 0 0 0 To 0 0 0 r^.Q\n7~o 0 0 0 0 ~~6~^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \u0026gt;0\n,^-. 0 \u0026lt;-.^v:. ''Qy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 ' b-O ' '0- 0 I 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0\n Q: - 0 0 0 0 .o 0 0 0 0 .. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 jO'iS\" 0 0 0 0 0. 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6th Gracie 7th Grade Sth Grade /o TOTALS .district tTOTAli s\nss 150 179 118 5386 0 0 0 0 6 0.11 0 0 0 0 4 : 0\n07 12331 33 0.27 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 iO\n. : .. - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \u0026lt;0 : '0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . oy 0 0 0 0- 0 0 0 0 o* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OO 0 0 0 0 0\n.:\nw 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ay-i?'-'Dai\u0026gt; ?\"0gg*':Q\n0 0 0 0 -J , 0.02 8 0.06 0 0 0 0\ni\n.1 0.02 4 0.03 0 0 0 0 \"o 1 0.01 Revised 7/12/00 Page 2 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .\n./0\n 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 84 0 0 0 0 0 0 0357 r 0.7%\n3Rb QUARTER DROPOUT REPORT 1999 - 2000 Schools i enrollment | bm | bf | wm i wf I hm | hf i om | of total dropouts! % ---- --- :fl.\n Oa/\n. A/ ^ACe^rB^RN Sth Grade 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade % CENTRAL 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade % Sth Grade 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade EIALL\nSth GradT* 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade % MGGLELLAN 9th Grad~ 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade 'k PARKVIEW 9th Grad^ 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade y. TOTALS .205 1 10 61 53 80 517 518 536 474 955 1 264 270 233 187 -1391a 2 439 398 315 237 332 384 249 227 1457\n2Q1 2Q3 295 282 6945\n \"ffl. 0 0 0 0 0 0 .7a 1 3 3 0 0.3 0} 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 fl 0\n-\u0026gt; 1 1 0 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 2 0.43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 I 0 0 0 1 0.1 .\nfl .\n. 0 0 0 0 0 0~l 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.05 0 0\n0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' fl.\nv \u0026lt; Q. \u0026lt; \u0026lt;1\n-- 0 0 0 fl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 1 4 _fla 0 0 0 0 0 20 0.3 0 1 1 1 2.9 0 0 0 0 0 4 0.06 0 0 0 1 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 .3-\n\u0026lt;.- 0.04 0 0 fl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0^ 0 fl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \u0026lt; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X'fl : 0 0 fl 0 0 - 'W-af 1 4 5 1 fl\nS%5 0.2%. 0.8% 0.9% 0.2%) { 0 0 0 1 0 0.07 0 0 0 0 1 0.07 0 0 0 0 0.8 0 0 0 0 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0\n 0 \u0026lt; 0 0 0 0 0 1 0\n01 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.03 Revised 7/12/00 Page 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \n~0~ 0 0 0 0 0 vQ. 0 0 0 0 0.17 0 0 0 0 0 -fl\n.- 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.08 .fl - 0 0 0 0 0 0 5i 0 0 0 0 0 B\n0 0 1 4 3 W-' 0 0 0 0 L6% \u0026gt; 0 0 0.25%. 1.3%. 1.3%. L. f 6 5__________ 3__________ 3 0 1.3% 1.2% 1.3%. [ 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 0.43%3RD QUARTER DROPOUT REPORT 1999 - 2000 SCHOOLS ~ 7th Grad^ Sth Grade 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade % CEqVERSALE r Sth Grade 7th Grade Sth Grade % DUNB/^ Sth Grade' f 7th Grade I Sth Grade % I ] ENROLLMENT | BM | BF | WM | WF I HM | HF | OM I OF [TOTAL DROPOUTS | ...............r.II 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 wRfesgm^^ 6th Grade 7th Grade Sth Grade % HENPfeRSGN Sth Grade 7th Grade Sth Grade % Sth Grade 7th Grade Sth Grade % MAhIN\nSth Grade 7th Grade Sth Grade % SULASKIMFSi 6th Grade 7th Grade Sth Grade % SdUTHWE^T Sth Grade 7th Grade Sth Grade % TOTALS .!:%^ '--Si DISTRICT..',- TOTALS i%. % i^: 8 17 19 17 1 1 xiSTW? 251 241 213 240 239 260 a\n785\u0026lt; 248 257 280 551- 183 192 176 494: 172 165 157 270 291 281 . 760 262 253 245 447 150 179 118 S386 '\ni- 12334 0 0 0 1 0 1 33 .. Bi i 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1.6 i\u0026amp;s. - 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 -','a0T' 0 0 '. ' Oa 0 0 0 2^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .:O-.Y \\ . 0 0 0 O'i-, Oi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \u0026gt;0:\n^ 0 ___ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ^a!Bii^A,\\!B.Ai 0 0 0 0 \"iO B'\n0 0 0 0 :\u0026lt;:\u0026lt; \"\"o 0 0 I 0 2 0.04 0 0 0 ~0~^ : -Oii 0 0 0 0 \"\"T\" 0 0 0 0 1 0.02 11 0.18 S 0\n04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 : \u0026lt;- ^OSa - 0\n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0S?.-aOR-a'0 0 0 0 0 aOa. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ./O.iA -J3 -OsA. 1 0 0 1 0 1 12.5% 0 0 5.9% 0 100% 0 0 0 0 Qi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OB . Oa\n-a^Oa 0 0 0 aO- . .B.i 0 0 0 0 0:SA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O' 0 0 0 i .r A\" O' i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . \u0026lt;4. 0 0 0 0 og 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0.02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \n0? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a\n0 ~0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 w 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0.008 3 0.01 Hevised 7/12/00 Page 2 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AOfc .: 0 0 0 0 Q..:^- . -Ow\n' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -OS OA 0 0 0 0 Os 0 0 0 .^iO. 0 0 0 S*' 0 0 0 0 'Os:\n\"o 0 0 Oi'.\n0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O\ns 0 0 0 0 a.-'-\n-.O.--.* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A.:.. :!} 0 0 0 \"\"5 0 0 0 3 0 o' 0 7 33 0 0 0 Qi 0 0 0 1 O\n06% 03% AGC LEARN . 4TH QUARTER DROPOUT REPORT 1999 - 2000 lt=igR6LLMfeNt bM | BN Wwi | Wf I HM I Hf I om I 6P TCTaL uropouts\nO O\n?\n'\"Q. '' ' Sth Grade 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade % r GBNTRAL3\" 9th Grad*^ 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade % T\"\nF\u0026gt;MR Sth Grade 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade % Sth Gradd 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade %, .205 1 ____1 ___ 6 53 80\na:'2045\n517 518 536 474 . .9^ r 1 264 270 233 187 T:3Sa,,,r..\n2 439 398 315 237 0 o\n- 0 0 0 MCCLELLAN 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade % 1192'\n332 384 249 227 0 0 0 0 0 . 'li 0 0 1 0 0.05 O ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 __2^ 0 0 0 0 2 0.14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0' 0 0 2 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 It'. 0 0 1 0 0.05 Q-S'/' '0:=g\u0026lt;- Or- 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0 0 0 0 0 0 - o. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r\nQ 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r.rm..,...:-r.rtgS 0 1 1 0 1 0.2 ,'t 1\n0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 r*o~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0\u0026lt; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0\n1f:\u0026lt; .,:.0rg. ' Or 0 0 0 1 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LZl 0 0 0 0\n0 r . \u0026gt;Q 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 _0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 'Qr-\nr\\r 0 0 0 0 0 .... -36\n0 1 1 0 4 ^RARKVIEW 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade % TOTALS \"% 1157 -- 2S1 293 295 282 6945 - 0-v.y.Q: il 0 0 0 0 0 3 OJO4\n0 0 0 0 0 6 0.09 ( '\n W^Q=..- r\n-'O\n?\n. O' 0 0 0 0 0 \"/1 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 - -I'^-r 0.01\n0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0\nr\n0j-. 0 0 0 0 0 0 . Pit.. 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 : 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 _0___ 0 2 - 'rO-\n'\n..\n0 0 0 0 12 Revised 7/12/00 Page 1\n0 0 0 0 0 0\n.Q.2%vj 0 0 0.7% 0 or 0 0 0 0 0 '0^% i 0 0.2% 0 0.0% 1.7% 02%' 0 0 0 0.9 0 0 0 0 0.2% I ! I I ! [ I I SCHOOL^ \"\" 7th Grade Sth Grade 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade % 4TH QUARTER DROPOUT REPORT 1999 - 2000 ieMR6LLW5Mt | biiA I | wini | hm j Ht= I dm of [total dropouts | . ' 4-\"~ 0 -iO 0 0 -0 -0 - . 4 - S%\u0026gt;-? r 1 n n\"-^ n o 0 0 6 12^ 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CLQVERBALE 6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade 6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade % FOREST HTS 6th Grade 7th Grade Sth Grade % HENDERSON 6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade % 17 19 17 1 1 705\n251 241 213 240 239 260 765 248 257 280 -551 183 192 176 0 1 2 0 0 9.5 oy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.6 0 0 0 0 0 1,6 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 5.3% 11.8% 0 0 0 ?-: -fe 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rr 0 0 0 ifw:- WiBEia/ALE- . ....--W-IW? Sth Grade 7th Grade Sth Grade % -iTtflANN\n-\nSth Grade 7th Grade Sth Grade % 172 165 157 842 270 291 281 r'ii 0 0 0 0 0 0: :.. 0 ja 0 0 0 0 iO , 0 0 0 0 0, :?'\n,0 0 0 0 0 s^B ~ ~0~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .,)\n0 0 0\n-0 ? 'O^W\nPULASKPHTS 6th Grade 7th Grade Sth Grade % 760 262 253 245 SOUTHWEST 6th Grade 7th Grade Sth Grade % TOTALS DtSTRtCT ^totals/ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - iQVjfi 447ig..\n150 179 118 5386 12331 0 0 0 0 3^ 0 0 0 0 4 0.07 7 0.06 0 0 0 0 0 0 :fS0.S\u0026lt;.' 0: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~w 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O7 0 0 0 0 71 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \"cT 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 \"7^ 0 0 0 0 ITS* 0 0 0 0 -Ba:\n. ?0.\u0026lt; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -c. fe 0 0 0 0 7 7 1 0.01 0 0 0 0 7 7 4 0.01\n\u0026lt;- -sO,\n0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 Si- 0\n0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \u0026lt;0/ 0 0 0 0 0 lO 0 0 0 0 Dj 0 0 0 0\nO\n0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 'Qr?'. \u0026lt;-0\n0 0 0 0 \n'- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 1 0.01 Revised 7/12/00 Page 2 0 -.0\n.\n0 7 0 0 . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0________ 0 0 . 0- 0 0 0 77 0 0 0 4 16 5= 0 0 0 0.1% 0.13%\n41 LYEARLY DROPOUT REPORT 1999 - 2000 AGC'LEARN? sth Grade 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade ^205\" 1 10 61 53 80 ' ff % CENTRAL- S^?? 9th Grade lOth Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade % S-jai-- Sth Grade 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade /o HALLa.^ sth Grad^ 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade % MGGLELIWa- 9th Grad^ 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade % 2045 . - 517 518 536 474 955\n1 264 270 233 187 . 1391 2 439 398 315 237 1192' 332 384 249 227 .25.,\n0 0 10 7 8 12.2 26 3 8 8 7 1.27 31 0 1 7 10 13 15 31.7%s 0 0 3 2 1 2.9 0 0 0 2 1 1.5 3 5 5 6 0.9 0 3 18 9 4 3.6 0 5 8 7 3 2.4 5 0 1 4 0.5 0 3 3 4 1 1.2 '46i-.-\u0026lt;36\"'-,: .15 0 8 11 10 17 3.3 ^-\n5.' 6 22 8 19 4.6 PARI^IEW 1157 %?\"- -9- 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade 287 293 295 282 'k TOTALS 6945 0 0 0 0 0 186\n2\n7 0 13 7 9 2.6 38\n12 12 4 10 3.2 \" 1 1 0 0 0 0.09 148 2.1i 0 5 1 4 5 1.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 '\u0026lt;1. 1 i 0 0 6 1 0.4 0 1 0 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 20 21 23 12 13 21 19 0 1 2 2 1 0.6 0 5 4 3 5 1.2 0 1 1 0 0 0.2\n-4ii\n0 1 1 1 1 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 \u0026gt; .1.i 0 1 0 0 0 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 0 1\\\n0 1 0 0 0 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.07 0 13 32______ 22 9 3 -121 ,\u0026gt;\u0026lt; 0 34 24 25 38 8 9 ' * 3 1 2 2 3 0.7 3 4 1 1 0.8 1 . 0 1 0 0 0 0.09 51 0.73 0 0 0 1 0.08 5C' 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 43 0.62 0 0 0 0 8 0.12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 1 1 0 0 0.17 o 0 0 0 0 TH Ji 0 1 0 0 0.08 1 0 0 0 0.09 3 23 42 15 34 0.061 0.04 Revised 7/12/00 Page 1 0 10% 32.8% 39.6% 28.7% 2.3% 2.5% 4% 4% V/. 0 4.9% 11.8% 9.4% 4.8% !\n8i7%- 0 8% 6% 8% 16% 6.9% 10.9% 6% 15% '\u0026gt;/3ji'4^,SS?\nSK:\u0026gt;sWf 3 0 0 0 444 4 t. i J 1% 0 0 0 r I 6.4% r SCHOOLS iLT\nLEARN . VEARLY DROPOUT REPORT 1999 - 2000 I^NRQLLtobtjt I few I bF I wM I WF I hM I HF I OM I OF |TOTAL DROPOUTS | r L p 7th Grade Sth Grade 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade % clqverbale\nsth Grade 7th Grade Sth Grade %\nDONBAR-~ 6th Grade 7th Grade Sth Grade % FORESTHTS 6th Grade 7th Grade Sth Grade % HENDERSON: 6th Grade 7th Grade Sth Grade % MAbfeLVALET Sth Grade 7th Grade Sth Grade % MANN 6th Grade *7 7th Grade Sth Grade % RUtASKI HTS- 6th Grade 7th Grade Sth Grade % SOUT-Ht^Sf Sth Grade 7th Grade Sth Grade % % biSTRicT\" .gf TOTALS .A\n63^ 8 17 19 17 1 1 705 251 241 213 7^. 240 239 260 785 248 257 280 551-: 183 192 176 494 172 165 157 13a-\n-'6-3 1 0 4 6 0 2 1 0 1 4 0 0 20.6 1 9.5 0 0 0 0 1 0 1.2 4 6 6 2.3 V -I\n0 1 0 0.14 3 2 1 0.85 1 0 0 0.14 1 0 0 0.14 1 0 4 0.64\n .6.' 2 3 1 1.1 'ri'.' 3 0 3 0.76 .3 2 0 1 0.54 'M2~ 270 291 281 -' .^760\n262 253 245\n447i' 150 179 118 5386 12331 0 0 1 0.2 ZZ5Z 0 0 0 0 Tgg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :.a0:\n0 0 0 0 .'B\n0 0 0 42 0.8^ -10\n2\n0 0 0 2 0 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 q 0 0 1 2 1 0.57 tzo 0 0 0 0 0 0.14 22 0 1 0 0.14 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 5 12 1 2 25% 0 26.3% 70.6% 100% 200% .0.'\n' 0 0 0 0\n'0- 0\n0 0 0 0 0.S.\n'\n7\n-p---!0S:V\u0026lt; -1 ' 6 0 3 1.15 1 3 1 0.9 w 0 0 0 0 \"o 0 0 0 2 1 4 0.89 -.4$ 2 2 0 0.73 0 0 0 0.2 0 0 q 0 1 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 .. 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0\n. -iB\n0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -W'- 0 0 0 0 0: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0\n0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.18 0 0 1 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rt3B,. 9 12 9\ni3 2 1 0 13 1 14 IB..\n7 9 3 3 0 1 2 40%a 3.6% A.'SPk P.2.% 0.83% 0.4% 0 3.6% 2 5.2% 0.39% 5%\n3i4%\n' 3.3% ' 4.7% 1.7% 0 0.6% 1.3% 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.2 0.42 171 114 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0\n B . 0 g-- 0 0 0 0 16 0.29 0 0 0 0 19 : 0.35 0 0 0 0 -\n1: ? 0\n02\n0:54\n62 00 9 0.07 flevised 7/lZ/OO Page 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0\n0i 0 0 0 0 ZE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Sr\u0026gt;- 0 0 0 o 0 . 0 Wg 0 0 0 -02%\n0 0 0 0 3'3r 0.05 4 0.03 0 0 0 0 ,..2\n-\n0.04 6 0105 0 0 0 0\n0--:\n0 0 1 106 7- 0.02 550 * 0 0 0.8% 2% 4^46%:Sc^l-..\u0026gt;?r.:, Central Fair Halt McClellan Parkview ALC ACC BubfoA Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Hendereon Mabelvala Mann Magnet Pulaski Heights Southwest 1999-2000\nEnrohmerit 2045 956 1391 1192 1157 63 205 705 739 785 551 494 842 760 447 ^Black^. ff^lta' Hispanic Other - 45 57 82 93 1 19 56 22% 6% 8.9% 7.8% .09% 30% 27.3% -353 5% 22 2 11 9 1 1 18 17 32 17 1 3 9 3.1% .9% 1 8% 2 3% 1.4% .1% 1 2 5 1 .5% .2% .4% .08% 0 1 2 3 1 4 8% 4.4/ 5 .7% .06% 0 .1% .3% .1% .3% 1 .1% 1.4% 16 2% 0 0 1.6 9 1.6% .2) 1 .2% 0 0 0 0 3 1 .4% 0 .1% 0 0 0 0 .2% 0 0 0 0 DROPOUT REPORT Three Year Comparison By Race 1998 -2000 ,1998-1999 11997 -1998 ' QrofMuia 65 76 121 114 3 22 66 3.2% 8% 8.7% 9.6% .3% 34.9% 31.7% Enrolment Stack . r . White Other Dropouts . Enrollments\n.l^iack White Dropoute 1885 728 783 871 933 71 144 8% 28 2% 1 .5% 173 9% 1855 162 9% 55 3% 6 .3% 223 12% 67 8% 22 3% 1 .1% BO 11% 767 101 13% 19 3% 1 .1% 121 18% 63 8% 13 2% 3 .4% 79 10% 790 78 10% 18 2% 8 1% 104 13% 111 13% 8 30 9 1% 3 .3% 123 14% 935 120 13% 14 1% 4 .4% 138 15% .6% 11 1% 0 0% 17 2% 911 5 .5% 3 3% 0 0% 8 .8% 42% 2 2.8% 1 1.4% 33 46.5% 16 6 37.5% 0 0% 0 0% 6 37.5% /7'\n^,1* 466 8.8% \u0026lt; 5251 4117.814 iai vk 109 19 : .4% 596 11% 1 0 0 0 .2% .2% 0 0 0 30 3 28 19 3 0 0 1 4.3% .4% 3.6% 3.4% .6% 0% 0% .2% 603 755 779 603 500 840 770 431 39 12 16 18 12 1 8 17 6% 10 2% 3 5% 52 9% 622 45 1 1% 4 .6% 56 9% 2% 2% 3% 2% .1% 1% 4% 4 .5% 2 .3% 18 2% 721 12 2% 17 2% 5 .7% 34 5% 15 13 1 2 1 14 2% 2 .3% 33 4% 648 22 3% 9 1% 0 0% 31 4% 2% .2% .2% .1% 3% 2 0 1 0 1 .3% 0% .1% 0% .2% 33 5% 724 50 7% 30 4% 2 .3% 62 11% 13 3% 506 13 3% 1 .1% 0 0% 14 3% 4 9 32 .5% 1% 7% 858 767 610 0 3 61 0% .3% 12% 0 0% 0 0% 43 8% 0 0 2 0% 0% 3% 0 3 106 0% .3% 2-j% 932^ \" iBaV . 48' 'M- 899 3,20% 32 129 1.00% \u0026lt;\u0026lt; 08% 13 \u0026lt;0.11% 2'..04% 9 0.07% 84 1.6% 5261 123 Z3% 60 1% 11 .2% 194 3.7% 5358 206'4% 107 2% 13 .2% 330 - 6%' 650 - 4 46% 10532 Prepared by the Little Rock School 534 5.10% 145 ' 1.40% 20 - 699 10620: 678 216 32 926 0.20% 6.60% :t Dropout Prevention Office - 6/9/00 6.40% 2 0.3 8.70% DATA NOT AVAILABLE IAchievement Level Test Results District Summary Report Little Rock School District Date: 7/20/00 Term: SOO Subject: Algebra 1 r I Grade r 8 9 10 11 Average 252 241 239 238 Median 259 252 240 239 237 Std. Dev. 12?95 9.09 7.08 6.37 6.14 Count 30 300 1023 154 27 i\nSubject: Algebra 2 Grade 8 9 10 11 12 Average 256 254 250 249 Median 259 255 253 250 248 Std. Dev. 12?^ 7.11 7.79 5.80 4.39 Count 2 321 249 560 41 Subject: Biology Grade 9 10 IT 12 Average 217 215 201 Median 218 218 213 201 Std. Dev. 15?02 15.90 17.45 2.52 Count 43 640 19 2 0 Subject: Elementary Math B I Grade 2 3 4 5 8 9 10 11 12 Average 18? 193 202 208 197 193 197 209 186 Median 182 194 202 208 200 192 199 202 186 Std. Dev. 13^ 14.08 13.77 13.83 5.11 17.29 17.14 14.29 24.73 Count 1987 1965 1867 3 13 9 4 2 L Subject: General Science Elementary it Grade 2 3 4 5 Average 194 192 197 200 Median 194 192 196 200 Std. Dev. T24 10.22 10.46 10.44 Count 3 1915 1886 1825 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. 1 Page : 1Achievement Level Test Results District Summary Report Little Rock School District Date\n7/20/00 Term: SOO Subject: General Science Middle Grades Grade 67 8 Average 207 208 Median 206 209 Std. Dev. 10.27 10.75 10.96 Count 15^ 1604 1487 Subject: Geometry Grade 8 9 10 11 12 Average 256 248 246 246 Median 255 247 245 245 Std. Dev. 10.42 6.60 5.78 6.88 Count 14 106 1081 284 8 Subject: Language Usage Grade 2 34 567 8 9 10 11 12 Average 185 195 203 208 212 215 218 223 224 228 236 Median 186 197 204 209 213 217 219 223 225 228 236 Std. Dev. TKoT 15.08 14.18 14.10 13.64 13.72 13.34 13.22 13.04 11.57 0.00 Count 1816 1966 1936 1821 1612 1564 1541 1398 1399 12021 Subject: Middle Grade Math Grade 3 46 7 8 9 10 11 Average 200 207 213 213 199 204 188 Median 200 206 211 211 194 202 197 Std. Dev. ^00 0.00 14.45 16.96 13.86 17.77 18.29 18.45 Count 11 1684 1627 1299 30 24 12 Subject. Reading Grade 2 3 4 Average 179 191 199 Median 18? 193 201 Std. Dev. 16^ 16.34 15.80 Count 1842 1967 1945 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. Page: 2 Achievement Level Test Results District Summary Report Little Rock School District Date: 7/20/00 Term: SOO J - Subject: Reading 1. Grade 56789 10 11 12 Average 209 213 216 221 222 227 233 Median 205 210 214 217 222 224 227 233 Std. Dev. 15^ 14.52 14.68 14.13 14.18 14.19 13.08 0.00 Count 1625 1578 1575 1401 1453 1225 1 r L r L E 0 E 0fT 'T NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. c Page: 3 r i-i\nI i iII I Achievement Level Test Results School Report Little Rock School District Date\n7/20/00 Term: SOO School\nACC Subject: Grade 9 10 11 Subject: Grade 9 10 11 Subject\nGrade 9 10 Language Usage School Performance Average 228 223 194 Median 225 194 Std. Dev. 0^ 8.78 0.00 Count ir 1 41 Dist. Avg. 224 228 District Performance Dist. median 225 228 Dist. Std. Dev. 13^ 13.04 11.57 Dist. Count 1398 1399 1202 Middle Grade Math School Performance Average 219 205 Median 218 205 Std. Dev. 0?00 15.09 0.00 Count If 1 4 1 Dist. Avg. 204 188 District Performance Dist. median 194 202 197 Dist. Std. Dev. 18.29 18.45 Dist. Count 24 12 Reading School Performance Average Median 233 221 233 219 Std. Dev. 0^ 10.91 Count If 1 4 District Performance Dist. Avg. Dist. median Dist. Std. Dev. Dist. Count 221 222 222 224 14.18 14.19 1401 1453 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. ---------------------------------------------- Page: 1 I School\nSubject: Grade 9 11 Subject: Grade 9 10 11 Subject\nAchievement Level Test Results School Report Little Rock School District Date :7/20/00 Term\nSOO ALC Algebra 1 School Performance Average Median 237 233 236 232 Std. Dev. 5.22 1.69 Count 18 3 District Performance Dist. Avg.l Dist. median 1 Dist. Std. Dev. Dist. Count 241 238 240 237 7.08 6.14i 1023 27 Algebra 2 School Performance District Performance Grade io 11 Subject: Average 251 245 Median 251 245 Std. Dev. OW 0.00 0.98 Count 1 12 Dist. Avg. 254 250 Dist. median 253 250 Dist. Std. Dev. tTT 7.79 5.80 Dist. Count 3F 249 560 Biology School Performance District Performance Average Median 205 211 209 211 Std. Dev. i3?06 2.39 Count 4 2 Dist. Avg.l Dist. median Dist. Std. Dev. 217 215 218 213 15.90 17.45 Dist. Count 19 General Science Middle Grades School Performance ------- District Performance 1 Grade 67 8 Average 200 201 Median 198 201 Std. Dev. 6.64 7.38 Count 4 11 18 Dist. Avg. 207 208 Dist. median 206 209 Dist. Std. Dev. i^ 10.75 10.96 Dist. Count i^ 1604 1487 Subject: Geometry School Performance 1 District Performance 1 Grade io 11 Average Median 244 238 244 238 Std. Dev. lie 0.00 Count 4 2 Subject: Language Usage School Performance Dist. Avg.l Dist. medianiDist. Std. Dev. Dist. Count 248 246 247 245 6.60 5.78 1081 284 District Performance NOTF Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. Page: 2 Achievement Level Test Results School Report 5 Little Rock School District Date :7/20/00 Term: SOO 4 . i I I \nL c 0!1F rLn iT II School\nALC Subject\nGrade 6 7 8 9 10 11 Subject: Grade 6 7 89 10 Subject: Language Usage Average 202 206 206 209 222 Median 2^2 200 208 205 208 221 Std. Dev. 6^ 9.82 11.89 10.10 11.51 5.02 Count 6 13 22 15 1 8 Dist. Avg. 215 218 223 224 228 Dist. median 217 219 223 225 228 Dist. Std. Dev. 13^ 13.72 13.34 13.22 13.04 11.57 Dist. Count 1^ 1564 1541 1398 1399 1202 Middle Grade Math School Performance Average W 203 210 196 174 Median 205 208 189 174 Std. Dev. 16.70 10.01 17.15 0.00 Count 1[ 5 14 27 31 Dist. Avg. 213 213 199 204 District Performance Dist. median 211 211 194 202 Dist. Std. Dev. 14A5 16.96 13.86 17.77 18.29 Dist. Count 1627 1299 30 24 Reading School Performance District Performance 1 Grade 67 89 10 11 Average 200 207 206 208 223 Median 202 202 208 205 203 223 Std. Dev. iZ05 10.68 11.04 8.30 13.24 7.29 Count 6 11 27 17 7 8 Dist. Avg. 213 216 221 222 227 Dist. median 214 217 222 224 227 Dist. Std. Dev. 14.68 14.13 14.18 14.19 13.08 Dist. Count 1578 1575 1401 1453 1225 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. Page\n3 School: Subject: Grade io Subject: Grade 4 58 Subject: Grade 4 5 Subject: Achievement Level Test Results School Report Little Rock School District Date :7/20/00 Term: SOO ALE Biology School Performance District Performance Average Median 198 193 Std. Dev. Count 3 DiSt. Avg.l Dist. median Dist Std. Dev. Dist. Count 217 218 15.90 640 Elementary Math School Performance District Performance Grade 78 Subject: Average 196 209 197 Median W 206 200 Std. Dev. itoT 4.93 5.11 Count 14 43 Dist. Avg. 202 208 197 Dist. median 208 200 Dist. Std. Dev. 1^77 13.83 5.11 Dist. Count 19^ 1867 3 General Science Elementary School Performance District Performance 1 Average Median 196 199 197 199 Std. Dev. 8.15 8.28 Count 11 4 General Science Middle Grades School Performance ------- Average Median 201 205 201 202 Std. Dev. 2.47 6.68 Count Dist. Avg.lDist. median Dist. Std. Dev. Dist. Count 197 200 196 200 10.46 10.44 1886 1825 If 2 11 District Performance Dist. Avg. Dist. median Dist. Std. Dev. Dist. Count 207 208 206 209 10.75 10.96 1604 1487 ! Language Usage School Performance District Performance 1 Grade 457 8 9 10 Average W 206 203 205 223 215 Median 201 203 212 223 217 Std. Dev. 1445 6.73 0.00 11.57 6.74 11.30 Count 13 3 1724 Dist. Avg. 208 215 218 223 224 Dist. median 204 209 217 219 223 225 Dist. Std. Dev. 1418 14.10 13.72 13.34 13.22 13.04 Dist. Count i^ 1821 1564 1541 1398 1399 Subject: Middle Grade Math School Performance District Performance NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. ------------------------------- ------ -~ Page: 4 Achievement Level Test Results School Report Little Rock School District L Date :7/20/00 Term: SOO School\nALE Subject: Middle Grade Math Grade 89 10 Average 216 217 Median 211 219 212 Std. Dev. Count J Subject\nGrade 4578 9 10 0.00 8.80 20.32 Reading School Performance Average IM 204 199 183 208 208 Median Std. Dev. Count Dist. Avg. 199 204 Dist. median 211 194 202 Dist. Std. Dev. Dist. Count 13.86 17.77 18.29 District Performance 1299 30 24 193 205 199 183 208 206 14.70 6.10 0.00 0.00 5.96 11.18 12 41 14 4 Dist. Avg. 199 205 213 216 221 222 Dist. median Dist. Std. Dev. Dist. Count 201 205 214 217 222 224 15.80 15.57 14.68 14.13 14.18 14.19 1945 1858 1578 1575 1401 1453 r L 1 54 r r 1 c 0 I i 2 s NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. ---------------------------------- ~ Page: 5 Achievement Level Test Results School Report Little Rock School District Date :7/20/00 Term: SOO School: Badgett Elementary Subject: Elementary Math School Performance u District Performance Grade 2 34 5 Average 170 186 200 198 Median 190 201 198 Std. Dev. 9?74 17.67 12.69 12.81 Count 30 20 22 25 Dist. Avg. 18? 193 202 208 Dist. median 182 194 202 208 Dist. Std. Dev. 13^ 14.08 13.77 13.83 Dist. Count T8M 1987 1965 1867 Subject: General Science Elementary School Performance District Performance Grade 3 4 5 Average 186 188 192 Median W 192 194 Std. Dev. 73^ 11.69 8.16 Count 18 23 25 Dist. Avg. 197 200 Dist. median W 196 200 Dist. Std. Dev. 10^ 10.46 10.44 Dist. Count 1915 1886 1825 Subject: Language Usage School Performance 1[ District Performance Grade 2 34 5 Average 174 195 199 196 Median 173 197 200 199 Std. Dev. 13733 21.56 13.21 12.70 Count 20 23 24 Dist. Avg. IM 195 203 208 Dist. median 197 204 209 Dist. Std. Oev. isToT 15.08 14.18 14.10 Dist. Count 1816 1966 1936 1821 Subject: Reading School Performance District Performance Grade 2 34 5 Average IM 190 195 191 Median 16? 196 198 194 Std. Dev. 1440 19.95 13.80 14.36 Count 20 23 23 Dist. Avg. 179 191 199 205 Dist. median 18? 193 201 205 Dist. Std. Dev. 16^ 16.34 15.80 15.57 Dist. Count 1967 1945 1858 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. Page: 6 Achievement Level Test Results School Report Little Rock School District r Date :7/20/00 Term:SOO School: Bale Elementary Sch Subject: r a li B0 B IsI I Elementary Math School Performance District Performance Grade 2345 Subject: Grade 2 34 5 Subject: Grade 2 34 5 Subject: Average 179 192 198 206 Median 180 193 198 205 Std. Dev. 12777 13.68 11.04 12.64 Count 47 40 46 46 Dist. Avg. 18? 193 202 208 Dist. median 194 202 208 Dist. Std. Dev. 14.08 13.77 13.83 Dist. Count 1866 1987 1965 1867 General Science Elementary School Performance District Performance 1 Average 192 193 196 Median 193 194 195 Std. Dev. 7 oToo 8.79 9.09 9.80 Count 1 36 45 47 Dist. Avg. IM 192 197 200 Dist. median IM 192 196 200 Dist. Std. Dev. TM 10.22 10.46 10.44 Dist. Count 3 1915 1886 1825 Language Usage School Performance District Performance 1 Average 186 196 198 204 Median 199 199 202 Std. Dev. 13.87 11.70 14.15 Count 42 40 45 47 Dist. Avg. 185 195 203 208 Dist. median 186 197 204 209 Dist. Std. Dev. isToT 15.08 14.18 14.10 Dist. Count 1966 1936 1821 Reading School Performance District Performance Grade 2 34 5 Average W 192 195 197 Median 195 196 198 Std. Dev. 14^ 16.35 13.64 16.31 Count 45 41 45 45 Dist. Avg. 179 191 199 205 Dist. median 18? 193 201 205 Dist. Std. Dev. 16.34 15.80 15.57 Dist. Count 1^ 1967 1945 1858 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. ----------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Page: 7 School: Subject: Grade 2 34 5 Subject: Grade 34 5 Subject: Grade 2 34 5 Subject: Achievement Level Test Results School Report Little Rock School District Baseline Elementary Elementary Math School Performance Average ?76 191 194 201 Median 176 192 195 201 Std. Dev. 10^ 11.80 13.29 9.49 Count 42 40 37 Dist. Avg. 193 202 208 General Science Elementary School Performance Average ?87 192 196 Median 189 193 195 Std. Dev. 9?06 9.73 5.84 Language Usage School Performance Average 18? 193 199 204 Median 18? 194 200 204 Std. Dev. iT42 16.04 14.53 8.71 Reading School Performance 1[ Count 40 37 Count 41 37 34 Date -.7/20/00 Term: SOO District Performance Dist. median 194 202 208 Dist. Std. Dev. 13^ 14.08 13.77 13.83 1 Dist. Count 18^ 1987 1965 1867 District Performance 1 Dist. Avg. 197 200 Dist. Avg. 1^ 195 203 208 n Dist. median W 196 200 Dist. Std. Dev. 10^ 10.46 10.44 Dist. Count ?9?5 1886 1825 District Performance Dist. median 186 197 204 209 Dist. Std. Dev, 15.08 14.18 14.10 1 Dist. Count ?8?6 1966 1936 1821 District Performance 1 Grade 2 34 5 Average ?75 186 190 200 Median 175 189 192 200 Std. Dev. 14.94 14.50 8.18 Count 34 40 40 37 Dist. Avg. 179 191 199 205 Dist. median 18? 193 201 205 Dist. Std. Dev. 16.34 15.80 15.57 Dist. Count ?^ . 1967 1945 1858 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. ---------------------------- ------------------------------------- -- Page: 8 ? Achievement Level Test Results School Report Little Rock School District r i Date :7/20/00 Term:SOO School: Booker Arts Magnet .5. Subject: F L r 1 [ 0 s 0 I I- I Elementary Math School Performance District Performance Grade 2 3 4 5 Subject: Grade 3 4 5 Subject: Average 195 203 210 Median T85 197 205 213 Std. Dev. 14.05 10.10 15.38 Count 89 93 96 91 Dist. Avg. 18? 193 202 208 Dist. median 194 202 208 Dist. Std. Dev. 14.08 13.77 13.83 Dist. Count 1987 1965 1867 General Science Elementary School Performance Average 198 204 Median 199 203 std. Dev. 8.09 9.76 Language Usage School Performance 1 Count 94 89 Dist. Avg. 197 200 District Performance Dist. median 196 200 Dist. Std. Dev. 1022 10.46 10.44 Dist. Count 1915 1886 1825 1 District Performance Grade 2 3 4 5 Subject: Grade 2 3 4 5 Average T86 197 206 213 Median W 200 207 214 Std. Dev. 147/2 14.76 10.69 14.75 Count 89 93 96 91 Dist. Avg. 185 195 203 208 Dist. median W 197 204 209 Dist. Std. Dev. 15.08 14.18 14.10 Dist. Count 1816 1966 1936 1821 Reading School Performance District Performance Average 194 201 208 Median 184 194 203 208 Std. Dev. 16.33 13.62 16.92 Count 87 93 96 91 Dist. Avg. 179 191 199 205 Dist. median 193 201 205 Dist. Std. Dev. 16^5 16.34 15.80 15.57 Dist. Count 1967 1945 1858 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. Page: 9 JAchievement Level Test Results School Report Little Rock School District Date :7/20/00 Term: SOO School\nBrady Elementary Sch Subject: Elementary Math School Performance District Performance Grade 234 5 Average 175 193 199 204 Median 174 195 201 205 Std. Dev. io^ 10.32 13.67 12.76 Count 50 55 47 Dist. Avg. iiT 193 202 208 Dist. median 1^ 194 202 208 Dist. Std. Dev. 14.08 13.77 13.83 Dist. Count 1987 1965 1867 Subject: General Science Elementary School Performance If District Performance Grade 34 5 Average ilT 196 196 Median 191 196 198 Std. Dev. 8^ 9.83 8.68 Count 56 48 Dist. Avg. 197 200 Dist. median 192 196 200 Dist. Std. Dev. io^ 10.46 10.44 Dist. Count 1915 1886 1825 Subject: Language Usage School Performance If District Performance Grade 2 34 5 Average 179 191 200 205 Median 178 195 204 204 Std. Dev. izoo 14.14 13.76 11.71 Count 46 51 55 44 Dist. Avg. 185 195 203 208 Dist. median 197 204 209 Dist. Std. Dev. 15.08 14.18 14.10 Dist. Count 1816 1966 1936 1821 Subject: Reading School Performance 1 District Performance Grade 2 34 5 Average 170 187 197 199 Median 172 189 201 199 Std. Dev. iToT 14.66 14.93 14.48 Count 44 50 56 47 Dist. Avg. 179 191 199 205 Dist. median iF 193 201 205 Dist. Std. Dev. 16.34 15.80 15.57 Dist. Count 1967 1945 1858 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ~ Page: To ? i Achievement Level Test Results School Report Little Rock School District V' Date :7/20/00 Term\nSOO .i I. C 0 0 EEE E i I I School\nSubject: Grade 2 34 5 Subject: Grade 34 5 Subject: Grade 2 3 45 Subject\nCarver Elementary Math School Performance Average 188 198 209 214 Median 189 201 210 214 Std. Dev. 1^09 13.83 12.39 12.33 r Count 90 91 88 Dist. Avg. W 193 202 208 District Performance Dist. median 1^ 194 202 208 Dist. Std. Dev. 13^ 14.08 13.77 13.83 Dist. Count 1987 1965 1867 General Science Elementary School Performance District Performance 1 Average 204 206 Median W 204 206 Std. Dev. 10.67 8.80 Count 87 86 Dist. Avg. W 197 200 Dist. median 196 200 Dist. Std. Dev. 10^ 10.46 10.44 Dist. Count 1886 1825 Language Usage School Performance Average 200 209 214 Median W 201 210 215 Std. Dev. 1417 12.31 13.57 10.12 Count u 83 90 92 88 Dist. Avg. 185 195 203 208 District Performance Dist. median 186 197 204 209 Dist. Std. Dev. 15.08 14.18 14.10 Dist. Count 1966 1936 1821 Reading School Performance District Performance 1 Grade 2 34 5 Average W 196 206 213 Median 191 198 205 213 Std. Dev. 1465 13.70 14.38 12.16 Count 90 91 88 Dist. Avg. 179 191 199 205 Dist. median 18? 193 201 205 Dist. Std. Dev. 16^ 16.34 15.80 15.57 Dist. Count 18^ 1967 1945 1858 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. ----------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- --- ~ Page: TT School: Subject: Grade 9 10 11 Subject: Grade 9 10 11 Subject: Grade 9 10 11 Subject: Achievement Level Test Results School Report Little Rock School District Date :7/20/00 Term: SOO Central Algebra 1 School Performance District Performance Average 241 233 Median 240 232 Std. Dev. 7.40 3.78 Count 44 5 Dist. Avg. 239 238 Dist. median 239 237 Dist. Std. Dev. 7?08 6.37 6.14 Dist. Count 1023 154 27 Algebra 2 School Performance Average 256 251 Median 258 255 251 Std. Dev. 7?33 9.05 6.14 Geometry School Performance Average 249 248 Median 248 247 Std. Dev. iTig 7.70 6.40 Language Usage School Performance 1 Count 92 200 Count 280 88 District Performance Dist. Avg. 254 250 Dist. Avg. 256 248 246 Dist. median 253 250 Dist. Std. Dev. tjT 7.79 5.80 Dist. Count 249 560 District Performance Dist. median 247 245 Dist. Std. Dev. io^ 6.60 5.78 1 Dist. Count 106 1081 284 District Performance Grade 9 10 11 Average 227 229 231 Median 229 232 Std. Dev. 14^ 12.87 11.71 Count 439 430 451 Dist. Avg. 224 228 Dist. median 225 228 Dist. Std. Dev. 13?^ 13.04 11.57 Dist. Count 13^ 1399 1202 Subject: Middle Grade Math School Performance District Performance Grade 9 10 11 Average 193 198 191 Median 189 202 198 Std. Dev. 1436 13.32 12.42 Count 19 13 6 Dist. Avg. 204 188 Dist. median 202 197 Dist. Std. Dev. 1777 18.29 18.45 Dist. Count 24 12 Subject: Reading _____________ SrhnnI Perfnnnance----------- ---------------------- NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are -District Performance excluded from summary calculations Page: 12 ? i Achievement Level Test Results School Report Little Rock School District T- Date\n7/20/00 Term\nSOO School\nCentral Subject\nReading r 1. c B I frta Grade 9 10 11 Average 225 227 231 Median 227 231 Std. Dev. 14^ 13.93 13.23 Count 44? 447 459 Dist. Avg. 222 227 Dist. median 224 227 Dist. Std. Dev. iT?! 14.19 13.08 Dist. Count 140? 1453 1225 [ c0 0i 2 I NOTE\nSummary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' Page\nT3 School: Subject: Grade 2 34 5 Subject: Grade 34 5 Subject: Grade 2 34 5 Subject: Achievement Level Test Results School Report Little Rock School District Chicot Elementary Elementary Math School Performance Average 177 187 192 200 Median 174 188 193 202 Std. Dev. iT04 12.67 10.37 11.95 Count 67 62 75 Dist. Avg. 18? 193 202 208 Date :7/20/00 Term: SOO District Performance Dist. median 194 202 208 Dist. Std. Dev. 13.61 14.08 13.77 13.83 Dist. Count 18^ 1987 1965 1867 General Science Elementary School Performance District Performance 1 Average W 192 193 Median 187 192 194 Std. Dev. 7^ 7.24 9.29 Count 65 75 Dist. Avg. 197 200 Dist. median 196 200 Dist. Std. Dev. iol2 10.46 10.44 Dist. Count 1886 1825 Language Usage School Performance District Performance Average 179 187 198 198 Median 179 189 198 198 Std. Dev. i3?29 14.63 10.66 14.34 Count 56 62 62 72 Dist. Avg. IM 195 203 208 Dist. median 186 197 204 209 Dist. Std. Dev. 15.08 14.18 14.10 Dist. Count 1816 1966 1936 1821 Reading School Performance If District Performance Grade 2 34 5 Average 173 183 189 195 Median 175 183 190 196 Std. Dev. 16.12 12.14 13.13 Count 55 65 62 76 Dist. Avg. 179 191 199 205 Dist. median W 193 201 205 Dist. Std. Dev. 16^ 16.34 15.80 15.57 Dist. Count 1967 1945 1858 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. -------------------------------------- Page: 14 r I.. r \u0026lt; s 0 0 0 c c 0 I I I 2 I Achievement Level Test Results School Report Little Rock School District Date :7I2OIQO Term: SOO School: Cloverdale Subject: Grade 8 Subject: Grade 6 1 8 Subject: Grade 6 1 8 Subject: Grade 6 7 8 Subject: Algebra 1 School Performance Average Median Grade 6 7 8 242 242 Std. Dev. 4^ 1[ Count 30 General Science Middle Grades School Performance ------- Average IM 202 204 Median W 202 204 Std. Dev. 8^ 9.84 9.61 Count 198 178 District Performance Dist. Avg. I Dist. median Dist. Std. Dev. Dist. Count 252 252 9.09 District Performance 300 Language Usage School Performance Average 209 210 Median 211 212 Std. Dev. 13?^ 13.03 13.68 Count 201 195 Middle Grade Math School Performance Average 206 211 Median 205 211 Std. Dev. 1176 14.94 12.36 Reading School Performance Average 206 208 Median 207 210 Std. Dev. 1^40 13.98 14.85 Dist. Avg. 207 208 Dist. Avg. 215 218 1 Count 217 170 Dist. Avg. 213 213 if Count 202 203 Dist. median 206 209 Dist. Std. Dev. 10^ 10.75 10.96 Dist. Count 1604 1487 District Performance Dist. median 217 219 Dist. Std. Dev. 13.72 13.34 District Performance Dist. median 211 211 Dist. Std. Dev. 1445 16.96 13.86 Dist. Count 1564 1541 District Performance Dist. Avg. 213 216 Dist. median 210 214 217 Dist. Std. Dev. 14.68 14.13 Dist. Count 1627 1299 1 Dist. Count 1578 1575 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. ---------------------------------------- ~ Page: TS1 School: Subject\nGrade 2 3 4 5 Subject: Grade 2 3 4 5 Subject: Achievement Level Test Results School Report Little Rock School District Date :7/20/00 Term: SOO Cloverdale Elem Elementary Math School Performance District Performance Average IM 186 196 202 Median W 187 197 202 Std. Dev. iT03 8.84 11.55 13.17 Count 68 68 56 Dist. Avg. 18? 193 202 208 Dist. median 194 202 208 Dist. Std. Dev. 14.08 13.77 13.83 Dist. Count isM 1987 1965 1867 General Science Elementary School Performance Average 186 188 195 Median 187 188 196 Std. Dev. ^49 7.88 8.08 9.55 Count 1 2 65 64 57 Dist. Avg. IM 192 197 200 District Performance Dist. median IM 192 196 200 Dist. Std. Dev. TM 10.22 10.46 10.44 Dist. Count 3 1915 1886 1825 Language Usage School Performance If District Performance Grade 2 3 4 5 Average W 187 195 206 Median 184 187 197 206 Std. Dev. 12.04 11.84 12.73 Count 69 65 49 Dist. Avg. 185 195 203 208 Dist. median we 197 204 209 Dist Std. Dev. 15^ 15.08 14.18 14.10 Dist. Count 1816 1966 1936 1821 Subject\nReading School Performance District Performance Grade 2 3 4 5 Average 176 183 192 200 Median 176 186 193 202 Std. Dev. 1^73 12.65 12.75 13.49 Count 60 68 67 52 Dist. Avg. 179 191 199 205 Dist. median W 193 201 205 Dist. Std. Dev. 16^ 16.34 15.80 15.57 Dist. Count 1967 1945 1858 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. Page: 16i Achievement Level Test Results School Report Little Rock School District r i. Date :7/20/00 Term: SOO School: David ODodd Elem Subject: r c 0 li s Ig0 s I gu I Elementary Math School Performance District Performance 1 Grade 2 34 5 Subject: Grade 34 5 Subject: Grade 2 34 5 Subject: Average 178 187 201 204 Median 18? 187 202 205 std. Dev. iTJT 12.35 9.90 10.46 Count 31 42 19 Dist. Avg. W 193 202 208 Dist. median 194 202 208 Dist. Std. Dev. 13^ 14.08 13.77 13.83 Dist. Count 18^ 1987 1965 1867 General Science Elementary School Performance District Performance Average 188 196 197 Median W 194 198 Std. Dev. 10.29 7.01 6.97 Count 39 16 Dist. Avg. 192 197 200 Dist. median 196 200 Dist. Std. Dev. 10^ 10.46 10.44 Dist. Count 1886 1825 Language Usage School Performance Average 179 189 204 205 Median 179 190 202 206 Std. Dev. 1104 12.34 9.33 12.67 Reading School Performance If Count 31 41 19 Dist. Avg. 185 195 203 208 If District Performance Dist. median 197 204 209 Dist. Std. Dev. 15.08 14.18 14.10 District Performance 1 Dist. Count 1816 1966 1936 1821 1 Grade 234 5 Average 173 186 198 204 Median 173 187 198 205 Std. Dev. 12.20 11.52 13.54 Count 27 31 40 19 Dist. Avg. 179 191 199 205 Dist. median 193 201 205 Dist. Std. Dev. 16^ 16.34 15.80 15.57 Dist. Count 1842 1967 1945 1858 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. ----------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ - ~ Page: T7 School\nSubject: Grade 7 8 Subject: Grade 6 7 8 Subject: Grade 8 Subject: Achievement Level Test Results School Report Little Rock School District Date :7/20/00 Term:SOO Dunbar Algebra 1 School Performance District Performance Average Median 257 251 254 251 Std. Dev. 9?^ 8.66 Count 53 General Science Middle Grades School Performance -------- Average 205 208 208 Median 205 207 209 Std. Dev. 9?73 11.27 11.21 Count 216 226 Dist. Avg. Dist. median Dist. Std. Dev. Dist. Count 260 252 259 252 12.95 9.09 District Performance 30 300 1 Geometry School Performance Average Median 264 264 Std. Dev. 9^ Count 14 Language Usage School Performance Dist. Avg. 207 208 Dist. median 206 209 Dist. Std. Dev. io^ 10.75 10.96 Dist. Count 1604 1487 District Performance Dist. Avg.l Dist. median Dist. Std. Dev. Dist. Count 264 264 9.96 . District Performance 14 Grade 6 7 8 Average 222 218 Median 223 219 Std. Dev. izsT 12.50 12.03 Count Zi3 152 216 Dist. Avg. 215 218 Dist. median 2lJ 217 219 Dist. Std. Dev. 13.72 13.34 Dist. Count 1564 1541 Subject: Middle Grade Math School Performance If District Performance Grade 6 7 8 Average 208 214 210 Median 213 210 Std. Dev. 1^ 16.67 14.42 Count 187 183 Dist. Avg. 213 213 Dist. median 206 211 211 Dist. Std. Dev. 14^ 16.96 13.86 Dist. Count 1627 1299 Subject\nReading School Performance If District Performance NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. Page: 18f j Achievement Level Test Results School Report Little Rock School District r i Date :7/20/00 Term: SOO r i. School: Dunbar Subject: Reading Grade 6 18 Average 21? 219 217 Median Std. Dev. Count 211 219 218 14.28 14.08 12.87 212 159 222 Dist. Avg. 213 216 Dist. median Dist. Std. Dev. Dist. Count 210 214 217 14.52 14.68 14.13 1625 1578 1575 r I0 s I II I NGTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. Page: 19 Achievement Level Test Results School Report School: Fairpark Subject\nGrade 2 3 4 5 Subject\nGrade 3 45 Subject: Grade 2 34 5 Subject: Little Rock School District Elementary Math School Performance Average 174 189 194 203 Median 173 189 195 203 Std. Dev. 17.21 10.91 12.66 Count General Science Elementary School Performance Average 193 197 Median W 192 197 Std. Dev. io^ 6.46 9.51 Language Usage School Performance Average W 193 200 210 Median IM 197 201 212 Std. Dev. 14^ 17.52 13.17 9.79 Reading School Performance If 34 31 15 20 Dist. Avg. W 193 202 208 If Count 33 17 21 Dist. Avg. 192 197 200 If Count 31 14 18 Date :7/20/00 Term: SOO District Performance Dist. median 194 202 208 Dist. Std. Dev. 14.08 13.77 13.83 Dist. Count 1987 1965 1867 District Performance Dist. median 196 200 Dist. Std. Dev. io^ 10.46 10.44 Dist. Count 1915 1886 1825 District Performance 1 Grade 2 34 5 Average 176 189 193 206 Median 177 190 193 207 Std. Dev. 18.69 11.37 11.41 Count Dist. Avg. 195 203 208 Dist. median 197 204 209 Dist. Std. Dev. 15.08 14.18 14.10 Dist. Count 1966 1936 1821 If 34 31 13 20 Dist. Avg. 179 191 199 205 District Performance Dist. median IM 193 201 205 Dist. Std. Dev. 16.34 15.80 15.57 1 Dist. Count 1967 1945 1858 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. ---------------------------------- ----------- -------------------------------------- -- ~ Page: y Achievement Level Test Results School Report Little Rock School District r Date :7/20/00 Term: SOO ?' L School: Forest Hghts Middle Subject: r i EE cE s ss II s Algebra 1 School Performance District Performance Grade 8 Subject: Grade 67 8 Subject: Grade 6 7 8 Subject: Average Median Std. Dev. Count Dist. Avg. I Dist. median Dist. Std. Dev. Dist. Count 254 253 General Science Middle Grades School Performance ------- Average 207 209 Median 207 209 Std. Dev. rm 9.73 10.91 Count 217 219 252 252 9.09 District Performance 300 Language Usage School Performance Average ?i2 215 220 Median 216 222 Std. Dev. 13.41 12.92 Middle Grade Math School Performance 1 Count 230 241 Grade 67 8 Subject: Grade 67 8 Average 213 214 Median 211 214 Std. Dev. 16.94 14.07 Reading School Performance Average 213 218 Median 214 218 Std. Dev. 16^ 13.84 13.36 Dist. Avg. 2Q7 208 Dist. Avg. Til 215 218 Count 236 192 Count 232 246 Dist. Avg. 213 213 Dist. median 206 209 Dist. Std. Dev. io^ 10.75 10.96 Dist. Count 1604 1487 District Performance Dist. median 217 219 Dist. Std. Dev. 13^ 13.72 13.34 1 Dist. Count 1564 1541 District Performance Dist. median 211 211 Dist. Std. Dev. 14.45 16.96 13.86 Dist. Count 1627 1299 District Performance Dist. Avg. 213 216 Dist. median 210 214 217 Dist. Std. Dev. iTk 14.68 14.13 Dist. Count 1578 1575 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. ------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------~ Page: 21 School: Subject: Grade 2 345 Subject: Grade 345 Subject: Grade 2 34 5 Subject: Grade 2 345 Achievement Level Test Results School Report Little Rock School District Date :7/20/00 Term: SOO Forest Park Elem Elementary Math School Performance Average IM 199 205 219 Median ioT 200 209 220 Std. Dev. 12^ 12.83 14.30 13.11 Count General Science Elementary School Performance Average 1^ 200 208 Median IM 200 210 Std. Dev. 12.12 9.10 Language Usage School Performance Average IM 202 212 220 Median 200 200 212 221 Std. Dev. 1^73 13.87 12.93 10.94 Reading School Performance Average 194 199 207 217 Median W 200 206 220 Std. Dev. 14.93 13.62 12.97 ir 49 52 66 51 Dist. Avg. 193 202 208 If Count 67 51 Dist. Avg. 197 200 Count 48 53 61 51 Count District Performance Dist. median 194 202 208 Dist. Std. Dev. Dist. Count 13.61 14.08 13.77 13.83 1866 1987 1965 1867 District Performance Dist. median 196 200 Dist. Std. Dev. io^ 10.46 10.44 Dist. Count 1915 1886 1825 District Performance 1 Dist. Avg. 195 203 208 Dist. median 186 197 204 209 Dist. Std. Dev. 15.01 15.08 14.18 14.10 Dist. Count 1816 1966 1936 1821 If 46 52 65 51 Dist. Avg. 179 191 199 205 District Performance Dist. median 18? 193 201 205 Dist. Std. Dev. 16.55 16.34 15.80 15.57 Dist. Count 1967 1945 1858 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. -------------------------------------- - Page: 22 j Achievement Level Test Results School Report Little Rock School District r Date :7/20/00 Term: SOO rL School: Franklin Incentive Subject: f ri\nE c0 I I fi Grade 2 34 5 Subject: Grade 3 4 5 Subject: Grade 2 34 5 Subject: Grade 2 345 Elementary Math School Performance District Performance Average 183 190 199 205 Median Tse 193 199 204 Std. Dev. io^ 13.80 11.64 8.92 Count 68 69 72 51 Dist. Avg. isT 193 202 208 Dist. median 194 202 208 Dist. Std. Dev. Dist. Count General Science Elementary School Performance Average 188 192 197 Median W 194 196 Std. Dev. 8.35 7.70 Count 71 52 Dist. Avg. 197 200 Language Usage School Performance Average 189 199 204 Median W 192 199 206 Std. Dev. 12^ 15.25 12.08 10.07 Count u 69 69 71 50 Dist. Avg. 195 203 208 Reading School Performance Average 178 185 195 202 Median 179 188 196 202 Std. Dev. 1^83 15.06 12.68 10.33 nr Count 69 69 72 50 Dist. Avg. 179 191 199 205 13.61 14.08 13.77 13.83 District Performance Dist. median W 196 200 Dist. Std. Dev. io^ 10.46 10.44 District Performance Dist. median 197 204 209 Dist. Std. Dev. 15.01 15.08 14.18 14.10 1866 1987 1965 1867 Dist. Count 1915 1886 1825 1 Dist. Count 1816 1966 1936 1821 District Performance Dist. median 193 201 205 Dist. Std. Dev. i6?W 16.34 15.80 15.57 Dist. Count 1842 1967 1945 1858 TTOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Page: 23 Achievement Level Test Results School Report Little Rock School District Date :7/20/00 Term:SOO School: Fulbright Elementary Subject: Elementary Math School Performance If District Performance Grade 2 345 Average 182 196 205 211 Median IM 200 208 211 Std. Dev. 1449 16.91 15.39 13.38 Count 69 68 72 Dist. Avg. W 193 202 208 Dist. median 194 202 208 Dist. Std. Dev. 14.08 13.77 13.83 Dist. Count isre 1987 1965 1867 Subject: General Science Elementary School Performance 1 District Performance Grade 345 Average 196 199 204 Median 200 204 Std. Dev. 10.03 9.55 Count 64 74 Dist. Avg. 192 197 200 Dist. median 196 200 Dist. Std. Dev. io^ 10.46 10.44 Dist. Count 19T5 1886 1825 Subject: Language Usage School Performance District Performance Grade 2 345 Average 189 198 207 212 Median 203 211 214 Std. Dev. 14^ 18.41 15.83 13.39 Count 71 67 71 Dist. Avg. 185 195 203 208 Dist. median 197 204 209 Dist. Std. Dev. 15.08 14.18 14.10 Dist. Count 18^ 1966 1936 1821 Subject: Reading School Performance District Performance Grade 2345 Average 183 194 204 211 Median 188 198 208 214 Std. Dev, ITOS 20.35 18.69 15.03 Count 69 67 72 Dist. Avg. 179 191 199 205 Dist. median 181 193 201 205 Dist. Std. Dev. 16.34 15.80 15.57 Dist. Count 1967 1945 1858 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. ------------------------------- -------- ----------- ' Page: 24 y Achievement Level Test Results School Report ! Little Rock School District s' Date :7/20/00 Term: SOO r I. r c E0I s I I School: Subject: Grade 2 345 Subject: Grade 345 Subject: Grade 2345 Subject: Grade 2 3 4 5 Garland Incentive Elementary Math School Performance Average ?73 181 194 204 Median ?7? 184 194 206 Std. Dev. 11^ 12.41 12.19 13.53 Count General Science Elementary School Performance Average 190 192 Median 192 192 Std. Dev. 9.21 8.95 Language Usage School Performance Average ?75 181 193 203 Median ?7? 182 195 201 Std. Dev. 113? 13.31 12.35 12.15 Reading School Performance Average ?70 177 190 197 Median 17? 179 193 196 Std. Dev. 14^ 16.85 13.36 13.11 If 44 37 40 31 Dist. Avg. 18? 193 202 208 If Count 39 32 Dist. Avg. ?92 197 200 If Count 43 35 38 26 Count District Performance Dist. median W 194 202 208 Dist. Std. Dev. 14.08 13.77 13.83 District Performance Dist. median 196 200 Dist. Std. Dev. ?^ 10.46 10.44 District Performance 1 Dist. Count 1987 1965 1867 Dist. Count 1915 1886 1825 Dist. Avg. 195 203 208 If 44 37 41 31 Dist. Avg. ?79 191 199 205 Dist. median 197 204 209 Dist. Std. Dev. ?5^0? 15.08 14.18 14.10 District Performance Dist. median 18? 193 201 205 Dist. Std. Dev. 16^ 16.34 15.80 15.57 Dist. Count iFe 1966 1936 1821 1 Dist. Count 1967 1945 1858 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. Page: 25 School: Subject: Grade 2 345 Subject: Grade 3 4 5 Subject: Grade 2 345 Subject: Grade 234 5 Achievement Level Test Results School Report Little Rock School District Geyer Springs Elem Elementary Math School Performance Average ?78 188 196 206 Median ?77 187 197 205 Std. Dev. ?T2T 10.66 12.19 11.10 Count General Science Elementary School Performance Average 192 202 Median 190 194 203 Std. Dev. 7.49 6.76 Language Usage School Performance Average 193 199 208 Median 18? 192 199 209 Std. Dev. 12^ 10.01 11.30 10.90 Reading School Performance Average 173 187 193 203 Median 172 188 194 204 Std. Dev. 14^ 12.48 12.68 12.27 If 42 50 46 47 Dist. Avg. 18? 193 202 208 If Count 47 43 41 Dist. Avg. 197 200 If Count 38 45 46 46 Count Date :7/20/00 Term: SOO District Performance Dist. median W 194 202 208 Dist. Std. Dev. 14.08 13.77 13.83 District Performance Dist. median 196 200 Dist. Std. Dev. io^ 10.46 10.44 District Performance Dist. Avg. 195 203 208 Dist. median 197 204 209 Dist. Std. Dev. 15.08 14.18 14.10 If 42 47 46 46 Dist. Avg. ?79 191 199 205 Dist. Count 1987 1965 1867 District Performance Dist. median 18? 193 201 205 Dist. Std. Dev. 16^ 16.34 15.80 15.57 Dist. Count 1886 1825 Dist. Count 1966 1936 1821 Dist. Count 1967 1945 1858 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. \" Page: 5? 1 i 1 Achievement Level Test Results School Report Little Rock School District L Date\n7/20/00 Term\nSOO School\nGibbs Magnet Elem I. Subject\nr V c 6 S s s Grade 2 345 Subject\nGrade 345 Subject\nGrade 2 345 Subject\nGrade 2 345 Elementary Math School Performance Average W 200 209 217 Median 182 201 210 217 Std. Dev. 9?77 10.97 12.23 17.01 Count General Science Elementary School Performance Average 202 206 Median 202 207 Std. Dev. 9.60 10.34 Language Usage School Performance Average 186 203 210 214 Median Std. Dev. 1[ 42 44 46 48 Count District Performance 189 202 211 213 12.87 10.27 12.85 11.54 Reading School Performance Average 179 199 205 210 Median 178 201 205 210 Std. Dev. 1400 10.02 15.22 14.65 Dist. Avg. iH 193 202 208 Dist. median Dist. Std. Dev. Dist. Count If 44 40 46 Count 182 194 202 208 13.61 14.08 13.77 13.83 District Performance 1866 1987 1965 1867 Dist. Avg. 197 200 Dist. median W 196 200 Dist. Std. Dev. 10.22 10.46 10.44 Dist. Count 1915 1886 1825 If 37 44 47 47 Count 40 43 45 47 District Performance 1 Dist. Avg. 195 203 208 Dist. Avg. 179 191 199 205 Dist. median 197 204 209 Dist. Std. Dev. 15^ 15.08 14.18 14.10 Dist. Count 1816 1966 1936 1821 District Performance Dist. median iif 193 201 205 Dist. std. Dev. 16.55 16.34 15.80 15.57 Dist. Count 1842 1967 1945 1858 NOTE\nSummary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. ~ Page\n27 School: Subject: Grade 9 10 11 Subject: Grade 89 10 11 12 Subject: Grade 9 10 11 12 Subject: Grade 9 10 11 12 Subject: Grade 9 10 11 Achievement Level Test Results School Report Little Rock School District Date :7/20/00 Term: SOO Hall Algebra 1 School Performance Average 238 242 Median 239 239 241 Std. Dev. 6?24 5.75 6.72 Count If 237 41 10 Dist. Avg. 239 238 District Performance Dist. median Dist. Std. Dev. Dist. Count Algebra 2 School Performance Average 252 252 250 248 Median 253 251 250 248 Std. Dev. OOO 6.07 5.12 5.66 4.60 Count If 1 43 29 114 31 Dist. Avg. 256 254 250 249 Biology School Performance Average 215 215 201 Median 204 213 218 201 Std. Dev. io^ 15.54 17.20 2.52 Count If 3 20072 Dist. Avg. 217 215 201 Elementary Math School Performance Average isT 191 217 161 Median IM 191 217 161 Std. Dev. Count If 240 239 237 7.08 6.37 6.14 1023 154 27 District Performance Dist. median Dist. Std. Dev. 1 Dist. Count 12.05 0.00 16.22 0.00 4 12 1 Dist. Avg. W 197 209 186 Geometry School Performance Average 247 246 Median 247 245 Std. Dev. 9?^ 6.55 5.16 Count If 11 202 61 Dist. Avg. 248 246 259 255 253 250 248 12.20 7.11 7.79 5.80 4.39 2 321 249 560 41 District Performance Dist. median 218 213 201 Dist. Std. Dev. 15.02 15.90 17.45 2.52 District Performance Dist. median 199 202 186 Dist. Std. Dev. 17.29 17.14 14.29 24.73 District Performance Dist. median 247 245 Dist. Std. Dev. 10.42 6.60 5.78 Dist. Count 43 640 19 2 Dist. Count 13 942 1 Dist. Count 106 1081 284 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. Page: r School\nAchievement Level Test Results School Report Little Rock School District Date\n7/20/00 Term: SOO f \u0026lt;L Hall Subject: Geometry r L f c 0 s g I2 g Grade Average Median 12 245 243 Subject\nGrade 89 10 11 12 Subject: Grade ii Subject: Grade 8 9 10 11 12 Std. Dev. Count 7 Dist. Avg. Dist. median Dist. Std. Dev. Dist. Count 246 245 6.88 8 Language Usage School Performance Average 219 221 223 236 Median 221 222 224 236 Std. Dev. OO 11.42 12.30 11.38 0.00 Count 1[ 1 281 21^ 1971 Dist. Avg. 223 224 228 236 District Performance Dist. median 223 225 228 236 Dist. Std. Dev. 13.22 13.04 11.57 0.00 1 Dist. Count 1398 1399 1202 1 Middle Grade Math School Performance Average Median 154 154 Std. Dev. 6?74 Count If 2 District Performance Dist. Avg. Dist. median Dist. Std. Dev. Dist. Count 188 197 18.45 12 Reading School Performance Average 217 219 222 233 Median 219 220 221 233 Std. Dev. 0?00 13.86 13.91 12.56 0.00 Count If 1 294 287 206 1 Dist. Avg. 216 221 222 211 233 District Performance Dist. median 217 222 224 227 233 Dist. Std. Dev. 1473 14.18 14.19 13.08 0.00 1 Dist. Count 1401 1453 1225 1 n6TE\nSummary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. Page: 29 School: Subject\nGrade 8 Subject: Grade 3 Subject: Grade 3 Subject: Grade 678 Subject: Achievement Level Test Results School Report Little Rock School District Henderson Middle Sch Algebra 1 School Performance Average Median 251 250 Std. Dev. 7?78 Count 11 Date :7/20/00 Term: SOO District Performance Dist. Avg. Dist. median Dist. Std. Dev. Dist. Count 252 252 9.09 300 Elementary Math School Performance District Performance Average Median 185 185 Std. Dev. isTTT Count 2 Dist. Avg. Dist. median Dist. Std. Dev. Dist. Count 193 194 14.08 1987 General Science Elementary School Performance Average Median Std. Dev. Count 191 191 0.00 1 District Performance Dist. Avg. I Dist. median Dist. Std. Dev. Dist. Count 192 192 10.22 1915 General Science Middle Grades School Performance ------- Average 204 205 206 Median 205 205 206 Std. Dev. 10.36 9.72 Language Usage School Performarice 1[ Count W 174 162 Dist. Avg. 207 208 If District Performance Dist. median 206 209 Dist. Std. Dev. io^ 10.75 10.96 District Performance 1 Dist. Count 1604 1487 Grade 678 Average 213 215 Median 2^2 215 217 Std. Dev. 13.63 13.86 Count 1^ 171 157 Dist. Avg. 212 215 218 Dist. median ^[3 217 219 Dist. Std. Dev. 13.72 13.34 Dist. Count 1564 1541 Subject: Middle Grade Math School Performance District Performance Grade 6 7 Average Median 205 211 205 209 Std. Dev. 15.77 Count 175 172 Dist. Avg. Dist. median Dist. Std. Dev. Dist. Count 207 213 206 211 14.45 16.96 1684 1627 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Page: 30 Achievement Level Test Results School Report Little Rock School District if S-Date :7/20/00 Term: SOO t' L School: Henderson Middle Sch Subject: Grade 8 Middle Grade Math Average Median Std. Dev. Count Dist. Avg. Dist. median Dist. Std. Dev. Dist. Count 211 210 13.89 213 211 13.86 1299 r Subject: Reading School Performance If District Performance 1 Ir. Grade 3678 Average 19? 205 209 213 Median 206 210 215 Std. Dev. 0^ 13.53 15.22 15.19 Count 1 169 173 164 Dist. Avg. 209 213 216 Dist. median iw 210 214 217 Dist. Std. Dev. 16^ 14.52 14.68 14.13 Dist. Count 1625 1578 1575 i Li c E S I NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. Page: 31 School: Subject: Grade 9 10 11 Subject: Grade 9 10 11 Subject: Achievement Level Test Results School Report Little Rock School District J A Fair High School Algebra 1 School Performance Average 238 236 Median 239 237 Std. Dev. sTT 5.87 2.66 Count 21 5 Dist. Avg. 239 238 Algebra 2 School Performance Average 251 248 Median 2^ 251 248 Std. Dev. 5.06 5.03 Count 15 94 Dist. Avg. 256 254 250 Biology School Performance Date -.7/20/00 Term: SOO District Performance Dist. median 239 237 Dist. Std. Dev. 708 6.37 6.14 Dist. Count iOM 154 27 District Performance Dist. median 253 250 Dist. Std. Dev. tjT 7.79 5.80 Dist. Count 249 560 District Performance Grade 9 10 11 Average IM 211 209 Median W 208 206 Std. Dev. OO 14.31 20.41 Count 1 186 4 Dist. Avg. 217 215 Dist. median ri8 218 213 Dist. Std. Dev. 15.90 17.45 Dist. Count 43 640 19 Subject: Elementary Math School Performance District Performance 1 Grade 9 10 11 12 Average 198 198 200 211 Median 200 200 211 Std. Dev. iTto 18.04 3.77 0.00 Count 9 82 1 Dist. Avg. IM 197 209 186 Dist. median 192 199 202 186 Dist. Std. Dev. 17.14 14.29 24.73 Dist. Count 13 94 2 Subject: Geometry School Performance 1 District Performance Grade 9 10 11 Average 245 243 Median 245 244 Std. Dev. 8^ 5.60 4.53 Count 8 160 46 Dist. Avg. 2^ 248 246 Dist. median 24,7 245 Dist. Std. Dev. 1042 6.60 5.78 Dist. Count 106 1081 284 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. Page: 32 J 2 Achievement Level Test Results School Report i - Little Rock School District r* Date :7/20/00 Term: SOO 4 School: J A Fair High School Subject\nLanguage Usage School Performance District Performance Grade 9 10 11 Subject: Grade 9 10 11 Average 219 224 Median 221 223 Std. Dev. 12.53 10.45 Reading School Performance Average zil 218 221 Median 220 221 Std. Dev. 14^ 13.32 11.65 Count W 163 148 Dist. Avg. 224 228 If Count 149 182 153 Dist. Avg. 222 221 Dist. median 225 228 Dist. Std. Dev. 13.22 13.04 11.57 District Performance Dist. median 2^ 224 227 Dist. Std. Dev. 14^ 14.19 13.08 Dist. Count 1399 1202 Dist. Count 1453 1225 L V c 0 s n i NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. ---------------------------------- Page: 33 Achievement Level Test Results School Report Little Rock School District Date :7/20/00 Term: SOO School: Jefferson Elementary Subject: Elementary Math School Performance District Performance 1 Grade 2345 Average 188 199 208 215 Median 189 201 210 215 Std. Dev. iTog 11.88 11.10 13.80 Count 70 57 68 62 Dist. Avg. W 193 202 208 Dist. median 182 194 202 208 Dist. Std. Dev. 13^ 14.08 13.77 13.83 Dist. Count 1987 1965 1867 Subject: General Science Elementary School Performance If District Performance Grade 34 5 Average 202 206 Median 195 203 207 Std. Dev. 10.15 10.82 Count 66 61 Dist. Avg. 197 200 Dist. median 192 196 200 Dist. Std. Dev. 10.46 10.44 Dist. Count 1886 1825 Subject: Language Usage School Performance District Performance 1 Grade 2 34 5 Average 202 208 214 Median IM 204 211 214 Std. Dev. 1416 14.77 13.27 11.70 Count 70 56 68 61 Dist. Avg. IM 195 203 208 Dist. median 186 197 204 209 Dist. Std. Dev. iKoT 15.08 14.18 14.10 Dist. Count 1966 1936 1821 Subject: Reading School Performance If District Performance Grade 2 34 5 Average IM 200 208 213 Median 188 202 208 217 Std. Dev. 15.85 14.29 17.62 Count 70 56 67 62 Dist. Avg. 179 191 199 205 Dist. median 18? 193 201 205 Dist. Std. Dev. 16.55 16.34 15.80 15.57 Dist. Count i8 1967 1945 1858 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. ------------------------------------ Page. 34 i School: Subject: Achievement Level Test Results School Report Little Rock School District M L King Magnet Elem Date :7/20/00 Term: SOO f-i\nr L Si L c 00 I Grade 2 34 5 Subject: Grade 345 Subject: Grade 2 34 5 Subject: Grade 2 345 Elementary Math School Performance Average 196 203 207 Median Std. Dev. Count If District Performance 186 195 204 209 14.89 12.26 14.14 12.33 95 103 68 71 Dist. Avg. W 193 202 208 Dist. median 194 202 208 Dist. Std. Dev. 13.61 14.08 13.77 13.83 Dist. Count 1866 1987 1965 1867 General Science Elementary School Performance District Performance Average 197 203 Median W 199 203 Std. Dev. 11.26 9.92 Count 100 65 67 Dist. Avg. W 197 200 Dist. median 192 196 200 Dist. Std. Dev. io^ 10.46 10.44 Dist. Count 1886 1825 Language Usage School Performance Average 199 205 209 Median 190 200 208 209 Std. Dev. iTF 13.60 14.51 13.75 Count If 94 104 69 69 Dist. Avg. 195 203 208 District Performance Dist. median 1^ 197 204 209 Dist. Std. Dev. 15.01 15.08 14.18 14.10 1 Dist. Count 1816 1966 1936 1821 Reading School Performance Average 194 202 206 Median W 194 205 206 Std. Dev. 15^ 12.99 15.36 13.60 Count If 95 103 70 70 Dist. Avg. 179 191 199 205 District Performance Dist. median 18? 193 201 205 Dist. Std. Dev. 16.34 15.80 15.57 1 Dist. Count 1842 1967 1945 1858 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. ~ Page: 35 School: Subject: Grade 2 34 5 Subject: Grade 34 5 Subject: Grade 2 345 Subject: Achievement Level Test Results School Report Little Rock School District Mabelvale Elementary Elementary Math School Performance Average 179 191 195 202 Median 194 197 204 Std. Dev. 10^ 14.44 15.69 10.93 Count General Science Elementary School Performance Average 19? 191 198 Median 192 191 199 Std. Dev. 9^ 11.67 8.53 Language Usage School Performance Average 179 194 195 201 Median 196 199 203 Std. Dev. 13^5 13.50 16.89 12.55 Reading School Performance If 47 69 66 51 Dist. Avg. 18? 193 202 208 If Count 59 51 Dist. Avg. 197 200 If Count 45 68 68 49 Date :7/20/00 Term: SOO District Performance Dist. median W 194 202 208 Dist. Std. Dev. 13^ 14.08 13.77 13.83 1 Dist. Count 1^ 1987 1965 1867 District Performance Dist. median W 196 200 Dist. Std. Dev. io^ 10.46 10.44 Dist. Count 1886 1825 District Performance Dist. Avg. 195 203 208 Dist. median 197 204 209 Dist. Std. Dev. 15.08 14.18 14.10 Dist. Count 1816 1966 1936 1821 \"If District Performance 1 Grade 234 5 Average ?^ 189 189 196 Median ?77 191 191 196 Std. Dev. iTm 15.20 18.06 14.14 Count 45 68 67 48 Dist. Avg. 179 191 199 205 Dist. median iiT 193 201 205 Dist. Std. Dev. ?^ 16.34 15.80 15.57 Dist. Count . 1967 1945 1858 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. ------------------------------ -------------------------------- Page: 36 5 Achievement Level Test Results School Report Little Rock School District ? Date :7/20/00 Term: SOO School: J Mabelvale Middle Sch Subject: Algebra 1 School Performance L [ L i. ti 0E I District Performance Grade 8 Subject: Grade 678 Subject: Grade 678 Subject: Grade 678 Subject: Grade 678 Average Median Std. Dev. Count Dist. Avg. Dist. median Dist. Std. Dev. Dist. Count 247 248 8.79 15 252 252 9.09 300 General Science Middle Grades School Performance -------- Average 205 207 Median 202 205 207 Std. Dev. 10^ 9.90 10.79 Language Usage School Performance Average 211 214 Median 213 216 Std. Dev. iZiZ 13.42 12.56 Middle Grade Math School Performance Average 209 211 Median 208 208 Std. Dev. 1374 13.92 14.10 Reading School Performance Average 208 211 Median 210 212 Std. Dev. iZoT 13.10 13.70 ir Count IM 132 98 Dist. Avg. 207 208 If Count 149 129 Dist. Avg. 215 218 If Count IM 150 119 Dist. Avg. 207 213 213 ir Count 151 132 Dist. Avg. 213 216 District Performance Dist. median 206 209 Dist. Std. Dev. iZZ7 10.75 10.96 Dist. Count 1604 1487 District Performance Dist. median 217 219 Dist. Std. Dev. iZm 13.72 13.34 District Performance Dist. median 211 211 Dist. Std. Dev. iZ45 16.96 13.86 District Performance Dist. median zio 214 217 Dist. Std. Dev. iZk 14.68 14.13 I Dist. Count 1564 1541 I Dist. Count 1627 1299 1 Dist. Count 16^ 1578 1575 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. Page: 37 School: Subject: Grade 7 8 Subject: Grade 8 Subject: Grade 67 8 Subject: Grade 67 8 Subject: Achievement Level Test Results School Report Little Rock School District Mann Magnet Middle Algebra 1 School Performance Average Median 270 257 263 257 Std. Dev. 1424 7.81 Count 4 83 Date :7/20/00 Term: SOO District Performance Dist. Avg. Dist. median Dist. Std. Dev. Dist. Count 260 252 259 252 12.95 9.09 30 300 Algebra 2 School Performance Average Median Std. Dev. Count 271 271 0.00 General Science Middle Grades School Performance -------- Average 211 215 Median 209 212 216 Std. Dev. 10.55 9.55 Language Usage School Performance Average 221 225 Median 218 222 224 Std. Dev. io^ 12.00 10.45 Middle Grade Math School Performance If 1 1 Count 271 270 Count 268 270 District Performance Dist. Avg. Dist. median Dist. Std. Dev. Dist. Count 259 259 12.20 2 District Performance Dist. Avg. 204 207 208 Dist. Avg. 215 218 Dist. tpedian 206 209 Dist. Std. Dev. io?^ 10.75 10.96 Dist. Count 1604 1487 District Performance Dist. median 217 219 Dist. Std. Dev. 13^ 13.72 13.34 Dist. Count 1^ 1564 1541 District Performance Grade 6 78 Average 222 220 Median 223 219 Std. Dev. 16.96 12.78 Count 269 187 Dist. Avg. 213 213 Dist. median 211 211 Dist. Std. Dev. 14^ 16.96 13.86 Dist. Count 1627 1299 Subject: Reading School Performance If District Performance NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. ----------------------------- - ~~ Page: 38 i ? Achievement Level Test Results School Report Little Rock School District i . Date :7/20/00 Term:SOO School\nMann Magnet Middle Subject: Reading Grade Average zis 218 222 Median 215 220 222 Std. Dev. ii?M 13.08 11.02 Count 256 270 269 Dist. Avg. 213 216 Dist. median 214 217 Dist. Std. Dev. 14.52 14.68 14.13 Dist. Count 1625 1578 1575 ? * 4. . 6 7 8 L rL 41 E0 E E I NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. ~ ~~~ Page: 39 School: Subject\nGrade 9 10 11 Subject: Achievement Level Test Results School Report Little Rock School District Date :7/20/00 Term\nSOO McClellan Algebra 1 School Performance Average 239 238 Median 239 239 240 Std. Dev. 6.20 4.63 2.86 Algebra 2 School Performance If Count 28 3 Dist. Avg. 239 238 District Performance Dist. median 239 237 Dist. Std. Dev. TJOS 6.37 6.14 District Performance Dist. Count io^ 154 27 Grade 9 10 11 12 Average 252 251 250 Median 2M 252 251 250 Std. Dev. 4^ 4.91 5.46 3.05 Count 10 16 57 10 Dist. Avg. 254 250 249 Dist. median 253 250 248 Dist. Std. Dev. tjT 7.79 5.80 4.39 Dist. Count 249 560 41 Subject: Geometry School Performance District Performance Grade 9 10 11 12 Average 246 243 253 Median 246 244 253 Std. Dev. 4^ 4.99 3.72 0.00 Count 18 219 51 1 Dist. Avg. 2^ 248 246 246 Dist. median 247 245 245 Dist. Std. Dev. io^ 6.60 5.78 6.88 Dist. Count 106 1081 284 8 Subject: Language Usage School Performance If District Performance Grade 9 10 11 Average 216 218 224 Median 219 224 Std. Dev. iOJ6 11.31 8.81 Count W 251 144 Dist Avg. 224 228 Dist. median 225 228 Dist. Std. Dev. 13^ 13.04 11.57 Dist. Count 13^ 1399 1202 Subject\nReading School Performance 1 District Performance Grade 9 10 11 Average 217 223 Median 218 224 Std. Dev. iro7 13.15 10.30 Count 222 256 145 Dist. Avg. \" 2^ 222 227 Dist. median 224 227 Dist. Std. Dev. i4J8 14.19 13.08 Dist. Count 1453 1225 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. ------------------------------------- -------------- - ' Page: r i Achievement Level Test Results School Report Little Rock School District I Date :7/20/00 Term: SOO r L School: McClellan c 0 0 c 0 I NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. ~ Page: TfSchool: Subject: Grade 2 34 5 Subject: Grade 345 Subject: Grade 2 34 5 Subject: Achievement Level Test Results School Report Little Rock School District McDermott Elementary Elementary Math School Performance Average i83 196 205 208 Median i^ 196 205 210 Std. Dev. iris 14.46 11.91 15.51 Count General Science Elementary School Performance Average W 196 200 Median i^ 197 199 Std. Dev. 9?38 9.46 11.02 Language Usage School Performance Average W 197 205 206 Median 192 197 206 211 Std. Dev. ir^ 14.99 12.41 18.57 Reading School Performance If 63 62 52 58 Dist. Avg. isT 193 202 208 If Count rr 53 55 Dist. Avg. i^ 197 200 Count 60 61 51 57 Dist. Avg. i^ 195 203 208 If Date :7/20/00 Term: SOO District Performance Dist. median i^ 194 202 208 Dist. Std. Dev. 13.61 14.08 13.77 13.83 Dist. Count i8^ 1987 1965 1867 District Performance Dist. median i^ 196 200 Dist. Std. Dev. ioTT 10.46 10.44 Dist. Count iris 1886 1825 District Performance Dist. median 186 197 204 209 Dist. Std. Dev. iToT 15.08 14.18 14.10 Dist. Count isTe 1966 1936 1821 District Performance Grade 2 34 5 Average iw 194 202 203 Median i^ 195 204 205 Std. Dev. 15^ 15.80 13.85 19.82 Count 61 61 51 58 Dist. Avg. i79 191 199 205 Dist. median iF 193 201 205 Dist. Std. Dev. iTM 16.34 15.80 15.57 Dist. Count i^ 1967 1945 1858 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. ------------------ - ~ ' Page: J Achievement Level Test Results School Report Little Rock School District Date\n7/20/00 Term: SOO 4r... School\nMeadowcliff Elem Subject: V i. r 2.^ c c f L I I Grade 2 34 5 Subject\nGrade 3 45 Subject: Grade 2 345 Subject\nGrade 2 34 5 Elementary Math School Performance District Performance Average 178 187 201 205 Median 176 189 201 206 Std. Dev. i2?02 13.41 12.33 8.99 Count 38 48 44 49 Dist. Avg. 18? 193 202 208 Dist. median 194 202 208 Dist. Std. Dev. Dist. Count General Science Elementary School Performance Average 197 197 Median 19? 197 197 Std. Dev. 1033 9.77 6.74 Language Usage School Performance Average 177 186 202 204 Median 175 187 202 206 Std. Dev. 13.29 12.69 9.99 Reading School Performance Average VIA 184 197 202 Median ?7^ 185 197 203 Std. Dev. 15.89 14.06 10.15 1 Count 46 40 48 Dist. Avg. 1^ 197 200 If Count 39 48 43 48 Count 13.61 14.08 13.77 13.83 District Performance Dist. median 196 200 Dist. Std. Dev. io^ 10.46 10.44 District Performance 1866 1987 1965 1867 Dist. Count 1915 1886 1825 Dist. Avg. 195 203 208 Dist. median 197 204 209 Dist. Std. Dev. 15.08 14.18 14.10 Dist. Count 1816 1966 1936 1821 If 38 48 43 49 Dist. Avg. 179 191 199 205 District Performance Dist. median W 193 201 205 Dist. Std. Dev. 16^ 16.34 15.80 15.57 Dist. Count 1842 1967 1945 1858 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. ------------------------------------ ~ ~~ Page: School: Subject\nGrade 2 34 5 Subject: Grade 345 Subject: Grade 2 34 5 Subject\nAchievement Level Test Results School Report Little Rock School District Date\n7/20/00 Term\nSOO Mitchell Incentive Elementary Math School Performance Average 172 185 198 204 Median 173 187 197 205 Std. Dev. 12^ 14.10 10.40 9.70 If Count 35 41 44 37 Dist. Avg. TF 193 202 208 District Performance Dist. median 194 202 208 Dist. Std. Dev. 13^ 14.08 13.77 13.83 1 Dist. Count WM 1987 1965 1867 General Science Elementary School Performance Average 186 194 195 Median ia? 193 194 Std. Dev. 1076 6.49 6.58 Language Usage School Performance Average 176 188 199 204 Median 174 191 200 204 Std. Dev. 12^ 12.68 12.28 8.17 Reading School Performance If Count 39 41 36 Dist. Avg. W 197 200 If Count 38 43 33 Dist. Avg. IM 195 203 208 If District Performance Dist. median 196 200 Dist. Std. Dev. io^ 10.46 10.44 Dist. Count 1886 1825 District Performance Dist. median IM 197 204 209 Dist. Std. Dev. 15.08 14.18 14.10 Dist. Count 1816 1966 1936 1821 District Performance Grade 2 345 Average IM 186 196 202 Median 172 190 198 202 Std. Dev. 16?M 14.98 11.73 8.96 Count 36 39 43 36 Dist. Avg. 179 191 199 205 Dist. median isT 193 201 205 Dist. Std. Dev. i6?M 16.34 15.80 15.57 Dist. Count 1967 1945 1858 NOTE\nSummary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. ------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ - Page\n44 2 Achievement Level Test Results School Report Little Rock School District Date :7/20/00 Term: SOO r i.. School: Otter Creek Elem Subject\nr L Elementary Math School Performance If District Performance 'T sIes * I Grade 2345 Subject: Grade 345 Subject: Grade 2 34 5 Subject: Grade 2345 Average 198 207 204 Median i\u0026amp;4 199 206 205 Std. Dev. itw 13.45 12.65 12.05 Count 56 50 52 48 Dist. Avg. 18? 193 202 208 Dist. median W 194 202 208 Dist. Std. Dev. 14.08 13.77 13.83 Dist. Count 1987 1965 1867 General Science Elementary School Performance Average 199 196 Median 198 198 Std. Dev. 9^ 9.60 8.58 Language Usage School Performance Average 186 198 206 206 Median 200 2\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n\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_318","title":"Compliance hearing exhibits, 25","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1999/2001"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance hearing exhibits, 25"],"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/318"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nLRSD Quarterly Status Report School Monday, February 5,2001 QUARTER low 1 2,\u0026gt;.b4sSbiS9 liH^wr I W ak*\u0026lt;.4v*j WiTable of Contents Pre-AP and/or AP Course Enrollment John Ruffins Pre-AP and/or AP Grades - C or better John Ruffins Pre-AP and/or AP Course Drops John Ruffins Absent Teachers without Subs Richard Hurley Teacher Absences Richard Hurley Drop-Out Data Everett Hawks John Ruffins Disciplinary Data Linda Watson John Ruffins Assessment Data Kathy Lease Grade Distribution John Ruffins Academic High Risk Everett Hawks John Ruffins Average Daily Attendance (ADA) John Ruffins Volunteer Hours Debbie Milam Studenfs Enrolled in at Least One AP, PR^AP Course for 2000-2001 by Scho(^2nd Quarter Monday, January 29, 2001 _______________SchooL CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL HradsL__Total _ 09__L __58i_ IZJwlLI m7 T Gude. F M F M _ _F M i.Zj2ZX XbsZ j.._Xf Z CLOVERDALE MIDDLE SCHOOL T 06 ~r 3iT C07Zl_L25il. f 08 1 220 ~ DUNBAR INT'L STUDIES MAGNET MIDDLE SC I Q6 _ZZ278 M M F M F M F __Black 54 39 53 27 _ ^45 21 55__ _ 21 64 39 57 35 51 40_ _34_ FAIR HIGH SCHOOL______ forest heights middle SCHOOL HALL HIGH SCHOOL LKSD Information Service Dept. r 07 r 230 I 08 ^234 I 09 I 280 jo _X_222 I ____M_______29 _F M F M F M M i _ ll J - 198_____F I'\" L J2 L J89 X r 06 I 27^ LJ)7_.X_ Z254 rjO8Zl__241 L_ oXX. 4352 31 31 39 28 33 24 35 %Black 7% 10% _ 5% _J1% 5% __11% X% 21% 13% 23% 14% 23% 18% 12% .10% _ 13% 13% 17% 12% 12% _ _9% l6% .. 28______13%_ M F M F M F __M _ ___F_, M F 31 3.1 21 17 31 30 29 16% 16% 11% 9% 11% 11% 11% I 1- X I i _.._,22_______9%__ ____28 29.__ .55 J 2% _ .12% __ ___13% White 83 72 96 72 85 67 108 69 7 2 5 2 5 0 33 38 26 37 31 39 7 5 9 10 3 10 __5__ 9 42 27 28 28 29 32 __32 %fr/iite Other %Other I- 14% 12% 18% 14% 20% 16% 21% 14% I ! 2/p 1%_^ 2% 1% 2% 0% 12% 14% 11% 16% 13% + t -i- 17% _ 3%\n2^/o 4% , 5% i 5% 3%_ _ 5% . 15 % 10% 11% _ 11% ! 12% i 13% 7/t\u0026gt; _9_ 5 X 14 6 4 3 7 1 2% _1%_ J/^ 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 3______1%__. 2 2 4 2 11 11 5 6 8 9 0 4 1 0 2 1 1% J__25L 1% 4% 4% 2% 3% .3% __ 4% __0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 2______1%. 0 2 1 2 3 1 4 7 I 0% J% 0% _1% 1% 0% 2% 2% Pape / of 3__________________School HALL HIGH SCHOOL______ Grade Total render HENPERSON MIDDLE SCHOOL MABELVALE MIDDLE SCHOOL MANN ARTS_/.SCIENCE^MAGNET_ . MC CLELLAN HIGH SCHOlOL- PARKVIEW ARTS/SCIENCE MAGNET _ LRSD Information Ser\\\u0026gt;ice Dept. 09 10 _ 435 393 I 11 7 314 ~ LZi2_ZEZ26f P06 I 202 17. 07_ _ L _188 I 08 r 175 ----------r ] 06 L 185 LEiz ZIZ izz r 08 r 144 Z 06 7 290 I 07 r 21% I 08 Z\" 288~ I 09 I 369 IZioZZL_294_ I-._ZZlZZ.72wZZ: M F M F M F M___ F__ M _ F _ M F M F___ M _ F M _ _F M F M F M __F _ __M___ F___ M F M F M Black 15 3% 51 23 26. 15_ _ 42 ___32___ _^52_ _ 41 35 30 32 31 35 _ 16___ 31 20 52 33 44 35 __46___ 35 %Black 10% 19% 9% 16% 7% 10% _ J5% __21%._ 16% 28% 22% 20% 17% 17% _ 17% 20% 9% .22^/t^ 14% 18% 11% 16% 13% __16%. White 15 20 14 27 27 18 14 14 i %White Oth 3% 5% 4% 9% I t 9% J -I 11 io _ L-ZZ|2_Z72Q8^Z___F___ M 1 09 T 300 F r' 10^ 295 fZ-_nZZEL287 M_ _ F M F M F 48.__ 29 45 24 45 22 42 _ 22 _55__ _53_ 68___ 39 53 43 12%. _J3% _ 8% 15% 8% 16% 8% 20% _ 11% _18% Zl8% . 23% 13% ___185L_ 15% 8 20 12 6 6 15 10 12 9 64 33 41 46 68 36 _ 0 5 3 5 7 2 8 0 73 36 52 57 61 36 7% 5% 7% 5% 5% 4% 11% 7 _57___ 21% 57 I I j - i 7% 3% 3% 9% 6% 8% 6%_ I I 22% 1 I I I i i i 7 6 4 8 8 6 6 4 4 4 3 6 1 0 2 3 0 0 3 Z 7 11% 1 8 15% . 10 17% 24% 13% 0% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 4% 0% 24% 12% 18% _19%. i 2_l%-_ _ 13%_ _ 21% ' %Olher \\ 2% 2%_ ,___1%__ 3iL ___3%_ I 1 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% _3%__ ___4^ 0% 1% 2/t, 0% 0%\n__2'^h , J 2'^/o_ 6__ 5 1 2 0_. _bZ_ _ 3%_ _4%__ _ 2%_ 2% 2% 1% 0% _0% 1 3 2 2 2 14 6 9 __0% ___1%_ 1% 1% 1% 5% 2% 3% 5___ 13 5 7 _ ,5% 3% PaKe 2 of 3__________________Sdioid____________ PARKVIEW ARTS/SCIENCE MAGNET PULASKI HEIGHTS. MIDDLE.SCHOOL _ _ Grade__TotaL 12 06 275 222 LZqZZTLjm [L.-08ZZl 248__ 'ender M_ F___ M___ F___ M___ F SOUTHWEST MIDDLE school _ ~T 06 I 186 ~~ F I 07 1 174 08 163 lOrand Totals: M . M M LRSD Informallon Service Dept. BladL 3Q 15 19 26 18 _29_._ 23__ %Black 11% 7% 9% 10% 7% 12% fVhite. 32 29 %White Oth 12% 13% ! 54 24% 1 52 49 48 38 20%_ _ .19% ___ 26______14%____0 16 37 18 36 26 3112 9% 21% 10% 22% 16% 0 1 2 1 4 4 2425 I %Other 19% 15% 0% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 0 I 5 0 1 0 4_ 2^ 1 2 1 0 0 _0 359 X I 2% 0% 0% _ 0% 2% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% _1%_ 6% ___0%_ I 0 Page 3 of 3Stu^nfs that passed AP or Pre-AP Cou^s for 2000-2001 by School^ 2nd Qut^er Monday, January 29, 2001 __________________School CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL T Grade f ZZqsO jjiiaL 581 I 10 T 527 r 11 I 428 ~' Black r%^ack 75 53 69 26 75 CLOVERDALE MIDDLE SCHOOL L i2__L^ Z r 06 i 311 jiZT 251. ? [ 08 [220 DUNBARTnT^ STUDIES MAGNET MIDDLE S 06 7 278 (tender F M F __ M___ __F_ M. _ If _ M F M F M F M _F___ m r 07^r 230 F I 08 I 234 FAIR HIGH SCHOOL___ I 09 LL280 f 10 222 t11 ~7 198 O2'\"J 189 FOREST-HEIGHTS middle SCHOOL T 06__[1273 l_07[_l_254 ll0811_.241 HALL HIGH SCHOOL _. LRSD Information Service Dept. II -JQ^ L 43r? M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F _51___ JB9_ 27 257 129 222 122 180 91____ 89_ 68__ _68 71 84 58 44 30 _70__ 52 13% 9% 13% __5%___ _J8% _ __12%_ __14% _ 5% 83% 41% 88% 49% 82% __41% _ _32% _ _ 24%_ 30% 31% 36% 25% 16% __1J% _ __32% White 231 196 322 _215 302 243 _ 363 191 22 6 18 9 14 __ 0 _107 142 86 109 88 116 13 4 31 I %irhite Other %Other 40%_ 34% : 61% 41% 71% 57% 72% 38% 7% 2% 7% 4% _ 6% 0% 38% 51% 37% 47% 38% I I 66______33% 23%____19 28 24 115 57 93 15% 13% 42% 32% 37% 6 17 17 19 179 108\n.61______24%,___ 67 64 28% ____27% __ ._ .79___1,._18% _ 26 17 20 55 25 20 13 23 5 I i 4%_ 3% 4% 10% 6% 5% 3% 5% _2% 10_____3%.. 5 6 _9 0 34 39 20 23 18 } i 2%_ 2% __4% 0% ' 12% 14% 9% 10% J___8% 50% 18 5% 1% 14% 9% 3% 9% I I .9%___. 0 9 4 0 2 1 6 4. I _8%_ 0%_ 3% 2% 0% 1% 1% 3% _ 10%______0. ..o%_ 66% 40% 124 I__49% 105 ,41% 111 117 61 46% 49% 14% I 10 4 4 11 3 15 7 __4% ____i%__ __2% ' 4% ' 1% 6% 2% Pape I of.1________________SduuiL HALL HIGH SCHOOL_____ Grade} Total 09 435 10 -J ---------------------------- I 3J374 i ZiiZJL 314Z I 12 I 267 HENDERSON MIDDLE SCHOOL J 06 I 202 M F M F M F_ M F M 1_ . 07 _ 1^8_8 Z .. F L Q8_ I 175_ MABELVALE MIDDLE SCHOOL / 06 Zi J85l I MANN_ARTS/SCIENCE-S_MAGNET___ MC CLELLAN HIGH SCHOOL [ ? OlZ'' 172 r JosZJ L Q6 _X1_29O r 07 T 276 r_b8 _ [ _288 71 r 09] 369 L 10 J 294 Ti L 282 L.122 C2O8 M , M F M F .,M____ F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F Black _ 65 113 48 79 14 L_ 31_ _ __14 _ _ 142 109 ___162 121 118 94 118 88 134 _ 48 __119 51 166 105 134 88 _131 ___.M PA^IEWARTS/SCIENCE MAGNET . _ 7ZZ7b9 ,X JOOZ Z7 F QioZ j Z 295Z [ 11 \"i 287 LRSD Information Service Dept. LZl2_2i_275Z._.._. M F M F M F 112 60 42 104 49 112 54 83__ _ 31 %Black 15% 29% 12% 25% 4% _12% 5% 70% 54% 86% 64% 67% 54% 64% 48% _ 78% _28% 83% 35% 51% 35% 49% 32% _ .__45% _ 39% __16% 11% 35% 17% 40% 19% __40% _ J 5% 94______31% 95___ 158 84___ 82___ 12 125 White \\ %White Oth %Other 32 45 46 66 41 26 21 56 48 24 20 56 29 24 17 60 37 _ 53 34 i * ! I j I- 238 i 119 i 141 174 236 123 0 6 __5___ 14 16 _2___ 16 0 _183 _.^32%____84 54% _ 28% 29% 25% _ 45% 151 144 7% 11% j 12% 21%. 13% 10% 8% 28% 24% I 13% . 11% i 32% 1 5 1_ 11 11 7 10 19 12 18 12 14 2% 1% ,__2% _ __4%_ _4%_ t i I I i 17% ' 25 13% 9% 35% 22% 37% L 24% 129 , 71 ..151 0 6 10 0 0 1 82% 29 41% 51% 63% 82% 43% 0% .2%__ _5% _ 6% . _!%_ 8% 0% 61% 28% 51% 49% 45% _ 29 36 19 24 29 4 0 3% 4% 9% 6% 10% _6%__ 8% i4%_ 0% 3% 6% 0% 0% 5% .\n_._lQ%-._ i 10%_... 13% 8% 10% 1% _ o%_ __Q._0%.._ _4 __ 6 ___1___. 3 4 44 24 31 9 42 I __ __0%_ 1% 2% 15% 8% 11% _ 3% 25%_____11 55% 21 15% _ 4% 8% Pape 2 of.i__________________School__________ PARKVIEW ARTS/SCIENCE MAGNET PULASKI HEIGHTS MIDDLE SCHOOL Grade Total 12 _0_6__ 275 222 _ L 07 _1_ i64_ SOUTHWEST MIDDLE_SCHOOL LRSD Information Service Dept. [ J38 _ r 06 T 186 L_ O7__T_174 [ 08 T 163 ender M F M F M _F_ _ M F M F_ M F M Black. QZ 45 51 70 45 _77L 54_ 44 118 65 79 ___59 %Black 23% 20% 23% 27% 17% 31% _22% _ 47% ^4% _ 68% _ 37% 48% 36% White\n%Wliite Oth\\ 74 127 222 205 165 188 145 0 4 1 4 1 I 4- 27% 57% 100% 73%_ 63% 7Q% 58% 0% 2% 1% 2% i %Other 15 5%__ 0 . 18 8 3 8 5 0 5 I 0% ^%^ 0% _?_%_ 3% 1% 4% 3% 0% 4% 0 4% 0 _3% ,0Z/o 0% Page 3 of 3October, 2000 LOCATION/DATE BOOKER 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 16 17 18 19 20 23 24 25 1 26 27 30 31 BALE BRADY____________ BADGETT__________ MCDERMOTT CARVER___________ BASELINE_________ FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FRANKLIN_________ GIBBS_____________ CHICOT___________ W. HILLS__________ JEFFERSON CLOVERDALE DODD_____________ MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL________ KING______________ ROCKEFELLER G. SPRINGS PUL. HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL ROMINE__________ STEPHENS WASHINGTON WILLIAMS________ WILSON__________ WOODRUFF MABELVALE TERRY____________ FULBRIGHT OTTER CREEK WAKEFIELD WATSON_________ MANN____________ DUNBAR__________ FOR. HGTS. JR. PUL. HGTS. JR. SOUTHWEST HENDERSON A.L.C._____________ CLOVERDALE JR. MABELVALE JR. CENTRAL________ HALL_____________ METRO___________ PARKVIEW J. A. FAIR________ MCCLELLAN CHARTER________ 2 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 31 1 33 T 2 1 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2J 1 1 2 1 1 3 2 3 6 5 1 1 12 7 1 2 1 2 3 2 Page 1 1 1 111 1 2 22 1 4 12 T 2 1 1 2 1 31 1 5 4 5 1 2 1 2 3 2 13722 3 6 89 2 13 1 2 2 1 2 4 1 2 22 31 4 1 11 13 43 1 1 6 11 1 2 T T 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 TOTALS 11 11 1 0623 021 91633 058 14 7 0133 12 05 2 022 0 51 79 17 24 6 0 18 26 27 7 3 4 11 84 Novermber. 2000 LOCATION/DATE BOOKER__________ BALE______________ BRADY____________ BADGETT_________ MCDERMOTT CARVER___________ BASELINE_________ FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FRANKLIN_________ GIBBS_____________ CHICOT___________ W. HILLS__________ JEFFERSON CLOVERDALE DODD_____________ MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL_________ KING______________ ROCKEFELLER G. SPRINGS PUL. HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL ROMINE___________ STEPHENS WASHINGTON WILLIAMS________ WILSON__________ WOODRUFF MABELVALE TERRY___________ FULBRIGHT OTTER CREEK WAKEFIELD WATSON_________ MANN____________ DUNBAR_________ FOR. HGTS. JR. PUL. HGTS. JR. SOUTHWEST HENDERSON A.L.C._____________ CLOVERDALE JR. MABELVALE JR. CENTRAL________ HALL_____________ METRO___________ PARKVIEW J. A FAIR________ McClellan CHARTER _____ 1 1 1 4 1 2 1 2 22 2 1 1 2 44 3 3 2 32 2 4 2 3 3 6 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 22 1 2 3 2 1 2 21 2 1 1 2 2 4 2 32 2 1 2 3 1 2. 2 2 1 2 3 5 2 3 5 62 22 224 2. 2 9 10 1 13 14 15 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 21 2 3 1 22 222 2 22 16 21 1 17 20 21 1 27 28 29 30 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 i_ 2 24212 25 2 23 6 1 1 7 1 2 2 2 3 1 2^ 2 3 2 1 2 21 1 1 2 1 2 1 222 2 4 1 2 2 2| 3 2 2 1 1 1 22 11 1 13 1 3 1 1 111 3 2 2 32 1 4^ 1 32 2 1 1 1 3 3 1 2 1 3 1 2222 24 21 2 1 1 1 4 2 1 1 32 2 3 22 I. 1 4 4 1 1 2 1 2 14 1 2 14 12 3 2 3 1 1 2 31 1 2 2 2 5 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 21 1 1 1 1 1 2 24 422 222 21 2, 2 1 1 2 2 2 21 2 2 22 266 682 2 76 2 221 42 6 4 22 4 6 342 22 3 1 2 1 3 2 22 21 6 52 21 2 2 27 2 1 2 31 4 521 1 2 13 1 1 3 1 22 41 4 3 2 61 11 11 6 2 2221 42 4 '2 5 2 22 2 51 922 221 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 Page 1 1 1 1 2 8 2 1 2 3 4 2 1 2 1 1 7 1 1 '2 8 12 1 2 TOTALS 56 14 14 11 9 56 19 8 28 2 10 10 11 2 13 22 39 13 10 21 19 26 4 8 1 52 10 0 1 14 35 52 67 26 32 26 6 44 31 64 28 16 25 32 76 8 December, 2000 LOCATION/DATE BOOKER BALE BRADY 1 1 4111 5 6 7 8 11 12 TOTALS 1 2 2 1 BADGETT MCDERMOTT CARVER BASELINE FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FRANKLIN GIBBS CHICOT W. HILLS JEFFERSON CLOVERDALE DODD MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL KING ROCKEFELLER G. SPRINGS PUL. HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL ROMINE STEPHENS WASHINGTON WILLIAMS WILSON WOODRUFF MABELVALE TERRY FULBRIGHT OTTER CREEK WAKEFIELD WATSON MANN 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 31 1 1 1 1 111 2 1 1 3 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 111 1 2 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 21 JI 3 11 1 2 3 3 Jj 1 3 1 4 1 3 2 1 1 3 3 2 31 1 3 4 21 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 11 1 2 31 1 1 1 111 1 2 1 1 2 DUNBAR FOR. HGTS. JR. PUL. HEIGHTS SOUTHWEST HENDERSON A.L.C. CLOVERDALE JR. MABELVALE JR. CENTRAL HALL METRO PARKVIEW J. A. FAIR McClellan CHARTER 26 5 6653135 11 1157 4 2 2 2 4 2 3 5 21 7 223 1 21 4 6 2 46 2 1 4 1 11 1 21 223 2 1 6 2 31 2 34 312 2 481 221 1 31 2 111 1 2 324 1 _4 4 5 1 Ji 4 4 1 1 2 116 11 261 1 3 1 2 7 ___ 2 36 5 2 5 2 10 3 3 81 0 8 3 22 3 78 2 11 15 1 6215 6114 19 17 22 14 13 19 3 14 23 37 11 5 14 26 48 4 Page 1 January. 2001 LOCATION/DATE BOOKER BALE BRADY BADGETT MCDERMOTT CARVER BASELINE FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FRANKLIN GIBBS CHICOT W. HILLS JEFFERSON CLOVERDALE DODD MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL KING ROCKEFELLER G. SPRINGS PUL. HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL ROMINE STEPHENS WASHINGTON WILLIAMS WILSON WOODRUFF MABELVALE TERRY FULBRIGHT OTTER CREEK WAKEFIELD WATSON MANN DUNBAR FOR. HGTS. JR. PUL. HGTS. JR. SOUTHWEST HENDERSON A.L.C._____________ CLOVERDALE JR. MABELVALE JR. CENTRAL________ HALL_____________ METRO___________ PARKVIEW J. A. FAIR________ McClellan CHARTER 3 4 5 8 9 10 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 41 1 2 1 2 12 2 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 111 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 3 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 2 2 1 1 1 21 11 11 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 22 22 2 1 1 1 1 4 3 1 21 1 2 2 1 12 6 51 12 11 1 2 1 3 1 2 1 2 TOTALS 0 1 2 1 0 2 3 7 2 3 2 1 0 4 3 2 1 10 2 7 4 3 4 4 1 14 0 3 2 1 0 4 1 2 3 11 19 15 1 4 4 0 6 7 4 4 5 0 3 12 0 Page 1 TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM OCTOBER 1, 2000 THRU DECEMBER 31, 2000 MONTH TOTAL SCHOOL: OCTOBER 13.50 NOVEMBER 12.00 DECEMBER 6 00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 31.50 SCHOOL: ACCELERATED LEARNING PROGRAMS OCTOBER 1.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 1.00 SCHOOL: ADULT EDUCATION SEPTEMBER 3.50 OCTOBER 17.00 NOVEMBER 23.50 DECEMBER 2.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 46.50 SCHOOL: ALTERNATIVE AGENCIES AUGUST -5.00 SEPTEMBER -15.00 OCTOBER 5.00 NOVEMBER 3.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: -12.00 SCHOOL: ALTERNATIVE LEARNING CENTER SEPTEMBER OCTOBER 4.00 17.00 NOVEMBER 20.50 DECEMBER 11.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 52.50 SCHOOL: ATHLETICS/QUIGLEY/SCOTT FIELD SEPTEMBER 5.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 5.00 Tuesday, January 30,2001 Page 1 of 13TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM OCTOBER 1, 2000 THRU DECEMBER 31, 2000 MONTH TOTAL SCHOOL: BADGETT SEPTEMBER 5.00 OCTOBER 8.00 NOVEMBER 16.00 DECEMBER 7.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 36.50 SCHOOL: BALE SEPTEMBER 6.50 OCTOBER 47.00 NOVEMBER 40.00 DECEMBER 20.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 114.00 SCHOOL: BASELINE SEPTEMBER 8.00 OCTOBER 63.50 NOVEMBER 64.00 DECEMBER 28.00 JANU/kRY 1.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 164.50 SCHOOL: BOOKER SEPTEMBER 14.00 OCTOBER 66.00 NOVEMBER 71.50 DECEMBER 30.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 182.00 SCHOOL: BRADY SEPTEMBER 4.50 OCTOBER 33.50 NOVEMBER 37.50 DECEMBER 16.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 91 50 Tuesday, January 30, 2001 Page 2 of 13TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM OCTOBER 1, 2000 THRU DECEMBER 31, 2000 MONTH TOTAL SCHOOL: CARVER SEPTEMBER 17.50 OCTOBER 129.00 NOVEMBER 74.00 DECEMBER 36.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 257.00 SCHOOL: CENTRAL SEPTEMBER 40.00 OCTOBER 141.00 NOVEMBER 124.00 DECEMBER 73.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 378.00 SCHOOL: CHARTER SCHOOLS OCTOBER NOVEMBER 5.00 7.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 12.00 SCHOOL: CHICOT SEPTEMBER 19.50 OCTOBER 133.50 NOVEMBER 91.00 DECEMBER 29.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 273.50 SCHOOL: CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY SEPTEMBER 18.50 OCTOBER 57.50 NOVEMBER 67.00 DECEMBER 17.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 160.50 SCHOOL: CLOVERDALE JR HIGH SEPTEMBER Tuesday, January 30, 2001 32.50 Page 3 of 13TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM OCTOBER 1, 2000 THRU DECEMBER 31, 2000 MONTH TOTAL OCTOBER 108.00 NOVEMBER 83.00 DECEMBER 20.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 244.00 SCHOOL: DODD SEPTEMBER 7.50 OCTOBER 52.00 NOVEMBER 33.00 DECEMBER 4.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 97.00 SCHOOL: DUNBAR SEPTEMBER 33.50 OCTOBER 134.50 NOVEMBER 153.50 DECEMBER 65.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 387.00 SCHOOL: ENGLISH NOVEMBER 2.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 2.50 SCHOOL: FAIR SEPTEMBER 30.00 OCTOBER 115.00 NOVEMBER 109.00 DECEMBER 58.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 312.50 SCHOOL: FAIR PARK SEPTEMBER 13.50 OCTOBER 34.00 NOVEMBER 36.00 DECEMBER 18.50 Tuesday, January 30, 2001 Page 4 of 13 TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM OCTOBER 1, 2000 THRU DECEMBER 31, 2000 MONTH TOTAL TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 102 00 SCHOOL: FOREST HEIGHTS SEPTEMBER 37.00 OCTOBER 140.00 NOVEMBER 144.50 DECEMBER 64.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 385.50 SCHOOL\nFOREST PARK SEPTEMBER 850 OCTOBER 41.00 NOVEMBER 48.50 DECEMBER 13.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 111.00 SCHOOL: FRANKLIN SEPTEMBER 3.00 OCTOBER 60.50 NOVEMBER 44.50 DECEMBER 21.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 129.00 SCHOOL: FULBRIGHT SEPTEMBER 7.00 OCTOBER 30.50 NOVEMBER 39.00 DECEMBER 8.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 85.00 SCHOOL: GEYER SPRINGS SEPTEMBER 8.50 OCTOBER 40.00 NOVEMBER 32.00 DECEMBER 25.00 Tuesday, January 30,2001 Page 5 of 13TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM OCTOBER 1, 2000 THRU DECEMBER 31, 2000 MONTH TOTAL TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 105.50 SCHOOL: GIBBS SEPTEMBER 2.00 OCTOBER 49.00 NOVEMBER 48.00 DECEMBER 15.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 114.00 SCHOOL: HALL SEPTEMBER 56.50 OCTOBER 142.50 NOVEMBER 125.00 DECEMBER 44.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 368.00 SCHOOL: HENDERSON SEPTEMBER 13.00 OCTOBER 90.00 NOVEMBER 129.00 DECEMBER 55.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 287.00 SCHOOL: INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS CENTER NOVEMBER 2.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 2.00 SCHOOL: IRC DECEMBER 1.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 1.00 SCHOOL: JEFFERSON SEPTEMBER 12.00 OCTOBER 37.00 NOVEMBER 44.50 Tuesday, January 30, 2001 Page 6 of 13 TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM OCTOBER 1, 2000 THRU DECEMBER 31, 2000 MONTH TOTAL DECEMBER 13.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 107.00 SCHOOL: M.L. KING SEPTEMBER 8.00 OCTOBER 41.50 NOVEMBER 32.00 DECEMBER 9.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 91.00 SCHOOL: MABELVALE ELEMENTARY SEPTEMBER 10.50 OCTOBER 13.50 NOVEMBER 28.50 DECEMBER 12.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 64.50 SCHOOL: MABELVALE JR HIGH SEPTEMBER 29.50 OCTOBER 101.50 NOVEMBER 91.50 DECEMBER 42.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 264.50 SCHOOL: MANN SEPTEMBER 25.00 OCTOBER 135.00 NOVEMBER 115.00 DECEMBER 69.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 344.50 SCHOOL: MATH OCTOBER 3.00 NOVEMBER 0.50 DECEMBER 2.00 Tuesday, January 30, 2001 Page 7 of 13 TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM OCTOBER 1, 2000 THRU DECEMBER 31, 2000 MONTH TOTAL TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 5.50 SCHOOL: MCCLELLAN COMMUNITY HIGH SCH SEPTEMBER 29.50 OCTOBER 130.50 NOVEMBER 183.50 DECEMBER 82.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 426.00 SCHOOL: MCDERMOTT SEPTEMBER 12.00 OCTOBER 49.00 NOVEMBER 52.50 DECEMBER 20.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 134.00 SCHOOL: MEADOWCLIFF SEPTEMBER 7.00 OCTOBER 27.50 NOVEMBER 14.00 DECEMBER 9.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 57.50 SCHOOL: METROPOLITAN SEPTEMBER 2.00 OCTOBER 22.00 NOVEMBER 26.50 DECEMBER 17.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 01.50 SCHOOL: MITCHELL SEPTEMBER 10.00 OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER 15.00 36.50 5.50 Tuesday, January 30, 2001 Page 8 of 13 TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM OCTOBER 1, 2000 THRU DECEMBER 31,2000 MONTH TOTAL TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 6700 SCHOOL: OTTER CREEK SEPTEMBER 2.00 CX7TOBER 12.00 NOVEMBER 24.00 DECEMBER 11.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 49.00 SCHOOL: PARKVIEW SEPTEMBER 24.00 OCTOBER 135.50 NOVEMBER 115.50 DECEMBER 45.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 320.50 SCHOOL: PULASKI HEIGHTS INT AUGUST -5.00 SEPTEMBER 2.00 OCTOBER 22.00 NOVEMBER 22.50 DECEMBER 10.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 52.00 SCHOOL: PULASKI HEIGHTS JR HIGH SEPTEMBER 23.00 OCTOBER 19.50 NOVEMBER 79.50 DECEMBER 30.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 212.00 SCHOOL: PUPIL PERSONNEL OCTOBER 9.00 NOVEMBER 4.50 DECEMBER 3.00 Tuesday, January 30, 2001 Page 9 of 13 TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM OCTOBER 1, 2000 THRU DECEMBER 31, 2000 MONTH TOTAL TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 16.50 SCHOOL: READING SEPTEMBER 0.50 OCTOBER 8.50 NOVEMBER 3.00 DECEMBER 3.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 15.00 SCHOOL: RIGHTSELL SEPTEMBER 5.00 OCTOBER 32.50 NOVEMBER 30.00 DECEMBER 18.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 86.00 SCHOOL: ROCKEFELLER SEPTEMBER 16.00 OCTOBER 74.00 NOVEMBER 58.00 DECEMBER 25.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 173.00 SCHOOL: ROMINE SEPTEMBER 10.00 OCTOBER 48.00 NOVEMBER 34.00 DECEMBER 8.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 100.00 SCHOOL: SCIENCE/ENV ED SEPTEMBER 0.50 OCTOBER 5.50 NOVEMBER 1.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 7.00 Tuesday, January 30, 2001 Page 10 of 13TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM OCTOBER 1, 2000 THRU DECEMBER 31, 2000 MONTH SCHOOL: SOCIAL STUDIES NOVEMBER TOTAL 4.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 4.00 SCHOOL: SOUTHWEST SEPTEMBER 31.50 OCTOBER 82.50 NOVEMBER 80.50 DECEMBER 33.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 228.00 SCHOOL: SPECIAL EDUCATION SEPTEMBER 3.00 OCTOBER 30.50 NOVEMBER 20.00 DECEMBER 7.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 60.50 SCHOOL: STEPHENS SEPTEMBER 13.50 OCTOBER 17.50 NOVEMBER 27.00 DECEMBER 27.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 85.50 SCHOOL: TERRY SEPTEMBER 11.50 OCTOBER 38.50 NOVEMBER 37.50 DECEMBER 20.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 107.50 SCHOOL: VOCATIONAL EDUCATION SEPTEMBER 6.50 OCTOBER 25.50 Tuesday, January 30,2001 Page 11 of 13 TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM OCTOBER 1, 2000 THRU DECEMBER 31, 2000 MONTH TOTAL NOVEMBER 22.00 DECEMBER 13 00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 67.00 SCHOOL: WAKEFIELD SEPTEMBER 10.00 OCTOBER 44.00 NOVEMBER 24.00 DECEMBER 9.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 87.50 SCHOOL: WASHINGTON SEPTEMBER 22.50 OCTOBER 98.00 NOVEMBER 74.50 DECEMBER 31.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 226.00 SCHOOL: WATSON SEPTEMBER 6.00 OCTOBER 45.50 NOVEMBER 36.00 DECEMBER 10.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 97.50 SCHOOL: WESTERN HILLS SEPTEMBER 6.50 OCTOBER 31.50 NOVEMBER 19.00 DECEMBER 9.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 66.50 SCHOOL: WILLIAMS SEPTEMBER 11.00 OCTOBER 57.50 NOVEMBER 41.50 DECEMBER 27.50 Tuesday, January 30, 2001 Page 12 of 13TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM OCTOBER 1,2000 THRU DECEMBER 31,2000 MONTH TOTAL TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 137.50 SCHOOL: WILSON SEPTEMBER 5.00 OCTOBER 29.50 NOVEMBER 20.50 DECEMBER 18.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 73.50 SCHOOL: WOODRUFF SEPTEMBER 7.00 OCTOBER 15.50 NOVEMBER 27.50 DECEMBER 6.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 56.50 GRAND TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 8,484.50 Tuesday, January 30,2001 Page 13 of 13 2ND QUARTER DROPOUT REPORT 2000 - 2001 [SCHOOLS ~i ACC leariF 9th Grade r 1 oth Grade 11th Grade ! I 12th Gradel enrollment 274 29 59 82 I 104 + CENTRAL 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade T 2072 600 537 426 509 %\nFAIR \u0026gt; 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade % HALL 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade % jgi MCCLELLAN :\u0026lt; 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade % 276 215 224 185 442 417 321 278 1149 366 296 282 205 PARKVIEW M62 ^4*' 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade % TOTZU-S - % \u0026gt;7 305 294 287 276 wyois . ... ,iz BM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.05% BF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 t WM WF 000 0 i 0 ! 0 00 0 000 i 0 0 00 00 0100 0.07% '' '^5 0 00 00 0.05% I 0 T~o 00 0 0 01 0.05% I HM 0 0 0 0 0 0 .jOa 0 0 0 0 0 1 HF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0010 0.07% 0 0 00 I T I t OM 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0001 0.05% 0 00 0 0 x' OF TOTAL DROPOUTS fs. 0 00 00 00000 iW 000 00 0 00 00 0'^ 00000 -'XOSn: 00 000\n0\ns^'SyO'\u0026lt;': / . \u0026lt;0- 0 0000 0.03%: 0 000 0 \u0026gt;0.03%^ 0 0000 SB 00000 0411^^ ~ r- 0 0 00 00 000 0 0 6 \u0026gt; 023 0 0.34% 0 0 2 0 0.14% 0 00 00 ayO-.^ 0 0 0 o 0 0.07% 0 00 00 00 00 00 i) 00 00 0 0 00 00 1 0 0 0 10 0.07% 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 0.04% 1 0 0 0 00 I % 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 4 . 01 12 0 00 0 ^'TO:\n03 70 0 00 60 .-a.\u0026gt;0:. 000 00 .0.01^ T 0 00 006 00 00 0\n\u0026lt; 0 Compiled by the Office of Dropout Prevention 1/25/01 0 00 0 \u0026gt; .x,0. 0 000 14 0.19% 0 0.19% 0.23% 0.39% 0 00 0 a 0.69% 0 0.72% 2.18% 0 0 \"o 0 0 0 1 0 00 0 ojn6 I Schools Enrollment BM BF WM WF HM HF OM OF Total Dropouts % ALC 6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade % 63 1 8 12 20 13 6 3 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 4.76% CLOVERDALE i6th Grade 17th Grade 8th Grade % 760 300 238 222 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b b 0 6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade % 279 228 240 eorestOO^SI 0 0 b 0 0 0 o' 0 0 0 0 o' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _0 0 0 0 0 0 \" 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o' _0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 b' 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 o' 0 0 0 b 0 0 Z 0 _ 'o' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0\n0 0 0 'b 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 \no. 3 r \u0026gt;rr ? . 6th Grade 7 th Grae 8^h Grade % 274 249 236 6th Grade 7th Grade 8 th Grade % 202 186 178 0 0 0 0 IM 0 0 0 0 6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade % 198 173 l\"46' 0 0 0 0 0____ 0 0 0 0__ b 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b 0 0 0 0 0 '0 b b 0 0 0 0 0 0 o' 0 294 276 284 '749.\nMANN I 6th Grade 7th Grad PULASKI HTS^r 6th Grade__ 7th Grade_______ 8 th i^rad^_____ % SOUTHWEST\n^ 6th Grade_______ 7th Grade_______ 8 th Grade % 221 '269 253 529 181 182 166 TOTAL % ' 5544 DISTRICT TOTALS % ::?,.-t2559 4.76% 0 0 0 0 7.69% 16.67% 33.33% 0 0 0 0 0 b 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b\no'Z 0 0 0 0 0 O q___ 0 'T 0 0 0 0 0 0 b o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 q 0 0 0 0 o' 0 0 0 b 0 0 0 0 3 0 J5% - 5 0 0 __0___ 0 :-.\n-0 r 0 0 0 b : o-?\"- 5 0 . 0 0 0 0 . Osfe^ 1 0J4%^ 0.2% 0 0.01% 0 0 0 0 \"ZbS- 0 0 0 0 0.04% 'CSmpilS3~T72S^ 0 0 0 0\n0\u0026gt; 0 o' 0 0 iQ 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b o' 0 0^ 6 b 0 0 0 0 o' 3 ft M \"s.- o.\nvO.'' 0.02% 0 0 __q 0 0 0 0 0 ^~o7 0\n. 1-. 0 0 0 .o: 0 o' 0 0.01% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \" 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 I 0.05% i'z* 0.14%Memorandum Date: To: From: RE January 29,2001 Dr. Leslie Gamine, Superintendent Dr. Linda Watson, Assistant Superintendent Student Discipline First Semester and Second Quarter Disciplinary Management Reports The following data represents the First Semester and Second Quarter Disciplinary Management Reports for the 2000-01 school year. A comparative summary of the 1999-2000 and 2000-01 schra years is presented. The Discipline Sanctions by Reason Codes and Recidivism Reports for the 2000- 01 school year are also included. Attachments2000-2001 FIRST SEMESTER DISCIPLINARY MANAGEMENT REPORT2000 - 2001 First Semester Disciplinary Management Report Summary During the first semester of the 2000-2001 school year, the Little Rock School District experienced a marginal increase in the number of disciplinary sanctions, resulting in students receiving suspensions. However, the data indicates that the District had no expulsions during the first semester. The 2000-2001 First Semester Disciplinary Management Report indicates there was a 9% increase in the overall number of suspensions issued when compared to the first semester of the 1999-2000 school year. However, there was a decrease of 105 long-term suspensions/Alternative Learning Environment referrals representing a 57.7% decrease in students committing serious offenses. The data also indicates there was an increase of 287 suspensions at the high school level and a decrease of 66 suspensions at the middle school level. Forty-six middle level students served their suspensions in one of the Continuous Instruction Centers (CIC) that were established for middle school students through a federal grant obtained by the District. The data also indicates there was an increase of 35 suspensions at the elementary level. 1999-2000 2000-2001 Short-term suspensions 15S2 1843 Long-term suspension/ALE referrals 287 182 Expulsions 0 0 Totals 1839 2025 The Recidivism Report indicates the following: 1999-2000 2000-2001 Number of students committing offenses 1370(1839) 1447(2025) The October 1, 2000 student enrollment figures indicate that 25,525 students were enrolled in the Districts schools. Therefore the above data demonstrates that only 5.7% of the student population was involved in incidents that led to suspensions.Nama ACC LEARN AGENCIES CENTRAL FAIR HALL School EarolM 274 132 2072 900 1458 %Blk 76% 62% 55% Short Term Suspension BM I BF IFF Total ___\"L ._.i4 \u0026lt;4 0 4 15 [mcclella I [metro I parkview I Totals ALT LEARN CLOVR JR DUNBAR FORST HT HENDERSN MABEL JR MANN M/S PULHTJ 1149 _.4 0 1 .i2 31 LRSD Discipline Management Report 2000/2001 Semester 1 Long BM 0 1 OI-Fth-OI Term Suspension/ALE BF 0 0 IFM Total BM 1 0 Expulsion BF IFM IFF Total BM BF CIC 1 U'F ! Total Total ItSusp %Blk _11 1 0 0 0 0 -^1__?l___ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 __i__?. O ___ u u oj____0 i 0 2 32 0% 84% _________m|_____11 7^ I 934 60% 91% 1 I wl 1162 7147 63 760 747 759 566 617 854 61% 68% 97% 86% 59% 65% n% L 53% 79 83 4 4 1 14 11 70 17 3 1 i. 21 0 4 11 121 356 257 6 2 0 _ o|_____8 0 32 16 6 4 .l i Mm 10 LjI 224 __3o|_ 2 107| 55 i?L 44| 44 22 __ 28[ 10 70 I 79% 100 0 _0 J 0 0 0 0 0 _ii _.21. o| 0 0 0 0 93% 129 0 i 0 ! 0 67% 399 0 __4 4 43 0 0 0 0 0 ji 94% i 211 0 L 0 0 0 1 3 0 20 0 0 0 92% __ I _91%___I 99% 11__4-_.i- I _ .oL._.il__?i 22 0 __4__^.4. 4 4 4 ^1 ._._4__4. 4 4 0 0 0{ 221 0 0 0 0 o I 2?. iL,4 0 0 0 L_4. _,-_4 4. 1 11 12 14 6 21 1 0 1 0 0 0 886 34 170 o[ _ n 158 76 _ o|____40 73 1 12 6 9 3 2 I inj \u0026lt;1 l| l__?. 14 1 1 1 95 2 13 3 3 1 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 r 4 4 14 6 3 2 J ___I_____749_| I_________1*1___________?[_. .1____11__________^21____i SOUTHWST 529 J. 92% 38 I 6| 4 id 6 3 Totals BALE BASEUNE BOOKER CARVER CHARTER CHICOT DODO 5544 338 311 545 511 89 510 222 69% 76% 83% 56% 53% 65% 67% 65% LBSD lafarmatloa Sarviees Dept 469 212 0 H ^*1 4__4 780 1 47 0 0 A 2 H__1 .....4. L 0 0 L iL 2 2 .._91......4. \u0026lt;1 1 .. ..ol.. 1!. \u0026lt;1 4 3 10 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 - _..,4._. _iL_ . .4 ... __.4__ __..4L- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 983 0 0 0 0 0 0 t I _ ?l - -2. I i| t d__l 15 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _?.L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 97% 9 6 1 0 16 208 91% 2 2 2 0 6 93 81% S 0 3 0 __4 3 1 0 i 9 181 88% 1 1 1 t I__.4__1 0 0 0 I 0 I 1 83 68% ...5 L 0 I 4 1 .o.i....d 1 1..0 I. 2 47 26 91% 96% 68 I e5%_ I J 36 L 9% 1 ^4 4 4 4 4 4 72 0 2 ... l__.9 11__4. 11__sL 1 3 o|_ jI...... 11.4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 1 0 i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 15 0 0 46 876 89% 0 0 0 0 1 100% 0 0 0 ___0 j__ 0 4 100% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 100% 0 i 0 4 75% 0 [_ 0 13 100% 0 0 2 100% __11. 75% J Page I of 2Namt FORST PK FRANKLIN GEYER SP GIBBS JEFFRSN MI KING I MABEL EL School SnrolM 306 464 337 300 404 597 346 %Blk 37% 97% Short Term Suspension BM 1 . 3. BF 0 0 87% 5| 1 53% 41% 54% 75% WM I WF Total 1 MCDERMOT | 366 53% MEADCLIF J. 264 73% -j\u0026gt;L 0 1 I... Ji .. 3 21__sL 7 LRSD Discipline Management Report 2000/2001 Semester I Long BM 0 0 0 0 OlFtb-OI Term Suspenslon/ALE BF 0 0 0 0 FM l__i. Total BM 0 _ _ 4 - _l__ __4._. 4. __o|__4 0 0 Expulsion WM WF Totat BM BF CIC WM T ratal 'F i Tow/ 1 #Susp %Blk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ! 0 1 100% o| 0 I __Oj 0 0 0 0 0 MITCHELL I RIGHTSEL 278 264 ROCKFELR 412 STEPHENS 327 TERRY 490 WAKEFIEL 344 WASHNGTN 491 WATSON 451 WEST HIL WILLIAMS WILSON Totals GTolal __91__ I : .1._ I 4 2 4 0 _sI__5L__1 A 3 0 0 o|__o[_ _ _o 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .. 0 i 0 I 0 3 100% 0 12 50% 0 0 1__i 16 0 0 _l__4 0 0 0 0 0 0 i 0 7 57% ._4__L.__d. j__4 0 0 J_.4 0 L?*_1.. .L. d._I__l_..111-.-11 . 61% 94% 46% 81% 59% 96% 266 454 288 9979 22668 74% 52% 4 2 t ol 2I_0^ 0 5 0 0 o| d 4 t l i o| l _4 4 -._4Z o| o| 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 .J. I..._?.L _ 9. 4 4. 4 4 4 0 0 l_0l I 0 0 0 1 0 0 ___o| 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I y t . 0 0 0 0 [ _ 0 0 0 1 3 18 2 0 1 I____ 0 6 100% 67% 94% 100% 100% L J. ol 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I i 0 25 92% 0 0 0 I 0 2 100% 4 .4 4 4 4 0 0 0 2 0 ___4 69% 68% 68% LRSD Information Strrica Dept 2 _ oj_____o|____10 l ^1 4_4 8 2 .9l__- 0 0 0 0 0 ___L J 0 0 0 0 .4__4 0 _4 4 0 0 o[_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L 0 5 100% 0 0 0 0 0 0 i 0 10 100% 0 0 _..4 msl 113b| 0 26 462 J__4 J__4 4__4 o| ol 4 l H.. 1 2 3 11 4 149 1797 0 0 0 0 1 0 9 129 0 0 33 *1__?!__A o| l \"I__4 J__4 J l 2^__i 0 0 1 0 18 182 __4 __.4 __4 __4 __4 __4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 __4 __4 0 0 ___o| _ _0 4 o| 4 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 I _ 8 88% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i 0 i 0 0 0 0 2 7 100% 86% I .1. 0 2 100% .1... A 0 0 I 0 0 \\4b' 01 3 12 4 164 2025 100% 75% 100% 86% 69% Page 2 of 2Discipline Sanctions by Reason Code Year: 2001 Quarter: J to Quarter: 2 Ol-Feb-Ol Level_____ Senior High School_____ ACC LEARN LvI Coite Offense BM (FM OM BF fVF OF TOTAL 1 110 USE OF VERBAL ABUSE/FIGHTING WORDS/GES 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 020 BATTERY 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Senior High AGENCIES 1 062 1 110 2 030 2 040 2 080 2 110 2 115 3 121 REFUSE TO OBEY RULES OR DIRECTIVES USE OF VERBAL ABUSE/FIGHTING WORDS/GES THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT VANDALISM (INTENTIONAL DESTRUCTION/PROP DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN USE OF A WEAPON 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 6 13 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 7 16 1 Senior High CENTRAL 1 131 1 132 1 133 Senior High FAIR 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 010 020 040 090 100 105 110 115 121 122 150 060 072 090 120 140 050 060 062 080 090 100 110 010 030 040 2 2 2 2 2 2 050 060 090 100 110 115 120 LRSD Information Services Dept. USE/POSS ALCOHOL USE/POSS. DRUGS REPEATED SCHOOUCLASS TARDIES ASSAULT BATTERY FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN REPEATED VIOLATION - CATEGORY II OFFENSE FALSIFYING SIGNATURE/INFORMATION POSSESSION OR USE OF ALCOHOL BURN OR ATTEMPT TO BURN SCHOOL PROPER VERBAL ABUSE OF STAFF POSSESSION OF WEAPON INCITING TO RIOT TERRORISTIC THREATENING LEFT SCHOOL/CLASS WITHOUT PERMISSION FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES REFUSE TO OBEY RULES OR DIRECTIVES FAILURE TO SERVE DETENTION REFUSED TO SERVE DETENTION USE OR POSSESSION OF TOBACCO USE OF VERBAL ABUSE/FIGHTING WORDS/GES ASSAULT THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT GAMBLING FALSE ALARM NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN HARASSING COMMUNICATIONS 0 2 0 0 0 0 32 2 2 2 1 2 7 1 1 2 12 18 2 0 6 0 1 0 2 2 0 2 1 1 1 1 0 4 9 16 2 1 11 2 5 17 2 1 0 1 3 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 2 0 5 0 0 3 1 2 6 0 3 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 3 2 4 22 24 2 1 7 2 1 1 2 2 100 2 2 4 1 2 1 1 6 9 21 2 1 15 3 7 26 2 Page 1 of i Level Senior High School FAIR Lvl Code Offense___________________________________ 2 121 repeated VIOLATION - CATEGORY II OFFENSE 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 B,M W^T 'OM BF WF OF TOTAL Senior High HALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 Senior High MCCLELLA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 LRSD Information Services Dept. 121 122 123 124 150 071 072 140 FALSIFYING SIGNATURE/INFORMATION POSSESSION OR USE/PAGING DEVICE MEMBERSHIP AND PROHIBITIVE GANG/ORGANI POSSESSION OR USE OF ALCOHOL PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF VERBAL ABUSE OF STAFF TERRORISTIC THREATENING 030 050 060 062 070 110 132 133 010 020 030 040 070 080 090 100 105 110 115 120 121 122 150 071 072 090 092 MINOR ALTERCATION LEFT SCHOOL/CLASS WITHOUT PERMISSION FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES REFUSE TO OBEY RULES OR DIRECTIVES REFUSE TO OBEY BUS RULES/REGULATIONS USE OF VERBAL ABUSE/FIGHTING WORDS/GES USE/POSS. DRUGS REPEATED SCHOOL/CLASS TARDIES ASSAULT BATTERY THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT LOITERING OR CRIMINAL TRESPASS VANDALISM (INTENTIONAL DESTRUCTION/PROP NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN HARASSING COMMUNICATIONS REPEATED VIOLATION - CATEGORY II OFFENSE FALSIFYING SIGNATURE/INFORMATION POSSESSION OR USE OF ALCOHOL PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF VERBAL ABUSE OF STAFF POSSESSION OF WEAPON POSS./WEAP KNIFE/CLUB/FACSIM.BLADE LESS 140 TERRORISTIC THREATENING 040 050 060 062 070 100 110 131 133 010 020 040 050 070 080 BEHAVIOR THAT VIOLATES A PERSON'S RIGHTS LEFT SCHOOL/CLASS WITHOUT PERMISSION FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES REFUSE TO OBEY RULES OR DIRECTIVES REFUSE TO OBEY BUS RULES/REGULATIONS USE OR POSSESSION OF TOBACCO USE OF VERBAL ABUSE/FIGHTING WORDS/GES USE/POSS ALCOHOL REPEATED SCHOOL/CLASS TARDIES ASSAULT BATTERY FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT GAMBLING LOITERING OR CRIMINAL TRESPASS VANDALISM (INTENTIONAL DESTRUCTION/PROP 5 0 0 1 6 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 9 2 1 1 0 0 6 1 15 3 1 25 1 84 29 51 2 3 6 5 0 12 1 1 0 2 26 12 10 1 1 1 1 14 4 5 16 1 13 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 1 2 0 4 4 10 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 3 3 0 3 1 1 0 1 2 0 0 14 0 0 9 0 28 7 9 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 10 1 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 19 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 1 2 1 8 2 2 1 W 4 3 2 12 3 2 1 1 2 6 1 39 3 4 38 1 118 43 72 2 3 11 6 1 15 1 1 4 399 2 38 15 13 1 1 2 2 16 4 e 36 1 26 t Page 2 of iLevel_____ Senior High School MCCLELLA Lvl Code Offense BM UM OM BF WF OF TOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 090 105 110 115 121 150 072 090 140 NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN REPEATED VIOLATION - CATEGORY II OFFENSE POSSESSION OR USE OF ALCOHOL VERBAL ABUSE OF STAFF POSSESSION OF WEAPON TERRORISTIC THREATENING 4 2 9 43 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 2 26 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 -0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Senior High METRO 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 030 040 050 060 062 133 110 000 072 090 MINOR ALTERCATION BEHAVIOR THAT VIOLATES A PERSONS RIGHTS LEFT SCHOOL/CLASS WITHOUT PERMISSION FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES REFUSE TO OBEY RULES OR DIRECTIVES REPEATED SCHOOL/CLASS TARDIES DISORDERLY CONDUCT USE OF RAP RINGS,CHEMICAL AGNTS OR FACS VERBAL ABUSE OF STAFF POSSESSION OF WEAPON 0 1 4 5 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Senior High PARKVIEW 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 030 040 090 110 115 150 072 092 THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOLIT DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN POSSESSION OR USE OF ALCOHOL VERBAL ABUSE OF STAFF POSS./WEAP KNIFE/CLUB/FACSIM.BLADE LESS 1 0 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Senior High Middle School ALT LEARN 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 030 060 062 080 090 110 132 020 040 MINOR ALTERCATION FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES REFUSE TO OBEY RULES OR DIRECTIVES FAILURE TO SERVE DETENTION REFUSED TO SERVE DETENTION USE OF VERBAL ABUSE/FIGHTING WORDS/GES USE/POSS. DRUGS BATTERY FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT 080 VANDALISM (INTENTIONAL DESTRUCTION/PROP 090 100 105 110 115 121 150 NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN REPEATED VIOLATION - CATEGORY II OFFENSE POSSESSION OR USE OF ALCOHOL 1 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 3 1 5 2 2 1 4 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Middle School CLOVR JR 1 1 1 1 030 040 050 060 MINOR ALTERCATION BEHAVIOR THAT VIOLATES A PERSON'S RIGHTS LEFT SCHOOL/CLASS WITHOUT PERMISSION FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES 1 5 3 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LRSD Information Services Dept. 10 2 13 74 3 2 2 1 1 277 1 1 6 5 4 1 1 1 1 1 22 3 2 5 6 3 1 1 1 22 983 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 31 1\nPage 3 of 8 Level_______ Middle School School CLOVR JR Lvt Code Offense BMAVAt OM BF HE OF TOTAL Middle School DUNBAR Middle School FORST HT LBSD Information Services Dept. 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 062 080 090 110 133 020 030 040 070 090 100 105 110 115 120 150 000 010 071 072 REFUSE TO OBEY RULES OR DIRECTIVES FAILURE TO SERVE DETENTION REFUSED TO SERVE DETENTION USE OF VERBAL ABUSE/FIGHTING WORDS/GES REPEATED SCHOOL/CLASS TARDIES BATTERY THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT LOITERING OR CRIMINAL TRESPASS NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN HARASSING COMMUNICATIONS POSSESSION OR USE OF ALCOHOL USE OF RAP RINGS.CHEMICAL AGNTS OR FACS SALE OR DISTRIBUTION OF ALCOHOL PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF VERBAL ABUSE OF STAFF 140 TERRORISTIC THREATENING 030 050 010 020 030 040 080 090 100 105 110 115 120 122 071 092 140 040 060 062 020 030 18 6 1 4 1 6 3 22 0 5 1 2 2 28 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 9 0 0 7 1 0 0 28 1 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 29 6 1 12 2 6 3 60 1 13 1 2 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 3 32 1 1 1 1 3 2 3 208 MINOR ALTERCATION LEFT SCHOOL/CLASS WITHOUT PERMISSION ASSAULT BATTERY THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT VANDALISM (INTENTIONAL DESTRUCTION/PROP NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN HARASSING COMMUNICATIONS FALSIFYING SIGNATURE/INFORMATION PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF POSS./WEAP KNIFE/CLUB/FACSIM.BLADE LESS TERRORISTIC THREATENING BEHAVIOR THAT VIOLATES A PERSON'S RIGHTS FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES REFUSE TO OBEY RULES OR DIRECTIVES BATTERY THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING 040 FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT 080 090 100 105 110 115 120 VANDALISM (INTENTIONAL DESTRUCTION/PROP NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN HARASSING COMMUNICATIONS 0 1 3 0 3 17 1 1 6 2 3 5 4 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 3 1 6 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 15 0 2 0 0 1 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 5 4 38 1 5 6 2 4 12 5 1 1 2 1 1 0 13 4 1 47 2 5 2 2 23 4 1 0 1 3 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 8 2 1 23 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 93 1 1 2^: f 7^ f 4: Page 4 of 8Level_______ Middle School School FORST HT LvI Code Offense 2 121 BM Hlff OM BF HF OF TOTAL 2 2 3 3 3 3 Middle School HENDERSN 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 Middle School MABEL JR 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 122 150 010 071 121 140 030 040 090 100 110 115 150 071 060 070 110 010 030 040 090 100 2 2 2 2 3 3 Middle School MANN M/S 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 Middle School PUL HT J 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 110 115 120 121 071 072 060 110 020 040 090 100 115 090 130 140 030 062 010 020 030 040 080 2 2 2 100 105 110 LRSD Information Services Dept. REPEATED VIOLATION - CATEGORY II OFFENSE FALSIFYING SIGNATURE/INFORMATION POSSESSION OR USE OF ALCOHOL SALE OR DISTRIBUTION OF ALCOHOL PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF USE OF A WEAPON TERRORISTIC THREATENING MINOR ALTERCATION FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN POSSESSION OR USE OF ALCOHOL PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES REFUSE TO OBEY BUS RULES/REGULATIONS USE OF VERBAL ABUSE/FIGHTING WORDS/GES ASSAULT THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN HARASSING COMMUNICATIONS REPEATED VIOLATION - CATEGORY II OFFENSE PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF VERBAL ABUSE OF STAFF FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES USE OF VERBAL ABUSE/FIGHTING WORDS/GES BATTERY FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN POSSESSION OF WEAPON VIOLENT TAKING BY FORCE OR THREAT TERRORISTIC THREATENING MINOR ALTERCATION REFUSE TO OBEY RULES OR DIRECTIVES ASSAULT BATTERY THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT VANDALISM (INTENTIONAL DESTRUCTION/PROP SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES DISORDERLY CONDUCT 0 0 0 1 2 0 2 0 28 2 1 0 15 1 0 1 3 0 0 2 11 1 2 1 7 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 7 1 1 3 2 1 1 2 1 5 2 0 21 1 1 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 3 181 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 9 2 1 40 1 0 2 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 2 12 1 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 83 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 7 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 20 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 8 1 2 1 1 47 1 1 2 11 1 1 5 2 1 1 26 2 1 5 5 1 37 3 1 3 1 Page 5 of S Level_______ Middle School School PUL HT J Lvl Code Offense 2 115 REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN BM ff'M OM BF 3 1 0 1 WF 0 OF TOTAL 0 5 2 2 3 3 120 121 010 071 Middle School SOUTHWST 2 010 2 020 2 030 2 040 2 090 2 100 2 105 2 110 2 115 2 120 2 124 3 071 3 072 3 140 Elementary BALE 2 105 Elementary BASELINE 2 010 HARASSING COMMUNICATIONS REPEATED VIOLATION - CATEGORY II OFFENSE SALE OR DISTRIBUTION OF ALCOHOL PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF ASSAULT BATTERY THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN HARASSING COMMUNICATIONS MEMBERSHIP AND PROHIBITIVE GANG/ORGANI PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF VERBAL ABUSE OF STAFF TERRORISTIC THREATENING REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES 0 0 0 1 1 4 3 36 5 3 3 4 19 1 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 68 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 4 1 65 1 0 0 6 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 5 5 0 0 10 8 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 27 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Middle School 0 0 0 3 2 3 136 878 1 2 115 ASSAULT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 Elementary BOOKER 2 010 ASSAULT 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 040 FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 Elementary CARVER 1 030 1 070 MINOR ALTERCATION REFUSE TO OBEY BUS RULES/REGULATIONS 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 2 3 071 PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Elementary CHARTER 1 030 1 050 1 062 MINOR ALTERCATION LEFT SCHOOL/CLASS WITHOUT PERMISSION REFUSE TO OBEY RULES OR DIRECTIVES 0 0 1 2 040 2 105 FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES 1 1 2 110 3 071 DISORDERLY CONDUCT PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF 1 3 3 072 3 140 VERBAL ABUSE OF STAFF TERRORISTIC THREATENING 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 4 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 1 Elementary CHICOT 2 010 2 115 ASSAULT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Elementary DODD 2 010 2 110 3 071 3 092 ASSAULT DISORDERLY CONDUCT PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF POSS./WEAP KNIFE/CLUB/FACSIM.BLADE LESS 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Elementary FORST PK 1 040 BEHAVIOR THAT VIOLATES A PERSONS RIGHTS 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 LRSD Information Services Dept. Page 6 of i Level School Lvl Code Offense SM OM BF Of TOTAL Elementary FRANKLIN 2 2 040 115 FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 Elementary GEYER SP 2 2 2 2 010 110 2 115 120 121 3 140 ASSAULT DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN HARASSING COMMUNICATIONS REPEATED VIOLATION - CATEGORY II OFFENSE TERRORISTIC THREATENING 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 Elementary GIBBS 2 2 040 105 Elementary JEFFRSN Elementary M L KING Elementary MABEL EL Elementary MCDERMOT Elementary MEADCLIF Elementary MITCHELL 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LKSD Information Services Dept. 3 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 110 115 071 FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF 140 TERRORISTIC THREATENING 060 110 030 030 040 060 062 010 030 110 115 071 100 110 040 105 040 060 062 110 010 030 040 090 100 105 110 000 072 091 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES USE OF VERBAL ABUSE/FIGHTING WORDS/GES THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING MINOR ALTERCATION BEHAVIOR THAT VIOLATES A PERSONS RIGHTS FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES REFUSE TO OBEY RULES OR DIRECTIVES ASSAULT THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT DISORDERLY CONDUCT FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES BEHAVIOR THAT VIOLATES A PERSON'S RIGHTS FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES REFUSE TO OBEY RULES OR DIRECTIVES USE OF VERBAL ABUSE/FIGHTING WORDS/GES ASSAULT THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES DISORDERLY CONDUCT USE OF RAP RINGS.CHEMICAL AGNTS OR FACS VERB/LL ABUSE OF STAFF POSSESSION OF WEAPON,KNIFE-BLADE 2 1/2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 2 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 12 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 4 1 1 1 3 1 18 1 1 2 2 4 6 Page 7 of 8 Level Elementary School MITCHELL LvI Code Offense 3 120 INCITING TO RIOT BM tFM OM BF 1 1 0 0 Elementary RIGHTSEL 2 100 3 140 SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT TERRORISTIC THREATENING 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Elementary ROCKFELR 1 030 1 110 MINOR ALTERCATION USE OF VERBAL ABUSE/FIGHTING WORDS/GES 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 WF OF TOTAL 0 0 2 0 0 25 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 4 1 Elementary STEPHENS 1 070 2 115 3 140 REFUSE TO OBEY BUS RULES/REGULATIONS REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN TERRORISTIC THREATENING 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 4 0 0 1 0 0 5 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 Elementary TERRY 1 060 1 140 2 040 2 115 3 071 3 091 3 140 FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES FALSIFY INFO/RECORDS (ELEM) FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF POSSESSION OF WEAPON.KNIFE-BLADE 2 1/2 TERRORISTIC THREATENING 0 0 0 0 1 0 10 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Elementary WAKEFIEL 2 105 3 071 REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Elementary WASHNGTN 2 010 ASSAULT 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 020 2 2 3 3 030 110 071 140 BATTERY THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING DISORDERLY CONDUCT PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF TERRORISTIC THREATENING 1 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 Elementary WATSON 3 140 TERRORISTIC THREATENING 0 0 0 2 0 0 7 2 Elementary WEST HIL 2 115 REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 Elementary WILLIAMS 1 030 1 062 1 070 2 115 3 140 MINOR ALTERCATION REFUSE TO OBEY RULES OR DIRECTIVES REFUSE TO OBEY BUS RULES/REGULATIONS REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN TERRORISTIC THREATENING 2 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 7 Elementary WILSON 1 060 3 092 3 140 FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES POSS./WEAP KNIFE/CLUB/FACSIM.BLADE LESS TERRORISTIC THREATENING 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 4 Elementary 164 Grand Total 2025 LRSD Information Services Dept. Page S of S Recidivism Report Counts each student once per total Year: 2001 Quarter: 1 to Quarter: 2 Ol-Feb-01 Level_____ Senior High School____ ACC LEARN Total 2 AGENCIES 19 CENTRAL 71 FAIR 92 HALL 247 MCCLELLA 172 METRO 18 PARKVIEW 19 Middle School ALT LEARN CLOVR JR DUNBAR FORST HT HENDERSN MABEL JR MANN M/S PULHT J SOUTHWST Elementary BALE BASELINE BOOKER CARVER CHARTER CHICOT DODD FORST PK FRANKLIN GEYER SP GIBBS M L KING MABEL EL MCDERMOT MEADCLIF MITCHELL RIGHTSEL ROCKFELR STEPHENS TERRY WAKEFIEL WASHNGTN WATSON WEST HIL WILLIAMS WILSON Senior High Middle School 640 20 126 69 118 62 74 21 85 100 675 1 4 2 4 13 2 4 1 3 8 6 3 10 2 5 17 2 5 6 7 1 6 2 2 12 4 Elementary 132 Grand Total 1447 LRSD Information Services Dept Page 1 of I 2000-2001 SECOND QUARTER DISCIPLINARY MANAGEMENT REPORT2000 - 2001 Second Quarter Disciplinary Management Report Summary During the second quarter of the 2000-2001 school year, the Little Rock School District experienced a decrease in the number of disciplinary sanctions, resulting in students receiving suspensions. The data indicates that the District had no expulsions during the second quarter. The 2000-2001 Second Quarter Disciplinary Management Report indicates there was a decrease of 135 suspensions, which represents a 12.5% decrease in the overall number of suspensions issued when compared to the second quarter of the 1999-2000 school year. There was also a decrease of eighty-three (83) long-term suspensions/Alternative Learning Environment referrals. 1999-2000 2000-2001 Short-term suspensions 1038 943 Long-term suspension/ALE referrals 179 96 Expulsions 0 0 Totals 1217 1082 The Recidivism Report indicates the following: 1999-2000 2000-2001 Number of students committing offenses 983(1217) 909(1082) The above data indicates there was a slight decrease in the number of students committing offenses during the second quarter of the 2000-2001 school year when compared to the 1999-2000 school year.School Short Term Suspension LRSD Discipline Management Report 2000/2001 Quarter 2 OlFeb-Ot Name A(^\u0026amp;^IES CENT^ FAIR HALL I MCCLELLA EnroUeti 132 2072 900 1456 I 1149 62% 55% 80% 91% BM 15 BF 2 ]_3 __1 Total Long BM METRO Totals ALLEAR^ DUNBAR FORST HT HENDERSN MABEL JR 1162 6673 63 760 141 566 517 I MANN _ I \u0026gt;58 I I PUL HT J 749 I SOUTHWST J____ Totals BASELINE BOOKER CARVER CHARTER CHICOT 0000 5544 _311 545 611 69 510 222 61% 67% 97% 66% 59% 65% 77% 79% 63% 56% _0^ 69% 56% 53% 85% 65% __21^___6 45I 16 \u0026gt;1 J I J k \u0026lt;1 1)4____si. 20 35 65 164 1 7 2 23 _ __________________12 I bI 3 I 2| o| n| i kild i 291 24 55 46 125 3Q 16 465 25 J_i 35 10 22 12 3 ....s!__jL \u0026gt;1 k ....8L....4_ 8| a| 96 42 76 0 0 45 1 7 43 I al l .1?1.2.1__L -i Ui 253[ 2 22 111 1 8| l 12 14 1 I \u0026lt;1 .jL-jd -.__4._o i i 0 2 .L_ol. 3 13 ...o|_.. 0 A U4 0 0 . .i. o| 0 0 0 0 405 2 3 3 6 1 \u0026gt;11__.d Tenw BF 0 2 0 2 1 Suspension/ALE Total BM 0 0! 0 2 0 0 A 1 10 2 ol_ 27 _________ta 4 i .pL i Expulsion BF 0 0 0 ff'M 0 IFF I i Total 0 J__I______? i o| o| _o| .oJ_....9-L1- o| o|___l l o| o| I. o| o| l li- 2 5 6 1 0 1 1 3 0 1 1 2 ._..i 53 2 3 ___o|____8 4 k l l 0 0 0 0 0 0 1__ 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 i i i oLilki 1 1 1 4 o| ____1 ____i I____ol ___0 4 23 _1 0 0 -P 0 3 6 0 . ol- oj. 81 ol l i 33 ......oL_._4.__1. _o_l__.i.. .?L 0 1 2 .. o| ol. ..2 oJ o|___o[ .?!_4._i 0 3 K -i o| o| 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 2I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Al I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ___0 0 0 __ o[ ___0 Al ,oL. 0 0 0 0 i i 0 0 0 0 1 i |fORCTPK j _.?06 I .?2%-.1 jL. .O.L ...ol . ol ._l__0I....0I. ol ol oj---o|----oJ I J 464 97% Ui 0 L d-?[ 2 0 I lL ol. 0 I ol _.aL. .. ol,. 0 0 0 0 i o| ol LRSD Information Services Dept. 0 2 _o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H BF 9 0 0 __0 0 0 0 C/C ff'M 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total ____.o|____ _i i 6 2 i i 1 1_-ol.-..-.?. 0 0 1_ 2 0 0 0 0 1 2L2 fFF Q I Total 9 I -0l.. .0. i. 0 0 _ 1 _ I LL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ttSusp 21 45 191 _167 11 %Blli 78% 86% 95% l 0 0 16 6 7 1 516 29 120 52 91 45 ___82*____I 88% I 90% 83% 60% 87% .0.1__* L_ .i._...o I____o| __13 1 92% _2 i_____.O__. _.7 j____25 I 76% 1 J 1 o| 2! 81 1 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 L \u0026lt; 0.1.o[ 14 0 0 0_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .. o| 0 oL 0 0 0 0 0 0 i 0 ! 43 0 0 0 _ 0 0 o| -J I. 481 3 3 4 8 1 3 ai 69% 69% 100% 100% 75% 100% 100% 100^^ 100% 100% I of 2Name GEYER SP GIBBS M L KING MABEL EL School Enrollotl %Blk 337 300 597 346 87% 53% 54% 75% MCDERMOT Imeadcuf I I MITCHELL I 366 264 276 53% 73% 96% Short Term Suspension BM BF WM WF\\ Total 3j 1 3 ol 7 __4. __4 il jZi .l._.4 2 2 0 1 0 I STEPHENS _ 1___^ J I I I TERRY 490 46% 0 2 6 0 1 WASHNGTN WATSON WEST HIL WILLIAMS WILSON Totab GTotat 491 451 266 454 268 8213 20630 59% 96% ._.jL__1 1 12 0 0 0 ..L-J 0 4 L 3 LRSD Discipline Management Report 2000/2001 Quarter 2 BM 0 0 0 0 0 0 OI-Ftb-OI Term Suspension/ALE Expulsion CIC Total BF 0 0 0 0 WM Total BM BF WM WF Total BM BF I^F ! Total #Susp %Btk I__\u0026lt;L. ._4.. -4. __4__^4. _ 4 4 oj_i__i. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 57% oj_____0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 6 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 __?..l_ 0 0 3 12 67% 92% __il 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100% ii 0 0 3 jI oL_ o| A__1 _____9L._lL_I__i 74% 52% 89% M% 68% LRSD luformatioa Saroiees Dept. 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 4 o| o| 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .. 4. _1 3 B3| 0 14 250 4 2 0 0 j|__ 4__o|....?- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0_j___ o..,L_. 0 0 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 100% 83% 100% -4_. 4 ol I /L Bt) 33| 6 1 0 l l__ 4__4 _. 4 4..... 4 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 l l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 67% 73 943 8 3 74 14 3 4_4 10 96 .__4_ _?L __4_ oL __gL 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 _4. 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I Q 0 0 3 1 100% 100% 0 I ...0.1.. i .. 0 i 0 0 0 0 0 I I 0 2 7 1 83 1082 100% 86% 100% 87% 89% Page 2 of 2Discipline Sanctions by Reason Code Year: 2001 Level Senior High Senior High Senior High Senior High Quarter: 2 to Quarter: 2 School AGENCIES CENTRAL FAIR HALL LRSD Information Services Dept. Lvt Code Offense 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 BM WM OM BF Ol-Feb-Ol WF OF TOTAL 040 080 110 115 131 132 133 040 090 100 105 110 115 121 150 060 FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT VANDALISM (INTENTIONAL DESTRUCTION/PROP DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN USE/POSS ALCOHOL USE/POSS. DRUGS REPEATED SCHOOL/CLASS TARDIES FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN REPEATED VIOLATION - CATEGORY II OFFENSE POSSESSION OR USE OF ALCOHOL BURN OR ATTEMPT TO BURN SCHOOL PROPER 2 1 2 11 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 3 13 1 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 050 060 062 080 090 100 110 010 030 040 090 100 110 115 120 121 123 150 030 060 062 070 110 LEFT SCHOOL/CLASS WITHOUT PERMISSION FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES REFUSE TO OBEY RULES OR DIRECTIVES FAILURE TO SERVE DETENTION REFUSED TO SERVE DETENTION USE OR POSSESSION OF TOBACCO USE OF VERBAL ABUSE/FIGHTING WORDS/GES ASSAULT THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN HARASSING COMMUNICATIONS REPEATED VIOLATION - CATEGORY II OFFENSE POSSESSION OR USE/PAGING DEVICE POSSESSION OR USE OF ALCOHOL MINOR ALTERCATION FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES REFUSE TO OBEY RULES OR DIRECTIVES REFUSE TO OBEY BUS RULES/REGULATIONS USE OF VERBAL ABUSE/FIGHTING WORDS/GES 132 USE/POSS. DRUGS 133 020 040 070 080 090 REPEATED SCHOOL/CLASS TARDIES BATTERY FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT LOITERING OR CRIMINAL TRESPASS VANDALISM (INTENTIONAL DESTRUCTION/PROP NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT 0 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 10 4 2 4 9 2 3 0 4 1 1 5 1 1 1 0 2 5 1 0 15 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 13 21 2 3 1 5 1 2 2 5 17 1 4 2 \"as 2 2 4 1 2 1 1 1 i: 1- ( 6: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Page I of \u0026lt;Level Middle School School ALT LEARN Lvl Code Offense 1 BltT Hnr OM BF OF TOTAL 1 1 062 080 090 1 110 2 2 2 2 2 020 040 090 100 105 2 2 2 2 110 115 121 150 REFUSE TO OBEY RULES OR DIRECTIVES FAILURE TO SERVE DETENTION REFUSED TO SERVE DETENTION USE OF VERBAL ABUSE/FIGHTING WORDS/GES BATTERY FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN REPEATED VIOLATION - CATEGORY II OFFENSE POSSESSION OR USE OF ALCOHOL 1 1 1 2 0 1 4 2 2 1 3 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Middle School CLOVR JR 1 1 030 040 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 4 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 050 060 062 080 110 133 020 030 040 070 090 105 110 115 000 071 072 MINOR ALTERCATION BEHAVIOR THAT VIOLATES A PERSON'S RIGHTS LEFT SCHOOL/CLASS WITHOUT PERMISSION FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES REFUSE TO OBEY RULES OR DIRECTIVES FAILURE TO SERVE DETENTION USE OF VERBAL ABUSE/FIGHTING WORDS/GES REPEATED SCHOOL/CLASS TARDIES BATTERY THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT LOITERING OR CRIMINAL TRESPASS NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN USE OF RAP RINGS.CHEMICAL AGNTS OR FACS PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF VERBAL ABUSE OF STAFF 140 TERRORISTIC THREATENING 1 1 1 6 9 5 1 1 3 3 13 0 1 1 2 19 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Middle School DUNBAR 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 030 010 020 030 040 090 100 105 110 115 120 122 071 092 140 MINOR ALTERCATION ASSAULT BATTERY THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN HARASSING COMMUNICATIONS FALSIFYING SIGNATURE/INFORMATION PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF POSS./WEAP KNIFE/CLUB/FACSIM.BLADE LESS TERRORISTIC THREATENING 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 11 1 4 2 1 3 2 0 1 1 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 Middle School FORST HT 1 1 060 062 FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES REFUSE TO OBEY RULES OR DIRECTIVES 0 10 1 2 LRSD Information Services Dept. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 1 1 1 8 17 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 5 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 1 4 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 3 31 1 1 3 3 21 1 12C 0 1 0 0 6 1 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 1 Page 3 of I Level_______ Middle School School FORST HT Lvl Code Offense 2 020 2 030 2 040 2 090 2 100 2 105 2 110 2 115 2 121 3 010 3 071 Middle School HENDERSN Middle School MABEL JR 3 1 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 140 030 040 090 100 115 071 030 040 090 100 110 115 120 121 071 Middle School MANN M/S 1 110 2 2 2 3 040 090 115 130 Middle School PULHT J 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 030 010 040 080 100 115 120 2 121 3 071 Middle School SOUTHWST 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 BM Wt^F OM BF WF OF TOTAL LRSD Information Services Dept. BATTERY THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN REPEATED VIOLATION - CATEGORY II OFFENSE SALE OR DISTRIBUTION OF ALCOHOL PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF TERRORISTIC THREATENING MINOR ALTERCATION FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN HARASSING COMMUNICATIONS REPEATED VIOLATION - CATEGORY II OFFENSE PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF USE OF VERBAL ABUSE/FIGHTING WORDS/GES FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN VIOLENT TAKING BY FORCE OR THREAT MINOR ALTERCATION ASSAULT FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT VANDALISM (INTENTIONAL DESTRUCTION/PROP SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN HARASSING COMMUNICATIONS REPEATED VIOLATION - CATEGORY II OFFENSE PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF 2 0 20 3 2 1 11 3 0 1 1 1 0 14 2 1 8 0 2 7 0 2 1 4 1 0 1 1 4 1 3 1 2 1 6 1 1 3 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 0 0 0 8 0 1 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 6 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 32 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 3 1 1 2 1 91 1 21 2 1 19 1 45 2 12 1 2 1 4 1 1 1 25 1 5 1 5 1 13 2 1 10 3 1 5 1 1 1 020 030 040 090 110 115 124 BATTERY THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT NON-THREATENING PROFANITY AT OR ABOUT DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN MEMBERSHIP AND PROHIBITIVE GANG/ORGANI 1 1 23 4 3 15 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 25 2 0 9 0 4 0 0 1 39 1 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 2C 1 Page t of 6Level_______ Middle School School SOUTHWST LvI Code Offense 3 071 PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF BM' WM 'OM BF 0 1 0 1 WF OF TOTAL 0 0 2 3 3 3 i 072 091 140 VERBAL ABUSE OF STAFF POSSESSION OF WEAPON,KNIFE-BLADE 2 1/2- TERRORISTIC THREATENING 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 81 Elementary Elementary Elementary Elementary Elementary Elementary Elementary Elementary Elementary Elementary Elementary Elementary BASELINE BOOKER CARVER CHARTER CHICOT DODD FORST PK FRANKLIN GEYER SP GIBBS M L KING MABEL EL LRSD Information Services Dept. 2 2 2 2 1 1 3 1 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 1 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 010 115 010 040 030 070 071 030 040 105 071 072 140 115 010 071 092 040 115 110 115 120 140 040 105 110 115 140 110 030 030 060 062 010 030 115 Middle School 481 ASSAULT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN ASSAULT FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT MINOR ALTERCATION REFUSE TO OBEY BUS RULES/REGULATIONS PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF MINOR ALTERCATION FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF VERBAL ABUSE OF STAFF TERRORISTIC THREATENING REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN ASSAULT PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF POSS./WEAP KNIFE/CLUB/FACSIM.BLADE LESS BEHAVIOR THAT VIOLATES A PERSON'S RIGHTS REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN HARASSING COMMUNICATIONS TERRORISTIC THREATENING FIGHTING/MUTUAL COMBAT REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN TERRORISTIC THREATENING USE OF VERBAL ABUSE/FIGHTING WORDS/GES THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING MINOR ALTERCATION FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES REFUSE TO OBEY RULES OR DIRECTIVES ASSAULT THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN 1 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 2 3 2 1 1 4 1 1 1 2 2 1 8 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 7 2 1 1 1 1 6 2 1 3 3 1 2 1 1 3 Page 5 of 6 Level Elementary School MABEL EL Lvl Code Offense 3 071 PHYSICAL ASSAULT OF STAFF BM WM' OM BF 1 0 0 0 HF or TOTAL 0 0 1 Elementary MCDERMOT 2 110 DISORDERLY CONDUCT 1 0 0 0 0 0 12 1 Elementary MEADCLIF 2 105 REFUSING TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 Elementary MITCHELL 1 110 2 030 2 100 3 091 3 120 USE OF VERBAL ABUSE/FIGHTING WORDS/GES THEFT/THEFT BY RECEIVING SEXUAL MISCONDUCT/BEHAVIOR OR INDECENT POSSESSION OF WEAPON.KNIFE-BLADE 2 1/2\" INCITING TO RIOT 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 Elementary STEPHENS 2 115 REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN 2 0 0 1 0 0 6 3 Elementary TERRY 1 060 2 115 3 140 FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR DIRECTIVES REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN TERRORISTIC THREATENING 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Elementary WASHNGTN 2 110 3 140 DISORDERLY CONDUCT TERRORISTIC THREATENING 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 Elementary WATSON 3 140 TERRORISTIC THREATENING 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 1 Elementary WEST HIL 2 115 REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORY I OFFEN 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 Elementary WILLIAMS 1 1 030 062 1 3 070 140 MINOR ALTERCATION REFUSE TO OBEY RULES OR DIRECTIVES REFUSE TO OBEY BUS RULES/REGULATIONS TERRORISTIC THREATENING 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 Elementary WILSON 3 140 TERRORISTIC THREATENING LRSD Information Services Dept. 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 7 1 1 Elementary 83 Grand Total 1082 Page 6 of 6 Recidivism Report Counts each student once per total Year: 2001 Quarter: 2 to Quarter: 2 Ol-Feb-01 Level_____ Senior High School AGENCIES Total 15 CENTRAL 33 FAIR 54 HALL 152 MCCLELLA 124 Middle School Elementary METRO PARKVIEW ALT LEARN CLOVR JR DUNBAR FORST HT HENDERSN MABEL JR MANN M/S PULHTJ SOUTHWST BASELINE 11 15 Senior High Middle School 404 19 85 43 71 39 39 12 50 69 427 3 BOOKER 2 CARVER 4 CHARTER 8 CHICOT 1 DODD 3 FORST PK 1 FRANKLIN 2 GEYER SP 6 GIBBS 6 M L KING 3 MABEL EL 10 MCDERMOT 1 MEADCLIF 3 MITCHELL 6 STEPHENS 3 TERRY 3 WASHNGTN 3 WATSON 1 WEST HIL 1 WILLIAMS 7 WILSON 1 Elementary 78 Grand Total 909 LRSD Information Services Dept. Page t of 1LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research, and Evaluation Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition Percentile Rank (PR) Five Year Comparative Data By School, Grade, Subtest, and Race Badgett Grade 5 Bale Grade 5 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery \" No Students In this category I.Tfuett Set9_01 All Students Black Students White Students other Students 1996- 1997 PR 8 7 12 9 12 11 11 1996- 1997 PR 22 18 27 32 44 28 30 1997- 1998 PR 14 14 16 17 30 19 20 1998- 1999 PR 16 12 18 13 16 20 19 1999- 2000 PR 11 7 10 11 11 12 13 2000- 2001 PR 22 13 25 16 18 22 21 1996- 1997 PR 7 6 12 9 11 10 10 1997- 1998 PR 13 13 14 16 29 17 18 1998- 1999 PR 13 8 17 11 13 16 16 1999- 2000 PR 11 7 11 12 12 13 13 2000- 2001 PR 22 13 25 16 18 22 21 1996- 1997 PR 64 51 41 39 59 46 47 1997- 1998 PR 29 40 53 43 37 45 44 1998- 1999 PR 41 40 32 26 35 39 37 1999- 2000 PR 55332 86 2000- 2001 PR 1996- 1997 PR 1997- 1998 PR 1998- 1999 PR 1999- 2000 PR 2000- 2001 PR All Students 1997- 1998 PR 35 31 41 37 54 38 40 1998- 1999 PR 22 42 31 24 26 33 32 1999- 2000 PR 23 16 24 19 19 22 21 2000- 2001 PR 23 16 29 18 23 24 24 1996- 1997 PR 27 20 37 17 28 29 27 Black Students 1997- 1998 PR 29 27 34 30 48 32 33 1998- 1999 PR 20 42 32 21 23 32 30 1999- 2000 PR 19 14 19 16 15 19 18 2000- 2001 PR 20 13 29 16 20 21 21 1996- 1997 PR 95 83 76 84 85 84 84 White Students 1997- 1998 PR 47 43 53 49 64 51 53 1998- 1999 PR 29 45 30 36 39 40 39 1999- 2000 PR 76 24 76 42 60 53 53 2000- 2001 PR 35 26 30 23 29 34 34 1996- 1997 PR other Students 1997- 1998 PR 59 26 58 61 72 54 56 1998- 1999 PR 1999- 2000 PR 56 78 65 58 72 67 66 2000- 2001 PR 35 18 36 11 31 32 29 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research, and Evaluation Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition Percentile Rank (PR) Five Year Comparative Data By School, Grade, Subtest, and Race Base ine All Students Black Students White Students Other Students Grade 5 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 30 22 39 19 30 31 30 1997- 1998 PR 15 16 18 16 23 17 18 1998- 1999 PR 24 14 26 23 30 25 26 1999- 2000 PR 18 13 24 23 20 19 20 2000- 2001 PR 27 22 31 26 34 27 28 1996- 1997 PR 27 20 37 17 28 29 27 1997- 1998 PR 14 16 18 14 22 16 16 1998- 1999 PR 23 13 26 19 29 24 25 1999- 2000 PR 16 13 21 20 19 18 18 2000- 2001 PR 23 19 27 23 29 22 23 1996- 1997 PR 95 83 76 84 85 84 84 1997- 1998 PR 31 16 14 24 29 26 26 1998- 1999 PR 31 22 28 60 41 30 34 1999- 2000 PR 35 23 57 47 41 38 39 2000- 2001 PR 50 40 51 41 57 52 52 1996- 1997 PR 1997- 1998 PR 18 22 41 39 25 26 27 1998- 1999 PR 1999- 2000 PR 21 8 18 39 21 14 17 2000- 2001 PR Booker Grade 5 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 49 42 56 47 51 50 50 All Students Black Students 1997- 1998 PR 40 26 45 40 44 39 39 1998- 1999 PR 40 25 45 40 41 38 39 1999- 2000 PR 44 32 56 45 47 44 45 2000- 2001 PR 42 31 42 38 37 40 40 1996- 1997 PR 33 32 44 35 41 38 38 1997- 1998 PR 21 17 31 29 30 26 26 1998- 1999 PR 26 18 35 28 30 27 28 1999- 2000 PR 28 21 41 32 37 32 32 2000- 2001 PR 30 24 33 27 27 30 30 1996- 1997 PR 65 53 67 58 62 63 62 White Students Other Students 1997- 1998 PR 60 35 60 52 58 53 53 1998- 1999 PR 55 33 55 56 52 51 51 1999- 2000 PR 63' 45 70 61 59 59 60 2000- 2001 PR 56 37 50 50 45 50 51 1996- 1997 PR 52 46 62 63 42 55 55 1997- 1998 PR 56 48 55 48 53 53 53 1998- 1999 PR 81 32 73 45 63 66 65 1999- 2000 PR 55 37 81 32 53 51 49 2000- 2001 PR 58 48 61 54 65 61 61 ** No Students In this citegory I.Truetl SsS.OI LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research, and Evaluation Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition Percentile Rank (PR) Five Year Comparative Data By School, Grade, Subtest, and Race Brady Grade 5 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 48 32 52 40 49 46 46 All Students 1997- 1998 PR 25 16 24 22 27 25 25 1998- 1999 PR 29 25 30 27 20 31 29 1999- 2000 PR 21 16 24 19 18 22 21 2000- 2001 PR 35 27 35 29 33 34 33 1996- 1997 PR 27 18 43 24 32 32 31 Black Students 1997- 1998 PR 20 13 19 14 21 20 20 1998- 1999 PR 19 17 18 18 15 21 20 1999- 2000 PR 19 14 21 19 17 20 20 2000- 2001 PR 28 23 31 24 27 29 29 1996- 1997 PR 76 50 64 55 69 63 63 White Students 1997- 1998 PR 33 24 31 44 41 34 36 1998- 1999 PR 41 15 41 47 16 42 39 1999- 2000 PR 42 14 37 14 27 30 28 2000- 2001 PR 53 36 36 48 53 44 45 1996- 1997 PR 51 56 55 80 69 59 63 other Students 1997- 1998 PR 41 33 48 49 48 46 47 1998- 1999 PR 54 61 63 47 41 57 54 1999- 2000 PR 14 35 31 27 15 25 24 2000- 2001 PR 79 52 82 44 55 72 68 Carver Grade 5 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 60 46 54 53 60 57 57 ** No Students in this category (.Truett Set9_01 All Students 1997- 1998 PR 52 47 56 54 55 52 53 1998- 1999 PR 54 50 50 49 53 52 52 1999- 2000 PR 52 41 47 54 50 48 49 2000- 2001 PR 57 50 46 44 47 52 51 1996- 1997 PR 37 27 40 31 42 39 39 Black Students 1997- 1998 PR 22 21 30 25 33 27 28 1998- 1999 PR 33 30 34 26 34 33 33 1999- 2000 PR 31 24 32 34 32 31 32 2000- 2001 PR 30 26 27 20 26 31 29 1996- 1997 PR 77 64 66 73 76 72 72 White Students 1997- 1998 PR 78 70 77 80 74 74 75 1998- 1999 PR 73 66 64 74 71 67 69 1999- 2000 PR 79 63 66 80 74 71 72 2000- 2001 PR 82 73 69 74 71 74 73 1996- 1997 PR 91 84 83 92 88 86 87 Other Students 1997- 1998 PR 84 91 82 66 81 84 82 1998- 1999 PR 84 93 86 72 80 85 83 1999- 2000 PR 51 47 48 47 52 49 49 2000- 2001 PR 93 92 74 71 79 87 85 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research, and Evaluation Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition Percentile Rank (PR) Five Year Comparative Data By School, Grade, Subtest, and Race Chicot Grade 5 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery Cloverdale Grade 5 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery \" No Students In this cstegory I.Tfuetl SstS.O, All Students Black Students White Students Other Students 1996- 1997 PR 22 17 29 23 29 25 25 1997- 1998 PR 16 13 21 19 22 21 21 1998- 1999 PR 19 16 25 20 23 22 22 1999- 2000 PR 16 13 20 13 17 18 17 All Students 2000- 2001 PR 21 14 23 16 21 21 20 1996- 1997 PR 18 14 24 20 24 21 21 1997- 1998 PR 11 10 16 13 16 15 15 1998- 1999 PR 17 14 22 17 19 19 19 1999- 2000 PR 13 12 19 12 18 16 16 Black Students 2000- 2001 PR 20 14 23 15 21 21 20 1996- 1997 PR 43 26 46 39 51 41 42 1997- 1998 PR 62 35 56 57 60 59 59 1998- 1999 PR 45 36 46 41 47 45 45 1999- 2000 PR 38 19 30 23 16 32 29 2000- 2001 PR 32 17 22 32 27 26 27 1996- 1997 PR 1997- 1998 PR 1998- 1999 PR 1 2 5 8 5 3 3 1999- 2000 PR 19 5 19 10 7 14 12 2000- 2001 PR 20 7 16 14 15 13 14 White Students Other Students 1996- 1997 PR 22 24 32 17 25 27 26 1997- 1998 PR 29 35 35 26 35 34 33 1998- 1999 PR 48 56 54 37 37 59 54 1999- 2000 PR 22 29 26 22 21 29 27 2000- 2001 PR 23 38 42 23 23 37 34 1996- 1997 PR 22 24 33 17 25 28 26 1997- 1998 PR 26 31 32 25 32 31 31 1998- 1999 PR 47 55 53 35 35 58 53 1999- 2000 PR 22 29 26 21 21 28 27 2000- 2001 PR 24 38 44 24 24 37 35 1996- 1997 PR 1997- 1998 PR 66 80 68 51 78 66 66 1998- 1999 PR 89 92 80 96 94 90 91 1999- 2000 PR 18 31 14 18 7 21 19 2000- 2001 PR 2 38 18 10 9 25 21 1996- 1997 PR 21 6 10 12 18 10 11 1997- 1998 PR 1998- 1999 PR 1999- 2000 PR 42 48 34 39 33 39 39 2000- 2001 PR 18 22 19 13 9 23 20 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research, and Evaluation Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition Percentile Rank (PR) Five Year Comparative Data By School, Grade, Subtest, and Race Dodd All Students Black Students White Students other Students Grade Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 27 19 29 22 26 26 25 1997- 1998 PR 26 22 34 23 29 30 29 1998- 1999 PR 35 25 44 39 33 34 35 1999- 2000 PR 30 28 36 23 28 32 32 2000- 2001 PR 42 33 55 31 32 40 39 1996- 1997 PR 24 16 30 24 29 27 27 1997- 1998 PR 13 12 27 14 19 18 18 1998- 1999 PR 26 21 35 29 29 27 27 1999- 2000 PR 30 27 39 21 24 33 31 2000- 2001 PR 38 31 55 29 32 37 36 1996- 1997 PR 41 27 33 23 24 28 27 1997- 1998 PR 50 40 45 40 48 50 49 1998- 1999 PR 59 33 62 56 43 52 53 1999- 2000 PR 30 29 28 32 42 31 32 2000- 2001 PR 63 29 52 32 21 58 59 1996- 1997 PR 4 17 6 256 5 1997- 1998 PR 1998- 1999 PR 37 48 38 84 41 37 43 1999- 2000 PR 2000- 2001 PR 72 86 69 68 72 65 66 Fair Park 5 All Students Black Students White Students Other Students Grade Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 24 23 26 19 28 26 26 1997- 1998 PR 17 12 18 23 20 19 20 1998- 1999 PR 34 19 42 34 29 34 34 1999- 2000 PR 28 15 29 29 27 26 26 2000- 2001 PR 25 15 31 15 15 24 22 1996- 1997 PR 20 21 21 14 24 23 22 1997- 1998 PR 10 7 11 16 15 13 13 1998- 1999 PR 30 18 45 32 32 33 34 1999- 2000 PR 21 11 24 23 23 21 21 2000- 2001 PR 26 17 31 16 19 25 24 1996- 1997 PR 66 40 73 75 68 60 63 1997- 1998 PR 58 49 60 55 50 55 55 1998- 1999 PR 56 30 45 43 31 47 45 1999- 2000 PR 86 74 78 79 59 75 74 2000- 2001 PR 24 11 32 13 10 22 19 1996- 1997 PR 1997- 1998 PR 72 7 18 7 12 12 1998- 1999 PR 3138 2 33 1999- 2000 PR 2000- 2001 PR 5 ** No Students In this catogofy ITruett Sats Ot LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research, and Evaluation Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition Percentile Rank (PR) Five Year Comparative Data By School, Grade, Subtest, and Race Forest Park Grade 5 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery Black Students White Students other Students 1996- 1997 PR 43 43 51 41 51 48 47 All Students 1997- 1998 PR 58 57 60 65 73 61 63 1998- 1999 PR 65 51 63 45 60 61 60 1999- 2000 PR 80 64 71 58 69 71 70 2000- 2001 PR 66 54 66 50 56 60 59 1996- 1997 PR 24 26 36 27 31 30 30 1997- 1998 PR 28 25 32 34 50 33 35 1998- 1999 PR 33 27 40 21 30 37 35 1999- 2000 PR 36 29 35 16 36 34 33 2000- 2001 PR 35 26 37 27 28 34 32 1996- 1997 PR 73 67 71 60 77 71 71 1997- 1998 PR 85 84 83 87 88 85 86 1998- 1999 PR 85 70 79 66 81 78 77 1999- 2000 PR 91 79 84 78 80 83 82 2000- 2001 PR 87 77 86 70 78 81 80 1996- 1997 PR 7 86 35 52 37 39 40 1997- 1998 PR 51 63 61 74 85 62 66 1998- 1999 PR 1999- 2000 PR 83 83 69 58 94 83 82 2000- 2001 PR Franklin All Students Black Students White Students Other Students Grade 5 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 15 10 18 13 19 16 15 1997- 1998 PR 17 15 24 15 19 21 20 1998- 1999 PR 19 27 21 18 18 25 24 1999- 2000 PR 19 15 18 18 16 20 20 2000- 2001 PR 24 28 39 21 25 30 29 1996- 1997 PR 15 10 17 13 19 15 15 1997- 1998 PR 16 15 23 14 19 20 20 1998- 1999 PR 18 25 20 16 16 24 23 1999- 2000 PR 18 15 17 17 16 19 19 2000- 2001 PR 24 27 38 21 25 30 28 1996- 1997 PR 10 3 4 8 18 12 12 1997- 1998 PR 49 13 69 39 48 33 35 1998- 1999 PR 61 94 53 52 85 74 73 1999- 2000 PR 78 17 80 52 41 50 49 2000- 2001 PR 1996- 1997 PR 19 15 37 14 14 19 18 1997- 1998 PR 1998- 1999 PR 32 66 20 68 18 42 42 1999* 2000 PR 2000- 2001 PR 39 86 83 63 41 63 61 ** No Students In this cstsgory I.Truott SatS.OILITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research, and Evaluation Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition Percentile Rank (PR) Five Year Comparative Data By School, Grade, Subtest, and Race Fulbright Grade 5 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery Geyer Springs Grade 5 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery ** No Students In this category I.Truefl Sat9_01 All Students Black Students White Students other Students 1996- 1997 PR 49 35 51 44 49 46 46 1997- 1998 PR 58 38 54 49 54 54 54 1998- 1999 PR 52 38 43 40 48 46 46 1999- 2000 PR 53 34 47 43 48 48 48 All Students 2000- 2001 PR 64 51 50 51 55 57 57 1996- 1997 PR 19 18 26 20 22 22 22 1997- 1998 PR 39 22 35 28 35 39 38 1998- 1999 PR 34 22 32 26 33 32 31 1999- 2000 PR 27 17 27 20 26 26 26 2000- 2001 PR 36 29 29 29 35 36 35 1996- 1997 PR 78 56 75 70 76 71 71 1997- 1998 PR 78 58 77 75 75 70 71 1998- 1999 PR 74 63 59 61 69 66 66 1999- 2000 PR 71 50 63 63 66 63 63 2000- 2001 PR 80 66 63 66 68 70 69 1996- 1997 PR 1997- 1998 PR 80 88 86 92 93 81 84 1998- 1999 PR 1999- 2000 PR NA 45 41 27 33 NA NA 2000- 2001 PR 96 89 90 92 91 91 91 Black Students White Students Other Students 1996- 1997 PR 32 27 33 23 29 32 30 1997- 1998 PR 26 17 28 20 22 25 24 1998- 1999 PR 30 33 45 25 29 36 34 1999- 2000 PR 20 28 26 26 26 27 27 2000- 2001 PR 24 17 25 19 19 22 22 1996- 1997 PR 21 23 24 19 22 23 23 1997- 1998 PR 26 15 28 19 22 24 23 1998- 1999 PR 30 33 50 26 31 36 35 1999- 2000 PR 22 28 26 25 25 27 27 2000- 2001 PR 23 17 26 17 18 22 21 1996- 1997 PR 49 30 47 31 40 42 41 1997- 1998 PR 35 26 22 25 27 32 31 1998- 1999 PR 29 26 18 15 15 29 26 1999- 2000 PR 20 36 30 37 34 32 33 2000- 2001 PR 40 24 22 34 31 28 31 1996- 1997 PR 61 62 78 31 61 62 59 1997- 1998 PR 12 51 41 23 14 29 26 1998- 1999 PR 75 86 88 68 81 77 77 1999- 2000 PR 12145 33 2000- 2001 PR LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research, and Evaluation Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition Percentile Rank (PR) Five Year Comparative Data By School, Grade, Subtest, and Race Gibbs All Students Black Students White Students Other Students Grade Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 64 53 62 59 73 63 63 1997- 1998 PR 56 56 55 57 60 57 57 1998- 1999 PR 38 33 40 37 43 37 38 1999- 2000 PR 66 62 58 60 67 62 62 2000- 2001 PR 60 53 58 52 61 58 57 1996- 1997 PR 53 46 56 48 65 55 56 1997- 1998 PR 41 44 50 44 44 45 45 1998- 1999 PR 17 17 19 16 22 19 19 1999- 2000 PR 41 40 32 35 50 41 41 2000- 2001 PR 25 26 34 26 30 30 30 1996- 1997 PR 81 69 74 75 86 76 77 1997- 1998 PR 68 68 58 68 71 67 68 1998- 1999 PR 71 63 67 67 71 65 66 1999- 2000 PR 84 80 80 79 80 79 79 2000- 2001 PR 89 76 78 78 87 80 81 1996- 1997 PR 25 5 18 31 29 19 21 1997- 1998 PR 66 57 68 64 73 60 62 1998- 1999 PR 50 18 65 75 63 41 47 1999- 2000 PR 77 67 65 88 84 65 70 2000- 2001 PR 77 85 77 55 72 84 81 Jefferson 5 All Students Black Students White Students Other Students Grade Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 57 43 57 52 52 52 52 1997- 1998 PR 64 42 57 54 61 56 56 1998- 1999 PR 63 51 59 51 55 59 58 1999- 2000 PR 71 52 61 54 64 61 61 2000- 2001 PR 74 58 64 58 59 66 65 1996- 1997 PR 30 28 35 30 32 32 32 1997- 1998 PR 25 18 31 24 32 26 26 1998- 1999 PR 24 25 28 18 22 27 26 1999- 2000 PR 39 30 41 28 40 37 37 2000- 2001 PR 30 26 33 26 27 32 32 1996- 1997 PR 78 58 76 72 71 70 71 1997- 1998 PR 85 61 74 74 79 74 74 1998- 1999 PR 71 63 67 67 71 65 66 1999- 2000 PR 87 68 74 73 79 77 77 2000- 2001 PR 84 68 74 67 69 76 74 1996- 1997 PR 1997- 1998 PR 36 22 45 23 48 32 33 1998- 1999 PR 4 12 25 10 12 12 12 1999- 2000 PR 2000- 2001 PR 97 75 83 96 81 87 88 5 ** No Students In this cstegory ITruett Sit9_01 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research, and Evaluation Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition Percentile Rank (PR) Five Year Comparative Data By School, Grade, Subtest, and Race King Grade Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 54 42 51 43 51 52 51 All Students 1997- 1998 PR 38 35 41 40 44 40 40 1998- 1999 PR 54 61 50 48 53 57 56 1999- 2000 PR 46 37 43 41 42 43 43 2000- 2001 PR 47 32 52 38 39 44 43 1996- 1997 PR 37 23 37 22 35 34 34 Black Students 1997- 1998 PR 23 21 29 26 32 26 27 1998- 1999 PR 38 50 39 34 41 44 43 1999- 2000 PR 27 21 27 25 27 26 26 2000- 2001 PR 36 21 43 28 25 34 33 1996- 1997 PR 66 57 62 61 63 64 64 White Students 1997- 1998 PR 58 53 56 61 63 57 58 1998- 1999 PR 68 74 63 63 67 70 69 1999- 2000 PR 68 57 63 63 62 65 64 2000- 2001 PR 61 48 64 54 57 55 55 1996- 1997 PR 64 73 72 63 77 68 69 Other Students 1997- 1998 PR 54 61 64 44 48 59 56 1998- 1999 PR 70 59 48 54 48 62 60 1999- 2000 PR 39 73 32 31 59 51 50 2000- 2001 PR 60 53 62 34 77 65 63 Mabelvale 5 All Students Black Students Grade Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 31 30 40 32 42 35 35 1997- 1998 PR 31 22 30 22 29 31 30 1998- 1999 PR 22 21 26 20 22 27 26 1999- 2000 PR 21 18 25 17 18 22 21 2000- 2001 PR 23 17 22 22 27 22 22 1996- 1997 PR 23 24 37 27 34 29 29 1997- 1998 PR 26 21 27 18 27 29 28 1998- 1999 PR 22 18 25 18 20 26 24 1999- 2000 PR 18 17 21 15 17 20 19 2000- 2001 PR 17 13 18 16 20 17 17 1996- 1997 PR 59 46 49 51 64 54 55 White Students OtherStudents 1997- 1998 PR 40 20 37 31 32 34 34 1998- 1999 PR 23 28 28 42 29 31 30 1999- 2000 PR 17 21 29 18 15 22 21 2000- 2001 PR 52 41 47 53 62 49 51 1996- 1997 PR 86 83 72 58 94 77 78 1997- 1998 PR 75 55 53 39 63 62 60 1998- 1999 PR 1999- 2000 PR 86 29 78 71 48 73 71 2000- 2001 PR 71 47 49 54 68 49 51 5 ** No Students kt this category t.Tnjott Slt9_0tLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research, and Evaluation Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition Percentile Rank (PR) Five Year Comparative Data By School, Grade, Subtest, and Race McDermott All Students Black Students White Students Other Students Grade 5 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 42 33 40 36 44 44 44 1997- 1998 PR 39 33 39 37 47 40 40 1998- 1999 PR 56 53 52 48 55 55 54 1999- 2000 PR 44 44 46 38 41 46 45 2000- 2001 PR 49 28 40 32 41 39 38 1996- 1997 PR 26 21 27 23 29 29 28 1997- 1998 PR 22 19 28 21 33 26 26 1998- 1999 PR 44 47 41 36 42 46 45 1999- 2000 PR 21 30 30 24 25 30 29 2000- 2001 PR 45 24 33 25 35 34 33 1996- 1997 PR 70 53 63 60 71 71 70 1997- 1998 PR 72 64 60 70 71 66 67 1998- 1999 PR 72 61 65 65 71 66 67 1999- 2000 PR 76 62 65 58 63 67 67 2000- 2001 PR 78 54 63 62 66 63 64 1996- 1997 PR 47 56 56 37 44 50 48 1997- 1998 PR 47 50 40 33 55 52 50 1998- 1999 PR 56 61 63 48 74 62 62 1999- 2000 PR 53 53 67 53 58 55 55 2000- 2001 PR 34 23 57 42 48 36 38 Meadowcliff All Students Grade 5 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 32 22 38 27 30 31 31 1997- 1998 PR 37 29 34 35 30 34 34 1998- 1999 PR 21 12 22 15 16 20 19 1999- 2000 PR 27 25 28 19 19 28 26 2000- 2001 PR 47 34 40 33 33 40 39 1996- 1997 PR 28 20 34 25 28 27 27 Black Students White Students Other Students 1997- 1998 PR 33 28 34 31 27 33 32 1998- 1999 PR 14 8 17 10 13 14 13 1999- 2000 PR 28 25 27 17 19 28 26 2000- 2001 PR 35 30 34 29 27 33 32 1996- 1997 PR 45 29 50 37 39 45 44 1997- 1998 PR 56 37 38 42 43 46 46 1998- 1999 PR 61 45 51 47 30 55 52 1999- 2000 PR 12 15 31 34 25 23 24 2000- 2001 PR 76 47 55 43 50 62 61 1996- 1997 PR 1997- 1998 PR 25 11 18 58 41 18 23 1998- 1999 PR 25 13 21 22 25 25 25 1999- 2000 PR 46 40 57 39 14 56 50 2000- 2001 PR * No Student* in this category I.Truett Sets 01Mitchell Grade 5 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 23 24 30 21 30 29 28 Otter Creek Grade 5 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 43 38 48 34 51 45 45 * No Students In this category I.Truett Sat9_01 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research, and Evaluation Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition Percentile Rank (PR) Five Year Comparative Data By School, Grade, Subtest, and Race All Students 1997- 1998 PR 21 17 19 23 21 24 24 1998- 1999 PR 23 23 25 19 20 29 28 1999- 2000 PR 21 16 24 18 20 22 22 All Students 1997- 1998 PR 51 45 44 37 50 49 48 1998- 1999 PR 54 59 63 36 46 57 53 1999- 2000 PR 40 30 35 24 32 36 34 Black Students White Students other Students 2000- 2001 PR 27 18 32 16 19 26 24 2000- 2001 PR 51 49 51 45 49 50 49 1996- 1997 PR 25 26 31 22 30 30 30 1996- 1997 PR 30 26 49 27 34 35 34 1997- 1998 PR 22 17 21 20 20 25 24 1998- 1999 PR 23 23 25 19 20 29 28 1999- 2000 PR 21 16 24 18 20 22 22 2000- 2001 PR 29 18 33 17 21 26 25 1996- 1997 PR 1 3 6 12 18 3 5 1997- 1998 PR 25 45 20 58 59 33 38 1998- 1999 PR 1999- 2000 PR 2000- 2001 PR 22 15 20 10 2 21 16 1996- 1997 PR 34 26 65 23 48 39 39 1997- 1998 PR 13 6 1 31 14 9 11 1998- 1999 PR 1999- 2000 PR 2000- 2001 PR 5 77258 7 Black Students 1997- 1998 PR 39 40 39 30 44 42 41 1998- 1999 PR 34 37 47 19 25 39 35 1999- 2000 PR 26 21 26 14 20 25 23 2000- 2001 PR 23 26 30 27 23 28 28 1996- 1997 PR 60 52 54 45 67 58 57 White Students 1997- 1998 PR 61 48 47 42 55 55 54 1998- 1999 PR 74 78 78 57 69 73 71 1999- 2000 PR 53 38 44 36 44 46 45 2000- 2001 PR 71 66 66 60 68 65 65 1996- 1997 PR 13 22 9 7 48 19 20 Other Students 1997- 1998 PR 61 75 69 68 72 66 67 1998- 1999 PR 59 78 45 52 59 59 58 1999- 2000 PR 2000- 2001 PR 51 43 51 27 67 50 49 Pulaski Heights Grade 5 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery Rightsell Grade 5 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery ** No Students In this category I.ThmU Sat9_01 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research, and Evaluation Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition Percentile Rank (PR) Five Year Comparative Data By School, Grade, Subtest, and Race All Students Black Students White Students other Students 1996- 1997 PR 60 44 55 54 61 54 55 1996- 1997 PR 29 26 29 24 28 35 34 1997- 1998 PR 52 43 51 47 58 51 52 1998- 1999 PR 54 42 50 44 50 49 49 1999- 2000 PR 58 44 52 50 52 53 53 All Students 1997- 1998 PR 36 36 38 27 44 43 41 1998- 1999 PR 33 42 50 22 24 42 38 1999- 2000 PR 37 37 39 36 37 42 41 2000- 2001 PR 61 40 60 50 53 54 53 2000- 2001 PR 48 59 60 45 54 56 55 1996- 1997 PR 34 30 33 33 41 35 35 1997- 1998 PR 22 22 30 24 35 27 28 1998- 1999 PR 26 22 32 24 24 28 27 1999- 2000 PR 31 26 33 26 32 30 30 2000- 2001 PR 36 20 39 23 31 32 31 1996- 1997 PR 82 60 77 74 79 74 74 1997- 1998 PR 86 72 77 77 85 79 79 1998- 1999 PR 75 58 63 58 70 66 66 1999- 2000 PR 85 69 73 79 75 77 77 2000- 2001 PR 87 68 80 79 78 77 77 1996- 1997 PR 1997- 1998 PR 84 67 69 67 79 70 71 1998- 1999 PR 80 72 70 81 65 76 76 1999- 2000 PR 43 21 47 32 48 31 33 2000- 2001 PR 55 57 99 96 68 88 88 Black Students White Students Other Students 1996- 1997 PR 29 26 29 24 28 35 34 1997- 1998 PR 33 34 35 25 42 41 39 1998- 1999 PR 33 42 50 22 24 42 38 1999- 2000 PR 37 39 39 36 37 42 41 2000- 2001 PR 48 59 60 45 54 56 55 1996- 1997 PR 1997- 1998 PR 70 66 65 52 77 72 71 1998- 1999 PR 1999- 2000 PR 2000- 2001 PR 1996- 1997 PR 1997- 1998 PR 63 52 61 60 54 61 60 1998- 1999 PR 1999- 2000 PR 2000- 2001 PR LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research, and Evaluation Stanford Achievement Test. Ninth Edition Percentile Rank (PR) Five Year Comparative Data By School. Grade, Subtest, and Race Rockefeller Grade 5 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 42 31 38 34 54 40 41 All Students 1997- 1998 PR 45 37 37 37 43 42 42 1998- 1999 PR 33 26 32 31 30 32 32 1999- 2000 PR 49 40 51 42 42 47 46 2000- 2001 PR 51 32 51 34 42 47 46 1996- 1997 PR 28 22 27 25 38 29 30 Black Students 1997- 1998 PR 26 23 25 21 28 27 27 1998- 1999 PR 19 16 24 19 21 21 21 1999- 2000 PR 43 36 53 34 37 43 42 2000- 2001 PR 42 24 44 26 34 39 38 1996- 1997 PR 60 43 52 45 72 54 55 White Students 1997- 1998 PR 79 68 65 77 80 71 72 1998- 1999 PR 65 53 50 65 56 56 57 1999- 2000 PR 57 45 49 54 48 51 51 2000- 2001 PR 61 44 62 48 53 57 56 1996- 1997 PR other Students 1997- 1998 PR 29 17 19 6 7 23 18 1998- 1999 PR 41 50 58 34 44 46 44 1999- 2000 PR 2000- 2001 PR 89 82 70 71 91 81 81 Romine Grade 5 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 45 42 46 34 53 46 46 ** No Students In this catS9ory I.Truetl Sal9_at All Students 1997- 1998 PR 33 43 40 35 42 43 43 1998- 1999 PR 48 41 44 43 36 44 43 1999- 2000 PR 37 31 41 29 34 37 37 2000- 2001 PR 47 24 38 35 33 43 42 1996- 1997 PR 39 39 42 28 50 42 42 Black Students 1997- 1998 PR 48 39 45 39 37 45 43 1998- 1999 PR 48 39 45 39 37 45 43 1999- 2000 PR 26 23 34 21 23 29 28 2000- 2001 PR 44 22 34 29 32 39 39 1996- 1997 PR 69 55 61 63 62 61 61 White Students 1997- 1998 PR 42 46 42 46 57 53 54 1998- 1999 PR 50 50 48 64 35 44 44 1999- 2000 PR 65 57 60 51 72 57 59 2000- 2001 PR 55 25 47 54 24 50 47 1996- 1997 PR Other Students 1997- 1998 PR 1998- 1999 PR 42 38 37 32 35 41 39 1999- 2000 PR 60 49 55 48 47 61 59 2000- 2001 PR 56 60 72 68 89 63 67 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research, and Evaluation Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition Percentile Rank (PR) Five Year Comparative Data By School, Grade, Subtest, and Race Stephens/Garland All Students Black Students White Students other Students Grade 5 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 12 15 17 15 23 18 18 1997- 1998 PR 14 12 18 17 21 17 17 1998- 1999 PR 20 27 25 19 24 24 23 1999- 2000 PR 19 22 24 16 18 25 24 2000- 2001 PR 21 18 28 19 23 24 24 1996- 1997 PR 12 15 17 15 23 18 18 1997- 1998 PR 14 12 17 18 22 17 17 1998- 1999 PR 19 26 25 18 23 23 23 1999- 2000 PR 19 20 22 15 17 25 24 2000- 2001 PR 21 18 28 19 23 24 24 1996- 1997 PR 1997- 1998 PR 1998- 1999 PR 1999- 2000 PR 2000- 2001 PR 1996- 1997 PR 1997- 1998 PR 11 15 32 13 17 18 17 1998- 1999 PR 29 60 32 58 41 38 40 1999- 2000 PR NA 78 76 39 55 NA NA 2000- 2001 PR Terry Grade 5 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 51 43 54 48 60 52 52 ** No Students In this category I.Truett SlS.O, All Students 1997- 1998 PR 59 50 57 54 67 58 58 1998- 1999 PR 52 39 51 46 49 46 46 1999- 2000 PR 45 29 43 32 41 41 41 2000- 2001 PR 59 37 52 46 47 53 53 1996- 1997 PR 25 24 34 26 37 30 30 Black Students 1997- 1998 PR 31 21 31 24 39 30 30 1998- 1999 PR 23 20 29 22 31 24 25 1999- 2000 PR 23 15 29 19 25 25 25 2000- 2001 PR 44 22 37 26 31 38 37 1996- 1997 PR 78 61 74 74 79 73 74 White Students 1997- 1998 PR 78 71 74 76 82 76 77 1998- 1999 PR 79 62 72 72 69 69 70 1999- 2000 PR 74 51 61 55 64 63 62 2000- 2001 PR 66 50 59 58 58 61 62 1996- 1997 PR 65 82 69 52 87 74 73 Other Students 1997- 1998 PR 82 88 88 76 92 83 84 1998- 1999 PR 65 57 68 49 55 52 52 1999- 2000 PR 45 48 58 36 55 48 48 2000- 2001 PR 69 40 72 62 53 59 59 L LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning. Research, and Evaluation Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition Percentile Rank (PR) Five Year Comparative Data By School, Grade, Subtest, and Race Wakefield other Students Grade 5 Subtest Total Reading Total Math______ Language______ Science________ Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 22 16 22 19 28 23 23 All Students Black Students 1997- 1998 PR 24 19 22 19 26 25 25 1998- 1999 PR 22 20 22 20 20 24 23 1999- 2000 PR 18 14 20 17 19 21 21 2000- 2001 PR 19 13 20 16 16 21 21 1996- 1997 PR 18 13 20 16 24 20 20 1997- 1998 PR 19 16 19 15 22 22 21 1998- 1999 PR 23 21 22 20 20 24 24 1999- 2000 PR 14 11 16 13 15 16 16 2000- 2001 PR 20 12 20 14 15 21 19 1996- 1997 PR 79 63 56 71 77 70 71 White Students 1997- 1998 PR 73 57 63 82 72 64 67 1998- 1999 PR 1999- 2000 PR 70 69 73 66 70 71 70 2000- 2001 PR 11 15 11 33 21 19 20 1996- 1997 PR 37 23 30 27 53 31 32 1997- 1998 PR 47 34 59 47 72 44 47 1998- 1999 PR 2 36 3 12 34 1999- 2000 PR 63 44 41 58 65 54 56 2000- 2001 PR 29 63 41 35 63 38 40 Washington All Students Black Students White Students other Students Grade 5 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 47 45 50 42 53 50 50 1997- 1998 PR 43 39 46 41 51 45 46 1998- 1999 PR 39 47 37 40 38 41 41 1999- 2000 PR 27 28 33 25 27 28 28 2000- 2001 PR 28 19 30 26 26 26 27 1996- 1997 PR 21 24 28 22 27 27 27 1997- 1998 PR 19 22 22 18 33 24 24 1998- 1999 PR 24 32 22 19 20 28 26 1999- 2000 PR 16 18 24 15 20 18 18 2000- 2001 PR 19 14 26 20 20 20 20 1996- 1997 PR 67 63 66 60 72 67 67 1997- 1998 PR 67 55 68 63 68 66 67 1998- 1999 PR 60 66 54 65 64 59 60 1999- 2000 PR 52 55 51 57 43 48 48 2000- 2001 PR 66 40 49 53 46 50 50 1996- 1997 PR 85 78 81 65 80 81 80 1997- 1998 PR 51 47 57 54 52 50 51 1998- 1999 PR 22 47 42 44 32 33 33 1999- 2000 PR 55 47 54 47 41 53 53 2000- 2001 PR 54 36 32 30 59 54 54 ** Ne Students in this category ITruett SetS^Ot Watson Grade 5 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery Western Hills Grade 5 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery - No Students In this catoflory I.Truott Sst9_01 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research, and Evaluation Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition Percentile Rank (PR) Five Year Comparative Data By School, Grade, Subtest, and Race All Students Black Students White Students other Students 1996- 1997 PR 21 19 29 22 30 24 25 1997- 1998 PR 30 28 34 33 38 33 34 1998- 1999 PR 27 28 31 21 27 30 29 1999- 2000 PR 22 17 23 19 23 23 23 All Students 2000- 2001 PR 33 21 31 22 23 30 29 1996- 1997 PR 24 21 33 23 32 27 27 1997- 1998 PR 29 26 33 30 35 31 32 1998- 1999 PR 27 28 31 21 26 30 28 1999- 2000 PR 23 18 24 20 24 24 24 2000- 2001 PR 33 19 32 20 20 30 28 1996- 1997 PR 9 9 14 18 19 12 13 1997- 1998 PR 41 60 58 69 68 55 58 1998- 1999 PR 26 31 40 19 40 32 31 1999- 2000 PR 7 23 20 15 18 22 21 2000- 2001 PR 1996- 1997 PR 1997- 1998 PR 1998- 1999 PR 1999- 2000 PR 18 8 8 6 11 7 6 2000- 2001 PR 3 4 3 6 5 5 5 Black Students White Students Other Students 1996- 1997 PR 46 32 50 41 47 46 46 1997- 1998 PR 44 33 45 36 45 45 44 1998- 1999 PR 37 29 44 34 34 36 36 1999- 2000 PR 36 29 35 30 32 35 34 2000- 2001 PR 43 37 52 39 42 44 44 1996- 1997 PR 25 20 36 26 30 31 30 1997- 1998 PR 28 21 36 27 37 32 32 1998- 1999 PR 34 30 41 29 30 34 33 1999- 2000 PR 24 20 29 20 25 26 26 2000- 2001 PR 37 35 49 35 37 40 39 1996- 1997 PR 77 51 69 65 72 67 68 1997- 1998 PR 77 64 64 59 62 73 72 1998- 1999 PR 52 30 57 60 52 46 48 1999- 2000 PR 67 57 51 61 53 58 58 2000- 2001 PR 66 43 65 52 59 60 60 1996- 1997 PR 1997- 1998 PR 1998- 1999 PR 14 3 14 10 14 11 12 1999- 2000 PR 2000- 2001 PRWilliams Grade 5 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 72 63 66 62 73 68 68 Wilson Grade 5 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 36 31 36 32 41 37 37 ** No Students In this category I.Truott Sat9_01 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research, and Evaluation Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition Percentile Rank (PR) Five Year Comparative Data By School, Grade, Subtest, and Race All Students 1997- 1998 PR 70 66 66 61 74 68 68 1998- 1999 PR 74 67 70 61 73 71 70 1999- 2000 PR 71 67 70 54 70 69 68 All Students 1997- 1998 PR 24 19 26 26 30 26 26 1998- 1999 PR 24 19 24 19 21 26 25 1999- 2000 PR 24 23 31 20 26 29 27 Black Students White Students other Students 2000- 2001 PR 69 50 59 51 58 59 58 2000- 2001 PR 28 22 29 18 26 28 27 1996- 1997 PR 62 51 60 55 66 58 59 1997- 1998 PR 58 59 61 51 67 60 59 1998- 1999 PR 57 52 59 45 63 58 58 1999- 2000 PR 58 57 62 41 60 59 58 Black Students 1996- 1997 PR 27 20 28 27 38 29 29 1997- 1998 PR 20 16 23 23 24 22 23 1998- 1999 PR 21 18 23 17 18 24 23 1999- 2000 PR 25 22 31 19 26 29 28 2000- 2001 PR 48 33 44 34 42 43 42 2000- 2001 PR 28 22 29 18 26 28 27 1996- 1997 PR 82 70 68 68 79 75 75 1996- 1997 PR 73 63 53 56 59 65 63 1997- 1998 PR 81 73 71 69 80 76 76 1998- 1999 PR 87 80 79 76 82 81 81 1999- 2000 PR 83 78 77 65 80 79 78 2000- 2001 PR 83 60 67 66 70 71 70 1996- 1997 PR 87 95 90 74 91 89 88 1997- 1998 PR 1998- 1999 PR 1999- 2000 PR 85 74 87 85 86 79 80 2000- 2001 PR 95 94 92 86 91 91 90 White Students 1997- 1998 PR 50 26 38 44 64 43 45 1998- 1999 PR 41 21 25 31 32 37 36 1999- 2000 PR 18 38 28 36 45 30 33 2000- 2001 PR other Students 1996- 1997 PR 54 84 85 27 31 72 64 1997- 1998 PR 29 78 53 18 41 53 47 1998- 1999 PR 1999- 2000 PR 11 19 36 15 17 20 19 2000- 2001 PR Woodruff Grade 5 Subtest Total Reading Total Math_____ Language______ Science________ Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery ** No Studonts In this cstegwy I.Trustt SstS_01 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning. Research, and Evaluation Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition Percentile Rank (PR) Five Year Comparative Data By School, Grade, Subtest, and Race All Students Black Students White Students other Students 1996- 1997 PR 46 43 46 51 52 47 48 1997- 1998 PR 42 34 32 27 41 38 37 1998- 1999 PR 19 25 30 14 18 25 23 1999- 2000 PR 20 14 21 11 13 20 18 2000- 2001 PR 42 26 44 26 30 39 37 1996- 1997 PR 18 35 33 34 35 29 30 1997- 1998 PR 33 29 30 22 35 33 32 1998- 1999 PR 18 24 29 13 17 24 22 1999- 2000 PR 16 11 16 8 10 16 14 2000- 2001 PR 37 24 41 22 27 36 34 1996- 1997 PR 79 53 59 69 71 68 68 1997- 1998 PR 67 49 39 43 57 53 52 1998- 1999 PR 42 45 57 39 33 48 45 1999- 2000 PR 47 38 53 30 40 46 44 2000- 2001 PR 85 51 68 63 61 64 61 1996- 1997 PR 93 57 88 89 77 86 86 1997- 1998 PR 1998- 1999 PR 1999- 2000 PR 36 26 57 20 37 41 38 2000- 2001 PRLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research, and Evaluation Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition Percentile Rank (PR) Five Year Comparative Data By School, Grade, Subtest, and Race Cloverdale Middle All Students Black Students White Students other Students Grade 7 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 24 22 23 24 29 28 28 1997- 1998 PR 19 24 26 26 29 29 29 1998- 1999 PR 22 21 24 22 22 26 26 1999- 2000 PR 21 21 21 23 21 25 25 2000- 2001 PR 22 17 25 26 24 26 26 1996- 1997 PR 24 21 23 23 27 28 27 1997- 1998 PR 17 23 24 24 26 27 27 1998- 1999 PR 22 21 23 22 22 27 26 1999- 2000 PR 20 20 21 23 21 25 24 2000- 2001 PR 22 17 24 26 24 26 26 1996- 1997 PR 27 31 27 39 48 36 37 1997- 1998 PR 54 44 51 55 59 57 58 1998- 1999 PR 35 30 33 27 33 29 29 1999- 2000 PR 37 35 32 34 35 43 42 2000- 2001 PR 28 32 33 35 33 40 40 1996- 1997 PR 22 21 25 23 34 29 29 1997- 1998 PR 33 26 66 43 46 38 39 1998- 1999 PR 34 45 44 58 59 42 46 1999- 2000 PR 16 26 17 22 14 23 22 2000- 2001 PR 18 12 24 21 25 18 19 Dunbar Middle All Students Black Students White Students Other Students Grade 7 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 43 44 43 47 53 49 49 1997- 1998 PR 44 41 46 46 50 47 47 1998- 1999 PR 37 34 38 40 41 40 40 1999- 2000 PR 49 50 44 51 52 51 51 2000- 2001 PR 41 34 39 40 44 42 42 1996- 1997 PR 25 28 29 29 35 33 34 1997- 1998 PR 26 24 32 28 33 32 32 1998- 1999 PR 23 21 25 25 24 27 27 1999- 2000 PR 27 24 23 24 26 29 28 2000- 2001 PR 23 19 23 23 27 26 26 1996- 1997 PR 73 68 65 74 76 71 72 1997- 1998 PR 72 68 67 74 77 69 71 1998- 1999 PR 62 60 60 68 70 63 64 1999- 2000 PR 79 83 75 83 83 79 80 2000- 2001 PR 73 64 69 72 75 69 70 1996- 1997 PR 64 69 64 68 77 65 67 1997- 1998 PR 73 77 76 78 78 73 76 1998- 1999 PR 83 85 88 78 86 87 87 1999- 2000 PR 58 76 58 75 73 66 67 2000- 2001 PR 70 81 66 70 80 76 76 * No Students tn thts category I Truett Set9_01 LForest Heights Middle Grade 7 Subtest Total Reading Total Math_____ Language______ Science________ Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 30 30 31 37 39 36 37 Henderson Middle Grade 7 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 35 34 37 40 39 41 41 ** No Student! In this category ITruett SatS.OI LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research, and Evaluation Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition Percentile Rank (PR) Five Year Comparative Data By School, Grade, Subtest, and Race All Students 1997- 1998 PR 38 35 42 42 45 43 43 1998- 1999 PR 47 38 45 49 44 47 47 1999- 2000 PR 43 41 37 44 43 45 45 2000- 2001 PR 43 35 42 46 45 43 44 1996- 1997 PR 22 23 24 29 29 29 29 Black Students 1997- 1998 PR 25 23 28 30 31 30 30 1998- 1999 PR 33 26 34 34 32 36 36 1999- 2000 PR 32 30 26 30 30 35 34 2000- 2001 PR 27 21 29 31 30 30 30 1996- 1997 PR 62 57 57 66 73 61 63 White Students 1997- 1998 PR 71 66 72 71 75 70 70 1998- 1999 PR 68 59 61 73 64 65 66 1999- 2000 PR 66 66 60 72 69 65 66 2000- 2001 PR 74 67 70 75 75 71 72 1996- 1997 PR 71 72 70 82 69 71 72 All Students 1997- 1998 PR 25 24 26 34 28 31 31 1998- 1999 PR 25 21 25 31 26 30 30 1999- 2000 PR 31 28 28 30 30 34 33 2000- 2001 PR 30 24 28 29 28 33 33 1996- 1997 PR 29 28 33 34 33 35 35 Black Students 1997- 1998 PR 23 21 25 31 26 28 29 1998- 1999 PR 22 17 23 25 23 27 27 1999- 2000 PR 27 24 26 28 26 31 30 2000- 2001 PR 28 20 25 25 27 31 30 1996- 1997 PR 69 65 62 74 67 67 68 White Students 1997- 1998 PR 43 47 39 56 46 46 47 1998- 1999 PR 52 44 42 72 48 51 53 1999- 2000 PR 44 41 39 39 41 45 44 2000- 2001 PR 40 45 41 57 36 43 44 1996- 1997 PR 50 51 51 49 52 53 52 other Students 1997- 1998 PR 32 38 50 42 50 42 43 1998- 1999 PR 66 66 69 65 65 67 67 1999- 2000 PR 40 51 44 48 54 51 51 other Students 1997- 1998 PR 28 50 33 52 27 41 40 1998- 1999 PR 24 34 27 55 38 30 34 1999- 2000 PR 27 28 24 30 32 30 30 2000- 2001 PR 36 32 25 31 28 35 34 2000- 2001 PR 42 55 48 34 24 49 45LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research, and Evaluation Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition Percentile Rank (PR) Five Year Comparative Data By School, Grade, Subtest, and Race Mabelvale Middle All Students Black Students White Students Other Students Grade 7 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 24 23 28 30 32 30 31 1997- 1998 PR 33 31 37 36 36 37 37 1998- 1999 PR 25 24 23 31 28 29 29 1999- 2000 PR 33 26 29 32 38 35 35 2000- 2001 PR 32 25 29 31 31 32 32 1996- 1997 PR 19 18 24 24 26 26 26 1997- 1998 PR 25 23 29 28 27 30 29 1998- 1999 PR 21 20 20 26 23 25 25 1999- 2000 PR 27 21 25 25 32 30 29 2000- 2001 PR 28 20 25 25 28 28 29 1996- 1997 PR 42 41 41 53 52 45 47 1997- 1998 PR 59 57 60 61 63 59 60 1998- 1999 PR 43 40 34 51 47 45 46 1999- 2000 PR 52 44 39 53 58 50 51 2000- 2001 PR 50 47 45 52 44 48 48 1996- 1997 PR 79 50 50 75 85 64 68 1997- 1998 PR 62 40 61 42 72 55 55 1998- 1999 PR 51 34 35 50 66 41 44 1999- 2000 PR 39 22 29 41 39 37 38 2000- 2001 PR 29 26 28 43 31 26 27 Mann Middle All Students Black Students White Students Other Students Grade 7 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 55 51 54 56 59 57 57 1997- 1998 PR 49 46 52 56 57 53 54 1998- 1999 PR 58 50 58 59 57 58 58 1999- 2000 PR 56 58 50 59 58 58 58 2000- 2001 PR 50 52 45 51 49 52 52 1996- 1997 PR 37 35 39 38 43 42 42 1997- 1998 PR 34 30 39 40 44 40 40 1998- 1999 PR 40 34 43 42 38 43 43 1999- 2000 PR 36 37 33 40 40 40 40 2000- 2001 PR 34 36 32 36 34 39 38 1996- 1997 PR 72 66 69 74 74 71 71 1997- 1998 PR 66 64 65 72 72 67 68 1998- 1999 PR 72 64 64 73 72 69 70 1999- 2000 PR 74 77 65 77 74 74 74 2000- 2001 PR 70 70 62 70 67 68 68 1996- 1997 PR 68 73 63 71 74 71 71 1997- 1998 PR 52 52 65 56 51 55 55 1998- 1999 PR 78 77 82 80 82 82 82 1999- 2000 PR 71 70 76 72 67 73 74 2000- 2001 PR 62 67 62 59 61 65 64 ** No Student! In this category I.Trwett Satfl_01Pulaski Heights Middle Grade 7 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 52 52 54 54 60 56 56 Southwest Middle Grade 7 Subtest Total Reading Total Math Language______ Science Social Science Basic Battery Complete Battery 1996- 1997 PR 26 26 31 33 33 33 33 * No Students In thb category I.Truett Sa_01 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research, and Evaluation Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition Percentile Rank (PR) Five Year Comparative Data By School, Grade, Subtest, and Race All Students 1997- 1998 PR 53 54 58 59 59 57 58 1998- 1999 PR 47 35 48 46 47 47 47 1999- 2000 PR 48 48 43 46 49 49 49 All Students 1997- 1998 PR 25 20 27 25 28 31 30 1998- 1999 PR 23 15 20 22 18 23 23 1999- 2000 PR 26 24 23 26 26 30 29 Black Students White Students other Students 2000- 2001 PR 52 40 48 51 53 51 51 1996- 1997 PR 33 31 35 35 37 38 38 1997- 1998 PR 33 33 40 39 38 39 39 1998- 1999 PR 35 29 37 33 35 37 37 1999- 2000 PR 27 25 24 23 24 28 28 2000- 2001 PR 26 19 28 26 26 29 29 1996- 1997 PR 76 76 77 77 84 76 77 1997- 1998 PR 77 77 78 80 81 77 78 1998- 1999 PR 74 66 70 74 72 70 71 1999- 2000 PR 77 78 71 77 80 75 76 2000- 2001 PR 77 63 69 74 77 70 71 1996- 1997 PR 83 94 86 86 90 85 85 1997- 1998 PR 52 71 59 75 65 61 63 1998- 1999 PR 60 74 81 78 71 68 70 1999- 2000 PR 69 83 59 67 86 69 71 2000- 2001 PR 78 86 69 89 76 80 81 Black Students White Students Other Students 2000- 2001 PR 30 22 24 26 26 32 31 1996- 1997 PR 21 22 27 27 28 27 27 1997- 1998 PR 21 17 24 21 24 27 26 1998- 1999 PR 20 13 19 20 16 21 21 1999- 2000 PR 24 23 22 25 24 28 28 2000- 2001 PR 29 21 24 26 25 32 31 1996- 1997 PR 42 38 42 48 47 48 48 1997- 1998 PR 54 44 42 56 52 55 55 1998- 1999 PR 46 31 30 51\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_294","title":"Compliance hearing exhibits, 28","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1999/2000"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance hearing exhibits, 28"],"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/294"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nTEST Grade K 1 2 LRSD Observation Survey behavioral observation of literacy skitls______ LRSD Achievement Level Test (ALT) Reading, Language Arts, Math, A Science LRSD 1st Quarter CRT, October LRSD 2nd Quarter CRT, January LRSD 3rd Quarter CRT, March End of Module - Math End of Unit - Science End of Level Social Studies Test District Assessments\nThe Assessment Program for 2000-01 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 : 11 Sept. \u0026amp; April Sept. \u0026amp; April Sept. \u0026amp; April April Sept \u0026amp; April Sept \u0026amp; April Sept \u0026amp; April Sept \u0026amp; April Sept \u0026amp; April Sept \u0026amp; April Sept \u0026amp; April Algebra 1 \u0026amp; 2. Geometry. Trigonometry Sept \u0026amp; April Algebra 1 \u0026amp; 2. Geometry. Trigonometry Stale Benchmark: Math \u0026amp; Literacy End of Course Algebra I_______ End of Course Geometry End of Course Literacy SAT-9: Norm Referenced Test_________ PLAN _______________________ ___ EXPLORE_________________________ PSAT______________________________ NAEP (randomly selected schools) 7/18/00 Sept \u0026amp; April Algebra 1 \u0026amp; 2. Geometry. Trigonometry 12 Algebra 1 \u0026amp; 2 Geometry, Trigonometp Reading \u0026amp; Language Arts Reading \u0026amp; Language Arts As Modules are completed As Units are completed Reading \u0026amp; Language Arts Reading \u0026amp; Language /Vts As Modules are completed As Units are completed Reading \u0026amp; Language Arts Reading \u0026amp; Language Arts As Modules are completed As Units are completed Language Arts Language Arts As Modules are completed As Units are completed April April February September Revised DRAFT Language /Vts Language Arts As Modules are completed As Units are completed May September Language Arts Language Arts As Modules are completed Algebra 1 \u0026amp; 2, Geometry, Trigonometry Algebra 1 \u0026amp; 2, Geometry. Trigonometry Algebra 1 \u0026amp; 2, Geometry. Trigonometry /Mgebra 1 \u0026amp; 5 Geometry. Trigonometry May April May May May May May May May May Mav May May Oct - Feb February Septemoer Oct \u0026amp; Nov Oct (practice) .October February 1 INTRODUCTION The Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP), a comprehensive system encompassing high academic standards, professional development, student assessment, and accountability for schools and students, has the following purposes: To improve student learning and classroom instruction\n To provide public accountability by establishing expected achievement levels and reporting on student achievement\n To provide program evaluation data\nand To assist policymakers in decision-making. Based on principles of rigor, clarity, and fairness, ACTAAP makes student achievement of the academic standards the shared priority of all public schools, school districts, education service cooperatives, and the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE). It will result in improved teaching and learning. It will identify successful schools and programs and encourage replication of those successes. It will encourage individual schools and school districts to reflect on their practices, take corrective actions, and receive support from state agencies. Finally, it will fulfill the requirements of various Arkansas statutes, including Act 999 of 1999, which mandates that all students in the public schools of this state demonstrate grade-level academic proficiency through the application of knowledge and skills in the core academic subjects consistent with state curriculum frameworks, performance standards, and assessments. 1ACADEMIC STANDARDS The first component, a set of clear, challenging academic standards, defines what students should know and be able to do in the basic academic core. Arkansas academic standards are delineated in ten state curriculum framework documents. Written by Arkansas classroom teachers, the curriculum frameworks are revised on a State Board of Education adopted schedule to ensure that state learning expectations will prepare students to succeed in increasingly more demanding post secondary education and in an ever more competitive job market. As part of Smart Start and Smart Step, and as a support and supplement to the curriculum frameworks, K-8 Benchmark documents in Language Arts and Mathematics have been created. These documents are examples of how a school district might implement the curriculum frameworks by grade level. The K-8 Curriculum Model documents also contain suggested instructional strategies, classroom assessments, and a K-3 grade-level skills checklist. Other supportive curriculum documents built around the academic standards are under development. 1 2 1-- PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT The second component, professional development, is a coordinated set of planned, research-based best practice, learning activities for teachers and administrators which are standards-based and continuous. It shall be tied with school improvement planning and with licensure renewal requirements. Thirty approved professional development hours annually will be required for each certified employee in the school district. Beginning in January 2002, thirty approved professional development hours armually over a five-year period shall be required to renew a teacher or administrator license. To be eligible, professional development activities must produce teaching and administrative knowledge and skills designed to improve students academic performance. Such activities may include approved conferences, workshops, institutes, individual learning, mentoring, peer coaching, study groups. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards Certification, distance learning, internships, and college/university coursework. Approved professional development activities shall relate to the twelve areas adopted by the State Board of Education: content (Grades K-12)\ninstructional strategies\nassessment\nadvocacy/leadership\nsystemic change process\nstandards, frameworks, and curriculum aligrunent\nsupervision\nmentoring/coaching\ninstructional technology\nprinciples of leaming/developmental stages\ncognitive research\nand building a collaborative learning community. All approved professional development activities, whether individual or school wide, shall be based on the improvement of student achievement on state- mandated criterion-referenced examinations and other related indicators as defined by ACTAAP. 3STUDENT ASSESSMENT The third component is a student assessment program, which includes both criterion- referenced and norm-referenced tests in the academic core. Criterion-referenced tests are customized around the academic standards in the Arkansas Curriculum Frameworks and are developed by committees of Arkansas teachers. These criterion-referenced tests are administered to establish the level of student achievement of the state academic standards and to compare the level of student achievement with the expected performance levels set by the State Board of Education. Norm-referenced tests provide information to compare the performance of Arkansas students against the performance of a sample of students from across the country (norming/standardization group). Because norm-referenced tests are not built exclusively around Arkansas academic standards and because their purpose is to group students based on their performance relative to the norming group, they can best be used for assisting in broad program evaluation and in individual student diagnosis. Norm-referenced test data will not be a primary state- mandated indicator within the accountability component, but will be reported annually on the School Performance Report. State-Mandated Assessments The results of all assessments should be used during the school improvement planning process to help the school focus on the Arkansas academic standards and the need to increase proficient student performance around those standards. State-mandated assessments shall be as follows\n___________Assessments Criterion-Referenced Primary Benchmark Intermediate Benchmark Middle Level Benchmark End-of-Course - Algebra I End-of-Course - Geometry End-of-Course - Literacy Norm-Referenced__________ Grade Level Grade 4 Grade 6 Grade 8 When Completed When Completed Grade 11 Grades 5,7, and 10 Month Administered April April April January/May January/May January/April September The Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams, as well as the End-of- Course Exams, will be given late in the school year to allow maximum instructional time for covering the academic standards. Special provisions will be made for an alternate administration in January for those secondary students on a block scheduling system. The Literacy End-of-Course Exam will be given to students in Grade 11 to allow time for additional remediation, at the schools option, before graduation. These exams are tailored to Arkansas curriculum standards, and their performance levels are absolute and held constant over time. The results of the End-of-Course Exams shall become a part of each students transcript or permanent record. 4An academic improvement plan means a plan which details supplemental and/or intervention and ...-remedial instruction in deficient academic areas. One shall be developed for each student not performing at the proficient level in every portion of the criterion-referenced examinations. The norm-referenced tests will be given in early fall of the school year in order to provide teachers with immediate and initial performance assessment data on students currently enrolled or newly enrolled in classes and content areas. The performance of Arkansas students taking the norm-referenced tests in the fall will be compared to the performance of a norming group who took the same tests during the same period in the fall, thus ensuring the reliability, validity and fairness of comparison. Score reports will be returned early in the school year for classroom teachers to use the testing information to address the individual student learning needs, and to modify the instructional program, teaching strategies, and/or classroom assessments as needed. Instruction then can focus fully on the Arkansas academic standards throughout the year and on increasing proficient student performance around those standards. Schools may request a waiver from the fall to a spring testing date. Such waivers will only be granted after a written plan is presented to the ADE and the school agrees to the guidelines as established. The timing of such requests must also fall within the deadlines as established by the testing company. As another part of the student assessment program for Grades K-4, schools shall select performance assessments or screening/diagnostic tools to assess primary grade students. Any student in Grades K-4 failing to perform at the proficient level in reading and writing literacy or mathematics shall be evaluated as early as possible within each of the Grades K-4 academic years. Those students shall be evaluated by personnel with expertise in reading and writing literacy or mathematics who shall develop and implement an academic improvement plan, using ADE sanctioned early intervention strategies for Grades K-1 students and remediation strategies for Grades 2-4 students. These strategies should assist the students in achieving the expected standard. Schools serving Grades 5-12 shall establish a plan to assess whether children are performing at the proficient level in order to help assure eventual success on every portion of the Intermediate, Middle Level, and End-of-Course Benchmark Exams. For accountability purposes, no points will be assigned for the results of these perfomance assessments or screening/diagnostic tools. Act 855 of 1999 mandates that students in Grades K-3 not performing at grade level during the regular school year shall participate in an ADE approved remediation program or a summer school remediation program to be eligible for promotion to the next grade. Those schools electing not to offer a summer school program shall offer an ADE approved remediation program during the regular school year to students in Grades K-3 not performing at grade level. 5Optional Assessments There are other assessments which are optional for student and school participation. These include the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), college entrance examinations (e.g., ACT and SAT), Advanced Placement testing, PLAN, EXPLORE, and others. Some of these may be included as indicators on the School Performance Report or in the annual school report to the public. Note\nAlthough NAEP is optional for individual school districts, state participation is mandated by Act 999 of 1999. 6ACCOUNTABILITY FOR SCHOOLS AND STUDENTS Accountability is a comprehensive, focused process designed to improve student learning. It is a shared responsibility of the state, school, district, public officials, educators, parents, and students. The ACTAAP accountability model focuses on each individual school and is constructed around a three-tiered system that includes statewide indicators, individual school improvement indicators, and a locally-generated school accountability narrative. Once appropriate time has elapsed to evaluate trends and improvement expectations in a sufficient number of indicators and a statistically-defensible point assignment system can be developed, points for each of the statewide and individual school improvement indicators will be given. This point system will form the basis for rewards and sanctions. These three tiers allow for meaningful and appropriate state and local involvement to implement accountability within clearly articulated parameters. ACTAAP encourages proactive corrections by individual schools and their local districts through the development and application of strategies using the school improvement process as a planning instrument. Performance Levels The primary goal of the accountability system is to assure that all students achieve grade-level performance. In this system, grade-level performance is defined as performing at the proficient or advanced level on state-mandated criterion-referenced tests. Four performance levels have been established for these exams\nadvanced, proficient, basic and below basic. The only tests for which scaled scores defining these levels have been set are the Primary Benchmark and Middle Level Benchmark Exams. Similar scales will be established by the State Board of Education as additional tests are completed and data become available. Definitions of Performance Levels Advanced students demonstrate superior performance well beyond proficient grade-level performance. They can apply Arkansas established reading, writing, and mathematics skills to solve complex problems and complete demanding tasks on their own. They can make insightful connections between abstract and concrete ideas and provide well- supported explanations and arguments. Proficient students demonstrate solid academic performance for the grade tested and are well-prepared for the next level of schooling. They can use Arkansas established reading, writing, and mathematics skills and knowledge to solve problems and complete tasks on their own. Students can tie ideas together and explain tihe ways their ideas are connected. 7Basic students demonstrate a need for some additional assistance, commitment, or study to reach the proficient level. They show substantial skills in reading, writing, and mathematics\nhowever, they only partially demonstrate the abilities to apply these skills. Below Basic students fail to show sufficient mastering of skills in reading, writing, and mathematics to attain the basic level. Performance Levels for the Primary and Middle Level Benchmark Examinations Performance Level Advanced Proficient Basic______ Below Basic Scaled Score Ranges for Performance Levels for Mathematics Primary 250 and above 200-249 155-199 154 and below Middle Level 250 and above 200-249 149-199 148 and below Scaled Score Ranges for Performance Levels for Literacy Primary 250 and above 200-249 179-199 178 and below Middle Level 250 and above 200-249 164-199 163 and below {^Performance is subject to adjustment on a periodic basis due to statistical scaling and variability in the test.) I 8 Public Reporting Each public school in Arkansas will have a School Performance Report that will be created through the combined efforts of the local school, school district, and the ADE. The School Performance Report will provide parents and the public with data upon which to evaluate their schools and provide benchmarks for measuring school improvement. Although results from the schools performance on the three-tiered system will be the primary focus of the School Performance Report, other indicators may be included as determined by law or State Board of Education rules and regulations. Although the same standards of student performance will be expected from all students, assessment data will be analyzed and reported separately for three student classifications: special education, limited English proficient, and high mobility. The purposes for tracking performance of these student groups are to focus on narrowing any achievement gap between them and their peers and to ensure that the progress of all student populations is annually and systematically monitored. For purposes of this reporting, the following definitions apply: Disaggregated Reporting General population students are those participating in the mandatory criterion- referenced and norm-referenced assessments that are not classified as special education, limited English proficient, or highly mobile. Combined population students include all those participating in the mandatory criterion-referenced and norm-referenced assessments regardless of classification. Special education students are those determined to be eligible for special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and who have an individualized education program (lEP). The students lEP must stipulate that the student may participate in the mandatory criterion- referenced and norm-referenced assessments either with or without accommodations. Beginning July 1, 2000, those unable to participate with or without accommodations will be assessed through the Alternate Assessment program. Beginning with the kindergarten class of 2000-2001, the scores of all students classified as special education students participating in the mandatory criterion-referenced and norm-referenced assessments with or without accommodations shall be aggregated (combined) with those of the general population students according to the following 2004-05 2005 - 06 2006 - 07 2007 - 08 2008 - 09 2008 - 09 2010-11 2011 - 12 calendar: Primary Benchmark Fifth Grade Norm-Referenced Intermediate Benchmark Seventh Grade Norm-Referenced Middle Level Benchmark End of Course (where applicable) Tenth Grade Norm-Referenced End of Course Literacy 9Limited,. English proficient students are those having a language background . other than English and whose proficiency in English is such that the probability of academic success in an English-only classroom is below that of native English language students. The districts Language Assessment Committee must have determined that the students may participate in the mandatory criterion-referenced and norm-referenced assessments either with or without accommodations. Beginning July 1, 2000, those unable to participate with or without accommodations will be assessed through the Alternate Assessment program. High mobility students are those who, at the time of spring testing, were not eiuolled in the current school district on October 1 of the current school year or who, at the time of fall testing, were not enrolled in the current school district on October 1 of the previous school year. Beginning with the 1999-2000 mandatory assessments, results will be reported separately for the following categories of students: General Population Special Education Students Limited English Proficient Students High Mobility Students Combined Population I Beginning with the 2000-01 mandatory assessments, the number of students not tested through either the mandatory criterion-referenced and norm-referenced assessments or Alternate Assessment program will be reported by school. Schools should make every effort to assure that all students are tested. Annual School Report to the Public: Each year, each school will prepare a report to the parents and community. This report will include a narrative description (such as prepared under Tier III indicators) that will highlight the schools improvement plan and indicate progress made in implementing the performance indicators within that plan. 1 Arkansas School Information Site (AS-IS): The ADE plans to make school accountability data available statewide through the Departments World Wide Web - as-is.org. This Web site will display school data based on student performance and other selected indicators. Annual ADE Report to the Legislature: The ADE shall report to the members of the House and Senate Interim Committees on Education on the progress of ACTAAP. The report shall be due on September 1, 1999 and annually thereafter. 10School Improvement Planning As part of the states accreditation process, each school is required to engage in the development and implementation of a school improvement plan based on priorities indicated by student assessment and other pertinent data. This plan is designed to ensure that all students demonstrate proficiency on all portions of the state-mandated criterion- referenced exams. The initial step in the plaiming model is a structured process that leads to disaggregation of student achievement and other student data. The study of this data helps schools identify areas within the curriculum where student performance does not meet expectation. Schools prioritize the needs areas, then develop performance-based benchmarks that can be tracked during the implementation phase of the plan. Schools then identify intervention and remediation strategies that, if effectively implemented, will move students toward meeting the established benchmarks. Finally, schools develop an action plan that assigns tasks, identifies resources (including the source of funds), and projects evaluation strategies that will signal movement toward meeting the performance standards. The process requires that the intervention and remediation be research-based and linked to proven practices. Rewards Rewards will be based on a system structured to recognize schools that demonstrate and maintain high performance over time and to recognize schools that demonstrate growth on both the state-mandated and school-selected indicators. Rewards also can be used to highlight individual schools so that their practices can be adapted in other schools and districts across the state. Each year the ADE will recognize individual schools that demonstrate exceptional performance in two categories: Performance Awards - Absolute levels of student achievement and other indicators. Growth Trend and Improvement Awards - Recognized growth trends and improvement in student achievement and other indicators. All award categories, which could include cash payments to individual schools, will be phased in over time and will be implemented as the indicator performance levels are established through the standard setting process. The focus of any cash awards must be to enhance the capability of the school to better serve its students. Awarded funds shall be used to expand programs, provide additional materials and supplies, support technology, provide bonuses to staff, or make possible other enhancements that serve the needs of the school or children. 11Sanctions Sanctions are applied for the purpose of improving teaching and learning, not for punishing schools or the people in them. Intervention from the state is not meant to be a permanent solution to unacceptable student achievement, but a way to help local schools improve student performance. It is expected that individual schools and districts will monitor their own progress and take corrective steps to improve student achievement prior to intervention from the state. To avoid sanctions, each school is expected to achieve annually a minimum percentage of its total possible points given for the accountability indicators described within the threetiered system. Failure to do so will result in the following designations: High Priority Status - first year. Alert Status - second year. Low Performing Status - third year. Academic Distress Phase I Status - fourth year. To be considered for removal from any sanctioned designation leading up to, but not including. Academic Distress Phase 1, a school must attain the minimum percentage of its total possible points for two consecutive years. Once classified as Academic Distress Phase I, a school must comply with rules and regulations to be promulgated by the ADE in order to be removed from this category. Failure to do So will result in the schools designation as Academic Distress Phase II and/or Academic Distress Phase III. The ADE reserves the right, for any school in any of the designations above, to mandate a specified intensive intervention plan which could include, but not be limited to, specific one-year goals in curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development. This plan could also include a mandated summer school program for students performing below grade level. Current rules and regulations governing schools in Academic Distress will remain in effect until the ACTAAP system described here is fully operational. 12Accountability Indicators Definitions of the non-academic (learning environment) indicators are provided later in this document. Tier I Indicators, all state-mandated, are based on performance goals and apply to every school in the state, where appropriate, by grade level configuration. They are as follows: Indicator Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Tests ______________Goal (Definition)_____________ 100% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in reading and writing literacy. 100% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in mathematics. Grade Level(s) 4'\", 6'\", and 8'\" Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Tests 100% of a schools secondary students shall perform at or above the proficient level in Algebra I. 100% of a schools secondary students shall perform at or above the proficient level in Geometry. Secondary School Drop Out Average Daily Attendance Classes Taught by an Appropriate! y Licensed Teacher Professional Development 100% of a schools secondary students shall perform at or above the proficient level in Literacy.__________________________________ At least 99% of secondary students will remain in school to complete the 12'*' grade.______________ Average daily attendance rate will be at least 95%. 100% of a schools classes will be taught by an appropriately licensed teacher. V'\" through 12* Kindergarten through 12\"' Kindergarten through 12'*' School Safety 100% of a schools certified staff will complete at least 30 hours of approved professional development annually.______________________ Schools will be free of drugs, weapons, and violent acts. Kindergarten through 12'*' Kindergarten through 12'*' Note: For purposes of assigning points for criterion-referenced tests under the Tier I accountability component, only the performance of general population students shall be measured. 13 1 I Tier II Indicators are based on trend and improvement goals on state-mandated criterion-referenced tests and on school-selected indicators. Any Other School Selected Indicators must have prior approval of the ADE. Trend goals will be established for different cohorts of students using cross-sectional data from the same indicator (e.g. Primary Benchmark Exam). Statistical techniques will be developed, by averaging multiple years of data, to minimize the inherent volatility associated with the natural variation in performance of these different groups. This means that if a school is continuing to improve, the trend will be a consistent indicator that fewer students are below proficient, with the effect of off-year or good-year performance minimized. Improvement goals will be established for the same cohort of students using a longitudinal database. As students progress from grade to grade, data will be maintained and constantly updated. ! Indicator Performance on State-Mandated Criterion- Referenced Tests Performance on State-Mandated Criterion- Referenced Tests _______Tier II - State-Mandated Indicators ____________Goal (Definition)____________ The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in reading and writing literacy on the criterion-referenced tests will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in mathematics on the criterion-referenced tests will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. The percent of secondary students performing at or above the proficient level in Algebra I will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. Grade Level(s) 4'\", 6, and 8'\" Secondary The percent of secondary students performing at or above the proficient level in Geometry will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. The percent of secondary students performing at or above the proficient level in Literacy will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. Note: For purposes of assigning points for state-mandated criterion-referenced tests under the Tier II accountability component, the performance of each of the student categories - general population, special education students, limited English proficient students, and high mobility students - shall be measured. 14Tier II - School-Selected Indicators (Schools select any 5) Indicator School Drop Out Average Daily Attendance Classes Taught by an Appropriately Licensed Teacher_____ Professional Development _________________Goal_________________ Secondary schools will improve the percentage of students who stay in school to complete the 12* grade._____________________________ Schools will improve their average daily attendance rate.__________________________ Schools will improve the percent of classes taught by an appropriately licensed teacher. Grade Level(s) Secondary All Levels All Levels School Safety Other School Selected Indicators Schools will increase the percent of certified staff who complete 60 or more hours of approved professional development annually. Schools will be free of drugs, weapons, and violent acts._____________________________ Schools will select trend or improvement goals directed to student achievement in specific sub-populations or sub-test areas. These must have prior approval of ADE. All Levels All Levels All Levels Trend and Improvement Goals on State-Mandated Criterion-Referenced Tests On average, each schools trend goal for annual rate of reduction in the number of students below proficient will be determined by dividing the total percent of students below the proficient level by 10. To help establish improvement goals, each cohort of students will be monitored, beginning with the 1999 Primary Benchmark Exam, and a longitudinal database developed. As students progress from grade to grade, data will be maintained and constantly updated. This information will allow for the assessment of performance changes relative to initial performance and will assist in the development of expected improvement models. Test analysis and methodical planning to reach these goals will be facilitated and guided by the state school evaluation process. Trend and Improvement Goals on School-Selected Indicators The school, with approval of the ADE, selects five additional indicators to complete Tier II. These additional indicators can be selected from among school drop out, average daily attendance, teacher licensure, school safety, or professional development as defined in Tier I\nOR, a school may identify trend or improvement goals directed to student achievement in specific sub-populations or sub-test areas related to the criterion- 15referenced or norm-referenced tests. Guidelines will be developed for use in selecting minimum numbers of students for sub-population study in order to preclude identification . of individual students. In order to protect the integrity of the accountability system, the ADE must also approve the trend and improvement goals selected by the school. If a school elects to include results of its norm-referenced tests within its Tier II indicators, points will be assigned even though no points are given for these exams in Tier I. Note: The Professional Development indicator is set at a minimum level of 60 hours in order to encourage schools to offer more than the state-required minimum of 30 hours. Thus, schools will be rewarded for encouraging additional professional development opportunities for its teachers and administrators. Once selected, Tier II indicators will remain until they have been substantially attained or alternate indicators approved by the ADE. The following are examples of indicators based on sub-populations: / The gap between the scale score in mathematics on the Primary Benchmark Exam for African-American students and white students will be decreased by 10% each year. Title I eligible students will improve 5 percentile points in reading comprehension each year on the fifth grade norm-referenced test. Voluntary Reporting of Off-Grade Data The ADE strongly encourages, and will provide assistance toward, voluntary implementation by local schools of an expansion of the process of measuring improvement goals by utilizing data for a longitudinal study of students performance on off-grade tests. Participating schools may include results from off-grade testing as Tier II indicators, if so desired. Tier UI Indicators Tier III is a narrative developed by the staff of each school. This annual narrative of approximately 500 words generally describes data sources (e.g., criterion-referenced tests, norm-referenced tests, etc.) used to address state and local performance indicators. The nanative also describes progress that the school has made in formulating the plan and in successfully implementing the trend and performance indicators within the school improvement process. This narrative, which shall be sent to the ADE during the spring of each year, will be incorporated in the School Performance Report that will be disseminated to the public. No points will be assigned for the narrative. 16Sample School Narrative For the last three years, scores on the Primary Benchmark Exams reading test have exceeded the districts average. Each child from kindergarten through fifth grade receives an hour and a half of developmental reading instruction per day. Emphasis is also placed on the implementation of activities as outlined in the School Improvement Plan. Independent reading of books by primary and intermediate grade level students has been a priority - a goal was set for each student. This year 85% of the fourth grade students met or exceeded their goal compared to 70% last year. Students are being taught writing skills using many different approaches including computer word processing. The writing and scoring process is designed to help students improve writing scores on the Benchmark Exams. The computer-student ratio is 1:4. Children have access to the Internet and the school has a homepage on the Web. In mathematics over the past five years, fifth grade students scored below the district goal of 50% above the national average on the SAT-9. This year, a staff focus group supported by a Title I supplemental grant, recommended a teacher accountability math pacing chart. It included chapter test scores, a consistent five-day math homework policy, in-service for staff and parents, a student test awareness program, homework room and a Math Intervention Assistance program. All recommendations were implemented with the approval of the school council. In May, an in-service continued to provide staff with training on computer software and accessing the Internet for mathematical teaching materials and techniques. Parent involvement (via parent-teacher conferences) increased by 40% this year. Parents participated in developing instructional materials for use at home to reinforce skills, learning instructional uses of the computer, donated time to serve as individual tutors for students during the school day and assisted with holiday events for the students. Definitions of Non-Academic (Learning Environment) Indicators School Dropout means the percentage of students who leave school for any of the following reasons as defined in the Statewide Information System (SIS) database: incarcerated, failing grades, suspended or expelled, lack of interest, conflict with school, economic hardship, pregnancy/marriage, peer conflict, lack of attendance, alcohol/drugs, other. A code will be used for GED participation but will not count as a dropout for ACTAAP purposes. A student will be considered a dropout for the previous year if he/she has a Dropout/Withdrawal date between October 1 of the previous school year and October 1 of the current school year and has not re-entered. The percentage completing will be calculated by dividing the number not dropping out by the previous years October 1 enrollment. Average Daily Attendance means the total number of days attended by students divided by the number of days actually taught by the school. The number includes those students who attend school outside of the resident district on a tuition agreement between the two respective districts. 17 )i I I Appropriately Licensed Teacher means that a teacher has the appropriate license and/or approval to teach, the respective class. The teacher is teaching a class that would not _ cause the school to have a citation in the accreditation process. For the purpose of this calculation, the teacher would fill one of the job assignments as defined in the SIS database. (These are instructional positions, not administrative or supervisory job classifications.) The percentage of classes taught by an appropriately licensed teacher will be .determined by dividing the number of classes taught by appropriately licensed teachers by the total number of classes taught. Professional Development is as defined in the component definition earlier. 1 I School Safety means a percentage safety index determined by dividing the number of violent incidences involving students by the current year three-quarter average daily membership of the school and subtracting from 100%. A safety infraction committed by a student includes any of the following as defined in the SIS database: drugs, alcohol, student assault, staff assault, knife, handgun, rifle, shotgun, explosive, club, and gang. Schools reporting user-defined infractions should request confirmation from the ADE as to their inclusion in this indicator. Each reported incident will be factored into the calculation\ntherefore, there is no difference between one student being reported four times and four students being reported once. i I I i 18 iCiilentlai' for Data Collection and Point Assignment System Since the determination of rewards and sanctions will be based on points assigned to the Tier I and Tier II indicators, it is extremely important that such a system be fair and statistically and legally defensible. It is also necessary to allow appropriate time for sufficient data to be gathered that will permit an accurate measurement of trends and improvement expectations in a sufficient number of indicators. Once the assignment of points is initiated, the ADE, through a contract with the University of Arkansas Office of Research, Measurement and Evaluation (ORME), will be responsible for all calculations and rankings. The local school should not need additional personnel or resources to respond to the requirements of ACTAAP. The following calendar outlines the Baseline Year, or the first year in which official data for each Tier I indicator will be collected. 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001 -02 Primary Benchmark Middle Level Benchmark School Dropout Average Daily Attendance Classes Taught by an Appropriately Licensed Teacher Professional Development School Safety None Intermediate Benchmark End-of-Course Algebra I End-of-Course Geometry End-of-Course Literacy The Baseline Year for trend goals with each Tier II indicator will be two years following that indicators introduction in Tier I. The Baseline Year for improvement goals will vary, depending on when the same cohort of students reaches the next appropriate, measurable indicator. Even though baseline data accumulation was begun with the 1998-99 year, actual points for rewards and sanctions will not be assigned until 2001-02, and then only for those Indicators for which sufficient data has been gathered. The complete accountability point system will become fully operational, with all indicators, in 2003-04. Note: In order to meet federal mandates, a temporary system will be developed to identify those schools designated for school improvement. Beginning in 2000-2001 and continuing until the ACTAAP accountability system is fully operational, a school will be designated in school improvement under the following condition: Seventy-five percent or more of the students perform below proficient on either the literacy (reading and writing) or the mathematics section of the Benchmark Exam for the designated grade or grades represented by the school. 19CMS DMMS DRA Kindergarten Results by Middle School Feeder Pattern Percent Readiness--LRSD Average: 72% FHMS HMS Mann MMS PHMS SMS Basel Chicot Clover Wakef Watson 51 56 56 47 56 King Mitch Right . Steph Wash Woodr 64: 91 92 41 . 81 69 Bale Brady Fair P. F.Park Frank Fulb McDer Steph 59 11 56 68 64 95 95 41 Brady Dodd - McDer Rominc: Terry W.Hilis Wilson ? CMS DMMS Basel 30 Chicot 27 Clover 28 Wakef 22 Watson 25 Whg Mitch Right . Steph Wash 57-\n25:,, 3^ 24 36 Woodr \"84 my' 61-^ Gibbs Willia Booker Carver 89 89 81 81 Chico^ D^d~ Mabelv 7 Meado Otter 56 81 61\" 90 - Badgett F.Park Jeff King PH Rocke Wash Woodr 22 1 Bale T 68 Frank | 90 64 83 76 81 69 Geyer, Meado Steph Wakef -W.Hills\njWiIson 85 77 41 - ^47 75 61 DRA Grade 1 Results by Middle School Feeder Pattern Percent ReadinessLRSD Average: 54% FHMS HMS Mann MMS PHMS SMS Il Bale 67 Brady 35 Gibbs 66 Brady Fair P. F.Park Frank Fulb McDer Steph 35 63 70 58 61 80 24 McDer Romine Terry W.Uills Wilson 58 80 60. 81- 83 Willia Booker Carver 84 69 16 Chicot Dodd Mabelv Meado Otter 58 51 \"tF 68 Badgett F.Park Jeff King PH Rocke Wash Woodr 06 70 69 SI 50 76 36 84 Bale Frank Geyer - Meadov Steph W^k^ W.Hilis Wilson 67 58. 47 \" '70 24 22 81 * 83 CMS DMMS Basel 47 Chicot 39 King Mitch 81 49 Clover 58 Wakef 40 Watson 54 Right Steph , Wash Woodr DRA Grade 2 Results by Middle School Feeder Pattern Percent ReadinessLRSD Average: 68% FHMS HMS Mann MMS PHMS SMS Bale 72 Brady Fair P. 71 63 31 '.78 F.Park Frank Fulb McDer Steph 90 81 79 67 31 Brady Dodd = McDer.'\nRomine* Terr:^^^ WMills Wilson 71 52 67- B90 Gibbs Willia Booker Carver 81 90 80 82 Chicot Dodd Mabelv Meado Otter 39 73 58 Badgett F.Park Jeff King PH Rocke Wash Woodr 12 90 71 81 45 71 63 78 Bale Frank Geyer Meado- Wakeff w.iaiiis WiEon 72 81 73 58 31- ,40 90 60 6/15/00 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - Districtwide by Grade Districtwide Grade Kindergarten Race Gender Female White Male Total Female Black Male Total Female Other Male Total Female Total Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 3.06 246 2.53 227 2.81 473 1.16 593 0.89 613 1.02 1206 1.90 68 2.00 52 1.94 120 1.73 907 1.37 892 1.55 1799 Spring Assessment 8.20 245 6.35 227 7.31 472 3.76 605 2.61 625 3.18 1230 5.93 70 5.77 52 5.86 122 5.11 920 3.73 904 4.43 1824 'Amount of Change +5.14 i +3.82 +4.51 +2.60 ' +1.72 +2.16 +4.03 +3:77 +3.92 +3.38 +2.36 +2.88 Developmental Reading Assessment Fall Assessment 7.52' 240 6.35 222 6.96 462 4.81 613 3.65 573 4.25 1186 5.94 49 6.12 50 6.03 99 5.59 902 4.50 845 5.07 1747 First Grade \"Spring Assessment 26.36 246 24.48 225 25.46 471 18.30 634 14.43 584 16.44 1218 16.67 57 22.78 51 19.56 108 20.31 937 17.56 860 18.99 1797 Amount of Change +18.84 +18.13 +18.50 +13.48 - +10.79 +12.20 , +10.73 ' +16\n66 +13.53 +14.72 +13.05 +13.93 Fall Assessment 25.79 231 24.57 231 25.18 462 19.68 601 16.05 604 17.86 1205 19.59 37 22.38 55 21.26 92 21.30 869 18.66 890 19.96 1759 Second Grade Spring Assessment 36.77 226 36.29 233 36.53 459 29.48 605 26.44 604 27.96 1209 29.49 45 29.68 62 29.60 107 31.36 876 29.22 899 30.27 1775 . Amount of 4 Change \"+10.98' *11.72 +11.35 +9.80 +10.39 +10.10 +9:89 +7.30 +8.34 - +10.06- +10.56\" +10\n31 An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten ** An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. OS2000-Camine.KJhru^2 1 6/19/00 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Districtwide Grade Kindergarten Race White Black Other Total Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 3.06 246 2.53 227 2.81 473 1.16 593 0.89 613 1.02 1206 1.90 68 2.00 52 1.94 120 1.73 907 1.37 892 1.55 1799 Spring Assessment 8.20 245 6.35 227 7.31 472 3.76 605 2.61 625 3.18 1230 5.93 70 5.77 52 5.86 122 5.11 920 3.73 904 4.43 1824 Developmental Reading Assessment First Grade Second Grade An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in hrst grade. An average level of 24 or more is considered prohcient in second grade. Amount of Change +5.14 . St\n'..-.+3.82 fewOs 10 +2. 16 ^4\nf)3i +3.77 r-^92\n*3^8 +2.36 +2/88 Fall Assessment 7.52 240 6.35 222 6.96 462 4,81 613 3.65 573 4.25 1186 5.94 49 6.12 50 6.03 99 5.59 902 4.50 845 5.07 1747 **(Spring Assessment 26.36 246 24.48 225 25.46 471 18.30 634 14.43 584 16.45 1218 16.67 57 22,78 51 19.56 108 20.31 957 17.56 860 19.00 1797 \nArfiduhtjof Changer r +'l8 84 +1813 +18 50 ' +13 48 +10 79 +12 20 +10.73 +16.66 +13.53 , +14 12 +13 05 +13 93 Fall Assessment 25.79 231 24.57 231 25.18 462 19.68 601 16.05 604 17.86 1205 19.59 37 22.38 55 21.26 92 21.30 869 18.66 890 19.96 1759 -A**!Spring Assessment 36.77 226 36.29 233 36.53 459 29.48 605 26.44 604 27.96 1209 29.49 45 29.68 62 29.60 107 31.36 876 29.22 899 30.27 1775 Arnount of li. Change +10 98 , +1'1 72 . +11.35,\n+9 SO'\" d0 39- +io.io ' '+9.89' +7.30 +8.34 +10:08 +10 56 , +10 31 Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. Ella by sctibol 2Ot)OI3bles 6/19A)0 Race White Black other Total Badgett Grade Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 3.00 3 3.00 3 0.38 16 0.43 14 0.40 30 0.79 19 0.43 14 0.64 33 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fail to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten Spring Assessment 3.33 3 .i^eKafige: ? 1 +0 33 fW as i'3\u0026gt;\" a First Grade Second Grade Fall Assessment 2.00 1 \"Spring Assessment Amount of Change 3.33 3 1.13 16 0.92 12 1.04 28 r ^+0'6-4 : Si 1.47 19 0.92 12 1.26 31 '^i hhmmi 8 SSS5S.?SgWS '-'+0.62X-' An average level of 2 or more Is considered proficient in kindergarten. An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in 6rst grade. An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. 2.00 1 1.56 18 1.00 9 1.37 27 6.93 15 5.22 9 6.29 24 ^\u0026gt;5 38\" ^\"+422\" +4 92 ?B /M-aI^ d-^'A 1.58 19 1.00 9 1.39 28 6.93 15 5.22 9 6.29 24 . '\u0026gt;'+4 2^1 ' .+4:901 Fall Assessment 8.00 1 1.00 1 4.50 2 1.44 9 1.95 19 1.79 28 \"Spring Assessment 40.00 1 1.00 1 20.50 2 3.00 8 10.55 20 8.39 28 Aynountof\n'Change +32.00 +16 00^^ ft' BO0IW \" +6 61 s?' 2.10 10 1.90 20 1.97 30 7.11 9 10.10 21 9.20 30 fBt 20 +7I3 y Segments of the populetion not testing st a proficient level are highlighted in bold. Ella by school 2000lables 6/19/00 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Race White Black Other Total Bale Grade Gender Female Male Total Female Mate Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 0.50 2 0.00 2 0.25 4 2.19 21 0.13 15 1.33 36 0.80 5 0.00 1 0.67 6 1.82 28 0.11 18 1.15 46 Kindergarten Spring Assessment 3.50 2 1.00 2 2.25 4 5.77 22 0.60 15 3.68 37 4.20 5 2.00 1 3.83 6 5.34 29 0.72 18 3.57 47 ^Xhange^Zt- l \u0026lt; . -Y ~ : \u0026gt;ryo^-' '^j2.o. 0n0n*- \" V h\nj f ajLO CQ + -''5- f-: +3 40 U.~JfbaOLJ[ a- +^52 g\nSjaSgitySfesaC-a -v^r 4i* '\\2 42\u0026lt;.-: S''' 5Ki Developmental Reading Assessment Fall Assessment 8.40 5 4.00 2 7.14 7 9.13 15 9.25 12 9.19 27 1.50 2 6.75 4 5.00 6 8.27 22 8.11 18 8.20 40 First Grade **Spring Assessment 25.57 7 14.00 2 23.00 9 22.53 15 21.33 12 22.00 27 8.00 2 20.00 5 16.57 7 22.21 24 20.21 19 21.33 43 Amountof ' - ,Chahgeio -r1V7 - +10 00 +^5 86 '+13^40 +12 08 ^^2*81 \\ \\^6 50^- s+13 25 , +11157^ ^^13'94?^ V .+42?1Q: i-jSTasSgSS: ^\u0026lt;3.137 Second Grade * An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. ** An average level of 16 or more is considered profcient in frst grade. * An average level of 24 or more Is considered proficient in second grade. Fall Assessment 18.50 4 20.00 2 19.00 6 15.69 16 14.93 15 15.32 31 Spring Assessment 33.50 4 44.00 2 37.00 6 25.53 17 28.00 17 26.76 34 jSrnouht'of^ .Change\nTfVoo r . +24'00 ' 1 f e * +18 00-^^1 '+9,84\nSJ5S535 /-.+13.'O7 - +11. 4 sWsaisOK 16.25 20 15.53 17 15.92 37 27.05 21 29.68 19 28.30 40 +14.4^^ f r- \" -1-3 g@8WR 1* Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highjighted in bold. Ella by school 2000tablas 6/19/00 Race White Black Other Total Baseline Grade Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 1.00 2 0.50 2 0.75 4 0.37 19 0.13 16 0.26 35 0.43 21 0.17 18 0.31 39 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten Spring Assessment 3.00 2 3.00 2 3.00 4 1.89 19 1.43 14 1.70 33 SSmduntiSfS Change +2\noo +2\n5Q- +2.25 Si' - -+1.44:7.\nFirst Grade Second Grade Fall Assessment \"Spring Assessment Amount of Change 2.00 21 1.63 16 1.84 37 S'S15Z++: ' +1.53- ' * An average level of 2 or more /s considered proficient in kindergarten. \" An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. 3.00 4 3.00 4 4.90 20 2.91 23 3.84 43 4.00 1 4.00 1 4.90 20 2.96 28 3.77 48 27.00 2 27.00 2 18.33 18 9.10 21 13.36 39 18.33 18 10.65 23 14.02 41 +24 OQ +24 00 +13 45 +6 18 +9 52 eft +13 43-, +7 69 +10 25 Fall Assessment 20.67 3 16.00 2 18.80 5 16.83 12 15.77 13 16.28 25 38.00 1 \"Spring Assessment 31.33 3 20.00 2 26.80 5 24.69 13 23.00 13 23.85 26 44.00 1 Afhdurit of ^Change. +10.67-.-''' +4:00.^\n. +8.00' ,,+7 86'', '-\u0026lt;l\n+7:23 +7,57 +6.00 38.00 1 18.88 16 15.80 15 17.39 31 44.00 1 27.00 17 22.60 15 24.94 32\nt6:(5o:^ ' 21. ' - +'6\n80v-' 0++7\n55 Segmenfs of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. Ella by school 2000lables 6/19/00 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Race White Black other Total Booker Grade Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 2.12 17 1.42 12 1.83 29 1.58 19 1.76 21 1.68 40 4.00 3 0.00 2 2.40 5 2.00 39 1.54 35 1.78 74 Kindergarten Spring Assessment 6.06 17 2.83 12 4.72 29 3.95 19 4.10 21 4.03 40 11.67 3 1.00 2 7.40 5 5.46 39 3.49 35 4.53 74 .XCharige_'' ig\nta?S!aigeiSB iy +9 V? is'\n-j+5\n0QWffi as Developmental Reading Assessment Fall Assessment 6.61 23 4.92 12 6.03 35 3.71 21 2.43 23 3.05 44 2.75 4 First Grade \"Spring Assessment 24.83 23 23.25 12 24.29 35 19.05 21 16.38 21 17.71 42 21.00 4 Ambunt-pf , Change: +18r22 -^5. +18:33' . ,+182^ , 'i- .. +15'33' r r-\nX*'-?!' +13.95 1^ Second Grade Wi O 3' 'Sr\n'- 2.75 4 5.02 48 3.29 35 4.29 83 21.00 4 21.98 48 18.88 33 20.72 81 'VI8 25\nl+io'giB +15 59 +1\u0026amp;43 Fall Assessment 29.33 24 25.12 17 27.59 41 22.36 25 16.78 18 20.02 43 24.00 2 44.00 1 30.67 3 25.71 51 21.47 36 23.95 87 Spring Assessment 37.42 24 31.88 16 35.20 40 32.64 25 27.67 18 30.56 43 30.00 2 44.00 1 34.67 3 34.78 51 30.06 35 32.86 86 change--'. \nSSpssWii * An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. An average level of 16 or more is considered prohctent in 6rst grade. *** An average level of 24 or more is considered prescient in second grade. Si .+1O\n53 A ,\n- -ggai :^:4+\u0026lt;do^ .'MS: +8.58 iWW Segmenfs of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. Ella by school 2000tables6/19/00 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Race White Black Other Total Brady Grade Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 1.00 5 0.67 3 0.88 8 0.89 9 0.53 17 0.65 26 0.67 3 0.67 3 0.88 17 0.55 20 0.70 37 Kindergarten Spring Assessment 5.40 5 4.00 2 5.00 7 3.86 7 3.50 16 3.61 23 2.50 2 Armuri^of c Ctiah\u0026amp;e .v+3,33.^ Developmental Reading Assessment First Grade Second Grade +413 t - +2 95. T83S 5^ 2.50 2 4.21 14 3.56 18 3.84 32 , 1. +3 01 T - t3 W Fall Assessment 8.00 7 8.00 3 8.00 10 5.47 17 5.24 21 5.34 , 38 5.50 4 6.00 3 5.71 7 6.11 28 5.63 27 5.87 55 Spring Assessment 14.29 7 20.00 3 16.00 10 12.44 16 13.00 19 12.74 35 13.50 4 14.33 3 13.86 7 13.07 27 14.00 25 13.52 52 Amouhtiof Change^ *M*n T +6 29. -+'1Z00 +8 00 +6.97 X' I,_____________ * , +7 40 Z-1+8 00 \u0026gt;+833'\n''\"+6,97 ~ a., B D a /i* J- * An average level of 2 or more Is considered proficient in kindergarten. * /Vi average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. *** An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Fall Assessment 18.00 3 18.00 1 18.00 4 19.13 16 17.74 23 18.31 39 Spring Assessment 29.33 3 30.00 1 29.50 4 29.29 14 26.00 21 27.31 35 .-JaBHangesfe +1 T,33,*/i^ -ii'AVi: iSSaSSte 16.00 1__ 16.00 1 18.95 19 17.68 25 18.23 44 28.00 1 28.00 1 29.29 17 26.26 23 27.55 40 -ft\n^r , ,+9.32 y.., Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. Ella by school 2000lablas6/19/00 Race White Black Other Total Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Carver Grade Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 8.38 13 8.00 18 8.16 31 4.05 19 1.50 20 2.74 39 2.00 1 9.25 4 7.80 5 5.70 33 5.02 42 5.32 75 Kindergarten Spring Assessment 11.46 13 11.83 18 11.68 31 5.95 19 3.20 20 4.54 39 4.00 1 12.50 4 10.80 5 8.06 33 7.79 42 7.91 75 * 'AiTfount of?' ^Change?i '7* '\\-t^,83 ',+\"1I'.-.-8O'r9i'A'\n-\n- - - .\"+1.'7O'-- ? _ i j'+O ^'i'O Ta-i \u0026gt;+r 3n 0n0n K'i Developmental Reading Assessment Fail Assessment 8.57 7 6.35 20 6.93 27 4.87 15 2.79 19 3.71 34 8.00 1 4.67 3 5.50 4 6.13 23 4.62 42 5.15 65 First Grade Second Grade Spring Assessment 28.00 7 26.10 20 26.59 27 20.87 15 16.95 19 18.68 34 30.00 1 31.33 3 31.00 4 23.43 23 22.33 42 22.72 65 Amounfof Changed +19 43 +19 75 +1S67,\u0026gt; +16-00... i:r^' - +14 16 +14j97 +22 00 +26 67 +25.50 +1730 +17171 +17 57 Fall Assessment 24.83 12 26.10 20 25.63 32 19.29 28 17.44 18 18.57 46 16.00 2 25.50 4 22.33 6 20.71 42 22.33 42 21.52 84 ***Spring Assessment 40.50 12 38.63 19 39.35 31 31.85 27 31.00 18 31.51 45 32.00 2 36.00 4 34.67 6 34.39 41 35.02 41 34.71 82 c ____ Ajnount of .'change +15 67 +12.53 +13 73 fin !\"+12 57 s' +13^56-- ^,5 '-+i^+' 2 95 +16 00\n\". *\"^10 so\"' - 33 i 'XS\" +13 68, +12 69 \" '+13-18.\n An average level of 2 or more Is considered proficient in kindergarten. An average level of 16 or more is considered pro6cienl in first grade. *** An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. Ella by school 2000tables 6/19/00 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Race White Black Other Total Chicot Grade Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 0.00 4 4.29 7 215 11 0.64 25 0.41 22 0.53 47 0.57 7 0.00 7 0.29 14 0.56 36 1.08 36 0.82 72 Kindergarten Spring Assessment 1.75 4 4.29 7 3.36 11 2.35 26 1.39 23 1.90 49 1.57 7 0.86 7 1.21 14 2.14 37 1.84 37 1.99 74 ^aChangev '\n/s/1-75 - 4+-0n R6/l4 - rtWi^- las .+0.8. r-. +1-00,^ 4+0 86\" \\ \u0026gt;'0 75,7.^ : -iH-117 Developmental Reading Assessment Fall Assessment 1.75 4 1.00 5 1.33 9 1.88 24 1.75 20 1.82 44 2.00 3 1.00 4 1.43 7 1.87 31 1.52 29 1.70 60 First Grade \"Spring Assessment 16.75 4 10.17 6 12.80 10 14.52 23 7.91 22 11.29 45 13.11 9 2.60 5 9.36 14 14.42 36 7.52 33 11.12 69 ' Amount of :\n,Chaihge 1 \"AS? Bias?! SSsi +.12\n6S +64'6 3-9\u0026gt;47 B +11.11 ssisssafs .J-*7 93\n?.+Ji'2.55\n- +6\no'o- Si\u0026amp;Ss +942iJ Second Grade * An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. \" An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. *** average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Fall Assessment 19.00 2 17.00 2 18.00 4 16.05 21 11.57 23 13.70 44 16.00 2 16.00 2 16.30 23 12.30 27 14.14 50 \"Spring Assessment 37.00 2 31.00 2 34.00 4 26.35 20 25.26 19 25.82 39 6.40 5 17.33 9 13.43 14 23.44 27 23.27 30 23.35 57 /^ount^of , ..'change-'\n1^0 1+16-00 '3. 340130?^* *sffi - +13^70 ^+^2^2: .fc1i33 SSiWBi =' +9:21 Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. Ella by school 2000labtes 6/19/00 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Race Cloverdale Grade Gender Female White Male Total Female Black Male Total Female Other Male Total Female Total Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 1.00 1 0.00 2 0.33 3 0.52 23 0.17 23 0.35 46 0.00 1 0.00 2 0.00 3 0.52 25 0.15 27 0.33 52 Kindergarten Spring Assessment 4.00 1 6.00 2 5.33 3 2.05 21 1.48 23 1.75 44 2.00 1 1.00 2 1.33 3 2.13 23 1.78 27 1.94 50 WmoujW^ WCfiangte^ *'-.^\u0026lt;+6.00 '\"S'\nDevelopmental Reading Assessment Fall Assessment First Grade Spring Assessment ^Snibuiit of change . Second Grade isss^wswiew\n-.4i:5'3 [U'S '+'2'00''' PPUxsfiS 4.00 1 4.00 1 7.00 29 4.83 29 5.91 58 3.00 1 6.50 4 5.80 5 6.87 30 5.00 34 5.88 64 8.00 1 8.00 1_ 13.68 28 10.10 30 11.83 58 6.00 1 20.25 4 17.40 5 13.41 29 11.20 35 12.20 64 +4,00- +4.0\u0026amp; +6 6^ - ^s:2.7z. +310'0'' -'- .3l 6\u0026amp;^ 5SSw?i?i5!r^SWWi , . +6:55' r Ss\u0026amp;SSg^fci w , '+6 20\n An average level of 2 or more Is considered proficient in kindergarten. An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in nrst grade. An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Fall Assessment 29.00 2 3.00 1 20.33 3 27.52 27 26.75 24 27.16 51 44.00 1 44.00 1 27.62 29 26.50 26 27.09 55 Spring Assessment 20.00 1 4.00 1 12.00 2 31.30 23 25.68 19 28.76 42 T^puntsof ^Change\nw -9,00 +1 00 Is aS +3^79 j1'.Q7 5^\n*r'K' 44.00 1 44.00 1 30.83 24 25.52 21 28.36 45 ifi +3 21-\nijSS-ffisSSM\n^,j-0'i9ffM-. giiggE Segments of the population not testing at a proricient level are highlighted in bold. Ella by school 2000tables6/19/00 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Race White Black other Total Dodd Grade Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 0.64 11 0.50 8 0.58 19 1.00 9 0.25 8 0.65 17 0.80 20 0.38 16 0.61 36 Kindergarten Spring Assessment 6.80 10 4.89 9 5.89 19 10.67 9 2.75 8 6.94 17 hSSf '^riSuntJofsl ri'.fetSrtUFTsCi'it'.ii'a-.t. S5\n32 4b: --,.=+9,675 - Developmental Reading Assessment First Grade Second Grade --7+2 50 Fall Assessment 1.33 3 11.00 4 6.86 1 2.14 7 3.00 7 2.57 14 18.00 1 Spring Assessment 16.67 3 23.00 4 20.29 7 19.29 1 19.43 7 19.36 14 30.00 1 Amount of Change -M+.ISrSOt +12 00 +13 43 +17 14 .+16'43\n+1679 +12 00 Fall Assessment \"Spring Assessment Afnount of -..Change, 8.63 19 3.88 17 6.39 36 sassSst T 18.00 1 3.36 11 5.91 11 4.64 22 30.00 1 19.55 11 20.73 11 20.14 22 +42'.00i +1618 +14 82 --4115 50\" I- .... -iV'^ ?\u0026gt;7 An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. \" An average level of 16 or more is considered prondent in 6rst grade. * An average level of 24 or more Is considered profclent in second grade. 10.00 5 10.00 5 25.00 6 15.25 4 21.10 10 25.20 5 25.20 5 16.25 8 28.50 4 20.33 12 +15.20i +1520 -8 75, +13 25- -0 77' 4. 14.00 1 14.00 1 25.00 6 12.50 10 17.19 16 16.25 8 26.67 9 21.76 17 +14 17c^ ' +4'58 Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold Ella by school 2000tab!es6/19/00 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Race White Black Other Total Fair Park Grade Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 2.12 17 1.42 12 1.83 29 1.58 19 1.76 21 1.68 40 4.00 3 0.00 2 2.40 5 2.00 39 1.54 35 1.78 74 Kindergarten Spring Assessment 6.06 17 2.83 12 4.72 29 3.95 19 4.10 21 4.03 40 11.67 3 1.00 2 7.40 5 5.46 39 3.49 35 4.53 74 Ghange a.. ' 'si\n.'T2\n'90.%, T \u0026lt; L-V -I i\nw' a^\u0026gt;+^f251o3f77A^-ieE L' iSi' r*'. \\50b-- 'Tfr t, i 2!2 9 '+2:74 \u0026lt; Developmental Reading Assessment Fall Assessment 6.61 23 4.92 12 6.03 35 3.71 21 2.43 23 3.05 44 2.75 4 2.75 4 5.02 48 3.29 35 4.29 83 First Grade **(Spring Assessment 24.83 23 23.25 12 24.29 35 19.05 21 16.38 21 17.71 42 21.00 4 21.00 4 21.98 48 18.88 33 20.72 81 Second Grade SjAmountiof: Ch^geat -- 418.33: , +15.33 +13.95 9^'8^5ft3 !3t Si +16^96: tW' STS: sl3\nFall Assessment 29.33 24 25.12 17 27.59 41 22.36 25 16.78 18 20.02 43 24.00 2 44.00 1 30.67 3 25.71 51 21.47 36 23.95 87 ***Spring Assessment 37.42 24 31.88 16 35.20 40 32.64 25 27.67 18 30.56 43 30.00 2 44.00 1 34.67 3 34.78 51 30.06 35 32.86 86 lounliof hange Sc\"* ' , A +6.76 +7 61 - ' +10 28* '\u0026gt;+J0 89-. - ~ +1053* +6 00 \\0-. gaitSigjaw S: +8'-58//-' S=WS? -p. -r ^+8 91 An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. \"* An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. Ella by school 2000labl6S 6/19/00 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Forest Park Grade Kindergarten Race White Black Other Total Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 4.55 11 3.08 12 3.78 23 1.89 9 0.00 13 0.77 22 Spring '-JpSnoun^'oC . ''S! - Assessment ?.'/. i,\n-* Chh'Oa nn nge ? 8.82 11 7.25 12 8.00 23 3.22 9_ 0.50 12 1.67 21 ^.\u0026gt;\n/4:27 ' -+417 5. A ' +4.22 +l..33s' W asw^ +0.50a- r\"'- +V0b'-t8+9S?s-\n,-^' Developmental Reading Assessment Fall Assessment 8.75 20 13.80 15 10.91 35 6.00 5 4.20 10 4.80 15 First Grade \"Spring Assessment 27.70 20 31.13 15 29.17 35 21.60 5 15.60 10 17.60 15 jAffiouniW' CKarige +18:95 +17.33\n'i, 53! .+j.T.^0. KiSSSf+SSi\n5'' F\nSecond Grade 3.35 20 1.48 25 2.31 45 6.30 20 3.88 24 4.98 44 * An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. \" An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in krst grade. An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. j.O*OR - - f\n8.20 25 9.96 25 9.08 . 50 26.48 25 24.92 25 25.70 50 8 8:28 ^1, li Fall Assessment 18.55 11 18.29 14 18.40 25 18.40 5 11.83 12 13.76 17 20.00 2 \"Spring Assessment 39.09 11 36.29 14 37.52 25 34.80 5 25.33 12 28.12 17 42.00 2 3i5i\u0026gt;unt\u0026lt;of? ^Chan'gfe\n-. +i9.i2' 5g!j4?i55I5 .+16.40 tefsjioi\ni-TIMS? sBi^ 20.00 2 18.67 18 15.31 26 16.68 44 42.00 2 38.22 18 31.23 26 34.09 44 ^2Z(}0 ' SSgsS^SWS Segments of the population not testing al a proficient level are highlighted in bold. Ella by school 2000lables L 6/19/00 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Race White Black Other Total Franklin Grade Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 0.00 2 1.00 1 0.33 3 0.43 23 0.15 41 0.25 64 1.50 2 1.50 2 0.48 27 0.17 42 0.29 69 Kindergarten Spring Assessment 2.00 2 3.00 1 2.33 3 2.65 23 2.05 41 2.27 64 3.50 2 Amount of Change +2 00 +2 00 +2 00 T +2 22 +1 90 +2 02 +2 00 Developmental Reading Assessment Fall Assessment 14.00 1 14.00 1 6.23 30 5.96 26 6.11 56 3.00 1 First Grade Spring Assessment 44.00 1 44.00 1 24.38 32 18.82 28 21.78 60 26.00 1 Second Grade L: Amount of -.Change.. ^:|+3o.^''' Fall Assessment \"Spring Assessment Amount of Change #3o\noa +18,14 +12:86 +15.68 +23.00 19.15 34 12.93 30 16.23 64 35.35 34 32.73 30 34.13 64 +16.21 +19 80 +17:89 3.50 2 2.67 27 2.07 42 2.30 69 '+2 00 +2119 - , +1.90: *2 01 J 3.00 1 6.38 32 5.96 26 6.19 58 26.00 1 25.00 34 18.82 28 22.21 62 +23 00' +18,63\n+16:02i s 19.15 34 12.93 30 16.23 64 35.35 34 32.73 30 34.13 64 +\"16 21 +19.80 ' ^''+17\n89 V * An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. \"An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Segments of the population not testing al a proficient level are highlighted in bold. Ella by school 2000tables6/19/00 Race White Black Other Total Fulbright Grade Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 5.33 12 2.70 23 3.60 35 2.25 4 5.31 13 4.59 17 3.00 1 3.00 1 4.56 16 3.62 37 3.91 53 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten Spring Assessment 18.67 12 6.91 22 11.06 34 5.40 5 7.62 13 7.00 18 ^5 +.13\"33'^J? g S: assfij . +7-46:Kj sW sM5!S^KSSaSEa! teMsSfS!?RSwat^ First Grade Second Grade 12.00 1 12.00 1 14.76 17 7.31 36 9.70 53 as ^^5 x^iiia-SiBiSSS +9-00 C' A?\nO0' t-'-r-fi io\n2di +3.68.. ^evn!MOSW-'j V+5.79 * An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. * An average level of 16 or more is considered pro6cient in first grade. *\" An average level of 24 or more Is considered proficient in second grade. Fall Assessment 9.86 14 2.12 17 5.61 31 2.27 11 3.18 11 2.73 22 5.00 1 5.00 1 6.52 25 2.62 29 4.43 54 4*1Spring Assessment 25.43 14 25.27 15 25.34 29 15.40 10 17.64 11 16.57 21 Amount of Change + 15 57 , +23'. 15 SI 9^\n+13.43\nglW45 2^ 38.00 1__ 38.00 1 21.25 24 22.63 27 21.98 51 S33iOQ\nt33L0Q\n+20\n0l\n7:5\nFall Assessment 34.93 15 36.00 12 35.41 27 25.91 11 34.00 11 29.95 22 44.00 2 44.00 1 44.00 3 32.04 28 35.42 24 33.60 52 \"Spring Assessment 40.40 15 43.33 12 41.70 27 33.60 10 36.83 12 35.36 22 44.00 2 44.00 1 44.00 3 38.15 27 40.24 25 39.15 52 Amount of ^Changew Xi +5.47 tri SS?' Z +6-.30 :'\u0026gt; ?a55^ +769 +5.4V: 0., \"* ,0? :(i SK1?1 M2\nS5VS6\nSegments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted tn bold. Ella by school 2000iablas 6/19/00 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Race White Black Other Total Garland Grade Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Kindergarten Developmental Reading Assessment First Grade Second Grade Fall Assessment Spring Assessment Amount .-^Ghangfe\" gfegS Fall Assessment \"Spring Assessment ' Arnountof's Ixa-Change Irl Fall Assessment \"Spring Assessment * /^ount of Change-i) 0.69 16 2.29 28 1.70 44 1.00 1 1.00 1 0.69 16 2.24 29 1.69 45 1.47 17 1.41 29 1.43 46 0.00 1 0.00 1 1.47 17 1.37 30 1.40 47 * An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. * /tn average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. SsSssi 5K5!aii O'\n87f'\ny aiftS h:^\n^0ii2fea !3We TOO SfcWs! -i U.UjiiS O\nB f5^ ?*^SW?87^M 2.53 17 2.27 11 2.43 28 3.00 1 2.33 3 2.50 4 2.56 18 2.29 14 2.44 32 11.47 17 9.92 12 10.83 29 12.00 1 10.00 3 10.50 4 11.50 18 9.93 15 10.79 33 \u0026gt;7'64 \u0026gt;8.'4o: '+7.67^ BWiBSK- i-?' +8:00 +7'65 - 13.18 22 12.70 20 12.95 42 13.18 22 12.70 20 12.95 42 2.00 1 2.00 1 17.64 22 20.37 19 18.90 41 17.64 22 19.45 20 18.50 42 +4-45 +5-95 S +675?^ Ts 55 Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. Ella by school ZOOOtables 6/19/00 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Geyer Springs Grade Kindergarten Race White Black Other Total Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Developmental Reading Assessment First Grade Second Grade Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean ~~N~ Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 3.00 1 5.00 2 4.33 3 0.90 20 0.80 20 0.85 40 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 2 0.95 22 1.13 23 1.04 45 Spring Assessment 6.00 1 15.00 2 12.00 3 2.35 20 2.70 20 2.53 40 2.00 1 1.00 1 1.50 2 2.50 22 3.70 23 3.11 45 ,^.iiQaniam, ?! K5\u0026gt;WTi' .. ?A5 '*'--a'\n^.14.5 '+119Q ?:-^S5$.vK!35I .--r^1. ss .fe-fe^iiargteSai.'3i.. 1 t42.S7\n'^ * An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. * An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. *** An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Fall Assessment 5.80 5 0.75 4 3.56 9 2.60 20 2.36 14 . 2.50 34 \"Spring Assessment 30.40 5 17.00 4 24.44 9 20.15 20 14.08 13 17.76 33 \" AmtouhVof . '..Cha'ng^.j. i+24 60 . +16'-25i,\" +2089 .. +17 55 +11 72 +1526\n:g$^:gas. 1.25 4 1.25 4 3.24 25 1.86 22 2.60 47 11.75 4 11.75 4 22.20 25 14.19 21 18.54 46 1.10 50 \u0026lt;10'50^ '.\n\u0026gt;\n+18 96 +12\n^-\n,+15\n95 Fall Assessment 20.00 3 19.33 3 19.67 6 19.17 12 14.50 20 16.25 32 \"Spring Assessment 37.33 3 30.67 3 34.00 6 33.50 12 25.80 20 28.69 32 iGhanaei 11,133 +1^F33 I\n^?5- +14.33 7 +11,30\n:Wii WO ags 20.00 1 20.00 1 19.33 15 15.33 24 16.87 39 40.00 1 40.00 1 34.27 15 27.00 24 29.79 39 +20i\u0026amp;0Str , 126'00-/, 1?\n+Bii- 8i +1.1\u0026lt;67.?. LV^.- Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. Ella by school 2000tables6/19/00 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Race White Black Other Total Gibbs Grade Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 0.00 4 0.00 3 0.00 7 0.00 4 0.00 6 0.00 10 0.00 2 0.00 2 0.00 10 0.00 9 0.00 19 Kindergarten Spring Assessment 6.33 6 10.00 6 8.17 12 5.88 8 4.58 12 5.10 20 8.67 3 iAmountofi Change - '^'+6.33 +10 00 +8 17 *5.g8.~ 3+8.67 Developmental Reading Assessment Fall Assessment 11.25 4 6.89 9 8.23 13 3.50 6 2.75 8 3.07 14 4.00 1 First Grade Second Grade 8.67 3 6.53 17 6.39 18 6.46 35 t5nWglSf +'6.53: +6 39' +6 46 4.00 1 6.36 11 4.94 17 5.50 28 \"Spring Assessment 27.57 7 28.10 10 27.88 17 17.56 9 14.43 14 15.65 23 18.00 2 24.00 1 20.00 3 21.50 18 20.28 25 20.79 43 - Amount of , Change \u0026lt;7 +16 32 +21.21 +19 65 +14 06 +11 68 +12 58 +14 00 +16 00 -+15 34 ./+15.29\n* An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. ** An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in frst grade. *\" An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Fall Assessment 22.60 10 20.89 9 21.79 19 13.40 10 13.45 11 13.43 21 \"Spring Assessment 32.89 9 37.56 9 35.22 18 28.40 10 25.45 11 26.86 21 Amount of +10 29 +16 67 '+13 43 +15 00 +12 00 +13 43 18.00 1 18.00 1 18.00 20 16.86 21 17.41 41 30.00 1 30.00 1 30.53 19 30.86 21 30.70 40 +12 00 si\n+12O6\n-' Si\n+12 53 +14.00 '+13.29-.' Segments of the poputation not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. Ella by school 2000lables6/19/00 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Race White Black other Total Jefferson Grade Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 5.45 20 4.07 14 4.88 34 2.00 12 1.88 8 1.95 20 8.00 2 8.00 2 4.38 34 3.27 22 3.95 56 Kindergarten Spring Assessment 12.70 20 11.93 14 12.38 34 4.92 12 3.25 8 4.25 20 24.00 2 ^AmdyHVof,^ Clfange +7 86 n 50, ^tl 38 ^.1 ,\u0026gt;+2 30- J SSSBi Developmental Reading Assessment Fall Assessment 6.82 11 5.81 21 6J6 32 5.62 13 1.57 7 4.20 20 First Grade Spring Assessment 36.36 11 28.00 21 30.88 32 21.38 13 11.57 7 17.95 20 Amoimtof L . Change_ ^29 55 \" i ( -it \u0026gt;. , , +2249 +247,2 litat S S' Mjrjj i'+ISJ'-T \u0026gt; ---,+IOQO ' S +13:75 \"'-JI' Second Grade 24.00 2 10.62 34 8.77 22 9.89 56 13i16^0.tk iSQj 'fK6 2'4\\V 595 \u0026lt; 6.17 24 4.75 28 5.40 52 28.25 24 23.89 28 25.90 52 t. Tt ,+22 08' '\u0026gt;5^v +20\"50 * An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in 6rst grade. \"** An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Fall Assessment 32.67 24 30.38 21 31.60 45 22.57 14 22.50 12 22.54 26 'Spring Assessment 38.32 19 35.90 20 37.08 39 25.64 14 29.64 11 27.40 25 of Change 4-5\n52 ^a-ESjElS e58O siSa^'SSsaSiS' +7m s? 'asset's 27.00 2 27.00 2 28.95 38 27.49 35 28.25 73 20.00 1 20.00 1 32.94 33 33.25 32 33.09 65 8i \u0026amp; gashes :isa\u0026gt;tlvta5\n^Gi)sacs. SSSi . 8 r^' Segments of the population not testing al a proficient level are highlighted in bold. Ella by school 2000lables6/19/00 Race Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade White Black other Total King Grade Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 1.71 17 0.36 14 1.10 31 0.76 25 0.55 20 0.67 45 1.50 4 0.00 3 0.86 7 1.17 46 0.43 37 0.84 83 Kindergarten Spring Assessment 5.71 17 3.38 13 4.70 30 4.19 26 2.29 21 3.34 47 3.67 6 5.00 3 4.11 9 4.65 49 2.89 37 3.90 86 sasfeg ^CnangeaK sfeafei \u0026gt;S?S03^ ,j:-,t3.6O ^+9+343 - ajaas'-\"\"- ri'! rjs?- Sii tiiJ ^2 !s i \"Vs 05 feaSii Sfl Developmental Reading Assessment Fall Assessment 7.24 25 6.67 12 ., 7.05 37 5.00 24 3.09 35 3.86 59 10.67 3 9.33 3 10.00 6 6.40 52 4.32 50 5.38 102 First Grade \"Spring Assessment 23.28 25 25.31 13 23.97 38 23.21 24 13.14 35 17.24 59 17.00 4 42.67 3 28.00 7 22.77 53 17.98 51 20.42 104 Second Grade * 4/7 average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. * An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. *** An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. ?Wnpin^K5 .'fiihange r\\+.t8s9T\\ .S - 1 iX/sTtilS'i- \"Spring Assessment 40.09 22 39.53 17 39.85 39 33.04 27 33.69 26 33.36 53 49.50 2 Fall Assessment 21.18 22 20.50 16 20.89 38 16.85 26 13.46 28 15.09 54 20.00 1 jjs^Byge- ^isJetL '+16.92' \u0026gt;18 -21 Siaa^ei^is :T.V 01313 ' -^'+16'fy1s9i r'' +^.23 W3333!19? -FlS.QOi y i:'T.1ft5l6 37r jigsaaaa 8 20.00 1 18.86 49 16.02 44 17.52 93 49.50 2 36.73 51 36.00 43 36.39 94 SWSQS ' '+17^87-''' asswSs 04 y.-r^ +99.98-Ms- +18 88- Segments of the population not testing al a proficient Ie vel are highlighted in bold. Ella by school 2000tables 6/19/00 Mabelvale Elem Grade Race White Black other Total Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fail Assessment 1.50 8 2.29 7 1.87 15 0.82 17 0.50 20 0.65 37 0.00 1 0.00 1 1.00 26 0.96 27 0.98 53 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten Spring Assessment 6.13 8 4.14 7 5.20 15 2.47 17 2.05 20 2.24 37 3.00 1 /Amount of' ''t.^Change . .+4 63' e ''+T1 I (8J6U+ f IS. , +1 59 + +3'66 ,* First Grade Second Grade 3.00 1 3.62 26 2.59 27 3.09 53 '\u0026gt;''+3 00 I,.*..\n... '+2 62 I-.- 7-f+JJ -6153\u0026lt; jMf- ? * An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. An average level of 16 or more is considered prescient in 6rsl grade. * An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Fall Assessment 3.00 2 1.17 6 1.63 8 3.45 22 1.77 22 2.61 44 3.42 24 1.64 28 2.46 52 **lSpring Assessment 41.00 2 16.17 6 22.38 8 21.04 24 18.65 23 19.87 47 Amount of Change '+-38 00 +20 75^^ \\ te 45\n,+16,88^ +7 25 sss^siSJSJ^ Fall Assessment 11.14 7 11.00 5 11.08 12 8.23 13 8.30 20 8.27 33 15.00 2 Spring Assessment 24.86 7 39.00 7 31.93 14 22.15 13 19.60 20 20.61 33 41.00 2 Amount of - Change +28\n00: '\ni3 92\n- gs Xii^so- p =:+-aai\n'aa' +12133\nsr +26.00 r 22.58 26 18.14 29 20.24 55 7^\n+1916, X+16-50 15.00 2 9.77 22 8.84 25 9.28 47 41.00 2 24.73 22 24.63 27 24.67 49 +26.001-.\n-+15.40 Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. Ella by school 2000tables 6/19/00 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Race McDermott Grade Gender Female White Male Total Female Black Male Total Female Other Male Total Female Total Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 1.07 14 0.62 13 0.85 27 0.00 9 0.00 9 0.00 18 0.50 6 1.00 4 0.70 10 0.62 29 0.46 26 0.55 55 Kindergarten Spring Assessment 9.29 14 4.15 13 6.81 27 4.67 9 2.56 9 3.61 18 5.17 6 10.50 4 7.30 10 7.00 29 4.58 26 5.85 55 ' Amo'unf of 'Change i\n, f -s+8-^' \" 3 +3.54 sfS?9 Developmental Reading Assessment First Grade Second Grade SOS Wfttt\n5QiS r +4\n12.- ^5 .ill- Fall Assessment 3.45 11 8.67 9 5.80 20 2.53 17 2.55 11 2.54 28 4.75 4 3.00 2 4.17 6 3.13 32 5.09 22 3.93 54 \"Spring Assessment 21.36 11 31.78 9 26.05 20 23.65 17 21.20 10 22.74 27 18.75 4 26.00 2 21.17 6 22.25 32 26.19 21 23.81 53 Amouhtof Change\n+17 91 --Tffti +2311 +20 25 +21 12 +18 65 +20 21 +14 00 +23 00 +17.00^\\ , Tig 13 +21 10 +19 89 Fall Assessment 27.00 10 26.00 17 26.37 27 18.94 32 16.06 17 17.94 49 12.00 2 3.33 3 6.80 5 20.45 44 19.59 37 20.06 81 Spring An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. * An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. *** An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Assessment 37.20 10 40.94 17 39.56 27 30.87 31 25.62 21 28.75 52 30.00 2 18.00 3 22.80 5 32.30 43 31.41 41 31.87 84 Afndunt of jehiange: ^10.20^ .^ir'Ss n'- +'13.19\n-+9.56\n18iO(T :t?14.67- +=M?8^ !!* = +1'182*-: +11.81'{ Segments of the population not testing al a proficient level are highlighted in bold. Ella by school 20Q0lables6/19/00 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Meadowcliff Grade Kindergarten Race White Black Other Total Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Tota! Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 1.00 3 0.00 5 0.38 8 2.23 13 0.11 9 1.36 22 Spring Assessment 4.00 3 1.75 4 2.71 7 6.57 14 2.22 9 4.87 23 Wou^ S+' ip\u0026gt;- si-aaSSia^ if fc Developmental Reading Assessment First Grade Second Grade *5 J 2.00 16 0.07 14 1.10 30 6.12 17 2.08 13 4.37 30 Be fe WSTK'Sf'\"'' * An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. \"* An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in 6rst grade. ** An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Fall Assessment 3.50 4 1.33 3 2.57 7 2.31 16 2.25 12 2.29 28 2.00 1 2.00 1 2.52 21 2.07 15 2.33 36 Spring Assessment 31.60 5 14.33 3 25.13 8 20.50 16 16.93 14 18.83 30 16.00 1 16.00 1 22.82 22 16.47 17 20.05 39 Arnouht of Change \u0026lt;+28-10 4-13.001 'W +22:55' !'X +1919^ ilW9 +14.00, -i ' -y-20-29 'Iff' is : 4^7772 l\"'- Fall Assessment 16.67 3 15.33 3 16.00 6 17.54 13 13.77 13 15.65 26 Spring Assessment 24.67 3 22.00 3 23.33 6 25.93 14 22.33 15 24.07 29 ^Change SI I^+SW\"^ +6.'67 sg\u0026lt; +8 39:?^' 'ifSa-S5 +8.56 +8\n42 2.00 1 2.00 1 17.38 16 13.35 17 15.30 33 10.00 1 10.00 1 25.71 17 21.63 19 23.56 36 +8'.00 \u0026lt;n1 isafis? ... -h8.254 Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highjighted in bold. Ella by scboot ZOOOtables6/19/00 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Race White Black other Total Mitchell Grade Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.37 19 0.90 10 1.21 29 1.35 20 0.90 10 1.20 30 Kindergarten Spring Amount of. Assessment .'. Changa 3.00 1 3.00 1 3.53 19 3.00 10 3.34 29 3.50 20 3.00 10 3.33 30 * An average level of 2 or more Is considered proficient in kindergarten. ** An average level of 16 or more is considered pro6cient in first grade. ** An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. . +200. , Id? -+2\"00 36 ,4+2'16 . +2-ID **3^wWV^S5i2Sn'a-\u0026lt;l%if-\u0026lt; fl- +2-13^ ,- Developmental Reading Assessment Fall Assessment 0.00 1 0.00 1 3.67 15 6.71 17 5.28 32 3.44 16 6.71 17 5.12 33 First Grade Spring Assessment 1.00 1 Change\nSecond Grade Fall Assessment Spring Assessment li^ourifof 'Change.. 1.00 1 12.36 14 13.19 16 12.80 30 11.60 15 13.19 16 12.42 31 'iiSati-kvfr:'-\n+1^ +8\n69: +648 4-. V6:48 K 19.60 15 19.82 17 19.72 32 40.00 1 22.00 2 28.00 3 20.88 16 20.05 19 20.43 35 23.14 14 24.82 17 24.06 31 44.00 1 25.00 2 31.33 3 24.53 15 24.84 19 24.71 34 +3 541.-\" 3g\nrS'.iSyi a }Jf^ ' +3\n33' , ' +4'79 f',\n.ii: -J i-428'\"^ - Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. EHa by school 200CH3bles6/19/00 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade otter Creek Grade Kindergarten Race White Black Other Total Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 1.52 21 2.27 11 1.78 32 1.53 19 1.00 15 1.29 34 1.00 1 1.25 4 1.20 5 1.51 41 1.50 30 1.51 71 Spring Assessment 6.00 21 5.18 11 5.72 32 5.16 19 3.13 15 4.26 34 4.00 1 1.75 4 2.20 5 5.56 41 3.70 30 4.77 71 * An average level of 2 or more is considered proricient in kindergarten. ** /\\n average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. ** An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Developmental Reading Assessment First Grade Second Grade ArfiduriVofi Change\n\"7^ +4.'4'8' Mi '5 63^ -{fi +-2,97 Fall Assessment 5.12 17 4.54 13 4.87 30 3.21 14 1.55 11 2.48 25 Spring Assessment 28.56 18 21.50 14 25.47 32 17.80 15 15.18 11 16.69 26 Amount of Change +23 44^ +16 96 +20 60- '-'+14\n59 +-13\n64--\n_ ' +14 21 Fall Assessment 26.36 11 32.00 5 28.13 16 26.00 6 11.88 8 17.93 14 ***Spring Assessment 31.82 11 42.00 1 35.78 18 35.43 7 25.56 9 29.88 16 Amount of 'Change +5 45 .+10 00 +7'.'65~.' \"-+.15^68! +11 95 a0\n5a +1.00: ........ 6.50 2 6.50 2 4.26 31 3.42 26 3.88 57 44.00 2 44.00 2 23.e.7 33 20.59 27 22.28 60 +37 50 +37 50 +19 41 +17 17 +18 41 3.00 1 3.00 1 26.24 17 18.43 14 22.71 31 28.00 1 28.00 1 33.22 18 32.47 17 32.86 35 +25 00 +25 00 - +6 99 - +14 04 +10 i5'\nC Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. Ella by school 2000lables6/19/00 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Pulaski Hgts Elem Grade Kindergarten Race White Black Other Total Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 5.00 12 3.60 5 4.59 17 0.67 15 2.71 7 1.32 22 Spring Assessment 11.75 12 6.20 5 10.12 17 2.29 14 6.14 7 3.57 21 Arhountpf Change _____uJiiig \"+675 1 ' -'J'\" \" +2 60 Z \"+5 53^ +162 , +2 25 r Developmental Reading Assessment Fall Assessment 15.13 8 8.56 16 10.75 24 3.00 10 1.58 12 2.23 22 6.00 1 First Grade **Spring Assessment 26.00 8 19.50 16 21.67 24 14.70 10 9.67 12 11.95 22 20.00 1 Change 5d0.88 Cyl +10.941 +10.92 I?' ' 1+11-70': t8.08\n+973 ij! Second Grade 1.00 1 1.00 1 2.59 27 2.92 13 2.70 40 3.00 1 3.00 1 6.65 26 5.92 13 6.41 39 * An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarlen. An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. *** An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. +2 00 +2 00 ^44 06- +3 0Q(, TC ssSto 6.00 1 8.26 19 5.57 28 6.66 47 20.00 1 19.74 19 15.29 28 17.09 47 M4\n0O: +1147 5' .+9-71 Fall Assessment 18.73 11 26.86 7 21.89 18 14.25 8 14.00 7 14.13 15 ***Spring Assessment 27.40 10 36.00 7 30.94 17 24.29 7 19.00 8 21.47 15 j^ounf of 'change +8 67 ,\n+9\ni4 ? +9.05 ,+10 04 +5 00 * +7 33 18.00 1 18.00 1 16.84 19 20.27 15 18.35 34 40.00 1 40.00 1 26.12 17 27.75 16 26.91 33 +22 00 . +22 00 +9 2 L .+7 48'\n+856\nH Segments of the population not testing al a proficient level are highlighted in bold. Ella by school ZOOOIables\u0026amp;/19/00 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Race White Black other Total Rightsell Grade Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean Fall Assessment 2.00 1 2.00 1 2.62 21 2.40 15 2.53 36 Male Total N Mean N Mean N 2.59 22 2.40 15 2.51 37 Kindergarten Spring Assessment 10.00 1 ^^^Ghange^\n:. Developmental Reading Assessment Fall Assessment First Grade \"Spring Assessment Amount of iChange Second Grade Fall Assessment \"Spring Assessment ii^ountjjf \u0026gt; Ghangle^ 10.00 1 5.05 21 4.40 15 4.78 36 sffiS2S\u0026amp;O +2,00 4 'J 5.27 22 4.40 15 4.92 37 -vv 7'^ *V An average level of 2 or more Is considered proficient in kindergarten. ** An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. 7.35 23 5.81 16 6.72 39 6.00 2 6.00 2 7.24 25 5.81 16 6.68 41 14.70 23 12.93 15 14.00 38 14.70 23 12.93 15 14.00 38 - .2-4-135-.\n+7 12 +7 28 28.96 25 32.36 11 30.00 36 36.88 25 40.83 12 38.16 37 A j4i^ ,+7'32-^ . 28.96 25 32.36 11 30.00 36 36.88 25 40.83 12 38.16 37 sWs - +79? +8.47 +8 16 S- -+8'.47\u0026lt; r-'?# +'8 16 Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. Ella by school 2000table56/19/00 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Rockefeller Grade Kindergarten Race White Black Other Total Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 3.50 8 1.83 6 2.79 14 1.00 23 0.40 20 0.72 43 4.75 4 3.33 3 4.14 7 2.00 35 1.00 29 1.55 64 Spring yikmdunf of Assessment Change 10.50 8 3.67 6 7.57 14 3.30 23 1.90 20 2.65 43 7.25 4 8.67 3 7.86 7 5.40 35 2.97 29 4.30 64 4^7'OQ, , fl 83 -j: +1,50-.\"^ +^ 93 +2.50 +5 33. r*\u0026lt;/ ssa^Bssgsisa^ h3 40 ... 11 91 y s^WssS^ Developmental Reading Assessment Fall Assessment 5.63 16 4.83 6 5.41 22 6.05 21 3.50 14 5.03 35 4.00 1 4.00 1 5.82 38 3.90 20 5.16 58 First Grade Spring Assessment 26.50 16 27.14 7 26.70 23 20.30 20 17.29 14 19.06 34 18.00 1 18.00 1 22.92 37 20.57 21 22.07 58 Second Grade * An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. An average level of IB or more is considered proficient in first grade. * An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Amount of 'Change +20 88 t22 31 1 +21 29 '\"'*^+1425' +13 79 +14 03 +14 00\n10 1'16^7' J JW\" ...,+16 91 Fall Assessment 44.00 6 26.75 8 34.14 14 18.55 20 18.06 18 18.32 38 Spring Assessment 44.00 6 31.75 8 37.00 14 24.15 20 26.56 18 25.29 38 ATnoiinfeof' Change.. ft- ---T-i,' -+5:po +8 50 ' +6 97- 39.00 2 39.00 2 24.42 26 22.04 28 23.19 54 44.00 2 44.00 2 28.73 26 29.29 28 29.02 54 +5 00.*^::\n---5-^0^\n\"'+4'31^1/ rj+7'26 - ^\n,+583-\\ Segments of the poputation not testing et e proficient levet ere highlighted in bold. Ella by school 2000tables6/19/00 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Race White Black Other Total Romine Grade Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 0.50 2 0.00 4 0.17 6 1.00 13 0.00 18 0.42 31 0.00 4 0.00 4 0.00 8 0.74 19 0.00 26 0.31 45 Kindergarten Spring Assessment 5.50 2 1.40 5 2.57 7 3.44 16 3.09 22 3.24 38 1.50 4 1.75 4 1.63 8 3.27 22 2.65 31 2.91 53 +5 00 5, -\u0026lt;-+2'4O . i+3'd9' w: \u0026gt;SS7 J'\u0026lt;,+2,82 W -THSBaS\nI x- +1 63' 42,s\u0026lt; :\u0026lt; .\\+2'.65'\n: Has ^+Z59'?. Developmental Reading Assessment Fail Assessment 11.25 4 11.25 4 11.43 23 7.36 11 10.12 34 5.25 4 6.67 3 5.86 7 10.52 21 8.11 18 9.56 45 First Grade Spring Assessment Amount of Charige\n Second Grade * An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. ** An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. *** An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. 21.00 4 21.00 4 19.74 23 14.09 11 17.91 34 9.50 4 27.00 2 15.33 6 18.22 27 17.24 17 17.84 44 +9 75P +9.75^ - f8\n30 +6 73 %25 +20 33 * +9 48 gww ,+7 70 !: +9,12J +8 29 Fall Assessment 44.00 2 21.2,2, 2 40.00 5 31.20 15 23.75 24 26.62 39 23.71 7 27.09 11 25.78 18 30.08 24 25.79 38 27.45 62 Spring Assessment 44.00 2 44.00 2 44.00 4 37.88 16 30.78 23 33.69 39 31.71 7 36.00 10 34.24 17 36.64 25 33.03 35 34.53 60 WtriountToF igS'\u0026amp;iSSiS^s^ 'Change.^ :.*Ss a\n- Ir^tbo li ^+8:00^ :afS?Sy +8\n91 i ^8546\n\"I, +6.56 '\"\"'+7'08:'^ s Segmen/s of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. Ella by school 2000{ables6/19/00 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Race White Black Other Total Terry Grade Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 3.88 25 4.50 18 4.14 43 2.24 17 1.39 23 1.75 40 1.80 5 6.50 4 3.89 9 3.06 47 3.09 45 3.08 92 Kindergarten Spring Assessment 7.80 25 10.67 18 9.00 43 6.35 17 4.91 23 5.53 40 5.00 5 19.00 4 11.22 9 6.98 47 8.47 45 7.71 92 AmountSof\n^Charigei ^+3 92 - 's? il t3?5^: \\V+3 20\nV+ +12,50 +733 tB Developmental Reading Assessment First Grade Second Grade \"\"\"+3:91' Ci v:' +5 38 'P\n1:4.63 Fall Assessment 5.07 14 3.92 13 4.52 27 3.10 20 0.95 20 2.03 40 0.00 1 11.33 3 8.50 4 3.80 35 2.89 36 3.34 71 **\u0026lt; Spring Assessment 26.86 14 22.94 16 24.77 30 15.30 20 7,76 21 11.44 41 4.00 1 36.00 3 28.00 4 19.60 35 15.95 40 17.65 75 Amount of Change ' +21-79t c .r r.+'IS-OI \u0026gt; i +20 25 '.f+.12:20: +6 81 +9 41 +4 00 +24 67 , +.1950 +15 80 \u0026gt; +13 06' +14 32 Fall Assessment 20.63 8 20.81 16 20.75 24 24.15 13 16.12 17 19.60 30 15.50 4 22.50 4 19.00 8 21.64 25 18.84 37 19.97 62 \"Spring Assessment 37.64 11 30.82 17 33.50 28 37.20 20 28.45 22 32.62 42 38.40 5 29.43 7 33.17 12 37.50 36 29.48 46 33.00 82 Amountof. c, Change \" +17 01\n+.10.0.1,.^' jiyifX-iS\n+1275. tJi e--+-13705^ +12 34 +13 02 +22 90 +6 93* +1417 +15 86 +10 64 +13 03 .\u0026gt; * An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarlen. * An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. *** An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Segmenfs of the population not testing al a proficient level are highlighled in bold. Ella by school 2000iables6/10/00 Wakefield Grade Race Gender Fail Assessment Female White Male Total Female Black Male Total Female Other Male Total Female Total Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N 0.00 2 0.00 2 0.33 21 0.09 22 0.21 43 0.00 4 0.00 3 0.00 7 0.28 25 0.07 27 0.17 52 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Kindergarten Spring Assessment Anriodf*t of ^Change Developmental Reading Assessment First Grade Second Grade 0.00 2 0.00 2 1.86 21 0.95 22 1.40 43 1.00 4 1.00 3 1.00 7 1.72 25 0.89 27 1.29 52 0 0\nI^B Kss #sas!ichinRSi\n5\nFail Assessment 0.00 1 1.00 1 0.50 2 1.59 17 1.29 17 1.44 34 0.75 4 **lSpring Assessment 10.00 1 2.00 1 6.00 2 12.91 34 9.74 23 11.63 57 10.83 6 Amount of Change - Fall Assessment Spring Assessment T^dupt.pf 7Change: rSS i'5x SBaS\n+0.8T aasates 0. 0.75 4 1.36 22 1.28 18 1.33 40 10.83 6 12.54 41 9.42 24 11.38 65 'S^^cgwOnoOiSsgSMss a^St5s50'.e-?, - 32 , +8 45 +10 19 .-'+10.08 ' +10 08 tt +11 17 +8 14 r\"~+1006/ 10.27 22 9.95 20 10.12 42 1.00 2 7.00 4 5.00 6 9.50 24 9.46 24 9.48 48 20.52 21 19.68 19 20.13 40 7.00 2 28.00 4 21.00 6 19.35 23 21.13 23 20.24 46 B ftaSKtoOHEQlS Tv 'H-- +10.01 sOQi pHSa M'gaw : t+'T LT\"*?*'' +11.67- - +10.7'6\", S' An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. * An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient In first grade. An average level of 24 or more is considered pro6cienl in second grade. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highjighted in bold. Ella by school 2000lab/es 6/19/00 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Washington Grade Kindergarten Race Gender Female White Male Total Female Black Male Total Female Other Male Total Female Total Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 3.14 7 1.88 8 2.47 15 1.11 19 0.92 25 1.00 44 2.25 4 3.00 5 2.67 9 1.73 30 1.39 38 1.54 68 Spring Assessment 11.75 4 7.38 8 8.83 12 5.05 19 3.64 25 4.25 44 8.25 4 8.00 5 8.11 9 6.52 27 5.00 38 5.63 65 fffiuntBf\n^Gtia^eaii .550 ij-S-iP is at S ^^.-5\np0 , \u0026gt;5 44\nS isse W-' Developmental Reading Assessment Fall Assessment 6.67 3 5.33 6 5.78 9 5.11 18 2.21 19 3.62 37 8.38 8 4.14 7 6.40 15 6.17 29 3.22 32 4.62 61 First Grade \"Spring Assessment 21.33 3 26.00 6 24.44 9 14.89 18 10.61 18 12.75 36 23.75 8 22.29 7 23.07 15 18.00 29 16.23 31 17.08 60 Amount of Change 3a-t14'.67. ^.118 67 \"'/^.')\n9:785\\ as - r8 4b-. ^9 13 18 14 H6 67i m 83 '\"-r^H3qi Fall Assessment 30.33 6 21.17 6 25.75 12 20.85 20 13.70 27 16.74 47 12.40 5 23.11 9 19.29 14 21.32 31 16.79 42 18.71 73 Second Grade \"Spring Assessment 40.67 6 38.00 6 39.33 12 28.55 20 22.11 27 24.85 47 21.60 5 29.33 9 26.57 14 29.77 31 25.93 42 27.56 73 . Amount.of Change i +1033 SssSS -'\u0026gt;16,83 as US 58*\n^ -\u0026gt;7 70 ^8 41 +8t-1-1 i!! Ss +9 20 r6 22 h7 29 h8 45 v+9ri4.\u0026gt;,*'* iSaSGs^j +8 85-^/ * An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. ** An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. *** An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient levet are highlighted in txild. Ella by school 2000l3bles6/19/00 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Race White Black other Total Watson Grade Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.41 37 1.09 35 0.74 72 0.39 38 1.09 35 0.73 73 Kindergarten Spring Assessment 0.00 1 0.00 1 2.37 38 2.29 38 2.33 76 2.31 39 2.29 38 2.30 77 * An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. ** An average level of 16 or more is considered proricient in first grade. ** An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. -Arnount?df tesGhangeg Developmental Reading Assessment Fall Assessment First Grade Spring Assessment S: Fall Assessment Second Grade Spring Assessment 'Ghartg^? 'S' M +1 96 it 5.00 1 5.00 1 5.88 24 3.20 35 4.29 59 17.03 29 8.67 36 12.40 65 Sgi SBS 'W 5^ Sjgiai 'A S\n\"' fl sS AigiWSft\n- 11-. / -+1,91-\u0026gt; sss'a^ \n?1.20i 5.88 24 3.25 36 4.30 60 17.03 29 8.67 36 12.40 65 :5. +~l1..1g +5.42 ^SS5S - J-+8.-10. .f\\. ^Vr 18.50 4 18.50 4 18.47 32 14.12 26 16.52 58 30.00 1 30.00 1 18.82 33 14.70 30 16.86 63 34.00 4 34.00 4 27.76 33 22.60 25 25.53 58 40.00 1 40.00 1 28.12 34 24.17 29 26.30 63 +15\n50 ,=,+15.50 \u0026gt;3? W^S'+c- aiW+9S3^W W +\nt9-QQ litWc )\n9\n47' +9W Segments of the population not testing at a prescient level are highlighled in bold. Ella by school 2000tables6/19/00 Western Hills Grade Race White Black other Total Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 0.50 2 0.40 5 0.43 7 0.67 9 0.62 13 0.64 22 4.00 1 0.00 1 2.00 2 0.92 12 0.53 19 0.68 31 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten Spring Assessment 3.00 2 2.40 5 2.57 7 4.11 9 2.15 13 2.95 22 28.00 1 3.00 1 15.50 2 5.92 12 2.26 19 3.68 31 ^!^Wuntlo ^gghafaeaia V2 00 .6V First Grade Second Grade +i1.^ijSj +-?32' SS +3^00'^\niiJi ssjgsiJfeaafis's'S. * An average level of 2 or more is considered prescient in kindergarten. An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. * An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Fall Assessment 6.50 6 2.67 3 5.22 9 4.29 17 3.60 15 3.97 32 Spring Assessment 28.86 7 16.67 3 25.20 10 22.24 17 20.47 15 21.41 32 :?ArriounUdf' Chanfigfa ______-fc \"r t.-- +i4\noo 1 /\nM6.87^ j- Fall Assessment 23.00 4 20.00 4 21.50 8 20.55 11 18.13 16 19.11 27 20.00 1 Spring Assessment , 44.00 4 42.50 4 43.25 8 39.40 10 36.25 16 37.46 26 44.00 1 Amount.'oT .. Change , +21 00 (5^? +22.50\"\n+21 75 +18 85 +18 13 +18 35+ +2400 14.00 1__ 14.00 1 4.87 23 4.00 19 4.48 42 28.00 1 28.00 1 24.17 24 20.26 19 22.44 43 '+,i4.oo\n^4:00: 7.^ *19:30\ng 44.00 +242)0'A 1 40.93 15 37.50 20 38.97 35 20.00 1 21.13 16 18.50 20 19.67 36\n4. L*'' +49 81 ^6:26i +179^ +19:00 +T9-30 + Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. Ella by school 2000tabies 6/19/00 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Race White Black other Total Williams Grade Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 3.88 8 1.50 12 2.45 20 1.56 18 0.50 8 1.23 26 5.83 6 5.83 6 2.94 32 1.10 20 2.23 52 Kindergarten Spring Assessment 8.13 8 5.00 12 6.25 20 5.11 18 3.00 8 4.46 26 11,50 6 SasBn\u0026amp;unfeoffi sfeChange^ J\u0026amp;o',anss^' EK Developmental Reading Assessment First Grade Second Grade 11.50 6 7.06 32 4.20 20 5.96 52 ssffi ^3 Fall Assessment 14,53 17 14.30 10 14.44 27 7.00 12 9.65 20 8.66 32 44.00 1 34.00 1 39.00 2 12.50 30 11.94 31 12.21 61 Spring Assessment 29.88 17 34.80 10 31.70 27 28.83 12 27.21 19 27.84 31 44.00 1 44.00 1 44.00 2 29.93 30 30.30 30 30.12 60 Change 9^ a S' +17-.56 +19 18 :0\n.+10.00 +5.00 ssfySiiSfS s -t17.90i\u0026lt; * /In average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. ** An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. *** An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Fall Assessment 28.40 15 31.80 20 30.34 35 27.82 17 23.29 14 25.77 31 \"Spring Assessment 37.33 15 40.42 19 39.06 34 37.41 17 36.62 13 37.07 30 T^ount of Change +8 93:^' '+9 59 +13 33 +11 29 28.09 32 28.29 34 28.20 66 37.38 32 38.88 32 38.13 64 28 ', t1Q-58 +9.93 Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. Ella by school 2000tabtes 6/19/00 Wilson Grade Race White Black Other Total Gender Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 0.00 2 1.00 2 0.50 4 0.75 16 1.07 29 0.96 45 0.00 1 2.00 1 1.00 2 0.63 19 1.09 32 0.92 51 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Kindergarten Spring Assessment 1.00 2 0.00 1 0.67 3 4.35 17 2.67 30 3.28 47 0.00 1 3.00 1 1.50 2 3.80 20 2.59 32 3.06 52 ain'S'unt-''QF ^thangeV .1 00 J-iS-sw\u0026amp; gs?\ni+1.60y- \u0026amp; '' ' '- O''-' +1 00 !3?Ss5sSsSfflS ^^ftOiSlJ^? SWRW /\u0026gt;+1.\n50: aasifeii *2.14^ Developmental Reading Assessment Fall Assessment 2.00 3 2.00 3 2.21 14 2.78 18 2.53 32 2.18 17 2.78 18 2.49 35 First Grade \"Spring Assessment 23.33 3 Amount of Change Second Grade * An average level of 2 or more Is considered proficient In kindergarten. ** An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. *** An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Fall Assessment 25.00 2 \"Spring Assessment 42.00 2 Amount of: .Change' +ioo site 23.33 3 20.00 14 23.11 18 21.75 32 20.59 17 23.11 18 21.89 35 ?y'+21 33^ . +17 79 9- +20 33 +19.22\n25.00 2 17.13 15 15.17 24 15.92 39 a5 sjg\nrie\u0026gt; +18?41 42C^ 32.00 2 32.00 2 18.06 17 16.46 26 17.09 43 42.00 2 26.56 18 25.21 24 25.79 42 4.00 1 39.00 2 21.33 3 26.95 21 26.27 26 26.57 47 +17 00/ --?S J*. * +9 42 +10 04 +9 86 +7 00 -4 67 IO ?h8.89 \" +9 81 +9 48 i Segmenfs of Ihe population not testing al a proficient level are highlighted in bold. lla by school 2000tables 6/19/00 Race Woodruff Grade Gender Female White Male Total Female Black Male Total Female Other Male Total Female Total Male Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Fall Assessment 0.00 1 1.00 3 0.75 4 0.90 20 1.07 15 0.97 35 0.86 21 1.06 18 0.95 39 Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Kindergarten Spring Assessment 1.00 1 3.00 3 2.50 4 2.05 20 2.07 15 2.06 35 gatCChhlaannggie \u0026gt;3^-+2.O9,^ BWOOs j' Developmental Reading Assessment Fall Assessment 19.00 4 4.00 1 16.00 5 8.14 22 7.10 10 7.81 32 First Grade Second Grade **('Spring Amount of: Assessment \u0026gt; Change 34.00 3 18.00 1 30.00 4 22.86 22 23.40 10 23.03 32 iSpieS-' iW\n+i5oo . '\"+1400 ' +^-}4'\n00 ! +147^ +1030 Fall Assessment 29.00 4 27.00 4 28.00 8 28.48 21 20.50 14 25.29 35 3.00 1 'Spring Assessment 31.50 4 36.00 4 33.75 8 37.10 20 27.43 14 33.12 34 6.00 1 T.w^- ountof' 'Change r\" +2.5O^*'^' +9 00 , \\+5 7^ +8 62 iis +6 gsf\"''\" +y83 +3 00 2.00 21 2.22 18 2.10 39 * An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. ** An average level of 16 or more is considered prescient in first grade. *** An average level of 24 or more is considered pro6cient in second grade. 34.00 1 34.00 1 24.20 25 23.83 12 24.08 37 18.00 1 18.00 1 9.81 26 7.75 12 9.16 38 +16 00 Si fill 7r'- i3i\u0026gt;1 +16 00 +14 39 +16 08 +14 92 3.00 1 27.58 26 21.94 18 25.27 44 6.00 1 34.96 25 29.33 18 32.60 43 +3 00 +7 38 +7 39 +7 33 Segmenis of the population not testing al a proficient level are highlighted in bold. Ella by school SOOOtables BADGETT Grade* Subtest 1996- 1997 3 Total Reading Total Math 14 9 5 Total Language Complete Battery Total Reading Total Math 15 14 7 6 Black Students 19^ 1998 30 20 20 26 13 13 Precentile Diff. 11 12 6 White Students Number Tested BALE 1998^ 1999 17 16 18 18 18 13 1999- 2000 Diff. -13 -2 -8 11 1 Total Language Complete Battery 12 10 Grade* Subtest 1997 3 Total Reading Total Math 35 27 5 Total Language Complete Battery Total Reading 27 33 21 Total Math 15 14 18 2 8 20 21 Black Students wr 1998 27 17 21 24 29 27 Percentile Diff. -8 -10 -6 8 12 11 13 w 1999 2000 28 20 26 26 22 42 19 14 Total Language Complete Battery BASELINE Grade* Subtest 3 Total Reading Total Math 5 Total Language Complete Battery Total Reading Total Math Total Language Complete Battery 23 34 11 31 19 27 33 0 32 18 Black Students Percentile 1996- 1997 18 19 13 20 27 20 37 27 1997- 1998 24 15 20 22 14 16 18 16 Diff. 6 -4 7 2 r13 -4\n-i9- 1998- 1999 26 29 31 29 22 14 26 26 1999- 2000 16 13 21 18 1996- 1997 27 32 31 29 Percentile 1998 86 45 61 64 Diff. 59 13 30: 35 \u0026lt;998^ 1999 15 1 6 12 1999- 2000 Diff.\u0026gt; -71: \"55: -52 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 7, iiL iSi 8 Diff. 1 3 5 ::2:: 3 28 Diff, 2 :\u0026gt;-i4- 11 7 6 64 51 41 47 w 1997 57 43 43 53 25 23 39 41 1996- 1997 32 28 28 32 95 83 76 84 29 40 53 44 TW:' 1998 16 29 23 25 47 43 53 53 1997- 1998 45 20 41 43 31 16 14 26 -35 -11 12 -3 41 40 32 37 White Students Percentile Diff. -41 \u0026gt;14: -20 -28 22 20 1'4 12 5 5 3 6 71 35: 29 31 21 23 23 21 14 14 16 20 17 18 17 16 Number Tested 199^- 1999 46 40 36 43 29 45 30 39 White Students Percentile Diff. '10: 8 13: 11 -64\n-67 r62 1999- 2000 Diff. 30 11 13 18 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 76 24 76 53 :47. 21: :46\n14 37 37 37 37 35 31 41 40 35 35 35 35 Number Tested 1998- 1999 59 35 61 46 31 22 28 34 1999- 2000 Diff. 14 45- 20 3 35 23 57 39 -1 t29 -5 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 14 15 13 12 1999-2000 23 16 24 21 1999-2000 25 25 25 25 15 16 18 18 16 19 19 16 31 31 31 31 BOOKER Black Students Grade* Subtest Percentile White Students Percentile Number Tested 3 Total Reading Total Math 5 Total Language Complete Battery Total Reading Total Math Total Language Complete Battery BRADY Grade* Subtest 3 Total Reading Total Math 5 Total Language Complete Battery Total Reading Total Math Total Language Complete Battery CARVER Grade* Subtest 3 Total Reading Total Math 5 Total Language Complete Battery Total Reading Total Math Total Language Complete Battery 1996- 1997 26 23 34 30 33 32 44 38 1996- 1997 27 34 32 32 27 18 43 31 1996- 1997 43 37 40 41 37 27 40 39 1997- 1998 26 19 24 27 21 17 31 26 Diff. 0 -3 -12 -15 -12 1998- 1999- 1999 2000 Diff. 1996- 1997 1997- 1998 Diff\n1998- 1999 1999- 2000 Diff. 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 35 28 32 34 39 28 11 25 44 38 Black Students Percentile 21 41 32 3- e 50 41 52 49 65 53 67 62 58 44 57 57 60 35 60 53 3 8 '5 -18 .-7-' 43 44 36 43 55 33 55 51 White Students Percentile 63 45 70 60 -8 -12 -15 -9 91 91 91 91 40 26 45 39 87 90 90 87 Number Tested 1997- 1998 26 25 28 27 20 13 19 20 Diff. 5-\u0026lt; -7 5 24 1998- 1999 30 20 26 30 23 17 21 23 Black Students Percentile 1997- 1998 36 28 35 36 22 21 30 28 Diff. -15 6 1998- 1999 41 31 33 40 51 45 47 49 1999- 2000 Diff, 1996- 1997 60 65 65 63 19 14 21 20 1999- 2000 31 24 32 32 3 0 3 Diff. 20 -21 15 atz 76 50 64 63 1996- 1997 71 71 70 70 77 64 66 72 1997- 1998 Diff. 1998- 1999 1999- 2000 Diff. 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 35 51 41 45 33 24 31 36 1997- 1998 77 71 78 76 78 70 77 75 -25 24 43 -26 -33 \n'27: 56 47 48 55 41 15 41 39 White Students Percentile Diff. 8 6 4 6 1T 3 42 14 37 28 -4 -11 24 24 24 24 25 16 24 25 41 40 40 40 Number Tested 1998- 1999 69 60 64 67 73 66 64 69 1999- 2000 Diff. 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 79 63 66 72 6 -3 2 3 98 102 102 98 52 47 56 53 .85 86 86 85 78 78 i 77 1 77 1999-2000 37 39 39 37 1999-2000 77 77 n 77 CHICOT Grade* Subtest 1996- 1997 3 Total Reading 22 5 Total Math 14 Black Students Percentile 1997- 1998 24 17 Diff. 2 3 1998- 1999 23 18 1999- 2000 Diff. White Students Percentile Number Tested 1996- 1997 43 57 1997- 1998 35 26 Diff. -8 -31 1998- 1999 47 39 1999- 2000 Dift 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 Total Language Complete Battery Total Reading Total Math 18 21 18 14 28 23 11 10 IQ 2 -7 -4 23 23 20 17 13 12 -5 7 -5 37 47 43 26 42 35 62 35 5 19 9 40 50 45 36 38 19 Total Language Complete Battery CLOVERDALE Grade* Subtest 24 21 1996- 1997 3 Total Reading Total Math 47 62 5 Total Language Complete Battery Total Reading Total Math 52 60 22 24 16 15 -8 -6 26 23 Black Students Percentile 19 16 -7 46 42 56 59 DODD Total Language Complete Battery 33 26 Grade* Subtest 1996- 1997 3 Total Reading Total Math Total Language 5 Complete Battery Total Reading Total Math Total Language Complete Battery 25 29 30 30 24 16 30 27 io 17 46 30 16 45 White Students Percentile 29 -16 56 56 56 55 16 13 21 21 48 48 48 48 Number Tested 1997- 1998 28 27 26 29 26 31 31 31 Diff. -19 :35: -26 -31 4 7 -2 ^5 1998- 1999 55 78 67 72 48 56 54 54 Black Students Percentile 1997- 1998 34 40 21 35 13 12 27 18 Diff. 9 11 -9 ^11 -3 1998- 1999 39 18 28 33 35 25 44 34 1999- 2000 Diff. 27 51 43: 22 29 26 27 1999- 2000 30 27 39 31 -26 -27 -28 Diff. 5 -22 7 \u0026gt;2- -5 2 ^9^ 1996- 1997 60 70 55 61 1996- 1997 54 43 47 48 41 27 33 27 1997- 1998 Diff. 1998- 1999 52 94 35 73 66 80 68 66 1997- 1998 64 67 45 59 50 40 45 49 89 92 80 91 White Students Percentile Diff, IQ: 24 :'-2:: 9 12 1999- 2000 Diff. 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 18 31 14 19 -71 ^1 t66: -72 46 47 47 46 29 35 35 33 55 55 55 53 Number Tested 1998- 1999 37 24 39 35 59 33 62 53 1999- 2000 Diff. -27 -43 -24 30 29 28 32 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 -29 -4 -34 -21 24 24 24 23 26 22 34 29 28 '29 29 28 54 56 55 53 1999-2000 52 52 52 52 1999-2000 15 16 16 15 FAIR PARK Grade* Subtest 1996- 1997 3 Total Reading 30 5 Total Math Total Language Complete Battery Total Reading Total Math Total Language Complete Battery FOREST PARK Grade* Subtest 3 Total Reading Total Math 5 Total Language Complete Battery Total Reading Total Math Total Language Complete Battery FRANKLIN Grade* Subtest 3 Total Reading Total Math 5 Total Language Complete Battery Total Reading Total Math Total Language Complete Battery 31 28 34 20 21 21 22 Black Students Percentile 1997- 1998 17 11 14 19 10 7 11 Diff. ^3: -20 -14 ^15 :Tt4- -10 13 \u0026gt;9\n1996- 1997 48 52 55 53 24 26 36 3Q 1996- 1997 18 14 16 19 15 10 17 15 1998- 1999 18 8 10 16 37 21 45 37 Black Students Percentile 1999- 2000 21 11 24 21 1997- 1998 33 37 39 37 28 25 32 35 Diff. -15 -15\n-16 -16 4 -1 r4 5 1998- 1999 42 37 49 44 65 51 63 60 Black Students Percentile 1997- 1998 16 13 13 17 16 15 23 20 biff. 1998- 1999 2 :-3' 2 .1 5 6 5 25 23 25 26 18 26 21 24 1999- 2000 36 29 35 33 1999- 2000 18 15 17 19 White Students Percentile Diff. -4 -3 \u0026gt;16 -ip\nDiff. 9 0 10 -29 22 27 biff. Number Tested 1996- 1997 '407 742\n0\n: -11 4\": 35 42 28 42 66 40 73 63 1997- 1998 61 68 72 68 58 49 60 Diff. 25 .26\n44 26 -8 9 1 55 -8^ 1998- 1999 18 8 10 16 56 30 45 45 1999- 2000 Diff. -43 -62 86 74 78 74 White Students Percentile\n30\n44 33 29 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 1996- 1997 82 80 85 83 73 67 71 71 1996- 1997 83 79 71 77 10 3 4 12 1997- 1998 87 81 88 85 85 84 83 86 1997- 1998 17 4 4 16 49 13 69 35 Diff. 5 1 3: 2 12 17 12 15 1998- 1999 81 79 87 80 85 70 79 77 White Students Percentile Diff. 66. -75 -67 6t 39 10 65: 23 1998- 1999 61 94 53 73 1999- 2000 Diff. -6 -2 -1 -5 91 79 84 82 1999- 2000 78 17 80 49 6 9 5 5 Diff. 17: -77^ 27 ?-24-- 28 27 28 27 17 12 18 20 22 23 23 21 Number Tested 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 50 51 51 50 58 57 60 63 55 56 56 55 Number tested 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 17 18 17\n16 1999-2000 42 44 44 42 1999-2000 34 34 34 33 17 15 24 20 40 45 45 39 39 50 50 39 FULBRIGHT Grade* Subtest 1996- 1997 3 Total Reading Total Math 34 21 5 Total Language Complete Battery Total Reading Total Math 31 33 19 18 Black Students Percentile 1997- 1998 25 13 19 24 39 22 Dift -9 22 4 1998- 1999 34 24 32 36 51 37 1999- 2000 27 17 Total Language Complete Battery GARLAND Grade* Subtest 3 Total Reading Total Math 5 Total Language Complete Battery Total Reading Total Math Total Language Complete Battery GEYER SPRINGS Grade* Subtest 3 Total Reading Total Math Total Language 5 Complete Battery Total Reading Total Math Total Language Complete Battery 26 22 35 38 2-22. 42 44 Black Students Percentile 27 26 1996- 1997 29 26 27 29 12 15 17 18 1996- 1997 23 14 23 24 21 23 24 23 1997- 1998 16 13 15 19 14 12 17 17 Diff. -12 0 1998- 1999 20 13 17 21 19 26 25 23 Black Students Percentile 1999- 2000 19 20 22 24 1997- 1998 29 32 32 30 26 15 28 2Z Diff. 6 : '16: '8 1998- 1999 37 47 34 40 30 32 44 ZZ 1999- 2000 22 28 26 21 Diff. 9 ii\n13 12 -24 :r20 -15 rl8 Diff. 2 2 0 -6 -3 -W Diff. 15 2 TO -^8? -4 ri 8: White Students Percentile Number Tested 1996- 1997 64 61 67 67 78 56 75 71 1996- 1997 1996- 1997 38 27 46 40 49 30 41 1997- 1998 71 59 70 69 78 58 77 71 1997- 1998 Diff. 7 -2. 3 2 0 2 2 1998- 1999 72 52 68 67 74 63 59 66 1999- 2000 Diff. 4 -7 -2 \u0026lt;2 1996-1997 1997-1998 19981999 71 50 63 63 White Students Percentile Diff. 1998- 1999 1999- 2000 White Students Percentile -3 -13 A 55 55 55 55 58 38 54 54 67 67 67 67 Number Tested Diff. 1996-1997 1997-1998 1997- 1998 46 65 59 51 35 26 22 31 Dift ?,8\u0026gt; 25 TO 1998- 1999 1999- 2000 Diff. 29 2Q 18 26 20 36 30 33 TO 12 7: 1998-1999 19992000 59 __ 62 . 62 59 1999-2000 30 33 33 30 14 12 18 17 35 18 35 35 Number Tested 19961997 1997-1998 1998-1999 32 35 35 32 26 17 28 24 44 45 45 44 22 28 28 22 1999-2000 41 41 41 41 GIBBS Grade* Subtest 1996- 1997 3 Total Reading 31 5 Total Math 25 Black Students Percentile White Students Percentile Number Tested 1997- 1998 37 35 Diff. 6 IQ 1998- 1999 33 23 1999- 2000 Diff. -12 1996- 1997 67 62 1997- 1998 67 78 Diff. 0 46' 1998- 1999 76 60 1999- 2000 Diff* 9 -18 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 Total Language Complete Battery Total Reading Total Math 32 34 2 35 1 64 70 6 81 11 29 53 46 36 41 44 7 -2 33 37 34 -3 66 70 4 73 3 41 40 4 6 81 69 68 38 -13 -31 71 63 84 80 13 17 Total Language Complete Battery JEFFERSON Grade* Subtest 3 Total Reading Total Math 5 Total Language Complete Battery Total Reading Total Math Total Language Complete Battery 56 56 1996- 1997 23 21 17 22 30 28 35 32 50 45 37 32 -5 74 58 16 67 80 KING Grade* Subtest 1996- 1997 3 Total Reading Total Math 39 37 5 -11 37 Black Students Percentile 41 4 77 68 ^9: 66 White Students Percentile 79 13 34 34 34 34 56 56 55 57 48 48 48 48 Number Tested Total Language 43 1997- 1998 21 20 23 24 25 18 31 26 Diff. -2 -1 6 2 5 410 -4 76' 1998- 1999 32 20 28 30 64 52 59 59 Black Students Percentile 1999- 2000 Diff. 41: O 5 6 39 30 41 37 23 -22 -18 -22 1997- 1998 32 23 27 Diff. 1998- 1999 1999- 2000 Diff. -7 43 11 414i 26 38 :41- 1996- 1997 76 71 74 72 73 58 76 71 1996- 1997 56 61 53 1997- 1998 70 63 68 69 85 61 74 74 1997- 1998 56 54 61 Diff. -6 -3 7 3 -2 3 1998- 1999 67 57 67 67 86 71 79 79 White Students Percentile Diff. 0 -7 8 1999- 2000 Diff. -3 tI-: -2 S7 68 74 77 -3 ^5: -2 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 1998- 1999 54 50 59 1999- 2000 Diff. -2 .^4 -2 Complete Battery Total Reading Total Math 41 31 \"40 40 9 58 57 :S1' 54 -3 37 23 23 21 52 27 -25 66 58 :^8\n: 68 68 0 -2 62 21 441: 57 53 -4 74 57 7I7 Total Language Complete Battery 37 34 29 27 -8 :7' 50 27 23 62 56 -6 63 63 0 55 26 -29 64 58\nr6\n69 64 -5 65 64 65 64 64 42 57 56 53 55 55 53 Number Tested 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 38 38 38 38 1999-2000 52 52 52 51 1999-2000 44 45 45 44 38 35 41 40\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_298","title":"Compliance hearing exhibits, 29-32","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1999/2000"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance hearing exhibits, 29-32"],"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/298"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nDUNBAR MAGNET MIDDLE SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 APRIL 26-27,1999 EXTENDED COMPREHENSIVE OUTCOMES EVALUATION REPORT OF THE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT TEAM VISIT Submitted to: Dr. Les Camine, Superintendent May 17, 1999 Ms. Debbie Berry, Principal Mr. Arthur Olds Steering Committee Chair and Ms. Joyce Underwood, Steering Committee Co-Chair Compiled by: Mr. David Watts Arkansas Department of Education Field Services Specialist Copy to\nDr. Dave Westmoreland Education Curriculum SupervisorSCOPE OF THE ECOE DOCUMENT It is the official intent of the Arkansas Department of Education that this report on the evaluation of the school be submitted by the chairperson of the visiting team directly to the administration of the school. The distribution of the report and its availability for public consideration beyond that point rest solely in the hands of those administrators. Neither the chairperson nor the other members of the evaluation team are authorized to release any of the information contained in this report without the approval of the administration of the school. The primary purpose of the evaluation team has been to examine the educational setting of the school, including courses of study, learning materials as well as student needs and interests. The evaluation team has attempted to assess the effectiveness of the total school improvement plan in meeting the educational objectives the school has established for itself. It has not been the purpose of the visiting team to evaluate individual teacher performance. The use of this report as an official assessment of any staff persons professional competency would be in violation of the process and the intent under which the school evaluation was conducted. Such use would be inherently invalid since at no time during the team visit has the team been concerned with the evaluation of individual teacher performance. Additionally, it has not been the purpose of the visiting team to prescribe a specific companys instructional materials or programs. The team has attempted to evaluate the schools learning materials in light of the needs of the students being served and the relationship of the materials to the goals and objectives of the school. Any reference to specific instructional materials contained in the team report is merely for consideration by the school. The school staff exercises the responsibility of selecting learning materials appropriate for the learner. The members of the evaluation team have utilized their best professional judgment in drawing the conclusions reported in this document. The team members are not to be held accountable for any injudicious or unauthorized use of this document.EXTENDED COMPREHENSIVE OUTCOMES EVALUATION SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PEER TEAM VISIT APRIL 26-27,1999 DUNBAR MAGNET MIDDLE SCHOOL ECOE VISITING TEAM MEMBERS MR. DAVID WATTS, GENERAL CHAIRPERSON Mr. Bob Bethurem, FSS Arkansas Dept, of Education #4 State Capitol Mall, Room 301-B Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Bruce Bryant, Teacher Perryville High School 803 N. Ash Street Perryville, AR 72126 Dr. Valerie Colyard, Professor Univ, of Ark. at Pine Bluff 1200 North University Pine Bluff, AR 71611 Ms. Tracey Dennis, Teacher Northwood Junior High School 10200 Bamboo Lane No. Little Rock, AR 72120 Dr. Virginia Anderson, Assistant Principal Arkadelphia High School Highway 8 Arkadelphia, AR 71923 Ms. Sue Reeves, Principal Bryant Middle School 200 N. W. 4* Street Bryant, AR 72022 TARGET AREAS OF FOCUS School Climate Monitoring and Assessment of Student Achievement Parent \u0026amp; Community Involvement High ExpectationsFOREWORD On April 26-27, 1999, representatives of the Arkansas Department of Education visited Dunbar Magnet Middle School. The comments of this report have been based on the visitors observations and the findings produced by the faculty. It is the hope of the Arkansas Department of Education that the observations and recommendations included in this report will assist the faculty and administration of Dunbar Magnet Middle School as they proceed to the implementation and evaluation of the School Improvement Plan. As a goal of the visiting team, recommendations have been made to reinforce the schools conclusions prepared in the School Improvement Plan. These recommendations, in many cases, will not be new and different, but are in support of the school improvement teams conclusions. Recommendations have been made to foster further service and discussion, not to provide specifics of name and topic to utilize. The school is to be commended for its dedication to the ECOE school improvement process. This was evident by the involvement of the faculty and the release time allowed for the ECOE School Improvement Plan development. The mission statement is woven throughout this plan and should be strengthened by the changes to middle-level concepts for future planning. There is community involvement with the school that is commendable. The faculty and administration continue to provide an atmosphere to promote success for all students. The visiting team would like to take this opportunity to thank the Dunbar Magnet Middle School ECOE Steering Committee, staff, administration, students, board, and community representatives for a superb visit. The student guides certainly did their utmost to provide directions to specific areas and to assist with information. The food and various amenities provided by parents and local businesses added to an atmosphere of cooperation and collaboration. Thanks for making this ECOE team visit valuable through the process utilized and the School Improvement Plan developed to meet the needs of all the students at Dunbar Magnet Middle School.VISITING TEAM REPORT School Improvement Recommendations: 1. As the ACTAAP and Smart Start Initiative continue to unfold into upper grade levels, incorporate other test data, such as 4'*, 6', and 8* grade Benchmark Examinations (as well as SAT-9 data in order to better serve the needs of all your students. 2. Keep the steering committee intact to monitor progress of the School Improvement Plan. 3. Meet all committees on a regular basis to evaluate progress toward student achievement and to celebrate successes. 4. Continue to provide time for ECOE committees to meet and for staff development. 5. Continue to include technology in the classrooms in an administrative, as well as, instructional way to help meet the needs of the students. 6. Continue to provide opportunities for the alignment and mapping of the curriculum based upon the Arkansas Frameworks as you incorporate the middle-level concepts.SCHOOL CLIMATE Strengths: 1. The positive attitude of the faculty and staff proved to be a prevailing strength. Each interview was positive in nature and reflected pride and belonging to the family of Dunbar. 2. The history of the building generated a lot of pride in the faculty, administrators, staff, and parents. 3. Family and community partnerships were apparent\nthis is consistent with the mission statement of the district. 4. A challenging curriculum is offered for each student. All students are afforded the opportunity to participate as part of the cultures and languages mentioned as a passport to the future in the Dunbar mission statement. Students appeared to recognize this. 5. The faculty stated that the principal is consistent and fair and is perceived as having the best interest of the students and staff as priorities. 6. The Technology Committee and CLT are definite assets to the school. Recommendations: 1. Student achievement should be the focus of the School Improvement Plan. This is consistent with the objectives of the ECOE process and relates directly to the mission statements of the district and the school. Rely more on actions that can be accomplished by the staff and less on tasks required by those outside the teaching cadre. 2. Utilize a variety of data such as normative and criterion-referenced, perceptual, and archival to support target areas and to provide more concrete evaluation of successes and completed actions. This will assist in keeping the plan student-centered. 3. Each member of the committee should be assigned proportionate responsibilities for facilitating the School Improvement Plan. Make certain that each person on the committee is familiar with the plan and is an active, informed participant. 4. A gifted and talented magnet needs more hands-on opportunities for technology! By definition the international studies concept is better addressed with on-line terminals accessed by all students. A computer lab(s) should be added as a district priority. This would also allow the faculty to utilize computerized grading systems. This should increase both student and faculty morale and address the mission statement to a fuller degree. It would also provide another teaching and research method for teacher use.5. Cleanliness was mentioned as an area of needed improvement\nspecifically, restrooms. The school should explore the possibility of more site-based management of the custodial staff. The perception is that there are not enough custodians to keep the building clean. Check with the Arkansas State Department of Education for the number of personnel required to clean the area in the building. This is an administrative concern more than a student achievement concern. MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT Strengths: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The principal, assistant principals, and faculty seem very supportive of the change to the middle school. There seems to be a positive relationship and cohesiveness among the administration and faculty. The displaying of students work is good to boost their self-esteem. Good use if made of student achievement data to identify student needs by sub-groups. Moving to the adoption of block scheduling and teaming will be very positive in enhancing student performance. Recommendations: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Incorporating cooperative learning in classes will enhance student learning and boost their self-esteem. It is imperative that the entire faculty buy in to the middle school concept. Therefore, It is recommended that faculty development in the concept and philosophy of the middle school be provided to the faculty and administration. Attractive learning environments enhance student learning and can reinforce learning. Therefore, consider requiring your faculty to pay attention to improving the classroom appearance. Give consideration to providing faculty development in the areas of teaming and thematic curriculum planning. This will aid in providing success for students. Consider writing a grant to IBM or some other groups to secure computers for students to enable them to have access to the world-wide web in order to improve/expand their education.6. Good use was made of the data to identify the academic performance of sub-groups. This information needs to be used to provide academic support for such sub-groups in order to 7. improve their academic performance. Encouraging faculty to become members of the state and national middle school association is highly recommended. This membership provides members with additional materials, information, and experiences which are useful in teaching. PARENT AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT Strengths: 1. Utilization of the Men of Dunbar and the Alumni Association as elements of the cornmumty has significantly improved the behavior and the motivation of students identified as at risk . 2. The identification of the need for a collaborative effort with Philander Smith College students as mentors and tutors developed into strategies that would renew past relationships. 3. The Partners in Education program has proved beneficial in providing needed funds for student involvement and enrichment. 4. The concept of grade-level orientation for in-coming students has prepared students and parents for the expectations of Dunbar Magnet Middle School. Recommendations: 1. Consideration should be given to expanding the program for at risk students. The expansion should utilize the Women of Dunbar and focus on those female students which are likewise at risk. 2. Consideration should be given to expanding the time frame of school-based events, (i.e.. Cultural Fair, Parent/Teacher Conference). Working parents may not be able to attend some of the functions under some of the proposed schedules seen by the team. a 3. Consideration should be given to creating a better relationship with statewide media in order to eliminate the bad press alluded to in the School Improvement Plan. Consider creating * liaison position in order to provide the news media with prompt information concerning good newsworthy items at Dunbar Magnet Middle School. 4. Consideration should be given to enhancing the Partnership in Education to include the display of student work or the utilization of student help at the partners places of business. Partners need to feel as if a partnership truly exists and that they are not just a source of financial help. This concept is mentioned in the School Improvement Plan, but is not developed into a stratedy.HIGH EXPECTATIONS Strengths: 1. A Dunbar Magnet Middle School strength is both the identification of underachieving students and the assignment of various mentoring/tutoring programs such as the Urban Leagues PARK and the Dunbar Alumnae Associations Men of Dunbar. 2. A Dunbar Magnet Middle School strength is the adoption of the block system to promote hands-on learning experience to provide and promote opportunities for underachieving students. The addition of classroom time will encourage more hands-on activities designed to address various learning styles and achievement levels. 3. A Dunbar Magnet Middle School strength is the promotion of journal writing in the schools math and science classes. This policy improves both teacher and student attitudes of creative writing by not limiting such writing to the language arts arena. 4. A Dunbar Magnet Middle School strength is its instructional mode to advance the use of higher-order thinking skills. Specifically, the seventh grade population experiences Culture Fair which combines English and social studies. The eighth grade population experiences science-based Earth Day with a focus on animal species. The future sixth grade population will experience English-based story telling. All of the grade-specific instructions have higher-order thinking skill components. 5. A Dunbar Magnet Middle School strength is its interdisciplinary teachings, which involve team teaching within the international studies electives. For example, there is Planet Earth for seventh and eighth graders. International Money for eighth and ninth graders, Leaders of the Twenty-first Century for ninth graders, and African studies for eighth and ninth graders. Recommendations: 1. The team recommends the reduction of language exploratory class student size to aid teachers in both achieving more positive student behavior and greater cuniculum participation. 2. The team recommends that all staff, via participation in curriculum teams, adopt a practice for alternative earning of points/grades to ensure that all learning styles are being net. This is specifically geared to the student population who has scored on or below 38 on the SAT Total Reading. 3. The team recommends that the schools English departments adopt an assessing tool such as the OBrien, to assess the entire school populations literacy growth rate. This is both an entrance and exit test, which is simple to administer and grade. Another bonus is that it is inexpensive. To be constructed so simply, it is a very accurate assessment tool for reading level growth throughout the year.4. The team recommends that the school adopts practices for classroom appearance in order to achieve uniformity. Many classrooms had posters, student work displayed, photos, pictures, catchy affirmatives, phrases, and slogans all to inspire students to achieve and reach their potential. Some classrooms were virtually void of such items. 5. The team recommends that the school adopts, via teacher teams or departments, a practice on standards for literacy which would include all classroom assignments and test questions be answered in complete sentences, all tests have a minimum of two essay questions, and all essay questions have a minimum of sentences, which would be grade-specific. Uniformity is needed in order for students to master literacy. 6. The team recommends that the school adopts practices which encougare more opportunities for written responses in both classroom work and tests, such as answering in complete sentences and answering in essay format.HENDERSON JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72204 APRIL 26-27,1999 EXTENDED COMPREHENSIVE OUTCOMES EVALUATION REPORT OF THE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT TEAM VISIT Submitted to: Dr. Les Camine, Superintendent May 17, 1999 Mr. Larry Buck, Principal Dr. Ward Bitely Steering Committee Chair Compiled by: Mr. David Watts Arkansas Department of Education Field Services Specialist Copy to: Dr. Dave Westmoreland Education Curriculum SupervisorSCOPE OF THE ECOE DOCUMENT It is the official intent of the Arkansas Department of Education that this report on the evaluation of the school be submitted by the chairperson of the visiting team directly to the administration of the school. The distribution of the report and its availability for public consideration beyond that point rest solely in the hands of those administrators. Neither the chairperson nor the other members of the evaluation team are authorized to release any of the information contained in this report without the approval of the administration of the school. The primary purpose of the evaluation team has been to examine the educational setting of the school, including courses of study, learning materials as well as student needs and interests. The evaluation team has attempted to assess the effectiveness of the total school improvement plan in meeting the educational objectives the school has established for itself. It has not been the purpose of the visiting team to evaluate individual teacher performance. The use of this report as an official assessment of any staff persons professional competency would be in violation of the process and the intent under which the school evaluation was conducted. Such use would be inherently invalid since at no time during the team visit has the team been concerned with the evaluation of individual teacher performance. Additionally, it has not been the purpose of the visiting team to prescribe a specific companys instructional materials or programs. The team has attempted to evaluate the schools learning materials in light of the needs of the students being served and the relationship of the materials to the goals and objectives of the school. Any reference to specific instructional materials contained in the team report is merely for consideration by the school. The school staff exercises the responsibility of selecting learning materials appropriate for the learner. The members of the evaluation team have utilized their best professional judgment in drawing the conclusions reported in this document. The team members are not to be held accountable for any injudicious or unauthorized use of this document.EXTENDED COMPREHENSIVE OUTCOMES EVALUATION SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PEER TEAM VISIT APRIL 26-27,1999 HENDERSON JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL ECOE VISITING TEAM MEMBERS MR. DAVID WATTS, GENERAL CHAIRPERSON Mr. Wes Whitley, FSS Arkansas Dept, of Education #4 State Capitol Mall, Room 301-B Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Woods, Assistant Principal NLR High School - West Campus 101 W. 22\"^* Street No. Little Rock, AR 72114 Dr. Paul Root, Professor Ouachita Baptist University 410 Ouachita Street Arkadelphia, AR' 71998 Ms. Ora Stevens, Vocational Education Department of Workforce Education #3 State Capitol Mall, Luther Hardin Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201-1083 Ms. Annette Barnes, Standards Assurance Arkansas Dept, of Education #4 State Capitol Mall, Room 305-B Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Paul Brewer, Assistant Superintendent Camden Fairview School District 625 Clifton Street Canden, AR 71701 TARGET AREAS OF FOCUS School Climate Monitoring and Assessment of Student Achievement Parent \u0026amp; Community Involvement TechnologyFOREWORD On April 26-27, 1999, representatives of the Arkansas Department of Education Henderson Health Sciences Magnet Junior High School. The comments of this report have been based on the visitors observations and the findings produced by the faculty. It is the hope of the Arkansas Department of Education that the observations and recommendations included in this report will assist the faculty and administration of Henderson Health Sciences Magnet Junior High School as they proceed to the implementation and evaluation of the School Improvement Plan. As a goal of the visiting team, recommendations have been made to reinforce the schools conclusions prepared in the School Improvement Plan. These recommendations, in many cases, will not be new and different, but are in support of the school improvement teams conclusions. Recommendations have been made to foster further service and discussion, not to provide specifics of name and topic to utilize. The visiting team wishes to express their gratitude for the courteous hospitality during the ECOE visit. The staff certainly helped make the visit a successful one by providing an atmosphere conducive to the needs of the team. The attitude of staff toward the school improvement process is a strong asset to the school and a testament to the level of professionalism and leadership displayed in the creation of this School Improvement Plan. The committees worked especially hard, as did the building chair, to address the most urgent needs of the school. As future school improvement efforts materialize, the plan will grow to include student performance issues and other curricular needs. The visiting team hopes that the records of the findings from the visit will help in the process.VISITING TEAM REPORT District Recommendations: 1. As the district continues to update its curriculum guides, it is advised that the Arkansas Curriculum Frameworks be consulted for correlation. 2. It is recommended that the Little Rock School District continues to provide technical support, leadership, and in-service to the schools engaged in the school improvement process. School Improvement Recommendations: 1, 2. 3. It is recommended that this school receive in-service training in the following areas: midlevel philosophy, evaluation/assessment techniques, data analysis, curriculum mapping, and the Arkansas Department of Education accountability initiative (ACTAAP). As a result of the reconfiguration of grade span grouping in the future of this school, it will be vitally important to continue the school improvement process. The use of co-chairs will help build on-going leadership among the staff. In-service on data analysis and curriculum issues will serve to direct the staff towards a more data-driven plan which addresses student pertbrmance in core areas. Release time will allow committees an opportunity to address performance data and facilitate a fluid and natural evolution of school improvement planning which will address the new middle school concept. As the school improvement evolves to include performance-related planning, it is recommended that the staff examines setting performance goals and actions which are measurable. This will be a valuable tool in measuring the success of the plan and modifying the plan as necessary.SCHOOL CLIMATE Strengths: 1. The staff should be complimented for its recognition of the importance of school climate and the actions that are to be implemented to ensure a positive transition that will be conducive to its reconfiguration as a middle school. 2. The foundational meetings between remaining staff and new staff will be an asset in accomplishing the goals of creating a climate designed to meet the needs of its new student population. 3. The installation of security cameras will foster a more realistic commitment to the goal of providing a safe and orderly institution of learning. Recommendations: 1. The committee should explore utilizing academic team structure to provide students with opportunities to demonstrate personal responsibility in maintaining the school climate and appearance of the school. For example, developing a student government structure within the social studies classes from each team with staff supervision of designated areas to encourage the participation of all students. 2. It is recommended that the committee revisit actions to make a more consistent flow of terminology to accurately communicate to all staff/students the intent of the actions of this improvement plan, (i.e., good behavior - appropriate behavior\nproblems of males - referrals of black males, etc.) 3. In order to accentuate the target areas of a positive school climate and a climate of high expectations, the staff must emulate these expectations to provide the encouragement necessary for the social and academic needs of the student population to be served. These expectations can be overtly demonstrated in dress, conduct, and behavior when passing through the halls and the rapport exhibited when dealing with student concerns. MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT Strengths: 1. The plan addresses divergent learning styles as well as allowing teachers some discretion in teaching styles. 2. It is commendable that the plan addresses the creation of a locally-made criterion-referenced diagnostic tool to assess student performance. 3. The use of community resources and peer tutoring is a positive influence in the school improvement effort.Recommendations: 1. It is recommended that future committees dealing with issues involving assessment rely on the data to drive school improvement decisions. This will allow school improvement decisions dealing with specific academic needs. 2. It is recommended that the school secure staff development training in the areas of: test data, interpretation, mid-level concepts, dual reporting for student assessment, and the Arkansas Department of Education Accountability/Assessment initiatives (ACTAAP). PARENT AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT Strengths: 1. The staff is warm and friendly. 2. The facility is conducive to good behavior and instructions 3. The presence of on-campus security is a plus. Recommendations: 1. Because the strength of a school involves the relationship among three groups, students, parents, and faculty, the school should continue to provide opportunities for parental involvement, (i.e.. Parent Conference Week, PTA, Open House, written communication such as report cards and newsletters, etc.) 2. Consideration should be given to including parents on the ECOE Steering Committee. This appears to be an excellent opportunity to involve parents. TECHNOLOGY Strengths: 1. The leadership team exhibits a very positive tone. 2. The staff at Henderson is warm, congenial, and professional. 3. The district provides a full-time technology coordinator who is knowledgeable and knows the culture of the school. 4. Every classroom has at least one computer with appropriate software for managing logistical matters. 5. Each member of the staff has an assigned e-mail address.6. The district provides in-service training in the use of technology for all staff members. 1. Computers are upgraded to accommodate a wide variety of programs. Recommendations: 1. Expand the magnet concept from the school-within-school concept to a school-wide concept. 2. Provide curriculum-specific software for special needs students. 3. Consider making in-service activities more meaningful by providing release time rather than after-school sessions. 4. Infuse technology into all areas of the curriculum. 5. Provide specificity in assigning positions/persons responsible for activities/strategies. 6. Establish a yearly school-wide Technology Fair. 7. A more specific time line is needed for completion of activities and strategies.SOUTHWEST JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72204 APRIL 28-29,1999 EXTENDED COMPREHENSIVE OUTCOMES EVALUATION REPORT OF THE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT TEAM VISIT Submitted to\nDr. Les Camine, Superintendent May 17, 1999 Mr. Jim Mosby, Principal Ms. Colleen Ferguson Steering Committee Chair Compiled by\nMr. David Watts Arkansas Department of Education Field Services Specialist Copy to: Dr. Dave Westmoreland Education Curriculum SupervisorSCOPE OF THE ECOE DOCUMENT It is the official intent of the Arkansas Department of Education that this report on the evaluation of the school be submitted by the chairperson of the visiting team directly to the administration of the school. The distribution of the report and its availability for public consideration beyond that point rest solely in the hands of those administrators. Neither the chairperson nor the other members of the evaluation team are authorized to release any of the information contained in this report without the approval of the administration of the school. The primary purpose of the evaluation team has been to examine the educational setting of the school, including courses of study, learning materials as well as student needs and interests. The evaluation team has attempted to assess the effectiveness of the total school improvement plan in meeting the educational objectives the school has established for itself. It has not been the purpose of the visiting team to evaluate individual teacher performance. The use of this report as an official assessment of any staff persons professional competency would be in violation of the process and the intent under which the school evaluation was conducted. Such use would be inherently invalid since at no time during the team visit has the team been concerned with the evaluation of individual teacher performance. Additionally, it has not been the purpose of the visiting team to prescribe a specific companys instructional materials or programs. The team has attempted to evaluate the schools learning materials in light of the needs of the students being served and the relationship of the materials to the goals and objectives of the school. Any reference to specific instructional materials contained in the team report is merely for consideration by the school. The school staff exercises the responsibility of selecting learning materials appropriate for the learner. The members of the evaluation team have utilized their best professional judgment in drawing the conclusions reported in this document. The team members are not to be held accountable for any injudicious or unauthorized use of this document.EXTENDED COMPREHENSIVE OUTCOMES EVALUATION SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PEER TEAM VISIT APRIL 28-29,1999 SOUTHWEST JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL ECOE VISITING TEAM MEMBERS MR. DAVID WATTS, GENERAL CHAIRPERSON Ms. Alice Simelton, FSS Arkansas Dept, of Education #4 State Capitol Mall, Room 301-B Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Beverly Slavens, Teacher Arkadelphia High School Highway 8 Arkadelphia, AR 71923 Mr. Bill Allen, Professor 205 Mockingbird Lane Hot Springs, AR 71913 Mr. Delton Kitchell, Principal Bryant Junior High School 200 N.W. 4 Street Bryant, AR 72022 Ms. Lillian Rutter, Teacher Robinson Junior High School 21001 Highway 10 Little Rock, AR 72212 Dr. Benny Gooden, Superintendent Fort Smith School District P. O. Box 1948 Fort Smith, AR 72902 TARGET AREAS OF FOCUS School Climate Monitoring and Assessment of Student Achievement Parent \u0026amp; Community Involvement High ExpectationsFOREWORD On April 28-29, 1999, representatives of the Arkansas Department of Education Southwest Junior High School. The comments of this report have been based on the visitors observations and the findings produced by the faculty. It is the hope of the Arkansas Department of Education that the observations and recommendations included in this report will assist the faculty and administration of Southwest Junior High School as they proceed to the implementation and evaluation of the School Improvement Plan. As a goal of the visiting team, recommendations have been made to reinforce the schools conclusions prepared in the School Improvement Plan. These recommendations, in many cases, will not be new and different, but are in support of the school improvement teams conclusions. Recommendations have been made to foster further service and discussion, not to provide specifics of name and topic to utilize. Southwest Junior High School is to be commended for providing staff development opportunities such as the Paideia Program and Positive Classroom Discipline and Instruction. It is noteworthy that student work was displayed throughout the building on the various grade levels. The plan as outlined, that is designed for the success of all students, appears to be sound and will accomplish that end. The ECOE visiting team would like to take the opportunity to thank the Southwest Junior High ECOE Steering Committee, staff, administration, and students for a most congenial team visit. The staff and students were courteous and cooperative throughout the visit. The food and gifts that were provided were graciously accepted and appreciated. Thank you again for making the ECOE team visit a valuable and rewarding experience.VISITING TEAM REPORT School Improvement Recommendations: 1. Provide accessible telephones for each wing of the building. 2. Cover exposed wiring throughout the building and replace tiles throughout the building. 3. The portable buildings are in poor shape and in much need of repairs or replacement.MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT Strengths: 1. The leadership provided at Southwest Jr. High School is an asset to the program with time allowed working as a team. 2. The procedures used to increase time in the classroom should reduce disciplinary problems and increase the academic skills of the students. 3. The tutoring program at Southwest Jr. High shows potential with tracking the students performances. Recommendations: 1. Consider requesting SAT-9 test samples from the testing center for each department to prepare the students for the SAT-9 tests. 2. It is recommended that the district increase opportunities for staff development for all of the staff. 3. Consider expanding the tutoring programs. (Southwest Jr. High,,U.A.L.R., Philander Smith College) STUDENT CLIMATE Strengths: 1. The decrease in enrollment enhances the size of classes at Southwest Jr. High School. The smaller classes can attribute to a more positive atmosphere and a closer relationship between the teachers and the students. 2. There is a more than adequate percentage of students who feel that the teachers and students have a sense of pride and work collaboratively. The percentages are also more than adequate for a conducive atmosphere to learning and the maintenance and management of the building and grounds. 3. Participation in incentive programs seems to be extremely positive. 4. Adequate monies are available for the purchase of classroom supplies.MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT Strengths: 1. The leadership provided at Southwest Jr. High School is an asset to the program with time allowed working as a team. Ideas should be developed to address this need. 2. The procedures used to increase time in the classroom should reduce disciplinary problems and increase the academic skills of the students. New instruction strategies might be in order. 3. The tutoring program at Southwest Jr. High shows potential with tracking the students performances. Recommendations: 1. Consider requesting SAT-9 test samples from the testing center for each department to prepare the students for the SAT-9 tests. 2. It is recommended that the district increase opportunities for staff development for all of the staff. 3. Consider expanding the tutoring programs. (Southwest Jr. High, U.A.L.R., Philander Smith College) STUDENT CLIMATE Strengths: 1. The decrease in enrollment enhances the size of classes at Southwest Jr. High School. The smaller classes can attribute to a more positive atmosphere and a closer relationship between the teachers and the students. 2. There is a more than adequate percentage of students who feel that the teachers and students have a sense of pride and work collaboratively. The percentages are also more than adequate for a conducive atmosphere to learning and the maintenance and management of the building and grounds. 3. Participation in incentive programs seems to be extremely positive. 4. Adequate monies are available for the purchase of classroom supplies.MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT Strengths: 1. The leadership provided at Southwest Jr. High School is an asset to the program with time allowed working as a team. 2. The procedures used to increase time in the classroom should reduce disciplinary problems and increase the academic skills of the students. 3. The tutoring program at Southwest Jr. High shows potential with tracking the students performances. Recommendations: 1. Consider requesting SAT-9 test samples from the testing center for each department to prepare the students for the SAT-9 tests. 2. It is recommended that the district increase opportunities for staff development for all of the staff. 3. Consider expanding the tutoring programs. (Southwest Jr. High, U.A.L.R., Philander Smith College) STUDENT CLIMATE Strengths: 1. The decrease in enrollment enhances the size of classes at Southwest Jr. High School. The smaller classes can attribute to a more positive atmosphere and a closer relationship between the teachers and the students. 2. There is a more than adequate percentage of students who feel that the teachers and students have a sense of pride and work collaboratively. The percentages are also more than adequate for a conducive atmosphere to learning and the maintenance and management of the building and grounds. 3. Participation in incentive programs seems to be extremely positive. 4. Adequate monies are available for the purchase of classroom supplies. Recommendations: 1. Despite the decrease in school enrollment, suspensions for 1998 increased. Ideas should be developed to address this need.2. 3. 4. Contrary to the decrease in class sizes and teacher-student ratio, the overall grade point average and Stanford-9 scores are extremely low. New instruction strategies might be in order. There are visible signs of peeling paint, exposed wiring, and loose tiles. Revamp drainage in the front of the building. In an effort to improve reading and language scores, consider implementing a remediation program on all levels. 5. All seventh graders who score below the 50* percentile on the SAT-9 should be required to take remedial reading. This will require at least one more full-time reading teacher. 6. Teachers in all disciplines should be encouraged to teach reading in their content area(s). 7. In an effort to encourage and continue learning after school hours, implement a Homework Policy. PARENT AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT Strengths: 1. 2. 3. An aggressive program designed to encourage parent involvement, including the Parent Club, the use of VIPS, an office for PTA use, and increased PTSA enrollment is a strength. Effective team approach which provides: teacher planning time with opportunities for sharing ideas and methods\na sense of belonging for the students\nand convenient conference times for parents. An administrative team with high campus visibility, with commitment to students and a vision of the potential of SWMS\nand with appreciation for the faculty and staff and a desire to help them succeed, if they choose to do so. Teacher-student ratios enhance the potential for changing negative statistics. Recommendations: 1. Strengthen the School Improvement Plan by completing staff development and documentation areas of the outcomes by providing evaluation procedures for all outcomes, by eliminating ambiguity of outcome 1, by naming specific persons to oversee the actions, and by identifying, at least one time, acronyms and program labels. Southwest Jr. High is doing more than the report indicates. 2. Continue developing connections with colleges/universities and community organizations. Philander Smith College and U.A.L.R. provide opportunities which can be expanded particularly in areas like social workers, interns, extra-help sessions, etc. 3. Provide training and incentives for interested personnel in grant writing. The cost is minimal compared to benefits available through local, state, and federal agencies.HIGH EXPECTATIONS Strengths: 1. Classroom posters reflecting the need for a positive attitude with regard to learning were posted in most classrooms visited. This displays the emphasis that has been placed on a positive attitude toward learning. 2. There was a visible display of student work in most classrooms. Creating pride in a students work is a step toward helping develop the attitude needed to improve test scores. The planned action to purchase a marquee is a good one and should also help in this area. 3. The period allowed for team planning across the curriculum should be helpful with implementing the guidelines and suggestions of Smart Start with regard to teaching across the curriculum. 4. The availability of two security guards and two assistant principals for dealing with students lingering in the hallways (tardies) is a definite strength of this school. Recommendations: 1. Be specific as to who has the responsibility to see that each action is implemented. Place the name of the person on the list. As personnel changes, the name of the responsible person will change. 2. Purchase materials for math and reading teachers that help with test-taking procedures. Example: Test Best, PAM. Look at programs such as Accelerated Reader and/or Accelerated Math to influence students' attitude toward these subject areas and help them obtain the required skills to improve in these areas. 3. Implement a one-minute warning bell with a different tone to help with student tardies. Students who are visiting with their friends will then know it is time to head to class. 4. Consider a Differentiated Action Plan (DAP) for students below a 2.00 GPA. Every student in school (or place emphasis on Math and Reading) would be assigned to an advisor (teacher). The counselor would create a folder for each student and have grade information available for teachers at the time of every progress report or nine weeks. Grade information would be placed in the folder by the advisor when received. It would then be given a time to talk with the student (a different schedule could be run one day) and would be required to attempt to make contact with the parent by phone, in person (have the parent come to school) or be letter. A form would be kept in the counselors office for the advisor to document the number of attempts made. At least three are suggested. Parental contact can often be the difference in success and failure. Most parents will appreciate this personal touch.Il BADGETT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 APRIL 26-27,1999 EXTENDED COMPREHENSIVE OUTCOMES EVALUATION REPORT OF THE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT TEAM VISIT Submitted to: Dr. Les Gamine, Superintendent May 17, 1999 Ms. Mary Golston, Principal Ms. Betty Trimble Steering Committee Chair and Ms. Rejeana Albert Steering Committee Co-Chair Compiled by\nMr. David Watts Arkansas Department of Education Field Services Specialist Copy to: Dr, Dave Westmoreland Education Curriculum SupervisorI' SCOPE OF THE ECOE DOCUMENT It is the official intent of the Arkansas Department of Education that this report on the evaluation of the school be submitted by the chairperson of the visiting team directly to the administration of the school. The distribution of the report and its availability for public consideration beyond that point rest solely in the hands of those administrators. Neither the chairperson nor the other members of the evaluation team are authori2ed to release any of the information contained in this report without the approval of the administration of the school. The primary purpose of the evaluation team has been to examine the educational setting of the school, including courses of study, learning materials as well as student needs and interests. The evaluation team has attempted to assess the effectiveness of the total school improvement plan in meeting the educational objectives the school has established for itself. It has not been the purpose of the visiting team to evaluate individual teacher performance. The use of this report as an official assessment of any staff persons professional competency would be in violation of the process and the intent under which the school evaluation was conducted. Such use would be inherently invalid since at no time during the team visit has the team been concerned with the evaluation of individual teacher performance. Additionally, it has not been the purpose of the visiting team to prescribe a specific companys instructional materials or programs. The team has attempted to evaluate the schools learning materials in light of the needs of the students being served and the relationship of the materials to the goals and objectives of the school. Any reference to specific instructional materials contained in the team report is merely for consideration by the school. The school staff exercises the responsibility of selecting learning materials appropriate for the learner. The members of the evaluation team have utilized their best professional judgment in drawing the conclusions reported in this document. The team members are not to be held accountable for any injudicious or unauthorized use of this document.EXTENDED COMPREHENSIVE OUTCOMES EVALUATION SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PEER TEAM VISIT APRIL 26-27,1999 BADGETT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ECOE VISITING TEAM MEMBERS MR. DAVID WATTS, GENERAL CHAIRPERSON Ms. Alice Simelton, FSS Arkansas Dept, of Education #4 State Capitol Mall, Room 301-B Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Debbie Morris, Teacher Joe T. Robinson Elementary School 21600 Highway 10 Little Rock, AR 72212 Dr. Kenneth Harris, Professor Henderson State Univejsity 1100 Henderson Street: Arkadelphia, AR 7199$ Ms. Terri Kief\u0026amp;er, ADE FSS Northwest Ark. Educ. Ser. Coop. 409 N. Thompson Springdale, AR 72764 Ms. Chris Dayer, Princijpal Mayflower Elementary School P. O. Box 127 Mayflower, AR 72106^ Mr. Bill Spicer, Principal Elmer H. Cook Elementary School 3517 Brooken Hill Drive Fort Smith, AR 72903 TARGET AREAS OF FOCUS School Climate Monitoring and Assessment of Student Achievement Parent \u0026amp; Community Involvement High ExpectationsV * FOREWORD On April 26-27,1999, representatives of the Arkansas Department of Education visited Badgett Elementary School. The comments of this report have been based on the visitors observations and the findings produced by the faculty. It is the ho^ of the Arkansas Department of Education that the observations and recommendations included in this report will assist the faculty and administration of Badgett Elementary School as they proceed to the implementation and evaluation of the School Improvement Plan. As a goal of the visiting team, recommendations have been made to reinforce the schools conclusions prepared in the School Improvement Plan. These recommendations, in many cases, will not be new and different, but are in support of the school improvement teams conclusions. Recommendations have been made to foster further service and discussion, not to provide specifics of name and topic to utilize. Badgett Elementary School is to be commended for the many staff development opportumties for the faculty, such as the Smart Start Initiative, School Wide, Title I, and Enhance Incentive programs. The students that were provided as escorts did an outstanding job\nthey were courteous and knowledgeable. They showed a great deal of pride in their school, the faculty, and the staff\nand, the Brag Boards in each classroom serve to reinforce that pride. It is evident that the community is an important part of the Badgett experience through the many programs provided such as the Volunteer Recognition Luncheon, after-school tutoring, Health Fair, parent involvement, and many others. The ECOE team would like to take this opportunity to thank the Badgett Elementary ECOE Steering Committee, staff, administration, and students for a very enjoyable visit. The staff was courteous and cooperative in providing information upon request and generally taking care of any need that was expressed by the visiting team. The food and gifts provided by the school partners were greatly appreciated. Thanks for making this ECOE team visit valuable through the process utilized and the School Improvement Plan developed to meet the needs of all students at Badgett Elementary School,VISITING TEAM REPORT School Improvement Recommendations: 1. Repairing the server and computers in the school as soon as possible is necessary. 2, Repairing the tile flooring and tom carpets throughout the school is needed.SCHOOL CLIMATE Strengths: 1. The school is to be commended for providing numerous opportunities for students to develop leadership skills. 2. The staff members appear to have a genuine desire to provide students with opportunities to develop pride and respect for their school and its appearance. 3. The schools interior appearance is clean, pleasant, and conducive to learning. Reconunendations\n1. Those responsible for landscaping might contact the Cooperative Extension Service for suggestions and help with landscaping. 2. Work orders prioritizing areas in need of carpeting being replaced or repaired might be considered due to staff and student safety. MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT Strengths: 1. There is a strong sense of community among faculty and staff. 2. The physical atmosphere is neat, clean, and inviting. 3. The pupil-teacher ratio is noteworthy. Recommendations: 1. 2. 3. Consider investigating and implementing existing intervention and remediation programs, such as Direct Instruction, HOTS (Higher Order Thinking Skills), ELLA (Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas), Reading Recovery, etc. U.A.L.R. is an excellent resource to assist in providing the training in moat of these programs. Consider extending your after-school tutoring program for all students as opposed to just 3\"* graders. Grants might be sought to help with this issue. Consider a more systemic and aggressive professional development program aimed at enhancing the instructional delivery system of teachers and instructional aides.I' 4, Consider implementing Family Math Night on a periodic basis, thus, allowing for engagement of family and school in the students education . Contact the principal at Perritt Primary school in Arkadelphia for more information about this program if interested. 5. Teachers should focus on using more manipulatives, hands-on, thematic units as instructional tools. PARENT AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT Strengths: 1. 2. 3. The school had a warm sense of community. This was evident from the office with a secretary who began as a grandparent volunteer and extended throughout the building. The schools plan reflects activities that seek to address needs in the community. Activities planned take into consideration difficulties that parents may have getting family members together and getting them to an activity. Leadership in the school placed an emphasis on parent and grandparent involvement which extended from the classroom throughout the building to the grounds. This was evident in the number of parents and grandparents who were present each day as volunteers and the landscaping and flowers inside and outside the building which was done with the help of volunteers. Recommendations: 1. It is recommended that the district make the repairs needed to reopen the computer lab and install wiring which would make it Internet accessible. The school could share this with members of the community who already come to the school frequently. 2. The school might explore capitalizing on the cooperation they already have with their cafeteria manager and try using one of their two programs they have every year as a dinner theater. The cafeteria with the stage lends itself to this event. 3. Consideration should be given by the district to encourage the strong sense of community exhibited by this school by allowing them to apply for grants on an individual basis rather than through the district. There are several grants they would have an excellent chance to receive due to the degree of parent involvement they have.I' HIGH EXPECTATIONS Strengths: 1. Students were well-behaved and polite. Staff was very warm and appeared to care about all students. 2. Class sizes are to be commended. A low teacher/student ratio certainly is a positive factor! 3. Great Business Partners! Webster University and the Little Rock Chamber of Commerce are to be commended for their dedication and support. Recommendations: I 1. The team recommends that the computer lab is repaired. The file server has been down for several months. The staff will not be able to fulfill their technology mission with thew computer lab being inaccessible. i 2. Consider including more grades than the third grade in the tutoring program. Since testing scores are so low, a school-wide after-school tutoring program is desperately needed. 3. Consider contacting Philander Smith College or U.A.L.R. and have a fraternity or other club adopt the mentoring program for their community service work, This would be a simple method for obtaining mentors. 4. So that students do not miss valuable instruction in the regular classroom when they pullet out for Title I activities, consider having the Title I instructors come in to the classrooms and work directly with the teachers and students. are. FROM : CHICOT ELEMENTARY PHONE NO. : 501 570 4194 Jul. 30 2001 09:0gAM P2 CHICOT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT MABELVALE, ARKANSAS 72103 APRIL 26-27,1999 EXTENDED COMPREHENSIVE OUTCOMES EVALUATION REPORT OF THE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT TEAM VISIT Submitted to: Dr. Les Camine, Superintendent May 17, 1999 Ms. Jane Harkey, Principal Mr. John Burgin And Ms. Barbara Williams Steering Committee Co-Chairs Compiled by: Mr. David Watts Arkansas Department of Education Field Services Specialist Copy to: Dr. Dave Westmoreland Education Curriculum Supervisor. FROM : CHICOT ELEMENTARY PHONE NO. : 501 570 4194 Jul. 30 2001 0g:09AM P3 SCOPE OF THE ECOE DOCUMENT It is the official intent of the Arkansas Department of Education that this report on the evaluation of the school be submitted by the chaiiperson of the visiting team directly to the administration of the school. The distribution of the report and its availability for public consideration beyond that point rest solely in the hands of those administrators. Neither the chairperson nor the other members of the evaluation team are authorized to release any of the information contained in this report without the approval of the administration of the school. The primary purpose of the evaluation team has been to examine the educational setting of the school, including courses of study, learning materials as well as student needs and interests. The evaluation team has attempted to assess the effectiveness of the total school improvement plan in meeting the educational objectives the school has established for itself. It has not been the purpose of the visiting team to evaluate individual teacher performance. Tlie use of this report as an official assessment of any staff persons professional competency would be in violation of the process and the intent under which the school evaluation was conducted. Such use would be inherently invalid since at no time during the team visit has the team been concerned with the evaluation of individual teacher performance. Additionally, it has not been the purpose of the visiting team to prescribe a specific companys instructional materials or programs. The team has attempted to evaluate the schools learning materials in light of the need.s of the students being served and the relationship of the materials to the goals and objectives of the school. Any reference to specific instructional materials contained in the team report is merely for consideration by the school. The school staff exercises the responsibility of selecting learning materials appropriate for the learner. The members of the evaluation team have utilized their best professional judgment in drawing the conclusions reported in this document. The team members are not to be held accountable for any injudicious or unauthorized use of this document..FROM : CHICOT ELEMENTARY PHONE ND. : 501 570 4194 Jul. 30 2001 09\n10PN P4 EXTENDED COMPREHENSIVE OUTCOMES EVALUATION SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PEER TEAM VISIT APRIL 26-27,1999 CHICOT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ECOE VISITING TEAM MEMBERS MR. DAVID WATTS, GENERAL CHAIRPERSON Ms. Deborah Bland, ADE FSS Great Rivers Cooperative P. O. Box 2837 West Helena, AR 72390 Ms- Becky Stanley, Counselor Pine Forest Elementary School 400 Pine Forest Drive Maumelle, AR 72113 Ms. Annette Holeyfield, Professor Arkansas Tech University Health \u0026amp; Phys. Ed. Dept.- Hull Bldg. Russellville, AR 72801 Ms. Renee Treadwell, G/T Coordinator Southeast Ark. Educ. Ser. Cooperative 1022 Scogin Drive Monticello, AR 71655 Ms. Gloria Reynolds, Assistant Principal Cato Elementary School 9906 Cato Road No. Little Rock, AR 72120 Mr. Austin Z. Hanner 403 Loop R Little Rock, AR 72120 TARGET AREAS OF FOCUS Discipline Curriculum Monitoring and Assessment of Student Achievement CommunicationFROM : CHICOT ELEMENTARY PHONE NO. : 501 570 4194 Jul. 30 2001 09:10AM P5 FOREWORD On April 26-27,1999, representatives of the Arkansas Department of Education visited CWcot Elementary School. The comments of this report have been based on the visitors observations and the findings produced by the faculty. It is the hope of the Arkansas Department of Education that the observations and recommendations included in this report will assist the faculty and administration of Chicot Elementary School as they proceed to the implementation and evaluation of the School Improvement Plan. As a goal of tlie visiting team, recommendations have been made to reinforce the school s conclusions prepared in the School Improvement Plan. These recommendations, in many cases, will not be new and different, but are in support of the school improvement teams conclusions. Recommendations have been made to foster further service and discussion, not to provide specifics of name and topic to utilize. Peer helpers warmly greeted the visiting team to Chicot Elementary School. We were escorted to our work area and introduced to the principal, steering committee and target chairpersons. Chicot Elementary began the ECOE school improvement process in the fall of 1997. A new mission statement was adopted which focuses on the staffs responsibility to equip students with the tools to piusue lifelong learning while fostering academic achievement, citizenship, and emotional well-being. During the development of the School Improvement Plan, the Little Rock School District developed new curriculum standards, the Department of Education introduced the Smart Start Initiative, and Chicot Elementary was designated a model technology school. Although initially seen as challenging, these factors were embraced and incorporated into the School Improvement Plan. Monitoring and Assessment, Cuniculum, Discipline, and Communication were chosen as target areas after the staff completed an assessment of needs and collected archival, perceptual, and achievement data. The school chose to use the 1998 test scores (SAT-9, Benchmark) as baseline data that will be used to evaluate their progress from this point in time forward. The school is to be commended for converting the ECOE teams into permanent teams that will report progress of action implementation and goal attainment to the newly developed Campus Leadership Team. The Campus Leadership Team will also be responsible for updating the schools achievement database. Correlating Jostens software with the Little Rock School District Standards, expanding Accelerated Reader, increasing the use of math manipulatives, daily writing, and the use of assignment books are examples of actions that have been implemented and are proving to be successful. It is obvious that improving student achievement is the primary goal of the Chicot Elementary Staff. The visiting team would like to thank the faculty, administration, and students for wonderful two-day visit and for making our stay as pleasant as possible (in spite of the tornado drill). Thank you for the various meals, snacks, and other amenities. Please consider the following recommendations.FROM : CHICOT ELEMENTARY PHONE NO.\n501 570 4194 Jul. 30 2001 09:11AM PE VISITING TEAM REPORT 1. Consider revisiting the goals to ensure assessments have been assigned that will measure performance improvement. 2. Consider utilizing the Arkansas Department of Education Math Specialists to provide additional strategies that will enhance classroom instruction and increase math achievement. 3. Consider incorporating Smart Start staff development activities into the School Improvement Plan. 4. Consider setting benchmarks (desired levels of performance) for students driven by the schools achievement data. Benchmarks will facilitate the documentation of progress the school wishes to achieve by a specific date. 5. The team recommends revisiting the actions (where necessary) to ensure the articulation of specific steps that will result in implementing the actions and achieving the goals, (i.e., Action Three in the Communication Target Area states encourage the use of Telephone Voice Message System. How will this be done? How will you evaluate its effectiveness?)'FROM : CHICOT ELEMENTARY PHONE NO. : 501 570 4194 Jul. 30 2001 09: HAM P7 1 MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT Strengths: 1. The technology program that is in place is strong, and it has the potential to contribute to student achievement. 2. The number of aides for this school per classroom involvement is a strength. 3. The commitment and enthusiasm of the staff to the ECOE school improvement process is noteworthy. Recommendations: 1. 2. 3. 4. The team recommends the development of an accessible and easy-to-use system so each teacher may determine academic deficiencies for each child and determine strategies to address the deficient areas, (for norm-referenced tests (NRT) and criterion-referenced tests (CRT) The visiting team recommends the addition of the counselor and assistant principal to the Monitoring and Assessment Committee. Utilizing their expertise will strengthen the interpretation and reporting of the test results to the students, parents, and teachers. Consider providing staff development for all teachers in the use and organization of portfolios. Consider student-led conferences with portfolios during teacher/parent conferences. CURRICULUM Strengths: 1. The utilization of science kits from the National Science Resource Center provides hands-on experiences and learning for all fifth grade students at Chicot. 2. The correlation of the Jostens Computer programs with the Little Rock School District Frameworks in an effort to prepare students to score average or above average on the CRT. Recommendations: 1. Consider utilizing the Title One Instructional Assistants to monitor students while on computers to ensure students are working on assigned skills and mastering those skills before moving on to other skills to improve outcomes for all students. 2. The team recommends that all staff members be in-serviced on the implementation of TURK, which is being used as a resource for increasing the use of manipulatives and integrating problem-solving with e language arts.FROM : CHICOT ELEMENTARY PHONE NO. : 501 570 4194 Jul. 30 2001 09:12AM P8 DISCIPLINE Strengths: 1. The faculty is aware of discipline problems and is eager and willing to initiate and adapt to changes that must be implemented in order for improvement to occur. Recommendations: 1. The team recommends revisiting the data regarding disciplinary actions. Identify the subpopulation of repeat offenders. Analyze characteristics which may then drive the selection of the new school-wide discipline plan. 2. 3. Implementation of a school uniform code has little chance of success without broad-based parental support\ntherefore, the team recommends continual research on this issue. Establish two-way communication with parents in venues other than the parent surveys to allow parents to be a part of the decision-making process. It is recommended that periodic evaluation of the assessment data be done to determine if tlie actions are improving student achievement by increasing appropriate behavior. Consider establishing short-term objectives and a time line to measure progress toward reaching the goal. (i.e. reduce out-of-school suspensions by 25% by year 2000) COMMUNICATION Strengths: 1. The staff appears to be dedicated to improving the educational opportunities for the students at Chicot Elementary School. 2. The staff has recognized several avenues that would improve the communication levels with parents. 3. The Title One parent workshops have proven to be a success as indicated by the number of parents in attendance. 4. The target area committees will become permanent committees to continuously reevaluate, revise, and refine the plan to meet the needs of this schools population. Recommendations: 1. Consider including parents as members of this committee. It may call for more flexible 2. scheduling to meet their time schedules. Consider including the VIPS personnel in this committee. They may have insight into some ideas that would be helpful.rPOM : CHICOT ELEMENTARY PHONE NO. : 501 570 4194 Jul. 30 2001 09:i2flM P9 3. Continue to define the actions so shape. that research and design and encourage take a more finite 4. In an effort to expand communication, consider including actions that would improve communication among the staff. 5. [ he team recommenus levlMihig the action of utilizing the website as a process to improve coXicSoar=^ The socio-eeonomic level of to coy m-gh. no. .nd,cate The team recommends revisiting this as a practical strategy.ROMINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72204 APRIL 28-29,1999 EXTENDED COMPREHENSIVE OUTCOMES EVALUATION REPORT OF THE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT TEAM VISIT Submitted to: Dr. Les Camine, Superintendent May 17, 1999 Ms. Sharon Davis, Principal Ms. Dana Duncan And Ms. Anna Louise Phillips Steering Committee Co-Chairs Compiled by\nMr. David Watts Arkansas Department of Education Field Services Specialist Copy to: Dr. Dave Westmoreland Education Curriculum SupervisorSCOPE OF THE ECOE DOCUMENT It is the official intent of the Arkansas Department of Education that this report on the evaluation of the school be submitted by the chairperson of the visiting team directly to the administration of the school. The distribution of the report and its availability for public consideration beyond that point rest solely in the hands of those administrators. Neither the chairperson nor the other members of the evaluation team are authorized to release any of the information contained in this report without the approval of the administration of the school. The primary purpose of the evaluation team has been to examine the educational setting of the school, including courses of study, learning materials as well as student needs and interests. The evaluation team has attempted to assess the effectiveness of the total school improvement plan in meeting the educational objectives the school has established for itself. It has not been the purpose of the visiting team to evaluate individual teacher performance. The use of this report as an official assessment of any staff persons professional competency would be in violation of the process and the intent under which the school evaluation was conducted. Such use would be inherently invalid since at no time during the team visit has the team been concerned with the evaluation of individual teacher performance. Additionally, it has not been the purpose of the visiting team to prescribe a specific companys instructional materials or programs. The team has attempted to evaluate the schools learning materials in light of the needs of the students being served and the relationship of the materials to the goals and objectives of the school. Any reference to specific instructional materials contained in the team report is merely for consideration by the school. The school staff exercises the responsibility of selecting learning materials appropriate for the learner. The members of the evaluation team have utilized their best professional judgment in drawing the conclusions reported in this document. The team members are not to be held accountable for any injudicious or unauthorized use of this document.EXTENDED COMPREHENSIVE OUTCOMES EVALUATION SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PEER TEAM VISIT APRIL 28-29,1999 ROMINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ECOE VISITING TEAM MEMBERS MR. DAVID WATTS, GENERAL CHAIRPERSON Mr. Bob Paulovich, FSS Arkansas Dept, of Education #4 State Capitol Mall, Room 301-B Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Cathy Lay, Teacher Poplar Street Middle School 2300 Poplar Street No. Little Rock, AR 72114 Dr. Linda Joshua, Professor Univ, of Ark. at Pine Bluff 1200 North University Pine Bluff, AR 71611 Mr. Jeff Magie, Assistant Principal Perryville Elementary School 803 N. Ash Street Perryville, AR 72126 Mr. Mike Shue, Principal Monticello Intermediate School 114 Clyde Ross Drive Monticello, AR 71655 TARGET AREAS OF FOCUS School Climate Monitoring and Assessment of Student Achievement Parent \u0026amp; Community Involvement Opportunity to Learn/Time-on- TaskFOREWORD On April 28-29, 1999, representatives of the Arkansas Department of Education visited Romine Elementary School. The comments of this report have been based on the visitors observations and the findings produced by the faculty. It is the hope of the Arkansas Department of Education that the observations and recommendations included in this report will assist the faculty and administration of Romine Elementary School as they proceed to the implementation and evaluation of the School Improvement Plan. As a goal of the visiting team, recommendations have been made to reinforce the schools conclusions prepared in the School Improvement Plan. These recommendations, in many cases, will not be new and different, but are in support of the school improvement teams conclusions. Recommendations have been made to foster further service and discussion, not to provide specifics of name and topic to utilize. The visiting team commends the faculty and staff for all the time and effort expended during the past two years. The School Improvement Plan was developed with many measurable goals focusing on student achievement. The faculty and staff were involved in the plans development and reflect a true sense of ownership and pride. The visiting team would like to express its appreciation for a wonderful two-day visit. All staff members, students, and parents were very cordial, friendly, and helpful. We hope our input will enhance an already strong ECOE document.VISITING TEAM REPORT School Improvement Recommendations: 1. Efforts should to include and recognize parents and support staff in future school improvement endeavors.SCHOOL CLIMATE Strengths: 1. The willingness of teachers to work together in developing a strong, school-wide discipline plan should prove to be beneficial in improving student achievement. 2. The teachers use of polite language in dealing with students is an excellent example for young people. Recommendations: 1. Consideration should be given to implementing a school-wide reward program for those students who do not receive any tardy or behavior documents. One event each grading period could serve as an incentive for students. 2. Consideration should be given to implementing some type of writing assignment during detention. Subject matter could be school rules, responsibility, or organizational skills. MONITORNING AND ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT Strengths: 1. The administrative staff, teachers, students, and school support staff, which includes the parents, are knowledgeable of the schools target programs: Success for All reading program. Technical Educational Resource Center (TERC) mathematics program, and the Smart Start Initiative test bank materials. 2. In addition to the use of the target programs of Success for All and TERC, both teachers and students are using traditional time-proven teaching materials to supplement and/or enrich their target programs. Recommendations: 1. Standardize or develop a repertoire of alternative assessment strategies that parallel the critical thinking strategies of the target reading and math programs. 2. Institute Saturday school workshops, perhaps on a monthly basis, for parent training in school programs, student enrichment, and/or teacher and staff development.PARENT AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT Strengths: 1. All members of the staff are actively involved in the school improvement process. 2. The school has quality volunteers in place. 3. The building and grounds are conducive to a learning setting. Recommendations: 1. A marquee located on campus yet highly visible on Romine Street announcing dates and times would help keep parents informed. 2. A monthly calendar sent home would keep parents informed about events at the school. 3. Offer treats/rewards to children who return with signed papers announcing meetings, conferences, workshops, etc. 4. Each classroom should strive to obtain one volunteer. 5. Contact local businesses, particularly banks, to commit to volunteering on a regular basis. OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN/TIME-ON-TASK Strengths: 1. The success for all programs will prove to be beneficial in the improvement of writing across the cuniculum. 2. The schools classrooms and hallways are filled with opportunities to leam. (Posters, class work, teaching aids, etc.) Recommendations: 1. Consideration should be given to the idea of implementing writing strategies at a much quicker pace so that later years could be used for formal evaluations. 2. The school should look at the writing program of McRat which is being suggested by the Smart Start Initiative. Your Arkansas Department of Education Field Services Specialist may be contacted for this information.WILLIAMS MAGNET ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72207 APRIL 28-29,1999 EXTENDED COMPREHENSIVE OUTCOMES EVALUATION REPORT OF THE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT TEAM VISIT Submitted to: Dr. Les Camine, Superintendent May 17,1999 Ms. Mary Menking, Principal Ms. Anne Washington and Ms. Nancy Morton Steering Committee Co-Chairs Compiled by: Mr. David Watts Arkansas Department of Education Field Services Specialist Copy to: Dr. Dave Westmoreland Education Curriculum SupervisorSCOPE OF THE ECOE DOCUMENT It is the official intent of the Arkansas Department of Education that this report on the evaluation of the school be submitted by the chairperson of the visiting team directly to the administration of the school. The distribution of the report and its availability for public consideration beyond that point rest solely in the hands of those administrators. Neither the chairperson nor the other members of the evaluation team are authorized to release any of the information contained in this report without the approval of the administration of the school. The primary purpose of the evaluation team has been to examine the educational setting of the school, including courses of study, learning materials as well as student needs and interests. The evaluation team has attempted to assess the effectiveness of the total school improvement plan in meeting the educational objectives the school has established for itself. It has not been the purpose of the visiting team to evaluate individual teacher performance. The use of this report as an official assessment of any staff persons professional competency would be in violation of the process and the intent under which the school evaluation was conducted. Such use would be inherently invalid since at no time during the team visit has the team been concerned with the evaluation of individual teacher performance. Additionally, it has not been the purpose of the visiting team to prescribe a specific companys instructional materials or programs. The team has attempted to evaluate the schools learning materials in light of the needs of the students being served and the relationship of the materials to the goals and objectives of the school. Any reference to specific instructional materials contained in the team report is merely for consideration by the school. The school staff exercises the responsibility of selecting learning materials appropriate for the learner. The members of the evaluation team have utilized their best professional judgment in drawing the conclusions reported in this document. The team members are not to be held accountable for any injudicious or unauthorized use of this document.EXTENDED COMPREHENSIVE OUTCOMES EVALUATION SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PEER TEAM VISIT APRIL 28-29, 1999 WILLIAMS MAGNET ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ECOE VISITING TEAM MEMBERS MR. DAVID WATTS, GENERAL CHAIRPERSON Mr. Wes Whitley, FSS Arkansas Dept, of Education #4 State Capitol Mall, Room 301-B Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Becky Huett, Assistant Principal Ringgold Elementary School 536 River Street Benton, AR 72015 Dr. Susan Peterson, Professor Univ, of Central Arkansas 201 Donaghey Avenue Conway, AR 72035-0001 Ms. Terri Kieffner, ADE FSS Northwest Ark. Educ. Ser. Cooperative 409 N. Thompson Springdale, AR 72764 Ms. Catricia Phillips, Teacher Poplar Street Middle School 2300 Poplar Street No. Little Rock, AR 72114 TARGET AREAS OF FOCUS Monitoring and Assessment of Student Achievement Quality of Education Equal Access Staff CharacteristicsFOREWORD On April 28-29, 1999, representatives of the Arkansas Department of Education visited Williams Magnet Elementary School. The comments of this report have been based on the visitors observations and the findings produced by the faculty. It is the hope of the Arkansas Department of Education that the observations and recommendations included in this report will assist the faculty and administration of Williams Magnet Elementary School as they proceed to the implementation and evaluation of the School Improvement Plan. As a goal of the visiting team, recommendations have been made to reinforce the schools conclusions prepared in the School Improvement Plan. These recommendations, in many cases, will not be new and different, but are in support of the school improvement teams conclusions. Recommendations have been made to foster further service and discussion, not to provide specifics of name and topic to utilize. The staff of Williams Magnet Elementary School is commended for their accomplishments in school improvement planning. The plan addresses the needs of the students, staff, and community and is certainly progressive in scope. The committees appeared to have worked well in the review of data and the subsequent identification of actions which address the schools targets. The visiting ECOE/NCA team wishes to express appreciation to the steering committee, staff, and administration for their hospitality during the peer team review. It was obvious a great deal of planning and preparation had been dedicated to making the visiting team members feel welcome. The accommodations and other amenities provided the team with a pleasant atmosphere in which to perform their assignment.VISITING TEAM REPORT District Recommendations: 1. The district is commended for the creation of a District Strategic Plan and is encouraged to continue similar efforts to ensure a coordinated School Improvement Plan among all schools in the district. School Improvement Recommendations: 1. It is recommended that the school continues the school improvement process by allowing committees the opportunity to continue to review performance data and modify the plan and the time line as necessary. It is also recommended that steering committees share information regarding findings from research as well as improvement strategies for improvement. 2. As the School Improvement Plan evolves in the future, it may be considered that the mission statement be revisited for the purpose of including a clearer reflection of the magnet school concept. 3. The staff, administration, and steering committee should dedicate some time in the future to establishing some core beliefs. This will facilitate the expansion of the plan and assist the process of school improvement by direct attention toward the future. 4. This is an academically successful school and may face some unique problems associated with success. It is recommended that the staff and administration continue to build on the present success in the school and not become stagnant or complacent. Strategies that have worked in the past may not work in the future. As a result, it is of the utmost importance that the School Improvement Plan be very progressive.MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT Strengths: 1. Williams Magnet School is commended for their dedication to preparing their students for the upcoming criterion-referenced tests with the implementation of the district-designed quarterly performance assessment tests. 2. Williams Magnet School is recognized for their commitment to increasing science performance with the existence and use of a school science laboratory. 3. The school demonstrates a strong academic program with excellent student achievement scores. Recommendations: 1. The visiting team recommends that the school continues with the utilization of the Smart Start Initiative techniques and works to align the district curriculiun with Smart Start goals and objectives congruent with the Arkansas Frameworks. QUALITY OF EDUCATION Strengths: 1. Field trips, identification of at risk students, ample teacher resources, and parent involvement have resulted in quality education for students as evidenced by standardized test scores and other assessments. Recommendations: 1. A pedagogical statement that reflects the purpose and uniqueness of the schools basic skills program should be incorporated into the mission statement. Staff development that focuses on philosophy and core beliefs may assist in developing such a statement. 2. Revisit the plan to ensure the actions, responsibilities, and resources are correlated and aligned.EQUAL ACCESS Strengths: 1. Williams Magnet faculty and staff recognizes the importance of providing the opportunity for all students to be involved in school activities and programs. 2. The Williams Magnet counselors program is very involved with students of all grade levels. The counselors of Williams Magnet have purchased many wonderful programs for the students. Recommendations: 1. The committee recommends that the faculty and staff of the school explore options for after-school transportation for the students involved. STAFF CHARACTERISTICS Strengths: 1. The staff is commended for recognizing that staff attendance is linked to student performance and is an important factor in school effectiveness. 2. The extended time given to teachers for planning, preparing, and collaboration in an obvious strength. Recommendations: 1. It is recommended that the committee extend the date to improve teacher attendance and explore more options to develop a long-term plan for this outcome. Suggestions include the administration attending the Leadership Academy, teacher book study groups, a relaxed Friday teacher uniform, and informal staff luncheons provided by the administration and/or Parent/Teacher Organizations. 2. The committee should consider involving high school students in a tutor/mentor program to help the elementary students while also increasing the high school students awareness of careers available in education. 3. The staff might explore ways to provide release time and scholarships for supervision aides to obtain college degrees in order to increase minority ratios.BOOKER T. WASHINGTON MAGNET ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 APRIL 28-29,1999 EXTENDED COMPREHENSIVE OUTCOMES EVALUATION REPORT OF THE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT TEAM VISIT Submitted to: Dr. Les Camine, Superintendent May 17, 1999 Ms. Gwen Strong-Zeigler, Principal Ms. Cathy Schwartz and Ms. Beverly Smith Steering Committee Co-Chairs Compiled by: Mr. David Watts Arkansas Department of Education Field Services Specialist Copy to: Dr. Dave Westmoreland Education Curriculum SupervisorSCOPE OF THE ECOE DOCUMENT It is the official intent of the Arkansas Department of Education that this report on the evaluation of the school be submitted by the chairperson of the visiting team directly to the administration of the school. The distribution of the report and its availability for public consideration beyond that point rest solely in the hands of those administrators. Neither the chairperson nor the other members of the evaluation team are authorized to release any of the information contained in this report without the approval of the administration of the school. The primary purpose of the evaluation team has been to examine the educational setting of the school, including courses of study, learning materials as well as student needs and interests. The evaluation team has attempted to assess the effectiveness of the total school improvement plan in meeting the educational objectives the school has established for itself. It has not been the purpose of the visiting team to evaluate individual teacher performance. The use of this report as an official assessment of any staff persons professional competency would be in violation of the process and the intent under which the school evaluation was conducted. Such use would be inherently invalid since at no time during the team visit has the team been concerned with the evaluation of individual teacher performance. Additionally, it has not been the purpose of the visiting team to prescribe a specific companys instructional materials or programs. The team has attempted to evaluate the schools learning materials in light of the needs of the students being served and the relationship of the materials to the goals and objectives of the school. Any reference to specific instructional materials contained in the team report is merely for consideration by the school. The school staff exercises the responsibility of selecting learning materials appropriate for the learner. The members of the evaluation team have utilized their best professional judgment in drawing the conclusions reported in this document. The team members are not to be held accountable for any injudicious or unauthorized use of this document.EXTENDED COMPREHENSIVE OUTCOMES EVALUATION SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PEER TEAM VISIT APRIL 28-29, 1999 BOOKER T. WASHINGTON MAGNET ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ECOE VISITING TEAM MEMBERS MR. DAVID WATTS, GENERAL CHAIRPERSON Mr. Bob Bethurem, FSS Arkansas Dept, of Education #4 State Capitol Mall, Room 301-B Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Paula Trafford, Teacher Perryville High School 803 No. Ash Street Perryville, AR 72126 Ms. Josephine Bell, Professor Univ, of Ark. at Pine Bluff 1200 North University Pine Bluff, AR 71611 Ms. Angie Coats, Teacher Arnold Drive Elementary School 4510 Arnold Drive Jacksonville, AR 72099 Mr. Mark Crowder, Principal Springhill Elementary School 200 N.W. 4* Street Bryant, AR 72022 TARGET AREAS OF FOCUS Monitoring and Assessment of Student Achievement Parent \u0026amp; Community Involvement School Climate Instructional LeadershipFOREWORD On April 28-29, 1999, representatives of the Arkansas Department of Education visited Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. The comments of this report have been based on the visitors observations and the findings produced by the faculty. It is the hope of the Arkansas Department of Education that the observations and recommendations included in this report will assist the faculty and administration of Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School as they proceed to the implementation and evaluation of the School Improvement Plan. As a goal of the visiting team, recommendations have been made to reinforce the schools conclusions prepared in the School Improvement Plan. These recommendations, in many cases, will not be new and different, but are in support of the school improvement teams conclusions. Recommendations have been made to foster further service and discussion, not to provide specifics of name and topic to utilize. The school is to be commended for its dedication to the ECOE process. This was evident by the involvement of the entire staff and parents. The mission statement is woven throughout the plan and is strengthened by such programs as Direct Instruction, Distance Learning with U.A.M.S., Partners In Education, the Young Astronauts (YAP) program, and the LINKS program. The school has made a strong commitment to the use of technology, both administratively as well as toward instruction. The faculty and administration are continuing to create an atmosphere to provide all students with success. The ties with community partnerships are also very commendable. The visiting team would like to take this opportunity to thank the Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School ECOE Steering Committee, staff, administration, students, board, and community representatives for a superb visit. The students and staff were most courteous, informative, and cooperative throughout the visit. The student guides certainly did their utmost to provide directions to specific areas and to assist with information. The food and various amenities provided by parents and local businesses added to an atmosphere of cooperation and collaboration. Thanks for making this ECOE team visit valuable through the process utilized and the School Improvement Plan developed to meet the needs of all the students at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School.VISITING TEAM REPORT School Improvement Recommendations: 1. Keep the steering committee intact and meet on a regular basis to monitor progress of the School Improvement Plan. 2. Continue to bring elements of the Smart Start Initiative such as curriculum alignment and mapping into the ECOE process in order to better focus directly on student achievement. 3. Continue to focus on technology, particularly in the area of teacher in-service/training, to better serve the needs of students. This should help teachers be more comfortable in using technology in the classroom, both administratively as well as for instruction. 4. Consider including community members and parents, in an advisory capacity, on the steering committees at appropriate times.MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT Strengths: 1. The Booker T. Washington faculty and staff show great pride in their school as evidenced by individual and group enthusiasm and efforts put into several student recognition programs. 2. Classrooms and hallways display successful student work. Recommendations: 1. Clarify the day-to-day procedures used for identifying all grade-level at-risk students. 2. The analysis of student improvement would be enhanced with sequential administration of either the districts criterion-referenced tests or the SAT-9 at all grade levels. 3. Coordinate and communicate expected Smart Start activities at all grade levels, both horizontally and vertically, specifically, the curriculum mapping and curriculum alignment activities. PARENT AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT Strengths: 1. Parents are involved in the VIPS program. 2. Parents are very responsive in support of students activities, programs, and field trips. 3. The weekly school newsletter is sent to parents for information about the school functions. 4. Parents work as tutors in the classrooms. 5. Partners In Education has been successful in support of programs. 6. The Extravaganza Fair works well for community involvement. Recommendations: 1. More school involvement of parents of at-risk students is recommended. 2. More inclusiveness of ESL students in the mainstream of programs and activities is recommended. 3. Consider using parents and relatives of students from other countries as resource persons for the Extravaganza Fair.SCHOOL CLIMATE Strengths: 1. The faculty and staff of Booker T. Washington Elementary are dedicated to the profession and put forth a warm and receptive atmosphere conducive for learning. 2. Booker T. Washington Elementary places great emphasis on a safe and secure environment which exhibits an atmosphere contributive toward the learning process. 3. As stated within the Booker T. Washington Elementary School Improvement Plan, the pride of the school is displayed throughout the halls and classrooms. Acknowledgment of students and their work creates an incentive for all to strive for excellence and achievement. Recommendations: 1. According to the School Climate time line, Booker T. Washington Elementary has in place the Buddy System for new teachers. A review of this system is to take place by August, 1999. It seems to be implemented within the lower grades but has weakened in practice by the upper grades. An effort to strengthen this system should be made. 2. Creative measures, such as aids on grouping strategies, might be used to strengthen the classroom management within rooms which contain larger numbers of students. INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP Strengths: 1. Washington Magnet Elementary places great importance on training and supporting new teachers, therefore developing and reinforcing instructional leadership. 2. A majority of teachers involved with the Direct Instruction program seem enthusiastic, well-trained, and dedicated to the program. 3. The Washington Magnet Elementary School staff is open-minded concerning new and innovative programs to improve test scores. 4. Washington Magnet Elementary has a significant amount of enrichment programs, such as YAP, a computer lab with a significant amount of computers, computers in each room. Art, Music, P.E., Math and Science Labs, etc. to enrich instruction. 5. Washington Magnet Elementary is exploring the consistency of grading, developing rubrics for grading, and team teaching to promote instructional excellence.Recommendations: 1. Washington Magnet Elementary may want to investigate plans for mapping Smart Start procedures and curriculum objectives presently taught, as well as incorporating the Arkansas Frameworks and SAT-9 objectives. 2. Washington Magnet Elementary needs to continue to encourage teachers to research students deficiencies on the SAT-9 and/or criterion-referenced tests and teach those objectives to individual students.1 I ! BALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK, AR 72204 ECOE/ACSIP Report School Improvement Team Visit April 25, 2000 Submitted to: Dr. Les Camine, Superintendent Compiled by: Mr. David Watts, School Improvement Supervisor Arkansas Department of Education Copies to: Ms. Barbara Anderson, Principal Ms. Judith Courtney, Steering Committee Chair Dr. Dave Westmoreland, M/SIP Unit Leader7 2 SCOPE OF THE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANNING DOCUMENT It is the official intent of the Arkansas Department of Education that this report should be submitted by the chairperson of the Visiting Team directly to the administrators of the school. The subsequent distribution of the report and its availability for public consideration will be at the discretion of those administrators. Neither the chairperson nor the other members of the Visiting Team are authorized to release any information contained in this report without the approval of the school administrators. Information maintained by the Arkansas Department of Education is subject to the laws, policies, and regulations of the State of Arkansas and the United States. Moreover, the team members are not to be held accountable for any injudicious or unauthorized use of this document. School Improvement Visiting Teams ascertain information and provide comments regarding the following: involvement of the school staff and patrons in the school improvement planning process\nthe connection between the schools mission statement and the goals and activities of the plan\nthe specific areas of emphasis in the plan\nthe appropriateness of the plan\nand evidence of continual plan review. The purpose of these teams is to support the development of useful school improvement plans and to advise school planners on the implementation of proposed intervention strategies. Additionally, the Visiting Team will not evaluate individual student performances and will not prescribe a specific companys instructional materials or programs. Any reference to specific instructional materials contained in a Team Report is merely for consideration by the school.V 3 ECOE/ACSIP VISITING TEAM MEMBERS BALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT APRIL 25, 2000 Mr. David Watts, General Chairperson Mr. Wes Whitley, School Improvement Supervisor Arkansas Department of Education #4 State Capitol Mall, Room 301-B Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 Dr. Susan Peterson, Professor University of Central Arkansas 150 Mashburn Building Conway, AR 72035 Mr. Sam Nelson, Principal Mattison Elementary School 2001 Florence Mattison Conway, AR 72032 Ms. Gwen Fullen, Teacher Peake Elementary School 1609 Pine Street Arkadelphia, AR 71923 Ms. Brenda Melton, NCA Representative Watson Chapel School District 4100 Camden Road Pine Bluff, AR 716034 Bale Elementary School is a part of the greater Littler Rock School District. The school serves approximately three hundred twelve students in Kindergarten through grade five. Seventy-four percent of the student body is of African-American descent. Twenty-four percent are white. Four percent is Hispanic with the remaining one percent being Asian. The school is located relatively close to the heart of the city of Little Rock. The neighborhood where the school is located is in the proximity of one of the states major colleges as well as a portion of the citys busiest commercial zones. It is clearly evident that the staff at Bale Elementary has a good grasp of the process of school improvement. Their review of data and the resulting action plan that appears within the written school improvement document is a testament to this fact. The Visiting Team is completely satisfied that the school has taken the appropriate steps to address the areas of student performance, curriculum, and assessment which the scores indicate deficiencies have existed. Several district initiatives have been implemented recently which will almost certainly have an impact on student performance. First, the Campus Leadership Teams have been created to decentralize some decision-making down to the school level. Teachers should feel a greater sense of ownership in the process of school improvement as a result of this shared responsibility in making decisions. Secondly, a comprehensive testing program has begun to test students academic progress on criterion-referenced material on a regular and systematic basis. This data, along with the many other sources of student performance data available, should prove to be a valuable asset in planning for the needs of both the school and the students. The Visiting Team wishes to express appreciation to the staff and administration of Bale Elementary for the courtesy and hospitality extended to the team during the visit. The Visiting . Teams needs were given every consideration during the day. Such sensitivity to the teams needs made for a very enjoyable and rewarding day for everyone involved. It is clear that all those participating in the visit had given much thought and preparation to making the day a successful one. During the visit the Visiting Team made many noteworthy observations. The following is a list of the strengths and recommendations found at Bale Elementary during the peer team review of the School Improvement Plan: Strengths 1. 2. 3. Mrs. Johnsons four-year-old program delivered a remarkable opening program for the Visiting Team and is commended for their efforts. The school improvement document is well organized, easy to read, and quite comprehensive. The student artwork in the plan was especially attractive and appreciated. The Visiting Team was very gratified to see a combination of the school creed, mission statement, and core belief statements.5 4. 5. 6. 7. 1. 2. 3. The staff is commended for the collaborative effort, which went into the creation of the plan. It is clear that communication among this staff is a strong asset. Bale Elementary has a marvelous atmosphere for children to learn. Expectations for all children and staff alike are high, and programs are well coordinated to maximize time and space. The Share America program is a wonderful source of additional resources for the staff and students. The benefits provided by this program are invaluable, and the Visiting Team wishes more opportunities of this sort were available. The planning time afforded to grade-level teachers is a wonderful tool which aids communication and planning about curriculum issues. The weekend retreat in which the staff participated serves as another example of the commitment the staff has to communicating needs with one another. Recommendations It is clear that the school makes every effort to involve and communicate with parents. It is unclear from the written School Improvement Plan the extent to which parents were involved in the planning of school improvement activities. In the future, it is recommended that the parents play an increased role in the actual planning of school improvement initiatives. A great deal of student performance data is available for review by the staff. The districts new grade-level testing program will add even more. It may be suggested that staff development in the uses and disaggregation of this data would benefit the staff in their efforts to spot trends in the performance of students scores. It is crucial to future school improvement planning that sufficient time be given the staff to have conversations about issues regarding curriculum, assessment, data review, staff development, and plan modification. It is clear that this staff at Bale Elementary possesses the necessary knowledge and skills for sound school improvement practices. Only lack of time will impede the process for this staff to continue to exercise these principals. While it is true that student performance at Bale does have some room for improvement, the Visiting Team has little doubt that the future will hold many successes.BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 ECOE/ACSIP Report School Improvement Team Visit April 25, 2000 Submitted to: Dr. Les Gamine, Superintendent Compiled by: Mr. David Watts, School Improvement Supervisor Arkansas Department of Education Copies to: Dr. Cheryl Carson, Principal Ms. Amy Hallum, Steering Committee Chair Dr. Dave Westmoreland, M/SIP Unit Leader2 SCOPE OF THE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANNING DOCUMENT It is the official intent of the Arkansas Department of Education that this report should be submitted by the chairperson of the Visiting Team directly to the administrators of the school. The subsequent distribution of the report and its availability for public consideration will be at the discretion of those administrators. Neither the chairperson nor the other members of the Visiting Team are authorized to release any information contained in this report without the approval of the school administrators. Information maintained by the Arkansas Department of Education is subject to the laws, policies, and regulations of the State of Arkansas and the United States. Moreover, the team members are not to be held accountable for any injudicious or unauthorized use of this document. School Improvement Visiting Teams ascertain information and provide comments regarding the following: involvement of the school staff and patrons in the school improvement planning process\nthe connection between the schools mission statement and the goals and activities of the plan\nthe specific areas of emphasis in the plan\nthe appropriateness of the plan\nand evidence of continual plan review. The purpose of these teams is to support the development of useful school improvement plans and to advise school planners on the implementation of proposed intervention strategies. Additionally, the Visiting Team will not evaluate individual student performances and will not prescribe a specific companys instructional materials or programs. Any reference to specific instructional materials contained in a Team Report is merely for consideration by the school.3 ECOE/ACSIP VISITING TEAM MEMBERS BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT APRIL 25, 2000 Mr. David Watts, General Chairperson Mr. Ed Jones, School Improvement Supervisor Arkansas Department of Education #4 State Capitol Mall, Room 301-B Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 Dr. Kenneth Harris, Professor Henderson State University 1100 Henderson Street Arkadelphia, AR 71999 Mr. Phillip Bell, Superintendent Mayflower School District POBox 127 Mayflower, AR 72106 Ms. Joy Shadid, Teacher Poplar Street Middle School 2300 Poplar Street North Little Rock, AR 72114 Ms. Peggy Woosley, NCA Representative Stuttgart School District PO Box 928 Stutthgart, AR 721604 Booker Arts Magnet School is one of 35 elementary schools serving Little Rock School District. The school is located in the eastern section of downtown Little Rock, Arkansas, and serves 544 students in kindergarten through fifth grade. Students are accepted from all three Pulaski County school districts (Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski County). The school maintains, through this selection process, a racial make up of 50% African-American, 44% European-American, and 6% other ethnic groups. This also allows the school to maintain an approximate 50/50-gender population. Booker Arts Magnet is one of the older buildings in the Little Rock School District, but it is clean and well maintained. The hallways are cheerful with displays of student artwork, writings, and awards. The district is in the process of voting on a millage increase that will allow renovation of the building that will include making the rooms and halls brighter, thus more cheerful. Booker Arts Magnet School is fortunate to be located in an area of Little Rock that supports its focus. In the area are the Arkansas Arts Center, Decorative Arts Museum, the Little Rock Zoo, University of Arkansas at Little Rocks Art Gallery, the Little Rock Library, the Robinson Auditorium that produces numerous cultural events and plays, and the University of Arkansas at Little Rock Theatre. Booker began its school improvement process in January, 1999. They began by selecting a building steering committee that included personnel from all grade levels as well as administration personnel. The steering committee met at regular intervals and developed belief statements, a current mission statement that incorporated these beliefs, and collected and analyzed data that identified the target areas of the School Improvement Plan. The steering committee then divided the staff into target area committees to address the concerns identified by the achievement, archival, and perceptual data. These committees are Reading and Writing Improvement, Mathematics Improvement, Character Education Program, and Improving Student Attendance. By selecting these areas of improvement, the school succeeded in keeping the schools mission statement as the major focus of the School Improvement Plan. Booker Arts Magnet School has excellent parent/community involvement. The Parent/Teacher Association is very involved in the school through programs that fund awards assemblies, scholarships to students in financial need, resources for indoor recess activities, and teaching materials for the classroom. Parents were an active component of the school improvement process. The steering committee did an excellent job and is to be commended for including numerous parents on all the target committees. The Visiting Team had a very productive day. The students were extremely polite, helpful, and informative. The complete staff was involved with the improvement process and was aware of the role they played and are to play in the future. The interviews of the target chairs and co-chairs were informative and assisted the team in understanding the plans development. The school should be proud of the School Improvement Plan and continue to evaluate and update the process.5 With the annual update of the School Improvement Plan in mind, the team offers the following strengths and recommendations for your consideration. Strengths 1. Narratives were very well written and informative. 2. The collected test scores and other data support actions. 3. There was total participation of parents, teachers, and administration in developing the School Improvement Plan. 4. The plan specified professional development and teacher in-services needed to achieve the strategies. 5. Two full-time math specialists are assigned to Booker to enhance, model, and reinforce instmction provided by the regular classroom teachers. 6. Curriculum specialists are provided to the school to provide assistance to the regular teachers in planning, implementing, and evaluating instruction. 7. Selected priorities and actions are aligned to focus on improvement for all students. 8. A Jostens Computer Lab is available for students in grades 2-5 to augment instruction and to further accommodate learning styles of students. 9. The school and district are dedicated to improving Character Education in the building. Allowing teachers to visit schools with Character-Centerd Teaching programs was an excellent move. 10. The atmosphere of the building is extremely warm, inviting, and friendly. 11. The display of students work, especially the artwork, allowed the team to realize the building was student-centered. 12. The incentive programs developed by Booker Arts Magnet School and its Parent/Teacher Association will be beneficial in meeting the goals of improving attendance.6 Recommendations 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. The writing components of the School Improvement Plan should have specific actions so that this section of the goal can be evaluated. Develop a consistent evaluation tool to follow students through grades K-5, thus evaluating the same students as they progress through the grades. As data becomes available through the Intermediate 6 Benchmark, include this data as an evaluation tool of the goals. Consider implementing an academic incentive program that would provide additional motivation for students to excel in math\ni.e., honor roll, lunch with the principal for making all As, coupons from businesses for freebies, etc. Continue to investigate and facilitate teachers awareness of best practices in mathematics instruction. Professional development should be researched to improve student and classroom behaviors. Some methods to assist new teachers are Classroom Management Training for all teachers, Teacher Expectations Student Achievement (TESA), and Conflict Resolution. Teacher mentor programs should include training for all new teachers on the existing school programs and also the new School Improvement Plan. 7. The Character Education Committee should research the Great Expectations program as a character program. Dr. Marie Parker at the University of Arkansas would be a possible resource in developing the program.BRADY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK, AR 72205 ECOE/ACSIP Report School Improvement Team Visit April 25,2000 Submitted to: Dr. Les Camine, Superintendent Compiled by: Mr. David Watts, School Improvement Supervisor Arkansas Department of Education Copies to: Ms. Ada Keown, Principal Ms Becky Dugan, Steering Committee Chair Ms. Cheri Washbum, Steering Committee Chair Dr. Dave Westmoreland, M/SIP Unit Leader2 SCOPE OF THE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANNING DOCUMENT It is the official intent of the Arkansas Department of Education that this report should be submitted by the chairperson of the Visiting Team directly to the administrators of the school. The subsequent distribution of the report and its availability for public consideration will be at the discretion of those administrators. Neither the chairperson nor the other members of the Visiting Team are authorized to release any information contained in this report without the approval of the school administrators. Information maintained by the Arkansas Department of Education is subject to the laws, policies, and regulations of the State of Arkansas and the United States. Moreover, the team members are not to be held accountable for any injudicious or unauthorized use of this document. School Improvement Visiting Teams ascertain information and provide comments regarding the following: involvement of the school staff and patrons in the school improvement planning process\nthe connection between the schools mission statement and the goals and activities of the plan\nthe specific areas of emphasis in the plan\nthe appropriateness of the plan\nand evidence of continual plan review. The purpose of these teams is to support the development of useful school improvement plans and to advise school planners on the implementation of proposed intervention strategies. Additionally, the Visiting Team will not evaluate individual student performances and will not prescribe a specific companys instructional materials or programs. Any reference to specific instructional materials contained in a Team Report is merely for consideration by the school.3 ECOE/ACSIP VISITING TEAM MEMBERS BRADY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT APRIL 25, 2000 Mr. David Watts, General Chairperson Mr. Bob Paulovich, School Improvement Supervisor Arkansas Department of Education #4 State Capitol Mall, Room 301-B Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 Dr. Viola Ellison, Professor 2111 Monticello Court Pine Bluff, AR 72603 Mr. Nick Lasker, Assistant Principal Chaffin Jr. High School 3025 Massard Road Fort Smith, AR 72903-5297 Ms. Mary Ann Harrington, Teacher Perryville Elementary School 803 North Ash Street Perryville, AR 72126 Mr. Ed Love, NCA Representative 815 Bishop Street Little Rock, AR 722024 The Visiting Team would like to express its appreciation to the faculty and staff of Brady Elementary for their hard work during the last two years. All members of the faculty were involved in developing the School Improvement Plan. The Campus Leadership Team was instrumental in coordinating the ACSIP efforts. The Partners in Education, Kroger, Holiday Inn Select, and local businesses were valuable contributors to the School Improvement Plan. It is obvious to the Visiting Team that Brady Elementary approached the school improvement process with a true regard for student success at all grade levels. The Visiting Team is impressed with the student-to-teacher and student-to-student interaction occurring in all classrooms. The importance of the students self-esteem and daily successes is reflected in the quantity of student work displayed throughout the school. The Visiting Team would like to thank all those involved for the hospitality, food, and tokens of appreciation. Also, the Visiting Team commends the students for their courteous behavior. The faculty and staff should know that their hard work and efforts made for a pleasant visit. STRENGTHS 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. The faculty and staff did a superb job of test data collection and analysis, which is directly reflected in the School Improvement Plan. Various members of the school community were active participants in the development and implementation of the School Improvement Plan There are numerous and varied creative strategies thought the School Improvement Plan. The mission statement is positive, concise, and is visible throughout the school. RECOMMENDATIONS It is suggested that the actions be prioritized be category\ni.e., staff development, parental involvement, etc. Revisit the time line and consider action implementation over a longer period of time instead of one year. There is a need for further action development that would be directly related to specific skills that need improvement\ni.e. fractions.CARVER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 ECOE/ACSIP Report School Improvement Team Visit April 17, 2000 Submitted to: Dr. Les Gamine, Superintendent Compiled by: Mr. David Watts, School Improvement Supervisor Arkansas Department of Education Copies to: Ms. Mary Barksdale, Principal Ms. Diane Runyan, Steering Committee Chair Dr. Dave Westmoreland, M/SIP Unit LeaderI 2 SCOPE OF THE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANNING DOCUMENT It is the official intent of the Arkansas Department of Education that this report should be submitted by the chairperson of the Visiting Team directly to the administrators of the school. The subsequent distribution of the report and its availability for public consideration will be at the discretion of those administrators. Neither the chairperson nor the other members of the Visiting Team are authorized to release any information contained in this report without the approval of the school administrators. Information maintained by the Arkansas Department of Education is subject to the laws, policies, and regulations of the State of Arkansas and the United States. Moreover, the team members are not to be held accountable for any injudicious or unauthorized use of this document. School Improvement Visiting Teams ascertain information and provide comments regarding the following: involvement of the school staff and patrons in the school improvement planning process\nthe connection between the schools mission statement and the goals and activities of the plan\nthe specific areas of emphasis in the plan\nthe appropriateness of the plan\nand evidence of continual plan review. The purpose of these teams is to support the development of useful school improvement plans and to advise school planners on the implementation of proposed intervention strategies. Additionally, the Visiting Team will not evaluate individual student performances and will not prescribe a specific companys instructional materials or programs. Any reference to specific instructional materials contained in a Team Report is merely for consideration by the school. 3 ECOE/ACSIP VISITING TEAM MEMBERS CARVER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT APRIL 17, 2001 Mr. David Watts, General Chairperson Mr. Ed Jones, School Improvement Supervisor Arkansas Dept of Education #4 State Capitol Mall, Room 301-B Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 Ms. Chris Dayer, Principal Mayflower Elementary School PO Box 127 Mayflower, AR 72106 Mr. Larry Scaife, Minority Recruiter Conway School District 2220 Prince Street Conway, AR 72032 Mr. Karl Barnes, Teacher Benton Jr. High School 411 Border Street Benton, AR 72015 Dr. Keith Williams, NCA Representative Beebe School District 1201 W. Center Street Beebe. AR 720124 The Arkansas Department of Education conducted an Arkansas Consolidated School Improvement Plan (ACSIP)/E.C.O.E. team visit on April 17, 2001, at Carver Math-Science Magnet Elementary School in Little Rock, Arkansas. The Visiting Team consisted of administrators, teachers. North Central Association, and Arkansas Department of Education personnel from various areas of the state. The Visiting Team reviewed the collected archival and achievement data, visited classrooms, and conducted interviews with teachers, administrators, students, and the steering committee chairs. It is from these observations, classroom visits, and interviews that the following report was compiled. Carver Magnet School began their school improvement process by sending a team to the Arkansas Leadership Academy. The focus of the team was to review and update the existing mission statement so that it would meet the wants and needs of the students and staff. The committee followed the leadership format by setting core beliefs and from these beliefs rewrote the schools mission statement. The statement was presented to the complete staff for input and consensus. Then the mission was presented to community members and parents through the use of the Parent/Teacher Association Board meeting. The new statement is concise and can be found in prominent areas of the school and classrooms. Carver Magnet School did an excellent job keeping the community and parents involved and informed of the school improvement process. Community members and parents have served on the steering and priority committees from the onset. Parents and community members have assisted the school, not only in the improvement process, but in the everyday school process by having an active PTA, chaperoning trips, fundraising, assisting in classrooms, and tutoring students that have been identified at-risk. The community has also responded to the needs of student by beginning an after-school tutoring program at the Miles C.M.E. Church. The tutoring program will focus on academic areas, as did the School Improvement Plan, with special emphasis on the State Benchmark Released Items. Carver Magnet School also did an excellent job in collecting and analyzing achievement, archival, and perceptual data to determine what academic and archival priorities were in need of improvement. Benchmark Test scores, Stanford (SAT-9) results, teacher records, attendance, behavior. Free and Reduced Lunch counts, and parent participation were some of the data researched in deciding to improve the areas of Literacy, Mathematics, Attendance, and Character Education. In addition to the entire staff, parents and community members were involved on the school improvement committees. Committee areas were decided by the areas of expertise and from special areas of interest of the members. The Visiting Team noted many academic programs in place to improve the areas of Literacy and Mathematics. These include, but are not limited to. Curriculum Alignment in all curriculum areas. Family Math and Science Nights for Primary and Intermediate Grades, Math Labs to support classroom Math Centers, Writing In All Curriculum with special emphasis in the Mathematics Curriculum, Character Education in the taught curriculum, writing prompts and rubrics, flexible grouping of students giving them extra math and reading times, parent and community tutoring programs, and an active and supportive administration that believes in professional development.5 The Visiting Team wishes to thank Carver Elementary School for a wonderful visit. The Student Ambassadors that greeted and escorted us were very helpful and extremely informative. We thank the PTA for the great lunch and the staff for their courtesy. It became obvious to the Visiting Team that all staff members were involved in the improvement process and that they recognize how it can assist the students and them in achieving the selected academic goals of the school. In the spirit of school improvement, the team offers the following suggestions for consideration: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. It became obvious to the Visiting Team through observations and interviews that more academic programs were available to the students of Carver Magnet School than are indicated in the School Improvement Plan. The team suggests the committees reconvene and include the programs in the plan. This will not only allow the opportunity to see the complete academic picture of the school, but will also allow the opportunity to evaluate existing programs and decide to continue, expand, redesign, or even delete programs that are not achieving the desired academic results. Research methods of released time or waiver days to conduct professional development and to update the School Improvement Plan. Continue activities in data analysis (both of norm-referenced and criteria-referenced data), professional development, curriculum alignment, and other activities in keeping with the guidelines of the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). Continue researching best practices and programs available for reaching the academic goals. The Arkansas Department of Education and local universities are good resources available to the school. To further enhance and expand leadership abilities of the staff, consideration should be given to participation in the Arkansas Leadership Academy and the Arkansas Teachers Institute.CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 ECOE/ACSIP Report School Improvement Team Visit April 18, 2000 Submitted to: Dr. Les Camine, Superintendent Compiled by: Mr. David Watts, School Improvement Supervisor Arkansas Department of Education Copies to: Mr. Frederick Fields, Smith, Principal Dr. Dave Westmoreland, M/SIP Unit Leader2 SCOPE OF THE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANNING DOCUMENT It is the official intent of the Arkansas Department of Education that this report should be submitted by the chairperson of the Visiting Team directly to the administrators of the school. The subsequent distribution of the report and its availability for public consideration will be at the discretion of those administrators. Neither the chairperson nor the other members of the Visiting Team are authorized to release any information contained in this report without the approval of the school administrators. Information maintained by the Arkansas Department of Education is subject to the laws, policies, and regulations of the State of Arkansas and the United States. Moreover, the team members are not to be held accountable for any injudicious or unauthorized use of this document. School Improvement Visiting Teams ascertain information and provide comments regarding the following: involvement of the school staff and patrons in the school improvement planning process\nthe connection bet\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_336","title":"Compliance hearing exhibits, 37-38","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1999/2001"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance hearing exhibits, 37-38"],"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/336"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nCampus Leadership Institute Summer 1999 I f\u0026gt; 8:00 a.m.-8:30 a.m. 8:30-8:50 a.m. 8:50-9:30 a.m. 9:30-9:50 a.m. 9:50 -10:00 a.m. 10:00- 10:15 a.m. 10:15- 11:15a.m. 11:15- 12:00 p.m. 12:00- 12:45 p.m. 12:45-1:45 p.m. 1:45-2:45 p.m. 2:45 - 3:00 p.m. 3:00-4:00 p.m. 4:00-4:15 p.m. 4:15 4:15 - 4:30 p.m. I Campus Leadership Institute] Living the Vision Session I Monday, July 26, 1999 Welcome \u0026amp; Introductions Team Building Activity Overview Team Norms Typical - Aligned Organization Change Process and Tools Campus Leadership Handbook Systems Change Model Decision Making Model A. B. C. D. Resolving Conflicts In Teams Team Building and Maintenance Team Problem Solving Site Based Decision Making Decision Making Model A. Resolving Conflicts In Teanis B. C. D. Team Building and Maintenance Team Problem Solving Site Based Decision Making CLOSURE BROKER FACILITATOR MEETING REGISTRATION Sadie Mitchell Les Carnine Superintendent of Schools Linda Watson Bonnie Lesley BREAK Victor Anderson Linda Austin Gayle Bradford Frances Cawthon Marian Lacey LUNCH Gene Parker Marion Woods Kathy Lease Mable Donaldson Vanessa Cleaver Linda Watson Dennis Glasgow BREAK Mable Donaldson Vanessa Cleaver Linda Watson Dennis Glasgow Sadie Mitchell ADJOURN Sadie Mitchell Kathy Lease 1 8:0 0 - 8:30 a.m. 8\n30 - 8:45 a.m. 8:45 - 9:45 a.m. 9:45 - 10:00 a.m. Session I Tuesday, July 27, 1999 Review \u0026amp; Reflections The Railroad Track Announcements Decision Making Model A. Resolving Conflicts In Teams B. Team Building and Maintenance C. Team Problem Solving D. Site Based Decision Making REGISTRATION Sadie Mitchell Mable Donaldson Vanessa Cleaver Linda Watson Dennis Glasgow BREAK 10:00-11:00 a.m. Decision-Making Model A. Resolving Conflicts In Teams B. Team Building and Maintenance C. Team Problem Solving D. Site Based Decision Making Mable Donaldson Vanessa Cleaver Linda Watson Dennis Glasgow 11:00- 12:10 a.m. Core Beliefs Brady Gadberry Linda Watson 12:10- 1:00 p.m. LUNCH 1:00-2:00 p.m. Goal Setting and Planning Marie McNeal Pat Price 2:00-2:15p.m. BREAK 2:1 5-4:00 p.m. All the Parts Action Planning Kathy Lease 4:00 - 4:15 p.m. CLOSURE The Railroad Track Sadie Mitchell 4:15 p.m. ADJOURN 4:15 - 4:30 p.m. Broker/Facilitator Meeting Sadie Mitchell Kathy Lease 2 1 Session I Wednesday, July 28, 1999** 8:00 - 8:30 a.m. REGISTRA^TION 8:30 - 8:45 a.m. Review \u0026amp; Reflections Sadie Mitchell 8:45-10:45 a.m. Action Planning Campus Leadership Teams 10:45-11:00 a.m. BREAK 11:00- 11:45 a.m. Team Reports 11:45 a.m. Closure Key Learnings Institute Evaluations Kathy Lease 12:00 p.m. ADJOURN * Broker Facilitator Debriefing Meeting for all Brokers Monday, August 2,1999, 1:30, Board Room i 312:30- 1:00 p.m. 1:00 -1:20 p.m. 1:20-2:00 p.m. 2:00-2:20 p.m. 2:20-2:30 p.m. 2:30 - 2:45 p.m. 2:45 - 3:45 p.m. 3:45 - 4:30 p.m. 4:30 - 4:45 p.m. 4:45 p.m. 4:45 - 5:00 p.m. Session II Wednesday, July 28,1999 Welcome \u0026amp; Introductions Team Building Activity Overview Team Norms Typical - Aligned Organization Change Process and Tools Campus Leadership Handbook Closure Broker/Facilitator Meeting REGISTRATION Sadie Mitchell Les Carnine Superintendent of Schools Linda Watson Bonnie Lesley BREAK Victor Anderson Linda Austin Gayle Bradford Frances Cawthon Marian Lacey Sadie Mitchell ADJOURN Sadie Mitchell Kathy Lease 4Session II Thursday, July 29,1999 8:00 - 8:30 a.m. REGISTRATION 8:30 - 8:45 a.m. Review and Reflection The Railroad Track Evaluations Sadie Mitchell 8:45-9:45 a.m. Systems Change Model Gene Parker Marian Woods 9:45-10:45 a.m. Decision Making Models Kathy Lease A. B. C. D. Resolving Conflicts in Teams Team Building and Maintenance Team Problem Solving Site Based Decision Making Mable Donaldson Vanessa Cleaver Linda Watson Dennis Glasgow 10:45 - 11:00 a.m. BREAK 11:00-12:00 p.m. Decision Making Models A. B. C. D. Resolving Conflicts in Teams Team Building and Maintenance Team Problem Solving Site Based Decision Making Mable Donaldson Vanessa Cleaver Linda Watson Dennis Glasgow 12:00-12:45 p.m. LUNCH 12:45-1:45 p.m. Decision-Making Models A. B. C. D. Resolving Conflicts in Teams Team Building and Maintenance Team Problem Solving Site Based Decision Making Mable Donaldson Vanessa Cleaver Linda Watson Dennis Glasgow 1:45 - 2:00 p.m. BREAK 2:00 - 3:00 p.m. Decision-Making Models A. B. C. D. Resolving Conflicts in Teams Team Building and Maintenance Team Problem Solving Site Based Decision Making Mable Donaldson Vanessa Cleaver Linda Watson Dennis Glasgow 3:00-4:00 p.m. Core Beliefs Brady Gadberry Linda Watson 4:00-4:15 p.m. CLOSURE The Railroad Track Sadie Mitchell 4:15 p.m. ADJOURN 4:15 - 4:30 p.m. Broker/Facilitator Meeting 5 Session II Friday, July 30,1999** 8:00 - 8:30 a.m. REGISTRATION 8:30 - 8:45 a.m. Review \u0026amp; Reflections Sadie Mitchell 8:45 - 9:45 a.m. Goal Setting \u0026amp; Planning Marie McNeal Pat Price 9:45 - 10:00 BREAK 10:00-11:30 a.m. All the Parts Action Planning Kathy Lease 11:30- 12:15 p.m. LUNCH 12:15-2:15p.m. Action Planning Campus Leadership Teams 2:15-2:30 p.m. BREAK 2:30-3:30 p.m. Team Presentations Campus Leadership Teams 3:30 - 3:45 p.m. CLOSURE Key Learnings Institute Evaluations Kathy Lease 3:45 ADJOURN Broker Facilitator Debriefing Meeting for all Brokers Monday, August 2, 1999, 1:30, Board Room 6Site - based decision making will only work if you focus on individual classroom instruction - do not let yourself to get into school operations - cleaning out the refrigerator, parking place assignments, etc. Marian pp- i - 7 Basic foundation of Campus Leadership based on LRSD Vision and Mission entire system how teams established policies regulating the CLT concepts pp. 55 - 60 Forms for CLT to use Nomination to be appointed Team Nomination Form Application for Local or State Waiver Bonnie pp. 8-10 Cluster Coordinating Committee Membership Administrative Policy pp. 16 - 54 Collective Responsibility for Student Achievement Frances pp. 11-12 Campus Leadership Team Calendar pp. 65 - 68 School Improvement Plan Site - based decision making will only work if you focus on individual classroom instruction - do not let yourself to get into school operations - cleaning out the refrigerator, parking place assignments. Kathy pp. 13 - 15 CLT Evaluation Planning and Decision Making Process pp. 61 - 64 Climate Survey Gayle pp. 69 - end handbook is not static, be used, make notes, timelines in it, they will receive comprehensive training in small groups on \u0026gt;-sing this handbook - don't put it o\" the shelf and forget it. Site - based decision making will only work if you focus on individual classroom instruction - do not let yourself to gat into school operations - cleaning out the refrigerator, parking place assignments, etc. I ISite - based decision making will only work if you focus on individual classroom instruction - do not let yourself to get into school operations - cleaning out the refrigerator, parking place assignments, etc. Marian pp- i - 7 Basic foundation of Campus Leadership based on LRSD Vision and Mission entire system how teams established policies regulating the CLT concepts pp. 55 - 60 Forms for CLT to use Nomination to be appointed Team Nomination Form Application for Local or State Waiver Bonnie pp. 8-10 Cluster Coordinating Committee Membership Administrative Policy pp. 16 - 54 Collective Responsibility for Student Achievement Frances pp. 11-12 Campus Leadership Team Calendar pp. 65 - 68 School Improvement Plan Site - based decision making will only work if you focus on individual classroom instruction - do not let yourself to get into school operations - cleaning out the refrigerator, parking place assignments. Kathy pp. 13 - 15 CLT Evaluation Planning and Decision Making Process pp. 61 - 64 Climate Survey Gayle pp. 69 - end handbook is not static, be used, make notes, timelines in it, they will receive comprehensive training in small groups on using this handbook - don't put it on the shelf and forget it. Site - based decision making will only work if you focus on individual classroom instruction - do not let yourself to get into school operations - cleaning out the refrigerator, parking place assignments, etc.Its to DRAFT classroomdn Consider the fo 46 Millioq 1. 2. 3. 1. Introduction 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 6.2 Millioi 6.2 Millioi with 2 Mil 2 Million s 2 Million i 1 Million j 'A Million i 'A Million 14 Millior a. Pride in who you are b. We have a the top confidence levelAmerican Public I. Myths My remarks are not pollyarmaish. Public education has serious problems in the rm we can not ignore that. But a. Teachers teach only nine months so why do they bellyache about sala Studies show that teachers time in 9 'A months is equal to a 40 hour \\ months of work. And todays st educators. H.^ b. IV. Morale Bt a. b. c. d. I I J c. J The higher a n Fight backC 1. Never let i stroke for teacl 2. Establishe 3. Create a ci false informati d. Where have wi e. Use Data Ovei A. B. C. D. E. F. b g n I / G. a H. I I. ( Where are we See I We have students graduating from public schools who cant even reai diploma? You bet! They are among the nearly six million special education yc most wont real very well but they are getting their chance based on gifts they bring to school. Its the best umeported story in America. Public educators are afraid of competition. Thats why they oppose c and vouchers? Only most uninformed would favor vouchers, which take funds from system. Voucher is another spelling of segregationthis time along Depending on the Charter lawone must be careful about the financ: Private schools do a better job with less money? The average in 1997 was $3200 compares with $5800 but that where comparison ends. Public schools by law must offer vocational educt education, counseling, dropout prevention, alternative education, att( contact, bilingual education, compensatory education, health service\nservices, food service, security, violence prevention, student transpoi attempt to provide a living wage and retirement programs. Public education students need to make more rigorous courses to pre] college? The report entitled The Condition of Education 1995 revealed stun ment in public education between 1985-95 in percentage of high sch taking upper level core courses47% increase and the numbers con increase. Secondly, the graduation rate has continued to improve an major improvement since the 1990. III. Whom to Believe? Why are public schools in the crosshairs when 90% of them are as good a world? One reason is that major news media outlets are in the cities with the majo schools. Network news is almost always negative. Too may viewers with no first knowledge extrapolate those conditions to all public schools. Add to this a heavy religious right fever, cash strapped parochial schools, and nonstop right-wing slam Stir in 60% of adults with no connection with schools today in an environment of i and political cohesion, and you have a recipe for disaster. IV. Who will Answer the Bell?Table of Contents I. Introduction II. The Change Process III. Systems Change Model IV. Resolving Conflicts in Teams V. Team Building and Maintenance VI. Team Problem Solving VII. Site-Based Decision Making VIII. Goal Setting and Planning IX. ResourcesArkansas Leadership Academy for Brainstorming No Criticisms No Evaluation Get Ideas Out...Do Not Discuss Them Record All Ideas Expect Wild Ideas Be Spontaneous Suspend Judgements Quantity of Ideas, Not Quality Counts Build on Each Others Ideas I ?! sFacilitator Recorder Reporter COMMITTEE ROLES Guides discussion so everyone participates\nkeeps talk focused upon the question Writes down main points\nwrites down the summary and/or list of beliefs\nasks questions for clarification Explains teams beliefs to large group Timekeeper Gives time checks for group focusTEAM-DEVELOPMENT WHEEL INSTRUCTIONS: Place a mark on the circumference of the wheel to represent the present status of your team. STAGE FOUR 11 9 10 MATURE CLOSENESS Resourceful Flexible Open Effective Close and Supportive 0 -f 1 STAGE ONE TESTING Polite Impersonal Watchful Guarded 2 -- 3 GETTING ORGANIZED Developing Skills Establishing Procedures Giving Feedback Confronting Issues 8 INFIGHTING Controlling Conflicts Confronting People Opting Out Experiencing Difficulties Feeling Stuck 4 7 5 STAGE THREE 6 STAGE TWORULES FOR BRAINSTORMING NO CRITICISMS o c r (7. [MC f N 1 I I I I I ! NO EVALUATIONS GET IDEAS OUT... DO NOT DISCUSS THEM RECORD ALL IDEAS EXPECT WILD IDEAS BE SPONTANEOUS SUSPEND JUDGMENTS QUANTITY OF IDEAS, NOT QUALITY, COUNTS BUILD ON EACH OTHER'S IDEAS I pu-r I vvjiS-START FRCGR AMS I I Radio HEcT THE UCAi. OFFICERS GO OIR=CT!_Y T: THc _/ Team Norms, Roles and Practices ? Decision making rules, including joint agenda building, keeping and posting public records, and debriefing team meetings. Productive participation, including facilitation, recording, timekeeping, process observing, and encouraging. Communication norms, including active listening, criticizing ideas, not people, and speaking briefly. Problem solving, consensusbuilding, and valuing diversity. Feedback, reflection, and critique.Meeting Guidelines General Punctual attendance Start on time Right people are present Purpose is well understood Roles are assigned (facilitator, timekeeper, scribe) Agenda Communicate and agree (adjust if appropriate Visible, with time frames for each item Desired outcome for each item (info sharing, info processing, decision required) Monitor time, agree to adjust if necessary ) Group Behavior Active listening and participation Help to summarize and test for understanding Be open and encourage ideas Look for facts Strive for closure and consensus Provide secondary facilitation Limit war stories Avoid side conversations Leave only at the scheduled break Wrap Up Review action items agreed to and decisions made Discuss next meeting and tentative agenda Conduct a process checkPlan and Process Alignment for Improved Student Achievement Little Rock School District Process Data Analysis Campus Plan Process Interventions Professional Development Standards Assessment Accountability Parent Involvement SP X X X X RDEP X X X X OCR X )( X X Title I X X X )( ACSIP X X X X X X ACTAAP X UPDI NSF X X X X CLP X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X i X X X X X X X X X SP RDEP OCR Title I ACSIP ACTAAP UPDI NSF CLP strategic Plan Revised Desergregation and Education Plan Office of Civil Rights Resolution Agreement Title I Arkansas Comprehensive School Improvement Planning Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Program Urban Professional Development Initiative National Science Foundation Campus Leadership PlanRAILROAD MODEL OF GROUP DEVELOPMENT SHARED VISION * * Task Tool Ties That Bind Ineffective working relationships Negative attention Individual difference separate * * * * People support what they help create. Local people solve local problems best. Everyone is responsible for pulling his own happiness wagon Change takes place faster in groups. /Arkansas / eaJe-rship /^caJemy LEVELS OF TEAMWORK BELIEF LEVEL Interdependence recognized. Individual strengths cover other's weak areas. Deep understanding/trust in beliefs and actions of others. Win/win always. Frequent negotiation and collaboration. Commitment to care for others is clear. TRUST LEVEL Predictable positive behavior. Strong faith that others will perform as expected in (mostly) useful ways. Occasional confronts and sincere efforts to resolve differences/problems. Similar goals. OPEN LEVEL . Individual efforts to establish positive teamwork relationships. Search for shared values and non-judgmental acceptance. Lots of \"if only\" and \"yes, but.\" i CLOSED LEVEL Frequently seen as easier to work alone than spend effort and time trying to build relationships. Occasional outbursts of anger and/or shows of frustration.^ 2 Modified by Sharon Williams, North Little Rock School DistrictCHANGE is =\u0026gt;PROCESS, not an event :^made by INDIVIDUALS first, then institutions/systems =\u0026gt;highly PERSONAL experience ^DEVELOPMENTAL growth in feelings and skills INTER VENTIONS must be related to =\u0026gt;the people first =\u0026gt;the innovations secondSeven Propositions for Success 1. Change is learning, loaded with uncertainty. 2. Change is a journey, not a blueprint. 3. Problems are our friends. 4. Change is resource-hungry. 5. Change requires the power to manage it. 6. Change is systemic. 7. All large-scale change is implemented locally. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory 211 E. Seventh Street Austin, Texas 78701 Tp II.8The Change Process OUS, Incremental Change. The 196Cys theory that improvement will be continu-regular, and incremental. \"Everyday, in every way, we get better and better.\" 'Notes: Implementation Dip. Fullan (1992) notes that substantial change causes _ initial disruption and confusion, causing performance to deteriorate for a while. \"Old habits, no matter how bad they are, that are properly mastered produce more regular results than better habits over which you have little control.\" The Schlechty Circle. Schlechty (1993) notes that individuals whose performance, is deteriorating because of the Implementation Dip often return to their, originali performance, rather than continue with the change iniative. \"When people find fiiat they are down to the point of being worse than they used to be, they decide it's better to be as bad as they used to be because that s better than they are now.\" Source\nDr. Phillip Schlechty The Centex fox Leaoexshif in School Refoxm I Arkansas Leadership Academy 3 Phases of Transition Through Change External/ Environment Transition Grid Denial Commitment Past* Future Resistance / Exploration Internal/ Self The Transition Grid is pan of the Chanse Prosrams offered by Flora/Elkind Associates, in Cynthia D. Scott,. and Dennis T. Jaffe, Managing Altos, CA\nCrisp Publications, 1989), Ornani:a!ional Change: A Practical Guide for Managers (Los o 5Arkansas Leadership Academy Managing Complex Change^ Vision Skills Incentives \u0026gt; Resources 1 \u0026gt; Action Plan Clinnge Skills Incentives \u0026gt; Resources ----\u0026gt; Action Plan \u0026gt; Confusion Vision Incentives \u0026gt; Resources Action Plan Anxiety Vision Skills Resources \u0026gt; Action Plan \u0026gt; Gradual Change Vision Skills Incentives \u0026gt; Action Plan \u0026gt; Frustration Vision \u0026gt; Skills Incentives Resources \u0026gt; False Start.s ' Bnteipiisc Management Ltd., 1987. .3 Concerns and the Facilitation of Change Stage 0 - Awareness Concerns Stage 1 - Informationarcqncerns Is\n Stage 2 - Personal Concerns I Stage 3 - Management Con^ferns Stage 4 - Consequence Concerns Stage 5 - Collaborative Concerns Stage 6 - Refocusing ConcernsConcerns and the Facilitation of Change A first step in using concerns to guide interventions is to know what concerns the individuals have, especially their most intense concerns. The second step is to deliver interventions that might respond to those concerns. Unfortunately, there is no absolute set of universal prescriptions, but the following suggestions offer examples of interventions that might be useful. Stage 0 - Awareness Concerns a. If possible, involve teachers in discussions and decisions about the innovation and its implementation. b. Share enough information to arouse interest, but not so much that it over- c. whelms. Acknowledge that a lack of awareness is expected and reasonable, and that no questions about the innovation are foolish. d. Encourage unaware persons to talk with colleagues who know about the innova- e. tion. Take steps to minimize gossip and inaccurate sharing of information about the innovation. Stage 1 Informational Concerns a. Provide clear and accurate information about the innovation. b. Use a variety of ways to share information verbally, in writing, and through any available media. Communicate with individuals and with small and large groups. c. Have persons who have used the innovation in other settings visit with your teachers. Visits to user schools could also be arranged. d. Help teachers see how the innovation relates to their current practices, in regard to both similarities and differences. e. Be enthusiastic and enhance the visibility of others who are excited. Stage 2 - Personal Concerns a. Legitimize the existence and expression of personal concerns. Knowing that these concerns are common and that others share them can be comforting. b. Use personal notes and conversations to provide encouragement and reinforce personal adequacy. c. Connect these teachers with others whose personal concerns have diminished and who will be supportive. d. Show how the innovation can be implemented sequentially rather than in one e. big leap. It is important to establish expectations that are attainable. Do not push innovation use, but encourage and support it while maintaining expectations. From: Hord, S. M., Rutherford, W. L., Huling-Austin. L., \u0026amp; Hall, G. E. Taking Charge of Change. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory 211 E. Seventh Street Austin, Texas 78701 Ho.X.4aStage 3 - Management Concerns a. Clarify the steps and components of the innovation. Information from innovation configurations will be helpful here. b. Provide answers that address the small, specific \"how-to\" issues that are so often c. the cause of management concerns. Demonstrate exact and practical solutions to the logistical problems that contribute to these concerns. d. Help teachers sequence specific activities and set timelines for their accomplishments. e. Attend to the immediate demands of the innovation, not what will be or could be in the future. Stage 4 - Consequence Concerns a. Provide these individuals with opportunities to visit other settings where the innovation is in use and to attend conferences on the topic. b. Don't overlook these individuals. Give them positive feedback and needed support. c. Find opportunities for these persons to share their skills with others. d. Share with these persons information pertaining to the innovation. Stage 5 Collaborative Concerns a. b. c. d. e. Provide these individuals with opportunities to develop those skills necessary for working collaboratively. Bring together those persons, both within and outside the school, who are interested in collaboration. Help the collaborators establish reasonable expectations and guidelines for the collaborative effort. Use these persons to provide technical assistance to others who need assistance. Encourage the collaborators, but don't attempt to force collaboration on those who are not interested. Stage 6 - Refocusing Concerns a. b. c. d. e. Respect and encourage the interest these persons have for finding a better way. Help these individuals channel their ideas and energies in ways that will be productive rather than counterproductive. Encourage these individuals to act on their concerns for program inprovement. Help these persons access the resources they may need to refine their ideas and put them into practice. Be aware of and willing to accept the fact that these persons may replace or significantly modify the existing innovations. Individuals do have concerns about change, and these concerns will have a powerful influence on the implementation of change. The CBAM offers several easy ways to identify these concerns. It is up to those who guide change to identify concerns, inter- pret them, and then act on them. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory 211 E. Seventh Street Austin, Texas 78701 Ho X 4bi Arkansas Leadership Academy 9 Reasons for Resistance to Change 1. When the purpose of the change is not made clear. t. 2. When persons affected by the change are not involved. 3. When an appeal for change is based on personal reasons. 4. 5. When the habit patterns of the individual are ignored When there is poor communication regarding the change. 6. When there is fear of failure. 7. When excessive pressure is involved. 8. When the cost is too high, or the reward inadequate. 9, When anxiety over personal security is not allowed. 10. When there is a lack of respect and trust in the initiator. 11. When there is satisfaction with the status quo. \\ I Gordon Lippin. A Handbook for Visual Problem Solvin\nA Resource Guide for Creoting Change Models (Bethesda. MD: Development Publications. 1983). 9 15 9Arkansas Leadership Academy Why People Dont Do What We Want Them To*^ 1. Dont know what to do (knowledge/expectations) 2. Dont know how to do it (ability/skill) 3. Dont know why they should do it (importance) 4. Dont want to (lack of will) 5, Arent well suited or matched to the task (selection) K * Douglas S. Flemins and Ann Kilcher, Orsani-.in^ end Managing School Change Workshop^EA National Center for Innovation National Conference, Colorado Springs. CO, November 8, 1991. I 8Arkansas Leadership Academy Enablers of Change^ 1. There is a sense of openness, both individually and organizationally. 2. Individuals feel they have control of their own fate with the change. Individuals are empowered. 3. The change will have an influence or impact on some outcome. The change will make a difference. 4. The change will foster understanding. 5. The change will clarify roles. 6. The change provides an opportunity to pursue deeply held beliefs and values. 7. The change brings status. 1 8. TheJ change brings opportunity for more affiliative relationships. / 9. The change relieves boredom and routine. 10. The change provides individuals with some options and alternatives. 11. The change brings power to influence or control others. 12. The change brings material ($) rewards. 13. The change is required to respond to punishment. a threat and/or avoid 14. Individuals see they are needed in the change process. 15. Change facilitator is honest about limitations of the 'O innovation. II Paul Berman and Milbrey McLaughlin, \"Supponing Change\" in The Rand Report iSanta Monica, CA\n1975), 14\\ Arkansas Leadership Academy Creating Tools to Communicate Change^\" 1. The Master Plan: A Flow Chart Symbolic representation of the stages, steps, or major events in a complex process. Enables participants to see the big -picture. 2. Mission Statement In five hundred words or less, captures the central purpose of the school or program. Describes succinctly who is served, what they will learn, and how staff are prepared to work with them to achieve the desired outcomes. 3. Core Beliefs A statement of the commonly held beliefs, attitudes, and convictions of the school or program. One set of core beliefs may relate to learners, learning, and schools as learning places. Another may relate to beliefs about how adults best work together. 4. Annual Goals Five or ten general statements relating to the overall mission of the school or program. District goals are framed broadly. Building level goals are targeted to the grade levels served. 5. Action Plans An outline or framework depicting the sequence of activities, events, or products needed to achieve goals. Action plans generally follow a hierarchy of objectives, strategies, and tactics. Most identify who is accountable for completing the work, the resources needed\nthe steps necessary, and a tentative completion date. 6. Monthly Planning Wheel A tool for identifying strategic initiatives in each of the key result areas a program instructional teams. Frequently used by serves. Douglas S. Fleming and Ann Kilcher. Organizing and Managing School Change Workshop. NEA- National Center for Innovation National Conference, Colorado Springs, CO, November 8, 1991. 15Arkansas Leadership Academy Managing the Process of Change in Schools Understand the Nature of the Change Itself Define and illustrate the change in terms of what teachers. administrators and students will say or do when the change is implemented. Outline how a set of different but interrelated actions fit together in a strategic way to achieve the desired outcomes. Know what it is Know what it is not Design (or adopt) a coherent framework for school change * 14 Turning Points Recommendations 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Create small communities of learning Teach a core academic program Ensure success for all students Empower teachers and administrators Suff middle grades schools with teachers who are expert at ^eachin: adolescents 6) improve academic performance through better health and fitness 7) Re-engage families in the education of young adolescents 8) Connect schools with communities O o I Dou alas S. Fleming and Ann Kilcher, Organizing and Managing School Change Workshop NEA National Center for Innovation National Conference, Colorado Springs. CO. November 8, 19 . Carnegie Foundation. 1989. 16( Arkansas Leadership Academy Managing the Process of Change in Schools (confd)_____________________ Acknowledge how the Change May be Viewed by Individuals Successful change efforts recognize the diversity of the adult population in terms of their life stages. interests, and concerns. Address the complexity of adult learning. Provide multiple and flexible entry- and exit points for participation. Emphasize beliefs and behaviors - the why as well as the how. Characteristics of Adults as Learners 15 1)^ Self directed rather than dependent on direction form others 2) Have life experiences and accumulated wisdom to share 3) Readiness to leam stems from real needs and problems at the time 4) Motivated by curiosity and internal incentives 5) Leam best from mutual diagnosis of needs, goal setting and monitoring Address the Needs of People as Well as the Needs of the Change Individuals and organizations adapt to innovations and People acknowledge change, change developmentally. accept it, and integrate it at different understand its meaning, rates. Legitimize individual concerns. Provide support for innovators and early adopters. Move with a critical mass of support. 15 Malcolm Knowles, 1978. 17Arkansas Leadership Academy Managing the Process of Change in Schools (contd) Understand how Change May be Viewed Within the Organization Every school has a unique culture, with its own history, traditions, and ways of doing business. Consequently, there is no single formula for school improvement. Change occurs within the context of distinct organizational filters,.including: Local structures and policies present. Human resources available. Politics of the school and community. Symbolic meaning innovation. associated with a particular strategy or Use Consensus Management Getting everyone on board and heading in the same general direction doesnt mean that everyone accepts every detail regarding the change. It does mean that they are willing to give the change strategy a fair shot at succeeding within a reasonable trial period. ( Provide flexibility, choice, and genuine options within a . broad framework to enable each unit to determine its own way of changing the way it does business. Employ a unifying language. Avoid divisive terminology, and trigger words that may have negative connotations. 18Arkansas Leadership Academy Managing the Process of Change in Schools (contd) .................................... ............... Provide Ongoing Professional Development In improving schools, professional development shifts from a simple training model to a more comprehensive \"learning model. Emphasize teacher learning and provide the time, resources. and supports necessary. Reduce dependence on workshops and outside consultants through activities such as curriculum development, peer coaching, teacher research programs, problem-solving groups, and collegial support teams. An Action Research Framework* 1) Where are we now? 2) Where do we want to be? 3) How do we get there? 4) How are we doing? 5) What do we need to look at next?. Demonstrate and Cultivate Leadership Leadership is essential to change, banner, someone waves the flag. Someone carries the School leaders champion ideas, provide support, maintain focus and, mitiate movement from where we are to where we want to be. Enable the emergence and development of leadership at all levels in the school and community. Whether this occurs through community-wide strategic plannin, programs, site'-based decision making councils, teacher- -- ------------ teamed occurs 'g or planned staff development programs, instruction groups, new roles for teachers, parents, administrators and community members are created and experienced. Change norms of isolation, fragmentation, and competition to norms of collegiality, connectedness, and collaboration. Holly and South worth, 1990. 19Arkansas Leadership Academy Demonstrate and Cultivate Leadership (contd) Managing the Process of Change in Schools (contd) 17 Building Systems for Professional Growth 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) Foster collegiality and collaboration Promote experimentation and risk-taking Use available knowledge bases Ensure participant involvement Provide time to meet and plan Secure top level support and commitment Develop appropriate incentives and rewards Apply knowledge about adult learning and change 9)~ Integrate individual, school, and district goals 10) Promote linkage of staff development with school philosophy and structure Recognize that Change is a Long-term Process Some researchers suggest that it takes from three to five years to fully integrate a new idea or practice. / Change is a process, not an event. ' Change takes time. ig Change cannot be imposed from above without enrollin! the commitment of those who must make it happen and providing them with the skills and tools to do the job. People need time to meet and plan, to reflect on current practice, to try out something new, and to evaluate their efforts. Arbuckle and Baker, 1989. 20Preparing for Change Small-Group Discussion: Think about the trailblazers, pioneers, settlers, stay-at-homes, and saboteurs who are involved with your school. How will you prepare/manage change in your school for each of these roles, and what resources (time, people, space, knowledge, and technology) are needed to accomplish your task? Complete columns 1,2,3, 4, and 5 on the chart that follows brainstorming methods of preparing for change for each of those roles. Trailblazers. Those who take the first steps in creating/sustaining change in your school. Pioneers. Those who are willing to take considerable risks but need assurance that their ventures are worthwhile. Settlers. Those who need to be persuaded that the undertaking is worthwhile. Stay-at-Homes. Those who do not particularly want to change and are not likely to be encouraged to change but are not necessarily opposed to those involved in restructuring your school. Saboteurs. Those who are actively committed to stopping change in your school.PREPARING FOR CHANGE TRAILBLAZERS, PIONEERS, SETTLERS, STAY-AT-HOMES, AND SABOTEURS 1 Trailblazers 2 Pioneers Adopted from: The Center for Leadership in Schooi Reform 1993 3 Settlers 4 Stay-at-Homes 5 SaboteursvO wi\nTheLRSD 5 Campus Based Leadership Initiative A Change Process Model Based on Systems Thinking aS 15dJ rceyjo^yg Essential Questions About Systems Thinking / What defines the systems 9 work? What drives the systems work? 0 How is the systems work achieved?X' Essential Questions About Systems Thinking What defines the systems work? LRSD Campus Based Leadership Parameters 9 \nWhat drives the systems work? LRSD Campus Based Leadership Principles How is the systems work achieved? LRSD CBL Total Quality Work PlansWa The Three Ps of Systems Thinking Parameters Principles Plansf/j Why The 3 Ps? Parameters provide context Principles establish ethic Plans provide results 'OWw ft.\n.,.51.^1?\nvsw \\ \u0026gt;* sjl LRSD Campus Based Leadership Principles The quest for deep knowledge about teaching and learning is clear and abiding Total quality management skills are used to lead and facilitate change process Collaborative leadership is modeled The accountability system is sustained The vision is lived i T-i+sv LRSD CBL Total Qu\u0026amp;lity Work Plan Standards STANDARD ONE: Create and sustain customer involvement and support climate BENCHMARKS Seek Diversity Nurture Stakeholders KEY SKILLS KEY SKILLS Identify, access and recruit diverse customers and support Ensure diverse customer participation in goal setting, planning and shared decision making Include diverse customers and support representation to produce quality work Use effective communication skills to build, nurture, and sustain diverse and democratic customer and support base Use conflict resolution skills to strengthen and maintain diverse and democratic customer and support base Ates'*w W* W 'J LRSD CBL Total QuTility Work Plan Standards STANDARD TWO: Create and sustain accountability system___________________________________ BENCHMARKS Set Goals \u0026amp; Plans Align Curriculum Instruction \u0026amp; Assessment Share Decision Making KEY SKILLS KEY SKILLS KEY SKILLS Establish priorities and benchmarks Analyze and disaggregate student achievement data Use Quality Management Tools Identify and select Research Based Practices Monitor Customer Service for Satisfaction Design CCOE School Improvement Plan to Align work of district/state initiatives Identify the standards, instructional strategies, and appropriate assessments to insure student success throughout all of the Districts Initiatives Use total quality problem solving processes Use total quality consensus building and decision making Focus priorities for decisions to leverage change in student achievement results Use multiple deicision making tools Provide equal access to information and data r.f-Yr ' Kt S'a i LRSD CBL TOTAL QUALITY WORK PLAN ACTION CONTINUUM PLAN------ SkBb Create and sustain customer involvement and support climate Improved Student Achievement Create and sustain an accountability system ACT DO CHECK Isos- Ji- .w f- : ','^#08 ' -.'-Ks? \u0026gt;,0S\n: M' \u0026lt;i-'-^\u0026gt;Ir w iS' Description Key Learning Arkansas Leadership Academy Resolving Conflict in Teams All teams will experience conflict if they are exploring new ways of learning and working together, o co Conflicts will arise for different reasons. When different stakeholders serve on teams, conflicts may arise just because of differences in the language used to communicate about issues or the content of filters used to talk about the issues. Regardless of when, why or how a conflict is generated, successful teams acknowledge their conflicts and have strategies for dealing with their differences. Participants will identify their conflict style and those of others and learn tactics for resolving differences, which produce a more cohesive and productive team. At the conclusion of this session you will be able to: Identify the processes, tools, and tips for resolving conflict. Understand that conflicts may arise from differences in facts, methods, goals, and values. See conflict as an opportunity to identify our emotional baggage so that we can heal it. Utilize the think/feel/act process. Be aware of the need for teams to attain consensus on acceptable norms of behavior in order to reduce conflict. Identify personal conflict management strategies including stress reduction. 1Arkansas Leadership Academy Conflict Resolution Definition Conflict situations are those in which the concerns of two people appear to be incompatible. Conflict is a process that begins when one of the panics in the interaction perceives that another has frustrated, or is about to frustrate, one of his or her needs or concerns. Conflicts may arise from differences in interests, desires, values, or from scarcity of some resources such as time, space, and position\nor they may reflect a rivalry in which one person tries to outdo or undo the other. Differences that Create Conflict FACTS: Same Facts - Different Viewpoints METHODS: Disagree on How to GOALS: Different VALUES: Values Differ 2Arkansas Leadership Academy Tips for Resolving Conflicts while Maintaining Relationships Be unconditionally constructive. Pursue relationships and substantive goals independently. Beware of partisan perceptions: dont forget how differently people see things. Balance emotions and reason. You need both. Too much emotion can cloud judgement. Too little emotion impairs motivation and understanding. Explore the other persons thinking. Always assume a need to leam more. Avoid at all costs: * * * Assuming there is no need to talk. Believing you are communicating when you are telling. Sending mixed messages. Always consult before deciding. Work to increase your own reliability. Examine your trustworthiness and improve your conduct. Ask people to give you feedback on your reliability. Help them to be more reliable. Describe their behavior and the consequences of their actions. Trust them when they deserve it. 3Arkansas Leadership Academy Tips for Resolving Conflicts while Maintaining Relationships Avoid using coercive tactics: * * * Attacking the individual vs. attacking the problem. Winning a contest vs. solving a problem. Commit early vs. remain open. Focus on positions vs. explore interests. Either/or vs. multiple options. Break their will vs. persuade for whats fair. Worsen their walk away alternative vs. improve ours. Deal seriously with those whom we differ. Create congruence. Periodically stop to evaluate the state of the relationship and work to bring behaviors more in line with your beliefs.' Watch for heavy tactics. (Psychological warfare) I * * * * * * * Phony facts Ambiguous details Personal attacks Threats The good-guy/bad-guy routine Escalating demands Lock in tactics Remember, it is not a question of winning and losing. You are trying to achieve a better process for dealing with your differences.\" * R. Fisher and S. Brown, Getting Together: Building Relationships As V/e Negotiate (The Harvard Negotiation Project), (Penguin Books, 1988). R. Fisher and W. Ury, Getting To Yes: Negotiating Agreements Without Giving In (Penauin Books, 1981). 4Arkansas Leadership Academy Interpersonal Confrontation Strategies 1. Self- Judgement You ask the person to look in the mirror and evaluate whether or not their behavior is helping them get what they want. Ask them: What do you want? Is your behavior helping you get...? Is their any way your behavior is hurting you getting...? 2. State the Impact on You Give the person direct feedback about the impact of their behavior on you. In essence, you look in the mirror and describe the effects. You connect their behavior with how you feel and think, as well as answer the questions why. Say: When you because I (think, feel) 3. Compare Pictures Ask the person to describe what they see happening between you. (What are the issues? Problems?) You then describe how you see the situation. My understanding Your understanding Ask for Solutions/Strategies Establishes the discrepancy between your perceptions Confronts them clarification with problem identification and Moves them to solution finding vs. problem beating 5Arkansas Leadership Academy Conflict Management Tips Arguing over positions produces unwise agreements. Every conflict negotiation has two kinds of interest: in substance (details) and in the relationship. Discuss each others perceptions, how they see or understand the issues. Recognize and understand emotions, theirs and yours. Acknowledge them as legitimate. Listen attentively and acknowledge what is being said. Speak about yourself, not about them. Face the problem, not the people. Behind opposed positions lie shared and compatible interests, as well as conflicting ones. Work to identify interests by asking Why? and Why not? Talk about your interests while looking forward, not back. Avoid the assumption of a fixed pie. Brainstorm ideas to invent options for mutual gain. Separate inventing from deciding. O' Identify shared interests. Insist on using objective criteria. Develop fair standards and fair procedures. If they are more powerful, develop your BATNA (Best Alternative To A Negotiated Agreement) What if they wont participate? * * * * * Dont attack their positions, look behind it. Dont defend your ideas, invite criticism and advice. Redirect an attack on you as an attack on the problem. Ask questions, talk less. Discuss the principle behind their action. Stress fairness and really work to understand their issues. There is a reason for their behavior. 6 IArkansas Leadership Academy Conflict Problem-Solving Worksheet 1. Definition of the Problem What is happening here? My List Your List Whose problem is it? (Clear up differences in perception here.) I say You say How would I (we) like things to be? My list Your list Why do I (we) have to take action? What would happen if I (we) did nothing? I say You say 7Arkansas Leadership Academy Conflict Problem-Solving Worksheet 2. OfUcial Statement What is my (our) clearest statement of what I (we) want? (Check statements to see if they reflect mutual understanding of the conflict problem.) My statement Your statement 3. Possible Solutions (Work these out individually without talking\nthen share and prioritize them together.) What are all the possible solutions to the problem (in priority order)? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 4. Reality Test Reality test each solution against these questions. Start with the highest priority and work down: v Is there common understanding of the idea? Do we have 'o the same perception of what it means? Is it realistically possible to accomplish? Do we have the necessary desire and commitment to make it work? What are all the possible things that could go wrong with the idea? What will happen if we try it and it does not work? 8Arkansas Leadership Academy Conflict Problem-Solving Worksheet 5. Action Plan 6. Action Agree on a plan of action. (Identify a contingency plan. Agree on how to renegotiate.) Carry out your best (highest priority) solution in small, agreed- on, realistic steps to enhance possibilities for success. Build in an agreement to reevaluate within a reasonable time and to plan again if necessary. M. Roberts, Managing Conflict: From the Inside Out. (Austin. TX: Learning Concepts, 1982). 9Arkansas Leadership Academy Roadblocks to Communications Blockinn Action Example Effect ORDERING, DIRECTING, COMMANDING You must, you have to Resistance, rebellion WARNING, ADMONISHING You had better, if you dont Obey only out of fear, resentment MORALIZING, OBLIGING You should, it is your duty, it is your responsibility Makes one feel guilty, should 1... LOGIC, ARGUING Here is why you are wrong, the facts are Defensiveness, counter arguments, you always think youre right ADVISING, RECOMMENDING It would be best for you Feel inadequate, inferior, duck responsibility, dependent EVALUATING, DISAPPROVING, NAMECALLING Youre not thinking straight, youre confused o Feel inferior, incompetent, guilty I PRAISING, JUDGING, APPROVING Thats good, thats nice Threatening, often feel manipulated, embarrassed SUPPORTING, REASSURING, EXCUSING Dont worry, youll feel better, thats too bad I cant accept such feelings, may disbelieve you DIAGNOSING, PSYCHOANALYZING, INTERPRETING What you need is, you dont really mean that If the analysis is wrong, person resists\nif it is right, person may feel exposed, trapped 5 10Arkansas Leadership Academy Roadblocks to Communications (contd) Blocking Action Example Effect QUESTIONING, PROBING, CROSS-EXAMINING Why? Who? Where? What? Conveys lack of trust, on the witness stand DIVERTING. AVOIDING, SHIFTING Lets think about that later, not now Feel rejected, lack of respect KIDDING, TEASING, USING SARCASM Got up on the wrong side of the bed?! Cuts off communication, not interested, stems from hostility, provokes counter hostility 11Arkansas Leadership Academy Conflict Approaches Questionnaire Directions: Consider situations in which you find that your wishes differ from the wishes of another person. How do you usually respond to such situations? On the following pages are several pairs of statements describing possible behavioral responses. For each pair, please circle the A\" or B statement depending on which is most characteristic of your own behavior. That is, please indicate which of these two responses is more typical of your behavior in situations where you find that your wishes differ from someone elses wishes. many cases, neither the A nor the B statement may be very typical of your behavior: but please select the response which you would be more likely to use. 1. a. b. I push hard to achieve my goals. I try to consider the other persons concerns and goals, as well as my own. ! 2. a. b. I try to see things from the other persons point of view. I try to strike a balance of wins and losses with the other person. 3. a. b. I try hard not to hurt the other persons feelings. I try to understand all the other persons concerns and goals. 4. a. b. I try to propose a compromise solution that both of us can agree to. I put off dealing with the conflict until Ive had a chance to think about it. 5. a. b. 1 try hard to influence others to accept my position. I try to find the middle ground, where the other person and I can agree. 6. a. b. 1 try to deal with all of the other persons concerns and goals as well as my own. I try to avoid situations in which there is anger and hostility. 12Arkansas Leadership Academy Conflict Approaches Questionnaire 7. a. b. I try to persuade the other person to see the positive side of things. 1 try to find a middle ground where the other person and I can agree. 8. a. b. I often acquiesce in order to maintain a good relationship with the other person. I am firm in pursuing my goals and ideas. 9. a. b. I do what ever I can to demonstrate the advantages of my position. I try not to get involved in controversies with others. 10. a. b. I believe it is important to maintain good relations with the other person in resolving our differences. I give in rather than hurt the other persons feelings. 11. a. b. I try to get the other person to see the things on which we agree. I try not to get involved in controversies with others. 12. a. b. I let others deal with the difficult and controversial issues. I try hard to maintain positive relations with the other person. 13. a. b. Winning my position is more important than maintaining positive relations with others. Consensus or agreement is more important than winning my own position. 14. a. b. I am willing to give on some points if the other person does too. I do whatever I can to demonstrate the advantages of my position. 15. a. b. I stay away from situations in which there is anger and hostility. I try to achieve my goals regardless of the others feelings. 13Arkansas Leadership Academy Conflict Approaches Questionnaire'* 16. a. b. I avoid topics that provoke disagreement and controversy. I try to see things from the other persons point of view. 17. a. b. I am willing to reveal all of my concerns and ideas in order to come to agreement with the other person. 1 push hard to achieve my goals. 18. a. b. I try to find the middle ground where we can both agree. I am willing to reveal all my concerns and ideas in order to come to agreement with the other person. 19. a. b. I put off dealing with conflict until Ive had a chance to think about it. I try to strike a balance of wins and losses with the other person. 20. a. b. I believe it is better to reach a compromise than to let the conflict go on. I usually concede if the other person feels more strongly about the issue. 4 Carleen OConnell, Western Organizational Consultants, Box 5769, Vancouver, WA 98668-5769. 14Arkansas Leadership Academy Scoring the Questionnaire Instructions: Working from your answers in the questionnaire, circle the answer (a or b) in the chart below. Add the circled items from each column to get your scores. Pair No. 1. I. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. B A B A B A B A B A B A B A A B A B A B A B B B A A B B A A A B A B B A B A A B ] Forcing (Competing) Accommodating Negotiating (Smoothing) Collaborating (Compromising) (Problem- Solving) Avoiding (Withdrawing) 15Arkansas Leadership Academy Graphing Your Approaches to Conflict Instructions: Your scores for your approach to conflict will probably be mixed. Some will be high and some low. In order to develop a profile, circle your score for each category in the chart below, then draw a line between each of the circles. Forcing (Competing) Accommodating (Smoothing) Negotiating (Compromising) Collaborating (Problem- Solving) Avoiding (Withdrawing) High Mid Low 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 8 7 6 5 4 3 1. 1 0 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 16 'OInterpreting Your Approach to Conflict Styles___________________ Forcing: Aimed at accomplishing one.s preferred decision or source of action. Use of power, rank, or persuasion. Winning ones position over oppo.sition. Taking a position and pushing for it. Accommodating: Aimed at maintaining good relationships with others. Sensitivity to others feelings. Trying to meet the other persons demands. Smoothing over differences. Yielding ones own position to others. Negotiating: Aimed at achieving a compromise or middle ground. Use of bargaining of gains and losses. Involves give and take on the issues. Is intermediate between forcing, harmonizing, integrating, and dividing. Advantages When quick decisions are required, i.e.. crisis situation.s When unpopular decisions are required, or unpopular rules need to be enforced When a more harmoniou.s approach may be exploited by others When issue is far more important to the other person There is a danger of losing your position. You are interested in trade offs* from the other person in the future. When it is not the lime for controversy. When opponents are of equal strength, and committed to different goals. An expedient and temporary solution is needed. When other styles fail to solve the problem. Disadvantages__________ May strain relationships with others, causing tension, hurt feelings. May lead to win/lose outcomes. May lower ownership in decisions, lead to a _____lack of support. When a decision is necessary. You will have trouble living up to the solution. When yielding your position will cause you to feel badly. When you know youre right. Solutions are temporary. Each party achieves only part of its goals. Each party must give up some of its goals. To think about High ScoreZUse__________ Low Score/Use Do others agree too much with me'? Am I gelling all of the ideas and feelings of others'? Are my decisions supported? What about morale? Do I get my way often enough? Am 1 too concerned with others* feelings. Am 1 aware of the power that 1 have? Am I yielding so much that my ideas arent getting enough attention? So we spend too much time paying attention to feelings and good relations? Are our procedures too loose to be effective? When I am wrong, do 1 have trouble changing my position? Do others see me as difficult and unreasonable? Are others reluctant to share their ideas and feelings? Do I get so entangled in the technicalities of bargaining that I lose sight of my goals? Am I prepared to renegotiate the solution in the future? Is it hard for me to trade .some of my positions in order to gain others? Do 1 take the negotiations personally, rather than as a way of doing business? Requires good faith to be effective._____ Collaborating: Aimed at finding a solution that meets the needs and goals of both parties. Incorporates both goals/task and human relations considerations. Full examination of all concerns, ideas and feelings. Requires openness and candid communications._ Avoiding: Aimed at staying out of the conflict situation. Low involvemenl in either task or relationship concerns. May involve withdrawing, changing subject, postponing the issue, or sidestepping the problem. When there is a readiness to grow and change. When a unified approach is needed. When maintenance of working relationships is important When likely to be more harm than good resulting from the conflict When the conflict is a *no-win* situation. When other business is really more important. To postpone the conflict until a bener time. When a quick solution is needed. When parties are not willing to change. When one party is likely to take advantage of the others efforts. Avoiding issues that might make the organization less effective. Without full participation of all members, the staff may make decisions without knowing all ideas and feelings. 17 Do I spend too much time examining the issues and feelings? Is an integrating approach really needed in all cases? Are there issues the staff cannot address without my participation? Are we making some decisions by default, because of avoidance? Does the community or other groups expect the issues to be resolved? Is there a lack of direction because of avoidance of issues? Do other members, staff and community lack commitment to your decisions and pobcies? Are you overwhelmed by the number of problems and issues? Are there some problems that are better left to others to deal with? Am 1 seen as loo conftonung in my approach? Arkansas Leadership Academy Conflict Resolution Competing Power oriented mode Pursuing your concerns at the others expense Uses arguments, rank, sanction Accommodating Person neglects his own concerns to satisfy the concerns of others Selfless generosity or charity Obey - when you dont want to Avoiding You are not looking at your concern or the other persons Sidestep, postpone, withdraw Collaborating You attempt to work through the conflict with the other person to a solution that satisfies both Compromising Trying to find an expedient solution Partial satisfaction Mutually acceptable 18Arkansas Leadership Academy Conflict Management Tips for Groups Take time to get to know one another. Set norms of operation. Conduct formal or informal needs assessment to determine: * * Group and individual strengths and areas of expertise Process skills needed by the group Information needed by the group Make time for training in identified areas of need. Review group norms often. Establish a process for checking groups temperature. Celebrate successes. 19Description Key Learning Arkansas Leadership Academy Team Building and Maintenance Individuals working together need a variety of tools to ensure the effectiveness of the work of the team. The effectiveness of teams develops over time as members learn to use' each others knowledge, skills, and experience. Participants will learn different tools and techniques to assess the effectiveness of the group process and understand group roles that promote and hinder group work. At the conclusion of this session you will: Understand that people support what they help create. Know that effective teams are clear about: goal (both team and individual) roles, procedures and norms for relationships. Have experienced a variety of team building activities and processed them for learning. Understand the relationship between team building and effective team maintenance. Understand that team building is an ongoing process of growth and development. 1Arkansas Leadership Academy STAGE FOUR 12 STAGE ONE 9 11 Mature Closeness 10 Resourceful Flexible Open Effective Close and Supportive 2 Form Storm Perform Norm 3 Getting Organized Infighting 8 Developing Skills Establishing Procedures Giving Feedback Confronting Issues Controlling Conflicts Confronting People Opting Out Experiencing Difficulties Feeling Stuck 4 7 5 STAGE THREE 6 STAGE TWO 2 3 Arkansas Leadership Academy Teamwork: A Personal Action Plan 1 Think over the material you have read. Review the selfassessment questionnaires. Reflect on the conversations you have had. What have you learned about team building? What did you learn about yourself? How can you apply what you learned? Make a commitment to yourself to become a better team member and a more effective team contributor by designing a personal action plan to help you accomplish this goal. The following guide may help you clarify your goals and outline actions required to achieve your goals. 1. My current team skills are effective in the following areas: 2. I need to improve my team skills in the following areas: i 3. My goals for improving my team skills are as follows: 4. Following are my action steps, along with a time-table to accomplish each goal: Action Evidence Due Date a) b) c) ' Adapted from Robert B. Maddux, Team Building (Los Altos, CA: Crisp Publications. 1992). 4Arkansas Leadership Academy Team Action Plan What we want to share Who we want to involve How we will go about doing it Persons Responsible Resources Needed Due Date 5Arkansas Leadership Academy The Conflict Curve Most relationships and most groups that become intimate or learn to work closely together go through the following stages. / A V / / Z Z I I / Z I y I I 7 / z z / I I I I I Getting Acquainted People are polite while strangers. To work well they need to build trust and get to know each other. Norm Development People get serious. Conflicts over power and norms. Need to learn to negotiate conflicts. Effective Work Phase If norms have developed well, group should handle conflicts well. If major conflicts develop, norms may need to be renegotiated. Termination People are sad as group prepares to end. a Legend Effectiveness of group at working together _ . Level of conflict in the group. 6Arkansas Leadership Academy Receiving Criticism 1. Listen carefully. Give the speaker your full attention. Watch your non-verbal responses. 2. Hear the other person out. Dont interrupt or raise objections. 3. Be objective. Separate the words from the speaker. They may be critical of your work, your actions, or your ideas, but that does not mean that they do not like you! 4. Summarize the speakers main points. That lets them know their message has been received and understood, even if you dont a^ree with it. 5. Ask questions to clarify items. 6. If you are feeling hostile, defensive, or overwhelmed, request some time to think it over before responding, distance between yourself and the other person. Put some 7. Use the opportunity to leam from the feedback. Are the criticisms valid? Could a misunderstanding be avoided? What would it take to make things right? Where do you go from here? 8. Separate your work from yourself - dont take it personally. If you have been wrong, admit it and move on. To be sorry is to behave differently. It is not to wallow in guilt, shame, or embarrassment. Live life in the present tense. 7Arkansas Leadership Academy Description of Affective/Community-Building Activities 1. Birthday line-up 2. Forced- Choice Questions and Responses 3. Family Group Introductions 4. Knots This is a common icebreaker that takes little time and is fun. Participants line up according to their birth dates, day and month, starting from January through December. The mle is they can not talk as they figure out where to get in the line. When we process this we talk about communication and how we rely on verbal communications. Participants respond to a number of questions by going to the area of the room where their appropriate response is designated. Example: I ask them: When you have free time, if you prefer to go to the beach, go to that comer (I point), to go shopping, go to that comer (point-different comer), to take a nap, go to that comer (point again), or to read a good book, go to that comer (last comer). The questions range from preference in music to whether you are an only child, have 1-2 siblings, have 3-5 siblings, or have 6 or more\nto responses as to whether you prefer to lead or follow, etc. this activity gives them a chance to see the various things they have in common with one another and how the groups change depending on the questions. Once they are place in their Family group for the day they are to choose a partner and interview them for one minute. They are to find out as much about that person as they can, including one accomplishment that their partner is particularly proud of. Then each takes a turn introducing their partners to the rest of the group, being sure to tell the thing that their partner was proud of. Everyone applauds each introduction. The participants stand in a circle facing inwards. Each person puts their right hand in and clasps the hand of someone across the circle from them. Then being careful not to cross their own arms in the process they do the same with the left hands, not clasping the same persons hand as before. The object then is to untangle without breaking hand-clasps. 8Arkansas Leadership Academy Description of Affective/Community-Building Activities (contd) 5. Lean-in 6. Lifelines 7. Muscle Testing 8. Positive I Ams This is a trust activity done in dyads. Partners face one another with about three feet of space between them. With feet a shoulders width apart, they extend their hands in front of themselves, palms forward and then push off, trying to return themselves and partners to upright positions. Each time they take a small step backwards and lengthen the space between them and repeat the process. I have included the description of this one. This activity involves a volunteer who comes up in front of the group with me. He extends his strongest arm out to the side and resists as I try to push it down. We do this several times while he is doing various types of positive and negative thinking. Questions such as thinking about someone he really dislikes as I push down and then doing it while he thinks of someone he really likes. The results are usually surprising to people. A writing activity they have a sheet with ten I Arns and lines after each one. I ask them to take five minutes to complete the ten I Arns with positive statements that they believe to be true about themselves. Then they circle the three that they think are most important in their lives. After they have completed this one, I ask them to think of one I am that they wish they could say, but is not yet true about them\nsomething they would like to be able to say about themselves. They then choose a partner and share these ten statements with their partners, identifying the three and telling why they are most important. When this is done, I give each group a small mirror and the instructions that they are to focus on the mirror where all they can see is their own eyes, each participant says that affirmation aloud and the group says the persons name and repeats it back to them (I am a great organizer. - Davis, you are a great organizer). Each participant repeats it five to ten times (depending on time) with the group responding to each one. 9Arkansas Leadership Academy Description of Affective/Community-Building Activities (contd) 9, Wind in the Willows 10. Conducting This is an old but good one. The group stands in a circle facing inward, shoulder to shoulder and bracing with their strongest leg. Each participant takes a turn in the center of the circle, arms across chest, closes her eyes and keeping knees straight, leans back and lets the group pass her gently around. Using imaginations, the group spaces out around the room standing up with plenty of arm space. After having them close their eyes, I play a tape with the sounds of an audience in a concert hall, the orchestra is warming up and finally the Stars Forever as they are lead to conduct the orchestra silliness and emphasizes the need to play, laugh, and to not take ourselves too seriously. 11. Acid River Description included. 12. Labels I am including a description of this one too. I dont know if I would use it with elementary kids or not. It would depend on the group and I would certainly edit labels. 13. Affirming Circles Participants are told at the beginning of the day to be watching the members of their Family Group and note their positive characteristics. This activity lets each member take a seat in the center of the circle while the others each share something positive they know or have observed about that person. Activities compiled (but not created) by Davis and Cheryl Hendricks. The sources of activities should get credit but have been lost to the ages. Another source of good team-building activities is: Belonging: A Guide for Group facilitators Jayne Devencenzi and SusanPendergast 2960 Hawk Hill Lane San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 544-5359 10Description Materials Time Arkansas Leadership Academy Lifeline Exercise This activity is designed to give students a non-threatening opportunity to share personal history with one or more partners in a whole brain approach. In the early stages of developing a sense of community in the classroom, it is important for students to have opportunities to leam about each other in ways that leave them in control of how much information they are sharin\ng- This activity has been effective in beginning the process of bonding within a group. White paper or newsprint for each student, colored pencils or crayons. 45-60 minutes Process Give each student a piece of paper and pencils or crayons and ask them to take about ten to fifteen minutes to reflect on their lives from birth to the present. After a few minutes of reflection they are to construct lifelines that represent the major event,s that have happened in their lives that they feel have made a difference. Tell them that the form of their lifeline is up to them but give them the suggestion to use as many graphic symbols as possible to represent these significant events. Also suggest symbols as possible to represent these significant events. Also suggest that corresponding dates along the line would help give the events some degree of chronology and history. Tell them that when they are done with their line they should find a partner that is also finished, preferably someone they do not know very well. Each partner should take about five minutes to share their lifeline, explaining symbols and their meaning and how these events have affected their lives. Let them know that it is appropriate to ask questions of one another for clarification. When students have completed their sharing, debrief each dyad as to what they learned about each other that they did not already know. Check for commonalties and interesting connections between partners. Note: If time allows, or on another day, have students switch partners and share again. This can be repeated as many times as time allows. The timelines can also be personalized and posted in a special place in the classroom so students can examine the lives of those whom they did not get to share. 11Arkansas Leadership Academy Acid River (An experiential activity in teambuilding and problem-solving.) Objective To develop leadership, team-building skills and group problemsolving skills. o Materials Four to five one-by-four boards or poster board sections cut 18 in length per team, ten to twelve scarves, or handkerchiefs to be used as blindfolds, masking tape. Site A gym or activity room, or area outdoors not less than fifty feet, depending on size of teams (four to eight members is best). Use tape to mark off a lane of action for each team. Construct the river width so that teams cannot lay the boards end-to-end and walk across the river (For example: Using five boards that are four feet long means that the river must be at least 28 to 30 feet long.) Description Your team is on a relief mission to bring a vital serum to a village that is rapidly dying of a rare disease. In your trek across the dangerous uncharted terrain you encounter a huge standing pool of acid that is too wide to walk around. You must get across to get the serum to the village, which is only about a mile further, but time is running out! Your problem is to devise a way to get your team across the acid without losing anyone in the process. Your only tools are four one-by-four boards that are impervious to the acid. As long as you stay on the boards, you are safe. Any contact with the acid results in the loss of whatever touches it. To fall in is instant death. You can not throw the boards across or slide them along the top of the acid. Be prepared for unexpected developments that challenge your efforts. 12Arkansas Leadership Academy Acid River (An experiential activity in teambuilding and problem-solving.) (contd) Description (contd) Teams should be told to devise a plan and then begin executing their plan. The exercise can be set up for as long as you choose, depending on the size of the room and the number of members of each team. Point out to the team that the acid pool is slowly eating away their side of the shore and that leaving members on the shore will result in eventual death, so everyone must be gotten across unless they choose to abandon part of the team. Tell them that fate occasionally steps in and either simplifies their task or sometimes makes it more challenging. (You are Fate.) From time to time you may remove a board if a team is moving rapidly through the exercise or you may add a board. The room size would dictate less boards but no less than three. You may also blindfold a person who is in the middle of the river, explaining that sometimes things happen in life that seem quite unfair. Use your own judgement but be somewhat balanced in your doling out fate. Let them know how long they have and remind them periodically how much time is left. 13Arkansas Leadership Academy Acid River (An experiential activity in teambuilding and problem-solving.) (contd) Processing this activity is the most important part of it. While groups tend to have a good time doing it, it is important to talk about the dynamics of solving the problem as well as how team members responded to challenges. Pose some of the following questions in processing the activity. 1. What was your plan and how did it work? Was it necessary to modify it? Why was it necessary and how did your modification work? 2. Who were the take charge people and how did the group respond to their leadership? 3. What unexpected challenges came up for your group and how did you respond to them? 4. Did anyone play a sacrificing role and volunteer to stay behind or risk themselves in the effort? How did the group respond to them? 5. What role did you play in both the planning stage and the actual attempt at crossing the river? 6. Was your group competing with the other groups? If so, why? 7. How is this activity like life? What did you learn about yourself and your group? If you have time, it is valuable to have a spokesperson from each team respond to several of the above questions to see how different teams respond differently to the challenge of ACID RIVER. 14Rationale Materials Target Age Group Description Arkansas Leadership Academy Stereotyping (Labels) This activity addresses the premise that much of the prejudice and stereotyping that goes on in our lives can be reduced through actual experience with those whom we stereotype. Before we can begin to attempt to reduce labeling and prejudice, we must first be aware of our own personal biases and perceived differences. The purpose of this activity is to give the participants an opportunity to confront their personal prejudices and to open up discussion about the concept of prejudice and stereotypes and how they limit or otherwise affect our lives. Adhesive backed file folder labels (one per participant), background music (optional). Fourth grade (depending on level of maturity) and up. Prior to doing the activity, participants are to have brainstormed as many stereotypic labels as possible that they have either used or heard used in describing people. These may be either negative or positive in connotation. Examples would be: dumb, retard. nerd, prude, skater, cowboy, princess, etc. These are then transferred by marker one per label prior to the activity so that there is a label for each participant. Select labels based on the maturity level of your group. Some labels are disgusting to some of us and may be too emotionally challenging for some participants. If you use racial labels or labels referring to sexual orientation, make sure your group knows that these are not meant to demean anyone but rather are included to be authentic. Also, be sure not to label someone appropriately. That is, if you know that someone has been stereotyped as poor or if they truly are poor, do not label them that way. (If your group is not mature enough to understand this, or is too volatile to be able to handle strong labels, eliminate any that could be a problem.) 15Arkansas Leadership Academy Stereotyping (Labels) (contd) Description (contd) Have everyone form a large circle facing outwards and tell them that this activity requires that they be as quiet as possible with no verbal communication after this point. Tell them that they not talk to anyone or reveal anything about their labels. Then begin placing a label on each persons forehead, reminding them all the while not to tell each other what their labels are. (There will probably be some degree of giggling and laughing when they see each others labels. Keep reminding them that it is a silent activity but tolerate the giggling until everyone i.s labeled. Most of us find this to be a difficult and uncomfortable activity and giggling is a way to release some of the stress.) When everyone is labeled, tell the group to begin walking around the room looking at the people and labels they encounter and thinking about how they feel as they attach the label to the person they pass and how they feel as they observe how others regard them. (At this point begin playing the background music - something quiet and instrumental - meditative.) After a minute of walking, tell them to stop and stand opposite someone and look at their label then into their eyes as you ask two or more of the following questions. 1. What are you feeling as you look at this person and his/her label? Is it acceptance, fear guilt, pity, friendliness, trust, anger... 2. How is this person looking at you with feelings of acceptance or rejection, fear, anger, pity,...what do you think they are thinking about you and how does it feel? 3. Would you invite this person into your home for dinner? 4. Would you extend your hand to this person in friendship? 5. Would you trust this person? 6. Could you have a serious relationship with this person? 7. Would you support your son or daughter if they wanted to have a serious relationship with this person? 16Arkansas Leadership Academy Stereotyping (Labels) (contd) Description (contd) Then tell them to move on and keep walking around in circles until you stop them and tell them to find another partner and repeat the above process. Keep emphasizing that this is an inner activity without any verbal interaction and they are to be considering their own feelings and how they feel about the way others received them. Repeat the process so that they stop with a partner a minimum of six times. At the end of the activity they can take off their labels and know what they were. Once the activity is completed it is important to process it and allow participants time to share their feelings and insights about stereotyping and prejudice. This can be more effectively accomplished by putting participants in small groups of four to six (depending on the size of the overall group) and giving them the following questions to discuss and share. Processing Questions 1. What were you feeling as you regarded how others were reacting to you and your label? 2. Define stereotypes and prejudices. Are they the same thing or are they different? 3. What are the sources of stereotypes and prejudices in our lives? 4. How do stereotypes and prejudices limit' us in our capacity to understand those who are different form us? How do they limit us in other ways? 5. Share a personal experience with how stereotypes and prejudices have affected you positively or negatively in your life? 6. Are there any instances in which prejudices or stereotypes are desirable. 1. What can we do individually to decrease the influence of prejudices or stereotypes in our lives? 8. What can we do as a society to decrease destructive prejudices and stereotypes? 17Arkansas Leadership Academy Stereotyping (Labels) (contd) This activity needs plenty of processing time for groups to work through some of the complexities of this topic. Allow groups to discuss for at least 20-30 minutes before asking a spokesperson from each group to respond to one of the eight questions. As debriefer, go around the room posing a question or asking each group to pick a question and letting their spokesperson share the groups thoughts about it. Since this activity is somewhat challenging and can sometimes leave groups in an emotional valley, we have followed it up with a positive activity such as an Affirmation Circle or Circle of Strength Bombardment in which each person sits in the center while each of the others takes a turn making one sincere affirmative statement about the person in the center. (This activity was developed by Eric Smoyer at the age of 17.) ) 18Arkansas Leadership Academy Site-based Decision Making Description Site-based decision making is a way of empowering stakeholders to implement and sustain systemic change and improvement. Key Learning At the conclusion of this session you will be able to: Verbalize an operational/functional definition of site-based decision making. Assess the degree of implementation of site-based decision making at present work site. Identify steps for implementation of site-based decision making. Utilize at least one tool for site-based decision making. 1Arkansas Leadership Academy The Ten Most Widely Used Aids to Decision Making 1. Straw Voting 2. Negative Voting 3. Ranking Alternatives 4. Weighting Alternatives 5. Pro/Con Technique 6. Criteria Matrix 7. Going Around the Group Participants are asked to vote to give a general impression of reactions, not to make a decision. If there are several alternatives, each participant gets three votes to get a broader picture of reactions. Participants are asked to identify alternatives they favor the least or could not accept Participants are asked to rank order the most favorable is assigned a 1 and the total of the number of the alternatives is the least favorable. The totals or average ranks are presented to the group for further work. Similar to rank ordering but participants are given five or ten weights to assign to the various alternatives. The weight can be assigned in any one way from all on one item to equal distribution. Participants make up two lists on a flip chart, one showing all the favorable factors of a specific issue or plan. This clarifies all the reasons the proposal may not work and surfaces the fears restraining a decision. Criteria for evaluating the proposals are listed before the proposals are generated. After the proposals are summarized and reduced to a working number, they are assessed or scored according to the predetermined criteria and the results compared. The facilitator goes around the group asking each person in turn what he or she thinks about a specific issue. A polarized discussion that gets bogged down may be freed up by hearing from the silent majority. 2Arkansas Leadership Academy The Ten Most Widely Used Aids to Decision Making 1 8. Active- Listening Discussion Each member is asked to summarize the last speakers point of view - and to check the summary with that person - before he or she can express an opinion. When sensitive issues become polarized, listening often ceases as participants spend the time while others are talking preparing their next comment. 9. Trials-With- Experience Reports When two to four alternatives seem equally useful, they are tried out on an experimenul basis for a specific period of time and then reported back on to give the group more dau on possibilities. It may turn out that there is more than one successful way of handling the situation. 10. Confidential Listing of Opinions Opinions or votes on a critical issue are collected and presented anonymously\nthis often diffuses much of the emotion and confrontation of a verbal discussion. The Delphi Technique and Nominal Group Technique use this strategy by asking members to give opinions in writing and then summarizing the responses for further work. ' Hedley G. Dimock. Inler\\ention and Collaboration: Helping Organizations to Change (San Diego, CA: Pfieffer \u0026amp; Company, 1993). 3Arkansas Leadership Academy Hierarchy of Problem-Solving Involvement' High Involvement Ownership Team is directly responsible for all aspects of problem solving g and implementation of solutions (i.e., identification, and recommendations of alternative solutions and responsibility for assuring that the problem is designed out\" of the process). The team addresses problem.s relating to the performance of their work as well as competitive, organizational, and customer-related issues. Resolution Team is directly responsible for identifying and implementing solutions to the problems they encounter in their work area. ig JU Recommendations Group makes recommendations to management for possible solutions relating to problems they encounter in their work area. Identification Group is asked to identify problems in their work area. Any solutions that are developed or any actions taken are solely the responsibility of management. Low Involvement Steven R. Rayner. Recreating the Workplace: The Pathway to High Performance Work Systems. (Essex Junction, VT\nOliver Wright Publications, 1993). 4Definition What are School-Based Planning Teams Asked to Do? 3 Arkansas Leadership Academy Site-Based Decision Making^ A process in which members of a school community collaborate in identifying problems, defining goals, formulating buildinglevel policy, shaping direction, and ensuring widespread implementation of practices aimed at raising levels of achievement for all students. The persons who are responsible for implementation of a decision at the building level are actively and legitimately involved in making decisions. 1. Find out what needs to be done to improve student performance at the school. 2. Write a plan to meet those needs. 3. Present the plan to the school community. 4. See that the plan is carried out. 5. Evaluate and report to the school community the results of the plans activities. Adams Twelve Five Star Schools, 11285 Highline Drive, Northglenn, Colorado 80233. 5Arkansas Leadership Academy Site-Based Decision Making Building Level Decisions Budget allocations Recruitment/hiring Curriculum design/implementation Instructional strategies Assessment techniques Schedule Staff development Community relations Extracurricular activities Student outcomes Improvements to learning environments 6Arkansas Leadership Academy Site-Based Decision Making Steps in the Process 1. Develop awareness 2. Determine readiness 3. Organize for action 4. Assess building needs 5. Establish improvement priorities 6. Draft plans for action 7. Get additional input 8. Provide support to the team 9. Involve others in putting plans to work 10. Make adjustments as you go 7CONSENSUS DECISIONSArkansas Leadership Academy Consensus Decisions Description Consensus requires that all group members share the final decision and agree to take responsibility for implementing it. So, how do you get teams to this point? Learn and practice several different techniques that assist teams in reaching consensus. Discussion will focus on the general types of group decisions and differences between voting and consensus decision making. Key Learning At the conclusion of this session you will: Discuss the differences between compromise and consensus checks and consensus decisions. Provide tools to test for consensus decision making: weighted voting, criteria matrix. Learn why consensus can be a longer process than compromise or a voting process. Practice four tools for seeking or checking for consensus. Know the essential elements for reaching consensus. Understand why decisions reached by consensus are the most powerful decision that teams make. 1Arkansas Leadership Academy Consensus Decisions Overview The goal of consensus is a decision that is consented to by all group members. Of course, full consent does not mean that everyone must be completely satisfied with the final outcome - in fact, total satisfaction is rare. The decision must be acceptable enough, however, that all will agree to support it. Consensus Means... All group members contribute. Everyones opinions are heard and encouraged. Differences are viewed as helpful. Everyone can paraphrase the issue. Those who disagree indicate a willingness to experiment for a certain period of time. All members-have the final decision. All members agree to take responsibility for implementing the final decision. Consensus Does Not Mean... A unanimous vote. The result is everyones first choice. Everyone agrees. (There may only be enough suppon for the decision to be carried out for a trial period.) Conflict or resistance will be overcome immediately.Arkansas Leadership Academy A Decision Making Continuum One person decides A few people (the The decision is in group) choose made by a majority vote The team discusses the problem and comes to a consensus The team comes to a unanimous conclusion 3' David W. Johnson and Frank Johnson, Learning Together and Alone: Cooperation, Competition, and Individuaiization (Enslewood Cliffs. NJ\nPrentice-Hall. 1975). 4 Arkansas Leadership Academy Comparing Decision Making Processes\" Voting vs. Consensus 1. Considers two points 1. Considers many points 2. Discussion divides group 2. Discussion solidifies group 3. Polarizes majority and minority 3. All sides feel heard and accepted 4. Faster, but implementation is slower 4, Slower, but implementation is faster Adams Twelve Five Star Schools, 11285 Highline Drive. Northglenn. CO 80233. 5Arkansas Leadership Academy Consensus: A Step-by-step Process Preparing for Group Discussion A. An agenda is set at the beginning of the meeting so members know and agree on what they will talk about in w'hat order. B. The facilitator introduces an item from the agenda (or calls someone else to introduce the item). The introduction should include\n1. A clear definition of the area being discussed. 2. A clear statement of what has to be decided. Exactly what needs must be filled or what problem must be solved by the decision? This statement should be precise enough to have a limiting effect\nmembers should know what they are NOT talking about. Example: Vague-. closings. We want to solve the problem of school (This may include discussion of city government policies, citizens attitudes about property taxes, emigration of young families to the suburbs, etc.) Specific: Today we have to think of a way to raise funds to keep Albion Middle School open next year. C. Background information is provided by the person who introduced the topic or by other group members who have information. As the discussion progresses, other relevant information is added whenever needed. Group Discussion: Building United Judgement A. An individual introduces an idea for discussion. This idea may be an opinion, a definition of the problem, a suggestion for an approach to the problem, or a proposal for a decision. 6Arkansas Leadership Academy Consensus: A Step-by-step Process (contd) Group Discussion: Building United Judgement (contd) B. Another individual responds to that idea. The second speakers statement is a combination of her or his own opinion and that of the previous speaker. It includes a response to the first speakers idea and her or his own thoughts as they have been influenced by the previous statement. C. A third person develops the ideas further. Her or his contribution is different than it would have been if the two previous speakers had not spoken. D.Other people begin responding to earlier statements and offering their views on the subject. Each contribution builds on previous statements yet is unique as different individuals express themselves. The effect of such a discussion is that the comments taken as a whole are greater than the sum of c' them individually: group members respond to each other so each statement i.s the unique contribution of an individual and at the same time is influenced by previous speakers E. During the discussion, the facilitator and other members are responsible for: 1. Keeping the discussion on topic. (If it is necessary to redefine the topic, the shift should be made explicit and all group members should understand the change.) 2. Providing the clarification and rephrasing of complicated or confusing discussion. 3. Summarizing underlying agreement and differences in viewpoint. 4. Identifying the new issues as they arise. 5. Ensuring that all viewpoints are heard and understood by the group as a whole. 6. Identifying problems with the groups process and attempting to remedy them. All group members share responsibility for the groups process and may perform any of the above functions. 7Arkansas Leadership Academy Consensus: A Step-by-step Process (contd) Group Discussion: Building United Judgement (contd) F. When it is apparent that all viewpoints have been expressed, all new information has been given, and/or some part of the discussion begins to be repeated, the facilitator or someone else states the conclusion toward which the group appears to be moving. Example: It seem.s the group is leaning towards writing a grant to the Mott Foundation to fund the school as an experimental center for community education. Does anyone object to this proposal? When Testing for consensus.\" ask whether anyone has anything else important to say. Central to consensus is gathering. all relevant information, opinions and feelings about the subject, so it is essential not to move forward until these views have been expressed. Making the Decision A. The group responds by agreement or disagreemeuc. Special care is taken to make sure that any objectives are heard. The facilitator may ask if there are objections, or if consensus has been reached. In addition to raising specific concerns, it is legitimate for someone to say, I have no specific objections, but I dont feel settled on the subject yet. B. Concerns are discussed and the process of developing agreement, or building united judgement, continues until a decision is endorsed by the meeting of the whole. The decision that is reached may not completely satisfy everyone in the group, but it must be one that all group members are willing to live with. If serious objections still exist, then a decision is not made. 8Arkansas Leadership Academy Consensus: A Step-by-step Process (contd)^ C. If a decision implies that an action be taken, responsibilities are clarified to ensure that the action is carried out. If a phone call must be made, or a letter written, make sure that someone volunteers to do it. In addition, some method should be chosen to follow up on the decision. This may require reporting back to the group when the task is completed, writing down the outcome and posting it, or putting the matter on the agenda for discussion at the next meeting. Record your decision and implementation plan in the minutes for future reference. D. If the group can not agree: 1. It is possible that the group does not have enough information to make a good decision. Sometimes a decision must be defened until more facts are gathered, more discussion takes place, or members have more time to think about it. Fuller understanding by each participant will increase the possibility of reaching consensus. 2. The group as a whole may decide that it is more important to reach a decision at this particular time than to make a decision that meets the groups usual levels of acceptability. Some members may feel that this is a special circumstance where reaching an immediate decision is so important that they will go along with a decision they would not otherwise support. (This kind of concession is sometimes make by individuals for the sake of the group, but a group should never pressure someone into doing so, or the result will not represent a true consensus decision. ' .Michael Avery, et al.. Building United Judgement: A Handbook for Consensus Decision Making (Madison, Wl: The Center for Conflict Resolution, 1981). 9Arkansas Leadership Academy Criteria Matrix What is it? A Criteria Matrix produces a grid of cells or boxes formed by the intersection of rows and columns. The rows contain descriptions of items under consideration\nthe columns contain descriptions of desirable attributes or important features used to rate the times in the rows. The cells contain space for recording a numerical ranking indicating urgency, perceived importance. or extent to column. which the item in the row meets the criteria in the When is it best used? A Criteria Matrix may be used by a problem-solving group to select among possible items for discussion. It may also be used to evaluate potential solutions generated in response to a problem selected for discussion. How is it done? 1. Agree on a restatement of the problem or question under consideration. 2. Use brainstorming to generate ideas for suggested solutions. List these ideas in the solutions column of the Criteria Matrix. 3. Develop criteria for judging the selected solutions under consideration. Criteria might include cost, training required, resources already available, or other factors. Limit the criteria to five. Record these in the criteria columns of the matrix. 10Arkansas Leadership Academy Criteria Matrix (contd) 4 4. Large groups may find it easier to work in smaller groups, with each group generating their own solutions and criteria. There should be only one matrix worksheet per group. 5. Rank each solution according to the degree you feel it meets the criteria you have chosen. Lise one of the following scales: 3 = To a great extent 2 = To some extent 1 = To a slight extent 5 = Best idea 4 = Very good idea 3 = O.K. 2 = Less attractive 1 = Least valuable to me 6. Write all criteria as positive statements. For example, write easy to use rather than doesnt require much effort. 7. Reading across each row. add the total number of pints for that particular solution and record it in the total column. 8. Identify the item that received the highest number of points, give it a priority rating of 1 and record that in the priority column. Continue ranking all of the solutions. The solution with the fewest number of points receives the lowest priority. ' Ann Kilcher, and Lawrence Ryan, The Paideia Consulting Group, Box 9615, Halifax, Nova Scotia B3K5S4 (902) 477-0909, IIArkansas Leadership Academy I. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Objcctive/Strategy Possible Solutions 12 Criteria Matrix Criteria I () r A L P K I () K I r YArkansas Leadership Academy Fist-Five What is it? Fist-Five is a consensus building technique in which a proposal is tested by having members of a problem-solving group show how they feel about the proposed solution by holding up a certain number of fingers. When is it best used? Use Fist-Five when the problem situation has been thoroughly discussed and a solution has been proposed to address the agreed- upon problem. This will determine whether or not more discussion is needed. Fist-Five is a test for consensus, not a binding agreement or vote to continue with implementation of the plan. How is it done? 1. Define and discuss the problem situation. 2. Solicit proposals to resolve the problem situation. 3. Clarify and discuss the proposal. 4. See if the person who has stated the proposal will agree to accept modification based on input and discussion. 5. Ask the person who has stated the proposal to restate the proposal, as is or amended. James Bellanca and Robin Fogarty. Blueprints for Thinking in the Cooperative Classroom (Palatine, IL: Skylight Publishing, lnc 1990), 13Arkansas Leadership Academy Fist-Five (contd) How is it done? (contd) 6. Test for consensus by asking members to raise their finders according to the chart. 5 Fingers 4 Fingers 3 Fingers 2 Fingers 1 Finger Fist Five All for it\na top priority for me. Yes: high on my list. Its O.K. Ill go along. I think the proposal has serious limitations as explained. Lets talk some more. This is a really bad idea but I will trust the group and give thi.s proposal a fair trial for the limited period we agreed on. 0 Fingers (Fist)No way! A better idea would be to... 7. If you have a two point spread, you may want to see what can be done to raise the lower vote to the next higher rung on the ladder. Again, this is just a test for consensus. Use Fist-Five to let you discover where the resistance will occur, and engage the group in removing obstacles to their participation and commitment. 8. You may need to repeat the consensus building process several times before getting the cohesiveness you need to proceed confidently with the group plan. 14Arkansas Leadership Academy ,6 Weighted Voting' \u0026amp; What is it? Weighted Voting is a way to quantify the positions and preferences of group members. When is it best used? Weighted Voting is most useful for \"taking the temperature\" of a group a.s it is working toward consensus. The approach can be used to identify the group's positions and priorities when fewer than 8 or 10 options are under consideration. How is it done? 1. Following some discussion of the problem or situation, the group generate!? a number of options for next step action or resolution. 2. The facilitator constructs a grid with the different options identified (or referred to by letter)listed at the top of the column heading. The name.s of each group member are recorded in separate rows. The bottom row is used to record the total of values assigned to each option. '' Problem-Solving User's Manual (Stanford. CT\nXerox Corporation. 1991). 15Arkansas Leadership Academy Weighted Voting (contd) How is it done? (contd) 3, The facilitator then explains the rules for assigning weighted voting. Tips: a) Encourage people to distribute their points to represent their feeling,s about the options. Rather than lumping votes into one option is better to distribute votes across all of them in order to indicate relative preferences. b) The total number of votes each person will have to distribute should be about 1.5 times the number of options. c) Ask each person to write their votes down on a piece of scrap paper before collecting information for the public record. d) Have members of the group show their votes all at on^e by raising fingers to signal their response to each option e) Call for votes by option, not by person. f) Record all votes so that the group can see where the agreements and disagreements lie. Weighted Voting does not necessarily mean a binding agreement to proceed with the item getting the highest value in the totals row. It merely gives the group more information about where individual members stand, and how strongly. This information makes it easier to surface and deal with opposing viewpoints. Example: A team facilitator constructed a matrix which contained five columns - one for each option generated by the team, and six rows - one for each team member. The facilitator then asked each person to assign (on paper) six points across the five options (five options x 1,5 = 7,5\nthe facilitator might have just as easily asked members to assign 7 or even 8 points across options). 16A Member 1 Member 2 Member 3 Member 4 Totals Member 1 Member 2 Member 3 Member 4 Totals Arkansas Leadership Academy Weighted Voting B B C D E Weighted Voting C D E 17Arkansas Leadership Academy Helping Teams Reach Consensus 1. Establish and use evaluative criteria 7 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Provide adequate time to work through the issue. Accept conflict as part of the process of reaching consensus. Encourage negotiation and collaboration between team members. Emphasize fact over opinion. Use structured decision-making tools. Remember that giving in on a point is not losing\ngaining on an issue is not winning. Dont give in just to avoid conflict. Flipping coins and voting are not viable alternatives to sharing information, debating points, providing data' and exploring other alternatives. 10. Encourage members to develop alternatives and work toward a compromise solution if the team is unable to reach consensus on the proposal. Donald Hackett and Charles L. Martin, Facilitation Skills for Team Leaders (Los Altos, CA\nCrisp Publications, 1993), 181 1 Arkansas Leadership Academy I i Beliefs, Vision, Mission, and Goals^ Statement of Core Beliefs A list of 15-24 statements that capture widely shared beliefs about the organizations customers, how those customers should be served and treated, and how the organization should be structured, operated, and connected to its surroundings in meeting customers needs. Approximately 1-2 pages. 1 I I I I Vision Statement A description of the ideal state that serves to inspire and guide the work of the organization. In a paragraph or two, the vision statement presents images of preferred conditions that the organization strives toward. o' A vision statement portrays standards of excellence, value to the customer, and how the company is unique. Less than one page. I ! Mission Statement Goals A clear, concise statement that indicates who the customer is, what the ultimate outcomes are, what products, services, or relationships the organization provides, and how members of the organization work toward achieving the desired results. Less than 50 words is ideal. Four to five urgent and important targets or performance areas which must be acted upon if the organization is to accomplish its mission and be true to its beliefs. I s School Strategies \u0026amp; Options. P.O. Box 1705. Lunnenburg, MA 01462 (508) 582-4217. 2Arkansas Leadership Acader Core Beliefs (Example) Beliefs about People 1. 2. Leadership is a function, not a position. The talents and expertise of different persons at different times can and should be employed in order to get.the job done. People are resources, not instruments. They should be stretched and supported in making, contributions to the organization. 3. All of us are better than just a few of us. Collective and collaborative methods of working sharing ideas, 4. responsibilities, and decisions - result in balanced perspectives and better choices. Continual development and openness to ideas is vital to renewal and productivity in individuals and organizations. 5. Frequent feedback, both to and from others, facilitates growth and development. 6. People discover their own potential through work that provides autonomy and responsibility coupled with coaching, support, and the freedom to take risks and make mistakes. 7. Use of accurate information and objective data helps to promote better decisions and reduce feelings of isolation and helplessness. 8. Mutual trust and respect between role groups is necessary for school based improvement to occur. Competition for resources and control is counterproductive in shared leadership and decision making, practices. 9. Clear goals and steps to reach them must be widely known and accepted. Everyone involved must share a common vision and purpose. 3Arkansas Leadership Academ^rkansas Leadership Academy Core Beliefs (contd)(Example)* i i I Beliefs about Schools 1. The individual school is the fundamental unit of change and improvement. 2. All students can learn. This requires high expectations from teachers and administrators, and active involvement by the learner. 3. Our schools must constantly be examined and refined to make them responsive to the needs of the student populations they serve. 4. A school improvement strategy that does not enhance studentteacher interactions, specify student outcomes, or build the capacity of the organization to address future problems is not likely to achieve much. 5. Parent and community involvement in schools results in better communication and more connectedness between the world of schools and the worlds of family and work. 6. Student outcomes can be defined and measured in alternative ways. Standardized tests are but one way of measuring student outcomes. 9 School Strategies \u0026amp; Options. P.O. Box 1705, Lunnenburg, MA 01462 (508) 582-4217. 4We Believe Core Beliefs (cont'd)(Example) 1. Every student can learn, and every student will learn, if presented with the right opportunity to do so. It is the purpose of school to invent learning opportunities for each student each day. 2. Learning, opportunities are determined by the nature of the schoolwork (knowledge work) students are assigned or encouraged to undertake. It is the responsibility of teachers and aHministrators to assure that students are provided with those forms of schoolwork at which they experience success and from which the leam those thin-s of most value to them, y to the community, and to the society at large. 3. All school activity should be focused on the creation and delivery of schoolwork at which students are successful and from which they gain skills and develop understanding that will equip them to an information-based, knowledge-work participate fully in society. 4. Property conceived schools are knowledge-work organizations. Students are central to the operation of schools for they are the 5. 6. 7. primary recipients of what the school has to offer - the opportunity to work on and with knowledge and knowledge- related products. Teachers are leaders just as executives are leaders\nprincipals are leaders of instructors or leaders of leaders. The curriculum is the raw material upon which students work, and all parts of the school system are to be organized in whatever fashion produces the greatest likelihood that students will be successfully en-aged in working, on and with-knowledge. The primary role of the superintendent is to educate the community about education, to promote the articulation and persistent pursuit of a compelling vision, and to ensure that results, rather than program, dominate the attention of all. Teachers and principals are accountable for results, and the results expected are that all students will be provided schoolwork at which they experience success and from which the students gain knowledge and skills that are socially and culturally valued. 5Arkansas Leadership Academy Core Beliefs (contd)(Example) We Believe (cont'd) 8. It is the obligation of the superintendent, the board of education, and all members of the community to provide teachers, principals, and students with those conditions and forms of support that assure optimal conditions for performance, continuing growth and development. 9. As a responsible and ethical employer, the school system has an obligation to assure working conditions that confirm the professional status of all educators and the importance of the tasks assigned to all who work in and around schools. 10. Continuous improvement, persistence iimovation, and a commitment to continuing growth should be expected of all people and all programs supported by school district resources, and school district resources should be committed to assure that these expectations can be met. '(Phillip Schlecty, Schools for the 21\" Centurw (1990). 6Arkansas Leadership Academy Tools for Developing a Vision Every organization or workgroup needs a vision - a clear and exciting, picture of what it seeks to become. Many individuals within schools can greatly stimulate their own performance and well-being if they develop their own personal vision. In creating a vision, the goal is to summarize your ideal picture of t the future in a concise, colorful statement. It can be very short: Founder Ray Kroc's vision for McDonald's was: \"Quality, Service, Cleanliness, Value.\" He summarized the organization's goal in a formula that was impossible to misunderstand and hard to forget. To create a vision for a school: 1. Create a group to work on vision. 2. Use the tools in this section to help you think about vision. 3. Create a draft vision as a group. 4. Have all members of the group talk io others inside and outside of the school to get feedback. 5. Redraft. 6. Repeat steps 4 and 5 if necessary. 7. Promote the final vision throughout your school and community. 7Arkansas Leadership Academy Tools for Developing a Vision (contd) Here~are \"six took useful in thinking about a vision for a district, school, or classroom. You may not need to use all of them, but try at least two or three. They'll help you start to envision what you can be. 1. Imaginary journalism - Imagine that you are a journalist writii^ an article for your favorite business publication. Create a story vividly describing the successes you and your school will have achieved at a future time - two, five, or even ten years from now. 2. Your values - Think about what you and your school values most. Then, list five ways of completing the phrase, \"In my school, we really care most about... 3. Customer wants - Complete a paragraph that begins, \"If I tl were a student in my school, I would want... 4. A picture - Take a pencil or crayon and, on a blank sheet of paper draw a picture of how you want your school to look in the future, 5. Analogies - Try shaping your vision with analogies. The leader of the team said: \"I think of this school as a sports car - polished, tuned up, and ready to race.\" Listed here are the categories that will prompt you to describe your school with an analogy. For each category, write the image that comes to mind when you say, \"If I were to describe my school as a (fill in category), I would say it is...\" Categories to consider are: Color - Season - Sport - Geographic location - Song or other music - movie - Machine - Emotion - Food or beverage - 8Arkansas Leadership Academy Tools for Developing a Vision (contd) 6. The Five Whys - use a Five-Whys worksheet like this: Five Whys Worksheet Think of a school issue that is very important to you. Then, use the Five Whys to discover key values associated with that issue. Example: The computer network is not reliable. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Why is that important? The students get frustrated when the network isn't working. Why is that important? 1 need to take time out to solve the problem Why is that important? Projects dont get finished on time. Why is that important? We can't deliver what we promised to our students. Why is that important? Student accomplishment is our top priority. II Richard C. Whiteley, The Customer Driven Company: Moving from Talk to Action (Reading, MA\nAddison-Wesley, 1992), 226-228. 9A Personal Vision A personal vision statement portrays what you want the organization to stand for\nwhat the primary mission of the school is\nwhat basic, core values you represent\na sense of how all the parts fit together\nand, above all, how the vision maker fits into the grand plan. 1. When I leave this school I would like to be remembered for... 2. I want my school to become a place where... 3. The kind of school I would like my own children to attend would... 4. The kind of school I would like to teach in would... 5. In order to accomplish this, we need to: i 1012 Arkansas Leadership Academy Vision Statement and Belief (Example)^\" We Believe That: 1. All students can succeed academically when given the opportunity to leam through active participation. 2. All students should receive the highest levels of academic education. 3. All middle level students need to develop high standards of appropriate behavior. 4. Relevant fine and practical arts education enhances academic learning for the middle level student. 5. Middle level students need to leam their role as citizens in a s \u0026amp;\nlobal society. 6. Schools are responsible for providing the highest levels of curriculum in a variety of ways to learners. 7. Students leam best in cooperative relationships. 8. School is a place that should be sensitive to the needs of both children and adults. 9. Successful, responsible students become successful, responsible adults. 10. School is an extension of the childs family and community. 11. School personnel should address the academic, social, physical, and psychological needs of students. 12. Schools should provide state-of-the-art technology to enhance learning for students. 13. Students should participate in cross-curricular studies. 14. Parents, teachers, and community agencies should share in the educational decision making process. 15. School should be structured to extend learning experiences beyond the school site and day. 16. The school environment must nurture the teacher as learner and researcher. O'Fan-ell Community School (A Magnet School for Academic Studies), San Diego, CA. 11Arkansas Leadership Academy Vision (Example) 13 \"Dream with me if you will... Can you see a school that children want to go to, that teachers want to go to, that parents want to go to, where teachers work- closely together to provide the best education possible for ALL kids, where students succeed academically, where adults and children work closely together, where people smile, where the feeling is warm and the environment is safe, where decisions made about children are shared decisions, where responsibility is shared, where creativity is high, where gender and race are just part of your uniqueness and not a barrier to your learning, where there is an extended family of teacher, family, community, agency, where classrooms are exciting places to be, where teachers are turned on to teaching, where students are the number one concern...? Mission Statement (Example)^'* The O'Farrell Community School will promote excellence by providing all middle level students a sin-le, academically enriched curriculum within a multiethnic, student-centered environment. The mission of the school is to attend to the social, intellectual, psychological, and physical needs of middle level youth so they will become responsible, literate, thinking, and contributing citizens. 13 Robert Stein, Team O'Farrell Chief Educational Officer, O'Farrell Community School, San Diego, CA. 14 O'Farrell Community School, San Diego, CA. 12Arkansas Leadership Academy Mission Statements Value of Mission Statements 1. Empowers everyone in the school community to assume responsibility for the ultimate direction of the school. 2. Represents a commitment, a promise, a guide against which actions can be decided. 3. Represents a set of criteria against which progress toward purposes can be measured. 4. Sets the agenda for leadership in the building. Schools that lack a clear sense of mission are characterized by aimlessness and high levels of disagreement. There is little harmony among staff members or between staff members and students. Discipline problems are more likely to occur because staff members lack a common set of expectations, and students have a poor sense of what the purpose of school really is. Nature of Mission Statements 1. Shared vision about the ultimate purpose of schools. 2. Shared by teachers, administrators, students, and the community. 3. Generally short and easily remembered. 4. Not long and detailed outlines of goals and objectives. Examples of Mission Statements 1. Park Middle School is committed to cultivating a respect for the individual and encouraging students to make sound personal choices and decisions. 2. Washington Middle School is committed to preparing young adolescent students with the understandings and skills necessary to cope with their own changes from childhood to adolescence and with the academic skills and knowledge essential for continued school success and life-long learning. 3. The students, staff, and administrators of East Middle School are committed to building respect for and cultivating cultural pluralism in the schools and community. 13Arkansas Leadership Academy Mission Statements (contd) Examples of Mission Statements (contd) 4. The faculty, staff, students, and community of Parkside Junior High School are devoted to academic excellence and the cultivation of individual strengths and talents in a supportive environment where individual differences and respect for the rights of others guide school and community behavior. 5. The mission of Northside High School is to support the personal growth of the students in their development of attitudes, knowledge, and skills. The most important skills to be taught are how to think and how to learn. 6. The mission of Detroit Public Schools is to educate and empower children, youth, and adults for full participation in a rapidly changing society and to build, sustain, and extend learning community which improves the quality of life. a Common Elements 1. 2. 3. 4. A statement of purpose. An indication of uniqueness. An explicit statement of commitment. A clear value position. Guidelines for Developing a Mission Statement 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Identify the schools major stakeholder groups. Formulate a plan or structure that includes them in the process of developing a mission statement. Use a process that permits the group actually charged with drafting the statement to check with constituents to be sure they are not drifting. Focus on areas of agreement, not areas of disagreement. Draft a statement that is simple, direct, and easy to remember. Once the mission statement is ratified or accepted, refer to it frequently and acknowledge its use in making decisions about policies, programs, and practices. Review the mission statement periodically to be sure it is still appropriate for the population served by the school, changes in school programs, or new community expectations. Distribute the mission statement widely in the school, district, and community. 141 I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VIL Sample Annual Goal Statements (District) We will develop and implement individualized outcomes-based education. We win redefine student achievement to be congruent with our school district mission statement We will involve parents in aH aspects of the student learning experience. We will integrate state-of-the-art technology into all aspects of the learning system. We will develop a national recruiting program to attract and retain the highest quality staff. We will develop a program for the development and appraisal of staff based on student achievement We will obtain funding from public and private sources to help us accomplish our mission. Organizing and Managing School Change Workshop, Douglas S. Fleming and Ann Kilcher, NEA-National Center for Innovation National Conference, Colorado Springs, Colorado, November 8,1991. 15Arkansas Leadership Academy Performance Goals (Baseline Figures plus a school-by-school negotiated % of increase per year.) District/ School Goals Performance Measures Key Action Areas 1. Continuous Improvement In All of Our Students Percent of pupils passing local or state measures of academic achievement Percent of students well above passing local or state measures of academic achievement Percent of students passing rigorous academic courses Percent of staff involved in a program of staff development Establish annual school progress reports Accelerate school improvement Improve districtwide instruction Create a safe and productive enviromnent Decrease in the percent of student population suspended 2. Build Greater Community Support For Schools And Students Number of community partnerships Number of business partnerships Number of students participating in a pre-school experience Percent of students who participate in parent/student or teacher/student non-academic acti\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_293","title":"Compliance hearing exhibits, 39-45","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1999"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance hearing exhibits, 39-45"],"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/293"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nHANDBOOK FOR CAMPUS LEADERSHIP TEAM July 1999I HAIVDBOOK FOR CAMPUS LEADERSHIP TEAM Table of Contents I Letter from the Superintendent Vision and Mission Statement Campus Leadership System Summary of Campus Leadership Plan Components Campus LeadershipBoard of Education Policy Campus Leadership Team^Administrative Policy Cluster Coordinating Committee^Administrative Policy ! Campus Leadership Team Tasks - Administrative Policy Cluster Coordinating Committee Tasks - Administrative Policy Leadership Team Expectations Campus Leadership Team - Administrative Policy \u0026amp; Team Matrix Cluster Coordinating Committee Membership Administrative Policy Board of Education Policy Waivers Campus Leadership Team Organizational Components Campus Leadership Team Calendar Campus Leadership Team Evaluation Planning \u0026amp; Decision Making Process Collective Responsibility for Student Achievement Reporting Responsibilities District Annual Performance Report School Performance Reports PAGE I ii 1 2 3 4 4 4 5 5 6 8 8 9 11 13 14 16 16 16 16Accreditation and Accountability Status PAGE 17 I iI Program Evaluations 17 I School Improvement Plans State Quality Indicators School Selected Indicators Additional District Selected Indicators and Value-Added Goals or Improvement Goals Indicators by School Level Rewards for Schools Rewards for Staff/Students Sanctions 17 18-19 20 20-23 23-45 46 47 Technical Assistance and Support for Schools Identified for Improvement Sanctions for Central Office School Role When Identified for Sanctions Definitions 48-52 52 53 53-54 Forms: Addendum a. Nomination Form - Recommendation for Individuals to be Appointed 55 j i b. Campus Leadership Team Nomination Form 56 c. Waiver Form 57 d. Customer Service/Learning Climate Surveys i 1. Parent 2. Teacher 3. Student 4. Administrator 61 62 63 64 i e. Functional Vocabulary 65 f. School Improvement Planner and Implementation Timeline 66 g- Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program 69OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 324-2012 I July 1999 ! Dear Campus Leadership Colleagues: The Campus Leadership Program at the Little Rock School District uses an organization structure known as site-based decision-making which involves principals, teachers, auxiliary staff, parents, business leaders and community members. The purpose of the Campus Leadership Teams is to establish instructional goals and strategies to further promote the education of all children. Involvement and total commitment are paramount to reaching the ultimate in performance. Involvement is the key component of the Campus Leadership Program. ! The Campus Leadership Plan is a commitment by each unique school campus and allows that unit to develop programs and strategies that best meet the needs of children served at that school. The District has made a renewed commitment to the neighborhood schools and will continue to maintain an outstanding group of magnet schools. The Little Rock School District also pledges to maintain and further develop a quality education program. The Campus Leadership Program is the participatory vehicle which will ensure that a quality education program is available at all District campuses. The School Board and Administration believe this process fosters the best opportunity for the school children of Little Rock. Sincerely, Lesli\\V. Gamine Superintendent of Schools i 1 I Vision Statement The Campus Leadership program in the Little Rock School District will work to ensure that all Little Rock School District students will graduate from high school. The diploma that graduates receive will represent: Mastery of all basic skills\nInternalization of a liberal arts education\nUnderstanding of the need to preserve the democratic way of life, including respect for the nations cultural diversity\nExpertise in accessing and applying knowledge\nand Confidence and competency in making career choices. LRSD Mission Statement I The mission of the LRSD is to equip all students with the skills and knowledge to realize their aspirations, think critically and independently, learn continuously and face the future as productive, contributing citizens. This mission is accomplished through open access to a diverse, innovative and challenging curriculum in a secure environment with a staff dedicated to excellence and empowered with the trust and support of our community. ii Campus Leadership System The campus based leadership system is intended to drive fundamental changes in classroom teaching by helping the campuses and District focus on improved student achievement. The six basic components of campus-based leadership are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Commitment to improved student achievement for all students. 1 i ! Improved student achievement will be based on established local goals for student performance. A system of incentives for student performance will be established, which will include multiple and alternative performance measures. Collaborative structure and process Policies and procedures guide the establishment of District and campus leadership to ensure representative collaboration of principals, teachers, other staff, parents, business partners, and community members. Decentralization Parameters The specific areas for implementation with respect to goal setting, classroom instruction, and campus organization are included. Deregulation avenues are provided to waive local policies and state regulations if they inhibit improved student performance. Statement of Purpose of Campus Leadership I I i The uniqueness of each campus related to its needs, and its decision making capacity to address those needs, are acknowledged in District policy and demonstrated through actual practice. Adequate time, ongoing staff development and technical support. Sufficient time is allotted to allow for the development of skills and attitudes that will ensure effective campus leadership. Procedures for planning and evaluating student achievement goals and decision making process. 1I Organizational and management procedures are established to guide the progress of campus leadership in the District and on the individual campus. An evaluation process is developed and used to assess locally established performance goals and the effectiveness of committee and campus leadership and further the impact of decision making on student performance. We acknowledge that planning and implementing these components of campus leadership will require a re-conceptualization of the roles and responsibilities of board members, central office administrators, campus principals, teachers, support staff, parents, business partners, and community representatives. This strategy for school and instructional improvement with a strong incentive initiative will only succeed if it is carefully planned with relevant input from the stakeholders. The campus leadership system is based on the concept of continuous improvement. Every campus can improve. Every campus is expected to show academic growth. Every school will benefit by reaching achievable standards. SUMMARY OF CAMPUS LEADERSHIP PLAN COMPONENTS The plan components are: 1. 2. 3. 4. Board and administrative policy, which support a system of campus leadership at the campus and District level. Identification of quality indicators and an incentive plan, which promotes increases in student performance. Staff development plans and technical assistance, which will support the implementation of the campus leadership system. The assistance will support the planning and technical support for continuous improvement at the campus and District level. Clear guidelines for campus leadership. The parameters for decision making give guidance to the level and type of decision which is made at Federal/State/District levels, those which are better made at the campus/classroom level, and finally those which are collaborative. 2LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN: CFD CAMPUS LEADERSHIP The Board of Education of the Little Rock School District believes that a fundamental responsibility of the school system is to support the sustained improvement of the schools. Site-based decision making provides each school with a framework to attain the Districts mission. Shared decision-making allows representation of administration, staff, students, parents, and patrons to provide more efficient use of time and energy. This facilitates a quality environment for students, a productive working environment for staff members, and increased opportunity for community involvement in our schools. To effect this belief, it is the policy of the Board of Education of the LRSD, that each school shall establish a campus leadership team to improve performance of all student populations. This team will assist in the development and evaluation of campus goals and objectives through planning, budgeting, curriculum development, staff development, and staffing needs. Through consensus based decisions, the campus teams will support the Districts commitment of the sustained improvement of schools. 1 t Adopted: 07-09-98 Cross-Reference: Administrative Regulation CFD-R 3Campus Leadership Team - Administrative Policy Each school year the principal of each school campus, with the assistance of the campus leadership team, shall develop, review, and revise the campus improvement plan for the purpose of improving student performance for all students with respect to the Quality Index Indicators and any other appropriate performance measures for special needs populations. Cluster Coordinating Committee - Administrative Policy i The Cluster Coordinating Committee will meet on a regular basis with times and dates to be determined by the Superintendent. The purpose of the committee to advise the superintendent on policy and implementation of the campus leadership decision making model. The committee may from time to time address additional empowerment strategies and provide a communication link with each campus of the Little Rock School District. Campus Leadership Team Tasks - Administrative Policy The campus leadership team shall advise the principal in the following areas: development of the campus plan evaluation of the campus plan campus budget campus program and curriculum staffing patterns staff development* school organization at least one public meeting per year to discuss/review campus performance objectives. * The staff development plan must be approved by the campus leadership team and is coordinated with the campus plan. 4Cluster Coordinating Committee Tasks - Administrative Policy The following are identified tasks of the Cluster Coordinating Committee: advise the superintendent on implementation of the campus leadership plan assist in the areas of analyzing and updating the participatory decision making matrix assist with the assessment the development of Total Quality Schools model i assist with the assessment of the Customer Service and Learning Climate components of the TQS model design strategies for improving and maintaining initiatives for Customer Service and appropriate Learning Climate assist with the development and maintenance of marketing the Little Rock School District LEADERSHIP TEAM EXPECTATIONS Leadership team members are expected to: make a commitment to improve outcomes for all students make team goals a higher priority than personal goals share information, perceptions, and feedback openly directly confront important issues make objective judgements based on facts display leadership in ways which contribute to the teams success respond constructively to feedback from other team members collaborate effectively with other team members demonstrate a unified commitment to team goals and strategies understand consensus building identify and communicate statement of purpose for campus leadership identify and implement strategies to attain goals identify needs for adequate time, ongoing development and support staff development communicate team goals and strategies to staff, students, administration, school board, parents and community. 5Campus Leadership Team Administrative Policy Student achievement is the primary focus of the Little Rock School District. Each campus accepts the responsibility and challenge to provide equitable educational opportunities that ensure every student is successful. Therefore, each Little Rock School District campus is committed to establishing a campus leadership team that will work collaboratively with the principal in the decision-making process to enhance student achievement. Membership: The membership for each campus team shall consist of: CAMPUS TEAM MATRIX RECOMMENDED NUMBER OF POSITIONS 1 5-10 1 2 1 1 1 1 Principal Certified Teachers Central Office (Brokers) Parent Business ______Community______ Non-certified School Staff Student POSITION TITLE Chairman Elected Invited/Appointed Appointed Appointed Appointed Elected or appointed Elected or appointed MEMBERSHIP Required Required Required Required Required Required Optional Optional Note: Classroom teachers must be at least 60% of the faculty/staff/central office component. Nomination: The principal shall publish procedures to be utilized for the nomination and election of representatives to the campus team. The principal shall post the election procedure regulations and policy a minimum of ten days prior to the called election. The prescribed form must be used with elected representatives to the campus team. The form indicates their willingness to serve and shall be kept on file in the principals office. Election: The consent of each nominee shall be obtained before the persons name may appear on the secret ballot. Election of the campus team shall be completed by November 1. Election Procedures: The election of representatives to the campus team will be made by secret ballot. On the date of the election, ballots will be distributed to all eligible voters. The ballot will contain the names of all nominees according to their respective grouping and instructions on how each nominee may be chosen by voters. The principal and designated staff members will tabulate completed ballots. I Term: Elected representatives shall serve staggered two-year terms. In the first election, 50% of the elected membership will serve a one-year term. Elected representatives may serve two consecutive terms. Appointed representatives are not subject to term limitations, but rotation of appointed representatives is encouraged unless there are no other volunteers willing to participate. 6Vacancy: If a vacancy occurs among the elected representatives, nominations shall be solicited and an election held for the vacant position in the same manner as the annual election. If a vacancy occurs within 5 months of the end of a term, the principal may, but is not required to, fill the vacancy - elected or appointed. Appointed Members: The principal has discretionary privilege to appoint the parents, business leaders, community members, non-certified staff, and students. Appointed members have all the rights and responsibilities as elected members. Thirty days prior to the appointments in November, the principal shall communicate the process of receiving nominations or recommendations. If a vacancy occurs among the appointed representatives, another person will be selected to fill the vacant position. Definitions: For the purposes of establishing the composition of campus teams: 1. 2. 3. A person who stands in parental relation to a student is considered a parent. A parent who is an employee of the District is not considered a representative of community members on the committee. Community members must reside in the District and must be at least 18 years of age. Meetings: The principal shall serve as chairman of the campus leadership team, set its agenda, and shall schedule at least four (4) meetings per year. The agenda and minutes of the meetings will be posted and filed. i On an annual basis, each principal with the assistance of the campus leadership team shall review and revise the campus improvement plan (COE) for the purpose of improving student performance. i The Board shall also ensure that an administrative policy is provided to clearly define the respective roles and responsibilities of the superintendent, central office staff, principals, teachers, and campus team members in the areas of: I I a. b. c. d. e. f. planning budgeting curriculum staffing patterns staff development school organization i 7Cluster Coordinating Committee Membership Administrative Policy A Campus Leadership Team member and the campus principal will constitute the campus representatives. Board of Education Policy Waivers The Board of Education of the Little Rock School District believes that the District or a campus leadership team should have the option of applying for a waiver of a requirement or prohibition imposed by law or rule. It is the policy of the Board of Education of the LRSD to support the waiver process for local schools to seek relief from requirements or prohibition imposed by law or rule. The waiver must be in written form following the procedures outlined below. Identification of the statutory requirements for which a waiver is requested. Description of why the waiver is needed and the goals that would be achieved if granted. I Descriptions of the measurement process that will be used if the waiver is granted and program is implemented. Description of how the interested parties were notified of the waiver request. Descriptions of federal, state, and District requirements to be waived. Restrictions: The District or campus team may not receive an exemption or waiver from requirements imposed by federal law or rule such as Goals 2000, Educate America Act, Elementary Secondary Education Act (ESEA), School to Work Opportunities Act, or from a requirement or prohibition imposed by state law. Waiver Application: A waiver request application form may be obtained by the principal from the Associate Superintendent of Instruction. The principal is to enlist the review of the campus team and obtain consensus before the waiver is processed. The completed waiver must be submitted to the superintendent for review and processing. Requirements for a waiver by the state must follow regulations as described in the Submission and Approval section. A waiver application to be acted upon for the next academic year must be submitted to the District by March 1. 8Submission and Approval: The application shall be submitted to the superintendent no later than March 1 of the year before the campus intends to take action. The superintendent will inform the principal of the action taken within thirty days. A waiver requiring the Arkansas Department of Education or Arkansas State Board of Education action must be acted upon by the District Board before fonwarding to the Arkansas Department of Education. District Board action should be consistent with state and federal guidelines. Campus Leadership Team Organization Components This is an example of one way you could organize the team to fulfill the mission of the Campus Team. The basic components of the Student Success Model follow, and each becomes a subcommittee organizationally. Teachers, parents and community representatives work together to develop goals and objectives to enhance their school for the benefit of students. Development of strategies and crossdiscipline support are maximized by the membership of the committees. Members of the campus leadership team are the chairs, and encourage a broad range of talent to serve on the working committees that support the individual classroom teacher. 1. Skills and Knowledge Continuum a. b. c. d. e. f. g- Curriculum / objectives Materials / equipment to support curriculum Cross integration of curriculum to support core focus Example: Campus develops strategy for Math to support vocabulary building\nmusic with similar strategies with reading supporting math/ science/social studies... th is is an example but there is strategy of support - a comprehensive curriculum. 2. Personalized Education Programs There are a number of individual initiatives, which the campus develops and supports to meet the individual needs of students. Examples of personalized education programs are: i a. Special Education b. Gifted and Talented Education c. Drop Out Reduction Programs d. Accelerated Learning LaboratoryRemedial and Academic Acceleration e. Students with children f. English as a Second Language (ESL) 9I 3. staff Development a. Focus on Campus Goals b. Teacher generated c. Inclusive 4. Community Support a. VIPS \u0026amp; PIE b. c. d. e. f. PTA Neighborhoods Senior Citizens Business State and local officials 5. Assessment 1 a. b. c. d. e. f. Individual and diagnostic program data analysis for focused instruction - SAT9, ACTAP, CRT alternative coordinated with core academic standards prescriptive 6. Communication a. b. c. Coordinated to allow all stakeholders to understand the mission \u0026amp; goals of the campus Creates a network beyond the campus of support for campus strategies Creates a network of support for individuals in support student achievement initiatives 10Campus Leadership Team Calendar The calendar is approximate of the activities that you consider as you work together to create a more effective school. The asterisk (*) denotes where a form or additional information exists to accomplish the task or confirm the activity. January Campus Leadership Team has initial meeting L* February March I i I April Ma a. b. c. d. Introduction to the process orientation activities for new members team expectations planning process reviewed Review and interim evaluation of campus plan activities. Consideration of modification to current year campus plan and submit to designated individual for review. Discuss plans for update of needs assessment. Campus Leadership Teams work with developing skills in problem solving and consensus building, conflict resolution and communication. Request specific type of technical assistance. Monitor and adjust campus plan* Draft action plan due to Assistant Superintendent Begin process of working with the campus community to address perceived needs of campus for following year Discuss and start evaluation of Campus Leadership Teams problem solving process and team effectiveness. Start Evaluation of current year campus plan and establish timelines for completion of evaluation and communication with stakeholders. Create strategy and set in motion the collection of published research and data collection requirements for discussion and analysis by Campus Leadership Team in preparation for next years campus plan. Evaluate assessment results Campus Leadership develops and communicates draft of focus areas based on assessment results. 11I June I Submit evaluation of campus plan (There is a recognition that current year results of ACT / SAT would not be available or certain other current year results. The incentive plan will indicate those particular areas and that the previous years results will be utilized in those cases.) July District-wide Campus Leadership Team Meetings Campus Leadership Team refines initial draft of campus goals and further starts development of action plans on determined focus areas. District wide Campus Leadership Team Meetings by Cluster August Opening of School Campus Leadership Team meetings with faculty on Campus. Share recommend goals for current year and draft of action plans. Confirm goals. Designate problem solving and action teams for accomplishment of goals September I I Communication with all stakeholders the goals of the campus*. Prepare final action plans and submit to Superintendent and Board for final approval. Acceptance or modification required goals and action plans. Hold public meeting and share results of previous years campus goals and action plans 1 October Inform public and staff of opportunities to serve on the Campus Leadership Teamshare Leadership Team membership expectations. Receive nominations for membership on the Campus Leadership Team for each membership category*. November Current Leadership Team checks on implementation of action plans. Problem solving teams Election of Leadership Team members* December Collection of data to ascertain effectiveness of action plans and problem solving teams Initiate mid year report of progress * Appointment of members to the Leadership Team ,* 12Campus Leadership Team Evaluation I i Officially the participatory decision-making model was implemented in the LRSD in the fall of 1998. It has been, in various ways, part of the school-based leadership design at several of the campuses prior to that time. This survey is to be utilized as a self-evaluation for the campus leadership team during the initial year of operation. In subsequent years, it is to be utilized with all campus faculty, parents, and a sampling of business and community members. Considerations: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. While I obviously cant have a vote on every decision that is made in this school, I do feel that there are mechanisms that allow me to have input into the decision making process. (Note: There are evaluation instruments appropriate to the customer, staff, parent and community member. In many cases, the only change to the question would be a word change...directed to appropriate group of individuals.) The Campus Leadership Team has an established system of communication, both verbal and written, that ensures that all staff members are informed about Campus Leadership team decisions and plans. The school involves the total faculty in collecting, analyzing, distributing, and soliciting feedback on data related goals and objectives using a total quality school program. The organization and operation of the Campus Leadership Team, as it is currently designed, is becoming an effective process. The Campus Leadership Team develops and coordinates staff development plans consistent with the campus goals. The Campus Leadership Team is an advisory body to the principal in the areas of planning, budgeting, curriculum, staffing, and school organization. In your opinion, has the function of the Campus Leadership Team, as described, played a part in increasing student achievement. I i The Campus Leadership Teams parents, community members and business representatives are involved in contributing to the schools quality improvement goals. (School Climate, etc.) 138. Customer satisfaction has improved with use of home visits, parent surveys, parent conference days, Parent-Teacher Associations, Campus Leadership Team, written communiques, school newsletters and other communication and involvement activities. (Customize for customer group) I i 9. The entire faculty is involved in identifying specific strategies for measuring progress toward achieving quality goals. 10. The District Leadership is continuously involved in supporting Campus initiatives for improved student performance. Ratings could be Almost Never to Almost Always or similar format. PLANNING AND DECISION MAKING PROCESS I Decision Making: In accordance with Board policy the campus team shall be involved in decisions in the areas of planning, budgeting, curriculum, staffing patterns, staff development and school organization, and serve in an advisory capacity to the principal. Procedures: Each campus shall maintain current policies and procedures to ensure that effective planning and site-based decision making occur at each campus to direct and support the improvement of student performance for all students. i Process: The Board shall establish a procedure under which meetings are held regularly by campus teams that include representative professional staff, parents of students enrolled in the District, and community members. Campus teams shall include business representatives, without regard to whether a business representative resides in the District or whether the business the person represents is located in the District. I Plan: Each school year, the principal of each school campus, with the assistance of the campus team, shall develop, review and revise the campus improvement plan for the purpose of improving student performance for all student populations with respect to the academic quality indicators and any other appropriate performance measures for special populations. The plan shall be prepared and submitted to the Superintendent by October 1 for transmittal to the Board. Staff Development: The campus team must approve the portions of the campus plan addressing campus staff development needs. 14I Consultation by Principal: The principal shall regularly consult the campus team in the planning operation, supervision and evaluation of the campus education program. Public Meeting: The campus team shall hold at least one public meeting per year. The required meeting shall be held after receipt of the campus evaluation to discuss the performance on the performance objectives. District policy and campus procedures must be established to ensure that systematic communications measures are in place to periodically obtain broad-based community, parent, and staffing input, and to provide information to those persons regarding the recommendations of the campus team. Campus Level Plan: Each Campus Improvement Plan (ACSIP) must: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Assess the academic achievement for each student in the school using the academic quality system. Set the campus goals based on the academic quality indicator system, including objectives for special needs populations. Identify how the campus goals will be met for each student. Campuses may select up to five goals for the Campus Improvement Plan. Determine the resources needed to implement the plan. Identify the staff needed to implement the plan. Set time lines for reaching the goals. Measure progress toward the performance objectives periodically to ensure that the plan is resulting in academic achievement. Include an annual report with results to be shared with the team, staff, parents and the appropriate assistant superintendent. 15Collective Responsibility for Student Achievement Definition of Collective Responsibility Collective Responsibility means that all the adults in the District and at each school hold themselves accountable for ail the students meeting the challenging behavior and academic content standards and benchmarks and other outcomes established by the Board of Education, by the state for accreditation, by federally funded programs, and by external funders of reform initiatives approved by the Board of Education. District-level staff share with school-level staffs in the collective responsibility for school improvement. This critically important attitude is developed and nurtured through professional learning communities established by the District and each school. In addition, the Superintendent shall ensure that all job descriptions of appropriate District-level and building-level staff\nannual work plans\nDistrict-level processes and school-level parameters for decision-making\npersonnel hiring, assignment, promotion, and evaluation systems\nand the professional development programs are results-based and aligned with the improvement indicators established in the Quality Index. Reporting Responsibilities I The Superintendent shall report to the Board of Education annually on progress related to the implementation of the Strategic Plan and the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. In addition, so that the community is also informed on the Districts progress in meeting expected improvement goals, the following reports must be submitted to the Board of Education in open sessions. District Annual Performance Report The Annual Performance Report is to be submitted to the Board of Education no later than August 30 annually. It shall include data relating to each of the Quality Indicators, including the baseline year data so that progress can be identified. The Annual Performance Report shall also include the accreditation status and accountability status for each school, as determined by the Arkansas Department of Education. School Performance Reports The state-mandated School Performance Reports shall be published and distributed to parents and other interested patrons annually. These report cards shall include the data mandated by the Arkansas Department of Education, but also school data relating to the Districts Quality Indicators. 16School principals shall disseminate these reports to all the staff members and parents in their school community and make them available to interested patrons. At least one parent meeting shall be conducted annually by the Campus Leadership Team and the principal to discuss the performance of the school and planned short- and long-range improvements. The District may disseminate school-level supplements to the School Performance Reports to include data relating to District-selected Quality Indicators. Accreditation and Accountability Status If a school has been identified for school improvement, as per Title I regulations and/or if the school is conditionally accredited or non-accredited, then the designation and an explanation of its implications, as well as the accountability status of the school as defined by the State shall be included in the School Performance Report. I Program Evaluations The results of any internal program evaluation studies or evaluations of grant- funded projects are to be provided to the Board of Education within a month of their submission to the Superintendent and/or to the funding organization. School Improvement Plans Although there are multiple state and local indicators, Campus Leadership Teams should select, based on their data analysis, three to five priority improvement goals as a focus for the School Improvement Plan. (See the Arkansas Comprehensive School Improvement Planning process.) I 17state Quality IndicatorsTier I The Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Program (ACTAAP) establishes the following indicators based on performance goals for Tier I: I 1 I =M^State?lndicatoi^^\nl Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Tests Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Tests School Drop Out Average Daily Attendance Classes Taught by an Appropriately Licensed Teacher Professional Development School Safety \u0026gt;-^l-^rade*Leyel(sj5 100% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in reading and writing literacy. 100% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in mathematics. 100% of a schools secondary students shall perform at or above the proficient level in Algebra 1. 100% of a schools secondary students shall perform at or above the proficient level in Geometry. 100% of a schools secondary students shall perform at or above the proficient level in Literacy. At least 99% of secondary students will remain in school to complete the 12' grade. Average daily attendance rate will be at least 95%. 100% of a schools classes will be taught by an appropriately licensed teacher. 100% of a schools certified staff will complete at least 30 hours of approved professional development annually. Schools will be free of drugs, weapons, and violent acts. .'J. Grades 4, 6, 8 Secondary Grades 7-12 Grades K-12 Grades K-12 Grades K-12 Grades K-12 18 tfejGoal^f Definition)state Quality IndicatorsTier II The Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Program (ACTAAP) establishes the following indicators for Tier II. Tier II indicators are based on trend and improvement goals. Trend goals will be established for different cohorts of students, and improvement goals will be established for the same cohort of students over time. I i State Indicator Goal (Definition) Grade Level(s) Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Tests The percent of students performing at or above the proficient\" level in reading and writing literacy on the criterion-referenced tests will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in mathematics on the criterion-referenced tests will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. Grades 4, 6, and 8 Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Tests The percent of secondary students performing at or above the proficient level in Algebra I will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. The percent of secondary students performing at or above the proficient level in Geometry will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. The percent of secondary students performing at or above the proficienf level in Literacy will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. Secondary 19Tier HSchool Selected Indicators (Schools Select Any 5) State Indicator Goal (Definition) Grade l-evel(s) Drop-outs Secondary schools will improve the percentage of students who stay in school to complete the 12* grade. Secondary Average Daily Attendance Schools will improve their average daily attendance rate. All levels Classes Taught by an Appropriately Licensed Teacher Schools will improve the percent of classes taught by an appropriately licensed teacher. All levels Professional Development Schools will increase the percent of certified staff who complete 60 or more hours of approved professional development annually. All levels School Safety Schools will be free of drugs, weapons, and violent acts. All levels Other School Selected Indicators Schools will select trend or improvement goals directed to student achievement in specific sub-populations or sub-test areas. These must have prior approval of ADE. All levels Additional District-Selected Indicators The following additional academic indicators (based also on both performance and trend/improvement) have been established by the Little Rock School District. Value-Added Goals or Improvement Goals I The District-adopted criterion-referenced tests for grades K-11 will be administered to provide pre- and post-test scores so that gains of individual students may be measured each semester. Only those scores of students who were in the school the previous test administration will be used in calculating value-added gains (or improvement). The purpose of this measure is to be able to determine the extent to which a school adds value through individual students gains. In other words, regardless of whether students attain the proficient level at any given grade, the District is interested in whether the students progressed toward proficiency during that year. Both trend and improvement data will be tracked as well. 20LRSD Indicator Goal (Definition) Grade Level(s) I I Performance on District- Adopted Kindergarten Literacy Test 90% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in literacy. The percent of students demonstrating gains from the pre-test to the post-test will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. Kindergarten Performance on District- Adopted Grade 1 Literacy Test 90% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in literacy. The percent of grade 1 students demonstrating gains from the pre-test to the post-test will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. Grade 1 Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Test 65% of a schools students in every sub-group of race and gender shall perform at or above the percentile in reading. The percent of students in every sub-group or race and gender performing at or above the 50 percentile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 65% of a schools students in every sub-group of race and gender shall perform at or above the 50*' percentile in mathematics. The percent of students in every sub-group of race and gender performing at or above the 50*' percentile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 30% of a schools students will perform at the highest quartile in reading. The percent of a schools students performing at the highest quartile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 30% of a schools students will perform at the highest quartile in mathematics. The percent of a schools students performing at the highest quartile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. __________________ Grades 5, 7, 10 21I LRSD Indicator Goal (Definition) Grade Level(s) i i I Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Test At least 90% of a schools students will perform above the lowest quartile in reading. The percent of a schools students performing above the lowest quartile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. At least 90% of a schools students will perform above the lowest quartile in mathematics. The percent of a schools students performing above the lowest quartile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. Grades 5, 7. 10 Performance on District-Adopted Criterion- Referenced Tests Enrollment in Pre-AP and/or AP Courses Enrollment in Algebra I by grade 8 Honors Seal on High School Diploma 90% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in mathematics each semester. The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in mathematics each quarter will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each semester. The percent of students demonstrating gains from the pre-test to the post-test will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year. 65% of middle and high school students will be enrolled in at least one Pre-AP or AP course each year. The percent of students enrolled in at least one Pre-AP or AP course will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 90% of a middle schools students will be enrolled in Algebra I by grade 8. The percent of students enrolled in Algebra 1 by grade 8 will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. 65% of a high schools students will complete the requirements to earn the Honors Seal on their diplomas. The percent of students completing the requirements for the Honors Seal will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. Grades 2-11 Grades 6-12 Grade 8 Grades 9-12 22{ t 1 LRSD Indicator Taking the ACT Performance on the ACT Taking Advanced Placement Examinations Performance on Advanced Placement Examinations Completion of Graduation Requirements GdaiHDefinitibn)\n Gr^\u0026amp;lWel(s)? 65% of a high schools students will take the ACT. The percent of students taking the ACT will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. 90% of a high schools students who take the ACT will earn a score of at least 19. The percent of students earning a score of 19 or above will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. 65% of a high schools graduates will have taken at least one AP examination. The percent of students taking at least one AP examination will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. 90% of a high school's students taking AP examinations will score a 3 or above. The percent of students earning a score of 3 or above on AP examinations will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. 100% of a high schools seniors will complete all the graduation requirements prior to participation in the graduation ceremony, The percent of seniors meeting all graduation requirements prior to participation in the graduation ceremony will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. Grades 11-12 Grades 11-12 Grades 11-12 Grades 11-12 Grade 12 A schools performance on these District-selected indicators may be reflected in a local supplement to the state-mandated School Performance Report or as a part of the narrative in the Tier III report that becomes a part of the states School Performance Report. Indicators by School Level On the following pages are lists of the state and district indicators by school level. These indicators include the priorities established in the LRSD Strategic Plan, the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, the National Science Foundation Project, Title I, ACTAAP, and ACSIP. Also included in the tables are the columns of data that will be used to determine a schools status. 23Quality Indicators for Elementary Schools Baseline. Year r '^r^* Level State Indicators Tier I 1998-99 4 Performance on State Mandated Criterion- Referenced Grade 4 Literacy Test_______ 1998-99 4 Performance on State Mandated Criterion- Referenced Grade 4 Mathematics Test___ 1999-00 K-5 Average Daily Attendance 1999-00 K-5 Classes Taught by an Appropriately Licensed Teacher ____ 1999-00 K-5 Professional Development 1990-00 K-5 School Safety ^-^Goal(D^ition)r\u0026lt;:\n^.\u0026gt;fc Your 1- -s Results -Growth? ^Your i jGrowttf -Your Score 100% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in reading and writing literacy. 100% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficienf level in mathematics. Average daily attendance rate will be at least 95%. ______________________ 100% of a schools classes will be taught by an appropriately licensed teacher. 100% of a schools certified staff will complete at least 30 hours of approved professional development annually. Schools will be free of drugs, weapons, and violent acts. ____________________ 1998-99 4 Performance on State- Mandated Criterion Referenced Grade 4 Literacy Test The percent of students performing at or above the proficienf level in reading and writing literacy on the criterion-referenced test will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year._________ 24Quality Indicators for Elementary Schools (continued) Baseline Year 1998-99 Baseline Year 1999-00 1999-00 1999-00 1999-00 1999-00 Grade Levels 4 Grade i Levels K-5 K-5 K-5 K-5 K-5 State Indicators Tier I Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Grade 4 Mathematics Test School-Selected Indicators Tier II (Select five) Average Daily Attendance Classes Taught by an Appropriately Licensed Teacher Professional Development School Safety Other School Selected Indicators Goal (Definition) The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in mathematics on the criterion-referenced test will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. Goal (Definition) Schools will improve their average daily attendance rate. ________________ Schools will improve the percent of classes taught by an appropriately licensed teacher. Schools will increase the percent of certified staff who complete 60 or more hours of approved professional development annually._____ Schools will be free of drugs, weapons, and violent acts. _______________ Schools will select trend or improvement goals directed to student achievement in specific sub-populations or sub-test areas. These must have prior approval of ADE. Your Results Your Results Growth Goal 14 Growth Goal Your Growth\nYour Growth Your Score Your Score 25LRSD Elementary School Quality Indicators Baseline Year Grade Levels LRSD Indicators 7 Goal(Deflnition) 1999-00 K Performance on District- Adopted Kindergarten Literacy Test 1999-00 K Performance on District- Adopted Kindergarten Literacy Test 1999-00 1 Performance on District- Adopted Grade 1 Literacy Test _________ 1999-00 1 Performance on District- Adopted Grade 1 Literacy Test 1998-99 5 Performance on SAT9, the Norm-Referenced Reading Test __________ 1998-99 5 Performance on SAT9, the Norm-Referenced Reading Test Your Score Your Growth Growth: Goal ' * 90% of a schools kindergarten students shall perform at or above the proficient level in literacy. The percent of kindergarten students demonstrating gains from the pre-test to the post-test will meet or exceed the trend goal each year.__________________________ 90% of a schools grade 1 students shall perform at or above the proficient level in literacy.___________________________ The percent of grade 1 students demonstrating gains from the pre-test to the post-test will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year.___________ 65% of a schools students in every subgroup of race and gender will perform at or above the 50**' percentile in reading._____ The percent of a schools students in every sub-group of race and gender performing at or above the 50**' percentile will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year.__________________________ 26LRSD Elementary School Quality Indicators (continued) Baseline Year Grade Levels LRSD Indicators ~ i Goal (Definition)' Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 1998-99 5 Performance on SAT9, the Norm-Referenced Reading Test At least 30% of a schools students will perform at the highest quartile in reading. 1998-99 5 Performance on SAT9, the Norm-Referenced Reading Test The percent of a schools students performing at the highest quartile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year.__________ 1998-99 5 Performance on SAT9, the Norm-Referenced Reading Test At least 90% of a schools students will perform above the lowest quartile in reading. 1998-99 5 Performance on SAT9, the Norm-Referenced Reading Test The percent of a schools students performing above the lowest quartile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year._________ 1998-99 5 Performance on SAT9, the Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test 65% of a schools students shall perform at or above the 50 percentile in grade 5 mathematics. _____________ 1998-99 5 Performance on SAT9, the Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test The percent of students performing at or above the 50' percentile in grade 5 mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year.______ 1998-99 5 Performance on SAT9, the Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test At least 30% of a schools students will perform at the highest quartile in mathematics. 27 LRSD Elementary School Quality Indicators (continued) Baseline S Year 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1999-00 1999-00 1999-00 Grade Levels LRSD Indicators 2. * - Goal (peflnition) - \u0026gt;5 C' V, . Your Results Growth ? Your Goal Growth^ Your Score 5 5 5 2-5 2-5 2-5 Performance on SAT9, the Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on SAT9, the Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test______ Performance on SAT9, the Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Reading Test Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Reading Test Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Reading Test The percent of a schools students performing at the highest quartile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year.______ At least 90% of a schools students will perform above the lowest quartile in mathematics. The percent of a schools students performing above the lowest quartile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year.______ 90% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficienf level in grades 2-5 reading each semester._____________ The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in grades 2-5 reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each semester. The percent of students demonstrating gains from the grades 2-5 reading pre-test to the post-test will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year. 28LRSD Elementary School Quality Indicators (continued) Baseline Year 1999-00 1999-00 1999-00 Grade^. Lwels LRSD indicators\nYour : ResuHs Growth Gbah^ 'ypur,^ -Growth Your Score 2-5 2-5 2-5 Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test ______ Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test ______ Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test 90% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in grades 2-5 mathematics each semester. The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in grades 2-5 mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each semester. The percent of students demonstrating gains from the grades 2-5 mathematics pre-test to the post-test will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year. _________ 29( Quality Indicators for Middle Schools Baseline\nYear\nGrade\nLevels State Indicators Tier r--\n- - tZ'c Goal (Definition) 'ri Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 2001-02 6 Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Literacy Test 100% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in grade 6 reading and writing literacy. ___________ 1999-00 8 Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Literacy Test 100% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in grade 8 reading and writing literacy. ________ 2001-02 6 Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test ________ 100% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient\" level in grade 6 mathematics. 1999-00 8 Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test _________ 100% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in grade 8 mathematics. 2001-02 7 (Dunbar) or 8 Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test __________ 100% of a schools grade 7 or 8 students who complete Algebra I shall perform at or above the proficient level. 2001-02 8 (Dunbar) Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test _________ 100% of a schools grade 8 students who complete Geometry shall perform at or above the proficienf level. 1999-00 7-8 School Dropout At least 99% of secondary students will remain in school to complete the 12** grade. i 30Quality Indicators for Middle Schools (continued) Baseline Year 1999-00 1999-00 1999-00 1999-00 Baseline Year 2001-02 1999-00 Grade Levels . 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 Grade\nLevels 6 8 State Indicators- Tier i d Jr Average Daily Attendance Classes Taught by an Appropriately Licensed Teacher ____ Professional Development School Safety State-Mandated Indicators Tier 11 Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Literacy Test. Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Literacy Test. - V Goal (Definition) Average daily attendance rate will be at least 95%. ________________________-___ 100% of a school's classes will be taught by an appropriately licensed teacher. 100% of a schools certified staff will complete at least 30 hours of approved professional development.__________ Schools will be free of drugs, weapons, and violent acts^_________________________ Goal (Definition) The percent of students performing at or above the proficienf level in reading and writing literacy on the criterion-referenced tests will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year._________ The percent of students performing at or above the proficienf level in reading and writing literacy on the criterion-referenced tests will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. Your Results Your Results i Growth Goal Growth Goal Your Growth Your Growth Your Score Your Score 31Quality Indicators for Middle Schools (continued) Baseline - Year Grade Levels State-Mandated Indicators Tier II M Goal (Definitjon) 2001-02 6 Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test. The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in mathematics on the criterion-referenced tests will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. _______________________ 1999-00 8 Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test. The percent of students performing at or above the proficient\" level in mathematics on the criterion-referenced tests will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year.___________ 2001-02 7 (Dunbar) or 8 Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test. _____ The percent of students completing Algebra 1 performing at or above the proficient level will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. 2001-02 8 (Dunbar) Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test. ___ The percent of students completing Geometry performing at or above the proficient level will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. Your Results Growth Goal Your ^Growth Your Score 32f Quality Indicators for Middle Schools (continued) , Baseline Year Grade Levels School-Selected Indicators 1999-00 6-8 1999-00 6-8 1999-00 6-8 1999-00 6-8 1999-00 6-8 6-8 Tier II (Select five) Drop-outs Average Daily Attendance Classes Taught by an Appropriately Licensed Teacher Professional Development School Safety Other School Selected Indicators s Secondary schools will improve the percentage of students who stay in school to complete the 12* grade. Schools will improve their average daily attendance rate. _____________ Schools will improve the percent of classes taught by an appropriately licensed teacher. Schools will increase the percent of certified staff who complete 60 or more hours of approved professional development annually._________________________ Schools will be free of drugs, weapons, and violent acts. __________ Schools will select trend or improvement goals directed to student achievement in specific sub-populations or sub-test areas. These must have prior approval of ADE. Your Results Growth , . Goar^ Your Growth Your Score 33LRSD Middle School Quality Indicators Baseline-\n^ -M aGradOisfti ^ALRSPIndic^brsS '^1 ajS6a\n|(Peflnition) / Your Results Growth Goal.' Your Growth Your Score 1998-99 7 Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Reading Test_________ 65% of a schools students in every subgroup of race and gender shall perform at or above the 50** percentile in reading._______ 1998-99 7 Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Reading Test The percent of students in every sub-group of race and gender performing at or above the 50* percentile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year.__________________ 1998-99 1 Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Reading Test_________ At least 30% of a schools students will perform at the highest quartile in reading. 1998-99 7 Performance on SAT9. a Norm-Referenced Reading Test The percent of a schools students performing at the highest quartile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year.__________ 1998-99 7 Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Reading Test_________ At least 90% of a schools students will perform above the lowest quartile in reading. 1998-99 7 Performance on SATO, a Norm-Referenced Reading Test The percent of a schools students performing above the lowest quartile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 34LRSD Middle School Quality Indicators (continued) Baseline Grade Year Levels LRSD Indicators Goal (Definition). Si Yours Growth Results Goal Your Growth Your Score 1998-99 1 Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test 65% of a schools students in every subgroup of race and gender shall perform at or above the 50** percentile in mathematics. 1998-99 7 Performance on SATO, a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test The percent of students in every sub-group of race and gender performing at or above the 50* percentile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year.________________________ 1998-99 7 Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test At least 30% of a schools students will perform at the highest quartile in mathematics. 1998-99 1 Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test The percent of a schools students performing at the highest quartile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 1998-99 1 Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test At least 90% of a schools students will perform above the lowest quartile in mathematics. 1998-99 7 Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test The percent of a schools students performing above the lowest quartile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 1999-00 6-8 Performance on District- Adopted Criterion Referenced Reading Test 90% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in reading each semester. 35LRSD Middle School Quality Indicators (continued) Grade | LRSD indicators Year Levels Baseline 1999-00 6-8 Performance on District- Adopted Criterion Referenced Reading Test 1999-00 6-8 Performance on District- Adopted Criterion Referenced Reading Test 1999-00 6-8 Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test 1999-00 6-8 Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test 1999-00 6-8 Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test 1998-99 6-8 Enrollment in Pre-AP Courses 1998-99 6-8 Enrollment in Pre-AP Courses The percent of students performing at or above the proficienf level in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each semester. ________________ The percent of students demonstrating gains from the reading pre-test to the post-test will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year. 90% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficienf level in mathematics each semester. The percent of students performing at or above the proficienf level in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each semester.______ The percent of students demonstrating gains from the mathematics pre-test to the posttest will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year._______________________ 65% of a middle school's students will be enrolled in at least one Pre-AP course each year._______________________________ The percent of students enrolled in at least one Pre-AP course will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. Jour Growth. . Goal Your - \"Growth wYour* jScoHi- 36LRSD Middle School Quality Indicators (continued) Baseline Year 1998-99 1998-99 Grade Levels 6-8 6-8 LRSD Indicators (Definition) II* Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth\nYour Score Enrollment in Algebra I by Grade 8 Enrollment in Algebra I by Grade 8 90% of a middle schools students will be enrolled in Algebra I by grade 8. The percent of students enrolled in Algebra I by grade 8 will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. 37 Quality Indicators for High Schools Baseline Year 2001-02 2001-02 2001-02 1999-00 1999-00 1999-00 1999-00 1999-00 Grade Levels^ 9-12 9-12 11 9-12 9-12 9-12 9-12 9-12 State Indicators Tierl Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Algebra I Test Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Geometry Test Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Algebra I Test School Drop Out Average Daily Attendance Classes Taught by an Appropriately Licensed Teacher Professional Development School Safety Goal (Definition) \"t. t 100% of a high schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in Algebra I. 100% of a high schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in Geometry. 100% of a high schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in Reading and Writing Literacy. At least 99% of secondary students will remain in school to complete the 12* grade. Average daily attendance rate will be at least 95%. __ 100% of a schools classes will be taught by an appropriately licensed teacher. 100% of a schools certified staff will complete at least 30 hours of approved professional development annually. Schools will be free of drugs, weapons, and I violent acts.___________ Your Results Growth\nYour - Goal, Growth -Your Score 38Quality Indicators for High Schools (continued) Baseline Year Grade Levels State-Mandated Indicators Tier II \"ik. Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth 2001-02 9-12 Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Algebra I Test The percent of students performing at or above the proficienf level in Algebra I will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. 2001-02 9-12 Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Geometry Test The percent of students performing at or above the proficienf level in Geometry will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. 2001-02 11 Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Literacy Test The percent of students performing at or above the proficienf level in Literacy will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. Your Score Baseline Year Grade Levels School-Selected Indicators 2001-02 9-12 2001-02 9-12 2001-02 9-12 i Tier II (Select five.)\u0026gt; Drop-outs Average Daily Attendance Classes Taught by an Appropriately Licensed Teacher iltloi V' High schools will improve the percentage of students who stay in school to complete the 12*^ grade. Schools will improve their average daily attendance rate. Schools will improve the percent of classes taught by an appropriately licensed teacher. Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 39 Quality Indicators for High Schools (continued) Baseline Year Grades#*?^ School-Selected Levels Indicators Tier II (Select five.) Goal (Definition) 't* ft riss* Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth 2001-02 9-12 Professional Development Schools will increase the percent of certified staff who complete 60 or more hours of approved professional development annually. 2001-02 9-12 School Safety Schools will be free of drugs, weapons, and violent acts. ____________ 9-12 Other School Selected Indicators Schools will select trend or improvement goals directed to student achievement in specific sub-populations or sub-test areas. These must have prior approval of ADE. IL Your Score 40Baseline Yeari 2 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 Grade Levels 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 ^-r9S? -LRSD Indicators LRSD High School Quality Indicators Your Results Growth Goal ? Your Growth - t - - Your Score Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SATO, a Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test 65% of a schools students in every subgroup of race and gender shall perform at or above the 50 percentile in reading. The percent of students performing at or above the 50* percentile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. At least 30% of a schools students will perform at the highest quartile in reading. The percent of a schools students performing at the highest quartile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. At least 90% of a schools students will perform above the lowest quartile in reading. The percent of a schools students performing above the lowest quartile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 65% of a schools students in every subgroup of race and gender shall perform at or above the 50' percentile in mathematics. 41 LRSD High School Quality Indicators (continued) Baseline Year v 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1999-00\nGrade Levels- 10 10 10 10 10 9-11 LRSD Indicators Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score Performance on SATO, a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on SATO, a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on SATO, a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on SATO, a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Reading Test The percent of students performing at or above the 50* percentile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. At least 30% of a schools students will perform at the highest quartile in mathematics. ______ The percent of a schools students performing at the highest quartile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year.______ At least 90% of a schools students will perform above the lowest quartile in mathematics. The percent of a schools students performing above the lowest quartile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year.______ 90% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficienf level in reading each semester. 42 LRSD High School Quality Indicators (continued) Baseline Year 1999-00 1999-00 1999-00 1999-00 1999-00 1998-99 1998-99 , Grade Levels 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-12 9-12 LRSD indicators Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Reading Test Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Reading Test Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test Enrollment in Pre-AP and/or AP Courses Enrollment in Pre-AP and/or AP Courses * . ? Goal (Definition) The percent of students performing at or above the proficienf level in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each semester. --3 The percent of students demonstrating gains from the reading pre-test to the post-test will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year. 90% of a school's students shall perform at or above the proficienf level in mathematics each semester. The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each semester. The percent of students demonstrating gains from the mathematics pre-test to the posttest will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year. 65% of a high school's students will be enrolled in at least one Pre-AP or AP course each year. The percent of students enrolled in at least one Pre-AP or AP course will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. Your Results Growth Goal\nYour Growth Your Score 43 f LRSD High School Quality Indicators (continued) Baseline Year 2002-03 2002-03 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 Grade Levels 12 12 11-12 11-12 11-12 11-12 11-12 11-12 11-12 i LRSD Indicat .5^ Honors Seal on High School Diploma Honors Seal on High School Diploma Taking the ACT Taking the ACT .. '' .Goal (Definition) \u0026lt;- - 65% of a high schools students will complete the requirements to earn the Honors Seal on their diplomas. The percent of students completing the requirements for the Honors Seal will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. 65% of a high schools students will take the ACT. The percent of students taking the ACT will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. Performance on the ACT Performance on the ACT Taking Advanced Placement Examinations Taking Advanced Placement Examinations Performance on Advanced Placement Examinations 90% of a high schools students who take the ACT will earn a score of at least 19. The percent of students earning a score of 19 or above on the ACT will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. 65% of a high schools graduates will take at least one AP examination. The percent of students taking at least one AP examination will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. 90% of a high schools students taking AP examinations will score a 3 or above. Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 445 i i I LRSD High School Quality Indicators (continued) Baseline\nYear 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 Grade Levels 11-12 12 12 LRSD Indicators Performance on Advanced Placement Examinations Completion of Graduation Requirements Completion of Graduation Requirements The percent of a high schools students earning a score of 3 or above on AP examinations will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. 100% of a high schools seniors will complete all the graduation requirements prior to participation in the graduation ceremony. The percent of seniors meeting all graduation requirements prior to participation in the graduation ceremony will meet or exceed the trend goal each year.___________________ ^Reslilts Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 45Rewards for Schools The District shall develop a system to reward (a) Quality Schools - schools absolutely meeting all the performance indicators established by the Arkansas Department of Education and (b) Improving Schools - schools demonstrating improvement, meeting a preponderance of the trend and/or improvement goals established by the Arkansas Department of Education and LRSD. The following points are established for each indicator. They will be added to determine a schools total score. 0 1 2 3 Declined in performance from previous year or semester Maintained last years performance and/or improved but did not meet trend/improvement goal Met trend/improvement goal Exceeded trend/improvement goal A definition of preponderance and the number of minimum points required for rewards will be established. Quality Schools and Improving Schools Quality Schools and Improving Schools may be recognized and rewarded in the following ways, as determined by the Superintendent: I a. b. c. d. e. f. A presentation will be made to the Board of Education on the schools achievements involving both staff and parents, a press release commending the schools performance will be issued, and schools will be featured in District publications, on cable television, and on the web page. The school may be designated as a mentor school and granted resources to provide technical assistance and support to another school in the District identified for improvement. I As appropriate, the District will support a schools application for state and national recognition in the national Blue Ribbon School program. The District will collaborate with the community to identify other possible recognitions of the schools progress and achievement. Schools will receive a grant to encourage and facilitate further improvement. The amount of the grant will be determined by annual budget appropriations. Awarded funds will be used for innovative programs, to provide additional materials and supplies, to support technology enhancements, to improve meaningful parent involvement, and/or for professional development of the staff. Each school will receive a banner/flag that celebrates its success.Rewards for Staff and Students Each Quality and each Improving School is encouraged to design, in collaboration with parents and the community, celebrations of success and recognition for contributing teachers, teacher teams, other staff, and parent/community volunteers, as well as students who meet the performance goals. Sanctions According to ADE and the State Board of Education, sanctions in the ACTAAP system are applied for the purpose of improving teaching and learning, not for punishing schools or the people in them. The LRSD supports this view. I Each Arkansas school is expected to achieve annually a minimum percentage of its total possible points assigned for the performance indicators in the ACTAAP system for accountability. Failure to do so will result in the following designations, as determined by the Arkansas Department of Education: First year: Second year: Third year: Fourth year: Fifth year: Sixth year: High Priority Status Alert Status Low Performing Status Academic Distress Phase I Status Academic Distress Phase II Status Academic Distress Phase III Status To be eligible for removal of any sanction designation, leading up to, but not including. Academic Distress Phase I, a school must attain the minimum percentage of its total possible points for two consecutive years. Once classified as Academic Distress Phase I, a school must comply with the rules and regulations to be promulgated by the ADE in order to be removed from this category. Failure to do so will result in the designation of Academic Distress Phase II, and so forth. The District will not identify schools for sanctions. Rather, the District will ensure the following levels of technical assistance and/or corrective actions for schools identified for improvement by the Arkansas Department of Education. In other words, the District will form a partnership with each school in need of improvement and will assist and support that school in its improvement efforts. To that end, the District has reorganized staff in the Division of Instruction to form a multidisciplinary School Improvement department. A common mission for all Division of Instruction teams will be to help schools help students achieve the challenging standards established by the Arkansas Department of Education and the LRSD and as measured by the various performance, trend, and improvement indicators. The assignment of a Broker for each school is another level of support. 47I I The following technical assistance and support services are established for schools requiring improvements\nTechnical Assistance and Support for Schools Identified for Improvement I i I (f I Year/Stetus/iv Definition ' YEAR ONE: WARNED The first year that an LRSD school fails to meet its performance, trend, and/or improvement goals. LRSD Assistance/Support \u0026gt; J?/'\n,., The Superintendent will ensure that staff are designated to: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ji Inform the principal, the central office broker, the Campus Leadership Team, the Cabinet, and the Board of Education of the designation of the school and its implications. Provide appropriate levels of technical assistance to the school as it develops and implements its School Improvement Plan so that it addresses specific elements of student performance problems and includes waivers of any policies or regulations that impede the ability of the school to education its students. Conduct a School Improvement Audit to determine the extent to which the Campus Leadership Plan is being implemented at the school. Require the recommendations from the School Improvement Audit to be addressed in the following years School Improvement Plan, if not possible to do so immediately. Monitor regularly and conduct formative evaluations of the implementation of the School Improvement Plan, reviewing with the principal and the Campus Leadership Team formative data and making suggestions for modifications and adjustments to the implementation plan. Provide the principal, the broker, members of the Campus Leadership Team, and other appropriate staff opportunities to participate in professional development activities that should lead to school improvement. . Assiigrted Responsibility Testing and Program Evaluation Team Technical Assistance Team\nCurriculum/ Instruction Team Technical Assistance Team Associate Superintendent for School Services Associate Superintendent for School Services Professional Development Team\nCurriculum/ Instruction Team\nAssociate Superintendent for School Services 481 Year/Status/ Definition LRSD Assistance/Support Assigned ' Responsibility YEAR TWO: HIGH PRIORITY STATUS The Superintendent will ensure that staff are designated to: I I I i i I A school identified by ADE that for two consecutive years fails to meet the performance, trend, and/or improvement goals. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Inform the principal, the central office broker, the Campus Leadership Team, the Cabinet, and the Board of Education of the designation of the school and its implications. Provide appropriate levels of technical assistance to the school as it develops and implements its School Improvement Plan so that it addresses specific elements of student performance problems and includes waives of any policies or regulations that impede the ability of the school to educate its students. Conduct a comprehensive Curriculum Audit to determine the extent to which the school is implementing the District curriculum and the quality of its interventions for students not meeting the standards. Require that the recommendations from the Curriculum Audit be addressed in the following years School Improvement Plan, if impossible to do so immediately. Possibly mandate the implementation of specific actions, professional development, or programs to address needs identified in the Curriculum Audit and/or the analysis of disaggregated student performance data. The District shall take corrective action during the High Priority Status Year through one or more of the following: (a) (b) (c) (d) Decrease the decision-making authority of the Campus Leadership Team. (b) Require participation in remedial training or professional development, and then implementating the necessary changes. Reflect the schools low performance in the evaluation of the principal, as well as teachers and other staff who contributed to the low performance of the school. Replace the school principal. Testing and Program Evaluation Team Technical Assistance Team\nCurriculum/ Instruction Team Curriculum/ Instruction Team\nPlanning and Development Team Associate Superintendent for School Services Associate Superintendent for School Services 49! Year/Status/ Definition LRSD Assistance/Support \\ Assigned Responsibility 1 Year Three: Alert Status The Superintendent will ensure that staff are designated to: I i A school identified by ADE that for three consecutive years fails to meet the performance, trend, and/or improvement goals. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. i Inform the principal, the Campus Leadership Team, the Cabinet, and the Board of Education of the designation and its implications. Conduct follow-up or monitoring of implementation of School Improvement and Curriculum Audit recommendations. Mandate appropriate specific actions, professional development, and/or programs to address student needs. Continue to provide appropriate technical assistance as the school develops and implements its School Improvement Plan. The District shall take corrective action during the Alert Status Year through one or more of the following\n(a) (b) (c) (d) Decrease the decision-making authority of the Campus Leadership Team\nRequire participation in remedial training or professional development and then implementing the necessary changes\n(Reflect the schools low performance in the evaluation of the principal, as well as teachers and other staff who contributed to the low performance of the school. Reconstitute the school staff by replacing the principal and up to 50 percent of the teachers and other staff, as appropriate. Testing and Program Evaluation Team Technical Assistance Team\nCurriculum/ Instruction Team Associate Superintendent for School Services Technical Assistance Team\nCurriculum/ Instruction Team Associate Superintendent for School Services 50 . X^Yeai/Status/ a ^^^Definition LRSD Assistance/Support 'W Assigned Responsibility i Year Four: Low Performing Status The Superintendent will ensure that staff are designated to apply one or more of the following sanctions: A school identified by ADE that for four consecutive years fails to meet its performance, trend, and/or improvement goals. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Revoke the authority of the school to design its School Improvement Plan. Require participation in remedial training or professional development and then implementing the necessary changes. Reflect the low performance of the school in the performance evaluations of responsible staff, including the principal, as well as teachers and other staff who contributed to the low performance. Conduct follow-up audits to determine the extent to which the school has effectively implemented the recommendations of the School Improvement Audit and the Curriculum Audit conducted in years one and two. Reconstitute the school staff by replacing the principal and up to 50 percent of the teachers and other staff, as appropriate. Associate Superintendent for School Services Technical Assistance Team\nCurriculum/ Instruction Team Associate Superintendent for School Services 51YearZStatus/ Definition LRSD Assistance/Support ILL Assigned Responsibility YEAR FIVE\nACADEMIC DISTRESS PHASE I STATUS The Superintendent will ensure that staff are designated to apply one or more of the following sanctions: A school identified by ADE that for five consecutive years fails to meet its performance, trend, and/or improvement goals. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Revoke the authority of the school to design its School Improvement Plan. Require participation in remedial training or professional development and then implementing the necessary changes. Reflect the low performance of the school in the performance evaluations of responsible staff, including the principal, as well as teachers and other staff who contributed to the low performance. Conduct follow-up audits to determine the extent to which the school has effectively implemented the recommendations of the School Improvement Audit and the Curriculum Audit conducted in years one and two. Reconstitute the school staff by replacing the principal and up to 50 percent of the teachers and other staff, as appropriate. Sanctions for Central Office Associate Superintendent for School Services Technical Assistance Team\nCurriculum/ Instruction Team Associate Superintendent for School Services Effective Year Two, upon the Superintendents recommendation, the performance evaluations of central office staff designated to provide leadership in human resources, teaching and learning, school improvement, school services, administrative services, and technology, including members of the Superintendents Cabinet, shall also reflect the schools low performance if it can be determined that they shared responsibility, through their decisions or actions, or lack thereof, for the low achievement of schools identified for sanctions. Sanctions for the Superintendent will be determined by the Board of Education. 52School Role When Identified for Sanctions Each school identified for sanctions shall: a. In consultation with central staff and the Campus Leadership Team develop or revise a School Improvement Plan in ways that have the greatest likelihood of improving the performance of all children in meeting the expected improvement b. c. d. e. f. goals outlined in ACTAAP and the Quality Index. Align all the schools systems and resources behind the effective implementation of the plan. Submit the plan in a timely manner to school and District-level staff for review, feedback, and approval. Implement the plan, conducting self-monitoring on a frequent basis to determine success and then making appropriate adjustments. Consult frequently with District-level staff assigned to support the school and to provide technical assistance. Improve the skills of its staff by providing effective professional development activities. At least ten percent of the Title I funds (if received) shall be committed over a two-year period to professional development\nor the school must otherwise demonstrate that it is effectively carrying out professional development activities from other funding sources. Decisions about how to use the professional development funds shall be made by teachers, principals, and other school staff in that school during the first year a school is identified for sanctions. Definitions ! School Improvement AuditThis audit will include a review of the meeting minutes of the Campus Leadership Team, the participation level of CLT members, quality of the School Improvement Plan, use of disaggregated data for decision-making, action research projects underway, sense of collective responsibility, quality of professional development, etc. If the school receives Title I funds, the audit will include determinations of the extent to which the school is in compliance with federal regulations and expectations. The audit team will be composed of staff from both the central office and campus levels. A written report will be compiled by the audit team and then approved by the Assistant Superintendent for School Improvement and the Associate Superintendent for School Services. It shall be provided orally and in writing to the Assistant Superintendent for School Services, the principal, the broker, and the Campus Leadership Team. Copies will be provided to the Superintendent, the Cabinet, and other appropriate central office staff who need to be involved in the schools improvement efforts. 53Curriculum Audit^The comprehensive curriculum audit will include a review of the schools master schedule, its curriculum maps, its ACSIP plans and processes, observations of classrooms, the extent to which the District curriculum is being implemented, the professional development experiences of the staff, the quality and use of instructional materials, learning climate, academic guidance, etc. The audit will include interviews with most staff and representative numbers of students and parents. The curriculum audit team will be composed of both central office and campus-level staff. A written report will be compiled by the audit team, approved by the Associate Superintendent for Teaching and Learning and provided orally and in writing to the Associate Superintendent for School Services, the Assistant Superintendent for School Services, the principal, the broker, and the Campus Leadership Team. Copies will be provided to the Superintendent, the Cabinet, and other appropriate central office staff who need to be involved in the schools improvement efforts. 54! Nomination Form Recommendation for Individuals to be Appointed ! i I I Year Name Phone (Home) (Work) Mailing Address ! Representative Group on Campus Leadership Team Parent __Student Representative (Optional) (Optional) __Community Representative __Auxiliary Staff Representative __Business Representative __District Representative If applicable, name of person nominating or recommending\nAppointee Acceptance: I hereby voluntarily accept the appointment to the Campus Leadership Team. I have read and understand the Leadership Team expectations and agree to work in the best interest of the campus and school district. Date Signature of Appointee 551 t Campus Leadership Team Nomination Form Year Name of Nominee Phone Campus Assignment I Representative Grouping on Campus Leadership Team __Classroom Teacher __Staff Member (Specify job title) I hereby voluntarily accept this nomination and will serve if elected to serve on the Campus Leadership Team. I have read and understand the Leadership Team Membership expectations and agree to work in the best interest of the campus and school district. Date Signature of Nominee Please return to the principal five working days prior to the election. I i j 56Little Rock School District Application for Local or State Waiver Name of school:________________________ Date of approval by Campus Leadership Team Principals Signature______________________ Date Waiver proposals are required if a school wishes to deviate in any way from federal or State regulations or from LRSD board policies and administrative regulations, including teacher contract or Board-approved curriculum for elementary, middle, or high school. Examples. To Title I schoolwide project without the required percentage of free/reduced lunch counts. To waive a state requirement relating to accreditation. To add a special needs/interests class, to waive a required course yet deliver it differently\nto waive prerequisites or established credit or length of time taught\nto combine courses into a new interdisciplinary course\netc.) Proposal Information: 1. What is the program/course for which a waiver is requested? (Example: To add a remedial reading program for grade 6 students) 2. Describe the specific student needs that this proposed program/course or proposed deviation from the approved curriculum will meet that are not being met. (Example. To provide phonemic awareness and decoding instruction for students who cannot yet decode fluently and to provide adequate on-level reading practice to develop automaticity and a significantly expanded vocabulary across the curriculum) i i 613. Explain how the proposed waiver will enable your school to improve student performance to meet the districts performance goals in the Strategic Plan, to address performance indicators in the Quality Index, to meet Title I performance expectations, and/or to address COE and Smart Start requirements. (Example: Thirty-seven of our incoming sixth graders are currently performing at the below-basic level on ACTAP and in the bottom quartile on the SAT9 in reading. By dividing these students into two or three smaller classes and providing targeted instruction to meet their needs, the Campus Leadership Team believes that the schools average performance will improve and the school will have fewer students performing at the lowest levels. I 1 I i 4. Briefly summarize the specific research findings upon which your proposal is based. (Example: The findings of Finnell, Lyons, DeFord, Bryk, and Seltzer in their 1994 study support the implementation of such programs as Reading Recovery, in large part due to the programs one-to-one tutoring and assistance. Etc. Or: Robert E. Slavin and Olatokunbo Fashola in their 1998 publication. Show Me the Evidence! identified four sets of conditions that are present in effective programs from a review of hundreds of research articles: (1) Effective programs have clear goals, emphasize methods and materials linked to those goals, and constantly assess students progress toward the goals. (2) Effective and replicable programs have well-specified components, materials, and professional development procedures. (3) Effective programs provide extensive professional development. (4) Effective programs are disseminated by organizations that focus on the quality of implementation. ) Ii 3 ! I I 1 5 How, specifically, will you evaluate your success, both formatively and summatively? (Example: Formative Evaluation: We will monitor student performance in this new program on a weekly basis with teacher-designed assessments and the use of informal reading inventories. We will track these thirty-seven students grades in all their classes and intervene as necessary. Each student will keep a log of books read so that increasing levels of difficulty can be monitored. At least one parent conference will be conducted monthly to determine parents observations and to seek their assistance. Summative Evaluation: Students quarterly grades in all their classes, student performance on the SAT9 and ACTAP.) Formative: Summative: 6. Describe, if appropriate, the following: professional development plan\ninstructional . ____________________________AlzxnmAnt* materials to be used\ncurriculum planning and writing\nassessment development\nand/or other projected activities and/or costs that the proposal will entail. (Attach pages as necessary.) I !7. How will this proposed program be funded? (Example: Reallocated Title I dollars, grant revenue\netc.) Note- If this Waiver Application is approved, it is approved for one year only and must be renewed the following year. At the end of the second year, the renewed approval will be granted for a third year only if the results of the program evaluation are positive in improving student achievement outcomes. The following signatures signify approval of this Waiver Application by the principal and members of the Campus Leadership Team. Principal Central Office Use: I ___Approved ___Disapproved ___Approved ___Disapproved Asst. Supt. Assoc. Supt. Date Date ___Approved ___Disapproved Assoc. Supt.. Date ___Approved ___Disapproved Superintendent Date 60Ur School Climate Survey for Parents *SA= Strongly Agree A= Agree D= Disagree SD= Strongly Disagree DK= Dont Know *SA A D SD DK I 1. Teachers do whatever it takes to help students be successful. 2. Teachers grade fairly. 3. lam familiar with the goals of the school. 4. Teachers share their enthusiasm for learning with their students. 5. Parents and students feel safe while at school. 6. Students feel safe riding the bus to and from school. 7. The school campus is clean and welcoming. 8. School personnel ask my input concerning school goals. 9. I feel comfortable talking to school administrators. lO.Adequate help and guidance are readily available. 11 .Students sense a feeling of commimity and belonging within the school family. 12.1 support the school by attending meetings and events. 13.1 have been informed about the role of the Campus Leadership Team._____________________________________________ 14.The school reaches out to involve parents and community in school improvement efforts through the Campus Leadership Team. 15.The primary focus of the school is on student learning. 16.Students needing academic support or tutoring receive it. 17.Homework is reasonable and meaningful.__________________ 18.A wide variety of extracurricular activities are available to students.___________________________________________ 19.Transportation problems are resolved promptly. 20.Offrce personnel are courteous, friendly, and helpful. 21.All visitors are made to feel welcome by the school staff. 22.My students school offers me a variety of opportunities to be involved school improvement efforts.__________________ 23.Our school has extensive parent and commimity involvement. I 61 *SA= Strongly Agree A= Agree I\u0026gt;= Disagree SD= Strongly Disagree DK= Dont Know School Climate Survey for Teachers 1 *SA A D SD DK 1. The primary focus of the school is on teaching and learning.______________ 2. Adults and students feel safe while at school._________________________ 3. School buildings are generally well maintained._______________________ 4. Administrators encourage frequent and open communication with students, teachers, parents, and community._________ 5. Administrators clearly communicate the importance of high expectetions. 6. Administrators value the diversity of our school. ____________________ 7. Students know where to go for help with personal problems. 8. School personnel respond sensitively to the ethnic and cultural differences among the students in this school.___________________________ ____ 9. Students demonstrate concern and respect for each other._______________ 10. Students behave appropriately in the classroom setting.__________________ 11 I was asked for my input on school goals.____________________________ 12. Building administrators provide the support I need with student behavior problems.__ ______________________________________ _________ 13 A11 students have the opportunity to participate in extracurricular activities. 14. Office personnel are courteous, friendly, and helpful.___________________ 15. Resources needed for effective teaching are adequate. ________________ 16. Adequate personnel are available to meet the educational goals of the school. _______ ______________________________________ __ 17. Technology is used to meet the instructional goals of the school.__________ 181 feel comfortable sharing my concerns with building administrators. ~ 19. The district and my school provide adequate opportunities for professional growth in instructional strategies.__________________________________ 20. Professional development sessions are aligned with district and school goals for improved student achievement.___.______ 21. Teachers in this school know and apply effective teaching strategies.______ 22.1 understand the role and purpose of the Campus Leadership Team._______ 23.1 have sufficient autonomy to perform my job.________________________ 24.1 am kept informed about what is going on in the school._______________ 25. Communication between students and teachers is excellent._____________ 26. It is clear who is responsible for what in the school. ________________ 27. Discipline is fair and adequate in the school._____ ____________________ 28. Communication between teachers and administration is excellent. 29.1 engage in honest, respectful communication with students._____________ 30. Students in this school receive equal treatment regardless of race.________ 31. The curriculum is designed so that objectives, instruction, and assessment are aligned._________ __ ____________________________________ 32.1 am involved in developing school-wide strategies to reduce the incidences of drugs, weapons, and violent acts in my school.__________________ 62- School Climate Survey for Students *SA= Strongly Agree A= Agree 1\u0026gt;= Disagree SD= Strongly Disagree DK= Dont Know *SA A D SD DK i I 1. Teachers do whatever it takes to help me be successful._______ 2. Teachers grade fairly.___________________________________ 3. Teachers give frequent, positive feedback to motivate me. 4. Teachers expect everyone to participate in class.____________ 5. Learning is exciting at my school._________________________ 6. I feel safe at school,__________________________________ __ 7. I feel safe riding the bus to and from school.________________ 8. School buildings are well maintained and clean._____________ 9. The school grounds are clean and attractive._______________ 10. I receive help in goal setting and career planning.___________ 11. Help and guidance are available for all students in this school. 12. Concern is shown for ethnic and cultural differences in my school. _____________________________ 13. Students show concern and respect for each other. 14. I feel accepted in my school._________________________ 15. We make new students feel welcome in our school._________ 16. Students who need extra learning time or tutoring receive it. 17. Homework is reasonable and meaningful.________ 18. Extracurricular activities are available to the students at my school. __________ ___________ _________________ 19. Teachers encourage participation in extracurricular programs. 20. I am satisfied with my progress in school. ______________ 21. Computers are available for student use. *SA= Strongly Agree A= Agree I\u0026gt;= Disagree SI\u0026gt;= Strongly Disagree DK= Dont Know School Climate Survey for Administrators SA A D so DK 1. Teachers do whatever it takes to help students be successful. 2. Faculty and staff feel safe working in the building before and after school. 3. Students feel safe riding the bus to and from school. 4. I encourage frequent and open communication. 5. I have the necessary training to resolve conflict. 6. I encourage the valuing of diversity at my school. 7. Students receive adequate help in educational goal setting and career planning from teachers and counselors. 8. My staff and I have been successful in reducing the incidences of drugs, weapons, and violent acts in our school. _______________________ 9. My school has extensive parent and community support. 10. Community organizations actively recognize students achievement in both academics and extracurricular activities. 11. I have a plan to reach out and engage parents and community in school improvement efforts. 12. The primary focus of the school is on teaching and learning. 13. The vast majority of classroom time is devoted to instruction based on the school curriculum. 14. Interruptions to learning are kept to a minimum. 15. All staff participates in professional development that focuses on improved student achievement. 16. Students are encouraged to participate in a wide variety of extra curricular activities. 17. All students have the opportunity to participate in extra curricular activities. 18. Transportation problems are resolved promptly. 19. Office personnel are courteous, friendly, and helpful. 20. Technology is used to meet the instructional goals of the school. 21.1 have the training necessary to evaluate teachers who are working with new curriculum. 22. The district provides adequate professional development to help me be an effective instructional leader. 23. Students are treated in ways which encourage success rather than focusing on failure. 24. Teachers have the same expectations for academic achievement for students of all races. 25. Teachers use textbooks, materials, and different ways of teaching which are fair to students of all races and lifestyles. ________________ ___ ______________________ 26. Teachers are well trained and current in the subjects they teach. 1. Action Plan 2. Baseline 3. Benchmark 4. Brainstorming 5. Competitive Benchmark 6. Consensus 7. Consensus Decision FUNCTIONAL VOCABULARY Specific method or process to achieve results called for by one or more objectives. An objective assessment of an organizations true operational level. A measurable/performance-based statement. An idea-generating technique that uses group interaction to generate many ideas in a short period of time in a non-judgmental manner. Measuring products, services and processes against the toughest competitors. A state where everyone in the group supports an action or decision, even if they dont agree. A decision made after all aspects of an issue have been reviewed to the extent that everyone has participated in the decision. 8. Customer The person, group, or organization that uses the product, services or information you provide. 9. Improvement Plan 10. Indicators t I 11. Intervention A plan to determine what advice, assistance, training, materials or other resources you may need. They guide the team in determining schedules and identifying benchmarks. Measures of how well you are meeting customers needs and reasonable expectations. They are measures of the degree of conformance to valid requirements. A significant event or process to solve the problem. 12. Mission A statement of what an organization does and why. The actions for carrying out the vision of the organization. 13. Priority The highest need as indicated by supporting data. 14. Process A set of work activities that are characterized by a set of specific inputs and value added tasks that produce specific outputs.Updated Elementary School School Improvement Planner Date Mission StatementSchool School Improvement Planner Date Priority 1\nSupporting Data\nGoal: Benchmark\nIntervention: Actions Person(s) Responsible Timeline (Startirig- Ending dates) Resources Source of Funds (enter amount) District TiUe I APIG i JI Annual School Improvement Plan Implementation Timelines Dates Activity 1. Each school will follow the State NCA/ COE Evaluation Planning Process Varies depending on cycle - but once every five years Person Responsible School Improvement Planning Team 2. Deletions to specific actions on 5-year plan 3. Additions to specific actions on 5-year plan 4. Draft plan with revisions submitted 5. Final copy yearly School Improvement Plan submitted 6. Brief narrative for revisions January 1 January 1 March 15 September 15 September 15 March 15 March 15 Campus Leadership Planning Team Campus Leadership Planning Team Principal Principal Principal *Additional Title I information may be required for the State Report.ARKANSAS COMPREHENSIVE TESTING, ASSESSMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY PROGRAM Arkansas Department of Education Raymond Simon, Director June, 1999 1I FOREWORD I The following document outlines the provisions of the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP) that encompasses both Smart Start and Grades 5-12. It represents the culmination of twelve months of planning, discussion, and interaction with hundreds of administrators, teachers, and school patrons, as well as members of the State Board of Education, governors office, and legislature. The authority to implement ACTAAP is firmly established in legislation by Act 999 of 1999. These revisions to ACTAAP continue to build upon the progress made by the enactment of Arkansas Code Amiotated 6-15-401 through 6-15-407 (Supp. 1997) and 6- 15-1001 through 6-15-1006 (Supp. 1997) from previous legislative sessions. Act 999 of 1999 amends various sections of those statutes to put in place an expanded program. In addition, ACTAAP incorporates the findings of the Excellence in Arkansas Public Education Task Force as reported in October 1998 as well as Arkansas Code Annotated 6-20-1601 through 6-20-1610 (Supp. 1997) which provides for sanctions for school districts which fail to perform at the established achievement levels. Written comments should be directed to Dr. Charles D. Watson, Program Manager in the office of Public Relations and Special Projects, or sent via e-mail to: actaap@arkedu.kl 2.ar.us I 2 IINTRODUCTION The Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP), a comprehensive system encompassing high academic standards, professional development, student assessment, and accountability for schools and students, has the following purposes: To improve student learning and classroom instruction\n To provide public accountability by establishing expected achievement levels and reporting on student achievement\n To provide program evaluation data\nand To assist policymakers in decision-making. Based on principles of rigor, clarity, and fairness, ACTAAP makes student achievement of the academic standards the shared priority of all public schools, school districts, education service cooperatives, and the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE). It will result in improved teaching and learning. It will identify successful schools and programs and encourage replication of those successes. It will encourage individual schools and school districts to reflect on their practices, take corrective actions, and receive support from state agencies. Finally, it will fulfill the requirements of various Arkansas statutes, including Act 999 of 1999, which mandates that all students in the public schools of this state demonstrate grade-level academic proficiency through the application of knowledge and skills in the core academic subjects consistent with state curriculum frameworks, performance standards, and assessments. 3 i iACADEMIC STANDARDS ) I The first component, a set of clear, challenging academic standards, defines what students should know and be able to do in the basic academic core. Arkansas academic standards are delineated in ten state curriculum framework documents. Written by Arkansas classroom teachers, the curriculum frameworks are revised on a five-year schedule to ensure that state learning expectations will prepare students to succeed in increasingly more demanding post secondary education and in an ever more competitive job market. As part of Smart Start and as a support and supplement to the curriculum frameworks, K-4 Benchmark documents in Language Arts and Mathematics have been created. These documents are examples of how a school district might implement the curriculum frameworks by grade level. The K-4 Benchmark documents also contain suggested instructional strategies, classroom assessments, and a grade-level skills checklist. Other supportive curriculum documents built around the academic standards are under development. I 4PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT The second component, professional development, is a coordinated set of planned, research-based best practice, learning activities for teachers and administrators which are standards-based and continuous. It shall be tied with school improvement planning and with licensure renewal requirements. Thirty approved professional development hours annually will be require^foreach jellified employee in thcTscHool district. Bcginning in January 2002, thirty approved professional development hours annually over a five-year period shall be required to renew a teacher or administrator license. To be eligible, professional development activities must produce teaching and administrative knowledge and skills designed to improve students academic performance. Such activities may include approved conferences^ workshops, institutes,, individual learning, mentoring, peer coaching, study groups. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards Certification, distance i learning, internships, and college/university coursework. Approved professional development activities shalTfelate to the twelve areas adopted by the State Board of I A Education: content (Grades K-12)\ninstructional strategies\nassessment\nadvocacy/leadership\nsystemic change process\nstandards, frameworks, and curriculum aligiunent\nsupervision\nmentoring/coaching\ninstructional technology\nprinciples of leaming/developmental stages\ncognitive research\nand building a collaborative learning community. All approved professional development activities, whether individual or school wide, shall be based on the improvement of student achievement on state- mandated criterion-referenced examinations and other related indicators as defined by ACTAAP. i i 5 I j 1STUDENT ASSESSMENT The third component is a student assessment program, which includes both criterion- referenced and norm-referenced tests in the academic core. Criterion-referenced tests are customized around the academic standards in the Arkansas Curriculum Frameworks and are developed by committees of Arkansas teachers. These criterion-referenced tests are administered to establish the level of student achievement of the state academic standards and to compare the level of student achievement with the expected performance levels set by the State Board of Education. Norm-referenced tests provide information to compare the performance of Arkansas students against the performance of a sample of students from across the country (norming/standardization group). Because norm-referenced tests are not built exclusively around Arkansas academic standards and because their purpose is to group students based on their performance relative to the norming group, they can best be used for assisting in broad program evaluation and in individual student diagnosis. Norm- referenced test data will not be a primary state-mandated indicator within the accountability component, but will be reported annually on the School Performance Report. State-Mandated Assessments The results of all assessinents should be used during the school improvement planning process to help the school focus on the Arkansas academic standards and the need to increase proficient student performance around those standards. State-mandated assessments shall be as follows: __________Assessments Criterion-Referenced Primary Benchmark Intermediate Benchmark Middle Level Benchmark End-of-Course - Algebra I End-of-Course - Geometry End-of-Course - Literacy Norm-Referenced Grade Level Grade 4 Grade 6 Grade 8 When Completed When Completed Grade 11 Grades 5,7, and 10 Month Administered April April April January/May January/May January/April September The Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams, as well as the End-of- Course Exams, will be given late in the school year to allow maximum instructional time for covering the academic standards. Special provisions will be made for an alternate administration in January for those secondary students on a block scheduling system. The Literacy End-of-Course Exam will be given to students in Grade 11 to allow time for additional remediation, at the schools option, before graduation. These exams are tailored to Arkansas curriculum standards, and their performance levels are absolute and held constant over time. The results of the End-of-Course Exams shall become a part of each students transcript or permanent record. 6An academic improvement plan means a plan which details supplemental and/or intervention an ^remedial instruction in deficient academic areas. One_shall_be developed for eachj^dent not performing at the proficient level in every portion of the criterion-referenced examinations. I I i I I i The norm-referenced tests will be given in early fall of the school year in order to provide teachers with immediate and initial performance assessment data on students currently enrolled or newly enrolled in classes and content areas. The performance of Arkansas students taking the norm-referenced tests in the fall will be compared to the performance of a norming group who took the same tests during the same period in the fall, thus ensuring the reliability, validity and fairness of comparison. Score reports will be returned early in the school year for classroom teachers to use the testing information to address the individual student learning needs, and to modify the instructional program, teaching strategies, and/or classroom assessments as needed. Instruction then can focus fully on the Arkansas academic standards throughout the year and on increasing proficient student performance around those standards. Schools may request a waiver from the fall to a spring testing date. Such waivers will only be granted after a written plan is presented to the ADE and the schooT^gfees to the guidelines as established. The timifig'of sucKrequests must also fall wthin the deadlines as established by the testing company. As another part of the student assessment program for Grades K-4, schools shall select performance assessments or screening/diagnostic tools to assess primary grade students. Any student in Grades K-4 failing to perform at the proficient level in reading and writing literacy or mathematics shall be evaluated as early as possible within each of the Grades K-4 academic years. Those students shall be evaluated by personnel with expertise in reading and writing literacy or mathematics who shall develop and implement an academic improvement plan, using ADE sanctioned early intervention strategies for Grades K-1 students~and remediation ^ategies for Grades 2-4 students. These strategies should assist the students in achieving the expected standard. i Schools serving Grades 5-12 shall establish a plan to assess whether children are performing at the proficient level in order to help assure eventual success on every portion of the Intermediate, Middle Level, and End-of-Course Benchmark Exams. For accountability purposes, no points will be assigned for the results of these performance assessments or screening/diagnostic tools. 1 i Act 855 of 1999 mandates that students in Grades K-3 not performing at grade level during the regular school year shall participate in an ADE approved remediation program or a summer school remediation program to be eligible for promotion to the next grade. Those schools electing not to offer a summer school program shall offer an ADE approved remediation Crogram during the regular school year to students in Grades K-3 not performing at grade level. 7Optional Assessments I ! There are other assessments which are optional for student and school participation. These include the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), college entrance examinations (e.g., ACT and SAT), Advanced Placement testing, PLAN, EXPLORE, and others. Some of these may be included as indicators on the School Performance Report or in the aimual school report to the public. Note: Although NAEP is optional for individual school districts, state participation is mandated by Act 999 of 1999. I t 1 8i 1 ACCOUNTABILITY FOR SCHOOLS AND STUDENTS Accountability is a comprehensive, focused process designed to improve student learning. It is a shared responsibility of the state, school, district, public officials, educators, parents, and students. I The ACTAAP accountability model focuses on each individual school and is constructed around a three-tiered system that includes statewide indicators, individual school improvement indicators, and a locally-generated school accountability narrative. Once 1 appropriate time has elapsed to evaluate trends and improvement expectations in a sufficient number of indicators and a statistically defensible point assignment system can be developed, points for each of the'statewide and individual school improvement indicators will be given. This point system will form the basis for rewards and sanctions. I 1 These three tiers allow for meaningful and appropriate state and local involvement to implement accountability within clearly articulated parameters. ACTAAP encourages proactive corrections by individual schools and their local districts through the development and application of strategies using the school improvement process as a planning instrument. Performance Levels The primary goal of the accountability system is to assure that all students achieve grade-level performance. In this system, grade-level performance is defined as performing at the proficient or advanced level on state-mandated criterion-referenced tests. Four performance levels have been established for these exams: advanced, proficient, basic and below basic. The only test for which scaled scores defining these levels have been set is the Primary Benchmark Exam. Similar scales will be established by the State Board of Education as additional tests are completed and data become available. Performance Levels for the Primary Benchmark Examination i I Performance Level Advanced Proficient Basic______ Below Basic Scaled Score Ranges for Performance Levels for ______Mathematics____ 250 and above_________ 200-249______________ 155-199_______________ 154 and below Scaled Score Ranges for Performance Levels for Literacy 250 and above 200-249 179-199 178 and below (*Performance is subject to adjustment on a periodic basis due to statistical scaling and variability in the test.) 9Public Reportine 1 Each public school in Arkansas will have a School Performance Report that will be created through the combined efforts of the local school, school district, and the ADE. The School Performance Report will provide parents and the public data upon which to evaluate their schools and provide benchmarks for measuring school improvement. Although results from the schools performance on the three-tiered system will be the primary focus of the School Performance Report, other indicators may be included as determined by law or State Board of Education rules and regulations. I Although the same standards of student performance will be expected from all students, assessment data will be analyzed and reported separately for three student classifications: special education, limited English proficiency, and high mobility. The purpose of tracking performance of these student groups is to focus on narrowing the achievement gap between them and their normally higher performing peers. For purposes of this reporting, the following definitions apply: I I i Special education students are those determined to be eligible for special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and who have an individualized education plan (lEP). The students lEP must stipulate that the student may participate in the mandatory assessments either with or without accommodations. Those unable to participate with or without accommodations will be referred to the Alternative Assessment program. Limited English proficiency students are those having a language background other than English and whose proficiency in English is such that the probability of academic success in an English-only classroom is below that of native English language students. The districts Language Assessment Committee must have determined that the students may participate in thFmandatory assessments either with or without accommodations. Those unable to participate with or without accommodations will be referred to the Alternative Assessment program. High mobility students are those who, at the time of spring testing, were not enrolled in the current school district on October 1 of the current school year or who, at the time of fall testing, were not enrolled in the current school district on October 1 of the previous school year. i Annual School Report to the Public\nEach year, each school will prepare a report to the parents and community. This report will include a narrative description (such as prepared under Tier III indicators) that will highlight the schools improvement plan and indicate progress made in implementing the performance indicators within that plan. Arkansas School Information Site (AS-IS): The ADE plans to make school accountability data available statewide through the Departments World Wide Web - as-is.org. This Web site will display school data based on student performance and other selected indicators. 10Annual ADE Report to the Legislature: The ADE shall report to the members of the House and Senate Interim Committees on Education on the progress of ACTAAP. The report shall be due on September 1, 1999 and annually thereafter. School Improvement Planning As part of the states accreditation process, each school is required to engage in the development and implementation of a school improvement plan based on priorities indicated by student assessment and other pertinent data. This plan is designed to ensure that all students demonstrate proficiency on all portions of\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_290","title":"Compliance hearing exhibits, 65-72","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1999/2000"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance hearing exhibits, 65-72"],"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/290"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\ni Data prep: Teams. LI230-90 LeadershipCampus Leadership Team Certified/Non-Certified Input Districtwide Activity 1. Use strategies and operate team activities that improve effectiveness. Maintain Activity 718 58.7% Increase Activity 421 34.4% Change Decrease Eliminate Activity 45 3.7% Activity 17 1.4% Activity 22 1.8% 2. Reach decisions through consensus building rather than voting. 684 55.1% 361 29.1% 102 8.2% 39 3.1% 56 4.5% 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Advise the principal in the area of planning, budgeting, and school oroganization. Provide opportunites for faculty and staff to be involved in soliciting, collecting, analyzing, and distributing feedback on data-related goals to be included in the School Improvement Plan. Promote the active contribution of parent and community CLT members on goals to be included in the School Improvement Plan. Identify specific strategies for measuring progress toward achieving school improvement goals. Coordinate staff development with school improvement goals. Utilize District leadership and support of campus initiatives to improve student achievement. Inform staff about decisions and plans made at meeting using a written and verbal system of communication. 10, Improve customer satisfaction through increased parent involvement. 786 63.1% 395 31.7% 36 2.9% 17 1.4% 12 1.0% 744 59.7% 402 32.3% 40 3.2% 39 3.1% 21 1.7% 657 52.9% 524 42.2% 35 2.8% 14 1.1% 11 0.9% 657 55.6% 685 54.6% 657 52.8% 635 50.6% 557 45.0% 452 38.2% 489 39.0% 503 40.4% 572 45.6% 620 50.1% 48 4.1% 45 3.6% 51 4.1% 26 2.1% 39 3.2% 15 1.3% 25 2.0% 15 1.2% 13 1.0% 9 0.7% 10 0.8% 11 0.9% 19 1.5% 8 0.6% 12 1.0% Campus Leadership Team Team Member Self-Assessment DISTRICTWIDE 1. 2. 3. 4. Activity Maintain Activity Agendas and Minutes Use an agenda format that will promote efficient meeting flow and maintain the focus of members. Use an efficient process for including items on the agenda. Organize an efficeint process for keeping, copying, and distributing minutes. Focus on CLT's primary purpose/function: Improve performance of all student populations. 329 88.7% 296 80.4% 270 72.6% 255 68.9% Meeting Conduct Increase Activity 41 11.1% 69 18.8% 89 23.9% 108 29.2% Change Decrease Eliminate Activity Activity Activity 5. Convey overall motivation to participate and actively express positivism. 255 70.2% 101 27.8% 6. Focus on each agenda item and actively contribute to the dialogue to address the item throughly before moving on to the next. 255 79.4% 53 16.5% 7. Address complex problems with extra effort to produce creative team-generated solutions. 249 67.7% 106 28.8% 8. Appropriately reinforce other team members for their contributions. 260 70.7% 100 27.2% 9. Accept responsibility for quickly postponing or eliminating specific agenda items as needed. 285 79.2% 65 18.1% 10. Periodically summarize progress. 259 70.2% 93 25.2% Problem Solving 11. Honor the obligation to be adequately informed on issues and problems by asking questions or seeking outside information. 262 70.6% 99 26.7% 12. Help generate a list of alternatives and evaluate each thoroughly until members are fully prepared to select a solution or make a decision. 252 68.3% 108 29.3% 13. Specify precisely who, when, and how a decision will be carried out or a solution implemented and how outcomes will be monitored. 244 65.6% 119 32.0% 14. Periodically review monitoring of outcomes from previous decision making and evaluate the need to intervene. 238 64.2% 120 32.3% Friday. May 11. 2001 1 0.3% 3 0.8% 10 2.7% 4 1.1% 3 0.8% 3 0.9% 4 1.1% 5 1.4% 9 2.5% 5 1.4% 4 1.1% 4 1.1% 4 1.1% 9 2.4% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 0.5% 2 0.5% 1 0.3% 7 2.2% 4 1.1% 0 0.0% 1 0.3% 5 1.4% 3 0.8% 4 0.3% 1 0.3% 2 0.5% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.3% 1 0.3% 3 0.8% 3 0.9% 5 1.4% 3 0.8% 0 0.0% 7 1.9% 3 0.8% 4 1.1% 4 1.1% 2 0.5% Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 :hool c^trAt- .high.schqql. Signature of Princip! L L CTFoT\" TEAM MEMBER CQRTTNFX BALDWIN KATHERINE Barbara Position . TF.AP.HFP________ SUPPORT STAFF EUEdTEDlAPPOlNTEEl rAc^ ibENDER (chei*) X (shsci) X 44. W XF EWIS--------- HALL BETSY GARQLU SUPPORT. .STAFF TEACHER HOLLADAY KATO HOWARD RUDOLPH TEACHER CO^CHAIR/PRTNGTHAl HUNT SAM TEA^IIgR X X X_ W . JiU -B-Xi F F Ji K '\u0026lt;1 V i LITTLE NASH CAROL. ANGEL RORERTR RHODES SAVIERS SEWARD joaa. DEDE VICKI DARRELL STAFFORD BARBARA STEADMAN ANNICE WATSON BILLY WILLIAMSON MARGARET COBB BEGGS BROWN TANDY MELINDA KARYN OLONEL ROBERTSON. MAYS GRACIfi COLBURN MELISSA teacher TEACHER SUPPORT. STAFF SUPPORT STAFF CQMMUMTTY TSACSER. TEACHER TEACHER TEACHER TEACHER TEACHER TEACHER JEACflER TFAGHFR JXACHG\u0026amp;. TEACHER X XX X X X X X X XX i X T 44- w-w JIL 44- W W . B X_ 44- W X AL-for example: 1l flraae iwcner. algebra leachor. 3Brin9 oommittee etialr, support staff, etc. - list all positions held r p J X JU. F F M X X X X-M X X Ui /LU Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School SignaUjre of Principal J. A- Fair High School rame ~ team MEMBER Anne Magee Judith Pickering Martha Nahlen Lucy Willis Jerry Cookus Robert Palmer Martha Rains_____ _ Evelyn Callaway Sharon Jackson Danny Brown Marsha Vault_______ _ Lee Willingham Trish Killingsworth Rev. Larry Ott_____ 'POSrflON Spanish Teacher English Teacher Business Teacher Art Teacher [English Teacher~ History Teacher Science Teacher Home Ec. Teacher Drama Teacher Partner In Educ. Parent__________ President, PTSA Broker Parent EUEdTED IAPPOInVed RACe seniS^r (check) X ii X Ji Ji -X. X X X (Qfi^ck) W . W w B , W B W , B B F F F F M M F F F I b X i. X X X. W B - B , W W 'tor enempte: 1I orade tescher. algebra (tscher, swthng committee ehatr, support staff. Wc. - 1st all poeWons held M F M F M 04/04/2000 15:13 5016716207 HALL HIGH PAGE 02 -If I \u0026lt;91 f ill' ii u Campus Lssdsrship Tsam Verification Perm Iddd'SCOO I School Hall High School SignatursofPilndpal. NAMEOF TEAM MEMBER Best, Joan Brant.PPennis Maddison, Sue ~~ Runshanq, Mary Sanders, Kitty Walker, EHa______ Walton, Georgia Watson, Pat_______ Watson, Gladystine Paulson, Terri Cyr, Betty Tnotnas, Sarah Burks, Karen_____ gostic, Kelvin Garner, Susan Graves, Ken ^ys, Sherrie Shells, Byron Zink, Judy________ Moore, Kgn Vibhakar, Diane Gamos. Ann_____ Burks, Roy________ Lease, Kathy______ Marilyn, Brewster FOSITION Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Parent Teacher Parent Parent Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher,, Teacher Asst. Prin-i' Teacher Parent Parent ,. Parent_______ Parent Asst. Prin. i sssrasr ___ 2___ XX X X X X __X____ X Afi^lNKt X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Race U w Ji__ w_ JL_ _L_ _B__ W JL- _iL_ W M-JB_ B w JL B _iL_ w iT\" w OEWOER -E____ ja____ _h____ F____ F____ _E____ _E___ E------ _E____ F F _E____ _E____ _JI___ F .1!___ F____ M___ JJ____ F F___ N F____ F____ N ------ F I ' i ItftMInfitt-. 1* sad* toehir, !\u0026amp;( MMh',9Ur\u0026lt;A0oaaunMMeir, tuppad MR. ate. - M Id poMItm tMW A i 1 u.' i Campus Leadership Tam Verification Form 1999-2000 Signaiure Gf PrinfioJT^ii ' t SchoottlQellan /\u0026gt; ! NAMfeOF TEAMMEMBSR POSTTiON tet aUhrey Chriatie CcJjaiBn Steve \u0026amp;urln Barfcaca toy David Gum ,Stella Loya Ajeal Wtllians_____ Orolyn Carter_____ Vsra Broailee Ralph Kwe Steve Neely \\ Whiter Rktiard ATpela Gaippll Gtendaterts Janey lawscn_______ Murrie ^ths-. Shudi^ Ftersjgcn Stepbanifi Stallwtfa Betty'Eujlde______ I^t HjTiicutt Sandra Aithmy_ Et. ^trice Read Timifeynie Carol Oooper JcdLe I. Carter Tteacher IfeadEc Ifeacfier Iteacher Iteacher Daadiec.. _____ Tteadier_________ Qaanmlty Camnte------- Cananily--------- SeogitY Offijgec MlfegXeaaeec. ^Baneot_______ Harem .flSES^._________ __________ Bacient nHinFm_______ BtBineaa Baaineaa_______ EUsanass R.Kdrefa JGlllflS--------- ErJnrijRl____. eCected U. X X X i i i APPOINTBtJ U_ Y Y___ JU. Ji____ JL- U_ X JU JU i- ji__ X- X X X RACE Ji-i- i___ JB___ JU- ja____ .fl JO------ .a__- .K_ B . .u_ x.-_ Ji. K u E_^_ JixZ B ' B OeiOER j:_ lU. JEJU. F M JU JU ..BLU- JU JU JU X-:* T F F -F_ F - JU F F ' JU F M I f i I { fcif wampte\n1 ** e\u0026lt;lt tapoher, toocnet. (fina cown* \u0026lt;**i Upport Uff, ate. \u0026gt; IM all posJUona hldCAMPUS LEADERSHIP TEAM VERIFICATION FORft^i 1999-2000 I I Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School Name of Team Member Brown, Dr. Linda Biggs, LaGail Position(a) Elected Appointed Race Gendet 11c me Brown, Debbi Carr, David Fuller. Danny Hampton, Vannessa Henry, Sarah Hobbs, Pam Jackson. Christy Johnson, Nancy Lee, Chris Lusk, Jennifer McNeal, Marie Mitchell, Derrick Picard, Dick Randolph, Myra Thomas, Dr. Billy Thompson. Carol Principal,Chairperson Communications Teacher, Student Teacher Supv._________ PTSA President________ Community/Twin Lake Assoc. Rep. Science Depl. Chair Math Dept. Chair. Math Vertical Team Steering Committee Member______ E nglish Teacher__________ Journalism Teacher. ACT Coordinator Math Teacher. Student Teacher Supv., Math Vertical Team Steering Committee Member______ Guidance Secretary______ Science Teacher_____ German Teacher, SAP Coordinator, Pupil Services______________ Broker___________________ Junior Class President Science Teacher Community Rep., Parent Community Rcp./UAMS Senior Class Rep._______ X X X X X X ......X x\" X X X X X X 'X X X X w B F F\n227-j\ni 834-1: I 56W 3247 Work Phone 226-3000 228-3000 W-' B w- B B V\\1 . W . W W W B B B S W ' F tfessTssgs M M 'f' F F F F M F F M M F M F ! a i/J 0\n!224- 5085 247-6391 224-5085 '27 \u0026gt;Q2- g25' 758 604- I 4690 ri9'54 4371 6141 7498 127 0995 7731 224^4713 ^435|2996 |6a6|6598 19324150 738)5737 221|3322 223|8919 I I I I I I I li 228-3000 228-3000 228-3000 228-3006 228-3000 '228-3000 228-3000 228-3000' 324-0511 228-3000 835-4399 296-1397I ix'on Cloverdale Academy Uto a HAGE 01 Campus Leadership Team William Andnsss Sarah Shutte Andrew Bennctt Kenneth Fishe- Michael Jeffers Sharon Harris David Patterson Carolyn Lamb Karen Greenlee Ann Firestone Mona Briggs Frank Adcock Pamela Adcock 6300 Hinkson Road Phhno Campus LeadershfpTeamVenfic^ 1999-2000 Signature of PrtncSpel. polltan Career \u0026amp; Technical Center ... NAfZS'Sp team member Laurie Prather Carl Grummer_____ Mitchell Perry Bill Nolem Janey Lawson Chris Ames Stacy Blacknall .. POSITION Teacher Teacher Teacher Bus. Partner Parent________ Appt. Coor. -gpTupt S.nec. ELEdtED (ohaok) X X X appointed (ablotO RACE A L X X V B V B W GENDER ________ M M F, M ________ for exatapl*\n1\" gad# leather, algebr* teacher, slasrlng oommlnee ehalf. support slaft, eto, - list all positions hsW11/03/1399 10:23 3242032 LRSD PAi3E 01/01 Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School Signature of Principal C^li. hKi. ^^0 ID.L^ .aj^2 i NAME OF team MEMBER*- hICUT. 4 H JIRaj- -U.u.\u0026lt;rn i_i POSITION l-.ou:i. iC -QtxH'ki e.3 Prinripryg Cinytc-Lr ... _ ELECTED (check) APPOINTED (check) / RACE GENDER LiC'iijvc Po LLi i I CfiYVMYMmitc LsnJi/- y / J 10 IkL l_ A J^4v'e/-lc.T3a r.Q^. V^On-^rrv Hr\\\u0026gt; Kj I icmiA ADn-Ce.i4i-Fieri idi inm'i SiuebK-k ' L Jibf^n ^urq-g ^ rr-^ L Ca r r XtQ ncu j\u0026amp;n fnaoi KflAW-/k rntinTG^ -AHbirr nil\nilin TrygciCjifyB s^^-fuJieo-Chciir ^brl use k ^nc-ini,Al^ -L^vtin J'lVl IJ .1-- k^lii^K. AV-f- Cwt r'lf uOuivA cy J. \u0026lt;1 (I tl (I b () I) \u0026gt;1 II I -4- -ki- I-A-^ i: Lukin lo fe -^. r___ -E___ JE___ _E___ JL__ m__ J3Q__ JL__ ___ jn___ F___ -in__ -in__ JOi__ -E___ J___ -E___ rn__ I IjJ. - F Tor example: 1st grade teacher, algebra teacher, steering committee cnsir. support staff, etc, - list all positions heldCampus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School Signature of Principal J NAME OF TEAM MEMBE.R 'POSITION Id ELECTED (check) APPOINTED! RACE (check) GENDER 2 Id M. Id Ld Bixkt A/L^\u0026amp; f- \\ /O -5 itkt fb iJd. -i id id ~/5 Id Id P P F p F F rd F F P P P far example: 1st grade teacher, algebra teacher, Steering committee chair, suppo,! staff, etc. - list all positions held Henderson Health Sciences Magnet Middle School CAMPUS LEADERSHIP TEAM VERIFICATION FORM School Hsnderson HSM Middle School 1999-2000 School Year Name of Team Member Larry Buck (WM) Sue Stowers (WF) Judith Murray (WF) Carolyn Slater (BF)~ Teretha Kelly (BF) Vicki ElUs (BF) Kathy Tatum ( BF) Melanie Smith (BF) Mary Whitlow (WF) Barbara Hannahs (WF) Louie Lewis (BM) Annita Paul (WF) Jackie Moore (BF) Mike Ciowers (WM) Leta Anthony (BF) Mike Thrasher (BM) Sherry Daughtery (BF) Position Chairman Teacher/Certified T eacher/Certlfied Teacher/Certified Teacher/Certified Teacher/ Certified Teacher/Certified Teacher/Certified Teacher/Certified Teacher/Certified Teacher/Certified Central Office Parent ~~ Parent______ Business Business Non-Certifled Elected Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Appointed Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Signature (Pri^tsfpal) rs___ Campus Leadership Team 1999-2000 Name of Team Member Green, Connie_______ Moseley, Fran________ Peoples, Linda_______ Boykin, Patricia_______ Picker, Diane________ Fullerton, Jim________ Cameron, Stella______ Longinotti, Joe_______ Swinney, Joyce______ Gullett, Randy________ Betton, Sherry_______ Milligan, Jennifer_____ Ellington, Jeff________- Dorris, Shannon_____ Wallace, Pam________ Hudson, Valerie______ Thompson, Lauren Lowe, Kenyon________ Campbell, Heidi_______ Cleveland, Ellean_____ Booth, Virginia Position Teacher Teacher Teacher Administrator Community Administrator P.I.E. Rep. Parent Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Broker Student Student Teacher Administrator Teacher Elected X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Appointed X X X X XCampus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School Horace Mann Arts/Sclence Middle School *1, Signature of Principal Dr. Brenda JameW, Principal NAME OF TEAM MEMBER * Baker, Frank Briggs, Demetria Bumpers, Bonnie Duerr, Donna Fleming, Linda Fletcher, Danny Gilbert-Wise, Barbara Harper, Drew Hayes, Stella Henry, Vai Holt, Dee Ann Jasper, Thelma Johnson, Lorraine Penn-Norman, Kathy Redmond, Wendell Weatherford, Tory James, Brenda 'POSITION ELECTED (check) Teacher Parent Teacher. Administrator Teacher Teacher Teacher Community Teacher ' Community Teacher Parent Teacher Coordinator - Teacher Student Administrator X X X X X X X X 504 X appointed race (check) X X X X X X X X 02 01 01 02 01 02 02 01 01 02 02 01 02 01 02 for example: 1st grade teacher, algebra teacher, steering committee chair, stipport staff, etc. - list all positions held GENDER M F F F7 M F M F M F F F F M F /I I Signature of Principal a J 0 NAME OF TEAM MEMBER POSITION ELECTED APPOINTED RACE GENDER (check) (check) Nancy Rousseau Ann Blaylock Elizabeth Lucker Kathy Jarrett Calvin Smith Peggy Hawthorne Bryan Hall Carolyn Williams Jean Givens Libby Thalheimer Margaret Lewis Laura Doramus Jim Metzger Renee Dickins Lee Thompson Betty Mitchell Beth Munson Sammy Grandy Lynn Cardin Janet Buford LB Easter Rick Woole Renee Bennett principal assistant principal broker non-certifiedZregistrar non-certified/custodian counselor student council president parent parent/PTA co-president parent/PTA co-president parent parent_____________ business' representative community representative science teacher - 6th fecial needs teacher English teacher - 7th math teacher - 7th English teacher - Sth social studies - Sth art teacher 6-8th math teacher - Sth business teacher 6-8th X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X W W W B \\N W B B B W W W B W W B for example: 1st grade teacher, algebra teacher, steering committee chair, support staff, ^c. - list all positions held F F F F M F M F F F F F M F M F F M F F M M F Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 19992000 Signature of Principal School Southwest Middle,School NAME OF TEAM MEMBER'. Mark Clarlc Mahle Collins Cathy Dillon Regina Ezell Stephanie Jones Carolyn Jennings Sandra Pearson Walter Rowe Claudia Smith Cliristopher Kline Gloria Owens Betty Larry Versie Burgess________ Dr. Scotty Glaaco Elizabeth Willingham Pl 1T1ON ELECTED' (check) Math Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher J-S\u0026amp;SllgL Teacher ___ ____ ^Tgacher Teacher ' Teacher Parent Parent JUU Conimunitv X ___ 2. .X_____ .X. i 25. .X.___ A__ APPOliTrffl RACE . (check) X X ...-X I I P-GENDER I T----- W A i. i JI Ji. ....ja__ JI .K 44. .... M jE. _E. JE Jd. X___ p X X ------.... ( I ..J. m,nittee chair. support staff, e-,c, _ list jn positions held I I I .J 11/03/1333 11:18 3242032 LRSD PAGE 01/01 Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School Signature of Principal NAME OF - TEAM MSXBER J ~J POSITION Lt2l ELECTED lAPPOINTEi RACE GENDER (check) )(-cJ rk \u0026gt; enf' }\\(^f V 'UL Yh I^QC kr (check) CO hk 7a eh r^o-' /ji-rrn TaliXirm' rka (\u0026gt;7 V- b.nc.ei-^. ICA E tr U2 Ccn a'i e l/on( jn (?5anc T^zn ^....jh 'i. Pen-h A ix\nLl2 U '7df\\o(er ('Yom' I (J! 5(yr.5 akY nJ J aC h '?q1 ^,i..____' \u0026lt;J .f^Aina Yam ,g^ryimiOTi ^Tx lOcV'y'h /Kraih Tt hk ( iec{dx?f'. ~reac K(- K E 'ler example: Is) grade teacher, algebra tsachsr, stsehna coirmittse chair, support staff, etc. - list all poslSons held f- k 'h I \"T F f=^- IpT.. little rock school DISTRICT Baseline Elementary School fosition Number Title Race Gender Eleanor Cox, Principal 1 Chairman B F Certified Teacher Primary Brenda Thomas Marilyn James. 2 Elected Elected Elected W B F P Certified Teacher Intermediate Brooklyn Grimm Rebekah Martin Elected Elected W W F F Certified Specialist Teacher Phontonia Belin Elected B F Central Office Eddie McCoy Appointed U F Parent Rev, Roosvclt Bowman Kelli MePhearson Appointed Appointed B B M F ! Business Wal-Mart Randy Ilarryman Appointed W M Comniiiiiity James Killion Appointed B M 3623 Bassllno Road Phone 570-4150 Little Rock. Arkansas 72209 04/83/2000 14:10 3242100 BOOKER PAGE 02 '4 Campus Uadarship T am Varificertion Form 1999-2000 School Booker Arts M\u0026lt;wn*t Signature of Principal NAME OF TEAM MEMBER Rita Bledsoe POSr ION Cheryl A. Carson Susan Coif ord Yolanda Pavia Ernie Dotson Janie Fletcher Moggie Hawkins Dorrell Hayden 6ail Hester Tanony Higdon Atoyrean Johnson Mary McMoiron Patsy Middleton Darryl Powell Tammy Sexton Tracy Tucker Joyce Willingham Mualc/Or .hestro Sped list Print ggl___ s* Srade regehar 1 nide reacher Business Aember, EMt BA_______ For nt______ Communih Member, 21** 5 reet Neighbarl xtd Alert Cei- 'er ___ _ A*** grade Teacher ______ Bn. r_______ 2\"grad Teacher 5* 6rmt Teacher Resourca Teacher Technok jy Center Ass itant _______ Po gnt Klndergor en Teacher 3'* grod\nTeacher Assistar r Principal ELECTED (check) X appointed (check) RACE GENOER is- X X X X )(. X X X X X X X X X B F W W B 8 W B B W B B W yfi/ 3 \"forexomple\n1** grade te -cher, algebra teacher, steering committee choir, s^jpart staff, etc. - Ils f all positions held F F F P F F M F F F F F M p F F lA\n4 ?? \"I Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School Brady Elementary Signature of Principal NAME OF 'POSITION ELECTED APPOINTED RACE GENDER TEAM MEMBER (check) (check) Collette Bell Christiann Daniel Teacher Counselor X W XF Linda Rose Teacher W F Cheri Washburn SFA Coordinator w F JoAnn White Parent F Mary Wood Beth Boyd Xaflchs.r______ Community PTE X X W F Lynda Elledge Parent X W F Becky Dugan X W F Morlin McCoy Ada Keown Teacher Broker Principal X X B XF for example: 1 st grade teacher, algebra teacher, steering committee chair, support staff, etc. - list all positions held 11/03/19'33 10:43 3242032 LRSD PAGE 01/01 Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School ')' i\nSignature of Principal Ui NAMEOPy TEAM MEMBER Res OSITION Elected (check) APPOINTED RACE GENDER K, (check) Raak-C. pthhl-e- lab landra l^el lb i (n $i/m~i~H4 Re.^Q\u0026gt;^\u0026lt;r(jL-'t7Jar, KifTisfi^, TcM R7hK, /^'hb R, fl-' gj , -|o 'kC gf^palA-^^, iriah. \\a/ saL ysL o J )) 11 F M. P for example: 1st grade teacher, algebra teacher, steering committsa chair, support staff, etc. - list ail positions heldCampus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School: Cloverdale Elementary School Signature of PrincipaL\u0026gt;^\n^^^zxZ Name T. Dockett-Wilson C. Lacy K. Daneshmandi C. Langston D. White B. Banks K. Shuffield F. Fields L. Taylor J. Williams L. Young T. Brown C. Johnson Position Music Teacher Counselor Title I Inst. Aide ALC Teacher 5* Gr. Teacher Gr. Teacher Principal Asst. Principal Community Rep Parent Parent Community Rep Elected X X X X X X 'X X X Appointed X X X Race B B W B B B W B W B B B B Gender F F F M M F F M M F F F MDodd Elementary School TogBthsr building 3 bsttGr tomorrow, one child 3t 3 tims CAMPUS LEADERSHIP TEAM 1999-2000 VALERIE HARE SHERRY CHAMBERS ALICIA RANKIN CINDY PRICE MARTHA LOWE PAM MOORE JO CARSON SALLY MCGOWAN DIANE VIEBOCHER REGGIE MORRISON ELNA HASBERRY BARB KENNEDY BF WF WF WF WF BF BF WF WF BM BF WF KTEACHER 1ST GR 4 GR RESOURCE COUNSELOR 2 YRS NEW (1 YR) 2 YRS 2 YRS. 2 YRS. INSTRUCTIONAL AIDE APPOINTED MEMBER-AT-LARGE PARENT PARENT COMMUNITY BUSINESS BROKER MEDIA SPEC. APPOINTED APPOINTED APPOINTED APPOINTED LRSD APPOINTED FAITH DONOVAN WF PRINCIPAL DODD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION APPOINTED TO SERVE WITH ROTATING REPRESENTATION ON THE CLT. 6423 Stagecoach Road Phone 455-7430 I ittio Rnr'k 7oonzi PAGE 01/01 Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 Signature of Principal School Fair Park Elementary ' NAME OF-team member Samuel Branch______ Tina Poacher_____ Boyce Pearson Rosie Powell Opal Rice Fred Chilcote Lucille.Montgomery Nadine Fitzpa tri c,)t Loretta Alexander Ben Jones ^dSffldN ELECTED (appointed RACS IgENDST (chsck) Erincipal Teacher -Teacher Teac-her Teacher (check) X X XX X X Paraprofesgicnal Business Perf.nr r business Partner Patron X X X 02 01 112_ Q2 01 01 02 02___ 02__ 01 .. M . F M F F M F _E_ F M 'foe example: i t grade teacher, aigebni teacher, steering eommlnae cnalr, cvpport staff, etc. - Mt all positions (laid Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School FOREST PARK ELEMENTARY Signature of Principal JU. NAME OF team member THERESA KETCHER'. ELEANOR COLEMAN MARY BOYCE PAIGE WESTBROOK BARBARA MCBRIDE LAURA DORAMUS ALLEN BULLARD Betty ann buliard SUSAN BAUMAN JENNIFER BALLARD *i^osiTroN PRINCIPAL________ counselor_______ media SPECIALIST THIRD GRADE TEA, SPEECH THERAPIST PARENT COMMUNITY_________ COMMUNITY SECOND GRAPE TEA fifth grade' tea. ELECTED (check) X X X X S^POINT^DJ Ra6e (checic) X___ X X 'Sender w W R w w ____ V! . W- . for oxompla.' 1t grade [eacher, algeto taacfier, sieeiing commlttae chair. uppons(a, etc. - uat all positions held F F F 1. F M JE. F F I ZflLRSD PA' 02/02 Campua Leadership Team Verification Form ie9$-2000 School ___________(L/fyy'Ay Marcy Signaiurt of Principal ~\"NXue'5F'~- ,.. TE^ MEMBER C^elL^unhfir POSITION jUfin IVlby. ,_,_.. ELECTED \u0026lt;!*e0 APPOINTED lwW 'I r 1^., I ^yyaii//er ___UA^ur.. ^fdry/u)' ----------------- V y- ... far eiampie: 1* gad* tachf, tigabra laiehar, aieerina cammiif** chair, *ut\u0026gt;prt ataff, *to - Hat iK peaitjona hid RACE -A- ML. MM A- JiL. M. L JiL QFNDER __ ..^A__ _ JL___ A....._. .E..... F_____ ML___ F M.___Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School FULBRIGHT ELEMENTARY Signature of Principal NAME OF TEAM MEMBER Almond, Greg Carter, Karen Chucoski, Sharon Gaddie Olivia POSITION ELECTED APPOINTED RACE GENDER (check) Community Administrator PTA (check) X W W , M F X W F Griffith, LeeAnn Hall, Carolyn Hilburn, Karla Kriz, John Kurrus, Virginia Mitchell, Deborah Pittman, Charlotte Robinson, Steve Sanders, Belinda Smith, Rhonda______ Williams, Irish Wilson, Brenda Sth Gr Teacher Speech Therapist Title I Community Parent Parent Administrator Instructional Aide 5th Gr Teacher Parent Counselor Sth Gr Teacher Parent X X X X i -X X X X X X W W W W ' W - B - B B B-B'^ for example: 1st grade teacher, algebra teacher, steering committee chair, support staff, etc. - list all positiens held F F F E M F F M F ZF F Campus Verification of Development of a Campus Leadership Plan Campus GARLAND ACajJSMY Date OCTOBER 15, 199S Enter below the dates the following action occurred: Announced public meeting(s) of proposed Campus Leadership Team and review of policy establishing same. District review and / or adoption of Campus Leadership Team Composition. Attach evidence or broad based communications to all campus staff and to the general campus community regarding the campus team composition and related procedures for a campus leadership team. Affix the following signatures to indicate support and involvement of the principal, and members of the campus collaborative committee who assisted the principal in the design of the campus team composition which is consistent with district guidelines. Principal ____Parent Rep. __ Teacher Community Rep. ' I The campus collaborative committee may be smaller or larger at the discretion of the campus principal. Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 a '3 Signature of Principal School Geyer Springs Elementary School ' 3 ' c, { NAME OF ________ TEAM MEMBER Hall, Donna Bohra, Becky Stubblefield, Evelyn Dumas, Jo Parker, Linda Graves, MicheUe Gilbert, Jean Frazier, Raymond Eaton, Doug Dickerson, Cameshia Humphreys, Joa (Geyer Springs Neighborhood Association) Crawford, Maria (Little Rock Water Works)_______________ *POSITION ELECTED (check) APPOINTED (check) RACE GENDER Principal 3\"* Grade Teacher 5* Grade Teacher Reading Specialist Counselor Media Specialist Resource Specialist Paraprofessional Broker Parent Community Community X X X X X X X X X X X *for example: 1** grade teacher, algebra teacher, steering committee chair, support staff, etc. list all positions held B O B t B B -V B W B B ' F F F F F F F M M F F F .-1 Campus Leadership Team Verification } Form 1999-2000 f: 1 t Signature of Princi name of Team ___ Member Altheimer, Donald Branch, Susan Dickson, Dr, Betty Gray, Alvin Gulden, Carla Hedges, Jon Huffman, Kelty Johnson, Jill Luzzi, Pat Parkhurst, Liz Skarda, Toni Vena, Sera Rynders, Diane School Gibbs Magnet School Position Elected (check) Parent Teacher Community Parent Parent Parent Teacher Teacher Teacher Parent Teacher Parent Broker Appointed (check) X Race Gender X X. y X X ~~X ~X X X X 'x B b \"b^ \"B-w 'w~ 'w~ M V 'V M ~F~ 'y v y y y Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School Jefferson School ! i Signature of Principal NAME OF TEAM MEMBER Su.san Beard Lucy Rhodes______ Brenda Dorman Becky Ramsey Meg Lankford Kristin Compton -Cheryl Crntckpr Annie Roas Karin McAtee_____ Valerie Jones_ Claudia Courtway Linda Smith Xan-Tii ght_______ -V.aJies.sa -Jackson -Ji.nt Ingram______ Ronnie Stone Rene Kovach positionT ELECTED (check) APPOINTEi RACE GENDER (check) Pri nci p.a.1. Counselor X-inHerg teache'~ lst.gr. teacher 2nd gr. teache 3ra-Xr^- teacher ird ...jjx 4 th gr teache teache-\nETC teacher Parapro./Parent PTA Pres. PTA Pres._______ Cnmmiin-ity Rep Parent_________ Parent________ Sp.Ed. teacher Di St Rap X X X X X X X X X X X X F i X X X X X L_ w . W . - X VI w B - VI isL ja. K vr Jii- for example: is\ngrade teacher, algebra teacher, stoorihg commItTae chair, suppoh Stan. etc. - list ar pojiiiors held X F F z X X F F F X X K M -11/03/1999 11:13 3'242032 LRSD PAGE 01/01 Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School KING MAGNET i Signature of Principal' -A NAME OP - TEAM MEMBER Tyrone Harris___ Mary Lou Kahler Virginia Johnson Ann Gregory Mary Zies_______ Beverly Hines Monica Norwood Candi VanPatter Kiffany Pride Greg Harris Minnie Washington Cheryl Wilburn Chris Cerrato____ Scott Allen______ Dr. Rex Horne Evan Lee________ Ira Betton Joyclyn Davis 'POSITION ELECTED APPOINTED RACE GENDER (check) (check) Principal Asst. Prineinal Broker Counselor_____ Music Spec. PK Teacher 2nd - Teacher 4th Teacher 5th Teacher 3rd Teaciier Paraprofessiona Parent Parent PIE Community Student Title I Parent X i X X 11 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X B Jj. W W B w .B_ B B B - W w IL. SL. B \"for example: 1st grads teacher, algebra teacher, aieering committee chair, support staff, etc. list all positions held u. _X F __ E _X __ E JL M Z F JI Jt -tL Jd. X X 11/03/1999 ,11:07 I I I 3242032 LRSD Campus Leadership Team Verification Foirm 1999*2000 School Mv(xhel\\fal c, Signature Of Pnndipel nam?'5f TEAM MEMBER POSITION I: PAGE 01/01 ij r, F-G ELECTED (check) APP\u0026lt; lit:\u0026gt; INTO' tck) GENb^f \\Dto _ dn C.li.7.-Li Tdnnrxfi GiiA^e-nS ______ /_'i r\\Ar^ CAtAujf ll .dn. -} .ri nr. j...pod. dXrLcKejC ^Tjefi.Vh-g.ic_ A enc Vhe-r \"TgOLcJiey 1 -r. (I 'SiiA/ika ( G/j picr\\6 n Tdci/f ~Wh KiiAdi-s^ \\/6hn5txn..- .' f*/! r V -g r P I g -cot I* w w w w _J2l 1 X X i i I F F F F F F F I 4 iI J. i i t 1 i at ximpls- lat smde teacher, algebra teacher, iiL Ing committee chair. support start, etc. - list all positions heW :1 FROM\nMCDERMOTT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL id! PHONE NO. : 501 2283104 Nov. 04 1999 03:30PM P2 Ui/Wl Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 Signature of Principal nam of TEAM MEMBER Ashley. Virginia R Kemp,. LangJte . Mounger, Anita McCarther. Gerri Washington, Marv Ann Hbvt, Lori Rdyij , .'Vefa .Jaui'tlii, Eiffilifa James. Suzie O'Neal. Erica Dial, Darlene Swatv, Nancy Kitchen, Eton, School Mr.npT-mnt-t POSITION ELECTED (eh*cK) APPOINTEI (check) RACE GENDER n Admim* gtrahrn- Admin-i ^ttrAhor Teacher TearbAr______ Teacher_______ Jearher_______ Jle^cher P^T-Pnt ______ Brnkej:_______ _ Parent .Teacher_______ Teacher Teacher_______ Siirpert Staff X X I ) X X XX X X X-JU. :iL- R lU R.. X_ W ' _ for cxampia\ntsi grade teacher, algeora teacher, siaeriHg commlitae chair, support Starr, etc. -nat an positions held XX X . x_ F _ _ _ _ M 11/03/1399 113:49 3242032 LRSD PAGE 01/01 Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School Signature of Principal uXWMntuan*! NAME OF POSITION TEAM MEMBER ELECTED (check) APPOINTED RACE (check) GENDER 7\u0026lt;sU:r/L _ 3^L^.. .Jj. J2:\u0026gt;ahhxl. .J\u0026amp;rrjLie^______ Par/. P^re'?t\np ____!(d_ nt _ \u0026lt; _ M. 0/ _______ M. M M. r for example: 1st grade teacher, algebra teacher, steering commIttaB chair, support staff, etc. - list all oo,sitions haW FROM : Panasonic FAX SYSTEM PHONE NO,\nNov. 05 1999 11:21AM P2 Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School Hi-j-cLell AcqJ signature of Principel NAME OF TEAM MEMBER POSITION ELECTED APPOINTED RACE ^SNibER uP (check) (check) DcciCio Smif-k Riclpey 3a citron Keicq Sml+K Soe VJatts Connie P r I ncj p a! P\u0026lt;Xr\u0026lt;:n+ /pTft Pres, B 6 fA M Fr-ed Sn I'+K ftlice B\u0026lt;'Q4ber! P^ir-en-V S'+udef^+ C\u0026lt;arnrmrtfi'Y Re, lie P- \"Teacher TtA^-or 4 61a^y$ CoiemaA \"TRAlma 4eQ\u0026lt;c-ln. F +AcJne\u0026gt;- J B 6 6 F F F F Susan Lofsbcn-t fAar^f'e+ Dcloris IverjHon 4-^o.g-lner Eiiuc +ea.cFe{- S\u0026gt;\u0026gt;ppor-+ S+i^pf B } B , VJ. 6 N\\ F r F \"ter example: 1st jrade teacher, algebra teacher, steering committee chair, support staff, etc. - list an positions helduampus Leaaersnip leam veritication horm Otter Creek Elementary Signature of Principal NAMS OF'^ TEAM MEMBER School POSITION ELECTED (check) APPO' \"CE / GENDER Re.becca'TCesBinger Vickye Mitchell Beverly Kinneman Ettatricia Clark Shana Young Zeornee\" Hert.s Greg Stutts Denise Nunnlev Tommy Hodges Truman Ball______ Sarah Cole Title I Teacher First Grade Teacher Gifted/Taiented / XX J JA Vi Kindergarten TeacIer X Counselor Broker Parent Parent_____________ ComrmmityZBusinea Communitv/Business Student (Grade 5) X X X X. X V, F M B W W W far example' 1st grads teacher, algsbre teacher, steering committee chair, support staff, etc. - list all positions held F M-M F CAMPUS LEADERSHIP TEAM VERIFICATION FORM SCHOOL: PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY 1999-2000 Signature of Principal Name of Team Member Lillie Carter Jamie Lou Neal Yvette Peterson Eva Maeweather Terrie Davis Position Principal K-Teacher 1 Grade Teacher 2\"* Grade Teacher Grade Teacher Elected Appointed Race/Gender B/F W/F B/F B/F B/F V-- X X X X / t s i i Pat Yates d\"*\" Grade Teacher X W/F , Sandra Fountain Carol Blann Mary Gillespie Laura Beth Arnold Toni White Stacy Pittman Paul Fisher Robin Borne' Tony Woodell Marion Woods 5* Grade Teacher Resource Teacher Media Specialist E.T.C. Teacher Instructional Aide Parent Parent Business Community Broker X X X X X X X X X X W/F W/F W/F W/F B/F W/F B/M W/M, W/M B/F1/03/1999 11:00 3242032 LRSD PAGE 01/01 Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School Rightsell Academy Signature of Principal Sharon A. Brooks .^/\\\u0026lt;5r- 1 . 2 , 3 . 4. 5 . NAME OF POSITION ELECTED APPOINTED RACE GENDER TEAM MEMBER Sharon A. Brooks Mac Huffman Principal Broker (check) (check) X B F W M Stephanie Neal Sharon Faiilkenhe Title I 5th Gr. Teacher X, X B W F F Frenzella Dodson K Teacher X B F 6 . Barbara Fincher 2nd Gr. Teacher X W F 1 . 8. 9. JLaafl-.ELittake.r------ Margaret Williams Pat Holder Curriculum Spec. Counselor X X B B F F Parent X B Z TO. Beverly Jones 11. Charles Ruth 12. Lucious Powell 13. Dladra Lindsey 14. Chasity Rosby Parent X B Z Community Rep. Business Rep. Non-Certified X X B B Student X z B K JI F F far example\n1st grade teacher, algebra teacher, steering committee chair, support staff, etc. ~ list all positions held Campus Leadership Team Verification Form School: Rockefeller 1999 -2000 Name of Team Member _(Please Type) Position Elected | Appointed (Choose One) Race Gender Anne Mangan Eloise Booth Principal X W F Dana Keller Ann Larkowski Beth Foti Valencia Butts Barbi Freiermuth Debbie Gross Teri Frankum Melvia Mathis Assistant Principal Supt. CLT Representative COE Chairperson EC Teacher Representative EC Teacher Representative Primary Teacher Rep, Primary Teacher Rep. Intermediate Teacher Rep. Specialist Representative X X X X X X X X X B w . w W B w w w B F F F F F F F F F Coreen Frasier Specialist Representative X w F Martha Roberts EC Coordinator X w F Vivian Mangan Rick Taylor Parent/P.T.A. President X w F Business Partner X w M Mary Kay Roe Theme Specialist X w F Candy Blackwell Smart Start Rep. X w F Rose Mitchell Erma Jackson Fred Allen Non-Certified Staff Rep. Non-Certified Staff Rep. Business Partner X X X B B B F F M Father Kirtley Yearwood Community Leader X B M Fay and Donald McTyer . Parents X B/B M/F Pat Price Kathy Wells LRSD Broker X w F Downtown Neighborhood Association W F J Campus Leadership Team Verification Form School Romine Interdlst rlct 1999 - 2000 Name of Team Member - (Please Type) Position Elected/AppoinTed 'i (Check One) -LilJ.ic, Scii1]________ -Itidrmc.. Lane lev Jacque Rain^'aier _^loris Banks Er.lrif 1\nvi! -laaiiisr. Teachc\nr Teacher - Ch 1 V i n Ch r_l_cj_-_ onH)ii1f,r....Sr)eci?il i-0 Tout iL Phillip'^ JQrjna lliinrap ____ -Mr,.. Sandy Becker - Rev. Charles McAdtJo ^/XMaili_SjMidLaLlsi ------- tjlialC-Special isi- Parent Coniniunii y ssi(? Middlei_i.m Pa' ric ia Phill ius - .-Br/Acr___ G/T SperlHl ist____ fa=iggy Car.cnU....... Jlarcnt. Signature (Principal) ii/oj/ ioao Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School TERRY ELHyENTARY SCHOOL\nSignature ot Principal name of TEAM MEMBER NANCY ACRE. ANNA TATUM JOYCE ALT.FY ANN MOORE TERESA COOK DOROTHY MALONE. BRENDA OSBORNE BEVERLY ROBINSON MARGO ROWE JANA TERRI ANDERSON ED WILLIAMS BARBARA SCHIRACK KELLY WHITEHORN iTiE mSLEY NICHOLE HENDERSON poSItioH PPTMPTPM ELECTED lA^PdlbiTE GENOfeb {chck) (chok) 1ST GR. TEACHER iHt. GR TEACHER MEDIA SPECIALIST 4th GR. TEACHER Sth GR. TEACHER 00UNSEU3R title I - PTA PRESIDENT PARENT DIBTRICT-RRQKER iwa:*.awi PTA VICE_PRES BI,1SINE.S.S,.BEP parent Z X Ji. X JL X Z X J z X Z WH BL BL WH ZL ZH. JSH. WH JlQL id jFjH WH BL 'for xamels: 1st grade laachor, BlgsOrs teacfiar, steering cornminee chelr, support eteff, etc, - net at) positions hew F E . F Z F JE. z F Z z z Z Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School WakpflplH__RI pmon t- ary Signature of Principal I . NAME OF TEAM MEMBER -T.i 11. i, a Ka.nk.s_____ :: -Barbara_ F tynar t_____ Sita Montgomery Sherry Trim1inc\nrin Dorothy Davis______ Julie Wiedover Shirley Gordon Joy Davidson________ Raymond House_______ Greg Hughes_________ Heather Gage_____ Mary Jane Cheatham Gary Patterson POSITION ELECTED APPOINTED RACE GENDER (check) (check) E-rimary Teachcr^ .. Primary Toarhor Intermediate Tntprmprli at-p xSiinnnrt Tparhpr Central Offire Non-certified Community Person Parent_______ Parent______ P.artner -in Edur,, Principal______ Girls \u0026amp; Boys Cl uh X X X X X X X 112 Bl B2 Bl B2 Bi 02 B2 02 BZ Bi Bi Bi z X X . z F i X K X Z K for example: 1 st grade teacher, algebra teacher, steering committee chair, support staff, etc. -- list all positions held Booker T. Washington Magnet School Campus Leadership Team 1999-2000 + Gwen Strong-Zeigler + Johnny Neeley + Katherine Snyder Principal, Washington Magnet Assistant Principal, Washington Magnet Assistant Principal, Washington Magnet * Lucy Neal Broker, Information Services, LRSD * Ruben Johnson * Carolyn Williams PTA Co-President, Washington Magnet PTA Co-President, Washington Magnet * Stephanie Dhonau Community Representative, Division of International and Second Language Studies, UALR * Kelly Robbins\nCommunity Representative Arkansas Forestry Association * Dr, Katherine Mitchell Community Representative LRSD Board of Directors W atershed Proj ect * Becky Ramsey Community Representative Aerospace Education Center \u0026lt; Barbara Brown \u0026lt; Rebecca Broussard \u0026lt; Tommie Walker \u0026gt; Darrick Williams \u0026gt; Katina Ray \u0026gt; Linda Umerah * Shantail Miller First Grade Teacher, Washington Magnet Kindergarten Teacher, Washington Magnet Fifth Grade Teacher, Washington Magnet Third Grade Teacher, Washington Magnet Fourth Grade Teacher, Washington Magnet Second Grade Teacher, Washington Magnet Technology Specialist, Washington Magnet Appointed Position * Ex-Officio Member + Elected Position Tenn Ends June 2000 \u0026lt; Elected Position - Term Ends June 2001 \u0026gt;Booker T, Washington Magnet School Campus Leadership Team Meeting Agenda November 4,1999 I. IL m. IV. V. VI. VII. Welcome - Gwen Strong-Zeigler Introduction of Members - Danick Williams School Improvement Plan A. Introductory Statements - Katina Ray B. Priority #1 - Reading and Language Arts Linda Umerah C. Priority #2 - Mathematics - Barbara Brown D. Priority #3 - Science - Rebecca Broussard E. Priority #4 English as Second Language (ESL) Newcomer Program Shantail Miller F. Plan Evaluation-Katherine Snyder Extended Year / Year Round-School Paulette Den son Campus Work Audit - Tommie Walker Assignments for Future Meetings - Katina Ray Other BusinessTo: Campus Leadership Team Members From\nG. S. Zeigler Subject: CLT Meeting Dates The following dates have been established for Campus Leadership Team monthly meetings: November 4, 1999 December 2, 1999 January 6, 2000 February 3, 2000 March 2, 2000 April 6, 2000 May 4,2000 June 2,2000 The meetings will begin at 2:45 in the Washington Media Center. If you cannot attend please make certain that you contact Gwen Strong-Zeigler at 501/324-2470. I am looking forward to working with each of you this school year. Working on this team promises to be a challenging and worthwhile experience.04/04/2000 14:36 3242032 LRSD PAGE 02/02 Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School Signature of Principal NAME OF ________TEAM MEMBER Janice Anderson ^ara Brown Maraaret Dawson Karen Ditto Mary Ann Forrest Sandra Hinson Paulette Martin Michael Oliver Paula Kamsey Vera Robinson Marvin Henderson' POSITION Tcac.her-5 th Teacher-4Y0 TcachGr-2nd Teacher-3rd Teacher-4Y0 Broker Principal Counselor PTA Pres. ELECTED (eMO X X X X X X APPOIHTED {otweW X X X Z. RACE W W B W w VI B _IL^ GENDER F F F F __ F F .a.__ F F....... _a__ \"fee amsli l\" Bii t*ehr, algebra toaoher, steering committee chair. uppori staff, etc. - Sat ill poaltiorM heW Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1S99-2000 NAME OF Western Hills Elementary Signature of Principal School 'OSITION ELECTED APPOINTED RACE GENDER TEAM MEMBER (check) (check) Scott Morgan Jennifer Welborn Principal 1 st Grade VI \"W MT Shirley Thomas Terese Klaus Ruth Anderson 2nd Grade 2nd Grade 3rd Grade B W W F F F Nancy Brandt Ruth Schwerin Librarian Title I W FT Lee Ann Matson Lona Taunton Versie Burgess Broker F Parent Neighborhood W B F F Pam Perry Parent W F for exampla: 1st grade teacfter, algebra teacher, steering eommlttee chair, support staff, etc. - list all positions held Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School Williams Traditional Magnet Signature of Principal NAME OF TEAM MEMBER Mary Menking Eunice Thrasher .Wi Hiam.q Behn___________ Barbara .Phr-i clri anri Maryipp- Rnbinann________ Flrirptta Babh.s__________ Ella Moble^r----------- Nancy Mnrtnn_____________ Deborah Tsreal_________ Stephanip Wa 1kpr-Pjmpp Eddy Pphpr.a__________ _ nffirpr Crpo Vint______ Chris- Ra^znolds-------------- Suellen Vann 'POSITION ELECTED (chsck) APPOINTED RACE GENDER Principal/Chairman Vice Principal Certified Member PF___X fdember (^F^fP^y^ber Ie (check) X X W F X X X X ?^ler Y w IL X X M. X X 11 X X X X X P Paronh___________ Parpnt-__________ CnThrmini ty_______ 'Rnoinpgg_______ Central Office X X XX X X wX w 'for example: 1st grade teacher, algebra teacher, steering ccnimittee chair, support staff, etc. - list all positions held M K F Recommended # 1 6 1 2 - 1 1 1 1 TEAM MEMBERS POSITION Principal Assistant Principal P.E. Specialist Music Specialist Gifted/Talented Specialist Kindergarten Specialist r Grade Specialist Curriculum Specialist_____ Paraprofessional Parent Parent Community Business Central Office CAMPUS TEAM MATRIX Of Positions Principal Certified Teachers Central Office _____Parent Business Community Non-certified Staff Assistant Principal NAME Mary Menking Eunice Thrasher William Bobo Barbara Strickland Marylee Robinson Floretta Babbs Ella Mobley Nancy Morton Deborah Isreal Stephanie Walker-Hynes Eddy Peters Officer Greg Vint Chris Reynolds Suellen Vann Position Title Chairman _____Elected_____ Invited/Appointed Appointed Appointed Appointed Elected/Appointed Appointed Membership Required Required Required Required Required Required Optional Optional ADDRESS________ 5 Heritage Court Little Rock, 72211 2000 Dennison Little Rock 72202 13617 Napeleon Rd. Little Rock, 72211 202 East Maddox Jacksonville, 72076 #7 Longfellow Ln Little Rock, 72207 12804 St. Charles Blvd. Little Rock, 72211 11283 Southrid^e Dr. Little Rock, 72212 4710 Westchester Dr. Little Rock, 72212 3812 Wimbledon Loop Little Rock, 72209 5414 Robin Rd. Little Rock, 72204 21 Countryside Cv. Little Rock, 72212 7206 Evergreen Dr. Little Rock, 72207 2516-F Cantrell Rd Little Rock, 72207 21 Winona Dr. Maumelle, 72113 PHONE \" (H) 225-3822 (W)671-6363 (H) 374-0528 (W0671-6363 (H)223-4998 (W)671-6363 (H)982-2308 (W)671-6363 (11)664-2222 (W)671-6363 ' (H)227-5415 (V0671-6363 (H)227-6496 (W)671-6363 (H) 868-4322 (W)671-6363 (H) 455-5503 (W)671-6363 (H) 565-3449 (W)324-2250 (H) 868-6604 (W)664-1004 (H) 664-8660 (W)280-7688 (W)666-9500 (H) (W)324-2020Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School Wn.W Er.FMRNTAPV Signature of Principal NAME OF TEAM MEMBER POSITION ELECTED appointed RACE GENDER (check) (check) SUSAN WEST TEACHER MICHELLE DORSEY TEACHER WILLYE TALLEY EDNA SCHOEMAKER ROSEMARY ROLAND GREGORY JONES MARJORIE RIANT KIMBERLY REEVKS TEACHER JEACHER aide ..TEACHER TEACHER. teacher X. X X X X 'for example: 1st grade teacher, algebra teacher, steering commlttsa chair, support staff, etc, - list all positions held rjJ./ Ui Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 School Signature of Principal NAME OF -- *Qr*5Cirs\u0026gt;\u0026gt;M POSITION TEAM MEMBER (fAono.. V-^o\u0026lt;jd 'uc\\r\\\u0026lt;s ELECTED (check) APPOINTED (oiieok) RACE GENDER GVYirx. '\u0026lt;f?nA- Laij.rox W\nHFnm5 Norberci Ib/r.sn Vvny'Vw^ Prf V''\"~VfC\u0026gt;.r'T' FF\u0026lt; \\ Ca VA n cF\u0026lt;\u0026gt;' \\ fW/i^ 14. f I iAjrrh^t'A KxvH ~Vtn\\rp. Wi\\So.'i 1 iSr^-n y.\\.i rwxrv-'n L\u0026gt;F4jAWkY\\L_ FV. V-Y N'lriF'Ver Mtcn.b An Aubfe-\\- ' G r CvlOr (A\\\\ kiSW.vip An CVYAA\\\\p,icO VpG A S\\ k\\V'JQ PnuFcA'pgrVi.'^'f AnCr^-Vr-r.rF 5y\u0026lt;-] Qitzbo -Vt^/rbgi ZrT Af^.nrbr=\u0026gt;r Y 1 FoAgrarkrAen FFii fa~br TTAir\\5()nr pGrteAfnA f.mrvA-O-Mff-inV- \\ 1 A UAmb Cm urn \u0026gt; nt bl Ca(F( ParAn-f 'G\u0026gt;?Vv.r\\ ey-s: 5Aa ).r.\\eAnA A, X 1 V. W. :^... FZ r) b w k/ JF F F AX \\aL for exampla: 1st grade teacher, algebra teacher, steering committee chair, support staff, etc. - lie! ell positions held r\" T F F F F !-V\u0026gt;, ______ F O'A t-Campus Leadership Team Verification Form 1999-2000 7 Schooi Alternative Learning Center Signature of Principal ,7( 2=tf NAME OF \\ TEAM MEMBER POSITION ELECTED (check) APPOINTEI (check) RACE GENDE Lloyd Sain, Jr, Sharon Cauley Lee Braden Carol Overton Kay Kimbrough Kelan Watson Otis Banks Michael Reynold Phyllis Hodge s Arlandris Norris *This member changes as a ------nijractoE________ Facilitator Z-gyaprof ess Tonal -Ean'l t' i-a.i-n.- Community/Busin Facilitator Facilitatoi parent Su\u0026lt;jeiiT. result X B X X X B ir. X X .B. B X X X of changin\n/migrating populat W B -B- on K F M F M F M .___ -M---- to_a:id.. from ALC. Of example, tstprade teacher, alpebra teacher, steering cornmitteo chair, support staff, etc. - list all positions heldExhibit No. 66: LI230-90 Program Evaluation for English as a Second Language. I I i k I Program Evaluation For English-as-a Second Language (ESL) School Year: 1999-2000 October 30, 2000 IMIfllHllly S } AK Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Ish Instructional Resource Center 3001 S. Pulaski Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501-324-212 \\\\ I I 1 able of Contents Executive Summary - -----pg. 3 Purpose of this Evaluation I I -pg. 6 Evaluation Design------ ------pg. 6 Research Questions -pg. 7 Methodology -----pg. 8 ESL Curriculum Delivery and Instructional Model School Choices: Magnet, Incentive, \u0026amp; Area------- Participants------------------------------------------- Academic Variables------------------------------------ Behavioral Variables------------------------------- Pg. 8 pg. 9 -pg. pg. pg- 11 16 18 Results ----pg. 19 Conclusions pg. 31 Recommendations ------pg. 3 3 References pg. 34 Appendix A\nNumber of Students by Grade by PHLOTE Category____________ Appendix B: Comparison of Newcomer v. Non-Newcomer schools____________ Appendix C: Students Receiving G/T and Special Education Services___________ Appendix D: Students by the Top Four Languages---------------------------------------- Appendix E: LRSD Regulations on the Academic Assessment of PHLOTE Students Appendix F: LRSD Audit Policy--------------------------------------- pg- 35 pg. 37 pg. 44 pg. 47 pg. 62 ------pg. 64 Appendix G: Achievement Data by Area, Magnet, and Incentive Appendix H: Achievement Data by School_________________ Schools pg. 67 pg. 75 A 2Executive Summary Evalu ofPlanning, Research, and E aluation (PRE) has undertaken this evaluation to determine if the Districts English-a\u0026lt;- - nroSernTLEPlstud! succeeding in meeting the needs of limited-English p oticient (LEP) students in overcoming their laneuaae ham'pre tUo t ___ as-a- overcoming their language barriers. The LRSDs Commitment to Resolve (CTR, agreement with the Office for Civil Rights (NveX?0, 1999,ZZ LRSD to compare hrntted-Enghsh proficient students' academic achievement, retention dZut Vd attendance data to the general population and to make similar comparisons with limited English th to their fluent-English proficiency. aI per section L of the CTR the scope of this evaluation will consider\ncomparisons with limited English 1.) the curriculum service delivery, staffing and scope of teacher trainina- 2.) the extent to which limited English language students to other students in the District\nand are performing in comparison 3.) the extent to which limited English proficient students who have English (i.e., have exited the ESL other students in the District. become proficient in program due to proficiency in English) compare to The CTR requires that a longitudinal evaluation be conducted annually. The data reported in this evaluation are baseline data and constitutes the initial collection of comparison annual evaluations. With baseline datA it ic Hiffi/'nit nrosram succe\u0026lt;\n\u0026lt;i nr fniliirp Ft i **^^PPropnate to make picsumptions o program success or failure. Future evaluations will address the issue of program effectiveness. data for future presumptions of Concerning staffing and scope of teacher training, as of June 2000, 15 teachers have their ESL .dd H teachers earned theh ESL endorsemeTSn ddition 15 teachers have taken at least three credit hours towards earning an ESL endorsement Given the increase in the number of ESL endorsed teachers, ftiture evaluations will add tWs variable m comparing students across the LRSD. 805 students whose primary home language is other than English (PHLOTE) Wilhm this poptilatton of PHLOTE students are sub-populations identified by the LRSD to L in * and to provide a greater understanding of what the LRSD considers when approaching the education of PEILOTE students greater understanding of what the LRSD 3The sub-populations of PHLOTE students have been identified as: Limited-English proficient (LEP) - students administered the Language Assessment Scales (LAS) upon admission to the LRSD and determined not to be proficient in reading, writing. listening comprehension, and/or speaking English. Not assessed as to their English proficiency (NAEP) students who have not been administered the LAS. Fluent-English proficient (FEP) - students administered the LAS upon admission to the LRSD and determined to be proficient in reading, writing, listening comprehension, and speaking English. Fluent-English proficient and exited from the program (FEPE) - students initially identified as LEP, received LRSD ESL program services, and exited the program after the LAS indicated a proficiency in reading, writing, listening comprehension, and speaking English. The top four languages spoken are Spanish (56%), Chinese (8%), Arabic (3%) and Korean (3%) M /\"It\"*-! at- i'qm 1 ______ C T !-\u0026gt; _ '' Newcomer Center schools serve most of the LEP students (N= 309). However, there are LEP students in all but seven of the LRSDs schools. The highest enrollment for a Newcomer Center is Chicot Elementary with 74 LEP students, and the highest enrollment for a neighborhood school is Wakefield Elementary with 20 LEP students. Results from comparing students enrolled in a Newcomer v. a Non-newcomer indicate: Newcomer Centers had higher growth for LEP and FEP kindergarten students, as measured by the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA), than similar students attending newcomer school. a non- Newcomer Centers had lower growth for LEP and FEP students on the DRA for and 2^ grade students in comparison to similar students at non-Newcomer schools. Comparison data on other academic variables for 4^^ grade and above are mixed. The number of PHLOTE students receiving G/T and Special Education services is small making data comparison difficult. However, PHLOTE receiving G/T services generally perform above the LRSD and national averages. Across the four top languages of Spanish, Chinese, Arabic, and Korean, LEP students ...............* Ml upaiuMi, vmucsc, Mjaoic, ana Korean, I.hl' students compare favorably with other PHLOTE students on DRA growth scores, but they have lower scores on other academic variables. PHLOTE students who attend a magnet school, regardless of their sub-population category, scored higher than other PHLOTE students. Typically on a school by school comparison. Newcomer Center School PHLOTE students do not compare as well as PHLOTE students who attend a Non-Newcomer Center School. This phenomenon could be attributed to the dearth of ESL endorsed teachers across the LRSD. As of June 1, 2000, there were only 15 ESL endorsed teachers in the LRSD. 4Concerning the extent to which LEP and FEPE students are performing in comparison to other students in the District, the results indicate that a majority of kindergarten and 2\"'' grade LEP students are reading at grade level, while only a third of the V* grade LEP students are at the readiness level. Reading growth for LEP students in grade 1 are not growing as fast as the general population. Across other achievement measures LEP students are performing below the general population. On these same academic measures, FEPE students typically perform above the general population. Also, LEP students have lower rates of attendance than the general population. Given that this is the baseline year for future yearly evaluations it would be premature to attribute any evaluation results to ESL program success or failure. However, recommendations include investigating the high retention numbers of not only LEP, but also FEP students\ncontinue to expand the professional development opportunities and ESL endorsement\nand continue to support early literacy strategies. w 5Introduction Purpose of this Evaluation The purpose of this evaluation to determine if the Little Rock School Districts (LRSDs) Enghsh-as-a-Second Language (ESL) Program is succeeding in meeting the needs of limitedEnglish proficient (LEP) students in overcoming their language barriers. The LRSDs Commitment to Resolve (CTR) agreement with the Office for Civil Rights, November 10, 1999, requires LRSD to compare limited-English proficient students academic achievement, retention, dropout, and attendance data to the general population and to make similar comparisons with limited English proficient students who have exited the program due to their fluent-English proficiency. As per section L of the CTR the scope of this evaluation will consider: 1.) the curriculum service delivery, staffing and scope of teacher training\n2.) the extent to which limited English language students are performing in comparison to other students in the District\nand 3.) the extent to which limited English proficient students who have become proficient in English (i.e., have exited the ESL program due to proficiency in English) compare other students in the District. to This evaluation will examine students who have participated in the Districts ESL program to determine mastery of English language skills (reading, writing, speaking, and listening/comprehension), content area concepts, and skills. To be assessed is the amount of progress identified students have made during program participation, after program exit, and upon reclassifying/reentry into the program. The evaluation will report data indicating student performance in mathematics, literacy, reading, and language usage. Curriculum service delivery by school and the progress of teacher training will be reported, as well as comparison data on Newcomer v. Non-newcomer centers (see Appendix B). Achievement data will also be reported on PHLOTE students receiving G/T and Special Education services (see Appendix C). There are 8 LEP and 28 FEP suidents receiving G/T services. There are 7 LEP and 3 NAEP students receiving special education services. Data will be reported by students attending -------------------g area, magnet, and incentive schools (see Appendix G) and also by individual school (see Appendix H). Evaluation Design The following are sub-populations of PHLOTE students: Limited-English proficient (LEP) - students administered the Language Assessment Survey (LAS) upon admission to the LRSD and determined not to be proficient in reading, writing, listening comprehension, and speaking English. Not assessed as to their English proficiency (NAEP) - students who have not been administered the LAS. 6 Fluent-English proficient (FEP) - students administered the LAS upon admission to the LRSD and determined to be proficient in reading and writing English. Fluent-English proficient and exited from the program (FEPE) students initially identified as LEP, received LRSD ESL program services, and exited the program after the LAS indicated a proficiency in reading, writing, listening comprehension, and speaking English. The aforementioned sub-populations will be compared to each other and to the general population on the following academic and behavioral variables\nArkansas State Benchmark Examination LRSDs Achievement Level Tests Stanford Achievement Test-9' edition (SAT-9) Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) Retention Dropout Attendance Graduation In addition, PHLOTE sub-population data will be reported by students receiving gifted and talented (GT) and special education (SPD) (see Appendix C)\nstudents attending a Newcomer Center v. Non-Newcomer Center (see Appendix B)\ntop four languages (see Appendix D)\narea, incentive, or Magnet school (see Appendix G)\nand individual school (see Appendix H). The general population for this report, unless otherwise stated, will consist of all students in the Little Rock School District except those students classified as LEP, NAEP, FEP, and FEPE. Research Questions What types of curriculum service delivery are PHLOTE students receiving and how do schools receiving these service deliveries compare. Is the academic progress and behavior of LEP, NAEP, FEP and FEPE comparable to the general population? What level of training are teachers working with LEP students receiving? Examination of student academic performance as measured by the academic variables, retention, and attendance rates of LEP, NAEP, FEP, and FEPE students versus the general population of students will address these questions. Methodology w 7LRSD ESL Curriculum Delivery and Instructional Model Elementary Schools: LEP students are served in the alternative language services program in one of two ways: Students who are developing their proficiency in English are clustered in classes with native English speakers, and the teachers provide the essential modifications to accommodate their developing fluency. in classes which Students who are developing their proficiency in English are grouped are designated for LEP students. There are fewer students in these classes. The numbers were kept low because of a class size reduction grant. The schools who benefited from this during the 1999-2000 school year were Brady, Chicot, Romine, Terry and Washington. The teachers at these five former Newcomer Center Schools either have their ESL endorsement or are working on completing the course requirements for the endorsement. The Newcomer Center elementary schools maintain larger numbers of LEP students. LEP students have the option of attending a Newcomer Center or any of the other LRSD. Teachers at the non-Newcomer Center schools receive a comprehensive ESL training program which is research-based and from the Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL). Middle Schools: LEP students are primarily served in the alternative language services program at our Newcomer Center schools, Dunbar and Cloverdale Middle Schools. There are two configurations to provide the same type of service\n At Cloverdale Middle Level Academy students are grouped into discrete ESL classes for Reading/Writing Workshop classes, ESL Science and ESL Social Studies. These students receive their instruction from an ESL endorsed teacher or one who is working on completing the endorsement courses. At Dunbar Magnet Middle School, LEP students receive their specialized, modified instruction in mainstream classes beside their peers. The difference for these students is in the teacher's training and qualifications. Teachers at Dunbar Middle School are also completing their ESL endorsement courses. There is a smaller group of LEP students at Dunbar, not enough to constitute discrete ESL classes for groups of students at each respective grade level (grades 6,7,\u0026amp; 8). LEP students who attend some of the other middle schools, not designated a Newcomer Center school receive their instruction from their classroom teachers. Those teachers in the 4 core disciplines either participated in the ESL training during the summer of SY2000 or will participate during the current school year. High School: LEP students are primarily served in the alternative language services program at our Newcomer Center school. Hall High School. There are a few exceptions where students attend some of our other high school for a specialized program, such as Parkview Arts/Science Magnet. Students at Hall High School receive their instruction in ESL classes, which provide a sheltered English model. This approach allows the teachers to build on prior knowledge in the content areas in which the student is developing his/her proficiency in English. 8J i 1 i * ESL-endorsed or completing the required courses for At Hall High School students are assigned to ESL classes, made up of LEP students. In the English classes the grouping reflects levels of proficiency rather than distinct grade levels. School Choices: Magnet, Incentive, and Area Magnet schools are themed schools in which enrollment requests are filled by a I irttpr\\z T PQH ctmi_______ ___i random lottery, LRSD stipulation magnet schools are: Booker Arts Elementary Carver Basic Skills / Math Elementary Gibbs Foreign Languages! International Studies Elementary Williams Traditional Elementary Mann Arts \u0026amp; Science Middle School Parkview Arts \u0026amp; Science High School Incentive schools, identified in 1990, continue to receive extra financial resources in order to improve basic skills education and provide enrichment. These schools offer extended-day, extended-week and extended-year programs as well as before and after school care. Students who live near these schools make up the majority of the enrollment. The incentive schools are: Franklin Communications Technology Elementary Academy Elementary (This school will become Stephens Elementary ^\\J\\J\\J 1 in Fall Mitchell Academy of Creative Dramatic Arts Elementary Rightsell Academy Elementary Rockefeller Academy Elementary There are no PHLOTE students at Rightsell or Mitchell. 9Area schools are: Badgett Elementary Bale Elementary Baseline Elementary Brady Elementary Chicot Elementary Cloverdale Elementary Dodd Elementary Fair Park Elementary Forest Park Elementary Fulbright Elementary Geyer Springs Elementary King Elementary Jefferson Elementary Mabelvale Elementary McDermott Elementary Meadowcliff Elementary Otter Creek Elementary Pulaski Heights Elementary Romine Elementary Terry Elementary Wakefield Elementary Washington Elementary Watson Elementary Western Hills Elementary Wilson Elementary Woodruff Elementary Cloverdale Middle School Dunbar Middle School Forest Heights Middle School Henderson Middle School Mabelvale Middle School Pulaski Heights Middle School Southwest Middle School Central High School J.A. Fair High School Hall High School McClellan High School There were no PHLOTE students at Badgett, Dodd, Jefferson, Western Hills, and Woodruff. 10Participants The LRSD student enrollment process includes a determination of the primary home language other than English (PHLOTE). Once the Home Language Survey is administered, an attempt to assess is made if the student is PHOTE. After a review of assessment results or an attempt to assess, students are tagged within the LRSDs database as\n1. LEP - limited-English proficient, 2. NAEP - not assessed as to their English proficiency, 3. FEP - fluent-English proficient, and 4. FEPE - fluent-English proficient and exited from the program. As of June 2,2000, the District had identified 805 PHLOTE students (LEP = 467, NAEP = 45, and FEP = 268, FEPE = 25). Appendix A lists PHLOTE students by category and by grade level. Elementary LEP students have the option of attending a Newcomer Center school or any of the other LRSD schools. Middle and high school level LEP students are assigned to Newcomer Center schools. See Tables 1 and 2 for enrollment data on newcomer and nonNewcomer Center schools. Table 1 Table 2 Newcomer Center: LEP Enrollment Top 7 Non-newcomer: LEP Enrollment Brady Chicot Romine Terry_____ Washington Cloverdale MS Dunbar MS . I Hall HS I Total 11/30/99 26 68 33 22 38 42 16 3/24/00 25 71 30 18 33 I 80 I 44 16 74 6/2/00 26 74 28 23 30 47 13 I 325 I 311 I 309 \"I 11 Wakefield Cloverdale McDermott Bale Garland Henderson MS Forest Heights MS pfotd 11/30/99 21 17 17 10 6 7 11 89 3/24/00 22 14 18 9 8 8 10 ] 89 6/2/00 20 14 13 12 8 8 7The District s primary database housed on the AS400 mainframe computer X VUU.V. O piuuary uaiaoase nousea on the AS400 mainframe computer uses CIMS as Its electronic student database software. Student data are collected at the school level. Current year data are filed in the students permanent record file (PRE'). Baseline data are stored in ESL Department files. The initial portion of this section will report demographic data (i.e., gender, language school location, grade level distribution, and any sub-groups) on LEP, NAEP FEP and FEPE students. The subsequent sections will report academic and behavioral bcciiuns win report academic and behavioral progress (e.g. attendance) of LEP students and how LEP students compare on academic and behavioral variables to NAEP, FEP, FEPE and the Districts general school population. Unless otherwise stated, general population is defined as all students in the District except LEP NAEP FEP and FEPE students. Description of Limited English Proficient (LEP) Students. As of June 2 2000 there were 467 LEP students in the Little Rock School District (LRSD). Supporting charts reflect three data gathering points, 11/30/99, 3/24/00, and 6/2/00, and correspond to the Districts reporting to the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), Districts Quarterly Report, and the program evaluation report, conducted annually, as required by Title VI. As previously reported, LEP students have the option to attend a Newcomer Center school or any of the other LRSD schools Demographics on this population are the following: There are 255 male (54.6%) and 212 female (45.4%) students. Newcomer Centers serve most of the LEP students, 309 students (66.2%) (see Table 1). LRSD has 48 schools and LEP students are being served in all of the high schools, middle schools, ^d all but seven of the elementary schools (i.e., Badgett, Dodd, Jefferson, Mitchell Western Hills, Rightsell, and Woodruff). Non-Newcomer Centers serve the remaining LEP students (N = 158), with the top schools serving between 7 and 20 students (see Table 2). seven Appendix A lists the following breakdown of students by grade level and sub-population: The pre-kindergarten program (i.e. LRSDs 4-year-old program) had 29 LEP students enrolled. * (grades kindergarten through 5*^ has the highest number of LEP students per grade level with an average grade-level enrollment of 46. Middle school (grades 6* through 8*') average grade-level enrollment is 29. High school (grades 9* through 12) per grade level enrollment average of 19. 12 Among LEP students Spanish is the most common language spoken (71.3%), followed by Chinese (4.5%), Arabic (3.6%), Assyrian (2.3%), Korean (2.3%), and Vietnamese (1.5%). An additional 29 languages account for the remaining 14.2% of LEP students. To provide insight in understanding what the LRSD considers when approaching the education of students receiving ESL program services, students within the sub-population of LEP are further identified as: LEPNC - In an ESL program at a Newcomer Center (N = 309) LEPSO - Being served at a school other than a Newcomer Center (N = 158) LEPNS - Not being served (N = 9). Parental denial of alternative language services. LEPSPD - Receiving special education and LEP services (N = 7) LEPGT- Receiving gifted and talented (GT) and LEP services (N = 8) LEPREC - Students who have left the program, have been reclassified, and have re-entered the program (N = 0) Additional demographic data on these sub-populations are as follows\n Newcomer Centers serve all of the LEP students receiving gifted and talented services (N = 7). Five of the nine LEP students receiving special education services (LEPSPD) attend a Newcomer Center. Five of the nine LEP students not receiving services (LEPNS) attend Newcomer Centers. Academic and behavioral data for the above groups will be reported in the results section. Description of Not Assessed as to their English Proficiency (NAEP). There are 45 NAEP students identified in the Districts database. Demographics for this population are as follows: There are 23 male (51.1 %) and 22 female (48.9%) students. Spanish is the most common language (31.1%), followed by Korean (15.5%), Gujarati (8.9%), German (4.4%), Farsi (4.4%), and Chinese (4.4%). Appendix A lists the following breakdown of NAEP students by grade level and subpopulation: In grades kindergarten through 5\" there is an average grade-level enrollment of 1. 13 In grades 6* through 8*' there is an average enrollment of 2. In grades 9**' through 12* there is an average enrollment of 8. Within the sub-population of NAEP students\n Thirty-six NAEP students have refused to be assessed\n Three are special education students and were unable to complete the Language Assessment Survey (LAS)\nThree have not been at school when the LAS was administered\n One student had been auditing (see Appendix F for LRSD policy on auditing), but is no longer a student for SY2000-2001\n One has not returned the signed letter from a parent, and one has been assessed but the score report has not been received by the ESL office. The ESL program has been informed of these two irregularities for follow-up. Only 6.7% (N = 3) attend a Newcomer Center. Parkview High School has the most NAEP students, 44.4% (N = 20). Parkview High School is an arts and science magnet school. Description of Fluent English Proficient (FEP) Students. FEP students are PHLOTE students who at the time of admission to the LRSD are assessed by the LAS and have demonstrated a proficiency in reading, writing, listening comprehension, and speaking English. There are 293 FEP in the Little Rock School District. Demographics for this population are as follows: There are 147 male (50.2%) and 146 female (49.8%) students. Spanish is the most common language (35.2%), followed by Chinese (11.6%), Vietnamese (6.7%), Urdu (4.5%), Korean (3.4%), Arabic (3.4%), and Russian (3.0%). The 34 remaining languages constitute an additional 32.2%. One hundred eighteen (31.8%) of the students attend a Newcomer Center, with Chicot Elementary having 75 students, Cloverdale Middle 46 students, and Hall High 72 students. A 14 Appendix A lists the following breakdown of students by grade level and sub-population\n In grades kindergarten through 5* the average grade level distribution is 26. In grades 6* through 8* the average grade level distribution is 27. In grades 9* through 12* the average grade level distribution is 13. There are nine FEP students in the Districts 4-year old program. Twenty-eight students receive gifted and talented (G/T) services. One student attends Cloverdale Middle, 22 attend Dunbar Middle, and 5 attend Hall High school. Description of Fluent English Proficient-Exited (FEPE) Students. FEPE students are LEP students that have exited from the ESL program due to their demonstration of proficiency in English, as measured by the LAS. Twenty-five students, since 11/30/99, have exited from LEP to FEPE. Demographics for this sub-population are as follows\n There are 12 male (48%) and 13 female (52%) students. Ten students were exited with an LAS of 3/4 and 15 students with a LAS of 3/5. A score of 3/4 is indicative of high-level reading and writing skills. A score of 3/5 is indicative of high- level proficient listening and speaking skills. One student exited September 1999, 2 exited November 1999,2 exited February 2000 2 exited March 2000, 5 exited April 2000, and 13 exited May 2000. Spanish is the most common language (60%, N = 15), followed by Chinese (16%, N = 4), Vietnamese (4%, N = 1), Laotian (4%, N = 1), Mongolian (4%, N = 1), Pakistan (4%, N = 1), Portuguese (4%, N = 1), and Slovakia (4%, N = 1). None of the FEPE students received (G/T) services. Appendix A lists the breakdown of FEPE students by grade level and sub-population\n Sixty-four percent of the exited students were from grades 2\" through 5*. Twenty-eight percent were from grades 6* through 8*. Eight percent were from grades 9 and 11. 11 of the students (44%) were from Newcomer Centers. 15Academic Variables State Mandated ACTAAP Benchmark Examination, Grades 4 fe 8. The State is in the process of implementing its Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment \u0026amp; Accountability Program (ACTAAP) which includes a Benchmark Examination containing a measure of mathematics and literacy achievement. The intent and purpose of this component is to identify students in need of additional instruction in mathematics and literacy. The comprehensive mathematics and literacy exams are valid, reliable, and objective measures that contain multiple-choice and open-response questions based on The Arkansas Mathematics, Reading, and English/Language Arts Curriculum Frameworks. Items are developed with the assistance and approval of the Arkansas Content Advisory Committees composed of active Arkansas educators with expertise in mathematics and literacy. The committees developed and reviewed both multiple-choice and open-response items to ensure they reflect the Arkansas Citrriculum Frameworks and are grade-appropriate. The multiple-choice questions are scored by machine to determine if the student chose the correct answer from four options. Trained readers using a pre-established set of scoring criteria score answers to open-response mathematics and literacy questions. Students are given scores in math and literacy. Students can receive a test score of one through four with four representing Advanced followed by Proficient, Basic, and Below Basic. On both exams the Proficient cut-off score is 200 and the Advanced cut-off score is 250 and above. On the mathematics exam the Basic cut-off score is 149-199 and the Below-Basic cut-off score is 148 and below. On the literacy exam the Basic cut-off score is 164-199 and the Below-Basic cut-off score is 163 and below This examination process is being developed, piloted, and implemented in a sequential and cumulative process begirming with 4* grade in SY 1997-98, and including 8* grade in SY 1998-99. SY 2000-2001 will incorporate the math measure for b* grade currently being piloted in schools across Arkansas. Also end-of-course measures for Algebra I, Geometry, and Biology 1 are cunently in the item development phase. The test for the 1999-2000 school year was given in April 2000. Scores from the April 2000 test will not be available until the end of October 2000. This evaluation will examine students who took the test during the 1998-1999 school year as 4* graders. LEP students are required to take the test unless the language proficiency assessment committee at the students school determines that the test is inappropriate. In addition, parental permission is required to confirm the exemption. Achievement Level Test (ALTT Grades 2-11. The recently implemented Achievement Level Test (ALT) includes a series of mathematics, reading, language usage, and science achievement measures that increase in difficulty across eight levels. This test is important to the ESL program evaluation process, for the tests are designed to document growth by assessing students at the cutting edge of their individual achievement level. Fall and spring administration across grades 3-11 permit measurement of growth within and across school years expressed in two kinds of scores: percentile scores and scale or RIT (Rasch Interval Scale) scores. Percentile scores can be used to compare students to the large group of test takers using the ALT developed by the Northwest Evaluation Association. It is important to note that this is a comparative group currently involving 104 schools districts and 500,000 students and growing 164 to 13 points annually. This is not a norm group configured to represent public school populations. LRSD regulations (see Appendix E ) can exempt LEP students from District level tests for up to tw'o years on LRSD criterion referenced tests (CRTs). However, for program evaluation purposes all students, including LEP students, are to take the ALT. Demonstration of growth within and across an individuals matriculation. Fall to Spring, in grades 3 11 is documented using the RJT score designed to make direct comparisons to a criterion performance level along a scale from 160 to 250. Students typically start at a RIT__ of about 170-190 in the fall of the 3 grade and progress to the 230260 range by high school. Students at 235 have reached a readiness level for Algebra 1. It is very important to note that along the Rasch Interval Scale, scores have the same meaning regardless of the individual students grade level. This type of measurement allows some students to start at a higher RIT level and some low-achieving students to never reach the top level. The design provides an accurate measure of each students achievement where the typical standardized test, by its nature, provides inadequate measures for many students, especially those at the high and low ends of the scale. score Also important is the fact that tests are aligned with The Arkansas Mathematics, Reading, and English/Language Arts Curriculum Frameworks, thus enabling the District to determine impact and effectiveness of its instructional programs. The pool of test questions, developed by the Northwest Evaluation Association, has been extensively field tested to insure items of the highest quality and fairness. Teachers and curriculum specialists balanced by race, gender, and grade level matched the pool of questions to the standards and their attending benchmarks included in the aforementioned Frameworks. During test development activities, questions calibrated for difficulty and assigned to a level (e.g.. Math levels 1-8). For example: An appropriate expectation of a Level 1 student is to multiply whole numbers, while a Level 6 student should be able to multiply fractions. This calibration makes it possible to calculate the RIT score which is tied directly to the curriculum. ALTs are administered during the P* and 4* quarters annually. were Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA). The DRA is administered individually kindergarten through 2\"^a . . . . .\nrade students. Administration of the DRA is to occur during to gl September and April of each school year. The DRA is a measure of a readiness to read at grade level. Test results provide a method for comparing students within the LRSD. The Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) provides teachers with a method for assessing and documenting primary students development as readers over time within 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. Sets 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 stores. Both aspects of reading are critical to independence as a reader. Factors which contribute to the gradient of difficulty of the stories include the number of words on a page, complexity of vocabulary, length of the stories, degree of support from the pictures, as well as complexity of sentence and story 17Structure. Questions pertaining to concepts about print are also included in the assessment of lower leveled texts (Southeastern Louisiana University, 1998, p. 1). The DRA is appropriate for assessing grade-level reading ability\nit is also used for early detection of reading difficulties. This test is important to the ESL program evaluation process for the tests are designed to document growth by assessing students at the cutting edge of their individual achievement level. The instrument helps teachers by focusing on specific problems of each child and by serving as a guide to the classroom reading instruction, based on the individual needs of each child. Early diagnosis of specific reading difficulties, when matched with appropriate instruction, can help to ensure that the students progress in school. The structure of the PreK-3 Literacy Program ensures that these assessment instruments are aligned with the curriculum content standards for these grades and the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) teaching strategies that shape the professional development for teachers at these grade levels. The DRA is written for classroom teachers who must become careful observers of young children as they leam to read and write. The DRA is useful to teachers who work one-on-one with students who are having difficulty in learning to read and write. The DRA is administered to all students. Stanford Achievement Test- 9*** edition (SAT-9'). The SAT-9 is a overall measure of achievement in reading, mathematics, language arts, science, and social science. The SAT-9 is designed to measure student achievement in relation to the performance of a national sample selected to be representative of the nations students in each of the grades tested. The test provides a method for comparing the achievement of students with that of students in the same grade across the country. The SAT-9 is administered to students in grades 5, 7, and 10 during the month of September. The SAT-9 is a timed test. Results are reported as raw scores, mean scaled scores, normal curve equivalent (NCE), percentile, and stanine scores. For this report, complete battery NCE scores from SY1999-2000 are used. The general population does not include LEP, NAEP, FEP, FEPE or special education students. Future evaluations will include data on the SAT-9 math, reading, and language subtest scores. Behavioral and Professional Development Data LEP, NAEP, FEP, and FEPE students will be compared among themselves and the general population on attendance, retention, graduation, and dropout rates. In addition, PHLOTE students receiving G/T and Special Education services will be compared on the above behavioral variables. The number of ESL endorsed teachers and other professional development will be reported. \\\\ 18Results State Mandated ACTAAP Benchmark Examination, Grades 4 \u0026amp; 8 The State Benchmark exam for the 1999-2000 school year was given in April 2000 and the results will not be available to the District until the end of October 2000. The Benchmark exam was given to 4**' grade students in February 1999 for the 1998-1999 school year. Fifth- grade data from SY1998-1999 will be used for this report. Several LEP students (N = 11) did not take the test. The State of Arkansas allows LEP students, with permission from their parents, to be exempted from taking the test. The Arkansas Department of Education is currently field testing an alternate assessment for students who would be considered for exemption. Training on the administration of the alternate assessment will begin in fall 2000. Interpretation. The State of Arkansas expects all students to be proficient or advanced. A scaled score of 200 is considered proficient and a score of 250 is considered to be advanced. All of the LEP students that took the test scored in the Below-Basic category in both mathematics and literacy. The general population had 59% of those tested in the Below-Basic category in Math and 42% in literacy. FEP students performed above District results with 53% of students at Proficient and above in math and 58% in literacy. In math both students were in the Basic category and in literacy, one student was Basic and the other Below-Basic. The general population had 22% at Proficient and above in math and 30% in literacy (see Tables 3 and 4). Table 3 Math: 4'*' Grade Benchmark Exam, SY1998-1999 (See page 4 for a description of LEP, NAEP, FEP, and FEPE) General Population LEP % Below Basic 59% N= 1,038 100% N = 9 % Basic 19^ N = 332 % Proficient 13% N = 228 % Advanced 9% N = 162 NAEP \u0026gt; FEP 23% N = 6 FEPE 23% N = 6 100% N = 2 i \\\\ 19 31% N = 8 23% N = 6Table 4 Literacy: 4'*' Grade Benchmark Exam, SY1998-1999 (See page 4 for a description of LEP, NAEP, FEP, and FEPE) General Population LEP % Below Basic 42% N = 677 100% N = 9 % Basic 28^ N = 460 % Proficient 28% N = 453 % Advanced 2% N = 31 NAEP FEP FEPE 15% N = 4 50% N = 1 27% N = 7 50% N = 1 50% N= 13 8% N = 2 Conclusion. Neither the LEP, NAEP, FEP, FEPE, nor the general population of students attained the state goal of 100% proficient or advanced. LEP students did not perform as well as general population, FEP, or FEPE students. FEPE students did not perform as well as FEP students. However, FEP students performed better than the general population. These results could be attributed to fact that these FEPE students tested had not received the ESL services that are currently in place. ESL services in years prior to the 1999-2000 school year were not as structured as the current program. Plus, the used for this evaluation was collected two years ago, during SYl998-99. While all students in the District would benefit from additional intervention (e.g., learning the State standards), it appears that LEP and FEPE students should be provided additional practice on completing opened-ended questions, a cornerstone of the State Benchmark assessment. Achievement Level Test (ALT), Grades 2-11 The Districts ALT exams were given during March 2000. Grades 2-11 were assessed on Reading and Language Usage. The Elementary and Middle grades were assessed on general mathematics skills and students enrolled in Algebra 1, 2, and Geometry were assessed in these specific subject areas. The national comparison group for Tables 5-11 is comprised of 104 schools districts and 500,000 students that have taken the ALT. Interpretation. Across all subjects, LEP student performance was below the general, FEP, and NAEP population. Consistently across subjects, FEP and NAEP students performed above the general population. Specifically, in reading and language usage, FEPE students out-performed the general population in all grade levels 2\"' through 9*, elementary math grades 2'\" through 5*, and middle math grades 6'* and S*. 20 FEPE students performed better than FEP students in grades 2 and 3 in reading and language usage. In math FEPE students out-performed LEP students in the grades 3 and 6. Algebra 1 is taken primarily by students in the Q* grade, Geometry in lO'*, and Algebra 2 in 11*. Given these primary grade levels, there are no comparison data between FEPE students and their peers (see RIT Score Tables 5-11). All groups scored below the national comparison group. Newcomer data are mixed, but FEPE students generally did better that other PHLOTE students at the elementary level (e.g., grades 2 and 3 in reading). FEP students receiving G/T services did better that the national comparison group. Table 5 (See page 4 for a description of LEP, NAEP, FEP, and FEPE) ALT Reading Scores: Spring 2000 8 7 5 6 Grade Level National Comparison Group 2 1^ 3 4 9 10 11 1981 205| 21212171 2211225 228 230 j' General Population Number Tested 179 1761 1911 1991 20512091 2131216 221 223 227 1891 1879 1795 1574 1517 1511 1360 1411 1179 LEP Number Tested I 160| 172| 184| 187| 192| 204| 202| 178| 174| 20^ 54 43 33 24 11 29 26 14 6 6 NAEP Number Tested 1 2 2 2 5 4 3 4 FEP Number Tested FEPE Number Tested I 184{ 201| 211| 215| 216| 222| 225| 230| 225| 159] 16 23 23 31 28 20 24 10 12 3 Q89[22O5[2O3]2212[216[22^^ 3 1 4 5 3 1 4 21Table 6 (See page 4 for a description of LEP, NAEP, FEP, and FEPE) ALT Language Usage Scores: Spring 2000 Grade Level 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 National Comparison Group 193 199 207 213 2161 2201 223 225 General Population 186 195 203 208 212 216 218 223 224 228 Number Tested 1735 1890 1870 1758 1561 1503 1477 1357 1357 1156 LEP Number Tested I 173| 183| 192| 191| 198| 208| 207| 211| 210| 214| 54 43 33 24 11 29 26 14 6 6 NAEP Number Tested I,, 207| 200|ft^ 230| 227| 239| 229| 227| 214| 2 2 0 1 0 2 5 4 2 4 FEP Number Tested I 1911 207| 216| 218| 220| 227| 230| 236] 208| 224| 16 23 23 31 28 20 24 10 12 3 FEPE Number Tested I 194] 212| 211| 215| 217| 214] 227|'-7 [ 5 4 3 3 1 1 4 Table 7 (See page 4 for a description of LEP, NAEP, FEP, and FEPE) ALT Elementary Math Scores: Spring 2000 Table 8 (See page 4 for a description of LEP, NAEP, FEP, and FEPE) Grade Level 2 3 4 5 National Comparison Group 192 200 208 215 ALT Middle Math Scores: Spring 2000 Grade Level 6 7 8 National Comparison Group 220 227 235 General Population 182 193 202 208 Number Tested 1785 1911 1899 1804 General Population Number Tested 207 1633 213 213 1566 1235 LEP Number Tested I 167] 186] 195] 191] 54 43 33 24 LEP Number Tested I 199] 204] 208] 11 29 26 NAEP Number Tested [ rig] 207] 209] 0 1 2 0 NAEP Number Tested I 234] 230|~^ 2 2 0 FEP Number Tested 1 197] 208| 216|~2^ 16 23 23 31 FEP Number Tested I 2211 228]'^ 16 13 8 FEPE Number Tested I 193] 2111 2lT[2Zr| 5 4 3 3 FEPE Number Tested I 223] 210|2^ 1 1 3 22Table 9 (See page 4 for a description of LEP, NAEP, FEP, and FEPE) Table 10 (See page 4 for a description of LEP, NAEP, FEP, and FEPE) ALT Algebra 1 Scores\nSpring 2000 ALT Algebra 2 Scores: Spring 2000 Grade Level General Population Number Tested 7 8 9 10 2601 252 241 239 23 281 1010 151 Grade Level General Population Number Tested 8 9 10 11 2591 2561 254 250 1 314 245 553 LEP Number Tested I ^,1P86|T1^ 0 0 9 2 LEP Number Tested 0 2511 3 0 2 NAEP Number Tested iBil 257| 24O|^ 0 4 1 NAEP Number Tested I 2711 253| 266| 126| 1 i 12 1 FEP Number Tested I 267| 238| 244|247| 7 14 3 1 FEP Number Tested I 169| 174| 254| 0 3 3 3 FEPE Number Tested WB 0 I 0 0 1 FEPE Number Tested 0 0 0 0 Table 11 ALT Geometry Scores: Spring 2000 (See page 4 for a description of LEP, NAEP, FEP, and FEPE) Grade Level General Population Number Tested 10 11 264 256 248 246 11 100 1067 278 8 9 LEP Number Tested I 266| 250| 246| 246| 114 3 \\\\ NAEP Number Tested FEP Number Tested FEPE Number Tested 273| 25Tp50l I 2711 273| 250(^ I \"-a ,1 257] 23 0 2 0 1 2 2 4 8 0 0 0 1Conclusion. Since SYl 999-2000 was the first year for the administration of the ALT across grades 2 - 11 it would be difficult to make an assumption, based on the data, indicating ESL program success. However, LEP performance on the Districts ALT is consistent with performance on the State Benchmark assessment (i.e., 4* grade) and, as will be noted later, on the SAT-9 (i.e., 5*, 7*, and 10* grade) in that LEP students are performing below the general population. However, FEPE students (i.e., LEP students who have exited the program) are performing above the general population. Stanford Achievement Test. 9* edition (SAT-9) Students in the 5*, 7*, and 10* grades took the SAT-9 during September 1999. For this evaluation report, students will be compared on complete battery percentile scores. The complete battery scores reported are a compilation of reading, mathematics, language, spelling, study skills, science, social science, using information, and thinking skills subtest results. In addition to LEP, FEP, NAEP, and FEPE students, the general population does not include special education students. Future evaluations will include subtest results on reading, math, and language. Interpretation. LEP students in the 5*, 7*, and 10* grades performed below the general population and FEP and NAEP students. FEPE, FEP, and NAEP students who took the test performed above the general population (see Table 12). A number of LEP students (18-5 graders, 15-7* graders, and 18-10* graders) did not take the SAT-9. School staff determines whether it is appropriate for LEP students to take the SAT-9 and the State of Arkansas allows LEP students, with permission from their parents, to be exempted from taking the test. Table 12 SAT-9 Complete Battery Percentile Scores, SY1999-2000 (See page 4 for a description of LEP, NAEP, FEP, and FEPE) Grade 5* yth 10* General Population 36 N= 1481 42 N= 1363 40 N= 1448 LEP 15 N= 11 21 N = 22 30 N = 2 NAEP N = 0 78 N = 2 40 N = 6 FEP 55 N = 30 71 N = 21 55 N = 16 FEPE 39 N = 2 33 N = 2 N = 0 Conclusion. Several paper and pencil assessments (i.e., ALT, State Benchmark, \u0026amp; SAT- 9) have validated the below-average performance of LEP students vs. other populations (i.e., general, FEP, and NAEP). However, it appears that FEPE students are becoming proficient in English and maintaining their academic achievement. 24Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) The DRA is designed to measure growth over the school year by administering the DRA in the fall and spring. The DRA was administered to kindergarten through 2\"'* grade students during the early fall and late spring SY 1999-2000. During the DRA observation the student reads materials that are typically used within the classroom, and the observer records the directional movements that are made, errors or miscues. The student is assessed on deriving meaning, structure and information from the material. The spring DRA score is used to determine grade-level readiness. Readiness is indicated by a score of 2 at kindergarten, 16 at grade, and 24 at 2\"* grade. On most of the State and District assessments (i.e., SAT-9 and State Benchmark), LEP students are allowed to be exempted, with parental permission, from testing with the DRA. Teachers were asked to assess all students. Unless otherwise noted, the growth data in the DRA tables reflects only those students who were assessed both in the fall and spring. The fall and spring scores reflect all students who were assessed. Interpretation. LEP students in kindergarten out-performed the general population and were performing above the readiness level of 2. LEP students in the and 2\"'* grade did not perform as well as the general population. grade LEP students as a group are below the readiness level, and 2\"* grade students are performing at the readiness level. FEP students are outperforming the general population. While there are no FEPE students in kindergarten or 1 st grade, FEPE students in the 2\"' grade performed the same as LEP students, but below the general population. FEPE students in the 2\"** grade, with average reading readiness of 24.87, exceeded grade readiness level equivalency of 24 (see Tables 13-15). Table 13 Kindergarten DRA scores (See page 4 for a description of LEP, NAEP, FEP, and FEPE) General Population LEP NAEP FEP FEPE Fall 1.55 1.22 4.48 25 Spring 4.43 4.47 Growth +2.88 +3.18 9.57 +5.09Table 14 1 Grade DRA scores (See page 4 for a description of LEP, NAEP, FEP, and FEPE) General Population LEP NAEP FEP FEPE Fall 5.1 3.46 1 8.52 Spring 21.2 14.03 6 21.29 Growth +14.0 +11.9 +5 +12.77 Table 15 2\"* Grade DRA scores (See page 4 for a description of LEP, NAEP, FEP, and FEPE) General Population LEP NAEP FEP FEPE Fall 19.9 15.74 34.7 19.5 Spring 30.8 24.87 38.5 34 Growth +10.3 +13.0 +7.8 +14.5 In kindergarten and grade, LEP and FEPE students had higher DRA growth scores than the general population. However, LEP students in 1 grade did not have DRA growth scores as high as the general population. Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA), supported by the Arkansas Department of Education and by LRSD, consists of teacher training in early literacy strategies and the administration of the DRA. District-wide results correlating DRA scores to ELLA training indicates a significant positive relationship between the amount of training that teachers participated in and the amount of growth achieved. Teachers can receive from 2 to 12 days of training. The first two days of training covers the administration of the DRA. Subsequent training days covers early literacy strategies. Conclusion. While and 2\" grade LEP students are performing below the general population, kindergarten LEP students demonstrated exceptional performance and growth. It is possible that the expanded District pre-kindergarten programs and the Animated Literacy program at the kindergarten level may have had an effect on kindergarten scores. Also, FEPE 2' grade students are performing at the grade readiness level. Scores on the DRA are supported by the reading and language usage scores on the Districts ALT. It appears that the early literacy program may be having more effect on the early grades (i.e., kindergarten and grade) than on nd 262\"'. This is probably due to the date and level of early literacy program intervention. Future evaluations will identify and report on the academic progress of PHLOTE students who attended the LRSDs pre-kindergarten program. Dropout, Retention, Attendance, and Graduation Interpretation. No PHLOTE students dropped out during SY1998-1999 or SY1999-200O. Table 16 Retention rates for SY1998-1999 and SY1999-2000 (See page 4 for a description of LEP, NAEP, FEP, and FEPE) Level and SY Elementary SY1998-1999 SY1999-2000 Middle School SY1998-1999 SY1999-2000 High School SY1998-1999 SYl 999-2000 General Population 1.33% N=169 available 12/15/00 .98% N=52 available 12/15/00 .42% N=28 available 12/15/00 LEP 4.29% N=13 1.32% N=4 2.94% N=2 1.31% N=1 2.62% N=2 NAEP 3.39% N=1 3.39% N=1 FEP .65% N=1 5.06% N=4 6% N=6 2% N=2 FEPE Retention data SY1998-1999: Twenty-five students (16 LEP, 1 NAEP, and 8 FEP) were retained after the 1998-1999 school year. Retention rates of these subpopulations were generally higher than the general school population. Among the LEP students retained, there were 10 male and 6 female students. Of these students, 14 students spoke Spanish, 1 spoke Chinese and 1 spoke Filipino. The one NAEP student was female and spoke Spanish. One Spanish speaking LEPSPD male in the 7* grade was retained. Among the FEP students retained, there were 6 males and 2 females, with 7 speaking Spanish and 1 speaking Portuguese. \\\\ 27 One Spanish speaking FEP male in the 6* grade, receiving G/T services, was retained. LEP students had high retention rates in the middle and high school levels (see Table 16). Retention data SY1999-2000: Thirteen students (10 LEP, 1 NAEP, and 2 FEP) were retained. Among LEP students, there were 9 males and 1 female student. All of these students spoke Spanish. The one 11* grade NAEP student is male and speaks Spanish. The two FEP students are 9* and 11* grade Spanish speaking males. One 9* grade LEP student at JA Fair High School was retained for both SYl998-1999 and SY 1999-2000. Table 17 Student Attendance Rates for SY1999-2000: Average Number of Days Missed (See page 4 for a description of LEP, NAEP, FEP, and FEPE) School Year SY1999-2000 General Population 4?88 LEP 9.8 NAEP 7.62 FEP 7.16 FEPE 7.52 The average number of days missed by a general population, during ST 1999-2000 was 4.88 days LEP students miss over twice as many days as the general population. NAEP, FEP, and FEPE students miss more days than the general population (see Table 17). FEP and LEP students receiving G/T services missed an average of 3.64 and 7.87 days respectively. LEP students receiving special education services missed an average of 12.43 days. NAEP students receiving special education services missed an average of 13.33 days. 28Graduation rate. All of the 12* grade PHLOTE students (N = 27) graduated with a diploma at the end of SY1999-2000. Nine FEP students. Twelve LEP students. Six NAEP students. Conclusion. It is commendable that there were no LEP student dropouts for the last two years. The District has made a concerted effort to decrease the dropout rate. The graduation rate was 100% of 12* grade students. While students receiving G/T services had lower absenteeism rates than the general population, students receiving Special Education services had higher absenteeism rates than the general population. The number of students retained fell by almost 50% from SY1998-1999 to SY1999-2000. Professional Development LRSD professional development activities have focused on teacher ESL endorsement and enhancing English language learning in the classroom. State ESL endorsement requires 12 credit hours consisting of four classes: 1. 2. Teaching second languages. Second language acquisition. 3. Teaching people of other cultures, and 4. Second language assessment. As of this date, 29 teachers have received their ESL endorsement: School Name As of June 2,2000 # of ESL Endorsed Teachers # of Teachers Endorsed during the summer of 2000 8 . Hall High* McClellan High Cloverdale Middle* Forest Heights Middle Mabelvale Middle Henderson Middle Chicot Elementary* Washington Elementary^ Geyer Springs Elementary Wakefield Elementary McDermott Elementary 3 1 2 2 Total * = Newcomer Center 15 14 \\\\ 29 1 1 2 1 1 1 4 2Also, approximately 75 teachers have taken at least three hours of credit toward ESL endorsement. In addition, 181 teachers have received training in enhancing English language learning in the classroom. As an increased number of teachers become endorsed, future evaluations should provide comparison data on PHLOTE students being served by non-endorsed vs. endorsed teachers. \\\\ 30Conclusions Evaluating the curriculum service delivery, staffing and scope of teacher training Concerning the curriculum service delivery, staffing and scope of teacher training it appears that Newcomer and non-Newcomer center schools are contributing equally to student achievement. There is not a critical mass of ESL endorsed teachers in the Newcomer Center schools. This situation is not changing. Only 5 of the 15 teachers endorsed during summer 2000 were from Newcomer Center schools. Future evaluations will need to examine closely the: 1.) diffusion of LEP students throughout the LRSD\n2.) amount of staffing and teacher training as it relates to the above diffusion\nand 3.) the relationship of ESL endorsement to student achievement. Evaluating the extent to which limited English language students are performing in comparison to other students in the District Regarding student achievement, LEP students do not perform as well as their FEP or general population peers on the DRA, SAT-9, State Benchmark Exam, and ALT. While academic achievement is of particular concern, so also the absenteeism rates of LEP and FEPE students. ESL program staff need to continue to consult and work closely with the Districts curriculum specialists to insure that ESL students are receiving the optimal services possible under the LRSDs ESL curriculum delivery plan. In addition to providing quality service to ESL students, the ESL program staff needs to focus on the absenteeism rates through increased parental involvement. The number of PHLOTE students receiving G/T and Special Education services is small, making data comparison difficult. However, PHLOTE students receiving G/T services generally perform above the LRSD and National averages. A concern is that there are few students in the elementary grades receiving G/T services. Across the four top languages of Spanish, Chinese, Arabic, and Korean, LEP students compare favorably with other PHLOTE students on DRA growth scores, but have lower scores on other academic variables. PHLOTE students, regardless of their sub-population category who attend a magnet school, score higher than other PHLOTE students in the LRSD. Typically on a school-by-school comparison. Newcomer Center school PHLOTE students do not compaie as well as PHLOTE students who attend a non-Newcomer Center school. Evaluating the extent to which limited English proficient students who have become proficient in English (i.e., have exited the ESL program due to proficiency in English) compare to other students in the District 1 I 31It appears that these FEPE students in the early elementary years, grades Z\"** and 3^*, are out-performing their LEP and general population peers. It is apparent that FEPE students in 4 grade and above are not performing as well as the 2\"'* and 3^'* grade FEPE students. English proficiency is no guarantee that these students will be able to perform academically and it is only through the analysis of a variety of academic variables that any assumptions can be made. Given the baseline data for this evaluation, it is not possible to draw conclusions as to the reasons for FEPE student achievement. Future evaluations will continue to monitor the progress of all FEPE students. Since the 11/30/99 report to the Arkansas State Department of Education, 25 of the 325 LEP students exited from the program. Since this is a baseline year, it is not possible to determine whether these numbers are low, average, or high. However, a 7.7% exit rate seems low. Most students exit the program during their elementary years (64%). An additional data point is time in the program. Due to the style of record keeping prior to SY 1999-2000, this data was not available. Future evaluations will have this data available for students who entered the program during SY1999-2000. Limitations of this Evaluation Date of entry into the ESL program is not available for most LEP students. Future evaluation reports will use date registered with the LRSD as a program entry date for those students missing data on this variable. This evaluation report reflects baseline data that will be used for future ESL evaluation reports. Given the type of data, it is difficult and inappropriate determine the success or failure of LRSDs ESL program. LRSD has made a concerted effort to staff and train teachers. While LEP students do perform below other students in the District, FEPE students who have been in the ESL program perform above other LRSD students on a number of variables. 32Recommendations Attendance is an important variable affecting student achievement. The LRSDs Division of Administrative Services needs to investigate and intervene on the low attendance rates of LEP students. Also recommended is that the ESL parent coordinator work on this need. Professional development is a building block to student achievement. The ESL program needs to continue to offer and promote the professional development opportunities for all teachers in the areas of ESL methodology, alternate assessments, cultural awareness, and second language acquisition. Future ESL program evaluations will consider this a key variable to student success. Early intervention is a proven model for improving student achievement. The ESL program needs to work closely with LRSDs Department of Early Childhood! Elementary Literacy. In particular, this department needs to insure that all elementary teachers in the LRSD have the opportunity to attend early literacy professional development activities. Future ESL evaluations will consider professional development, in early intervention, a key variable. Program entry and exit dates are important variables in helping to determine program success. Most LEP students are missing program entry data. Future evaluations will use the LRSD student registration date as a program entry date for those students missing data on this variable. ESL endorsed teachers have the foundation to improve PHLOTE student achievement. It is imperative that the ESL program support teachers in attaining the ESL Endorsement. Future ESL evaluations will compare students who are taught by endorsed v. non-endorsed teachers. Students receiving G/T services perform above the LRSD average. However, there are few of these students in the elementary grades. The ESL program needs to work closely with the LRSDs Department of Exceptional Children to promote early identification of PFILOTE students that qualify for G/T services. Students currently attending Newcomer Center schools do not necessarily perform better than students attending non-Newcomer Center schools. There is insufficient data to analyze the outcomes of this situation accurately. Future ESL evaluations will closely monitor and report data on Newcomer v. non-Newcomer Center schools. 33References Southeastern Louisiana University (2000). Administering the developmental reading assessment. \\\\ 34Appendix A Number of Students by Grade by PHLOTE Category A 35Limit-English Proficient (LEP) Not-Assessed as to their English Proficiency (NAEP) Grade Level PK K 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 Total Number of Students 29 56 47 58 46 38 29 20 37 31 26 20 18 12 467 Grade Level PK K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total Number of Students 0 0 1 1 2 2 0 2 2 5 3 5 15 6 45 Fluent-English Proficient (FEP) Fluent-English Proficient Exited (FEPE) Grade Level PK K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total Number of Students 9 23 22 17 23 23 31 28 20 24 10 17 12 9 268 Grade Level PK K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total Number of Students 0 0 0 5 5 3 J 1 2 4 1 0 1 0 25 36Appendix B Comparison of Newcomer and Non-Newcomer schools on Academic Variables W 37Number of Students by Grade Level at Newcomer and Non-Newcomer Center Schools LEP FEP FEPE PK Kindergarten EJ Grade 2\" Grade 3^'* Grade 4^ Grade 5^ Grade 6**' Grade 7^ Grade 8^ Grade 9'*\" Grade 10'Grade lE*^ Grade 12* Grade Newcomer 13 33 28 37 25 27 18 18 21 21 21 19 16 12 Non ST 23 19 21 21 11 11 2 16 10 5 1 2 Newcomer 1 8 12 9 9 11 14 7 9 11 3 3 4 6 Non T 15 10 8 14 12 17 21 11 13 7 14 8 3 Newcomer Non NAEP Newcomer 1 DRA Scores LEP - Kindergarten FEP- Kindergarten FEPE - Kindergarten NAEP- Kindergarten LEP - Grade FEP -1 Grade FEPE - Grade NAEP - Grade LEP - 2\"^ GradT\" FEP-2\"Gradr~ FEPE - 2^* Grade NAEP- 2\"** Grade Non Newcomer fKiI 1.1 4.3 2.8 1 -Sial 16.76 34.7 38 Spring 4.1 11.4 Growth +r +7.1 9.4 19.1 6 23.21 41.37 44 +6.6 +12.1 +5 +6.45 +6.67 +6 38 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 2 1 2 1 J 1 1 2 2 2 5 3 5 14 6 Non-Newcomer Fali 1.3 4.6 Spring 8.6 Growth +3.7 +4 -iTA 4 10.2 14.6 34.2 13.3 18.1 23.7 27.8 43.5 30.6 +14.1 +13.5 +13.2 +9.3 +17.3SAT-9 Complete Battery\nNational Curve Equivalent Scores LEP - 5* Grade FEP - 5* Grade FEPE - 5* Grade NAEP - 5* Grade LEP - Grade FEP - 7^^ Grade FEPE - 7*^ Gr\"^ NAEP - 7'\" Grade LEP - 10'*^ Grade FEP - 10^** GradT\" FEPE - 10^^ Grade NAEP - 10* Grade Newcomer 167 42.3 39 T 26.4 74.5 21 K ^4 * 30 33.5 Non-New comer 1^3 61 27.9 75.1 39 77.5 Vs'- I^SSR,' 51 :i^ ALT RIT Scores: Elementary Math LEP-2'^2 Grade FEP - 2\"** Grade FEPE-2\"^Gr'^ NAEP- 2\"' Grade LEP - 3^ Gradr~ FEP - 3 Grade FEPE - 3'^Grade NAEP - 3^'' Grade LEP - 4^'^ Grade FEP-4^ Grade FEPE - 4* Grade NAEP - 4th Grade LEP - 5* GradT\" FEP - 5^** GradT\" FEPE - 5^ Gr^ NAEP - 5* Grade Newcomer Is? 197 222 Non-Newcomer 184 198 186 A 185 206 217 197 213 202 209 185 217 223 187 209 204 207 193 220 216 204 224 218 \u0026amp; 39ALT RIT Scores: Reading Elementary Level LEP - 2\"*' Grade FEP - 2\"^* Grade FEPE-2\" Grade NAEP- 2\" Grade LEP - 3^^ Grade FEP - 3\"* Grade FEPE - S^^Grade NAEP - 3\"* Grade LEP - 4*^ Grade FEP - d*** Grade FEPE - 4* Grade NAEP - 4th Grade LEP - 5'*^ Grade FEP - 5* Grade FEPE - 5* Grade NAEP - 5*^ Grade Newcomer 184 211 215 \"1 164 194 212 184 209 199 191 184 211 215 41 Non-Newcomer 193 218 '1Q1 ('\"h 180 204 199 201 183 215 205 193 218 207 ALT RIT Scores: Language Elementary Level LEP - 2\"^ Grade FEP - 2\"^* GradT\" FEPE-2\"*G'r^ NAEP- 2\"** Grade LEP - 3^ Grade FEP - 3^^* GradT\" FEPE - d'^Grade NAEP - 3^ Grade LEP - 4*^ Grade FEP -4*^ Grade FEPE-d^^ Grade NAEP - 4th Grade LEP - 5^*^ GradT\" FEP - 5* Grade FEPE - 5^^ Gr^ NAEP - 5^^ Grade Newcomer 166 174 Non-Newcomer [84 206 190 178 203 220 * 188 209 205 207 193 214 201 200 189 214 219 i*.\ni/ 189 220 216 ' jVi. Ki Si .\\k, 197 222 208 StsS! ?7\"4?5:A 40ALT RIT Scores: Middle Level Math LEP - 6* Grade FEP - 6* Grade FEPE - 6* Grade NAEP- 6^*' Grade Newcomer 195 228 223 Non-Newcomer 216 218 234 LEP-7^ Grade FEP - 7*^ Grade FEPE -7^1^ Grade NAEP - 7'*' Grade 214 247 195 239 210 230 LEP - 8^* Grade FEP - 8* Grade FEPE - 8* Grade NAEP - 8* Grade 211 229 211 MB? 209 240 209 260 ALT RIT Scores: Middle Level Reading LEP - 6'** Grade FEP - 6^*^ Gradr~ FEPE - 6'* Grade NAEP- 6* Grade' Newcomer 187 218 216 i Non-Newcomer 216 215 LEP - 7^Grade FEP-7*^ Grade FEPE - 7^'^ Gr^ NAEP - T'^ Grade 203 222 205 224 205 227 LEP - 8* Grade FEP -8^ Grade ' FEPE - 8' Grade NAEP - 8* Grade 199 226 210 S 208 225 208 236 \\\\ 41ALT RIT Scores: Middle Level Language LEP - 6* Grade FEP - 6* Grade FEPE - 6* Grade NAEP- O'** Grade Newcomer 195 220 2\\1 Non-Newcomer 212 219 230 LEP - 7^ Grade FEP - 7^*^ Grade FEPE - 7^ Grade NAEP - 7'* Grade 205 225 'k 210 230 214 227 LEP - 8* Grade FEP - 8* Grade FEPE - 8* Grade NAEP - 8* Grade 203 231 210 vr 216 229 215 239 ALT RIT Scores: High School Level Reading LEP - 9* Grad?\" FEP - 9^** GradT\" FEPE-9^Gi^ NAEP-9^ Grade LEP -10* Grade FEP - 10* Grade FEPE - 10* Gr^ NAEP-10* Grade LEP - 11^ Grade FEP - 1L** Grade\" FEPE - 11^ Grade NAEP-ll'^ Grade Newcomer 163 222 174 226 208 208 213 -w w Non-Neyvcomer 205 234 223 224..... 228 206 208 228 42ALT RIT Scores\nHigh School Level Language LEP - 9'* Grade FEP - 9* Grade FEPE - 9* Grade NAEP-9' Grade Newcomer 214 215 1 Non-Neyvcomer 208 241 229 LEP - 10* Grade FEP-10* Grade FEPE - 10* Grade NAEP -10* Grade LEP -11* Grade FEP - 11* Grade FEPE -11* Grade NAEP-11* Grade \\\\. 210 227 216 223 233 .'fe 202 in 201 215 - * * 214 43Appendix C Results of PHLOTE Students Receiving G/T and Special Education Services 44Gifted and Talented Students by Grade Level FEP 3^'* Grade 4* Grade 5* Grade ' 6* Grade ~ 7* Grade 8* Grade ~ 9* Grade 10* Grade 11* Grade 12* Grade Math RIT Score 3\"^** Grade 6*' Grade 7^ Grade 8'*' Grade 9* Grade 10* Grade FEP LEP 186 LEP 3 6 7 10 1 T\" 1 2 1 1 232 256 231 256 Reading RIT Score 3^' Grade 6* Grade 7* Grade 8* Grade 9* Grade 10* Grade 237 252 FEP w 228 228 LEP 123 233 Language Usage RIT Score 3^^ Grade 6* Grade 7* Grade 8* Grade 9*Grade 10* Grade \\\\ 210 218 FEP 222 230 233 235 LEP 180 217 226 45SAT-9 NCE Scores: Complete Battery 7'* Grade FEP 82.7 Special Education Students by Grade Level LEP 2\"** Grade 3^* Grade 4* Grade 5^** Grade ~ 6'*' Grade 7* Grade 8* Grade 9^** Grade~ 1 O'** Grade 11^ Grade n'** Grade 1 2 3 1 LEP 6' Grade S'** Grade 9*^ Grade NAEP 4* Grade Math RIT Score 195 181 182 201 Reading RIT Score 166 172 150 172 NAEP 1 1 1 Language Usage RIT Score 173 183 162 189 46Appendix D Academic Results of PHLOTE Students by the Top Four Languages 47Top Four Languages by Grade Level LEP NAEP FEP FEPE PK Spanish Chinese Arabic Korean 22 1 01 0 00 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kindergarten Spanish Chinese Arabic Korean 35 542 0 0 00 72 2 0 1 Grade Spanish Chinese Arabic Korean 36 121 10 0 0 11 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 2\" Grade Spanish Chinese Arabic Korean 38 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 6101 410 0 3\"* Grade Spanish Chinese Arabic Korean 36 1 02 2 00 0 9214 2 00 0 4'* Grade Spanish Chinese Arabic Korean 29 2 2 0 010 0 6511 3 0 0 0 5* Grade Spanish Chinese Arabic Korean 20 0 01 0 00 0 12 211 110 0 6* Grade Spanish Chinese Arabic Korean I \\ 14 2 0 2 0 0 01 10 511 48 010 0 LEP ..NAEP FEP FEPE 7* Grade 8* Grade P* Grade 10'*'Grade IP Grade 12 Grade L Spanish Chinese Arabic Korean Spanish Chinese Arabic Korean Spanish Chinese Arabic Korean Spanish Chinese Arabic Korean Spanish Chinese Arabic Korean Spanish Chinese Arabic Korean 'I 29 3 21 24 0 0 0 15 2 21 15 01 0 13 01 0 61 10 i 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 010 0 2 0 0 0 5 0 0 4 4 0 01 651 1 7 10 0 4 10 0 7 10 0 6 0 0 0 210 0 49 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spanish language DRA Scores K Fall .2 n=31 2.6 n=20 13.6 n=25 LEP Spring 1.7 11.6 25.4 Growth 1.5 9 11.8 Fall 1 n=l State Benchmark Exam Math 5'* Grade Language 5'* Grade NAEP Spring 6 Growth 5 Fall 1.3 n=7 5.5 n=ll 38 n=4 FEP Spring 3.7 16.1 42.5 Growth 2.4 10.6 4.5 Fall 12 n=2 FEPE Spring 28 Growth 17 LEP 67 n=7 LEP 140 n=7 NAEP FEP 148 n=10 FEPE 165 n=l NAEP FEP 191 n=10 FEPE 158 n=l SAT-9: Complete Battery NCE Scores 5'* Grade 7'* Grade' 10* Grade LEP 12 n=9 25.5 n=14 16 n=l NAEP 21 n=2 FEP 40 n=l 1 58.2 n=5 n=l FEPE 25 n=l A 50 ALT RIT Scores Reading 2\" Grade 3^'* Grade 4* Grade 5* Grade 6* Grade 2^\" Grade 8'*' Grade 9'*' Grade IO'** Grade 11'** Grade Language 2\"** Grade 3^' Grade 4* Grade 5'* Grade O'*' Grade 7'\" Grade 8* Grade 9* Grade 1 O'*\" Grade 11'*'Grade LEP 149 n=34 171 n=33 n=25 W n=17 192 n=7 202 n=21 202 n=20 174 n=8 208 n=4 208 n=6 NAEP 201 n=l 224 n=l 232 n=3 FEP 157 n=5 191 n=9 205 n=6 ioT n=12 211 n=10 214 n=6 w n=2 221 n=4 W n=6 W n=l FEPE 181 n=3 203 n=3 203 n=l 203 n=l 220 n=2 213 n=l LEP 165 n=34 182 n=33 187 n=25 192 n=17 196 n=7 202 n=21 202 n=20 205 n=8 215 n=4 214 n=6 NAEP 207 n=l 214 n=l 213 n=3 FEP 161 n=5 199 n=9 nr n=6 213 n=12 yiT n=10 220 n=6 nr 'in n=4 W n=6 nr n=2 FEPE 186 n=3 212' n=3 \"TTT n=l 202 n=l \u0026gt;M- - 225 n=2 233 n=l 51 Math 2\" Grade 3^*^ Grade 4'*' Grade 5* Grade 6* Grade 7' Grade 8* Grade 9* Grade' 10*' Grade 11^ Grade LEP 162 n=34 183 n=33 191 n=25 199 n=17 198 n=l 199 n=21 210 n=20 itT n=8 \"W n=4 207 NAEP 207 n=l 253 n=l 250 n=3 FEP 191 n=5 \"W\" n=9 213 n=6 ITT' n=12 211 n=10 226 n=6 W n=7 185 n=4 206 n=6 n=2 FEPE 185 n=3 211 n=3 ITT n=l 217 n=l 231 n=2 233 n=l 52 Chinese Language DRA Scores K 1^ Fall 5.7 n=4 0 n=l 19 n=3 LEP Spring 16.5 1 33 Growth 10.8 1 14 Fall State Benchmark Exam Math 5'* Grade Language 5^ Grade i NAEP Spring LEP LEP Growth NAEP NAEP i-f SAT-9: Complete Battery NCE Scores LEP NAEP 5* Grade 7'* Grade IO' Grade w 27 n=3 FEP 70 n=2 9l4 n=5 TT n=l FEP 195 n=l Fall 2.5 n=2 n=3 20 n=l FEP 208 n=l 53 FEP Spring 9 42.7 FEPE FEPE FEPE 53 n=l 44 Growth 6.5 14.7 24 Fall 38 n=l FEPE Spring 44 Growth 6 ALT RIT Scores Reading 2\"* Grade 3'** Grade 4* Grade LEP 188 n=6 1^ n=l 193 n=2 NAEP 210 n=l 5* Grade 6^ Grade 7'*' Grade 202 n=2 2TO n=3 8'' Grade 9* Grade 231 n=2 10* Grade 225 n=l FEP 214 n=l 216 n=2 1^ n=5 \"W n=2 22^ n=5 '133' n=5 240 n=l 240 n=l 142 n=l FEPE 207 n=l - 226 n=l 216 n=l 228 n=l 11* Grade Language 2\" Grade 3^ Grade 4'^ Grade LEP 195 n=6 n=l 199 n=2 NAEP 211 n=l 5^ Grade 6* Grade 7'*' Grade 2\u0026lt;il n=2 W n=3 8'*' Grade 9*^ Grade 111 n=2 236 n=l 10* Grade 11'*'Grade FEP 223 n=l 214 n=2 n=5 n=2 a=5 239 n=5 249 n=l 251 n=l 14T n=l FEPE 209 n=l 231 n=l lAl n=l 236 n=l 54 Math 2\"** Grade Grade 4'* Grade LEP 193 n=6 179 n=l 218 n=2 NAEP \u0026gt;.w' s'** Grade 6^' Grade 7^ Grade 207 n=2 213 n=3 8* Grade 9*' Grade 252 n=2 10'^ Grade 11^ Grade 217 n=l 273 n=l FEP 203 n=l 220 n=2 n=5 234 n=2 23? n=5 n=5 \"W n=l W n=l FEPE 222 n=l * 229 n=l 223 n=l 254 n=l\n 264 n=l 55K Arabic Language DRA Scores Fall 4 n=l 20 n=l LEP Spring 10 38 Growth 6 18 ' * Fall State Benchmark Exam Math 5^ Grade Language 5'*' Grade NAEP Spring * LEP LEP Growth NAEP NAEP SAT-9: Complete Battery NCE Scores LEP NAEP 5* Grade 7'*' Grade 15.5 n=2 10'*' Grade FEP 19 n=l 83 n=l n=l \\\\ FEP 315 n=l FEP 255 n=l Fall 4 n=2 TT n=2 FEP Spring FEPE FEPE FEPE 56 16 Growth 5 9.5 Fall FEPE Spring Growth 5*-ALT RIT Scores Reading 2\" Grade 3^* Grade 4\" Grade 5* Grade 6'*' Grade 7' Grade 8' Grade 9' Grade 10' Grade 11*^ Grade Language 2\" Grade Grade 4'* Grade 5* Grade 6' Grade 7' Grade 8* Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11' Grade LEP 189 n=2 197 n=l 204 n=2 212 n=l Sag LEP 191 n=2 203 n=2 NAEP 205 n=2 216 n=l 213 n=l \\\\ NAEP ji FEP 193 n=l 217 n=l 227 n=l 204 n=l 227 n=l FEP 208 n=l 216 n=l 225 n=l 209 n=l 232 n=l FEPE a FEPE t- 51 Math LEP NAEP FEP FEPE 2\" Grade 182 n=l 3^* Grade 4'*' Grade 197 n=l 5'* Grade :Sa 6* Grade 7' Grade 212 n=2 204 n=l 217 n=l n=l 216 n=l n=l *?T 8'*' Grade 9'*' Grade 10'*' Grade 11'* Grade 237 n=l 252 n=l W 58 Korean Language DRA Scores K P\" 2^ Fall 1.5 n=2 n=l LEP Spring 2.5 34 Growth i Fall Y'' 28 State Benchmark Exam Math 5' Grade LEP Language 5'' Grade LEP NAEP Spring Growth NAEP NAEP SAT-9: Complete Battery NCE Scores LEP NAEP Fall 28 n=l 5*^ Grade 7' Grade IO'** Grade \\\\ 52 n=l FEP 34 n=l 87 n=l FEP Spring 44 Growth 16 Fall FEPE Spring Growth FEP 195 n=l FEP 218 n=l FEPE FEPE 4 FEPE IB ALT RIT Scores 59 Reading LEP NAEP 2\"' Grade 3\"* Grade 166 n=2 4* Grade 5* Grade 6* Grade 7* Grade 163 n=l 185 n=2 214 n=l 21n=l FEP 193 n=l \"204 n=4 221 n=l \"W n=l 204 n=l 229 n=l FEPE 8* Grade 9* Grade 10* Grade 11* Grade Language LEP 2\" Grade 3^ Grade 181 n=2 4* Grade 5* Grade 6* Grade 7* Grade 8* Grade 9^^ Grade 10* Grade 11* Grade 228 n=l NAEP 173 n=l 195 n=2 211 n=l .. '.i.E .-,- ITl n=l ' - t\n-. 230 n=l -PS it-: FEP 206 n=l 210 n=4 \"229 n=l W n=l 222 n=l IdO n=l FEPE 60Math LEP NAEP 2\"** Grade 3'I Grade 202 n=2 4 Grade S'** Grade 6 Grade 7'* Grade 8* Grade Grade 10'*'Grade 11Grade 194 n=l 192 n=2 n=l 234 n= 1 247 n=l 1 FEP 214 n=l 207 n=4 218 n=l 213 n=l 211 n=l n=l FEPE '-f'' 61Appendix E LRSD Regulations on the Academic Assessment of PHLOTE St\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_300","title":"Compliance hearing exhibits, ''Dissemination of Assessment Result''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1999/2001"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance hearing exhibits, ''Dissemination of Assessment Result''"],"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/300"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nDISSEMINATION OF ASSESSMENT RESULTzoo mm z Vi Q n 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1. Dissemination of Assessment Results Memorandum to elementary principals and teachers in Feb. 3, 1999, Learning Links, attaching the results for the second quarter reading and mathematics GRTs Memorandum to Les Gamine, June 1, 1999, providing status report on the development of the Quality Index and reporting on recommendations of Dr. Steve Ross relating to the assessment program E-mail to Gabinet, Sept. 28,1999, providing preview of grade 8 Benchmark examination results E-mail to middle school principals, Oct. 8, 1999, relating to dissemination of Benchmark results E-mail between Lucy Neal and Kathy Lease, Oct. 28-Nov. 2, 1999, relating to need for SAT9 scores to evaluate Title VI Memorandum to Judy Milam, Nov. 4, 1999, requesting report on quarterly SEA assessments Memorandum to Kathy Lease, Nov. 4, 1999, requesting report on DRA results for fall 6/ 8. E-mail to Kathy Lease, Dec. 3, 1999, advising her of Dr. Gamines request for results of climate surveys 9. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, Apr. 3, 2000, with report on Advanced Placement scores 6/ 10. Memorandum to principals in Apr. 5, 2000, Learning Links providing information on packets being sent to schools on ALT results 11. E-mail to John Ruffins and Kathy Lease, Apr. 12,2000, requesting course enrollment data for NSF report ^7 12. Memorandum to principals and teachers in Apr. 26, 2000, Learning Links with comparisons of second quarter GRT results for 1998-99 and 1999-2000 13. E-mail to Diane Barksdale, Apr. 19, 2000, providing feedback on ALT scores *7/ 14. Memorandum to all principals in May 10, 2000, Learning Links providing information about a data interpretation workshop to be conducted by NWEA staff 15. Memorandum to counselors and ALT coordinators in May 10, 2000, Learning Links providing information about a data interpretation workshop to be conducted by NWEA staff 73 16. Memorandum to professional staff of Division of Instruction in May 10, 2000, Learning Links providing information about a data interpretation workshop to be conducted by NWEA staff 17. E-mail to Dermis Glasgow and Ed Williams, May 15, 2000, requesting a special report on the middle school ALT mathematics scores 18. E-mail to SEA principals. May 23, 2000, relating to training for SEA schools for improved academic achievement 19. E-mail to Virginia Johnson, May 19-23, 2000, relating to data collections for NSE evaluations and results of middle school student survey 20. E-mail to elementary principals, June 1, 2000, relating to results of 1999-2000 Developmental Reading Assessment 21. E-mail to Kathy Lease, June 7, 2000, requesting report on Science ALTs 22. E-mail to Virginia Johnson and Ed Williams, June 7,2000, relating to data requests from Dr. Camine 23. E-mail to Kathy Lease, June 7, 2000, requesting results of middle school student survey 24. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, June 23, 2000, requesting interpretation of DRA results 25. E-mail to Les Camine, July 7, 2000, providing information on interpretation of DRA results 26. E-mail to Kathy Lease, Ed Williams, and Linda Austin, July 13, 2000, requesting data for Southwest Education Development Lab relating to implementation of the Collaborative Action Team 27. E-mail to Sadie Mitchell and Erances Cawthon Jones, July 14, 2000, relating to DRA interpretations 28. E-mail to Pat Busbea, Patricia Price, and Ed Williams, July 14, 2000, relating to interpretation of DRA results\nattached document defines proficient 29. E-mail to Patricia Price and Pat Busbea, July 17, 2000, requesting correlation of teacher participation in ELLA training and student achievement 30. E-mail to elementary staff, July 21, 2000, attaching copy of presentation slides to the Campus Leadership Institute on DRA results 77 '75' 9? 30 5s3 31. E-mail to Leon Adams, July 28,2000, providing rationale from Mitchell Academy for the abandonment of Success for All, based on data analysis 32. E-mail to selected SFA principals, Aug. 8, 2000, with report on achievement of SFA schools as compared to others and with suggestions on possible abandonment of SFA based on data analysis 33. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, Aug. 9, 2000, from Freddie Fields relating to possible modification of SFA and requesting ELLA training, based on data analysis 34. E-mail to Kathy Lease, Sept. 14, 2000, from Linda Austin requesting copy of LRSD Assessment Notebook 35. Memorandum to curriculum division, Oct. 25, 2000, announcing available reports on grades 4 and 8 Benchmark examinations 36. Memorandum to Board of Directors, Oct. 25, 2000, announcing available reports on grades 4 and 8 Benchmarks 3/ 37. Memorandum to Cabinet, Oct. 25, 2000, announcing available reports on grades 4 and 8 Benchmarks 38. Memoranda to selected principals, Nov. 3, 2000, congratulating them for achievement on grade 4 Benchmarks 9^- 39. E-mail to Kathy Lease, Nov. 6, 2000, requesting several sets of data to include in Compliance Report 40. E-mail to Patricia Price and Dennis Glasgow, Nov. 8, 2000, attaching spreadsheets on Benchmark data by SES status 41. E-mail to Kathy Lease from Tara Adams, Jan. 17, 2001, requesting information on interpretation of the ALT results 42. E-mail to principals and cabinet, Jan.l7, 2001, with attached reports on SAT9 scores, five-year comparison\nSAT9, three-year comparison\nand SAT9 quartile report. 43. E-mail to principals. May 30, 2000, with attached sample letter to parents that can accompany the ALT results 44. Document entitled Identified Issues from Data/Attendance Focus Group prepared by PRE 45. Document entitled Assessment Window prepared with advice from Focus Group /03. 46. Document entitled Assessment Advisory Committee, 2000-01 with names of advisory committee members 47. Copies of PowerPoint presentation to Board of Education, Nov. 16, 2000: A Quick Look at the 4* Grade Benchmark Exam and a Preview of the SAT-9 48. E-mail to Steve Ross, Nov. 20, 2000, including feedback to a draft plan he had written relating to loan forgiveness 49. E-mail to principals and Cabinet, Nov. 29, 2000, with information on how to access test data on the ADE web page 50. Memorandum to IRC Staff, Dec. 1, 2000, relating to available SAT9 and Benchmark reports 51. Memorandum to middle school principals, Dec. 11, 2000, attaching reports on assignments of eighth graders to high schools 52. E-mail to SEA principals and facilitators, Feb. 23, 2001, announcing training on the SEA Student Data Base 53. E-mail to Virginia Johnson, Mar. 14, 2001, relating to analysis of end-of-module test results 54. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, Apr. 23, 2001, with attached information on the Duke Talent Search 55. E-mail to middle school principals, June 29,2001, reminding them of information sent to them earlier about how to access test data on the ADE web site 56. E-mail to principals, June 29, 2001, attaching copies of DRA test results /c/p no /Il IL /// 1TO: FROM: Re: MEMO Elementary School Principals and Teachers Plarming Research and Evaluation Dr. Kathy Lease Dr. Ed Williams LRSD CRT Test Results and Reminder for March Testing Attached are the District average scores for the 2\"* quarter reading and math benchmarks. Each benchmark has four questions. _A score of three or above is considered proficient. There are ten benchmarks each for reading and math. The reading benchmarks correspond to the list of 2\"'* quarter benchmarks for each grade level. Math benchmarks combine the 1* and 2\"'* quarter benchmarks. For example: 3\"* grade math benchmark Ml 1 means 1\" quarter, benchmark, while M23 means 2\"'* quarter, 3'* benchmark. Please contact our office if you have any questions, 324-2125. The 3\"* quarter benchmark exams are scheduled to be given March lb*-18'*'. This memorandum is also to inform you of the procedures for the upcoming administration of the CRT. The grade levels to be tested are 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. The subject areas that will be tested are mathematics and reading. The CRT is scheduled to be administered to one half of the schools on March 16-17, 1999\nthe remaining schools will test on March 17-18. Each school will test on the same sequence of days as the January CRT (i.e., schools which tested on January 6-7 will test on-March 16-17, and schools which tested on January 7-8 will test on March 17-18). If you have a conflict with your assigned testing dates please contact PRE and we will try our best to accommodate your schedule. As you are aware, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) Board of Education approved the administration of the CRT to measure student progress with the curriculum. It is for this purpose that we are conducting the third CRT in March of 1999 that will assess progress on the grade level benchmarks. This test will be machine scored by PRE in order to assist teachers with the grading. Therefore, it is necessary that the instructions and procedures for administering be followed exactly. Please remember that the results of this test must be incorporated into the third nine weeks grade. The value of the test and how it is incorporated may be decided at the building level. Please share the relevant information from this memo with your teachers. 3rd Grade, 2nd Quarter, CRT Results pjumber taking me test n Average score RD1 7555 2.2391 RD2 \"7555 3.3038 RD3 2.1988 RD4 7555 2.0509 RD5 7555 2.6660 RD6 \"7555 2.8563 RD7 7555 2.9242 RD8 7555 2.6681 RD9 7555 2.2794 RD10 \"7555 2.4030 Number taking me test Average score_______ Mil 7555 2.8531 M12 -7555 3.1935 M13 2.5742 M14 \"7555 2.6273 M15 i586 2.4910 M21 \"7555 2.7078 M22 7555 2.4889 M23 7555 3.1098 IVI24 \"7555 2.9602 M25 2.7057 4th Grade, 2nd Quarter, CRT Results Numoer taking me test Average score_______ RD1 755? 2.5783 RD2 -755? 2.4906 RD3 1859* 2.7310 RD4 1659 3.0941 RD5 \"755? 2.7434 RD6 755? 2.0613 RD7 \"755? 3.1834 RD8 \"755? 2.1232 RD9 185\u0026amp; 2.3583 RD10 2.3986 Number taking me test Average score_______ Mil 1859 2.7827 M12 755? 2.8731 M13 755? 2.7138 M14 755? 3.2184 M15 \"755? 2.4933 M16 \"755? 2.6304 M21 \"755? 2.8913 M22 \"755? 2.5487 M23 755? 2.5336 M24 755? 2.6961 Sth Grade, 2nd Quarter, CRT Results Numoer taking me test Average score_______ RD1 \"7757 2.8213 Numoer taking me test Average score_______ M12 \"772T 2.2384 RD2 775T 2.7378 M14 \"7727 2.4014 RD3 772T 3.1404 M15 T72T 1.9037 RD4 7727 2.5922 M21 7757 2.0505 RD5 \"7727 3.5835 M22 7727 2.2807 RD6 \"7727 2.1398 -M23 \"7727 2.2454 RD7 \"7727 2.8399 M24 7727 2.3643 RD8 \"7727 1.6520 M25 \"7727 2.0278 RD9 \"T72T 2.4455 M26 \"7727 1.8138 RD1O 2.7732 M27 772T 1.3840 6th Grade, 2nd Quarter, CRT Results Numoer taking me test Average score_______ RD1 \"7557 3.4351 RD2 \"7557 3.6688 RD3 \"7557 2.9172 RD4 \"7557 2.3965 RD5 TW 2.6145 RD6 \"7557 2.4600 RD7 \"7557 3.2879 RD8 7557 3.2245 RD9 \"7557 2.8234 RD10 \"7557 3.0810 Numoer taking me test Average score Mil 7557 2.7948 M13 \"TUST 3.0414 M14 108^ 2.3891 M21 \"7557 2.4821 M22 \"7557 1.9954 M23 7557 2.3717 M24 7557 2.5713 M25 7557 2.2410 M26 wr 2.4839 M27 \"7557 1.8896 Page 1 I 2 Division of Instruction Instructional Resource Center 3001 S Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 (501) 324-2131 TO: Les Camine, Superintendent FROM: Bonnie Lesley SUBJ: Quality Index DATE: June 1, 1999 I have been very concerned for several months about how to move forward with Cluster Bs assignment, given the following unresolved problems: 1. Decisions relating to the assessment plan, especially the need for annual tests at every grade level if we are going to emphasize value-added gains of individual students. 2. How to avoid two conflicting accountability systems: ACTAAP and the LRSD Quality Index. On Tuesday, May 25, Kathy Lease and I met with Dr. Steve Ross for several hours. We reviewed our progress since we had last met with him, and we sought his advice on several issues still to be decided. His advice on assessment follows\n1. 2. 3. That we identify one test to administer annually at every grade and that we avoid any mix and match (such as two different tests at grades K-2\nthe SAT9 for state- mandated grade levels\nand something else for other grades). The test we choose must, of course, be aligned with our curriculum standards and benchmarks and should, to the extent possible, be aligned with the States benchmark examinations. That Kathy Lease should investigate the availability of instruments, check with school districts that have used them, compare short- and long-range costs, and construct an assessment plan with all haste. He suggested that we look at the Terra Nova series, K-10, since this is the test used by Tennessee in their value-added system. That we test reading and mathematics only for the immediate future since they are the priorities and since it is more difficult to secure alignment of science and social studies instruments with local curriculum and those data dont tend to be useful. On the Quality Index, he made the following suggestions: Option 1. Drop the idea of a local system and use the state system, ACTAAP. The rationale includes the idea that if we align the local system with ACTAAP, we would need a correlation of at least .9. The question then becomes, why bother? Why have two separate systems that would serve to confuse principals, other staff, and the public? Another argument is that we could use the energy and resources that would be necessary to develop, communicate, maintain, and refine a local system to building the schools capacity to improve in ways to impact ACTAAP measures. We could go ahead and develop our local system of rewards/recognitions and sanctions. Quality Schools would be schools that achieve x percentage of state indicators, plus demonstrate an acceptable level of implementation of district reforms. I Option II. Adopt the ACTAAP system for local use. Then use other academic indicators to triangulate data, to find a preponderance of evidence that improvement has/has not occurred. Use a more qualitative approach to making decisions about rewards and sanctions. The qualitative analysis could be the text of the school narrative that must be provided in Tier 3 of ACTAAP. Option in. Adopt the ACTAAP for local use. Use our own system of rewards and sanctions. Include other desired indicators in the building-level report card, but not as part of the determination of accountability status. Option IV. Contact Dr. William Sanders, who developed the Tennessee system and see if he will contract with us in the development of out systemif we are determined to pursue a local system. Sophisticated statistical procedures are required to make it credible, and we need to be sure that we have the appropriate testing in place. Dr. Ross noted that when we began to create the Quality Index, the state system was not yet on the table. Its development is a strong reason for us to adjust and modify our plans since compliance with the state system will consume so much energy. The use of ACTAAP does not preclude our ability to include a value-added report to the community, either as a part of a report to the Board, in a press conference, or as a significant part of the building-level report cards that are to be distributed to every school community. I have devoted a considerable number of hours trying to complete the Cluster B report. I cannot, of course, complete the list of academic indicators until Dr. Lease finalizes the assessment plan since I must know what measures will be available at each grade level, and I must know how to include the value-added piece. The more I try to align the indicators with the state system, so as to avoid confusion and mixed messages to the school and to the community, the more convinced I am that we do not need two separate systems. I recommend that we consider some combination of Options II and III for the Quality Index. In this way, we still get what we want without creating a second accountability system. ACTAAP I have studied the latest draft of ACTAAP, and it seems clear to me that we need to move rapidly to realign some of our thinking so that we optimize the schools ability to do well on the measures that matter in the state accountability system. According to the February draft, the SAT9 scores will not count in the point system, and, indeed, ADE is phasing out norm-referenced tests. The Tier I indicators depend solely on the Arkansas benchmark examinations at grades 4, 6, 8, and the end-of-level tests at the high school level. If this draft is going to prevail, then we need to pay a great deal more attention to the use/ implementation of the Smart Start gateway examinations that have been provided by Doug Reeves through the ADE. We need also to place more emphasis on training all teachers how to teach writing in their disciplines\nwe need to require that nine-weeks and semester examinations be at least 60 percent constructed responses\nand we need to train teachers how to develop their own performance tasks with assessments and rubrics. As some of us have said all year as well, the new curriculum that we are establishing in language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies calls for performance assessments, assessments that test whether students have learned the material beyond memorization or lucky guesses to the level of understanding. These approaches would support more vigorously what is happening at the state level and would enable us more quickly to show improvement on those important examinations. Finally, I have spent the last month reviewing and synthesizing several instructional framework models and cognitive science research for the presentation that I will be making to high school teachers on June 4. After doing so, I am more and more convinced that performance assessments are more appropriate measures of student achievement than the SAT9 and similar examinations. I do not object to the administration of a norm-referenced test, but I think we as leaders should down-play its importance in favor of a more performance-based measure. Next Stens As you can see, the basic assumptions that we have been working on all year in planning the assessment system and in the Cluster B assignments seem to have changed as we have learned more about what the state plans are and as we have thought through what we need to be doing. We need, I think, to have a real discussion of these issues at least at the Cabinet level and then to make appropriate adjustments to our planning so that we can move forward. Right now we are stuck. 3 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LEASE. KATHY R. Tuesday, September 28,1999 5:21 PM BABBS, JUNIOUS\nCAWTHON, FRANCES H.\nGADBERRY, BRADY L.\nHURLEY, RICHARD\nLESLEY, BONNIE\nCARNINE, LESLIE V.\nWATSON, LINDA\nLACEY, MARIAN G.\nMILHOLLEN, MARK\nMITCHELL, SADIE\nVANN, SUELLEN\nANDERSON, VICTOR Benchmark Exams-8th grade-98-99 Heres a quick preview of our S grade benchmark exam results. We can talk about these further later. We will schedule a meeting with all middle school principals and go over these results. We are then going to volunteer to work with teachers at each school to talk about these results and what they mean. If you have any questions, give me a call. Benchmark Grade 8 charts 98-99.. Kathy Dr. Kathy Lease, Asst. Supt. Planning, Research, and Evaluation Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski St. Little Rock, AR 72206 Phone: 501-324-2122 Fax: 501-324-2126 Email: krieaseig)irc.lrsd.k12.ar.us 1 100% 90% 88% 80% 70% -- 63% 60% 50% 40% 30% -- 2 3% 20% 10%-/^ 0% i% Cloverdale Dunbar Grade 8 Benchmark (2/99): Math, All Students W%- 65% 2 3% 73% 72% 52% 48% Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced :3% :2% 2 3% 2 2% Hr 2% % 2% 3% %% Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest 4LESLEY, BONNIE From\nSent: To\nCc: Subject\nLEASE, KATHY R. Friday, October 08, 1999 11:09 AM BERRY, DEBORAH\nFULLERTON, JAMES\nHUDSON, ELOUISE\nJAMES, BRENDA\nBUCK, LARRY\nMOSBY, JIMMY\nPATTERSON, DAVID\nROUSSEAU, NANCY BRIGGS, MONA\nDILLINGHAM, YVETTE\nMcCOY, EDDIE\nJOHNSON, VIRGINIA\nTRUETT, IRMA\nWILLIAMS, ED Benchmark Scores Importance: High Dear Middle School Principals: We are very sensitive to number of times that we ask you to come out of your buildings for meetings, but we know that you want your benchmark data as soon as possible. Weve come up with an idea that might work. You are supposed to be in a meeting with Dr. Lesley on school improvement plans on Oct. 14'^ at 10:30. Could you meet with PRE at 9:30 in the superintendents conference room? We will give you your scores and the released items, and answer questions about strategies to improve scores. Ed has done a bar graph that you may find helpful. Let me know if this plan will not work for you. Thanks, Kathy Dr. Kathy Lease, Asst. Supt. Planning, Research, and Evaluation Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski St. Little Rock, AR 72206 Phone: 501-324-2122 Fax: 501-324-2126 Email: krleaseig)irc.lrsd.k12.ar.us 1 5 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Tuesday, November 02,1999 1:19 PM TRUETT, IRMA FW: Title VI Evaluation Can you get this to Lucy once we get the 99's are finished? Make me a copy, too. KL Dr. Kathy Lease, Asst. Supt. Planning, Research, and Evaluation Little Rock School District Phone: 501-324-2122 3001 S. Pulaski st. Little Rock, AR 72206 Fax: 501-324-2126 Email: krlease@irc.lrsd.k12.ar.us -----Original Message----- From: NEAL, LUCY Sent: Monday, November 01, 1999 8:14 AM To: LEASE, KATHY R. Subject: RE: Title Vl Evaluation I think it is December 1. I'll check with Leon. Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Sunday, October 31, 1999 11:21 PM NEAL, LUCY WILLIAMS, ED RE: Title VI Evaluation The 99 SAT-9's just came in. We are verifying hard copy scores with our computer program. We'll get your scores to you. What is your deadline? KL Original Message From: NEAL. LUCY Sent: Thursday, October 28,1999 2:12 PM To: LEASE, KATHY R. Subject: Title Vl Evaluation Last year I got a little Title VI money for library books at the middle schools and one of the evaluations we put down was SAT-9 scores. Haven't heard anybody say we have them for this fall yet, but here is what I need if you can point this request to the right person in your shop. Fall 98 Stanford scores for grade 7 on Reading/Language Arts Fall 99 Stanford scores for grade 7 on Reading/Language Arts I don't even need it broken down by school. I hope you can help me and please let me know if you need more information. Thank you to the department that lives to serve. Lucy M. Neal, Director, Technology and Media Services Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501.324.0577 (voice) 501.324.0504 (fax) 1 6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 (501)324-2131 November 4, 1999 TO: Judy Milam FROM: Dr. Bonnie Lesley^^^i isociate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: Eight-Week SFA Assessments Please provide me quarterly with an analysis of each SFA schools progress as revealed in the assessment data. We can monitor progress using this information. BAL/rcm 1 Cc: Pat Price 7 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 (501)324-2131 November 4, 1999 TO: Dr. Kathy Lease, Assistant Superintend, Planning Research \u0026amp; Evaluation FROM: Dr. Bonnie Lesley 'Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: K-2 Observation Surveys I am eagerly anticipating the results of our initial assessment of K-2 children. When can I expect these data? What is the process for establishing performance levels? BAL/rcm 8 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Tuesday, December 07,1999 10:56 AM TRUETT, IRMA FW: Reports to Dr. Gamine Dr. Kathy Lease, Asst. Supt. Planning, Research, and Evaluation Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski SI. Little Rock, AR 72206 Phone: 501-324-2122 Fax: 501-324-2126 Email: kriease^irc.lrsd.kl 2.ar.us Original Message- F ro m: __5AVAGE, KEN iT -riday, December 03^ ffo: LEASI :14 PM Reports to Dr. Gamine Thanks for the advance notice that Dr. Gamine would be looking for me-he did today at lunch. It seems he was VERY interested in having the overall results for the parents and for the teachers. I just delivered the reports that he asked for with the latest data. I am attaching copies of the reports to this email. One note, youll notice a number in the box with each question. That number is the total percentage of respondents who either marked \"Strongly Agree\" or \"Agree for that question. ParenlA Table 12-3.xls Parents Table 12-3.xls Teacher Table 12-3.xls ENJOY! Ken. 1 9 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: DONALDSON, MABLE Monday, April 03. 2000 3:33 PM LESLEY. BONNIE RE: AP Scores I just faxed the information to 324-0504. Did you get the fifteen pages? Original Message From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 3:09 PM To: DONALDSON. MABLE Subject: RE: AP Scores Right! Thanks. 324-0567 (fax) Original Message From: Sent: To: DONALDSON, MABLE Monday, April 03, 2000 2:19 PM LESLEY, BONNIE Subject: RE: AP Scores Yes I can. You are talking about the full report of scores, right? Original Message From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 1:42 PM To: DONALDSON, MABLE Subject: AP Scores Thanks for getting the report to me. In the copy for 1999 that you gave me earlier, I could not read the last couple of columns~cut off by copy machine, I think. Can you fax me another copy of that report? Thanks. 1 10 Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Instructional Resource Center 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72201 DD To: From: Date: Re: rincipals\nathy Lease, Asst. Supt, PRE April 3, 2000 Achievement Level Test Results ^^1 Enclosed in the packets being sent to you by school mail you will find the Class Reports for teachers that show the Achievement Level Test results, for students by class and preliminary reports on data by subject and grade. When you review the reports, remember that the emphasis is on the RIT score, which will be the baseline score that we will use to monitor the growth of students. M i? w I Pr0\u0026lt;^ Retest results are on separate sheets because system software is programmed to combine the two reports only when retest results from all schools are entered. Three schools did not meet the deadline, so it is not possible to complete the remaining reports at this time. As soon as these schools turn in their retests, they will be scanned, and the process of generating school reports, individual student reports and parent reports will begin. PRE will work as quickly as possible to get these results to you. Those of you who honored test deadlines are appreciated. Many worked very hard to complete the testing on time. S' PRE will be scheduling a workshop on interpreting ALT test data\nhowever, we have several time constraints centering around requirements for the Benchmark and End of Course testing. Videos will also be available for use with staff and parents\nwe are doing some editing on the videos at this time. The goal is to have videos delivered to you in time to use as you interpret your data. 0w fi\nH w I As each of you review test results, please note any errors, omissions, or questions, and call, fax, or email us. We appreciate receiving this input in writing so that we can have a record of concerns and be able to track the resolution to the problem. We cant thank you enough for your efforts in the initial implementation of this phase of the districts new assessment program. The only piece that is still to be administered is the science test. We will communicate with you shortly on the proposed timeline for that test. The data from math and science tests will be essential to our ability to track our progress with the NSF grant. I 11LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Wednesday, April 12, 2000 4:56 PM LEASE, KATHY R. RE: NSF Report I think one problem is that she reported every single math course as a gate-keeping course, but she didn't get the total enrollment included since she didn't aggregate the various versions of a course. Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Wednesday, April 12, 2000 3:43 PM LESLEY. BONNIE RUFFINS, JOHN\nSAVAGE. KEN\nJOHNSON. VIRGINIA\nCARNINE. LESLIE V. RE\nNSF Report Virginia is going through the data that has already been pulled. She was originally told to pull the gatekeeping courses, so we will request from John whatever courses are missing from your list. KL Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc: LESLEY, BONNIE Wednesday, April 12, 2000 10:50 AM RUFFINS, JOHN\nLEASE, KATHY R. CARNINE, LESLIE V.\nJOHNSON, VIRGINIA Subject: NSF REport I just returned from a meeting with the NSF program officer, and he is requiring us to submit to him THIS WEEK a ton of information in order to justify our continued funding. I MUST have immediately the following: disaggregated by school, race and gender, the enrollment this year (October 1?) in every mathematics and science course. Please get someone on this TODAY, or we will not have the time we need to convert it to our tables and do the analysis and interpretation. THANKS. The numbers follow: Mathematics MATH 111000 112000 112001 112002 112004 112006 112008 113001 113002 113003 113004 113006 113008 114000 114002 115000 115002 115004 115006 ALGI ALGIl ACT PREP:MATH ALG 11 PRE-AP GEOMETRY GEOM PRE-AP CONCEPT GEOM PRE-CALC A PRE-CALCULUS PRE-CAL B U TRIG/ADV ALG TRIG PRE-AP STATISTICS CALCULUS APPL OF MATH STATS AP CALC AB AP CALC BC AP CALC AB APU Algebra I Algebra II ACT Preparation: Mathematics Algebra II Pre-AP Geometry Geometry Pre-AP Concepts of Geometry Pre-Calculus A (Hall only) 9-12 10-12 10-12 9-12 10-12 10-12 10-12 11-12 1 1 /2 1 111 1/2 Pre-Calculus Pacesetter Mathematics (Hall, McClellan, Parkview Only) 11-12 Pre-Calculus B U (University Studies\nHall only) Trigonometry/ Advanced Algebra Trigonometry/ Advanced Algebra Pre-AP Statistics Calculus Applications of Mathematics (Fair only) Statistics AP Calculus AB AP Calculus BC AP Calculus AB APU (University Course) (Hall 11-12 11-12 11-12 12 11-12 11-12 11-12 12 11-12 11 11 1111 1 Only 11-12 1 1 1 Course # MS MATH 116002 116004 116010 116100 117002 117004 117006 117010 117012 117100 118002 118004 118006 118008 118010 118100 Abbreviation Title Grade(s) Credit PLATO LAB-MATH MATH 6 MATH 6 PRE-AP MATH 6 GT MAP 6 MATH 7 MATH 7 PRE-AP ALG 1 PRE-AP INTL MONEY MATH 7 GT MAP 7 MATHS MATH 8 PRE-AP ALG 1 PRE-AP GEOM PRE-AP ALG 2 PRE-AP MAP 8 Mathematics 6 Mathematics 6 Pre-AP Mathematics 6 GT (Dunbar only) MAP 6 Mathematics 7 Mathematics 7 Pre-AP Algebra I Pre-AP (Dunbar only) International Money (Dunbar only) Mathematics 7 GT ([Dunbar only) MAP 7 Mathematics 8 Mathematics 8 Pre-AP Algebra I Pre-AP Geometry Pre-AP (Dunbar only) Algebra II Pre-AP MAPS 666 6777 7-8 7 $ 8 88 88 119000 119002 119004 ALG I PLTO ALG II PLTO GEOM PLTO Algebra I (Plato Lab) (Central, Fair, McClellan) Algebra I (Plato Lab) (Central, Fair, McClellan) Geometry (Plato Lab) (Central, Fair, McClellan) Science SCIENCE 131000 131002 Deleted ESL PHYS I ESL Physics I (Hall Only) PHYSICS I 131004 131006 131008 131010 132000 132002 132004 133000 133002 133004 133006 PHYS 1 PRE-AP 9-12 Physics f 1 PHYSICS I ESL ACT PHYS ACTIVE PHYS ESL BIOL 1 BIOLOGY 1 BIO 1 PRE-AP ESL CHEMI CHEMISTRY I CHEM 1 PRE-AP ANAT\u0026amp;PHYS 1 1 1 1 111 1 1 I 1 11 11 9-12 10-12 11-12 1 9~12 111 1 Physics I Pre-AP (Students may take this course instead of Active Physics or in addition to Active Physics) 9-12 Physics I ESL Active Physics (Hall only) Active Physics ESL Biology 1 (Hall Only) Biology I Biology I Pre-AP ESL Chemistry I (Hall Only) Chemistry 1 Chemistry I Pre-AP Human Anatomy and Physiology 11-12 9-12 9-12 9-12 10-12 10-12 9-12 11-12 11-12 11-12 1 11 11 11 11 1 2 Course # J33008 Deleted Abbreviation Title AOysa RSRCH Grade(s) Credit 133010 133101 133103 133104 133105 133107 133109 133110 133111 134000 135001 135002 135004 135006 135008 135010 135012 135014 135016 MS SCI 136000 136002 136004 136006 136008 136010 136012 136014 136016 136018 137000 137001 137002 137003 137004 137006 137008 137014 137016 137018 138000 138001 138002 138004 138006 138008 138014 138016 138018 138020 ADV RSRCH MICROBIO QUAL ANALY PHYSICS I PRE-AP STATS/WRTG ENV HEALTH ANAT\u0026amp;PHYS PHYSICS I PRE-AP ORG CHEM GEOL/SPACE BIO lAU PHYS 2 AP PHYS 2 APU BIOL 2 AP CHEM 2 AP ENV SCI AP BIOL 2 APU BIO 11 AP PHYS I PRE-AP U Advanced Science/ Theoretical Research Pre-AP Advanced Science/ Theoretical Research 11-12 1 PLATOLAB SCIENCE ESL SCI 6 SCIENCE 6 SCIENCE 6 PRE-AP HEALTH SCI 6 HLTH SCI 6 PRE-AP SCIENCE/HEALTH 6 SCI/HLTH 6 PRE-AP LAB SCIENCE 6 LAB SCI 6 PRE-AP SCIENCE 6 GT ESL SCI 7 SCI ILLUS SCIENCE 7 TECH WRTG SCIENCE 7 PRE-AP HEALTH SCI 7 HLTH SCI 7 PRE-AP LAB SCIENCE 7 LAB SCI 7 PRE-AP SCIENCE 7 GT ESL SCI 8 SEM HLTH SCI SCIENCE 8 SCIENCE 8 PRE-AP HEALTH SCI 8 HLTH SCI 8 PRE-AP LAB SCIENCE 8 LAB SCI 8 PRE-AP SCIENCE 8 GT SEM HLTH SCI 139000 139002 BIOG I PLTO CHEM I PLTO Microbiology (Parkview Only) Qualitative Analysis (Parkview Only) Physics I Pre-AP 11-12 11-12 11-12 11-12 A A 1 1 Applied Statistics and Technical Writing (Parkview Only) 11-12 Environmental Health (Parkview Only) 11-12 Human Anatomy and Physiology (Parkview Only) Physics I Pre-AP (Early Bird) Organic Chemistry (Parkview Only) Geology and Space Science 11-12 11-12 12 Biology lA U (University Studies\nHall only) 11-12 Physics II AP Physics II APU (Hall Only) Biology n AP Chemistry II AP Environmental Science AP Biology II APU (University Course) (Hall Only) Biology II AP (zero hour) 12 Physics I Pre-AP (University Studies\nHall only) ESL Science 6 (Cloverdale and Dunbar) Science 6 Science 6 Pre-AP Health Science 6 (Henderson only) Health Science 6 Pre-AP (Henderson only) Science/Health 6 (Mann only) Science/Health 6 Pre-AP (Mann only) Laboratory Science 6 (Mann only) Laboratory Science 6 Pre-AP (Mann only) Science 6 GT (Dunbar only) ESL Science 7 (Cloverdale and Dunbar) Scientific Illustration (Henderson only) Science 7 Technical Writing (Henderson only) Science 7 Pre-AP Health Science 7 (Henderson only) Health Science 7 Pre-AP (Henderson only) Laboratory Science 7 (Mann only) Laboratory Science 7 Pre-AP (Mann only) Science 7 GT (Dunbar only) ESL Science 8 Seminar in Health Science (Henderson only) Science 8 Science 8 Health Science 8 (Henderson only) Health Science 8 Pre-AP (Henderson only) Laboratory Science 8 (Mann only) Laboratory Science 8 Pre-AP (Mann only) Science 8 GT (Dunbar only) Seminar in Health Science (Henderson only) 12 12 12 12 11-12 'A 11-12 1 '/a 1 /a 11111 12 1 11-12 Vi 1 1 6666666666 7 7-8 7 7-8 7777778888888888 1 11 11 I I 11 11 /a 1 '/a 11 11 1 I 1 /a 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 Biology I (Plato Lab) (Central, Fair, McClellan) Chemistry I (Plato Lab) (Central, Fair, McClellan) 10-12 11-12 I I Special Education Mathematics 191004 Math 1 RR 191006 PhysSci RR 191008 Biology RR 191010 Health Science RR 191104 Math 1 SC 191106 Phys Sci SC 192004 Math 2 RR 192012 Earth Sci RR 192104 Math 2 SC 192016-Biology SC 193004 Math 3 RR 193104 Math 3 SC 193106 Health Sci SC 194004 Math 4 RR 3 194104 Math 4 SC 194106 Earth Sci SC 196004 Math 6 RR 196006 Sci 6 RR 196104 Math 6 SC 196106 Sci 6 SC 197004 Math 7 RR 197006 Sci 7 RR 197104 Math 7 SC 197106 Sci 7 SC 198004 Math 8 RR 198006 Sci 8 RR 198104 Math 8 SC 198106 Sci 8 SC The numbers that I have given you include some new numbers that have been added for next year, but almost all were in existence in 1999-2000. 4 12MEMORANDUM LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning Research \u0026amp; Evaluation April 18,2000 To: Principals and Teachers fFrroomm\n: )Dr. Ed R. Wvviullniaamiuss,, oSitaautissLtiicuiiaann aannud rRveesbeeaarrcchn oSppecialist, P ' ThroughKathy Lease, Assistant Superintendent, PRE Re: Comparing 2\"' QT CRT results, 1998 v. 1999 Attached are two documents containing 2\"'^ QT CRT from the 1998-99 and 1999-00 school year. The first attachment: Compares the same grade year to year Reports the percent correct on each of the Benchmarks and total percent correct for the Reading test. Total percent correct is reported for the Math test. Since different Benchmarks were measured on the two Math tests, year-to year comparison is not appropriate. Same grade comparison data is helpful to determine the success of benchmark mastery, instructional methods, and curriculum implementation. In the reading test, 3^', 4*, and 5* grades demonstrated a total score gain of 1% while the 6* grade had a decrease of 3%. In the math test, 4* and 5* grade had gains of 1.5% and 18.8%, while 3\"* and 6* grades had a decrease of 3.4% and 4%. The second attachment: Reports year-to year growth Reports only percent correct on the entire test, since the benchmarks change from one year to the next Year-to-year growth is an indicator of chaining. That is, how well did students build on the learning principles learned in an earlier grade level. Except for growth figures for the math test, 6* grade to 7'* grade, all students demonstrated growth in scores. In reading, 6* grade students in 1998 demonstrated the greatest amount of growth moving from 75% correct in 1998 to 83% correct in 1999. In the math test, 1998 5* grade students demonstrated the greatest amount of growth moving from 52% correct in 1998 to 57% correct in 1999. Test Description. The 1998 and 1999 reading tests had 40 questions each and measured 10 benchmarks. Thel998 math tests had 40 questions and measured 10 benchmarks, but 1999 tests ranged from 16 to 36 questions and did not measure as many benchmarks as the 1998 tests. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 324-2125. k i 2nd Quarter Reading CRT Results for the 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 School Year 3rd grade 3rd grade 1998 1999 % + or- 4th grade 4th grade 1998 1999 % + or- Benchmark % correct % correct Benchmark % correct % correct Total 1 2' 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 56% 83% 55% 51% 67% 71% 73% 67% 57% 60% 64% 58% 83% 58% 48% 68% 74% 70% 74% 59% 59% 65% 5th grade 5th grade 1998 1999 Benchmark % correct % correct Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 70% 68% 79% 65% 90% 60% 71% 41% 61% 69% 67% 73% 70% 82% 60% 92% 55% 70% 43% 62% 73% 68% 2% 0% 3% -3% 1% 3% -3% 7% 2% -1% 1% Total % + or- 3% 2% 3% -5% 2% -5% -1% 2% 1% 4% 1% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 64% 62% 68% 77% 69% 52% 80% 53% 59% 60% 64% 67% 63% 70% 61% 87% 18% 83% 57% 63% 64% 65% 6th grade 6th grade 1998 1999 Benchmark % correct % correct Total 1 2' 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 86% 92% 73% 60% 65% 62% 82% 81% 71% 77% 75% 85% 93% 74% 57% 54% 55% 80% 79% 67% 76% 72% 3% 1% -16% 18% -34% 3% 4% 4% 4% 1% % + or- -1% 1% 1% -3% -11% -6% -2% -2% -4% -1% -3% 2nd Quarter Math CRT Results for the 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 School Year 3rd grade 3rd grade 1998 1999 % + or- 4th grade 4th grade 1998 1999 % + or- Total Total % correct % correct I 69.3% 1 65.9%| -3.4% Sth grade Sth grade 1998 1999 % + or- % correct % correct I 52% I 70.8% I 18.8% Total Total % correct % correct I 68% I 69.5% 1 1.5% 6th grade 6th grade 1998 1999 % + or - % correct % correct I 61% I 57% I -4% 13 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Tuesday, May 02, 2000 4:32 PM BARKSDALE, MARY D. RE: ALT Results Thanks for this invite. I wish I could have been there. Last week was one of those weeks from hell for me. I wrote the District's application for the Quality award, and it was really, really hard. I prayed the kids would do their best last week. We really need to look good on this. Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: BARKSDALE, MARY D. Wednesday, April 19, 2000 7:13 PM LESLEY, BONNIE RE: ALT Results Thank you for the wonderful news. I only hope that the team effort will pay off next week in Benchmark results. We have developed a rubric for participation for next week and a reward/incentive of Fourth Grade Field Day Friday afternoon. Craig O'Neal is coming Friday Morning at 9:30 for a rally. You are invited to bothwhy not come and get out of the IRC for a few minutes. We would love to have you. Bring anyone else you can get your hands on-ya'll need some fun time also. DBarksdale Original Message From: Sent: To: BARKSDALE, MAiBXDr Subject: ALT RySulIT I've had a quick look this morning of the ALT scores, and your school apparently did greatl Congratulations! This is wonderful. I know that your whole team worked really, really hard this year. 1 14 I I To: From: Through: Subject: LL Sbofoo Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Ish Instructional Resource Center Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 All Principals May 7, 2000 Dr. Kathy Lease, Assistant Superintende\nMona Briggs, Evaluation Specialist'Zb^ Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent NWEA Training This is to inform you that we are scheduling a data interpretation training session regarding the Achievement Level Test information. A consultant from NWEA out of Portland will be with us. This session will be geared specifically for principals. We will be meeting on May 25 from 8:30 am until 3:30 pm in room 18 here at the IRC. At that time you will receive your ALT test results. This should be a very beneficial meeting for you as you begin the process of using your ALT data. Cc: Dr. Les. Camine Dr. Bonnie Lesley J. Babbs15 w t?o Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Ish Instructional Resource Center Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 May 7, 2000 To: From: Through: Subject: Counselors \u0026amp; ALT Coordinators v Mona Briggs, Evaluation Specialist /\u0026gt;/\u0026gt; Dr. Kathy Lease, Assistant SuperintendeQ,^^^ NWEA Training This is to inform you that we are scheduling a data interpretation training session regarding the Achievement Level Test information. A consultant from NWEA out of Portland will be with us. This session will be especially helpful for counselors and testing coordinators. We will be meeting on May 24 from 8:30 am until 3:30 pm in the Board Room at the District Office. This should be a very beneficial meeting for you as you begin the process of using your ALT data. Cc: J. Babbs J. Elston16co TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: Planning, Research, and Evaluation Ish Instructional Resource Center Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 May 8, 2000 Professional Staff of Division of Instruction Mona Briggs, Evaluation Specialist Dr. Kathy Lease, Assistant Superintendent NWEA Training / This is to inform you that a data interpretation training session regarding the Achievement Level Test information has been scheduled for this month. A consultant from NWEA out of Portland will be with us. We believe you will find this session especially informative and helpful to you. We will be meeting at the IRC, room 18 on Tuesday, May 23 from 8:30 a.m. until 3:30 p.m. We hope that you can make arrangements to join us for this very informative session. MB/adg 1 I I '1 f Little Rock School District NORTHWEST EVALUATION ASSOCIATION Using Data to Make a Difference Interpreting Level Test Reports May 23-25, 2000 8:30 Agenda Welcome and introductions Intended Accomplishments Workshop participants will... Understand the Level Test administration process including locator tests, retest issues, and logistics Read and interpret Achievement Level Test reports Use data to focus instruction and evaluate programs Communicate data to parents and students 8:45 Level Test Administration Locator tests Why retest? Adjusting the levels and reducing retest rates Logistics - tips to make test administration more efficient Test environment - Language shapes your future 10:00 Break 10:15 How to read and interpret reports - Class reports Parent report Longitudinal report District goal summary report 12:00 Lunch 1:00 1:30 Communication with students and parents Using the RJT chart to communicate Setting classroom and individual student goals Interpreting your own data Data analysis assignment Investigating the data 3:15 Debrief assignments ! Questions and answers 17 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Monday, May 15, 2000 2:14 PM GLASGOW, DENNIS\nWILLIAMS, ED Middle School Math I need a report, by teacher and by school, of the middle school math scores on the ALT. I need to know which classes are regular and which are Pre-AP. We need to know exactly what is happening in those classes. Even though our current controversy is only at grade 6, I'd like to see all three grade levels. Thanks! 1 18LESLEY, BONNIE From\nSent: To: Cc: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Tuesday, May 23, 2000 5:06 PM KEOWN, ADA\nCOX, ELEANOR\nSMITH, DARIAN\nWORM, JERRY\nFIELDS, FREDERICK\nBRANCH, SAMUEL\nSCULL, LILLIE\nWILSON, JANICE M. ADAMS, LEON\nMILAM, JUDY\nMITCHELL, SADIE\nCAWTHON, FRANCES H. SFA I asked for a meeting today with the SFA folks from Memphis to talk about next year and the kind of support that you all need to be even more successful. I was delighted to learn that all except one school was greatly improved this year in terms of their evaluation of the site visits, and I am so very pleased. Thanks for your hard work. I asked specifically about the family support component and why we are not getting that here. It is an option, they told me, and they will be happy to add it to the contract of any school that wants it. If you are interested in knowing more about that, in adding more professional development for your school to meet specific needs, or in any other of the services that they have available, then please call Betsy or, of course, Judy Milam, and they will answer your questions. As I understand the situation, the Title I office negotiates the basic contract, but you may certainly use your Title I funds to add to that basic contract for additional training or programs or materials-whatever you need to support your teachers. You can amend your Title I plan if you need to so that it includes the additional contract components. Keep Mr. Adams informed if you need to do that. Again, I feel much better at the end of this year than I did after the report I received at the end of last year. I know you have worked hard to get your school to a higher level of implementation, that your teachers have had more training this year, and that generally you have had more information. Congratulations. We are improving, and that is what we all want to see! 1 19LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Tuesday, May 23, 2000 12:33 PM JOHNSON, VIRGINIA RE: SECME EVALUATION When can I see the results of the kid survey on middle school? Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: JOHNSON, VIRGINIA Monday, May 22, 2000 9:19 AM LESLEY, BONNIE FW: SECME EVALUATION I appreciate the way you are handling this. I admire the outcomes of your administrative style. FYI. Related to evaluation of the academic enrichment initiatives (see list), I got data last Thursday and Friday from 179 participants (Elementary, Middle, and High Schoolers) in the Summer Science Club Program at their final meeting. The final version of the program evaluation report for this initiative will be ready to distribute at our project meeting next week. In addition, I hope to have the report for the UALR Summer Science Institute done and ready to distribute at that time. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Museum of Discovery After School Science Club Program University of Arkansas at Little Rock Summer Science Institute Philander Smith College Summer Algebra Readiness Program(SARP) Algebra Summer Math Advanced Readiness Training (SMART) SECME Thrive Algebra Community-based Family Math and Science Thank you again. -----Original Message From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Friday, May 19, 2000 9:16 AM To:CLEAVER, VANESSA Subject: RE: SECME EVALUATION No-I just wondered if you were thinking we should evaluate the program Jo Evelyn is doing. --Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc: CLEAVER, VANESSA Thursday, May 18, 2000 3:36 PM LESLEY, BONNIE JOHNSON, VIRGINIA Subject: RE: SECME EVALUATION Dr. Lesley, I simply would like to know what impact SECME is making on our students. How are we measuring that impact to 1 justify our continued support? Virginia did an evaluation of the After School Science Club program. She correlated the program activities to the standards and benchmarks. I'd like to do the same for SECME. I'm not worried about our project evaluation - this is just information that I'd like to have about this particular program. I'll be happy to sit down with you and discuss this further. Original Message From: Sent: To: CLEAVER, VANESSA LESLEY, BONNIE Wednesday, May 17, 2000 11:47 AM Subject: RE: SECME EVALUATION I don't understand what this is about. Are you intending to use Jo's evaluation as a supplement to the one that Virginia is doing? Are you worried about our project evaluation? I don't understand. Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: CLEAVER, VANESSA Wednesday, May 17, 2000 9:54 AM JOHNSON, VIRGINIA LESLEY, BONNIE SECME EVALUATION I would like to meet with Jo Evelyn to take a look at her evaluation plan for SECME. We need to know if it will meet our needs. I've requested a copy of the evaluation plan from the project director of Prince George's County Public Schools (they are a CPMSA site). When are you available? I can arrange for Jo Evelyn to come over here. Vanessa E. Cleaver Project Director - LR CPMSA (501) 324-0522 2 20LESLEY, BONNIE From\nSent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Tuesday, June 06, 2000 8:34 AM BARKSDALE, MARY D. RE: K-2 Literacy Thanks, Diane. Hope you all had a good last day yesterday! Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject\nBARKSDALE, MARY D. Sunday, June 04, 2000 6:55 PM LESLEY, BONNIE RE: K-2 Literacy Wow, what an upper. Thanks to you and your leadership we have all been focused in the right direction and hopefully are going to make progress withALL kids. Diane Original Message From: Sent: To: lesle\nThi Al way, June 01,2000 10:45 lERSON, BARBABAHASfffEY, VIRGINIA\nBRANCH. SAMUEL\nCARSON, CHERYL\nCARTER, LILLIE\nCHEATHAM, MARY\nCc: Subject: ---CUORTnEY, THERESA\nCOX, ELEANOR\nDARIAN SMITH\nDEBORAH MITCHELL\nETHEL DUNBAR\nFaith Donovan\nFIELDS, FREDERICK\nGOLSTON, MARY\nHARKEY, JANE\nHOBBS, FELICIA L.\nJONES, BEVERLY\nKEOWN, ADA\nMANGAN, ANN\nMARY BARKSDALE\nMENKING, MARY\nMORGAN, SCOTT\nNANCY ACRE\nOLIVER, MICHAEL\nPHILLIPS, TABITHA\nSHARON BROOKS\nTUCKER, JANIS A.\nWARD, LIONEL\nWILSON, JANICE M.\nZEIGLER, GWEN S. MITCHELL, SADIE\nCAWTHON, FRANCES H.\nLACEY, MARIAN G.\nBABBS, JUNIOUS\nANDERSON, VICTOR\nSTEWART, DONALD M.\nMILHOLLEN, MARK\nVANN, SUELLEN\nHURLEY, RICHARD\nWATSON, LINDA\nELSTON, JO\nCARNINE, LESLIE V.\nADAMS, LEON\nAUSTIN, LINDA\nBRIGGS, MONA\nCLEAVER, VANESSA\nCRAWFORD, PAMELA\nDAVIS, SUZI\nDEBBIE MILAM\nDILLINGHAM, YVETTE\nDONALDSON, MABLE\nEddie McCoy\nGLASGOW, DENNIS\nGREEN, CAROL\nHOBBY, SELMA\nLEASE, KATHY R.\nMARION BALDWIN\nMARTIN, PAULETTE\nMcNEAL, MARIE\nNEAL, LUCY\nPRICE, PATRICIA\nSMITH, GARY\nWALLS, COLLEEN\nWILLIAMS, ED\nWOODS, MARION K-2 Literacy I am sitting here with tears of joy rolling down my face. We have the first run of the reports on the K-2 Literacy exams, and the kids are WAY UP at all three grade levels, particularly in vocabulary. I am so happy and so grateful-on behalf of all those kids you all taught so well and on behalf of their parents and the greater community. We don't have the individual school scores yet, but we'll get them to you as soon as possible. CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL OF YOU AND TO YOUR SPLENDID TEACHERS. WE DID IT! These are our first true growth scores-from fall to spring. THANK YOU for hanging in and working so very hard! CELEBRATE! 1 21 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Wednesday, June 07, 2000 9:24 AM LEASE, KATHY R. Science ALT When can I expect to see the reports on the Science ALTs? 1 22 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject\nLESLEY. BONNIE Wednesday, June 07. 2000 10:31 AM JOHNSON. VIRGINIA\nWILLIAMS. ED FW\nAcademic Progress Heads up! Note the data requests. In Kathy's absence, will you see what you all can do to gather this stuff up? I have written Hall for the University Studies info. Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: CARNINE, LESLIE V. Wednesday, June 07, 2000 9:41 AM LESLEY, BONNIE\nMcNEAL, MARIE\nDONALDSON, MABLE\nGLASGOW, DENNIS\nPRICE, PATRICIA\nDAVIS, SUZI\nCLEAVER, VANESSA\nGREEN, CAROL LEASE, KATHY R.\nWILLIAMS, ED\nBABBS, JUNIOUS\nMITCHELL, SADIE\nGADBERRY, BRADY L.\nCAWTHON, FRANCES H.\nLACEY, MARIAN G.\nVANN, SUELLEN Academic Progress As you know one the primary goals has been to improve academic achievement. I have been attempting to create a comprehensive look at this issue and the following are the factors, which I thought should be considered. For report purposes we will want a racial breakout of statistics. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. State of Arkansas 4th Grade Bench Mark Test(s) 1998-991999-2000 Numbers of Students successfully completing Algebra 1997-981998-19991999-2000 (Biology should also have a comparison and what other subjects?) Enrollment in AP courses \u0026amp; successful completion of AP Courses 1997-981998-19991999-2000 (Inclusion of UALR courses at Hall into AP designation) ACT Exam data \u0026amp; Scores for the three mentioned years and % of seniors participating College Scholarship Data-number of students and amount Developmental Reading Assessment K-2 Data Number of student qualifying for Duke University Talent Program ? These are examples and hope you will recommend other measurements that you think may be more valid and predictive. This is for the annual report and I would like to have agreement before the week is out. Also remember we need to think about does this give us the evidence that we are making progress with the various commitments we have with the Deseg. Plan, NSF Grant, etc. Obviously it will take a couple of days for the statistics to be generated. 1 23 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Wednesday, June 07, 2000 9:23 AM LEASE, KATHY R. Middle School Study Survey When can I expect to see the results and analysis of this survey? 1 24LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Friday, June 23, 2000 8:48 AM CARNINE, LESLIE V. RE: Developmental Reading Assessment 1 am going to wait untii Pat Price gets back to answer some of these questions. One thing: This was our first year of the program impiementation, and some teachers weren't trained until late in the first semester. I am thrilled with the results as I've been able to study them so far, but there are more things I want to look at. From: Sent: To: Cc: Original Message Subject: CARMINE, LESLIE V. Friday, June 16, 2000 12:56 PM PRICE, PATRICIA\nWILLIAMS, ED LESLEY, BONNIE\nMITCHELL, SADIE\nCAWTHON, FRANCES H.\nLEASE, KATHY R.\nMILAM, JUDY\nHUFFMAN, KRIS\nTEETER, JUDY Developmental Reading Assessment I finally had time to look at the data and I have the following questions. What caused the difference in enrollment numbers and students tested? Did you isolate those k kids who have had a prek program vs. those who did not have a prek educational experience? The report uses proficient but isn't this really basic under the old system? And that would not necessarily suggesting at grade level but the child will or could benefit from and participate in that grade level? As I looked at the data the difference in the beginning or initial readiness between black and white suggested that on this test was factor of .67. At the end of 1st grade it had dropped to .37 which is a remarkable make up of readiness ground and /or vocabulary. At the end of 2nd grade there again had been significant growth and the gap had been reduced to a differential of .25. I think I am right but isn't this the 2nd year for the program which suggests that next year the 2nd grade gap could possibly be further reduced? If I am reading this correctly including the assumption about proficient and basic, the instructional issue is not remedial but acceleration of vocabulary / language development. Have I missed something or is the proper way to read the differential. Congratulations the numbers look great! 1 25 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent\nTo: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Friday, July 07, 2000 4:41 PM CARNINE, LESLIE V. RE: July Board Agenda Items I've spent a ton of time analyzing the DRA results, and it is clearer in my head now than when we have talked earlier. I have requested another report that will show us the PERCENT of kids at each level who are performing at or above the cut-points. After talking with Pat Busbea and reading some stuff on the DRA, I think I would feel more comfortable calling those cutpoints \"Readiness Level,\" rather than \"Proficiency Level.\" I don't think we can use these DRA results at all to correlate with this year's grade 4 exams. We cannot expect grade 4 kids to do as well after only a partial year of instruction (some teachers didn't get trained until up in the fall) as we will expect them to do when they have had two, three, four, and five years of good literacy instruction. We won't know if the K- 2 program really has improved grade 4 results until we can compare grade 4 scores in four years. The only thing we have to measure K-2 program implementation is these K-2 DRA results. But I agree to delaying the report. I want to look at the results more. -Original Message- From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: CARNINE, LESLIE V. Friday, July 07, 2000 11:01 AM LESLEY, BONNIE GRIFFIN, BEVERLY July Board Agenda Items Reports: I would concur with the briefing on the Carnegie Grant...It will be on the Report Agenda. I would like to hold the Literacy Report until we have the 4th Grade Benchmark results. I think it will be much more powerful if are projections are on target. If they are not we can show as what the future holds. Action Agenda: Home Schooling Policy and Regulations And lets hope we can recommend a Director for Safe Schools. Since we will not have the Mablevale position finalized I will recommend that we suspend the rules for approval on the 27th. I have briefed Mrs. Strickland. 1 26 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Thursday, July 13, 2000 8:25 AM MILAM, DEBBIE\nWILLIAMS, ED\nLEASE, KATHY R.\nAUSTIN, LINDA RE: SEDL request for information Kathy-will you be sure that Debbie gets this info for SEDL? I think we already have the reports. It's just gathering them up. Thanks. Original Message From\nSent: To\nCc\nSubject: MILAM, DEBBIE Thursday, July 13, 2000 7:41 AM WILLIAMS, ED\nLEASE, KATHY R.\nAUSTIN, LINDA LESLEY, BONNIE SEDL request for information SEDL has requested the following information on our district. We need to provide this as our part of the partnership we have with SEDL. 1 wasn't sure who who would have it so I'm sending this to all of you. Little Rock Attendance rate 98-99 district 99-00 district, state Completion (graduation rate) 98-99, 99-00 district, state Dropout rate 98-99, 99-00 district, state Suspensions/Expulsions 98-99, 99-00 district, state Norm-referenced test (Stanford 9 all grades given) 98-99, 99-00 district, state Criterion-referenced test (ACT-AAP) 99-00 SESl (% ffee/reduced lunch) 98-99, 99-00 SES 2 (% economically disadvantaged children) 98-99, 99-00 Thanks for helping us with this. Debbie Miiam Volunteers in Public Schools 1 27 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent\nTo: Subject: MITCHELL, SADIE Friday, July 14, 2000 10:11 AM LESLEY, BONNIE RE: Great News We have a lot to celebrate. I was so proud of our principals this week. They did a good job and they are growing. They showed strong abilities to process and apply skills that we have been teaching them all year. We have a long way to go though. Sadie Mitchell smmitch@lrsdadm.lrsd.kl2.ar.us Original Message From\nSent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Friday, July 14, 2000 10:09 AM MITCHELL, SADIE RE: Great News Note that right here in River City we have 90-90-90 schools (a la Doug Reeves). 90% minority, 90% poor, and 90% proficient! Praise God! I am thrilled to death with ail this, and I want to buy a big billboard to celebrate! Original Message From: Sent\nTo: MITCHELL. SADIE Friday, July 14, 2000 10:05 AM LESLEY, BONNIE Subject\nRE\nGreat News There is a God Sadie Mitchell smmitch@lrsdadm.lrsd.kl2.ar.us Original Message From\nSent\nLESLEY, BONNIE Friday, July 14, 2000 9:34 AM To\nMITCHELL, SADIE\nCAWTHON, FRANCES H. Subject\nGreat News As I told you, I asked for another report on the K-2 scores-this time telling us what the percent of kids is at each grade level who achieved proficiency. For instance, what percent of kids in kindergarten who scored at or above a 2-since this is the way the state reports out the scores. We'd be more consistent. Attached is the analysis I did last night. Do you love it? File: DRA Percent Proficient 1999-2000.doc 128LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Friday, July 14, 2000 2:24 PM BUSBEA, PAT\nPRICE, PATRICIA\nWILLIAMS, ED Definition of Proficiency Please critique this attempt to define \"proficient\" as it appears on the DRA. Or should we stick to the term \"readiness\"? Proficient Definition.doc 1 Developmental Reading Assessment, Grades K-2 Definition of Proficient The Arkansas Department of Education has defined performance at four levels: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced for the Benchmark examinations that are administered at grades 4, 6, and 8 and the end-of-level examinations for designated high school courses. Proficient is the performance standard that all students should achieve. The ADE definition follows: Proficient students demonstrate solid academic performance for the grade tested and are well-prepared for the next level of schooling. They can use Arkansas established reading, writing, and mathematics skills and knowledge to solve problems and complete tasks on their own. Students can tie ideas together and explain the ways their ideas are connected. The Developmental Reading Assessment allows us to assess reading levels of students through a one-on-one test reading conference between teacher and student. Teachers observe student performance during the test, make notes on reading behaviors, and score the performance as they go along. To gauge which level on the DRA is equivalent to how Arkansas defines proficiency, the staff used national reading standards for each grade level and then identified the DRA level that corresponds to that specific performance. Standards and DRA equivalents by grade level follow: Grade Level Kindergarten Reading Standards______________________ Children at the end of kindergarten should understand that every word in a text says something specific. They can demonstrate this competence by reading Level B books that they have not seen before, but that have been previewed for them, attending to each word in sequence and getting most of them conect. Grade 1 By the end of the year, we expect first-grade students to be able to\nread Level 16 books that they have not seen before, but that have been previewed for them, with 90 percent or better accuracy of word recognition (self-correction allowed). When they read aloud, we expect first graders to sound like they know what they are reading. Fluent readers may pause occasionally to work out difficult passages. By the end of the year, we expect first-grade students to be able to independently read aloud from Level I books that have been previewed for them, using intonation, pauses and emphasis that signal the structure of the sentence and the meaning of the text. DRA Level_____________________________ Assessment texts A through 2 consist of a repeated word or sentence pattern with natural language structures. The simple illustrations include animals and objects familiar to primary children and highly support the text. One or two lines of text appear on the left page and are large and well spaced so that children can point as they read. The number of words in the texts ranges from ten to thirty-six._______________ Assessment texts 16 through 28 are stories with begirmings, middles, and ends, throughout which problems are presented and resolved. The characters are either imaginary (giants and elves) or animals with human characteristics. The content begins to move beyond childrens personal experiences and builds a basis with which to compare and contrast other stories. Literacy language structures are integrated with natural language. Some description of characters and setting is included. Illustrations provide moderate to minimum support. The text may be three to twelve lines above or beneath the illustrations, or a full page. The number of words in these texts starts at 266 and increases with each level of difficulty. Grade 2 By the end of the year, we expect second-grade students to be able to independently read aloud unfamiliar Level 24 books with 90 percent or better accuracy of word recognition (selfcorrection allowed). Assessment texts 16 through 28 are stories with beginnings, middles, and ends, throughout which problems are presented and resolved. The characters are either imaginary (giants and elves) or animals with human characteristics. The content begins to move beyond childrens personal experiences and builds a basis with which to compare and contrast other stories. Literacy language structures are integrated with natural language. Some description of characters and setting is included. Illustrations provide moderate to minimum support. The text may be three to twelve lines above or beneath the illustrations, or a full page. The number of words in these texts starts at 266 and increases with each level of difficulty. 29 1^^LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent\nTo: Subject\nLESLEY. BONNIE Monday. July 17. 2000 12:14 PM PRICE. PATRICIA RE: Effect of Professional Development No big rush--but I'll need by Thursday. Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject\nPRICE, PATRICIA Monday, July 17, 2000 12:12 PM LESLEY, BONNIE RE\nEffect of Professional Development I will have it this afternoon. From: Sent\nOriginal Message- LESLEY, BONNIE Monday, July 17. 2000 9:31 AM To: PRICE. PATRICIA\nBUSBEA, PAT Subject: Effect of Professional Development Is it possible to put together some info on the number/percent of teachers by school who participated in the ELLA training? How many days did they attend? I think that might give us some needed insight on the scores. We may also need this for grade 4. 1 30LESLEY, BONNIE From\nSent: To: Subject: LESLEY. BONNIE Friday. July 21,2000 12:22 PM DAVIS. SUZI\nPRICE, PATRICIA\nFREEMAN, ANN\nBUSBEA, PAT\nHUFFMAN, KRIS\nTEETER, JUDY\nMILAM, JUDY\nWILSON, LEV ANNA\nBRIGGS, MONA\nGLASGOW, DENNIS\nPERRITT, YORIKO\nMITCHELL, SADIE\nCAWTHON, FRANCES H.\nBFtANDON, BARBARA\nBRANDON. BARBARA\nKILLINGSWORTH. PATRICIA DRA Scores-Percent Proficient Here's the report that I will use in Monday's presentation for the CLTs. DRA Percent Readiness. 1999-20... 1 31 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Saturday, July 29, 2000 9:34 AM WILLIAMS, ED FW: Success For All Importance: High Both Wakefield and Mitchell have made the decision to bail out of SFA--two examples of abandoning programs that are not working for African American children. You may want to put that in the PreK-2 evaluation report. Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Importance: SMiiy,.eRlAN^ ^ii^July 28, 2000 4:^ ADAMS, LEON CAwmowrrR: Success For All High 'M (NCES H.\nLESLEY. BONNIE Mr. Adams, The Mitchell Academy Campus Leadership Team had a very intense discussion concerning the achievement of our students in reading. This discussion began last March. Throughout the discussion, the team looked at the test data and the cost of the Success For All Program. The CLT took its concerns to the entire staff and the staff agreed to end the use of the Success For All Program last May. Dr. Lesley reported that she was seeing growth in achievement from grades 2'^^ - 5**^. After further review, this growth was simply the increase from 2\"'* - 5* grade because the students were so low at 2\"' grade. We have a 3-year goal of seeing significant growth in our students achievement and believe that at this time, the Success For All Program and its cost is not the way. With that said. Im requesting for an extension on the deadline for our Title I Plan in order to make the necessary adjustments to include a change in our program. 132LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Tuesday, August 08, 2000 12:24 PM KEOWN, ADA\nCOX, ELEANOR\nFIELDS, FREDERICK ADAMS, LEON\nMITCHELL, SADIE\nCAWTHON, FRANCES H.\nPRICE, PATRICIA Continuation of SFA I continue to be very concerned about the performance of some SFA schools, especially in reviewing the DRA data. Your SFA schools performed significantly less well than most ELLA schools with similar characteristics. See the attached score analysis. DRA. SFA Schools.doc Another concern that I have is that we are equipped and funded to coach teachers, to provide professional development, and to otherwise support ELLA/Effective Literacy. We cannot do that at such an intense level for SFA since those programs are funded solely from your Title I budgets and since we have to rely on the University of Memphis to train and coach. One thing we noted in our data analysis is that SFA teachers typically received last year much less professional development than ELLA/Effective Literacy teachers, and that variable in itself will make a major difference in student performance. SFA is much more expensive than ELLA/Effective Literacy. That expense is especially a problem when you are not getting results. I told you all my first year here that I knew that SFA could work and that we needed to give it a chance. I told you last year and again in the fall that if you didn't get improvements this year (that was your chance), you definitely had to make a change. It is time for most of you to make that change, and that is my strongest recommendation. Please meet with your teams and do a thorough data analysis. I know that we need State Benchmark scores to make a determination about grades 3-4, but the DRA data for K-2 and the ALT data for 2-5 give us a lot of indication that SFA is not working. It may not be the program itself. It may be, as I told you last year that the Univ, of Memphis trainers said, that we have not implemented it appropriately. It may be that your teachers just are not committed to its success. Whatever the reason, at this point, I think you and your staff need to make a convincing argument to be allowed to continue SFA. If you are going to make a change, you need to inform Leon Adams immediately since he is putting the finishing touches on the Title I plan to submit to ADE. You should also consult with Ms. Mitchell or Ms. Jones in making your decision since it will also affect your School Improvement Plan. Finally, if you are going to make a change, you need to let Pat Price know immediately so that she can arrange for your teachers to have the necessary training to implement ELLA/Effective Literacy. You will note that I have not directed you to make a change. I am, instead, giving you my best advice. Also, I stand ready to assist you in your school improvement efforts. Let me know. 1 33 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To\nSubject: LESLEY, BONNIE Wednesday, August 09, 2000 5:13 PM MITCHELL, SADIE\nPRICE, PATRICIA FW: Continuation of SFA Look! They are thinking as weli! Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Wednesday, August 09, 2000 5:12 PM FIELDS, FREDERICK RE: Continuation of SFA Yea! I think having a control group would be a wonderful idea. Do it! I can help you set up the study. Don't ever worry about bugging me. I am here to help you all, and the principals have not used me nearly enough. I want to help. All of us are in this game for the same reason. We care about the kids. I cannot realize my goals without you, so I'll be there to help. Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: FIELDS, FREDERICK Wednesday, August 09, 2000 4:02 PM LESLEY, BONNIE RE: Continuation of SFA Thank you for your reply. I will go back to the CLT with this information and If their feelings are still the same, then I will give the program one last try. I am excited about the massive amount of data that you have taught us how to use. It has helped me to understand what we need to do. I am committed to this. I will wait on ELLA if you don't think I should combine the two. I completely trust your advice. By all means, you will get tired of me bugging you this year. These children will achieve. I will be seeking your assistance all year long. Thank you in advance for being there. Lastly, what do you think about having a control group, perhaps the two new teachers that I have hired (1st and 2nd grade). I was thinking about letting them implement ELLA and after the potpourri of test, look at the data and see which implementation will show the most growth? Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc: LESLEY, BONNIE Wednesday, August 09, 2000 3:55 PM FIELDS, FREDERICK PRICE, PATRICIA Subject: RE: Continuation of SFA I understand your reluctance to change, but I felt strongly that I should give you all the benefit of my advice, for I know that everyone wants to perform well. Remember that I didn't tell you what to do. I just gave you advice. Unless you are planning to move toward ELLA implementation, my advice is that you NOT engage your teachers in the ELLA training. Instead, buy more SFA training. The two programs are very different in their execution, although not so different in their research base. I don't think teachers can blend them successfully, and I am sure that the Memphis people would tell you the same thing. Think through this carefully. If you want SFA to be successful, you all have really got to get your heads around SFA-know it better than you do your heart beats-and be as committed to its success as you can be. I believe that teachers can make almost anything work-if they want it to work. The issue is not really which program to do. The issue is making a commitment to kids' success and then delivering on it. Let me know how you want me to help. Original Message From: Sent: To: LESLEY, BONNIE FIELDS, FREDERICK Wednesday, August 09, 2000 2:35 PM Subject: RE: Continuation of SFA Dr. Lesley. I have read your email and shared it with the majority of my campus leadership team. I expressed some major 1 concerns es it relates to how our students are not achieving as well as comparable students in other schools. We have decided to continue the program for another year and focus on 100% implementation and monitoring of the program. We have also decided to include ELLA training as a major staff development component early on this year. I have discussed this with Pat Price and she has offered valuable advice that I will begin to put in place. I feel that if my teachers are trained in ELLA and we implement those strategies in conjunction with SFA, any data that will be used will show growth. I am truly concerned about the education and success of my children at Cloverdale. I take this job seriously and want to make decisions that are in the best interest of the students. I have seen children that could not read successfully master that task. My only fear is that I know you are very smart and you have always offered sound advice I don't want you to think I don't value your opinion. I am not blind, according to the tool of measurement that was used, we have not measured up. Please afford me one more year to get it right. I am sure that the scores will be up considerably. Thank you in advance for understanding and taking the time to read my reply. Respectfully, Freddy Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Tuesday, August 08, 2000 12:24 PM KEOWN, ADA\nCOX, ELEANOR\nFIELDS, FREDERICK ADAMS, LEON\nMITCHELL, SADIE\nCAWTHON, FRANCES H.\nPRICE, PATRICIA Continuation of SFA I continue to be very concerned about the performance of some SFA schools, especially in reviewing the DRA data. Your SFA schools performed significantly less well than most ELLA schools with similar characteristics. See the attached score analysis. File: DRA. SFA Schools.doc Another concern that I have is that we are equipped and funded to coach teachers, to provide professional development, and to otherwise support ELLA/Effective Literacy. We cannot do that at such an intense level for SFA since those programs are funded solely from your Title I budgets and since we have to rely on the University of Memphis to train and coach. One thing we noted in our data analysis is that SFA teachers typically received last year much less professional development than ELLA/Effective Literacy teachers, and that variable in itself will make a major difference in student performance. SFA is much more expensive than ELLA/Effective Literacy. That expense is especially a problem when you are not getting results. I told you all my first year here that I knew that SFA could work and that we needed to give it a chance. I told you last year and again in the fall that if you didn't get improvements this year (that was your chance), you definitely had to make a change. It is time for most of you to make that change, and that is my strongest recommendation. Please meet with your teams and do a thorough data analysis. I know that we need State Benchmark scores to make a determination about grades 3-4, but the DRA data for K-2 and the ALT data for 2-5 give us a lot of indication that SFA is not working. It may not be the program itself. It may be, as I told you last year that the Univ, of Memphis trainers said, that we have not implemented it appropriately. It may be that your teachers just are not committed to its success. Whatever the reason, at this point, I think you and your staff need to make a convincing argument to be allowed to continue SFA. If you are going to make a change, you need to inform Leon Adams immediately since he is putting the finishing touches on the Title I plan to submit to ADE. You should also consult with Ms. Mitchell or Ms. Jones in making your decision since it will also affect your School Improvement Plan. Finally, if you are going to make a change, you need to let Pat Price know immediately so that she can arrange for your teachers to have the necessary training to implement ELLA/Effective Literacy. You will note that I have not directed you to make a change. I am. instead, giving you my best advice. Also, I stand ready to assist you in your school improvement efforts. Let me know. 234 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LEASE. KATHY R. Thursday, September 14, 2000 7:05 PM TRUETT, IRMA FW: Request Assessment Notebook Irma, Please get a notebook ready for Linda. We need to add the high school and middle school stuff and check it for anything else that might be missing. We also need to send the high school and MS stuff to New Futures. The ALT Science data also needs to be added. We can start this as soon as the tests are in the schools. Kathy Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: LEE, BLONDELL Thursday, September 14, 2000 11:40 AM LEASE, KATHY R. AUSTIN, LINDA Request Assessment Notebook I am requesting a copy of your most recently updated Assessment Notebook for Linda Austin. Dr. Lesley referred you as the source for obtaining this information. This is Carutha. I'm at Blondell's desk while she is on medical leave. If I need to come to your office to pick this up, please let me know when it is ready (2112). Thanks for your help. Linda will be back in her office tomorrow, September 15. Carutha Braden (For Linda Austin) 1 35Planning, Research, and Evaluation Ish Instructional Resource Center 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 To\nCurriculum Division From: Through: Dr. Kathy Lease, Asst. Supt., PRE Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent Date: October 25, 2000 Re: Grade 4 and Grade 8 Benchmark Data i Please find enclosed the following Benchmark Data reports: District comparison of 98-99 and 99-00 results for mathematics and literacy 1 - District comparison with state results for 99-00 District comparison with state results for 98-99 Grade 4 comparisons by school, subject, and year showing changes Two year comparisons for each elementary school (Grade 4) Comparison by middle school (Grade 8) to district average and state average District comparison to state (Grade 8) for mathematics District comparison to state (Grade 8) for literacy School comparisons to state (Grade 8) for mathematics and literacy Additional reports will be prepared based on requests. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 324-2122. 36Planning, Research, and Evaluation Ish Instructional Resource Center 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 To: Board of Directors From: Through: Dr. Kathy Lease, Asst. Supt., PRE Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent Date: October 25, 2000 Re: Grade 4 and Grade 8 Benchmark Data Please find enclosed the following Benchmark Data reports: District comparison of 98-99 and 99-00 results for mathematics and literacy District comparison with state results for 99-00 District comparison with state results for 98-99 Grade 4 comparisons by school, subject, and year showing changes Two year comparisons for each elementary school (Grade 4) Comparison by middle school (Grade 8) to district average and state average District comparison to state (Grade 8) for mathematics 0 District comparison to state (Grade 8) for literacy School comparisons to state (Grade 8) for mathematics and literacy Additional reports will be prepared based on requests. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 324-2122. 37Planning, Research, and Evaluation Ish Instructional Resource Center 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 To: Cabinet From: Through: Dr. Kathy Lease, Asst. Supt, PRE Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent Date: October 25, 2000 Re: Grade 4 and Grade 8 Benchmark Data Please find enclosed the following Benchmark Data reports: District comparison of 98-99 and 99-00 results for mathematics and literacy ] District comparison with state results for 99-00 District comparison with state results for 98-99 Grade 4 comparisons by school, subject, and year showing changes * Two year comparisons for each elementary school (Grade 4) Comparison by middle school (Grade 8) to district average and state average District comparison to state (Grade 8) for mathematics District comparison to state (Grade 8) for literacy * School comparisons to state (Grade 8) for mathematics and literacy Additional reports will be prepared based on requests. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 324-2122. 38LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 November 3, 2000 TO: FROM: Mary Smith, Principal - Rightsell Elementary Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: Grade 4 Mathematics Benchmark Exam Congratulations on the achievement of your school on the Grade 4 Mathematics Benchmark! As you probably know, your school either improved as well as or better than the District as a whole. We are very pleased about that - and so proud of you, your teachers, your students, and their parents. Please take some time to reflect upon what you think were your most successful initiatives and e-mail these to me. We want to pass them along to the other schools, and we in the Division of Instruction want to learn from you as well. Again, my warmest congratulations on your achievement. BAL/adg LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET------- ---- LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 November 3, 2000 TO: FROM: Barbara Anderson, Principal - Bale Elementary ^^Sr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: Grade 4 Literacy Benchmark Exam As you can guess, I was absolutely delighted that our District improved ten points on the Grade 4 Literacy Benchmark Exam. Congratulations to you and your school for your achievement! I am so proud of you all - you, your teachers, your students, and their parents. Please take some time to reflect upon what you think you did that made the biggest difference. Then send that list to me via e-mail. We want to pass that along to the other schools, and we in the Division of Instruction want to learn from you as well. Again, my warmest congratulations on your achievement. BAL/adg LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIO N AL RESO O RCE C ENT E R _3fljO4^BULASKI^TREEX. LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 TO\nFROM: November 3, 2000 Diane Barksdale, Principal - Carver Elementary ^r. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT\nGrade 4 Literacy Benchmark Exam As you can guess, 1 was absolutely delighted that our District improved ten points on the Grade 4 Literacy Benchmark Exam. Congratulations to you and your school for your achievement! 1 am so proud of you all - you, your teachers, your students, and their parents. Please take some time to reflect upon what you think you did that made the biggest difference. Then send that list to me via e-mail. We want to pass that along to the other schools, and we in the Division of Instruction want to learn from you as well. Again, my warmest congratuiations on your achievement. BAL/adg LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER . - . 3001 RULASK1 STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 November 3, 2000 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Theresa Ketcher, Principal - Forest Park Elementary ^\n^-Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Grade 4 Literacy Benchmark Exam As you can guess, I was absolutely delighted that our District improved ten points on the Grade 4 Literacy Benchmark Exam. Congratulations to you and your school for your achievement! 1 am so proud of you all - you, your teachers, your students, and their parents. Please take some time to reflect upon what you think you did that made the biggest difference. Then send that list to me via e-mail. We want to pass that along to the other schools, and we in the Division of Instruction want to learn from you as well. Again, my ^warmest congratulations on your achievement BAL/adg LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 November 3, 2000 TO: FROM: Deborah Mitchell, Principal - Fulbright Elementary ^^r. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: Grade 4 Literacy Benchmark Exam As you can guess, I was absolutely delighted that our District improved ten points on the Grade 4 Literacy Benchmark Exam. Congratulations to you and your school for your achievement! 1 am so proud of you all - you, your teachers, your students, and their parents. Please take some time to reflect upon what you think you did that made the biggest difference. Then send that list to me via e-mail. We want to pass that along to the other schools, and we in the Division of Instruction want to learn from you as well. Again, my v/armest congratuiations on your achievement. BAL/adg TO\nFROM\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER -300-1 PULASKISTREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 November 3, 2000 Ethel Dunbar, Principal - Franklin Elementary ^r. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT\nGrade 4 Literacy Benchmark Exam As you can guess, I was absolutely delighted that our District improved ten points on the Grade 4 Literacy Benchmark Exam. Congratulations to you and your school for your achievement! I am so proud of you all - you, your teachers, your students, and their parents. Please take some time to reflect upon what you think you did that made the biggest difference. Then send that list to me via e-mail. We want to pass that along to the other schools, and we in the Division of Instruction want to learn from you as well. Again, my warmest congratulations on your achievement. BAL/adg TO\nFROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER w^OO/l'^RULASKI-STREET-LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 November 3, 2000 Felicia Hobbs, Principal - Gibbs Elementary ^Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for instruction SUBJECT: Grade 4 Literacy Benchmark Exam As you can guess, 1 was absolutely delighted that our District improved ten points on the Grade 4 Literacy Benchmark Exam. Congratulations to you and your school for your achievement! 1 am so proud of you all - you, your teachers, your students, and their parents. Please take some time to reflect upon what you think you did that made the biggest difference. Then send that list to me via e-mail. We want to pass that along to the other schools, and we in the Division of Instruction want to learn from you as well. Again, my warmest congratulations on your achievement. BAL/adg TO\nFROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER _______ .300-1.-P.ULASKI ST-REET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 November 3. 2000 Tabitha Phillips, Principal - Mabelvale Elementary Vk)r. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: Grade 4 Literacy Benchmark Exam As you can guess, I was absolutely delighted that our District improved ten points on the Grade 4 Literacy Benchmark Exam. Congratulations to you and your school for your achievement! I am so proud of you all - you, your teachers, your students, and their parents. Please take some time to reflect upon what you think you did that made the biggest difference. Then send that list to me via e-mail. We want to pass that along to the other schools, and we in the Division of Instruction want to learn from you as well. Again, my warmest congratulations on your achievement. BAL/adg TO\nFROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER ._----.-3001 P-ULASKI-STREET - LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 November 3, 2000 Jerry Worm, Principal - Meadowcliff Elementary y^r. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: Grade 4 Literacy Benchmark Exam As you can guess, I was absolutely delighted that our District improved ten points on the Grade 4 Literacy Benchmark Exam. Congratuiations to you and your school for your achievement! I am so proud of you all - you, your teachers, your students, and their parents. Please take some time to reflect upon what you think you did that made the biggest difference. Then send that list to me via e-mail. We want to pass that along to the other schools, and we in the Division of Instruction want to learn from you as well. Again, my warmest congratulations on your achievement. BAL/adg TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 300-1-PULASKI.STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 November 3, 2000 Janis Tucker, Principal - Otter Creek Elementary fe^r. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: Grade 4 Literacy Benchmark Exam As you can guess, I was absolutely delighted that our District improved ten points on the Grade 4 Literacy Benchmark Exam. Congratulations to you and your school for your achievement! I am so proud of you all - you, your teachers, your students, and their parents. Please take some time to reflect upon what you think you did that made the biggest difference. Then send that list to me via e-mail. We want to pass that along to the other schools, and we in the Division of Instruction want to learn from you as well. Again, my warmest congratulations on your achievement. BAL/adg TO\nFROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER _ 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 November 3, 2000 Lillie Carter, Principal - Pulaski Heights Elementary ^ior. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: Grade 4 Literacy Benchmark Exam As you can guess, I was absolutely delighted that our District improved ten points on the Grade 4 Literacy Benchmark Exam. Congratulations to you and your school for your achievement! I am so proud of you all - you, your teachers, your students, and their parents. Please take some time to reflect upon what you think you did that made the biggest difference. Then send that list to me via e-mail. We want to pass that along to the other schools, and we in the Division of Instruction want to learn from you as well. Again, my warmest congratulations on your achievement. BAL/adg TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001-PULASKI-STREET -. LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 November 3, 2000 Nancy Acre, Principal - Terry Elementary \\^r. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: Grade 4 Literacy Benchmark Exam As you can guess, I was absolutely delighted that our District improved ten points on the Grade 4 Literacy Benchmark Exam. Congratulations to you and your school for your achievement! I am so proud of you all - you, your teachers, your students, and their parents. Please take some time to reflect upon what you think you did that made the biggest difference. Then send that list to me via e-mail. We want to pass that along to the other schools, and we in the Division of Instruction want to learn from you as well. Again, my warmest congratulations on your achievement BAL/adg TO\nFROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER -----------3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 November 3, 2000 Michael Oliver, Principal - Watson Elementary ^r. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: Grade 4 Literacy Benchmark Exam As you can guess, 1 was absolutely delighted that our District improved ten points on the Grade 4 Literacy Benchmark Exam. Congratuiations to you and your school for your achievement! I am so proud of you all - you, your teachers, your students, and their parents. Please take some time to reflect upon what you think you did that made the biggest difference. Then send that list to me via e-mail. We want to pass that along to the other schools, and we in the Division of Instruction want to learn from you as well. Again, my warmest congratulations on your achievement. BAL/adg TO: FROM\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 November 3, 2000 Scott Morgan, Principal - Western Hills Elementary ^^r, Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: Grade 4 Literacy Benchmark Exam As you can guess, I was absolutely delighted that our District improved ten points on the Grade 4 Literacy Benchmark Exam. Congratulations to you and your school for your achievement! I am so proud of you all - you, your teachers, your students, and their parents. Please take some time to reflect upon what you think you did that made the biggest difference. Then send that list to me via e-mail. We want to pass that along to the other schools, and we in the Division of Instruction want to learn from you as well. Again, my warmest congratulations on your achievement. BAL/adg TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 November 3, 2000 Janice Wilson, Principal - Woodruff Elementary ^r. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: Gracie 4 Literacy Benchmark Exam As you can guess, I was absolutely delighted that our District improved ten points on the Grade 4 Literacy Benchmark Exam. Congratulations to you and your school for your achievement! I am so proud of you all - you, your teachers, your students, and their parents. Please take some time to reflect upon what you think you did that made the biggest difference. Then send that list to me via e-mail. We want to pass that along to the other schools, and we in the Division of Instruction want to learn from you as well. Again, my warmest congratulations on your achievement. BAL/adg TO\nFROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 November 3. 2000 Mary Golston, Principal - Badgett Elementary ^^r. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT\nGrade 4 Literacy Benchmark Exam As you can guess, I was absolutely delighted that our District improved ten points on the Grade 4 Literacy Benchmark Exam. Congratulations to you and your school for your achievement! I am so proud of you all - you, your teachers, your students, and their parents. I Please take some time to reflect upon what you think you did that made the biggest difference. Then send that list to me via e-mail. We want to pass that along to the other schools, and we in the Division of Instruction want to learn from you as well. Again, my warmest congratulations on your achievement. BAL/adg TO\nFROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 November 3. 2000 Ada Keown, Principal - Brady Elementary \\^r. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: Grade 4 Mathematics Benchmark Exam Congratulations on the achievement of your school on the Grade 4 Mathematics Benchmark! As you probably know, your school either improved as well as or better than the District as a whole. We are very pleased about that - and so proud of you, your teachers, your students, and their parents. Please take some time to reflect upon what you think were your most successful initiatives and e-mail these to me. We want to pass them along to the other schools, and we in the Division of Instruction want to learn from you as well. Again, my warmest congratulations on your achievement. BAL/adg TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 November 3, 2000 Diane Barksdale, Principal - Carver Elementary ^^r. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: Gracie 4 Mathematics Benchmark Exam Congratulations on the achievement of your school on the Grade 4 Mathematics Benchmark! As you probably know, your school either improved as well as or better than the District as a whole. We are very pleased about that - and so proud of you, your teachers, your students, and their parents. Please take some time to reflect upon what you think were your most successful initiatives and e-mail these to me. We want to pass them along to the other schools, and we in the Division of Instruction want to learn from you as well. Again, my warmest congratulations on your achievement. BAL/adg TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 November 3, 2000 Faith McLaughlin, Principal - Dodd Elementary {^r. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: Grade 4 Mathematics Benchmark Exam Congratulations on the achievement of your school on the Grade 4 Mathematics Benchmark! As you probably know, your school either improved as well as or better than the District as a whole. We are very pleased about that - and so proud of you, your teachers, your students, and their parents. Please take some time to reflect upon what you think were your most successful initiatives and e-mail these to me. We want to pass them along to the other schools, and we in the Division of Instruction want to learn from you as well. Again, my v/armest congratulations on your achievement. BAL/adg TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 November 3, 2000 Deborah Mitchell, Principal - Fulbright Elementary fe^r. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: Grade 4 Mathematics Benchmark Exam Congratulations on the achievement of your school on the Grade 4 Mathematics Benchmark! As you probably know, your school either improved as well as or better than the District as a whole. We are very pleased about that - and so proud of you, your teachers, your students, and their parents. Please take some time to reflect upon what you think were your most successful initiatives and e-mail these to me. We want to pass them along to the other schools, and we in the Division of Instruction want to learn from you as well. Again, my warmest congratulations on your achievement. BAL/adg TO\nFROM\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 November 3, 2000 Tabitha Phillips, Principal - Mabelvale Elementary ^^r. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT\nGrade 4 Mathematics Benchmark Exam Congratulations on the achievement of your school on the Grade 4 Mathematics Benchmark! As you probably know, your school either improved as well as or better than the District as a whole. We are very pleased about that - and so proud of you, your teachers, your students, and their parents. Please take some time to reflect upon what you think were your most successful initiatives and e-mail these to me. We want to pass them along to the other schools, and we in the Division of Instruction want to learn from you as well. Again, my warmest congratulations on your achievement. BAL/adg TO\nFROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 November 3, 2000 Virginia Ashley, Principal - McDermott Elementary \\|or. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for instruction SUBJECT: Grade 4 Mathematics Benchmark Exam Congratulations on the achievement of your school on the Grade 4 Mathematics Benchmark! As you probably know, your school either improved as well as or better than the District as a whole. We are very pleased about that - and so proud of you, your teachers, your students, and their parents. Please take some time to reflect upon what you think were your most successful initiatives and e-mail these to me. We want to pass them along to the other schools, and we in the Division of Instruction want to learn from you as well. Again, my warmest congratulations on your achievement. BAL/adg TO: FROM\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 November 3, 2000 Janis Tucker, Principal - Otter Creek Elementary ^^r. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT\nGrade 4 Mathematics Benchmark Exam Congratulations on the achievement of your school on the Grade 4 Mathematics Benchmark! As you probably know, your school either improved as well as or better than the District as a whole. We are very pleased about that - and so proud of you, your teachers, your students, and their parents. Please take some time to reflect upon what you think were your most successful initiatives and e-mail these to me. We want to pass them along to the other schools, and we in the Division of Instruction want to learn from you as well. Again, my warmest congratulations on your achievement. BAL/adg i TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 November 3, 2000 Lillie Carter, Principal - Pulaski Heights Elementary '^^r. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT\nGrade 4 Mathematics Benchmark Exam j Congratulations on the achievement of your school on the Grade 4 Mathematics Benchmark! As you probably know, your school either improved as well as or better than the District as a whole. We are very pleased about that - and so proud of you, your teachers, your students, and their parents. Please take some time to reflect upon what you think were your most successful initiatives and e-mail these to me. We want to pass them along to the other schools, and we in the Division of Instruction want to learn from you as well. Again, my warmest congratulations on your achievement. BAL/adg TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 November 3, 2000 Scott Morgan, Principal - Western Hills Elementary ^Ur. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: Grade 4 Mathematics Benchmark Exam Congratulations on the achievement of your school on the Grade 4 Mathematics Benchmark! As you probably know, your school either improved as well as or better than the District as a whole. We are very pleased about that - and so proud of you, your teachers, your students, and their parents. Please take some time to reflect upon what you think were your most successful initiatives and e-mail these to me. We want to pass them along to the other schools, and we in the Division of Instruction want to learn from you as well. Again, my warmest congratulations on your achievement. BAL/adg TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 November 3. 2000 Beverly Jones, Principal - Wilson Elementary ^jj-Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: Grade 4 Mathematics Benchmark Exam Congratulations on the achievement of your school on the Grade 4 Mathematics Benchmark! As you probably know, your school either improved as well as or better than the District as a whole. We are very pleased about that - and so proud of you, your teachers, your students, and their parents. Please take some time to reflect upon what you think were your most successful initiatives and e-mail these to me. We want to pass them along to the other schools, and we in the Division of Instruction want to learn from you as well. Again, my warmest congratulations on your achievement. BAL/adg TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 November 3, 2000 Janice Wilson, Principal - Woodruff Elementary Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: Gracie 4 Mathematics Benchmark Exam Congratulations on the achievement of your school on the Grade 4 Mathematics Benchmark! As you probably know, your school either improved as well as or better than the District as a whole. We are very pleased about that - and so proud of you, your teachers, your students, and their parents. Please take some time to reflect upon what you think were your most successful initiatives and e-mail these to me. We want to pass them along to the other schools, and we in the Division of instruction want to learn from you as well. Again, my warmest congratulations on your achievement. BAL/adg TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 November 3. 2000 Mary Golston, Principal - Badgett Elementary i^r. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: Grade 4 Mathematics Benchmark Exam Congratulations on the achievement of your school on the Grade 4 Mathematics Benchmark! As you probably know, your school either improved as well as or better than the District as a whole. We are very pleased about that - and so proud of you, your teachers, your students, and their parents. Please take some time to reflect upon what you think were your most successful initiatives and e-mail these to me. We want to pass them along to the other schools, and we in the Division of Instruction want to learn from you as well. Again, my warmest congratulations on your achievement. BAL/adg 39 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Monday, November 06, 2000 12:04 PM LEASE, KATHY R. TRUETT, IRMA\nMOORE, REGINA Test Results I need the following asap: 1. Copies of the general population District and each school reports on grades 4 and 8 Benchmark tests--copies of the state reports, not your typed reports. 2. Copies of the Executive Summaries for the District and each school of the SAT9 results, grades 5,7, and 10-again, the Harcourt reports, not just your typed reports. 3. Copies of the DRA results for fall 2000 for the District and by school. Please do these reports at least: A. Reports by race and total of average results (display fall 1999, spring 2000, fall 2000). B. Reports by race and total of growth from fall 1999 to 2000 of cohorts (e.g., fall 1999 kindergarten and fall 2000 grade 1) I may need more information later. If you need help getting them copied, Regina or Anita will be happy to do that. Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/324-0567 (fax) 1 40LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Wednesday, November 08, 2000 2:55 PM PRICE, PATRICIA\nGLASGOW, DENNIS FW: Benchmark data by FAR You all take a look at these spreadsheets. They show grade 4 scores by SES. FAR means \"free and reduced\" lunch. Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: SAVAGE, KEN Wednesday, November 08, 2000 2:06 PM LESLEY, BONNIE\nLEASE, KATHY R. WILLIAMS, ED Benchmark data by FAR Good afternoon, folks. Please find attached an Excel workbook with two sheets. The data contained on these sheets is the SY99-2000 4th grade General Population Benchmark Math and Literature strands disaggregated by current Free and Reduced (FAR) Lunch program enrollment. (Whew, that was a mouthful.) The original download from the ORME website contained data on 1699 students. Of these 1699,1 was not able to find current student ids for 29-they were here last year and took the test\nhowever, that are not currently enrolled. Additionally, I have been advised to mention that due to the dynamic nature of the FAR program, this information is subject to change (hence the 11-8-2000 date in the header.) I wouldn't expect great changes but certainly some. DR311_01 Strands by FAR.xls Enjoy! Let me know if you need anything else, Ken. 1 41LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Wednesday, January 17, 2001 9:32 AM TRUETT. IRMA FW: Irma, Could you fax Tara one of those NWEA charts that shows the expected RIT Scores? She is at Mann. I think. I put it in your chair. KL Original Message- From: Sent: To: Subject: ADAMS, TARA A. Wednesday, January 17, 2001 8:26 AM LEASE, KATHY R. Hi Kathy I don't have this chart, if you could fax me one I would appreciate it. This is an excerpt from your email of what I need. My fax number is 324-2496. Thanks Tara Adams Horace Mann Middle School \"Monitoring Growth in Student Achievement that has the median scores expected on each test fall and spring and the expected amount of growth in the second chart on the bottom. Call or email me if you don't have one and I'll fax it to you. 1 42 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Wednesday. January 17, 2001 4:29 PM ANDERSON, BARBARA\nASHLEY, VIRGINIA\nBRANCH, SAMUEL\nCARSON, CHERYL\nCARTER, LILLIE\nCOURTNEY, THERESA\nCOX, ELEANOR\nDARIAN SMITH\nDEBORAH MITCHELL\nETHEL DUNBAR\nFaith Donovan\nFIELDS. FREDERICK\nGOLSTON. MARY\nHALL. DONNA\nHARKEY. JANE\nHARRIS. HENRY\nHOBBS. FELICIA L.\nJONES. BEVERLY\nKEOWN. ADA\nLillie Scull\nMANGAN. ANN\nMANNO. ROBERTA\nMARY BARKSDALE\nMENKING. MARY\nMORGAN. SCOTT\nNANCY ACRE\nOLIVER. MICHAEL\nPHILLIPS. TABITHA\nSHARON BROOKS\nSMITH, DARIAN\nSMITH, MARY A.\nTAYLOR, LESLIE B.\nTUCKER, JANIS A.\nWILSON, JANICE M.\nWORM, JERRY\nYOUNG, KRISHNA\nZEIGLER, GWEN S.\nCARTER, JODIE\nHOWARD, RUDOLPH\nLinda Brown\nNORMAN, CASSANDRA R.\nSMITH JR. VERNON\nBERRY, DEBORAH\nBLAYLOCK, ANN\nHUDSON, ELOUISE\nJIM FULLERTON\nLarry Buck\nMOSBY, JIMMY\nPATTERSON, DAVID\nROUSSEAU, NANCY\nBABBS, JUNIOUS\nFRANCES CAWTHON\nGadberry, Brady L.\nHurley, Richard\nLESLEY, BONNIE\nLeslie Camine\nMARIAN LACEY\nMilhollen, Mark\nSadie Mitchell\nSTEWART, DONALD M.\nVann, Suellen\nWATSON, LINDA DILLINGHAM, YVETTE\nHUFFMAN, MAC\nJOHNSON, VIRGINIA\nMcCOY, EDDIE\nSUMMERVILLE, ROSALYN P.\nTRUETT, IRMA\nWILLIAMS, ED Assessment Reports Dear Principals and Cabinet, Attached are several assessment reports that you might find interesting. I am sending the 5-year comparison and 3- year comparison of SAT-9 by school, a 3-year district comparison by quartiles, and a district summary. You can print copies of these at your leisure and add them to your data notebook. As we prepare additional reports, we will forward them to you. If you need a special report or if you have questions, please let us know. Thanks, Kathy SATS Five year comparison.xls SATS Three year companson.xls... SAT9 District Five Year Compar... SATS quartile report 88-01 -Xls... Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501-324-2122 (VM) 501-324-2126 (Fax) krlease@irc.lrscl.kl2.ar.us 1 43 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: LEASE. KATHY R. Tuesday, May 30, 2000 1:16 PM ANDERSON, BARBARA\nASHLEY, VIRGINIA\nBEARD, SUSAN\nBRANCH, SAMUEL\nCARSON, CHERYL\nCARTER, LILLIE\nCHEATHAM. MARY\nCOURTNEY. THERESA\nCOX. ELEANOR\nSMITH. DARIAN\nMITCHELL. DEBORAH\nETHEL B. DUNBAR\nDONOVAN. FAITH\nFIELDS. FREDERICK\nGOLSTON. MARY\nHALL. DONNA\nHARKEY. JANE\nHARRIS. H. TYRONE\nHOBBS. FELICIA L\nJONES. BEVERLY\nKEOWN. ADA\nSCULL. LILLIE\nMANGAN. ANN\nBARKSDALE. MARY D.\nMENKING. MARY\nMORGAN. SCOTT\nACRE. NANCY\nOLIVER. MICHAEL\nPHILLIPS. TABITHA\nBROOKS. SHARON A.\nSMITH. DARIAN\nTUCKER. JANIS A.\nWARD. LIONEL\nWILSON. JANICE M.\nWORM. JERRY\nZEIGLER. GWEN S.\nCARTER. JODIE\nHOWARD. RUDOLPH\nBROWN. LINDA\nNORMAN. CASSANDRA R.\nSMITH. VERNON\nBERRY. DEBOFiAH\nFULLERTON. JAMES\nHUDSON. ELOUISE\nJAMES. BRENDA\nBUCK. LARRY\nMOSBY. JIMMY\nPATTERSON. DAVID\nROUSSEAU. NANCY MITCHELL. SADIE\nCAWTHON. FRANCES H.\nLACEY. MARIAN G. Cover letter for ALT reports Dear Principals. At your request is the attachment that contains a sample letter to parents that can accompany the ALT results. Please edit it as you choose. This is only a suggestion. Thanks so much for all of your help this year. I think when we step back to look at our work, we will be pleased! Call us when you need us. Kathy ALT Principal letter to Parent... Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent Pianning, Research, and Evaiuation 3001 S. Puiaski Littie Rock, AR 72206 501-324-2122 (VM) 501-324-2126 (Fax) krlease@irc.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 1 Planning, Research, and Evaluation Instructional Resource Center 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 June 1,2000 Dear Parent or Guardian: Enclosed with your students report card is the parent copy of your students score report from our new Achievement Level Test. This test is based on the curriculum of the Little Rock School District and reflects the standards we have set for our students. It is designed to measure student growth in mathematics, reading, language usage, and science. The Achievement Level Test (ALT) is designed to measure the improvement of your student as he or she progresses through our schools. The ALTS will be given both fall and spring so that we can adequately monitor the progress of your child. Once the third administration of the test is given in 2001, you will receive a cumulative report that charts the growth of your child. The tests are given in levels that do not relate to grade level. Each level should be challenging to your child. If it is too easy, your child will be retested with a more difficult level. If a level is too hard, your child will be retested at a level where he or she can be successful. The Planning, Research, and Evaluation department will produce a program this summer for the districts television station that gives additional information about the ALTS and how to interpret them. Principals and counselors have also received training on how to interpret the test scores. In addition, each school has a set of videotapes that can be used for teacher and parent meetings. We are very excited about our new tests and the information that they will give us on the progress of your child, and we look forward to visiting with you about your childs test results. Sincerely, 44 Identified Issues from Data/Attendance Focus Group Have homebound and day treatment kids been extracted Dropped kids/kept schedules Set up specific criteria for printing documents Problem: Students dropped school to school. Schedule shouldn't be active September will be Hard for accurate data If kids aren't properly dropped, they roll over to next year Check attendance law/policy Confusion on when to count kids absent and when to drop Students should be counted absent from day 1- it's not being done Clear guidelines for principals \"Grade Quick\" used for attendance Day treatment kids have to have a \"seat\" when they return Day treatment report not happening One person monitor these unusual agency, etc. homebound, juvenile justice kids-large group of kids Communicate in Nuts \u0026amp; Bolts(Principals) What about technology? Those we have carried and we know they are not in district, can we delete? YES! \"Cheat\" sheet for attendance clerks ,Homebound teacher name and social security numbers can be reported at school level Gary Smith's office was to provide attendance/grade sheets: process has broken down Ken provide scan sheet on missing kids-registrars involved will check attendance clerks need to be involved Identifying \"short term\" and \"long term\" as it relates to placement in alternative education programs Listed below are the Alternative Education Program: Accelerated learning Program Evening Learning Program Alternative Forest Heights Alternative Learning Center Arkansas State Hospital Bridgeway Charter Hospital C-Step Centers for Youth \u0026amp; Families Florence Crittendon Home Job Corp Juvenile Justice Facility(Step One) Penick Boys Club Pinnacle Point Philander Smith Recovery/Baptist Hospital Rivendale Step Up Center Youth Challenge/Camp Robinson 45 TEST Grade District Assessments: The Assessment Program for 2000-01 K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 DISTRICT PERSPECTIVE: Mastery of State benchmarks/standards as measured by District level tests LRSD 1st and 3rd Quarter Achievement Level Test (ALT) Reading, Language Arts, Math, \u0026amp; Science LRSD 2nd Quarter Open-ended Test Math, Reading/Language Arts, \u0026amp; Science LRSD 4th Quarter Benchmark Math, Reading/Language Arts, \u0026amp; Science LRSD Observation Survey behavioral observation of literacy skills Sept. \u0026amp; April Sept. \u0026amp; April March Sept. \u0026amp; April Aug/Sept \u0026amp; March Dec. April/May STATE PERSPECTIVE: Mastery of State benchrnarks and standards State Benchmark objective and performanced-based: Math \u0026amp; Literacy End of Course Algebra I objective and performanced-based End of Course Geometry objective and performanced-based End of Course Literacy objective and performanced-based NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE: National comparison information SAT-9 objective test PLAN EXPLORE PSAT NAEP (randomly selected schools) 7/11/01 Aug/Sept \u0026amp; March Dec. April/May Last week of April Feb Aug/Sept \u0026amp; March Dec. April/May MidSept. Revised DRAFT Aug/Sept \u0026amp; March Aug/Sept \u0026amp; March Aug/Sept \u0026amp; March Aug/Sept \u0026amp; March Aug/Sept \u0026amp; March Aug/Sept \u0026amp; March Dec. April/May Last week of April Dec. Dec. April/May April/May Last week of April May May May May May May May May May May May May MidSept. Oct^ Feb Feb Mid-Sept. Oct \u0026amp; Nov Oct (practice) Oct Feb Assessment Window Code B G Keep Change Z Z Comments Have fall testing first week in August II W Y G W B B B B B z z z Retesting of students is difficult. Use certified person with a duty period for retesting, at a different time spaced out a little more Z Z do one in Sept, and one in October spaced out a little more ALT one week and SAT9 the next Separate State Assessments and ALT B B ALT great tool for truly finding out what children are learning. Definitely give at different times Schedule for Sth graders at this school involved testing every day for a week. They were totally drained! 46Assessment Advisory Committee 2000-2001 Name Sharon Brooks Dr. Linda Brown Felicia Hobbs Nancy Rousseau Karen Broadnax Suzi Davis Dennis Glasgow Randy Glenn Marie McNeal Pat Price Shirley Davis Hazel May______ Pat Pennington Alma Smith Arthur Olds Muneerah Qaasim Kitty Sanders Dr. Ed Williams Yvette Dillingham Gayle Hoffman Dr. Kathy Lease _______Position______ Principal____________ Principal____________ Principal____________ Principal____________ ESL Coordinator_____ Director LA/FL_______ Director Math/Science Exceptional Children Director Social Studies Director Early Childhood/Reading Counselor___________ Counselor___________ Counselor ALT Coordinator_____ Teacher_____________ Teacher_____________ Teacher Specialist___________ Specialist___________ Coordinator_________ Asst. Superintendent School/Division Stephens_________ Parkview Gibbs Pulaski Heights MS Curriculum Curriculum_______ Curriculum Curriculum_______ Curriculum Curriculum Woodruff Central Mabelvale Forest Heights MS Dunbar Forest Park Hall_____________ PRE____________ PRE____________ School Services PRE 47R Quick look it the M Irt i BiMliiM A Biii hJ i PMiw if tti SAT-9 Board of Education Presentation November 16, 200012% ACTAAP Grade 4 Literacy Benchmark Exam Comparison in Growth Points: LRSDand State Little Rock School District 1999-2000 Literacy Benchmark Exam Comparison LRSD to State Averages by Race 100% 4th Grade 90% - Lower is better Hi?her is better 80% - 60% 58% 70% - \u0026gt; LRSD ACTAAP Grade 4 Literacy Benchmark Comparison: 1999 to 2000 100% Little Rock School District Literacy Benchmark Exam Comparison SY98-99 to SY99-00 4th Grade 90% - 4 Lower is better \u0026gt; Higher is better 80% - 70% - ^00/ 60% 58%____ 58% Planning, Research, and Evaluation Ish Instructional Resource Center 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 To: Board of Education From: Through: Dr. Kathy Lease, Asst. Supt., PRE Dr. Leslie Carnine, Superintendent Date: November 21, 2000 Re: Assessment Data I Enclosed are the bar graphs that contain the corrected data from our 4*^ Grade Benchmark scores. Please destroy the graphs that were given to you at the Board meeting. The data reports comparing both 98-99 and 99-00 performance and LRSD performance against the States performance had errors. You received an email forwarded to you earlier regarding the problem we experienced with the Excel program that lead to the error. The email also contained an explanation of how we will prevent that problem from occurring again, and what we learned from it. We deeply regret any inconvenience that this has caused, and we have taken measures to improve our processes so that it does not happen again. We are also still receiving data from Harcourt on our SAT-9 test results. We will have to produce that comparative report manually at this point because Harcourt is having problems with the program that they usually send us to produce quick graphs about our results. We are also carefully comparing what they sent us on our data compact disc with what they sent us in hard copy. We want to be sure that there are no errors. We are also currently proofing a five-year comparison report on SAT-9 scores by school, race, and subtest. We will forward those reports to you as soon as they are finished. Please dont hesitate to call me (324-2122), if you have questions. ACTAAP 2000 Benchmark ExamsGrade 4 Literacy Girls who scored Proficient or Advanced grew from 38% in 1999 to 46%'in 23000 Boys who scored Proficient or Advanced grew from 28% in 1999 to 36% in 2000 All ethnic groups improved ^25 out of 35 elementary schools'improved m Literacy (* ,*i4s . iA J . 'J -A*?' 4? .:3U'z\u0026lt;\u0026gt;uaFzv.-, reS\n-if 'J. Azv\nr 3 Grade 4 Literacy 5'.\nI-* f Ite 1 i / f'.ii-' o' ?*Our growth was 10 points in the Proficient and Advanced categories vOldfiiOfetes growth was 3 points f ? ^ 5 schools had at least 50% of their students in the^Proficieht or Advanced categories in 1999 while 12 reached that level in^OOO ^2 schools had less than 10% of their students in the Proficient or Advanced categorie%in 1999 while none did in 2000 ** TGrade 4 Literacy 16 schools had double-digit gains ill the percentage of students in the Proficlerit and Advanced categories \u0026lt; of this total, 4 schools grew 20 or more percentage points the most improved school gained 30 percentage points in Proficient and Advanced^ categories\n17 r' S?\" jfe/' \u0026gt; ''?C?t !? ii?^. Grade 4 Math W' i \\^v\ns Girls who scored Proficient or Advanced grew from 20% in 1999Jo 27% in 2000 A '^''\nBoys who scored Proficient or Advanced grew from 24% in 1999 to 31% in 2000 ^All ethnic groups improved = it\nfe-, ^23 out of 35 elementary schools improved in Matha4fc*. Grade 4 Math ^Ou\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_320","title":"Compliance hearing exhibits: ''Elementary Schools''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1999/2001"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","School management and organization","Education, Elementary"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance hearing exhibits: ''Elementary Schools''"],"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/320"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nELEMENTRY SCHOOLSzom5 mm z CZ) o -n Elementary Schools 1. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley in June 2, 1999, Learning Links with attached copy of new publication. Portraits of Six Benchmark Schools: Diverse Approaches to Improving Student Achievement. 2. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley in Dec. 1, 1999, Learning Links with attached information on The Basic School model for school improvement created by Ernest Boyer. 3. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley in Jan. 12, 2000, Learning Links with attached study of nine urban elementary schools with high achievement. 4. Memorandum from Patricia Price to elementary principals in Feb. 7, 2001, Learning Links with information about a new publication, Building Strong Foundations for Early Learning: The U.S. Department of Educations Guide to High-Quality Early Childhood Education Programs. 1 L.L b/^/qcj LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 (501) 324-2131 June 1,1999 TO: Principals FROM\nDr. Bonnie Lesley? Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: School Improvement We are sending to you under separate cover a copy of a school improvement planning resource, Portraits of Six Benchmark Schools: Diverse Approaches to Improving Student Achievement by Gordon Cawelti. We think you will find it useful. In fact, we suggest that you read it before the Principals Institute in late July. BAL/rcm LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 (501)324-2131 April 20, 1999 TO: All Principals Curriculum Staff FROM: A? Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: Training in Teaching Writing I can think of no other single thing you could do with more potential for improving student achievement than in preparing ajl teachers to teach writing across the curriculum. The new Arkansas benchmark examinations are going to be, for the most part, writing tests. The National Writing Project is the most successful professional development program in this country! UALR is awarding 25 scholarships for teacher participation. We need all 25 of those slots! See the article below for how to sign up one or more oyour teachers. Call Gene Parker or me if we can help. Curriculum staff is also encouraged to participate in this training. BAL/rcm 25 teachers get writing fellowships The National Writing Project and the University of Arkansas at Little Rock will award up to 25 fellowships to Arkansas schoolteachers. _ The awards, valued at $900 each, enable teachers to enroll for SIX hours of graduate credit in the U.ALR department of rhetoric and wTiting. They will participate in The Summer Institute, a five-week program from June 28July 2S. Monday through Thursday, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. Applicants may be teachers in any subject. The application deadline is May 7. More information is available at 569-8063 or 835-3390. 3RD QUARTER CRT READING RESULTS 1998-99 DISTRICT TOTALS I 2ND GRADE BENCHMARK 1 RD1 BENCHMARK 3 RD3 BENCHMARK 9 RD9 BENCHMARK 10 RD10 TOTAL SCORE AVERAGE 4.4 2.9 3.8 3.6 14.6 3RD GRADE BENCHMARK 1 RD1 BENCHMARK 2 RD2 BENCHMARKS RD3 BENCHMARK 4 RD4 BENCHMARKS RDS BENCHMARKS RD6 BENCHMARK 7 RD7 BENCHMARKS RD8 BENCH- BENCH-MARK 9 RD9 MARK 10 RD10 TOTAL SCORE AVERAGE 3.5 3.2 3.1 2.8 3 2.9 3.1 3 2.3 2.2 29.1 4TH GRADE BENCHMARK 1 RD1 BENCHMARK 2 RD2 BENCHMARK 3 RD3 BENCHMARK 4 RD4 BENCHMARKS RD5 BENCHMARKS RDS BENCHMARK 7 RD7 BENCHMARKS RD8 BENCHMARK 9 RD9 BENCHMARK 10 RD10 TOTAL SCORE AVERAGE 3 1.8 3.2 2.8 2.7 3 2.6 2.7 2.5 2.7 26.9 5TH GRADE BENCHMARK 1 RD1 BENCHMARK 2 RD2 BENCHMARKS RDS BENCHMARK 4 RD4 BENCHMARKS RDS BENCHMARKS RDS BENCHMARK 7 RD7 BENCHMARKS RD8 BENCH-MARKO RD9 BENCHMARK 10 RD10 TOTAL SCORE AVERAGE 2.8 3.2 3.2 2.6 2.7 3.3 3.3 2.8 2.8 3.2 30 I I 6TH GRADE BENCHMARK 1 RD1 BENCHMARK 2 RD2 BENCHMARKS RDS BENCHMARK 4 RD4 BENCHMARKS RDS BENCHMARKS RD6 BENCHMARK 7 RD7 BENCHMARKS RD8 BENCH-MARKO RD9 BENCHMARK 10 RD10 TOTAL SCORE AVERAGE 3.5 3.4 2.8 3.1 3 2.5 3 2.7 3.3 3.3 30.7 1 3RD QUARTER CRT MATH RESULTS 1998-99 DISTRICT TOTALS 2ND GRADE 3RD QTR BENCHMARK 1 M3-1 3RD QTR BENCHMARK 2 M3-2 3RD QTR BENCHMARK 4 M3-4 3RD QTR BENCHMARKS M3-5 3RD QTR BENCHMARKS M3-6 TOTAL SCORE AVERAGE 3.5 3.3 3.1 3.4 3.4 16.8 3RD GRADE 3RD QTR BENCHMARK! M3-1 3RD QTR BENCHMARK 2 M3-2 2ND QTR BENCHMARKS M2-5 2ND QTR BENCHMARKS M2-3 3RD QTR BENCHMARK 4 M3-4 3RD QTR BENCHMARKS M3-3 1ST QTR BENCHMARK 4 MI-4 2ND QTR BENCHMARK 1 M2-1 1ST QTR BENCHMARKS MI-3 2ND QTR BENCHMARK 2 M2-2 TOTAL SCORE AVERAGE 2.9 2.8 3.1 2.7 3 2.3 2.8 2.4 2.5 3.1 27.5 4TH GRADE 3RD QTR BENCHMARK 2 M3-2 3RD QTR BENCHMARKS M3-5 3RD QTR BENCHMARK 4 M3-4 3RD QTR BENCHMARKS M3-3 3RD QTR BENCHMARKS M3-8 3RD QTR BENCHMARK 1 M3-1 3RD QTR BENCHMARK 7 M3-7 1ST QTR BENCHMARKS MI-5 2ND QTR BENCHMARKS M2-3 2ND QTR BENCHMARK 1 M2-1 TOTAL SCORE AVERAGE 3.3 2.8 1.9 2.1 2.8 2.3 2.6 2.6 2.7 3.3 26.3 STH GRADE 3RD QTR BENCHMARK 1 M3-1 3RD QTR BENCHMARK 2 MS-? 3RD QTR BENCHMARKS M3-3 3RD QTR BENCHMARK 4 M3-4 3RD QTR BENCHMARKS M3-5 2ND QTR BENCHMARKS M2-6 2ND QTR BENC-MARK7 M2-7 2ND QTR BENCHMARKS M2-3 2ND QTR BENCHMARK 2 M2-2 2ND QTR BENCHMARK 4 M2-4 TOTAL SCORE I I AVERAGE 3.2 2.4 2 1.8 2.7 2.4 1.6 2.4 2.5 1.9 22.8 6TH GRADE 3RD QTR BENCHMARK 2 M3-2 3RD QTR BENCHMARK 1 M3-1 3RD QTR BENCHMARKS M3-3 3RD QTR BENCHMARK 4 M3-4 3RD QTR BENCHMARKS M3-5 3RD QTR BENCHMARK 7 M3-7 2ND QTR BENCHMARK 1 M2-1 2ND QTR BENCHMARKS M2-5 2ND QTR BENCHMARKS M2-6 2ND QTR BENCHMARK 4 M2-4 TOTAL SCORE AVERAGE 21 1.6 2.1 1.4 1.6 1.9 2.7 2.6 2.3 21 21.6 2 Memo To: From: Re: Elementary School Principals and Teachers Dr. Ed Williams, Planning Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation District Wide 3''^\u0026lt;3uarter CRT Results Attached are the District average scores for the 3\"* quarter reading and math benchmarks. The reading scores are on page 1 and the math results are on page 2. For the 2^^ grade there were 20 questions for each subject. Reading had four benchmarks, with five questions for each benchmark. Mastery of a benchmark would be four out of five correct. A total score of 16 or above indicates mastery of the reading section. Math had five benchmarks, with four questions for each benchmark. Mastery of a benchmark would be three out'of four correct. A total score of 15 or above indicates mastery of the math section. For grades 3 through 6, there were 40 questions for each subject, with ten benchmarks and four questions per benchmark. Mastery would be three out of four correct. A total score of 30 or above in a section indicates mastery of that section. Testing for the 4* quarter will be on May 19*^ and 20, except for grade. Due to a conflict with 6' Grade Challenge, we ask that you test your test 6' grade students on May 18. Return scoring sheets to PRE by 5 p.m. on May 21^ The student ID number \u0026amp; name, type of test, and school will be pre-slugged. Teachers will only need to pencil in their ID number. Any school that cannot adhere to the above testing dates please call 2125. 1Memo To: Elementary School Principals and Teachers From: Dr. Ed Williams, PRE Re: Comparison of Z\"** and 3\" Quarter CRT Results District average test scores in reading 2\"** Quarter 3\"^ Quarter % + /- 3\"* grade 25.58 29.07 +13.6% grade 26.72 26.91 +.07% 5* grade 26.73 30.01 +12.27% 6* grade 29.78 30.67 +2.99% District average test scores in math Z\"** Quarter 3^ Quarter % +1- 3\"* grade 27.69 27.51 -.06% 4* grade 20.71 26.32 +27.08% 5 grade 20.71 22.79 +10.04% 6 grade 24.01 21.56 -10.20% Interpreting scores. Some benchmarks were assessed in both quarters (e.g., 3rd grade math M2-1, 2-2, 2-3, \u0026amp; 2-5). Refer to Learning Links, February 3,1999, for average scores, on individual benchmarks, for the 2'* quarter.-Benchmarks are based on the concept of vertical linkage or chaining (i.e., what you learn in a previous quarter is built upon and linked or chained to learning in the current quarter). The question, to some extent, that could be answered by these results is that Yes, student achievement is improving.\" Congratulations! Please share this information with your building teachers. 22 LL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 (501) 324-2131 November 15, 1999 TO: Elementary Principals FROM\nDr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: The Basic School - Model for Change I promised at a recent meeting to send to all of you some information on Ernest Boyer's The Basic School, a change model that I really like. I have lots of information, but I am sending this much to see if you are interested. An address and phone number are included - if you want to order your own book and videotape. They also have a web page\nwww.baesp.org/sci.htm. You Can e-mail the national director. Dr. Mary Ellen Bafumo, at bafumome@imu.edu. Attachment BAL/rcm The Basic School Page 1 of 2 M J M ?\nijdcj?= I J?JLJiJ = National Association of Elementary School Prindpals The Basic School The Basic School Network began as a partnership of The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, the National Association of Elementary School Principals, the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, and James Madison University Copyright 1996 \"As I listen to teachers, parents, university faculty, colleagues, even children respond to the ideas of the Basic School, I realize how deeply resonant they are. I believe that the Basic School truly has the potential for changing the face of elementary education in America. These changes will not take place through inspirational talks alone. Teachers will learn from each other\nputting ideas into practice.\" Mary Beth Van Cleave, Principal, Clinton Kelly Elementary School, Portland, Oregon Learn more about The Basic School and the Network from: The Basic School Network Highlights The Carnegie Foundation's Basic School Blueprint Dr. Ernest Boyer's speech at the 1995 NAESP Annual Convention - Part I and Part II Principal Magazine Principal Magazine Character\" Principal Magazine article \"The Basic School: Focusing on the Childfl article \"Character in the Basic School - Making a Commitment to article \"The Basic School: Building a Framework for Curriculum Communicator article \"Basic School Update -13 Schools Try Out Reforms\" Teaching PreK-8 article \"Norfolk's 'Model' School\" Instructor article \"My Colleagues Never Drive Me Crazyft List of Other Publications on the Basic School and the Basic School Network Other Up-To-Date Information on The Basic School Network: o Direct link to The Basic School Network at James Madison University o The latest Basic School News ~ o The Basic School Network Events For Further Information: The Basic School: A Community for Learning, by Ernest L. Boyer, is available for $15 (Bulk rate available) plus shipping from: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 350 Sansome Street, Fifth Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104, Telephone 888-378- http\n//www.naesp.org/bshili.htm 11/12/99 2537, Fax 800-605-2665 Or for more information about the network contact: Mary Ellen Bafumo, The Basic School Network, James Madison University, 101 Roop Hall, Harrisonburg, VA 22807, phone (540) 568-7098, fax (540)-568-3803, or E-mail: bafumomef^imu.edu PRINCIPAL ONLINE is sponsored by: The National Association of Elementary School Principals 1615 Duke Street Alexandria, VA 22314 For Additional Information about NAESP contact us at: 1-800-38-NAESP (voice), 1-800-39-NAESP (fax) or E-Mail: naesp(^naesp.ors ^Honw ^Publications ^Membership \u0026amp; Products ^SpecialProjects ^Programs ^Research Forum ^Students * Government * Index Copyright 1996-1999 National Association of Elementary School Principals. All rights reserved. s j / M J \u0026gt; HtbCIkMUM ktQVIiX HLVltlM /CUbUKC PMICV S' i' -c a- ' i-iC-Vr ! ?! ivacv- I Partnership f -B -SFh 5^ J V 11 i t J I. W f 9 http://www.naesp.org/bshili.htm 11/12/99National Assodation of Elementary School Prindpals The Basic School A Community for Learning Introduction to The Basic School-A New Beginning For years, America has been working hard to improve the nation's schools. Reform has been high on the public agenda. As a result, academic standards have been raised, teacher certification requirements have been tightened, and educational innovations have been introduced from coast to coast. Without question, progress has been made. Today, America's best schools are among the most outstanding in the world. Others are succeeding, often under difficult conditions. But it's also true that far too many schools are only marginal at best, and that some, often those in our me st troubled neighborhoods, should hardly be called schools. The world has changed and schools must change, too. The lives of children who enroll in school today will span a new century. If, in the days ahead, educators cannot help students to become literate and well informed, if the coming generation cannot be helped to see beyond the confines of their own lives, the nation's prospects for the future will be dangerously diminished. Clearly, the push for school renewal rieeds a new beginning. This time the focus must be on the early years, on elementary education. Every level of learning is important. No sector should be neglected. But school failure starts very early and if all children do not have a good beginning, if they do not receive the support and encouragement they need during the first years of life, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to compensate fully for the failure later on. Responding to this challenge, The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching has proposed a new, comprehensive plan for elementary schooling called the Basic School, presented in a report entitled The Basic School: A Community for Learning. Following is an introduction to the priorities of the Basic School and answers to most frequently asked questions. What is a Basic School? The Basic School is not just another \"pilot program\" or novel innovation. Rather, it's a comprehensive plan to strengthen elementary education by bringing together, in a single school, the key components of an effective education. The shared vision of the Basic School is excellence for aH. The school affirms, as its central mission, that every child has a right to a quality education, that high academic standards must be set, and that every child can and will succeed in ways that reflect his or her own aptitudes and interests. This vision defines the purpose of the Basic School and becomes, both for teachers and students, the source of daily inspiration. Why is it Called \"Basic? ft The school is \"basic\" for several reasons. First, because it takes the push for school renewal back to http\n//www.naesp.org/scl.htm 11/12/99 me casic dcaoui the beginning - to the neighborhood school and to the first years of formal le^ing. Second, it's called \"basic\" because it gives priority to language and to a core of essential knowledge. Finally, the , , . . zK-t really work and seeks to make them available to school IS basic because it identifies practices that reauj every child. What are the Educational Priorities of The Basic School. To achieve excellence for all, the Basic School has four priorities that are considered the essential building blocks ofthe school. Fitted within these priorities are the components of an effective education. The First Priority: The School As Community A Shared Vision: The Basic School is a place where everyone comes together to promote learning. In the Basic School, the separate classrooms are connected by a clear and vital mission. Teachers as Leaders: In the Basic School, teachers are the leaders, with the principal as lead teacher. Parents as Partners: In the Basic School, the circle of co^unity extends to embrace parents. who are viewed as the child's first and most important teachers. The Second Priority: A Curriculum With Coherence no Centrality of Language: In the Basic School literacy is the first and most essential goal All children are expected to become proficient in the written and spoken wort, as well as in mathematics and the arts. The Core ComngtnaUtiett: In the Basic School, all students become well mfomed. They study the various fields ofknowledge - history, science, hterature civics, health, fcr example which are organized thematically within a framework called \"The Core Commonalities. This is not so much i a new curriculum as it is a new way to think about the curriculum. Measuring Sesults: The Basic School is accountable to parents, to swdents, and to the coi^umty at large. High academic standards are established in both taguage achievement and general knowledge Student progress is periodically evaluated, with assessment always in the service of learning. The Third Priority: A Climate for Learning r- n T n c u ,.1 studcnt is encouraged to become a disciplined. Patterns to Fit Purpose: In the Basic School, every . J , , , 4 1 rii e-mail, the teaching schedule IS flexible, and student creative, self-motivated learner. Class size is kept sro\u0026lt;iib \u0026amp; \u0026gt; grouping anangements are varied to promote learning- r, n L 'Tu a o u 1 available to all students nch resources for leaming- Resources to Enrich: The Basic School makes avan^^i , . . , , , -ij- ui 1 i. u A J i\u0026lt;:n gives students access to the new electronic tools from building blocks to books. And the school also irUill uiuvivo uiiv ovwvv . that connect each classroom to vast networks of knowle o Support Serrtcafor Children: The Basic School is commined to serving the whole child. Beyond http://www.naesp.org/scl.htm 11/12/991 : i.- The Basic bcnooi - rage j Oio a solid academic program, the school provides basic health and counseling services and afternoon and summer enrichment programs for students. The Fourth Priority: A Commitment to Character TAe Core Virtues: The Basic School is concerned with the ethical and moral dimensions of a child's life. Seven core virtues-honesty, respect, responsibility, compassion, self-discipline, perseverance, and giving-are emphasized to guide the Basic School as it promotes excellence in living, as well as in learning. Living with Purpose: The core virtues of the Basic School are taught both by word and deed. Through curriculum, school climate, and service, smdents are encouraged to apply the lessons of the classroom to the world around them. Does The Basic School have Specific Educational Goals for All Students? Yes, in addition to the larger objective of excellence for all, the Basic School defines five sharply focused educational goals: First, to communicate effectively. Language, defined broadly to include not just words, but also mathematics and the arts, is not just another subject\nit is the means by which all other subjects are pursued. Second, to acquire a core of knowledge. Students become well informed by learning a core of knowledge, while making connections across the disciplines and relating what they learn to life. Third, to be a motivated learner. Students remain curious and develop both the desire and skills to study on their own. They learn how to gather information and become problem solvers. Fourth, to feel a sense of well-being. Through school support, students become physically healthy, socially competent, and emotionally secure. Fifth, to live responsibly. Students learn by word and deed the core virtues that promote good conduct and citizenship. How is The Basic School Different? First, the school seeks to bring together all the key components of an effective school. Second, the Basic School seeks to build a community in which teachers work together and parents are actively involved. Third, the Basic School gives high priority to a commitment to character and defines core virtues to be taught. Fourth, the most distinctive feature of the Basic School is its curriculum. Most elementary schools have a confusing, fragmented course of study, with teachers often developing lesson plans in isolation and with each grade level disconnected from the others. In the Basic School, the curriculum is organized around eight integrative themes-core commonalities-that spiral upward from kindergarten to the upper grades. By core commonalities we mean those universal experiences shared by all people. These include: the Lf http://www.naesp.org/scl.htm bi. 11/12/99 The Basic School Page 4 of 5 Life Cycle, the Use of Symbols, Membership in Groups, a Sense of Time and Space, Response to the Aesthetic, Connections to Nature, Producing and Consuming, and Living with Purpose. Within these eight themes, every traditional subject or academic discipline can find a home. Finally, the Basic School places great importance on fostering children's love of learning. This means that Basic School students are taught in a way that sparks their interest in learning and makes their school a lively, exciting place. Does The Basic School Require More Money? No, not necessarily. Creative schools have found ways to implement almost all of the recommendations of the Basic School within their existing budget. Such critical issues as clarifyin\ngoals and building community have to do with ideas and attitudes, not money, and that applies to g parent participation and creative teaching, too. Adding technology to the school will require money, of course, but this can be implemented over time. The most important budget issues perhaps relate to providing teacher time and achieving small classes, especially, in the lower grades. Will Basic School Students Meet District and State Standards? Again, assessment is a critically important part of the Basic School. Language skills will be continuously monitored, since proficiency in language is a key objective of the Basic School. In teaching the curriculum, evaluation is embedded in instruction, so students, teachers, and parents can follow the progress being made. Further, any required state or district tests are administered at the Basic School with the confidence that all students will succeed. Students will have learned a core of essential knowledge in context. Can Every School Become a Basic School? Yes, but it's an ongoing process. Sortie ideas can be implemented quickly, while others take more time. What's required is a commitment on the part of everyone- the school board, the principal, teachers, and parents-to support the priorities and proposed practices of the Basic School, to evaluate the current program of the school, and to develop together a plan to implement the recorrimendations. In the end, becoming a Basic School is not a top-down decision, it must be continuously affirmed and sustained at the school level. Ultimately, the aim of the Basic School is not just to build a better school, but, above all, to build a . better world for children. It is our deepest hope that not a single child, let alone a whole generation of children, should pass through the schoolhouse door unprepared for the world that lies before them. There is an urgency to this effort. For Further Information Contact: Mary Ellen Bafumo, The Basic School Network, James Madison University, 101 Roop Hall, Harrisonburg, VA 22807, phone (540) 568-7098, fax (540)-568-3803, or E-mail: bafumome\u0026amp;jmu.edu http://www.naesp.org/scl.htm 11/12/99 me oabic oenooi Page 5 of 5 r PRINCIPAL ONLINE is sponsored by: The National Association of Elementary School Principals T6I5T)uke Slreef ~ .......... Alexandria, VA 22314 3 4 For Additional Information about NAESP contact us at: 1-800-38-NAESP (voice), 1-800-39-NAESP (fax) or E-Mail: naesp(^naesp.ors 4 1 ^Home ^Publications ^Membership \u0026amp; Products ^SpecialProjects Programs Research Forum Students Government Index 4 Copyright 1996-1998 National Association of Elementary School Principals. All rights reserved. lowered fcrr HlDtlhMbUl MblVKSl HeMtM mTUUMCFJCY Care About Online Privacy? p ri /-3cy Partnership http://www.naesp.org/scl.htm 11/12/99i 1 J 4 1! T H BASIC . SCHOOL A Community for Learning ERNEST L. BOYER The Cam^e Foundation for the Advancement of Teachingi ! i i } 5 5 i 5 ? I t Prologue: A NEW BEGINNING An Excerpt from: The Basic School: A Community Jbr Learning Ernest L. Boyer The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement Df Teaching ii I i CopjTight 1995 9 The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching 5 hy Lane, Princeton, New Jersey 08540 Confidential, Not for distribution, publication, or citation. j The draft of this report is part of the effort by The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching to explore significant issues in education. The views expressed should not necessarily be ascribed to individual members of the Board of Trustees of The Carnegie Foundation. r a 5 I s I All rights reserved. No part of this draft may be reproduced in any form without permission from The Carnegie Foundation. ISBN: 0-931050-51-0 Available from: California Princeton Fulfillment SerAdces 1445 Lower Feny Road Ewing, New Jersey 08618 1300) 777-4726 or (609) 883-1759 - I i I s Prologue: A New Beginning o o I ! I i i We propose, in this-report. a new place of learning called The Basic School. The Basic School is not so much an iiistiiiition as it is an idea based on best practice, a comprehensive plan for educational renewal that is, we believe, appropriate for every elementary school. Our goal is to improve the prospects for learning for every child. I I I We call this school basic, first of all, because it takes the push for school reform back to the beginning, to the first years of formal education. It is basic because it gives priority to language and sugsests a core of knowledge with coherence. Finally, the school we propose is basic\" because it identifies key components of an effective school and brings them all together in a single institutionthe Basic School. ) i1 I I I The purpose of the Basic School is to provide quality education for the more than three million kindergarten children' who enrolled last fall in over fifty thousand public and private elementary schools from Bangor, Maine, to the islands of Hawaii.- Most of these young students arrived at school anxious, but also eager. Some were cheerful, others troubled. Some skipped and ran, others could not walk. This new generation of students came from countless neighborhoods, from a great diversity of cultures, speaking more languages than most of us could name. The urgent challenge the nation's schools confront is to ensure that every child will, with care and guidance, become a confident, resourceful learner. I f Children are, of course, always learning. They learn as they touch the earth, feel the grass, dig into the sand. Children, endlessly responding to the world around them, learn as they chase pigeons in the park, study drifting clouds, I I1 and watch ants scurrying acros.s city sidewalks. \"The child is.\" as Ashley Montagu observed, \"the most avid learner of all living things on this earth.' Yet this maivelous gift of continuous discovery can be diminished or enhanced. and the purpose of the Basic School is to keep the urge to learn alive in everv child. I V I I i For more than a decade. America has been working hard to improve all the nation's schools, and enrich learning for all children. As a result, academic Standards have been raised, teacher cenification requirements have been tightened. and educational innovations have been introduced from coast to coast. Without a doubt, progress has been madewith a decline in school dropouts in some districts as well as modest increase.s in basic skills performance, especially among minority students. n 'i } i Today, America's best schools are among the most outstanding in the world. Others are succeeding, often under difficult conditions, wdth teachers assuming responsibilities that families and communitie,s have not been able to accomplish. But it's also true that far too many of the nation's schools are marginal at best, and that some schools, those in our most troubled neighborhoods. can hardly be called schools, a.s U.S. Secretary of Education Richard Riley put it.-' In one suburban elementary school in Ohio, a fourth-- grade teacher told us: \"We seem to be working harder, with fewer gains.\" 4 J When we asked elementary school teachers in a national survey how the quality of American education today compares to five years ago, about 40 percent said about the same.\" Thirty-two percent said it's gotten worse. Only 26 percent said it's better.' Parents, we discovered, were even more pessimistic about the progres.s being made. Twenty percent feel the quality of education is better. Forty percent say it'.s worse, compared to five years 5 ago\" (table 1). School success, ultimately, must be measured by .student performance, not opinion polls. Still, no one can be fully satisfied with where we are todaw T/ic Basic Sclinnl 4 I Table 1 I i How Does the Quality of Education in the Nation Today Compare With Five Years Ago I Teachers Parents Better About The Same Worse 26 42 20 40 40 Source: i The Carnegie Foundaiion for the Advancement of Teaching and the Georae H. Gallup International In.siitute. The International Schooling Project. 1994: survey of teachers and survey of parents. We reach one incontrovenible conclusion. The world has changed and schools must change, too. The lives of children who enroll in school today will span a new century. Those who graduate will enter what Peter F. Drucker calls the knowledge society, a society that requires higher literacy, more technical competence, and lifelong learning. Knowledge has, without question. I I a become_our most precious resource. And if, in the days ahead, educators u n 12 \u0026amp; id 3 cannot help students become literate and well informed, if the comins seneration cannot be helped to see well beyond the confines of their own lives, the nation's prospects for the future will be dangerously diminished. I Clearly, the push for school renewal needs a new besinnins. This time the focus must be on the early years, on clctnsntorv education. Every level of learning is important. No sector should be neglected. But school failure starts very early, and if all children do not have a good besinnins, if they do not receive the support and encouragement needed durins the first years of life, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to compensate fully for the failure later on^ Pmlngiie: \u0026lt;4 ,\\ew Beginning - 5W I A third-grade teacher in Wyoming put the challenge this way: With all the talk about school renewal, there is a tendency to overlook elementary schools. The first years must be recognized as the most essential. Until the elementary school becomes a priority for renewal, education in this country will not make much improvement. And responding to this challenge. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching launched, several years ago, a study of the elementary school. We searched the literature, consulted scholars, conducted national and'international surveys, and sent researchers into schools all across the country. y J cl During school visits, we were struck, time and time again, by the commitment of principals, the eagerness of students, the concern of parents, and most especially by the dedication of teachers, who are, we concluded, the unsung heroes of the nation. Above all, we were struck by the way so many of the nations elementary schools have adjusted dramatically to new demands. We concluded that the elementary school is, as former U.S. Secretary of Education William Bennett put it, a place of hope.\"* Still, this is not the time to be complacent. 5 5 While inspired by dedicated efforts, we also were troubled by the way most teachers work alone and by the weakened partnership between the home and school, a fragmented relationship described by one principal as a lack of community at our school.\" We were troubled, too. by the confusion over what schools should teach and how students should be assessed, issues that go to the very heart of quality education. We also became concerned, while visiting schools, that a rigid daily schedule and poor resources often restrict learning, especially for the least advantaged. Finally, at the very time the nation's children need ethical and moral guidance, we found most schools greatly perplexed about what virtues they should, in fact, be teaching. We are convinced that a new vision of elementary education is urgently required, one that presents a comprehensive, practical plan of action based The Basic ScIhidI f) I '5^' on best practices, one that would be appropriate for every school. We agree with James Rodenmayer, the principal at Etna Road Elementary School in Whitehall, Ohio, who said to us: There is a growing urgency all over the country about the direction of education and a sense that, nationwide, we must do better, for the sake of our children. How, then, should we proceed? I I 1 J The plan we present in this report is not just another pilot project. It is not yet one more novel experiment.\" Rather, what we have done is to identify practices that really work and put them all together in what we call the Basic School. The piecemeal approach to school reform has been tried. During the past decade, we have had literally hundreds of isolated innovations. Whats needed now is a comprehensive approach to school renewal, one that pulls together the essential elements of an effectix e school and makes them available to every child. 1 3 After completing our research we concluded that the most essential ingredient of an effective schoolthe one idea that holds it all togetheris best described bv the simple word connections. An effective school connects people, to create community. An effective school connects the curriculum, to achieve coherence. An effective school connects cla.ssroom.s and resources to enrich the climate. And an effective school connects learning to life, to build character. a L These four prioritiescommunity, coherence, climate, and characterare the basic building blocks for the Basic School. Fitted within each of these priorities are specific proposalsprograms that, we discovered, really work. The 2oal. then, of the Basic School is to present an overall strategy for renewal, one that seems to fit all institutions, while, at the same time, encour- asina every public and private school to develop, within thislaverarching framework, its own distinctive program. t I I i i Prohiiue: A New Beginning - 7\u0026gt; First: The School AS Co.M.ML'NiTY Building Community. The Basic School has, as the first requirement, a clear and vital mission. The school is a place where every'- one comes together to promote learning. Each classroom is, itself, a community. But in the Basic School, the separate classrooms are connected by a sense of purpose, m a climate that is just, disciplined, and caring, with occasions for celebration. Teachers as Leaders. In the Basic School, teachers are empowered. Working together as teams, they serve as mentors to their students, and have the time and resources needed to be professionally renewed. The principal in the Basic School is lead teacher, the one who guides the school, more by inspiration than directive. Parents as Partners. In the Basic School, the circle of community extends outward to embrace parents, who are viewed as the child's first and most important teachers. A vital pannership is created between the home and school, one that begins during preschool years, is strengthened when the child formally enrolls, and continues from kindergarten to grade five. i I i The Basie School - 8 I ( i i i 1 \u0026lt; Second: A Cl'rricli*um with Coherence The Basic Tools. In the Basic School, literacy is the first and most essential goal. All children are expected to become proficient in the written and spoken word. But in the Basic School, language is defined broadly to include words, numbers, and the arts, the essential tools of learning which, taken together, help create a curriculum with coherence. The Core Commonalities. In the Basic School, all students become well informed. They study, with diligence, the various fields of knowledge, which are organized, thematically, within a framework called the Core Commonalities. These eight commonalities, based on shared human experiences, integrate the traditional subjects, helping students see connections across the disciplines and relate what they learn to life. X Measuring Results. Assessment in the Basic School is, always, in the service of learning. Academic standards are established both in language and the Core Commonalities, with benchmarks to monitor student achievement. The personal qualities of student development also are evaluated carefully by teachers. The Basic School is, in the end, accountable to students, to parents, and to the larger community. Prolugue: New Beginning 9 'fl* Third: A Climate for Learning Patterns to Fit Purpose. In the Basic School, every student is encouraged to become a disciplined, creative, well-motivated learner. Class size is restricted to promote learning, and the teaching schedule and student grouping are flexibly arranged. Connections are made across the generations, to enrich students lives. Resources to Enrich. The Basic School makes available to all students rich resources for learning, from building blocks to books. Libraries, zoos, museums, and parks in the surrounding community become resources, too. And on the threshold of a new century, the Basic School gives all students access to the new electronic tools that connect each classroom to vast networks of knowledge. Services for Children. The Basic School is committed to serve the whole child, acknowledging that a students physical, social, and emotional well-being also relate to learning. Beyond a solid aca- - demic prosram. the school provides basic health and counseling services for students, referrals for families, and a new calendar and clock, with after-school and summer enrichment programs for learning and creative play. The Basic School - 10 I I iI I 1 I I I I I I Fourth: A Commitment to Character The Core Virtues. The Basic School is concerned with the ethical dimensions of a childs life. The goal is to assure that all students who leave school will have developed a keen sense of personal and civic responsibility. Seven core virtues, such as respect, compassion, and perseverance, are emphasized to guide the Basic School as it promotes excellence in learning, as well as living. Living with Purpose. The core virtues of the Basic School are taught by both word and deed. Through the curriculum, through school climate, and through service, students are encouraged to apply the lessons of the classroom to the world around them. Prologue: A New Beginning -11These, then, are the four priorities of the Basic School. The first priority, community, focuses on how people relate to one another. The second priority, coherence, considers what all students should learn. The third priority, climate, deals with effective teaching and learning. The fourth priority, character, considers how the school experience shapes the ethical and moral lives of children. Many proposals presented in this report are already being practiced, to one degree or another, in schools from coast to coast. What we propose to do, however, is bring them all together in the Basic School, while encouraging every elementary school to implement the proposed plan in its own distinctive way. And it is our hope that this reportthis vision we call the Basic Schoolwill be helpful to principals and teachers, in all schools, who are working so diligently to educate the nations children. What we envision, in short, is a continuing commitment to renewal. In the end. the goal of the Basic School is not just, to build a better school, but, above all. to build a better world for children. It is our deepest hope that not a single child, let alone a whole generation of children, should pass through the schoolhouse door unprepared for the world that lies before them. .And there is. we believe, an urgency to this effort. Chilean poet Gabriela Mistral wrote: \"Many things we need can wait. The child cannot. Now is the time his bones are being formed, his blood is being made, his mind is being developed. To him we cannot say tomorrow, his name is today.'' The Basic School 12 a t i 1. National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, 6 March 1995. I 2, Market Data Retrieval, 7 March 1995. r i i 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Ashley Montagu, Growing Young, 2nd ed. (New York\nBegin and Garvey Publishers, 1989), 121. Richard W. Riley, State of American Education,\" remarks at Georgetown University, Washington, DC, 15 February 1994, 2. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, National Survey of Kindergarten Teachers, 1991. All quotations from kinderganen teachers are taken also from this survey. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, National Survey of Kindergarten Teachers, 1991. All quotations from kindergarten teachers are taken also from this survey. Peter F. Drucker, The Age of Social Transformation,\" Atlantic Monthly, November 1994, 53-80, William J. Bennett, First Lessons: A Report on Elementary Education in America (Washington. DC\nU.S. Department of Educa- tion, 1986), 1, Cited in a speech by Pat Henry, former president of the National Congress of Parents and Teachers Association, at the Children First Conference for Media, Washington, DC, 15 September 1992\nreprinted in Leading the Way\nChildren First,\" PTA Today, December 1992-January 1993,4-5. Pmlo^iie: A /Vcu- Be^^innirt! - 13 I I I i I i I I I I BASic ScHocn Materials The Basic School: A Community for Learning (report) Introductory Price $10.--ISBN 0-931050-48-0 Lite Basic School: PrologueAN ezo Beginning (excerpt from report) ComplimentaryISBN 0-931050-51-0 Tl-ie Basic School: One Hand Taking Another (video) Introductory Price $45.ISBN 0-931050-49-9 The Basic School: A Conversation with Ernest Boyer (audio) Introductory Price $10.ISBN 0-931050-50-2 The Basic School Package (all above in shelf case) Introductory Price $50.ISBN 0-931050-52-9 Available From: Please Add Shippiug. Bulk Order Discounts Available. Call for Rates. California Princeton Fulfillment Services 1445 Lower Ferry Road Ewing, NJ 08618 (800) 777-4726 or (609) 883-1759 THE CARNEGIE FOUNDATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF TEACHING - 5 ivy Lane, Princeton, NJ 08540LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 (501)324-2131 ) January 10, 2000 TO: Elementary Principals and Brokers FROM: .^/s Dr. Bonnie Lesley\nAssociate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: Study on Urban Elementary Schools I alerted you earlier by e-mail about the just released study of nine urban elementary schools with high achievement. You will find it very interesting and I urge you to read the whole report. Attached for your convenience is an executive ofthe section on Improvement Strategies. summary of the study, plus a copy Please share this information with your CLT. Attachment BAL/rcmBRIGGS, MONA From: Sent: To: Subject: Winters, Kirk [Kirk_Winters@ed.gov] Tuesday, January 04, 2000 4:14 PM Information from \u0026amp; about the U.S. Department of Education publications \u0026amp; more . Hope for Urban Education: A Study of High-Performing, High-Poverty Elementary Schools NINE URBAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS that have served children of color in poor communities \u0026amp; achieved impressive academic results are the focus of a report Secretary Riley released last month at the Department's third regional Improving America's Schools conference in Chicago. \"What stands out among these schools,\" the Secretary said, \"is a clear \u0026amp; unrelenting focus on high standards, a commitment to serving children \u0026amp; ensuring their academic success, \u0026amp; a collective sense of responsibility \u0026amp; persistence among school staff.\" Below is the executive summary \u0026amp; a list of the schools. Most of the the 150-page report (126 pages) is devoted to indepth case studies* of these 9 schools. The full report is at: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/urbanhope/ This study \u0026amp; report were produced for the Department's Planning \u0026amp; Evaluation Service by the Charles A. Dana Center at the University of Texas at Austin. The 9 schools are... Harriet A. Baldwin School in Boston, Baskin Elementary in San Antonio, Burgess Elementary in Atlanta, Centerville Elementary in East St. Louis, IL, Goodale Elementary in Detroit, Hawley Environmental Elementary in Milwaukee, Lora B' Peck Elementary in Houston, Gladys Noon Spellman Elementary in Cheverly, MD, \u0026amp; James Ward Elementary, Chicago. (All are Title l-funded schools that pool resources through \"schoolwide projects\" to serve all students and improve achievement.) Executive Summary of \"Hope for Urban Education: A Study of Nine High-Performing, High-Poverty, Urban Elementary Schools\" (December 1999) This report is about nine urban elementary schools that served children of color in poor communities \u0026amp; achieved impressive academic results. These schools have attained higher levels of achievement than mos^choois In their states or most schools in th^n'atioh~They'have achieved results in reading \u0026amp; mathematics beyond that achieved in some suburban schools. This report tells the stories of these schools \u0026amp; attempts to explain how these schools changed themselves into high-achieving schools. All nine of the schools used federal Title I dollars to create Title I schoolwide programs. 'I hes~e schools are a powerful affirmatTon of the power of Title I to support comprehensive school improvement efforts. In these schools, many important change efforts were enhanced through the use of federal education resources. On the other hand, although Title I supported the change efforts, Tjtl^was not the catalyst of the change effort. The true catalyst was'the strong desire of e'ducafdrslo ensure the v acad^lFsuccess bftTie~cRirdren they served. Each of the nine public elementary schools selected had the following characteristics: 1 * The majority of their students met low-income criteria (i.e., they qualified for free or reduced-price lunch). In seven of the schools, at least 80 percent of the students met low-income criteria. ' * The school was located in an ur^n area \u0026amp; did not have selective admission policies. * Student achievement in mathematics \u0026amp; reading was higher than the average of all schools in the state (or higher than the 50fo percentile if ajiation^ly-normed assessment was'used). 'Af least three years of assessment d'afa*were available to gauge the school's progress. * There was not evidence that the school exempted large percentages of students from participation in the assessment program because of language proficiency or disabilities. * The school \u0026amp; district leaders consented to participation in the study in a timely manner. The high-performing, urban schools selected were Harriet A. Baldwin School, Boston, Mass.\nBaskin Elementary School, San Antonio, Texas\nBurgess Elementary School, Atlanta, Ga.\nCenterville Elementaiy School, East St. Louis, 111.\nGoodale Elementary School, Detroit, Mich.\nHawley Environmental Elementary School, Milwaukee, Wis.\nLora B. Peck Elementary School, Houston, Texas\nGladys Noon Spellman Elementary School, Cheverly, Md. On metropolitan Washington, D.C.)\n\u0026amp; James Ward Elementary School, Chicago, 111. Teams of researchers conducted two-day visits to all nine schools. During the visits, the researchers interviewed campus \u0026amp; district administrators, teachers, parents, \u0026amp; other school personnel. They observed classrooms, hallways, playgrounds, \u0026amp; various meetings. Also, they reviewed various school documents \u0026amp; achievement data. \u0026gt;From these data, case studies were written for each of the nine schools. The nine schools were different in important ways. These differences suggest that many urban elementary schools serving poor communities can achieve high levels of student achievement. Also, the differences suggest that schools may be able to achieve academic successes through different means. Some of the differences observed included the following: * Among the nine schools, there were schools with small \u0026amp; larg.e enrollments. Enrollments ranged from 283 studenfs^TBaldwin 'Elerhenfary to 1,171 students at Goodale Elementary. * Although all of the schools served elementary grades, they had different grade teyel configurations, starting as early as pre-kindefgarten at'Hawley.'Peck, \u0026amp; Ward \u0026amp; ending as late as grade eight at Ward. * Student_demoqraphics varied. At six of the nine schools, most students were African American. At one school, most students were Hispanic, \u0026amp; at another most were Asian American. * Only ^o of the_schoo[s used natioriaHy^known comprehensive school reform .rnoJel.sl.ZDne_usecrthe Accelerated School Program \u0026amp; andlh'er used Success for Ail. * Even though none of the schools would have been considered high-performing based on achievement data from five years ago, some of the schoojs_made dramatic lmRpyerng.nt over a three or four-year period, whereas others took five years or longer' Before experiencing dramatic gains in student achievement. * In a few cases, the district office played a major role in the school's improvement efforts. In contrast, there were other cases where the district played a modest role in the 2 improvement process. * A few of the schools managed to make dramatic improvements without great turnover in teaching personnel. In contrast, some schools experienced substantial teacher turnover during the reform process. Beyond these differences, there wereimportant similari^s in the strategies used to improve academic achievefherit. The following strategies were used by many of the nine schools: * School leaders identified \u0026amp; pursued an important, visible, yet attainable first goal. They focused on the attainm^t of this first goal, achieved success, \u0026amp; then used their success to move toward more ambitious goals. * School leaders redirected time \u0026amp; energy that was being spent on conflicts between adults in the school towa^rd service to cKHdren. 'Leaders 'appealed\"to'feachers,' support staff, \u0026amp; parents to put aside their own interests \u0026amp; focus on serving children well. * Educators fostered in students a sense of responsibjlity-.for appropriate behavior \u0026amp; they created an envirbnmeritJo.which students were fikely to behave well. Discipline problems became^f^re as the schools implemented multi-faceted approaches for helping students learn responsibility fortheir own behavior. * School leaders created a collective sense of responsibility \"V\" for school irnprovement. The'shared sense of responsibility was nurtured 5y loirit planning processes \u0026amp; reinforced by efforts to involve everyone in key components of the school's 'work. ' ' ........ . * The quantity \u0026amp; guality of time spent on instructional leadership activities increased. Principals spent more time helpEng tea'cRers attend to instructional issues \u0026amp; decreased the time teachers spent on distractions that diverted attention away from teaching \u0026amp; learning. Also, principals put other educators in positions that allowed them to provide instructional leadership. School leaders constantly cH^lenged'teachers \u0026amp; students to higher levels of academic attainment. They used data to identify, acknowledge, \u0026amp; celebrate strengths \u0026amp; to focus attention \u0026amp; resources on areas ofneed. * Educators aligned instruction to the standards \u0026amp; assessments requiredTyme state orthe school ^strict. T eachers'S \" administrators worked together to understand precisely what students were expected to know \u0026amp; be able to do. Then, they planned instruction to ensure that students would have an excellent chance to learn what was expected of them. * School leaders got the resources \u0026amp; training that teachers perceivedlFie^eeded' to get their students to achieve at high leT/el^Iri'particular, school leaders made sure that teachers feiriiRe they had adequate materials, equipment, \u0026amp; professional development. * School leaders created opportunities for teachers to work, plil^'i leaiTTl^^hefarpunff in^guctio^ was 'structured' to ensure that coITaboratioKafdund instructional issues became an important part of the school day \u0026amp; the school week. * Educators made efforts to win the confidence \u0026amp; respect of parents' primarily by improving the achievement o'f students. Then educators built strong partnerships with parents in support of student achievement. 3 * School leaders created additional time for instruction. In some cases, efforts focused on creating addition^'time for attention to critical instructional issues during the school day. in other cases, efforts focused on creating additional time beyond the regular school day. / * Educators persisted through difficulties, setbacks, \u0026amp; failures~rh^'ite~of challenges \u0026amp; frustrations, school leaders did not stop trying to improve their schools. These findings suggest the following recommendations: * Build the capacity of principals to provide instructional leadership. Federal, state \u0026amp; local education agencies should promote efforts to build the capacity of principals to provide the quality of instructional leadership demonstrated by the principals in the nine schools studied. ways that provide additional p to schools. hSeral, state, \u0026amp; local * Channel resources in ihjtructlQ'narieadefsFfip education agencies'should consider other ways to increase the quantity of instructional leadership available to schools, such as the development of instructional facilitator or specialist positions within schools. * Create clear, measurable, \u0026amp; r^rous school accountability ^vTsron's.' Thefederal governrri^t'should continue to encourage states \u0026amp; districts to frame rigorous school accountability requirements. However, a focus on adequate yearly progress is insufficient. Many educators will be motivated to higher levels of performance if state \u0026amp; district policies define exemplary academic achievement. * Ensure that accounta^lity provisions are accompanied by adequa^te strgfegie^s to build capacity \u0026amp; provide support? In considering' requirements foradequate yearly progress, states \u0026amp; districts should set ambitious requirements but also provide high levels of support. One of the most important supports is time for school personnel to engage in processes that align instruction to standards \u0026amp; assessments. * Along with accountability, provide schools adequate flexibility \u0026amp; support to use that flexibility well. Federal, state, \u0026amp; local education agencies should ensure that accountability provisions are coupled with adequate resources for schools \u0026amp; reasonable flexibility in the use of those resources. Principals \u0026amp; school decision-making committees need high quality training that helps them use data to focus resources on critical areas of instructional need. * Infuse the tenets of comprehensive school reform into other federal education programs. Th^federargovernment's focus on cornprehefTs'ivesChodl reform should be expanded \u0026amp; infused into other federal education programs. However, emphasis does not need to be placed on the adoption of models of reform as much as upon the principles of reform, as defined in the Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program legislation. * Use legislation, policy, \u0026amp; technical assistance to help educators create regular opportunities for true professional development Professional developmentneedsfddecompletely rethoughfin a way that results in more effective teaching \u0026amp; improved student achievement. State \u0026amp; federal resources should support the costs associated with the provision of high-quality, school-based professional development that increases the amount of time educators spend working with \u0026amp; learning from each other. * Provide resources for increasing the quantity of time made avallaBre'ldr in^ruclion'.' State \u0026amp; federal resources' should suppoft effdtfslo'increase the quantity of time made 4 available for instruction. After-school programs, \"Saturday Schools,\" \u0026amp; extended-year programs are important vehicles for ensuring that students meet challenging standards. * Strengthen legislation \u0026amp; provide technical assistance to encourage schools to builTthe capacity orteacRersTS parents for increasing parentarTnvolverrient aUschool. Paper cofn^fance with existin^federal parentarinvolvement requirements is inadequate to improve schools. The capacity of educators to work with parents must be broadened. Also, educators must work to build the capacity of parents to support the education of their children. * Research i^needed to better understand how school districts carTbeftehsupport the improvement of teaching ^'learning in RI^-poveTfyschools. DTsfricts can play important roles in st^portihg-schbol change efforts. Unfortunately, there has been little research directed to understanding the role of districts in supporting high-performing, high-poverty schools. To subscribe to (or unsubscribe from) EDlnfo, address an mail message to: listproc@inet.ed.gov Then write either SUBSCRIBE EDINFO YOURFIRSTNAME YOURLASTNAME in the message, or write UNSUBSCRIBE EDINFO (if you have a signature block, please turn it off) Then send it! Past EDlnfo messages: http://www.ed.gov/MailingLists/EDInfQ/ Search: http://www.ed.gov/MailingLists/EDInfo/search.html Past ED Initiatives: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EDInitiatives/ Daphne Hardcastle, Peter Kickbush, \u0026amp; Kirk Winters U.S. Department of Education kirk_winters@ed.gov 5 Hope for Urban Education\nImprovement Strategies http\n//www.ed.gov/pubs/urbanhope/improvement.html Hope for Urban Education - December 1999 Improvement Strategies The primary purpose of this research effort was to generate a deeper understanding of how these nine urban elementary schools changed in a way that resulted in high levels of academic achievement for their students. There were several important change strategies that were used by multiple schools. In this section of the report, these change strategies are described with examples from a few of the schools. Targeting an Important, Visible, Attainable First Goal In several of the schools, new principals walked into difficult environments with problems ranging from student discipline, to teacher morale, to parent dissatisfaction, to academic lethargy. In response to what must have felt like overwhelming chaos, principals identified one issue or goal upon which they could focus immediate attention and give an unambiguous message that the school was changing. They sought to identify an issue where they could make progress quickly. The focus varied in response to the issues that were perceived as important at each school. At Baldwin and Hawley, the first efforts were to improve student discipline and create a safe and orderly environment. At Spellman, efforts were made to reduce the disruptions to teaching and increase the schools focus on academic instruction. At Peck, the principal disbanded the schools two, ethnically separate parent-teacher organizations and instituted a unified Parent-Teacher Association. At several of the schools, principals tried to make the physical environment more attractive for children and more conducive to learning. 1 of9 By targeting a visible, attainable goal, principals were able to give students, parents, and teachers clear indicators of change in just a few weeks or months. These early accomplishrnents helped reduce or eliminate excuses and created a readiness for additional (often more difficult) changes. By focusing on one issue, principals were able to direct their energies in a way that would have a high likelihood of success. This first success became the cornerstone of future successes. Refocusing Energies on Service to Children In prior years, teachers, principals, and parents in many of the schools spent considerable time on conflicts among the adults at school. Often these conflicts siphoned away valuable energy that should have been devoted to the improvement of teaching and learning. Principals in most of the nine schools were skillful in redirecting the energy expended on such conflicts. School leaders challenged teachers, paraprofessionals, union leaders, and parents to elevate their focus beyond self-interest to a concern for the well-being of the students. This was not done as a one-time event or an occasional sermon. Instead, principals were constantly reminding the adults about the effect of decisions on students. The principals appealed to teachers, staff, and parents to put aside small differences and unite in service to students. At Burgess, principal Carter challenged the staff to move from a teacher-focused school to a child-focused school. Often in discussions about important school decisions, the principal would ask the faculty to consider what was in the best interest of students. At Peck, principal Goodwin asked the faculty to put children first, regardless of disagreements. The staff learned, in part, from the manner in which the principal articulated child-focused rationale for her decisions. Goodwin encouraged teachers to talk about their reasons for entering the teaching profession. She tried to learn about their goals and what she called \"the desires of their hearts.\" Then she appealed to those desires to serve children well as she called upon every staff member to refocus their efforts on the improvement of the school. In several cases, school leaders helped teachers refocus energies during planning processes. By engaging in such processes and discussing \"what we, together, can do for children,\" principals were able to refocus energies in ways that coincided with improvement plans. Once plans were developed, the 1/5/00 10:29 Ah Hope for Urban Education: Improvement Strategies http\n//www.ed.gov/pubs/urbanhope/improvement.Utm refocus energies in ways that coincided with improvement plans. Once plans were developed, the message was reinforced often, particularly in times of conflict. As an example, at Baldwin, some teachers resisted changes in curriculum and instruction. One teacher said, \"You have to have a willingness to let them go through their resistance. Then you focus them on the fact that this is for the good of the kids.\" At Baskin, when performance data were reviewed, it was done in ways that were not intended to be critical of teachers. In contrast, the review was focused on the academic needs of children. At Goodale, the principal did not allow much energy to be expended on projects, efforts, or discussions that had minimal influence on the personal or academic growth of students. In staff meetings, grade level meetings, or in other gatherings, the principal frequently refocused the staffs energy toward issues that had a substantial influence on the personal or academic success of students. The result of the refocusing process was not only a decrease in tensions but also an increase in the extent to which students were likely to feel respected, valued, and appreciated. Visitors to these schools quickly sense that teachers and other staff members genuinely love and care for the students. Building Students Sense of Responsibility for Appropriate Behavior and Creating an Environment in Which Students Are Likely to Behave Well In all nine schools, often in dramatic contrast with their environments in past years, discipline problems were rare. The schools used many approaches to improve student behavior, focusing on helping students assume responsibility for their behavior and on creating school environments that made it easy for students to behave appropriately. At several of the schools, time was set aside to establish clear rules and high expectations for student behavior. Teachers, administrators, parents, and often students worked together to establish simple rules that would help create a much more pleasant environment for teaching and learning. Often, rules were established that would help prevent behavior problems before they started. For instance, at Peck students walked in the hallways with their arms folded. This pattern of behavior helped reduce the possibility of conflicts as students walked throughout the school. In all of the schools, many efforts were made to acknowledge and even celebrate positive behavior. For instance, the Buddy Reading Program at Ward and the SPARK program (Spellman Acts of Random Kindness) at Spellman helped encourage students to interact with their peers in a supportive manner. At Peck, students earned opportunities to seek positions of responsibility in the classroom. At Spellman, a banner was flown when the school achieved a fight-free day. At Hawley, students earned the chance to participate in intramural sports. Clear and consistent rules, consequences, and rewards helped students learn to assume responsibility for their own behavior. When consequences were regular and predictable, it was easier for students to behave appropriately. The predictability of these results seemed to be positively associated with the visibility of the principal and other school leaders. The visibility of principals on playgrounds, in hallways, and in classrooms helped underscore that the rules were important and they would be enforced. At times, rules were eliminated or modified when they were not necessary. For instance, at Peck there were many students (and some teachers) who were frequently late arriving at school in the momings._ Instead of investing a substantial amount of energy into disciplining people for being tardy, the principal instituted \"Peck time.\" The beginning and ending times for the school day were moved back 15 minutes. In other words, children began school fifteen minutes later and ended their school day fifteen minutes later. Parents, teachers, and students saw the change as an effort to help them succeed at being on time. Tardiness was dramatically reduced. Training for teachers was an important component of efforts to implement discipline plans. At Peck, teachers received training in the districts Consistency Management Discipline Plan. At Goodale, teachers participated in efficacy training that focused on building a sense of efficacy and responsibility in students. At many of the schools, the regular collaboration among teachers included attention to 2 of 9 1/5/00 10:29 AHope for Urban Education: Improvement Strategies http://www.ed.goy/pubs/urbanhope/improvement.html in students. At many of the schools, the regular collaboration among teachers included attention to strategies for helping students maintain exemplary behavior. Student responsibility for their own behavior was also nurtured by the development of student leadership activities. For instance, at Goodale and Hawley, peer mediation programs gave students important opportunities to support each other in working out problems in a constructive manner. As well, extensive uses of cooperative learning strategies at schools such as Peck provided many opportunities for student leadership. The improvements in student behavior were also influenced by the changes in tlie extent to which children came to understand that they were valued and respected. At Baldwin, as in all of the nine schools, principal Lee knew all of the students by name and knew many of their families. The personal relationships among students and school staff created a powerful context for good behavior. At Burgess, teachers gave students time to talk about important emotional stresses in their lives. At several of the schools, counselors or social workers helped students know that they had a safe place to talk about personal concerns. Nonetheless, teachers, counselors, social workers, principals, and other support providers emphasized high expectations for student behavior, regardless of the circumstances in childrens lives. They listened and provided support that helped students continue to meet behavioral expectations, as well as academic expectations, even when students faced troubling situations. When behavioral problems emerged, they were dealt with in a prompt, objective manner that demonstrated respect for students and helped them learn responsibility. For instance, at Goodale, students were rarely suspended. Principal Batchelor believed that removing a student from school did nothing to increase the students sense of responsibility for his or her behavior nor to increase the schools sense of responsibility for educating the student. At many ofthe schools, the involvement of parents was a key component of their disciplinary efforts. Parents reported that they were supportive because they perceived that school leaders were fair disciplinarians who had the best interest of their children at heart. Ultimately, student behavior was also improved by the improvement of academic instruction in classrooms. Students were more likely to be actively engaged in learning. They were more likely to be excited about the level of challenge and rigor in their curriculum. They were more likely to be positive about their chances to succeed academically. Thus, there was less of a need for students to seek attention through negative behavior. Improved instruction led to improved discipline, which led to even better instruction. Creating a Collective Sense of Responsibility for Improvement An important improvement strategy at each of the nine schools centered on creating an environment in which all educators shared a sense of responsibility for school improvement and the attainment of the schools goals. At several ofthe schools, this joint sense of responsibility was modeled by the principal, nurtured by joint planning processes, and reinforced by efforts to involve everyone in key components of the schools work. Principals at these schools emphasized the importance of each individuals contribution to the work of the school. Principals modeled their commitment to collective responsibility by including the input of various staff members in decisions. Often teachers were given the responsibility of making important decisions. In other cases, principals made key decisions but they gave teachers and other staff substantial opportunities to contribute their thoughts and ideas. Planning processes provided avenues for the involvement of many staff and faculty. For instance, the Accelerated Schools Program provided opportunities for many Centerville staff members to get involved in identifying school needs and establishing a vision for the schools future. At Hawley, staff members participated on committees established in response to critical issue areas identified by the staff. These structured opportunities for involvement helped emphasize that staff members shared responsibility for school improvement. The principal refused to allow teachers to think that he would fix all of the schools problems. The staff learned that they all shared responsibility for getting all children to achieve at high levels. 3 of 9 1/5/00 10:29 ANHope for Urban Education\nImprovement Strategies http\n//www.ed.gov/pubs/urbanhope/improvement.html at high levels. Collective responsibility became a part of the common language of the school. At Centerville, Peck, and Ward everyone talked about teamwork and the extent to which they were working as a team. At Goodale and Burgess educators talked about themselves as part of a \"family\" of adults responsible for the well-being of \"their\" children. At Baskin, principal Payne said, \"No one can do it alone.\" At Ward, principal Wilcher emphasized the importance of getting the staff to feel that they were working wilh her and not for her. The sense of collective responsibility resulted in staff members taking on new and different roles. At Spellman, the institution of the Canady block-scheduling approach resulted in almost all of the schools ancillary personnel participating in the teaching of reading. Similarly, at Peck many staff members helped support the Success for All reading program. At Hawley, the school social worker sponsored the after-school math club. At many of the schools, teachers voluntarily exceeded expectations. The involvement of staff members in a variety of activities central to the success of the school helped create a deeper sense of professional responsibility among them. As professionals, teachers and other staff were expected to contribute to an understanding of the schools problems, the analysis of possible solutions, and the implementation of commonly agreed-upon approaches to improvement. Increasing Instructional Leadership At all nine schools, the amount and quality of time spent on instructional leadership activities was substantially increased. First, principals spent a substantial amount of time engaged in instructional leadership activities. Second, other school faculty were positioned in ways that allowed them to provide instructional leadership at the school. Principals tended to spend a large percentage of their time in classrooms. For instance, at Burgess, Carter reported that she spent 40 percent of her time in classrooms, observing teaching and helping improve instruction. At Centerville, principal Butler was described as a teacher of teachers. As one teacher explained, \"She n gets in there with you and shows you. She teaches and shows you to make sure that you understand. Similarly, teachers at Peck and Goodale reported that their principals were frequently in classrooms- watching, reacting to and reinforcing good teaching techniques and providing helpful suggestions. In addition to the leadership provided by principals, almost all of the schools asked other educators to provide instructional leadership to the school staff. For instance, Warren, the former principal at Baskin, created an instructional guide position from another administrative position. This person, Payne, coached teachers on instructional strategies and later became the school principal. At Burgess and Spellman, there were instructional specialists who provided instructional assistance and support to teachers. At Goodale, Title I resource teachers assumed instructional leadership functions as they helped teachers address instructional improvement issues. At Peck, a master teacher was hired to help teachers with writing instruction while the Success for All Coordinator supported teachers in improving reading instruction. At Ward, an assistant principal was responsible for helping the principal improve instruction in classrooms and head teachers provided addition^ assistance to their peers in improving daily classroom instruction. By encouraging and training multiple instructional leaders, former principal Breen at Ward helped prepare his successor, Wilcher, and other leaders who have become administrators in other Chicago schools. As another example of instructional leadership among the nine schools, principals kept teachers and other school personnel focused on improving instruction. At Goodale, when school planning efforts veered to a discussion of improving the parking lot, principal Batchelor, helped refocus the group on improving instruction. At Hawley, Principal Helminiak supported the School Beautification Committee, but made it clear that the priority had to be on improving student achievement. Often, principals kept the faculty focused on instruction by removing distractions. At Spellman, Liebes insisted that the 90-minute reading block was \"sacred\" and would not be interrupted. Even on days shortened because- of snow. 4 of 9 1/5/00 10:29 Ah/Hope for Urban Education: Improvement Strategies http://www,ed.gov/pubs/urbanhope/improvement.html reading block was \"sacred\"_and would not be interrupted. Even on days shortened because of snow, everyone would have 90 minutes for reading and language arts. One way principals and other school leaders demonstrated instructional leadership was by getting teachers to use achievement data to improve instruction. For example, at Baldwin, Lee helped teachers use data on student literacy levels to improve reading instruction. Additionally, the princip^ helped teachers use disaggregated Stanford 9 test scores to identify students in need of additional academic support. At Goodale, Batchelor helped ensure that the school s professional development plans, as well as other important plans were based, at least in part, on student results from the Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP). At Hawley, principal Helminiak helped teachers use student assessment data to identify areas of strength and weakness and use such data in planning improvement strategies. At Baskin, the instructional guide helped teachers use data to understand specific objectives in mathematics that needed extra attention. At Centerville, the principal used the Accelerated Schools Program to help teachers understand and use data to improve teaching. Principals constantly challenged the school staff to higher levels of achievement. They highlighted and celebrated the successes of students and teachers in a way that reinforced exemplary efforts and gave a message of hope. The walls of classrooms and hallways were visual celebrations of the achievement of students. Regularly, school leaders took the time to acknowledge the successes and special efforts of students, parents, teachers, and other staff members. As goals were achieved, school leaders generously praised the efforts of all contributors, and then artfully redirected the entire school toward even higher goals for the achievement of their students. Aligning Instruction to Standards and Assessments At the nine schools, students performed well on assessments because they were taught what the district or the state expected them to learn. Principals and teachers did not leave student performance to chance. They meticulously ensiled that children were being taught the knowledge, concepts, and skills articulated in state or district standards and measured in annual assessments. At Burgess and Centerville, curriculum alignment processes helped teachers understand the relationship between what they taught and how students performed on standardized tests. The curriculum alignment processes were unportant opportumties for teachers to talk about expectations, teaching, and student work. Furthermore, the alignment processes gave teachers a chance to understand precisely what students were expected to know and the extent to which students would be expected to demonstrate mastery. At Spellman, instructional specialists and teachers worked together to create perfomiance-based practice assessments. Teachers used the data from those assessments to improve instruction. For many of the teachers, the process gave them a much deeper understanding of what instruction was needed for students to perform well on the assessment. Alignment processes also helped ensure that teachers would be able to teach all of the knowledge and skills expected to be learned during the school year. For instance, at Baskin, the principal and the instructional guide led teachers in curriculum alignment projects in science and mathematics that gave teachers a road map for student improvement.\" Teachers no longer had to guess if they were covering all the content tested by the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills. They worked together to develop plan that would ensure adequate coverage of all important content by-testing time each spring. a Getting Teachers the Resources and Training Perceived Necessary to Teach At several of the schools, substantial energy was devoted to making sure that teachers felt like they had all of the resources they considered necessary in order to get students to reach the schools academic goals. In particular, principals and other school leaders made sure that teachers felt like they had adequate materials, equipment, and professional development. At Baldwin, teachers reported that the principal \"went to the n* degree\" to get needed instructional materials. At Goodale, teachers who had transferred from other Detroit schools were astonished at the manner in which the principal and the Title I resource teachers were able to get teachers the materials they requested in a timely manner. At Ward, teachers reported, \"If teachers need it, Wilcher [the 5 of 9 1/5/00 10:29 AMHope for Urban Education: Improvement Strategies http\n//www.ed.gov/pubs/urbanhope/improvement.html they requested in a timely manner. At Ward, teachers reported, \"If teachers need it, Wilcher [the principal] gets it.\" When assessment data, principal observations, or analyses of student work suggested that students were not learning an important concept or skill, the principal or school planning teams made sure that resources were allocated to help teachers learn better strategies for teaching the skill. Teachers, principals, and instructional specialists from within the school often provided this training\nhowever, there were times when training from outside sources was needed. In such cases, principals either arranged for experts to come to the school and provide training to the staff or arranged opportunities for staff persons to attend workshops, seminars, or conferences where they could access the appropriate training. When necessary, the school provided substitute teachers so that faculty could attend training sessions. Often such training was attended by groups of teachers and administrators. Therefore, when the group returned to school, they could support each other in carrying out the practices learned. Also, they could assist other staff in learning the new strategies, concepts, or techniques. For instance during one semester, at Ward, a group of teachers participated in weekly math and science classes held at the Illinois Institute of Technology. Teachers attended classes during the school day and substitute teachers were provided. Then, experts from the institute visited the teachers in their classrooms and provided coaching. Teachers learned new skills that they were able to apply in their classrooms and practice with the support of their school administrators and fellow teachers. Often, teachers perceived that the support provided through access to materials, equipment, and training was critical to their success. They tended to see the schools investment as a tangible indicator of support. As a result, teachers responded with a greater willingness to support school initiatives. Perhaps, teachers felt more effective as a result of this support and were more willing to exert maximum effort. Perhaps, when teachers perceived that they had been given what they deemed necessary to teach well, there were fewer excuses for poor performance. Whatever the reason, this support was extremely important to teachers and was an important part of the success at several of the schools. Often the schools used Title I funds to provide materials, instructional equipment, and professional development. These schools used the flexibility provided by the Title I schoolwide program option to improve services to all students. In some cases, (e.g., at Goodale) Title I teachers still saw some students on a pull-out basis, yet the majority of the Title I funds were used to support the improvement of the entire school. When Title I funds ran short, some of the schools (e.g., Centerville, Baldwin, and Goodale) acquired resources from other grants to help meet these needs or combined Title I dollars with other resources. At Baskin, money from an unused professional position was diverted to purchase additional instructional materials. At Hawley, Title I and technology resources were combined to get computers into classrooms and provide associated professional development for teachers. Creating Opportunities for Teachers to Work, Plan, and Learn Together At all nine schools, leaders created regular opportunities for teachers to work, plan, and learn together around instructional issues. Without time for collaboration on instruction, many improvements would have never been conceived or implemented. Many of the schools created blocks of time during which teachers met and planned together. At Baldwin, a primary team (kindergarten through second-grade teachers) and an elementary team (third through fifth-grade teachers) each met twice a month. At Baskin, a 90-minute block of uninterrupted' planning time was created for each grade level twice a week. At Hawley, the principal ananged the schedule in a way that used \"banked\" time (additional minutes at the beginning or end of each day) to carve out time for professional development. At Peck, the principal rearranged the schedule to provide common planning times for the staff to engage in horizontal (same grade level) and vertical (different grade levels) planning. Twice a week the entire staff came together to share experiences and strategies that achieved positive results. Often planning times focused on important instructional issues. For instance, at Baldwin, teachers 6 of 9 1/5/00 10:29 AN'Hope for Urban Education\nImprovement Strategies http\n//www.ed.gov/pubs/urbanhope/improvement.html Often planning times focused on important instructional issues. For instance, at Baldwin, teachers carefully reviewed student work in comparison with academic standards and discussed opportunities for improving instruction. At Spellman, this time was used to create practice performance assessments, score the assessments, and identify common areas of academic strength and need. Often these planning times became opportunities for teachers to share and learn from each other. For instance, at Burgess teachers gave reports on what objectives were being taught and how they were getting students to leam the objectives. Time was set aside for classroom visits and sharing. At Hawley, many of the professional development activities were organized and presented by teachers to their colleagues, based on the school improvement plan. In other cases, collaboration times were sometimes used as opportunities for teachers to study and research options for instructional improvement. For instance, at Baldwin teachers researched options for literacy programs before choosing one that felt appropriate for their students. Although these collaborations generally had an academic focus, they did not always start as such. For instance, at Baskin collaboration was established when teachers started going out to lunch together once a week. At Burgess, collaborations began with staff dinners, social gatherings, and team-building sessions. Building a comfort level was sometimes an important precursor to getting teachers to discuss their teaching practices openly. In some cases, school leaders set aside space for teachers to plan and work together. The new kind of II. 'teacher workroom\" helped teachers collaborate. At Baskin a special workroom was established that allowed teachers the space to meet, work together, and leam from each other. Similarly, Peck Elementary is in the process of developing such a space. Mentoring programs provided another vehicle for teachers to work and plan together. Specifically, Centerville and Ward had established mentor programs that were particularly designed to support new teachers. Team teaching at Spellman (as part of the Canady model) required teachers to work with one of the schools specialists during a 90-minute block. At Goodale, shared professional development experiences often became a starting point for collaborations among teachers. Teachers would return from such events and work together toward implementation of strategies learned. Teachers at these nine schools were constantly learning about academic content and academic instruction. Often, they learned as much from each other as they learned from any other source. Their planning efforts were central to the improvements in instruction at the schools. Winning the Confidence and Respect of Parents and Building Partnerships with Them At all nine schools, educators engaged in a wide variety of efforts to win the confidence and respect of parents. Educators did not simply seek to involve parents in token activities. Instead, educators sought a meaningful partnership with parents. Successful partnerships would never have been established if parents did not see tangible evidence of the schools concern for their children. As the school made efforts to adapt to the needs of children, parents were willing to exert greater effort to support the school. The teachers and principals of the nine schools helped parents believe that the school could provide great opportunities for their children. Parents responded positively to those efforts with an outpouring of support in various forms. Parents talked about what teachers had done for their children and the kind of place the school had become. They articulated a confidence that the school staff had their childrens best interests at heart. The conventional wisdom suggests that parental involvement leads to improved achievement\nhowever, in these schools, there was also evidence that the reverse was trueimproved school achievement led to increased parental involvement. Parents were more willing to be supportive because they saw evidence that educators cared about their children and worked hard to improve achievement. Of course, this increased parental involvement then became an important tool for generating further improvements in academic learning. 7 of 9 1/5/00 10:29 .AVHope for Urban Education: Improvement Strategies http.//WWW.ed.gov/pubs/urbanhope/improvement.html An important step in building partnerships with parents was making them feel like they were welcome as equals at school. Educators at Baldwin, Centerville, Spellman, and Ward described \"open-door policies\" that encouraged parents to visit the school and visit their childs classroom. At Baskin, teachers and administrators stood outside the school in the morning as parents dropped off their children. They invited parents to come in and have coffee and doughnuts and chat about their childs progress. Similarly, at Goodale, parents were invited to attend \"Snack and Chat\" sessions with teachers during lunch. At Centerville and Peck, parent centers were established that gave parents a place to meet, organize activities, and participate in enrichment classes. At Peck, the principal showed the school office staff how to greet and work with parents in a way that made them feel welcome. Often educators made small but significant extra steps that helped parents feel welcome. For instance, at Baskin, child care was provided during parent-teacher conferences. At Spellman, the schools automated phone service was used to remind every parent about PTA meetings. At Peck, the principal made personal phone calls to parents to encourage them to attend planning meetings. School personnel helped build partnerships by giving parents important ways to contribute and by acknowledging the important ways in winch parents already contributed to the schools success. At Baskin, many parents were involved in planning activities. Furthermore, those parents were encouraged to express their opinions and share their ideas. At Hawley, parents were invited to attend family nights with food and fun, but also, at these events, parents were asked to share their opinions, ideas, and desires for their children. At Peck, parents were asked, \"What do you think we need to do to help make Peck a better school?\" At these schools, parents were treated as if they were highly valued consultants with important ideas and insights. Parents were also given important ways to contribute to their own childs academic success. At Baskin, videotapes were used to inform parents about activities in their childs classroom and to help parents understand what children were learning and how they could help at home. At Burgess, parents participated in the Saturday school program. Parental participation was encouraged and structured so parents could learn strategies they could use with their children at home. Similarly, Burgess parents got training in how to help their children prepare for the science and social science fair. At Centerville, parents participated in family science nights and family math nights that provided many ideas that could be replicated easily at home. PTA meetings at Centerville were used to teach parents strategies for assisting their children with schoolwork. Of course, parents were also given important opportunities to volunteer at school. However, the schools made important efforts to make sure that parents felt their time was well spent. At Burgess, teachers participated in workshops designed to help them learn how to plan for the use of volunteers in their classrooms. At Centerville, the school developed volunteer job descriptions based upon needs identified by staff. Parents were given the opportunity to fill those jobs that best matched their talents and available time. Parents became important contributors to the success of these schools. Parents contributed ideas, time, and assistance that helped make the schools more responsive to the needs and strengths of children. By helping at home, helping at school, or helping in the community, parents helped the schools improve the academic success as well as the personal success of students. Creating Additional Time for Instruction Each ofthe nine schools created additional time for academic instruction. In some cases, efforts focused on creating additional time for attention to critical instructional issues during the school day. In other cases, efforts focused on creating additional time beyond the regular school day. At Baskin, Baldwin, Peck, and Spellman, school leaders created additional time during the school day for attention to reading. In each school, there was a 90-minute period devoted to literacy. Furthermore, at each school, almost all staff were involved in teaching reading during this period, thereby reducing adult-to-child ratios. At Baskin, teachers used assessment data to change instructional groupings that 8 of 9 1/5/00 10:29 AhHope for Urban Education: Improvement Strategies http://www.ed:gov/pubs/urbanhope/improvement.html 9 of 9 provided more intensive instructional time (three-to-one groupings twice a week) for students in need of additional assistance. At Burgess, Baldwin, Hawley, Peck, and Ward there were after-school programs intended to create additional opportunities for students to learn important content and skills. At Centerville, teachers provided valuable tutoring for students during lunch periods. Educators at the schools assumed that they could get their students to reach high academic standards\nhowever, they recognized that additional time was often necessary to ensure student success. Persisting through Difficulties, Setbacks, and Failures None of the principals and none of the teachers interviewed reported that the transformation of their school was easy. In fact, there were many reports of difficulties, challenges, and frustrations. Perhaps, a key difference between these schools and other less successful schools is that educators in these schools persisted. They refused to give up the dream of academic success. Initially, at Spellman, some of the staff did not like the idea of having instructional specialists and rebelled against using them. At Baldwin, some teachers perceived that the mandate to improve learning was an affront to them. At Peck, parents circulated a petition and demanded that the school board remove the new principal. In Wilchers second year as principal at Ward, teachers had to deal with a district reorganization and a slow building rehabilitation project that hampered preparation for the beginning of the school year. These difficulties and others might have been sufficient to derail improvement efforts\nhowever, the school leaders persisted. At Peck, the principal kept asking herself if her actions were in the best interest of children. When she answered affirmatively, she knew she should continue. Also, at Peck, as was the case at Burgess, the support of district office administrators was sometimes crucial in helping the principals hold the course. On the other hand, there were times when principals felt the need to fend off district office directives that threatened their reform efforts. Some principals described efforts to resist district pressure and avoid hiring teachers who had been removed from positions in other schools. Some principals told how they preserved the teachers time for collaboration and resisted district efforts to involve their staff in district-wide professional development activities that did not address the needs of their students or teachers. Some principals described other district policies that could have diffused their schools focus on academic improvement. Often those principals either negotiated compromises or found ways to comply that were minimally disruptive to the schools improvement efforts. Perhaps, the persistence of school leaders was influenced primarily by their deep commitment to the students and families they served. They perceived their work, less as a job, more as a mission. They persisted because they believed in themselves, they believed in their school staffs, and they believed in the ability of the children to succeed. -###- PBEV TDinerences .Among the Nine Schoolsl ur NEXT [Recommendations I 1/5/00 10:29 AJv4 i EARLY CHILDHOOD/ELEMENTARY LITERACY INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 SOUTH PULASKI LITTLEROCK, AR 72206 PHONE (501) 324-0517 FAX (501) 324-0504 TO: Elementary Principals FROM: .^^^Price, Director of Early Childhood/Elementary Literacy DATE: February 6, 2001 SUBJECT: Early Childhood Publication from U.S. Department of Education I would like to recommend that you request this recent publication from the U.S. Department of Education: Building Strong Foundations for Early Learning: The U.S. Department of Educations Guide to High-Quality Early Childhood Education Programs It is an excellent source and guide of information on the hallmarks of high-quality early childhood programs. It offers quality standards to be used during planning for preschool programs. The quality indicators and outcomes will be useful as you work with your Campus Leadership Teams to develop your school improvement plans. I tried to obtain copies for all of you, but to no avail! They will not send multiple copies to one address. You must request your own (free) personal copy by calling: Toll Free - 1-877-433-7827 at the U.S. Department of Education. This is truly a valuable resource!\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_314","title":"Compliance hearing exhibits, ''Mathematics/Science''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1999/2001"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance hearing exhibits, ''Mathematics/Science''"],"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/314"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nMATHEMATICS/SCIENCE0-1 ozm5 zmmTo1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Mathematics/Science Memorandum from Dennis Glasgow to secondary science teachers, Jan. 11, 1999, on ninth grade physics implementation. Memorandum from Dennis Glasgow to principals, Aug. 25, 1999, on the deployment of mathematics/science lead teachers. Mathematics Program Descriptiondocument prepared to submit to the National Science Foundation in April 2000. Science Program Descriptiondocument prepared to submit to the National Science Foundation in April 2000. K-12 Currie ilum Implementation Plandocument prepared to submit to the National Sen ace Foundation in April 2000. CPMSA Staffingdocument prepared to submit to the National Science Foundation in April 2000. Professional Development Plan for Mathematics and Sciencedocument prepared to submit to the National Science Foundation in April 2000. Little Rock CPMSA Strategic Plan, September 2000February 2002document prepared to submit to the National Science Foundation in April 2000. Memorandum from Vanessa Cleaver to eighth grade mathematics teachers. May 9, 2000, on the extended-year Algebra I program. 10. E-mail from Dennis Glasgow to a parent, Mar. 23, 2000, providing research base for the middle school mathematics program, the Connected Mathematics Project (CMP). 11. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley to elementary and middle school principals in June 14, 2000, Learning Links on the research and theory behind new mathematics curricula\nattached article, Wheres the Balance in Math Instruction? 12. E-mail from Dennis Glasgow to parents, Nov. 9, 2000, with information about research behind LRSDs adoption of the elementary mathematics program. 13. E-mail from Debbie Berry to Bonnie Lesley, Nov. 17, 2000, expressing appreciation for attendance at a national conference on new mathematics curriculum. 14. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley in Feb. 14, 2000, Learning Links on national study on how best to teach mathematics\nattached article from Education Week, Forget Math Feud, Take Broader View, NRC Panel Urges. -/o/ 'Vy -V/-515. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley in Aug. 23, 2000, Learning Links on standards- based mathematics\nattached article, Spread the Word by Lee Stiff. 16. Research Report on new mathematics curriculum used in decision-making: Preliminary Comparison of Michigan State Wide Testing\nResults in STC Adopted Districts, June 18, 1998. 17. Research Report on Exemplary Promising Mathematics Programs, Eisenhower National Clearinghouse. 18. Research Report on Connected Mathematics as one of the Exemplary Promising Mathematics Programs, Eisenhower National Cleaminghouse 19. Research Report, Middle Grades Mathematics Textbooks: A Benchmarks-Based Evaluation, Project 2061. 20. Research Report, Investigations in Numbers, Data and Space: Validation Study- - Pretest and Posttest Results, Scott Foresman, Jan. 12, 2001.1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICl INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 S. PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 January 11, 1999 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Secondary Science Teachers (ennis Glasgow, Director of Mathematics and Science Informational Meeting about Ninth Grade Physics i i 5 1 1 ! The Board has approved high school course offerings for 1999-2000 that include physics as a required course for all ninth grade students. An informational meeting about ninth grade physics including certification and training issues for teachers will be held at 4:00p.m. in room 18 at the IRC on Wednesday, January 13. I know ninth grade physics seems like a drastic move to the casual observer, however, it is based on sound logic. Physics is the most fundamental of all science disciplines. Physics serves as the foundation for learning much of biology, chemistry, and earth science. The reason that physics has traditionally been a senior level course is the high level and amount of mathematics required of students to learn traditional high school physics. Since only 17% of our student population take physics now, some strategy was needed to serve a greater percentage of our students. A committee of teachers discussed the issue and recommended that a new NSF funded program. Active Physics, be used as the first year physics curriculum resource for most students and that the course be moved to the ninth grade. i 1 Active Physics was developed in association with the American Association of Physics Teachers and the American Institute of Physics. The program is designed to be used by students as early as the ninth grade and focuses on the beauty, excitement, and usefulness of physics. It doesnt contain so much math and reading. Each chapter of Active Physics begins with a challenge-develop a sport that can be played on the Moon\nbuild a home for people with a housing crisis\npersuade your parents to lend you the family car\nand so on. The course focuses on physics that is relevant to students everyday life. Everyone should be able to successfully learn physics concepts presented in this manner. I i i 2 Not only should Active Physics be fun for students, it should be exciting and fun to teach. Extensive training and materials and supplies will be provided for each teacher. Since physics teachers are in short supply, the District plans to help existing science teachers gain the twelve hours of physics needed for certification. The courses that will be offered will be tailored to our teachers needs-they wont be regular college engineering physics courses or courses that required trig or calculus. Teachers with 8 hours of physics will need just one four hour course, teachers with 4 hours will need two courses, and teachers with no hours will need to take three physics courses. Stipends will be paid for your 1 summer time to take the courses, and the District will offer tuition reimbursement for the course!s). Teachers who need to take more than one course can be placed on a deficiency removal plan (DRP) and have up to two years to take the courses. Active Physics should be no more difficult to teach than physical science. In fact with the training planned, it should be easier to teach. I would like for present junior high science teachers, high school Science Technology teachers, and any other interested science and/or math teachers to come to the informational meeting to find out about the course, the certification process, and ask any questions that might come to mind. Ninth grade physics should be a great niche for those of you who want to become part of this exciting effort to better serve our high school students. If you cant come to the meeting but know that you want to move to the high school ninth grade physics slot or just need more information, please call and let me know (324-0518). I am getting a head count. CC: Dr. Bonnie Lesley Dr. Richard Hurley Brady Gadberry High School Principals ii i i I I J I! ii2L- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 SOUTHPULASKI ST. LIITLE ROCK, AR 72206 August 25, 1999 TO: Principals FROM: SUBJECT: Dennis Glasgow, Director of Mathematics and Science Deployment of Math/Science Lead Teachers I 1 am pleased to announce that the District has just employed/assigned a number of lead teachers to help facilitate the implementation of standards-based mathematics and science curricula in our classrooms. Six (6) elementary math/science lead teachers are on board as well as a middle school math, a middle school science, and a high school math lead teacher. Each elementary lead teacher has been assigned a cluster of about 5 elementary schools from those that do not currently have a science, math, or curriculum specialist. The cluster assignments are included after this memo. The lead teacher assigned to your school will develop a schedule so that she will be in your school one day each week. The primary job goal of each elementary lead teacher is to help your teachers implement Investigations in grades 4-5 and Science and Technology for Children for grades 1 -5. Trish Killingsworth and Lola Perritt will work through the math, science, or curriculum specialist at the six elementary schools that already have specialists. The middle school math lead teacher will help teachers with implementation of the Connected Mathematics Project in grades 6-8. The middle school science lead teacher will work with sixth grade teachers implementing Science and Technology for Children and with 7*' and 8* grade teachers in moving toward standards- based instruction. The high school math lead teacher will help teachers prepare students for the algebra and geometry end of course exams and will facilitate the use of a more standards- based approach in our high school math classrooms. The objectives for the lead teachers are included in a three-page document that follows. Also included in this document is a compilation of the ideas that the Campus Leadership Teams generated during the Institute to help gain parental support for our new standards- based mathematics and science programs. Perhaps your school can use some of these ideas. I am confident that the new standards-based mathematics and science programs, if they are implemented as intended, will increase student achievement and help us meet our NSF performance targets. The lead teachers will help this happen in your school. Your lead teacher will be in your school soon, if she hasnt already been there, to talk with you about her plans. _ Please call me if you need more information. II Math/Science Lead Teacher Assignments 1 I ELEMENTARY MATH/SCIENCE Cassandra Harding Antonette Finney Terry - 20 Mabelvale -16 Meadowcliff -13 Franklin -10 (Math focus) Fair Park - 9 Forest Park -17 Pulaski Hts. -17 Baseline -14 Rightsell -11 Dodd - 11 Annita Paul Renee Kovach Fulbright - 20 Mitchell -12 Cloverdale -19 Chicot -18 Jefferson -18 Wakefield -15 Wilson -13 Woodruff -12 Geyer Springs -11 Paula Smith Rockefeller -18 Otter Creek -12 Badgett - 9 Bale -13 Brady -15 Trish and Lola Carver Booker Gibbs Williams Washington King HIGH SCHOOL MATH Marcelline Carr Daryl Newcomb McDermott -18 Western Hills -12 Garland -12 Romine - 7 (Science focus) Watson -18 MIDDLE SCHOOL MATH Docia Jones All middle schools MIDDLE SCHOOL SCIENCE Rene Carson All middle schools All High Schools INFRASTRUCTURE FOR MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE The current infrastructure for mathematics and science is inadequate to provide sustained professional development and classroom support for teachers as they implement standards-based mathematics and science curricula. Presently, one elementary mathematics specialist, one secondary science specialist, and two elementary math/science specialists provide the training and support for all teachers. I To improve the infrastructure for mathematics and science, the 50 schools in the District will be divided into clusters that are each assigned a specialist. Five of the thirty-five elementary schools already have school-based math and/or science specialists. The other thirty schools will be divided into 6 clusters with 5 schools each. The 8 middle schools will make a cluster and the 5 high schools will make a cluster. An elementary lead teacher for mathematics and science support will be assigned to each of the 6 elementary clusters, a mathematics lead teacher and a science lead teacher will serve the cluster of middle schools, and a mathematics lead teacher and a science lead teacher will serve the five high schools. These ten lead teachers plus the specialists already based at individual schools will provide professional development and classroom level support for the mathematics and science teachers in their cluster. 3 The ten lead teachers will be funded in the following manner: I 4 - National Science Foundation Grant 1 - Title VI ft 3 s i 2.5 - Class-size Reduction Allocation 2.5 - District-funded or other funds to be sought 1 a The goal, objectives, and activities for the lead teachers aie as follows: 9 i S f -3 Goal: To facilitate the change from a traditional mathematics and science curriculum to a standards-based curriculum for the purpose of increasing the enrollment and achievement of students in mathematics and science. Objective 1: Provide professional development for mathematics and/or science teachers in the assigned cluster on District adopted standards-based math and science curricula and related topics such as cooperative learning, constructivist approach, inquiry learning, and problem solving strategies that are integral to standards-based pedagogy. Activities: 1. Receive training at the District-level to become proficient irf all the standards- based mathematics and science modules that are used in the cluster schools. 2. Identify first hand, through classroom visitations, the critical professional development needs of teachers in cluster schools.3. Schedule time for cluster teachers to participate in professional development to address the identified needs. 4. Identify highly successful teachers who can serve as models for other teachers and facilitate the visitation process. Objective 2: Provide weekly classroom support for teachers who are implementing standards-based curricula. This support will include encouragement, extra hands, mini-teaching, material resources, trouble shooting, and other technical support deemed necessary. Activities: 1. Schedule visitations to the schools so that each school is visited about once a 5 i ! 2. 3. 4. week. During each school visitation work with as many teachers as can be productively included. During the school visitations, provide immediate teachers with as much immediate technical assistance and support as possible and catalogue other needs for later attention or for referral to the District level. Visit with the principal of the school each time it is visited to keep him/her up to date on successes and needs. ) Objective 3: Provide opportunities for teachers to dialogue about experiences in implementing the standards-based curricula and provide follow-up professional development for cluster teachers to address observed/identified needs. Activities: i i ! t 1. 2. 3. 4. Schedule user conferences for teachers at cluster schools to share information about successes and concerns about the implementation of standards-based curricula. Identify successful implementers for other cluster teachers to visit to get ideas and information about effective implementation strategies. Identify needs for follow-up professional development and provide it for cluster teachers. Facilitate meetings between teachers with the same interest or concern to promote dialogue and problem solving. I ! i I Objective 4: Assess the implementation success of the teachers/schools in the cluster and evaluate the effectiveness of the standards-based programs in achieving desired student results._ Activities: - 1. Help implement District approved assessment tools in cluster schools. 2. Receive training on alternative assessment methods. 3. Assist teachers in cluster schools in embedding authentic assessment into their classroom teaching: 4. Gather data as requested/needed by the District. 5. Assess on a quarterly basis the degree to which the cluster schools are meeting District evaluation criteria.Objective 5: Serve as a liaison to the District Mathematics and Science Office and CPMSA Office for the purpose of aligning District resources and technical provided to the schools and providing additional District-level training. Activities\nsupport 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Attend District-level meetings to help determine needs for professional development or other support across the District. Receive training on all District standards-based curricula adopted for the levels of the assigned cluster schools. Report successes/concems to the District Math/Science and NSF Offices. Communicate to parents and the community about the systemic changes in mathematics and science iiicluding the standards-based curricular implementation. Provide information to the District Communications Office about cluster activities to be included in District publications. i ! !Elementary Schools Gain parental/community support for standards-based mathematics and science. Workshops for teachers to get on board Student demo program for parents Class observations Newsletters Take-home games Sell the teachers Flyers to parents at registration Home videos Homework packets Information at Open House Publicize results of schools that have tried it Use parent coordinators Family Math \u0026amp; Science night Parent information meetings, i.e., Muffins for Mom, Doughnuts for Dad Research - Proof of success locally and nationally Partner Participation Parenting classes Media exposure Parent committee to learn curriculum and teach other parents Background on why we are changing General meeting provided by math department on research Individual student/staff/parent testimonials Explain grading structure Homework center Parent mentors Parent conference script for teachers Web Site (Math page, science page) Team competitions Parent work sessions Exhibition Day(Products, Projects) Math section in Parent Handbook Math/science fair Awards assembly per semester Training of tutors in new programs Examples in parent center Develop parent manual Celebrate results Check-out activities 5 S.MIDDLE SCHOOLS Gain-parentai/community support for standards-based mathematics and science. Family Math \u0026amp; Science Night Involve neighborhood businesses in incorporating math/science in the work - Invite parents Involve untapped resources, i.e., retired teachers, community stakeholders Involve PARK, Learning Clubs, etc with new ways of teaching math and science Offer training sessions for parents Compose letter explaining changes and data that supports that change. Insure every math teacher has been inserviced Parent observation/participation should be encouraged Strong teacher support outside of school Access to research for parents Multi-lingual communication Main channels on T.V., coverage on Community Service Math department information session Discuss with parents during orientation Teachers explain to students Teacher newsletter to parents prior to new unit Open House presentation/demonstration Target commimity churches to provide tutoring at their sites Provide training/workshops for potential tutors in standards-based mathematics Target neighborhood associations to enlist their support Teachers go into community and teach parents new approaches Pre/Post Growth assessment Tri-fold information handout Media blitz for school newspaper/newsletter and district newsletter LRSD Website Town Hall information meetings Math teachers motivate kids to share methods with parents on the first night 'ft J I -\"3 - V aHigh Schools Gain parental/community support for standards-based mathematics and science and Active Physics. Family math and science night with physics activities included. Printed media campaign to educate parents (orientation, registration, newsletters, school newspaper, etc) 9 weeks syllabus sent home to parents Student journals to be shared with parents Demonstrations during Open House Research data on ACT/SAT after higher math and science Task force to disseminate infomation to parents/community Staff development for teachers Parent observation of classrooms Student competitions similar to science fairs- Recruit elementary students/parents to shadow physics students Target/Market plan to minority parents Host Informational (Q \u0026amp; A) session for parents/community (Town Hall Meeting) Media coverage on television, district channel Sell the students: incentives Science Homework Center hotline Science Lab in community centers Change course name3 h ^,\\\u0026gt;C Mathematics Program Description Little Rock School District General Program Components The K-12 mathematics program in the Little Rock School District, as are all LRSD curriculum programs, is designed according to the following components: 1. Curriculum Content and Skills Standards that are aligned with the national curriculum standards and the Arkansas Mathematics Curriculum Frameworks. Board policy lA states that Academic content standards will be developed, with grade- and course-level benchmarks, in reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. The regulations also require that each curriculum program reflect the following exit standards\n\u0026gt; Adequately master reading, writing, speaking, listening (communication), critical and creative thinking, and mathematical skills sufficient for effective, efficient functioning. Locate and use needed information from printed materials and/or other resources. Identify problems and needs, apply problem-solving strategies, and analyze information for meaning and/or action. Use tools of technology at an effective, efficient, flexible, and adaptable level. Have knowledge of basic historical, geographic, political, literary, and scientific information, and use such knowledge in day-to-day decisions. Appreciate and understand cultural differences, the arts and humanities, current happenings, and ways to predict or influence future events. Establish and maintain effective and supportive intrapersonal, interpersonal, and cooperative relationships, and civic and social responsibility. Demonstrate self-direction as an active life-long learner and demonstrate self-respect, self-esteem, self-understanding, and a physically and mentally balanced healthy life. Policy IG further requires that the curriculum at all levels of its development in the Little Rock School District will be standards-based and define what students should know and be able to do at the conclusion of each grade level or course. To ensure that the curriculum standards apply to all students and that high expectations are in place for all. Policy IGA requires the following: The staff responsible for the design and/or delivery of all special programs, including but not limited to, special education. Title I, English-as-a-Second Language, migrant education, gifted and talented education, 504 programs, alternative 1education programs, etc. are to ensure that their programs reflect the district- adopted grade-level/course standards and benchmarks and are coordinated with the overall curriculum plan. Special programs will adapt instruction, pacing, materials and assessments, as appropriate, to meet the unique needs of the students served. Policy IGE requires that all curriculum guides be aligned with the Arkansas curriculum frameworks, the LRSD academic content standards and benchmarks, and the assessments administered by LRSD and the State of Arkansas, including College Board Advanced Placement examinations and the ACT. tl Cumculum documents that describe the Little Rock School District mathematics program are as follows: K-12 Mathematics Standards/Benchmarks K-8 Benchmarks (publication for parents) A Parent and Student Guide to Learning in Middle School, 2000-01 (publication for students and parents) A High School Student and Parent Guide to Course Selection and Graduation Requirements, 2000-01 (publication for students and parents) Middle School Curriculum Catalog (publication for school-level staff) High School Curriculum Catalog (publication for school-level staff) 2. Assessments to measure student progress toward achievement of the challenging mathematics content and skills standards. These assessments include all those in the Districts formal assessment program, as well as those that are teacher created and embedded in instruction. As teacher skills improve, they are moving more and more toward seamless instruction and assessment. Student assessments provide teachers frequent data to evaluate not only how individual students are performing, but also how they may need to modify their instructional strategies to create more student success. 3. Effective teaching strategies that are research-based or best practice. Such strategies are those that are constructivist in nature, that lead to student understanding of complex concepts and their applications, and that lead to student success in demonstrating successful performance relating to the achievement of the content and skills standards for the course. 4. Selection and use of materials (such as software, textbooks, manipulatives, calculators, etc.) that assist both in teaching and in learning and that lead to student success in achieving the curriculum content and skills standards. 5. Professional development that supports teachers in their understanding of the grade-level or course standards, in the design of appropriate assessments to measure student success, in the design of rubrics or scoring guides, in the acquisition of the skills and understandings necessary to develop effective 2teaching strategies, and in the use of appropriate materials (software, textbooks, manipulatives, calculators, etc.). The districts professional development program includes both in-classroom coaching and follow-up training. New topics for training are determined based upon interpretations of student achievement data and on the demonstrated needs of teachers (as determined through classroom observations and teacher surveys). 6. Program evaluations that are conducted in year 2 of the curriculum guide development cycle. The regulations in IGE-Rl require that program evaluations for each curriculum program be conducted prior to the revision of new curriculum guides and that the recommendations be used in the design of the guide. Program Definition in Revised Desegregation and Education Plan The Districts revised plan, approved by the federal court in spring 1998, included several obligations for the reform of the Districts mathematics program. They are as follows: Section 5.3: Mathematics. LRSD shall implement the following strategies to improve mathematics instruction. Section 5.3.1: Revise the mathematics curriculum to include a smaller number of concepts at each level, the use of manipulatives, and problem solving and critical thinking, and train teachers on its implementation. Section 5.3.2\nDevelop appropriate assessment devices for measuring individual student achievement and the success of the revised curriculum. Section 5.3.3: Provide resources for early intervention with students with mathematical problems and for training teachers on early intervention\nand Section 5.3.4: Revise mathematics curriculum to increase the number of students successfully completing Algebra I and higher-level mathematics courses. Section 5.3.5. Adopt as a goal that all students in regular classes will complete Algebra and Geometry by the end of their eleventh grade year and that students will be proficient in mathematics by graduation. LRSD shall provide assistance to those students experiencing difficulty with Algebra and Geometry. A copy from the Districts Interim Compliance Report as of March 15, 2000, relating to these obligations is attached in the appendix to this section. Magnet Programs The Little Rock School District has made a major investment over the years in several magnet schools and magnet programs within schools to further its desegregation efforts and to provide special programming for students with specialized interests. The following schools feature magnets in the area of mathematics and science: 3Carver I Jementary SchoolScience and Mathematics Magnet School An extra hour of science per week is provided by the Science Specialist, her assistant, and the classroom teacher in a fully equipped state-of-the-art science laboratory. The students work in small groups to discover solutions to challenging problems through hands-on experiments. Every other week the science specialist plans with each grade level to implement the District curriculum intergrated with literacy instruction. Each child in grades 3-4-5 participates in a choice of science fairs, which include Science, Mathematics, and Invent America. All classrooms have their choice of animals to study and care for throughout the year. Students are encouraged to house them at the homes during summer and all vacations. Science becomes real life at Carver. Williams Elementary SchoolBasic Skills Magnet School A full-time curriculum specialist provides support for science and mathematics through school-wide activities, such as the science/ mathematics fair, demonstrations, experiments, and a continuous search for professional development activities that are aligned with the school improvement plan. She has also created a science/mathematics laboratory where she schedules more complex experiments than can be done in the regular classroom. In addition, she schedules resource speakers and field trips that support the standards-based curricula in mathematics and science. She shares her expertise with all teachers in planning for the delivery of each instructional module and in assessing student understanding and progress. Washington Elementary Magnet School and King Elementary Interdistrict School both have science and mathematics labs and full-time curriculum specialists who support teachers in the implementation of high quality science and mathematics instruction. Maim Middle SchoolScience Magnet School Each student in this school takes a second science course each year in grades 6-8Science Lab 6, Science Lab 7, and Science Lab 8. Students at Mann participate in a wide variety of co/extra-curricular activities related to their specialization area of science and mathematics. Henderson Middle SchoolHealth Sciences Magnet Program Each student in this program (school within a school) takes a second science course: Health Science 6, Health Science 7, and Health Science 8. Henderson is also one of the original technology schools in the District, with computers in every classroom and a virtual classroom established in partnership with the University of Arkansas for Medical Science (UAMS). 4Parkview High SchoolScience Magnet School Students at Parkview High School must five units in a Career Focus: Two units of biology beyond Biology I\nand One semester of chemistry beyond Chemistry I\nand Two units of German or Latin\nand One semester of Applied Statistics and Technical Writing\nand Yearly Project. Science courses that are unique to Parkview High School are as follows: Microbiology (1/2) Qualitative Analysis (1/2) Applied Statistics/Technical Writing (1/2) Environmental Health (1/2) Human Anatomy and Physiology (1/2) Organic Chemistry (1/2) Students specializing in science and mathematics at Parkview also participate in a wide variety of related co/extracurricular activities. University Studies Program Hall High School began in fall 1999 a partnership with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR). A university professor and a high school teacher co-teach designated courses through which students at grades 11-12 may earn dual creditboth high school credit toward graduation and college hours. In fall 2000 the first mathematics course will be offered: Pre-Calculus A and B (high school credit) and UALRs College Algebra (college credit) Lab Schools Throughout 1999-2000 some of the staff have worked with teams of staff and parents at each of four secondary schools in southwest Little Rock to design plans for curriculum enhancements and the improvement of student achievement. Those four schools are Mablevale Middle, Cloverdale Middle, McClellan High, and Fair High. The plans that are emerging (and for which external funding will be sought to supplement district funds in support of implementation) all involve emphases on science and technology-related programs. By the end of summer 2000 more definitive information will be available on these plans, and they will become another major component in the Districts agenda for the next several years. As an example, Mablevale Middle is proposing an emphasis on Environmental Science. And Fair High School has already developed a partnership with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) to feed students from Fair directly to the new Information Technology program at UALR. Two new courses will be offered at Fair in 2000-2001: Applications of Mathematicsa web-based pre-calculus course\nand Enterprise Information Sciencea project-oriented laboratory course in information technology. A summer program on the UALR campus has also been developed to 5provide Fair High students with mathematics and science knowledge and skill development. Two elementary schools were added to this study and planning initiative, Fair Park Elementary and Stephens Elementary (to open in fall 2000). Fair Park Elementarys plan includes an emphasis in Environmental Studies\nand Stephens Elementary will include major emphases in technology applications and economics. Graduation Requirements-Mathematics Students in the Little Rock School School District may earn diplomas in one of four ways\n1. Students may graduate from the Accelerated Learning Center with a total of 21 units, including three units of mathematics: Algebra I or Algebra I Pre-AP Concepts of Geometry or Geometry or Geometry Pre-AP Algebra II or Algebra II Pre-AP or Statistics or Statistics AP Students may take Algebra I Pre-AP for high school credit in grade 8. The Accelerated Learning Center (ACC) is an alternative high school for over-age, credit-deficient students. The curriculum is technologically supported and competency based so that students can move to the next course as soon as they complete the previous one. The required 21 units for graduation are the minimum required by the State of Arkansas. 2. Students may graduate from any of the five comprehensive high schools with a total of 24 units of credit, including at least three units of mathematics: Algebra I or Algebra I Pre-AP Concepts of Geoemtry or Geometry or Geometry Pre-AP Algebra II or Algebra II Pre-AP or Statistics or Statistics AP Students may take Algebra I Pre-AP for high school credit in grade 8. Some few advanced or gifted students also take Geometry Pre-AP and/or Algebra II Pre-AP during middle school, but the State of Arkansas allows only one credit in mathematics taken in middle school to count toward high school graduation. 3. To encourage as many students as possible to pursue a more rigorous and challenging high school program, the Board of Education also established a recommended curriculum for high school graduation. It includes 27 units of credit, including four units of mathematics\nAlgebra I or Algebra I Pre-AP Geometry or Geometry Pre-AP Algebra II or Algebra II Pre-AP One additional unit of advanced mathematics Students may take Algebra I Pre-AP for high school credit in grade 8. Some few advanced or gifted students also take Geometry Pre-AP and/or Algebra II Pre-AP during middle school, but the State of Arkansas allows only one credit 6in mathematics taken in middle school to count toward high school graduation. 4. Students who have identified learning disabilities may graduate under a plan designed by their lEP committees. These plans generally track the Districts requirements for all students, except that some courses may be adapted courses for students in the Resource Room or in Self-Contained settings. Career Focus Arkansas requires each graduate to have earned a minimum of three units in one area of Career Focus. Students who wish to complete their Career Focus in science and/or mathematics will complete the following: Two units of one foreign language\nand One additional unit beyond Common Core requirements in science or mathematics\nor Three units beyond the Common Core requirements from upper-level mathematics and/or science courses. Students who pursue the recommended graduation plan must complete a minimum of four units in the Career Focus. Pre-Advanced Placement CoursesMathematics The Little Rock School District has long offered advanced,' honors, or enriched courses in the core curriculum areas for advanced students. Effective fall 1999, the District standardized those courses and named them all as Pre-Advanced Placement, grades 6-10 or 6-11. The regulations in IGE-Rl state the following: Pre-Advanced Placement courses, beginning in grade 6, will reflect LRSD standards and benchmarks and shall be aligned with the College Boards syllabus requirements for Advanced Placement courses, incrementally building in students the knowledge and skills necessary to be successful in Advanced Placement courses and examinations. ... Curriculum program staff are responsible for ensuring that the curricula for Pre-AP and AP courses are qualitatively different from the curricula of parallel regular-level courses. The regulations in IHBB-R state that identified gifted/talented students are to be placed in Pre-Advanced Placement courses at the middle school level. At the high school level, students who are gifted/talented in mathematics are placed in Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement courses. Other options include seminars, mentorships, dualenrollment (with concurrent university credit) and/or independent study. These courses are not, however, limited to gifted/talented students. 7Policy IHCC establishes the Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement program for the Little Rock School District as a vehicle for providing quality educational opportunities for all its students through a rigorous, challenging curriculum. Importantly, the policy also mandates that there be no barriers to participation in Pre- Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement courses due to ethnicity, race, gender, national origin, creed, socioeconomic level, or handicapping condition. Further, District staff are required to include in its professional development program for teachers and counselors training in identifying and encouraging increasing percentages of students to participate in Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement courses. The following Pre-Advanced Placement mathematics courses are offered in the Little Rock School District: Mathematics 6 Pre-AP Mathematics 7 Pre-AP Mathematics 8 Pre-AP Algebra I Pre-AP (grade 8) Algebra II Pre-AP Geometry Pre-AP Trigonometry and Advanced Algebra Pre-AP Desegregation Compliance One of the major issues in the Districts 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan relates to African-American enrollment in Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement courses. The obligations are as follows: Section 2.6: LRSD shall implement programs, polices, and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified Afidcan-Americans in ... advanced placement courses ... and the gifted and talented program. Section 2.6.1: LRSD shall implement a training program during each of the next three years designed to assist teachers and counselors in identifying and encouraging Afidcan-American students to participate in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement courses. Section 2.6.2: LRSD shall implement programs to assist Afidcan-American students in being successful in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement courses. In the appendix attached to this section is the text from a document filed on March 15, 2000, with the federal court in Little Rockthe Interim Compliance Report, which includes details of the activities that have been completed in response to the above-stated obligations. These pages document the Districts efforts to ensure that students are not tracked academically and that increasing percentages of Afidcan-Americans emoll in both Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement courses. 8Also attached in the appendix for this section is a recent report published by the Division of Instruction that documents progress to date in increasing enrollment and success of African-American students in Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement courses. A summary of the findings follows: The total enrollment of African-American students in AP courses has increased from 471 in 1997-98 to 695 in 1999-2000a 48 percent increase. The total eiuolhnent in AP courses for all students has increased from 1435 in 1997-98 to 1791 in 1999-2000a 25 percent increase. Improvements are the result of the following: Improved recruitment of students by teachers and counselors for AP course enrollment. Addition of several new AP courses to the LRSD curriculum. The Boards decision in December 1998 to make all AP courses available in all five high schools. Inclusion of enrollment in AP courses as one of the Quality Index indicators (the LRSD school accountability system). Change in regulations so that students may now enroll in a Pre-AP or AP course if they earned at least a C in the previous course. Increased awareness of goals through the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, NSF Project, policies and regulations adoption, and professional development. National Origin Issues In March 1999 the Office of Civil Rights conducted a routine compliance review of the programs for second-language students in the Little Rock School District. They found the District out of compliance in several areas. Rather than endure the expense and time for lengthy litigation, the District voluntarily entered into a Commitment to Resolve agreement with OCR. One of the obligations in that agreement relates to this issue of student access to special opportunity programswhich include the Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement mathematics courses and the University Studies program at Hall High School. The policy regulations in IHBEA-R state the following: The District will ensure that LEP students have equal access to the Gifted and Talented programs and Pre-AP and AP couses at the secondary level throughout the District and to the University Studies program at Hall High School. The District will provide parents of LEP students information about any opporfimities, requirements, selection criteria, or general information regarding the G/T program, Pre-AP and AP courses, and the University Studies program that is provided to the parents of non-LEP students. 9Screening tests should be in the language of the students, if at all practicable. If nonverbal tests are adminstered, the instrucnons should be in the language of the students. Staff who administer GT screening tests to LEP students must have received training on addressing the needs of LEP students. Elementary Mathematics (K-5) Courses The adopted curriculum standards and grade-level benchmarks define the curriculum for grades K-5. The formal assessment program (described elsewhere in section 6 of this Update to the Annual Report) provides measurements of student progress. In addition, teachers use the released items from the State Benchmark Examinations and the sample Gateway assessment items that are provided through the states Smart Start program to assess student growth. They also use teacher-created assessments, including observations of student performance to determine progress. The District has adopted Investigations in Number, Data, and Space to support its K-5 curriculum. This program is a complete K-5 mathematics curriculum that supports all students as they learn to think mathematically. Investigations has been carefully designed to engage students in key mathematical content as they develop number sense, learn to visualize and describe geometrical relationships, and collect and analyze real data. As they explore mathematical problems in depth, students work together, use a variety of concrete materials and appropriate technology, and express their mathematical thinking through talking, drawing, and writing. The first four curriculum standards for mathematics are embedded throughout the Investigations curriculum as noted below: Standard 1: Mathematics as Problem Solving. In each investigation, students consider problems, develop a variety of strategies to solve them, and share their solutions. Standard 2: Mathematics as Communication. Students are involved in building, drawing, representing, writing, and talking as part of their mathematics work. They develop their own strategies for representing and recording and are introduced to a repertoire of useful ways of utilizing concrete materials, pictures, tables, graphs, and charts. Standards. Mathematics as Reasoning. Units of study are designed to support teachers and students as they move away from a view of mathematics as a series of facts and procedures to be memorized toward a view of mathematics as a discipline in which one can use all the resources at at hand to reason about mathematical problems. Standard 4. Mathematical Connections. Most units are structured around connected mathematical ideas: addition and subtraction always appear together, as do multiplication and division. The connection is also made between the 10 conventional mathematical symbols, terms and notation, and the MEANING of mathematical operations and relationships. The following Investigations modules address the curriculum standards as noted: Grade 1 Modules Mathematical Thinking at Grade 1 (Introduction) Standards 1-4 Standard 6. Standard 7. Standard 8. Standard 9. Standard 11. Standard 13. (See above.) Number Sense and Numeration Concepts of Whole Number Operations Whole Number Computation Geometry and Spatial Sense Statistics and Probability Patterns and Relationships Building Number Sense (The Number System) Standards 1-4 Standard 5. Standard 6. Standard 7. Standard 8. Standard 9. Standard 10. Standard 13. (See above.) Estimation Number Sense and Numeration Concepts of Whole Number Operations Whole Number Computation Geometry and Spatial Sense Measurement Patterns and Relationships Survey Questions and Secret Rules (Collecting and Sorting Data) Standards 1-4 Standard 6. Standard 7. Standard 8. Standard 9. Standard 11. Standard 13. (See above.) Number Sense and Numeration Concepts of Whole Number Operations Whole Number Computation Geometry and Spatial Sense Statistics and Probability Patterns and Relationships Quilt Squares and Block Towns (2-D and 3-D Geometry) Standards 1-4 Standard 5. Standard 6. Standard 7. Standard 8. Standard 9. Standard 11. Standard 13. (See above.) Estimation Number Sense and Numeration Concepts of Whole Number Operations Whole Number Computation Geometry and Spatial Statistics and Probability Patterns and Relationships 11 Number Games and Story Problems (Addition and Subtraction) Standards 1-4 Standard 6. Standard 7. Standard 8. Standard 9. Standard 13. (See above.) Number Sense and Numeration Concepts of Whole Number Operations Whole Number Computation Geometry and Spatial Patterns and Relationships Grade 2 Modules Mathematical Thinking at Grade 2 (Introduction) Standards 1-4 Standard 5. Standard 6. Standard 7. Standard 8. Standard 9. Standard 11. Standard 13. (See above.) Estimation Number Sense and Numeration Concepts of Whole Number Operations Whole Number Computation Geometry and Spatial Sense Statistics and Probability Patterns and Relationships Coins, Coupons, and Combinations (The Number System) Standards 1-4 Standard 6. Standard 7. Standard 8. Standard 11. Standard 13. (See above.) Number Sense and Numeration Concepts of Whole Number Operations Whole Number Computation Statistics and Probability Patterns and Relationships Does It Walk, Crawl, or Swim? (Sorting and Classifying Data) Standards 1-4 (See above.) Standard 11. Statistics and Probability Shapes, Halves, and Symmetry (Geometry and Fractions) Standards 1-4 Standard 5. Standard 6. Standard 9. Standard 10. Standard 12. Standard 13. (See above.) Estimation Number Sense and Numeration Geometry and Spatial Sense Measurement Fractions and Decimals Patterns and Relationships 12 Putting Together and Taking Apart (Addition and Subtraction) Standards 1-4 Standard 6. Standard 7. Standard 8. Standard 13. (See above.) Number Sense and Numeration Concepts of Whole Number Operations Whole Number Computation Patterns and Relationships How Long? How Far? (Measuring) Standards 1-4 Standard 5. Standard 6. Standard 7. Standard 8. Standard 9. Standard 10. Standard 13. (See above.) Estimation Number Sense and Numeration Concepts of Whole Number Operations Whole Number Computation Geometry and Spatial Sense Measurement Patterns and Relationships Grade 3 Modules Mathematical Thinking at Grade 3 (Introduction) Standards 1-4 Standard 6. Standard 7. Standard 8. Standard 9. Standard 13. (See above.) Number Sense and Numeration Concepts of Whole Number Operations Whole Number Computation Geometry and Spatial Sense Patterns and Relationships Things That Come in Groups (Multiplication and Division) Standards 1-4 Standard 6. Standard 7. Standard 8. Standard 9. Standard 13. (See above.) Number Sense and Numeration Concepts of Whole Number Operations Whole Number Computation Geometry and Spatial Sense Patterns and Relationships Flips, Turns, and Area (2-D Geometry) Standards 1-4 Standard 9. Standard 10. (See above.) Geometry and Spatial Sense Measurement Standard 13. Patterns and Relationships From Paces to Feet (Measuring and Data) Standards 1-4 Standard 5. Standard 9. Standard 10. (See above.) Estimation Geometry and Spatial Sense Measurement 13 Standard 11. Statistics and Probability Standard 13. Patterns and Relationships Landmarks in the Hundreds (The Number System) Standards 1-4 Standard 6. Standard 7. Standard 8. Standard 9. Standard 13. (See above.) Number Sense and Numeration Concepts of Whole Number Operations Whole Number Computation Geometry and Spatial Sense Patterns and Relationships Combining and Comparing (Addition and Subtraction) Standards 1-4 Standard 5. Standard 6. Standard 7. Standard 8. Standard 10. Standard 11. Standard 13. (See above.) Estimation Number Sense and Numeration Concepts of Whole Number Operations Whole Number Computation Measurement Statistics and Probability Patterns and Relationships Fair Shares (Fractions) Standards 1-4 Standard 9. Standard 12. Standard 13. (See above.) Geometry and Spatial Sense Fractions and Decimals Patterns and Relationships Exploring Solids and Boxes (3-D Geometry) Standards 1-4 Standard 5. Standard 6. Standard 9. Standard 13. (See above.) Estimation Number Sense and Numeration Geometry and Spatial Sense Patterns and Relationships Grade 4 Modules Mathematical Thinking at Grade 4 (Introduction) Standards 1-4 Standard 5. Standard 6. Standard 1. Standard 8. Standard 9. Standard 13. (See above.) Estimation Number Sense and Numeration Concepts of Whole Number Operations Whole Number Computation Geometry and Spatial Sense Patterns and Relationships 14 Arrays and Shares (Multiplication and Division) Standards 1-4 Standard 6. Standard 7. Standard 8. Standard 9. Standard 13. (See above.) Number Sense and Numeration Concepts of Whole Number Operations Whole Number Computation Geometry and Spatial Sense Patterns and Relationships Seeing Solids and Silhouettes (3-D Geometry) Standards 1-4 (See above.) Standard 9. Geometry and Spatial Sense Landmarks in the Thousands (The Number System) Standards 1-4 Standard 6. Standard 7. Standard 8. Standard 13. (See above.) Number Sense and Numeration Concepts of Whole Number Operations Whole Number Computation Patterns and Relationships Different Shapes, Equal Pieces (Fractions and Area) Standards 1-4 Standard 6. Standard 9. Standard 10. Standard 12. Standard 13. (See above.) Number Sense and Numeration Geometry and Spatial Sense Measurement Fractions and Decimals Patterns and Relationships Money, Miles, and Large Numbers (Addition and Subtraction) Standards 1-4 Standard 5. Standard 6. Standard 7. Standard 8. Standard 10. Standard 12. (See above.) Estimation Number Sense and Numeration Concepts of Whole Number Operations Whole Number Computation Measurement Fractions and Decimals Packages and Groups (Multiplication and Division) Standards 1-4 Standard 6. Standard 7. Standard 8. Standard 13. (See above.) Number Sense and Numeration Concepts of Whole Number Operations Whole Number Computation Patterns and Relationships 15 Grade 5 Modules Mathematical Thinking at Grade 5 (Introduction) Standards 1-4 Standard 5. Standard 6. Standard 7. Standard 8. Standard 12. (See above.) Number and Number Relationships Number Systems and Number Theory Computation and Estimation Patterns and Functions Geometry Picturing Polygons (2-D Geometry) Standards 1-4 Standard 5. Standard 6. Standard 1. Standard 8. Standard 13. (See above.) Number and Number Relationships Number Systems and Number Theory Computation and Estimation Patterns and Functions Measurement Name that Portion (Fractions, Percents, and Decimals) Standards 1-4 Standard 5. Standard 6. Standard 1. Standard 8. Standard 10. (See above.) Number and Number Relationships Number Systems and Number Theory Computation and Estimation Patterns and Functions Statistics Between Never and Always (Probability) Standards 1-4 Standard 5. Standard 6. Standard 7. Standard 10. Standard 11. (See above.) Number and Number Relationships Number Systems and Number Theory Computation and Estimation Statistics Probability Building on Numbers You Know (Computation and Estimation Strategies) Standards 1-4 Standard 5. Standard 6. Standard 7. Standard 9. (See above.) Number and Number Relationships Number Systems and Number Theory Computation and Estimation Algebra 16 Containers and Cubes (3-D Geometry: Volume) Standards 1-4 Standard 5. Standard 7. Standard 12. Standard 13. (See above.) Number and Number Relationship Computation and Estimati Geometry Measurement Middle Schools (Grades 6-81 Mathematics Courses The adopted curriculum standards and course benchmarks define the curriculum for grades 6-8. The formal assessment program (described elsewhere in section 6 of this Update to the Annual Report) provides measurements of student progress. In addition, teachers use the released items from the State Benchmark Examinations and the sample Gateway assessment items that are provided through the states Middle Start program to assess student growth. They also use teacher-created assessments, including observations of student performance to determine progress. The District has adopted the Connected Mathematics Program to support its grades 6-8 curriculum. This curriculum is devoted to developing student knowledge and understanding of mathematics that are rich in connections- :onnections among core ideas in mathematics, connections between mathematics and its applications in other school subjects, connections between the planned teaching/leaming activities and interests of middle school students, and connections with the applications of mathematical ideas in the world outside school. The curriculum is organized around interesting problem settingsreal situations, whimsical situations, or interesting mathematical situations. Students explore problems, work in cooperative groups, use a variety of concrete materials and appropriate technology to conjecture, test, and generalize their mathematical thinking through writing, drawing, and talking. Computation skills are embedded and reinforced in each unit. The following four curriculum content standards are embedded in all CMP units\nStandard 1. Mathematics as Problem Solving. All the CMP units are divided into investigations which present problems for the students to solve. The entire curriculum is built around these problems in contexts that are interesting to the students. Many of the contexts have validity in the real world. Others use fantasy of mathematics as a context. Standard 2. Mathematics as Communications. Emphasis is placed on the students discussing the problems in class, talking through their solutions, and learning how to communicate their solutions to a more general audience. They learn how to communicate by using different kinds of representations such as graphs, tables, formulas, or written explanations of arguments. 17Standard 3. Mathematics as Reasoning Through discussing the problems and solutions, the students learn to reason about the mathematics. They leam that mathematics is man-made, that it is arbitrary, and good solutions are arrived at by consensus among those who are considered expert. Standard 4. Mathematics as Connections Each unit connects the mathematics to other areas of mathematics and to applications of mathematics in the real world. All the investigation problems are set in contexts with opportunity provided to reflect on the connections. Standards 5-13 are emphasized in the curriculum units of each grade level. A correlation of the standards within each module are displayed in an attached in the appendix to this section of the Update to the Annual Report. High School (Grades 9-12) Mathematics Courses The adopted curriculum standards and course benchmarks define the curriculum for grades 9-12. The formal assessment program (described elsewhere in section 6 of this Update to the Annual Report) provides measurements of student progress. In addition, teachers will use the released items from the State Benchmark Examinations to assess student growth. They also use teacher-created assessments, including observations of student performance to determine progress. The courses listed below have been standards-based for several years. District leaders have concentrated on providing appropriate teacher training to support teachers in understanding the standards, in developing their content knowledge, in adopting effective teaching strategies, in creating assessments, and in the appropriate use of materials (calculators, software, Internet resources, textbooks, manipulatives, etc.). Curriculum maps for each course have been developed so that teachers can see the correlations between the standards and the assessments and between the standards and the materials that have been adopted. Courses offered for high school credit include the following: Algebra I Algebra I Pre-AP Concepts of Geometry Geometry Geometry Pre-AP Algebra II Algebra II Pre-AP Trigonometry and Advanced Algebra (Effective fall 2001, this course will be dropped from the curriculum. Students completing Algebra I-II and Geometry who wish to enroll in a fourth year of mathematics will take Pre-Calculus Pacesetter Mathematics\nthose who want a fifth year will take Calculus.) 18 Trigonometry and Advanced Algebra Pre-AP (Students taking this course will be prepared to take an AP Calculus course or to take college-level calculus.,* Pre-Calculus (dual credit with UALR at Hall High only) Pre-Calculus Pacesetter Mathematics (to be offered in all five high schools in 2000-01) Applications of Mathematics (a web-based pre-calculus course to be piloted at Fair High only, in collaboration with UALR, in 2000-01) Statistics Statistics AP ACT Preparation: Mathematics (a one-semester review of the mathematics that is tested on the ACT/SAT examinations) Calculus Calculus AB Advanced Placement Calculus BC Advanced Placement All below-level or remedial mathematics courses were dropped from the curriculum, effective fall 1999. If schools offer remedial courses, they are not allowed to grant high school credit for them. All regular-level courses are taught according to the adopted standards and course-level benchmarks. These courses are taught at grade-level. The District is considering the adoption of the I Can Learn Algebra I laboratories to support the curriculum for this course. A decision will be made by the Board of Education on April 27, 2000, regarding this adoption. This software was developed, according to the information provided by the ERL Enterprises, to assist teachers in implementing the National Content Standards and attaining Goals 2000. It achieves this technological breakthrough by elevating classroom computers from enrichment and remediation to create the first full-time, self-paced curriculum teaching tool. I Can Learn Algebra is a comprehensive mathematics curriculum meeting NCTM standards with algebraic content relevant to real-world applications. More work is in progress to identify the teaching strategies and appropriate instructional materials to renew the Algebra I-II and Geoemtry curricula. To date, the Districts focus has been on professional developmentespecially in the delivery of more effective teaching strategies. Pre-Calculus Pacesetter Mathematics is taught according to the syllabus and standards provided by the College Board for this program. Pacesetter Mathematics teaches precalculus through modeling. It incorporates curriculum and assessment standards of NCTM. It is based on the premise that all students should aspire to and can achieve excellence. It presents students with real-world problem-solving tasks from the economy, growth, pricing, interest, inventory, scheduling, seasonality, and production. 19 It promotes conceptual learning through mathematical modeling\nasks students to generate experimental data and develop mathematical models to reach solutions to problems. It provides structure for student-centered problem solving. It makes extensive use of graphing calculators as a technological tool. It specifies course standards and objectives. It uses assessments based on standards and objectives. It provides structured ongoing student assessment plus end-of-year assessment. It is an instrument for expanding and deepening students knowledge, application skills, and communication in the language of mathematics. Pacesetter Mathematics offers summer institutes, electronic communication links, and inservice training for mathematics teachers. As noted above in the course list, Pacesetter Mathematics will become the regular-level fourth-year mathematics course no later than fall 2001. Students now taking Trigonometry and Advanced Algebra will take Pacesetter Mathematics. All Pre-AP courses are taught above grade-level and must be qualitatively differentiated from the regular-level curriculum and aligned both with the AP courses to which they lead and the ACT transition documents. All AP courses are taught according to the College Board syllabi provided for Advanced Placement courses. Improvement of African-American Student Achievement Section 2.7 of the Districts Revised Desegregation and Education Plan states the following: LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students. Attached in the appendix to this section are the pages from the Interim Compliance Report that was filed with the federal court on March 15, 2000, that discuss the Districts efforts thus far in this area of critical importance. These pages include the following topics: How LRSD aligned all its planning efforts to ensure coherence. An explanation of the LRSD Student Success Model. A list of the policies that have been approved to ensure high expectations for all students. A list of the administrative regulations that are now in place. A discussion of the curriculum content standards and grade-level and course benchmarks. A discussion of the work in progress to develop Instructional Standards with a list of the resources that have been consulted. 20 A list of the programs that have been created or refined to ensure student success. This section is not specifically about mathematics or science, but, rather, student achievement in general. 21 4Science Program Description Little Rock School District General Program Components The K-12 science program in the Little Rock School District, as are all LRSD curriculum programs, is designed according to the following components: 1. Curriculum Content and Skills Standards that are aligned with the national curriculum standards and the Arkansas Science Curriculum Frameworks. Board policy lA states that Academic content standards will be developed, with grade- and course-level benchmarks, in reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. The regulations also require that each curriculum program reflect the following exit standards: Adequately master reading, writing, speaking, listening (communication), critical and ci native thinking, and mathematical skills sufficient for effective, efficient functioning. Locate and use needed information from printed materials and/or other resources. Identify problems and needs, apply problem-solving strategies, and analyze information for meaning and/or action. Use tools of technology at an effective, efficient, flexible, and adaptable level. Have knowledge of basic historical, geographic, political, literary, and scientific information, and use such knowledge in day-to-day decisions. Appreciate and understand cultural differences, the arts and humanities, current happenings, and ways to predict or influence future events. Establish and maintain effective and supportive intrapersonal, interpersonal, and cooperative relationships, and civic and social responsibility. Demonstrate self-direction as an active life-long learner and demonstrate self-respect, self-esteem, self-understanding, and a physically and mentally balanced healthy life. Policy IG further requires that the curriculum at all levels of its development in the Little Rock School District will be standards-based and define what students should know and be able to do at the conclusion of each grade level or course. To ensure that the curriculum standards apply to all students and that high expectations are in place for all, Policy IGA requires the following\nThe staff responsible for the design and/or delivery of all special programs, including but not limited to, special education. Title I, English-as-a-Second Language, migrant education, gifted and talented education, 504 programs, alternative education programs, etc. are to ensure that their programs reflect the district- adopted grade-level/course standards and benchmarks and are coordinated with the overall curriculum plan. Special programs will adapt instruction, pacing, materials and assessments, as appropriate, to meet the unique needs of the students served. Policy IGE requires that all curriculum guides be aligned with the Arkansas curriculum frameworks, the LRSD academic content standards and benchmarks, and the assessments administered by LRSD and the State of Arkansas, including College Board Advanced Placement examinations and the ACT.\" Curriculum documents that describe the Little Rock School District mathematics program are as follows\n K-12 Science Standards/Benchmarks K.-8 Benchmarks (publication for parents) A Parent and Student Guide to Learning in Middle School, 2000-01 (publication for students and parents) A High School Student and Parent Guide to Course Selection and Graduation Requirements, 2000-01 (publication for students and parents) Middle School Curriculum Catalog (publication for school-level staff) High School Curriculum Catalog (publication for school-level staff) 2, 3. 4. Assessments to measure student progress toward achievement of the challenging mathematics content and skills standards. These assessments include all those in the Districts formal assessment program, as well as those that are teacher created and embedded in instruction. As teacher skills improve, we are moving more and more toward seamless instruction and assessment. Student assessments provide teachers frequent data to evaluate not only how individual students are performing, but also how they may need to modify their instructional strategies to create more student success. Effective teaching strategies that are research-based or best practice. Such strategies are those that are constructivist in nature, that lead to student understanding of complex concepts and their applications, and that lead to student success in demonstrating successful performance relating to the achievement of the content and skills standards for the course. Selection and use of materials (such as software, textbooks, manipulatives, calculators, etc.) that assist both in teaching and in learning and that lead to student success in achieving the curriculum content and skills standards. 5. Professional development that supports teachers in their understanding of the grade-level or course standards, in the design of appropriate assessments to measure student success, in the design of rubrics or scoring guides, in the acquisition of the skills and understandings necessary to develop effective teaching strategies, and in the use of appropriate materials (software, textbooks, materials for scientific experiments, kits, etc.). The Districts professional development program includes both in-classroom coaching and follow-up training. New topics for training are determined based upon interpretations of student achievement data and on the demonstrated needs of teachers (as determined through classroom observations and teacher surveys). 6. Program evaluations that are conducted in year 2 of the curriculum guide development cycle. The regulations in IGE-Rl require that program evaluations for each curriculum program be conducted prior to the revision of new curriculum guides and that the recommendations be used in the design of the guide. Magnet Programs The Little Rock School District has made a major investment over the years in several magnet schools and magnet programs within schools to further its desegregation efforts and to provide special programming for students with specialized interests. The following schools feature magnets in the area of mathematics and science\nCarver Elementary SchoolScience and Mathematics Magnet School An extra hour of science per week is provided by the Science Specialist, her assistant, and the classroom teacher in a fully equipped state-of-the-art science laboratory. The students work in small groups to discover solutions to challenging problems through hands-on experiments. Every other week the science specialist plans with each grade level to implement the District curriculum intergrated with literacy instruction. Each child in grades 3-4-5 participates in a choice of science fairs, which include Science, Mathematics, and Invent America. All classrooms have their choice of animals to study and care for throughout the year. Students are encouraged to house them at the homes during summer and all vacations. Science becomes real life at Carver. Williams Elementary SchoolBasic Skills Magnet School A full-time curriculum specialist provides support for science and mathematics through school-wide activities, such as the science/ mathematics fair, demonstrations, experiments, and a continuous search for professional development activities that are aligned with the school improvement plan. She has also created a science/mathematics laboratory where she schedules more complex experiments than can be done in the regular classroom. In addition, she schedules resource speakers and field trips that support the standards-based curricula in mathematics and science. She shares her expertise with all teachers in planning for the delivery of each instructional module and in assessing student understanding and progress.Washington Elementary Magnet School and King Elementary Interdistrict School both have science and mathematics labs and full-time curriculum specialists who support teachers in the implementation of high quality science and mathematics instruction. Mann Middle SchoolScience Magnet School Each student in this school takes a second science course each year in grades 6-8Science Lab 6, Science Lab 7, and Science Lab 8. Students at Mann participate in a wide variety of co/extra-curricular activities related to their specialization area of science and mathematics. Henderson Middle SchoolHealth Sciences Magnet Program Each student in this program (school within a school) takes a second science course: Health Science 6, Health Science 7, and Health Science 8. Henderson is also one of the original technology schools in the District, with computers in every classroom and a virtual classroom established in partnership with the University of Arkansas for Medical Science (UAMS). Parkview High SchoolScience Magnet School Students at Parkview High School must five units in a Career Focus: Two units of biology beyond Biology I\nand One semester of chemistry beyond Chemistry I\nand Two units of German or Latin\nand One semester of Applied Statistics and Technical Writing\nand Yearly Project. Science courses that are unique to Parkview High School are as follows: Microbiology (1/2) Qualitative Analysis (1/2) Applied Statistics/Technical Writing (1/2) Environmental Health (1/2) Human Anatomy and Physiology (1/2) Organic Chemistry (1/2) Students specializing in science and mathematics at Parkview also participate in a wide variety of related co/extracurricular activities. University Studies Program Hall High School began in fall 1999 a partnership with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR). A university professor and a high school teacher co-teach designated courses through which students at grades 11-12 may earn dual creditboth high school credit toward graduation and college hours. In fall 2000 the following science courses will be offered: Biology IIA (first semester of Biology II) and UALRs course: Science of Biology (3 hours) Physics I Pre-AP and UALRs course: Elementary Physics I-II (6 hours) Lab Schools Throughout 1999-2000 some of the staff have worked with teams of staff and parents at each of four secondary schools in southwest Little Rock to design plans for curriculum enhancements and the improvement of student achievement. Those four schools are Mablevale Middle, Cloverdale Middle, McClellan High, and Fair High. The plans that are emerging (and for which external funding will be sought to support implementation) all involve emphases on science and technology-related programs. By the end of summer 2000 more definitive information will be available on these plans, and they will become another major component in the Districts agenda for the next several years. As an example, Mablevale Middle is proposing an emphasis on Environmental Science. And Fair High School has already developed a partnership with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) to feed students from Fair directly to the new Information Technology program at UALR. Two new courses will be offered at Fair in 2000-2001: Applications of Mathematicsa web-based pre-calculus course\nand Enterprise Information Sciencea project-oriented laboratory course in information technology. Graduation Requirements-Science Students in the Little Rock School School District may earn diplomas in one of four ways\n1. Students may graduate from the Accelerated Learning Center with a total of 21 units, including three units of science: Physical Science or Physics I Biology I One additional unit of science The Accelerated Learning Center (ACC) is an alternative high school for over-age, credit-deficient students. The curriculum is technologically supported and competency based so that students can move to the next course as soon as they complete the previous one. The required 21 units for graduation are the minimum required by the State of Arkansas. 2. Students may graduate from any of the five comprehensive high schools with a total of 24 units of credit, including at least three units of science: Physics I (Active Physics) or Physics I Pre-AP Biology I or Biology I Pre-AP Chemistry I or Chemistry I Pre-AP 3. To encourage as many students as possible to pursue a more rigorous and challenging high school program, the Board of Education also established a recommended curriculum for high school graduation. It includes 27 units of credit, including four units of science: Physics 1 (Active Physics) or Physics I Pre-AP Biology I or Biology I Pre-AP Chemistry I or Chemistry I Pre-AP One additional unit of science 4. Students who have identified learning disabilities may graduate under a plan designed by their lEP committees. These plans generally track the Districts requirements for all students, except that some courses may be adapted courses for students in the Resource Room or in Self-Contained settings. Career Focus Arkansas requires each graduate to have earned a minimum of three units in one area of Career Focus. Students who wish to complete their Career Focus in science and/or mathematics will complete the following: Two units of one foreign language\nand One additional unit beyond Common Core requirements in science or mathematics\nor Three units beyond the Common Core requirements from upper-level mathematics and/or science courses. Students who pursue the recommended graduation plan must complete a minimum of four units in the Career Focus. Pre-Advanced Placement CoursesScience The Little Rock School District has long offered advanced,' honors, or enriched courses in the core curriculum areas for advanced students. Effective fall 1999, the District standardized those courses and named them all as Pre-Advanced Placement, grades 6-10 or 6-11. The regulations in IGE-Rl state the following: Pre-Advanced Placement courses, beginning in grade 6, will reflect LRSD standards and benchmarks and shall be aligned with the College Boards syllabus requirements for Advanced Placement courses, incrementally building in students the knowledge and skills necessary to be successful in Advanced Placement courses and examinations. ... Curriculum program staff are responsible for ensuring that the curricula for Pre-AP and AP courses are qualitatively different from the curricula of parallel regular-level courses. The regulations in IHBB-R state that identified gifted/talented students are to be placed in Pre-Advanced Placement courses at the middle school level. At the high school level, students who are gifted/talented in mathematics are placed in Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement courses. Other options include seminars, mentorships, dualenrollment (with concurrent university credit) and/or independent study. These courses are not, however, limited to gifted/talented students. Policy IHCC establishes the Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement program for the Little Rock School District as a vehicle for providing quality educational opportunities for all its students through a rigorous, challenging curriculum. Importantly, the policy also mandates that there be no barriers to participation in Pre- Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement courses due to ethnicity, race, gender, national origin, creed, socioeconomic level, or handicapping condition. Further, District staff are required to include in its professional development program for teachers and counselors training in identifying and encouraging increasing percentages of students to participate in Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement courses. The following Pre-Advanced Placement science courses are offered in the Little Rock School District: Science 6 Pre-AP Science 7 Pre-AP Science 8 Pre-AP Physics I Pre-AP Biology I Pre-AP Chemistry I Pre-AP Advanced Science/Theoretical Research Pre-AP Desegregation Compliance One of the major issues in the Districts 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan relates to African-American enrollment in Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement courses. The obligations are as follows: Section 2.6: LRSD shall implement programs, polices, and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified African-Americans in ... advanced placement courses ... and the gifted and talented program. Section 2.6.1: LRSD shall implement a training program during each of the next three years designed to assist teachers and counselors in identifying and encouraging African-American students to participate in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement courses. Section 2.6.2: LRSD shall implement programs to assist Afncan-American students in being successful in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement courses. In the appendix attached to this section is the text from a document filed on March 15, 2000, with the federal court in Little Rockour Interim Compliance Report, which includes details of the activities that we have completed in response to the above-stated obligations. These pages document the Districts efforts to ensure that students are not tracked academically and that increasing percentages of African-Americans emoll in both Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement courses. Also attached in the appendix for this section is a recent report published by the Division of Instruction that documents progress so far in increasing enrollment and success of African-American students in Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement courses. A summary of the findings follows: The total enrollment of African-American students in AP courses has increased from 471 in 1997-98 to 695 in 1999-2000a 48 percent increase. The total enrollment in AP courses for all students has increased from 1435 in 1997-98 to 1791 in 1999-2000a 25 percent increase. Improvements are the result of the following: Improved recruitment of students by teachers and counselors for AP course enrollment. Addition of several new AP cov 'ses to the LRSD curriculum. The Boards decision in Decern jer 1998 to make all AP courses available in all five high schools. Inclusion of enrollment in AP courses as one of the Quality Index indicators (the LRSD school accountability system). Change in regulations so that students may now enroll in a Pre-AP or AP course if they earned at least a C in the previous course. Increased awareness of goals through Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, NSF Project, policies and regulations adoption, and professional development. National Origin Issues In March 1999 the Office of Civil Rights conducted a routine compliance review of the programs for second-language students in the Little Rock School District. They found the District out of compliance in several areas. Rather than endure the expense and time for lengthy liltigation, the District voluntarily entered into a Commitment to Resolve agreement with OCR. One of the obligations in that agreement relates to this issue of student access to special opportunity programs. The policy regulations in IHBEA-R state the following: The District will ensure that LEP students have equal access to the Gifted and Talented programs and Pre-AP and AP couses at the secondary level throughout the District and to the University Studies program at Hall High School. The District will provide parents of LEP students information about any opportunities, requirements, selection criteria, or general information regarding the G/T program, Pre-AP and AP courses, and the University Studies program that is provided to the parents of non-LEP students. Screening tests should in the language of the students, if at all practicable. If nonverbal tests are adminstered, the instructions should be in the language of thestudents. Staff who administer GT screening tests to LEP students must have received training on addressing the needs of LEP students. Elementary Science (K-5) and Grade 6 (Middle School) Courses The adopted curriculum standards and grade-level benchmarks define the curriculum for grades K-6. The formal assessment program (described elsewhere in section 6 of this Update to the Annual Report) provides measurements of student progress. They also use teacher-created assessments, including observations of student performance to determine progress. The District has adopted Science and Technology for Children to support its K-6 science curriculum. Each of the four units in each grade level of STC provides students with an opportunity to explore science concepts and phenomena firsthand, to reflect on their observations, to share them with classmates, and to apply their learning in new situations. STC is fully aligned with the National Science Education Standards that were published by the National Research Council in 1996. The content standard. Unifying Concepts and Processes, is embedded throughout the K-6 curriculum modules: Systems, Order, and Organization. In each module, students learn to think and analyze in terms of systems. Evidence, Models, and Explanation. Using evidence to understand interactions, students learn to predict changes in natural and designed systems. Constancy, Change, and Measurement. Students learn that some systems remain constant, some systems change, and that different systems of measurement are used for different purposes. Evolution and Equilibrium. Throughout the modules, students learn that evolution is a series of changes that accounts for the present form and function of objects, organisms, and natural and designed systems. They also learn that equilibrium is a physical state in which forces and changes occur in opposite and off-setting directions. Form and Function. Students learn that form and function are complementary aspects of objects, organisms, and systems in the natural and designed world. The following is the display of the relationship between the instructional modules (units) for each grade levels and the other science curriculum standards that are being addressed. Grade 1 Weather Science as Inquiry Physical Science Earth and Space Science Science and Technology Science in Personal and Social Perspectives History and Nature of Science Unifying Concepts and Processes Solids and Liquids Science as Inquiry Physical Science Life Science Earth and Space Science Science and Technology Science in Personal and Social Perspectives History and Nature of Science Unifying Concepts and Processes Comparing and Measuring Science as Inquiry Physical Science Science and Technology History and Nature of Science Unifying Concepts and Processes Grade 2 The Life Cycle of Butterflies Science as Inquiry Life Science Science and Technology Science in Personal and Social Perspectives History and Nature of Science Unifying Concepts and Processes Soils Science as Inquiry Physical Science Life Science Earth and Space Science Science and Technology History and Nature of Science Unifying Concepts and Processes Changes Science as Inquiry Physical Science Earth and Space Science Science and Technology Science in Personal and Social Perspectives History and Nature of Science Unifying Concepts and Processes Balancing and Weighing Science as Inquiry Physical Science Science and Technology Science in Personal and Social Perspectives History and Nature of Science Unifying Concepts and Processes Grade 3 Plant Growth and Development Science as Inquiry Life Science Earth and Space Science Science and Technology Science in Personal and Social Perspectives History and Nature of Science Unifying Concepts and Processes Rocks and Minerals Science as Inquiry Physical Science Earth and Space Science Science and Technology Science in Personal and Social Perspectives History and Nature of Science Unifying Concepts and Processes Chemical Tests Science as Inquiry Physical Science Earth and Space Science Science and Technology Science in Personal and Social Perspectives History and Nature of Science Unifying Concepts and Processes Sound Science as Inquiry Physical Science Life Science Science and Technology Science in Personal and Social Perspectives History and Nature of Science Unifying Concepts and Processes Grade 4 Animal Studies Science as Inquiry Life Science Science and Technology Science in Personal and Social Perspectives History and Nature of Science Unifying Concepts and Processes Land and Water Science as Inquiry Physical Science Life Science Earth and Space Science Science and Technology Science in Personal and Social Perspectives History and Nature of Science Unifying Concepts and Processes Electric Circuits Science as Inquiry Physical Science Science and Technology Science in Personal and Social Perspectives History and Nature of Science Unifying Concepts and Processes Motion and Design Science as Inquiry Physical Science Science and Technology Science in Personal and Social Perspectives History and Nature of Science Unifying Concepts and Processes Grade 5 Microworlds Science as Inquiry Physical Science Life Science Science and Technology Science in Personal and Social Perspectives History and Nature of Science Unifying Concepts and Processes Ecosystems Science as Inquiry Physical Science Life Science Earth and Space Science Science and Technology Science in Personal and Social Perspectives History and Nature of Science Unifying Concepts and Processes Food Chemistry Science as Inquiry Physical Science Life Science Science and Technology Science in Personal and Social Perspectives History and Nature of Science Unifying Concepts and Processes Floating and Sinking Science as Inquiry Physical Science Science and Technology Science in Personal and Social Perspectives History and Nature of Science Unifying Concepts and Processes Grade 6 Experiments with Plants Science as Inquiry Life Science Earth and Space Science History and Nature of Science Unifying Concepts and Processes Measuring Time Science as Inquiry Physical Science Earth and Space Science Science and Technology Science in Personal and Social Perspectives History and Nature of Science Unifying Concepts and Processes Magnets and Motors Science as Inquiry Physical Science Life Science Science and Technology Science in Personal and Social Perspectives History and Nature of Science Unifying Concepts and Processes The Technology of Paper Science as Inquiry Physical Science Science and Technology Science in Personal and Social Perspectives History and Nature of Science Unifying Concepts and Processes Middle Schools (Grades 7-8) Science Courses (See Grade 6 above.) See the previous section for a discussion of grade 6 curriculum. The adopted curriculum standards and course benchmarks define the curriculum for grades 7-8. The formal assessment program (described elsewhere in section 6 of this Update to the Annual Report) provides measurements of student progress. They also use teacher-created assessments, including observations of student performance to determine progress. The District has adopted Science and Life Issues (SALI) to support its grade 7 curriculum, effective fall 2000. Science and Life Issues focuses on the life sciences and on personal decision-making. The program is divided into three thematic segments, each aligned with the national science standards and each intended to facilitate greater depth of understanding and to provide opportunities for students to link their learning on various topics. 1. 2. My Body and Me. Students investigate concepts and issues related to sustaining life. A major goal of this unit is to provide a sound foundation for rigorous, evidence-based decision making about health issues, such as the appropriate use of medication and nutritional requirements in the human diet. For example, students simulate the role of placebos in studies of medication for human use. After further investigating the range of human variability, students consider what types of personal health decisions they would make. Living Partnerships. Students investigate the relationships between humans and the physical and living environment. Evolution and ecosystems are the focus of this part of the course. Adaptations in human physiology are reconsidered in light of their evolutionary implications. Activities involve students in maintaining small ecosystems, such as terraria or aquaria, investigating local ecosystems, and exploring examples of the relationships between humans and other organisms. For example, students investigate the interaction between humans and dogs, including dogs behavior and other adaptations, the effect humans have had on dogs (through breeding), and the cultural effect their domestication has had on humans. 3. Using Tools luid Ideas. Students investigate the ways in which humans use tools and ideas to adapt their external environment. Such adaptation is examined in terms of the nervous system, behavior, and the unique ways in which people are able to modify their surroundings. They explore issues related to the wide variety of physical, linguistic, technological, and biotechnological adaptations that increasingly determine the nature and quality of human life. Human adaptations for communication, for example, range from the use of language and other symbolic systems to modem information technology\nphysical adaptations range from simple tools to robotics. Issues explored include the ethical implications of these rapid changes in technology. A copy of the conelation of the National Science Standards and the units in this program are attached in the appendix to this section. The District has adopted the Issues. Evidence, and You to support its grade 8 science curriculum, effective fall 2001. Issues, Evidence and You (lEY) is an integrated experience-based science course for grade 8. In addition to the la\u0026gt;oratory materials used in teaching this course, students are issued journals, in which they keep their writing relating to investigations, where they record the outcomes they obtain, and where they write up their analysis of the data they collect and the inferences and conclusions that data suggest. A copy of the correlation of the National Science Standards and the units in this program are attached in the appendix to this section. High School (Grades 9-121 Science Courses The adopted curriculum standards and course benchmarks define the curriculum for grades 9-12. The formal assessment program (described elsewhere in section 6 of this Update to the Annual Report) provides measurements of student progress. They also use teacher-created assessments, including observations of student performance to determine progress. The courses listed below have been standards-based for several years. District leaders have concentrated on providing appropriate teacher training to support teachers in understanding the standards, in developing their content knowledge, in adopting effective teaching strategies, in creating assessments, and in the appropriate use of materials (calculators, software, Internet resources, textbooks, manipulatives, etc.). Curriculum maps for each course have been developed so that teachers can see the correlations between the standards and the assessments and between the standards and the materials that have been adopted. Courses offered for high school credit include the following: Physics I (Active Physics) Physics I Pre-AP Biology I Biology I Pre-AP Chemistry I Chemistry I Pre-AP Physics II AP Human Anatomy and Physiology Biology IIA (first-semester course offered at Hall High only in the dual-credit program with UALR) Biology II AP Chemistry II AP Geology and Space Science Environmental Science AP Advanced Science and Theoretical Research Pre-AP Microbiology (one semester\nParkview Magnet only) Qualitative Analysis (one semester\nParkview Magnet only) Applied Statistics and Technical Writing (one semester\nParkview Magnet only) Environmental Health (one semester\nParkview Magnet only) Human Anatomy and Physiology (one semester\nParkview Magnet only) Organic Chemistry (one semester\nParkview Magnet only) All regular-level courses are taught according to the adopted standards and course-level benchmarks. These courses are taught at grade-level. Physics I (Active Physics) All regular-level freshman students in the Little Rock School District are required to take Physics I (Active Physics), effective fall 1999. From this course, they may also take Physics I Pre-AP, which is taught at a more theoretical level and will lead them to Physics II AP. Active Physics is a different species of physics course. It has the mechanics, optics, and electricity of traditional courses, but not where one would expect to find them. In a traditional physics course, forces are taught in the fall, waves in the winter, and solenoids in the spring. In Active Physics, students are introduced to physics concepts on a need- to-know basis as they explore issues in Sports, Medicine, Predictions, Communications, Transportation, and Home. The content of the course is carefully aligned with the following National Science Standards: Physical Science Unifying Concepts and Processes Science as Inquiry Science and TechnologyScience in Personal and Social Perspectives History and Nature of Science Biology I and Chemistry I The adopted curriculum standards and course benchmarks define the curriculum for Biology I and Chemistry I. The formal assessment program (described elsewhere in section 6 of this Update to the Annual Report) provides measurements of student progress. In addition, teachers will use the released items from the State Benchmark Examination in Biology I to assess student growth. They also use teacher-created assessments, including observations of student performance to determine progress. Biology I and Chemistry I have been standards-based for several years. District leaders have concentrated on providing appropriate teacher training to support teachers in understanding the standards, in developing their content knowledge, in adopting effective teaching strategies, in creating assessments, and in the appropriate use of materials (lab equipment, software, Internet resources, textbooks, etc.). Curriculum maps for Biology I and Chemistry I have been developed so that teachers can see the correlations between the standards and the assessments and between the standards and the materials that have been adopted. Program materials will be updated during the next regular adoption cycle for science, which is during the 2000-2001 school year. Biology I and Chemistry I both have Pre- Advanced Placement courses that uses the College Board Pre-AP materials. Eight biology and chemistry teachers attended the College Board sponsored AP/Pre-AP training in February 2000. The training focused on effective curriculum and teaching strategies to prepare students for enrollment and success in AP Biology II and AP Chemistry II. Regular-level Biology I and Chemistry I will adopt high quality programs and materials during the 2000-2001 school year, and all teachers will receive professional development related to those programs and materials. Chemistry in the Community (ChemCom) and Biology, a Community Context (BioCom) are resources that are currently being piloted in some schools. These or programs of similar quality will be adopted for use during the 2000-2001 school year. Pre-AP Science Courses All Pre-AP courses are taught above grade-level and must be qualitatively differentiated from the regular-level curriculum and aligned both with the AP courses to which they lead and the ACT transition documents. Advanced Placement Courses All AP courses are taught according to the College Board syllabi provided for Advanced Placement courses. Improvement of African-American Student Achievement Section 2.7 of the Districts Revised Desegregation and Education Plan states the following: LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of Afncan-American students. Attached in the appendix to this section are the pages from the Interim Compliance Report that was filed with the federal court on March 15, 2000, that discuss the Districts efforts thus far in this area of critical importance. These pages include the following topics: How LRSD aligned all its planning efforts to ensure coherence. An explanation of the LRSD Student Success Model. A list of the policies that have been approved to ensure high expectations for all students. A list of the administrative regulations that are now in place. A discussion of the curriculum content standards and grade-level and course benchmarks. A discussion of the work in progress to develop Instructional Standards with a list of the resources that have been consulted. A list of the programs that have been created or refined to ensure student success. This section is not specifically about mathematics or science, but, rather, student achievement in general. 5 K-12 Curriculum Implenientation Plan The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics published Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics in March of 1989. The Little Rock School District and other school districts and institutions of higher education realized that math programs under implementation at the time didnt measure up to the standards. The District began steps to systemically move to a more effective mathematics and science program for all students as early as 1991. The University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) organized a Deans Committee that included the Dean of the College of Education, the Dean of the College of Science and Mathematics along with faculty from those two colleges and elementary and secondary teachers from the central Arkansas area. The Deans Committee met monthly to discuss how UALR could change its mathematics courses to meet the needs of students and teachers in the public schools. From that beginning corporate support and Eisenhower funds were gained to fimd the first Math Crusade course. District teachers began taking the 3-hour Math Crusade course through UALR in 1991. Later, the Arkansas Department of Higher Education applied for and received funding from the National Science Foundation to fund the Arkansas Statewide Systemic Initiative (ASSI). Substantial involvement from higl,er education was realized when UALR faculty members worked alongside math and science leaders to become trainers for the Arkansas Crusades: K-4 Crusade, Math Crusade, Science Crusade. From 1991 to the end of ASSI in 1999 over 300 LRSD teachers participated in the six-hour graduate course known as K-4 Crusade. Most of these teachers took the course through UALR where it was team taught by College of Education faculty and public school teachers with masters degrees. About 60 science teachers participated in the three-hour graduate course known as the Science Crusade and about 80 teachers participated in Math Crusade. Science Crusade and Math Crusade were offered through UALR and other state institutions of higher education and were team-taught by university math and science faculty and public school teachers (adjunct professors). All three Crusade courses were organized around the national standards in mathematics (NCTM, 1989) and the draft standards for science which were published by the National Research Council in the National Science Education Standards (1996). The number of teachers who participated in Crusades training represented over 50% of all LRSD science and math instructors. The District embedded the national standards (and correlated state curriculum frameworks) in practice and policy. The LRSD Strategic Plan (1995) that was approved by the Board of Directors included the establishment of standards in the core curricular areas of math, science, reading/language arts, and social studies and stated that 9 out of 10 students would meet or exceed those standards. The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (1998) included a goal to increase the number of students successfully completing algebra I and higher level mathematics courses and that all students would be proficient in mathematics by graduation. Board Policy lA (1999) required that curriculum standards be adopted in the core subject areas. Related policies require that professional development, adopted programs, and curriculum materials all address and support the Districts standards. The above background is given to illustrate that the District has been moving to standards-based math and science programming for about a decade now. Most of the normal professional development that math and science teachers have participated in over the past 10 years has been geared to helping students achieve the national standards. A renewed and intensified effort to become totally standards-based was undertaken with the awarding of the CPMSA grant from the National Science Foundation in 1998. Following is the year by year plan for curriculum implementation starting with 1998-99 and extending until 2002-2003. Year 1998-99 In 1998-99 the Board approved curriculum standards for mathematics and science for grades K- 12. Professional development for math and science teachers during that year informed teachers about the standards and how the existing resources could be used to address the standards. Over 50% of math and science teachers, grades K-12, had previously been participants in a sustained program of 45 clock-hours to 90 clock-hours of standards related training through the Arkansas Crusades. All teachers made some level of shift from what they were doing toward what they needed to do to address the Districts standards. Principals were inducted into the standards-based movement during a two-day Principals Institute Retreat held at the Clarion Resort in Hot Springs, Arkansas in 1997. The two-day retreat was focused on providing principals with knowledge and tools to start improving math and science programs in their schools. Partial funding from the Central Arkansas Math/Science Business Education Partnership was used to support the Institute. The Principals Institute of 1998-99 also focused on mathematics and science. All principals rotated through concurrent sessions where they participated in model standards-based activities presented by science and math specialists. The purpose of this experience was to show principals what standards-based math and science should look like in their schools. All school counselors attended a full day inservice entitled Raising the Bar in January of 1998. Topics on the agenda were TIMSS report. National Math and Science Standards, SAT-9 results, enrollment data for upper level math and science courses, and success rate for students in upper level courses. Frances Brown, Director of Academic Services for the College Board, presented on the role of counselors and teachers in getting students prepared for and enrolled in higher level courses. Counselors have had annual sessions related to progress in student enrollment and success in higher level math and science courses. Several teachers asked to pilot some standards-based math and science materials. A total of 18 teachers representing all teachers at Romine Elementary School and the fourth grade teachers at Jefferson piloted Investigations in Number. Data and Space and 6 teachers at Rockefeller and Chicot piloted Science and Technology for Children modules. Year 1999-2000 Benchmarks were developed by committees of teachers in math and science for each Board adopted curriculum standard. The benchmarks are knowledge, skills, and attitudes that students must gain along the way to ensure that students meet the grade level standards by the end of each year. Each teacher in the District attended professional development on the newly developed benchmarks aimed at aligning instruction with the benchmarks. Teachers spent time identifying the instructional content and strategies that they would use to address the benchmarks. All high school science teachers participated in a two-day professional development session coordinated by ACT, Inc. entitled The Instruction-Assessment Link. The activity required teachers to map their instruction in terms of ACT Assessment objectives. Science teachers worked in vertical teams to ensure that important content and skills were appropriately addressed in the 9-12 high school science sequence. Middle school and high school teachers of mathematics participated in professional development to further align the grades 6-12 mathematics sequence to make sure that the mathematics program at each step includes the important content/skills prerequisite to success at the next step in the sequence. The goal of the mathematics program is for all students to reach the grade-level standards and at the same time to be well prepared for entry in the next challenging mathematics course in the sequence leading to high school graduation. The Little Rock School Districts graduation requirements include rigorous and challenging mathematics requisites for all students such as algebra I for all students, geometry for all students, and a third algebra-based course for all students. The third course may be either algebra II or statistics. Increasing numbers of students are completing the recommended curriculum that includes a fourth unit of mathematics. Applied math, consumer math, basic math and other such courses have not been offered to district students for several years. In 1999-2000 the District established by Board Policy IGE Pre-Advanced Placement courses, beginning in grade 6, that will reflect LRSD standards and benchmarks and the College Boards syllabus requirements for Advanced Placement courses, incrementally building in students the knowledge and skills necessary to be successful in Advanced Placement courses and examinations. On February 25-26, 2000 one hundred and eleven (111) secondary mathematics and science teachers from the District attended a two-day AP/Pre-AP conference in Little Rock. The conference focused both on the content and skills that students need to be successful in AP math and science courses and the pedagogy teachers need to deliver the content and skills to students. The one-hundred and eleven math and science teachers who participated were out of a total to two-hundred-one (201) total teachers at the secondary level in math and science. In 1999-2000 the District began implementation of high quality mathematics and science programs with a significant number of teachers. A high quality mathematics or science program is one that addresses curriculum standards and benchmarks at each grade level or course that reflect district/state/national standards. Second, a high quality mathematics or science program includes classroom instruction that fully addresses those standards and embodies research-based teaching strategies and techniques that have proven successful in assuring that all children learn the standards. Third, a high quality math or science program has assessment embedded in instruction that determines on a day-to-day basis if students are learning the standards. Fourth, a high quality math or science program has adopted materials that support and facilitate teaching and assessing the standards. Fifth, a high quality math or science program includes intensive and sustained professional development that focuses on the standards for every teacherThe current year (1999-2000) implementation plan for high quality mathematics is summarized in the following chart. Grade Level/ Course Grade 3 Math Grade 4 Math Grade 5 Math Grade 6 Math Grade 7 Math Grade 8 Math High school Pre-calculus AP Calculus Number/% of Teachers 99/100% 92/100% 89/100% 19/100% 17/100% 18/100% 3/18% 6/100% Schools All 35 elementary schools All 35 elementary schools All 35 elementary schools All 8 middle schools All 8 middle schools All 8 middle schools 2 of 5 high schools All 5 high schools Adopted Program Investigations in Number, Data and Space__________________ Investigations in Number, Data and Space Investigations in Number, Data and Space__________________ Connected Math Project Connected Math Project Connected Math Project Pacesetter Pre-Calculus College Board AP Program Full implementation or Replacement module___________ Replacement module Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Replacement Modules Replacement Modules Full implementation Full implementation The current year (1999-2000) implementation plan for high quality science is summarized in the following chart\nGrade Level/ Course Grade 1 Science Grade 2 Science Grade 3 Science Grade 4 Science Grade 5 Science Grade 6 Science Grade 9 Physics AP Biology, Chemistry, Physics, and Environmental Science Number/ % of Teachers 104/100% 98/100% 99/100% 92/100% 89/100% 21/100% 19/83% 14/100% Schools All 35 elementary schools All 35 elementary schools All 35 elementary schools All 35 elementary schools All 35 elementary schools All 8 middle schools All 5 high schools All 5 high schools Adopted Program Science and Technology for Children________________ Science and Technology for Children_____________ Science and Technology for Children________________ Science and Technology for Children________________ Science and Technology for Children Science and Technology for Children________________ Active Physics College Board AP Program Full implementation or Replacement Module Replacement Module Replacement Module Replacement Module Replacement Module Replacement Module Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Year 2000-2001 During 2000-2001 math and science teachers will work in vertical teams (College Board Vertical Teams) to refine the Pre-AP courses from grades 6-11 to make sure all participating students are being adequately prepared to enroll in and succeed in AP Courses in math and science. In addition science vertical teams will revisit the Curriculum Standards and Benchmarks for high school science to make doubly sure they are totally aligned with national/state standards for science and the districts assessment program. As all math and science courses are being strengthened and improved, additional high quality programs will be implemented across the K-12 spectrum. The 2000-2001 implementation plan for high quality mathematics programs is summarized in the following chart. Additions from the previous year are highlighted in red. Grade Level/ Course Grade 2 Math Grade 3 Matli Grade 4 Math Number/% of Teachers 98/100% 99/100% 92/100% Schools Adopted Program Grade 5 Math Grade 6 Math Grade 7 Math Grade 8 Matli *Grade 9 Algebra I High School Pre-Calculus AP Calculus 89/100% 19/100% 17/100% 18/100% 12/100% 10/59% 6/100% All 35 elementary schools All 35 elementary schools All 35 elementary schools All 35 elementary schools All 8 middle schools All 8 middle schools All 8 middle schools -All 5 high schools All 5 high schools All 5 high schools Investigations in Number. Data and Space Investigations in Number. Data and Space Investigations in Number, Data and Space Investigations in Number, Data and Space Connected Math Project Connected Math Project Connected Math Project I CAN Leant Algebra 1 computer course Pacesetter Pre-Calculus College Board AP Program Full implementation or Replacement module Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation * Pending Board approval at the April 27 Board Meeting The 2000-2001 implementation schedule for high quality science programs is summarized in the following chart. The additions to the plan from the previous year are highlighted in red. Grade Level/ Course Number/ %of Teachers Schools Adopted Program Grade 1 Science 18/18% 7 elementary schools Science and Technology For Children Full implementation, Replacement Module(s), or Training Only Full implementation Grade 1 Science Grade 2 Science Grade 2 Science Grade 3 Science Grade 3 Science Grade 4 Science Grade 4 Science Grade 5 Science Grade 5 Science Grade 6 Science Grade 7 Science # Grade 8 Science Grade 9 Physics # Grade 10 Biology # Grade 11 Chemistry AP Biology, Chemistry, Physics, and Environmental Science 86/82% 34/35% 64/65% 20/20% 79/80% 35/38% 57/62% 23/26% 66/74% 21/100% 16/100% 16/100% 19/83% 20/100% 14/100% 14/100% 28 elementary schools 11 elementary schools 24 elementary schools 7 elementary schools 28 elementary schools 14 elementary schools 21 elementary schools 9 schools 26 elementary schools All 8 middle schools All 8 middle schools All 8 middle schools All 5 high schools All 5 high schools All 5 high schools All 5 high schools Science and Technology for Children Science and Technology for Children Science and Technology for Children Science and Technology for Children Science and Technology for Children Science and Technology for Children Science and Technology for Children Science and Technology for Children Science and Technology for Children Science and Technology for Children Science and Life Issues (SALT) - Lawrence Hall of Science Issues, Evidence and You (SEPUP)__________________ Active Physics Biology, A Community Context (BIOCOM) and otiier possible programs Chemistry in the Community (CHEMCOM) and other possible programs College Board AP Program 2 Replacement Modules Full implementation 2 Replacement Modules Full implementation 2 Replacement Modules Full implementation 2 Replacement Modules Full implementation 2 Replacement Modules_________ Full implementation Full implementation Training Only Full implementation Training Only Training Only Full implementation # Training for 2001-2002 implementation will be provided. Training will be provided on the named program as well as other possible programs for biology and chemistry in preparation for the normal State textbook/program adoption process during the 2000-2001 school year. Year 2001-2002 The 2001-2002 implementation schedule for high quality math programs is summarized in the following chart. Additions from the previous year are highlighted in red. Grade Level/ Course Number/% of Teachers Schools Adopted Program Grade K Math 109/100% All 35 elementai'y schools Investigations in Number, Data and Space Full implementation, Replacement module, or Training Only Full implementation Grade 1 Math 104/100% Grade 2 Math 98/100% Grade 3 Math 99/100% Grade 4 Math 92/100% Grade 5 Math 89/100% Grade 6 Math 19/100% Grade 7 Math 17/100% Grade 8 Math 18/100% All 35 elementary schools All 35 elementary schools All 35 elementary schools All 35 elementary schools All 35 elementary schools All 8 middle schools All 8 middle schools All 8 middle schools Investigations in Number. Data and Space Investigations in Number, Data and Space Investigations in Number, Data and Space Investigations in Number, Data and Space Investigations in Number, Data and Space Cormected Math Project Connected Math Project Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation * Grade 9 Algebra 1 Grade 9-10 Geometry Grade 9-11 Algebra 2 High School Pre-Calculus AP Calculus * 12/100% 22/100K. 30/100% 10/59% 6/100% All 5 high schools All 5 high schools All 5 high schools All 5 high schools All 5 high schools Pending Board approval on April 27, 2000 Connected Math Project\nPre- AP algebra 1 will use the College Board Pre-AP Program I CAN Learn Algebra 1 computer course To Be Selected Standards-based programs\nPre-AP geomeny will use the College Board Pre-AP Program To Be Selected Standards-based programs\nPre-AP algebra 2 will use the College Board Pre-AP Program Pacesetter Pre-Calculus College Board AP Program Full implementation Full implementation Training only Training only Full implementation Full implementation The 2001-2002 implementation schedule for high quality science programs is outlined in the following chart. Additions from the previous year are highlighted in red. Grade Level/ Course Grade 1 Science Grade 2 Science Grade 3 Science Number/ %of Teachers 104/100% 98/100% 99/100% Schools All 35 elementary schools All 35 elementary schools All 35 elementary schools Adopted Program Science and Technology for Children Science and Technology for Children Science and Technology for Children Full implementation or Replacement Module Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Grade 4 Science Grade 5 Science Grade 6 Science Grade 9 Physics Grade 10 Biolog)' 92/100% 89/100% 21/100% 19/83% 20/100% Grade 11 Chemistry 14/100% AP Biology, Chemistry, Physics, and Environmental Science 14/100% Year 2002-2003 All 35 elementary schools All 35 elementary schools All 8 middle schools All 5 high schools All 5 high schools All 5 high schools All 5 high schools Science and Technology for Children Science and Technology for Children Science and Technology for Children Active Physics Biology, A Community Context or other appropriate program that teachers recommend\nPre-AP Biology will use the College Board Program Qiemistry in the Community or other appropriate program that teachers recommend\nPre-AP Chemistry will use the College Board Program College Board AP Program Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Full implementatio i The implementation schedule for high quality mathematics programs for 2002-2003 is summarized in the chart below. Additions from the previous year are highlighted in red. Grade Level/ Course Grade K Math Grade 1 Math Grade 2 Math Grade 3 Math Grade 4 Math Grade 5 Ma Grade 6 Math Grade 7 Math Grade 8 Math Number/% of Teachers 109/100% 104/100% 98/100% 99/100% 92/100% 89/100% 19/100% 17/100% 18/100% Schools Adopted Program All 35 elementary schools All 35 elementary schools All 35 elementary schools All 35 elementary schools All 35 elementary schools All 35 elementary schools All 8 middle schools All 8 middle schools All 8 middle schools Investigations in Number, Data and Space Investigations in Number, Data and Space Investigations in Number, Data and Space Investigations in Number, Data and Space Investigations in Number, Data and Space Investigations in Number, Data and Space Connected Math Project Connected Math Project Connected Math Project\nPre- I AP algebra 1 will use the Full implementation, Replacement module, or Training Only Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation *1Grade 9 Algebra 1 Grade 9-10 Geometry Grade 9-11 Algebra 2 High School Pre-Calculus AP Calculus * 12/100% 22/100% 30/100% 10/59% 6/100% All 5 high schools All 5 high sch\u0026lt;x)ls All 5 high schools All 5 high schools All 5 high schools Pending Board approval on April 27, 2000 College Board Program for Pre- AP________________________ I CAN Leam Algebra 1 computer course To Be Selected Standards-based programs\nPre-AP geometry will use the College Board Pre-AP Program To Be Selected Standards-based programs\nPre-AP algebra 2 will use the College Board Pre-AP Program Pacesetter Pre-Calculus College Board AP Program 1 Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation The 2002-2003 implementation schedule for high quality science programs is outlined in the following chart. Grade Level/ Course Grade 1 Science Grade 2 Science Grade 3 Science Grade 4 Science Grade 5 Science Grade 6 Science Grade 9 Physics Grade 10 Biology Grade 11 Chemistry Number/ %of Teachers 104/100% 98/100% 99/100% 92/100% 89/100% 21/100% 19/83% 20/100% 14/100% Schools All 35 elementary schools All 35 elementary schools All 35 elementary schools All 35 elementary schools All 35 elementary schools All 8 middle schools All 5 high schools All 5 high schools All 5 high schools Adopted Program Science and Technology for Children Science and Technology for Children Science and Technology for Children Science and Technology for Children Science and Technology for Children Science and Technology for Children Active Physics\nPre-AP physics will use the College Board Pre- AP Program Biology, A Community Context or other appropriate program that teachers recommend\nPre-AP Biology will use the College Board Pre- AP Program Chemistry in the Community or other appropriate program that teachers recommend\nPre-AP Chemistry will use the College Board Pre-AP Program Full implementation or Replacement Module Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation AP Biology, Chemistry, Physics, and Environmental Science 14/100% All 5 high schools College Board AP Program Full implementation By the end of year 2002-2003 all grade levels and courses at all schools will have high quality mathematics and science programs. Standards-Based Mathematics And Science Implementation Update The Little Rock School District is involved in a process of systematically moving toward full standards-based programming in mathematics and science at every grade level and in every course with all teachers at all schools. Full standards-based programming has several identifiable attributes. First, curriculum standards and benchmarks at each grade level or course that address district/state/national standards must be in place. Second, classroom instruction must fully address those standards and must embody research based teaching strategies and techniques that have proven successful in assuring that all children learn the standards. Third, assessment must be embedded in instruction that determines on a day-to-day basis if students are learn\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_371","title":"Compliance hearing exhibits, ''Middle Schools''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1999/2000"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance hearing exhibits, ''Middle Schools''"],"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/371"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nMIDDLE SCHOOLSoo_\u0026gt;, zn zmm (A on Middle Schools 1. Memorandum to middle school principals from Bonnie Lesley in July 28, 1999, Learning Links: attached speech by Hayes Mizell, Six Steps to an Achieving Middle School. 2. Memorandum to middle school principals in March 3, 1999, Learning Links: attached article, Middle Grades Education Initiative from SREB. 3. Memorandum to middle school principals in March 3, 1999, Learning Links: attached article from SREB, Raising the Bar in the Middle Grades\nReadiness for Success. 4. Memorandum to middle school principals in March 3, 1999, Learning Links: attached article from SREB, Improving Teaching in the Middle Grades\nHigher Standards for Students Arent Enough. 5. 6. 1. Memorandum to middle school principals in Mar. 22,2000, Learning Links with attached copy of Quality Middle School Leadership by David Weller. Memorandum to middle school principals in Oct. 4, 2000, Learning Links\nattached article, The Middle Years: Are US Middle Schools Up to the Task? E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to selected staff, July 14, 2000\nattached speech by Hayes Mizell, Battling for Middle Grades Reform. -A/? 1 I I I -L '?/?5/'79 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PUTASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 I July 27, 1999 i TO\nMiddle School Principals II FROM: Dr. Bonnie Lesley\n^ssociate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: Advise to Middle Schools I Linda Austin found on the internet the attached copy of a speech by Hayes Mizell. You will want to share it, we think, with your staff. It is a powerful outline of how to improve student achievement! BAL/adg Attachment i i I i f i II Page 1 of 10 Home I LatgstUpdates | Ngws^ | MiddleWeb Index | Reforming Schools ! A | I j attended by middlejchool teachers and administrators from throughout was Director of the Program for Student Achievement the school district. Mizell is at the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation.] i Six Steps to an Achieving Middle School ! ! d aX wiih So PP'' Oilb say thal Fd t' Citing recent data from state assessments, the National Assessment of increase levels of student achievement. I assume hed,er schools ------need to you are here because you are professionals who recognize that many students are not performing up to their academic potential and state to demonstrate that you Student nArTnrmorr -.1^_____ , . or because you are student performance in your classrooms and schools. can increase levels of me say it again. mcrease student achievement. Yes, parents are their children's achievement ht H . i, their children's k or your experience. Yes, communities can and th developmental opportunities they need to build self-^ dence ^d the desire to achieve, but community support is no substitute for what should be the schools' academic focus. If you cannot help your studenU achieve at higher levels, who can? Will and Effort Produce Results 1 IJmow your work is complicated by great obstacles. There are classes that are too big. There are too -r--------------------------r* -------- a------xxiVAv oiv uiat arc 100 and learning. There roo many their minds but learning. There are even some of your students who seem to have eveiything on L....... colleagues unwilling to invest the time and effort are too many it takes to develop and apply the new attitudes. behaviors, knowledge skUls necessary ,o increase sr^fen, ichie^^ Xher Xes are daunting, and you know better an I that It is not easy to overcome them. It takes steady, hard http://www.middleweb.com/HMcharlotte.html unmI I I ! I Page 2 of 10 work. That is what you tell your students it takes to achieve, and it applies to you as well. We live in a culture that values convenience, short-cuts, expediency, and painless learning Teacher^\nmboT'or of this culture. They look for the progrm, or TthTd T \u0026gt;' their jobs easier. Indeed, there are a bl of resources in the education marketplace, and some of them are helpful, but if educators properly, nearly all these resources require more rather than less work. There a ^2E|^I^H^^ntachieyen^ Raising the performance levels of your students means that yon as * to also EerfonumijgtoTj^ use them are no shortcuts to Let us assume that everyone here wants to increase student achievement, and that each of you has the will and IS prepared to exert the effort it.takes to reach that goal. How do you go about it? WeU I cannot develop and prescribe what I would call an IRP - an Individual Refon^ ! fo Jach of middfe^Lhoo!\" T Z T Imou canhim your schools into achieving middlesclwls. In fact, I believe there are a series ofstens vou can tekp tn you go about it? Well, I next level. are a series of steps you can take to take your schools to the Not merely schools that include grades six through eight and that are now called \"middle schools \" Not merely schools that perhaps include teams, advisories, exploratoiy wheels, block scheduling and \"-'y hoes , .lIo'iXT\" about the developmental characteristics of the young adolescents they are teaching. These, cl^actenstics of \"middle schools\" but they do not automatically produce schools. \" There are too many educators who' are ft, .are ,_____ _______'achieving middle -A satisfied with just being a middle school but who do Jand processes as the foundanonforlfanlfoiming '' their schools into achieving middle schoiilsl --------------------------------------~ What Is an Achieving Middle School? ^Mo I mean by \"achjeyin^middle^^ whose mission, ethos, culture, structure _gani^n cumculum, co-curnculum, and instruction is explicitly dedicated tn the .^gryjtudeg^ every a^Tin the~building. It is a school where fromthe time a visitor walks in the front door there is no doubt that the schools focus is on advancing the achievement of every student ^d^eyety adult. It is not a school where the administrators and teachers assume they know all they Xe h\",Th''d'^ In the achTeving teach Jd .To\nha.fliaa!lhave something to. ^d learn. This belief is stated and restated, and it is a fundamental of the school. operating principle I WMt to briefly outline six steps towards becoming an achieving middle school. But let up front that I am not going to include some \"basics\" in these steps. For example, I say that everyone m your schools, from principals to school secretaries W uvavh^L lu luuu service custodial staff must come to school each day prepared to care about every student they encounter. You cannot have an achieving middle school unless it is me say right am not going to to teachers to food service and an authentically caring middle school. I m not going to say that your schools have to be safe\nnot only free of violence, harassment, and mn TTll ri 3 II AM omAniT ct-nzl ante _x___i . intimidation among students, but between teachers and students. No school 7 ^tuuciits, out oeiween teachers and students. No school can be an achieving midglesc^ol unless both students and staff feel safe. But there i^^^^S^hS^Emd7fs^feW^ nvpr nnlTAn onH fhot ic 1110+ 00 vxvvix overlooked and that is just as basic. Middle schools have to be safe for student.s uiai Ddsic. .vname schools have to be safe for students and adults to express theu- opinions, disagree, and even debate. Students and adults have to know they will be heard and http://www.middleweb.com/HMcharlotte.html 7/27/99?age J 01 10 that constructive dialogue will be practiced and honored. I am not going to say that everyone in your schools, from administrators to teachers to classified staff to students, have to demonstrate respect for one another. No school can be an achieving middle school unless every person practices mutual respect every day. I am not going to say that your school has to be more dedicated to students who are low-performin\nsocially alienated, or otherwise at the margins than to all other students. No school can be an achieving middle school unless it allocates more talent, effort, and other resources to the students most in need. ig, I am not going to include any of these practices in the steps its takes to become an achieving middle school because all of them are fundamental. If there is anyone here who does not know that caring. respect, safety, and disproportionate attention to those with the greatest needs is basic to an achieving middle school, there is nothing I can say that will help you. No matter what other steps you may take, if you ignore these \"basics\" you will never have achieving middle schools. Now let us consider the six steps. Step One: Make Achievement the Primary Purpose Forge a consensus among all the adults in the school that advancing achievement is the school's primary purpose. This step may be obvious, but it is surprising how many schools are not really clear about their overarching purpose. These schools typically have a whole list of \"priorities\" even though it should be clear that not everything can be a priority. It simply is not possible to give equal attention to every issue or concem. Some things are more important than others and the most important of all is student achievement. If the adults in the school -- from the administrators to the teachers to the classified staff - do not agree on that, then it will be difficult, if not impossible, for the school to become an achieving middle school. I Of course, it is not easy to get agreement that the school's primary purpose is to advance achievement. There are teachers who, as one principal said, \"consider themselves to be the last independent contractors.\" In other words, they believe that once they have been hired by the school system, it is their God-given right to do what they want in the way they want to do it. \\\\Tien administrators and other teachers in the school allow this attitude to prevail, there can be no achieving middle school. At one low-performing school I visited, I learned that some teachers act as though participating in faculty meetings is an optional activity\nsometimes they participate, sometimes they do not. While it is essential for faculty meetings to be well-organized and substantive - many schools now use these meetings for staff development - it speaks volumes when teachers believe they can build a firewall between what they do and the welfare of the school. This is why in so many middle schools there may be one or two very good teams, but many more teams that are mediocre or worse. In the achieving middle school, teachers cannot do their own thing and principals cannot hide in their offices or devote themselves almost exclusively to adrninistrative tasks. Instead, there have to be visible manifestations of trust, give-and-take, extra effort, community, and mutual accountability among adults in the school, all focused on improving the performance levels of both students and adults. Unless there is agreement that this is the school's central focus, and unless administrators. 4 ii http://www.niiddleweb.com/HMcharlotte.html 7/27/99( Page 4 of 10 teachers, and classified personnel work together, there can be no achieving school. Step Two: Identify Everyone's Talents and Interests I 1 Systematically identify and use the talents, abilities, and interests of all adults and students in the school, as well as students' families. I I As most of us experience school, it is a place where there is an underlying assumption that students do not know certain things and it is the school's responsibility to help them learn those things. This is a deficit approach to education_where the emphasis is on what students do not know and cannot do rather than on what they do know and can do. In schools where there are students who come from low-income families, or those who speak little or no English, or those who are from an ethnic or racial group different from the majority of teachers in the school, it is not unusual that these factors influence educators' assumptions about what students know and can do, or their academic potential. The achieving middle school acknowledges this reality and seeks to compensate for it by systematically developing an inventory of the talents, abilities, and interests of each.student_and a^lt in the school. The purpose of this process is twofold: it makes concrete the school's belief that every I i person in the school is valued and has something to contribute, and it provides the school's administrators and teachers with a complete list of the human resources available to advance the achievement of individuals within the school community. The process of developing this inventory could commence with the new school year by focusing on the class of rising sixth graders and the school's staff. It could then be repeated with each successive class of sixth graders, as well as updated for each class as it progresses through grades seven and eight. The task of developing the inventory and the database of talents, abilities, and interests could probably best be organized and carried out under the leadership of a small committee of school staff, students, and representatives of students' families I It is important to understand that the use of the inventory would not be to identify people to perform support functions unrelated to increasing achievement. The purpose is not to find people who will bake more and better cookies, or answer the telephone in the school office, or accompany students on field trips, but to uncover and put to work the human resources that otherwise go unidentified, unacknowledged, and unused in every school. Even though people would have to volunteer to participate in the inventory and to share their talents with others, I am confident that most people would welcome the opportunity. Consider the possibilities: Students who speak a language that teachers and other students do not speak could provide basic, practical instruction in that language. Any teacher, regardless of the subject they teach, who likes youth literature could organize and facilitate book discussion groups with students. Students who are computer whizzes could help teachers improve their technology skills. School staff who have hobbies such as chess or gardening or photography could help students develop these skills. Each of these teaching and learning experiences might occur on a small scale, between individuals or in small groups, but the objective would be for them to be pervasive and sustained so that everyone in the school, not just students, is seeking to achieve a new proficiency. If these activities were pervasive, they could develop a powerful climate of achievement. Step Three: Use Standards to Define Learning Goals http\n//www.middleweb.com/HMcharlotte.html 7/27/99Embrace and use content and performance standards to clearly delineate student learning goals, and engage teachers, students and families in understanding what these standards mean. 1 i I I i If your school system and schools want middle school students to achieve at higher levels, the students have to know what you expect them to achieve, and the level of proficiency they rnust demonstrate as evidenc^Tth^h^ have achieved it. In the past, and perhaps in too many classrooms 'today, the curriculum has been the textbook, even though schools did not really expect that students would learn everything in the textbook. Instead, the schools played a guessing game with students, saying, in effect, \"Here is this book\nwe will cover what we can, and we think it is really important for you to learn some of what is in the textbook. We will not tell you what it is we expect you to learn, but at different points during the school year we will give you a test to determine if you have learned it. If you study what is in this textbook and if you are very good at guessing what we think you should learn, you will perform well on the tests.\" This, of course, is not a process that fosters either good teaching or significant learning. If schools really understand standards and use them effectively, standards can be a pathway tojaore effective teaching and deeperleaming. Standards should result from asking the question, \"What should students know and be able to do as a result of dieir educational experiences in the middle grafres?\" The challenge is for the standards that ansv ,\nr that question to be concrete and limited. They should not be a long list of more standards than it is possible for teachers to address or more than it is possible for students to learn, but restricted to what is most important for students to know and to be able to do. ! I 1 i When standards meet this criterion, they can be a constructive force for better teaching and deeper student learning. The focus becomes what students should learn, and what and how teachers should teach to cause students to perform at standard. If a student does not meet standards, the responsibility is shared equally by the student, the teacher, and the school. The student has to make greater effort. The teacher has to change his or her instruction. The school has to provide the student more time for learning, perhaps different learning contexts, and certainly additional opporttmities to demonstrate that he or she can perform at standard. The purpose of standards is not to penalize students but for teachers and schools to take whatever actions are necessary to cause students to meet the standards. Step Four: Focus Staff Development on Student Achievement Reform staff development so it is rooted in what teachers and administrators need to know and be able to do to increase student achievement, and evaluate the results of staff development. If student achievement is going to increase, teachers and administrators will have to make it happen. But they cannot increase student achievement unless they have and apply the attitudes, behaviors, knowledge, and skills that are correlates of increased student achievement. We know that if for whatever reasons teachers believe that students cannot achieve much, the results will be that the students do not achieve much. We know that if teachers are not deeply knowledgeable about the subjects they teach, and if they do not manifest a contagious excitement about those subjects, students will not believe those subjects are important and they will not devote much effort to learning them. We know that if principals do not i J 1, http://www.middleweb.com/HMcharlotte.htinl 7/27/99focus their faculties on high quality instruction and student work, and if they do not consistently monitor and seek to improve teachers' instruction, then significant increases in student achievement will not occur. ( ( i { Even though we know all this, most school systems and schools do not effectively use the greatest resource available to them-- staff development -- to increase the performance leyels_qteachers and administrators. Most staff development is not carefully conceived or narrowly targeted to help teachers and administrators develop and use the specific skills they need to increase student achievement. Even worse, staff development is almost never rigorously evaluated to determine what educators learned or how effectively they applied what they learned to their classrooms and schools. Few school systems and schools invest enough in staff development, but most do not really know what their total expenditures are because staff development activities are diffuse, spread across many different functions and programs. In the achieving middle school, however, the principal and the school leadership team treat staff development as a precious resource. They carefully analyze the school's budget and its activities to identify both the money and the time that the school can use for staff development. They also identify staff development that is required by other entities such as the central office of the school system or the state department of education. With this information as background, the leaders of the achieving middle school then use student performance data to identify the students' and teachers' greatest learmng needs. If, for example, the math performance of students is not what it should be, the school's leadership team engages mathematics teachers and the central office's math consultant in developing staff development that will most likely increase the teachers' effectiveness in raising student achievement. The school does not stop there, however. It also creates and implements a process for determining whether and how the teachers benefited from the staff development, and whether and with what effect they are adapting their instruction to use what they learned. This process of evaluation helps the school learn from the professional development experiences of its staff, and over time increases the school's understanding of what types of staff development are most effective. ! I I I i I Step Five: Engage Everyone in Discussions of Student Work Collectively engage teachers, administrators, site councils, and students'families in analyzing and discussing the quality of student -work. How does a school know whether students are achieving? How does it know that the rate at which they are achieving is satisfactory? Sadly, most schools are dependent on the results of standardized assessments. In one sense these schools have turned over accountability for monitoring student progress to either the state or the central office of their school system. The schools rely almost totally on assessment reports from the state or district to gauge the academic progress their students are making. _ Given the high-stakes nature of these assessments I suppose it is not surprising that schools are so dependent on them for information about student progress, but this is not healthy for schools or their students. These tests serve a purpose, but at best they are snapshots of what students know and can do\nthey do not provide schools with a sophisticated, comprehensive understanding of students' levels of performance or their academic growth. 4 : http\n//www.middleweb.com/HMcharlotte.html 7/27/99rdgc , 01 110 5' While the achieving middle school disaggregates and studies the results of standardized assessments to learn what to change about curriculum and instruction, it does not stop there. The achieving school also engages teachers and administrators, and as many representatives of students' families as possible, in systematically examining student work over time. This usually occurs in small groups, such as department or team meetings, but faculty meetings and special evening programs are also appropriate venues. At these meetings teachers bring samples of actual student work to analyze and discuss. -This works best in schools where teachers are committed to using rubrics that describe varying levels of the quality of student work, from excellent to poor, for a specific assignment. Rubrics can also help teachers engage students in understanding the quality of work the teachers are seeking. Some teachers involve their students in developing the rubric for a particular assignment while others collaborate with students to develop a generic rubric for all work students produce. In other words, rubrics can help students understand the teachers' expectations and the criteria teachers use to assign a grade to the work students submit. There are a number of different protocols for how a group of people might examine student work but - at one middle school it works like this\nOnce a week the social studies teachers meet after school for two hours to examine and discuss student work. A teacher brings to the group a selection of work students completed in response to a major assignment. The teacher begins the session by explaining the content standard for the assignment addressed. She goes on to explain why and how she developed the assignment\nin other words, how she intended the assignment to help students develop the knowledge and skills necessary to meet the specific content standard. The teacher then describes the rubric she developed to assess the quality of the students' work. Finally, the teacher discusses several pieces of student work which are illustrative of the range of students' performance on the assignment. At that point, the teacher's colleagues ask questions and provide feedback. They may praise the link between the specific content standard and file assignment. They may make suggestions for strengthening the assignment, or critique certain elements of the rubric. But this process is not a show-and-tell for the teacher to proudly show off the best work of her class. Instead, it is an opportunity for a group of professionals to think hard about and discuss the relationship between their instruction and the performance of their students. This cannot occur unless each teacher is willing to learn from his or her colleagues, and unless there is enough trust and security among the teachers that they can give and take constructive criticism. The objective of the collaborative examination of student work is to improve teacher practice so it V' I i will improve studen?performance.~This can be one of the most effective types of staff development, buTlike other potentially powerful investments in education it requires sustained conumtment and li 1 j effort. Examining student work is important because the bottom line in the achieving middle school is what students actually know and can do, not just how they perform on tests. In fact, the focus on student performance is a higher standard than focusing on test performance. None of us earn our livings by how we perform on tests, but all of us earn our livings by demonstrating every day what we know and can do. Student work is the window that enables us to understand what students actually know and can do, and how well they know and can do it. However, this process is only one component of the I http://www.middleweb.com/HMcharlotte.html 7/27/99Page 6 01 10 framework for increasing student achievement. That framework includes these elements: (a) there_ must be challenging md engaging curriculum that is standards-based\n(b) th^instruction of teachers must be rooted in their knowledge of the content they are teaching md then skillful use of pedagogy to engage students in learning that contentTfc) teachersjnust hsyelopTirgh-quanfy assi_g^nts for the specific Dumose of causing students to progress towards perfom^jl: stmdard\nmd (d) teactos mustcollaborativ^^d.consistently.analyzestudentwrkjodet^ineif^ete^ers instruction md assignments are producii^Jthe .quality of work students must demonstrate to perform at standard. If not then temhCTS must chmge their practice to achieve this result. It is only when all these pieces are in place, consistently md faithfully implemented, that student performance will increase significmtly. Step Six: Make High School Success a Primary Goal Focus the school on encouraging and preparing nearly all students in grades six, seven, and eight to enroll and succeed in high school courses leading to post-secondary education. statement that one hears often whenever there is a discussion about the purpose of There is a statement that one hears often whenever there is a aiscussion auoui j.c ux education: \"Well, you know, not everyone needs to go to college or should go to college. It is quite possible to make a good living md be happy without going to college.\" This is usually followed by . . ..... ii________u..- IC moVino mnrp mnnp an anecdote about a relative who did not go to college but has a good job and is making more money than another relative who did go to college. It is of course, true that there are some highly motivated, strong willed, energetic, and creative people with only a high school education but who are successful in spite of it. It is also true that in the next millennium there will be fewer and fewer jobs for such people. But even before we get to the year 2000, there is compelling data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics about the value of college education: *In 1996, college graduates earned nearly 75 percent more thm high ^hool graduates. * Each year of post-secondary education raises wages by about eight percent. * By ages 28 to 32 the real earnings growth of men with a high school education or below is about one percent annually while male college graduates have m annual real wage growth of five percent each year. * The likelihood of a worker experiencing a period of unemployment decreases as the worker's education level increases. Now I ask you, in light of these facts, why would a middle school not intentionally encourage_ai^ prepare nearly every sixth, seventh, md eighth grader to enroll md, sucked in high school \u0026lt;^21^ tn post-secondary eaucation? If middle schools really wmt the b^for their students, if they r'e^ly^ttFpre^ them for the twenty-first century, why are they not encoura^ng and prepmng nearly every middle school student to seek md obtain as much education as possible. I believe this what m achieving middle school must do. I want to point out that when I use the term \"post-secondary education\", I mem my level of education beyond high school, not just four years of college. \"Post-secondary should include '5 httD I //www .mi ddl ew eb. com/HMchsrlotte. html 7/27/991 Page 9 of 10 technical education, two-year colleges, or any structured educational opportunities that require a high school diploma and have other entrance criteria. The same type of post-secondary education is not appropriate for everyone, but it is both appropriate and necessary to encourage and prepare nearly all middle school students for some type of post-secondary education. This does not mean that the middle school has any business deciding or even suggesting a specific type of post-secondary education for a particular student. It certainly does not mean that the school should assign students to classes based on what the school believes or assumes about what class is best preparation for a specific type of post-secondary education for a particular student. This is not the role of the achieving middle school. Instead, the school educates all students about all the many different types of post-secondary education available to them. The school does not make judgments that some students are not smart enough or that their families do not have enough money for the students to pursue higher education. Rather, the school instills in all students the desire to seek additional education after high school. The achieving middle school seeds and nurtures students' interest in post-secondary education. It understands that student aspiration precedes student determination, and that in all matters the \"what\" must come before the \"how.\" I I i I But encouraging students to pursue higher education requires much more than handing out brochures, or pairing students with mentors, or even creating opportunities for students to spend time at postsecondary institutions. Students have to develop the self-confidence that with effort they can perform at higher levels. This begins with middle school teachers and administrators consistently communicating their belief that higher education is a desirable goal for students, and each day driving home their expectations that students will produce quality work in middle school. This, of course, presents a problem. Many middle school teachers and administrators do not believe that nearly all students can or should prepare for post-secondary education, and they do not expect them to produce high quality work in middle school. In these cases, the attitudes and behaviors of the educators communicate so powerfully that anything else they may do has little effect. Middle school students are very discerning about how much their teachers care about and expect of them, and how well teachers prepare and how hard they work to help students develop academically. Therefore, it is essential for middle school educators to get their attitudes and behaviors straight before they_set put to encourage and prepare nearly all middle school students to pursue post-secondary education. Tackling this issue has other profound consequences for schools. To honestly prepare students to take high school courses leading to post-secondary education, it will be necessary to eliminate low level V __________J __________ 11 Jin nlrallonoinCT biah rnntAnt PAlir^P^ th^At flTft I courses and to ensure that nearly all students participate in challenging, high content courses that are aligned with the high school courses. I know what you are thinking: How is this possible when so _ many of your students come to middle school with poor literacy and math skills? Of course it is not possible if your middle schools are structured and operated as they do now. That is the point. No school can become an achieving middle school by merely tinkering here or tweaking there, making just a few changes at the margins and hoping for the best. If middle schools are to advance significantly the achievement of all students, the schools will have to restructure, retool, and reallocate. More teachers will have to invest more time and effort in developing mastery of the content they teach, and becoming more skillful in causing students to perform at standard. The curnculum will have to become more engaging and challenging. The school day, week, and perhaps even the school year will have to change to create more time for high quality staff development and much more time for student learning. Above all, attitudes will have to change. http://www.middleweb.com/HMcharlotte.html 7/27/991 Page 10 of 10 Educators have to believe that they can reform their schools fundamentally, and central office leaders to whom they are accountable have to believe it also. Unless teachers and principals believe that middle school reform is both necessary and possible, and unless they have both the permission and support of central office leaders, it will not be possible for middle schools to become achieving schools. Are You Really So Powerless? i 1 These, then, are the six steps to develop an achieving middle school. At best, they represent a fiamework, not a recipe. Because each middle school is different, each will have to take the six steps in its own way. This is not a process for the timid, and I encourage you to be courageous and bold. Though I know the challenge of these six steps is great, it is not as great as the challenges that will confiont your students if you do not take these steps. I During the next millennium they will face an increasingly complex and competitive world. Some of you may be tempted to shrug your shoulders and say, \"It does not make any difference what I do. Whatever I do, some of my students will succeed, some will not.\" Yes, that is the human condition, but are you really so powerless that you cannot change lives? Are you really saying that you cannot make a significant difference in how your students prepare for the future? I do not believe that, and I hope you do not. But what is more important is what your students believe. Each day they take a leap of faith. They come to school believing that you have their best interests at heart and that no matter what, you will help them prepare for the future. I 1 I Your students almost never tell you that. Quite often some of them act as though they believe just the opposite, throwing your best efforts back into your face. But the truth is that even these students believe in you and are counting on you. I will bet there are some people in this audience who know that is true because once, many years ago, they were such students. In spite of their behavior or their apparent lack of motivation, some teacher convinced them that they could achieve. So do not ever believe that you and your schools cannot make a profound difference in the lives of all your students. The challenge is to reform your schools and your teaching so that all students, not just some students, achieve at significantly higher levels. This is why you must make middle schools work well, and move on to make them achieving middle schools. As it says in the scriptures^.\"those who are well do not need a physician\" (Luke 5:31). Thank you. Back to the \"Hayes Mizell Reader'2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 March 2, 1999 TO\nMiddle School Principals FROM: SUBJECT\nDr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Student Achievement and the Middle School Plan The Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) has three excellent articles opi their web page under the topic, Middle Grades Education Initiative. The first of these three is attached, Educations Weak Link\nStudent Performance in the Middle Grades. Note on page 5 the passage I have marked. The new awareness of the weak level of academic achievement at the middle school level is a heads-up for us as we plan our implementation of the middle school concept. We can avoid the mistakes made in earlier implementations. I Please see also on page 9 the results of state testing programs. Also, youll want to note at the bottom of that page the characteristics of a high performing school a very similar list to the one I gave you at the principals meeting. These ideas are again reinforced on page 13 in the list of differences between high and low performing schools. In LRSD we want to be high performing. Attachments I BAL/rcm I I ( I I Middle Grades Initiative 2/28/99 12:40 AM Middle Grades Education Initiative Intemation^, national and regional reports paint a picture of an American educational system in which childhood programs, begin lagging behind in the middle grades and finish high school near the back of the pack. uuuicgiaucs The Southern Regional Education Board, using a grant from the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation achievement in the middle grades. Through a series of four reports, the SREB s lyhddle Grades Education Initiative is focusing on problem areas in the regions middle grades the w^ link in education. In the reports are suggestions for how to improve the middle grades and student performance at that level and beyond. 1 suggestions for how to improve the middle grades and The following are the first three reports in that series. Educations Weak Link: Student Performance in the Middle Grades Raising the Bar in the Middle Grades: Readiness for Success Improving Teaching in the Middle Grades: Higher Standards for Students Arent Enough [ i Comments For additional information, please contact Sondra Cooney at (404) 875-9211, Ext. Home . About SREB Education Data Educational Policy Legisiativ Action Publications c Search SREB 1 http://www.sreb.org/Programs/MiddleGrades/iniddlegrades.html Page 1 of 1 ! 1 JEducation's Weak Link: Student Performance in the Middle Grades 2/28/99 12:41 AM SREB Educations Weak Link [Student Performance in the Middle Grades ^o^thern Regional Education Boards Middle Grades Education Initiative This ^s the first in a series of reports funded by a grant from the Edna McConnell Clark Foun^nrt nr, The middle grades grades five through eight are the weak link in Amoi-inon eignm graaers who twk the NAEP mathematics examination in 1996 scored below the h^c level _ indicting they lack the fundamental skills most Americans would agree high school. are needed to be successful in Tte Nalional Assessment stafsltcs for the SREB states patnt an even more disturbing picture. Consider Almost 50 percent of eighth-graders are below the basic level Even in thehiehest-np.rfnrmino -n. MbAw UA/Iun mv Uiaoiv level 111 Hiath the highest-performing SREB stotes (Maryland, Texas and Virginia) more than 40 percent of eighth-graders are below the basic level Virginia), more than 40 * nearly twothiris of eighth-graders are below the basic level. (Figure 1) A ^^tional Pattern of Underachievement Eighth-grade performance indicators from the National Assessment of ^u^tional ProBi^ .dkUwwlllO WIJILJ, Can do arithmetic but do not understand and OMI V wj A to memonze facte and answer specific science questions but cannot annlv the ^owledge nor understand the reasoning behind scientific mncontc- reasoning behind scientific concepts- and Have only some of the reading skills necessary to be successful in grade-level work. To be literate does not mean that we all must be physicists, astronomers mathematicians erarv cnties Tf Hope mpan tKot _u i___ui. A j , , inainemaucians I * J ----------**** xAAMoi. daiionoine literary critics. It does mean that we should be able to read and understand 1 --------------- aiiu uiiucrsta business or science and make good and accurate decisions about heal th an article about or our daily lives. and economic issues in Figure 1 1996 National Assessment of Educational Progress Percentage of Eighth-Grade Students Scoring Below Mathematics Level Basic http://www.sreb.org/Programs/MiddleGrades/Weaklink/weaklink hfEducation's Weak Link\nStudent Performance in the Middle Grades zmmuw 2/28/99 12:41 AM iviii mmw S: SiUMW Mi \"T ?! SS*1^ S!\nX.'KW \u0026lt;\u0026gt;K *\u0026gt; fWW SbS-s.\n, 4( iW ' li \u0026gt;- WlwSuMMii Percentage of Eighth-Grade Students Scoring at the Proficient or Above on Mathematics Level chart2.gif (100841 bytes) NAEP J996 Mathematics: /depart Card/or the Nation and the States, National Center for Education Statistics * Fourteen of e 15 SREB sutes participated in the 1996 NAEP\nOklahoma did not participate. ^\"8 science: Too many students do not have the basic skills. Students have not a^uired the solid foundation of knowledge and skills in core academic areas .J V 11 .... --------------------WAW cjtwAAj Hi WIV aUlUClIIIL flicks necessaiy to do challengmg work in high school or to go on to further education in colleges and umversities. In 13 of 14 SI^B states with National Assessment data, more students score below the basic level in mathematics in eighth grade than in fourth grade. The achievement gap is not only at the basic level. There are too few students in the SREB region who score at the proficient level on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Fewer than 25 percent of eighth-grade students in all SREB states score at the proficient level in mathematics level that may signal that students are ready to do challenging work in high school. (Figure 1) Figure 2 Percentages of Eighth-Grade Students at Mathematics Performance Levels on the 1996 National Assessment of Educational Progress http://www.sreb.org/Prograins/MiddleGrades/Weaklink/weaklink.htm Page 2 of 11 I i I r 4^ I : 1 J R w s \u0026amp; r i ****** '**** i a u w K t u 1 a1 Education's Weak Link: Student Perfonnance in the Middle Grades 2/28/99 12:41 AM ! 1 I i I TOK White , SREB *\nNation Black SREB Nation Hispanic SREB Nation Total Percent of Students 59% 68 24 15 14 13 Advanced 3% 5 .1 .1 .7 .9 perfonnance levels Proficient and above Basic and above 1 Below Basic W 30'' 73 24 27 39 37 27' 76 73 61 63 3 4 8 8 j i Shading - StatisticaUy significant differences between SREB and nation 1 Basic and above includes proficient and advanced percentages Fourteen of the 15 SREB states participated in the 1996 NAEP\nOklahoma did I not participate. Assessment suggests tSZy E *\u0026gt; fr' National I Eighth-graders in SREB states who and science have lower NAEP nationwide. i receive B or C grades in mathematics scores than students with similar grades standards for middle graders than the rest of the nation what does this maAemati^ for^rS?And mean for course work in of low academic standards in the in the I Finally, how does the poor performance of our middle grades affect the - ernnnmiAc that -------------. i aiicvi me econoniies that depend on an educated work force to economies of SREB states ramate? If eighth-graders are not prepared to rva n Kl A ... i . be successful in high school the ?rpr rpoinn unit *8nt-graders are not prepared tc for business, indX SucLoT^ qualified gr^uates Where are the student performance gaps? There is a tendency to blame I i I I i not account for the range of differences in nation as a whole. SREB states have more lower-income families. The gap between NAEP scores for a f who are more often from when comp^ed with white students is sirnil^Ld unaaeptoW^gJ^fortoh^Sra'' d the nation. (Figure 2) a^cpuiuiy large, tor both the SREB region and I i ) 5 * \"\"\"\"\"'e families in the lower achievement SREB region have scores thMjowincome students across the nation. nr imhe, I, J J * with parents who graduated .?r Z? Sh =hool also hive lower - ------...J naiionwidc. . - _ J .t ** awTT-iiivi Added to this fact: In the SREB states, from high school . - - - scores than students from similar families Seto mS *e toyf oTgiS?\" 'ent: where student live and Both male and female students in rural areas and small towns http://www.sreb.org/Prograins/MiddleGrades/We score nklinlrEducation's Weak Link: Student Performance in the Middle Grades 2/28/99 12:41 AM significantly below students in rural areas nationwide. In fact, eighth-graders in rural areas of the SREB region score about the same as their counterparts in inner cities. Nationally, rural students score higher than those in the central cities. (Figure 3) Female students more than half the school-age population in SREB states perform at a lower level in mathematics and science than other female students across the country and consistently below male SREB students. (Figure 4) The largest achievement gap among females occurs between girls who live in rural areas of the SREB states and girls elsewhere in the nation who live in rural areas. Figure 3 Percentages of Eighth-Grade Students at Mathematics Performance Levels on the 1996 National Assessment of Educational Progress by Location Central City SREB Nation Percent of students who scored at performance levels Total Percent of Students 33% 29 Urban FringelLarge Town SREB Nation Rural/Small Town SREB Nation 35 38 32 33 Advanced Proficient and above Basic and above 1 Below Basic 2% 3 17% 16 50% 48 50% 53 21 26 60 64 40 36 w 15 Ml 69 * 3 5 13 Shading Statistically significant differences between SREB and nation 1 Basic and above includes proficient and advanced percentages * Fourteen of the 15 SREB states participated in the 1996 NAEP\nOklahoma did not participate. Figure 4 Average Mathematics Performance Score by Content Areas on 1996 National Assessment of Educational Progress by Gender Gender Number of sense, properties, operations Measurement Geometry Male SREB Nation Female SREB Nation 269 272 269 273 267 269 Data analysis, statistics, probability Algebra 265 269 268 272 272 272 * * Shading Statistically significant differences between SREB and nation Fourteen of the 15 SREB states participated in the 1996 NAEP\nOklahoma did not participate. http://www.sreb.org/Programs/MiddIeGrades/Weaklink/weakIlnk.htm Page 4 of 11 Education's Weak Link: Student Performance in the Middle Grades 2/28/99 12:41 AM 'I' twofold?Hrto determine w^ perform more poorly when compared with similar students nationwide\nand (2) to develop practices that help all students - those in cities and rural areas, girls and boys - raise their academic achievement. i j i i ( I Why do the gaps exist? HiSija for Jem^e students and rural students in SREB stotes? Are expectotions Hum rhigher grades than females nationwide, they score sigmficantly below other girls in the nation on the National Assessment. yet ^5^ standards different in mral ar^? Eighth-grade girls in rural areas of the wSSSw^SmSe Class they do fewer hands-on tasks involving concepts associated preparation forchallenoino ci-irsnvo rvm.rm, i for challenging science courses in high school. schools set clear, challenging standards for what eighth-graders should know before they enter high school? Are there also problems with what J taught? Do parents know what the standards and exoectotions are for the WOTkV^ children struggle with more difSt and challenging 1 content is being taught k. In virtually every PraS'^s point to weaknesses in middle Btades acmevernent. In Kentucky, for example, acommitteeis trying to determine whv middle school egging behind elementary and high school i inX evSSSXjf yf ? these questions._Part of the answer might be found 7.^ nauonwide phenoSj^onlhit^gSo deciaBT fhedata cited here, die explanation for the middle grades achievement to be even more comniev 7 **vvucutgap in the SREB stetes appears to be even more complex - rooted, perhaps, in a history of lower standards and expectotions. Standards and Expectations What should smdents know and be able to do to be successful in high school and hevond'/ Do expec. as much from our siudenls us other states do? luterrmtiouufnS Ste^^S XS '\u0026lt; expectations for ef^th-grade we What do we mean by high standards and expectations? ! We know that American students are comparisons of achievempnt v 7 77 ' I^rforming at the highest levels on international comparisons ot achievement. Yet education leaders in only two of the 15 SRFR have^mnared 7t. h oJ the 15 SREB stotes report that they mathemaucs and science with international benchmarks for k pertormance. What does that say about mathematics standards and expectations in stotes where students score significantly below the national average? expectations in stotes Algebra IS often described as the gatekeeper for advanced mathematics 11 TiZ 'ic gaicKeeper lor aavanced mathematics and for entrance into college. About 25 percent of students in the SREB states take algebra by the end of the natinnQl __j___r____ OI me c-oiuucuu, lu uic orvnn siaies laxe algebra by the end of the eiehth grade _ the same as the national average. Yet eighth-graders in more than half of the SREB stotes^score below the national average on the algebra part of the NAEP assessment. (Figure 5) i i AnoAer 35 percent of eighth-graders say they will take algebra in ninth grade leaving almost 40 percent who do not plan to begin a higher mathematics sequence - Algebra I, GeometJ and Algebra http://www.sreb.org/Prograins/MiddIeGrades/Weaklink/weaklink.litmEducation's Weak Link: Student Performance in the Middle Grades 2/28/99 12:41 AM II in high school. All SREB states require three years of mathematics for high school graduation and admission to postsecondary education, but the requirement can be met by a variety of mathematics courses. Currently, Algebra I is the highest level of mathematics required of all students. However, about one-third of SREB states have raised that requirement to include both algebra and geometry for future graduating classes. More entry-level jobs require technical, mathematical knowledge. Yet we still have a third of students in SREB states who reported that, if given the option, they would not take mathematics at all in high school. J Eighth-Graders: A World View American eighth-graders have improved their performance in aritlunetic, while the rest of the world has moved on to problem-solving, algebra and geometry. Basic mathematics for American eighth-graders is the same as seventh-grade mathematics for most of the world. Most American eighth-graders (86 percent) think that they are doing well in mathematics, while more than half of Japanese and Korean students (who are doing well) think they should do better. j Mathematics Achievement in the Middle School Years: lEAs Third International Mathematics and Science Studv 1996. Splintered Vision: An Investigation of U.S. Science and Mathematics Education. 1997. Figure 5 SREB State* Performance in Eighth-Grade Mathematics on 1996 National Assessment of Education Progress (\" \" = Below National Average,\" = Same as National Average,\" \" = Above National Average) Content Topics Number Sense, properties, operations Measurement Geometry Data Analysis, statistics, probability Algebra AL AR FL GA KY LA MD MS NC SC TN TX VA WV 4* 4* 4* csD 4* ra~i 4* caj 4* 4* r=ri 4* 4* 4^ 4* 4* 4* 4* r=n 4* r=n 4* 4* 4* 4* 4* 4* mi 4* mi 4* mi 4* 4* caa 4* csjj 4* caj 4* r^ 4* 4* 4' 4* 4* 4* ran 4* i~=n 4* cm cm 4* 4* r=n psn 4* 4* rsn r:zn 4/ 4* cm cm 4* 4* If two out of five students fail to see the importance of mathematics to high school and career success, what should we do in the middle grades to motivate students to succeed in mathematics'/ What standards do we expect middle grades students to meet in mathematics and the other core subjectsand do those standards reflect the tougher high school graduation requirements most SREB states have now implemented? Parent support and school practices Deciding what we expect students to know and do is the first step in shrinking the achievement gap in the middle grades. Many states in the nation and the SREB region are developing or refining http://www.sreb.org/Programs/MiddleGrades/Weaklink/weaklink.htm Page 6 of 11.1 Education's Weak Link\nStudent Performance in the Middle Grades 2/28/99 12:41 AM academic stand^ds and expectations for students in all grades. But after standards are developed and PYTVPfahnnc HAfi-nAH mkot F\\/-x ____ _ i _ * expectations defined, what next? Do students, teachers and parents know what the standards ^e and what perfonnance is expected? The next all-important step is to make sure that all parts of the education system are organized to achieve the standards. ! i 1 Wh^ do the National Assessment data tell us about how well schools in the SREB states communicate with students and parents about standards and expectations? Fewer schools in SREB states, especially in rural areas and small towns, report positive parental support. Eighth grade students in schools with positive parent support for student achievement in SREB states score the same as eighth graders nationwide. Fewer schools in SREB states report that parents are involved in classroom activities, parent conlerences and curriculum matters. Students in schools with parents involved in classroom activities, parent conferences and cumculum matters in SREB states score the same as eighth graders across the nation. i Are schwls m SREB states less welcoming to parents, less trusting, or less open about what is expected of students? The data suggest that schools with middle grades should find ways to involve parents in setting academic standards and building parent support for the standards. A first step is to mTTiTminir'aM ctii/iAnto ______________c ~ ^cggmuni^tejos^nts and parents alike a clear picture of the standards for completing eighth grade and wRaris^Scceptable^rtormance:----------------- i ! What does the Third International Mathematics and Science Study data tell us about how we organize content and develop activities within the curriculum? 10-15 topics each year in mathematics and study them in grater depth until they are mastered. In America, middle grade students cover or review as many as 35-40 topics a year-often the same 35-40 topics they have covered for several } In fact, while most countries introduce six or seven new topics in algebra and geometry during tnp minnlA oroHdc A -------- k J ------- 141 tugvwia aiiu g\u0026amp;uiu\u0026amp;u y uuiixj thTs^riod ^\"^etican students can count on studying only one new topic during 75 percent of eighth graders in SREB states report doing problems from a textbook every da y Thes e studente do not perform as well as students nationwide who report daily textbook use Why the different result? How do teachers decide what to teach f rom the textbook, what to emphasize and how much time to devote to different topics? Is the textbook the only curriculum in too many schools? Without a set of standards and indicators of acceptable performance, curricular results may vary sigmiicantly from classroom to classroom and school to school. use. I I t i ! i 1 Interestingly, eighth grade students in the SREB sutes and across the nation perform better in scientx than in matiiematics on international comparisons. Studies show that the U.S. curriculum is more focused in science than in mathematics, giving students more time and opportunity to master concepts and study a topic in more depth. Whal do we know about classroom practices? Information gathered by the National Assessment of Educational Progress from teachers and students tells us that in comparison to the nation, the typical eighth grader in SREB states: is assigned less group or partner work in mathematics\n) is assigned less project work in mathematics\nj writes less about how to solve problems in mathematics\n/ believes mathematics is mostly about memorizing facts\n ' deigns and carries out fewer scientific investigations\n ) gives fewer oral reports in science\nand y http://www.sreb.org/Progranis/MiddleGrades/Weaklink/weaklink.htm P#I\u0026lt;T*\u0026gt; *1 1 1- lu tuc Aviiuuie orades has fewer discussions about material they have read. 2/28/99 12:41 AM leSS S Wyi\"? what they have scores for eighth graders in SREB states when compared to eighth grata S?n\" results in lower .X us about luow scboots in SHEB states assess student progress? Almost two/thirds of students in SREB states their teachers, and these students are tested at least weekly in mathematics by score about 30 points lower on the National Assessment of Kucadonal Progress dian students who are tested once or twice a month' iSSSr frequent testing does not lead to better It may be at students in classrooms that emphasize testing concentrate on learning bits of information that are not remembered or developed into a logical understandin p nf matt^p k science. Frequent testing coupled with fewer o^rtuniti^ to apply leanung fpS ' ichievement in c assrnnms appears student achievement in classrooms. to produce lower How Do States Evaluate Student Performance? performance. progress on state standards for knowledge and or report statewide data on science achievement at grSe ei^t a^d ^REB states one state looks at science in grade seven. However, comparisons are not always aSble fron^ZT NAFPkwS\"tttllotatl goals. i^chveVT dompamtive data for these data are not linked to individual schools and districts. and assessments. The the SREB region, but Several SR^ states have launched studies to examine standards and exoectations in mathpm.tinc id science. For instance, Georgia has been concerned nivM.f .k., ^^P^^^^tions in mathematics standee Perfoance o[juniors and seniors on and the SAT. To try and understand the causes of lagging SAT the SAT given in seventh through tenth grades were conclusions. scores, results from preliminary versions of analyzed. Georgia reached the following 8ive-hc^rceiofamherwh=n,,wL'SSm*S Students do not know or understand geometric relationships. These shortcomings can be traced, in significant part to weakneccec in Aa mJHHu carmotbe The evidence of lagging achievement in the middle grades in SREB states is nvprwhAim- pervades the entire educational system. (Figure 6) To chance what^P I? ! overwhe imng and inabiliy in our schools and cl Jrooms, difcgSvXXSbk d achievemenl io examine data and consider what steps need Io be aken toSeme cow Middle Grades: The Weak Link http://www.sreb.org/Progranis/MiddleGrades/Weaklink/weaklink.htin Page 8 of 11Education's Weak Link: Student Performance in the Middle Grades 2/28/99 12:41 AM Results from State Testing Programs I Elementary In Kentucky over the last five years, statewide reading scores have risen 31 points and statewide mathematics scores have risen 22 points in the elementary grades. The overall accountability index rose 13 points Middle Grades High School In reading, scores rose only 11 By twelfth grade reading points over the last five years, - much less than the growth rate rose 34 points, a dramatic scores expected by the state in the middle grades. Mathematics improvement, and mathematics scores improved by 28 points ,, over the five-year period. The stores improved by 31 points, overall accountability index rose The overall accountability index by 15 points improved by 9 points, the lowest gain of the three grade groups J I f i During the 1994-95 school year, South Carolina's fifth graders scored about the same as a national sample in mathematics. Twenty-five percent were in the lowest quarter of students and 28 percent scored in the upper quarter. kt the end of the third grade, Oklahoma students scored as well as 60 percent of students on a nationally-normed test in reading, 62 percent in mathematics and 69 percent in science. By the end of fifth grade no fewer than 76 percent of students passes all state-developed curriculum tests. When these fifth graders were For students moving from ninth to eleventh grade during the tested as seventh graders in period, the percentage students in the lowest quarter of students scoring in the had grown to 30 percent and thehighest quarter grew and the percentage in the upper quarter ' slipped to 26 percent. percentage in the lowest quarter decreased. At the end of seventh grad reading, 58 percent in mathematics, and 55 percent in science. By the end of eighth grade, the percent-age of students who passed the state's curriculum tests was lower in every area. The degree in the percentages of grade except for reading where the percentage improved from eighth grade. Comparing a High-Performing and Low-Performing School school with a school in which students wun a scnooi in which students are not performing atantKceotahiehZi nfn'- snapshots of two such schools with a similar student ' majority of students from low-income families. of racial/ethmc groups and a are ! ! High-Performing As you enter the door of l\u0026amp;KrfSJ^hiimirScr^^ : Bright and attractive displays of student work a num ot activity greets your aurdcuve aispiays of student work are posted in the hallwavs'andin ^o^se as you make your way to the office. S^dents gSl ^^ou need help. The principal shares the standards for student leamine in the schnni thatj i j c immumty and parent advice. She sueeests that vnu inX developed with : community and parent advice. She suggests that you look for the http://www.sreb.Org/Progranis/MiddleGrades/Weaklink/w, ' content standards and samples 'ooVIimV- La rtWinrtw,wift\u0026lt;iiwSEducation's WeaK EinK: stuaent rertormance in tne Mioaie urades ix:*i Ajvi\nof exemplary work to be achieved by students that are displayed in each and every classroom. She selects a student buddy for you to follow so that you get a flavor of what going to this school is like. Jordan, your eighth grade student buddy, is bouncing in his seat as the combined mathematics and science period begins. There are two teachers and a parent volunteer to work i with 60 students during this 90 minute block of time. The students are sitting at tables that i accommodate six students.\nMs. Jones begins the period with a brief review of the previous days work on distance, : speed and force and then asks, How many of you have seen a water wheel? Very few students\nraise their hands, so she begins to elicit what students know about water wheels from pictures, : movies and stories. Students are directed to work in pairs and to identify the major characteristics of water wheels. After several minutes, students share their ideas with the whole class. i Next, each student is challenged to design an effective and efficient water wheel from the ' materials on the table. Students must sketch their design and estimate its speed and capability of lifting certain materials. After completing their sketch, they s hare their design with a partner and\ndevelop one best design from the two. The exercise is monitored by both teachers who roam the room asking questions, observing discussions and checking designs. As the noise level subsides ' and the pairs begin to complete the activity, Mr. Smith signals for attention and asks for volunteers to share how they began and completed the given task. Approximately 30 minutes\nhave gone by quickly. Ms. Jones sets the boundaries for the next part of the days task. She instructs each table (of : three pairs) to come up with one best design for a water wheel, sketch it, write why they chose it, and estimate its speed and power capability. After completing those tasks, each table must get : a teachers initial on the plan and estimate and then begin constructing and testing their water\nwheel. Ms. Jones and Mr. Smith remind the students to record the results of their water wheel\ntests in their notebooks and write their observations and summary statements after completing the tests. The room begins buzzing with ideas, discoveries and disagreements. The teachers question the groups about their designs as they circulate through the room. The parent volunteer fill s pails of water and provides an empty and a filled bucket for each table. As the period draws to a close, Ms. Jones asks for volunteers to share the results of their : experiment and any summary statements they have developed. Students are eager to share their ' results, and they speculate freely on why some designs worked and others did not. As students dismantle their designs, Mr. Smith assigns the homework for the evening. Each student is to write how they would change the group designed water wheel to make it faster and more powerful if they were to do the task again.\nDuring the teachers planning period, Ms. Jones and Mr. Smith explain that the activities\nobserved were part of the instruction designed to help students achieve the following science standards: Students will plan and implement investigative procedures. Students will collect data, organize, analyze, evaluate, infer and predict trends. Students will recognize how to apply formulas and equations. Students will identify physical properties of various materials. The observed task required students to learn about circumferences, diameters and radii and their relationship to each other as well as to rate and distance. The teachers wanted students to think about these concepts using the scientific process of hypothesizing, experimenting and evaluating. The task also supported content and skills being used by other members of the : teaching team in an English and social studies unit on colonial America. The lesson observed was but one of several the team has planned to investigate energy and the environment. The teachers shared a checklist they used to evaluate students work during the class period. This checklist was shared with students in advance so evervone knew what was exnected. Each http://www.sreb.org/Prograins/MiddleGrades/Weaklink/weakIink.htm Page 10 of 113 Education s Weak Link: Student Performance in the Middle Grades 2/28/99 12:41 AM student was checked on their imUal design and estimates and upon the groups final design and justification of that design. Each student was required to recordthe resSts o^f the water Xel expenments in a latoratory notebook and to develop a summatwe statemen?bSn die experiment that explained the relationships of circumference, radius, speed and power. Ms. Jones and Nfr. Smith also discussed problems students had with the task and strengths they noted dunng the period. They explain that later, when they have time to reflect more fSly they will examine the students work closely and ask pointed quest! ons of themselves about the quality of their lesson plan and how it could be improved. ncmscives aooui me Mr. Smith will begin the next days period with a review of formulas that help calculate circumference Md energy expended. His objectives are to help students undersold why the formulas work based on thmr pnvripnpA j , uciauuiu wiiy me other applications of the relationships discovered through the water wheel task i A visit to a low performing school reveals believe works for students. an equally dedicated principal and faculty who are trying to do what they t i ! i f i I ( i I ? i j I ! 0 I i ? ^iip-//^ssw.srcb.or^rograms/MiddleGradesrWeakniii./we!ikliBk.btm D.J vuucm rcnurmance in me iviiauie Grades 2/28/99 12:41 A 0 =11 il 1 J Ip a: Low-P^rf o r m i n g PerforminiMiddie School, a bkmkeTof'quTc reminded by large signs that you must report to the office or be \u0026gt;khr'y, y?r the principals office, the secretary is busy dealing with students. Student fill the office, and each has a piece of paper that requires attention. After cleanng out some of the crowd the secretary buzzes the principal to let him know you have pnncipal emerges from his office, welcomes you, and suggests that you come into his office for a briefing before you visit classrooms. no The principal provides a gener^ description of the community, staff and students that is clear and knowledg^ble. He explains, because so many of our students have little structure in their lives outside of school, we believe that we must provide structure so that they have an opportunity to learn what they need to know. There is research supporting the effectiveness of structured whole class instructionespecially for low-achieving students. We strongly believe tnatisngnt. After the briefing the principal walks with you to the science classroom, the first of four , cl^srooms you will visit He introduces you to the teacher and requests that you return to the rnU ralYif before you visit the next classroom. The teacher is completing a roll call of the class. He is about to begin a demonstration of how to construct a pulley one of Dunng the demonstration, some of the students have their heads down h\" *,S^ appears to be mathematics homework. As the questions. No one raises a hand. He then instructs : the students to open their books to chapter 8. He moves to his desk to retrieve the textbook and asks the student sitting at the back of the first row to begin readme aloud from r.hant- 8 KftP^n : minutes have gone by. to begin reading aloud from chapter 8. Fifteen classroom, and there are commercial posters on the walls illustrating the six simple machines. Classroom rules related to clothing, iSavior and wrk are^so j^ted pe students continue to read from the chapter, a paragraph at a time. When a student hesitates on a word, the teacher quickly provides the correct pronunciation. As a student completes a paragraph, the teacher asks, What is that paragraph telling us? If no one wlunteers, he selects a student to Mswer. As the chapter is completed, he tells the students to h!o* quesuons at the end of the chapter. Complete these questions and hand them in at the beginmng of the class period tomorrow. , Smdents begin to search for paper and pencils\nsome do not have either and must admit that , to the tether or find someone to gve them paper and a pencil. The class is finally working on 50 minute class period rings. Students^surge toward the hall, and the noise level nses as they chatter and move toward other classrooms The tocher and princij^ explain later that you have observed a general science class. In this\ncl^s students will ^mplete the textbook and do physical science^fOT the more advanced students) or consumer science, a course that concentrates ci health, nutrition and science project and a research paper by the i every^y s^nce for the less able student The science department examined student data to find Xw / to emphasize both process ^d content. To that end, they begin most class penods with a teacher demonstration of an : experiment or concept, and students spend one day each week in a laboratory replicating an expenmentand recording it in lab books. In ^ih of these schools and in the classrooms observed, teachers were planning and working to improve student achievement. One classroom emphasized student work, and the other classroom achievement. ernpr^neu siu^ni worK. and the other classroom was centered on the teacher's work. Their tchoob and teachers go about their business makes a difference in student Some differences between high and low performing schools http://www.sreb.org/Programs/MiddleGrades/Weaklink/weaklink.htin Page 12 of 11 3 r i? H 1 a I\n? i 1 I aEducation's Weak Link\nStudent Performance in the Middle Grades 2/28/99 12:41 AM as Students in high performing schools are expected to do more, and high-performing schools provide more challenging curriculum. Successful schools emphasize higher level academics and the intellectual development of students in the middle grades... opposed to schools that concentrate most of their energy on social development and are satisfied with achievement on low-level skills. High-performing schools and districts align all the parts of the educational systemcurriculum, instruction, assessment and student supportand all the participantsthe community, school boards, administrators, teachers, students and parentsto achieve challenging standards. Expectations are clearly defined and widely supported. In high-performing schools, most parents and students have a clear vision and understanding of challenging standards for achievement by eighth grade. Schools, districts and states establish clear benchmarks for entrance into ninth grade and provide more time and more help for those students who have not mastered challenging content. Parents work with middle grades educators to define and achieve the standards in a challenging middle grades curriculum. Teachers in high-performing schools are prepared to teach challenging content In mathematics, science and reading and to teach young adolescents. Administrators oversee a system designed to emphasize plarming, collaboration and development of quality learning experiences by staff and faculty. Teachers and administrators believe that they can support the unique developmental needs of adolescents and offer a challenging learning experience. School boards and school and community leaders are ready to develop new policies to create a different system that ensures high performance for all students. These differences are conditions that legislators, state educational leaders, local educational leaders and middle grades educators, parents and community leaders need to consider as they work to help all schools and students become successful. Looking Ahead Three more reports will examine the current condition of middle grades education in the 15 states that comprise the region served by the Southern Regional Education Board. Observations in i schools and classrooms across the region will provide examples of current practice in the middle grades. The reports will incorporate data from the school visits to examine standards and expectations, teacher preparation and professional development and the best practices of schools whose students are achieving at high levels. I ! I i I i t- http://www.sreb.org/Progranis/MiddIeGrades/Weaklink/weaklink.htm Page 13 of 11 I i3 L. I I i i LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 i March 2, 1999 I 1 i j i t I TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Middle School Principals Dr. Bonnie Lesley. Associate Superintendent for Instruction SREB: Raising the Bar in the Middle Grades The attached second article from SREB is very important. Exit Standards for Middle School See the bottom of page 1 through the top of page 3 for a list of indicators that grade 8 students are ready academically for high school. These are exit outcomes for middle schools - for all students, not just the ones at the Pre-AP level. The percent of your grade 8 students who achieve these standards is a good measure of your schools quality. Then youll see at the top of page 4 a list of some of the structural changes recommended in our own middle school plan. Now we know the reasons for teams, advisors, and block schedules. They are of no importance out of the context of improved academic achievement. There are some profound and, yes, sometimes upsetting, information in this article, but we have to know what works and what doesnt. The discussion on page 12 about classroom practices is excellent and should guide us all as we plan for improved instruction. Your faculty should spend a lot of time answering the questions on pp. 12-13 and then reflecting on the consequences of their answers. We are lucky in LRSD. We are reinventing alLour middle schools. The trick will be, however, in preparing \"every student for rigorous work in high schools.\" Attachments BAL/rcm f rxaiaiug vuiv Raising the Bar in the Middle Grades: , Readiness for Success In the first of a series of reports on middle grades education, the middle grades were characterized as the \"weak link\" in the educational system. Data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress were used to support the conclusion that SREB states should raise standards and expectations for student performance in the middle grades. This report will suggest ways that schools and classrooms in SREB states can use standards to improve achievement. Recent international, national and regional reports paint a picture of an American educational system in which students get a jump-start through early childhood programs, begin lagging behind in the middle grades and finish high school near the back of the pack. Almost 50 percent of eighth- graders in SREB states are below the basic (partial mastery) level in math, as measured by the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Students in rural, small-town locations score significantly below students in rural areas nationwide. How can we raise our studentsachievement ahd close this gap? States and districts have set content standards and goals for learning at specific grades in an effort to define what must be achieved to be ready for success. But the standards and goals often are not clear and concise and are not easily understood by parents and students. Schools and teachers have not taken the next step: converting middle grades standards into clear examples of quality work that indicate students' readiness for challenging work in high school. The examples in Figure 1, gathered by the SREB from teachers, administrators, parents and students, illustrate what students might be expected to know and to do when they complete eighth grade. In simple, straightforward language, they describe achievement goals that too few students can meet today. Have your school districts, high schools and middle schools discussed and identified what readiness for challenging work in high school means for students completing eighth grade? Are middle grades students in your community ready for challenging work in high school? How do you know? On Expectations \"There is something very important we are not sharing with our students: Not everything is going to be pizza\nsome things will be spinach. Students need to know how to determine what is important and get through it.\" A Tennessee educator \u0026gt;Teachers, parents and students often do not have clear examples of what quality work is or how to reach high standards. Without clear expectations for performance, they cannot judge the quality of assignments or real academic progress. And the expectations must be set at a level high enough to ensure that any student meeting them is ready to do challenging work in high school and then be prepared to learn after high school, either in postsecondary education or on the job. Once standards are in place and accompanied by examples of quality work, schools must be asked, \"What are you doing to help all students perform at the highest achievement levels and be ready for success in high school?\" HI Figure 1 Readiness for High School Reading Indicators completed pre-algebra or Algebra I with proficiency score Current Performance In SREB states 25 percent of eighth-grade students complete an Questions to Ask Have changes been made in mathematics instruction to ensure http://www.sreb.org/Programs/MiddleGrades/RaisingBar/raisebar.htinl Page 1 of 12Raising the Bar in the Middle Grades\nReadiness for Success 2/28/99 12:42 AM on an end-ol-course test apply appropriate mathematic^ strategies to solve multistep problems algebra course and 34 percent complete pre-algebra. that all tilth-grade students will complete Algebra I orpre-^gebra by eighth grade? Are teachers asking all students to solve a variety of real-world and complex mathematical problems? read-widely - a standard of 30 books over the course of a year - on an eighth-grade level. Thirty-five percent of SREB eighth-grades report that they read five or fewer pages daily, compared with 25 percent of eighth-graders nationally. At least 70 percent of students nationally are below the Nation^ Assessment proficient level in reading - a level indicating masteiy of challenging work and readiness for the next level of schooling. Do all teachers know how to engage students in reading complex material? for example, do science teachers help students learn how to read scientific texts and materials? find, organize and present information in writing as a response to a problem or question\u0026gt; Forty-six percent of SREB eighth-graders report that they never have done a written report in science and 30 percent of math and science teachers say that they never ask students to write a report. Are students asked to produce frequent, short-term writing responses in all classes? Are all students expected to do intensive, in-depth research and writing? design, conduct, analyze and report on a science investigation Forty percent of teachers in SREB states report that they never ask students to do an extended report on a science project, and two-thirds of students say they never have design^ and carried out their own science investigation Are students expected to learn and use laboratory and research procedure,s in science? Are students required to develop and complete at least three science investigations each year? I f I present an oral report that is interesting and logically developed with scientific accuracy Sixty-one percent of SREB eighth-graders never have given an oral report in science, and 56 percent of teachers report they never ask students to give oral reports in science. Are students required to present and defend ideas through oral presentations developed for different audiences? http://www.sreb.org/Programs/MiddIeGrades/RaisingBar/raisebar.html Pape 2 of 12 Raising the Bar in the Middle uraaes: Keaainess lor success M.1V1 demonstrate writing competence Nationally, NAEP trend data show that in 1996 fewer 13 year-olds (66 percent) could write clear, focused responses to different writing task than in 1984 (72 percent). Are students asked to create, critique and summarize literary works? Are they required to use various writing strategies, such as comparison and cause-and-effect? What are the consequences of not \"being ready\"? Data from about 20,000 High Schools That Work students underscore the importance of being ready to do challenging work in high school. Ninth-graders in English/language arts courses described as basic or remedial have a 20 percent chance of attaining the HSTW proficiency goal for reading by their senior year. To attain the goal, students must meet a predetermined performance score on a test similar to the National Assessment of Educational Progress. The reading proficiency goal requires students to know how to analyze situations\norganize and synthesize written information\nand make written and oral reports. Only 42 percent of HSTW students who enroll in ninth-grade-level English courses achieve the reading proficiency goal, while 72 percent of students in accelerated or college preparatory ninth-grade English reach the HSTW proficiency goal. (Figure 2) A similar pattern is evident in mathematics. Of high school students who do not complete an algebra course equivalent to college preparatory algebra, fewer than 25 percent meet the mathematics performance goal set by High Schools That Work. Students who meet the goal are able to use concepts from algebra, statistics and geometry to reason and solve problems. Half of the students who complete a college preparatory course in algebra or its equivalent meet the HSTW performance goal by graduation. About 86 percent of those who complete Algebra II or geometry in high school meet the mathematics performance goal. (Figure 3) When High Schools That Work followed 6,000 students a year after graduation, it found that taking challenging academic courses and meeting proficiency goals gave students an edge in further education and employment For example: Students who met HSTW performance goals and were working full time or part time earned more per hour than students who did not meet the goals. Only 15 percent of graduates who met HSTW performance goals had to take remedial courses in college, compared with 31 percent of those who did not meet performance goals. Only 17 percent of graduates who met HSTW performance goals were unemployed at some time dunng the year after graduation, compared with 25 percent of those who did not meet the goals. Students who met the HSTW performance goals were much more likely (83 percent) to enroll in further study after high school than those who did not meet the performance goals (56 percent). i Getting students ready to take a high-level Enghsh course and a solid algebra course taught to college preparatory standards is the best way to ensure that they will be ready for the challenges of high school and further learning. I Why aren't students ready to do challenging work? How did we get into a pattern of lagging performance in the middle grades? There is no simple answer. There is, however, a pattern of practices in schools with lagging performance. That pattern can be altered by getting Ure right focus for middle grades education. When districts began establishing middle schools in the 70s and '80s, the focus was on a list of recommended practices and policies that would http://www.sreb.org/Programs/MiddIeGrades/RaisingBar/raisebar.htinl Page 3 of 12I Raising the Bar in the Middle Grades: Readiness for Success 2/28/99 12:42 AM provide students appropriate experiences for their ages and grade levels. The recommendations became a checklist of characteristics that \"defined\" a middle school\namong them were teams, advisory' homerooms and longer blocks of time to do hands-on activities. -------- Accotnmodating versus expecting Every middle school visited by the SREB staff sorted students. For one group of students, the focus was on academic achievement and accelerated learning. For the rest, the focus was on textisook coverage, special short-term instructional programs and self-esteem improvement. In class after class, students were relearning content covered in earlier grades. High standards for all students became n reading a novel on the same theme,\" but honors students were expected to demonstrate deeper comprehension by doing more literary' research and writing. Figure 2 Percent of Students Meeting HSTW English Performance Goal Ninth-Grade Course Assignment 80% ... 72%. 60% j j5 (. I i 40% 20% 0% 19% Basic 42% Regular HighL 5 i I 1 ti Figure 3 Percent of Students Meeting HSTW Mathematics Performance Goal Courses Completed in High School 100% 86^ 80% 60% 40% 20% 24% 0% Basic yathemstics Algebra I Algebra Gegro http://www.sreb.org/Progranis/MiddleGrades/RaisingBar/raisebar.htinl Page 4 of 12 Raising the bar in tne iviiaaie oraues\nKeauiness lui jullho -- Data from both the National Assessment of Educational Progress and the Third International Mathematics and Science Study report that sorting students leads to different expecUtions and lower achievement\nwhat is taught (curriculum) and what is expected (standards) make a difference in student achievement. i Data from the National Assessment of Education Progress show that more eighth-grade students (50 percent) in SREB states are assigned to English courses according to their ability than are students across the country (33 percent). J) , Schools that accommodate students by sorting them into different levels limit their j access to further opportunities\nstudents who are accommodated through lower license to \"hide\" from more challenging work. expectations are given a Social development versus academic performance What was missing from the checklist was the ultimate purpose of the middle school: academic achievement that would prepare students for challenging, rigorous work in high school. When parents and educators are asked about their vision for the middle grades, they frequently say that students should \"feel good about themselves,\" \"reach their full potential\" or \"enjoy coming to school.\" All of these are important, but where is the focus on learning? It is no accident that schools that focus on academic improvement have students who periorm at a higher level. No common expectations for performance Observations and conversations with students, teachers, administrators and parents in the SREB states confirm that too few students are ready for the challenges of high school. Eighth-grade students in schools visited b\\SREB staff reported that they \"read one or two books on their own during the year.' Teachers of pre-algebra and general math estimate that at least half of their students are not ready for algebra. Eighth-grade promotion policies in some states require that students must pass only two or three of the four core subjects\nparents believe that passing grades are sufficient evidence that a student is ready for high school work. N In most school systems, there are no common expectations for the content knowledge and skills needed by all students to be ready for high school work. States may have set grade-by-grade standards, but the accompanying examples of quality student work have not been set by local districts and schools. As a result, far too many students trip and fall in ninth grade as they begin the last lap of secondary education. Doing the right things with the wrong focus One of the key recommendations for having effective middle schools is to create small, personalized communities for learning. Many middle grades sites organize teachers and students into teams to obtain smaller learning units within the school. These sites also may set aside advisory periods so that students and teachers can develop closer and more supportive relationships. Vision and Purpose We want all our students to have choices when they leave this middle school. If they want to take accelerated courses, we want them to be prepared by knowing the content that they need.\" A Memphis, Tennessee lead teacher Unfortunately, having key practices becomes more important in some schools than usInglEhe key practices to improve teaching and learning. littp://www.sreb.org/Prograins/MiddleGrades/RaisingBar/raisebar.htinI Page 5 of 12I Raising the Bar in the Middle Grades: Readiness for Success f I i If i Tecun teaching across subject areas 211^199 12:42 AM f In a 1993 study by the National Middle School Association, 45 percent of schools reported organizing tochers into teams in core academic areas. About 75 percent of schools with such teams provided two planning penods for teachers to work together. However, according to logs of team meetings the fnr.115 nf the fpam ic liV-Ak trv Ra manoninn Ptii/4A7kAkotMz^,^r,iKz. 2..* J___ ---:----::--- focus of e team is likely to be managing student behavior, filling out pai^nvnrlc and nbnn^ Cltpn uc fia1 H triro onrl r.....___- JT__ i.'---------- - xo xmvijL yy\naiuuciu uciiAv lUK lining mil papenvork and planning events such as held tnps and assemblies. In rare cases, teams focus on examining student achievement data aniTctlirlAnt xtzr\\rV rnmnlon. a.* .^1 zs. __i_______: ---------------------------- .------- J-T ---------------------------J--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------^^^*****AA***jg, jkUMvin. avmcYcxxicui u and student work .samples\non planmng and reviewing lesson strategies\nand on analvang stiiHenr responses. Yet ifisthat locus on student learning and performance that acceleraleT^ademir' achievement ! pi f ! Guiding and advising students Likewise, the National Middle School Association study reported that in 1993 nearly half (47 percent) of all middle schools had teacher-based guidance programs, compared with 39 percent in 1988. Two-thirds of these advisory programs meet daily for 15 to 30 minutes. Adyis^ periods are supposed to provide early adolescents with social and emotional aL,4. -----------------------------IT----------------- I _________t____________________s* ---------------Tw auviai aiiu ClllUtlUllU sufipo^jece^gry^for acadiinic. success jn school. H^iTeVer, they are more likely tn consist of roll call, school announcements and unstructured social'time for stucfents. i 5 f { If a school believes that teacher guidance is important, it will develop or adapt a guidance curriculum trv'llCAC nn lonHomiri z^ :_____r_______ , / C--------- I ----------- that focuses on academic counseling in addition to issues of concern to adolesomts \"Uniiy i 20-minute periods are not long enough to implement an effective guidance curriculum Forthat scht^ls should schedule longer periods once a week or twice a month\nteachers should work together to plan a senes of topics with well-developed lesson plans. For instance, one topic for an eighth-grade advisory curriculum might be \"What is high school really like?\" Former students might come back to tai If Ahnnt fhAir pvrvmorioflf' iirkn* +l.-zxz^ z,z.l.:-.z. ______1 _ talk about eir experiences and what it takes to achieve in academic courses. 1 Dr. James Stigler I t I i \u0026amp; I \"I once asked a group of American teachers to create a lesson plan. They took 15 minutes to do It. ... 'Hie AfiKrican plans always say what the teacher is going to do. the Japanese plans ask wtMt the students are going to think if the teacher does this. ... Then 1 asked on of the American teachers to teach the lesson... It was a complete disaster\neverything went wrong. ... American teachers don't have any experience jointly talking about instruction. When they get together, they don't talk about lessons. They talk about all manner of other professional and personal issues but almost never discuss how they actually teach their 1 I \"Lessons in Perspective\nHow Culture Shapes Math Instruction in Japan, Germany, and the United SUtes\" The California State University Institute for School Reform Block scheduling A quote from a recent Third International Mathematics and Science Study summarizes the dilemma over time in schools\n\"It's not just how long you make it but how you make it long.\" The study found that longer classes meant more repetition and boredom if the extra time was not used effectively with specific goals in mindi ---------------------------------- Many middle schools have lengthened their classes. In education lingo, they have adopted \"block scheduling.\" There is much debate over how long the blocks should be, which courses should be taught every day and what happens to students who miss these longer classes. Teachers often say that their preparation for the change to block scheduling included one or two workshops but that they learned mostly from experience. What did they leam? Teachers say they do more projects but the .protects are_gften add-ons or time fillers and not an integral part of instnictio^ I 'he kiHs fep them\" is a one or two workshops but that they common comment. And block schedules are often just rigid as the traditional 45- to 50-minute http://www.sreb.org/Programs/MiddIeGrades/RaisinaBar/raisebar.html Dperiod-just longer. rxiTx 5 scheduling to improve student performance have changed 1 sgn\u0026gt;f\u0026gt;cant ways. Teachers work with students to studv fewer topics in greater depth and to demonstrate greater understanding of content through comparing. analvSng, summ^zing and rej^rting Lesson plans foci^ on what students will do rather than what the teacher will do. Students are challenged with problems and issues that have more than one solution or perspective- solutions, decide which is best and defend their choice both oraUy have changed or perspective\nTeachers and administrators who see longer blocks of time as essential to learning also emphasize the \"g b^ed on academic purpose. For instance, EnghsM^guage sav tn tniv Tnakf rnnnArtmnc _______i- ai lo icacuci b often say to truly make connections among readin\nQ wri ting, speaking, research and grammar requires *.u 1 VI Jr . i^sarcn ano grammar r more time than is avmlable even in 90-nunute blocks. Schools that are focused on students and academics are more likely to allow teams to schedule learning time based on purpose rather than organizational need. man md Louisville, Ky., teams are free to create their own schedules based on their ac^emic needs. For example, math classes may be shorter (but more frequent) than social studies classes. Science classes may be longer on \"lab days.\" This level of flexibility is too rare in scnoois loaay. A Kentucky Educator i The most dranMic change due to state testing has been that classroom practice has been more content-dnven, nwre focused on what students need to know, because we reauired students to do son^thing with what they learned - make a graph, summarize what they read in their own words, organized results into a table.\" H A Tennessee Eighth-Grader . *nniV.^w\u0026lt;-^'av^\u0026lt;ir\u0026lt;'/avinw\u0026gt;v.'.v science teacher teaches real science, things that you can do, and it\ns a lot more interesting. She really n-igs to teach us. Some teachers haven't really tried to teach us they teach the book. Good teachers want you to learn and find any way they can to help you.\" Getting itb^kward: Finding the standards that fit rather than fitting instruction to standards States and distncts have set content and student achievement standards at specific grades. But settine standards is only the first step. AlLschools need to convert standards into descrintion.sofwnrV ,SXEgc^ of all students prepmng for college and employment. When teachers have examples of the quality.ot_work ej^ted to meet the stand^ds, they will use standards iFa'annine in.stnictinn nnd ^sessing acluevement. Without ei(amples ot quality work, teachers will conPnue to plan and tSch they-^ways have and, when asked, will find a standard that fits the lesson. One teacher said \"In a middle school classroom, I can find a standard that will fit anything I plan to teach\" use stydards in planning instruction a^ as States have developed smdards based on higher-level thinking and skills, but they may continue to use tests that measure lower-level skills, such as the ability to recall isolated facts. And in classrooms in every district and every state, teachers drill students on sample test items of isolated facts\nIn a school visited by an SREB staff member, one English teacher designed a lesson on the state standards relating to vocabulary development, writing and poetry in a way that was creative eneaeed students and resulted in an onginal poem. In the other Engl ish classrooms, teachers assigned U/rrVch^*tC' /itk vrv'oKill'an/ lictc 'inri ri Till ^\u0026gt;-5 _________i _ worksheets with vocabulary lists and drilled students on sample items from the state uA,-i . V f j' 1. .-J ------------------1'------assessment test. While one teacher focused on havmg students actually use new words to create a poem, the others http://www.sreb.org/Progranis/MiddleGrades/RaisingBar/raisebar.htinl Page 7 of 12Raising the Bar in the Middle Grades: Readiness for Success emphasized isolated bits of information that may be forgotten quickly. 2/28/99 12:42 AM Effecuve teaching balances the need to know and remember with the ability to apply know-ledge 1 real-world problems. When students who are achieving at high levels talk about what is different about their classes, they often say they are doing \"real science\" or using numbers that \"mean something.\" In other words, they are thinking for themselves and finding new- w'avs to use the knowledge they are acquiring. to HSgad\u0026amp;gre grg no concrete indicators or examples of quality student work, the textbook or the latest .prpgrqm^omes the curriculum and the instruction, hducators talk about the impnrtanrp nf curriculum, instruction and assessment. They say that they want to determine content topics plan experiences necessary to leam the content and check to see whether students know the content and how to use It. Eight very different middle schools in five states visited by SREB staff all have the same commercial reading program - a \"quick fix\" to low reading scores. None of the schools visited could sh^e models of exemplary student work that educators used to judge acceptable student performance If there are no specific learning goals and no examples of work that meets the goals, how can schools determine what content students need to leam and whether they have learned it? A Texas Middle School Principal 5 I M 'We have a whole quick-fix culture that says, 'Get your test scores us if you buy this program.' when other principals ask me how I turned my school around, they really expect me to say 1 bought this or that, they are really disappointed when I say to them 'We did it with a lot of hard work!' \" I n I I i i i I f System structures that slow higher standards Schools do not exist in a vacuum. They are subject to outside forces and inside pressures. Good schools are part of a larger system that allows them to focus on what is important for students In far too many systems, the organization and policies that are designed to support successful learning often have the opposite effect. For instance, teachers know that students do not learn at the same rate. Some need more time, and some may need different teaching. Yet students are moved through the system at the same rate and in the same way. Common sense tells us that students learn better in smaller settings, but as many as 3,000 students are housed in the same building in the name of efficiency. Students who have difficulty learning need expert teachers, yet experienced teachers use their seniority to choose schools and classes with the easiest-to-teach students. In other countries, students learn more by studying fewer topics, yet in the United States students are asked to learn a wider range of topics, making it difficult for them to achieve a deeper understanding of essential concepts. Leadership Developing a sense of academic purpose and a commitment to high-quality learning for all students arises out of effective leadership. Yet very few districts have administrative support programs or match new principals with formal mentors. While principals are expected to be instructional leaders, most do little or no teaching after leaving the classroom for an administrative position. Others spend little time on curricular and instructional matters. Principals admit that they need training in how to build understanding among students, parents and teachers about what students should know and be able to do. I I 1 Leaders focus attention on what needs to be done to improve student achievement, and they make sure Jthappens. If teachers need help planning curriculum and instruction tied to example.s of high-quaEty\" performance in the classroom, good leaders find ways to provide that help. If students need more time to accomplish achievement goals, leaders find ways to add extra time. I http://www.sreb.org/ProgramsZMiddIeGrades/RaisingBar/raisebar.htinl Page 8 of 12i\n*1 naisiug me oar lu me iviiuuie uraaes: Keaainess lor success Time 12:42 AM Controlling the use of time is a critical factor in focusing on academics and student achievement Most lu UI ling uic uoc UI ulub lo a UI luuiu laciui 111 luuuaiiig uii uuauciiues ana sluaeni acmevement y districts use the same length of school day and year for all students. But schools can control how time ,.Lr^ icncpH Tnnnftpn crbnnl c licp vtalnoKlo l/aominn timia t/^ rl/-\\ *-or.b-r. ^-u___ is used. Too often, schools use valuable learning time to do administrative tasks or for the school's convenience rather than to meet the real needs of students. Principals who are instructional leaders make sure there is uninterrupted learning time. If schools are to focus on students and academic achievement, then students who are having difficulty in the middle i^rades must be eiven extra time and every opportundv to succeed. Extra time may mean ~before-school and after-school tutoring, Saturday school and summer school: it may require different schedules for teachers and students alike. Extra opportunity may mean constant checking on student understanding and a rethinking of how content is being taught. If students cannot reach performance expectations on the first try, teachers must have time and support to find another way to help students learn. Sorting and labeling All teachers say they want their students to be creative, to be critical thinkers, to be active participants and to be problem-solvers. But how they define those terms and what they think their students will achieve are often alarmingly different. Students' opportunities are limited through sorting that begins in kindergarten and continues through high school. Students labeled as \"at-risk\" or \"disadvantaged\" often carry a more subtle label of \"can't be expected to do the work\" or \"needs to be in a lower-level class.\" Sorting ^d ladling in SREB states have the greatest negative effect on students in classes lower than \"honors\" level. Students assigned to average-ability maematics classes in SREB states scnred significantly lower than similar eighth-graders across the United States. We should challeng^aiO. students to meet performance expectetions sinular to what is expected of students in college preparatory co^ufses. One set ot expectations and one set of criteria for quality work should be applied to all students. If we are going to group students, the groups should focus on providing extra opportunity' and extra time to accomplish challenging work, not on lower standards and expectations. A similar sorting process happens to teachers through teaching assignments. The system of seniority most often matches the newest and least experienced teachers to schools and classrooms that have students with the greatest needs. Interrupt Class? America, Yes\nJapan, No \"We measured how many times the lesson was interrupted by someone coming into the classroom or an announcement coming over the public address system. This ^ppened during 31 percent of the American lessons, 13 percent of the German lessons and none of the Japanese lessons.... They couldn't believe that someone would interrupt a moth lesson or disturb students like this.\" II ,n 'Lessons in Perspective: How Culture Shapes Math Instruction in Japan, Germany, and the United States A South Carolina High School Principal \"1 got my better teachers to teach 'other' [not honors] students, and amazingly these 'other' students passed Algebra and Algebra II. They could do it. If teachers believe they are good and students know they have good teachers, the changes are remarkable. I would change middle schools and mix students and teachers.\" I ! 1 ny http://www.sreb.org/Programs/MiddleGrades/RaisingBar/raisebar.htinI Page 9 of 12Raising the Bar in the Middle Grades\nReadiness for Success 2/28/99 12:42 AM One Texas middle school principal reassigned teachers and students as one of his first acts as principal.' Teachers who had taught the \"best\" students were assigned to \"other\" students, and test scores began to rise. The best teachers had higher expectations and a broader range of teaching strategies, and students began to meet the higher expectations. When students began to experience success attendance went up and the climate for learning improved throughout the school. / Likewise, the teachers in that Texas middle school who began to teach \"honors\" students for the first time began to believe they were \"good\" teachers. Faculty morale went up, and teacher expectations were raised. I Changing the focus to student achievement Recently, a representative from a large urban district spoke out in frustration: \"Too many teachers and administrators just don't get it! They think that when they open the doors to the school, the kids will come whether they are doing a wonderful job or not. With choice and charter schools, that may not be the case. I ask them, 'Do you want the kids to say \"I love coming to this school,\" or do you want to hear \"I hate this school\"?' Many teachers don't understand that we could be like the dinosaurs.\" What they don't get is the importance of putting student academic performance at the center of education. ( i I Discussions about poor performance often provoke discomfort, blame, finger-pointing and fear. By providing time and help in coming to agreements on the quality and quantity of student work that is acceptable, leaders can allay fear and confusion and develop cooperation and focus. Developing, refining and updating curriculum and changing the focus to student achievement require time, expertise and resources, information and financial support National, state and local standards can guide schools, but teachers, school leaders and parents can come together to examine student performance. What all students are expected to know and do should be described by performance criteria and supported with examples of quality student work that provide evidence that students are ready to tackle challenging work in high school. An Eighth-Grade Language Arts Teacher n '/ teach eighth-grade reading improvement. 1 had 40 students on the first day of school\nsome had passed the state test, and some had not. I can tell you right now that passing the test does not mean the student can read on an eighth-grade level.\" Every middle grades teacher should know what is to be done at every grade level to ensure that all students who complete eighth grade have attained eighth-grade standards and show readiness for a challenging ninth-grade program. Meeting high expectations and challenging standards requires continuous, coherent effort and progress through the middle grades. Passing a test does not guarantee that students can do challenging work. By agreeing on examples of work expected at every grade level that correspond to expectations in \"honors\" courses, teachers can align instruction and assessment with the standards. Research Paper Assignment http://www.sreb.org/Programs/MiddIeGrades/RaisingBar/raisebar.htniI Paee 10 of 12Raising the Bar in the Middle Urades: Readiness for Success 2/28/99 12:42 AM All students will express a strong opinion or assertion and support it through research to be presented in oral and written forms. Performance Criteria $ 3 1 ! Students will: use at least three research sources and one mteiv'iew\n complete a narrative using all standard English conventions of grammar punctuation, spelling, and word usage, as well as logical organization and coherent writing\n use a variety of thinking and writing strategies - for example, comparison and facts and details\nor opinions\n include a summary' of their research that explains how it supports or rejects the study questions or opinions explain how the researched information is connected to the reader and author through explicit examples of the relationship - usefulness, interest, relevance. 1 I Sample Scoring Guide Advanced: The student has located exceptional informatior from a wide range of resources. The method of organizing and summarizing is ef. xtive and comprehensive. There are no English usage errors in the final product. Proficient: The student has used at least four sources for information, including an interview, that are clearly relevant to the chosen topic. The information is organized so that it is retrieved easily and can be connected to main ideas or questions under study. References are noted properly, and English usage errors are minimal. I Performance criteria not met: The student has relied upon one or two resources. The information is not well organized, and the paper lacks focusing questions or main ideas. References are not noted properly, and the report contains numerous English usage errors. No attempt or off-task: The student did not do the assignment or did not use the performance criteria guidelines. Changing old patterns What happens in classrooms in which students are challenged to do high-level work? What happens to students who are judged to \"need lower-level classes\"? There are practices that distinguish challenging high-level classrooms from classrooms in which students struggle to achieve. Some of those practices are outlined in Figure 4. There is a hidden curriculum in low-expectation classrooms for students who are thought to be less able. The hidden curriculum is built on a b^e of repetition and monotony, and it sends a message to students thatthey can't do challenging work. We can change this message to one that says \"This is what is acceptable eighth-grade work, and this is what you need to do to achieve it.\" What will it take to change all classrooms into high-expectation classrooms? i I cj http://www.sreb.org/Programs/MiddIeGrades/RaisingBar/raisebar.htniI Page 11 of 12I i Raising the Bar in the Middle Grades: Readiness for Success Fi gure -4 Classroom Practices 2/28/99 12:42 AM High-Expectation Classrooms spend more time on learning !E I clearly state goals and performance criteria for all students aim for clarity and understanding of content and factual knowledge appropriate for the grade level believe all students can do tasks and solve problems successfully require students to think and reflect, analyze, synthesize and evaluate use a variety of methods and materials and communicate a joy for learning and doing provide time for students to cooperate and try out various learning strategies t! i support and encourage a sense of teamwork and challenge all students to participate connect learning to student lives I I Low-Expectation Classrooms allocate more time to discipline and classroom management go from chapter to chapter or activity to actinty without goals tied to standards emphasize working quietly, following directions and using only teacher-demonstrat^ strategies have fewer opportunities for students to try different learning strategies ask students only to recall facts and follow one- or two-step procedures substitute low'-level tasks such as fill-in-the-blanks for written analyses, discussion and in-depth study lack enthusiasm and optimism about learning and doing among both teachers and students focus on those students who are easiest to engage focus on isolated skills disconnected from any meaning to students E Successful schools focus on students and learning rather than on sorting and labeling. Learning is based on challenging standards for all students, and quality is upheld consistently through descriptions of acceptable performance. Teachers know their subject and how to teach it in many ways so that all students can leam. There are successful schools and classrooms in each of the SREB states. The challenge is to make sure that every school in every state is successful with every student. E J F. 1 Asking the right questions Many educators believe that the most important part of teaching and learning is helping students know what questions to ask to get the information they need. Ensuring readiness for high school means asking schools the right questions about the middle grades. 1 i What evidence of readiness for high school is required of every student by the end of eighth grade? Do performance criteria describe the skills and qualities needed to do challenging work in high school? How has the school changed what is taught, how teachers teach and how student performance is measured to better prepare all students for high school? Are there samples of student work to show parents and students what is expected for every standard? Is student work evaluated consistently according to known criteria across classrooms and subjects? Do all teachers expect essentially the same quality of work? How do the standards at this school compare with those in the rest of the state? Nation? World? How does the school make sure that all parents and community members know what the standards are? How does the school help students who are having difficulty achieving the standards? Does the school publish information on how many students achieve performance standards? For example, how many students complete Algebra I by the end of eighth grade or enroll in Algebra I in the ninth grade? Does the. .school re.nort information on how different uroiins of .students nerform in different http://www.sreb.org/Progranis/MiddleGradesZRaisingBar/raisebar.htinl Page 12 of 12 auca, ncttuiucss lui OQVUCbS 2/28/99 12:42 AM subjects? For example, how many male students complete the reading and wiitin'o ......... requirements? How many female students design, conduct, analyze and report on^science expenments? How is the school helping teachers learn to use standards and performance criteria in planning their instruction? h *6 I I Looking ahead If we want students to be focused on academic achievement, we also need teachers who believe in academe achievement and are prepared to teach content and to guide students toward high-qualitv work. Without adequate preparation and continued learning for teachers, agreement on standards is a hollow exercise. A recent Public Agenda sun-ey identified some stumbling blocks to raising expectations and improving student achievement\n Teachers generally support the call for higher standards, but they do not view low standards a.s a widespread or urgent problem\n Teachers seem more concerned about students' social skills and values than about hieh-level academe skills. It I I a li ! Despite these discouraging findings, sgmgjniddle schools are \"reinventing\" themselves and making the changes nec^sary' to prepare every student foTn^orous work inTugE school. WrffronrPvreFinFinb tethers in these schools are involved in professional development programs that encourage them to delve deeply into their teaching and to accept responsibility tor student ----------------------------- success. Dr. J^es Stigler, who 1 ed the videotape studies of American, Gennan and Japanese classrooms for the Tmrd International Mathematics and Science Study, says the key to improving teaching in the United States is for t^hers \"to ask the question over and over: Can you think of a way to make agents learn more. \"The SREB's next report on middle grades'education will examine what teachers should know and be able to do to help students get ready for challenging studies in high school http://www.sreb.org/Programs/MiddleGrades/RaisingBar/raisebar.htniI Page 13 of 124 13/ Y7 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 March 2, 1999 L. TO: Middle School Principals FROM: Dr. Bonnie Lesley .Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: SREB: Improving Teaching in the Middle Grades: Higher Standards for Students Aren't Enough' This article is about improving the quality of middle school teachers, and we can do a great deal in this area. 1. 2. Note the emphasis on content-specific teaching strategies on page 7. Note on page 10 that teachers may need as many as 50 hours of instruction, practice, and feedback to become comfortable using new teaching strategies.\" 3. j? f S 4. 5. 6. Note also on p. 10 the importance of content knowledge in improving student performance. See the top of page 11 for advice to low-performing schools. See also on page 11 the discussion about teachers reading professional literature and other informal learning opportunities. Remember that I discussed with you the importance of teachers being a part of a professional learning community? See p. 12 for ideas on how to support that. H I $ 45 E 7. 8. We have to know the barriers to change. Note the bottom of p. 12 and top of p. 13 for a list. The next to last sentence is the message: Academic standards will not make a difference if policies and practices do not also change. Attachments BAL/rcm 2/28/99 12:43 AM Improving Teaching in the Middle Grades: Higher Standards for Students Arent Enough j 4 i i Recommendations ,9 How are middle grades teaHieis selected and educated, introduced into schools, assigned c!as,sroc\u0026gt;ms and_subjc5cts, and encouraged to grow profes.sionally? In two previous repf.)ris, the SREB focused on the importance Oi raising standard,s and expectations for student performance in the middle rades. But e.^f^cted to (X'rlorm at the highest levels, .shouldnt we expect ihe .same from hiacher Shouldn t we set high standards tor those who seek to become teacher\n, ' \\ v teacheix to bt' prepaixxl to teach ligorous academic oMlent and to apply research on the best teaching practices in cla,ssiwm3? 9 And shouldnt we expect I 9 Teaching in the middle grades today never Bec^e of praciices in teacher preptirdlion, licensure and assignment m elassTTOms, too many jgacher^mth^iddle^^^^^^^^^ have too little knowledge of the rubjects they ^ch n^v - have uiken ad^'anced English courses, physic.s, chemistry or college filgebra can teach seventh- and eighth-grade pre-algebra, algebra, physical science and English in most SREB states. In SREB states those who teach eighth-grade mathematics and science are less likelv than their peers nationwide to have had co lege courses m their content area during the last two years. The results are predictable: lagging student achievement in the middle grades in mathematics, science and language arts. Do teachers have the jmntent knowledge needed to teach their assigned classe.^? ticm one SREB state were available to study teaching assignments by class. The SREB believes that if data were available throughout the region, the findings would be similar. In the state for which data were available: Almost two-thirds of sixth-grade mathematics classes are taught by teachers with elementary education majors. More than two-thirds of eighth-grade mathematics classes are taught by teachers who majored in mathematics or mathematics education. About half of seventh-grade mathematics classes and only one out of five sixth-grade classes have teachers who majored in mathematics or mathematics education. In eighth-grade science, two out of five classes are taught by teachers without a science major, and only 11 percent of science classes are taught by teachers who majored in a science content area such as biology, chemistry or physics^ In grade eight, 70 percent of the English classes are taught by teachers with a major in either elementary education or home economics education. Researchers in lexci.s and Tennessee have found that studenls yvho have less effeclive teachers for even one year perform at losver levels over time., even if the quality of teaching improves in subsequent years. Teacher qualitymaitefs /or studem achievemenl.. Education Week. Feb. 18, 1998 While compiehensive legional data are not available at all grade levels, we can sav wi th some confidenix that at least a third of the middle grades teachers in the SREB states texlay hold elementary teaching licenses. A study in Kentucky also concluded that at least a third of middle grades math bttp\n//yfTirw.sreb.or^rogramsfM.iddleGrades/higher_st\u0026amp;ndards/report.htm} Page 1 of 125r Middle Grades teachers ha ve elementary cerliilcation. 2/28/99 12:43 AM Table 1* Middle Grades Classes and Teacher Qualifications Percentages of Classes Taught by Teachers with Different College Majors Subject Area, Grade Level Math, 6th Math, 7th Math, Sth Algebra, 7th Algebra, Sth English, 6th English. 7th English, Sth Science, 6th Science, 7th Science, Sth Heraentary Education 64% 31 16 22 2 82 57 36 33 24 15 Secaidaiy Education 9% 75 37 25 4 5195 4 English Education Major 6 15 Math Educaticn Major 6% 40 53 41 56 Science Education Major 43 46 48 Artsand Sciences English, Mathematics or Science Major 14% 11 18 12 56 47 11 Other** Education Major 7% 11 8 5 14 27 42 11 18 18 * Data was gathered in one SREB state ** Most of the other education majors in eighth-grade English are home economics majors\nin eighth-grade science, they are mostly health and physied education majors. In rural areas of the SREB states, eighth- graders trail the nation in student achievement by a laiger margin than do students in urban and suburban areas of the region. In these rural areas, a greater percentage of eighth-grade mathematics teachers (29 percent) have elementary education majors than do eighth-grade teachers in the rest of the nation (16 percent). - bational Assessment of Educational Progress. 1996 In the traditional teacher-preparation program, those who wish to teach in tlie elementary grades enter a general course of study to complete institutional retjuirements for graduation. Ty'pically, this course of study takes two year,s to complete. \u0026lt;Dnce students are admitted to the teacher education program, they begin learning to teach tlie numerous subjects taught by elementary teachers. 'I'heir tdectives fire concentrated in courses on teaching methods for various academic areas, and they graduate with a major in elementary education. A Traditional Teacher-Preparation Program Bachelor of Science in Education (Elementary Education Major) By contrast, secondary et\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_380","title":"Compliance hearing exhibits, ''Planning for Program Evaluation''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1999/2001"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","Educational planning"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance hearing exhibits, ''Planning for Program Evaluation''"],"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/380"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nPLANNING FOR PROGRAM EVALUATIONozo\u0026gt;o mm on 0) z Planning for Program Evaluation 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1. 8. 9. Memorandum to designated principals from Mona Briggs, Aug. 23, 1999, providing information on standards for accreditation from ADE Memorandum to elementary staff, Jan. 20, 1999, relating to an ADE evaluation of Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) /-yy Memorandum to Kathy Lease and Ed Williams, June 29, 1999, on program evaluation with attached articles on qualitative research and an example of a research report from Austin ISD by Glynn Ligon Memorandum to Division of Instruction, Feb. 1, 2000, with agenda relating to program implementation E-mail to Virginia Johnson and Debbie Milam, Feb. 4, 2000, suggesting a model for the evaluation of ViPS programs /V/ Memorandum in March 15, 2000, Learning Link relating to progress made by schools implementing the ALT assessment program Document from Kathy Leasecalendar of meetings with Dr. Steve Ross since March 15, 2000\nattached planning document on program evaluation E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, Mar. 24, 2000, providing information about a meeting with Dr. Steve Ross to discuss the middle school evaluation / E-mail to Kathy Lease, May 23, 2000, providing feedback on proposed middle school student survey 10. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, Marian Lacey, and Sadie Mitchell, June 12, 2000, from Les Gamine requesting information about the middle school evaluation 11. E-mail from Steve Ross to Kathy Lease, June 27,2000, with attached design notes for Title I/Elementary Literacy Program Evaluation 12. E-mail from Kathy Lease to her staff, Aug. 6, 2000, requesting them to place the memorandum and program evaluations on the Board agenda 13. E-mail from Kathy Lease to Les Gamine, Aug. 10, 2000, providing copies of drafts of the ESL and middle school evaluations\nthen his questions and her answers. 14. Memorandum to Board of Education, Aug. 24, 2000, from Kathy Lease presenting the program evaluations: Title EElementary Literacy, LRCPMSA (mathematics and science), English as a Second Language, and Middle School Transition and Program Implementation. Attached is her PowerPoint presentation: Program Evaluation.15. E-mail from Steve Ross to Les Camine, Sept. 7, 2000, giving his feedback to the program evaluation reports. i7 16. E-mail from Debbie Milam to Cabinet members, Sept. 20, 2000, requesting permission to conduct interviews of parents on the subject of parental involvement. 17. E-mail from Kathy Lease to staff, Oct. 11, 2000, advising them of an upcoming meeting with Dr. Steve Ross related to program evaluation /s-y 18. E-mail from Virginia Johnson to Bonnie Lesley and Vanessa Cleaver, Oct. 20, 2000, relating to our required participation in an evaluation study conducted by the National Science Foundation 19. Memorandum to Gene Jones, ODM, from Kathy Lease, Oct. 27, 2000, inviting him to an intensive work session with Dr. Steve Ross on program evaluation /q/ 20. Document prepared by PRE in November 2000 that lists Additional Programs and Strategies Requesting Evaluation / 21. E-mail to Cabinet members from Kathy Lease, Nov. 28, 2000, attaching Dr. Steve Ross planned presentation to the Board of Education on Using Evaluation for Program Improvement: Lessons Learned 22. E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to Virginia Johnson, Jan. 2, 2001, setting up a meeting to finalize CPMSA program evaluation plan 23. E-mail from Virginia Johnson to Bonnie Lesley, Jan. 3, 2001, attaching her tentative plan 24. E-mail from Kathy Lease to Les Camine and Junious Babbs, Jan. 5, 2001, providing information relating to outsourcing program evaluations to Dr. John Nunnery 25. E-mail from/to Virginia Johnson, Jan. 5-20, 2000, relating to submission of Core Data Elements to the National Science Foundation 26. E-mail from/to Virginia Johnson, Apr. 14-16, 2000, relating to CPMSA program evaluation issues J 27. E-mail from Kathy Lease to Les Camine, Jan. 22, 2001, attaching a draft of the work from Dr. John Nunnery 28. Memorandum (one of several) from Kathy Lease, Jan. 24, 2001, inviting participants to the first meeting of the Research Committee /TO29. Memorandum from Kathy Lease to John Walker, Jan. 24, 2001, inviting him to participate in first meeting of Research Committee 30. Agenda for Feb. 5, 2001, meeting of the Research Committee and sign-in sheet 31. E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to Eddie McCoy, Ed Williams, and Karen Broadnax, Feb. 16, 2001, to set up a meeting to discuss ESL program evaluation /73 32. Memorandum from Kathy Lease to Research Committee setting up Feb. 26, 2001, meeting 33. Agenda for Feb. 26,2001, Research Committee meeting and sign-in sheet 34. Invoice from Dr. John Nunnery to LRSD for services rendered, February-March 2001 35. E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to CPMSA staff, Feb. 21, 2001, setting up a meeting to discuss the CPMSA program evaluation /v7 36. E-mail from Virginia Johnson to Bonnie Lesley, March 14,2001, providing updates 37. E-mail to middle school staff from Bonnie Lesley, Mar. 15, 2001, summarizing a meeting to plan for a Middle School Team Leaders Institute, including recognition of need to train team leaders on assessment and using data /7? 38. E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to CPMSA staff. Mar. 19, 2001, setting up follow-up meeting to discuss CPMSA program evaluation /?O 39. Memorandum to Carnegie Management Team, March 20, 2001, from Bonnie Lesley with information about counseling program and need for a program evaluation /^/ 40. Memorandum from Kathy Lease to Research Committee, Apr. 16, 2001, setting up next meeting on summer school evaluation and program evaluation for the National Science Foundation grant 41. Sign-in sheet for Apr. 23, 2001, meeting of the Research Committee 42. E-mail from Bormie Lesley to Dennis Glasgow, Suzi Davis, and Laura Beth Arnold, April 17, 2001, to discuss program evaluation for Element 5 of the Safe Schools/ Healthy Students project 43. E-mail from Virginia Johnson to Bonnie Lesley, Apr. 18, 2001, relating to next steps in providing information about SAT9 item analyses for teachers 1^5 44. E-mail from Mona Briggs to Bonnie Lesley, Apr. 25, 2001, relating to survey needs for national evaluation of Safe Schools/ Healthy Students project45. E-mail from Dennis Glasgow to elementary and middle school staff, Apr. 26, 2001, summarizing a large scale study that links classroom practices to student achievement in mathematics 1^7 46. E-mail among team working on CPMSA program evaluation, Apr. 18-May 2, 2001, relating to model for program evaluation and data analysis I'S'^ 47. E-mail from Kathy Lease to Research Committee, May 2, 2001, with attached latest version of the Guidelines for Program Evaluations 1^^ 48. Agenda for May 7, 2001, meeting of the Research Committee and sign-in sheet no 49. E-mail from Don Crary to Bonnie Lesley, May 24, 2001, announcing that a program evaluator had been hired by New Futures to conduct the program evaluation for Safe Schools/ Healthy Students 50. E-mail from Kathy Lease to Research Committee with attached memorandum relating to next meeting on June 11, 2001 51. Agenda for June 11, 2001, meeting of the Research Committee and sign-in sheet 52. E-mail from Junious Babbs to Bonnie Lesley, June 12, 2001, relating to information on program evaluation /'iV 53. E-mail from Kathy Lease to Compliance Team, June 14, 2001, with an outline of a plan for the completion of the Middle School Evaluation I 54. E-mail from Kathy Lease to Research Committee, June 14, 2001, attaching a copy of final draft of Dr. Nunnerys evaluation of the mathematics/science programs 55. E-mail from Dennis Glasgow to Ed Williams, July 3, 2001, requesting additional ALT reports n7 56. E-mail from Vanessa Cleaver to others working on CPMSA program evaluation, July 10,2001, requesting help in publishing a three-year progress report on the CPMSA1 ssc .1 Planning, Research, and Evaluation Instructional Resource Center 3001 South Pulaski Street Little Rock, Arkansas, 72206 August 23, 1999 To: Principals Designated for Standards Review 1999-2000 LL- (Carver, Cloverdale E., Geyer Springs, Gibbs, Hall, King, Mabelvale E., Meadowcliff, and Pulaski Heights Middle) t 51 J1 J From: Through: RE: Mona Briggs, Technical Assistance Team Dr. Kathy Lease, Assistant Superintendent for PRE Standards Compliance Checklist As you know, I have invited Bettye G. Davis, the specialist at the Department of Education for Standards Assurance, to meet with us on September 29,1999, at 3:30 p.m. (IRC, room 12). In order to further your understanding of the standards for accreditation, I am providing you with a copy of the compliance checklist that was furnished to us last year. While there may be some minor changes in this years checklist, this will give you a sense of the documentation you will be collecting for the states visit. If you will take a moment and review this document, it may help clarify what is involved and may also serve as a catalyst for formulating questions that you may want Ms. Davis to address during our meeting. If you have any questions, you may e-mail me at mrbrigg@.irc.lrsd.kl2.ar.us or call me at 324-2120. (If you are not able to attend the September meeting, please notify my office and give me the name of the person who will be your designee at the meeting.) I ARKANSAS PUBLIC SCHOOLS STANDARDS FOR ACCREDITATION COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST LEA. DISTRICT SCHOOL I I I 5 Grade Levels Enrollment Field Services Specialist Date Rev. 6/98 ,'' Standard Yes No EVIDENCE/COMMENTS I. GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROCEDURES 5 S A. Policies and actions are non- discriminatory and in compliance with state and federal laws. Equity Compliance Report Equity Assistance Center Verification B. State and National Goals I. II.A fl C. School District Goals ILB 1, The district's five-year educational plan (all schools' COE plans) has been developed, with staff and community participation. It is reviewed annually, and public meetings (district and school) are held to discuss progress. This information is published annually. Newspaper article(s) Date and attendees for meeting II.B f D. School District Administration II.C It s 1. School board policies Copy of school board policies 2. Reports and records Test results on file with ADE II.C.l II.C.2 i I 1 I5 I 3 1 J t t I if 1 I 3 standard Yes No li. The school board held a public meeting to review progress toward accomplishing district goals and accreditation. Minutes F. School Goals 1. 2. n.c.3 LD evidence/comments The school has an appropriately developed and reviewed school improvement plan. (Reviewed under I-C) COE plan The school has an in-depth five year curriculum review. (Reviewed under II-A-1) G. The community is actively engaged in the educational program. * Appropriate documentation H. The discipline policies are written and filed according to established 1 I. J. r.D.i I.D.2 III. V.D 4 i guidelines. Discipline policies Signed written statements There is a written policy that governs participation in extracurricular activities. * Extracurricular activities policy There is a written homework policy. Homework policy K. The enrollment and attendance policy is consistent with applicable laws and regulations. Policy L. Grades assigned to students reflect only educational objectives and are consistent with laws and regulations. Grading policy V.E-F V.G VI. VILB A 2I I i * ______ \\ Standard Yes No EVIDENCE/COMMENTS f sI I a I I 4II ! ! 2. 3\nTime is scheduled for instruction in the core curriculum (language arts, math, social studies, science). Schedule/ Observation Time is scheduled for instruction in the other curriculum areas as specified in the Standards. Schedule/ Observation C. Grades 5-8 1. Instruction is developmentally appropriate. Observation 2. Time is scheduled for instruction in the core curriculum (language arts, math, social studies, science). Scheduie/Observation 3. At least one semester of Arkansas history is taught in grade seven or eight (or in grades 9-12). Scheduie/Observation 4. Time is scheduled for instruction in the other curriculum areas as specified in the Standards. Scheduie/Observation D. Grades 9-12 *(may be taught every other year) 1. Language Arts-6 units 4 units English 1 unit oral communications or Vz unit oral communications and V2 unit drama * 1 unit journalism IV. IV. 13 I 1i ' IV, IV. IV. IV. IV. 4 I3 Standard Yes No EVIDENCE/COMMENTS 1 j 5 I f s I J 'i 1 I 'll j I 8. 9. Health and Safely Education and Physical Education-} 'A units I unit Physical Education 'A unit Health and Safety Education TecA Prep and Applied Technology-9 units (EIGHT UNITS MUST BE TAUGHT EVERY YEAR.) III. GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS A. All graduates have completed a minimum of 21 units of credit._____ B. A unit of credit is awarded for a minimum of 120 clock hours of instruction.____________ C. All graduates have completed the following 15 units of credit: English-4 units Oral CommunicationsA unit Social Studies-3 units or 2 units of social studies and lunit of Vocational/Technical studies Mathematics3 units Science-3 units, at least 1 science unit in a life science and 1 in physical science physical Education-A unit Health and Safety Education-'A unit Fine Arts-'A unit . Transcripts IV. IV. I ( IX.A IX.B IX.C 6Standard Yes No evidence/comments a '^1 I 1 D. All graduates completing the college preparatory path of study have completed the following units: Science-1 unit of biology (or equivalent), 1 unit of chemistry, or lunit of physics (or equivalent) Mathematics1 unit of Algebra I (or equivalent), 1 unit of Algebra II, and 1 unit of geometry Social Studies1 unit of World History or Cultures, 1 unit of American History, 'A unit of Civics/American Government, and A unit elective Foreign Language-2 units of 1 foreign language Transcripts _________ IX. 11 i I I E. All graduates completing the technical preparatory path of study have completed the following units: Science-at least 2 units include content which is equivalent to science courses in the college preparatory track Mathematics-2 units must include content which is equivalent to mathematics courses in the college preparatory track Social Studies-1 unit of American History, 1 unit of World History or Global Studies, and at least A unit of Civics/American Government Vocational credits-4 credits in a vocational sequence are required. . Transcripts IX. I- 1 I 7I* ^5: Standard Yes No EVIDENCE/COMMENTS F. Honor graduates are selected according to the guidelines established by the Rules and Regulations as related to Act 980 of 1991. IX. Transcripts IV. TEACHERS s Si A. Student-teacher interaction time is a minimum of 178 days. V.A.l A B. Teacher contracts are a minimum of 185 days, including 5 days staff development and in-service training. VA.2 i! C. The planned instructional time in each school day does not average less than six hours per day or thirty hours per week. . School calendar Daily schedule D. Student/teacher ratio: 1. Kindergarten 20/1 or 22/1 with half-time instructional aide Annual reports/Observation 2. Grades 1-3-23/1 with no more than 25 in a classroom Annual reports/Observation 3. Grades 4-6-25/1 with no more than 28 in a classroom Annual reports/Observation V.A.4 V.B.2 V.B.3. V.B.4 o at s ri 4. Grades 7-12-Each class has 30 students or less\nno more than 150 students per day Annual reports/Observation V.B.5 I 1I. 8 2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 (501)324-2131 January 20, 1999 TO: Gene Parker Judy Milam Judy Teeter Sadie Mitchell Kris Huffman Pat Price Ann Freeman Kathy Lease Ed Williams Frances Cawthon FROM: Dr. Bonnie Lesley,, AAssss(ociate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: Evaluation of ELLA Please see the attached letter. You may receive questions from some of our schools. BAL/rcm ) DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 RA\u0026gt; MOND SIMON, Director MEMORANDUM DATE: January 5, 1999 ^4/V TO: Superintendents FROM: SUBJECT: Dr. Kevin Penix, Assistant Dire School Improvement and Instructional Support Initiation of Impact Study for Districts Participating in the Second Year of Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) The Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) is conducting a study to determine the effectiveness of the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) training and its impact on student achievement. Teachers who. are currently enrolled into the second year of ELLA will provide data on three to five selected students in their classroom. The data collected will be cunent information from the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment. These assessments are administered as part of the requirement for participating in ELLA and should not utilize any additional class time. Enclosed is a sample of the form that will be used to record the data on each student. Data information compiled on students who are in the classroom of the targeted ELLA teachers will be assigned an identification number to maintain anonymity and provide future follow-up studies. The assessment listed will be administered as a pretest during the first twelve weeks of school and a posttest during the first of May or prior to school year completion. A control group will also be used in reviewing the impact of the ELLA training. Again, data have already been compiled on these students as part of a random sample study in coordination with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Reading Recovery/Early Literacy Training Center. The study for ELLA is in response to the Smart Start Initiative and the accountability of the staff development being offered by the ADE to meet the needs of participating teachers. The ADE is working with the University of Arkansas Research Center in the compilation and analysis of this study. This is part of an ongoing process to assess this staff development impact on student achievement. If you need additional information or have questions regarding this study please contact either the Early Childhood Curriculum Specialist at the Education Service Cooperative in your area or contact the Early Childhood / Reading Unit at 501-682-5615. STATE BOARD OF EDI ( ATION\nChairman - BETTY PICKETT. C onwa) Vice Chairman - JoNELL CALDWELL. Bmanl Members: ED\\M\\ B. ALDERSON. JR.. El Dorado CARL E. BAGGETT. Rogers MARTHA DIXON. Arkadelphia WILLIAM B. FISHER. Paragould LI KE GOKin. \\an Buren ROBERT HACKLER. Mountain Home JAMES McLARTT 111. Newport RICHARD C. SMITH. JR.. McGehee LEWIS THOMPSON. JR.. Tesarkaoa ANITA Y ATES. Bentonville An Equal Opportunin Employer ! Cooperative Teacher___ Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas Impact Study 1998-99 ____________________ ^District___________________ School_________ ____ ______ LEA# Phone Students Identification # Birthdate Age Grade Check one: Gender. , Male Female Ethnicity... Black White Hispanic Asian NativeAm Other This is the first year second year student has been under the instruction of an ELLA trained teacher. Date of pretest Date of post-test Observation Survey Subtests Beavers DRA Pre Post Letter ID Word Test CAP Writing Vocabulary Dictation Text Reading Level Students Identification # Birthdate .Age, Grade Check one: Gender. . Male Female 1 Date of pretest Pre Post I Ethnicity...O Black White Hispanic Asian NativeAm Other This is the first year second year student has been under the instruction of an ELLA trained teacher. Date of post-test Observation Survey Subtests Beavers DRA Letter ID Word Test CAP Writing Vocabulary Dictation Text Reading Level Students Identification # Check one: Gender. , Male Female Birthdate .Age. Grade Ethnicity...n Black White Hispanic Asian NativeAm Other This is the first year second year student has been under the instruction of an ELLA trained teacher. Date of pretest Date of post-test Observation Survey Subtests Beavers DRA Pre Post Letter ED Word Test CAP Writing Vocabulary Dictation Text Reading Level 3 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 (501)324-2131 June 29, 1999 TO: Kathy Lease Ed. Williams FROM: Dr. Bonnie Lesley,, zA\\Ossociate Superintendent, Instruction SUBJECT: Program Evaluation I found in my files the attached documents which may be helpful: 1. A couple of articles on qualitative research. 2. A copy of the executive summary of a research report from Austin ISD by Glynn Ligon. Please note both the content and the format. Attachment BAL/rcm 06 USING WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT TEACHING QUALITATIVE RESEARCH ANOTHER WAY OF KNOWIN 107 Spindler, G. and Spindler, L. \"Roger Harker and Schonhausen: From Familiar to Strange and Back Again.\" In Doing the Ethnography of Schooling. Edited by G. Spindler. New York: Holl, Rinehart, and Winston, 1982. Stevenson, C. \"A Phenomenological Study of Perceptions about Open Education Among Graduates of the Fayrweather Street School.\" Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. University of Connecticut, Storrs, 1979. Updike, John. Rabbit is Rich. New York: Knopf, 1981. Varenne, H. \"Jocks and Freaks: The Symbolic Structure of the Expression of Social Inlerac- A Response to Rogers lion Among American Senior High School Students.\" In Doing the Ethnography of School- Edited by G. Spindler. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1982. E.\nCampbell, DjSchuarlz, R.\nand Sechresl, L. t/ziotfrwsfwMcflSHres. Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1966, p. 9. Wilcox, K. \"Ethnography As a Methodology and Ils Implications to the Study of Schooling.\" In Doing the Ethnography of Schooling. Edited by G. Spindler. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1982. Wilcox, K. Schooling and Socialization for Work Roles: A Structural Inquiry into Cultural Transmission in an Urban Community. Doctoral dissertation. Harvard University, Cambridge, 1978. Wigginton, E. Eoxfire. New York: Anchor Books/Doubleday, 1972. Wolcott, H. The Man in the Principal's Office. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1973. I I I I WILLIAM D. CORBETT If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there. The Talmud The direction of education should be based on the proven successes of the past and present. Identification of proven success, however, is not as clear cut as it would appear to be because of the complexify of the educational process and the diversity of the constituencies we serve. It is from the multitude of components that contribute to good education and the variety of efforts made by innovators that we expect researchers to assist us in mapping our course. Since educational research affects the lives of practitioners as well as the students served, it is valuable to have lucid description of the two major types of research by a person who is a recognized leader in the field. Vincent Rogers has depicted the strengths and weaknesses of both quantitative and qualitative research and offered cogent examples of each technique. The chapter should be excerpted from ASCD's Yearbook and placed on the required reading list of those who are preparing for teaching and administrative careers. Current practitioners should also read the chapter with care. Those of us who are public or private school practitioners have been both beneficiaries of sound research and victims of poor research. The very word \"research\" tends to lend authority to headlines, however outrageous, to meet the public's appetite for news: Class Size a Factor in Reading Success Class Size Not Important in Educational Achievement Open Education Proves Successful in Affective Education Research Shows Traditional Approaches Best for Basics Reading Scores Improving Study Shows High School Graduates Are Illiterate Headlines like these confuse the public and frustrate educators. They indeed embarrass serious researchers. Much of the questionable research that gains wide attention is \"so called\" hard data research. It is often dependent upon the results and analysis of multiple choice, fill-in, machine-scored tests. Deductions drawn from this type of research are statistical with seldom a careful look at the instruments used, not to mention the effects these instruments William D. Corbett is Principal, James Russell Lowell School, Watertown Public Schools, Walerlowii. Massnchusells. 108 USING WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT TEACHING QUALITATIVE RESEARCH ANOTHER WAY OF KNOWING 109 have on the educational process. The more the multiple choice, fill-in instruments are used to draw educational conclusions, the more the emphasis is placed on them at all levels. Education, at least in the United States, is correspondingly diminished to serve these evaluation procedures. Qualitative research is much more expensive and requires unusual sensitivity and experience in both process and analysis. Let it be said that meaningful educational research of all kinds is costly and needs talented and perceptive directorship. Let it also be said that a great disservice to both education in general and to conscientious researchers in particular is done by the several who engage in shallow research. Perhaps it is time for serious researches like Vincent Rogers, John Goodlad, and others to call for a permanent blue-ribbon research monitoring committee to rank educational research according to its integrity. The committee would be ready to analyze and answer authoritatively the shoddy pieces of research that appear periodically in the news media. In this manner the word \"research\" would reacquire the respect it deserves and those affected by research would give it the attention necessary to chart the direction of education. The Price of Everything, the Value of Nothing ANNE RONEY In his essay, Vincent Rogers defends qualitative research. Perhaps his need to do so points more to certain predilections in ourselves than to deficiencies in qualitative methods. We are as entranced by numbers as crows are by shiny objects. How do we explain this attraction? Our delight with numbers probably goes back to the very moment when, as young children, we first counted six cookies on a plate or 23 cows alongside the highway or 15 days until Christmas. What precision and economy of expression! What power it was to realize that an unknown that pile of cookiescould be counted and thus controlled, manipulated to divide the pile or to win the game or to sequence time itself. So we began to attack unknowns with numbers, using ever more sophisticated calculations. In a society with competing traditions, populated by people from many nations, and striving to move forward, we encountered many unknowns or, at least, questions for which previous answers no longer sufficed. This faith in the quantitative was reinforced on every hand as our penchant for problem-solving bloomed into technology. For some of us the faith occasionally dimmed. As a new teacher, 1 was dismayed when the librarian stopped at my door, form in hand, and inquired as to my circulation total for the month. I had not kept any circulation figures, I told her, searching about in my mind for a way to construct a number. I stammered something about having 32 students and having been to the library two or three times. She said, \"Oh, that's all right. I'll just put down '150' for you. That's close enough.\" She went on her way? With her went my incorrect number, wafting its way through the bureaucratic channels, making wrong every other number it touched. Realizing how often such estimates are entered on forms, I became skeptical about numbers. They are very nearly all bail-park figures, used more for their economy of expression than for their precision. Of course researchers are not as naive about the precision of numbers as 1 was. They have devised all sorts of safeguards and hedges\nthe standard error of measurement, Type I and Type II errors, levels of significance, degrees of freedom, random selection, and so on. Each safeguard fulfills a necessary function and in so doing, makes the resultant numbers more authoritative than ever. But, transformed in analysis, the original bit of data has been so far removed from its origin as to be unrecognizable even to its mother. I Aitne Roney is Elementary Supervisor, Department of Public Instruction, Knox County, Knoxville, Tennessee. 110 4 -ft JUK USING WHAT Wfe KNOW ABOUT TEACHING I )UALITATIVE research-ANOTHER WAY OF KNOWIN,. 111 In addition to the seduction of numbers, we must contend with both a predilection for method and the unwise application of quantitative designs. Apparently, pioneer educational researchers came from agriculture and psychology and were constantly glancing with envy at the laboratory experiments of chemists and physicists. Using these models in education, we have applied spelling treatments to classroom groups as if we were applying fertilizers to plots of corn\nand we have counted the responses of students in class discussions as if they were rats in a maze. We have thus removed the variables under study from their settingthe school or the social group, such removal being a condition of the quantitative design. Researchers have not set out to isolate their problems from context. Ideally, each problem worthy of inquiry is derived from both a situation and a review of related research and literature. But in doctoral dissertations, Chapter Twos are often deadly\nand the lines of thought connecting them to problem, methodology, and findings are likely to be less than clear and direct. In other research reports, the space devoted to the review of the literature and the rationale for the study is usually much less than , the space given to metholodogy. Preoccupied with design rather than utility, the researcher is compelled to explicate his/her mathematics for the benefit of other researchers\nthat is, to share the recipe whether or not the pudding is worth eating. Quantitative designs are often precise and elegant. We get caqght up in their tight beauty in the same way that wc admire an architect's elevation drawings, whose delineated grace may obscure the clumsiness of the resulting structure. It is lack of attention Io context and overemphasis on the means instead of emphasis on the ends that make the use of research discouraging to the practitioner. Even if early educational researchers had derived their methods from , sociology, anthropology, and history. we probably could not have escaped the American romance with quantitative methods. And would we want to? Oh, no. As Rogers pointed out, quantitative methods are effective and useful. The power of numbers is particularly persuasive, as I found on a winter morning when the heater in a portable classroom had been turned off the night before. The teacher had complained to rne (her principal) about the cold, but it was only when she sent a note saying \"It is 42 in here\" that 1 jumped up and arranged for her class to occupy the cafeteria. Numbers give substance and specificity to description\nthey support or fail to support our judgments and our hunches\nthey enable its to evaluate reported information. Indeed, a school leader would be lost without his/her quantitative litany: How soon? How many? How often? Out of how many chances? At what cost? Quantitative approaches stem from our logical and analytical ways of knowing. What they do not give us is the context, the setting, the framework of meaning that surrounds each problem and that would abTes w (frialitative methods permit the scrutiny and analysis of individual vari- ^n^jTTTijiir^reserving the setting under study. The reports of guiililntive mwirrii are written as narratives, which h^ the advantage of accessibil-itv of meaning to the reader, being full of concrete references and idenlifj-able characters. If we deal only with quantitative data, like Oscar WiIde's T^THc, weTcnow \"the price of everything and the value of nothing.\" Numbers cannot tell the whole story. It is qualitative information that irises from and addresses th'eTioIi^ic and intuitive ways of knowing that ^ic truF scientist does not fear. References Me.id. Margaret. Coining 0/ Age in Sanioo. Laurel Edition. New York: Dell Publishing Com-pany. 1961. Wilde, Oscar. Complete Works of Oscar Wilde. London: Collins, 1981, p. 418. 91.29 ' Vustin Independent School District ^ Department of Management Information Office of Research and Evaluation Drug-Free Schools 1991-92 Evaluation Report Executive Summary Author: Kristen Blis^. Program Description: The Drug-Free Schools and Communities (DFSC) Act of 1986 provides funding to school districts to combat drug and alcohol abuse on their campuses. In 1991- 92, its fifth year of funding, the Austin Independent School District (AISD) received $464,924 from the DFSC grant. An additional $165,745 was carried over from 1990-91 for a total of $630,669. These grant monies fund a wide assortment of District programs aimed at drug abuse prevention and education. Progrrim components funded during the 1991-92 school year included: Student Alcohol and Drug Education and Prevention Program, Peer Assistance and Leadership, Conflict Resolution Project, Student Assistance Program, Drug Abuse Resistance Education, Elementary Curriculum, MegaSkills, Office of Student Intervention Services, Private Schools, Education for SelfResponsibility II, Medicine Education and Safety Program, Parent Involvement, AU Well Health Services Program, AISD Campus Police, and Read Pilot. The grant also provided for both a full-time evaluation associate and program fecilitator. Major Findings: 1. Students whose parents participated in the MegaSkills workshops had higher test scores than the national average, as well as higher attendance, lower discipline, and lower retention rates than other elementary students districtwide (pp. 26-30), 2. Both staff and PAL students agreed that the PAL program is an effective way for older students to help younger students avoid problems with drugs and alcohol. Dropout rates for secondary students served by the program both semesters were lower than predicted, and GPAs for these students were higher than their GPAs for the previous school year (pp. 10-15). 3. DARE is perceived as an effective way to communicate important information to students about the effects of drugs and alcohol by both teachers and the DARE officers, rhe officers are satisfied with the fifth-grade curriculum but believe the seventh-grade curriculum is not age appropriate and does not convey the no-use message as effectively as the fifthgrade curriculum (pp.20-23). 4. Dropout rates for all secondary students participating in the Student Alcohol and Drug Education and Prevention Program were below prediction, and the retention rate of elementary program participants was lower than that of other elementary students districtwide. Two thirds of the students reported that they learned about the dangers of drugs and alcohol, felt more confident, were better able to make decisions, and saw themselves as leaders after participation in the workshops (pp. 6-9). 5. High school students rank the use of drugs and drinking/ alcoholism in the top five of the biggest problems with which their school must deal while teachers at all grade levels, campus professionals, and campus administrators do not consistently rank them in the top 10 (p. 4). 6. There are considerable differences between high school students' perceptions of the prevalence of illegal drugs and alcohol on their campuses and their teachers' perceptions. Districtwide surveys found that the majority of high school teachers, administrators, and campus professionals believe the presence of drugs is staying the same, while most high school students believe it is either increasing or decreasing. More high school students believe the presence of alcohol on their campus is increasing than do their teachers, campus professionals, and administrators (pp. 3-4). 7. A number of program components were not implemented as planned, including the Student Assistance Program, Office of Student Intervention Services, and Education for Self-Responsibility II (pp. 18, 31-32,37). Budget Implications: Mandate: External frmding agency- Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of 1986 (Public Laws 99-570,100-297,101- 226, and 101-647). Funding Amount: 1991-92 Allocation: $464,924 Funding Source: Federal Implications: Funding of this program has contributed to increasing achievement scores and lowering dropout rates and retention rates of students in the program. Continued funding will assure that more students participate and benefit from its positive effects, Contin-ued funding and evaluation of results are imperative if AISD is to achieve Goal 6 of the AMERICA 2000 action plan that by the year 2000, every school in America will be free of drugs, as well as AISD's first strategic objective that every student will function at his/her optimal level of achievement and will progress successfully through the system. According to PL 99-570, no local education agency shaU be eligible to receive funds or any other form of financial assistance under any federal program unless it certifies to its state agency that it has adopted and implemented a program to prevent the use of illicit drugs and alcohol by students and employees. MegaSkills 1991-92 Allocation\n$40,650 Students whose parents participated in the MegaSkills workshops had higher test scores than the national averages, as well as higher attendance and lower discipline and retention rates than other elementary students districtwide. These students also showed improvement in these areas since the 1990-91 school year. Nearly all the parents reported that they would recommend the workshops others, and nearly all the principals believe it is important to continue providing the workshops. to The MegaSkills program, created by Dr. Dorothy Rich, founder and president of the Home and School Institute, offered parenting skiUs workshops to parents at 52 District schools. The series of five to eight workshops focuses on such skills as confidence, motivation, effort, responsibility, initiative, perseverance, caring, common sense, teamwork, and problem solving. Each workshop consists of information-sharing, large and small group discussions, and demonstrations of hands-on activities (called \"recipes\") which cm be repeated at home with children. Two MegaSkills facilitators were hired: one from AISD who was paid from the DFSC grant, and one from the A-t- Coalition, paid for by IBM. Additional workshops were offered at five businesses and three neighboring school districts, but the results of this report only include students from AISD schools. Eight area businesses contributed more than $13,000 in cash, services, or facilities to the MegaSkills project: Advanced Micro Devices, DuRite Duplication, HEB Grocery, IBM, Markborough Texas/Harris Branch, Southwestern Bell Telephone, 3M, and Southwest Area Council of the Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce. Additional funding in the amount of $21,980 was also provided by the Chapter 1 grant. The AISD MegaSkills facilitator sent letters to all elementary campuses describing the program and requesting signed letters of intent and leadership nominations from those campuses interested in providing the workshops. Upon completion of 10 hours of training, leaders received certification from the Home and School Institute to become workshop leaders. In 1991-92, a total of 214 District staff, campus staff, and parents received training as workshop leaders. An additional 46 leaders from 1990-91 continued to lead workshops. The schools advertised the workshops to parents through fliers, PT A or school newsletters, AISD cable channel announcements, and advertisements in the city paper. What information about drug use prevention did the program provide? The MegaSkills facilitator and the Drug-Free Schools project facilitator collaborated on an effort to expand the scope of the workshops to include more information about drug and alcohol use, prevention, and detection. During the course of the year the project facilitator left his position, but the curriculum plan is expected to be in place for the 1992-93 school year. Evaluation A number of methods were used to evaluate the McgaSkills programs, including surveys of parents and school staff, and student success measures such as achievement, attendance, discipline, and retention rates At each workshop, parents were asked to fill in the names of their children on the sign-in form so that ORE could create a database to assess the aforementioned measures of success for the students whose parents were involved in the program. Unfortunately, because all leaders were not firm in insisting that parents fill out the fonn, many parents neglected to provide their childrens names. Therefore, the database did not contain a complete record of students potentially served by this program. The following results are based on those students included in the database. 2691.29 MegaSkills Student Characteristics Of the 1,196 elementary students included in the analysis: 5% were in pre-K, 25% were in kindergarten, 15% were in grade 1, 14% were in grade 2, 12% were in grade 3, 12% were in grade 4, 11% were in grade 5, and 4% were in grade 6 (see Figure 18)\n 15% were African American, 35% were Hispanic, and 50% were Other\n 11 % were limited English proficient (LEP)\n 46% were low income\n 30% of the students were identified as at risk\n 13 % of the students were identified as gifted/talented\nand 10% were overage for their grade. FIGURE 18 GRADE LEVEL OF MEGASKILLS STUDENTS 1991-92 2iid grade The GENESYS program examined achievement, attendance, discipline, and retention rates for the group of students in the ORE database. Figure 19 compares MegaSkills students 1991-92 attendance, discipline, and retention rates with their 1990-91 rates, and the 1991-92 rates of elementary students districtwide. Achievement MegaSkills students achievement was analyzed in three ways. Program students scores on two standardized tests were compared to national averages, to predicted scores, and to District averages. In a comparison of 1992 ITBS/NAPT achievement scores to 1991 national norms, the MegaSkills students scores were above the national average in reading in five of six comparisons, and above the national average in mathematics in all six comparisons. The 1992 ITBS/NAPT scores for these students were also examined using OREs Report on Program Effectiveness (ROPE). ROPE predicts achievement scores for the group of students who have both 1991 ITBS/TAP scores and 1992 ITTBS/NAPT scores. These predictions are then compared to the students actual scores. The difference between these two scores is called the ROPE residual score, which is based on a grade equivalent score scale. If students ROPE residual scores are far enough above or below zero to achieve statistical significance, they are said to have either \"exceeded predicted gain\" or to be \"below predicted gain.\" Nonsignificant residual scores are classified as \"achieved predicted gain.\" j MegaSkills students scores exceeded predicted levels in two comparisons, achieved predicted levels in 11, and were below predicted levels in no comparisons. The Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) scores of program students in grades 3 and 5 were also compared to District averages. The 27 I 1 (TAAS) scores of program students in grades 3 and 5 were also compared to District averages. The percentage of MegaSkills students who mastered the TAAS was higher in eight comparisons, and the same in seven, and below in none. Anendance Compared with the attendance rates for elementary students districtwide, the rate for the MegaSkills students was higher in both the fall 1991 and the spring 1992 semesters. When the attendance rates are compared to these same students during the 1990-91 school year, attendance rates increased from the spring of 1991 to the fall of 1991, and then dropped slightly in the spring of 1992. A decline in attendance between the fall and spring semesters is common districtwide at all grade levels. Discipline The rate of discipline incidents for MegaSkills students was lower than that of elementary students districtwide in 1991-92, as well as for these same students during the 1990-91 school year. Retention Compared with the percentage of all AISD elementary students recommended for retention for the 1992- 93 school year, the percentage of MegaSkills students recommended for retention was lower. FIGURE 19 PROGRESS INDICATORS FOR MEGASKILLS STUDENTS AND OTHER ELEMENTARY STUDENTS IN AISD, 1991-92 Indicator Semester MegaSkills Students: 1991-92 MegaSkills Students 1990-91 AISD Elementary 1991-92 Attendance Rate Fall 1991 97,0%\n97.3% 96.5% Spring 1992 96.6% 96.3% 96.0% Discipline Rate Fall 1991 0.0% 0.3% 0.1% Spring 1992 0.0% 0.3% 0.2% Retention Rate Spring 1992 0.3% NA 0.4% Parent Opinion At each workshop parents were asked to complete a sign-in sheet and a session feedback form. The sign- in sheet functioned as both an attendance record and a student roster. Because the leaders did not insist that *e forms be filled out, the attendance record was not accurate. A total of 1,666 parents from more than 30 different schools completed feedback sheets evaluating the workshops. Nearly all (90%) said they gained new information during the workshop (N = 1,646)\n Nearly all (96%) would recommend MegaSkills workshops to others (N = 1,651)\n The vast majority (80%) said the workshops helped them increase their understanding of their role in their childrens education (N = 1,372)\n2891.29 Almost half (49%) reported that since attending the workshops, they have increased their involvement at their childrens school (N = 1,339). Parents views were split in-these areas: A third (33%) agreed that the lessons helped em teach their children about the dangers of drugs and alcohol: about one fourth (26%) selected a neutral response, and over one third (37%) selected \"not applicable\" (N = 1,315)\n Nearly a third (31%) said their childrens grades have improved since using these recipes: another third (35%) selected a neutral response, and another third (33%) selected \"not applicable (N = 1,324)\nand A third (34%) repotted that the recipes had a positive impact on eir childrens attendance in school: less than one third (31%) selected a neutral response, another third (33%) selected \"not applicable,\" one percent disagreed, and one percent selected more than one response (N = 1,325). Parents reported at they received new infonnation and would recommend the workshops to others. In the 1992-93 school year, MegaSkills funding will be provided by both Drug-Free Schools and Chapter 2. Since the DFSC grant will continue to fund a large portion of the program, more emphasis should be placed on helping parents teach their children about the dangers of drugs and alcohol, as well as helping them identify behaviors that indicate possible drug and alcohol use. Principal Opinion A total of 37 principals\nreturned a questionnaire at the end of the year assessing the program at their school. The results indicate that of the children whose parents participated in the woikshops, most principals reported: Improved or much improved academic work (69%\nN = 36), Better or much better attitudes (74%\nN = 34), and Fewer or much fewer behavioral problems (74%\nN = 35). See Figures 20, 21, and 22 for a breakdown of all responses to these questions. FIGURE 20 PRINCIPALS ASSESSMENT OF MEGASKILLS STUDENTS ACADEMIC WORK FIGURE 21 PRINCIPALS ASSESSMENT OF MEGASKILLS STUDENTS ATTITUDE ssx Neutral Much Improved 11% Better 53% 29 1 ) i Most principals also agreed agreed that\nor strongly FIGURE 22 It is important to continue offering MegaSkills at their school (9'1%- N = 37)\nThe training increased panicipating parents involvement in their childrens education (86%\nN = 36)\nMost of the panicipating parents improved or increased their communication with their childrens teachers (67%\nN = 36)\nParticipating parents seemed . -------more relaxed in discussing their children, education, and the school (76 % N = 34)\nand ^ey had seen a noticeable difference in the behaviors and attitudes of the student whose parents participated in the training (71%\nN = 34), The DFSC cost per student was $33.99 (40.650/1.196). 30 STUDENTS behavioral Fewer . 60 / Q megaskills problems About the Same \\ 26% Much fewer 1456 J4 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 February 1, 2000 TO\nDivision of Instructioj FROM\njction Dr. Bonnie Leslejyy,. AAssssoocciiate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT\nDivision Meeting\nWednesday, February 2 Let's use our meeting this month to take stock\" of where we are on our Work Plan for 1999-2000. Please bring your copy. People giving reports need to be brief and talk fast. A 1.2000-2001 Curriculum Catalog 2. 2000-2001 Proposed Calendar 3. ESL Update 4. Middle School Publication and Plans 5. NSF Update 6. Personalized Education Plans 7. Talent Development Plan 8. Instructional Standards - Update 9. Cultural Diversity and Prejudice Reduction Training 10. Elementary Literacy Update 11. Curriculum Mapping Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Karen Broadnax Linda Austin Vanessa Cleaver and Dennis Glasgow Gary Smith Bonnie Lesley Mable Donaldson Marion Woods 12. Assessment Plan 13. Collaborative Action Team 14. Parent-School Compacts Pat Price Mona Briggs and Eddie McCoy Kathy Lease Debbie Milam and Marion Baldwin Pat Price and Leon Adams WHEW!! Some planning we need to do\n1. Schedule of summer training and notification to teachers. 2. What to do about thematic instruction? BAUadg 5 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Friday, February 04, 2000 4:05 PM JOHNSON, VIRGINIA\nMILAM, DEBBIE LEASE, KATHY R. RE\npartnership evaluation Thanks for following up, Debbie. I think you are going to be impressed with the work that Virginia has done. I am. Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: JOHNSON, VIRGINIA Friday, February 04, 2000 10:22 AM MILAM, DEBBIE LESLEY, BONNIE, LEASE, KATHY R. RE: partnership evaluation How about Wednesday 2/9 in the morning or Friday 2/11 in the afternoon? Original Message From: MILAM, DEBBIE Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2000 3:59 PM To: JOHNSON, VIRGINIA Subject\nRE: partnership evaluation okay. Let me know what is good for you. Debbie Miiam Volunteers in Public Schools Original Message From: Sent: To: MILAM, DEBBIE JOHNSON, VIRGINIA Thursday, February 03, 2000 2:56 PM Subject: RE: partnership evaluation I am finalizing it now, in between our orientation sessions on the upcoming NWEA level testing. Lets get together some time next week and you can give me some input on the final draft. There are two sections, per Julios request: Community Engagement, and Resources. Original Message From\nMILAM, DEBBIE Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2000 1:36 PM To:JOHNSON, VIRGINIA Subject\npartnership evaluation Virginia, Dr. Lesley said that you put together a great evaluation piece for the NSF partners. She thought it might be useful for our community programs and suggested I get with you sometime. Let me know when you have time to show it to me. Debbie MUam Volunteers in Public Schools 1 6 LL ^h's/oo II 1- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 (501) 324-2131 4 March 14. 2000 TO: Everyone FROM\ne^)r.. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT\nThe Value of Assessments and Data Analysis Please read carefully the attached article about the results of a school that uses the NWEA Achievement Level Tests that you have just administered. You may also wish to share this information with your staff. 4 '^1- -ft : -J* The new assessments created tons of extra work for everyone involved, but if they help us improve and align teaching and learning, they are well worth the effort! Carrie Martin Elementarys story may help you ensure improved results at your school! Attachment BAL/rcm # I 8ft: 3 a#\n-,\nData-Driven Success 4 when fourth-graders at Carrie Martin Elementary School made the second highest gains on the 1998 Colorado State Assessment in reading and writing, state officials wondered how we could have achieved so much so quickly. A few privately joked that we must have cheated, but one look at the data showed our changes were serious and real. Eighty percent of Carrie Martin students passed the state reading test, and 65 percent passed the writing test. This compared to 65 percent passing the reading test and 33 percent passing the writing test the year before. And it compares to statewide averages of 60 percent and 30 percent, respectively. Our success is all the more remarkable because more than 25 percent of our students qualify for the free and reduced- price lunch program, and 22 percent have special education individualized education plans. (In Colorado, special education students are required to attempt the state tests. If the tests are too difficult for a student, a zero is averaged into the schools score for that student.) How did we raise our scores so dra-matjcally? We used our assessment program to measure everything that affected student performanceTThen we changed or cut anything that didnt im-prove achievement. 1 Data-driven instruction Carrie Martin is one of 18 elementary schools in the Thompson School District, a primarily rural district of 14,325 students in northern Colorado. Frustrated with the limited information that standardized tests gave us, district officials began using Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) achievement-level tests 10 years ago, but we didnt get serious about data-driven instrucrion How one elementary school mined assessment data to improve instruction By Keith Liddle until four years ago. Thats when we started relying on pre-assessment and state content standards to identify student needs and learning styles, then using that information to plan and implement teaching strategies appropriate for each child. Pivotal to our assessment program are the NWEA achievement-level tests, which have been custom-designed to align with our curriculum and to predict how students will do on the state tests. We used the data from the NWEA tests to measure student progress and the effects of changes in die curriculum. The data also allowed us to predict performance on the state tests, to encourage students to do better, and to point out specific areas where they need to work harder. Even before we began using NWEA tests, we realized we had been focusing too much on middle or average students. If we were going to challenge all of our students appropriately, we needed to raise our benchmarks and stop teaching to the middle. We now try to teach each child at his or her own achievement level. To measure how were doing, we test children at their achievement level^which isnt necessarily their grade level. An advanced fourth-grader might take achievement tests at the sixth-grade level, while a classmate might be tested at the third-grade level. NWEA helped us set up this system by sending representatives to meet with a group of teachers from our district. Together, they drew from NWE^ bank of 15,000 field-tested items to develop math and reading tests that aligned with our curriculum. NWEA helped us develop short assessments, called locator tests or placement tests, to determine at what level each student should be tested. Charting individual students growth on achievement-level tests allows us to focus on each students needs and progress. Most students take pencil-and^ per tests in the fall and spring. At-risk studentsincluding those who score below the benchmark in the fall also take a computerized version of the tests as a mid-year assessment. Most students show progress after the fell test, and they cant wait to tell their parents and teachers about their success. The mid-year test provides the positive feedback these kids need, and most are never at risk again. TTie achievement-level tests also help us challenge our more advanced students. For example, when last years fifth-grade students broke the previous school record on NWEA math scores in 10 years, we told them, We think you can do better. We raised the bar as high as we could, challenging some students to take tests at the highest level. Our students rose to the challenge: Twenty scored above the eighth-grade benchmarks, 17 scored above the seventh- grade benchmarks, and the majority of our special education students J 30 www.electronic-school.com March 2000 t rscored at or above the fifth- and sixthgrade benchmarks. Crunching the numbers I NWEA provides ongoing help with test ' administration, scoring, and data interpretation, which helps us use the test data appropriately to improve learning. Data are collected and analyzed for the ivhgedistrict, for specific schools, for 5 'Hiferent grade levels, and for each stu- TemT Detailed test data for each student showing the students test scores and how they compare to whats expected ~are used dunng parent-teacher confer-prices. For every single student, we set gSalTthat include what the parents will HoTwhat the student will do, and what the teacher will do. If a student is below -yhrbenchmarlc, the student, the parent, and the teacher develop a personal edu-cation plan. Together, they review state -assessment scores, achievement-level test scores, classroom activities, and a variety of other factors. Then they decide on a plan that might include tutoring, summer school^ or other actions to help the student succeed. tests also enable us to provide accountability information~to our broader \u0026amp;5l!ata from the achievement-level school community. Every year, we compile a school profile and an annual report for the district, the state, and our accountability committee. This report includes an action plan, an oudine of our goals, and a report on our measured growth. Among other things, it also includes graphs of our test scores, along with breakouts of the data, such as how girls scored versus boys. Members of the accountability committee which includes staff, parents, Ttiident council members, aniad (commu- nity representative!___-u_s_e_ t_h_e_s_e _r_e_sults to evaluate whats working and to recommend changes. The committee also uses the mtormation to develop surveys that are sent to parents and teachers for more input. We analyze the information gathered from these surveys to make changes at the classroom level. Based on our survey results, teachers detemuned what fifthgraders needed to exit our elementary school. We worked backward, so each grade level was a stepping stone to the exit requirements. For example, we changed our spelling practices to improve daily writing. Each grade level was given about 20 words that are considered no-excuse words. The weekly spelling test was no longer the only criterion for the spelling grade\nif a no-excuse word was misspelled in a writing assignment, the students spelling grade could slip from an A to a C or lower. The no-excase words are cumulative, so students nnust be able to spell words required in previous grades, as well as their own. Once students understood the importance of the no-excuse words, most learned them well. Making time for tests VNo change_________ ___________ Initially, some teachers thought the comes without problems^ achievement-level tests were just another assessmentand a big waste of time. Many said, Were not going to have time to teach if we have to administer all these assessments.' To address these concerns, the districts assessment director and NWEA representatives explaiped how achievement- level tests are differenthow they would show students progress over time. We would be able to see whether our students progressed as much in grade five, for instance, as they did in grades three or tour Hearing this caused some additional anxiety among teachers, who feared they would receive poor evaluations if their students didnt progress. However, as teachers implemented the tests and COMPUTERIZED TESTING By Allan Olson I Assessment experts are just beginning to tap the potential for achievementlevel testing. The next step is to leave paper and pencil behind and move on to computerized adaptive tests that measure each individual students achievement in less time and with more reliability than anything weve seen so far. The Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA), a nonprofit assessment organization that serves more than 300 member school districts around the country, is in the final stages of developing an Internet-enabled assessment system that adapts questions to the performance of each student When a student answers questions correctly, the questions become more and more difficult\nincorrect answers lead to easier questions. The idea is to help students avoid the frustration caused by too-difficult questions or the boredom resulting from questions that are too easy. These tests can be shorterand take less class timewhile still providing a highly reliable estimate of each students achievement level. Research shows that scores from an adaptive test are as valid as those from a traditional test of twice the length. As with NWEAs paper-and-pencil achievement-level tests, the computerized tests can be customized according to a school districts curriculum and state standards. Each test draws from a large, calibrated pool of questions that vary according to each students answers. No test items will be repeated for a student who takes the test more than once. These adaptive tests can be designed for both PC-based and Mac-based networks, which enables schools to give tests to whole classes of students and transmit results for scoring and analysis. Typically, these computerized adaptive tests cost less to administer than conventional standardized tests and eliminate the cost of test booklets and materials handling. Because test administrators can connect to a testing service and download appropriate testing infonnation for each student as needed, tests can be kept secure. The new computerized system, now being tested in five school districts, will soon be available nationwide. For more information, check out NWEAs web site at 6t^://mino.mi)ea.i\u0026gt;rg. Allan Olson {allon@nwea.orgj is executive director of the Northwest Evaluation Association, a nonprofit assessment organization in Portland, Ore., that serves more than 300 school districts nationwide. March 2000 www.electronic-school.com 31 II FMO PRESS STwo important new titles from Dr. Jamie McKenzie, a pathbreaking former superintendent and an inventor of leading edge school programs making powerful use of networks and information technologies. Beyont/ Tcchnofo^y Shows how to create information literate schools emphasizing questioning and research. $20.00 -180 pages 2000 ISBN: 0967407826 iJ Is HowTeacfiers Learn Technology Be?* Outlines effective professional development strategies to recruit and win support of all teachers. $20.00-180 pages 1999 ISBN:0967407818 it- r Jamie McKezie Editor From Now On: The Educational Technology Journal saw for themselves how information from the tests could be used to improve student learning, the teachers became less fearful. Still, theres no denying the fact that the achievement-level teststwo one-hour sessions in the fall and another two in the springdo take some time away from ofoer activities. To make time for the tests (and academics), we have made some sacrifices. For example, we rarely schedule schoolwide assemblies or activities that pull students out of the regular classroom and away from core curriculum. Instead, we focus on what we need to teach to meet our goals. It turns out that this has not been much of a hardship. Our surveyshow that students, parents, and teachers all want to stay focused on aca- ~demics. We decided to give up something else last yearthe Iowa Test of Basic Skills. Initially, the school board thought we needed the Iowa test to measure how schools were doing. But as board members saw how rich the achievement-level test data could be, they realized that we didnt need the Iowa test and that the rime would be better spent working on areas identified by the NWEA tests. Teachers werent the only ones who were nervous about the tests. Some parents and students also worried, esjpe-ciaUy when they realized that the district tied these test results to high school graduation requirements. We addressed this concern by educating parents about the tests and the data when their children enter third grade. Most parents are amazed to see that we can predict as early as third grade whether their child is on track for high school graduation. While this idea scares some parents at first, it also prompts them to help their child grow academically. We try to limit anxiety during testing rimes. We reassure the students that theres no rime limit\nwe just want to see this to the six days of state testing that leave students mentally and emotionally drained. http://fno.org how much theyve grown since the last test. Stu Jents who have had experience To order books call toll free 1-888-453-4046 Purchase securely online http ://f no. org/books. html with these achievement-level tests typi-cally look torward to each testing time. They vvarit to be able to prove what theyve learned and what they know. Overall, the test administration is not as grueling for a child as other tests can be. A student can usually complete a test in 45 to 60 minutes. Because reading and math tests are given on separate days, testing takes two days. Contrast Beyond testing Of course, no single test can guarantee success. But weve used the achieve-ment- level test results to work with our entire school communitystudents, parents, classroom teachers, district administrators, and othersto measure the effects of different strategies. By measuring before-and-after test results, for instance, we found that a strict discipline program, coupled with incentives, led to higher student achievement. Students who come to class ill-prepared, for example, or who talk without raising their hands or dont stay on task, get a check. Students who have fewer than three checks each quarter are rewarded through recognition, additional recess time, and other bonuses. Test scores also improved after we increased homework for all students even for kindergartners. Every night, our students are expected to write a paragraph and read for 30 minutes. Homework also includes activities such as going to the grocery store to estimate how much selected items will cost and to compare that estimate to the total. As these activities increased parent involvement, parents have requested guidance in monitoring their childrens efforts, So we developed a system in which teachers send home a weekly sheet that tells what each child is doing, gives a status on assignments, and notes any problems, discipline or otherwise. Parents dont have to wait until the end of the quarter to know how their child is doing. Achievement-level testing allows us to measure the success of every initiative. These tests keep us on track and allow us to create higher standards for otjr students. And, weve found, when you have higher standards, students rise to meet them. Keith Uddle (Iiddlek@ttiomp5on.k12.co.us) is principal of the Carrie Martin Elementary School in Loveland, Colo. Editors Note: For a discussion of the technology of data mining, see Smart Data: Mining the School District Data Warehouse, Electronic School, September 1999. I i I I I I I I ( I I I I I I I I ( I j f I K' I I I j I 5 ! 1 32 www.electronic-school.com March 2000 I i I L Compliance Report Information Section 2.1.1 We have met with Steve Ross on the following dates since March 15, 2000: May 5, 2000 Leon Adams and PRE Staff to discuss Title I student achievement issues June 23, 2000 Ed, Virginia, and SteveInformation on schools August 4, 2000 Phone Conference with Steve Ross re: Program Evaluation August 25, 2000 Steve RossProgram Evaluation August 31, 2000 Steve Ross^Title I/Program Evaluation September 1, 2000 Conference call with Steve Ross and Dr. Camine re: $20 million ADE loan October 18, 2000 Steve RossProgram Evaluation October 20, 2000 Conference Call with Steve Ross re: Program Evaluation November 2, 2000 Steve RossProgram Evaluation November 17, 2000 Steve Ross, Kathy Lease, and Compliance Committee November 30, 2000 Steve Ross-Program Evaluation December 1, 2000 Steve RossProgram Evaluation December 15, 2000 Steve Ross and Compliance CommitteeConference call with Kathy Lease because of ice storm Program Evaluation Agenda Data Collected Data In Process Future Data Collection PreK-3 Literacy Plan 1. Fall 99 and Spring 00 Observation Survey and Developmental Reading Assessment (OS/DRA) 1. Spring 01 Observation Survey and Developmental Reading Assessment 1. Longitudinal study of impact of PreK-3 Literacy Plan using 4th Grade Benchmark Scores. 2. Fall 00 Observation Survey and Developmental Reading Assessment (OS/DRA) 2. Reviewing impact of PreK-3 literacy plan using growth data from Achievement Level Test (ALT) 2. Longitudinal study of impact of PreK programs on student achievement using OS/DRA, Benchmark, and ALT data 3. 99-00 Climate Survey of parents and teachers 3. Impact of summer school on achievement using a comparison of Spring 99 and Fall 00 ALT scores. 3. Impact of Extended Year schools on achievement using ALT, OS/DRA, and Benchmark scores 4. Promotion Rate 5. Attendance 6. Percent of students eligible for Free and Reduced-Cost meals 7. Demographic data: race, gender 8. Special Populations: Special Needs Students, Limited English Proficient National Science Foundation Project Components (K-12) 1. Attendance 2. Percent of students eligible for Free and Reduced-Cost meals 3. Demographic data: race, gender 4. Special Populations\nSpecial Needs Students, limited English proficient 1. Annual updates for SY 2001-2002 (attendance, demographics, special populations, promotion, free and reduced meals, teacher professional development and certification) 2. Identifying trends in math achievement utilizing SAT-9, ALT, Benchmark, CRT, Explore, Plan, ACT, and Advanced Placement Test scores 3. Identifying trends in science achievement utilizing SAT-9, ALT, CRT, Explore, Plan, ACT, and Advanced Placement Test scores. 4. Identifying outcomes of SMART using fall and spring ALT scores 1. Longitudinal study of trends in math achievement by race and gender utilizing SAT-9, ALT, CRT, Benchmark, Explore, Plan, ACT, and Advanced Placement scores 5. Promotion Rate 6. Teacher professional development 7. Teacher certification 5. Identifying outcomes of After School Science Club utilizing attendance rosters and student survey 6. Identifying outcomes of professional development utilizing ALT and end-of-unit math and science CRT scores. 7. Identifying outcomes of professional development utilizing teacher survey data from end-of-unit math and science CRTs 8. Climate survey (teacher, parent, student, administrator) 9. Middle School Survey: Math and Science items (teacher and student perceptions) 8. Identifying teacher/student perceptions of newly implemented science curriculum using middle school survey data. 9 10. Seventh Grade SEPUP Survey (Fall 00) 11. Teacher survey, grades 2-8, at end of each math and science module 12. SAT-9 (math and science reasoning), grades 5, 7, 10 13. Math Benchmark Exams (Grades 4 and 8) 14. End-of-Math-Module CRT (Grades 3-8) 15. End-of-Science Unit CRT (Grades 3-8)______________________________ 14. Math ALT (Grades 2-8)__________ 15. Science ALT (Grades 3-8)_______ 16. Algebra I ALT (Grades 7-11) 17. Algebra II ALT (Grades 9-11) 18. Geometry ALT (Grades 9-11)_____ 19. Biology ALT (Grades 9-11)_______ 20. Physics ALT (Grades 10-11)______ 21. Chemistry ALT (Grades 9-11) 22. Advanced Placement Tests 23. Explore (Grade 8)_______________ 24. Plan (Grade 10)_________________ 25. ACT (Grade 11)________________ 26. Math course completition and final grades (Algebra I and II, Geometry, Concept Geometry, Trigonometry, Calculus, Statistics) 27. Science course completition and final grades (Biology, Physics, Chemistry) 28. Impact of SMART summer program using pre and post test scores 29. Impact of After School Science Clubs using 8 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent\nTo: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Friday, March 24, 2000 1:16 PM LEASE, KATHY R. RE: Steve Ross I would love to join you, but I am in another meeting in a few minutes on a grant proposal. I wish I had known. Original Message From\nSent: To: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Friday, March 24, 2000 11:14 AM LESLEY, BONNIE Steve Ross Bonnie, Steve Ross is in town for a meeting that his wife is attending. He is coming by about 1:00 to visit with me about Middle School evaluation. Could you join us? If so. I'll let you know when he gets here. Thanks, Kathy Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501-324-2122 (VM) 501-324-2126 (Fax) krlease@irc.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 1 9 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Tuesday, May 23, 2000 4\n55 PM LEASE, KATHY R. Middle School Survey I do not feel that the questions on the survey forms give us much information about the middle school transition issues-which, I thought, was the reason for the survey-to use in the middle school evaluation. I suggest some of the following be added or used instead of those on the general sheet. 1. I want to know if kids like the way that math (and English and science) are taught this year, as compared to last year. 2. I want to know if kids felt adequately challenged by the instruction they received. Was it too difficult? too easy? interesting and engaging? 3. I want to now if they prefer hands-on, group activities or for the teacher to direct the class through lecture and recitation. 4. I want to know if they had adequate amounts of meaningful homework. Was it challenging and interesting? 5. I want to know if they feel that their teachers care about them. 6. Do they like working with a team of teachers? 7. Have they had opportunities to participate in intramural activities or sports? 8. Have they had opportunities to participate in clubs? 9. Are the number of periods in the day about right? 10. Do they feel they are being well prepared for the next grade level? for high school? 11. Do they like their elective classes? 12. If they need extra help, do they get it? 13. Is time used wisely? too many free periods? field trips? videos? 14. Are kids well behaved in the school? 15. Is the principal or assistant principals visible to the students in the halls? cafeteria? In other words, is the middle school restructuring working as planned? The questions should be about curriculum, but also about the other components of the middle school plan. Did anyone consult with Linda Austin about these surveys? She's the expert and has sample forms for surveys. I am very worried now that at this late date these surveys cannot be done before the students depart for the summer. I thought they had already been done and the forms had been collected. I only got these drafts to review today. Please keep me informed about where we are. 1 10 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Monday, June 12, 2000 3:30 PM CARNINE, LESLIE V.\nLACEY. MARIAN G.\nMITCHELL, SADIE AUSTIN, LINDA RE: Middle School Evaluation Implementation and Evaluation? Kathy Lease is supposed to present the program evaluation in July. I tried to schedule a meeting with her and Ed last week to see where they are on this, but Kathy left town, and we didn't have it. I'll catch her later this week when she returns. Original Message- From\nSent: To: Cc: Subject: CARNINE, LESLIE V. Monday, June 12, 2000 3:22 PM LESLEY, BONNIE\nLACEY, MARIAN G.\nMITCHELL, SADIE AUSTIN, LINDA Middle School Evaluation Implementation and Evaluation? I know you heard the request for the plan and / or information on what we believe is working and what plans we have for an evaluation. I think we are still in good shape on this issue and Baker is not pressing. I also think we should keep this issue in \"front of us\". 1 11 LESLEY, BONNIE From\nSent: To: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Monday, July 31,2000 9:03 PM ADAMS, LEON\nMcCOY, EDDIE FW: Design Notes FYI-Here are the notes from Steve Ross. He wants to meet on August 25 (is that Friday?) at 1:00, if thats OK with us. Unless I hear from you. Ill tell him OK. KL Original Message From: Steve Ross-f\u0026amp;MTI^mwhbi Sent: TuesdayvJui To: LEASE, KATlXR. T7000 4\n5^M iemphis.edu] \u0026lt;mailto:[SIVITP:smross(g).metnphis.edu1\u0026gt; Subject: Design Noles' Hi Kathy, Good to see you last week. Attached are my notes. Please distribute to Ed and Virginia. Turns out that I wont be able to meet on 8/4. However, perhaps you could identify a time for a speaker phone call the following week, and we can determine status of the project. Let me know if there are any Unknown Document questions about the notes. Thanks! 1 Kathy, here are my notes on the research plan. Basic Design is Program-Matched Control School with 9 SFA School/9 Controls Leon Adams will provide qualitative confirmation of the initial matchings and history of implementation in grades within schools. Ed Williams will examine 1996 SAT data to ensure that matched pairs were equivalent at baseline. Units of Analysis: Students nested in schools nested in programs Dependent measures: All subscales of all available test data Pretest (Covariate) 1996 SAT, Grades 2-5, Reading/Language Posttests 1997 SAT (Grades 2,3*) 1998 SAT (Grade 3) 1999 SAT (Grade 5*) 2000 Tests Observation (K, 1, 2) ALT (2,3,4,5*) Benchmark (4) Pretest score from 1996 Analyses 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Covariance/longitudinal: Treatment x Year (1997, 1999) on SAT for 1999 fifth graders with pretest Covariance/By Year: 1997 3'* graders with pretest\n1999 fifth graders with pretest No covariate/Grade by Year: Treatment by Grade (2,3) in 1997\nTreatment (Grade 3) in 1998\nTreatment (Grade 5) in 1999. Observation x Grade (K, 1, and 2) in 2000 ALT by Grade (2, 3, 4, 5) in 2000 (Also, separate covariate analysis in Grade 5) Benchmark by Grade (4) in 2000. Special Analyses Repeat above disaggregating for ethnicity, LEP, and no Mobility (1 grade enrollment at school) Factor in implementation scores provided by Memphis. 12 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Sunday, August 06, 2000 10:04 PM TRUETT, IRMA\nJOHNSON, VIRGINIA\nWILLIAMS, ED Memo for Board Agenda Meeting Importance: High Dear Folks, Attached is the memo I drafted for the Board agenda. Virginia, would you and Irma look it over and make any necessary changes? Irma, will you take it down to Bonnie, get her initials, then deliver it to Bev before noon on Tuesday? If you all have questions, let me know. I can make revisions tomorrow night or you all can make the revisions, just let me know what your suggestions are. We can wait to turn it in until Tuesday, as long as we get it there by noon. Ed and Virginia, what Dr. Gamine said he wanted for the agenda and board meetings is just the executive summaries, the conclusions, and the recommendations. We need to keep the recommendations very general, such as request that the curriculum division make additional recommendations on ....or study the possibilities of... I feel sure that Bonnie wont have enough time to react to all the reports to make specific curriculum and instruction recommendations. She will need to see the reports, but I want to see all final versions fkst. I can check my email every night. This will really be a tight schedule and may require some midnight oil, but we have to meet this deadline. The only extra time we might buy is to give them the reports in the Friday package, but I would really like to have them ready for Thursday night. Keep me posted!!! Hang in there everybody!! Kathy Bd Rpt Aug 2000 prog evat.doc 1 13 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LEASE. KATHY R. Thursday, August 10. 2000 11:06 AM CARNINE. LESLIE V. RE: program evaluations We don't have any national comparison data for ESL. Our consultant from Austin was supposed to send Ed some studies, but he hasn't done so. We'll do some web searches and see what we come up with. We'll also see if we can come up with some national sources on Middle School to add. Ed, Eddie and Virginia stayed late last night. I told them they had to bring their pj's and couldn't go home until these reports were finished. We are still getting corrections. I just found out that Dodd's DRA scores were incomplete. That means all of that data has to be recalculated-never ending story. That omission impacts the Title l/Pre-k-3 evaluation and the ESL evaluation. We'll keep you updated on the latest versions. The time of day is printed on the bottom of the reports so you can discard accordingly. We've gotten no feedback from Bonnie, but we are routing the reports for final review to as many of the curriculum folks as are in the building (workshops going on today!). Karen Broadnax has already been in to add her changes. Later, KL Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: CARNINE, LESLIE V. Thursday, August 10, 2000 10:09 AM LEASE, KATHY R. RE: program evaluations As you would guess I had only a very brief look at the report and my only reaction at this time is the language assumes we may be different. What I'm suggesting is that the Middle School report suggests the change from Juniors Highs was because of.... If you look at national data the concern about middle level education and middle level youngsters is very consistent. People feel much better about early childhood, elementary and high school than they do about middle or junior high. Most researchers suggest this is because of the age and maturity issues plaguing these young people. Age of raging hormones...! Obviously your lead statements should be neutral rather than conclusive. I had a similar thought when you wrote about ESL, etc. Are those youngsters really different from their counterparts nationally or are we seeing lower achievement than the national data???? Based on what you indicated the district program may be better than or worse than. Any idea which??? Obviously if I'm correct you may want to color the recommendations differently??? Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Thursday, August 10, 2000 9:02 AM CARNINE, LESLIE V. program evaluations Dr. Carnine, Here are the first two program evaluation reports. Bonnie is not in so I wanted you to be able to glance at them to see if they pass muster. The other two are on their way after a few other corrections are made. Each report will have a cover page for Board. Kathy File: Executive Summary ESL 99-OO.doc File: Executive Summary Middle Level 99-OO.doc Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501-324-2122 (VM) 501-324-2126 (Fax) krlease@irc.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 1 14 Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 August 24, 2000 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Dr. Kathy Lease, Assistant Superintendent, PRE THROUGH: Dr. Leslie Gamine, Superintendent of Schools Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent, Curriculum and Instruction SUBJECT: Program Evaluation In accordance with the research agfenda adopted by the Board of Education and recommended by the Superintendent and Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction, the Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department is presenting its findings from the first year of program evaluation of the four areas designated for the research agenda: Title l/Elementary Literacy, Little Rock Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement (LRPMSANSF Grant), English as a Second Language Program (ESL), and Middle School Transition and Program Implementation. In order to carry out the program evaluation plan, data had to be gathered in three categories: participation, perception, and performance. In order to collect data on the performance aspect of the evaluation, it was necessary for the district to implement a new, comprehensive assessment plan. This plan is ready for full implementation with the 2000- 2001 school year. Benchmark data is now available and growth comparisons can begin for the 2000-2001 school year. Also, data was collected in the areas of participation and perception for several of the programs scheduled to be evaluated. Recognizing that program evaluation is an on-going process with continuous refinements, the Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department is presenting an executive summary of each of the four program evaluations, along with conclusions and recommendations. Program Evaluation Planning, Research, and Evaluation Little Rock School District July 2000 When gathering data for program evaluation, three areas are assessed: Participation Performance PerceptionParticipation consists of... Who was involved? What is their gender? What is their race? What school do they go to? What choices did they make regarding curricular, co-curricular, or extra-curricular activities?Performance consists of. . . Test Scores iwBenchmark Exams ^SAT-9 ^ALTs i*-Explore Grades Enrollment RatingsPerception consists of. . . Expectation Application Acquisition AttitudeProgram Evaluation Agenda 1999-2000 Middle School Transition NSF Grant ESL Program K-2 Literacy PlanLESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Tuesday, April 04, 2000 4:13 PM LEASE, KATHY R. Projects Dear Folks: I know that we have a lot on our plates right now. Here is a list of the current projects that I know about and projected due dates. If you have others, please email me. Mona- Lit Review on Middle Schools-April 24 Work with Ed on Draft of Middle School Evaluation Draft-Due May 1 Final Pieces of CM, the plan for June 5, and Implementation Plan for Procedures for Credit by Examination-To Bonnie and me by April Eddie- Title I /PreK-3 Evaluation Plan-Draft Due May 1 Lit Review on Successful Programs in Low-Performing Schools or Program evaluation of Title I schools Yvette-Benchmark and End of Course Training- Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent next year-April 28 14 for review something similar. Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501-324-2122 (VM) 501-324-2126 (Fax) krlease@irc,lrsd.kl2.ar.us 1 LRSD Assessment Plan Using Assessment to Enhance Student AchievementEssential Purposes of Assessment Improvement of Student Learning Improvement of Instructional Programs Public Accountability, Confidence, and SupportThe design of our assessment plan is guided by the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan... 2.6 No barriers to participation by qualified African-Americans in extracurricular activities 9 AP courses, honors and enriched courses and the gifted and talented program 2.7 Improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students 2.7.1 Assess academic programs for effectiveness in improving African-American achievementif not effective, modify or eliminateRDEP, continued. 2.8 Promote and encourage parental and community involvement and support in the operation of LRSD and the education of LRSD students 5.2. La. By completion of the third grade, all students will be reading independently and show understanding of words on a pageRDEP, continued... 5.2.1 Primary Grades 5.2.l.d. Identify clear objectives for student mastery of all three reading cueing systems and of knowing-how-to-leam skills\n 5.2.l.g. Monitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices\n 5.2.1.h. Provide parents/guardians with better information about their childs academic achievement in order to help facilitate the academic development of students\nRDEP, continued... 5.2.2 Intermediate Grades 5.2.2.a. By completion of the sixth grade all students will master and use daily higher level reading comprehension skills for learning in all subject areas, for making meaning in real life experiences and for personal growth and enjoyment\n 5.2.2.e. Monitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices\n 5.2.2.f. Provide parents/guardians with better information about their childs academic achievement...RDEP, continued... ra 5.2.3. Secondary Schools 5.2.3.a. Adopt as a goal that upon graduation all students will read independently with comprehension in all subject areas and be proficient in language arts, as necessary to be successful workers, citizens, and life-long learners\n 5.2.3.f. Monitor student progress and achievement using appropriate assessment devices.RDEP, continued... 5.3 Mathematics 5.3.2. Develop appropriate assessment devices for measuring individual student achievement and the success of the revised curriculum.Other guiding documents that impact assessment decisions... Strategic Plan Title I/K-3 Literacy Plan NSF Grant ACTAAP (State Accountability Plan) - Benchmark exams - End-of-Course exams - SAT-9Proposed Modifications to the LRSD Assessment Plan: Individual pre- and post-assessments for Kindergarten and 1 st grade Individual pre- and post-assessments for 2nd grade with G/T sereening second semester (CRT and Raven) Pre- and post-criterion referenced tests to measure individual student growth from year to year (grades 3-11)LRSD Assessment Plan, cont cl... State Required Assessments^ SAT-9 norm-referenced test for grades 5, 7, and 10 Primary benchmark exam (grade 4) Intermediate benchmark exam (grade 6not yet developed) Middle Level benchmark (grade 8) End-of-Course testsAlgebra I, Geometry, and LiteracyLRSD Assessment Plan, contd... District Coordinated Classroom Assessments Performance assessments aligned with Benchmark assessments and End-of-Course exams District developed CRTs measuring attainment of state standardsLittle Rock School District is committed to monitoring the individual academic growth of every student, and our assessment program must meet that need.Students use tests to ansyver these questions : a Am I learning what Im supposed to learn? Can I do what Im supposed to do? Am I trying as hard as I can? Should I try harder?Teachers use tests to ansyver these questions: Is each child growing in what he or she knows and can do? Is my teaching/instruction helping this group of students to be successful? Do any of my students need assistance from a special program? What changes do I need to make in my instruction?Parents use tests to ansyver these questions: sW ' ' How is my child doing? How is my child doing compared with others? Has my child mastered his/her grade level skills?The Board uses tests to ansyver these questions: Is the program of instruction working? Are our students meeting or exceeding the standards?Administrators use tests to ansy\\^er these questions: What staff development is needed? How and where should we alloeate resourees?State and community use tests to ansyver these questions ? How well is the district doing its job? How do our schools and district compare with others?What skills does our community expect our students to have? Literacy skills Problem solving skills Ability to work togetherSchool Report Cards.... High Stakes Accountability Accountability for individual schools Who is not achieving? - Identify by name all students who are below proficient level Why not? - Curriculum - Instruction - Assessment What are we going to do about it?Paradigm Shifts Bell Curve - Normal distribution continues to fall into predictable patterns unless interventions are made. The New Paradigm - Standards-driven system - Smart Start belief systemWhat is a standard? What we want students to know and be able to do Common assessment of students 5 performance: create tests worth teaching to Externally set criteria for passing (a rubric/scoring guide)Standards-Driven Belief System Effort-based achievement Clear expectations to students Clear content standards Alignment of assessment with curriculum and instruction Adequate amount of time Honest feedback about progress Multiple opportunities to demonstrate what students have learned.Teaching Toward Tests Worth Taking... Academic Content Skills - Charts, graphs, number line, value of money, fractions, addition, subtraction, estimation, measurement - Editing skills, specific content from reading material (3 types of texts), vocabulary, main idea, plot, character, setting, elements of style, using resource material (dictionary) Process skills - Drawing a conclusionbest answer/most reasonable - Probabilitymost likely what is missing/wh^i^ needed - Reading strategiescontext clues, drawing conclusions (main idea), inferring information: predicting, understanding why the author wrote the material, and sequencing events Problem solving skills: organizing infonnation from one or more sources/eliminating unnecessary information/defending a position (specific to material provided)/ comparing or contrasting Writing process skills: prewriting/editing/revisionChildren's self-esteem gets better yvhen they see themselves getting better, Heidi Hayes JaeobsWhat are the essential questions about assessment? What do we want to accomplish with our assessment plan? What is the purpose of the assessment system? What do we want to do with the information? How do we value the Benchmark exams?Essential Questions... continued What difference will the assessment system make in the educational experience of the students? What difference will the assessment system make to the classroom teacher? Does the assessment system prepare students for high stakes exams? What skills are required for teacher and student success?7 Steps to Increase Student Achievement... 1. Acknowledge where you are. 2. Analyze where you are. 3. Align teaching with assessment. 4. Assess in a manner that is the same as on high stakes testing. 5. Attitude is everything all the time. 6. Accentuate your focus on testing strategies. 7. Activate a plan that will meet the needs of your learners. Charity Smith, ADE15 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Friday, September 08, 2000 3:37 PM 'Steve Ross' RE: Program Effects Thanks for you emails. Both of them were well stated! KL Original Message From\nSent: To: Cc: Subject: Stevi ThflfJ 'Tsmrossi iphis.edu] __ [y? September 07, 2000_^26 PM l/carnine@lrsdadm.LRSD, 'ar.us Program Effects rK12,AR.US I have read three of the recent program evaluation reports completed by your research department. They appear to be of very good quality--well-written, clear, and comprehensive. There is substantial rationale, both logical and empirical, for giving programs time to impact student achievement. The first stage of impact is program implementation, the next is changing instruction and/or conditions for learning, and after these effects occur, achievement may be impacted. In our Memphis study, it took at least tvzo years for school reform programs to show/ positive results. In fact, after the first year, achievement scores went down! This same pattern was replicated with three different cohorts of schools. I will be sending you a copy of that report, which should be completed by 10/1/00. 1 16 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Wednesday. September 27.2000 6:33 PM MILAM. DEBBIE RE: parent involvement surveys Oh, and 1 love the idea! Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: MILAM, DEBBIE Wednesday, September 20, 2000 4:11 PM LESLEY, BONNIE CARNINE, LESLIE V. FW: parent involvement surveys Bonnie, I think you're aware of this already. Do you see a problem with it? If not. I'll send the survey to you when we finish the draft tomorrow. Frances says it's okay with her. In fact, she offered to help interview parents. Debbie Miiam Volunteers in Public Schools Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: MH HE fednesday, September 20, 2000 1J,\n! MITCHELL SAnir PAWW P9r6ht involvement surveys AM ^TRANCES H.\nLACEY, MARIAN G. Dear Sadie, Frances and Marian, Our Collaborative Action Team (CAT) would like to conduct oral interviews of parents on the subject of parental involvement. We'd like to have volunteers in a few schools on Wednesday, October 4 as parents come in for conferences. We will not have enough volunteers to cover all schools so we'll want to select at least one elementary, middle and high school, with some geographic diversity. Would this be alright with you? can run the survey by you tomorrow if you don't see a problem with this. We want to start collecting information on parental involvement since it is our major focus. Thanks, Debbie Mi lam Volunteers in Public Schools 1 17 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Wednesday. October 11,2000 5:41 PM WILLIAMS, ED\nJOHNSON, VIRGINIA\nMcCOY, EDDIE CARNINE, LESLIE V.\nLESLEY, BONNIE Regular meetings with Steve Ross Importance: High We now have our meeting scheduled with Steve Ross. Please plan to work from 9:00 until he decides to leave on October 18th. We will review with him all revisions of the program evaluations and go over any new data (just in case any is available by then). We will meet in room 12. Thanks, KL Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501-324-2122 (VM) 501-324-2126 (Fax) krlease@irc.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 1 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Monday, October 23, 2000 5:01 PM JOHNSON, VIRGINIA RE: Washington meeting Thanks, Virginia. Original Message ______ From: WOOlCVtRGlNIA Sent: To: ' Subject: Friday, October 20, 2000 11:46 LESLEY, BONNIE- Cl EAJ FW! WSShington meeting ^vANESSA\nGLASGOW, DENNIS\nCARNINE, LESLIE V. I have continued my email conversations with Dr. Jason Kim of Systemic Research and made arrangements to have all the materials sent directly to me from the December Sth CPMSA Kev Indicator and Evaluative Study Workshop for Data Managers and Evaluators. In addition, Jason says I will have access to Linda Crasco for any questions I may have. This is great because she has worked with me when I first came on board last year and we have a history of good communication. Her input will give me acess to group discussions where evaluators share \"experiences and issues in core data collection, analysis, utilization, and local evaluation.\" (I took that right off the workshop outline.) In addition, Jason may also be able to send me whatever is collected from the other members of my cohort that includes Beaumont, Dayton, and Montgomery, all of which initiated their programs in 1998. I have conveyed these details to Julio and assured him that (1) he can depend on me to benefit from this workshop, as NSF intends, even though I will not be able to attend in person, and (2) I will make sure that valuable strategies related to core data and local evaluation are implemented here in Little Rock. He has responded that this \"indeed reflects your full understanding of the role of the evaluator in the CPMSA undertaking.\" So. I think its covered from all aspects. Now if you want to send Mona Briggs to take notes it's your call, but it may not be necessary. However, you may want to talk to Vanessa as she also talked to Jason about alternatives related to her needs from the SR workshop. Original Message From: Sent\nTo\nSubject\nJOHNSON, VIRGINIA Thursday, October 19, 2000 7:51 AM LESLEY, BONNIE RE: Washington meeting You see, this is why I said to Vanessa that you would have a plan! This is a good idea and I support it. Original Message- From: Sent: To: LESLEY, BONNIE Wednesday, October 18, 2000 12:56 PM CLEAVER, VANESSA\nJOHNSON, VIRGINIA Subject: Washington meeting What if we send Mona Briggs and Ken Savage to the Washington meeting to represent us? Both understand at some level the kind of data that NSF likes to collect, etc., and Mona is great at taking notes. What do you think? Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/324-0567 (fax) 1 19 Planning, Research, and Evaluation Ish Instructional Resource Center 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 To\nGene Jones, ODM From: Kathy Lease, Asst. Supt., PRE Date: October 27, 2000 Re: Program Evaluation i We are meeting as a department with Dr. Steve Ross on November 2 at about 9:00, depending on his arrival time from Memphis. We are doing intensive work on each program evaluation to begin the revisions based on the new data that has come in. We will be meeting in Room 12 at the IRC. We would love to have you join us for the day. We will be meeting with Dr. Ross every two weeks through December. I will give you a complete schedule so that you can join us whenever possible. Most meetings are on Thursdays, except for November 19**^. i Call and leave me a message, if you can come. I will be at a meeting in North Carolina until Wednesday. I understand you really left town! We are anxious to hear about your trip. We look forward to seeing you. C: Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent Ms. Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent Mr. Junious Babbs, Associate Superintendent Mr. Brady Gadberry, Associate Superintendent Dr. Don Stewart, Associate Superintendent 20 Additional Programs and Strategies Requesting Evaluation Planning, Research, and Evaluation November 2000 SMART After School Science SECME Vital Link Benchmark Open Response Study for math Elementary Summer School Middle School Summer School High School Summer School Learning to Cope with Differences Alternative Learning Environments Lyceum Scholars High School Academic progress of ALC and ACC Charter School Hippy (as needed for Federal reporting) CAT Scottish Rite Reading Program Voyager Accelerated Reader Campus Leadership Team Survey Climate Survey 21 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Tuesday, November 28, 2000 4:31 PM BABBS, JUNIOUS\nFRANCES CAWTHON\nGadberry, Brady L.\nHurley, Richard\nLESLEY, BONNIE\nLeslie Carnine\nLINDA WATSON\nMARIAN LACEY\nMilhollen, Mark\nSadie Mitchell\nSTEWART, DONALD M.\nVann, Suellen Steve Ross-Program Evaluation.ppt Steve Ross-Program Evaluation.... KL FYI-Here is a copy of Steve's presentation to the Board. 1 Using Evaluation for Program Improvement: Lessons Learned Steven M. Ross Center for Research in Educational Policy The University of MemphisI. -It\nI li I 1 Types of Evaluation Formative: Improving developing programs 3 I a 55 How are we doing? I J Summative: Judging completed programs How did we do?The Evaluation Process t t stakeholder Buy-in I Evaluation Questions - Instruments - Data Collection - Analysis - Report IReporting I Executive Summary Introduction/Purposes Evaluation Questions Instruments Procedures Data Analysis Results ConclusionsConsiderations/Suggestions ( 1 I Evaluation is not sufficient in many districts/ schools. Evaluation needs to be ongoing. Programs alone do not increase achievement. It generally takes more than two years for programs and strategies to increase achievement. IWhat does increase achievement? Improved teaching Teacher buy-in Improved school climate Principal leadershipr Additional Suggestions: Form a research committee One or more Board members Assistant Superintendent For PRE and designated staff I Selected administrators, parents, students (should have research interests/expertise)Responsibility of Research Committee b i Committee meets monthly Reviews reports Initiates and plans new studies Focuses on applying research results to decision making Board Member(s) serve as liaison to full board IReporting to the Board I Spread out the presentation of research reports at Board meetings - One per meeting limit (unless there are special circumstances) IResearch Briefs Research Briefs should be prepared by PRE for Board members who need information in a short amount of time I Briefs will be highly readable and focus on major findings and implications I22 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Tuesday, January 02, 2001 3:39 PM JOHNSON, VIRGINIA CLEAVER, VANESSA\nGLASGOW, DENNIS\nGILLIAM, ANITA NSF Program Evaluation Virginia, I know that Julio is going to want us to produce our program evaluation plan very soon. Please plan to meet with me and Vanessa and Dennis very soon to get this plan developed. Send me what you gave him previously, please, so that I can see what is lacking. Anita, please schedule a meeting for all of us asap. Thanks. Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/324-0567 (fax) 1 23 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: JOHNSON, VIRGINIA Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:55 PM LESLEY. BONNIE RE: NSF Program Evaluation prof dev. evaluation plan.doc Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Tuesday, January 02, 2001 3:39 PM JOHNSON, VIRGINIA CLEAVER, VANESSA\nGLASGOW, DENNIS\nGILLIAM, ANITA NSF Program Evaluation Virginia, I know that Julio is going to want us to produce our program evaluation plan very soon. Please plan to meet with me and Vanessa and Dennis very soon to get this plan developed. Send me what you gave him previously, please, so that I can see what is lacking. Anita, please schedule a meeting for all of us asap. Thanks. Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/324-0567 (fax) 1 The following plan was submitted January, 2000 upon request by Julio. Julios site visit statements indicate he feels we have achieved these goals. While that is a testimonial to our presentations during the site visit, it is not entirely true that we have maxed out on this plan. You may want to ascertain that records developed in preparation for the 2000 site visit and housed in a Math Dept, computer file will be integrated with the district professional development data base at some time in the future. This integration would permit analysis by grade level, by school, by individual teacher etc, in relation to certification and to total hours of professional development as well as to various program implementation initiatives. You may want to consider how to assess the relationship between outcomes from various program implementation initiatives and professional development using the current data filing system. As you re-write this plan, it might help you to know that other funded programs have the capacities identified in the following plan and that is why they were included in ours. If our NSF professional development data was stored in the Districts professional development database we could access it as part of the identification of outcomes for any program initiative by teacher, by grade, by class, by school, etc. At the present time we are not able to do that. We can only offer a global participation report such as we gave during the site visit. While I am not minimizing the importance of doing this for our site visit, it does not permit any analysis in relation to specific outcomes of various initiatives. Julio saw that. What he did not see and we did not offer was the electronic inability to go beyond the fact that 238 3\"* grade teachers received 3 hours of Investigations training on August 10, 1999. I am painfully aware that folks are real tired of hearing me fuss over this so I am glad to have your energy and guidance. Evaluation Component: Professional Development and Certification of Teachers of Math \u0026amp; Science Procedures have been established to collect relevant quantitative data from (1) the database maintained by the Professional Development Division of the LRSD, and (2) records maintained by Instructional Resource Center personnel responsible for providing professional development related to CPMSA activities. These sources provide incomplete archival data for NSF reporting. Therefore, a rudimentary record keeping procedure has been implemented to document activities until procedures can be developed to collect the comprehensive data necessary for Core Data Elements reporting and other NSF reporting parameters. The initial process of collecting district-wide demographics has begun to identify data for the baseline school year of 1997-98, the first year of 1998-99, and the second year of 1999-20 to date. This activity will continue across each succeeding year of the grant. Data has been and will continue to be, disaggregated by elementary, middle, and high school levels. The total number of instructors teaching math and science will be identified as well as the total number of those certified in math and science areas. Across elementary, middle, and high school categories, total number and percentages will be computed to identify the total number and percent (1) teaching math and science, (2) certified to teach in math and/or science areas, (3) completed less that 60 hours of professional development, (4) completed more than 60 but less than 120 hours of professional development, (5) completed more than 120 but less than 200 hours, and (5) completed more than 200 hours of professional development. This information will be displayed in table and figure form (graph with accompanying table) for the baseline year and each succeeding year of the project. In addition, custom-designed figures will identify demographic trends by displaying the percent of change from the baseline year to year five (2003) of the project. Formats for the tables and graphs used to clearly and concisely display data in this category can be viewed in the Program Evaluation Record. The process of collecting district-wide demographics has begun to identify data for the baseline school year of 1997-98, the first year of 1998-99, and the second year of 1999-20 to date. This activity will continue across each succeeding year of the grant. Data has been and will continue to be, disaggregated by elementary, middle, and high school levels. The total number of instructors teaching math and science will be identified as well as the total number of those certified in math and science areas. Across elementary, middle, and high school categories, total number and percentages will be computed to identify the total number and percent (1) teaching math and science, (2) certified to teach in math and/or science areas, (3) completed less that 60 hours of professional development, (4) completed more than 60 but less than 120 hours of professional development, (5) completed more than 120 but less than 200 hours, and (5) completed more than 200 hours of professional development. This information will be displayed in table and figure form (graph with accompanying table) for the baseline year and each succeeding year of the project. In addition, custom-designed figures will identify demographic trends by displaying the percent of change from the baseline year to year five (2003) of the project. Formats for the tables and graphs used to clearly and concisely display data in this category can be viewed in the Program Evaluation Record. 24 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Friday, January 05, 2001 2:15 PM CARNINE, LESLIE V.\nBABBS, JUNIOUS John Nunnery We are on board with Dr. Nunnery. He sounds like he will really be great. Having a public school background, he is very familiar with the time constraints, stakeholder issues, and politics. I am FedExing him a box of background materials to get started on. He will only be in Missouri for 2 or 3 weeks, then he will join his wife in Virginia. He is doing some consulting work for Johns Hopkins and the Memphis City Schools, but it sounds like he works hard and fast. Let me know any questions you have. Kathy Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501-324-2122 (VM) 501-324-2126 (Fax) krlease@irc.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 1 25 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent\nTo: Subject\nLESLEY, BONNIE Thursday, January 20, 2000 8:05 AM JOHNSON, VIRGINIA RE: CORE DATA ELEMENTS good, Virginia. Thanks. Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: JOHNSON, VIRGINIA Wednesday, January 19, 2000 4:46 PM CLEAVER, VANESSA LEASE, KATHY R.\nLESLEY, BONNIE\nGLASGOW, DENNIS\nWILLIAMS, ED RE: CORE DATA ELEMENTS I have been in contact with Michael Flynn at QRC about the changes He and Kevin Greenberg were identified at the NSFconference as contact personnel for evaluators. However, you should forward me whatever you get from NSF just to be sure. At this time, I am using a hard copy of the main menu and each page of the computer spreadsheet to organize required data. I have much of the data now and will have the remainder ready to submit using the electronic format in plenty of time to meet the deadline which is three months away. The core data elements (CDE) are just that - the core. They constitute a small subset of information currently contained in our existing Program Evaluation Record. Original Message From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2000 8:02 AM To:CLEAVER, VANESSA\nJOHNSON, VIRGINIA Cc: LEASE, KATHY R.\nGLASGOW, DENNIS Subject: RE: CORE DATA ELEMENTS Let's put on our agenda what we are going to do now that Dr. Johnson is leaving. We have a major problem to get the work done to ensure a good report. Original Message From: Sent: CLEAVER, VANESSA Wednesday, January 05, 2000 4:31 PM To: JOHNSON, VIRGINIA Cc: LESLEY, BONNIE\nLEASE, KATHY R.\nGLASGOW, DENNIS Subject: CORE DATA ELEMENTS I received, today, updated information on the scope and content of the CDE activity for the 1998-1999 school year. The memo states that several of the items contained in the draft version (which we received in October) have been revised. You may have also received this information. Let me know if you did not and I'll forward a copy to you. 1 26 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Sunday, April 16, 2000 12:55 PM JOHNSON, VIRGINIA RE: This Week-end Electronic dissemination is great! Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: JOHNSON, VIRGINIA Friday, April 14, 2000 6:36 PM LESLEY, BONNIE RE: This Week-end Well, for #2 its back to basic summative/formative - Participation, Performance, Perceptions. I have a few ideas on #3 related to disseminating A\u0026amp;l electronically in a systematic manner as well as prepatory to planning activities. Bytes of A\u0026amp;l data as they emerge rather than in huge lumps. These bytes might be more effective if they contained an implications for practice attachment directly following A\u0026amp;l, ideally prepared by you so application in the field could occur swiftly and with the appropriate endorsement from administrative personnel. An electronic approach is very likely to read if it takes this format while print materials are easy for all to set aside. Both would be good. Given what you have sent, I will not write, just think and send helpful (hopefully) thoughts. Going home to Bob and Sophie now. See you at 2 on Sunday. Original Message From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Friday, April 14, 2000 5:21 PM To:JOHNSON, VIRGINIA Subject: RE: This Week-end I just looked at my notes. He wants: 1. List of the program components-not just what we are funding from NSF, but what he called the LRSD Agenda for Mathematics and Science. 2. Description of the design to collect data on these for program evaluation. 3. Description of the procedures to feed the leadership with analysis and interpretation of data necessary for decision-making. Original Message From: Sent: To: LESLEY, BONNIE JOHNSON, VIRGINIA Friday, April 14, 2000 6:06 PM Subject: RE: This Week-end Great! Of course we need something for now and always in this type of environment you need to evolve as you go. I have in my mental computer sketched out a brief overview of the components addressed in CPMSA program evaluation and the rationale for their inclusion (basically the 8 components (see Status Report table of contents) were identified by NSF as necessary but not sufficient). 1 I noted last night that you had a list in the Compliance Report on page 55 under formative evaluations that might be a good place to work on that on beyond necessary into sufficient territory. We do have an established record, congruent with NSF requirements, but it does not move on beyond into the area of strategic plan implementation etc. Given that this is sometimes designated turf, it can be clearly defined who and how this on beyond Component 8 evaluation is accomplished. It may be that the first segment of this would focus on summative evaluation, the necessary 8 components, (I can draft that) while the second and major focus, would be on formative evaluation (you could draft this). Is this a reasonable starting point? If it doesnt come together in a way that will influence Julio positively, we can go back to the drawing board. Original Message From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Friday, April 14, 2000 4:42 PM To: JOHNSON, VIRGINIA Subject: RE: This Week-end I can help you write that last piece. I'll just make up something for now. We can refine it in real life. How will that be? From\nSent: To: Subject: Original Message JOHNSON, VIRGINIA Friday, April 14, 2000 4:38 PM LESLEY, BONNIE RE: This Week-end I plan to work at a down town office were I have privileges and access to all equipment. Also have proof reader lined up who has worked for me for over ten years. Access to this building is just impossible. My home phone is 221- 9750 and my cell is 590-8217. If you do indeed come to the IRC to work that would be much more facilitative for me. Let me know. Probably will work both days. Want to have the Interpretation of Test Results report Julioized to reduce froth at the mouth syndrome. Sorry, this mechanism really does work to reduce the stress but it is so politically incorrect. Now my notes on the 3''*^ segment you asked me to do read major components of data, dissemination of findings to others Do you want to give me any other thoughts you had to guide me in producing what you need and had envisioned. I plan to work till 6ish. -----Original Message From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Friday, April 14, 2000 3:09 PM To:GLASGOW, DENNIS\nCLEAVER, VANESSA\nJOHNSON, VIRGINIA Subject: This Week-end I am taking stuff home to work this week-end. If any of you are going to be here, call me, and I'll come here. I have my lap top at home and will periodically check e-mail from there. Or you can call me if you 2 need me. 868-4289 I have Cabinet Monday morning and a meeting all afternoon Monday with Sadie on the CLT Institute. If there is stuff that I need to review before we mail it, you HAVE to get it to me now or over the week-end. Otherwise, we have the same situation that we need to avoid-sending stuff as is because 3 27 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Monday, January 22, 2001 11:23 AM CARNINE, LESLIE V. WILLIAMS, ED\nJOHNSON, VIRGINIA FW: achievement gap charts Importance: High sample_charts.doc Kathy Thought you'd want a preview of what we are getting from Dr. Nunnery, our program evaluator. Original Message From: John Nunnery [mailto:john_nunnery@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 4:05 PM To: KRLEASE@IRC.LRSD.K12.AR.US Subject: achievement gap charts Attached is a Word file with some example achievement gap analyses based upon the Stanford 9. \"Standardized Achievement Gap\" is the effect size of the black/white difference in scale score means, disaggregated by FAR and Pay. (White Mean minus Black Mean divided by Population Standard Deviation from the norm manual. The resulting numeral can be roughly interpreted as the difference in \"years in achievement\" between black and white students. For example, a value of+1.0 means that white students, on average, perform nearly one full grade level above black students. A negative value indicates that black students outperform white students. As the example charts show, LR school district had a very large achievement gap in 1997, but by 2001 the gap was completely eliminated in math and reading for FAR students!! Modest improvement was evident for Pay students. As we discussed,the analysis for Pay students is problematic because of the wide range of incomes in the Pay category and the likelihood that White Pay students' families have higher incomes than Black Pay. These charts are very encouraging and compelling. I look forward to receiving the 7th and 10th grade data. Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com 1 28 January 24,2001 Planning, Research, and Evaluation Ish Instructional Resource Center 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Larry Buck, Principal Henderson Middle School 401 Barrow Road Little Rock, AR 72205 Dear Mr. Buck: The first meeting of the Little Rock School District's Research Committee will be held on February 5, 2001 at 4:30 in Room ?? at the Instructional Resource Center. This committee will function to review and discuss the districts research agenda. Your participation and input are vital to the success of this committee. I look forward to seeing you at the meeting. A tentative agenda has been planned for the meeting that will allow us to establish some organizational guidelines and set up our future meeting dates. If you cannot attend, please call me at 324-2121. Sincerely, Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent 29 January 24, 2001 Planning, Research, and Evaluation Ish Instructional Resource Center 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 Ct kxxz) 1 i Uta Q.cy-'v-tC' II Mr. John Walker Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Mr. Walker: The first meeting of the Research Committee for the Little Rock School District will be held on Monday, February 5, 2001 at 4:30 in the Conference Room at the Administration Building. This committee will function to review and discuss the districts research agenda. We would be happy to have you or your representative observe the work of this committee. Our district is committed to improving student achievement, and this committee will work toward that goal. I look forward to seeing you at the meeting. A tentative agenda has been planned for the meeting that will allow us to establish some organizational guidelines and set up our future meeting dates. If you cannot attend, please call me at 324-2121. Sincerely, CllvtUi Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent 30 Little Rock School District Research Committee Agenda February 5, 2001 Establish Mission/Purpose Review reports and research briefs Initiate and plan new studies Focus on applying research results to decision making Board member serves as liaison to full Board Review Implementation of Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Discuss Committee Decision-Making Process Review and discussion of reports Acceptance of report by vote of committees voting members (excluding ex officio members) Confirm Committee Organization Standing agenda Review of prior meeting and unfinished business Review of new research reports Suggestions for new district research Impact of reports on the Revised Desegregation and Education plan Preparation for Board meeting Additional ideas/suggestions Assistant Superintendent for PRE organizes and facilitates meetinffs' / ) c 7^ 03 i^, 1,/^SD Ul c.^^ Jo\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":407,"next_page":408,"prev_page":406,"total_pages":6797,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":4872,"total_count":81557,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"educator_resource_mediums_sms","items":[{"value":"lesson plans","hits":319},{"value":"teaching guides","hits":53},{"value":"timelines (chronologies)","hits":43},{"value":"online exhibitions","hits":38},{"value":"bibliographies","hits":15},{"value":"study guides","hits":11},{"value":"annotated bibliographies","hits":9},{"value":"learning modules","hits":6},{"value":"worksheets","hits":6},{"value":"slide shows","hits":4},{"value":"quizzes","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":40428},{"value":"StillImage","hits":35298},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":4529},{"value":"Sound","hits":3226},{"value":"Collection","hits":41},{"value":"InteractiveResource","hits":25}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"Peppler, Jim","hits":4965},{"value":"Phay, John E.","hits":4712},{"value":"University of Mississippi. Bureau of Educational Research","hits":4707},{"value":"Baldowski, Clifford H., 1917-1999","hits":2599},{"value":"Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission","hits":2255},{"value":"Thurmond, Strom, 1902-2003","hits":2077},{"value":"WSB-TV (Television station : Atlanta, Ga.)","hits":1475},{"value":"Newman, I. DeQuincey (Isaiah DeQuincey), 1911-1985","hits":1003},{"value":"The State Media Company (Columbia, S.C.)","hits":926},{"value":"Atlanta Journal-Constitution","hits":844},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":778}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"African Americans--Civil rights","hits":9445},{"value":"Civil rights","hits":8328},{"value":"African Americans","hits":5912},{"value":"Mississippi--Race relations","hits":5750},{"value":"Race relations","hits":5604},{"value":"Education, Secondary","hits":5083},{"value":"Education, Elementary","hits":4729},{"value":"Segregation in education--Mississippi","hits":4727},{"value":"Education--Pictorial works","hits":4707},{"value":"Civil rights demonstrations","hits":4440},{"value":"Civil rights workers","hits":3536}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966--Correspondence","hits":1888},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1815},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1709},{"value":"Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998","hits":1495},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1312},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1071},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":858},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":814},{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":719},{"value":"Mizell, M. Hayes","hits":674},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":626}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"name_authoritative_sms","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":2598},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1915},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1704},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1331},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1070},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":856},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":806},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":625},{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":605},{"value":"Snelling, Paula","hits":580},{"value":"Williams, Hosea, 1926-2000","hits":440}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":1769},{"value":"Ole Miss Integration","hits":1670},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":969},{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":853},{"value":"Memphis Sanitation Workers Strike","hits":366},{"value":"Selma-Montgomery March","hits":337},{"value":"Freedom Summer","hits":306},{"value":"Freedom Rides","hits":214},{"value":"Poor People's Campaign","hits":180},{"value":"University of Georgia Integration","hits":173},{"value":"University of Alabama Integration","hits":140}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":17987},{"value":"United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798","hits":5437},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Montgomery County, Montgomery, 32.36681, -86.29997","hits":5151},{"value":"United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","hits":4847},{"value":"United States, South Carolina, 34.00043, -81.00009","hits":4599},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":4328},{"value":"United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026","hits":3948},{"value":"United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036","hits":2910},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":2580},{"value":"United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898","hits":2580},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":2536}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Georgia","hits":12823},{"value":"Alabama","hits":11313},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":10220},{"value":"South Carolina","hits":8493},{"value":"Arkansas","hits":4733},{"value":"Texas","hits":4399},{"value":"Tennessee","hits":3786},{"value":"Florida","hits":2602},{"value":"Ohio","hits":2403},{"value":"North Carolina","hits":1875},{"value":"New York","hits":1840}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1966","hits":10632},{"value":"1963","hits":10287},{"value":"1965","hits":10218},{"value":"1956","hits":9840},{"value":"1955","hits":9619},{"value":"1964","hits":9365},{"value":"1968","hits":9345},{"value":"1962","hits":9247},{"value":"1967","hits":8897},{"value":"1957","hits":8523},{"value":"1961","hits":8282},{"value":"1958","hits":8259},{"value":"1959","hits":8061},{"value":"1960","hits":7948},{"value":"1969","hits":7348},{"value":"1954","hits":7240},{"value":"1950","hits":7118},{"value":"1953","hits":6969},{"value":"1970","hits":6835},{"value":"1971","hits":6425},{"value":"1977","hits":6367},{"value":"1972","hits":6254},{"value":"1952","hits":6162},{"value":"1951","hits":6046},{"value":"1975","hits":5894},{"value":"1976","hits":5863},{"value":"1974","hits":5849},{"value":"1973","hits":5689},{"value":"1979","hits":5416},{"value":"1978","hits":5405},{"value":"1980","hits":5366},{"value":"1995","hits":4885},{"value":"1981","hits":4811},{"value":"1994","hits":4704},{"value":"1948","hits":4597},{"value":"1949","hits":4573},{"value":"1996","hits":4542},{"value":"1982","hits":4417},{"value":"1947","hits":4317},{"value":"1985","hits":4313},{"value":"1998","hits":4281},{"value":"1983","hits":4261},{"value":"1997","hits":4258},{"value":"1984","hits":4152},{"value":"1999","hits":4074},{"value":"1946","hits":4047},{"value":"1945","hits":4018},{"value":"1986","hits":4006},{"value":"1990","hits":3988},{"value":"1943","hits":3900},{"value":"1944","hits":3896},{"value":"2000","hits":3894},{"value":"2001","hits":3876},{"value":"1942","hits":3868},{"value":"1940","hits":3765},{"value":"1941","hits":3758},{"value":"1987","hits":3744},{"value":"2002","hits":3624},{"value":"1991","hits":3553},{"value":"1936","hits":3507},{"value":"1939","hits":3501},{"value":"1992","hits":3500},{"value":"2003","hits":3489},{"value":"1993","hits":3478},{"value":"1938","hits":3466},{"value":"1937","hits":3450},{"value":"1989","hits":3441},{"value":"1930","hits":3378},{"value":"1988","hits":3355},{"value":"1935","hits":3307},{"value":"1933","hits":3271},{"value":"1934","hits":3271},{"value":"1932","hits":3255},{"value":"1931","hits":3240},{"value":"2005","hits":3143},{"value":"2004","hits":2995},{"value":"2006","hits":2860},{"value":"1929","hits":2790},{"value":"1928","hits":2272},{"value":"1921","hits":2124},{"value":"1925","hits":2040},{"value":"1927","hits":2026},{"value":"1924","hits":2012},{"value":"2016","hits":2011},{"value":"1926","hits":2010},{"value":"1920","hits":1976},{"value":"1923","hits":1955},{"value":"1922","hits":1929},{"value":"2007","hits":1715},{"value":"2008","hits":1664},{"value":"2011","hits":1661},{"value":"2009","hits":1624},{"value":"2019","hits":1623},{"value":"2015","hits":1613},{"value":"2013","hits":1604},{"value":"2010","hits":1601},{"value":"2014","hits":1567},{"value":"2012","hits":1553},{"value":"1919","hits":1533},{"value":"1918","hits":1531}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"0193","max":"2035","count":506439,"missing":56},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"photographs","hits":10710},{"value":"correspondence","hits":9628},{"value":"black-and-white photographs","hits":7678},{"value":"negatives (photographs)","hits":7513},{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":4462},{"value":"letters (correspondence)","hits":3623},{"value":"oral histories (literary works)","hits":3607},{"value":"black-and-white negatives","hits":2771},{"value":"editorial cartoons","hits":2620},{"value":"newspapers","hits":1955},{"value":"manuscripts (documents)","hits":1692}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":41201},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":17721},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":8830},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":7090},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/","hits":2186},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/","hits":1778},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-CR/1.0/","hits":1115},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/","hits":145},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NKC/1.0/","hits":60},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-RUU/1.0/","hits":51},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/","hits":27}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Jim Peppler Southern Courier Photograph Collection","hits":4956},{"value":"John E. Phay Collection ","hits":4706},{"value":"John J. Herrera Papers","hits":3288},{"value":"Baldy Editorial Cartoons, 1946-1982, 1997: Clifford H. Baldowski Editorial Cartoons at the Richard B. Russell Library.","hits":2607},{"value":"Sovereignty Commission Online","hits":2335},{"value":"Strom Thurmond Collection, Mss 100","hits":2068},{"value":"Alabama Media Group Collection","hits":2067},{"value":"Black Trailblazers, Leaders, Activists, and Intellectuals in Cleveland","hits":2033},{"value":"Rosa Parks Papers","hits":1948},{"value":"Isaiah DeQuincey Newman, (1911-1985), Papers, 1929-2003","hits":1904},{"value":"Lillian Eugenia Smith Papers (circa 1920-1980)","hits":1887}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"John Davis Williams Library. Department of Archives and Special Collections","hits":8885},{"value":"Alabama. Department of Archives and History","hits":8153},{"value":"South Caroliniana Library","hits":4251},{"value":"Atlanta University Center Robert W. Woodruff Library","hits":4102},{"value":"University of North Texas. Libraries","hits":3854},{"value":"University of South Carolina. Libraries","hits":3438},{"value":"Hargrett Library","hits":3292},{"value":"Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies","hits":2874},{"value":"Mississippi. Department of Archives and History","hits":2825},{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":2785},{"value":"Rhodes College","hits":2264}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":81102},{"value":"Collection","hits":455}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":81360},{"value":"true","hits":197}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}